The Korean Association for the Study of English Language and Linguistics

Current Issue

Korean Journal of English Language and Linguistics - Vol. 22

[ Article ]
Korea Journal of English Language and Linguistics - Vol. 22, No. 0, pp. 118-135
Abbreviation: KASELL
ISSN: 1598-1398 (Print) 2586-7474 (Online)
Print publication date 31 Jan 2022
Received 10 Jan 2022 Revised 22 Feb 2022 Accepted 27 Feb 2022
DOI: https://doi.org/10.15738/kjell.22..202202.118

The Restrictions on the Subject and L2 Acquisition of English E-O Psychological Verbs
Jihyun Kim
Lecturer, Korea University (jihyunkim616@naver.com)


© 2022 KASELL All rights reserved
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons License, which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Abstract

This study investigates whether the cross-linguistic difference in the semantic constraint imposed on the subject plays a role in L2 acquisition of English E-O psych verbs. It is known that some languages like Korean tend to restrict the subject position to entities that can initiate events, that is, mostly volitional Agents, while other languages like English are relatively open to the kinds of entities in the subject position. Based on this difference between the two languages, English and Korean, the present study compares Korean L2 learners’ and native English speakers’ use of English E-O verb sentences when they describe two different types of causative psychological events. In one type of psychological event, the subject is interpreted as doing something with volition/intention to trigger a change of state. In the other type of psychological event, the subject is not interpreted as doing anything to trigger a change of state, rather it is just inherent property of the subject that causes the Experiencer to feel a certain way. The results of this study show that native English speakers and Korean learners of English use E-O verb sentences in almost similar way when describing psychological events caused by volitional animate subjects. However, in the case of accidentally caused psychological event, Korean learners of English are less likely to use English E-O verb sentences than native English speakers. This finding is taken as an indication that Korean learners of English tend to limit entities in the subject position to volitional animate agents and this makes it difficult for them to use English E-O psych verb sentences where non-volitional or inanimate entities commonly appear in the subject position.


Keywords: the semantic constraints on the subjects, subjects of E-O psych verbs, L2 acquisition of English psych verbs, L1 influence

Acknowledgments

This paper is based on the second experiment in the author’s Ph.D dissertation.


