(Language Acquisition & Language Disorders, v. 20) Kazue Kanno-The Acquisition of Japanese As A Second Language-John Benjamins Pub (1999) PDF

THE ACQUISITION OF JAPANESE
AS A SECOND LANGUAGE
LANGUAGE ACQUISITION & LANGUAGE DISORDERS
EDITORS
Harald Clahsen Lydia White
University of Essex McGill University
EDITORIAL BOARD
Anne Baker (University of Amsterdam)
Melissa Bowerman (Max Planck Institut für Psycholinguistik, Nijmegen)
Katherine Demuth (Brown University)
Werner Deutsch (Universität Braunschweig)
Kenji Hakuta (UC Santa Cruz)
Nina Hyams (University of California at Los Angeles)
Peter Jordens (Free University, Amsterdam)
Jürgen Meisel (Universität Hamburg)
Kim Plunkett (Oxford University)
Mabel Rice (University of Kansas)
Michael Sharwood Smith (University of Utrecht)
Antonella Sorace (University of Edinburgh)
Karin Stromswold (Rutgers University)
Jürgen Weissenborn (Universität Potsdam)
Helmut Zobl (Carleton University, Ottawa)
Volume 20
Kazue Kanno (ed.)
The Acquisition of Japanese as a Second Language

THE ACQUISITION
OF JAPANESE
AS A SECOND LANGUAGE
Edited by
KAZUE KANNO
University of Hawaii at Manoa
JOHN BENJAMINS PUBLISHING COMPANY

AMSTERDAM/PHILADELPHIA
TM The paper used in this publication meets the minimum requirements of Ameri-
8
can National Standard for Information Sciences — Permanence of Paper for

Printed Library Materials, ANSI Z39.48-1984.
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

The acquisition of Japanese as a second language / edited by Kazue Kanno.
p. cm. -- (Language acquisition & language disorders : ISSN 0925-0123; v. 20)
Includes bibliographical references and index.
1. Japanese language--Acquisition. 2. Japanese language--Study and teaching--Foreign
speakers. 3. Second language acquisition. I. Kanno, Kazue. II. Series.
PL524.85.A68 1999
495.6’8007--dc21 99-046741
ISBN 90 272 2488 9 (Eur.) / 1 55619 785 3 (US) (alk. paper) CIP
© 1999 – John Benjamins B.V.
No part of this book may be reproduced in any form, by print, photoprint, microfilm, or any
other means, without written permission from the publisher.
John Benjamins Publishing Co. • P.O.Box 75577 • 1070 AN Amsterdam • The Netherlands
John Benjamins North America • P.O.Box 27519 • Philadelphia PA 19118-0519 • USA
Table of Contents
Abbreviations vii
List of Contributors ix
Acknowledgements xi
1. SLA Research and Japanese 1
Kazue Kanno
2. Implicit Negative Feedback 9
Shunji Inagaki and Michael H. Long
3. Tasks and Learners’ Output in Nonnative-Nonnative Interaction 31
Noriko Iwashita
4. SPOT: A Test Measuring “Control” Exercised by Learners of
Japanese 53
Junko Ford-Niwa and Noriko Kobayashi
5. Retesting a Universal: The Empty Category Principle and
Learners of (Pseudo)Japanese 71
Eric Kellerman, John van IJzendoorn and Hide Takashima
6. L2 Acquisition of Japanese Unaccusative Verbs by Speakers of
English and Chinese 89
Makiko Hirakawa
7. Who Knows What and Why? The Acquisition of Multiple
Wh-Questions by Adult Learners of English and Japanese 115
Naoko Yoshinaga
8. Gapping and Coordination in Second Language Acquisition 141
William O’Grady
vi TABLE OF CONTENTS
9. Acquisition of Verb Gapping in Japanese by Mandarin and

English Speakers 159
Kazue Kanno
Name Index 175
Subject Index 179
Abbreviations
 Accusative case marker  Nominalizer

 Adverbial form  Passive
 Genitive case marker  Present tense
 Gerund  Past tense
 Locative particle  Question particle
 Nominative case marker  Topic marker
List of Contributors
Shunji Inagaki Eric Kellerman

Department of Language and Culture Department of English University of
Osaka Prefecture University Nijmegen
1–1 Gakuen-cho Sakai, Osaka, Japan Erasmusplein 1, 6525 HT Nijmegen,
599–8531 The Netherlands
e-mail: sinaga@lc.cias.osakafu-u.ac.jp e-mail: E.Kellerman@let.kun.nl
Michael Long John van IJzendoorn

Department of ESL University of Department of English University of
Hawaii at Manoa Nijmegen
Moore Hall 552 1890 East-West Erasmusplein 1, 6525 HT Nijmegen,
Road, Honolulu, Hawaii 96822 The Netherlands
e-mail: mlong@hawaii.edu
Hide Takashima
Noriko Iwashita Hyogo Unviersity of Teacher
The University of Melbourne Education
C/-LTRC 147 Banny Street Parkvile, 942–1 Shimokume Yoshiro-cho
Victoria, Australia 3052 Kato-gun, Hyogo, Japan 673–14
e-mail: n.iwashita@linguistics.unimelb.edu.au
Makiko Hirakwa
Junko Ford-Niwa
Tokyo International University
Department of Humanities Josai
2509 Matoba Kawagoe, Saitama,
International University
Japan, 350–11
1 Gumyoo Toogane-shi, Chiba, Japan e-mail: hmakiko@tiu.ac.jp
e-mail: junko@jiu.ac.jp
Yoshinaga, Naoko
Noriko Kobayashi
Hirosaki Gakuin University
International Student Center
13–1 Minori-cho Hirosaki-shi,
University of Tsukuba
Aomori-ken, Japan 036
Tennodai, Tsukuba, Ibaraki, Japan 305 naoks@infoaomori.ne.jp
x LIST OF CONTRIBUTORS
O’Grady, William Kazue Kanno

Department of Linguistics Unviersity Department of East Asian Languages
of Hawaii at Manoa and Literatures, Univeristy of Hawaii
Moore 564 1890 East-West Road at Manoa
Honolulu, Hawaii, USA 96822 Moore 382 1890 East-West Road
e-mail: ogrady@hawaii.edu Honolulu, Hawaii, USA 96822
e-mail: kanno@hawaii.edu
Acknowledgements
During the more than two years that it took to complete this project, I benefited
from help and support from various sources, for which I am very thankful.
I acknowledge with gratitude financial support from the University of Hawaii
Japan Studies Endowment, funded by a grant from the Japanese Government.
I would like to thank the authors of the studies that appear in this volume
for their commitment to the project and for their patience during review process.
I am also indebted to several individuals for their comments on one or more of
the individual chapters that appears in this book, particularly Lydia White, Kevin
Gregg, Craig Chaudron, Graham Crooks, J. D. Brown, Lourdes Ortega, Robert
Bley-Vroman, and William O’Grady.
Special thanks are also due to Keira Ballantyne, who read through the
manuscript in its entirety twice, noting many problems and inconsistencies. I also
thank Todd Fukushima for his technical assistance.
Finally, I would also like to thank my family for their support and patience.
C 1
SLA Research and Japanese
Kazue Kanno
University of Hawai‘i at Manoa
Almost everyone in the world is called upon at some time in his or her life to
learn a second language. The fact that this endeavor typically does not end in
success raises important practical and theoretical questions having to do with the
effects on the human language faculty of neurological maturation, cognitive
development, and the acquisition of a first language. The study of these questions
lies at the core of research into second language acquisition (SLA).
In principle, the scope of SLA research includes the acquisition of any
language other than one’s native language, and there is widespread agreement
that work in this area should be as broad and varied as possible. In the words of
Larsen-Freeman & Long (1991: 7):
The scope of SLA research must be sufficiently broad to include a variety of
subjects who speak a variety of native languages who are in the process of
acquiring a variety of second languages in a variety of settings for a variety of
reasons.
In fact, however, work to date has focused very heavily on the learning of
English and other European languages, often by native speakers of European lan-
guages. This is clearly an undesirable state of affairs and there is a pressing need
to expand the range of target languages whose acquisition is being investigated.
This book is an attempt to contribute to that objective by examining the
acquisition of Japanese as a second language — a topic that has received little
attention to date outside of Japan. This is unfortunate for at least two reasons.
First, Japanese is more commonly studied as a second language than is any other
language of Asia (with the possible exception of Mandarin). JSL programs are
found not only in Japan, but in many universities in North America, Asia,
Europe, and even South America. There is thus clearly a need for research that
addresses issues related to its acquisition by foreign learners.
2 KAZUE KANNO
Second, Japanese has many linguistic features not found in the European
languages that are more commonly the subject of research on second language
acquisition. This offers researchers unique opportunities to extend the range of
their theories and to test hypotheses that could not otherwise be investigated. In
fact, work along these lines has been the principal focus of my own research
over the past several years (e.g., Kanno 1996, 1998a, b).
This book marks the first-ever collection of papers in English on the
acquisition of Japanese as a second language. In part for this reason, it is
deliberately broad in scope and eclectic in approach, highlighting contributions
from diverse areas in the far-ranging field of second language acquisition
research and seeking to offer a representative survey of studies on the
acquisition of Japanese as a second language.
The contributions to this volume can be grouped into three classes: studies
of input and interaction, research into the evaluation of L2 proficiency, and
investigation of the grammatical system that is the product of second language
acquisition. Brief overviews of each paper follow.
Two papers deal with input- and interaction-related issues in SLA. The first,
by Shunji Inagaki and Michael Long, examines the effects of recasting and
modeling on the acquisition process. Recasting is a type of feedback that occurs
when, in response to a speaker’s utterance, the interlocutor maintains the
previously introduced topic but makes a structural change to one or more of
components of the utterance. It contrasts with modeling, in which the speaker
simply provides an exemplar of the target pattern as part of the input and/or
instruction to which the learner is exposed.
Recent evidence suggests that recasting is superior to modeling in facilitat-
ing grammatical development in L1 acquisition (e.g., Saxton 1997), and Inagaki
& Long set out to investigate the relative effectiveness of the two types of
feedback for the acquisition of Japanese by English speakers. They focus on two
word order phenomena — one involving prenominal adjectives (a color adjective
precedes a size adjective) and the other involving locative-initial patterns (in
which a locative phrase occurs sentence-initially before even the subject).
Twenty-four English speakers who were learning Japanese as a second language
at the university level were divided into two treatment groups — one receiving
recasts for adjective ordering and modeling for the locative-initial construction,
and the other receiving modeling for adjective order and recasts for the locative-
initial. The results indicate that recasting and modeling were equally effective in
facilitating acquisition of the two phenomena.
Noriko Iwashita reports on research that builds on Pica et al.’s (1989) study
of comprehensible output. Two tasks were used — a one-way information gap
SLA RESEARCH AND JAPANESE 3
task and a ‘jigsaw’ (two-way information gap) task — with 24 intermediate-level

learners of Japanese at the University of Melbourne. Iwashita investigated the
extent to which the tasks provide opportunities for learners to modify their initial
output in response to requests for clarification and confirmation, and the extent
to which learners actually take advantage of these opportunities.
The results appear to suggest that more negotiation and modified output
occurred in the information-gap task than in the jigsaw task. However, closer
examination reveals that the patterns of negotiation in the information-gap task
led to fewer syntactic modifications, which Swain (1985) claims to be important
to the acquisition process. These findings have implications for the study of task
variables and learners’ output, and represent an extension of research on the role
of comprehensible output in the acquisition of a foreign language.
The problem of evaluating learner proficiency in SLA is addressed in the
paper by Junko Ford-Niwa and Noriko Kobayashi. They outline and discuss the
‘Simple Performance-Oriented Test’ (SPOT), a system of evaluation that they
have pioneered over the past several years. SPOT has similarities to a cloze-test in
requiring a testee to fill in a blank with a hiragana symbol (a Japanese syllabic
character) representing all or part of a grammatical item. But it differs from a cloze-
test in including a listening component and in using decontextualized sentences.
Ford-Niwa and Kobayashi address the questions of whether SPOT is accurate
and of what it measures. They conclude that it provides a sufficiently accurate
means to place students in JSL classes at the appropriate level and that its success
comes from the fact that it measures aspects of ‘control’ and particularly ‘automat-
icity’. They argue that general fluency should be part of the evaluation of L2
learners’ performance in addition to grammatical accuracy, and that the SPOT
provides a useful measure of this aspect of development.
One of the principal goals of the field of second language acquisition is to
investigate the grammatical systems that emerge in the course of second language
acquisition by adults and, by extension, the mental mechanisms that are available for
post-adolescent language learning. Five papers in this volume deal with the topic.
Kellerman, IJzendoorn and Takashima report on an experimental study
involving Dutch-speaking learners of Japanese that seeks to replicate an earlier study
by Kanno (1996) on English-speaking JSL learners. The phenomenon that they
investigate revolves around the fact that the Japanese nominative case and accusative
case contrast with respect to omissibility: the latter can be freely dropped while the
former cannot.
4 KAZUE KANNO
(1) a. Sentence with nominative case particle missing

*John-Ø sono hon-o yon-da.
John that book- read-
‘John read the book.’
b. Sentence with accusative case particle missing
John-ga sono hon-Ø yon-da.
John- that book read-
‘John read that book.’
It has been suggested (e.g. Fukuda 1993) that this contrast follows from the Empty
Category Principle, a constraint which exists in essentially the same form in Dutch
as in Japanese but which applies to a very different set of phenomena in the two
languages.
Following Kanno, Kellerman et. al address the question of whether a non-
parametrized principle of UG that is instantiated in the L1 is ‘active enough’ in the
early stages of L2 learning to apply to phenomena (such as Case drop) for which
there are no counterparts in the L1. They conducted two experiments: one using a
miniature relexified artificial Japanese clone and the other using real Japanese. In the
first experiment, 75 Dutch high school students with no background in Japanese
were taught just enough ‘clone Japanese’ to participate in the experiment. Although
the subjects had received no training on the admissibility of Case drop, they showed
a strong preference for the pattern in which the nominative case is dropped —
contrary to what the ECP predicts. In the second experiment, 42 subjects (mostly
speakers of Dutch) were taught real Japanese. Once again, there was no evidence
that learners are guided by the ECP. Rather, subjects seemed to follow a ‘one-noun
strategy’, requiring only that at least one noun in any sentence be case-marked.
The paper by Makiko Hirakawa reports on a study that investigates the acqui-
sition of the unergative–unaccusative contrast in Japanese by English-speaking and
Chinese-speaking learners. Part of the interest of her study stems from the possibility
that Japanese differs from English in not having NP movement in unaccusative
patterns. On this view (e.g., Kageyama 1993), the single argument of an unaccusat-
ive verb is in object position at D-structure and remains there at S-structure.
An experimental study was conducted to examine learners’ knowledge of
unaccusativity at these two levels. In accordance with Kageyama’s analysis,
patterns involving the adverb takusan ‘a lot’ were used to check for unaccusativ-
ity at D-structure while the Case drop phenomenon (see above) was used to
investigate unaccusativity at S-structure. Overall results suggest that both
English-speaking and Chinese-speaking learners observe unaccusativity at
D-structure. However, results from the study designed to test for unaccusativity
at S-structure suggest that even native speakers of Japanese do not observe the
unaccusative/unergative contrast, which raises the question of whether Case drop
is an appropriate diagnostic for this phenomenon.
The paper by Naoko Yoshinaga examines the acquisition of multiple
wh-questions such as ‘Who is eating what?’ by English speakers learning
Japanese and Japanese speakers learning English. The two languages differ in
the type of multiple wh-questions they permit: whereas English allows only argu-
ment-argument patterns, Japanese also permit argument-adjunct constructions.
(2) English Japanese
Argument-argument: Who saw what? Dare-ga nani-o mi-ta-no?
who- what- see--
‘Who saw what?’
Argument-adjunct: *Who left why? Dare-ga doosite ittyatta-no?
who- why has.gone-
‘Who left why?’
The results of Yoshinaga’s study revealed that Japanese-speaking ESL learners
rejected all types of English multiple wh-questions, in sharp contrast with the
performance of English native speakers. On the other hand, English-speaking
learners of Japanese resembled Japanese native speakers in accepting all types of
Japanese multiple wh-questions.
The paper by William O’Grady also adopts a comparative perspective,
investigating the understanding of constraints on gapping direction in coordinate
structures by English-speaking learners of Japanese as a second language and
Japanese learners of English as a second language. The phenomenon that
O’Grady examines has its roots in the fact that object-verb languages such as
Japanese uniformly rule out rightward gapping whereas verb-object languages
such as English consistently prohibit leftward gapping.
(3) English
a. Coordinate sentence without a gap
John read Time and Mary read Newsweek.
b. *Leftward gapping
John Ø Time and Mary read Newsweek.
c. Rightward gapping
John read Time and Mary Ø Newsweek.
6 KAZUE KANNO
(4) Japanese
John-wa Time-o yon-de Mary-ga Newsweek-o
John- Time- read- Mary- Newsweek-
yon-da
read-
‘John read Time and Mary read Newsweek.’
b. Leftward gapping
John-wa Time-o Ø Mary-wa Newsweek-o yon-da.
c. Rightward gapping
*John-wa Time-o yon-de Mary-wa Newsweek-o Ø
Working with subjects at various levels of proficiency, O’Grady reports that
whereas ESL learners reject backward gapping in English and show signs of
accepting forward gapping, JSL learners show a strong and long-lasting prefer-
ence for forward gapping in Japanese.
The final paper in the volume, which I authored, complements and extends
O’Grady’s study by investigating the ability of Mandarin-speaking learners to
reject backward (‘leftward’ in O’Grady’s terminology) patterns of gapping in
Japanese. English and Japanese allow verb gapping but they differ with respect
to direction in the way noted above. On the other hand, Mandarin does not
permit verb gapping at all. The primary concern of my paper has to do with what
inferences, if any, English- and Mandarin-speaking learners can make about
gapping direction in Japanese based on exposure to head-final sentences. Of
special interest is the question of whether the difference between English and
Mandarin affects the way native speakers of each language acquire verb gapping
pattern in Japanese.
For the English JSL learners, rejection of the forward (‘rightward’) gapping
pattern seems to involve a long process stretching over several years. By
comparison, the same result appears to be achieved much earlier by the Mandarin
JSL learners, who clearly reject forward gapping patterns in Japanese even in the
early stages of language study while at the same time accepting the backward
construction at a much earlier point than do the English-speaking subjects.
It is my hope that this varied set of studies on the acquisition of Japanese
as a second language will be of use and interest both to SLA researchers and to
teachers of Japanese around the world.
References
Fukuda, Minoru. 1993. “Head Government and Case Marker Drop in Japanese.”
Linguistic Inquiry 15: 168–172.
Kageyama, Taro. 1993. Bunpoo to Gokeisei. Tokyo: Hitsuji Shoboo.
Kanno, Kazue. 1996. “The Status of a Non-parametrized Principle in the L2 Initial State.”
Language Acquisition 5 : 317–335.
———. 1998a. “Consistency and Variation in Second Language Acquisition.” Second
Language Research 14: 376–388.
———. 1998b. “The Stability of UG Principles in Second Language Acquisition:
Evidence from Japanese.” Linguistics 36: 1125–1146.
Larsen-Freeman, Diane & Michael Long. 1991. An Introduction to Second Language
Acquisition. London: Longman Group.
Pica, T., L. Holliday, N. Lewis & L. Morgenthaler. 1989. “Comprehensible Output as an
Outcome of Linguistic Demands on the Learner.” Studies in Second Language
Acquisition 11: 63–90.
Saxton, Matthew. 1997. “The Contrast Theory of Negative Evidence.” Journal of Child
Language 24: 139–61.
Swain, Merrill. 1985. “Communicative Competence: Some roles of comprehensible input
and comprehensible output in its development.” In S. Gass & C. Madden (eds.),
Input in Second Language Acquisition. Rowley, MA: Newbury House, 35–253.
C 2
Implicit Negative Feedback
Shunji Inagaki Michael H. Long

McGill University University of Hawai‘i
Osaka Prefecture University
1. Introduction
Interest in the potential role of negative feedback in second language acquisition

(L2A) and teaching derives in part from the finding that exposure to comprehen-
sible samples of a target language is necessary for acquisition, but insufficient
if learners are older children or adults and native-like proficiency is the goal.
Adults with considerable opportunity to learn and apparent need and motivation
to do so, for example, have been observed to stabilize well short of native-like
norms and not to incorporate a range of useful structures to which they are
exposed for prolonged periods (Pavesi 1986; Schmidt 1983). Likewise, Canadian
French immersion students typically achieve fluency in the L2, and are some-
times statistically indistinguishable from monolingual age peers on measures of
receptive skills, yet continue to produce a wide range of basic grammatical errors
in their speech and writing even after nine or more years of French (Swain
1991). The correct forms are often frequent in the input, but learners seem not
to notice them (in the sense of registering their existence, not necessarily
understanding them), which Schmidt (1993 & elsewhere) has argued is both
necessary and sufficient for acquisition. Some L2 structures, moreover, are
unlikely to be acquirable from positive evidence alone (White 1991), since
learners would have to notice the absence of an option in the L2 which the L1
permits, such as placement of adverbs between verb and direct object in French
or Spanish, but not in English (*She drank quickly the coffee). This is especially
unlikely, White suggests, when, as in the adverb-placement example, the error
does not impede communication.
Negative feedback is not only of interest with respect to ultimate levels of
L2 attainment, however, but also in light of studies showing a rate advantage for
10 SHUNJI INAGAKI & MICHAEL H. LONG
instructed over naturalistic acquirers (Ellis 1994: 611–663; Long 1983a, 1988),
given that provision of some kind of “error correction” is one of the most
pervasive instructional practices (Krashen & Seliger 1975). The traditional
approach, of course, is to provide explicit feedback on error, with the speakers’
attention overtly directed at problematic code features. With implicit negative
feedback, on the other hand, the message, not the code, remains the interlocutors’
primary attentional focus. This is potentially of particular value in analytic
approaches to language instruction in the sense of Wilkins (1976), exemplified
by some kinds of task-based and content-based language teaching approaches
which utilize non-linguistic units of analysis in their syllabi and attempt to
maintain a predominant focus on meaning, not linguistic forms, in their method-
ology. If implicit negative feedback were shown to be effective, the instructional
options available in classrooms employing analytic syllabi would be significantly
broadened, and necessary negative feedback could at least partly be delivered in
a manner less disruptive for the desired classroom focus on tasks or subject
matter. Put another way, the focus on form which research findings and theoreti-
cal predictions both suggest is needed and facilitative in L2A (for review, see
Long & Robinson 1998) could be achieved in context in lessons whose primary
focus was meaning, or communication, not a series of linguistic forms, as is the
case with synthetic, e.g., structural, syllabi.
In an updated version of the so-called Interaction Hypothesis (Long 1981,
1983b, 1996: 451–454), Long has suggested how implicit negative feedback
operates in L2A. Negotiation for meaning elicits negative feedback, including
recasts. Such feedback draws learners’ attention to mismatches between input and
output. It can induce noticing of the kinds of forms for which a pure diet of
comprehensible input will not suffice, e.g., items that are unlearnable from
positive evidence, or are rare, and/or semantically lightweight, and/or perceptual-
ly non-salient, and/or cause little or no communicative distress:
… it is proposed that environmental contributions to acquisition are mediated
by selective attention and the learners’ developing L2 processing capacity, and
these resources are brought together most usefully, although not exclusively,
during negotiation for meaning. Negative feedback obtained in negotiation work
or elsewhere may be facilitative of SL development, at least for vocabulary,
morphology and language-specific syntax, and essential for learning certain
specifiable L1–L2 contrasts. (Long 1996: 414)
IMPLICIT NEGATIVE FEEDBACK 11
2. Models and recasts
Negative feedback has a long and disputatious history in both L1A (Sokolov &
Snow 1994) and L2A (Schachter 1991). Some linguistic nativists (e.g., Beck &
Eubank 1991; Pinker 1989; Schwartz 1993; Schwartz & Gubala-Ryzak 1992)
claim that the negative evidence supposedly delivered via such feedback is
unavailable and/or irrelevant, or else only useful for cultivating metalinguistic
knowledge that cannot be converted into more widely usable implicit knowledge.
Researchers operating in other traditions (e.g., Bohannon, MacWhinney & Snow
1990; Nelson 1987; Tomasello & Herron 1988) hold very different views.
Supporters of a role for negative feedback note that the rarity of overt
“correction” observed in early child language studies (e.g., Brown & Hanlon
1970) does not mean that implicit negative feedback is unavailable to learners.
While admittedly sometimes ambiguous, such feedback abounds in both caretak-
er/child and native speaker/non-native speaker conversation in a variety of forms,
including unexpected outcomes following learner utterances, communication
breakdowns, puzzled looks from listeners, such “negotiation” moves as confirma-
tion checks and clarification requests, and corrective recasts. Corrective recasts
are responses which reformulate all or part of a learner’s utterance, providing
relevant morphosyntactic information that was obligatory, but either missing or
wrongly supplied, in the learner’s rendition while retaining its central meaning as
in (1):
(1) Child: Doggy eat it!
Adult: The doggy ate it?
Children’s sensitivity to negative feedback is shown by their tendency to imitate
all or part of corrective recasts between two and four times more frequently than
other kinds of parental responses, such as noncorrective recasts, exact repetitions,
topic continuations or topic changes, despite the fact that exact repetitions tend
to be syntactically simpler (Bohannon & Stanowicz 1988; Farrar 1990), suggest-
ing, as Farrar notes (1990: 65), that they are responding to the negative evidence,
not just the recast’s imitative quality. Moreover, controlled studies have found
that, in otherwise natural conversation, recasts are more successful than (1) equal
numbers of noncontingent models of control structures for the same children or
(2) models of the same structures in comparable children (Baker & Nelson 1984;
Farrar 1990; Nelson 1989, 1991; Nelson, Denninger, Bonvillian, Kaplan, &
Baker 1984). In other words, it is not simply because recasts simultaneously
provide additional models of a target form, i.e., positive evidence, that they
appear to work. Children who receive additional positive evidence, either in the
general input or as models, are outperformed by children who receive equivalent

amounts of data in the form of negative feedback following their ungrammatical
speech. Whether or not negative feedback is available for all problematic
structures when it is needed, especially for complex abstract ones of the kind
posited by linguistic nativists, there does seem to be evidence of its existence,
saliency, and use by children learning their first language, i.e., of at least a
facilitative role in L1A.
L2 research to date has yielded generally comparable findings to those of
the L1 studies (for review, see Long 1996: 437–445). Adult NNSs, for example,
were found roughly two to four times more likely to imitate a correct grammatical
morpheme after a corrective recast than after other NS responding moves (Rich-
ardson 1993, 1995), with imitations of higher percentages of corrective than non-
corrective recasts again suggesting the adult learners are responding at least in part
to the negative evidence in corrective recasts rather than simply to their imitative
component. Similarly, child L2 learners were observed to incorporate 10% of all
recasts, and over one third of them when the structure of the conversation
provided a sociolinguistically appropriate opportunity to do so (Oliver 1995).
Interesting early attempts to compare the relative utility of models and
recasts in L2 French classroom settings were reported by Herron and Tomasello
(1988) and Tomasello and Herron (1988, 1989), with results favoring recasts.
However, Beck and Eubank (1991) raised methodological concerns over the
internal validity of the French studies (for a response, see Tomasello & Herron
1991). The studies’ external validity is also questionable, since there were several
differences between “recast” in the French studies and recasts in non-instruction-
al conversation. For instance, the errors treated arose during language exercises,
not attempts to communicate, subjects’ attention throughout was on linguistic
code features, and the negative feedback was delivered explicitly (in writing on
the blackboard), not implicitly. It is not clear that the findings really speak to the
relative utility of models and recasts so much as to the value of overt correction.
Perhaps the first L2 study to attempt a direct comparison of models and
recasts was conducted by Mito (1993), using a pretest, posttest, control group
design with repeated measures. Twenty-seven second semester learners of
Japanese as a foreign language were randomly assigned to form three groups of
nine. There were two target structures, a locative and an adjective order rule (see
below). All subjects took a pretest consisting of one of two equivalent forms of
an oral picture-description task. Subjects in the treatment groups played one of
two variants of each of two communication games involving manipulation of
objects by a researcher and a subject separated by a screen, with each game
designed to elicit one of the target constructions. During the games, subjects
received either six models (on a pre-recorded audiotape) or six recasts (live) of
the structure from the researcher. The control group (n = 9) practiced writing
kanji for an equivalent period of time. All subjects then completed a second
version of the picture-description task as the posttest. Structures (locatives and
adjective order) and treatments (models and recasts) were crossed, each subject
receiving models of one structure and recasts of the other. Structures, treatments,
and pre- and post-test forms were counterbalanced. All sessions were conducted
individually and audio-recorded. Including pretest and posttest, the entire session
for all subjects lasted 30 minutes.
Mito found no learning of either structure in the modeling condition or by
the control group. Conversely, there was a small, but statistically significant
improvement on one or the other of the two structures by six of 18 subjects in
the recast condition.1 Mito’s findings are consistent with the L1 results, suggest-
ing that implicit negative feedback is usable by L2 adult language learners, and
that recasts can be superior to models. The results must be treated with caution,
however, since (1) the target structures proved to be too difficult to provide a
genuine test of the hypothesis for some of Mito’s subjects, and (2) subjects had
an extra output opportunity in the recast condition before they heard the re-
searcher’s reformulation of their utterance, whereas the models delivered on tape
did not require interaction and, hence, learner output.
In a continuation of the line of research represented by Mito’s work, the
present study was conducted at the University of Hawai‘i at Manoa during the
1994–95 academic year. It addressed the same research question: What is the
relative contribution, if any, of models and recasts in foreign language develop-
ment? Given the preliminary L1 and L2 results, there were three hypotheses:
1. Learners who hear models of target L2 structures will show greater ability
to produce those structures, as measured by pretest-posttest gain scores, than
learners not exposed to the structures.
2. Learners who hear recasts of target L2 structures will show greater ability
learners not exposed to those structures.
3. Learners who hear recasts of target L2 structures will show greater ability
learners who hear models of those structures.
3. The study
3.1 Method
3.1.1 Subjects
Subjects were 24 young adult learners of Japanese enrolled in a second semester
course, Japanese 102, at the University of Hawai‘i at Manoa. There were 13
males and 11 females, 22 undergraduates and two graduates, ranging in age from
17 to 35 (M = 20.08, SD = 4.24). Twenty reported having studied Japanese in high
school for between one and four years (M = 2.83, SD = 0.82). Half had visited
Japan for brief periods (M = 14.5 days, SD = 5.65); one had lived there for a year.
Subjects were paid five US dollars for their participation in the study.
3.1.2 Target Structures

With some modifications, the target structures were those focused on by Mito
(1993), namely adjective ordering and a locative construction. With regard to
adjective ordering, Mito had presented subjects with “size–shape–color–NP”
strings as though that were the only sequence allowed in Japanese, as in (2):
(2) ookii shikakui akai hako
large square red box
‘a large square red box’
Since that construction had proved too difficult for most subjects in her study,
the number of adjectives was here reduced from three to two, omitting those
indicating shape. Also, to avoid possible transfer from English, which only
permits the “size–shape–color” sequence, strings presented this time were
exclusively “color–size–NP” as though that were the only possible sequence in
Japanese. Finally, whereas Mito had looked only at word order, the analysis in
the present study included both word order and the morphological change
required in Japanese when two adjectives are juxtaposed, namely that the first
must be the gerundive (formed by attaching -te to the adverbial form, which in
turn consists of the adjective root plus -ku) (e.g., Martin 1975; Jorden & Noda
1988), as in (3):
(3) aka-ku-te ookii hako
red-- big box
‘a large red box’
The gerundive in this usage links the two adjectives, conveying a meaning
something like English and, and is referred to henceforth as the -kute form.
The second pattern investigated here was a locative construction in which the
locative phrase occurs between verb, a topic and the verb imasu (‘be’), as in (4):
(4) G-wa L-no mae-ni i-masu.
G- L- front- be-.
‘G is in front of L.’
This order seems to be preferred when G is the established discourse topic (thus
marked with wa), or given. When there is no established topic, however, a
second order, shown in (5), is preferred, where the locative phrase occurs
sentence-initially before the subject:
(5) L-no mae-ni G-ga i-masu.
L- front- G- be-.
‘In front of L is G.’
It was this latter construction that was the second target in the present study.
Examination of the course textbook (Jorden & Noda 1988) and conversations
with instructors had established that only the structure in (4), not the structure in
(5), had been taught when the study took place.
3.1.3 Design
The study utilized a pretest-posttest, control group design (see Figure 1).
Subjects were randomly assigned to form five groups. Since the four
treatment groups were to be collapsed into two (model and recast) for the
eventual statistical analysis, (after controlling for any ordering effect), four
subjects were assigned to each treatment group and eight to the control group, so
Group 1 Group 2 Group 3 Group 4 Control

n=4 n=4 n=4 n=4 n=8
Pretest 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2
Treatment
First Recast Model Recast Model Kanji
Adj. O. Locative Locative Adj. O. Writing
Second Model Recast Model Recast
Locative Adj. O. Adj. O. Locative
Posttest 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1
Figure 1. Design of the study
that there would be equal numbers of subjects (n = 8) in the model, recast and
control conditions. After the pretest, the four subjects in the first treatment group
received recasts of structure A, followed by models of structure B, and then the
posttest. The four subjects in the second treatment group received models of
structure B, followed by recasts of structure A, and so on. Subjects were given
one of two equivalent forms 1 and 2 of the test as the pretest and the other as
the posttest, use of which was also counterbalanced. As in Mito’s study, between
taking the pretest and posttest, subjects in the control group (n = 8) practiced
writing kanji. As shown in Figure 1, structures, treatments, and tests were
crossed and counterbalanced.
3.1.4 Treatment and procedures

Treatments for each structure were delivered via a communication game, played
either in a model or in a recast version, by researcher and subject separated by
a screen. All prompts for both models and recasts were pre-recorded and
delivered through a tape-recorder. For adjective ordering, each party was given
eight pieces of paper (large or small, and either blue, red, black, or white), the
object being for them to show the same piece of paper above the screen after the
subject chose and described one of his or her pieces in one sentence, within 20
seconds. In the recast condition, as soon as 20 seconds had passed, as indicated
by the cue hai (‘yes’) on a tape, the researcher provided a recast in which two
adjectives occurred in the “color–size” sequence and the first adjective was in the
-kute form. A typical sequence is shown in (6):
(6) Tape-recorder: Partner A [subject], please choose one piece of
paper and describe it.
Subject: Ookii akai kami.
large red paper
‘A large red piece of paper.’
Tape-recorder: Hai.
‘Yes.’
Researcher: Aka-kute ookii kami desu-ne.
red- large paper is-
‘A large red piece of paper, isn’t it?’
After the recast, each player held up the piece he or she had picked to see if they
matched. There were six trials, so that each subject received six exemplars of
adjective ordering as recasts.
In the modeling condition, subjects (but not the researcher) donned head-
phones, through which they first heard an utterance — recorded by a female
native speaker of Japanese, obviously not the male researcher — containing the
“color–size–NP” string with the first adjective in the -kute form. Having been
given instructions (in English) to do so beforehand, they then had 20 seconds to
repeat the utterance so that the researcher, who they could see had not heard it,
could select and hold up the appropriate piece of paper as they, the subjects, did
likewise. The use of headphones was thought beneficial because it created an
information gap between subjects and researcher and gave a communicative
purpose to the former’s repetition of the model, no easy matter in a contrived,
laboratory-type setting. The repetition in turn ensured that both the model and
recast conditions involved comparable input and output opportunities. A typical
trial in the modeling condition is shown in (7):
(7) Tape-recorder: Aka-kute ookii kami.
(only heard by red- large paper
the subject) ‘A large red piece of paper.’
Subject: Aka-kute ookii kami.
[Researcher and subject hold up pieces of paper]
There were six items, so that each subject received six exemplars of adjective
ordering as models. Each item involved one input and one output, as in the
recast condition but in reverse order.
In a variant of this section of Mito’s study, for the locative construction
treatment, researcher and subject had to position four dolls (Tom, Joe, May, and
Ken) on a drawing of a room containing two rows of seats, two seats per row,
matching each other’s configuration while separated visually by a screen. In the
recast condition, with a task very much like that for adjective ordering, subjects
arranged their dolls in a position of their choosing, and then using one sentence,
described the position of two of them in relation to each other so that the
researcher could match the configuration. As soon as 20 seconds had passed,
indicated by the cue hai (‘yes’) from the tape-recorder, the researcher provided
a recast with the locative phrase in sentence-initial position. (8) exemplifies a
typical sequence:
(8) Tape-recorder: Partner A [subject], please choose two dolls and,
using one sentence, describe their relative posi-
tion from your vantage point.
Subject: Joe-wa May-no mae-ni i-masu.
Joe- May- front- be-.
‘Joe is in front of May.’
Tape-recorder: Hai.
‘Yes.’
Researcher: May-no mae-ni Joe-ga i-masu
May- front- Joe- be-.
ne?

‘In front of May is Joe, right?’
Again, there were six items, six recasts, and so six exemplars of the target structure.
In the modeling condition, again paralleling the modeling treatment for
adjective ordering, subjects first heard an utterance containing the target locative
structure through headphones, and then in 20 seconds repeated it so that the
researcher could place dolls as directed while subjects did the same. A typical
trial is shown in (9):
(9) Tape-recorder: May-no mae-ni Joe-ga i-masu.
(only heard by May- front- Joe- be-.
the subject) ‘In front of May is Joe.’
Subject: May-no mae-ni Joe-ga imasu.
There were six models, after which researcher and subject removed the screen to
compare their room plans.
Subjects in the control group practiced writing 12 kanji for a period
equivalent to the treatments. Including pretest and posttest, the entire session for
all subjects lasted 40 minutes.2
3.1.5 Instrumentation and scoring

Two equivalent forms of an oral picture-description task were developed to serve
as pretest and posttest. Each form consisted of two sample questions, followed
by nine randomly ordered items: three testing adjective ordering, and three the
locative construction, plus three distractors. Each item required subjects to use
certain words in 20 seconds to describe one of three pictures in a sentence. The
picture for adjective ordering contained eight boxes of different sizes (large or
small) and colors (red, blue, back, or white), one of which the subject had to
describe using kudasai (‘please give me’). Subjects’ utterances were scored
separately, one point for (1) “color adjective–size adjective–NP”, and one point
for (2) use of the -kute form on the first adjective (whichever adjective type
came first), with half a point for provision of either -ku or -te alone. Two native
speakers of Japanese scored the data independently, achieving perfect inter-rater
reliability for each analysis.
The picture designed to elicit use of the target locative construction depicted four
rows of three people in a 12-person choir. Subjects were asked to describe the
position of two individuals relative to each other using imasu (‘be’). One point
was awarded for a sentence-initial locative phrase in the responses, with absence
or misuse of particles, such as ga, wa, ni, and no, ignored. Two native speakers
of Japanese scored the data independently, obtaining acceptably high inter-rater
reliability (r = 0.961). Remaining discrepancies were resolved by discussion.
4. Results
In Table 1, the raw scores on adjective ordering and the locative construction on
the pretest and posttest are presented for individual subjects in different
treatment groups. Table 1 shows that among 24 subjects, seven (subjects 1, 5, 16,
8, 18, 23, and 20) and two (subjects 8 and 10) had some prior knowledge of
adjective ordering and the locative construction, respectively.
This is presumably a function of instruction at high school (see above),
since, as mentioned, the subjects in this study had not been taught either of the
target structures at university. Although it would have been ideal to screen out all
subjects who showed any prior knowledge of either of the target structures on
the pretest and to use the posttest score only for analysis, the small number of
subjects in this study did not allow this; instead, it was decided to calculate gain
scores, excluding those cases where subjects scored three points for adjective
ordering on the pretest (i.e., subjects 5, 16, and 20) and retaining the other cases,
including where subjects showed some, but not full, knowledge, scoring one or
two points for either of the two structures on the pretest.
In Table 2, gain scores on adjective ordering and the locative construction
are presented for individual subjects in the different treatment groups.
Table 2 shows that (1) three of six subjects who received models of
adjective ordering improved on that structure, as did three of eight who received
recasts, and one of seven in the control group, and that (2) two of eight subjects
who received models of the locative structure improved on that structure, as did
two of eight who received recasts, and two of eight in the control group.
Mean gain scores on adjective ordering and the locative construction for all
three groups, model, recast, and control, are shown in Table 3. Results for the
two syntactic structures failed to provide support for Hypotheses 1, 2, and 3.
Gain scores of subjects who had experienced models were not statistically
significantly different from those of control group subjects (t(27) = 1.59, p > .05).
Neither were gain scores of subjects who had experienced recasts (t(29) = 1.14,
Table 1. Raw scores on adjective ordering and the locative construction

Treatment Test Subject Pretest Pretest Posttest Posttest
# Adj. O. Locative Adj. O. Locative
(k = 3) (k = 3) (k = 3) (k = 3)
Recast 1 01 1 0 0 3
Adj. O. 2 11 0 0 3 3
Group 1
Model 2 02 0 0 0 0
Locative 1 12 0 0 0 0
Model 1 03 0 0 0 0
Locative 2 13 0 0 0 0
Group 2
Recast 2 04 0 0 3 0
Adj. O. 1 14 0 0 3 0
Recast 1 05 3 0 3 0
Locative 2 15 0 0 2 0
Group 3
Model 2 06 0 0 0 0
Adj. O. 1 16 3 0 3 0
Model 1 07 0 0 3 0
Adj. O. 2 17 0 0 0 2
Group 4
Recast 2 08 2 2 2 3
Locative 1 18 1 0 2 0
09 0 0 0 0
1 19 0 0 0 0
2 21 0 0 0 1
Kanji 23 2 0 2 0
Control
Writing 10 0 1 0 3
2 20 3 0 3 0
1 22 0 0 0 0
24 0 0 1 0
p > .05). Nor were gain scores of subjects who had experienced models and
recasts statistically significantly different from one another (with two subjects
excluded due to incomplete data, t(13) = .17, p > .05). Statistical comparisons of
the two treatment groups and of each against the control group separately for
adjective ordering and the locative were also all non-significant.
In Table 4, the raw scores on the -kute form on the pretest and posttest are
presented for individual subjects in the different treatment groups.
Table 2. Gain scores on adjective ordering and the locative construction*

Treatment Test Subject Gain Gain Gain Gain
# Adj. O. Locative Model Recast
(k = 3) (k = 3) (k = 3) (k = 3)
Recast 1 01 −1 3 3 −1
Adj. O. 2 11 3 3 3 3
Group 1
Model 2 02 0 0 0 0
Locative 1 12 0 0 0 0
Model 1 03 0 0 0 0
Locative 2 13 0 0 0 0
Group 2
Recast 2 04 3 0 0 3
Adj. O. 1 14 3 0 0 3
Recast 1 05 – 0 – 0
Locative 2 15 2 0 2 0
Group 3
Model 2 06 0 0 0 0
Adj. O. 1 16 – 0 – 0
Model 1 07 3 0 3 0
Adj. O. 2 17 0 2 0 2
Group 4
Recast 2 08 0 1 0 1
Locative 1 18 1 0 1 0
09 0 0 – –
1 19 0 0 – –
2 21 0 1 – –
Kanji 23 0 0 – –
Control
Writing 10 0 2 – –
2 20 – 0 – –
1 22 0 0 – –
24 1 0 – –
*Gain scores on adjective ordering are not available for Subjects 5, 16 and 20, who scored three points
on the pretest and thus were excluded from the analysis of that structure.
Table 4 shows that three subjects (subjects 18, 10, and 24) had some prior
knowledge of the -kute form, again presumably as a function of instruction in
high school. Therefore, following the cases of adjective ordering and the locative
construction, gain scores were again calculated, excluding one subject (i.e.,
subject 10) who scored three points on the pretest and retaining the other two
Table 3. Mean gain scores on adjective ordering and the locative construction
Model Recast Control Total
n=6 n=8 n=7 n = 21
Adj. O. S=6 S=8 S=1 S = 15
(k = 3) M = 1.00 M = 1.00 M = 0.14 M = 0.71
SD = 1.27 SD = 1.69 SD = 0.38 SD = 1.27
n=8 n=8 n=8 n = 24
Locative S=6 S=3 S=3 S = 12
(k = 3) M = 0.75 M = 0.38 M = 0.38 M = 0.50
SD = 1.39 SD = 0.74 SD = 0.74 SD = 0.98
n = 14 n = 16 n = 15 n = 45
Total S = 12 S = 11 S=4 S = 27
(k = 6) M = 0.86 M = 0.69 M = 0.27 M = 0.60
SD = 1.29 SD = 1.30 SD = 0.59 SD = 1.12
subjects, who showed partial knowledge of the target on the pretest.

