The acquisition of definiteness expressions in non-native
Japanese by English- and Korean-speaking learners

Keisuke Kume

PhD

University of York
Education

May 2021

Abstract
This thesis investigates learnability problems and the role of L1 in L2 syntaxsemantics mappings, through a comparison of English- and Korean-speaking Japaneselearners’ acquisition of two Japanese definiteness properties: overt definitenessmarking by the demonstrative sono and covert definiteness distinction through word
order change between numeral quantifier constructions. The main objective is to
examine distinct predictions based on recent accounts of learnability and L1 influence:
the Feature Reassembly Hypothesis (FRH) (Lardiere, 2008, 2009) and the cline ofdifficulty in feature acquisition (Cho & Slabakova, 2014; Slabakova, 2009). The FRH
predicts that both definiteness properties will be acquired faster by Korean speakers
due to positive transfer of the L1 corresponding properties. On the other hand,according to the cline of difficulty, the overt property will be acquired before the covert
property, irrespective of the L1; and the L1 advantage of Korean is expected with theovert property but not with the covert property. Specifically, the corresponding covert
L1 definiteness property (Korean numeral constructions) will not facilitate theacquisition of the same property in the L2, but the L1 functional morphology
distinguishing definiteness overtly (English articles) will, hence English speakers will
acquire the covert property faster than Korean speakers. These predictions were tested
by means of an acceptability judgement task and a self-paced reading task. Although
the self-paced reading data offer no evidence of the relevant knowledge even withnative Japanese controls, the judgement data indicate that whereas both L2 groups canacquire the overt property equally well, the Korean group tend to exhibit moreconsistent target-like performance with the covert property than the English group.
Based on these results, it is proposed that the necessity of feature reassembly(reconciliation of L1-L2 differences within overt/covert category) plays a bigger role2than overt vs. covert feature realisation, contra the cline of difficulty.

3

Table of contents
Abstract ........................................................................................................................ 2
Table of contents .......................................................................................................... 4
List of tables ............................................................................................................... 11
List of figures ............................................................................................................. 16
Acknowledgements .................................................................................................... 19
Author’s declaration ................................................................................................... 22
Chapter 1: Introduction .............................................................................................. 23
1.1 Aims and objectives of the thesis ..................................................................... 23
1.2 Learning problems in L2 syntax-semantics mappings ..................................... 24
1.3 Organisation of the thesis ................................................................................. 29
Chapter 2: Theories of the L2 acquisition of syntax-semantics interface properties
and learnability problems ......................................................................... 31
2.1 Introduction ...................................................................................................... 31
2.2 L2 acquisition at the syntax-semantics interface ............................................. 32
2.2.1 Syntax-semantics mismatches ................................................................. 32
2.2.2 Poverty of stimulus at the syntax-semantics interface ............................ 36
2.2.3 Main findings of L2 research on the syntax-semantics interface ............ 42
2.3 Feature-based contrastive approaches to L2 acquisition .................................. 44
2.3.1 Current generative approaches to learnability problems in L2 acquisition................................................................................................................ 44
2.3.2 The Feature Reassembly Hypothesis ...................................................... 45
2.3.3 Previous studies testing the FRH............................................................. 48
2.3.4 Cline of difficulty in feature acquisition ................................................. 49
2.3.5 Previous studies testing the cline of difficulty ........................................ 56
2.4 Remaining questions about feature contrastive approaches to L2 acquisition 63

4

Chapter 3: Semantics of definiteness and its expressions in English, Japanese, andKorean ...................................................................................................... 66
3.1 Introduction ...................................................................................................... 66
3.2 What is definiteness?........................................................................................ 66
3.3 Two types of definiteness: anaphoricity and uniqueness ................................. 69
3.4 Crosslinguistic expressions of definiteness (English, Japanese, and Korean) . 73
3.4.1 Definiteness in English ............................................................................ 73
3.4.2 Definiteness in article-less languages, Japanese and Korean .................. 75
3.5 Overt marking of anaphoric definiteness by Japanese sono (in comparison to
Korean ku and English the and that) ................................................................ 79
3.6 Covert marking of definiteness: Japanese numeral quantifiers (NQs) andsemantic constraint in comparison with the Korean and English NQs ............ 85
3.6.1 Numeral classifier constructions and their essential properties .............. 85
3.6.2 Definiteness constraint on NQs ............................................................... 91
3.6.2.1 Prediction A: movement analysis ............................................... 95
3.6.2.2 Prediction B: size analysis ........................................................ 100
3.6.2.3 Prediction C: floating-NQs-as-adverbial analysis .................... 102
3.6.2.4 English NQ construction ........................................................... 106
3.6.2.5 Which account is the most plausible? ....................................... 106
3.7 Summary: properties of overt and covert realisations of definiteness inJapanese by the demonstrative sono and numeral classifier constructions .... 108
Chapter 4: Definiteness in second language ............................................................ 112
4.1 Introduction .................................................................................................... 112
4.2 L2 acquisition of English article semantics ................................................... 114
4.2.1 Role of semantic universals in L2 article choice ................................... 114
4.2.2 Influence of L1 demonstratives on L2 article semantics ....................... 124

5

4.2.3 L2 acquisition of definiteness expressions within the Feature Reassembly
Hypothesis ............................................................................................ 128
4.3 Definiteness in article-less L2s: influence of L1 article semantics on L2
demonstratives................................................................................................ 139
4.4 Discussion ...................................................................................................... 141
4.4.1 L2 learnability of bridging reference and L1 transfer ........................... 141
4.4.2 Semantics of different definiteness ....................................................... 144
4.5 Implications for the present study .................................................................. 147
Chapter 5: The present study: acquisition tasks and predictions ............................. 150
5.1 Introduction .................................................................................................... 150
5.2 Overt definiteness marking with the demonstrative sono .............................. 152
5.2.1 Acquisition tasks ................................................................................... 152
5.2.2 Relative ease/difficulty and acquisition order ....................................... 156
5.3 Covert definiteness marking with numeral quantifier constructions ............. 159
5.3.1 Acquisition tasks ................................................................................... 159
5.3.2 Relative ease/difficulty and acquisition order ....................................... 161
5.4 Potential confounding factors ........................................................................ 163
5.5 Conclusion: overall predictions...................................................................... 164
Chapter 6: Experiment design and preliminary studies with native Japanese speakers................................................................................................................ 167
6.1 Introduction .................................................................................................... 167
6.2 Rationales for combining online and offline methods ................................... 169
6.3 Pilot AJT ver. 1 ............................................................................................... 171
6.3.1 Method................................................................................................... 172
6.3.1.1 Participants................................................................................ 172
6.3.1.2 Test instrument ......................................................................... 172
6.3.1.3 Procedure .................................................................................. 175

66.3.2 Results ................................................................................................... 176
6.3.3 Discussion ............................................................................................. 178
6.4 Pilot AJT ver. 2 ................................................................................................. 181
6.4.1 Method................................................................................................... 181
6.4.1.1 Participants................................................................................ 181
6.4.1.2 Test instrument ......................................................................... 182
6.4.1.3 Procedure .................................................................................. 185
6.4.2 Results ................................................................................................... 185
6.4.2.1 Sono .......................................................................................... 185
6.4.2.2 NQ constructions ...................................................................... 187
6.4.3 Discussion ............................................................................................. 189
6.5 Pilot SPRTs ver. 1 & ver. 2 ............................................................................. 190
6.5.1 Key assumptions in self-paced reading ................................................. 191
6.5.2 Japanese orthography ............................................................................ 192
6.5.3 Processing of sono ................................................................................. 193
6.5.4 Processing of NQ constructions ............................................................ 193
6.5.5 Method................................................................................................... 195
6.5.5.1 Participants................................................................................ 195
6.5.5.2 Test instruments ........................................................................ 196
6.5.5.3 Procedure .................................................................................. 204
6.5.6 Results ................................................................................................... 205
6.5.6.1 SPRT data preparation .............................................................. 205
6.5.6.2 Summary of results ................................................................... 207
6.6 General discussion ......................................................................................... 208
6.6.1 Key findings of the pilot studies............................................................ 208
6.6.2 Further revisions for main studies ......................................................... 210
6.6.3 Implications for acquisition tasks and learnability predictions ............. 211

7

Chapter 7: Main study 1 (non-web based SPRT and AJT with L2 Japanese learners)................................................................................................................ 213
7.1 Introduction .................................................................................................... 213
7.2 Method ........................................................................................................... 213
7.2.1 Overall design ........................................................................................ 213
7.2.2 Participants ............................................................................................ 214
7.2.3 Test instruments .................................................................................... 215
7.2.3.1 Proficiency test ......................................................................... 215
7.2.3.2 SPRT ......................................................................................... 217
7.2.3.3 AJT............................................................................................ 220
7.2.4 Procedure ............................................................................................... 222
7.3 Results ............................................................................................................ 222
7.3.1 SPRT results .......................................................................................... 222
7.3.1.1 SPRT data preparation .............................................................. 222
7.3.1.2 Sono: SPRT results ................................................................... 224
7.3.1.3 NQ constructions: SPRT results ............................................... 238
7.3.2 AJT results ............................................................................................. 246
7.3.2.1 Sono: AJT results ...................................................................... 246
7.3.2.2 NQ constructions: AJT results .................................................. 254
7.4 Discussion ...................................................................................................... 261
7.4.1 Summary of the results .......................................................................... 261
7.4.2 Comparisons with the pilot studies ....................................................... 262
7.4.3 Potential causes for the difference between the pilot and main AJTs... 265
7.4.4 Interpretation of L2 data ........................................................................ 268
7.5 Conclusion ..................................................................................................... 270
Chapter 8: Main study 2 (web-based AJT with L2 Japanese learners) .................... 271
8.1 Introduction .................................................................................................... 271

88.2 Method ........................................................................................................... 272
8.2.1 Participants............................................................................................. 272
8.2.2 Test instruments .................................................................................... 273
8.2.2.1 Proficiency test ......................................................................... 273
8.2.2.2 AJT............................................................................................ 274
8.2.3 Procedure ............................................................................................... 277
8.3 Results ............................................................................................................ 277
8.3.1 Sono ....................................................................................................... 277
8.3.2 NQ constructions ................................................................................... 285
8.4 Discussion ...................................................................................................... 291
8.4.1 Comparisons with Main study 1 and Pilot ver. 2 .................................. 291
8.4.2 Evaluation of the predictions for L2 acquisition of the target properties.............................................................................................................. 295
8.5 Conclusion ..................................................................................................... 296
Chapter 9: General discussion.................................................................................. 298
9.1 Introduction .................................................................................................... 298
9.2 Summary of the main findings ....................................................................... 298
9.3 Implications for the cline of difficulty ........................................................... 303
9.4 Acquisition mechanisms ................................................................................ 305
9.4.1 Developmental stages of the L2 acquisition of sono by L1-English
learners ................................................................................................. 306
9.4.2 How L1-English learners could overcome the poverty of stimulus
regarding the definiteness constraint on NQs ...................................... 308
9.5 Implications for research on L2 acquisition of definiteness expressions ....... 311
9.6 Summary of the chapter ................................................................................. 314
Chapter 10: Conclusion ............................................................................................ 315
10.1 Contributions ................................................................................................ 315

910.2 Limitations & directions for future research ................................................ 316
10.3 A final remark ............................................................................................... 319
Appendices ............................................................................................................... 320
Appendix 1: Consent form & information sheet .................................................. 320
Appendix 1A: Sample consent form (English ver.): .................................... 320
Appendix 1B: Sample information sheet (English ver.): ............................. 321
Appendix 2: Language background questionnaire ............................................... 324
Appendix 3: Proficiency task ............................................................................... 327
Appendix 3A: Proficiency test & choices with correct answers .................. 327
Appendix 3B: English translation of the proficiency test passage: ............. 330
Appendix 4: Pilot data.......................................................................................... 331
Appendix 4A: Pilot AJT ver. 1 ..................................................................... 331
Appendix 4B: Pilot SPRT ver. 1 .................................................................. 331
Appendix 4C: Pilot SPRT ver. 2 .................................................................. 333
Appendix 5: Test items for the main AJT and SPRT ........................................... 336
Abbreviations ........................................................................................................... 380
References ................................................................................................................ 385

10

List of tables
Chapter 2
Table 2.1 Syntax-semantics mappings in English and Spanish plural NPs in subject
position ....................................................................................................... 33
Table 2.2 Syntax-semantics mappings in a POS situation ......................................... 36
Table 2.3 Lexical features of English and Mandarin plural markers ......................... 47
Table 2.4 Crosslinguistic variation in kind-referring count NPs in the four languages
tested by Köylü (2019) ............................................................................... 60
Chapter 3
Table 3.1 Comparison of demonstratives in Japanese, Korean, and English ............. 80
Table 3.2 Crosslinguistic differences between English determiners and Japanese andKorean demonstratives ............................................................................... 84
Table 3.3 Three different predictions for interpretation of post-nominal and floating
NQs ............................................................................................................ 93
Chapter 4
Table 4.1 Predictions for L2 English article choice (based on Ionin et al., 2004, pp.
18–19) ...................................................................................................... 117
Chapter 5
Table 5.1 Crosslinguistic differences between English determiners and Japanese andKorean demonstratives ........................................................................... 152
Table 5.2 Summary of acquisition scenarios for each L1 group .............................. 157
Table 5.3 Summary of predictions for each research question (RQ) ....................... 166
Chapter 6
Table 6.1 Acceptability ratings for NQ construction items: Pilot AJT ver. 1 (SD in

11parentheses) .............................................................................................. 176
Table 6.2 Fixed effect estimates of critical linear mixed-effects models andlikelihood-ratio testing results of critical vs. null model comparisons for
NQ items: Pilot AJT ver. 1 ....................................................................... 178
Table 6.3 Mean acceptability ratings for sono items: Pilot AJT ver. 2 (SD inparentheses) .............................................................................................. 186
Table 6.4 Fixed effect estimates of critical linear mixed-effects models andlikelihood-ratio testing results of critical vs. null model comparisons forsono items: Pilot AJT ver. 2 ..................................................................... 187
Table 6.5 Mean acceptability ratings for NQ construction items: Pilot AJT ver. 2 (SDin parentheses) .......................................................................................... 188
Table 6.6 Fixed effect estimates of critical linear mixed-effects models andlikelihood-ratio testing results of critical vs. null model comparisons for
NQ construction items: Pilot AJT ver. 2 .................................................. 189
Chapter 7
Table 7.1 Participant information: Main study 1 ..................................................... 215
Table 7.2 Scores on cloze test (0–42 points): Main study 1..................................... 216
Table 7.3 Amount of data affected ........................................................................... 223
Table 7.4 Sono: Mean log-transformed RRTs: native controls (SD in parentheses).................................................................................................................. 225
Table 7.5 Sono: mean log-transformed RRTs: Korean speakers (SD in parentheses).................................................................................................................. 226
Table 7.6 Sono: mean log-transformed RRTs: English speakers (SD in parentheses).................................................................................................................. 227
Table 7.7 Fixed effects estimates for linear mixed effects model of log-transformed
RRTs for sono items in the critical region ................................................ 231

12

Table 7.8 Fixed effects estimates for linear mixed effects model of log-transformed
RRTs for sono items in the spillover 1 region .......................................... 234
Table 7.9 Fixed effects estimates for nested linear mixed effects model of logtransformed RRTs for sono items in the spillover 1 region: effects of NP
type within each context........................................................................... 235
Table 7.10 Fixed effects estimates for linear mixed effects model of log-transformed
RRTs for sono items in the spillover 2 region ........................................ 236
Table 7.11 Results of nested models for RRTs for each context for sono items in thespillover 2 region.................................................................................... 237
Table 7.12 NQ constructions: mean log-transformed RRTs: native controls (SD inparentheses) ............................................................................................ 238
Table 7.13 NQ constructions: mean log-transformed RRTs : Korean speakers (SD inparentheses) ............................................................................................ 239
Table 7.14 NQ constructions: mean log-transformed RRTs: English speakers (SD inparentheses) ............................................................................................ 239
Table 7.15 Fixed effects estimates for linear mixed effects model of log-transformed
RRTs for NQ construction items in the critical region ........................... 243
Table 7.16 Fixed effects estimates for linear mixed effects model of log-transformed
RRTs for NQ construction items in the spillover 1 region: NQ
constructions .......................................................................................... 244
Table 7.17 Fixed effects estimates for linear mixed effects model of log-transformed
RRTs for NQ construction items in the spillover 2 region ..................... 245
Table 7.18 Mean acceptability ratings by context and by group: Main study 1 sono
items (SD in parentheses)....................................................................... 246
Table 7.19 Results of the omnibus ordinal model for acceptability ratings for sono
items ....................................................................................................... 250

13

Table 7.20 Results of the nested ordinal model for acceptability ratings : the effect of
NP type by context ................................................................................. 252
Table 7.21 Results of the nested ordinal model for acceptability ratings within eachgroup for the anaphoric context ............................................................. 252
Table 7.22 Distribution of response patterns within each group, in the anaphoric
context .................................................................................................... 253
Table 7.23 Mean acceptability ratings by context and by group: Main study 1 NQ
construction items (SD in parentheses) .................................................. 254
Table 7.24 Results of the omnibus ordinal model for acceptability ratings for NQ
construction items .................................................................................. 258
Table 7.25 Results of the nested [+definite] ordinal model for acceptability ratings................................................................................................................ 259
Table 7.26 Results of the L2-only ordinal model for acceptability ratings for NQ
construction items with proficiency effect considered........................... 260
Table 7.27 Fixed effects estimates for linear mixed effects model of log-transformed
RRTs for items regarding noun-classifier agreement and the interpretive
contrast of proper nouns with -tati ......................................................... 263
Table 7.28 Comparisons of native Japanese ratings in the target contexts between
Pilot AJT ver. 2 and Main study 1 AJT (SD in parentheses) .................. 264
Table 7.29 Comparisons of native Japanese ratings in the control fillers between
Pilot AJT ver. 2 and Main study 1 AJT (SD in parentheses) .................. 265
Chapter 8
Table 8.1 Participant information: Main study 2 ..................................................... 272
Table 8.2 Scores on cloze test (0–42 points): Main study 2..................................... 273
Table 8.3 Mean acceptability ratings by context and by group: Main study 2 sono
items (SD in parentheses)......................................................................... 278

14

Table 8.4 Results of the omnibus ordinal model for acceptability ratings for sono
items ......................................................................................................... 283
Table 8.5 Results of nested models for acceptability ratings for each context of sono
items ......................................................................................................... 284
Table 8.6 Mean acceptability ratings by context and by group: Main study 2 NQ
construction items (SD in parentheses) .................................................... 285
Table 8.7 Results of the omnibus ordinal model for acceptability ratings for NQ
construction items (SD in parentheses) .................................................... 289
Table 8.8 Results of separate nested ordinal models for acceptability ratings for eachcondition of NQ construction items ......................................................... 290
Table 8.9 Distribution of response patterns within each group in the [+definite]
context ...................................................................................................... 290
Table 8.10 Comparisons of native Japanese acceptability ratings in the target
contexts between Pilot ver. 2, Main studies 1 and 2 (SD in parentheses)................................................................................................................ 293
Table 8.11 Comparisons of native Japanese acceptability ratings in the control fillers
between Pilot ver. 2, Main studies 1 and 2 (SD in parentheses) ............ 294
Chapter 9
Table 9.1 Assessment of predictions for each approach .......................................... 303
Table 9.2 Possible acquisition scenarios for L1-English learners ............................ 308

15

List of figures
Chapter 1
Figure 1.1 Cline of difficulty in feature acquisition (adapted from Cho & Slabakova,
2014, p. 166) ............................................................................................ 26
Chapter 2
Figure 2.1 Slabakova’s (2009) cline of difficulty in feature acquisition .................... 50
Figure 2.2 Extended cline of difficulty in feature acquisition (adapted from Cho &Slabakova 2014, p. 166) ........................................................................... 52
Figure 2.3 Predicted difficulty of acquisition of [+familiar] and [+unique] features in
L2 English by L1- Mandarin and Russian speakers (adapted from
Tuniyan, 2018, p. 139) ............................................................................. 57
Chapter 5
Figure 5.1 Cline of difficulty in feature acquisition (adapted from Cho & Slabakova
2014, p. 166) .......................................................................................... 162
Chapter 6
Figure 6.1 Mean ratings for NQ constructions items (error bars = SE) ................... 176
Figure 6.2 Mean ratings for sono items (error bars = SE) ....................................... 186
Figure 6.3 Mean ratings for NQ construction items (error bars = SE) .................... 188
Chapter 7
Figure 7.1 Histogram of the trimmed RT data ......................................................... 224
Figure 7.2 Mean RRTs (log) for sono items in the anaphoric context (error bars = SE)................................................................................................................ 228
Figure 7.3 Mean RRTs (log) for sono items in the non-anaphoric context (error bars
= SE) ...................................................................................................... 228
Figure 7.4 Mean RRTs (log) for sono items in the bridging context (error bars = SE)

16

................................................................................................................ 229
Figure 7.5 Mean RRTs (log) for NQ construction items in the [+definite] context(error bars = SE) ..................................................................................... 240
Figure 7.6 Mean RRTs (log) for NQ construction items in the [−definite] context(error bars = SE) ..................................................................................... 240
Figure 7.7 Mean acceptability ratings for sono items in the anaphoric context (error
bars = SE) ............................................................................................... 247
Figure 7.8 Mean acceptability ratings for sono items in the non-anaphoric context(error bars = SE) ..................................................................................... 247
Figure 7.9 Mean acceptability ratings for sono items in the bridging context (error
bars = SE) ............................................................................................... 248
Figure 7.10 Mean acceptability ratings for NQ construction items in the [+definite]
context (error bars = SE) ...................................................................... 254
Figure 7.11 Mean acceptability ratings for NQ construction items in the [−definite]
context (error bars = SE) ...................................................................... 255
Chapter 8
Figure 8.1 Mean acceptability ratings in the anaphoric context (error bars = SE) .. 278
Figure 8.2 Mean acceptability ratings in the non-anaphoric context (error bars = SE)................................................................................................................ 279
Figure 8.3 Mean acceptability ratings in the bridging context (error bars = SE) .... 279
Figure 8.4 Mean acceptability ratings in the [+definite] context (error bars = SE) . 285
Figure 8.5 Mean acceptability ratings in the [−definite] context (error bars = SE) . 286
Chapter 9
Figure 9.1 Revised Cline of Difficulty ..................................................................... 304
AppendicesFigure Appx.1 Mean acceptability ratings for sono items: Pilot AJT ver. 1 (error bars

17

= SE) ................................................................................................ 331
Figure Appx.2 Mean RRTs for sono items in the anaphoric context: Pilot SPRT ver. 1(error bars = SE) ............................................................................... 331
Figure Appx.3 Mean RRTs for sono items in the non-anaphoric context: Pilot SPRT
ver.1 (error bars = SE) ...................................................................... 332
Figure Appx.4 Mean RRTs for sono items in the bridging context: Pilot SPRT ver. 1(error bars = SE) ............................................................................... 332
Figure Appx.5 Mean RRTs for NQ constructions items in the [+definite] context:
Pilot SPRT ver. 1 (error bars = SE) .................................................. 332
Figure Appx.6 Mean RRTs for NQ constructions items in the [−definite] context:
Pilot SPRT ver. 1 (error bars = SE) .................................................. 333
Figure Appx.7 Mean RRTs for sono items in the anaphoric context: Pilot SPRT ver. 2(error bars = SE) ............................................................................... 333
Figure Appx.8 Mean RRTs for sono items in the non-anaphoric context: Pilot SPRTver. 2 (error bars = SE) ..................................................................... 334
Figure Appx.9 Mean RRTs for sono items in the bridging context: Pilot SPRT ver. 2(error bars = SE) ............................................................................... 334
Figure Appx.10 Mean RRTs for NQ construction items in the [+definite] context:
Pilot SPRT ver. 2 (error bars = SE) ................................................ 334
Figure Appx.11 Mean RRTs for NQ construction items in the [−definite] context:
Pilot SPRT ver. 2 (error bars = SE) ................................................ 335
Figure Appx.12 Mean RRTs for noun-classifier agreement items: Pilot SPRT ver. 2(error bars = SE) ............................................................................. 335
Figure Appx.13 Mean RRTs for items regarding collective reading of proper nameswith -tati: Pilot SPRT ver. 2 (error bars = SE) ............................... 335

18

Acknowledgements
I wish to thank everyone whose assistance was a milestone in the completion of thisthesis.
First and foremost, I would like to express my deepest gratitude to mysupervisor, Heather Marsden for her continuous academic and pastoral support
throughout my PhD studies. In difficult times when things appeared to be getting outof hand, her insightful guidance never failed to put me back on track. I was emotionally
saved countless times by her unwavering confidence in me. It is wholeheartedly
appreciated that she never gave up on me when I almost did. I was really fortunate tohave Leah Roberts as my TAP member and I am truly grateful to her for invaluableadvice and heartfelt encouragement at TAP meetings, and for kindly agreeing to be theinternal examiner.
Special thanks go to my supervisors and Linguistics teachers when I was anundergraduate at Chuo University and a graduate at Nanzan University, especially
Ryoji Kasai, Tatsuya Suzuki, and Hiroshi Aoyagi. Without their education, guidanceand encouragement, my PhD journey would not have started in the first place. I would
also like to pay my special regards to Hokari Tomohiro and Mutsumi Ogawa for their
help with my PhD application, particularly for the way they used their own expertiseto help shape my research proposal.
My PhD studies at the University of York would have not been possible
without the scholarship from the Japan Student Services Organization (Graduate
Scholarship for Degree-Seeking Students). I am indebted to my sponsor for funding
my PhD abroad.
Appreciation is due to my native Japanese consultants, particularly, Kazuki
Inoue and Nanami Kawade. They both checked all the pilot versions of the test

19

instruments and provided me with helpful feedback from a layman’s point of view,which allowed me to improve the quality of the instruments significantly. I was always
amazed by their very keen metalinguistic awareness of the Japanese language. Further
thanks go to Samuel Lynas, Harry Carlton and James Forsythe, for trying out the test
materials as Japanese learners. Their insightful feedback helped me fine-tune thematerials before the actual data collection. I would also like to thank Kook-Hee Gil
for kindly translating the consent form and the information sheet into Korean for me.
Needless to say, immense thanks are due to all the participants in my studies.
Without them, this thesis would never have been completed. Further thanks are due tothe following organisations and individuals for their help with participant recruitment(in no particular order): York Japanese Families’ Association, University of YorkJapanese Society, York St. John University Japanese Society, Durham University
Anglo-Japanese Society, Becky Muradás-Taylor, Megumi Bailey, Yumi Nixon,
Kazuki Morimoto, Kumi Casey, Mary Murata, Mikiko Inoue, Kaori Nishizawa, Sakie
Chiba, Tomoko Miyairi, Ritsuko Koso-Kirk, Kenichi Murakami, Shigenori
Wakabayashi, Takayuki Kimura, Kazunori Suzuki, Shunji Inagaki, Mitsuru Doi,
Tatsuya Suzuki, Hiroshi Aoyagi, Tack ung Lee, Robert Croker, and the staff of theInternational Centre at Chuo University (Yumiko Watanabe in particular).
I wish to show my sincere gratitude to the Faculty of Letters in Chuo
University for welcoming me as a visiting scholar during my data collection in Japan,
for providing a perfect venue for the experiments, and for offering me an opportunity
to give a talk on my research.
I would like to thank Takanobu Nakamura for sharing his wealth ofknowledge on Japanese numeral quantifiers, which greatly helped me grasp numerous
issues pertaining to Japanese numerals. I also acknowledge the contribution of theJapanese language instructors who answered my questions about Japanese language

20

education, particularly, Megumi Bailey, Yumi Nixon, Aki Ito, and Ikue Saito.
Additionally, I wish to thank Shayne Sloggett for his helpful advice on statisticalanalysis.
I would like to extend my deepest gratitude to Shigenori Wakabayashi for
his invaluable advice on academic and personal life. I was very fortunate to spend a
lot of time with him in person over my PhD years in the UK, during his stay at
Cambridge University as a visiting scholar and his research data collection at the
University of York. In particular, the road trip he took my family and me on will
forever be one of our fondest memories of our time in England.
I would like to express my heartfelt appreciation to my family members: mywife, Sayaka and my children, Yukina and Ryotaro for moving to York together withme for my PhD studies. In particular, Sayaka supported me with her self-lessdedication to our family, taking on the bulk of the childcare responsibilities, to allow
me to focus on my PhD project. I am also thankful to my parents, Yuya and Noriko,and my grandmother, Kazue, who supported me from Japan, both financially andthrough their love and patience.
Finally, I would like to dedicate this thesis to my late grandfather, Manjiro,
who passed away during my PhD years. He was one of the most intelligent, hardworking, and gentle people that I have ever known. I still miss him greatly and cannot
help regretting that I could not go back to Japan while he was still alive. Nonetheless,I hope that he will be proud of me for completing my PhD with the help of all thepeople above.

21

Author’s declaration
I declare that this thesis is a presentation of original work and I am the sole author.
This work has not previously been presented for an award at this, or any other,
University. All sources are acknowledged as References.

22

Chapter 1: Introduction
1.1 Aims and objectives of the thesis
This thesis investigates learnability problems and the role of first language (L1) in the
non-native language acquisition of syntax-semantics mappings. The specific objective is
to examine the acquisition of definiteness in Japanese as a second language (L2). The L2
acquisition of definiteness has been widely investigated via research into the acquisitionof English articles (e.g., Ionin, Ko, & Wexler, 2004; Ionin, Zubizarreta, & BautistaMaldonaldo. 2008; Ko, Ionin, & Wexler, 2010; Snape, 2008; Thomas, 1989; Trenkic
2007). However, little attention has been paid to definiteness in article-less languages
such Japanese and Korean. The present study focuses on two distinctive definitenessrelated properties in Japanese: definiteness-marking by the demonstrative, sono, and aninterpretive contrast between numeral quantifier (NQ) constructions. Japanese learners
from two different language backgrounds, namely native speakers of English (i.e., alanguage with articles) and Korean (i.e., a language without articles) are compared. These
linguistic properties and L1-L2 combination were selected in order to empirically test
predictions based on recent theoretical accounts of L2 learnability problems: the Feature
Reassembly Hypothesis (Lardiere, 2008, 2009) and the cline of difficulty in featureacquisition (Cho & Slabakova, 2014; Slabakova 2009). I implement two experimental
data collection methods of different nature, namely an acceptability judgement task (AJT)
and a self-paced reading task (SPRT) in order to elicit learners’ linguistic knowledge ofthe target properties. Findings of the study will provide new insights into learnability
problems in L2 syntax-semantics mapping and advance our understanding of the natureof L2 knowledge.

23

1.2 Learning problems in L2 syntax-semantics mappings
The L2 acquisition of syntax-semantics correspondences has been widely investigatedwith various linguistic phenomena with different L1-L2 combinations and argued to be
nontrivial (for a comprehensive review, see Slabakova, 2008). A vast number of
researchers have investigated syntax-semantics mismatches, in which universal meanings(e.g., past tense, number, definiteness) are expressed through different functional
morphemes in the L1 and L2. Previous studies revealed that mismatches at the syntaxsemantics interface could be overcome even for relatively low-proficient learners (e.g.,Montrul & Slabakova, 2003; Slabakova, 2003). Moreover, there has been robust evidence
that successful L2 syntax-semantics mappings are possible even in poverty-of-thestimulus situations, where evidence required to learn a given linguistic property isunavailable in the linguistic input (i.e., natural input and classroom instruction) (e.g.,
Dekydtspotter & Sprouse, 2001; Dekydtspotter, Sprouse, & Anderson, 1997; Marsden,
2008, 2009; Unsworth, 2005). However, a number of studies have found that syntaxsemantics interface properties might remain problematic even for advanced learners
presumably due to L1 transfer and a scarcity of evidence to motivate changing the L1based structure (e.g., Gabriele, 2009, 2010; Yuan, 2010). Therefore, although the L2
acquisition of the syntax-semantics interface phenomena appears to be relatively
successful and ultimately attainable, further research is necessary to find what conditions
make L2 syntax-semantics mappings relatively easier or more difficult (White, 2018).
The Feature Reassembly Hypothesis (FRH) (Lardiere, 2008, 2009) offers aframework for investigating this issue. According to the FRH, the main L2 acquisition
task is to (re)assemble formal L2 features in the following two steps. The first is to map
features that are assembled on L1 lexical items onto perceived L2 equivalents. The second
process involves reconfiguration of feature sets into the way they are represented in the24

L2. This reconfiguration task will be successful only if motivated by evidence in the input.
Therefore, the general predictions of the FRH for ease or difficulty of acquisition are as
follows: with a mismatch between the L1 and the L2 in terms of how features are bundled
into lexical items (e.g., a certain feature expressed through different classes of lexical
items or combine with different features), acquisition will be harder than a case without
such a mismatch due to feature reassembly necessity; and when feature reassembly isneeded, the task will be easier when triggering evidence is readily available in the input
than when such evidence is scarce or non-existent. A number of recent studies have tested
these predictions, yielding supporting evidence (e.g., Cho & Slabakova, 2015; Gil &Marsden, 2013; Hwang & Lardiere, 2013; Su, 2019; Yuan, 2014).
With a view to refining these broad predictions of the FRH, Cho and Slabakova(2014), building on Slabakova (2009), proposed a model that incorporates whether the
relevant feature expression is overt or covert. The idea is that features expressed overtly(i.e., with a dedicated morpheme) will be easier to acquire than those represented covertly(i.e., by a word order change, or context) by virtue of the more consistent evidence
available for overtly realised features whether in the L1 or the L2. From this perspective,
overt realisation of a feature in the L1 is expected to aid the learner in detecting thatfeature in the L2 more than covert realization would. Combining this with the assumption
under the FRH that L2 acquisition is more complicated when feature reassembly isrequired than when it is not, Cho and Slabakova put forth a cline of difficulty in featureacquisition, as given in Figure 1.1.

25

Figure 1.1. Cline of difficulty in feature acquisition (adapted from Cho & Slabakova, 2014,
p. 166)On the far-left end of the cline is the easiest task, where a given property is expressed
overtly with functional morphemes both in the L1 and L2 and those morphemes haveidentical feature configurations, thus no reassembly is required. The most difficult task
concerns features covertly expressed both in the L1 and L2 but in different ways, thus
reassembly is required. Cho and Slabakova found quantitative evidence for the cline froman investigation of definiteness in L2 Russian by L1 speakers of Korean and English.
These three languages have overt expressions of definiteness: English overtly realises
definiteness with articles; whereas Russian adjectival possessors and Korean casemarkers within noun-noun compounds do so as a secondary function of the relevantmorphemes. Moreover, Russian and Korean have covert expressions of definiteness bymeans of word order, although the conditions (i.e., feature configurations) for feature
realisation do not match. The results of Cho and Slabakova’s felicity judgement task
revealed that both the Korean- and English-speaking learners had successfully acquired
the Russian overt realization of definiteness through adjectival possessors. However,target-like knowledge of the covert definiteness expression through word order in Russian
was observed only with some advanced English-speaking learners but none of the
Korean-speaking learners. Cho and Slabakova accounted for the difference between the26

two groups as a reflection of the greater complexity of the acquisition task facing the
Korean speakers: feature reassembly where the relevant feature is realised covertly bothin the L1 and the L2 but differently (i.e., the hardest task). They speculated that English
speakers, tackling the third hardest task, might have benefited from the overt realizationof definiteness in the L2 as a heuristic in acquiring the L2 covert expression.
Cho and Slabakova’s (2014) core assumption that features expressed covertly
are harder to acquire than those expressed overtly has been partially supported by somerecent studies investigating the L2 acquisition of English articles (Tuniyan, 2018) andEnglish kind reference (Köylü, 2019), but the results seem inconsistent (discussed in
Chapter 2). Thus, the cline of difficulty requires further empirical validation throughtesting with a variety of L1-L2 combinations and linguistic properties. Particularly, to myknowledge, the acquisition of a covert feature realised in the same way in the L1 and L2
has not been investigated yet (Fcovert to Fcovert no reassembly required in Figure 1.1). Choand Slabakova rank this task as the second hardest on the grounds that covert properties
are harder to acquire than overt properties and that covert feature realisations in the L1
do not facilitate L2 acquisition as much as overt counterparts. However, this prediction is
not uncontroversial particularly because there is no a priori reason for the advantage ofno feature reassembly no longer applying in the acquisition of covert feature expressions.
Whether this prediction is correct or not remains an open question, which the present
study addresses through an investigation of the L2 acquisition of a covert Japanese
expression of definiteness by English- and Korean-speaking learners. The acquisition ofan overt definiteness property in Japanese is also investigated in order to examine the roleof overt vs. covert feature realization more comprehensively. The following researchquestions are addressed in this thesis.

27

(1.1) Research Question 1:
Is a covert feature expression more difficult to acquire than an overt feature
expression?

(1.2) Research Question 2:
Does the necessity of feature reassembly make the acquisition task more difficult?

(1.3) Research Question 3:
In which situation is the acquisition of a covert feature expression less difficult, (i)when the L1 has a functional morpheme that realizes the feature overtly or (ii) whenthe L1 has a corresponding covert expression?

In Japanese, NQs, which consist of a numeral and a classifier appropriate forthe associated noun, can occur in multiple syntactic positions. However, theirinterpretation is constrained by the interaction of word order and semantics in terms ofdefiniteness (e.g., Furuya, 2012; Watanabe, 2006): NQs that immediately follow theassociated noun can be either definite ([+definite]) or indefinite ([−definite]), whereas
those that are separated from the associated noun, called floating NQs, can be [−definite]
only. This counts as a case of covertly realised definiteness. Korean possesses a
corresponding property (Lee, 2013; Shin, 2017) but English does not have floating NQs(e.g., Kobuchi-Philip, 2007) or the semantic constraint. Furthermore, definiteness isrealised overtly in English, predominantly through its article system, whereas in Japaneseand Korean, definiteness is predominantly expressed covertly. These crosslinguistic
differences allow us to investigate the acquisition of the second hardest task on the cline
in comparison with the third hardest. The cline of difficulty predicts that the definitenessconstraint on Japanese floating NQs will be easier for English-speaking learners, who28

may benefit from the consistently overt realisation of definiteness in the L1, than for
Korean counterparts, whose L1 expresses definiteness predominately covertly. On theother hand, despite the absence of an article system, Japanese can express definitenessovertly by means of the demonstrative sono, similarly to the English definite article thein some contexts (i.e., anaphoric definite contexts) (e.g., Hoji, Kinsui, Takubo, & Ueyama,
2003; Yoshida, 2011). Korean also has a demonstrative, ku, which overtly expresses
definiteness in the same way as Japanese sono (e.g., Ahn, 2017; Cho, 2017). Sono and ku
share some functions with the English article the and the English demonstrative that but
behave differently in other respects (discussed in Chapter 3). According to the cline ofdifficulty, the overt expression of definiteness by means of the demonstrative sono will
be easier to acquire than the covert definiteness property of NQs, irrespective of the L1.
However, L1-Korean learners are predicted to acquire the overt property more easily than
L1-English learners due to the crosslinguistic differences between the two L1s: Koreanspeaking learners do not have to undertake feature reassembly to acquire the definiteness
function of sono, whereas English-speaking learners do. The thesis presents anexperimental investigation of these predictions.

1.3 Organisation of the thesis
This thesis is organized as follows. Chapter 2 reviews previous findings of research into
the L2 acquisition of syntax-semantics phenomena and provides theoretical backgroundon the feature reassembly approach to this domain of inquiry. Chapter 3 first introduces
the semantics of definiteness along with a brief description of how definiteness isexpressed in Japanese, Korean and English. Then the Japanese definiteness properties inquestion are detailed in comparison with related Korean and English properties,
highlighting similarities and differences between the three languages. Chapter 4 provides
an overview of L2 acquisition research into definiteness phenomena along with29

discussions of outstanding issues and their implications for the present thesis. Chapter 5
identifies acquisition tasks and formulates predictions for the research questions. Chapter
6 illustrates the methodology for the experimental research and reports on a series ofpreliminary studies conducted with native speakers of Japanese. These serve to develop
and pilot the test instruments (AJTs and SPRTs), but also, crucially, to provide quantitative
validation of the linguistic properties of NQs and sono in native Japanese, which havepreviously been described extensively but not tested experimentally. Chapter 7 presents
the first main study with L2 Japanese learners (and native Japanese speakers as a control
group) (Main study 1). A follow-up study with other groups from the same target
populations (Main study 2) is reported in Chapter 8 which aims to address somemethodological issues raised with the results of Main study 1. Chapter 9 summarises themain findings and then discusses their implications. Chapter 10 concludes the thesis bystating its contributions, along with identification of some limitations, and directions for
future research.

30

Chapter 2: Theories of the L2 acquisition of syntaxsemantics interface properties and learnability problems
2.1 Introduction
Natural languages are more or less equivalent in their expressive power: no meaning is
expressible in one language and not in another (Katz, 1976). In other words, a certain setof semantic primitives is arguably universally available across languages (e.g., Jackendoff,
2002; Ramchand & Svenonius, 2008). However, languages can considerably differ as to
how those meanings are expressed. For example, it varies from language to language howmeanings are mapped to linguistic forms (i.e., words, phrases, sentences) and whether
they are overtly encoded in functional morphology or not (e.g., tense is morphologicallymarked in Japanese and English but not in Chinese). These crosslinguistic differences atthe syntax-semantics interface make form-meaning mappings nontrivial in L2 acquisition
and the research in this domain has received a lot of attention.
In what follows, some key observations in the research into L2 syntax-semantics
mappings are discussed first while briefly reviewing several representative studies. I willthen introduce theoretical frameworks that this study adopts, mainly the Feature
Reassembly Hypothesis (Lardiere, 2008, 2009) and the cline of difficulty in featureacquisition (Cho & Slabakova, 2014; Slabakova, 2009) along with previous findings
relevant to these proposals. The chapter ends with a summary of outstanding issues withinthese feature-based approaches to L2 acquisition some of which the present study aims
to address.

312.2 L2 acquisition at the syntax-semantics interface
Slabakova (2008) identifies two main types of learning challenges in the recent researchon the L2 syntax-semantics interface. One concerns syntax-semantics mismatches, wherea universal meaning is mapped onto different forms in the L1 and the L2. The other type
involves poverty-of-the-stimulus situations, in which the linguistic input available for thelearner is purportedly insufficient for a successful acquisition of a given property. In thissection, I will briefly review five representative studies: two for the first type, namely
Ionin, Montrul, and Crivos (2013) and Gabriele (2010); and three for the second, namely
Unsworth (2005), Marsden (2009), and Okuma (2019), thereby illustrating challenging
aspects of the L2 syntax-semantics interface. These studies are chosen for their relevanceto the present study as follows. First, Okuma (2019) is the only previous study focusing
on the L2 interpretation of Japanese numeral quantifier (NQ) constructions (but aninterpretive property different from the one tested in the present thesis). Furthermore,some (Marsden, 2009; Unsworth, 2005) concern the scope of quantifiers and others
computation of meanings at the noun phrase and verb phrase levels (Gabriele, 2010; Ioninet.al., 2013), which are properties relevant to those investigated in the present study(discussed in Chapter 3).

2.2.1 Syntax-semantics mismatches
In a typical syntax-semantics mismatch, similar forms and meanings exist in both the L1
and the L2 but are misaligned (Slabakova, 2016, p. 311). For example, consider theinterpretation of definite plural noun phrases (NPs) (e.g., the tigers) and bare plural NPs(e.g., tigers) in English and Spanish as investigated by Ionin et al. (2013). An NP has ageneric meaning when it refers to the whole class of individuals denoted by the noun,
whereas it has a specific/non-generic reading when it refers to particular things or persons

32that satisfy the denotation. In Spanish, definite plurals can have both generic and specificreadings (2.2), whereas they only have a specific reading in English (2.1). Genericreadings can be expressed with bare plurals in English (2.3) but bare plurals areungrammatical in pre-verbal subject position in Spanish (2.4).

(2.1) The tigers eat meat.

(2.2) Los

tigresthe-PL tigers* generic reading, ✓specific reading

comen carne.
eat✓generic, ✓specific reading

meat‘The tiger ear meat.’(2.3) Tigers eat meat. ✓generic reading, *specific reading(2.4) * Tigres comen carne.
Ionin et al. (2013, p. 485)

The form-meaning mismatch between English and Spanish can be summarised as in Table
2.1. The two superficially similar sentences with definite plurals in (2.1) and (2.2) havedifferent meanings: in Spanish, they can refer to both all tigers as a kind and some specifictigers in the context, but their English equivalents only have the latter interpretation.

Table 2.1 Syntax-semantics mappings in English and Spanish plural NPs in subject
position
EnglishSpanishGeneric

Specificbare plurals
definite plurals

definite plurals
definite plurals

33

Ionin et al. (2013) exploited this crosslinguistic difference to investigate
bidirectional L2 learnability between the two languages (i.e., L1-English → L2-Spanish
and L1-Spanish → L2-English), using a Truth-Value Judgement Task (TVJT) and an
Acceptability Judgement Task (AJT). The TVJT was designed to examine which reading(generic or specific) learners prefer for definite plurals in L2-English and Spanish.
Participants read stories accompanied by pictures and judged test sentences as true or
false. The purpose of the AJT was to test how L2 learners of English and Spanish judge
definite and bare plurals in generic vs. specific contexts. In the experiment, participants
had to rate each test sentence as a continuation of the preceding story on a 4-point scale.
The results suggested that L1 transfer occurred in both directions at lower proficiency
levels. In the TVJT, L1-English L2-Spanish learners preferred the specific reading of
definite plurals more than native Spanish speakers in contexts that favoured the genericreading, whereas L1-Spanish L2-English learners tended to lean towards the genericreading of definite plurals which is unavailable in English. Moreover, it was found fromthe AJT that in the generic condition, L1-English L2-Spanish learners rated the definite
plurals lower and bare plurals higher than native Spanish speakers, although they were
nativelike in the specific condition. Ionin et al. argue that the difficulty in the genericcontexts is due to L1 transfer: the mismatch between English and Spanish in formmeaning mapping of genericity. Importantly, however, target-like performance wasattested at higher proficiency levels despite the L1 transfer. These findings suggest thatlearners may be influenced by the L1 in the beginning but with proficiency are able toretreat from it to attain native-like interpretations.
Gabriele (2010) examined another syntax-semantics mismatch involved in L1English speakers’ acquisition of telicity in L2-Japanese. In both English and Japanese,sentences with a mass noun can denote events that are either telic (i.e., with an endpoint)
or atelic (i.e., without an endpoint). For example, a drinking-juice event can have either

34

have a clear end point (i.e., telic) or not (i.e., atelic) in English (2.5a) and Japanese (2.5b)
alike. That is, the English and Japanese sentences in (2.5) are both possible when Sam
drank a specific quantity of juice (e.g., a glass of juice) (telic reading) as well as when thequantity of juice is irrelevant or unspecified (atelic reading).

(2.5) a. Sam drank juice.

✓telic, ✓atelicb. Sam-wa

jyuusu-onomimasita.

Sam-TOPjuice-ACC

drank✓telic, ✓atelic

However, there is a mismatch between these languages in terms of interpretation of countnouns. In Japanese, a language without obligatory singular/plural and count/mass
morphology, telicity is largely determined by context. For example, the verb phrase
tegami-o kakimasita ‘wrote letter’ in (2.6) can be interpreted as telic ‘wrote a/some/theletter(s)’ or atelic ‘wrote letters’. In English, however, telicity needs to be distinguishedmorphosyntactically through singular/plural and count/mass markings. For example, verb
phrases such as write a/the letter(s) denote bounded events (i.e., telic), whereas verb
phrases such as write letters denote a repeated action without a clear endpoint (i.e., atelic).

(2.6) Sam-wa

tegami-o

Sam-TOP letter-ACC

kakimasita.
wrote‘Sam wrote a/the/some letter(s) on his birthday.’(Gabriele, 2010, p. 385)

Gabriele (2010) conducted two studies with intermediate and advanced
Japanese learners with L1-English in order to examine their interpretation of telicity intheir L2-Japanese. Interpretational tasks were administered to participants in which they35

looked at pictures while listening to short stories in Japanese with two different ending
patterns (the event was completed (i.e., telic) or was unfinished (i.e., atelic)), and thenjudged the compatibility of the test sentence with the preceding context on a 5-point scale.
The results showed that many learners in both groups exclusively assigned a telic reading
to bare count nouns unlike native Japanese speakers, although their interpretation of baremass nouns was generally native-like. Gabriele attributed this asymmetry between thenoun types to transfer of L1 nominal semantics (i.e., the boundedness of count nouns inEnglish). She proposed that the recovery from negative transfer (i.e., the mismatch in theboundedness of count nouns between English and Japanese) becomes a great challenge
to L2 learners when the L1 makes semantic distinctions through morphosyntax but in theL2 the relevant meaning is often determined contextually (p. 402). Nevertheless, there
were still learners in each group who exhibited fully target-like interpretation regardlessof noun type. Therefore, this property seems ultimately acquirable.

2.2.2 Poverty of stimulus at the syntax-semantics interface
Poverty of the stimulus (POS) is often found at the syntax-semantics interface insituations in which “two related minimally different sentences differ in available
interpretations” (Slabakova, 2016, p. 299), as illustrated in Table 2.2.
Table 2.2 Syntax-semantics mappings in a POS situation
Sentence 1
Sentence 2

Meaning 1

Meaning 2

✔
✔

✔
✘

Knowledge of the lack of meaning 2 for sentence 2 is typically not motivated byinformation available to learners (i.e., input, L1, or L2 classroom instruction). This cancause a learnability problem because theoretically, absence of Sentence 2 in contexts

36where meaning 2 is favoured does not provide definitive evidence for the incompatibilityof Sentence 2 with meaning 2. To illustrate a case in point, consider a pair of sentences
whose interpretative property was investigated by Unsworth (2005). In Dutch, objects
can occur in two different positions relative to quantified NPs. In (2.7a), the object noun,
een app ‘a monkey’ is in the canonical position. On the other hand, in (2.7b), the object
noun is moved over the adverbial quantified NP, twee keer ‘twice’ by the syntactic
operation known as scrambling, which results in an interesting interpretive effect.

(2.7) a. Het
The
b. HetThe

meisuje

heft

twee

keer

een

aap

girl

has

two

times

a

monkey tickled

meisujeheft een aapi

girl

has

a

twee

monkey two

keer

ei

times eigekieteld

gekieteld
tickled‘The girl has twice tickled a monkey.’(Adapted from Unsworth 2005, p. 298)

The sentence in (2.7a) has two potential interpretations: (i) the girl tickled two differentmonkeys or (ii) the same monkey twice, whereas the minimally different sentence in(2.7b) can have the latter interpretation only, with the object, een aap taken outside of thescope of the quantified NP, twee keer. This interpretive difference is assumed to be very
difficult to acquire because learners are not likely to encounter information that scrambled
sentences cannot have a different-objects reading, though they will find evidence thatboth different-objects and same-object readings are possible for non-scrambled sentences
and the same-object reading for scrambled sentences, hence a POS situation (nonscrambled and scrambled sentences corresponding to sentences 1 and 2, and same-object
and different-objects readings to meaning 1 and 2, respectively, in Table 2.2).
Unsworth (2005) examined this subtle interpretive property in the L2 Dutch of37

a group of child and adult native English speakers. A TVJT was administered in which
participants were presented with stories accompanied with matching pictures and then apuppet described the event depicted in those pictures using sentences with either anunscrambled or scrambled object. Participants had to judge whether what the puppet said
was true or false. For analysis, the participants were divided into two groups by
proficiency: intermediate and advanced. Unsworth found that in the non-scrambled
condition, both proficiency-level groups accepted the two types of interpretation at highaccuracy. In the scrambled condition, on the other hand, the intermediate groupsuccessfully rejected the different-objects interpretation only about 20 % of the time,
whereas the advanced group exhibited target-like judgment at about 80 % accuracy as in
the non-scrambled condition. The performance of the advanced learners suggests that the
POS property is acquirable presumably because of being part of humans’ innate linguisticknowledge (i.e., Universal Grammar, henceforth UG). 1 The generally inaccurate
judgement of the intermediate learners means that they might not have yet acquired thetarget syntactic operation (i.e., scrambling), which does not exist in the L1 (English).
However, once they have acquired it, the interpretive property represented by scope
relations seems to become automatically activated.
Marsden (2009) investigated a different POS property, namely distributive
quantifiers in L2 Japanese of L1-English and L1-Korean learners. In English, sentenceswith quantifiers such as every(one) and some(one) suggest that some meanings result
from covert movements of the arguments. For example, the sentence in (2.8) has two
potential meanings.

(2.8) Someone read every book.

For a general overview of what UG means in relation to SLA, the reader is referred to textbooks
such as White (2003) and Hawkins (2019).
1

38

One meaning is that there was one person, who read multiple books (i.e., one person andmany books). Under the other interpretation, the sentence is true when for each ofmultiple books, there was some person who read that book (i.e., many persons and many
books). In the latter, the quantified object (every book) is assumed to take wide scope overthe subject (someone), as a result of a covert syntactic movement. However, in Japaneseand Korean, such a covert movement is not available, and Japanese and Koreanequivalents to the English sentence in (2.8) lack the object wide scope construal (2.9).

(2.9) a. Japanese:b. Korean:

Dareka-ga

dono hon-mo

Nwukwunka-ka enu

yonda.

chayk-ina ilkessta.

Someone-NOM every bookread‘Someone read every book.’

Marsden (2009) argues that the acquisition of the absence of object wide
interpretation in Japanese SOV sentences constitutes a POS situation for native speakers
of English because neither positive input nor the L1 provides reliable evidence for thetarget knowledge and it is not typically covered in L2 language instruction. By contrast,
Korean speakers may acquire this property as a facilitative effect of the L1. Marsden
tested knowledge of this property in L2 Japanese learners with L1-English or L1-Korean
background by using a sentence-picture rating task. In the experiment, participants wereshown pictures either depicting a subject-wide scope situation or an object-wide scope
situation. For each trial, the picture was presented alone followed by visual and oralpresentation of a test sentence to judge for its compatibility with the picture description.
The results confirmed the facilitative L1 effect: the L1-Korean speakers tended to reject
object-wide scope whereas the L1-English speakers tended to accept it. However, it wasalso found from an individual analysis that half of the advanced English-speaking learners

39consistently rejected the object wide reading of Japanese sentences as in (2.9), despite
their less target-like judgement at group level. Marsden took these L1-English learners’
successful acquisition as evidence that the universal syntax-semantics computation is
operative in their L2 acquisition of Japanese. As to why L1-English learners were slower
to acquire the property, she proposed that distinct semantic properties of the L1 and L2
universal quantifiers required English-speaking learners to reconfigure the lexical
properties of the L1 quantifier (every) to match the target L2 quantifier (dono…mo) andthis resulted in the delayed acquisition. On the other hand, Korean-speaking learners
acquired the target property of the L2 quantifier due to positive transfer of the L1
quantifier (enu…(i)na) with the same feature specification.
Finally, Okuma (2019) has recently explored another interesting POS
phenomenon in L2 acquisition of Japanese by L1-English speakers. As briefly mentioned
in Chapter 1 and detailed in the next chapter, Japanese numerals must combine withsemantically matching classifiers and can appear in multiple constructions, including thepost-nominal construction (2.10a), where the combination of a numeral and a classifier(henceforth, simply NQ) ni-ko ‘two-CL’ appears between the associated noun ringo‘apple’ and the case marker -o ‘-ACC’; and the floating construction, where the NQ
appears after the case marker (i.e., adverbial position) (2.10b).

(2.10) a. Post-nominal NQ
Taroo-ga[ringo ni-ko]-otabeta.

Taroo-NOM[apple two-CL]-ACC

ate‘Taroo ate (the) two apples.’b. Floating NQ
Taroo-ga[ringo]-oni-kotabeta.

Taroo-NOM [apple]-ACC two-CL

40

ate

‘Taroo ate two apples.’Furthermore, it is argued that post-nominal NQs have both distributive and collective
interpretations whereas floating NQs cannot have a collective interpretation (Ishii, 1999;
Nakanishi, 2007). For example, (2.11a) means either that three students worked
individually to each submit a separate piece of homework (i.e., distributive interpretation),or that three students worked together to submit one piece of homework (i.e., collective
interpretation). By contrast, (2.11b) only allows the former interpretation.

(2.11) a. [Gakusei san-nin]-ga

kyoo[student three-CL]-NOM today

syukudai-o

dasita.

homework-ACC submitted‘Three students submitted homework today.’(Post-nominal NQ:✓distributive ✓collective)
b. [Gakusei]-ga

kyoo san-nin syukudai-o dasita.

[student]-NOM today three-CL homework-ACC

submitted‘Three students submitted homework today.’(Floating NQ:✓distributive ✘collective)(Okuma, 2019, p. 497)

Okuma investigated whether English-speaking L2 learners of Japanese could
acquire this semantic restriction on floating NQs. According to Okuma, the corresponding
property does not exist in learners’ L1 (English), nor is the semantic restriction on floating
NQs taught in L2 Japanese language classrooms. Therefore, English-speaking learners
need to acquire it based on natural L2 input. However, since there seems to be no negative
evidence, such error correction or instruction whereby information is provided to indicate

41the incompatibility of floating NQs with the collective interpretation, this situation mightpose a POS problem. Okuma examined whether such a learnability problem involved in
L2 acquisition of Japanese NQs could be overcome presumably as a consequence of UG(i.e., a universal syntax-semantics interface) operating in L2 acquisition, as suggested inprevious studies, such as those cited in this section). A TVJT was undertaken by 22 native
Japanese controls and 18 English-speaking learners of Japanese with intermediate toadvanced proficiency. The results showed that although the L2 learners did not reliably
distinguish between the collective and distributive interpretation of floating NQs at thegroup level, four out of the eighteen learners made a target-like distinction. Based onthese results, Okuma argues that successful acquisition of the semantic constraint on
Japanese floating NQs is possible despite the relevant learnability problem.

2.2.3 Main findings of L2 research on the syntax-semantics interface
The findings of the previous studies reviewed above point to the following characteristicsof L2 syntax-semantics mappings. Whether syntax-semantics mismatches or POS
situations, L2 interpretive properties seem ultimately acquirable. However, L1 transfer(either positive or negative) may lead L2 learners to take different acquisition paths.
With regard to syntax-semantics mismatches, Ionin et al. (2013) showed thatL2 learners were generally successful in overcoming L1 influence attributed to the formmeaning mismatch. Similar results have been obtained by many other researchersinvestigating different linguistic phenomena with different L1-L2 combinations (e.g.,
Gabriele, 2008; Montrul & Slabakova, 2003; Slabakova, 2003). On the other hand,
Gabriele (2010) suggested a syntax-semantics mismatch may remain problematic forsome learners even with advanced proficiency due to L1 negative transfer. Other studies(e.g., Gabriele, 2009; Yuan, 2010) also have provided evidence for such persistentdifficulty of recovering from negative L1 influence. Some bidirectional studies (e.g.,42Gabriele, 2005) suggest that with a given form-meaning mismatch between two
languages, L2 acquisition tends to be slower and less successful when negative evidence
is required to attain the target property than when positive evidence is sufficient to do so.
Essentially similar findings have been reported from studies testing POS
situations. Unsworth (2005) suggested that novel L2 constructions and their interpretive
properties are acquirable despite the POS. Other studies such as Dekydtspotter andSprouse (2001) and Dekydtspotter, Sprouse, and Anderson (1997) came to the sameconclusion with different linguistic properties in L2 French, although in those studies,target-like performance was observed even with intermediate learners as well as advanced
learners. Okuma (2019) provides further evidence for this argumentation: even though
the L1 (i.e., English) lacks the target interpretive L2 property (i.e., the distributivity
constraint on floating NQs) and the situation constitutes a POS problem, at least somelearners can acquire that L2 property.
These findings generally support the argument that the universal compositionalsemantic computation made available by UG is operative not only in the L1 but also in
the L2. With this domain-specific parsing mechanisms, POS semantic properties seem tocome for free, once L2 learners have acquired the lexical properties of functional
morphemes and efficient morphological decomposition relevant to the target construction.
In this sense, morphology can be seen as a bottleneck in L2 acquisition as opposed tosyntax-semantics computation, which appears to flow relatively smoothly (Slabakova,
2008). Furthermore, as documented in Marsden (2009), whether the L1 has a morphemewith the same lexical properties as the target L2 morpheme seems to play a role. Whenthe L1 has a corresponding morpheme, facilitation is expected. By contrast, acquisition
may be delayed when L1 and L2 equivalent morphemes do not match in lexical
specification. Testing a different POS property with L2 Japanese learners with L1-English,
Korean, and Chinese, Marsden (2008) also documented negative L1 transfer due to43different specifications of the relevant L1 and L2 morphemes.
In summary, linguistic properties at the L2 syntax-semantics interface seem
overall ultimately acquirable, although relative ease or difficulty of acquisition may
depend on the target property and the L1-L2 combination. As detailed in the next section,
more recently, the question of what conditions make L2 acquisition at the syntaxsemantics interface relatively easier or more difficult has been addressed, within thefeature-based contrastive framework, which the present thesis adopts.

2.3 Feature-based contrastive approaches to L2 acquisition
2.3.1 Current generative approaches to learnability problems in L2
acquisition
In addition to syntax-semantics mismatches and POS problems, there have been different
sources of persistent difficulty proposed in recent generative SLA research. For example,
the Interpretability Hypothesis (Hawkins & Hattori, 2006; Tsimpli & Dimitrakopoulou,
2007) is a proposal based on the notion of interpretable vs. uninterpretable feature contrast
in the current generative grammatical theory, the Minimalist Program (e.g., Chomsky,
1995, 2000). Interpretable features are features that make fundamental contributions tomeaning (e.g., number, gender and definiteness on nouns), whereas uninterpretablefeatures are those relevant only to grammaticality/morphosyntax (e.g., case, agreement).
This hypothesis holds that uninterpretable features not selected by the L1 are no longer
accessible (thus acquirable) in the L2 after a critical period. Another influential generative
account for L2 learnability is the Interface Hypothesis (Sorace, 2006; Sorace & Filiaci,
2006), which predicts greater difficulty for L2 learners when having to integrate linguistic
information across different domains (e.g., syntax and semantics, syntax and phonology)
than when focusing on one specific domain (e.g., ‘narrow’ syntax). In a more recent

44version of this hypothesis (e.g., Sorace, 2011; Sorace & Serratice, 2009; Tsimpli & Sorace,2006), those properties at external interfaces, whereby internal components of thegrammar(i.e.,

syntax/morphology/semantics/phonology)interactwithexternal

components (i.e., discourse/pragmatics), are considered more challenging than thoserelated to internal interfaces, whereby integration of components takes place within the
linguistic-internal system.
Although these hypotheses have been empirically supported to some extent(e.g., Hawkins & Hattori, 2006; Tsimpli & Dimitrakopoulou, 2007 for the Interpretability
Hypothesis; Belletti, Bennati, & Sorace, 2007; Sorace & Filiaci, 2006 for the Interface
Hypothesis), they also have been called into question as evidence has accumulated against
them, namely that the kind of properties predicted to be persistently hard to acquire evenfor highly proficient learners (i.e., phenomena related to uninterpretable features orexternal interfaces) may not be necessarily so (e.g., Prevost & White, 2001; Rule &Marsden, 2006 for the Interpretability Hypothesis; Ivanov, 2009; Slabakova & Ivanov,2011 for the Interface Hypothesis). Such mixed results underscore the complexity ofidentifying areas and conditions where L2 acquisition is inherently difficult or easy. The
present thesis addresses this problem from different perspectives, namely the Feature
Reassembly Hypothesis (Lardiere, 2008, 2009) and the cline of difficulty in featureacquisition (Cho & Slabakova, 2014; Slabakova, 2009), as discussed below.2

2.3.2 The Feature Reassembly Hypothesis
Acknowledging potential difficulties involved in the L2 acquisition of features, Lardiere

Note that the present thesis does not test the Interpretability Hypothesis or the Interface Hypothesis
because the target definiteness properties involve only interpretable features and they concern externalinterfaces. That is, the Interpretability Hypothesis does not offer concrete predictions for theacquisition of interpretable features, whereas the Interface Hypothesis, in essence, predicts difficultyof external interface properties in relation to internal interface properties, which the thesis does not
examine.
245

(2008, 2009) proposed the Feature Reassembly Hypothesis (FRH). According to the FRH,
L2 acquisition progresses as features bundled on L1 lexical items are mapped onto theirclosest L2 counterparts based on functional and semantic similarities. The inventory offeatures potentially realised by natural languages is assumed to remain universallyavailable to L2 learners, regardless of whether or not they are interpretable and how latethe onset of the L2 acquisition is. However, languages differ in terms of which features
map onto overt morphemes and how features are combined onto those morphemes, as
postulated within the Minimalist framework. Lardiere argues that difficulty may arise
particularly when there is a mismatch in feature specification between the L1 and the L2
equivalent lexical items because the learner needs to reassemble the L1-based feature
configuration into the target representation based on the linguistic input. That is, the main
prediction of the FRH is that L2 acquisition will become more difficult when learners
have to reassemble the L1-based features into a new target configuration compared towhen they do not have to do so. Lardiere also posits that the key factor for ultimate
attainment in L2 acquisition is whether the learner has access to input that motivates therelevant feature reassembly: when some reassembly is necessary but triggering evidenceis hard to detect or even non-existent, successful feature reassembly may be delayed ornever occur. The FRH builds on the Full Transfer/Full Access hypothesis (Schwartz &Sprouse, 1996), according to which L2 learners transfer all the L1 properties andrestructure them into the L2 specifications by availing themselves of positive evidence inthe L2 input and innate linguistic knowledge provided by UG.3 However, the novelty of
the FRH lies in its potential to specify a given acquisition task more precisely by making
use of the notion of mapping and (re)assembly of lexical features between the L1 and theNote also that the FRH is compatible with other proposals assuming full L1 lexical transfer, such as
Sprouse (2006) and Stringer (2010). However, I focus on the FRH since the cline of difficulty, anothertheoretical proposal to be examined in this thesis is framed within it.
3

46

L2.
To illustrate how acquisition tasks can be formulated within the FRH, let us
consider the L2 acquisition of plural markings in Mandarin Chinese (henceforth,
Mandarin) and English bi-directionally, as discussed in Lardiere (2009). The Mandarin
plural marker, -men represents not only the [+plural] but also the [+definite] and[+human] features (Li, 1999), unlike the English plural marker, -s, which encodes only
the [+plural] feature. Put differently, English -s is underspecified for the [±human] and[±definite] features. The distinct feature specifications of the two plural morphemes are
summarised in Table 2.3.

Table 2.3 Lexical features of English and Mandarin plural markers[plural][human][definite]

English -s

Mandarin -men

+
±
±

+
+
+

Learners are predicted to initially treat the L2 plural marker as an equivalent of the L1
plural marker based on perceived functional similarities. However, the subsequent featurereassembly task differs according to the direction of learning: L1-English L2-Mandarin
learners need to constrain the distribution of plural marking from [±human, ±definite] to[+human, +definite], whereas L1-Mandarin L2-English learners need to extend thefeature distribution from [−human, −definite] to [ ±human, ±definite]. Furthermore, thelatter may not be as challenging as the former because learners can rely on positive
evidence in the input: instantiations of plural marking -s on [−definite] and [−human]
nominals. By contrast, to achieve the constraining task, learners may require negative
evidence that -men is not compatible with [−human] or [−definite]. However, suchinformation is unlikely to be available in natural input, (similarly to poverty-of-stimulus

47

situations), thus this task may be more difficult. 4 Furthermore, what is subject toreassembly also includes conditioning factors for feature expression such as whether
overt

realisation

of

the

featureisobligatory/optional

in

what

morphosyntactic/semantic/phonological/discoursal environments. For example, althoughplural marking is in principle optional in Mandarin unlike in English, it is prohibited undersome conditions in Mandarin (e.g., -men cannot be used with a quantifier). Lardiereargues that to figure out all these crosslinguistic differences and successfully conduct therelevant feature reassembly based on detectable evidence is far from trivial.

2.3.3 Previous studies testing the FRH
The main proposal of the FRH regarding what makes L2 acquisition more difficult has
been actively tested by a number of researchers with a variety of linguistic phenomenaand L1-L2 combinations. Some have confirmed that the more complex the featurereassembly, the more apparently difficult the acquisition task, through investigation of theacquisition of L2 morphemes that have different feature specifications from functionallysimilar L1 morphemes (e.g., Choi & Lardiere, 2005; Shimanskaya & Slabakova, 2015;
Spinner, 2013). Other studies have provided evidence for the argument that a task thatinvolves more feature reassembly means additional difficulty, through a comparison ofcases where reassembly is not necessary with cases where reassembly is necessary; anda comparison of cases where less reassembly vs. more reassembly is necessary (e.g., Cho,2017; Cho & Slabakova, 2015; Gil & Marsden, 2013; Hwang & Lardiere, 2013).
Furthermore, studies testing the contrast between relevant-input-available and relevantinput-unavailable cases both across and within languages (e.g., Gil & Marsden, 2013; Su,

However, in reality, the deletion of the [−human] feature on Mandarin -men by English speakers
does not seem so problematic. According to Su (2019), the fact that -men can be used only with[+human] nouns is covered in some Mandarin textbooks and this may constitute the relevant evidence
and thus facilitate the relevant feature reassembly.
448

2019; Yuan, 2014) found that the latter tends to be more problematic, as predicted by the
FRH. Importantly, some studies suggest that even when L1-driven feature mapping is
expected to make the subsequent reassembly considerably challenging, successfulacquisition seems possible at least for learners at advanced stages (e.g., Domínguez,
Arche, & Myles, 2017; Gil & Marsden, 2013; Lee & Lardiere, 2019). These findings
generally demonstrate that the FRH is indeed a testable and promising account of L2
acquisition.
However, researchers also have raised questions in relation to the FRH.
Particularly, White (2009) takes issue with the predictive power of the FRH. She argues
that it remains unclear which types of reassembly are more problematic than others,
whether a certain L1-L2 combination presents a greater challenge and whether all features
are equally difficult to reassemble. Several proposals have been put forth to address thesequestions. Hwang and Lardiere (2013) argue that the more complex (phonological,
morphosyntactic, semantic, pragmatic, and discourse) conditions under which a feature
is expressed are and the more they differ between the L1 and the L2, the harder it becomesto acquire the relevant property. Particularly, they predict that the more dependent a
feature is on other features in the feature hierarchy, the more difficult it is to acquire. Mai
and Yuan (2016), on the other hand, maintain that feature reassembly becomes more
complicated and difficult to accomplish when it involves “cross-domain” reassembly (e.g.,
from prosody to syntax) compared to when it takes place within a single linguistic domain.
Another attempt particularly relevant to this thesis is the cline of difficulty in featureacquisition proposed by Slabakova (2009) and elaborated by Cho and Slabakova (2014),
which is discussed in detail in the following section.

2.3.4 Cline of difficulty in feature acquisition
Addressing the predictive power problem with the FRH pointed out by White (2009),

49

Slabakova (2009) proposed that the relative ease/difficulty of feature reassembly varies
according to whether relevant features are realised overtly or covertly and whether therealization of the features is similar or different in the L1 and the L2. Slabakova (2009)
draws on Ramchand and Svenonius’s (2008) speculation that in L1 acquisition, features
realised overtly are acquired earlier than those realised covertly because agrammaticalized morpheme should provide more constant input for feature value tracking
than discourse/context. 5 Combining Ramchand and Svenonius’s idea with the FRH,
Slabakova postulated a cline of difficulty in L2 acquisition of functional features as in
Figure 2.1 (adapted from Slabakova, 2009, p. 321).

Easier to acquire
FoverttoFovertreassembly
not required

Harder to acquire
FoverttoFovertreassembly
required

Fcovertto
FovertFigure 2.1 Slabakova’s (2009) cline of difficulty in feature acquisition

The left-most point represents the case where a give feature (F) is represented by an overt
morpheme in the L1 and an overt morpheme in the L2, and both the L1 and L2 morphemes
have the same syntactic and semantic features, so no feature reassembly is required. This
category is considered the easiest. One level harder is the case at the middle point where

For justification of their proposal, Ramchand and Svenonius (2008) pointed out asymmetricacquisition rates of definite articles in L1 English and Norwegian. According to Ramchand andSvenonius, the meaning of definiteness consists of multiple semantic primitives including familiarity
and specificity; and English and Norwegian differ in how they express these components ofdefiniteness: familiarity is overtly realised with a morpheme (pre-nominal determiner) in bothlanguages, whereas specificity is distinguished morphologically through a suffix in Norwegian but
expressed covertly through context in English. The researchers argue that this crosslinguistic
difference can account for the experimental observations that L1-Noweigian children appear to be able
to acquire the definite suffix at the age of 2(Anderssen, 2007), whereas L1-English children seem tohave difficulty using the definite article properly until the age of 4 (Schaeffer & Matthewson, 2005).
550

a given feature is encoded overtly in both the L1 and the L2 but differently (e.g., throughdifferent morphemes or through similar morphemes but with distinct feature
configurations). The right-most point is the hardest task, where a given feature is realisedby an overt morpheme in the L2 but distinguished covertly through discourse/context in
the L1. Note that this case inherently involves reassembly, in terms of manner ofrealisation from covert to overt, although in the present thesis (and relevant previous
studies), it is simply labelled as Fcovert to Fovert (the same applies to the Fovert to Fcovert
category). This proposal can be regarded as a step forward from the FRH in terms ofincreased predictive power: the addition of this new dimension of overt vs. covert feature
realisation offers more detailed predictions for relative difficulty/ease of acquisition of agiven feature expression with a specific L1-L2 combination.
Building on Slabakova’s (2009) proposal, Cho and Slabakova (2014, based on
Cho, 2012) presented an extended cline as in Figure 2.2.6 Specifically, they proposed thatfeatures expressed covertly (Fcovert) are harder to acquire in the L2 than those expressed
overtly (Fovert), following the same logic of overt vs. covert realisation as Ramchand andSvenonius (2008) used for their proposal with L1 acquisition.

