EXPERIMENTAL EVIDENCE FOR THE PARAMETER RESETTINGHYPOTHESIS:THE SECOND LANGUAGE ACQUISITION OF ENGLISH REFLEXIVE-BINDING
BY JAPANESE SPEAKERS*
Eriko Watanabe, Chisato Fuji, Yoshie Kabuto, and Keiko Murasugi
Nanzan University

1.

Introduction

There are two conflicting hypotheses for the availability of Universal Grammar (UG) tosecond language (L2) learners: No UG Access Hypothesis (Clahsen and Muysken 1986,
Schacter 1988, Bley-Vroman 1990, and Epstein, Flynn and Martohardjono 1996, among
others) and Full UG Access Hypothesis (White 1985, 1989, 1992, du Plessis et al. 1987,
Schwartz and Tomaselli 1990, Thomas 1991, and Martohardjono and Gair 1993, among
others). The No UG Access Hypothesis states that L2 acquisition is not constrained by UG
and it is different from first language (L1) acquisition. The Full UG Access Hypothesis statesthat UG is available to L2 learners, and the grammar of L2, as well as that of L1, isconstrained by UG. If the latter hypothesis is right and L2 learners can access to UG, the nextquestion naturally arises is how L2 learners access to UG. There are two major hypotheses
regarding this question: Transfer Hypothesis (Cook 1988, Yuan 1994, and Cook and Newson
1996, among others) and Parameter Resetting Hypothesis (Finer and Broselow 1986, Thomas
1989, 1991, Finer 1990, Hirakawa 1990, and MacLaughlin 1996, 1998, among others).
According to the Transfer Hypothesis, although L2 learners have access to UG, they cannot
set the parameter values of the L2, and use the value of their NL in their L2. On the other
hand, the Parameter Resetting Hypothesis states that L2 learners’ interlanguage grammars areconstrained by UG, and L2 learners can use the parameter values of the L2 (White 2003).
Based on an experimental study on the interpretation of the English reflexives -self (e.g.,himself) by native speakers of Chinese and Japanese, MacLaughlin (1998) finds that there isan intermediate acquisition stage where some L2 learners reset the Governing Category
Parameter (GCP) from the value of their NL to that of non-NL (i.e. Russian), thereby arguing*

We would like to express our deep gratitude to Natsuko Shintani, Tomoko Kawamura, Mamoru Saito,
Tomohiro Fujii, Masaru Nakamura, Kensuke Takita, Dylan Tsai, Jonah Lin, T. T. Christina Hsu, andMasayuki Komachi for their invaluable comments and suggestions for the material presented in thispaper. This paper was presented at Connecticut-Nanzan-Siena Workshop on Linguistics Theory andLanguage Acquisition, held at Nanzan University on February 21, 2007, and Nanzan-Tsing-Hua
Consortium on March 10-11, 2007 held at Tsing-Hua University. We would like to thank theorganizers and the participants for the workshops.
Nanzan Linguistics: Special Issue 3, Vol. 2, 263–283© 2008 Eriko Watanabe, Chisato Fuji, Yoshie Kabuto, and Keiko Murasugi

Nanzan Linguistics: Special Issue 3, Vol. 2

for the Parameter Resetting Hypothesis.1 In this paper, we provide a piece of supportive
evidence for MacLaughlin (1998) based on an experimental study on L2 acquisition of the
English reflexives by the native speakers of Japanese. We discuss that our results are
consistent with MacLaughlin’s (1998) findings and that L2 learners are able to reset theirparameter value.
This paper is organized as follows. In Section 2, we discuss the previous studies
regarding how Japanese and Chinese learners of English interpret the English reflexives. In
Section 3, we report the results of our experimental study. Section 4 concludes this paper.
2.

Previous Case Studies

Before we discuss MacLaughlin (1998), we first examine how English, Japanese andRussian reflexives are interpreted.
2.1

The Cross-linguistic Variations of the Governing Category

It is well known that languages vary with respect to the way of applying Binding
Principle A (Chomsky 1981).2 In order to capture the cross-linguistic variations, Wexler andManzini (1987) propose that the choice of the governing category is subject to the parametricvariations. They argue that the Governing Category Parameter (GCP) has five values as in (1).
(1)

Governing Category Parameter (GCP):
γ is a governing category for α iff γ is the minimal category which contains α anda.
has a subject, orb.
has an INFL, orc.
has a TNS, ord.
has a indicative TNS, ore.
has a root TNS;
(Wexler and Manzini 1987; 53)3

In this paper, we focus on the English, Japanese and Russian value of the GCP, which are
crucial for our analysis of the experimental results.
The English reflexives are subject to the setting (1a) of the GCP, and they require local
antecedents. The examples are shown in (2).

1

However, MacLaughlin (1998) does not reject the possibility that the L1 parameter value istransferred to the L2 parameter value. According to him, ‘the experimental evidence argues against an
analysis of L2 learner performance which appeals solely to transfer (MacLaughling 1998; 216).’2

Binding Condition Principle (A): An anaphor is bound in a local domain (Chomsky 1981).

3

TNS in (1c-e) means Tense.

-264-

Experimental Evidence for the Parameter Resetting Hypothesis (E. Watanabe et al.)

(2)

a.

Fredi believes that [Johnj hurt himself*i/j].

b.

Fredi believes [Johnj to have hurt himself*i/j].
(MacLaughlin 1998; 197)4(2a) has a finite embedded clause, and (2b) has an infinitival embedded clause. In bothsentences, the antecedent of the reflexive must be the local subject John.
The sentences in (3) are the examples with the Japanese reflexive zibun. The Japanese
GCP is set as (1e) and it allows both local and non-local antecedents.
(3)a.