In Table 5, gain scores on -kute are presented for individual subjects in the
different treatment groups. Table 5 shows that four of eight subjects who
received -kute models improved on that form, as did three of eight who received
recasts, and none of seven in the control group.
Mean gain scores on the -kute form for all three groups, model, recast, and
control, are shown in Table 6. Gain scores of subjects who had received models
were statistically significantly higher than those of control subjects, t(13) = 2.33,
p < .05, as were those of subjects who had received recasts, t(13) = 1.95, p < .05,
as predicted by Hypotheses 1 and 2.
Gain scores of subjects receiving models were not statistically significantly
different from those of subjects receiving recasts, however, t(14) = .23, p > .05,
again disconfirming Hypothesis 3.
5. Discussion
The results for adjective ordering, with six of 14 subjects (42.9%) in the two
treatment groups improving, compared with only two of 18 (11.1%) in Mito’s
study, reflected more learning of that structure in the treatment conditions than
before. This was probably due to simplification of the target construction from
three-adjective to two-adjective strings, the addition of an output opportunity in
the modeling condition to match that in the recast condition, and/or to pre-
Table 4. Raw scores on the -kute form

Treatment Test Subject# Pretest Posttest
-kute -kute
(k = 3) (k = 3)
Recast 1 01 0 0
Adj. O. 2 11 0 3
Group 1
Model 2 02 0 0
Locative 1 12 0 0
Model 1 03 0 0
Locative 2 13 0 0
Group 2
Recast 2 04 0 1
Adj. O. 1 14 0 0.1.5
Recast 1 05 0 0
Locative 2 15 0 0.0.5
Group 3
Model 2 06 0 2
Adj. O. 1 16 0 0.1.5
Model 1 07 0 0
Adj. O. 2 17 0 0
Group 4
Recast 2 08 0 0
Locative 1 18 0.0.5 3
09 0 0
1 19 0 0
2 21 0 0
Kanji 23 0 0
Control
Writing 10 3 3
2 20 0 0
1 22 0 0
24 0.2.5 1
existing knowledge as a result of Japanese instruction in high school.

The comparable effects of models and recasts on -kute development and the
apparent lack of an advantage for either kind of input over the control (no input)
condition with locatives are results that differ sharply from Mito’s. Mito found no
improvement on locatives in the modeling condition, compared with two out of
eight subjects (25%) improving here. Perhaps this was again partly due to latent
knowledge of the target structures in the present subjects as a result of high school
Table 5. Gain scores for the -kute form*

Treatment Test Subject# Gain Gain Gain
-kute Model Recast
(k = 3) (k = 3) (k = 3)
Recast 1 01 0 – 0
Adj. O. 2 11 3 – 3
Model Model 2 02 0 – 0
Locative Locative 1 12 0 – 0
&
Recast Model 1 03 0 – 0
Adjective Locative 2 13 0 – 0
Recast 2 04 1 – 1
Adj. O. 1 14 0.1.5 – 0.1.5
Recast 1 05 0 0 –
Locative 2 15 0.0.5 0.0.5 –
Model Model 2 06 2 2 –
Adjective Adj. O. 1 16 0.1.5 0.1.5 –
&
Recast Model 1 07 0 0 –
Locative Adj. O. 2 17 0 0 –
Recast 2 08 0 0 –
Locative 1 18 0.2.5 0.2.5 –
09 0 – –
1 19 0 – –
2 21 0 – –
Kanji 23 0 – –
Control
Writing 10 – – –
2 20 0 – –
1 22 0 – –
24 0.−1.5− – –
*Gain scores on the -kute form are not available for Subjects 10, who scored three points on the
pretest and thus was excluded from the analysis of that form.
instruction, and/or to the modification to the modeling treatment. As noted earlier,

that change added an opportunity for subjects to produce the model, apparently
leading to an improvement in the effectiveness of modeling for all three struc-
tures. Crucially, in addition to any intrinsic value, the output opportunity in this
study may also have encouraged more attention to the form, as well as the
Table 6. Mean gain scores on the -kute form

Model Recast Control
n=8 n=8 n=7
-kute S = 6.5 S = 5.5 S = −1.5
(k = 3) M = 0.81 M = 0.69 M = −0.21
SD = 1.03 SD = 1.10 SD = 0.57
message content, of models than would normally be the case due to the fact that
subjects knew they had not only to follow the directions themselves, but also to
repeat them so that their partners could do so. This may have nullified any super-
iority of recasts on this task as noticed input in Schmidt’s terms (Schmidt 1993).
More puzzling is the improvement on locatives after recasts of only two out
of eight subjects (25%) in this study compared with four out of nine (44.4%) in
Mito’s, as well as the improvement on locatives this time by two out of eight
subjects (25%) in the control group. With respect to the apparent lack of an
advantage for either treatment in learning the locative over writing kanji for an
equivalent period of time, examination of posttest transcripts showed that at least
two subjects in each of the treatment groups appeared to have found the test
directions for eliciting the locative ambiguous, which made the task more
demanding than it should have been. The test directions for locatives were,
“Please choose person X and person Y and describe, in one sentence using
imasu, their relative position from your vantage point.”3 There is evidence that
those subjects interpreted “their relative position” as “their position relative to the
others in the group (choir)”, not as “their position relative to each other”, which
was the intended meaning. This seemed to have made the task more demanding
because they were forced to choose some other person(s) in the group as a
reference point and produce longer sentences, such as A to B-no mae-ni X to Y-ga
imasu (‘In front of A and B is X and Y’), which were less like the ones
provided as models or recasts in either treatment session. This may have
obfuscated the effects of both models and recasts on development of the locative
construction. Dormant knowledge of the locative among control group members
may also have been revived by attempts to produce the structure on the pretest.4
The comparable gains across structures after models in the present study
(five of 14 subjects, or 35.7%) and after recasts (five of 16 subjects, or 31.3%)
also contrast with Mito’s findings, where no subjects improved after models, but
six of 18 subjects (33%) receiving recasts did. This suggests the effects of the
modification to the modeling condition and/or of pre-existing latent knowledge
of the target structures.
6. Conclusion
The results of the present study are rather disappointing, but nevertheless provide
some evidence in support of the claim that implicit negative feedback plays a
facilitative role in SLA. While possibly aided by a triggering effect of the
pretest, recasts produced some learning and/or resuscitation of latent prior
knowledge of all three structures. The results are admittedly difficult to interpret
due to the presence among subjects of some prior knowledge of all three learning
targets. The “prior knowledge” problem may have preempted a clear test of the
hypothesized greater effectiveness of recasts than models.5 Also mitigating
against finding a stronger effect for recasts (and hence, producing a tougher test
for Hypothesis 3, as indicated earlier) was a peculiarity of the modeling treat-
ments which arose from the effort to render that condition comparable to the
recast condition, as well as “communicative.” This was the requirement on
subjects to reproduce the models for their partners immediately after hearing
them, something that would be rare in naturalistic acquisition contexts (although
common in traditional classroom L2 instruction, perhaps in a non-communicative
manner), and which probably led the learners to pay greater attention to the form
of the models than would normally be the case, instead of focusing chiefly on
decoding their meaning. Subjects may well have noticed and acquired more
grammatical information from the modeled input as a result, thereby obscuring
the impact of recasts.
The “communicative” nature of the tests, treatments and procedures
developed for this study arguably more closely approximated untutored L2
learning contexts than those utilized in some earlier work on recasts and other
forms of negative feedback, thereby addressing some of the concerns raised over
the external validity of earlier findings. On the other hand, this study failed to
deal adequately with a major methodological challenge in this type of research,
i.e., the need to distinguish between genuine acquisition of new structures and
deployment of existing knowledge. Caution in interpreting findings in this and
future studies of this sort is also needed due to the short-time nature of such
experiments; without one or more delayed posttests with monitoring of input in
the intervening period(s), one is limited to a consideration of short-time effects
of models or recasts. Such short-term (rate) studies may risk (1) overestimating
the effectiveness of either treatment, and (2) biasing results in favor of one type
of input, should each type prove differentially effective over time. Conversely,
(3) the short-time nature and small number of exposures (here, six tokens) to the
learning targets in such studies, and (4) the use of production measures to assess
learning, each risk underestimating the effectiveness of both types of input. As
in so many areas of SLA research, experimental work of the kind reported here
obviously needs to be complimented by detailed longitudinal case studies of the
same issues.
Acknowledgements
The research reported here was partially supported by the National Foreign Language Resource
Center at the University of Hawai‘i at Manoa, funded by the U. S. Department of Education under the
Language Resource Centers program (CFDA 84.229). We thank Nick Ellis for useful discussion of
methodological issues, Rieko Sawyer for her recordings of the instructions for this study, and Scott
Saft for his help in collecting data.
Notes
1. Specifically, four improved on the locative, whereas two improved on adjective order.
2. At the beginning of the session, subjects were given a vocabulary list containing Japanese
words with English translations to be used during the pre- and post-tests and the treatments, and
were asked to familiarize themselves with the vocabulary before starting the pretest. They were
allowed to refer to the list during the entire session. This was an attempt not to let subjects’
lack of vocabulary hinder their performance.
3. The directions were a modification of those in Mito (1993): “From your vantage point, describe,
in one sentence using imasu, person X’s position using person Y as a reference point.” This
modification was an attempt to neutralize the informational status of the referents of person X
and person Y in discourse. Notice that Mito’s directions establish person X as the discourse
topic; thus, one may prefer to answer them using the locative construction as in (4), whereas
our directions establish both person X and person Y as the discourse topic; thus, one may not
be biased to answer them using either the construction as in (4) or the locative-initial construc-
tion as in (5).
4. K. Kanno (personal communication, February 1997) suggests that the context for introducing
the locative construction in the treatment was not fully appropriate, which might in turn have
obfuscated the effects of models and recasts. She points out that the names of the dolls,
introduced at the beginning of the treatment, become anaphoric in the discourse, and thus that
the pattern in (4) would become more appropriate than the target structure in (5). While we
agree with her and think that refinement of the tasks will be called for for future research, it
still leaves unexplained why Mito (1993), who apparently had the same problem, found more
subjects improving on the locative construction in the recast condition.
5. In fact, a study in Spanish as a second language, which used a similar design with a stricter
control for prior knowledge, provided some evidence for the notion that recasts are more
effective than models in achieving short-term gains in learning a previously unknown L2
structure (see Long, Inagaki & Ortega 1998).
References
Baker, Nancy D. and Keith E. Nelson. 1984. “Recasting and Related Conversational
Techniques for Triggering Syntactic Advances by Young Children.” First Language
5: 3–22.
Beck, Maria-Luise and Lynn Eubank. 1991. “Acquisition Theory and Experimental
Design: A critique of Tomasello and Herron.” Studies in Second Language Acquisi-
tion 13: 73–76.
Bohannon, John N., Brian MacWhinney and Catherine Snow. 1990. “No Negative
Evidence Revisited: Beyond learnability or who has to prove what to whom.”
Developmental Psychology 26: 221–226.
Bohannon, John N. and Laura Stanowicz. 1988. “The Issue of Negative Evidence: Adult
responses to children’s language errors.” Developmental Psychology 24: 684–689.
Brown, Roger and Camille Hanlon. 1970. “Derivational Complexity and Order of
Acquisition in Child Speech.” In J. Hayes (ed.), Cognition and the Development of
Language. New York: Wiley, 11–53.
Ellis, Rod. 1994. The Study of Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Farrar, Michael J. 1990. “Discourse and the Acquisition of Grammatical Morphemes.”
Journal of Child Language 17: 607–624.
———. 1992. “Negative Evidence and Grammatical Morpheme Acquisition.” Develop-
mental Psychology 28: 90–98.
Herron, Carol and Michael Tomasello. 1988. “Learning Grammatical Structures in a
Foreign Language: Modelling versus feedback.” The French Review 61: 910–923.
Jorden, Eleanor and Mari Noda. 1988. Japanese: The Spoken Language, Part 2. New
Haven: Yale.
Krashen, Stephen and Herbert Seliger. 1975. “The Essential Characteristics of Formal
Instruction.” TESOL Quarterly 9: 173–183.
Long, Michael. 1981. “Input, Interaction, and Second Language Acquisition.” In H.
Winitz (ed.), Native Language and Foreign Language Acquisition. Annals of the New
York Academy of Sciences 379. New York: New York Academy of Sciences,
259–278.
———. 1983a. “Does Second Language Instruction Make a Difference? A Review of
Research.” TESOL Quarterly 17: 359–382.
———. 1983b. “Linguistic and Conversational Adjustments to Non-native Speakers.”
Studies in Second Language Acquisition 5: 177–194.
———. 1988. “Instructed Interlanguage Development.” In L. Beebe (ed.), Issues in
Second Language Acquisition: Multiple perspectives. Rowley, MA: Newbury House,
115–141.
———. 1991. “Focus on Form: A design features in language teaching methodology.” In
K. de Bot, R. Ginsberg and C. Kramsch (eds.), Foreign Language Research in
Cross-cultural Perspective. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 39–52.
———. 1996. “The Role of the Linguistic Environment in Second Language Acquisi-
tion.” In W. C. Ritchie and T. K. Bhatia (eds.), Handbook of Language Acquisition.
Vol. 2: Second Language Acquisition. New York: Academic Press, 413–468.
Long, Michael, Shunji Inagaki and Lourdes Ortega. 1998. “The Role of Implicit Negative
Feedback in SLA: Models and recasts in Japanese and Spanish.” Modern Language
Journal 82: 357–71.
Long, Michael and Peter Robinson. 1998. “Focus on Form: Theory, research and
practice.” In C. Doughty and J. Williams (eds.), Focus on Form. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 15–41.
Martin, Samuel E. 1975. A Reference Grammar of Japanese. New Haven and London:
Yale University Press.
Mito, Kaoru. 1993. The Effects of Modeling and Recasting on the Acquisition of L2
Grammar Rules. Unpublished Manuscript, University of Hawai‘i at Manoa.
Nelson, Keith E. 1987. “Some Observations from the Perspective of the Rare Event
Cognitive Comparison Theory of Language Acquisition.” In K. E. Nelson and A.
vann Kleeck (eds), Children’s Language. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, 289–332.
———. 1989. “Strategies for First Language Teaching.” In R. Scheifelbusch and M. Rice
(eds.), The Teachability of Language. Baltimore: Dan Brooks, 263–310.
———. 1991. “On Differential Language-learning Models and Differential
Interventions.” In N. A. Krasnegor, D. M. Rumbaugh, R. L. Scheifelbusch and M.
Studdert-Kennedy (eds.), Biological and Behavioral Determinants of Language
Development. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, 399–428.
Nelson, Keith E., Marilyn S. Denninger, John D. Bonvillian, Barbara J. Kaplan and
Nancy D. Baker. 1984. “Maternal Input Adjustments as Related to Children’s
Linguistic Advances and to Language Acquisition Theories.” In A. Pellegrini and T.
Yawkey (eds.), The Development of Oral and Written Language in Social Contexts.
Norwood, NJ: Ablex, 31–56.
Oliver, Rhonda. 1995. “Negative Feedback in Child NS/NNS Conversation.” Studies in
Second Language Acquisition 17: 459–481.
Pavesi, Maria. 1986. “Markedness, Discoursal Modes, and Relative Clause Formation in
a Formal and an Informal Context.” Studies in Second Language Acquisition 8(1):
38–55.
Pinker, Steven. 1989. Learnability and Cognition: The acquisition of argument structure.
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Richardson, Mary-Ann. 1993. Negative Evidence and Grammatical Morpheme Acquisition:
Implications for SLA. Unpublished Manuscript, Perth: Graduate School of Education,
University of Western Australia.
———. 1995. The Use of Negative Evidence in Second Language Acquisition of Grammati-
cal Morphemes. M.Ed. in Applied Linguistics Thesis, University of Western
Australia.
Schachter, Jacquelyn. 1991. “Corrective Feedback in Historical Perspective.” Second
Schmidt, Richard. 1983. “Interaction, Acculturation, and Acquisition of Communicative

Competence.” In N. Wolfson and E. Judd (eds). Sociolinguistics and Second
Language Acquisition. Rowley, MA: Newbury House, 137–174.
———. 1993. “Awareness and Second Language Acquisition.” Annual Review of Applied
Linguistics 13: 206–226.
Schwartz, Bonnie D. 1993. “On Explicit and Negative Data Effecting and Affecting
Competence and Linguistic Behavior.” Studies in Second Language Acquisition 15:
147–163.
Schwartz, Bonnie D. and Magda Gubala-Ryzak. 1992. “Learnability and Grammar
Reorganization in L2A: Against negative evidence causing the unlearning of verb
movement.” Second Language Research 8: 1–38.
Sokolov, Jeffrey L. and Catherine E. Snow (eds.). 1994. Handbook of Research in
Language Development Using CHILDES. Hillsdale, N. J.: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Swain, Merrill. 1991. “French Immersion and its Offshoots: Getting Two for One.” In
B. F. Freed (ed.), Foreign Language Acquisition Research and the Classroom.
Lexington, MA: D. C. Heath, 91–103.
Tomasello, Michael and Carol Herron. 1988. “Down the Garden Path: Inducing and
correcting overgeneralization errors in the foreign language classroom.” Applied
Psycholinguistics 9: 237–246.
———. 1989. “Feedback for Language Transfer Errors: The garden path technique.”
———. 1991. “Experiments in the Real World: A reply to Beck and Eubank.” Studies in
White, Lydia. 1991. “Adverb Placement in Second Language Acquisition: Some effects
of positive and negative evidence in the classroom.” Second Language Research 7:
133–161.
Wilkins, David. 1976. Notional Syllabuses: A taxonomy and its relevance to foreign
language curriculum development. London: Oxford University Press.
C 3
Tasks and Learners’ Output in

Nonnative-Nonnative Interaction
Noriko Iwashita
University of Melbourne
1. Introduction
1.1 Conversational interaction and modified output
Studies of modified output have been greatly influenced by Swain’s comprehen-

sible output hypothesis (Swain 1985), which suggests that pressure to produce
language may help learners to test hypotheses about the L2 and attend to form.
Swain points out the differences between comprehension and production in terms
of the cognitive load involved for learners, and explains that learners are able to
‘fake it’ in comprehension, but not in production (Swain 1995: 127). Swain
(1995) further presents three output hypotheses explaining the role of production
in language learning.
The role of modified output in language acquisition has been tested in a
number of studies on conversational interactions involving the learner. Pica (1994)
claims that one type of conversational interaction, widely known as negotiation,
addresses three of the learners’ requirements for L2 acquisition, namely 1) input
modified to enhance comprehensibility, 2) feedback focused on form and 3)
modification of output. The main concern of the present study is with the second
and third issues in learner-learner interaction, and with the investigation of how
learners modify their initial output in response to two types of interactional moves.
Empirical studies on modified output have investigated the process by which
learners modify their ungrammatical output in response to their native speaker
(NS) interlocutors’ feedback. Pica and her colleagues demonstrate that learners
modify their output in response to such interactional moves as clarification
requests or confirmation checks and found that types of interactional moves had
32 NORIKO IWASHITA
more impact on the opportunities for modified output than task types (Pica et al.
1989). Similarly Linnell (1996), comparing the amount of learners’ modified
output in response to the same two interactional moves as investigated in Pica et
al.’s 1989 study, claims that clarification requests result in more modification of
learners’ interlanguage than do confirmation checks. Recently Mackey (1995)
and La Pierre (cited in Swain 1995, 1998) have examined further the relationship
between modified output and L2 learning; the findings of these studies show the
positive impact of modified output on L2 learning.
1.2 Learner-learner (NNS-NNS) interaction
Studies of conversational interaction investigating both comprehension and

production have mainly dealt with native-nonnative interactions, but the number
of studies of nonnative-nonnative interaction has been growing.
Long and Porter (1985) report on the positive aspects of learner-learner
interaction (NNS-NNS) in terms of initiative and reduced anxiety regarding
learning. Some studies (Doughty & Pica 1986; Pica & Doughty 1985a, 1985b)
claim that learner-learner interactions provide increased opportunities for learners
to talk, compared to the amount of talk in teacher fronted classes. Since claims
have been made by Varonis and Gass (1985) and Porter (1986) that learners
negotiate for meaning with other learners more frequently than with native
speaking interlocutors, there should be opportunities to investigate learners’
responses and repairs when communication breaks down in NNS-NNS interac-
tion. However, the question is whether learners are able to provide useful
feedback to other learners and whether learners who received feedback are able
to make use of it. Gass and Varonis (1989) examined corrective feedback given
in NNS-NNS interactions and demonstrated that NNS were able to provide
corrective feedback to other NNS, although the authors warn that changes in the
interlanguage system often occurred much later in the discourse.
Pica et al. (1996) compared the interaction of NNS-NNS dyads with NNS-NS
dyads in terms of the amount of modified input, feedback and modified output. The
findings of the study show that there are some similarities in the types of modified
input and feedback which learners and NSs provided, but that learners received less
modified input from other learners than from NSs. Both learners and NSs provide
similar types and amount of modified output. Pica et al. suggest that NNS-NNS
interaction can address some of their input, feedback and output needs, but it
does not provide as much modified input and feedback as NS-NNS interaction.
Although the study of NNS-NNS interactions has been receiving considerable
attention, not many studies have been conducted involving a foreign language
TASKS AND LEARNERS’ OUTPUT 33
situation.1 Learners in a foreign language situation have fewer opportunities to

practice with native speakers of the target language apart from teachers, and
learners spend a great deal of time talking with other NNSs. Gass and Varonis
(1985) claim that strategic pairing of learners with different native language
backgrounds and proficiency levels may provide the optimal context for extended
negotiation and repair, but in foreign language situations this strategic pairing of
learners may not be possible. Most learners share the same L1 and even teachers
may have the same L1 as learners. Moreover, the proficiency of most learners in
a foreign language situation is not as high as that of Swain’s immersion students,
whose production may be understood by the teacher. In addition, the input
available to learners in foreign language situations is more limited.
It is therefore necessary to investigate learner-learner interactions in a
foreign language situation in order to determine whether they are similar to those
reported for second language situations. The findings of such studies may have
implications for current teaching practice in foreign language situations.
1.3 Communicative tasks in foreign language classroom
The role of tasks and group work is important in communicative language

classrooms and second language acquisition research. Long and Porter (1985)
claim that group work enhances language opportunities and improves the quality
of students’ talk. They further explain that from a psycholinguistic point of view,
group work provides more opportunities for learners to negotiate meaning with
one another, and so provides a desirable environment for creating comprehensible
input and output. Pica, Kanagy and Falodun (1993) classify tasks according to
types of goals, and directions of communication. They claim that closed two-way
tasks provide the most opportunities for negotiation. On the other hand, one-way
tasks lead to more individual input and much less negotiation work than do two-
way tasks (Brown & Yule 1983).
Empirical studies of conversational interaction have investigated the
relationship between task types and opportunities for comprehensible input,
output and corrective feedback. Explaining the results of their study showing that
one-way tasks produced more opportunities for negotiation than two-way tasks,
Gass and Varonis (1985) suggest that the one-way/two-way contrast is not the
only factor in determining the amount of negotiation, but that the amount of
shared information background is relevant, too. Even within the same type of
task (e.g. one-way or two-way) there are some differences in terms of shared
background knowledge and visual stimuli which may affect the amount of
negotiation (Shortreed 1983).
34 NORIKO IWASHITA
Similarly, Crookes and Rulon (1988), comparing the amount of feedback to

errors in two information-gap tasks, suggest that the difference is due to the
availability of visual support. They explain that learners’ speech in the task
where participants had visual support was more readily understood by recourse
to visual support than in tasks without visual support. As a result, less feedback
to errors was provided in the tasks where participants had visual support than in
tasks without it. That is, it was not necessary for NS interlocutors to provide
feedback on learners’ ill-formed speech to confirm what learners tried to say
because the visual support helped NS interlocutors to understand learners’ ill-
formed speech.
In addition to task types and the availability of visual support, there are a
few other features of tasks such as ‘meaningfulness’ and the interactive roles of
task participants which could potentially influence the amount of interaction.
Rabie (1996a) suggests that the ‘meaningfulness’ of a task (by which she means
whether the task allows learners to express their own ideas or not) may affect
the amount of interaction. She explains that learners are likely to produce more
output in tasks which they find meaningful. That means that there are more
opportunities for learners to receive feedback from interlocutors in tasks which
they find meaningful and talk a lot.
Investigating the relationship between interactive roles of task participants
and the successful resolution of referential conflict in NNS-NNS dyads, Yule and
MacDonald (1990) and Yule (1992) found that dyads where the low proficiency
interlocutor had the dominant information-holding role lead to more talk and
negotiated solutions than in dyads in which the roles of high and low proficiency
interlocutors were reversed.
In light of the issues raised above, it is clearly important to consider the
situations that provide learners with the optimal opportunity to produce the most
output and to receive the most feedback, which in turn translates into more
opportunities for learners to modify their speech.
1.4 Studies of interaction in Japanese as a foreign language
The target language used in empirical studies of conversational interaction have

so far been predominantly English and to a lesser extent French and Spanish. To
date, there have been only a handful of studies on Japanese, such as Inagaki and
Long (this volume), Loschky (1989, 1994), Mito (1993), Ohta (1995) and
Roberts (1996).2 These Japanese studies have yielded findings more or less
similar to those of studies in other languages (e.g. English, French, Spanish etc.),
but more research is required. Japanese is typologically very different from the
other languages investigated, and Japanese conversation has some special features
(e.g. the backchannel device called ‘aizuchi’).3 Despite the growing population
of learners of Japanese, curriculum development for Japanese language teaching
lags behind that of other languages. In order to investigate how learners acquire
specific features of Japanese and how to improve the quality of current teaching
practice, more studies are needed.
2. Research questions and hypotheses
The present study addresses the following research questions:

RQ 1: To what extent do tasks provide opportunities for learners to modify
their initial output in response to their fellow learners’ feedback?
RQ 2: To what extent do learners actually modify their output?
RQ 3: To what extent do task types and types of interactional moves affect
the opportunity for modified output and the actual production of
modified output?
The three research questions above were examined through the following four
hypotheses:
H1: One-way tasks will provide more opportunities for interlocutors to
produce modified output than two-way tasks.
H2: The proportion of clarification requests to confirmation checks will
be higher in one-way tasks than in two-way tasks.
H3: There will be more opportunities in one-way tasks for interlocutors
to modify their interlanguage than in two-way tasks.
H4: Clarification requests will give more opportunities for interlocutors
to modify their interlanguage than will confirmation checks.
These are the same hypotheses considered in the study by Pica et al. (1989).
However, in their study, three different types of tasks in NNS-NS dyads were
used and the results were compared to dyads of different combinations of
gender. In the present study the same questions were studied with two types of
tasks in interactions where both interlocutors are NNS.
36 NORIKO IWASHITA
3. The study
3.1 Methodology
Twenty-four subjects (12 males and 12 females) participated in the present study.
They had studied Japanese at the tertiary level for almost 300 hours when the
data were collected and were recruited from two proficiency groups (High and
Low). (The proficiency of subjects as measured by course tests is given in
Appendix I.) Data were collected using closed one-way and two-way tasks. In
the one-way task which was done in pair-work, one subject described a picture
and the partner drew a picture based on that description. Participants then
swapped roles and did the same task using different pictures.
In the two-way task, each participant was given three or four pictures and
had to take turns describing the features of each picture and arranging all
pictures in order to build up a story. Participants were not allowed to look at
their partner’s picture.
3.2 Analysis of data
All data were coded for C-units as in Pica et al.’s (1989) study. C-units are
defined as utterances (for example, words, phrases, and sentences, grammatical
and ungrammatical) which provide communication value (Rulon & McCreary
1986). The opportunity for modified output was observed through occurrences of
two types of requests (clarification requests and confirmation checks) in the
negotiation model developed by Varonis and Gass (1985).
Confirmation checks (CC) and clarification requests (CR) were categorized
according to the definitions given by Long and Sato (1983: 275). (An example of
each interactional move is also given below.)
(i) Confirmation checks (CC) involve complete or partial repetition of the
previous speaker’s utterance and serve either to elicit confirmation that their user
had heard and/or understood the previous speaker’s previous utterance correctly
or to dispel that belief.
(1) Example:
H8: ‘G’
‘G’
H7: ‘G’ wa doko?
‘Where is ‘G’?’
H8: ‘B’ no tsugi

‘After ‘B’’
H7: ‘B’ no tsugi? (CC)
‘After ‘B’?’
H8: Hai.
‘Yes.’
H7: ‘G’ wa nan no?
‘What is ‘G’?’
H8: ‘G’ wa sannin wa kuruma no mae ni tatteimasu.
‘In ‘G’ three people are standing in front of the car.’
H7: Kuruma no naka? (CC)
‘In the car?’
H8: Kuruma no mae.
‘In front of the car.’
(ii) Clarification requests (CR) are any expressions designed to elicit clarifica-
tion of the interlocutor’s preceding utterance.
(2) Example:
H7: Eeto, sono ki no aida ni onna no ko ga naiteiru.
‘Well, between the trees, there is a girl who is crying.’
H8: Nani ga arimasu ka? (CR)
‘What is there?’
H7: Naiteru onnanoko.
‘The girl who is crying.’
H8: Nani o shiteimasu ka? (CR)
‘What is she doing?’
H7: Sorede naiteimasu.
‘She is crying.’
Confirmation checks and clarification requests are assumed to be triggers which
lead to modified output (MO).
Modified output was further categorized into lexical and syntactic modifications.
(i) Lexical modification:
(3) HL5: Machi-kara inaka-ni ikimasu.
‘They go to the country from town.’
HL6: Inaka?
‘Country?’
Inaka wa nan desuka?
‘What is ‘country’?’
38 NORIKO IWASHITA
HL5: Inaka aa machi no soto desu. (MO)

‘Inaka is outside of the town.’
(4) H1: Torakku ga arimasuka?
‘Is there a truck?’
H2: Omocha.
‘Toy.’
H1: Omocha?
‘Toy?’
H2: Ano, kodomo ga asobu mono. (MO)
‘Things which children play with.’
(ii) Syntactic modification
(5) L3: Otoko no hito, otoko no kko wa kodomo wa um to-tomari,
tomaru, shitaidesu.
‘A man, boy, child stops, wants to do.’
L4: Tomaru?
‘Stop?’
L4: Tomaritai desu. (MO)
‘(He) wants to stop.’
Confirmation checks were also further classified into subtypes in the follow-up
analysis.
In order to establish rater reliability, a portion of the transcript (approxi-
mately 10% of the whole data) was coded (for C-units) and categorized accord-
ing to the negotiation pattern (confirmation checks, clarification requests and
modified output) by a second rater. The interrater reliability was 90% for the
coding categories and 84% for the negotiation categories as a whole. The
difference in interrater reliability between the coding and negotiation categories
is due to the fact that both the author and the second rater had previous experi-
ence with the coding categories, but not with the negotiation categories.
4. Results and discussion
4.1 Results
As shown in Table 1, significant differences were found for task types, but no
significant differences were found for types of interactional moves. The details
of the results for each hypothesis are given in Tables 7 to 10 in Appendix II.
The results for hypotheses 1, 2 and 3 show that task types had an influence on
both the opportunity to modify learners’ output through CC/CR and the
subsequent production of modified output. The result for hypothesis 4 shows that
types of interactional moves did not have an impact on the production of
modified output.
4.2 Discussion
Based on the results of the study, task types and types of interactional moves
will be discussed, and further analyses will be provided.
4.2.1 Task types and the optimal opportunity for modified output
Interaction patterns differed across the two tasks, as predicted. In the two-way
task, both participants requested confirmation and clarification, exchanged
information which they held, and attempted modification of their previous
utterances whenever requested. In the one-way task, the learner who drew the
picture (information receiver) concentrated only on asking the interlocutor (the
information giver) for modification. When explaining the picture, information
givers only provided information and tried to modify their previous utterances
whenever requested through CC/CR. Information receivers who drew pictures
might have felt that whether they could draw a picture totally depended on their
understanding of their partner’s description of the picture. A similar tendency
was found in the study by Gass and Varonis (1985). In contrast, completion of
the two-way task did not rely on just one participant. The difference between the
two types of tasks lies in whether both participants are responsible for under-
standing each other’s speech.4,5
Another issue for consideration is the difficulty of the task. If the task is
too easy for subjects, there would not be much need for them to negotiate
Table 1. Summary of the results

Research questions Hypotheses Supported? c2 p
Task types
1. Frequency of CR and CC One-way > Two-way yes 15.27 p < .01
2. Proportion of CR to CC One-way > Two-way yes 16.24 p < .001
3. Production of modified output One-way > Two-way yes 04.67 p < .05
Types of interactional moves
4. Production of modified output CR > CC no 01.01 n.s.
*CR: Clarification request
*CC: Confirmation check
40 NORIKO IWASHITA
meaning; that is, an information giver would not receive confirmation checks,
clarification requests, and any other interactional moves. On the other hand, if
the task is so difficult that learners do not even know the vocabulary which may
be used in the task, they may abandon the task or use their first language.
A further analysis of C-units per turn shows that there is a possibility that
little negotiation occurs if a subject finds the task too easy or too difficult. Table
2 shows that for most dyads in both two-way and one-way tasks the average
number of C-units per turn was similar, but for two dyads, turns in the one-way
task were very long. Two participants (L8 and H8) explained the picture without
being interrupted with clarification requests and confirmation checks from their
partners. In one of these dyads, the interlocutor’s proficiency was high and so
there might not have been much need for negotiation of meaning.
As the analysis in Table 2 shows, there was more speech production and
more interaction (Table 7 in Appendix II) in the one-way task than in the two-
way task. However, information receivers did not seek clarification or confirma-
tion if they understood what their interlocutor had described, so that one-way
tasks might not create an opportunity for modifying output.
In order to make further comparison of the different negotiation patterns in
the tasks, the instances of extended negotiation were counted in each task. The
negotiation model used in the present study was developed by Varonis and Gass
(1985) and is shown in Figure 1.
T → I → R → RR
(Trigger) (Indicator) (Response) (Reaction to Response)
Figure 1. Model of negotiated interaction (Varonis & Gass 1985)
Extended negotiation occurs when an interlocutor asks for confirmation or

clarification in response to the other interlocutor’s modification of his previous
speech, but still does not understand it and asks for further clarification or
confirmation. Examples of extended negotiation are given below.
Table 2. Comparison of average C-unit per turn between tasks

Two-way One-way
Turn C-unit C-unit/turn Turn C-unit C-unit/turn
All (n = 24) 38.45 1267 1.37 26.08 849.0 1.35
Group D (L8) 50.00 0065 1.30 13.00 027.0 2.16
Group H (H8) 32.00 0031 1.83 25.50 023.5 2.73
(6) Extended negotiation of meaning

HL7: Moohitotsu no e ga arimasuka? (T)
‘Do you have another picture?’
HL8: Nani? (I, CR)
‘What?’
HL7: Mouhitotsu no e. (R,T)
‘Another picture.’
HL8: E? (I, CC)
‘Picture?’
HL7: Nani o shiteiru? (R, T, CR)
‘What are they doing in that picture?’
Pikunikku, kuruma kara de-de-deteimasuka? (CC)
‘Are they having a picnic? Did they get off the car?’
HL8: Kuruma (I, CC)
‘Car?’
HL7: Kuruma kara. (R, T)
‘Off the car.’
HL8: Kara? (I, CC)
‘Off?’
HL7: Deru. (R,T)
‘Get off.’
HL8: Ah deru? (RR, I)
‘Get off?’
HL7: Hai. (R)
‘Yes.’
T: Trigger I: Indicator R: Response RR: Reaction to response
CC: Confirmation check CR: Clarification request
Table 3 shows the average occurrence of extended negotiation. The average
occurrence per group is too small for statistical analysis of the difference
between the two types of tasks, but the raw data show that more extended
negotiations occurred in the one-way task than in the two-way task. In
principle,it would be worth analyzing how many extended negotiations resulted
Table 3. Mean occurrence of extended negotiation per dyad

Two-way One-Way
All subjects (12 dyads) 1.60 2.21
42 NORIKO IWASHITA
in the production of modified output in each task, but the sample was too small
for further analysis.
The results reported earlier show that learners produced more modified
output in the one-way task than in the two-way task. Again, it may be assumed
that one-way tasks are more useful in encouraging learners to modify their
output. However, further analysis of the modified output found that the two-way
task resulted in more syntactic modification, which Swain (1985) claims to be an
important benefit to the learner and to the acquisition process, particularly in
relation to the kinds of grammatical error found in Canadian immersion students
learning French.
As in Pica et al. (1989), production of modified output was categorized into
lexical and syntactic modification (Table 4). More syntactic modification was
found in the two-way task than in the one-way task. Thus, one may conclude
that though the two-way task did not contribute much to speech production and
negotiation, it led to more syntactic modifications. Expected frequencies,
however, were too small for further analysis. The result should also be interpret-
ed with caution, since only two types of interactional moves (i.e., CC and CR)
were used for the analysis. Some other interactional moves might also have an
impact on modification (i.e., both syntactic and lexical). If other interactional
moves had been included in the analysis, the result might have been different
from what is presented here.
The different emphasis placed on one-way and two-way tasks may have
also resulted in different types of modification. As Pica et al. (1996) explain,
different emphasis would lead task participants to produce different types of
input, feedback and output modification. The two types of tasks used in the
present study each have a different emphasis. The one-way task (describing a
picture of a park/room and people) engaged learners in describing attributes,
states, and conditions in their pictures, which might have led to negotiation
involving names, features and positions of the objects. In contrast, the two-way
task engaged learners in describing a sequence of events and might have led to
negotiation over actions and experiences, with reference to time sequences and
Table 4. Difference in linguistic modification between tasks