Cho and Slabakova (2014) do not cite Cho (2012), though the experimental data they report appear
to be the same data reported in Cho (2012). The latter also tested the cline in Figure 2.2 with slightly
different theoretical assumptions. Henceforth, following Cho and Slabakova (2014), I do not refer to
Cho (2012).
6

51

Easier to acquire

Harder to acquire

FovertFovertFcovert

FovertFcovertFcovertto
FoverttoFoverttoFovertto
Fcovertto
Fcovertto
Fcovertreassemblyreassemblyreassemblyreassembly

not required required

not required required

Figure 2.2 Extended cline of difficulty in feature acquisition (adapted from Cho &Slabakova 2014, p. 166)

In addition, Cho and Slabakova further clarified the notion of covert features (Fcovert) bydefining them as features determined via “discourse tracking as well as some inconsistent(non-uniform) signals that require discourse observation, including word order changes”(Cho & Slabakova, 2014, p. 166). In this sense, “covert” applies to any nonmorpholexical manifestation of a feature.
Cho and Slabakova (2014) empirically tested some predictions of the revised
cline with L2 Russian learners with L1-English or Korean by investigating theirknowledge of overt and covert expressions of definiteness in Russian.7 Russian does nothave dedicated morphemes to overtly distinguish definiteness. Definiteness is expressed
predominantly through context in Russian. Korean is similar in this respect, unlike
English, a language with dedicated morphemes (i.e., articles) to systematically express
the feature overtly. Russian can still encode definiteness overtly through possessor
modifiers. Specifically, whereas nominal possessors can be interpreted as either[+definite] or [−definite] (2.10) depending on context, adjectival possessors are restricted
to a [−definite] interpretation (2.11) (both examples are from Cho & Slabakova, 2014, p.

Cho and Slabakova (2014, p.161) adopted an informal definition of definiteness as follow: “anominal is definite when there is a presupposition of its referent being unique in the domain of
discourse, where unique can be established through previous mention or world knowledge.”
752167).

(2.10) Za

dverjubehind door

slyšalsja

golosženščiny.

heard

voice-NOUN.NOM

woman-NOUN.GEN‘The voice of a/the woman was heard behind the door.’(2.11) Za

dverju slyšalsja

behind doorheardženskij

golos

woman-ADJ.NOM

voice-NOUN.NOM‘A woman’s voice was heard behind the door.’

According to Cho and Slabakova, Korean also has an overt way to express definitenessthrough case-marking in noun-noun compound constructions. Furthermore, Russian can
additionally express definiteness covertly, by means of word order. In Russian, definite
NPs are usually placed in pre-verbal position and indefinite NPs in post-verbal position(2.12). In particular, bare indefinite nouns cannot occur pre-verbally (2.13).

(2.12) Na
On

stole [+definite] stoja-lalampa [−def].

desk

lamp

stand-PAST‘A lamp was on the desk / there was a lamp on the desk. ’(Cho & Slabakova, 2014, p. 169)

(2.13) Na
On

stole [+definite]lampa [+definite]stoja-la.

desk

lamp

stand-PAST‘The lamp was standing on the desk/ # on a desk.’(Adapted from Cho & Slabakova, 2014, p. 169)53

Cho and Slabakova point out that Korean also has a covert way to express definitenessthrough word order: object nouns must be interpreted as [+definite] in the OSV order. But
what makes Korean different from Russian is that all nouns must occur pre-verbally in
Korean. That is, unlike in Russian, post-verbal nouns are ungrammatical in Korean.
English does not mark definiteness covertly through word order change.
Based on these crosslinguistic analyses, the extended cline of difficulty (thecline of difficulty, henceforth) offers the following predictions. First, because both
English and Korean have overt morphological means to express definiteness (i.e., articles,
and case marking in noun-noun compound constructions, respectively), the acquisition
task for the Russian overt definiteness expression is the second easiest for both L1 groups:
Fovert to Fovert reassembly required. As to the covert distinction of definiteness in Russian,the cline of difficulty assigns the third hardest task, Fovert to Fcovert for English-speaking
learners; and the hardest task, Fcovert to Fcovert reassembly required for Korean-speaking
learners. This is based on the crosslinguistic fact that Korean covertly realises definitenessthrough word order change but in a different way to Russian, whereas English has
dedicated morphemes ( i.e., articles) to overtly encode definiteness. In sum, both L1English and Korean learners will acquire the overt L2 Russian property more easily or
earlier than the covert property, and English-speaking learners will acquire the covert
property more easily or earlier than Korean-speaking counterparts.
Cho and Slabakova (2014) tested these predictions using a felicity judgementtask. Participants were instructed to read short passages and rate on a 5-point Likert scale
how felicitous the target sentence was as a description of each story. The results weregenerally in favour of the predictions. On the one hand, both English- and Koreanspeaking learners performed better on the overt property than the covert property, in linewith the prediction that a covert expression of a feature is more difficult than an overt
expression, even when some reassembly is required for the latter. In terms of the covert

54

property, on the other hand, whereas some English-speaking advanced learners responded
in a target-like way, target-like performance was not observed with the Korean-speaking
learners even at advanced levels, which is also compatible with the cline. The researchers
speculated that the overt realization of a feature in the L1 may have helped the Englishspeaking learners to acquire the covert expression of the feature in the L2 whereas
reassembling a feature that is covertly realised both in the L1 and L2 in different ways
can cause great difficulty to an extent that is impossible for Korean-speaking learners to
overcome.
The potential effect of an overt L1 feature on acquiring covert expression ofthat feature in the L2 is a key claim of Cho and Slabakova (2014) that has not explicitly
been tested; and this is a focus of the present thesis. Cho and Slabakova’s (2014) findings
allow at least two interpretations regarding the role of the L1 for Korean-speaking learners.
One is that covertly realised features in the L1 are never facilitative in the acquisition ofcorresponding L2 features. This is indeed what the cline (Figure 2.2) implies, although
Cho and Slabakova do not state it explicitly. This suggests that even if the identical covert
property exists in the L1 (i.e., Fcovert to Fcovert reassembly not required), acquisition of thatproperty may be more difficult than in the case of Fovert to Fcovert, where learners may
benefit from overt realisation of the relevant L1 feature. The other possibility is that it
may be the feature reassembly rather than the covert realisation of the feature in both theL1 and the L2 that makes the Fcovert to Fcovert reassembly required task unattainably
difficult. This seems to be a more natural explanation from the perspective of the FRH,
which maintains that the more reassembly is necessary, the harder the acquisition task
becomes, whether the relevant feature is realised overtly or covertly. In a sense, this is aquestion about which advantage is stronger for L2 acquisition of a covert feature
expression, having a dedicated morpheme for the relevant feature in the L1 or having acorresponding covert feature expression. The present thesis addresses this question.

55

2.3.5 Previous studies testing the cline of difficulty
There are, to my knowledge, two recent studies that tested predictions based on the clineof difficulty: Tuniyan (2018) and Köylü (2019). However, these studies had mixed results
as shown below.
Tuniyan (2018) tested three points on the cline: Fovert to Fovert reassembly not
required, Fovert to Fovert reassembly required and Fcovert to Fovert, by investigating the L2
acquisition of English article semantics with native speakers of Mandarin (two levels:intermediate and advanced) and Russian (three levels: beginner, intermediate, andadvanced). English overtly encodes two different types of definiteness, namely familiarity
and uniqueness with its articles: the features [+familiar] (i.e., indication of a familiar
discourse referent for both the speaker and the hearer) and [+unique] (i.e., presuppositionof a unique referent in a given situation or through general knowledge) are both overtly
marked with the definite article, the (e.g., Schwarz, 2009, 2013). The feature [+familiar]
can also be encoded with the demonstrative, that. However, because the way familiarity
is computed differs between the and that, there are contexts where one is more appropriate
than the other.8 On the other hand, Mandarin and Russian, both of which are languages
without an article system, do not obligatorily express familiarity or uniquenessmorphologically. However, these languages can mark the feature [+familiar] overtly with
their demonstratives (i.e., Mandarin na and Russian etot) in the same way as English that,
whereas they must realise the feature [+unique] covertly through context (i.e., bare nouns).
Therefore, relative ease or difficulty for the L2 acquisition of overt realisation of[+familiar] and [+unique] definiteness in L2 English by L1 Mandarin and Russian

Put briefly, for the to be felicitous, a relevant familiar referent must be the most salient in the context,
whereas for that, the referent needs to be immediately salient (i.e., most recently mentioned). This
subtle semantic difference between the and that is relevant to the present thesis, too, and is discussed
in some detail in Chapter 3.
856speakers were predicted as in Figure 2.3.9

Easier to acquire

Harder to acquire

Fovert to Fovert
reassembly

Fovert to Fovert
reassembly

not required

required[+familiar][+familiar][+unique]demonstrative (L1)demonstrative (L1)context (L1)to[+familiar]

to[+familiar]

to[+unique]demonstrative (L2)definite article (L2)definite article (L2)

Fcovert to Fovert

Figure 2.3 Predicted difficulty of acquisition of [+familiar] and [+unique] features in L2
English by L1-Mandarin and Russian speakers (adapted from Tuniyan, 2018, p. 139)

The easiest acquisition task is the mapping of the feature [+familiar] from L1
demonstrative to L2 demonstrative. Because of the correspondence between the L1 andL2 demonstratives in terms of how the feature is computed, no reassembly is required(i.e., Fovert to Fovert reassembly not required). Less easy is the task of mapping of the[+familiar] feature from L1 demonstrative to L2 definite article: in this case, theconditioning environment of feature realization needs reassembly between L1
demonstrative and L2 definite article (i.e., Fovert to Fovert reassembly required). The
greatest difficulty is expected for the [+unique] feature mapping from context to thedefinite article (i.e., Fcovert to Fovert) due to the covertness of the feature in the L1.
In order to test the prediction above, Tuniyan (2018) investigated the L2
interpretation and use of English articles by means of an AJT and a written sentence
production task, respectively. In the AJT, participants were asked to read short stories andTuniyan also investigated overt expression of indefiniteness with the indefinite article a in English,
which will be briefly explained in Chapter 4, where previous studies on the L2 acquisition ofdefiniteness are reviewed.
957

decide whether the test sentence with the target NP following each story was acceptable
or not. In the written sentence production task, the participants had to read the beginningof a story and continue the story by making sentences using lexical words that were
provided, but adding functional words such as articles and conjunctions as necessary. The
task was designed to elicit an article (the or a) for the target NP that fit each story. Tuniyan
found suggestive (but not statistically significant) evidence for the contrast of Fovert toFovert reassembly not required vs. Fovert to Fovert reassembly required and Fcovert to Fovert in
the AJT performance of L1-Russian learners. Specifically, while the advanced L1Russian group performed in a target-like way across the contexts, the intermediate group
did so only in the Fovert to Fovert reassembly not required context. The beginners were nottarget-like in any contexts. This developmental pattern is compatible with the prediction(Figure 2.3). However, as to the L1-Mandarin learners, such a contrast was not observed:
the AJT data from both intermediate and advanced L1-Mandarin groups showed targetlike performance, regardless of the context type.10 On the other hand, the results of thewritten sentence production task, which compared Fovert to Fovert reassembly not required
and Fcovert to Fovert situations, suggested that the L2 learner groups were generally nativelike, regardless of overtness of the relevant feature in the L1, except for the L1-Russian
beginner group, who omitted articles about 90 % of the time across the contexts andshowed little sign of the relevant knowledge. Therefore, the prediction was only partiallyborne out. The L1-Russian learners’ AJT results indicated that as expected, the Fovert toFovert reassembly not required task is the easiest and that some combination of featurereassembly necessity and covert realization of the relevant L1 feature makes the taskharder. However, it was left open whether a Fcovert to Fovert mapping is more problematic

Tuniyan (2018, p. 209) argues that the contrast between the intermediate learner groups may be
attributed to the fact that the Chinese intermediate learners were statistically more proficient than the
Russian intermediate learners.
1058than an Fovert to Fovert mapping with feature reassembly acquired, unlike Cho andSlabakova’s (2014) cline suggesting that is the case. Furthermore, the absence of the overt
vs. covert contrast in the production data did not support the prediction.
Köylü (2019) mainly examined whether acquisition of a feature that is covertly
expressed through context in the L2 but overtly with a functional morpheme in the L1 ismore difficult than the opposite direction (Slabakova, 2009) through an investigation of
the acquisition of kind-referring NPs in L2 English by native speakers of Arabic, Chinese,and Turkish. Köylü argues that kind reference is a product of an interaction of three
features: (i) the [−domain restriction] ([−dr]) feature, which is encoded on an overt or acovert D(eterminer), (ii) the [+set] feature, which is realised with the head of a functional
projection in the nominal domain, Set Phrase, and (iii) [−exception tolerance] ([−et]),which was overtly lexicalised with kind-selecting predicates (e.g., extinct, rare, common).
Table 2.4 summarises crosslinguistic variation between the four languages in terms ofwhat NP forms can refer to kinds and how each feature is realised. Overt determiners that
encode [−dr] are all shown as the for simplicity. “∅” represents a covert determiner for the[−dr] feature or absence of overt plural marking on the NP (all plural markers arepresented as -s) embedded in the Set Phrase that hosts the [+set] feature. No variation
exists in the way the [−et] feature is encoded through kind predicates across the languages.
Köylü’s predictions for learning tasks and their relative ease/difficulty are presented in(2.14) (learning tasks are described in parentheses for each situation). In short, whenevera covert vs. overt contrast is identified between the L1 and the L2 with a given feature,
the task was expected to become harder (in line with the FRH), and L1-overt L2-covert
situations are assumed to be more difficult than L1-covert L2-overt situations (in line withthe cline of difficulty) and tasks with no feature reassembly necessary were expected tobe the easiest (in line with the FRH).

59

Table 2.4 Crosslinguistic variation in kind-referring count NPs in the four languages
tested by Köylü (2019)[−domain
restriction][+set][−exception
tolerance]

EnglishDefinite singulars

the∅kind predicate∅

N-s

TurkishBare plurals
Bare singulars
Bare plurals

∅

∅

∅

N-s

kind predicate
kind predicate
kind predicate

Definite singulars

the∅kind predicate

Definite plurals

the

N-s

kind predicate

Bare singulars∅∅

kind predicate

ArabicChinese60

(2.14) Predictions for learning tasks (adapted from Köylü, 2019, p. 203)
a. The easiest
 Arabic learners acquiring kind reference with definite singulars(No reassembly required.) Turkish learners acquiring kind reference with bare plurals(No reassembly required.)b. Intermediate difficulty Turkish learners acquiring kind reference with definite singulars(Need to map [−dr] from ∅ to the) Chinese learners acquiring kind reference with definite singulars(Need to map [−dr] from ∅ to the) Chinese learners acquiring kind reference with bare plurals(Need to map [+set] from ∅ to a Set Phrase with overt plural marking-s)c. The most difficult
 Arabic learners acquiring kind reference with bare plurals(Need to map [−dr] from the to ∅)(Based on Köylü, 2019, pp. 142–144)

Köylü (2019) administered a fill-in-the-gap task and an AJT to test thepredication. In the fill-in-the-gap task, participants saw a context sentence andsubsequently an incomplete sentence with a picture. The task was to complete thesentence using the context and the picture as clues. It was designed to elicit the target NP
forms in each context. In the AJT, participants were presented with a short sentence
followed by 5 minimally different continuations (i.e., a bare singular noun, indefinite

61

singular, a definite singular, a bare plural, and a definite plural). They rated eachcontinuation on a 4-point scale. The results of both tasks suggested that the L2 English
learners had difficulty with definite singulars but not with bare plurals, irrespective of theL1 background. The researcher also reported that the Arabic speakers were more nativelike in definite singulars than the Chinese and Turkish speakers, although they were still
significantly different from native speakers. In contrast, all the L1 groups were
statistically indistinguishable from the native controls with bare plurals. Therefore, theresults seem, again, mixed: although the Arabic speakers’ higher accuracy compared tothe other L1 groups with singular definites was compatible with the prediction, their moretarget-like performance with bare plurals was clearly not. Furthermore, the predictedacquisition order between the learner groups for bare plural NPs were not attested. Instead,
universally successful performance was observed.
Note that Köylü does not seem to exactly follow Cho and Slabakova’s (2014)cline of difficulty because in his prediction, covertness of a feature does not pose aparticular problem when no reassembly is necessary. That is, Fovert to Fovert no reassembly
required and Fcovert to Fcovert no reassembly required tasks seem to be treated as equallyeasy, though the latter is predicted to be harder to acquire on the revised cline (Figure2.2).11 However, the results do not constitute any clear-cut evidence for either version of
the cline or the FRH. Furthermore, since kind reference, as Köylü defines it, involves a
combination of three different features, with relevant nominal constructions (e.g., definite
singulars, bare plurals) encoding those features overtly and covertly in different ways
across languages, it seems methodologically difficult to effectively evaluate the role ofovert vs. covert realisation of each feature.

Taking for example the acquisition of the [−dr] feature for bare plurals by L1-Turkish learners andthat for definite singulars by L1-Arabic learners, although both tasks involve no reassembly, the former
seems to be rated as more difficult on the revised cline because it is a covert-to-covert mapping.
11

62

2.4 Remaining questions about feature contrastive approaches to
L2 acquisition
In this chapter, the FRH has been shown to be an appropriate approach to explore L2
learnability at the syntax-semantics interface. As discussed in the earlier sections, it has
been supported by a number of studies that set out to test it, but it can also account forfindings of studies that pre-date it (such as Marsden, 2009 and others). Nevertheless, for
improvement of its predictive power, proposals about what makes feature reassembly
difficult are in order. In this respect, the cline of difficulty appears to be one promising
candidate. However, whereas the majority of previous studies within the FRH (cited
above) concerned L2 acquisition of features overtly realised through morpholexical items
and produced generally supporting evidence, the overt vs. covert contrast subsumed under
the cline of difficulty needs further empirical validation. Specifically, there are at least
four outstanding questions as below, about the relation between the two key factors in thecline of difficulty model: overt vs. covert feature realisation and necessity of reassembly.

(2.15) Question 1:
When no feature reassembly is required, is an Fovert to Fovert task easier than Fcovert
to Fcovert?

(2.16) Question 2:
When the L2 feature is covert, is it easier to acquire it when the L1 feature is overt(Fovert to Fcovert), or when the L1 feature is covert in the same way as in the L2(Fcovert to Fcovert reassembly not required)?

63

(2.17) Question 3:
Is a reassembly task between overt expressions (Fovert to Fovert reassembly
required) easier than a reassembly from a covert to overt expression (Fcovert toFovert)?

(2.18) Question 4:
In which situation is it easier to acquire a feature, when the feature is expressed
overtly in the L1 or in the L2?

Question 1 corresponds to the contrast between Fovert to Fovert reassembly not
required and Fcovert to Fcovert reassembly not required on the cline in Figure 2.2. This
comparison is important in terms of examining the role of overt vs. covert contrast. The
cline assumes that an overt expression of a feature is easier to acquire than a covert
expression of that feature. However, this assumption needs further corroboration, given
the conflicting previous findings above (e.g., generally successful acquisition of kindreference through bare plural NPs vs. generally incomplete acquisition of kind reference
through singular definite NPs in Köylü (2019)).
As to Question 2, under the cline of difficulty (Figure 2.2), covert realization of afeature is predicted to lead to acquisition difficulty, even when no feature reassembly isrequired. Importantly, the cline suggests that having an overt functional morpheme todistinguish the relevant feature in the L1 will ease the L2 acquisition of a covert
expression of the same feature to a greater degree than having a corresponding covertmeans of feature realisation in the L1. But, as yet, this prediction has not been tested.
According to the cline of difficulty, the answer to Question 3 is yes. However,as shown above, Tuniyan (2018) tested this prediction but did not find concrete evidence
for it. Thus, the relative difficulty/ease between Fovert to Fovert reassembly required and64

Fcovert to Fovert is worth further testing with different linguistic properties and/or different
language combinations.
Finally, Question 4 concerns relative degree of facilitation by overt realisation in
the L1 vs. the L2. The cline of difficulty assumes that overt realisation in the L2 leads toa greater facilitative effect than in the L1—a Fcovert to Fovert task is predicted to be easierthan a Fovert to Fcovert task. Köylü (2019) tested this contrast and the results were notsupporting: Fcovert to Fovert mappings turned out to be more problematic than a Fovert toFcovert (i.e., Arabic-speaking learners acquiring English singular definites vs. bare plurals).
This suggests that there may be cases where the facilitative effect of overt realisation in
the L1 is stronger than that in the L2. Therefore, further studies testing Fcovert to Fovert vs.
Fovert to Fcovert would be helpful in addressing this question.
This thesis deals with the first two questions about the cline of difficulty alongwith the FRH’s main prediction that feature reassembly makes acquisition harder, throughan investigation of L2 acquisition of overt and covert expressions of definiteness inJapanese, which are detailed in the next chapter.

65

Chapter 3: Semantics of definiteness and its expressions inEnglish, Japanese, and Korean
3.1 Introduction
In this chapter, the semantics of definiteness is discussed followed by an overview ofcrosslinguistic variation in the realisation of definiteness with a focus on the languages
related to this study: English, Japanese, and Korean. Then Japanese definitenessphenomena that the present study focuses on and corresponding or related phenomena in
English and Korean are discussed with a survey of representative theoretical accounts fortheir properties. Comparisons are to be made often between Japanese/Korean, on the one
hand, and English, on the other, because of similarities between Japanese and Korean,and differences between these languages and English regarding the properties underinvestigation. In the final section, key properties of the target phenomena are summarised
in terms of what is agreed upon and disputed. Crosslinguistic analyses to be presented inthis chapter are largely exploited in later chapters, where I will formulate specificacquisition tasks for learners with each L1 background, and predictions based on thefeature-based L2 acquisition theories reviewed in the previous chapter.

3.2 What is definiteness?
Definiteness is a semantic concept that concerns whether a referent is identifiable in thedomain of discourse or context. One of the most influential semantic accounts of thefeature is the presupposition analysis originally proposed by Frege (1960) and Strawson(1950), and further developed by Heim (1991).12 In this approach, a noun is [+definite]

Frege (1960) is an English translation of the original work in 1892 written in German titled “UberSinn und Bedeutung”.
1266

when there exists a presupposed unique entity. For example, for the sentence in (3.1) tohave a truth value, a unique king of France must exist. If there exists no king or more than
one king, then it is neither true nor false (i.e., presupposition failure).
(3.1) John met the king of France yesterday.
The domain for the computation of uniqueness of a referent is relativised to content. For
example, the sentence in (3.2) is true even though there obviously exist multiple cats inthe world that we live in, as long as there is a unique cat that is salient in “somecontextually given domain” (Ionin 2003, p. 34 based on Heim & Wexler, 2000).

(3.2) The cat is eating fish.

Furthermore, uniqueness can be established not only through previous discourse (e.g., theprevious mention of a referent) (3.3) but also mutual world knowledge (3.4). In (3.3), thedefinite nouns, the motorbike and the car are felicitous because the previous mentions ofa car and a motorbike allow the speaker and the hearer to uniquely identify the referents.
One the other hand, for the sentence in (3.4) to be truthfully uttered, the speaker andhearer do not necessarily have to be talking about a contextually salient winner: theuniqueness presupposition can be satisfied by our common knowledge that a race
typically has only one winner. When the presupposition is not fulfilled, the nominal isindefinite, marked with the indefinite article a, as with a car, a motorbike and a prize in(3.3) and (3.4).

(3.3) I bought a car and a motorbike last year. The motorbike was more expensive thanthe car.

67

(3.4) The winner of this race will receive a prize.

This presupposition analysis of definiteness is generalisable to plural nominals by
assuming that definite nouns refer to “a greatest element, where, a greatest element of aset M is an element of M which has all other elements of M as parts” (i.e., the maximality
presupposition) (Ionin, 2003, p. 35 based on Heim, 1991, p. 22). In the case of singulars,
the greatest element of the set described by the noun is one. For example, the singulardefinite noun, the cat (3.5a) is presupposed to denote the set that has only one member,whereas for the plural counterpart, the cats (3.5b), there must be a presupposed set of catsthat contains two or more members and those must be all members of the set. Plural nouns
can be marked as indefinite with the quantifier some or the null article ø when the
maximality presupposition is not established (e.g., I saw some/ø students).

(3.5) a. The cat is asleep.
b. The cats are asleep.
(Ionin, 2003, p. 35)

Therefore, In English, the definite article the can be felicitously used when theuniqueness/maximality presupposition is established either through a previous mentionof a referent or through mutual world knowledge. Conventionally, the kind of definitenessestablished through a previous mention of a referent (i.e., linguistic antecedent) is known
as “familiarity/anaphoricity” (henceforth, anaphoricity for simplicity) (e.g., Hawkins,
1978; Roberts, 2002) and that licenced by situation/context or mutual world knowledge
as “uniqueness.” These characterisations have been the two most influential analyses ofdefiniteness in the literature.13 Recently, however, it has been argued that these two types
13

For example, Heim (1982) and Kamp (1981) characterise definiteness with familiarity, whereas68of definites are indeed independent universal meanings and distinguished in many otherlanguages with and without articles (e.g., Schwartz, 2009, 2013). In the present study, I
assume with Schwartz that English encodes the two types of definiteness with one lexical
item, the article the, whereas some languages have linguistic means to distinguish them,including the other two languages relevant to the study: Japanese and Korean. Specifically,
these languages distinguish the two types of definiteness by marking anaphoricity withdemonstratives while leaving unique definite nouns in their bare form, as described in thenext section. Importantly for the purpose of this study, looking at crosslinguistic variationin definiteness expressions between English and Japanese/Korean from Schwartz’s
perspective will allow us to form specific acquisition tasks within the relevant feature
contrastive approaches to L2, as demonstrated later in Chapter 5.

3.3 Two types of definiteness: anaphoricity and uniqueness
Before looking at crosslinguistic expressions of the two types of definiteness, let us
briefly see some typical cases of each type using English examples. Starting with
anaphoricity, in (3.6), the book is anaphoric because it refers back to a previously
mentioned discourse referent, a book.

(3.6) Anaphoric definite
John bought a book and a magazine. The book was expensive.
(Adapted from Schwartz, 2009, p. 3)

On the other hand, unique definite expressions are licensed with non-linguistic context
that enables the hearer to identify the referent. Consider some English examples of unique

Hawkins (1978) and Heim (1991) adopts the uniqueness view.

69definiteness from Hawkins (1978), where definiteness is established through situational
information rather than the presence of an antecedent.

(3.7) a. Visible situation use
Pass me the bucket, please.
b. Immediate situation use
Beware of the dog (as a sign).
c. Larger situation use
the president (uttered in the US), the Prime Minister (uttered in the UK), the sun,the moon(3.7a) can be truthfully uttered when the hearer can unambiguously identify the referentof the definite expression, the bucket in the relevant visible situation. However, thereferent does not have to be visible to be unique: (3.7b) is felicitous as a sentence toinform the reader that there exists a unique dog in the immediate situation. (3.7c)
exemplifies cases where uniqueness is established in larger situations such as countries
and the world. For example, the definite article can be used with president in a situationof the country, the US based on the knowledge shared by the interlocutors that there is
only one president in a country. In these examples, the referent is deemed uniquely
identifiable in the situation without a linguistic antecedent.
Furthermore, in so-called “bridging” uses (Clark, 1975), definite expressions canrelate back to the previous context more indirectly. There are many different types ofbridging attested in the literature (e.g., Charolles, 1999; Matsui, 2000), but here I focus
on two: one is established through a “producer-product” relation (e.g., author–book,painter–painting) and the other through a “part-whole” relation (e.g., fridge–crisper,house–living room, bike–bike handle) (Schwartz, 2009, p. 54) because of their relevance70

to the anaphoric vs. unique contrast, as shown below. (3.8) is a case of product-producer
bridging, where the referent is not the definite expression (i.e., the author) itself but aunique entity clearly related to an indefinite expression in the previous discourse (i.e., abook). Because of its dependency on previous linguistic context, this type of bridging canbe considered a special case of anaphoric definiteness.

(3.8) John bought a book today. The author is French.

On the other hand, in part-whole bridging as in (3.9), definiteness of the expression
depends on the general knowledge shared by the discourse participants in a given situation(i.e., driving situation) that there should be a uniquely identifiable referent denoted by thenoun (i.e., the steering wheel). Uniqueness, rather than anaphoricity, plays a role here.

(3.9) John was driving down the street. The steering wheel was cold.

Although some languages such as English and Italian express both anaphoric andunique definites with a single article, other languages such as German and Fering (aGermanic language) systematically distinguish them in various ways (e.g., Schwartz,
2009, 2013, 2019). For example, Fering uses distinct articles for the two types ofdefiniteness: the weak definite article a is used in unique contexts, whereas the strong
definite article di is used in anaphoric contexts, as illustrated in (3.10).

(3.10) Two definite articles in Feringa. Unique definite
Ik skaldeelIdown to

must

tu

a/*di

kuupmaan.

theweak/thestrong grocer71‘I have to go down to the grocer.’b. Anaphoric definite
Oki hee an hingst

keeft.

hingsthaaltet.

Oki hasbought theweak/thestrong horse

limps

a

horse

*A/Di

‘Oki has bought a horse. The horse limps.’(Ebert 1971, p. 161, cited in Schwartz, 2013, p. 538)

Interestingly, Schwartz (2009, 2013) notes that the two types of bridging shown above
are related to the strong vs. weak definite contrast. For example, in German, the contrast
between these bridging definites is mapped onto two different forms of article.
Specifically, weak (i.e., unique) definiteness is realised as contraction of the definite
article and an immediately following preposition (3.11a) whereas such contraction cannot
occur for strong (i.e., anaphoric) definiteness (3.11b) (Schwartz, 2009, 2013).

(3.11) a. Der
theKühlschrank war so groß, dass derKürbisfridgepumpkinproblemlos

was so big
im/#in dem

gemüsefach untergebracht

without.a.problem in_theweak/in thestrong
werdenkonntebe

could

that thecrisperstowed‘The fridge was so big that the pumpkin could easily be stowed in the crisper.’b. DasTheaterstück missfiel

the

play

er

in seiner

he in hisdem Kritiker so sehr,displeased thecriticso much that

Besprechung

kein

gutes

Haar

Review

no

good

hair

72

das

#am/an dem

Authorließ.

on_ theweak/in thestrong

authorleft‘The play displeased the critics so much that he tore the author to pieces in his
review.’(Schwartz, 2009, pp. 52–53)

These crosslinguistic examples constitute evidence for the anaphoric vs. unique (nonanaphoric) split in the analysis of definiteness.

3.4 Crosslinguistic expressions of definiteness (English, Japanese,and Korean)
The main variation lies in whether languages have functional morphemes tosystematically distinguish definiteness, that is, whether they have articles or not. However,there are a number of different ways to express the feature (overtly or covertly) as shown
below.

3.4.1 Definiteness in English
As already seen in the earlier sections, English distinguishes definiteness morphologicallythrough its article system: the definite article the encodes [+definite] for both singular andplural nouns; and to mark [−definite], the indefinite article a is used for singular nouns
and a null article for plural nouns (i.e., bare plurals). Although definiteness is overtly
realised predominately with these articles in English, it can be expressed with otherlexical items such as demonstratives and possessive pronouns as well. However,definiteness expressed by articles and other lexical items are not completely equivalent.
Particularly relevant to this study are similarities and differences between the definite
article, the and the demonstrative, that. It has been observed that anaphoricity can be73overtly encoded with that, which shares the same semantic core as the definite article,
namely the presupposition of a uniquely identifiable entity in the discourse that satisfies
the property denoted by the noun (Roberts, 2002; Wolter, 2006). For example, in English,that can mark anaphoricity like the, referring to a previously mentioned discourse referent
as shown in (3.12).

(3.12) A woman came onto the stage. Then the/that woman started singing and dancing.
(Adapted from Ionin, Baek, Kim, Ko, & Wexler, 2012, p. 75)

However, the and that differ in terms of where to presuppose the referent to be uniquely
identified in the discourse. Specifically, whereas a definite expression needs to find its
referent in the whole discourse, a demonstrative expression does so in a further restricted(‘salient’ in Roberts’s terms) set of discourse referents. Turning to the example in (3.13),
the woman (i.e., another woman) in the second sentence becomes salient by theimmediate prior mention. In this situation, that can uniquely select the woman as its
referent whereas the is infelicitous because it cannot single out its referent with there
being two relevant discourse referents.

(3.13) A woman entered from stage left. Another woman entered from stage right.
That/ #the woman was carrying a basket of flowers.
(Adapted from Wolter, 2006, p. 4 cited in Ionin et al., 2012, p. 73)

The and that also differ in terms of the (in)felicity in less direct anaphoric contexts,
namely anaphoric bridging contexts. For example, anaphoric bridging via a productproducer relation can be established with the but not that (3.14).

74

(3.14) John bought a book. The/#that author is French.
(Irani, 2019, p. 123)

Furthermore, that cannot express non-anaphoric or unique definiteness unlike the (3.15a).
Naturally, this extends to contexts where uniqueness is established more indirectly, suchas part-whole bridging (3.15b).

(3.15) a. Larger situation uniquenessthe/#that sun, the/#that Prime Ministerb. Bridging uniqueness via a part-whole relation
I bought a house. The/# that roof was leaking.
(Sahkai, 2015, p. 218)

These distinct properties of the definite article the and the demonstrative that areconsidered again later in section 3.5, where Japanese and Korean demonstratives, sono
and ku are compared to English the and that in terms of their definiteness marking.

3.4.2 Definiteness in article-less languages, Japanese and Korean
In languages without articles such as Japanese and Korean, nouns are bare by default andmostly ambiguous in terms of number and definiteness, as illustrated in (3.16). The nouns
gakusei and haksayng are still interpreted as either definite or indefinite according to thecontext, but this feature is not overtly marked.

75

(3.16) a. Gakusei-omita.

b. Haksayng-ul poassta.

(Japanese)(Korean)student-ACC saw‘(I) saw the/a/some/ø student(s).’These languages can also express definiteness with post-nominal topic markers,
Japanese wa and Korean nun. However, their cardinal function is to indicate old/given
information (i.e., topic) rather than definiteness. On the other hand, new information (i.e.,
focus) is often marked with nominative markers, Japanese ga and Korean ka. Topicmarked nominals tend to be definite by being given information whereas nominativemarked nominals, since they are new information, are often indefinite (Heycock, 2008;
Kuno, 1973; Kuroda, 1972; Lee, 2001).14
However, the correlation between those morphemes and definiteness does notseem very reliable. For example, the pair of sentences in (3.17) from Shibatani (1990)
show that the choice between ga and wa does not necessarily correlate with definiteness.

(3.17) a. Hi-ga
sun-NOM

noboru.
rise‘The sun rises.’14

According to Lee and Shimoji (2016), Japanese wa and Korean nun express distinct notions of

new/old information. They argue that in Korean, nun marks “episode-old” entities and it can refer backonly to an entity previously mentioned in the current episode. In contrast, Japanese wa encodes“hearer-old” entities: it often refers to an entity that is not directly mentioned but inferable in therelevant discourse or part of the shared knowledge of the interlocutors. This means that Korean nun isdistributed more restrictedly than Japanese wa, and Korean ka can appear in some contexts where wa
is used but not vice versa.

76

b. Hi-wa
sun-TOP

noboru.
rise‘The sun rises.’(Shibatani, 1990, p. 262)

Both sentences express similar propositions. Crucially, both hi ga (3.17a) and hi wa(3.17b) are considered definite (i.e., the sun) as reflected in the English translation.
However, Shibatani argues that they are semantically different and occur in distinct
contexts. The sentence in (3.17a) with ga is typically used to describe events or stateswith an implication of some sort of surprise for the discovery or witnessing of an eventor state. In contrast, the sentence in (3.17b) indicates a more context-free expression,
precisely because its fundamental function is that of conveying a generic statement(Shibatani, 1990, p. 263).
Moreover, it has been often reported that in addition to topic-hood, Japanese wa
and Korean nun can express contrasts, in which case they can be suffixed to focused
elements, as illustrated for Japanese in (3.18). As the translation suggests, wa-marked
nouns can be either definite or indefinite.

(3.18) John-ga
John-NOM

pai-wapie-TOPtabetaatega (keeki-wa
but cake-TOPtabenakatta ).
ate-NEG‘John ate (the) pie, but he didn’t eat (the) cake.’(Heycock, 2008, p. 55)

Another well-known observation is that subject nouns in embedded clauses aremarked with nominative markers (Japanese ga, Korean ka) by default regardless of
informational value and they must have a contrastive reading (as opposed to a topic

77

reading) if marked with wa or nun (e.g., Heycock, 2008; Kuroda, 2005; Vermeulen, 2012).
That is, topicality expressed with wa and nun is argued to be a root phenomenon, except
for in the complement clause of some attitude predicates such as regret.
Furthermore, information structure seems to interact with word order. It has been
proposed that (non-contrastive) topic noun phrases need to be licensed in clause-initial
position in Japanese and Korean (e.g., Vermeulen, 2012). The following example
dialogues illustrate the point for Japanese (3.19–3.20) and Korean (3.21–3.22) (bothdialogues are adapted from Vermeulen, 2012, pp. 86–87). In replying to the requests in(3.19) and (3.21), the object nouns (which are marked with wa, ano boosi-wa in (3.20a)
and with nun, ku moca-nun in (3.22a) ) must occupy clause initial position. The reply is
infelicitous when these nominals appear in non-clause initial positions in (3.20b) and(3.22b).

(3.19) Ano boosi-nituite
that

hat-aboutnanikaosiete-kudasai.

somethingtell-give‘Tell me something about that hat.’(3.20) a. Anothatboosi-wai John-ga

kinoo

hat-TOPyesterday

b. #John-ga
John-NOM

John-NOMei katta.
boughtanoboosi-wa

kinookatta.

that

hat-TOPyesterday bought‘John bought that hat.’(3.21) Ku
thatmoca-etyayhayse

mal-hay-po-a.

hat-abouttell-do-try-IMPERATIVE‘Tell me about that hat.’78

(3.22) a Ku
thatmoca-nuni

John-iecey

hat-TOP

John-NOM

yesterday boughtkumoca-nun

ecey

that

hat-TOPyesterday boughtb # John-i
John-NOMei sasse.

sasse.

‘John bought that hat.’

All these observations taken together, the correspondences between topic markers anddefiniteness and between nominative markers and indefiniteness do not seem very
consistent in either Japanese or Korean. However, there is a consistent relationship in bothlanguages between demonstratives and definiteness.15 The overt marking of anaphoric
definiteness by Japanese and Korean demonstratives, sono and ku will be discussed in thenext section as a target property of this study. Another example of realisation ofdefiniteness in Japanese and Korean is a semantic constraint on numeral quantifier (NQ)
constructions, which is detailed in section 3.6 as another property under investigation.

3.5 Overt marking of anaphoric definiteness by Japanese sono (incomparison to Korean ku and English the and that)
In Japanese, Korean, and many other languages without an article system (e.g., Chineseand Thai), the two types of definiteness are distinguished by marking anaphoricity withdemonstratives and realising unique definites in the form of bare nouns (e.g., Ahn, 2017;
Jenks, 2015, 2018; Schwartz, 2009, 2013). Cross-linguistically, demonstratives have twodifferent uses: exophoric/deictic use, where the referent is identified by means ofdemonstration (e.g., pointing at something) in the speech context; and anaphoric/non-Certain other lexical items, such as possessives and pronouns are also consistently definite, butthese are beyond the scope of the present thesis and are not discussed further.
15

79

deictic use, where a demonstrative expression refers to a linguistic antecedent in theprevious discourse. In article-less languages such as Japanese and Korean, demonstratives
cover the anaphoricity-marking function of definite articles. Japanese and Korean bothhave three-way demonstrative systems as shown in Table 3.1 (based on Ahn, 2017; Hoji,
Kinsui, Takubo, & Ueyama, 2003).

Table. 3.1 Comparison of demonstratives in Japanese, Korean, and English
Japanese

KoreanEnglishLocation of referent in deictic use

kono
sono
ano

i
ku
ce

this
that
that
(over there)

near the speakercloser to the hearer
at a distance from both the speaker and thehearer

It has been observed that only the medial demonstratives, Japanese sono and Korean ku
are productively used to mark anaphoricity, with the other demonstratives (i.e., Japanese:kono and ano; Korean: i and ce) primarily used deictically (e.g., Hoji, et al., 2003; Yoshida,2011 for Japanese, Chang, 2009; Cho, 2017 for Korean). Importantly, sono and ku requirea linguistic antecedent (e.g., Hoji et al., 2003; Ahn, 2017), thus they are necessarily
anaphoric like the German strong article. These anaphoric demonstratives are not onlyused when the referent is previously mentioned directly like the and that (3.23) but also
when anaphoricity is established indirectly through, for example, product-producer
bridging unlike that (3.24) (e.g., Mohri & Isse, 2018; Tsutsumi, 2012 for Japanese, Ahn,
2017; Cho, 2017 for Korean) (?(x) means that the sentence sounds more natural with x).

80

(3.23) Direct anaphoric use (b and c are adapted from Ahn, 2017, p. 40)
a. JapaneseHoni-ssatu-okatta.

?(sono)book

one-CL-ACC

bought.

SONO

hon-watakaka-tta.

book-TOP expensive.was‘I bought a book. The book was expensive.’b. Korean
Cecyk

han-kwen-ul sass-ta. ?(ku)cheyk-unpissass-ta.

book

one-CL-ACC

book-TOP

expensive.wasbought.

KU‘I bought a book. The book was expensive.
c. English
I bought a book. The/that book was expensive.16(3.24) Anaphoric Bridging: producer-product relationa. Japanese
Watasi-wa

kyoosyosetu-oi-ssatukatta.

I-NOM

today

novel-ACC

one-CLboughtSono

tyosya-wa

furansujin-da.

SONOauthor-TOP

French-DECL‘I bought a novel today. The author is French’

It has been pointed out in the literature that even though both the and that are in principle possible
in contexts like (23c), that is more marked than the. For example, Roberts (2002) proposes that ademonstrative implicates a contrast set. That is, a demonstrative suggests that the relevant property
attributed to the referent is not satisfied with other members of the relevant contrast set. This meansthat in the absence of a contrast set, there is no compelling reason for using that, thus the is morenatural than that.
1681

b. Korean (adapted from Kang, 2021, p. 316)
Nay-kaonul

sosel-ul

han-kwensassta.

I-NOM

today

novel-ACC

one-CLboughtKu

ceca-nun

phulangsuin-i-ta.

KU

author-TOP

French-be- DECL.

‘I bought a novel today. The author is French’c. English
I bought a novel today. The/#that author is French.

However, because of their anaphoric nature, Japanese sono and Korean ku are infelicitousin non-anaphoric/unique definite contexts, where the presupposition of uniqueness isestablished by means of pragmatic knowledge about the situation (3.25), including
bridging via a part-whole relation (e.g., Kaneko, 2014; Mohri & Isse, 2018 for Japanese,
Chang, 2009; Cho, 2017 for Korean). Thus, in these contexts, sono and ku are more like
English that than the (Ahn, 2017; Wolter, 2006) (3.26).

(3.25) Situation uniquenessa. Japanese
Sakuya(#sono)last.nightSONO

tuki-ga

totemoakaruka-tta.

moon-NOM

very

bright-PAST‘The moon was very bright last night.’
b. Korean
Eceypam(#ku)

Last.night

KU

tal-i

acwu

palk-assta.

moon-NOM

very

bright-PAST‘The moon was very bright last night.’

82

c. English
The/#that moon was very bright last night.
(b and c were adapted from Kang, 2021, p. 318)

(3.26) Bridging uniqueness: part-whole relationa. Japanese
Kekkonsiki-ni

itta.

(#sono)sinpu-gaao-okiteita.

wedding-to

went

SONO

bride-NOM

blue-ACC wore

‘I went to a wedding. The bride wore blue.’b. Korean (Cho, 2017, p. 372)
Gyelhonsik-ey

kassta. (#ku)

sinpu-kaphalansayk-ul ipessta

wedding-to

went

bride-NOM

blue-ACC

KU

wore‘I went to a wedding. The bride wore blue.’c. English (Lyons, 1999, p. 7)
I’ve just been to the wedding. The bride wore blue.

Note that use of anaphoric demonstratives is infelicitous and bare nominals must be usedin non-anaphoric definite contexts. However, in anaphoric contexts, as Cho (2017, p. 372)
points out, use of anaphoric demonstratives in article-less languages such as Japanese andKorean are, though strongly favoured, not obligatory. Although the presence/absence of
demonstratives does not affect well-formedness of the sentence (unlike the English
determiners, lack of which can result in ungrammaticality), bare nominals are often
avoided because they can be ambiguous in many ways (e.g., definite, indefinite, generic,and non-generic) whereas use of demonstratives can unambiguously establish anaphoric
relationships. However, researchers hold different views about the degree of preference

83for sono-marked nouns over bare nouns and the degree of acceptability of bare nouns inanaphoric bridging contexts. For example, Tsutsumi (2012) argues that use of sono isstrongly favoured and bare nouns are rather unnatural. However, Mohri and Isse (2018)
report that some of their native Japanese consultants seem more permissive of bare nouns
in bridging anaphoric contexts than in direct anaphoric contexts.17
In sum, Japanese and Korean, despite their lack of articles, seem to distinguishthe two types of definites, anaphoricity and uniqueness by marking the former withdemonstratives, sono and ku. Furthermore, these anaphoric demonstratives show bothsimilarities to and differences from English determiners, the and that: sono and ku markanaphoricity similarily to the and that in direct anaphoric contexts (3.23); however, inbridging anaphoric contexts (3.24), whereas the, sono, ku are felicitous, that is not; in
non-anaphoric (unique definite) contexts whether situational (3.25) or bridging (3.26),
sono and ku are considered unnatural like that, in contrast to the. These cross-linguistic
differences are summarised in Table 3.2. What remains an empirical question is to what
extent overt anaphoric marking is preferred over a covert counterpart (i.e., bare nouns) inbridging contexts.
Table 3.2 Crosslinguistic differences between English determiners and Japanese andKorean demonstratives
Anaphoric

EnglishJapanese
KoreanUniqueDirectBridging

Situational

Bridging

the

✓

✓

✓

✓

that

✓

#

#

#

sono
ku

✓
✓

✓
✓

#
#

#
#

This asymmetry may be accounted for with Nemoto’s (2015) proposal that the felicity of anaphoric
definite reading of bare nominals depends on the presence of competing referents. For example, inanaphoric bridging contexts involving product-producer relations, the producer of a product is likely
to be unique hence the absence of competition with other potential individuals.
1784

3.6 Covert marking of definiteness: Japanese numeral quantifiers(NQs) and semantic constraint in comparison with the Korean andEnglish NQs
In this section, the other property under investigation, namely a covert realisation ofdefiniteness through word order in NQ constructions is discussed in comparison to
relevant Korean and English properties to demonstrate similarities and differences
between the three languages. However, before looking into the definiteness property, let
us start with other essential properties of numeral classifiers.

3.6.1 Numeral classifier constructions and their essential properties
Japanese and Korean are classifier languages, in which nouns normally cannot combinewith a numeral without a classifier (a lexical item representing a unit of measurement)(3.27). Classifiers are bound morphemes that must be appropriate to the semantic type ofthe noun: human nouns require human classifiers, animate nouns require animateclassifiers, and inanimate require inanimate classifiers (3.28). Unlike Japanese andKorean, English nouns with numerals do not require classifiers, as is evident in thetranslations in (3.28).

(3.27) a. Japanese
gakuseisan*(nin)

student3(CL)haksayngsey*(myeng)

student

3(CL)

b. Korean85

(3.28) Japanese/Korean classifiersa. Human classifier
gakuseisan-nin(J)apanesehaksayng

sey-myeng(K)orean

student

3-CL‘three students’b. Animate classifierinu

san-biki(J)kangoci

sey-mali

(K)

dog

3-CL

‘three dogs’
c. Inanimate classifier
ringo

san-ko(J)

sakwa

sey-kay

(K)

apple

3-CL

‘three apples’

One important characteristic of Japanese and Korean is that NQs can appear in different
syntactic positions: the pre-nominal position (before the associated noun) (3.29a, 3.30a),the post-nominal position (between the associated noun and the case particle) (3.29b,
3.30b), and the floating (adverbial) position (after the case particle) (3.29c and 3.30c).18
In English, unlike Japanese and Korean, only a few quantifiers such as, all, both, and eachcan float (3.31) (Kobuchi-Philip, 2007). English numerals are allowed only in the pre-Note that the term “float(ing)” conventionally refers to quantifiers separated from the associatednoun phrase. The present thesis follows this convention without subscribing to any specific syntactic
account. For a comprehensive summary of syntactic derivation accounts of Japanese NQs, see
Nakanishi (2008).
18

86

nominal position (3.32a). English approximations of the post-nominal and floating
constructions are ill-formed (3.32b).

(3.29) Japanesea. Pre-nominal
Taroo-ga[ni-ko-no

ringo]-otabeta.

Taroo-NOM[two-CL-GEN

apple]-ACC

ate‘Taroo ate two apples.’b. Post-nominal
Taroo-ga[ringoni-ko]-otabeta.

Taroo-NOM[appletwo-CL]-ACC

ate‘Taroo ate two apples.’c. Floating
Taroo-ga[ringo]-oni-ko

Taroo-NOM[apple]-ACC two-CL

tabeta.
ate‘Taroo ate two apples.’(3.30) Korean (adapted from Shin, 2017)a. Pre-nominal
Cheli-ka[twu-kay-uy

sakwa]-lul

mekessta.

Cheli-NOM[two-CL-GEN

apple]-ACC

ate‘Cheli ate two apples.’b. Post-nominal
Cheli-ka[sakwatwu-kay]-lul

mekessta.

Cheli-NOM[appletwo-CL]-ACC

ate‘Cheli ate two apples.’87

c. Floating
Cheli-ka[sakwa]-lul

twu-kaymekessta.

Cheli-NOM[apple]-ACC

two-CLate‘Cheli ate two apples.’(3.31) a. [All students] walked.
b. [The students] all walked.

(3.32) a. John ate two apples. (pre-nominal)
b. *John ate apples two. (post-nominal/floating)

The three types of construction are often used to express the same proposition, as
indicated by the English translations of the Japanese and Korean examples in (3.29–3.30).
Post-nominal and floating NQs are, in particular, known to have striking similarities inmeaning. For example, post-nominal and floating NQs are both subject to themonotonicity constraint (Nakanishi, 2007; see Shin, 2009 for Korean). The monotonicity
constraint states that a measure function expressed by a measure phrase must track partwhole relations to the entity that the measure phrase applies to (Schwarzschild, 2002, p.
226). For example, the volume measurement of three litres of (the) water is monotonous
because it tracks part-whole relations to the entity water: if the quantity of water is threelitres, every proper subpart of the water has a volume less than three litres. In contrast,
the temperature measurement is non-monotonic. For example, if the temperature of thewater is 50 degrees Celsius, its proper subparts will not necessarily have lower
temperatures. It has been observed that all types of NQs are allowed for monotonous
measurement (3.33) whereas for non-monotonous measures, post-nominal and floating
NQs cannot be used (3.34).

88

(3.33) Monotonous measurementa. mizu

san-rittoru

water(post-nominal)

3-litreb. mizu-ga/osan-rittoru

water-NOM/ACC

3-litrec. (cf.) san-rittoru-no

mizu

3-litre-GEN(floating)(pre-nominal)water(3.34) Non-monotonous measurementa. *mizu

san-dowater

3-degreeb. *mizu-ga/owater-NOM/ACC
c. (cf.) san-do-no
3-degree-GEN(post-nominal)

san-do(floating)3-degreemizu(pre-nominal)

water

However, several semantic differences between post-nominal and floating NQs have been
observed. For example, it has been pointed out that the floating construction permits a
distributive reading but not a collective reading (e.g., Ishii, 1999; Kitagawa & Kuroda,
1992; Nakanishi, 2007) (as briefly introduced in the previous chapter). To illustrate, thepost-nominal NQ in (3.35a) allows for the collective reading where three boys built one
boat together as well as the distributive reading where each of the three boys built a boat(i.e., three boats in total). However, the floating counterpart in (3.35b) has only the
distributive reading.

89

(3.35) a. Post-nominal (✓collective ✓distributive)
Otokonoko san-nin-ga

kinoobooto-otukutta.

Boyyesterday

boat-ACC

made

3-CL-NOM‘Three boys built a boat yesterday.’b. Floating (?? collective ✓distributive)
Otokonoko-ga

kinoo

san-ninbooto-otukutta.

boy-NOM

yesterday

3-CL

boat-ACC

made(Nakanishi, 2007, p. 58)

Another widely observed difference between post-nominal and floating NQ constructions
is that the floating construction is incompatible with I(ndividual)-level predicates (i.e.,
predicates denoting permanent properties), although compatible with S(tage)-level
predicates (i.e., predicates denoting events or temporary properties); on the other hand,post-nominal constructions can be used with both types of predicate (e.g., Fukushima
1991; Nakanishi, 2007 for Japanese; Shin, 2017 for Korean). In (3.36), the S-level
predicate, byooki-dearu ‘be sick’ can occur with both types of NQ. In contrast, (3.37)
shows that the I-level predicate, kasikoi ‘be smart’ is compatible only with the postnominal variant.

(3.36) S-level predicate
a. Kono kurasu-de gakusei san-nin-ga
thisclass-instudent

byooki-dearu(post-nominal)

three-CL-NOM sick‘Three students are sick in this class.’b. Gakusei-ga
student-NOM

kono kurasu-de san-nin byooki-dearu. (floating)thisclass-inthree-CL sick.

90(3.37) I-level predicate
a. Kono kurasu-de[gakusei san-nin]-ga

kasikoi.

this class-in[student three-CL]-NOM

smart(post-nominal)‘Three students are smart in this class.’b. ??Gakusei-ga
student-NOM

kono kurasu-de

san-nin kasikoi.

thisthree-CL smart

class-in(floating)(Nakanishi, 2007, p. 56)

Finally, there is an interesting contrast observed between post-nominal andfloating NQs in terms of interpretation of definiteness, which is discussed in the following
section.

3.6.2 Definiteness constraint on NQs
It has been pointed out that whereas post-nominal NQs are compatible with both[+definite] and [−definite] interpretations, floating NQs can have only a [−definite]
interpretation (e.g., Furuya, 2012; Watanabe, 2006) (3.38). The same contrast has beenreported for the Korean counterparts as well (e.g., Lee, 2013; Shin, 2017) (3.39).19(3.38) a. Taroo-wa
Taroo-TOP

kinoo

hon

san-satu-o

yesterday

book 3-CL-ACC

yonda.
read‘Taroo read three books/the three books yesterday.’b. Taroo-wa
Taroo-TOP

kinoo

hon-o

san-satu

yonda

yesterday

book-ACC

3-CL

read

‘Taroo read three books/# the three books yesterday.’

Note that the type of definiteness relevant here is that of the maximality presupposition (seesection 3.2).
19

91

(3.39) a. Cheli-nun[cacenke twu-tay]-lul

sa-lyekoha-n-ta

Cheli-TOP[bicycle two-CL]-ACC

buy-intending do-PRE-DEC‘Cheli intends to buy two bicycles/the two bicycles.’b. Cheli-nun
Cheli-TOP[cacenke]-lul

twu-tay[bicycle]-ACC two-CL

sa-lyekoha-n-tabuy-intending

do-PRE-DEC‘Cheli intends to buy two bicycles/#the two bicycles.’(Shin, 2017, p. 21）

However, although researchers agree that post-nominal NQs are felicitous and floating
NQs are not in definite contexts, they have different views about the precise range ofacceptability of each type of NQ in indefinite contexts with respect to specificity.
Specificity is a concept closely related to definiteness that subdivides indefinite nominals.
Among several different definitions of specificity proposed in the literature (see vonHeusinger, 2011), the one relevant here concerns presupposition of existence, more
specifically, partitive specificity or membership of a previously mentioned set (Deising,
1992; Enç, 1991). Some researchers propose syntactic accounts (Furuya, 2012; Ochi &Huang, 2014; Watanabe, 2006), whereas others provide semantic explanations (e.g.,
Kobayashi & Yoshida, 2001; Nakanishi, 2007; Shin, 2017), each using different
theoretical tools. However, for convenience, I will outline these different accounts bydividing them into three groups according to the prediction they make. Table 3.3
schematises three distinct predictions about interpretation of each type of NQ. These will
be elucidated below. (Note that the (un)acceptability indicated in the table is taken fromthe different studies to be outlined in the next few sections and that these studies all rely
on introspective data—an issue that I will return to later in section 3.6.2.5.)

92

Table 3.3 Three different predictions for interpretation of post-nominal and floating NQs20
Context

NQ type[−definite, −specific] Post-nominal
floating[−definite, +specific] Post-nominal
floating[+definite, +specific] Post-nominal
floating

Prediction A Prediction B Prediction C
✓
✓
✓
*
✓
*

*
✓
✓
*
✓
*

✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
*

Although those groups of studies are largely in agreement (unshaded area), theirpredictions vary in [−definite, −specific] and [−definite, +specific] contexts regarding theacceptability of post-nominal and floating NQs, respectively (shaded area). Researchers
in the Prediction B group (e.g., Downing, 1996; Huang & Ochi, 2014) judge that only
floating NQs are felicitous in [−specific] contexts such as (3.40) (where the preamble
ensures a [–definite, –specific] interpretation of ‘three books’), whereas those categorised
as Prediction A (e.g., Furuya, 2012, Watanabe, 2006) argue that both constructions are
possible. For [+specific] contexts (3.41–3.42), the Prediction A group argues that only the
post-nominal construction is felicitous; but the Prediction C group (e.g., Kobayashi &Yoshida, 2001; Nakanishi, 2007; Shin, 2017) predicts felicitous occurrence of bothconstructions in [−definite, +specific] contexts (3.42).

(3.40) [−definite, −specific]
PREAMBLE: Taroo does online shopping almost every day.

20

Kinoo-wa{ hon san-satu-o vs. hon-o san-satu }kaimasita.

yesterday-TOP{ book 3-CL-ACC vs. book-ACC 3-CL } bought

Note that under the presuppositionality definition of specificity, the feature combination of[+definite, −specific] is impossible because [+definite] entails [+specific].

93

‘He bought three books yesterday.’(3.41) [+definite, +specific]
PREAMBLE: Taroo has two little sisters.
Sensyu{ imooto huta-ri-o vs. imooto-o huta-ri }last.week { little.sister 2-CL-ACC vs. little.sister-ACC 2-CL }yuuenti-ni

tureteikimasita.

amusement.park-to took
‘He took the two sisters to an amusement park last week.’(3.42) [−definite, +specific]
PREAMBLE: Hanako got two PCs and one printer from a friend.
{ pasokon iti-dai-o vs. pasokon-o iti-dai } sigoto yooni tsukau-kotoni{ PC 1-CL-ACC vs. PC-ACC 1-CL }thatfor.workusing

simasita.
decided‘She decided to use one PC for work.’

Korean NQ constructions also have been provided different accounts whose predictions
can be categorised as Prediction A (Kim, 2005; Lee, 2013) and Prediction C (Shin,2017).21

However, it is possible to apply Prediction B given the structural similarities and the proposed
definiteness effect between Japanese and Korean.
21

94

In what follows, I briefly overview representative accounts from each predictiongroup, using Japanese examples for simplicity.

3.6.2.1 Prediction A: movement analysis
For the Prediction A group, I consider syntactic accounts proposed by Watanabe (2006)
and Furuya (2012). These two studies share the assumption that floating NQs aresyntactically derived from their corresponding post-nominal NQs by means of movement.
However, they differ in terms of what element moves (i.e., NP or NQ movement) andwhy an indefinite interpretation is forced on floating NQs.
Watanabe (2006) accounts for the structural and interpretive variation in NQ
constructions assuming multiple layers of functional projections for Japanese nominals
as presented in (3.43).

(3.43) Functional projections of nominals in Japanese
DP
QP
CaseP

D
Q

NumP Case
NP

Num(Adapted from Watanabe, 2006, p. 252)

Based on this structure, Watanabe proposes derivational paths for NQ constructions asfollows (3.44). Firstly, a classifier (CL) heads NumP taking NP as its complement and a95

numeral as its specifier (3.44a). Then, after this structure merges with the Case head, NP
is obligatorily raised to [Spec, CaseP] for Case feature agreement between N and Case,
resulting in the post-nominal NQ construction (3.44b). If NumP moves to the specifier of
QP and the derivation ends here, the pre-nominal NQ structure obtains (3.44c). This
movement is for the agreement between Num and Q in the feature related to themass/count distinction. Furthermore, CaseP is raised to [Spec, DP] for an agreement
reason between Case and D in terms of specificity as well as case feature, which resultsin the configuration for floating NQs (3.44d). Watanabe argues that this final movementof CaseP to Specifier of non-specific D forces a non-specific and indefinite reading on
floating NQs. Furthermore, according to Watanabe, in the post-nominal NQ construction,
both specific and nonspecific readings are possible because the host NP is not required toovertly raise to [Spec, DP] hence underspecified for specificity.

96(3.44) Derivation of NQ constructions (based on Watanabe, 2006)
a. Underlying structureb. Post-nominal construction

NumP

CaseP

san
‘3’ NP

hon
NumP

Num

Case

hon satu‘book’ CL

sanc. Pre-nominal constructiond. Floating construction

t NP

DP

QP

NumP CaseP
san-satu

Q

CaseP

o

hon-o
NumP t CaseP

hont NumP

o
satu

QP

D

Q

san-satu

However, one problem to this analysis is that, as Watanabe himself points out,
it does not address a well-documented observation that floating NQs cannot occur with
NPs with demonstratives. To illustrate, the DP in the pair of sentences in (3.45) contains
the demonstrative kono ‘this’, whereby the floating construction (3.45b) is unacceptable
under the same interpretation as its corresponding post-nominal construction (3.45a).22
This phenomenon can be accounted for by an alternative movement analysis proposed by
Furuya (2012), which is reviewed next.

Furuya (2012) notes that the floating NQ construction still allows for a partitive interpretation.
That is, (3.45b) is possible for the interpretation that “(I) read three copies of this book.”22

97

(3.45) a. Kono
this

hon

san-satu-obook 3-CL-ACC

yonda.

(post-nominal)

read‘(I) read these three books.’b. *Kono
this

hon-o

san-satu

yonda.

book-ACC

3-CL-ACC

read(floating)

Similarly to Watanabe (2006), Furuya assumes that floating NQs aresyntactically derived from their post-nominal counterparts. In her analysis, however, it is
the NQ rather than the associated NP that is extracted from the host nominal structure.
Furthermore, she proposes that the extraction of the NQ is prohibited when the hoststructure is specific/definite as follows (here I use “definite/specific” because Furuya does
not distinguish between definiteness and specificity). Following Campbell (1996), Furuya
argues that when the nominal structure (DP) that hosts the NQ and its associated noun is
specific/definite, [Spec, DP] is filled with a null referential quantifier or an explicit
definite expressions such as a demonstrative. With the further assumption of DP
constituting a phase, a derivational unit in the Minimalist syntax (e.g., Chomsky, 2000),
the researcher proposes that those elements occupying [Spec, DP] block the extraction of
the NQ. That is, taking the NQ out of the DP without going through [Spec, DP] as anescape hatch results in ungrammaticality because such an operation violates the Phase
Impenetrability Condition (PIC) in (3.46).

(3.46) Phase Impenetrability Condition (PIC)
Material within a phase XP is not accessible to operations at ZP (the next phase)unless it is within the edge domain of XP.
(Furuya, 2012, p. 40 based on Chomsky, 2004, p. 108)98

Accordingly, (3.45b) is ungrammatical because the demonstrative kono occupies [Spec,DP], thereby preventing the NQ from floating away from the DP as illustrated in (3.47).

(3.47) a. [DP demonstrative [D’ D [ NP…[NQ]]
b. *[NQi [DP demonstrative [D’ D [ NP…[ti]](Adapted from Furuya, 2012, p. 34)

In contrast, the NQ can either stay in or move out of the associated nominal structure
when the whole DP receives an indefinite/nonspecific interpretation with nothing present
in [Spec, DP] (3.48a). However, once a definite/specific interpretation is established forthe associated noun phrase through context, a null operator arises and as a result, NQ
floating is no longer legitimate (3.48b).

(3.48) a. NQi
b. *NQ[DP[NP NPti]](indefinite/nonspecific)[DP null operator[NP NPti]](definite/specific)(Adapted from Furuya, 2012, p. 41)

Furthermore, under Furuya’s analysis, non-floating NQs (i.e., post-nominal NQs) are
structurally ambiguous between indefinite/nonspecific and definite/specific constructions
as shown in (3.49). In other words, they can be interpreted as either indefinite/nonspecificor definite/specific.

(3.49) a. [DP
b. [DP

null operator[NP NP

NQ]] (indefinite/nonspecific)[NP NP

NQ]] (definite/specific)

99

Although Furuya does not distinguish definiteness from specificity, she assumes that thisis a specificity effect.23 That is, NQ floating from a specific indefinite DP is predicted to
be also impossible. Consequently, the DP associated with a floating NQ must be[−definite, −specific] as in Watanabe’s approach. Kim (2005) also proposed a movement
account similar to Furuya (2012) to explain the definiteness effect on floating NQs in
Korean. In short, studies in this group argue that post-nominal NQs are felicitous
regardless of definiteness and specificity whereas floating NQs must be nonspecific, thus
infelicitous in [±definite, +specific] contexts.

3.6.2.2 Prediction B: size analysis
As to Prediction B, I focus on Huang and Ochi (2014) because other studies in thiscategory (e.g., Downing, 1996) are, to my knowledge, observational rather thantheoretical. Huang and Ochi’s approach can be considered another movement analysis as
it assumes the same underlying representation for post-nominal and floating NQs as
Watanabe (2006). However, it differs from Watanabe in a crucial way, which results in adifferent prediction for the interpretation of those types of NQ: Huang and Ochi claimthat specificity is determined by the size of the host nominal structure. Specifically, under
the assumption that “a specific indefinite nominal has a larger structure than an non-

23

Specificity effects have been observed in other languages including English. As illustrated in (i),it has been observed that in English, an internal element (wh-word in this case) can be extracted
when the whole nominal structure is indefinite/nonspecific (ia) but cannot when the host nominal isdefinite/specific as in (ib-c).
(i) a. Whoi did John read [a story of ti]?
b. *Whoi did Fred read [the stories of ti]?
c. *Whoi did Mary steal [that picture of ti]?
(Enç, 1991)

100

specific indefinite nominal” (Huang & Ochi, 2014, p. 60), they postulate distinct syntactic
representations for each NQ construction as illustrated in (3.50).

(3.50) Structural Difference between post-nominal and floating NC constructions (basedon Huang & Ochi, 2014)

a. Post-nominalb. Floating

XP
NP

X’
CLP

#

NP
X

CL’
tNP

VP
CLP

#
CL

V
CL’

tNP

CL

Both types of NQ start off as a classifier (CL) head that selects an NP as its complement.
Huang and Ochi follow Watanabe in assuming that CL heads the Classifier Phrase (CLP)and the number phrase (#) is situated in [Spec, CLP]. The NP complement moves within
the nominal structure, eventually surfacing as either a post-nominal or floating NQ. The
main difference from Watanabe’s analysis is the presence of the functional projection, XP
above CLP in the post-nominal construction. Huang and Ochi maintain that when XP is
projected, the whole nominal phrase must be interpreted as specific. That is, the postnominal NQ is structurally specific due to the presence of XP, whereas the floating NQ
nonspecific due to the absence thereof. Their motivation for the movement in thederivation of each structure is based on the following assumption (3.51).

101

(3.51) N needs to be visible (i.e., accessible) from outside the extended nominal
domain (for the purpose of selection and/or Case)(Huang & Ochi, 2014, p. 67)

In the case of the post-nominal construction, the NP has to move to the edge of thenominal projection (i.e. spec, XP) in order to be accessible to heads outside the nominal
domain (e.g., T, v) and the whole XP serves an argument. On the other hand, even when
X does not project above CLP as in (3.50b), (3.51) means that the NP is still required tobe outside of CLP. Therefore, it is forced to move into the V domain, resulting in the
floating construction.24 In sum, the prediction on this account is that post-nominal NQs
have to be specific (they are infelicitous in [−specific, −definite] contexts) whereas
floating NQs have to be non-specific (they are infelicitous in [+specific, ±definite]
contexts).

3.6.2.3 Prediction C: floating-NQs-as-adverbial analysis
Lastly, the prediction C group consists of studies analysing floating NQs as adverbials
and not as elements that are derivatively related to their corresponding post-nominal NQs(e.g., Kobayashi & Yoshida, 2001; Kobuchi-Philp, 2007; Nakanishi, 2007; Shin 2017). In
such an approach, the interpretive difference between the two NQ types arises from adifference in composition of the two structures, and they are not interdependent
syntactically or semantically. Therefore, two independent different questions arise: why
floating NQs are constrained to indefinite contexts and why post-nominal NQs are not.
In this section, I will discuss these questions mainly based on Shin (2017) because it is,
to my knowledge, the only adverbial account that explicitly addresses the semantic

NP cannot adjoin to the CLP because such a movement is too short, violating the Anti-locality
constraint, which prohibits movements within the same phrase.
24

102

contrast between post-nominal and floating NQs in terms of definiteness and specificity.
However, since Shin’s main focus is on Korean NQs, I will also draw on studies ofJapanese NQs such as Kobayashi and Yoshida (2001) and Nakanishi (2007), because of
their relevance and similarities to Shin’s approach.
Let us consider the interpretation of post-nominal NQs first. According to thesemantic accounts of properties of post-nominal and floating NQs by Nakanishi (2007)
and Shin (2017), in a post-nominal NQ structure, the NQ is argued to merge with theassociated NP, quantifying individuals denoted by the NP within the nominal structure.
On the one hand, Nakanishi assumes that the NQ is adjoined to the NP, and the NP
obligatorily moves to [Spec, DP], as illustrated in (3.52).

(3.52) Post-nominal NQ structure (based on Nakanishi, 2007)
SDP
Hanako-ga
Hanako-NOM
NPringo iapple
[Num+CL]san-ko-o3-CL-ACC

VP
DP

V

D'
NP
NP
ti

tabetaateD∅ [+def, +spec]/∅ [−def, ±spec]

Shin, on the other hand, postulates the structure in (3.53), where the numeral classifier, as
the head of CLP, takes the associated nominal as its complement.

103

(3.53) Post-nominal NQ structure (based on Shin, 2017)

SDP
Hanako-ga
Hanako-NOM

VP
DP

CLP
DP
ringo
apple

D

V
tabetaate∅ [+def, +spec]
CL /∅ [−def, ±spec]

san-ko-o3-CL-ACC

Despite the difference in the syntactic status and position of the NQ, both Nakanishi andShin locate the NQ and its associated nominal within the DP complement of V. In thesestructures, the head D (of the uppermost DP) can be either [+definite, +specific] or[−definite, ±specific], depending on the context.25
In the floating NQ structure, adverbial analyses in general (e.g., Kobayashi &Yoshida, 2001; Nakanishi, 2007; Shin, 2017) assume that the NQ combines first with theverb, as an adverbial modifier. The associated noun (the direct object for a transitive verb)
is merged subsequently, as the internal argument of the verbal predicate, resulting instructures where the NQ and the NP do not form a constituent. Further, when the NP
merges with the intermediate V’ node containing the NQ, the existential operator isintroduced into the semantic representation, to bind a variable related to the internalargument of the verbal predicate. This forces a [−definite] interpretation of the
combination of the NQ and NP, as illustrated in (3.54).

Which structure of Nakanishi’s (2007) or Shin’s (2017) is more appropriate is beyond the scopeof the present thesis. However, the choice does not affect arguments in the thesis.
25

104

(3.54) Floating NQ structure in the adverbial approachS
DP
Hanako-ga
Hanako-NOM

VP
NP
ringo-oapple-ACC

V'[Num+CL]san-ko3-CLVtabetaate

The semantic representation for the whole sentence is given in (3.55), which isa simplified version of what is presented in Kobayashi and Yoshida (2001) and Shin(2017).26(3.55)〚Hanako-ga ringo-o san-ko tabeta〛=
Ǝz [z ≤ APPLE ˄ INAN.OBJ (z) ˄ |z| = 3 ˄ [ATE ( HANAKO, z)]Note that the variable z corresponds to the internal argument of the verb and is a subpartof the set denoted by the NP (i.e., APPLE). The exact semantic notation of the set denotedby the NP depends on the context. If there is a previously mentioned (=presupposed) set,
the NP is bound by the iota operator (i.e., ℩APPLE), which yields a [−definite, +specific]
interpretation (i.e., three (of the) apples). In this case, the semantic representation saysthat there exists z such that z is a subpart of a contextually salient set of apples and is an
inanimate object and the cardinality of z is three and Hanako ate z. If there is no suchsalient set, the NP refers to a kind or the whole set of what it denotes (i.e., all apples in

There are as many different semantic representations as there are adverbial accounts. However,they generally assume that the internal argument of the verb is bound by the existential quantifier asin (3.55).
26

105

the world) and it is prefixed by the nominalisation operator (i.e., ⋂APPLE) (Chierchia,
1998), which results in a [−definite, −specific] interpretation. Crucially, in either case, thesum of individuals introduced by the floating NQ is a subpart of the set denoted by the
associated NP, thus remains indefinite. Therefore, floating NQs quantify individuals liketheir post-nominal counterparts, but they do this through their composition with a verbal
predicate, rather than within a DP, which leads to the definiteness constraint in Japaneseand Korean.

3.6.2.4 English NQ construction
As to English, NQs are generally assumed to be NP modifiers that adjoin to an NP likeadjectives (Krifka, 1999; Verkuyl, 1981). Their definiteness and specificity values are
straightforwardly determined by the head D that the combination of the numeral classifier
and the NP merges with, like Japanese/Korean post-nominal NQs, as illustrated in (3.56).

