This article documents a fairly rare kind of interlanguage phenomenon, namely one in which interlanguages exhibit syntactic constructions that are grammatical neither in a learner’s native language nor in his or her target language, but are nevertheless typologically attested. The target construction is wh-scope marking, a cross-linguistically attested form of complex question formation. Using an elicited production experiment, an off-line acceptability judgment task and an on-line acceptability judgment task, it is argued that wh-scope marking is a genuine phenomenon in Japanese—English interlanguages despite the fact that it is ungrammatical both in English and in Japanese. Given that the acquisition of wh-scope marking cannot be explained by these learners’ first language nor by their target language, the current study investigates what other mechanism these learners might be drawing on in their acquisition process. The article proposes that wh-scope marking in Japanese—English interlanguages results from a simplification strategy that learners adopt in order to ease the processing burden.
Berwick R. and Weinberg A. ( 1984) The grammatical basis of linguistic performance: Language use and acquisition. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
2.
Bley-Vroman R. and Masterson D. ( 1989) Reaction time as a supplement to grammaticality judgments in the investigation of second language learners’ competence. University of Hawai’i Working Papers in ESL8, 207-37.
3.
Bock K., Dell GS, Chang F., and Onishi KH ( 2007) Persistent structural priming from language comprehension to language production. Cognition104: 437-58.
4.
Boland J., Tanenhaus MK, Garnsey SM, and Carlson GN ( 1995) Verb argument structure in parsing and interpretation: Evidence from wh-questions. Journal of Memory and Language34: 774-806.
5.
Broselow E. and Finer D. ( 1991) Parameter setting in second language phonology and syntax . Second Language Research7: 35-59.
6.
Cheng LL-S (2000) Moving just the feature. In: Lutz U, Müller G , and von Stechow A (eds) Wh-scope marking. Amsterdam: Benjamins , 77-100.
7.
Chomsky N. ( 1973) Conditions on transformations. In: Anderson S and Kiparsky P (eds) A Festschrift for Morris Halle. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Reprinted in Chomsky N. (1977) Essays on form and interpretation. New York: North-Holland, 81-160.
8.
Daneman M. and Carpenter PA ( 1980) Individual differences in working memory and reading. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior19: 450-66.
9.
Dayal V. ( 1994) Scope marking as indirect WH dependency. Natural Language Semantics2: 137-70.
10.
de Villiers J., Roeper T., and Vainikka A. ( 1990) The acquisition of long-distance rules. In: Frazier L and de Villiers J (eds) Language processing and language acquisition. Dordrecht: Kluwer, 257-97.
11.
Eckman FR ( 2004) Optimality theory, markedness and second language syntax: The case of resumptive pronouns in relative clauses. Studies in Phonetics, Phonology and Morphology10: 89-110.
12.
Eckman FR, Bell L., and Nelson D. ( 1988) On the generalization of relative clause instruction in the acquisition of English as a second language. Applied Linguistics9: 1-20.
13.
Eckman FR, Moravscik E., and Wirth J. ( 1989) Implicational universals and interrogative structures in the interlanguages of ESL learners. Language Learning39: 173-205.
14.
Epstein S., Flynn S., and Martohardjono G. (1996) Second language acquisition: Theoretical and experimental issues in contemporary research. Brain and Behavioral Sciences19: 677-758.
15.
Fodor JD ( 1998) Parsing to learn. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research27: 339-74.
16.
Gibson E. and Wexler K. ( 1994) Triggers. Linguistic Inquiry25: 407-54.
17.
Gutierrez MJ ( 2005) The acquisition of English LD wh-questions by Basque/Spanish bilingual subjects in a school context. Unpublished PhD dissertation, University of the Basque Country, Leioa, Spain.
18.
Hawkins R. ( 2001) Second language syntax. Malden, MA : Blackwell.
19.
Hopp H. ( 2007) Ultimate attainment at the interfaces in second language acquisition: Grammar and processing. Grodil Press: Groningen.
20.
