8/12/2019 o He 7702578319

1/329

SECOND LANGUAGE ACQUISITION OF ENGLISH DOUBLE OBJECT

CONSTRUCTION BY KOREAN SPEAKERS

by

Eunjeong Oh

__________________________________________________________

A Dissertation Presented to theFACULTY OF THE GRADUATE SCHOOL

UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIAIn Partial Fulfillment of the

Requirements for the DegreeDOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

(LINGUISTICS)

August 2006

Copyright 2006 Eunjeong Oh

8/12/2019 o He 7702578319

2/329

ii

Dedication

To two men in my life:

Hongjoong Kim and Seonkyu Kim

8/12/2019 o He 7702578319

3/329

iii

Acknowledgments

There is a little prayer that I have read before starting my day each day during

the final stage of writing my dissertation. It is called the Serenity Prayer. I have

experienced immense comfort after reading this little prayer and found enough

energy to go on another day.

God grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change

Courage to change the things I can, and the wisdom to know the difference.

Living one day at a time, Enjoying one moment at a time; Accepting hardship

as the pathway to peace.

Taking, as He did, this sinful world as it is, not as I would have it;

Trusting that He will make all things right if I surrender to His will;

That I may be reasonably happy in this life,

And supremely happy with Him forever in the next.

I thank my Lord and God for giving me the chance to study in the U.S and

for providing me the wisdom and courage to complete this task. When I cry in

darkness and in despair, He cries with me, and when I jump with joy, He is right next

to me, jumping with me. When I felt overwhelmed, He made me realize that I am not

8/12/2019 o He 7702578319

4/329

iv

alone, and that He is with me as always, helping to make everything right. Without

Him, I would not exist and, thus, this dissertation would not exist either.

I am very grateful to the many professors and friends who have assisted me

in one way or another to bring this work to completion.

First and foremost, my deepest thanks go to my advisor Maria Luisa

Zubizarreta for her constant care, unfailing support and much-needed guidance at

every stage of my life at USC. Her immense knowledge of Syntax and Second

Language Acquisition have tremendously influenced and shaped my general views

in these fields, as is evident in every aspect of this dissertation. Words cannot

express my gratitude, respect and love for her. Her role in my life has gone far

beyond that of an advisor. Maria Luisa has been a superb teacher, a caring mother

and a great mentor. At every stage, she has stood behind me with patience and love.

It has been my great privilege and pleasure to work closely with her and to benefit

from her expertise.

I feel deeply indebted to Tania Ionin. Throughout the time that I have worked

with her, she has supported me both academically and personally, for which I am

grateful. She has always been very generous with her time and I have deeply

benefited from every discussion weve had. Appointments with her have been

always stimulating and constructive, which I have truly enjoyed. Thanks to her

guidance, I became interested in a question of how my SLA work contributes to

theoretical linguistics and how it impacts the linguistic claims in the literature. More

8/12/2019 o He 7702578319

5/329

v

importantly, though, I thank her for sharing a good friendship with me. It was truly a

blessing to have her on my committee.

I felt very fortunate to have had Prof. Jean-Roger Vergnaud on my

committees. He served on my screening, qualifying and dissertation committees. Our

numerous discussions and conversations were really fun, and his wide range of

knowledge constantly amazed me. I would like to thank him for always being kind to

me and to Hongjoong and for encouraging me with good advice and jokes.

Thanks are also due to Bill Rutherford. Unfortunately, I didnt have a chance

to take his class because he retired before I joined the department. Nevertheless, he

served on almost all of my committees and his knowledge of language acquisition in

general and his expertise on experiments in SLA in particular helped to improve the

quality of my work.

Mario Saltarelli also deserves special thanks. He served as an external

member on my qualifying and dissertation committees. I benefited greatly from his

knowledge of Romance linguistics. His questions and comments gave me a chance to

compare Korean examples with their counterparts in Romance languages, which

provided me a valuable way of looking at issues.

I was also indebted to professors at USC outside my dissertation committee,

who taught me in various areas of linguistics and trained me to be a linguist and

researcher: Hagit Borer, Toben H. Mintz, Roumyana Pancheva, and Hajime Hoji.

They have all contributed to my way of looking at linguistic analysis in many aspects.

8/12/2019 o He 7702578319

6/329

vi

I would also like to thank Hagit Borer for giving me an opportunity to be a T.A for

her general education course for two semesters.

I would like to express my gratitude to Dean of academic affairs Jane Cody,

for whom I served as an R.A in spring 2003. In that semester, I worked on the

College TA Handbook under the supervision of Dean Cody. It was very unique

experience, during which I learned a lot.

I also wish to thank my professors at SUNY Stony Brook for providing me

with a good foundation in linguistics, encouraging me to go find a better me and to

go beyond. Thanks are due to Richard Larson, Lori Repetti, Marie Huffman, Daniel

Finer and John Bailyn. Among them, Richard Larson, Lori Repetti and Daniel Finer

deserve special thanks. Richard Larson has been a wonderful teacher to me. I have

greatly benefited from numerous meetings with him. He has taught me how to think

critically and how to make arguments. He also helped me a lot when I had to transfer

to USC. Lori has made a tremendous impact on my life. I owe my knowledge of

phonology to her, as well as much of what I know about doing solid phonological

research. Furthermore, with her, I learned that a teacher and student can be good

friends. Lori was also the one who encouraged me to continue studying beyond my

MA (while I was in the MA TESOL program at SUNY Stony Brook). Even since I

moved to LA, we have continued to share a good relationship which I have always

cherished. I am very grateful to Daniel Finer for giving me a wonderful chance to be

a T.A for his undergraduate syntax class. Through TAing this course, I learned how

rewarding and fruitful teaching could be. I truly enjoyed every moment of teaching

8/12/2019 o He 7702578319

7/329

vii

the course, and this experience has given me a strong motivation to pursue a career

as a teacher.

Outside the linguistics department, the late Prof. of Applied Mathematics,

Woojung Kim at SUNY Stony Brook has a special place in my heart. He was the

director of the department where my husband studied. Prof. Kim was a rare

mathematician. I have never met any Korean mathematician with such a perfect

command of English. Our mutual interest in languages brought us together and the

common interest between us developed our relationship at another level. He has

always told me that I could do much better if I believe so and I could be stronger to

survive in the U.S and be independent of my husband. The serenity prayer at the

beginning of the acknowledgements was a poem that Prof. Kim introduced me to

when I was in despair. He passed away in 2002. However, our much-appreciated

discussions and conversations live on in my heart.

Thanks to my professors at Sangmyung University: Profs. Yoongug Yang,

Kyesook Kim, Wonkyung Lee, and Nakil Sung. Their teaching and guidance

provided me with a good foundation and preparation for my studies in the U.S. I

also thank Prof. Seokhoon Yoo at Korea University and Prof. Jongho Jun at Seoul

National University for their encouragement and good wishes.

I would like to thank the undergraduate students who helped me with the data

collection: Jomeline Balatayo and Anna Bokarius for the child L1 data, and Jeehye

Hwang and Jean Lee for the adult L2 data, the results of which are reported in

Chapter 4.

8/12/2019 o He 7702578319

8/329

viii

I would like to thank my friends at USC, who have made my life here

enjoyable and memorable. I will start with the friends in my year: Jelena Krivokapic,

Ana Sanchez-Munoz, Fetiye Karabay, Rebeka Campos and Tommie Leung. Going

beyond my year, I would like to thank Agnieszka Lazorczyk, Isabelle Roy, Nihan

Ketrez, Monica Cabrera, Roberto Mayoral-Hernandez, Janet Anderson, Jerry Liu,

Bella Feng, Michal Martinez, Simona Montanari, Emi Mukai, Michael Shepherd and

Stephen Tobin. The Korean students who have studied here before and after me

deserve mention: Soyoung Park, Hyuna Byun, Eurom Ok, Dongsik Lim, Mina Lee,

and Miae Lee. I am deeply grateful to them for sharing a good friendship with me

and for being a source of laughter. Among my friends at USC, Agnieszka has had a

special place in my life. Ever since we worked together as TAs for Ling 110, we

have been good friends. The friendship that she showed me during my pregnancy

still fills my heart with happiness and will remain as one of the most unforgettable

memories from my time at USC. Lastly, I would like to thank Emily Hinch for

proofreading my dissertation and for the good friendship that she has shared with me.

I also wish to thank my friends in the department of East Asian Languages

and Cultures at USC: Jeehyun Park, Yongjoon Cho, Kwanpyo Hong and Seonkyung

Jeon. Among them, I owe special thanks to Seonkyung unni for being a good sister

to me, an exemplary Christian figure, an always-available and reliable advisor, and a

prayer mate. Without Seonkyung unni (and hyengboo), my life at USC would have

been quite different. Thank you for your strong belief in me and for the much-needed

encouragements.

8/12/2019 o He 7702578319

9/329

ix

I also wish to thank the members of Loving Jesus & Mission Church. Special

thanks go to Reverend Soon-Young Kang and samonim. I am deeply grateful to

them for their constant prayers and heart-warming care. The Reverend Kang and

samomim have spiritually supported me in every possible way, and the Reverend

Kang has never failed to pray for me, for every conference presentation, and talk that

I have given.

