Is a quantifier mismatch a problem for L1 Japanese learners of English?
Paul N. Nehls
Yokohama National University; Yokohama City University , Japanhttps://orcid.org/0000-0002-2141-1197
Kodai Aramaki
Yokohama National University , JapanTomohiro Fujii
Yokohama National University , Japanhttps://orcid.org/0000-0001-7388-4407
Abstract
After identifying a linguistic difference between the English quantifier most and the Japanese quantifier hotondo ‘most’ we set out to find if the semantic difference between the two would constitute a learning problem for Japanese second language (L2) learners of English. The difference we hypothesized between the two is that English most is considered “more than half,” while hotondo is “nearly all.” As this semantic difference is not explicitly taught in a classroom environment, acquisition by learners would need to take place through experiencing most in contexts where they might receive contextual clues. An examination of a corpus indicated that contextual clues towards such a semantic difference would be unavailable or rarely available. Two sets of experiments (Experiments 1 and 2) were conducted using the Truth Value Judgment Task methodology. The results of Experiment 1 showed that L2 speakers treated most as meaning “nearly all” but that the level of learner proficiency has an effect. The upper intermediate L2 learner group (Experiment 1a) behaved more like the L1 English speaker group (Experiment 1b) than the lower proficiency L2 group (Experiment 1c). Experiment 2, testing Japanese L1 speakers on their interpretation of Japanese hotondo ‘most,’ revealed that while a majority of participants treated hotondo as “almost all,” there was, somewhat unexpectedly, a group of speakers who interpreted hotondo to mean “more than half.” Therefore, although the possibility cannot completely be eliminated that the result of Experiment 1a is due to L1 transfer, if some Japanese learners of English can unlearn the incorrect meaning, then some prior, if not innate, knowledge that makes the process possible must be available to them.
Keywords:
quantifier, learning problem, L2 acquisition, semantic mismatch, truth value judgement taskReferences
Ariel, M. 2004. Most. Language 80: 658–706. (Crossref)
Barraja-Rohan, A. M. 2013. Second language interactional competence and its development: A study of international students in Australia. Ph.D. diss., Monash University.
Barwise, J. and Cooper, R. 1981. Generalized quantifiers and natural language. Linguistics & Philosophy 5: 159–219. (Crossref)
Chomsky, N. 1975. Reflections on Language. New York: Random House.
Crain, S. and Thornton, R. 1998. Investigations in Universal Grammar. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.
Degen, J., and Tanenhaus, M. 2015. Processing scalar implicature: A constraint-based approach. Cognitive Science 39: 667-710. (Crossref)
Dekydtspotter, L., Sprouse, R. and Anderson, B. 1997. The interpretive interface in L2 acquisition: The process-result distinction in English-French interlanguage grammars. Language Acquisition 6: 297–332. (Crossref)
Dupuy L., Stateva P., Andreetta S., Reboul, A. and Stepanov, A. 2018. Pragmatic abilities in bilinguals: The case of scalar implicatures. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism 9: 314-40. (Crossref)
Feng S. and Cho, J. 2019. Asymmetries between direct and indirect scalar implicatures in second language acquisition. Frontiers in Psychology 10. (Crossref)
Guasti, M. T., Chierchia, G., Crain, S., Foppolo, F., Gualmini, A. and Meroni, L. 2005. Why children and adults sometimes (but not always) compute implicatures. Language and Cognitive Processes 20: 667–696. (Crossref)
Hackl, M. 2009. On the grammar and processing of proportional quantifiers: most versus more than half. Natural Language Semantics 17: 63–98. (Crossref)
Horn, L. 2006. The border wars: A neo-Gricean perspective. In K. von Heusinger and K. Turner (eds.), Where Semantics meets Pragmatics, 21–48. Amsterdam: Elsevier. (Crossref)
Hunter, T. and Lidz, J. 2013. Conservativity and Learnability of Determiners. Journal of Semantics 30: 315–334. (Crossref)
Papafragou, A. and Musolino, J. 2003. Scalar implicatures: Experiments at the semantics-pragmatics interface. Cognition 86: 253–28. (Crossref)
Papafragou, A. and Schwarz, N. 2006. Most wanted. Language Acquisition 13: 207-251. (Crossref)
Slabakova, R. 2001. Telicity in the Second Language. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. (Crossref)
Slabakova, R. 2003. Semantic evidence for functional categories in interlanguage grammars. Second Language Research 19: 42–75. (Crossref)
Slabakova, R. 2006. Is there a critical period for the acquisition of semantics. Second Language Research 22: 302–338. (Crossref)
Slabakova, R. 2012. L2 Semantics. In S. M. Gass and A. Mackey (eds.), The Routledge Handbook of Second Language Acquisition, 127–146. London: Routledge.
Snape, N. and Hosoi, H. 2018. Acquisition of scalar implicatures: Evidence from adult Japanese L2 learners of English. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism 8:, 163-192. (Crossref)
Song, H. and Schwartz, B. 2009. Testing the fundamental difference hypothesis: L2 adult, L2 child, and L1 child comparisons in the acquisition of Korean wh-constructions with negative polarity items. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 31: 323–361. (Crossref)
Tancredi, C., Hoshi, K. and Grosu, A. 2021. The syntax and semantics of Japanese internally and doubly headed relatives. Glossa 6: 93. 1-31. (Crossref)
Zhang, J. and Wu, Y. 2022. Epistemic reasoning in pragmatic inferencing by non-native speakers: The case of scalar implicatures. Second Language Research. (Crossref)
Yokohama National University; Yokohama City University https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2141-1197
Yokohama National University
