Home English and Spanish speakers’ interpretations of L2 Chinese applicative double object constructions
Article
Licensed
Unlicensed Requires Authentication

English and Spanish speakers’ interpretations of L2 Chinese applicative double object constructions

  • Yuhsin Huang ORCID logo and Boping Yuan ORCID logo EMAIL logo
Published/Copyright: July 29, 2021
International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching
From the journal International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching Volume 61 Issue 3

Abstract

This article reports an empirical study investigating whether English and Spanish speakers can reconstruct thematic structures in their second language (L2) grammars of Chinese Double Object Constructions. Data collected from an acceptability judgement task and an animation matching task suggest that learners are able to reconstruct L2 grammars to accommodate new target properties. However, it is also found that learners have difficulty removing thematic relations transferred from their first language (L1), implying that adult L2 grammars might permanently deviate from grammars of native speakers. The difficulty is accounted for on the basis of Yuan's (2014) Dormant-Feature Hypothesis, which assumes Full Transfer and that if the input provides no evidence confirming or disconfirming the transferred property, the property will lose its vigour and become dormant. This dormant status leads to random behaviours in L2 judgements and interpretations. This is confirmed in this study, in which English speakers are found to transfer one interpretation of indirect objects from their L1 and Spanish speakers are found to transfer two interpretations from their L1 that are not instantiated in the target language Chinese. Due to the misleading evidence in the Chinese input that shares surface similarity with the transferred property, English speakers are hindered from restructuring their L2 grammars, and the transferred interpretation remains active. On the other hand, the absence of informative evidence in the Chinese input leaves the two transferred interpretations to a dormant status in Spanish speakers’ L2 Chinese grammars.

Keywords: dormant-feature hypothesis; double object construction; L2 Chinese; L2 interpretation; thematic reconstruction
Corresponding author: Boping Yuan, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai, China; and University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK, E-mail:
We thank two anonymous reviewers for providing valuable and helpful comments on an earlier version of the article.
Appendices

Appendix A: Information about each language group

Spanish English NS
PB IN AD PB IN AD
Number of participants 20 20 19 18 20 19 20
Mean age (ranges in brackets) 21.50 (19–26) 26.40 (22–39) 26.53 (23–39) 20.20 (17–25) 27.00 (22–40) 30.16 (19–48) 22.20 (20–28)
Duration (years) of learning Chinese 3.15 5.20 5.37 2.94 5.00 5.81 N/A
Length (years) of residence in Taiwan 2.50 6.80 7.52 2.16 7.60 6.48 N/A
Proficiency test score (ranges in brackets, Max. = 40) 19.10 (15–25) 28.20 (26–31) 34.42 (32–38) 18.56 (16–25) 29.05 (26–31) 34.11 (32–37) 39.95 (39–40)

Appendix B: Simple linear regressions of proficiency test scores in each paired group

β SE T P
SPB versus SIN 9.100 0.835 10.897 2.97e-13*
SPB versus SAD 15.321 0.876 17.497 1.754e-19*
SIN versus SAD 6.221 0.531 11.705 5.31e-14*
SPB versus NS 20.850 0.762 27.356 1.31e-26*
SIN versus NS 11.750 0.348 33.717 6.35e-30*
SAD versus NS 5.529 0.400 13.834 3.37e-16*
EPB versus EIN 10.544 0.719 14.668 9.27e-17*
EPB versus EAD 15.550 0.713 21.824 5.77e-22*
EIN versus EAD 5.010 0.482 10.395 1.58e-12*
EPB versus NS 21.394 0.620 34.734 2.78e-29*
EIN versus NS 10.850 0.358 30.292 3.22e-28*
EAD versus NS 5.845 0.319 18.309 3.88e-20*
SPB versus EPB −0.544 1.010 −0.539 0.593
SIN versus EIN 0.900 0.495 1.819 0.077
SAD versus EAD −0.316 0.520 −0.607 0.547

