招待論文

Japanese Learners of English and Reflexive Pronouns
Darcy Sperlich

National Central University

Abstract: Learning a second language is a complex process that builds up an interlanguagethat includes aspects from both the first and second language. Overtime, it is hoped that the
influences from the first language are reduced so the interlanguage becomes more like thetarget language. The area under the microscope in this article is anaphora, an area which
generally speaking, neither a learner nor a teacher would pay much attention to - as most if
not all languages have anaphora with very similar behaviour on the surface. If we lookunder the proverbial bonnet however, it is argued here that the system behind Japanese andEnglish anaphora are fundamentally different, which has implications for how English
reflexive pronouns are acquired by Japanese learners of English. The viewpoint advanced
here is that Japanese reflexive pronouns are pragmatically regulated, while English reflexive
pronouns (by and large) are syntactically regulated, which can be captured theoreticallyusing the Emergentist Reflexivity Approach model. This is then applied to a second
language acquisition situation and explores how this may help steer a learner’s acquisition
journey.
Keywords: binding, reflexive pronoun, anaphora, second language, transfer

1. Introduction
In learning a second language, the anaphoric system would be one of the few things that would not cometo the forefront of a learner’s mind. Learning about a few pronouns or reflexives does not seem to be an
insurmountable task, and if the language allows for zero pronouns, the mission appears to be more
focused on how to use these anaphoric devices in a native-like manner. For instance, in Sorace and Filiaci’s (2006) Interface Hypothesis, it is predicted that the learner will have trouble coordinating between
syntactic and discourse information; the zero anaphor evidence they studied confirmed their predictions.
When a Japanese learner of English meets an English reflexive pronoun in a sentence such as I hit myself,
nothing appears deceptive as if the teacher performs a self-hitting action and contrasts it against I hit him,
this should inductively help the student understand the reflexive nature of myself. Moreover, the student
having the skills of deduction would then be able to apply this to other pronoun+self forms, and arrive at
the conclusion that reflexive pronouns in general exhibit this type of behaviour.
Acquiring a language however, is not simply amassing a number of different forms with different

─3─Darcy Sperlichsenses. The student needs to understand how to form sentences with the reflexive, and consider whatmeaning will be given through the use of different types. The student can be supported by negative
evidence showing that *himself is hungry is not a grammatical sentence in English given the subject position of the reflexive pronoun, there are no possessive reflexives which instead require the form of my own
self and so on and so forth. However, what the student does need to do, which is much harder, is actually‘set’ the right binding domain in English. For example, how will the learner know that in David thinksthat John likes himself, it is impossible for himself to be anteceded by David ? Namely, this type of relationship is called ‘long-distance binding’ which is largely absent from English. Nothing from the sentenceindicates that this type of relationship is disallowed, but from the surrounding discourse context it should
be clear enough for the learner to hone in on John being identified with the object of like. This howeveris confounded by long-distance binding being productively present in Japanese, where such dependencies
are available (as seen in (2) below). When transferred into English, this can have unwelcome consequences.
The remainder of this article focuses on the characteristics of reflexive pronouns in Standard Japaneseand English, comparing and contrasting the forms and behaviour. Following this, given the underlying
system differences alluded to above, our attention then moves to how the two systems differ to one
another. Finally, the second language acquisition evidence showing that these hurdles for Japaneselearners of English exist are reviewed, and then how these hurdles may be dealt with are assessed. Now,
we move onto our discussion of the key factors surrounding reflexives in the next section.

