Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dk4vv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-21T18:05:33.979Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

16 - Acceptability and Truth-Value Judgment Studies in East Asian Languages

from Part III - Experimental Studies of Specific Populations and Language Families

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 December 2021

By
Shin Fukuda
Edited by
Grant Goodall
Grant Goodall
Affiliation:
University of California, San Diego
Get access

Summary

Since the early development of modern syntactic theory, empirical data from three major East Asian languages, Chinese, Japanese, and Korean, have often challenged empirical generalizations and theoretical proposals based on data from the better-studied Indo-European languages, especially English. Experimental syntax also began with studies of phenomena in English and other major Indo-European languages. More recently, however, a growing number of experimental syntactic studies have focused on East Asian languages, especially in the past decade. This chapter highlights three phenomena explored in the rapidly growing body of experimental syntactic research with Chinese, Japanese, and Korean: (i) split intransitivity, (ii) quantifier scope, and (iii) wh-in-situ. The goal of the chapter is to show that, while the literature on East Asian experimental syntax is still at an early stage, it has already accumulated interesting experimental data on syntactic phenomena with important theoretical implications.

Keywords

East Asian languagesChineseJapaneseKoreansplit intransitivityquantifier scopewh-in-situ; acceptability judgmenttruth-value judgment
Type
Chapter
Information
The Cambridge Handbook of Experimental Syntax , pp. 421 - 447
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2021