  1. The left groups were set as reference groups. *Means p < 0.01.

Appendix C: Experimental sentences and the answer sheet in the AMT

Experimental sentences
1.
A-hua mai-le Xiao-ying liang ge ping-guo.
A-hua buy-PERF Xiao-ying two CLA apple
‘(Lit.) A-hua bought Xiao-ying two apples.’
2.
A-ming ying-le Xiao-hui yi qian kuai qian.
A-ming win-PERF Xiao-hui one thousand CLA dollar
‘(Lit.) A-ming won Xiao-hui one thousand dollars.’
3.
A-ren tou-le Xiao-mei yi zhi shou-biao.
A-ren steal-PERF Xiao-mei one CLA watch
‘(Lit.) A-ren stole Xiao-mei a watch.’
4.
Lao-Li diu-le Xiao-ming yi jian wai-tao.
Lao-Li throw-PERF Xiao-ming one CLA jacket
‘(Lit.) Lao-Li threw Xiao-ming a jacket.’
5.
Lao-Wang na-le Xiao-Chen liang ben za-zhi.
Lao-Wang take-PERF Xiao-Chen two CLA magazine
‘(Lit.) Lao-Wang took Xiao-Chen two magazines.’
6.
Lao-Zhang ban-le Xiao-Li yi zhang zhuo-zi.
Lao-Zhang carry-PERF Xiao-Li one CLA table
‘(Lit.) Lao-Zhang carried Xiao-Li a table.’

Answer Sheet

動畫選擇/Animation selection
例句1 □A □B □ 我不知道句子的意思
Example 1 I do not understand the sentence
例句2 □A □B □ 我不知道句子的意思
Example 2 I do not understand the sentence

Appendix D: Tokens in each of the four types of experimental sentences and the answer sheet in the AJT