(3.56) English numeral construction

S
DP
Hanako

VP
V
ate

DP
D
the [+def, +spec]/∅ [−def, ±spec] Num
three

NP
NP
apples

3.6.2.5 Which account is the most plausible?
As shown above, different accounts have been proposed regarding the constraint on
floating NQs whereby they cannot be definite. Aside from this definiteness constraint, it106

has been argued that floating NQs are restricted to a distributive reading (as opposed to acollective reading) and incompatible with I-level predicates (as opposed to S-level
predicates); however, post-nominal NQs are free of such restrictions. These threeconstraints are not necessarily expected under either syntactic derivational accounts suchas Furuya (2012) and Watanabe (2006) (Prediction A) or the size-difference account by
Huang and Ochi (2014) (Prediction B). Adverbial accounts (e.g., Kobayashi & Yoshida,
2001, Nakanishi, 2007; Shin, 2017) (Prediction C) could naturally account for suchsemantic effects by assuming that post-nominal NQs quantify directly over associatenouns whereas floating NQs first quantify over predicates and then indirectly nouns. For
example, researchers taking adverbial approaches (e.g., Nakanishi, 2007; Kobuchi-Philip,
2007; Shin, 2017) explain the incompatibility of floating NQs with I-level predicates (seesection 3.6.1) as a consequence of their modifying events denoted by predicates. That is,
floating NQs can occur with S-level predicates, which denote events, but not with I-level
predicates, which essentially denote temporary states rather than events. Under Kratzer’s(1995) assumption that S-level predicates have event arguments whereas I-level
predicates lack them, the incompatibility of I-level predicates with floating NQs can be
explained by postulating that floating NQs require event arguments. Another problem
with the movement approaches (i.e., any accounts assuming a derivational relation
between post-nominal and floating NQs) is that there are some quantifiers such as
sorezore ‘each’ (3.57), which appear in the floating construction (3.57b) but lack theircorresponding post-nominal construction (3.57a) (for more examples, see Nakanishi,
2007, pp. 127–131). That is, if the floating construction is derived from its post-nominal
counterpart, the post-nominal construction should also be acceptable.

(3.57) a. *[Kotosi[this.year

sotugyoosuru

gakuseisorezore]-wa sangatu-kara

graduatestudenteach]-TOP

107

March-fromsyuusyokusaki-de kensyuu-o

ukeru

new.job-at

gettraining-ACC‘Each student who is graduating this year will get training at a new job fromMarch.’
b. Kotosi
this.year

sotugyoosuru

gakusei-wa sangatu-kara sorezore

graduatestudent-TOP March-fromsyuusyokusaki-de

kensyuu-o

ukeru

new.job-at

training-ACC

get

each

(Nakanishi, 2007, p. 127; (b) is originally from Inoue, 1978, p. 180)
Therefore, the adverbial approach (Prediction C) seems to offer a better coverage of theobserved properties of NQ constructions presented above. However, this does notguarantee that Prediction C is a better choice for the definiteness/specificity constraint
than the other two predictions. This problem of varied linguistic intuition is nontrivial
because any reasonable argumentation becomes unreliable if the data that it is based on
are not substantiated by objective evidence. Thus, an experimental study is warranted, toevaluate which of the three different predictions best captures actual linguistic behaviour.

3.7 Summary: properties of overt and covert realisations ofdefiniteness in Japanese by the demonstrative sono and numeralclassifier constructions
In this chapter, the concept of definiteness and its realisation in English, Japanese, andKorean were overviewed followed by a summary of various proposals about thedefiniteness-related Japanese properties of linguistic phenomena that this study
investigates, namely the overt and covert realisations of definiteness by the demonstrative108

sono and NQ constructions. Before concluding the chapter, let me reiterate the points ofagreement and disagreement of previous research.
(3.58) Properties of the demonstrative sono
Agreed:The use of sono is preferred in direct anaphoric contexts over bare forms.



The use of sono is infelicitous in non-anaphoric (i.e., unique) definite contexts.

The use of sono is felicitous in bridging (anaphoric) definite contexts.

Disputed:

Whether the use of sono is preferred over bare forms in bridging contexts.

(3.59) Properties of NQ constructions
Agreed:

Floating NQs are allowed only in [−definite] contexts.

Post-nominal NQs are compatible with [+definite] contexts.

Disputed:

Whether Floating NQs are acceptable in [+specific, −definite] contexts.

Whether post-nominal NQs are acceptable in [−specific, −definite] contexts.

It has been widely assumed that sono marks anaphoric definiteness thus it isincompatible with non-anaphoric (unique) definiteness and although not obligatory, its
use is preferred in direct anaphoric contexts. However, introspective judgements from thetheoretical research (i.e., non-experimental data) suggest that such a preference may besubject to individual variation among native speakers in bridging anaphoric contexts:
some may strongly prefer the use of sono over bare nominals in bridging (productproducer relation) contexts, whereas others may consider bare nominals quite acceptable.

109

The potential contrast between (direct) anaphoric and bridging contexts (i.e., preference
for sono NPs over bare NPs in anaphoric contexts vs. no such preference in bridging
contexts) may not be trivial because it could affect the learnability of the target property
in L2 acquisition. For example, the more sono is preferred above bare nominals, the easier
it may be to learn the feature specification of sono because learners should be more likely
to find instantiations of sono in the relevant context.
As to the properties of the NQ constructions, despite the agreement about theincompatibility of floating NQs with indefinite nonspecific contexts and the compatibilityof post-nominal NQs with definite contexts, their precise interpretive properties remain
under dispute regarding specificity. If floating NQs are not allowed for a [+specific,−definite] interpretation, then this means that the semantic effect is attributed to nonspecificity rather than indefiniteness (Prediction A). Alternatively, if they are compatible
with this interpretation, it can be attributed to indefiniteness (Prediction C). If postnominal NQs turn out to be unacceptable in [−specific, −definite] contexts, then they aremust be restricted to [+specific] contexts (Prediction B). Whether the semantic constraint
on the NQs is about definiteness or specificity needs formal evaluation before articulatingconcrete acquisition tasks and predictions within feature-based approaches to L2
acquisition.
Therefore, it is crucial to examine whether the proposed properties areobservable in an experimental setting, and if so, which description is the most accurate.
One cause of disagreement regarding the properties in question is presumably
methodological: researchers build their arguments essentially on informally collected
native language intuitions (including their own), incurring the problems of a limited
amount of data and potential expert bias (Sprouse, 2015). In order to mitigate suchproblems, I conducted a series of studies with native Japanese speakers using
experimental techniques, including presentation of multiple test sentences and110recruitment of non-linguist judges, which are reported in Chapter 6.

111

Chapter 4: Definiteness in second language
4.1 Introduction
L2 acquisition of definiteness properties has been explored for over the past few decades
predominantly in the form of English article acquisition, with many interesting findings.
It has been widely observed that L2 English learners from article-less L1 backgrounds
tend to have more persistent problems in acquiring English articles compared to thoselearners whose L1s have articles (e.g., Hawkins et al., 2006; Ionin, Zubizarreta, &Maldonado, 2008; Snape, 2008). For example, Article-less L1 speakers tend to omit L2
articles in obligatory contexts (e.g., Ionin, Ko, & Wexler, 2004; Master, 1997; Trenkic,
2007; Wakabayashi, 1998). They are also known to make substitution errors (e.g., overuseof the in contexts where a is more appropriate) . However, substitution errors do not seemcompletely random, but rather they have been argued to be triggered by semantic
universals relevant to natural language article choice such as specificity (e.g., Ionin et al.,2004) and presuppositionality (e.g., Ko, Ionin, & Wexler, 2010). Furthermore, it has
recently been pointed out that the semantics of L1 demonstratives also affect L2 article
acquisition. Specifically, it has been proposed that partially overlapping distributions of
L1 demonstratives and L2 definite articles lead learners to misuse or misinterpret L2
articles in contexts where demonstratives are acceptable but not the definite article (e.g.,
Ionin, Baek, Kim, Ko, & Wexler, 2012). Currently, researchers are beginning to explore
L2 acquisition of definiteness properties within the framework of the Feature Reassembly
Hypothesis (FRH) (Lardiere, 2008, 2009). For example, some propose to reinterpret
misuse of articles attributed to the effect of the semantic universal, presuppositionality asthat of L1 demonstrative semantics (Tuniyan, 2018) whereas others investigate a newtheoretically interesting learnability contrast between different definite contexts

112

(anaphoric vs. non-anaphoric definiteness) (e.g., Cho, 2017; Feng, 2019). However, instark contrast to this array of research on L2 acquisition of definiteness in English, little
is known about acquisition in the opposite direction: the L2 acquisition of definiteness inarticle-less languages by article L1 speakers. One of few studies in this domain is Cho
and Slabakova (2014), who investigated the acquisition of L2 Russian definitenessexpressions by L1 English and Korean speakers. They identified potentially challenging
nature of covert expressions of definiteness as opposed to overt counterparts (as reviewed
in Chapter 2). Another rare example is Crosthwaite, Yeung, Bai, Lu, and Bae (2018), who
examined the acquisition of bridging reference in L2 Mandarin by an article L1 (English)
and article-less L1s (Japanese and Korean) speakers. The results suggest effects of L1
article semantics on the acquisition of L2 definiteness marking with demonstratives inarticle-less languages.
In this chapter, an overview of the research into L2 acquisition of definitenessis provided. Firstly, previous findings on the L2 acquisition of English article semantics
will be reviewed. Starting with early studies in the 80’s (e.g., Hubners, 1983; Thomas,
1989), this section traces the theoretical development in this research domain, from thosestudies based on semantic universals pioneered by Ionin et al. (2004) to recent works
within the framework of the FRH (e.g., Cho, 2017; Tuniyan, 2018). Then, the acquisitionof definiteness in article-less L2s, particularly the acquisition of definiteness marking bymeans of demonstratives is considered, based primarily on the findings of Crosthwaite etal. (2018). The chapter concludes with discussions of some outstanding questions andtheir implications for the present study.

113

4.2 L2 acquisition of English article semantics
4.2.1 Role of semantic universals in L2 article choiceNon-target-like article choice by L2 learners is often attributed to mental representations
that are distinct from those of native speakers’. Such an analysis dates back to Huebner(1983), the first to investigate the L2 acquisition of English articles in different semantic
contexts, employing Bickerton’s (1981) Language Bioprogram Hypothesis. Thishypothesis states that article use in natural languages is constrained by two semantic
universals: specificity, which concerns whether there is a specific referent in the mind of
the speaker’s ([±SR]); and hearer’s knowledge, which concerns whether a specificreferent is in the mind of not only the speaker’s but also the hearer’s ([±HK]). Huebnertested four different contexts by crossing the two semantic universals: specific definite([+SR, +HK]), specific indefinite ([+SR, −HK]), nonspecific indefinite ([−SR, −HK]),and generic ([−SR, +HK]), as exemplified in (4.1) (Thomas, 1989, p. 337).

(4.1) Hubners’ classification of English article use
a. [+SR, +HK] : specific definite (the is used)
Chris approached me carrying a dog. The dog jumped down and started barking.
b. [+SR, −HK] : specific indefinite (a or ∅ is used)
Chris approached me carrying a dog.
c. [−SR, −HK] : nonspecific indefinite (a is used)
I guess I should buy a new car.
d. [−SR, +HK] : generic (a, ∅, or the is used)
A paper clip comes in handy.

These examples show that the English definite article is used only in [+HK] contexts. It

114

can be understood that [+SR] asserts that a specific referent exists in the actual world and[−SR] indicates the absence of such a referent, and crucially, [±SR] does not play a rolein the English article system. Huebner reported that a Hmong speaker, the target in his
longitudinal case study, overused the definite article in indefinite specific ([+SR, −HK])
contexts. Similar errors were observed by a number of researchers who examined the fourtypes of context in (4.1) (e.g., Master, 1987; Parrish, 1987; Thomas, 1989). Thomas(1989) proposed that L2 learners incorrectly associate the feature [+SR] with the definite
article rather than [+HK]; and as a result, they misuse the definite article in indefinite
specific ([+SR, −HK]) contexts by initially basing their article use on specificity because
sensitivity to the [±SR] distinction is innate (Bickerton, 1981).
Building on the above findings, Ionin et al. (2004) proposed a more principledexplanation as to why L2 learners make such substitution errors. Specifically, theresearchers proposed a semantic UG parameter, the Article Choice Parameter (ACP),
which states that languages with two articles distinguish their articles based on either
definiteness or specificity. They adopted the informal definitions for each semantic
feature in (4.2).

(4.2) If a Determiner Phrase (DP) of the form [D NP] is…
a. [+definite], then the speaker and hearer presuppose the existence of a unique
individual in the set denoted by the NP.
b. [+specific], then the speaker intends to refer to a unique individual in the set
denoted by the NP and considers this individual to possess some noteworthy
property.
(Ionin et al., 2004, p. 5)

Their motivation for the ACP is the crosslinguistic variation that in languages like English,

115

articles are sensitive to definiteness, whereas languages like Samoan distinguish articles
based on specificity (Mosel & Hovdhaugen, 1992), as illustrated in (4.3). That is, English
uses the with definite DPs and a with indefinite DPs, regardless of specificity. On theother hand, Samoan marks specific DPs with le and nonspecific DPs with se, notdistinguishing definiteness with the articles.

(4.3) Crosslinguistic variation in natural language article systems
a. Definiteness-based system (English)[+definite] [−definite][+specific]thea[−specific]b. Specificity-based system (Samoan)[+definite] [−definite][+specific]

le[−specific]

seBased on the ACP and the Fluctuation Hypothesis (FH) in (4.4), Ionin et al. postulated
that in acquiring a two-way article system, L2 learners would fluctuate between the twosettings of the ACP until they fix the parameter value to the one adopted by the target
language based on the input.

(4.4) The Fluctuation Hypothesisa. L2 learners have full access to UG principles and parameter-settings.
b. L2 learners fluctuate between different parameter-settings until the input leads
them to set the parameter to the appropriate value.
(Ionin et al., 2004, p. 16)

116

More specifically, they predicted that in acquiring English articles, L2 learners fromarticle-less L1 backgrounds would go through a stage where they are sensitive to both
specificity and definiteness until they have learned that the English article system adopts
the definiteness setting. That is, the will be used for both specific DPs and definite DPs
whereas a for both nonspecific DPs and indefinite DPs, resulting in incorrect article
choice in [+specific, −definite] contexts and [−specific, +definite] contexts, assummarised in Table 4.1.

Table 4.1 Predictions for L2 English article choice (based on Ionin et al., 2004, pp. 18–
19)[+definite][−definite][+specific]

Target use of theOveruse of the[−specific]

Overuse of aTarget use of a

Ionin et al. (2004) tested these predictions with native speakers of article-lesslanguages, Russian and Korean, using a forced-elicitation test. Participants were asked toread short dialogues and choose one article appropriate to the context, out of three optionsof a, the or null (--). Examples of the four relevant semantic contexts are shown in (4.5‒
4.8) (the correct articles are underlined, and the target DPs are in bold. The same is applied
to similar sample stimuli throughout the chapter).

(4.5) [+definite, +specific]
Kathy: My daughter Jeannie loves that new comic strip about Super Mouse.
Elise: Well, she is in luck! Tomorrow, I’m having lunch with (a, the, --) creator ofthis comic strip—he is an old friend of mine. So I can get his autograph for Jeannie!

117

(4.6) [+definite, −specific]
Bill: I’m looking for Erik. Is he home?
Rick: Yes, but he’s on the phone. It’s an important business matter. He is talking to(a, the, --) owner of his company! I don’t know who that person is—but I knowthat this conversation is important to Erik.

(4.7) [−definite, +specific]
Meeting on a street
Roberta: Hi, William! It’s nice to see you again. I didn’t know that you were in
Boston.
William: I am here for a week. I am visiting (a, the, --) friend from college—his
name is Sam Brown, and he lives in Cambridge now.

(4.8) [−definite, −specific]
Chris: I need to find your roommate Jonathan right away.
Clara: He is not here—he went to New York.
Chris: Really? In what part of New York is he staying?
Clara: I don’t really know, He is staying with (a, the, --) friend—but he didn’t tellme who that is. He didn’t leave me any phone number or address.

Note that each two definite and indefinite contexts differ in terms of specificity, which isoperationalised by showing whether the speaker explicitly states some noteworthy
property of the referent ([+specific]) (4.5 and 4.7) or not ([−specific]) (4.6 and 4.8).
The results suggested that, as predicted, both Russian- and Korean-speaking
L2 English learners overused a in [+definite, −specific] contexts and overused the in[−definite, +specific] contexts but showed target-like article use in the other two contexts.

118

Ionin et al., (2004) took this as supporting evidence for the ACP and the FH, although
individual results showed that about 40 % of the L2 learners (27/70) behaved in
unpredicted ways (i.e., they showed sensitivity only to specificity, or apparently random
patterns). Ionin et al. argue that the effect of specificity can persist even in advanced stages,
because DPs are often ambiguous between (in) definiteness and (non)specificity— “given
the subtlety of the discourse triggers related to speaker and hearer knowledge,
generalizing from them is likely to be a fairly long and difficult process” (Ionin et al.,2004, p. 52).
Ionin et al.’s (2004) proposal provides a better empirical coverage than the
traditional view of specificity adopted by Huebner (1983) (and the others) as existence inthe actual world. That is, based on the existence account, overuse of the is predicted bothin the indefinite contexts exemplified by (4.7) and (4.8), where the existence of thereferent of the target NP is asserted. However, Ionin et al. observed that the L2 learners
overused the only in contexts considered “specific” by their definition as in (4.7). A
number of studies have replicated Ionin et al’s findings that L2 learners whose L1 does
not have an article system show fluctuation in English article use, affected by bothdefiniteness and specificity (e.g., Ionin, Zubizarreta, & Maldonado, 2008; Snape, 2008).
However, several researchers have contested the ACP and the FH byquestioning, for example, the motivation for a UG parameter specific to articles (Hawkins
et al., 2006) and the operationalisation of specificity (Trenkic, 2008). On the other hand,
Tryzna (2009) reported new evidence about Samoan articles, according to which Samoan
distinguishes its articles based on specificity only in indefinite contexts; that is, thespecific article, le is used in nonspecific definite contexts as well as definite specific andindefinite specific contexts (the nonspecific article se is used only in indefinite
nonspecific contexts). This calls into question the ACP’s prediction for overuse of a in[+definite, −specific] contexts.

119Furthermore, it has been proposed that another semantic universal, namely
presuppositionality also triggers misuse of the definite article in indefinite contexts (e.g.,
Ko, Ionin, & Wexler, 2010; Ko, Perovic, Ionin, & Wexler, 2008). Pressupositionality canbe defined informally as in (4.9).

(4.9) If a Determiner Phrase (DP) of the form [D NP] [+presuppositional], then the
speaker and hearer presuppose the existence of at least one individual in the set
denoted by the NP.
(Based on Ko et al., 2010, p. 120, which is in turn based on Deising, 1992 and Enç,1991)

Note that the difference between presuppositionality and definiteness is that
presuppositionality marks only the presupposition of existence of a referent but
definiteness marks the presupposition of existence of a unique referent (Ko et al., 2010,
p. 120). There are two ways to establish presuppositionality in indefinite contexts: (i) by
previous mention of a set that the referent (denoted by the NP) is a member of, or (ii) bymutual world knowledge. The first subtype of presuppositionality is called “partitivity”.
To illustrate, a puppy in (4.10a) is partitive/presuppositional because its referent is amember of a set introduced in the previous discourse, five puppies. In contrast, a comicbook in (4.10b) is non-partitive/non-presuppositional due to lack of such a previously
mentioned set.

(4.10) a. [+partitive/+presuppositional, −definite]This pet shop had five puppies and seven kittens. Finally, John chose a puppy.
b. [−partitive/−presuppositional, −definite]
Kevin had to memorize two stories and three poems from his textbook. But he120

spent the whole evening reading a comic book.
(Ko et al., 2008, p. 121)

As

shown

in

these

examples,Englisharticlesarenotgovernedbypartitivity/presuppositionality. However, a number of studies have reported that L2
learners tend to overuse the in [+partitive/+presuppositional, −definite] contexts but notin [−partitive/−presuppositional, −definite] contexts, and importantly, the same is true
even when specificity is controlled for (e.g., Ko et al., 2008; Ko et al., 2010). Specifically,it has been found from forced elicitation tasks similar to Ionin et al.’s (2004) that with thetarget DP held [−definite, +specific], learners incorrectly use the significantly more often
in [+partitive] contexts (4.11) than [−partitive] contexts (4.12). Based on these findings
and similar observations found with children acquiring English as their L1(e.g., Maratsos,
1976), presuppositionality has been argued to be another semantic universal that plays arole in article choice (e.g., Ko et al., 2008; Ko et al., 2010).

(4.11) [−definite, +partitive/+presuppositional, +specific]
Molly: So what did your guest Mr. Svenson do over the weekend?
Jamie: Well, he went to see our local softball team play. He had a good time.
Afterwards, he met (a, the, --) player—she was very nice and friendly. And she
played really well!

(4.12) [−definite, −partitive/−presuppositional, +specific]
Jennifer: Hello, Helen? This is Jennifer!
Helen: Hi, Jennifer! It’s wonderful to hear from you. I suppose you want to talkto my sister?
Jennifer: Yes, I haven’t spoken to her in years! I’d like to talk to her now if possible.

121Helen: I’m very sorry, but she doesn’t have time to talk right now. She is meetingwith (a, the, --) very important client from Seattle. He is quite rich, and shereally wants to get his business for our company! She’ll call you back later.

It has also been found that the L2 learners are affected by presuppositionality in the formof partitivity even when prior mention of the relevant set is made implicitly (4.13) just as
much as when the same noun is repeated (e.g., (4.10a)). (In (4.13), presuppositionality ofa player is established implicitly with a preceding group noun, the Boston Red Sox
team.27)(4.13) Implicit partitive context
Jane: Your friend Lucy looks really excited. What’s going on?
Mary: Well, last Sunday was a really a big day for her. She went to the airport tosee her mother off, and ran into the Boston Red Sox team. You know what? She
was very lucky—she got an autograph from (a, the, --) player. And afterwards,
she met some friends at the airport! What a day!

Additionally, Ko et al. (2010) demonstrated that what appears to be the effect of partitivity
indeed comes from presuppositionality. Specifically, they showed that the frequency oftarget-like use of the was not significantly different between [+definite, +partitive]
contexts, where presuppositionality was established through a previous mention set ofwhich the referent of the target NP was a member (4.14), and [+definite, −partitive]

Yang and Ionin (2009), who tested L2 interpretation of the English articles by intermediate
Chinese-speaking learners of English, also reported similar results from an acceptability judgementtask: namely, that the learners tend to infelicitously accept the in partitive indefinite contexts. However,it was also suggested that implicit partitivity elicited more non-target acceptance of the than explicitly
partitivity. This may be related to the difficulty involved in bridging contexts, which is discussed later.
27

122

contexts, where presuppositionality was satisfied through mutual world knowledge (4.15).

(4.14) [+definite, +partitive]
Sally: I heard that your daughter Karen is a big fan of the Chicago Bears team!
Roger: Yes, she is. She went to Chicago to see them play. And she got a signaturefrom (a, the, --) head coach. I have no idea who that is, but Karen was really
happy.

(4.15) [+definite, −partitive]
Husband: So who should we invite to dinner this Saturday night?
Wife: How about Alex and Kate?
Husband: No, that won’t work. Kate won’t be in town—her company needs her
to fly west on an assignment. She is meeting with (a, the, --) governor of
Oregon—you know, I can’t remember who that is.

The presupposition of existence of coach in (4.14) is established through a prior mentionof a set, the Chicago Bears team, hence [+partitive] (and [+presuppositional]). In (4.15),
on the other hand, the existence presupposition of governor is satisfied by the mutual
world knowledge that there exists a unique governor in the State of Oregon (governor isnot [+partitive] but still [+presuppositional]). That is, if learners associated the withpartitivity rather than just presuppositionality, they would have used the even more (4.14)
but the results of Ko et al. suggested that they did not. Similarly to specificity, it has beenargued that presuppositionality may have a prolonged influence on L2 article choice, due
to considerably overlapping distributions of definiteness and presuppositionality as well
as a lack of evidence that allows learners to clearly distinguish them. Specifically, if
learners associate the with presuppositionality, they will correctly use the in definite

123

contexts because all definite DPs are [+presuppositional], which can result in difficultyin abandoning their incorrect assumption that the marks presuppositionality (Ko et al.,2008, p. 127).
To sum up this section, it has been proposed in the previous research that suchsemantic universals as definiteness, specificity, and presuppositionality are madeavailable by UG as candidate features for article distinction in natural languages;
consequently, if learners do not have an article system in the L1, their L2 article choice isinfluenced by those features until they have learned which feature is relevant for the target
article system. Although it may still be disputed whether there exists a semantic parameter(such as the ACP) to govern articles, it seems that L2 article semantics is ultimately
attainable, and a key to successful acquisition is the kind of input that helps learners to
distinguish between those competing features. In other words, the main problem may notlie in the acquisition of relevant features per se but rather in the difficulty in teasing themapart from one another and correctly associating the target feature with L2 articles.
However, L2 learners seem to face a further obstacle in acquiring target-likeL2 article choice: subtle differences in meaning and function between definite articles anddemonstratives, which is discussed next.

4.2.2 Influence of L1 demonstratives on L2 article semantics
As discussed in Chapter 3, many article-less languages have demonstratives thatsemantically and functionally overlap with –but do not exactly match– definite articles.
Not surprisingly, some studies suggest that L1 demonstrative semantics transfers onto L2
definite articles, resulting in non-target-like use and interpretation. For example,
Robertson (2000) found from his collaborative communication task that L1-Chinese (anarticle-less language) L2-English learners overused demonstratives (i.e., this and that) incontexts where the definite article, the is more appropriate as in (4.16).

124

(4.16) This square size is eight cm, er . . .
(Robertson, 2000, p. 71)

Subsequently, Ionin et al. (2012) systematically investigated the L2
interpretation of the definite article the vs. the demonstrative that by native speakers of
Korean (another article-less language). As discussed in Chapter 3, the and that share thecore semantics of uniqueness (definiteness), but they slightly differ in terms of how
uniqueness must be established: the requires the referent to be unique in the whole
discourse whereas that must be unique in the immediately salient situation. Ionin et al.
predicted that due to the absence of L1 articles, Korean-speaking learners of English
would initially map the semantics of the L1 demonstrative (ku) onto the L2 definite article,
applying the immediately-salient condition rather than the whole-discourse condition to
the computation of uniqueness with the. That is, they were predicted to infelicitously
accept or use the definite article (the) when the demonstrative (that) is more appropriate
in the L2. The researchers tested the prediction using two tasks: a forced elicitation
production task and a picture-based comprehension task. In the production task,
participants were asked to read a story and fill a gap by choosing the most appropriate
answer from four options: the, that, a, and one. Three experimental conditions were tested,
as exemplified in (4.17). When the referent described by the target noun is unique in thewhole discourse as in (4.17a) and (4.17b), the is felicitous and preferred over that. The
demonstrative, that is allowed if the referent is salient in the immediate discourse as in(4.17a) and (4.17c), and favoured over the, when uniqueness is not established in thewhole discourse (4.17c).

125(4.17) a. Unique and salient: both the and that possible, but the preferred
Betsy was staying at a hotel, and didn’t have anything to read. It was too early
to go to bed. So she went to a bookstore, and bought a magazine. Then she cameback to her hotel and read ____ magazine. She enjoyed it a lot.
b. Unique and non-salient: the preferred over that
Vicky was getting ready for a long train trip, and she wanted something to readon her trip, so she went to the library, and got out a book and a new magazine,
and packed them in her bag. The next day, Vicky got on the train. She found herseat and sat down. Then, she read ____ book. It was really interesting.
c. Non-unique: that preferred over theRichard went to a bookstore and bought two books to read. One of the books
turned out to be long and boring. The other book had a really exciting storyline.
So, Richard finished ____ book. He read it in just one night.
(Ionin et al., 2012, pp. 79–80)

The results suggested that L2 learners correctly chose the definite article when
it is an appropriate choice, namely in the unique and salient condition (4.17a), and theunique and non-salient condition (4.17b). However, learners, particularly in the lower
proficiency group, incorrectly produced the when the definite article is not felicitous,
namely in the non-unique category (4.17c). Based on these results, the researchers
proposed that L2 learners have not fully acquired the appropriate discourse condition interms of uniqueness (definiteness) for the definite article (i.e., uniqueness in the whole
discourse) and as a result, they still apply the condition for the demonstrative (i.e.,
uniqueness in the immediately salient discourse). They also found that the L1-Korean L2English learners were not sensitive to the distinction between the definite article and thedemonstrative in comprehension. In the picture-based comprehension task, the126participants viewed pictures of objects and drew geometric shapes on the objects. Each
item started with a sentence that named objects followed by three lines that instructedparticipants to draw geometry shapes, as shown in (4.18). Items were presented in two
conditions with the difference in the second instruction: the target NP was preceded by
the demonstrative, those, or by the definite article, the.

(4.18) Ionin et al.’s (2012) picture-based comprehension task
Here are six pens and six balloons.
1. Please draw arrows above two balloons.
2. Now, please draw triangles around { those/the } balloons.
3. Now, please draw stars on two pens.
(Adapted from Ionin et al., 2012, p. 86)

In the demonstrative condition, native English controls responded to the command by
drawing triangles around the two objects above which arrows had been drawn following
the previous command, and so did the L2 learners. However, in the definite condition,
whereas the native control group drew triangles around the two objects about 60 % of thetime and the all six objects otherwise, the L2 learners almost exclusively exhibited thetwo-objects interpretation, regardless of proficiency (intermediate or advanced). Given
that the L1 demonstrative ku only allows for the two-objects interpretation like English
those and unlike English the, which is also compatible with the all-objects interpretation,
Ionin et al. attributed the L2 learners’ non-native-like interpretive preference to thetransfer of the L1 demonstrative semantics onto the L2 article.
In sum, the results of Ionin et al. (2012) suggest that L2 learners from articleless L1 backgrounds are influenced by the L1 demonstrative semantics in acquiring L2
articles. More precisely, what is subject to transfer seems to be the discourse-based

127condition of how the core meaning of uniqueness (definiteness) is computed according to
the context.

4.2.3 L2 acquisition of definiteness expressions within the Feature
Reassembly Hypothesis
In recent years, researchers have started to apply the FRH to the L2 acquisition ofdefiniteness phenomena (e.g., Cho, 2017; Cho & Slabakova, 2014; Tuniyan, 2018). In
this section, I will review representative studies that investigate L2 English article
semantics within the FRH.
Cho (2017) is the first study to adopt the FRH for the investigation of L2
English article acquisition. As detailed in Chapter 2, according to the FRH, L2 acquisition
proceeds as learners map features of L1 lexical items onto L2 counterparts based on
perceived similarities. Crucially, difficulties may arise when there are mismatches infeature specification between relevant L1 and L2 items. In such cases, some featurereassembly must be done by means of available input. Cho targeted L1-Korean L2English learners, considering the following crosslinguistic difference: both the Koreandemonstrative, ku and the English definite article, the express [+definite] but they differ
in terms of whether the referent needs a linguistic antecedent ([+anaphoric]) or not([−anaphoric]) (as detailed in Chapter 3). Following the FRH, Cho predicted that due tothe similarity in definiteness marking, Korean-speaking English learners would first
infelicitously map the features of the L1 demonstrative, ku, [+definite, +anaphoric] onto
the L2 definite article, the. Consequently, learners were expected to be more native-likein contexts where both ku and the are felicitous ([+definite, +anaphoric]) than contexts
where the is felicitous but ku is not ([+definite, −anaphoric]). However, with increased
input and proficiency, learners would be able to adjust the initially mapped incorrectfeature set to the target representation ([+definite,±anaphoric]).

128

In order to test these predictions, Cho (2017) administered an acceptability
judgement task, where Korean-speaking English learners with two different proficiency
levels (intermediate and advanced) read pairs of sentences and rated the acceptability ofthe target sentence as a continuation of the first, using a 4-point scale. There were four
experimental conditions: three different anaphoric contexts and one non-anaphoric
context, as exemplified in (4.19–4.22) (Cho, 2017, p. 376). In direct anaphoric contexts(4.19), the second-mention referent (cake) should be in the form of definite NP (the cake).
The same goes for taxonomic anaphoric contexts (4.20), in which the antecedent (adessert) is mentioned by means of a different NP (the cake). Anaphoric reference can be
more indirect in bridging definite contexts (4.21), in which the definite expression in thesecond sentence refers back to the implicit antecedent (a cake is an implicit argument of
the verbal predicate, baked). Finally, non-anaphoric bridging definite contexts are where
the relevant referent does not have an antecedent, but its definite interpretation can beestablished situationally. For example, birthday in (4.22) sets up a situation that allows
for bridging definite inference for the cake through the general world knowledge that
there usually exists one unique cake involved in a birthday. Therefore, the cake is more
acceptable than a cake, which implies that there was, though implausibly, more than one
cake associated with the birthday.

(4.19) Direct anaphoric definite context
a. Jackie made a cake for the party. She served the cake with coffee and tea.
b. Kevin ordered a cake from the grocery store. #He went to pick up a cake but it
was not ready.

129

(4.20) Taxonomic anaphoric definite context (different head noun antecedents)a. Lydia’s family purchased a dessert. They ate the cake after dinner.
b. Marianne and her daughters shared a dessert. # They enjoyed a cake.

(4.21) Anaphoric bridging definite context (implicit antecedents)
a. Tori baked for her office this morning. Her co-workers enjoyed the cake.
b. Rachel baked for her husband. #He enjoyed a cake.

(4.22) Non-anaphoric bridging definite context (no antecedent)
a. It was Sophie’s first birthday. She smashed the cake with her hands.
b. Patrick celebrated his birthday with his friends. #They enjoyed a cake.

The results showed that the intermediate group rated definite NPs significantly
higher than indefinite NPs in the three anaphoric definite contexts but not in the nonanaphoric definite contexts, suggesting the predicted L1 influence. However, theadvanced group rated definite NPs higher than indefinite NPs in non-bridging (direct)
anaphoric contexts but not bridging contexts (either anaphoric or non-anaphoric). Choargues that this suggests that the advanced learners have correctly reassembled thefeatures of the definite article yet have trouble in “accommodating unmentioned
propositions for bridging definites” (Cho, 2017, p. 367). That is, to license bridging
definites, the hearer needs to accommodate “the implied link between the bridging
description and its anchor (i.e., the element that the bridging description is related to)”(Cho, 2017, p. 379). Cho speculates that the non-target-like performance of the advanced
learners resulted from learners’ accommodation of context, which made the use of130

indefinites less unnatural.28
Feng (2019) conducted a replication study of Cho (2017) with Mandarinspeaking intermediate and advanced learners of English. Like Korean, Mandarin does nothave an article system, but, according to Feng, its demonstrative, nei expresses the samefeature composition as the English definite article, the ([+definite, ±anaphoric]), allowing
for anaphoric and non-anaphoric bridging (4.21–4.22). Feng conducted an AJT with theidentical set of stimuli used in Cho and reported that the intermediate group had difficultyin non-anaphoric bridging, whereas the advanced group showed overall native-likejudgements. Feng argues that the asymmetry between the Korean-speaking learners in
Cho’s study and Mandarin-speaking cohort in her study is due to the crosslinguistic
difference that the Mandarin demonstrative has the same feature specification as the
English article unlike the Korean counterpart. That is, Mandarin speakers may haveacquired the properties of the faster because they do not have to do feature reassembly as
opposed to Korean speakers, who need to do so. As to why the intermediate learners haddifficulty in non-anaphoric bridging contexts, Feng proposes that establishing bridging
reference without a potential antecedent (i.e., non-anaphoric) but only with pragmatic
knowledge at the semantics-pragmatics interface is challenging to L2 learners even when
L1 positive transfer is expected.
A next relevant study is Tuniyan (2018), who investigated L2 English article
acquisition by L1 Mandarin and Russian speakers (two L1 Mandarin groups: intermediate
and advanced, and three L1 Russian groups: beginning, intermediate, and advanced).29
A novelty of Tuniyan’s work is that she attempts to account for the presuppositionality

This means that those advanced learners may have overaccommodated contexts. Although it may
be debatable whether this is completely non-target-like, Cho (2017) considers it non-target-likebecause the native control group (the target) did not show such a behaviour.
29 Recall that some findings of Tuniyan (2018) were already discussed in the relation to the cline ofdifficulty in Chapter 2. Here I will mainly focus on the aspects that have not been discussed yet.
28

131effect on L2 article choice documented in the previous studies (e.g., Ko et al., 2010) asfeature transfer from the L1 demonstrative onto the L2 definite article. Like Cho (2017),
which follows Schwartz (2009), Tuniyan assumes that the English definite article encodes
two types of definiteness: familiarity ([familiar]) and uniqueness ([unique]) ([+definite,+anaphoric] and [+definite, −anaphoric] in Cho, respectively). Furthermore, Tuniyan
proposes that these two types of definiteness covary with the meaning of anaphoricity, as
presented in (4.23) and (4.24).

(4.23) Different meanings of definiteness (Tuniyan, 2018, p. 93)
a. Familiarity: An NP is familiar if the hearer already has the mental representationof the intended referent through the previously mentioned most salient direct
antecedent (anaphoric familiarity) or through the presence of the perceptuallymost salient antecedent (non-anaphoric familiarity).
b. Uniqueness: An NP is unique if a unique referent for the hearer exists in a given
situation based on the unique part-whole relation with the previously mentioned
indirect antecedent (anaphoric uniqueness) or through general knowledge thata given situation contains only one unique referent (non-anaphoric uniqueness).

(4.24) Different meanings of indefiniteness (Tuniyan, 2018, p. 94)
a. Non-familiarity: An NP is non-familiar if it refers to a new referent for the
speaker and the hearer or to a referent that is known to the speaker but unknown
to the hearer (non-anaphoric non-familiarity)
b. Non-uniqueness: An NP is non-unique if it refers to a non-unique referent
through a non-unique member-set/part-whole relation with the previously
mentioned direct/indirect antecedent (anaphoric non-uniqueness)132

Based on these characterisations, Tuniyan postulated that the English definite article
encodes [+familiar, ±anaphoric] or [+unique, ±anaphoric] whereas the indefinite article
encodes [−familiar, −anaphoric] or [−unique, +anaphoric].30 Furthermore, assuming thatboth Russian and Mandarin’s demonstratives can express familiarity (i.e., [+familiar,±anaphoric]) like the English definite article, Tuniyan predicted that L2 English learners
with L1 Mandarin and L1 Russian would initially map the feature of the L1
demonstratives onto the L2 definite article. Specifically, those L2 learners were expectedto particularly associate anaphoricity ([+anaphoric]) with the English definite article on
the grounds that the L1 demonstratives are typically used in anaphoric contexts.
Consequently, L2 learners from article-less language backgrounds are predicted to
overuse the definite article in [−unique, +anaphoric] contexts, where the indefinite article
is appropriate on the one hand, and underuse it in [+unique, −anaphoric] (i.e., obligatory)
contexts, on the other. The researcher tested these predictions, using an AJT and a written
sentence production task (see Chapter 2 for more information). Six conditions were tested
as exemplified in (4.25–4.26) for the AJT (three each for the definite and indefinite
conditions). In [+familiar] or [+unique] contexts, the is felicitous and a is not, irrespectiveof anaphoricity (4.25), and the opposite is true in [−familiar] or [−unique] contexts (4.26).

Note that Tuniyan uses the term anaphoricity differently from Cho (2007) and Schwartz (2009). In
Cho and Schwartz, anaphoricity means familiarity, which is the type of definiteness establishedthrough anaphoric relations whether directly or indirectly (bridging). In these studies, bridging
definiteness expressed situationally, for example, through a part-whole relation (e.g., car-engine) is
not considered anaphoric, but non-anaphoric (unique) definite. This issue is discussed in detail laterin section 4.4.2.
30

133

(4.25) Definite conditions (adapted from Tuniyan, 2018, p. 151)
a. Previous mention: [+familiar, +anaphoric]
Mary often goes shopping, and last Friday she went to a new shopping mall.
She bought a bag there, and she was very happy. She used the/#a bag straightaway.
b. Unique bridging: [+unique, +anaphoric]
Michael likes going out, so he often goes to parties. Last Saturday he went to a
wedding, and he had fun there. He even danced with the/#a bride.
c. Out-of-the-blue definite: [+unique, −anaphoric]
Patrick went camping last summer, but one night he could not fall asleep. He
got up, and he did not know what to do. So he watched the/#a sky for a while.

(4.26) Indefinite conditions (adapted from Tuniyan, 2018, p. 153)
a. Partitive: [−unique, +anaphoric]
Betty decided to get a kitten, so she went to a pet shop. The pet shop had fivekittens, and she played with them for a while. Then she chose a/#the kitten.
b. Non-unique bridging: [−unique, +anaphoric]Alex is a photographer, and last Saturday he worked at a big wedding party. It
was a long day, and he got bored being by himself. So he talked to a/#the guest
for a while.
c. Out-of-the blue indefinite: [−familiar, −anaphoric]
Aaron is a policeman, and last night he was at work. He was tired, and he fell
asleep. When he woke up, he was surprised. He saw a/#the mouse in his office.

That is, learners were predicted to infelicitously accept/use the more in the [−unique,+anaphoric] contexts (4.26a–b) than the [−familiar, −anaphoric] contexts (4.26c), and134

reject/underuse it more frequently in the [+unique, −anaphoric] contexts (4.25c)compared to the [+familiar, +anaphoric] and [+unique, +anaphoric] contexts (4.25a–b).
These predictions were partially supported across the tasks. As predicted, the L2 learners
were generally target-like in the [+familiar, +anaphoric] (i.e., previous mention) and[−familiar, −anaphoric] (i.e., out-of-the-blue indefinite) contexts, except for the beginner
L1 Russian group, who were non-target-like in all the contexts. However, no groups
showed less target-like acceptance/use of the in the out-of-the-blue definite contexts([+unique, −anaphoric]) compared to the anaphoric familiar/unique contexts, against thepredictions. Furthermore, what is potentially a L1-related difference was observed. On
the one hand, Russian-speaking learners often incorrectly used/accepted the in theanaphoric indefinite contexts (both partitive and non-unique bridging) significantly morethan the non-anaphoric indefinite contexts. On the other hand, the L1-Mandarin groups
also showed a similar tendency but only in non-unique bridging contexts. As to why theL1 Mandarin learners were affected by anaphoricity in non-unique bridging but not in
partitive indefinite contexts, Tuniyan attributed this difference to an observation about
Mandarin from her small-scale experimental study that partitive indefinite nouns([−unique, +anaphoric]) are often overtly marked with an unstressed numeral + classifier(CL), yi CL rather than being left bare, whereas there is no such preference in non-uniquebridging contexts. That is, this tendency towards overt realisation might have a facilitative
effect in partitive indefinite contexts, in line with the cline of difficulty (as detailed in
Chapter 2).31
Finally, Zhang (2020), building on Ionin et al. (2012), investigated whether L1

Although it is possible that the L1 overt realisation had a facilitative effect, this analysis seems
questionable because according to Tuniyan’s experimental data from native Russian speakers, inRussian, overt marking with the numeral odin is favoured over covert marking with bare nouns in bothpartitive indefinites and non-unique bridging anaphoric: that is, it remains to be explained why
Russian-speaking learners did not benefit from the L1 overt marking preference as Mandarin-speaking
counterparts might have.
31

135

Mandarin speakers could acquire subtle contrasts between the English definite article, theand the demonstrative, that in terms of semantics-pragmatics mappings or conditions fordiscourse-based expression of definiteness. As mentioned earlier, Mandarin does not havean article system but has a demonstrative, na ‘that’, which shares the function ofsignifying definiteness as the English definite article. Zhang administered the same forced
elicitation task as used in Ionin et al. to advanced and near-native English learners with
L1 Mandarin in order to examine whether those L2 learners could acquire native-like
discourse-sensitive preference of one determiner over the other in English. The researcher
focused on the contexts where the definite article is preferred over the demonstrative (i.e.,
the referent is unique in the whole discourse) (4.17b), repeated as (4.27a), (‘Whole’
scenario, henceforth), and vice versa (i.e., the referent is salient in the immediate
discourse) (‘Salient’ scenario, henceforth) (4.17c), repeated as (4.27b). Additionally, adifferent group of native Mandarin speakers were tested with a Mandarin equivalent of
the elicitation task to confirm how similarly and differently to the English determiners theL1 demonstrative is distributed. The relevant contexts were compared, using na + NP vs.
bare NP contrast in place of the + NP vs. that + NP contrast in the English version.

(4.27) a. ‘Whole’ scenario: the preferred over that
Vicky was getting ready for a long train trip, and she wanted something to readon her trip, so she went to the library, and got out a book and a new magazine,
and packed them in her bag. The next day, Vicky got on the train. She found
her seat and sat down. Then, she read ____ book. It was really interesting.
b. ‘Salient’ scenario: that preferred over theRichard went to a bookstore and bought two books to read. One of the books
turned out to be long and boring. The other book had a really exciting storyline.
So, Richard finished ____ book. He read it in just one night.

136

(Ionin et al., 2012, p. 80)

The results showed that the English native controls for the English version of
the task, as predicted, almost unanimously preferred the in the ‘Whole’ scenario and thatin the ‘Salient’ scenario (≥98%), indeterminately accepting the disfavoured determiner(44–46%). As to the L2 English learners, the advanced group did not show a target
preference in either scenario whereas the native-like group showed a target preference ofthat in the ‘Salient ’ scenario but not a target preference of the in the ‘Whole’ scenario.
On the other hand, the results of the native Mandarin controls suggested that both na +NP and bare NP were acceptable but na was preferred (91.2% vs. 70.0%) in the ‘Whole’
scenario. However, in the ‘Salient’ scenario, the bare NP option was rejected (accepted
only 2.2%) and the acceptance rate of the demonstrative option was below chance level(36.4%). Zhang explains these results as follows. Firstly, judging from the native English
and Mandarin controls’ data, the demonstrative na can be considered a Mandarinequivalent of the English definite article the, since both were highly accepted in the‘Whole’ scenario but only indeterminately accepted in the ‘Salient’ scenario. Furthermore,
no Mandarin determiner seems to exist that corresponds to English that. However, thepartially overlapping distribution of na and that as well as the possibly led Mandarinspeaking learners to map the properties of na onto the and that, namely conditions forexpression of definiteness that are discourse-sensitive (semantics-pragmatics mappings),
along the lines of the FRH. This means that when either of the licencing conditions forthe or that is satisfied, L2 learners are expected to allow both the and that, in other words,
incorrectly accept that in the ‘Whole’ scenario and the in ‘Salient’ scenario, as observedwith the advanced learners. However, the native-like group’s partially target-like
preference suggests that with increased proficiency and input, they may be able to acquire
the target semantics-pragmatics mappings for definiteness marking. Particularly, given137the target-like asymmetry in acceptance of the between the ‘Whole’ and ‘Salient’scenarios, they seem to have acquired the semantics-pragmatics mapping of the first, due
to a positive L1 influence: the demonstrative na is constrained in a similar way to the. In
contrast, due to the lack of a lexical item with the same semantics-pragmatics mapping as
that, they will continue to infelicitously accept that in the ‘Whole’ scenario as a negative
L1 effect. Zhang concluded that “convergence at the semantics-pragmatics interface is
not impossible for L2 learners, but may be constrained by asymmetries in the L1–L2
realisation of semantics-pragmatics mappings.” That is, L1 transfer in semanticspragmatics mappings may facilitate or hinder the L2 acquisition of corresponding
properties.32
In sum, L2 research into definiteness properties has started shifting to the FRH
framework. Some studies (Cho, 2017; Feng, 2019) found relatively more target-like useof the definite article in a given definite context (i.e., anaphoric) than another (i.e., nonanaphoric), which cannot seem to be easily accounted for as the effect of semantic
universals. There is also an attempt to reinterpret some L2 article substitution errors,
namely overuse of the definite article in indefinite contexts, which has been claimed tobe the effect of the semantic universal, presuppositionality within the FRH as an effect of
L1 demonstratives (Tuniyan, 2018). Furthermore, it has been suggested that the lexicaltransfer from the L1 demonstrative onto the L2 definite article, proposed in earlier studies(e.g., Ionin et al., 2012) is compatible with the FRH: transfer of semantics-pragmatics
mappings between the relevant L1 and L2 lexical items (Zhang, 2020).

Tuniyan’s (2018) observation mentioned in Chapter 2 that her L2 learners were more target-like incontexts where the demonstrative and the definite article behave similarly than where they behave
differently also echoes Zhang’s findings.
32

138

4.3 Definiteness in article-less L2s: influence of L1 article
semantics on L2 demonstratives
Despite the vast amount of research into the L2 acquisition of definiteness properties inarticle languages (predominantly English), there has been little exploration of article-lessL2s. Notable exceptions are Cho and Slabakova’s (2014) investigation of L2 Russian(reviewed in Chapter 2), and Crosthwaite et al.’s (2018) investigation of L2 Mandarin.
This section reviews Crosthwaite et al. (2018), who investigated definite discourse
reference in L2 Mandarin by L1 speakers of English, Japanese, and Korean.
Crosthwaite et al.(2018) built on Crosthwaite (2014), who investigated use ofbridging reference in unique definite contexts in L2 English of L1 Korean and Mandarin
speakers, using a picture sequence narrative task. Crosthwaite’s experimental data from
native speakers of English, Mandarin, and Korean showed that these three languages
adopt different syntactic strategies to mark uniqueness in bridging reference. 33 English
uses the definite article and the indefinite article to mark uniqueness and non-uniquenessin bridging contexts, respectively. In Mandarin, non-uniqueness is encoded through a
combination of numeral + classifier before the noun, whereas uniqueness is consistently
realised covertly in the form of bare nouns. In Korean, nouns are, in principle, barewhether the referent is unique or non-unique. L2 learners’ data from the English tasksuggested that Mandarin-speaking learners acquired unique bridging reference in L2
English at lower proficiency levels than Korean-speaking counterparts. Crosthwaite
attributed this to L1 difference, namely the contrast between syntactic distinction ofuniqueness in Mandarin and the lack thereof in Korean. That is, grammaticalisation of

Crosthwaite (2014) uses the notion of inferability rather than uniqueness. That is, in uniquebridging contexts, the definite article indicates that a unique referent is inferable whereas the indefinite
article the opposite. However, here I use the term, uniqueness to replace Crosthwaite’s inferability forconvenience.
33

139

uniqueness in the L1 may have facilitated Mandarin-speaking learners in acquiring thegrammaticalisation of the corresponding property in their L2 English. Crosthwaite et al.
(2018) investigated the L2 acquisition of the same property as Crosthwaite (2014) but inthe opposite direction, targeting L2 Mandarin learners from article and article-less L1
backgrounds, namely English and Korean/Japanese. The researchers examined how thoselearners mark definiteness in their L2 Mandarin by using a revised version of the oral
picture sequence narrative task used in Crosthwaite (2014). In Japanese and Korean,unique bridging relations are expressed covertly through bare nouns as in Mandarin
whereas they are encoded overtly with the definite article in English (as detailed in
Chapter 2).
The results suggested that English-speaking learners were more likely to
infelicitously use demonstrative + NPs more than native speakers of Japanese and Korean
in contexts where native speakers of Mandarin rarely used demonstrative + NPs but
mostly used bare NPs instead, as exemplified in (4.28) (jiaoshi ‘classroom’ and laoshi‘teacher’ are considered unique in the presented setting and mentioned for the first time).

(4.28) Introductions of definite reference (in the case of a ‘school’ setting)Tamen liahoulai jiu
Theyhuıdao jiaoshi

both later then return

li

yiqı

ting

laoshiclassroom inside together hearteacher‘They both later returned to the classroom to hear the teacher together.’

The researchers accounted for these results as crosslinguistic effects. That is, thesimilarity between the L1 and the L2 may have triggered positive influence for the
Korean- and Japanese-speaking learners, on the one hand, and the difference between the140L1 and the L2 led to negative transfer for English, on the other. 34 Specifically, they
proposed that L1-English learners of Mandarin used the L2 demonstrative as a de facto
L1 definite article.
Therefore, Crosthwaite et al. (2018)’s findings suggest that crosslinguistictransfer from the L1 definite article onto the L2 demonstrative is possible. Although theirstudy was not framed within the FRH, this transfer in the opposite direction from what
has been discussed in the previous section could also naturally be explained as L1 transferfrom the perspective of the FRH.

4.4 Discussion
Now I will discuss some outstanding questions regarding the following two topics thathave particularly significant implications for the present study: (i) L2 learnability ofbridging reference and L1 transfer, and (ii) semantic categorisation of different types ofdefiniteness.

4.4.1 L2 learnability of bridging reference and L1 transfer
As mentioned in Section 4.2.3, it has been argued that bridging may be an independentsource of difficulty in the L2 computation of definiteness (e.g., Cho, 2017; Feng, 2019).
Since the present study also involves the L2 acquisition of bridging definiteness, namely
bridging with the Japanese demonstrative, sono, the following two questions should be
addressed before acquisition tasks and predictions can be formulated as to the relative

34

However, Crosthwaite et al. (2018) showed that Japanese and Korean learners may not becompletely target-like in non-unique bridging contexts. They reported that those learners often marked
non-unique bridging relations with the form [numeral + classifier + noun], the target form used for(non-unique) non-bridging relations. Since Japanese and Korean use bare nouns in such contexts, thiscannot be attributed to the L1s.

141

difficulty with which to acquire the relevant property.

(4.29) Question 1: Is bridging generally difficult for L2 learners to acquire?

(4.30) Question 2: Are there any crosslinguistic effects in acquiring bridging definiteness?

Within the main framework of the present study, namely the FRH, L1 transfer is expected
in terms of Question 2 but no particular challenge is anticipated in terms of Question 1.
However, if the answer to Question 1 is affirmative, then the challenging nature ofbridging could be a confounding factor in examining crosslinguistic effects subsumed
under the FRH (or any other full transfer account, such as Sprouse, 2006).
Starting with the question of whether bridging is generally difficult for L2
learners, it seems to depend on the context. Recall that although the advanced learners in
Cho (2017) showed non-native-like judgement in bridging definite contexts in general(anaphoric or non-anaphoric), Feng (2019) found that her learners had difficulty only with
non-anaphoric bridging. These results suggest that although bridging may be difficult,because of, for example, the trouble of establishing the implied relation between thebridging referent and its anchor (Cho, 2017), not all bridging contexts are equallychallenging (possibly due to L1 positive transfer, as discussed next). Specifically, whereas
non-anaphoric bridging may pose a persistent challenge due to its extra computational
cost imposed at the semantics-pragmatics interface along the lines of Feng, anaphoric
bridging may not necessarily do so. This is compatible with Cho’s observation that eventhe intermediate learners showed native-like judgements in anaphoric bridging contexts
as they did in direct anaphoric contexts.35 Meanwhile, some studies suggest that even

Cho (2017) argues that this is a case of positive transfer of the features of the L1 demonstrative[+definite, +anaphoric] (section 4.2.3). However, the point here is that the potential challenge posed
35

142

non-anaphoric bridging contexts are not necessarily problematic, either. For example,
consider the results of Ko et al. (2010) and Tuniyan (2018). Although these studies did
not explicitly focus on bridging contexts, they did test L2 article choice in non-anaphoric(unique) definite bridging contexts (i.e., (4.14) and (4.25b)). The participants in thesestudies did not particularly show a sign of difficulty in those contexts. In sum, bridging
definiteness seems potentially difficult to acquire for L2 learners, particularly in nonanaphoric contexts; however, some studies have reported generally target-like
performance in even non-anaphoric contexts. Therefore, the difficulty of bridging
contexts might covary with other factors such as task effects.
Turing to Question 2, there are a number of studies that suggest L1 transfer in
L2 bridging contexts. For example, the intermediate groups in Cho (2017) and Feng(2019) showed target-like performance in contexts where the L1 demonstrative can beused for bridging, namely anaphoric definite bridging. These can be considered positive
L1 influence. Furthermore, Crosthwaite (2014) reported another interesting difference
between L2 English learners from different article-less L1 backgrounds regarding
bridging contexts. Specifically, the L1 grammaticalisation of bridging uniqueness (i.e.,
L1 Mandarin) may help the acquisition of the same property in the L2 whereas the lackthereof in the L1 may result in a delayed acquisition (i.e., L1 Korean). L1 influence has
also been suggested in the L2 acquisition of languages that do not have articles or do not
obligatorily mark definiteness. Specifically, Crosthwaite et al. (2018) documented what
appears to be L1 influence in the non-native Chinese of Korean, Japanese, and English
speakers regarding unique (non-anaphoric) bridging. That is, correspondences between
the L1 and L2 in terms of the relevant bridging contexts (i.e., L1 Korean and Japanese)
resulted in facilitative effects, whereas mismatches thereof may lead to persistentby anaphoric definite bridging seems to get overridden by such a facilitative effect relatively easily
compared to the difficulty with non-anaphoric definite bridging.

143difficulties (i.e., L1 English).

4.4.2 Semantics of different definitenessNow let me discuss how different definite contexts should be semantically categorised bycomparing approaches by Ko et al. (2010), Cho (2017), and Tuniyan (2018). In what
follows, I will first compare Ko et al. (2010) with Tuniyan (2018) and then Cho (2017)with Tuniyan (2018). The first comparison mainly concerns overuse of the definite article
in indefinite contexts, and the second the distinction between different bridging contexts.
The main difference between Ko et al. (2010) and Tuniyan (2018) lies in what
is assumed to cause misuse of the L2 definite article in indefinite contexts. Ko et al. argue
that it is because L2 learners associate presuppositionality with the definite article
whereas Tuniyan contends that it is anaphoricity rather than presuppositionality. They
make similar predictions in many contexts. For example, they both predict misuse of thedefinite article in indefinite contexts where a set that includes the referent denoted by thetarget noun has been already introduced ([−definite, +partitive, (+presuppositional)] in
Ko et al. (4.10a); [−unique, +anaphoric] in Tuniyan (4.26a–b)). However, they offerdifferent predictions in terms of whether there is a contrast between unique bridging andout-of-the-blue definite contexts ( [+definite, +partitive, (+presuppositional)] (4.14) vs.
[+definite, −partitive, (+presuppositional)] (4.15) in Ko et al.; [+unique, +anaphoric](4.25b) vs. [+unique, −anaphoric] (4.25c) in Tuniyan). That is, on Ko et al.’s
presuppositionality account, target-like use of the is predicted in both contexts equally(hence no contrast) whereas on Tuniyan’s anaphoricity account, target-like use is
expected more in unique bridging contexts.36 Therefore, some form of difficulty with
out-of-the-blue definite contexts is expected on Tuniyan’s account but not Ko’s. However,

However, unique bridging contexts may be challenging for a different reason as discussed in theprevious section.
36

144

this prediction has not been borne out. In fact, the unpredicted target use of the by lower
proficient learners in the out-of-the-blue definite ([+unique, −anaphoric]) contexts foundin Tuniyan is more compatible with Ko et al.’s account. In sum, since no definitive
evidence has been provided to support Tuniyan’s anaphoricity account against Ko’s
presuppositionality account, it can be said that the latter is, though tentatively, empiricallymore plausible.
Meanwhile, Cho (2017) and Tuniyan (2018) categorise bridging definite
contexts in distinct ways, using different characterisations of anaphoricity. Whichapproach is more plausible on theoretical and empirical grounds? Firstly, let me clarify
how different the concept of anaphoricity is between Cho and Tuniyan. Cho closely
follows Schwarz’s (2009) division of definiteness by assigning distinct feature sets toanaphoric (i.e., familiar definite) and non-anaphoric (i.e., unique definite) bridging. In
contrast, Tuniyan seems to treat both types of bridging as anaphoric, since she treats
unique (non-anaphoric in Cho’s terms) definite bridging as [+unique, +anaphoric] ((4.22)
and (4.25b)). Although Tuniyan did not examine what corresponds to anaphoric definite
bridging in Cho’s terms, this type of bridging should be expressed as [+familiar,+anaphoric] in Tuniyan’s approach. That is, the main difference concerns thecategorisation of unique bridging: it is [−anaphoric] in Cho but [+anaphoric] in Tuniyan.
Another difference between Cho (2017) and Tuniyan (2018) lies in what features are
assumed to transfer from the L1 demonstrative onto the L2 definite article. Cho proposesthat L2 learners associate the whole feature set of the L1 demonstrative, [+definite,+anaphoric] with the L2 definite article. However, Tuniyan argues that they transfer only[+anaphoric] on the grounds that the L1 demonstratives are typically used in [+anaphoric]
contexts. 37 Therefore, Cho predicts more target-like performance in familiar definite

Tuniyan (2018) also assumes that demonstratives represent the feature set of [+familiar,±anaphoric], unlike Cho’s (2017) set of [+definite, +anaphoric]. Tuniyan presents (i) as an illustration
37

145

bridging contexts than in unique definite bridging contexts whereas Tuniyan does notexpect such a contrast.
One theoretical problem with Tuniyan’s (2018) proposal is that it does not seemstraightforward enough why learners map only [+anaphoric] from the L1 demonstrative
onto the L2 definite article. Put differently, it seems unclear why [+familiar (=+definite)]is not subject to transfer. On the other hand, Cho analyses the L1 demonstrative feature
set as [+definite, +anaphoric] and assumes the features to be transferred all together.
Although Tuniyan argues that L2 learners tend to associate the L2 definite article with[+anaphoric] because the L1 demonstrative is most typically used in anaphoric contexts,
this does not explain why [+familiar (+definite)] does not transfer together with[+anaphoric]. Since demonstratives invariably express [+familiar (+definite)], it seems
more plausible to assume that this feature also transfers, in line with Cho (2017).
Furthermore, Tuniyan’s feature analysis fails to capture the crosslinguistic division
between the two types of bridging, namely non-anaphoric and anaphoric bridging (inCho’s terms), which are attested in a number of languages as shown in Chapter 2.
Additionally, Cho’s account has gained more empirical support than Tuniyan’s. That is,
the results of studies testing both types of bridging such as Cho (2017) and Feng (2019)show that learners seem more target-like in familiar bridging contexts than uniqueof use of demonstratives in [+familiar, −anaphoric] contexts, where the referent is salient through thepresence of the perceptually most salient antecedent (as in the definition of familiarity by Tuniyan in(4.23)).
(i) Visible situation with more than one referent, one of which is more perceptually salient
That/the cat is hungry.
(Tuniyan, 2018, p. 105)
This appears to be a case of deictic/exophoric use, which typically has to be accompanied by a pointing
gesture of some sort (Chapter 3). Since Tuniyan did not examine this context experimentally, and thepresent study only concerns anaphoric use of demonstratives, following Cho and Schwartz (2009), I
assume [+familiar (+definite), +anaphoric] as the target feature. It is beyond the scope of the present
thesis whether demonstratives should be analysed as [+definite, ±anaphoric] or [+definite, +anaphoric].

146

bridging contexts (section 4.2.3). This supports Cho’s account rather than Tuniyan’s.
Therefore, both theoretically and empirically, Cho’s proposal seems to be a better choicethan Tuniyan’s.38
In conclusion, the most reasonable way to go about approaching L2
definiteness seems to be a combination of Ko et al. (2010) and Cho (2017). That is,whereas misuse of L2 articles in indefinite contexts is due to the effect of semantic
universals, the contrast between definite contexts in terms of use of the L2 definite article
is attributed to the transfer of L1 demonstratives, specifically [+definite, +anaphoric] in
Cho’s terms.

4.5 Implications for the present study
To conclude, let me discuss some key implications that the previous findings and thediscussions above have for the present study.
Firstly, the previous findings suggest that the FRH is an appropriate framework
for exploring the L2 acquisition of definiteness marking by demonstratives in article-lesslanguages. Specifically, it seems possible that article L1 learners of an article-less L2
transfer the features of the L1 definite article onto L2 demonstratives due to their semantic
and functional similarities, as predicted by the FRH and suggested in Crosthwaite et al.
(2018). Therefore, the FRH is a promising approach to the L2 acquisition of definitenessrelated properties of the Japanese demonstrative, sono. In particular, L1 transfer (whether
positive or negative) may occur in acquiring definite marking by the demonstrative,
including its bridging definiteness properties.
Secondly, bridging may be generally challenging to L2 learners, and this canLike Tuniyan (2018), Ko et al.’s (2010) presuppositionality account does not predict an asymmetry
between familiar/anaphoric vs. unique/non-anaphoric bridging contexts in terms of target use of thedefinite article because both are definite thus presuppositional by definition.
38

147

be an obstacle for research within the FRH including the present study. If, as Cho (2017)
argues, bridging cause difficulty for L2 learners in general, then learners may have trouble
in bridging contexts whether anaphoric or non-anaphoric even with corresponding
properties in the L1 (e.g., L1 Korean L2 Japanese). Crucially, it is possible that facilitative
L1 transfer predicted by the FRH is overridden by the pragmatics-based challenge posedby bridging, resulting in non-target-like performance regardless of the L1. Anaphoric
definiteness marking with the demonstrative, sono, a target property in the present study,
also allows for bridging. The main purpose of the present study is not to investigate L2
acquirability of bridging, but rather to examine whether L2 learners develop theirknowledge of the demonstrative in the way predicted within the FRH (i.e., whether they
are constrained by the L1 transfer). Therefore, in order to reduce the risk of obscuringpotential L1 differences, the present study does not examine non-anaphoric (unique)bridging contexts, which seem particularly difficult for L2 learners (e.g., Cho, 2017; Feng,2019).
Another thing to consider in testing bridging contexts in article-less L2s is the
choice of methodology. Recall that what seems to be positive L1 transfer has been foundfrom the production data presented by Crosthwaite et al. (2018), a study focusing on
bridging in an article-less L2 (Mandarin). That is, Japanese- and Korean-speaking
learners showed target-like production of bare nouns in Mandarin unique definite
bridging contexts, as opposed to English-speaking counterparts, who did not. However,this kind of target-like performance should be interpreted with caution. Although therelevant data suggests that learners know unique bridging can be expressed with barenouns, it does not constitute evidence that they also know the form, [demonstrative +noun] is infelicitous. For example, they may simply have preferred bare nouns in general,
because bare nouns are the default form in their L1s. In order to rule out such a possibility,
knowledge about infelicity should also be tested, and to that end, judgement tasks will be148more informative. Therefore, the present study uses an acceptability judgement task as a
primary measure for tapping into the knowledge about contexts in which the Japanesedemonstrative is (in)felicitous.
Finally, as to the characterisation of different definite contexts in terms offeatures, Cho (2017)’s semantic analysis seems empirically and theoretically sounder than
Tuniyan’s (2018). Therefore, following Cho, the present thesis adopts the feature
specifications given in (4.31) for different determiners, and (4.32) for bridging contexts:(4.31) Demonstratives:
Definite articles:[+definite, +anaphoric][+definite, ±anaphoric](4.32) Familiar bridging: [+definite, +anaphoric]
Unique bridging: [+definite, −anaphoric]
What has been discussed in this section feeds into the design of the present study (to be
described in detail in Chapter 6) and will be revisited in light of the experimental results(in Chapter 9).

149

Chapter 5: The present study: acquisition tasks andpredictions
5.1 Introduction
In this chapter, acquisition tasks and predictions for relative ease/difficulty are describedfor each target Japanese property and for L2 learners from each L1 background (i.e.,
English and Korean). The Japanese properties under investigation are reiterated in (5.1)
and (5.3) with corresponding or related Korean and English properties in (5.2) and (5.4).
Note that these are the generally agreed properties of sono and the Japanese NQs
discussed in Chapter 3.

(5.1) Target properties of the Japanese demonstrative sonoSono must be anaphoric thus cannot be used to mark non-anaphoric (i.e.,
unique) definiteness.

Sono can be used in indirectly anaphoric (i.e., bridging) contexts, as well as
directly anaphoric contexts.

(5.2) English and Korean properties relevant to the Japanese properties in (5.1)


The Korean demonstrative ku has the same properties as Japanese sono in(5.1).

The English demonstrative that can be used in directly anaphoric contexts
like sono and ku, but cannot be used for bridging anaphoric contexts.

The English definite article the can be used in definite contexts whether thereferent is anaphoric (including bridging) or non-anaphoric.

150

(5.3) Target properties of Japanese NQ constructions


The Japanese floating NQ construction must be indefinite, but the postnominal NQ construction can be either indefinite or definite.

(5.4) English and Korean properties relevant to the Japanese properties in (5.3)


The Korean floating and post-nominal NQ constructions have the same
properties as their Japanese counterparts in (5.3).

English does not allow floating or post-nominal NQ construction (, only
allowing the pre-nominal NQ construction).

Assuming these properties as given (the Japanese properties in (5.1) and (5.3) have indeed
been attested in experimental settings, as shown in the next chapter), I will describe
acquisition tasks and predict relative ease/difficulty of those tasks, on the basis of the
Feature Reassembly Hypothesis (FRH) (Lardiere, 2008, 2009) and the cline of difficultyin feature acquisition (Cho & Slabakova, 2014; Slabakova, 2009). Although morenuanced predictions will be provided later in Chapter 6 in light of the findings ofexperimental studies with native Japanese speakers regarding the disputed properties(discussed in Chapter 3), the predictions will remain essentially similar to the way they
are presented in this chapter.
In what follows, acquisition tasks and their relative ease/difficulty in thetargeted learner groups (L1-Korean and L1-English) are first outlined focussing on eachphenomenon. Then, after a brief discussion of some confounding factors, the chapter
concludes with overall predictions for the research questions presented in Chapter 1.

1515.2 Overt definiteness marking with the demonstrative sono
5.2.1 Acquisition tasks
Starting with the properties of sono, as stated in Chapter 4, I assume with Cho (2017) and
Schwartz (2009) that anaphoric and non-anaphoric (unique) definiteness encode thefeature sets of [+definite, +anaphoric] and [+definite, −anaphoric], respectively.
Therefore, feature specifications of the Japanese, Korean, and English lexical items
relevant in this thesis (i.e., sono, ku, the, and that) can be summarised as in Table 5.1.
Note that the availability for bridging use is indicated as the [bridging] feature:[−bridging] means that bridging use is not possible whereas [±bridging] means thatbridging use is optionally available (i.e., possible in bridging contexts).39

Table 5.1 Crosslinguistic differences between English determiners and Japanese andKorean demonstratives
Lexical item
Japanese
KoreanEnglish

sono
ku
the
that

Feature specification[+definite, +anaphoric, ±bridging][+definite, +anaphoric, ±bridging][+definite, ±anaphoric, ±bridging][+definite, +anaphoric, −bridging]

According to the FRH, L2 learners will map the features of the L1 lexical items onto theL2 counterparts on the basis of perceived semantic and functional similarities. If there isa mismatch in feature specification between the relevant L1 and L2 items, they will haveto reconfigure the initially mapped feature set into the target by means of available input.
Thus, the feature overlaps between the lexical items in Table 5.1 may lead to L1-to-L2

The notation of “[±bridging]” is only for convenience, namely for the purpose of describing distinct
properties of the Japanese/Korean demonstratives and the English determiners. In other words, there
is no intention of proposing that such a pragmatic feature exists.
39

152

mappings as elucidated below. (Since the cline of difficulty makes the same assumption
as the FRH in terms of L1-to-L2 feature transfer, the description of acquisition tasks basedon the FRH below also applies to the cline of difficulty.)
Korean-speaking learners are predicted to map the features of ku onto sono.
Once this initial mapping task is completed, no subsequent change to the L1-based
features is required (i.e., feature reassembly is unnecessary), since ku and sono seem tobe syntactically and semantically alike (as detailed in Chapter 3).
As to English-speaking learners, however, the situation seems more
complicated, given the similarities between sono and the on the one hand, and between
sono and that, on the other (as shown in Chapter 3). Specifically, there are at least threepossibilities as follows:(5.5) Possible scenarios for L1-English learners’ acquisition of sono

Scenario 1: The features of the are mapped onto sono.



Scenario 2: The features of that are mapped onto sono.



Scenario 3: The features of the and that are both mapped onto sono.

Scenario 1 is where L1-English learners associate the features of the with sonopresumably due to the similarities between these two lexical items in anaphoric definite
contexts (i.e., both can be used anaphorically whether directly or indirectly anaphoric).
The features of the ([+definite, ±anaphoric , ±bridging]) may be chosen over the featuresof that, ([+definite, +anaphoric, −bridging]) because the positive input relevant to sono([+definite, +anaphoric, ±bridging]) may prevent the learner from associating that withsono due to the feature clash in terms of [bridging] (i.e., [−bridge] of that clashes with[±bridge] of sono); in contrast, [±anaphoric] of the can accommodate [+anaphoric] of153sono, hence no clash. Furthermore, although sono, like that, is [+anaphoric], the absenceof sono in [−anaphoric] contexts would not provide strong evidence for learners to assume
that sono is restricted to [+anaphoric]. An empirical motivation for this mapping is
Crosthwaite et al.’s (2018) observation that their English-speaking learners of L2
Mandarin appeared to (infelicitously) equate the L2 Mandarin demonstrative (nei) with
the English definite article. Additionally, Cho (2017) suggests transfer of the features of
the L1 (Korean) demonstrative onto the L2 (English) article (see Chapter 4). Despite
being in the opposite learning direction (i.e., article-less L1 to article L2 rather than article
L1 to article-less L2), this can be taken as supporting evidence for crosslinguistic
mappings between demonstratives and definite articles. In Scenario 1, the relevantreassembly task for English-speaking learners is to constrain the [anaphoric] feature, from[±anaphoric] to [−anaphoric].
In Scenario 2, English-speaking learners initially map the features of that onto
sono, motivated by the [+anaphoric] feature shared by them. L2 instruction may also playa role in biasing learners towards this mapping. Although anaphoric use of sono
(especially in bridging contexts) is not usually taught in Japanese language education, its
exophoric or deictic use is typically introduced at a relatively early stage (confirmed byseveral Japanese language teachers and an inspection of widely used Japanese
textbooks).40 Moreover, in instruction or textbooks targeting English-speaking learners,
deictic sono is commonly treated as a translation equivalent of English that. 41 Suchpedagogical practices may lead learners to map onto sono the features of that ([+definite,+anaphoric, −bridging]) rather than of the. The reassembly task in this case would be to

The consulted textbooks were the Genki series (Banno, Ohno, Sakane, Shinagawa, & Takashiki,
1999) and the Minna-no-Nihongo ‘Japanese for All’ series (3A Network, 1998).
41 For example, one of the most widely used textbooks for English-speaking beginning to intermediate
learners of Japanese, Genki series (Banno et al., 1999) introduces deictic sono in its second lesson of
the first volume (p. 32), where it is simply translated as that.
40154

extend the [bridging] feature, from [−bridging] to [±bridging].
Finally, in Scenario 3, learners map the features of both the and that onto sonopresumably due to the perceptually equivalent degrees of semantic and functional
similarities of the and that with sono. However, there are at least two theoreticallyconceivable subcases of Scenario 3 as follows:(5.6) Subcases of Scenario 3:
 Scenario 3A: Learners create a single lexical entry for sono and map the featuresof both the and that onto it.
 Scenario 3B: Learners create two lexical entries for sono, mapping the featuresof the onto one and the features of that onto the other.