Access options

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

References

Ahn, S.-H. (1990). Korean quantification and Universal Grammar. Doctoral dissertation, University of Connecticut.Google Scholar
Almeida, D. (2014). Subliminal wh-islands in Brazilian Portuguese and the consequences for syntactic theory. Revista da ABRALIN, 13, 55–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderson, C. (2004). The structure and real-time comprehension of quantifier scope ambiguity. Doctoral dissertation, Northwestern University.Google Scholar
Aoun, J. & Li, Y.-H. A. (1993). Syntax of Scope. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Bard, E. G., Robertson, D., & Sorace, A. (1996). Magnitude estimation of linguistic acceptability. Language, 72, 32–68.Google Scholar
Burzio, L. (1981). Intransitive verbs and Italian auxiliaries. Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
Burzio, L. (1986). Italian Syntax: A Government and Binding Approach. Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
Chen, Y. (2019). The acquisition of Japanese relative clauses by L1 Chinese learners. Doctoral dissertation, University of Hawai‘i at Mānoa.Google Scholar
Choe, J. W. (1987). LF movement and pied-piping. Linguistic Inquiry, 18, 348–353.Google Scholar
Cooper, R. (1979). Variable binding and relative clauses. In Guenthner, F. & Schmidt, S. J., eds., Formal Semantics and Pragmatics for Natural Languages. Dordrecht: Reidel, pp. 131–169.Google Scholar
Cowart, W. (1997). Experimental Syntax: Applying Objective Methods to Sentence Judgments. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Emonds, J. (1978). The verbal complex V′-V in French. Linguistic Inquiry, 9, 151–175.Google Scholar
Featherston, S. (2005a). That-trace in German. Lingua, 115, 1277–1302.Google Scholar
Featherston, S. (2005b). Magnitude estimation and what it can do for your syntax: Some wh-constraints in German. Lingua, 115, 1525–1550.Google Scholar
Fodor, J. & Sag, I. (1982). Referential and quantificational indefinites. Linguistics and Philosophy, 5, 355–398.Google Scholar
Fukuda, S. (2017). Split intransitivity in Japanese is syntactic: Evidence for the Unaccusative Hypothesis from sentence acceptability and truth value judgment experiments. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics, 2(1), 83. DOI: 10.5334/gjgl.268Google Scholar
Fukuda, S, Nakao, C., Omaki, A., & Polinsky, M.. (2016). Japanese subjects and objects are equally open to subextraction. Why? In Sugawara, A., Hayashi, S., & Ito, S., eds., Proceedings of the Eighth Formal Approaches to Japanese Linguistics (FAJL8). Cambridge, MA: MIT Working Papers in Linguistics, pp. 13–29.Google Scholar
Fukuda, S. & Sprouse, J. (2019). Islandhood of Japanese complex NPs and the factorial definition of island effects. Manuscript, University of Hawai‘i at Mānoa and University of Connecticut.Google Scholar
Fukui, N. (1988). LF extraction of naze: Some theoretical implications. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 6, 503–526.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fukushima, K. (2003). Verb-raising and numeral classifiers in Japanese: Incompatible bedfellows. Journal of East Asian Linguistics, 12, 313–347.Google Scholar
Gerdts, D. (1987). Surface case and grammatical relations in Korean: The evidence from quantifier float. Studies in Language, 11, 181–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gibson, E. & Fedorenko, E. (2013). The need for quantitative methods in syntax and semantics research. Language and Cognitive Processes, 28, 88–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gibson, E., Piantadosi, S. T., & Fedorenko, E. (2013). Quantitative methods in syntax/semantics research: A response to Sprouse and Almeida (2013). Language and Cognitive Processes, 28, 229–240.Google Scholar
Han, C.-H. (2013). On the syntax of relative clauses in Korean. Canadian Journal of Linguistics, 58, 319–347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Han, C.-H., Lidz, J., & Musolino, J. (2007). Verb-raising and grammar competition in Korean: Evidence from negation and quantifier scope. Linguistic Inquiry, 38, 1–47.Google Scholar
Han, C.-H., Storoshenko, D. R., & Sakurai, Y. (2009a). An experimental investigation into scope rigidity in Japanese. Current Issues in Unity and Diversity of Languages: Collection of the Papers Selected from the 18th International Congress of Linguistics. Seoul: The Linguistic Society of Korea.Google Scholar
Han, C.-H., Storoshenko, D. R., & Sakurai, Y. (2009b). An experimental investigation into the placement of the verb in the clause structure of Japanese. Proceedings of the 2007 International Conference on Linguistics in Korea (ICLK-2007). Seoul: The Linguistic Society of Korea.Google Scholar
Han, C.-H., Storoshenko, D. R., & Walshe, R. C. (2010). An experimental study of the grammatical status of caki in Korean. Japanese/Korean Linguistics, 19, 81–94.Google Scholar