[Kyokoi -wa Hanakoj-ga
-Top
-Nom

zibuni/j-o aisite iru toomotte iru].
self -Acc love is Comp think is‘Kyoko thinks that Hanako loves herself.’b. [Alicei-wa Hanakoj-ni zibuni/j -o syokaisuru youni tanonda].
-Top-Dat self -Acc introduce as
asked‘Alice asked Hanako to introduce herself.’
In (3), both the local and the non-local subjects can be the antecedent of the reflexive.
According to Wexler and Manzini (1987), Chinese and Korean reflexives have the same GCPvalue as Japanese.
The Russian reflexive sebja is subject to the setting (1c) of the GCP. The sentences in (4)are the examples of the Russian reflexive.
(4)

a.

Sašai
Sasha

prosit, čtoby [Marinuj
narisovala sebja*i/j].
requests that Marina-Acc draw
self‘Sasha requests that Marina draws herself.’(Bailyn 1992; 317)

b. [Sašai proprosila Marinuj
narisovat’ sebjai/j].
Sasha requested Marina-Acc to draw self
‘Sasha asked Marina to draw herself.’(Bailyn 1992; 311)

(4a) has a finite embedded clause and (4b) has an infinitival embedded clause. As shown in(4a), only the local subject Marinu can be the antecedent of the reflexive. On the other hand,both the local subject Marinu and the non-local subject Saša can be the antecedent of thereflexive in (4b).
In 2.2 through 2.4, we introduce some previous studies of L2 acquisition on the GCP
4

Although the original sentences do not have these square brackets, we put these square brackets toindicate the governing category for each reflexive for ease of exposition.

-265-

Nanzan Linguistics: Special Issue 3, Vol. 2

setting. We first overview Finer and Broselow (1986). They examine how Japanese, Chinese,and Korean learners of English interpret the English reflexives.
2.2

Finer and Broselow (1986)

As we discussed in 2.1, the English reflexives must be bound clause-internally. The
Japanese reflexive zibun, Chinese ziji, and Korean casino, on the other hand, can be bound bysome non-local antecedents (Wexler and Manzini 1987). Finer and Broselow (1986) study theacquisition of the English reflexives by Japanese, Chinese, and Korean learners of English.
They examine whether L2 learners keep the value of the L1 in L2 or they use the value of L2
when L2 has a different value of the GCP from L1. A comprehension task was used in theirexperiment. The experimenter showed a picture and its description to subjects, and asked thesubject whether or not the sentence describes the picture correctly. Some of the test sentences
are shown below:(5)a.

Mr. Fati thinks that [Mr. Thinj will paint himself*i/j].

b.

Mr. Fati told [Mr. Thinj to paint himself*i/j].

(Finer and Broselow 1986; 160)(5a) has a finite embedded clause, and (5b) has an infinitival embedded clause. In both cases,
the antecedent of the reflexive must be the embedded subject, Mr. Thin.
As the results, 91.7% of the subjects answered correctly to (5a), and 58.3% of thesubjects answered correctly to (5b). These results show that more than 50 % of the subjects
showed the tendency to follow the English value of the GCP. Based on these results, Finer
and Broselow (1986) conclude that their subjects reset the value of the GCP from L1 to L2,
thereby supporting the Parameter Resetting Hypothesis.
2.3

Yuan (1994)

Yuan (1994) argues that the results of Finer and Broselow (1986) do not support theParameter Resetting Hypothesis, but rather, they support the Transfer Hypothesis. Yuan
(1994) claims that there are two types of reflexives in Japanese, Chinese and Korean: barereflexives and phrasal reflexives (cf. Wang and Stillings 1984, Tang 1985, 1989, Pica 1987,
Battistela and Xu 1990, and Cole et al. 1990, among others). Two types of reflexives in theselanguages are summarized in Table 1.
Table 1: Bare reflexives and phrasal reflexives of Japanese, Chinese and Korean
the types of the reflexives Bare reflexives

Phrasal reflexives

Japanese
ChineseKorean-zisin ‘-self’-zìjĭ ‘-self’-casin ‘-self’languages
zibun ‘self’zìjĭ ‘self’casin ‘self’-266-Experimental Evidence for the Parameter Resetting Hypothesis (E. Watanabe et al.)The Japanese bare reflexive is zibun and the phrasal reflexives are -zisin. The Chinese barereflexive is zìjĭ and the phrasal reflexives are -zìjĭ. The Korean reflexive is casin and thephrasal reflexives are -casin.
According to Yuan (1994), the bare reflexives and the phrasal reflexives in thoselanguages have the different values of the GCP. The bare reflexives are subject to the setting(1e) of the GCP, while the phrasal reflexives are subject to the setting (1a) of the GCP, whichis the same value of the English reflexives -self. Thus, Yuan (1994) argues that the Japanese,
Chinese and Korean learners of English who participated in Finer and Broselow’s (1986)
experiment, in fact, applied their L1 value of the GCP for phrasal reflexives to English
reflexives.
In the next sub-section, we overview MacLaughlin (1998), which provides some counter
evidence to Yuan’s (1994) proposal.
2.4

MacLaughlin (1998)

MacLaughlin (1998) examines the acquisition of the English reflexives by the native
speakers of Japanese and Chinese. He performed an experimental study to examine how
Japanese and Chinese learners of English interpret the English reflexives. The subjects
consisted of 10 Japanese native speakers and 5 Chinese native speakers, and thecomprehension task was used. Some examples of the test sentences are shown below:
(6)

(7)

a.
b.
c.