Two-way One-way
n % n %
Lexical modification 4 21.1 13.5 42.2
Syntactical modification 15 78.9 18.5 57.8
relationships among events. These differences in emphasis on each task might

have influenced the amount and types of interaction and modification. Another
limitation is that only one exemplar of two-way tasks was used in the present
study. In order to investigate the effect of task types on syntactic modification,
it is necessary to conduct studies that include other interactional moves in
addition to CC and CR, use more than one exemplar of two types of tasks, and
control the emphasis placed on each task carefully.
4.2.2 Frequent use of confirmation check

According to the results relevant to Hypothesis 4, there was no significant
difference in the amount of modified output in response to confirmation checks
and clarification requests. Clarification requests did not create more opportunities
to modify output than did confirmation checks. This result conflicts with that of
Linnell’s study (1996), in which clarification requests led to more modified
output than confirmation checks. The non-significant difference in the role of the
two interactional moves in facilitating modified output may be explained by the
following two considerations.
First, low proficiency subjects often did not know how to modify the ill-
formed utterances which had caused communication breakdown, although they
knew something was wrong with their previous utterances. Second, a particular
type of confirmation check which frequently occurred in the interaction might
have resulted in the absence of a difference in the amount of modification in
response to the two different types of interactional moves.
In order to obtain enough information to draw a picture in the one-way task,
subjects in this study frequently confirmed their understanding with three types of
very short confirmation checks. These confirmation checks usually consisted of
only one word, and are named ‘one-word confirmation checks’ (‘one-word CC’
hereafter) in the present study. Examples of ‘one-word CC’ are shown in (7).
(7) Examples of ‘one-word CC’
a. Type 1. Repeating a word/phrase of the utterance heard with
rising intonation
1. A: Onna no ko wa suwarimasu.
‘A girl sits.’
B: Suwarimasu? (CC)
‘Does she sit?’
A: Suwatteimasu. (MO)
‘She is sitting.’
44 NORIKO IWASHITA
2. A: Dekakemasu.
‘Departs.’
B: Uchi uchi ni dekakemasu? (CC)
‘House, house departing to the house?’
A: Iie, uchi kara shuppatsushimasu, aa pikunikku. (MO)
‘No, from the house they depart, aa picnic.’
b. Type 2. Interlocutor’s modified utterance in response to the
partner’s utterance
A: Etto, onnanoko wa hon ah o yo-yomimasu.
‘Well, a girl will read/reads a book.’
B: Yondeimasu? (CC)
‘Is (she) reading?’
A: Yondeimasu.
‘She is reading.’
c. Type 3. Expanding the interlocutor’s sentence by adding a word
or two
A: Aa, kurma no soto ni.
‘Ah, (they are) outside the car.’
B: Tatteimasu? (CC)
‘Standing?’
A: Hai, kuruma no soto ni tatteimasu.
‘Yes, they are standing outside the car.’
Learner feedback that consisted of a short utterance (e.g. one-word confirmation
check) was also found in Pica et al.’s study (1996). Pica et al. explain that the
principal way learners signaled a need for message comprehensibility was to
repeat an isolated word or phrase from a prior utterance (the authors referred to
this as segmentation). Pica et al.’s findings show that the use of this type of
signal by learners outnumbered their use of other signals, in comparison with
NSs’ greater use of other signals.
In order to investigate the role of these three types of ‘one-word CCs’, all
‘one-word CCs’ were categorized according to the three types (Table 5). Respons-
es to ‘one-word CCs’ were then grouped into six different types (Table 6).
There are several points worth noting with regard to the role of ‘one-word
CCs’ in carrying out tasks. First, one-word CCs provided an opportunity for
learners to modify their initial output. As shown in (7), the modification in
response to the one-word CCs was limited to the modification of the verb (use
of one word). In the whole study, however, 54 modified outputs in total were
produced in response to CCs and CRs in both two-way and one-way tasks. Out
Table 5. Three types of ‘one-word CC’

Two-way One-way
n % n %
Type 1 28.0 073.6 62.5 088.0
Repeating a word
Type 2 04.0 015.7 08.0 011.2
Interlocutor’s modified utterance
Type 3 06.0 015.5 00.5 000.08
Finishing the interlocutor’s utterance
Total 38.0 100.0 71.0 100.0
Table 6. Response type to ‘one-word CC’

Request Type
Response Type Type 1 Type 2 Type 3
a. Simple acknowledgment with yes/no 19.5 2.0 0.5
b. Topic switch 06.0 2.0 0.0
c. Repetition of the request 03.5 4.0 –
d. Modification of the trigger (modified output) 15.0 – –
e. Finish off the utterance 12.5 – –
f. Repetition of the original utterance 03.5 – –
of the 54 occurrences, 22 modified outputs were produced in response to these

one-word CCs, which is approximately 40% of the total occurrences. This
suggests one-word CCs play an important role in facilitating modification of
learners’ initial output.
Second, one-word CCs provide other learners with a target model. This role
was found in Types 2 and 3. The difference between Types 2 and 3 has to do
with whether the subject corrects the ungrammatical part of the interlocutor’s
utterance. In a Type 2 CC, as shown in (7), the ungrammatical part of Student
A’s utterance caused a communication breakdown. Student B modified the
ungrammatical part of Student A’s utterance in the form of a CC instead of
repeating the error as in a Type 1 CC. It is assumed that confirmation of the
meaning of the utterance rather than the error correction was Student B’s primary
intention. Unlike Type 2 CCs, a Type 3 CC does not correct the error in the
interlocutor’s previous utterance, but expands the interlocutor’s sentence and
provides a target model.
These two types of one-word CCs have been identified as corrective recasts
46 NORIKO IWASHITA
and non-corrective recasts, respectively, in first language acquisition studies

(Farrar 1990, 1992). The role of corrective and non-corrective recasts in language
acquisition has been extensively studied in first language acquisition (e.g. Baker
& Nelson 1984; Bohannon & Stanowicz 1988; Farrar 1990, 1992), and recently
there have been a growing number of studies in second language acquisition as
well (e.g. Oliver 1995; Rabie 1996b; Richardson 1995; Yamaguchi 1994). The
findings of these recent studies in second language acquisition show that native
speakers provide recasts (both corrective and non-corrective), and that non-native
speakers respond to these recasts. A possible role of recasts in language learning
has been demonstrated, compared with other interactional moves such as
modeling and explicit correction, in the studies by Inagaki and Long (this
volume); Ortega and Long (1995), Mito (1993) and Rabie (1996b).
In practicing with other NNSs, many teachers and learners are concerned
about the effect of the errors which NNSs make in group work, but the occur-
rence of Type 2 CCs shows that learners are able to detect and correct errors in
their partners’ utterances. This supports the findings of the study by Gass and
Varonis (1989) that learners were able to give each other corrective feedback.
The findings of Pica et al.’s study (1996) also show that learners provided
feedback segmentation, and that their segmented utterances contained consider-
able amounts of L2 morphosyntax. It was suggested that this feedback might also
have served as a source of useful L2 input.
5. Conclusion
The major focus of the present study was on whether learners produce modified
output in NNS-NNS interaction in a foreign language situation. The question of
whether task types and types of interactional moves influence these aspects was
also investigated. The principal findings are as follows:
1. Learners were able to give feedback to other learners and also to attend to
the feedback given by other learners and to modify their output accordingly.
2. Task types had more influence on the opportunity for modified output and on
the actual production of modified output than did types of interactional moves.
The present study describes how learner-learner interaction occurs in Japanese, and
the results support the findings of earlier studies of negotiation in NNS-NNS dyads,
including the recent study by Pica et al. (1996). As in NS-NNS interaction where
NSs modify their speech in response to NNSs’ signals of non-understanding,
speakers/learners in NNS-NNS dyads are able to indicate difficulty in under-
standing their interlocutors’ speech and to modify the speech that had caused the
communication breakdown. Through negotiation of meaning, learners not only
obtained opportunities to receive comprehensible input, but also to modify their
output. In this NNS-NNS interaction, speakers/learners who modified their output
provided comprehensible input to their interlocutors.
As the results show, one-way tasks have been found to have certain advan-
tages in providing opportunities for modified output and actual production of
modified output. The interaction pattern in one-way tasks revealed that partici-
pants tried hard to find out every detail needed to draw a picture, especially on
the semantic level, and made one-word confirmation checks frequently. Many
responses to these one-word CCs involve simple recognition with ‘yes’. Though
the number is small, learners still did modify their output in response to these
one-word CCs. In addition, through Types 2 and 3 confirmation checks, learners
were able to identify their partners’ ungrammatical utterances and to modify or
expand them.
Pica et al. (1996) suggest that learners’ interaction provides quantitatively
rich data for L2 learning compared with interaction with NS. Learners are quite
effective in providing feedback through segmentation. Recent studies (Mackey
1995 and La Pierre, cited in Swain 1995, 1998) investigating the relationship
between modified output and L2 learning have pointed toward the positive effect
of output on learning, but the results are not yet conclusive. Further research is
required involving other interactional moves and using more than one type of
task. As a further step, it is also necessary to examine whether modification in
learner-learner interaction will lead to long-term improvements and advances in
L2 knowledge and use.
Acknowledgments
This is a revised version of a paper delivered at the Second Language Research forum (McGill
University, October 1994) based on the author’s M. A. thesis (Iwashita 1993) completed at the
University of Melbourne. I wish to thank Prof. Tim McNamara for guidance throughout and also
Joanna Tapper and Neomy Storch for valuable comments and advice.
Notes
1. Foreign language situation means a setting where the target language (e.g. Japanese) is not
spoken in the surrounding environment.
48 NORIKO IWASHITA
2. When the present study was conducted (Iwashita 1993), most of the studies cited above, except
Loschky (1989), had not appeared.
3. See Locastro (1987) and Maynard (1989).
4. This point was made by an anonymous reviewer.
5. In the present study only two interactional moves (CC and CR) were examined. However, as
Parker and Chaudron (1987) note in presenting their extensive list of interactional moves, if a
wider range of moves had been included in the analysis, the results might have been different.
In the two-way task, the occurrence of CR and CC was as frequent as in the one-way tasks, but
if other interactional moves had been included, the result might not have been the same as the
one with analysis with CR and CC. In this regard, the analysis of the data using only CC and CR
has some limitations, and it is hard to claim the superiority of one-way tasks over two-way tasks.
Appendix I
Proficiency of learners
Test Result
Subject Proficiency Japanese Exposure Written (%) Aural (%) Oral (%)
(in Japan)
L1 Low — 62.0 065.0 068.0
L2 Low — 58.0 045.0 066.0
L3 Low — 60.8 045.0 068.0
L4 Low — 61.8 040.0 068.0
L5 Low — 70.0 020.0 060.0
L6 Low — 51.8 020.0 060.0
L7 Low — 58.7 040.0 070.0
L8 Low — 68.0 070.0 070.0
H1 High 6 weeks 87.0 080.0 100.0
H2 High 1 year 92.0 095.0 100.0
H3 High 6 weeks 90.4 100.0 100.0
H4 High — 96.0 085.0 100.0
H5 High 1 year 82.0 095.0 100.0
H6 High 1 year 93.0 085.0 100.0
H7 High 1 year 94.0 100.0 098.0
H8 High 1 year 89.0 090.0 098.0
HL1 Low — 63.0 000.0 060.0
HL2 High — 89.0 075.0 084.0
HL3 Low — 58.0 035.0 050.0
HL4 High 3 months 90.0 100.0 086.0
HL5 Low — 68.9 025.0 066.0
HL6 High 6 weeks 88.0 075.0 087.0
HL7 High 1 year 80.0 090.0 097.0
HL8 Low — 63.0 055.0 063.0
Appendix II
Details of the results

Hypothesis 1: One-way tasks will provide more opportunities for interlocutors to produce modified
output than two-way tasks.
Table 7. Requests in c-units which provided interlocutors opportunities to produce modified output in
one-way and two-way tasks
Two-way One-way Total
n % n % n
All (n = 24)
Other units 923 84.6 561.0 77.0 1484.0
CC and CR 170 15.6 167.5 23.0 0337.5
Hypothesis 2: The proportion of clarification requests to confirmation requests will be higher in one-
way tasks than in two-way tasks.
Table 8. Proportion of CR to CC in Two-way and One-way tasks
n % n % n
All (n = 24)
Confirmation check (CC) 126 74.1 143.5 85.7 269.5
Clarification request (CR) 044 25.9 024.0 14.3 068.0
Hypothesis 3: There will be more opportunities in one-way tasks for interlocutors to modify their
interlanguage than in two-way tasks.
Table 9. Production of modified output in one-way and two-way tasks
n % n % n
All (n = 24)
Modified output 019 11.5 033 20.1 052
Other responses 146 88.5 131 79.9 377
Hypothesis 4: Clarification requests will give more opportunities for interlocutors to modify their
interlanguage than will confirmation checks.
Table 10. Production of modified output in relation to CC and CR
CC CR Total
n % n % n
All (n = 24)
Modified output 69 16.1 19 20.4 88
Other responses 359 83.9 74 79.6 433
50 NORIKO IWASHITA
References
Baker, N. D. and K. E. Nelson. 1984. “Recasting and Related Conversational Techniques

for Triggering Syntactic Advances by Young Children.” First Language 5: 3–22.
Bohannon, J. N. and L. Stanowicz. 1988. “The Issue of Negative Evidence: Adult
responses to children’s language errors.” Developmental Psychology 24: 684–689.
Brown, G. and G. Yule. 1983. Teaching the Spoken Language: An approach based on the
analysis of conversational English. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Crookes, G. and K. Rulon. 1988. “Topic and Feedback in Native-speaker/Non-native
Speaker Conversation.” TESOL Quarterly 22: 675–681.
Doughty, C. and T. Pica. 1986. “Information Gap Tasks: Do they facilitate second
language acquisition?.” TESOL Quarterly 20: 305–325.
Farrar, M. J. 1990. “Discourse and the Acquisition of Grammatical Morphemes.” Journal
of Child Languages 17: 607–624.
———. 1992. “Negative Evidence and Grammatical Morpheme Acquisition.” Develop-
mental Psychology 28: 90–98.
Gass, S. and E. M. Varonis. 1985. “Task Variation and Non-native/Non-native Negotiation
of Meaning.” In S. Gass and C. Madden (eds.), Input in Second Language Acquisi-
tion. Rowley, MA: Newbury House, 149–161.
———. 1989. “Incorporated Repairs in Nonnative Discourse.” In M. Eisenstein (ed.), The
Dynamic Interlanguage. New York: Plenum Press, 71–86.
Inagaki, S. and M. H. Long. 1999. “The Effects of Implicit Negative Feedback on the
Acquisition of Japanese as a Second Language.” This volume.
Iwashita, N. 1993. “Comprehensible Output in NNS-NNS Interaction in Japanese as a
Foreign Language.” Unpublished Master’s thesis, Department of Applied Linguistics
and Language Studies, University of Melbourne, Melbourne.
Linnell, J. 1996. “Can Negotiation Provide a Context for Learning Syntax in a Second
Language?.” Working Papers in Educational Linguistics 12: 83–102.
Locastro, V. 1987. “Aizuchi: A Japanese conversational routine.” In L. Smith (ed.),
Discourse across Cultures. London: Prentice Hall, 101–113.
Long, M. H. 1990. “Task, Group, and Task-group Interactions.” In S. Anivan (ed.),
Language Teaching Methodology for the Nineties. Singapore: RELC, 31–50.
Long, M. H. and P. A. Porter. 1985. “Group Work, Interlanguage Talk, and Second
Language Acquisition.” TESOL Quarterly 19: 207–228.
Long, M. H. and C. J. Sato. 1983. “Classroom Foreigner Talk Discourse: Forms and
functions of teacher’s questions.” In H. W. Seliger and M. H. Long (eds.), Classroom
Oriented Research. Rowley, MA: Newbury House, 268–285.
Loschky, L. 1989. “The Effects of Negotiated Interaction and Premodified Input on
Second Language Comprehension and Retention.” Occasional Paper 16, University
of Hawai‘i at Manoa, Department of English as a Second Language.
———. 1994. “Comprehension and Second Language Acquisition: What is the relation-
ship?” Studies in Second Language Acquisition 16: 303–323.
Loschky, L. and R. Bley-Vroman. 1993. “Grammar and Task-based Methodology.” In G.

Crookes and S. Gass (eds.), Tasks and Language Learning: Integrating Theory and
Practice. Philadelphia: Multilingual Matters, 123–167.
Mackey, A. 1995. “Setting up the Pace: Input, interaction and interlanguage development
— an empirical study of questions in ESL.” Unpublished Ph. D. Thesis. University
of Sydney, Sydney.
Maynard, S. 1989. Japanese Conversation: Self-contextualization through structured and
interactional management. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Mito, K. 1993. “The Effects of Modeling and Recasting on the Acquisition of L2
Grammar Rules.” Unpublished Manuscript, University of Hawai‘i at Manoa.
Ohta, A. S. 1995. “Theoretical Issues in Examining Learner-learner Interaction.” Issues in
Applied Linguistics 6: 94–121.
Oliver, R. 1995. “Negative Feedback in Child NS/NNS Conversation.” Studies in Second
Language Acquisition 17: 459–482.
Ortega, L. & M. Long. 1995. “The Effects of Models and Recasts in the Acquisition of
Object Topicalisation and Adverb Placement in L2 Spanish.” Paper presented at the
First Conference on the Acquisition of Spanish as a First and Second Language,
Pennsylvania State University, October 14.
Parker, K. and C. Chaudron. 1987. “The Effects of Linguistic Simplification and
Elaborative Modifications on L2 Comprehension.” University of Hawai‘i Working
Papers in English as a Second Language 11: 107–133.
Pica, T. 1994. “Research on Negotiation: What does it reveal about second-language
learning condition, processes, and outcomes?.” Language Learning 44: 493–527.
Pica, T. and C. Doughty. 1985a. “The Role of Classroom Second Language Acquisition.”
———. 1985b. “Input and Interaction in the Communicative Language classroom: A
comparison of teacher-fronted and group activities.” In S. Gass and C. Madden
(eds.), Input in Second Language Acquisition. Rowley, MA: Newbury House,
115–132.
Pica, T., L. Holliday, N. Lewis and L. Morgenthaler. 1989. “Comprehensible Output as
an Outcome of Linguistic Demands on the Learner.” Studies in Second Language
Acquisition 11: 63–90.
Pica, T., R. Kanagy and J. Falodun. 1993. “Choosing and Using Communication Tasks
for Second Language Instruction and Research.” In G. Crookes and S. Gass (eds.),
Tasks and Language Learning: Integrating theory and practice. Philadelphia:
Multilingual Matters, 9–34.
Pica, T., F. Lincoln-Porter, D. Paninos and J. Linnell. 1996. “Language Learners’
Interaction: How does it address the input, output and feedback needs of L2
learners?” TESOL Quarterly 30: 59–83.
Pica, T., R. Young and C. Doughty. 1987. “The Impact of Interaction on Comprehen-
sion.” TESOL Quarterly 21: 737–758.
52 NORIKO IWASHITA
Porter, P. A. 1986. “How Learners Talk to Each Other: Input and interaction in task-
centered discussions.” In R. Day (ed.), Talking to Learn: Conversation in second
language acquisition. Rowley, MA: Newbury House Publishers, 201–222.
Rabie, S. R. 1996a. “Negative Feedback, Modeling, and Vocabulary Acquisition in Task-
based Interaction.” Unpublished Master’s Thesis, University of Hawai‘i at Manoa.
———. 1996b. “A Study of NS/NNS Interaction as Part of a Language Learning
Program.” Unpublished Manuscript, University of Hawai‘i at Manoa.
Richardson, M. A. 1995. “The Use of Negative Evidence in Second Language Acquisition
of Grammatical Morphemes.” Unpublished Master’s Thesis in Education, University
of Western Australia.
Roberts, M. A. 1996. “Awareness and the Efficacy of Error Correction.” In R. Schmidt
(ed.), Attention and Awareness in Foreign Language Learning (Technical Report #9).
Honolulu: University of Hawai‘i, Second Language Teaching & Curriculum Center,
163–182.
Rulon, K. and J. McCreary. 1986. ‘Negotiation of Content: Teacher-fronted and small
group interaction.’ In R. Day (ed.), Talking to Learn: Conversation in Second
language Acquisition. Rowley, Mass: Newbury House.
Shortreed, I. M. 1993. “Variation in Foreigner Talk Input: The effects of task and
proficiency.” In G. Crookes and S. Gass (eds.), Tasks and Language Learning:
Integrating Theory and Practice. Philadelphia: Multilingual Matters, 96–122.
Swain, M. 1985. “Communicative Competence: Some roles of comprehensible input and
comprehensible output in its development.” In S. Gass and C. Madden (eds.), Input
in Second Language Acquisition. Rowly, MA: Newbury House, 235–253.
———. 1995. “Three Functions of Output in Second Language Learning.” In G. Cook
and B. Seidhofer (eds.), For H. G. Widdowson: Principles and practice in the study of
language: A Festschrift on the Occasion of His 60th Birthday. Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 125–144.
———. 1998. “Focus on form through conscious reflection.” In C. Doughty and J.
Williams (eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 64–81.
Varonis, E. M. and S. Gass. 1985. “Non-native/Non-native Conversations: A model for
negotiation of meaning.” Applied Linguistics 6: 71–90.
Yamaguchi, Y. 1994. “Negative Evidence and Japanese as a Foreign Language Acquisi-
tion.” Unpublished Manuscript, The University of Western Australia.
Yule, G. 1992. “The Variable effects of Some Task-based Learning Procedures on L2
Communicative Effectiveness.” Language Learning 42: 249–277.
Yule, G. and D. McDonald. 1990. “Resolving Referential Conflicts in L2 Interaction: The
effect of proficiency and interactive role.” Language Learning 40: 539–556.
C 4
SPOT
A Test Measuring “Control” Exercised
by Learners of Japanese
Junko Ford-Niwa Noriko Kobayashi

Josai International University University of Tsukuba
1. Introduction
When organizing a language course, it is necessary to determine the general

language proficiency level of the students and place them in the appropriate
class. Japanese universities, language schools, and other educational institutions
serving foreign students have therefore developed or adapted a variety of tests
for this purpose. The present authors’ experience has shown, however, that in
situations where it is necessary to quickly and efficiently evaluate large numbers
of incoming students, or where the placement exam must be administered
repeatedly for smaller groups of students, the administration and/or scoring of
these tests often demand inordinate amounts of time and energy.1 SPOT (Simple
Performance-Oriented Test) was thus conceived to meet the need for an examina-
tion that allows learners at various levels to be placed simply, swiftly and
accurately (see Ford-Niwa, et al. 1995; Kobayashi, et al. 1995; Kobayashi, et al.
1996; Hatasa and Tohsaku 1997).2
SPOT consists of an audio-taped recording of a native speaker reading a
series of complete sentences, to which the testee listens while reading the same
sentences in Japanese script on the answer sheet. Each sentence on the answer
sheet contains a blank which the testee must fill in based on the tape. Each blank
corresponds to a single hiragana (syllabic) character which represents all or part
of a grammatical item. (The missing item is indicated in parentheses in the
examples that follow.)
54 JUNKO FORD-NIWA & NORIKO KOBAYASHI
(1) Ano hito-wa nihon-dewa yuumee(na) hito desu-yo.

that person- Japan-in famous person is-emphatic particle
‘That person is a well-known person in Japan.’
(2) Kinoo haha-ni shik-a(ra)re-mashita.
Yesterday my.mother-by scold--Polite.
‘I was scolded by my mother yesterday.’
(3) Tonari-no hito-(ni) oshie-te morat-ta-n-desu.
next- person- explain- receive--that-is
‘I had the person next me explain it to me.’
(4) Jinkoo-ga fue-ru ni(si)tagatte,
population- increase- in.proportion.to
sumi-nikuku natte-ki-ta.
live-hard become-come-
‘The more the population increased, the harder it has become to live’
The omitted items are as follows: (1) the adjectival modifier -na; (2) the first
syllable of the passive inflection -rare-; (3) the particle ni; (4) the second
syllable of the compound particle nishitagatte.
Each test consists of 30, 60 or 65 sentences, depending on the version (see
below). There is no contextual relationship among the sentences. The sentences
on the tape are read only once, at a relatively fast natural speed, with a two-
second pause between each sentence.
Although SPOT appears similar in format to the cloze test (Oller and
Conrad 1971) and the c-test (Klein-Braley and Raatz 1984; Klein-Braley 1985),
it is distinct from both in a number of ways. The most relevant differences are
related to the use of the audio tape and the degree of contextualization. Whereas
cloze tests and c-tests do not include a listening component, the audio-taped
recording is essential to SPOT’s design. One of our primary claims is that SPOT
tests the learner’s “control” (see below, Section 3). The introduction of the
listening component is intended to ensure that the testee is working more or less
in real time, i.e., the time required for a native speaker to perform the task,
rather than resorting to retrospective grammatical analysis. Furthermore, cloze
and c-tests are integrated tests, where prediction from the context and back-
ground knowledge of the topic can play an important role. SPOT’s use of
mutually decontextualized sentences ensures that no two questions are contextual-
ly related, thereby significantly reducing the possible effect of background
knowledge of any particular topic.
SPOT is called a Simple Performance-Oriented Test because it is simple to
administer and correct. Only an answer sheet and an audio tape are required. As the
SPOT: A TEST MEASURING “CONTROL” 55
tape is not stopped during the test, the total time required, including time for giving
instructions and collecting the answer sheets, is ten to fifteen minutes. Unlike
other tests, in which a number of answers may be possible for a single question,
SPOT allows only one correct answer for each question, all already given on the
tape. Correcting the test involves merely mechanically checking a single hiragana
character in each sentence. Neither the administration nor the correcting of the
test requires a specialized knowledge of Japanese language education.
SPOT is also simple to match to the estimated level of the incoming
students. There are three main current versions of SPOT, referred to here as
Version 3 (beginners-intermediate), Version 2 (intermediate-advanced) and
Version 4 (a shortened intermediate-advanced edition).3 Each version can be used
for a wide range of students and, as each test requires only ten to fifteen
minutes, two can be used when the suitable version is in doubt. Furthermore, the
level of difficulty of each version can be easily raised by re-recording the audio
tape less clearly.
SPOT is a performance-oriented test. It is not a “performance test” per se,
as it neither comprises a “work sample” nor involves the testee in an “act of
communication” (see McNamara 1996: 6, 26). Nonetheless, as will be discussed
below (Section 3), SPOT measures aspects of what may be termed “control”, i.e.,
“the productive and receptive control possessed by the language user over the
knowledge he or she has of various aspects of the linguistic system” (Sharwood
Smith 1994: 15). As it is this “control” that enables the possessor of linguistic
knowledge to perform in a real-life setting, it is appropriate to consider SPOT
performance oriented.
2. The accuracy of SPOT
The accuracy of SPOT as a placement test was determined based upon the test’s
statistical reliability, its ability to discriminate between learners at different
levels, and its correlation with other, more conventional evaluations having
reasonable claims to accuracy. The data for this section are derived from trials
by the present authors at the University of Tsukuba4 and from independent
studies by Y. Hatasa and Y. Tohsaku at the University of Iowa (Hatasa and
Tohsaku 1997)5 and the University of California at San Diego (Hatasa and
Tohsaku 1997),6 respectively, and by R. Spence-Brown at Monash University
(Spence-Brown 1996).7
2.1 The statistical reliability of SPOT
The reliability of SPOT, administered at the University of Tsukuba (UT) in fall

1991 (Version 2) and spring 1994 (Version 3) and at the University of Iowa (UI)
in 1995 (Versions 3 & 2), was calculated using Kuder-Richardson Formula 20.
At UT, Version 3 (n = 85) and Version 2 (n = 137) were administered to all
students with previous Japanese language experience. At UI, Version 3 (n = 61)
was used for first and second-year students and Version 2 (n = 20) for third and
fourth-year students (Hatasa and Tohsaku 1997). The reliability estimates for
both versions were high in both cases (see Table 1).
Table 1. Reliability of SPOT

Version Reliability
Version 3 0.95 (UT)
0.95 (UI)
Version 2 0.95 (UT)
0.96 (UI)
Table 2. Mean score and standard deviation on SPOT (Version 3) & UT Placement Test at
UI (Hatasa and Tohsaku 1997): 1st year (n = 42) and 2nd year (n = 19) students
SPOT Placement Test Grammar Listening Reading
(no. of questions) 60 82 30 28 24
1st Year Mean 14.19 (23.7%) 19.43 (23.7%) 07.95 09.38 2.97
SD 09.27 05.98 03.36 02.95 2.39
2nd Year Mean 39.47 (65.8%) 28.84 (35.2%) 14.42 11.47 2.95
SD 09.44 06.52 03.70 03.10 1.96
Table 3. Mean score and standard deviation on SPOT (Version 2) & UT Placement Test at
UI (Hatasa and Tohsaku 1997): 3rd year (n = 15) and 4th year (n = 5) students
SPOT Placement Test Grammar Listening Reading
(no. of questions) 65 112 60 28 24
3rd Year Mean 26.07 (40.1%) 45.93 (41.0%) 25.67 12.71 08.40
SD 13.31 16.45 08.19 05.48 04.67
4th Year Mean 44.00 (67.7%) 81.40 (72.7%) 42.20 21.80 17.40
SD 04.94 09.66 07.05 02.86 02.79
2.2 Ability to discriminate between learners at various levels
SPOT has been shown to be successful in discriminating among levels (Tables

2 and 3). In the study carried out at UI, Version 2 was shown to discriminate
well between third and fourth-year students. Version 3 also discriminated well
between first and second-year students, with only minimal overlap between the
two test groups (Hatasa and Tohsaku 1997). As will be discussed below (Section
2.3.1), the UT Placement Test (without the vocabulary-script section) was also
administered to the participants in the UI study. The statistics for the UT
Placement Test and its individual sections are included in Tables 2 and 3 above
for comparison.
2.3 Correlation of SPOT with other evaluations
2.3.1 Correlation with the UT Placement Test

The UT Placement Test referred to in this study consists of four sections testing
listening comprehension (28 questions), reading comprehension (24 questions),
grammar (part 1: 30 questions; part 2: 30 additional questions for advanced
students), and vocabulary and script (16 questions). All of the questions are in a
multiple-choice format. (SPOT [Version 4] was added to the exam in 1994, but
is of course treated as a distinct test in the context of the present study.) The
correlation between the current versions of SPOT and the UT Placement Test
was calculated using Spearman’s Rank Correlation for groups of students at UT
and UI. In the UI study (see above, Section 2.2), the second part of the grammar
section of the UT Placement Test was used only for third- and fourth-year
students, and the vocabulary-script section was omitted entirely. The results are
presented in Table 4.
SPOT scores for all the versions showed strong correlations with the total
scores of the UT Placement Test, suggesting that SPOT is able to place students
more or less as accurately as the latter exam. For the first and second-year
students at UI, however, SPOT (Version 3) scores did not correlate with the
scores on the reading section of the UT Placement Test. Hatasa and Tohsaku
(1997) attribute this to the fact that hiragana superscripts had been added to the
SPOT test at UI and that items in the SPOT test did not form a discourse.
We attribute considerable importance to the correlation of SPOT with the
UT Placement Test. Although it can be shown that the UT Placement Test
referred to in this study is statistically reliable,8 we have not, as yet, attempted
to demonstrate the test’s “validity” as outlined by Bachman (1990: 238). We can,
however, confirm its empirical accuracy: over the past decade the test has
Table 4. Correlation between SPOT and the UT Placement Test

Placement Grammar Listening Reading Vocabulary
Test
Version 3 (UT, n = 85) 0.82 0.73 0.67 0.76 0.69
Version 3 (UI, n = 61) 0.73 0.78 0.43 0.05 NA
Version 2 (UT, n = 137) 0.82 0.81 0.75 0.69 0.61
Version 2 (UI, n = 20) 0.92 0.77 0.61 0.48 NA
Version 4 (UT, n = 133) 0.79 0.79 0.80 0.61 0.49
Version 4 (UT, n = 127) 0.91 0.86 0.78 0.84 0.78
Version 4 (UT, n = 142) 0.83 0.76 0.60 0.81 0.73
Version 4 (UT, n = 141) 0.84 0.82 0.77 NA 0.70
successfully placed the vast majority of the students who studied Japanese as a
foreign language at the University of Tsukuba. The aim of SPOT is to provide
an economical means of achieving equivalent results.
2.3.2 Correlation with an evaluation of speaking ability

SPOT was administered to undergraduate students at the University of California
at San Diego (UCSD), who had been ranked by their instructor on the basis of
Japanese oral communicative ability. Version 3 was used for first- and second-
year students and Version 2 for third- and fourth-year students. The SPOT scores
were then compared with the rankings using Spearman’s Rank Correlation.
Significant correlations were found in all sections (Hatasa and Tohsaku 1997)
(see Table 5).
2.3.3 Correlation with achievement assessments

SPOT (Version 3) was administered to lower intermediate level students (n = 102)
at Monash University (MU). The mean score was 28.6 (47.6%) and the standard
Table 5. Rank correlation between SPOT scores and evaluations of speaking ability at
UCSD (Hatasa and Tohsaku 1997)
Course Ranking Correlation9
1st Year (Version 3, n = 42) 0.825* – 1.000*
2nd Year (Version 3, n = 19) 0.887* – 0.953*
3rd Year (Version 2, n = 15) 0.770*
4th Year (Version 2, n = 5) 1.000*
* significant at 0.01 level
deviation was 10.0 (Spence-Brown 1996: 36). The scores were subsequently
compared, using Spearman’s Rank Correlation, with the results of the various
components of the final assessment, including a speaking test (see Table 6).
The correlations are considerably less satisfactory than those for the UT
Placement Test or the UCSD speaking evaluation presented above. Spence-
Brown suggests several possible explanations for the poor correlation, namely,
the effect of the Monash tests being achievement tests, the possibility that SPOT
was above the level of competency of the students, and that SPOT and the
Monash tests measure different things (see Spence-Brown 1996: 37). It may be
pointed out, nonetheless, that the standard deviation of the SPOT scores at MU
was similar to that at UI and, assuming that the Monash students progress at the
same rate as the students at UI, there is reason to believe that SPOT would have
succeeded in discriminating between students at the lower intermediate level and
those at the next level, had the test been administered to both groups.
3. The theoretical basis of SPOT
3.1 Knowledge/Control distinction in second language acquisition (SLA) theory
A recent development in SLA theory, when referring to the components that

underlie the actual use of language, has been to make a distinction between
linguistic knowledge and the ability to process and apply that knowledge (for a
survey of the various theories and models see McNamara 1996: 48–90). In
particular, Bialystok and Sharwood Smith (1985: 101) speak of “linguistic
knowledge and the learner’s control of that knowledge in the real-time processing
of utterances” [emphasis in original], the latter later defined by Sharwood Smith
(1994: 15) as “the productive and receptive control possessed by the language
user over the knowledge he or she has of various aspects of the linguistic
Table 6. Rank correlation between SPOT scores and components of the formal assessment
for MU lower intermediate level students (Spence-Brown 1996: 37)
Component Correlation
Listening Test 0.55 (p < .001)
Final Written Test 0.51 (p < .001)
Final Grade 0.51 (p < .001)
Speaking Test 0.33 (p < .001)
Visitor Session No correlation
system.” The reality of this dichotomy may be illustrated by the extreme case of
the learner whose speech is fluent, but filled with non-native grammatical
constructions, i.e., control without adequate knowledge, or whose speech is
grammatically correct, but too slow and halting to allow him or her to communi-
cate effectively, i.e., knowledge without adequate control (Bialystok and
Sharwood Smith 1985: 109).
“Control”, i.e., the ability to process linguistic information, may further be
analyzed into two modes, viz., controlled processing, which necessitates the
attention of the language user, and automatic processing, which proceeds without
deliberate awareness (see Shiffrin and Schneider 1977; McLaughlin, et al. 1983;
McLaughlin 1987; Sharwood Smith 1994: 113–116). Automatic processing,
quantified as “automaticity”, is used by the native speaker to process basic
linguistic information, such as grammar and basic vocabulary, quickly and
efficiently. It is the development of automatic processing, in particular, which
enables the language learner to comprehend and use the language within the
bounds of his or her linguistic knowledge at the speed of a native speaker.
3.2 Language processing model in SPOT
SPOT requires the testee to automatically process complete sentences. A model

of the answering process is illustrated in Figure 1 (cf. Ford-Niwa 1997: 28–29).
The knowledge required at each stage is considered to be (a) phonological,
(b) orthographic, and (c)/(d) lexico-grammatical and semantic. Based on native
speaker trials, it takes about two seconds for a native speaker to process all the
information and complete the procedure. As there is only a two-second pause
between each sentence, the testee must process the available information with
automaticity and without reflection or second thought at more or less the speed
at which a native speaker would perform the task, i.e., at or near real-time speed.
Figure 1. Language processing model in SPOT

Native speakers of Japanese perform all the steps. Learners of Japanese,

however, seem to follow these steps selectively. We have found through
observation during the administration of SPOT and informal, post-test interviews
that the steps the testee follows tend to be related to his or her score on the test.
High scorers often fully understand the sentence and are able to complete the
entire process. However, they sometimes score additional points, by going from
(a)/(b) to (e) without fully completing steps (c) and (d), i.e., without
understanding part or all of the sentence, including the grammatical item in
question. Low scorers, on the other hand, apparently tend to score a greater
percentage of their few points by passing from (a)/(b) to (e) without fully
completing steps (c) and (d), or sometimes by ignoring the tape, i.e., step (a),
and concentrating on reading the sentences on the answer sheet. Nevertheless,
they, too, are occasionally able to complete the entire process when the sentence
is sufficiently easy.
3.3 What SPOT measures: taped vs. experimental no-tape version
As explained in the introduction, SPOT test takers are required to fill in each
blank with a single hiragana (syllabic) character representing all or part of a
grammatical item. With the exception of the missing syllable, the sentences on
the answer sheet are identical to those on the tape. The listening component, i.e.,
the tape, is an essential element of SPOT. Its function is to force the testee to
work in “real-time” in order to answer correctly. In order to examine the effect
of this component on testees at various proficiency levels, we decided to
experiment with a version of SPOT without the tape, hereafter referred to as the
“no-tape version”. This experimental version was then not unlike a conventional
test of grammar. The experiment was conducted at the University of Tsukuba
(UT) in 1993 (cf. Ford-Niwa et al. 1995).
3.3.1 Subjects and trial procedure

The no-tape version of SPOT was administered to 109 students who had taken
the identical test with the tape (SPOT Version 4) one to two weeks earlier as
part of the UT Placement Test. The testees were given answer sheets and told
that they could take as much time as they required to fill in the blanks. The time
each testee used to complete the test was recorded. Approximately forty-five
percent of the testees were speakers of Chinese, twenty percent speakers of
Korean and thirty-five percent speakers of other languages from the Americas,
Asia, Europe and Oceania. Their previous Japanese language studies varied in
length from one month to up to several years.
As explained in the introduction, in the normal (taped) version of SPOT only one
correct answer is possible for each blank. In the no-tape version, however, more
than one correct answer was sometimes possible. The possible (i.e.,
grammatically correct) answers to the no-tape version were therefore divided into
three categories: (i) answers that were given in the taped version; (ii) alternative
answers that fit the original context of the sentences; (iii) answers deemed
possible in alternate contextualizations, often involving a usage less likely to be
intentionally envisaged by a learner of Japanese. Three scores were then
calculated for each of the no-tape version exams: (I) the number of correct
answers according to the first category; (II) the number of correct answers
according to either of the first two categories; (III) the number of correct answers
according to any of the three categories.
3.3.2 Results and discussion

The testees were ranked according to their score on the normal version of SPOT
and two groups, comprising the upper twenty-fifth percentile and the lowest
twenty-fifth percentile, respectively, were chosen for comparative analysis. Table
7 shows the mean scores and the standard deviations of the scores on SPOT and
the no-tape version for the two groups.
A t-test was performed in order to determine the significance of the
difference between the SPOT scores and each of the no-tape version scores for
each group. The results are presented in Table 8.
As may be seen in Tables 7 and 8, the high-scoring group scored slightly
lower on the no-tape version, although the difference was not statistically
significant. The low-scoring group, on the other hand, scored much higher on the
no-tape version, and a statistically significant difference could be discerned.
Multiple comparison (Duncan) confirms this conclusion.
The actual test time for SPOT Version 4 is 2.05 minutes. Table 9 shows the
average time spent by the members of each group to complete the no-tape version.
As suggested above, the no-tape version, with unlimited time for completion,
resembled a conventional grammar test. This is all the more so as the vocabulary
used in the test, as in all versions of SPOT, was simplified as much as possible
and the pronunciation of all the kanji was indicated in order to focus the difficulty
on the relevant grammatical item. It would thus seem legitimate to conclude that,
for the most part at least, the test measured grammatical knowledge.
The presence of the tape had the effect of significantly reducing the scores
of the members of the low scoring group, even though in theory at least it
supplied them with the correct answers. Members of this group, who were not
able to process the sentences “automatically”, were forced by the tape to work at
Table 7. Mean score and SD on SPOT and the no-tape version

SPOT No-Tape Version
Group Type of Score Mean SD Mean SD
high-scoring I 25.19 (84.0%) 3.37 23.30 (77.7%) 3.99

(n = 27) II NA 23.93 (79.8%) 3.90
III NA 24.52 (81.7%) 3.82
low-scoring I 05.78 (19.3%) 2.39 08.11 (27.0%) 3.46
(n = 27) II NA 08.85 (29.5%) 3.60
III NA 10.37 (34.6%) 3.41
Table 8. Results of t Test

SPOT No-Tape
Group Compared Score Mean Mean df t value p value
high-scoring SPOT vs. No-Tape I 25.19 23.30 52 −1.88 .066

SPOT vs. No-Tape II 25.19 23.93 52 −1.27 .210
SPOT vs. No-Tape III 25.19 24.52 52 −0.68 .500
low-scoring SPOT vs. No-Tape I 5.78 08.11 52 −2.88 .006**
SPOT vs. No-Tape II 5.78 08.85 52 −3.69 .000***
SPOT vs. No-Tape III 5.78 10.37 52 −5.73 .000***
*** significant at 0.001 level
** significant at 0.01 level
* significant at 0.05 level
Table 9. Time required to complete no-tape version

Group Minutes SD
high-scoring 07.48 3.59
low-scoring 15.19 2.00
a speed generally above their “control” ability. When given a sufficient amount
of time, seven times the time of the normal SPOT test (and twice the time
required by the high-scoring group), they were able to score points by using
whatever linguistic knowledge they might have had; however, they did not yet
have much control.
The tape had the opposite effect on the scores of the members of the high-
scoring group. In spite of the fact that the members of this group had, in effect,
only one-third the time to complete the normal taped version and that only one
correct answer was possible for each question, they still fared slightly (although
statistically insignificantly) better with the tape. This would indicate that the tape
did not pose a hindrance to the members of the high scoring group — that is, their
ability to process language in real-time enabled them to exploit the information
contained on the tape at a level closer to that of their grammatical knowledge.
4. Conclusion
We have attempted to demonstrate that SPOT provides an accurate means of

placing learners of Japanese by measuring “control” and, particularly “automatic-
ity”. Placement tests have traditionally tested various components of linguistic
knowledge. Since control and knowledge develop at different rates in different
individuals, there is no fixed equation that can automatically translate SPOT scores
into indications of linguistic knowledge. “Control”, however, implies control of
something–here the various elements involved in processing the sentence, particu-
larly, phonological and grammatical knowledge. The general correlation between
the mean scores of both the low scoring group and the high scoring group on
SPOT and on the no-tape version indicates that they are not completely indepen-
dent. Moreover, as McLaughlin et al. (1983: 148–149) point out, automaticity is
characteristic of advanced learners and native speakers. Finally, most language
programs, including the one where SPOT was developed, purport to teach both
grammatical knowledge and language skills, i.e., control. It is the combination of
these factors that makes SPOT effective as a placement test.
As mentioned above (section 3.2), testees who found the tape too difficult
sometimes attempted to answer questions by ignoring the tape and concentrating
on the written sentences. As time was limited, they seldom succeeded in scoring
many points. In principle, one could envisage a testee who could read and
translate with the speed of a native speaker but had little or no listening (and
speaking) ability. Having successfully completed the test by relying solely on
reading skills, such a testee would be placed in an advanced class where he or
she would be unable to participate. In reality, however, such learners are rare.
Rapid reading, at the speed required by this test, is an active activity; the
anticipation and processing of the various grammatical constructions in the
sentence require considerable “control”, which is difficult to acquire
independently of listening and speaking ability. However, further research could
be profitably directed to the analysis of SPOT and no-tape version scores for
groups of learners who studied in programs which stressed speaking and listening
skills versus programs that emphasize translation and reading.