On the behavioural level, in either case, learners are expected to initially allow sono where
either the or that is possible (i.e., in definite contexts including bridging, whether it isanaphoric or non-anaphoric). Empirical support for such behaviour comes from, forexample, Ionin et al.’s (2012) finding that Korean-speaking English learners apparently
tend to map the meaning and function of the L1 demonstrative (ku) onto both the and that(see Chapter 4). On the conceptual level, however, the two subcases can be distinguished
as illustrated below.
In Scenario 3A, initially mapped onto the single lexical entry would be theunion of the feature sets of the and that, namely [+definite, ±anaphoric, ±bridging] (thesame as Scenario 1). The relevant feature reassembly task would be then the restrictionof the feature [±anaphoric] to [+anaphoric] (again, the same as Scenario 1). In Scenario
3B, on the other hand, two lexical entries are created, one with the features [+definite,±anaphoric, ±bridging] (i.e., the) and one with the features [+definite, +anaphoric,155

−bridging] (i.e., that). Scenario 3B could be further divided into two paths after this initial
mapping stage. In order to complete the acquisition of sono, learners are, in theory,
required to select one of the two lexical entries at some point and adjust its featurecomposition to the target ([+definite, +anaphoric, ±bridging]). The relevant featurereassembly then varies depending on which lexical entry is selected. If learners go withthe entry with the features of the ([+definite, ±anaphoric, ±bridging]), the reassembly task
would be to restrict the anaphoricity feature ([±anaphoric] => [+anaphoric]) (the same as
Scenarios 1 and 3A). On the other hand, when the entry with the features of that([+definite, +anaphoric, −bridging]) is chosen, the learners’ task would be to relax thebridging feature ([−bridging] => [±bridging]) (the same as Scenario 2).
In sum, whereas Korean-speaking learners are expected to map the features ofku onto the with no reassembly task to be done, there are several possibilities for Englishspeaking learners in terms of what features they initially map onto sono; and the relevant
feature reassembly task differs accordingly. With each scenario empirically andtheoretically motivated in different ways, it seems ultimately an empirical question which
will be true. Next, let us consider the relative ease/difficulty of each acquisition task above.

5.2.2 Relative ease/difficulty and acquisition order
Table 5.2 summarises the possible acquisition scenarios for each L1 group discussed in
the previous section.

156

Table 5.2 Summary of acquisition scenarios for each L1 group
L1-Korean

Initial mapping
L1 ku = L2 sono[+definite, +anaphoric, ±bridging]

Feature reassembly
not necessary

L1-English

Scenario 1

Initial mapping

Feature reassembly

L1 the = L2 sono[+definite, ±anaphoric,±bridging][±anaphoric]=> [−anaphoric]

Initial mapping

Feature reassembly

L1 that = L2 sono[+definite, +anaphoric,−bridging][−bridging]=> [±bridging]

Initial mapping

Feature reassembly

L1 the/that = L2 sono[+definite, ±anaphoric,±bridging][±anaphoric]=> [−anaphoric]

Initial mapping

Feature reassembly(i) L1 the = L2 sono[+definite, ±anaphoric,±bridging]If (i) is selected,[±anaphoric]=> [−anaphoric](ii) L1 that = L2 sono[+definite, +anaphoric,−bridging]If (ii) is selected,[−bridging]=> [±bridging]

Scenario 2

Scenario 3A

Scenario 3B

The key point in predicting relative ease/difficulty is that no feature reassembly isrequired for L1-Korean learners whereas some feature reassembly is necessary for L1English learners in any of the presented scenarios. On accounts that postulate L1 transfer
of lexical features including the FRH, the relevant properties of sono are predicted to be
more difficult for English-speaking learners than Korean-speaking learners. Thus,

157

Korean-speaking learners will acquire the properties of sono earlier, or more easily, thanEnglish speakers. Crucially, this prediction remains essentially the same, irrespective of
which scenario holds true with English-speaking learners. However, the relative
ease/difficulty that L1 English learners will experience may depend on the acquisition
task. More precisely, which features to select for the initial mapping potentially influences
the achievability of the subsequent feature reassembly task. For example, it has beenargued that to constrain a superset grammar to its subset may be impossible because someform of negative evidence is necessary (e.g., Inagaki, 2001; Trahey & White, 1993). Thismeans that the task of constraining the feature [±anaphoric] to [+anaphoric] (Scenarios 1,
3A, and 3B(i)) may be more challenging than that of relaxing the feature [−bridging] to[±bridging] (Scenarios 2 and 3B(ii)). In relaxing a feature set, no serious learnability
problem is expected, since such a task can be motivated by means of positive evidence(i.e., instances of sono in [+bridging] contexts) only. However, in constraining a feature
distribution, acquisition may be delayed if negative evidence necessary for the featurereassembly (i.e., the information that use of sono is infelicitous in non-anaphoric definite
contexts) is scarce. Indeed, this seems to be the case: the examination of a selection of
widely used Japanese textbooks along with informal consultation with several Japanese
language teachers confirms that the incompatibility of sono with non-anaphoric (unique)definiteness are not explicitly taught. Thus, it can be predicted that English-speaking
learners may not be able to complete the feature reassembly task, although some(typically advanced) learners might be, as observed in some previous studies investigating
L2 learners under similar learnability problems of retreating from an L1-based
representation to a more constrained target (e.g., Gabriele, 2009; Marsden, Whong, & Gil,
2018; Slabakova, 2006).
In sum, Korean-speaking learners are predicted to acquire the relevant
properties of sono generally earlier, or more easily, than English-speaking counterparts.

158

As to L1-English learners, however, the learnability of the properties may vary dependingon which acquisition task they are expected to tackle. When the feature reassembly task
involves constraining a feature set (Scenarios 1, 3A, and 3B(i)), it is predicted to be morechallenging than the task of extending the distribution of features (Scenarios 2 and 3B(ii)).
(What task is tackled by English-speaking learners will be discussed in light ofexperimental findings in Chapter 9.)

5.3 Covert definiteness marking with numeral quantifier
constructions
5.3.1 Acquisition tasks
As a prerequisite to the acquisition to the definiteness constraint, learners must know theessential properties of Japanese NQs: namely, that Japanese numerals need to combine
appropriate classifiers; and that NQs can occur in multiple positions including postnominal and floating positions. Taking the Minimalist view that the main task of language
acquisition is to assemble relevant features on lexical items in the target language, it canbe understood that learners must acquire a set of features that allow post-nominal andfloating NQ constructions as well as their semantic properties (specifics of these features
are not discussed here, for simplicity, because predictions can be made based on the
crosslinguistic differences).42
Now let us consider what learners from each L1 background need to acquire
about the Japanese NQs. Assuming that Japanese and Korean NQs encode the same setof features (hence the corresponding properties), the FRH predicts that Korean-speaking
learners of Japanese will map those features from Korean NQs onto the Japanese

42

Details of the features will be relevant to the discussion of the main experimental results in Chapter

9.

159

counterparts once they detect Japanese NQs. The parallelism between Japanese andKorean in the syntax-semantics of NQs means that no feature reassembly is necessary for
Korean-speaking learners with regard to the definiteness constraint on floating NQs. In
contrast, English-speaking learners must learn the relevant features without benefit of L1
knowledge. One possible prediction based on the FRH is that they will map the properties
of English NQs onto Japanese NQs. In this case, the reassembly task should involve
acquiring the following three mismatches between Japanese and English NQs.

(5.7) a. Japanese numerals must combine with appropriate classifiers in contrast to
English numerals, which do not.
b. Japanese NQs can appear in post-nominal and floating positions in contrast to
English NQs, which can appear only in pre-nominal position.
c. Japanese NQs must be indefinite in floating position in contrast to English
counterparts which can be definite or indefinite.

Whereas the properties of Japanese NQs in (5.7a) and (5.7b) are, in principle, acquirable
based on positive evidence, the acquisition of (5.7c) may cause a learnability problem for
English-speaking learners. That is, acquisition of the lack of definite interpretation for
floating NQs is not motivated by information available to learners either through input or
the L1. It is possible that L2 learners could make use of L2 instruction as negative
evidence. However, the definiteness constraint on floating NQs does not seem to becovered in L2 Japanese language instruction (according to the consultation with theJapanese language instructors and the textbook inspection mentioned above). Therefore,
the acquisition of the constraint seems to constitute a poverty-of-the-stimulus (POS)
problem for English-speaking speakers. This learnability problem is discussed further in160the next section.

5.3.2 Relative ease/difficulty and acquisition order
The relative ease/difficulty of the L2 acquisition of the covert definiteness property ofJapanese NQs varies depending on whether the FRH or the cline of difficulty approach isadopted, as shown below. In what follows, predictions will be provided first based on the
FRH followed by the cline of difficulty.
To repeat, the key factor for the FRH is the necessity of feature reassembly.
Generally, the relevant property will be harder to acquire when feature reassembly isrequired than when it is not. L1-Korean learners are then predicted to acquire theproperties of the Japanese NQs faster, or more easily, than L1-English learners as a resultof L1 positive transfer. On the other hand, whether English-speaking learners can acquire
the definiteness constraint on Japanese floating NQs seems an empirical question,
particularly given the POS problem for L1-English learners discussed above. However,given the previous findings suggesting that L2 learners can overcome such a learnability
problem by virtue of the domain-specific syntax-semantics computation mechanisms (i.e.,
UG) (cited in Chapter 2), the definiteness constraint may be acquirable despite the POS.
The most directly relevant empirical support for this possibility comes from Okuma(2019). Okuma provides evidence that L1-English learners can acquire what seems to beanother POS property of Japanese NQ constructions, namely the semantic constraint thatfloating NQs cannot have a collective reading as opposed to post-nominal NQs, which
can (see Chapter 2).
Now looking at the situation from the standpoint of the cline of difficulty, there
is, along with feature reassembly necessity, another important factor, namely overt vs.
covert feature realisation (i.e., whether the relevant feature is expressed overtly with aparticular morpheme, or covertly through context or word order). In this view, the161definiteness constraint on floating NQs vs. the absence thereof with post-nominal NQs
can be regarded as a covert property because it is expressed through word order (asdiscussed in Chapter 2). The predictions of the cline of difficulty for six types ofacquisition task are repeated in Figure 5.1.

Figure 5.1 Cline of difficulty in feature acquisition (adapted from Cho & Slabakova 2014,
p. 166)

As discussed in Chapter 2, the cline of difficulty suggests the following.

(5.8) a. Covert feature realisation is predicted to be more challenging to acquire than overt
realisation.
b. In acquiring the covert realisation of a feature, an L1 overt realisation of thatfeature benefits learners more than an L1 corresponding covert realisation.

(5.8a) means that regardless of the L1, the covert definiteness property of the Japanese
NQs is predicted to be more difficult to acquire than the overt property of sono (I will
come back to this later in Section 5.5). More importantly here, (5.8b) leads to theprediction that the English-speaking learners may acquire the covert property of the NQs
with less difficulty than Korean-speaking learners as a result of facilitation from the L1
functional morphology for definiteness (the English articles) (i.e., the task for the L1-

162

English group corresponds to the fourth point on the cline, whereas for the L1-Koreangroup to the fifth point). Note that this does not necessarily mean that the corresponding
L1 covert property (i.e., the definiteness constraint on Korean NQs) will not have afacilitative effect. But it rather suggests that the degree of facilitation may be weaker thanthat of the L1 overt morphology (i.e., the English articles).
Before presenting predictions to address the research questions, let us consider
some potential confounding factors that might affect the learnability of the target
properties.

5.4 Potential confounding factors
Firstly, given the Interface Hypothesis (Sorace, 2011; Sorace & Filiaci, 2006), L2 learners
may have persistent difficulty acquiring definiteness properties, which require integrationof relevant syntax-semantics knowledge (i.e., internal components of the grammar) withdiscoursal/pragmatic information (i.e., external components). This may be the caseregardless of whether feature reassembly is necessary or whether features are overt orcovert.
Another factor, which is specifically relevant to the acquisition of sono, is thepotentially challenging nature of bridging (i.e., contexts where anaphoric relations are
expressed indirectly). If bridging is generally difficult for L2 learners for pragmatic
reasons such as presupposition accommodation, as discussed in Chapter 4, in relation to
Cho (2017), then sono is expected to be more difficult to acquire in indirectly anaphoric(i.e., bridging) than directly anaphoric contexts. This means that even if learners havecorrectly assembled the target feature set of [+definite, +anaphoric, ±bridging] onto sono,
they may behave in a less target-like manner in bridging anaphoric than directly anaphoric
contexts.
These factors are not taken into account in outlining overall predictions in the163next section for simplicity but will be considered later in the discussion of the main study
results (Chapter 9).

5.5 Conclusion: overall predictions
Finally, let me conclude the chapter by presenting overall predictions for the researchquestions, which were introduced in Chapter 1 and repeated as (5.9–5.11), based on thediscussions above.

(5.9) Research question 1:
Is a covert feature expression more difficult to acquire than an overt feature
expression?

(5.10) Research question 2:
Does the necessity of feature reassembly make the acquisition task more difficult?

(5.11) Research question 3:
In which situation is the acquisition of a covert feature expression less difficult, (i)when the L1 has a functional morpheme that realises the feature overtly or (ii) whenthe L1 has a corresponding covert expression?

Starting with Research question 1, the cline of difficulty maintains that theanswer is yes (the FRH does not offer a testable prediction). That is, the covert
definiteness property of Japanese NQs is predicted to be more difficult than the overt
property of sono.
Turning to Research question 2, the FRH and the cline of difficulty both predictthat the necessity of feature reassembly makes the task more difficult. This means that the164property of sono is predicted to be more difficult to acquire for English-speaking learners
than Korean-speaking counterparts.
As to Research question 3, the FRH and the cline of difficulty make distinct
predictions. In terms of the FRH, what is crucial is whether the L1 has a corresponding
property or not. This means that learners are expected to acquire a covert property withless difficulty when a corresponding covert L1 property exists than when not. Therefore,
Korean learners are predicted to acquire the definiteness property of Japanese NQs faster,or more easily, than English learners: having a functional morpheme that overtly realises
the relevant property will not be an advantage for L1-English learners over L1-Koreancounterparts. In contrast, the cline of difficulty predicts that L1-English learners will
acquire the Japanese covert definiteness property faster, or more easily, than L1-Koreanlearners. From the perspective of the cline of difficulty, the challenge pertaining to L2
covert property acquisition would be better alleviated with an L1 overt realisation of therelevant property through functional morphology (i.e., the English articles) than with an
L1 corresponding covert property (i.e., the definite constraint on Korean NQs).
The predictions for each research question are summarised in Table 5.3. (5.12)
and (5.13) present the predictions in ways more specific to the present thesis (“x > y”
means x is acquired faster, or more easily, than y). These predictions are evaluated in theexperimental results to be reported in later chapters.

165

Table 5.3 Summary of predictions for each research question (RQ)
Approach

RQ1

RQ2

RQ3

FRH
Cline of difficulty

N/A
Yes

Yes
Yes

(ii)
(i)

(5.12) FRH approach

L1-Korean: sono > L1-English: sono



L1-Korean: NQs > L1-English: NQs(5.13) Cline of difficulty approach
L1-Korean: sono > L1-English: sono > L1-English: NQs > L1-Korean: NQs

166

Chapter 6: Experiment design and preliminary studies
with native Japanese speakers
6.1 Introduction
This chapter reports on a series of experimental studies with native Japanese speakers
conducted to check that those properties of the target phenomena that are agreed in theliterature are measurable, and to investigate which of the competing accounts best
describes the disputed properties (discussed in Chapter 3 and repeated below).

(6.1) Properties of the demonstrative sono
Agreed:The use of sono is preferred in direct anaphoric contexts over bare forms.



The use of sono is infelicitous in non-anaphoric (i.e., unique) definite
contexts.

The use of sono is felicitous in bridging (anaphoric) definite contexts.

Disputed:

Whether the use of sono is preferred over bare forms in bridging contexts.

(6.2) Properties of NQs
Agreed

Floating NQs are acceptable only in [−definite] contexts.

Post-nominal NQs are acceptable in [+definite] contexts.

Disputed:

Whether floating NQs are acceptable in [+specific, −definite] contexts.

167



Whether post-nominal NQs are acceptable in [−specific, −definite]
contexts.

Native Japanese data were collected by means of two acceptability judgement tasks(AJTs) and two self-paced reading tasks (SPRTs) in total. Another important objectiveof these studies was to carefully develop testing materials for the main studies thatinvolve L2 learners (reported in subsequent chapters), by fine-tuning the experimental
design and test instruments in light of experimental data. Chronologically, the pilot
studies were conducted in the order shown in (6.3) but the AJTs will be reported before
the SPRTs below.

(6.3) AJT ver. 1 => SPRT ver. 1 => SPRT ver. 2 = AJT ver. 2(“ x = y” means x and y were conducted concurrently.)

It will be shown that all agreed properties are experimentally observable offline, bymeans of untimed AJTs, but not online, by means of SPRTs. As to the disputed
properties, the following conclusions will be drawn based on AJT results.

(6.4) Bare NPs are as acceptable as sono NPs in bridging anaphoric contexts.

(6.5) Floating NQs are acceptable in [+specific, −definite] contexts whereas postnominal NQs are acceptable in [−specific, −definite] contexts.

In what follows, after rationales for the choice of method are provided, theseries of experimental studies is presented. Pilot AJT ver. 1 is reported first, focusing
mainly on the results concerning the disputed properties of NQs. Then, Pilot AJT ver.

168

2 will be presented with a view to providing further evidence of the definitenessconstraint of NQs and the agreed and disputed properties of sono. As to the SPRTs,
after stating some key assumptions in the self-paced reading paradigm and describing
the postulated processing mechanisms for the target linguistic properties, I will outline
the experiment designs of the two studies together (Pilot SPRTs ver. 1 and ver. 2),
followed by their key findings. Finally, implications of the overall findings will be
discussed in relation to the acquisition tasks and predictions for the research questions
offered in the previous chapter.
All pilot experiments reported in the present thesis were approved by theLanguage & Linguistic Science ethics committee at the University of York and theprocedure always included gaining informed consent from participants before
participation. Furthermore, all statistical analyses of experimental data reported in thethesis were conducted in R environment (R Core Team, 2018).

6.2 Rationales for combining online and offline methods
The present thesis employs two different methods, namely an untimed AJT and an
SPRT. Explicit judgement tasks such as AJTs have been widely employed in L2
acquisition research for decades, for its advantage of explicitly testing what is
unacceptable as well as what is acceptable: this would not be achievable with othermeasures such as production or comprehension (e.g., Cowart, 1997; Schütze, 1996;
Spinner & Gass, 2019). In recent years, it has become more commonplace that explicit
offline tasks are combined with online (i.e., real-time processing) methods such as theself-paced reading and eye-tracking paradigms. Generally, online tasks are assumed
to tap into more implicit and automated linguistic knowledge than offline methods
such as grammaticality/acceptability judgement tasks, which arguably require more
explicit metalinguistic reasoning on the part of participants (e.g., Ellis, 2005, 2006;

169

Jiang, 2012; Orfitelli & Polinsky, 2017). Among the most obvious and primary
motives for combining offline and online tasks are triangulation, and maximisation of
the chance of obtaining evidence for relevant underlying linguistic knowledge. Indeed,a number of studies using both kinds of method have reported that target phenomena
were observed with only one type of method but not in the other. For example, it has
been documented that L2 learners tend to be less target-like in explicit tasks such as
grammaticality/acceptability judgement than in implicit tasks such as self-paced
reading. Some attribute this to extra cognitive demand of metalinguistic reasoning
imposed on L2 learners in performing explicit judgment tasks (e.g., Hopp, 2009; Ionin,
Choi, & Liu, 2019; Orfitelli & Polinsky, 2017). On the other hand, others showed moretarget-like performance in offline tasks compared to online tasks (e.g., Hopp, 2010;
Roberts, Gullberg, & Indefrey, 2008; Roberts & Liszka, 2013). One accountcompatible with such observations is the Morphological Congruence Hypothesis (e.g.,
Jiang, Novokshanova, Masuda, & Wang, 2011), which maintains that online
sensitivity to L2 specific grammatical morphemes cannot be acquired. However, given
the conflicting findings in the literature, task effects may interact with the types of
linguistic property under investigation: implicit knowledge may be easier to measurethan explicit knowledge with some structures but the opposite may be true with others(e.g., Ellis, 2006; Zufferey, Mak, Degand, & Sander, 2015).
Regarding definiteness linguistic properties, whereas explicit judgementtasks have been widely used in the research into L2 English articles (as shown in
Chapter 4), the implementation of online methods has been relatively limited. Kim
and Lakshmanan (2009) tested the effect of specificity (e.g., Ionin et al., 2004) on L2
English article choice by L1-Korean learners, using an SPRT as well an AJT. They
reported converging evidence for the relevant semantic effect from the offline andonline tasks. Trenkic, Mirkovic, and Altmann (2014) tested whether Mandarin-

170

speaking L2-English learners could effectively use article information for reference
resolution. The results of their eye-tracking experiment suggest that the L2 learners
can utilise articles for real time processing. More recently, some studies (Cho, 2020;
Ionin, Choi, & Liu, 2019, 2020) used both untimed judgement tasks and self-paced
reading tasks to investigate whether L2 learners from article-less L1 backgrounds (i.e.,
Korean and Mandarin) are sensitive to article errors such as omissions in obligatory
contexts and inappropriate uses (e.g., infelicitous use of the in indefinite contexts).
These studies unanimously show that L2 learners are more sensitive to the relevant
properties in online tasks (i.e., self-paced reading) than in offline tasks (i.e.,
grammaticality/acceptability judgement). These results suggest that L2 knowledge ofdefiniteness properties may be easier to observe by means of online rather than offline
tasks. However, to my knowledge, there has been no real-time processing research
into definiteness properties in article-less L2s or languages such as Japanese wheredefiniteness is not distinguished by functional morphology. That is, it remains
empirically open whether the observed online vs. offline contrast holds true with thetarget Japanese definiteness properties of this thesis, or even whether these properties
are experimentally measurable (either online or offline). Therefore, testing whether
they can be observed with native Japanese speakers is a crucial first step for the present
thesis.

6.3 Pilot AJT ver. 1
This first pilot AJT was conducted to investigate whether the properties of thedemonstrative sono and NQs discussed in the theoretical literature (the agreed anddisputed properties of these linguistic phenomena shown in (6.1−6.2)) areexperimentally observable. However, since the most important objective was to gain
insights into what are the best descriptions of the disputed properties of NQs, I will171

report the results, focusing on NQ items. (For conciseness, the results for the sono
items will not be presented, but they are essentially similar to those in Pilot AJT ver.
2, reported later in Section 6.4).

6.3.1 Method
6.3.1.1 Participants
Twenty Japanese native speakers participated in the study. All participants were adultJapanese speakers (18 years old or older). Four participants were postgraduate students
studying at a university in the UK while the rest were Japanese speakers living in Japan.
No demographic information such as age and gender was collected because there wasno particular theoretical interest in doing so.

6.3.1.2 Test instrument
The AJT was administered, using Qualtrics (version: Oct. 2019). The validity of webbased AJTs has been attested by recent studies in terms of their strong correlation withoffline informal judgement ratings (e.g., Juezk, 2016; Sprouse, Schütze, & Almeida,2013) and laboratory-based judgement ratings (Sprouse, 2011). The task was to reada series of short passages that established context, each of which was followed by atarget sentence to be rated in terms of its naturalness as a continuation of the preceding
text, on a 7-point scale (0 = “completely odd”, 6 = “completely natural”).
The AJT tested the native Japanese speakers’ knowledge of the relevant
properties of the demonstrative sono and of NQ constructions (6.1–6.2) in six types ofcontext (three contexts concerning sono, anaphoric, non-anaphoric, and bridging will
not be reported, as mentioned above). Specifically, there are three relevant contexts
for NQs, namely [+definite, +specific], [−definite, +specific], and [−definite,−specific] contexts (for the definitions of definiteness and specificity, see Chapter 3),172

as exemplified in (6.6–6.8) (the context is given in English in these examples forconvenience but was presented in Japanese in the actual experiment). The choice ofconstruction (either post-nominal, where the NQ precedes the case marker, or floating,where the NQ follows the case marker) was predicted to affect acceptability of thesentence in different ways. In [+definite, +specific] contexts (6.6), whereas the postnominal construction will be acceptable according to all of the accounts reviewed in
Chapter 3, the floating construction is predicted to be unacceptable. However,predictions vary in the two indefinite contexts. In [−definite, +specific] contexts (6.7),
some accounts (Prediction C in Chapter 3: Kobayashi & Yoshimoto 2001; Nakanishi,
2007; Shin, 2017, among others) predict both NQ constructions to be felicitous
whereas according to others (Prediction A: Furuya, 2012; Watanabe, 2006; andPrediction B: Downing, 1996; Huang & Ochi, 2014), only the post-nominal
construction will be acceptable. In [−definite, −specific] contexts (6.8), some argue
that both constructions are allowed (Predictions A and C) whereas others expect postnominal NQs to be degraded in acceptability (Prediction B).

(6.6) NQs: [+definite, +specific] contexts (post-nominal vs. floating)
PREAMBLE: Taroo has two little sisters.
Taroo-wa sensyuu

sono{imooto huta-ri-o vs. imooto-o huta-ri}

Taroo-TOP last.week SONO

sister 2-CL-ACC vs. sister-ACC 2-CL

yuuenti-ni

tureteikimasita

amusement-to took
‘Taroo took the two sisters to an amusement park last week.’173

(6.7) NQs: [−definite, +specific] contexts (post-nominal vs. floating)
PREAMBLE: Hanako got two PCs and one printer from a friend of hers.
Hanako-wa toriaezu {pasokon iti-dai-o vs. pasokon-o iti-dai}
Hanako-TOP for.now

PC 1-CL-ACC vs. PC-ACC 1-CL

sigoto-yoo-ni

tukau-koto-ni

simasita.

work-use-for

use-ing-DAT

decided‘Hanako decided to use one (of the) PC(s) for work for the time being.’(6.8) NQs: [−definite, −specific] contexts (post-nominal vs. floating)
PREAMBLE: Taroo does online shopping almost every day.
Kinoo-wa{hon san-satu-o vs. hon-o san-satu}

kaimasita.

yesterday-TOP book 3-CL-ACC vs. book-ACC 3-CL bought‘He bought three books yesterday.’

Additionally, the following three manipulations were made for the NQ items.
Firstly, the classifiers used in the test items were chosen among those introduced inbasic-level Japanese language textbooks to make the AJT learner-friendly.43 Secondly,
only predicates denoting events, in other words, S-level predicates were used inconsideration of the incompatibility of floating NQs with I-level predicates (asdiscussed in Chapter 3). Finally, the target nouns associated with NQs were placed in
object position. This was to avoid adding another variable of position of the target NP,

The textbooks consulted includes the Genki series (Banno, Ohno, Sakane, Shinagawa, &Takashiki, 1999) and the Minna-no-Nihongo series (3A Network, 1998). The chosen classifiers(CLs) are nin (CL for human), satu (CL for books), hon (CL for long and round objects), hiki (CLfor small animals), dai (CL for vehicles and big equipment), mai (CL for thin, flat objects) and ko(CL for small objects).
43

174

particularly, information bias of the topic marker wa, which often marks externalarguments in matrix clauses in Japanese.44
There were 12 test items for each of the six context types. The set of test
items in each context type had two different versions of target sentence which
minimally differed from each other regarding the form of NP. In the NQ items, thetarget NP contained either a post-nominal NQ or a floating NQ (as can been in theexamples above). The test items were divided into four lists with each containing 36
critical items (6 items × 6 contexts). Each item was presented in only one type of NQ(e.g., post-nominal or floating) for each participant. Moreover, 18 unacceptable fillers(3 items × 6 types) were added to each item list to balance out the numbers of
acceptable and unacceptable items (the detail of the fillers is not provided because it
is not essential for the purpose of this section).45 In order to prevent order effects, thestimuli were pseudo-randomised for each participant.

6.3.1.3 Procedure
The participants accessed the AJT through a web link provided by the researcher. The
task was designed to be completed individually by participants either on personal
computers or on mobile devices. After agreeing to participate in the study, they wereasked to read a brief explanation of the task and familiarize themselves with the task
format through practice items. During the experiment, it was impossible to go backand change answers to the previous items. There was no time limit for the task. The
participants completed the task within 25 minutes on average and received online

Topic-marked NPs tend to be given a [+definite, +specific] interpretation regardless of the
choice of NQ construction, because of the correlation between topic/old information anddefiniteness (as discussed in Chapter 3). In contrast, object NPs in the canonical position are notsubject to such bias.
45 Note that sono items served as fillers for the NQ items and vice versa, too. Therefore, the filler
to critical item ratio is practically 36:18 per target property.
44

175

shopping vouchers for their participation.

6.3.2 Results
The mean ratings of the two types of NQ construction are provided in Table 6.1 andFigure 6.1. In the [−definite] context, both construction types received mean ratingsof at least 4.7 on the 6-point scale with no meaningful differences whereas in the[+definite] context, the post-nominal construction was preferred to the floating
counterpart with a more than 2-point difference (Table 6.1).

Table 6.1 Acceptability ratings for NQ construction items: Pilot AJT ver. 1 (SD inparentheses)
Post-nominal
Floating[+def, +spec][−def, −spec][−def, −spec]

5.05 (1.47)
2.78 (2.03)

4.73 (1.51)
4.70 (1.39)

4.97 (1.22)
5.20 (1.20)

6.00
5.00
4.00
3.00
2.00

1.00
0.00
[+def, +spec][−def, +spec]

Post-nominal[−def, −spec]
Floating

Figure 6.1 Mean ratings for NQ construction items (error bars = SE)

For further analysis, the raw ratings were converted into z-scores and tested
with linear mixed effects modelling using the lme4 package (Bates, Mächler, Bolker,

176

& Walker, 2015) to evaluate how NQ type affected acceptability ratings in eachcontext.46 Models were fit with NQ type post-nominal vs. floating, coded as −0.5 vs.
0.5) as a fixed factor and with random intercepts for participants and items as well as
by-participants and by-items slopes for NQ type (i.e., maximal random structure (Barr,
Levy, Scheepers, & Tily, 2013). Separate models were constructed for each context
because the target NP and sentence structures were controlled for only within eachcontext but not across contexts. In order to examine whether NQ type had a significant
impact on the ratings in each context, the models were compared to the respective nullmodels (i.e., the maximal critical models minus the fixed effect under investigation,in this case, the effect of NQ type), following Winter (2020). The null model wascompared to the critical model, using the anova function (i.e., the likelihood-ratio
testing). Table 6.2 presents the outputs for the relevant critical models and the modelcomparisons. The model comparisons revealed that NQ type had a significant effectin the [+def(inite), +spec(ific)] context. However, non-significant results wereobtained in the [−def, +spec] and [−def, −spec] contexts. These results suggest thatboth NQ constructions are felicitous in indefinite contexts regardless of specificity but
only the post-nominal construction is compatible with definite contexts, which
confirmed the agreed properties. In terms of the disputed properties, the results favour
Prediction C (e.g., Kobayashi & Yoshimoto, 2001; Nakanishi, 2007; Shin, 2017).

Z-transformation is known to mitigate potential individual variations, scale bias, and thus wielda higher statistical power compared to raw scores by expressing each participant’s responses via astandardized unit (Schütze, 2013).
46

177

Table 6.2 Fixed effect estimates of critical linear mixed-effects models and likelihoodratio testing results of critical vs. null model comparisons for NQ items: Pilot AJT ver.
1
β

SE

t

χ2

p

−0.313
0.920

0.094
0.138

−3.3136.652

23.684< .001***(intercept)−0.6180.065−9.502quantifier type

0.026

0.110

0.233

0.054

.816

[−def, −spec](intercept)
quantifier type−0.782−0.097

0.047
0.095

−16.720−1.020

0.986

.321

Fixed Effects[+def, +spec](intercept)
quantifier type[−def, +spec]

Note. Formula: z-rating ~ quantifier type + (quantifier type | participant) + (quantifier
type | item). Coding: quantifier type: post-nominal = −0.5 vs. floating = 0.5. *** p< .001. P values were calculated for χ2 values obtained through comparisons of thefull vs. null model in terms of the fix effect of quantifier type by means of thelikelihood-ratio testing.

6.3.3 Discussion
The results confirmed the agreed properties the NQ constructions repeated below.

(6.9) Agreed properties of NQ constructions
 Floating NQs are allowed only in [−definite] contexts.
 Post-nominal NQs are compatible with [+definite] contexts.

As to their disputed properties (repeated below in (6.10)), the results revealed thefollowing.

178

(6.10) Disputed properties of NQ constructions
 Whether floating NQs are acceptable in [+specific, −definite] contexts.
 Whether post-nominal NQs are acceptable in [−specific, −definite] contexts.

The evidence suggested that the floating construction was constrained to be [−definite]rather than [−specific, −definite]; whereas the post-nominal construction was highly
acceptable in [−specific, −definite] contexts as well as in the other tested contexts.
This acceptability paradigm suggests that the constraint on the floating NQs concerns
definiteness rather than specificity, which matches Prediction C (the floating-NQs-asadverbials account).
However, some potential complications were identified that could affect theinterpretation of the results as follows. The first concerns the use of sono in the[+definite, +specific] condition. Sono was included to explicitly mark the target NP in
this condition as definite. However, it was pointed out by some native Japanesespeaking linguists (T. Hokari, personal communication, April 27, 2018; T. Nakamura,personal communication, Dec 7, 2017) that the relative unacceptability of the floating
construction (e.g., sono hon-o san-satu) in the definite context in contrast to postnominal NQs (e.g., sono hon san-satu-o ‘the three books’) in this AJT may be
attributed to the former’s incompatibility with sono. Specifically, they suggested thatthe acceptability of floating NQs would improve if sono is replaced with its explicitly
plural version, sorerano. This is puzzling given the fact that sono is widely used not
only with definite singulars but also plurals. Indeed, there seems no clear difference inacceptability between sono and sorerano in the post-nominal construction (6.11a);
however, the relevant contrast seems to arise in the floating construction (6.11b)(according to the intuition of the author and a few native-Japanese informants).

179

(6.11) Comparisons of sono and sorera
PREAMBLE: Hanako bought three books yesterday.
a. Post-nominal{Sono vs. sorerano} honsan-satu-o moo

yomi-oeta.

SONO vs. SONO.PL book3-CL-ACC alreadyread-finishedsan-satu moo

yomi-oeta.

b. Floating{#Sono vs. ?sorerano} hon-o
SONO vs. SONO.PL

book-ACC 3-CL

already read-finished(Judged under the interpretation, ‘she has already finished reading the threebooks.’)

The floating NQ number incompatibility with sono in (6.11b) might be due to a
pragmatic factor. That is, when it modifies a countable bare NP, a singular reading
seems predominant (Nemoto, 2005) presumably because Japanese has a way to solve
number ambiguity by using the explicitly plural sorerano. Therefore, one would
expect that a sono NP should be singular because if the NP is meant to be plural, thespeaker is likely to use the unambiguous sorerano along the lines of “the maxim ofmanner” (Grice, 1975). This may partially account for the lower rating of floating NQs.
If this asymmetry between sono and sorerano is true, the genuine contrast between
post-nominal and floating constructions observed in this experiment might be more
subtle. To avoid this potential complication, it was decided to remove sono in thedefinite context for subsequent experiments.
Additionally, some minor revisions were made to the test battery for
subsequent studies as follows. Firstly, sentence structures used for the target sentenceswere more strictly controlled (e.g., since some sentences started with an explicit

180

subject but others included a null counterpart in Pilot AJT ver. 1, revisions were madefor all sentences to include an explicit subject). Secondly, the numbers of animate,inanimate, human, and non-human nouns were balanced out. Finally, since it is alreadyclear at this point that neither type of NQ construction is constrained in terms ofspecificity, it was decided that the [−definite, +specific] context was not to be included
in subsequent experiments for simplicity. Finally, the number of test items for eachcontext was reduced from twelve to eight with an intention of reducing task load.
Finally, the number of classifiers used was reduced from 7 to 6.47

6.4 Pilot AJT ver. 2
The main objectives of Pilot AJT ver. 2 were to confirm the validity of the test
sentences used in Pilot SPRT ver. 2 (to be presented later) by means of an offline
behavioural measure; and to ascertain that the target linguistic properties of sono andthe NQ constructions observed in Pilot AJT ver. 1 could be replicated. I focus on thesecond objective for the purpose of this section.

6.4.1 Method
6.4.1.1 Participants
Twenty native Japanese speakers participated in this experiment (they had notparticipated in any previous experiments or SPRT ver. 2). Most participants wereresident in Japan while four of them had lived in the UK for more than two years
studying for undergraduate or postgraduate degrees at the time of testing.

Specifically, the classifier, satu (CL for books) was removed (because the number of nouns thisclassifier can select is more limited compared to the others), and the classifier ko (CL for small
objects) was replaced with a more general classifier, tu.
47

181

6.4.1.2 Test instrument
The experimental design of Pilot AJT ver. 2 is essentially similar to that of Pilot AJTver. 1. However, it differed in the following two ways (along with the revisions
described in Section 6.3.3).
First, the target sentences were lengthened with extra adverbials or adjuncts.
This modification was made primarily for addressing a potential methodologicalproblem regarding SPRT Pilot ver. 1, so it will be explained in that context, in Section
6.5. (6.12) and (6.13) exemplify the revised NQ items (extra adverbials are in squares).
Note that an extra adverbial is placed between the case marker and the NQ for thefloating construction and after the case marker for the post-nominal construction.
However, the prediction for native judgement remained the same: floating NQs would
be rated significantly lower than post-nominal NQs in the [+definite] context (6.12),
but the both types of NQ would be rated equally high in the [−definite] context (6.13).

(6.12) NQs: [+definite] contexts (post-nominal vs. floating)
PREAMBLE: Taroo is a good tennis player. He played games with his
friends, Takasi, Hirosi, and Goroo yesterday.
Taroo-waitumo-no-yoni

Taroo-TOP

like.always{tomodati san-nin-o kantanni vs. tomodati-o kantanni san-nin} sugu
friend 3-CL-ACC easily vs. friend-ACC easily 3-CLmakasite-simai-masita
beat-finish-POL.PAST‘Taroo, as always, beat the three friends quickly and easily.’

182

quickly(6.13) NQs: [−definite] contexts (post-nominal vs. floating)
PREAMBLE: Taroo works as a vet at an animal hospital. Although he mostly
treats dogs, …
Taroo-wasenzituTaroo-TOP

the.other.day{ neko san-biki-o mezurasiku vs. neko-o mezurasiku san-biki }tuzukete{ cat 3-CL-ACC unusually vs. cat-ACC unusually 3-CL }in.a.row

tiryoo-si-masita.
treatment-do-POL.PST‘Unusually for him, Taroo treated three cats in a row the other day.’A similar modification was made to sono items for coherence, as shown in (6.14)–(6.16) for each context type (anaphoric, non-anaphoric, and bridging). Native Japanese
speakers were predicted to rate sono NPs significantly lower than bare NPs in the nonanaphoric context (6.15), but significantly higher than or as high as bare NPs in theanaphoric and bridging contexts (6.14 and 6.16), given the characteristics of sono
proposed in the literature (6.1).

(6.14) Sono: anaphoric contexts (sono NP vs. bare NP)
PREAMBLE: There is a very popular restaurant which serves great food forreasonable prices near Taroo's house. …
Taroo-wa

mukasi-kara

Taroo-TOP

past-from{ sono resutoran-o vs. resutoran-o }183

dare-yori-mo{ SONO restaurant-ACC vs. restaurant-ACC }more.than.anyone

often use-do-ASP.POL.PST
yokuriyoo-site-imasu‘Taroo has eaten at the restaurant more often than anyone since long ago.’(6.15) Sono: non-anaphoric contexts (sono NP vs. bare NP)
PREAMBLE: Taroo likes taking a night walk. When the weather is nice andthe sky is clear of clouds, …
Taroo-wa

mukasi-kara { sono tuki-o vs. tuki-o }Taroo-TOP

past-fromyukkuri{ SONO moon-ACC vs. moon-ACC } slowly

tanosinde mite-imasu
gladlywatch-ASP.POL.NPST‘Taroo relaxes and enjoys watching the moon as an old habit.’(6.16) Sono: bridging contexts (sono NP vs. bare NP)
PREAMBLE: Hanako wants to watch a flim that was just released.
Hanako-wa

daigakusei-no toki-kara

Hanako-TOP

since.university{ sono kantoku-o vs. kantoku-o }kokoro kara

{ SONO director-ACC vs. director-ACC } from.heart

totemovery muchsonkei-site-imasu.
respect-do-ASP.POL.PST‘Hanako has respected the director from the bottom of her heart since
university.’

184

The other major revision was the addition of several new types of filler.
Particularly, there were four types prepared in two minimally different versions. These
items were designed so that the target sentence be rated significantly higher in one
condition (acceptable) than the other (unacceptable) (the details of these fillers are notprovided because they are irrelevant here. However, they will be when Pilot SPRT ver.
2 is reported in the next section).
The test items were divided into 2 lists with each containing 96 items: 40
target items (8 items × 5 contexts), 32 control fillers (8 items × 4 contexts), and 24
unacceptable fillers (similar to those used in Pilot AJT ver. 1). The numbers of
acceptable and unacceptable items were balanced, and each set of test items waspresented in pseudo-randomised orders for each participant, as in Pilot AJT ver. 1.

6.4.1.3 Procedure
The participants went through the same procedure as in Pilot AJT ver. 1. They
completed the task in approximately 45 minutes on average. Their participations wererewarded with shopping vouchers.

6.4.2 Results

6.4.2.1 Sono
Table 6.3 and Figure 6.2 summarise the mean ratings of the two NP forms (sono NP
vs. bare NP) in the three contexts related to the properties of sono. All mean ratings
are higher than the mid-point in the anaphoric and bridging contexts, with sono NPs
being descriptively higher than bare NPs in the anaphoric context, but there being
almost no difference in the bridging context. In the non-anaphoric contexts, sono NPs
were rated clearly lower than bare NPs.

185

Table 6.3 Mean acceptability ratings for sono items: Pilot AJT ver. 2 (SD inparentheses)
Anaphoric

Non-anaphoric

Bridging

Sono NP

4.55 (1.61)

2.14 (2.00)

4.09 (1.91)

Bare NP

3.79 (1.94)

3.60 (2.05)

4.10 (2.01)

Non-anaphoric

Bridging

6.00
5.00
4.00
3.00
2.00
1.00
0.00
Anaphoric
Sono NP

Bare NP

Figure 6.2 Mean ratings for sono items (error bars = SE)
Statistical significance testing through the comparison of the crucial mixed-effects
models with null models confirmed the above observations: it was revealed that the
fixed effect of NP type (sono NP vs. bare NP, coded as 0.5 vs. −0.5) was significant
in the anaphoric and non-anaphoric conditions but not in the bridging context (theoutputs of each crucial model and model comparison are provided in Tables 6.4).

186

Table 6.4 Fixed effect estimates of critical linear mixed-effects models and likelihoodratio testing results of critical vs. null model comparisons for sono items: Pilot AJTver. 2
β

SE

t

χ2

p

Anaphoric(intercept)
NP type−0.554
0.331

0.136
0.118

−4.073
2.796

5.431

.020*

Non-anaphoric(intercept)

0.030

0.089

0.340

NP type−0.6150.234−2.624

5.223

.022*

−0.508>−0.01

0.150
0.164

−3.384−0.007

1.040

.308

Fixed effects

Bridging(intercept)
NP typeNote. Formula: z-rating ~ NP type + (NP type | participant) + (NP type | item). Coding:
NP type: sono NP = −0.5 vs. bare NP = 0.5. * p < .05. P values were calculated for χ2
values obtained through comparisons of the full vs. null model in terms of the fix effectof NP type by means of the likelihood-ratio testing.

These results are compatible with the agreed properties of sono in terms of theinfelicity of sono in the non-anaphoric context, the felicity thereof in the bridging
context, and the preference for overt anaphoric definite marking with sono in theanaphoric context. As to the disputed property, the results suggest that bare NPs arecomparable to sono NPs in acceptability in the bridging context.

6.4.2.2 NQ constructions
The mean ratings of the two types of NQ construction are presented in Table 6.5 andFigure 6.3. The results were generally in line with the predictions: floating NQs wererated clearly lower than post-nominal NQs by about 1.5 in the [+definite] context
whereas both types of NQ were acceptable to similar degrees (4.2 or higher) in the187[−definite] context.

Table 6.5 Mean acceptability ratings for NQ construction items: Pilot AJT ver. 2 (SDin parentheses)[+def, (+spec)][−def, (−spec)]

Post-nominal

4.91 (1.68)

4.67 (1.68)

Floating

3.45 (1.86)

4.21 (1.65)

6.00
5.00
4.00
3.00
2.00
1.00
0.00
[−def][+def]
Post-nominal

Floating

Figure 6.3 Mean ratings for NQ construction items (error bars = SE)

The effect of NQ type on acceptability ratings in each context was analysedusing linear mixed-effects modelling following the procedures above. The statisticalsignificance of the fixed effect of NQ type on rating was computed throughcomparison of relevant full and null mixed-effects models. The outputs for eachcritical model and model comparison can be found in Tables 6.6. The results showedthat the effect of NQ type was significant in the [+definite] context and marginally soin the [−definite] context.

188

Table 6.6 Fixed effect estimates of critical linear mixed-effects models and likelihoodratio testing results of critical vs. null model comparisons for NQ construction items:
Pilot AJT ver. 2
β

SE

t

χ2

p

[+definite](intercept)
quantifier type−0.548
0.639

0.089
0.132

−6.1664.840

11.163<.001***[−definite](intercept)−0.6490.096−6.783

quantifier type

0.277

0.135

2.047

3.202

.0074 †

Fixed effects

Note. Formula: z-rating ~ quantifier type + (quantifier type | participant) + (quantifier
type | item). Coding: quantifier type: post-nominal = −0.5 vs. floating = 0.5. *** p< .001, † p < .10. P values were calculated for χ2 values obtained through comparisonsof the full vs. null model in terms of the fix effect of quantifier type by means of thelikelihood-ratio testing.

Therefore, the results of the previous AJT were replicated in that floating NQs wereclearly rated lower than post-nominal NQs in the [+definite] context. As to the[−definite] context, however, although the difference here did not reach the thresholdof statistical significance (α = .05), the marginal level of difference was not expected.
A potential source of this unexpected small rating gap will be discussed in the next
section.

6.4.3 Discussion
The results support the properties of sono and NQs agreed in the literature, namely
sono’s incompatibility with non-anaphoric contexts, preference for sono NPs over bare
NPs in anaphoric contexts, sono’s felicity in bridging contexts, and the forced
indefiniteness interpretation of floating NQs. Regarding the disputed property of sono,
namely whether sono NPs are preferred over bare NPs in bridging contexts, there was189virtually no difference between the two NP types in felicity.48 On the other hand, there
was one unpredicted result obtained for NQs, namely the slight preference for postnominal NQs over floating NQs in the [−definite] context. A thorough examination ofmean ratings of individual items in the relevant context revealed that the unexpected
results can be attributed to an effect of particular vocabulary choices. The relevant
items were revised in terms of word choice and collocations in the hope of minimizing
such effects. After revising the problematic elements, native Japanese informants
reported that they would rate the sentences as predicted. Therefore, I conclude that thepilot AJT findings generally supported the descriptions of the agreed target linguistic
properties in the literature. That is, these properties seem on the whole to be reliably
measurable at least through an offline judgement task.

6.5 Pilot SPRTs ver. 1 & ver. 2
As mentioned earlier, two pilot versions of SPRT were conducted. The primary goalof these experiments was to examine whether native Japanese speakers show
sensitivity to the Japanese properties in question in an implicit way, namely in the formof reading times (RTs). The first pilot SPRT did not capture the target reading effects.
This motivated revisions and the second pilot SPRT.
In the remainder of the section, after briefly stating some key assumptionsin the self-paced reading paradigm and presenting characteristics of Japaneseorthography, I will describe the postulated processing mechanisms for the target
linguistic properties, and give an overview of the designs of the two SPRTs and theirfindings.

Pilot AJT ver. 1 had essentially similar results except that the preference for sono NPs overbare NPs in anaphoric contexts were not statistically supported (not reported for conciseness).
48

190

6.5.1 Key assumptions in self-paced reading
In an SPRT, participants are asked to read sentences for comprehension at a natural
speed. Sentences are presented in small segments such as words or phrases on acomputer screen one at a time. Participants press a key to read the next segment andrepeat this to the end of the sentence. The present study employs the moving widow
paradigm, whereby the segments appear left to right across the screen (Just, Carpenter,& Woolley, 1982). RTs in each segment are recorded and compared across test
conditions. The crucial assumption is that some part of the test sentence can cause
reading slowdown due to unexpectedness such as ungrammaticality or a semantic
anomaly (i.e., infelicity). For example, Pearlmutter, Garnsey, and Bock (1999) foundfrom their SPRT that it took native speakers of English significantly longer to process
the word rusty in the ungrammatical sentence (6.19b) compared to its grammaticallycorrect version (6.19a). That is, the English natives were aware of number agreement
violation between the subject NP and the verb while reading the ungrammaticalsentence, which resulted in a delayed RT. The occurrence of the slowdown on the word
rusty after the ungrammatical segment were is known as a spillover effect: slowdowns
in SPRTs may occur at the point of anomaly or one or two segments after it.

(6.19) a. The key to the cabinet was rusty from many years of disuse.
b. The key to the cabinets were rusty from many years of disuse.

Such a slowdown effect is taken as evidence of real-time processing of the linguistic
anomaly (a subject-verb number agreement error, in this case). Therefore, in the caseof the present study, the incompatibility of sono NPs with non-anaphoric contexts andthe incompatibility of the floating NQ construction with definite contexts attested in

191

Pilot AJT ver. 1 may materialise as reading slowdowns in an SPRT.

6.5.2 Japanese orthography
Before detailing the method of the pilot SPRTs, this section provides some information
about Japanese script that is relevant to all the SPRTs reported in the present thesis,
where test items were all displayed in Japanese script. Japanese has two modes oforthographic system: kana (syllabic system like English alphabet) and kanji (Chineseorigin ideographic system). Kana are further divided into two sub-types: hiragana(cursive kana e.g., あ) and katakana (square kana e.g., ア). The former is used forhighly frequent morphemes such as case particles, postpositions, and inflectional
endings whereas the latter is used for loan words except those from Chinese,
onomatopoetic words and so on. Kanji are used for the roots of nouns, adjectives,
adverbs, and verbs. Normally both kana and kanji are mixed together in Japanesewriting as illustrated in (6.20) (note that there is no space between symbols in actual
Japanese writing).

%

#

*

#

* #

(6.20) ジョン が本 を読む。(* = kanji

Jon

-ga

hon -oyomu.

jon-NOM book-ACC read

# = hiragana % = katakana)‘John reads books.’

For uncommon kanji, a reading aid called furigana is often provided in the form of
がくせいsmall hiragana written above kanji. For example, in the case of 学生, 学生 is kanji
for the Japanese word meaning ‘student’, and the small symbol above the kanji, がく
せい is the furigana which provides the pronunciation of the kanji, /ga-ku-se-i/. In

principle, furigana is optional. In the present study, all kanji were presented with192

furigana in all the experiment items for learner-friendliness, though native Japaneseparticipants were expected to be highly familiar with the reading of all relevant kanji.

6.5.3 Processing of sono
Processing of sono seems relatively straightforward. In principle, the task is toestablish whether the entity denoted by the sono NP has a proper antecedent in theprevious discourse. That is, when the target NP cannot find an antecedent in theprevious discourse, participants may slow down at, or just after, this point. For
example, in [−anaphoric] contexts as in (6.21), RTs are predicted to be longer when
the target noun is presented in the form of sono NP than its corresponding bare NP.

(6.21) Non-anaphoric contexts
PREAMBLE: Taroo likes walking at night. He has many ways to enjoy it. On
a cloudless night...
Taroo-wa yoku {#sono tuki-o vs. tuki-o}uresisoni

Taroo-TOP often {SONO moon-ACC vs. moon-ACC}

gladlyyukkurito

nagamemasu.

for.a.long.time gaze
‘Taroo often enjoys taking a long look at the moon. ’

6.5.4 Processing of NQ constructions
Based on the results of Pilot AJT ver. 1, I assume, following previous studies
categorised as Prediction C (e.g., Kobayashi & Yoshida, 2001; Nakanishi, 2007; Shin,2017), that a post-nominal NQ modifies the host noun within a nominal structure(6.22a) whereas the NQ functions as a verbal modifier in the floating construction193

(6.22b) (as discussed in Chapter 3).49(6.22) a. Structure of post-nominal NQ construction[DP (external argument)] [VP [V’ [DP [N’ N (internal argument) NQ]] V]]
b. Structure of floating NQ construction[DP (external argument)] [VP [DP (internal argument)] [V’ NQ [V’ V]](Based on Nakanishi, 2007)

In the processing of the NQ constructions, the position of the case marker seems toplay a crucial role. Given the structural analyses in (6.22), the position of the casemarker determines whether an NQ is post-nominal or floating since it informs thecomprehender of where a nominal projection closes. For example, when the NQ comes
between the host noun and the accusative case particle -o as in (6.23a), one can confirm
that the NQ and the host noun form a constituent, hence post-nominal. In this case, thehost nominal can be interpreted as either indefinitely or definitely. By contrast, when
the NQ follows the case marker as in (6.23b), it can be analysed as a floating NQ, thus
the indefiniteness constraint applies.

(6.23) a. Post-nominal
Taroo-wamoo

Taroo-TOP

already[VP [DP hon [san-satu]-o]book 3-CL-ACC[V yonda]].
read‘Taroo has already read (the) three books.’

As discussed in Chapter 3, it is still disputable whether a post-nominal NQ is an NP-adjunct(Nakanishi, 2007) or a nominal head taking an NP as its complement (Shin, 2017). Although thisquestion is beyond the scope of the present thesis, I adopt Nakanishi’s (2007) structure forconvenience.
49

194

b. Floating
Taroo-wamoo

Taroo TOP

already[VP [DP hon-o]book-ACC[V’[san-satu][V yonda]]].

3-CL

read

‘Taroo has already read three books.’

The earliest point possible at which the indefiniteness constraint on floating NQs could
take effect (in the form of reading slowdown) would be then at the NQ after the casemarker. This prediction is based on the structural analyses in (6.22) as well as theassumption that native Japanese speakers can develop some kind of under-specified
representation for a VP without knowing what exactly the verb is so that they canaccommodate case-marked NPs already recognised. This assumption is supported by
the well-documented observation from processing studies that native Japanese
speakers start parsing sentences via case marking information even before
encountering verbs (e.g., Kamide & Mitchell, 1999; Miyamoto, 2002).50

6.5.5 Method
6.5.5.1 Participants
Twenty-six native speakers of Japanese participated in Pilot SPRT ver. 1. The majorityof them were international students on a 16-week short course at a UK university.
Another group of twenty Japanese-speaking participants were recruited for Pilot SPRTver. 2. They were mostly university students attending undergraduate, post-graduate
programmes or a 4-week course at the same university as the Pilot SPRT ver. 1
participants.

This also appears to be the case for speakers of such languages as German (e.g., Bader & Lasser,1994), Turkish (e.g., Kahraman, Sato, Ono, & Sasaki, 2010), and Finnish (Hyönä & Hujanen,1997).
50

195

6.5.5.2 Test instruments
The test sentences used in Pilot SPRT ver. 1 were essentially similar to those used in
Pilot AJT ver. 1, incorporating the revisions outlined in section 6.3.3. The test items
for Pilot SPRT ver. 2 were essentially an SPRT adaptation of Pilot AJT ver. 2.
Both SPRTs were designed to examine the processing of the relevant
properties of the demonstrative sono and the NQ constructions, using PsychoPy(Peirce et al., 2019). For each trial, participants read a short passage that establishedcontext and proceeded to read a test sentence as a continuation of the precedingpassage. Test sentences were divided into six segments (NP—adjunct—NP—
adjunct—adjunct—VP) in Pilot SPRT ver. 1 and into 7 segments (NP—adjunct—NP+ adjunct—VP + adjunct—adjunct—adjunct—VP) in Pilot SPRT ver. 2. The third
segment in both versions was designed to be the critical segment, where the predicted
reading effect (slowdown) may start to emerge, whereas the immediately following
two (ver. 1) or three (ver. 2) segments served as spillover regions. The test battery
included five critical contexts: anaphoric, non-anaphoric, bridging contexts for sono,and [+definite] and [−definite] contexts for the NQ constructions. (6.24)–(6.28) aresample test items from Pilot SPRT ver. 2 (“|” indicates a segment boundary). Reading
slowdown was predicted for the sono NP condition in the non-anaphoric context (6.25)
and for the floating condition in the [+definite] context (6.27), in the form of greater
RTs compared to the alternative condition. On the other hand, based on the slight
preference of sono NPs over bare NPs in the anaphoric context found in Pilot AJT ver.
2, it was predicted that reading facilitation (i.e., shorter RTs compared to the alternative
condition) might take place in the sono NP condition in that context (6.24).

196

(6.24) Sono: anaphoric (sono NP vs. bare NP)
PREAMBLE: There is a restaurant popular among local people nearby
Taroo’s house.
| Taroo-wa| mukasi kara |Taroo-TOP

from.long.ago{ sono resutoran-o vs. resutoran-o}dare-yori-mo |{ SONO restaurant-ACC vs. restaurant-ACC }more.than.anybody

totemo kiniitteiru to | mawari
very

like

ni | yoku

that surroundings to| katatte-imasu. |

often

tell-ASP.POL.NPST‘Taroo often tells people around him that he has liked the restaurant more thananybody, for a long time.’(6.25) Sono: non-anaphoric (sono NP vs. bare NP)
PREAMBLE: Taroo likes walking at night. He has many ways to enjoy it. On
a cloudless night...
| Taroo-wa| mukasi kara |Taroo-TOP

from.long.ago{ sono tuki-o vs. tuki-o }yukkuri | nagamete tanosindeiru-no-o |{ SONO moon-ACC vs. moon-ACC } slowly

watch

mawari-ni-wa| amari | hanasite-imasen. |people.around-to-TOPmuch tell-ASP.POL.NEG.NPST

enjoying-COMP-ACC‘Taroo has not told many people around him that, for years now, he has been
enjoying taking a long look at the moon.’197

(6.26) Sono: bridging (i.e., implicit anaphoric) (sono NP vs. bare NP)
PREAMBLE: There is a novel that Hanako is really into right now.
| Hanako-wa | guuzen| { sono tyosya-o vs. tyosya-o }Tokyo de |Hanako-TOP accidentally {SONO author-ACC vs. author-ACC } Tokyo in
issyun mikaketa koto-ga-aru
moment saw

to| mawarini |thing-NOM-have.done that surroundings touresisooni | hanasite-imasu.|
happilytell-ASP.POL.NPST‘Hanako is happily telling people around her that she happened to catch sight of
the author in Tokyo.’(6.27) NQs: [+definite] (post-nominal vs. floating)
PREAMBLE: Taroo is a good tennis player. He played games with his friends,
Takasi, Hirosi, and Goroo yesterday.
| Taroo-wa | itumo-no-yoni |Taroo-TOP

as.always|{tomodati san-nin-o kantanni vs. tomodati-o kantanni san-nin} |{friend 3-CL-ACC easily vs. friend-ACC easily 3-CL }sugumakasite-simatta toquickly beat-finished| tenisu-kooti ni | uresisooni | ii-masita. |that tennis.coach to happily

tell-POL.PST‘Taroo happily told his tennis coach that he, as always, beat the three friends
quickly and easily.’198

(6.28) NQs: [−definite] (post-nominal vs. floating)
PREAMBLE: Taroo works as a vet at an animal hospital. Although he mostly
treats dogs, …
| Taroo-wa | senzitu |Taroo-TOP the.other.day| { neko san-biki-o mezurasiku vs. neko-o mezurasiku san-biki } |{ cat 3-CL-ACC unusually vs. cat-ACC unusually 3-CL }tuzukete tiryoo-sita

toin.a.row treatment-did that| yuuzin ni tanosisooni

ii-masita. |friend to delightedly

say-POL.PST‘Taroo delightedly told his friends that, unusually for him, he treated three catsin a row the other day.’

One main difference between the two versions of SPRT lies in the lengthsof the critical and the spillover segments: ver. 2 had longer segments than ver. 1,
extended with extra adverbials or adjuncts. This revision was motivated by thegenerally null results of Pilot SPRT ver. 1 (to be outlined in the next subsection section).
Specifically, the longer segmentation in ver. 2 than ver. 1 was based on the assumptionthat the longer the segment is, the easier it might be to observe discourse-sensitive
properties such as those tested in the present thesis, because it allows participants toread stimuli in a way that better approximates their standard reading behaviour.
Another important difference between the two SPRTs is that ver. 2 included
four new types of filler, as mentioned above for AJT Pilot ver. 2. These fillers were
presented in two minimally different versions, acceptable vs. unacceptable. Among
those filler types were (i) NPs with wrong classifiers (unacceptable) vs. NPs withappropriate classifiers (acceptable) (6.29); (ii) lack of an associative plural reading199

(i.e., x and others associated with x) for NPs-tati in the pre-nominal NQ construction(unacceptable) vs. availability thereof in the post-nominal NQ construction(acceptable) (6.30); (iii) bare NPs in associative plural contexts (unacceptable) vs.
NPs-tati (acceptable) (6.31); and (iv) (scopal) specificity constraint on NPs-tati(unacceptable) vs. absence thereof on bare NPs (acceptable) (6.32).51 These fillers
were intended to serve as control conditions to check the validity of the experimental
design in case Pilot SPRT ver. 2 failed to find statistical evidence for the target
properties of sono and NQs. Slowdown effects were predicted in these fillers in each
unacceptable condition (marked by “#”).52(6.29) Noun-numeral classifier agreement: (correct vs. # wrong)
PREAMBLE: Taroo likes keeping small creatures.
| Taroo-wa| saikin | kaeru-oie-de{ni-hiki vs. huta-ri} |Taroo-TOP

recently frog-ACC house-at {2-CL vs. 2-CL}

It has been observed that in a referentially opaque context, where an NP is situated in a sentencewith a scope-taking element (i.e., an operator) such as an intensional verbs (e.g., want, look for),an NP suffixed by -tati necessarily takes wide scope (=scopally specific) (e.g., Nakanishi &Tomioka, 2004). For example, in (i), kangohu-tati ‘nurses’ refers to specific nurses (i.e., wide scope
reading) and thus sounds infelicitous when interpreted as non-specific nurses (i.e., narrow scope
reading).
51(i) Sono
SONO

byooin-wa
kangohu-tati-o
hospital-TOP nurse-TATI-ACC

sagasi-teiru
look for-PROG

narrow scope reading: ✓look-for > nurse(s)‘That hospital is looking for a nurse/nurses (to hire).’wide scope reading:*? nurse(s) > look-for‘There is a nurse/are nurses that hospital is looking for.’(Adapted from Nakanishi & Tomioka, 2004, p.115)
Note that the test items for the third control filler (associative reading of common nouns with-tati) (6.31) were minimally different within the preamble rather than in the segmented sentence.
52

200

kossori | katte-ite | mainiti | takaramono-no yooni |secretly keep-ing everyday like.treasure
taisetu-ni| site-imasu. |importantly do-ing‘Taroo has recently been keeping two frogs at home secretly, and he treasures
them.’(6.30) Associative reading of proper names with -tati (post-nominal vs. #prenominal)
PREAMBLE: Hanako went to see her uncle living in the countryside, withher parents by train.
| Oji-wa| yuugata-kara |uncle-TOP evening-since| { Hanako-tati san-nin-o vs. san-nin-no Hanako-tati-o }

umi-ni | doraibu-ni{ Hanako-TATI 3-CL-ACC vs. 3-CL-GEN Hanako-TATI-ACC } sea-to

drive-forturete-itte-kurete | sonomama | ie-made | okutte-kure-masita. |take-go-gavedirectly

home-to send-gave-did‘Her uncle took the group of three, Hanako and the others (her parents), for adrive to the seaside in the evening and drove them home from there.’(6.31) Associative reading of common nouns with -tati: (collective vs. #singular)
PREAMBLE: Taroo has a beloved {wife and daughter vs. wife}.
| Taroo-wa| kono natu

| tuma-tati-oTaroo-TOP

this summer wife-TATI-ACC abroad

201

kaigai ni | ryokoo ni
trip

to

turete-iku yotei da to | yuuzin ni | uresisooni | hanasite-imasu. |take-goplan COP that friend tohappily

speak-ASP.POL.NPST‘Taroo is happily telling a friend that he is going to take his wife and others(his daughter) on a trip abroad this summer.’(6.32) Specificity of NP-tati: (bare NP vs. # NP-tati)
PREAMBLE: Hanako is dating a man and they are going to marry soon.
| Hanako-wa | deki-reba | { kodomo-o vs. kodomo-tati-o }huta-ri|

Hanako-TOP if.possible { child-ACC vs. child-TATI-ACC } 2-CL
sanjyus-sai-made-ni umi-tai

to | senzitu| yuuzin ni | hanasi-masita. |30-year.old-until-by want.to.have that the.other.day friend totell-POL.PST‘Hanako told a friend the other day that she wants to have two children by theage of 30, if possible.’

Here, I give details of two of the filler types because of their relevance to later
discussions. The first concerns the agreement between NPs and classifiers (CLs). In(6.29), native Japanese speakers were predicted to read the target sentence
significantly slower when the object noun (kaeru ‘frog’) was followed by the wrong
CL (ri, CL for humans) (“wrong” condition) than when associated with the correct one(hiki, CL for small animals) (“correct” condition). The second control filler in questionis related to the (un)availability of an associative reading of the Japanese plural suffix-tati in the pre-nominal and post-nominal NQ constructions. It has been pointed out inthe literature that an associative reading of an NP-tati (i.e., x and others associatedwith x) is available when the NP is embedded in the post-nominal NQ construction but

202not so in the pre-nominal construction, where only a regular plural reading is possible(Ochi, 2012). In (6.30), Hanako-tati san-nin (Hanako-TATI 3-CL) (i.e., post-nominal)refers to a group of three people, namely Hanako and two others (=her parents)
whereas san-nin-no Hanako-tati (3-CL-GEN Hanako-TATI) (i.e., pre-nominal) cannot
refer to Hanako and two others; it must refer to three people named Hanako (i.e., plural
reading). Thus, in a context where an associative reading is favoured (i.e., Hanako andthe others (=her parents), greater reading time (slowdown) is expected in the prenominal condition than in the post-nominal condition.
The test items with two conditions were divided into two lists with eachcontaining only one version of a given item in order to prevent participants fromdirectly comparing the two types under the same context, as in the AJTs. Pilot SPRTver. 1 had 64 items in total for each list, consisting of 40 critical items (8 items × 5
types) and 24 unacceptable fillers (6 types × 4 items), whereas in Pilot SPRT ver. 2
each list contained 96 items, namely 40 critical items (8 items × 5 types), 32 control
fillers (8 items × 4 types), and 24 ungrammatical fillers (4 items × 6 types), as in Pilot
AJT ver. 2. 53 The test items were pseudo-randomised for each participant in both
SPRTs.
Comprehension questions were asked at the end of trials, in order toencourage participants to read for meaning, and to avoid focusing attention on thetarget linguistic properties. In Pilot SPRT ver. 1, a question was given after every test
item. However, in Pilot SPRT ver. 2, the number of comprehension questions was
reduced to one third of the test items (roughly one third of the questions were asked
about the critical items and the rest were asked about the fillers) with a view to

Details of the unacceptable fillers are not given due to space limitations. They were the sameacross the item lists and were included for balancing the number of the acceptable and unacceptable
items, as in the AJTs.
53

203

reducing the task load in light of the increased number of test items (i.e., from 64 to
96).54 The comprehension questions took the form of a sentence completion as in(6.33) following Smith (2016), where participants were presented with two statementsfrom which they chose the accurate description of the contents of the test item. For theitems with slowdown effects predicted (i.e., those with an unacceptable target
sentence), the question concerned the contextual information rather than the target
sentence, as exemplified in (6.33). Otherwise, the question was asked about the target
sentence. The display position of the target answer (top or bottom option) was evenly
distributed in both SPRTs.

(6.33) Question about the context in (6.27)
Kono bunsyoo ni yoruto…(‘According to this passage,…’)(▲) Taroo-wa yuuzin ni tenisu de katimasita‘Taroo beat his friends at tennis.’(▼) Taroo-wa yuuzin ni gorufu de katimasita‘Taroo beat his friends at golf.’

6.5.5.3 Procedure
Participants were tested individually on a computer in quiet locations (e.g., librarystudy rooms). They were instructed to read for comprehension at a natural speed.
Before the main trials, participants completed four practice items to familiarize
themselves with the task format. The participants completed the whole task inapproximately 25 minutes in ver. 1 and 30 minutes in ver. 2. The participants received
Incorporating comprehension questions after just one third of the of the test items is a common
practice in processing research (e.g., Millin, Divjak, & Baayen, 2017; Roberts & Felser, 2011;
Trueswell, Tanenhaus, & Kello, 1993).
54

204

thanks payment in cash for participation.

6.5.6 Results
6.5.6.1 SPRT data preparation
The collected RTs in both SPRTs went through a series of treatments, as below.
Response screening
In an attempt to remove unreliable data potentially due to participants’ lowcommitment to the task, responses were first screened on the basis of accuracy on thecomprehension questions. 70% accuracy was chosen as the cut-off, following common
practice in processing studies (e.g., Foote, 2011; Lago, Shalom, Sigman, Lau, &Phillips, 2015; Tucker, Idrissi, & Almeida, 2015). All participants in both SPRTs
scored above this cut-off.
Data trimming
Raw RTs were trimmed by removing outlying values in order to prevent extreme data
points from adversely altering the data distribution. RTs lower than 100 milliseconds(ms) were eliminated because such short reading times are generally impossible (Luce,1986): they most likely suggest that the participant simply did not read the text orunintentionally pressed the button (Jegerski, 2014). RTs over 3,000 ms were also
excluded because such data often reflect a lack of attention (e.g., Havik, Roberts, Van
Hout, Schreuder, & Haverkort, 2009; Roberts & Felser, 2011).55 The elimination of
relevant RTs affected 3.23 % (< 100 ms: 3.04 %; > 3,000 ms: 0.19 %) in ver. 1 andConventionally, residual RTs beyond 2–3 standard deviations from the mean for a given
condition and position for each participant are often removed. However, this method was notapplicable to the present study: because each participant was allocated only 4 tokens for eachcondition, all RTs fell within two standard deviations from the mean.
55

205

affected 5.72 % of the data (< 100 ms: 5.37 %; > 3,000 ms: 0.35 %) in ver. 2.
Data transformation
The remaining raw RTs were converted into residual reading times (RRTs) in order tocontrol for differences in word-length between stimuli and to minimise the influenceof individual variation in reading speed (e.g., Ferreira & Clifton, 1986; Trueswell,Tanenhaus, & Garnsey, 1994). The number of morae (the standard phonological unit
to measure Japanese words) was used as the unit of word length rather than the numberof syllables. This was because there is some evidence that the number of morae canbetter predict RTs compared to the number of syllables (Sawasaki, 2007). 56
Specifically, expected RTs per mora were first calculated for each participant by using
the linear regression formula in (6.34a). The parameters in the formula, a (= intercept)
and b (= slope) vary among the participants. Then, the RRTs were obtained bysubtracting the expected RTs from the raw RTs as shown (6.34b)(6.34) a. Expected RT = a + b * (number of morae)
b. Residual RT (RRT) = Raw RT – Expected RT
Sawasaki (2007, p. 57)

Using RRTs instead of RTs is particularly important for the comparison of sono andbare NPs within sono items (6.24–6.26) because, with sono NPs being two morae
longer than their bare NP counterparts, potential longer reading times for sono NPs
may simply be attributed to a word length effect. (This residualisation method was
also used in the main study reported in Chapter 7.)
For example, a Japanese word such as syuutyuu ‘concentration’ constitutes four phonologicalunits in morae, syu-u-tyu-u, while the same word is considered only two phonological units longin syllables, syuu-tyuu.
56206

6.5.6.2 Summary of results
For both SPRTs, visual inspections of RRT data did not detect any noticeable evidenceof the target properties, namely higher RRTs for sono NPs than bare NPs in the nonanaphoric context and higher RRTs for floating NQs than post-nominal NQs in thedefinite context (i.e., reading slowdown). The potential reading facilitation effects,
namely lower RRTs for sono NPs than bare NPs in the anaphoric context were notobserved, either. For further analysis, the effect of condition on RRTs was examinedby means of linear mixed-effects modelling for each context and each relevant
segment. A comparison of the critical model with a maximal random effect structurewith its null model (= the critical model minus the fixed effect of condition) did not
find any significant effect for any property in either ver. 1 or ver. 2. However, in Pilot
SPRT ver. 2, the native Japanese speakers showed a predicted slowdown to statisticallymarginal levels for two of the control filler types, namely the ones that werehighlighted above, concerning noun-classifier agreements (6.29) and the(un)availability of the associative reading of NPs-tati (6.30).57
The results of both SPRTs were not at odds with the predictions, in that nocounter-evidence was found for the predictions. However, no statistically significant
data were obtained to confirm the measurability of the target properties of sono andNQs. This suggests that the revised segmentation and other minor adjustments applied
to Pilot SPRT ver. 2 were not successful. Nevertheless, the fact that marginallysignificant predicted slowdown effects observed with some control fillers could
suggest that the general design of the SPRTs is appropriate, but that the SPRTs may
not be suitable for measuring the target properties of sono and the NQ constructions.