Barbara thinks that [Lisa is proud of herself].
herself can be Barbara.
AGREE
herself can be Lisa.
AGREE

a.
b.
c.

Michael forces [Peter to help himself].
himself can be Michael.
AGREE
himself can be Peter.
AGREE

DISAGREEDISAGREEDISAGREEDISAGREE(MacLaughlin 1998; 211)

Each test sentence has two following statements to check the interpretation of the reflexive.
The statement in (b) asks if the non-local subject can be the antecedent of the reflexive. The
statement (c) asks if the local subject can be the antecedent of the reflexive. The subjects were
expected to indicate whether they agree or disagree with each statement, and to circle either
AGREE or DISAGREE. Take (6) for instance. If the subjects agree to the statement (6b),‘herself can be Barbara,’ they circle AGREE, and if they disagree to the statement, they circle
DISAGREE.
MacLaughlin (1998) reports that the subjects can be categorized into three groups: thesubjects who used the English value of the GCP, the subjects who applied the Japanese valueof the GCP, and the subjects who used the Russian value of the GCP. The number of subjects
in each group is shown in (8).

-267-Nanzan Linguistics: Special Issue 3, Vol. 2

(8)

a.
b.
c.

Subjects who used the English value of the GCP
Subjects who applied the Japanese value of the GCP
Subjects who used the Russian value of the GCP: 6/15: 2/15: 7/15

6 out of 15 subjects used the English value of the GCP and 2 out of 15 subjects applied theJapanese value of the GCP. In addition, 7 out of the 15 subjects used the Russian value of the
GCP.
The examples of the responses by the subjects in (8a) are given in (9) and (10).
(9)

a.
b.
c.

(10) a.
b.
c.

Barbara thinks that [Lisa is proud of herself].
herself can be Barbara.
AGREE
herself can be Lisa.
AGREE DISAGREEDISAGREEMichael forces [Peter to help himself].
himself can be Michael.
AGREE
himself can be Peter.
AGREE

DISAGREEDISAGREE

The subjects in (8a) judged that the antecedent of the reflexive must be the local one in bothsentences with a finite and an infinitival embedded clause. These results indicate that they
have an English-type setting of the GCP.
The subjects in (8b) applied the Japanese value of the GCP, and answered as shown in(11) and (12).
(11) a.
b.
c.

[Barbara thinks that Lisa is proud of herself].
herself can be Barbara.
AGREE herself can be Lisa.
AGREE DISAGREEDISAGREE(12) a.
b.
c.

[Michael forces Peter to help himself].
himself can be Michael.
AGREE
himself can be Peter.
AGREE

DISAGREEDISAGREE

Those subjects judged the non-local subject can be the antecedent of the reflexive in both thesentence with a finite embedded clause and the sentence with a non-finite embedded clause.
The subjects in (8c) has the Russian value of the GCP, and their responses showed somedifferences between the sentence with a finite embedded clause and the sentence with an
infinite embedded clause as in (13) and (14).
(13) a.
b.
c.

Barbara thinks that [Lisa is proud of herself].
herself can be Barbara.
AGREE herself can be Lisa.
AGREE -268-

DISAGREEDISAGREE

Experimental Evidence for the Parameter Resetting Hypothesis (E. Watanabe et al.)(14) a.
b.
c.

[Michael forces Peter to help himself].
himself can be Michael.
AGREE
himself can be Peter.
AGREE




DISAGREEDISAGREE

In the sentence with a finite embedded clause, they allowed only the local subject for theantecedent of the reflexive, but in the sentence with an infinite embedded clause, either the
local subject or the non-local subject could be the antecedent of the reflexive.
It is interesting that the number of subjects who chose the Russian value of the GCP is
the largest, as shown in (8). 7 subjects out of 15 had the Russian-type setting, while only 2
had the Japanese-type setting and other 6 had the English-type.
The fact that the Japanese and Chinese learners of English use the Russian-type GCP,
instead of merely using the value of his/her own NL, indicate that the L2 learners set theparameter value to the non-NL. Thus, MacLaughlin’s (1988) results support the Parameter
Resetting Hypothesis.
3.

Experiment

MacLaughlin (1998) argues that some native speakers of Japanese and Chinese reset thevalue of the GCP from their NL to that of non-NL, English or Russian ones. Based on his
results, we conducted an experiment with larger number of subjects. Using the grammaticaljudgement task, we examined whether or not his results hold for 92 native speakers ofJapanese.
3.1

Subjects

We tested 92 university students in Japan who are native speakers of Japanese. We also
tested five English native speakers for the subject of the control test. Table 2 summarizes thenumber of subjects in our experiment and in MacLaughlin (1988).
Table 2: The subjects in our experiment and in MacLaughlin (1998)
Native languages

Our experimentJapanese (N=92)

The number of subjects

92

MacLaughlin (1998)
Japanese (n=10)
Chinese (n=5)
15

As shown in Table 2, the number of subjects in our experiment is far larger than that of
MacLaughlin (1998).
3.2

Test Sentences

The experiment consists of two parts: four preliminary tests and one main test. The
preliminary tests consist of Lexical Test, Governing Category Test, Syntax Test 1 and Syntax-269-

Nanzan Linguistics: Special Issue 3, Vol. 2

Test 2. These preliminary tests were designed to examine the subjects’ knowledge of thestructures and the vocabularies that were used in the main test.5 81 out of 92 passed thepreliminary tests.
The main test was designed to examine the subjects’ interpretation of the English
reflexives with respect to the GCP. It consists of two types of sentences: one contains a finite
embedded clause and the other contains an infinitival embedded clause.6 The test sentences
are shown in (15a) and (16a).
(15)

a. Ann remembers that [Mary introduced herself].
b. herself can be Ann.
c. herself can be Mary.