A final point to consider is the “authenticity” of SPOT. Authenticity is
defined as “the degree of correspondence of the characteristics of a given
language test task to the features of a TLU [target language use] task” (Bachman
and Palmer 1996: 23). The question of authenticity in test design has recently
become a primary concern of researchers involved in testing. Bachman and
Palmer mention two reasons for its importance. First, authenticity “relates the test
task to the domain … to which we want our score interpretations to generalize.”
Second, it is important because of “its potential on test takers’ perceptions of the
test and, hence, on their performance” (Bachman and Palmer 1996: 23–24).
It is possible to find tasks that are similar, if not identical, to the one required
by SPOT in situations such as academic lectures, where students must read and
take notes while listening to the explanation of the instructor. But even given that
SPOT is not as “authentic” as many other tests in terms of simulating real-life
activities, the underlying skill measured by the test, i.e., automatic control of the
various components of the language, comprises an essential part of the basis of
language use and, as Spence-Brown (1997) points out, can be considered as
“process authenticity”.10 Moreover, while filling in a blank with a grammatical
item might seem at first glance to be far removed from every-day language use,
native-speakers, in fact, unconsciously perform precisely this task, usually even
when speaking or listening to the language in a “controlled processing” mode.
Nonetheless, the format of SPOT does tend to have a negative influence on
the test takers’ perception of the exam. As SPOT is normally administered at UT
as part of a broader battery of tests (i.e., the UT Placement Test), we normally
do not have to deal with negative reactions on the part of the testees. On one
occasion, however, when we did not have time for the full placement test and
administered SPOT alone, students with low scores complained that the test did
not allow them to exhibit their language ability and claimed that a translation test,
to which they had been accustomed, should have been used. (Students with high
scores, on the other hand, said that although they found the test peculiar, they
believed it to reflect their general Japanese language ability.) A post-test survey at
MU by Spence-Brown also indicated a generally negative reaction to the test and
a lack of understanding by the testees as to what was being assessed (Spence-
Brown 1996: 40–41). Perhaps explaining what SPOT is intended to measure
would help mitigate such negative reactions. Be that as it may, although we in
no way oppose the use of conventional placement tests, when time or means are
limited, tests such as SPOT can provide a practical and reliable solution.
Acknowledgments
We would like to take this opportunity to thank Yukiko Abe Hatasa, Yasu-Hiko Tohsaku, Robyn
Spence-Brown, Takako Sakai, Fuzhi Yuan and Hilofumi Yamamoto, without whose collaboration this
paper would not have been possible. We would also like to gratefully acknowledge our debt to the
(anonymous) reviewers for their many thoughtful insights and comments. And finally, we wish to
express our appreciation to Matthew M. Hanley and Michael P. Critchley for improving our English
grammar and style.
This research was supported by an International Scientific Joint Research Grant from Japan’s
Ministry of Education, Science and Culture (Research Group Leader, Noriko Kobayashi, Research
Project #07044003).
Notes
1. A readily available example (for the present authors) is the University of Tsukuba (UT)
Placement Test. (We refer to this test not only because of our own familiarity with it, but
because it, or versions thereof, is currently in use in many other Japanese educational institu-
tions.) The test consists of sections testing listening comprehension, reading comprehension,
grammar, and vocabulary and script, respectively, and lasts approximately two and a half hours.
In spite of the use of a theoretically simple computer formatted answer sheet (except for the
vocabulary-script section), in reality scoring 150 tests is often a long and arduous task.
Proficiency tests are also sometimes used as placement tests. An example is the four-level
Nihongo Nooryoku Shiken, the Japanese-Language Proficiency Test, administered annually by
the Japan Foundation and the Association of International Education and subsequently made
available to other institutions. The exam consists of three sections testing knowledge of
Japanese characters, syllabaries and vocabulary, listening comprehension, and reading and
grammar skills. The time required to take the test varies from one hour and forty minutes at
Level Four (Novice) to three hours at Level One (Superior). Correcting the exam is likewise a
time consuming undertaking. In addition, the testers must decide in advance which of the four
levels of the exam will be the most appropriate for the incoming students; a given level cannot
accurately assess the proficiency of learners who are not at that approximate level: it is either
too difficult for those with low proficiency or too easy for those with high proficiency.
2. To the best of our knowledge, there is at present no other quickly administered Japanese
language placement test. Nor did we find a report of an equivalent English language test in
Reviews of English Language Proficiency Tests (Alderson, et al. (eds.) 1987) or in the latest
volumes of the Mental Measurements Yearbook (Kramer and Conoley 1992, Conoley and
Impara 1995), although the sheer number of English language programs around the world
would certainly not exclude such a possibility. On the distinction between SPOT and cloze tests
or c-tests, see below.
3. The grammatical items in Version 3 (60 questions) are all beginner level. In Version 2 (65
questions) and Version 4 (30 questions) two-thirds of the grammatical items are beginner level
and one-third are intermediate or advanced level. Decisions concerning the level of difficulty
of the grammatical points were based on the syllabus of the course design committee of the
Society for Teaching Japanese as a Foreign Language (1991).
4. Data collected between 1991 and 1995 are as follows: Version 2 (fall 1991); Version 3 (spring
1994); Version 4 (fall 1993 [n = 133]; spring 1994 [n = 127]; fall 1994 [n = 142]; spring 1995
[n = 141]). The prior studies on SPOT by the present authors (see bibliography) are also based
on part or all of this data. Differences in the statistics in the present study are due to
calculation errors which are corrected here or to different methods of analysis.
5. Data collected during the third week of the spring semester 1996 (Hatasa and Tohsaku 1997).
6. Data collected near the end of the academic 1994–1995 year (Hatasa and Tohsaku 1997).
7. Data collected near the end of the academic year [1995] (Spence-Brown 1996: 36).
8. Table i. Reliability estimates (Kuder-Richardson Formula 20) for UT Placement Test at UT
(1991) and UI (1995)
Placement Test Reliability
UT (all levels [n = 137], 128 questions) 0.97
UI (1st & 2nd year students [n = 61], 82 questions) 0.78
UI (3rd & 4th year students [n = 20], 112 questions) 0.93
The low reliability estimate of the placement test for the first and second-year students at UI
can be accounted for by the difficulty of the test, which is reflected in the low scores shown
in Table 2.
9. The range of correlation coefficients for the first and second-year courses is due to the multiple
class sections at these levels.
10. Spence-Brown (1997), developing ideas proposed by Bachman (1990) and Bachman and Palmer
(1996), distinguishes between the “product aspect” of authenticity (i.e., the test tasks them-
selves) and the “process aspect” of authenticity (i.e., the psychological processes, such as
language processing under time constraints) involved in the tasks.
References
Alderson, J. Charles, Karl J. Krahnke and Charles W. Stansfield (eds.). 1987. Reviews of
English Language Proficiency Tests. Washington, DC: Teachers of English to
Speakers of Other Languages.
Alderson, J. Charles and Caroline Clapham. 1992. “Applied Linguistics and Language
Testing: A case study of the ELTS test.” Applied Linguistics 13: 149–167.
Bachman, Lyle F. 1990. Fundamental Considerations in Language Testing. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Bachman, Lyle F. and Adrian S. Palmer. 1996. Language Testing in Practice. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Bialystok, Ellen and Michael Sharwood Smith. 1985. “Interlanguage is not a State of
Mind: An evaluation of the construct for second-language acquisition.” Applied
Linguistics 6: 101–117.
Canale, Michael and Merrill Swain. 1980. “Theoretical Bases of Communicative Ap-
proaches to Second Language Teaching and Testing.” Applied Linguistics 1: 1–47.
Conoley, Jane C. and James C. Impara (eds.). 1995. The Twelfth Mental Measurements
Yearbook. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press.
Ellis, Rod. 1994. The Study of Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Ford-Niwa, Junko. 1997. “Gengo unyooryoku no sokutee ni mukete: SPOT (Simple
Performance-Oriented Test) no kooseegainen datoosee ni tsuite.” Josai International
University Bulletin 5: 25–38.
Ford, Junko and Noriko Kobayashi. 1993. “Nihongo-gakushuusha ni yoru bunpoo
koomoku no shuutoku ni kansuru ichikoosatsu.” Tsukuba Daigaku Ryuugakusee
Sentaa Nihongo Kyooiku Ronsyuu 8: 185–200.
Ford-Niwa, Junko, Noriko Kobayashi and Hilofumi Yamamoto. 1995. “Nihongo nooryoku
kan’ishiken (SPOT) wa nani o sokuteeshiteiru ka: Onsee teepu yooin no kaiseki.”
Nihongo Kyooiku 86: 93–102.
———. 1996. “Bunpoo koomoku chooshu nooryoku to onsee kankyoo: SPOT (Simple
Performance-Oriented Test) no kuuran ichi ni kansuru kenkyuu.” Tsukuba Daigaku
Ryuugakusee Sentaa Nihongo Kyooiku Ronsyuu 11: 201–212.
Garrett, Nina. 1986. “The Problem with Grammar: What kind can the language learner
use?.” Modern Language Journal 70: 133–148.
Hatasa, Yukiko Abe and Yasu-Hiko Tohsaku. 1997. “SPOT as a Placement Test.” In
H. M. Cook, et al. (eds.), New Trends and Issues in Teaching Japanese language and
Culture. Honolulu: University of Hawaii, Second Language Teaching and Curricu-
lum Center, 77–98.
Hymes, D. H. 1972. “On Communicative Competence.” In J. B. Pride and J. Holmes
(eds.), Sociolinguistics: Selected Readings. Harmondsworth: Penguin, 269–293.
Klein-Braley, Christine. 1985. “A Cloze-up on the C-test: A study in the construct
validation of authentic test.” Language Testing 2: 76–104.
Klein-Braley, Christine and Ulrich Raatz. 1984. “A Survey of Research on the C-test.”
Language Testing 1: 134–146.
Kobayashi, Noriko and Junko Ford. 1992. “Bunpoo koomoku no onsee chooshu ni
kansuru kenkyuu.” Nihongo Kyooiku 78: 167–177.
Kobayashi, Noriko, Junko Ford-Niwa, and Hilofumi Yamamoto. 1995. “Nihongo
nooryoku kan’i shiken (SPOT) no tokuten bunpu keekoo: Chuukyuuu-muke to
shokyuu-muke tesuto.” Tsukuba Daigaku Ryuugakusee Sentaa Nihongo Kyooiku
Ronsyuu 10: 107–120.
———. 1996. “Nihongo nooryoku no atarashii sokuteehoo: SPOT [SPOT: A new testing
method of Japanese language proficiency].” Japanese-Language Education around
the Globe 6: 201–218.
Kramer, Jack J. and Jane C. Conoley (eds.). 1992. The Eleventh Mental Measurements
Yearbook. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press.
McNamara, Tim. 1996. Measuring Second Language Performance. London and New
York: Longman.
McLaughlin, Barry. 1987. Theories of Second-Language Learning. London: Arnold.
McLaughlin, Barry, Tammi Rossman and Beverly McLeod. 1983. “Second Language
Learning: An information-processing perspective.” Language Learning 33: 135–158.
Nunan, David. 1988. The Learner-Centered Curriculum. Cambridge: Cambridge Universi-

ty Press.
Oller, John W., Jr. and Christine A. Conrad. 1971. “The Cloze Technique and ESL
Proficiency.” Language Learning 24: 184–194.
Sharwood Smith, Michael. 1986. “Comprehension versus Acquisition: Two ways of
processing input.” Applied Linguistics 7: 239–256.
———. 1994. Second Language Learning: Theoretical Foundations. London: Harlow.
Shiffrin, Richard M. and Walter Schneider. 1977. “Controlled and Automatic Human
Information Processing: II. Perceptual learning, automatic attending, and a general
theory.” Psychological Review 84: 127–190.
Society for Teaching Japanese as a Foreign Language. 1991. Nihongo Kyooiku Kikan
niokeru Koosu Dezain. Bonjinsya: Tokyo.
Spence-Brown, Robyn. 1996. “Some Issues in the Use of the “SPOT” for Lower
Intermediate Students in an Overseas Setting: The case of Monash University.”
Nihongo Gakushuusha ni taisuru Pureesumento Tesuto toshiteno SPOT (Simple
Performance-Oriented Test) Kenkyuuseika Hookokusho (1). University of Tsukuba:
Tsukuba, 35–43.
———. 1997. “The Real World and the Language Tester: Considerations of authenticity
and interactiveness in the design and assessment of language tests.” Paper presented
at the International Conference on Testing JFL Ability: the SPOT Project and
Related Issues. Tsukuba, Japan.
C 5
Retesting a Universal
The Empty Category Principle and
Learners of (Pseudo)Japanese
Eric Kellerman Hide Takashima

John van IJzendoorn Hyogo University of Education
University of Nijmegen
1. Kanno (1996)
In an admirably clear recent paper, Kanno (1996) addresses the issue of whether
the Japanese of English-speaking adult learners shows evidence of adherence to
the Empty Category Principle (ECP), a non-parametrized component of Universal
Grammar (UG). In so doing, she joins a long line of researchers who have
investigated whether the developing grammars of adult second language learners
are constrained by UG, or whether L1 and L2 acquisition are fundamentally
different (Bley-Vroman 1989). Kanno points out that the tendency has been for
research to focus on parameters rather than invariant principles, since if a
principle appears to be at work in the L2, its presence may be argued away as
merely evidence for the principle as instantiated by the L1 (or transfer). If,
however, learners select settings of parameters in the L2 which are different
from those associated with their native languages, particularly where the settings
are unmarked, then the evidence for the availability of UG to adult learners is
strengthened. However, although the ECP is not parametrized, its application has
radically different outcomes in English and Japanese, so different in effect that
without the necessary theoretical knowledge one would not be able to perceive
any link between them.
The ECP states the conditions for proper government of empty categories. In
English, it is the ECP that determines, amongst other things, what are known as
that-trace effects, accounting for the grammaticality contrasts manifested in (1):
72 E. KELLERMAN, J. VAN IJZENDOORN & H. TAKASHIMA
(1) a. Who do you think that George saw?

b. Who do you think George saw?
c. *Who do you think that saw George?
d. Who do you think saw George?
Citing Fukuda (1993), Kanno (1996) shows that in Japanese the ECP determines
the variable omissibility of nominative and accusative case markers ga and o
attached to nouns typically functioning as subjects and objects. The rule is simple
enough. If the accusative case marker o is dropped, the resultant empty case slot
is lexically governed by the Verb in VP. This is proper government and the ECP
is satisfied. However, if the nominative case marker ga were to be omitted, the
empty category would not be properly governed, INFL not being a lexical
governor (Kanno 1996: 320). Hence ga should not be dropped.1 (See (2) below.)
(2) Hideyuki-ga hon-Ø yomi-mashita
Hideyuki book read-Polite.
‘Hideyuki read a book.’
IP
KP I′
K′ VP I
NP K V′ Pst
Hideyuki ga KP V
K′ yomimashita
NP K
hon Ø
K = Case
KP = Case phrase
(adapted from Kanno 1996)
Since Japanese does not have that-trace phenomena and English nouns are not
overtly marked for case (pronouns notwithstanding), the interesting question
Kanno poses is whether the ECP continues to be available when L1 and L2
display such radically dissimilar behaviors. In an experiment involving native
speakers of Japanese and English-speaking learners of Japanese at the University
RETESTING A UNIVERSAL 73
of Hawai‘i who had just completed their first semester of language study, Kanno
found convincing support for the idea that learners do indeed appear to have
knowledge of the ECP, as evidenced by their awareness of the rules for case drop.
Kanno prepared four types of four simple interrogative sentences containing
one or two arguments and a transitive verb. The task was to judge the acceptabil-
ity of the stimuli on a three-point scale: 3 = ‘natural’; 2 = ‘in-between’; 1 = ‘un-
natural’. Two of the types of sentences (I and II) contained sentences with two
explicit arguments, one type (I) containing sentences with the accusative case
marker missing, the other (II) with the nominative case marker missing. The other
two types (III and IV) contained sentences with one explicit argument.2 Here too,
one set had no accusative case marker (III), and the other no nominative case
marker (IV). By the ECP, sentences with missing nominative case markers (II
and IV) are ungrammatical, while those with missing accusative case markers (I
and III) are not. Kanno illustrates the types with the following examples.3
(3) Type I: Accusative case missing in a sentence with two overt argu-
ments
Suzuki-san-wa dono biiru-Ø nomi-mashita-ka?
Suzuki-Mr(s)- which beer-Ø drink-.-
‘Which beer did Mr(s) Suzuki drink?’
(4) Type II: Nominative case missing/ two overt arguments
*Dono gakusee-Ø biiru-o nomi-mashita-ka?
Which student-Ø beer- drink-.-
‘Which student drank beer?’
(5) Type III: Accusative case missing/one overt argument
Dono biiru-Ø nomi-mashita-ka?
Which beer-Ø drink-.-
‘Which beer did (he/she) drink?’
(6) Type IV: Nominative case missing/one overt argument
*Dono gakusee-Ø nomi-mashita-ka?
Which student-Ø drink-.-
‘Which student drank beer?’
Though there was variation in individual scores (see Kanno’s Figs. 1 and 2, pp.
326–7), and no analysis of performance on individual stimuli was offered, there
seemed to have been a surprising unity of judgment among native speakers and
learners assessing these stimuli. Sentences with missing nominative case-markers
were largely judged as lying on the ‘unnatural’ side of ‘in-between’ by learners,
while native speakers of Japanese stigmatized them more strongly still. In
contrast, sentences with missing accusative case markers were found to be highly
acceptable by both groups. On the face of it, at least, it appears that learners of
Japanese are able to judge the correctness of Japanese sentences as would be
predicted if a principle of UG, the ECP, was still available to them as adults.
The problem then is to rule out other possible explanations. To do this,
Kanno examines the input the learners in her sample would have received as part
of their coursework. Examination of the coursebook (Japanese: The Spoken
Language, Part 1, Jorden & Noda 1987) shows that it too by and large ‘obeys’
the ECP, with much more frequent omission of accusative case markers on
objects (some 74 out of 107 instances), as against a mere eight cases where
nominative particle ga is dropped.4 Yet there does not seem to be any explicit
statement suggesting that o can be dropped while ga must be retained.5 More-
over, Kanno doubts whether early beginners6 could draw the appropriate
conclusions about case marker deletion from these varying occurrences and non-
occurrences, because the potential for misgeneralisation is also present. Particu-
larly relevant are double-ga structures (Jorden & Noda 1987: 115–116), which
occur with stative transitive verbs like dekimasu ‘can do’, arimasu ‘have’,
irimasu ‘need’, and wakarimasu ‘understand’. Here the object is marked with
nominative particle ga, and this particle (but not the subject-marking ga) may be
omitted, as the following examples (based on Jorden & Noda, and Kanno) show:
(7) Ano gakusee-ga eego-ga wakari-masu
that student- English- understand-.
‘That student understands English.’
(8) Ano gakusee-ga eego-Ø wakari-masu
that student- English understand-.
‘That student understands English.’
(9) Eego-Ø wakari-masu-ka?
English understand-.-
‘Do you understand English?’
Kanno notes that this type of ga-drop was again the rule rather than the excep-
tion in the coursebook, and that particularly in one-argument sentences of the
type illustrated by (9), the opportunity for wrongly assuming that a subject-ga
has been omitted is very strong, ‘thereby undermining the necessary general-
ization’ (Kanno, 1996: 328). The coursebook itself does not seem to state the
rule; in fact its statements on potential omission do not distinguish between ga
and o omission, as Kanno notes (1996: 329). There is nothing here, then, to
encourage the correct generalization either.
Furthermore, wrong conclusions could also be drawn by learners confronted by

topic NPs, which often look superficially like English subjects. The topic marker
wa is optionally deletable, so that students might think that it is ga that is deleted
(example (10) adapted from Kanno, 1996: 328):
(10) Tanaka-san-(wa) itsu kai-mashita-ka?
Tanaka-Mr(s)- when buy-.-
‘When did Mr(s). Tanaka buy it?’
If the coursebook seems an unlikely source of the appropriate information, so
too, Kanno argues, does explicit intervention by teachers. Polling of instructors
of the classes from which Kanno’s informants were drawn revealed that they
claimed they did not explain the rule, noting only that particles wa, ga, and o
could be dropped in casual conversation. Furthermore, at this elementary level,
they discouraged the deletion of particles. Finally, Kanno states that in any case
an accurate account of the case particle-drop in Japanese would be no simple
matter for teachers, for it is not so that ga can never be the deleted (as we have
already seen above). All these pedagogical considerations lead Kanno to the
conclusion that knowledge of the ins and outs of case particle-drop in Japanese
is hardly likely to have been acquired through instruction.7
2. Further consideration of Jorden & Noda (1987)
Kanno’s results are exciting, and the care she takes to rule out extraneous factors
which could have determined or affected her results is an object lesson in itself.
Indeed a perusal of Jorden & Noda, the coursebook used by the informants at the
time of the experiment, does suggest that generalization of the appropriate rule
would be very unlikely. However, there are a number of observations to be made
in this respect. Firstly, throughout the later of the lessons covered by the
informants up to the time of testing, there is a regular sprinkling of examples of
o placed in brackets as an optional element, as in the following (Jorden & Noda,
1987: 125, 127):
(11) Ano gakusee-(o) mi-te kudasai
That student-() look- please
‘Please look at that student.’
(12) Tanaka-san-(o) mi-mashita
Tanaka-Mr(s)–() see-.
‘I saw Mr(s). Tanaka.’
(13) Kono hon-(o) nisatsu kai-mashita

This book-() two buy-.
‘I bought two of these books.’
There are very few such cases of bracketed ga, as far as we can determine. If we
couple this finding with the examples of o-drop in the coursebook as noted by
Kanno and to which we referred above, we might possibly have the basis for a
correct generalization. Furthermore, the examples of ga-drop noted above with
stative transitive verbs (examples 5–7), which Kanno believes would deceive
learners into thinking that subject case markers could be dropped, do not present
as potentially confounding a face as one might think. This is because for native
speakers of English with very little experience of Japanese the non-subject
argument is unlikely to be considered a verb complement (thus taking nominative
case), but an object taking accusative case (on English-based assumptions of
subjects, verbs and objects, for which there is plenty of support from Japanese).
Here is (9) again:
(9) Eego-Ø wakari-masu-ka?
English understand-.-
‘Do you understand English?’
Our claim here is that the double-ga construction is so exotic for these learners that
the missing case particle will be associated with accusative case and objecthood.8
A further concern is that, ECP aside, the case-drop rule is an extremely
simple one. This is in a sense its undoing, for unlike other generalizations based
on principles of UG (such as subjacency or binding) it could easily be taught in
a matter of minutes. So easy is it, in fact, that we could imagine teachers not
remembering that they had taught it. Nor can we rule out the possibility that
learners received some form of corrective feedback from teachers every time
they erroneously dropped a ga.
3. The availability of Japanese in Hawai‘i
A further question relates to the availability of the Japanese language in Hawai‘i.

Given its geographical location (roughly equidistant from Japan and the North
American continent), the state of Hawai‘i receives a large number of annual
visitors from Japan. In 1981 for instance, 690,400 Japanese tourists spent their
holidays in Hawai‘i (roughly 0.6% of the population of Japan).9 Japanese is thus
an important language of tourism (the state’s major source of income), and it is
noticeable everywhere — on store signs announcing ‘Japanese spoken here’, in all

forms of advertising, on special Japanese-language TV channels. Furthermore,
roughly 25% of the population of the Hawaiian islands are themselves of
Japanese origin.10 The Japanese community in Hawai‘i is served by its own
state-wide daily newspaper, Hawai‘i Hochi. Of those students taking Japanese
classes at the University of Hawai‘i (where Kanno ran her study), the majority
will be doing so as part of a compulsory foreign language component of the
undergraduate curriculum. A significant percentage will be yonsei or gosei,
fourth or fifth generation descendants of Japanese immigrants.11 Some of these
students may themselves have gone to Japanese-medium weekend schools (while
attending elementary schools during the day) and others may have studied
Japanese at high school. Furthermore, although they may not have lived with
Japanese-speaking relatives ‘for an extended period of time’ (Kanno 1996: 322),
they could possibly have had extended contact with relatives they did not
necessarily share a roof with.12 Since Kanno’s claim is that learners’ knowledge
of variable particle-drop is provided by the ECP and not by formal instruction,
it seems important to be able to rule out potential sources of input, instruction
and correction beyond the classroom and the coursebook.
4. Two replications in the Netherlands
Despite the uncertainties expressed above about what exactly Kanno’s informants
had or had not learned and how much Japanese they had been exposed to, the
fact remains that they and the native Japanese controls seem to be more or less
of one mind as to the acceptability of ga and o deletion. While the Japanese
native speakers would indeed have acquired the rule through the ECP, the
problem is to rule out the possibility that the American informants did so by
other means. It was for this reason that it was decided to carry out two replica-
tions of Kanno’s experiment in The Netherlands, with rigorous control of input,
in the hope of confirming her results, and thus strengthening the arguments in
favor of a role for UG in adult second language acquisition. Both studies include
a teaching component in which sufficient knowledge of the target language is
taught for the subsequent testing phase to be meaningful.
4.1 Study 1
In our first study, we taught Dutch13 students a miniature relexified artificial

Japanese clone,14 which shared a number of crucial features with its parent:
– It was SOV and verbs were uninflected for person or number

– Subjects and objects were case-marked
– Subjects and objects could be omitted, if recoverable from context
The decision to choose a relexified version of Japanese was essentially to make
the task of learning of this language more enjoyable for younger students —
informants were told that the language was extra-terrestrial, which, given the
success of Klingon language studies among certain kinds of adults, seemed a
reasonable ploy.
4.1.1 Informants
Informants were three groups of high school students aged 13–14 (Group 1,
n = 25), 14–15 (Group 2, n = 26) and 15–17 (Group 3, n = 24). None had ever
knowingly been exposed to Japanese before, and none had been to Japan. All
these informants are generally considered to be adults in second language
acquisition terms.
4.1.2 The teaching phase

One of the authors, a trained teacher, taught all three classes. Students were
presented with simple N1 + N2 + V sentences, where N1 and N2 were Dutch
boy’s or girl’s first names and V was either a verb of high transitivity, like ‘hit’,
or low transitivity, like ‘see’ (Hopper & Thompson, 1980). The decision to use
only animate nouns was to rule out the effects of an animacy strategy potentially
detectable in Kanno’s experiment, where only two of her 16 stimuli contained an
animate object. Since her informants judged all the stimuli where inanimate
objects were not case-marked with o (in both one- and two-argument sentences)
as quite acceptable, performance on these two stimuli was crucial for Kanno’s
interpretation. Fortunately, learners rejected the stimulus where the subject was
not case-marked and the animate object was, and accepted the stimulus where the
subject was case-marked and the animate object was not. This would seem to
rule out the application of a semantically-based strategy for determining case-drop.
However, we felt that our stimuli should be free of such problems as well as
problems associated with the semantics of the verbs (which Kanno did not
apparently control for, as both her crucial animate-object-stimuli involve a low-
transitivity verb, mimasu ‘see’.) Thus, it was hoped, students would not be misled
by such ECP-irrelevant considerations as degrees of transitivity or inanimacy.
Students were taught first to form simple active declarative SOV sentences
using the vocabulary of the artificial language. The method chosen to do this was
translation. The teacher posted a number of sentences on the board and these had
to be translated into the artificial language. In effect this meant learning to

maneuver the new verbs into the right position following the two names. Once
every student in each class was able to produce SOV sentences correctly on a
number of test items, the second rule was taught. This was that subjects and
objects had to be case-marked, as in Japanese. Again students were taught to
form sentences of their own via translation until the whole class demonstrated
error-free performance. Finally, students were taught that one or both nouns
could be omitted if they could be understood from context. While transitive verbs
without objects are not unknown in Dutch, (hij zingt ‘he sings’), subject-dropping
is a less common phenomenon, and as in English, is associated with a telegraph-
ic style typical of letter- or diary-writing. Particular attention was taken to ensure
that students were able to master both subject and object-dropping and the
omission of both subject and object. Once again, when each class had demon-
strated error-free performance, the teacher proceeded to the testing phase.
Nothing like topics and topic markers or interrogative determiners like which or
what were used. No mention was made at any stage of the teaching phase that
case-markers could be dropped.
4.1.3 The testing phase

In the testing phase, informants were confronted by eight sets of two sentences
(all active declarative). The sets were constructed as follows:
Sentences with two arguments
– Both subject and object case-marked (S+ O+)
– Subject alone case-marked (S+ O−)
– Object alone case-marked (S− O+)
– Neither case-marked (S− O−)
Sentences with one argument
– Subject case-marked (S+)
– Subject not case-marked (S−)
– Object case-marked (O+)
– Object not case-marked (O−)
Unlike Kanno, we included sentences with both nouns case-marked (S+ O+), and
with neither noun case-marked (S− O−). Kanno has no items of the type S+ O−,
using S-wa O− instead. Furthermore, Kanno used four examples of each type as
against our two. Of these two, one always contained the verb meaning ‘hit’, and
the other always contained the verb meaning ‘see’. By designing our study in
this way, we hoped to examine the effects of transitivity, if any, on acceptability.
Placing these sentence types in tabular form permits us to see which have been
taught and which conform to the ECP (Table 1).

The crucial cases, marked in boxes, are S+ O− and O−. Neither of these types
have been taught, yet both accord with the ECP. If these are significantly accepted
by the subjects while others which have not been taught are not, there will be
further support for the availability of the ECP to adult second language learners.
The teaching format we chose posed a problem in designing the test
instrument. Presenting students with sentences with case-markers missing would
probably induce a rash of rejections, since they had been taught that case
markers must always be present. Consequently, we decided on a different
approach. Students were told that there was one rule of the extra-terrestrial
language they had not been taught and that they were to discover it from the 16
sentences they were to be presented with. In fact, they were told, of the 16
sentences to be placed in front of them, just 6 were wrong. This meant that they
could deduce that case-dropping of itself was not always wrong, since otherwise
they would have only been able to accept 6 sentences (those which did not
display any case-dropping and which they had been taught). Their job was
therefore to find a further four acceptable sentences. If informants relied on the
ECP for guidance, then they should also accept those untaught items where the
Object is not case-marked (S+ O−, O−) and reject those where the subject is not
case marked (S− O+, S− O− and S−). S− O− items can be rejected on both
counts. Our method therefore biases informants towards an ECP-based solution.
Finally, informants were asked to describe what strategy they thought they had
employed in making their choices.
Table 1. Types of stimuli tested in Studies 1 and 2 according to whether they were taught
and/or obey the ECP
Type Taught ECP
S+O+ – –
S+O− –
S−O+
S−O−
S+ – –
S−
O+ – –
O− –
4.1.4 Results
Since five informants had marked more than the required six sentences as wrong,
their data were excluded from further analysis. A consideration of the responses
of the three groups revealed no obvious differences between them. Additionally,
there is only very limited evidence for a systematic distinction on the basis of
degree of transitivity,15 so it was decided to combine informants into one group
(N = 70). A repeated analysis of variance (MANOVA) revealed no general
preference for o omission over ga (for one-argument stimuli: F(1, 69) = .24, ns.;
for two-argument stimuli: F(1, 69) = .02, ns.). However, sentences with two
arguments and one missing case marker were significantly more acceptable than
were sentences with one explicit argument and no case marker (F(1, 69) = 7.21,
p < .01). The results are presented in the form of a graph in Figure 1.
57.1
34.3
S+O+ S+ O+ S+O– O– S–O+ S– S–O–

taught not taught
‘GRAMMATICAL’ ‘UNGRAMMATICAL’
Figure 1. % stimuli found acceptable in Study 1. NB. ‘Grammatical’ means ‘grammatical

by the ECP’
From Figure 1 it can be seen that those structures that were taught are indeed
almost unanimously accepted. Also noteworthy is the relative unacceptability of
those sentences that were not taught. Of those crucial sentences that were not
taught and whose acceptance would show evidence for the continued availability
of the ECP, S+ O− items are accepted by just over half the informants and O−
by about one-third. Unfortunately, these scores are virtually perfectly matched by
the ‘mirror’ items; S− O+ is accepted by nearly 61% of informants and S− by
35%. S− O− is rejected by nearly 84%.
These figures tell us that missing case markers lead to rejection, but that
rejection is stronger in one-argument sentences than in two-argument sentences.

