Fukushima National College
FukushimaNational
CollegeofofTechnology
Technology

t}kwg
vJ6
e:a{s
H zscAecpt.
ftBpxtwH ewh t c ageediMuetwmdi-imasufiLong-distance wh-movement

developinggrammar

and morphologicalrealisationof C in thelearnersof English : A preliminary studyof Japanese

14 E 9 n eeff)(rput
ty pt] S di'(BANNAI Masanori)
Abstract
language(L2)acquisition of morphology
extracted
by long-distance
wh-movement,

the second
In this paper,Ireport on a study that investigatedC, which

CP from whichheads the embedded

a wh-phrase

was

of

A

was
adinterrogativesentences
withlong-distance
wh-movementtask including
grammaticality judgementthat learners
levelsof proficiency.Results revealed
ministered to Japaneselearnersof English of different

acquirethe that form of C earlier

tion indicated that the spec-head agreement

configuration

the head C isrealised as that. These data are compatible
view

the acquisition

that

of

Moreover, their judgementof Subjacency
viola-

than itsnull counterpart.

inembedded
with

CP ismorecorrectly

the data from Ll acquisition

observed

when

and

studies,thegrammaticaloperations isgoverned by UG.

1. Introduction
has attracted a considerable
nurnberof researchers
workingwithin the
The acquisition of wh-movement
Felix,and Ioup,1988;Li,1998;Martohardjono & Gair,framework of generative grammar (Bley-Vroman,
others).
The main reason for this is its
1989, 1990;Uziel.1993;White, 1992 arnongst
1993;Schachter,mustwhich all theories of grammar
provide an explanation for,i,e,,a whproperty of"displacement",

distantfrom where it is interpreted (Yusa,1999). In the caseanditsrelatedof English(JLEs),in particular,acquisition of Englishwh-movementof Japaneselearners
in a position in a sentencephrase canappearconstraints

presents the following conditions:operates in the L2 but not(1) a. some principleb, the inputundermines

the Ll(White,1992:446)

the L2 grammar

the L2 learnerhas access to UniversalGrammar (UG;
wecan testwhether
Given these conditions,
1992).
Chomsky, 1981)or not (White,in the developIn thispaper, I will report on a study concerning thestatus of long-distancewh-movementof
how JLEs with differentlevels
ing L2 grammar of JLEs, The main focus of this study was to investigate
of head C (i.e.,phonologicallyrealised
proficiencytreat two differentrealisations
The datasuggests early acquisitionby the long-distance
wh-movement.
O)'crossed'simultaneously

allows

JLEs to operate long-distancewh-movement

form that and null formof the that form,which

successive cyclically.

On the other

hand,

with
itsgrammaticalitwill be suggested that acquisition of the / form proceeds in a rnore gradual manner,
until the learner'sfluency
isrelatively advanced.
featuresunspecified
in English
First,
I
will
briefly
discuss
the phenomenonof wh-movement
This paper isorganised
as follows:
Second,some previous acquisition
inthe framework of Relativized Minimalityas describedby Rizzi (1990).

':

asUI\ffljePH7K-maetN (AP.) (Lxb3rarptfiJ[l7ftrz3o)-87NII-Electronic Library Service

Fukushima National
FukushimaNationalCollege

College ofofTechnology
Technology

erxseif eg43e (2oo2) aggx\'n'eegps#tt
studies

discussed, Third, the methodology

areand a discussionof the results
andoffor further study

suggestiens

in the study is discussed,followedby a presentation

employed

Finally,implieationsof the findingsfor L2 acquisition

the study.

discussedin the concludingaretheorysection.

2. Theoretical background'
In English,a wh-question
clauseis formed by movingainitialCP). In cases
position (Spec,

derivationof the wh-question

isgenerally

from the position where itisinterpreted
to thewh-phrase

isextracted

the wh-phrase

whereschematisedasfrom anembeddedclause,theclause,andfollows:(2) a. Whatido you think [[pt! [c･[cthat] [ipJohn bought tJ]]?
b. What, do you think [cpt,' [c･[cZ5]["･John bought tE]]]?
(2)shows
moves

that the wh-phrase

is extracted

first to the Spec,CP position

phonologically

In cases in which'that-trace'(3) a,

ofthe embedded

clause,that or phonologically null

realised

then to thee,is extracted from the subject

the wh-phraseintermediate
complementizer
induces aposition of the verb in the embedded

Spec,CP of the matrix clause by1973). As can be noted in (2),the intermediate(Chornsky,
complementizer
canSuccessiveCyclic Movement

be eitherfrorn the object

be null.

must

clause,however, thepositionof the embedded
In the adult Englishgrammar,
the existenceof that typicallyeffect.

'Whoidothink [cpt,' [c･[cthat] [TptE bought this bike]]]?

youb, Whof do you thinkt; [c･[c/] [iptibought this bike]]]?
[cp(e.g.,
Chomsky, 1981;1995;Rizzi,
1990), particularlyin terms of itsrelevancewith the Empty CategoryPrinciple(ECP),
which
is the principle
determiningthe licensingof ernpty
categories
wh-traces).i
Here, the point we need an explanatien(e.g.,
foris why (3a)isruled out while (3b)isruled in.
Revising Chomsky's (l981)
notionof
Rizzi'sC1990)
Relativized
Minimality offers an ECP
whichanexplanationforprovides(3).3
The that-traceeffect has longbeendiscussed
in generative grammar'

tminimality',!