(16)

a. Mary asked [Ann to introduce herself].
b. herself can be Mary.
c. herself can be Ann.

The sentence (15a) has a reflexive within a finite embedded clause, and the sentence (16a) has
a reflexive within an infinitival embedded clause. Two statements (b) and (c) follow each test
sentence. The statement (b) checks whether or not the non-local subject can be the antecedentof the reflexive; the statement (c) checks if the local subject can be the antecedent of thereflexive.
3.3

Prediction

If MacLaughlin’s (1998) analysis is on the right track, we predict that subjects’ answers
should fall into three groups: Japanese-type, English-type and Russian-type, as summarized inTable 3.
Table 3: The Prediction
Clause type
Reflexive typeEnglish-type
Japanese-type
Russian-type

A sentence with a finite A sentence with an infinitival
embedded clauseembedded clause
Local subject only
Local/ non-local subject
Local subject only
Local/ non-local subject

The subjects with the English-type GCP would answer as in (17) and (18).

5

See Appendix A for the contents of the preliminary tests.

6

We used the same verb, ‘introduce’, for both the finite and the infinitival embedded clause in order
to avoid the influence of subjects’ knowledge of vocabularies on the interpretation of the English
reflexive.

-270-

Experimental Evidence for the Parameter Resetting Hypothesis (E. Watanabe et al.)(17)a. Ann remembers that [Mary introduced herself].
b. herself can be Ann.
AGREEDISAGREE
c. herself can be Mary.
AGREE
DISAGREE(18)

a. Mary asked [Ann to introduce herself].
b. herself can be Mary.
AGREEc. herself can be Ann.
AGREEDISAGREEDISAGREE

The subjects would answer that only the local subject is allowed for the antecedent of thereflexive. Then, the subjects would circle DISAGREE for the statement (b) and AGREE for
the statement (c).
The subjects with the Japanese-type GCP would answer as in (19) and (20).
(19)

a. [Ann remembers that Mary introduced herself].
b. herself can be Ann.
AGREEDISAGREE
c. herself can be Mary.
AGREE
DISAGREE(20)

a. [Mary asked Ann to introduce herself].
b. herself can be Mary.
AGREEc. herself can be Ann.
AGREEDISAGREEDISAGREE

If subjects keep their Japanese setting of the GCP, they would answer both the local and thenon-local subject are available for the antecedent of the reflexive.
The subjects with the Russian-type GCP would answer as (21) and (22).
(21)

a. Ann remembers that [Mary introduced herself].
b. herself can be Ann.
AGREEDISAGREE
c. herself can be Mary.
AGREE
DISAGREE(22)

a. [Mary asked Ann to introduce herself].
b. herself can be Mary.
AGREEc. herself can be Ann.
AGREEDISAGREEDISAGREE

If subjects have the Russian-type GCP, they would disallow the non-local subject for theantecedent of the reflexives in the sentence with a finite embedded clause, but they would
allow it in the sentence with an infinite clause.
3.4

Results

3.4.1

Group Results

The results of the control test are shown in Table 4.

-271-

Nanzan Linguistics: Special Issue 3, Vol. 2

Table 4:

The responses to the main test by the native English speaker (n=5)

The responses

The antecedent islocal subject
non-local
only
subject onlyThe
types of theembedded clausea finite embedded 100%(n=5)
clauseinfinitival
100%(n=5)
embedded clause

0%

both
none of them
local/non-local
subject
0%
0%

0%

0%

0%

It shows that the subjects of the control test (native English speakers) chose only the local
subject as the antecedent of the reflexive.
Table 5 and 6 present the performance of the L2 learners on the main test. Table 5 shows
the responses to the sentence with a finite embedded clause.
Table 5:

The responses to the test sentence with a finite embedded clause (n=81)

The responses

The antecedent islocal subject
non-local
only
subject only

The number ofsubjects (%)

92.6%(n=75)

0%

both
local/non-local
subject
7.4%(n=6)

none of
them

SUM

0%

100%
(n=81)

92.6% of the subjects chose only the local subject as the antecedent of the reflexive and 7.4%of the subjects chose both the local and the non-local subject as the antecedent of thereflexive.
Table 6 shows the responses to the sentence with an infinitival embedded clause.
Table 6:

The responses to the test sentence with an infinitival embedded clause (n=81)

The responses

The antecedent islocal subject
non-local
only
subject only

The number ofsubjects (%)

33.3%(n=27)

0%

both
local/non-local
subject
66.7%(n=54)

none of
them

SUM

0%

100%
(n=81)

33.3% of the subjects answered that only the local subject can be the antecedent of thereflexive, and 66.7% of the subjects answered that both the local and the non-local subject canbe the antecedent of the reflexive. These results show that, in contrast to the subject of thecontrol test, some L2 learners chose not only the local subject but also the non-local subject as
the antecedent of the reflexive. That is, some L2 learners applied the non-English GCP values
to interpret the English reflexives.