My warmest thanks go to my families. I would like to thank my in-laws,

Yong-Taik Kim and Ho-Soon Lee, for their constant support and love. They have

been my source of motivation. I deeply appreciate the sacrifices they have made for

me, without which I would not be where I am now. I thank my parents, Young-Bin

Oh and Jung-Ja Lim, for standing behind me in all the decisions I have made and for

showing their deep trust in me. I would also like to express my thanks to Auntie

Hosook and Uncle Gunyoung.

Finally, I wish to thank Hongjoong and Seonkyu for their roles in my life.

They have made the hard work seem worthwhile and the effort seem less. I thank

Hongjoong for his immense love, strong belief in me and for never failing to remind

me about them. He has been an excellent husband and a wonderful soul-mate. The

arrival of our little son, Seonkyu, has taught us the meaning of life, love and a family.

I deeply thank Seonkyu for growing up well and healthy even in the absence of his

mommy and thank Hongjoong for playing a fantastic role as emppa (a new

coinage of emma (mommy) and appa (daddy)). Without them, this accomplishment

would not have nearly as much meaning as it does.

8/12/2019 o He 7702578319

10/329

x

I dedicate this dissertation to two men in my life, being the wind beneath my

wings: my husband, Hongjoong Kim and my son, Seonkyu Kim.

8/12/2019 o He 7702578319

11/329

xi

Table of Contents

Dedication ii

Acknowledgments iii

List of Tables xvi

List of Figures xix

Abstract xxii

Chapter 1: Introduction 11.1 The goal of this dissertation 11.2 Proposal 41.2.1 The structural transfer hypothesis 41.2.2 Acquisition of form-to-meaning mappings 71.3 Overview of this thesis 8 Chapter 2: Theoretical Background: Syntactic and Semantic Properties

of English and Korean Double Object Constructions 112.1 Introduction 112.2 Syntactic and semantic properties of English Double Object (DO)

and Prepositional Dative (PP) constructions 122.2.1 Structural properties of the English DO constructions 132.2.2 Structural properties of the English PP constructions 152.2.3 Semantic properties of the English DO constructions 202.2.3.1 A semantic constraint 212.2.3.2 A morphological constraint 272.2.4 Semantic properties of the English PP constructions 292.2.4.1 Semantic properties of the goal PP constructions 292.2.4.2 Semantic properties of the benefactive PP constructions 342.2.5 The applicative projection in the DO construction 342.2.6 The recent developments in the applicative projection

in English DO constructions 362.2.6.1 Marantzs applicative structure (1993) 362.2.6.2 Pylkknnens applicative structure (2002) 392.3 Syntactic and semantic properties of Korean DO constructions 442.3.1 Verbal morphology in Korean DO constructions 442.3.2 Structural properties of Korean DO constructions 472.3.2.1 Asymmetric c-command in Korean DOs 47

8/12/2019 o He 7702578319

12/329

xii

2.3.2.2 The mono-clausal property of Korean benefactive DOs 522.3.3 A structural distinction between goal DOs and benefactives

in Korean 562.3.3.1 A structural divergence of goal DOs from benefactive DOs 572.3.3.2 The high applicative status of Korean benefactive DOs 632.3.4 Semantic properties of Korean DO constructions 652.3.4.1 Semantic properties of benefactive DOs in Korean 662.3.4.2 Semantic properties of goal DOs in Korean 702.4 Conclusion 78

Chapter 3: The English Double Object Construction in L1 and L2Acquisition 80

3.1 Introduction 803.2 Previous studies of the English DO constructions 81 in child L1 acquisition3.2.1 Gropen et al. (1989) 813.2.2 Comments on Gropen et al. (1989) 843.2.3 Mazurkewich & White (1984) 863.2.4 Comments on Mazurkewich & White (1984) 903.3 Previous study of the English DO construction

in child L2 acquisition 933.3.1 Whong-Barr & Schwartz (2002) 933.3.2 Comments on Whong-Barr & Schwartz (2002) 973.4 Previous studies of the English DO construction

in adult L2 acquisition 993.4.1 White (1987, 1991) 1003.4.2 Comments on White (1987, 1991) 1013.4.3 Sawyer (1996) 1023.4.4 Comments on Sawyer (1996) 1053.5 Conclusion 107 Chapter 4: Experiment 1: The Structural Transfer Hypothesis 1094.1 Introduction 1094.2 Methods 1114.2.1 Participants 1124.2.1.1 L2 acquisition 1124.2.1.2 L1 acquisition 1134.2.2 Cloze test 1144.2.3 Written grammaticality judgment task 1154.2.3.1 Overall format 1154.2.3.2 Categories of test items 1184.2.3.3 The exceptional goal verbs 1204.2.3.4 Procedure with children 1234.2.3.5 Procedure with adults 129

8/12/2019 o He 7702578319

13/329

xiii

4.2.4 Vocabulary translation task 1304.2.5 Overall procedure 1304.3 Specific hypothesis and predictions 1314.3.1 Transfer 1314.3.2 Developmental effects 1354.4 Results 1384.4.1 Group analysis 1384.4.1.1 PP forms 1394.4.1.2 Licit goal DOs vs. Licit ben DOs 1414.4.1.3 Latinate goal DOs vs. Latinate ben DOs 1434.4.1.4 Exceptional goal DOs vs. Illicit ben DOs 1454.4.2 Discussion of group analysis 1474.4.3 Individual analysis 1504.4.4 Individual analysis by verb 1514.4.4.1 Licit goal verbs vs. Licit ben verbs 1524.4.4.2 Latinate goal verbs vs. Latinate ben verbs 1554.4.4.3 Exceptional goal verbs vs. Illicit ben verbs 1594.4.5 Discussion of individual analysis by verb 1624.4.6 Individual analysis by subject 1624.4.6.1 Licit goal DOs vs. Licit ben DOs 1634.4.6.2 Latiante goal DOs vs. Latinate ben DOs 1654.4.6.3 Exceptional goal DOs vs. Illicit ben DOs 1674.4.7 Discussion of individual analysis by subject 1694.4.8 Discussion of experiment 1 1694.4.9 Results of the correction task 1704.4.10 Discussion of the preference of PP forms over DO forms 1724.5 An alternative approach 1764.5.1 A frequency-based explanation 1764.5.2 A morphological transfer-based explanation 1774.5.2.1 The morphological transfer hypothesis 1784.5.3 Against morphological transfer: Oh & Zubizarreta (in pressa, in

pressb)179

4.5.3.1 Verbal morphology in the DO constructions of Korean,Japanese, and Mandarin 179

4.5.3.2 Morphological transfer hypothesis and predictions 1834.5.3.3 Results 1854.5.4 Discussion 1874.6 Conclusion 188 Chapter 5: The Acquisition of Form-to-Meaning Mapping 1905.1 Introduction 1905.2 Proposal and theoretical background of experiment 2 1935.2.1 Proposal: the acquisition of argument structure alternation

is viewed as the acquisition of a paradigm 193

8/12/2019 o He 7702578319

14/329

xiv

5.2.2 The DO-PP paradigm: semantic distinction between DOand PP forms 196

5.2.3 Acquisition of the DO-PP paradigm, and the role of indirect negativeevidence 198

5.2.4 A possible sequence of acquisition of the constraints pertinent to the DO-PP paradigm 200

5.3 Hypotheses 2055.4 Methods 2065.4.1 Participants 2065.4.2 Cloze test 2075.4.3 Written grammaticality judgment task 2085.4.3.1 Overall format 2085.4.3.2 Categories of test items 2105.4.3.3 Procedure 2205.4.4 Vocabulary translation task 2225.4.5 Overall procedure 2235.4.6 Predictions 2235.5 Results 2275.5.1 Testing the possessor constraint: the Poss distinction 2275.5.1.1 Group analysis 2275.5.1.2 Individual analysis by verb 2325.5.1.3 Individual analysis by subject 2355.5.2 Testing the animacy constraint: the Animate goal distinction 2385.5.2.1 Group analysis 2385.5.2.2 Individual analysis 2415.5.3 Testing the physical transfer constraint: the Physical transfer

distinction 244

5.5.3.1 Group analysis 2445.5.3.2 Individual analysis 2475.5.4 Sequence of acquisition: evidence from group results 2505.5.5 Further evidence from individual subject analysis 2565.6 Conclusion 258 Chapter 6: Conclusion: Models of L1-Transfer 2616.1 Introduction 2616.2 Summary of findings 2616.3 Models of L1-transfer 2636.3.1 The UG-based transformational learning model 2646.3.2 The UG-based competing grammar model 2666.3.3 The application of the competing grammar model to L2 acquisition 2686.3.4 Application of the grammar competition hypothesis to acquisition of

English DOs by Korean speakers 2716.3.4.1 Acquisition of English ben DOs by Korean speakers 2716.3.4.2 Acquisition of English goal DOs by Korean speakers 273

8/12/2019 o He 7702578319

15/329

xv

6.3.4.3 Evidence from corpus data 2746.4 Conclusion 277 Bibliography 279 Appendices 290Appendix A 290Appendix B 292Appendix C 295Appendix D 300

8/12/2019 o He 7702578319

16/329

xvi

List of Tables

Table 1: Dignostics for distinguishing high vs. low applicatives 40 Table 2: Classification of DOs in English and Korean 61 Table 3: Summary of the findings of Mazurkewich & White (1984) 88 Table 4: Summary of the findings of Whong-Barr & Schwartz (2002) 97

Table 5: Accuarcy of subject responses in White (1987) 101 Table 6: Production of DO forms by type of recipient and verb origin 105