References
1. Alexiadou, A. and F. Schafer. 2006. Instrument subjects are agents or causers. In D. Baumer, D. Montero and M. Scanlon, eds., Proceedings of the 25th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, 40-48. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.
2. Arad, M. 1998. Psych-notes. In UCL Working Papers in Linguistics, 203-223. London: Department of Phonetics and Linguistics, University College of London.
3. Baker, M. 1988. Incorpotation: A Theory of Grammatical Function Changing. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
4. Belletti, A. and L. Rizzi. 1988. Psych-verbs and theta theory. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 6, 291-352.
5. Chen, D. 1997. L2 Acquisition of Psych Predicates by Native Speakers of Chinese and French. Doctoral dissertation, McGill University.
6. Comrie, B. 1989. Language Universals and Linguistic Typology: Syntax and Morphology. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago press.
7. Dehghan, F. and A. Jabbari. 2011. Animacy in the Acquisition of the Argument Structure: Psych Verbs. The Iranian EFL Journal 7(5), 89-97.
8. DeLancey, S. 1983. Agentivity and causation: Data from Newari. In Proceedings of the 9th Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, 54-63. Berkeley, CA: Berkeley Linguistics Society.
9. de Swart, P., M. Lamers and S. Lestrade. 2008. Animacy, argument structure, and argument encoding. Lingua 118, 131-140.
10. de Villers, J. G. and P. A. de Villers. 1973. Development of the use of word order in comprehension. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 2, 331-341.
11. DiDesidero, L. 1999. Psych Verbs: Acquisition, Lexical semantics, and Event structure. Doctoral dissertation, Northwestern University.
12. Fausey, C., B. Long, A. Inamori and L. Boroditsky. 2010. Constructing agency: The role of language. Frontiers in Psychology 1, 1-11.
13. Grafmiller, J. 2013. The Semantics of Syntactic Choice: An Analysis of English Emotion Verbs. Doctoral dissertation, Stanford University.
14. Grimshaw, J. 1990. Argument Structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
15. Guilfoyle, E. 2000. Tense and N-features in modern Irish. In A. Carnie and E. Guilfoyle, eds., The Syntax of Verb Initial Languages. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
16. Hahn, H. 2011. Korean EFL learners’ underpassivization and overpassivization: Psych verbs and unaccusatives. Foreign Language Education Research 14, 54-76.
17. Hsin, A. and J. Lin. 2006. I disappoint you or you disappoint me: L2 acquisition of English psych verbs by Chinese EFL learners. Taiwan Journal of TESOL 3(1), 11-33.
18. Huddleston, R. 1970. Some remarks on case-grammar. Linguistic Inquiry 1(4), 501-511.
19. Hwang, J. 2000. Competition model and Korean learners’ acquisition of English psych verbs. English Teaching 55(2), 37-57.
20. Iwata, S. 1995. The distinctive character of psych-verbs as causatives. Linguistic Analysis 25, 95-120.
21. Juffs, A. 1996. Learnability and the Lexicon: Theories and Second Language Acquisition Research. Amsterdam and Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.
22. Kanero, J., K. Hirsh-Pasek and R. Michnick Golinkoff. 2016. Can a microwave heat up coffee? How English-and Japanese-speaking children choose subjects in lexical causative sentences. Journal of Child Language 43(5), 993-1019.
23. Kuno, S. 1973. The Structure of the Japanese Language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
24. Kim, E. 2000. A grammar of animacy. Studies in Modern Grammar 20,71-96.
25. Kim, E., M. Kim and Y. Jung. 2009. Effects of animacy on English-Korean translations. Journal of Language Sciences 16(1), 23-40.
26. Kim, J. 2015. Animacy effect on L2 Acquisition of English psychological verbs. Korean Journal of Linguistics 40(3), 307-332.
27. Kim, J. 2018. Variation among E-S and E-O psych verbs in Korean L2 learners’ linking problems. Korean Journal of Applied Linguistics 40(3), 307-332.
28. Lakoff, G. 1966. Stative adjectives and verbs in English. In A. Oettinger, ed., Mathematical Linguistics and Automatic Translation, Report NSF-17. Cambridge, MA: Computational Laboratory, Harvard University.
29. Lee, C. 2014. A study of differences in inanimate subjects in transitive emotive verb clauses between translational and non-translation Korean. Interpreting and Translation Studies 18(1), 123-141.
30. Lee, J. 2013. A Study on the interlanguage of Korean learners in the acquisition of English psych verbs. The New Korean Journal of English Language & Literature 55(1), 273-299.
31. Levin, B. 1993. English Verb Classes and Alternations. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
32. Master, P. 1991. Active verbs with inanimate subjects in scientific prose. English for Specific Purposes 10(1), 15-33.
33. Minkoff, S. 2000. Animacy hierarchies and Sentence Processing. In A. Carnie and E. Guilfoyle, eds., The Syntax of Verb Initial Languages, 201-212. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
34. Montrul, S. 2001a. The acquisition of causative/inchoative verbs in L2 Turkish. Language Acquisition 9(1), 1-58.
35. Montrul, S. 2001b. First-language-constrained variability in the second language acquisition of argument-structure-changing morphology with causative verbs. Second Language Research 17(2), 144-194.
36. Palmer, F. 1986. Mood and Modality. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
37. Pesetsky, D. 1995. Zero Syntax: Experiencers and Cascades. Cambridge: MIT Press.
38. Perlmutter, D. and P. Postal. 1984. The 1-Advancement Exclusiveness Law. In D. Perlmutter and C. Rosen, eds., Studies in Relational Grammar, 88-125. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
39. Pinemann, M. 2005. An introduction to processability theory. In M. Pinemann, ed., Cross-Linguistic Aspects of Processability Theory, 1-60. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
40. Pustejovsky, J. 1995. The Generative Lexicon. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
41. Radford, A. 1990. Syntactic Theory and the Acquisition of English Syntax. Oxford: Blackwell.
42. Sato, Y. 2003. Japanese learners linking problems with English psych verbs. Reading Working Papers in Linguistics 7, 125-144.
43. Schlesinger, I. 1989. Instruments as agents: On the nature of semantic relations. Journal of Linguistics 25(1), 189-210.
44. Son, H. and H. Kim. 2011. A study on the acquisition of English causative psych verbs by Korean learners. Journal of the Korea English Education Society 10(3), 139-162.
45. Van Valin, R. and P. David. 1996. The case for ‘effector’: Case roles, agents, and agency revisited. In M. Shibatani and S. A. Thompson, eds., Grammatical Constructions: Their Form and Meaning, 289-322. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
46. Verhoeven, E. 2010. Agentivity and stativity in experiencer verbs: Implications for a typology of verb classes. Linguistic Typology 14, 213-251.
47. White, L., C. Brown., J. Bruhn-Garavito., D. Chen., M. Hirakawa and S. Montrul. 1998. Psych verbs in second language acquisition. In E. Klein and G. Martohardijono, eds., The Development of Second Language Grammars: A Generative Approach, 171-196. Philadelphia, PH: Bartholomew Benjamins.
48. Wolff, P. and T. Ventura. 2009. When Russians learn English: How the semantics of causation may change. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 12(2), 153-176.
49. Wolff, P., G. Jeon. and Y. Li. 2009. Causers in English, Korean, and Chinese and the individuation of events. Language and Cognition 1(2), 167-196.