2. Characterizations of Japanese and English Reflexives
English and Japanese reflexives share little in common, being that Japanese has a much wider range ofreflexive pronouns that are allowed in diverse positions which are not found in English. Beginning withEnglish, the form of the reflexive is typically pronoun+self, but without any genitive case allowed.
English, unlike Japanese, does not have standard simplex (monomorphemic) reflexives such as self, 1） or
a compounded reflexive of two simplex reflexives such as *self-self. Structurally, an English reflexive
pronoun cannot occur in the subject position.
Japanese, on the other hand, has a wide range of reflexive pronouns. The most commonly studied
one is a simplex zibun, where it is much freer in its distribution than English reflexives. This also applies
to the complex reflexive pronoun+self, karezibun, and another type of complex reflexive containing two
simplex reflexives, zibunzisin. Thus, English has one type of reflexive, while Japanese has all three types(cf. Aikawa, 1999).
Apart from these differences in forms, we find key differences in the binding domain of the reflexives
in the two languages. Informally, we can consider the binding domain where the reflexive can find a

─4─Japanese Learners of English and Reflexive Pronouns

possible antecedent to bind it. That may be within the same phrase, sentence, or across sentences. Sometimes, an obvious binder is not present, but discourse is able to guide what the intended referent is. We
first consider two cases in English (1a-b):(1a) David1 thinks that John2 likes himself*1/2.
(1b) David1 told John2 a story about himself1/2.
It is well known that a reflexive pronoun in an argument position strongly resists being bound by anantecedent (David) outside the clause that it resides in (1a). Therefore, the only possible antecedent in (1a)is John, leading to the conclusion that reflexives are strongly locally orientated. In (1b) however, thesituation is now different as himself sits in a non-argument position (a prepositional phrase). Consulting
native speakers, one will find that while both antecedents are possible binders of himself, there is a preference for David. One factor that guides this preference is that David is the source (cf. Kaiser, Runner,
Sussman, & Tanenhaus, 2009), thus David’s viewpoint is being represented. This being so, we can appeal
to logophoricity, where himself is being used like a logophoric pronoun. What this means, is that as
David’s viewpoint is being taken (and not the sentence utterer’s position), himself can be used to express
this logophoric viewpoint and be coreferential with David at the same time. If we swap himself with thealternative pronominal him, David can continue to be the binder but there is now no logophoric connection (pronouns in English are not used in this way), reducing the preference for David. In sum, English
reflexives have a strong preference for local binding, however within non-argument positions this preference evaporates.
Shifting to Japanese, let us first consider a canonical example (2):(2)

Taro1-ga

Ziro2-gazibun1/2-oseme-tatoit-ta.

Taro-NOM

Ziro-NOM

RP-ACC

blame-PST

CMP

say-PST 2）‘Taro said that Ziro blamed him/himself.’(Aikawa, 1999: 155)
Note that in (2), zibun has two possible binders, Taro and Ziro. While appearing ambiguous, this is asentence taken out of context, and put into context we would quickly arrive at the intended interpretation.
As discussed above in relation to logophoricity, zibun is being used logophorically, thus representing
Taro’s perspective, which explains why there is a certain subject orientation interpretation in examples
such as these. This thus represents a well-documented case of long-distance binding in Japanese. Notethat while the position of the reflexive is in an argument position, the restrictions applying to English are─5─Darcy Sperlich

not applicable here (zibun is also free to occur in the subject position). Japanese, however, does have otherrestrictions on its reflexive pronouns that are not found in English. For example, zibun prefers not to
occur with physical verbs such as ‘kick’ (Kitagawa, 1986) or inanimate nouns (Sperlich & Kogusuri,
Manuscript). Moreover, Japanese is well known for its ‘empathy’ factor as seen in (3):(3)

Hanako1-wa

Taro2-gazibun1/*2-ni

katte

kure-ta/*yat-ta

Hanako-TOP

Taro-NOM

RP-DATbuyinggive-PST/give-PST

yubiwa-onakushi-ta.

ring-ACC

lose-PST‘Hanako lost the ring that Taro bought her.’(Hirose, 2018: 392)
In this example, the utterer of this sentence must empathize with Hanako. According to Kuno (1987), thespeaker will try and take the perspective of subject, which is why the use of yatta cannot be understood
to be performed from Taro’s perspective. In sum, Japanese has a complex system of reflexivity ascompared to English. This is seen in the variety of forms and restrictions found in Japanese, that are
rather absent from English.