Hirakawa, M. (1999). L2 acquisition of Japanese unaccusative verbs by speakers of English and Chinese. In Kanno, K., ed., The Acquisition of Japanese as a Second Language. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 89–113.Google Scholar
Hirakawa, M. (2001). L2 acquisition of Japanese unaccusative verbs. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 23, 221–245.Google Scholar
Hoji, H. (1985). Logical Form constraints and configurational structures in Japanese. Doctoral dissertation, University of Washington.Google Scholar
Hong, S. & Nakayama, N. (2017). Kare and the acquisition of bound variable interpretations by Korean speaking learners of Japanese. In Nakayama, M., Su, Y.-C., & Huang, A., eds., Studies in Chinese and Japanese Language Acquisition: In Honor of Stephen Crain. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 85–106.Google Scholar
Huang, C.-T. J. (1982). Logical relations in Chinese and the theory of grammar. Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
Huang, C.-T. J. (1987). Existential sentences in Chinese and (in)definiteness. In Reuland, E. J. & ter Meulen, A. G. B., eds., The Representation of (In)definiteness. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 226–253.Google Scholar
Jiang, L. (2012). Nominal arguments and language variation. Doctoral dissertation, Harvard University.Google Scholar
Joo, K.-J. (2014). Children’s interpretation of the Korean reflexive pronouns caki and caki-casin. Doctoral dissertation, University of Hawai‘i at Mānoa.Google Scholar
Jurka, J. (2010). The importance of being a complement: the CED effects revisited. Doctoral dissertation, University of Maryland, College Park.Google Scholar
Jurka, J., Nakao, C., & Omaki, A. (2011). It’s not the end of the CED as we know it: Revisiting German and Japanese subject islands. In Washburn, M. B., McKinney-Bock, K., Varis, E., Sawyer, A., & Tomaszewicz, B., eds., Proceedings of the 28th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project, pp. 124–132.Google Scholar
Kang, B.-M. (2002). Categories and meanings of Korean floating quantifiers: With some reference to Japanese. Journal of East Asian Linguistics, 1, 375–398.Google Scholar
Kanno, K. (1997). The acquisition of null and overt pronominals in Japanese by English speakers. Second Language Research, 13(3), 265–287.Google Scholar
Keller, F. (2000). Gradience in grammar: Experimental and computational aspects of degrees of grammaticality. Doctoral dissertation, University of Edinburgh.Google Scholar
Keller, F. & Sorace, A. (2003). Gradient auxiliary selection and impersonal passivization in German: An experimental investigation. Journal of Linguistics, 39, 57–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keshev, K. & Meltzer-Asscher, A. (2019). A processing-based account of subliminal wh-island effects. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 37, 621–57.Google Scholar
Kim, B. (2015). Sensitivity to islands in Korean–English bilinguals. Doctoral dissertation, University of California, San Diego.Google Scholar
Kim, B. & Goodall, G. (2016). Islands and non-islands in native and heritage Korean. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 134. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00134Google Scholar
Kim, J.-H., Montrul, S., & Yoon, J.-H. (2009). Binding interpretations of anaphors by Korean heritage speakers. Language Acquisition, 16, 3–35.Google Scholar
Kim, J.-H. & Yoon, J.-H. (2009). Long-distance bound local anaphors in Korean: An empirical study of the Korean anaphor caki-casin. Lingua, 119, 733–755.Google Scholar
Kim, K.-M. (2019). The syntax of Korean anaphora: An experimental investigation. Doctoral dissertation, Simon Frazer University.Google Scholar
Kim, K.-M. & Han, C.-H. (2016). Inter-speaker variation in Korean pronouns. In Grosz, P. & Patel-Grosz, P., eds., The Impact of Pronominal Form on Interpretation. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton, pp. 347–372.Google Scholar
Kishimoto, H. (2005). Wh-in-situ and movement in Sinhala questions. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 23, 1–51.Google Scholar
Ko, H. (2005). Syntax of why-in-situ: Merge into [Spec, CP] in the overt syntax. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 23, 867–916.Google Scholar
Ko, H. (2007). Asymmetries in scrambling and cyclic linearization. Linguistic Inquiry, 38, 49–83.Google Scholar
Ko, H. & Oh, E. (2010). A hybrid approach to floating quantifiers: Experimental evidence. Japanese/Korean Linguistics, 19, 171–184.Google Scholar
Ko, H. & Oh, E. (2012). A hybrid approach to floating quantifiers: Some experimental evidence. Linguistic Research, 29, 69–106.Google Scholar
Koizumi, M. (2000). String vacuous overt verb-raising. Journal of East Asian Linguistics, 9, 227–285.Google Scholar
Kratzer, A. (1994). On external arguments. In Benedicto, E. & Runner, J., eds., Functional Projections: University of Massachusetts Occasional Papers 17, Amherst, MA: University of Massachusetts, GLSA, pp.103–130.Google Scholar