Since these null findings are all from pilot studies, it was decided it would not be good use of
space to include all of the relevant reading time plots and model outputs here. Hence, they are notpresented here. However, the relevant RRTs plots in the Pilot SPRTs can be found in Appendix 4.
57

207

Alternatively, the absence of statistical evidence for the predicted differences may bepartially due to low statistical power resulting from the relatively small numbers ofparticipants and of test items. The implications of these null pilot study results for themain study SPRT are considered in the discussion section, following.

6.6 General discussion
6.6.1 Key findings of the pilot studies
First and foremost, the crucial finding of the series of the AJT studies is that the target
properties repeated as (6.35–6.36) were attested.
(6.35) Agreed properties of the demonstrative sono
 The use of sono is preferred in anaphoric contexts over bare forms.
 The use of sono is infelicitous in non-anaphoric (i.e., unique) definite

contexts.
 The use of sono is felicitous in bridging definite contexts.

(6.36) Agreed properties of the NQ constructions
 Floating NQs are allowed only in [−definite] contexts.
 Post-nominal NQs are compatible with [+definite] contexts.

In terms of the disputed properties repeated below (6.37–6.38), the following
conclusion can be drawn. Regarding the preference for definiteness-marking by sonoin bridging anaphoric contexts, there was no evidence for the preference for sono NPs
over corresponding bare NP: both NP types seem equally acceptable. This isincompatible with the proposal that the use of sono is strongly preferred in bridging

208anaphoric contexts (e.g., Tsutsumi, 2012).58 As to the NQs, the data from the first AJT
show that floating NQs are highly acceptable in [+specific, −definite] contexts, and so
are post-nominal NQs in [−specific, −definite] contexts. This pattern is compatible
only with Prediction C, the floating-NQs-as-adverbial account (e.g., Kobayashi &Yoshimoto, 2001; Nakanishi, 2007; Shin, 2017) (see Chapter 3), which suggests NQs
are constrained by definiteness but not specificity. Therefore, it can be argued thatindefiniteness rather than non-specificity is covertly realised in the floating NQ
construction in Japanese.

(6.37) Disputed properties of the demonstrative sono

Whether the use of sono is preferred over bare forms in bridging contexts.

(6.38) Disputed properties of the NQ constructions
 Whether floating NQs are acceptable in [+specific, −definite] contexts.
 Whether post-nominal NQs are acceptable in [−specific, −definite]

contexts.

In contrast to the clear-cut AJT results, the self-paced reading experiments
did not produce robust evidence of the target properties above. Particularly, theexpected slowdown effects were not observed, although the data were not incontradiction to the AJT results. Nevertheless, native-Japanese-speaking participants
were sensitive at marginal levels to some non-target properties (the control fillers
regarding the semantic agreement between nouns and classifiers and the availability

Unlike the pilot AJTs, statistically significant preference for sono was found in bridging
contexts in the native Japanese data in main studies (to be reported in Chapters 7 and 8). However,this preference was not so strong (similar to the preference of sono in the anaphoric context in Pilot
AJT ver. 2) and bare nominals were still highly acceptable, contra the proposal.
58

209

of the associative reading of NPs-tati). Those marginally significant results indicatethat the test instrument itself is valid, but the discourse-dependent target properties
may be difficult to capture by means of the self-paced reading paradigm. This suggeststhat an AJT is a more suitable method than an SPRT for the investigation of the target
properties at least as far as native speakers are concerned.
However, with further improvements on the test items (see below) and larger
data sets, there is still a chance to obtain solid evidence for the target properties.
Furthermore, even if the native SPRT data remains unclear, L2 learners from different
L1 backgrounds (i.e., English and Korean) might reveal potentially interesting
crosslinguistic differences. Additionally, previous findings that L2 learners candemonstrate clearer effects in an SPRT than in an AJT (e.g., Hopp, 2009; Ionin, Choi,& Liu, 2019; Orfitelli & Polinsky, 2017) motivate combining the two methods for theL2 research in the present study, too. Therefore, the test instruments (Pilot AJT ver. 2
and Pilot SPRT ver. 2) were considered appropriate for main L2 studies, following
some further revisions discussed in the next section.

6.6.2 Further revisions for main studies
First, it was decided that identical test sentences were to be used for both the AJT and
the SPRT in the hope of reducing the risk of unqualifiable variation in data. (Recall
that the test sentences of Piot AJT ver. 2 and Pilot SPRT ver. 2 were essentially similar
but slightly different, as can be seen through a comparison of example items of thetwo experiments above (e.g., (6.15) and (6.25)): target sentences were slightly longer
and structurally more complexed in Pilot SPRT ver. 2.) Second, the items withrelatively low ratings in the acceptable condition in the AJT were revised, throughextensive discussions with some native Japanese informants, in terms of collocations
and word choices, in order to make them sound more natural. A third change concerned

210extra adverbials or adjuncts used to extend the test sentences in Pilot AJT ver. 2 andPilot SPRT ver. 2. They were removed for the purpose of reducing the overall taskload, given that the desired outcome of this modification was not achieved (i.e., it did
not lead to clear reading slowdown effects in SPRT ver. 2). Finally, the test vocabulary
was adjusted, using a vocabulary list for Japanese language education, named nihongo
kyoiku goi hyo ver. 1.0 ‘a list of words for Japanese language education ver. 1.0’
(http://jhlee.sakura.ne.jp/JEV/) (Nihongo Gakushu Jisho Shien Group [Japaneselearning support group], 2015), for learner-friendliness.59 Specifically, when a given
word was not found on the list, it was replaced with a listed word with a similar
meaning. Turning to the issue of statistical power, the main studies aimed to recruit
more participants. However, the number of items was not increased because it was
already relatively large (96 items per list). For example, if the present study followed
Keating and Jegerski’s (2015) guideline of 16–24 items for each critical context, thetotal number would rise to at least double the number (i.e., 192 or more items). Given
that participants have to read a preamble in addition to the target sentence, this large
number of items would cause too much burden on participants, which might
compromise the validity of data.

6.6.3 Implications for acquisition tasks and learnability predictions
The key properties of the target phenomena were all confirmed in the AJT data. Thismeans that no modification is needed to the acquisition tasks and learnability
predictions presented in Chapter 5. However, native intuitions turned out to berelatively subtle with what were designed as unacceptable conditions, particularly thefloating NQ construction in definite contexts. Specifically, the Japanese native
This list contains 18,000 words sorted by part of speech and target proficiency levels, compiled
based on Balanced Corpus of Contemporary Written Japanese (Maekawa et al., 2014) and 100
Japanese language textbooks.
59

211

speakers showed indeterminate judgments, rating around the mid-point on the scale.
This suggests that the target intuitions are themselves quite subtle. Such subtlety mightmean greater difficulty in acquiring the properties and/or in judging their acceptability
in experimental settings for L2 learners, particularly English-speaking learners, who
are predicted to tackle feature reassembly tasks.

212

Chapter 7: Main study 1 (non-web based SPRT and AJT
with L2 Japanese learners)
7.1 Introduction
This chapter reports on a study with L2 learners of Japanese as well as newly recruitednative Japanese speakers as controls that involves a self-paced reading task (SPRT) andan acceptability judgement task (AJT), which were both developed through the carefulpiloting documented in the previous chapter. The next section outlines the overall
experimental design, followed by descriptions of the participants and the testing
instruments. Subsequently, results of each task will be presented in the order ofadministration. Finally, the discussion section provides a detailed examination of theresults in comparison with those of the pilot studies, which will identify some potential
methodological problems with the AJT that makes it difficult to interpret the collected
data reliably. The discussion will lead to the conclusion that in order to effectively test thepredictions about the L2 acquisition of the target properties, an additional AJT should be
conducted, avoiding the methodological problems.

7.2 Method
7.2.1 Overall design
This study is comprised of three main tasks: an SPRT, an AJT, and a cloze task (i.e.,
proficiency test). Along with these tasks, participants were asked to complete a language
background questionnaire (see Appendix 2 for the actual questionnaire). The AJT and
SPRT were designed to test the target definiteness properties of the Japanesedemonstrative sono and NQ constructions detailed in Chapter 3. The tasks were213

administered in the following order:(7.1) Administration order
SPRT => language background questionnaire => cloze task => AJTThe SPRT was conducted first because its objective was to measure implicit
knowledge, which could be harder to observe if preceded by other tasks more likely to
induce explicit meta-linguistic knowledge (i.e., the cloze test and the AJT). The SPRT
and the AJT were constructed and administered using PsychoPy (Peirce et al., 2019)
whereas the cloze task and the background questionnaire were implemented in paper-andpencil formats. Note that the present study ran both the SPRT and the AJT with the same
participants rather than different participants. This is primarily because testing with thesame individuals would make it easier to compare participants’ performance between thetasks by controlling a number of potential sources of variation (e.g., proficiency)(although this thesis does not particularly address questions concerning untimed vs. realtime behaviour).

7.2.2 Participants
Thirty-eight L2 Japanese learners participated in the study, 12 with L1-Korean and 26
with L1-English. 60 The participant recruitment targeted learners with intermediate or
higher Japanese language proficiency. Specifically, the study was advertised for learners
who have passed N3 or higher levels on the Japanese Language Proficiency Test (JLPT)(5 levels with N5 the lowest and N1 the highest). Although there is no one-to-one
equivalence between the JLPT and standardised set of proficient levels such as Common

The original plan had been to have an equal number of Korean and English speakers, and datacollection from Korean speakers was scheduled in both February and May 2020. However, the May
data collection had to be cancelled indefinitely due to the COVID-19 pandemic.
60

214European Frame of Reference (CEFR) (Council of Europe, 2001), N3 roughly
corresponds to B1 (i.e., intermediate) on the CEFR scale (The Japan Foundation, 2017).
It was considered that at least intermediate level Japanese proficiency would be needed
to comprehend the test items (with both context and target sentence, as illustrated in
Chapter 6). The English-speaking participants were university students in the UK who
majored in the Japanese language whereas the Korean-speaking counterparts were
undergraduate or graduate students at Japanese universities with a variety of majors. Table
7.1 summarises demographic information about the L2 participants.

Table 7.1 Participant information: Main study 1

Group

Age
(yrs old)

Age ofonset(yrs old)

FormalJapanese
education(yrs)

Length ofresidency inJapan (yrs)

Korean speakers(n = 12)English speakers

23.00(2.98)
21.46

17.17(2.72)
17.19

5.33(3.15)
3.85

2.41(1.86)
0.92(n = 26)(1.61)(2.56)(2.42)(0.62)

Note. () = SD.

Twenty-six native speakers of Japanese were recruited as a control group. They were
undergraduate students on short-term courses at a UK university except for one
postgraduate student at the same university (M age = 21.1, SD = 5.08).

7.2.3 Test instruments
7.2.3.1 Proficiency test
A cloze test adapted from Marsden (2005) was used as a measure of Japanese language

215

proficiency.61 Participants were asked to fill 42 blanks in a passage, by choosing the rightanswer from four options (see Appendix 3 for the actual cloze test). This task wasadministered to the native Japanese participants as well as L2 learners for reference
purposes. The performance of each group is summarised in Table 7.2.

Table 7.2 Scores on cloze test (0–42 points): Main study 1
Group

M

SD

Range

Native controls (n = 26)

38.62 (92%)

2.17

34–42 (81–100%)

Korean speakers (n = 12)36.92 (88%)

2.71

31–40 (74–95%)

English speakers (n = 26)

25.35 (60%)

5.57

13–31 (31–74%)

The results suggest that the L1-Korean participants can be considered generally
more advanced than the L1-English participants given the large difference between themean scores and hardly overlapping score ranges. The Korean-speaking group performed
similarly to the native controls, judging from the largely overlapping score ranges and therelatively small difference between the mean scores. A one-way between-participants
ANOVA confirmed that the effect of L1 on proficiency score was significant (F (2, 61) =79.04, p < .001). Results of post hoc multiple comparisons by the Tukey HSD test showedthat the English-speaking group differed significantly from both Korean-speaking andJapanese-speaking groups (Japanese − English: M-Diff = 13.27, 95% CI [10.60, 15.93],
p < .001; Korean – English: M-Diff = 11.57, 95% CI [8.22, 14.92], p < .001). On the other
hand, the Korean group did not significantly differ from the Japanese group. These results
confirm that the Korean group were relatively advanced, scoring as high as the native
control group; and the English group was less proficient than the Korean group.62

This method was chosen mainly due to the unavailability of concise proficiency tasks for Japanese
which offer assessment comparable to a standardised set of proficiency levels such as the CEFR. It
has been shown that cloze tests offer a reliable L2 proficiency measurement (e.g., Jonz, 1990).
62 As noted above, more L1-Korean participants would have been sought, had the COVID-19
61

216

7.2.3.2 SPRTThe SPRT was conducted with the same experimental design and test materials as Pilot
study ver. 2 with some revisions as described in the previous chapter (Section 6.6.2). The
main features of the task were as follows. Target sentences were presented in six segments
non-cumulatively (the moving window paradigm). The critical region came third with
two immediately following segments designed to catch spillover effects. There were 96
items per each of two lists, consisting of 40 critical items (8 items × 5 contexts), 32 control
fillers (8 items × 4 types), and 24 unacceptable fillers (4 items × 6 types) to balance theacceptable-to-unacceptable ratio across the test (the same as in Pilot SPRT ver. 2). The
test items were pseudo-randomised for each participant. Comprehension questions wereasked for a third of the test items (32/96). Sample items from each context of the criticalitems are provided in (7.2)–(7.5) (segment boundaries are indicated by “|”) (see Appendix
5 for the full set of items). (Note that as in the pilot, the preambles were presented inJapanese script in the actual test, although presented here in English for convenience).

(7.2) Sono: anaphoric (sono NP vs. bare NP)
PREAMBLE: There is a very popular restaurant which serves great food forreasonable prices near Taroo's house.
| Taroo-wa | mukasi-kara | {sono resutoran-o vs. resutoran-o} |Taroo-TOP past-from{ SONO restaurant-ACC vs. restaurant-ACC }dare-yori-mo| yoku| riyoo-site-i-masu |more.than.anyone

often

use-do-ASP-POL.NPST‘Taroo has eaten at the restaurant more often than anyone since long ago.’

pandemic not prevented this. In particular, L1-Korean participants with lower proficiency would havebeen sought.

217

(7.3) Sono: non-anaphoric (sono NP vs. bare NP)
PREAMBLE: Hanako had a pleasant dream recently. In that dream, …
| Hanako-wa | tori-no yooni | { sono sora-o vs. sora-o }Hanako-TOP like.a.bird| jiyuuni |{ SONO sky-ACC vs. sky-ACC } freely

kimotiyoku | tobi-masita |pleasantly

fly-POL.PST‘Hanako enjoyed flying freely in the sky like a bird.’(7.4) Sono: bridging (sono NP vs. bare NP)
PREAMBLE: Hanako is now into a popular novel.
| Hanako-wa | guuzen| { sono tyosya-o vs. tyosya-o } |Hanako-TOP accidentally { SONO author-ACC vs. author-ACC }Tokyo de | issyun dake

| mi-ta koto-ga ari-masu |Tokyo inhave.seen

one.moment only

‘Hanako has caught sight of the author in Tokyo once.’(7.5) NQs: [+definite] (post-nominal vs. floating)
PREAMBLE: Taroo has one son and daughter and always takes care of them allby himself in the morning. ...
| Taroo-wa | kesa

mo | { kodomo huta-ri-o vs. kodomo-o huta-ri } |Taroo-TOP this.morning too
itumo-no yooni | siti-zias.always{ child-2-CL-ACC vs. child-ACC 2-CL }ni | okosi-masita |7-o’clock at

wake.up- POL.PST‘Taroo, as always, woke the two children up at 7 this morning.’

218

(7.6) NQs: [−definite] (post-nominal vs. floating)
PREAMBLE: A new restaurant just opened near Hanako's house and she wants togo there. But, since she does not want to go there alone, ...
| Hanako-wa | kinoo| { yuuzin huta-ri-o vs. yuuzin-o huta-ri } |Hanako-TOP yesterday { friend-2-CL-ACC vs. friend-ACC 2-CL }sassoku| ranti ni | sassote-mi-masita |immediately lunch for

ask.out-try.to-POL.PST‘Hanako went ahead and asked two friends out for lunch yesterday.’

The predictions for native speakers’ reading patterns were formulated based on
the pilot AJT findings, under the assumptions that semantic or pragmatic infelicity could
lead to increased processing load (i.e., greater reading times (RTs) compared to thealternative condition); and that preference for one form over another could facilitateprocessing (i.e., shorter RTs compared to the less-preferred form), as described below.

219



SPRT prediction 1:
Reading facilitation might take place in the sono NP condition in anaphoric contexts(7.2).

SPRT prediction 2:
Reading slowdown was expected in the sono NP condition in non-anaphoric contexts(7.3).

SPRT prediction 3:
No RT difference was expected between the sono NP and bare NP conditions inbridging contexts (7.4).



SPRT prediction 4:
Reading slowdown was expected in the floating condition in [+definite] contexts(7.5).

SPRT prediction 5:
No RT difference was expected between the post-nominal and floating conditions in[−definite] contexts (7.6).

Note, however, that all of these predictions are essentially theoretical ones based on therelative (un)acceptability in the pilot AJT data because none of them were attested in thepilot SPRT data.

7.2.3.3 AJTThe AJT was conducted using the same test items as the SPRT with the following
experimental design. Participants were asked to read test sentences and rate theacceptability of the target sentences as continuations of the preceding context on a 7-point
scale from 0 (=complete odd) to 6 (= completely natural) with an I don’t know option,220

which was added for L2 learners who might have difficulty comprehending test sentences.
Unlike the pilot AJTs, this AJT was administered using a non-web-based tool (i.e.,
PsychoPy rather than Qualtrics): participants completed the AJT on the same computer(provided by the researcher) that they had completed the SPRT on, beforehand. Similarly
to the SPRT, the test items were divided into two lists with each containing 96 items andpresented pseudo-randomly. Examples (7.2)–(7.6) from the SPRT serve to illustrate the
AJT items, too. The only difference was that in the AJT, the target sentences were
presented as full sentences, rather than phrase-by-phrase (the full list of items can befound in Appendix 5). The context and target sentences were viewed together.
Additionally, the participants could work through the test in their own time: there was notime limit for making the judgements.
The predictions for native controls’ responses based on the pilot AJTs were thefollowing.



AJT prediction 1:
Sono NPs would be rated significantly higher than or as high as bare NPs in anaphoric
contexts (7.2).



AJT prediction 2:
Sono NPs would be rated significantly lower than bare NPs in non-anaphoric contexts(7.3).

AJT prediction 3:
Sono NPs would be rated as high as bare NPs in bridging contexts (7.4).



AJT prediction 4:
Floating NQs would be rated significantly lower than post-nominal NQs in[+definite] contexts (7.5).

221



AJT prediction 5:
Floating and post-nominal NQs would be rated equally high in [−definite] contexts(7.6).

7.2.4 Procedure
The participants were tested individually in quiet places (e.g., library study spaces; rental
meeting rooms). After filling out the consent form preceded by the researcher’s
explanation about the study, they completed the three main tasks along with the language
background questionnaire in the order in (7.1). The experiments were completed on acomputer provided by the researcher. The SPRT and the AJT each included four practice
examples. Between the cloze task and the AJT, the participants were offered to have ashort break (up to 10 minutes), if they needed. The whole process took 50–60 minutes forthe native Japanese speakers and 100–120 minutes for the L2 learners. Three Englishspeaking participants did not manage to complete the AJT due to time constraints and/or
technical glitches with the computer used for the experiment (thus they were excluded
from the AJT data analysis). The participants were compensated for their time with cash
payment.

7.3 Results
7.3.1 SPRT results
7.3.1.1 SPRT data preparation
The RT data were prepared for analysis following similar procedures to those in the pilot
studies though a modification was made to the data transformation method, as outlined
below.

222

Response screening
Participants were first screened based on their comprehension scores, to check whether
they met the 70% accuracy cut-off point. All groups performed at ceiling (native controls:
M = 31.12/32 (97.3%), SD = 1.03; Korean speakers: M = 31.33/32 (97.9%), SD = 0.98;
English speakers: M = 30.81/32 (96.3%), SD = 1.39). All participants scored 84.4 %(27/31) or higher, thus nobody was excluded.
Data trimming
Next, outlying RTs were removed using the following criterion. With the native controls,
data points below 100 ms or beyond 3,000 ms were eliminated. As to the L2 learners,
below 100 ms or beyond 6,000 ms cut-off was used.63 Table 7.3 summarised the amountof data affected by group.

Table 7.3 Amount of data affectedGroup< 100 ms

> 3,000/6,000 ms

Native controls
Korean speakers
English speakers

11.87 %
0.55 %
0.04 %

0.09 %
0.06 %
1.10 %

Data transformation
Since the trimmed RT data had a positively skewed distribution as illustrated in Figure
7.1, they were log-transformed (with base 10) to approximate a normal distribution for
linear mixed effects model analysis reported below.64

This 6,000 ms cut-off was motivated by the fact that the average task completion time of the L2
learners was roughly double that of the native controls (section 7.2.4).
64 Note that log-transformation was not applied to the RT data in the pilot SPRTs (Chapter 6), whichwere also likely to be positively skewed. It was used in the main SPRT, mainly as a result ofdevelopment in my knowledge of statistical testing.
63

223

Figure 7.1 Histogram of the trimmed RT data

The log RTs were then residualised in order to minimise the effects of individual variationin reading speed and the different lengths for sono items across the conditions (sono NP
vs. bare NP), using the method described in Chapter 6 (Section 6.5.6.1).

7.3.1.2 Sono: SPRT results
Tables 7.4–7.6 present mean residual log-transformed RTs for each region in the sono
items for the native controls, the Korean-speaking learners, and the English-speaking
learners, respectively. Figures 7.2–7.4 provide graphical summaries for each context type(anaphoric, non-anaphoric, and bridging). The rectangle frames indicate the regions to bestatistically analysed.

224

Table 7.4 Sono: mean log-transformed RRTs: native controls (SD in parentheses)
#1
NP

#2
Adjunct#3
NP#4
Adjunct#5
Adjunct#6
VP

Sono NP−0.016(0.187)−0.003(0.233)−0.033(0.205)0.004(0.172)0.012(0.155)0.099(0.239)Bare NP−0.041(0.154)−0.062(0.158)−0.048(0.152)−0.054(0.162)−0.013(0.156)0.029(0.200)−0.023(0.175)−0.010(0.176)−0.020(0.218)−0.040(0.170)−0.040(0.216)0.035(0.191)−0.008(0.171)−0.016(0.183)0.021(0.222)−0.011(0.155)0.066(0.234)0.043(0.251)−0.047(0.149)−0.040(0.159)−0.038(0.197)−0.026(0.178)−0.058(0.177)−0.026(0.167)−0.009(0.138)−0.002(0.172)−0.035(0.164)−0.006(0.157)0.035(0.168)0.041(0.194)

Type

Anaphoric

Non-anaphoric
Sono NP
Bare NP

Bridging
Sono NP
Bare NP225

Table 7.5 Sono: mean log-transformed RRTs: Korean speakers (SD in parentheses)
#1
NP

#2
Adjunct#3
NP#4
Adjunct#5
Adjunct#6
VP−0.112(0.196)−0.106(0.219)−0.031(0.215)−0.035(0.180)−0.053(0.213)−0.015(0.187)0.016(0.176)−0.023(0.136)0.003(0.178)0.032(0.178)−0.009(0.194)−0.030(0.185)−0.070(0.203)0.023(0.197)0.037(0.164)0.101(0.187)0.018(0.159)−0.016(0.210)−0.115

0.007

0.033

0.051

0.065

−0.010(0.192)(0.228)(0.165)(0.241)(0.198)(0.237)

Sono NP−0.108(0.205)0.016(0.246)0.114(0.198)0.006(0.114)0.022(0.195)−0.067(0.186)

Bare NP−0.094(0.220)0.020(0.239)0.222(0.204)0.049(0.171)

0.037(0.172)−0.027(0.214)

Type

Anaphoric
Sono NP
Bare NP

Non-anaphoric
Sono NP
Bare NP

Bridging

226

Table 7.6 Sono: mean log-transformed RRTs: English speakers (SD in parentheses)
#1
NP

#2
Adjunct#3
NP#4
Adjunct#5
Adjunct#6
VP

Sono NP−0.132(0.195)−0.004(0.190)−0.081(0.149)−0.001(0.182)0.005(0.176)0.025(0.244)

Bare NP−0.139(0.228)0.001(0.201)−0.064(0.136)0.012(0.203)0.053(0.196)−0.011(0.217)

Sono NP−0.101(0.255)0.046(0.206)0.068(0.200)0.078(0.178)0.024(0.170)−0.032(0.219)Bare NP−0.082(0.204)0.015(0.212)0.079(0.209)0.034(0.216)0.027(0.176)−0.029(0.217)

Sono NP−0.069(0.253)0.037(0.191)0.178(0.177)−0.005(0.171)

0.063(0.244)−0.058(0.194)

Bare NP−0.050(0.260)0.036(0.199)0.242(0.249)0.014(0.192)0.064(0.220)−0.026(0.200)Type

Anaphoric

Non-anaphoric

bridging

227

Native controls, sono NP
Korean speakers, sono NP
English speakers, sono NP

Native controls, bare NP
Korean speakers, bare NP
English speakers, bare NP

Residual Reading Times (log)

0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
-0.1
-0.2
-0.3
#1_NP

#2_Adj.

#3_NP#4_Adj.

#5_Adj.

#6_VP

Residual Reading Times (log)

Figure 7.2 Mean RRTs (log) for sono items in the anaphoric context (error bars = SE)

Native controls, sono NP

Native controls, bare NP

Korean speakers, sono NP

Korean speakers, bare NP

English speakers, sono NP

English speakers, bare NP

0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
-0.1
-0.2
-0.3
#1_NP

#2_Adj.

#3_NP#4_Adj.

#5_Adj.

#6_VP

Figure 7.3 Mean RRTs (log) for sono items in the non-anaphoric context (error bars =
SE)

228

Residual Reading Times (log)Native controls, sono NP

Native controls, bare NP

Korean speakers, sono NP

Korean speakers, bare NP

English speakers, sono NP

English speakers, bare NP

0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
-0.1

-0.2
-0.3
#1_NP

#2_Adj.

#3_NP#4_Adj.

#5_Adj.

#6_VP

Figure 7.4 Mean RRTs (log) for sono items in the bridging context (error bars = SE)

The log-transformed residual RTs were analysed by means of the lme functionin R. Separate linear mixed-effects models were constructed for each region of interest(Regions 3–5: critical region and two spillover regions). The fixed effects of these models
were CONTEXT (anaphoric vs. non-anaphoric vs. bridging), NP TYPE (sono NP vs. bareNP), L1 (Japanese vs. Korean vs. English) and the interactions between them with the
maximal possible random effects structure (only the final model that converged isreported). CONTEXT and NP TYPE were sum-coded (CONTEXT: anaphoric = [0, 0.5], nonanaphoric = [0.5, 0], bridging = [−0.5, −0.5]; NP TYPE: sono NP = 0.5 vs. bare NP = −0.5)
whereas L1 was Helmert-coded so that the native Japanese group was compared to theL2 learners (the Korean and English groups combined), and the two L2 groups werecompared to each other ( L1: Japanese = [1, 0], Korean = [−0.5, 1], English = [−0.5, −1])(the same Helmert coding scheme is used for the rest of the thesis for L1). 65 WhenThe sum coding of CONTEXT and the Helmert coding of L1 can be shown in more comprehensible
ways using tables in (i) and (ii), respectively.
65229

interactions were found in the main model, they were examined further using relevant
nested models.66
Table 7.7 shows the results of the omnibus linear mixed effects model analysis
in the critical region. There were effects of CONTEXT (context 1 & context 2), NP TYPE,
and the contrast between the native control and the L2 groups. There were also two-way
interactions between CONTEXT (context 1 & context 2) and the native vs. L2 contrast,
between CONTEXT (context 1) and the Korean vs. English contrast. Additionally, there
was a marginal two-way interaction between CONTEXT (context 2) and NP TYPE.
Particularly important in confirming whether the predicted reading effects occurred is theabsence/presence of interactions involving CONTEXT (context 1 & context 2) and NP
TYPE. Thus, the absence of relevant interactions means that none of the three groups readthe two types of NP significantly differently in any context, despite the marginal
interaction between CONTEXT (context 2) and NP TYPE.

(i) Sum coding of CONTEXT
Level
1. non-anaphoric
2. anaphoric
3. bridging

Context 1(LVL 1 vs. Mean)
0.5
0
−0.5

Context 2(LVL 2 vs. Mean)
0
0.5
−0.5

(ii) Helmert coding of L1
L1 1:J vs. (K & E)
(LVL 1 vs. LVLs 2 & 3)
1. Japanese
1
2. Korean−0.5
3. English−0.5
Note. J = Japanese, K = Korean, E = English.

L1 2: K vs. E(LVL 2 vs. LVL 3)
0
1
−1

Level

For CONTEXT, the first contrast (context 1) compared level 1 (non-anaphoric) with the grand mean of
all levels, and the second (context 2) compared level 2 (anaphoric) with the grand mean. Level 3(bridging) was not compared to the other levels. As to L1, the first contrast compared level 1 of thevariable (Japanese) with all the subsequent levels (levels 2 & 3: Korean & English) and the second
contrast compared level 2 (Korean) with level 3 (English).
66 Given the significant difference between the Korean and English groups in proficiency (i.e., cloze
test scores), the effect of proficiency was planned to be examined if three-way interactions between
CONTEXT, NP TYPE, and the contrast between the Korean vs. English were found significant in orderto tease apart the effect of L1 from that of proficiency. However, such interactions were not found, as
shown below.

230

Table 7.7 Fixed effects estimates for linear mixed effects model of log-transformed RRTs for sono items in the critical region
Fixed Effects

β

SE

t

p

(intercept)
context 1
context 2
NP type

0.036−0.1630.160−0.036

0.012
0.035
0.035
0.012

2.653
−4.7284.607−3.088.014 *<.001 ***<.001 ***
.005 **

L1(1): Japanese vs. (Korean & English)
L1(2): Korean & English
context 1 × NP typecontext 2 × NP typecontext 1 × L1(1): Japanese vs. (Korean & English)
context 2 × L1(1): Japanese vs. (Korean & English)
context 1 × L1(2): Korean & English−0.062−0.0070.045−0.0620.142−0.187
0.054

0.011
0.007
0.033
0.033
0.031
0.031
0.020

−5.609−1.0341.377−1.8794.566−5.9842.714<.001 ***
.305
.181
.073 †<.001 ***<.001 ***
.008 **

context 2 × L1(2): Korean & English
NP type × L1(1): Japanese vs. (Korean & English)
NP type × L1(2): Korean & English
context 1 × NP type × L1(1): Japanese vs. (Korean & English)
context 2 × NP type × L1(1): Japanese vs. (Korean & English)
context 1 × NP type × L1(2): Korean & English
context 2 × NP type × L1(2): Korean & English−0.0300.005−0.0070.046
0.059−0.005−0.025

0.020
0.013
0.013
0.038
0.038
0.036
0.037

−1.4720.340−0.5551.213
1.545−0.151−0.676

.146
.734
.580
.226
.124
.880
.500

Note. Formula: RRT ~ context * NP type * L1 + (context * NP type | participant) + (NP type + L1 | item). Coding: context: anaphoric = [0, 0.5],
non-anaphoric = [0.5, 0], bridging = [−0.5, −0.5]; NP type: sono NP = 0.5 vs. bare NP = −0.5; L1: Japanese = [1, 0], Korean = [−0.5, 1], English =[−0.5, −1]. *** p < .001, ** p < .01, * p < .05, † p < .10.

231

The main model output for the spillover 1 region is presented in Table 7.8. The
model revealed that there were effects of the contrast between the native and L2 groups
and a two-way interaction between the effects of CONTEXT (context 2) and NP TYPE.
Given the absence of three-way interactions, it is suggested that although the effect of NP
TYPE differed across the contexts, the three groups were not significantly different fromone another in terms of the effect of NP TYPE within each context.
The effect of NP TYPE within each context type was examined further with anested model. Its results (Table 7.9) revealed that the effect of NP TYPE was not significant
within any contexts. The two-way interaction in the main model apparently resulted fromthe coefficient for the effect of NP TYPE being in the negative for the bridging context but
in the positive for the anaphoric and non-anaphoric contexts.
Table 7.10 provides the results of the main model for the spillover 2 region.
There was an effect of the contrast between the native control and the L2 groups, as in
the preceding two segments. There was a marginal two-way interaction between theeffects of CONTEXT (context 2) and the native vs. L2 contrast. Additionally, there was athree-way interaction between the effects of CONTEXT (context 2), NP TYPE and thenative vs. L2 contrast, which suggests that the effect of NP TYPE depends on the context
and the group (native or L2). To identify the source of the interaction, separate nested
models were constructed to examine the effect of NP TYPE within each group for eachcontext. The models (Table 7.11) found no significant effect of NP TYPE within eachgroup for any context despite a marginal effect in the English group for the anaphoric
context in the predicted direction (i.e., sono NP < bare NP). It seems that the three-way
interaction reflects the fact that the polarities of NP TYPE effects differ in the native control
vs. the L2 learners (the Korean and English groups combined), but the relation varies

232according to the context as well (anaphoric & non-anaphoric vs. bridging).67
Overall, the series of statistical analyses above found no solid evidence for thepredicted reading patterns (SPRT Predictions 1−3 in Section 7.2.3.2) for any groups,
namely reading slowdown in the sono NP condition in the non-anaphoric context andreading facilitation in the sono NP condition in the anaphoric and bridging context.

It can be seen in Table 7.11 that in the bridging model, the Korean group matches the native control
group rather than the English group in terms of the direction of the effect of NP type. However, theEnglish group inevitably represents the L2 pattern due to the sample size discrepancy (Korean, n = 12
vs. English, n = 26).
67

233

Table 7.8 Fixed effects estimates for linear mixed effects model of log-transformed RRTs for sono items in the spillover 1 region
Fixed Effects

β

SE

t

p

(intercept)
context 1
context 2
NP type0.014−0.043−0.010
0.012

0.013
0.034
0.035
0.009

1.072
−1.269−0.288
1.323

.294
.218
.776
.186

L1(1): Japanese vs. (Korean & English)
L1(2): Korean & English
context 1 × NP typecontext 2 × NP typecontext 1 × L1(1): Japanese vs. (Korean & English)
context 2 × L1(1): Japanese vs. (Korean & English)
context 1 × L1(2): Korean & English−0.0290.005
0.032−0.0700.021
0.029−0.019

0.014
0.009
0.025
0.025
0.036
0.037
0.021

−2.1450.562
1.265−2.7650.595
0.801−0.920.041 *.577.206.006 **
.558
.431
.364

context 2 × L1(2): Korean & English
NP type × L1(1): Japanese vs. (Korean & English)
NP type × L1(2): Korean & English
context 1 × NP type × L1(1): Japanese vs. (Korean & English)
context 2 × NP type × L1(1): Japanese vs. (Korean & English)
context 1 × NP type × L1(2): Korean & English
context 2 × NP type × L1(2): Korean & English

0.012
0.006
0.007
0.047
0.019
0.039
−0.037

0.022
0.012
0.012
0.034
0.034
0.033
0.033

0.561
0.531
0.585
1.369
0.570
1.201
−1.124

.578
.595
.559
.171
.569
.230
.261

Note. Formula: RRT ~ context * NP type * L1 + (context + NP type | participant) + (NP type + L1 | item). Coding: context: anaphoric = [0, 0.5],
non-anaphoric = [0.5, 0], bridging = [−0.5, −0.5]; NP type: sono NP = 0.5 vs. bare NP = −0.5; L1: Japanese = [1, 0], Korean = [−0.5, 1], English =[−0.5, −1]. *** p <.001, * p < .05.

234

Table 7.9 Fixed effects estimates for nested linear mixed effects model of log-transformed RRTs for sono items in the spillover 1 region: effects of
NP type within each context
Fixed Effects

β

SE

t

p

(intercept)
context 1
context 2

0.010−0.038−0.010

0.013
0.034
0.034

0.772
−1.128−0.295

.447
.272
.771

context: anaphoric / NP typecontext: bridging / NP typecontext : non-anaphoric / NP type0.025
−0.020
0.029

0.016
0.015
0.020

1.521
−1.290
1.482

.132
.198
.144

Note. Formula: RRT ~ context / NP type + (context * NP type | participant) + (NP type | item). “x / y” represents the effect of variable y with variable
x held constant. Coding: context: anaphoric = [0, 0.5], non-anaphoric = [0.5, 0], bridging = [−0.5, −0.5]; NP type: sono NP = 0.5 vs. bare NP =
−0.5.

235

Table 7.10 Fixed effects estimates for linear mixed effects model of log-transformed RRTs for sono items in the spillover 2 region
Fixed Effects

β

SE

t

p

(intercept)
context 1
context 2
NP type0.021−0.0130.006−0.013

0.014
0.039
0.039
0.010

1.531
−0.3310.158−1.386

.139
.744
.876
.166

L1(1): Japanese vs. (Korean & English)
L1(2): Korean & English
context 1 × NP typecontext 2 × NP typecontext 1 × L1(1): Japanese vs. (Korean & English)
context 2 × L1(1): Japanese vs. (Korean & English)
context 1 × L1(2): Korean & English−0.027−0.006−0.006−0.0040.019−0.036−0.001

0.007
0.007
0.027
0.027
0.019
0.019
0.018

−3.749−0.795−0.234−0.1580.999−1.923−0.067<.001 ***
.429
.815
.874
.319
.056 †.946

context 2 × L1(2): Korean & English
NP type × L1(1): Japanese vs. (Korean & English)
NP type × L1(2): Korean & English
context 1 × NP type × L1(1): Japanese vs. (Korean & English)
context 2 × NP type × L1(1): Japanese vs. (Korean & English)
context 1 × NP type × L1(2): Korean & English
context 2 × NP type × L1(2): Korean & English−0.0230.020−0.0070.043−0.0740.032>0.001

0.018
0.013
0.012
0.036
0.036
0.035
0.035

−1.2501.593−0.551
1.173−2.057
0.913
0.008

.213
.111
.582
.241
.040 *.361.994

Note. Formula: RRT ~ context * NP type * L1 + (context + NP type | participant) + ( NP type | item). Coding: context: anaphoric = [0, 0.5], nonanaphoric = [0.5, 0], bridging = [−0.5, −0.5]; NP type: sono NP = 0.5 vs. bare NP = −0.5; L1: Japanese = [1.0, 0], Korean = [−0.5, 1], English =[−0.5, −1]. *** p <.001, * p < .05, † p < .10.

236

Table 7.11 Results of nested models for RRTs for each context for sono items in thespillover 2 region
Fixed Effects

β

SE

t

p

anaphoric(intercept)
L1(1): J vs. (K & E)
L1(2): K vs. E
L1: J / NP type
L1: K / NP type
L1: E / NP type0.016
−0.016−0.0060.026−0.028−0.047

0.019
0.021
0.016
0.030
0.040
0.024

0.835
−0.769−0.3910.843−0.704−1.922

.429
.464
.705
.426
.500
.070 †

Non-anaphoric(intercept)
L1(1): J vs. (K & E)
L1(2): K vs. E
L1: J / NP type
L1: K / NP type
L1: E / NP type0.024
−0.0190.006
0.028−0.049−0.004

0.027
0.015
0.013
0.029
0.041
0.024

0.905
−1.2990.502
0.975−1.205−0.166

.395
.230
.627
.354
.259
.869

0.024
−0.045−0.017−0.029−0.014<0.001

0.026
0.027
0.019
0.027
0.036
0.027

0.934
−1.674−0.911−1.098−0.384
0.012

.381
.137
.391
.287
.701
.990

Bridging(intercept)
L1(1): J vs. (K & E)
L1(2): K vs. E
L1: J / NP type
L1: K / NP type
L1: E / NP typeNote. Formula: RRT ~ L1 / NP type + (NP type | participant) + (NP type * L1 | item). J =Japanese, K = Korean, E = English. “x / y” represents the effect of variable y with variable
x held constant. Coding: context: anaphoric = [0, 0.5], non-anaphoric = [0.5, 0], bridging= [−0.5, −0.5]; NP type: sono NP = 0.5 vs. bare NP = −0.5; L1: Japanese = [1.0, 0], Korean= [−0.5, 1], English = [−0.5, −1]. † p < .10.

237

7.3.1.3 NQ constructions: SPRT results
Tables 7.12–7.14 provide mean residual RTs for each region in the NQ construction items
for the native controls, the Korean speakers, and the English-speakers, respectively.
Figures 7.5–7.6 summarise the data for each context type (i.e., [+definite] and [−definite])in graphical forms. The rectangle frames indicate the regions subject to statistical analysis.
Table 7.12 NQ constructions: mean log-transformed RRTs: native controls (SD inparentheses)Type[+definite]
Postnominal
Floating#1
NP#2
Adjunct#3
NP#4
Adjunct#5
Adjunct#6
VP−0.027(0.167)−0.027(0.152)−0.051(0.171)−0.046(0.213)−0.001(0.199)−0.045(0.207)0.023(0.156)0.029(0.186)0.008(0.145)−0.006(0.153)0.043(0.218)0.017(0.188)−0.046(0.187)−0.069(0.164)−0.065(0.195)−0.056(0.156)−0.042(0.221)−0.056(0.234)0.010(0.196)0.045(0.179)−0.033(0.155)−0.023(0.156)0.029(0.217)0.012(0.226)[−definite]
Postnominal
Floating

238

Table 7.13 NQ constructions: mean log-transformed RRTs: Korean speakers (SD inparentheses)
#1
NP

#2
Adjunct#3
NP#4
Adjunct#5
Adjunct#6
VP

Postnominal−0.116(0.159)−0.061(0.240)−0.022(0.238)0.046(0.168)0.009(0.154)0.027(0.231)

Floating−0.138(0.152)−0.017(0.182)−0.041(0.238)0.061(0.187)0.032(0.157)0.048(0.230)Postnominal−0.127(0.126)−0.033(0.189)0.100(0.281)

0.055(0.206)0.074(0.177)0.005(0.220)Floating−0.122(0.168)−0.041(0.187)0.089(0.260)0.052(0.172)0.049(0.205)−0.106(0.169)Type[+definite][−definite]

Table 7.14 NQ constructions: mean log-transformed RRTs: English speakers (SD inparentheses)
#1
NP

#2
Adjunct#3
NP#4
Adjunct#5
Adjunct#6
VP

Postnominal−0.163(0.169)0.032(0.216)0.054(0.213)0.003(0.180)0.001(0.171)−0.025(0.223)

Floating−0.163(0.186)0.019(0.188)0.017(0.224)0.083(0.208)0.022(0.196)−0.009(0.205)

Postnominal−0.162(0.192)0.085(0.238)0.127(0.251)0.080(0.185)0.030(0.160)−0.078(0.201)

Floating−0.170(0.169)0.069(0.214)0.127(0.201)

0.101(0.265)0.086(0.225)−0.033(0.163)Type[+definite][−definite]239

Residual Reading Times (log)Native controls, post-nominal
Korean speakers, post-nominal
English speakers, post-nominal

Native controls, floating
Korean speakers, floating
English speakers, floating

0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
-0.1
-0.2
-0.3
#1_NP

#2_Adj.

#3_NP#4_Adj.

#5_Adj.

#6_VP

Figure 7.5 Mean RRTs (log) for NQ construction items in the [+definite] context (error
bars = SE)

Residual Reading Times (log)Native controls, post-nominal
Korean speakers, post-nominal
English speakers, post-nominal

Native controls, floating
Korean speakers, floating
English speakers, floating

0.3
0.2
0.1

0.0
-0.1
-0.2
-0.3
#1_NP

#2_Adj.

#3_NP#4_Adj.

#5_Adj.

#6_VP

Figure 7.6 Mean RRTs (log) for NQ construction items in the [−definite] context (error
bars = SE)
Analysis was conducted by means of a linear mixed-effects model, which240

including as fixed effects DEFINITENESS ([+definite] vs. [−definite]), QUANTIFIERTYPE (post-nominal vs. floating), L1(Japanese vs. Korean vs. English), and theinteractions between them. DEFINITENESS and QUANTIFIER TYPE were sum-coded(DEFINITENESS: [+definite] = 0.5 vs. [−definite] = −0.5; QUANTIFIER TYPE: postnominal = 0.5 vs. floating = −0.5) whereas L1 was Helmert-coded to compare between
the native vs. the L2 learners and between the Korean speakers vs. the English speakers.
The random effects structure was specified as maximal as possible (only the final models
that converged are reported).
Table 7.15 presents the results for the linear mixed-effects analysis in thecritical segment. There were effects of the contrast between the native controls and theL2 learners and a marginal effect of the contrast between the Korean and English groupas well as a two-way interaction between DEFINITENESS and the native vs. L2 contrast.
However, the fact that there were no interactions involving the effects of DEFINITENESS
and QUANTIFIER TYPE means that no groups showed evidence of sensitivity to thedefiniteness constraint on floating NQs in terms of RTs.
Table 7.16 provides the linear mixed-effects model output for the fourth
segment (spillover 1). There was an effect of the contrast between the native controls andthe L2 learners. However, no interactions involving the effects of DEFINITENESS andQUANTIFIER TYPE were found, meaning no evidence for the relevant definitenessconstraint across the groups.
The results for the spillover 2 model are summarised in Table 7.17. The model
revealed an effect of the contrast between the native controls and the L2 learners. There
was an interaction between DEFINITENESS and the native vs. L2 contrast, as in the criticalsegment. The absence of two- and three-way interactions concerning DEFINITENESS andQUANTIFIER TYPE suggests that no groups were sensitive to the definiteness constraint,

as in the preceding two segments.

241

In sum, because there were no two-way interactions between DEFINITENESS
and QUANTIFIER TYPE and no three-way interactions in any segment of interest, no groupseems sensitive to the definiteness constraint on floating NQs in terms of RTs, whichsuggests no evidence of the predicted reading slowdown effect (SPRT Prediction 4 in
Section 7.2.3.2).

242

Table 7.15 Fixed effects estimates for linear mixed effects model of log-transformed RRTs for NQ construction items in the critical region
Fixed Effects

β

SE

t

p

(intercept)

0.025

0.026

0.954

.355

definiteness

0.065

0.051

1.271

.224

quantifier type

0.020

0.014

1.389

.183

L1(1): Japanese vs. (Korean & English)−0.0640.022−2.950.009 **

L1(2): Korean vs. English−0.0260.014−1.839.080 †

definiteness ×quantifier type−0.0240.029−0.842.412

definiteness × L1(1): Japanese vs. (Korean & English)−0.0920.040−2.273.039 *

definiteness × L1(2): Korean vs. English

0.017

0.025

0.669

.514

quantifier type × L1(1): Japanese vs. (Korean & English)

0.005

0.018

0.320

.749

quantifier type × L1(2): Korean vs. English−0.0050.018−0.274.784

definiteness ×quantifier type × L1(1): Japanese vs. (Korean & English)−0.0120.037−0.337.736

definiteness ×quantifier type× L1(2): Korean vs. English

0.014

0.035

0.403

.687

Note. Formula: RRT ~ definiteness * quantifier type * L1 + (definiteness * quantifier type | participant) + (quantifier type + L1 | item). Coding:definiteness: [+definite] = 0.5 vs [−definite] = −0.5; quantifier type: post-nominal = 0.5 vs. floating = −0.5; L1: Japanese = [1.0, 0], Korean =[−0.5, 1], English = [−0.5, −1]. ** p < .01, * p < .05, † p < .10.

243

Table 7.16 Fixed effects estimates for linear mixed effects model of log-transformed RRTs for NQ construction items in the spillover 1 region
Fixed Effects

β

SE

t

p

(intercept)

0.049

0.016

2.994

.009 **

definiteness

0.017

0.033

0.525

.608

quantifier type−0.0260.016−1.633.123

L1(1): Japanese vs. (Korean & English)−0.0230.008−2.675.008 **

L1(2): Korean vs. English−0.0070.008−0.826.409

definiteness ×quantifier type

0.014

0.031

0.450

.659

definiteness × L1(1): Japanese vs. (Korean & English)−0.0140.017−0.817.414

definiteness × L1(2): Korean vs. English−0.0250.016−1.527.127

quantifier type × L1(1): Japanese vs. (Korean & English)

0.005

0.017

0.290

.773

quantifier type × L1(2): Korean vs. English

0.022

0.017

1.325

.191

definiteness ×quantifier type × L1(1): Japanese vs. (Korean & English)−0.0470.034−1.380.168

definiteness ×quantifier type× L1(2): Korean vs. English−0.0220.032−0.666.506

Note. Formula: RRT ~ definiteness * quantifier type * L1 + (definiteness * quantifier type | participant) + (quantifier type | item). Coding:definiteness: [+definite] = 0.5 vs. [−definite] = −0.5; quantifier type: post-nominal = 0.5 vs. floating = −0.5; L1: Japanese = [1.0, 0], Korean =[−0.5, 1], English = [−0.5, −1]. ** p < .01.

244

Table 7.17 Fixed effects estimates for linear mixed effects model of log-transformed RRTs for NQ construction items in the spillover 2 region
Fixed Effects

Β

SE

t

p

(intercept)

0.021

0.010

2.065

.051 †

definiteness

0.020

0.019

1.055

.308

quantifier type−0.0110.011−1.005.315

L1(1): Japanese vs. (Korean & English)−0.0330.010−3.436.001 **

L1(2): Korean vs. English

0.003

0.009

0.335

.739

definiteness × quantifier type−0.0030.023−0.148.883

definiteness × L1(1): Japanese vs. (Korean & English)−0.0480.015−3.170.002 **

definiteness × L1(2): Korean vs. English−0.0030.015−0.183.855

quantifier type × L1(1): Japanese vs. (Korean & English)

0.014

0.015

0.900

.368

quantifier type × L1(2): Korean vs. English

0.020

0.015

1.371

.171

definiteness × quantifier type × L1(1): Japanese vs. (Korean & English)−0.0190.030−0.632.527

definiteness × quantifier type× L1(2): Korean vs. English

0.042

0.029

1.436

.151

Note. Formula: RRT ~ definiteness * quantifier type * L1 + (definiteness * quantifier type | participant) + (quantifier type | item). Coding:definiteness: [+definite] = 0.5 vs. [−definite] = −0.5; quantifier type: post-nominal = 0.5 vs. floating = −0.5; L1: Japanese = [1.0, 0], Korean =[−0.5, 1], English = [−0.5, −1]. ** p < .01, † p < .10.

245

7.3.2 AJT results
7.3.2.1 Sono: AJT resultsGroup mean acceptability ratings were calculated for each NP type for each context type,as summarised in Table 7.18. Figures 7.7 through 7.9 illustrate the data in bar graphs forthe anaphoric, non-anaphoric and bridging contexts, respectively. I don’t know responses
were excluded, which affected 2.80 % of the data (41/1464: 1 from the native control
group and 40 from the English group) with roughly a half of them found in the bridging
context and the other half evenly spread across the anaphoric and non-anaphoric contexts.

Table 7.18 Mean acceptability ratings by context and by group : Main study 1 sono items(SD in parentheses)
Condition
Anaphoric
Nonanaphoric
Bridging

NP type

Nativecontrols

Koreanspeakers

Englishspeakers

Sono NP

5.30 (1.20)

4.50 (1.49)

4.47 (1.66)

Bare NP

4.58 (1.86)

4.29 (1.24)

4.41 (1.82)

Sono NP

4.06 (2.04)

3.69 (1.82)

3.91 (1.89)

Bare NP

4.65 (1.82)

4.46 (1.50)

4.57 (1.78)

Sono NP

5.17 (1.32)

4.46 (1.49)

3.83 (1.99)

Bare NP

4.70 (1.81)

4.15 (1.53)

3.27 (2.02)

246

6.00
5.00

4.00
3.00
2.00
1.00
0.00
Native controls

Korean speakers

Sono NP

English speakers
Bare NP

Figure 7.7 Mean acceptability ratings for sono items in the anaphoric context (error bars
= SE)

6.00
5.00
4.00
3.00
2.00
1.00
0.00
Native controls

Korean speakers

Sono NP

English speakers
Bare NP

Figure 7.8 Mean acceptability ratings for sono items in the non-anaphoric context (error
bars = SE)

247

6.00
5.00

4.00
3.00
2.00
1.00
0.00
Native controls

Korean speakers

Sono NP

English speakers
Bare NP

Figure 7.9 Mean acceptability ratings for sono items in the bridging context (error bars
= SE)
Recall the predicted native judgement pattern based on the pilot studies (AJT
predictions 1–3 in Section 7.2.3.3): sono NPs would be rated significantly lower than bare
NPs in the non-anaphoric context; whereas sono NPs would be rated higher than orequally high as bare NPs in the anaphoric context, and would be equally high as bare NPs
in the bridging context. Figures 7.7 and 7.8 show that the native controls’ responses wereoverall compatible with the predictions for the anaphoric and non-anaphoric contexts(Predictions 1 and 2), although the preference for sono NPs over bare NPs in theanaphoric context was notably clearer in the native control groups than the L2 groups. As
to the bridging context, all the three groups showed a slight preference for sono NPs overbare NPs, against the prediction (AJT prediction 3).
For further analysis, an ordinal mixed effects model was fitted to theacceptability ratings using the clmm function in the ordinal package (Christensen, 2018)
in R.68 The fixed effects were CONTEXT (anaphoric vs. non-anaphoric vs. bridging), NP
For the AJT data reported in this chapter and next, ordinal mixed-effects models are used rather
than linear mixed-effects models such as those used in the pilot data analysis in the previous chapter.
This is simply because it is the most reasonable for Likert ratings with natural ordering between the
68

248

TYPE (sono NP vs. bare NP), and L1 (Japanese vs. Korean vs. English), and theirinteractions. Random intercepts were included for participants and items, with CONTEXT
and NP TYPE as random by-participant slopes and NP TYPE as random by-item slopes (i.e.,the maximal possible model that converged). L1 was Helmert-coded whereas the othervariables were sum-coded in the same way as in the SPRT data analysis above.
The omnibus model (Table 7.19) revealed an effect of the contrast between thenative control and L2 groups and two-way interactions between CONTEXT (context 1 &context 2) and NP TYPE, and between CONTEXT (context 1) and the native vs. L2 contrast.
There was also a marginal effect of CONTEXT (context 2). Of particular interest are thetwo-way interactions of NP TYPE with CONTEXT (context 1 & context 2), which suggestthat the effect of NP TYPE differs according to the context. Furthermore, the fact that there
were no three-way interactions means that the effect of NP TYPE within each context does
not significantly differ between the native controls and the L2 groups or between the L2
groups.

values (= ordinal data). Furthermore, linear mixed-effects models rely on the assumption that thedependent variable is interval (or ratio) data, which is not met in Likert rating data hence there isalways risk for systematic Type I and Type II errors (Liddell & Kruschke, 2018), and even ztransformed ratings are not completely free of such errors (Dillion & Wagers, forthcoming). I am
grateful to Shayne Sloggett (experimental officer in Psycholinguistics at the University of York) for
his advice on this issue.

249

Table 7.19 Results of the omnibus ordinal model for acceptability ratings for sono items
Fixed Effects

β

SE

z

p

Context 1
Context 2
NP typeL1(1): Japanese vs. (Korean & English)−0.3270.535−0.053
0.646

0.336
0.308
0.116
0.161

−0.9731.737−0.4594.006.331.082 †.646<.001 ***

L1(2): Korean vs. English
Context 1 × NP typeContext 2 × NP typeContext 1 × L1(1): Japanese vs. (Korean & English)
Context 2 × L1(1): Japanese vs. (Korean & English)
Context 1 × L1(2): Korean vs. English
Context 2 × L1(2): Korean vs. English−0.0181.675−0.731−0.7530.027−0.390−0.268

0.160
0.329
0.328
0.265
0.199
0.259
0.186

−0.1125.085−2.227−2.8420.135−1.506−1.444.911<.001 ***
.026 *.004 **
.892
.132
.149

NP type × L1(1): Japanese vs. (Korean & English)
NP type × L1(2): Korean vs. English
Context 1 × NP type × L1(1): Japanese vs. (Korean & English)
Context 2 × NP type × L1(1): Japanese vs. (Korean & English)
Context 1 × NP type × L1(2): Korean vs. English
Context 2 × NP type × L1(2): Korean vs. English−0.198−0.0520.322−0.5490.027−0.297

0.138
0.131
0.387
0.393
0.370
0.368

−1.434−0.4010.831−1.3980.074−0.805

.152
.689
.406
.162
.941
.421

Note. Formula: rating ~ context * L1* NP type + (context + NP type | participant) + (NP type | item). Coding: context: anaphoric = [0, 0.5], nonanaphoric = [0.5, 0], bridging = [−0.5, −0.5]; NP type: sono NP = −0.5 vs. bare NP = 0.5; L1: Japanese = [1.0, 0], Korean = [−0.5, 1], English =[−0.5, −1]. *** p <.001, ** p <.01, * p < .05, † p < .10.

250

To analyse this further, a nested model was constructed to test the effect of NP
TYPE within each context. The model (Table 7.20) found that the effect of NP TYPE wassignificant in all three contexts: sono NPs were rated higher than bare NPs in theanaphoric and bridging contexts whereas the opposite was true in the non-anaphoric
context. Taken together with the absence of the three-way interactions between CONTEXT,NP TYPE, and L1-related contrasts in the omnibus model, it can be said that both the native

control and L2 groups followed the same patterns within each context. Such a result seems
surprising with the anaphoric context, where the relevant contrast appeared notably lessclear in the descriptive data for the L2 groups than the native control group (Figure 7.7).
To examine this absence of native vs. L2 contrast regarding the effect of NP TYPE, further
analysis was conducted by running a post hoc nested model and checking individual
response patterns focusing on the anaphoric context. The nested model output, provided
in Table 7.21, suggests that the effect of NP TYPE was only significant within the native
control group. This could indicate that the native controls tend to be more consistent in
rating sono NPs higher than bare NPs (although this model result does not provide
concrete evidence, since the interaction between NP TYPE and L1 was not significant in
the omnibus model).

251

Table 7.20 Results of the nested ordinal model for acceptability ratings : the effect of NP type by context
Fixed Effects

β

SE

z

p

Context 1
Context 2
Context: anaphoric / NP typeContext: non-anaphoric / NP type−0.3690.553−0.439
0.794

0.346
0.311
0.202
0.214

−1.0651.780−2.1693.709.287.075 †.030 *<.001 ***

Context: bridging / NP type−0.5560.210−2.653.008 **

Note. Formula: rating ~ context / NP type + (context + NP type | participant) + (NP type | item). Coding: context: anaphoric = [0, 0.5], non-anaphoric= [0.5, 0], bridging = [−0.5, −0.5]; NP type: sono NP = −0.5 vs. bare NP = 0.5. *** p <.001, ** p <.01, † p < .10.

Table 7.21 Results of the nested ordinal model for acceptability ratings within each group for the anaphoric context
Fixed Effects
L1(1): Japanese vs. (Korean & English)
L1(2): Korean vs. English
L1: Japanese / NP type
L1: Korean / NP type
L1: English / NP type

β

SE

z

0.644
−0.156−0.889−0.382
0.036

0.185
0.179
0.315
0.375
0.317

3.483
−0.871−2.822−1.0170.114

p<.001 ***
.384
.005 **.309.909

Note. Formula: rating ~ L1 / NP type + ( NP type | participant) + (NP type | item). Coding: NP type: sono NP = −0.5 vs. bare NP = 0.5; L1: Japanese= [1.0, 0], Korean = [−0.5, 1], English = [−0.5, −1]. *** p <.001, ** p <.01.

252

Turning to the individual response analysis, Table 7.22 categorises theindividual participants in terms of three types of mean ratings pattern: (i) those withhigher ratings for sono NPs than bare NPs, (ii) no difference between the meaning ratingsof the two NP types, and (iii) those with lower ratings for sono NPs than bare NPs. It canbe seen that that although the L2 groups had proportionally greater numbers of non-target
responses (i.e., sono NP < bare NP) than the native controls, the majority of individuals
in both L2 groups showed the target pattern (i.e., sono NP > bare NP). Thus, it can be said
that despite the unclear distinction of the NP types in the group mean ratings (Figure 7.7)
and less consistent responses by the L2 groups compared to the native control group, thetarget pattern was dominant at the individual level among the L2 speakers. This partiallyaccounts for the absence of three-way interaction between CONTEXT, NP TYPE and thenative vs. L2 contrast in the main model.

Table 7. 22 Distribution of response patterns within each group, in the anaphoric context
L1

Sono NP mean rating >Sono NP =Sono NP mean rating <bare NP mean rating

bare NPbare NP mean ratingnSize of differencennSize of difference

Japanese

19

0.25–2.25

25

0.25–1.25

Korean7

0.25–1.50

14

0.25–0.50

English12

0.25–1.75

29

0.25–2.00

Note. n = number of participants with the given response pattern. Size of difference isgiven in points on the rating scale.

In sum, the results show that all groups exhibit the predicted target responses
by rating sono NPs lower than bare NPs in the non-anaphoric context and doing the
opposite in the anaphoric context. However, they rated sono NPs higher than bare NPs in

253

the bridging context, against the predicted comparable acceptability of the two NP types.

7.3.2.2 NQ constructions: AJT resultsGroup mean acceptability ratings are summarised by each quantifier type and context inTable 7.23. The bar graphs in Figures 7.10 and 7.11 illustrate the data for the [+definite]and [−definite] contexts, respectively. I don’t know responses were removed. They
accounted for 1.74 % of the data, distributed more or less equally across the contexts(17/976: 1 from the native control group and 16 from the English group).
Table 7.23 Mean acceptability ratings by context and by group: Main study 1 NQ
construction items (SD in parentheses)
Condition[+definite][−definite]

Quantifier
type

Nativecontrols

Koreanspeakers

EnglishSpeakers

Post-nominal

4.93 (1.52)

4.44 (1.35)

3.97 (2.01)

Floating

4.71 (1.58)

3.19 (1.92)

3.62 (2.10)

Post-nominal

5.21 (1.23)

4.31 (1.50)

4.26 (1.73)

Floating

4.91 (1.50)

3.96 (1.77)

3.88 (1.89)

6.00
5.00
4.00
3.00
2.00
1.00
0.00
Native controls

Korean speakers

Post-nominal

English speakers
Floating

Figure 7.10 Mean acceptability ratings for NQ construction items in the [+definite]
context (error bars = SE)

254

6.00
5.00
4.00
3.00
2.00
1.00
0.00
Native controls

Korean speakers

Post-nominal

English speakers
Floating

Figure 7.11 Mean acceptability ratings for NQ construction items in the [−definite]
context (error bars = SE)

To recap, native controls were expected to yield lower ratings for floating NQs
than post-nominal NQs in the [+definite] context but rate both NQs equally acceptable inthe [−definite] context. Figures 7.10 and 7.11 suggest that only the Korean groupresponded in this manner, whereas the native control and English groups appear to haveaccepted both types of NQ more or less equally across the contexts.
An ordinal mixed-effects model was fitted to the acceptability ratings forfurther analysis. The fixed effects were DEFINITENESS ( [+definite] vs. [−definite]),QUANTIFIER TYPE (post-nominal vs. floating), and L1 (Japanese vs. Korean vs. English),and their interactions with the maximal random effects structure (i.e., random intercepts
for participants and items along with DEFINITENESS and QUANTIFIER TYPE and theirinteractions as random by-participant slopes; and QUANTIFIER TYPE, L1 and theirinteractions as random by-item slopes). L1 was Helmert-coded whereas DEFINITENESS
and QUANTIFIER TYPE were sum-coded, in the same way as in the SPRT data analysis.
The omnibus model output is provided in Table 7.24. The model shows that there wereeffects of QUANTIFIER TYPE and the contrast between the native control and L2 groups.

255

There was no two-way interaction between DEFINITENESS and QUANTIFIER TYPE, nor
any three-way interactions, suggesting that no group was sensitive to the definitenessconstraint (specifically, the model revealed that all the groups rated post-nominal NQs
higher than floating NQs across the contexts).
The absence of three-way interaction between DEFINITENESS, QUANTIFIERTYPE and the Korean vs. English contrast seems surprising given the notably different

sensitivity to the definiteness effect in the [+definite] context. To explore this further, theeffects of QUANTIFIER TYPE were examined within each group, using nested ordinalmodels focusing on each context. The model outputs are provided in Table 7.25. The[+definite] model revealed that the effect of quantifier type was significant for the Koreangroup but not for the Japanese and English groups. The [−definite] model, on the other
hand, found no effect of quantifier type for any group. These results suggest that the
Korean group was indeed more consistent than the other groups in judging floating NQs
as less acceptable than post-nominal NQs and rating both NQ types equally acceptable,
though only tentatively given the absence of the relevant three-way interaction in the mainmodel. The absence of two-way interaction seems at least partially attributable to the low
statistical power due to the considerably small sample size of the Korean group.
However, the potential L1-related difference between the Korean and English
groups could be the effect of proficiency rather than the L1 given their significantly
different Japanese proficiency levels. An L2-groups-only version of the omnibus ordinalmodel with PROFICIENCY (centralised cloze test scores) added as a covariate (L1 wassum-coded with Korean as −0.5 and English as 0.5) found suggestive evidence that thismight be the case: there was a marginal three-way interaction between DEFINITENESS,QUANTIFIER TYPE, and PROFICIENCY but no three-way interaction involving L1 in placeof PROFICIENCY (see Table 7.26 for the full output). The model output indicates thetendency that as the proficiency increases, the effect of QUANTIFIER TYPE in the256[+definite] context becomes larger in the target direction (post-nominal > floating).
Overall, the results above suggest that there was no robust evidence ofsensitivity to the definiteness constraint for any group. Although the Korean-speaking
learners showed a numerically more target-like pattern than the English-speaking learners,
this contrast seems attributable more to the difference in proficiency than the L1.

257

Table 7.24 Results of the omnibus ordinal model for acceptability ratings for NQ construction items
Fixed Effects

β

SE

z

p

definitenessquantifier type
L1(1): Japanese vs. (Korean & English)
L1(2): Korean vs. English−0.2690.530
0.928−0.020

0.286
0.143
0.201
0.201

−0.9383.704
4.616−0.101.348<.001 ***<.001 ***
.919

definiteness ×quantifier typedefiniteness × L1(1): Japanese vs. (Korean & English)
definiteness × L1(2): Korean vs. English
quantifier type × L1(1): Japanese vs. (Korean & English)
quantifier type × L1(2): Korean vs. English
definiteness ×quantifier type × L1(1): Japanese vs. (Korean & English)
definiteness ×quantifier type× L1(2): Korean vs. English

0.234−0.013−0.015−0.1320.177−0.325
0.485

0.263
0.231
0.238
0.185
0.182
0.340
0.335

0.891
−0.056−0.065−0.7150.974−0.956
1.447

.373
.955
.948
.475
.330
.339
.148

Note. Formula: rating ~ definiteness * quantifier type * L1 + (definiteness * quantifier type | participant) + (quantifier type * L1 | item). Coding:definiteness: [+definite] = 0.5 vs [−definite] = −0.5 ; quantifier type: post-nominal = 0.5 vs. floating = −0.5; L1: Japanese = [1.0, 0], Korean =[−0.5, 1], English = [−0.5, −1]. *** p < .001.

258

Table 7.25 Results of the nested [+definite] ordinal model for acceptability ratings
Fixed Effects

β

SE

z

p

[+definite]
L1(1): J vs. (K & E)
L1(2): K vs. E
L1: J / quantifier type
L1: K / quantifier type
L1: E / quantifier type0.881
−0.035
0.349
1.172
0.423

0.230
0.216
0.323
0.433
0.309

3.823
−0.162
1.080
2.709
1.368

<.001 ***
.871
.280
.007 **.171

L1(1): J vs. (K & E)
L1(2): K vs. E
L1: J / quantifier type0.963
−0.011
0.466

0.233
0.245
0.285

4.139
−0.0431.638<.001 ***
.966
.101

L1: K / quantifier type
L1: E / quantifier type

0.371
0.482

0.365
0.309

1.017
1.560

.309
.119

[−definite]

Note. Formula: rating ~ L1 / quantifier type + (quantifier type | participant) + (L1 *quantifier type | item). J = Japanese, K = Korean, E = English. Coding: quantifier type:post-nominal = 0.5 vs. floating = −0.5; L1: Japanese = [1.0, 0], Korean = [−0.5, 1],
English = [−0.5, −1]. *** p < .001, ** p < .01.

259

Table 7.26 Results of the L2-only ordinal model for acceptability ratings for NQ construction items with proficiency effect considered
Fixed Effects

β

SE

z

p

definitenessquantifier type
L1 (English vs. Korean)
proficiency−0.139
0.235
0.468
0.050

0.481
0.448
0.770
0.052

−0.277
0.525
0.608
0.952

.782
.600
.543
.341

definiteness × quantifier typedefiniteness × L1
quantifier type × L1
definiteness × proficiency
quantifier type × proficiency
L1 × proficiency
definiteness × quantifier type × L1

−0.364−0.8630.201−0.082
0.035
0.075
1.410

0.779
0.816
0.896
0.057
0.061
0.102
1.562

−0.467−1.0580.225−1.438
0.582
0.738
0.903

.640
.290
.822
.150
.561
.461
.366

definiteness × quantifier type × proficiency
definiteness × L1 × proficiency
quantifier type × L1 × proficiency
definiteness × quantifier type × L1 × proficiency

0.194−0.002−0.105−0.161

0.106
0.105
0.122
0.212

1.826
−0.016−0.864−0.757.068 †
.987
.388
.449

Note. Formula: rating ~ definiteness * quantifier type * L1 * proficiency + (definiteness * quantifier type * L1 | participant) + (quantifier type * L1
* proficiency | item). Coding: definiteness: [+definite] = 0.5 vs. [−definite] = −0.5; quantifier type: post-nominal = 0.5 vs. floating = −0.5; L1:
Korean = −0.5, English = 0.5. Proficiency is centralised cloze test scores. † p < .10.

260

7.4 Discussion
7.4.1 Summary of the results
The results of the SPRT and the AJT can be summarised as follows. The SPRT did not
find solid evidence for any of the predicted reading slowdown or facilitation effects(SPRT predictions 1–2 for sono and SPRT prediction 4 for NQ constructions, in Section
7.2.3.2) for any groups. These results mean that the pilot SPRT results were overall
replicated in that no robust real-time processing evidence was found for native speakers’
sensitivity to any target properties in both studies. As to the AJT, all groups showed only
those related to sono in the anaphoric and non-anaphoric (AJT predictions 1–2, in Section
7.2.3.3). In the bridging context, the native Japanese group, along with the L2 groups,
showed a slight preference for the use of sono over bare nominals, although this was notobserved in Pilot AJT ver. 2.69 More importantly, however, the native speakers’ responses
in this study are in sharp contrast with those in the pilot AJTs, which gained statisticallyrobust evidence of the definiteness constraint on NQs consistently. That is, the pilot
results were not replicated as far as the AJT was concerned. In the remainder of thissection, I will discuss why such an asymmetry was found between the SPRT and the AJT
by comparing the native Japanese speakers’ data of the present study with those of thepilot studies in detail. Then, some methodological problems will be pointed out with the
AJT, thereby partially accounting for the strikingly different AJT results in this study
compared with the pilot study. Consequently, although the L2 data will be briefly
discussed in relation to the predictions, a conclusion will be drawn only tentatively,

The preference for sono NPs over bare NPs in the bridging context is not discussed further, since
it is indeed not so surprising given the facts that the bridging context tested in the present thesis wasanaphoric in nature (cf. non-anaphoric bridging) and that a numerically higher mean rating wasobserved in Pilot AJT ver. 1 (Appendix 4A). To accommodate this finding, the prediction for thebridging context will be revised for Main study 2 in the next chapter.
69

261

because of the methodological problems. The discussion in this section will set the scene
for conducting a revised version of the main AJT.

7.4.2 Comparisons with the pilot studies
Starting with the SPRT data, although the present experiment seems overall similar to thepilot in terms of the target properties, this conclusion needs to be further verified bycomparing native Japanese responses in control properties as well. Recall that there weresome relatively clear target response patterns observed with some control fillers in thepilot SPRT ver. 2, namely those concerning the noun-classifier agreement and the contrast
between post-nominal and pre-nominal NQ constructions regarding the interpretation ofproper nouns suffixed by the Japanese plural suffix, -tati; and that these results were taken
as evidence for the validity of the SPRT as a data collection tool. Indeed, similar patterns
also were found in the present SPRT. The native control group that performed the present
SPRT also seems sensitive to those filler properties. Linear mixed-effects model analysesof log-transformed residual RTs by each relevant segment and by each property revealed
that the effect of condition was significant for the noun-classifier agreement items in thespillover 1 and spillover 2 regions and for the interpretive contrast of proper names with-tati in the spillover 1 region, as predicted (the model outputs are summarised in Table
7.27). 70 These results suggest that the present SPRT was overall as appropriately
conducted as the pilot. Therefore, it seems that the self-spaced reading paradigm is notsuitable for investigating the target interpretive properties of the demonstrative sono and
NQ constructions.

