Abstract
Previous studies on the L2 acquisition of -teiru in Japanese have revealed that the resultative meaning of -teiru is learned later than its progressive meaning, as predicted by the Aspect Hypothesis (Shirai and Kurono, Language Learning, 48, 245–279, 1998). It has also been found that learners have problems with the resultative meaning of -teiru when there is L1—L2 crosslinguistic discrepancy in lexical aspect (Nishi, Verb learning and the acquisition of aspect: Rethinking the universality of lexical aspect and the significance of L1 transfer. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Cornell University, Ithaca, 2008). While researchers have uncovered the universal tendency of the developmental process of -teiru, it is not clear what promotes the learning of more difficult (or less prototypical or more marked) meanings of -teiru, and to what extent instruction affects the learning. It is also a question of whether the lexical aspect of verbs in L2 is learnable. As an attempt to address these issues, this study investigated the role of explicit grammar instruction on the learning of the resultative meaning of -teiru, by teaching L2 learners of Japanese the notion of lexical aspect, and how the aspectual meaning of -teiru is determined by lexical aspect. The results showed a positive effect of explicit form-focused instruction for the beginner group, but not for the intermediate group. The findings suggest that explicit linguistic explanation may facilitate the learning of Japanese imperfective -teiru, at least in the early stages of learning.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
- 1.
- 2.
The list of abbreviations used in this chapter is as follows: ACC = accusative, ALL = allative, ASP = aspect, CLF = classifier, INS = instrumental, LOC = locative, NOM = nominative, NONPST = nonpast, TOP = topic.
- 3.
Accomplishments also yield progressive meaning if combined with -teiru (Shirai 2000), but to our knowledge no acquisition study has so far investigated the asymmetry between activity and accomplishment in the acquisition of the progressive meaning of -teiru.
- 4.
The textbooks analysed are:
Banno, E., Ohno, Y., Ikeda, Y., Shinagawa, C., & Takashiki, K. (2006) Genki: An Integrated Course in Elementary Japanese. Tokyo: The Japan Times.
Jorden, E. H., & Noda, M. (1987) Japanese: The Spoken Language, Part I. New Haven & London: Yale University Press.
Hatasa, Y. A., Hatasa, K., & Makino, S. (2015) Nakama 1: Introductory Japanese: Communication, culture, context. (3rd edn) Stamford, CT: Cengage Learning.
Tohsaku, Y.-H. (2006) Yookoso! An Invitation to Contemporary Japanese (3rd edn). New York: McGraw Hill.
Tsukuba Language Group (1991) Situational Functional Japanese, Vol.1: Notes. Tokyo: Bonjinsha.
Tsukuba Language Group (1994) Situational Functional Japanese, Vol. 2: Notes (2nd edn). Tokyo: Bonjinsha.
- 5.
In contrast, Know-Type results in anomaly if direct translation is applied. For example, if Ken-wa Naomi-o sit-te i-ru is translated into English, it will be *‘Ken is knowing Naomi’.
- 6.
Our study was conducted in conjunction with the study reported in Nishi and Shirai (2007), which investigated the role of crosslinguistic discrepancies in lexical aspect on the acquisition of -teiru. While the same test results were used for analyses, the average accuracy rates were recalculated for our study because of the exclusion of data obtained from participants who participated only in the initial phase of the experimental procedures.
- 7.
In fact, even though siru and know are usually considered translation equivalents, a more precise translation would be ‘come to know’ since Japanese siru refers to punctual point of entry into state of knowing, and thus achievement. All of the Know-type verbs used in this study are of this type.
- 8.
Ride-Type is similar to Know-Type in that the Japanese verb signals punctual entry into a new state. The difference is that English equivalents in Ride-Type (e.g. stand), unlike Know-Type, are not stative in terms of lexical aspect since these verbs cannot refer to an ongoing state without repetition, which is the test for stativity used in Shirai and Andersen (1995). In other words, this class in English denotes entry into activity.
References
Andersen, R. W., & Shirai, Y. (1994). Discourse motivations for some cognitive acquisition principles. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 16(2), 133–156.