-272-

Experimental Evidence for the Parameter Resetting Hypothesis (E. Watanabe et al.)In the next sub-section, we examine the results individually in order to determine which
value of the GCP each subject uses.
3.4.2

Individual Results

The responses by the subject of the control test are repeated below. The English
reflexives must be bound locally in both the sentence with a finite clause and the sentencewith an infinitival clause. Therefore, we expected that the English native speaker would allow
only the local subject as the antecedent of the reflexive in both the finite and the infinitival
embedded clauses.
Table 4:

The responses to the main test by the native English speaker (n=5)

The responses

The antecedent islocal subject
non-local
only
subject onlyThe
types of theembedded clausea finite embedded 100%(n=5)
clausean infinitival
100%(n=5)
embedded clause

0%

both
none of them
local/non-local
subject
0%
0%

0%

0%

0%

As we expected, the English native speaker allowed only the local subject as the antecedent of
the reflexive.
Turning now to the L2 learners, we found three patterns of responses, just like
MacLaughlin (1998) did. Out of 81 subjects, 27 showed the English-type setting of the GCP,
6 showed the Japanese-type setting, and 48 showed the Russian-type setting. Table 7 through9 show the details of those three responses.
Let us first examine the first 27 subjects who showed the English-type setting of the
GCP.
Table 7:

English-type (n=27)

The responses

The antecedent islocal subject
non-local
only
subject onlyThe
types of theembedded clausea finite embedded 100%(n=27)
clausean infinitival
100%(n=27)
embedded clause

0%

both
none of them
local/non-local
subject
0%
0%

0%

0%

0%

Those subjects allowed only the local subject as the antecedent of the reflexive, just like theEnglish native speaker did.

-273-

Nanzan Linguistics: Special Issue 3, Vol. 2

Table 8 shows the responses of 6 subjects who showed the Japanese-type setting of the
GCP.
Table 8:Japanese-type (n=6)

The responses

The antecedent islocal subject
non-local
only
subject onlyThe
types of theembedded clausea finite embedded 0%
clausean infinitival0%
embedded clause

0%

both
none of them
local/non-local
subject
100% (n=6)
0%0%100% (n=6)

0%Those subjects allowed both the local and the non-local subject as the antecedent of thereflexive. Note that their responses did not show any differences between the sentence with afinite clause and the sentence with an infinite clause. This indicates that they use theJapanese-type of the GCP to interpret the English reflexives.
Table 9 shows the responses of 48 subjects.
Table 9:Russian-type (n=48)

The responses

The antecedent islocal subject
non-local
only
subject onlyThe
types of theembedded clausea finite embedded 100% (n=48)
clausean infinitival0%
embedded clause

0%

both
none of them
local/non-local
subject0%0%0%100% (n=48)0%

They did not allow the non-local subject as the antecedent of the reflexive in the sentencewith a finite embedded clause, while they allowed the non-local subject as the antecedent of
the reflexive in the sentence with an infinitival embedded clause. This indicates that they use
the Russian-type setting of the GCP.
Those results of the main test are summarized in Figure 1.

-274-

Experimental Evidence for the Parameter Resetting Hypothesis (E. Watanabe et al.)The number of subjects who are
categorized into each group

Figure 1: The results of the main test
$%

'&
$'
$&
)'
)&
!'
!&
('
(&
'
&

!"

#
&

English-type(
Japanese-type

Russian-type

OthersThe “English-type” refers to the subjects who used the English value of the GCP to interpretthe English reflexives. The “Japanese-type” refers to the subjects who applied the Japanesevalue of the GCP to interpret the English reflexives, and the “Russian-type” refers to thesubjects who used the Russian value of the GCP to interpret the English reflexives. “Others”
refers to the subjects who used the GCP value other than that of English, Japanese or Russian.
It is interesting that the number of subjects who has the Japanese-type setting of the GCP is
the smallest. 6 out of 81 subjects applied the Japanese value of the GCP. More than half of thesubjects, 48 out of 81, have the Russian-type setting of the GCP. 27 subjects have the GCPvalue of English. It means that 93% of our subjects interpreted the English reflexives using
the non-NL binding system (i.e., either the English-type or the Russian-type).
Our results are summarized in Table 10.
Table 10: The value of the GCP exhibited by the L2 learners
The types of
the GCP value
English-type (L2)Japanese-type (NL)
Russian-type
3.5

The
numberof subjects
27
6
48

The response patterns
The sentence with a finite The sentence with anembedded clauseinfinitival embedded clause
Local subject only
Local/non-local subject
Local subject only
Local/non-local subject

Discussion

The responses of our subjects are clearly divided into three types. Observe Table 10.
27 out of 81 subjects used the English-type of the GCP to interpret the English reflexives.
They chose the local subject only as the antecedent of the reflexives in both a finite and an
infinitival embedded clause. The number of subjects who applied the Japanese-type of the
GCP is 6. They chose both the local and the non-local subject as the antecedent of thereflexive in both a finite and an infinitival embedded clause. The subjects who used theRussian-type of the GCP chose only the local subject as the antecedent of the reflexive in a
finite embedded clause, and both the local and the non-local subject as the antecedent of the-275-

Nanzan Linguistics: Special Issue 3, Vol. 2

reflexive in an infinite embedded clause. 48 out of 81 subjects are categorized into this group.
The results are consistent with those of MacLaughlin (1998), and confirm his results withlarger number of subjects.
All three types of the GCP value, which are found in L2 acquisition, are actually thepossible grammar in some languages; English, Japanese, and Russian.7 These results indicatethat the grammar of L2 learners is constrained by UG, and our results support the Full UG
Access Hypothesis, but not the No UG Access Hypothesis.
In addition, according to MacLaughlin (1998), the results also support the Parameter
Resetting Hypothesis because L2 learners use the GCP value of non-NL (i.e., English or
Russian). Before we conclude that our results support the Parameter Resetting Hypothesis, we
examine two other possible analyses on our results.
We first examine a possible analysis of the responses by subjects with the Russian-type
GCP. According to MacLaughlin (1998), the presence of the Russian-type is one of the
crucial points to support the Parameter Resetting Hypothesis. However, there is anotherpossible analysis for the responses. That is, as Dulay et al. (1982) and Lott (1983) among
others argue, the responses may be due to the NL interference on L2.8 According to Dulay etal. (1982), the NL interference is the automatic influence of the learners’ L1 grammar on theL2 production. Our experimental results, however, are not explained well by this analysis.
If the NL interference may disturb the subjects’ interpretation of the English reflexives,then, the four types of responses should be found. The four possibilities are summarized inTable 11.
Table 11: The possible interpretations of the English reflexives
Clause typeA finite clause