Table 7: Production of DO forms by verb class and verb origin 105 Table 8: Characteristics of L1-Korean participants (experiment 1) 112 Table 9: Classification of L1-Korean learners of English 115

Table 10: The six categories tested 119 Table 11: The semantic constraint and the morphological constraint

across categories 120

Table 12: Predictions of the structural transfer hypothesis 135 Table 13: Paired sample t -tests: goal PPs vs. ben PPs 141 Table 14: Paired sample t-tests: licit goal DOs vs. licit ben DOs 143 Table 15: Paired sample t -tests: Latinate goal DOs vs. Latinate ben DOs 145 Table 16: Paired sample t-tests: exceptional goal DOs vs. illicit ben DOs 147 Table 17: Individual analysis by verb: licit goal vs. licit ben verbs 155

Table 18: Individual analysis by verb: Latinate goal vs. Latinate ben verbs 158 Table 19: Individual analysis by verb: exceptional goal vs. illicit ben verbs 161

8/12/2019 o He 7702578319

17/329

xvii

Table 20: Licensor types in goal and ben DOs in Korean, Japanese,and Mandarin 183

Table 21: Predictions of the morphological transfer hypothesis 185

Table 22: Characteristics of L1-Korean participants (experiment 2) 207 Table 23: Classification of L1-Korean learners of English 208 Table 24: Contexts testing the possessor constraint 211 Table 25: Contexts testing the animacy constraint 215 Table 26: Contexts testing the physical transfer contraint 217 Table 27: Summary of all categories of test items 220

Table 28: Paired sample t -tests: goal DOs (+Poss) vs. goal DOs (-Poss) 228

Table 29: Paired sample t-tests: ben DOs (+Poss) vs. ben DOs (-Poss) 230 Table 30: Paired sampe t-tests: DOs (+ Poss) vs. DOs (-Poss) 231

Table 31: Percentages of subjects making the relevant distinctionwith the Poss contexts 237

Table 32: Contexts testing the animacy contraint (repeated) 238

Table 33: Paired sample t-tests: animate goal DOs vs. inanimate goal DOs 240

Table 34: Paired sample t -tests: inanimate goal DOs vs. inanimate goal PPs 241 Table 35: Contexts testing the physical transfer contraint (repeated) 244 Table 36: Paired sample t-tests: +Physical transfer vs. Physical transfer PPs 245

Table 37: Paired sample t -tests:-Physical transfer DOs vs. PPs 247

Table 38: Summary of subjects performance on the four tested categories 251 Table 39: Subjects performance with respect to hypothesis in (19a) 253 Table 40: Subjects performance with respect to hypothesis in (19b) 254

8/12/2019 o He 7702578319

18/329

xviii

Table 41: Individual subject analysis of hypothesis in (19b) 258 Table 42: Input frequency of the 6 licit goal and 6 licit ben verbs

used in experiment 1 275 Table 43: Comparison between mean ratings of exceptional goal DOs

experiment 1 and experiment 2 304

Table 44: Paired sample t -tests: exceptional goal DOs vs. illicit ben DOs 306

8/12/2019 o He 7702578319

19/329

xix

List of Figures

Figure 1: Goal PP vs. Ben PP 140 Figure 2: Licit goal DOs vs. Licit ben DOs 141 Figure 3: Latinate goal DOs vs. Latinate ben DOs 144 Figure 4: Exceptional goal DOs vs. Illicit ben DOs 146 Figure 5: Percentages of acceptance of licit goal verbs 152 Figure 6: Percentages of acceptance of licit ben verbs 153 Figure 7: Percentages of acceptance of Latinate goal verbs 157 Figure 8: Percentages of acceptance of Latinate ben verbs 157 Figure 9: Percentages of acceptance of exceptional goal verbs 160 Figure 10: Percentages of acceptance of illicit ben verbs 160 Figure 11: Scatterplot of acceptance rates of licit goal DOs by subjects 163 Figure 12: Scatterplot of acceptance rates of licit ben DOs by subjects 164 Figure 13: Scatterplot of acceptance rates of Latinate goal DOs by subjects 166 Figure 14: Scatterplot of acceptance rates of Latinate ben DOs by subjects 166 Figure 15: Scatterplot of acceptance rates of exceptional goal DOs by subjects 168 Figure 16: Scatterplot of acceptance rates of illicit ben DOs by subjects 168 Figure 17: Goal DOs vs. Goal PPs 173 Figure 18: Ben DOs vs. Ben PPs 174 Figure 19: Goal DOs (+Poss) vs. Goal DOs (-Poss) 228 Figure 21: Individual analysis by goal verb ( Poss distinction) 233

8/12/2019 o He 7702578319

20/329

xx

Figure 22: Individual analysis by ben verb ( Poss distinction) 234 Figure 23: Individual analysis by subject ( Poss distinction: goal DOs) 237 Figure 24: Individual analysis by subject ( Poss distinction: ben DOs) 238 Figure 25: Animate goals vs. Inanimate goals 239 Figure 26: Inanimate goal DO vs. Inanimate goal PP 241 Figure 27: Individual analysis (Animate goals vs. Inanimate goals) 242 Figure 28: Individual analysis (Inanimate goal DO vs. Inanimate goal PP) 243 Figure 29: +Physical transfer PPs vs. Physical transfer PPs 245 Figure 30: Physical transfer DOs vs. Physical transfer PPs 246 Figure 31: Individual analysis (Physical transfer PPs vs. +Physical

transfer PPs)249

Figure 32: Individual analysis (Physical transfer DOs vs. PPs) 250

Figure 33: Percentages of acceptance of licit goal verbs (repeated) 276 Figure 34: Percentages of acceptance of licit ben verbs (repeated) 276

Figure 35: Exceptional goal DOs vs. Illicit ben DOs 305 Figure 36: Individual analysis of goal verb 306 Figure 37: Individual analysis of illicit ben verb 307

8/12/2019 o He 7702578319

21/329

xxi

Abbreviations

Nom nominative case

Acc accusative case

Gen genitive case

Dat dative case

Top topic marker

L linker

Neg negation

Past past tense

Pres present tense

Decl declarative marker

Ben benefactive

Appl applicative

UQ universal quantiifer

Comp complementizer

8/12/2019 o He 7702578319

22/329

xxii

Abstract

This thesis examines first language (L1) transfer and acquisition of form-to-

meaning mappings in the adult second language (L2) acquisition of English Double

Object (DO) constructions. The issues are examined using grammaticality judgment

data from adult L1-Korean L2-English learners.

First, a structural transfer hypothesis is formulated, according to which L1

structural properties undergo transfer, and structural (in)comparability between the

L1 and L2 is crucial in determining the relative success of L2-acquisition. Second,

this thesis investigates how L2-learners acquire form-to-meaning mappings, in

particular when the target mappings cannot be acquired via L1-transfer and are not

easily deducible from L2 positive input. Study of such poverty of the stimulus cases

allows us to directly examine whether, and how, learners recover from negative L1-

transfer effects, and can potentially provide evidence for L2-learners access to

Universal Grammar (UG).

This thesis examines the structural properties of Korean and English DO

constructions and proposes that goal DOs in these two languages are structurally

comparable whereas benefactive DOs are structurally different. This syntactic

distinction has a semantic correlate: while goal DOs in both languages and

benefactive DOs in English encode a (prospective) possession relation, Korean

benefactive DOs encode a wider benefactive meaning.

8/12/2019 o He 7702578319

23/329

xxiii

These structural similarities and differences between English and Korean

DOs are well-suited for testing the structural transfer hypothesis, which predicts that

L1-Korean L2-English learners should accept English goal DOs but reject English

benefactive DOs. Empirical data from the first experiment support those predictions.

Next, this thesis considers whether L2-learners are capable of recovering

from negative transfer effects on English benefactive DOs. Results of the second

experiment show that L2-learners are able to acquire the target form-to-meaning

mapping for English benefactive DOs through emerging sensitivity to semantic

constraints.

It is concluded that (1) L1-transfer is operative in L2-acquisition at the level

of syntax and (2) L2-learners have access to UG-based syntactic and semantic

distinctions, which allow them to overcome the poverty of the stimulus problem.

These findings furthermore provide support for a novel account of the syntactic and

semantic properties of Korean DO constructions.

8/12/2019 o He 7702578319

24/329

1

Chapter 1

Introduction

1 Goals of this dissertation

This dissertation explores two issues in adult second language (L2)

acquisition: L1 transfer and the acquisition of form-to-meaning mappings. L2

acquisition is fundamentally different from first language (L1) acquisition in one

very noticeable way. L2 learners bring complete knowledge of their L1 grammar to

the L2 acquisition task. Consequently, L1 transfer is relevant for L2 acquisition in

general (cf. Dechert & Raupach 1989, Gass & Selinker 1983, Odlin 1989, Andersen

1983, Schwartz & Sprouse 1994, 1996, among many others). Indeed, the findings of

previous L2 research have clearly shown that the effects of L1 transfer are evident.

However, not many studies have been explicit about what it means for the L1 to be

transferred ; furthermore, most of these studies have confined their discussion mainly

to the role of the L1 in characterizing the initial state of L2 acquisition (cf. Vainikka

& Young-Scholten 1996, Eubank 1996, Epstein, Flynn & Martohardjono 1996,

Hawkins 2001). Therefore, we still have an incomplete understanding of the

phenomenon of L1 transfer, and many questions concerning the phenomenon remain

unanswered and unresolved.