Andersen, R. W., & Shirai, Y. (1996). The primacy of aspect in first and second language acquisition: The pidgin-creole connection. In W. C. Ritchie & T. K. Bhatia (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 527–570). San Diego: Academic Press.
Bardovi-Harlig, K. (1999). From morpheme studies to temporal semantics: Tense-aspect research in SLA. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24(2), 189–198.
Bardovi-Harlig, K. (2000). Tense and aspect in second language acquisition: Form, meaning, and use. Malden/Oxford: Blackwell.
Collins, L. (1999). Marking time: The acquisition of tense and grammatical aspect by French-speaking learners of English. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation. Concordia University, Montreal, Quebec.
Collins, L. (2002). The roles of L1 influence and lexical aspect in the acquisition of temporal morphology. Language Learning, 52, 43–94.
Collins, L. (2004). The particulars on universals: A comparison of the acquisition of tense-aspect morphology among Japanese- and French-speaking learners of English. The Canadian Modern Language Review/La Revue Canadienne des Langues Vivantes, 61, 251–274.
Doughty, C. (1991). Second language instruction does make a difference. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 13, 431–469.
Eckman, F., Bell, L., & Nelson, D. (1988). On the generalization of relative clause instruction in the acquisition of English as a second language. Applied Linguistics, 9, 1–20.
Gabriele, A. (2009). Transfer and transition in the SLA of aspect. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 31, 371–402.
Hatasa, Y. (2008). Kyookasho kaihatsu ni okeru daini gengo shuutoku kenkyuu no yakuwari – Nakama: Japanese Communication, Context, Culture, 2nd Edition no keesu [A role of second language acquisition studies for development of textbook]. Daini gengo to shite nonihongo no shuutoku kenkyuu [Acquisition Studies of Japanese as a Second Language], 11, 42–61.
Ishida, M. (2004). Effects of recasts on the acquisition of the aspectual form -te i-(ru) by learners of Japanese as a foreign language. Language Learning, 54(2), 311–394.
Juffs, A. (2001). Verb classes, event structure, and second language learners’ knowledge of semantics-syntax correspondences. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 23, 305–313.
Kageyama, T. (1996). Doosi imiron [Verb Semantics]. Tokyo: Kurosio.
Krashen, S. (1985). The input hypothesis: Issues and implications. Harlow: Longman.
Kudo, M. (1995). Asupekuto tensu taikei to tekusuto. [Aspect-Tense System and Text]. Tokyo: Hitsuji Shobo.
Kuno, S. (1973). The structure of the Japanese language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Koyama, S. (2003). Nihongo no tensu asupekuto no syuutoku ni okeru fuhensei to kobetusei: bogo no yakuwari to eikyoo o tyuusin ni [Universality and crosslinguistic variations in the acquisition of tense-aspect in Japanese: Focusing on the role of the influence of mother tongue]. In S. Koyama, K. Oomoto, & M. Nohara (Eds.), Gengo to kyooiku: Nihongo o taisyo tosite [Language and Education: Japanese] (pp. 415–436). Tokyo: Kurosio.
Lardiere, D. (2003). Revisiting the comparative fallacy: a reply to Lakshmanan and Selinker, 2001. Second Language Research, 19(2), 129–143.
Levin, B., & Rappaport Hovav, M. (1995). Unaccusativity: At the syntax-lexical semantics interface. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Li, P., & Shirai, Y. (2000). The acquisition of lexical and grammatical aspect. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
McClure, W. T. (1990). A lexical semantic explanation for unaccusative mismatches. In K. Dziwirek, P. Ferrell, & E. Mejias-Bikandi (Eds.), Grammatical relations: A cross theoretical perspective (pp. 305–318). Stanford: The Center for the Study of Language and Information.
McClure, W. T. (1995). Syntactic projections of the semantics of aspect. Tokyo: Hituzi Syobo.
Nishi, Y. (2008). Verb learning and the acquisition of aspect: Rethinking the universality of lexical aspect and the significance of L1 transfer. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Cornell University, Ithaca.
Nishi, Y., & Shirai, Y. (2007). Where L1 semantic transfer occurs: The significance of cross-linguistic variation in lexical aspect in the L2 acquisition of aspect. In Y. Matsumoto, D. Y. Oshima, O. W. Robinson, & P. Sells (Eds.), Diversity in language: Perspectives and implications (pp. 219–241). Stanford: CSLI Publications.