(4) The Empty CategoryPrinciple:
A non-pronominal

empty

categorymust

be properly head-governed(FormalLicensing)

1990: 87)
(Rizzi,(5) Head Government:X head-governsY iff
X E {A,N, P, V, Agr, T}
X m-commands

Y

No barrierintervenes
Relativized Minimality i6 respected"Properhead-government"in (4)is further defined:(6) XO properly head-governE Y if Y is immediately dominated by the immediate projectionof XO
InRizzi'ssystem,
subjectthe subject

traee. In keeping withtrace in (3a)is not properly head-governed,
as INFL failsto c-command
Chomsky (1981),
the complementizer
that isforgovernment.
`inert'theHence-88NII-Electronic
NII-Electronic

Library Service

Fukushima National College
FukushimaNational
CollegeofofTechnology
Technology

IJ 6 ftenme
WH Uitt C anagOffmatsijdi
lkve: H",K,eer.\ewgetts

furthersuggests thatthenull complementizer/ can be a potential(3a)isruled out by the ECP. Rizzi(1990)
whena wh-operator
or trace occupies
itsspecifierin special circumstances as in (3b),proper head-governor
position (p.51):(7) [ept!wh [c'[c/] [ip･･･
Under this configuration,
erninganothercan be expanded

the null complementizerasHence the grammaticality of (3b),Rizziassumes

categories.

head as well as an independent
head with

Agr,whichisa memberofthe gov-that Agr can be a featureassigned

toitsown inflectional
projection(AgrP).The featureof Agr

with
its specifier: the specifier position must be occupied
in the head C isgenerally licensedby coindexation
inEnglishcan be realised
as that or Agr
by a Wh operator or trace, In other words, a tensed complelnentizer
by a wh-operator
or trace,
as in (8)1990:52).`IfAgr isselected for the head C, its Specisfilled(Rizzi,(8)co.(Xh,a,`]Now (3b)isschematised

as follows:(9) Whoi do you think [epti' [c･[c/AGei] [iptibought this bike]]]?
Here itisimportant to note that thisSpec-headagreement
or

adjunctsarefrom the embedded

extracted

properly head-governed by otherclause, as

the verb(i,e.,

elements

One problem of this proposal was the morphology

In explaining
clausesandpredicative]therelativeapparentclauses,

Rizziproposes to capture(11) a, CD +predicative, +Agr
b. CO -predicative,+Agr-predicative,
-Agr
c,
CO

d. CO +predicative,rmAgrdiscussed
above,

=

that

=

/

=

that

=

O

is

Tense).
clauses

(10).

as

tJ]]]

realisation(FromDoherty,2000)
of

CO in English verb

our question
ishow the learners
aequireofclausecornplement

the difference
betweenthese types of CPs as [+fform of CO isas follows:

the detailsof our present study, let us brieflylook at some

3 . 0vert that in the acquisition

objects

the chest]]]]morphologicalfeatureof CO. The distributionof overt

Given the systemor

Cipi[e･[cp[c(that!/)[rp
you opened
contradicting

to satisfy the ECP whenin such cases the tracein the embedded

C in relativeof(10) a. thekey [cpQpi[cr[cthat [iptiopens
b. the chest

isnot required

previous research

this system.
on

Before turning to

Ll and L2 acquisition,

long-distance wh-movement

3.1 LI Engli$hin CP,5how do children acquiring
Ll Englishacquire thisAssuming the plausibility of Spec-headagreement
system?
Thornton (1990)
found that heryoung child subjects acquiring Ll English used long-distance wh`that-questions')
crossingthat (henceforth
forboth subjects and objects extraction cases.
movement-89NII-Electronic Library Service

Fukushima National
FukushimaNationalCollege

College ofofTechnology
Technology

ng43･g･(2002) reUX\fi-egSPE\KMZSIee(12) a. Who

do you think that the dwarfs licked? (Thornton,
1990: 314)

b. Who do you think that ate this? (Thornton,
1990:299)
Furthermore,the use of `that-questions'
initially
predotninated that of
distancewh-questions
wrongly

crossing

a nullin CP to the CP headedby that, Then they wrongiy

Spec-head agreement

apply

leadsher to claim

This observation

complementizer).

the long(i.e.,tnon-that-questions'head-governor.
She proposes the possibilitythat children obligatorily

that the children

treat that as a proper

this to the cases

apply

the object

with(Thornton,
1990:291).6Assuming these operations, theof (12a-b)
can be illustratedas (13a-b)
respectively,
as well as that withextraction
structures

the subject

extraction(13) a. Whoido you think [cpt, [c･[cthatAcR,][Tpthe dwarfs lickedti]]]?
b. Whoido you think [cpti [c･[cthatAGRi][ipt,ate this]]]?
This observation
to usesignificant

seems

Why do children start

we

that

consider

"the

that

with

for the agreeing

Englishacquisition

have ashouldamountconsiderableoftive] CO. This in turn, by the Uniqueness Prineiple,
makes(1990)

Namely, children in their earlier

stagesofinput of declarative sentences

with

a

/ in their lexicon as the non-agreeing

Thisleadschi]clren to registercomplementizer.

the general tendency

overridingarethan null form CZf? Thornton

forrn rather

the Uniqueness Principle
1989)isat work.
(Pinker,suggestschildren

1990eiting Lasnik,1990).
possible" (Thornton,

forms wherever

reducedwhenchildrennullform for [-predicaform of

the agreeingthatassumeLl

CO is that (Thornton,
1990: 308).
[Lpredicative]
3,2 Japanese learnersof English

Given the above

paradigm

syntactic

the

and

process of Ll acquisition,question is how JLEs, whose

Ll doesnot have overt

C morphologyCP.

in embedded

argues that JLEs might(1998)

Arimotoinsertedadjunctthat JLEs arephrase andasnormally

explicitly(2a). His argument

Japanese college

what

incorrectly
assurne the main
isin the complernent

actuallytaught this way,derivedfrom hisstudy

and

that

turn to L2 data. Our

let us now

acquirewh-movement,

long-distane movement

and¢clausesuch

clauseasthe mainthey are

not

often

you think" as an

``do

as

He points out
predicate.

taught questions withhe gave the following set of declarative
sentences

where

the

that

to 31

students.