Experimental sentences
Type A Source IO (grammatical): chi ‘eat’, he ‘drink’, yong ‘use’, hua ‘use/spend’
Experimental Sentence
1.
Yue-han chi-le Ma-li yi ge ping-guo.
John. ate-PERF Mary one CLA apple
‘(Lit.) John ate Mary one apple.’
Control Sentence (provided as an example, omitted for the following three tokens)
Yue-han chi-le yi ge ping-guo.
John ate-PERF one CLA apple
‘John ate one apple.’
2.
Da-hua he-le Xiao-ming yi ping pi-jiu.
Da-hua drink-PERF Xiao-ming one bottle beer
‘(Lit.) Da-hua drank Xiao-ming's one bottle of beer.’
3.
A-ming yong-le Xiao-hui liang zhang zhi.
A-ming use-PERF Xiao-hui two CLA paper
‘(Lit.) A-ming used Xiao-hui‘s two pieces of paper.’
4.
Xiao-ying hua-le Xiao-mei yi bai kuai.
Xiao-ting spend-PERF Xiao-mei one hundred dollar
‘(Lit.) Xiao-ying used up Xiao-mei's one hundred dollars.’
Type B Recipient IO (ungrammatical): kao ‘bake’, zhu ‘cook’, hua ‘draw’, she-ji ‘design’
Experimental Sentence
1.
*Yue-han kao-le Ma-li yi ge dan-gao.
John bake-PERF Mary one CLA cake
‘John baked Mary a cake.’
Control Sentence (provided as an example, omitted for the following three tokens)
Yue-han kao-le yi ge dan-gao.
John bake-PERF one CLA cake
‘John baked a cake.’
2.
*Xiao-Li zhu-le Lao-Zhang yi wan tang.
Xiao-Li cook-PERF Lao-Zhang one bowl soup
‘Xiao-Li cooked Lao-Zhang one bowl of soup.’
3.
*Xiao-Chen hua-le Lao-Li yi zhang di-tu.
Xiao-Chen draw-PERF Lao-Li one CLA map
‘Xiao-Chen drawed Lao-Li a map.’
4.
*Xiao-mei she-ji-le Xiao-ying yi ge bei-bao.
Xiao-mei design-PERF Xiao-ying one CLA backpack
‘Xiao-mei designed Xiao-ying a backpack.’
Type C Inalienable Possessor IO (grammatical): qin ‘kiss’, mo ‘touch’, qian ‘hold (hands)’, ti ‘kick’
Experimental Sentence
1.
Yue-han qin-le Ma-li lian-jia.
John kiss-PERF Mary cheek
‘John kissed Mary on the cheek.’
Control Sentence (provided as an example, omitted for the following three tokens)
Yue-han qin-le Ma-li de lian-jia.
John kiss-PERF Mary POSS cheek
‘John kissed Mary on the cheek.’
2.
Xiao-ming mo-le Xiao-ying da-tui.
Xiao-ming touch-PERF Xiao-ying leg
‘Xiao-ming touched Xiao-ying on the leg.’
3.
Zhang-san qian-le A-mei xiao-shou.
Zhang-san hold-PERF A-mei hand
‘Zhang-san held A-mei's hand.’
4.
Lao-Li ti-le Xiao-Wang pi-gu.
Lao-Li kick-PERF Xiao-Wang bottom
‘Lao-Li kicked Xiao-Wang on the bottom.’
Type D Alienable Possessor IO (ungrammatical): qin ‘kiss’, mo ‘touch’, qian ‘hold (hands)’, ti ‘kick’
Experimental Sentence
1.
*Yue-han qin-le Ma-li er-huan.
John kiss-PERF Mary earring
‘John kissed Mary on her earring.’
Control Sentence (provided as an example, omitted for the following three tokens)
Yue-han qin-le Ma-li de er-huan.
John kiss-PERF Mary POSS earring
‘John kissed Mary's earring.’
2.
*Xiao-ming mo-le Xiao-ying qian-bi.
Xiao-ming touch-PERF Xiao-ying pencil
‘Xiao-ming touched Xiao-ying's pencil.’
3.
*Zhang-san qian-le A-mei xiao-gou.
Zhang-san hold-PERF A-mei dog
‘Zhang-san walked A-mei's dog.’
4.
*Lao-Li ti-le Xiao-Wang lao-shi.
Lao-Li kick-PERF Xiao-Wang teacher
‘Lao-Li kicked Xiao-Wang's teacher.’

Answer Sheet

Appendix E: Means and standard derivations in judging inalienable and alienable Possessor DOCs with respective control sets in the AJT

n Inalienable Possessor IO Control *Alienable Possessor IO Control
Grammatical Ungrammatical
SPB 20 2.19 (0.87) 3.86 (0.34) 1.98 (0.50) 3.70 (0.56)
SIN 20 3.03 (0.89) 3.90 (0.30) 2.50 (0.91) 3.73 (0.55)
SAD 19 3.49 (0.66) 3.91 (0.29) 2.70 (0.84) 3.79 (0.50)
EPB 18 1.96 (0.78) 3.89 (0.32) 1.55 (0.47) 3.85 (0.36)
EIN 20 2.46 (0.95) 3.91 (0.28) 1.46 (0.52) 3.79 (0.47)
EAD 19 3.25 (0.83) 3.91 (0.29) 1.43 (0.41) 3.81 (0.42)
NS 20 3.89 (0.32) 3.95 (0.22) 1.33 (0.34) 3.81 (0.39)

Appendix F: Means and standard derivations in judging Source and Recipient DOCs with respective control sets in the AJT

n Source IO Control *Recipient IO Control
Grammatical Ungrammatical
SPB 20 2.50 (0.88) 3.93 (0.24) 2.06 (0.90) 3.91 (0.28)
SIN 20 3.19 (0.93) 3.98 (0.16) 2.44 (0.81) 3.91 (0.28)
SAD 19 3.44 (0.77) 3.96 (0.20) 2.41 (0.86) 3.95 (0.22)
EPB 18 1.51 (0.62) 3.92 (0.28) 3.20 (0.74) 3.90 (0.30)
EIN 20 2.29 (0.86) 3.94 (0.24) 3.39 (0.86) 3.91 (0.28)
EAD 19 3.18 (0.96) 3.97 (0.16) 3.11 (0.82) 3.93 (0.25)
NS 20 3.70 (0.70) 3.99 (0.11) 1.47 (0.55) 3.95 (0.22)