3. Pragmatic versus Syntactic Binding
We now shift to how binding is implemented in Japanese and English, where it is argued that bothlanguages follow separate processes. That is, as argued by Huang (1994, 2000, 2016) and Sperlich(2020), Japanese is a language which regulates its anaphora pragmatically, while English is a languagethat does so via the sentence processor. As discussed in detail in Sperlich (2020), there are two systems
at work, a sentence processor following O’Grady (2005) that deals with the syntactic relations, and aneo-Gricean pragmatic processor following Huang (2000) that deals with the pragmatic relations. Whileboth these processors are at work in both languages, it is in English that the majority of binding cases arehandled by the sentence processor, while in Japanese this is done via the pragmatic processor. For theexact mechanisms and further discussion, the reader is encouraged to refer to the references above. Now
an overview is given on how the two processes work in each language.
Let us first consider (1a-b) above. Beginning with (1a), long-distance binding cannot be processedby the sentence processor. In a nutshell, the sentence processor works to resolve the dependency immediately to reduce the burden on working memory. As the processor is working through the sentence andmeets the verb like, it must match the argument roles on the verb with the corresponding arguments in thesentence. Thus, John, which occurs before like is held until like is meet, and it is immediately combined

─6─

Japanese Learners of English and Reflexive Pronouns

with the verb’s argument grid occupying the first position. The verb then looks to the right, finding
himself. Himself is then integrated with the verb, however being referentially dependent it needs theprocessor to resolve this dependency. Himself is thus linked to John, the only available dependency on theverb, completing the operation, resulting in a reflexive structure and resulting interpretation. David isclearly not on the argument grid of like, and the processor does not seek to resolve the dependency with
it. Now, considering the non-argument case of (1b), it has been noted already that either antecedent is apossibility, thus it appears that the sentence processor is not immediately resolving the dependency ofhimself as (4) details:(4)David told John a story about himself
TOLD

STORY

<j d>

<x> → ? → P → j or dInstead, the pragmatic processor (P) is responsible for assigning antecedence. What this means is thatonce the sentence processor meets himself, it is associated with the grid of story, which only allows asingle argument. Thus, the sentence processor is unable to resolve the dependency (there is no otherargument associated with story). Instead, the pragmatic processor takes over, and resolves it via pragmatic
calculations. These are not a random assorted list of factors, but rather they are formally captured by the
neo-Gricean apparatus, namely Huang’s revised neo-Gricean pragmatic theory of anaphora (detailed in
Huang (2016) or Sperlich (2020)). In sum, English allows for a dual solution to its reflexive pronouns - thesentence processor works upon the argument position reflexive, while the pragmatic processor works with
the non-argument position.
Japanese, on the other hand, presents a different picture, as we can compare the flexibility of theinterpretation of zibun to the English non-argument position himself. Namely, the mere fact that zibun canbe long-distance bound shows that the sentence processor is not resolving dependencies immediately, thus
pointing to the pragmatic processor’s involvement. It is important to point out that unlike English, thesentence processor does not attempt to resolve the dependency in the beginning - Japanese simply uses thepragmatic processor from start to finish. 3） Secondly, there is a systematic difference in use between zibun
and kare in terms of logophoricity. Considering (2) again, it was pointed out that the use of zibun has alogophoric interpretation, which is not associated with the pronominal kare. Namely, if the utterer of thesentence wishes that the sentence internal perspective of David be taken into account, zibun will be used,
whereas kare does not have this function. This is formalized through a pragmatic Q-scale <zibun, kare>,whereby the use of zibun shows that the utterer is avoiding the interpretation associated with the use of
non-logophoric kare. While this can account for the use of zibun, it is also clear that zibun can be locally─7─Darcy Sperlichbound. What is left out is the fact that a reflexive pronoun also reflexive marks its predicate (a coreferential interpretation provided via an I-implicature). In other words it indicates that the action of the verb
acts upon the performer of the action - both arguments share the same identity. Ultimately, the interpretation the addressee arrives at will be guided by the contextual factors which will support the generation ofeither implicature.
In sum, while this is a rather condensed discussion of sentence and pragmatic processing regarding
binding, more can be read in Sperlich (2020) for focused treatment. The interested reader can also see
O’Grady (2005) for a detailed treatment of the sentence processor as a whole applied to other areas, and
Huang (2016) on his most recent treatment of his theory of anaphora. The key message delivered is that
English makes shared use of both its processors to deal with antecedence, but in Japanese only the pragmatic processor does - this theorizing forms the core of Sperlich’s (2020) Emergentist Reflexivity
Approach. Now we move onto how this knowledge is applied to second language acquisition.