Schmidt, R. W. (1990). The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 11, 12–58.
Sheu, S. (1997). Tyuu-zyookyuu taiwanzin nihongo gakusyuusya ni yoru teiru no syuutoku ni kansuru oodan kenkyuu [A cross-sectional study of the acquisition of -teiru by intermediate and advanced Taiwanese learners of Japanese]. Nihongo kyooiku [Journal of Japanese Language Teaching], 95, 37–48.
Shirai, Y. (1991) Primacy of aspect in language acquisition: Simplified input and prototype. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles.
Shirai, Y. (1995). Tense-aspect marking by L2 learners of Japanese. Proceedings of the annual Boston University conference on language development, 19(2), 575–586.
Shirai, Y. (1998). The emergence of tense-aspect morphology in Japanese: Universal predisposition? First Language, 18, 281–309.
Shirai, Y. (2000). The semantics of the Japanese imperfective -teiru: An integrative approach. Journal of Pragmatics, 32, 327–361.
Shirai, Y. (2002). The aspect hypothesis in SLA and the acquisition of Japanese. Acquisition of Japanese as a Second Language, 5, 42–61.
Shirai, Y. (2004). A multiple-factor account for the form-meaning connections in the acquisition of tense-aspect morphology. In B. VanPatten, J. Williams, S. Rott, & M. Overstreet (Eds.), Form-meaning connections in second language acquisition (pp. 91–112). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Shirai, Y. (2012). Second language acquisition research and Japanese language teaching: A functionalist approach. Japanese Studies, 32(3), 317–334.
Shirai, Y., & Andersen, R. W. (1995). The acquisition of tense-aspect morphology: A prototype account. Language, 71, 743–762.
Shirai, Y., & Kurono, A. (1998). The acquisition of tense-aspect marking in Japanese as a second language. Language Learning, 48, 245–279.
Shirai, Y., & Nishi, Y. (2002). Lexicalisation of aspectual structures in English and Japanese. In A. Giacalone-Ramat (Ed.), Typology and second language acquisition (pp. 267–290). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Shirai, Y., & Nishi, Y. (2005). How what we mean impacts how we talk: The Japanese imperfective aspect marker -teiru in conversation. In J. Frodesen & C. Holten (Eds.), The power of context in language teaching and learning (pp. 39–48). Boston, MA: Heinle & Heinle.
Slabakova, R. (2000). L1 transfer revisited: The L2 acquisition of telicity marking in English by Spanish and Bulgarian native speakers. Linguistics, 38, 739–770.
Smith, C. S. (1997). The parameter of aspect (2 ed.). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Sugaya, N., & Shirai, Y. (2007). The acquisition of progressive and resultative meanings of the imperfective aspect marker by L2 learners of Japanese: Universals, transfer, or multiple factors? Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 29(1), 1–38.
Talmy, L. (1985). Lexicalization patterns: Semantic structure in lexical forms. In T. Shopen (Ed.), Language typology and syntactic description III: Grammatical categories and the lexicon (pp. 57–149). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Tatevosov, S. (2002). The parameter of actionality. Linguistic Typology, 6, 317–401.
Teramura, H. (1984). Nihongo no sintakusu to imi II. [Japanese syntax and meaning II]. Tokyo: Kurosio.
Vendler, Z. (1957). Verbs and times. Philosophical Review, 66, 143–160.
Zobl, H. (1983). Markedness and the projection problem. Language Learning, 33(3), 293–313.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Copyright information
© 2016 The Author(s)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Nishi, Y., Shirai, Y. (2016). The Role of Linguistic Explanation in the Acquisition of Japanese Imperfective -teiru . In: Benati, A., Yamashita, S. (eds) Theory, Research and Pedagogy in Learning and Teaching Japanese Grammar. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-49892-2_6
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-49892-2_6
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, London
Print ISBN: 978-1-137-49891-5
Online ISBN: 978-1-137-49892-2
eBook Packages: Literature, Cultural and Media StudiesLiterature, Cultural and Media Studies (R0)