Hyltenstam K. ( 1984) The use of typological markedness conditions as predictors in second language acquisition: The case of pronominal copies in relative clauses. In: Andersen R (ed.) Second languages: A cross-linguistic perspective. Rowley, MA: Newbury House, 39-58.
21.
Jaeger TF ( 2006) Probabilistic syntactic production. Unpublished PhD dissertation, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA.
22.
Klein EC ( 1993) The null-prep phenomenon: The interaction of linguistic theory and second language acquisition data. In: Eckman FR (ed.) Confluence: Linguistics, L2 acquisition and speech pathology. Amsterdam: Benjamins , 67-78.
23.
Lutz U., Müller G., and von Stechow A. ( 2000) Introduction. In: Lutz U, Müller G, and von Stechow A (eds) Wh-scope marking. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 1-16.
24.
MacLaughlin D. ( 1995) Language acquisition and the Subset Principle. The Linguistic Review12: 143-91.
25.
Martohardjono G. and Gair J. ( 1993) Apparent UG accessibility in second language acquisition: Misapplied principles or principled misapplications. In: Eckman FR (ed.) Confluence: Linguistics, L2 acquisition and speech pathology. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 79-103.
26.
McDaniel D. ( 1989) Partial and multiple wh-movement. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory7: 565-604.
27.
McDaniel D., Chiu B., and Maxfield TL ( 1995) Parameters for wh-movement types: Evidence from child English. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory13: 709-53.
28.
McElree B., Foraker S., and Dyer L. ( 2003) Memory structures that subserve sentence comprehension . Journal of Memory and Language48: 67-91.
29.
Omaki A. ( 2005) Working memory and relative clause attachment in first and second language processing. Unpublished MA thesis, University of Hawaii, HI, USA.
30.
Omaki A. and Ariji K. ( 2003) Working memory capacity for sentence processing: Is it language independent?Paper presented at the 16th Second Language Research Forum, University of Arizona, Tucson, 17 October.
31.
Phillips C., Kazanina N., and Abada S. ( 2005) ERP Effects of the processing of syntactic long-distance dependencies. Cognitive Brain Research22: 407-28.
32.
Schulz B. ( 2006) Wh-scope marking in English interlanguage grammars: Transfer and processing effects on the second language acquisition of complex wh-questions . Unpublished PhD dissertation, University of Hawaii, HI , USA.
33.
Schwartz BD and Sprouse RA ( 1994) Word order and nominative case in non-native language acquisition. In: Hoekstra T and Schwartz BD (eds) Language acquisition studies in generative grammar. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 317-68.
34.
Schwartz BD and Sprouse RA ( 1996) L2 cognitive states and the full transfer/full access model. Second Language Research12: 40-72.
35.
Takahashi D. ( 1993) Movement of wh-phrases in Japanese. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory11655-78.
36.
Thornton RJ ( 1990) Adventures in long-distance moving: The acquisition of complex wh-questions. Unpublished PhD dissertation, University of Connecticut, CT, USA.
37.
Wakabayashi S. and Okawara I. ( 2003) Japanese learners’ errors on long distance wh-questions . In: Wakabayashi S (eds) Generative approaches to the acquisition of English by native speakers of Japanese. Berlin: Mouton, 215-46.
38.
White L. ( 1985) The pro-drop parameter in adult second language acquisition . Language Learning35: 47-62.
39.
White L. ( 1987) Against comprehensible input: The input hypothesis and the development of L2 competence. Applied Linguistics8: 95-110.
40.
White L. ( 1989) Universal Grammar and second language acquisition. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
41.
White L. ( 1992) Subjacency violations and empty categories in L2 acquisition . In: Goodluck H and Rochemont M (eds) Island constraints. Dordrecht: Kluwer, 445-64.
42.
Yamane M. ( 2003) On interaction of first language transfer and Universal Grammar in adult second language acquisition: wh-movement in L1-Japanese/L2-English interlanguage. Unpublished PhD Dissertation, University of Connecticut, CT, USA.