Appendix G: Selection rates for the Source and Recipient interpretation in the AMT

n Source interpretation *Recipient interpretation “I do not understand the sentence” (Dual interpretations)
Grammatical Ungrammatical
SPB 20 83.7% 81.7% 1.6% 67%
SIN 20 79.2% 42.6% 2.5% 24.3%
SAD 19 83.3% 45.6% 0.8% 29.7%
EPB 18 12.0% 79.6% 8.4% 0%
EIN 20 35.0% 66.7% 0% 1.7%
EAD 19 60.6% 79.8% 0% 40.4%
NS 20 98.3% 1.7% 0% 0%

  1. Participants were allowed to choose both the Source and the Recipient animations if they found both animations matched the sentence. If a participant chose both interpretations, the choices were indicated in the Source interpretation column and the Recipient interpretation column respectively, the result of which is that percentages in the first three categories in Appendix G do not total 100%. The last column provides the percentages of dual interpretations in each group.

References

Bowles, Melissa A. 2011. Measuring implicit and explicit linguistic knowledge: What can heritage language learners contribute? Studies in Second Language Acquisition 33. 247–271. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0272263110000756.Search in Google Scholar

Boyd, Jeremy K. & Adele E. Goldberg. 2011. Learning what not to say: The role of statistical preemption and categorization in A-adjective production. Language 87(1). 55–83. https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2011.0012.Search in Google Scholar

Clark, Alexander & Shalom Lappin. 2009. Another look at indirect negative evidence. In Proceedings of the EACL 2009 workshop on cognitive aspects of computational language acquisition, 26–33. Athens, Greece.10.3115/1572461.1572467Search in Google Scholar

Comrie, Bernard. 1985. Causative verb formation and other verb-deriving morphology. Language typology and syntactic description of grammatical categories and the lexicon, 309–348. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Cuervo, Maria Cristina. 2003. Datives at large. Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Dissertation.Search in Google Scholar

Cuervo, Maria Cristina. 2010. Some dative subjects are born, some are made. InSelected Proceedings of the 12th Hispanic Linguistics Symposium, 26–37. Available at: https://www.lingref.com/cpp/hls/12/paper2403.pdf.Search in Google Scholar

Cuervo, Maria Cristina. 2014. Alternating unaccusatives and the distribution of roots. Lingua 141. 48–70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2013.12.001.Search in Google Scholar

Demonte, Violeta. 1995. Dative alternation in Spanish. Probus 7. 5–30. https://doi.org/10.1515/prbs.1995.7.1.5.Search in Google Scholar

Dillon, Brian & Matthew Wagers. 2019. Approaching gradience in acceptability with the tools of signal detection theory. Ms. Available at: https://people.umass.edu/bwdillon/publication/dillonwagers_inprep/dillonwaers_inprep.pdf.10.31219/osf.io/apxruSearch in Google Scholar

Elder, Catherine & Rod Ellis. 2009. Implicit and explicit knowledge of L2 and language proficiency. In Rod Ellis, Shawn Loewen, Catherine Elder, Hayo Reinders, Rosemary Erlam & Jenefer Philp (eds), Implicit and explicit knowledge in second language learning, testing and teaching, 167–193. Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.10.21832/9781847691767-009Search in Google Scholar

Ellis, Nick C. 1994. Implicit and explicit processes in language acquisition: An introduction. In Nick C. Ellis (ed.), Implicit and explicit learning of languages, 1–32. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.10.1075/sibil.48.01ellSearch in Google Scholar