Kratzer, A. (1996). Severing the external argument from the verb. In Rooryck, J. & Zariing, L., eds., Phrase Structure and the Lexicon. Dordrecht: Kluwer, pp. 109–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kratzer, A. (1998). Scope or pseudoscope? Are there wide scope indefinites? In Rothstein, S., ed., Events and Grammar. Dordrecht: Kluwer, pp. 163–196.Google Scholar
Kuno, S. (1973). The Structure of the Japanese Language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Kuroda, S.-Y. (1965). Generative grammatical studies in the Japanese language. Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Reprinted, New York: Garland, 1979.Google Scholar
Kuroda, S.-Y. (1970). Remarks on the notion of subject with reference to words like also, even, or only, part 2. Annual Bulletin – Research Institute of Logopedics and Phoniatrics, Tokyo University. Tokyo: Tokyo University, vol. 4, pp. 127–152.Google Scholar
Kush, D., Lohndal, T., & Sprouse, J. (2018). Investigating variation in island effects: A case study of Norwegian wh-extraction. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 36, 743–779.Google Scholar
Lasnik, H. & Saito, M. (1992). Move α: Conditions on Its Application and Output. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Laws, J. & Yuen, B. (2010). Is the core-peripheral distinction for unaccusative verbs cross-linguistically consistent? Empirical evidence from Mandarin. Chinese Language and Discourse, 1, 220–263.Google Scholar
Lee, C.-M. (1989). (In-)definites, case-markers, classifiers and quantifiers in Korean. In Kuno, S., Lee, I.-H., Whitman, J., Bak, S.-Y., Kang, Y.-S. & Kim, Y.-J., eds., Harvard Studies in Korean Linguistics, 3, 469–487.Google Scholar
Lee, H. (1990). Logical relations in the child’s grammar: Relative scope, bound variables, and long-distance binding in Korean. Doctoral dissertation, University of California, Irvine.Google Scholar
Lee, S. (2009). Interpreting scope ambiguity in first and second language processing: Universal quantifier and negation. Doctoral dissertation, University of Hawai‘i at Mānoa.Google Scholar
Lee, T. (2011). Grammatical knowledge of Korean heritage speakers. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 1, 149–174.Google Scholar
Lee, T. H.-T. (1986). Studies on quantification in Chinese. Doctoral dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles.Google Scholar
Li, Y.-H. A. (1998). Argument determiner phrases and number phrases. Linguistic Inquiry, 29(4), 693–702.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Linzen, T. & Oseki, Y. (2018). The reliability of acceptability judgments across languages. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics, 3(1), 100. DOI:10.5334/gjgl.528Google Scholar
Liu, F.-H. (1997). Scope and Specificity. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Liu, F.-H. (2007). Auxiliary selection in Chinese. In Aranovich, R., ed., Split Auxiliary Systems. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 181–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lu, J., Thompson, C. K., & Yoshida, M. (2020). Chinese wh-in-situ and islands: A formal judgment study. Linguistic Inquiry, 51(3), 611–623.Google Scholar
Miyagawa, S. (1989). Structure and Case Marking in Japanese. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Miyagawa, S. (2006). Locality in syntax and floated numeral quantifiers in Japanese and Korean. Japanese/Korean Linguistics, 14, 270–282.Google Scholar
Myers, J. (2009). The design and analysis of small-scale syntactic judgment experiments. Lingua, 119, 425–444.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Myers, J. (2012). Testing adjunct and conjunct island constraints in Chinese. Language and Linguistics, 13, 437–470.Google Scholar
Nishigauchi, T. (1990). Quantification in the Theory of Grammar. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
O’Grady, W. (1991). Categories and Case: The Sentence Structure of Korean. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Omaki, A., Fukuda, S., Nakao, C., & Polinsky, M. (2020). Subextraction in Japanese and subject–object symmetry. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 38, 627–669.Google Scholar
Otani, K. & Whitman, J. (1991). V-raising and VP-ellipsis. Linguistic Inquiry, 22, 345–358.Google Scholar
Pan, H. (1996). Imperfective aspect zhe, agent deletion, and locative inversion in Mandarin Chinese. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 14, 409–432.Google Scholar
Park, K. (1992). Light verb constructions in Korean and Japanese. Doctoral dissertation, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill.Google Scholar
Park, M.-K. (1998). Negation and the placement of verb in Korean. Language Research, 34, 709–736.Google Scholar
Perlmutter, D. M. (1978). Impersonal passives and the unaccusative hypothesis. In Proceedings of the 4th Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society. Berkeley, CA: University of California, Berkeley Linguistics Society, pp. 157–185.Google Scholar
Pollock, J.-Y. (1989). Verb movement, Universal Grammar, and the structure of IP. Linguistic Inquiry, 20, 365–424.Google Scholar
