The current state of the Aspect Hypothesis The exceptions that prove the rule Yasuhiro Shirai Case Western Reserve University (yxs561@case.edu) LABEX Lecture 3 Sorbonne Nouvelle University - Paris 3 April 9, 2018

Overview Nativist proposal: Language bioprogram hypothesis Input distribution as alternative explanation Counterexamples to the Aspect Hypothesis L2: Japanese, Spanish/Russian, Chinese L1: Inuktitut Conclusion

Terminology: Four classes of (inherent) lexical aspect (aka Situation type/aspect, Aktionsart, Actionality) State ______________ love, contain, know, think that.. Activity ~~~~~~ run, walk, swim, think about... Accomplishment ~~~~~~x paint a picture, build a house Achievement x fall, drop, win the race (Vendler 1957)

The Aspect Hypothesis Learners first use past marking (e.g. English) or perfective marking (Chinese, Spanish, etc.) on achievement and accomplishment verbs, eventually extending its use to activities and stative verbs. In languages that encode the perfective/imperfective distinction, 　imperfective past appears later than perfective past, and imperfective 　　　　　　　past marking begins with stative verbs and activity verbs, then extending to accomplishment and achievement verbs. In languages that have progressive aspect, progressive marking begins with activity verbs, then extends to accomplishment or achievement verbs. Progressive markings are not incorrectly overextended to stative verbs. (Andersen & Shirai 1996: 533)

The Aspect Hypothesis (Shirai 1991, Andersen & Shirai 1994, 1996) State Activity Acc Ach past/perfective 4 <---3 <--- 2 <---1 imperf. past 1---> 2---> 3---> 4 progressive X 1---> 2---> 3 (Shirai 1995 BUCLD) Aka: aspect before tense H, defective tense H, primacy of aspect H, aspect first H, lexical aspect H, etc.

Input distribution as explanation (The distributional bias hypothesis) Shirai, Y. (1994). On the overgeneralization of progressive marking on stative verbs: Bioprogram or input? First Language, 14, 67-82. Shirai, Y. & Andersen, R. W. (1995). The acquisition of tense/aspect morphology: A prototype account. Language, 71, 743-62. Li, P. & Shirai, Y. (2000). The acquisition of lexical and grammatical aspect. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Shirai, Y. (2009). Temporality in first and second language acquisition. In W. Klein & P. Li (Eds.), The expression of time. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Chen, J. & Shirai, Y. (2010). The development of aspectual marking in Mandarin Chinese. Applied Psycholinguistics, 31, 1–28.  

Summary Acquisition patterns of tense/aspect morphology can be explained by input distribution without resorting to a bioprogram. Context of learning as an alternative explanation to learner-internal constraints on acquisition

What is the mechanism of such input-based learning?

Relative skewing (e.g. 60%) in the input ==> Absolute form-meaning mapping (almost 100%) - Prototype formation based on the skewed distribution in the input - Connectionist simulation yields similar results (e.g. Li & Shirai 2000, Ch 7)

Universal predisposition or input distribution? English data cannot resolve the question since both theories make the same prediction

Bickerton (1981) predicts for English: Stage 1: Progressive form marks non-punctual side of PNPD (activity verbs) Stage 2: Past tense form marks punctual side of PNPD(telic verbs) = Essentially the same prediction as the input-based explanation

English progressive vs. Japanese -teiru

Bickerton would predict for Japanese: Stage 1) children mark punctual side of PNPD with past tense form -ta Stage 2) children mark nonpunctual side of PNPD with progressive/durative marker -te iru Therefore, children start to use -teiru form with activity verbs (to denote action in progress) not with achievement verbs (to denote resultative state)

L1 Japanese - How about L2 Japanese? Not conclusive--individual variation (Shirai, 1993, 1998, FL) - some children support LBH (early acquisition of progressive meaning); others do not but see Shirai & Suzuki (2013, JK) - How about L2 Japanese?

Generalization (Li & Shirai 2000) past tense with achievement verbs -teiru with activity verbs Achievement-resultative is more frequently used with -teiru in discourse => support for the universalist position

Shirai & Kurono (1998, LL, Study 2)

Is this because of L1 influence? All the studies reviewed by Li & Shirai involved learners with L1 progressive marking (e.g. Chinese, English, Korean) The real test of universality must come from learners without L1 progressive marking

Sugaya & Shirai (2007, SSLA) Study 1: Grammaticality judgment test L1 progressive group (English; N=26) vs. L1 non-progressive group (German, Slavic; N=35) Results for -teiru - no difference between the two groups - both groups find progressive-activity easier than resultative-achievement

Sugaya & Shirai (2007, SSLA) Study 2: Picture description task Results for -teiru - Learners performed significantly better with progressive meaning, except for lower proficiency L1 non-progressive groups.