Further, it does not seem to matter whether the missing case marker is nomina-
tive or accusative; the figures seem to suggest that whereas in a two-argument
sentence it is better to case-mark both nouns, it is somewhat acceptable to mark
one noun, presumably as the function of the other becomes self-evident as a
result. However, in one-argument sentences failure to mark the noun renders its
grammatical function ambiguous between subject and object (as all our nouns
were [+human]), and this is apparently less tolerable. Such an argument explains
the almost universal rejection of S− O− items. In other words, informants tend
to believe that ‘One noun at least must be case-marked (it doesn’t matter which
one)’. We will for convenience call this the ‘one-noun’ strategy.
It should also be obvious from Figure 1 that there must be considerable
variation in individual data. We investigated the extent to which the ‘one-noun’
strategy and an ECP-like pattern were actually reflected in individual scores by
counting acceptances and rejections for all untaught sentence types (S+ O−, O−,
S− O+, S−, S− O−). The predicted pattern of acceptances and rejection for each
possibility is given in Table 2 below.
Only three informants clearly followed the pattern that accords with the
ECP, and of these, two showed nearly consistent behavior in that their patterns
show some deviation — they accept one of a pair they should have rejected and
reject one of a pair they should have accepted. However, their retrospective
comments suggest an ECP-based strategy.
On the other hand, 27 of 70 informants (38.57%) were totally consistent in
following the ‘one-noun strategy’. A further four were almost consistent (again
matching 8 of 10 predicted responses, with deviations in separate categories), and
also reported their decision procedures in a way that could clearly be interpreted
as ‘one-noun’.
There was also evidence of a third, minor, strategy, where case-marking was
judged compulsory for both nouns in a two-argument item, but optional in a one-
argument item. In the scheme in Table 2 above, this means that S+ O− and S−
O+ would both be rejected, as would S− O−, but O− and S− would be accepted.
Table 2. Patterns of acceptances and rejections according to the ECP and the ‘One noun’
strategy (+ = accept; = reject)
S+ O− O− S− O+ S− S− O−
ECP + + − − −
‘One-noun’ + − + − −
Eleven of 70 subjects (15.71%) followed this pattern absolutely. A further four

subjects were nearly consistent in the manner described above. Two followed a
pattern that could be called ‘anti-UG’, in rejecting the sentences that they should
have accepted and vice versa. This means that 51 of 70 (72.86%) of the infor-
mants were consistent or nearly consistent in judging the 10 previously untaught
sentences. The remainder (19 of 70, 27.14%) have response patterns that do not
seem to follow any particular strategy.
In response to a comment by an anonymous reviewer, who felt that the
restriction on the number of sentences to be judged incorrect in the testing phase
encouraged puzzle-solving at the expense of linguistic intuitions, a second study was
carried out where informants were free to reject or accept stimuli as they wished.
4.2 Study 2
In Study 2, we taught Dutch-based adults the same rules as in the first study, but
this time using Japanese lexical items instead of those of the artificial clone.
4.2.1 Informants
Forty-two first-year students majoring in English at the University of Nijmegen,
The Netherlands, took part in ordinary class time. Thirty-eight were native
speakers of Dutch, two were native speakers of German, one was a native
speaker of Hebrew, and one was a native speaker of Romanian. None knew any
Japanese (beyond hai ‘yes’, sushi, and a few martial arts terms).
4.2.2 The teaching phase

The teaching phase followed the same course as in Study 1, though in this case the
teaching was carried out by the senior author, and students were taught how to make
past tense forms from -masu verbs (e.g., tabemasu ‘eat(s)’; tabemashita ‘ate’).
4.2.3 The testing phase

As in the first study, informants were presented with 16 one- and two-argument
sentences with all possible combinations of present and absent case particles (i.e.
S+ O+, S+ O−, S− O+, S− O−, S+, S−, O+, O−). Unlike the first study, two extra
items with *SVO order (+ case particles) were included as checks on alertness.
No informant failed to spot the ungrammaticality of these two items. Once again,
only male and female names were used as nouns, with all gender asymmetries
removed in two-NP stimuli (i.e. ‘John hit Peter’ rather than ‘John hit Mary’).
Half the stimuli contained the low transitivity verb mimasu ‘look at, watch’, and
half the high transitivity verb tatakimasu ‘hit’. As in Kanno (1996), verbs were
presented in the past tense form. Translations in English were provided only for
one-argument stimuli with absent case-marking, to disambiguate the role of the
noun. The full set of stimuli is presented in the Appendix.
In Study 2, informants were told just before beginning the testing phase that
one rule had not been taught, and that that rule concerned case-particles, which
could in certain circumstances be dropped. No further indication as to the nature
of that rule was given. The informants’ job was to guess in which sentences this
was permissible. This format meets a possible objection (from an anonymous
reviewer) to the format of Study 1, where informants were forced to judge only
6 out of 16 stimuli as unacceptable. In this version of the test, they were free to
judge as they wished, and also to rate stimuli according to three levels of
certainty (3 = correct, 2 = uncertain, 1 = incorrect), as in Kanno’s study, rather
than two (correct, incorrect) as in Study 1.
4.2.4 Results
The mean score for two-argument stimuli where o was missing was 1.96, and for
stimuli where ga was missing, 1.85. For one-argument stimuli, the means were
1.55 and 1.56 respectively. No significant differences in terms of differential
treatment of o or ga deletion emerge (for two-argument stimuli, F(1, 41) = .32, ns.;
for one-argument stimuli, F(1, 41) = .93, ns.). In Study 1, case particle deletion is
more acceptable to informants in two-argument stimuli than in one-argument
stimuli, if not quite reaching significance (F(1, 41) = 3.58, p < .07. The mean score
for S− O− stimuli was 1.41, with 29 informants (69%) rejecting both stimuli.
If we examine the patterns of individual behavior, we discover one infor-
mant who scores 2 (‘uncertain’) on all stimuli with o deletion, and 1 (‘unnatural’)
on stimuli with ga deletion. This is the only informant to evince a UG-like series
of responses. Of the remaining 41, 13 (30.95%) show the predominant ‘one-noun
strategy’ pattern of Study 1, namely acceptance of the absence of one case
particle in two-argument stimuli and rejection of any missing case marker in one-
argument stimuli. Seven informants (16.67%) categorically rejected all (or all but
one) of the stimuli with any absent particles, and two judged absent particles in
one-argument stimuli more acceptable than in two-argument stimuli. It is
difficult to detect clear patterns in the remaining 18 informants’ responses.
Again, no effects for type of verb could be found.
5. Conclusion
It was hoped that by rigorous control of the input in the learning of Japanese and
a miniature relexified clone of that language, it would be possible to confirm
Kanno’s findings, so laying to rest the question of whether the ECP was truly
available to second language learners. The results of the present studies are
therefore disappointing, since we are left with the awkward problem of consider-
ing why the results in Kanno’s and the present studies are so dissimilar. One
possible suggestion is that the method of elicitation adopted here encourages a
test-taking strategy which has more to do with solving a puzzle than tapping
intuitions of grammaticality; in Study 1, informants were only allowed to reject
a mere six of the ten sentences they presumably would have rejected for lack of
a case particle (or two). Study 2 was designed to address precisely that issue, but
the results do not seem particularly different. As far as it can be said that any
pattern of behavior emerges from these two studies, it is the ‘one-noun strategy’
that predominates (38.57% of informants in Study 1; 30.95% in Study 2).
Another possible explanation for our failure to replicate Kanno’s findings is
that her informants had indeed acquired the case-drop rule through instruction or
input outside the classroom, so that the ECP was not truly guiding their intu-
itions. A further possibility (suggested by Robert Bley-Vroman) is that our
informants had never been confronted with case-drop phenomena before, unlike
Kanno’s learners. This means that they were encountering sentences which
teaching would have led them to believe were ungrammatical. And indeed, some
informants rejected all case-dropping, despite specific instructions designed to
make them countenance the possibility. Their counterparts learning Japanese in
Hawai‘i would certainly have been confronted with instances of case-drop,
however unpredictable this might have seemed to them. Finally, it may be that
the grammar of our newly-taught languages needed time to ‘sink in’ before ECP
effects could come to the fore, our informants being tested immediately after
having been taught. A test after a delay of, say, a few days might have delivered
a different result. Finally, as Kanno herself notes there is the question of the
status of the ECP in current grammatical theory, though that does not free us of
the obligation to investigate an apparent case of acquisition without input.
Obviously continuing research is needed, perhaps with a group of learners of
Japanese in a community where Japanese is a truly exotic language not available
outside the classroom, and where once again input can be tightly controlled.
Given the exciting nature of Kanno’s original results, such a study should
certainly be undertaken as a matter of urgency.
Acknowledgments
Our thanks go to Kazue Kanno for insightful discussion in all phases of this research, to Keiko
Yoshioka for advice about the Japanese language and teaching Japanese in Hawai‘i, to Hubert
Korzilius, Erik Schils and Monique van der Haagen for statistical expertise, and to Theo Bongaerts
and an anonymous reviewer for detailed and wise commentary on an earlier version of this chapter.
Notes
1. Following Fukuda, Kanno points out that there are cases where Japanese does permit ga-drop,
as in sentences with emphatic final particles such as yo, and in double-ga constructions, a point
to which we will return later.
2. In Japanese, arguments may be omitted if they are fully recoverable from context.
3. All these sentences contain wh-words, which cannot be topicalized. This prevents informants from
interpreting missing case-markers as deleted (and deletable) wa. Whether informants actually
know this rule was not independently established, though see Kanno (1996: 329) for comment.
4. These involve complement NPs.
5. In actual fact, as Kanno notes (1996: 329), Jorden & Noda suggest that both ga and o can be
dropped, with merely an attendant ‘loss of emphasis and focus’ (Jorden & Noda 1989: 91–92).
It should be pointed out that Jorden & Noda is a book designed to teach spoken Japanese.
Indeed, two recent books on Japanese we have consulted (Shibatani, 1990: 367–368 and
Tsujimura 1996: 136) both note that both particles can be dropped in casual speech.
6. Her evaluation of her informants’ proficiency level (1996: 322).
7. Functional strategies (e.g. accepting deletion from an NP immediately preceding a verb, or
accepting deletion from inanimate NPs) are explicitly and convincingly ruled out.
8. Evidence that learners do indeed assume the missing case particle is o in such circumstances is
clearly provided by Dutch learners of Japanese at a comparable level of proficiency (Keiko
Yoshioka, personal communication).
9. By way of comparison, mainland America accounted for 2.3 million visitors, roughly 1% of its
population. Source: Atlas of Hawai‘i, 1983.
10. Atlas of Hawai‘i, 1983.
11. Keiko Yoshioka (personal communication) estimates that roughly 70–80% of students in these
classes are of Japanese origin.
12. It is interesting that Kanno reports that 10 of her informants (38.5%) chose the kana version of
her test questions, even though Jorden uses a romanized script throughout the book.
13. For a discussion of the ECP and Dutch, see Kerstens & Ruys (1994). As in English, the ECP
in Dutch requires the proper government of traces resulting from movement.
14. Called Jumanji.
15. While the data suggest some basis for assuming that three informants were distinguishing at
least some of the time between items containing Jumanji equivalents of ‘hit’ and ‘see’, their
retrospective comments did not support this interpretation. In fact two of them seemed to be
following phonological strategies.
Appendix
Stimuli used in Study 2
1. Mirjam-ga Anna-o tatakimashita Y ?? N

2. Roeland-ga mimashita Piet-o Y ?? N
3. Erik-ga mimashita Y ?? N
4. Jan-o tatakimashita Y ?? N
5. Paul-ga Jan tatakimashita Y ?? N
6. Erik Toon mimashita Y ?? N
7. Anna tatakimashita [Anna hit her] Y ?? N
8. Margriet-ga Jenny mimashita Y ?? N
9. Theresa Dorien tatakimashita Y ?? N
10. Sonja-ga tatakimashita Y ?? N
11. Marieke mimashita [She watched Marieke] Y ?? N
12. Mark Paul-o tatakimashita Y ?? N
13. Erik mimashita [Eric watched him] Y ?? N
14. Rieneke-ga tatakimashita Natasja-o Y ?? N
15. Pien-o mimashita Y ?? N
16. Paul tatakimashita [He hit Paul] Y ?? N
17. Paulien Janneke-o mimashita Y ?? N
18. Robert-ga Erik-o mimashita Y ?? N
References
Bley-Vroman, R. 1989. “What is the Logical Problem of Foreign Language Learning?”

In S. Gass & J. Schachter (eds.), Linguistic Perspectives on Second Language
Acquisition. New York: Cambridge University Press, 41–68.
The Department of Geography, University of Hawai‘i. 1983. Atlas of Hawai‘i. Second
Edition. Honolulu: University of Hawai‘i Press.
Fukuda, M. 1993. “Head Government and Case-marker Drop in Japanese.” Linguistic
Inquiry 24: 168–172.
Hopper, P. and S. Thompson. 1980. “Transitivity in Grammar and Discourse.” Language
56: 251–299.
Jorden, E. and M. Noda. 1987. Japanese: The Spoken Language (Part 1). New Haven:
Yale University Press.
Kanno, K. 1996. “The Status of a Non-parametrized Principle in the L2 Initial State.”
Language Acquisition 5: 317–335.
Kerstens, J. and E. Ruys. 1994. Generatieve Syntaxis: Een inleiding (‘Generative Syntax:
An Introduction’). Groningen: Martinus Nijhoff.
Shibatani, M. 1990. The Languages of Japan. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Tsujimura, N. 1996. An Introduction to Japanese Linguistics. Oxford: Blackwell.
C 6
L2 Acquisition of Japanese Unaccusative Verbs

by Speakers of English and Chinese
Makiko Hirakawa
Tokyo International University
1. Introduction
This paper explores the issue of unaccusativity in the L2 acquisition of Japanese.

The Unaccusative Hypothesis claims that there are two syntactically distinct
classes of intransitive verbs — namely, unaccusatives and unergatives. In
Government and Binding (GB) terms, an unergative verb takes a deep structure
(D-S) subject and no object, whereas an unaccusative verb takes a D-S object
and no subject (Perlmutter 1978, Burzio 1986). This can be illustrated with the
English sentences in (1).
(1) Deep Structure (D-S)
a. e [VP broke [NP the watch]] (cf. ‘The watch broke.’)
b. John [VP swam] (cf. ‘John swam.’)
The unaccusative verb in (1a) lacks a logical subject and is unable to assign
accusative Case to an object in its base position. In the case of English, the NP
in the object position moves to the surface subject position, where it gets
nominative Case, as shown in (2a).
(2) Surface Structure (S-S)
a. The watchi [VP broke ti]
b. John [VP swam]
It should be noted that the sole argument of an unaccusative typically bears a
Theme role, whereas that of unergative typically bears an Agent role. Thus, the
Unaccusative Hypothesis can be derived from the Uniformity of Theta Assign-
ment Hypothesis (UTAH) (Baker 1988), which states that a particular semantic
90 MAKIKO HIRAKAWA
role consistently maps to the same syntactic position at D-S. For example, the
UTAH establishes that a Theme will consistently be projected as the verb’s
internal argument position at D-S. Consider the sentences in (3).
(3) a. John broke the watch.
b. The watch broke.
The NP the watch is Theme in both sentences but occurs as object in (3a) and as
subject in (3b). But with the D-S (1a), the watch in (3b) originates as D-S object,
so that both (3a) and (3b) comply with the UTAH.
It has been claimed that the Unaccusative Hypothesis also holds in Japanese
(Kageyama 1993, Miyagawa 1989, Tsujimura 1990, among others). Kageyama
(1993) further claims that the D-S object of an unaccusative stays in situ, and
that nominative Case is assigned in its base position, giving for the representation
in (4).1
(4) Deep & Surface Structures: Unaccusatives
e [VP Tokei-ga koware-ta]
watch- break-
‘The watch broke.’
This unaccusative sentence contrasts with an unergative sentence, whose single
argument is in the canonical subject position at D-S and S-S.
(5) Deep & Surface Structures: Unergatives
John-ga [VP oyoi-da]
John- swim-
‘John swam.’
Unaccusative sentences like (4) and unergative sentences like (5) look alike on
the surface, since the single argument in both types of sentences is marked by
ga, which is the nominative Case marker in Japanese. In addition, Japanese is a
verb-final (i.e. SOV) language, so that the subject and the object are adjacent to
each other, irrespective of NP movement. Thus, it is not clear from the surface
whether the sole argument of unaccusatives has actually moved out of the VP,
or whether it stays within the VP. Kageyama (1993) discusses several pieces of
evidence for the non-movement analysis.
Assuming Kageyama’s non-movement analysis for Japanese unaccusatives, the
present paper investigates whether English and Chinese learners of Japanese observe
the unaccusative/unergative distinction at D-S and S-S. Previous studies report
that L2 learners have problems acquiring unaccusatives in the target language
(Balcom 1997, Hirakawa 1995, Oshita 1997, Sorace 1995, Yip 1995, Yuan 1996,
L2 ACQUISITION OF JAPANESE UNACCUSATIVITY 91
and Zobl 1989). These studies have dealt with English, Italian and Chinese as an
L2, but as far as I am aware, no study has looked at Japanese as an L2.
2. Theoretical background
In this section, I will briefly review the arguments of Kageyama (1993) which
support the Unaccusative Hypothesis for Japanese, focusing on two structures.
Following Levin and Rappaport Hovav (1995), Kageyama distinguishes between
deep and surface unaccusativity. Deep unaccusativity refers to a situation where
the sole argument of an unaccusative is in object position at D-S, whereas
surface unaccusativity refers to a situation where the sole argument remains in
object position at S-S. I will first look at a structure which is relevant to deep
unaccusativity, then turn to the other structure which serves as a diagnostic for
surface unaccusativity in Japanese.
2.1 Deep unaccusativity in Japanese: The adverb takusan ‘a lot’
Sentences with the adverb takusan ‘a lot’ constitute one piece of evidence for
deep unaccusativity (Kageyama 1993, 1996). The adverb takusan modifies
almost any NP, irrespective of its animacy or countability. First observe the
sentence in (6), which consists of takusan and a transitive verb.
(6) Takusan yon-da
a lot read-
‘He/she/they etc. read a lot (of things).’
Japanese allows subject as well as object drop, so sentences like (6), where both
the subject and the object are dropped, are grammatical. This raises the question
of what takusan modifies in the sentence; i.e., a subject or an object. The answer
is that it can only modify an object, not a subject, so its reading is unambiguous.
Thus, (6) means that somebody read a lot of things, not that many people read
one thing. In other words, takusan modifies an internal argument, which is inside
the VP, and not an external argument, which is outside the VP.2
92 MAKIKO HIRAKAWA
(7) IP
NP (subject) I
VP I
NP (object) V
When passive sentences with takusan are considered, we find that subject NPs are
successfully modified by the adverb. This suggests that the takusan construction
is a test for a D-S object, since the subject NP of passives originates in the object
position and moves to the canonical subject position (Kuno 1973, Saito 1985).
(8) Takusan yom-are-ta.
a lot read--
‘A lot of things were read.’
Next, consider the two types of intransitive sentences — the unaccusative (9a)
and the unergative (9b).
(9) a. Takusan tui-ta.
a lot arrive-
‘A lot of people arrived.’
b. Takusan nai-ta.
a lot cry-
‘We/they/he/she cried a lot.’
There is a contrast in the readings of the two sentences. The unaccusative (9a)
means that ‘a lot of people arrived’, with takusan modifying what appears to be
the subject in the sentence. In the unergative sentence (9b), on the other hand,
takusan does not modify the subject; thus, the sentence cannot mean that ‘a lot
of people cried’. This suggests that the surface subject of the unaccusative (9a)
originates in the object position, contrasting with that of the unergative (9b)
which is in the logical subject position at D-S. Since unergatives do not have an
internal argument, takusan describes the amount of action denoted by the verb.
Thus, (9b) means that someone did the action of crying a lot; i.e., ‘somebody
cried a lot’.
In sum, the takusan construction groups transitive objects, passive subjects
and unaccusative subjects together on the one hand, and transitive subjects and
unergative subjects on the other, suggesting that the surface subject of an

unaccusative is indeed in the canonical object position at D-S.3
2.2 Surface unaccusativity in Japanese: Case drop
A piece of evidence for surface unaccusativity comes from the case drop
phenomenon in Japanese. In colloquial Japanese, the accusative Case marker o
is often dropped from the object of a transitive sentence, but the nominative Case
marker ga cannot be omitted from the subject of a transitive sentence (Kageyama
1993, Kuno 1973, Saito 1985, Takezawa 1987, among others). Sentences in (10)
and (11) are from Kageyama (1993).4
(10) a. [Kodomotati-ga hon-(o) yom-u] no mi-ta koto nai.
[children- book-() read-  see- fact not
‘I have never seen children read books.’
b. [Kodomotati-*(ga) hon-o yom-u] no mi-ta
[children-() book- read-  see-
koto nai.
fact not
‘I have never seen children read books.’
This subject/object asymmetry can be explained if we assume that the verb can
lexically govern the empty Case on a direct object, while no proper governor is
available for the empty Case on a subject (cf. (7)). Kageyama claims case drop
should be considered as a S-S or Phonetic Form (PF) phenomenon.
The subject of an unaccusative sentence behaves like an object of a
transitive sentence; that is, ga can be omitted (11a). This is not the case for an
unergative subject (11b) (Kageyama 1993, Nishigauchi 1993).
(11) a. [Kootuu-ziko-(ga) okor-u] no mi-ta koto nai.
[traffic-accident- happen-  see- fact not
‘I have never seen traffic accidents happen.’
b. [Kodomotati-*(ga) asob-u] no mi-ta koto nai.
[children- play-  see- fact not
‘I have never seen children play.’
The contrast in (11) in terms of nominative case drop suggests that the unaccus-
ative subject never moves out of the VP; instead it remains in the VP where it
is properly governed by the verb.
The following passive sentence further supports this claim. That is, the
nominative Case marker on a passive subject cannot be omitted. This is predict-
ed, since subjects of passives are moved out of the VP.
94 MAKIKO HIRAKAWA
(12) [Kodomotati-*(ga) sika-rare-ta] no mi-ta koto nai.

[children- scold--  see- fact not
‘I have never seen children being scolded.’
Thus, the case drop phenomenon is a diagnostic for surface unaccusativity.5
2.3 Unaccusativity in English
As briefly discussed above, English exhibits deep unaccusativity but does not in
general manifest surface unaccusativity. The single argument of an unaccusative
moves from D-S object position to S-S subject position, for Case reasons.
In English, surface unaccusativity is manifested only in the there-insertion
construction (13a) and the locative inversion construction (13b) (Levin and
Rappaport Hovav 1995: 19).
(13) a. There appeared a ship on the horizon.
b. Into the room came a man.
Levin and Rappaport Hovav (1995) note that these two constructions are not
found with all unaccusative verbs; rather, they are restricted to verbs of existence
(e.g. exist and remain), verbs of appearance (e.g. appear and arise), and verbs of
inherently directed motion (e.g. come and arrive).
Since English manifests surface unaccusativity only to a limited extent and
with only a subset of unaccusative verbs, it can be claimed that English is quite
different from Japanese, where surface unaccusativity is more widespread. More-
over, it is important to note that English does not have any equivalent structure
to the adverb takusan construction or the case drop phenomenon in Japanese.
2.4 Unaccusativity in Chinese
The unaccusative/unergative distinction is also observed in Chinese (Li 1990).

Chinese is an SVO language, and the single argument of an unaccusative verb
can appear in a preverbal position as in (14a) or remain in the object position as
in (14b), manifesting surface unaccusativity (Yuan 1996).6 Where the NP
remains in object position, the NP must be indefinite, as shown in (14c).7
(14) a. Shang ge yue, san sou chuan zai zhe ge hai yu chen le.
last  month three  ship in this  sea are sink 
‘Last month, three ships sank in this area.’
b. Shang ge yue, zai zhe ge hai yu chen le san sou chuan.
last  month in this  sea area sink  three  ship
‘Last month, three ships sank in this area.’
c. *Shang ge yue, zai zhe ge hai yu chen le na sou chuan.

last  month in this  sea area sink  that  ship
‘Last month, that ship sank in this area.’
Unaccusative verbs contrast with unergative verbs in that the single argument of
an unergative can only appear in subject position, as in English and in Japanese.
In sum, although Chinese does exhibit surface unaccusativity, its manifesta-
tion is quite different from that of Japanese and is closer to that of English. In
Chinese, it is obvious from the surface order whether the single argument of an
unaccusative verb remains in object position (i.e. it appears postverbally at S-S) or
moves to subject position (i.e. it appears preverbally at S-S). This is not the case
with Japanese unaccusatives. As noted above, Japanese is an SOV language. Thus,
the single argument of an unaccusative appears preverbally, with or without NP
movement. In addition, surface unaccusativity in Japanese is not restricted to
indefinite NPs. Thus, it can be safely said that Chinese does not provide any
specific clues about unaccusativity to learners acquiring Japanese as an L2.
3. Previous studies on acquisition of Japanese unaccusatives
In this section, I will briefly summarize previous findings on L1 and L2 acquisi-

tion of Japanese which are relevant to the unaccusative/unergative distinction.
3.1 L1 acquisition of Japanese
Miyata (1992) analyses naturalistic data from young children acquiring Japanese
as an L1 and reports that 2- and 3-year olds as well as 4- and 5-year olds omit
the accusative Case marker o (123 omissions in 161 cases, or 76.4% for 2- and
3- year olds and 102 omissions in 144 cases, or 70.8% for the 4- and 5-year
olds). In contrast, the same children rarely omit nominative Case ga (47 out of
326 cases, or 14.4% for 2- and 3-year olds; 18 omissions in 180 cases, or 10.0%
for 4- and 5-year olds). Miyata further notes that when nominative ga is dropped,
it is mostly with the subject of an unaccusative or a stative predicate. These
findings suggest that children as young as 2 years know when Case markers can
be omitted — namely on transitive objects, unaccusative subjects, and subjects of
stative predicates.8,9
96 MAKIKO HIRAKAWA
3.2 L2 acquisition of Japanese
Citing Teramura’s (1990) work on typical Case errors found in L2 Japanese

production data, Kageyama (1993) reports that learners make errors in producing
unaccusative sentences and that they mistakenly use the accusative Case marker
o where the nominative Case marker ga is required. Examples are given in (15).
(15) a. Kono dooro-wa kuruma-o takusan toori-masu …
this street- car- a lot pass-.
‘A lot of cars pass on this street…’
b. Nihonzin tyuusin-no bunka-o
Japanese.people centered- civilization-
okori-masita.
happen-.
‘Civilization which is centered on Japanese people happened.’
It is reported that L2 learners never mark unergative and transitive subjects with
the accusative Case marker o. However, they do mistakenly mark transitive
objects with the nominative Case marker ga. Examples are given in (16).
(16) a. Oiwai no tegami-ga mi-masita.
congratulation  letter- see-.
‘I saw a congratulation letter.’
b. Nihonzin-wa yen-ga tukai-masu.
Japanese- yen- use-.
‘Japanese use yen.’
In other words, L2 learners only make errors in marking unaccusative subjects
and transitive objects, i.e., NPs that originate in object position. No errors are
reported with respect to transitive and unergative subjects. Thus, case errors are
not random, but uni-directional.
Kageyama further claims that sentences with case drop in L2 learners’
production data are similar to those produced by native speakers; in particular,
the omission of Case markers is found only with transitive objects and unaccus-
ative subjects. In sum, previous findings from L2 learner production data suggest
that learners are sensitive to the different syntactic positions associated with the
argument NPs in transitive, unergative, and unaccusative sentences. However,
these errors are from spontaneous production. No study has investigated Japanese
L2 unaccusatives experimentally. We turn to this in the next section.
4. The experiment
4.1 Hypotheses
An experimental study was conducted to test whether L2 learners have knowl-

edge of unaccusativity in Japanese at the deep and surface levels. Deep unaccus-
ativity is assumed to be universal; thus, it is observed in English and in Chinese
as well. My hypothesis is that learners will show sensitivity to the unaccusative/
unergative distinction at D-S in Japanese, guided by Universal Grammar (UG).
I assume that the UTAH is a universal principle and is especially relevant in this
context. If learners have no access to UG, they will not be able to distinguish
between the unaccusative and unergative verbs.
Surface unaccusativity, on the other hand, is observed in very limited
structures in English. It is observed in Chinese in a less restricted way than in
English, but it is obvious from surface that the single argument remains in object
position as it appears postverbally as in English. Therefore neither language
manifests surface unaccusativity as in Japanese. Thus, I hypothesize that learners
will have difficulty in acquiring surface unaccusativity in Japanese, at least in
the initial stage.
4.2 Subjects
Thirteen adult native speakers of English and 16 adult native speakers of Chinese
participated in the experiment. The English speakers were all North Americans
and were enrolled in a 9-month intensive Japanese course offered at the Inter-
University Center for Japanese Studies in Yokohama, Japan. The Chinese
speakers were students at Tokyo International University in Kawagoe, Japan. Ten
subjects were from Taiwan and 6 subjects were from China.
Subjects were given a background questionnaire to determine their prior
experience with Japanese. All of the subjects had learned Japanese in a class-
room setting, and both groups of subjects had started learning Japanese as
adolescents. The English-speaking subjects had generally studied longer (average
5.6 years) than the Chinese-speaking subjects (average 3.2 years), but the
Chinese subjects had generally lived in Japan longer (average 3.1 years) than the
English subjects (average 1.8 years).
All subjects took a Japanese proficiency test consisting of vocabulary and
grammar sections, taken from Japanese standardized proficiency tests. Their
scores ranged from 58% to 90% (equivalent to high intermediate/low advanced).
There were no significant differences in the scores of the two groups.
98 MAKIKO HIRAKAWA
Twenty native speakers of Japanese also participated in the experiment, as

controls.
4.3 Tasks
There were two tasks: a picture task and an acceptability judgment task. The
picture task was a truth-value judgment, which included sentences containing
takusan ‘a lot’ designed to examine subjects’ knowledge of deep unaccusativity.
All subjects took the picture task first.
The acceptability judgment task consisted of sentences with case drop,
which were used to examine subjects’ knowledge of surface unaccusativity.10
Since case drop is frequently observed in colloquial, spoken Japanese, but not in
formal, written Japanese, it is more appropriate to think of the task as requiring
‘acceptability judgments’ rather than ‘grammaticality judgments’. Subjects were
encouraged to consider the test sentences as sentences of spoken Japanese and to
give their initial responses to them.
In each task, three types of verbs were used: transitive, unergative, and
unaccusative. Each type was represented by five verbs, as listed in (17).
(17) a. Transitive: kaku ‘write’, arau ‘wash’, yomu ‘read’, taberu ‘eat’,
nuru ‘paint’
b. Unaccusative: otiru ‘fall’, sinu ‘die’, tuku ‘arrive’, wareru
‘break’, yakeru ‘burn’
c. Unergative: naku ‘cry’, utau ‘sing’, asobu ‘play’, oyogu
‘swim’, hasiru ‘run’
4.3.1 Picture task

This task involved a number of pictures, each with a sentence (written in
Japanese) beneath it. Subjects were asked to indicate whether the sentence
correctly described the picture, by circling either ‘true’ or ‘false’ on the answer
sheet. All test sentences were grammatical; their appropriateness depended on the
context provided by the picture.
There were 25 test items. In the case of transitive and unergative sentences,
the same sentence appeared twice with two different pictures — a true sen-
tence/picture pairing at one time and a false sentence/picture pairing at the other,
depending on what takusan modified. That is, as described above, when takusan
modified the object NP, it was a true sentence/picture pairing, whereas in the
case where takusan modified the subject NP, it was a false one. Compare pairs
like (18) and (19) or (21) and (22); see Appendix for examples.
(18) Transitive sentences with pictures in which one subject performs an

action denoted by the verb on a lot of objects (true picture/sentence
pairings):
Takusan yon-da.
‘One person read a lot (of things).’
(19) Transitive sentences with pictures in which a lot of subjects perform
an action denoted by the verb on one object (false picture/sentence
pairings):
Takusan yon-da.
‘A lot of people read something.’
(20) Unaccusative sentences with pictures in which a lot of subjects
undergo an action denoted by the verb (true picture/sentence pair-
ings):
Takusan koware-ta.
a lot break-
‘A lot (of things) broke.’
(21) Unergative sentences with pictures in which one subject performs an
action denoted by the verb for a long period/distance etc. (true
picture/sentence pairings):
Takusan oyoi-da.
a lot swim-
‘One person swam a lot.’
(22) Unergative sentences with pictures in which a lot of subjects per-
form an action denoted by the verb (false picture/sentence pairings):
Takusan oyoi-da.
a lot swim-
‘A lot of people swam.’
Seventeen distractors were also included in this task.
The pictures with their corresponding sentences beneath them were present-
ed in booklets. The order of sentences was randomized and there were two
versions of the task to control for ordering effects.
4.3.2 Acceptability judgment task

In the acceptability judgment task, a written list of sentences was presented and
the subjects were asked to indicate whether a given sentence was acceptable or
100 MAKIKO HIRAKAWA
not by circling one of five numbers on a scale, from −2 (completely unaccept-

able) to +2 (completely acceptable).
Test sentences included four types:
(i) a transitive subject marked by wa (i.e. the topic marker) and a transitive
object without o (23)
(ii) a transitive subject without ga and a transitive object with o (24)
(iii) an unaccusative subject without ga (25)
(iv) an unergative subject without ga (26).
In each sentence, the caseless NP was a wh phrase. This was to ensure that the
deleted Case marker was not interpreted as the topic marker wa, since wa can be
freely omitted (Kanno 1996).11
(23) Transitive [object case drop]
Subj NP-wa which object NP-Ø V? (acceptable):
Yamada-san-wa dono sinbun yomi-masita-ka?
Yamada-Mr- which newspaper read-.-
‘Which newspaper did Mr. Yamada read?’
(24) Transitive [subject case drop]
Which Subj NP- Ø object NP-o V? (unacceptable)
Dono gakusei sinbun-o yomi-masita-ka?
which student newspaper- read-.-
‘Which student read the newspaper?’
(25) Unaccusative [subject case drop]
(Locative Phrase) Which subject NP-Ø V? (acceptable):
Ano kawa-ni dono hito oti-masita-ka?
that river-in which person fall-.-
‘Which person fell in the river?’
(26) Unergative [subject case drop]
(Locative Phrase) Which subject NP-Ø V? (unacceptable):
Ano puuru-de dono gakusei oyogi-masita-ka?
that pool-in which student swim-.-
‘Which student swam in that pool?’
Twenty randomly ordered test items were included in the judgment task. There
were two versions of the task.
4.4 Results
4.4.1 Picture task

The task included 17 distractor sentences to ensure that subjects could perform
truth value judgments. Only learners and controls who were accurate on at least
12 of the 17 distractors (70%) were retained for the analyses of performance on
sentences with the adverb takusan ‘a lot’. Three Chinese subjects were eliminat-
ed as a result of poor performance on the distractors, leaving an English
experimental group of 13 subjects, a Chinese experimental group of 13 subjects,
and a control group of 20 subjects.
Overall results are presented in Table 1, reported as mean accuracy scores.
One point was assigned to each test item so that a maximum score of 5 on each
sentence type is achieved if subjects responded accurately to all 5 sentences.
Japanese controls responded as expected, scoring very accurately with a mean
score over 4 out of 5 on all five sentence types. English and Chinese speakers
generally judged sentences correctly. Both groups scored the highest on transitive
sentences which were true sentence/picture pairings (4.31 for English speakers,
and 4.69 for Chinese speakers) and the lowest on unergative sentences which
were false sentence/picture pairings (2.62 for English and Chinese speakers).
Recall that it is crucial that subjects make the transitive subject/object
distinction in the first place. Only if they make this distinction does it become
worthwhile to investigate whether they observe the unergative/unaccusative
distinction as well, treating unergative subjects like transitive subjects on the one
Table 1. Picture task: Mean accuracy scores

Sentence Type
Tr (T) Tr (F) Unacc (T) Unerg (T) Unerg (F)
Learners
English (4.31 (3.77 (4.23 (3.54 (2.62
(n = 13) (1.25) (1.53) (0.93) (1.39) (2.22)
Chinese (4.69 (3.69 (4.31 (3.77 (2.62
(n = 13) (0.63) (1.65) (0.75) (1.30) (1.94)
Controls
Japanese (4.70 (4.45 (4.55 (4.20 (4.10
(n = 20) (0.57) (1.00) (0.61) (1.06) (1.17)
Note: Standard deviations are given in brackets.
102 MAKIKO HIRAKAWA
hand and unaccusative subjects like transitive objects on the other. Thus, these
results will be discussed in two parts: in terms of subjects’ performance on
transitive sentences, and then on unergatives and unaccusatives.
Figure 1 shows mean acceptance scores on the transitive sentences. One point
was assigned to each test item if subjects accepted the sentence, and zero if they
rejected the sentence. We expected subjects to accept Tr (T) and reject Tr (F);
thus, the maximal score expected is 5 on Tr (T); in contrast, it is 0 on Tr (F).
Subjects in all three groups correctly accepted Tr (T) and rejected Tr (F). A
two-way repeated measures ANOVA on the acceptance scores shows a signifi-
cant effect for sentence type (F(1, 43) = 231.632, p < 0.0001). However, there is
no significant effect for group (F(2, 43) = 0.891, p < 0.4178), nor is there an
interaction (F(2, 43) = 1.942, p < 0.1558). Sheffé tests show that the difference in
performance on Tr (T) versus Tr (F) was significant for all three groups
(p < 0.05). In other words, all three groups accepted the true picture/sentence
pairings (Tr (T)) significantly more than the false pairings (Tr (F)), suggesting
that they observed the transitive subject/object distinction. The three groups did
not differ on either Tr (T) or Tr (F).
Further analyses were conducted on individual scores in terms of consisten-
cy in their responses. This was to determine whether there were any subjects
5 English speakers (n=13)

Chinese speakers (n=13)
4
Japanese controls (n=20)
Mean Acceptance Scores
0
Tr(T) Tr(F)
Sentence Type
Figure 1. Picture task: Mean acceptance scores on transitive sentences

who did not make the transitive subject/object distinction so that they should be
removed from the subsequent analysis of unaccusatives and unergatives. Consis-
tency was defined as accepting at least four of five Tr (T) sentences and
rejecting at least four of five Tr (F) sentences. Six English-speakers and five
Chinese-speakers did not give consistent responses and were removed, leaving
seven English subjects and eight Chinese subjects. There were also three
Japanese controls who failed to give consistent responses and were thus removed,
leaving 17 controls.12
Figure 2 summarizes the mean acceptance scores of these retained subjects
on Unacc (T) (true sentence/picture pairings), Unerg (T) (true sentence/picture
pairings) and Unerg (F) (false sentence/picture pairings).
A two-way repeated measures ANOVA shows that there are significant
effects for sentence type (F(2, 58) = 86.499, p = 0.0001) and an interaction
between group and sentence type (F(4, 58) = 5.832, p = 0.0027), but no effect for
group (F(2, 29) = 0.469 p = 0.63). Sheffé tests (p < 0.05) show the difference
between Unacc (T) and Unerg (F) sentences and the difference between Unerg
(T) and Unerg (F) sentences were significant for all three groups. However, no
significant difference was found in the responses to Unerg (T) and Unacc (T)
sentences for any of the three groups. These results suggest that all three groups
accepted Unacc (T) and Unerg (T) sentences significantly more than Unerg (F)
5
English speakers (n=7)
4
Mean Acceptance Scores

3
Unacc (T) Unerg (T) Unerg (F)
Sentence Type
Figure 2. Picture task: Mean acceptance scores on Unacc & Unerg sentences
104 MAKIKO HIRAKAWA
sentences. Thus the subjects did distinguish the unaccusative and unergative
sentence types.
For Unacc (T) and Unerg (T) sentences, the two experimental groups and
the control group did not differ from each other. In the case of Unerg (F)
patterns, the Chinese group but not the English group differed from the Japanese
controls, with the two L2 groups not significantly different from each other.
Although the incorrect acceptance of Unerg (F) sentences suggests that the L2
learners thought that takusan ‘a lot’ could modify the subject of an unergative
verb, the important thing to note here is that they allowed the subject of an
unaccusative verb to be modified by takusan to a significantly greater extent than
the subject of an unergative. This suggests that they did distinguish between the
two sentence types.
4.4.2 Acceptability judgment task

The acceptability judgment task included sentences with case drop for the
purpose of investigating L2 learners’ knowledge of surface unaccusativity. Case
drop is allowed on transitive objects and subjects of unaccusatives, but disal-
lowed on transitive subjects and subjects of unergatives.
All the subjects were retained for this analysis, as no subjects showed
response biases.13 Table 2 summarizes the mean scores of the three groups on
each sentence type. Recall that if subjects considered a sentence to be acceptable,
they assigned it a score of 1 or 2, whereas an unacceptable sentence received a
score of −1 or −2. Thus, expected means on the unacceptable sentences (U) are
negative, while those on the acceptable sentences (A) are positive. Mean scores
close to 2 indicate that a sentence type is considered to be fully acceptable, while
means close to −2 indicate that it is considered fully unacceptable.
Table 2. Acceptability judgement task: Mean scores

Sentence Type
Tr S (U) Tr O (A) Unacc (A) Unerg (U)
Learners
English (0.42 (0.95 (0.42 (0.80
(n = 13) (0.60) (0.81) (0.69) (0.73)
Chinese (0.56 (0.69 (0.44 (0.31
(n = 16) (1.02) (0.79) (0.99) (1.11)
Controls
Japanese −1.12 (0.76 −0.35 −0.56
(n = 20) (0.69) (1.13) (1.08) (1.01)
Note: Standard deviations are given in brackets.
Overall results show that learners as well as controls did not behave as expected
in a number of cases. Responses from the English and Chinese groups turned out
positive in all four sentence types, suggesting that the L2 learners accepted
sentences with case drop regardless of the subject/object or unaccus-
ative/unergative distinction. In contrast, the native speakers made the transitive
subject/object distinction, rejecting the transitive subjects without case markers
(-1.12) while accepting transitive objects without case markers (0.76). However,
their responses to unaccusative sentences were different from what we had
expected, with a negative score (-0.35) where positive scores were expected.
We will discuss the results in more detail in two parts, focusing first on the
transitive sentences and then on the unaccusative and unergative sentences.
Figure 3 presents mean scores on the two types of transitive sentences. A two-
factor repeated measures ANOVA shows that there are significant effects for
group (F(2, 46) = 7.255, p = 0.0018), sentence type (F(1, 46) = 55.925, p = 0.0001)
and an interaction (F(2, 46) = 19.174, p = 0.0001). Sheffé tests show that the
English and Chinese groups differ significantly (p < 0.05) from the Japanese
controls on subject case drop (Tr S (U)). The L2 groups do not differ from each
other on this sentence type. As for object case drop (Tr O (A)), the L2 groups
and the controls do not differ significantly from each other.
Native speakers showed the subject/object contrast, rejecting case drop on
1.5 English speakers (n=13)

1
0.5
Mean Scores
-0.5
-1
-1.5
Tr S (U) Tr O (A)
Sentence Type
Figure 3. Acceptability judgement task: Mean scores on transitive sentences

106 MAKIKO HIRAKAWA
subjects while accepting it on objects. This difference is significant (a Sheffé

test, p < 0.05). In comparison, the L2 learners failed to reject case drop on
transitive subjects. Nevertheless, there is a significant difference between the
English learners’ responses on the subject versus object case drop, suggesting
some sensitivity to the distinction. No significant difference was found between
the Chinese learners’ responses on the subject drop and on object case drop.
It should be noted again that only the subjects who observe the distinction
for transitive sentences should be retained for the analysis on unaccusative and
unergative sentences. In other words, we need to focus on the subjects who
consistently rejected subject case drop and accepted object case drop. Consisten-
cy was determined on giving expected responses to at least four of five test
sentences; that is, giving positive scores (+1 or +2) to acceptable sentences, and
giving negative scores (−1 or −2) to unacceptable sentences; responses of 0
(‘don’t know’) were treated as inaccurate responses.
Only one Chinese and one English learner observed the transitive sub-
ject/object contrast in terms of case drop, consistently rejecting Tr. S (U) and
accepting Tr. O (A). In contrast, 9 of 20 Japanese controls observed the distinc-
tion, but 11 failed to do so.14 Figure 4 summarizes the results for these subjects
on unaccusatives and unergatives.
1.5
English speakers (n=1)
1 Chinese speakers (n=1)
0.5
Mean Scores
M =0
(Jap )
0
M =0
(E ng )
-0.5
-1
-1.5
Unacc (A) Unerg (U)
Sentence Type
Figure 4. Acceptability judgement task: Mean scores on Unacc & Unerg sentences
As can be seen from Figure 4, neither these learners nor these controls showed
the unaccusative/unergative contrast in terms of sentences with case drop at S-S.
The mean scores of the three groups on the two types of verbs turned out either
zero or very close to zero, contrary to what we had expected.
4.5 Discussion
To summarize the results of the two tasks, as far as deep unaccusativity is

concerned, learners who made the transitive subject/object distinction also made
the unaccusative/unergative distinction, treating unaccusative subjects like
transitive objects on the one hand and unergative subjects like transitive subjects
on the other. These learners knew that the subject of an unaccusative verb
originates in object position, although it surfaces in subject position. This result
confirms the first of our hypotheses (which is repeated below).
Hypothesis: Learners will show sensitivity to the unaccustive/unergative distinc-
tion at D-S in Japanese.
If universal principles like the UTAH were not available to L2 learners, they
should have had a mapping problem in linking a theme argument to the verb’s
internal argument position and should be unable to distinguish between unaccus-
atives and unergatives. Knowledge of deep unaccusativity in their L1 alone
cannot explain the result obtained here, since the structure used for testing
knowledge of deep unaccusativity (the takusan construction) is not instantiated
in English or in Chinese.
The English-speaking and the Chinese-speaking learners behaved quite
similarly and did not differ significantly on any of the test sentence types included
in the picture task. The two L2 groups generally performed like the Japanese
controls, except in the case of the false unergative sentence/picture pairings, where
the Chinese group was significantly less accurate than the controls in rejecting
the sentences. Nevertheless it is important to note that there were significant
differences in L2 learners’ acceptances of unaccusative versus unergative
sentences, which suggests that they did distinguish between the two patterns.
Turning now to surface unaccusativity, case drop was used as a test for
tapping L2 learners’ knowledge. The overall results show that although the
Japanese controls in general distinguished transitive subjects from objects, they
did not show the unaccusative/unergative distinction, rejecting case drop on
unaccusatives as well as unergatives. No significant differences were found
between the Japanese controls’ performance on the two classes of intransitive
verbs. Only one English- and one Chinese-speaking learner observed the
108 MAKIKO HIRAKAWA
transitive subject/object contrast in terms of consistency in their response, and

there were no significant differences between their performance on unaccusatives
and unergatives. However, since the Japanese controls did not observe the
unaccusative/unergative distinction either, the second of our hypotheses (repeated
below) can unfortunately be neither confirmed or disconfirmed.
Hypothesis: Learners will have difficulty in acquiring surface unaccusativity in
Japanese, at least in the initial stage.
It is somewhat surprising that native speakers did not make the unaccusative/
unergative distinction in terms of case drop. As discussed above, the case drop
phenomenon is observed in colloquial Japanese. Use of case drop may vary
among speakers, or maybe subject to dialectal differences. Thus, one may
question whether a written acceptability judgment task was an appropriate way
to tap Japanese speakers’ knowledge of case drop. Nevertheless, our native
controls did show the transitive subject/object asymmetry on this task, even
though their judgments were not very close to the maximum/minimum scores.
Thus, the task was partially successful in tapping their knowledge of case drop
(see also Kanno 1996, who successfully used a written grammaticality judgment
task to establish L2 knowledge of case drop).
It has also been claimed that Japanese unaccusatives involve optional NP
movement; that is, the single argument of unaccusatives may or may not move to
the logical subject position (Nakayama and Koizumi 1991). If it moves, it should
behave on a par with transitive subjects and unergative subjects; if it does not, it
should behave like a transitive object. Thus, if NP movement is involved in the
native controls in the present study, there should be no difference in their perfor-
mance across transitive subjects, unergative subjects, and unaccusative subjects. In
fact, there was no significant difference in the native controls’ performance on
Tr. S versus Unerg, and Unerg versus Unacc. However, there was a significant
difference in their performance on the Tr. S and Unacc patterns (Sheffé tests,
p < 0.05). There was also a significant difference in their performance on the
Unacc and Tr. O sentences. Thus, it appears that native speakers treated the
subject of an unaccusative not quite like the transitive subject, but somewhere in-
between the transitive subject or the subject of an unergative and the transitive
object. Such behavior might have been due to the fact that NP movement was in
fact optional for some of the speakers. More research is required on this point.
The final point to note is that although consistency was used as a criterion
in checking the subjects’ mastery of transitive subject/object distinction in the
two tasks, this factor alone may not have been quite the right way to get at the
issues here. There were learners and controls who gave consistent responses in
one of the two types but failed to do so in the other and were thus removed from
further consideration. This still may suggest that the two sentence types are not
the same in their grammar (cf. Grimshaw and Rosen 1990).
5. Conclusion
The present study aimed to investigate L2 learners’ knowledge of the unaccusat-

ive/unergative distinction at two different syntactic levels — D-S and S-S. Results
obtained here suggest that English-speaking and Chinese-speaking learners of
Japanese observed the distinction at D-S. However, the distinction at S-S, which
involved case drop, turned out not to provide a suitable diagnostic of the
unaccusative/unergative distinction. As noted above, this may be because optional
NP movement is involved in native speakers’ knowledge of unaccusatives.
Since the number of the subjects, especially L2 learners, involved in the
present study was relatively small the results obtained here must be considered
as preliminary. Further studies including other syntactic structures as tests for
deep and surface unaccusativity are necessary in order to more fully characterize
native speaker and L2 knowledge of unaccusativity in Japanese.
Acknowledgments
I would like to thank Lydia White and Kevin Gregg for their detailed comments on earlier versions
of this paper. I am also grateful to Lisa Travis, Nigel Duffield, Noriaki Yusa, Taisuke Nishigauchi,
Yahiro Hirakawa and Kazue Kanno for comments and suggestions. Part of this study was presented
at PacSLRF’98, Aoyama Gakuin University, Tokyo, March 1998. I am grateful to audiencesfor
stimulating questions and comments. This research was in part supported by a research grant from
Tokyo International University.
Notes
1. Kageyama assumes that nominative Case, ga, in Japanese is inherent.