4. Binding in Second Language Acquisition
Reflexivity research has received much attention in second language acquisition, mainly due to hypothesis testing surrounding how first language transfer affects the development of the second language, andquestions of universal grammar. The focus here is on this first language influence, tracking its stages ofimpact and offering ways forward to assist a learner to overcome this negative transfer. 4）
In order to account for transfer effects, there are two theories to consider. One is Sperlich’s (2017)
System Exchange hypothesis, and the other is O’Grady’s (2013a) Transfer Calculus. Regarding Sperlich,
the System Exchange hypothesis indicates that the problems faced in binding for a learner is traceable toshifting from one system to another - here the pragmatic system to the sentence processor. The learnermust garner enough evidence to support the subconscious switch between the two processors, and if thisis not successful what we find is persistent long-distance binding in the learner’s English (discussed
below). While it is not completely understood what the triggers are for the shift, O’Grady (2013a) indicated that if the L1 process is too costly in the L2 (e.g., it causes processing difficulties), then it will be
dropped. Thus, in a sense while the language learner can continue to process long-distance binding in his/her second language English via the pragmatic processor, undoubtedly interpretation issues will arise(along with no input supporting this type of processing apart from non-argument positions) leading to theshift to the sentence processor.
In line with Sperlich (2020) and O’Grady (2013b), the pragmatic reflexive processing routine transferred from Japanese into English will first be dominant, and initially reflexive pronouns will beprocessed in this manner. Trying to long-distance bind in English is considered to be ungrammatical,
where the sentence processor cannot process it. It is possible to repurpose the pragmatic processor for the

─8─Japanese Learners of English and Reflexive Pronouns

job - the problem is that native speakers of English do not generally do this. Therefore, a long-distanceinterpretation, while found in Japanese, will not be found or implicated in English, leading to a gradualshift to the sentence processor for a preference of locality (in argument positions). Let us now look at theliterature for evidence of this. 5）
To begin a concise overview of the literature on Japanese learners of English (JLE) acquisition ofreflexive pronouns, Cook (1990) found that long-distance (LD) binding was present within advanced JLE,
where judging and allowance of LD binding was non-native like. In studies that followed, Hirakawa(1990), Broselow and Finer (1991), Thomas (1991a, 1991b, 1993), Tomita (1992), Yoshikawa (1993),
Matsumura (1994), Wakabayashi (1996), White et al. (1997), MacLaughlin (1998) and Akiyama (2002)
all found that in the early stages of English acquisition, JLE allowed LD binding much more than at theadvanced level of English proficiency. At the advanced level, this greatly tappers off, however there still
can be some residue LD binding, which suggests that the shift has not been fully completed. From this,
it is clear that JLE are slowly moving from a pragmatic based system to a sentence processor binding
based system. Also, more evidence can be seen if we consider non-argument reflexives, where Hamilton(1998) noted that JLE allows more LD binding with non-argument reflexives than argument reflexives.
Other signs of language transfer are found in Matsumura (2007), who observed that JLE import subjectivity and a viewpoint factor into their English. In sum, the message is that Japanese learners of English
over time are able to shift between the two systems, from a pragmatic based one to a sentence processorone.
Is it possible to ‘speed up’ the process? Teaching is one possibility, as White (1995) and White et al.
(1996) found that if binding rules are explicitly taught, there is marginal improvement. Thus, spendingtime on teaching reflexivity cannot hurt, but certainly maximum English input and output better encourages the shift. Without such continued exposure however, there is a danger that that the interlanguage
system will revert back to the first language norms. McCormack (2003, 2004) in investigating thelanguage attrition of JLE upon their return to Japan found that their local interpretation of himself worsened in the sense that first language influence began to reassert itself. Consequently, it appears that while
it is important to provide opportunities for oneself to continue to receive enough input to maintain thelanguage, monitoring one’s usage may also reduce first language influence, in a sense of one trying tocatch oneself in an error.
In sum, the evidence shows that JLE are burdened by negative transfer in the beginning stages of
their English acquisition, which slowly becomes more target-like as proficiency increases. This evidence
supports the hypothesis that learners are shifting from a pragmatic system to the sentence processor
system in reflexive pronoun resolution.