Recently, a new line of research on L2 acquisition at the syntax-semantics

interface has investigated the acquisition of form-to-meaning mappings. In other

8/12/2019 o He 7702578319

25/329

2

words, the focus has been on how L2-learners acquire not only the forms (e.g., word

order, morphology, etc.) but the meaning associated with them (cf. Dekydtspotter,

Sprouse & Anderson 1997, Dekydtspotter, Sprouse & Thyre 1999, 2002,

Dekydtspotter 2001, Montrul & Slabakova 2002, Slabakova & Montrul 2002,

Slabakova 2003, Ionin, Zubizarreta & Maldonado, in press, among others). There is

little doubt that L2 studies on the syntax-semantics interface will deepen and sharpen

our understanding of the L2 acquisition process in general. Such studies allow us to

directly gauge what kind of linguistic knowledge is involved in L2 acquisition. Of

particular interest are cases where L2-acquisition of form-to-meaning mappings

cannot be attributed to L1 transfer and is not easily deducible from L2 positive input.

Studies of such cases are valuable in that they reveal how L2 learners recover from

negative transfer effects in order to acquire the target mapping and may provide

evidence for L2 learners access to Universal Grammar (UG). While previous studies

of form-meaning mappings have often focused on such areas as functional categories

and determiners, this issue can also be investigated in the domain of argument

structure, such as the English dative alternation. This is one of the goals of this

dissertation.

The main goal of this dissertation is to examine the issues of L1 transfer and

the form-to-meaning mapping in adult L2 acquisition, with the aim of providing a

more articulated characterization of L1 transfer. These issues are investigated in the

domain of the English dative alternation, which consists of the Double Object (DO)

8/12/2019 o He 7702578319

26/329

3

and Prepositional dative (PP) constructions, with the main focus on the acquisition of

the DO construction.

The specific goals are two-fold. The first goal is to examine what

grammatical properties of the L1 transfer. It is proposed that structural properties of

the L1 undergo transfer, and that the structural comparability vs. incomparability

between the L1 and the L2 is a key factor in determining the relative success of L2

acquisition of the relevant construction. It will be shown that the data from the

acquisition of the English DO construction by adult Korean speakers provide strong

support for this proposal. This is the focus of experiment 1, reported in Chapter 4.

The second goal is to examine two separate but related issues at the syntax-

semantics interface: (1) whether, and how, L2 learners are able to acquire the subtle

semantic properties of the L2 (form-to-meaning mappings) in particular, the distinct

semantic properties associated with the DO and PP forms, which are not evident in

the input; and (2) whether L2 learners are ever able to overcome negative transfer

effects (i.e., restructure the form-to-meaning mapping) and if yes, when and how

they can do that. In investigating the second issue, I also examine the role that

learners knowledge of the relevant semantic distinctions between the DO and PP

forms plays in recovery from negative transfer effects. This is the focus of

experiment 2, reported in Chapter 5.

This dissertation proposes that when the DO and PP forms of the dative

alternation can be considered as a part of the same paradigm, the acquisition of the

dative argument structure alternation is guided by the Avoid Synonymy Principle

8/12/2019 o He 7702578319

27/329

4

(Carstairs-McCarthy 1998). This allows indirect negative evidence (i.e.,

nonoccurrence of a form in the input; cf. Chomsky 1981) to be used by the learners

to acquire the subtle semantic differences between the two forms in the alternation.

Crucially, this dissertation proposes that awareness of the subtle but distinct

semantics associated with the two forms helps L2 learners to overcome negative

transfer effects. Data from the acquisition of English dative alternation by adult

Korean speakers provide support for this proposal.

The empirical data for this thesis come from two studies with adult L1-

Korean learners of English. These studies involve grammaticality judgment tasks.

2 Proposal

2.1 The structural transfer hypothesis

In this dissertation, I argue for structural transfer in L2 acquisition in general

and the acquisition of the English DO construction in particular. Two kinds of DO

structures are under investigation: goal DO and ben(efactive) DO. The two types of

DOs are exemplified in (1) and (2).

1. a. John gave a book to Mary. (goal PP)

b. John gave Mary a book. (goal DO)

2. a. Mary baked a cake for John. (ben PP)

b. Mary baked John a cake. (ben DO)

8/12/2019 o He 7702578319

28/329

5

The main claim of the structural transfer hypothesis, which is formulated

based on structural (in)comparability between the L1 and L2 is presented in (3).

3. The structural transfer hypothesis

The structural properties of L1 constructions transfer and influence the

acquisition of the corresponding constructions in the L2.

(i) Where there is a structural comparability between the corresponding L1 and

L2 structures, the acquisition of the L2 structure will be facilitated .

(ii) Where there is a structural incomparability between the corresponding L1

and L2 structures, the acquisition of the L2 structure will be delayed.

Similarities and differences in the structural properties of English and Korean

DO constructions, which will be discussed in Chapter 2, provide a good testing

ground for the structural transfer hypothesis in (3). It will be shown that while goal

DOs in English and Korean are structurally comparable (both are low applicatives),

Korean ben DO is not structurally comparable to English ben DO (the former is a

high applicative whereas the latter is a low applicative).

Applying the structural transfer hypothesis to the acquisition of the English

DO construction by adult Korean speakers, more specific predictions are put forth,

which are presented in (4). The details of the predictions will be spelled out in

8/12/2019 o He 7702578319

29/329

6

section 3 of Chapter 4. The objective of Chapter 4 is to examine the structural

transfer hypothesis via experiment 1.

4. Predictions for the acquisition of English DOs by Korean speakers

(i) The structural comparability between goal DOs in English and Korean will

lead Korean-speaking learners of English to accept goal DOs.

(ii) The structural incomparability between ben DOs in English and Korean will

lead Korean-speaking learners of English to reject ben DOs.

(iii) Bringing (i) and (ii) together: the acquisition of the English ben DO

construction by Korean speakers will lag behind the acquisition of the

English goal DO construction.

The role of structural transfer has been previously proposed in L2 literature

(cf. Schwartz & Sprouse 1994, 1996) but it has not been invoked in the domain of

the DO construction. Therefore, experiment 1 is the first to study structural transfer

in this domain; this experiment is grounded in a careful examination of the structural

properties of the DO construction in both the L1 and the L2.

As will be shown in Chapter 4, the findings of our experiment 1 clearly

support the structural transfer hypothesis. More precisely, as predicted, the structural

similarities and differences between Korean and English DOs figure prominently in

the process of acquiring English DOs, leading the learners to a general acceptance of

goal DOs and to a general rejection of ben DOs. This asymmetric treatment of goal

8/12/2019 o He 7702578319

30/329

7

and ben DOs clearly holds for both licit and illicit DO constructions, at both the

group and individual levels. An alternative account based on (universal)

developmental effects is considered and argued against. Data from English-speaking

children are crucial in ruling out this alternative account of the L2 data.

2.2 Acquisition of form-to-meaning mappings

Given the negative transfer effects of Korean ben DOs on the acquisition of

English ben DOs, the question arises of whether Korean learners of English can ever

overcome these negative transfer effects. This question leads to a more interesting

question concerning L1 transfer: when and how learners are able to overcome

negative transfer effects i.e., what functions as a triggering factor.

In order to answer these questions, this dissertation takes up the issue of how

the dative alternation is learned in other words, how the subtle semantic

distinctions associated with the two forms of the alternation (the DO and PP forms)

(i.e., form-to-meaning mapping) are acquired, identifying possible steps of the

acquisition process. The acquisition of the English dative alternation can be

understood through an examination of a learners sensitivity to the relevant

constraints. Furthermore, the acquisition of constraints associated with the DO and

PP forms can give us information about possible steps that learners take in acquiring

the dative alternation. Carefully considering the saliency and robustness of each

constraint figuring in the dative alternation, this thesis proposes a possible sequence

of acquisition of the constraints. Most importantly, this dissertation proposes that the

8/12/2019 o He 7702578319

31/329

8

possessor constraint on goal DOs is acquired before the corresponding constraint on

ben DOs, and provides theoretical motivation for this sequence.

The study of how the semantic differences between the DO and PP forms are

acquired is a means of answering the question of how and when L2 learners are able

to recover from the negative transfer effects. We need to know what knowledge can

act as a triggering factor in bootstrapping the learners out of the negative transfer

effects. In outlining a sequence of acquisition of the semantic constraints, we can see

which constraints are known to learners who have already recovered from the

negative transfer effects vs. learners who still show negative transfer effects. The

objective of Chapter 5 is to examine learners sensitivity to the subtle semantic

distinctions associated with the DO and PP forms, and to test the proposed sequence

of acquisition of the semantic constraints, via experiment 2. The ultimate goal of

experiment 2 is to get a better understanding of how L2 learners acquire form-to-

meaning mappings in the L2, when the target mappings cannot be transferred from

the L1 and cannot be directly deduced from L2 positive input alone. This also gives a

deeper understanding of whether L2 learners can have access to UG and whether

they are capable of overcoming a problem of poverty of the stimulus.

3 Overview of this thesis

This thesis is organized as follows. Chapter 2 lays out the theoretical

background of this thesis, examining the grammatical properties of English and

Korean DOs. In the first portion of this chapter, syntactic and semantic properties of

8/12/2019 o He 7702578319

32/329

9

English DOs and English PPs are discussed. In the second half of the chapter,

syntactic and semantic properties of Korean DOs are presented. Chapter 2 ends with

a discussion of the structural and semantic similarities and differences between the

DO constructions in the two languages.

