Transfer at the level of argument structure or morphology: a comparative study of English and Persian unaccusative and unergative verbs

Open access


Transitivity alternation refers to the causative/inchoative alternation of some unaccusative verbs. Different languages use different patterns to show transitivity alternation morphologically. While some languages like English use zero or no overt lexical marking, other languages (e.g. Spanish, Turkish, and Japanese) use overt morphological markers to show transitivity. This study aims to investigate the degree to which similarities and/or mismatches between English and Persian influence the use of unaccusative and unergative verbs by Persianspeaking learners of English. Based on different verb types in English and Persian, seven verb categories were identified as the basis for comparison. A forced-choice elicitation test including 48 items was developed based on these seven verb categories. A proficiency test was also used to divide participants (116 undergraduate students of English) into high and low proficiency groups. The results revealed findings more in line with transfer at the morphological rather than the argument structure level (Montrul, 2000). Alternating unaccusatives with similar equivalent structures for transitive/intransitive pairs in Persian and non-alternating unaccusatives with different structures for transitive/intransitive pairs in Persian seem to be the most difficult verb categories for learners. The effect of proficiency level was also significant on the recognition of correct structures.

If the inline PDF is not rendering correctly, you can download the PDF file here.

  • ALLAN D. 1985. Oxford Placement Test 1 B1. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  • BALCOM P. 1997. Why is this happened? Passive morphology and unaccusativity. Second Language Research vol. 13 pp. 1-9.

  • BURZIO L. 1986. Italian syntax: A government-binding approach. Dordrecht: Reidel

  • CABRERA M. 2010. Intransitive/inchoative structures in L2 Spanish. In: C. Borgonovo et al. eds. Selected proceedings of the 12th Hispanic Linguistics Symposium. Somerville MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project pp. 160-170

  • CABRERA M. and ZUBIZARRETA M. L. 2005a. Overgeneralization and transfer in L2 Spanish and L2 English. In: D. Eddington ed. Selected Proceedings of the 6th Conference on the Acquisition of Spanish and Portuguese as First and Second Languages. Somerville MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project pp. 15-30.

  • CABRERA M. and ZUBIZARRETA M. L. 2005b. Are all L1 grammatical properties simultaneously transferred? Lexical causatives in L2 Spanish and L2 English. In: L. Dekydtspotter ed. Proceedings of The 7th Generative Approaches to Second Language Acquisition Conference (GASLA 2004). MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project pp. 24-37.

  • ELLIS R. 2002. Grammar teaching - practice or consciousness raising? In: J.C. Richards and W.A. Renandya eds. Methodology in language teaching: An anthology of current practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press pp. 167-174.

  • EPSTEIN S. FLYNN S. and MARTOHARDJONO G. 1996. Second language acquisition: Theoretical and experimental issues in contemporary research. Behavioral and Brain Sciences vol. 19 pp. 677-714.

  • GHAFAR-SAMAR R. SHABANI K. and KARIMIALVAR N. 2011. Overpassivization of unaccusative verbs as a function of discourse pragmatics and verb type: Testing the fit in Persian. Iranian EFL Journal vol. 7 no. 5 pp. 8-19.

  • HAGH-BIN F. 2003. Barrasi sakhthaye namoteadi dar farsi (Examining the unaccusative structures in the Persian language). Faslnameh Elmi-Pajooheshi Ollome-Ensani Daneshgah Azzahra vol. 43 no 13 pp. 61-95.

  • HIRAKAWA M. 1995. L2 acquisition of English unaccusative constructions. In: D. MacLaughlin and S. McEwen eds. Proceedings of the 19th Boston University Conference on Language Development. Somerville MA: Cascadilla Press pp. 291-302.

  • HIRAKAWA M. 2001. L2 acquisition of Japanese unaccusative verbs. Studies in Second Language Acquisition vol. 23 pp. 221-245.