(14) a. I think John bought an apple.
b. I think that John bought an apple:'
The students

were

asked

The assumption(14a-b).
if they`knew'

thatto form a wh-questionwasthat learnerswould

the wh-phrase

canPutting aside the detailsof his subjects'(14a),while

only

questiening

rnove

move

successive

responses,

the underlined

the wh-phrase

crossing

cyclicallythe results

showedphrase an apple for each

all the wayup

to the rnatrix

the embeddedthat 23 subjects

clausesentence

Spec,CPboundary.

provided (15a)for

15 provided (15b)for (14b).

(15) a, What do you think John bought?
b. What do you think that John bought?
This differencein the subjects'
long-distance wh-movement

responses

to the two sentences(FromArimoto,1998: 267)

to these learners
wasa]mostwas

attributed

exelusively

to the faet that the inputof thelike (16).

-90NII-Electronic
NII-Electronic

Library Service

Fukushima National College
FukushimaNational
CollegeofofTechnology
Technology

tupt: HISJ,zaF.\egZts

geYt C eqagOnemeabNth

VS 4ftepxtWH(16) a, Who do you think brokethis window?
b. What didyou say your name

(FromArimoto, 1998:269)

was?

/. Drawing on the way Japanese learners are normally
Theseare the cases with a null complementizer
initiallyassume
that the clause do you thinh is justtaught inclass, he furtherclaims
that these learners
andthat what followsisthe main clause predicate.
In other words, learners
after the wh-phrase,`inserted'

produce the correct

might
movement,
realisesurface(15a)without

forrnofknowing the possibilityof long-distance whon the other
hand, learnersare made to(14b),For the sentence with an overt cornplementizerof the rnatrix
that theclause foilowing that isa complement

thinh, Hence,only the learners
who

verb

question(15b)can be assured to have known the possibilityof long-distance wh-produced the appropriate
movement.

In Arimoto's explanation,
wh-phraseacrossbe moved

may

the JLEs start

the short-moveme.nt

withdoesnot allow them to movewhichboundary,Then laterintheirdevelopment,theysomehow

a clauseboundary, whichacross a clauseanalysis of learning strategy

may

seem

is overtly

reasonable

markedfirstsight,atthat a wh-phrase

realisethat. Thislineof

by the cornplernentizer
As Arimoto's claim

a

would

entailthat JLEs

however,it appears incompatible with the assertion
generally held thatlearners'
developmentalL2 grammars are fairlygoverned by UG principlesfrom relatively early stages ofacquisition,evenin the instruction-only
environment(e.g.,White & Juffs,1998), Moreover, it isnot clear
start

why

with

a

structure,

wrong

JLEs assume

analysedinitially,or how the insertedphrase

the short-movement

as the main

movernents
produced lesslong-distancethat hissubjects

werepossible that manyof･ / over

that

using

the

his subjects

to be crossed

CP headedby null C. More crucially,taking a cemplement

clauseyou think" gets properly re-"docrossing"insertion"

Contrary to Arimoto's (1998)claim,

strategy.

had alreadythe factthat learners

it does not itselfconstitutethat than those without

learnedthat and cr for embedded

evidence

it is quiteC, but simply preferred

by long-distance
wh-movement,S4, Research hypothe$is
Let us supposethat L2 learnersacquire

the that formata veryembeddedsentences.
L2 learnersare able to cornprehend
CP headed by / or that are'as follows:
embedded

early

stage

of

development, i.e.,
as soon

Their interlanguagestructuresasinvolvingan

Ken brokeMary's bike]]](17) John thinks [cp[c･[c/lthat][Jp
Let us furtherassume

that L2 learners

ispossiblein a successivethat long-distancewh-movement`know'

1995), it is notisquite a general linguisticphenomenon (Chomsky,
by assuming
the Spec-headagreement
configuraimplausible that L2 learners
start processingwh-movement
Ll subjects, however, L2 learners
might
initialIy
assume overt that as thetion in CP, LikeThornton's(1990)
agreement
cyclic fashion,As Spec-head

CO,Then,somewhere[-predicative]CO.
form of [-predicative]

agreeing

form oflaterintheir development,
they learn the appropriate

5. Experiment
5.1 Grammaticalityjudgementtask
Te test the abovetask (GJT)was
hypotheses,a grammaticality judgement

sentencesinterrogativewiththe ernbedded

tively,and those wi･th the embedded
as in

subject

or object extracted

subiectorobjectextracted

anddevised. This test included

crossingthatasin (18a-b)
respec-raised crossing the nullcomplementizer

respectively,(18c-d)-91NII-Electronic Library Service

Fukushima National
FukushimaNationalCollege

College ofofTechnology
Technology(2oo2) tskl\fi-eggFH7K

era$aee ag43e(18) a.

'Who

do you think that likesMary?

b. What do you think that Mary bought?
Who do you think likesMary?

c,d. What do you think Mary bought?
wh-in terrogatives
which

Also included in this task wereelement

raisedacross(19) a.

(19a)or the complementizer

the wh-relative

What

are

involveda Subjacencyviolation,you ]ooking for the man

who

that

with

anextracted

(19b)

made?

b..'What have you kepta dog that eats?
The structureofrelative

(20)

CP

/

× C'

Spec

C
a.b.

Itwas
any

takes place are illustrated
as follows:

before wh-movement

clauses/×A(.,.theman)who /that(...adog)Op

hypothesised that learnerswouldIP

the sand

rnade

eats

respondcat

castlefood

differentlyto thesetwo types of relative clauses ifthere wasdifferencein the status of that and O.

