Acquisition of Topic Shift by L1English Speakers of L2 Japanese
Acquisition of Topic Shift by L1English Speakers of L2 Japanese
复制标题
讲 L1 英语的 L2 日语者掌握话题转移
DOI：
--
复制
发表时间：
2011
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
T. Okuma
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
T. Okuma
在第二语言习得中，一个令人困惑的发现是，接近母语的成年第二语言使用者在最终状态下往往无法获得完全的母语能力。界面假说（下文简称IH） （Tsimpli & Sorace, 2006）试图解释这个谜题。IH表明，第二语言使用者在外部接口（如语法-话语接口）方面的知识可能存在持续的问题。这一观点得到了Belletii， Bennati和Sorace(2007)（以下简称BB&S）的支持，他们调查了母语英语接近母语的第二语言意大利语人士对控制代词分布（话题转移）的话语约束（话题转移）的习得。在意大利语中，空主语代词通常指已经建立的主题先行词（[-topic shift]），而显性主语代词表示主题的变化（[+topic shift]）。BB&S认为(i)话题性而不是主体性在决定意大利语代词的先行词方面至关重要，（ii）近母语者误解和过度使用显性代词，这表明他们没有获得对显性代词的[+话题转移]要求。为了测试IH的适用性，本研究考察了另一种无主题语言日语，并以两种方式扩展了BB&S。首先，对影响代词先行词选择的话题性和主体性两个因素进行分离，找出哪一个因素对代词先行词的选择更为关键。日语有一个主题标记wa，它不同于主格标记ga。因此，在意大利语中混淆的话题性和主体性是可以分开的。其次，讨论了虚代词和显性代词在主宾位置上是否存在互补分布。日语允许对象掉落和主体掉落；在此基础上，研究了BB&S中未讨论的虚代词和显性代词在宾语位上的分布。据作者所知，这是第一次尝试调查日语中空/显性主/宾代词的先行词偏好。离线口译任务和书面引出的生产任务挑战BB&S的结果表明：(i)主体性比话题性在决定日语代词的先行词方面更重要，这与他们的假设相反；（ii）高级二语使用者对空代词主语的解释与日语单语者不同，而不是显性代词主语。这表明，对空代词的[-主语转移]要求，而不是对显性代词的[+主题转移]要求，可能是第二语言语法中的残留问题。本文的结构如下：第2节介绍了IH，并提出了BB&S的研究结果。第三节讨论了日语中是否存在与意大利语类似的空代词和显性代词的互补分布。第4节给出了研究问题和假设。第5节解释了实验并给出了结果。第6节讨论了研究结果的含义，随后给出了结论。
A puzzling finding in second language acquisition is that near native adult L2 speakers at the end state often do not attain full native-like competence. The Interface Hypothesis (henceforth IH) (Tsimpli & Sorace, 2006) is an attempt to give an account of this puzzle. The IH suggests that L2 speakers may have a persistent problem in their knowledge relating to external interfaces, such as the syntax-discourse interface. This is supported by Belletii, Bennati & Sorace (2007) (henceforth BB&S), who investigated acquisition of discourse constraints (topic shift) governing the distribution of pronouns (topic shift) by L1 English near-native speakers of L2 Italian. In Italian, null subject pronouns typically refer to already established topic antecedents ([-topic shift]), whereas, overt subject pronouns signal a change in topic ([+topic shift]). BB&S argue that (i) topichood rather than subjecthood is crucial in determining the antecedents of pronouns in Italian, and that (ii) near natives misinterpreted and overused overt pronouns, suggesting that they had not acquired the [+topic shift] requirement for overt pronouns. In order to test the applicability of the IH, this study looks at another null subject language, Japanese, and extends BB&S in two ways. First, two factors which affect the choice of antecedents of pronouns, namely, topichood and subjecthood, are separated to find out which is more crucial in determining the antecedents of pronouns. Japanese has a topic marker wa, which is distinct from a nominative case marker ga. Therefore, topichood and subjecthood, which are confounded in Italian, can be separated. Second, whether the complementary distribution of null and overt pronouns is observed in subject and object positions is discussed. Japanese allows object drop as well as subject drop; accordingly, the distribution of null and overt pronouns in object position, which is not discussed in BB&S, is investigated. To the best of the author s knowledge, this is the first attempt to investigate the antecedent preference of null/overt subject/object pronouns in Japanese. The results of an off-line interpretation task and a written, elicited production task challenge BB&S, showing that (i) subjecthood is more crucial than topichood in determining the antecedents of pronouns in Japanese, contrary to their assumption, and that (ii) the advanced L2 speakers had a different interpretation of null pronominal subjects, rather than overt pronominal subjects, from Japanese monolinguals. This suggests that a [-subject shift] requirement for null pronouns, not a [+topic shift] requirement for overt pronouns, can be a residual problem in the L2 grammar. This paper is structured in the following way: Section 2 introduces the IH and presents the findings of BB&S. Section 3 discusses whether the complementary distribution of null and overt pronouns is observed in Japanese, similarly to Italian. Section 4 gives research questions and hypotheses. Section 5 explains the experiment and presents the results. Section 6 discusses the implications of the findings, followed by a conclusion.