Chapter 3 gives a brief review of previous studies concerning the acquisition

of the English DO construction in child L1, child L2, and adult L2 acquisition. The

main findings and issues of the studies are presented, and comments on the studies

follow. In the comments sections, potential shortcomings in the design of the studies

are examined. In designing the two experiments reported in this thesis, possible

improvements on these drawbacks were taken into consideration.

Chapter 4 examines the structural transfer hypothesis, which is built upon the

theoretical considerations in Chapter 2. This chapter reports on a grammaticality

judgment task testing the acquisition of the English DO and PP constructions by

adult Korean speakers. The results show that the acquisition patterns of goal and ben

DOs are very different: Korean-speaking learners of English accepted goal DOs

more strongly and frequently than ben DOs. This asymmetric treatment of goal and

ben DOs is attributed to a direct result of transfer of the structural properties in the

L1. This result provides support for the structural transfer hypothesis. At the end of

the chapter, I consider some alternative explanations of the results and show why

these alternatives are insufficient to account for the findings of the study.

Chapter 5 reports on a second grammaticality judgment task (checking

learners comprehension), which examines learners sensitivity to the constraints

8/12/2019 o He 7702578319

33/329

10

pertinent to the English DO and PP constructions. The relationship between learners

knowledge of the relevant semantic distinctions and learners recovery from negative

transfer effects is examined. This chapter shows that most advanced learners indeed

overcome negative transfer effects; it is suggested that learners knowledge of the

relevant semantic distinctions between the DO and PP forms plays a critical role in

this recovery from negative transfer.

In the concluding chapter, Chapter 6, a brief summary of the findings and

conclusions of this thesis are presented. Then the issue of how to best model the

mental process of transfer is considered. It is suggested that a model based on

competing grammars (Roeper 2000, Yang 2002) is better equipped to model the

gradual process of L2-acquisition than a parameter-triggering model that postulates

an intermediate grammar for the L2 interlanguage (cf. Chomsky 1965, Wexler &

Culicover 1980, Berwick 1985, Hyams 1986, Dresher & Kaye 1990, Gibson &

Wexler 1994).

8/12/2019 o He 7702578319

34/329

11

Chapter 2

Theoretical background: Syntactic and semantic properties of

English and Korean Double Object constructions

1 Introduction

In this chapter, I examine the syntactic and semantic properties of English

and Korean Double Object (DO) constructions. By establishing the syntactic and

semantic properties associated with English and Korean DO constructions, I show

both structural and semantic similarities and differences between the DO

constructions in the two languages. A close examination of the differences and

similarities in English and Korean DO constructions will set the stage for examining

the acquisition of English DO constructions by Korean-speaking adult learners of

English, which will be presented in Chapter 4.

With respect to the structural properties of DO constructions, I argue that

goal DOs in English and Korean are structurally comparable: goal arguments in both

languages are within the scope of V. They are structurally comparable to the extent

that the goal arguments are arguments of the (main) lexical verb. On the other hand,

ben(efactive) DO constructions in English and Korean are structurally distinct: the

benefactive DP in English is within the scope of V while the benefactive DP in

Korean is outside the scope of V.

8/12/2019 o He 7702578319

35/329

12

With respect to the semantic properties of DO constructions, I argue that goal

DOs in English and Korean are comparable semantically: the Applicative head is

projected in both languages (obligatorily for English and optionally for Korean).

This suggests that (prospective) transfer of possession is implied in goal DOs in both

languages. On the other hand, ben DOs in English and Korean are distinct

semantically: ben DOs in Korean encode a wider benefactive construal, regardless of

prospective possession; as a result, Korean allows more verbs to enter ben DOs than

English does.

2 Syntactic and semantic properties of English DO and PP constructions

Some dative verbs in English alternate between the DO and the Prepositional

dative (henceforth PP) constructions, as exemplified in (1) through (4). Following

convention, a DO whose PP counterpart is headed by to is termed a goal DO and a

DO whose PP counterpart is headed by for is termed a ben(efactive) DO . The two

types of DOs are the main concern of this section.

The goal construction

1. a. John gave a book to Mary. (Goal PP)

b. John gave Mary a book. (Licit goal DO)

2. a. John explained the answer to Mary. (Goal PP)

b. *John explained Mary the answer. (Illicit goal DO)

8/12/2019 o He 7702578319

36/329

13

The benefactive construction

3. a. Mary baked a cake for John. (Ben PP)

b. Mary baked John a cake. (Licit ben DO)

4. a. John finished the painting for Mary. (Ben PP)

b. *John finished Mary the painting. (Illicit ben DO)

2.1 Structural properties of English DO constructions

Previous research on the structural properties of the English DO construction

has shown that there is an asymmetric c-command relationship between the goal and

the theme arguments (see Barss & Lasnik 1986; Larson 1988, 1990; Aoun & Li

1989; Pesetsky 1995; Zubizarreta 1992, among others). More specifically, in the DO

construction, the first DP (goal/benefactive) asymmetrically c-commands the second

DP (theme). This asymmetric c-command relation is seen in the domain of anaphor

binding, quantifier-pronoun binding, weak crossover, superiority, the eachthe

other construction (with a reciprocal reading) and negative polarity items. Examples

which illustrate the asymmetric c-command relationship are provided below

(examples in (5) through (10) are taken from Larson (1988), who attributes the

examples to Barss & Lasnik (1986)).

5. a. I showed Mary herself. (anaphor binding)

b. *I showed herself Mary.

8/12/2019 o He 7702578319

37/329

14

6. a. I gave every worker i his i paycheck. (quantifier binding)

b. *I gave its i owner every paycheck i.

7. a. Which man i did you send his i paycheck? (weak crossover)

b. *Whose i pay did you send his i mother?

8. a. Who did you give which paycheck? (superiority)

b. *Which paycheck did you give who?

9. a. I showed each man the others socks. ( each the other )

b. *I showed the others friend each man.

10. a. I showed no one anything. (negative polarity items)

b. *I showed anyone nothing.

The same asymmetries between the two objects are also attested with ben DOs. 1

11. a. I got every worker i his i paycheck. (quantifier binding)

b. *I got its i owner every paycheck i.

12. a. (?)Which man i did you build his i house? (weak crossover)

b. *Whose i house did you build his i mother?

13. a. (?) Who did you buy which gift? (superiority)

b. *Which gift did you buy who?

14. a. I bought each man the others shoes. ( each the other )

b. *I bought the others friend each shoes.

1 These are the examples that I have constructed, and checked with three native English speakers.

8/12/2019 o He 7702578319

38/329

15

15. a. (?)I bought no one anything. (negative polarity items)

b. *I bought anyone nothing.

These contrasts suggest that in both DO constructions, the first object

asymmetrically c-commands the second. In this dissertation, the DO construction is

defined syntactically in terms of an asymmetric c-command relation between the two

objects. An asymmetric c-command relation between the goal and theme arguments

will be used as one of the diagnostics establishing whether a given form is a DO

construction.

2.2 Structural properties of English PP constructions

Next, I briefly examine the structural properties of English PP constructions.

Goal PPs and ben PPs are structurally distinct. The structural difference between the

two is related to the different grammatical status of the to-PP and the for- PP. It has

been argued in the literature that the to-PP is a complement while the for-PP is an

adjunct (cf. Jackendoff 1990, Goldberg 2002, Beck & Johnson 2004, Zubizarreta

class notes 2004). Evidence for this comes from the optionality vs. obligatoriness of

the PP, and traditional tests such as the do so anaphora and V-projection preposing.

The examples below are taken from Zubizarreta class notes 2004.

First of all, the to-PP and the for -PP are distinct with respect to optionality vs.

obligatoriness: the to-PP is an obligatory element, whereas the for- PP is an optional

8/12/2019 o He 7702578319

39/329

16

element. 2 This contrast provides evidence for the adjunct status of the for -PP. The

relevant data are in (16) and (17).

16. a. John gave a book to Mary (Goal PP)

b. *John gave a book

17. a. John bought a book for Mary (Ben PP)

b. John bought a book.

The do so anaphora test also proves useful in detecting the complement vs.

adjunct status of a phrase. Do so anaphora takes a VP as its antecedent: thus, any

element merged within VP should be replaced by do so . If an element is merged

outside VP, the element is not replaced by do so . The do so anaphora test provides

evidence for the different grammatical status of the to-PP vs. the for- PP, as shown

below. The for -PP, unlike the to-PP, can be left behind by do so anaphora,

suggesting that it is not part of the VP.

18. a. John bought a book for Mary and Peter did so for Sue.

b. (??)John sent a book to Mary and Peter did so to Sue.

2 Even for sentences where the to-PP seems to be optional, the to-PP is implied by the meaning of theverb. In the example below, the listener of the story is implied.(i) John told a story.Goal PPs are contrasted with ben PPs in this regard. In ben PPs, beneficiary is not implied.(ii) Mary baked a cake.