The task also included grammaticalthe numbersofgrammaticalin the Table 1. The actualand ungrammaticalandungrammaticalsentencesused

sentences,declarative
sentences in order to counter-balance
The distribtttionof the test sentences isshownin the task are provided in the Appendix.

Table l/Distributionof the testsentences
grammatical333

declarativethat-clause'ungrammaticalTotal

333

666

3

333333/-clause
RelativeelauseinterrogativeSubject extraction

frorn that-clauseObieet extraction

from that-clause

Subiect extraction

from O-clauseObiect extraction

frornO-clause

Subjacency violation

withwh-relative

Subjacency

with

that

violation

333

33

18

total

18

36

5.2 ParticipantsStudents(age:17-20)at Fukushima National College of Technology participatedin the study, They had beenlearningEnglishfor4 to 7 years, with their exposure to Englishbeingalmost exclusively
limited to classroorn
instructions,which
they normally
had had two to three hours a week, where government-approved-92NII-Electronic
NII-Electronic

Library Service

Fukushima National College
FukushimaNational
CollegeofofTechnology
Technology

lkN : H"A.eege.\ewXlcts li 6 ftvaee
wH lfute c eeeeoffmetsij
tu
text books wereused,hours-a-weekgrammar-basedclassesreading-based

English-speaking
country

formoreSincetheyentered the College,
they had beenreceiving
andPlacementTest2 (Allan,
1992)wasThe Grammar TestPart 1 cornprises(200questions in total), The remaining

Only the first50 of the grammar

sectionbetween proficiencygroups wereclassification

learners
and 27"Elementary""Advanced"

with

100 questions test

The dividinglines

to their scores,

the percentage
scoresthe fulltest,on which theofthe L2 Englishlearners
isoriginallyoflearners,24

drawn in accordance

basedon.9 As a result, there were 22
learners.
Unfortunately only 2 participantsperforrned"Basic""Intermediate]'follows,the participants' performancelevel. Hence, in whatthegiven to the participantsdue to time

wereParticipants
weredividedintoproficiencygroups according

restraints.

None of them had livedinan

the Grammar Test Part 1 of the Oxford

to 126 students.

administeredfirst50 of the 100questions testinggrammar

listening
comprehension.

classes.

than two weeks.

to grasp the general proficiencylevelsof the subjects,

In orderanconversation

one-hour-a-weektwo-

additional

discussedfor three proficiency groups: Intermediate, Elementary

Basic.

andatgroups for the GJT isas

The distributionofthein the Table2,
participantsin terms of their scores isillustrated
Table 2: Participants'proficiencylevels
level

Proficiency

score

Above 45
advanced%80.82

40-41%66-7833-39%62-6431-32%56-6028.30%52-5426.27%46.5023-25Below%-elementary

basic

95%

42.45

intermediate

of

no.

participants-84.90o2o22624212724

46%

23
Max. 50

Totai 126

5.3 Procedure
The GJT was

during a normal

administeredpossibilityof the participants'performance

includedin the tasks, they werenecessary.

item a time andOK","Maybewrong"

andmeanings

to spelling,by circling
judgernent"Completely

oneof unfamiliar

if

words

tense or punctuation, to proceed

to go back to an itern they have already

not

of

done. Participants werefour choices:

OKi',"Perfectly

AIIthe instructions
were
given in Japanese,
the tasks in approximately
20 minutes.

wrong".

followedthe instructions,completing

AII subjects

the academicofquestions about

about errors related

instructedto provide their grammaticality"Maybethe endat

to askencouraged

They were also toldnot to worry

the test oneon

To minimise
the
year.
beingaffected by their lackof familiarity
withlexicalitems
class

5.4 Resu[tsThe GJT included3 tokens for eachsentence

type, makingof responses
for each sentence
81 for the Basic. In analysing
the data,

the total number

type as a group 66 for the Intermediate, 72 for the Elementary,
andresponses"Completely

OK" and"Perfectlywithwrong"

as"Rejected".

OK" were"MaybeThe results

the 3 groups are illustrated
in Tables3 andTable 3 showsthat, withdeclarative
sentencesthe exceptionofofsubsumedasthe GJT, and'4,
the sentencesthex"Accepted",'valuesandcomparing

involving a RC, the accuracy"Maybewrong"

andthe performance of'offorthejudgement

improvesas learners
advance in fluency,In particular, learners
appearto acquirethe-93NII-Electronic Library Service

Fukushima National College
FukushimaNational
CollegeofofTechnology
Technology-zaseg es43e eoo2)/. The difference
betweenthe Elementary group's reto that-clausesentences and /-clausesentences was significant(x!(1)= 5.544,p< O.025),while

complement

clausesponses

The results

thatear}ierthan that withpatterns were

exactlyof the long-distance
wh-interrogative

thesame forboth types of testsentences.
sentences

patterns was significant in both subj-that

responsep<with

two groups' responseothertsulmefigeFg\tt(x

showed2(2)=that the differenceamongthe 3 groups't(2)11.552,p< O.Ol)and SUB-wh (x9.797,=

O,Ol),For the subj-that sentences, in particular, the learners]
performance seems

proficiencylevelsare

to improve greatly while theirbetween Basic and Elementary(xZ(1)= 7.105,p<somewhere

O,Ol), There wasnodifference
betweenElementaryand Intermediate groups (x '(1) O,180,n.s.).
The differencein learners'
response patterns to the subj-/
sentenceswasneithersignificant

significant=

O.964,n.s.

forthe 3-group
Elementary-Intermediate,(forx!(1)=(x'(2)=2,492,n.s.) nor forthe 2-groupcornparisonscomparison,

forBasic-Elementary x Z(1),=2,444,n.s,).