2. It should be noted that takusan can in fact modify both the subject and the object if they are not
omitted. The following two sentences are grammatical.
a. Takusan-no hito-ga sono hon-o yon-da
a lot- people- the book- read-
‘A lot of people read the book.’
b. Tanaka-san-ga takusan-no hon-o yon-da.
Tanaka-Mr- a lot- book- read-
‘Mr. Tanaka read a lot of books.’
110 MAKIKO HIRAKAWA
3. Other pieces of evidence for deep unaccusativity include floated numeral quantifiers, resultative
constructions and verbal compounding. See Miyagawa (1989) and Kageyama (1993) for more
details.
4. It should be noted that the Japanese examples given in section 2.2. consist of two clauses. This
ensures that a Case marker omitted in the embedded clause is not the topic marker wa, which
can be freely omitted, but only the nominative Case marker.
5. Other pieces of evidence for surface unaccusativity in Japanese include generic PRO (Kuroda
1988, Kageyama 1993, Nishigauchi 1992) and causative passive constructions (Kageyama
1993).
6. These sentences are taken from Yuan 1996 (8a,b & c). In the gloss of the example sentences,
 = classifier, and  = perfective aspect marker.
7. This is also true with English unaccusatives, but Japanese unaccusatives do not have a
definiteness restriction at any level.
8. Examples of stative predicates include: aru ‘exist/have/be’, wakaru ‘understand’, dekiru ‘can’,
sukida ‘like’ and hosii ‘want’. NPs marked with nominative ‘ga’ in stative predicates bear a
theme role, and are thus assumed to be in object position rather than subject position. See
Takezawa (1987), who claims that nominative Case can be easily dropped in such predicates.
9. As far as the transitive subject/object distinction is concerned, experimental studies on young
Japanese children also suggest that they know that Case markers on transitive objects can be
omitted while those on transitive subjects cannot (Otsu 1994, Lakshmanan and Ozeki 1996).
10. The tasks reported here included other types of structures, making the total number of test
sentences larger than the numbers reported here.
11. I follow Kanno (1996) in designing the test sentences in this task. Kanno also uses interrogative
sentences in her experiment on case deletion in L2 Japanese, exploring the issue of access to
non-parametrized principles of UG in L2 acquisition. It should be noted that her subjects were
instructed to correct sentences when they judged the test sentences to be unnatural, which was
not the case with my study. Correction was not required in my study because a pilot study had
shown that many subjects had a tendency to judge the test sentences without case markers as
unacceptable and had provided missing Case markers. Since it was desired to avoid such a
situation, further correction was not asked.
12. Many of the subjects who were removed at this point correctly accepted Tr (T) but failed to
consistently reject Tr (F). This was also the case with three native speakers of Japanese
removed here.
13. In fact, one Chinese and one Japanese subject rejected all sentences checking case drop, and
one Chinese subject accepted them all. Since these subjects did not do so on the other test
sentences (which are not reported here) included in the same task, they were retained in the
analysis.
14. As for those who were removed at this point, we found the same tendency that was observed
in the overall responses. That is, both groups of L2 learners tended to accept Case drop on
transitive objects but failed to reject that on transitive subjects. The Japanese controls in contrast
showed a tendency to reject Case drop on transitive subjects consistently, but did not accept
Case drop on transitive objects.
Appendix
Examples from the Picture Task:

(i) Unerg (T)
Takusan oyogimasita.
a lot swam
(ii) Unerg (F)
Takusan oyogimasita.
a lot swam
112 MAKIKO HIRAKAWA
References
Baker, Mark. 1988. Incorporation: A Theory of Grammatical Function Changing. Chicago:

Chicago University Press.
Balcom, Patricia. 1997. “Why is This Happened?” Passive Morphology and Unaccusat-
ivity.” Second Language Research 13: 1–9.
Burzio, Luigi. 1986. Italian Syntax: A government-binding approach. Dordrecht: Reidel.
Grimshaw, Jane and Sara Thomas Rosen. 1990. “Knowledge and Obedience: The
developmental status of the Binding Theory.” Linguistic Inquiry 21:187–222.
Hirakawa, Makiko. 1995. “L2 Acquisition of English Unaccusative Constructions.”
Proceedings of the 19th Annual Boston University Conference on Language Develop-
ment. Mass: Cascadilla Press 1: 291–302.
Kageyama, Taro. 1993. Bunpoo to gokeisei (Grammar and Word Formation). Tokyo:
Hitsuji Shoboo.
———. 1996. Dooshi-imiron (Verb Semantics). Tokyo: Kuroshio.
Kanno, Kazue. 1996. “The Status of a Non-Parametrized Principle in the L2 Initial State.”
Language Acquisition: A Journal of Developmental Linguistics 5(4): 317–335.
Kuno, Susumu. 1973. The Structure of the Japanese Language. Cambridge, Mass: MIT
Press.
Kuroda, S.-Y. 1988. “Whether We Agree or Not: A comparative syntax of English and
Japanese.” Linguisticae Investigationes 12: 1–47.
Lakshmanan, Usha and Mami Ozeki. 1996. “The Case of the Missing Particle: Objective
case assignment and scrambling in the early grammar of Japanese.” Proceedings of
the 20th Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development. Mass:
Cascadila Press 1: 431–442.
Levin, Beth and Malka Rappaport Hovav. 1995. Unaccusativity: At the syntax-lexical
semantics interface. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.
Li, Audrey Y.-H. 1990. Order and Constituency in Mandarin Chinese. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Miyagawa, Shigeru. 1989. Structure and Case Marking in Japanese. New York, NY:
Academic Press.
Miyata, Hiroko. 1992. Nihongo kakujoshi no shuutoku: ‘ga’ ‘wo’ o chuushin to shite.
(The Acquisition of Japanese Case: Special focus on ‘ga’ and ‘wo’). Unpublished
Master’s thesis, Osaka University.
Nakayama, Mineharu and Masatoshi Koizumi. 1991. “Remarks on Japanese subjects.”
Lingua 85: 303–319.
Nishigauchi, Taisuke. 1992. “Nihongo no hitaikaku koobun to theta riron (The Unaccus-
ative Construction in Japanese and theta-theory).” Osaka Daigaku Gengobunkagaku
1: 41–52.
———. 1993. “Nihongo no kaku-fuyo no bunpoo to gengo-kakutoku riron” (Grammar on
case assignment in Japanese and the theory of language acquisition). Proceedings of
the 8th annual meeting of Sophia Linguistic Society 160–172.
Oshita, Hiroyuki. 1997. “The Unaccusative Trap: L2 Acquisition of English intransitive

verbs.” Unpublished Ph. D. dissertation. University of Southern California.
Otsu, Yukio. 1994. “Early Acquisition of Scrambling in Japanese.” In T. Hoekstra and B.
Schwartz (eds.), Language Acquisition Studies in Generative Grammar. Amsterdam
and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 159–169.
Perlmutter, David. 1978. “Impersonal Passives and the Unaccusative Hypothesis.”
Berkeley Linguistic Society IV: 157–189.
Saito, Mamoru. 1985. Some Asymmetries in Japanese and their Theoretical Implications.
Ph. D. dissertation, MIT.
Sorace, Antonella. 1995. “Acquiring Linking Rules and Argument Structures in a Second
Language: The unaccusative/unergative distinction.” In L. Eubank, L. Selinker and
Sharwood Smith (eds), The Current State of Interlanguage. Amsterdam and Philadel-
phia: John Benjamins.
Takezawa, Koichi. 1987. A Configurational Approach to Case-Marking in Japanese.
Ph. D. dissertation, University of Washington.
Teramura, Hideo. 1990. Gaikokujin gakushuusha no nihongo-goyooreishuu (List of Errors
by Learners of Japanese). Osaka University.
Tsujimura. Natsuko. 1990. “Ergativity of Nouns and Case Assignment.” Linguistic Inquiry
21: 277–287.
Yip, Virginia. 1995. Interlanguage and Learnability: From Chinese to English. Amsterdam
and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Yuan, Boping. 1996. “How are Lexical-Semantic Differences Represented in L2 Syntax?
A Study of the Unaccusative/Unergative Distinction in L2 Chinese.” EUROSLA 6:
201–215.
Zobl, Helmut. 1989. “Canonical Typological Structures and Ergativity in English L2
Acquisition.” In S. Gass and J. Schachter (eds), Linguistic Perspectives on Second
Language Acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 203–221.
C 7
Who Knows What and Why?

The Acquisition of Multiple Wh-Questions
by Adult Learners of English and Japanese
Naoko Yoshinaga
Hirosaki Gakuin University
1. Introduction
A key feature of multiple wh-questions is that there are multiple requests for
information. For example, an appropriate answer to the question who read what?
provides information in response to both who and what.
Languages themselves differ in the range of possible multiple wh-questions.
In English, for instance, multiple wh-questions involving two argument wh-
phrases are acceptable, whereas those involving an adjunct wh-phrase are not
(e.g., Lasnik & Saito 1992).
(1) Both wh-phrases are arguments
a. Who read what?
b. Who went where?
(2) One wh-phrase is an adjunct
a. *Who answered how?
b. *Who died why?
Among adjuncts, where and when behave differently from adjunct how and why
in multiple wh-questions, since multiple wh-questions with a subject wh-phrase
and adjunct where or when are acceptable, as (3) illustrates (Huang 1982; Aoun,
Hornstein, Lightfoot, & Weinberg 1987; Kuno & Takami 1993).
(3) a. Who swam where?
b. Who traveled when?
116 NAOKO YOSHINAGA
This asymmetry in the acceptability of sentences is traditionally accounted for in the

principles-and-parameter framework in connection with the Empty Category
Principle (ECP), which requires that empty categories (i.e., trace of a wh-phrase in
this case) be properly governed (either lexically governed or antecedent-governed).
It is generally assumed (see e.g., Huang 1982, Lasnik & Saito 1984; 1992)
that in English, the trace of the subject wh-word (e.g., who in Who ate what?) is
antecedent-governed by the WH complex in Spec of CP at LF, while the trace
of the direct object (e.g., what in Who ate what?) is lexically governed by the
verb of which it is a subcategorized complement.1 This is depicted in (4) for
sentence (1a).
(4) a. DS: [CP [IP whoi ate whatj]]?
b. SS: [CP whoi [IP ti ate whatj]]?
c. LF: [CP [whatj whoi]i [IP ti ate tj ]]?
↑ ↑
antecedent lexically governed
governed by by the verb
the WH complex
Sentence (1b) satisfies the ECP in a parallel manner.

In contrast, the trace of the adjunct wh-phrases in (2a) and (2b) cannot be
lexically governed because it is not complement of the verb (i.e., it is not gov-
erned by any lexical category). These traces cannot be antecedent-governed by
the WH complex either, since the WH complex bears the index of the subject
wh-word. Thus, the multiple wh-questions in (2a) and (2b) violate the ECP, and
native speakers should find them less acceptable. A sample representation is
shown in (5).
(5) a. DS:*[CP [IP who i came whyj]]?
b. SS: [CP who i [IP t i came whyj]]?
c. LF: [CP [whyj whoi ]i [IP ti came tj ]]?
↑ ↑
antecedent NOT governed
governed by
the WH complex
The difference among adjunct wh-phrases in multiple wh-questions (compare (2)

and (3) above) can be accounted for in a variety of ways. For example, Huang
(1982) argues that the trace of where or when, but not of how and why, can be
lexically governed by a null preposition, so that multiple wh-questions in (3a)
and (3b) satisfy the ECP.
WHO KNOWS WHAT AND WHY? 117
The range of possible multiple wh-questions is wider in Japanese than in English.

Thus, the multiple wh-questions in (6), (7), and (8), which correspond to (1), (2),
and (3) respectively, are all perfectly natural.
(6) a. Dare-ga nani-o yomi-mashita-ka?
who- what- read-.-
‘Who read what?’
b. Dare-ga doko-ni iki-mashita-ka?
who- where-to go-.-
‘Who went where?’
(7) a. Dare-ga donoyooni kotae-mashita-ka?
who-  how answer-.-
‘Who answered how?’
b. Dare-ga naze shini-mashita-ka?
who-  why die-.-
‘Who died why?’
(8) a. Dare-ga doko-de oyogi-mashita-ka?
who- where-at swim-.-
‘Who swam where?’
b. Dare-ga itsu ryokoo-shimashita-ka?
who- when travel-do..-
‘Who traveled when?’
In Japanese, the trace of a wh-word in subject position is often assumed to be
lexically governed (either by the nominative Case marker ga or by Infl; (see e.g.,
Katada 1991 and Lasnik & Saito 1992)). Consequently, the trace in subject
position is properly governed, satisfying the ECP. This allows the WH complex
to antecedent-govern the trace of the adjunct wh-phrases. Thus, an example like
(9) does not violate the ECP, which complies with Japanese speakers’ judgment
that such sentences are completely natural.2 (See Bley-Vroman & Yoshinaga
1998 for somewhat more detailed overview of the literature).
(9) a. [CP [IP darei-ga nazej naki-mashita] ka]?
who- why cry-. 
b. [CP [darei nazej]j [IP ti-ga tj naki-mashita] ka]?
‘Who cried why?’
118 NAOKO YOSHINAGA
2. Multiple wh-questions and language acquisition
It is often assumed in the literature on language acquisition (see, e.g., Chomsky

1986; Lightfoot 1989) that children’s experience does not contain the information
that certain sentences are not possible in the language that they are acquiring,
and that the required principle must therefore be available as part of Universal
Grammar (UG). In this view, the initial setting of the relevant constraint should
be the most restricted option, and the relevant parameter would be reset to a
more liberal or marked option only as required by the available input (e.g.,
O’Grady 1997: 283).
In case of multiple wh-questions, children learning Japanese as their native
language must determine that Japanese allows all the patterns discussed above,
whereas children learning English as their native language must determine that
English allows only certain patterns.
For the sake of exposition, I will take the constraint in question to be the
ECP, including a parameter that allows the subject trace to be lexically governed
in some languages but antecedent governed in other languages (see Cole,
Hermon, & Sung 1990 for a proposal about the relevant parametric values and
possible triggering data). The default setting could be the English option, in
which case Japanese-speaking children would reset the parameter by hearing
grammatical multiple wh-questions such as:
(10) Dare-ga naze kimashita-ka?
who- why come..-
‘Who came why?’
It should be noted here that the most restricted case is, theoretically, one in
which no multiple wh-questions would be permitted at all. Such a situation could
result if, for example, the language did not permit multiply filled specifiers of CP
in either S-structure or LF (not an implausible possibility — see Richards 1997:
27). However, since this option has not actually been proposed to date to my
knowledge, I will not consider it further here.3
Now let us consider the case of second language acquisition. As in first
language acquisition, successful English-speaking learners of Japanese must
possess a grammar that allows a superset of the multiple wh-questions that are
possible in their native language. In this case, the relevant information may be
available in the positive input since all types are grammatical in the target
language and therefore can in theory appear in the input. In contrast, successful
adult Japanese-speaking learners of English must possess a grammar that allows
a subset of the multiple wh-questions that are possible in their native language.
In this case, information about the ungrammaticality of particular sentences is

required in some form for acquisition to take place. However, such information
is included neither in the positive input nor in instruction since it is unlikely that
multiple wh-questions are explicitly presented in the classroom. Hence, a clear
learnability problem arises (see e.g., Bley-Vroman 1990 and White 1989 for a
good discussion of the learnability problem in second language acquisition).
In a view which holds that UG constrains adult second language acquisition
just as it does child language acquisition (the so-called ‘full access hypothesis’),
one would predict that adult second language learners should be able to acquire
the target language system and reset the relevant parameter value (e.g., Flynn
1996). Other views of second language acquisition would suggest that the
mechanism that guides child language acquisition is simply not available for
adult language acquisition (e.g., Bley-Vroman 1990), or is somehow impeded by
extraneous factors (e.g., White 1989). These views would predict that learners’
interlanguage should exhibit various properties not found in the target language.
I will return to this issue.
3. Research questions and hypotheses
The purpose of the experiment described here is to investigate the extent to

which Japanese-speaking learners of English and English-speaking learners of
Japanese approximate native speakers of the target language in judging the
acceptability of the following six different types of multiple wh-questions.
(11) a. Who bought what?
b. Who went where?
c. Who swam where?
d. Who traveled when?
e. *Who came how?
f. *Who died why?
Native-speaker judgments on the acceptability of these patterns are also examined.
The research questions for my study are as follows:
1. Do native speakers of English distinguish among these six different types
of English multiple wh-questions in their acceptability judgments?
2. Do native speakers of Japanese accept all six types of multiple wh-questions
in Japanese?
120 NAOKO YOSHINAGA
3. Do Japanese-speaking learners of English exhibit patterns of acceptability

judgments similar to those of native speakers of English?
4. Do English-speaking learners of Japanese exhibit patterns of acceptability
judgments similar to those of native speakers of Japanese?
Based on the syntactic analysis discussed above, the hypotheses related to
research questions 1 to 4 can be formulated as follows:
Hypothesis for research question 1: Native speakers of English distinguish
multiple wh-questions that contain how and why, which they treat as unaccept-
able, from all other types.
Hypothesis for research question 2: Native speakers of Japanese accept all types
of multiple wh-questions in Japanese.
Hypothesis for research question 3: There is no difference between native
speakers of English and ESL learners in terms of their acceptability judgments
(the null hypothesis).
Hypothesis for research question 4: There is no difference between native
speakers of Japanese and JSL learners in terms of their acceptability judgments
(the null hypothesis).
If hypotheses 3 and 4 turn out to be correct, this could be taken as support for
the full access hypothesis.
4. The Study
4.1 Subjects
Four groups of subjects (155 in all) participated in the study:

Group I: 42 Japanese-speaking learners of English (JE)
Group II: 33 English-speaking learners of Japanese (EJ)
Group III: 30 Native speakers of English (EE)
Group IV: 50 Native speakers of Japanese (JJ)
Japanese-speaking adults learning English as a foreign language and English-
speaking adults learning Japanese as a foreign language participated as experi-
mental groups. The Japanese-speaking learners of English were all enrolled in
compulsory general English courses primarily offered to freshmen and sopho-
mores at Kyushu University in Fukuoka. There were 23 males and 42 females in
this group, ranging in age from 18 to 21 (mean 18.81, SD = .86). Most of these
subjects began learning English at age 12 (ranging from 9 to 13, mean = 12.07,
SD = .87), and had studied English for 6 to 10 years (mean = 6.95, SD = 1.13),
although none had ever lived in an English-speaking country. None of these
subjects had taken the TOEFL; however, Kyushu University is one of the most
competitive national universities in Japan, and consequently it is not implausible
to assume that their English proficiency is relatively high among Japanese
college students.
The English-speaking learners of Japanese were students enrolled in sections
of a third semester course in Japanese at the University of Hawai‘i. There were
19 males and 14 females in this group, ranging in age from 18 to 31
(mean = 20.63, SD = 2.78). The age at which these subjects started learning
Japanese ranged from 10 to 25 (mean = 15.22, SD = 3.13). They had been
studying Japanese for 1 to 7 years (mean = 3.44, SD = 1.64), although none had
been to Japan. There are no test scores to show their general proficiency levels.
However, they were all enrolled in the third of four semester-long courses that
undergraduates must take in a foreign language.
Native speakers of English and Japanese participated as control groups. The
native speakers of English were students enrolled in sections of first and second
semester courses in Japanese at the University of Hawai‘i. The native speakers of
Japanese were students enrolled in compulsory general English courses primarily
offered to freshmen and sophomores at Kyushu University in Fukuoka, Japan.
4.2 Materials
Two translationally-equivalent versions of the questionnaire — one in English and

one in Japanese — were used. For each language, two forms were prepared,
differing only in the order of the items.4 The instructions were written in the
subjects’ native language (e.g., English for English-speaking learners of Japanese
who took the Japanese questionnaire). However, the test materials were presented
in the standard Japanese script for the Japanese questionnaire and in English for
the English questionnaire.5 Each test item consisted of a description of a
situation, followed by a multiple wh-question which the subjects were asked to
rate for acceptability. There were four tokens each of six types of multiple
wh-questions (for a total of 24 test items) and one token each of seven simple
wh-questions.6 Examples of the six types of multiple wh -questions as well as the
seven simple wh-questions used in the study are given in (12).
122 NAOKO YOSHINAGA
(12) (i) Test items (4 tokens each, total of 24)

Type Example
what type (who-what) Who bought what?
complement where type (who-where comp) Who went where?
noncomplement where type (who-where non) Who swam where?
when type (who-when) Who traveled when?
how type (who-how) Who came how?
why type (who-why) Who died why?
(ii) Simple wh-questions (1 token each, total of 7)
Type Example
who type (who) Who watched TV?
what type (what) What did John order?
complement where type (wherecomp) Where did Keith enter?
noncomplement where type (wherenon) Where did Tom play?
when type (when) When did Mary graduate?
how type (how) How did Jim speak?
why type (why) Why did Bill get tired?
Sample items from the questionnaire are presented in (13). All items were
randomized by a computer.
(13) Sample items
a. Test item
Situation: John bought the pen, and Cathy bought the flower.
In this situation, is the following a possible English sentence?
Who bought what? −3 −2 −1 0 1 2 3
b. Simple wh-question
Situation: Mary graduated last year.
In this situation, is the following a possible English sentence?
When did Mary graduate? −3 −2 −1 0 1 2 3
4.3 Procedures
The questionnaire was distributed to the English-speaking learners of Japanese

and the native speakers of English at the University of Hawai‘i during the
summer session in 1996. It was distributed to the Japanese-speaking learners of
English and the native speakers of Japanese at Kyushu University in Fukuoka,
Japan during the spring semester of 1996. The subjects were asked to rate the
acceptability of the sentences on a seven-point rating scale that ranged from −3
(‘completely impossible’) to +3 (‘completely possible’).
4.4 Analyses
In order to test hypotheses 1 and 2, a one-factor repeated-measures analysis of

variance (ANOVA) was performed for each set of native language data. The one
within-subjects factor was sentence type (who-what, who-wherecomp, who-
wherenon, who-when, who-how, and who-why). For testing hypotheses 3 and 4, a
two-factor repeated-measures ANOVA was performed to determine whether or
not the overall differences were significant in the comparison between native
speakers’ performance and learners’ performance in judgments of multiple
wh-questions in the target language. The between-subjects factor was language
group (Native vs. Learners) and the within-subjects factor was sentence type
(who-what, who-wherecomp, who-wherenon, who-when, who-how, and who-why).
To determine which pairs of means were significantly different, individual pairs
of means were compared by conducting multiple comparisons. The means of
simple wh-questions were also calculated for comparisons with the test items.
The experiment-wide alpha decision level of .05 was chosen. However, individu-
al decisions were made at a more conservative p < .01 to compensate for the fact
that four ANOVA procedures were used in these analyses. (As it happened, the
choice of .01 or .05 was without consequence.)
4.5 Results
4.5.1 Native Data (EE and JJ)

Table 1 and Figure 1 (EE) show that there was a clear decline in acceptability
from the who-what type to the who-why type in the order of who-what, who-
wherecomp, who-wherenon, who-when, who-how, and who-why type for English as
reflected in the significant effect of sentence type, F(5, 145) = 46.440*, p = .0001.
Table 1. Descriptive statistics for ratings of the six sentence types by native speakers
Native English speakers (EE) Native Japanese speakers (JJ)
Count Mean S.D. Count Mean S.D.
who-what 30 −2.044 1.325 50 2.444 1.003
who-wherecomp 30 −1.967 1.445 50 2.360 1.104
who-wherenon 30 −1.683 1.734 50 2.319 1.161
who-when 30 −0.842 1.974 50 2.189 1.153
who-how 30 0−.367 1.912 50 1.752 1.278
who-why 30 −1.150 1.873 50 1.575 1.615
124 NAOKO YOSHINAGA
JJ EE
3
-1
-2
-3
who-what who-wherecomp who-wherenon who-when who-how who-why
Figure 1. Mean ratings of the six sentence types by native speakers
Table 1 and Figure 1 (JJ) also show that there was a similar tendency in the
acceptability of sentences (in the same descending order) for Japanese, as
reflected in the significant effect of sentence type, F(5, 245) = 13.753*, p = .0001.
However, the slope of the descent for the mean ratings of the six types is much
flatter than for English, and all sentence types are quite high in terms of their
acceptability ratings.
In order to determine which pairs of means were significantly different,
adjacent means were subjected to multiple comparisons. Table 2 summarizes the
results of these multiple comparisons.
As can be seen by examining the last three rows of Table 2, the major
contrasts in English occur between the who-wherenon type and the who-when
type, between the who-when type and the who-how type, and between the
who-how type and the who-why type. This reflects the fact that the mean ratings
Table 2. Summary of the multiple comparisons for native data

English Japanese
F-value p-value F-value p-value
who-what vs. who-wherecomp 10.079 .7785 00.380 .5381
who-where comp vs. who-wherenon 01.053 .3064 00.091 .7637
who-where non vs. who-when 09.296 .0027* 00.910 .3410
who-when vs. who-how 19.160 .0001* 10.286 .0015*
who-how vs. who-why 08.052 .0052* 01.688 .1951
*p < .01
for the who-how type and the who-why type are significantly lower than for the
other sentence types, as shown in Table 1. Within the latter set of sentences, the
mean rating for the who-when type is significantly lower than for the who-what,
who-wherecomp, and who-wherenon types (see Table 1).
Turning now to Japanese, there was a major break between the who-when
type and the who-how type, with the mean ratings for the who-how and who-wh
types significantly different from the ratings for the who-what, who-wherecomp,
who-wherenon, and who-when types.
If positive values are taken to indicate that a sentence is acceptable, and
negative values are taken to indicate that it is unacceptable, the results show that
for English, the who-what type and the who-wherecomp type are quite high in
acceptability, that the who-wherenon type is clearly on the acceptable side, and
that although lower on the range, the who-when type is also on the acceptable
side. In contrast, the who-how type and the who-why type are on the unaccept-
able side. For Japanese, every type is clearly on the acceptable side: the who-
what type, the who-wherecomp type, the who-wherenon type, and the who-whn type
are all nearly perfect, while the who-how type and the who-why type receive
quite high ratings.
4.5.2 Native speakers of English vs. Japanese learners of English (EE vs. JE)
The ESL learners rated the six types of multiple wh-questions differently from
native speakers of English, as reflected in the fact that there was a significant
main effect for both language group, F(1, 70) = 14.376*, p = .0003 and sentence
type, F(5, 350) = 53.392*, p = .0001, as well as a significant interaction effect for
language group with sentence type, F(5, 350) = 29.959*, p = .0001. More specifi-
cally, native speakers made rather sharp distinctions among the six types of
multiple wh-questions, whereas the learners rated all types as unacceptable
without making distinctions among them. As Figure 2 shows, the slope of the
126 NAOKO YOSHINAGA
JE EE
3
-1
-2
-3
Figure 2. Mean ratings of the six sentence types by Japanese learners of English and native
speakers of English
line connecting the mean ratings by the native speakers of English (EE) is sharp,
whereas the slope for the learners (JE) is very flat and low. As depicted in
Figure 3 below, the mean ratings by native speakers are quite spread out along
the 7-point rating scale, clearly distinguishing among the six types. (The relevant
means are in Table 1.) In contrast, rating by the Japanese learners of English are
clustered around the area below zero to −1, without much variation among the
six types; in other words, basically all types were rejected as unacceptable. (The
relevant means are in Table 3.)
Because the main effect for sentence type was significant, this factor was
examined further. The comparisons reported in Table 4 below indicated that none
of the adjacent pairs of means was statistically significant for the Japanese-
speaking learners of English.
Table 3. Descriptive statistics for ratings of the six sentence types by learners
Japanese learners of English English learners of Japanese
(JE) (EJ)
who-what 42 −.298 2.132 33 1.689 1.525
who-wherecomp 42 −.565 2.014 33 1.558 1.635
who-wherenon 42 −.702 1.982 33 1.750 1.518
who-when 42 −.851 1.888 33 1.295 1.720
who-how 42 −.851 1.940 33 0.937 1.655
who-why 42 −.935 1.865 33 0.879 1.667
3 who-what
who-wherecomp
who-wherenon
2 who-when
who-how
who-why
1
-1
-2
-3
EE JE
LG
Figure 3. Mean ratings of the six sentence types by native speakers of English and Japanese
learners of English (from another angle)
128 NAOKO YOSHINAGA
Table 4. Summary of the multiple comparisons for learners’ data

Japanese learners of English English learners of Japanese
F-value p-value F-value p-value
who-what vs. who-wherecomp 3.012 0.0842 who-where non vs. who-what 0.095 .7581
who-wherecomp vs. who-wherenon 0.787 0.3761 who-what vs. who-where comp 0.447 .5048
who-wherenon vs. who-when 0.929 0.3361 who-where comp vs. who-when 1.787 .1832
who-when vs. who-how 0.000 1.0000 who-when vs. who-how 3.332 .0698
who-how vs. who-why 0.291 0.5899 who-how vs. who-why 0.087 .7679
EJ JJ
3
-1
-2
-3
Figure 4. Mean ratings of the six sentence types by English-speaking learners of Japanese
and native speakers of Japanese
4.5.3 Native speakers of Japanese vs. English-speaking learners of Japanese (JJ

vs. EJ)
The results indicated that there was a significant main effect for both language
groups (F(1, 81) = 7.471, p = .0077) and sentence types (F(5, 405) = 19.731, p = .0001),
but no significant interaction of language group with sentence type
(F(5, 405) = .471, p = .7979). This can be interpreted as showing that both native
speakers of Japanese (JJ) and the English-speaking learners of Japanese (EJ) are
rating the six types in a similar manner, as shown in Figure 4 above. Although
the learners’ ratings are somewhat lower than the native speakers’, the slopes of
the lines connecting the mean ratings of the six types by both groups are quite
similar and equally flat. If we look at the graph from a different angle as shown
in Figure 5, we can also see that the mean ratings by native speakers and learners
are clustered within the same range and all are on the acceptable side, with the
natives’ ratings around +2 and the learners’ ratings around +1 and above.
Because the main effect for sentence type was significant, that factor was
3 who-what
who-where comp
who-where non
2 who-when
who-how
who-why
1
-1
-2
-3
JJ EJ
LG
Figure 5. Mean ratings of the six sentence types by native speakers of Japanese and
English-speaking learners of Japanese (a graph from another angle)
130 NAOKO YOSHINAGA
also investigated further. Multiple comparisons as summarized in Table 4 above

indicated that none of the adjacent pairs of means was statistically significant for
the English-speaking learners of Japanese.
4.5.4 The ratings of simple wh-questions

In the results above, we saw that Japanese learners of English reject all types of
multiple wh-questions in English. One might suspect that they are simply
rejecting all of the items in the questionnaire; however, that is not the case. As
shown in Table 5 and Figure 6, the Japanese learners of English rated simple
wh-questions as close to perfectly acceptable as did the native speakers of
English. As for English-speaking learners of Japanese, their ratings for simple
wh-questions are quite high for all types just as they are for those of the other
three groups of subjects, as Table 5 and Figure 6 show.
Table 5. Descriptive statistics for ratings of simple wh-questions by four groups

Native English speakers (EE) Native Japanese speakers (JJ)
who 30 2.900 0.403 50 2.660 0.939
what 30 3.000 0.000 50 2.820 0.800
wherecomp 30 2.567 0.971 50 2.620 1.105
wherenon 30 3.000 0.000 50 2.740 1.121
when 30 3.000 0.000 50 2.820 0.800
how 29* 2.897 0.409 50 2.400 1.278
why 30 2.867 0.434 50 2.440 1.033
Japanese learners of English (JE) English learners of Japanese (EJ)
who 42 2.810 0.943 33 2.303 1.447
what 42 2.619 1.188 33 1.667 1.915
wherecomp 42 2.214 1.601 33 2.212 1.516
wherenon 42 2.810 0.833 33 2.242 1.415
when 42 2.762 0.958 33 1.909 1.355
how 42 2.690 1.179 33 1.636 1.729
why 42 2.929 0.342 33 1.636 1.597
* There was one missing cell.
EE JJ
JE EJ
3
-1
-2
-3
who what wherecomp wherenon when how why
Figure 6. Mean ratings of simple wh-questions by four groups
5. Discussion
In this section, I will discuss the results in relation to the four research questions
stated at the outset.
Research question 1: Do native speakers of English distinguish among these six
different types of English multiple wh-questions in their acceptability judgments?
Hypothesis 1: Native speakers of English distinguish multiple wh-questions that
contain how and why, which they treat as unacceptable, from all other types.
Hypothesis 1 was supported. The who-what type and the who-wherecomp type
were rated as clearly acceptable and the who-how type and the who-why type
both fall in the negative range (below the zero line). Although lower on the
scale, the who-wherenon type and the who-when type fall in the positive range
132 NAOKO YOSHINAGA
(see Bley-Vroman & Yoshinaga 1998, whose findings were similar to the
findings in the present study, for suggestions to account for why ratings are
gradual rather than exhibiting clear acceptable/unacceptable distinctions).
Research question 2: Do native speakers of Japanese accept all six types of
multiple wh-questions in Japanese?
Hypothesis 2: Native speakers of Japanese accept all six types of multiple wh-
questions in Japanese.
Although there was a significant effect for sentence type, native speakers of
Japanese rated all six types quite high on the positive side. Thus, the results
support hypothesis 2.
Research question 3: Do Japanese-speaking learners of English exhibit patterns
of acceptability judgments similar to those of native speakers of English?
Hypothesis 3: There is no difference between native speakers of English and
ESL learners in terms of their acceptability judgments (the null hypothesis).
The ratings of the six multiple wh-questions in English by Japanese-speaking
learners of English were significantly different from native speakers of English.
Although native speakers of English made clear distinctions among different
types of multiple wh-questions, Japanese learners of English rated all types as
unacceptable. Thus, hypothesis 3 was not supported.
Research question 4: Do English-speaking learners of Japanese exhibit patterns
of acceptability judgments similar to those of native speakers of Japanese?
Hypothesis 4: There is no difference between native speakers of Japanese and
JSL learners in terms of their acceptability judgments (the null hypothesis).
The results indicated that English-speaking learners of Japanese rated the six
multiple wh-questions in Japanese in more or less the same way that native
speakers of Japanese did. Like native speakers of Japanese, English-speaking
learners of Japanese rated all six types of multiple wh-questions acceptable,
although the learners’ ratings were slightly lower than the native speakers across
the six types. Hence, hypothesis 4 was supported.
5.1 General considerations
Overall, then, the results revealed that Japanese learners of English performed
differently from native speakers of English, whereas English-speaking learners
of Japanese performed like native speakers of Japanese. One might suggest that
the simplest explanation for these results is simply that there are proficiency
differences between the Japanese-speaking learners of English and the English-
speaking learners of Japanese. More precisely, it might perhaps be claimed that
the Japanese-speaking learners of English have low proficiency in the target
language or are at an earlier stage of language acquisition, whereas the English
learners of Japanese have high proficiency in the target language and are at an
advanced stage of language acquisition.
Although this matter can only be settled definitively by comparing the
proficiency levels of the two learners groups with the help of appropriate test
instruments, I believe that this proposal is unlikely to be the correct explanation.
In particular, an informal comparison of the materials used in English classes at
universities in Japan with those used in first and second-year Japanese classes at
the University in Hawai‘i suggests that the ESL learners in the present study
cannot in general be at a lower proficiency level in the target language than JSL
learners. Certainly, it is implausible to think that the difference could be large
enough to explain the contrasts in the acceptability ratings given by the two
learner groups.
Moreover, the ESL learners in the present study cannot plausibly be
considered to be at the very earliest stage of acquisition. As Vainikka and
Young-Scholten (1996: 29) note, with respect to subjects with training similar to
those in this study, students who have been exposed to English for the six years
required of secondary-school students in Japan are certainly not at an initial state
of language acquisition.
Length of study also suggests that the Japanese learners of English should
be more experienced in terms of acquisition stages. The average length of study
for the Japanese learners of English was 6.95 years (with a range from 6 to 10
years), which was more than that for English-speaking learners of Japanese
(mean 3.44 years, with a range from 1 to 7 years).
One possible difference between the two groups of learners is that the instruc-
tion in Japanese language classes in the US may tend to be more communicatively
oriented than English instruction in Japan. Such a difference might have had
some effect on the input to learning. However, it is difficult to see how such an
instructional difference could result in the observed differences in these experi-
mental results, given the general rarity of multiple wh-questions to begin with.
I thus tentatively assume that differences in proficiency level or type of
instruction are unlikely to account for the results reported here.
134 NAOKO YOSHINAGA
5.2 Theoretical considerations
I now consider what the results of the present study indicate with respect to the
accessibility of Universal Grammar. The results are examined from two different
perspectives.
5.2.1 UG is fully available: Full Access Hypothesis

The full access hypothesis states that adult language acquisition is guided by the
same mechanism guiding first language development in children, and that
parameters can be reset in second language acquisition (Flynn 1996). In the
results of the present study, I found that although the performance of English-
speaking learners of Japanese was native-speaker-like, the performance of
Japanese-speaking learners of English was not. The performance of the English-
speaking learners of Japanese could be taken as a successful parameter resetting,
as expected by this view. However, Japanese-speaking learners of English do not
exhibit successful resetting, and this must be explained in some way.
The full access view recognizes the fact that learners seem to need some
time for learning even if parameter resetting might be instantaneous (Flynn 1996:
151). Hence, one might be able to claim that parameter resetting from the
Japanese option to the English option is more time consuming than resetting
from the English option to the Japanese option. However, there is currently no
independent evidence for this proposal.
It might worth noting here that even very high proficiency Japanese-
speaking learners of English were different from native speakers of English in
a similar study of multiple wh-questions reported in Bley-Vroman & Yoshinaga
(1998). As they point out, it appears unlikely that such high proficiency learners
had not yet encountered sufficient triggering input for parameter resetting to take
place. This seems to make the full access account hard to sustain.
5.2.2 UG is not available: the Fundamental Difference Hypothesis