An infinitival clause

Type
A
B
C
D

Local subject only
Local/ non-local subject
Local subject only
Local/ non-local subject
Local/ non-local subject
Local subject only

The response in Type-A is predicted if NL does not interfere with the interpretation of the
English reflexives. If the Japanese value of the GCP interferes with the interpretation of the
English reflexives in both a finite and an infinitival embedded clause, then we predict that the
response in Type B will be found. Moreover, the response in Type C is predicted if NL
7

Mamoru Saito, Tomohiro Fujii and Masayuki Komachi questioned whether or not the subjects set
such parameter values as (1b) and (1d) other than the Russian parameter value in the intermediateacquisition stages. Our experimental study does not falsify nor support the possibility, as (1b) and (1d)are not overt in the English syntax.
8

We would like to thank T. T. Christina Hsu for this suggestion.

-276-

Experimental Evidence for the Parameter Resetting Hypothesis (E. Watanabe et al.)interferes with the interpretation of the English reflexives in an infinitival embedded clause.
In addition, if the Japanese value of the GCP interferes with the interpretation of the English
reflexive in a finite embedded clause, the response like Type D is predicted.
The responses of Type A, B and C are corresponding to the responses of the
English-type, the Japanese-type, and the Russian-type respectively. However, none of our
subjects are categorized in Type D. Thus, the analysis of Dulay et al. (1982) fails to make thecorrect prediction.
Next, let us discuss the English-type setting of the GCP. MacLaughlin (1998) proposesthat the presence of this English-type GCP in L2 acquisition supports the Parameter Resetting
Hypothesis. However, these responses can be interpreted in another way: the subjects mighttransfer the L1 value (Yuan 1994).
In order to examine whether or not the Japanese learners of English used the Japanesevalue of the GCP to interpret the English reflexives, we conducted a follow-up test, and theresults provide a piece of counter evidence to Yuan’s argument. We employed thegrammatical judgement task to examine the interpretation of the English reflexives and theJapanese reflexives. Subjects were 14 university students whose native language wasJapanese.
The tests consisted of two parts: Session 1 and Session 2. Session 1 consisted of twoparts, 4 preliminary tests and one main test. The preliminary tests were same as the one usedin Section 3 and all subjects passed the preliminary tests. For the main test, we used 6 test
sentences as in (23).
(23) a.

Mary thinks that Lisa is proud of herself.

b.

Ann remembers that Mary introduced herself.

c.

Bob knows that Ken blames himself.

d.

Bob wants Peter to be proud of himself.

e.

Lisa asked Alice to introduce herself.

f.

Mary asks Alice to blame herself.

The main test was preceded in the same way as the experiment in Section 3. In Session 2,
subjects were asked to translate the test sentences in (23) into Japanese.
According to Yuan’s (1994) Transfer Hypothesis, some Japanese learners of English use
the GCP value of the Japanese phrasal reflexives -zisin for the interpretation of the English
reflexives. Hence, if Yuan’s argument is on the right track, those subjects who have theEnglish GCP value and do not allow the non-local antecedent would translate English -self as-277-

Nanzan Linguistics: Special Issue 3, Vol. 2-zisin, while those subjects who have the Japanese GCP value and allow the non-local
antecedent would translate -self as zibun. Those predictions are summarized in Table 12.
Table 12: Prediction based on Yuan’s (1994) Transfer Hypothesis
The value of the GCP
English-type
Japanese-type

The translation of the English reflexives-zisin ‘-self’zibun ‘self’

If the subjects used the English-type of the GCP to interpret the English reflexives, theywould translate the English reflexives into the Japanese phrasal reflexives. On the other hand,
if the subjects applied the Japanese-type of the GCP to interpret the English reflexives, theywould translate the English reflexives into the Japanese bare reflexive.
Figure 2 shows the results of the Session 1.

The number of subjects who are
categorized into each group

Figure 2: The results of the Session 1
!"

!"

*
)
(
'
&
%

#

#
$

!

!
"

"

English-type!
Japanese-type

Russian-type

OthersAs we find in Figure 2, 10 out of 14 subjects used the English value of the GCP, only 1 out of
14 subjects applied the Japanese value of the GCP, and 3 out of 14 subjects used the Russian
value of the GCP.
Next, we compare these results with those of Session 2. Table 13 shows the translationsof the English reflexives by one of the L2 learners. This subjects used the English-type GCP
to interpret the English reflexives in Session 1. Therefore, according to Yuan’s (1994) transfer
Hypothesis, we predicted that this subject would translate the English reflexives as Japanesephrasal reflexives, whose GCP value is the same with that of the English reflexives.