8/12/2019 o He 7702578319

40/329

8/12/2019 o He 7702578319

41/329

8/12/2019 o He 7702578319

42/329

8/12/2019 o He 7702578319

43/329

8/12/2019 o He 7702578319

44/329

8/12/2019 o He 7702578319

45/329

8/12/2019 o He 7702578319

46/329

23

Ben DOs respect the possessor constraint as well. Due to the semantic

requirement of the prospective have relation on the DO, only the class of verbs that

can imply the bringing about of a prospective have relation enters the ben DO

construction. Verbs of acquiring such as get , buy and find and creation-denoting

predicates such as bake are a typical class of verbs that allows/uses the ben DO

construction. The contrasts below are accounted for by the possessor constraint.

29. a. John fixed Mary a sandwich. 6

( As a result, Mary is intended to possess the sandwich.)

b. John fixed a sandwich for Mary.

30. a. *John fixed Mary a car.

(# As a result, Mary is intended to possess the car.)

b. John fixed a car for Mary.

31. a. John poured Mary a cup of coffee. 7

( As a result, Mary is intended to possess the cup of coffee.)

b. John poured a cup of coffee for Mary.

attributed to the semantics of the preposition to in the PP structure. I disagree with Pesetsky in thatthere are cases where DOs are grammatical and their PP counterparts are ungrammatical.6 The verb fix in (29) and (30) has a different meaning, albeit the same phonetic realization. While fix

in (29) means make and thus, it is a verb of creation, fix in (30) means repair.7 The examples (31) and (32) are taken from Jackendoff (1990:196), who attributes them to JaneGrimshaw. Jackendoff accounts for the contrast based on whether the action of the referent of thesubject creates a new entity or not. His argument is that in order to establish the (prospective)

possessive relation between the two objects, the action of the referent of the subject should create anew entity which can enter into the possessive relation with the entity denoted by the first object.While pouring some coffee creates a cup of coffee, pouring cement does not create a new entity. Thecontrast illustrated (31) and (32) is accounted for by this difference in meaning.

8/12/2019 o He 7702578319

47/329

24

32. a. *John poured Mary some cement.

(# As a result, Mary is intended to possess some cement.)

b. John poured some cement for Mary.

The possessor constraint requires that the DO construction necessarily imply

a (prospective) transfer of possession. Johns fixing a sandwich plausibly results in

a change of possession but Johns fixing a (preexisting) car does not result in Mary

coming into possession of the car. Likewise, Johns pouring a cup of coffee

plausibly results in a change of possession but Johns pouring cement does not

plausibly result in Mary coming into possession of some cement. The text in

parentheses indicates (in)compatibility with the possessor constraint. On the other

hand, the ben PP construction is associated with a wider benefactive construal,

regardless of prospective possession and thus, its distribution is much freer than its

DO counterpart.

The ungrammaticality of (30a) illustrates that the English DO construction is

not constrained by (un)availability of ownership. If the English DO construction

were constrained by ownership, (30a) would be grammatical, contrary to fact, given

that the ownership between Mary and a car is already established. This claim is

made even clearer by the example in (33).

33. *John kept Mary a key (her key).

8/12/2019 o He 7702578319

48/329

25

The contrast illustrated below also receives an account from the (prospective)

possessor constraint on the DO form. The possessor constraint on the DO requires

that in the DO, there should be a clear intention of the referent of the subject that the

referent of the first object is at least a prospective recipient of the referent of the

second object.

34. a. #Mary baked John a cake but she gave it to her mother.

b. Mary baked a cake for John but she gave it to her mother.

35. a. Enrico sang Helen a song, but she wasnt listening.

(Jackendoff 1990: 195)

b. Beulah peeled Mae a grape but then accidentally dropped it in the

toilet.

The oddity of (34a) comes from the fact that the cake ends up in somebody elses

hands, not in Johns, the intended recipient of the cake . As a result, the possessive

relation between the referents of the two objects fails to be established. Note that

(34b) is acceptable because unlike ben DO constructions, ben PP constructions are

not constrained by the possessor constraint: to the extent that John can benefit from

Mary baking the cake, the sentence is acceptable. With examples in (35), it is even

clearer that all that matters is the subjects intention that the entity denoted by the

first object is the intended recipient of the entity denoted by the second object,

regardless of actual reception.

8/12/2019 o He 7702578319

49/329

26

In all the legitimate DO sentences presented thus far (all of which satisfy the

possessor constraint), the entities denoted by the first object are animate. In other

words, for all the licit DO sentences presented so far, when possession is present,

animacy is also present. Given this observation, a constraint termed Animacy can

be postulated. Furthermore, the following (hasty) claim can be made: the Animacy

constraint is a necessary condition for the possessor constraint (because only animate

beings can be potential possessors). This claim is wrong. Counterexamples to the

claim are presented in (36).

36. a. John gave the house a fresh coat of paint. 8

( As a result, the house now has a fresh coat of paint.)

b. John made/got/found/bought/(?) ordered the lamp a new shade.

( As a result, the lamp now has a new shade.)

c. John gave/built the house a new roof.

( As a result, the house now has a new roof.)

d. John built /(?)made /(?)ordered the car a new engine.

( As a result, the car now has a new engine.)

Goldberg (1995: 146) also presents counterexamples to the Animacy

constraint and argues that the reason why inanimate goal arguments in the sentences

8 I thank Bill Rutherford (p.c.) for bringing these examples to my attention and for pointing out the problem of positing an Animacy constraint for the DO forms.

8/12/2019 o He 7702578319

50/329

27

below are acceptable is that the inanimate goals receive an affected meaning and,

thus, they are understood to be a recipient, indeed being an animate being in a sense.

37. a. The paint job gave the car a higher sale price.

b. The Tabasco sauce gave the baked beans some flavor.

c. The music lent the party a festive air. (Goldberg, 1995)

The examples above show that the Animacy constraint on the DO does not exist.

The possessor constraint is indeed the sole semantic constraint working on the DO

construction. Animacy is a natural consequence of the possessor constraint to the

extent that the Animacy constraint is respected for the DO sentences where the

referent of the first object is animate. The Animacy constraint is just an illusion

created by the fact that in most of the DO sentences, the referent of the first object is

animate and that legitimate DO sentences with inanimate goal arguments, such as the

ones in (36) and (37), are relatively rare.

2.3.2 A morphological constraint on the DO construction: the Latinate constraint

As is well-known, there are lexical restrictions on English DO constructions.

One such restriction appears to be of a morphological nature: native-stem

(Germanic) class verbs but not Latinate class verbs can occur in DOs (cf. Green 1974,

Oehrle 1976, Mazurkewich & White 1984, Pinker 1989). This morphological

constraint on the DO form is called the Latinate constraint. The verbs belonging to

8/12/2019 o He 7702578319

51/329

28

the Latinate class are excluded from the DO form by the Latinate constraint but not

by the semantic possessor constraint. Examples are given in (38) through (40). The

examples are taken from Pinker (1990:45).

38. a. John gave/donated a painting to the museum.

b. John gave/*donated the museum a painting.

39. a. Bill told/reported the story to them.

b. Bill told/*reported them the story.

40. a. Sue built/constructed the house for us.

b. Sue built/*constructed us the house.

The near-synonymous meaning notwithstanding, build can appear in the DO

form while construct cannot. The Latinate constraint accounts for this contrast: build ,

with a native stem, can appear in a DO whereas construct , with a Latinate stem,

cannot appear in a DO construction.

Some researchers have reduced the Latinate constraint to phonology: verbs

characterized by initial stress can appear in the DO (cf. Grimshaw 1985, Grimshaw

& Prince 1986). This approach is motivated by the fact that most native-stem class

verbs have initial stress, and there is a tendency for Latinate verbs assimilated to the

native stress pattern to generally be able to appear in the DO, as illustrated in (41).

The examples in (41) are taken from Pinker (1990).

8/12/2019 o He 7702578319

52/329

8/12/2019 o He 7702578319

53/329

30

by a variety of authors are given below (Tremblay 1991, Pesetsky 1995, den Dikken

1995, Harley 2002, among others).

42. a. The revolution gave the country a new government.

b. *The revolution gave a new government to the country.

43. a. The war years gave the journalist a new perspective.

b. *The war years gave a new perspective to the journalist.

44. a. We gave the house a new roof.

b. *We gave a new roof to the house.

The bad PP examples above do not encode directed movement along a

physical path. In order to be transferred to the physical location introduced by the

preposition to, the referent of the theme should be a thing that is physically

transferable. The PP constructions in (42b) and (43b) are unacceptable because

government and perspective are not things that can be physically transferred. The

contrasts in (44) is accounted for as follows: physical transfer would require the roof

to move from us to the house , which is not what happens. 9

Researchers advancing a lexical decomposition analysis of the DO

construction, which treats the DO as a type of causative, account for the contrasts in

9 The meaning contrast in the examples below also receives an account from the physical transferrelation encoded by the goal PP construction.(i) John gave Mary a child.(ii) John gave a child to Mary (Harley 2002)While the DO means that Mary was impregnated by John and an existing child is not necessarilyimplied, there should be an existing child in the PP counterpart, a child who undergoes a directmovement along a physical path.

8/12/2019 o He 7702578319

54/329

31

(42) through (44) by arguing for the existence of a predicate CAUSE in the DO

construction (cf. Harley 2002, Richards 2001). In the lexical decomposition analysis,

the double object verbs decompose into two heads: predicate CAUSE and predicate

HAVE. The lexical decomposition analysis of the DO construction is also called a

small clause analysis of the DO in that the predicate CAUSE takes the predicate [the

goal has theme] as its complement, as shown below.