Ellis, Rod. 2005. Measuring implicit and explicit knowledge of a second language: A psychometric study. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 27. 141–172. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0272263105050096.Search in Google Scholar

Gropen, Jess, Steven Pinker, Michelle Hollander, Richard Goldberg & Ronald Wilson. 1989. The learnability and acquisition of the dative alternation in English. Language 65. 203–257. https://doi.org/10.2307/415332.Search in Google Scholar

Haig, John. 1991. Universal grammar and second language acquisition: The influence of task type on late learners’ access to the subjacency principle. TESL monograph. Montreal: McGill University.Search in Google Scholar

Hsu, Anne & Thomas L. Griffiths. 2016. Sampling assumptions affect use of indirect negative evidence in language learning. PloS One 11(6). e0156597. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0156597.Search in Google Scholar

Huang, Yuhsin. 2017. A cross-linguistic comparison in the L2 acquisition of Chinese applicative double object constructions and double unaccusative constructions. Cambridge, UK: University of Cambridge Dissertation.Search in Google Scholar

Jackendoff, Ray. 1990. Semantic structures. Cambridge: MIT Press.Search in Google Scholar

Jackson, Carrie N. 2008. Proficiency level and the interaction of lexical and morphosyntactic information during L2 sentence processing. Language Learning 58(4). 875–909. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2008.00481.x.Search in Google Scholar

Jakubowicz, Celia. 2011. Measuring derivational complexity: New evidence from typically developing and SLI learners of L1 French. Lingua 121. 339–351. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2010.10.006.Search in Google Scholar

Kim, Cathy M. & Aline Godfroid. 2019. Should we listen or read? Modality effects in implicit and explicit knowledge. The Modern Language Journal 103(3). 648–664.10.1111/modl.12583Search in Google Scholar

Kuo, Pei-Jung. 2013. The post-nominal distributive quantifier in Mandarin Chinese. In Proceedings of the 15th Seoul international conference on generative grammar (SICOGG 15), 233–242. Seoul: Hankuk Publishing.Search in Google Scholar

Langsford, Steven, Perfors Amy, Andrew T. Hendrickson, Lauren A. Kennedy & Danielle J. Navarro. 2018. Quantifying sentence acceptability measures: Reliability, bias, and variability. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics 3(1). 37. https://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.396.Search in Google Scholar

Larson, Richard K. 1988. On the double object construction. Linguistic Inquiry 19(3). 335–391.Search in Google Scholar

Li, Yan-Hui A. 2014. Thematic hierarchy and derivational economy. Language and Linguistics 15. 295–339. https://doi.org/10.1177/1606822x14520660.Search in Google Scholar

Loewen, Shawn. 2009. Grammaticality judgment tests and the measurement of implicit and explicit L2 knowledge. In Rod Ellis, Shawn Loewen, Catherine Elder, Rosemary Erlam, Jenefer Philp & Hayo Reinders (eds), Implicit and explicit knowledge in second language learning, testing and teaching, 94–112. Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.10.21832/9781847691767-006Search in Google Scholar

Lu, Jian-Ming. 2002. Zai tan ‘chi-le ta san-ge ping-guo’ yi-lei jie-gou de xing-zhi [reconsideration on the syntactic properties of “eat him three apples”]. Zhong-guo Yu-wen [Studies of the Chinese language] 4. 317–325.Search in Google Scholar

Mai, Ziyin & Boping Yuan. 2016. Uneven reassembly of tense, telicity and discourse features in L2 acquisition of the Chinese shì … de cleft construction by adult English speakers. Second Language Research 32(2). 247–276. https://doi.org/10.1177/0267658315623323.Search in Google Scholar

Marinis, Theodoros. 2010. Using on-line processing methods in language acquisition research. In Sharon Unsworth & Elma Blom (eds.), Experimental methods in language acquisition research, 139–162. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/lllt.27.09marSearch in Google Scholar

Montrul, Silvina. 2000. Transitivity alternations in L2 acquisition: Toward a modular view of transfer. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 22. 229–273. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0272263100002047.Search in Google Scholar