-278-

Experimental Evidence for the Parameter Resetting Hypothesis (E. Watanabe et al.)Table 13: The translations of the English reflexives by one of the L2 learners who used theEnglish value of the GCP (23a) to interpret the English reflexives
The test sentences

Finite embedded Infinitival embedded
clausesclausesMary thinks that Lisa is proud of zibun-zisin
herself.
‘myself’
Ann remembers that Mary introduced
zibun
herself.
‘self’
Bob knows that Ken blames himself.
kare-zisin‘himself’
Bob wants Peter to be proud of himself.
This subject did not
answer this question.
Lisa asked Alice to introduce herself.
zibun-zisin‘myself’
Mary asks Alice to blame herself.
zibun‘self’
Contrary to our prediction, this subject did not always translate the English reflexives into
Japanese as -zisin, or the Japanese phrasal reflexives.9 Table 13 shows the actual data.
Table 14 is the responses by a subject who set the Japanese-type GCP in Session 1.
Table 14: The translations of the English reflexives by one of the L2 learners who set theJapanese value of the GCP (23e) to interpret the English reflexives
The test sentences
Mary thinks that Lisa is proud of herself.
Ann remembers that Mary introduced
herself.
Bob knows that Ken blames himself.

Finite embedded
clauseszibun-zisin‘myself’zibun-zisin‘myself’
Ken-zisin(the local subject)

Bob wants Peter to be proud of himself.

Peter-zisin(the local subject)
Alice-zisin(the local subject)zibun-zisin‘myself’

Lisa asked Alice to introduce herself.
Mary asks Alice to blame herself.

9

Infinitival
embedded clauses

See Appendix B for more responses by the subjects who set the English-type GCP.

-279-

Nanzan Linguistics: Special Issue 3, Vol. 2This subject did not always translate the English reflexives as the Japanese bare reflexives
zibun. These responses are also contrary to what the Yuan’s (1994) Transfer Hypothesis
predicts.
The results indicate that the subjects who apply the English value of the GCP do nottransfer their Japanese value of the GCP. They reset their L1 parametric value to that of thetarget language, or English. Thus, our results of the main test (Section 3) that 27 subjects
exhibit the English binding system provide a piece of supportive evidence for the Parameter
Resetting Hypothesis.
4.

Conclusion

In this paper, we examined the availability of UG for L2 learners. Based on theexperimental study on the interpretation of English reflexives -self (e.g., himself) by the native
speakers of Japanese, we found that there is an intermediate acquisition stage where some L2
learners reset the Governing Category Parameter (GC) from the value of Japanese to the
non-Japanese (i.e., Russian), as MacLaughlin (1998) finds. The L2 learners select the value of
the GCP that is neither the one for their NL (i.e., Japanese) nor the one for the L2 (i.e.,
English). They sometimes select the value for a language that they have never been exposedto (i.e., Russian). Thus, our study provides a piece of supportive evidence for proposal that thegrammar of L2 learners is constrained by UG (the Full UG Access Hypothesis), and for theParameter Resetting Hypothesis.

References
Bailyn, John F. (1992). LF Movement of Anaphors and the Acquisition of Embedded Clauses in
Russian. Language Acquisition 2: 307-335.
Battistella, Edwin and Yonghui Xu. (1990). Remarks on the Reflexives in Chinese. Linguistics 28:
205-240.
Bley-Vroman, Robert. (1990). The Logical Problem of Foreign Language Learning. Linguistic
Analysis 20: 3-49.
Chomsky, Noam. (1981). Lectures on Government and Binding. Dordrecht: Foris.
. (1986). Knowledge of Language: Its Nature, Origin, and Use. New York: Praeger.
Clahsen, Harald and Peter Muysken. (1986). The Availability of Universal Grammar to Adult andChild Learners: A Study of the Acquisition of German Word Order. Second Language
Research 2: 93-119.
Cole, Peter, Gabriella Hermon and Li-May Sung. (1990). Principles and Parameters of Long-Distance
Reflexives. Linguistic Inquiry 21: 1-22.
Cook, Vivian. (1988). Chomsky’s Universal Grammar: An Introduction. Oxford: Blackwell.
Cook, Vivian and Mark Newson. (1996). Chomsky’s Universal Grammar: An Introduction. Oxford:
Blackwell.

-280-

Experimental Evidence for the Parameter Resetting Hypothesis (E. Watanabe et al.)du Plessis, Jacques, et al. (1987). UG or Not UG, That is the Question: A Reply to Clahsen andMuysken. Second Language Research 15: 133-160.
Dulay, Heidi, Martin Burt and Stephen Krashen. (1982). Language Two. New York: Oxford
University Press.
Epstein, Samuel, Suzanne Flynn and Gita Martohardjono. (1996). The Strong Continuity Hypothesis:
Some Evidence Concerning Functional Categories in Adult L2 Acquisition. In: Suzanne
Flynn, Gita Martohardjono, and Wayne A. O'Neil (eds.), The Generative Study of Second
Language Acquisition: 61-77. Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Finer, Daniel. (1990). Modularity and Lexical Parameterization in the Adult Grammar. Linguistics 28:
905-927.
Finer, Daniel and Ellen Broselow. (1986). Second Language Acquisition of Reflexive Binding. North
Eastern Linguistic Society 16: 154-168.
Hirakawa, Makiko. (1990). A Study of the L2 Acquisition of English Reflexive. Second Language
Research 6: 33-52.
Lott, David. (1983). Analysing and Counteracting Interference Errors. ELT Journal 37: 256-261.
MacLaughlin, Dawn. (1996). Second Language Acquisition of English Reflexives: Is There Hopebeyond Transfer. In: Andy Stringfellow, Dalia Cahana-Amitay, Elizabeth Hughes andAndrea Zukowski (eds.), Proceedings of the 20th Annual Boston University Conference on
Language Development: 453-464. Somerville, Massachusetts: Cascadilla Press.
. (1998). The Acquisition of the Morphosyntax of English Reflexives by Non-Native
Speakers. In: Maria-Luise Beck (ed.), Morphology and Its Interfaces in Second Language
Knowledge: 195-226. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Martohardjono, Gita and James Gair. (1993). Apparent UG Inaccessibility in Second Language
Acquisition: Misapplies Principles or Principled Misapplications? In: Fred R. Eckman (ed.),Confluence: Linguistics, L2 Acquisition and Speech Pathology: 79-103. Amsterdam: John
Benjamins.
. (1994). Negative and Positive Polarity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Pica, Pierre. (1987). On the Nature of the Reflexivization Cycle. North Eastern Linguistic Society 17:
483-499.
Schacter, John. (1988). Second Language Acquisition and its Relationship to Universal Grammar.
Applied Linguistics 9: 219-235.
Schwartz, Bonnie and Alessandra Tomaselli. (1990). Some Implications from an Analysis of German
Word Order. In: Werner Abraham, Wim Kosmeijer, and Eric Reuland (eds.), Issues inGermanic Syntax: 251-274. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
Tang, C.-C. Jane. (1985). A Study of Reflexives in Chinese. Taipei: National Taiwan Normal
University Thesis.
. (1989). Chinese Reflexives. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 7: 93-121.
Thomas, Margaret. (1989). The Interpretation of English Reflexive Pronouns by Non-Native Speakers.
Studies in Second Language Acquisition 11: 281-303.
. (1991). Universal Grammar and the Interpretation of Reflexives in a Second Language.
Language 67: 211-239.
Yuan, Boping. (1994). Second language acquisition of reflexives revisited. Language 70: 539-545.