Table 3/ Resultsof GJT (declarative
sentences)
Comparison

Response

Sentence
type

Group

groups

Accepted
INTELEBAStotal
5861

that-clause

3

among

Rejected

total

X'(2)

p

88%85%69%80%
811254412%15%31%20% 66

7281219 9.506

<O.Ol

56175

INTELEBAStotal
52644ra 8%36%54%34%
6I463714492%64%45%66%

that-clause(ungrammatical)

66
72

35.456

<O.Ol

9.003

<O.025

14,957

<O.Ol

3.598

n.s.

O.132

n.s.

81219

/-clause

INTELEBAStotal
5849

8S%68%69%74%
8232556 12%32%31%26%

66
72

56163

/-clause

81219

INTELEBAStoial
3162443 5%22%30%2e%
63(ungrammatical)

5657176(RCthat)Relativeclause

50

72

54157

81219

INTELEBAStotal
2930369544%42%44%43%
37

(RC-)
(ungrammatical)

nurnbers(N--27).

of

7281219

INTELEBAstotal
53
80%69%67%re%1322276220%31%33%28% 66

Relativeclause*The

95%78%70%80% 66

the subjects

of

each

56%58%56%57%

66

42

72

45124

81219

proficiency group

Comparison of results for the subj-thatandthe subj-/
differencefor the Intermediate group (x 2(1) := 7.190,
p<

were

as

follows/ INT (N=22),ELE (N=24),BAS

by each profieiencygroup indicateda signifieantO.05) but not forthe other groups.

-94NII-Electronic
NII-Electronic

Library Service

Fukushima National
FukushimaNationalCollege

College ofofTechnology
Technology

ljpt: H",K.ecpt.\ewUt tsCi 6ftEfimeWH gen e C anmea)ffmeemMdi
sentences)
Table4:Results of GJT (interrogative

Comparison among

Response
SentencetypeGroup'

groupsAceepted
Subiectextraction

from

3

Rejected

Total

INTELEBAStotal
1822428227%31%52%37%
48503913773%69%48%63%

X'(2)

p

66

that-clause

72(subj-that)

81219

11.552

<o.el

1.168

n,s.

2.492

n.s.

O.162

n,s.

9.797

<O.Ol

O.226

n.s,

(ungrammatical)
Objectextraction

frorn

INTELEBAStotal
4047

61%65%69%65%
262525rs39%35%31%35% 66
72

that-clause(obj-that)
Subjectextraction

56143

from

INTELEBAStotal
33/-clause

81219

se%42%54%49%
334237112
50%58%46%51% 66

3e4410772(subj-/)
Objectextraction

81219

from

INTELEBAStotal
33373910950%51%48%se%333542110se%49%52%50% 66/-clause

72(obj-/)

812J9

25435011838%60%62%54%
41
INTELEBAStotal

Subjacency violation
with

62%40%38%46%

2931101

wh-relative

66
72(SUB-wh)81219(ungrammatical)
violation
Subjaeency

INTELEBAStotal
192326os29%32%32%31%
4749

71%68%68%69% 66
72

that-relative

with(SUB-that)

55151

81219

(ungrammatical)'Theof the subjects

numbersof eachproficiencygroup wereasfollows: INT (N=22),ELE (N;24),BAS(N-27).
Therewasin the3-group-comparison
for theobj-that or forthe obj-/
difference
between these two types foreach proficiencygroup revealed that there wasnomeaningful

However,comparison
cant differencefor Basiclearners(x2(1)=7,356,p< O.Ol),andsentences.

a signifi-

difference
for Elementarya noticeable

differencein Intermediate learners'treatment oflearners(x2(1) 2,857,
p< O.1). There was no significant
Hence,itseems safe to say that the JLEs at leastinitiallymorereadily
identified
the two typesof sentences,=:sentenceswitha wh-phrase

crossingthat to those with a wh-phrase

For the sentences includinga RC construction,
CO evensentences

when
nor

The results

clauserelative clausecrossing

the null CO (/).

to know the correct

their fluencyisin the Basiclevel.Neitherthe difference
arnongthat for RC- sentences

wasthe SUB sentences

show

of

The differenceinthe responseofmorphology

the three groups for RCthat

that the learners
initiallytreat the two types of Subjacencyviolaa

tendency to wrongly

in the iower 2 levelsof proficiency,while
headed by that werethatsignificant.

differently, Namely, they showedtion (16a-b)
relative

the learnersappear

relatively

acceptmovement

out

their judgements
for the movementofout

the whof

thecorrect and fairly
consistent over the three proficiency levels,

pattern for SUB-wh sentenceswassignif-icant between Intermediateand-95NII-Electronic Mbrary
NII-Electronic
Library

ServiceFukushima National
FukushimaNationalCollege

College ofofTechnology
Technology-z*eif za43e (2oo2)esmr\fi-gegFwKElementaryIevels(x '(1)that showed

6.573,
andp< O,025),=:

the withinthat the responses to these two types of sentences

learners (x2(1)

11.189,p<==

Basic learners (xO.Ol) andbetweenSUB-wh and SUB-

group comparison
were

2(1)=

different for Elementarysignificantly

14.277,p<O,Ol).