Murphy, Victoria. 1997. The effect of modality on a grammaticality judgement task. Second Language Research 13(1). 34–65. https://doi.org/10.1191/026765897671676818.Search in Google Scholar

Paul, Waltraud. 2002. Proxy categories in phrase structure theory and the Chinese VP. Cahiers de Linguistique–Asie Orientale 31(2). 137–174. https://doi.org/10.3406/clao.2002.1609.Search in Google Scholar

Paul, Waltraud & John Whitman. 2008. Shi … de focus clefts in Mandarin Chinese. The Linguistic Review 25. 413–451. https://doi.org/10.1515/tlir.2008.012.Search in Google Scholar

Perpiñán, Sylvia & Sylvina Montrul. 2006. On binding asymmetries in dative alternation constructions in L2 Spanish. In Carol A. Klee & Timothy L. Face (eds.), Selected proceedings of the 7th conference on the acquisition of Spanish and Portuguese as first and second languages, 135–148. MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.Search in Google Scholar

Prévost, Philippe, Nelleke Strik & Laurice Tuller. 2014. Wh-questions in child L2 French: Derivational complexity and its interactions with L1 properties, length of exposure, age of exposure, and the input. Second Language Research 30. 225–250. https://doi.org/10.1177/0267658313519814.Search in Google Scholar

Pylkkänen, Liina. 2000. What applicative heads apply to. Proceedings of the 24th Annual Penn Linguistics Colloquium, UPenn Working Papers in Linguistics 7(1).Search in Google Scholar

Pylkkänen, Liina. 2002. Introducing arguments. Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Dissertation.Search in Google Scholar

Pylkkänen, Liina. 2008. Introducing arguments. MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press.10.7551/mitpress/9780262162548.001.0001Search in Google Scholar

Sagarra, Nuria & Julia Herschensohn. 2010. The role of proficiency and working memory in gender and number agreement processing in L1 and L2 Spanish. Lingua 20. 2022–2039. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2010.02.004.Search in Google Scholar

Sagarra, Nuria. 2014. Absence of morphological transfer in beginners. In Zhao-Hong Han & Rebekah Rast (eds.), First exposure to a second language: Learners’ initial input processing, 139–170. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781139084390.006Search in Google Scholar

Sato, Yasuko. 2009. Jitakoutai wo yurusu hitaikakudoushi no syuutoku ni okeru bogo to UG no eikyo [the effects of UG and L1 on L2 acquisition of English alternating unaccusatives]. LET Kansai Chapter Collected Papers [Japan Association for Language Education and Technology] 12. 37–51.Search in Google Scholar

Scheidnes, Maureen & Laurice Tuller. 2010. Syntactic movement in the production of French wh-questions: The role of computational complexity versus L1 transfer in adult L2 acquisition. In Vicenç Torrens, Linda Escobar & Anna Gavarró (eds), Movement and clitics, 185–218. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Search in Google Scholar

Schütze, Carson T. & Jon Sprouse. 2014. Judgment data. In Robert J. Podesva (ed.), Research methods in linguistics, 27–50. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781139013734.004Search in Google Scholar

Schwartz, Bonnie D. & Rex A. Sprouse. 1994. Word order and nominative case in non-native language acquisition: A longitudinal study of (L1 Turkish) German interlanguage. In Teun Hoekstra & Bonnie D. Schwartz (eds.), Language acquisition studies in generative grammar, 317–368. Amsterdam: John Benjamin.10.1075/lald.8.14schSearch in Google Scholar

Sikorska, Margaret P. 2009. Linguistic theory and the L2 acquisition of dative arguments. Ontario, CA: University of Ottawa Dissertation.Search in Google Scholar

Simpson, Andrew & Zoe Wu. 2002. From D to T: Determiner incorporation and the creation of tense. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 11(2). 169–209. https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1014934915836.10.1023/A:1014934915836Search in Google Scholar