The Fundamental Difference Hypothesis assumes that second language acquisi-
tion is not guided by UG in the same way as child language acquisition is, but
rather takes place on the basis of learners’ pattern accumulation (e.g., Bley-
Vroman 1990). In this view, the role of input in the target language is important
in that mere exposure to the target language is not enough: rather noticing is
essential for second language acquisition. Thus, in the course of language
acquisition, the learners add specific structures as they notice and add patterns to
their developing pattern-stores in a conservative manner (Bley-Vroman 1990:
42–43; Bley-Vroman 1996).
If language learning is taking place under conditions where the target language
input is limited, we could expect learners to be very conservative and to reject all
multiple wh-questions. Furthermore, if particular structures are more frequent in
one language, it is possible that the learners of that language could approximate
native-like competence more easily than learners of a language in which the
relevant structures are less frequent in the input.
To my knowledge, there is no research on the question of the relative
frequency of multiple wh-questions in Japanese and English. The very fact that
a wider range of multiple wh-question types are grammatical in Japanese than in
English would lead one to expect that multiple wh-questions would be more
frequent in Japanese. Given the likelihood of this frequency differential, the
learners of Japanese might have a greater chance of encountering the target
structures, which in turn could increase cases of relevant noticing, and thus might
enhance chances of approximating native-like behavior. Admittedly, of course,
this is mere speculation until the frequency of the relevant structures in each
target language is systematically studied and compared.
5.3 Structural considerations and some predictions
While subjects’ exposure to the target language is an important factor in shaping

their target language system, structural differences might also contribute to the
difference between the Japanese-speaking learners of English and the English-
speaking learners of Japanese.
The results of this study point to the possibility that learning the in-situ
option (i.e., Japanese) is simply easier for speakers of languages that require one
wh-word to appear in sentence-initial position (English-speakers) than is learning
the latter option (i.e., English) for in-situ language speakers.
If this is the case, then a parallel study with learners of English whose
native language is like English with respect to wh-word fronting as well as in
terms of the set of permitted multiple wh-questions should show native-like
judgments in the rating of English multiple wh-questions. If, on the other hand,
conservatism alone is the proper explanation for the performance of Japanese
learners of English, then those learners of English should also reject all English
multiple wh-questions in the same way that Japanese learners of English did.
Perhaps a study with learners of English whose native language requires
fronting of one wh-word but permits all types of multiple wh-questions as
Japanese does would be even better for testing conservatism. If such subjects
reject all multiple wh-questions in spite of the fact that their native language
requires fronting one wh-word (as in English) and allow the same set of multiple
136 NAOKO YOSHINAGA
wh-questions as Japanese, we would have stronger supporting evidence in favor

of conservatism.
5.4 A structural and exposure account
Another explanation that is related to but slightly different from the idea above
could draw from both structural factors and consideration of exposure to the
target forms. Because of their experience with their native language, speakers of
both Japanese and English know that human languages allow multiple wh-quest-
ions. Second language learners are virtually never exposed to multiple wh-
questions in the target language. Thus, although they may assume that the target
language permits such structures, they do not know what form they should take.
For Japanese speakers learning English, this creates a problem since the only
wh-questions they have been exposed to in significant numbers are simple
wh-questions in which exactly one wh-phrase appears in sentence-initial position.
This blocks formation of multiple wh-questions since on the basis of structures
they have seen so far, they believe that no wh-word can remain in-situ. Thus,
they reject all multiple wh-questions in English since they have never been
exposed to a structure in which one wh-word appears in sentence-initial position
and one wh-word remains in-situ. On the other hand, for English speakers
learning Japanese, there is no such problem since the wh-questions to which they
have been exposed (i.e., simple wh-questions) suffice to reveal a strategy that
works just as well for multiple wh-questions as for simple wh-questions, namely
the in-situ strategy.
It should be noted that on this account both Japanese and English learners
are conservative. The Japanese learners of English would not want to take any
risk: they would not want to risk leaving a wh-word in-situ because they do not
observe any wh-words in-situ in the wh-questions to which they have been
exposed and presumably they would not want to risk moving two words either.
The English speakers learning Japanese are just as conservative, except that their
conservatism does not get in the way: they have evidence for the appropriateness
of an in-situ strategy in wh-questions to which they have been exposed, so there
is no risk in using this strategy for multiple wh-questions.
This account predicts that all learners of English whose native languages
adopt the in-situ strategy would disfavor multiple wh-questions in English. Where
the target language is Japanese, on the other hand, learners should show native-
like behavior in judging multiple wh-questions regardless of their native language
if they follow the in-situ strategy.
6. Conclusion
Precise interpretation of our results in light of developing theories of second

language acquisition is still open for future consideration. Further research with
learner groups of different first languages as suggested above (and perhaps
different target languages) as well as more extensive corpus-based research on
the comparative use of multiple wh-questions should help shed light on the
acquisition of these structures well as on second language acquisition in general.
Nonetheless we believe that the present study has allowed us to make some
advances in understanding the acquisition of multiple wh-questions.
Acknowledgement
I am grateful for the comments of Kazue Kanno, William O’Grady, and Robert Bley-Vroman from
the earliest phases of this study. I am also grateful to Narahiko Inoue and Satomi Takahasi at Kyushu
University and Hiro Ota and other Japanese instructors at the University of Hawaii for their help with
the data collection.
Notes
1. Huang (1982) and Lasnik & Saito (1984) use Comp/S’ rather than the CP notation.
2. In English, the subject who moves in overt syntax and the other wh-phrases move at LF
whereas in Japanese, both wh-phrases move at LF because Japanese does not have overt
wh-movement (although Watanabe 1991; 1992 claims that a null wh-operator that is associated
with the wh-phrase moves in overt syntax). Lasnik & Saito (1984: 250) argue that in Japanese,
wh-phrases that need to be antecedent-governed move first in the grammatical multiple
wh-questions under consideration here.
3. Tagalog might constitute an example of a language with no multiple wh-questions, because it
allows only “subject” wh-questions (or wh-questions are permitted only when Spec of IP is
empty so that wh-word can stop over on the way to CP Spec, see Nakamura 1993). As
expected, the examples in (a) are ungrammatical, according to Laurie Reid (personal communi-
cation). However, the full range of facts is unclear.
a. *Sino ang bumili ng ano?
who that bought  what
‘Who bought what?’
*Ano ang ibinigay ni Tom kanino?
what that gave  Tom who
‘What did Tom give to whom?’
Calabrese (1984) reports that multiple wh-questions are not possible in Italian. McCloskey
(1979: 70–71) also notes that Irish does not allow multiple wh-questions since question phrases
are base generated in pre-Comp position. More detailed analysis of such languages is called for.
138 NAOKO YOSHINAGA
4. A 2-way repeated measures ANOVA for each language group was performed to check the
effects of the two different forms. There was no interaction of sentence type with form for any
language group, F(5, 200) = 1.712, p = .1334 n.s. for Japanese learners of English,
F(5, 155) = .963, p = .4427 n.s. for English-speaking learners of Japanese, F(5, 140) = .406,
p = .8442 n.s. for English natives, F(5, 240) = .371, p = .8682 n.s. for Japanese natives. This
indicates that the effect of the sentence types was the same regardless of which form was
provided.
5. A few vocabulary items were unfamiliar to English learners of Japanese, so the meanings in
English were provided in the text. All other words were carefully chosen from vocabulary lists
taught in the class in previous semesters (first and second semester). For Japanese learners of
English, we asked two native Japanese speakers living in Japan to check for any English words
likely to be unfamiliar to college students; they reported that everything should be familiar.
6. Two tokens each of four other types of multiple wh-questions (a total of 8) were also included
in the questionnaire (thus, there were 39 items in all) for the study of a separate issue.
References
Aoun, Joseph, Norbert Hornstein, David Lightfoot, and Amy Weinberg. 1987. “Two
Types of Locality.” Linguistic Inquiry 18: 537–77.
Bley-Vroman, Robert. 1990. “The Logical Problem of Foreign Language Learning.”
Linguistic Analysis 20: 3–49.
———. 1996, June. “Conservative Pattern Accumulation in Foreign Language Learning.”
Paper presented at the European Second Language Association, Nijmegen, the
Netherlands. Available: http://www.lll.hawaii.edu/bley-vroman/ [access October 10,
1996].
Bley-Vroman, Robert and Naoko Yoshinaga. 1998. “The Acquisition of Multiple
wh-questions by High-proficiency Non-native Speakers of English.” University of
Hawai‘i Working Papers in ESL 17.1: 1–25.
Calabrese, Andrea. 1984. “Multiple Questions and Focus in Italian.” In W. de Geest, and
Y. Putseys (eds.), Sentential Complementation, Proceedings of the International
Conference held at UFSAL, Brussels, Foris, 67–74.
Chomsky, Noam. 1986. Knowledge of Language. Its nature, Origin, and Use. Westport,
Connecticut: Praeger.
Cole, Peter, Gabrielle Hermon, and Li-May Sung. 1990. “Principles and Parameters of
Long-distance Reflexives.” Linguistic Inquiry 21: 1–22.
Eubank, Lynn. 1996. “Negation in Early German-English Interlanguage: More valueless
features in the L2 initial states.” Second Language Research 12: 73–106.
Flynn, Suzanne. 1996. “A Parameter-setting Approach to Second Language Acquisition.”
In W. C. Ritchie, and Tej K. Bhatia (eds.). Handbook of Second Language Acquisi-
tion. New York: Academic Press, 121–158.
Huang, C. -T. James. 1982. “Logical Relations in Chinese and the Theory of Grammar.”
Doctoral Dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, Mass.
Katada, Fusa. 1991. “The LF Representation of Anaphors.” Linguistic Inquiry 22:

287–313.
Kuno, Susumu and Kenichi Takami. 1993. Grammar and Discourse Principles: Functional
syntax and GB theory. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Lasnik, Howard and Mamoru Saito. 1984. “On the Nature of Proper Government.”
Linguistic Inquiry 15: 235–289.
———. 1992. Move Alpha: Conditions on its applications and output. Cambridge, Mass:
MIT Press.
Lightfoot, David. 1989. “The Child’s Trigger Experience: Degree-0 learnerbility.”
Behavioral and Brain Sciences 12: 321–375.
McCloskey, James. 1979. Transformational Syntax and Model Theoretic Semantics: A case
study in Modern Irish. Dordrecht, Holland: D. Reidel.
Nakamura, Masanori. 1993. “An Economy Account of wh-extraction in Tagalog.” In E.
Duncan, D. Farkas, and P. Spaelti (eds.), The Proceedings of the Twelfth West Coast
Conference on Formal Linguistics. Stanford: Center for the Study of Language and
Information, 405–420.
O’Grady, William. 1997. Syntactic Development. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Richards, Norvin W. III. 1997. “What Moves Where When in Which Language?.”
Doctoral Dissertation, MIT.
Vainikka, Anne and Martha Young-Scholten. 1996. “Gradual Development in L2 Phrase
Structure.” Second Language Research 12: 7–39.
Watanabe, Akira. 1991. “WH-in-situ, Subjacency, and Chain Formation.” Manuscript,
MIT.
———. 1992. “Subjacency and S-structure Movement of Wh-in-situ.” Journal of East
Asian Linguistics 1: 255–291.
White, Lydia. 1989. Universal Grammar and Second Language Acquisition. Amsterdam:
John Benjamins.
C 8
Gapping and Coordination

in Second Language Acquisition
William O’Grady
1. Introduction
The study of second language acquisition is by now firmly established as an

important branch of linguistics and cognitive science. Indeed, it contributes directly
to what is arguably the central issue being considered in these fields — the
question of how knowledge emerges in response to deficient forms of experience.
This paper seeks to further this research program by examining the acquisi-
tion of a relatively unusual type of coordinate structure by English speakers
learning Japanese and Japanese speakers learning English. I begin by outlining
the key property of the structure in question, noting that neither instruction nor
exposure to casual speech is likely to provide learners with direct information
about the existence of this property. I then go on in section 3 to outline an
experiment designed to explore the question of whether and when the structure
in question is mastered by adult second language learners. Section 4 reports on
the results of this experiment, while section 5 considers a number of issues and
puzzles that arise from these results. Section 6 presents a brief conclusion.
2. Gapping in coordinate structures
Both English and Japanese have a process known as ‘gapping’ that deletes the
verb in one conjunct of a coordinate clause under conditions of identity with the
verb in another conjunct. However, as the examples below help illustrate, the two
languages differ in terms of which verb is deleted. In English, the verb in the
second conjunct is suppressed.
142 WILLIAM O’GRADY
(1) a. Without gapping:

[John reads Time] and [Sue reads Newsweek].
b. Gapping in the first conjunct (‘leftward gapping’):
*[John Ø Time] and [Sue reads Newsweek].
c. Gapping in the second conjunct (‘rightward gapping’):
[John reads Time] and [Sue Ø Newsweek].
In Japanese, in contrast, the verb in the first conjunct is deleted. ( = ‘gerund-
ive suffix’, following Kuno 1973).
(2) a. Without gapping:
[John-wa Time-o yon-de] [Sue-wa Newsweek-o
[John- Time- read- [Sue- Newsweek-
yon-da].
read-
‘John read Time and Sue read Newsweek.’
b. Gapping in the first conjunct (leftward gapping):
[John-wa Time-o Ø] [Sue-wa Newsweek-o yon-da].
[John- Time- [Sue- Newsweek- read-
‘John Time and Sue read Newsweek.’
c. Gapping in the second conjunct (rightward gapping):
*[John-wa Time-o yon-de] [Sue-wa Newsweek-o Ø].
[John- Time- read- [Sue- Newsweek-
‘John read Time and Sue Newsweek.’
This is no accident. As noted by Ross (1970) and more recently by Johannessen
(1996) among others, verb-object languages such as English and object-verb
languages such as Japanese systematically differ in terms of gapping direction.
In particular, the overt verb precedes the gap in verb-object languages while the
gap precedes the overt verb in object-verb languages.
(3) Gapping direction and head position
verb-object languages (e.g. English):
[S… V …] [S … Ø …] (rightward gapping)
object-verb languages (e.g. Japanese):
[S …… Ø] [S …… V] (leftward gapping)
In fact, though, matters are slightly more complicated than suggested by the
usual formulation of this generalization. This is because not all languages permit
gapping, as illustrated by the data in (4) and (5) from Mandarin and Thai,
respectively.
GAPPING AND COORDINATION IN SLA 143
(4) Mandarin (data from Jung-Hsing Chang & Hui-hwa Hwang)

a. Without gapping:
[Yuehan kan Shidaizachi], [Mali kan Xinwenzhoukan].
[John see Time magazine [Mary see Newsweek
‘John reads Time and Mary reads Newsweek.’
*[Yuehan Ø Shidaizachi], [Mali kan Xinwenzhoukan].
[John Time magazine [Mary see Newsweek
‘John Time and Mary reads Newsweek.’
?*[Yuehan kan Shidaizachi], [Mali Ø Xinwenzhoukan].
[John see Time magazine [Mary Newsweek
‘John reads Time and Mary Newsweek.’
(5) Thai (data from Titima Suthwan)
a. Without gapping:
[cffn ‘aan thaaym] lae [maerii ‘aan niwsawiik].
[John read Time and [Mary read Newsweek
‘John reads Time and Mary reads Newsweek.’
*[cffn Ø thaaym] lae [maerii ‘aan niwsawiik].
[John Time and [Mary read Newsweek
‘John Time and Mary reads Newsweek.’
?*[cffn ‘aan thaaym] lae [maerii Ø niwsawiik].
[John read Time and [Mary Newsweek
‘John reads Time and Mary Newsweek.’
Because Mandarin and Thai have verb–object order, the standard form of the
generalization concerning head–complement order and gapping direction would
lead us to expect that rightward gapping should be permitted in these languages.
In fact, though, patterns of this type are unacceptable. (Of course, leftward
gapping is also prohibited, as expected).
This points to the possibility that the relevant correlation should be restated
as follows.
(6) Constraint on gapping direction
verb-object languages (e.g. English):
[S … Ø …] [S … V…] is prohibited
object-verb languages (e.g. Japanese):
[S …… V] [S …… Ø] is prohibited
So stated, the generalization is that each head–complement order predicts the

 of a particular gapping direction without implying that the reverse
gapping direction is permitted. This not only provides a better description of the
typological facts, it also has important consequences for our understanding of the
acquisition facts, as we will see shortly.1
The fact that verb–object and object–verb languages contrast so sharply with
regard to prohibited gapping patterns raises an obvious question for the study of
second language acquisition: how easily do native speakers of one type of
language master the ‘mirror image’ gapping direction constraint associated with
the other type of language? In particular, we can ask whether exposure to a
language’s word order in the early stages of second language acquisition suffices
to ensure that learners will reject the relevant gapping pattern.
The interest of this question is considerably heightened by the relative
infrequency of the gapping patterns themselves, which are clearly not common
in speech and which (as far as I know) are not the subject of instruction in the
early years of second language learning. We are thus confronted with just the
type of data deficiency that has led to so much productive inquiry into the nature
of the acquisition device underlying the emergence of a first language in
children. If learners succeed in using word order to reject the appropriate gapping
pattern, we can attribute their success to the operation of the acquisition device
itself rather than to instruction or direct experience. On the other, if they fail, we
can draw inferences from this fact about possible deficits in the acquisition
device that is available for post-adolescent second language acquisition.
3. The experiment
In order to investigate these matters further, I designed an experiment to test for

knowledge of gapping direction in English-speaking learners of Japanese as a
second language (JSL) and Japanese-speaking learners of English as a second
language (ESL).
3.1 Materials
The experiment took the form of a written questionnaire in which subjects were
asked to judge the acceptability of gapping patterns in the target language by
rating them on the following scale.
1 2 3 4 5 I don’t
bad good know
The introductory section of the questionnaire provided subjects with examples of

simple grammatical and ungrammatical sentences involving phenomena other than
gapping, thereby familiarizing them with the type of structure that should be labeled
‘good’ and ‘bad’. Information was also provided about the status of intermediate
positions on the scale and about the conditions under which it was appropriate to
select ‘I don’t know’. Appendix 1 contains the full set of instructions.
The questionnaire for each language contained ten test sentences, five
illustrating rightward gapping (with the verb preceding the gap) and five
instantiating a leftward gapping pattern. The test sentences were arranged in
random order and interspersed with sentences involving phenomena unrelated to
gapping and coordination.
All sentences were presented in a pragmatically appropriate context. In the
case of the gapping pattern, the context was designed to facilitate the sort of
coordination that is associated with gapping. Sample contexts and test sentences
are given in (7) and (8).2 (Because the JSL learners had had so little previous
exposure to Japanese, it was decided to provide them with contexts in English
rather than Japanese. However, the test sentence itself was presented in Japanese,
in the standard kana-kanji script.)
(7) JSL study
Sample context and leftward gapping pattern:
I was asked what Suzuki drank and what Tanaka drank. I wasn’t
sure, but here is what I think.
Suzuki-san-wa biiru-o Tanaka-san-wa sooda-o non-da
Suzuki-Mr- beer- Tanaka-Mr- soda- drink-
to omo-u.
that think-
‘(I) think that Suzuki beer and Tanaka drank soda.’
(8) ESL study
Sample context and rightward gapping pattern:
Peter asked me what Susan ate and what Harvey ate.
I said that
Susan ate a hamburger and Harvey a sandwich.
3.2 Subjects
There were two principal groups of subjects in the experiment — a set of native
English speakers learning Japanese and a set of native Japanese speakers learning
English. The JSL learners were all undergraduates at the University of Hawaii at
Manoa, including 20 students in a second semester course (Jpn 102), 32 in a

third semester course (Jpn 201), and 23 in a fourth semester course (Jpn 202).
Students who spoke a language other than English or who had lived in Japan
were excluded from the study.
The group of ESL learners consisted of 22 undergraduates in a first year
English course and 12 subjects in a third year course at Hirosaki Gakuin College
in Japan. None of these subjects spoke a language other than Japanese or had
lived in an English-speaking country.
In addition, the JSL questionnaire was given to 10 native speakers of
Japanese and the ESL questionnaire to 10 native speakers of English. (None of
these subjects were linguists.) This was to confirm the validity of the grammatic-
ality contrasts involving gapping direction in coordinate structures.
4. Results
The experiment yielded quite intriguing results, some of which seem to support
clear-cut conclusions while others point to the need for additional research on a
number of issues. I will begin by reporting the results of the JSL study and then
turn my attention to the ESL study. Some implications of the results will be
considered in section 4.
4.1 The JSL study
Table 1 reports on the gapping preferences among native speakers of English

learning Japanese as a second language.3 (Separate repeated ANOVAs were done
for each group and subgroup of subjects.)
As expected, native speakers of Japanese exhibit a very strong preference
Table 1. Ratings for rightward and leftward gapping in Japanese

Group Rightward Leftward Difference Significance
gapping* gapping†
Native speakers [N = 10] 1.26 4.52 3.26 p = .0001
JSL learners [N = 75] 3.09 2.36 0.73 p = .000
Jpn 102 [N = 20] 3.50 2.76 0.74 p = .0479
Jpn 201 [N = 32] 3.00 2.22 0.78 p = .0006
Jpn 202 [N = 23] 2.88 2.18 0.70 p = .00017
*ungrammatical; †grammatical
for the grammatical leftward gapping pattern exemplified in (9a) over the
unacceptable rightward gapping structure in (9b).
(9) a. Leftward gapping pattern (grammatical in Japanese):
[Maki-san-wa buraziru-ni Ø] [Tanaka-san-wa kanada-ni
[Maki-Mr- Brazil-Goal [Tanaka-Mr- Canada-Goal
it-ta] to omo-u.
go- that think-
‘(I) think that Maki to Brazil and Ken went to Canada.’
b. Rightward gapping pattern (ungrammatical in Japanese):
*[Maki-san-wa buraziru-ni it-te] [Tanaka-san-wa
[Miki-Mr- Brazil-Goal go- [Tanaka-Mr-
kanada-ni Ø] to omo-u.
Canada-Goal that think-
‘(I) think that Miki went to Brazil and Ken to Canada.’
The average rating for the leftward patterns among the 10 native speakers who
responded to the questionnaire was 4.52, compared to only 1.26 for the
rightward pattern.
Matters are quite different in the case of the JSL learners, however. Overall,
these subjects exhibited a strong, statistically significant preference for the
ungrammatical rightward gapping pattern in (9b). Moreover, as can be seen by
comparing the scores for the two patterns in Table 1, this preference was
manifested to varying degrees by all three subgroups of L2 learners.
Before proceeding, it is necessary to consider a potentially confounding
factor in the contrast between gapping structures in Japanese and English. As
(10) helps illustrate, the two languages differ not only in gapping direction but
also in terms of the use of a conjunction — English employs a conjunction in its
grammatical gapping patterns but Japanese does not.
(10) a. Gapping in English (rightward pattern):
[John read Time] and [Sue Ø Newsweek].
b. Gapping in Japanese (leftward pattern):
[John-wa Time-o Ø] [Sue-wa Newsweek-o yon-da].
[John- Time- [Sue- Newsweek- read-
‘John Time and Sue read Newsweek.’
This raises the question of whether some English speakers might reject leftward
gapping patterns in Japanese because there is no conjunction, rather than because
of the gapping direction.
In order to answer this question, the final leftward and rightward gapping
patterns on the questionnaire given to the students in the second-semester course

(Jpn 102) were accompanied by the following request.
If you don’t think this is a good sentence, how would you make it better?
Of the 10 subjects who rated the final leftward pattern as ‘bad’, 4 made correc-
tions that involved adding either a verb or a verb and a conjunction to the first
part of the sentence. One student proposed that the sentence be split into two
separate sentences and one suggested that it be converted to a rightward gapping
pattern. The remaining students either made no correction at all or responded in
an irrelevant way. No one made a change involving only the conjunction. It
therefore seems safe to conclude that leftward gapping patterns were not rejected
for reasons having to do with the absence of a conjunction. Independent support
for this conclusion comes from the fact that the English-speaking subjects gave
relatively high scores to rightward gapping patterns in Japanese even though
these constructions also lack conjunctions. Evidently, they are already familiar
with conjunction-less coordination in non-gapping patterns and are not influenced
by the absence of a conjunction in their assessment of gapping patterns.
4.2 The ESL study
Now let us consider the results of the ESL study. Table 2 summarizes the
responses of the native English speakers and the Japanese-speaking subjects to
gapping patterns in English coordinate structures. (Once again, separate repeated
ANOVAs were done for each group and subgroup of subjects.)
Native speakers of English exhibit a strong, statistically significant prefer-
ence for the rightward gapping pattern. This is as expected, although the
relatively low rating (in absolute terms) assigned to the rightward pattern
suggests that this construction may be less than fully natural for many speakers.
In contrast, the ESL subjects seemed to like neither of the gapping patterns
Table 2. Ratings for rightward and leftward gapping in English

Group Rightward Leftward Difference Significance
gapping† gapping*
Native speakers [N = 10] 3.74 1.42 2.32 p = .0001
ESL learners [N = 34] 2.33 1.75 0.58 p = .0022
First year [N = 22] 2.43 1.86 0.57 p = .0102
Third year [N = 12] 2.13 1.53 0.60 ns (p = .0696)
†grammatical; *ungrammatical
in English — both sentence types received grammaticality ratings toward the low
end of the scale. Nonetheless, it is worth noting that the grammatical rightward
pattern received a higher rating than the ungrammatical leftward pattern. (This
difference was significant for the subjects in the first group and overall, but not
for those in the second group.)
Once again, it is important to be sure that the subjects’ rejection of particu-
lar patterns relates to gapping rather than to the presence of a conjunction.
(Recall that English differs from Japanese in employing a conjunction in gapping
patterns.) As in the case of the JSL study, this issue was addressed by asking the
first-year subjects to correct the final rightward and leftward gapping patterns on
the questionnaire in the event that they judged them to be ungrammatical. Of the
20 students who made changes to the ungrammatical leftward pattern, 16
replaced the gap with a verb and one reversed the order of the overt verb and the
gap; none made any changes to the conjunction. Only 7 students made changes
to the grammatical rightward pattern — always by filling the gap with a verb.
5. Discussion
A major issue in the study of second language acquisition research has to do

with whether the set of mechanisms employed for first language acquisition
remains available for post-adolescent second language learning (what I will
henceforth call the L2 Continuity Hypothesis). Although an affirmative answer
to the question is sometimes assumed to be the null hypothesis (e.g. Schwartz &
Sprouse 1996), there is good evidence that certain parts of the acquisition device
do deteriorate over time. For example, the ability to make unfamiliar phonemic
contrasts is certainly reduced in adults (Long 1990: 266), reflecting a decline that
may begin as early as age one (Eimas 1996: 31). There is also some reason to
believe that the ability to identify and master the specific concepts that underlie
many grammatical contrasts (e.g. the vs. a in English or the nominative marker
ga vs. the topic marker wa in Japanese) diminishes with age; see O’Grady (1996)
for some discussion.
Significantly, though, the computational mechanisms associated with many
core syntactic phenomena seem to be much more robust throughout development
and there is good evidence that they are available to adult second language
learners (e.g. Uziel 1993). Indeed, some of this evidence comes from the study
of JSL: Kanno (1996a,b; 1997) has shown that English-speaking learners of
Japanese apparently have access to abstract principles governing a variety of
phenomena that have no counterparts in their native language.
The L2 Continuity Hypothesis is usually associated with Universal Grammar, a

system of grammatical categories and principles commonly thought to be part of
the inborn acquisition device. In fact, though, it can also be formulated in terms
of an acquisition device that does not include inborn grammatical principles per
se. I have put forward just such a view in earlier work (e.g. O’Grady 1996),
proposing (a) that the innate computational mechanisms responsible for the
formation of syntactic representations are not specifically grammatical in
character and (b) that they remain accessible to language learners beyond
adolescence.
In what follows, I assume the more general view of the acquisition device,
consistent with my earlier work, but nothing in my discussion turns on this
particular assumption. (In fact, as I have noted elsewhere (1997: 355ff), develop-
mental data is typically neutral with respect to theories of learnability.)
If some version of the L2 Continuity Hypothesis is right for syntax, what do
we expect to happen in the case of gapping and coordinate structures in second
language acquisition? As explained in section 2, a particular head-complement
order suffices to rule out a particular gapping direction in coordinate structures
(verb-object order is inconsistent with leftward gapping and object-verb languag-
es disallow rightward gapping). However, it does not predict that the opposite
gapping direction is permitted, since there are some languages (e.g. Mandarin
and Thai) in which gapping in coordinate structures is not permitted at all.
Rather, the admissibility of the gapping pattern compatible with a particular word
order option can be confirmed only after actual instances of those patterns have
been observed. Since gapping patterns are apparently rare to begin with, this
final step may require a considerable amount of time.
From the point of view of acquisition, then, we expect exposure to the
object-verb word order of Japanese to ensure rejection of the rightward gapping
pattern just as exposure to the verb-object order of English should rule out the
leftward gapping pattern. However, for the reasons just noted, the recognition
that leftward gapping is permitted in Japanese and that rightward gapping is
permitted in English could well come much later.
There is reason to believe that the acquisition device operates in the
predicted way in the case of first language acquisition. In a study of coordination
structures in English-speaking children aged 2 to 6, Ardery (1980) found no
instances of verb gapping in her subjects’ speech and evidence that the pattern
was not comprehended until after age 5.
Matters also seems to be more or less straightforward for Japanese speakers
learning English. As revealed in table 2 above, these ESL learners exhibit a
strong dislike for both gapping patterns. Overall, their mean ratings of these two
Table 3. How the acquisition device should deal with gapping

Language type Predictions
VO (e.g. English) Immediate rejection of leftward gapping; acceptance of right-
ward gapping only after exposure to relevant examples
OV (e.g. Japanese) Immediate rejection of rightward gapping; acceptance of left-
ward gapping only after exposure to relevant examples
patterns were quite low, never exceeding 2.5 on the scale of 1 to 5. Moreover,
an examination of individual performance reveals that only 2 of the 34 subjects
assigned either gapping pattern a mean score of 4.0 or greater. (Both subjects
were in the first year English course; one gave a high rating to the rightward
pattern and the other to the leftward pattern.4)
In contrast, the performance of the English-speaking JSL learners is quite
puzzling. As reported in section 4, they apparently fail to respect the gapping
direction constraint, assigning higher mean scores to the ungrammatical rightward
patterns in Japanese than to the grammatical leftward patterns. As noted earlier,
this contrast is statistically significant both overall and for subjects in the second-
and third-semester classes. The ratings assigned to the rightward patterns are high
in absolute terms as well — slightly greater than 3.5 on the scale of 1 to 5 for the
second-semester students and 3.2 for the third-semester students. In contrast, as
just noted, group scores for the ESL students do not exceed 2.5 for either pattern.
In sum, the JSL learners behaved as if there were no correlation between
head–complement order and prohibited gapping direction. Although they clearly
recognize that Japanese is an object–verb language (their own spoken and written
sentences are consistently verb-final), they fail to reject rightward gapping
patterns in that language. Instead, they treat gapping in coordinate structures as
if they were dealing with English — accepting the rightward patterns and
rejecting the leftward ones. (Indeed, the rating of 3.5 assigned to this pattern by
the least advanced group of JSL subjects is very close to the mean score of 3.74
that native speakers of English assign to the rightward gapping patterns in
English.) This obviously constitutes somewhat of a puzzle for the L2 Continuity
Hypothesis.
It is not clear how this puzzle can be resolved. It is always possible that the
phenomenon could be attributed to extraneous factors of some sort, but it is
difficult to see what these factors might be. For example, there is no reason to
think that the L2 learners failed to realize that they were dealing with gapping
patterns: as noted above, the most common response among subjects who tried
to correct the test sentences was to supply the ‘missing’ verb.

There is also no reason to think that subjects were simply reluctant to reject
the test sentences. They assigned low scores to the leftward gapping patterns
(which, ironically, are grammatical in Japanese), and they rejected ungrammatical
sentences of other sorts that were used in the questionnaire as distractors.
A more promising possibility is that the ability to exploit structural features
of one sort (e.g. head-complement order) to infer structural features of another
sort (e.g. prohibited gapping direction) requires prolonged exposure to the target
language. This provides a plausible explanation for why ESL students on the
whole do better than the JSL subjects: although the subjects in the JSL and ESL
studies were comparable in terms of age and educational level, they differed in
terms of the length of their exposure to the target language. Because students in
Japan begin their study of English in the seventh grade, the subjects in the ESL
experiment had been studying English for 6 to 9 years. In contrast, many of the
subjects in the JSL study had begun the study of Japanese in college or senior
high school.
This idea also predicts that we should be able to find a developmental trend
among the JSL learners, with the more advanced learners doing better than their
less advanced counterparts even in the continuing absence of instruction or
experience with gapping patterns per se.5 There is some sign that this may be
happening. As shown in Table 4, only 7 of the 32 subjects in Jpn 201 and only
6 of the 23 subjects in Jpn 202 assigned the rightward patterns a mean score of
Table 4. JSL subjects who gave a mean rating of at least 4 to the rightward gapping pattern
Group # of subjects # with mean ratings ≥ 4 on
rightward patterns
Jpn 102 (2nd semester) 20 9 (45%)
Jpn 201 (3rd semester) 32 7 (21.9%)
Jpn 202 (4th semester) 23 6 (38.3%)
Table 5. Ratings for rightward and leftward gapping by 4th year JSL learners
Sub-group Rightward Leftward Difference Significance
gapping* gapping†
no significant stay in Japan 2.54 2.05 .49 .1142
(n = 15)
lived in Japan for 1–8 years 2.05 2.60 .55 .1970
(n = 11)
*ungrammatical; †grammatical
4.0 or greater — compared to 9 of 20 subjects in Jpn 102.

In order to explore this idea further, Kazue Kanno and I conducted a follow-
up study with an even more advanced group of JSL learners consisting of 25
native English speakers enrolled in a fourth year course in Japanese as a second
language (JPN 401) at the University of Hawaii. Table 5 records the results of
this experiment.
These results are suggestive. The scores on rightward gapping patterns are
lower than for any of the other JSL groups, and the subjects who had lived in
Japan for at least a year actually preferred the grammatical leftward gapping
patterns to their ungrammatical rightward counterpart. (Although the differences
between the ratings for the two patterns were not statistically significant for
either sub-group, there was a significant difference in the performance of the
two sets of learners (p = .0406).) It is also worth noting that only three of these
subjects — and only one of those who lived in Japan — assigned the ungram-
matical rightward pattern a mean rating of 4.0 or greater.
Overall, then, these results are consistent with the view that L2 learners
require very considerable exposure to the target language before being able to
make the typological inferences that follow from word order. Prior to that time,
they apparently assess the acceptability of unfamiliar structures in the target
language on the basis of the status of comparable patterns in their native language.
6. Conclusion
As explained at the outset, the primary purpose of this study has been to explore
an esoteric but highly interesting aspect of second language acquisition —
learners’ knowledge of phenomena that are neither the subject of instruction nor
directly observable in experience.
The particular phenomenon investigated here — the correlation between
head–complement order on the one hand and prohibited gapping direction in
coordinate structures on the other — is a case in point. Japanese (an object–verb
language) exhibits leftward gapping in coordinate structures while English (a
verb–object language) manifests rightward gapping. However, because gapping
structures are rare in actual speech and not a part of the second language curricu-
lum, the key property of this construction cannot be induced from experience.
Rather, if it is to be mastered spontaneously at all, it must be deduced from the
interaction of general principles of sentence architecture with an awareness of the
particular word order employed for verbs and complements in the target
language.
If some form of the L2 Continuity Hypothesis is right for syntactic development

(see section 5), the prima facie expectation is that at the very least English-
speaking JSL learners should reject rightward gapping in Japanese and that
Japanese-speaking ESL learners should not accept leftward gapping in English. In
fact, though, the situation seems not to be so straightforward. The ESL subjects
behave more or less as expected, but the JSL learners, especially those in the
second and third semesters of language study, show a significant preference for
the ungrammatical rightward pattern of gapping in Japanese coordinate structures.
It is unclear precisely how these results should be interpreted. However, the
apparent signs of an emerging conservatism among the more advanced JSL
learners, taken together with the fact that the ESL learners had in general far
more exposure to their target language, raises the possibility that the ability to
draw typological inferences in second language acquisition requires substantial
exposure to the target language, even when the ‘triggering’ factors are as simple
as head–complement order. Further study of this matter is clearly warranted.
The investigation of structures whose properties are undetermined by
experience has long constituted the legitimate core of much research on first
language acquisition, particularly work on the learnability problem. In many ways,
the study of second language acquisition offers even more clear-cut opportunities
to pursue this sort of research, thanks to the well-defined and very limited types
of experience available to second language learners — especially those whose
exposure to the target language consists mostly of classroom instruction.
The experiment reported here also points to the advantages of the compara-
tive study of second language acquisition — i.e., the comparison of an acquisit-
ional phenomenon in groups of learners with different native languages and
different target languages. Based on the results considered here, it is obvious that
our understanding of the gapping direction phenomenon in second language
acquisition would have been seriously distorted had we restricted our attention to
just learners of Japanese or just learners of English. (The same can be said of the
study of multiple wh questions reported by Yoshinaga elsewhere in this volume.)
Indeed, the potential of the comparative approach is perhaps greatest in the
case of the situation considered here — the acquisition of an SOV language by
speakers of an SVO language and vice versa. As our study of gapping in coordi-
nate structures helps illustrate, the many fundamental structural differences that
exist between these two language types create special challenges for the post-
adolescent acquisition device — and corresponding opportunities to observe and
understand its properties.
Acknowledgments
Special thanks are due to Kazue Kanno, not only for her comments on this paper, but also for her
assistance with the JSL questionnaire and for arranging to have it given to groups of JSL learners. I
am also grateful to Naoko Yoshinaga for giving the questionnaire to two groups of ESL learners and
for discussion of the results, to Kevin Gregg and Robert Bley-Vroman for their comments and
suggestions, and to the instructors and students in the classes participating in the experiments on
which this study is based.
Notes
1. Bonnie Schwartz, Robert Bley-Vroman and Juegen Meisel inform me that German allows
gapping in either direction in embedded clauses. This suggests that the proposed constraint
should be reformulated to apply only to languages that are uniformly of the verb–object or
object–verb type. Since German is neither, it would escape the constraint.
2. The coordinate structures were placed in embedded clauses in order to ensure that the test
sentences always ended with a verb in Japanese. Otherwise, subjects might have ruled out the
rightward gapping pattern in Japanese simply because the sentence did not end in a verb —
something that they would have come to expect on the basis of both experience and instruction.
3. The data in Tables 3, 6 and 7 is supplemented by data collected by Kazue Kanno using the
same technique and materials employed here. See Kanno (1999).
4. Despite the low ratings for both type of coordinate structure, the first-year students gave
significantly higher scores to the rightward gapping pattern than to the leftward construction. It
is not clear why this should be so, given the unlikelihood that they had been exposed to
rightward patterns with any regularity. It is possible that they were influenced by exposure to
the type of verb deletion pattern illustrated in (i), which does occur with considerable frequency
in English. (I am grateful to Minsun Song for this suggestion.)
(i) a. I left before Mary did Ø.
b. John won’t go but Sue will Ø.
c. I’ll go if I can Ø.
5. It is also predicted that Japanese speakers in the early stages of acquiring English will do less
well then their more advanced counterparts, perhaps even accepting backward gapping in
English. Time and space do not permit further consideration of this prediction here.
Appendix 1
The instructional portion of the ESL questionnaire
Thank you for agreeing to help me with my research project. Even though you are still learning
English, I’d like to have your opinion about some sentences that I am studying. All you have to do is
read a series of short passages and then indicate whether the underlined sentence is possible in English.
Here is an example.
Larry was looking for the library, but he couldn’t find it. So, he went up to a stranger and said:
‘Can you tell me where the library is?’
For each sentence, there are five choices ranging from ‘bad’ to ‘fully acceptable’ in addition to ‘I
don’t know’.
1 2 3 4 5I don’t
bad good know
You will probably rate the sentence in the example above as ‘good’, since it is clearly a possible
sentence of English.
1 2 3 4 5 I don’t
bad good know
Remember: you should judge only the underlined sentence.

Now, let’s try another example.
Larry wanted Susan to look at his new car, so he said:
‘At look car my new.’
You will probably rate this sentence as ‘bad’, since you realize that it is not a possible sentence of
English.
1 2 3 4 5 I don’t
bad good know
You can use the intermediate categories (2, 3 and 4) for cases that are neither completely bad nor
completely good, in your opinion.
There may be some sentences that you are not able to judge. If that happens, you can circle ‘I
don’t know’ on the answer sheet.
References
Ardery, Gail. 1980. “On Coordination in Child Language.” Journal of Child Language 7:
305–20.
Eimas, Peter. 1996. “The Perception and Representation of Speech by Infants.” In J.
Morgan & K. Demuth (eds.), Signal to Syntax: Bootstrapping from speech to
grammar in early acquisition. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum, 25–39.
Johannessen, Janne. 1996. “Partial Agreement and Coordination.” Linguistic Inquiry 27:
661–75.
Kanno, Kazue. 1996a. “Access to Universal Grammar in Second Language Acquisition:
Data from the interpretation of null arguments in Japanese.” Linguistics 34:
397–412.
———. 1996b. “The Status of a Non-Parametrized Principle in the L2 Initial State.”

