L2 Learners and the Apparent Problem of Morphology: Evidence from L2 Japanese

Abstract

A long- standing observation within second language acquisition (SLA) research is that target language (TL) morphology presents problems for non-native speakers. Second-language (L2) classrooms, textbooks and teachers often devote a significant amount of time, attention and energy to instruction in these domains, and yet L2 learners often show evidence of protracted optionality with respect to L2 morphology (see e.g. Lardiere 2009; Slabakova 2008; White 2003 for discussion and evidence). There are at least two possible reasons for this: learners receive insufficient input or exposure to target language morphology, or they lack the ability to represent the features that govern morphology in their interlanguage grammars. Much of the research that has investigated the acquisition and representation of L2 morphology has focused on the second possibility, and has investigated the type of morphology found in European languages, such as gender (see e.g. Hawkins and Chan 1997; Lardiere 1998; Tsimpli and Dimitrakopoulou 2007; White et al. 2004). The study in this chapter investigates the acquisition of Japanese case morphology, which is a different type of acquisition problem than those explored in previous studies.

Appendix A

Transitive Reversible SOV Sentences

Note: As described in the Materials section, vocabulary was selected from Genki I in order to ensure that participants were familiar with it. This limited the vocabulary that could be used, and the all of the transitive verbs that could plausibly take two animate nouns are included below. This may make some of the sentences sound a little unnatural, but the objective of the present study was to investigate participants’ knowledge of case marking, and ensuring that participants understood the vocabulary was thought to be more important than preserving naturalness. Sentences were followed by a comprehension question asking participants to pick the agent. Similarly, in some cases the nominative case marker, −ga, is used where the topic marker, −wa would be preferred. This was done to ensure that the particles are consistent across sentences. Again, the question is whether participants rely on the information encoded in −ga and −o to interpret sentences. Most kanji are rendered in hiragana to ensure that any lack of kanji knowledge would not keep participants from understanding the sentences.

• 1. The boy saw the girl in the cafeteria.

• 2. The mother waited for the girl at the station.

• 3. Mr. Suzuki helped Mr. Tanaka in the bookstore.

• 4. My father saw the teacher in the grocery store.

• 5. Mr. Tanaka helped Mr. Suzuki in the restaurant.

• 6. The dog waited for the girl in the park.

• 7. Ali waited for Mr. Honda at the coffee shop.

• 8. The girl waited for the boy in the classroom.

• 9. My grandfather saw my mother at the bus stop.

• 10. The mother saw the teacher in the coffee shop.

• 11. The teacher waited for the boy in the classroom.