Sun, Tian-Qi & Ya-Fei Li. 2010. Han-yu fei he-xin lun-yuan yun-zhun jie-gou chu tan [licensing non-core arguments in Chinese]. Zhong-guo Yu-wen [Studies of the Chinese language] 334. 21–33.Search in Google Scholar

Tang, Chih-Chen. 1990. Chinese phrase structure and the extended X-bar theory. NY: Cornell University Dissertation.Search in Google Scholar

Teng, Shou-Hsin. 1979. Remarks on cleft sentences in Chinese. Journal of Chinese Linguistics 7(1). 101–114.Search in Google Scholar

Trapman, Mirjam & René Kager. 2009. The acquisition of subset and superset phonotactic knowledge in a second language. Language Acquisition 16(3). 178–221. https://doi.org/10.1080/10489220903011636.Search in Google Scholar

Treffers-Daller, Jeanine & Andreea Calude. 2015. The role of statistical learning in acquisition of motion event construal in a second language. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism 18(5). 602–623. https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2015.1027146.Search in Google Scholar

Tsai, Wei-Tian. 2005. Tan Han-yu de mong-shou jie-gou [affectedness structure of Chinese]. In Paper presented in the international conference on “verbs and objects. Wuhan: Central China Normal University.Search in Google Scholar

Tsai, Wei-Tian. 2007. Four types of affective constructions in Chinese. Paper presented in FOSS-5. Taiwan: National Kaohsiung Normal University.Search in Google Scholar

Tsai, Wei-Tian. 2009. High applicatives are not high enough: A cartographic solution. Paper presented in FOSS-6. Taiwan: National Taiwan Normal University.Search in Google Scholar

VanPatten, Bill. 2007. Input processing in adult SLA. In Bill VanPatten & John Williams (eds.), Theories in second language acquisition, 115–135. NJ: Erlbaum.10.4324/9781410615299Search in Google Scholar

VanPatten, Bill & Alessandro G. Benati. 2010. Key terms in second language acquisition. London: Bloomsbury Publishing.Search in Google Scholar

Yang, Charles. 2015. Negative knowledge from positive evidence. Language 91(4). 938–953. https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2015.0054.Search in Google Scholar

Yuan, Boping. 2010. Domain-wide or variable-dependent vulnerability of the semantics-syntax interface in L2 acquisition? Evidence from wh-words used as existential polarity words in L2 Chinese grammars. Second Language Research 26. 219–260.10.1177/0267658309349421Search in Google Scholar

Yuan, Boping. 2013. Is Chinese “daodi” “the hell” in English speakers’ L2 acquisition of Chinese daodi … wh … questions? – Effects and recoverability of L1 transfer at L2 interface. International Journal of Bilingualism 17. 403–430.10.1177/1367006911435486Search in Google Scholar

Yuan, Boping. 2014. “Wh-on-earth” in Chinese speakers’ L2 English: Evidence of dormant features. Second Language Research 30(4). 515–549.10.1177/0267658314544238Search in Google Scholar

Yuan, Boping. 2015. The effect of computational complexity on L1 transfer: Evidence from L2 Chinese attitude-bearing wh-questions. Lingua 167. 1–18.10.1016/j.lingua.2015.09.001Search in Google Scholar

Zhang, Bo-Jiang & Sandra, A. Thompson. 1998. The ditransitive construction in Mandarin Chinese. Paper presented at the IACL-7 and NACCL-10. CA: Stanford University.Search in Google Scholar

Zheng, Xiaochen & Kristin Lemhöfer. 2019. The “semantic P600” in second language processing: When syntax conflicts with semantics. Neuropsychologia 127. 131–147. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2019.02.010.Search in Google Scholar

Zyzik, Eve. 2009. The role of input revisited: Nativist versus usage-based models. L2 Journal 1(1). 42–61. https://doi.org/10.5070/l2.v1i1.9056.Search in Google Scholar
Received: 2021-01-16
Accepted: 2021-07-08
Published Online: 2021-07-29
Published in Print: 2023-09-26