6, Discu$sion
The results
early,

described above

that

show

acquisition

the null form islearnedin a gradual manner,andthe declarative
sentences,
clearly showed

Thistrend ismostofsentences

importantly, they

CP headedby that comparedan embedded

within their judgementsofapparent

interrogatives,more

For the long-distance wh-movement

higher acceptanceC takes place relatively

form of embedded

the thatofg2]f.Given that this tendency to accept that-clause sentences
explainedby the effect of L2 inputor the
strategy,`insertion]

weto those withthan (Zf-clausesentenees

more
need

to seekcannotbeplausible explanations

more

for the L2 data,

In keepingwith Thornton's(1990)
claimsthat form of embedded

terms

by assuming

is not implausible
if weana]ysisof

Ll acquisition,

the data suggeststhat L2 learners learnthe

C as soon as they are exposed to the relevant sentenee structures,long-distancewh-movement

Qperatingonboils down

wh-movement

the proposal

adopt

the agreeingthat asthey soon

start[-predicative]
CU. Thisform ofthat the differencebetween English andthe different places in the grammar

to

and

where

such

Japanese inprocess isaincorporated
as part of the propertiesof UG (Fukui,
1995;Huang, 1982).In such an analysis, JLEs,even attheir initialstages of development,that wh-movement
isnecessary in L2 English,and they try to`know'

accomplish

the processagreement

configuration"successive

cyclically"in CP, which

the intermediate trace of Wh being in the Spec-headwithisheadedby that.ie

Moreover,the data forthesentences involving
Subjacencyviolation shows that JLEs'L2 grammar
whextractionout

tractionoutofof

the relative

the relativeof relative clausesasclauseclauseled by the wh-relative

headedby complementizer

JLEs seern to acquire(20),

freelycompared

more

that.

allow$

to the same type of ex-

Assuming the generally accepted

the that form of CO eorrectly, inthat they only

structure
allow

one

the only possibleSpec position for whSpecposition forthat CO, In relative clauses headedby that (19b),
movement
is already filledby the null operator (Op). Hence the successive cyclic movement
is properly

blocked,On the other hand,more JLEs of Elementary and Basiclevels
allowed wh-island
violations
inducedby the overt tvh-operator
raisedto the Spec,CP, which requires O in the CO position. I propose that the JLEs'
differentialtreatment of these two types of relative/. In otherclauses

be attributed

canto differencesin the learningof that islearnedrelatively
early
and
processemployedwithanagreement
feature,while
acquisition
of
the
null
form
takes
may be usedO
place ina more gradualfashionwith itsgrammatical features unspecified
until somewherelaterin development. This unspecified
mayresultin allowing
multiple
specifiers
status of / in JLEs' L2 grammar
in the,ernbedded CP (Yusa,

for that and1999). In suchas moregrammars,

words,

cyclicaliyrelatedacquisition

to the overt

the overt

that JLEs transfer themorphologyofPF realisationthat there isno wh-movementsaylanguage,whichofallows[+multiple]
specifier structure

this claim,functional category

multipleofup

to thespecifiers in IP

T in japaneseto CP

but also indicatesthat such transfer might
C.i2 It is interestingto speculate

CO can only trigger wh-movement.

happeningin the sentences

to, long-

for Wh to be raisedintermediate Spee,CP all the way

via`IP-absorption'

in English."The data not only seems to support
closelymorphology

than one Spec,CP positionswill be available

candistancewh-movernent
proceed successive
matrixSpec,CP. Assuming Japaneseas ansuggests(==TP), Yusa (1999)

overt

without

Thislineof argumentthat.'3

I leave this open

that

be
in L2

leadsus toto further

research.

Finally, ourJLEs' judgementofThornton's (1990)
Ll children,a relatively

early

stage

of

many

"that-trace"

JLEs seemdevelopment.In othercases

improved greatly at the Elementarylevel. Unlikethat as the proper form for this construction at
the L2 learnersdid not followexactly the same path

to abandon
words,-96NII-Electronic Library Service

Fukushima National College
FukushimaNational
CollegeofofTechnology
Technology

lkts: H"Azage.\wtstttsvl 4ftvaee wH ifwhec agagakmeeneee
Ll children

asregardingthere seems

nately,the acquisition of the overt morphology

to be notion of ECP.i4Furtherresearch
Ll andis certainly

to clarify

neededCO. From the present data, unfortu-

forthe data other than assuming

explanation

straightforward

of

what

JLEs' observa-

difference
betweenisbehind thisapparent

L2 data.

7, Conclusion
In this paper, I reportedonEnglish(JLEs)which

fecussedonofa studyThornton's (1990)
Ll data, andL2 acquisition

on

overt

by Japanese learnersof long-distance wh-movement

morphologyofC heading the embedded

to the generalisabilityof the linguistic
phenomenonof1995),itwas hypothesisedthat JLEs in earlier stages of acquisitien would(Chomsky,
the proper form of C whensuccessive cyclic wh-movement

CP, Drawing on
Spec-head agreernent
assume

overt

that

as

isapplied.

The results of the grammaticalityjudgementtaskadrninistered to JLEs at different
levelsof proficiency
thishypethesis.
Moreover,JLEs'judgementsof sentences
involving Subjacencyviolation ledus to

supported

propose that acquisitionofthe that form prompts developing
L2 grammars

in CP, while the unspecified

agreement

statusofto assurne

C letsthem transfermultiple

null

one-to-one

Spec-headinspecifier construction

Japanese to English.

The dataon the acquisition

Cmorphology by JLEs arising from thisstudy

process of overt

parallel.withthe data from Ll. However,itclearly
to UG,

accesssupportedthe view

that

was

L2 acquisition

totally

proceeds withdifferencesin superficial forms provided through inputer Iearning
strategies

and

not

alike might

have little
impact on developmentof L2 knowledge,
Notes
i

'
In the framework of the Principles
and Parameters(Chomsky,
1981;1986; 1995),the empty

categories

arelicensedby being properly governed.