45. a. I gave Mary a book.

b. I CAUSE [Mary HAVE a book]

Due to the predicate CAUSE, which is present in the DO but absent in the PP,

only the DO construction is associated with a causative meaning. To take a concrete

example, in the lexical decomposition analysis, (43a) is acceptable because the

journalists experiencing the war years is responsible for causing him/her to write a

book. On the other hand, the PP counterpart, which is incompatible with the

causative meaning, is ill-formed.

Pylkknnen (2002: 20) argues against the lexical decomposition analysis of

the DO construction (see Pesetsky 1995 for a similar claim along these lines).

Crucially, causatives and DOs are distinct with respect to entailment: the resultant

state is always entailed with causatives but not necessarily entailed with DOs (cf.

Pesetsky 1995), as shown below:

8/12/2019 o He 7702578319

55/329

32

46. Causatives

a. # I flew the kite over the field but it didnt fly.

b. # I broke the vase but it didnt break.

c. # I cooked the meat but it didnt cook.

47. DO construction 10

a. I threw John the ball but he didnt catch it.

b. I sent Bill the letter but he never got it.

c. I wrote Sue a letter but she never got it.

Moreover, the DO construction and the small clause construction are also distinct.

Depictive secondary predicates cannot be predicated of the indirect object in the DO,

whereas they can be predicated of subjects in small clauses. This contrast is

illustrated in (48).

48. a. *I told John the news drunk . (DO construction) 11

b. I saw John drive his car drunk . (Small clause) (Pylkknnen (2002:20)

Following Pylkknnen, I will assume that the DO construction is neither a

causative construction nor a small clause.

10 The examples in (47) again illustrate the point that all that matters in the DO is the subjectsintention: the referent of the first object is the intended recipient of the referent of the second object.11 Sentence in (48a) is perfectly fine on the reading that I was drunk, when I told John the news.

8/12/2019 o He 7702578319

56/329

33

Both DO and PP constructions convey some form of a transfer reading.

Nevertheless, the types of transfer encoded by the DO are much freer. The transfer

reading conveyed by the goal PP construction is restricted to the physical transfer

relation. On the other hand, as illustrated by the contrasts in (42) through (44), the

types of transfer encoded by the DO are not necessarily physical in nature: both

abstract and physical transfer can be conveyed by the DO construction, as long as the

(prospective) have relation is obtained between the referent of the first object and

that of the second object. In order to account for the observation that the PP is

restricted to physical transfer, whereas the DO encodes both abstract and physical

transfer, researchers such as den Dikken (1995) have claimed that in English, the

preposition that encodes directed motion can be phonologically realized as to or can

be phonologically null (i.e., null P), and that both encode a path meaning. Crucially,

there is an important difference between the two: while to encodes a physical path,

the null P is compatible both with a physical and an abstract path. It is further

assumed that the null P is present in the DO. In this theory, the abstract path encoded

by the null P enables the DO to be compatible with abstract transfer.

As argued in the next subsection, ben PP constructions are semantically

distinct from goal PP constructions. The ben PP constructions are not subject to the

physical transfer constraint, since they are about benefaction, not movement.

8/12/2019 o He 7702578319

57/329

34

2.4.2 Semantic properties of the ben PP construction

In this section, I will briefly discuss the semantics of the ben PP construction.

The ben DO and ben PP constructions are not semantically equivalent. As mentioned

in the preceding section, the ben PP construction covers a wider benefactive

construal, regardless of prospective possession: the action as a whole is intended for

the benefit of the referent of the DP introduced by the preposition for . Relevant

contrasts between the ben DO and PP constructions are illustrated below (Jackendoff

1990: 195). Given that the ben PP construction is not restricted by the (prospective)

possessor constraint, its distribution is much freer than that of its DO counterpart.

49. a. *Bill removed Harold the garbage.

b. *Nancy fought the king the dragon.

c. *Beth jumped Harriet the puddle.

50. a. Bill removed the garbage for Harold.

b. Nancy fought the dragon for the King.

c. Beth jumped the puddle for Harriet.

2.5 The Applicative projection in the DO construction

The semantic distinctions between the DO and PP constructions, illustrated in

preceding section, have been attributed to a projection which is present in the DO but

absent in the PP. The name of the projection has varied from one researcher to

another (e.g., the -Projection of Koizumi 1993, the Appl(icative) Projection of

8/12/2019 o He 7702578319

58/329

35

Marantz 1993 and Pylkknnen 2002). Following Marantz and Pylkknnen, I will

refer to the projection as the Appl Projection. In section 3.3, I will compare the

structural properties of the English DO with those of the Korean DO. In so doing, I

will take as a reference structure the English DO structure proposed by Pylkknnen,

who argues for an Appl projection in the English DO. The tree structure below

shows the position of the Appl projection in the structure (all non-pertinent details

are omitted). 12 More articulated versions of the Appl projection are presented in

sections 2.6.1 and 2.6.2.

51. vP

VP

ApplP

The projection of the applicative head has two effects. The presence of ApplP in the

DO requires a prospective have relation. This accounts for the ungrammaticality of

the sentence John sent New York a package (see section 2.3.1). Further, in the

absence of ApplP, no prospective have relation can be expressed in the goal PP

construction, and the construction expresses only a physical transfer relation or a

12 More specifically, the tree structure presented in (51) is a low applicative (see section 2.6.2 for adiscussion on two types of applicative heads).

8/12/2019 o He 7702578319

59/329

36

directed motion event along a physical path. This accounts for the ungrammaticality

of John gave a headache to Mary (see section 2.4.1).

2.6 Recent developments in the Applicative projection in English DOs

Now, I review the applicative structures proposed by Marantz (1993) and

Pylkknnen (2002).

2.6.1 Marantzs applicative structure (1993)

Marantz (1993) argues that the DO structure in English is akin to the

applicative constructions found in Bantu languages, in which an applied argument is

present. An indirect object is called an applied argument and the resulting

constructions with applied indirect objects are called applicative constructions. 13 He

further argues that in both English and Bantu languages, the DO structure has an

applicative head, which takes the applied indirect object as its specifier, and that the

difference between the two is that in Bantu languages, but not in English, the

applicative head is phonologically overt (an applicative affix). 14 This is shown below

(from Marantz 1993: 115, who attributes this example to Alsina and Mchombo

1990):

13 In Bantu languages, applicative constructions are not restricted to goal and benefactive applicatives.They also include locative and instrumental applicatives. See Pylkknnen 2002 for further details onthe applied argument and the applicative constructions in Bantu languages.14 Marantz (1993) argues that DO constructions always involve an applicative affix, whether

phonologically realized or not. Abbreviations used in (52) are as follows:SP = subject prefix = subject agreement, APPL= applicative affix = affixal verb, fv = final vowel

8/12/2019 o He 7702578319

60/329

37

52. Chitsiru chi-na-gul- ir -a atsikana mphatso

fool SP-Past-buy-APPL-fv girls gift

The fool bought a gift for the girls.

The DO structure proposed by Marantz is provided below. The DO structure is a

complex verbal structure consisting of a main (lower) VP and an applicative head.

The applicative head is located between the higher vP and the lower VP. The

applicative head is assumed to contribute the special semantics associated with the

DO structure. The asymmetric c-command relationship, noted by Barss and Lasnik

(1986), is also captured by (53). On the other hand, for the goal PP structure,

Marantz proposes a simple verbal structure where both arguments (goal and theme)

are merged in the same VP (thus, the applicative head is absent in the PP structure

and the absence of the (prospective) possession construal follows). The goal PP

structure is given in (54). 15

15 There is a quantifier scope difference between the DO and PP constructions, illustrated below. Bothsurface and inverse scope are available in the PP construction while only surface scope is available inthe DO construction (i.e., a scope freezing effect) (cf. Aoun & Li 1989, Marantz 1993, Bruening 2001,inter alia )

(i) a. John sent some students every article. (some > every, *every > some) b. John sent some article to every student. (some > every, every> some)

Marantz illustrates how this scope difference between the two constructions can be captured under hisanalysis. This difference is attributed to the structural difference between the DO and PP constructions.The DO is a complex structure, with the goal QP outside of the VP that contains the theme QP. In thiscomplex verbal structure, the theme QP cannot raise by QR over the goal QP. On the other hand, thePP is a simpler structure in which both the goal and theme QP are inside the same verbal projection.In this structure, either the theme QP or the goal QP can raise first by QR,and this leads to scopeambiguity.

8/12/2019 o He 7702578319

61/329

38

53. vP

Subj v

v ApplP

DP Goal Appl

Appl VP

V DP Theme

54. vP

Subj v

v VP

DP Theme V

V PP

P DP Goal

8/12/2019 o He 7702578319

62/329

39

2.6.2 Pylkknnens applicative structure (2002)

Pylkknnen (2002) has further developed the applicative structures, arguing

for two types of applicative heads within the structure, namely, high and low

applicatives. The meanings of the two constructions are distinct. High applicatives,

located above VP, denote a relation between an individual and an event. On the other

hand, low applicatives, located below VP, denote a relation between two individuals

who enter into a possessive relation with each other.

The goal argument in the high applicative has a semantic relation with the

verb (to be more specific, the event described by the verb) but it has no relation to

the direct object. On the other hand, the goal argument in the low applicative bears

no semantic relation to the verb at all; it only bears a transfer of possession relation

to the theme argument (i.e., the direct object). The high applicatives are like the vP in

that both the high applicatives and the vP add another argument to the event

described by the verb: the vP introduces the external argument while the high

applicative introduces the applied indirect object. According to Pylkknnen, both

goal and ben DOs in English are instantiations of the low applicative structure in that

both DO constructions encode a (prospective) transfer of possession (as shown in

section2.3.1).