Language Acquisition: A Journal of Developmental Linguistics 5: 317–334.
———. 1997. “The Acquisition of Null and Overt Pronominals in Japanese by English
Speakers.” Second Language Research 13: 299–321.
———. 1999. “Acquisition of Verb Gapping in Japanese by Mandarin and English
Speakers.” This Volume.
Kuno, Susumu. 1973. The Structure of the Japanese Language. Cambridge, MA: MIT
Press.
Long, Michael. 1990. “Maturational Constraints on Language Development.” Studies in
O’Grady, William. 1996. “Language Acquisition without Universal Grammar: A proposal
for L2 learning.” Second Language Research 12: 374–97.
———. 1997. Syntactic Development. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Ross, John R. 1970. “Gapping and the Order of Constituents.” In M. Bierwisch & K.
Heidolph (eds.), Progress in Linguistics. The Hague: Mouton, 249–59.
Schwartz, Bonnie and Rex Sprouse. 1996. “L2 Cognitive States and the Full Transfer/Full
Access Model.” Second Language Research 12: 40–72.
Uziel, S. 1993. “Resetting Universal Grammar Parameters: Evidence from second
language acquisition of Subjacency and the Empty Category Principle.” Second
Yoshinaga, Naoko. 1999. “Who Knows What and Why? The Acquisition of Multiple
Wh-Questions by Adult Learners of Japanese.” This volume.
C 9
Acquisition of Verb Gapping in Japanese

by Mandarin and English Speakers
Kazue Kanno
1. Introduction
An important issue in the study of second language acquisition has to do with the
extent to which L2 learning can be facilitated or impeded by properties of the
native language. This paper addresses this question in relation to an intricate
phenomenon that has its roots in the interaction between verb gapping in
coordinate structure and verb–object order (see Ross 1970 and Johannessen
1996), complementing the study by O’Grady (this volume).
Section 2 lays the groundwork for my study by describing the syntax of
verb gapping in three languages — English, Japanese and Mandarin. Section 3
then outlines an experiment that is designed to investigate how differences
among these languages affect the acquisition of this phenomenon in Japanese by
speakers of English and Mandarin. The paper ends with a discussion and
conclusion that seeks to integrate the results of my experiment into our under-
standing of the role of cross-linguistic differences in facilitating and impeding
second language acquisition.
2. Verb gapping and head-complement order
When sentences are conjoined in Japanese, the verb in the first clause appears in
the ‘gerundive’ (tenseless) form while the verb in the second clause is tensed.
160 KAZUE KANNO
(1) Coordinate sentence

[Taroo-ga hon-o yon-de] [Ziroo-ga terebi-o mi-ta]
[Taroo- book- read- [Ziroo- TV- watch-
‘Taroo read a book and Ziroo watched T.V.’
When the verbs in the two clauses are identical, the verb in the first clause can be
deleted (or null) — creating a backward (‘leftward’ in O’Grady’s terminology)
gapping pattern, as illustrated in (2b). In contrast, deletion of the second verb rather
than the first (forward or ‘rightward’ gapping) yields an unacceptable results, as (2c)
shows. (See Kuno 1973 for a more detailed description of this phenomenon.)
(2) Japanese
[Taroo-ga ringo-o tabe-te] [Ziroo-ga banana-o
[Taroo- apple- eat- [Ziroo- banana-
tabe-ta].
eat-
‘Taroo ate an apple and Ziroo ate a banana.’
b. Backward (= leftward) gapping
[Taroo-ga ringo-o Ø] [Ziroo-ga banana-o tabe-ta].
c. Forward(= rightward) gapping
*[Taroo-ga ringo-o tabe-te], [Ziroo-ga banana-o Ø].
Now consider what happens in the corresponding coordinate sentences in English.
(3) English
a. Coordinate structure
[John ate an apple] and [Mary ate a banana].
b. Backward gapping
*[John Ø an apple] and [Mary ate a banana].
c. Forward gapping
[John ate an apple] and [Mary Ø a banana].
English also allows gapping, but as the contrast between (3b) and (3c) shows,
only the forward gapping pattern is possible — that is, the verb in the second
clause can be deleted, but not the one in the first clause. (See Neijt 1979 and van
Oirsouw 1987) for a more detailed description of this phenomenon.)
Mandarin Chinese represents yet another option, since it allows no gapping
at all.
L2 ACQUISITION OF VERB GAPPING IN JAPANESE 161
(4) Mandarin Chinese

[Yuehan chile pinguo], [Meli chile xiangjiao].
[John ate apple [Mary ate banana
‘John ate apples and Mary ate bananas.’
b. Backward gapping
*[Yuehan Ø pinguo, [Meli chile xiangjiao].
[John apples [Mary ate banana
c. Forward gapping
*[Yuehan chile pinguo], [Meli Ø xiangjiao].
[John ate apples [Mary bananas
O’Grady (this volume) states the constraint on gapping direction as follows:
(5) Constraint on Verb Gapping
Head-complement languages
[s……V……] [s……Ø……] is prohibited
Complement-head languages
[s……Ø] [s……V] is prohibited
The key generalization is that head-complement order predicts the 
of a particular gapping direction without implying that the reverse gapping
direction is permitted. This accounts for all the facts summarized above:
Japanese, a complement–head language, permits only backward gapping; English,
a head–complement language, permits only forward gapping; and Mandarin, also
a head–complement language, chooses not to allow verb gapping in either
direction.
This raises an interesting question: how easily do native speakers of one
type of language master the gapping constraint associated with the other type of
language? In particular, it is worthwhile to ask whether the difference between
English (forward gapping only) and Mandarin (no gapping) affects the way
native speakers of those languages acquire the constraint on gapping in Japanese
(backward gapping only).
The interest of this question is heightened by the fact that the gapping pattern
is not usually taught. (I examined several textbooks, but none includes gapping
structures among the grammatical patterns that it discusses.) We can thus be sure
that learners will have to rely solely on their own linguistic resources (e.g. their
‘acquisition device’) in judging the status of these constructions. Moreover, it is
162 KAZUE KANNO
clear that if learners have the ability to draw conclusions about gapping direction
from head-complement order in accordance with (5), the information needed to
trigger this inference is abundantly available in the input in the form of sentences
with a verb in final position. (Indeed, teachers generally give beginners explicit
instructions to put the verb at the end of the sentence in Japanese.)
Assuming that the Constraint on Verb Gapping is available to L2 learners,
we predict that learners should be able to reject forward gapping based on
exposure to head-final sentences, but that they need to be exposed to actual
instances of backward gapping in order to learn that this particular pattern is in
fact employed in Japanese. In other words, information about head position alone
does not allow learners to infer that backward gapping is permitted in Japanese,
although it should suffice to rule out the possibility of  gapping. (See
O’Grady, this volume, for a more complete discussion of this point.) By
comparing English- and Mandarin-speaking learners, we will be able not only to
test this hypothesis but also to determine the possible effect of the presence or
absence of a (different) gapping pattern in the native language.
3. The experiments
3.1 Material
A written questionnaire was used to assess the subjects’ knowledge of gapping

direction. The test materials consisted of the three sets of biclausal sentences —
the two sets of test sentences exemplified below and one set of distractors. There
were five tokens of each type.
All test sentences were preceded by a background passage that enhanced
their pragmatic plausibility. The test sentences were presented in the Japanese
script with no indication of the position of the gap; the background passage was
in the subjects’ native language.
(6) Type I: Backward gapping pattern
Background: I was asked what Tanaka bought and what Yamamoto
bought. I wasn’t sure, but here is what I think.
Tanaka-san-wa kamera-o Ø Yamamoto-san-wa CD-o katta
Tanaka- camera- Yamamoto- CD- bought
to omo-u.
‘I think that Tanaka bought a camera and Yamamoto bought a CD.’
(7) Type II: Forward gapping pattern

Background: I was asked which language Sue studied and which
language Jim studied. I wasn’t sure, but here is what I think.
*Sue-san-wa tyuugokugo-o benkyoosi-te, Jim-san wa huransugo o Ø
Sue- Chinese- study- Jim- French-
to omo-u.
‘I think that Sue studied Chinese and Jim studied French.’
The subjects were asked to evaluate the sentences on a scale of 1 (bad) to 5
(good), with the further option of indicating ‘I don’t know’.
(8) Scale
1 2 3 4 5 I don’t know
bad good
For the last two test sentences (one forward gapping pattern and one backward
gapping pattern), the subjects were instructed that if they chose 1 (the ‘bad’
option), they should indicate how they would change the sentence to make it
better. This was to ensure that subjects who rejected one or the other pattern did
so for reasons pertaining to the position of the gap.
I will begin by discussing the version of the experiment involving English-
speaking JSL learners and then turn my attention to the version involving the
Mandarin-speaking learners.
3.2 Experiment 1: English-speaking JSL learners in the United States1
Five groups of subjects participated in the experiment. The first four groups
consisted of speakers of English who were learning Japanese as a foreign
language at the University of Hawaii; none of these subjects had ever lived in
Japan. The fifth group consisted of 10 adult native speakers of Japanese.
Group I: 20 subjects enrolled in sections of second semester Japanese (Japa-
nese 102)
Group II: 32 subjects enrolled in sections of third semester Japanese (Japanese
201)
Group III: 23 subjects enrolled in sections of fourth semester Japanese (Japa-
nese 202)
Group IV: 17 subjects enrolled in sections of various fourth year Japanese
courses
Group V: 10 adult native speakers of Japanese
164 KAZUE KANNO
3.2.1 Results
I will first report the overall results and then consider the performance of
individual subjects from two perspectives.
3.2.1.1 Overall results. Table 1 presents the overall results for the four English
JSL groups and for the group of Japanese native speakers.
In addition to the mean ratings for forward and backward gapping patterns,
Table 1 also includes the difference between the two scores — which is obtained
by subtracting the mean rating for the forward gapping pattern from that of the
backward gapping pattern.
As can be seen here, the native speaker group has a mean rating of 4.52 for
the backward gapping pattern, compared to a mean rating of 1.26 for the forward
pattern — a difference of 3.26. Thus, as expected, they clearly consider the
former pattern to be natural and the latter to be unnatural.
The overall results for the English JSL learner groups are quite different,
however. The mean rating for the backward gapping patterns is 2.76 for group
I, 2.22 for group II, 2.18 for group III, and 2.29 for group IV. With their mean
scores all beneath 3.00, these subjects evidently do not consider the backward
pattern to be natural. In fact all four groups rate the ungrammatical forward
gapping pattern higher than the backward pattern — the mean rating for the
forward pattern is 3.50 for group I, 3.00 for group II, 2.88 for group III, and
2.34 for group IV.
Although there is no sign of improvement on the grammatical backward
gapping pattern, whose rating is low even in the most advanced group, we can
observe some progress with respect to the ungrammatical forward pattern. As can be
Table 1. Mean ratings for the five groups on the two gapping patterns
Type I Type II differences p values
Backward Forward
Group I: 2.76 3.50 (−0.74) .0479
L2 learner Group II: 2.22 3.00 (−0.78) .0006
groups Group III: 2.18 2.88 (−0.70) .00017
Group IV: 2.29 2.34 (−0.05) .9017
Native speak- Group V: 4.52 1.26 (+3.26) .0001
er
Scale of 1 (ungram.) to 5 (gram).
seen in table 1, the rating for this structure falls at the more advanced levels,
resulting in a lessening of the difference between the mean ratings for the two types.
In sum, it appears that success in rejecting the forward gapping pattern is
related to the amount of previous exposure to Japanese. Hence, we see a
decrease in the average ratings for this pattern in the more advanced group, with
the lowest ratings coming from the students in Group IV. It is clear, though, that
the rejection of these sentences is the result of a long and laborious process. This
is especially noteworthy in light of the fact that the information that could in
principle rule out this pattern — the head-final word order of Japanese — is
present in abundance throughout the entire period of second language study.
For backward gapping, however, there appears to be no correlation between
amount of experience and rate of acceptance of this pattern. All groups have a
mean rating lower than 3.0 even though there is reason to believe that they are
incidentally exposed to at least some instances of this structure type. (For
example, the textbook (Situational Functional Japanese, volume 1: Drills,
Tsukuba Language Group 1995) used at the University of Hawaii includes no
direct information about gapping, but I uncovered six incidental instances of
backward gapping patterns in the chapters used in the first-semester Japanese
course. (Only one involved a transitive verb like the test sentences used in the
experiment; the other five involve a copula.)
3.2.1.2 Individual scores. Let us now consider the performance of the individual
subjects with a view to determining their success in recognizing the effects of
the Constraint on Gapping in Japanese. I will examine this issue from two per-
spectives, beginning with the number of times individuals rejected the ungrammat-
ical forward gapping pattern, as required by the Constraint on Gapping. I will then
investigate whether individual subjects show a preference for backward gapping.
Evidence for such a preference would indicate not only a sensitivity to the
Constraint on Gapping, but also the realization that Japanese permits backward
gapping. (Recall that the Constraint on Gapping rules out forward gapping but
says nothing about whether backward gapping actually occurs in Japanese.)
Rejection of the forward gapping pattern: If learners have the Constraint on Verb
Gapping, they should not accept forward gapping patterns in Japanese. Table 2
presents the distribution of English JSL learners and Japanese native speakers
with respect to the number of times they gave these patterns a rating of 4 or 5 on
the 5-point scale used on the questionnaire.
Allowing for performance errors, I assume that subjects with knowledge of
the Constraint on Verb Gapping should assign the forward patterns a rating of 4
166 KAZUE KANNO
or 5 no more than once. As expected, all native speakers fall into this category,
uniformly assigning very low scores to the forward gapping pattern. Among the
English JSL learners, knowledge of the Constraint on Verb Gapping appears to
be related to the amount of exposure to Japanese. Hence, the highest proportion
of subjects who uniformly provide a rating of less than 4 (59%) is found in
Group IV.
Table 2. Distribution of English JSL learners based on the number of 4/5 ratings for
forward gapping
No. of times Group I Group II Group III Group IV Native
4 or 5 is selected (n = 20) (n = 32) (n = 23) (n = 17) (n = 10)
0 times or once (6 (12 (11 (10 (10
(30%) (37.5%) (47.5%) (59%) (100%)
2 or 3 times (9 (14 (05 (04 (00
(45%) (44%) (21.5%) (24%)
4 or 5 times (5 (06 (07 (03 (00
(25%) (18%) (30.5) (17%)
Preference for gapping direction: Now let us examine the subjects’ individual
performance in terms of preferred gapping direction, which can be determined by
subtracting the rating for the ungrammatical forward gapping from the rating for
the grammatical backward pattern. Thus, positive figures indicate a preference
for backward gapping, zero signals no preference, and negative figures point to
a preference for forward gapping.
As expected, all native speakers of Japanese indicate a preference for
backward gapping (see table 3 below). Indeed, they all have a difference of 2 or
higher in their rating of the two patterns.
On the other hand, the individual performance of the English JSL learners
paints a totally different picture. As the bold-face percentages indicate, in all
four groups more subjects prefer forward gapping. In group I, for instance, 13
subjects prefer forward gapping and only 7 prefer backward gapping. The ratio
is 22 to 5 in Group II and 17 to 5 in Group III. Even at the fourth instructional
level (group IV), more than half the subjects prefer the unacceptable forward
gapping. These results appear to reflect a transfer effect, with English speakers
assuming that the forward gapping found in their native language is also
permitted in Japanese.
In sum, an examination of the overall results and of individual performance
Table 3. Distribution of subjects based on the preferred gapping direction

Group I Group II Group III Group IV Native
(n = 20) (n = 32) (n = 23) (n = 17) (n = 10)
Prefer backward (07 (05 (05 (04 (10
gapping (35%) (15.5%) (22%) (33%) (100%)
No preference (00 (05 (01 (02 (00
(0%) (15.5%) (4%) (12%)
Prefer forward (13 (22 (17 (11 (00
gapping (65%) (69%) (74%) (65%)
suggests that English-speaking JSL learners eventually come to realize that

forward gapping is not permitted in Japanese. However, this evidently is not an
instantaneous process; rather, it requires some years of exposure to the language,
at least in a foreign language teaching context.
3.3 Experiment 2: Mandarin-speaking JSL learners in China
The second part of my study focuses on Mandarin-speaking subjects learning

Japanese as a foreign language at the Dongbei Normal Institute in the People’s
Republic of China. There were two groups of subjects:
Group A: 40 beginning subjects2 who had been studying Japanese for approxi-
mately four months at the time of the experiment.
Group B: 35 intermediate subjects who had been studying Japanese for ap-
proximately eight months at the time of the experiment.
The subjects met regularly for approximately 13 hours per week for their
Japanese language classes. Like the English-speaking learners, none had ever
lived in Japan.
The same questionnaire used for the English-speaking learners was em-
ployed for the Mandarin-speaking students, except that the instructions and
contexts were written in Mandarin (using the simplified Chinese characters
employed in the People’s Republic of China).
3.3.1 Results
3.3.1.1 Overall results. Table 4 presents the overall results for the two groups of
Mandarin JSL learners. For purposes of comparison, the earlier results obtained
168 KAZUE KANNO
Table 4. Mean ratings for the three Mandarin JSL groups on the two gapping patterns
Type I Type II differences p values
Backward Forward
L2 learner Beginning: 3.04 2.01 (+1.03) .0001
groups Intermediate: 2.83 2.24 (+0.59) .0049
Native speak- Group V: 4.52 1.26 (+3.26) .0001
ers
Scale of 1–5: 5 is the highest.
from the Japanese native speakers are included here as well. As before, I focus
on the mean ratings for forward and backward gapping patterns and on the
difference between the two scores — which is obtained by subtracting the mean
rating for the forward gapping pattern from that of the backward gapping pattern.
The mean rating for the forward patterns is 2.01 for the beginning group
and 2.24 for the intermediate group. In other words, subjects in both groups
appear to find forward gapping sentences unnatural, although this response is not
as strong as in the case of the native speakers.
In contrast, the mean rating for the backward gapping patterns is 3.04 for
the beginning group and 2.83 for the intermediate group. These scores appear to
fall into a sort of ‘middle ground’ in that the subjects are neither accepting nor
rejecting these sentences.
There are two noticeable differences between these Mandarin JSL groups
and English JSL groups. First, both Mandarin groups have a preference for the
backward gapping pattern, as the plus figures in the third column of our table
show. By contrast, all English JSL groups exhibit the opposite preference, as
attested by the minus figures in the comparable column in Table 1 above.
Second, the beginning and intermediate groups of Mandarin JSL learners
clearly reject the forward gapping pattern, as their respective mean scores of 2.02
and 2.24 indicate. In contrast, all four groups of English JSL learners assign a
higher mean rating to these patterns.
3.3.1.2 Individual scores. Now let us examine the individual scores of the
Mandarin JSL learners with respect to the number of times each individual
subject gave a rating of 4 or 5 to the forward gapping patterns. As in the case of
the English-speaking JSL learners (see Table 2), I assume that subjects with a
knowledge of the Constraint on Verbal Gapping will give such high ratings no
more than once (see Table 5 below).
By this criterion, 67.5% of the subjects in the beginner group and 74% of
Table 5. Distribution of Mandarin JSL learners based on No. of times 4/5 ratings for
forward gapping
Beginning Intermediate Native
(n = 40) (n = 35) (n = 10)
0 times or once (27 (26 (10
(67.5%) (74%) (100%)
2 or 3 times (10 (06 (00
(25%) (17%)
4 or 5 times (03 (03 (00
(7.5%) (9%)
those in the intermediate group have knowledge of Constraint on Verbal

Gapping. These proportions are much higher than those found among the
English-speaking subjects, which exceed 50% only in the most advanced group
(see Table 2).
Now let us examine the performance of individual subjects based on
preferred gapping direction. As before (see Table 3), this preference is deter-
mined by subtracting the rating for the ungrammatical forward gapping from the
rating for the grammatical backward pattern — thus, positive figures indicate a
preference for forward gapping. Table 6 presents the distribution of the Mandarin
JSL learners and the native Japanese speakers with respect to this criterion.
As can be seen here, the majority of subjects in both groups (67.5% for the
beginning group and 57% for the intermediate group) indicate a preference for
the backward gapping pattern. No group of English JSL learners was nearly as
successful. In fact, the highest proportion of subjects exhibiting a preference for
Table 6. Distribution of Mandarin JSL based on the preferred gapping direction

Beginning Intermediate Native
(n = 40) (n = 35) (n = 10)
Prefer backward gapping (27 (20 (10
(67.5%) (57%) (100%)
No preference (03 (03 (00
(7.5%) (9%)
Prefer forward gapping (10 (12 (00
(25%) (34%)
170 KAZUE KANNO
the backward pattern (found in Group 1) was a mere 35% (see Table 3).
In sum, the Mandarin-speaking JSL learners differ from their English-
speaking counterparts with respect to overall results and individual performance.
Not only do they clearly reject forward gapping from an early stage of acquisi-
tion, they exhibit a stronger preference for the backward gapping patterns than do
the English JSL learners. Given that both sets of subjects were learning Japanese
in a foreign language context outside of Japan, the relatively poor performance
of the English JSL learners cannot be attributed simply to the limited input
associated with classroom-based language learning.
4. Discussion and conclusion
As stated at the outset, our primary concern has to do with what inferences, if
any, English- and Mandarin-speaking learners of Japanese can make about
gapping direction in that language based on exposure to head-final sentences. Of
special interest is the question of whether the difference between English and
Mandarin affects the way native speakers of each language acquire verb gapping
pattern in Japanese.
For the English JSL learners, rejection of the forward gapping patterns
seems to involve a long and drawn-out process stretching over several years. By
comparison, the same result appears to be achieved much earlier by the Mandarin
JSL learners, who clearly reject forward gapping patterns in Japanese even in the
early stages of language study. Why should this be?
A possible answer to this question lies in the fact that Mandarin differs
from English in not permitting gapping at all. There is thus no possibility of a
transfer effect obscuring the effects of the Constraint on Verb Gapping, and the
Mandarin speakers therefore have no reason to think that forward gapping should
be permitted in Japanese. This conclusion cannot be so easily arrived at by
English speakers, whose familiarity with forward gapping patterns in their native
language apparently supersedes the Constraint on Verb Gapping, at least initially.
Turning now to the backward gapping pattern, we have seen that both
groups of Mandarin JSL learners did much better in accepting this construction
than did any of the English JSL groups. Why should this be? The answer cannot
lie in simple transfer: since Mandarin does not allow gapping in either direction,
Mandarin-speaking learners who relied on their native language in judging the
Japanese sentences would presumably have ruled out the backward gapping
patterns just as strongly as the English speakers did. This is not what happened,
as we have seen.
One possibility is that the Mandarin JSL learners were simply exposed to more
instances of backward gapping than were their English-speaking counterparts. At
this time, however, there is no reason to believe that this was so, especially since
both groups of learners were exposed to Japanese only in a classroom context
outside Japan. Chie Itami, the instructor at the institute where the Mandarin-
speaking subjects were studying, reports that the textbooks used there contain no
gapping structure and that she did not teach the pattern. Moreover, the Mandarin
JSL learners had roughly the same number of hours of exposure to Japanese
instruction as did the English-speaking students in Japanese 202. Yet, they were
far more willing to accept the backward gapping patterns.
A more interesting possibility is that the absence of gapping in Mandarin
allowed the Mandarin-speaking learners to be more open to the existence of
backward gapping patterns in Japanese. In the absence of any transfer-based
prejudices, their acquisition device was freed up to operate in much the same
way as it would in a first language context. Simple exposure to the backward
patterns was therefore enough to permit the conclusion that they are acceptable.3
In contrast, the English-speaking learners actually began at a disadvantage, since
they believed that forward gapping should be possible, as shown by the high
ratings given by the subjects in group 1. They therefore had to first realize that
forward gapping was impossible. Only at that time were they ready to notice and
recognize the patterns of backward gapping that are found in Japanese.
How precisely do the English-speaking learners come to realize that forward
gapping is not permitted in Japanese? There is reason to believe that the
Constraint on Verb Gapping has an important role to play. The key clue in this
respect is that some of the English-speaking subjects begin to reject the forward
gapping patterns without yet accepting the backward gapping patterns. The fact
that the forward gapping pattern is rejected even in the absence of ‘pressure’
from the backward pattern suggests that it has been forced out by some other
factor — presumably the general word order pattern of the language, which in
turn implies the operation of the Constraint on Verb Gapping.
In sum, we have evidence that learners are sensitive to gapping direction in
a second language and that they are (eventually) able both to rule out an
unacceptable gapping pattern and to learn an acceptable one. Of special interest
is a finding that emerged from our decision to simultaneously study speakers of
a language that permits only forward gapping (English) and speakers of a
language that permits no gapping at all (Mandarin): comparison of the two
groups suggests that mastery of the syntax of gapping is facilitated in cases
where the native language does not contain a gapping pattern different from the
one permitted in the target language. Indeed, if the data from our English-
172 KAZUE KANNO
speaking learners is representative, it seems that the presence of such a pattern

in the native language can drastically impede the ability of learners to use head-
complement order to infer the inadmissibility of forward gapping in Japanese
and may even make it more difficult for them to notice the existence of
backward gapping. It remains to be determined whether comparable effects
occur for other UG-related phenomena — an issue which I hope can be addressed
in future research.
Acknowledgments
I would like to thank William O’Grady for his comments and discussions. My special thanks go to
Chie Itami for her help with data collection in China and to Song Jiang for his assistance with the
Mandarin questionnaire. I would also like to thank the Japanese native speakers, Japanese-language
instructors, and students who participated in the study.
Notes
1. This experiment was done in collaboration with William O’Grady.

2. Initially there were 44 subjects, but four were excluded from consideration — two because they
gave the ‘don’t know’ option twice and two because they had previous experience learning
Japanese.
3. This is not to suggest that the richness of the input is irrelevant, however. In a study I
conducted with native Mandarin-speakers studying Japanese as a second language in Japan, I
found an even higher preference for backward gapping patterns — presumably because of the
increased opportunity for exposure to this construction. See Kanno (1999) for details.
References
Johannessen, Janne. 1996. “Partial Agreement and Coordination.” Linguistic Inquiry 27:
661–75.
Kanno, Kazue. 1999. “Acquisition of Verb Gapping by JSL and JFL Learners.” Unpub-
lished Manuscript, University of Hawaii at Manoa.
Kuno, Susumu. 1973. The Structure of the Japanese Language. Cambridge, Massachusetts:
MIT Press.
Neijt, Anneke. 1979. Gapping: A contribution to sentence grammar. Dordrecht, Holland:
Foris Publications.
van Oirsouw, Robert R. 1987. The Syntax of Coordination. New York, NY: Croom Helm.
O’Grady, William. 1999. “Gapping and Coordination in Second Language Acquisition.”
This Volume.
Ross, John R. 1970. “Gapping and the Order of Constituents.” In M. Bierwisch and K. E.
Heidolph (eds), Progress in Linguistics. The Hague: Mouton, 249–259.
Tsukuba Language Group. 1995. Situational Functional Japanese Volume 1: Drills.
Tokyo: Bonjinsha.
Name Index
A F
Ardery, G. 150 Falodun, J. 33
Ayoun, J. 115 Farrar, M. J. 11, 46
Flynn, S. 119, 134
B Ford-Niwa, J. 53, 60, 61 (see also
Bachman, L. F. 57, 65, 67 Kobayashi et al. (1995, 1996))
Baker, N. 11, 89 Fukuda, M. 4, 72
Balcom, P. 90
Beck, M.-L. 11, 12 G
Bialystok, E. 59, 60 Gass, S. 32, 33, 36, 39, 40, 46
Bley-Vroman, R. 71, 117, 119, 132, Grimshaw, J. 109
134
Bohannon, J. N. 11, 46 H
Bonvillian, J. 11 Hanlon, C. 11
Brown , G. 33 Hatasa, Y. 53, 55, 56, 57, 58
Brown, R. 11 Hermon, G. 118
Burzio, L. 89 Herron, C. 11, 12
Hirakawa, M. 90
C Hopper, P. 78
Chomsky, N. 118 Hornstein, N. 115
Cole, P. 118 Huang, C.-T. J. 115, 116
Conrad, C. A. 54
Crookes, G. 34 I
Inagaki, S. 34, 46
D
Denninger, M. 11 J
Doughty, C. 32 Johannessen, J. 142, 159
Jorden, E. 14, 74, 75
E
Eimas, P. 149 K
Eubank, L. 11, 12 Kageyama, T. 4, 90, 91, 93, 96, 109,
110
176 NAME INDEX
Kanagy, R. 33 Oliver, R. 12
Kanno, K. 3, 71–76, 83, 85, 86, Oller, J. W., Jr. 54
100, 108, 110, 149, 155 Oshita, H. 90
Kaplan, B. 11
Katada, F. 117 P
Klein-Braley, C. 54 Palmer, A. 65, 67
Koizumi, M. 108 Pavasi, M. 9
Krashen, S. 10 Perlmutter, D. 89
Kuno, S. 92, 93, 115, 142, 160 Pica, T. 2, 31, 32, 33, 35, 36, 42, 44,
46, 47
L Pinker, S. 11
Larsen-Freeman, D. 1 Porter, P. A. 32, 33
Lasnik, H. 115, 116, 117
Levin, B. 91, 94 R
Li, A. 94 Raatz, U. 54
Lighfoot, D. 115, 118 Rabie, S. R. 34, 46
Linnell, J. 32, 43 Rappaport Hovav, M. 91, 94
Long, M. 1, 10, 32, 33, 34, 36, Richards, N. 118
46, 149 Richardson, M.-A. 12
Loschky, L. 34 Rosen, S. 109
Ross, J. 142, 159
M Rulon, K. 34
Mackey, A. 32, 47
Martin, S. E. 14 S
McDonald, D. 34 Saito, M. 92, 93, 115, 116, 117
McLaughlin, B. 60 Sato, C. 36
McNamara, T. 55, 59 Saxton, M. 2
MacWhinney, B. 11 Schachter, J. 11
Mito, K. 12, 14, 23, 25, 27, 34, 46 Schmidt, R. 9
Miyagawa, S. 90, 110 Schneider, W. 60
Miyata, H. 95 Schwartz, B. 11, 149
Seliger, H. 10
N Sharwood Smith, M. 55, 59, 60
Nakayama, M. 108 Shiﬀrin, R. M. 60
Neijt, A. 160 Shortreed, I. M. 33
Nelson, K. E. 11 Snow, C. 11
Nishigauchi, T. 93, 110 Sokolov, J. 11
Noda, M. 14, 74, 75 Sorace, A. 90
Spence-Brown, R. 55, 59, 65
O Sprouse, R. 149
O’Grady, W. 118, 149, 150, 159, 160, Stanowicz, L. 11, 46
161 Sung, L.-M. 118
van Oirsouw, R. 160 Swain, M. 3, 9, 31, 42
NAME INDEX 177
T W
Takami, K. 115 Weinberg, A. 115
Takezawa, K. 93, 110 White, L. 9, 119
Teramura, H. 96 Wilkins, D. 10
Thompson, S. 78
Tohsaku, Y.-H. 53, 55, 56, 57, 58 Y
Tomasello, M. 11, 12 Yip, V. 90
Tsujimura, N. 90 Yoshinaga, N. 117, 132, 134, 154
Young-Sholten, M. 133
U Yuan, B. 90, 94, 110
Uziel, S. 149 Yule, G. 33, 34
V Z
Vainikka, A. 133 Zobl, H. 90
Varonis, E. M. 32, 33, 36, 39, 40, 46
Ford-Niwa et al. (= J. Ford-Niwa, N. Kobayashi & H. Yamamoto 1995) 53, 61

Kobayashi et al. (= N. Kobayashi, J. Ford-Niwa & H. Yamamoto 1995) 53
Kobayashi et al. (= N. Kobayashi, J. Ford-Niwa & H. Yamamoto 1996) 53
McLauglin et al. (= B. McLaughlin, T. Rossman & B. McLeod 1983) 60, 64
Pica et al. (= T. Pica, L. Holliday, N. Lewis & L. Morgenthaler 1989) 2, 32, 35, 36,
42
Pica et al. (= T. Pica, F. Lincoln-Porter, D. Paninos & J. Linnell 1996) 32, 42, 44,
46, 47
Subject Index
A Implicit negative feedback 10, 11, 26

Adjective ordering 14 Explicit feedback 10
Adverb takusan test, 4, 91–93, 98–99 Focus on form 10
Automatic control 65 Full Access Hypothesis 119, 134
Automatic processing 60, 62 Fundamental Diﬀerence Hypothesis
Automaticity 60, 64 119, 134–135
C I
Case drop/deletion/omission 3–4, 72, Interaction Hypothesis 10
74–76, 93–94, 95–96, 98, 100, Interactional moves
104-107, 108, 109, 110 Clarification request (CR) 31–32,
Comprehensible output 2–3, 33 36–37
Comprehensible Output Hypothesis Confirmation check (CC) 31–32,
31 36–37
Computational mechanisms 149, 150
Control 54, 55, 59–60, 63, 64 L
Controlled processing 60 L2 Continuity Hypothesis 149–150, 154
Learner-learner (NNS-NNS) interaction
D 32–33, 46–47
Deep unaccusativity 91, 98, 101–103, Lexical government 72, 93, 116–117
107, 109 see also Proper government and ECP
see also Surface unaccusativity Linguistic knowledge 59, 60, 63
Phonological/grammatical knowledge
E 64
Empty Category Principle (ECP) 4, Locative construction 15
71–72, 93–94, 116–117
M
F Models/modeling 2, 11, 12, 13, 19–20,
Feedback 31, 33 22, 25, 26
Role of negative feedback 9–10, Modeling condition 16–17
11–12 Modified output (MO) 31–32, 37–38,
42
180 SUBJECT INDEX
Lexical modification 37–38, 42 U

Syntactic modification 38, 42 Unaccusative Hypothesis 89, 90, 91
Unaccusativity 97
N see also Unacccusative Hypothesis,
Negotiation 31, 33, 41–42 Deep unaccusativity and Surface
Notice/Noticed input 9, 11, 25 unaccusativity
Unaccusativity in Chinese 94–95
O Unaccusativity in English 94
‘One-noun’ strategy 82 Unaccusativity in Japanese 91–94
Uniformity of Theta Assignment
P Hypothesis (UTAH) 89–90, 97,
Placement test 55, 64 107
Process authenticity 65 Universal Grammar (UG) 71, 97, 118,
Proper government 72, 93–94, 116–117 134–135, 150
see also ECP and Lexical government
V
R Verb gapping in coordinate structures 5,
Real-time 61, 64 6, 141–143
Real-time processing 59 in English 142, 160
Real-time speed 60 in Japanese 142, 160
Recasts/recasting 2, 10, 11, 12, 13, in Mandarin 143, 161
19–20, 22–25, 26 in Thai 143
Corrective and non-corrective recasts Gapping direction and head position
46 (rightward/forward,
Recast condition 16 leftward/backward) 142, 159
Constraint on gapping direction
S 143–144, 161
SPOT (Simple Performance-Oriented Verbs, unaccusative and unergative 89,
Test) 3, 53–55 90, 92, 93, 98, 99, 101, 102, 103,
Reliability of SPOT 56 104, 105, 107, 108
Correlation with other evaluations
57–59 W
Surface unaccusativity 91, 93, 98, WH complex 116–117, 134
104–107, 109 Wh-questions
see also Deep unaccusativity Multiple wh-questions 5, 115,
116–117, 123-126, 129, 131–132
T Simple wh-quesitons 121, 126–127
Tasks
Task types and negotiation 33–34
Information gap task 34, 39
Jigsaw task 39
In the series LANGUAGE ACQUISITION AND LANGUAGE DISORDERS (LALD) the
following titles have been published thus far or are scheduled for publication:
1. WHITE, Lydia: Universal Grammar and Second Language Acquisition. 1989.
2. HUEBNER, Thom and Charles A. FERGUSON (eds): Cross Currents in Second
Language Acquisition and Linguistic Theory. 1991.
3. EUBANK, Lynn (ed.): Point Counterpoint. Universal Grammar in the second language.
1991.
4. ECKMAN, Fred R. (ed.): Confluence. Linguistics, L2 acquisition and speech pathology.
1993.
5. GASS, Susan and Larry SELINKER (eds): Language Transfer in Language Learning.
Revised edition. 1992.
6. THOMAS, Margaret: Knowledge of Reflexives in a Second Language. 1993.
7. MEISEL, Jürgen M. (ed.): Bilingual First Language Acquisition. French and German
grammatical development. 1994.
8. HOEKSTRA, Teun and Bonnie SCHWARTZ (eds): Language Acquisition Studies in
Generative Grammar. 1994.
9. ADONE, Dany: The Acquisition of Mauritian Creole. 1994.
10. LAKSHMANAN, Usha: Universal Grammar in Child Second Language Acquisition.
Null subjects and morphological uniformity. 1994.
11. YIP, Virginia: Interlanguage and Learnability. From Chinese to English. 1995.
12. JUFFS, Alan: Learnability and the Lexicon. Theories and second language acquisition
research. 1996.
13. ALLEN, Shanley: Aspects of Argument Structure Acquisition in Inuktitut. 1996.
14. CLAHSEN, Harald (ed.): Generative Perspectives on Language Acquisition. Empirical
findings, theoretical considerations and crosslinguistic comparisons. 1996.
15. BRINKMANN, Ursula: The Locative Alternation in German. Its structure and acquisi-
tion. 1997.
16. HANNAHS, S.J. and Martha YOUNG-SCHOLTEN (eds): Focus on Phonological
Acquisition. 1997.
17. ARCHIBALD, John: Second Language Phonology. 1998.
18. KLEIN, Elaine C. and Gita MARTOHARDJONO (eds): The Development of Second
Language Grammars. A generative approach. 1999.
19. BECK, Maria-Luise (ed.): Morphology and its Interfaces in Second Language Knowl-
edge. 1998.
20. KANNO, Kazue (ed.): The Acquisition of Japanese as a Second Language. 1999.
21. HERSCHENSOHN, Julia: The Second Time Around - Minimalism and L2 Acquisition.
n.y.p.

(Language Acquisition & Language Disorders, v. 20) Kazue Kanno-The Acquisition of Japanese As A Second Language-John Benjamins Pub (1999) PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

(Language Acquisition & Language Disorders, v. 20) Kazue Kanno-The Acquisition of Japanese As A Second Language-John Benjamins Pub (1999) PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

(Language Acquisition & Language Disorders, v. 20) Kazue Kanno-The Acquisition of Japanese As A Second Language-John Benjamins Pub (1999) PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

THE ACQUISITION OF JAPANESE

Kazue Kanno (ed.)

The Acquisition of Japanese as a Second Language

JOHN BENJAMINS PUBLISHING COMPANY

can National Standard for Information Sciences — Permanence of Paper for

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

9. Acquisition of Verb Gapping in Japanese by Mandarin and

 Accusative case marker  Nominalizer

Shunji Inagaki Eric Kellerman

Michael Long John van IJzendoorn

O’Grady, William Kazue Kanno

SLA Research and Japanese

task and a ‘jigsaw’ (two-way information gap) task — with 24 intermediate-level

(1) a. Sentence with nominative case particle missing

Implicit Negative Feedback

Shunji Inagaki Michael H. Long

Interest in the potential role of negative feedback in second language acquisition

2. Models and recasts

general input or as models, are outperformed by children who receive equivalent

3.1.2 Target Structures

Group 1 Group 2 Group 3 Group 4 Control

3.1.4 Treatment and procedures

3.1.5 Instrumentation and scoring

Table 1. Raw scores on adjective ordering and the locative construction

Table 2. Gain scores on adjective ordering and the locative construction*

subjects, who showed partial knowledge of the target on the pretest.

Table 4. Raw scores on the -kute form

existing knowledge as a result of Japanese instruction in high school.

Table 5. Gain scores for the -kute form*

instruction, and/or to the modification to the modeling treatment. As noted earlier,

Table 6. Mean gain scores on the -kute form

Schmidt, Richard. 1983. “Interaction, Acculturation, and Acquisition of Communicative

Tasks and Learners’ Output in

1.1 Conversational interaction and modified output

Studies of modified output have been greatly influenced by Swain’s comprehen-

1.2 Learner-learner (NNS-NNS) interaction

Studies of conversational interaction investigating both comprehension and

situation.1 Learners in a foreign language situation have fewer opportunities to

1.3 Communicative tasks in foreign language classroom

The role of tasks and group work is important in communicative language

Similarly, Crookes and Rulon (1988), comparing the amount of feedback to

1.4 Studies of interaction in Japanese as a foreign language

The target language used in empirical studies of conversational interaction have

2. Research questions and hypotheses

The present study addresses the following research questions:

3.2 Analysis of data

H8: ‘B’ no tsugi

HL5: Inaka aa machi no soto desu. (MO)

4. Results and discussion

Table 1. Summary of the results

Figure 1. Model of negotiated interaction (Varonis & Gass 1985)

Extended negotiation occurs when an interlocutor asks for confirmation or

Table 2. Comparison of average C-unit per turn between tasks

(6) Extended negotiation of meaning

Table 3. Mean occurrence of extended negotiation per dyad

Table 4. Difference in linguistic modification between tasks

relationships among events. These differences in emphasis on each task might

4.2.2 Frequent use of confirmation check