The native Japanese speakers did not show notable contrasts in the other types of control filler. In
this respect too, the results were similar to the pilot SPRT ver. 2.
70

262

Table 7.27 Fixed effects estimates for linear mixed effects model of log-transformed RRTs
for items regarding noun-classifier agreement and the interpretive contrast of proper
nouns with -tati
Fixed Effects

β

SE

t

p

Noun-classifier agreement
Spillover 1 (# 4)(Intercept)
0.098
Condition−0.140Spillover 2 (# 5)(Intercept)
0.023

0.021
0.030

4.697
−4.736.002 **<.001 ***

0.021

1.079

.317

Condition

0.028−1.994.048 *

7.326
2.102

<.001 ***
.037 *−0.057

Interpretive contrast of proper nouns with -tati
Spillover 1 (# 4)(Intercept)
Condition

0.161−0.062

0.022
0.029

Note. Formula: RRT ~ condition + (condition | participant) + (condition | item). Coding:correct vs. wrong = −0.5 vs. 0.5 for noun-classifier agreement; post-nominal vs. prenominal = 0.5 vs. −0.5 for the interpretive contrast of proper nouns with -tati. *** p < .001,** p < .01, * p < .05.

Looking at the AJT data, however, there is one striking contrast between thepresent AJT and the pilot version—the target contrasts between the acceptable and nonacceptable conditions were overall notably less clear in the present study than in the pilot.
Table 7.28 compares the mean acceptability ratings of the Pilot AJT ver. 2 and the present
AJT (Main study 1).

263

Table 7.28 Comparisons of native Japanese ratings in the target contexts between Pilot
AJT ver. 2 and Main study 1 AJT (SD in parentheses)
Sono

Context

Condition

Pilot ver. 2

Main study 1

anaphoric

Sono NP
Bare NP
Sono NP
Bare NP
Sono NP
Bare NP

4.55 (1.61)
3.79 (1.94)
2.14 (2.00)
3.60 (2.05)
4.09 (1.91)
4.10 (2.01)

5.30 (1.20)
4.58 (1.86)
4.06 (2.04)
4.65 (1.82)
5.17 (1.32)
4.70 (1.81)[+definite]

Post-nominal
Floating

4.91 (1.68)
3.45 (1.86)

4.93 (1.52)
4.71 (1.58)[−definite]

Post-nominal

4.67 (1.68)

5.21 (1.23)

Floating

4.21 (1.65)

4.91 (1.50)

non-anaphoric
bridging
NQs

Note. Shaded are unacceptable conditions.

Although the native Japanese speakers in Main study 1 gave generally higher
ratings compared to those in Pilot ver. 2, they gave disproportionally higher ratings to theunacceptable conditions (shaded) than the acceptable conditions (unshaded). This isparticularly the case with the property of NQ constructions. It is reflected in the fact that
although the contrast of sono NPs vs. bare NPs in the non-anaphoric context were
statistically significant in both studies, the contrast of post-nominal NQs vs. floating NQs
in the [+definite] context was only so in Pilot ver. 2. This weaker contrast between theacceptable and unacceptable conditions in Main study 1 compared to Pilot ver. 2 can also
be found with non-target items, namely the control fillers, where minimal acceptable vs.
unacceptable pairs of target sentences were compared. Table 7.29 provides the meaning
acceptability ratings for the control fillers in the two studies. It shows disproportionately
greater increases in acceptability from Pilot ver. 2 to Main study 1 in the unacceptableconditions (shaded) than in the acceptable conditions (unshaded), except in the nounclassifier agreement items.

264

Table 7. 29 Comparisons of native Japanese ratings in the control fillers between Pilot
AJT ver. 2 and Main study 1 AJT (SD in parentheses)
Control filler type

Condition

Pilot ver.2

Main study 1

Noun-classifier
agreement

Correct
Wrong

4.43 (1.67)
0.08 (0.57)

4.82 (1.51)
0.41 (0.90)

Specificity
constraint of -tati

Bare NPNP-tati

4.86 (1.39)
3.04 (1.96)

5.01 (1.74)
4.62 (1.59)

Common nouns
with -tati:

Associative
Singular

4.28 (1.74)
2.03 (2.20)

5.01 (1.55)
3.15 (2.46)

proper nouns
with -tati

Post-nominal
Pre-nominal

4.88 (1.52)
0.64 (1.32)

4.95 (1.56)
1.79 (2.31)

Note. Shaded are unacceptable conditions.

In sum, these comparisons of the pilot and Main study 1 confirmed that theresults of the Main study SPRT were more or less similar to those of Pilot SPRT ver. 2 :no evidence was found to suggest sensitivity to the target properties but native Japanese
speakers showed relatively clear sensitivity to some of the control filler properties. In
contrast, compared to Pilot AJT ver. 2, the main AJT showed considerably less clear
contrasts between the acceptable and unacceptable conditions regarding the target andnon-target properties alike. Such a difference is puzzling, considering the facts that thepilot AJT included essentially similar test items and that the sample sizes in both studies
were similar although the present study had a slightly larger sample size (hence
potentially a better statistical power) (i.e., Pilot AJT ver. 2, n = 20 ; the main study 1 AJT,n = 26). Next, I will discuss some potential causes for the discrepancy between the Pilotver. 2 and Main study 1 AJTs.

7.4.3 Potential causes for the difference between the pilot and main
AJTs
To identify potential problems regarding the Main study 1 AJT, let us consider two major265differences between Pilot ver. 2 and Main study 1 as follows.
One concerns administration format: the Pilot ver. 2 AJT was conducted on a
web-based application (Qualtrics) in the absence of the researcher whereas the Main study
1 AJT was conducted on a non-web-based application (i.e., PsychoPy, installed on the
researcher’s computer) in the presence of the researcher. However, this difference seems
unlikely to be the cause of the rating effect in question. Since the nature of the tasks does
not differ from one format to the other, given that essentially similar test items were usedwithout time pressure in making judgments, the results should not differ considerably.71
Particularly, it is not clear why the different administration methods led to thedisproportionally higher ratings in the unacceptable conditions compared to theacceptable conditions in the main AJT. Indeed, Sprouse (2011), who evaluated the resultsof web-based acceptability judgment tasks and corresponding laboratory-based (i.e., nonweb-based) versions for their compatibility in terms of participants’ responses, reported
no meaningful differences between the two formats.
The other difference lies in whether participants have been exposed to the test
items in a different task (SPRT) prior to the AJT (Main study 1) or not (Pilot ver. 2). It

There was indeed one difference worth mentioning between the two AJTs regarding the test items
for the definiteness constraint on floating NQs. In Pilot ver. 2, each test sentence included one more
adverb than Main study 1. Specifically, in the floating condition, the extra adverb was placed between
the NP and the NQ (ia), unlike in the main AJT, where the NQ immediately followed the NP (ib).
71(i) Comparison of the sentence structures in the floating condition
a. Pilot ver. 2…object NP(-CASE) ADV NQ ADV VP.
b. Main study 1…object NP(-CASE) NQ ADV VP.
The position of the extra adverb in Pilot ver. 2 could possibly lower the acceptability of floating NQs
across the contexts, presumably due to its greater structural complexity. However, this can account for
the higher acceptability ratings in Main study 1 than Pilot ver. 2 only in the floating condition but notin the post-nominal condition. More importantly, it remains a mystery why the gain in acceptability
was considerably bigger in the unacceptable context ([+definite]) than the acceptable context([−definite]).

266

has been argued that prior exposition to test sentences can lead to at least two phenomenathat could affect acceptability judgements, namely syntactic priming and syntactic
satiation.
Syntactic priming is where processing of a certain structure is facilitated by aprior presentation of the same structure. For example, Luka and Barsalou (2005) foundthat exposure to certain structures in a reading task leads to higher acceptability ratings
in a judgement task. They reported that “a single prior exposure to a similar sentence wassufficient to induce this structural facilitation effect.” If this is true, the generally higher
acceptability found in the Main study 1 AJT may be a result of syntactic priming due tothe presentation of the test sentences in the preceding SPRT.
On the other hand, the absence of a contrast between the acceptable sentencesand (some of) the unacceptable counterparts in the AJT results might be caused bysomething akin to syntactic satiation, the phenomenon whereby some sentences that seem
ungrammatical at first appear less so after repeated exposures (Snyder, 2000). Snyder(2000, p. 680) argues that “satiation is not an across-the-board phenomenon affecting all
sentence types equally”, providing evidence that some structures may have higher
satiability than others. 72 This seems compatible with the varied degrees of dulled
sensitivity to unacceptability among different properties in the present study (e.g., theunacceptability related to the target definiteness properties of sono and NQs seems more
susceptive to satiation than violations of noun-classifier agreement). Although syntactic
priming and syntactic satiation have been originally proposed in the context of(morpho)syntactic felicity, they can seem to naturally extend to similar observations

Sprouse (2009) argues that the satiation effect found in Snyder (2000) is due to a strategy in which
participants try to balance the numbers of yes (acceptable) and no (unacceptable) responses whentarget responses are unevenly distributed on binary options. However, this proposal cannot accountfor the effect in the present study because the numbers of the acceptable and unacceptable werebalanced and a gradable rating scale was used rather than a binary choice—it seems extremely difficultfor participants to employ such a strategy in this study.
72

267

regarding semantic and pragmatic felicity. That is, it is possible that the rating asymmetry
between the Pilot ver. 2 and Main AJTs resulted from a combination of syntactic priming
and the satiation of unacceptability due to repeated presentations of the identical test
sentences. In other words, the relevant effects might have been caused by theexperimental design of Main study 1, namely the prior presentation of the test sentencesin the SPRT. These potential methodological problems and the resulting absence of thepredicted effects on the native control group have some serious consequences to theinterpretation of the L2 learners’ data, as discussed next.

7.4.4 Interpretation of L2 data
The AJT data showed that both Korean- and English-speaking learners were moresensitive to the anaphoric marking of sono than the definiteness constraint on NQs in thesense that they exhibited target response patterns with the former but not with the latter.
This suggests that as the cline of difficulty predicts, the L2 learners have acquired theovert definiteness property of sono earlier than the covert definiteness property of NQs.
However, these L2 learners’ data must be interpreted with caution because syntactic
priming and satiation, in principle, could happen to L2 learners as well as native speakers.
Clearly, it is wrong to argue that native speakers do not have the relevant linguisticknowledge just because they do not show evidence in experimental settings (sensitivity
to the definiteness constraint on NQs in this case): absence of something cannot constituteevidence of its non-existence. Crucially, this logic should be applied to L2 learners whobehave similarly to native controls, which is the case with the present study. Whenevidence of the definiteness constraint cannot be found in the native data, it would be
problematic to conclude that the L2 learners have not acquired the relevant properties
based on the fact that they failed to provide relevant evidence. In other words, it is
impossible to rule out the possibility that the L2 learners do possess the relevant linguistic268

knowledge but that that knowledge cannot be experimentally observed for a reason (e.g.,satiation). The same can be said about the SPRT data—the absence of a reading
slowdown/facilitation effect does not mean that the relevant linguistic knowledge is nonexistent. However, because the SPRT was administered first, before the AJT, it can besaid that the SPRT was free of syntactic priming and satiation effects. This further
corroborates the earlier proposal that the target properties of sono and NQs are notamenable to detection through the SPRT.
There are some other aspects to the L2 data collected in the present study that
potentially compromise their validity and reliability in terms of testing the L2 predictions.
The most obvious problem is the small sample size of the Korean speakers (n = 12). The
difference in sample size between the groups makes it difficult to compare them reliably.73
The clear difference in Japanese language proficiency between the Korean and English
groups is also potentially problematic in terms of examining the effect of L1 effectively,
although no obvious difference was found between the Korean and English groups in the
SPRT or the AJT, despite the proficiency gap.
Therefore, given the above discussions, it is hard to evaluate the predictions
appropriately, based on the L2 data collected in the present study alone. Although the
purpose of running both the SPRT and the AJT was to facilitate comparison of the results
between the tasks by preventing potential sources of individual variation from adversely
influencing the results, administering the online and offline tasks seems to give rise to atask-induced effect (decreased sensitivity to unacceptability, in particular). This motivates
re-running the AJT as a stand-alone task — to be reported in the next chapter.

73

As already stated, the sample size was due to the COVID 19 pandemic.

269

7.5 Conclusion
This chapter has reported on a study, where an SPRT and an AJT with the same set of test
items were administered to Korean- and English-speaking L2 learners and native speakers
of Japanese. The SPRT, which was conducted before the AJT, revealed that none of thegroups showed concrete evidence of knowledge of the target interpretive properties ofsono and NQs. Taken together with the similar pilot SPRT results, it can be said that the
self-paced reading paradigm is not suitable for the investigation of those phenomena. The
AJT data showed that all groups were sensitive to the target properties of sono but not of
NQs. The native speakers’ insensitivity to the definiteness constraint on NQs was in sharp
contrast to the pilot AJT results of the native Japanese participants being clearly sensitive
to the property. A detailed comparison of the pilot and present AJTs revealed thatparticipants in the present study had the tendency to give generally higher ratingscompared to those in the pilot; and that most of the unacceptable sentences weredisproportionally rated higher than their acceptable counterparts, which resulted ingeneral lack of relevant acceptable vs. unacceptable contrasts. I argued that this was due
to a combination of syntactic priming and satiation to unacceptability, which were
triggered presumably by the prior presentation of the test items in the preceding task (theSPRT). Although it is not clear why some properties satiated to greater degrees than others,
it is clear that such an effect must be avoided for the purpose of the present study.
Particularly, the considerably subtle or non-existent unacceptable vs. acceptable contrasts
in the target properties with the native controls makes it difficult to reliably evaluate
linguistic competence of the participants. This, in turn, becomes a serious obstacle ininterpreting similarly unclear L2 data in terms of evaluating predictions for the L2
acquisition of the target properties. The findings of the present study and reasoning about
them motivate a re-implementation of the AJT.

270

Chapter 8: Main study 2 (web-based AJT with L2 Japaneselearners)
8.1 Introduction
This chapter documents an additional study targeting new groups of L2 learners andnative Japanese speakers, with its main objective being a re-implementation of the AJT
without a preceding SPRT using the same test sentences. This separate AJT was primarily
motivated by the argument in the previous chapter that the participants’ prior exposure to
the target sentences in the SPRT could have affected their behaviour in the AJT.
Specifically, it was suggested that syntactic priming could have increased ratings on theacceptable AJT sentences, and syntactic satiation could have attenuated judgements of
unacceptable sentences.
In what follows, after a description of the experimental design and otherrelevant details, results of the present experiment (Main study 2, henceforth) will becompared to the results of Pilot ver. 2 and Main study 1. Particularly, it will be shown thatthe native responses in Main study 2 match those in Pilot ver. 2 rather than those in Mainstudy 1, in terms of the acceptable vs. unacceptable contrasts in the target properties ofsono and NQs. This will be taken as evidence of the alleged satiation effect on
acceptability judgement in Main study 1, which, in turn, suggests that Main study 2
provides more reliable AJT data than Main study 1. Finally, Main study 2 L2 data will be
used to evaluate the predictions based on the FRH and the cline of difficulty for the
relative difficulty or ease of the acquisition of the target properties and the L1 difference
therein.

271

8.2 Method
8.2.1 Participants
Twenty English-speaking and 20 Korean-speaking learners of Japanese participated in
the study. The L1-English group included students enrolled at universities in the UK on
Japanese-related programmes, Japanese language teachers working at UK and US
institutions, and university lecturers at Japanese universities. All but one of the Koreanspeaking participants were resident in Japan at the time of testing, being undergraduate
students at Japanese universities or Korean language teachers based in Japan. The
remaining one L1-Korean participant was studying in the US. As with Main study 1, thosewith intermediate or more advanced Japanese language proficiency (JLPT N3 or higher)
were targeted. Table 8.1 summarises demographic information about the L2 participants.
Table 8.1 Participant information: Main study 2

Group

Age
(yrs old)

Korean speakers(n = 20)
English speakers(n = 20)

25.20(6.48)
29.90(12.77)Age ofFormalLength ofonset(yrs old)

Japanese
education(yrs)

residency inJapan (yrs)14.85(3.60)
17.65(3.44)

6.03(5.58)
9.03(8.00)

3.34(4.46)
6.19(10.37)Note. () = SD.

Twenty native Japanese-speaking participants were recruited as controls. They were
university students and professionals, resident in Japan (M age = 34.0, SD = 11.92). Only
the L2 groups took a proficiency test (the cloze task reported in the next section) since
the native data was already collected in Main study 1. The participants received
compensation for their participation.

272

8.2.2 Test instruments
8.2.2.1 Proficiency test
The L2 learner groups took the same cloze test as used in Main Study 1, but rather than apencil-and-paper format, it was converted into a web-based format, using Google Forms.
The participants completed a passage by filling 42 blanks with the correct words eachselected from four options. The scores of the native Japanese speakers from Main study
1 serve as a reference level. Performance is summarised in Table 8.2.

Table 8.2 Scores on cloze test (0–42 points): Main study 2
Group

M

SD

Range

Japanese controls (n = 26)
Korean speakers (n = 20)
English speakers (n = 20)

38.62 (92%)
36.70 (87%)
34.15 (81%)

2.17
3.37
4.63

34–42 (81–100%)
28–42 (67–100%)
26–42 (62–100%)

The results show that the L2 learners can be regarded as relatively at advanced levels inthe sense that their mean scores seem relatively high and their score ranges largely overlap
with those of the native speakers. The scores were analysed with a one-way betweenparticipants ANOVA, which found a significant effect of L1 on proficiency score (F (2,63) = 9.58, p < .001). The Tukey HSD multiple comparison test revealed that the L1English group was significantly different from the Japanese group (M-Diff = 4.47, 95%
CI [2.02, 6.19], p < .001). However, the L1-Korean group did not significantly differ fromeither the native control group or L1-English group. Therefore, it can be said that the L2
groups have more or less matched proficiency, although the Korean group has moreindividuals scoring in the native speakers’ range.

273

8.2.2.2 AJTThis AJT included the same set of the test sentences as the Main study 1 AJT but was
conducted in a web-based format using Qualtrics (version Feb. 2020). The participants
were asked to read contextualizing preambles and rate the test sentences as naturalcontinuations on a 7-point Likert scale (0 = completely odd; 6 = completely natural) withan I don’t know option. Two lists of test items were used and each list included 96 items,
40 of which were critical items (8 items × 5 contexts), 32 control fillers (8 items × 4 types),and 24 unacceptable fillers (4 items × 6 types) (identical to the main study 1 item lists).
The critical items and control fillers were constructed in minimally different pairs. Only
one member of each pair occurred within a given list. After making their judgement,
participants pressed a button to proceed to the next item. It was impossible to go back andchange answers, by design.
Sample test items for the critical items are presented below. The expected
native speaker judgement pattern for sono items is to rate sono NPs lower than bare NPs
in the non-anaphoric context (8.2); and sono NPs higher than bare NPs or equally accept
both NP types in the anaphoric context (8.1). The prediction for the anaphoric context canalso be applied to the bridging context (8.3), given the preference for sono NPs over bareNPs found in Main study 1 (Chapter 7).74
As to the NQ constructions, floating NQs were expected to receive
significantly lower ratings than post-nominal NQs in the [+definite] context (8.4),
whereas both types of NQ were rated equally acceptable in the [−definite] context (8.5).
(As in the previous versions, the preambles were presented in Japanese using Japanese

Recall that the pilot AJTs (Chapter 6) did not find any statistically meaningful difference inacceptability between sono NPs and bare NPs in the bridging context—the two types of NP were rated
more or less equally high. However, since the preference for sono was observed in the bridging context
as in the anaphoric context in Main study 1, the prediction for Main study 2 was revised toaccommodate this finding.
74274script in the actual test, but are presented here in English for convenience.)(8.1) Sono: anaphoric (sono NP vs. bare NP)
PREAMBLE: There is a very popular restaurant which serves great food forreasonable prices near Taroo's house.
Taroo-wa

mukasi-kara { sono resutoran-o vs. resutoran-o }Taroo-TOP

past-fromdare-yori-mo{ SONO restaurant-ACC vs. restaurant-ACC }yoku riyoo-site-i-masu

more.than.anyone often use-do-ASP-POL.NPST‘Taroo has eaten at the restaurant more often than anyone since long ago.’(8.2) Sono: non-anaphoric (sono NP vs. bare NP)
PREAMBLE: Hanako had a pleasant dream recently. In that dream, …
Hanako-wa

tori-no yooni {sono sora-o vs. sora-o}

Hanako-TOP like.a.bird{ SONO sky-ACC vs. sky-ACC }jiyuunifreelykimotiyoku tobi-masita
pleasantly

fly-POL.PST‘Hanako enjoyed flying freely in the sky like a bird.’(8.3) Sono: bridging (sono NP vs. bare NP)
PREAMBLE: Hanako is now into a popular novel.
Hanako-wa

guuzenHanako-TOP accidentally{ sono tyosya-o vs. tyosya-o }{ SONO author-ACC vs. author-ACC }275

Tokyo-de issyun-dake mi-ta koto-ga ari-masu
Tokyo-inone.moment-only have.seen‘Hanako has caught sight of the author in Tokyo once.’(8.4) NQs: [+definite] (post-nominal vs. floating)
PREAMBLE: Taroo has one son and daughter and always takes care of them allby himself in the morning.
Taroo-wakesa-mo{ kodomo huta-ri-o vs. kodomo-o huta-ri }Taroo-TOP this.morning-too { child-2-CL-ACC vs. child-ACC 2-CL }itumo-no yooni siti-zi ni
as.always

okosi-masita

7-o’clock at wake.up- POL.PST‘ Taroo, as always, woke the two children up at 7 this morning.’(8.5) NQs: [−definite] (post-nominal vs. floating)
PREAMBLE: A new restaurant just opened near Hanako's house and she wants togo there. But, since she does not want to go there alone, ...
Hanako-wa

kinoo{ yuuzin huta-ri-o vs. yuuzin-o huta-ri }Hanako-TOP yesterday { friend-2-CL-ACC vs friend-ACC 2-CL }sassoku

ranti-ni

immediately lunch-for

sassote-mi-masita
ask.out-try.to-POL.PST‘Hanako went ahead and asked two friends out for lunch yesterday.’276

8.2.3 Procedure
Participation was by means of a web-based survey. For the L2 participants, the survey
consisted of an information sheet and consent form; a short demographic questionnaire;
the AJT, which started with instructions, then a training session with practice examples,
followed by the main task; and finally, the cloze task. The whole process took 60–70
minutes for the L2 participants. The Japanese native controls completed all components
but the cloze test within 45 minutes. The participants were compensated for their timewith online vouchers.

8.3 Results
8.3.1 Sono
The group means of the acceptability ratings for each NP type are summarised in Table
8.3. Figures 8.1 through 8.3 illustrate the data for each context. I don’t know responses
were removed, which affected 1.25% of the data (anaphoric: 4/480 (all from the Koreangroup); non-anaphoric: 2/480 (both from the Korean group); bridging anaphoric: 12/480(5 from the Korean group and 7 from the English group).

277

Table 8.3 Mean acceptability ratings by context and by group: Main study 2 sono items(SD in parentheses)
Context
anaphoric
Nonanaphoric
Bridging

Condition

Native controls

Korean speakers

English speakers

Sono NP

5.38 (1.26)

4.60 (1.93)

4.68 (1.76)

Bare NP
Sono NP
Bare NP

3.90 (2.01)
2.48 (2.18)
4.65 (1.71)

4.26 (2.10)
2.95 (2.36)
4.16 (2.11)

4.03 (1.80)
2.93 (2.20)
4.60 (1.61)

Sono NP

5.16 (1.16)

4.03 (2.16)

3.94 (2.08)

Bare NP

4.38 (1.61)

3.58 (2.23)

3.33 (2.18)

6.00
5.00
4.00
3.00

2.00
1.00
0.00
Native controls

Korean speakers

Sono NP

English speakers
Bare NP

Figure 8.1 Mean acceptability ratings in the anaphoric context (error bars = SE)

278

6.00

5.00
4.00
3.00
2.00
1.00
0.00
Native controls

Korean speakers

Sono NP

English speakers
Bare NP

Figure 8.2 Mean acceptability ratings in the non-anaphoric context (error bars = SE)

6.00
5.00
4.00
3.00
2.00
1.00
0.00
Native controls

Korean speakers

Sono NP

English speakers
Bare NP

Figure 8.3 Mean acceptability ratings in the bridging context (error bars = SE)

In the anaphoric context (Figure 8.1), the native control group gave sono NPs
lower ratings than bare NPs, as predicted. The same pattern was attested in the L2 groups.
In the non-anaphoric context (Figure 8.2), the native control group rated sono NPs clearlylower than bare NPs, which is the predicted pattern. The learner groups also exhibited thesame patterns. In the bridging anaphoric context (Figure 8.3), the native control group, in279

line with the prediction, rated sono NPs higher than bare NPs. The difference between thenoun types in the L2 groups was also in the target direction.
For further analysis, an ordinal mixed-effects model was fitted to theacceptability ratings. The model included as fixed effects CONTEXT (anaphoric vs. nonanaphoric vs. bridging), NP TYPE (sono NP vs. bare NP), L1 (Japanese vs. Korean vs.
English) and the interactions between the three variables. As random intercepts,
participants and items were added as well as by-participant slopes for NP TYPE, CONTEXT
and their interaction, and by-item slopes for L1 (the maximal possible model thatconverged). CONTEXT and NP TYPE were sum-coded whereas L1 was Helmert-coded sothat the Japanese group (native controls) and the combination of the Korean and English
groups (L2 groups) were compared first, and then the Korean and English groups werecompared against each other (as in Main study 1).
The model output is presented in Table 8.4. There were effects of CONTEXTrelated variables (contexts 1 & 2), whereas no effect was found for NP TYPE. However,
the two-way interactions of CONTEXT (contexts 1 & 2) and NP TYPE were significant.
There were also a marginal effect of the contrast between the native and L2 groups and amarginal interaction between this contrast and NP TYPE. The interaction between
CONTEXT (context 1) and the native vs. L2 contrast was significant. Furthermore, there

were three-way interactions between CONTEXT (contexts 1 & 2), NP TYPE and the native
vs. L2 contrast. There was no effect of the Korean vs. English contrast or interactions
involving this contrast. The three-way interactions suggest that the effect of NP TYPE
depends on the context and whether the group is native or L2; whereas the absence of
three-way interactions involving the Korean vs. English contrast means that the effect of
NP TYPE within each context does not differ significantly between the two L2 groups.

To investigate further how the effect of NP TYPE differs from one context toanother within each group, post hoc nested ordinal mixed effects models were constructed280

for each context. Table 8.5 presents the results of the nested model analyses (the model
specifications can be found in the notes). The anaphoric and bridging models revealed
that the native control group rated sono NPs significantly higher than bare NPs. The nonanaphoric model found that the native controls rated sono NPs significantly lower thanbare NPs. On the other hand, neither of the L2 groups distinguished between the NP types
at statistically significant levels in the bridging context. In the anaphoric context, theEnglish-speaking learners rated sono nouns higher than bare nouns at a statisticallysignificant level, but the Korean-speaking learners did not. However, both L2 groups
rated sono NPs significantly lower than bare NPs in the non-anaphoric context.
Commonly seen across the three contexts is the noticeably larger effect of NP TYPE forthe native control group compared to the L2 groups, which is apparently the main sourceof the three-way interaction in the omnibus model between CONTEXT, NP TYPE and thenative vs. L1 contrast. Despite the interaction, it can be said both L2 groups distinguishedthe NP types in the target direction relatively clearly in the non-anaphoric context, given
the significant effects of NP TYPE in the nested model results. As to the other two contexts,
the L2 groups differentiated the NP types less clearly than they did in the non-anaphoric
context, although their judgment patterns were still compatible with the predicted target
judgement. The non-significant vs. significant contrast found between the L2 groups interms of the NP TYPE effect in the anaphoric context suggests that the English speakers
rated sono NPs higher than bare NPs (i.e., the target pattern) more consistently than the
Korean speakers. However, there is no concrete evidence of this L1 difference, becauseof the absence of three-way interactions between CONTEXT, NP TYPE and the Korean vs.
English contrast in the omnibus model.
In sum, the native control group made the predicted judgements: they rated
sono NPs higher than bare NPs in the anaphoric and bridging conditions and did the
opposite in the non-anaphoric condition. The L2 groups also showed the predicted native281

judgement patterns across the contexts, although their distinction between the NP types
was in general statistically different from the native controls’. Crucially, both Korean andEnglish groups made a statistically significant distinction between the two NP types in
the non-anaphoric context, which suggests knowledge of the target property of sono,
namely overt anaphoricity marking.

282

Table 8.4 Results of the omnibus ordinal model for acceptability ratings for sono items
Fixed Effects

β

SE

z

p

context 1
context 2
NP typeL1(1): Japanese vs. (Korean & English)−0.911
0.989−0.015
0.293

0.347
0.354
0.104
0.171

−2.6252.789−0.1451.714.009 **.005 **.884.087 †

L1(2): Korean vs. English
context 1 × NP typecontext 2 × NP typecontext 1 × L1(1): Japanese vs. (Korean & English)
context 2 × L1(1): Japanese vs. (Korean & English)
context 1 × L1(2): Korean vs. English
context 2 × L1(2): Korean vs. English

0.057
3.819
−2.298−0.710−0.075−0.197
0.118

0.140
0.490
0.358
0.281
0.298
0.202
0.217

0.403
7.801
−6.417−2.530−0.250−0.9740.545.687<.001 ***<.001***.011 *
.803
.330
.586

NP type × L1(1): Japanese vs. (Korean & English)
NP type × L1(2): Korean vs. English
context 1 × NP type × L1(1): Japanese vs. (Korean & English)
context 2 × NP type × L1(1): Japanese vs. (Korean & English)
context 1 × NP type × L1(2): Korean vs. English
context 2 × NP type × L1(2): Korean vs. English−0.2770.048
1.351−1.280−0.369
0.386

0.145
0.125
0.677
0.502
0.588
0.429

−1.9110.382
1.997−2.549−0.6280.900.056 †.703.046 *.011 *.530.368

Note. Formula: rating ~ context * L1 * NP type + (context * NP type | participant) + (L1 | item). Coding: context: anaphoric = [0, 0.5] vs.
non-anaphoric = [0.5, 0] vs. bridging = [−0.5, −0.5]; NP type: sono NP = −0.5 vs. bare NP = 0.5; L1: Japanese = [1.0, 0], Korean = [−0.5,1], English = [−0.5, −1]. *** p < .001, ** p < .01, * p < .05, † p < .10.

283

Table 8.5 Results of nested models for acceptability ratings for each context of sono items
Fixed Effects

β

SE

z

p

Anaphoric
L1(1): J vs. (K & E)
L1(2): K vs. E
L1: J / NP type
L1: K / NP type
L1: E / NP type

0.204
0.167
−1.973−0.384−0.905

0.209
0.180
0.349
0.338
0.320

0.977
0.926
−5.651−1.135−2.831.328.354<.001 ***
.256.005 **

L1(1): J vs. (K & E)
L1(2): K vs. E
L1: J / NP type
L1: K / NP type
L1: E / NP type−0.109−0.014
2.291
1.434
1.856

0.180
0.153
0.590
0.620
0.598

−0.603−0.092
3.880
2.311
3.102

.546
.927
<.001 ***
.021 *.002 **

Bridging
L1(1): J vs. (K & E)
L1(2): K vs. E
L1: J / NP type

0.514
0.052
−0.883

0.194
0.167
0.281

2.648
0.309
−3.139.008 **.757.002 **

L1: K / NP type
L1: E / NP type−0.407−0.517

0.327
0.321

−1.244−1.607.213.108

Non-anaphoric

Note. Formula: anaphoric: rating ~ L1 / NP type + (NP type | participant) + (NP type |item); non-anaphoric & briding : rating ~ L1 / NP type + (NP type | participant) + (NPtype * L1 | item). J = Japanese, K = Korean, E = English. “x / y” represents the effect ofvariable y with variable x held constant. Coding: context: anaphoric = [0, 0.5] vs. nonanaphoric = [0.5, 0] vs. bridging = [−0.5, −0.5]; NP type: sono NP = −0.5 vs. bare NP =0.5; L1: Japanese = [1.0, 0], Korean = [−0.5, 1], English = [−0.5, −1]. *** p < .001, ** p
< .01, * p < .05.

284

8.3.2 NQ constructions
Mean acceptability ratings are presented by context, condition, and group in Table 8.6.
Figures 8.4 and 8.5 illustrate the data for the [+definite] context and the [−definite]
context, respectively. I don’t know responses were removed, which affected 1.04 % of thedata ( 10/960: 3 from the English group and 7 from the Korean group split roughly evenly
between the [+definite] and [−definite] contexts).

Table 8.6 Mean acceptability ratings by context and by group: Main study 2 NQ
construction items (SD in parentheses)
Context[+definite][−definite]

Condition

Native controls Korean speakers

English speakers

Post-nominal

4.88 (1.67)

4.38 (2.16)

3.77 (2.25)

Floating

3.73 (2.07)

3.21 (2.37)

3.62 (2.26)

Post-nominal

4.75 (1.55)

4.44 (1.97)

3.67 (2.19)

Floating

4.95 (1.44)

3.86 (2.23)

4.14 (1.83)

Native controls

Korean speakers

6.00
5.00
4.00
3.00

2.00
1.00
0.00
Post-nominal

English speakers
Floating

Figure 8.4 Mean acceptability ratings in the [+definite] context (error bars = SE)

285

6.00
5.00
4.00
3.00
2.00

1.00
0.00
Native controls

Korean speakers

Post-nominal

English speakers
Floating

Figure 8.5 Mean acceptability ratings in the [−definite] context (error bars = SE)

Recall the predicted native Japanese responses are (i) significantly lower
ratings for floating NQs than post-nominal NQs in the [+definite] context; and (ii) equallyhigh ratings for both NQs in the [−definite] context. It can be seen that the native Japanesecontrol group and the Korean group both gave clearly lower ratings to floating NQs thanpost-nominal NQs in the [+definite] context (Figure 8.4); whereas they gave more or lessequally high ratings to both types of NQ in the [−definite] context (Figure 8.5). On theother hand, the English group accepted the two types of NQ roughly equally in both[+definite] and [−definite] contexts.
For analysis, an ordinal mixed-effects model was fitted to the acceptability
ratings. The model was maximally specified: the fixed effects included DEFINITENESS( [+definite] vs. [−definite]), QUANTIFIER TYPE (post-nominal vs. floating), and L1(Japanese vs. Korean vs. English), and their interactions; whereas the random effects
included intercepts for participants and items along with by-participant slopes
DEFINITENESS, QUANTIFIER TYPE, and by-item slopes for QUANTIFIER TYPE, L1 andtheir interactions. L1 was contrasted with Helmert coding (contrast 1: native vs. L2,

286

contrast 2: Korean vs. English ) whereas DEFINITENESS and QUANTIFIER TYPE weresum-coded (as in Main study 1). Table 8.7 shows the model output. The model suggeststhat there were effects of QUANTIFIER TYPE, the contrast between the native controls andthe two L2 groups combined. There were two-way interactions between DEFINITENESS
and QUANTIFIER TYPE and between QUANTIFIER TYPE and the Korean vs. English
contrast. There were no other effects or interactions. The interaction between
DEFINITENESS and QUANTIFIER TYPE provides evidence of sensitivity to thedefiniteness constraint in the form of lower ratings of floating NQs than post-nominal
NQs in the [+definite] context. Crucially, the absence of any three-way interactions
between DEFINITENESS, QUANTIFIER TYPE and L1-related contrasts mean that thesensitivity to the constraint does not significantly differ between the groups. This is
surprising in that, as can be seen in Figure 8.4, the English group did not seem todistinguish clearly the two NQ types in the [+definite] context. To understand thispuzzling result, I conducted post hoc comparisons of the effect of QUANTIFIER TYPE
within each group, using nested ordinal mixed-effects models as well as analysis ofindividual response patterns for the [+definite] context.
The results of the nested comparisons are provided in Table 8.8. The [+definite]model found that the effect of QUANTIFIER TYPE was significant for the native control
and Korean groups but not for the English group. These model results cannot provide
solid evidence for any difference between the groups given the absence of three-way
interaction in the omnibus model. However, they suggest that the Korean group is moreconsistent in rating floating NQs less acceptable than post-nominal NQs, compared to theEnglish group. The [−definite] model found no significant effect of QUANTIFIER TYPE
for the native control and English group, but a marginal effect for the Korean group (p= .058). Thus, overall, all groups rate both NQ types roughly equally despite the Korean287

group’s tendency to rate the post-nominal NQs slightly higher than the floating NQs.75
Turning to the individual response patterns, Table 8.9 summarises (i) how many
participants in each group rated floating NQs lower than post-nominal NQs (target
pattern), (ii) how many showed no differences between the two, and (iii) how many had
higher ratings for floating NQs than post-nominal NQs (non-target pattern), along withthe ranges of difference sizes in each category. It can be seen that the English group had
the greatest amount of non-target response patterns. Crucially, however, the majority of
the English speakers fell into the target pattern, despite the apparent lack of the target
contrast in the aggregate data in Figure 8.4. Therefore, the overall preferred pattern for
all three groups is the target (lower ratings for floating NQs than post-nominal NQs) inthe [+definite] context. In other words, the majority of participants in all three groups
appear to be sensitive to the definiteness constraint. This accounts for the absence of athree-way interaction in the main model even though the pattern in the descriptive data
(Table 8.6, Figure 8.4) suggests that the L1-English group may be different to the native
Japanese and L1-Korean groups.

The Korean group’s tendency to favour post-nominal NQs over floating NQs even in the [−definite]
may indicate L1 influence in terms of the distribution of NQs. That is, post-nominal NQs seem to be
used more frequently than floating NQs in Korean: Kim and Yang’s (2006a, 2006b) corpus studies
show that whereas post-nominal numerals account for about 15% of all instances of NQs (n = 694),
floating NQs account for only about 5 %. However, the opposite appears to be true with Japanese:
according to a Kim’s (1995) survey of Modern Japanese texts from different genres, post-nominal andfloating NQs occur about 6 % and about 21 % of the total number of all NQs (n = 858), respectively.
This distributional difference may account for each group’s mild preference for one type of NQ over
the other in the [−definite] context. However, this Korean preference for post-nominal NQs cannot
explain the considerably larger effect of QUANTIFIER TYPE in the [+definite] context than in the[−definite] context.
75

288

Table 8.7 Results of the omnibus ordinal model for acceptability ratings for NQ construction items
Fixed Effects

β

SE

z

p

definitenessquantifier type
L1(1): Japanese vs. (Korean & English)
L1(2): Korean vs. English−0.223
0.545
0.438
0.143

0.356
0.176
0.211
0.157

−0.627
3.099
2.071
0.917

.531
.002 **.038 *.359

definiteness ×quantifier typedefiniteness × L1(1): Japanese vs. (Korean & English)
definiteness × L1(2): Korean vs. English
quantifier type × L1(1): Japanese vs. (Korean & English)
quantifier type × L1(2): Korean vs. English
definiteness ×quantifier type × L1(1): Japanese vs. (Korean & English)
definiteness ×quantifier type× L1(2): Korean vs. English

0.948

0.297
0.311
0.192
0.250
0.209
0.426
0.347

3.186

.001 **
.524
.917
.809
.004 **.178.638−0.198−0.020
0.060
0.607
0.575
0.163

−0.637−0.104
0.242
2.905
1.348
0.470

Note. Formula: rating ~ definiteness * quantifier type * L1 + (definiteness * quantifier type | participant) + (quantifier type * L1 | item).
Coding: definiteness: [+definite] = 0.5 vs. [−definite] = −0.5; quantifier type: post-nominal = 0.5 vs. floating = −0.5; L1: Japanese = [1.0, 0],
Korean = [−0.5, 1], English = [−0.5, −1]. ** p < .01, * p < .05.

289

Table 8.8 Results of separate nested ordinal models for acceptability ratings for eachcondition of NQ construction items
Fixed Effects

β

SE

z

p

L1(1): J vs. (K & E)

0.331

0.198

1.667

.095†

L1(2): K vs. E
L1: J / quantifier type

0.109
1.271

0.164
0.409

0.666
3.110

.506
.002**

L1: K / quantifier type
L1: E / quantifier type

1.450
0.190

0.492
0.424

2.950
0.447

.003**.655

L1(1): J vs. (K & E)

0.604

0.331

1.826

.068†

L1(2): K vs. E

0.168

0.211

0.799

.424

L1: J / quantifier type−0.2130.376−0.568.570

L1: K / quantifier type
L1: E / quantifier type0.726
−0.364

0.384
0.367

1.893
−0.992.058†.321[+definite] condition[–definite] condition

Note. Formula: rating ~ L1 / quantifier type + (quantifier type | participant) + (quantifier
type * L1 | item). “x / y” represents the effect of variable y with variable x held constant.
** p < .01, † p < .10.

Table 8.9 Distribution of response patterns within each group in the [+definite] context
L1

Floating mean rating <post-nominal mean rating

Floating =post-nominal

Floating mean rating >post-nominal mean ratingnSize of differencennSize of difference

Japanese

15

0.25–3.25

3

2

0.25

Korean16

0.33–4.50

1

3

0.25–1.17

English11

0.25–5.25

09

0.25–4.25

Note. n = number of participants with the given response pattern. Size of difference isgiven in points on the rating scale.

2908.4 Discussion
In the first part of this section, the results of the Main study 2 AJT will be compared withthose of the Main study 1 and Piot ver. 2 AJTs, focusing on native Japanese speakers’ data,with a view to examining whether the revised experimental design was successful inavoiding satiation, suspected of causing the unclear target contrasts in the Main study 1
AJT. Once it is demonstrated that the experiment seems free of the relevant effect (hence
reliable), the predictions for the L2 acquisition of the target properties will be evaluatedin the second part.

8.4.1 Comparisons with Main study 1 and Pilot ver. 2
To recap, (8.6) and (8.7) states what had been observed in Main study 1.

(8.6) The ratings on both acceptable and unacceptable sentences were higher in Mainstudy 1 than in Pilot ver. 2.

(8.7) Some contrasts in ratings between acceptable and unacceptable sentences in Pilotver. 2 were no longer present in Main study 1.

I proposed that prior exposure to the test sentences via the SPRT could have caused these
phenomena, and specifically, that syntactic priming via the SPRT could have led to theincreased acceptance of the acceptable sentences, while satiation could have led todecreased sensitivity to infelicity. If the subtle contrasts between the acceptable vs.
unacceptable conditions in Main study 1 had resulted from the repeated presentation of
the test items due to participants completing the SPRT before the AJT, the relevant target
contrasts observed in the Pilot ver. 2 AJT should re-emerge in Main study 2, where291

participants were not exposed to the same test sentences prior to the judgement task.
Table 8.10 compares the ratings for the target properties between the threestudies. Firstly, note that the ratings for the acceptable conditions (unshaded) in Mainstudy 2 are overall similar to those in Main study 1. Given that the exact same set of test
items was used in these two studies, it seems that what appeared to be a syntactic priming
effects (increased acceptability due to facilitated processing by repeated presentation of
the same structures) did not occur in Main study 1. Thus, it seems more reasonable toattribute the increased acceptability to the revisions aimed to improve general
acceptability in the acceptable conditions, rather than to syntactic priming. On the other
hand, the ratings for the unacceptable sentences are lower than in Main study 1, more likein Pilot ver. 2. This suggests that satiation did indeed occur in Main study 1: theparticipants’ sensitivity to infelicity was dulled by their prior exposure. Similar trends canbe seen in the ratings of the control fillers. Table 8.11 summarises native speakers’
responses to the control fillers. The ratings for the control fillers in Main study 2 have thesame two characteristics as the target items: (i) clearer contrasts in ratings between theacceptable and unacceptable conditions than Main study 1, and (ii) ratings in theacceptable conditions generally matching those in Main study 1. All these results taken
together, it seems natural to assume that a satiation effect did indeed take place in Mainstudy 1 (but syntactic priming did not), and Main study 2 was successful in avoiding the
problem. Therefore, I consider the results of Main study 2 to be a more reliable (lesscontaminated) reflection of participants’ knowledge status compared to the Main study 1.

292

Table 8.10 Comparisons of native Japanese acceptability ratings in the target contexts between Pilot ver. 2, Main studies 1 and 2 (SD inparentheses)
Context
Sono

Anaphoric
Non-anaphoric
Bridging

NQs[+definite][−definite]

Condition

Pilot ver. 2

Main study 1

Main study 2

Sono NP
Bare NP
Sono NP

4.55 (1.61)
3.79 (1.94)
2.14 (2.00)

5.30 (1.20)
4.58 (1.86)
4.06 (2.04)

5.38 (1.26)
3.90 (2.01)
2.48 (2.18)

Bare NP
Sono NP
Bare NP
Post-nominal
Floating
Post-nominal

3.60 (2.05)
4.09 (1.91)
4.10 (2.01)
4.91 (1.68)
3.45 (1.86)
4.67 (1.68)

4.65 (1.82)
5.17 (1.32)
4.70 (1.81)
4.93 (1.52)
4.71 (1.58)
5.21 (1.23)

4.65 (1.71)
5.16 (1.16)
4.38 (1.61)
4.88 (1.67)
3.73 (2.07)
4.75 (1.55)

Floating

4.21 (1.65)

4.91 (1.50)

4.95 (1.44)

Note. Shaded are unacceptable conditions.

293

Table 8.11 Comparisons of native Japanese acceptability ratings in the control fillers between Pilot ver. 2, Main studies 1 and 2 (SD inparentheses)
Control filler typeNoun-classifier
agreement
Specificity constraintof -tati
Common nouns
with -tati
Proper nouns
with -tati

Condition

Pilot ver. 2

Main study 1

Main study 2

Correct
Wrong
Bare NP

4.43 (1.67)
0.08 (0.57)
4.86 (1.39)

4.82 (1.51)
0.41 (0.90)
5.01 (1.74)

4.94 (1.51)
0.03 (0.22)
5.06 (1.25)

NP-tati
Associative

3.04 (1.96)
4.28 (1.74)

4.62 (1.59)
5.01 (1.55)

3.19 (2.15)
4.71 (1.76)

SingularPost-nominal

2.03 (2.20)
4.88 (1.52)

3.15 (2.46)
4.95 (1.56)

2.11 (2.28)
5.11 (1.42)Pre-nominal

0.64 (1.32)

1.79 (2.31)

0.58 (1.46)

Note. Shaded are unacceptable conditions.

294

8.4.2 Evaluation of the predictions for L2 acquisition of the target
properties
The predictions formulated about the L2 acquisition of sono and NQs are restated in(8.8–8.9).

(8.8)

(8.9)

FRH approach

L1-Korean: sono > L1-English: sono



L1-Korean: NQs > L1-English: NQs

Cline of difficulty approach
L1-Korean: sono > L1-English: sono > L1-English: NQs > L1-Korean: NQs

Considering, first, the overt realisation of definiteness with sono, both the FRH
and cline of difficulty approaches predicted that the L1 Korean group would be moretarget-like than the L1 English group. However, there was no concrete evidence to support
this prediction. The statistical results suggested the two L2 groups did not significantly
differ from each other but they both differed from the native control group (Table 8.4).
Nevertheless, both L2 groups showed numerically target-like contrast between sono NPs
and bare NPs within each context. Crucially, in the non-anaphoric contexts, both L2
groups rated sono NPs significantly lower than bare NPs (Table 8.5), which suggests
knowledge of sono’s incompatibility with non-anaphoric contexts. As to the anaphoric
and bridging contexts, the lack of clear native-like preference for sono NPs is stillcompatible with the predicted native pattern. Therefore, it seems that the two L2 groups
have acquired overt anaphoric definiteness marking of sono, without a noticeable
difference between them.

295Turning to the covert definiteness constraint on NQs, the main statistical model
results suggested that the two L2 groups were not significantly different from each otheror from the native controls in terms sensitivity to the relevant property at the group level(Table 8.7). However, there was also suggestive evidence that the Korean group was moreconsistent in giving lower ratings for floating NQs than the English group— in post hoc
tests, the effect of QUANTIFIER TYPE was significant in the [+definite] context for the
Korean group but not for the English group (Table 8.8).76 In this regard, the L1 Koreangroup performance is more native-like, which is in favour of the FRH approach (8.8)
rather than the cline of difficulty approach (8.9).
Finally, the prediction based on the cline of difficulty that sono would beacquired earlier, or more easily, than NQs (8.9) seems to be partially supported. On the
one hand, the English group showed clearer sensitivity to the unacceptability of sono NPs
in the non-anaphoric context than to the unacceptability of floating NQs in the [+definite]
context, as predicted. On the other hand, however, the Korean group did not show such a
difference between sono and NQs, which is not supportive of the prediction.

8.5 Conclusion
The native judgement data presented in this chapter generally replicated Pilot ver. 2. Thatis, the relevant contrasts regarding the target properties of sono and NQs were moreclearly observed than in Main study 1, suggesting that the suspected attenuated sensitivity
to unacceptability (i.e., satiation) was real. The L2 data partially supported the predictions
based on the FRH and the cline of difficulty, in different ways. In the next chapter, the L2
results of Main study 2 will be discussed further in terms of their theoretical implications

However, recall that there was no three-way interaction to fully motivate running the post hoc
tests.
76296

as well as acquisition mechanisms of each property by learners from each L1 background.

297

Chapter 9: General discussion
9.1 Introduction
In this chapter, the main findings of the present study will be first summarised in light of
the research questions and predictions, followed by a discussion of implications of thefindings for the cline of difficulty. Then, L2 acquisition mechanisms will be considered
for each target property by each L1 group. Finally, some implications for the research on
L2 acquisition of definiteness expressions will be discussed.

9.2 Summary of the main findings
This thesis set out to address the research questions restated in (9.1–9.3) through aninvestigation of L2 acquisition of overt definiteness marking by the demonstrative sono
and a covert definiteness constraint on NQs by Korean- and English-speaking Japaneselearners.

(9.1) Research question 1:
Is a covert feature expression more difficult to acquire than an overt feature
expression?

(9.2) Research question 2:
Does the necessity of feature reassembly make the acquisition task more difficult?

(9.3) Research question 3:
In which situation is the acquisition of a covert feature expression less difficult, (i)when the L1 has a functional morpheme that realizes the feature overtly or (ii) when298the L1 has a corresponding covert expression?

To briefly recap the linguistic properties under investigation, the demonstrative
sono can optionally mark definiteness (anaphoricity) overtly in anaphoric contexts(directly or via bridging) but cannot do so in non-anaphoric (unique definite) contexts, as
shown in (9.4)−(9.6).

(9.4) Anaphoric
John gave me a book yesterday.
(Sono) hon-o
SONO

moo

yomimasita.

book-ACC already read

‘I have already read the book.’(9.5) Bridging (anaphoric)
I bought a book yesterday.
(Sono) tyosya-wa
SONO

furansu-jin da.

author-TOP French

is.

‘The author is French.’(9.6) Non-anaphoric
When I got outside last night, …
#Sono

taiyoo-ga kagayai-teita.

SONO sun-NOM shine-ing.

‘The sun was shining.’

299

As to NQs, floating NQs must be used in [−definite] contexts hence cannot be used in[+definite] contexts, whereas post-nominal NQs are acceptable either in [+definite] or[−definite] contexts, as exemplified in (9.7) and (9.8).

(9.7) [−definite] (post-nominal NQ vs. floating NQ)
Taroo does online shopping almost every day.
Kinoo-wa{ hon san-satu-o vs. hon-o san-satu }katta.

yesterday-TOP { book 3-CL-ACC vs. book-ACC 3-CL } bought‘He bought three books yesterday.’(9.8) [+definite] (post-nominal NQ vs. # floating NQ)
Taroo has two little sisters.
Sensyuu{ imooto huta-ri-o vs. # imooto-o huta-ri } yuuenti-ni

last.week { sister 2-CL-ACC vs. sister-ACC 2-CL }amusement.park-to

tureteitta.
took‘He took the two sisters to an amusement park last week.’

Within the cline of difficulty, the definiteness marked by sono is overt because it isrealised through a functional morpheme, whereas the indefiniteness of the floating NQ
construction is considered covert in that it is expressed through a non-lexical means,
namely word order.
Predictions for the acquisition of these properties were formulated from theperspectives of the FRH (Lardiere, 2008, 2009) and the cline of difficulty in featureacquisition (Cho & Slabakova, 2014; Slabakova, 2009), and tested by means of an AJT
and an SPRT. Within the FRH, both overt and covert definiteness properties in question300

were predicted to be acquired more easily by Korean-speaking learners, who haveequivalent L1 properties (hence no reassembly is necessary), than by English-speaking
learners, whose L1 does not have such properties (hence reassembly is necessary basedon the closest L1 properties). The cline of difficulty predicted the same acquisition order
between the L2 groups as the FRH in terms the acquisition of sono. However, the clineof difficulty, assuming facilitation effects of overt feature realisation, predicted that theovert definiteness property of sono would be easier to acquire than the covert definitenessproperty of NQs for both L2 groups; and that English-speaking learners would acquire
the covert property of NQs more easily than Korean-speaking learners due to facilitationfrom the L1 overt realisation of definiteness (i.e., English articles).
The SPRT data (from Main study 1) did not provide any statistical evidence ofthe relevant linguistic properties for any participant groups (including the native Japanesecontrols). However, the AJT data (from Main study 2, in particular) yielded the following
findings:(9.9) Finding 1:
The English-speaking learners acquired the overt definiteness property of sono
more easily than the covert definiteness property of NQs (in that they were moreconsistent in rating sono NPs lower than bare NPs in the non-anaphoric context thanin rating floating NQs lower than post-nominal NQs in the definite context).

(9.10) Finding 2:
The Korean-speaking learners acquired both properties equally easily (in that theyrobustly showed target rating patterns across the properties: lower ratings for sono
NPs than bare NPs in the non-anaphoric context, and lower ratings for floating NQs
than post-nominal NQs in the definite context).

301

(9.11) Finding 3:
The Korean-speaking and English-speaking learners acquired the overt property ofsono equally easily (in that both L2 groups reliably distinguished NP types in the
non-anaphoric context by rating sono NPs as less acceptable than bare NPs).

(9.12) Finding 4:
The Korean-speaking learners acquired the covert property of NQs more easily thanEnglish-speaking learners (in that the Korean-speaking group rated floating NQs
lower than post-nominal NQs in the definite context more consistently than the
English-speaking group).

Findings 1 and 2 suggest that the answer to Research question 1 is a qualified yes. The
English speakers’ data testifies to the overt vs. covert contrast subsumed under the clineof difficulty, whereas the Korean speakers’ data does not, although not falsifying theprediction of the cline of difficulty, either. Similarly, given Findings 3 and 4, the answer
to Research question 2 is conditionally affirmative. In terms of the overt property of sono,
it does not seem to affect the outcome whether some feature reassembly is necessary (L1English) or not (L1-Korean) (as detailed in Chapter 5); however, as to the covert propertyof NQs, the absence of feature reassembly necessity seems to give an advantage to the
L1-Korean learners over the L1-English learners, who have some reassembly to do (i.e.,from overt realisation through the article system in the L1 to covert realisation throughword order change between NQ constructions in the L2). Finally, Finding 4 means thatthe second option is more likely to be the answer to Research question 3—having acorresponding covert expression in the L1 is more facilitative than having an L1
functional morpheme with which the relevant feature is overtly realised. This is in favourof the FRH but contra the cline of difficulty. In sum, as illustrated in Table 9.1, the overall

302

results seem more compatible with the FRH than the cline of difficulty in that
contradictory results were found only for the cline of difficulty, for Finding 4. The two
accounts were similar otherwise: both found results that were supporting and notsupporting (but not falsifying), in terms of Findings 1–3.

Table 9.1 Assessment of predictions for each approach
FRH

Cline of difficulty

Finding 1 ( English: sono > English: NQs)✓✓

Finding 2 ( Korean: sono = Korean: NQs)
Finding 3 ( Korean: sono = English: sono)

?
?

?
?

Finding 4 (Korean: NQs > English: NQs)✓*

Note. ✓ = supported, ? = neither supported nor falsified, * = falsified. “x > y” means x
is acquired faster/more easily than y. “x = y” means that x and y are acquired at equivalent
rates.

9.3 Implications for the cline of difficulty
Recall that according to Cho and Slabakova’s (2014) cline of difficulty, an acquisition
task where the L1 expresses the relevant feature overtly but the L2 expresses it covertly(i.e., Fovert to Fcovert) is predicted to be easier than a task where both L1 and L2 express
the feature covertly in the same way (i.e., Fovert to Fcovert, reassembly not required). In thepresent study, the L1-English learners tackle the former, whereas the L1-Korean learners
tackle the latter. Finding 4 (9.12) suggests that it may be the reassembly necessity rather
than the overt vs. covert contrast of the feature realisation in the L2 that plays a bigger
role in determining the relative task difficulty. In Cho and Slabakova, the acquisition ofcovert definiteness property in L2 Russian necessitated feature reassembly for both theEnglish-speaking and Korean-speaking learners. The results suggested that the relevant
acquisition task was easier for the English-speaking learners than the Korean-speaking

303

learners, which corresponded to the contrast between Fovert to Fcovert (the third hardesttask) and Fcovert to Fcovert, reassembly required (the hardest task) on the cline of difficulty.
This finding from Cho and Slabakova together with Finding 4 from the present thesis
suggest that Fcovert to Fcovert, reassembly not required should be relocated towards theeasier end than when feature reassembly is necessary for acquisition of a covert property.
The cline of difficulty assumes that overt features can be acquired more easily than covert
features, regardless of feature reassembly. However, based on the present findings, it
seems empirically more plausible to predict that acquisition involving feature reassemblyis always harder than acquisition without it. Nevertheless, within each category, overt
features may still be easier to acquire than covert features, and L1-L2 correspondences
are more facilitative for overt than covert feature realisation. Therefore, I propose arevised cline of difficulty in Figure 9.1. The key revision point is that whereas the original
cline assumes a bigger role for overt vs. covert feature realisation than for reassembly
requirement, this revised cline has the reversed assumption—reassembly requirement ismore influential than overt vs. covert feature realisation.

Easier to acquire
FoverttoFovertFcovertto
Fcovertreassembly
not required

Harder to acquire
FoverttoFovertFcovertto
FovertFovertto
FcovertFcovertto
Fcovertreassembly
required

Figure 9.1 Revised Cline of Difficulty

Let us consider how compatible the present and previous findings are with therevised cline and in what aspects the cline is in need of empirical support. The relative

304

difficulty of Fovert to Fovert, reassembly required compared to Fovert to Fcovert on the scale iscompatible with the L1-English group’s apparently more successful acquisition of theovert property of sono than the covert property of NQs. However, the overt vs. covert
contrast within the reassembly-not-necessary category has not been attested (this was trueof Cho & Slabakova’s original cline of difficulty too): the Korean-speaking group was
equally successful in acquiring the relevant properties of both sono (overt) and NQs(covert) (Finding 2). Furthermore, the present study did not find evidence that a Fcovert toFcovert, reassembly not required task is easier than Fovert to Fovert, reassembly required,either: it cannot be confidently said that the Korean-speaking learners’ acquisition of thedefiniteness constraint was easier than the English-speaking learners’ acquisition of sono.
In order to assert that the Fcovert to Fcovert, reassembly not required task is easier than Fovert
to Fovert, reassembly required, it must be demonstrated that the English-speaking learners
are not sensitive to the property of sono, and at the same time, the Korean-speaking
learners are sensitive to the definiteness constraint of floating NQs. However, because theEnglish-speaking learners showed a clearly target-like judgement pattern for sono
(significantly lower ratings of sono NPs than bare NPs in the non-anaphoric context), it
does not seem clear whether the Korean speakers are more target-like in terms of thedefiniteness constraint than the English speakers are in terms of the overt definitenessmarking of sono. Nonetheless, the revised cline in Figure 9.1 can be considered an
improvement in the sense that it is compatible with the new findings from the present
thesis and existing findings.

9.4 Acquisition mechanisms
I assume that the Korean-speaking learners of Japanese in the present study, given theirtarget-like responses, acquired the definiteness properties of sono and NQs facilitated byfull transfer of their representations of the corresponding L1 properties, as predicted by305

the FRH. However, there are questions to address regarding the L1-English learners’
acquisition processes of the target properties, namely of (i) which scenario (presented in
Chapter 5) seems the most probable in terms of their acquisition of sono; and (ii) how
they could overcome the poverty-of-the stimulus problem predicted with their acquisitionof the definiteness constraint on NQs.

9.4.1 Developmental stages of the L2 acquisition of sono by L1English learners
Since the L1-English group in Main study 2 seems to have already acquired the propertyof sono, it is ultimately impossible to determine which developmental path postulated in
Chapter 5 (previously in Table 5.2, repeated in Table 9.2) the English speakers went
through. Additionally, because the learners are relatively advanced, all scenarios are, in
principle, possible although some involve theoretically more complex learning tasks thanothers. Nevertheless, I speculate that the English-speaking learners initially mapped thefeature of that ([+definite, +anaphoric, −bridging]) onto sono and undertook thereassembly task of adding [+bridging] (Scenario 2 or Scenario 3B(ii)), based on
behaviour of the participants in Main study 1. Recall that the English-speaking
participants in Main study 1 were clearly less proficient than their counterparts in Mainstudy 2 in terms of the cloze test results. Moreover, they completed the AJT in anenvironment where their ability to distinguish between the acceptable and unacceptablesentences was potentially compromised (i.e., the satiation effect, discussed in Chapters 7
and 8). Nevertheless, they rated sono NPs statistically lower than bare NPs in nonanaphoric contexts (the target pattern), at levels comparable to the native control groupand the significantly more proficient Korean-speaking group. Furthermore, they gavesono NPs higher ratings than bare NPs in bridging contexts, to a similar degree to theother two groups: an indication of their awareness of sono being possible in bridging

306

contexts. This generally target-like judgement pattern suggests that even the lessproficient English-speaking learners in Main study 1 had already successfully completed
the relevant feature reassembly task (whichever scenario in Table 9.2 may hold true).
Since feature reassembly tasks involving the restriction of feature distribution (i.e.,[±anaphoric] => [−anaphoric] in Scenarios 1, 3A, and 3B (i)) typically require learners tohave relatively advanced proficiency (e.g., Gabriele, 2009; Marsden, Whong, & Gil,
2018; Slabakova, 2006), the successful acquisition at the lower proficiency levels favours
Scenarios 2 and 3B (ii), where the feature reassembly task is motivated by positive input,
and hence easier (i.e., [−bridging] => [±bridging]).77 Needless to say, however, further
investigation with even less proficient learners is necessary to confirm this analysis.

Conceptually, Scenario 2 seems even simpler than Scenario 3B (ii) (the easiest of all scenarios).
That is, in Scenario 2, the initial mapping involves only one lexical entry, whereas in Scenario 3B (ii),learners first create two lexical entries, one for the features of the and one for the features of that, but
discard the former at some point. However, it seems methodologically impossible to reliably tease
these apart.
77

307

Table 9.2 Possible acquisition scenarios for L1-English learners
Scenario 1

Initial mapping

Feature reassembly

L1 the = L2 sono[+definite, ±anaphoric,±bridging][±anaphoric]=> [−anaphoric]

Scenario 2

Initial mapping
L1 that = L2 sono[+definite, +anaphoric,−bridging]

Feature reassembly[−bridging]=> [±bridging]

Scenario 3A

Initial mapping

Feature reassembly

L1 the/that = L2 sono[+definite, ±anaphoric,±bridging][±anaphoric]=> [−anaphoric]

Initial mapping

Feature reassembly(i) L1 the = L2 sono[+definite, ±anaphoric,±bridging]If (i) is selected,[±anaphoric]=> [−anaphoric](ii) L1 that = L2 sono[+definite, +anaphoric,−bridging]If (ii) is selected,[−bridging]=> [±bridging]

Scenario 3B

9.4.2 How L1-English learners could overcome the poverty ofstimulus regarding the definiteness constraint on NQs
Although the present results did not support Cho and Slabakova’s (2014) cline ofdifficulty positioning of Fovert to Fcovert as easier than Fcovert to Fcovert, reassembly not
required, this does not necessarily mean an absence of the potential facilitative effect ofovert realization of a feature in the L1 for acquisition of a covert L2 property involving
that feature. That is, it is possible that the overt realization of definiteness in the L1 served308

as a heuristic to those English-speaking learners who successfully gave lower ratings tofloating NQs than post-nominal NQs in the [+definite] context. One possibility is thatthey might have recognised nouns associated with floating NQs as corresponding toEnglish DPs with the D coding [−definite]. Cho and Slabakova indeed propose a learning
strategy akin to this for their English-speaking learners’ acquisition of the covert
expression of definiteness via word order in L2 Russian (Cho & Slabakova, 2014, p.183).
Additionally, learners could avail themselves of distributional information about NQs andpossible interpretations for each position, namely that floating NQs occur frequently in
the [−definite] contexts but do not in the [+definite] context. Such information might havehelped the English-speaking learners to inductively learn the definiteness constraint.
However, this does not seem very feasible given the fact that other types of NQ (prenominal and post-nominal) are allowed in both [+definite] and [−definite] contexts.
Following Boyd and Goldberg (2011, p. 55), statistical learning can occur in language
acquisition when “an alternative formulation with the same function” is consistently
witnessed in contexts where a pre-empted formulation is predicted to be appropriate. Thissuggests that in order to effectively pre-empt floating NQs in the [+definite] context, one
specific type of NQ is required to be consistently witnessed instead of floating NQs.
However, this condition is unlikely to be satisfied in the case of Japanese NQs. Thus,
successful pre-emption of floating NQs seems unlikely in the [+definite] context.
An alternative account of the finding that the definiteness constraint on NQs
seems acquirable for at least some English-speaking learners is the one employed byprevious studies that reported successful acquisition of poverty-of-the-stimulus properties(e.g., Dekydtspotter et al. 2001; Okuma, 2019; Marsden, 2009), namely that the constraint
itself does not have to be acquired based on input because it is made available throughUG. In this view, the definiteness constraint on Japanese floating NQs is a result of theuniversal syntax-semantic computation of the floating construction rather than a purely309

lexical property of NQs alone. If this is true, the semantic constraint will be automatically
activated in the L2 grammar, once learners acquire the essential properties of Japanese
NQs, specifically that they must combine with classifiers, and that Japanese NQs can float,
in contrast to English NQs. Note that such an account still predicts L1-Korean speakers
to acquire the semantic constraint earlier than L1-English speakers, since Korean native
speakers can transfer all relevant properties of floating NQs from their L1 counterparts,
as soon as they identify the floating NQ structure in L2 Japanese input. English-speaking
learners, on the other hand, may initially conceive of Japanese NQs as equivalents ofEnglish phrases consisting of a numeral and a classifier (e.g., three flocks of birds), whichlack the ability to float. English-speaking learners must then at least adjust the L1-based
representation of NQs towards the target, which would naturally require more time andeffort to accomplish than the Korean-speaking learners’ task, where no such adjustment,or reassembly, is required. I speculate that the key to the acquisition of the definitenessconstraint on floating NQs could be the difference between Japanese NQs and English[numeral + classifier] structures (e.g., three flocks). Recall that Japanese classifiers arebound morphemes (Section 3.6.1). English classifiers such as flocks in three flocks ofbirds, on the other hand, are free morphemes. Kobuchi-Philip (2007) proposes that it is
the morphological status of Japanese NQs as compound words (as opposed to phrases)that enables them to assume the floating quantifier position; by contrast, it is its phrase
status that prevents a combination of [numeral + classifier] from floating in English.78 If

78Kobuchi-Philip puts forward as evidence for the compound-word status of Japanese [Num + CL]

combinations the fact that they exhibit word-internal voicing, rendaku (ia), which never occurs in thesyntactic combination of two free morphemes (ib) (adapted from Kobuchi-Philip, 2007, p. 826).
(i) a. Num + CL: san + hon = san-bon ‘3-CL’
b. Adj + N: omosiroi + hon = omosiroi hon ‘interesting book’310this analysis is on the right track, English-speaking learners of Japanese must then acquire
the compound-word morphology of Japanese classifiers in order that Japanese NQs canfloat would then arise automatically, and the definiteness constraint would ensue as aresult of the universal syntax-semantic computation.

9.5 Implications for research on L2 acquisition of definitenessexpressions
The present study offers some insights into L2 learnability of bridging and of definitenessproperties as phenomena pertaining to linguistic-external interfaces. Recall that in Mainstudy 2, the native Japanese controls showed a preference for sono NPs over bare NPs in
the form of significantly higher ratings in bridging contexts, whereas L2 learners
exhibited descriptively similar patterns yet there was no statistically significant
distinction. Given the relatively advanced proficiency levels of the L2 groups, thissuggests that ultimate attainment in bridging definiteness might pose a persistent problem
in L2 acquisition, as observed in previous studies outlined in Chapter 4 (e.g., Cho, 2017;
Feng, 2019). However, since the L2 groups did not show target-like preference for sono
NPs in the non-bridging (direct) anaphoric context, either, then rather than a difficulty
specific to bridging definiteness, it seems more likely that the kind of properties involved
in discourse tracking for anaphoric reference may continue to be challenging even foradvanced learners. This is along the lines of the Interface Hypothesis (e.g., Sorace, 2011;
Sorace & Filiaci, 2006), which predicts persistent non-native-like variability in the L2
end-state with phenomena that necessitate a coordination of an internal component of thegrammar (e.g., syntax, semantics), and an external component (i.e., pragmatics or
discourse information). However, a question remains as to why the L2 groups weregenerally more sensitive to sono’s incompatibility with non-anaphoric contexts, than they311

were to sono’s felicity in anaphoric/bridging contexts; even though both nonanaphoric/unique definiteness and anaphoric/bridging definiteness concern the interface
between internal components of the grammar (syntax-semantics) and an external
component (pragmatics or discourse). That is, what could account for the learnability
contrast between the properties that both involve internal-external interfaces, albeit withdifferent configurations, (i) syntax-semantics-discourse (i.e., anaphoric and bridging
contexts) and (ii) syntax-semantics-pragmatics (i.e., non-anaphoric contexts)?
One possibility is that the kind of definiteness established non-anaphorically(unique definiteness, or “out-of-the-blue definiteness” in Tuniyan’s (2018) terms) may
cause less difficulty to L2 learners than the kind that requires tracking discourse referents(anaphoric definiteness). This is presumably because unique definiteness can, in principle,
be computed based on one’s pragmatic knowledge (world or situational knowledge),
independently of discoursal information, hence potentially less cognitively taxing. Thissuggests that not all external interfaces are equally problematic (e.g., White, 2011).
Alternative explanations for the contrast between non-anaphoric vs. anaphoric
contexts can be made in terms of quality of input. Sono’s incompatibility with nonanaphoric contexts concerns a distinction in acceptability: sono NPs are unacceptable insuch contexts whereas bare NPs are acceptable. However, in anaphoric contexts thedistinction is about preference: sono NPs are preferred whereas bare NPs tend to bedispreferred but they are not unacceptable. That is, the former contrast is arguably more
perceptible hence potentially easier to acquire than the latter. Furthermore, Japaneselearners, in theory, will encounter only bare NPs, and not sono NPs, in non-anaphoric
contexts. In anaphoric contexts, on the other hand, they will find more sono NPs thanbare NPs yet will come across plenty of instances of bare NPs in those contexts, which
may make it relatively difficult to rely on the input for form-meaning mappings. Note thatthese problems are not expected in L2 English. In English, the distributional contrast

312between the vs. a should be arguably more salient than the contrast between sono NPs vs.
bare NPs in anaphoric contexts, which means more consistent input would be available.
Consequently, L2 English learners are predicted to be more target-like in using thecompared to L2 Japanese learners in using sono in anaphoric contexts. This is indeed
compatible with the fact that the L2 Japanese learners in the present study seem more
prone to deviate from the target patterns compared to the L2 learners in many previous
L2 English article studies, at least in direct anaphoric contexts, where they perform in a
generally target-like manner (i.e., accurately distinguishing the from a) (e.g., Cho, 2017;
Feng, 2019; Ionin et al., 2004; Tuniyan, 2018).
It is of course premature to simply relegate the potential bridging problem in
L2 Japanese to a matter of input. However, the present findings suggest that ambiguous
input, in the sense of the optionality of anaphoric demonstratives in anaphoric contexts,
might also play a role. This is what one needs to be cautious of in investigating L2
learnability of bridging in Japanese or other article-less languages such as Korean,because it could make it difficult to distinguish between the challenges posed by bridging
and an ambiguous input effect. By contrast, in L2 English, for example, the definite article
must be used in definite contexts, irrespective of whether in bridging or non-bridging
contexts; therefore, the input for L2 English learners is considerably less ambiguous. Thismeans that any differences found between bridging and non-bridging anaphoric contexts
in L2 English can be effectively ascribed to other factors such as L1 transfer and externalinterface status, where theoretically motivated. However, the potential adverse input
effects are confounded with such factors in L2 Japanese, which makes it difficult toreliably confirm which factors are responsible for non-native-like behaviour.
Nevertheless, based on the present findings, I tentatively conclude (i) that bridging
contexts do not necessarily pose greater difficulty than non-bridging contexts as far as
anaphoric contexts are concerned; and (ii) that external interface properties are not313

equally difficult: those related to pragmatics (unique definiteness in non-anaphoric
contexts) seem less difficult than those related to discourse (anaphoric definiteness indirect and bridging contexts).

9.6 Summary of the chapter
In this chapter, some theoretical implications of the present findings were discussed forthe cline of difficulty and L2 acquisition of definiteness properties. Firstly, a revision to
Cho and Slabakova’s (2014) cline of difficulty was proposed to accommodate the present
findings as well as Cho and Slabakova’s. For the learning processes of the target
properties, I concluded that the Korean-speaking learners acquired both sono and NQs
relatively easily, making use of their knowledge of the L1 corresponding properties, inline with the FRH. As to the English-speaking learners, I tentatively proposed that inacquiring sono, they took a route where they initially map the feature of that ([+definite,+anaphoric, −bridging]) onto sono, and subsequently add [+bridging] to complete thefeature reassembly. Furthermore, I argued that some English-speaking learners may haveacquired the definiteness constraint on NQs by means of the UG-guided syntax-semantics
computation. Lastly, some potential input problems concerning L2 acquisition of overt
definiteness marking by sono were identified as potential sources of challenge that are
independent of other factors including L1 transfer and difficulty related to some externalinterface properties.