Ishida (2004, Language Learning) Four learners of Japanese (U of Hawaii) L1 English (3) and Chinese (1) Time-series design (effect of recast) Measured accuracy scores for various meanings of -teiru

Results Accuracy order Resultative > Progressive > Habitual > Perfect Why? The progressive was introduced 6 months after resultative was introduced

Distributional Bias: What kind? Andersen & Shirai (1996) progressive == activity verbs past tense == telic verbs Distributional bias as universal tendency in native speech between lexical aspect and grammatical aspect-tense

Sugaya & Shirai (2009) in Formulaic Language (John Benjamins) Some achievement verbs are associated with -teiru, while others are associated with –ta by L2 learners. -teiru preferred: siru ‘know’, tuku ‘attach’ -ta preferred: otiru ‘drop’, iku ‘go’ No preference: kekkon suru ‘get married’, kowareru ‘break’, oboeru ‘drown’, todoku ‘reach’, tukareru ‘get tired’

Sugaya & Shirai (2009) Distributional bias in native corpus (Yahoo Q&A; Kotonoha Corpus) -teiru preferred : siru, tuku (-teiru > -ta) -ta preferred: otiru, iku (-ta > -teiru) distributional bias at the level of each verb has effects on verb-specific preferences

L2 acquisition of -teiru: what we have found so far Regardless of L1, resulative is more difficult than progressive--probably because of simple form-meaning mapping for progressive use of -teiru (Sugaya & Shirai, judgment task) L1 effect does exist at lower level in tasks requiring automaticity (Sugaya & Shirai, oral task) These can be overridden by environmental factors (e.g. input distribution, Ishida 2004)  It is not necessary to evoke universal predisposition to explain empirical observations

Other exceptions to AH Spanish L2 Russian L2 Chinese L2 Inuktitut L1

Default Past Tense Hypothesis (Salaberry, 1999, AL) L1 English learners of Spanish L2 use preterit (perfective past) as default past tense marker regardless of lexical aspect Learners become more sensitive to lexical aspect, showing stronger association between preterit and telic verbs, eventually becoming more flexible (verbal virtuosity, or insider’s advantage, Andersen 1990, 1994 )

Martelle (2012, Pitt Diss.) L1 English learners learning Russian as FL Beginning learners use imperfective past as default past tense marker at the beginning (Transfer of L1 simple past) Intermediate learners’ data more consistent with AH (predicted association) Oral narratives more consistent with AH than written narratives

Generalization: Learning condition The DPTH is supported when the learners whose L1 past marker is simple past tense (e.g. English) are learning an aspectual language (such as Romance or Slavic) in a foreign language (i.e. input-poor) setting. The AH is supported in Naturalistic acquisition of L2 Spanish (Andersen 1991); heritage Russian (Perelstvaig 2005), L1 Russian (Stoll 1998)

Generalization: task condition The DPTH in L2 Spanish is supported in context where learners can pay attention to form to produce past tense (e.g. film retell), while AH is supported in more naturalistic task (personal narrative, conversation) (Bonilla, 2013, Hispania)

Tong & Shirai (2016, CASLAR) Judgment tests on perfective –le and progressive zai in Mandarin 3rd year college students tend to prefer prototypical association than 2nd year students (against AH) Support DPTH -> reformulated as: Lexical Insensitivity Hypothesis (LIH) Input-based, usage-based explanation

L1 acquisition of Inuktitut (Swift 2004) Children start using past markers in non-resultative contexts with predominantly atelic verb stems in reference to past activities and states (completely going against AH).

L1 acquisition of Inuktitut (Swift 2004) In Inuktitut, zero-marked telic verbs refer to past/perfective, zero-marked activity verbs refer to ongoing situations, and zero-marked state verbs refer to ongoing states. Therefore, for telic verbs, there is no need to give past marking – just zero form will do, and hence, past marking develops from atelic verbs.  support input-based account

Conclusion: What is the current state of the Aspect Hypothesis? AH as universal tendency, not absolute universal Counterexamples to AH support input-based, multiple-factor account of tense-aspect acquisition (cf. usage-based model) The more natural learning and task conditions are, the more consistent are the data with AH (Spanish, Russian in FL vs. SL/L1)

Conclusion Where does the universal semantic bias come from? Skewed input, which comes from universal tendencies in the organization of the target language tense-aspect system, which comes from discourse motivation (Andersen & Shirai, 1994)

Conclusion Default way of describing real-world situations (Andersen & Shirai, 1994)-source of universal tendency in distributional bias in native discourse Situation temporal ref gram. form State/habit present imperfective/zero Activity present progressive/zero Telic event past perfective/past

Conclusion: Future research We should go beyond asking whether or not AH is supported; And ask under what conditions the four predictions of the AH tends to be supported or not supported, and why.  leads to better understanding of the mechanism of tense-aspect acquisition

Stative progressives in L2 English More likely Present if: (1) L1 non-obligatory progressive (esp. Romance) learners (Rocca, 2002, Rohde 1996) (2) in non-tutored setting (Robison 1990) (3) in spoken task (Zeng et al, 2018)