MinimalityConditionisformulatedas follows:'The."a[, "･6,･,B"･]

doesnot governB if 7 isa projectionof6 excludinga (Chomsky,
1986:8-9)
Rizzi(1990)
formulateshisRelativized
Minimalityas follows:aS

Xa-governsa,Y onlyif there isno Z such

Z is a typical potential a-governor

b. Z c-command

Y anddoes notthat

forY, andX

c-command

Typicalpotential governor:
Z isa head m-commandingY-chain
for
Y,
in
an
rt
Z is an Ar specifier
governor

Z is a typical potential head governor for Y
Z isa typical potential antecedent

=

=

Y

c-commanding(SeeRizzi,1990:7 forfurtherdetails).
As forthe infinite
clauses, the [-Tense]featureinhibits
the expansion
furtherdetails.
`(1990)
points out that the morphological

5Rizzi

specifier

are

seen

cross-linguistically,

andalternations

that

"the

C as Agr. SeeRizzi (1990:35) for''of the cornplementizerin accordance with itsofview that such processes
are generally available"(Rizzi,

1990:55).
6 Thisaccount

manifest

is actually

Rizzi (1990)
provides to account forcertain

what

that-traceeffects. Thornton(1990)
furtheranalyses

use of overt

that.

complementizer

See Yokota

dialectsof English which

do not[Medial-Wh'
thequestions as parallelwith thefor(2001) the data from L2 acquisition
supporting
thisanalysis.
' The

following test sentence

I arn looking for a man

was
who

also

includedin Arirnoto (1998).

bought anapple.

-97NII-Electronic Library Service

Fukushima National
FukushimaNationalCollege

College ofofTechnology
Technology-fi*deeeg43e (2002)tskl*ffggFH*ff
I put aside

arguments

to the knowledgeof Subjacencyfrom our discussion
here.

relatedSBannai(2001)actuallycrossingthat

found that his high school

to those crossing

itsnull counterpart.

level subjects

preferred long-distance wh-movements

The data is eertainly

notcompatible

ideas on learning process. Unfortunately though, the jLEs' levelsof proficiencyare
the two
9See

specifiedin neitherofstudies.

the LevelsChart in Allan (1992).

'O There

have been various

forms of arguments

the view

supportingthat learners may

start with

forEnglishwh interrogatives(i.e.,White,1992,Yusa, 1999),Such arguments

movement'of Subjacency
condition by the L2 learnerswhose

violation

proposal here does notsentencesthat

Arimoto'swiththe possibilityof suchexcludeinTable5 can supportshown(orMerge) may`non-movement'

Ll doesnot manifest

based on theMyovert wh-movement,

In fact,the JLEs' performance for the SUB

analyses.

thislineof argument.

are

`non-

Ileavethisdiscussion
open
by simply

assuming

wh-island). SeeYusa(i.e.,
the framework of MinimalistProgram (Chomsky,1995).

be preferred when

there issome

constraint

for furtherdiscussion
within(1999)
Accordingto Yttsa(1999,
citing Rudin, 1988and Richards,1997)there are two classes of languageswhichii

allow mu!tiple

wh-fronting

multiple

specifiers

specifiersof

Yusa assumesi'

Thisview

ofIP, andi`the other

One being"IP-absorption
languages," wherebeing

languages,"
where"CP-absorption

wh-phrases

wh-phrases

are raisedtoto rnultiple

mevein IP-absorption languages can be seen parallelto scrambling
CP. As wh-movementthat Japaneseand Korean are IP-absorption
languages.

inJapanese,featuresof the functional categories iscompatible with the view that the initialisthe finalstate of Ll acquisition& Sprouse, 1996),(Sehwartz

of unspecifiedstate of L2 acquisition
iS

overtly.

liketo thank ShigenoriWakabayashi forpointingout this possibility
to me.

I would

for theargument
See Martohardjono(1993)

for the strong sensitivity to ECP violations.

References(1992).OofonciPlacenzent 7lest2, Oxford: Oxford UniversityPress.
Arimoto, M. (1998),
Dainigengokakutoku ni okeru huhenbunpouno yakuwari [Theroles
Allan, D.

Grammar in second language acquisition].

A(]ADEA4TA

Nanzan University.
Bannai, M. (2001).
Adjuncthoodand islandhoodin L2 acquisition

Literatureandof

relative

Universal
Language, 65: 261-276.
ofPoster presented atclauses.

the 4th PacificSecond LanguageResearchForum (PacSLRF).Universityof Hawaii at Manoa,
Bley-Vroman, R. W., Felix,S. W. andIoup, G. L. (1988).
The accessibilityofUniversal Grammar

in adult

language learning.SecondLanguage Research 4, 1-32.

InAnderson,S. D. & Kiparsky,P. (eds,),
Chomsky, N. (1973).
Conditionon transformations.
Afestschrij't
forMorris Hdlle, New York: Holt,Rinehartand Winston,232-286.
Chomsky, N, (1981).
Lectureson govemrnent and binding,Dordrecht:Foris,
Barrier:s.Cambridge,MA: The MIT Press.
Chomsky, N. (1986),
Chomsky, N, (1995).
Zhe minimalistprogram.

Cambridge,MA: The MIT Press.

investigationsin ClhiversalGrarrtnzar:A g"ide to euperinzents on the acCrain,S.and Thornton, R. (1998).
Cambridge,MA: The MIT Press.
quisitionofsyntax and senzantics.
"that":71hecase
Doherty, C. (2000).
ClaLtseswithout
inEhgtish.New
forbare sentential complementation
York: GarlandPublishing.
The principles-and-pararneter approach:
A comparativesyntaxof English and Japanese.
(1995).
In Shibatani, M & Byron, T. (eds.),
Au]roaches to language t)Lpology, 327-372.
Huang, C.-T. J. (1982).
Logical relations in Chinese and the theory of grammar.,
Ph.D. dissertation,MIT.
Fukui, N.