314

Chapter 10: Conclusion
10.1 Contributions
This thesis makes three key contributions: to second language acquisition theory, to L2
acquisition of definiteness, and to theoretical linguistic research on Japanese numeral
quantifiers (NQs), respectively. Starting with L2 acquisition theory, the thesis offers arefinement to our understanding of what causes difficulty in acquiring functional features.
This study was designed to tease apart the impact of overt vs. covert feature realisationand the reassembly vs. no-reassembly requirement. Particularly, the comparison of L1English and L1-Korean learners’ acceptability judgements in terms of the acquisition of
the definiteness constraint on floating NQs provided crucial data to evaluate the untested
assumption of Cho and Slabakova’s (2014) cline of difficulty; namely, that overt vs.
covert feature realisation plays a larger part than the need for feature reassembly indetermining acquisition task difficulty. The results suggested that, at least for theacquisition of relationship between definiteness and floating NQ, the opposite seems
more likely the case. This motived a proposed revision to the cline that can accommodate
both previous and present results. The next section will detail how this opens up new
directions for future research into learnability problems and the role of L1 in the nonnative language acquisition of syntax-semantics mappings.
The second contribution concerns the originality of the focus on definitenessin L2 Japanese. While there has been a lot of research on L2 acquisition of the article
system in English, L2 acquisition of definiteness properties in other languages, andparticularly so-called article-less languages is rare. However, investigation in this domain
is potentially informative in L2 research. For example, recall that the L2 Japanese learners,
unlike the native controls, did not show a statistically reliable preference for overt

315definiteness marking using the demonstrative sono over covert marking through barenominals in anaphoric contexts (bridging or non-bridging). This kind of challenge,
involving the L2 acquisition of a native-like preference for optional overt definitenessmarking, seems to be a phenomenon that might offer new insights into L2 ultimate
attainment, which could only be examined in article-less languages. On the other hand,the definiteness constraint on floating NQs can be considered a novel interesting povertyof-the-stimulus (POS) phenomenon for learners whose L1 lacks the constraint (e.g.,
English). Specifically, the successful acquisition of the constraint by at least someEnglish-speaking learners implies that L2 acquisition is guided by UG. These showcase
the utility of L2 research into definiteness expressions in article-less languages such as
Japanese and Korean.
The third contribution is directed towards theoretical Japanese linguistic
research. The Japanese properties under investigation are ones for which varied informal
native intuitions can be found in the literature but which, prior to the present thesis, had
not been tested formally through experimental research. Particularly, the relatively clear
native judgement data regarding the semantic constraint on Japanese NQs from Pilot AJTver. 1 played a crucial role in determining the most valid characterisation of the constraint
out of the three competing theoretical proposals: the results provided solid evidence forthe proposal that the floating NQs are adverbials and the relevant constraint concerns
definiteness rather than specificity. The present thesis makes a convincing case for theutility of experimental work in evaluating linguistic theories.

10.2 Limitations & directions for future research
For a wider applicability of the revised cline of difficulty (Figure 9.1), further
investigation is necessary to examine whether a feature covertly realised in an identicalway in the L1 and the L2 (Fcovert to Fcovert no reassembly necessary) is easier than when316

that feature is expressed overtly in both languages but some feature reassembly is required
to achieve the target-like configuration (Fovert to Fovert reassembly necessary). Recall thatthe present study involved this contrast (L1-Korean learners’ acquisition of thedefiniteness constraint on NQs vs. L1-English learners’ acquisition of the definitenessmarking by sono) but did not gain evidence either supporting or falsifying the prediction.
Thus, further investigation is required to test whether this prediction is born out.
Additionally, another study would be appropriate with its focus on the contrast between
the cases where the L1 and the L2 have corresponding covert properties vs. where the L1
does not have that covert property but an overt means to express it (e.g., acquisition of
the definiteness constraint on NQs by L1-Korean learners vs. by L1-English learners) for
the following reason. In the present study, the POS problem was implicated for one group(L1-English learners) but not for the other (L1-Korean learners). Although thislearnability problem can seem to be overcome at least for some advanced learners, it could
be an independent source of difficulty, which would then be a confounding factor in theinvestigation of the relation between the effects of overt/covert feature realisation andfeature reassembly necessity. Therefore, it seems ideal to test the prediction with L1-L2
combinations that involve no POS problem for either L2 group.
As to the acquisition of sono, I tentatively concluded that the potential
learnability problem regarding bridging definiteness proposed in the previous research(e.g., Cho, 2017) did not seem to affect the participants in the present study. However,this remains inconclusive, particularly because non-anaphoric bridging was not tested inthis study (due to the apparently considerable challenge that acquisition of non-anaphoric
bridging represents. See Chapter 4, Section 4.5). If the input problems surrounding theoptional nature of sono in anaphoric contexts are real, the potential residual optionality
with bridging definiteness in article-less L2s would be more reliably studied within nonanaphoric contexts, where anaphoric-marking demonstratives are not allowed and NPs

317

must always be bare (hence more consistent input). Specifically, a comparison of nonanaphoric non-bridging definite contexts (i.e., out-of-the-blue definite contexts) with nonanaphoric bridging definite contexts would be informative for further investigation of thepotentially challenging nature of bridging reference in L2.
There were several limitations regarding the samples in the present thesis. Firstly,
as pointed out in Chapter 7, the sample size of the L1-Korean group (n = 12) in Mainstudy 1 was smaller than planned after part of the data collection had to be cancelled due
to COVID-19. This inevitably resulted in a lack of statistical power, particularly for the
SPRT. Thus, increasing the numbers of participants and test items might make the target
effects and between-groups differences more visible. Furthermore, additional AJT datafrom lower proficiency learners would be useful particularly to investigate thedevelopmental stages for the acquisition of sono in terms of English-speaking learners’
initial feature mapping. If English-speaking learners initially map the features of that([+definite, +anaphoric, −bridging]) onto sono (as proposed in the previous chapter), they
are expected to go through a phase where they accept sono in direct anaphoric contexts
and reject it correctly in non-anaphoric contexts but infelicitously in bridging anaphoric
contexts. In contrast, Korean-speaking counterparts with matched proficiency will accept
sono in both anaphoric and non-bridging contexts while rejecting it in non-anaphoric
contexts (target pattern), by virtue of positive transfer of the features of their L1
demonstrative ku ([+definite, +anaphoric, ±bridging]).
Finally, let me point out a limitation about the real-time/online data collection
methodology. Although the self-paced reading method, the choice of the present study,
failed to obtain evidence for the definiteness properties of sono and NQs, other types ofreal-time measure such as event-related potentials (ERPs) and eye tracking still seem tohave a chance to do so. Indeed, as demonstrated by Jiang (2018), target-like online
performance has been observed previously more often through ERP responses and eye-318

tracking than self-paced reading. Jiang explains that self-paced reading relies on aphysical responses that is extraneous to language processing (i.e., key/button pressing),
ERP data (i.e., involuntary changes in electrical voltage in the brain) and eye movements
reflect participants’ cognitive processing arguably more directly. Therefore, use of thesealternative measures should be considered for future research into the definitenessproperties investigated in this study, for their potentially keener online sensitivity.
Nevertheless, the null results of the thesis regarding the Japanese definiteness phenomena
makes an interesting contrast to recent findings from self-paced reading studies, in which
both L1 and L2 English speakers were sensitive to the distinction between the English
articles a and the (e.g., Cho, 2020; Ionin et al., 2019). It might be attributed to thedifference that the phenomena are fairly categorical in English (i.e., articles are elementsthat affect grammaticality), whereas the phenomena that the present thesis investigatesare more gradient (i.e., the presence/absence of sono and NQs does not affectgrammaticality in Japanese). It warrants further research into why self-paced reading issensitive to one definiteness property but not to another.

10.3 A final remark
I hope that the present thesis has shown that exploration of definiteness properties inarticle-less languages is informative not just because it enriches the scope of L2
acquisition research but also because it can provide us with a good testing ground fortimely L2 theoretical proposals (e.g., the FRH and the cline of difficulty). My hope is that
this research will invite further investigation of the L2 acquisition of definiteness inarticle-less languages. There still seem to be many missing pieces to the L2 acquisition
puzzle, particularly concerning L1 transfer and learnability, which require us to consider
not only linguistic factors, but also factors relating to input and methodological issues.
The present thesis has aimed to offer a new piece to fit into the puzzle.

319

Appendices
Appendix 1: Consent form & information sheet
Note. Participants read the consent form and information sheet in their own native
languages (i.e., Japanese, English, or Korean). Presented here are English versions of
those documents given to L2 learners in Main study 1. This consent form and information
sheet are representative of those used for all parts of the data collection.

Appendix 1A: Sample consent form (English ver.):320

Appendix 1B: Sample information sheet (English ver.):
Reading comprehension of Japanese sentencesby native speakers and learners of Japanese
My name is Keisuke Kume. I am a PhD student in the Department of Language and Linguistic
Science, University of York. Thank you for your interest in participating in this research. This
document is an information sheet about the research. Please take a moment to read throughthe following information about the study first. If you decide to participate, you will be asked
to sign a consent form.
Information about the study
What is the study about?
This study examines how a range of Japanese sentences are comprehended by native
Japanese speakers, and Japanese learners whose first language is English or Korean.
Who can participate?
You can participate in this study if you are (i) 18 years old or over and a native speaker ofJapanese, or (ii) 18 years old or over and a learner of Japanese whose first language isEnglish / Korean (but no other languages).
What does the study involve?
This study consists of four tasks. The content and estimated task completion time for eachtask is as follows:(1) Self-paced reading task
You will read at your own natural pace a range of Japanese sentences displayed on thecomputer screen. Specifically, for each item, you read a short passage providing context,
and then a continuation sentence. The continuation sentence is presented segment bysegment. For some items, you will be asked to answer a question about the content of thesentences you have just read. This task will take about 40–50 minutes.
(2) Acceptability judgement task
You will read a series of contexts and sentences similar to those in the first task, and will
judge the acceptability of the sentences. You will read a context and the underlined sentence321that follows it. Then you will rate how natural the underlined sentence is as a continuation of
the passage proving the context using a scale of 0(completely odd) – 6(completely natural).
The estimated task completion time is about 35–45 minutes.
(3) Fill-in-the-blank task
You will read some Japanese passages with blanks and fill in each blank with an appropriate
word by choosing from four options. This task will take 10–15 minutes.
(4) Participant questionnaireThis questionnaire asks you about your language background. It will take 5–10 minutes.
* Total estimated completion time
90–120 minutes
Do I have to take part?
No, you do not have to take part in the study. Even after you have agreed to participate, youwill be free to withdraw from the study without giving a reason.
However, note that your data cannot be withdrawn after you have left the experiment venue
as it will be impossible destroy your data. This is because your responses will be recorded
anonymously to ensure you remain personally unidentifiable.
What are the possible risks of taking part?
There are no foreseeable risks to taking part.
Are there any benefits to participating?
As a token of gratitude for participation, 20 pounds will be given to each participant who hascompleted all the tasks. Furthermore, your responses will contribute to a better
understanding of how Japanese sentences are.
What will happen to the data I provide?
The data you provide will be used together with the data of other participants to examine how
a range of Japanese sentences are understood by native speakers of Japanese and learnersof Japanese. The electronic data will be stored in a password-protected folder in the
University of York secure server and the paper-form data will be stored in a locked storage322

cabinet in the Language & Linguistic Science department building in the University of York.
What about confidentiality?
Your responses to the survey will remain strictly confidential. No information will be collectedthat could be used to identify a participant personally. It will not, therefore, be possible toidentify any individuals or their individual responses in publications or presentations.
※ This study has been reviewed and approved by the Departmental Ethics Committee of
the Department of Language and Linguistic Science at the University of York. If you haveany questions, please feel free to ask the researcher by email at the following address.
[Contact information of researcher]
Keisuke Kume (PhD student at Department of Language and Linguistics Science, University
of York)
Email: kk958@york.ac.uk

323

Appendix 2: Language background questionnaireNote. The English translation is provided for reference. The actual questionnaire waspresented without it.
さんかしゃ

参加者アンケート Participant questionnaire
ねんれい

さい

Q1. 年齢:(Age: (
せいべつ)歳) years old
おとこ

おんな

Q2. 性別: a. 男

こた

b. 女

(答えに〇をつけてください。)

Sex: a. Male b. Female (please circle your answer)
げ ん ご はいけいおし

あなたの言語背景について教えてください。
Please tell me about your language background.
ぼ

ご

う

さいしょ

し ぜん

おぼ

げ んご

なん

つぎ

なか

Q3. あなたの母語(生まれてから最初に自然に覚えた言語)は何ですか。次の a～d の中か
えら

えら

ば あい

こた

ら選んで、〇をつけてください。d を選んだ場合は、(か)に答えを書いてくださ

ふくすう か い と う かい。(複数回答可)What is your mother tongue (the first language you naturally learned)? Please chose your answer
from a-d by circling it. If you chose d, please specify your answer in (に ほ ん ご

a.日本語

かんこくご

え いご

b.韓国語

c.英語

た

d. その他()

a. Japanese b. Korean c. English d. Other (
りょうしん

ぼ

ご

).

なん

)

つぎ

なか

えら

Q4. あなたのご両 親 の母語は何ですか。次の a～d の中から選んで、〇をつけてくださ
えら

ば あい

い。d を選んだ場合は、(

こたかふくすう か い と う か)に答えを書いてください。(複数回答可)What languages do your parents speak as their mother tongue? Please chose your answer from a-dby circling it. If you chose d, please specify your answer in (ちちに ほ ん ご

かんこくご

え いご

た

父:a.日本語 b.韓国語 c.英語 d. その他(). (Multiple answers possible))

Father: a. Japanese b. Korean c. English d. Other (ははに ほ ん ご

かんこくご

え いご

た

母:a.日本語 b.韓国語 c.英語 d. その他(
Mother: a. Japanese b. Korean c. English d. Other (Go on to the next page

324

)’
)
)’

こ ども

つか

げ んご

おし

つぎ

なか

Q5. 子供のころに使っていた言語を教えてください。次の a～d の中から選んで、〇をつ
えら

ば あい

こた

けてください。d を選んだ場合は、(

かふくすう か い と う か)に答えを書いてください。(複数回答可)What languages did you use as a child? Please chose your answer from a-d by circling it. When
you chose d, please specify your answer in (いえに ほ ん ごかんこくご). (Multiple answers possible)

え いご

た

家で：a.日本語 b.韓国語 c.英語 d. その他()

At home: a. Japanese b. Korean c. English d. Other (がっこうに ほ ん ご

かんこくご

え いご

)

た

学校で：a.日本語 b.韓国語 c.英語 d. その他()

At school: a. Japanese b. Korean c. English d. Other (ともだちに ほ ん ご

かんこくご

え いご

)

た

友達と：a.日本語 b.韓国語 c.英語 d. その他(
With friends: a. Japanese b. Korean c. English d. Other (げんざいに ほ ん ご がくしゅう)

おしに ほ ん ご がくしゅうしゃ

ほう

あなたの現在までの日本語 学 習 について教えてください (Q6～Q8 は日本語 学 習 者 の方
こたのみお答えください)。
Please tell me about your Japanese learning history (Q6 ~ Q8 are only for Japanese learners).
なんさいに ほ ん ご

べんきょう

はじ

さい

Q6. 何歳で日本語を勉 強 し始めましたか。()歳

At what age did you started learning Japanese? () years old

き かん に ほ ん ご

べんきょう

ねん

Q7. どのくらいの期間日本語を勉 強 していますか。(
How long have you been learning Japanese? (に ほん) years (すQ8. 日本に住んだことはありますか。a.はい

げつ

)年(

)カ月

) monthsb.いいえ

Have you ever lived in Japan? a. Yes b. No
こた

ば あい

に ほん

たいざい き か ん

おし「はい」と答えた場合は、日本での滞在期間について教えてください。
If you answered yes, please specify how long.
((Year:

ねん

年

がつ

月)～(
Month:

ねん

がつ

年

月)

) - (Year:

Month:

Go on to the next page

325

)

ぼ

ご

に ほ ん ご い がい

げ んご

はな

はな

ば あい

じ

こ ひょうかて いど

げ んご

母語と日本語以外の言語を話しますか。もし話す場合は、自己評価でどの程度その言語はな

おしを話せるかを教えてください。
Do you speak any other languages than your mother tongue and Japanese? If yes, please selfevaluate your skills in each language.
げ んごじ言語 Language
ご

(

)語

Language:(

こ ひょうか

自己評価 Self-evaluation
しょきゅう

a.初 級

ちゅうきゅうb. 中 級

じょうきゅうc. 上 級

なd.ネイティブ並み

a. Beginner b. Intermediate c. Advanced d. Near-native
)
ご

(

)語

Language:
(

しょきゅう

a.初 級

ちゅうきゅうb. 中 級

じょうきゅうc. 上 級

なd.ネイティブ並み

a. Beginner b. Intermediate c. Advanced d. Near-native
)
ご

(

)語

Language:
(

しょきゅう

a.初 級

ちゅうきゅうb. 中 級

じょうきゅうc. 上 級

なd.ネイティブ並み

a. Beginner b. Intermediate c. Advanced d. Near-native
)
ご

(

)語

Language:
(

しょきゅう

a.初 級

ちゅうきゅうb. 中 級

じょうきゅうc. 上 級

なd.ネイティブ並み

a. Beginner b. Intermediate c. Advanced d. Near-native
)
ご

(

)語

Language:
(

しょきゅう

a.初 級

ちゅうきゅうb. 中 級

じょうきゅうc. 上 級

なd.ネイティブ並み

a. Beginner b. Intermediate c. Advanced d. Near-native)

た なん

げ ん ご はいけい

しおしQ9. その他何でもあなたの言語背景について知っておくべきことがあれば、教えてくだ
さい。
Please tell me anything else that I should know about your language background.

End of the questionnaire

326Appendix 3: Proficiency task
Appendix 3A: Proficiency test & choices with correct answers
Note. See Appendix 3B for an English translation of the passage below.
あな う

穴埋めタスク
くうはく

はい

空白(

もっと

てきせつ

せん たく しなか

えら)に入る 最 も適切なことばを選択肢の中から選んでください。

「ルームシェア」
ひと へ

や

か ぞく

きょうだい

ゆう じん どう し

か

きょうどう

マンションやアパートの一部屋を家族や 兄 弟とではなく、友人同士などで借りて 共 同
せい かつ

おうべい

いっぱんてきに ほん生活をすることを「ルームシェア」という。欧米では一般的だ(1)
さいきん

と

し

ぶ

あいだ

最近、都市部の(2)
あんしん

り ゆう

し

や ちん

ひと

かいがいりゅうがく

けいけん

た にん

せいかつ

はいけい

いっしょ

り

ルームシェアの利ていこうかん

増え、他人と生活すること(7)という背景もあるよう(9)

ともだち

できる」
「楽しい」

だが、海外 留 学 などで経験(5)ふ

点を知る人(6)(8)

たのの 間 で広まっている。「家賃が(3)「安心」など、理由は(4)
てん

ひろ

、日本でも

の抵抗感がなくなってきて。

く

友達と一緒に暮らす
さい

じょせい

ちゅうごく

ほんこん

じょせい

F さん(27歳・女性)は 中 国で、香港(10)
げんざい

(11)

と ない

だいがく じ だいどうきゅうせい。現在も都内で大学時代(12)
や ちん

すい どう

まん

まん えん

よう い

まいつき

用意(18)

は 3 人で 4万円ずつ(15)こうきょうりょうきんいう。電気、水道、(16)

しょく ひ

まんえん

き

い

いち ばん

まん

まんえん

たん

していると
さい ふ

し はら

す

から支払う。住みはじめてからのと ないはやはり金銭面。都内で 1 人(22)
いま

はんぶん

こうきょうりょうきん

ふ、今はその半分。公 共 料 金 (24)やす担するより(25)や、3 人共 通 の財布をきんせんめんを聞いてみると、一番の(21)

住むには 6万～8万円かかる(23)

へ

部屋

きょうつう

などの公 共 料 金 と 食 費(17)、毎月1 人 3万円ずつ入れ、(19)

(20)
す

じょせい

同 級 生 の女性2 人と 2LDK(13)をルームシェアしている。家賃12万(14)
でん き

けいけん

の女性とルームシェアを経験

いっぽうは 1 人で負なが でん わ

安くてすむ。一方、デメリットは、長電話(26)

しにくいことだという。
さがインターネットで「シェアメート」を探す
とお

(27)

さが

ふ

をインターネットを通して探す人(28)おぼらして(29)り ゆうがいこくじんを覚えたい」という理由から、(30)おおこくさいこうりゅうきょうかい多い。
「国際 交 流 協 会 」はシェアメート(32)(33)

を設けようと、昨年8 月に(34)

もう

さくねん

た

ぼ しゅう

かん り しゃにほんじん

こんどうせい じ

おお

おお や

さが

ひと

じょうほうこうかん

探す人たちの情 報 交換のがいこくじんた すうには、日本人、外国人から多数(36)が多いときは 1 日に 200(39)は、大家さんの(41)に ほんじんあ

さいきん

書き込みがある。ホームページの管理者、近藤誠二(37)
(38)

き ぼう

を立ち上げた(http://borderless-tokyo.com)。シェアメート募 集 の(35)こくに外国人を希望する日本人

(31)

か

いっしょ

増えている。また、「一緒に暮によると、最近はアクセスになるという。だが、(40)

え

う

い

が得られず、シェアを受け入れてくれる(42)

うだ。

327

いっぱん

一般に
すく

は少ないそ

“✓” represents the correct answer.

(1) a.からふ たん(8) a.しまう(15) a.負担 ✓
せつやく

b.が ✓

b.いる ✓

b.節約

c.って

c.ある

c.貯金

d.と

d.ほしい

d.計算

わかもの

(2) a.若者 ✓こうれいしゃb.高齢者
がいこくじんc.外国人
ふ ゆうそう

d.富裕層
ちょ きん

(3) a.貯金
かいぜん

b.改善
せつやく

c.節約 ✓
けんとう

d.検討
さまざま

(4) a.様々 ✓
たんじゅん

b.単 純
ふ めい

c.不明
ちょうさちゅうd.調 査 中(5) a.せず

ちょきん

けいさん

こ ていで んわ(9) a.ね(16) a.固定電話 ✓
しょくひ

b.だが

b.食費

c.だ ✓

c.保険料

d.です

d.家賃

ほけんりょう

や ちん

しゅっしん

(10) a.出 身✓せい(17) a.に
b.は ✓

b.製
ざいじゅう

c.在 住

たいざいちゅう

d.滞 在 中(11) a.しないc.がd.と(18) a.しつつ

b.したい

b.しながら

c.中だ

c.すると

d.した ✓

d.して ✓(12) a.の ✓(19) a.どこ

b.中の

b.は

b.そこ ✓

c.から

c.が

c.あそこ

d.して ✓d.にd.ここ(13) a.を(20) a.理由(6) a.が ✓

り ゆう

かんそう

b.は

b.と

b.感想 ✓

c.を

c.の ✓

c.不満

d.に

d.な

d.経験

(7) a.との

ふ まん

けいけん

げん

(21) a.メリット ✓(14) a.元

b.へ ✓

b.ポンド

c.に

c.円

d.が

d.ドル

えん

✓

328

り えき

b.利益
c.デメリット
しんぱいごとd.心配事

(22) a.に
b.と
c.で ✓
d.が
(23) a.が ✓b.としてに ほ ん ご(29) a.日本語
がいこくご

b.外国語 ✓
い ぶ ん か

c.異文化
え いご

b.が
c.の ✓
d.から

d.英語
さいしょ

(37) a.さん ✓(30) a.最初
こきゃく

b.くん

b.顧客
か ぞく

どの

c.なら

c.家族

d.ため

d.相手 ✓(24) a.のみ(36) a.に

c.殿

あ いて

さま

d.様
と

(31) a.であ(38) a.問い合わせ
ちゅう

b.だけ

b.も ✓

b. 中

c.など ✓

c.に

c. 状 況

d.から

d.かなり

d.数

(25) a.きっとじょうきょう(32) a.を ✓

すう

✓

ちか

(39) a.近く

b.ずっと ✓

b.と

b.遠く

c.そっと

c.が

c.ごとく

d もっと

d.は

d.人

(26) a.は
b.が ✓
c.で
d.も
(27) a.シェアメート ✓

✓

とお

にん

ど うき

(40) a.たしかに(33) a.動機り ゆう

b.おそらくb.理由
しゅだん

c.まだ ✓

c.手段
ば

d.場

✓

ふ どうさ んや(34) a.不動産屋

d.すでに
し きん

(41) a.資金
り かい

b.シェアハウスb.インターネット

b.理解 ✓

c.アパートc.マンション

c.権利d.マンション

d.ウェブサイト ✓d.好感(28) a.はかんばん(35) a.看板
せんでん

b.なら

b.宣伝

c.も ✓

c.広告

d.など

d.掲示板 ✓

こうこく

けいじばん

329

け んり

こうかん

こ よ う ぬし(42) a.雇用主
かのうせい

b.可能性
じょうきょうc. 状 況

d.ところ ✓

Appendix 3B: English translation of the proficiency test passage:
Note. This English translation of the cloze task is presented here for reference. It was
taken from Marsden (2005, p. 324), which was originally adapted from Nihongo
Journal (2000.6, pp. 46–47). It was not presented in the actual test.
Room-sharing'Room-sharing' means renting a condominium or apartment communally with friends
and acquaintances instead of living with family members or siblings. This is a common
practice in Europe and North America and now it is also starting to become popularamong young people in Japanese cities. They like room-sharing for a variety ofreasons: it lets you save money on rent, it's fun, and it provides a sense of security.
More and more people are learning about these advantages by experiencing roomsharing while studying abroad, and this has lowered resistance to the idea.
Living with friends
Ms F (27) once shared a room with a woman from Hong Kong while living in China.
Now, she shares a two-bedroom apartment in Tokyo with two friends from heruniversity days. Each of the three friends pays 40,000 yen to cover the rent of 120,000
yen. They each also put 30,000 yen into a common purse every month to buy food andpay the electricity, water, telephone and other utility bills. After beginning this sharedliving arrangement, Ms F said that the cost-of-living savings were the biggest
advantage. The rent on an apartment for a single person in Tokyo is 60,000 to 80,000
yen, and now she's only paying half of that. The utilities are also much lower than she
would have to pay living alone. One disadvantage she mentioned was that she usually
can't talk for a long time on the telephone.
Finding roommates on the Internet
An increasing number of people are finding roommates on the Internet. Many Japanesepeople want to find a foreign roommate so they can learn a foreign language while
sharing accommodation. Last August, borderless-tokyo-corp (an international
exchange association) established a website where people looking for roommates can
exchange information (http://borderless-tokyo.com). The bulletin board for people
seeking roommates is full of ads from both Japanese and foreigners. According to Seiji
Kondo, who manages the website, the site sometimes gets as many as 200 hits a day.
However, Kondo mentioned that landlords are resistant to the idea of room-sharing,and places that allow it can be few and far between.

330Appendix 4: Pilot data
Appendix 4A: Pilot AJT ver. 1
6.00

5.00
4.00
3.00
2.00
1.00
0.00
Anaphoric

Non-anaphoric

Sono NP

Bridging

Bare NP

Figure Appx.1 Mean acceptability ratings for sono items: Pilot AJT ver. 1 (error bars =SE)

Appendix 4B: Pilot SPRT ver. 1
RRT(ms)Sono NP

Bare NP

250

150
50
-50
-150
-250
#1_NP #2_Adj(unct) #3_NP#4_Adj.

#5_Adj.

#6_VP

Figure Appx.2 Mean RRTs for sono items in the anaphoric context: Pilot SPRT ver. 1(error bars = SE)331

Sono NP

RRT(ms)Bare NP

250
150
50
-50
-150
-250
#1_NP

#2_Adj.

#3_NP#4_Adj.

#5_Adj.

#6_VP

Figure Appx.3 Mean RRTs for sono items in the non-anaphoric context: Pilot SPRT
ver.1 (error bars = SE)

RRT(ms)Sono NP

Bare NP

250
150
50
-50
-150
-250
#1_NP

#2_Adj.

#3_NP#4_Adj.

#5_Adj.

#6_VP

Figure Appx.4 Mean RRTs for sono items in the bridging context: Pilot SPRT ver. 1(error bars = SE)

RRT(ms)Post-nominal

Floating

250
150
50
-50
-150
-250
#1_NP

#2_Adj.

#3_NP#4_Adj.

#5_Adj.

#6_VP

Figure Appx.5 Mean RRTs for NQ constructions items in the [+definite] context: Pilot
SPRT ver. 1 (error bars = SE)332

Post-nominal

RRT(ms)Floating

250
150
50
-50
-150
-250
#1_NP

#2_Adj.

#3_NP#4_Adj.

#5_Adj.

#6_VP

Figure Appx.6 Mean RRTs for NQ constructions items in the [−definite] context: Pilot
SPRT ver. 1 (error bars = SE)

Appendix 4C: Pilot SPRT ver. 2
RRT(ms)Sono NP

Bare NP

250
150
50
-50
-150
-250
#1_NP #2_Adj. #3_NP#4_VP #5_Adj. #6_Adj#7_VP

Figure Appx.7 Mean RRTs for sono items in the anaphoric context: Pilot SPRT ver. 2(error bars = SE)333

Sono NP

RRT(ms)Bare NP

250
150
50
-50
-150
-250

#1_NP

#2_Adj.

#3_NP

#4_VP

#5_Adj. #6_Adj.

#7_VP

Figure Appx.8 Mean RRTs for sono items in the non-anaphoric context: Pilot SPRT ver.
2 (error bars = SE)

Sono NP

RRT(ms)Bare NP

250
150
50
-50
-150
-250
#1_NP

#2_Adj.

#3_NP

#4_VP

#5_Adj. #6_Adj.

#7_VP

Figure Appx.9 Mean RRTs for sono items in the bridging context: Pilot SPRT ver. 2 (error
bars = SE)

RRT(ms)Post-nominal

Floating

350
250

150
50
-50
-150
#1_NP #2_Adj. #3_NP#4_VP #5_Adj. #6_Adj. #7_VP

Figure Appx.10 Mean RRTs for NQ construction items in the [+definite] context: Pilot
SPRT ver. 2 (error bars = SE)334

RRT(ms)

Post-nominal

Floating

350
250
150
50
-50
-150
#1_NP #2_ADJ. #3_NP#4_VP #5_ADJ. #6_ADJ. #7_VP

Figure Appx.11 Mean RRTs for NQ construction items in the [−definite] context: Pilot
SPRT ver. 2 (error bars = SE)

Correct

RRT(ms)

Wrong

450
350
250
150

50
-50
-150
#1_NP #2_Adj. #3_NP#4_VP #5_Adj. #6_Adj. #7_VP

Figure Appx.12 Mean RRTs for noun-classifier agreement items: Pilot SPRT ver. 2 (error
bars = SE)

Post-nominal

RRT(ms)400Pre-nominal

300
200
100
0
-100

-200
#1_NP #2_Adj. #3_NP#4_VP #5_Adj. #6_Adj. #7_VP

Figure Appx.13 Mean RRTs for items regarding collective reading of proper names with-tati: Pilot SPRT ver. 2 (error bars = SE)335

Appendix 5: Test items for the main AJT and SPRT
Notes:(i)
The same sentences were used in the AJT and the SPRT.
(ii)“C” stands for context sentence, “T” target sentence and “Q” comprehension
question (comprehension questions are only relevant to the SPRT).
(iii)
Romanization of the Japanese text and glossing are provided only for the target
sentences.
(iv)
Furigana (reading aid) were provided for all the kanji (Chinese characters) in theactual test materials though omitted in this appendix for space reasons.
(v)“/” indicates a segment boundary for the SPRT.
(vi)
(vii)
(viii)The two alternatives are highlighted in green.
“*” means being predicted to be unacceptable/ungrammatical, andunacceptable/ungrammatical segments are in bold.
English translations given to unacceptable sentences are the intended meaning forwhich they are considered unacceptable/ungrammatical.

336

Target items (1.1–5.8)
1. Numeral quantifier (NQ) constructions: [+definite] contexts (post-nominal vs. *floating)
1.1 C

太郎には息子と娘が１人ずついて、朝はいつもひとりで世話をしています。…
‘Taroo has one son and daughter and always takes care of them all by himself in the morning. ...’

T

太郎は/

今朝も/

{

子供２人を/

OR *子供を２人/}

いつものように/７時に/起こしました。

Taroo-wakesa-mo{kodomo huta-ri-o

OR kodomo-o huta-ri}

itumo-no yooni

siti-zi-ni

okosi-masita

Taroo-TOP

this.morning-too{

child-2-CL-ACC

OR child-ACC 2-CL}

as.always

7-o’clock-at

wake.up-POL.PST‘Taroo, as always, woke the two children up at 7 this morning.’Q

この文章によると… (asked only in the post-nominal condition)‘According to this passage…’
A

太郎は子供が２人います。
‘Taroo has two children.’B

太郎は子供が３人います。
‘Taroo has three children.’337

1.2 C太郎はテニスがとても上手です。昨日も、友人のタカシ、ヒロシ、ゴロウと試合をしましたが、…
‘Taroo is a good tennis player. He had tennis matches with his friends, Takesi, Hirosi and Goroo yesterday. ’

T

太郎は/

いつものように/{ 友人３人を/OR *友人を３人/} 簡単に/

すぐ/負かしてしまいました。

Taroo-waitumo-no yooni{ yuuzin san-nin-o

OR yuuzin-o san-nin} kantanni

sugu

makasite-simai-masita

Taroo-TOP

as.always{ friend-3-CL-ACC

OR friend-ACC 3-CL} easilyquickly

beat-finish-POL.PST‘Taro, as always, beat the three friends easily and quickly.’Q

この文章によると… (asked only in the post-nominal condition)‘According to this passage…’
A

太郎は３人の友人にテニスで勝ちました。
‘Taroo beat three friends at tennis.’B

太郎は４人の友人にテニスで勝ちました。
‘Taroo beat four friends at tennis.’

1.3 C

花子は「ポチ」、「シロ」、「ハチ」という犬を飼っていて、毎日がんばって世話をしています。昨日、…
‘Hanako has dogs, named Poti, Siro, and Hati. She takes a good care of them every day. Yesterday, … ’

T

花子は/

久しぶりに/{ 犬３匹を/OR *犬を３匹/} お風呂場で/きれいに/洗ってあげました。

Hanako-wa

hisasiburini{ inu san-biki-o

OR inu-o san-biki} ohuroba-dekireiniaratte-age-masita

Hanako-TOP

for.the.first.time.in.a.while { dog-3-CL-ACC

OR dog-ACC 3-CL} bathroom-in

completely

wash-give-POL.PST‘Hanako washed the three dogs clean in the bathroom for the first time in a while.’338

1.4 C太郎は「タマ」と「ミケ」という名前の猫を飼っています。…
‘Taroo has cats named Tama and Mike. … ’

T

太郎は/

小学生の時に/{ 猫２匹を/OR *猫を２匹/} 公園で/

偶然/保護しました。

Taroo-wasyogakusei-no toki-ni{

neko ni-hiki-o

OR neko-o ni-hiki} kooen-deguuzenhogo-si-masita

Taroo-TOP

as.a.primary.school.kid{

cat-2-CL-ACC

OR cat-ACC 2-CL} park-in

accidentallyprotection-do-POL.PST‘Taroo accidentally rescured the two cats abondoned in a park when he was in primary school.’

1.5 C

昨日、太郎は昼食に食べるのに、サケとツナとウメのおにぎりをコンビニで１つずつ買いました。しかし、…
‘Taroo bought rice balls with salmon, tuna, and ume fillings, one for each type, for lunch at a convenient store yesterday. But …’

T

太郎は/

通勤中/

{ おにぎり３つを/OR *おにぎりを３つ/} 電車で/

うっかり/食べてしまいました。

Taroo-watuukin-tyuu{ onigiri mit-tu-o

OR onigiri-o mit-tu} densya-deukkaritabete-simai-masita

Taroo-TOP

during.commute{ rice.ball 3-CL-ACC

OR rice.ball-ACC 3-CL} train-on

thoughtlessly

eat-finish-POL.PST‘Taroo thoughtlessly ate up the three rice balls on the train to work.’Q

この文章によると… (asked only in the post-nominal condition)‘According to this passage…’
A

太郎は電車でおにぎりを全部食べてしまいました。
‘Taroo ended up eating all the rice balls on the train.’B

太郎は電車でおにぎりを少し食べてしまいました。
‘Taroo ended up eating some of the rice balls on the train.’339

1.6 C

太郎はいつも赤い手帳と黒い手帳を１冊ずつ持ち歩いています。今朝も、…
‘Taroo always carries with him red and black diaries, one for each colour. This morning, …’

T

太郎は/

いつものように/{手帳２冊を/

OR *手帳を２冊/} カバンに/忘れずに/入れました。

Taroo-waitumo-no yooni{

tetyoo ni-satu-o

OR tetyoo-o ni-satu}

kaban-ni

wasurezuni

ire-masita

Taroo-TOP

as.always{

diary 2-CL-ACC

OR diary-ACC 2-CL}

bag-inwithout.forgetting

put-POL.PST‘Taroo, as always, remembered to put the two diaries in his bag.’Q

この文章によると… (asked only in the post-nominal condition)‘According to this passage…’
A

太郎は２冊の手帳をカバンに入れました。
‘Taroo put two diaries in his bag.’B

太郎は３冊の手帳をカバンに入れました。
‘Taroo put three diaries in his bag.’

1.7 C

花子は誕生日に友人からクラシックとジャズとロックのＣＤを１枚ずつもらいました。…
‘Hanako got classic, Jazz, and rock CDs, one for each genre, from a friend for her birthday. ... ’

T

花子は/

今朝/

{

ＣＤ３枚を/OR *ＣＤを３枚/

}

車で/

楽しく/

聞きました。

Hanako-wa

kesa{

siidjii san-mai-o

OR siidjii-o san-mai}

kuruma-detanosiku

kiki-masita

Hanako-TOP

this.morning{

CD 3-CL-ACC

OR}

car-inhappily

listen-POL.PST‘Hanako enjoyed listening to the three CDs in the car this morning.’

340

CD-ACC 3-CL

花子は自転車に乗るのが好きで、通勤用と、趣味用の自転車を１台ずつ持っています。…

1.8 C‘Hanako likes biking and owns one bike for commuting and another for her pastime. … ’
T

花子は/

先週末/

{ 自転車２台を/OR *自転車を２台/} 自分で/

ていねいに/

手入れしました。

Hanako-wa

sensyu-matu{ zitensya ni-dai-o

OR zitensya-o ni-dai} zibun-deteineiniteire-si-masita

Hanako-TOP

last.week-end{ bike 2-CL-ACC

OR bike-ACC 2-CL

} by.one’s.self

carefully

maintenance-do- POL.PST‘Hanako gave a good maintenance to the two bikes by herself last weekend.’

2. NQ constructions: [−definite] contexts (post-nominal vs. floating)
2.1 C

太郎はとても優秀な警察官です。太郎は担当している地区のパトロールにとても熱心です。…
‘Taroo is a highly-skilled police officer. Taro is very enthusiastic about patrolling the area in his charge. … ’

T

次々と/

捕まえました。

patorooru-tyuu ni

tugitugi-ni

tsukamae-masita

while.patrolling

one.after.another catch- POL.PST

太郎は/今週だけで/{

泥棒３人を/OR 泥棒を３人/}パトロール中に/Taroo-wa

konsyu dake de{doroboo san-nin-o

OR doroboo-o san-nin}

Taroo-TOP

this.week only at{thief-3-CL-ACC

OR}

thief-ACC 3-CL

‘This week alone, Taroo caught three thieves one after another while patrolling.’

2.2 C

花子は家の近くにできたばかりのレストランに行ってみたいと思っています。しかし、ひとりでは行きたくないので、…
‘A new restaurant just opened near Hanako's house and she wants to go there. But, since she does not want to go there alone, ... ’

T

花子は/

昨日/

{

友人２人を/OR 友人を２人/

} 早速/

ランチに/

誘ってみました。

Hanako-wa

kinoo

{

yuuzin huta-ri-o

OR yuuzin-o huta-ri}

sassoku

ranti-nisassote-mi-masita

Hanako-TOP

yesterday{

friend-2-CL-ACC

OR friend-ACC 2-CL}

immediately

lunch-forask.out-try.to-POL.PST‘Hanako went ahead and asked two friends out for lunch yesterday.’341

2.3 C

太郎は動物病院の医師です。犬を治療することがほとんどですが、…
‘Taroo works as a vet at an animal hospital. Although he mostly treats dogs, …’

T

太郎は/

先日/

{

猫３匹を/

OR 猫を３匹/} 珍しく/

続けて/治療しました。

Taroo-wasenzitu{neko san-biki-o

OR neko-o san-biki}

mezurasiku

tuzuketetiryoo-si-masita

Taroo-TOP

the.other.day{

cat 3-CL-ACC

OR cat-ACC 3-CL}

unusually

in.a.rowtreatment-do-POL.PST‘Unusually for him, Taroo treated three cats in a row the other day.’Q

この文章によると… (asked only in the floating condition)‘According to this passage…’
A

太郎は先日猫を治療しました。
‘Taroo treated cats the other day.’B

太郎は先日うさぎを治療しました。
‘Taroo treated rabbits the other day.’

2.4 C

花子は犬が大好きで、昔から犬をずっと飼いたいと思っていました。…
‘Hanako loves dogs and has wanted to keep a dog for a long time. ...’

T

花子は/

最近/

{

犬２匹を/

OR 犬を２匹/

}

ほとんど/

同時に/

飼い始めました。

Hanako-wa

saikin{

inu ni-hiki-oORinu-o ni-hiki}

hotondodoozinikai-hazime-masita

Taroo-TOP

recently{

dog 2-CL-ACC

OR dog-ACC 2-CL}

almostat.the.same.time

keep-start-POL.PST‘Hanako started keeping two dogs almost at the same time recently.’Q

この文章によると… (asked only in the floating condition)‘According to this passage…’
A

花子は最近犬を飼い始めました。
‘Hanako started keeping some dogs recently.’B

花子は最近猫を飼い始めました。
‘Hanako started keeping some cats recently.’342

2.5 C花子は今日の午後、久しぶりに遠くの親せきの家に遊びに行きました。その親せきは３人家族なので、…
‘Hanako visited a distant relative's house for the first time in a while this afternoon. Since they are a family of three, ...’

T

花子は/

午前中/

{

チーズケーキ３つを/OR チーズケーキを３つ/}おみやげに/

ケーキ屋で/

買いました。

Hanako-wa

gozen-tyuu{

tiizukeeki mit-tu-o

OR tiizukeeki-o mit-tu}

omiyage-ni

keekiya-de

kai-masita

Hanako-TOP

in.the.morning{

cheese.cake 3-CL-ACC

OR cheese.cake-ACC 3-CL}

present-for

cake.shop-at

buy-POL.PST‘Hanako bought three cheese cakes for them at a cakeshop in the morning.’Q

この文章によると… (asked only in the floating condition)‘According to this passage…’
A

花子は今朝クッキーを買いました。
‘Hanako bought cookies this morning.’

B

花子は今朝ケーキを買いました。
‘Hanako bought cakes this morning.’

2.6 C

太郎はほぼ毎日インターネットで買い物をします。…
‘Taroo does online shopping almost every day. ...’

T

太郎は/

昨日も/

{

本２冊を/

OR 本を２冊/}

アマゾンで/

つい/注文してしまいました。

Taroo-wa

kinoo-mo{hon ni-satu-o

OR hon-o ni-satu}

Amazon-detuityuumon-site-simai-masita

Taroo-TOP

yesterday-too{

book 2-CL-ACC

OR book-ACC 2-CL}

Amazon-on

thoughtlessly

order-do-finish-POL.PST‘Taroo could not resist ordering two books on Amazon yesterday, too.’Q

この文章によると… (asked only in the floating condition)‘According to this passage…’
A

昨日太郎はＣＤを注文しました。
‘Taroo ordered some CDs yesterday.’B

昨日太郎は本を注文しました。
‘Taroo ordered some books yesterday.’343

2.7 C

先日、花子は海外旅行中、帰りの飛行機に乗る直前に、両親へのおみやげを買い忘れているのに気づきました。…
‘The other day, while on a trip abroad, Hanako realised that she had not bought any gifts for her parents, right before boarding on the flight back home. ...’

T

花子は/

みやげ物屋で/{絵はがき２枚を/OR 絵はがきを２枚/

}

急いで/

両親に/

買いました。

Hanako-wa

miyagemonoya-de{ehagaki ni-mai-o

OR ehagaki-o ni-mai}

isoideryoosin-ni

kai-masita

Hanako-TOP

gift.shop-at{

postcard 2-CL-ACC

OR postcard-ACC 2-CL}

in.a.hurryparents-forbuy- POL.PST‘Hanako hurried up and bought two postcards for her parents at a gift shop.’Q

この文章によると… (asked only in the floating condition)‘According to this passage…’
A

花子は旅行のおみやげに絵はがきを買いました。
‘Hanako bought some postcards as travel souvenirs.’

B

花子は旅行のおみやげにチョコレートを買いました。
‘Hanako bought some chocolates as travel souvenirs.’

2.8 C

太郎は電気屋の優秀なセールスマンです。昨日は客が少ない日でしたが、…
‘Taroo is a very competent salesperson at an electronics store. The store did not have many customers yesterday, but... ’

T

太郎は/

午前中だけで/{パソコン３台を/

OR パソコンを３台/

}

次々に/

上手く/

売ることができました。

Taroo-wagozen-tyuu-dake-de{

pasokon san-dai-o

OR pasokon-o san-dai}

tugitugini

umaku

uru koto-ga deki-masita

Taroo-TOPin.the.morning.alone{

computer 3-CL-ACC

OR computer-ACC 3-CL}

one.after.anotherwellwas.able.to.sell‘In the morning alone, Taroo successfully sold three PCs one after another.’Q

この文章によると… (asked only in the floating condition)‘According to this passage…’
A

太郎は昨日、仕事でパソコンを売りました。
‘Taroo sold some computers at work yesterday.’B

太郎は昨日、仕事でテレビを売りました。
‘Taroo sold some TVs at work yesterday.’344

3. Sono: Anaphoric contexts (sono NP vs. bare NP)
3.1 C

太郎の家の近くにとても人気のある、安くて美味しいレストランがあります。…
‘There is a very popular restaurant which serves great food for reasonable prices near Taroo's house. …’

T

太郎は/

昔から/

{

そのレストランを/OR レストランを/

}

誰よりも/

よく/

利用しています。

Taroo-wa

mukasi-kara{sono resutoran-o

OR resutoran-o}dare-yori-mo

yoku

riyoo-site-i-masu

Taroo-TOP

past-from{

SONO restaurant-ACC

OR restaurant-ACC}

more.than.anyone

often

use-do-ASP-POL.NPST‘Taroo has eaten at the restaurant more often than anyone since long ago.’Q

この文章によると… (asked only in the sono NP condition)‘According to this passage…’
太郎にはよく利用するホテルがあります。

A‘There is a hotel that Taroo often stays at.’太郎は昨日、仕事でテレビを売りました。

B‘There is a restaurant that Taroo often eats at.’

3.2 C

花子の家の近くには大きな公園があります。緑が豊かでとても落ち着く場所です。…
‘There is a big park near Hanako's house. It is a very calming place with rich green. …’

T

花子は/

長年/

{

その公園を/

OR 公園を/

}

毎朝/

必ず/

散歩しています。

Hanako-wa

naganen{sono kooen-o

OR kooen-o}maiasakanarazu

sanpo-site-i-masu

Hanako-TOP

for.many.years{

SONO park-ACC

OR park-ACC}

every.morningalwayswalk-do-ASP-POL.NPST‘Hanako has been taking a walk in the park every morning for many years.’Q

この文章によると… (asked only in the sono NP condition)‘According to this passage…’
A

花子は海岸を毎朝散歩しています。
‘Hanako takes a walk along the coast every morning.’

B

花子は公園を毎朝散歩しています。
‘Hanako takes a walk in the park every morning.’345

3.3 C

太郎にはドイツに住んでいる友人がいて、今年、ドイツまで遊びに行きました。…
‘Taroo has a friend living in Germany and visited him in Germany this year. …’

T

太郎は/

来年も/

{

その友人を/OR 友人を/

}

絶対に/

また/

訪ねるつもりです。

Taroo-warainen-mo{

sono yuuzin-o

OR yuuzin-o}

zettai-ni

matatazuneru-tumori-desu

Taroo-TOP

next.year-too{

SONO friend-ACC

OR friend-ACC}

surelyagain

visit-intend.to-COP‘Taroo is definitely going to visit the friend again next year.’Q

この文章によると… (asked only in the sono NP condition)‘According to this passage…’
A

太郎は来年、フランスの友人を訪ねようと思っています。
‘Taroo is going to visit a friend in France next year.’B

太郎は来年、ドイツの友人を訪ねようと思っています。
‘Taroo is going to visit a friend in Germany next year.’

3.4 C

花子は週末に今話題の映画を見に行きました。とても感動したので、…
‘Hanako went see a much-talked-about movie at the weekend. Since she was deeply moved by the movie, …’

T

花子は/

今日/

{

その映画を/OR 映画を/

}

友人に/

早速/

すすめました。

Hanako-wa

kyoo{sono eiga-o

OR eiga-o}yuuzin-nisassokususume-masita

Hanako-TOP

today

{

SONO movie-ACC

OR movie-ACC}

friend-to

immediately

recommend-POL.PST‘She already recommended the movie to her friends today.’Q

この文章によると… (asked only in the sono NP condition)‘According to this passage…’
A

花子は今日、小説を友人にすすめました。
‘Hanako recommended a novel to her friends today.’B

花子は今日、映画を友人にすすめました。
‘Hanako recommended a movie to her friends today.’346

3.5 C

太郎は小学生の時、学校の帰り道に捨てられていた子猫を拾い、家で飼うことにしました。それから１５年経ちますが、…
‘When he was in primary school, Taroo found an abandoned kitten on the way home from school and took it home and decided to keep it. Fifteen years on, …’

T

太郎は/

今も/

{

その猫を/

OR 猫を/

}

毎日/

とても/

かわいがっています。

Taroo-TOP

ima-mo{sono neko-o

OR neko-o}mainititotemokawaigatte-i-masu

Taroo-TOP

now-too{

SONO cat-ACC

OR cat-ACC}

every.dayvery.muchadore-ASP-POL.NPST‘Taroo still adores the cat every day.’

3.6 C

高校生の花子は犬が苦手です。花子の家のとなりの家はもう１０年以上、１匹の大きな犬を飼っていますが、…
‘Hanako is a high school student. She is not good with dogs. Hanako's next door neighbour has had a big dog for more than ten years. …’

T

花子は/

昔から/

{

その犬を/

OR 犬を/}

いつも/できるだけ/

避けています。

Hanako-wa

mukasi-kara{sono inu-o

OR inu-o}itumo

dekiru-dakesakete-i-masu

Hanako-TOP

past-from{

SONO dog-ACC

OR dog-ACC}

alwaysas.much.as possible avoid-ASP-POL.NPST‘Hanako has always tried to avoid the dog as much as possible since a long time ago.’

3.7 C

太郎は最近、新しくてかっこいい車を買いました。…
‘Taroo has bought a new cool car recently. …’

T

太郎は/

毎日のように/{その車を/OR 車を/}

だれかに/うれしそうに/自慢しています。

Taroo-wa

mainiti-no yooni{

sono kuruma-o

OR kuruma-o}dare-ka-ni

uresi sooni

ziman-site-i-masu

Taroo-TOP

almost.every.day{

SONO car-ACC

OR car-ACC}

someone-to

happilypride-do-ASP-POL.NPST‘Taroo has been happily showing off the car to someone almost everyday.’Q

この文章によると… (asked only in the sono NP condition)‘According to this passage…’
A

太郎は毎日のようにバイクの自慢をしています。
‘Taroo is showing off his motor bike almost every day.’

B

太郎は毎日のように車の自慢をしています。
‘Taroo is showing off his car almost every day.’347

3.8 C

昨日、花子は仕事の帰り道に迷子の男の子を見つけました。親が近くにいないようだったので、…
‘Hanako found a lost boy on her way home from work yesterday. Since his parent did not seem to be around, …’

T

花子は/

すぐ/

{

その男の子を/OR 男の子を/

}

車で/

交番へ/

連れて行きました。

Hanako-wa

sugu{

sono otokonoko-o

OR otokonoko-o}kuruma-dekooban-eturete-iki-masita

Hanako-TOP

immediately{

SONO boy-ACC

OR boy-ACC}

car-bypolice.station-to

take-go-POL.PST‘Hanako took the boy to the police station immediately by car.’Q

この文章によると… (asked only in the sono NP condition)‘According to this passage…’
A

花子は迷子の女の子を交番に連れて行きました。
‘Hanako took a lost girl to the police station.’B

花子は迷子の男の子を交番に連れて行きました。
‘Hanako took a lost boy to the police station.’

4. Sono: Non-anaphoric contexts (*sono NP vs. bare NP)
4.1 C

太郎は夜に散歩するのが好きです。天気が良く、空に雲がない時は、…
‘Taroo likes taking a night walk. When the weather is nice and the sky is clear of clouds, …’

T

太郎は/

昔から/

{

*その月を/

OR 月を/

}

ゆっくり/

楽しんで/

見ています。

Taroo-wa

mukasi-kara{sono tuki-o

OR tuki-o}yukkuritanosindemite-i-masu

Taroo-TOP

past-from{

SONO moon-ACC

OR moon-ACC}

slowlygladlywatch-ASP-POL.NPST‘Taroo relaxes and enjoys watching the moon as an old habit.’348

4.2 C

花子は最近、楽しい夢を見ました。夢の中で…
‘Hanako had a pleasant dream recently. In that dream, …’

T

花子は/

鳥のように/{*その空を/

OR 空を/}

自由に/気持ちよく/

飛びました。

Hanako-wa

tori-no yooni{

sono sora-o

OR sora-o}jiyuunikimotiyoku

tobi-masita

Hanako-TOP

like.a.bird{

SONO sky-ACC

OR sky-ACC}

freelypleasantly

fly-POL.NPST‘Hanako enjoyed flying freely in the sky like a bird.’

4.3 C

太郎は昨夜テレビでニュースを見ていました。明日はハイキングに行くので、…
‘Taroo was watching news on TV last night. Since he was going on a hiking tomorrow, …’

T

太郎は/

明日のために/{*その天気を/OR 天気を/}忘れずに/

しっかりと/

確認しました。

Taroo-wa

asita-no tame-ni{

sono tenki-o

OR tenki-o}

wasurezuni

sikkarito

kakunin-si-masita

Taroo-TOP

for.tomorrow{

SONO weather-ACC

OR weather-ACC}

without.forgetting

firmlycheck-do-POL.PST‘Taroo did not forget to check the weather carefully for tomorrow.’Q

この文章によると… (asked only in the bare NP condition)‘According to this passage…’
A

太郎は、昨夜、ハイキングのために天気を確認しました。
‘Taroo checked the weather for a hiking last night.’

B

太郎は、昨夜、ハイキングのために持ち物を確認しました。
‘Taroo checked the things to take to a hiking last night.’

349

4.4 C

花子は昨夜、変な夢を見ました。それは、花子がたった１人で宇宙人と戦うというものでした。…
‘Hanako had a strange dream last night. In that dream, Hanako had to fight aliens alone. …’

T

花子は/

宇宙人から/{*その地球を/OR 地球を/

}

1人で/

なんとか/

守ることができました。

Hanako-wa

utyuujin-kara{sono tikyuu-o

OR tikyuu-o}

hito-ri-denantokamamoru koto-ga deki-masita

Hanako-TOP

alien-from{

SONO earth-ACC

OR earth-ACC}

by.herself

somehow

was.able.to.protect‘Hanako managed to protect the Earth from the aliens all by herself.’Q

この文章によると… (asked only in the bare NP condition)‘According to this passage…’
A

花子は１人で宇宙人から地球を守りました。
‘Hanako protected the Earth from aliens by herself.’B

花子は友人と一緒に宇宙人から地球を守りました。
‘Hanako protected the Earth from aliens with her friends.’

4.5 C

ヒマワリは日が当たる方向に向く性質があります。…
‘Sunflowers turn towards the Sun. …’

T

ヒマワリの花は/

日中/{*その太陽を/OR 太陽を/}必ず/

東から西に/

追いかけます。

Himawari-no-hana-wa

nittyuu{sono taiyoo-oORtaiyoo-o}kanarazu

higasi-kara nisi-ni

oikake-masu{

SONO Sun-ACC

OR

Sun-ACC}

alwaysEast-from West-tofollow-POL.NPST

sunflower-GEN-flower-TOP during.the.daytime‘Sunflowers always follow the Sun from east to west during the daytime.’350

4.6 C

テクノロジーの進化は社会にいろんな変化を与えます。…
‘Technological advances change our society in many ways. …’

T

インターネットは/特に/{*その世界を/OR 世界を/

}

短期間で/

大きく/

変えました。

Intaanetto-wa

tokuni{sono sekai-o

OR sekai-o}tankikan-deookikukae-masita

Internet-TOP

particularly{

SONO world-ACC

OR world-ACC}

short.period-in

greatlychange-POL.PST‘Particularly, the Internet has brought a major change to the world in such a short period of time.’Q

この文章によると… (asked only in the bare NP condition)‘According to this passage…’A

インターネットは世界を大きく変えました。
‘The Internet has brought a major change to the world.’

B

スマートフォンは世界を大きく変えました。
‘Smart phones have brought a major change to the world.’

4.7 C

太郎は山奥の村で生まれました。太郎は生まれてから、あまり村の外に出たことがありません。…
‘Taroo was born in a village deep in the mountains. Taroo has not been out of the village much since he was born. …’

T

太郎は/

まだ/

{

*その海を/

OR 海を/}

自分の目で/

実際に/見たことがありません。

Taroo-wamada{sono umi-o

OR umi-o}zibun-no me-dezissaini

mi-ta koto-ga ari-masen

Taroo-TOP

yet{

SONO ocean-ACC

OR}

self-GEN eye-with

in.reality

have.not.seen‘Taroo has never seen the ocean with his own eyes yet.’Q

この文章によると… (asked only in the bare NP condition)‘According to this passage…’
A

太郎は生まれてから一度も海を見たことがありません。
‘Taroo has never seen the ocean in his life.’B

太郎は生まれてから一度も雪を見たことがありません。
‘Taroo has never seen snow in his life.’

351

ocean-ACC

4.8 C

電気自動車はガソリン車に比べて環境に優しいと考えられています。…
‘Electric cars are thought to be more environmentally-friendly than gasoline cars. …’

T

電気自動車は/ガソリン車と違い/{*その空気を/OR 空気を/}

有毒なガスで/denki-jidoosya-wa

gasorin-sya-to tigai{

sono kuuki-o

OR kuuki-o}yuudokuna-gasu-de hotondo

yogosi-masen

electric.cars-TOP

unlike.gosoline.cars{

SONO air-ACC

OR air-ACC}

toxic-gas-with

pollute-POL.NEG

ほとんど/
mostly

汚しません。

‘Electric cars are thought to be more environmentally-friendly than gasoline cars. …’
Q

この文章によると… (asked only in the bare NP condition)‘According to this passage…’
A

電気自動車は空気をほとんど汚しません。
‘Electric cars hardly pollute the air.’B

ハイブリッド車は空気をほとんど汚しません。
‘Hybrid cars hardly pollute the air.’

5. Sono: Bridging contexts (sono NP vs. bare NP)
5.1 C

花子は今、流行の小説に夢中になっていますが、…
Hanako is now into a popular novel. …’

T

花子は/

偶然/

{

その著者を/OR 著者を/

}

東京で/

一瞬だけ/

見たことがあります。

Hanako-wa

guuzen{sono tyosya-o

OR tyosya-o}Tokyo-deissyun-dakemi-ta koto-ga ari-masu

Hanako-TOP

accidentally{

SONO author-ACC

OR author-ACC}

Tokyo-inone.moment-only

have.seen‘Hanako has caught sight of the author in Tokyo once.’Q

この文章によると… (asked only in the sono NP condition)‘According to this passage…’
A

花子はある小説の著者を見かけたことがあると言います。
‘Hanako has seen the author of a novel.’B

花子はある映画の監督を見かけたことがあると言います。
‘Hanako has seen the director of a movie.’352

5.2 C

昨夜、太郎がラジオを聞いていると、大好きなクラシックの曲が流れてきましたが、…
Taroo heard his favourite classical song being played on the radio last night. …’

T

太郎は/

不思議なことに/{その作曲者を/

OR 作曲者を/}どうしても/

すぐには/

思い出せませんでした。

Taroo-wa

husigina-koto-ni{

sono sakkyokusya-o

OR sakkyokusya-o}doo-site-mosuguni-wa

omoidas-e-masen-desita

Taroo-TOP

strangely.enough{

SONO composer-ACC

OR composer-ACC}

by.any.means

quickly-TOP

could.not.recall‘Strangely enough, Taroo just could not recall who the composer was immediately.’

5.3 C

花子の町の駅前に最近、とても変なデザインのビルが建てられましたが、…
A building with a strange design has been constructed in front of the train station in the city where Hanako lives recently. …’

T

町の人は/

デザインのせいで/{その設計者を/

OR 設計者を/

}

あまり/

好ましく/

思っていません。

mati-no hito-wa

dezain-no seide{

sono sekkeisya-o

OR sekkeisya-o

}

amari

konomasiku

omotte-i-masen

people.in.city-TOP

because.of.the.design{

SONO designer-ACC

OR designer-ACC

}

much

pleasantly

think-ASP-POL.NEG

心から/

とても/

尊敬しています。

‘Because of the design, people in the city do not have a positive image of the designer.’

5.4 C

花子には見たいと思っている公開されたばかりの映画がありますが、…
‘Hanako wants to watch a flim that was just released. …’

T

花子は/

大学生の時から/{

その監督を/

OR 監督を/}

Hanako-wa

daigakusei-no toki-kara{sono kantoku-o

OR kantoku-o}kokoro kara

totemosonkei-site-i-masu

Hanako-TOP

since.university{

SONO director-ACC

OR director-ACC}

heart fromvery much

respect-do-ASP-POL.PST‘Hanako has respected the director from the bottom of her heart since university.’353

5.5 C

先月、太郎の町の美術館で写真コンテストが開かれました。優勝したのは、美しい海の写真で、…
‘A photo context was held at a museum in the city where Taroo lives. The first prize went to the photo of a beautiful ocean. …’

T

審査員は/

全員/

{

その撮影者を/

OR 撮影者を/

}

とても/

高く/

評価しました。

Sinsain-wa

zenin

{

sono satueisya-o

OR satueisya-o}totemotakakuhyoka-si-masita

judge-TOP

all{

SONO photographer-ACC

OR photographer-ACC

}

very

highlyevaluation-do-POL.PST‘All judges thought very highly of the photographer.’

5.6 C

太郎の町では１００歳になった高齢者に金メダルを贈る決まりができましたが、…
‘Taroo's city has made a new rule that gold medals are given to centenarians. …’

T

太郎は/

実は/

{

その提案者を/OR 提案者を/

}

昔から/

よく/

知っています。

Taroo-wazitu-wa{sono teiansya-o

OR teiansya-o}mukasi-karayoku

sitte-i-masu

Taroo-TOP

in.fact{

SONO proposer-ACC

OR proposer-ACC}

past-fromwellknow-ASP-POL.NPST‘Taroo has known the proposer very well for a long time.’Q

この文章によると… (asked only in the sono NP condition)‘According to this passage…’
A

太郎は町のある決まりを提案した人を昔から知っています。
‘Taroo has known the proposer of a rule in the city from a long time ago.’

B

太郎は町のある決まりを提案した人を最近知り合いました。
‘Taroo got to know each other with the proposer of a rule in the city recently.’

5.7 C

もうすぐ空を飛べる自転車が発売されることになりましたが、…
‘It has been announced that a flying bike will be on sale soon. However, …’

T

メーカーは/

まだ/{その発明者を/

OR 発明者を/}しばらくは/

公に/発表しない予定です。

meekaa-wa

mada{sono hatumeisya-o

OR hatumeisya-o}sibaraku-wa

ooyakeni

happyoo-si-nai yotei-desu

manufacturer-TOP

yet{

SONO inventor-ACC

OR inventor-ACC}

for.the.time.being

publicly

plan.not.to.announce‘The manufacturer plans not to publicise who the inventor is for the time being.’

354

5.8 C

花子は最近、好みの詩を見つけました。しかし、誰が書いたものかが分からないので、…
‘Hanako found a poem that is to her taste recently. But, since she does not know who wrote it, ...’

T

花子は/

気になって/{

その作者を/OR 作者を/

}

必死に/

今/

調べているところです。

Hanako-wa

ki-ni-natte{sono sakusya-o

OR sakusya-o}hissiniimasagasite-i-ru tokoro-desu

Hanako-TOP

anxiously{

SONO poet-ACC

OR poet-ACC}

desparately

now

is.doing.research‘Hanako is now trying hard to find out who the poet is.’Control fillers (6.1–9.8)
6. Control filler 1: Noun-numeral classifier agreement (correct vs. *wrong)
6.1 C

太郎はたくさん友人がいて、毎日、だれかを家に呼んで遊んでいます。…
‘Taroo has a lot of friends and invites someone over to his house to hang out with every day. …’

T

太郎は/

今日も/

{

友人を２人/OR *友人を２匹/

}

午後から/

家に/

呼びました。

Taroo-wakyoo-mo{yuuzin-o huta-ri

OR yuuzin-o ni-hiki}gogo-karaie-ni

yobi-masita

Taroo-TOP

today-too{friend-ACC 2-CL

OR friend-ACC 2-CL}afternoon-fromhouse-tocall-POL.PST‘Taroo invited two friends over to his house this afternoon, too.’355

6.2 C

田中先生は数学教師です。毎日、数学が苦手な学生を放課後、職員室に呼んで指導しています。…
‘Mr. Tanaka is a maths teacher. He tutors students who are not good at maths in the teacher's room after school every day. …’

T

田中先生は/

昨日も/{学生を３人/

OR *学生を３つ/

}

放課後/

職員室で/

指導しました。

Tanaka-sensei-wa

kinoo-mo{gakusei-o san-nin

OR gakusei-o mit-tu}

hooka-gosyokuinsitu-de

sidoo-si-masita

Mr. Tanaka-TOP

yesterday-too{

student-ACC 3-CL

OR student-ACC 3-CL}after.school

teacher’s.room-in

instruction-do-POL.PST‘Mr. Tanaka taught three students in the teacher's room after school yesterday.’Q

この文章によると… (asked only in the correct condition)‘According to this passage…’
A

田中先生は放課後に数学を指導しました。
‘Mr. Tanaka taught maths after school.’B

田中先生は昼休みに数学を指導しました。
‘Mr. Tanaka taught maths during the lunch break.’

6.3 C

太郎は小さい生き物を飼うのが好きです。…
‘Taroo has a passion for keeping small creatures as pets. …’

T

太郎は/

最近/

{

カエルを２匹/OR *カエルを２人/

}

家で/

こっそり/

飼っています。

Taroo-wasaikin{kaeru-o ni-hiki

OR kaeru-o hu-tari

}

ie-de

kossorikatte-i-masu

Taroo-TOP

recently{

frog-ACC 2-CL

OR frog-ACC 2-CL}

home-atsecretly

keep-ASP-POL.PST‘Taroo has been keeping two frogs secretly in his house recently.’Q

この文章によると… (asked only in the correct condition)‘According to this passage…’
A

太郎は家でトカゲを飼っています。
‘Taroo keeps a lizard at home.’

B

太郎は家でカエルを飼っています。
‘Taroo keeps a frog at home.’356

6.4 C

花子の家の猫のタマは小さな動物を捕まえるのが得意です。…
‘Tama, Hanako's cat, has a great skill for hunting small animals. …’

T

タマは/

昨日も/

{

ねずみを３匹/OR *ねずみを３台/

}

庭で/

上手に/

捕まえました。

Tama-wakinoo-mo{nezumi-o san-biki

OR nezumi-o san-dai}

niwa-dejyoozuni

tukamae-masita

Tama-TOP

yesterday-too{

mouse-ACC 3-CL

OR mouse-ACC 3-CL}

garden-inskillfully

catch-POL.PST‘Tama skillfully caught three mice in the garden yesterday, too.’Q

この文章によると… (asked only in the correct condition)‘According to this passage…’
タマは昨日ハトを捕まえました。

A‘Tama caught a pigeon yesterday.’
タマは昨日ねずみを捕まえました。

B‘Tama caught a mouse yesterday.’

6.5 C

花子は読書が趣味で、本を読むのがとても速いです。…
‘Hanako's favourite pastime is reading. She reads books really fast. …’

T

花子は/

毎日/

{

新しい本を２冊/

OR *新しい本を２匹/

}

とても/

楽しく/

読みます。

Hanako-wa

mainiti{atarasii hon-o ni-satu

OR atarasii hon-o ni-hiki}

totemotanosiku

yomi-masu

Hanako-TOP

every.day{

new book-ACC 2-CL

OR new book-ACC 2-CL

}

very

happily

read-POL.NPST‘Hanako really enjoys reading two new books everyday.’Q

この文章によると… (asked only in the correct condition)‘According to this passage…’
A

花子は毎日、映画を見ます。
‘Hanako watches movies every day.’B

花子は毎日、本を読みます。
‘Hanako reads books every day.’357

6.6 C太郎は車が大好きで、すぐに新しい車が欲しくなってしまいます。…
‘Taroo has a passion for cars and cannot stop wanting new cars. …’

T

太郎は/

２年間で/

{

車を３台/

OR *車を３枚/

}

次々に/

新しく/

買いました。

Taroo-wa

ni-nen-kan-de{kuruma-o san-dai

OR kuruma-o san-mai}

tugitugini

atarasiku

kai-masita

Taroo-TOP2-year-period-in{

car-ACC 3-CL

OR car-ACC 3-CL}

one.after.another

newly

buy-POL.PST‘Taroo has bought three new cars one after another in the last two years.’

6.7 C

太郎はいちごが大好きで、毎日必ず冷蔵庫に入れてあります。…
‘Taroo loves strawberries and always keeps them in the fridge. …’

T

太郎は/

今朝/

{

いちごを３つ/OR *いちごを３匹/}

デザートに/

美味しく/食べました。

Taroo-wa

kesa{

itigo-o mit-tu

OR itigo-o san-biki}dezaato-ni

oisikutabe-masita

Taroo-TOP

this.morning{

strawberry-ACC 3-CL

OR strawberry-ACC 3-CL}

dessert-for

deliciously

eat-POL.PST‘Taroo enjoyed eating three strawberries for dessert this morning.’Q

この文章によると… (asked only in the correct condition)‘According to this passage…’
A

太郎は今朝りんごを食べました。
‘Taroo ate some apples this morning.’

B

太郎は今朝いちごを食べました。
‘Taroo ate some strawberries this morning.’

358

6.8 C

花子は昨夜、仕事で帰るのがいつもより遅くなりました。夕ご飯を作る時間が無かったので、…
‘Hanako got off work later than usual last night. Since she did not have the time to cook dinner, …’

T

花子は/

夕食用に/

{

ピザを２枚/OR *ピザを２台/

}

帰り道に/

スーパーで/

買いました。

Hanako-wa

yuusyoku-yoo-ni{

piza-o ni-mai

OR piza-o ni-dai}

kaerimiti-ni

suupaa-de

kai-masita

Hanako-TOP

for.dinner{pizza-ACC 2-CL

OR pizza-ACC 2-CL}on.the.way.home

supermarket-at

buy-POL.PST‘Hanako bought two pizzas for dinner at a supermarket on her way home.’Q

この文章によると… (asked only in the correct condition)‘According to this passage…’
A

花子は昨日、夕食にカレーを買いました。
‘Hanako bought some curry for dinner yesterday.’B

花子は昨日、夕食にピザを買いました。
‘Hanako bought some pizzas for dinner yesterday.’359

7. Control filler 2: Specificity constraint of NP-tati (bare NP vs. *NP-tati)
7.1 C

太郎は先日、会社を作りました。まだ社員がいないので、…
‘Taroo started a company the other day. He does not have any employees yet. …’

T

太郎は/

昨日から/

{

社員を/

OR *社員たちを/

}

緊急で/

２人/

募集しています。

Taroo-wa

kinoo-kara{syain-oOR syain-tati-o}kinkyuu-de

huta-ribosyuu-site-i-masu

Taroo-TOP

yesterday-from{

employee-ACC

OR employee-TATI-ACC}

urgently

2-CLrecruitment-do-ASP-POL.PST‘Taroo has been urgently recruiting two employees since yesterday.’Q

この文章によると… (asked only in the bare NP condition)‘According to this passage…’
A

太郎の会社はアルバイトを募集しています。
‘Taroo’s company is recruiting part-time workers.’

B

太郎の会社は社員を募集しています。
‘Taroo’s company is recruiting new employees.’

7.2 C

太郎の家の近くにもうすぐ大きな病院ができます。今人材を集めているところで、…
‘A big hospital is opening soon near Taroo's house. The hospital is recruiting staff now. …’

T

その病院は/

特に/

{

事務員を/

OR *事務員たちを/

}

１人でも/

多く/

探しています。

sono byooin-wa

tokuni{zimuin-oOR zimuin-tati-o}

hito-ri-demoookusagasite-i-masu

that hospital-TOP

especially{clerical.staff-ACC

OR clerical.staff-TATI-ACC}

1-CL-evenmorelook.for-ASP-POL.NPST‘In particular, the hospital wants as many clerical staff as possible.’Q

この文章によると… (asked only in the bare NP condition)‘According to this passage…’
A

太郎の家の近くの病院は看護師を探しています。
‘The hospital near Taroo’s house is looking for nurses.’

