Misanalyses in the (de)learning of passives in Japanese-English interlanguage

Abstract This study examines the (de)learning of (indirect) passives by Japanese-speaking learners of English (JLEs). While English allows only direct passives derived via NP-movement, Japanese permits both direct and indirect passives, the latter lacking active voice counterparts. Previous research suggests that JLEs have difficulty rejecting ungrammatical indirect passives in English; however, findings regarding the difficulty of delearning different types remain inconsistent. Building on these insights, we propose a new hypothesis: JLEs accept passive constructions only when they can be reanalyzed as involving NP-movement. To test this hypothesis, an acceptability judgment task was conducted comparing learners’ responses to potentially derived (pseudo-oblique intransitive and possessor transitive) and non-derived (non-oblique intransitive and non-possessor transitive) passives. Results showed that JLEs clearly distinguished between these types, incorrectly accepting passives that could be misanalyzed as involving movement while rejecting those that could not. These findings challenge simplistic L1-transfer explanations and suggest that JLEs’ interlanguage grammar incorporates the movement-derivation, albeit with misanalyses regarding the licensing environments. The study concludes with pedagogical implications, arguing that instruction should emphasize not just the necessity of NP-fronting in English passives but also the syntactic conditions that permit movement, such as the prohibition against null prepositions and illegitimate possessor-raising in English.