─9─Darcy Sperlich

5. Conclusion
In conclusion, we find that the reflexive form inventory of Japanese and English is quite different, where
there are more restrictions in place on the use of Japanese reflexives, but with more freedom for LD
binding that is not found in English. Secondly, we reviewed the two systems of reflexivity underlying
Japanese and English (following the Emergentist Reflexivity Approach (Sperlich, 2020)), where there is aclear contrast in the pragmatic and sentence processor involvement. It was found that indeed it ispossible for Japanese learners of English to overcome the first language transfer in their second language
English, but it can be questioned if it is a result to switching to the sentence processer (providing
locality) or that the pragmatic mechanism has been revised so that LD binding is no longer a possibility.
It is hoped that this brief discussion on this topic can help inform how an Emergentist perspective can beapplied to reflexivity in second language acquisition.
Notes
1)

In another sense, self appears infrequently with its usage being highly restricted, found in newspaper
headlines or informally as Note to self.

2)

Abbreviations used: ACC = Accusative case; CMP = Complementiser; DAT = Dative case; NOM =Nominative case; PST = Past tense; RP = Reflexive pronoun; TOP = Topic marker.

3)

How this difference arose is another issue - see Sperlich (2020) for discussion on the developmentof both processors from children to adults.

4)

The language transfer from Japanese into English is considered to be negative, as the ‘rules’ surrounding
Japanese reflexive pronouns are different to those found in English.

5)

See also O’Grady’s (2013b) discussion of his application of his model, which has helped inform myown thinking on the topic.

References
Aikawa, T. (1999). Reflexives. In N. Tsujimura (Ed.), The handbook of Japanese linguistics (pp.
154–190). Oxford: Blackwell.
Akiyama, Y. (2002). Japanese adult learners’ development of the locality condition on English reflexives.
Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24 (1), 27–54.
Broselow, E., & Finer, D. (1991). Parameter setting in second language phonology and syntax. Second
Language Research, 7 (1), 35–59.
Cook, V. J. (1990). Times comprehension of binding in advanced L2 learners of English. Language
Learning, 40 (4), 557–599.
Hamilton, R. (1998). Underdetermined binding of reflexives by adult Japanese-speaking learners of─ 10 ─