Reinhart, T. (1976). The syntactic domain of anaphora. Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
Reinhart, T. (1997). Quantifier scope: How labor is divided between QR and choice functions. Linguistics and Philosophy, 20, 335–397.Google Scholar
Richards, N. (2008). Wh-questions. In Miyagawa, S. & Saito, M., eds., The Oxford Handbook of Japanese Linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 348–371.Google Scholar
Ross, J. R. (1967). Constraints on variables in syntax. Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
Ross, J. R. (1987). Infinite Syntax! Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
Ruys, E. G. (1992). The scope of indefinites. Doctoral dissertation, Utrecht University.Google Scholar
Schütze, C. T. (1996). The Empirical Base of Linguistics: Grammaticality Judgments and Linguistic Methodology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Scontras, G., Polinsky, M., Tsai, C.-Y. E., & Mai, K. (2017). Cross-linguistic scope ambiguity: When two systems meet. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics, 2 (1), 36. DOI: 10.5334/gjgl.198Google Scholar
Scontras, G., Tsai, C.-Y. E., Mai, K., & Polinsky, M. (2014). Chinese scope: An experimental investigation. Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung, 18, 396–414.Google Scholar
Sohn, K.-W. (1995). Negative polarity items, scope and economy. Doctoral dissertation, University of Connecticut.Google Scholar
Sorace, A. (1993). Incomplete vs. divergent representation of unaccusativity in non-native grammars of Italian. Second Language Research, 9, 22–47.Google Scholar
Sorace, A. (1995). Acquiring linking rules and argument structures in a second language: The unaccusative/unergative distinction. In Eubank, L., Selinker, L., & Sharwood Smith, M., eds., The Current State of Interlanguage: Studies in Honor of William E. Rutherford. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 153–175.Google Scholar
Sorace, A. (2000). Gradients in auxiliary selection with intransitive verbs. Language, 76, 859–890.Google Scholar
Sorace, A. & Shomura, Y. (2001). Lexical constraints on the acquisition of split intransitivity. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 23, 247–278.Google Scholar
Sprouse, J. (2007). A program for experimental syntax. Doctoral dissertation, University of Maryland, College Park.Google Scholar
Sprouse, J. & Almeida, D. (2012). Assessing the reliability of textbook data in syntax: Adger’s core syntax. Journal of Linguistics, 48, 609–652.Google Scholar
Sprouse, J. & Almeida, D. (2013). The empirical status of data in syntax: A reply to Gibson and Fedorenko. Language and Cognitive Processes, 28, 222–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sprouse, J., Fukuda, S., Ono, H., & Kluender, R. (2011). Reverse island effects and the backward search for a licensor in multiple wh-questions. Syntax, 14, 179–203.Google Scholar
Sprouse, J. & Hornstein, N. (2013). Experimental Syntax and Island Effects. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Sprouse, J., Schütze, C. T., & Almeida, D. (2013). A comparison of informal and formal acceptability judgments using a random sample from Linguistic Inquiry 2001–2010. Lingua, 134, 219–248.Google Scholar
Sprouse, J., Wagers, M., & Phillips, C. (2012). A test of the relation between working memory capacity and syntactic island effects. Language, 88, 82–123.Google Scholar
Tanaka, N. & Schwartz, B. D. (2018). Investigating relative clause island effects in native and nonnative adult speakers of Japanese. In Bertolini, A. B. & Kaplan, M. J., eds., Proceedings of the 42nd Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project, pp. 750–763.Google Scholar
Tsai, W.-T. D. (1994). On nominal islands and LE extraction in Chinese. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 12, 121–175.Google Scholar
Tsai, W.-T. D. (1997). On the absence of island effects. Tsing Hua Journal of Chinese Studies, New Series, 27, 125–149.Google Scholar
Tsai, W.-T. D. (1999). On lexical courtesy. Journal of East Asian Linguistics, 8, 39–73.Google Scholar
Yoon, J.-H. (1994). Korean verbal inflection and Checking Theory. In Harley, H. & Phillips, C., eds., MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 22: Morphology–Syntax Connection. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 251–270.Google Scholar
Yuan, B. (1999). Acquiring the unaccusative/unergative distinction in a second language: Evidence from English-speaking learners of L2 Chinese. Linguistics, 37, 275–296.Google Scholar
Zenker, F. & Schwartz, B. D. (2017). Topicalization from adjuncts in English vs. Chinese vs. Chinese–English interlanguage. In LaMendola, M. & Scott, J., eds., Proceedings of the 41st Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project, pp. 806–819.Google Scholar
Zhou, P. & Gao, L. (2009). Scope processing in Chinese. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 38, 11–24.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×