-281-

Nanzan Linguistics: Special Issue 3, Vol. 2

Wang, Jiang and Justin T. Stillings. (1985). Chinese Reflexives. In: Xi-Yin Li et al. (eds.),
Proceedeings of the First Harbin Conference on Generative Grammar: 100-109. Harbinm
People’s Republic of China: Heilongjiang University Press.
Wexler, Kenneth and Rita Manzini. (1987). Parameters and Learnability in Binding Theory. In:
Thomas Roeper, and Edwin Williams (eds.), Parameter Setting: 41-76. Dordrecht: Reidel.
White, Lydia. (1985). The Pro-drop Parameter in Adult Second Language Acquisition. Language
Learning 35: 47-62.
. (1989). Universal Grammar and Second Language Acquisition. Amsterdam: John
Benjamins.
. (1992). Subjacency Violations and Empty Categpriesin L2 Acquisition. In: Helen
Goodluck and Michael Rochemont (eds.), Island Constraints: 445-464. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
. (2003). Second Language Acquisition and Universal Grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.

Appendix A: The Contents of the Preliminary Tests
The preliminary tests consist of Lexical Test, Governing Category Test, Syntax Test 1,
and Syntax Test 2. The Lexical test assesses the knowledge of the lexical meaning of the
English reflexives -self. The test sentences are shown in (i). The subjects are asked to choose
one of the choices to best indicate the picture.
(i) a.Mary’s mother asked Bob aboutb. Mr. White drewa. himb. himself
c. me
d. myselfc. Mr. Short founda. Miss Youngb. Mr. Shortc. himd. himself

a. myself.
b. yourself
c. themselves
d. himself
on a piece of paper.

in the picture.

Bob

B
o
b

Miss Young

M mother
Mary’s
a
r
y
’
s
m
o
tMr WhiteherMr. Short

The Governing Category Test is designed to assess the subjects’ knowledge of thebinding domain. The test sentences contain a pronoun in an embedded clause, as in (ii).
(ii)

a.
b.

Barbara thought that Lisa hit her brother.
Michael forced John to give him the key.

(a finite embedded clause)(an infinite embedded clause)

The Syntax Test 1 assesses the linear order effects. The examples have a relative clauseas in (iii).
(iii) a.

Miss Old who is a sister of June is looking at herself in a mirror.

-282-

Experimental Evidence for the Parameter Resetting Hypothesis (E. Watanabe et al.)b.

The man who John met wrote a story about himself.

The Syntax Test 2 assesses the knowledge of the structure of embedded clauses. The
sentences in (iv) are the test sentences.
(iv) a.
b.

Phillip found that Ken passed the exam.
Ken forced Sally to go to school.

(a finite embedded clause)(an infinite embedded clause)

Appendix B: The Translations of the English Reflexives by the L2 Learners
Table 15: The translations of the English reflexives by one of the L2 learners who used theEnglish value of the GCP (1a) to interpret the English reflexives
The test sentences

Finite embedded
clausesMary thinks that Lisa is proud of herself. zibun‘self’
Ann remembers that Mary introduced zikosyokai
herself.
‘introducing myself’Bob knows that Ken blames himself.
zibun‘self’
Bob wants Peter to be proud of himself.
Lisa asked Alice to introduce herself.
Mary asks Alice to blame herself.

Infinitival embedded
clauseszibun‘self’
zikosyokai‘introducing myself’
zibun‘self’

Table 16: The translations of the English reflexives by one of the L2 learners who used theEnglish value of the GCP (1a) to interpret the English reflexives
The test sentences
Mary thinks that Lisa is proud of herself.
Ann remembers that Mary introduced
herself.
Bob knows that Ken blames himself.

Finite embedded
clauseszibun‘self’
zikosyokai‘introducing myself’
zibun‘self’

Bob wants Peter to be proud of himself.
Lisa asked Alice to introduce herself.

Infinitival embedded
clausesPeter (local subject)zikosyokai‘introducing myself’watasi‘I’

Mary asks Alice to blame herself.

-283-