Two predictions follow from the distinct semantics associated with high and

low applicatives (Pylkknnen 2002:23).

8/12/2019 o He 7702578319

63/329

40

55. A. Transitivity restriction

Since the low applicative head denotes a relation between the indirect object

and the direct object, it cannot appear in a structure lacking a direct object.

On the other hand, the high applicative head denotes a relation between the

indirect object and the event described by the verb and thus, does not require

a direct object; therefore, it can combine with unergatives.

B. Verb semantics

Low applicatives, which encode a transfer of possession, are not compatible

with stative verbs such as hold (e.g., * John held Mary a bag ), since an event

of Johns holding the bag does not plausibly result in Mary coming into

possession of the bag. On the other hand, high applicatives are compatible

with stative verbs.

Table 1: Diagnostics for distinguishing high vs. low applicatives

Types of applicative Compatibility withunergatives

Compatibility with stativeverbs

High applicatives Low applicatives X X

English DOs are classified as low applicatives: they are predicted to be

compatible neither with unergatives nor with stative verbs. These predictions are

borne out, as shown below.

8/12/2019 o He 7702578319

64/329

41

56. a. *John worked the lady. (unergative verb)

(intended meaning: John worked for the lady)

b. *John held Mary the bag. (stative verb)

On the other hand, the DO in Venda, which is classified as a high applicative, is

predicted to be well-formed in both unergatives and stative verbs. The relevant data

appear in (57) (Pylkknnen 2002: 25).

57. a. Ndi-do-shum-el-a musadzi (unergative verb)

Ndi-FUT-work-APPL-FV lady

I will work for the lady.

b. Nd-o-far-el-a Mukasa khali (stative verb)

1sg-PAST-hold-APPL-FV Mukasa pot

I held the pot for Mukasa.

Pylkknnen (2002: 23) suggests the transitivity restriction (i.e.,

(in)compatibility with unergatives) and verb semantics (i.e., (in)compatibility with

stative verbs) as diagnostics for distinguishing low and high applicatives. In order to

classify Korean DO constructions as having high vs. low status (see section 3.4.1), I

will use these two diagnostics because they are theory-neutral.16

16 Along with these two diagnostics, Pylkknnen (2002) suggests a third diagnostic, depictivesecondary predication, which is available only for high applicatives. I will not use this thirddiagnostic in detecting high or low status of Korean DOs because this diagnostic is theory-dependent.

8/12/2019 o He 7702578319

65/329

8/12/2019 o He 7702578319

66/329

43

59. Low applicative (Pylkknnen 2002: 19) (VP > ApplP) (e.g., English DO)

VoiceP

VP

V ApplP

DP Goal Appl

Appl DP Theme

Comparison between the structures in (53) and (59) suggests that while both

Marantz and Pylkknnen posit an applicative head for the English DO, the exact

position of the applicative projection is different. For Marantz, the applicative head,

which is merged outside VP, relates the goal to the VP that contains the verb and the

theme (and thus, is a high applicative in Pylkknnens theory). On the other hand, for

Pylkknnen, the applicative head, which is merged within VP, relates the goal to the

theme directly. In comparing English and Korean DOs, I will adopt Pylkknnens

analysis of English DOs. Two types of applicative heads are semantically motivated

and the two diagnostics, which are theory-neutral allow us to detect high or low

status of Korean DO constructions in a principled way.

8/12/2019 o He 7702578319

67/329

44

3 Syntactic and semantic properties of Korean DO constructions

This section is mainly concerned with the structural and semantic properties

of DO constructions in Korean. The following claims on the structural and semantic

properties of Korean DOs will be put forth.

With respect to the structural properties of Korean DOs, I will show that the

DAT(IVE)-ACC(USATIVE) construction in Korean is structurally comparable to

the English DO in that the dative-marked argument in the DAT-ACC construction

asymmetrically c-commands the accusative-marked theme argument. This

asymmetry is attested both with goal and ben DAT-ACC constructions. This

suggests that the DAT-ACC construction in Korean corresponds to the English DO.

Given this, I will call the DAT-ACC construction in Korean a DO construction. As

in the preceding sections on English DOs, two types of Korean DOs are under

investigation: goal and ben DOs.

With respect to the semantic properties of Korean DOs, I will show that goal

DOs in Korean are (optionally) constrained by the (prospective) possessor constraint,

whereas ben DOs in Korean encode a wider benefactive construal, regardless of

(prospective) possession.

3.1 Verbal morphology in Korean DAT-ACC constructions

There are similarities and differences with respect to verbal morphology

associated with the Korean DAT-ACC construction compared with that in English

DOs. For the purposes of this section, I will treat the DAT-ACC construction as the

8/12/2019 o He 7702578319

68/329

45

Korean counterpart of the English DO. More detailed discussion of, and supporting

evidence for, the DO status of the DAT-ACC construction in Korean will be

presented in the next section.

In English, both goal and ben DO constructions are licensed in the absence of

overt morphology. That is, both DO constructions are licensed lexically:

60. a. John gave Mary a book. (Goal DO)

b. Mary baked John a cake. (Ben DO)

Goal DAT-ACC constructions in Korean, like their English DO counterparts,

do not require any special morphology as a licensor. Interestingly, ben DOs in

Korean, unlike their English counterparts, obligatorily require special verbal

morphology, namely, cwu- (cf. Lee 1992, Choi 1991, Suh 2000, Whong-Barr and

Schwartz 2002). A dative-marked argument can appear in the ben DO if and only if

cwu- is present. This implies that cwu- introduces the dative-marked argument.

When cwu- is used as a lexical verb, it corresponds to the English give . The relevant

contrast between goal and ben DAT-ACC constructions appears in (61) and (62). In

(63), cwu- is used as a lexical verb. A more detailed discussion of the meanings

associated with the goal and ben DO constructions will be given later.

8/12/2019 o He 7702578319

69/329

46

61. John-i Mary-eykey senmwul-ul kennay-ss-ta 17 (Goal-DO)

John-Nom Mary-Dat present-Acc hand-Past-Decl

John handed Mary a present.

62. John-i Mary-eykey kulim-ul kuly-e *( cwu )-ess-ta. 18, 19 (Ben-DO)

John-Nom Mary-Dat picture-Acc draw-L Ben-Past-Decl

John drew Mary a picture.

63. John-i Mary-eykey chayk-ul cwu -ess-ta

John-Nom Mary-Dat book-Acc give-Past-Decl

John gave Mary a book

17 Yale Romanization is used to transliterate the Korean examples (cf. Martin 1992).The abbreviations used in the glosses are as follows: Nom: Nominative case Acc: Accusative case Gen: Genitive case Dat: Dative caseTop: Topic marker L: Linker Neg: Negation Past: Past tenseDecl: Declarative marker Ben: Benefactive Appl: Applicative UQ: Universal

quantifier Pres: Present tense Comp:Complementizer18

Shibatani (1994, 1996) has reported that benefactive constructions across languages often make useof verbs of giving. The following sentences exemplify this point.(i) Taroo-ga Hanako-ni hon-o katte yatta

Taroo-Nom Hanako-Dat book-Acc buy GAVETaroo bought Hanako a book. (Japanese)

(ii) Ranjit Chitra-ta tikat eka aran de-nawa.Ranjit Chitra-Dat ticket one buy.PP GIVE -IndRanjit buys Chitra a ticket. (Sinhala)

Shibatani argues that in these languages, the beneficiary DP requires no structural Case from thelexical verb. Accordingly, the beneficiary DP has nothing to do with the main verb (e.g., buy, read ).He further claims that the DP (the so-called beneficiary) is a contribution from the verbs of giving.19 Korean is a serial verb language. More than one verb can be serialized. Where verbs are serialized,the so-called linker appears. The exact phonetic realization of the linker is constrained by the

phonology. In accordance with vowel harmony, the choice between e and a is conditioned bythe preceding vowel. Given the observation that the suffix -e does not carry any semantic orstructural content, Lee (1992) argues that the suffix -e in the Serial Verb Construction is just adummy linker. In the present work, we endorse her claim about the status of e . In any case, it ishighly unlikely that this suffix is a conjunction marker since Korean has an independent conjunctionthat can be inserted between two verbs, giving rise to a difference in meaning. In this respect, we cantreat V 1-e as equivalent to a bare verb in English.

8/12/2019 o He 7702578319

70/329

47

3.2 Structural properties of Korean DO constructions

Like the English DO construction, the DAT-ACC construction in Korean

shows the same c-command asymmetry: the first object in a DAT-ACC structure

asymmetrically c-commands the second, one of the defining properties of the DO

construction, as discussed in section 2.1. This suggests that the DAT-ACC

construction corresponds to the English DO construction (cf. Lee 1991, 1993; Cho

1994; Ko 2005) and that the DO construction does exist in Korean. The asymmetric

c-command relationship is attested both with goal DAT-ACC and ben DAT-ACC

constructions.

3.2.1 Asymmetric c-command in Korean DOs

The ditransitive construction in Korean is different from its English

counterpart. While English ditransitives allow two distinct structures, namely, the

DO and PP constructions, their Korean counterparts are associated with only one

structure, in which the goal argument is dative marked (- eykey) and the theme

argument is