  • INAGAKI S. 2001. Motion verbs with goal PPs in the L2 acquisition of English and Japanese. Studies in Second Language Acquisition vol. 23 pp. 153-170.

  • INAGAKI S. 2002. Japanese learners’ acquisition of English manner-of-motion verbs with locational/directional PPs. Second Language Research vol. 18 pp. 3-27.

  • JU M. 2000. Overpassivization errors by second language learners: The effects of conceptualizable agents in discourse. Studies in Second Language Acquisition vol. 22 pp. 85-111.

  • JUFFS A. 1996. Learnability and the lexicon. Amsterdam: Benjamins.

  • KONDO T. 2003. Overpassivisation in second language English: Morphological influence on the acquisition of unaccusative verbs. Retrieved at: www.englisharticles.294/org.

  • KONDO T. 2005. Overpassivization in second language acquisition. IRAL vol. 43 pp. 129-161.

  • MANSOORI M. 2005. Sakhte sabbabi zaban farsi bar asas tarh pooste feli (Accusative structure in the Persian language based on light verb framework). Zaban va Zabanshenasi no. 1 pp. 91-114.

  • MONTRUL S. 1999. Causative errors with unaccusative verbs in L2 Spanish. Second Language Research vol. 15 no. 2 pp. 191-219.

  • MONTRUL S. 2000. Transitivity alternations in L2 acquisition: Toward a modular view of transfer. Studies in Second Language Acquisition no. 2 pp. 229-273.

  • MONTRUL S. 2001a. Causatives and transitivity in L2 English. Language Learning vol. 51 no. 1 pp. 51-106.

  • MONTRUL S. 2001b. Agentive verbs of manner of motion in Spanish and English as second languages. Studies in Second Language Acquisition vol. 23 pp. 171-206.

  • MONTRUL S. 2004. Psycholinguistic evidence for split intransitivity in Spanish second language acquisition. Applied Psycholinguistics vol. 25 no. 2 pp. 239-267.

  • OSHITA H. 2001. The unaccusative trap in second language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition vol. 23 pp. 279-304.

  • PINKER S. 1989. Learnability and cognition: The acquisition of argument structure. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.

  • SAVILLE-TROIKE M. 2005. Introducing second language acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  • SCHWARTZ B. and SPROUSE R. 1996. L2 cognitive states and the Full Transfer/Full Access model. Second Language Research vol. 12 pp. 40-72.

  • SORACE A. and SHOMURA Y. 2001. Lexical constraints on the acquisition of split intransitivity: Evidence from L2 Japanese. Studies in second language acquisition vol. 23 no. 2 pp. 247-278.

  • WHITE L. 2003. Second language acquisition and universal grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  • WHITE L. MONTRUL S. HIRAKAWA M. CHEN D. BRUHN DE GARAVITO J. and BROWN C. 1998. Zero morphology and the T/SM restriction in the L2 acquisition of psych verbs. In: L. M. Beck ed. Morphology and the interface in L2 knowledge Amsterdam: Benjamins pp. 257-282.

  • WHONG-BARR M. 2005. Transfer of argument structure and morphology. In: Dekydtspotter et al. eds. Proceedings of the 7th Generative Approaches to Second Language Acquisition Conference (GASLA 2004). Somerville MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.

  • YIP V. 1990. Interlanguage ergative constructions and learnability. CUHK Papers in Linguistics no. 2 pp. 45-68.

  • YUAN B. 1999. Acquiring the unaccusative/unergative distinction in a second language: Evidence from English-speaking learners of Chinese. Linguistics vol. 37 pp. 275-296.

  • ZOBL H. 1989. Canonical typological structure and ergativity in English L2 acquisition. In: S. Gass and J. Schachter eds. Linguistic perspectives on second language acquisition. New York: Cambridge University Press pp. 203-221.

Journal information
Impact Factor

CiteScore 2018: 0.25

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2018: 0.144
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2018: 0.447

Cited By
All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 0 0 0
Full Text Views 261 88 2
PDF Downloads 172 59 1