© 2021 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston

Articles in the same Issue

  1. Frontmatter
  2. Research Articles
  3. English and Spanish speakers’ interpretations of L2 Chinese applicative double object constructions
  4. (Mis) perception of consonant clusters and short vowels in English as a foreign language
  5. Phraseological complexity and low- and intermediate-level L2 learners’ writing quality
  6. The use of blocking and inhibition training in processing instruction
  7. Second language listening instruction and learners’ vocabulary knowledge
  8. Acquisition of attributive adjectives and noun adjuncts by L3 learners of French and German: further evidence for the typological primacy model (TPM)
  9. Non-canonical word order as a measure of syntactic complexity in advanced L2 German
  10. Acquisition of morphology by L2 children in naturalistic environments: a case of Japanese case markers
  11. N-gram use in EFL learners’ retelling and monologic tasks
  12. The structure of L2 lexical-semantic networks as seen from a social network perspective
  13. Deciphering the role of multilingualism in creativity at university: the influence of context
  14. The associations between working memory and the effects of multimedia input on L2 vocabulary learning
  15. The acquisition of relative clauses by Spanish-Basque learners of L3 English: does dominance play a role?
  16. The impact of pragmalinguistic support on video-conferenced collaborative suggestion-giving task
  17. L2 writing development through two types of writing task repetition
  18. Learning aspect in Italian as additional language. The role of second languages
  19. Immediate and long-term improvement in lexical stress perception: the role of teacher and peer feedback
  20. Exploring the pseudo-longitudinal development of specific morphosyntactic features and syntactic complexity in CLIL young learners
  21. Measurement of engagement in the foreign language classroom and its effect on language achievement: the case of Chinese college EFL students
https://doi.org/10.1515/iral-2021-0008
Keywords for this article
dormant-feature hypothesis; double object construction; L2 Chinese; L2 interpretation; thematic reconstruction

Articles in the same Issue

  1. Frontmatter
  2. Research Articles
  3. English and Spanish speakers’ interpretations of L2 Chinese applicative double object constructions
  4. (Mis) perception of consonant clusters and short vowels in English as a foreign language
  5. Phraseological complexity and low- and intermediate-level L2 learners’ writing quality
  6. The use of blocking and inhibition training in processing instruction
  7. Second language listening instruction and learners’ vocabulary knowledge
  8. Acquisition of attributive adjectives and noun adjuncts by L3 learners of French and German: further evidence for the typological primacy model (TPM)
  9. Non-canonical word order as a measure of syntactic complexity in advanced L2 German
  10. Acquisition of morphology by L2 children in naturalistic environments: a case of Japanese case markers
  11. N-gram use in EFL learners’ retelling and monologic tasks
  12. The structure of L2 lexical-semantic networks as seen from a social network perspective
  13. Deciphering the role of multilingualism in creativity at university: the influence of context
  14. The associations between working memory and the effects of multimedia input on L2 vocabulary learning
  15. The acquisition of relative clauses by Spanish-Basque learners of L3 English: does dominance play a role?
  16. The impact of pragmalinguistic support on video-conferenced collaborative suggestion-giving task
  17. L2 writing development through two types of writing task repetition
  18. Learning aspect in Italian as additional language. The role of second languages
  19. Immediate and long-term improvement in lexical stress perception: the role of teacher and peer feedback
  20. Exploring the pseudo-longitudinal development of specific morphosyntactic features and syntactic complexity in CLIL young learners
  21. Measurement of engagement in the foreign language classroom and its effect on language achievement: the case of Chinese college EFL students
Sign up now to receive a 20% welcome discount
Institutional Access
How does access work?
Have an idea on how to improve our website?
Please write us.
© 2025 De Gruyter Brill
Downloaded on 25.9.2025 from https://www.degruyterbrill.com/document/doi/10.1515/iral-2021-0008/html?lang=en
Scroll to top button