Syntactic Bootstrapping in Korean Speakers’ Acquisition of Telicity in English: Link between Transitivity and Telicity
0
조회
0
다운로드
0
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
This paper explores the transitivity bootstrapping hypothesis as a guide for determining telicity in English with Korean speakers. It hypothesizes that telic interpretations are linked to transitive frames and atelic ones to intransitive frames. The predicted pattern of acquisition is that the Korean participants would make errors with atelic transitives and telic intransitives since they are not supported by the hypothesis. The results show that they made the relevant distinction between telic and atelic items for three out of the four transitivity-telicity pairs, failing to do so for telic intransitives. These mistakes with telic intransitives are precisely the pattern predicted by the hypothesis. It confirms that the syntactic bootstrapping hypothesis is part of the acquisition toolkit exploited by L2 learners. As for the puzzle of why telic intransitives, but not atelic transitives, were particularly vulnerable to transitivity bias, it is argued to be best explained by the Surface Generalization Hypothesis and prototypicality of telic transitive frames for telicity.
Abstract
This paper explores the transitivity bootstrapping hypothesis as a guide for determining telicity in English with Korean speakers. It hypothesizes that telic interpretations are linked to transitive frames and atelic ones to intransitive frames. The predicted pattern of acquisition is that the Korean participants would make errors with atelic transitives and telic intransitives since they are not supported by the hypothesis. The results show that they made the relevant distinction between telic and atelic items for three out of the four transitivity-telicity pairs, failing to do so for telic intransitives. These mistakes with telic intransitives are precisely the pattern predicted by the hypothesis. It confirms that the syntactic bootstrapping hypothesis is part of the acquisition toolkit exploited by L2 learners. As for the puzzle of why telic intransitives, but not atelic transitives, were particularly vulnerable to transitivity bias, it is argued to be best explained by the Surface Generalization Hypothesis and prototypicality of telic transitive frames for telicity.
참고문헌 (28)
- 박덕유, "국어의 동사상 연구" (1998), 한국문화사
- 박소영, "한국어 어휘상에 대한 통사론적 접근 -조민정(2007)의 어휘부 명세에 반대하여-", 형태론, 13(2), pp.335~361 (2011), 형태론
- 정문수, "상적 특성에 따른 한국어 풀이씨의 분류 연구", 문법연구, 5, pp.51~85 (1984)
- 조민정, "한국어에서의 상의 두 가지 양상에 대한 고찰" (2007), 한국문화사
- Burzio, L., "Italian Syntax : A Government and Binding Approach" (1986), Reidel
- Carroll, S. E., "Input and evidence : The raw material of second language acquisition" (2000), John Benjamins
- Dowty. D., "Word meaning and Montague grammar" (1979), Kluwer
- Dowty, D., "Thematic proto-roles and argument selection", Language, 67(3), pp.547~619 (1991)
- Fisher, C., "The role of abstract syntactic knowledge in language acquisition : A reply to Tamasello(2000)", Cognition, 82, pp.259~278 (2002)
- Gleitman, L., "The structural sources of verb's meaning", Language Acquisition, 1, pp.3~55 (1990)
- Goldberg, A., "Surface generalizations : An alternative to alternations", Cognitive Linguistics, 13, pp.327~356 (2002)
- Gropen, J., "The learnability and acquisition of the dative alternation in English", Language, 65, pp.203~257 (1989)
- Krifka, M., "Lexical matters", pp.29~53 (1992), Stanford University Press
- Landau, B., "Language and experience : Evidence from the blind child" (1985), Harvard University Press
- Naigles, L. R., "Children use syntax to learn verb meanings", Journal of Child Language, 17, pp.357~374 (1990)
- Naigles, L. R., "Form is easy, meaning is hard : Resolving a paradox in early child language", Cognition, 86, pp.157~199 (2002)
- Naigle, L. R., "Developmental shifts in the construction of verb meanings", Cognitive Development, 7, pp.403~427 (1992)
- Rothstein, S., "Structuring Events : A Study in the Semantics of Lexical Aspect" (2004), Oxford
- Slabakova, R., "Telicity in the Second Language" (2001), John Benjamins
- Smith, C. S., "The parameter of aspect" (1991), Kluwer
- Tenny, C., "Aspectual roles and the syntax-semantics interface" (1994), Kluwer
- van Hout, A., "Event semantics of verb frame alternations", doctor, pp.1996
- Vendler, Z., "Linguistics in philosophy" (1967), Cornell University Press
- Verkuyl, H., "On the compositional nature of the aspects" (1972), Kluwer
- Verkuyl, H., "Aspectual classes and aspectual composition", Linguistics and Philosophy, 12, pp.39~54 (1989)
- Verkuyl, H., "A theory of aspectuality" (1991), Cambridge University Press
- Wagner, L., "Aspectual Bootstrapping in Language Acquisition : Telicity and Transitivity", Language Learning and Development, 2(1), pp.51~76 (2006)
- Zubizarreta, M-L., "On the syntactic composition of manner and motion" (2007), MIT Press