Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rcrh6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T15:50:44.023Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Syntax–semantics mappings as a source of difficulty in Japanese speakers’ acquisition of the mass–count distinction in English*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 November 2013

SHUNJI INAGAKI
SHUNJI INAGAKI*
Affiliation:
Nagoya University
*
Address for correspondence: Graduate School of Languages and Cultures, Nagoya University, Furo-cho, Chikusa-ku, Nagoya, Aichi 464-8601, Japan[email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper investigates Japanese speakers’ acquisition of the mass–count distinction in English. Learners judge whether two large objects/portions of stuff are more than six tiny objects/portions of stuff or vice versa. Results show that learners correctly base judgments on number for count nouns (judging that six small cups are more cups than two large cups) and object-mass nouns (e.g., furniture) and on volume for substance-mass nouns (judging that two large portions of mustard are more mustard than six tiny portions of it). For nouns that can be either mass or count in English (e.g., string(s)) or cross-linguistically (e.g., “spinach”), learners fail to shift judgments according to the mass–count syntax in which the words appear. Results suggest that Japanese learners have difficulty using mass–count syntactic cues to disambiguate the meanings and thus fail to acquire the mass–count distinction in English.

Keywords

L2 acquisitionmass–count distinctionEnglishJapanesequantity judgmentsyntax–semantics mappings
Type
Research Article
Information
Bilingualism: Language and Cognition , Volume 17 , Issue 3 , July 2014 , pp. 464 - 477
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2013 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*

I would like to thank David Barner for letting me use his stimuli, testing English native speakers, and giving me helpful comments and suggestions on an earlier version of this paper. I also thank anonymous reviewers for their constructive comments and Neal Snape for proofreading the manuscript. However, any errors are my own. My thanks also go to Shuchun Inagaki for her help in collecting data and moral support.