B

太郎の家の近くの病院は事務員を探しています。
‘The hospital near Taroo’s house is looking for clerical staff.’360

7.3 C

花子は付き合っている男性がいて、もうすぐ結婚する予定です。…
‘Hanako is dating with a man and they are going to marry soon. …’

T

花子は/

できれば/

{

子供を/

OR *子供たちを/}

３０才までに/Hanako-wa

deki-reba{

kodomo-o

OR kodomo-tati-o}sanjyus-sai-made-ni huta-ri

umi-tai to omotte-i-masu

Hanako-TOP

if.possible{

child-ACC

OR child-TATI-ACC}

30-year.old-until-by 2-CL

want.to.have

２人/

産みたいと思っています。

‘Hanako wants to have two children by the age of 30, if possible.’

7.4 C

太郎の大学の近所にあるコンビニでは、アルバイトがいません。…
‘The convenient store near Taro's university does not have any part-time workers. …’

T

そのコンビニは/

現在/{

アルバイトを/OR *アルバイトたちを/}少なくとも/

３人/

必要としています。

sono konbini-wa

genzai{arubaito-o

OR arubaito-tati-o}sukunaku-tomo

san-ninhituyoo to site-i-ru{

part-time-ACC

OR part-time-TATI-ACC}

at.least

3-CL

in.need.ofthat convenient.store-TOP currently‘The convenient store is currently in need of at least three part-time workers.’

7.5 C

山奥の田舎の村に住む花子にはいつかしてみたいことがあります。…
‘Hanako, who lives in a village deep in the mountains, has a thing that she wants to do some day. …’

T

花子は/

いつか/

{

有名人を/

OR *有名人たちを/

}

一度は/

生で/

見てみたいと思っています。

Hanako-wa

ituka

{

yuumeizin-o

OR yuumeizin-tati-o}

iti-do-wa

nama-demite-mi-tai to omotte-i-masu

Hanako-TOP

some.day{celebrity-ACC

OR celebrity-TATI-ACC}

at.least.once

in.person

want.to.have.a.look‘For once in her life, Hanako wants to see a celebrity in person.’361

7.6 C

花子の家の近くの大学では今回の募集は定員に達しています。…
‘The university near Hanako's house has already met the quota for the number of applicants this year. …’

T

その大学は/

もう/

{

学生を/

OR *学生たちを/

}

今年は/

これ以上/

必要としていません。

sono daigaku-wa

moo{gakusei-o

OR *gakusei-tati-o}kotosi-wa

kore-ijyoo

hituyoo to site-i-masen

that-university-TOP

already{

student-ACC

OR student-TATI-ACC}

this.year-TOP

more.than.thisnot.in.need.of‘The university does not need any more students this year.’Q

この文章によると… (asked only in the bare NP condition)‘According to this passage…’
A

花子の家の近くの大学はまだまだ学生を募集しています。
‘The university near Hanako’s house is still accepting applications.’

B

花子の家の近くの大学はもう学生を募集していません。
‘The university near Hanako’s house is no longer accepting applications.’

7.7 C

最近花子の家の近くに学習塾ができました。しかし、まだ英語を教えられる講師がいないようで、…
‘A new cram school has opened near Hanako's house recently. But they do not seem to have any English teachers yet. …’

T

その塾は/

現在/

{

英語講師を/

OR *英語講師たちを/

}

緊急で/

たくさん/

採用しようとしています。

sono jyuku-wa

genzai{eigo-koosi-oOR eigo-koosi-tati-o}kinkyuude

takusansaiyoo-siyoo to site-imasu

that cram-TOP

currently{

English-teacher-ACC

OR English-teacher-TATI-ACC}

urgently

manyis.trying.to.recruit‘The cram school is urgently recruiting many English teachers.’

7.8 C

太郎は東京でホテルを経営しています。最近は国内からの客が減っているので、…
‘Taroo runs a hotel in Tokyo. Since the number of domestic guests has been decreasing recently, …’

T

太郎は/

これからは/{

外国人客を/

OR *外国人客たちを/

}

どんどん/

積極的に/

獲得したいと考えています。

Taroo-wakore-kara-wa{

gaikokujinkyaku-o

OR gaikokujinkyaku-tati-o}

dondonsekkyokutekini

kakutoku-si-tai to kangaete-imasu

Taroo-TOP

from.now.on-TOP{

overseas.guest-ACC

OR}

more.and.more

actively

want.to.get

overseas.guest-TATI-ACC‘Taroo wants to actively attract overseas guests in future.’362

8. Control filler 3: Collective reading of common nouns with -tati (collective vs. *singular)
8.1 C

昨日、田中先生が働く高校に{１人の中学生の男の子とその子の両親がOR*１人の中学生の男の子が}見学に来ました。…

‘{ A junior high school boy and his parents OR a junior high school boy } visited and observed the high school that Mr. Tanaka works at yesterday. …’

T

田中先生は/

よろこんで/

男の子たちを/

３０分ほど/

ていねいに/

案内しました。

Tanaka-sensei-wa

yorokonde

otokonoko-tati-osanjyup-pun hodoteineini

annai-si-masita

Mr.Tanaka-TOP

happily

boy-TATI-ACC

30-minite about

politely

guide-do-POL.PST‘Mr. Tanaka happily showed the boy and the others(=his parents) around the school for about 30 minutes politely.’ future.’

8.2 C

先日、花子の家に遠くに住んでいる{ある友人とその友人の母親がOR*ある友人が}初めて遊びにきました。…

‘The other day, { a friend of Hanako's and her mother OR a friend of Hanako's }, who live(s) afar, visited Hanako's house for the first time. …’

T

花子は/

すぐに/

友人たちを/

家族に/簡単に/紹介しました。

Hanako-wa

suguniyuuzin-tati-okazoku-ni

kantannisyokai-si-masita

Hanako-TOP

immediately

friend-TATI-ACC

family-tobriefly

introduction-do-POL.PST‘On their arrival, Hanako introduced her friend and the other(=her mother) briefly to her family.’

8.3 C

太郎はレストランでアルバイトをしていますが、{店長と先輩がOR*店長が‘Taroo works part-time at a restaurant. {The manager and his senior coworkers OR the manager} do(es) not teach him how to do the job much. …’
T

太郎は/

いつも/

店長たちを/

陰で/悪く/言っています。

Taroo-wa

itumo

tentyoo-tati-okage-dewarukuitte-i-masu

Taroo-TOP

alwaysmanager-TATI-ACC

behind.one’s.back

badly

say-ASP-POL.NPST‘Taroo is always speaking ill of the manager and the others(=his senior coworkers) behind their back.’

363}

あまり仕事を教えてくれません。…

8.4 C

花子は実家を離れて、ひとり暮らしをしていますが、最近、よく

{

母親と姉と

OR

*母親と

}

一緒に食事に行きます。…

‘Hanako lives by herself away from her parents but she has been often eating out {with her mother and sister OR with her mother} recently. …’

T

花子は/

昨日も/

母親たちを/

自分から/

夕食に/

誘いました。

Hanako-wa

kinoo-mohahaoya-tati-ozibun-kara

yuusyoku-ni

sasoi-masita

Hanako-TOP

yesterday-too

mother-PL-ACC

voluntarily

dinner for

ask.out-POL.PST‘Hanako asked her mother and the other(=her sister) out for dinner just yesterday.’

8.5 C

花子は

{

３歳下の妹と妹の友人を*３歳下の妹をOR}誘ってよく一緒に映画を見に行きます。 …

‘Hanako often asks out {her 3-year-younger sister and her sister's friend vs. her 3-year-younger sister} to watch movies together. …’

T

花子は/

先週末も/

妹たちを/

いつものように/映画に/誘いました。

Hanako-wa

sensyuu-matu-mo

imooto-tati-o

itumo-no yooni

eiga-nisasoi-masita

Hanako-TOP

last.week-end-too

sister-TATI-ACC

as.always

movie-forask.out-POL.PST‘Hanako ,as always, asked her sister and the other(=her friend) out to watch a movie last weekend too.’

8.6 C

今日、太郎の会社に、{ある会社の社長と社員がOR*ある会社の社長が‘{The president of a company and an employee vs. the president of a company } visited Taroo's company today for a business meeting. …’
T

太郎は/商談の前に/

社長たちを/

応接室に/ていねいに/

案内しました。

Taroo-wasyoodan-no mae-ni

syatyoo-tati-ooosetusitu-niteineini

annai-si-masita

Taroo-TOP

before.the.business.meeting president-TATI-ACC

reception.office-topolitely

guide-do-POL.PST‘Before the meeting, Taroo showed them to the reception office politely.’364}

商談にやってきました。 …

8.7 C

太郎には愛する{

妻と１人の娘が

OR

*妻が

}

います。 …

‘Taroo has a beloved {wife and daughter vs. wife}. …’
T

太郎は/

この夏/

妻たちを/

どこか/

旅行に/

連れて行くつもりです。

Taroo-wa

kono natu

tuma-tati-o

doko-karyokoo-ni

turete-iku-tumori-desu

Taroo-TOP

this summer

wife-TATI-ACC

somewhere

trip-totake-go-intend.to-COP‘Taroo is going to take his wife and the other(=his daughter) on a trip this summer.’Q

この文章によると… (asked only in the associative condition)‘According to this passage…’
A

太郎は妻を愛しています。
‘Taroo loves his wife.’

B

太郎は娘を愛しています。
‘Taroo loves his daughter.’

8.8 C

太郎は

{

２歳下の弟とOR.*弟の友人と‘Taroo likes going to Karaoke {with his 2-year-younger brother and his brother's friend vs. with his 2-year-younger brother}. …’

T

太郎は/

先週末/

弟たちを/

久しぶりに/

カラオケに/

連れて行きました。

Taroo-wasensyuu-matu

otooto-tati-ohisasiburi-ni

karaoke-ni

turete-iki-masita

Taroo-TOP

last.week-end

brother-TATI-ACC

for.the.first.time.in.a.while karaoke-to

take-go-COP.PST‘Taroo took his brother and the other to karaoke last weekend for the first time in a while.’ politely.’ future.’Q

この文章によると… (asked only in the associative condition)‘According to this passage…’
A

太郎は弟とカラオケに行くのが好きです。
‘Taroo loves going to karaoke with his brother.’B

太郎は父親とカラオケに行くのが好きです。
‘Taroo loves going to karaoke with his father.’365}

一緒にカラオケに行くのが好きです。 …

9. Control filler 4: Collective reading of proper names with -tati (post-nominal vs. *pre-nominal)
9.1 C

先日、太郎とタカシとヒロシは旅行中に道に迷いました。困っていると１人の男性が声をかけてきました。 …
‘Taroo, Takasi and Hirosi got lost while on a trip the other day. A man saw them in trouble and spoke to them. …’

T

その男性は/

親切に/{太郎たち３人を/OR *３人の太郎たちを/}車で/行きたい場所まで/ 案内してくれました。

sono dansei-wa

sinsetuni{

Taroo-tati san-nin-o

OR san-nin-no Taroo-tati-o}kuruma-de

iki-tai basyo-madethat man-TOP

kindly{Taroo-TATI 3-CL-ACC

OR 3-CL-GEN Taroo-TATI-ACC}

car-bygo-want.to. place-to guide-do-give-POL.PST

annai-site-kure-masita‘The man kindly drove the group of three represented by Taroo to the place where they wanted to go.’Q

この文章によると… (asked only in the post-nominal condition)‘According to this passage…’
A

先日、太郎とタカシとヒロシに話しかけてきたのは男性です。
‘It was a man who spoke to Taroo,Takasi, and Hirosi the other day.’B

先日、太郎とタカシとヒロシに話しかけてきたのは女性です。
‘ It was a woman who spoke to Taroo,Takasi, and Hirosi the other day.’

9.2 C

先週末、花子は両親と一緒に、電車で田舎の伯父に会いに行きました。 …
‘Hanako and her parents went to see her uncle living in the country by train last weekend. …’

T

伯父は/

夕方から/

{

花子たち３人を/OR *３人の花子たちを/}海に/ドライブに/

連れて行ってくれました。

ozi-wayuugata-kara{

Hanako-tati san-nin-o

OR san-nin-no Hanako-tati-o}

umi-nidoraibu-ni

turete-itte-kure-masita

uncle-TOP

evening-from{

Hanako-TATI 3-CL-ACC

OR 3-CL-GEN Hanako-TATI-ACC}

sea-todrive-fortake-go-give-POL.PST‘Her uncle took the group of three represented by Hanako.’Q

この文章によると… (asked only in the post-nominal condition)‘According to this passage…’
A

花子は先週末、両親と一緒に伯父に会いに行きました。
‘Hanako went to see her uncle last weekend with her parents.’

B

花子は先週末、両親と一緒に伯母に会いに行きました。
‘Hanako went to see her aunt last weekend with her parents.’366

9.3 C

花子は今度の休日、ひろ子と他の友人３人と一緒に過ごす予定です。花子はハイキングに行きたがっていましたが、友人はみんな海に行きたがっていました。 …
‘Hanako is planning to spend the next holiday with Hiroko and three other friends. Hanako wanted to go on a hiking but her friends all wanted to go to the seaside. …’

T

花子は/

１週間かけて/{ひろ子たち４人を/OR *４人のひろ子たちを/

}

必死に/

なんとか/

説得しました。

Hanako-wa

i-syuu-kan kakete{

Hiroko-tati yo-nin-o

OR yo-nin-no Hiroko-tati-o}hissininantokasettoku-si-masita

Hanako-TOP

1-week-period spend{

Hiroko-TATI 4 CL-ACC

OR 4-CL-GEN Hiroko-TATI-ACC}

desperately

somehow

persuasion-do-POL.PST‘Hanako tried hard to persuade the group of four represented by Hiroko over a week and managed it.’Q

この文章によると… (asked only in the post-nominal condition)‘According to this passage…’
A

花子は今度の休日はだれかと一緒に過ごす予定です。
‘Hanako is going to spend time together with someone on the upcoming holiday.’B

花子は今度の休日は家で１人でいる予定です。
‘Hanako is going to stay at home alone on the upcoming holiday.’

9.4 C

今日、たか子は会社の同僚３人と最近できたカフェにお茶をしに行きました。到着した時、カフェはとても混んでいました。…
‘Takako and three colleagues of hers went to a recently opened café for tea. When they got to the café, it was very busy. …’

T

店員は/

約１５分後/{

たか子たち４人を/OR *４人のたか子たちを/}ていねいに/

席まで/案内しました。

tenin-wa

yaku jyuugo-hun-go{

Takako-tati yo-nin-o

OR yo-nin-no Takako-tati-o}teineiniseki-madeannai-si-masita

waiter-TOP

about 15-minite-after{

Takako-TATI-4-CL-ACC

OR 4-CL-GEN Takako-TATI-ACC}

politelyseat-toguide-do-POL.PST‘About 15 minutes later, a waiter showed the group of four represented by Takako to their table politely.’Q

この文章によると… (asked only in the post-nominal condition)‘According to this passage…’
A

たか子が今日行ったカフェは混んでいました。
‘The café Takako went to today was crowded.’B

今日、たか子が今日行ったカフェは空いていました。
‘The café Takako went to today was not crowded.’367

9.5 C太郎はとても力持ちです。先週、友人のタカシとタカシの２人の弟に、自分がどれだけ重い物を持てるかを見せるために、 …
‘Taroo is very strong. Last week, in order to show his friend Takasi and Takasi's two younger brothers how much weight he could lift, …’

T

太郎は/

片方の腕で/{

タカシたち３人を/OR *３人のタカシたちを/

}

一気に/

簡単に/

持ち上げました。

Taroo-wakatahoo-no ude-de{

Takasi-tati san-nin-o

OR *san-nin-no Takasi-tati-o}

ikkinikantan-ni

motiage-masita

Taroo-TOPwith.one.arm{

Takasi-TATI 3-CL-ACC

OR 3-CL-GEN Takasi-TATI-ACC}

at.one.time

easilylift-POL.PST‘Taroo lifted the group of three represented by Takashi with one arm at one easily.’Q

この文章によると… (asked only in the post-nominal condition)‘According to this passage…’
A

太郎は力持ちです。
‘Taroo can lift heavy weights.’

B

太郎は足が速いです。
‘Taroo can run fast.’

9.6 C

昨日、太郎はせっかくの休みでしたが、特に予定がなく、退屈していました。ヒロシとタケシも特に予定がないと聞いていたので、 …
‘It was a day off yesterday but Taroo had nothing special to do and was feeling bored. Since he knew that Hirosi and Takesi did not have any plan either, …’

T

太郎は/

午後から/

{

ヒロシたち２人を/OR *２人のヒロシたちを/

}

電話で/

家に/

呼びました。

Taroo-wagogo-kara{

Hirosi-tati huta-ri-o

OR huta-ri-no Hirosi-tati-o}denwa-deie-niyobi-masita

Taroo-TOPafternoon-from{

Hirosi-TATI 2-CL-ACC

OR 2-CL-GEN Hirosi-TATI-ACC}

phone-byhouse-tocall- POL.PST‘Taroo rang the two, Hirosi and the other (=Takesi), and invited them over to his house to hang out.’Q

この文章によると… (asked only in the post-nominal condition)‘According to this passage…’
A

太郎は昨日、休みでした。
‘Taroo had a day off yesterday.’B

太郎は昨日、仕事でした。
‘Taroo worked yesterday.’368

9.7 C

昨日、小学生のタケシは小さなことで友人のゴロウとヒロシと学校でケンカをしました。 …
‘Takesi, a primary school kid, fought over a trivial thing with his friends, Goroo and Hirosi at school yesterday. …’

T

タケシは/

怒って/

{

ゴロウたち２人を/OR *２人のゴロウたちを/

}

つい/

軽く/

なぐってしまいました。

Takesi-wa

okotte{Goroo-tati huta-ri-o

OR huta-ri-no Goroo-tati-o}tuikarukunagutte-simai-masita

Takesi-TOP

in.a.rage{

Goroo-TATI 2-CL-ACC

OR 2-CL-GEN Goroo-TATI-ACC}

carelessly

lightly

hit-finish-POL.PST‘Being in a rage, Takesi couldn't help but hit the two, Goroo and the other(=Hirosi) lightly.’

9.8 C

先週、花子の学校では定期テストがありました。友人のとも子と他の友人２人は英語のテストが全然できなかったと落ち込んでいました。 …
‘It was an exam week at Hanako's school last week. Her friends, Tomoko and two others were disappointed because they did very poorly on the English exam. …’

T

花子は/

気になって/{

とも子たち３人を/OR *３人のとも子たち/

}

そっと/

優しく/

励ました。

Hanako-wa

ki-ni-natte{

Tomoko-tati san-nin-o

OR san-nin-no Tomoko-tati-o

}

sotto

yasasiku

hagemasi-masita

Takesi-TOP

worried{Tomoko-TATI 3-CL-ACC

OR 3-CL-GEN Tomoko-TATI-ACC }gentlykindlycheer.up-POL.PST‘Hanako was worried about the three, Tomoko and the others, and cheered them up gently.’

Fillers (10.1–15.4)
10.Filler 1: Missing classifiers
10.1 C

昨日、太郎は何もすることが無かったので、家の近所を散歩することにしました。 …
‘Since he had nothing particular to do yesterday, he took a walk around his neighbourhood. …’

T

太郎は/

散歩中/

*近所の子どもを２/

公園で/

偶然/

見ました。

Taroo-wa

sanpo-tyuu

kinjyo-no kodomo-o ni

kooen-deguuzenmi-masita

Taroo-TOP

walk-duringneightbourhood-GEN child-ACC 2

park-inby.chancesee-POL.PST‘While taking a walk, he happened to see two neighbourhood children in the park.’(*The CL, nin is missing.)369

10.2 C

太郎は昔から猫が大好きです。 …
‘Taroo has loved cats since he was small. …’

T

太郎は/

小学生の時から/

*猫を３/

家の中で/

１０年以上/

飼っています。

Taroo-wasyoogakusei-no toki kara

*neko-o sanie-no naka-de

jyuu-nen-ijyoo

katte-i-masu

Taroo-TOPsince.primary.school

cat-ACC 3

inside.the.house

10-year more.thankeep-ASP-POL.NPST‘Taroo has kept three cats inside his house for more than ten years since he was in primary school.’(*The CL, hiki is missing.)

10.3 C

花子は甘いものが大好きで、毎日、甘いものを少し食べるのが楽しみです。…
‘Hanako has a sweet tooth and takes a pleasure in eating sweets moderately.…’

T

花子は/

今日も/

*クッキーを２/

おやつに/

味わって/

食べました。

Hanako-wa

kyoo mokukkii-o ni

oyatu-niaziwattetabe-masita

Hanako-TOP

today toocookie-ACC 2

snack-fortaste

eat-POL.PST‘Hanako enjoyed tasting two cookies for snack today, too.’(*The CL, hiki is missing.)

10.4 C花子は先日の休日に特にすることが無く暇でした。 …
‘Hanako was bored having nothing particular to do on the last holiday. …’

T

花子は/

思いつきで/*友達を３/

メールで/

映画に/

誘いました。

Hanako-wa

omoituki-de

tomodati-o sanmeeru-deeiga-nisasoi-masita

Hanako-TOP

on.impulse

friend-ACC 3

mail-bymovie-forask.out-POL.PST‘Hanako asked three friends out for a movie by email on a whim.’(*The CL, nin is missing.)

370

11. Filler 2: -tati suffixed to non-human nouns(*-tati can be suffixed to only human nouns.)
11.1 C

太郎は先週末、図書館で本をたくさん借りました。 …
‘Taroo borrowed a lot of books from the library last weekend. …’

T

太郎は/

寝る前に/

*本たちを/

少しずつ/

じっくり/

読んでいます。

Taroo-wa

neru mae-ni*hon-tati-osukosizutu

zikkuriyonde-i-masu

Taroo-TOP

before.going.to.sleep

book-TATI-ACC

little.by.little

slowlyread-ASP-POL.NPST‘Taroo is enjoying reading the books little by little before going to sleep.’

11.2 C

花子は毎日、朝ごはんにリンゴを食べていて、いつもスーパーに行く時は、必ず買うようにしています。しかし、 …
‘Hanako eats an apple every morning and makes it a habit to buy apples whenever she goes to a supermarket. But …’

T

花子は/

昨日/

*りんごたちを/スーパーで/

うっかり/

買い忘れました。

Hanako-wa

kinoo

ringo-tati-osuupaa-de

ukkurikai-wasure-masita

Hanako-TOP

yesterday

apple-TATI-ACC

supermarket-at

carelessly

buy-forget-POL.PST‘Hanako carelessly forgot to buy apples at a supermarket yesterday.’371

11.3 C

花子の家にはテレビがたくさんあります。しかし、 …
‘There are many TVs in Hanako's house. But …’

T

花子は/

昨夜/

*テレビたちを/

寝る前に/

うっかり/

消し忘れました。

Hanako-wa

sakuyaterebi-tati-o

neru mae-ni

ukkurikesi-wasure-masita

Hanako-TOP

last.night

TV-TATI-ACC

before.going.to.sleep carelessly

turn.off-forget-POL.PST‘Hanako carelessly forgot to switch off the TVs before going to bed.’

11.4 C太郎は車を２台持っていて、毎週末、洗車しています。 …
‘Taroo owns two cars and wash them every weekend. …’

T

太郎は/

先週末も/

*車たちを/

洗車場で/ていねいに/

洗いました。

Taroo-wasensyuu-matu-mo

kuruma-tati-osensyajyoo-deteineiniarai-masita.

Taroo-TOP

last.week.end too

car-TATI-ACC

car.wash-at

carelessly

wash- POL.PST‘Taroo washed the cars carefully at the car wash last weekend again.’

12. Filler 3: Wrong particles
12.1 C

太郎は勉強するのに、よく近所の図書館を利用します。 …
‘Taroo often studies at a library nearby his house. …’

T

太郎は/

今日も/

*その図書館に/

長い時間/

ひとりで/

勉強をしました。

Taroo-wakyoo-mosono tosyokan-ni

nagai jikanhito-ri-debenkyoo-o si-masita

Taroo-TOP

today-too

SONO library-to

for.a.long.time

alone

study-ACC do-POL.PST‘Taroo studied at the library for a long time alone today again.’(* The particle, -de must be used.)372

12.2 C花子はアメリカに住んでいる友人がいます。先日、仕事でアメリカを訪れた時、 …
‘Hanako has a friend living in the U.S. When she was on a bussiness trip to the U.S. the other day, …’

T

花子は/

久しぶりに/*その友人を/数時間だけ/

空港で/会いました。

Hanako-wa

hisasiburi-ni

sono yuuzin-o

suu-zikan-dakekuukoo-deai-masita

Hanako-TOP

for.the.first.time.in.a.while SONO friend-ACC

a.few-hour-only

airport-at

meet-POL.PST‘Hanako met up with the friend at an airport for just a few hours for the first time in a while.’(* The particle, -ni must be used.)

12.3 C

太郎は昨日から始まったテレビドラマをとても楽しんで見ました。 …
‘Taroo really enjoyed a TV drama that started yesterday. …’

T

太郎は/

来週も/

*そのドラマに/必ず/また/見るつもりです。

Taroo-waraisyuu-mo

sono dorama-ni

kanarazu

matamiru-tumori-desu

Taroo-TOP

next.week-too

SONO drama-to

alwaysagain

watch-intention-COP‘Taroo is definitely going to watch the drama next week again.’(*The particle, -o must be used.)373

12.4 C

花子は自分の携帯電話の番号をなかなか覚えられません。昨日、友達に番号を聞かれましたが、 …
‘Hanako has trouble memorising her own mobile phone number. When a friend asked for her number yesterday, …’

T

花子は/

いつものように/*番号に/どうしても/

全然/思い出せませんでした。

Hanako-wa

itumo-no yooni

bangoo-ni

doo-site-mo

zenzenomoidas-e-masen-desita

Hanako-TOP

as.always

number-to

by.any.means

at.allcould.not.remember‘Hanako, as always, just could not remember the number.’(*The particle, -o must be used.)

13. Filler 4: Wrong tense marking
13.1 C花子は昨日、近くのショッピングモールへ買い物に出かけました。ゆっくりいろんなお店を回っていると、 …
‘Hanako went to the shopping mall near her house yesterday. When she was taking her time to shop around, …’

T

花子は/

久しぶりに/

ひろ子を/

服屋で/

たまたま/

*見かけます。

Hanako-wa

hisasiburi-ni

Hiroko-ohukuya-de

tamatama

mikake-masu

Hanako-TOP

for.the.first.time.in.a.while Hiroko-ACC

clothes.shop-at

accidentally

catch.sight-POL.NPST‘Hanako accidentally caught sight of Hiroko at a clothing shop for the first time in a while.’(*The past tense form, mikake-masita must be used.)

13.2 C

太郎は動物を飼うのが大好きです。これまでいろんなペットを飼ってきました。例えば、 …
‘Taroo loves having pet animals. He has had many kinds of pets. For example, …’

T

太郎は/

小学生の時/

ウサギを/

庭で/

４年間/

*飼っています。

Taroo-wasyoogakusei-no tokiusagi-oniwa-deyo-nen-kan

katte-i-masu

Taroo-TOP

when.in.primary.school

rabbit-ACC

garden-in

for.4.years

keep-ASP-NPST‘Taroo had a rabbit in the garden for four years when he was in primary school.’(*The past tense form, katte-i-masita must be used.)374

13.3 C

花子は昨夜、近所に住んでいる小学生の女の子がひとりで歩いているのを見ました。心配だったので、 …
‘Hanako found a primary school girl who lives in her neighbourhood walking alone last night. Because she was worried about the girl, …’

T

花子は/

優しく/

その女の子を/家まで/車で/*送っていきます。

Hanako-wa

yasikusono onnanoko-oie-madekuruma-deokutte-iki-masu

Hanako-TOP

kindlySONO girl-ACC

house-tocar-bysee.off-go-NPST‘Hanako kindly drove the girl home.’(*The past tense form, okutte-iki-masita must be used.)

13.4 C

太郎は来月、友人と夕食を一緒に食べに行く約束をしました。行きたいレストランはとても人気なので、 …
‘Taroo made a promise with his friend to go out for dinner together next month. Because the restaurant they want to go to is very popular, …’

T

太郎は/

早速/

そのレストランを/

もう/

電話で/

*予約します。

Taroo-wasassokusono resutoran-omoodenwa-deyoyaku-si-masu

Taroo-TOP

immediately

SONO restaurant-ACC

alreadyphone-byreservation-do-NPST‘Taroo already called the restaurant and reserved it.’(*The past tense form, yoyaku-si-masita must be used.)375

14. Filler 5: Infelicitous wh-floating quantifiers
14.1 C花子が好きな俳優が２年後に公開される予定の映画の主役に選ばれました。 …
‘Hanako's favourite actor has been chosen to star in a movie to be released in two years. …’

T

花子は/

今から/

その映画を/*何か/

とても/楽しみにしています。

Hanako-wa

ima-karasono eiga-onani-ka

totemotamosimi-ni-site-i-masu

Hanako-TOP

now-from

SONO movie-ACC

somethingvery muchlooking.forward.to‘Hanako is already really looking forward to watching the movie.’(* Nanika requires the associated noun, sono eiga to be nonspecific thus incompatible with the specific meaning forced by sono )14.2 C太郎は毎日、近所の喫茶店に行き、必ず同じコーヒーを注文します。 …
‘Taroo goes to a café near his house and orders the same coffee every day. …’

T

太郎は/

今日も/

そのコーヒーを/*何か/いつものように/飲みました。

Taroo-wakyoo-mosono koohii-onani-kaitumo-no yooni

nomi-masita

Taroo-TOP

today-too

SONO coffee-ACC

somethingas.always

drink-POL.NPST‘Taroo, as always, drank the coffee today.’(* Nanika requires the associated noun, sono koohii to be nonspecific thus incompatible with the specific meaning forced by sono )376

14.3 C花子は昨日、仕事の帰り道に、電車の駅を探している中学生の男の子に出会いました。…
‘Hanako came across a junior high school boy who was looking for a train station on the way home from work yesterday. …’

T

花子は/

親切に/

その男の子を/

*誰か/

駅まで/

案内してあげました。

Hanako-wa

sinsetunisono otokonoko-odare-kaeki-madeannai-site-age-masita

Hanako-TOP

kindlySONO boy-ACC

someonestation-toguide-do-give-POL.PST‘Hanako kindly guided the boy to the station.’(* Dare-ka requires the associated noun, sono otokonoko to be nonspecific thus incompatible with the specific meaning forced by sono )14.4 C

太郎は小学生の時の担任の先生にあこがれて、自分も教師になりました。…
‘Taroo adored one of his classroom teachers from primary school so much that he became a teacher himself. …’

T

太郎は/

今でも/

その先生を/*誰か/

とても/尊敬しています。

Taroo-wa

ima-demosono sensei-odare-ka

totemosonkei-site-i-masu

Taroo-TOP

now-even

SONO teacher-ACC

someonevery much

respect‘Taroo still respects the teacher very much.’(* Dare-ka requires the associated noun, sono sensei to be nonspecific thus incompatible with the specific meaning forced by sono )377

15. Filler 6: Infelicitous use of demonstrative ano(*Sono NPs are contextually more natural than ano NPs.)
15.1 C太郎は先日、友人の家で、とても面白いテレビドラマを見ました。しかし、 …
‘Taroo watched a very amusing TV drama at his friend's house the other day. But ... ’

T

太郎は/

すでに/

*あのドラマの内容を/

もう/

ほとんど/

忘れてしまいました。

Taroo-wasudeniano dorama-no naiyoo-omoohotondowasurete-simai-masita

Taroo-TOP

already

ANO drama-GEN content-ACC

alreadymostlyforget-finish-POL.PST‘Taroo has already mostly forgot what the drama was like.’15.2 C

花子は５歳の誕生日にもらったぬいぐるみがとても気に入っています。…
‘Hanako really loves a soft toy that she got for her 5th birthday. ... ’

T

花子は/

どこへでも/*あのぬいぐるみを/

必ず/

一緒に/

連れて行きます。

Hanako-wa

doko-e-demo

ano nuigurumi-okanarazu

issyoniturete-iki-masu

Taroo-TOP

anywhere

ANO soft.toy-ACC

alwaystoghethertake-go-POL.NPST‘Hanako takes the soft toy with her wherever she goes.’378

15.3 C

太郎の職場には山田というよくウソをつく人がいます。 …
‘There is a man who often lies named Yamada at Taroo's workplace. ... ’

T

太郎は/

どんな時も/*あの人を/

絶対に/

簡単には/

信用しません。

Taroo-wadonna toki-mo

ano hito-ozettaini

kantanni-wa

sinyoo-si-masen

Taroo-TOP

at.any.time

ANO person-ACC

by.any.means

easily-TOP

trust-do- POL.NPST‘Taroo never trusts the person easily.’15.4 C花子は先日、道に迷って困っている大学生に出会いました。特に急いでいなかったので、 …
‘Hanako found a university student being lost on the street the other day. Because she was not in a hurry, ... ’

T

花子は/

親切に/

*あの学生を/行きたい場所まで/歩いて/案内してあげました。

Hanako-wa

sinsetuni*ano gakusei-oiki-tai basyo-madearuiteannai-site-age-masita

Hanako-TOP

kindlyANO student-ACC

go-want place-to

walk

guide-do-give-POL.PST‘Taroo never trusts the person easily.’379

Abbreviations
˄Conjunction⋂

The nominalisation operator≤

Part-of relation∅

Zero, null/overt form

ACC

Accusative

ACP

The Article Choice Parameter

adj.

Adjunct

ADJ/adj

Adjective

ADV

AdverbAJT

Acceptability judgement task

ANOVA

Analysis of variance

Appdx

Appendix

ASP

AspectC

Context sentence

CASE

Case marker

CaseP

Case phrase

CEFR

The Common European Frame of Reference for Languages

CI

Confidence Interval

CLClassifier

CLPClassifier phrase

COMP

Complementiser

COP

CopulaD

DeterminerD’

D-bar (an intermediate projection of D)

380

DAT

DativeDEC(L)

Declarativedef

definiteDP

Determiner phrasedrdomain restriction

E

Englishe

Empty category

ERP

Event-related potential

etException toleranceF

FeatureFcovertCovertly realised feature

FH

The Fluctuation Hypothesis

FovertOvertly realised feature

FRH

The Feature Reassembly Hypothesis

GEN

Genitive

HK

Hearer’s knowledge

HSD

Tukey’s honestly significant difference

I-levelIndividual-level

IMPERATIVE

Imperative marker

INAN.OBJ

Inanimate object

J

JapaneseJLPTthe Japanese Language Proficiency Test

K

Korean

L1

First language

L2

Second language

LVL

Level

381

M

Mean

M age

Mean age

M-DiffMean differencemsMillisecond

N

Noun

n

Number of cases

N’

N-bar (an intermediate projection of N)

N/A

Not applicable

NEG

Negative

NOM

NominativeNP

Noun phrase

NPST

Non-past tense

NQ

Numeral quantifier

Num

Number

NumP

Number phrasepProbability

PA(S)T

Past tense

PIC

The Phase Impenetrability Condition

PL

PluralPOL

Polite marker

POS

Poverty of the stimulusPRE

Present tense

Q

Quantifier/Comprehension question

QP

Quantifier phrase

RQ

Research question

RRT

Residualised reading time

382

RT

Reading timeSD

Standard deviation

SE

Standard error

SLA

Second language acquisition

S-levelStage-level

Spec

Specifierspec

specific

SPRT

Self-paced reading task

SR

Specific referent in the mind of the speaker’stTrace/Student’s t distribution

T

Tense/Target sentence

theweakWeak definite article

thestrong

Strong definite article

TOP

Topic

TVJT

Truth-value judgement task

UG

Universal Grammar

V

Verb

v

Little/Small verb

V’

V-bar (an intermediate projection of V)

VP

Verb phrase

X

Minimal projection

XP

Maximal projection

yrs

Years

z

Standardised score

ƎThe existential operator

βBeta coefficient

383

℩

The iota operator

χ2

The Chi-square distribution384

References
3A Network. (1998). Minna no Nihongo series. Tokyo: 3A Corporation.
Ahn, D. (2017). Definite and demonstrative descriptions: A micro-typology. In M. Y.
Erlewine (Ed.), Proceedings of GLOW in Asia XI–Volume 1 (pp. 33–47). Cambridge,
MA: MIT Working Papers in Linguistics.
Anderssen, M. (2007). The acquisition of compositional definiteness in Norwegian. Papers
from the Language Acquisition Workshop, 34(3), 252–275.
Bader, M., & Lasser, I. (1994). German verb-final clauses and sentence processing: Evidence
for immediate attachment. In C. Clifton, L. Frazier, & K. Rayner (Eds.), Perspectives
on sentence processing (pp. 225–242). New York, NY: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Banno, E., Ohno, Y., Sakane, Y., Shinagawa, C., & Takashiki, K. (1999). Genki: An
integrated elementary Japanese course. Tokyo: The Japan Times.
Barr, D. J., Levy, R., Scheepers, C., & Tily, H. J. (2013). Random effects structure for
confirmatory hypothesis testing: Keep it maximal. Journal of Memory and Language,68, 255–278.
Bates, D., Mächler, M., Bolker, B., & Walker, S. (2015). Fitting Linear Mixed-Effects
Models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software, 67(1), 1–48.
Belletti, A., Bennati, E., & Sorace, A. (2007). Theoretical and developmental issues in thesyntax of subjects: Evidence from near-native Italian. Natural Language & Linguistic
Theory, 25(4), 657–689
Bickerton, D. (1981). Roots of language. Ann Arbor, MI: Karoma.
Boyd, J. K., & Goldberg, A. E. (2011). Learning what not to say: The role of statisticalpreemption and categorization in a-adjective production. Language, 87, 55–83.
Campbell, R. (1996). Specificity operators in Spec DP. Studia Linguistica, 50(2), 161–188.
Chang, S. J. (2009). Nominal structure and interpretation: On the syntax of the Korean

385

determiner phrase (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Georgia.
Charolles, M. (1999). Associative anaphora and its interpretation. Journal of Pragmatics,
31(3), 311–326.
Chierchia, G. (1998). Reference to kinds across language. Natural Language Semantics, 6(4),339-405.
Choi, M. H., & Lardiere, D. (2005). The interpretation of wh-in-situ in Korean second
language acquisition. In A. Belletti et al. (Eds.), Language Acquisition andDevelopment: Proceedings of GALA 2005, (pp. 125–135). Cambridge: Cambridge
Scholars Press.
Cho, J. (2012). Remapping nominal features in the second language (Unpublished doctoral
dissertation). University of Iowa.
Cho, J. (2017). The acquisition of different types of definite noun phrases in L2-English.
International Journal of Bilingualism, 21(3), 367–382.
Cho, J. (2020). Online processing and offline judgments of L2-English articles. Linguistic
Approaches to Bilingualism. Advance online publication.
https://doi.org/10.1075/lab.18053.cho
Cho, J., & Slabakova, R. (2014). Interpreting definiteness in a second language without
articles: The case of L2 Russian. Second Language Research, 30(2), 159–190.
Cho, J., & Slabakova, R. (2015). A feature-based contrastive approach to the L2 Acquisition
of Specificity. Applied Linguistics, 38(3), 318–339.
Chomsky, N. (1995). The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Chomsky, N. (2000). Minimalist inquiries: The framework. In R. Martin, et al. (Eds.), Step bystep: Essays on minimalist syntax in honor of Howard Lasnik, (pp. 89–155).
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Chomsky, N. (2004). Beyond explanatory adequacy. In A. Belletti (Ed.), Structures andbeyond (pp. 104–131): Oxford: Oxford University Press.

386

Christensen, R. (2018). Ordinal—regression models for ordinal data. R package version
2018.8-25, http://www.cran.r- project.org/ package=ordinal/.
Clark, H. H. (1975). Bridging. In R. C. Schank & B. L. Nash-Webber (Eds.), Proceedings ofthe 1975 workshop on theoretical issues in natural language processing (pp.169–174).
New York, NY: Association for Computing Machinery.
Council of Europe (2001). Common European framework of reference for languages:
Learning, teaching, assessment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Cowart, W. (1997). Experimental syntax. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publishing.
Crosthwaite, P. R. (2014). Definite discourse–new reference in L1 and L2: A study of bridging
in Mandarin, Korean, and English. Language Learning, 64(3), 456–492.
Crosthwaite, P. R., Yeung, Y., Bai, X., Lu, L., & Bae, Y. (2018). Definite discourse-newreference in L1 and L2: The case of L2 Mandarin. Studies in Second Language
Acquisition, 40(3), 625–649.
Dekydtspotter, L., & Sprouse, R. A. (2001). Mental design and (second) language
epistemology: Adjectival restrictions of wh-quantifiers and tense in English-Frenchinterlanguage. Second Language Research, 17(1), 1–35.
Dekydtspotter, L., Sprouse, R. A., & Anderson, B. (1997). The interpretive interface in L2
acquisition: The process-result distinction in English-French interlanguage grammars.
Language Acquisition, 6(4), 297–332.
Diesing, M. (1992). Indefinites. Cambridge, MA: MIT press.
Dillion, B., & Wagers, M. (forthcoming). Approaching gradience in acceptability with thetools of signal detection theory. In G. Goodall (Ed.), Cambridge Handbook ofExperimental Syntax.
Domínguez, L., Arche, M. J., & Myles, F. (2017). Spanish imperfect revisited: Exploring L1
influence in the reassembly of imperfective features onto new L2 forms. Second
Language Research, 33(4), 431–457.

387

Downing, P. A. (1996). Numeral classifier systems: The case of Japanese. Amsterdam: John
Benjamins.
Ebert, K. (1971). Zwei formen des bestimmten artikels. In D. Wunderlich (Ed.),

Probleme

und fortschritte der transformationsgrammatik (pp. 159–74). Munich: Max Hueber.
Ellis, R. (2005). Measuring implicit and explicit knowledge of a second language: A
psychometric study. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27(2), 141–172.
Ellis, R. (2006). Modelling learning difficulty and second language proficiency: The
differential contributions of implicit and explicit knowledge. Applied Linguistics,
27(3), 431–463.
Enç, M. (1991). The semantics of specificity. Linguistic inquiry, 22(1), 1–25.
Feng, S. (2019). The acquisition of English definite noun phrases by Mandarin Chinese
speakers. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 41(4), 881–896.
Ferreira, F., & Clifton Jr, C. (1986). The independence of syntactic processing. Journal of
Memory and Language, 25(3), 348–368.
Foote, R. (2011). Integrated knowledge of agreement in early and late English-Spanishbilinguals. Applied Psycholinguistics, 32(1), 187–220.
Frege, G. (1960). On sense and reference. In P. Geach & M. Black (Eds.), Translations fromthe philosophical writings of Gottlob Frege (pp. 56–78). Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Fukushima, K. (1991). Generalized floating quantifiers (Unpublished doctoral dissertation).
University of Arizona.
Furuya, K. (2012). Specificity effects for Japanese, an articleless language. Studies in the
Linguistic Sciences: Illinois Working Papers 2012, 32–43.
Gabriele, A. (2005). The acquisition of aspect in a second language: A bidirectional study oflearners of English and Japanese (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). City Universityof New York.
Gabriele, A. (2008). Calculating telicity in native and non-native English. In R. Slabakova, J.

388

Rothman, O. Kempchinsky, & E. Gavruseva (Eds.), Proceedings of the 9th Generative
Approaches to Second Language Acquisition (GASLA 9) (pp. 37–46). Somerville, MA:
Cascadilla Proceedings Project.
Gabriele, A. (2009). Transfer and transition in the SLA of aspect: A bidirectional study oflearners of English and Japanese. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 31(3),371–402.
Gabriele, A. (2010). Deriving meaning through context: Interpreting bare nominals in second
language Japanese. Second Language Research, 26(3), 379–405.
Gil, K.-H., & Marsden, H. (2013). Existential quantifiers in second language acquisition: A
feature reassembly account. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 3(2), 117–149.
Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In P. Cole & J. Morgan (Eds.), Studies in syntax
and semantics III: Speech acts (pp. 183–198). New York, NY: Academic Press.
Havik, E., Roberts, L., Van Hout, R., Schreuder, R., & Haverkort, M. (2009). Processing
subject‐object ambiguities in the L2: A self‐paced reading study with German L2
learners of Dutch. Language Learning, 59(1), 73–112.
Hawkins, J. A. (1978). Deﬁniteness and indeﬁniteness. Atlantic Highlands: Humanities Press.
Hawkins, R. (2019). How second languages are learned: an introduction. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Hawkins, R., Al-Eid, S., Almahboob, I., Athanasopoulos, P., Chaengchenkit, R., Hu, J., Rezai,M., Jaensch, C., Jeon, Y., Jiang, A., Yan-kit, L.I., Matsunaga, K., Ortega, M., Sarko,
G., Snape, N., & Velasco-Zárate, K. (2006). Accounting for English article
interpretation by L2 speakers. EUROSLA Yearbook, 6, 7–25.
Hawkins, R., & Hattori, H. (2006). Interpretation of English multiple wh-questions by
Japanese speakers: A missing uninterpretable feature account. Second Language
Research, 22(3), 269–301.
Heim, I. (1982). The semantics of definite and indefinite noun phrases (Doctoral dissertation).

389

Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. AAI8229562
Heim, I. (1991). Articles and definiteness, published in German as ‘Artikel und definitheit’. In
A.V. Stechow & D. Wunderlich (Eds.), Semantics: An international handbook ofcontemporary research (pp. 487–535). Berlin: De Gruyter.
Heim, I., & Wexler, K. (2000). Class notes for "Topics in semantics and acquisition".
Unpublished manuscript, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Heycock, C. (2008). Japanese -wa, -ga, and information structure. In S. Miyagawa, & M.
Saito (Eds.), Handbook of Japanese Linguistics (pp. 54–83). Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Hoji, H., Kinsui, S., Takubo, Y., & Ueyama, A. (2003). The demonstratives in modern
Japanese. In Y-A. H. Li & Y. Simpson (Eds.), Functional structure(s), form andinterpretation: Perspectives from east Asian languages (pp. 97–128). New York, NY:
Routledge.
Hopp, H. (2009). The syntax-discourse interface in near-native L2 acquisition: Off-line andon-line performance. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 12(4), 463–483.
Hopp, H. (2010). Ultimate attainment in L2 inflection: Performance similarities between nonnative and native speakers. Lingua, 120(4), 901–931.
Huang, C. T. J., & Ochi, M. (2014). Remarks on classifiers and nominal structure in East
Asian. In Peaches and plums (pp. 53–74). Taipei: Academia Sinica.
Huebner, T. (1983). A longitudinal analysis of the acquisition of English. Ann Arbor, MI:
Karoma.
Hwang, S. H., & Lardiere, D. (2013). Plural-marking in L2 Korean: A feature-based
approach. Second Language Research, 29(1), 57–86.
Hyönä, J., & Hujanen, H. (1997). Effects of case marking and word order on sentence parsing
in Finnish: An eye fixation analysis. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental
Psychology: Section A, 50(4), 841–858.

390

Inagaki, S. (2001). Motion verbs with goal PPs in the L2 acquisition of English and Japanese.
Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 23(2), 153–170.
Inoue, K. (1978). Nihongo-no bunpoo kisoku [Grammar rules in Japanese]. Tokyo:
Taisyukan.
Ionin, T. (2003). Article semantics in second language acquisition (Unpublished doctoral
dissertation). Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Ionin, T., Baek, S., Kim, E., Ko, H., & Wexler, K. (2012). That’s not so different from the:Definite and demonstrative descriptions in second language acquisition. Second
Language Research, 28(1), 69–101.
Ionin, T., Choi, S. H., & Liu, Q. (2019). Knowledge of indefinite articles in L2-English:
Online vs. offline performance. Second Language Research. Advance online
publication. https://doi.org/10.1177%2 F0267658319857466
Ionin, T., Choi, S. H., & Liu, Q. (2020). What transfers (or doesn’t) in the second language
acquisition of English articles by learners from article-less native languages?
Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism. Advance online publication.
https://doi.org/10.1075/lab.19057.ion
Ionin, T., Ko, H., & Wexler, K. (2004). Article semantics in L2 acquisition: The role ofspecificity. Language Acquisition, 12(1), 3–69.
Ionin, T., Montrul, S., & Crivos, M. (2013). A bidirectional study on the acquisition of plural
NP interpretation in English and Spanish. Applied Psycholinguistics, 34(3), 483–518.
Ionin, T., Zubizarreta, M. L., & Bautista-Maldonado, S. (2008). Sources of linguisticknowledge in the second language acquisition of English articles. Lingua, 118(4),554–576.
Irani, A. (2019). On (in)definite expressions in American Sign Language. In A.-G. Ana, J. P.
Loyo, & V. V.-R. Maldonado (Eds.), Definiteness across languages (pp. 113–151).
Berlin: Language Science Press.

391

Ishii, Y. (1999). A note on floating quantifiers in Japanese. In M. Masatake & I. Enoch (Eds.),
Linguistics: In search of the human mind: A festschrift for Kazuko Inoue (pp. 236–
267). Tokyo: Kaitakusha.
Ivanov, I. (2009). Second language acquisition of Bulgarian object clitics: A test case for theInterface Hypothesis (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Iowa.
Jackendoff, R. (2002). Foundations of language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Jegerski, J. (2014). Self-paced reading. In J. Jegerski & B. van Pattern (Eds.), Researchmethods in second language psycholinguistics (pp. 20–49). New York, NY:
Routledge.
Jenks, P. (2015). Two kinds of definites in numeral classifier languages. Semantics and
Linguistic Theory, 25, 103–124.
Jenks, P. (2018). Articulated definiteness without articles. Linguistic Inquiry, 49(3), 501–536.
Jiang, N. (2012). Conducting reaction time research in second language studies: New York,
NY: Routledge.
Jiang, N. (2018). Second language processing: An introduction: New York, NY: Routledge.
Jiang, N., Novokshanova, E., Masuda, K., & Wang, X. (2011). Morphological congruency
and the acquisition of L2 morphemes. Language Learning, 61(3), 940–967.
Jonz, J. (1990). Another turn in the conversation: What does cloze measure? Tesol Quarterly,24(1), 61–83.
Just, M. A., Carpenter, P. A., & Woolley, J. D. (1982). Paradigms and processes in reading
comprehension. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 111(2), 228–238.
Juzek, T. S. (2015). Acceptability Judgement Tasks and Grammatical Theory (Unpublisheddoctoral dissertation). University of Oxford.
Kahraman, B., Sato, A., Ono, H., & Sakai, H. (2010). Relative clauses processing before thehead noun: Evidence for strong forward prediction in Turkish. In H. Maezawa & A.
Yokogoshi (Eds.), Proceedings of the 6th Workshop on Altaic Formal Linguistics

392

(WAFL6). MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 61 (pp. 155–170). Cambridge, MA:
MIT Press.
Kamide, Y., & Mitchell, D. C. (1999). Incremental pre-head attachment in Japanese parsing.
Language and Cognitive Processes, 14(5/6), 631–662.
Kamp, H. (1981). A theory of truth and semantic representation. In P. Portner & B. Partee(Eds.), Formal semantics: The essential readings (pp. 189–222). Oxford: Blackwell.
Kaneko, M. (2014). The semantics and syntax of Japanese adnominal demonstratives. In P.
Cabredo Hofherr & A. Zribi-Hertz (Eds.), Crosslinguistic studies of noun phrase
structure and reference (pp. 239–268). Leiden: Brill.
Kang, A. (2021). Marking definiteness in articleless language: The role of the domain
restrictor KU in Korean. Language and Linguistics, 22(2), 302–337.
Katz, J. J. (1976). A hypothesis about the uniqueness of natural language. Annals of the New
York Academy of Sciences, 280(1), 33–41.
Keating, G. D., & Jegerski, J. (2015). Experimental designs in sentence processing research:
A methodological review and user’s guide. Studies in Second Language Acquisition,
37(1), 1–32.
Kim, A. H. O. (1995). Word order at the noun phrase level in Japanese. In P. A. Downing &M. Noonan (Eds.), Word order in discourse (pp. 199–246). Amsterdam: John
Benjamins.
Kim, C. (2005). Order and meaning: Numeral classifiers and specificity in Korean. In J.
Alderte, C-H Han, & A. Kochetov (Eds.), Proceedings of the 24th West Coast
Conference on Formal Linguistics (pp. 218–226). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.
Kim J. B., & Yang, J. (2006a). Deep processing of Korean floating quantifier constructions. In
Y. Matsumoto, R.W. Sproat, K.F. Wong, & M. Zhang (Eds.), Computer Processing ofOriental Languages. Beyond the Orient: The Research Challenges Ahead. ICCPOL
2006. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 4285 (pp. 387–394).

393

Kim, J. B., & Yang, J. (2006b). Processing Korean numeral classifier constructions in a typed
feature structure grammar. In P. Sojka, I. Kopeček, & K. Pala (Eds.), Text, Speech andDialogue. TSD 2006. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 4188 (pp. 103–110).
Kim, K. L., & Lakshmanan, U. (2009). The processing role of the Article Choice Parameter
evidence from L2 learners of English. In M. del P. G. Mayo & R. Hawkins (Eds.),
Second language acquisition of articles: Empirical findings and theoretical
implications (p.p. 87– 113). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Kitagawa, Y., & Kuroda, S.-Y. (1992). Passive in Japanese. Unpublished manuscript,
University of Rochester and University of California. San Diego, CA.
Kobayashi, M., & Yoshimoto, K. (2001). A Parallel Interpretation of floated quantifiers andadverbials. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 15th Pacific Asia Conference on
Language, Information and Computation, Hong Kong.
Kobuchi-Philip, M. (2007). Floating numerals and floating quantifiers. Lingua, 117(5), 814–
831.
Ko, H., Ionin, T., & Wexler, K. (2010). The role of presuppositionality in the second language
acquisition of English articles. Linguistic inquiry, 41(2), 213–254.
Ko, H., Perovic, A., Ionin, T., & Wexler, K. (2008). Semantic universals and variation in L2
article choice. In R. Slabakova, J. Rothman, O. Kempchinsky, & E. Gavruseva (Eds.),
Proceedings of the 9th Generative Approaches to Second Language Acquisition(GASLA 9) (pp. 118–129). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.
Köylü, Y. (2019). Representation and acquisition of kind reference in L2 English(Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Indiana University.
Kratzer, A. (1995). Stage-level predicates and individual-level predicates. In G. N. Carlson &F. J. Pelletier (Eds.), The generic book (pp. 125–G175). Chicago, IL: University of
Chicago Press.
Krifka, M. (1999). At least some determiners aren’t determiners. In K. Turner (Ed.), The394

semantics/pragmatics interface from different points of view (pp. 257–291).
Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Kuno, S. (1973). The structure of the Japanese language. Cambridge, MA: MIT press.
Kuroda, S.-Y. (1972). The categorical and thetic judgement. Foundations of Language, 9,
153–185.
Kuroda, S.-Y. (2005). Focusing on the matter of topic: A study of wa and ga in Japanese.
Journal of East Asian Linguistics, 14(1), 1–58.
Lago, S., Shalom, D. E., Sigman, M., Lau, E. F., & Phillips, C. (2015). Agreement processesin Spanish comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language, 82, 133–149.
Lardiere, D. (2008). Feature assembly in second language acquisition. In J. M. Liceras, H.
Zobl, & H. Goodluck, (Eds.), The role of formal features in second language
acquisition (pp. 106–140). New York, NY: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Lardiere, D. (2009). Some thoughts on the contrastive analysis of features in second language
acquisition. Second Language Research, 25(2), 173–227.
Lee, C. (2001). Contrastive topic and polarity in discourse. In A. M. Di Sciullo (Ed.),
Asymmetry in grammar (pp. 345–371). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Lee, E., & Lardiere, D. (2019). Feature reassembly in the acquisition of plural marking by
Korean and Indonesian bilinguals. Linguistic Approaches to Billingualism, 9(1), 73–
119.
Lee, E., & Shimojo, M. (2016). Mismatch of topic between Japanese and Korean. Journal of
East Asian Linguistics, 25(1), 81–112.
Lee, H. Y. (2013). Definiteness effects in Korean numeral classifier constructions. Revista da
ABRALIN, 12(1), 253–267
Liddell, T. M., & Kruschke, J. K. (2018). Analyzing ordinal data with metric models: What
could possibly go wrong? Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 79, 328–348.
Li, Y.-H. A. (1999). Plurality in a classifier language. Journal of East Asian Linguistics, 8(1),39575–99.
Luce, R. D. (1986). Response times: Their role in inferring elementary mental organization.
New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Luka, B. J., & Barsalou, L. W. (2005). Structural facilitation: Mere exposure effects forgrammatical acceptability as evidence for syntactic priming in comprehension.
Journal of Memory and Language, 52(3), 436–459.
Lyons, C. (1999). Definiteness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Maekawa, K., Yamazaki, M., Ogiso, T., Maruyama, T., Ogura, H., Kashino, W., & Den, Y.
(2014). Balanced corpus of contemporary written Japanese. Language Resources and
Evaluation, 48(2), 345–371.
Mai, Z., & Yuan, B. (2016). Uneven reassembly of tense, telicity and discourse features in L2
acquisition of the Chinese shì … de cleft construction by adult English speakers.
Second Language Research, 32(2), 247–276.
Maratsos, M. P. (1976). The Use of definite and indefinite reference in young children.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Marsden, H. (2005). Quantifier scope in non-native Japanese: A comparative interlanguage
study of Chinese-, English- and Korean-speaking learners (Unpublished doctoral
dissertation). Durham University.
Marsden, H. (2008). Pair-list readings in Korean-Japanese, Chinese-Japanese and EnglishJapanese interlanguage. Second Language Research, 24, 189–226.
Marsden, H. (2009). Distributive quantifier scope in English-Japanese and Korean-JapaneseInterlanguage. Language Acquisition, 16(3), 135–177.
Marsden, H., Whong, M., & Gil, K.-H. (2018). What’s in the textbook and what’s in themind: polarity item “any” in learner English. Studies in Second Language Acquisition,40(1), 91–118.
Master, P. A. (1987). A cross-linguistic interlanguage analysis of the acquisition of the396English article system (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). UCLA.
Matsui, T. (2000). Bridging and relevance. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Milin, P., Divjak, D., & Baayen, R. H. (2017). A learning perspective on individual
differences in skilled reading: Exploring and exploiting orthographic and semantic
discrimination cues. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, andCognition, 43(11), 1730–1751.
Miyamoto, E. T. (2002). Case markers as clause boundary inducers in Japanese. Journal of
Psycholinguistic Research, 31(4), 307–347.
Mohri, F., & Isse, Y. (2018). Dainigengo syutoku ni okeru bogo no yakuwari ni tuite [Therole of native language in second language acquisition]. The Bulletin of Central
Research Institute Fukuoka University, 6, 1–6.
Montrul, S., & Slabakova, R. (2003). Competence similarities between native and near-native
speakers: An investigation of the preterite-imperfect contrast in Spanish. Studies inSecond Language Acquisition, 25(3), 351–398.
Mosel, U., & Hovdhaugen, E. (1992). Samoan reference grammar. Oslo: Scandinavian
University Press.
Nakanishi, K. (2007). Formal properties of measurement constructions. Berlin: De Gruyter.
Nakanishi, K. (2008). The syntax and semantics of floating numeral quantifiers. In S.
Miyagawa & M. Saito (Eds.), Handbook of Japanese linguistics (pp. 287–319).
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Nakanishi, K., & Tomioka, S. (2004). Japanese plurals are exceptional. Journal of East Asian
Linguistics, 13(2), 113–140.
Nemoto, N. (2005). On mass denotations of bare nouns in Japanese and Korean. Linguistics,
43(2), 383–413.
Nemoto, N. (2015). On the occurrences of anaphoric bare NPs in Japanese. Linguistics, 53(5),1203–1231.

397

Nihongo Journal (2002). Room sharing. Nihongo Journal, 2000.6, 46–47.
Ochi, M. (2012). Universal numeric quantifiers in Japanese. IBERIA: An International
Journal of Theoretical Linguistics, 4(2), 40–77.
Okuma, T. (2019). Acquisition of floating quantifiers by L1 English speakers of L2 Japanese.
In M. M. Brown & B. Dailey (Eds.), Proceedings of the 43rd Annual Boston
University Conference on Language Development (pp. 496–508). Somerville, MA:
Cascadilla Press.
Orfitelli, R., & Polinsky. M. (2017). When performance masquerades as comprehension:
Grammaticality judgments in non-native speakers. In M. Kopotev, A. Mustajoki, & O.
Lyashevskaya (Eds.), Quantitative approaches to the Russian language (pp. 197–
211). New York, NY: Routledge.
Parrish, B. (1987). A new look at methodologies in the study of article acquisition for learnersof ESL. Language learning, 37(3), 361–384.
Pearlmutter, N. J., Garnsey, S. M., & Bock, K. (1999). Agreement processes in sentencecomprehension. Journal of Memory and Language, 41(3), 427–456.
Peirce, J., Gray, J. R., Simpson, S., MacAskill, M., Höchenberger, R., Sogo, H., & Lindeløv,
J. K. (2019). PsychoPy2: Experiments in behavior made easy. Behavior Research
Methods, 51(1), 195–203.
Prévost, P., & White, L. (2000). Missing surface inflection or impairment in second language
acquisition? Evidence from tense and agreement. Second Language Research, 16(2),103–133.
Ramchand, G., & Svenonius, P. (2008). Mapping a parochial lexicon onto a universal
semantics. In M. Biberauer (Ed.), Limits of syntactic variation (pp. 219–245).
Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
R Core Team. (2018). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation
for statistical computing, Vienna, Austria. https://www.R-project.org/.

398

Roberts, C. (2002). Demonstratives as definites. In K. van Deemter & R. Kiibble (Eds.),
Information sharing (pp. 89–196). Stanford, CA: CSLI.
Roberts, L., & Felser, C. (2011). Plausibility and recovery from garden paths in second
language sentence processing. Applied Psycholinguistics, 32(2), 299–331.
Roberts, L., Gullberg, M., & Indefrey, P. (2008). Online pronoun resolution in L2 discourse:
L1 influence and general learner effects. Studies in Second Language Acquisition,30(3), 333–357.
Roberts, L., & Liszka, S. A. (2013). Processing tense/aspect-agreement violations on-line in
the second language: A self-paced reading study with French and German L2 learnersof English. Second Language Research, 29(4), 413–439.
Robertson, D. (2000). Variability in the use of the English article system by Chinese learnersof English. Second Language Research, 16(2), 135–172.
Rule, S., & Marsden, E. (2006). The acquisition of functional categories in early Frenchsecond language grammars: The use of finite and non-finite verbs in negative
contexts. Second Language Research, 22(2), 188–218.
Sahkai, H. (2015). Demonstratives and Information Structure in Spoken Estonian. In M. M.
Jocelyne Fernandez-Vest, J. Van Valin, & D. Robert. (Eds.), Information structuringof spoken language from a cross-linguistic perspective (pp. 211–235). Berlin: De
Gruyter.
Sawasaki, K. (2007). L2 reading by learners of Japanese: A comparison of different L1s(Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Ohio State University.
Schaeffer, J., & Matthewson, L. (2005). Grammar and pragmatics in the acquisition of article
systems. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory, 23(1), 53–101.
Schütze, C. T. (1996). The empirical base of linguistics: Grammaticality judgments andlinguistics methodology. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago.
Schütze, C. T., & Sprouse, J. (2013). Judgement data. In R. J. Podesva & S. Devyani (Eds.),

399

Research methods in linguistics (pp. 27–50). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Schwartz, B. D., & Sprouse, R. A. (1996). L2 cognitive states and the full transfer/full accessmodel. Second Language Research, 12(1), 40–72.
Schwartz, F. (2009). Two types of definites in natural language (Unpublished doctoral
dissertation). University of Massachusetts at Amherst.
Schwartz, F. (2013). Two kinds of definites cross‐linguistically. Language and Linguistics
Compass, 7(10), 534–559.
Schwartz, F. (2019). Weak vs. strong definite articles: Meaning and form across languages. In
A.-G. Ana, J. P. Loyo, & V. V.-R. Maldonado (Eds.), Definiteness across languages(pp.1–37). Berlin: Language Science Press.
Schwarzschild, R. (2002). The grammar of measurement. In Semantics and linguistic theory(Vol. 12, pp. 225–245).
Shibatani, M. (1990). The languages of Japan. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Shimanskaya, E., & Slabakova, R. (2015). Re-assembling objects: A new look at the L2
acquisition of pronominal clitics. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 1–18.
Shin, K. Y. (2009). Numeral Quantifiers: NP modifiers and relational quantity nominals.
Language Research, 45(1), 131–156.
Shin, K. Y. (2017). Partitive descriptions in Korean. Glossa: a journal of general linguistics,
2(1), 1–21.
Slabakova, R. (2003). Semantic evidence for functional categories in interlanguage grammars.
Second Language Research, 19(1), 42–75.
Slabakova, R. (2006). Learnability in the second language acquisition of semantics: A
bidirectional study of a semantic parameter. Second Language Research, 22(4), 498–
523.
Slabakova, R. (2008). Meaning in the second language. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Slabakova, R. (2009). Features or parameters: Which one makes second language acquisition400

easier, and more interesting to study? Second Language Research, 25(2), 313–324.
Slabakova, R. (2016). Second language acquisition, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Slabakova, R., & Ivanov, I. (2011). A more careful look at the syntax-discourse interface.
Lingua, 121(4), 637–651.
Smith, M. (2016). Testing the shallow structure hypothesis in L2 Japanese (Unpublisheddoctoral dissertation). Michigan State University.
Snape, N. (2008). The acquisition of the English determiner phrase by L2 learners: Japaneseand Spanish, Saarbrücken: VDM Verlag Dr. Müller.
Snyder, W. (2000). An experimental investigation of syntactic satiation effects. Linguistic
Inquiry, 31(3), 575–582.
Sorace, A. (2006). Gradedness and optionality in mature and developing grammars. In G.
Fanselow, C. Féry, R. Vogel, & M. Schlesewsky (Eds.), Gradience in Grammar (pp.
106–123). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Sorace, A. (2011). Pinning down the concept of “interface” in bilingualism. Linguistic
Approaches to Bilingualism, 1(1), 1–33.
Sorace, A., & Filiaci, F. (2006). Anaphora resolution in near-native speakers of Italian.
Second Language Research, 22(3), 339–368.
Sorace, A., & Serratrice, L. (2009). Internal and external interfaces in bilingual language
development: Beyond structural overlap. International Journal of Bilingualism, 13(2),195–210.
Spinner, P. (2013). The second language acquisition of number and gender in Swahili: Afeature reassembly approach. Second Language Research, 29(4), 455–479.
Spinner, P., & Gass, S. M. (2019). Using judgments in second language acquisition research.
New York, NY: Routledge.
Sprouse, J. (2009). Revisiting satiation: Evidence for an equalization response strategy.
Linguistic Inquiry, 40(2), 329–341.

401

Sprouse, J. (2011). A validation of Amazon Mechanical Turk for the collection of
acceptability judgments in linguistic theory. Behavior Research Methods, 43(1), 155–
167.
Sprouse, J. (2015). Three open questions in experimental syntax. Linguistics Vanguard, 1(1),
89–100.
Sprouse, J., Schütze, C. T., & Almeida, D. (2013). A comparison of informal and formal
acceptability judgments using a random sample from Linguistic Inquiry 2001–2010.
Lingua, 134, 219–248.
Sprouse, R. A. (2006). Full transfer and relexification. In C. Lefebvre, L. White, & C. Jourdan(Eds.), L2 acquisition and Creole genesis: Dialogues (pp. 169–181). Philadelphia, PA:
John Benjamins.
Strawson, P. F. (1950). On referring. Mind, 59 (235), 320–344.
Stringer, D. (2010). The gloss trap. In Linguistic relativity in Z.-H. Han & T. Cadierno (Eds.),
SLA: Thinking for speaking (pp. 102–124). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Su, J. (2019). Reassembly of plural and human features in the L2 acquisition of Chinese by
adult Korean speakers. Second Language Research, 35(4), 529–555.
The Japan foundation (2017). JF nihongo kyooiku sutandaado ni motozuita hyoka to nihongo
nooryoku siken no goohi hantei to no kankei [Relation between JFS-based evaluation
and JLPT pass or fail determination]. Retrieved from https://jfstandard.jp/pdf/jfs_jlpt_report2017.pdf
Thomas, M. (1989). The acquisition of English articles by first- and second-language learners.
Applied Psycholinguistics, 10(3), 335–355.
Trahey, M., & White, L. (1993). Positive evidence and preemption in the second language
classroom. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15(2), 181–204.
Trenkic, D. (2007). Variability in second language article production: Beyond therepresentational deficit vs. processing constraints debate. Second Language Research,402

23(3), 289–327.
Trenkic, D. (2008). The representation of English articles in second language grammars:
Determiners or adjectives? Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 11(1), 1–18.
Trenkic, D., Mirkovic, J., & Altmann, G. T. (2014). Real-time grammar processing by nativeand non-native speakers: Constructions unique to the second language. Bilingualism:
Language and Cognition, 17(2), 237–257.
Trueswell, J. C., Tanenhaus, M. K., & Garnsey, S. M. (1994). Semantic influences on parsing:Use of thematic role information in syntactic ambiguity resolution. Journal of Memory
and Language, 33(3), 285–318.
Trueswell, J. C., Tanenhaus, M. K., & Kello, C. (1993). Verb-specific constraints in sentence
processing: Separating effects of lexical preference from garden-paths. Journal of
Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 19(3), 528–553.
Tryzna, M. (2009). Questioning the validity of the Article Choice Parameter and theFluctuation Hypothesis: Evidence from L2 English article use by L1 Polish and L1
Mandarin Chinese speakers. In M. del P. G. Mayo & R. Hawkins (Eds.), Second
language acquisition of articles: Empirical findings and theoretical implications (pp.
67–86). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Tsimpli, I., & Dimitrakopoulou, M. (2007). The interpretability hypothesis: Evidence from
wh-interrogatives in second language acquisition. Second Language Research, 23(2),215–242.
Tsimpli, I., & Sorace, A. (2006). Differentiating interfaces: L2 performance in syntaxsemantics and syntax-discourse phenomena. In D. Bamman, T. Magnitskaia, & C.
Zaller (Eds.), Proceedings of the 30th Annual Boston University Conference on
Language Development (pp. 653–664). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.
Tsutsumi, R. (2012). Gendai Nihongo Shijishi no Soogooteki Kenkyu [An overall study of thedemonstratives of modern Japanese]. Tokyo: Coco Publishing Company.

403

Tucker, M. A., Idrissi, A., & Almeida, D. (2015). Representing number in the real-timeprocessing of agreement: Self-paced reading evidence from Arabic. Frontiers in
Psychology, 6, Article 347. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00347
Tuniyan, E. (2018). Second language acquisition of definiteness: A feature-based contrastive
approach to second language learnability (Unpublished doctoral dissertation).
University of Southampton.
Unsworth, S. (2005). Child L2, adult L2, child L1: Differences and similarities. A study on theacquisition of direct object scrambling in Dutch. Utrecht, LOT.
Verkuyl, H. J. (1981). Numerals and quantifiers in X-bar-syntax and their semanticinterpretation. In T. M. V. Janssen, M. J. B. Stokhof, & J. A. G. Groenendijk (Eds.),
Formal methods in the study of language (pp. 567–599). Amsterdam: MathematicalCentre Tracts.
Vermeulen, R. (2012). Word order variation and information structure in Japanese andKorean. In A. Neeleman & R. Vermeulen (Eds.), The Syntax of Topic, Focus, andContrast: An Interface-based Approach (pp. 77–118). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.
von Heusinger, K. (2011). Specificity. In K. von Heusinger, C. Maienborn, & P. Portner(Eds.), Semantics: An international handbook of natural language Meaning (Vol. 2,
pp. 1025-1058). Berlin: De Gruyter.
Wakabayashi, S. (1998). Systematicity in the use of the definite article by Japanese learners ofEnglish. Bulletin of Gunma prefectural women's university, 19, 91–107.
Watanabe, A. (2006). Functional projections of nominals in Japanese: Syntax of classifiers.
Natural Language & Linguistic Theory, 24(1), 241–306.
White, L. (2003). Second language acquisition and Universal Grammar. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
White, L. (2009). Some questions about feature re-assembly. Second Language Research,
25(2), 343–348.

404

White, L. (2011). Second language acquisition at the interfaces. Lingua, 121(4), 577–590.
White, L. (2018), What is easy and what is hard: Lessons from linguistic theory and SLA
research. In J. Cho, M. Iverson, T. Judy, T. Leal, & E. Shimanskaya (Eds.) Meaningand structure in second language acquisition (pp. 263–282). Amsterdam: John
Benjamins.
Winter, B. (2020). Statistics for linguists: an introduction using R. New York, NY:
Routledge.
Wolter, L. (2006). That's that: The semantics and pragmatics of demonstrative noun phrases(Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of California at Santa Cruz.
Yang, M., & Ionin, T. (2009). L2 English articles and the computation of uniqueness. In J.
Crawford, K. Otaki, & M. Takahashi (Eds.), Proceedings of the 3rd Conference on
Generative Approaches to Language Acquisition North America (GALANA) (pp. 325–
335). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.
Yoshida, E. (2011). Referring Expressions in English and Japanese: patterns of use indialogue processing. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Yuan, B. (2010). Domain-wide or variable-dependent vulnerability of the semantics—syntax
interface in L2 acquisition? Evidence from wh-words used as existential polarity
words in L2 Chinese grammars. Second Language Research, 26(2), 219–260.
Yuan, B. (2014). ‘Wh-on-earth’ in Chinese speakers’ L2 English: Evidence of dormant
features. Second Language Research, 30(4), 515–554.
Zhang, L. (2020). The influence of first language at the semantics-pragmatics interface:
Evidence from definite and demonstrative determiners in L2 English. Linguistic
Approaches to Bilingualism. Advance online publication.
https://doi.org/10.1075/lab.18096.zha
Zufferey, S., Mak, W., Degand, L., & Sanders, T. (2015). Advanced learners’ comprehensionof discourse connectives: The role of L1 transfer across on-line and off-line tasks.
Second Language Research, 31(3), 389–411.

405