Japanese Learners of English and Reflexive Pronouns

English. Second Language Research, 14 (3), 292–320.
Hirakawa, M. (1990). A study of the L2 acquisition of English reflexives. Second Language Research, 6(1), 60–85.
Hirose, Y. (2018). Logophoricity, viewpoint, and reflexivity. In Y. Hasegawa (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of Japanese linguistics (pp. 379–403). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Huang, Y. (1994). The syntax and pragmatics of anaphora: A study with special reference to Chinese.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Huang, Y. (2000). Anaphora: A cross-linguistic study. New York: Oxford University Press.
Huang, Y. (2016). Aspects of anaphora in Chinese and in some Germanic, Romance, and Slavic
languages, the ‘syntactic’ versus ‘pragmatic’ language typology, and neo-Gricean pragmatics. In K.
Allan, A. Capone, & I. Kecskes (Eds.), Pragmemes and theories of language use (pp. 21–43). Cham:
Springer.
Kitagawa, Y. (1986). Subject in Japanese and English. PhD disseration. University of Massachusetts,
Amherst, MA.
MacLaughlin, D. (1998). The acquisition of the morphosyntax of English reflexives by non-native
speakers. Language Acquisition and Language Disorders, 19, 195–226.
Matsumura, M. (1994). Japanese learners’ acquisition of the locality requirement of English reflexives:
evidence for retreat from overgeneralization. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 16 (1), 19–42.
Matsumura, M. (2007). Semantics behind the structure, and how it affects the learner: a new perspective
on second language reflexives. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching,45, 321–352.
McCormack, B. (2004). Methodological aspects of a generative-based attrition study. In M. S. Schmid, B.
Köpke, M. C. J. Keijzer, & L. Weilemar (Eds.), First language attrition: Interdisciplinary perspectives on methodological issues (pp. 243–259). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
McCormack, B. G. (2003). The maintenance and loss of reflexive anaphors in L2 English. PhD dissertation. Durham University, Durham.
O’Grady, W. (2005). Syntactic carpentry: An emergentist approach to syntax. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum.
O’Grady, W. (2013a). The illusion of language acquisition. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 3 (3),253–285.
O’Grady, W. (2013b). Reflexive pronouns in second language acqusition. Second Language, 12, 5–18.
Sorace, A., & Filiaci, F. (2006). Anaphora resolution in near-native speakers of Italian. Second Language
Research, 22(3), 339–368.
Sperlich, D. (2017). The push and pull of syntax and pragmatics over reflexives: the system exchange─ 11 ─

Darcy Sperlich

hypothesis. Language and Information Society, 32, 424–448.
Sperlich, D. (2020). Reflexive pronouns: A theoretical and experimental synthesis. Cham: Springer.
Sperlich, D., & Kogusuri, T. (Manuscript). Inanimate antecedents and physical verbs of the Japanesereflexive zibun.
Thomas, M. (1991a). Do second language learners have “rouge” grammars of anaphora? In L. Eubank(Ed.), Point counterpoint: Universal grammar in the second language (pp. 375–388). Amsterdam:
John Benjamins.
Thomas, M. (1991b). Universal grammar and the interpretation of reflexives in a second language.
Language, 67 (2), 211–239.
Thomas, M. (1993). Knowledge of reflexives in a second language. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Tomita, Y. (1992). A study of Japanese learners’ acquisition process of English reflexives in the framework of UG-based SLA theory. The Japan association of college English teachers (JACET) bulletin,
23, 137–156.
Wakabayashi, S. (1996). The nature of interlanguage: SLA of English reflexives. Second Language
Research, 12 (3), 266–303.
White, L. (1995). Input, triggers, and second language acquisition: Can binding be taught? In F. R.
Eckman, D. Highland, P. W. Lee, J. Milcham, & R. R. Weber (Eds.), Second language acquisition:
Theory and pedagogy (pp. 63–78). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
White, L., Bruhn-Garavito, J., Kawasaki, T., Pater, J., & Prévost, P. (1997). The researcher gave thesubject a test about himself: Problems of ambiguity and preference in the investigation of reflexive
binding. Language Learning, 47 (1), 145–172.
White, L., Hirakawa, M., & Kawasaki, T. (1996). Second language acquisition of long distance reflexives: Effects and non-effects of input manipulation. McGill Working Papers in Linguistics, 12,
129–151.
Yoshikawa, T. (1993). The acquisition of English reflexives by L2 learners. PhD dissertation. Indiana
University Bloomington, Bloomington, IN.

─ 12 ─