Lasnik,H. (1990),On certain substitutes for negative
D. Reidel,
The Netherlands:
Dordrecht,

data.In,Essayson Restrictivenessand Learmability.

-98NII-Electronic Library Service

Fukushima National
Fukushima
Na セ ional
CollegeCollegeofofTechnology
Teohnology

坂 内 ： 日本 人 英 語 学 習 者 に お け る長 距 離 WH 移 動 と C 範疇の 形態的現 出’
to UG ：An issuerevisited ．InF ｝ynn ，S．
，Martohardlono ，G ．and Q Neil，

Li ，
X ．（1998）．Adult L2 accessibility

W ，（eds ⊃，The generativestud ） ゾ second l nguage
89−110．
Martohardjono ，G ．（1993）．陥 一
tnovernent in the acquisition丿 （o ∫31 αnguages

ω

ith αndωithouto ert mo
り．New Jersey Lawrence Erlbaum

α cquisition

α

of

：

1α nguage ： A cross −linguisticst 吻

a second．Ph ．
D ，dissertation，CornellUniversity，

りementMartohardlono ，G ．and Gair，
J ．W ．（1993）．Apparent UG inaccessibilityin second
misapplied

principlesor principledmisapplications

cLcquisition

and，language acquisition：？ In Eckman ，F ．（ed ．
， linguistics），Confluence，L2

P α thoJogy ．Amsterdam ： John Benjamins，79−103，s ρeechThe MIT Press ．
Pinker，S．（1989）．Leam αbility
and cognition ．Cambridge MA．Cambridge，MA The MIT Press．
Rizzi，L ．（1990）．Relativizedminimality
ムinguisticpersl ec −Schachter），，J．（1989）．Testinga proposed universal ．In Gass ，S ．＆ Schachter ，J ．（eds ．
．Cambridge Cambridge University
Press，73−88．
tives on second language acquisition
：

，

：

〕

：

Schachter，J ． （1990）． On the issueof completeness in second languageacquisition ． Second Language
正3 search 6，
93−124，
Schwartz B ，D ．and Sprouse ，R．
A ．（1996），L2 cognitive states and the FullTransfer／ FullAccessmodel ．
−
SecondL nguage Reseαrch 12，40 72．
（〜

，

α

Thornton R ．J ，（1990）．Adventures in long−diStα ncemo，ing The acquisition

りPh ．
D ．dissertation，Universityof Connecticut
．
L
1992
．
Sublacency
violations
and
empty
categories
White， ，（ ）lex 陥 一questions．

ゾ coMl：（〕．In Goodluck ，．The NetherlandsKluwer Academic Publishers
，445−

H．
＆ Rochemont ，M ．（eds ．
Islandconstraints），

in secondlanguage acquisition：

464．
movement
in two differentcontexts
of nonnative
White，L ．and Juffs，A ． （1998）． Constraints
Qn W ん一’
language acquisition
Competenceand processing．In Flynn，S ．
，Martohardlono，G ．and O Neil，W ．
acquisition．New Jersey Lawrence Erlbaum，111．
eds ．
），The generα tivestndy o ／second 1 nguage
129．
（
−
Xu ，
L ，（1986）．Free empty
category．Linguistic
lnquirS17，75 93．
：

α

：

，

of CP constructions
by Japanese learners of English．Kenhyulei）10u
Yoko もa ，H ． （2001）．The acquisiiton−
Research reports ］31，157 164．Chubu EnglishLanguage EducationSociety
，
［
−
−
and
Wh
islandeffectsin
L2
acquisition
Apreliminary
Y 血sa ，
N ．（1999）．Multiplespecifiers
study ．In Klein，：

The De elo ρment
E ．C ．and Martohardjono ，G ．（eds ．
），
AI 〜289−315．
proach ，りゾSecondL α nguage〔

Gramnz rs A Generαtive
α，Appendix
Sentencesused in the Grammaticality Judgement Test
declα r α tive8

lnterrog

Ithink that John ’sfatherMy

teacher says’
Ken s sister

willthat I shouldtake us to schQol
readbooks ．

more

believes七hat she will marry．

ahandsome man

ttves

α

’
Who do you think that likesMary ？
’Who did you say that took this picture ？
拿． Who dobelievethat wrote this letter
？
you

亭
Mary

What do you think that Mary bought ？
said that did he hither brother．
拿
Ithink that wil1 our teachergive us a lotof homewQrk ． What did you say that John saw ？
’What does Sue believethat she saw ？
Mike believesthat does Jenniferlovehim ．
Ithink we have alreadyseen

this movie．

Who do you think likesMary

The police believeTom

stolethe money、

Who did you

say？

took this picture ？

Who do you believe
wrote
thisletter？

John says his teacher hates him ，“Ithink has John finishedhis report ．
雫Mary believesdid she see a ghost ．

What do you think Mary bought ？
What did you

sayJohn saw

？

一99 一
一

NNII-Electronic
工 工 Eleotronio
Library
Library

ServiceFukushima National
FukushimaNationalCollege

College ofofTechnology
Technology

ereeleee ag43e (2002)nckl#fi-gljFH*stdeclaratives

interrogatives'Ken says does his uncle have a Mercedes.

What does Ken believe
he saw?

I saw

the crocodiie

I know the shopthat ate

my

'John

went

to seeadocter has a veryfinishedhis report'Mary bought aplant had'What

accident.

expensive

are

car,

leaves,you looking
you

did you'What aretook him two weeks.
no

'What

'What didthat sells tropical plants.

Ben bought a car that had been in an'Ilittlefish,

sister'syou

see

for the man

the person

whoknow the boy who

who

rnade?

bought?
ate?

looking for the car that has?

'What

have you kepta dog that eats?

'What

do you know the shopthat sells?

- 100 NII-Electronic Library Service