References

Athanasopoulos, P. (2006). Effects of the grammatical representation of number on cognition in bilinguals. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 9, 89–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baker, M. C. (2003). Lexical categories: Verbs, nouns, and adjectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bale, A., & Barner, D. (2009). The interpretation of functional heads: Using comparatives to explore the mass/count distinction. Journal of Semantics, 26, 217–252.Google Scholar
Barner, D., Inagaki, S., & Li, P. (2009). Language, thought, real nouns. Cognition, 111, 329–344.Google Scholar
Barner, D., & Snedeker, J. (2005). Quantity judgments and individuation: Evidence that mass nouns count. Cognition, 97, 41–66.Google Scholar
Barner, D., & Snedeker, J. (2006). Children's early understanding of mass–count syntax: Individuation, lexical content, and the number asymmetry hypothesis. Language Learning and Development, 2, 163–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barner, D., Wagner, L., & Snedeker, J. (2008). Events and the ontology of individuals: Verbs as a source of individuating nouns. Cognition, 106, 805–832.Google Scholar
Bloom, P. (1994). Semantic competence as an explanation for some transitions in language development. In Levy, Y. (ed.), Other children, other languages: Theoretical issues in language development, pp. 41–75. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Bloom, P. (1999). The role of semantics in solving the bootstrapping problem. In Jackendoff, R., Bloom, P. & Wynn, K. (eds.), Language, logic, and concepts: Essays in memory of John Macnamara, pp. 285–309. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chierchia, G. (1998a). Plurality of mass nouns and the notion of “semantic parameter”. In Rothstein, S. (ed.), Events and grammar, pp. 53–103. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chierchia, G. (1998b). Reference to kinds across languages. Natural Language Semantics, 6, 339–405.Google Scholar
Gillon, B. (1992). Towards a common semantics for English count and mass nouns. Linguistics and Philosophy, 15, 597–640.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gillon, B. (1999). The lexical semantics of English count and mass nouns. In Viegas, E. (ed.), The breadth and depth of semantic lexicons, pp. 19–37. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Gordon, P. (1985). Evaluating the semantic categories hypothesis: The case of the mass/count distinction. Cognition, 20, 209–242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gordon, P. (1988). Mass/count category acquisition: Distributional distinctions in children's speech. Journal of Child Language, 15, 109–128.Google Scholar
Halle, M., & Marantz, A. (1993). Distributed Morphology and the pieces of inflection. In Hale, K. & Keyser, S. J. (eds.), The view from Building 20: Essays in linguistics in honor of Sylvain Bromberger, pp. 111–176. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Hiki, M. (1990). The judgment of noun countability by Japanese college students: Where is the difficulty? JACET Bulletin, 21, 19–38.Google Scholar
Hua, D., & Lee, T. H-t. (2005). Chinese ESL learners’ understanding of the English count–mass distinction. In Dekydtspotter, L., Sprouse, R. A. & Liljestrand, A. (eds.), Proceedings of the 7th Generative Approaches to Second Language Acquisition Conference (GASLA 2004), pp. 139–149. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Imai, M., & Gentner, D. (1997). A cross-linguistic study on early word meaning: Universal ontology and linguistic influence. Cognition, 62, 169–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Imai, M., & Mazuka, R. (2007). Language-relative construal of individuation constrained by universal ontology: Revisiting language universals and linguistic relativity. Cognitive Science, 31, 385–413.Google Scholar
Inagaki, S., & Barner, D. (2009). Countability in absence of count syntax: Evidence from Japanese quantity judgments. In Inagaki, S., Hirakawa, M., Hirakawa, Y., Sirai, H., Arita, S., Morikawa, H., Nakayama, M. & Tsubakita, J. (eds.), Papers from the Eighth Annual Conference of the Japanese Society for Language Sciences (Studies in Language Sciences 8), pp. 111–125. Tokyo: Kurosio Publishers.Google Scholar
Krashen, S. D. (1977). Some issues relating to the Monitor Model. In Brown, H. D., Yorio, C. & Crymes, R. (eds.), On TESOL '77, pp. 144–158. Washington, DC: TESOL.Google Scholar
Landman, F. (1991). Structures for semantics. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Li, Y.-h. A. (1999). Plurality in a classifier language. Journal of East Asian Linguistics, 8, 75–99.Google Scholar
Link, G. (1998). Algebraic semantics in language and philosophy. Stanford, CA: Center for the Study of Language and Information.Google Scholar
Lucy, J. A. (1992). Grammatical categories and cognition: A case study of the linguistic relativity hypothesis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Macnamara, J. (1982). Names for things: A study of human learning. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Macnamara, J. (1986). A border dispute: The place of logic in psychology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
MacWhinney, B. (1989). Competition and lexical categorization. In Corrigan, R., Eckman, F. & Noonan, M. (eds.), Linguistic categorization, pp. 195–241. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Martin, S. (1975). A reference grammar of Japanese. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Middleton, E. L., Wisniewski, E. J., Trindel, K. A., & Imai, M. (2004). Separating the chaff from the oats: Evidence for a conceptual distinction between count noun and mass noun aggregates. Journal of Memory and Language, 50, 371–394.Google Scholar
Mizuguchi, S. (2001). Plurals in classifier languages. In Editorial Committee for the Festschrift in Honor of Professor Minoru Nakau on his 60th Birthday (eds.), Imi to katachi no intaafeesu. Ge-kan [The meaning–form interface] (vol. 2), pp. 527–535. Tokyo: Kurosio Publishers.Google Scholar
Muromatsu, K. (2003). Classifiers and the count/mass distinction. In Li, Y.-h. A. & Simpson, A. (eds.), Functional structure(s), form and interpretation: Perspectives from East Asian languages, pp. 65–96. London: RoutledgeCurzon.Google Scholar
Nakanishi, K., & Tomioka, S. (2004). Japanese plurals are exceptional. Journal of East Asian Linguistics, 13, 113–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pustejovsky, J. (1995). The Generative Lexicon. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Quine, W. V. O. (1960). Word and object. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Shirahata, T. (1988). The learning order of English grammatical morphemes by Japanese high school students. JACET Bulletin, 19, 83–102.Google Scholar
Snape, N. (2008). Resetting the Nominal Mapping Parameter in L2 English: Definite article use and the count–mass distinction. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 11, 63–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thomas, M. (1989). The acquisition of English articles by first- and second-language learners. Applied Psycholinguistics, 10, 335–355.Google Scholar
Tsujimura, N. (2007). An introduction to Japanese linguistics (2nd edn.). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Wisniewski, E. J., Imai, M., & Casey, L. (1996). On the equivalence of superordinate concepts. Cognition, 60, 269–298.Google Scholar
Yoon, K. Y. (1993). Challenging prototype descriptions: Perception of noun countability and indefinite vs. zero article use. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 31, 269–289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar