Interfaces and Features in Second Language Acquisition: A Study on the Acquisition of Chinese Negation by English Speakers and Korean Speakers 9811986282, 9789811986284

Table of contents :
Preface
References
Acknowledgements
Contents
Abbreviations
1 Introduction
1.1 Research Background
1.2 Aims of the Present Study
1.3 Structure of the Book
References
2 Theoretical Frameworks and Related Studies
2.1 Introduction
2.2 The Interface Hypothesis
2.2.1 What is Meant by “Interface”?
2.2.2 The Assumptions of the Interface Hypothesis
2.2.3 Previous Studies on L2 Acquisition at Interfaces
2.2.4 Applicability of the IH to the Present Study
2.3 The Feature Reassembly Hypothesis
2.3.1 What is a “Feature”?
2.3.2 Feature Selection as Parameter Setting in SLA
2.3.3 The Main Assumptions of the Feature Reassembly Hypothesis
2.3.4 Previous Studies Based on the FRH
2.3.5 Applicability of the FRH to the Present Study
2.4 Explicit/Implicit Knowledge in L2 Acquisition
2.4.1 The Distinction Between Explicit and Implicit L2 Knowledge
2.4.2 The Measurement of Explicit and Implicit L2 Knowledge Through Task Modality
2.4.3 Relevance to the Present Study
2.5 Interim Summary
References
3 Linguistic Analyses of Negation in Chinese, English, and Korean
3.1 Introduction
3.2 Analyses of Chinese Negation
3.2.1 Syntactic Structure Analyses
3.2.2 Semantic Feature Analyses
3.2.3 Interface Analyses
3.3 English Negation in Comparison with Chinese Negation
3.4 Korean Negation in Comparison with Chinese Negation
3.5 Overall Comparison of Negation in Chinese, English, and Korean
3.6 Interim Summary
References
4 Previous Studies on L1 and L2 Acquisition of Negation in Mandarin Chinese
4.1 Introduction
4.2 L1 Acquisition of Chinese Negation
4.3 L2 Acquisition of Chinese Negation
4.4 Interim Summary
References
5 The Present Study
5.1 Introduction
5.2 Research Questions of the Present Study
5.3 Predictions of the Present Study
5.3.1 Predictions Based on the Interface Hypothesis
5.3.2 Predictions Based on the Feature Reassembly Hypothesis
5.3.3 Predictions Based on the Distinction Between Explicit and Implicit Knowledge
5.4 Research Design
5.4.1 The Experimental Study
5.4.2 The Corpus-Based Study
5.5 Interim Summary
References
6 Results of the Experimental Study
6.1 Introduction
6.2 Overall Results of the Written and Aural GJTs of All Subject Groups
6.3 Results of the Written and Aural GJTs of Each Negative Structure
6.3.1 Results of the Judgment on the Position of bu/mei in Verbal Complement Constructions
6.3.2 Results of the Judgment of Temporal Constraints on Negation
6.3.3 Results of the Judgment of Lexical Aspectual Constraints on Negation
6.3.4 Results of the Judgment of Grammatical Aspectual Constraints on Negation
6.3.5 Results of the Judgment of the Constraint of Hypothetical Context on Negation
6.4 The Development Sequence in L2 Acquisition of Chinese Negative Structures
6.4.1 L1-English Learners’ Development Sequence
6.4.2 L1-Korean Learners’ Development Sequence
6.5 Interim Summary
7 Results of the Corpus-Based Study
7.1 Introduction
7.2 Overview of the Production of Chinese Negation in the Written Corpora by L1-English and L1-Korean Learners
7.3 Results of the Production of bu/mei in Each Category of Constructions by L1-English and L1-Korean Learners
7.3.1 Results of the Production of bu/mei in Verbal Complement Constructions
7.3.2 Results of the Production of bu/mei in Different Temporal Frameworks
7.3.3 Results of the Production of bu/mei in Negating Different Lexical Aspects
7.3.4 Results of the Production of bu/mei in Negating Different Grammatical Aspects
7.3.5 Results of the Production of bu/mei in the Conditional Clause
7.4 Summary of the Main Results
7.5 Comparisons of the Results from the Experimental Study and the Corpus-Based Study
7.5.1 Negation in Verbal Complement Constructions
7.5.2 Negation and Temporal Information
7.5.3 Negation and Lexical Aspect
7.5.4 Negation and Grammatical Aspect
7.5.5 Negation and Hypothetical Context
7.6 Interim Summary
8 Discussion
8.1 Introduction
8.2 The IH and L2 Acquisition at Multiple Interfaces Implicated with Chinese Negation
8.2.1 Full Attainment at the Narrow Syntax
8.2.2 Variability at Internal Interfaces
8.2.3 Re-assessing the Validity of the IH in SLA
8.2.4 Summary
8.3 The FRH and L2 Acquisition of the Mood Features Encoded with Chinese Negation
8.3.1 Overall Patterns in the Reassembly of the [±realis] Features
8.3.2 Nonparallel Reassembly of the [±realis] Features in Different Licensing Contexts
8.3.3 Evaluating the Explanatory and Predictive Power of the FRH in SLA
8.3.4 Summary
8.4 Comparison of the IH and the FRH in Accounting for L2 Acquisition of Chinese Negation
8.5 The Representation of Explicit and Implicit Knowledge in L2 Grammar
8.5.1 Access to Explicit Knowledge in the Written Task
8.5.2 Access to Implicit Knowledge in the Aural Task
8.5.3 U-Shaped Behaviour in the Representation of Explicit Knowledge
8.5.4 Summary
8.6 The Approach of Employing Both Elicitation Data and Corpus Data in L2 Acquisition Research
8.6.1 The Merits of Using Elicitation Data
8.6.2 The Merits of Using Corpus Data
8.6.3 Summary
8.7 Interim Summary of the Main Findings
References
9 Conclusion
9.1 Introduction
9.2 Theoretical Significance in SLA
9.3 Implications for the Instruction of Negation in TCFL
9.4 Limitations and Future Research
References
Appendix 1 Test Items Used in the Grammaticality Judgment Test
Appendix 2 A Sample of the Grammaticality Judgment Test
Appendix 3 Sample of the Chinese Cloze Test
Appendix 4 Criteria for the Division of Chinese Proficiency in the Corpora
Appendix 5 Means of Judgment and Standard Derivations in the Written and Aural GJTs by L2 learners and Chinese Natives

Citation preview

Interfaces and Features in Second Language Acquisition

Jia Wang

Interfaces and Features in Second Language Acquisition A Study on the Acquisition of Chinese Negation by English Speakers and Korean Speakers

Jia Wang Institute for International Students Nanjing University Nanjing, China

ISBN 978-981-19-8628-4 ISBN 978-981-19-8629-1 (eBook) https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-8629-1 © The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2023 This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. The publisher, the authors, and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. This Springer imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. The registered company address is: 152 Beach Road, #21-01/04 Gateway East, Singapore 189721, Singapore

For all my loved ones and those golden days.

Preface

This book reports on a comprehensive study on the acquisition of Chinese negation by English speakers and Korean speakers with both grammaticality judgment data and learner corpus data. Within the theoretical framework of the Interface Hypothesis (Sorace and Filiaci 2006) and the Feature Reassembly Hypothesis (Lardiere 2008), we examine whether L2 learners could achieve nativelike representation at the multiple interfaces involved with Chinese negative structures and whether they could reassemble the mood features, [±realis], encoded with Chinese negation markers (bu/mei), from their L1 configurations. The variables underlying L2 acquisition at interfaces and the process of feature reassembly are also explored. This research also probes into the representation of explicit and implicit knowledge about Chinese negation in L2 grammar. A written grammaticality judgment test and an aural grammaticality judgment test were administered to L2 learners and native controls. L2 learners included a group of English speakers (N = 90) and a group of Korean speakers (N = 92). Each L2 group was divided into five subgroups, from elementary to advanced groups, based on learners’ scores in a Chinese proficiency test. Native controls included 15 Chinese native speakers. Production data on the use of Chinese negation markers by L1English and L1-Korean learners were also extracted for analysis from four existing Chinese learner corpora (overall scale: 15.19 million characters), including the HSK Dynamic Composition Corpus, the TOCFL Composition Corpus, the Error-tagged Chinese Interlanguage Corpus, and the Jinan Chinese Learner Corpus. The results of this study provide evidence for examining the L2 theories in question. First, the results from the judgment data and the learner corpus data do not completely support the assumptions of the Interface Hypothesis. While it is found that L2 learners from both L1 backgrounds achieve success at the narrow syntax, there is much variability in their acquisition at the internal interfaces involved with Chinese negation, including the syntax–semantics interface, the syntax–morphology interface, and the syntax–semantics–morphology interface. The Interface hypothesis thus needs to be refined by considering the variables that modulate the acquisition of interface structures (Yuan 2010).

vii

viii

Preface

Second, the results of our study in general are consistent with the proposals of the feature reassembly hypothesis. It is shown that L2 learners with lower proficiency tend to map their L1 features encoded with negation onto corresponding L2 items, resulting in their target-deviant performances at the early stages of their learning. With increased Chinese proficiency, both L1-English and L1-Korean learners could assemble the [+realis] feature with mei and the [–realis] feature with bu although they have great difficulty in detecting the mood features in certain licensing contexts, including past habitual activities, the durative aspect, and hypothetical conditionals. Third, the results of the present study reveal multiple factors contributing to the variability in L2 acquisition at the interfaces involved with Chinese negative structures, including L1 influence, the quantity (input frequency) and the quality of the target input (input consistency and regularity), as well as L2 proficiency. These factors also underlie the detectability and reassembly of the [±realis] features encoded with bu/mei in different licensing contexts. Fourth, task modality (written vs. aural) seems to play a role in L2 learners’ access to explicit and implicit knowledge about Chinese negation, but the effect of task modality is constrained by other factors such as structural/feature complexity, L2 proficiency, and L1-L2 similarity. On the whole, the approach of employing both elicited experimental data and authentic learner corpus data furnishes comprehensive evidence for the acquisition of Chinese negation by L2 learners. The findings of our study are of significance to the examination of the Interface Hypothesis and the Feature Reassembly Hypothesis in accounting for L2 acquisition and also to the instruction of Chinese negation in teaching Chinese as a foreign language. Nanjing, China

Jia Wang

References Lardiere, Donna. 2008. Feature assembly in second language acquisition. In The role of formal features in second language acquisition, eds. Juana Liceras, Helmut Zobl, and Helen Goodluck, 106–140. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Sorace, Antonella, and Francesca Filiaci. 2006. Anaphora resolution in near-native speakers of Italian. Second Language Research 22(3): 339–368. 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(2): 219–260.

Acknowledgements

This book is based on my doctoral thesis at City University of Hong Kong. I would like to express my deepest gratitude to my supervisor, Dr. Chan Yuet Hung Cecilia, for her patient guidance, generous support and continuous encouragement throughout my Ph.D. studies. She has devoted considerable time to discussing the research topics with me and reading the draft of my thesis. She has also offered insightful comments and suggestions on the refinement of the research design of this study and the revision of the thesis during our regular meetings. I have benefited a lot from her expertise and meticulousness in teaching and research. I wish to thank Dr. Paul Law for his kind help in clarifying certain concepts in linguistic theories and discussing the problems I encountered in my research. I am also very grateful to Prof. James C.-T. Huang for letting me sit in his course on generative theories at the Chinese University of Hong Kong and for his kindness in answering my questions about my research topics. The knowledge I gained in his course has enabled me to have a better understanding of the generative-oriented L2 acquisition theories. I would like to extend my great appreciation to the students at Beijing Normal University, Nanjing University, and the Hopkins-Nanjing Center (HNC). I also thank the students studying Chinese in the program of China Education Tours (CET) in Beijing, Princeton-in-Beijing (PIB), Notre Dame in Beijing (NDiB), Seoul National University (SNU) in China, Council on International Educational Exchange (CIEE) in Nanjing, University of California in Beijing, and Dartmouth College in Beijing. Without their participation in the experiments, it would be impossible to complete my research. I am very grateful to Prof. Zhiping Zhou, Prof. Cornelius C. Kubler, Prof. Caihua Xu, and Prof. Xianwen Cao for their generous support during data collection of my study. I wish to thank Fang Liu, Zhao Chen, Di Bai, and Xiaodie Liu for their assistance in recruiting participants for the study. I am also obliged to Prof. Shou-hsin Teng, Prof. Liping Zhang, Prof. Baolin Zhang, and Prof. Xiaobing Zhou for their generous help in providing information about the Chinese learner corpora used in this study.

ix

x

Acknowledgements

My sincere thanks go to Mr. Steven Ka Pak So and Mr. Tat Kin Ko for their kind help with installing the software for my research. I also appreciate Jennifer Eagleton for her work in proofreading the draft of my thesis. I acknowledge the financial support of the Postgraduate Studentship, Research Activities Fund, and Conference Grant (UGC funds) I received during my Ph.D. studies at City University of Hong Kong. I would also like to thank all my good friends Yan, Xinlei, Lao Lao, Hua, and Ping, for their sharing of my joy and worries all these years. Finally, I wish to thank my family members for their love, support, and encouragement over these years. I am grateful to my parents for their understanding of my dream and the life I choose. This book is dedicated to them.

Contents

1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.1 Research Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.2 Aims of the Present Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.3 Structure of the Book . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1 1 3 4 4

2 Theoretical Frameworks and Related Studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2 The Interface Hypothesis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2.1 What is Meant by “Interface”? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2.2 The Assumptions of the Interface Hypothesis . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2.3 Previous Studies on L2 Acquisition at Interfaces . . . . . . . . . . 2.2.4 Applicability of the IH to the Present Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.3 The Feature Reassembly Hypothesis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.3.1 What is a “Feature”? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.3.2 Feature Selection as Parameter Setting in SLA . . . . . . . . . . . 2.3.3 The Main Assumptions of the Feature Reassembly Hypothesis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.3.4 Previous Studies Based on the FRH . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.3.5 Applicability of the FRH to the Present Study . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.4 Explicit/Implicit Knowledge in L2 Acquisition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.4.1 The Distinction Between Explicit and Implicit L2 Knowledge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.4.2 The Measurement of Explicit and Implicit L2 Knowledge Through Task Modality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.4.3 Relevance to the Present Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.5 Interim Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

9 9 10 10 10 12 20 21 21 22 24 26 35 35 35 37 38 38 39

xi

xii

Contents

3 Linguistic Analyses of Negation in Chinese, English, and Korean . . . 3.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2 Analyses of Chinese Negation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2.1 Syntactic Structure Analyses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2.2 Semantic Feature Analyses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2.3 Interface Analyses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.3 English Negation in Comparison with Chinese Negation . . . . . . . . . 3.4 Korean Negation in Comparison with Chinese Negation . . . . . . . . . . 3.5 Overall Comparison of Negation in Chinese, English, and Korean . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.6 Interim Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Previous Studies on L1 and L2 Acquisition of Negation in Mandarin Chinese . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.2 L1 Acquisition of Chinese Negation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.3 L2 Acquisition of Chinese Negation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.4 Interim Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

45 45 46 46 52 62 70 72 74 75 75 79 79 79 82 87 87

5 The Present Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89 5.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89 5.2 Research Questions of the Present Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89 5.3 Predictions of the Present Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91 5.3.1 Predictions Based on the Interface Hypothesis . . . . . . . . . . . . 91 5.3.2 Predictions Based on the Feature Reassembly Hypothesis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92 5.3.3 Predictions Based on the Distinction Between Explicit and Implicit Knowledge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92 5.4 Research Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93 5.4.1 The Experimental Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93 5.4.2 The Corpus-Based Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100 5.5 Interim Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104 6 Results of the Experimental Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.2 Overall Results of the Written and Aural GJTs of All Subject Groups . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.3 Results of the Written and Aural GJTs of Each Negative Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.3.1 Results of the Judgment on the Position of bu/mei in Verbal Complement Constructions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.3.2 Results of the Judgment of Temporal Constraints on Negation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

107 107 108 109 109 122

Contents

6.3.3 Results of the Judgment of Lexical Aspectual Constraints on Negation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.3.4 Results of the Judgment of Grammatical Aspectual Constraints on Negation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.3.5 Results of the Judgment of the Constraint of Hypothetical Context on Negation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.4 The Development Sequence in L2 Acquisition of Chinese Negative Structures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.4.1 L1-English Learners’ Development Sequence . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.4.2 L1-Korean Learners’ Development Sequence . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.5 Interim Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

xiii

135 144 160 171 171 177 180

7 Results of the Corpus-Based Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.2 Overview of the Production of Chinese Negation in the Written Corpora by L1-English and L1-Korean Learners . . . . 7.3 Results of the Production of bu/mei in Each Category of Constructions by L1-English and L1-Korean Learners . . . . . . . . . 7.3.1 Results of the Production of bu/mei in Verbal Complement Constructions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.3.2 Results of the Production of bu/mei in Different Temporal Frameworks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.3.3 Results of the Production of bu/mei in Negating Different Lexical Aspects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.3.4 Results of the Production of bu/mei in Negating Different Grammatical Aspects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.3.5 Results of the Production of bu/mei in the Conditional Clause . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.4 Summary of the Main Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.5 Comparisons of the Results from the Experimental Study and the Corpus-Based Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.5.1 Negation in Verbal Complement Constructions . . . . . . . . . . . 7.5.2 Negation and Temporal Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.5.3 Negation and Lexical Aspect . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.5.4 Negation and Grammatical Aspect . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.5.5 Negation and Hypothetical Context . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.6 Interim Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

185 185

8 Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.2 The IH and L2 Acquisition at Multiple Interfaces Implicated with Chinese Negation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.2.1 Full Attainment at the Narrow Syntax . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.2.2 Variability at Internal Interfaces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.2.3 Re-assessing the Validity of the IH in SLA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.2.4 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

207 207

186 187 187 189 193 195 199 202 202 202 203 204 204 205 205

208 208 211 222 225

xiv

Contents

8.3 The FRH and L2 Acquisition of the Mood Features Encoded with Chinese Negation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.3.1 Overall Patterns in the Reassembly of the [±realis] Features . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.3.2 Nonparallel Reassembly of the [±realis] Features in Different Licensing Contexts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.3.3 Evaluating the Explanatory and Predictive Power of the FRH in SLA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.3.4 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.4 Comparison of the IH and the FRH in Accounting for L2 Acquisition of Chinese Negation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.5 The Representation of Explicit and Implicit Knowledge in L2 Grammar . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.5.1 Access to Explicit Knowledge in the Written Task . . . . . . . . 8.5.2 Access to Implicit Knowledge in the Aural Task . . . . . . . . . . 8.5.3 U-Shaped Behaviour in the Representation of Explicit Knowledge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.5.4 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.6 The Approach of Employing Both Elicitation Data and Corpus Data in L2 Acquisition Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.6.1 The Merits of Using Elicitation Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.6.2 The Merits of Using Corpus Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.6.3 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.7 Interim Summary of the Main Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.2 Theoretical Significance in SLA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.3 Implications for the Instruction of Negation in TCFL . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.4 Limitations and Future Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

226 226 229 240 247 247 249 249 252 255 257 257 258 259 261 261 265 273 273 273 275 277 278

Appendix 1: Test Items Used in the Grammaticality Judgment Test . . . . 279 Appendix 2: A Sample of the Grammaticality Judgment Test . . . . . . . . . . 285 Appendix 3: Sample of the Chinese Cloze Test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 289 Appendix 4: Criteria for the Division of Chinese Proficiency in the Corpora . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 291 Appendix 5: Means of Judgment and Standard Derivations in the Written and Aural GJTs by L2 learners and Chinese Natives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 293

Abbreviations

ACC AspP CL COP CP DE DECL/DC DP FRH GJT GUO HAB HON IH INFL L1 L2 LE ModP NegP NOM PL Prog Spec TOP TP ZHE

Accusative case Aspect phrase Classifier Copula Complementizer phrase The particle -de (的/得) Declarative Determiner phrase Feature Reassembly Hypothesis Grammaticality judgment test The particle -guo (过) Habitual Honorifics Interface Hypothesis Functional head First language Second language The particle -le (了) Mood phrase Negation phrase Nominative case Plural Progressive Specifier Topic marker Tense phrase The particle -zhe (着)

xv

Chapter 1

Introduction

Abstract The focus of current L2 acquisition research has shifted to interfaces between different linguistic modules and the features assembled with lexical items, notably represented by the Interface Hypothesis and the Feature Reassembly Hypothesis. The present study attempts to expand the testing ground of these two influential hypotheses by investigating L2 learners’ acquisition of interfaces and features involved with Chinese negation. The study also aims to examine the representation of explicit and implicit knowledge in the L2 grammar of Chinese negation. This chapter introduces the research background, research aims, and structure of the book.

1.1 Research Background The divergence between L2 grammar and native grammar is a well-debated issue in second language acquisition research. To account for this phenomenon, researchers in generative L2 acquisition research have come up with many hypotheses regarding UG accessibility, L1 transfer, and the initial/end state of L2 grammar, such as the Full Transfer/Full Access Hypothesis (Schwartz and Sprouse 1996), the Full Transfer/No Access Hypothesis (Clahsen and Hong 1995), the Valueless Features Hypothesis (Eubank 1996), and the Failed Functional Features Hypothesis (Hawkins and Chan 1997). These proposals attribute non-targetlike L2 grammar to restricted access to UG and/or the difficulty in resetting parameters, as well as cross-linguistic influence. While earlier research has greatly motivated L2 studies on general questions concerning the role of UG and L1 transfer, little attention has been paid to the interaction between different components of the grammar (White 2009). In order to examine more closely the mechanism of L2 acquisition, the focus has been shifted to a more fine-grained consideration of L2 acquisition not only in the domain of syntax but also how different modules of L2 grammar interact with each other, that is, L2 acquisition at interfaces, a new frontier advanced by the Interface Hypothesis (Sorace and Filiaci 2006). It is proposed that L2 acquisition at interfaces, such as the syntax-discourse interface, is usually more vulnerable and subject to residual optionality or even permanent failure. A large number of studies have been launched to test the Interface Hypothesis; however, there is little consensus © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2023 J. Wang, Interfaces and Features in Second Language Acquisition, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-8629-1_1

1

2

1 Introduction

among researchers over which interfaces pose more difficulty for L2 learners. Some researchers found that L2 acquisition at narrow syntax is attainable but interfaces involving other cognitive domains, such as morphology, semantics, and discourse, are problematic (e.g., Tsimpli and Sorace 2006; Belletti et al. 2007; Sorace and Serratrice 2009; Montrul 2010), other researchers, however, suggest that target-like acquisition at interfaces involving syntax and other domains are achievable in L2 grammar (e.g., Dekydtspotter and Sprouse 2001; Borgonovo et al. 2005; Zhao 2012, 2014). Different from these two standpoints, Yuan (2010, 2013) and Yuan and Dugarova (2012) argue that L2 acquisition at interfaces is not domain-wide but variable-dependent, so it should not be approached holistically by claiming that acquisition at a certain interface is always problematic for L2 learners. Notwithstanding such disputes, the Interface Hypothesis is undoubtedly one of the most influential theories in current L2 acquisition research (White 2011a, 2011b; Rothman and Slabakova 2017). From a finer-grained perspective, Lardiere (2008, 2009a, 2009b) formulates the Feature Reassembly Hypothesis, proposing that features are at the core of L2 acquisition. It is argued that L2 learners not only need to select the features that are not instantiated in L1, they also need to assemble those features onto L2 lexical items. Even if the features are selected by both L1 and L2, they may be configured differently, so L2 learners’ task is to reassemble the feature patterns in L2. Lardiere’s model provides a plausible explanatory account for L2 development, and thus has attracted many researchers to examine the acquisition of features by L2 learners up to the present, such as gender (Dekydtspotter and Renaud 2009; Renaud 2010; Spinner 2013), number (Hwang and Lardiere 2013; Choi et al. 2017), and definiteness (Cho & Slabakova 2014, 2017; Cho 2017). Most of the findings from these studies have validated the assumptions of the Feature Reassembly Hypothesis. Therefore, the Feature Reassembly Hypothesis is applauded as “the most robust one to date” (Slabakova et al. 2014, p. 2). Both the Interface Hypothesis and the Feature Reassembly Hypothesis are formulated to locate the source of divergence in L2 acquisition, the former considers the interfaces involving different linguistic domains, whereas the latter considers the selection and/or reassembly of features into new configurations. As observed by Domínguez (2013), current SLA research has been framed in one of these two aspects only, and “approaches based on features do not focus on issues arising from the need to form new mappings”, whereas “approaches such as the IH focus on mapping issues, assuming that feature selection is not problematic for L2 speakers” (p. 222). Therefore, the present study brings together these two aspects by investigating interfaces and features in L2 acquisition in the case of Chinese negation. Negation in Mandarin Chinese is represented by two primary negation markers: bu and mei.1 Numerous studies have explored their complementary distribution from various perspectives, such as temporal meaning (Lü 1980/1999; Li 2003), aspectual features (Li and Thompson 1989; Ernst 1995; Lin 2003), subjectivity (Lü 1980/1999; 1 Mei and meiyou are interchangeable in most contexts in Mandarin Chinese. For their subtle distinctions, please refer to Xiao & McEnery (2008, pp. 7–8). This book will use mei for the sake of conciseness.

1.2 Aims of the Present Study

3

Bai 2000), continuity/discreteness (Shi 2001), and realis/irrealis (Wang 2007; Zhang and Yan 2010, 2011). Previous empirical research has found that L2 Chinese learners often confuse bu with mei, especially at lower proficiency levels, and they tend to overgeneralize certain cues such as time words (see Wang 1997; Li 2004, 2009). Based on previous analyses of bu and mei, we have summarized the multiple categories that interact with Chinese negation, including temporal meaning (denoted by time adverbials), lexical aspect (situation types in terms of verb semantics), grammatical aspect markers (-le, -guo, and -zhe), and hypothetical context (denoted by conditional clauses). Referring to the framework of the Interface Hypothesis, we maintain that Chinese negative structures are involved with multiple interfaces, including narrow syntax, the syntax-semantics interface, the syntax-morphology interface, and the syntax-morphology-semantics interface. Moreover, within the framework of the Feature Reassembly Hypothesis, we identify the mood features ([±realis]) encoded with Chinese negation: bu bears the [-realis] feature, while mei bears the [+realis] feature. Such features are not overtly marked but represented by multiple categories of licensing contexts and contribute to the complementary distribution of bu and mei in Chinese. Apart from interfaces and features, another important issue is the nature of L2 linguistic knowledge. It has been assumed that there is a distinction between explicit knowledge and implicit knowledge in L2 grammar (Bialystok 1979; DeKeyser 1998; Loewen 2009; Ellis 2009). According to Ellis (2009), explicit knowledge is conscious, declarative, and accessible through controlled processing, whereas implicit knowledge is intuitive, procedural, and accessible through automatic processing. Adult L2 learners are likely to develop both types of knowledge of the target grammar, but they may retrieve different types of L2 knowledge when performing different language tasks. This research will examine L2 learners’ representation of the explicit and implicit knowledge of Chinese negation by employing different tasks.

1.2 Aims of the Present Study Against the research background reviewed above, the present study aims to explore the acquisition of Chinese negation by L2 learners with an attempt to expand the testing ground of the Interface Hypothesis and the Feature Reassembly Hypothesis. Firstly, the study examines whether L2 learners of Chinese could achieve nativelike performance at different interfaces involved with Chinese negation. By including multiple interfaces, we explore the difficulties L2 learners may encounter in their acquisition of L2 and the underlying factors. The findings will be related to previous studies based on the Interface Hypothesis and implications will be drawn regarding the validity of the Interface Hypothesis. Secondly, the present study also investigates L2 learners’ acquisition of the features encoded with Chinese negation. Following the assumption of Lardiere’s model, we will track the initial mapping established by L2 learners between L1

4

1 Introduction

and L2 and then elicit evidence of their failure or success in the reassembly of the features onto Chinese negative structures. The findings will be interpreted within the framework of the Feature Reassembly Hypothesis. Thirdly, this study explores how L2 learners represent explicit and implicit knowledge of negation in their Chinese grammar. Based on the assumption that tasks with different cognitive loads lead to retrieval of different types of L2 knowledge, we administered two modes (written vs. aural) of grammaticality judgment tests to L2 Chinese learners. Fourthly, this study probes into the role of L1 background and L2 proficiency in the acquisition of Chinese negation by L2 learners. Therefore, English speakers and Korean speakers from elementary to advanced Chinese proficiency were recruited as participants in our research. The L2 corpus data also covered learners from these two backgrounds at different proficiency levels. Lastly, the present research also aims to compare L2 learners’ performance in the judgment of grammaticality and the production of Chinese negation. To achieve this, an experimental study with grammaticality judgment tasks and a corpus-based study with Chinese learner corpora were launched to reveal an overall picture of the acquisition of Chinese negation by L2 learners.

1.3 Structure of the Book There are nine chapters in this book. Chapter 2 presents the theoretical background of this study, including the proposals of the Interface Hypothesis and the Feature Reassembly Hypothesis, and previous studies based on these two models, as well as the distinction between explicit and implicit knowledge in L2 acquisition. Then Chapter 3 makes a comparative analysis of negation in Chinese, English, and Korean. Chapter 4 reviews previous studies on the acquisition of Chinese negation by Chinese children and L2 learners. In Chapter 5, research questions and research design are presented. Chaps. 6 and 7 report the results of the grammaticality judgment data and the learner corpus data, respectively. Chapter 8 discusses the main findings of the present study within the theoretical frameworks introduced in Chap. 2. Chapter 9 concludes the book by highlighting the theoretical significance of the present study and its implications for the instruction of negation in teaching Chinese as a foreign language.

References Bai, Quan. 2000. Misconceptions in the teaching and learning of bu and mei (you). Language Teaching and Learning 3: 21–25. (In Chinese)

References

5

Belletti, Adriana, Elisa Bennati, and Antonella Sorace. 2007. Theoretical and developmental issues in the syntax of subjects: Evidence from near-native Italian. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory, 25(4): 657–689. Bialystok, Ellen. 1979. Explicit and implicit judgments of L2 grammaticality. Language Learning 29(1): 81–103. Borgonovo, Claudia, Joyce Bruhn de Garavito, and Philippe Prévost. 2005. Acquisition of mood distinctions in L2 Spanish. In Proceedings of the 29th Boston University Conference on Language Development, eds. Alejna Burgos, Manuella R. Clark-Cotton, and Seungwan Ha, 97–108. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press. Cho, Jacee. 2017. The acquisition of different types of definite noun phrases in L2-English. International Journal of Bilingualism 21(3): 367–382. Cho, Jacee, and Roumyana Slabakova. 2014. Interpreting definiteness in a second language without articles: The case of L2 Russian. Second Language Research, 30(2): 159–190. Cho, Jacee, and Roumyana Slabakova. 2017. A feature-based contrastive approach to the L2 Acquisition of Specificity. Applied Linguistics 38(3): 318–339. Choi, Sea Hee, Tania Ionin, and Yeqiu Zhu. 2017. L1 Korean and L1 Mandarin L2 English learners’ acquisition of the count/mass distinction in English, Second Language Research 34(2): 147–177. Clahsen, Harald, and Upyong Hong. (1995). Agreement and null subjects in German L2 development: New evidence from reaction-time experiments. Second Language Research 11(1): 57–87. DeKeyser, Robert. 1998. Beyond focus on form: Cognitive perspectives on learning and practicing second language grammar. In Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition, eds. Catherine Doughty, and Jessica C. Williams, 42–63. New York: Cambridge University Press. Dekydtspotter, Laurent, and Rex A. Sprouse. 2001. Mental design and (second) language epistemology: Adjectival restrictions of wh-quantifiers and tense in English-French interlanguage. Second Language Research 17(1): 1–35. Dekydtspotter, Laurent, and Claire Renaud. 2009. On the contrastive analysis of features in second language acquisition: Uninterpretable gender on past participles in English-French processing. Second Language Research 25(2): 255–267. Domínguez, Laura. 2013. Understanding interfaces: Second language acquisition and first language attrition of Spanish subject realization and word order variation (Vol. 55). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing. Ellis, Rod. 2009. Implicit and explicit learning, knowledge and instruction. In Implicit and explicit knowledge in second language learning, testing and teaching, eds. Rod Ellis, Shawn Loewen, Catherine Elder, Rosemary Erlam, Jenefer Philp, and Hayo Reinders, 3–25. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Ernst, Thomas. 1995. Negation in Mandarin Chinese. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 13(4): 665–707. Eubank, Lynn. 1996. Negation in early German-English interlanguage: More valueless features in the L2 initial state. Second Language Research 12(1): 73–106. Hawkins, Roger, and Yuet-Hung Cecilia Chan. 1997. The partial availability of Universal Grammar in second language acquisition: The ‘failed functional features hypothesis’. Second Language Research, 13(3): 187–226. Hwang, Sun Hee, and Donna Lardiere. 2013. Plural-marking in L2 Korean: A feature-based approach. Second Language Research 29(1): 57–86. Lardiere, Donna. 2008. Feature assembly in second language acquisition. In The role of formal features in second language acquisition, eds. Juana Liceras, Helmut Zobl, and Helen Goodluck, 106–140. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Lardiere, Donna. 2009a. Some thoughts on the contrastive analysis of features in second language acquisition. Second Language Research 25 (2): 173–227. Lardiere, Donna. 2009b. Further thoughts on parameters and features in second language acquisition: A reply to peer comments on Lardiere’s Some thoughts on the contrastive analysis of features in second language acquisition in SLR 25 (2). Second Language Research 25(3): 409–422.

6

1 Introduction

Li, Charles N., and Sandra A. Thompson. 1989. Mandarin Chinese: A functional reference grammar. Berkeley: University of California Press. Li, Tiegen. 2003. The Usage of “bu” and “meiyou” and time restriction. Chinese Language Learning 2: 1–7. (In Chinese) Li, Ying. 2004. Analysis of the Acquisition of bu/mei+V. Chinese Language Learning 5: 72–78. (In Chinese) Li, Ying. 2009. The influence of past time on CFL learners’ use of bu and mei. Journal of Yunnan Normal University (Teaching and Research on Chinese as a Foreign Language Edition) 7(6): 25–30. (In Chinese) Lin, Jo-wang. 2003a. Aspectual selection and negation in Mandarin Chinese. Linguistics 41(3): 425–459. Loewen, Shawn. 2009. Grammaticality judgment tests and the measurement of implicit and explicit L2 knowledge. In Implicit and explicit knowledge in second language learning, testing and teaching, eds. Rod Ellis, Shawn Loewen, Catherine Elder, Rosemary Erlam, Jenefer Philp, and Hayo Reinders, 94–112. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Lü, Shuxiang. 1980/1999. Xiandai Hanyu Babaici. Beijing: The Commercial Press. (In Chinese) Montrul, Silvina. 2010. Dominant language transfer in adult second language learners and heritage speakers. Second Language Research 26(3): 293–327. Renaud, Claire. 2010. Feature assembly in early stages of L2 acquisition: Processing evidence from L2 French. In Research in second language processing and parsing, eds. Bill Van Patten, and Jill Jegerski, 135–158. Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins. Rothman, Jason, and Roumyana Slabakova. 2017. The generative approach to SLA and its place in modern second language studies. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 40(2): 1–26. Schwartz, Bonnie S., and Rex A. Sprouse. 1996. L2 cognitive states and the Full Transfer/Full Access model. Second language research 12(1): 40–72. Shi, Yuzhi. 2001. Forms and motivations of Chinese grammar. Nanchang: Jiangxi Education Publishing House. (In Chinese) Slabakova, Roumyana, Tania Leal, and Judith Liskin-Gasparro. 2014. We have moved on: Current concepts and positions in generative SLA. Applied Linguistics 35(5): 601–606. Sorace, Antonella, and Francesca Filiaci. 2006. Anaphora resolution in near-native speakers of Italian. Second Language Research 22(3): 339–368. Sorace, Antonella, and Ludovica Serratrice. 2009. Internal and external interfaces in bilingual language development: Beyond structural overlap. International Journal of Bilingualism 13(2): 195–210. Spinner, Patti. 2013. The second language acquisition of number and gender in Swahili: A feature reassembly approach. Second Language Research 29(4): 455–479. Tsimpli, Ianthi, and Antonella Sorace. 2006. Differentiating interfaces: L2 performance in syntaxsemantics and syntax-discourse phenomena. In Proceedings of the 30th Boston University Conference on Language Development, eds. David Bamman, Tatiana Magnitskaia, and Colleen Zaller, 653–664. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press. Wang, Jianqin. 1997. The acquisition of negative constructions with bu and mei. Chinese Teaching in the World 3: 92–99. (In Chinese) Wang, Xiaoling. 2007. The semantic category of Irrealis (Doctoral dissertation). Fudan University. (In Chinese) White, Lydia. 2009. Grammatical theory: Interfaces and L2 knowledge. In The new handbook of second language acquisition, eds. William Ritchie, and Tej K. Bhatia, 49–68. Bingley, England: Emerald Group Publishing Ltd. White, Lydia. 2011a. Second language acquisition at the interfaces, Lingua 121(4): 577–590. White, Lydia. 2011b. The Interface Hypothesis: How far does it extend? Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism 1(1): 108–110. Xiao, Richard, and Tony McEnery. 2008. Negation in Chinese: a corpus-based study. Journal of Chinese linguistics 36(2): 274–330.

References

7

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(2): 219–260. Yuan, Boping., & Esuna Dugarova. 2012. Wh-topicalization at the syntax-discourse interface in English speakers’ L2 Chinese grammars. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 34(4): 533– 560. 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 interfaces. International Journal of Bilingualism 17(4): 403–430. Zhang, Lifei, and Chensong Yan. 2010. Realis and Irrealis: the semantic foundation of Chinese negation markers’ grammatical meaning. Foreign Language and Literature 26 (4): 34–40. (In Chinese) Zhang, Lifei, and Chensong Yan. 2011. A cognitive study of Chinese negative construction: A corpus-driven study. Beijing: Higher Education Press. (In Chinese) Zhao, Xia Lucy. 2012. Interpretation of Chinese overt and null embedded arguments by Englishspeaking learners. Second Language Research 28(2): 169–190. Zhao, Xia Lucy. 2014. Ultimate attainment of anaphora resolution in L2 Chinese. Second Language Research 30(3): 381–407.

Chapter 2

Theoretical Frameworks and Related Studies

Abstract The Interface Hypothesis advanced by Sorace and Filiaci (2006) assumes that language structures involving an interface between syntax and other cognitive domains are less likely to be acquired completely than structures that do not involve this interface. There have been abundant studies on the role of interfaces in L2 acquisition research, yielding contradictory results on interface vulnerability and the underlying variables. The Feature Reassembly Hypothesis proposed by Lardirere (2008) holds that L2 learners’ task is to figure out the distinct configuration of features in the target language and reassemble the feature set of L2 by adding or deleting relevant features based on L2 input. The findings from existing studies confirm that such a feature-based model could capture L2 development more specifically and predict the possible difficulty in L2 acquisition. The present study will provide more evidence for L2 acquisition at multiple interfaces and the reassembly of features in the case of Chinese negation. In addition, the study aims to examine the representation of explicit and implicit knowledge in the L2 grammar of Chinese negation.

2.1 Introduction As mentioned in the previous chapter, the focus of current L2 acquisition research has shifted to interfaces between different linguistic modules and the features assembled with lexical items, notably represented by the Interface Hypothesis (henceforth, IH) and the Feature Reassembly Hypothesis (henceforth, FRH). The present study attempts to expand the testing ground of these two influential hypotheses by investigating L2 learners’ acquisition of interfaces and features involved with Chinese negation. In addition, the study aims to examine the representation of explicit/implicit knowledge in the L2 grammar of Chinese negation. In this chapter, we will first review the main proposals of the two hypotheses and related studies, and then scrutinize the issue of explicit and implicit knowledge in L2 acquisition. We also discuss the applicability of these theoretical frameworks to the present study.

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2023 J. Wang, Interfaces and Features in Second Language Acquisition, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-8629-1_2

9

10

2 Theoretical Frameworks and Related Studies

2.2 The Interface Hypothesis 2.2.1 What is Meant by “Interface”? The term “interface”, originally introduced to linguistics by Chomsky (1995), refers to levels of representation, the function of which is to link up cognitive systems external to the grammar, that is, the conceptual-intentional meaning system and the articulatory-perceptual sound system. There is a further distinction between internal and external interface: the former refers to lexical insertion and the mapping between D-Structure and S-Structure, while the latter refers to Phonetic Form and Logical Form. “Interface” is also understood as the relationship between different modules of the grammar and grammar-external domains (Jackendoff 2002; Burkhardt 2005; Ramchand and Reiss 2007). According to Jackendoff (2002, p. 111), language is comprised of many “independent combinatorial systems”, which are aligned with each other by means of a collection of interface systems. This definition is quite close to the concept of “interface” in L2 research. As suggested in White (2011), interface in L2 research is perceived as “interaction or mapping between linguistic modules or representations” (p. 578). For instance, the syntax-semantics interface involves the mapping between syntax and semantics, and the syntax-discourse interface involves the mapping between syntax and discourse. L2 learners’ task is to acquire L2-appropriate mappings at different interfaces. In a more recent work, Sorace (2011) pins down the concept of interface as “syntactic structures or features that are sensitive to conditions of varying nature” (p. 6). In other words, these conditions, be it syntactic, semantic, or pragmatic in nature, constrain the grammaticality or felicity of the relevant structures. Following this definition of “interface” in Sorace (2011), the present study will identify different interfaces implicated with negation in Mandarin Chinese in Sect. 3.2.3.

2.2.2 The Assumptions of the Interface Hypothesis The IH has developed over time since it was advanced by Sorace and Filiaci (2006). Its main assumption is that language structures involving an interface between syntax and other cognitive domains are less likely to be acquired completely than structures that do not involve this interface. There are two versions of the IH as summarized in Sorace (2011, p. 5) and White (2011, p. 577). One is the strong version, arguing that narrow syntax which is internal to the computation system is easier to access, while the structures that involve syntax and other domains will present residue optionality in L2 acquisition. For example, the lexicon-syntax interface and the syntaxsemantics interface tend to be problematic. As admitted by Sorace (2011), this version is too broad in that it fails to consider the variability in development among different interfaces.

2.2 The Interface Hypothesis

11

The other is the refined version which distinguishes external interfaces, such as the syntax-discourse interface, from internal interfaces, such as the syntax-semantics interface (Sorace and Serratrice, 2009). This version contends that external interfaces pose more difficulties for learners than internal ones. For example, the external syntax-discourse interface is usually problematic compared with the internal syntaxsemantics interface. As suggested in Tsimpli and Sorace (2006), the syntax-discourse interface involves properties of language and pragmatic processing, while the syntaxsemantics interface only integrates formal properties of language system, thus the former demands a higher level of processing. The two versions share the view that the syntax-discourse interface is a significant source of lasting non-nativelikeness in the grammars of end-state L2 speakers. According to the refined version of the IH mentioned above, L2 learners need to integrate the knowledge of varied natures in the acquisition of interface structures, which may pose great challenges to them (Sorace 2011). For the problems in the acquisition at interfaces, the IH offers two accounts (Sorace 2011). One is the representational account, which assumes that the representation of grammatical features is different between native speakers and L2 learners. This is to say that relevant grammatical knowledge is underspecified in L2 grammar. L2 learners simply do not know those constraints at interfaces. The other is the processing-based account, which suggests that the processing strategies vary across native speakers and L2 learners in the use of those structures involving interfaces. Compared to adult native speakers, L2 learners do not have sufficient cognitive resources available for accessing extra information at interfaces, especially during real-time processing. Another issue is the type of L2 learners the IH can apply to. It is stressed that the IH only applies to the most proficient end-state L2 learners rather than intermediate learners (Sorace and Filiaci 2006; Sorace and Serratrice 2009; Sorace 2011). However, existing studies testing the IH have covered advanced L2 learners who are not near-native, L2 learners with lower proficiency still in the course of L2 development, and heritage language acquirers (see the review in White 2011). Such studies suggest that the problems faced with end-state L2 speakers do not come up suddenly but show up during language acquisition. In the same line, Lardiere (2011) contends that Sorace and her colleagues’ claim cannot possibly be valid because “if integrating information at various interfaces is difficult for the most proficient nearnative learners, it is obviously likely to be even more difficult for the less proficient end-state group or for learners at intermediate developmental stages” (p. 52). Therefore, the scope of the research testing the IH has been extended to L2 learners at all levels beyond end-state proficiency. By doing so, we could reveal the development of L2 knowledge at interfaces and the patterns of L2 acquisition at different types of interfaces at different times. In the following section, we will review previous studies on L2 acquisition at interfaces.

12

2 Theoretical Frameworks and Related Studies

2.2.3 Previous Studies on L2 Acquisition at Interfaces Abundant research has been launched to examine L2 acquisition at interfaces. Overall, the findings of these studies are quite divergent, some are in line with the assumptions of the IH, while others against the claims of the IH. It remains unclear whether narrow syntax is always unproblematic and whether internal interfaces pose fewer difficulties than external interfaces. This section will review existing studies on L2 acquisition at the narrow syntax and three kinds of internal interfaces, including the syntax-semantics interface, the syntax-morphology interface, and multiple interfaces.

2.2.3.1

Narrow Syntax

The strong version of the IH claims that complete acquisition at narrow syntax is achievable for near-native L2 speakers. While this assumption is confirmed in some studies, the findings from a few studies indicate that narrow syntax involved with certain structures may also be challenging even for highly proficient learners, which is not quite in line with the assumptions of the IH. Ultimate attainment at narrow syntax has been reported in previous studies even before the IH was formulated by Sorace and Filiaci (2006). For example, Sorace (1993) found that near-native L2 Italian speakers with L1 French exhibited nativelike performance in their judgment on auxiliary choice in “clitic-climbing” constructions, as shown in (1) (cited from example (17) in Sorace 1993, p. 34). (1) A scuola, mia figlia non ci è/*ha potuta venire. to school my daughter not there-Cl is/*has could come “To school, my daughter couldn’t come.” White and Genesee (1996) also reported ultimate convergence between nearnative L2 learners and native speakers of English with regard to the subjacency principle, which constrains the movements of constituents syntactically, as shown in (2) (cited from example (3) in White and Genesee, p. 246). (2) a. What does Sam believe that Ann stole? b.*What does Sam believe the claim that Ann stole? Further support comes from a more recent study by Montrul (2010) on the acquisition of L2 Spanish clitics by L1 English learners. It was found that L2 learners performed as accurately as native speakers in the placement of clitics though they differed from native speakers at other interfaces, suggesting that at least narrow syntax can be successfully acquired. In contrast, some researchers observe that even pure syntax may become a deficit in highly proficient learners’ L2 grammar due to persistent L1 transfer. Argyri and Sorace (2007) reported a bidirectional study on English and Greek bilinguals. They found that the learners achieved target-like performance in acquiring the position of

2.2 The Interface Hypothesis

13

object clitics, but they still suffered from cross-linguistic influence from English in the placement of subjects in embedded interrogatives. In the same vein, Domínguez (2013) found that highly proficient English-speaking learners failed to converge with the natives in acquiring the syntactic properties of subject realization and word order variations in Spanish. Another more recent study by Zhao (2014) on anaphora resolution in Chinese found that more than half of English-speaking L2 learners accepted ta (“he”) as co-referential in backward anaphora when all Chinese native speakers consistently rejected it, as exemplified in (3) (cited from example (2) in Zhao 2014, p. 384). The pronoun ta in the embedded clause doesn’t co-index with the proper noun Zhangsan in the main clause in Chinese. However, English has no such restrictions. Such ultimate fossilization of narrow syntax is attributed to L1 transfer and lack of positive evidence in L2 input. Zhao thus suggests that the ultimate attainment of purely syntactic categories “cannot be generalized across the board in L2 acquisition” and the learnability of syntactic properties is also subject to “variables such as the nature of the category, crosslinguistic difference and input” (p. 402). (3) Ta*i/j chifan de shihou, Zhangsan i/j dai-zhe yi-ding maozi. he eat-meal DE time Zhangsan wear-ASP one-CL hat “While he i/j is eating, Zhangsan i/j is wearing a hat.” 2.2.3.2

The Syntax-Semantics Interface

Structures or linguistic features that are sensitive to semantic conditions involve the syntax-semantics interface. As an internal interface, this interface is assumed to be less problematic compared with the external interfaces in the refined version of the IH as mentioned above. Just like the case of narrow syntax, studies on L2 acquisition at the syntax-semantics interface have also yielded differing results. On one hand, some earlier studies attest that L2 learners could grasp the subtle semantic constraints on certain structures even though they have not been explicitly taught and such knowledge is not salient in L2 input. As the pioneering work in this field, Dekydtspotter and colleagues examined the acquisition of L2 French word order variations constrained by subtle semantic factors. For example, Dekydtspotter and Sprouse (2001) investigated whether L2 learners with L1 English are sensitive to the adjective restriction (i.e., semantic conditions) on interrogative expressions of the form “qui…de AP” (‘who (of) AP’) (i.e., syntax). In French, the variation of word order in “qui…de AP” results in a different interpretation of the AP, as exemplified in (4) (cited from examples (1) and (2) in Dekydtspotter and Sprouse 2001, p. 3). de célèbre fumait au bistro dans les années 60? (4) a. Qui who of famous smoked in-the bar in the ’60s “Which famous person smoked in bars in the ’60s?” bistro dans les années 60? b. Qui fumait de célèbre au who smoked of famous in-the bar in the ’60s “Which famous person smoked in bars in the ’60s?”

14

2 Theoretical Frameworks and Related Studies

In (4a), the AP “de célèbre” precedes the verb, and it has two readings, one is to ask information about someone who is famous at the time of speaking, and the other is to ask information about someone who was famous back in the 1960s. In (4b), the AP follows the verb, and it only has the second reading, not the first one. It was found that advanced L2 learners accepted the word order not permitted in their L1 English and showed sensitivity to the semantic constraints on word order, thus suggesting a success in the acquisition at the syntax-semantics interface. Another representative study is Dekydtspotter et al. (2001)’s research on the acquisition of the extraction of combien (“how many”) in French by L1 English learners. In French, the interrogative determiner combien can either occur together with the nominal restriction, as in (5a) or be separated from the nominal restriction, as in (5b) (cited from examples (1) and (2) in Dekydtspotter et al. 2001, p. 177). (5) a. Combien de livres est-ce que les étudiants achètent tous? how many of books is it that the students buy all ‘How many books are the students all buying?’ b. Combien est-ce que les étudiants achètent tous de livres? how many is it that the students buy all of books “How many books are the students all buying?” In French, the variation in word order brings about different interpretations. (5a) is ambiguous in that it means asking either the total number of the books the students buy or the total number of the same books the students buy as some students may buy different books from others. In contrast, (5b) only has the first meaning, not the second one. Through a truth value judgment task, the researchers found that advanced L2 learners could distinguish the two forms of interrogatives and they are sensitive to the interaction between syntactic variations and the semantic changes, again corroborating eventual attainment at the syntax-semantics interface. In addition, a series of studies by Sorace and her collaborators probe into the acquisition of auxiliary selection restricted by split transitivity of verbs, contributing to our understanding of L2 acquisition at the syntax-(lexical-)semantics interface. An earlier study by Sorace (1993) elicited judgment data on L1-English and L1French learners’ selection of the two auxiliaries assere (to be)/avere (to have) along with different classes of unaccusative verbs in Italian. As exemplified in (6) (cited from examples (10) and (13) in Sorace 1993, p. 34), when the verb denotes a change of location or transitive alternant, assere should be used rather than avere. Results indicate that both English and French near-natives exhibited nativelike sensitivity to the use of assere/averre with the “core” unaccusative verbs, such as change of location, while they diverged from natives in the distinction of assere/averre for “peripheral” unaccusative verbs, such as the transitive alternant. The findings seem to suggest that L2 acquisition at the syntax-semantics interface is susceptible to the prototypicality status of the verbs. (6) a. Maria è/*ha venuta alla festa da sola. Maria is/*has came at-the party alone “Maria came to the party alone.”

2.2 The Interface Hypothesis

15

b. I prezzi sono/*hanno aumentati del 20%. prices are/*have increased by 20% “Prices increased by 20%.” Also focused on split transitivity, Montrul (2004, 2005) explored the acquisition of unaccusative and unergative verbs in Spanish by English speakers. Employing an online visual probe recognition task, Montrul (2004) found that L2 learners patterned with natives in their sensitivity to the syntactic distinction of unaccusative and unergative verbs, thus providing evidence for the psychological reality of split transitivity. However, the L2 subjects with Spanish proficiency ranging from intermediate to advanced were collapsed as one group to compare with natives, which may blur the difference in the processing of the intransitive verbs at different stages. This problem is overcome in Montrul (2005), which specifically examined the development of split transitivity in the L2 Spanish grammar of L1-English learners. Results from an offline grammaticality judgment test indicate that while learners of low proficiency were not sensitive to the distinction of accusative and unergative verbs in most constructions, advanced learners established a nativelike syntactic representation of split transitivity. With both online and offline data, Montrul’s research lends much support to the ultimate attainment of L2 acquisition at the syntax-semantics interface. Similar findings have also been reported in Kraš’s (2009) study on the acquisition of ne-cliticization with intransitive verbs in Italian by Croatian adult learners. Further supporting evidence comes from a more recent study by Rothman et al. (2010), which investigated L1-English learners’ acquisition of the prenominal and postnominal adjectives in Spanish. The interpretation of adjectives in Spanish depends on word order, thus involving the syntax-semantics interface. The adjectives in the prenominal position denotes the properties of all the possible members that the NP refers to, whereas those in the postnominal positions restricts to a subset of all possible members. These two interpretations are referred to as kind-denoting and set-denoting respectively, as exemplified in (7) (quoted from example (5) in Rothman et al. 2010, p. 55). The results from a semantic interpretation task and a context-based collocation task demonstrate that advanced learners achieved full convergence with natives in acquiring the adjectival distinctions, thus compatible with the prediction of the IH that internal interfaces such as the syntax-semantics interface are not problematic for L2 learners. The authors also argue that their findings provide counter-evidence against the representational deficit accounts (Hawkins and Chan 1997). (7) a. Los valientes incas (kind-denoting) the brave Incas b. Los incas valientes (set-denoting) the Incas brave “The brave Incas” However, the counter-evidence cannot be dismissed for the difficulty in L2 acquisition at the syntax-semantics interface. Umeda (2008) examined the acquisition of wh-questions and wh-indefinite in Japanese by English speakers and Chinese

16

2 Theoretical Frameworks and Related Studies

speakers. In Japanese, wh-question is marked by the sentence-final particle ka and wh-indefinite is marked by either sentence-internal particle ka or mo, expressing the existential and universal reading, respectively. Examples are given in (8) (cited from examples (5) and (7) in Umeda 2008, pp. 31–32). (8) a. John-wa nani-o kaimasita-ka? John-TOP what-ACC bought-PRT “What did John buy?” b. Dare-ka-ga ringo-o tabemasita who-PRT-NOM apple-ACC ate “Someone ate an apple.” c. Dare-mo-ga ringo-o tabemasita who-PRT-NOM apple-ACC ate “Everyone ate an apple.” It was revealed that L2 learners had great difficulty in acquiring target-like interpretations of the wh-words in Japanese and L1 influence was only found at the advanced level with L1-English learners outperforming L1-Korean learners. However, in view of several advanced learners’ success, Umeda argues that it is still possible for L2 learners to acquire target-like interpretations in Japanese after extensive exposure and attainment of higher proficiency in Japanese. Another study on the syntax-semantics interface is Yuan’s (2008, 2010) investigation of the acquisition of wh-words expressing existential meaning in Chinese by English-speaking learners. In Chinese, the wh-words as existential polarity words can be licensed by negators, conditional words, non-factive verbs, yes–no particle ma, and A-not-A questions, as well as the inferential -le. Syntactically, wh-words must be c-commanded by the licensers. The results indicate that L2 learners with advanced proficiency gained nativelike sensitivity to those lexical-word licensors but showed indeterminacy to those functional-morpheme licensors. L1-Japanese learners also had an advantage over L1-English learners in the acquisition of the licensor yes–no particle ma, suggesting the role of the L1 effect at the interface level in L2 acquisition. Yuan thus proposes a variable-dependent account for these findings, arguing that L2 acquisition at interfaces may be affected by many factors, including the categorical nature of the conditioning elements (licensers), the status of these elements in target language speakers’ grammar, the target input, and cross-linguistic influence.

2.2.3.3

The Syntax-Morphology Interface

Structures or linguistic features that are sensitive to morphological conditions involve the syntax-morphology interface. While the IH predicts that such internal interfaces are ultimately acquirable, it has been long observed that L2 learners studying inflectional languages show considerable variability in the use of inflectional morphology and function words, either optionally omitting the inflectional forms or misusing one for another. A series of longitudinal studies by Lardiere (1998, 2000, 2005, 2007a, b) documented the acquisition of English morphology by a Chinese speaker called

2.2 The Interface Hypothesis

17

Patty. Despite more than 18 years’ residence in the United States, Patty was still found to omit verb agreement markings in about 98 percent of obligatory contexts. Lardiere thus argued that verb agreement morphology in Patty’s English grammar probably had fossilized. Such fossilization in morphosyntax has also been reported in several other longitudinal studies (e.g. Long 2003; White 2003). Adopting an experimental paradigm, Jiang (2004) revealed advanced Chinesespeaking learners’ insensitivity to English inflectional morphemes (plural, -s) during real-time processing. Jiang’s findings echo the processing account made by the IH that L2 acquisition at interfaces may be subject to a processing deficit. Results from three experiments using self-paced reading tasks found that L2 learners of English were not sensitive to number disagreement in reading comprehension. Given their nearly perfect performance in the written grammar test on the agreement, the author contends that the morphological knowledge is not yet integrated into L2 learners’ linguistic competence, and thus is not activated in automatic processing. Even though L2 learners have the explicit knowledge at interfaces, they may fail to internalize such knowledge in L2 grammar. In a follow-up study, Jiang (2007) further attested the non-integratability of plural morphemes in advanced learners’ L2 English grammar in contrast with the successful integration of knowledge on verb subcategorization. Lardiere’s and Jiang’s studies are concerned with the acquisition of English morphosyntax by learners whose L1 (Chinese) is an isolated language with impoverished morphology. To examine whether such defective morphology also exists in the grammar of learners from other L1 backgrounds, Hawkins and Liszka (2003) compared the free oral production of English past tense morphemes by L1 speakers of Chinese (N = 2), Japanese (N = 5), and German (N = 5) at advanced English proficiency. The results found that Chinese speakers produced uninflected regular verbs in 1/3 of past tense contexts, which is consistent with the findings of previous studies. By contrast, L1-Japanese and L1-German learners’ performance outperformed L1-Chinese learners by producing significantly more inflected verbs for past tense. Therefore, Hawkins and Liszka attributed the defective English morphology in L1-Chinese learners’ grammar to the absence of the syntactic feature [±past] in their L1 Chinese. Since Japanese and German have morphological representation for such a feature, L1-Japanese and L1-German learners showed little optionality in using inflected verbs for past tense. As acknowledged by the researchers, however, the generalization of the findings should be taken with caution given the small sample size in the study. Taken together, the studies reviewed above seem to suggest that L2 acquisition at the syntax-morphology interface may suffer from persistent problems if L2 morphosyntax categories are absent in the learners’ L1. Nevertheless, evidence of ultimate attainment at this internal interface in support of the IH is given in Hopp (2007, 2010). Employing both offline and online tasks in a series of experiments, Hopp tested the acquisition of verb inflections (case, agreement, gender) in German by L1 speakers of English, Dutch, and Russian with advanced to nearnative proficiency. The results showed that L1-Russsian near-natives converged with natives in accessing case and subject-verb agreement in both offline judgments and online reading, indicating that ultimate attainment at morphosyntax is

18

2 Theoretical Frameworks and Related Studies

possible for late L2 learners. By contrast, L1-English and L1-Dutch near-natives failed to perform to criterion on case-marking in speeded judgment test despite manifestation of robust knowledge in less demanding tasks, which is suggestive of L1 effect. Only near-natives showed target-like performance rather than highly proficient advanced learners, evincing the effect of language proficiency in the ultimate acquisition. More importantly, it was noted that natives also exhibited parallel selective problems as non-natives with increasing task demands. Combining such findings, Hopp concluded that near-native L2 speakers share identical grammatical knowledge and processing architecture with the natives, though they may demonstrate lower efficiency than the natives in high-demanding tasks. While the IH predicts that the internal syntax-morphology interface should pose fewer problems for L2 learners, empirical evidence from previous studies on L2 acquisition of morphosyntax indicate that ultimate attainment at this interface is only possible at the end-state stage and constrained by factors such as L1 influence and processing efficiency.

2.2.3.4

Multiple Interfaces

Multiple interfaces, based on the definition of interface in Sorace (2011), refer to structures or linguistic features that are sensitive to multiple domains, such as semantics, pragmatics/discourse, and morphology. There are only a few existing studies on L2 acquisition at multiple interfaces. Different from L2 acquisition at narrow syntax and the syntax-semantics/morphology interface reviewed above, the findings about L2 acquisition at multiple interfaces are more consistent in that it poses great challenges for L2 learners to integrate information from various domains. One representative study on multiple interfaces is Hopp’s (2007, 2010) research on the acquisition of scrambling in L2 German by learners with different L1 backgrounds (English, Russian, and Dutch). Scrambling refers to the phenomenon that arguments can be reordered under certain conditions, which, as argued by Hopp, involves four interfaces: syntax-morphology (case and word order), syntax-discourse (information structural conditions on reordering), syntax-semantics interface (interpretative constraints on the reordering of indefinites), and syntax-lexicon (lexical category and reordering). Through both online and offline tasks including timed and untimed grammaticality judgment tests, picture description, and self-paced reading, Hopp revealed that L2 learners’ performance varied across different interfaces. Specifically speaking, L1-English and L1-Dutch near-native groups converged with native speakers at the syntax-discourse interface while the L1-Russian near-native group failed to do so. As for the syntax-semantics interface, all the near-native groups failed to master the interpretative restrictions on the reordered indefinites. These differing results within a single phenomenon are attributed to computational complexity and processing burdens given the constraints of varied nature involved with scrambling and the limited cognitive resources available for L2 learners. Another endeavor at L2 acquisition at multiple interfaces is Mai’s (2013) study on Chinese shi…de cleft construction by English-speaking learners. Compared with

2.2 The Interface Hypothesis

19

English “it is … that” construction, Chinese shi…de cleft construction is constrained by semantic and contextual factors, thus involving the syntax-semantics-discourse interface. Syntactically, shi heads a Focus Phrase and de heads an Aspect Phrase. Semantically, the shì…de cleft construction is subject to a telic condition, that is, de requires a telic situation type of its complement and atelic (especially stative) situations are unacceptable, as shown in (9). In discourse, the event denoted by the VP in these sentences is necessarily known to the listener. This construction is also constrained by the information and event structure: the Affectee of the VP event constitutes part of the presupposition and thus must not bear the interpretable [focus] feature, as shown in (10) (quoted from examples (3)-(6) in Mai 2013, p. 108). (9)

a. *[-telic] shi…de: (stative VPs) *Xiao Wang shi zuotian hen shengqi de. Xiao Wang COP yesterday very angry DE “(Intended) It was yesterday that Xiao Wang was very angry.” b. [telic] shi...de: (achievement VPs) Xiao Wang shi zuotian dao de. Xiao Wang COP yesterday arrive DE “It was yesterday that Xiao Wang arrived.” (10) a. *Focusing on the Affectee NP *Shi Xiao Li dao de. COP Xiao Li arrive DE “(Intended) It was Xiao Li who arrived.” Event structure: [BECOME [Xiao Li ]] (simple event in which Xiao Li is the Affectee) b. Focusing on the non-Affectee NP Shi Xiao Li zui xian dao de. COP Xiao Li first arrive DE “It was Xiao Li who arrived first.” Results from two acceptability judgment tasks and a sentence ranking task indicate that L2 learners successfully acquired the telic constraints at the intermediate level, and the discourse condition was not acquired until the advanced level; however, no evidence was found for the attainment of restriction from information and event structure even at the advanced level. Mai interprets that the nature of the interface may affect the order of L2 learners’ initial sensitivity to the constraint (semantics before discourse) but does not predict whether a target-like representation can be established in L2 grammar as a function of variables such as L1 influence. Further, the multiple interface conditions governing a structure are acquired “separately and incrementally” but not “collectively and instantly” (Mai 2013, p. 115). The studies reviewed above unveil a complicated picture of L2 acquisition at multiple interfaces which are constrained by multi-layer factors. As suggested by Sorace (2011), multiple-interface structures should be investigated with “the same breadth, depth, and methodological soundness of Hopp’s study” to explore which condition is problematic for what reasons (p. 12). Given the limited number of

20

2 Theoretical Frameworks and Related Studies

existing studies on L2 acquisition at multiple interfaces, more research is required to reinforce this line of research. It should be noted that another important type of interface is the syntaxdiscourse/pragmatics interface, which is considered as an external interface and assumed to be a source of residue optionality in L2 acquisition by the IH (Sorace and Serratrice 2009). Previous studies testing L2 acquisition at this interface have also revealed conflicting results, just as the cases of internal interfaces reviewed above. Slabakova and Ivanov (2011) claim that “the external interface does not look so different from the internal interfaces” and variables such as L2 proficiency and task complexity may play a role (p. 650). Since the present study focuses on L2 acquisition at the narrow syntax and the multiple internal interfaces involved with Chinese negation, we will not review studies on L2 acquisition at the external interfaces.

2.2.4 Applicability of the IH to the Present Study From the review of previous studies on L2 acquisition at interfaces, it is clear that the role of interfaces has received a substantial amount of attention in L2 acquisition research. Meanwhile, the contradictory results yielded from existing studies have brought about many debatable issues on interface vulnerability and the underlying variables. It seems that success or failure in L2 acquisition at interfaces is not dependent on which kind of interface is involved and should not be viewed holistically. Rather, there are multiple factors underlying the variability of the acquisition of interface structures, such as the nature of the constraints, time of exposure to the target input, L1 influence, and so on. Against such a background, the present study will expand the testing ground of the Interface Hypothesis by investigating the acquisition of Chinese negation by L2 learners. As will be analyzed in the next chapter, Chinese negation is subject to multiple constraints of varied nature, including syntax, (lexical-)semantics, as well as morphology. Therefore, we claim that Chinese negation involves narrow syntax, the syntax-semantics interface, the syntax-morphology interface, and the syntaxsemantics-morphology interface. As mentioned above, only several studies have examined L2 acquisition at multiple interfaces (Hopp 2007; Mai 2013). Following this line of research, the present study will provide more evidence for L2 acquisition at multiple interfaces.

2.3 The Feature Reassembly Hypothesis

21

2.3 The Feature Reassembly Hypothesis 2.3.1 What is a “Feature”? The use of features can be traced to the phonological theory (Chomsky and Halle 1968; Jakobson and Halle 2002) in which phonological segments are conceived as bundles of articulatory features such as [±aspirated], [±voice], or [±nasal], etc. In earlier works on generative grammar (Chomsky 1965, 1970), features were used to express categorical (e. g. V = [−N, +V], P = [−N, −V]) and subcategorical (e. g. V: [±transitive]) properties of lexical items. In subsequent work (Chomsky 1993, 1995), features were assigned with the role of projecting functional categories such as CP or IP, and bundles of features were suggested to define the content (values) of functional categories, such as DP and its values [±definite], TP and its values [±past], AspP and its values [±perfective], and so forth. Here features refer to formal/grammatical features (e.g., airplane [+nominal] [+3rd person]) that are accessed by covert computation to LF (Lexical Form), which should be distinguished from phonological features (e.g., airplane [begins with vowel]) and purely semantic features (e. g. airplane [+artefact]) as emphasized by Chomsky (1995, p. 230). Formal features are further divided into interpretable and uninterpretable features depending on whether they contribute to the semantic interpretation at LF (Chomsky 1995, pp. 277–278). Specifically, interpretable features enter interpretation at LF, including categorical features ([N], [V], [A], etc.) and the phi-features of nominals ([person], [number], [gender]), whereas uninterpretable features have no role in semantic interpretation at LF but can drive syntactic derivation since they need to be checked and valued. For example, in “we build airplanes”, “build” carries a [V] feature and “airplanes” an [N] with the phi-features [3rd person], [+plural], [−human], all of which are interpretable features. Instead, the Case feature [+accusative] of “airplane” and the agreement feature of “build” are uninterpretable features, which are not accessible to the computational system when checked. The more recent Minimalist Program assumes that each language selects a subset of features [F] from the universal inventory of features {F} and assembles the elements of [F] as its lexicon (Chomsky 2000). Based on such assumptions, variation across languages may arise from the selection of different formal features, or the combination of features associated with functional categories, or whether the lexicon provides a morpho-phonological matrix for a feature. For example, Hawkins and Liszka (2003) suggest that English selects [±past] feature and projects to TP with overt morphology, while Chinese does not. Lardiere (2008) posits that although both Chinese and English select Number, the use of -men representing [+plural] in Chinese is highly restricted by Definiteness, whereas in English the Number feature is independent of Definiteness. Liceras et al. (2008) claim that the question particle ka in Japanese, which is attached to verbs and signals that the utterance is a question, is the morphological representation of the feature [+Q]. By contrast, English-like languages do not have such expressions in questions, so the [+Q] feature triggers the movement of auxiliary do to the complementizer position.

22

2 Theoretical Frameworks and Related Studies

In view of the pivotal role of features in recent Chomskyan syntactic theory (i.e., the Minimalist Program), they are compared to “DNA” (base pairs) of human language since they constitute the “genes” (the functional categories) that determine the structure of particular languages (Liceras et al. 2008, p. 1). Accordingly, some researchers in generative SLA claim that “any study of language acquisition done within this framework is now a study of the acquisition of features” (Travis 2008, p. 23). Several proposals have been made within the feature-based approach in SLA, the latest of which is the Feature Reassembly Hypothesis (Lardiere 2008, 2009a, b). In the following, we will first review previous feature-based proposals and then introduce the main assumptions of the FRH and its applicability to the present study.

2.3.2 Feature Selection as Parameter Setting in SLA Two proposals regarding the acquisition of L2 features have been made from a feature-selection perspective. One is the Representational Deficit Hypothesis (RDH) (Hawkins and Chan 1997; Hawkins and Liszka 2003; Hawkins 2005), which assumes that formal features not instantiated in L1 are unacquirable after the critical period and argues further that even an apparent target-like performance may not necessarily imply underlying representation of the relevant feature in late L2 grammar. The other is the Interpretability Hypothesis (Tsimpli and Mastropavlou 2007; Tsimpli and Dimitrakopoulou 2007), which refines the proposals of the RDH and proposes that uninterpretable features not selected by L1 will not be available for adult L2 acquisition and thus leads to failure in parameter-resetting, while interpretable features, even those not selected by L1, are still accessible for L2 grammar construction. These two hypotheses attribute L2 morphological vulnerability to the failure in the selection of uninterpretable features in parameter resetting. However, Lardiere (2008) contends that feature-selection is necessary but not sufficient for L2 acquisition and it is “simplistic to account for morphological variability simply by appealing to the parametric (non-)selection of features” (p. 111). Firstly, it is argued that the metaphor of “switch-setting” of parameters or “selection” of features fails to capture the persistent morphological variability observed in L2 development. Lardiere (2008) cites from van Kemanade and Vincent (1997, p. 4) that parameter settings are “all-or-nothing” phenomena and thus represent an “abrupt change” in a speaker’s I-language. Such assumptions are not supported by L2 learners’ inconsistent performance attested in L2 acquisition studies (e.g., Lardiere 2003, 2004). Secondly, absence or optionality in the use of morphological form does not necessarily correspond to the failure of parameter resetting or feature selection (Lardiere 2007a, b, 2008; Choi 2009). As mentioned earlier, Hawkins and Liszka (2003) suggest that the reason for the lower rate in L1-Chinese learners’ ability to supply past tense markings in obligatory contexts is that Chinese does not select the tense feature [±past] and late L2 learners fail to access such a feature from UG inventory due to the Critical Period effect. Choi (2009) argues that if L1-Chinese learners fail to

2.3 The Feature Reassembly Hypothesis

23

select the [±past] feature, they would show random performance. This is not borne out since the performance of the Chinese speakers in Hawkins and Liszka’s (2003) study was above chance level (62.5%) in supplying the past tense markers for regular verbs and they gained an accuracy of 84.2% in supplying the past tense markers for irregular verbs (data quoted from Hawkins and Liszka 2003, p. 30). In the same vein, Lardiere (2007a) presents the acquisition of plural marking in English by a Chinese speaker, Patty, who was the subject of a detailed longitudinal case study in SLA. Following Aoun and Li’s (2003) analysis, Lardiere assumes both English and Chinese select the category of Number and the formal feature [+plural]. However, Chinese overt plural marking is further assembled with [+definite], while English is not, as exemplified in (11) (quoted from Lardiere 2007a, pp. 239–240). As in (11a), the plural marker -men is attached to definite nouns, but it is ungrammatical to be attached to indefinite nouns as in (11b). By contrast, plural forms should be used for both cases in English. (11) a. laoshi dui zhexie/naxie xuesheng-men tebie hao teacher to these/those student-PL especially good “The teacher is especially nice to these/those students.” b. *you ren-men cf. you ren have person-PL have person “there are some persons” “there is/are some person(s)” The results from Patty’s production data indicate that Patty managed to delink definiteness from plural marking since she employed plural marking for indefinite nouns as shown in (12) (quoted from (14) in Lardiere, 2007a, p. 240). (12) a. there were some changes in my life recently. b. there are so many lessons to learn in your lifetime. c. some Americans spoke very very well. d. my good fortune to have good friends However, lingering transfer effects were also reflected in Patty’s optional omission of plural markings in obligatory contexts, though her performance in the third recording was above chance level, comparable to the performance of the Chinese speakers in Hawkins and Liszka’s (2003) study on the acquisition of the [±past] feature. Therefore, Lardiere (2007a, p. 241) concludes that the acquisition of plural marking is not simply moving from a minus value in Chinese to a plus value in English in terms of parameter-resetting. Instead, it involves a more complicated process of feature reassembly from L1 to L2. Further support for the feature-reassembly account comes from the results of Patty’s acquisition of English relative clauses (Lardiere 2007b). It was found that Patty acquired nativelike representation of operator movement which is subject to locality constraints, indicating that she reset the parameter associated with CP from a minus value in the L1 to a plus value in the L2 successfully. Nevertheless, Patty’s non-target-like performance in the judgment of the serial verb construction type (e.g., *She is the classmate always forgets her assignments) suggests that her problem was not parameter-resetting but the restrictions on operator movement in L2 English.

24

2 Theoretical Frameworks and Related Studies

A third argument against the feature-selection approach is about the issue of feature interpretability. As mentioned earlier, interpretable features bear semantic content, while uninterpretable features do not. The Interpretability Hypothesis assumes that it is the failure in the selection of uninterpretable features that leads to morphological variability in L2 grammar. Lardiere (2008) conforms to the proposal of “typological interpretability” by Pesetsky and Torrego (2004), which posits that all grammatical features have some potential semantic value, although some are overtly spelled out while others are not. For example, the tense features on DP are not expressed morphologically in many languages but are overtly realized in some languages such as Somali (see example (15) below). If such a uniform interpretability assumption holds true, the Interpretability Hypothesis based on feature-selection may be falsified. Though Lardiere (2008) claims that she remains “agnostic on the possibility” (p. 110), she still maintains that feature selection as parameter settings underestimates the learnablity problem and what really matters is how the features are idiosyncratically realized and assembled in each language. Based on the above arguments, Lardiere (2007a, b, 2008) makes an alternative hypothesis, i.e., the Feature Reassembly Hypothesis (FRH), emphasizing the role of feature reconfiguration rather than feature selection as parameter setting in accounting for second language acquisition. We will review the main assumptions of the FRH in the next section.

2.3.3 The Main Assumptions of the Feature Reassembly Hypothesis Framed within the Minimalist Program (Chomsky 1995, 2000), the FRH underscores the primitive role of features in determining cross-linguistic variations (Lardiere 2005, 2008, 2009a, b). It is assumed that features can be assembled “inflectionally or lexically, or even overtly realized or covertly” in different languages (Lardiere 2008, p. 111). For adult L2 acquisition, the FRH follows the Full Transfer/Full Access Hypothesis by Schwartz and Sprouse (1996), claiming that L2 learners bring an “already-fully-assembled” grammar categories with a L1 feature set to their L2 acquisition task (Lardiere 2009a, p. 175). Therefore, the first step in L2 learning is to map the L2 item onto the corresponding L1 item with its feature set based on similar grammatical function and meaning. However, since features are presumably assembled differently in L2 from those in L1 to some extent, the second step for L2 learners is to figure out the distinct configuration of features in the target language and reassemble the feature set of L2 by adding or deleting relevant features based on L2 input (Lardiere 2008, 2009a, b). By rehabilitating the use of “contrastive analysis” (Lado 1957), the FRH posits that L2 learners need to make a contrastive analysis of the feature matrices combined with lexical items between L1 and L2. Such a feature-based contrastive analysis operates on a more explanatory level (representational, as constrained by UG), distinct from

2.3 The Feature Reassembly Hypothesis

25

previous contrastive analysis of superficial structures or patterns (Lardiere 2007b, 2009a). Moreover, the traditional contrastive analysis research equals similarity to ease and difference to difficulty in L2 acquisition, while the FRH argues that even if L1 and L2 select the same subset of features, L2 learners must reassemble them to language-specific lexical items in L2 by determining the precise conditions under which these features are expressed. This may constitute one of the greatest sources of difficulty for L2 learners due to influence from L1 configurations. To illustrate what is meant by “feature assembly”, Lardiere (2005) provides the example of the [+past] feature in English, Irish, and Somali. In English, [+past] is encoded in TP and morphologically represented on verbs, denoting perfective events or irrealis mood in conditionals, as exemplified in (13). In Irish, [+past] is overtly realized on the complementizers in the CP in agreement with the tense in the embedded clause, as in (14). While in Somali, [+past] is expressed in determiners or adjectives in DPs, indicating past events, as in (15a), habitualness, as in (15b), or the visibility of the referent to the speaker, as in (15c). (13) English: (Narrative data reported in Schiffrin 1981, cited in Lardiere 2005, p. 180) a. The cow jumped over the moon. b. If I only had a brain... (14) Irish: (Data from McCloskey 1979, cited in Lardiere 2005, p. 180) Deir sé gurL thuig sé an scéal says he that.past understood he the story “He says that he understood the story.” (15) Somali: (Data from Lecarme 2004, cited in Lardiere 2005, p. 180) a. árday-gii hore student-determiner.past before “the former student” b. (weligay) dúhur-kii baan wax cunaa (always) noon-determiner.past F.1S thing eat.present “I (always) ate at noon.” c. Inán-tii hálkée bay joogta? girl-determiner.past place-determiner.Q F.3S stay.F.present “Where is the girl”? These examples clearly demonstrate that different languages display different configurations of the feature [+past], so L2 learners need to locate the distinct feature configurations and find out the subtle restrictions on the representation of relevant features. For example, L1-English learners of Somali need to delink [+past] with TP and link it with DP in L2. They also need to acquire the multiple meanings denoted by this feature. As suggested by Lardiere (2009a), feature reassembly is a formidable task for L2 learners, but “any feature contrast that is detectable, in principle, is ultimately acquirable” (p. 214). According to Lardiere, feature detectability is based on the observation of formal contrast, such as student-students, xuesheng-xuesheng-men

26

2 Theoretical Frameworks and Related Studies

(-men, a non-obligatory plural marker in Chinese). When multiple features are clustered, the feature that is more deeply embedded in a feature co-occurrence hierarchy is less detectable and more difficult to acquire (Hwang and Lardiere 2013; Lee and Lardiere 2016; Lardiere 2018). It is further advised that the detectability of features is not quite associated with perceptual salience or objective properties of the target input, such as acoustic noisiness, or input frequency, but “a function of the extent to which the expression of those features in particular contexts might be predicted or expected” by learners (Lardiere 2018, p. 58). Learner expectation based on L1 knowledge is considered as an important contributor to feature detectability.

2.3.4 Previous Studies Based on the FRH As one of the most influential proposals in generative SLA research, the FRH has inspired a spate of studies on L2 acquisition of features up to the present. The results of these studies largely lend support to the assumption of the FRH that feature reassembly is challenging for L2 learners. Meanwhile, multiple factors are revealed to account for the difficulty and asymmetry in the reassembly of L2 features. Some studies attest to the difficulty in reassembling features that are also selected by learners’ L1 (Choi 2009; Cho and Slabakova 2014; Domínguez et al. 2011) and the possibility of acquiring the uninterpretable feature in L2 (Dekydtspotter and Renaud 2009; Hettiarachchi and Pires 2016). Some studies capture L1 influence in the acquisition of features with different configurations between L1 and L2 (Cho 2017; Lee and Lardiere 2016; Spinner 2013; Shimanskaya and Slabakova 2015; Yuan and Zhao 2009). Moreover, a feature co-occurrence hierarchy is revealed, in which features with an unmarked nature tend to be acquired earlier (Cho and Slabakova 2014; Hwang and Lardiere 2013; Mai and Yuan 2016). These findings suggest that the feature-reassembly metaphor seems quite promising in accounting for the variability in L2 development. This section will give a review of these studies.

2.3.4.1

Nominal Features

A large proportion of previous studies examine the acquisition of nominal features in L2, such as gender, number, genericity, definiteness, and specificity. Dekydtspotter and Renaud (2009) and Renaud (2010) investigated the acquisition of the number and gender features in French by L1-English learners. In French, both features are morphologically realized on the different elements in DP, while in English, the number feature is overtly marked on nouns and the gender feature is restricted to pronouns (he, she, him, her). Results from a self-paced acceptability judgment task demonstrate that only advanced learners gained nativelike sensitivity to the mismatches in auxiliaries and past participles in the judgment, while learners with lower proficiency did not. Renaud (2010) interprets that masculine and singular may be “the default forms” in French and early L2 grammar (p. 138). By comparing the

2.3 The Feature Reassembly Hypothesis

27

results from the judgment data (acceptance rates) and the processing data (response times), the researchers found that sensitivity to feature specifications in processing occurred before a robust lexical knowledge, contrary to the findings from previous studies that online processing efficiency is, if possible, established later than offline knowledge representation. Interestingly, Shimanskaya and Slabakova’s (2015) study reveals an opposite pattern that feature reassembly was established at the representation level before at the real-time processing level. By employing an online self-paced reading task and an offline picture description task, they studied the acquisition of phi-features ([person, gender, number]) encoded with French accusative clitics (la/le) by English speakers. L1 influence was found in the initial L1-L2 mapping and had prolonged impact on L2 learners’ online performance. However, advanced L2 learners’ offline performance converged with the natives, which, as suggested by the researchers, validates the predictions of the FRH. Also focusing on the acquisition of gender and number, Spinner (2013) explored a new L1-L2 pairing, that is, L1-English-L2-Swahili. In Swahili, gender and number are bundled together and represented by noun prefixes, while English has number marking on nouns in the form of suffixes, yet no gender marking on nouns. Results of a written gender/number-assignment task reveal that learners with pre-intermediate proficiency could recognize the number and gender categories for noun phrases. By contrast, the results of an elicited production task indicate that learners produced accurate gender markings but faulty number markings. Spinner contends that L2 learners may use singular as the default form and their success in the written task may be attributable to the explicit knowledge learned in classes rather than linguistic competence. Following the assumptions of the FRH, the author also argues that L1-English learners have difficulty detecting the number feature and parsing the markings on noun phrases as gender and number markers due to the distinct feature configurations in their L1. In line with the studies reviewed above, Hwang and Lardiere (2013) also attest L2 learners’ reliance on default forms at the early stages by searching the closest morpholexical counterpart from their L1. They investigated the acquisition of Korean plural marker -tul by English speakers. The plural marker -tul in Korean is involved with multiple factors, such as quantification, specificity, definiteness, and animacy, much more complex than the English plural marking -s. Results from a series of tasks reveal a feature co-occurrence hierarchy, in which the features associated with the intrinsic plural, which shares a similar grammatical function to the English plural, were acquired more easily than those associated with the extrinsic plural, which is heavily constrained by various conditions. Besides, L2 learners’ knowledge of plural developed with increased Korean proficiency and the most advanced learners eventually added the multiple features encoded in -tul. The feature co-occurrence hierarchy is further corroborated in Lee and Lardiere (2016)’s bidirectional study on the acquisition of plural markings in Korean and Indonesian by L1-Indonesian and L1-Korean learners. They found that Indonesian speakers had more difficulty acquiring the more complex feature co-occurrence conditions licensing plural marking in Korean than Korean speakers acquiring the less restricted plural marking in Indonesian.

28

2 Theoretical Frameworks and Related Studies

Diverting from gender and number, some other researchers touch upon the acquisition of genericity, definiteness, anaphoricity, and specificity features. These studies bear out that not only L1 influence but also how the target features are represented in L2 input may contribute to the process of feature reassembly in L2 grammar. Ionin et al. (2011) examined the acquisition of genericity feature of nouns and the interpretation of determiners in English by L1-Russian and L1-Korean learners. In English, definite singular nouns (e.g., “the lion”) and bare plurals (e.g., “lions”) have the generic reference at the NP level, whereas indefinite singular nouns (e.g., “a lion”) have generic reference only at the sentence level. In contrast, Russian and Korean have no articles, and neither are encoded with the morphological distinction between the two types of genericity. Results from a written acceptability judgment task indicate that L2 learners at intermediate to advanced proficiency from both L1 backgrounds acquired the basic properties of definiteness and number marking in English, but they were more successful in the acquisition of indefinite singular generics with sentence-level genericity than definite ones with NP-level genericity. Such an asymmetrical pattern is attributed to the relatively irregular and infrequent use of definite singular nouns for genericity compared with the more frequent use of indefinite generics. L2 learners had more difficulty acquiring the [+taxonomic] feature than acquiring the [+definite] encoded with the definite article the due to insufficient evidence in the input. This study seems to suggest that the regularity and frequency of a certain form may affect the detection and reassembly of the feature encoded in that form. Echoing Ionin et al.’s (2011) findings, a series of studies by Cho and Slabakova also capture an uneven development in the acquisition of L2 features and reveal multiple factors that may affect the process of feature assembly, including the necessity of feature reconfiguration, the properties of the features, L1 influence, as well as L2 input. These studies in general offer supporting evidence for the FRH by showing that L2 development proceeds from the initial mapping of features to forms based on L1 to reassembly of features based on L2 input. Cho and Slabakova (2014) explored the acquisition of the definiteness feature in Russian, a language without articles, by L1-English and L1-Korean learners. Russian has no articles but has definitenessindicating constructions. One is adjectival possessor-modifier that has an indefinite reading, another is a post-nominal possessor-modifier with a genitive case that has either a definite or indefinite reading depending on the information structure. Results from an offline felicity judgment test show that advanced L2 learners from both L1 backgrounds groups established a nativelike contrast between definite/indefinite distinctions marked by overt adjectival possessors but they had difficulty acquiring the definite/indefinite contrast expressed by word order, which is considered as a covert and secondary way of expressing definiteness. L1-English learners also tended to overgeneralize the flexibility of word order, whereas L1-Korean learners failed to recognize word order as a cue for definiteness marking. Given these findings, Cho and Slabakova interpret that such different degrees of difficulty and development patterns result from three factors: the necessity for feature reassembly, the overtness of the feature (overt vs. covert), and the status of the feature (primary vs. secondary).

2.3 The Feature Reassembly Hypothesis

29

In another study, Cho (2017) probed into the acquisition of the English definite article the by L1-Korean learners. In English, the definite NP modified by the may or may not have an antecedent in the previous context, suggesting that the is encoded with [+definite, ±anaphoric]. By contrast, despite being a language without articles, Korean has a demonstrative ku, which encodes [+definite, +anaphoric] feature, while the bare NP is used for representing [+definite, −anaphoric]. Results from an acceptability judgment test found that intermediate L1-Korean learners performed accurately in accepting the use of the in anaphoric contexts but showed indeterminacy accepting the use of the in non-anaphoric contexts, suggestive of L1 influence. While advanced learners overcame L1 transfer and reassembled [+definite, ±anaphoric] with the, they failed to achieve a nativelike interpretation of definiteness involved in presupposed information in the discourse. Cho thus suggests that presupposition accommodation might constitute a hurdle in the acquisition of articles. Also focused on nominal features, Cho and Slabakova (2017) explored the acquisition of specificity features in Russian by L1-English and L1-Korean learners within the Feature Reassembly model. The specificity marker kakoj-to in Russian, encoded with the feature set [−definite, −referential, +specific], fully corresponds to some in English and eotteon (“some”) in Korean. However, the non-specificity marker kakojnibud’, encoded with [−definite, −referential, −specific], has no exact corresponding expression in English and Korean. Moreover, kakoj-nibud’ needs to be licensed in intentional operators, such as xoˇcet, “want”, or a universal quantifier, každyj, “every”, or a conditional if -clause. Results from a felicity judgment test reveal that all learner groups readily established the knowledge that kakoj-to is used in specific contexts, which is attributed to the unmarkedness and high-frequency of kakoj-to in Russian, as well as L1-L2 similarity. However, L2 learners did not acquire the usage of kakojnibud in non-specific context before attaining advanced proficiency in the felicity judgment task. In the grammaticality judgment task, even advanced L2 learners were indeterminate in rejecting the use of kakoj-nibud in unlicensed contexts. The authors refer to the FRH to account for L2 learners’ difficulty in acquiring the [-specific] feature encoded with kakoj-nibud’ due to the necessity of feature reconfigurations.

2.3.4.2

Verbal Features: Tense, Aspect, and Mood

Another line of feature-based research is on the acquisition of TAM (tense, aspect, mood) features by L2 learners. As mentioned above, the feature-selection approach attributes the target-deviant representation of the tense features in L2 grammar to failure in the selection of such features (e.g., Hawkins and Liszka 2003). By contrast, the FRH argues that feature reassembly, rather than feature-selection, constitutes the source of difficulty in the acquisition of L2 tense features. In an earlier study, Lardiere (2003) examined the high rate of omission of past tense marking in English by a Chinese speaker, Patty, who had lived in the U.S. for about 18 years at the time of the study. Lardiere suggests that L2 acquisition of [±past] is complicated due to the one-to-many form-function mapping in English past tense marking and the persistent influence of L1 morphological reflexes of relevant features. Relating to

30

2 Theoretical Frameworks and Related Studies

Hawkins and Liszka’s (2003) study, Lardiere argues that “it is doubtful we can speak of that amalgamated feature as being parameterized” (p. 187) and that the parametric feature-selection account would incorrectly predict random or no past tense marking, which was not borne out in L2 production. More supporting evidence for the FRH is found in other studies on the acquisition of tense and aspect in English (e.g., Yang and Huang 2004; Gabriele and Maekawa 2008). In line with Lardiere’s argument, Domínguez, Arche and Myles (2011) also maintain that the feature-selection approach could not account for the asymmetry in L2 development when both L1 and L2 select those features, whereas the FRH provides a finer-grained explanation of the divergence in L2 grammar. They re-examined the findings from their previous research (Arch, Domínguez and Myles 2010) on the acquisition of the aspectual feature [+imperfect] in Spanish by L1-English learners. Spanish employs distinct morphological forms for perfective and imperfective, but those three subcategories of imperfective, habitual, continuous, and progressive, share the same morphological inflections. In contrast, English makes use of past tense for perfective as well as continuous aspect and periphrases for the habitual (e.g., used to) and progressive (-ing). Therefore, L1-English learners of Spanish need to reconfigure the continuous meaning with corresponding form denoting imperfect. The empirical data from a sentence/context matching task attest that learners had difficulty acquiring the continuous meaning even at the advanced level. Although advanced learners achieved nativelike performance in accepting sentences with imperfective morphology, they still differed significantly from natives in rejecting perfective which is inappropriate in the continuous context. Also framed in the FRH, Muroya (2013) investigated the acquisition of tense and aspect in English by adolescent Japanese speakers. In overt forms, the tense and aspect markings in English and Japanese are largely in common, and the only difference is that progressive is marked by the discontinuous morpheme be + -ing in English but marked by the continuous verb-final affix -te-ru/-te/ta in Japanese (see Muroya 2013, pp. 4–5). Semantically, the non-past progressive form “is + V-ing” in English denotes an action in progress, whereas the corresponding “V-te-ru” in Japanese exhibits multiple aspectual interpretations depending on adverb/adverbial phrases. For example, when co-occurring with the adverb ima, “now”, it implies an ongoing action, as in (16a). When there is an adverb maisa, “every morning”, it denotes a habitual action, as in (16b). When modified by an adverbial phrase such as “moo, ‘already’ 1 kilo” in (16c), it denotes a resultative state of a completed event (examples cited from (2) in Muroya 2013, p. 6). Furthermore, the English progressive is subject to strict lexical restrictions while the Japanese progressive is not. (16) a. Kare-wa ima arui-teiru. He-TOP now walk-PROG “He is walking now.” b. Kare-wa maiasa arui-teiru He-TOP every morning walk-HAB “He walks every morning.” *He is walking every morning.

2.3 The Feature Reassembly Hypothesis

31

c. Kare-wa moo 1-kilo arui-teiru He-TOP already 1-CL walk-RESULTATIVE “He has already walked 1 kilo and is still walking.” *He is already walking 1 kilo. Results from an elicited production task reveal that L1-Japanese learners, even those with nearly eight years’ exposure to English,1 show systematic variability by omitting the copula is in English progressive forms and confusing the tense/aspect forms. Muroya suggests that L1 feature configurations in tense/aspect morphology result in L2 learners’ difficulty in reassembling the aspectual features (e.g., [±habitual]) onto L2 lexical items, consistent with the FRH. There have been abundant studies on L2 acquisition of mood, especially the distinction of subjunctive/indicative mood in Spanish (e.g., Borgonovo et al. 2005, 2006, 2008; Iverson et al. 2008; Gudmestad 2012; Ayoun 2013; Ahern et al. 2014). To my knowledge, only several studies adopt the feature-based approach. Iverson et al.’s (2008) study made a formal analysis of the mood features in Spanish and English and their findings on L1-English learners’ acquisition of Spanish subjective can be well interpreted by the feature reassembly account. In Spanish, the subjunctive mood should be used in clauses with volitional predicates and negated epistemic predicates, as exemplified in (17a) and (17b), respectively (cited from (1) and (12) in Iverson et al. 2008, pp. 138–145). It is noted that if the subjunctive form merezcan in (17b) is replaced by the indicative form merecen, the continuation scenario (“and neither do I”) will be canceled since it contradicts with the epistemic mood of the speaker conveyed by the indicative clause. By contrast, the English subjunctive is not marked by dedicated morphology but expressed by the bare verbs in the clause and for-to infinitives, and the use of the subjunctive is constrained by register. It is assumed that the acquisition of the subjective in volitional predicates is a minimal task for L1English learners due to L1-L2 similarity in this case. However, the acquisition of the subjective in negated epistemic predicates, lacking a comparable structure in English, requires L1-English learners to revalue the mood feature from uninterpretable to interpretable in their Spanish grammar (p. 147). (17) a. Aconsejamos que los estudiantes compren los libros allí. buy.3PL. PRES.SUBJ the books Advise.1PL.PRES that the students there ‘We advise that the students buy the books there.’ b. El decano no cree que los estudiantes merezcan un premio, The dean not believe that the students deserve.3PL.PRES.SUBJ a prize y yo tampoco lo creo / pero yo sí lo creo. and I neither it believe / but I yes it believe “The dean does not believe that the students deserve a prize, and neither do I / but I do believe it.”

1

Muroya (2013) did not give any proficiency test to the participants but reported their length of exposure to English, age, and grade.

32

2 Theoretical Frameworks and Related Studies

Results from a morphological recognition task and a grammaticality judgment task show that advanced learners achieved nativelike performance in both categories of contexts, whereas the intermediate learners acquired the subjunctive/indicative distinction in the scontext of volitional predicates, but not in the context of the negated epistemic predicates. The results provide evidence for the assumption of the FRH that the necessity of feature reconfiguration poses more difficulties in L2 acquisition. Also focused on L2 acquisition of indicative/subjective distinction in Spanish, Ahern et al. (2014) follow the FRH in accounting for the interpretation of Spanish mood choice in if-conditional constructions (factual conditionals vs. irrealis conditionals) by L1-English and L1-French learners. French is similar to Spanish with morphological alternations for mood, whereas English has no specialized morphemes for mood but employs analytic devices. Results from an interpretive multiple-choice task reveal no effect of L1 transfer on the part of L1-French learners but non-nativelike performance in both L2 learner groups with upper-intermediate proficiency. The findings support the FRH in that the different conditions associated with mood in conditionals in French raise problems with feature-reassembly for L1-French learners despite the presence of similar formal features in their L1. The authors also argue that L2 learners’ higher scores on the tasks correlates with longer residence in a Spanish-speaking country and more years of exposure to the language, rather than their overall proficiency level.

2.3.4.3

Wh-Features

Apart from nominal and verbal features, wh-features have also been investigated in L2 acquisition research from the feature-based perspective. These studies attest that it is possible for adult L2 learners to reassemble uninterpretable features no matter whether they are instantiated in their L1 or not, opposing the Interpretability Hypothesis (Tsimpli and Dimitrakopoulou 2007) but supporting the FRH. The role of L1 influence and L2 proficiency is also documented in some studies. As one of the earliest studies applying the FRH, Choi (2009) explored the acquisition of wh-in-situ constructions in Korean by L1-English learners. In Korean, wh-features ([±Q]) are subject to prosodic and morphological constraints. Specifically, wh-insitu words receive a question reading when co-occurring with a question particle; nevertheless, when co-occurring with a rising intonation in matrix interrogatives or with a declarative particle in embedded clauses, they receive an obligatory indefinite reading. By contrast, English has distinct forms to express interrogative and indefinite, i.e., wh-words ([+Q]) and indefinite pronouns ([−Q]), respectively. Results from two translations tasks (written/aural) and a truth-value judgment task show that both high-intermediate and advanced learners performed significantly better on the question reading than on the indefinite reading in prosodic and morphological licensing environments. Choi attributes such asymmetry to L1 transfer effect given that English wh-words are lexicalized with an operator and a variable together within a single lexical item while Korean wh-elements are variables conditioned by multiple

2.3 The Feature Reassembly Hypothesis

33

factors. This study also found that advanced learners demonstrated significantly higher accuracy in the interpretation of indefinite readings than high-intermediate learners, suggesting the gradual attainment of feature reassembly as a function of increased proficiency. Referring to the assumptions of the FRH, Choi argues explicitly that parametric feature selection approach fails to predict the difficulty confronted with adult L2 learners since both L1 and L2 grammars select the relevant features generating wh-expressions. Rather, it is the reconfiguration of L2 features that hinders L2 development. Another study concerned with wh-features is Gil and Marsden’s (2013) reinterpretation of several empirical studies on L2 acquisition of wh-existentials (Choi 2009; Song and Schwartz 2009; Yuan 2008, 2010; Gil and Marsden 2010). Based on the FRH, they made a feature-based contrastive analysis of the existential quantifiers in English, Chinese, and Korean. This research corroborates that it is indeed difficult for L2 learners to acquire a full set of features of existential quantifiers but such features can be acquired at the advanced stage despite the poverty-of-the-stimulus problem, which is compatible with the FRH. Gil and Marsden’s work sets a good example for the feature-based cross-linguistic analysis of given phenomenon and testifies to the potential of the FRH in explaining L2 development. A more recent study on L2 acquisition of wh-features is Hettiarachchi and Pires’s (2016) research on the acquisition of wh-questions and locality constraints in English by adult Sinhala speakers. Sinhala is a wh-in-situ language, so L1-Sinhala learners need to acquire the uninterpretable wh-features in English. Results from a truth value judgment task and a grammaticality judgment task indicate that advanced learners acquired the wh-features in English, which is not specified in their L1 Sinhala. Hettiarachchi and Pires conclude that these findings counter the predictions of the Interpretability Hypothesis but show the possibility of the reconfiguration of uninterpretable features.

2.3.4.4

Cross-Domain Features

The studies reviewed above are concerned about features of a certain category, nominal features, or verbal features, which are not as complicated as cross-domain features encoded within a single form. These features may be of different categories, such as tense and discourse. The results of previous studies on L2 acquisition of cross-domain features show that the complete assembly of feature bundles presents considerable difficulties for L2 learners. Guijarro-Fuentes (2012) investigated L2 acquisition of personal preposition a in Spanish, which is implicated with at least four features: animacy (of the object), specificity (of the object), agentivity (of the subject), and telicity (of the predicate). Although English also has such features, there is not such a category analogous to the personal preposition a in which all these features cluster. Using a sentence completion task and a context-based acceptability judgment task, this study found that advanced L2 learners only acquired the animacy feature successfully but had difficulty with the other features. The delay in the reassembly of specificity, agentivity, and telicity thus casts doubt on the FRH’s proposal that

34

2 Theoretical Frameworks and Related Studies

all features are in principle acquirable. Alternatively, the author proposed Feature (In)accessibility Hypothesis, claiming that “all linguistic features regardless of their nature (interpretability) will pose the same learnability problem” (p. 717), and the accessibility of a feature depends on its location, that is, whether it is encoded in a single item or the whole functional category. In the acquisition of the personal preposition a in Spanish, L1-English learners’ target-deviant performance is attributed to ambiguous and subtle evidence in the input, the complexity, and obscureness of the features, as well as insufficient input in classroom-based instruction. However, as admitted by the author, no specific data were provided regarding the frequency of personal preposition a and the participants in the present study might be not proficient enough to achieve the ultimate attainment of features implicated with a. The advanced learners in this study had little natural exposure to L2, which may also prevent them from establishing sensitivity to those features involved with a. The remaining two studies to be reviewed are about L2 acquisition of feature bundles in Chinese framed in the FRH. One is Yuan and Zhao’s (2009) research on the reassembly of syntactic and thematic features encoded in Chinese resultative compound construction by L1-English learners. Syntactically, in English, the activity predicate and the result predicate are separated by the object NP (e.g., pound the ball flat), while in Chinese, they form a verb compound (e. g. da-sui, ‘hit-break’). Thematically, English resultative construction is subject to two thematic constraints, i.e., the thematic role of the object should be the patient/theme of the activity predicate and the result predicate. In contrast, the Chinese resultative construction is not subject to such thematic constraints. Results from an acceptability judgment task by L1English learners indicate that L2 learners successfully reassembled the syntactic features but had difficulty in delinking the thematic features for Chinese resultative compounds due to lingering L1 transfer even at the advanced proficiency level. As acknowledged by the authors, it remains unknown whether L2 Chinese learners could ultimately reassemble thematic features since the advanced learners in this study could not represent the final state. Notwithstanding this, Yuan and Zhao’s study demonstrates the different development patterns in the reconfiguration of syntactic and thematic/semantic features. The other is a more recent study on the acquisition of Chinese shi…de cleft construction by Mai and Yuan (2016), the results of which actually have been interpreted in the framework of the Interface Hypothesis in Mai (2013) reviewed in Sect. 2.2.3.4. Following the FRH, Mai and Yuan (2016) assume that Chinese shi…de cleft is restricted by a feature set [−past, +telic, +given] while English it-cleft only encodes the [+focus] feature. Based on the results from three tasks, the authors claim that L2 learners initially mapped the shi…de cleft with the English it-cleft and subsequently added the relevant tense, telicity, and discourse feature in an uneven featureby-feature manner, though the [+given] feature involving cross-domain operations posed the greatest challenge.

2.4 Explicit/Implicit Knowledge in L2 Acquisition

35

2.3.5 Applicability of the FRH to the Present Study Review of previous studies based on the FRH has demonstrated that such a refined feature-based model could capture L2 development more specifically and predict the possible difficulty in L2 acquisition. The findings from these studies are largely compatible with the assumptions of the FRH. It is noteworthy that most of the second languages under investigation belong to the family of Inflectional or Agglutinative languages, and thus those relevant features in these languages are overtly represented in morphology, for example, the articles the/a(n) for [±definiteness] in English (Ionin et al. 2011), the suffixes -tul/8 for [±plural] in Korean (Hwang and Lardiere 2013), or the noun prefixes (e.g., m-, w-, mi-, ji) for [±masculine] in Swahili (Spinner 2013). Since the detectability of features plays a key role in L2 acquisition of features, it would be interesting to examine the assembly of features which are not overtly represented in the target language by L2 learners. Only several studies involve L1Inflectional-L2-Isolated pairings, such as Yuan and Zhao (2009) and Mai and Yuan (2016). In view of this situation, the present study will explore the acquisition of Chinese negation by English speakers and Korean speakers. As will be presented in the next chapter, Chinese negation is assumed to be implicated with [±realis] features, which are represented by distinct categories of forms, including time adverbials, lexical semantics, and grammatical aspect markers, as well as conditional clauses. In contrast, English and Korean have a different configuration of features encoded with negation. By examining the acquisition of the features implicated with Chinese negation by English and Korean speakers, the present study will reveal the process of feature detection and reassembly by L2 learners and locate the possible difficulties they may encounter.

2.4 Explicit/Implicit Knowledge in L2 Acquisition 2.4.1 The Distinction Between Explicit and Implicit L2 Knowledge The nature of L2 linguistic knowledge is one of the major issues in L2 acquisition research. The primary goals of L2 researchers are to investigate how this knowledge is represented in L2 grammar and how it develops over time by specifying the underlying variables (Ellis 2005, 2009). The dichotomy of explicit knowledge and implicit knowledge has been well acknowledged in L2 acquisition research (Bialystok 1979, 1981; DeKeyser 1998; Gutiérrez 2013; Han and Ellis 1998; Loewen 2009; Ellis 2009; Kim and Nam 2017). In the present study, we will follow Ellis’s (2009, pp. 10–16) recapitulations on the distinction between explicit knowledge and implicit knowledge based on the following four criteria.

36

2 Theoretical Frameworks and Related Studies

First, explicit knowledge is conscious while implicit knowledge is intuitive. R. Ellis used the grammaticality judgment test to illustrate the difference between conscious awareness and intuitive awareness. Presented with an ungrammatical sentence, an L2 learner may know intuitively that the sentence is ungrammatical in some way but may have no conscious knowledge of the rule that is broken, and this learner can be said to have implicit knowledge of a certain structure but no explicit knowledge. Another learner may judge the sentence as unacceptable based on a certain rule, and such a learner can be said to have explicit knowledge. Instruction method may affect the development of explicit and implicit knowledge in L2 grammar (Renou 2000). If L2 learners are taught using a communicative approach, they may receive little instruction of grammar rules but focus more on communicative skills, then probably they will develop more implicit knowledge of L2. However, in the traditional translation approach, L2 learners receive a lot of instruction in grammar rules, and they may develop more explicit knowledge of L2. Second, explicit knowledge is declarative whereas implicit knowledge is procedural. This criterion borrows the concepts from ACT-R (Adaptive Control of Thought-Rational) cognitive architecture (Anderson and Lebiere 1998). Declarative linguistic knowledge comprises specific facts about L2. For instance, R. Ellis describes the rule of the verb “explain” as “verbs like ‘explain’ require an indirect object with ‘to’ and the indirect object usually follows the direct object”. In contrast, procedural linguistic knowledge enables learners to behave automatically once a condition is met. For instance, proficient L2 learners would use a preposition “to” between the verbs such as “explain” and the indirect object subconsciously. R. Ellis maintains that L2 learners’ declarative rules are often inaccurate and fuzzy, while their procedural rules may or may not be target-like depending on developmental stages. Third, explicit knowledge is accessible only through controlled processing whereas implicit knowledge is through automatic processing. This criterion is closely related to the second one. Since implicit knowledge is proceduralized, it can be easily and rapidly accessed in spontaneous language use. However, sufficient attention and time are required to access the relevant explicit knowledge. For example, in planned writing tasks, L2 learners could monitor their production with access to explicit knowledge. R. Ellis also endorses the possibility of automatized explicit knowledge through intensive practice and accessing such knowledge during online processing. Fourth, L2 learners tend to employ explicit knowledge when they encounter difficulties in performing a language task, though they rely on implicit knowledge as a default in production. Explicit knowledge is verbalizable and viewed as a tool by learners to solve a problem in language learning, while implicit knowledge has been fully internalized by L2 learners and is only manifest in learners’ verbal behavior. To elaborate this point, R. Ellis suggests that L2 learners turn to explicit knowledge when they lack confidence to make intuitive judgments in a think-aloud task or dyadic problem-solving task. Although L2 learners’ explicit and implicit knowledge systems are considered as distinct, it is supposed that L2 learners draw on a combination of implicit and explicit knowledge in L2 performance. As pointed out by R. Ellis, it is possible for learners

2.4 Explicit/Implicit Knowledge in L2 Acquisition

37

to develop both types of knowledge of the same feature, which makes it difficult to disentangle explicit knowledge from implicit knowledge by simply observing a learner’s linguistic behavior.

2.4.2 The Measurement of Explicit and Implicit L2 Knowledge Through Task Modality One of the methods to measure L2 learners’ linguistic knowledge is to manipulate task modality. It is suggested that aurally-presented tasks are more likely to reveal implicit knowledge from L2 learners, while visually-presented tasks may allow L2 learners to access explicit knowledge. Results of previous studies show that the presentation mode of test items may constrain the attention capacity of learners. L2 learners tend to have a higher recall rate in the written mode than in the aural mode (Lund 1991; Leow 1995) and visual stimuli would lead to more intake than aural stimuli (Wong 2001). Studies from cognitive psychology also reveal that processing speech sounds is more demanding than processing written text due to the evanescent nature of aural sounds (Anderson 1980; Danks 1980; Rost 1990; Clifton et al. 2013). During listening comprehension, learners need to segment and perceive the continuous flow of speech sounds in real time, which imposes a heavy cognitive load on memory. In contrast, in reading comprehension, learners could look back and search for necessary information in the written text. Readers have more cognitive resources available and thus have more control over the rate of processing. A few second language researchers have also examined the role of modality in L2 learners’ access to grammatical knowledge. Haig (1991) compared L2 learners’ aural GJT and written GJT on their comprehension of the subjacency principle in English. It was found that L2 learners had a significantly higher accuracy in the written mode than in the aural mode. Johnson (1992) conducted an untimed written GJT to compare with the aural version in Johnson and Newport (1989). Results also indicate that L2 learners of English (late arrivals) had a better performance in the written GJT than in the aural one. Murphy (1997) argues that both Haig and Johnson did not control the presentation time, so the differences found in the subjects’ performance might be “the result of time-on-task and not modality-specific processing difficulties” (p. 40). In view of this, Murphy controlled the presentation time for both auditory and written versions of GJT and measured both accuracy and response time. Results indicate that subjects were less accurate and slower to judge ungrammatical items in the aural mode and this effect was most pronounced for the L2 learners. The author suggests that the auditory version might impose a heavier processing burden on L2 learners as compared to the written version. Given the distinct features of aural processing and written processing, Loewen (2009) claims that the online processing required for aural/oral modality may encourage learners to draw upon implicit knowledge while they may have more opportunities to access explicit knowledge in written tasks. A more recent study by

38

2 Theoretical Frameworks and Related Studies

Spada et al. (2015) examined the interaction between task modality and the validity of timed GJTs. Factor analyses of the results indicate that timed GJTs with aural stimuli loaded more heavily on the factor corresponding to implicit knowledge, while timed GJTs with written stimuli loaded more on the factor corresponding to explicit knowledge. Another recent study by Kim and Nam (2017) investigated three variables in measuring explicit and implicit knowledge, including processing mode (Comprehension vs. Production), time pressure (Controlled vs. Uncontrolled), and modality (Written vs. Aural). The results indicate that timed GJTs could measure stronger implicit knowledge when using aural stimuli than using written stimuli. The researchers conclude that aural modes combined with fixed time constraints might prompt L2 learners to focus on meaning rather than form and thus could tap into their implicit knowledge.

2.4.3 Relevance to the Present Study The findings of previous studies reviewed above indicate that task modality could affect L2 learners’ access to explicit or implicit knowledge. In view of this, the present study administered a paper-pen written GJT and a computer-based aural GJT with L2 learners to explore the representation of their knowledge (explicit vs. implicit) of Chinese negation. Since the present study examined the judgment of fifteen different categories of sentences by L2 learners from elementary to advanced proficiency, no fixed time limit was set for the aural GJT. However, the participants were instructed to respond as quickly as possible after hearing the sentence which was played only once in the experiment. Compared with the aural GJT, L2 learners had more time and could read the sentences more than once in the written GJT. Therefore, it is expected that L2 learners may show different performances in their judgment of Chinese sentences in the written mode and aural mode.

2.5 Interim Summary This chapter has introduced the theoretical background of the present study, including the Interface Hypothesis and the Feature Reassembly Hypothesis, as well as the distinction between explicit and implicit L2 knowledge. In the following chapter, we will analyze the interfaces and features involved in Chinese negation and compare negation in English and Korean with negation in Chinese.

References

39

References Ahern, Aoife, José Amenós-Pons, and Pedro Guijarro-Fuentes. 2014. Interfaces in the interpretation of mood alternation in L2 Spanish: Morpho-phonology, semantics and pragmatics. Eurosla Yearbook 14(1): 173–200. Anderson, John R. 1980. Cognitive psychology and its implications. New York: W. H. Freeman. Anderson, John R., and Christian J. Lebiere. 1998. The atomic components of thought. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Aoun, Joseph, and Yen-hui Audrey Li. 2003. Essays on the representational and derivational nature of grammar: The diversity of wh-constructions. Cambridge: MIT Press. Arche, María J., Laura Dominguez, and Florence Myles. 2010. The L2 acquisition of the semantics and morphology of Aspect: a study of the acquisition of the Spanish imperfect-preterit contrast by native speakers of English. Presented at the Workshop on Tense and Aspect in Generative Grammar: Typology and Acquisition, Lisbon (Portugal). Argyri, Efrosyni, and Antonella Sorace. 2007. Crosslinguistic influence and language dominance in older bilingual children. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 10(1): 79–99. Ayoun, Dalila. 2013. The second language acquisition of French tense, aspect, mood and modality (Vol. 10). Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins Publishing. Bialystok, Ellen. 1979. Explicit and implicit judgments of L2 grammaticality. Language Learning 29(1): 81–103. Bialystok, Ellen. 1981. The role of linguistic knowledge in second language use. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 4(1): 31–45. Borgonovo, Claudia, Joyce Bruhn de Garavito, and Philippe Prévost. 2005. Acquisition of mood distinctions in L2 Spanish. In Proceedings of the 29th Boston University Conference on Language Development, eds. Alejna Burgos, Manuella R. Clark-Cotton, and Seungwan Ha, 97–108. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press. Borgonovo, Claudia, Joyce Bruhn de Garavito, Pedro Guijarro-Fuentes, Philippe Prévost, and Elena Valenzuela. 2006. Specificity in Spanish: the syntax/semantics interface in SLA. In Eurosla Yearbook, eds. Susan Foster-Cohen, M. Medved Krajnovic, and J. Mihaljevic Djigunovic, 57–78. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Borgonovo, Claudia, Joyce Bruhn de Garavito, and Philippe Prévost. 2008. Methodological issues in the L2 acquisition of a syntax/semantics phenomenon: How to assess L2 knowledge of mood in Spanish relative clauses. In Selected Proceedings of the 10th Hispanic Linguistics Symposium, eds. Joyce Bruhn de Garavito, & Elena Valenzuela, 13–24. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press. Burkhardt, Petra. 2005. The syntax-discourse interface: representing and interpreting dependency. John Benjamins, Amsterdam/Philadelphia. Cho, Jacee, and Roumyana Slabakova. 2014. Interpreting definiteness in a second language without articles: The case of L2 Russian. Second Language Research, 30(2): 159–190. Cho, Jacee, and Roumyana Slabakova. 2017. A feature-based contrastive approach to the L2 Acquisition of Specificity. Applied Linguistics 38(3): 318–339. Cho, Jacee. 2017. The acquisition of different types of definite noun phrases in L2-English. International Journal of Bilingualism 21(3): 367–382. Choi, Myong Hee. 2009. The acquisition of wh-in-situ constructions in second language acquisition (Doctoral dissertation). Georgetown University. Chomsky, Noam, and Morris Halle. 1968. The sound pattern of English. New York: Harper and Row. Chomsky, Noam. 1965. Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge: MIT Press. Chomsky, Noam. 1970. Remarks on nominalization. In Readings in English transformational grammar, eds. Roderick A. Jacobs, & Peter S. Rosenbaum, 184–221. Waltham, Mass: Blaisdell. Chomsky, Noam. 1993. Lectures on government and binding: The Pisa Lectures. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. Chomsky, Noam. 1995. The minimalist program. Cambridge: MIT Press. Chomsky, Noam. 2000. The architecture of language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

40

2 Theoretical Frameworks and Related Studies

Clifton, Charles, Antje S. Meyer, Lee S. Wurm, and Rebecca Treiman 2013. Language comprehension and production. In Handbook of psychology, eds. Alice F. Healy, and Robert W. Proctor, 523–547. New York: Wile. Danks, Joseph H. 1980. Comprehension in listening and reading: Same or different? In Reading and understanding, eds. Danks, Joseph H., Frank B. Murray, and Kathy J. Pezdek, 1–39. Newark, DE: International Reading Association. DeKeyser, Robert. 1998. Beyond focus on form: Cognitive perspectives on learning and practicing second language grammar. In Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition, eds. Catherine Doughty, and Jessica C. Williams, 42–63. New York: Cambridge University Press. Dekydtspotter, Laurent, and Rex A. Sprouse. 2001. Mental design and (second) language epistemology: Adjectival restrictions of wh-quantifiers and tense in English-French interlanguage. Second Language Research 17(1): 1–35. Dekydtspotter, Laurent, Rex A. Sprouse, and Kimberly A. B. Swanson. 2001. Reflexes of mental architecture in second-language acquisition: The interpretation of combien extractions in EnglishFrench interlanguage. Language Acquisition 9(3): 175–227. Dekydtspotter, Laurent, and Claire Renaud. 2009. On the contrastive analysis of features in second language acquisition: Uninterpretable gender on past participles in English-French processing. Second Language Research 25(2): 255–267. Domínguez, Laura, María J. Arche, & Florence Myles. 2011. Testing the predictions of the FeatureAssembly Hypothesis: Evidence from the L2 acquisition of Spanish aspect morphology. In Proceedings of the 35th Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development, eds. Nick Danis, Kate Mesh, and Hyunsuk Sung, 183–196. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press. Domínguez, Laura. 2013. Understanding interfaces: Second language acquisition and first language attrition of Spanish subject realization and word order variation (Vol. 55). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing. Ellis, Rod 2005. Measuring implicit and explicit knowledge of a second language: A psychometric study. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 27 (2): 141–172. Ellis, Rod. 2009. Implicit and explicit learning, knowledge and instruction. In Implicit and explicit knowledge in second language learning, testing and teaching, eds. Rod Ellis, Shawn Loewen, Catherine Elder, Rosemary Erlam, Jenefer Philp, and Hayo Reinders, 3–25. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Gabriele, Alison, and Junko Maekawa. 2008. Interpreting tense in a second language. Eurosla Yearbook 8(1): 79–106. Gil, Kook-Hee, and Heather Marsden. 2010. Semantics before syntax: L2 knowledge of anyone by Korean speaking learners. In Proceedings of the Mind-Context Divide Workshop, eds. Michael Iverson, Ivan Ivanov, Tiffany Judy, Jason Rothman, Roumyana Slabakova, and Marta Tryzna, 40–51. Somerville MA: Cascadilla Press. Gil, Kook-Hee, and Heather Marsden. 2013. Existential quantifiers in second language acquisition: A feature reassembly account. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism 3(2): 117–149. Gudmestad, Aarnes. 2012. Acquiring a variable structure: An interlanguage analysis of second language mood use in Spanish. Language Learning 62(2): 373–402. Guijarro-Fuentes, Pedro. 2012. The acquisition of interpretable features in L2 Spanish: Personal a. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 15(4): 701–720. Gutiérrez, Xavier. 2013. The construct validity of grammaticality judgment tests as measures of implicit and explicit knowledge. Studies in second language acquisition 35(03): 423–449. Haig, Geoffrey. 1991. Universal Grammar and second language acquisition: the influence of task type on late learners’ access to the subjacency principle. TESL monograph, McGill University. Han, Youngju, and Rod Ellis. 1998. Implicit knowledge, explicit knowledge and general language proficiency. Language Teaching Research 2(1): 1–23. Hawkins, Roger, and Yuet-Hung Cecilia Chan. 1997. The partial availability of Universal Grammar in second language acquisition: The ‘failed functional features hypothesis’. Second Language Research, 13(3): 187–226.

References

41

Hawkins, Roger, & Sarah A. Liszka 2003. Locating the source of defective past tense marking in advanced L2 English speakers. Language Acquisition and Language Disorders 30: 21–44. Hettiarachchi, Sujeewa, & Pires, Acrisio. 2016. L2 Acquisition of wh-Features and syntactic constraints: evidence for Full-Access approaches. In Proceedings of 6th Conference on Generative Approaches to Language Acquisition North America (GALANA 2015), eds. Laurel Perkins, Rachel Dudley, Juliana Gerard, & Kasia Hitczenko, 48–59. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project. Hawkins, Roger. 2005. Explaining full and partial success in the acquisition of second language grammatical properties. Second Language 4: 7–25. Hopp, Holger. 2007. Ultimate attainment at the interfaces in second language acquisition (Doctoral dissertation). Groningen University. Hopp, Holger. 2010. Ultimate attainment in L2 inflection: Performance similarities between nonnative and native speakers. Lingua 120(4): 901–931. Hwang, Sun Hee, and Donna Lardiere. 2013. Plural-marking in L2 Korean: A feature-based approach. Second Language Research 29(1): 57–86. Ionin, Tania, Silvina Montrul, Ji-Hye Kim, and Vadim Philippov. 2011. Genericity distinctions and the interpretation of determiners in second language acquisition. Language Acquisition 18(4): 242–280. Iverson, Michael, Paula Kempchinsky, and Jason Rothman. 2008. Interface vulnerability and knowledge of the subjunctive/indicative distinction with negated epistemic predicates in L2 Spanish. Eurosla Yearbook 8(1): 135–163. Jackendoff, Ray. 2002. Foundations of language: Brain, meaning, grammar, evolution. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Jakobson, Roman, and Moris Halle. 2002. Fundamentals of language. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. Jiang, Nan. 2004. Morphological insensitivity in second language processing. Applied Psycholinguistics 25(4): 603–634. Jiang, Nan. 2007. Selective integration of linguistic knowledge in adult second language learning. Language Learning 57(1): 1–33. Johnson, Jacqueline S. 1992. Critical period effects in second language acquisition: The effect of written versus auditory materials on the assessment of grammatical competence. Language learning 42(2): 217–248. Johnson, Jacqueline S., and Newport, Elissa L. 1989. Critical period effects in second language learning: The influence of maturational state on the acquisition of English as a second language. Cognitive psychology, 21(1), 60–99. Kim, Jeong-eun, & Nam, Hosung. 2017. Measures of implicit knowledge revisited: Processing modes, time pressure, and modality. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 39(3): 431–457. Kraš, Tihana. 2009. The lexicon-syntax interface in L2 Italian: Ne-cliticisation with intransitive verbs. In Proceedings of the 10th Generative Approaches to Second Language Acquisition Conference (GASLA 2009), eds. Melissa Bowles, Tania Ionin, Silvina Montrul, and Annie Tremblay, 220–230. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project. Lardiere, Donna. 1998. Case and tense in the ‘fossilized’ steady state. Second Language Research 14(1): 1–26. Lardiere, Donna. 2000. Mapping features to forms in second language acquisition. In Second Language Acquisition and Linguistic Theory, ed. John Archibald, 102–129. Oxford, UK: Blackwell. Lardiere, Donna. 2003. Second language knowledge of [±past] vs. [±finite]. In Proceedings of the 6th Generative Approaches to Second Language Acquisition Conference (GASLA 2002), eds. Juana M. Liceras, Helmut Zobl, Helen Goodluck, 176–189. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project. Lardiere, Donna. 2005. On morphological competence. In Proceedings of the 7th Generative Approaches to Second Language Acquisition Conference (GASLA 2004), eds. Laurent Dekydtspotter, Rex A. Sprouse, and Audrey Liljestrand, 178–192. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.

42

2 Theoretical Frameworks and Related Studies

Lardiere, Donna. 2007a. Acquiring (or Assembling) Functional Categories in Second Language Acquisition. In Proceedings of 2nd Conference on Generative Approaches to Language Acquisition North America (GALANA 2006), eds. Alyona Belikova, Luisa Meroni, and Mari Umeda, 233–244. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project. Lardiere, Donna. 2007b. Ultimate attainment in second language acquisition, Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Lardiere, Donna. 2008. Feature assembly in second language acquisition. In The role of formal features in second language acquisition, eds. Juana Liceras, Helmut Zobl, and Helen Goodluck, 106–140. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Lardiere, Donna. 2009a. Some thoughts on the contrastive analysis of features in second language acquisition. Second Language Research 25 (2): 173–227. Lardiere, Donna. 2009b. Further thoughts on parameters and features in second language acquisition: A reply to peer comments on Lardiere’s Some thoughts on the contrastive analysis of features in second language acquisition in SLR 25 (2). Second Language Research 25(3): 409–422. Lardiere, Donna. 2011. Who is the Interface Hypothesis about? Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism 1(1): 48–53. Lardiere, Donna. 2018. Detectability in feature reassembly. In Salience in second language acquisition, eds. Susan M. Gass, Patti Spinner, and Jennifer Behney, 41–63. New York: Routledge. Lecarme, Jaqueline. 2004. Tense in nominals. In The syntax of time, eds. Jaqueline Guéron, & Jaqueline Lecarme, 441–476. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Lee, Eunji, and Donna Lardiere. 2016. L2 acquisition of number marking in Korean and Indonesian: A feature-based approach. In Proceedings of the 13th Generative Approaches to Second Language Acquisition Conference (GASLA 2015), eds. David Stringer, Jordan Garrett, Becky Halloran, and Sabrina Mossman, 113–123. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project. Leow, Ronald P. 1995. Modality and intake in second language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 17(1): 79–89. Lado, Robert. 1957. Linguistics across cultures: Applied linguistics for language teachers. Arbor, MI: The University of Michigan Press. Liceras, Juana, Helmut Zobl, and Helen Goodluck. (eds.) 2008. The role of formal features in second language acquisition. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Loewen, Shawn. 2009. Grammaticality judgment tests and the measurement of implicit and explicit L2 knowledge. In Implicit and explicit knowledge in second language learning, testing and teaching, eds. Rod Ellis, Shawn Loewen, Catherine Elder, Rosemary Erlam, Jenefer Philp, and Hayo Reinders, 94–112. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Long, Michael. 2003. Stabilization and fossilization in interlanguage development. In The handbook of second language acquisition, eds. Catherine J. Doughty, and Michael H. Long, 487–535. Malden, MA: Blackwell. Lund, Randall J. 1991. A comparison of second language listening and reading comprehension. The Modern Language Journal 75(2): 196–204. Mai, Ziyin. 2013. Properties of the (shi)... de focus construction in adult L2 acquisition and heritage language acquisition of Mandarin Chinese (Doctoral dissertation). University of Cambridge. Mai, Ziyin, and 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. McCloskey, James. 1979. Transformational syntax and model-theoretic semantics: a case-study in Modern Irish. Dordrecht: Reidel. Montrul, Silvina. 2004. Subject and object expression in Spanish heritage speakers: A case of morphosyntactic convergence. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 7(2): 125–142. Montrul, Silvina. 2005. Second language acquisition and first language loss in adult early bilinguals: Exploring some differences and similarities. Second language research 21(3): 199–249. Montrul, Silvina. 2010. Dominant language transfer in adult second language learners and heritage speakers. Second Language Research 26(3): 293–327.

References

43

Murphy, Victoria A. 1997. The effect of modality on a grammaticality judgement task. Second Language Research 13(1): 34–65. Muroya, Akiko. 2013. Knowledge of syntax and verbal morphology in adolescent L2 English: A Feature Reassembly account. Kansas Working Papers in Linguistics, 34. Lawrence: University of Kansas KU Scholar Works. Pesetsky, David, and Esther Torrego. 2004. Tense, case, and the nature of syntactic categories. In The syntax of time, eds. Jacqueline Guéron, and Jacqueline Lecarme, 495–537. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press. Ramchand, Gillian, and Charles Reiss. (eds.). 2007. The Oxford handbook of linguistic interfaces. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Renaud, Claire. 2010. Feature assembly in early stages of L2 acquisition: Processing evidence from L2 French. In Research in second language processing and parsing, eds. Bill VanPatten, and Jill Jegerski, 135–158. Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins. Renou, Janet M. 2000. Learner accuracy and learner performance: The quest for a link. Foreign Language Annals 33(2): 168–180. Rost, Michael. 1990. Listening in language learning. London: Longman. Rothman, Jason, Tiffany Judy, Pedro Guijarro-Fuentes, and Acrisio Pires. 2010. On the (Un)Ambiguity of Adjectival Modification in Spanish Determiner Phrases: Informing Debates on the Mental Representations of L2 Syntax. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 32(1): 47–77. Schiffrin, Deborah. 1981. Tense variation in narrative. Language 57 (1): 45–62. Shimanskaya, Elena, and Roumyana Slabakova. 2015. Re-assembling objects: A new look at the L2 acquisition of pronominal clitics. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 38: 1–18. Schwartz, Bonnie S., and Rex A. Sprouse. 1996. L2 cognitive states and the Full Transfer/Full Access model. Second language research 12(1): 40–72. Slabakova, Roumyana, and Ivan Ivanov. 2011. A more careful look at the syntax-discourse interface. Lingua 121(4): 637–651. Song, Hyang Suk, and Bonnie Schwartz. 2009. Testing the Fundamental Difference Hypothesis: L2 adult, L2 child, and L1 child comparisons in the acquisition of Korean. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 31(2): 323–361. Sorace, Antonella. 1993. Incomplete vs. divergent representations of unaccusativity in nonnative grammars of Italian. Second Language Research 9(1): 22–47. Sorace, Antonella, and Francesca Filiaci. 2006. Anaphora resolution in near-native speakers of Italian. Second Language Research 22(3): 339–368. Sorace, Antonella, and Ludovica Serratrice. 2009. Internal and external interfaces in bilingual language development: Beyond structural overlap. International Journal of Bilingualism 13(2): 195–210. Sorace, Antonella. 2011. Pinning down the concept of “interface” in bilingualism. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism 1(1): 1–33 Spada, Nina, Julie Li-Ju Shiu, and Yasuyo Tomita. 2015. Validating an elicited imitation task as a measure of implicit knowledge: Comparisons with other validation studies. Language Learning 65(3): 723–751. Spinner, Patti. 2013. The second language acquisition of number and gender in Swahili: A feature reassembly approach. Second Language Research 29(4): 455–479. Tsimpli, Ianthi, and Antonella Sorace. 2006. Differentiating interfaces: L2 performance in syntaxsemantics and syntax-discourse phenomena. In Proceedings of the 30th Boston University Conference on Language Development, eds. David Bamman, Tatiana Magnitskaia, and Colleen Zaller, 653–664. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press. Tsimpli, Ianthi, & Maria Mastropavlou. 2007. Feature interpretability in L2 acquisition and SLI: Greek clitics and determiners. In The role of formal features in second language acquisition, eds. Juana Liceras, Helmut Zobl, and Helen Goodluck, 43–183. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Tsimpli, Ianthi, & Maria Dimitrakopoulou. 2007. The interpretability hypothesis: Evidence from wh-interrogatives in second language acquisition. Second Language Research 23(2): 215–242.

44

2 Theoretical Frameworks and Related Studies

Travis, Lisa deMena. 2008. The role of features in syntactic theory and language variation. In The role of formal features in second language acquisition, eds. Juana Liceras, Helmut Zobl, and Helen Goodluck, 22–47. New York: Taylor & Francis Group. Umeda, Mari. 2008. Second language acquisition of Japanese wh-constructions (Doctoral dissertation). McGill University. van Kemenade, Ans, & Nigel Vincent. 1997. Parameters of morphosyntactic change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. White, Lydia. 2003. Fossilization in steady state L2 grammars: Persistent problems with inflectional morphology. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 6(02): 129–141. White, Lydia, and Fred Genesee. 1996. How native is near-native? The issue of ultimate attainment in adult second language acquisition. Second Language Research 12(3): 233–265. White, Lydia. 2011. Second language acquisition at the interfaces, Lingua 121(4): 577–590. Wong, Wynne. 2001. Modality and attention to meaning and form in the input. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 23(03): 345–368. Yang, Suying, and Yueyuan Huang. 2004. The Impact of the Absence of Grammatical Tense in L1 on the Acquisition of the Tense-Aspect System in L2. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching 42(1): 49–70. Yuan, Boping. 2008. Discrepancy in English speakers’ L2 acquisition of Chinese wh-words as existential polarity words: the L1 dependent interface hypothesis. In Proceedings of the 9th Generative Approaches to Second Language Acquisition Conference (GASLA 2008), eds. Roumyana Slabakova, Jason Rothman, Paula Kempchinsky, Elena Gavruseva, 272–284. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project. Yuan, Boping, and Yang Zhao. 2009. Reassembly of features in English speakers’ L2 Chinese resultative compound constructions. In Proceedings of the 10th Generative Approaches to Second Language Acquisition Conference (GASLA 2009), eds. Melissa Bowles, Tania Ionin, Silvina Montrul, Annie Tremblay, 69–76. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project. 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(2): 219–260. Zhao, Xia Lucy. 2014. Ultimate attainment of anaphora resolution in L2 Chinese. Second Language Research 30(3): 381–407.

Chapter 3

Linguistic Analyses of Negation in Chinese, English, and Korean

Abstract The two primary negation markers in Chinese, bu and mei, are subject to multiple constraints of syntactic and semantic categories, thus involving narrow syntax, the syntax-semantics interface, the syntax-morphology interface, as well as the syntax-semantics-morphology interface. Underlying these interfaces, the negation markers bu/mei are encoded with the mood features: bu with [-realis], mei with [+realis]. By contrast, the primary negator not in English, and the two negation markers in Korean, an(i) and mos, are restricted by factors different from those involved in Chinese negation. Though the dichotomy of realis/irrealis is not neatly related with English negation or Korean negation, the realis/irrealis dimension is also at work in these two languages. This chapter first presents the analyses of Chinese negation regarding its syntactic structure, semantic features, and the interfaces involved, and then compares English negation and Korean negation with Chinese negation.

3.1 Introduction Within the frameworks of the Interface Hypothesis and the Feature Reassembly Hypothesis introduced in the previous chapter, the present study aims to examine the acquisition of Chinese negation by English speakers and Korean speakers. The two primary negation markers in Chinese, bu and mei, are subject to multiple constraints of different categories, such as time, aspect, and hypothetical context, thus involving narrow syntax, the syntax-semantics interface, the syntax-morphology interface, as well as the syntax-semantics-morphology interface. Underlying these interfaces, the negation markers bu/mei are encoded with the mood features: bu with [-realis], mei with [+realis]. By contrast, the primary negator not in English, and the two negation markers in Korean, an(i) and mos, are restricted by factors different from those involved in Chinese negation. In this chapter, we will first present the analyses of Chinese negation regarding its syntactic structure, semantic features, and the interfaces involved, and then compare English negation and Korean negation with Chinese negation.

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2023 J. Wang, Interfaces and Features in Second Language Acquisition, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-8629-1_3

45

46

3 Linguistic Analyses of Negation in Chinese, English, and Korean

3.2 Analyses of Chinese Negation Chinese negation has been studied extensively by researchers. However, no consensus has been reached yet regarding the distinctions between bu and mei (see Wang 2011; Chen and Pan 2017; Hou 2016). We will review the syntactic and semantic analyses of Chinese negation in the previous literature, and then analyze the interfaces involved in Chinese negation.

3.2.1 Syntactic Structure Analyses Researchers adopting the generative approach have come up with varied proposals to account for the syntactic status of bu/mei in formal syntax, mainly including the Clitics approach (Huang 1988; Ernst 1995), the Adjunct approach (Li 1999, 2007; Hu 2007; Chao 1994), and the NegP approach (Chen et al. 2013; Cheng and Li 1991; Chiu 1993; Xu 1997; Zhuang 2009; Zhuang and Liu 2011). The present study will follow the NegP approach by treating bu/mei as the head of NegP. Before presenting the analysis of this approach, we will first make a brief review of the Clitics approach and the Adjunct approach.

3.2.1.1

The Clitics Approach

Both Huang (1988) and Ernst (1995) treat bu as a clitic-like element. However, they diverge over what element bu should be attached to. Huang claims that bu is locally adjoined to INFL or V0 , as stated in the following principle: Principle P: the negative morpheme bu forms an immediate construction with the first V0 element following it (Huang 1988, p. 284). (18) a. Tamen pao de bu kuai. they run DE not fast “They don’t run fast.” b. *Tamen bu pao de kuai. they not run DE fast According to Huang, in the above example (18), bu first cliticizes to the first V, forming the non-event bu-pao (not run), so it is semantically infelicitous to describe its manner (speed) (examples quoted from (7) in Huang 1988, p. 278). Nevertheless, Ernst (1995) argues that bu is a proclitic and it can be separated from the verb, taking a scope not just the verb but also other constituents, as shown in the example (19) (cited from (10) and (11) in Ernst 1995, p. 672). (19) a. Jinrong bu mashang huida. Jinrong not immediately answer “Jinrong doesn’t answer immediately.”

3.2 Analyses of Chinese Negation

47

b. Tamen bu huxiang bangmang. they not each-other help “They don’t help each other.” However, the Clitics approach runs into difficulties. As argued in Lee and Pan (2001), bu can be associated with a focus in the sentence that is not adjacent to it, as exemplified in (20). Lee and Pan also argue that it is problematic for Huang to suggest that bu in examples like (20) is attached to an empty modal with future/volitional meaning, as a clitic can only be attached to a lexical element, not to an abstract non-lexical element (examples cited from (10) in Lee and Pan 2001, p. 708). (20) Zuotian yaoshi ta bu pao-de name [kuai]f , jiu hui wu-le huoche. yesterday if he not run-DE that fast then will miss-LE train “Yesterday, if he had not run that fast, he would have missed the train.” In addition, Hu (2007) suggests that clitics are prosodically weak and thus lack tones (Franks and King 2000; Kari 2002). However, bu in Chinese receives either the 2nd tone or the 4th tone depending on the tone of the following word (e.g., bú-qù, “not go”; bù-lái, “not come”). Therefore, it seems untenable to claim that bu is a clitic-like element in Chinese.

3.2.1.2

The Adjunct Approach

Some researchers (Hu 2007; Li 1999, 2007; Chao 1994) treat the negation markers bu/mei as adverbs which are syntactically adjoined to X’. Chao (1994) and Hu (2007) observe that the negation markers in Chinese pattern with adverbs rather than INFL elements in the VP-ellipsis test. According to this test, VP-ellipsis can be licensed by INFL elements such as modals (e.g., I will.) and auxiliaries (e.g., He does not.). If NegP is in INFL, then it may license the ellipsis of VP in a conjunction structure. For example, in (21a), the modal auxiliary neng (“can”) is an INFL element, so it could license the ellipsis of VP in the second conjoined clause. By contrast, without the modal auxiliary, the V0 needs to be retained as exemplified in (21b), thus suggesting that NegP is not in INFL but an adjunct, corresponding to the adverb manman (“slowly”) in (21c) (examples cited from (43) to (45) in Hu 2007, p. 109). Chao (1994) adds that VP-ellipsis is possible when meiyou is used since you is an auxiliary heading a projection in INFL. (21) a. Ni bu neng jiang yingyu, wo ye bu neng. you not can speak English I also not can “You cannot speak English, and I cannot either.” b. Ni bu jiang yingyu, wo ye bu *(jiang). you not speak English I also not speak “You don’t speak English, and I don’t either.” c. Ni manman zou, wo ye manman *(zou). You slowly walk I also slowly walk “You are walking slowly, so am I.”

48

3 Linguistic Analyses of Negation in Chinese, English, and Korean

Nevertheless, the VP-ellipsis test adopted in studies on English may not apply in Chinese. As pointed out by Chen et al. (2013), the modal auxiliary neng (“can”) in (21a) belongs to epistemic modality and it seems that VP-ellipsis is attested. However, when deontic modal auxiliaries are used, the verb should be retained, as exemplified in (22) (cited from (6) in Chen et al. 2013, p. 339). (22) a. Ni dei jiang yingyu, wo ye dei *(jiang). you have-to speak English I also have to speak “You have to speak English, so do I.” b. Ni bixu jiang yingyu, wo ye bixu *(jiang). you must speak English I also must speak “You must speak English, so must I.” Li (1999, 2007) also maintains that bu functions as an adjunct adjoined to X’ (Pre’, Asp’, Mod’, etc.), with supporting evidence from multiple perspectives, including the variable order of manner adverbials, the word order in SOV sentences, as well as the co-occurrence of bu and mei. Such arguments, however, have also been challenged by other researchers (see Chen et al. 2013).

3.2.1.3

The NegP Approach

The NegP Hypothesis, proposed by Pollock (1989), states that not in English is contained within a separate Negation Phrase (NegP) projection, which is situated between I and VP. Two versions of the NegP have been put forward. One holds that the negative marker heads its own NegP, taking a complement phrase (Ouhalla 1990) and the other maintains that the head of NegP is empty and the negative marker is in the specifier position (Radford 2004). The NegP hypothesis has also been extended to Chinese by scholars. Most researchers hold that bu/mei heads the NegP (Cheng and Li 1991; Chiu 1993; Xu 1997; Zhuang 2009; Chen et al. 2013), but debates remain over the position of NegP in the syntactic structure and whether bu/mei occupies the head or specifier of NegP. As the earliest endeavors in applying NegP-based analysis to Chinese negation, Cheng and Li (1991) and Chiu (1993) hold that bu/mei occupies the head of NegP, selecting VP or AuxP as its complement. Cheng and Li consider you in mei(you) as an auxiliary and mei an alternant of bu (see also Wang 1965), while Chiu treats you in mei(you) as an aspect marker heading AspP. They all assume that AspP sits higher than NegP and the lowering of aspect markers such as -le (Asp0 ) are blocked by the Neg0 occupied by bu/mei due to the violation of the Head Movement Constraint, thus accounting for the incompatibility between bu/mei and the perfective aspect marker -le. Cheng and Li’s (1991) and Chiu (1993)’s research contributes to the line of research on NegP with evidence from Chinese. However, their analyses have been subject to criticism. For example, Chao (1994) contends that it is problematic to put AspP higher than AuxP since tense and modal auxiliaries are structurally higher than aspectual elements. Furthermore, the lowering aspect marker cannot be moved

3.2 Analyses of Chinese Negation

49

to Aux before lowering further to VP, which violates the Locality Condition, as illustrated in (23) (cited from (11) in Chao 1994, p. 236). (23) a. Ta ying-gai yi-jing lai le. he may already come LE “He may have come already.” b. *Ta ei yinggai lei yijing lai. he may LE already come Furthermore, if the lowering of -le is blocked by Neg0 , it is not clear why other aspect markers such as -guo and -zhe are not blocked, since it is compatible for mei(you) to co-occur with -guo/zhe, as exemplified in (24) (cited from (12) in Chao 1994, p. 236). (24) a. Wo meiyou qu-guo Zhongguo. I not-Asp go-GUO China “I have not never been to China before.” b. Ta meiyou bi-zhe yanjing. he not-Asp close-ZHE eye “He is/was not having his eyes closed.” As a matter of fact, the Asp-lowering account has been questioned by studies on Chinese aspect framed in the recent Minimalist Program (Chomsky 1995). It is assumed that verbs are fully-fledged with affixes such as -le/zhe/guo in the lexicon and do not require overt movement but feature-checking at LF (Gu 1995, Huang et al. 2009; Li 1999; Xu 1997). Given these counterarguments, the position of NegP in the syntax needs to be re-examined. Accordingly, proponents of the “Head-of-NegP” hypothesis refine their proposals. Xu (1997) gives another two arguments for the head position of bu/mei in NegP. The first is the incorporation data in Chinese, including the merging of bu (“not”) and yao (“need”) to bie (“not, imperative”), and the merging of bu (“not”) and yong (“have to”) into beng (“not have to”). By assuming that modals occupy the head of ModP, Xu thus considers bu as the head of NegP since only heads can be incorporated into each other. The second argument comes from the formation of negative quantifiers. As exemplified in (25), the wh-words shei (“who”) and shenme (“what”) are moved out of the VP across the negative marker bu. Xu argues that the movement of these elements would be blocked if the negator bu was generated in [Spec, NegP] due to violation of the Minimality Principle (Rizzi 1990). Moreover, as shown in (26), the adverb conglai (“ever”) only appears in negative sentences. Xu thus contends that conglai is base-generated in [Spec, AspP] like other adverbs such as changchang (“often”) and yizhi (“always”), but it needs to be licensed by Neg and moved to or through [Spec, NegP], which further confirms the head-status of bu (examples cited from (15) in Xu 1997, pp. 115–116). (25) a. Wo shei dou bu xiang jian. I who each not want see “I want to see no one.”

50

3 Linguistic Analyses of Negation in Chinese, English, and Korean

b. Zhangsan shenme dou bu chi. Zhangsan what each not eat “Zhangsan eats nothing.” (26) a. Zhangsan conglai dou bu xihuan Lisi. Zhangsan ever each not like Lisi “Zhangsan has never liked Lisi.” b. Zhangsan *conglai/yizhi xihuan Lisi Zhangsan always like Lisi Zhangsan always likes Lisi. (27)

It should be noted that Xu assumes that NegP is generated higher than AspP, as schematized in (27) above (adapted from Xu 1997, p. 140), which is contrary to Cheng and Li’s (1991) assumption that AspP sits in a higher position than NegP. More recent research in support of the head status of bu/mei in NegP is Chen et al. (2013) with evidence from negative particle questions. It is observed that the Neg ending in yes–no questions should be on a par with the negation marker for the sentence-internal VP. As in (28a), only meiyou can be used. Accordingly, for the Neg ending in (28b), meiyou is also used instead of bu. Following Cheng et al. (1997),1 Chen et al. (2013) contend that the Neg ending in questions occupies C0 and it is moved from the sentence-internal Neg to check off the [Neg] feature in C0 . Such a movement is possible only when Neg is the head of NegP (examples cited from (32) in Chen et al. 2013, p. 346). (28) a. Hufei meiyou/*bu kan wan na-ben shu. Hufei not see finish that-CL book “Hufei has not finished that book. 1

Cheng et al. (1997) compares the negative particle questions (NPQs) in three dialects of Chinese: Mandarin, Cantonese, and Taiwanese. The use of Neg in NPQs requires the agreement between Neg and Aspect in Mandarin, as exemplified in (28), but not in Cantonese and Taiwanese. Therefore, it is proposed that the Neg in NPQs of Cantonese and Taiwanese is base-generated as question particles in C0 to mark yes–no questions, whereas the Neg in NPQs of Mandarin originates from sentence-internal Neg0 , thus involving Neg0 -to-C0 reanalysis.

3.2 Analyses of Chinese Negation

51

b. Hufei kan wan na-ben shu le meiyou/*bu? Hufei see finish that-CL book LE not/not “Has Hufei finished that book or not?” The studies reviewed above all posit that bu/mei occupies the head of NegP with supporting evidence from different perspectives. Alternatively, some researchers postulate that bu/mei is generated in [Spec, NegP]. For example, Zhuang and Liu (2011) assume that NegP selects AuxP/AspP as its complements and the negation markers bu/mei occupy the specifier of NegP and the optional you in meiyou occupies Aux0 . Since the head of NegP is empty, the trace left behind by the lowering Asp is ungoverned and thus violates the Empty Category Principle (ECP), as illustrated in (29a). By contrast, when there is an AuxP, the trace will be properly governed by the Aux0 , causing no violation of ECP, as illustrated in (29b) (examples adapted from (76) and (85) in Zhuang and Liu 2011, pp. 137–139). In the negation of V-guo/zhe, the trace of the lowering Asp is governed by you, thus causing no violation of ECP. (29) a. Ta [NegP [Spec bu ][Neg’[Neg][AspP [Spec ][Asp’[Asp t i ][VP[Spec ][V’[V he not chi(*-lei )][DP mugua]]]]]]] eat LE papaya “(Intended) He does/did not papaya.” b. Ni [NegP[Spec bu][Neg’[Neg][AuxP[Spec ][Aux’[Aux yinggai] [AspP[Spec ][Asp’[Asp t i ][VP[Spec ] you not should [V” [V chi-lei ][DP pingguo]]]]]]]] eat-LE apple “You should not have eaten the apple.” Zhuang and Liu’s (2011) proposal gives a plausible account for those long-debated issues such as the incompatibility between bu and -le. However, one problem remains that even the trace left by the lowering Asp -le is governed by you, it is still incompatible for mei to co-occur with -le. Furthermore, as mentioned above, the Asp-lowering account has been questioned in the framework of the Minimalist Program.

3.2.1.4

Summary

We have reviewed the main proposals regarding the syntactic structure of Chinese negation. The NegP approach has its merits in incorporating the analysis of Chinese negation into the broader line of research on NegP in formal syntax. Therefore, the present study will follow the NegP hypothesis by Xu (1997) and Chen et al. (2013) that bu/mei occupies the head of NegP. As for the position of NegP in syntax, we follow Xu’s (1997) assumption that TP is situated higher than NegP, followed by ModP and AspP, as represented in the diagram (30). Since we will investigate the interaction between temporal information and negation, we agree with Xu (1997) that time adverbials such as zuotian, (“yesterday”) occupy [Spec, TP]. We also assume

52

3 Linguistic Analyses of Negation in Chinese, English, and Korean

that aspect markers (-le/zhe/guo) are base-generated on verbs and their features are checked off by covertly moving to Asp at LF (Ernst 1995; Gu 1995; Li 2007; Huang et al. 2009). We hold that the (non-)co-occurrence between negation markers and aspect markers is constrained by semantic features, which will be reviewed in the next section. (30)

3.2.2 Semantic Feature Analyses In the previous section, we have analyzed the basic syntactic structure of Chinese negation. This session presents the analyses of the distinctive semantic features encoded with bu/mei. Most previous research has examined the semantic constraints on Chinese negation from three perspectives: tense, aspect, and mood (TAM), though there remain other accounts such as discrete/continuous (Shi 1992), subjective/objective (Bai 2000; Hou 2016), and stage-level/individual-level predicates (Chen and Pan 2017). In the present study, we consider that Chinese negation is encoded with the mood features, specifically, bu with the [-realis] feature, and mei with the [+realis] feature (Zhang and Yan 2010, 2011). However, it should be noted that the TAM complex is interrelated, and both tense and aspect are associated with mood. In the following, before discussing the interaction between Chinese negation and the mood features, we will first review the proposals focused on the restriction of tense and aspect on Chinese negation, which is also related to the analyses of features and interfaces involved with Chinese negation.

3.2 Analyses of Chinese Negation

3.2.2.1

53

Tense: [±past]

Tense locates a situation in time (Comrie 1976). Although Chinese does not have morphological inflections for tense on the verb, temporal devices are used to locate time, such as time adverbials and context (Lin 2003b). Earlier researchers posit that bu and mei are encoded with different temporal features. For example, Lü (1980/1999) suggests that bu can be used in present, past, and future time, while mei can be used in present and past time but not future time. However, many researchers have argued that Chinese negation is not restricted by time and mei can also be used in future time (e.g., Bai 2000; Hsieh 2001; Li and Thompson 1989; Nie 2001; Xiao and McEnery 2008), as illustrated in (31) and (32) (cited from (55) and (56) in Li and Thompson 1989, p. 422). (31) a. Ta bu congming. ([+present]) he not smart “He is not smart.” b. Yiqian zhege difang bu qiong. ([+past]) before this-Cl place not poor “this place was not poor in the past” c. Mingtian ta bu shangban. ([+future]) tomorrow he not go-to-work “he is not going to work tomorrow.” (32) a. Ta mei dai maozi. ([+present]) he not wear hat “He is not wearing a hat.” b. Ta mei mai nafu hua. ([+past]) he not see that-Cl painting “He did not sell that painting.” c. Mingnian zhege shihou wo hai mei biye ne. ([+future]) next-year this-Cl time I still not graduate NE “I will not have graduated yet by this time next year.” While acknowledging that both bu and mei can be used in the present, past, and future, Li (2003) insists that temporal information constrains the choice of negation markers. According to Li, negation can be classified into judgment negation and narrative negation by distinguishing absolute time from relative time. Judgment negation refers to the negation of a certain state or a regular activity. In this case, bu should be used regardless of time, as in (33). In contrast, narrative negation refers to the negation of a specific event. If it is situated in absolute past time, mei should be used, as in (34a), while if it is situated in absolute future time, bu should be used, as in (34b) (examples quoted from (7) and (19) in Li 2003, pp. 2–5). (33) a. Yiqian zheli bu/*mei xiayu. before here not rain “It did not rain here before.” b. Wo bu/*mei jide ta de yangzi le.

54

3 Linguistic Analyses of Negation in Chinese, English, and Korean

I do remember he DE looks LE “I don’t remember what he looks like any longer.” (34) a. Mingnian de huiyi jiang bu/*mei zai Taiguo juxing next-year DE conference will not in Thailand hold “The conference will not be held in Thailand next year.” b. Qunian ta mei/*bu qu Mei-Guo, qu le De-Guo Last year he not go the US go LE Germany “He did not go to the States but went to Germany last year.” As for the use of mei for negating future events, as exemplified in (32c) above, Li contends that the temporal framework is relative future time since there is an additional reference time in the future. He also notes that such a usage of mei is subject to a strict context in which the speaker refutes what is said by others in a dialogue and the adverb hai, “yet” and the sentence-final particle ne are preferably added. Instead of dealing with time holistically, Li scrutinizes the subtle interactions between temporal information and negation by making further classification of time references and predicates. The evidence provided above is plausible, yet it should be noted that Li’s analysis interweaves temporal information with lexical aspect (situation types of the predicate, including statives, activity, etc.). Therefore, Li (2003)’s analysis does not attest that the factor of time alone determines the choice of negation.

3.2.2.2

Aspect

Many researchers consider that Chinese negation is constrained by aspect. Aspect refers to the internal temporal structure of a situation (Comrie 1976, p. 3). The twocomponent theory proposes that there are two types of aspect: viewpoint aspect and situation type (Smith 1997, pp. 2–3). Viewpoint aspect, also known as grammatical aspect, refers to aspectual distinctions which are marked explicitly by linguistic devices. Situation type, also known as lexical aspect, refers to the inherent characteristics of the lexical items that describe the situation. Lexical aspect can be categorized into five types: statives, activities, semelfactives, accomplishments, and achievements, which are defined by three features: dynamicity, durativity, and telicity (Smith 1997, pp. 176–184). Dynamicity refers to whether there involves energy and agency, durativity refers to whether the situation lasts in time, and telicity refers to whether there is an inherent endpoint in the situation. Statives are non-dynamic, durative, and atelic, such as know and like. Activities are dynamic, durative, and atelic, such as dance, eat, etc. Semelfactives are dynamic, atelic, and non-durative, such as cough, flap, etc. Accomplishments are dynamic, durative, and telic events, such as build a house. Achievements are dynamic and telic with an endpoint attained instantaneously, such as find, see, etc.

3.2 Analyses of Chinese Negation

55

Dynamicity: [±dynamic] Some researchers maintain that Chinese negation is encoded with dynamicity. Li and Thompson (1989) and Hsieh (2001) suggest that bu denies a non-dynamic, unchanged situation, including volition, habituality, or future reference, while mei denies a dynamic situation. Lin (2003a) also holds that bu selects a stative situation that requires no input of energy while mei selects an episodic dynamic event. However, Nie (2001) argues that both bu and mei can negate a dynamic situation but they denote different meanings, i.e., bu negates habitual activity while mei negates temporary activity, as shown in (35) (cited from (12) in Nie 2001, p. 23). For cases like (35a), Lin (2003a) argues that the activity denoted by the predicate becomes an attribute of the individual rather than a transient property, so it is stative in nature. In our view, although habitual activity can be understood as being static in nature as Lin said, it denotes what the agent regularly does, so it still has a [+dynamic] feature. Therefore, we agree with Nie (2001) that both bu and mei can negate dynamic activities. (35) a. Xiaowang bu chouyan, ta bu xiguan. Xiaowang not smoke he not accustomed “Xiaowang does not smoke because he is not accustomed to.” b. Xiaowang mei chouyan, ta-de yan chou-wan le. Xiaowang not smoke he-DE cigarette smoke-finish LE “Xiaowang didn’t smoke, because he has finished all his cigarettes.” Moreover, both Nie (2001) and Lin (2003a) observe that mei can also occur with statives, but it indicates that the state does not change, which is slightly different from the case when bu is used, as exemplified in (36a) (cited from (12) in Nie 2001, p. 22). Nie further suggests that such kind of “states” as in (36b) is concerned with a dynamic process, that is, from bad to good, so they are not “pure statives” in Lin’s terms. Some words, such as nianqing, “young”, do not involve such processes, so it cannot be negated by mei. (36) a. Laowang shenti bu hao, yao duo xiuxi. Laowang body not good should much rest “Laowang is not in good health, so he should rest more.” b. Laowang shen-ti mei hao, rang ta xiu-xi. Laowang body not good let he rest “Laowang has not recovered, so let him take a rest.” Given that both bu and mei can negate states and dynamic activities, it seems not tenable to claim that the two negation markers are distinguished by dynamicity features.

56

3 Linguistic Analyses of Negation in Chinese, English, and Korean

Telicity/Boundedness [±telic/bounded] An alternative proposal is that Chinese negation is encoded with telicity/boundedness,2 i.e., whether there is an inherent endpoint in the situation. Shen (1995) maintains that bu negates unbounded constituents, while mei negates bounded constituents. According to him, nouns are bounded, so only mei is used for negating nouns, as in (37a). Here, mei is a negative verb rather than an adverb. Adjectives are unbounded, so bu is used to negate adjectives as in (37b) (examples cited from Shen 1995, p. 377).3 (37) a. mei/*bu shu/shui not book/water b. bu/*mei zhong/yuan not heavy/far In the same vein, Ernst (1995) also claims that bu selects unbounded aspectual situations as its complements, while mei must go with bounded situations. Ernst argues that both the perfective aspect marker -le and the experiential aspect marker -guo denote bounded situations, so bu is incompatible with them, while mei should be used, as exemplified in (38) (quoted from (51) in Ernst 1995, pp. 688–689). It should be noted that -le should be deleted in the negative sentence. Also based on such evidence, Li (2007) considers telicity as one of the features underlying the distinction of bu and mei. (38) a. Wo chi-le mugua. I eat-LE papaya “I ate the papaya.” b. Wo meiyou/*bu chi (*le) mugua I not eat-LE papaya “I did not eat papaya.” c. Wo meiyou/*bu chi-guo mugua. I not eat-GUO papaya “I have not ever eaten papaya.” In addition, Ernst provides more evidence to support his argument. First, bu cannot negate resultative verb compounds, which usually represent achievement or accomplishment4 with the [+bounded] feature, as shown in (39a). By contrast, statives and activity situations are essentially unbounded, thus compatible with bu. Secondly, bu can co-occur with the imperfective aspect marker zai- and -zhe, which is unbounded 2

These two terms are mostly interchangeable in the literature though some researchers (e.g., Depraetere 1995) refer to telicity as inherent, potential endpoint, while boundedness as actual endpoint. We will not distinguish these two terms in this book. 3 Shen (1995) admits that mei can also negate adjectives when aspect markers such as “-le” are added after adjectives and this makes them bounded. For example, to negate “yezi huang le, the leaves have turned yellow”, one should say yezi mei huang, “the leaves have not turned yellow”. 4 Resultative compounds in Chinese can express achievement (e.g., kan-jian, “see”) or accomplishment (fei-dao, “fly to”) (see Lin 2003b; Wu 2002).

3.2 Analyses of Chinese Negation

57

by definition, as shown in (39b) and (39c) (examples quoted from (55) and (61) in Ernst 1995, pp. 690–694). Thirdly, bu usually negates habitual, future, volition, and conditional situations, all of which are considered as unbounded. In line with Huang (1988), Ernst assumes that bu is attached to an empty modal when negating these situations. (39) a. Wo bu/*mei na-dao qian jiu zou le I not hold-to money then leave LE “I left without getting the money.” b. Hongmei bu zai shuohua Hongmei not ZAI talk “Hongmei is not talking.” c. Ta laoshi bu kan zhe wo. he always not look ZHE me “He is always not looking at me.” However, Ernst’s arguments encounter difficulties. Whereas pure statives involving no change can only be negated by bu rather than mei, dynamic activities can be negated by bu or mei, eliciting a habitual and episodic reading, respectively, as illustrated in (35) above., bu can also be used to negate resultative verb compounds in conditional clauses, as exemplified in (40) (cited from the BCC corpus5 ), in contrast with (39a) above. (40) Wo bu na-dao qian, yi ge ye bu rang shang chuan. I not take-to money, one CL also not let on ship “If I do not get the money, no one can board the ship.” Data from a corpus-based study by Xiao and McEnery (2008) show that both bu and mei can be used to negate zai- and -zhe, as exemplified in (41) and (42) (cited from (10d), (11a), (16b), and (20c) in Xiao and McEnery 2008, pp. 26–31). Although Ernst acknowledges that the adverb laoshi, “always” invokes a habitual reading in (39c), he fails to consider the case when such an adverb is deleted, and an episodic reading is obtained, as shown in (42b). In this case, mei should be used. Interestingly, bu should be used for negating V-zhe in the conditional clause, as in (42c). (41) a. Ta bu zai zhao fangzi. He not ZAI look-for house ‘He is not looking for a house.’ b. Tamen mei zai wei ziji kaituo. They not ZAI for self absolve “They are not absolving themselves from guilt.” (42) a. Guai-bu-de ni bu ji zhe ba an diao qu. No-wonder you not hurry ZHE BA I send-off go “No wonder you do not hurry to send me off to go there.” b. Ta *bu/mei kan-zhe wo. 5

BCC refers to Beijing Language and Culture University Corpus Center, which is a large-scale Mandarin Chinese corpus online. The website is http://bcc.blcu.edu.cn/.

58

3 Linguistic Analyses of Negation in Chinese, English, and Korean

Fig. 3.1 Illustration of “realized aspect” and “unrealized aspect” in Nie (2001)

he not look-ZHE I “He is not looking at me.” c. Ni bu kan-zhe ta hai bu xing. You not look-ZHE she still not fine “It won’t do if you don’t keep an eye on her.” As reviewed above, the proposal of boundedness/telicity could cover quite a few aspects related to the distinctive distribution of bu and mei, yet the main problems seem to be that it cannot account for the co-occurrence of bu and the imperfective aspect markers (zai- and -zhe) and the co-occurrence of mei and atelic situations (activities). Realization: [±realized] Different from the views above, some researchers posit that the choice of bu and mei depends on whether the situation is realized or not. Xu (1997) contends that zai-V denotes a “unrealized” ongoing activity, while V-le/zhe/guo denotes a “realized” activity or state. Given the compatibility between bu and zai-V but not V-le/zhe/guo, Xu concludes that bu is a general negative marker incompatible with [+realized] feature. In line with Xu, Nie (2001) divides Chinese aspect into realized aspect and unrealized aspect. “Unrealized aspect” refers to the period between the initial point and the realized point of the situation, whereas “realized aspect” refers to the period after the realized point of the situation, as illustrated in Fig. 3.1(cited from Nie 2001, p. 26). Specifically, according to Nie, “realized aspect” covers situations such as episodic events (the perfective aspect, marked by -le), change of state, the experiential aspect marked by -guo, durative aspect marked by -zhe, as well as realized events in a relative future time, all of which should be negated by mei. By contrast, “unrealized aspect” covers situations such as habitual activities in the present or past, volition, states, and unrealized events in an absolute future time or conditionals, which should be negated by bu. Such a categorization seems to be promising in accounting for the distinct distribution of bu and mei, however, it is untenable to consider mei as the negation marker for the durative aspect regardless of specific context. As attested in our review above, bu can be used when V-zhe denotes a habitual activity, or functions as an adverbial of another verb phrase, or when it appears in a conditional clause.

3.2 Analyses of Chinese Negation

3.2.2.3

59

Mood: [±realis]

Different from tense and aspect, mood is not concerned with any characteristic of the event but refers to the status of the proposition made by the speaker (Palmer 2001, p. 1). The binary distinction of realis/irrealis has been used more often than traditional terms such as declarative/non-declarative. Cross-linguistic studies have found that the categorization of realis/irrealis varies across different languages since different probabilities are attached to realis/irrealis and the speaker’s subjective attitude matters more than the objective reality (Roberts 1990; Givón 1994; Mithun 1995; Fleischman 1995). For example, in some languages like Central Pomo and Caddo, the realis marker is used when the speaker portrays the relevant situation as certain to occur or he/she has a stronger expectation of the predicted events, though the irrealis marker is more frequently used in future situations (Chafe 1995). While acknowledging such variations, Elliott (2000) emphasizes the prototypical nature of the grammatical category of “reality status”, defined as “the grammaticalized expression of location in either the real or some unreal world, its component contrasting terms being realis and irrealis with generalized semantic functions” (pp. 66–67). Elliott investigated the semantic properties of the realis/irrealis distinction across 16 unrelated languages and summarized the typical semantic contexts for realis and irrealis as the following (p. 81): Realis: an event that is perceived as having taken place or at least having been initiated; Irrealis: (1) potential events; (2) events whose occurrence is dependent on certain conditions, including counterfactuals; (3) events which are qualified by modality; (4) commands. Within this background, some Chinese researchers attribute the distinction of bu and mei to the mood features: bu negates irrealis situations, while mei negates realis situations (Shi 2001; Wang 2007; Zhang and Yan 2010, 2011; Wang 2012). Shi (2001) implies the interaction between reality status and Chinese negation by using the terms “realis/subjunctive”. He illustrated his argument with the negation of the resultative complement and the durative aspect (-zhe), as exemplified in (43) and (44) (cited from (7), (11), and (14) in Shi 2001, pp. 133–134). In realis situations, as in (43a) and (44a), mei should be used, whereas in irrealis situations, as in (43b) and (44b), bu can be used. (43) a. Wo *bu/meiyou kan-wan na-ben shu I not look-finish that-CL book “I have not finished reading that book.” b. Bu kan wan na-ben shu wo shi bu hui shuijiao de not look finish that-CL book I be not will sleep DE “If I have not finished that book, I will not sleep.” (44) a. Ta *bu/mei ting zhe shouyinji he not listen ZHE radio “He is not listening to the radio.”

60

3 Linguistic Analyses of Negation in Chinese, English, and Korean

b. Ta bu ting zhe shouyinji jiu xue bu jinqu he not listen ZHE radio then study not inside “He would not focus on his study without listening to the radio.” Wang (2007) explicitly proposes that the distribution of bu and mei corresponds with irrealis and realis, respectively. By dividing sentences into states and events, Wang argues that realis/irrealis is used for the categorization of events. According to Wang, realis refers to specific events that are occurring or have occurred, while irrealis refers to future events, volition, habitual, or hypothetical. Such observations are also made in Wang’s (2012) study on the ingredients of counterfactuality in Mandarin Chinese. As a study focusing on the interaction between negation and realis/irrealis, Zhang and Yan (2010, 2011) consider reality status as the critical factor underlying the distribution of bu/mei. In their work, reality status is defined by external temporal structure, perceivability, and the speaker’s certainty. Realis refers to actualized or ongoing, perceivable, and high-certainty situations, while irrealis refers to future, unperceivable, and low-certainty situations. It is noted that one of these three factors would suffice to define the reality status but situations that satisfy all three factors are typical realis or irrealis situations, as summarized in Table 3.1. Different from Wang (2007), Zhang and Yan consider states as irrealis situations, yet they all categorize future activities as irrealis and bu should be used. This is implausible since it has been attested that mei can be used to negate the realization of a future activity when there is a reference to time, as in (32c) above. Recall that in Central Pomo and Caddo as mentioned above, a future event can be considered as realis when it has a high certainty. The categorization of the future in Chinese in terms of realis/irrealis may be similar to these languages. When a certain event is perceived as realized in future, such a situation can be negated by mei. However, as pointed out by Li (2003), the use of mei in future time is restricted by discourse factors. Therefore, we adjust Zhang and Yan’s proposal by categorizing non-realized events in absolute future time as typical irrealis situations whereas “to-be-realized” events in relative future time as untypical realis situations. Table 3.1 The typical and untypical situations of realis and irrealis categorized in Zhang and Yan (2010)

Irrealis

Realis

Typical

Deontic modality (e.g. keyi, “can”; yinggai, “should”)

Existence Possession Realization of activities Past experiences of events

Untypical

Property Habitual activity Future activity Mental state Abstract relations Ability Possibility

Realization of mental state Comparison relations Presupposition in discourse

3.2 Analyses of Chinese Negation

61

Table 3.2 The [±realis] features represented in multiple categories of licensing contexts Categories of licensing contexts

Features [+realis]

[–realis]

Temporal information

Past episodic events

Absolute future events Past habitual activities

Lexical aspect

Achievements/accomplishments

Statives

Grammatical aspect (declarative matrix sentences)

The perfective aspect (-le) The experiential aspect (-guo) The durative aspect (-zhe)

\

Hypothetical context (conditional clauses)

\

Potential complement in conditionals Descriptive complement in conditionals The durative aspect in conditionals

Based on Zhang and Yan (2010)’s proposal and previous analyses of the interactions between time/aspect and Chinese negation as reviewed above, the present study will focus on four categories of licensing contexts that represent the [±realis] features, including temporal information, lexical aspect, grammatical aspect, and hypothetical context, as presented in Table 3.2. The contexts with the [+realis] feature license the use of mei, whereas those with the [–realis] feature license the use of bu. Based on Zhang and Yan (2010)’s proposal and previous analyses of the interactions between time/aspect and Chinese negation as reviewed above, the present study will focus on four categories of licensing contexts that represent the [±realis] features, including temporal information, lexical aspect, grammatical aspect, and hypothetical context, as presented in Table 3.2. The contexts with the [+realis] feature license the use of mei, whereas those with the [–realis] feature license the use of bu. To apply the Feature Reassembly Hypothesis (see Sect. 2.3) in our study, we assume that bu bears an uninterpretable [–realis] feature, [uIRR], whereas mei bears an uninterpretable [+realis] feature, [uR].6 These features could be checked off before entering computation at LF when there is a match between the uninterpretable mood features in NegP and the interpretable mood features in ModP, as illustrated in (45). However, if there is a mismatch, the uninterpretable features in NegP cannot be eliminated and the derivation would crash, resulting in ungrammatical sentences. Following the feature schema of wh-indefinites in Gil and Marsden (2013, p. 126), we represent the feature set of bu and mei as in (46). (45) 6

As noted in Gil and Marsden (2013, p. 145), the idea of applying semantic properties or features in syntactic derivation has been done in previous studies on polarity sensitivity (e.g., Giannakidou 2006; Tanaka and Tsoulas 2006). Gil and Marsden employ an uninterpretable nonveridical feature [uNV] as the licensing operator of the polarity item “any” in English and wh-words as wh-existentials in Chinese (p. 126).

62

3 Linguistic Analyses of Negation in Chinese, English, and Korean

[TP [NegP Neg[uIRR/uR] [ModP Mod[IRR/R] …]]] Checking (Agree)

(46) bu:

mei:

Within the framework of the Interface Hypothesis (see Sect. 2.2), Chinese negation, constrained by those multiple categories of factors/contexts summarized in Table 3.2, is assumed to be involved with multiple interfaces. This will be analyzed and illustrated with specific examples in Sect. 3.2.3. Thus, we will not elaborate the choice of bu/mei in each category of these contexts here.

3.2.2.4

Summary

The proposals discussed above demonstrate a complicated picture regarding the constraints on negation in Chinese. Although time does not determine the choice of bu and mei, it interacts with aspect and mood, and indirectly restricts the use of negation markers. The accounts of dynamicity and boundedness/telicity fail to capture those derived usage of bu/mei, such as the negation of achievement in hypothetical context and past habitual activity by bu, and the negation of change of state and future events with relative time reference by mei. The dichotomy of realized/unrealized aspect fails to cover the negation of durative aspect by bu rather than mei in case of habitual activities or hypothetical contexts. As for the dichotomy of realis/irrealis mood, it seems to be more explanatory by distinguishing typical and untypical situations in which bu/mei occurs. Therefore, the present study will follow this proposal (with a mild adjustment in the categorization of future events) and attribute the distribution of bu/mei to the mood features ([±realis]).

3.2.3 Interface Analyses The previous sections have reviewed existing analyses of the syntactic structure and semantic features of Chinese negation and have determined the linguistic analyses we will follow in the present study. Based on these analyses, this session will further analyze the interfaces involved with Chinese negation. According to Sorace (2011), “interface” is conceptualized as syntactic structures or features that are sensitive to conditions of varying nature. Based on this interpretation, apart from narrow syntax, we have identified multiple internal interfaces involved with Chinese negation: the syntax-semantics interface, the syntax-morphology interface, and the syntax-semantic-morphology interface, introduced below.

3.2 Analyses of Chinese Negation

3.2.3.1

63

Narrow Syntax

The Narrow syntax interface can be defined as structures that are sensitive to syntactic conditions. In previous studies, the choice between different auxiliaries in cliticclimbing constructions in Italian (Sorace 1993), the long-distance wh-movement in English (White and Genesee 1996), and the placement of clitics in Spanish (Montrul 2010) are all considered as involving narrow syntax. We propose that the position of bu/mei in negative constructions can be considered as involving narrow syntax.7 Since previous research on L2 acquisition of Chinese negation has found that L2 learners readily establish the position of bu/mei in simple predicate sentences (to be reviewed in Chap. 4), the present study will focus on the negation of sentences with more complex predicates, that is, verbal complement constructions, including the potential complement construction (PCC), the descriptive complement construction (DCC), and the resultative complement construction (RCC), as exemplified in (47) (cited from (2), (28), and (32) in Lin 2003a, pp. 426–441). We have assumed that Chinese negation markers bu/mei have their own projection NegP and precede AspP and VP in the syntactic structure. This applies in the negation of RVC, with mei heading NegP and preceding the verbal complement phrase (VP). In contrast, in the negation of PCC, bu is a negative infix, corresponding to the affirmative particle -de8 (Lin 2003a) and thus cannot be moved to Neg, which is the position of the sentential negation marker. As for the negation of DCC, bu negates the complement kuai, “fast” in its adjacency instead of negating the whole predicate (Lee and Pan 2001), and thus cannot be moved to Neg either.9 (47) a. Wo kan-bu-dong /*bu kan-dong zhe-ben shu. I read-not-understand / not read-understand this-CL book “He cannot understand this book.” b. Ta pao-de bu kuai /*bu pao-de kuai. he run-DE not fast / not run-DE fast “He does not run very fast/He did not run very fast.” 7 The concept of “narrow syntax” is controversial among researchers. Some researchers (e. g. Montrul 2011, p. 603) argue that all sentences are dependent on the context in the discourse. Here we follow the identification of “narrow syntax” in previous studies (e.g. White and Genesee 1996) and consider the placement of negation markers as involving “narrow syntax” since misplacement of bu/mei in different verbal complement constructions in declarative sentences (e.g. “*V+mei+C”) will render the sentences illicit regardless of the context. This also explains our use of isolated sentences in the judgment test (see Appendix 2). More discussions of this issue can be seen in Sect. 8.2.3.1. 8 Though “V+bu+C” corresponds to “V+de+C” in the surface structure, the former has a much higher frequency in Mandarin Chinese than the latter (Shi 1992). Historical linguists reveal that these two forms are not related with each other diachronically (for details, see Wu 2002). 9 In Mandarin Chinese, except the descriptive meaning (in terms of manner/degree), the postverbal phrase “V-de+C” can also convey resultative or potential meaning (see Xu 1997; Lin 2003a; Huang et al. 2009). For the resultative reading, the negative form is “mei+V-de+C”, e.g., Ta mei/*bu pao-de hen kuai, “he did not run very fast”). For the potential reading, the negative form is “V-bu-C”, e.g., Ta pao-bu/*mei-kuai, “he cannot run fast.” The negative form “mei+V-de+C” is not examined in the present study.

64

3 Linguistic Analyses of Negation in Chinese, English, and Korean

c. Ta mei nong-dong / *nong mei dong zhe-ge lilun. he not make-understand / make not understand this-CL theory “He has not understood this theory.” 3.2.3.2

The Syntax-Semantics Interface

The syntax-semantics interface can be defined as structures that are sensitive to both syntactic and semantic conditions. Previous studies have covered the following structures involving the syntactic-semantics interfaces: the variation of word order in qui…de AP (“who (of) AP”) related with the interpretation of AP in French (Dekydtspotter and Sprouse 2001), the variation of particles and corresponding interpretation of the wh-words in Korean (Choi 2009), and the wh-words c-commanded by different licensers carrying non-factive meaning in Chinese (Yuan 2010). Based on previous analyses on Chinese negation, we examine the syntax-semantics interface in the following three cases.10 The first case is the choice of negation markers in different temporal frameworks. As reviewed earlier, temporal information affects the aspectual readings of activities, which then constrains the choice of negation markers. In the indefinite past time denoted by yiqian, “before”, the predicate he-pijiu in (48a) receives a habitual reading, and thus bu should be used.11 By contrast, in absolute past time denoted by zuotian, “yesterday”, as in (48b), the same predicate receives an episodic reading, and thus mei should be used.12 When situated in absolute future time denoted by mingtian, “tomorrow”, as in (48c), the event shangban, “go to work” is a future activity that has not happened at the time of speaking, and thus bu should be used. The examples in (48) are represented in the diagrams in (49). (48) a. Xiaoli yiqian bu/*mei he pijiu. Xiaoli before not rain drink beer “Xiaoli used to not drink before.” 10

The scope of negation is another important case involving the syntax-semantics interface. The placement of negation markers and adverbs could lead to different readings in terms of negative scope (e.g. Teng 1973; Yuan 2000). For example, “Ta jingchang bu lai” means “He often does not come”, whereas “Ta bu jingchang lai” means “He does not come often”. Since the present study focuses on the choice of negation markers bu/mei in Chinese, we did not touch upon the issue about the scope of negation. Future research may address this issue. 11 Here we are not implying that the time adverbial yiqian is always associated with habitual aspect. The interpretation of the predicate is also subject to the lexical aspect and grammatical aspect of the predicate. When the predicate denotes an activity and there are no grammatical aspect markers, a past habitual reading is obtained. When the predicate is statives, such as Ta yiqian bu pang (“he was not fat before.)”, it is simply the negation of a past state. When there is a grammatical aspect marker, such as Ta Yiqian mei qu-guo Meiguo (“He has not been to the U.S. before”), it is the negation of past experiences. In the present study, we only choose bare activity verbs co-occurring with yiqian to examine the negation of past habitual activities. 12 One may argue that bu can be used to negate the volition of the speaker. However, the volition reading needs to be triggered by additional lexical devices (such as adverbs jiu, “just”, or guyi, “intentionally”, etc.) or contextual information as suggested by Wang (2011, p. 308). In (48b), the episodic reading is much stronger than the volitional reading.

3.2 Analyses of Chinese Negation

b. Zuotian Xiaoli mei/*bu he pijiu. Yesterday Xiaoli not drink beer “Xiaoli did not drink beer yesterday.” c. Xiaoli mingtian bu/*mei shangban. Xiaoli tomorrow not go-to-work “Xiaoli is not going to work tomorrow.” (49) a.

b.

65

66

3 Linguistic Analyses of Negation in Chinese, English, and Korean

The second case is the choice of negation markers for different types of lexical aspects, including statives and achievements/accomplishments in declarative sentences (in contrast with the case of the conditional clause introduced later). Pure statives13 are negated by bu. By contrast, achievements/accomplishments expressed by resultative verb compounds in declarative matrix sentences are negated by mei.14 The contrast is exemplified in (50) and represented in the diagrams in (51). (50) a. Xiaoma bu/*mei renshi na-wei laoshi. Xiaoma not know that-CL teacher “Xiaoma does not know that teacher.” b. Xiaoma mei/*bu xie-wan zuoye Xiaoma not write-finish assignment “Xiaoma did not finish the assignment.” (51) a.

b.

13

Here pure statives are distinguished from “change of state” as suggested by Shen (1995) mentioned above. 14 Resultative compounds in Chinese can express achievement (e.g., kan-jian, “see”) or accomplishment (fei-dao, “fly to”) (see Lin 2003b; Wu 2002). The distinction between achievement verb compounds and accomplishment verb compounds is not critical in the present study given that both should be negated by mei in declarative matrix sentences.

3.2 Analyses of Chinese Negation

67

Thirdly, it is the choice of negation markers in conditional clauses. In declarative sentences, bu should be placed after the particle DE and the complement in descriptive complement constructions, as in (47b) above. Besides, bu should be placed between the verb and the potential complement, as in (47a) above. However, in conditional clauses, the hypothetical context licenses the placement of bu in front of “V-de+C” and the use of bu in front of “V+C” as in (52), illustrated in the diagrams in (53). (52) a. Xiaoli bu pao-de kuai yidianr, jiu hui chidao. Xiaoli not run-DE fast a little then will late “If Xiaoli did not run faster, she will be late.” b. Xiaoma bu xie-wan zuoye, jiu dei dai zai jia-li. Xiaoma not write-finish homework, then must stay at home-in “If Xiaoma did not finish his homework, then he must stay at home.” (53) a.

b.

68

3.2.3.3

3 Linguistic Analyses of Negation in Chinese, English, and Korean

The Syntax-Morphology Interface

The syntax-morphology interface can be defined as structures that are sensitive to both syntactic and morphological conditions. In previous studies, verbal and nominal inflections associated with syntactic structures have been identified as involving the syntax-morphology interface (e.g., White 2003; Jiang 2004, 2007; Hopp 2010). As reviewed in Sect. 3.2.2.2, the choice of negation markers interacts with different aspect markers. For both the perfective aspect marker -le and the experiential aspect marker -guo, mei should be used, as exemplified in (54ab) below. As for the durative aspect marker -zhe, mei should be used when it is used in declarative matrix sentences and denotes an episodic event rather than a habitual situation, as shown in (54c). It should also be noted that when co-occurring with mei, -le should be deleted,15 -guo should be retained, and -zhe can be optionally deleted. The examples in (54) are represented in the tree diagram in (55). (54) Xiaoli mei/*bu chi-(*le) dangao. Xiaoli not eat-LE cake “Xiaoli did not eat the cake.” b. Xiaoli mei/*bu chi-guo Faguo cai. Xiaoli not eat-GUO France dish “Xiaoli has not ever had French dishes.” c. Xiaoli *bu/mei dai-(zhe) ditu. Xiaoli not bring-(ZHE) map “Xiaoli is not taking the map with him.” 15

Zhang and Yan (2010) propose that the incompatibility between mei and -le is not due to semantic conflict but the dropping of -le in diachronic language development. They provide evidence of the co-occurrence of mei and -le in earlier Chinese texts and suggest that the competition between the two constructions mei+V and mei+V-le, which could convey the same meaning, leads to the dropping of -le and the illicit co-occurrence of mei and V-le in Mandarin Chinese. Such an analysis seems to be more convincing than previous accounts in the literature, such as the you-le alternation account (Wang 1965) and the semantic conflict account (Lin 2003a), both of which have incurred criticism (see Chen et al. 2013; Ernst 1995).

3.2 Analyses of Chinese Negation

69

(55)

3.2.3.4

The Syntax-Semantics-Morphology Interface

The syntax-semantics-morphology interface can be understood as syntactic structures that are constrained by semantic and morphological factors. In previous studies, one representative work on multiple-interface conditions is Mai’s (2013) study on the acquisition of the Chinese shi…de cleft, which is considered as involving the syntaxsemantics-discourse interface since this structure is sensitive to temporal meaning, telicity, and discourse information. In declarative matrix sentences, when -zhe marks a durative episodic event, the negation marker mei should be used, as shown in (56a), while in conditional clauses, the hypothetical context licenses the use of bu, as exemplified in (56b). Both semantic and morphological factors are involved with the negative structure in this case, thus involving the syntax-semantics-morphology interface. The conditional clause in (56b) is represented in the tree diagram in (57). (56) (56) a. Xiaoli mei/*bu dai-(zhe) ditu. Xiaoli not take-(ZHE) map “Xiaoli is not taking the map with him.” b. Xiaoli bu dai-(zhe) ditu, jiu hui milu. Xiaoli not bring-(ZHE) map then will lost-way “Xiaoli would get lost if he did not take the map with him.” (57)

70

3.2.3.5

3 Linguistic Analyses of Negation in Chinese, English, and Korean

Summary

To sum up, we assume that Chinese negation is involved with multiple interfaces. Apart from narrow syntax, the present study focuses on three categories of internal interfaces, including the syntax-semantics interface, the syntax-morphology interface, and the syntax-semantics-morphology interface. Since we intend to examine L1-English and L1-Korean learners’ acquisition of Chinese negation, a comparison between negation in Chinese, English, and Korean will be made in the following two sections.

3.3 English Negation in Comparison with Chinese Negation Negation in English is categorized into two types, namely the not-negation, including not and its contracted form n’t, and the no-negation, including no, nobody, nothing, none, never, no one, neither, nor, and nowhere (Biber et al. 1999, p. 159). The two major negative forms are not and no, the former negating verbs, copula, and adjectives and the later negating nouns. Therefore, in the negation of verbal constituents, the negative form in English corresponding to bu/mei in Chinese is not. Syntactically, we have assumed that Chinese negation markers bu/mei occupy the head of NegP, higher than ModP, AspP, and VP. In contrast, in modern English, not requires the “do support” to negate verbs. According to a widely-accepted analysis (Pollock 1989; Zanuttini 1997), not serves as the specifier of NegP and the head remains null, as represented in the following tree diagram (58) (adapted from Radford 2004, p. 140). In the surface structure, not is preverbal, similar to the position of bu/mei in simple predicate sentences. (58)

3.3 English Negation in Comparison with Chinese Negation

71

Semantically, the complementary distribution bu/mei in Chinese is subject to the mood features ([±realis]). It is observed that the realis/irrealis dimension is also at work in English, though it is not overtly marked by morphemes (Chafe 1995; Givón 1995). Chafe (1995) surmises that the distinction of realis/irrealis is associated with specificity in English in that a direct object referent tends to receive a non-specific reading in irrealis contexts, as in “I will have something to read on the plane” (p. 363). Givón (1995) also holds that indefinite objects are interpreted as referring in realis contexts such as the past-time event in “he bought a new car”, but in irrealis contexts, they are interpreted as non-referring, such as “he may buy a new car” (p. 116). However, such a distinction has no impact on the use of the negation marker not, as shown in (59) (cited from (37a) in Givón 1995, p. 128). (59) a. She did not leave. (indicative, [+realis]) b. I prefer that she not leave. (subjunctive, [-realis]) Therefore, the feature set of not can be schematically represented in (60a) and the mapping relations between Chinese negation markers bu/mei and English negation marker not can be illustrated in (60b). (60) a. not: b.

bu: [‒realis] mei: [+realis]

Not

72

3 Linguistic Analyses of Negation in Chinese, English, and Korean

3.4 Korean Negation in Comparison with Chinese Negation In Korean, there are mainly two sentential negation markers16 : an(i)17 and mos (Kim 2000; Lee and Ramsey 2000; Martin 1992; Sohn 1994). Syntactically, they are either treated as a prefix heading the NegP or an adverb occupying the Spec of NegP (Kim 2000), represented in the diagrams in (61). Both views assume the successive headmovement of the verb to the higher functional head and thus Neg precedes the verb predicates in the surface form, as exemplified in (62) (diagrams and examples cited from (147) and (148) in Kim 2000, p. 60), which is similar to the position of bu/mei in simple predicate sentences. (61) a.

b.

(62) Sensayngnim-un mawul-ul an ttena-si-yess-ta teacher-TOP town-ACC NEG leave-HON-PST-DC “The teacher did not leave the town.” Korean negation is further differentiated between long and short negative forms, the former being more formal than the latter (Kim 2000; Martin 1992; Sohn 1994). The example in (62) belongs to the category of short-form negation, in which the negation marker precedes the predicate. By contrast, in long-form negation, the predicate, attached with the suffix nominalizer ci-, precedes the negation marker. Then the light verb ha, which means “do, to be in the state of”, is inserted after the negator, resulting in a complex nominalized embedded clause “…V-ci an(i) ha-…”, 16

Another important negation marker in Korean is mal (Sohn 1994). It is used in imperative and propositive sentences, expressing “stop doing”, “don’t do”, thus corresponding to the imperative negator bie (“do not”) in Chinese. Since the present study does not discuss the imperative negator bie in Chinese, we will not discuss further the usage of mal in Korean here. 17 In speech, the contracted form an is usually used, while in writing both an and ani are used (Sohn 1994).

3.4 Korean Negation in Comparison with Chinese Negation

73

as exemplified in (63) (cited from (150) in Kim 2000, p. 61), in contrast with (62) above. Therefore, the position of negation markers in Korean is more flexible than the position of bu/mei in simple predicate sentences in Chinese, which is usually preverbal. (63) John-un mawul-ul ttena-ci an-ha-yess-ta. John-TOP town leave-NOM Neg-do-PST-DECL “John did not leave the town.” Semantically, an(i) and mos in Korean are sensitive to the lexical meaning of the predicate and they convey different negative meanings. Specifically, an(i) is the most general negative, denoting simple negation and negative intent, whereas mos is a negative modal, expressing inability, impossibility, or disapproval from others (Chung 2007; Lee and Ramsey 2000; Sohn 1994). Examples are given in (64) (cited from (2) in Chung 2007, p. 97). (64) a. eysute-ka an(i) ca-n-ta. Esther-NOM NEG sleep-PRES-DC “Esther doesn’t sleep/isn’t sleeping.” b. eysute-ka mos ca-n-ta. Esther-NOM NEG sleep-PRES-DC “Esther cannot/is not allowed to sleep.” Accordingly, the use of an(i)/mos is restricted by the lexical meaning of the verbs they co-occur with. For example, an(i) cannot be used to negate perception verbs, such as alta, “know”, or verbs that incorporate intention, such as kyentita, “tolerate”, and chamta, “endure”, however, the use of mos is quite natural, as shown in (65a). This is a partially similar to lexical aspectual constraint on Chinese negation that bu is used for negating statives, such as zhidao, “know”, etc. On the other hand, mos cannot co-occur with intention-denoting constructions such as -lyeko, “intending to”, or with verbs that represent situations that could be avoided if one had the ability, such as mang-hata, “fail, be ruined”, yemlye-hata, “be concerned”, and komin-tata, “agonize”, while an(i) can be used, as shown in (65b) (examples cited from (5) and (7) in Lee and Ramsey 2000, pp. 217–218). (65) a. Na-nun kulen sasil ul cenhye *an al.yess.ta /al.ci mos hayess.ta. I-TOP those fact-PL ACC completely NEG know-PST-DC /know-NOM NEG do-PST-DC “I completely didn’t know those facts.” b. Na-nun oykwuk yehayng ul *mos/an kalyeko hanta I-TOP abroad travel ACC NEG go-intend do-PRES-DC “I don’t intend to go on a vacation abroad.” Unlike Chinese negation, the [±realis] features are not closely related to Korean negation. However, the dichotomy of realis/irrealis is found to neatly characterize the contrast between the two nominalizers in complement clauses, (u)m and ki (e.g., Chang 1996; Horie 2000; Sohn 1994), as illustrated in example (66) (cited from (18)

74

3 Linguistic Analyses of Negation in Chinese, English, and Korean

and (19) in Horie 2000, p. 20). The past event in (66a) is considered as realis, whereas the future event in (66b) is considered as irrealis. (66) a. Ku phikoin-i kyelpaykha-m-I cungmyentoy-ess-ta. the defendant-NOM innocent-Nominalizer-NOM be proved-PST-DC “It was proved that the defendant is innocent.” b. Nayil pi-ka o-ki (-ka) swipta tomorrow rain-NOM come-Nominalizer-NOM easy “It is likely that it will rain tomorrow.” The negative modal, mos, negates possibility and ability, which is in the realm of irrealis, but it cannot be used in other irrealis situations, such as intentions, while an(i) can be used in these cases. Although an(i) could be used in both realis and irrealis situations, it is not used for negating possibility or ability, so it is semantically more restricted than not in English. Therefore, assuming two additional features α and β, we represent the features encoded with an(i) and mos in (67a). The mapping relations between Chinese negation markers bu/mei and Korean negation markers an(i)/mos can be illustrated in (67b). (67) a. an(i):

mos:

b.

bu: [-realis]

mos: modal

mei:[+realis]

an(i)

3.5 Overall Comparison of Negation in Chinese, English, and Korean To summarize, there are similarities and differences between negation in Chinese, English, and Korean. Syntactically, the placement of negation markers in Chinese and Korean is more variable than in English. Chinese negation markers bu/mei precede the verbs in simple predicate sentences, however, in verbal complement constructions, bu should be placed after the main verb in potential/descriptive complement constructions. Korean negation markers an(i)/mos precede the main verbs in shortform negation, while they follow the nominalized predicate in long-form negation. By contrast, English negation marker not needs do-support in negating the predicate, and it usually precedes the predicate, similar to the position of bu/mei in simple predicate sentences.

References Table 3.3 Features encoded in negation in Chinese, English, and Korean

75 Chinese

English18

Korean

Keys: IRR, for the [–realis] feature, R for the [+realis] feature

Semantically, both Chinese and Korean negation are subject to semantic constraints yet in different ways. Negation markers bu/mei in Chinese are constrained by the mood features ([±realis]) and an(i)/mos in Korean are constrained by lexical semantics of the predicate, partially similar to Chinese negation. However, the primary sentential negator not in English is not related to such constraints. The features encoded in negation in these three languages are summarized in Table 3.3.

3.6 Interim Summary In this chapter, we have presented detailed analyses of Chinese negation in terms of interfaces and features based on previous research. Since the present study focuses on the acquisition of Chinese negation by L1-English learners and L1-Korean learners, we have also briefly introduced the properties of negation in English and Korean in comparison with Chinese negation. Based on such analyses, we will raise our research questions regarding L2 acquisition of interfaces/features in the case of Chinese negation by English speakers and Korean speakers. In the following chapter, we will review previous studies on the acquisition of Chinese negation by Chinese children and adult L2 learners.

References Bai, Quan. 2000. Misconceptions in the teaching and learning of bu and mei (you). Language Teaching and Learning (3): 21–25. (In Chinese) Biber, Douglas, Stig Johansson, Geoffrey Leech, Susan Conrad, & Edward Finegan. 1999. Longman grammar of spoken and written English. London: Longman. Chafe, Wallace L. 1995. The realis-irrealis distinction in Caddo, the Northern Iroquoian languages, and English. In Modality in grammar and discourse, eds. Joan Bybee, and Suzanne Fleischman, 349–365. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Chang, Suk-Jin. 1996. Korean. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Chao, Wynn. 1994. Negation as adverb in Chinese. In SOAS working papers in linguistics and phonetics (Vol. 4), 232–242. London: University of London. 18

As noted in Sect. 3.3, the negation marker no in English is mainly used for negating nominal constituents, not for verbs, so we focus on the analysis of not, the sentential negator in English.

76

3 Linguistic Analyses of Negation in Chinese, English, and Korean

Chen, Li, Po Lun Peppina Lee, & Haihua Pan. 2013. The syntactic status of bu in Mandarin. Linguistic Sciences 12 (4): 337–348. (In Chinese) Chen, Li, and Haihua Pan. 2017. A study on the opposite relationship between bu and mei in Modern Chinese. Tongji University Journal (Social science section) 28(1): 104–113. (In Chinese) Cheng, Lisa L.-S., and Yafei Li. 1991. Double negation in Chinese and multi-projections. Paper presented at the 3rd North American Conference on Chinese Linguistics, Cornell University. Cheng, Lisa L.-S., C.-T. James Huang, & C.-C. Jane Tang. 1997. Negative particle questions: a dialectal comparison. In Microparametric Syntax and Dialect Variation, eds. James R. Black, and Virginia Motapanyane: 41–78. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Chiu, Bonnie Hui-Chun. 1993. The inflectional structure of Mandarin Chinese (Doctoral dissertation). University of California. Choi, Myong Hee. 2009. The acquisition of wh-in-situ constructions in second language acquisition (Doctoral dissertation). Georgetown University. Chomsky, Noam. 1995. The minimalist program. Cambridge: MIT Press. Chung, Inkie. 2007. Suppletive negation in Korean and distributed morphology. Lingua 117(1): 95–148. Comrie, Bernard. 1976. Aspect: An introduction to the study of verbal aspect and related problems (Vol. 2). Cambridge: Cambridge university press. Dekydtspotter, Laurent, and Rex A. Sprouse. 2001. Mental design and (second) language epistemology: Adjectival restrictions of wh-quantifiers and tense in English-French interlanguage. Second Language Research 17(1): 1–35. Depraetere, Iise. 1995. On the necessity of distinguishing between (un)boundedness and (a)telicity. Linguistics and Philosophy 18(1): 1–19. Elliott, Jennifer R. 2000. Realis and irrealis: Forms and concepts of the grammaticalisation of reality. Linguistic Typology 4(1): 55–90. Ernst, Thomas. 1995. Negation in Mandarin Chinese. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 13(4): 665–707. Fleischman, Suzanne. 1995. Imperfective and irrealis. In Modality in grammar and discourse, eds. Joan Bybee, and Suzanne Fleischman, 519–551. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Franks, Steven, and Tracy H. King. 2000. A handbook of Slavic clitics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Giannakidou, Anastasia. 2006. Only, emotive factive verbs, and the dual nature of polarity dependency. Language 82(3): 575–603. Gil, Kook-Hee, and Heather Marsden. 2013. Existential quantifiers in second language acquisition: A feature reassembly account. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism 3(2): 117–149. Givón, Talmy. 1994. Irrealis and the subjunctive. Studies in Language 18(2): 265–337. Givón, Talmy. 1995. Modal prototypes of truth and action. In Functionalism and grammar, 112–170. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing. Gu, Yang. 1995. Aspect licensing, verb movement and feature checking. Cahiers de LinguistiqueAsie Orientale 24(1): 49–83. Hou, Ruifen. 2016. On the opposition and neutralization of bu and mei in Mandarin Chinese. Studies of The Chinese Language 3: 303–314. (In Chinese) Hopp, Holger. 2010. Ultimate attainment in L2 inflection: Performance similarities between nonnative and native speakers. Lingua 120(4): 901–931. Horie, Kaoru. 2000. Complementation in Japanese and Korean. In Complementation: Cognitive and Functional Perspectives, ed. Kaoru Horie, 11–32. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing. Hsieh, Miao-Ling. 2001. Form and meaning: negation and question in Chinese (Doctoral dissertation). University of Southern California. Hu, Jianhua. 2007. Negation, focus, and scope. Studies of the Chinese Language (2): 99–112. (In Chinese) Huang, C.-T. James. 1988. Wˇo pˇao de kuài and Chinese phrase structure. Language 64: 274–311. Huang, C.-T. James, Y. -H. Audrey Li, and Yafei Li. 2009. The syntax of Chinese (Vol. 8). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

References

77

Mithun, Marianne. 1995. On the relativity of irreality. In Modality in grammar and discourse, eds. Joan Bybee, and Suzanne Fleischman, 367–388. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Jiang, Nan. 2004. Morphological insensitivity in second language processing. Applied Psycholinguistics 25(4): 603–634. Jiang, Nan. 2007. Selective integration of linguistic knowledge in adult second language learning. Language Learning 57(1): 1–33. Kari, Ethelbert E. 2002. Distinguishing between clitics and affixes in Degema, Nigeria. African Study Monographs 23(3): 91–115. Kim, Jong-Bok. 2000. The grammar of negation: A constraint-based approach. Stanford, Calif: CSLI Publications. Lee, Iksop, and Robert Ramsey. 2000. The Korean language. Albany: State University of New York Press. Lee, Po-Lun Peppina, and Haihua Pan. 2001. The Chinese negation marker bu and its association with focus. Linguistics 39 (4): 703–732. Li, Charles N., and Sandra A. Thompson. 1989. Mandarin Chinese: A functional reference grammar. Berkeley: University of California Press. Li, Mei. 1999. Negation in Chinese (Doctoral dissertation). University of Manchester. Li, Mei. 2007. Negation in Chinese. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press. Li, Tiegen. 2003. The usage of “bu” and “meiyou” and time restriction. Chinese Language Learning (2): 1–7. (In Chinese) Lin, Jo-wang. 2003a. Aspectual selection and negation in Mandarin Chinese. Linguistics 41(3): 425–459. Lin, Jo-wang. 2003b. Temporal reference in Mandarin Chinese. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 12(3): 259–311. Lü, Shuxiang. 1980/1999. Xiandai Hanyu Babaici. Beijing: The Commercial Press. (In Chinese) Mai, Ziyin. 2013. Properties of the (shi)... de focus construction in adult L2 acquisition and heritage language acquisition of Mandarin Chinese (Doctoral dissertation). University of Cambridge. Martin, Samuel E. 1992. A reference grammar of Korean: a complete guide to the grammar and history of the Korean language. Rutland: Charles E. Tuttle. Montrul, Silvina. 2010. Dominant language transfer in adult second language learners and heritage speakers. Second Language Research 26(3): 293–327. Montrul, Silvina. 2011. Multiple interfaces and incomplete acquisition. Lingua 121(4): 591–604. Nie, Renfa. 2001. The semantic features and meanings of time on two negatives: bu and meiyou. Chinese Language Learning (1): 21–27. (In Chinese) Ouhalla, Jamal. 1990. Sentential negation, relativised minimality and the aspectual status of auxiliaries. The Linguistic Review 7(2): 183–231. Palmer, Frank R. 2001. Mood and modality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Pollock, Jean Y. 1989. Verb movement, Universal Grammar, and the structure of IP. Linguistic Inquiry 20: 365–424. Radford, Andrew. 2004. English syntax: An introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Rizzi, Luigi. 1990. Relativized minimality. Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press. Roberts, John R. 1990. Modality in Amele and other Papuan languages. Journal of Linguistics 26(2): 363–401. Shen, Jiaxuan. 1995. Bounded and unbounded. Studies of the Chinese Language(5): 367–380. (In Chinese) Shi, Yuzhi. 1992. Symmetries and asymmetries between affirmation and negation in Chinese. Taipei: Student Book Co., Ltd. (In Chinese) Shi, Yuzhi. 2001. Forms and motivations of Chinese grammar. Nanchang: Jiangxi Education Publishing House. (In Chinese) Smith, Carlota S. 1997. The parameter of aspect. Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Sohn, Ho-Min. 1994. Korean. London: Routledge. Sorace, Antonella. 1993. Incomplete vs. divergent representations of unaccusativity in nonnative grammars of Italian. Second Language Research 9(1): 22–47.

78

3 Linguistic Analyses of Negation in Chinese, English, and Korean

Sorace, Antonella. 2011. Pinning down the concept of “interface” in bilingualism. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism 1(1): 1–33. Tanaka, Hidekazu, and George Tsoulas. 2006. Ellipsis and negative polarity. Unpublished manuscript. University of York. Teng, Shou-hsin. 1973. Scope of negation. Journal of Chinese Linguistics 1(3): 475–478. Wang, Canlong. 2011. The grammatical similarities of the negative words bu and mei in Modern Chinese. Chinese Language (4): 301–312. (In Chinese) Wang, Xiaoling. 2007. The semantic category of Irrealis (Doctoral dissertation). Fudan University. (In Chinese) Wang, William S.-Y. 1965. Two aspect markers in Mandarin. Language 41: 457–470. Wang, Yuying. 2012. The ingredients of counterfactuality in Mandarin Chinese. (Doctoral dissertation). The Hong Kong Polytechnic University. White, Lydia, and Fred Genesee. 1996. How native is near-native? The issue of ultimate attainment in adult second language acquisition. Second Language Research 12(3): 233–265. White, Lydia. 2003. Fossilization in steady state L2 grammars: Persistent problems with inflectional morphology. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 6(02): 129–141. Wu, Fuxiang. 2002a. On the grammaticalization of the potential verb-complement constructions “V de C/V bu C” in Chinese. Studies of the Chinese Language 1: 29–40. (In Chinese) Wu, Ruey-Jiuan Regina. 2002b. Discourse-pragmatic principles for temporal reference in Mandarin Chinese conversation. Studies in Language 26(3): 513–541. Xiao, Richard, and Tony McEnery. 2008. Negation in Chinese: a corpus-based study. Journal of Chinese linguistics 36(2): 274–330. Xu, Ding. 1997. Functional categories in Mandarin Chinese (Vol. 26). Netherlands: Holland Academic Graphics. 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(2): 219–260. Yuan, Yulin. 2000. Negative sentences: its focus, presupposition and scope ambiguity. Studies of the Chinese Language (2): 99–108. (In Chinese) Zanuttini, Raffaella. 1997. Negation and clausal structure: A comparative study of Romance languages. Cambridge: Oxford University Press. Zhang, Lifei, and Chensong Yan. 2010. Realis and Irrealis: the semantic foundation of Chinese negation markers’ grammatical meaning. Foreign Language and Literature 26 (4): 34–40. (In Chinese) Zhang, Lifei, and Chensong Yan. 2011. A cognitive study of Chinese negative construction: A corpus-driven study. Beijing: Higher Education Press. (In Chinese) Zhuang, Huibin. 2009. Syntactic distribution of negative marker bu in Chinese negative statements (Master thesis). Shandong University. Zhuang, Huibin, & Zhenqian Liu 2011. Negative marker bu in Chinese: its nature and features. International Journal of Asian Languages Processing 21(3): 107–160.

Chapter 4

Previous Studies on L1 and L2 Acquisition of Negation in Mandarin Chinese

Abstract Ever since the 1980s, the acquisition of bu/mei has been one of the most heated topics in both first and second language acquisition research. Previous studies on L1 acquisition of Chinese negation have tracked the use of negation markers by Chinese children and described the development sequence of their expression of negation in Chinese. L2 researchers have also attempted to draw the development patterns in the acquisition of Chinese negation markers by L2 learners, conducted error analysis of Chinese learner corpus data, and investigated L2 acquisition of the syntactic and/or semantic properties of Chinese negation. This chapter will review previous studies on the acquisition of Chinese negation by Chinese children and adult L2 Chinese learners, and then discuss the gaps in previous research on L2 acquisition of Chinese negation.

4.1 Introduction As presented in the previous chapter, Chinese negation is expressed by the two primary negation markers, bu and mei. Ever since the 1980s, the acquisition of bu/mei has been one of the most heated topics in both first and second language acquisition research. These studies have yielded abundant findings regarding the general development pattern of Chinese negation in L1 and L2 grammar, transitional errors in the production of L1 acquirers and L2 learners, as well as special issues, such as L1/L2 acquisition of the aspectual constraints on Chinese negation. This chapter will review previous studies on the acquisition of Chinese negation by Chinese children and adult L2 Chinese learners, and then discuss the gaps in previous research on L2 acquisition of Chinese negation.

4.2 L1 Acquisition of Chinese Negation A better understanding of L1 acquisition of Chinese negation can give us more insight into the development pattern of L2 acquisition of Chinese negation. Previous studies on L1 acquisition of Chinese negation tracked the use of negation markers by Chinese © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2023 J. Wang, Interfaces and Features in Second Language Acquisition, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-8629-1_4

79

80

4 Previous Studies on L1 and L2 Acquisition of Negation in Mandarin …

children and described the development sequence of their expression of negation in Chinese, as in Lee (1981), Zhou (2002), Fan (2007), and Zeng (2007). Zhang et al. (2006) examined the negative patterns and the misuse of negation markers bu/mei by Chinese children before age four, while Zhou et al. (2014) explored Chinese children’s gradual establishment of the lexical aspectual constraints on negation. An earlier study by Lee (1981) recorded the development of negation in a Mandarin-speaking child aged 1;5 (years; months) to 1;11. It was found the child’s expression of negation follows the sequence of the disappearance of objects > nonexistence of objects > non-occurrence of events > rejection > denial of a property or state > inability. Lee suggests that such a sequence corresponds to the cognitive development of children. The first three categories about the status of objects or events are assumed to be more easily perceived by the child than the denial of a property or state, which involves more abstract sign-referent operations, and thus is cognitively more complex. Rejection, which is related to the child’s own desires, is less complex than the denial of an object’s name, which is concerned with presuppositions of external entities. In line with Lee (1981), Zhou (2002) also found that Chinese children acquired the negation of volition (rejection) with bu at an earlier stage. Zhou investigated the production of bu and related structures by Chinese children with spoken recording data. The data show that the earliest use of bu appeared at 1;5 and Chinese children used bu mainly for the negation of volition since bu was used mostly before volitional verbs and modals, as well as the infix in potential complement constructions at the early stage (before 2;5). Nevertheless, children gradually extended the use of bu to other non-volitional situations. Another longitudinal study by Fan (2007) documented the use of negative forms (bu/mei(you)/bie) of three Mandarin-speaking children aged 0;10 to 2;6. Echoing the findings of Lee (1981), Fan also attested that the negation of existence/appearance with mei seemed to be the easiest to acquire for Chinese children. In addition, Fan noted that children used bu mostly for the negation of a state or a habitual activity as well as volition. Fan also revealed that simple negation (Neg+V/Adj.) appeared before complex negation (Neg+Verbal complement) in children’s production of bu/mei. Further evidence for the developmental patterns of negation in L1 Chinese grammar comes from a cross-sectional study by Zeng (2007). Four experiments were conducted with 105 Chinese children in three age groups (2;5, 3;3, and 4;5) and a control group of 15 Chinese adolescents aged 13;6. These experiments examined Chinese children’s use of bu/mei in the negation of the existence of objects, volition, completion, state, change of state, and events in absolute future time. Results from elicited production tasks indicate that children acquired the negation of existence with mei as early as 2;5 with a high accuracy (91.4%). Children at 2;5 also gained high sensitivity to the distinction of using bu/mei for negating state/change of state though they had a higher accuracy in negating state (88%) than negating change of state (80%). Chinese children also acquired the use of bu for negating volition earlier (2;5, 82.8%) than the use of mei for negating completion (3;3, 80%). As for the negation of events in absolute future time, children at 2;5 still misused mei (71.4%), whereas those at 3;3 had a higher accuracy (82.9%), and those at 4;5 achieved 100%

4.2 L1 Acquisition of Chinese Negation

81

accuracy. Based on these findings, Zeng proposed the following acquisition sequence in children’s acquisition of negation: existence > state/volition > change of state > occurrence/completion of events > future time. This is largely compatible with the results of previous studies (Fan 2007; Lee 1981; Zhou 2002) which attest that children acquire the negation of existence (mei) and state/volition (bu) at an earlier stage. Focused on the mistakes produced by Chinese children, Zhang et al. (2006) reported two types of mistakes in the negative structures produced by children aged 1;8 to 4. One is the confusion of bu/mei and the overgeneralization of bu, as exemplified in (68). In (68ab), mei should be used, while in (68c), bu should be used to negate the state. It is argued that the overuse of bu is due to its higher frequency than mei in Chinese discourse. The other type is the misplacement of negation markers, as shown in (69) (examples cited from (15), (20), (23), and (25) in Zhang et al. 2006, pp. 73– 75). It is suggested that Chinese children acquire the position of negation markers in verbal complement constructions (VC) later than in subject-predicate (SV) and verbobject constructions (VO), consistent with Fan (2007)’s findings mentioned above. The researchers interpret that children tend to treat verbal complement holistically and place the negation marker in front of the verbal complement constructions. (68) a. -pingzi liekai mei liekai? -*bu liekai. (1;10) bottle break not break not break “-Is the bottle broken? -no, it is not.” b. -zhe-ge you *bu you shui? (1;11) This-CL have not have water “(Intended) Is there water (in the jug)?” c. -mama piaoliang ma? -*meiyou piaoliang (2;1) Mom beautiful Q not beautiful “-Is Mom beautiful? -No, she is not.” (69) a. -Yuanyuan ziji kan. -Yuanyuan *bu kan dong. (1;9) Yuanyuan self look Yuanyuan not look understand “-Yuanyuan can read by herself. -(Intended) Yuanyuan cannot understand it.” b. (zhe-ge che) bi Zhuangzhuang na-ge *bu pao-de kuai. (2;6) this-CL car than Zhuangzhaung that-CL not run-DE fast “(Intended) This car does not run as fast as Zhuangzhuang’s.” In a more recent study, Zhou et al. (2014) examined the acquisition of the restriction of lexical aspect on negation by Chinese children in three age groups. In Mandarin Chinese, bu is compatible with state and activity verbs, but not achievement and accomplishment verbs, whereas mei is compatible with activity, achievement, and accomplishment verbs, but not state verbs. Results from a two-choice forced judgment task with story-telling show that children exhibited a developmental pattern in their choices: children aged between 3;5 and 3;11 responded at chance (50%), those aged 4;0–4;5 gained a higher accuracy (70%), while those aged between 4;7 and 5;0 achieved more than 95% accuracy. It is suggested that although children younger than 4;7 have established adult-like knowledge of lexical aspect and negation, they still have problems with their interactions.

82

4 Previous Studies on L1 and L2 Acquisition of Negation in Mandarin …

As will be reported in Chaps. 6 and 7, L2 learners of Chinese with lower proficiency also have problems with the negation of verbal complement constructions and verbs or verb phrases with different lexical aspects, comparable to the performance of Chinese children at the early stages. We will continue the discussion in Chap. 8. In the following section, we will review previous studies on L2 acquisition of Chinese negation.

4.3 L2 Acquisition of Chinese Negation In previous studies on L2 acquisition of Chinese negation, some attempted to draw the development patterns in the acquisition of Chinese negation markers by L2 learners as in Wang (1997) and Li (2004), some conducted error analysis of Chinese learner corpus data as in Yuan (2005a, 2005b), and still others investigated L2 acquisition of the syntactic and/or semantic properties of Chinese negation, as in Yuan (2004), Li (2009), Zheng and Chang (2012), and Chang and Zheng (2014). Wen and Schwartz (2014) probed into the representation of aspectual restriction on Chinese negation in L2 grammar. Wang (1997) found that L2 acquisition of Chinese negation markers goes through four phases: single negation marker > mixed use of negation markers > overgeneralization of mei > differentiation and integration of bu and mei, based on the production data of bu/mei by English-speaking learners from a Chinese Interlanguage corpus.1 Besides, Wang extracted some “core words” that were frequently used with negation markers in the corpus, such as kan (“look”), shuo (“speak”), zhao (“look for”), tongyi (“agree”), xihuan (“like”), and zhidao (“know”). The data show that L2 learners initially only used negation markers with such “core words” but later there was a diffusion of negation co-occurring with other words, which, as suggested by Wang, could be accounted by the Diffusion Model on Interlanguage variability (Gatbonton 1978). Additionally, L2 learners were found to acquire simple negation (Neg+V/Adj.) earlier than the negation of more complex structures with complements (Neg+VC), which is comparable with the findings from L1 acquisition research (Fan 2007). In line with the findings of Wang (1997), Li (2004) also captured the mixed use of bu and mei by revealing that L2 learners in general tended to replace mei with bu. The overgeneralization of mei was also found at the time when it was initially introduced to learners. While J. Wang relied on Chinese learner corpus data, Li studied the acquisition sequence of bu and mei through a bunch of elicitation tasks, including a grammar test, a composition writing task, and a speaking test. Li also observed that temporal information and familiarity of the lexical chunks seemed to affect L2 acquisition of Chinese negation. Moreover, L2 learners tended to relate mei with past time and mistakenly used mei with stative verbs, as shown in (70) (cited from Li 1

This corpus was the first Chinese Interlanguage corpus built by Beijing Language College (now Beijing Language and Culture University). For more information, see http://www.corpus4u.org/thr eads/1296/.

4.3 L2 Acquisition of Chinese Negation

83

2004, p. 74). However, for those lexical chunks with higher frequency, such as “bu xihuan, do not like”, “bu zhidao, do not know”, they seldom replaced bu with mei. (70) Lai Zhongguo yiqian, wo *mei renshi Li laoshi. come China before I not know Li teacher “(Intended) Before coming to China, I did not know Miss Li.” Employing error analysis, Yuan (2005a, 2005b) categorized the errors related to the use of bu and mei based on data from the HSK Dynamic Composition corpus.2 For the use of negation marker bu, Yuan (2005a) summarized two main types of errors. One type is syntactic errors, such as the misplacement of bu in complex sentences, as exemplified in (71). The other type is semantic errors, mainly including the misuse of auxiliaries after bu and the misuse of bu in negating past episodic events, as shown in (72) (examples cited from (5) and (14) in Yuan 2005a, pp. 40–45). (71) a. *Women Riben juedui chuan-zhe xie bu jin jia. we Japan never wear-ZHE shoe not enter home “(Intended) In Japan, we never enter the house with the shoes on.” b. *Ziji de shenti ye bu zhaogu de hao. Self DE body also not care DE good “(Intended) (he) even did not take good care of his own health.” (72) a. *Wo bu yao jiali de ren faxian wo you zhe liang-wei pengyou. I not want home-in DE person find I have this two-CL friend “(Intended) I don”t want my family to know that I have these two friends.” b. *Bu zhansheng beitong de shihou, Harley he Sally juede huxiang ai not overcome grief DE time Harley and Sally think mutually love “(Intended) When they were in grief, they thought they were in love with each other.” As for the use of mei by L2 learners, Yuan (2005b) analyzed four types of errors. The first type was related to time and aspect. For example, L2 learners might overuse the aspect marker -le, as in (73a). The second type was the misuse of meiyou when bu is appropriate, as in (73b). The third type was about negation in comparatives, as in (73c), and the fourth type was about focus and topic, as in (73d) (examples cited from (7), (38), (56), and (67) in Yuan 2005b, pp. 57–64). (73) a. Wo zhao-le hen jiu, keshi meiyou zhaodao *le. I look-for-LE very long but not find LE “(Intended) I have been looking for it for a long time but I have not found it.” b. Wo juede ta yidianr ye *meiyou langman. I think he a-little also not romantic “(Intended) I think he is not romantic at all.” c. Wo muqin bi fuqin ai liaotian, meiyou wo baba *de yansu. I mother than father love chat not I Dad DE serious 2

For detailed information of this corpus, see Sect. 5.4.3 in Chap. 5.

84

4 Previous Studies on L1 and L2 Acquisition of Negation in Mandarin …

“(Intended) My mother loves chatting more than my father does and she is not that serious as my Dad.” d. Cong xiao dao xianzai, wo *meiyou dui ta de hao yinxiang. From little to now I not to he DE good impression ‘(Intended) He has never left me a good impression since I was little. While Y. Yuan’s studies present a detailed description of error types on the use of bu/mei in L2 Chinese learners’ production, more in-depth explanations of the causes of such errors should be made by referring to L2 acquisition theories. In addition, important factors such as L1 background and L2 proficiency are not examined in these studies. Also based on L2 learners’ writings in the HSK Dynamic Composition corpus, Chang and Zheng (2014) showed that L1-English learners acquired the syntactic positions quite easily in simple sentences. However, they had more difficulty with the negation of structures with complement, on a par with Wang’s (1997) findings. They also noted that the acquisition of semantic restrictions on bu and mei, reflected in their interaction with aspect markers (-le/-guo), developed relatively more slowly than the acquisition of syntactic positions of the two negators. It is suggested that the results provide supporting evidence for the Interface Hypothesis that the syntaxsemantics interface poses more problems than narrow syntax in L2 acquisition. This study has merits in applying current L2 acquisition theories and focusing on L2 learners from a certain L1 background instead of mixing learners with different L1s, yet more evidence is required about the performance of learners with lower proficiency and from different L1 backgrounds. As acknowledged by the authors, the corpus data mainly cover learners with advanced Chinese proficiency. Focusing on L2 acquisition of the syntactic position of bu in simple structures (S+Adv+V+O), Yuan (2004) elicited judgment data and spoken data from English-, German-, and French-speaking learners of Chinese through an acceptability judgment task and an oral-production task. The results indicate that L2 learners readily established sensitivity to the position of bu at an early stage (first year of study). Despite the similarity that neither English nor Chinese allow verb raising, L1-English learners showed no advantage over German- and French-speaking learners. B. Yuan thus argues that L1 transfer is relative rather than absolute in L2 acquisition, against the Full Transfer Hypothesis (Schwartz and Sprouse 1996) and the Minimal Trees Hypothesis (Vainikka and Young-Scholten 1996). This is one of the earliest studies that employ an experimental paradigm to examine L2 acquisition of Chinese negation and the findings are incorporated in the broader framework of SLA theories. Consistent with the results of Yuan (2004), Zheng and Chang’s (2012) case study on two English-speaking learners of Chinese also found that both learners easily acquired the syntactic positions of bu and mei. Apart from the syntactic properties of negation in Chinese, some researchers dwell upon L2 acquisition of the subtle semantic constraints on the use of bu/mei. Li (2009) provides more evidence for her observation in Li (2004) that temporal information affects the choice of negation markers by L2 Chinese learners. Using a structured fill-in-the-blank test, Li instructed L2 participants to fill in bu/mei in three types of

4.3 L2 Acquisition of Chinese Negation

85

sentences. The first type was the negation of volition or habitual activity with bu, the second type was the negation of verbs about cognition or mental state with bu, and the third type was the negation of past episodic events with mei. The results show that L2 learners’ use of bu/mei correlates with the temporal information in the sentence and this is confounded by lexical aspect of the verbs. They tended to use mei in past time, especially for activity verbs, thus leading to errors in the first type of sentences. Elementary learners demonstrated a stronger preference to mei for negating past activities (accuracy rate: 46%) than intermediate learners (61%). In the negation of cognition verbs, L2 learners were less affected by temporal information. For example, elementary learners achieved 84% accuracy in past time. Another interesting finding is that intermediate learners only gained an accuracy of 55% due to misuse of bu in the negation of past episodic activity, much lower than the accuracy of elementary learners (81%). Based on these findings, Li infers that intermediate learners no longer rely on temporal information to choose negation markers but tend to extend the use of bu for the negation of volition in contexts that focus on episodic events. They might misuse bu due to the difficulty in judging whether the context supports a volitional reading or an episodic activity reading, as in (74) (Li 2009, p. 30). (74) Ting-shuo na-ge dianying bu hao-kan, zuotian wo mei/*bu qu kan. hear-say that-CL movie not good-look yesterday I not go look “Having heard that the movie was not good, I did not go to see it yesterday.” Another more recent study by Wen and Schwartz (2014) found that the aspectual constraint on Chinese negation could be fully represented in L1-English learners’ Chinese grammar. According to their analyses, bu is encoded with [–bounded], mei with [+bounded, +resultant state], -le with [+bounded, –resultant state], and -guo with [+bounded, +resultant state]. Therefore, bu is incompatible with -le or -guo, while mei is incompatible with -le but compatible with -guo. The results from a self-paced reading task reveal that intermediate L2 learners were not sensitive to the violations caused by feature clash, while advanced L2 learners achieved nativelike sensitivity. It is thus suggested that fully-specified morphosyntax processing is attainable by L2 learners even though their L1 (English) does not instantiate such negationaspect interactions, against the Representational Deficit Hypothesis (Hawkins and Chan 1997; Hawkins 2005) and the Shallow Structure Hypothesis (Clahsen and Felser 2006). As seen in the above review, previous studies have borne out abundant findings on L2 acquisition of Chinese negation. Just like Chinese children, L2 learners also tend to rely on a single negation marker (bu) at earlier stages and confuse the two negation markers (bu/mei) in different contexts. It also seems easy for them to acquire the syntactic position of negation markers in simple structures but more difficult in complex structures with complement. From a more refined perspective, it is also revealed that L2 learners may rely on temporal information and lexical chunks in the choice of negation markers and yet they could acquire the aspectual constraints on Chinese negation with increased proficiency.

86

4 Previous Studies on L1 and L2 Acquisition of Negation in Mandarin …

However, there remain a few gaps to be filled regarding the overall dynamic development of L2 grammar of Chinese negation, the role of L1 influence, and methodological issues, as well as the theoretical implications in SLA. First, more empirical evidence is required for the gradual establishment of knowledge about Chinese negation in L2 grammar. Except for Wang’s (1997) study, most existing studies fail to provide the data on L2 learners’ acquisition of negation from elementary to advanced level. Li’s (2004, 2009) studies only included elementary and intermediate learners, and their Chinese proficiency was roughly determined by the classes they were in, which may be not reliable enough. As mentioned above, Chang and Zheng (2014) also admitted that the corpus data they used were mainly from advanced Chinese learners, thus it was not possible to capture L2 learners’ performance at lower proficiency levels. Wen and Schwartz’s (2014) research covered learners from intermediate to advanced level yet did not include any elementary learners. Secondly, more research is required to examine whether L1 influence plays a role in L2 acquisition of Chinese negation. Apart from Yuan (2004) who touched upon this issue by including learners from three L1 backgrounds (English/German/French), most existing studies either focus on learners from a certain L1 background, mainly English (Wang 1997; Chang and Zheng 2014; Wen and Schwartz 2014), or simply mix learners from different L1 backgrounds (Li 2004, 2009; Yuan 2005a, 2005b). Though the L1 effect was not attested in B. Yuan’s study on L2 acquisition of the position of negation marker bu in simple structures, it remains unknown whether L1 transfer effect will manifest in the acquisition of semantic properties of Chinese negation by L2 learners from different L1 backgrounds. Third, more comprehensive evidence can be provided by combining elicitation data and learner corpus data. Current studies on L2 acquisition of Chinese negation either rely on learner corpus data (Chang and Zheng 2014; Wang 1997; Yuan 2005a, 2005b) or elicitation data (Yuan 2004; Li 2004, 2009; Wen and Schwartz 2014). The corpus data may not cover all the negative structures in Chinese since L2 learners may avoid using some of them. For example, as presented in Chap. 3, bu can be placed in front of the descriptive complement in conditional clauses. However, to our knowledge, this issue has not been examined in previous research. Although both the perfective aspect marker -le and the experiential aspect marker -guo are involved in Wen and Schwartz’s (2014) study on Chinese negation, it is not clear whether the interaction between the durative aspect marker -zhe and negation could be acquired by L2 learners. Finally, most of the previous studies are mainly descriptive without thorough analysis of the factors underlying the development patterns or the errors by applying current L2 acquisition theories. Only a few studies (Yuan 2004; Chang and Zheng 2014; Wen and Schwartz 2014) relate their findings with L2 acquisition theories, thus contributing to the broader field of L2 acquisition research with evidence from Chinese. These issues will be addressed in the present study.

References

87

4.4 Interim Summary To sum up, previous studies on L1 and L2 acquisition of Chinese negation inform us that both L1 acquirers and L2 learners tend to overgeneralize a certain negation marker at the early stages, and they acquire the negation of simple structures before the negation of more complex structures. They also make developmental mistakes/errors due to the misplacement of negation markers or the mixed use of bu and mei. While it is not until age 4;7 that Chinese children are able to establish adultlike knowledge of the interaction between lexical aspect and negation, L2 learners also need a long exposure to the target input before acquiring the subtle semantic constraints on Chinese negation. Nevertheless, there remain several lacunae in the research on the acquisition of Chinese negation with regards to the developmental path of various categories of Chinese negation, the role of L1 influence, theoretical implications in the field of SLA, and so on. Therefore, the present study attempts to address these issues by examining L1-English and L1-Korean learners’ acquisition of Chinese negation within the framework of the Interface Hypothesis and the Feature Reassembly Hypothesis, as well as the distinction of explicit and implicit knowledge in L2 grammar. The research methodology will be introduced in the following chapter.

References Chang, Hui, and Lina Zheng. 2014. On the acquisition of Chinese negative constructions by L1 English learners. Research on Chinese as a Second Language (1): 116–126. (In Chinese) Clahsen, Harald, and Claudia Felser. 2006. Grammatical processing in language learners. Applied Psycholinguistics 27(1): 3–42. Fan, Li. 2007. The early acquisition of negative words in Mandarin Chinese. Modern Foreign Languages (Quarterly) 30(2): 144–154. (In Chinese) Gatbonton, Elizabeth. 1978. Patterned phonetic variability in second-language speech: a gradual diffusion model. The Canadian Modern Language Review 34(3): 335–347. Hawkins, Roger, and Yuet-Hung Cecilia Chan. 1997. The partial availability of Universal Grammar in second language acquisition: The ‘failed functional features hypothesis’. Second Language Research 13(3): 187–226. Hawkins, Roger. 2005. Explaining full and partial success in the acquisition of second language grammatical properties. Second Language (4): 7–25. Lee, Hun-tak Thomas. 1981. Acquisition of negation in a Mandarin-speaking child (master’s thesis). The University of Hong Kong. Li, Ying. 2004. Analysis of the Acquisition of bu/mei+V. Chinese Language Learning (5): 72–78. (In Chinese) Li, Ying. 2009. The influence of past time on CFL learners’ use of bu and mei. Journal of Yunnan Normal University (Teaching and Research on Chinese as a Foreign Language Edition) 7(6): 25–30. (In Chinese) Schwartz, Bonnie, and Rex A. Sprouse. 1996. L2 cognitive states and the Full Transfer/Full Access model. Second language research 12(1): 40–72. Vainikka, Anne, and Martha Young-Scholten. 1996. Gradual development of L2 phrase structure. Second Language Research 12(1): 7–39.

88

4 Previous Studies on L1 and L2 Acquisition of Negation in Mandarin …

Wang, Jianqin. 1997. The acquisition of negative constructions with bu and mei. Chinese Teaching in the World (3): 92–99. (In Chinese) Wen, Zhijun, and Bonnie Schwartz. 2014. Fully-specified L2 processing of negation-aspect interactions in Chinese. In Selected Proceedings of the 5th Conference on Generative Approaches to Language Acquisition North America (GALANA 2012), eds. Chia-Ying Chu, Caitlin E. Coughlin, Beatriz Lopez Prego, Utako Minai, and Annie Tremblay, 128–139. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project. Yuan, Boping. 2004. Negation in French-Chinese, German-Chinese and English-Chinese Interlanguages. Transactions of the Philological Society 102 (2): 169–197. Yuan, Yulin. 2005a. An analysis of the interlingual errors involving mei. Chinese Teaching in the World (2): 56–70. (In Chinese). Yuan, Yulin. 2005b. An analysis of the interlingual errors involving bu. Language Teaching and Linguistic Studies (6): 39–47. (In Chinese). Zeng, Tao. 2007. The Acquisition of bu and meiyou by Chinese native speakers. Modern Foreign Languages 30(4): 341–348. (In Chinese). Zhang, Yunqiu., Zhonglin Wang, and Yonghua Xiao. 2006. Cognitive analysis of patterns and misuses of negative structures of pre-four-year-old children. Journal of Capital Normal University (Social Sciences Edition) (6): 70–77. (In Chinese) Zheng, Lina, and Chang, Hui. 2012. On the acquisition of Chinese negative constructions by two L1-English speakers. Chinese Learning (1): 80–88. (In Chinese) Zhou, Guoguang. 2002. An investigation of the children’s use of the negative bu and the structure of negation. Applied Linguistics (4): 42–49. (In Chinese) Zhou, Ping, Stephen Crain, and Rosalind Thornton. 2014. Lexical aspect and the use of negation by Mandarin-speaking children. In Proceedings of the 5th Conference on Generative Approaches to Language Acquisition North America (GALANA 2012), eds. Chia-Ying Chu, Caitlin E. Coughlin, Beatriz Lopez Prego, Utako Minai, and Annie Tremblay, 150–156. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.

Chapter 5

The Present Study

Abstract The present study aims to examine the acquisition of Chinese negation by English speakers and Korean speakers by employing both experimental data and learner corpus data. The experimental study investigated 90 L1-English learners’ and 92 L1-Korean learners’ judgment of Chinese negation and their knowledge about the constraints implicated with Chinese negation with grammaticality judgment tests, whereas the corpus-based study examined L2 learners’ production of Chinese negation through four existing written Chinese learner corpora. This chapter begins with research questions and predictions regarding L2 acquisition of Chinese negation with reference to the theoretical frameworks presented in Chap. 2, and then introduces the research design of the experimental study and the corpus-based study.

5.1 Introduction We have reviewed previous studies of L1 and L2 acquisition of Chinese negation and identified the gaps for further research in Chap. 4. In this chapter, based on the analyses of interfaces and features involved with Chinese negation in Chap. 3, we come up with research questions and our predictions regarding L2 acquisition of Chinese negation with reference to the theoretical frameworks presented in Chap. 2. Then, we will introduce the research design of the present study, including the experimental study and the corpus-based study.

5.2 Research Questions of the Present Study The present study aims to examine the acquisition of Chinese negation by English speakers and Korean speakers. Within the framework of the Interface Hypothesis, we intend to investigate the following research questions: (1) Could L2 Chinese learners attain target-like knowledge of narrow syntax of Chinese negation?

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2023 J. Wang, Interfaces and Features in Second Language Acquisition, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-8629-1_5

89

90

5 The Present Study

(2) Could L2 Chinese learners converge with natives at the multiple interfaces involved with Chinese negation? For question (1), we explore whether L2 Chinese learners are sensitive to the variations of the position of bu/mei in three types of verbal complement constructions: resultative complement constructions, potential complement constructions, and descriptive complement constructions. For question (2), we focus on three types of internal interfaces. At the syntaxsemantics interface, we probe into the acquisition of semantic constraints on Chinese negation by L2 learners, including temporal information conveyed by time adverbials, lexical aspect, and the clause-level semantic constraint on Chinese negation. At the syntax-morphology interface, we would examine whether L2 Chinese learners are sensitive to the (in)compatibility between bu/mei and three grammatical aspect markers (-le/-guo/-zhe). At the syntax-semantics-morphology interface, we explore whether L2 learners can acquire the licensed use of bu for negating durative aspect (V-zhe) in a hypothetical context. Within the framework of the Feature Reassembly Hypothesis, we raise the following question: (3) Can L2 Chinese learners detect and reassemble the features encoded with Chinese negation? More specifically, we intend to explore whether L2 learners can detect and assemble the mood features ([±realis]) triggered by different categories, including time adverbials, lexical aspect, and grammatical aspect markers, as well as hypothetical context. The data of the present study also cover L2 Chinese learners from elementary to advanced proficiency and from two L1 backgrounds (English and Korean). Therefore, the following question is asked: (4) Does Chinese proficiency play a role in L2 acquisition at interfaces involved with Chinese negative structures and the assembly of the features encoded with bu/mei? In view of the similarities and differences between negation in English, Korean, and Chinese (see Chap. 3), we raise the fifth question: (5) Is there any cross-linguistic influence in the acquisition of Chinese negation by English speakers and Korean speakers? In addition, we also aim to explore the representation of explicit and implicit knowledge about Chinese negation in L2 grammar. We assume that L2 learners may access different types of knowledge in language tasks with different cognitive loads. The following question is raised: (6) Do L2 learners perform differently across language tasks with different cognitive loads? Finally, we probe into L2 learners’ performance in the judgment and production of Chinese negation. Thus, the seventh question is raised:

5.3 Predictions of the Present Study

91

(7) Are the results of production data consistent with those of the judgment data?

5.3 Predictions of the Present Study 5.3.1 Predictions Based on the Interface Hypothesis Apart from narrow syntax, Chinese negation can be considered as involving the syntax-semantics interface, the syntax-morphology interface and the syntaxmorphology-semantics interface (see the analyses of interfaces in Sect. 3.2.3). The IH assumes that narrow syntax causes few problems, while interfaces that integrate syntax and other linguistic domains may pose difficulties in L2 acquisition (Sorace and Filiaci 2006). Therefore, we make the following prediction: (1) L2 learners can achieve success at narrow syntax regarding Chinese negation. Specifically speaking, they should be able to establish nativelike sensitivity toward the position of bu/mei in different types of verbal complement constructions. The IH further proposes that internal interfaces (e.g., the syntax-semantics interface) may pose less problems than external interfaces (e.g., the syntax-discourse) (Sorace and Serratrice 2009). The present study only focuses on internal interfaces. For the syntax-semantics interface, there are three cases. The first is about the interaction between negation and temporal meaning denoted by time adverbials, and the second case is about the interaction between negation and lexical aspect. The third case is formed due to the interaction between hypothetical meaning and negation. Based on the IH, we make the second prediction as below. (2) L2 learners can achieve success in L2 acquisition at syntax-semantics interface, at least at the advanced proficiency. Also regarded as an internal interface, the syntax-morphology interface is formed due to the interaction between negation and grammatical aspect markers (-le, -zhe, -guo). In view of the difficulty in acquiring morphosyntax attested in previous studies (e.g., Lardiere 2007a, 2007b, 2008; Jiang 2004, 2007) and the complexity of Chinese aspect markers, we make the third prediction: (3) L2 learners may have prolonged difficulties at the syntax-morphology interface involved with Chinese negation. As for the more complicated syntax-semantics-morphology interface, it is formed due to the interaction between hypothetical context (clause-level), aspect markers, and negative structures. Given the complexity of multiple interfaces, we make the fourth prediction as below. (4) The syntax-semantics-morphology interface may pose great difficulty for L2 learners.

92

5 The Present Study

5.3.2 Predictions Based on the Feature Reassembly Hypothesis As analyzed in Chap. 3, the distribution of negation markers bu/mei in Chinese is associated with the mood features: bu bears the [–realis] feature while mei bears the [+realis] feature. The two primary negation markers in Korean, an(i) and mos, are also semantically constrained by modality but in a different pattern: an(i) is a general negator, while mos is a negative modal, denoting inability, impossibility or disapproval. By contrast, the sentential negation marker not in English is not subject to such features. Based on the FRH, L2 learners may initially map L1 feature settings onto lexical items in L2. Therefore, we have the following prediction: (5) Both L1-English and L1-Korean learners may have difficulty distinguishing bu from mei at the early stages. Specifically, they may be not sensitive to the illicit use of bu in [+realis] contexts and mei in [–realis] contexts. As suggested by the FRH, L2 learners’ task is to reconfigure the features implicated with lexical items in L2. Therefore, L1-English learners need to add the feature [±realis] to bu/mei in Chinese, whereas L1-Korean learners need to reconfigure bu/mei with [±realis] features instead of the distinct lexical-semantic constraints encoded with Korean negation. Since Korean negation (an(i)/mos) is also related to modality (ability/possibility), there might be a facilitation effect of cross-linguistic influence for L1-Korean learners to detect the mood features in bu/mei at an early stage. Therefore, we make another prediction below: (6) L1 Korean learners may demonstrate an advantage over L1 English learners in the reassembly of features encoded with Chinese negation. Since the mood features [±realis] in Chinese, English, and Korean are not overtly represented in morphemes but encoded in different categories of contexts, the mapping of the features is thus from context to context, which is predicted to be the most difficult according to the cline of difficulty in feature acquisition by Slabakova (2009). However, the FRH assumes that “any feature contrast that is detectable, in principle, is ultimately acquirable” (Lardiere 2009, p. 214). Therefore, we make the following prediction. (7) L2 learners can (re)assemble the features encoded with Chinese negation, at least at the advanced stage.

5.3.3 Predictions Based on the Distinction Between Explicit and Implicit Knowledge As stated in Sect. 2.4, L2 learners could resort to explicit knowledge in controlled, less-demanding tasks, while they access implicit knowledge in spontaneous, more demanding tasks. For L2 learners with lower proficiency, the possibility of accessing

5.4 Research Design

93

explicit knowledge of Chinese negation in controlled tasks may facilitate their performance. However, in tasks that requires immediate responses, they would rely on implicit knowledge, which is presumably not mature at the early stages. Therefore, we predict L2 learners with lower proficiency may perform differently across tasks with different cognitive loads. More specifically, we make the following prediction. (8) L2 learners may perform better in more controlled tasks than in spontaneous tasks at the early stages.

5.4 Research Design 5.4.1 The Experimental Study The experimental study attempts to investigate L2 learners’ judgment of Chinese negation and their knowledge about the constraints implicated with Chinese negation. Specifically, we elicited judgment data from English speakers and Korean speakers on a series of negative constructions with grammaticality judgment tests.

5.4.1.1

Participants

A total of 105 English speakers and 109 Korean speakers were recruited to participate in the experimental study. They were college students studying Chinese or other courses in universities or institutions of Beijing and Nanjing in China at the time of data collection. Due to low Chinese proficiency or other unexpected reasons, 15 L1English and 17 L1-Korean participants failed to complete the whole experiments, so their data were left out from the data pool. Based on the scores in a Chinese proficiency test (introduced below), the remaining 90 English speakers (E) and 92 Korean speakers (K) were divided into five sub-groups respectively: elementary (EE, KE), low-intermediate (ELI, KLI), intermediate (EI, KI), high-intermediate (EHI, KHI), and advanced (EA, KA), as shown in Table 5.1.1 Results from one-way ANOVA test showed significant difference between each proficiency for L1-English learners, F(4, 89) = 542.06, p < 0.001, and for Korean learners, F(4, 91) = 524.98, p < 0.001. The post-hoc Tukey Test revealed that the five sub-groups of each L1 background differed significantly from each other (p < 0.001). However, no significant difference was found between the scores of L1English learners and L1-Korean learners at the same proficiency (p > 0.05), that is, between the EE and KE, the ELI and KLI, and so on, suggesting that any of the 1

This study aims to examine the dynamic process of L2 development, so we make further distinctions based on the scores of L2 participants in the cloze test. Such a finer division of the L2 participants into five sub-groups could reveal clearer patterns in L2 development in their acquisition of Chinese negation (see Chap. 6 for the results). Moreover, the sample size of each sub-group is more comparable and suitable for statistical analysis.

94

5 The Present Study

Table 5.1 Background information of the participants in the experimental study Groups Number Age Months of studying Chinese

Months of Mean scores in the cloze test staying in (N = 40; range in the China bracket)

EE

21

21

14.8

2.0

11.7 (9–15)

ELI

21

21

29.5

4.9

19.0 (16–22)

EI

20

22

37.8

6.0

24.1 (23–29)

EHI

14

24

46.8

11.7

31.1 (30–34)

EA

14

25

55.1

28.5

36.9 (35–40)

KE

20

22

13.8

3.6

12.6 (9–15)

KLI

20

22

18.4

4.8

19.9 (16–22)

KI

20

22

34.0

8.1

25.6 (23–29)

KHI

16

24

42.4

14.4

31.8 (30–34)

KA

16

26

70.8

34.8

36.5 (35–40)

CN

15

22

n/a

n/a

39.9 (39–40)

L1-English groups is comparable to its corresponding L1-Korean group regarding their Chinese proficiency. A group of 15 Chinese native speakers (CN) also participated in the research as the control group. They were college students at a university in Beijing at the time of investigation. All the L2 learner groups were significantly different from the native group in their scores (p < 0.01). All participants reported their native language, age, the months of studying Chinese, and the months of staying in China. Detailed background information of the participants is presented in Table 5.1.

5.4.1.2

Tasks

All the participants completed three tasks: a Chinese proficiency test, a computerbased aural grammaticality judgment test (GJT), and a paper-based written grammaticality judgment test. Details are given below. (1) The Chinese proficiency test The Chinese proficiency test, which was comprised of two cloze passages, was administered to measure the overall Chinese proficiency of the participants from different institutions and programs.The cloze test is considered an integrative test of overall language proficiency since it draws on the grammatical and semantic knowledge of the language (Oller and Inal 1971; Oller 1973; Stubbs and Tucker 1974, among others). It has been employed to measure Chinese learners’ proficiency in previous studies (e.g., Yuan 2004, 2010; Zhao 2012, 2014). Following these studies, we constructed a Chinese cloze test with two passages of similar length, in which the second half of 40 disyllabic words were left out (see Appendix 3 for the sample of

5.4 Research Design

95

the cloze test). The participants were required to fill one Chinese character in each blank to complete the words so that the text makes sense. They could use pinyin (Chinese phonetic system) when necessary. Each blank was given one point and the total score was 40 points. Based on their scores in the cloze test, L2 participants were divided into five sub-groups as displayed in Table 5.1. We found that the Chinese proficiency of each sub-group was largely consistent with the participants’ original placement in Chinese courses and the duration of their study of Chinese and residence in China, suggesting the validity of the Chinese cloze test. For the elementary group, 88% (36/41; L1-E: 17/21; L1-K: 19/20) of the participants were second-year Chinese students who had studied Chinese for more than one year (L1-E: 14.8 months; L1-K: 13.8 months) and had only lived in China for two or three months (L1-E: 2.0 months; L1-K: 3.8 months). For the low-intermediate group, 83% (34/41; L1-E: 17/21; L1-K: 17/20) of the participants were enrolled in intermediate Chinese courses who had studied Chinese for more than one year and a half (L1-E: 29.5 months; L1-K: 18.4 months) and had lived in China for nearly five months (L1-E: 4.9 months; L1-K: 4.8 months). For the intermediate group, 70% (28/40; L1-E: 12/20; L1-K: 16/20) of the participants were intermediate learners of Chinese who had studied Chinese for about three years (L1-E: 37.8 months; L1-K: 34.0 months) and had lived in China for about half a year (L1-E: 6.0 months; L1-K: 8.1 months). For the high-intermediate group, 87% (26/30; L1-E: 11/14; L1-K: 15/16) of the participants were from advanced Chinese courses and they had studied Chinese for nearly four years (L1-E: 46.8 months; L1-K: 42.4 months) and had lived in China for about one year (L1-E: 11.7 months; L1-K: 14.4 months). It should be noted that these participants who were originally placed in advanced Chinese courses were considered as high-intermediate learners based on their scores in the Chinese proficiency test in our study. As for the advanced group, 27% of the participants (8/30; L1-E: 1/14; L1-K: 7/16) were in the final year for the bachelor’s degree in Chinese major, 30% of them (9/30; L1-E: 3/14; L1-K: 6/16) were studying for a master’s degree in Chinese major, and the remaining 43% (13/30; L1-E: 10/14; L1-K: 3/16) were from advanced Chinese courses. On average, the participants in the advanced group had studied Chinese for more than four or five years (L1-E: 55.1 months; L1-K: 70.8 months) and had lived in China for more than two years (L1-E: 28.5 months; L1-K: 34.8 months). The participants in the advanced group had a significantly higher Chinese proficiency than those in the high-intermediate group and they were exposed to the target Chinese environment for a longer time. The performance of the advanced group was expected to reveal the ultimate attainment of Chinese negation. (2) The two grammaticality judgment tests: aural versus written The Grammaticality Judgment Test (GJT) was adopted to investigate L2 learners’ knowledge of Chinese negation. As a classic method in L2 acquisition research, the GJT has long been employed to tap into the internal grammar and knowledge of L2 learners (e.g., Yuan 2004, 2010; Gass 1992; Hopp 2007; Zhao 2014). As reviewed

96

5 The Present Study

in Sect. 2.4, it has been shown that task modality in GJT could affect L2 learners’ judgment due to different cognitive loads in the written and aural mode (Haig 1991; Johnson and Newport 1989; Johnson 1992; Murphy 1997). More recent studies suggest that written and aural GJT measure explicit and implicit knowledge, respectively (Loewen 2009; Spada et al. 2015). Therefore, the present study conducted the GJT in two modes with the participants: the computer-based aural GJT and the paper-based written GJT. The participants need to judge whether the sentences are grammatical according to a 4-point Likert scale: 1 for “definitely ungrammatical”, 2 for “probably ungrammatical”, 3 for “probably grammatical”, and 4 for “definitely grammatical”. In the computer-based aural GJT task, the aural test sentences were presented using Eprime software which could record the participants’ responses. In the written GJT task, the same test sentences as those in the aural GJT were presented in paper format and the participants were required to write down their answers according to the scale.

5.4.1.3

Materials

In the Chinese proficiency test, the topic of the two short passages was the daily life of a foreign student studying Chinese in China, which is a familiar topic to the participants and thus requires no special background knowledge. To ensure the validity of the test, we chose vocabulary and grammatical structures with varying degrees of difficulty by referring to the official syllabus of Chinese vocabulary and grammar (NOCFL2 2002). Moreover, in the pilot studies, we administered the cloze test to a small sample size of Chinese learners with different proficiency levels, determined by the classes they were in, and by the instructors’ assessment on their Chinese proficiency. The results indicate that higher proficiency learners generally gained higher scores in the test, suggesting the validity and reliability of the cloze test in measuring L2 Chinese proficiency. This is corroborated by the results of our study with larger sample size, as stated in (1) in Sect. 5.4.1.2. In the GJTs, there were five main categories of test sentences, which were further divided into 15 subcategories, as shown in Table 5.2. In each subcategory, there were three types of test items: two negative sentences as the experimental items and one positive sentence as the control item (except the second subcategory, i.e., the negation of potential complement construction, and the last three subcategories of conditionals).3 All together there are 35 types of test

2

NOCFL stands for China national office for teaching Chinese as a foreign language (Hanban). In the second subcategory, we did not include positive sentences with the structure of “V+de+C” as the control items. This is because “V+de+C” has a much lower frequency than “V+bu+C” despite their correspondence in surface form (Shi 2001). Results from the pilot studies show that even Chinese natives did not quite categorially accept positive sentences such as “Xiaoli xie-de-wan zuoye, Li is able to finish his assignments.” The last three subcategories of conditionals are extended from the 2nd, 3rd, and 12th category, respectively, so we did not include the control sentences either.

3

5.4 Research Design

97

Table 5.2 Categories of the test sentences in the GJTs Main categories

Subcategories and structures of the test sentences

The position of bu/mei in verbal complement constructions

(1) Resultative complement construction: mei-VC versus *V-mei-C versus VC (2) Potential complement construction: V-bu-C versus *bu+VC (3) Descriptive complement construction: V-de+bu+C versus *bu+V-de+C versus V-de-C

Temporal information and negation

(4) Past habitual activities: yiqian(formerly)+bu+V versus *yiqian+mei+V versus yiqian+V (5) Past episodic events: zuotian (yesterday)+mei+V versus *zuotian+bu+V versus zuotian+V; (6) Absolute future events: mingtian (tomorrow)+bu+V versus * mingtian+mei+V versus mingtian+V;

Lexical aspect and negation

(7) Statives: bu+statives versus *mei+statives versus statives (8) Achievements/accomplishments (ach./acc.): mei+ach./acc. versus *bu+ach./acc. versus ach./acc

Aspect markers and negation

(9) The perfective aspect: bu+V versus *bu+V-le versus V (10) The perfective aspect: mei+V versus *mei+V-le versus V-le (11) The experiential aspect: mei+V-guo versus *bu+V-guo versus V-guo (12) The durative aspect: mei+V-zhe versus *bu+V-zhe versus V-zhe

Hypothetical context and negation

(13) Potential complement in conditionals: *bu+VC versus (if) bu+VC, … (conditional) (14) Descriptive complement in conditionals: *bu+V-de+C versus (if) bu+V-de+C, …(conditional) (15) The durative aspect in conditionals: *bu+V-zhe versus (if) bu+V-zhe, …(conditional)

sentences in the GJT tests.4 Each test sentence had 4 tokens, so there were 140 target sentences. In order to conceal the purpose of the study, 72 sentences with different 4

As mentioned in Chap. 3, achievement/accomplishments in Chinese are expressed by resultative compounds. Thus, the test items for “mei+VC” and “VC” in the 1st subcategory and “bu+VC” in the 2nd subcategory are identical with the corresponding items in the 8th subcategory. Besides, the items for “bu+VC”, “bu+V-de+C”, and “bu+V-zhe” in the 2nd, 3rd, and 12th subcategory, respectively, are identical with those in the last three subcategories of conditionals. These items served multiple purposes in the experiments of this study.

98

5 The Present Study

structures were used as distractors.5 Therefore, there were a total of 212 test sentences (All the test items are listed in Appendix 1). To minimize possible difficulties in vocabulary, only basic words from HSK2 were used by referring to the official vocabulary syllabus (NOCFL 2002).6 The length of the test sentences was 7–9 words except for the sentences with conditional clauses, which had 11–14 words. All the test sentences were randomized before being presented to the participants (a sample of the GJT test is given in Appendix 2). In the written GJT, the test sentences were printed in Chinese characters on four sheets of paper. Pinyin was provided for some words that might pose difficulty for beginning learners. The instructions were given in the participants’ native languages (English/Korean/Chinese). In the aural GJT, the test sentences were recorded by a Mandarin Chinese speaker at normal speed with Samsung YV-150 Voice Pen.

5.4.1.4

Procedure

All the participants were tested individually, and each needed to complete three tasks. First, they had to finish the aural GJT task. The test sentences were presented on a computer monitor by using E-prime professional 2.0. The participants were instructed to press the SPACE bar to hear a sentence and then judge whether the sentence is grammatical by pressing the designated keys of “Definitely ungrammatical”, “Probably ungrammatical”, “Probably grammatical”, and “Definitely Grammatical” on the computer keyboard. No time pressure was imposed but they were asked to respond as quickly as possible. After pressing the response key, they need to press the SPACE bar to hear the next sentence. There were five sessions in the aural GJT task: one practice session with 6 trials and the other four experimental sessions with 53 trials each. The participants were advised to take a short break between sessions to avoid fatigue. It took about 30–40 min for L2 learners to finish this task, while only about 20 min for the natives. After the aural GJT, the participants were asked to do the Chinese cloze test by themselves. The third task was the paper-pen written GJT task. In order to minimize the practice effect, a one-week gap was set between the aural GJT and the written GJT.7 The participants needed to read the sentences by themselves and write down the number according to the 4-point Likert scale: 1 for “definitely ungrammatical”, 2

Apart from these 72 sentences, the positive control sentences (N = 40) in different categories also serve as the distractors in the study. Due to the large number of the test items (N = 212), adding more distractors may cause fatigue in the participants and affect their performances in the GJTs. 6 HSK stands for hanyu shuiping kaoshi, the official Chinese proficiency test of for non-native learners. The new HSK divides learners’ proficiency into 6 levels. HSK-1 is elementary, while HSK-6 is advanced. The vocabulary for HSK-2 are also quite basic words. 7 Since the test items used in the two modes of GJTs are the same, we set one-week gap to minimize the practice effect. In addition, we conducted the aural GJT first and presented the test items in different orders through randomization. One practical reason for not setting a longer gap in this study is that most of the participants were recruited from short-term Chinese training programs. 5

5.4 Research Design

99

for “probably ungrammatical”, 3 for “probably grammatical”, and 4 for “definitely grammatical”. As a compensation, each participant received a gift and some cash after completing all the tasks.

5.4.1.5

Methods of Statistical Analysis

In group analysis, the mean judgment data of the target sentences in the written and aural GJT were analyzed using SPSS statistics 22. The means of judgment of the test sentences in the written mode and the aural mode by all the subject groups were subjected to a two-way MANOVA with the between-subject factors L1 background (L1-E, L1-K, L1-Chinese) and Chinese proficiency (Elementary, Low-intermediate, Intermediate, High-intermediate, Advanced, Native). The posthoc Tukey HSD Test was adopted to make multiple comparisons. If no significant difference was found between L1-English and L1-Korean learners, their data would be collapsed to compare with Chinese natives. Otherwise, these two L2 groups would be analyzed separately. Secondly, a one-way ANOVA with a post-hoc Tukey test was used to reveal the differences between L2 learners at different levels compared to Chinese natives. Lastly, a one-way repeated measures ANOVA was run on the mean judgments across the two modes to show if task modality affected the judgments by each subject group. The within-subject factor was task modality (written and aural). As for individual analysis, the original data were converted into scores to calculate the accuracy of the participants’ judgment for different items. For grammatical items, three points, two points, one point, and zero point were given for answers of definitely grammatical, probably grammatical, probably ungrammatical and definitely ungrammatical, respectively. For ungrammatical items, three points, two points, one point, and zero point were given for answers of definitely ungrammatical, probably ungrammatical, probably grammatical, and definitely grammatical, respectively. Since each sentence type had four tokens, the accuracy of each type was calculated by dividing the total score of the four tokens by 12 (maximum score: 3*4 = 12). For each subject, if they achieve an accuracy of 75% (three out of the four tokens for each type) or above in the two experimental items (ungrammatical vs. grammatical) and the control item, they would be considered high achievers who have acquired the knowledge of the relevant category. For example, a subject whose judgment of “*V+mei+C”, “mei+VC”, and “VC” all reach an accuracy of 75% or above is considered a high achiever in the negation of resultative complement construction. The percentage of high achievers at each proficiency level in each mode were calculated to compare with that of Chinese natives. Moreover, based on the individual results, we worked out the development sequence of L2 learners’ acquisition of those different types of test sentences with the implicational scale following three steps below (Hatch and Farhady 1982, pp. 174–181). First, we displayed the percentage of high achievers in the judgment of each sentence type at each proficiency.

100

5 The Present Study

Second, we converted the percentage of high achievers into “0” or “1”. If the percentage of high achievers in the acquisition of a certain sentence type is 60% or above,8 we would convert it into “1”; otherwise, it is converted into “0”. Third, we calculated the total number of “1” for each sentence type and put them in order. Fourth, we calculated the Guttman Coefficient of Reproducibility (Crep ) and the Coefficient of Scalability (Cscal ) to test the validity and predictability of the scale according to the following formulas. Crep = 1 – number of errors/(number of groups * number of items) Cscal = %improvement/(1 – MMrep ) MMrep (Minimal marginal reproducibility)= number of responses/(number of groups * number of items) %improvement = Crep − MMrep

correct

If Crep > 0.90 and Cscal > 0.60, we can claim that the scale is valid and has a high predictability of the acquisition sequence of different sentence types.

5.4.2 The Corpus-Based Study The corpus-based study aims to examine L2 learners’ production of Chinese negation through four existing written Chinese learner corpora. We will introduce the four corpora and the method of data extraction and analysis.

5.4.2.1

The Corpora Used in the Present Study

The production data on Chinese negation were extracted from four written L2 Chinese corpora, as shown in Table 5.3. The HSK Dynamic Composition Corpus (HSK) is the most influential and wellestablished Chinese Interlanguage corpus, covering a large amount of written data from various L1 backgrounds. About 50 categories of errors are tagged in this corpus, covering characters, vocabulary, and grammar (Zhang 2003).9 The second corpus is the Error-tagged Chinese Interlanguage Corpus (ECIC).10 Errors in characters and grammar are tagged in this corpus. Since this corpus mainly consists of L2 learners’ daily writings, the data are considered as more natural and

8

As suggested by Hatch and Farhady (1982, p. 182), different criteria may be set for the cutoff point in the implication scale, including 60, 80, and 90%. As will be revealed in Chap. 6, the percentages of high-achievers in each test category mostly fall below 80%. In order to draw the development sequence of different categories, we selected 60% as the cutoff point. 9 The website for accessing the HSK corpus: http://202.112.195.8/hsk/login.asp. 10 The website for accessing the ECIC: http://cilc.sysu.edu.cn/interlang/search/.

5.4 Research Design

101

Table 5.3 Information of the corpora used in the present study Corpora

Database

Chinese proficiency

Scale (characters)

HSK Dynamic Composition Corpus, Beijing Language and Culture University (HSK)

Compositions in HSK

Mainly intermediate and advanced proficiency

4.24 million

Error-tagged Compositions in daily Chinese Chinese courses and tutorials Interlanguage Corpus, Sun Yat-Sen University (ECIC)

Mainly intermediate and advanced proficiency

3.54 million

The Jinan Chinese assignments (57%) and Chinese exams (43%) Learner Corpus, Jinan University (JCLC)

Low (21%) Intermediate (65%) High (14%)

5.91 million

TOCFL Composition Corpus, Taiwan Normal University (TOCFL)

Low (A2) (13%) Intermediate (B1, B2) (81%) High (C1, C2) (6%)

1.5 million

Compositions in TOCFL

authentic than the data in the HSK Dynamic Composition Corpus which is comprised of compositions from exams (Zhang 2012, p. 132). The third large-scale corpus is the Jinan Chinese Learner Corpus (JCLC),11 which covers data from L2 Chinese learners’ assignments and exams (Wang et al. 2015). All errors are maintained but no annotations are available at the present. L2 learners’ proficiency is determined according to the years of study, including beginners (less than a year), intermediate (2–3 years), and advanced (3+ years) (p. 119). The L1 backgrounds of the learners (59 in total) are mainly Asian languages, such as Indonesian, Thai, and Vietnamese, Korean, and Burmese (p. 120).

11

The website for accessing the JCLC: http://hwy.jnu.edu.cn/jclc/.

102

5 The Present Study

Table 5.4 Division of Chinese proficiency of the four Chinese learner corpora HSK

ECIC

JCLC

TOCFL

Elementary

/

Elementary 1–213

Elementary−

A2

Low-intermediate

/

Elementary 3–4

Elementary+

B1

Intermediate

D

Intermediate 1–2; Undergraduate 2−

Undergraduate 1–2; Intermediate−

B2

High-intermediate

C

Intermediate 3–4; Undergraduate 2+

Intermediate+; Undergraduate 2+

C1

Advanced

A&B

Advanced; Undergraduate 3–4

Advanced; Undergraduate 3–4

C2

Notes “/” indicate that there are no data at that proficiency in the corpus; In ECIC and JCLC, the numbers 1–4 indicate the classes of the students. In JCLC, “−” indicates that students are in the 1st semester, and “+” indicates that students are in the 2nd semester

The fourth corpus is the TOCFL12 Composition Corpus, similar to the HSK Dynamic Composition Corpus in that both corpora include data from Chinese learners’ compositions in standardized Chinese proficiency test. According to Zhang (2014), the L1 backgrounds of the learners are mainly Japanese (24.45%), English (16.20%), Korean (11.80%), and Vietnamese (11.54%). As for error tagging, about 25 categories of errors are annotated in this corpus, including vocabulary, word order, meaning, and so on. More details of these four corpora are presented in Table 5.3.

5.4.2.2

Division of Proficiency in the Four Chinese Learner Corpora

Consistent with the experimental study, the data in the four Chinese learner corpora were also divided into five levels, including elementary, low-intermediate, intermediate, high-intermediate, and advanced, as shown in Table 5.4. In the HSK corpus, four certificates, A, B, C, D, are marked for the data. Based on the scores and the introduction of this corpus in Zhang (2003), we consider D as intermediate (average score: 261), C as high-intermediate (average score: 326), and A&B as advanced (average score: 400). No elementary and low-intermediate data are available in this corpus. In ECIC, the original grouping of the corpus is based on the class placement. We divided the data in this corpus into five groups according to the introduction of 12

TOCFL stands for Test of Chinese as a Foreign Language, the standardized Chinese proficiency test for non-native speakers in Taiwan. The website of this corpus is: http://tocfl.itc.ntnu.edu.tw: 8080/. 13 To our knowledge, there are usually two kinds of Chinese study programs in China. One type is the short-term language program, the other is the four-year bachelor’s degree program in Chinese. In ECIC and JCLC, those who are in the short-term language program are referred to by their Chinese proficiency, while those who are in the degree program are referred to as undergraduate plus the year they are in.

5.5 Interim Summary

103

the corresponding relationship between the students’ classes in this corpus and HSK levels on its website (see Appendix 4). In JCLC, based on the introduction of Wang et al. (2015) and the class placement indicated in the corpus, the data were divided into five levels, from elementary to advanced. As for TOCFL, based on the original scale and its correspondence with the HSK levels introduced in Zhang (2014) (see Appendix 4), we consider A2 as elementary, B1 as low-intermediate, B2 as intermediate, C1 as high-intermediate and C2 as advanced.

5.4.2.3

Method of Data Extraction from the Corpora

Since the present study is on the acquisition of Chinese negation by L1-English and L1-Korean learners, we extracted the target items using of bu/mei(you) in the corpora introduced above by English speakers and Korean speakers. First, we extracted all the sentences with bu/mei(you) from the corpora by searching the keywords. Second, we securitized the items one by one and excluded those conjunctions containing bu (e.g., bu-guan “no matter what”, bu-dan “not only”), and formulaic expressions with bu/mei (e.g. dui-bu-qi “sorry”; mei-guan-xi “it does not matter”; bu-xing “not okay”, bu-ji-qi-shu “countless”, etc.). We also left out those items not included in the 15 main categories of negative constructions examined in the experimental study (for details, see Table 5.2 in this chapter). By doing so, we can make comparisons between L2 learners’ judgment of Chinese negation in the experimental study and their production in the corpus-based study.

5.4.2.4

Method of Data Analysis

After data screening, the remaining items were divided into different groups based on the category (see Table 5.2), L1 background, and the Chinese proficiency. Based on the annotations in the corpora and our own judgment, we identified the items with errors in the use of bu/mei and those without errors on negation for each category. Then we calculated the accuracy rates14 of each sub-category at different proficiency levels for L1-English learners and L1-Korean learners, respectively.

5.5 Interim Summary In this chapter, we have put forward the research questions of the present study and made predictions of L2 acquisition of Chinese negation based on the Interface Hypothesis, the Feature Reassembly Hypothesis, and the distinction of 14

Accuracy rate = number of correct items/number of total items.

104

5 The Present Study

explicit/implicit knowledge. To address those questions, we have introduced the research methodology, including the experimental study and the corpus-based study. In the following two chapters, we will present the results of the judgment data and the learner corpus data, respectively.

References Gass, Michael. 1992. Theory and practice. Journal of Experiential Education 15(2): 6–7. Haig, Geoffrey. 1991. Universal Grammar and second language acquisition: the influence of task type on late learners’ access to the subjacency principle. TESL monograph, McGill University. Hatch, Evelyn M., and Hossein Farhady. 1982. Research design and statistics for applied linguistics. Cambridge: Newbury House Publishers. Hopp, Holger. 2007. Ultimate attainment at the interfaces in second language acquisition (Doctoral dissertation). Groningen University. Jiang, Nan. 2004. Morphological insensitivity in second language processing. Applied Psycholinguistics 25(4): 603–634. Jiang, Nan. 2007. Selective integration of linguistic knowledge in adult second language learning. Language Learning 57(1), 1–33. Johnson, Jacqueline S., and Elissa L. Newport 1989. Critical period effects in second language learning: The influence of maturational state on the acquisition of English as a second language. Cognitive psychology 21(1): 60–99. Johnson, Jacqueline S. 1992. Critical period effects in second language acquisition: The effect of written versus auditory materials on the assessment of grammatical competence. Language learning 42(2): 217–248. Lardiere, Donna. 2007a. Acquiring (or Assembling) Functional Categories in Second Language Acquisition. In Proceedings of 2nd Conference on Generative Approaches to Language Acquisition North America (GALANA 2006), eds. Alyona Belikova, Luisa Meroni, and Mari Umeda, 233–244. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project. Lardiere, Donna. 2007b. Ultimate attainment in second language acquisition, Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Lardiere, Donna. 2008. Feature assembly in second language acquisition. In The role of formal features in second language acquisition, eds. Juana Liceras, Helmut Zobl, and Helen Goodluck, 106–140. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Lardiere, Donna. 2009a. Some thoughts on the contrastive analysis of features in second language acquisition. Second Language Research 25 (2): 173–227. Loewen, Shawn. 2009. Grammaticality judgment tests and the measurement of implicit and explicit L2 knowledge. In Implicit and explicit knowledge in second language learning, testing and teaching, eds. Rod Ellis, Shawn Loewen, Catherine Elder, Rosemary Erlam, Jenefer Philp, and Hayo Reinders, 94–112. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Murphy, Victoria A. 1997. The effect of modality on a grammaticality judgement task. Second Language Research 13(1): 34–65. NOCFL-China National Office for Teaching Chinese as a Foreign Language (Ed.) (2002). The syllabus of Chinese language teaching for foreign learners in higher education institutes (for further advanced studies). Beijing: Beijing Language and Culture University Press. (In Chinese) Oller, John. 1973. Cloze tests of second language proficiency and what they measure. Language Learning 23(1): 105–118. Oller, John, and Nevin Inal. 1971. A cloze test of English prepositions. TESOL Quarterly 5 (4): 315–326. Shi, Yuzhi. 2001. Forms and motivations of Chinese grammar. Nanchang: Jiangxi Education Publishing House. (In Chinese)

References

105

Slabakova, Roumyana. 2009. Features or parameters: which one makes second language acquisition easier, and more interesting to study? Second Language Research 25(2): 313–324. Sorace, Antonella, and Francesca Filiaci. 2006. Anaphora resolution in near-native speakers of Italian. Second Language Research 22(3): 339–368. Sorace, Antonella, and Ludovica Serratrice. 2009. Internal and external interfaces in bilingual language development: Beyond structural overlap. International Journal of Bilingualism 13(2): 195–210. Spada, Nina, Julie Li-Ju Shiu, and Yasuyo Tomita. 2015. Validating an elicited imitation task as a measure of implicit knowledge: Comparisons with other validation studies. Language Learning 65(3): 723–751. Stubbs, Joseph Bartow, and G. Richard Tucker. 1974. The cloze test as a measure of English proficiency. The Modern Language Journal 58(5/6): 239–241. Wang, Maolin, Shervin Malmasi, and Mingxuan Huang. 2015. The Jinan Chinese Learner Corpus. In Proceedings of the Tenth Workshop on Innovative Use of NLP for Building Educational Applications, eds. Joel Tetreault, Jill Burstein, Claudia Leacock, 118–123. Denver, Colorado: Association for Computational Linguistics. Yuan, Boping. 2004. Negation in French-Chinese, German-Chinese and English-Chinese Interlanguages. Transactions of the Philological Society 102 (2): 169–197. 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(2): 219–260. Zhang, Baolin. 2003. An introduction of “HSK Dynamic Compositions Corpus”. Guowai Hanyu Jiaoxue Dontai (4): 37–38. (In Chinese) Zhang, Liping. 2014. The construction and application of the TOCFL composition corpus. In Proceedings of the 2nd International Symposium of Chinese Interlanguage Corpus: Construction and Application (ISCICCA 2012), eds. Xiliang Cui, and Baolin Zhang, 141–152. Beijing: Beijing Language and Culture University Press. (In Chinese) Zhang, Ruipeng. 2012. Building Chinese Interlanguage corpus: The case of character Error-tagged Chinese Interlanguage Corpus of Sun Tat-Sen University. Applied Linguistics (2): 131–136. (In Chinese) Zhao, Xia Lucy. 2012. Interpretation of Chinese overt and null embedded arguments by Englishspeaking learners. Second Language Research 28(2): 169–190. Zhao, Xia Lucy. 2014. Ultimate attainment of anaphora resolution in L2 Chinese. Second Language Research 30(3): 381-407.

Chapter 6

Results of the Experimental Study

Abstract This chapter presents the results of the experimental study from the GJTs in the written mode and the aural mode, suggesting considerable variability in L1English and L1-Korean learners’ acquisition of Chinese negation. This chapter begins with a brief description of the overall results in the written and aural GJTs by the three subject groups to show a general picture of their judgment on the test sentences. Then, both group results and individual results of the judgment on each sentence category by L2 Chinese learners are reported in comparison with those of Chinese native speakers. Based on the individual results in the GJTs, development patterns of different categories of Chinese negative structures in L2 grammar are demonstrated by applying the Implicational Scale.

6.1 Introduction In the previous chapter, we introduced the research design of the present study. In the experimental study, an offline written GJT and a computer-based aural GJT were administered to L1-English and L1-Korean learners of Chinese, as well as Chinese native speakers as the control group. This chapter will present the judgment data from the GJTs in both modes. First, a brief description of the overall results in the written and aural GJTs by the three subject groups is presented to show a general picture of their judgment on the test sentences. Then, both group results and individual results of the judgment on each sentence category by L2 Chinese learners are reported in comparison with those of Chinese native speakers. Based on the individual results in the GJTs, development patterns of different categories of Chinese negative structures in L2 grammar are worked out by applying the Implicational Scale.

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2023 J. Wang, Interfaces and Features in Second Language Acquisition, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-8629-1_6

107

108

6 Results of the Experimental Study

Wri t t e n GJ T Ungrammatical Items 4 3.21

3 2.89

2 1

2.12

3.75 3.47 3.49 3.61

Grammatical Items 3.91

3.87 3.06 3.10

3.26

1.91 1.91 1.85

3.47

3.34

Control Items

3.80 3.91 3.56 3.67 3.67 3.56

3.87

3.18 2.95 3.02 3.08

2.19 1.56

1.38

1.80 1.81 1.74 1.60

1.38

0 EE ELI EI EH I EA CN

K E K LI K I K H I K A CN

Fig. 6.1 Overall means of judgment in the written GJT by all groups. Keys: EE/ELI/EI/EHI/EA = English-speaking elementary/low-intermediate/intermediate/high-intermediate/advanced learners, KE/KLI/KI/EHI/KA = Korean-speaking elementary/low-intermediate/intermediate/highintermediate/advanced learners, CN = Chinese native speakers. GJT scale (1–4): 1 for “definitely ungrammatical”, 2 for “probably ungrammatical”, 3 for “probably grammatical”, 4 for “definitely grammatical”

6.2 Overall Results of the Written and Aural GJTs of All Subject Groups The overall means of judgment of the test sentences in the written and aural GJTs by L1-English learners, L1-Korean learners, and Chinese natives are presented in Figs. 6.1 and 6.2.1 As seen clearly in the figures, quite similar patterns are exhibited in the written and aural mode. In the judgment of the control sentences, the means of judgment of L1-English and L1-Korean learners reached above 3 (“probably grammatical”), suggesting that they tended to accept the control positive sentences as grammatical. It is also evident that L2 learners had a higher acceptance of grammatical sentences than ungrammatical sentences just like the natives in both modes. L2 learners also tended to reject ungrammatical sentences and accept grammatical sentences with more determinacy as a function of increased Chinese proficiency.

1

In figures, separated lines were used to present L1-English and L1-Korean learners’ grammaticality judgment. By doing so, we could see the development patterns of L2 learners from these two L1 backgrounds in their judgment of Chinese negation. In addition, Chinese natives’ judgment (the column of CN) were presented twice to show the differences between L2 learners’ and Chinese natives’ performance.

6.3 Results of the Written and Aural GJTs of Each Negative Structure

109

A u ra l GJ T Grammatical Items

Ungrammatical Items 4

3.40

3.59 3.62 3.66

3.80 3.87

3.56 3.60

Control Items

3.81 3.80 3.86 3.87

3.80

3 2.97 3.06 3.06

2 1

2.16 2.04

3.22

3.48

3.80 3.15 3.21 3.20 3.25

3.47

2.39 1.78 1.75

2.02 2.05 1.56

1.78 1.80

1.38

1.38

EE ELI EI EH I EA CN

K E K LI K I K H I K A CN

0

Fig. 6.2 Overall means of judgment in the aural GJT by all groups

6.3 Results of the Written and Aural GJTs of Each Negative Structure After presenting the overall patterns of L2 learners’ performance in the written and aural GJTs in comparison with natives, we will report their performance in each negative structure to reveal more detailed patterns regarding the judgment of the constraints on Chinese negation, including the position of bu/mei in verbal complement constructions, temporal constraints on the choice of bu/mei, lexical constraints on the choice of bu/mei, grammatical aspectual constraints on the choice of bu/mei, and the constraint of hypothetical context on the choice of bu/mei. For each subcategory, we first report the group results of L1-English learners’ judgment in comparison with L1-Korean learners’, L2 learners’ judgment in comparison with Chinese natives’, as well as each subject group’s judgment of the ungrammatical structure across the written and aural GJT. Then, we report the individual results of both L2 learner groups in comparison with Chinese natives in the two modes.

6.3.1 Results of the Judgment on the Position of bu/mei in Verbal Complement Constructions This section presents the results of L2 learners’ judgment on the position of bu/mei in three types of verbal complement constructions, including resultative complement constructions (RCC), potential complement constructions (PCC), and descriptive complement constructions (DCC).

110

6 Results of the Experimental Study

Wri t t e n GJ T mei-VC

*V-mei-C 4.00 3.10

3.00

3.20

3.46 3.46

2.89 3.06

3.75 3.34 3.55

3.77

3.34

2.10

1.87 1.31

VC

3.94 3.93 3.59 3.59 3.59 3.26 3.72 3.77 3.38 3.25 3.10 2.84

2.00

1.00

3.93

1.48

1.25 1.27

2.10

2.04 1.36 1.48

1.23

1.39

0.00 EE ELI EI EH I EA CN

K E K LI K I K H I K A CN

Fig. 6.3 Means of judgment of “mei+RCC” in the written GJT by all groups

6.3.1.1

Results of the Judgment on the Position of mei in RCC

Group Results The means of judgment of “mei+RCC” in the written and aural GJTs by L1-English learners, L1-Korean learners, and Chinese natives are presented in Figs. 6.3 and 6.4.2 The figures show that L2 learners’ means of judgment of the control sentence at all levels in both modes reached above 3 (“probably grammatical”), suggesting that they established the basic knowledge of the positive RCC. It appears that L2 learners at all levels had a higher acceptance of “mei+VC” than “*V+mei+C”, just like the natives. A two-way MANOVA test was run on the means of judgment of “*V+mei+C” and “mei+VC” in the written and the aural mode by all subject groups. The results bear out a significant main effect of Chinese proficiency (F (16, 744) = 7.62, p < 0.001), yet there was neither a significant effect of L1 background (F (4, 183) = 2.28, p > 0.05) nor a significant interaction between the two factors (F (16, 744) = 1.05, p > 0.05). (1) The judgment of “mei+RCC”: L1-English learners versus L1-Korean learners The multiple comparisons with the post-hoc Tukey test reveal that L1-English and L1-Korean learners showed no difference from each other in the judgment of “*V+mei+C” and “mei+VC” in either mode (p > 0.05), suggesting that L2 learners from these two backgrounds performed similarly in the judgment of the position of mei in RCC. Therefore, as noted in Sect. 5.4.1.5, the data of L1-English and L1-Korean learners were collapsed for further analysis below. 2

In this chapter, we only present the means of judgment of each sentence type in the figures. The standard deviations are provided in Appendix 5.

6.3 Results of the Written and Aural GJTs of Each Negative Structure

111

A u ral GJ T mei-VC

*V-mei-C 4.00

3.32

3.00

3.57

3.32

3.74

3.88 3.55 3.79

3.54 3.48

VC

3.61 3.64

3.57 3.67

3.88 3.84 3.81 3.88

3.51 3.53

3.70 3.83 3.67

3.21

2.89

2.00

2.59

2.37

2.04 2.11

1.96

1.00

1.60 1.57 1.18

1.10

1.80 1.45 1.10

0.00 EE ELI EI EH I EA CN

K E K LI K I K H I K A CN

Fig. 6.4 Means of judgment of “mei+RCC” in the aural GJT by all groups. Notes “*V+mei+C”, e.g., *小李写没完作业; “mei+VC”, e.g., 小李没写完作业; “VC”, e.g., 小李写完了作业. GJT scale (1–4): 1 for “definitely ungrammatical”, 2 for “probably ungrammatical”, 3 for “probably grammatical”, 4 for “definitely grammatical”

(2) The judgment of “mei+RCC”: L2 learners versus Chinese natives The acceptance of “mei+VC” With L1-English and L1-Korean learners’ judgment data collapsed, results from the post-hoc Tukey tests on the judgment of “mei+VC” in the written mode indicate that L2 learners from the elementary to intermediate level all had a significantly lower acceptance of this grammatical form than the natives (p < 0.01). The elementary learners also differed significantly from the high-intermediate and advanced learners with a lower acceptance of “mei+VC” (p < 0.001). However, high-intermediate and advanced L2 learners approximated the natives in accepting “mei+VC” (p > 0.05). As for the judgment of “mei+VC” in the aural mode, the post-hoc Tukey tests show that elementary L2 learners deviated significantly from intermediate, high-intermediate, and advanced L2 learners as well as Chinese natives with a lower acceptance of this form (p < 0.05), while those rising from low-intermediate to advanced proficiency all achieved nativelike determinacy in accepting “mei+VC” (p > 0.05). The results suggest that L2 learners established nativelike knowledge to the preverbal position of mei in RCC with increased Chinese proficiency despite uncertainty at the early stage. The rejection of “*V +mei+C” Also with L1-English and L1-Korean learners’ judgment data collapsed, results from the post-hoc Tukey tests on the judgment of “*V+mei+C” in the written mode indicate that L2 learners at the elementary level showed no significant difference from the natives (p > 0.05), while those with low-intermediate to the advanced proficiency all had a significantly lower acceptance of “*V+mei+C” than the natives

112

6 Results of the Experimental Study

(p < 0.01), suggesting that L2 learners developed an even stronger determinacy in rejecting “*V+mei+C” than the natives when the materials were presented visually. By contrast, a different pattern was shown in the judgment of “*V+mei+C” in the aural mode. The results reveal that L2 learners from elementary to intermediate level all had a higher acceptance of this ungrammatical form than the natives (p < 0.01), while those at high-intermediate and advanced levels converged with the natives in rejecting “*V+mei+C” (p > 0.05). Elementary learners also differed significantly from the other L2 groups with a higher acceptance of this ungrammatical form (p < 0.05). The results suggest that L2 learners developed sensitivity toward the illicit movement of mei to the post-verbal position in RCC early on, and they gained nativelike sensitivity earlier in the written mode (elementary level) than in the aural mode (high-intermediate level). (3) The judgment of “*V +mei+C”: written versus aural To further examine whether task modality affects L2 learners’ performance in rejecting “*V+mei+C”, one-way repeated measures ANOVA was run on the means of judgment of “*V+mei+C” in the written and the aural mode by L2 learners and the natives at different levels. Unexpectedly, the results reveal a significant effect of task modality in the natives (F (1, 14) = 21.54, p < 0.001). Chinese natives had a higher acceptance of this ungrammatical form in the written mode (M = 2.10) than in the aural mode (M = 1.10), suggesting a higher accuracy in the aural mode. In an opposite direction, L2 learners at the elementary to intermediate level were more sensitive to such an illicit word order in the written mode. As shown in the results from one-way repeated measures ANOVAs, a significant effect of task modality was elicited at the elementary level (F (1, 40) = 9.78, p < 0.01), the low-intermediate level (F (1, 40) = 20.15, p < 0.001), and the intermediate level (F (1, 39) = 6.19, p < 0.05). L2 learners at these levels all had a lower acceptance of the ungrammatical “*V+mei+C” in the written mode than in the aural mode.

Individual Results We then present the individual performance of L2 learners at each proficiency in comparison with natives in their judgment of “mei+RCC” in both modes. As noted in Sect. 5.4.2, participants who achieve an accuracy of 75% or above in all three test items of this subcategory (experimental items: “*V+mei+C” and “mei+VC”; control: “VC”) are considered as high achievers with consistent performance in the judgment of the position of mei in RCC. (1) L1-Engish learners The individual performance of L1-English learners is displayed in Fig. 6.5. As can be seen clearly, less than 30% of elementary and low-intermediate learners made consistently accurate judgments, but there was a great increase in the proportion of high achievers at the intermediate level in both modes. At the advanced level, more

6.3 Results of the Written and Aural GJTs of Each Negative Structure Written

113

Aural

100% 79%

80% 60% 60%

60%

43% 43% 40% 20%

80%

71%

40%

29% 29% 14% 5%

0% EE(21)

ELI(21)

EI(20)

EHI(14)

EA(14)

CN(15)

Fig. 6.5 Percentages of high achievers in L1-English learners and natives in the written and aural GJTs of “mei+RCC” written

aural

100% 80%

80%

60%

60% 40%

20%

69% 69%

30% 15%

45% 35%

63%

50%

40%

10%

0% KE(20)

KLI(20)

KI(20)

KHI(16)

KA(16)

CN(15)

Fig. 6.6 Percentages of high achievers in L1-Korean learners and natives in the written and aural GJTs of “mei+RCC”

than 70% of the participants were high achievers in the two modes, comparable with the natives’ performance in the aural mode (80%). However, natives performed much less accurately in the written mode (40%), consistent with the group results. (2) L1-Korean learners We then turn to L1-Korean learners’ individual performance in the judgment of “mei+RCC” in comparison with natives. As shown in Fig. 6.6, few of elementary L1-Korean learners achieved success. At the low-intermediate level, there was a sharp increase in the percentage of high achievers in the written mode (from about 15–60%) though they did not perform that well in the aural mode (only 30%). Unexpectedly, there was a decrease in the percentage of high achievers at the intermediate and high-intermediate level in the written mode but a gradual increase at these stages in the aural mode. Finally, advanced L1-Korean learners performed similarly across the two modes and more than 60% performed consistently.

114

6 Results of the Experimental Study

Wri t t e n GJ T *bu+VC

V+bu+C

3.87

4.00

3.87

3.52 3.13

2.95 3.07

3.00

2.59

2.95

2.77

2.00

2.10

2.07

1.69 1.63 1.54

1.00

2.81 2.90 2.94

1.56 1.56

1.27 1.35

1.42 1.36 1.35

0.00 EE ELI EI EH I EA CN

K E K LI K I K H I K A CN

Fig. 6.7 Means of judgment of “bu+PCC” in the written GJT by all groups. Notes “*bu+VC”, e.g., *小李不找到工作; “V+bu+C”, e.g., 小李找不到工作. GJT scale (1–4): 1 for “definitely ungrammatical”, 2 for “probably ungrammatical”, 3 for “probably grammatical”, 4 for “definitely grammatical”

A u ra l GJ T *bu+VC 4.00

3.00 2.00 1.00

V+bu+C

3.70 3.34

3.30 2.82

2.91 2.95

2.83 2.88

3.15

3.42

3.70

2.91

2.70 2.21 2.07 1.61

2.06 1.93 1.25 1.30

1.37

1.48

1.67

1.37

0.00 EE ELI EI EH I EA CN

K E K LI K I K H I K A CN

Fig. 6.8 Means of judgment of “bu+PCC” in the aural GJT by all groups

6.3.1.2

Results of the Judgment on the Position of bu in PCC

Group Results The means of judgment of “bu+PCC” in the written and aural GJTs by L1-English learners, L1-Korean learners, and Chinese natives are shown in Figs. 6.7 and 6.8.

6.3 Results of the Written and Aural GJTs of Each Negative Structure

115

It appears that L2 learners at all levels had a higher acceptance of “V+bu+C” than “*bu+VC”, just as the Chinese natives.3 A two-way MANOVA was run on the means of judgment of “*bu+VC” and “V+bu+C” in the written and the aural mode by all subject groups. The results reveal a significant effect of L1 background (F (4, 183) = 2.88, p < 0.05) and Chinese proficiency (F (16, 744) = 7.08, p < 0.001), yet no significant interaction between the two factors (F (16, 744) = 0.91, p > 0.05). (1) The judgment of “bu+PCC”: L1-English learners versus L1-Korean learners The post-hoc Tukey test yields a significant difference in L1-English and L1-Korean learners’ judgment of “*bu+VC” in the aural mode (p < 0.05). Results from one-way ANOVAs show that L1-English learners had a significantly lower acceptance (M = 2.21) of the illicit “*bu+VC” than L1-Korean learners (M = 2.70) in the aural mode but only at the elementary level (F (1, 40) = 4.84, p < 0.05). Both L2 groups showed indeterminacy at this stage since the means of their judgment fall between 2 (“probably ungrammatical”) and 3 (“probably grammatical”), as shown in the figures above. However, no significant difference was found between L1-English and L1-Korean learners in their judgment of “*bu+VC” in the written mode (p > 0.05) or the judgment of “V+bu+C” in both modes (p > 0.05). Therefore, in these cases, the data of two L2 learner groups were collapsed for comparison with the Chinese natives. (2) The judgment of “bu+PCC”: L2 learners versus Chinese natives The acceptance of “V +bu+C” Since no significant difference was found between L1-English and L1-Korean learners’ judgment of “V+bu+C” in both modes, their data were collapsed for analysis. Results from the post-hoc Tukey test indicate that L2 learners from elementary to high-intermediate proficiency had a significantly lower acceptance of “V+bu+C” than the native group in the written mode (p < 0.001), but the advanced group approximated the natives (p > 0.05). A similar pattern was found in the aural mode. L2 learners did not converge with the natives until the advanced proficiency in accepting the grammatical “V+bu+C” (p > 0.05). The results suggest that L2 learners exhibited persistent uncertainty in accepting “V+bu+C” before attaining advanced proficiency. The rejection of “*bu+VC” by L2 learner groups in comparison with Chinese natives With L1-English and L1-Korean learners’ data collapsed, results from the post-hoc Tukey test bear out that elementary L2 learners had a significantly higher acceptance of “*bu+VC” than all the other L2 groups as well as the natives in the written mode (p < 0.05), while L2 learners from low-intermediate to advanced proficiency showed nativelike sensitivity in rejecting this ungrammatical form (p > 0.05). 3

As noted in Sect. 5.4.2, the positive structure “V-de+C” has a much lower frequency than the negative structure “V+bu+C” despite their surface correspondence and Chinese natives made noncategorial judgments of “V-de+C” in the pilot study. Thus, we did not include the positive structure “V-de+C” as the control item in this subcategory.

116

6 Results of the Experimental Study

Since significant difference was found in L1-English and L1-Korean learners’ judgment of “*bu+VC” in the aural mode, separate one-way ANOVAs were run to show their differences from the natives. The results from the post-hoc Tukey test indicate that L1-English learners at the elementary and low-intermediate levels had a significantly higher acceptance of this ungrammatical form than the natives (p < 0.01), while those at higher levels achieved nativelike sensitivity (p > 0.05). Similarly, L1Korean learners converged with the natives after attaining intermediate proficiency (p > 0.05). The results suggest that L2 learners from both backgrounds were indeterminate in rejecting the preverbal position of bu in PCC (*bu+VC) at the early stages, but they converged with the Chinese natives with increased proficiency. They both gained nativelike sensitivity earlier in the written mode (low-intermediate) than in the aural mode (intermediate). (3) The judgment of “*bu+VC” across the written mode and the aural mode Results from one-way repeated measures ANOVA bear out that Chinese natives rated the ungrammatical “*bu+VC” similarly in the written mode and the aural mode (F (1, 14) = 0.01, p > 0.05). L1-English learners at all levels also made similar judgments across the two modes (p > 0.05). By contrast, L1-Korean learners had a significantly lower acceptance of this ungrammatical form in the written mode than in the aural mode at the elementary level (F (1, 19) = 7.28, p < 0.05) and the low-intermediate level (F (1, 19) = 6.23, p < 0.05). No significant difference was found across the two modes at higher proficiency levels.

Individual Results After presenting the group performance, we turn to the individual performance of L2 learners in their judgment of “bu+PCC” in comparison with natives. Participants with an accuracy of 75% or above in both types of experimental items (“*bu+VC” and “V+bu+C”) are considered as high achievers who have acquired the position of bu in potential complement constructions. (1) L1-English learners As seen from the results in Fig. 6.9, less than 30% of L1-English learners achieved success from elementary to intermediate level in both modes. Although nearly 60% of learners at higher levels made accurate judgments in the aural mode, there were fewer high achievers in the written mode, in contrast to natives who achieved accuracy at ceiling in the written GJT. This is consistent with the results from the group data that L1-English learners showed much indeterminacy in the acceptance of “V+bu+C” in the written mode while they converged with natives in the aural mode. (2) L1-Korean learners We then turn to the individual performance of L1-Korean learners in their judgment of “bu+PCC” in comparison with natives. As displayed in Fig. 6.10, few elementary

6.3 Results of the Written and Aural GJTs of Each Negative Structure Written

Aural

117 100%

100% 80%

60%

67%

60%

57% 43%

40% 20%

29% 19%

29%

24% 15%

20%

5%

0% EE(21)

ELI(21)

EI(20)

EHI(14)

EA(14)

CN(15)

Fig. 6.9 Percentages of high achievers in L1-English learners and natives in the written and aural GJTs of “bu+PCC” written

aural

100%

100% 80%

69%

60%

44% 35%

40% 20%

67%

10%

15%

30%

25%

31% 31%

15%

0% KE(20)

KLI(20)

KI(20)

KHI(16)

KA(16)

CN(15)

Fig. 6.10 Percentages of high achievers in L1-Korean learners and natives in the written and aural GJTs of “bu+PCC”

learners achieved success and only about 30% of learners from low-intermediate to high-intermediate level achieved success. This is consistent with the findings from group results that L1-Korean learners still differed significantly from natives in the acceptance of “V+bu+C” even at high-intermediate level. At the advanced level, there was a great increase in the percentage of high achievers in the written mode (from about 30–69%) but they did not perform that well in the aural mode.

6.3.1.3

Results of the Judgment on the Position of bu in DCC

Group Results The means of judgment of “bu+DCC” in the written and aural GJTs by L1-English learners, L1-Korean learners, and Chinese natives are displayed in Figs. 6.11 and

118

6 Results of the Experimental Study

Wri t t e n GJ T V-de+bu+C

*bu+V-de+C

4.00

3.33

3.00 3.33

3.97 3.95 3.77 3.68 3.88 3.74 3.53

3.82 3.79 3.92

3.91 3.91 3.97

3.54

3.95 3.98 3.91 3.92 3.55 3.69

2.26

2.00 1.80

1.00

3.853.75

V-de+C

1.99

1.69 1.63 1.52 1.15

1.39 1.24 1.33 1.22 1.15

EE ELI EI EH I EA CN

K E K L I K I K H IK A C N

0.00

Fig. 6.11 Means of judgment of “bu+DCC” in the written GJT by all groups

6.12. The data in the figures show that the judgments of the control sentence “V-de+C” by all L2 learner groups reached above 3 (“probably grammatical”), suggesting they established the basic knowledge of DCC. Besides, it is evident that L2 learners at all levels had a higher acceptance of “V-de+bu+C” than “*bu+V-de+C”, just as the natives. A two-way MANOVA on the judgment of “*bu+V-de+C” and “V-de+bu+C” elicits a significant effect of Chinese proficiency (F (16, 744) = 3.32, p < 0.001), but no significant effect of L1 background (F (4, 183) = 2.25, p > 0.05), yet there was a significant interaction between the two factors (F (16, 744) = 1.86, p < 0.05). (1) The judgment of “bu+DCC”: L1-English learners versus L1-Korean learners The judgment data show that L1-Korean learners had a better performance than L1English learners in the judgment of “*bu+V-de+C”. Results from one-way ANOVAs on L1-English and L1-Korean learners’ judgment at each level indicate that L1Korean learners had a significantly lower acceptance of “*bu+V-de+C” than L1English learners at the low-intermediate level (F (1, 40) = 13.96, p < 0.01) and at the intermediate level (F (1, 39) = 5.33, p < 0.05) in the written mode. High-intermediate L1-Korean learners also had a significantly lower acceptance of this illicit form than corresponding L1-English learners in the aural mode (F (1, 29) = 4.28, p < 0.05). However, no significant difference was found in their judgment of the grammatical “V-de+bu+C” in either mode (p > 0.05). Therefore, their data on the judgment of “V-de+bu+C” were collapsed for further analysis below. (2) The judgment of “bu+DCC”: L2 learners versus Chinese natives The acceptance of “V-de+bu+C”

6.3 Results of the Written and Aural GJTs of Each Negative Structure

119

A u ral GJ T *bu+V-de+C 3.95 3.95 3.81 3.79 4.00 3.62 3.93

3.00 3.40

3.61 3.54 3.63

3.80 3.82

V-de+bu+C 3.95 3.95 3.94 3.95 3.85 3.93 3.74 3.61 3.61 3.73

3.88 3.82

2.00 1.00

1.55 1.61

1.28

1.52

1.78 1.69 1.36

1.17

1.50 1.20

1.38

1.17

0.00 EE ELI EI EH I EA CN

K E K L I K I K H IK A C N

Fig. 6.12 Means of judgment of “bu+DCC” in the aural GJT by all groups. Notes “*bu+V-de+C”, e.g., *小李不跑得快; “V-de+bu+C”, e.g., 小李跑得不快; “V-de+C”, eg. 小李跑得很快. GJT scale (1–4): 1 for “definitely ungrammatical”, 2 for “probably ungrammatical”, 3 for “probably grammatical”, 4 for “definitely grammatical”

L1-English and L1-Korean learners’ judgment data on “V-de+bu+C” were collapsed to compare with the natives. In the written mode, results from one-way ANOVA indicate that only elementary learners differed significantly from low-intermediate, high-intermediate, advanced, and the natives with a lower acceptance of this licit form (p < 0.05). They performed like the natives at later stages (p > 0.05). In the aural mode, no significant difference was found between L2 groups and the natives (p > 0.05). The results show that L2 learners readily established nativelike knowledge about the position of bu in descriptive complement constructions after the elementary stage. The rejection of “*bu+V-de+C” Since there was a significant difference between L1-English and L1-Korean learners’ judgment of “*bu+V-de+C” in both modes, separate one-way ANOVAs were run to compare their judgment with the natives. L1-English learners: Results from the post-hoc Tukey test show that the elementary and low-intermediate groups had a significantly higher acceptance of the ungrammatical “*bu+V-de+C” than the natives in the written mode (p < 0.05), while those at higher levels showed no significant difference from the natives (p > 0.05). By contrast, in the aural mode, no significant difference was elicited between L1-English learners and the natives in the judgment of “*bu+V-de+C” at each level (p > 0.05). L1-Korean learners: A similar pattern was revealed in the written mode and the aural mode for L1-Korean learners. Results from the post-hoc Tukey test reveal that the elementary group differed significantly from all the other L2 groups and the

120

6 Results of the Experimental Study

natives with a higher acceptance of the illicit “*bu+V-de+C” (p < 0.001), while those at later stages gained nativelike sensitivity in rejecting this form in both modes (p > 0.05). As shown in Figs. 6.11 and 6.12, the ratings of “*bu+V-de+C” by L1-English and L1-Korean learners starting from the elementary level fall below 2 (“probably ungrammatical”) in both modes (except for elementary L1-Korean learners’ judgment in the written mode). These results suggest that L2 learners in general showed sensitivity to the illicit word order in “*bu+V-de+C” at an early stage and they gained nativelike sensitivity readily with increased Chinese proficiency. (3) The judgment of “*bu+V-de+C”: written versus aural Results from one-way repeated measures ANOVA show that the Chinese natives showed no difference in their judgment of “V-de+bu+C” across the two modes (F (1, 14) = 0.02, p > 0.05). However, the effect of task modality was found in L2 learners’ judgment, but in opposite directions. L1-English learners: Only the intermediate group rated this ungrammatical form significantly lower in the aural mode than in the written mode (F (1, 19) = 11.43, p < 0.01), yet no significant difference was found across the two modes at other levels. L1-Korean learners: In contrast to L1-English learners’ judgment, low-intermediate L1-Korean learners had a significantly lower acceptance of this illicit form in the written mode than in the aural mode (F (1, 19) = 4.61, p < 0.05). No significant difference was found across the two modes at other levels.

Individual Results We then turn to the individual performance of L2 learners in comparison with natives in the judgment of “bu+DCC”. Participants that gain an accuracy of 75% or above in all three types of test items (two experimental items: “*bu+V-de+C” and “Vde+bu+C”; one control item: V-de+C) are considered as high achievers. (1) L1-English learners As shown in Fig. 6.13, more than 50% of L1-English participants achieved success as early as the elementary stage in the aural mode. The same pattern was found in the written mode except for the performance of elementary learners (38%). More than 70% of advanced learners achieved success, comparable to that of natives. (2) L1-Korean learners As shown in Fig. 6.6.14, 60% of the elementary learners achieved success in the aural mode though only 30% did so in the written mode. At the low-intermediate level, however, there was a sharp increase in the percentage of high achievers in the written mode (from 30 to 85%) but only 55% of low-intermediate learners achieved success in the aural mode. At later stages, a quite large percentage of high achievers were

6.3 Results of the Written and Aural GJTs of Each Negative Structure Written

Aural

100%

87%

80%

71% 57%

60% 40%

75%

60%

121

93%

87%

71% 71% 64%

52%

38%

20%

0% EE(21)

ELI(21)

EI(20)

EHI(14)

EA(14)

CN(15)

Fig. 6.13 Percentages of high achievers in L1-English learners and natives in the written and aural GJTs of “bu+DCC” written 85%

85%

88% 88%

93%

87%

75% 75%

80% 60%

60%

40%

aural 94%

100%

55%

30%

20% 0%

KE(20)

KLI(20)

KI(20)

KHI(16)

KA(16)

CN(15)

Fig. 6.14 Percentages of high achievers in L1-Korean learners and natives in the written and aural GJTs of “bu+DCC”

found in both modes (88% at the advanced level), comparable with that of Chinese natives.

6.3.1.4

Summary of the Main Results

We have reported the results of the judgment of the position of bu/mei in three types of verbal complement constructions in the written and aural GJTs by L1-English and L1-Korean learners and Chinese natives. The main results are summarized below. (1) In general, both L1-English and L1-Korean learners demonstrated indeterminacy toward the syntactic position of bu/mei in verbal complement constructions at the early stages, but they established nativelike sensitivity with increased Chinese proficiency.

122

6 Results of the Experimental Study

(2) L1-English and L1-Korean learners exhibited similar development patterns in the judgment of “mei+RCC” and “bu+PCC”. However, in the judgment of “*bu+V-de+C”, L1-Korean learners gained nativelike sensitivity earlier than L1-English learners in the written mode. (3) Both L1-English and L1-Korean learners converged with the natives earlier in the written mode than in the aural mode in the judgment of “mei+RCC” and “bu+PCC”. However, in the judgment of “*bu+V-de+C”, L1-English learners achieved nativelike sensitivity to the illicit position of bu at an earlier stage in the aural mode (elementary) than in the written mode (intermediate). As noted in Sect. 3.2.3.1, the position of negation markers in verbal complement constructions involves narrow syntax. The above results will be discussed further within the framework of the Interface Hypothesis in Chap. 8.

6.3.2 Results of the Judgment of Temporal Constraints on Negation This section will report L2 learners’ judgment on the interaction between temporal meaning and negation in comparison with natives. Specifically, we will examine whether L2 learners could make accurate judgment of negation markers for the negation of past habitual activities, past episodic events, and absolute future events. L2 learners’ group performance will be presented first, followed by their individual performance in comparison with that of Chinese natives.

6.3.2.1

The Choice of bu/mei in Negating Past Habitual Activities Denoted by yiqian (“Before”)

Group Results The results of written and aural GJTs of the negation of past habitual by L1-English learners, L1-Korean learners, and Chinese natives are presented in Figs. 6.15 and 6.16. The figures show that L2 learners’ judgment of the control sentence is around 3, “probably grammatical”, indicating that they tended to accept the positive sentence but still with uncertainty. Besides, they seemedd to have a higher acceptance of “*yiqian+mei+VP” than “yiqian+bu+VP” at the early stages, but then they had a higher acceptance of “yiqian+bu+VP” than “*yiqian+mei+VP” at the advanced level just as the Chinese natives. A two-way MANOVA on the judgment of “*yiqian+mei+VP” and “yiqian+bu+VP” by all subject groups in the written and aural mode yields a significant effect of L1 background (F (4, 183) = 3.00, p < 0.001) and Chinese proficiency (F (16, 744) = 5.01, p < 0.001), yet no significant interaction between the two factors (F (16, 744) = 0.56, p > 0.05).

6.3 Results of the Written and Aural GJTs of Each Negative Structure

123

Wri t t e n GJ T yiqian+bu+VP

*yiqian+mei+VP 4.00

3.00 2.00

3.61

4.00 3.80

3.66

2.99

3.01 2.95 2.98 2.86 3.41 2.82 2.73 2.71 2.77 2.80 2.64 2.54 2.50 2.37

yiqian+VP

2.54 2.38

3.53 3.80 2.98 3.13 3.06 2.98 2.55 2.81 2.76 2.53 2.53 2.24 1.53

1.53

1.00

4.00

0.00 EE ELI EI EH I EA CN

K E K LI K I K H I K A CN

Fig. 6.15 Means of judgment of “yiqian+Neg+VP” in the written GJT by all groups

A u ral GJ T *yiqian+mei+VP 3.64 3.08

3.00 2.69 2.58

1.00

yiqian+VP

3.98

4.00

2.00

yiqian+bu+VP

3.72

3.92

3.41 2.70 2.74 2.91 2.82 2.70 2.46 2.65 2.54 2.30 2.49

3.98

3.92 3.21 3.38 3.02 2.95 3.00 3.06 2.98 2.80 2.74

3.06 3.00 2.59

2.35 2.26

1.42

1.42

EE ELI EI EH I EA CN

K E K LI K I K H I K A CN

0.00

Fig. 6.16 Means of judgment of “yiqian+Neg+VP” in the aural GJT by all groups. Notes “*yiqian+mei+VP”, e.g., *小李以前没抽烟; “yiqian+bu+VP”, e.g., 小李以前不抽烟; “yiqian+VP”, e.g., 小李以前抽烟. GJT scale (1–4): 1 for “definitely ungrammatical”, 2 for “probably ungrammatical”, 3 for “probably grammatical”, 4 for “definitely grammatical”

(1) The judgment of “yiqian+Neg+VP”: L1-English learners versus L1-Korean learners Results from the post-hoc Tukey test indicate that L1-English and L1-Korean learners showed significant difference in the judgment of “*yiqian+mei+VP” in the aural mode (p < 0.05). One-way ANOVA on their judgment of this form at all levels reveals that intermediate L1-Korean learners had a significantly higher acceptance (M = 3.21) of this illicit form than intermediate L1-English learners (M = 2.65) (F (1, 39) = 5.10, p < 0.05), though both L2 groups failed to reject this ungrammatical form, with means around 3 (“probably grammatical”).

124

6 Results of the Experimental Study

No significant difference was found in their judgment of “*yiqian+mei+VP” in the written mode or the judgment of “yiqian+bu+VP” in either mode (p > 0.05). Therefore, L1-English and L1-Korean learners’ data were collapsed in the judgment of “*yiqian+mei+VP” in the written mode and the judgment of “yiqian+bu+VP” in both modes to compare with the natives below. (2) The judgment of “yiqian+Neg+VP”: L2 learners versus Chinese natives The acceptance of “yiqian+bu+VP” With L1-English and L1-Korean learners’ data on the judgment of “yiqian+bu+VP” collapsed, the results from the post-hoc test after MANOVA indicate that L2 learners from elementary to high-intermediate had a significantly lower acceptance of this grammatical form than the advanced group and the natives in both the written and the aural mode (p < 0.01), whereas the advanced group showed no significant difference from the natives (p > 0.05). The results suggest that it is not until the advanced stage that L2 learners converged with the natives in accepting the use of bu for negating past habitual activities. The rejection of “*yiqian+mei+VP” With L1-English and L1-Korean learners’ data on the judgment of “*yiqian+mei+VP” in the written mode collapsed, results from the multiple comparisons show that L2 learners from the elementary to advanced level all differed significantly from the natives (p < 0.01). They rated the illicit “*yiqian+mei+VP” significantly higher than the natives. As seen in Fig. 6.15, their means of judgment fluctuate around 3 (“probably grammatical”), suggesting that L2 learners from both backgrounds failed to detect the ungrammaticality in using mei for negating past habitual even at advanced proficiency. In the aural mode, separate one-way ANOVAs were run for L1-English learners and L1-Korean learners to compare with the natives in the judgment of “*yiqian+mei+VP”. The results bear out a significant difference between L1-English learners and the natives (F (5, 104) = 6.75, p < 0.001) and a significant difference between L1-Korean learners and the natives (F (5, 106) = 11.87, p < 0.001). The post-hoc Tukey test shows that L2 learners from both backgrounds rated this illicit form higher than the natives at all levels (p < 0.001). As seen in Fig. 6.16, their means of judgment also fluctuate around 3 (“probably grammatical”), on a par with their indeterminacy in rejecting the use of mei in the written mode. The results above suggest that L2 learners failed to attain nativelike sensitivity to the illicit use of mei for negating the past habitual even at the advanced stage. (3) The judgment of “*yiqian+mei+VP” across the two modes One-way repeated measures ANOVA elicits no significant difference in the judgment of “*yiqian+mei+VP” across the two modes by Chinese natives, as well as L2 learners from both backgrounds, suggesting that all the subject groups performed similarly across the written mode and the aural mode in the judgment of “*yiqian+mei+VP”.

6.3 Results of the Written and Aural GJTs of Each Negative Structure Written

Aural

125 93%

100%

87%

80% 60% 40%

20%

10% 0%

0%

EE(21)

0% 0% 0% 0%

ELI(21)

EI(20)

7%

0%

EHI(14)

7%

0%

EA(14)

CN(15)

Fig. 6.17 Percentages of high achievers in L1-English learners and natives in the written and aural GJTs of “yiqian+Neg+VP”

Individual Results After presenting L2 learners’ group performance, we turn to their individual performance. Participants who attain an accuracy of 75% or above in all three types of test items (the two experimental items: “*yiqian+mei+VP” and “yiqian+bu+VP”; the control item: “yiqian+VP”) are considered high achievers. They are assumed to have acquired the grammaticality of bu instead of mei for the negation of past habitual activities denoted by time adverbial yiqian (“before”). (1) L1-English learners The individual performance of L1 English learners in the judgement of “yiqian+Neg+VP” in comparison with Chinese natives is presented in Fig. 6.17. In sharp contrast with natives who made a highly consistent judgment in both the written and aural GJTs, few L1-English learners achieved success in the acquisition of negation of the past habitual at all levels, which is consistent with the group results that they showed much indeterminacy in the choice of bu/mei for the negation of the past habitual activities. (2) L1-Korean learners The individual performance of L1-Korean learners in the judgment of “yiqian+Neg+VP” in comparison with that of natives is presented in Fig. 6.18. It is clear that few L1-Korean learners achieved success from the elementary to the intermediate level. At later stages, there were still only two (13%) at the high-intermediate level, and four (25%) at the advanced level in the written mode, while only one (6%) high achiever in the aural mode at these two levels. By contrast, about 90% of the natives rejected “*yiqian+mei+VP” and accepted “yiqian+bu+VP” consistently in both modes.

126

6 Results of the Experimental Study written

aural

93%

100%

87%

80% 60% 40%

20%

25%

5%

10%

5%

0% KE(20)

13% 0% 0% 0%

KLI(20)

KI(20)

6%

KHI(16)

6%

KA(16)

CN(15)

Fig. 6.18 Percentages of high achievers in L1-Korean learners and natives in the written and aural GJT of “yiqian+Neg+VP”

Wri t t e n GJ T *zuotian+bu-VP

3.77 3.88 4.00 3.60 3.66

4.00 3.15

3.00

3.15

3.38 3.46

zuotian+VP

zuotian+mei-VP

3.64 3.79

3.95

3.30 3.41

3.49

3.28 3.24

3.72

3.70

3.63 3.77

4.00 3.95

3.00

2.00 2.00

1.00

1.67 1.60

1.99 1.41

1.25 1.13

1.45

1.71

1.91

1.45

1.13

0.00 EE ELI EI EH I EA CN

K E K LI K I K H I K A CN

Fig. 6.19 Means of judgment of “zuotian+Neg+VP” in the written GJT by all groups

6.3.2.2

The Choice of bu/mei in Negating Past Episodic Events Denoted by zuotian (“Yesterday”)

Group Results The means of judgment of “zuotian+Neg+VP” in the written and aural GJTs by L1English learners, L1-Korean learners, and Chinese natives are presented in Figs. 6.19 and 6.20. The figures show that L2 learners’ acceptance of the control positive sentences reached above 3 (“probably grammatical”), suggesting they had established the basic knowledge of the sentences denoting past episodic events. Besides, it appears that L2 learners at all levels had a higher acceptance of “zuotian+mei+VP” than “*zuotian+bu+VP”, just as Chinese natives.

6.3 Results of the Written and Aural GJTs of Each Negative Structure

127

A u ral GJ T zuotian+mei-VP

*zuotian+bu-VP 4.00 3.00 2.00 1.00

3.75 3.37

3.51

3.27

3.38

3.84 3.96 3.93

3.54

3.73 3.82

3.45 3.60 3.06

zuotian+VP 3.66 3.77

3.51 3.58

3.94 3.93 3.92 3.82

3.31

2.95 2.28

2.05 1.76 1.66 1.71

1.96 1.45 1.58

1.45

1.25

1.58 1.58

0.00 EE ELI EI EH I EA CN

K E K LI K I K H I K A CN

Fig. 6.20 Means of judgment of “zuotian+Neg+VP” in the aural GJT by all groups. Notes “*zuotian+bu+VP”, e.g., *小李昨天不来学校; “zuotian+mei+VP”, e.g., 小李昨天没来学校; “zuotian+VP”, e.g., 小李昨天来了学校. GJT scale (1–4): 1 for “definitely ungrammatical”, 2 for “probably ungrammatical”, 3 for “probably grammatical”, 4 for “definitely grammatical”

A two-way MANOVA on the means of judgment of “*zuotian+bu+VP” and “zuotian+mei+VP” in the written and the aural mode by all subject groups yields a significant effect of Chinese proficiency (F (16, 744) = 4.22, p < 0.001), but no significant effect of L1 background (F (4, 183) = 0.69, p > 0.05) or interaction between background and proficiency (F (16, 744) = 1.61, p > 0.05). (1) The judgment of “zuotian+Neg+VP”: L1-English learners versus L1-Korean learners Results from the post-hoc Tukey test on L1 background indicate that L1-English and L1-Korean learners showed no significant difference in their judgment of “*zuotian+bu+VP” and “zuotian+mei+VP” in the written and the aural mode (p > 0.05), suggesting L2 learners from the two backgrounds performed similarly in their judgment. Therefore, their data were collapsed for further analysis below. (2) The judgment of “zuotian+Neg+VP”: L2 learners versus Chinese natives The acceptance of “zuotian+mei+VP” L1-English and L1-Korean learners’ judgment data on “zuotian+mei+VP” were collapsed. In the written mode, the post-hoc Tukey test on Chinese proficiency reveals that elementary L2 learners had a significantly lower acceptance of the licit form “zuotian+mei+VP” than high-intermediate and advanced learners, as well as the natives (p < 0.01). The intermediate group also deviated significantly from the natives with a lower acceptance of this form (p < 0.05), while learners at higher levels converged with the natives. In the aural mode, it was also found that elementary L2 learners had a significantly lower acceptance of this grammatical form than advanced

128

6 Results of the Experimental Study

learners and the natives (p < 0.05), however, learners at higher levels showed no significant difference from the natives (p > 0.05). The results indicate that L2 learners from both backgrounds were indeterminate in accepting the use of mei for negating past episodic events at the elementary level, but they achieved nativelike determinacy in accepting mei with increased proficiency. The rejection of “*zuotian+bu+VP” L1-English and L1-Korean learners’ judgment data on “*zuotian+bu+VP” were also collapsed. In the written mode, the post-hoc Tukey test on Chinese proficiency bears out that elementary L2 learners had a significantly higher acceptance of the illicit form “*zuotian+bu+VP” than advanced learners and the natives (p < 0.01), whereas L2 learners from the low-intermediate to the advanced level approximated the natives (p > 0.05). In the aural mode, results from the post-hoc Tukey test indicate that elementary L2 learners had a significantly higher acceptance of the illicit form “*zuotian+bu+VP” than low-intermediate, intermediate, and high-intermediate learners (p < 0.05), but L2 learners at all levels showed no significant difference from the natives (p > 0.05). The results suggest that L2 learners at the elementary level were reluctant to reject the use of bu for negating past episodic events, but they gained nativelike sensitivity at higher levels with increased Chinese proficiency. (3) The judgment of “*zuotian+bu+VP”: Written versus Aural Results from one-way repeated measures ANOVA on the judgment of “*zuotian+bu+VP” across the two modes show that the Chinese natives had a significantly lower acceptance of this illicit form in the written mode than in the aural mode (F (1, 14) = 11.27, p < 0.01), suggesting a higher accuracy in the written mode than in the aural mode. By contrast, no significant effect of task modality was found in L2 learners’ judgment (p > 0.05), suggesting that they made similar judgments of “*zuotian+bu+VP” across the two modes.

Individual Results We then report the individual performance of L2 learners in comparison with the natives in the judgment of “zuotian+Neg+VP”. Participants who achieve an accuracy of 75% or above in all three types of test items (the two experimental items: “*zuotian+bu+VP” and “zuotian+mei+VP”; the control item: “zuotian+VP”) are considered as high achievers. They are assumed to have acquired the grammaticality of mei instead of bu in the negation of past episodic event denoted by time adverbial zuotian (“yesterday”). (1) L1-English learners As seen in Fig. 6.21, only about 30% of elementary L1-English learners made accurate judgments, in line with the group results that the elementary group showed certain

6.3 Results of the Written and Aural GJTs of Each Negative Structure Written

Aural

100%

80% 64%

55%

52%

60%

43%

40%

93%

93%

79%79%

80%

129

29%

50%

33%

20% 0% EE(21)

ELI(21)

EI(20)

EHI(14)

EA(14)

CN(15)

Fig. 6.21 Percentages of high achievers in L1-English learners and natives in the written and aural GJTs of “zuotian+Neg+VP”

indeterminacy and differed significantly from natives. With increasing Chinese proficiency, about half of low-intermediate and intermediate learners achieved success and near 80% of high-intermediate learners correctly rejected the use of bu and accepted the use of mei for the negation of past episodic events. Advanced L1-English learners achieved the same level of accuracy as natives in the written mode though there were fewer high achievers in the aural mode (64%) compared with that of the natives (80%). (2) L1-Korean learners We then present L1-Korean learners’ individual performance in the judgment of “zuotian++Neg+VP” in comparison with natives in the following Fig. 6.22. Less than 40% of elementary learners achieved success but there was an increase in the percentage of high achievers at the later stages. About 40% of low-intermediate and intermediate learners achieved success in the written mode, and about 50% in the aural mode. At the advanced level, 75% of L1-Korean learners achieved success in both modes, comparable to that of natives (especially in the aural mode).

6.3.2.3

The Choice of bu/mei in Negating Future Events Denoted by mingtian (“Tomorrow”)

Group Results The means of judgment of “mingtian+Neg+VP” in the written and aural GJTs by L1English learners, L1-Korean learners, and Chinese natives are displayed in Figs. 6.23 and 6.24. The figures show that L2 learners’ acceptance of the control positive sentences reached above 3 (“probably grammatical”), indicating that they had established the basic knowledge of sentences denoting future events. L2 learners in general had a higher acceptance of “mingtian+bu+VP” than “*mingtian+mei+VP” just like the natives.

130

6 Results of the Experimental Study written

aural 93%

100%

55%

60% 40%

80%

75% 75% 75%

80%

45%

35%

50%

56%

40%

20%

20% 0%

KE(20)

KLI(20)

KI(20)

KHI(16)

KA(16)

CN(15)

Fig. 6.22 Percentages of high achievers in L1-Korean learners and natives in the written and aural GJTs of “zuotian+Neg+VP”

Wri t t e n GJ T *mingtian+mei-VP 4.00

3.31 3.38

3.69 3.75 3.91 3.73 3.61

3.00 2.00

2.50 2.77 1.96

1.00

1.68

mingtian+bu-VP 4.00 3.97

3.01

1.39 1.45 1.27 1.30

3.30

mingtian+VP

3.92 3.58 3.84 3.88 3.81

4.00 3.97

3.30 3.19 3.34 3.13

1.69 1.28 1.21 1.31 1.33 1.30

0.00 EE ELI EI EH I EA CN

K E K LI K I K H I K A CN

Fig. 6.23 Means of judgment of “mingtian+Neg+VP” in the written GJT by all groups

A two-way MANOVA on the means of judgment of “*mingtian+mei+VP” and “mingtian+bu+VP” in the written and the aural mode by all subject groups reveals a significant effect of L1 background (F (4, 183) = 9.00, p < 0.001) and Chinese proficiency (F (16, 744) = 5.70, p < 0.001), as well as the interaction between these two factors (F (16, 744) = 1.80, p < 0.05). (1) The judgment of “mingtian+Neg+VP”: L1-English learners versus L1-Korean learners Given the significant interaction between L1 background and Chinese proficiency, separate one-way ANOVAs were run to reveal the possible differences between L1-English learners and L1-Korean learners in their judgment at each level. In the judgment of “*mingtian+mei+VP”, results from one-way ANOVAs indicate that L1-Korean learners had a significantly lower acceptance of this illicit form than

6.3 Results of the Written and Aural GJTs of Each Negative Structure

131

A u ral GJ T mingtian+bu-VP

*mingtian+mei-VP

4.00

3.51

3.88 3.98 3.97 3.65 3.76

3.64 3.59 3.84 3.84

3.95

3.00 2.00 1.00

3.34

2.63

3.52

mingtian+VP

3.43

3.98 3.97

3.70 3.73

3.95

3.28 3.21

2.60 2.66

2.29 1.54 1.46 1.34

1.70 1.18

1.03

1.43 1.30 1.45 1.17

1.03

0.00 EE ELI EI EH I EA CN

K E K LI K I K HI K A C N

Fig. 6.24 Means of judgment of “mingtian+Neg+VP” in the aural GJT by all groups. Notes “*mingtian+mei+VP”, e.g., *小李明天没来上课; “mingtian+bu+VP”, e.g., 小李明天不来上课; “mingtian+VP”, e.g., 小李明天来上课. GJT scale (1–4): 1 for “definitely ungrammatical”, 2 for “probably ungrammatical”, 3 for “probably grammatical”, 4 for “definitely grammatical”

L1-English learners at the low-intermediate level in the written mode (F (1, 40) = 4.86, p < 0.05) and at the elementary level in the aural mode (F (1, 40) = 4.46, p < 0.05). In the judgment of “mingtian+bu+VP”, results from one-way ANOVAs bear out that L1-Korean learners had a significantly higher acceptance of this licit form than L1-English learners at the elementary level in the written mode (F (1, 40) = 10.05, p < 0.01). In the aural mode, L1-Korean learners also had a significantly higher acceptance of this licit form than L1-English learners at the elementary level (F (1, 40) = 13.46, p < 0.01), the low-intermediate level (F (1, 40) = 7.76, p < 0.01) and the intermediate level (F (1, 40) = 5.52, p < 0.05), but not other levels. The results suggest that L1-Korean learners exhibited more sensitivity to the illicit use of mei and stronger determinacy in accepting the use of bu in negating future events than L1-English learners before the high-intermediate stage. (2) The judgment of “mingtian+Neg+VP”: L2 learners versus Chinese natives Given the above differences between L1-English learners and L1-Korean learners, separate one-way ANOVAs were run to compare each L2 learner group’s judgment of “*mingtian+Neg+VP” with that of the natives. The acceptance of “mingtian+bu+VP” L1-English learners: One-way ANOVAs on the judgment of “mingtian+bu+VP” by L1-English learners and the natives elicit a significant proficiency effect in the written mode (F (5, 104) = 13.60, p < 0.01) and the aural mode (F (5, 104) = 10.99, p < 0.001). The post-hoc Tukey test reveals that L1-English learners from elementary

132

6 Results of the Experimental Study

to intermediate level all had significantly lower acceptance of this grammatical form than the Chinese natives in the written and the aural mode (p < 0.01), while the high-intermediate and advanced groups converged with the natives (p > 0.05). L1-Korean learners: Results from one-way ANOVAs on the judgment of “mingtian+bu+VP” by L1-Koren learners and the natives bear out a significant proficiency effect in the written mode (F (5, 106) = 4.18, p < 0.01) and the aural mode (F (5, 106) = 4.27, p < 0.01). The post-hoc Tukey test shows that the low-intermediate and high-intermediate groups had a significantly lower acceptance of this licit form than the natives in the written mode (p < 0.05), while the other groups approximated the natives (p > 0.05). The low-intermediate and intermediate groups also differed significantly from the natives with a lower acceptance of this licit form in the aural mode (p < 0.05), while the other groups showed no difference from the natives (p > 0.05). The results above suggest that both L1-English learners and L1-Korean learners were uncertain with the use of bu for negating future events before attaining highintermediate or advanced proficiency. The rejection of “*mingtian+mei+VP” by L2 learner groups in comparison with the natives L1-English learners: Results from one-way ANOVAs yield a significant proficiency effect in the rejection of “*mingtian+mei+VP” by L1-English learners and the natives in the written mode (F (5, 104) = 3.28, p < 0.01) and the aural mode (F (5, 104) = 9.72, p < 0.001). The results of the post-hoc Tukey test indicate that the elementary group differed significantly from the advanced group and the Chinese native group with a higher rating of this illicit form in the written mode (p < 0.05). In the aural mode, it was also found that the elementary group had a significantly higher acceptance of this illicit form than all the other learner groups and the natives (p < 0.01). The results suggest that L1-English learners were not quite sensitive to the ungrammaticality of using mei for negating future events at the elementary level, but they gained nativelike sensitivity as a function of increased proficiency. L1-Korean learners: Results from one-way ANOVAs on the rejection of “*mingtian+mei+VP” by L1-Korean learners and the natives reveal significant difference in the aural mode (F (5, 106) = 2.74, p < 0.05) but not in the written mode (F (5, 106) = 2.14, p > 0.05). The post-hoc Tukey test indicates that only the elementary group differed significantly from the natives with a higher acceptance of this illicit form in the aural mode (p < 0.05). The results suggest that L1-Korean learners established nativelike sensitivity in rejecting the use of mei for negating future events as early as the elementary level. (3) The judgment of “*mingtian+mei+VP”: Written versus Aural To further reveal possible effect of task modality, one-way repeated measures ANOVA was run on the judgment of “*mingtian+mei+VP” across the two modes by L2 learners and the natives. The results bear out a significant modality effect only in the natives (F (1, 14) = 4.59, p < 0.05), but not in L1-English learners or L1-Korean

6.3 Results of the Written and Aural GJTs of Each Negative Structure Written

100%

Aural 86%

80%

64%

133 93%

79%

100%

71%

60% 40%

40% 20%

24% 14% 14% 14%

20%

0% EE(21)

ELI(21)

EI(20)

EHI(14)

EA(14)

CN(15)

Fig. 6.25 Percentages of high achievers in L1-English and natives in the written and aural GJTs of “mingtian+Neg+VP”

learners at all levels. Unexpectedly, the Chinese natives had a significantly lower acceptance of this illicit form in the aural mode than in the written mode, while L2 learners performed similarly across the two modes.

Individual Results We now turn to L2 learners’ individual performance in the judgment of negation for future events. High achievers are those gaining an accuracy of 75% or above in all three types of test items (the two experimental items: “*mingtian+mei+VP” and “mingtian+bu+VP”; the control item: “mingtian+VP”). They are assumed to have acquired the grammatical choice of bu instead of mei for the negation of future events. (1) L1-English learners The results of L1-English learners’ individual performance are presented in the following Fig. 6.25 in comparison with that of the natives. It can be seen clearly that there were few (about 20%) high achievers from the elementary to the intermediate level, in line with the finding from the group results that they were rather indeterminate in accepting the grammatical form “mingtian+bu+VP” though they correctly rejected “*mingtian+mei+VP” at an earlier stage. With increased Chinese proficiency, about 70–80% of L1-English learners at the high-intermediate and advanced level attained success. However, it is noteworthy that there were fewer high-achievers in the aural mode than the written mode for L2 learners, in contrast with the native group with 100% accuracy in the aural mode. (2) L1-Korean learners The individual performance of L1-Korean learners in the judgment of “mingtian+Neg+VP” in comparison with Chinese natives is presented in Fig. 6.26. It is evident that about 50% of elementary L1-Korean learners achieved success,

134

6 Results of the Experimental Study written

aural

93%

100% 75%

80% 60%

45%

70% 65% 63%63% 60%

75%

100%

81%

50%

40%

20% 0% KE(20)

KLI(20)

KI(20)

KHI(16)

KA(16)

CN(15)

Fig. 6.26 Percentages of high achievers in L1-Korean and natives in the written and aural GJTs of “mingtian+Neg+VP”

suggesting that L1-Korean learners developed sensitivity toward the choice of negation markers for future events at an early stage, consistent with the group results. With increasing Chinese proficiency, there was also an increase in the percentage of high achievers at later stages and as much as 80% of advanced learners achieved success.

6.3.2.4

Summary of the Main Results

We have presented L2 learners’ interpretation of the interaction between temporal information and the choice of negation markers in written and aural GJT. The main results are summarized below. (1) L1-English and L1-Korean learners performed similarly in the choice of negation marker for negating past habitual activities and past episodic events. However, L1-Korean learners seemed to acquire the negation of future events earlier than L1-English learners. (2) L2 learners had great difficulty in acquiring the grammaticality of bu rather than mei for negating past habitual activities. Though learners with higher proficiency acquired the grammaticality of bu, they still failed to converge with the natives in rejecting mei for negating the past habitual events even at the advanced stage. (3) L2 learners established nativelike sensitivity in rejecting bu and accepting mei for negating past episodic events at quite an early stage (low-intermediate level). (4) L2 learners developed nativelike sensitivity in rejecting mei for negating future events at an early stage (before intermediate level), yet they established nativelike determinacy in accepting bu later (after intermediate level). (5) L2 learners performed similarly across the two modes in the judgment of the temporal constraints on Chinese negation. However, the natives are more determinate in rejecting bu in negating past episodic events in the written mode and more determinate in rejecting mei in negating future events in the aural mode.

6.3 Results of the Written and Aural GJTs of Each Negative Structure

135

As noted in Sect. 3.2.3.2, the interaction between temporal information and negation involves the syntax-semantics interface. The three types of contexts denoted by time adverbials presented above encode the [±realis] features and license the use of bu/mei. By relating to the Interface Hypothesis and the Feature Reassembly Hypothesis, these results will be discussed in Chap. 8.

6.3.3 Results of the Judgment of Lexical Aspectual Constraints on Negation This section will present the results of L2 learners’ judgment of lexical semantic constraints on negation, specifically, the choice of negation markers in negating two types of lexical aspects: statives and achievements/accomplishments. Both their group performance and their individual performance will be reported in comparison with Chinese natives.

6.3.3.1

The Choice of bu/mei in Negating Statives

Group Results The means of judgment of “Neg+statives” in the written and aural GJTs by L1English learners, L1-Korean learners, and Chinese natives are presented in Figs. 6.27 and 6.28. The figures show that L2 learners’ judgment of the control positive sentence reached above 3 (“probably grammatical”), suggesting they had established the basic knowledge of sentences with stative predicates. A two-way MANOVA on the judgment of “*mei+stative” and “bu+stative” in the written and the aural mode yields a significant effect of L1 background (F (4, 183) = 7.23, p < 0.001) and Chinese proficiency (F (16, 744) = 2.34, p < 0.01), as well as a significant interaction between these two factors (F (16, 744) = 2.34, p < 0.01). (1) The judgment of “Neg+statives”: L1-English learners versus L1-Korean learners One-way ANOVAs were run on the judgment of “*mei+statives” and “bu+statives” in both modes by L1-English and L1-Korean learners at each level. In the judgment of “*mei+statives”, L1-Korean learners rated “*mei+statives” significantly lower than L1-English learners at the intermediate level (F (1, 39) = 11.88, p < 0.01) and the high-intermediate level (F (1, 29) = 8.18, p < 0.01) in the written mode, suggesting that L1-Korean learners at these two levels were more determinate in rejecting the use of mei in negating statives. No significant difference between the two L2 groups was found at other levels in the written mode and they performed similarly in the aural mode. As for the judgment of “bu+statives”, the results from the one-way ANOVAs show that intermediate L1-Korean learners had a higher acceptance of “bu+statives”

136

6 Results of the Experimental Study

Wri t t e n GJ T bu+stative

*mei+stative 4.00

3.71 3.67 3.64 3.86 3.82 4.00

3.00

3.75 3.56 3.61 3.53

2.00

1.00

2.25 1.85

1.67

3.75 4.00

stative

3.98 3.84 4.00 4.00 3.73 3.81 3.95 4.00 3.90 3.78 3.69 3.86

2.15

1.93 1.45

1.69

1.50

1.08

1.27 1.38

1.08

0.00 EE ELI EI EH I EA CN

K E K LI K I K H I K A CN

Fig. 6.27 Means of judgment of “Neg+statives” in the written GJT by all groups

A u ra l GJ T bu+stative

*mei+stative

4.00 3.00

3.70 3.89 3.69

3.79

3.653.77 3.63 3.63

4.00 4.00

3.57 3.52

stative

4.00 3.95 3.90 3.99 3.94 3.89 3.95 3.91 3.91 4.00 3.81 3.81

2.00 1.00

1.79

2.08 1.51

1.69

1.52 1.38 1.28

1.76

1.59 1.23

1.45

1.28

0.00 EE ELI EI EH I EA CN

K E K LI K I K H I K A CN

Fig. 6.28 Means of judgment of “Neg+statives” in the aural GJT by all groups. Notes “*mei+statives”, e.g., *小李没认识我的妹妹; “bu+statives”, e.g., 小李不认识我的妹妹; “statives”, e.g., 小李认识我的妹妹

than corresponding L1-English learners in the written mode (F (1, 39) = 6.79, p < 0.05). Besides, in the aural mode, L1-Korean learners differed significantly from L1-English learners with a higher acceptance of “bu+statives” at elementary level (F (1, 39) = 8.79, p < 0.01), the intermediate level (F (1, 39) = 5.37, p < 0.05), and the high-intermediate level (F (1, 29) = 7.72, p < 0.05), indicating that L1-Korean learners at these levels exhibited more certainty in the use of bu for statives. Given the differences between L1-English and L1-Korean learners’ performances, separate ANOVAs were run to compare the judgment of L1-English and L1-Korean learners at each level with that of Chinese natives.

6.3 Results of the Written and Aural GJTs of Each Negative Structure

137

(2) The judgment of “Neg+statives”: L2 learners versus Chinese natives The acceptance of “bu+statives” L1-English learners: The one-way ANOVA elicits a significant difference between L1-English learners and the natives in the judgment of “bu+statives” in the written mode (F (5, 104) = 2.68, p < 0.05) and the aural mode (F (5, 104) = 3.60, p < 0.01). Results from the post-hoc Tukey test show that low-intermediate and intermediate L1English learners had a lower acceptance of this grammatical form than the natives in the written mode (p < 0.05), while in the aural mode, high-intermediate and advanced L1-English learners had a lower acceptance of this licit form than the natives (p < 0.05), suggesting learners at these levels were not as determinate as the natives in accepting “bu+statives”. L1-Korean learners: Results from the one-way ANOVA reveal no significant difference between L1-Korean learners’ judgment of “bu+statives” with the natives’ in the written mode (F (5, 106) = 2.11, p > 0.05) and the aural mode (F (5, 106) = 1.22, p > 0.05), suggesting that they readily acquired nativelike performance in accepting the use of bu for negating statives. The rejection of “*mei+statives” L1-English learners: Results from one-way ANOVA reveal a significant difference between L1-English learners’ judgment of “*mei+statives” and the natives in the written mode (F (5, 104) = 6.94, p < 0.001). The post-hoc Tukey test bears out that L1-English learners at the elementary, intermediate, and high-intermediate level all rated this illicit form higher than the natives (p < 0.05), whereas low-intermediate and advanced learners converged with the natives (p > 0.05). By contrast, in the aural mode, no significant difference was found between L1-English learners and the natives (F (5, 104) = 2.12, p > 0.05). The results suggest that L1-English learners exhibited optionality in rejecting the illicit use of mei for negating statives before attaining advanced proficiency. L1-Korean learners: Results from one-way ANOVA show a significant difference between L1-Korean learners’ judgment of “*mei+statives” and the natives in the written mode (F (5, 106) = 6.04, p < 0.001) and the aural mode (F (5, 106) = 3.34, p < 0.01). Results from the post-hoc Tukey test indicate that elementary L1Korean learners had a higher acceptance of this illicit form than high-intermediate and advanced learners as well as the natives in the written mode (p < 0.05), while learners at higher levels approximated the natives (p > 0.05). Besides, in the aural mode, elementary learners also had a significantly higher acceptance of the illicit “*mei+statives” than the natives (p < 0.05), whereas learners with higher proficiency converged with the natives (p > 0.05). (3) The judgment of “*mei+statives”: Written versus Aural One-way repeated measures ANOVA was used to compare the judgment of “*mei+statives” across the two modes by L2 learners at all levels and the natives. The results show that Chinese natives made similar judgments across the two modes (F (1, 14) = 1.63, p > 0.05).

138

6 Results of the Experimental Study Written

Aural

93%

100% 80%

71% 52%

60%

60%

57%

71% 64%

79%

87%

57%

43%

40%

25%

20%

0% EE(21)

ELI(21)

EI(20)

EHI(14)

EA(14)

CN(15)

Fig. 6.29 Percentages of high achievers in L1-English learners and natives in the written and aural GJTs of “Neg+statives”

For L1-English learners, they had a lower acceptance of this illicit form in the aural mode than in the written mode at the intermediate level (F (1, 19) = 8.09, p < 0.05) and the high-intermediate level (F (1, 13) = 11.92, p < 0.01), suggesting that learners at these two levels were more determinate in rejecting the use of mei when the materials were presented aurally. Just like the natives, L1-Korean learners at all levels also performed similarly in the judgment of “*mei+statives” across the two modes (p > 0.05).

Individual Results We then report the individual performance of L2 learners in the judgment of “Neg+statives” in comparison with natives. Participants who gain an accuracy of 75% or above in all three types of test items (the two experimental items: “*mei+statives” and “bu+statives”; the control item: Stative) are considered as high achievers that have acquired the grammaticality of bu in negating statives instead of mei. (1) L1-English learners As shown in Fig. 6.29, even at the elementary level, nearly half of L1-English learners achieved success. There was a gradual increase in the proportion of high achievers as a function of increased proficiency at later stages, yet with an exceptional sharp decrease in the written mode at the intermediate level, which has also been attested in the group results that intermediate learners showed much indeterminacy in rejecting the use of bu in negating statives. At the advanced stage, near 80% of the learners achieved success in the written mode, but only 57% in the aural mode, indicating persistent indeterminacy. By contrast, about 90% of the natives performed accurately in both modes.

6.3 Results of the Written and Aural GJTs of Each Negative Structure written 100%

88% 88% 81% 81%

80%

60% 40%

aural

70%

50%

139 93%

87%

70% 60%

45%

35%

20%

0% KE(20)

KLI(20)

KI(20)

KHI(16)

KA(16)

CN(15)

Fig. 6.30 Percentages of high achievers in L1-Korean learners and natives in the written and aural GJTs of “Neg+statives”

(2) L1-Korean learners We then turn to the individual performance of L1-Korean learners in the judgment of “Neg+statives” in comparison with natives. As shown in Fig. 6.30, 50% of elementary learners achieved success in the aural mode and only 35% achieved success in the written mode. At low-intermediate and intermediate stage, there was an increase in the percentage of high achievers in both modes. At the high-intermediate and advanced levels, about 80% of the learners achieved success in the aural mode and nearly 90% in the written mode, comparable with the natives.

6.3.3.2

The Choice of bu/mei in Negating Achievements/Accomplishments

Group Results The means of judgment of “Neg+achievements/accomplishments” in the written and aural GJTs by L1-English learners, L1-Korean learners, and Chinese natives are displayed in Figs. 6.31 and 6.32. The figures indicate that L2 learners’ acceptance of the control positive sentence was above 3 (“probably grammatical”), suggesting they had entrenched the basic knowledge of sentences with achievement/accomplishment predicates. A two-way MANOVA on the judgments of “*bu+Ach./Acc.” and “mei+Ach./Acc.” by all subject groups elicits a significant effect of L1 background (F (4, 183) = 3.07, p < 0.05) and Chinese proficiency (F (16, 744) = 7.38, p < 0.01), yet no significant interaction between the two factors (F (16, 744) = 0.87, p > 0.05). (1) The judgment of “Neg+Ach./Acc.”: L1-English learners versus L1-Korean learners

140

6 Results of the Experimental Study

Wri t t e n GJ T *bu+Ach./Acc 4.00

3.10 3.20

3.00 2.89

2.00

3.46 3.34 3.75

3.46 3.34 3.06

Ach./Acc.

mei+Ach./Acc 3.93

3.55

3.77

3.59 3.59 3.59 3.26 2.84

3.25 3.10

3.38

3.94

3.93

3.72 3.77

2.10

2.07 1.69 1.63 1.54

1.27 1.35

1.56 1.56 1.42 1.36 1.35

EE ELI EI EH I EA CN

K E K LI K I K H I K A CN

1.00 0.00

Fig. 6.31 Means of judgment of “Neg+Ach./Acc.” in the aural GJT by all groups

A u ral GJ T *bu+Ach./Acc 4.00

3.32

3.00 2.89

3.57 3.74 3.55 3.79

3.32

3.54 3.48

3.88

3.57 3.67

3.61 3.64 3.21

3.88 3.84 3.83 3.88

3.51 3.53

3.70 3.81 3.67

2.70

2.00 2.21 2.07

2.06 1.93

1.61

1.00

Ach./Acc.

mei+Ach./Acc

1.25

1.30 1.37

1.48 1.67

1.37

0.00

EE ELI EI EH I EA CN

K E K LI K I K H I K A CN

Fig. 6.32 Means of judgment of “Neg+Ach./Acc.” in the aural GJT by all groups. Notes “*bu+Ach./Acc.”, e.g., *小李不看完那本书; “mei+Ach./Acc.”, e.g., 小李没看完那本书; “Ach./Acc.”, e.g., 小李看完了那本书

The subsequent multiple comparisons with the post-hoc Tukey test reveal a significant difference between L1-English and L1-Korean learners in their judgment of “*bu+Ach./Acc.” in the aural mode. Results from one-way ANOVAs on their judgment at each level indicate that L1-English learners had a significantly lower acceptance (M = 2.21) of the illicit “*bu+Ach./Acc.” than L1-Korean learners (M = 2.70) in the aural mode only at the elementary level (F (1, 40) = 4.84, p < 0.05). Both L2 groups showed indeterminacy in rejecting this form at this stage, with their means of judgment falling between 2 (“probably ungrammatical”) and 3 (“probably grammatical”), as seen in the figures above. However, the post-hoc Tukey test reveals no significant difference between L1English and L1-Korean learners in their judgment of “*bu+Ach./Acc.” in the written

6.3 Results of the Written and Aural GJTs of Each Negative Structure

141

mode (p > 0.05) or the judgment of “mei+Ach./Acc.” in both modes (p > 0.05). Therefore, in these three cases, their data were collapsed for further analysis below. (2) The judgment of “Neg+Ach./Acc.”: L2 learners versus Chinese natives The acceptance of “mei+Ach./Acc.” Since no significant difference was found between L1-English learners and L1Korean learners on the judgment of “mei+Ach./Acc.” in both modes, their data were collapsed to compare with the natives. In the written mode, results from the post-hoc Tukey test indicate that L2 learners from elementary to intermediate all had a significantly lower acceptance of this grammatical form than the natives (p < 0.01), whereas high-intermediate and advanced groups performed within the range of the natives in this case (p > 0.05). The elementary L2 group also differed significantly from the intermediate, high-intermediate, and advanced groups with a lower acceptance of this grammatical form (p < 0.05). In the aural mode, it was also found that the elementary group exhibited a significantly lower acceptance of this grammatical form than all the other L2 groups as well as the native group (p < 0.05). The results bear out that L2 learners wavered in accepting the use of mei in negating achievements/accomplishments at the early stages, but they gained nativelike determinacy with increased proficiency. The rejection of “*bu+Ach./Acc.” Since L2 learners from the two backgrounds showed no difference in the rejection of “*bu+Ach./Acc.” in the written mode, their data were collapsed to compare with the natives. The post-hoc Tukey test after the MANOVA reveals that elementary L2 learners differed significantly from L2 groups at higher levels and the natives with a higher rating of “*bu+Ach./Acc.” (p < 0.01). However, L2 learners rising from the low-intermediate to the advanced level all gained nativelike sensitivity in this case. Given the significant difference between L1-English and L1-Korean learners’ judgment of “*bu+Ach./Acc.” in the aural mode mentioned above, separate oneway ANOVAs were run for these two L2 groups in comparison with the natives. The results indicate that elementary and low-intermediate L1-English learners rated the illicit “*bu+Ach./Acc.” higher than the natives (p < 0.01), while those at higher levels converged with the natives. For L1-Korean learners, it was also found that elementary and low-intermediate groups differed significantly from the natives with a higher acceptance of this illicit form. The results suggest that L2 learners with lower proficiency from both L1 backgrounds exhibited uncertainty in rejecting the illicit use of bu in negating achievement/accomplishments, but they attained nativelike sensitivity as a function of increased Chinese proficiency. (3) The judgment of “*bu+Ach./Acc.”: Written versus Aural One-way repeated measures ANOVA was run on the judgment of “*bu+Ach./Acc.” across the two modes by all subject groups. The results indicate that the Chinese natives and L1-English learners at all levels made similar judgments across the two

142

6 Results of the Experimental Study

79%

80% 55% 50%

60%

64%

87% 71%

36%

40% 20%

100%

Written Aural

100%

10%

14%

24% 24%

0% EE(21)

ELI(21)

EI(20)

EHI(14)

EA(14)

CN(15)

Fig. 6.33 Percentages of high achievers in L1-English learners and natives in the written and aural GJTs of “Neg+Ach./Acc.”

modes (p > 0.05). By contrast, L1-Korean learners performed differently in the judgment of “*bu+Ach./Acc.” across the two modes at the elementary level (F (1, 19) = 7.28, p < 0.05) and the low-intermediate level (F (1, 19) = 6.23, p < 0.05), but not at other higher levels. These two groups rated the ungrammatical “*bu+Ach./Acc.” significantly lower in the written mode than in the aural mode, suggesting that L1Korean learners at early stages were more determinate in rejecting the illicit use of bu for negating achievements/accomplishments in the written mode.

Individual Results After presenting the group performance of L2 learners, we then turn to their individual performance in comparison with natives in the judgment of “Neg+achievements/accomplishments”. High achievers are those gaining an accuracy of 75% or above in all three types of test items (the two experimental items: “*bu+Ach./Acc.” and “mei+Ach./Acc.”; the control item: “Ach./Acc.”). They are assumed to have acquired the grammaticality of mei rather than bu in negating Achievement/Accomplishment. (1) L1-English learners As shown in Fig. 6.33, only several high achievers (less than 25%) were found in elementary and low-intermediate L1-English learners. With increased Chinese proficiency, about half of intermediate learners achieved success. Although more high achievers were found at the high-intermediate level in the aural mode, there was an unexpected decrease in the proportion of high achievers in the written mode. However, more than 70% of the advanced group achieved success in both modes, comparable with the performance of natives.

6.3 Results of the Written and Aural GJTs of Each Negative Structure

written

100%

100%

aural

81% 81%

80%

87%

69%

60%

60%

50% 40%40%

40% 20%

143

30% 15%

10%

0% KE(20)

KLI(20)

KI(20)

KHI(16)

KA(16)

CN(15)

Fig. 6.34 Percentages of high achievers in L1-Korean learners and natives in the written and aural GJTs of “Neg+Ach./Acc.”

(2) L1-Korean learners After presenting the individual performance of L1-English learners, we turn to the individual performance of L1-Korean learners in comparison with natives, as shown in Fig. 6.34. Participants with an accuracy of 75% or above in all three types of test items (the two experimental items: the two experimental items: “*bu+Ach./Acc.” and “mei+Ach./Acc.”; the control item: “Ach./Acc.”) are considered as high achievers. They are assumed to have acquired the knowledge regarding the negation of achievements/accomplishments. It is evident that less than 50% of L1-Korean learners from elementary to intermediate level achieved success except for the low-intermediate learners in the written mode (60%). There was an increase in the percentage of high achievers at later stages with higher Chinese proficiency. More than 80% advanced learners achieved success, comparable with the performance of Chinese natives.

6.3.3.3

Summary of the Main Results

We have reported the results of L2 learners’ choice of negation markers for different types of lexical aspects in the above section. The main results are recapitulated below. (1) L2 learners in general showed indeterminacy at the early stages but they successfully established nativelike knowledge regarding the lexical constraints on Chinese negation with increased proficiency. (2) L1-English and L1-Korean learners performed similarly in the choice of negation markers for negating achievements/accomplishments. However, L1-Korean learners were more determinate in rejecting mei and accepting bu in negating statives than L1-English learners at the early stages. (3) Elementary and low-intermediate L1-Korean learners showed more determinacy in rejecting bu for negating achievements/accomplishments in the

144

6 Results of the Experimental Study

written mode. By contrast, L1-English learners showed stronger determinacy in rejecting mei for negating statives when in the aural mode at (high-)intermediate levels. Just as the case of the temporal constraints on Chinese negation, the lexical constraint on negation also involves the syntax-semantics interface. Moreover, as stated in Sect. 3.2.2.3, statives represent the [–realis] feature, while achievements/accomplishments represent the [+realis] feature. We will discuss these results summarized above further by relating them to the Interface Hypothesis and the Feature Reassembly Hypothesis in Chap. 8.

6.3.4 Results of the Judgment of Grammatical Aspectual Constraints on Negation This section presents the results of L2 learners’ interpretation of grammatical aspectual constraints on the choice of negation markers. Three types of grammatical aspect markers are included: the perfective aspect marker -le, the experiential aspect marker -guo, and the durative aspect marker -zhe. In the following, both the group performance and individual performance of L2 learners will be examined in comparison with those of Chinese natives.

6.3.4.1

The Incompatibility Between bu and the Perfective Aspect Marker -le

Group Results The results of the judgment of “bu+V-(*le)+O” by L1-English learners, L1-Korean learners, and Chinese natives are presented in Figs. 6.35 and 6.36. The figures show that L2 learners’ acceptance of the control positive sentence reached above 3 (“probably grammatical”), suggesting that they established the basic knowledge of the simple predicate sentence. It appears that L2 learners at all levels had a higher acceptance of “bu+V+O” than “*bu+V-le+O” just as the natives. In general, there was a gradual decrease in the ratings of the illicit “*bu+V-le+O” with increased Chinese proficiency, as seen in the slope in the figures. Notes “*bu+V-le+O”, e.g., *小李不喝了啤酒; “bu+V+O”, e.g., 小李不喝啤酒; “V+O”, e.g., 小李喝啤酒. To reveal possible statistical difference between L2 learners and Chinese natives, a two-way MANOVA was run on their judgment of “bu+V+O” and “*bu+V-le+O” by all subject groups. The results reveal a significant effect of Chinese proficiency (F (16, 744) = 4.81, p < 0.001), but there was neither a significant effect of L1 background (F (4, 183) = 2.04, p > 0.05) nor significant interaction between the two factors (F (16, 744) = 0.99, p > 0.05).

6.3 Results of the Written and Aural GJTs of Each Negative Structure

145

Wri t t e n GJ T *bu+V-le+O 4.00

3.00 2.00

2.24

3.49

3.63 3.65 3.59

3.21 3.36

2.11 1.57 1.60 1.50 1.34

1.00

V+O

bu+V+O

3.82 3.90 3.63 3.73 3.56 3.55 3.87 3.543.59 3.61 3.68 3.08

1.66

3.86 3.90

3.64 3.533.84

1.88 1.86

3.87

1.56

1.15

1.15

EE ELI EI EH I EA CN

K E K LI K I K H IK A C N

0.00

Fig. 6.35 Means of judgment of “bu+V-(*le)+O” in the written GJT by all groups

A u ral GJ T bu+V+O

*bu+V-le+O 4.00

3.00 2.00

1.00

3.76 3.65 3.73 3.71 3.77 3.93

3.20

2.12

3.61 3.40 3.45

1.89

3.613.93

3.84

3.50

1.23

3.63

3.61 3.44 3.46 3.48

2.24

1.55 1.45 1.39

V+O 3.84

3.98 3.93

3.88 3.93

2.19

1.54

1.80 1.77 1.23

0.00 EE ELI EI EH I EA CN

K E K LI K I K H IK A C N

Fig. 6.36 Means of judgment of “bu+V-(*le)+O” in the aural GJT by all groups

(1) The judgment of “bu+V-(*le)+O”: L2 learners versus Chinese natives The acceptance of “bu+V +O” With L1-English and L1-Korean learners’ data on the judgment of “bu+V+O” collapsed, results from the post-hoc Tukey test after the MANOVA indicate that elementary and low-intermediate L2 learners deviated significantly from the natives with a lower acceptance of this licit form in the written mode (p < 0.05), while those at higher levels converged with the natives (p > 0.05). In the aural mode, it was found that L2 learners from elementary to intermediate level had a significantly lower acceptance of this licit form than the natives, whereas the high-intermediate and advanced groups approximated the natives (p > 0.05).

146

6 Results of the Experimental Study

The results suggest that L2 learners were not quite determinate in accepting the grammatical “bu+V+O” at lower proficiency levels, but they converged with natives as a function of increased proficiency. The rejection of “*bu+V-le+O” Similarly, with L1-English and L1-Korean learners’ data on the judgment of “*bu+Vle+O” collapsed, the post-hoc Tukey test after the MANOVA reveals that only elementary L2 learners differed significantly from the natives with a higher acceptance of the illicit “*bu+V-le+O” (p < 0.01) in both modes (p < 0.01), while those at higher levels showed no significant difference from the natives (p > 0.05). Besides, elementary L2 learners also had a higher acceptance of this illicit form than the advanced group (p < 0.05). As shown in Figs. 6.35 and 6.36, the means of judgment of “*bu+V-le+O” by elementary learners from both L1 backgrounds fall between 2 (‘probably ungrammatical’) and 3 (‘probably grammatical’). The results suggest that L2 Chinese learners showed much uncertainty in rejecting the illicit co-occurrence of bu and the perfective aspect marker -le at the elementary level, but they readily established nativelike sensitivity toward the incompatibility between bu and le with increased proficiency. (2) The judgment of “*bu+V-le+O”: Written versus Aural To reveal if there was any effect of task modality, one-way repeated measures ANOVA was run on the judgment of “*bu+V-le+O” across the written mode and the aural mode by L2 learners and the natives. The results bear out that the natives and L2 learners at all levels showed no significant effect of task modality (p > 0.05), suggesting they performed similarly in the judgment of this illicit form across the two modes.

Individual Results We then present the individual performance of L2 learners in comparison with natives in the judgment of “bu+V-(*le)+O”. Participants who achieve an accuracy of 75% or above in all three types of test items (the two experimental items: “*bu+V-le+O” and “bu+V+O”; the control item: V+O) are considered as high achievers. They are assumed to have acquired knowledge regarding the interaction between bu and -le. (1) L1-English learners As displayed in Fig. 6.37, only about 30% elementary learners achieved success in detecting the incompatibility between bu and the verb-final -le. At the lowintermediate and intermediate level, there was a large increase in the proportion of high achievers in the written mode, but the percentage of high achievers remained very low in the aural mode. It is noteworthy, however, that there was a decrease of the proportion of high achievers in the written mode (from 70 to 57%), but an increase of the proportion of high achievers in the aural mode (from 50 to 64%) at the highintermediate level. With higher proficiency, about 70% of advanced learners achieved

6.3 Results of the Written and Aural GJTs of Each Negative Structure Written

Aural

100%

87%

80%

70% 62%

60% 40%

147

50%

33%

64% 57%

93%

71% 71%

29%

24% 20% 0%

EE(21)

ELI(21)

EI(20)

EHI(14)

EA(14)

CN(15)

Fig. 6.37 Percentages of high achievers in L1-English learners and natives in the written and aural GJTs of “bu+V-(*le)+O” written

aural

100%

87%

93%

80%

60%

50%

40% 20%

63% 63%

55% 55% 44% 35%

30%

31%

20%

0%

KE(20)

KLI(20)

KI(20)

KHI(16)

KA(16)

CN(15)

Fig. 6.38 Percentages of high achievers in L1-Korean learners and natives in the written and aural GJTs of “bu+V-(*le)+O”

success. By contrast, about 90% natives made consistently accurate judgment in both modes. (2) L1-Korean learners We then turn to the individual performance of L1-Korean learners in the judgment of “bu+V-(le)+O” in comparison with natives. As displayed in Fig. 6.38, around 30% of elementary learners achieved success, and about 50% at the low-intermediate stage. At the intermediate level, the percentage of high achievers remained about 50% in the written mode but the percentage of high achievers in the aural mode fell to 35%. Unexpectedly, the downward pattern was also found in the percentage of high achievers at high-intermediate level with an accuracy of less than 50%. At the advanced level, about 60% of L1-Korean learners achieved success.

148

6 Results of the Experimental Study

Wri t t e n GJ T *mei+V-le+O 4.00 3.08

3.00 3.07

2.00

3.61

mei+V+O

3.98 3.59 3.82 3.89

3.50 3.24 3.36

2.26 2.07 2.06

3.79 3.88

2.99

3.90 3.81 3.81 3.98

3.30 3.20 3.30 3.41

3.72

3.88

2.39

2.45

1.00

3.51

V-le+O

2.09 2.15 2.03

1.75

1.41 1.02

1.02

EE ELI EI EH I EA CN

K E K LI K I K H I K A CN

0.00

Fig. 6.39 Means of judgment of “mei+V-(*le)+O” in the written GJT by all groups

6.3.4.2

The Incompatibility Between mei and the Perfective Aspect Marker -le

Group Results The means of judgment of “mei+V-(*le)+O” in the written and aural GJTs by L1English learners, L1-Korean learners, and Chinese natives are shown in the following Figs. 6.39 and 6.40. The figures show that L2 learners’ acceptance of the control positive sentence reached above 3 (“probably grammatical”), suggesting they established the basic knowledge of simple predicate sentence with the perfective aspect marker -le. It also appears that L2 learners at all levels had a higher acceptance of the grammatical form “mei+V+O” than the ungrammatical “*mei+V-le+O” just as the natives. A two-way MANOVA on the judgment of “mei+V+O” and “*mei+V-le+O” in the written and aural mode yields a significant effect for Chinese proficiency (F (16, 744) = 4.66, p < 0.001), but no significant effect of L1 background (F (4, 183) = 0.57, p > 0.05) or interaction between these two factors (F (16, 744) = 0.59, p > 0.05). (1) The judgment of “mei+V-(*le)+O”: L1-English learners versus L1-Korean learners The post-hoc Tukey test elicits no significant differences between L1-English learners and L1-Korean learners in the judgment of “mei+V+O” and “*mei+V-le+O” in either mode (p > 0.05), suggesting they performed similarly in the test. Therefore, L1-English and L1-Korean learners’ data were collapsed for further analysis below. (2) The judgment of “mei+V-(*le)+O”: L2 learners versus Chinese natives The acceptance of “mei+V +O”

6.3 Results of the Written and Aural GJTs of Each Negative Structure

149

A u ral GJ T *mei+V-le+O 4.00 3.00

3.69 3.78 3.82 3.91 3.98

3.30 3.00 3.10 2.98

2.42 2.00 2.33

1.00

mei+V+O

3.70 3.30 2.64

3.61 3.53

V-le+O 3.86 3.83 3.92 3.98

3.87

3.88 3.87 3.15

3.26

3.04

3.27

2.56 2.28 2.30 2.42

2.04 1.36 1.27

1.91 1.27

0.00 EE ELI EI EH I EA CN

K E K LI K I K HI K A C N

Fig. 6.40 Means of judgment of “mei+V-(*le)+O” in the aural GJT by all groups. Notes *mei+Vle+O”, e.g., *小李没看了电影; “mei+V+O”, e.g., 小李没看电影; “V-le+O”, e.g., 小李看了电 影

L1-English and L1-Korean learners’ data on the judgment of “mei+V+O” were collapsed. In the written mode, the post-hoc Tukey test after the MANOVA reveals that L2 learners from elementary to intermediate level had a significantly lower acceptance of the grammatical form “mei+V+O” than the natives (p < 0.05). Elementary and low-intermediate learners also differed significantly from the advanced group (p < 0.05) with a lower acceptance of this licit form. However, high-intermediate and advanced learners performed like the natives in the acceptance of “mei+V+O” (p > 0.05). In the aural mode, results of the post-hoc Tukey test bear out that L2 learners had a significantly lower acceptance of this grammatical form than the natives before attaining the advanced proficiency (p > 0.05). L2 learners from elementary to highintermediate level all differed significantly from advanced learners with a lower acceptance of “mei+V+O” (p < 0.05). The results above indicate that L2 learners showed uncertainty with the licit form “mei+V+O” at lower proficiency levels (before high-intermediate/advanced level), but they gained nativelike determinacy with increased proficiency. The rejection of “*mei+V-le+O” by L2 learner groups in comparison with the natives L1-English and L1-Korean learners’ data on the judgment of “mei+V-le+O” were also collapsed. In the written mode, the results of the post-hoc Tukey test after the MANOVA indicate that L2 learners rising from the elementary to high-intermediate level all had a significantly higher acceptance of the illicit “*mei+V-le+O” than Chinese natives (p < 0.01), and the elementary group also differed significantly from the advanced group (p < 0.05). However, the advanced group showed no significant difference from the natives (p > 0.05).

150

6 Results of the Experimental Study

A similar pattern was found in the aural mode. While L2 learners from elementary to high-intermediate level all deviated from the natives with a significantly higher acceptance of the illicit “mei+V-le+O” (p < 0.05), the advanced group converged with the natives (p > 0.05). The elementary and low-intermediate group also differed from the advanced group with a higher rating of the illicit “*mei+V-le+O” (p < 0.05). As shown in the Figs. 6.39 and 6.40, the means of judgment by L2 learners from the elementary to high-intermediate level fall between 2 (“probably ungrammatical”) and 3 (“probably grammatical”) in both modes. The results thus suggest that L2 learners exhibited persistent optionality in rejecting the illicit co-occurrence of mei and the perfective aspect marker -le. However, they attained nativelike sensitivity at the advanced stage. (3) The judgment of “*mei+V-le+O”: Written versus Aural One-way repeated measures ANOVA was run on the judgment of “*mei+V-le+O” across the two modes by all subject groups. The results reveal no significant difference in the judgment of this illicit form between the written mode and the aural mode by Chinese natives or L2 learners at all levels (p > 0.05), suggesting that they made similar judgments in different modes of GJTs.

Individual Results We then report the individual performance of L2 learners in the judgment of “mei+V(*le)+O” in comparison with the natives. High achievers are those who attain an accuracy of 75% or above in all three types of test items (the two experimental items: “*mei+V-le+O” and “mei+V+O”; the control item: “V-le+O”). (1) L1-English learners As shown in the following Fig. 6.41, the majority of L1-English learners from elementary to high-intermediate level failed to make consistent and accurate judgment on the incompatibility between mei and the perfective aspect marker le, consistent with the group results that they showed much indeterminacy in rejecting “*mei+V-le+O” in both modes. Nevertheless, there was a sharp increase of high achievers in the advanced group (written: 86%; aural: 64%), comparable with the performance of the natives (written: 100%; aural: 80%). (2) L1-Korean learners Similar to L1-English learners, the proportion of high achievers of L1-Korean learners in the judgment of “mei+V(-le)+O” remained low before they attained the advanced proficiency. As shown in Fig. 6.42, less than 40% of L1-Korean learners from elementary to high-intermediate level made consistent and accurate judgments. With increased proficiency, 63% of the advanced learners acquired the non-co-occurrence of mei and V-le in both modes.

6.3 Results of the Written and Aural GJTs of Each Negative Structure Written

Aural

151 100%

100%

86%

80%

80%

64%

60% 40% 20%

19%

14%

19%

14%

30%30% 29% 21%

0% EE(21)

ELI(21)

EI(20)

EHI(14)

EA(14)

CN(15)

Fig. 6.41 Percentages of high achievers in L1-English learners and natives in the written and aural GJTs of “mei+V-(*le)+O” written

aural

100%

100%

80%

80% 63% 63% 60% 40% 20%

20% 20% 20%

38% 35% 25% 25% 13%

0%

KE(20)

KLI(20)

KI(20)

KHI(16)

KA(16)

CN(15)

Fig. 6.42 Percentages of high achievers in L1-Korean learners and natives in the written and aural GJTs of “mei+V-(*le)+O”

6.3.4.3

The Choice of bu/mei in Negating the Experiential Aspect Marker -guo

Group Results The means of judgment of “Neg+V-guo” in the written and aural GJTs by L1-English learners, L1-Korean learners, and natives are displayed in Figs. 6.43 and 6.44. It is clearly shown that L2 learners’ acceptance of the positive control sentence reached above 3 (“probably grammatical”) at all levels, suggesting that they had established the basic knowledge of the simple sentence with the experiential aspect marker -guo. It is also evident that they had a higher acceptance of “mei+V-guo” than “*bu+V-guo”, just as the natives.

152

6 Results of the Experimental Study

Wri t t e n GJ T *bu+V-guo 4.00

3.80 3.83 3.90 3.95 3.98 4.00 3.91 3.75 3.74 3.74 3.64

3.95

mei+V-guo

3.59

3.78

3.94 3.95 3.74 3.78 3.89

3.49

3.00

4.00 3.94 3.94 4.00

2.00 1.74

1.00

1.36 1.35

1.60 1.20

1.05

1.30

1.41 1.36 1.23

1.02

1.30

0.00 EE ELI EI EH I EA CN

K E K LI K I K H IK A CN

Fig. 6.43 Means of judgment of “Neg+V-guo” in the written GJT by all groups

A u ral GJ T *bu+V-guo 4.00 3.00

3.90 3.71 3.73 3.49

3.88 3.98 3.98

3.71 3.75 3.71

3.91 3.85

mei+V-guo 3.70

3.89 3.98 3.95 4.00 3.98

3.86 3.95 3.85 3.66 3.78 3.74

2.00 2.02

1.00

1.83

1.82

1.66 1.76

1.20 1.07 1.07 1.08

1.14 1.16 1.08

EE ELI EI EH I EA CN

K E K LI K I K H IK A C N

0.00

Fig. 6.44 Means of judgment of “Neg+V-guo” in the aural GJT by all groups. Notes *bu+Vguo+O”, e.g., *小李不吃过法国菜; “mei+V-guo”, e.g., 小李没吃过法国菜; “V-guo+O”, e.g., 小 李吃过法国菜

A two-way MANOVA on the judgment of “mei+V-guo” and “*bu+V-guo” in the written mode and the aural mode by all subject groups yields a significant effect only for Chinese proficiency (F (16, 744) = 4.69, p < 0.001), yet no significant effect for L1 background (F (4, 183) = 1.47, p > 0.05) or significant interaction between these two factors (F (16, 744) = 1.02, p > 0.05).

6.3 Results of the Written and Aural GJTs of Each Negative Structure

153

(1) The judgment of “Neg+V-guo”: L1-English learners versus L1-Korean learners The post-hoc Tukey test on L1 background reveals no significant difference between L1-English learners and L1-Korean learners in their judgment of “*bu+V-guo” and “mei+V-guo” in either mode, suggesting they performed similarly in the GJTs. Therefore, their data were collapsed for further analysis below. (2) The judgment of “Neg+V-guo”: L2 learners versus Chinese natives The acceptance of “mei+V-guo” With L1-English and L1-Korean learners’ data on the judgment of “mei+V-guo” collapsed, the post-hoc Tukey test after the MANOVA bears out that L2 learners at all levels showed no significant difference from the natives in the acceptance of this grammatical form in both modes (p > 0.05). The results suggest that L2 learners converged with the Chinese natives in accepting the co-occurrence of mei and the experiential aspect marker -guo as early as the elementary level. The rejection of “*bu+V-guo” With L1-English and L1-Korean learners’ data on the judgment of “*bu+V-guo” collapsed, results from the post-hoc Tukey test after the MANOVA reveal that L2 learners rising from elementary to advanced proficiency performed within the range of the natives in rejecting the illicit form “*bu+V-guo” in the written mode (p > 0.05). Among the L2 groups, the elementary group differed significantly from the advanced group with a higher acceptance of this illicit form (p < 0.05). In the aural mode, results from the post-hoc Tukey test indicate that elementary and low-intermediate L2 learners had a significantly higher acceptance of this illicit form than the intermediate, high-intermediate, and advanced group as well as the natives (p < 0.01), however, L2 learners from intermediate to advanced level showed similar performance as the natives (p > 0.05). Taken together, the results suggest that L2 learners gained nativelike sensitivity to the incompatibility between bu and the experiential aspect marker -guo as early as the elementary level, though they showed indeterminacy at lower proficiency levels in the aural GJT. (3) The judgment of “*bu+V-guo”: Written versus Aural To reveal if task modality affects the judgment of “*bu+V-guo”, one-way repeated measures ANOVA was run on the judgment of this form across the written and aural mode by all subject groups. The results show that Chinese natives made similarly judgments of this form across the two modes (F (1, 14) = 1.52, p > 0.05). However, a significant effect for task modality was found in low-intermediate L2 learners’ judgments of this form (F (1, 40) = 8.45, p < 0.01). They had a lower acceptance of this illicit form in the written mode than in the aural mode. No significant effect of task modality was found in the judgment of this form by L2 learners at other levels. The results indicate that L2 learners at the low-intermediate level showed more sensitivity to the incompatibility between bu and V-guo in the written GJT.

154

6 Results of the Experimental Study

100% 86%

Written Aural 100% 100% 100% 95% 93% 93% 85% 86%

80% 60%

62% 43%

40%

48%

20% 0%

EE(21)

ELI(21)

EI(20)

EHI(14)

EA(14)

CN(15)

Fig. 6.45 Percentages of high achievers in L1-English learners and natives in the written and aural GJTs of “Neg+V-guo”

Individual Results Then it comes to L2 learners’ individual performance in the judgment of “Neg+Vguo” in comparison with natives. Those who achieve an accuracy of 75% or above in all three types of test items (the two experimental items: “*bu+V-guo” and “mei+Vguo”) are considered as high achievers. They are assumed to have acquired knowledge about the negation of the experiential aspect. L1-English learners As presented clearly in Fig. 6.45, as early as the elementary level, about 60% L1English learners had successfully acquired the grammaticality of mei instead of bu in negating “V-guo” in the written mode and more than 80% low-intermediate learners did so. In contrast, there were fewer high achievers in the aural mode at these two stages. With increased Chinese proficiency, L1-English learners performed quite well in both modes at later stages and all advanced learners achieved success, comparable with that of the natives. L1-Korean learners We then turn to the individual performance of L1-Korean learners in the judgment of “Neg+V-guo” in comparison with natives. As demonstrated in Fig. 6.46, as early as the elementary stage, 55% of the learners achieved success in both modes. At the low-intermediate and intermediate levels, about 70% of the learners achieved success. At the high-intermediate and advanced level, about 90% of the learners achieved success, comparable with natives.

6.3 Results of the Written and Aural GJTs of Each Negative Structure written

aural 100%

100%

88%

94% 94% 93%

100%

75% 70% 70% 65%

80% 60%

155

55% 55%

40% 20%

0% KE(20)

KLI(20)

KI(20)

KHI(16)

KA(16)

CN(15)

Fig. 6.46 Percentages of high achievers in L1-Korean learners and natives in the written and aural GJTs of “Neg+V-guo”

Wri t t e n GJ T mei+V-zhe

*bu+V-zhe 4.00 3.00

3.49 3.51 2.83 2.69

2.00

2.52

2.69

3.75 3.89 4.00 3.60

2.88 2.95

2.32 2.30 2.48 2.21

3.69 3.36 3.65 2.91

2.52

V-zhe

2.56

2.96

2.44

3.89 3.784.00

2.73 2.81

2.92 3.60

2.63 2.67 2.56

1.83

1.83

1.00 0.00 EE ELI EI EH I EA CN

K E K LI K I K H IK A CN

Fig. 6.47 Means of judgment of “Neg+V-zhe” in the written GJT by all groups

6.3.4.4

The Choice of bu/mei in Negating the Durative Aspect Marker -zhe

Group Results The means of judgment of “Neg+V-zhe” in the written and aural GJTs by L1-English learners, L1-Korean learners, and natives are shown in Figs. 6.47 and 6.48. The figures demonstrate that L2 learners in general rated the control item “V-zhe” above 3 (“probably grammatical”), suggesting that they had the basic knowledge of the positive sentence with the durative aspect marker -zhe. It can also be seen that the Chinese natives had a higher acceptance of “mei+V-zhe” than “*bu+V-zhe”,

156

6 Results of the Experimental Study

A u ral GJ T *bu+V-zhe 4.00 3.00

3.64 3.30 3.35 2.86

mei+V-zhe

3.96 3.87

2.79 2.73 2.73 2.50 2.61 2.54 2.57 2.45 2.36 2.40 2.00

3.48 3.26

3.48 2.95

2.79

2.79 2.73 2.10

V-zhe 3.83 3.86 3.81 3.87 2.94 3.02 2.94 3.48 2.76 2.95 2.70 2.10

1.00 0.00

EE ELI EI EH I EA CN

K E K LI K I K H IK A CN

Fig. 6.48 Means of judgment of “Neg+V-zhe” in the aural GJT by all groups. Notes “*bu+Vzhe+O”, e.g., *小李不带着地图; “mei+V-zhe”, e.g., 小李没带着地图; “V-zhe+O”, e.g., 小李带 着地图

whereas L2 learners had very similar ratings of these two forms, or even had a higher acceptance of the illicit “*bu+V-zhe” than “mei+V-zhe” at lower levels. To reveal possible statistical differences between L2 learners and the natives, a two-way MANOVA was run on the judgment of “mei+V-zhe” than “*bu+V-zhe” in the written and aural mode. The results reveal a significant effect for L1 background (F (4, 183) = 6.04, p < 0.001), but no significant effect of Chinese proficiency (F (16, 744) = 1.01, p > 0.05) or significant interaction between the two factors (F (16, 744) = 0.55, p > 0.05). (1) The judgment of “Neg+V-zhe”: L1-English learners versus L1-Korean learners The post-hoc Tukey test on L1 background yields significant difference between L1-English learners and L1-Korean learners in the judgment of “mei+V-zhe” in both modes (p < 0.05). One-way ANOVAs on the judgment of “mei+V-zhe” by L1-English and L1-Korean learners at all levels reveal a significant difference in their ratings of this form at the intermediate level in the aural mode (F (1, 39) = 5.10, p > 0.05) and a significant difference in their ratings of this form at the advanced level in the written mode (F (1, 29) = 4.74, p < 0.05). In both cases, L1-Korean learners had higher acceptance of the licit form than L1-English learners, but the means of judgment by both L2 learner groups fall between 2 (“probably ungrammatical”) and 3 (“probably grammatical”), suggesting their indeterminacy toward the licit co-occurrence between mei and V-zhe. However, no significant difference was found between L1-English and L1-Korean learners in the judgment of “*bu+V-zhe” in the written mode or the aural mode (p > 0.05). Therefore, their judgment data on “*bu+V-zhe” were collapsed for further analysis.

6.3 Results of the Written and Aural GJTs of Each Negative Structure

157

(2) The judgment of “Neg+V-zhe”: L2 learners versus Chinese natives The acceptance of “mei+V-zhe” Since there were differences between L1-English and L1-Korean learners in the judgment of “mei+V-zhe”, separate one-way ANOVAs were run to examine the differences between L2 learners from each background and the natives in the judgment of this grammatical form. L1-English learners: One-way ANOVA elicits a significant difference between L1English learners and the natives in the judgment of “mei+V-zhe” in the written mode (F (5, 104) = 8.30, p < 0.001) and in the aural mode (F (5, 104) = 5.98, p < 0.001). The post-hoc Tukey tests reveal that L1-English learners at all levels deviated from the natives with a lower acceptance of this grammatical form in both modes (p < 0.01). L1-Korean learners: One-way ANOVA elicits a significant difference between L1Korean learners and the natives in the judgment of “mei+V-zhe” in the written mode (F (5, 106) = 4.61, p < 0.01) but not in the aural mode (F (5, 106) = 1.99, p > 0.05). The post-hoc Tukey test indicates that L1-Korean learners from the low-intermediate to high-intermediate levels had a lower acceptance of this licit form than the natives (p < 0.05), however, the elementary and the advanced group showed no statistical difference from the natives (p > 0.05). The results suggest that L2 learners exhibited great optionality toward the cooccurrence between mei and V-zhe. As seen in Figs. 6.47 and 6.48, the means of judgment of “mei+V-zhe” by L2 learners at all levels fall between 2 (“probably ungrammatical”) and 3 (“probably grammatical”), indicating their persistent indeterminacy even at the advanced stage. The rejection of “*bu+V-zhe” by L2 learner groups in comparison with Chinese natives Since no significant difference was found between L1-English and L1-Korean learners in the judgment of “*bu+V-zhe”, their data were collapsed to compare with Chinese natives. As shown in Figs. 6.47 and 6.48, the ratings of the illicit “*bu+V-zhe” by L2 learners largely fall between 2 (“probably ungrammatical”) and 3 (“probably grammatical”) in both modes, in contrast to the rating of the natives, with means falling below 2 in the written mode (M = 1.83). Results from the post-hoc Tukey test indicate that L2 learners from elementary to high-intermediate level differed significantly from the natives with a higher acceptance of this illicit form in both modes (p < 0.05), yet the advanced group approximated the natives (p > 0.05). No significant difference was found between L2 groups at any proficiency (p > 0.05). The results suggest that L2 learners were reluctant to reject the illicit co-occurrence of bu and V-zhe. Although the advanced group approximated the natives, L2 learners still showed much uncertainty toward the incompatibility between bu and V-zhe.

158

6 Results of the Experimental Study Written

100%

Aural

80%

60%

60%

40%

27%

20%

0%

0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

0% 0%

EE(21)

EHI(14)

ELI(21)

EI(20)

7% 7% EA(14)

CN(15)

Fig. 6.49 Percentages of high achievers in L1-English learners and natives in the written and aural GJTs of “Neg+V-zhe”

(3) The judgment of “*bu+V-zhe”: Written versus Aural Results from one-way repeated measures ANOVA reveal no significant difference in the judgment of “*bu+V-zhe” across the written and aural mode by Chinese natives (F (1, 14) = 0.58, p > 0.05). Since no significant difference was found between L1-English and L1-Korean learners in the judgment of “*bu+V-zhe”, their data were collapsed at each level. Just as the natives, no significant difference was found in the rating of “*bu+V-zhe” across the two modes by L2 learners at all levels (p > 0.05). The results suggest that both L2 learners and the natives made similar judgments of “*bu+V-zhe” across the two modes of GJTs.

Individual Results After reporting L2 learners’ group performance, we present their individual performance in the judgment of “Neg+V-zhe”. Participants who gain an accuracy of 75% or above in all three types of test items (the two experimental items: “*bu+V-zhe” and “mei+V-zhe”; the control item: “V-zhe”) are considered as high achievers. They are assumed to have acquired knowledge about the negation of the durative aspect (-zhe). L1-English learners As shown in Fig. 6.49, none of the L1-English learners from the elementary to high-intermediate level acquired the grammaticality of mei instead of bu in negating “V-zhe” in declarative sentences. Even at the advanced level, only one L1-English learner achieved success. The results are consistent with the results from group results that L1-English learners showed great optionality in the negation of “V-zhe”. It is noteworthy that 60% of the natives made consistent judgments in the written mode but only 27% of them did so in the aural mode, suggesting that even the Chinese natives were not quite determinate with the negation of V-zhe, especially in the aural mode.

6.3 Results of the Written and Aural GJTs of Each Negative Structure written

159

aural

100% 80% 60%

60%

40% 20%

27% 15% 0%

0%

KE(20)

10% 5% KLI(20)

10%

0%

KI(20)

13% 6%

6% 6%

KHI(16)

KA(16)

CN(15)

Fig. 6.50 Percentages of high achievers in L1-Korean learners and natives in the written and aural GJTs of “Neg+V-zhe”

L1-Korean learners We then turn to the individual performance of L1-Korean learners in the judgment of “Neg+V-zhe” in comparison with natives. As shown in Fig. 6.50, similar to L1English learners, few L1-Korean learners achieved success from the elementary to advanced level, suggesting the difficulty in acquiring the choice of negation marker for V-zhe. This is consistent with the group results that L1-Korean learners showed great uncertainty in the judgment of “*bu+V-zhe” and “mei+V-zhe”.

6.3.4.5

Summary of the Main Results

WE have reported the results of L2 learners’ judgment of the interaction between Chinese negation and grammatical aspect in the written and aural GJTs. The main results are summarized below. (1) L1-English and L1-Korean learners in general performed similarly in the judgment of the grammatical aspectual constraints on Chinese negation. (2) L2 learners from both backgrounds demonstrated nativelike sensitivity toward the incompatibility between bu and V-guo as early as the elementary level. Though L2 learners exhibited indeterminacy toward the incompatibility between bu/mei and V-le at lower proficiency levels, they established nativelike sensitivity to the incompatibility between bu/mei and V-le with increased proficiency. However, L2 learners at all levels showed much indeterminacy in the choice of negation markers for V-zhe in both modes. (3) L2 learners performed differently across the two modes only in the judgment of the negation of the experimental aspect but not the other two types of grammatical aspect. Low-intermediate learners showed more sensitivity to the incompatibility between bu and -guo in the written mode than in the aural mode.

160

6 Results of the Experimental Study

As noted in Sect. 3.2.3.3, the grammatical aspectual constraints on Chinese negation are considered as involving the syntax-morphology interface. These aspect markers are assumed to be encoded with the [+realis] feature in declarative matrix sentences and thus license the use of mei. These results will be interpreted within the framework of the Interface Hypothesis and the Feature Reassembly Hypothesis in Chap. 8.

6.3.5 Results of the Judgment of the Constraint of Hypothetical Context on Negation This section will report L2 learners’ judgment of the constraint of hypothetical context on Chinese negation. Specifically, we focus on three cases: the licensed use of bu in front of potential complement (bu+VC) in conditional clauses, the licensed use of bu in front of descriptive complement (bu+V-de+C) in conditional clauses, the licensed use of bu co-occurring with the durative aspect marker -zhe in the conditional clause (bu+V-zhe). In the following, we will present L2 learners’ group performance and their individual performance in each category in comparison with Chinese natives.

6.3.5.1

The Judgment of “bu+VC” Licensed by Hypothetical Context

Group Results The means of judgment of “*bu+VC” and “(if ) bu+VC, …” in the written and aural GJTs of by L1-English learners, L1-Korean learners, and natives are shown in Figs. 6.51 and 6.52. The figures seem to show that Chinese natives tended to reject the placement of bu in front of the complement in declarative sentence (written mode: M = 1.35; aural mode: M = 1.37), but they tended to allow the preverbal position of bu in the conditional clause (written mode: M = 3.47; aural mode: M = 3.55). By contrast, L2 learners tended to correctly reject the preverbal position of bu with increased proficiency with means around 1 (“definitely ungrammatical”), yet in general they showed much indeterminacy in accepting such a position in the conditional clause, with means falling between 2 (“probably ungrammatical”), and 3 (“probably grammatical”). To reveal possible statistical difference between L2 learners and natives, a twoway MANOVA was run on the means of judgment of “*bu+VC” and “(if ) bu VC, …” by all subject groups. The results bear out a significant effect for L1 background (F (4, 183) = 4.75, p < 0.001) and Chinese proficiency (F (16, 744) = 6.48, p < 0.001), yet no significant interaction between the two factors (F (16, 744) = 1.08, p > 0.05).

6.3 Results of the Written and Aural GJTs of Each Negative Structure

161

Wri t t e n GJ T (if) bu+VC, ...

*bu+VC 4.00

3.00

3.47 2.75

2.59

2.25 2.11 2.25 2.36

2.24

2.07

2.10

2.00 1.00

3.47

1.69 1.63 1.54

2.16 2.02 1.95

1.27 1.35

1.56 1.56 1.42 1.36 1.35

EE ELI EI EH I EA CN

K E K LI K I K H I K A CN

0.00

Fig. 6.51 Means of judgment of “*bu+VC” and “(if) bu+VC, …” in the written GJT by all. Notes “*bu+VC”, e.g., *小李不写完作业; “ (if) bu+VC, …”, e.g., 小李不写完作业, 就要留在家里

A u ral GJ T *bu+VC 3.55

4.00 3.00

2.00 1.00

(if) bu+VC, ...

2.77 2.65

2.73

2.93

3.55 2.90

2.30

2.64 2.51

2.19 2.33

2.70 2.21 2.07 1.61

2.06 1.93 1.25 1.30

1.37

1.48

1.67

1.37

0.00 EE ELI EI EH I EA CN

K E K LI K I K H I K A CN

Fig. 6.52 Means of judgment of “*bu+VC” and “(if) bu+VC, …” in the aural GJT by all groups

(1) The judgment of “*bu+VC” and “(if) bu+VC, …”: L1-English learners versus L1-Korean learners The post-hoc Tukey test elicits a significant difference between L1-English and L1Korean learners in the judgment of “bu+VC” in the aural mode (p < 0.05) but not in the written mode (p > 0.05). As has been reported in Sect. 6.3.1.2.1, L1-English learners had a significantly lower acceptance of the illicit “*bu+VC” than L1-Korean learners in the aural mode only at the elementary level (F (1, 40) = 4.84, p < 0.05), though both L2 groups showed indeterminacy at this stage. However, the post-hoc test reveals no difference in L1-English and L1-Korean learners in the judgment of

162

6 Results of the Experimental Study

“(if ) bu VC, …” in both modes (p > 0.05), so their judgment data on this licit form were collapsed to compare with Chinese natives. (2) The judgment of “*bu+VC” and “(if) bu+VC, …”: L2 learners versus Chinese natives The rejection of “*bu+VC” As has been reported in Sect. 6.3.1.2.1, L1-English and L1-Korean learners showed optionality in rejecting the illicit placement of bu in front of verbal complement at the early stages, but they converged with Chinese natives as a function of increased proficiency. The acceptance of “(if) bu+VC, …” As for the judgment of “(if ) bu+VC, …”, results from multiple comparisons with the post-hoc Tukey test indicate that L2 learners at all levels had a significantly lower acceptance of this grammatical form than Chinese natives in both modes (p < 0.05), suggesting that L2 learners failed to recognize the constraint of hypothetical context on the placement of bu in front of verbal complement even at the advanced proficiency.

Individual Results After reporting L2 learners’ group performance, we also examine their individual performance in the judgment of “(if) bu+VC, …”. High achievers are those who achieve an accuracy of 75% or above in both types of test items (“*bu+VC” and “(if) bu+VC, …”). They are assumed to have acquired the constraint of hypothetical context on the negation of verbal complement. (1) L1-English learners The individual performance of L1-English learners in comparison with that of natives is displayed in the following Fig. 6.53. It can be seen clearly few L1-English learners from the elementary to the intermediate level achieved success. However, it is noteworthy that there was an increase in the proportion of high achievers at later stages. Nearly one third of high-intermediate learners and advanced learners (50% in the aural mode) achieved success, in contrast with the performance of Chinese natives (80%). This suggests that it is possible for L1-English learners to attain sensitivity to the licensing function of the hypothetical contexts on negation with increased proficiency. (2) L1-Korean learners We then turn to L1-Korean learners’ individual performance in the judgment of “(if) bu+VC, …”. As shown in Fig. 6.54, no high achievers were found from the elementary and to the low-intermediate level. Even though there was a gradual increase in the percentage of high achievers at later stages, the proportion of high achievers

6.3 Results of the Written and Aural GJTs of Each Negative Structure Written

100%

Aural 80% 80%

80% 60%

50%

40%

29% 29% 29%

20% 0%

163

0%

5% 5% 5% 5% 5%

EE(21)

ELI(21)

EI(20)

EHI(14)

EA(14)

CN(15)

Fig. 6.53 Percentages of high achievers in L1-English and natives in the written and aural GJTs of “*bu+VC” and “(if) bu+VC, …” Written

Aural

100%

80% 80%

80% 60% 40% 20%

0%

0% 0% 0% 0% 0% KE(20)

KLI(20)

5%

KI(20)

13%

31% 19% 6%

KHI(16)

KA(16)

CN(15)

Fig. 6.54 Percentages of high achievers in L1-Korean and natives in the written and aural GJTs of “*bu+VC” and “(if) bu+VC, …”

remained low. However, like L1-English learners, about one third of advanced L1Korean learners achieved success in the written mode, also suggesting the possibility of ultimate attainment of the constraint of hypothetical context on negation with increased proficiency.

6.3.5.2

The Judgment of “bu+V-de+C” Licensed by Hypothetical Context

Group Results The means of judgment of “*bu+V-de+C” and “(if ) bu+V-de+C, …” in the written and aural GJTs by L1-English learners, L1-Korean learners, and natives are demonstrated in Figs. 6.55 and 6.56. The figures show that the natives clearly rejected the ungrammatical “*bu+V-de+C” (written mode: M = 1.15; aural mode: M = 1.17)

164

6 Results of the Experimental Study

Wri t t e n GJ T (if) bu+V-de-C, ...

*bu+V-de-C 4.00

2.64

2.43 2.51 2.59

3.00

2.26

1.99

2.00 1.00

3.83

3.83

3.23

1.89

2.14 1.80

1.99

1.69 1.63 1.52 1.15

1.86 1.69

1.24 1.33 1.39 1.22 1.15

0.00

EE ELI EI EH I EA CN

K E K LI K I K H IK A CN

Fig. 6.55 Means of judgment of “*bu+V-de+C” and “(if) bu+V-de+C, …” in the written GJT by all groups

A u ral GJ T *bu+V-de-C

(if) bu+V-de-C, ...

3.80

4.00

3.80

3.00

3.00

2.40 2.43 2.38

2.61

2.51 2.66 2.132.02

2.00 1.00

1.55 1.61

1.28

1.52 1.36

1.78 1.69

1.17

1.50

1.20

1.91

1.38

1.17

0.00 EE ELI EI EH I EA CN

K E K LI K I K H IK A CN

Fig. 6.56 Means of judgment of “*bu+V-de+C” and “(if) bu+V-de+C, …” in the aural GJT by all groups. Notes “*bu+V-de+C”, e.g., *小李不跑得快; “ (if) bu+V-de+C, …”, e.g., 小李不跑得快 一点儿, 就会迟到

and accepted the grammatical “(if ) bu+V-de+C, …” (written mode: M = 3.83; aural mode: M = 3.80). By contrast, it appears that L2 learners could not distinguish these two forms very well at lower levels but there was a gradual decrease in their acceptance of “*bu+V-de+C” and a gradual increase in their acceptance of “(if ) bu+V-de+C, …” (in the written mode) as a function of increased proficiency. To reveal possible statistical difference between L2 learners and the natives, a twoway MANOVA was run on the judgment of “*bu+V-de+C” and “(if ) bu+V-de+C, …” by all subject groups. The results reveal a significant effect for L1 background (F (4, 183) = 6.94, p < 0.001) and Chinese proficiency (F (16, 744) = 4.47, p < 0.001),

6.3 Results of the Written and Aural GJTs of Each Negative Structure

165

as well as a significant interaction between these two factors (F (16, 744) = 2.76, p < 0.001). (1) The judgment of “*bu+V-de+C” and “(if) bu+V-de+C, …”: L1-English learners versus L1-Korean learners As has been reported in Sect. 6.3.1.3.1, L1-English and L1-Korean learners showed significant difference in their judgment of “*bu+V-de+C”. In the written mode, L1-Korean learners had a significantly lower acceptance of this illicit form than L1-English learners at the low-intermediate and the intermediate level. In the aural mode, high-intermediate L1-Korean learners had a significantly lower acceptance of this illicit form than corresponding L1-English learners. The post-hoc test also reveals significant difference in their judgment of “(if ) bu+V-de+C, …” in both modes (p < 0.05). Results from one-way ANOVAs indicate that L1-English learners had a significantly higher acceptance of this licit form than L1-Korean learners at the low-intermediate level (F (1, 40) = 5.42, p < 0.05), the intermediate level (F (1, 39) = 6.98, p < 0.05), and the high-intermediate level (F (1, 39) = 6.87, p < 0.05) in the written mode. In the aural mode, advanced L1-English learners also had a higher acceptance of this form than corresponding L1-Korean learners (F (1, 29) = 11.92, p < 0.01). Taken together, the results suggest that L1-Korean learners were more determinate in rejecting the illicit “*bu+V-de+C” than L1-English learners, whereas L1-English learners were more determinate in accepting the licit “(if ) bu+V-de+C, …” than L1-Korean learners. (2) The judgment of “*bu+V-de+C” and “(if) bu+V-de+C, …”: L2 learners versus Chinese natives The rejection of “*bu+V-de+C” As has been reported in Sect. 6.3.1.3.1, L2 learners in general showed sensitivity to the illicit word order in “*bu+V-de+C” at an early stage (elementary or lowintermediate level), and they converged with the natives in rejecting this illicit form with increased Chinese proficiency. The acceptance of “(if) bu+V-de+C, …” Given the difference between L1-English and L1-Korean learners’ judgment of “(if ) bu+V-de+C, …”, separate one-way ANOVAs were run on the judgment of this licit form by each L2 learner group. L1-English learners: Results from one-way ANOVA yield significant differences between L1-English learners and natives in the written mode (F (5, 104) = 13.62, p < 0.001) and the aural mode (F (5, 104) = 9.50, p < 0.001). Results from the post-hoc Tukey test show that elementary to high-intermediate groups all had a significantly lower acceptance of this licit form than the natives in both modes (p < 0.001). However, the advanced group approximated the natives in the written mode (p > 0.05) but not in the aural mode (p < 0.05).

166

6 Results of the Experimental Study Written

100%

Aural

93% 93%

80% 60%

43% 43%

40% 20%

0%

10% 0% EE(21)

21% 15% 14%

14% 5%

5%

ELI(21)

EI(20)

EHI(14)

EA(14)

CN(15)

Fig. 6.57 Percentages of high achievers in L1-English learners and natives in the written and aural GJTs of “*bu+V-de+C” and “(if) bu+V-de+C, …”

L1-Korean learners: The one-way ANOVA elicits significant differences between L1-Korean learners and the natives in the written mode (F (5, 106) = 15.49, p < 0.001) and the aural mode (F (5, 106) = 12.77, p < 0.001). The post-hoc Tukey test bears out that L1-Korean learners at all levels deviated from the natives with a significantly lower rating of the licit form “(if ) bu+V-de+C, …” in both modes (p < 0.01). In general, the results suggest that L2 learners had great difficulty in recognizing the constraint of the hypothetical context on the position of negation markers in descriptive complement constructions. However, advanced L1-English learners converged with the natives in the written mode.

Individual Results We then examine L2 learners’ individual performance in the judgment of “*bu+Vde+C” and “(if ) bu+V-de+C, …” in comparison with Chinese natives. Participants who gained an accuracy of 75% or above in both test items (“*bu+V-de+C” and “(if ) bu+V-de+C, …”) are considered as high achievers. They are assumed to have acquired the constraint of hypothetical context on the position of bu in descriptive complement constructions. (1) L1-English learners As shown in Fig. 6.57, few of L1-English learners from the elementary to the highintermediate level made consistently accurate judgments. However, there was a large increase in the proportion of high achievers at the advanced level (43%). Although this is still much less than that of natives (93%), it suggests the possibility of ultimate attainment of the constraint of hypothetical context on the position of negation markers in descriptive complement constructions, in line with the group results presented above.

6.3 Results of the Written and Aural GJTs of Each Negative Structure Written

Aural

167 93% 93%

100% 80% 60% 38%

40%

15%

20% 0%

0% 0% 0%

KE(20)

KLI(20)

19% 5% 5%

KI(20)

6% 6%

KHI(16)

KA(16)

CN(15)

Fig. 6.58 Percentages of high achievers in L1-Korean learners and natives in the written and aural GJTs of “*bu+V-de+C” and “(if) bu+V-de+C, …”

(2) L1-Korean learners We then turn to the individual performance of L1-Korean learners in the judgment of “(if ) bu+V-de+C, …” in comparison with natives. As shown in Fig. 6.58, few of L1-Korean learners from elementary to high-intermediate level achieved success. However, about 40% of the learners fulfilled the criteria of successful acquisition at the advanced level in the written mode, though still much less than the natives (93%), indicating the possibility of ultimate attainment of the licensing function of hypothetical context on the position of negation markers in descriptive complement constructions.

6.3.5.3

The Judgment of “bu+V-zhe” Licensed by Hypothetical Context

Group Results The means of judgment of “*bu+V-zhe” and “(if ) bu+V-zhe, …” in the written and aural GJTs by L1-English learners, L1-Korean learners, and Chinese natives are displayed in Figs. 6.59 and 6.60. The figures show that the Chinese natives had a higher acceptance of “(if ) bu+V-zhe, …” (written mode: M = 3.77; Aural mode: M = 3.55) than “*bu+V-zhe” (written mode: M = 1.83; Aural mode: M = 2.10) in the written and the aural mode, while L2 learners did not distinguish these two forms very well before the advanced stage, and there was a decrease in their acceptance of “*bu+V-zhe” and an increase in their acceptance of “(if ) bu+V-zhe, …” at the advanced stage. A two-way MANOVA on the judgment of these two forms in both modes elicits a significant effect of Chinese proficiency (F (16, 744) = 2.08, p < 0.01), yet no significant effect of L1-background (F (4, 183) = 0.81, p > 0.05), or significant interaction between these two factors (F (16, 744) = 1.41, p > 0.05).

168

6 Results of the Experimental Study

Wri t t e n GJ T *bu+V-zhe 3.77

4.00 3.00 2.76 2.00

(if) bu+V-zhe, ...

2.52

3.07

2.88 2.95

2.88 2.69 2.76

3.77 3.34

2.95

2.65

2.52

2.56

2.96 2.91 2.77 2.86 2.73 2.67

2.56

1.83

1.83

1.00 0.00 EE ELI EI EH I EA CN

K E K LI K I K H I K A CN

Fig. 6.59 Means of judgment of “*bu+V-zhe” and “(if) bu+V-zhe, …”in the written GJT by all groups

A u ral GJ T *bu+V-zhe 4.00 3.00 2.00

2.76 2.57

3.01

3.18 3.27

3.55

3.55 2.95

2.79

2.79 2.73 2.73

(if) bu+V-zhe, ...

2.95 2.50

3.20

2.93 3.02

3.06

2.92 2.79 2.76

2.70

2.10

2.10

EE ELI EI EH I EA CN

K E K LI K I K H I K A CN

1.00 0.00

Fig. 6.60 Means of judgment of “*bu+V-zhe” and “(if) bu+V-zhe, …” in the aural GJT by all groups. Notes *bu+V-zhe”, e.g., *小李不带着地图; “ (if) bu+V-zhe, …”, e.g., 小李不带着地图, 就会迷路

(1) The judgment of “*bu+V-zhe” and “(if) bu+V-zhe, …”: L1-English learners versus L1-Korean learners Results of the post-hoc Tukey test after the MANOVA reveals no significant differences between L1-English and L1-Korean learners in the judgment of “*bu+V-zhe” and “(if ) bu+V-zhe, …” in either mode (p > 0.05). Therefore, their data were collapsed for further analysis. (2) The judgment of “*bu+V-zhe” and “(if) bu+V-zhe, …”: L2 learners versus Chinese natives

6.3 Results of the Written and Aural GJTs of Each Negative Structure

169

The rejection of “*bu+V-zhe” As has been reported in Sect. 6.3.4.4.1, L2 learners from both backgrounds were very hesitant in rejecting the illicit co-occurrence of bu and V-zhe. Although the advanced group showed no significant difference from the natives, they still exhibited much indeterminacy toward the incompatibility between bu and V-zhe. The acceptance of “(if) bu+V-zhe, …” The post-hoc Tukey test after the MANOVA reveals that L2 learners from the elementary to the high-intermediate level all had a significantly lower acceptance of the licit form “(if ) bu+V-zhe, …” than the natives in the written mode (p < 0.01), however, the advanced group converged with the natives (p > 0.05). In the aural mode, the elementary and intermediate group differed significantly from the natives with a lower acceptance of this licit form (p < 0.05), yet the other L2 groups showed no difference from the natives (p > 0.05). The results suggest that L2 learners were uncertain with the co-occurrence of bu and V-zhe licensed by the hypothetical context. Despite convergence with the natives at some levels, this does not necessarily suggest that they detected the licensing function of the hypothetical context, since they also showed optionality in rejecting the co-occurrence of bu and V-zhe in declarative matrix sentences. The individual results below will shed light on this issue.

Individual Results After presenting L2 learners’ group performance, we then present their individual performance in the judgment of “(if ) bu+V-zhe, …” in comparison with natives. Participants who gain an accuracy of 75% or above in both test items (“*bu+Vzhe” and “(if ) bu+V-zhe, …”) are considered as high achievers. They are assumed to have acquired the ungrammaticality of using bu for negating “V-zhe” and the grammaticality of such a combination in the hypothetical clause as in “(if ) bu+V-zhe, …”. (1) L1-English learners The results of L1-English learners’ individual performance in the judgment of “(if ) bu+V-zhe, …” in comparison with natives is presented in Fig. 6.61. Almost none of the L1-English learners made accurate judgment, even at the advanced stage. In stark contrast, nearly 70% of Chinese natives made consistent and accurate judgment in the written mode, though only 40% in the aural mode. (2) L1-Korean learners The individual performance of L1-Korean learners in the judgment of “(if ) bu+V-zhe, …” is shown in Fig. 6.62. Just as L1-English learners, almost none of the L1-Korean learners achieved success.

170

6 Results of the Experimental Study Written

Aural

100% 80%

67%

60% 40%

40% 20% 0%

10% 0%

0% 0% 0% 0%

0% 0%

0% 0%

EE(21)

ELI(21)

EHI(14)

EA(14)

EI(20)

CN(15)

Fig. 6.61 Percentages of high achievers in L1-English learners and natives in the written and aural GJTs of “*bu+V-zhe” and “(if) bu+V-zhe, …” Written

Aural

100% 80%

67%

60% 40%

40% 20%

0%

5%

0% 0%

KE(20)

5%

KLI(20)

0% 0% KI(20)

0% 0% KHI(16)

0%

6%

KA(16)

CN(15)

Fig. 6.62 Percentages of high achievers in L1-Korean learners and natives in the written and aural GJTs of “*bu+V-zhe” and “(if) bu+V-zhe, …”

Referring to the group results, we could claim that L2 learners from both L1 backgrounds failed to detect the illicit co-occurrence of bu and V-zhe in the declarative matrix sentence and also the constraint of hypothetical context on the co-occurrence of bu and V-zhe in conditional clauses.

6.3.5.4

Summary of the Main Results

WE have presented L2 learners’ judgment of the interaction between hypothetical context and Chinese negation markers in the written and aural GJTs. The following are the main results: (1) In general, both L1-English learners and L1-Korean learners had great difficulty in acquiring the constraint of the hypothetical context on Chinese negation.

6.4 The Development Sequence in L2 Acquisition of Chinese Negative …

171

(2) L1-English and L1-Korean learners performed similarly in the judgment of “bu+VC” and “bu+V-zhe” in conditional clauses and they deviated from Chinese natives even at the advanced stage. (3) L1-English learners exhibited more determinacy in accepting “bu+V-de+C” in conditional clauses than L1-Korean learners. As analyzed in Sects. 3.2.2 and 3.2.3, the interaction between Chinese negation and hypothetical context involves the syntax-semantics-(morphology) interface. In terms of features, hypothetical context is assumed to represent the [–realis] feature. The results summarized here will be discussed further by relating to the Interface Hypothesis and the Feature Reassembly Hypothesis in Chap. 8.

6.4 The Development Sequence in L2 Acquisition of Chinese Negative Structures In the previous section, we have presented the group performance and individual performance of L2 learners in their acquisition of different categories of Chinese negative sentences. It turns out that L2 learners gradually establish nativelike sensitivity in the acquisition of certain structures or properties, such as the negation of the experiential aspect. By contrast, some other structures or properties pose great difficulty for L2 learners, such as negation in conditional clauses. In this section, based on the individual results of L2 learners, we worked out the development sequence of L2 learners’ acquisition of different categories of negative structures in Chinese with the Implicational Scale.4 First, we present the development sequence of L1-English learners and then that of L1-Korean learners.

6.4.1 L1-English Learners’ Development Sequence First, we analyzed the scale of L1-English learners’ performance in the written GJT. The percentages of high achievers in each sentence type at each proficiency are grouped together in Table 6.1. After conversion and sequencing, we obtained the scale of L1-English learners’ acquisition sequence of different categories of sentences, as displayed in Table 6.2. Those categories to the right are acquired at an earlier stage than those to the left. Based on the data in Table 6.2, we calculated Crep and Cscal . Crep = 1 − 1/(5 ∗ 15) = 0.987 MMrep = 21/(5 ∗ 15) = 0.28 % improvement = 0.9867 − 0.28 = 0.707 4

For the method of using the Implicational Scale, see Sect. 5.4.1.5 in Chap. 5.

29

52

55

79

93

0

0

0

7

7

EE

ELI

EI

EHI

EA

79

86

40

14

14

ming-tian+Neg (%)

79

43

60

29

14

mei+RCC (%)

43

29

15

29

5

bu+PCC (%)

71

71

60

52

38

bu+DCC (%)

79

64

25

57

43

Neg+stative (%)

79

36

55

24

10

Neg+Acc. (%)

71

57

70

62

33

bu+V (-le) (%)

86

29

30

19

19

mei+V (-le) (%)

100

93

85

86

62

Neg+V-guo (%)

7

0

0

0

0

Neg+V-zhe (%)

29

29

5

5

0

if-bu-VC (%)

43

14

5

5

0

if-bu-V-de-C (%)

0

0

0

0

0

if-bu-V-zhe (%)

Keys EE-EA: English-speaking elementary/low-intermediate/intermediate/high-intermediate/advanced learners RCC/PCC/DCC: resultative/potential/descriptive complement construction; Acc.: Achievements/Accomplishments

zuotian+Neg (%)

yi-qian+Neg (%)

Table 6.1 Percentages of high achievers in L1-English learners in the written GJT

172 6 Results of the Experimental Study

EA EHI EI ELI EE

0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0

1 0 0 0 0

1 0 0 0 0

1 1 0 0 0

1 1 0 0 0

1 1 0 0 0

1 1 0 0 0

1 1 1 0 0

if-bu - if-bu - if-bu - Neg+ yiqian bu mei +V Neg+ Neg+ zuotian mingtia mei + bu+ VC V-de -C V-zhe V-zhe +Neg +PCC (-le ) Acc. stative +Neg n +Neg RCC DCC

Table 6.2 Scale of L1-English learners’ acquisition of negative structures in the written GJT

1 0 1 1 0

1 1 1 1 1

bu +V Neg+ (-le ) V-guo

6.4 The Development Sequence in L2 Acquisition of Chinese Negative … 173

174

6 Results of the Experimental Study

Fig. 6.63 Development sequence in L1-English learners’ acquisition of Chinese negation based on the individual results in the written GJT

Cscal = 0.707/(1 − 0.28) = 0.982 Since Crep = 0.987 > 0.90 and Cscal = 0.982 > 0.60, we could claim that the scale built in Table 6.2 is valid and has a high predictability of the sequence of those different negative structures in L2 development. It can be seen from Table 6.2 that L1-English learners’ acquisition of Chinese negation approximates the sequence in Fig. 6.63. For comparison, we also analyzed the scale of L1-English learners’ individual performance in the aural GJT. The percentages of high achievers for each sentence type at each proficiency are summarized in the following Table 6.3. After conversion and sequencing, we obtained the scale of L1-English learners’ acquisition of different negative structures as shown in Table 6.4. Similarly, based on the data in Table 6.4, we calculated Crep and Cscal for this scale. Crep = 1 − 2/(5 ∗ 15) = 0.973 MMrep = 22/(5 ∗ 15) = 0.293 % improvement = 0.973 − 0.293 = 0.68 Cscal = 0.68/(1 − 0.293) = 0.962 Since Crep = 0.973 > 0.90, and Cscal = 0.962 > 0.60, we claim that the scale built in Table 6.4 is valid with a high predictability of L1-English learners’ acquisition of different negative structures. It can be seen from the table that L1-English learners’ acquisition of these 15 sentence types approximates the following sequence in Fig. 6.64. Comparing the development patterns of L1-English learners’ acquisition of Chinese negation based on the individual results of written and aural GJTs, we find that negation in conditional clauses, the negation of past habitual activities (yiqian+Neg), and the negation of durative aspect (Neg+V-zhe) are the most difficult categories for L1-English learners. By contrast, negation of the experiential aspect (Neg+V-guo) and negation of descriptive complement construction (DCC) are relatively easier for L1-English learners. The acquisition of the other categories is subject to L2 learners’ Chinese proficiency.

0

EA

64

79

50

0

0

EI

EHI

33

43

10

0

ELI

zuo-tian+Neg (%)

EE

yi-qian+Neg (%)

71

64

20

24

14

ming-tian+Neg (%)

71

43

60

29

5

mei+RCC (%)

60

57

20

24

19

bu+PCC (%)

87

64

75

71

57

bu+DCC (%)

57

71

60

71

52

Neg+stative (%)

71

64

50

24

14

Neg+Acc. (%)

Table 6.3 Percentages of high achievers in L1-English learners in the aural GJT

71

64

50

29

24

bu+V (-le) (%)

64

21

30

14

14

mei+V (-le) (%)

100

86

95

48

43

Neg+V-guo (%)

7

0

0

0

0

Neg+V-zhe (%)

50

29

5

5

5

if-bu-VC (%)

43

21

15

14

10

if-bu-V-de-C (%)

0

0

0

0

10

if-bu-V-zhe (%)

6.4 The Development Sequence in L2 Acquisition of Chinese Negative … 175

EA EHI EI ELI EE

0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0

if-bu - if-bu -V- if-bu -V- Neg+ yiqian VC de -C zhe V-zhe +Neg

1 0 0 0 0

1 0 0 0 0

1 0 1 0 0

1 1 0 0 0

1 1 0 0 0

1 1 0 0 0

1 1 0 0 0

1 1 1 0 0

0 1 1 1 0

1 1 1 1 0

bu+ mei +V mei + zuotian mingtian Neg+ bu +V Neg+ Neg+ bu+ PCC (-le ) RCC +Neg +Neg Acc. (-le ) V-guo stative DCC

Table 6.4 Scale of L1-English learners’ acquisition of negative structures in the aural GJT

176 6 Results of the Experimental Study

6.4 The Development Sequence in L2 Acquisition of Chinese Negative …

177

Fig. 6.64 Development sequence in L1-English learners’ acquisition of Chinese negation based on the individual results in the aural GJT

6.4.2 L1-Korean Learners’ Development Sequence We then analyze L1-Korean learners’ development patterns in the acquisition of Chinese negative structures. First, we present their individual performance in the judgment of each sentence type in the written GJT as shown in Table 6.5. After conversion and ordering, we constructed the following scale, as displayed in Table 6.6. Those categories to the right are acquired at an earlier stage than those to the left. Based on the data in Table 6.6, we calculated Crep and Cscal to test the validity of this scale. Crep = 1 − 2/(5 ∗ 15) = 0.973 MMrep = 23/(5 ∗ 15) = 0.307 % improvement = 0.973 − 0.307 = 0.667 Cscal = 0.667/(1 − 0.307) = 0.962 Since Crep = 0.973 > 0.90, and Cscal = 0.962 > 0.60, we claim that the scale built in Table 6.6 is valid and has a high predictability for the development pattern in L1-Korean learners’ acquisition of those 15 negative structures, as illustrated in the following Fig. 6.65. For comparison, we also analyzed L1-Korean learners’ development pattern based on their performance in the aural GJT. The percentages of high achievers for each category at each proficiency are summarized in Table 6.7. Similarly, after conversion and sequencing, we built a scale as displayed in Table 6.8. Those to the right are acquired at an earlier stage, while those to the left are acquired late or not acquired yet even at the advanced stage. Based on the data in Table 6.8, we calculated Crep and Cscal to test the validity of the scale. Crep = 1 − 1/(5 ∗ 15) = 0.987 MMrep = 24/(5 ∗ 15) = 0.32 % improvement = 0.987 − 0.32 = 0.667 Cscal = 0.667/(1 − 0.32) = 0.98

40

0

13

25

KI

KHI

KA

75

63

70

75

45

ming-tian+Neg (%)

69

50

45

60

15

mei+RCC (%)

69

31

30

35

10

bu+PCC (%)

88

75

85

85

30

bu+DCC (%)

88

88

80

45

35

Neg+stative (%)

81

50

40

60

15

Neg+Acc. (%)

63

31

55

50

20

bu+V (-le) (%)

63

38

35

20

20

mei+V (-le) (%)

94

88

70

75

55

Neg+V-guo (%)

6

13

10

10

15

Neg+V-zhe (%)

31

13

0

0

0

if-bu-VC (%)

38

6

5

0

0

if-bu-V-de-C (%)

0

0

0

0

5

if-bu-V-zhe (%)

Keys KE-KA: Korean-speaking elementary/low-intermediate/intermediate/high-intermediate/advanced learners RCC/PCC/DCC: resultative/potential/descriptive complement constructions Acc.: Achievements/Accomplishments

75

56

45

5

35

5

KLI

zuo-tian+Neg (%)

KE

yi-qian+Neg (%)

Table 6.5 Percentages of high achievers in L1-Korean learners in the written GJT

178 6 Results of the Experimental Study

KE

KLI

KI

KHI

KA

0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0

1 0 0 0 0

1 0 0 0 0

1 0 0 0 0

1 0 0 0 0

1 0 0 1 0

1 0 0 1 0

1 1 1 0 0

1 1 1 1 0

1 1 1 1 0

1 1 1 1 0

if-bu - if-bu - if-bu - Neg+ yiqian zuotian bu + bu +V mei +V mei + Neg+ Neg+ mingtian bu + Neg+ VC V-de -C V-zhe V-zhe +Neg +Neg PCC (-le ) (-le ) RCC Acc. stative +Neg DCC V-guo

Table 6.6 Scale of L1-Korean learners’ acquisition of negative structures in the written GJT

6.4 The Development Sequence in L2 Acquisition of Chinese Negative … 179

180

6 Results of the Experimental Study

Fig. 6.65 Development sequence in L1-Korean learners’ acquisition of Chinese negation based on the individual results in the written GJT

Since Crep = 0.987 > 0.90, and Cscal = 0.98 > 0.60, we could claim that the scale built in Table 6.8 is valid and has a high predictability for L1-Korean learners’ development pattern in their acquisition of different negative structures in Chinese, which is illustrated as in Fig. 6.66.

6.5 Interim Summary This chapter has presented the detailed results of the written and aural GJTs in the experimental study. In general, the results reveal considerable variability in L1English and L1-Korean learners’ acquisition of Chinese negation. Regarding the position of negation markers in verbal complement constructions, L2 learners from both backgrounds could achieve nativelike performance with increased Chinese proficiency and they acquired the position of mei/bu in resultative/descriptive complement constructions (mei+VC/V-de+bu+C) at an earlier stage than the position of bu in potential complement constructions (V+bu+C). As for the temporal constraints on Chinese negation, L1-English and L1-Korean learners converged with Chinese natives in the negation of past episodic events and absolute future events, but both L2 learner groups failed to establish target-like knowledge about the negation of past habitual activities even at the advanced stage. L2 learners from both backgrounds attained nativelike knowledge about the lexical constraints on Chinese negation as a function of increased Chinese proficiency. For the interaction between grammatical aspect and negation, both L1-English and L1Korean learners acquired the negation of the experiential aspect (-guo) early on, then the non-co-occurrence of bu/mei and the perfective aspect marker -le, but they exhibited persistent optionality in the negation of the durative aspect (-zhe). In the last category, the constraint of hypothetical context on Chinese negation poses great difficulty for L2 learners from both L1 backgrounds. They showed much indeterminacy in accepting the licensed negative structures in conditional clauses. Moreover, the role of L1 background and task modality was also captured in L2 learners’ judgment of Chinese negative structures in the GJTs.

10

0

0

6

6

KE

KLI

KI

KHI

KA

yi-qian+Neg (%)

75

75

50

55

20

zuo-tian+Neg (%)

81

63

65

60

50

ming-tian+Neg (%)

63

69

35

30

10

mei+RCC (%)

44

31

25

15

15

bu+PCC (%)

88

94

75

55

60

bu+DCC (%)

81

81

70

70

50

Neg+stative (%)

81

69

40

30

10

Neg+Acc. (%)

Table 6.7 Percentages of high achievers in L1-Korean learners in the aural GJT

63

44

35

55

30

bu+V (-le) (%)

63

13

25

25

20

mei+V (-le) (%)

94

100

70

65

55

Neg+V-guo (%)

6

6

0

5

0

Neg+V-zhe (%)

19

6

5

0

0

if-bu-VC (%)

19

6

5

15

0

if-bu-V-de-C (%)

6

0

0

5

0

if-bu-V-zhe (%)

6.5 Interim Summary 181

KE

KLI

KI

KHI

KA

0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0

1 0 0 0 0

1 0 0 0 0

1 1 0 0 0

1 1 0 0 0

1 1 0 0 0

1 1 1 1 0

1 1 1 1 0

1 1 1 1 0

1 1 1 0 1

if-bu - if-bu - if-bu - Neg+ yiqian bu + bu +V mei + mei + Neg+ zuotian mingtian Neg+ Neg+ bu + VC V-de -C V-zhe V-zhe +Neg PCC (-le ) V (-le ) RCC Acc. +Neg +Neg stative V-guo DCC

Table 6.8 Scale of L1-Korean learners’ acquisition of negative structures in the aural GJT

182 6 Results of the Experimental Study

6.5 Interim Summary

183

Fig. 6.66 Development sequence in L1-Korean learners’ acquisition of Chinese negation based on the individual results in the aural GJT

The experimental study has provided judgment data on L2 acquisition of Chinese negation. The following chapter will provide more production data on Chinese negation by L1-English and L1-Korean learners with a corpus-based study.

Chapter 7

Results of the Corpus-Based Study

Abstract This chapter presents the results of the production data on the use of bu/mei in 15 categories of constructions (the same as those included in the GJTs) by L1-English and L1-Korean learners from four written Chinese learner corpora, which are largely consistent with the results of the judgment data elicited from the experimental study, and thus provide more authentic evidence for L2 learners’ use of Chinese negation markers. This chapter first gives an overview of the total number and frequencies of the target items produced by L1-English and L1-Korean learners in the four Chinese learner corpora, then reports the accuracy rates in L2 learners’ use of bu/mei in each category of constructions at different Chinese proficiency levels, and finally compares the results of the judgment data and the learner corpus data.

7.1 Introduction The previous chapter reported the results of the judgment data on Chinese negation by L1-English and L1-Korean learners. In this chapter, we will present the results of the production data on Chinese negation from four written Chinese learner corpora.1 As noted in Chap. 5, we extracted learner corpus data on the use of bu/mei in 15 categories of constructions (the same as those included in the GJTs) by L1-English and L1-Korean learners. In the following, we will first give an overview of the total number and frequencies of the target items produced by L1-English and L1-Korean learners in the four Chinese learner corpora. Then, we will report the accuracy rates in L2 learners’ use of bu/mei in each category of constructions at different Chinese proficiency levels. Finally, we will make a comparison of the results of the judgment data and the learner corpus data.

1

These four Chinese learner corpora include the HSK Dynamic Composition Corpus (HSK), the Error-tagged Chinese Interlanguage Corpus (ECIC), the Jinan Chinese Learner Corpus (JCLC), and the TOCFL Composition Corpus (TOCFL). For detailed information about these corpora, see Sect. 5.4.3 in Chap. 5.

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2023 J. Wang, Interfaces and Features in Second Language Acquisition, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-8629-1_7

185

186

7 Results of the Corpus-Based Study

Table 7.1 Total number and frequencies of the target tokens with bu/mei produced by L1-English and L1-Korean learners in the Corpora (frequency in brackets) bu

mei

bu

mei

EE

47 (8%)

24 (8%)

KE

57 (2%)

30 (3%)

ELI

200 (35%)

125 (44%)

KLI

256 (8%)

106 (9%)

EI

162 (28%)

76 (27%)

KI

1556 (48%)

634 (53%)

EHI

93 (16%)

25 (9%)

KHI

987 (30%)

314 (26%)

EA

74 (13%)

35 (12%)

KA

407 (12%)

116 (10%)

Total

576

285

3263

1200

Keys: EE/ELI/EI/EHI/EA = English-speaking intermediate/advanced learners KE/KLI/KI/EHI/KA = Korean-speaking intermediate/advanced learners CN = Chinese native speakers

elementary/low-intermediate/intermediate/highelementary/low-intermediate/intermediate/high-

7.2 Overview of the Production of Chinese Negation in the Written Corpora by L1-English and L1-Korean Learners As an overview, the total number and frequencies of the target tokens with bu/mei produced by L1-English and L1-Korean learners are given in Table 7.1. It is evident that L2 learners from both L1 backgrounds produced much more items with the use of bu than the use of mei.2 In addition, the target tokens produced by L1-Korean learners (bu: N = 3263; mei: N = 1200) greatly outnumber those produced by L1-English learners (bu: N = 576; mei: N = 285).3 In terms of proficiency, a large proportion of the target items were produced by learners ranging from low-intermediate to high-intermediate proficiency, while a much lower percentage of the data were from elementary and advanced learners of Chinese. Specifically, for L1-Korean learners, nearly 80% of the data were produced by intermediate and high-intermediate learners. For L1-English learners, more than 60% of the data were produced by low-intermediate and intermediate learners.

2

The negation marker bu also has a higher frequency than mei in the production of Chinese native speakers. According to Chan and Kit (2010), the frequency of bu and mei are 61% and 9%, respectively, in the Chinese Gigaword (CGW) corpora, which consists of over 21 billion contemporary Chinese words. 3 This is expected since L1-Korean learners take up a much larger proportion (15.9%) of foreign learners of Chinese than L1-English learners (5.4%) in mainland China according to the latest data from the Ministry of Education of People’s Republic of China (http://www.moe.gov.cn).

7.3 Results of the Production of bu/mei in Each Category of Constructions … Table 7.2 Accuracy rates of the placement of bu/mei in verbal complement constructions by L1-English and L1-Korean learners in the Corpora

187

RCC

PCC

DCC

EE

89% (8/9)

100% (17/17)

04

ELI

100% (37/37)

98% (63/64)

2/2

EI

100% (23/23)

94% (30/32)

2/2

EHI

100% (6/6)

91% (10/11)

1/1

EA

100% (14/14)

100% (15/15)

1/1

KE

100% (7/7)

94% (15/16)

3/3

KLI

100% (24/24)

100% (71/71)

100% (5/5)

KI

99% (164/165)

99% (292/295)

100% (20/20)

KHI

100% (83/83)

99% (165/168)

100% (7/7)

KA

100% (30/30)

100% (67/67)

100% (5/5)

Notes RCC: “*V+mei+C”, e.g., *小李写没完作业; “mei+VC”, e.g., 小 李没写完作业 PCC: “*bu+VC”, e.g., *小李不找到工作; “V+bu+C”, e.g., 小李 找不到工作 DCC: “*bu+V-de+C”, e.g., *小李不跑得快; “V-de+bu+C”, e.g., 小李跑得不快

7.3 Results of the Production of bu/mei in Each Category of Constructions by L1-English and L1-Korean Learners After the general introduction of the production data, this section will present the results of L1-English and L1-Korean learners’ use of bu/mei in five main categories of constructions, including the position of bu/mei in verbal complement constructions, the use of bu/mei in different temporal frameworks, lexical aspects, and grammatical aspects, as well as the hypothetical context. The accuracy rates in L2 learners’ use of bu/mei at each proficiency level will be reported.

7.3.1 Results of the Production of bu/mei in Verbal Complement Constructions This section presents the results of L1-English and L1-Korean learners’ production of bu/mei in three types of verbal complement constructions: the resultative complement construction (RCC), the potential complement construction (PCC), and the descriptive complement construction (DCC). The accuracy rates of the placement of bu/mei in these three constructions by L2 learners are demonstrated in Table 7.2. 4 We did not provide the accuracy rates for cases with less than five tokens since such limited data were not representative enough. For such cases, only the total number of the tokens was presented.

188

7.3.1.1

7 Results of the Corpus-Based Study

The Position of mei in Resultative Complement Constructions (RCC)

It can be seen clearly that both L1-English and L1-Korean learners gained high accuracy rates of the use of mei in RCC. Even at the elementary level, L1-English learners achieved nearly 90% accuracy, and they achieved 100% accuracy at later stages. As for L1-Korean learners, they obtained 100% accuracy as early as the elementary stage. Only two items with errors were found, as listed in (75) and (76). In these two examples, mei was incorrectly placed between the verb and the complement. The results suggest that L2 learners readily gained a high sensitivity to the position of mei in the negation of RCC in production. (75) …chi *xi mei ganjing shipin de ren ti nei huaxue chengfen jiu yue-lai-yueduo… eat wash not clean food DE person body inside chemistry element then more-and-more “(Intended) People who eat unwashed food may leave more and more chemical elements in their body.” (HSK, KI) (76) …zuotian wo pa shan…wo hui xiamian de shihou, wo *zhao mei dao ren dao Yesterday I climb mountain I return down DE time I look-for not get-to human path “(Intended) I went to climb the mountain yesterday...when I went down, I did not find the path.” (TOCFL, EE) 7.3.1.2

The Position of bu in Potential Complement Constructions (PCC)

Now we come to L2 learners’ production of bu in PCC. As shown in Table 7.2, results of the data in the four corpora show that the accuracy rate of the use of bu in PCC reached above 90% at all levels for both L1-Korean and L1-English learners, indicating that L2 learners acquired the post-verbal position of bu in PCC successfully. However, it is noteworthy that errors occurred sparsely at different levels, ranging from the low-intermediate level to high-intermediate level, as exemplified in (77), (78), and (79). The negation marker bu was mistakenly put in front of the verb and the complement. Although the error rate is rather low, this may still imply the possibility of residue indeterminacy with the position of bu in PCC in L2 Chinese grammar before the advanced stage. (77) Ruguo ni bu keyi gen bendi ren shuohua, ni de wenfa *bu bang dao ni. If you not can with local person talk you DE grammar not help to you “(Intended) If you are not able to talk with local people, even the grammar cannot help you.” (TOCFE, ELI) (78) Dangshi wo xihuan de diannao ye *bu zhua-zhu wo de xin. then I like DE computer also not seize-on I DE heart (ECIC, KI) (79) Wo yijing you Yingyu he Hanyu chengji, bu keneng *bu kao shang.

7.3 Results of the Production of bu/mei in Each Category of Constructions …

189

I already have English and Chinese grade not possible not take-exam up “(Intended) I have got my English and Chinese grades. It is impossible that I cannot pass the exam.” (HSK, KHI) 7.3.1.3

The Position of bu in Descriptive Complement Constructions (DCC)

WE now turn to L2 learners’ performance in the use of bu in DCC. As shown in Table 7.2, there were much fewer tokens of descriptive complement construction in the corpus data compared with the other two types of verbal complement constructions, suggesting that DCC may have a lower frequency than RCC and PCC in L2 Chinese production. Nevertheless, in all those items with the structure of DCC, the negation marker bu was placed correctly and no errors were found, indicating L2 learners’ sensitivity toward the position of bu in such a construction despite its low frequency.

7.3.1.4

Summary of the Main Results

We have reported the results of L1-English and L1-Korean learners’ use of negation markers bu/mei in three types of verbal complement constructions. The main results are summarized as follows. (1) L2 learners from both L1 backgrounds generally could place mei accurately in resultative complement constructions despite errors at the elementary stage. (2) L2 learners achieved high accuracy in the use of bu in potential complement constructions, yet there might be residue target-deviant performance before the advanced stage. (3) L2 learners could place bu correctly in descriptive complement constructions despite a very low frequency of this construction in Chinese learner corpora.

7.3.2 Results of the Production of bu/mei in Different Temporal Frameworks This section reports L1-English and L1-Korean learners’ choice of bu/mei in different temporal frameworks, specifically, past habitual activities, past episodic events, and future events. These three types of predicates in terms of temporal information were extracted from the four written corpora. The accuracy rates of using bu/mei in these situations by L1-English and L1-Korean learners at different Chinese proficiency levels are presented in Table 7.3.

190

7 Results of the Corpus-Based Study

Table 7.3 Accuracy rates of the use of bu/mei in different temporal frameworks by L1-English and L1-Korean learners in the Corpora

Past habitual activities

Past episodic events

Future events

EE

0

100% (9/9)

0

ELI

0

82% (9/11)

1/1

EI

0

100% (7/7)

1/1

EHI

0

100% (8/8)

0

EA

2/3

100% (8/8)

2/2

KE

2/4

82% (14/17)

0

KLI

2/2

96% (27/28)

0

KI

50% (7/14)

91% (193/213)

100% (23/23)

KHI

46% (6/13)

97% (73/75)

94% (17/18)

KA

2/4

92% (23/25)

1/1

Notes Past habitual activities: e.g., 小李以前不/*没抽烟 Past episodic events: e.g., 小李昨天没/*不来学校 Future events: e.g., 小李明天不/*没来上课

7.3.2.1

The Choice of bu/mei in Negating Past Habitual Activities

First, we examine the results in the choice of negation markers for past habitual activity by L2 learners. As demonstrated in Table 7.3, the total number of items within this category is very small. For L1-English learners, only three tokens were extracted at the advanced level, and one error was found. For L1-Korean learners, more data were found at the intermediate and high-intermediate level, while less than five tokens were collected at other levels. Additionally, results from the data produced by intermediate and high-intermediate learners reveal a very low accuracy rate in the choice of negation markers for past habitual activities, lingering around the chance level (KI: 50%; KHI: 45%). L2 learners made errors by using mei instead of bu to negate past habitual activities, as exemplified in (80) and (81). It is interesting to note that L2 learners may use bu and mei alternatively in negating past habitual activities in one sentence, as shown in (82). Such errors seem to suggest that L2 learners had problems in acquiring the use of bu for the negation of past habitual activities in production. (80) Wo shang gaozhong de shihou, wo wangwang *meiyou shangke, zuoye ye mei zuo. I go high school DE time … I often not go-class home homework also not do “(Intended) When I was in high school, I often did not go to school and did not do the homework either.” (HSK, KI) (81) Wo chuzhong shi changchang dai zai jia li kan shu, ye *meiyou gen pengyou chuqu wan.

7.3 Results of the Production of bu/mei in Each Category of Constructions …

191

I junior-high-school time often stay at home inside look book also not with friend go-out play “(Intended) When I was in junior high school, I studied very hard. I often stayed at home and did not hang out with my friends.” (JCLC, EA) (82) Yiqian de xingge shi zhende *meiyou shuohua, bu chang xiao, bijiao neixiang de. Before DE character be indeed not talk not often laugh relatively introverted DE “(Intended) As for my character before, I did not talk or laugh much indeed, and was a little introverted.” (JCLC, KHI) The Choice of bu/mei in Negating Past Episodic Events We now turn to L2 learners’ performance in the negation of past episodic events based on the data in the learner corpora. As seen in Table 7.3, L1-English lowintermediate learners gained an accuracy of 82%, and those at other levels achieved an accuracy of 100% with no errors found. As for L1-Korean learners, the accuracy rate was relatively lower at the elementary level (82%) than the other higher levels (above 90%). Despite the high accuracy rate, errors were found due to misuse of bu in negating past episodic events at all levels, as exemplified in (83), (84), and (85). (83) Wo renwei dui tamen shuohua kending tamen dou xiao, suoyi wo you *bu gen tamen shuohua. I think to they talk definitely they all laugh so I again not with they talk “(Intended) I thought that if I talked to them, they would definitely laugh, so I did not talk to them.” (HSK, KI) (84) Nashi wo de pengyou men dabufen dou hui guo le, buguo wo *bu hui guo, qu then I DE friend plural most all return country LE but I not return country go Shanghai, Hangzhou lüxing ji tian. Shanghai Hangzhou travel several day (ECIC, KI) “(Intended) At that time, most of my friends had returned to their home country, while I did not. I traveled in Shanghai and Hangzhou for several days.” (85) Zaoshang chuan zui piaoliang de yifu qu xuexiao, keshi ta dui wo *bu shuo “ni hen piaoliang”, wo hen shangxin. Morning wear most beautiful DE clothes go school but he to me not say you very beautiful I very upset “(Intended) That morning I went to school with my most beautiful clothes on but he did not say ‘you are beautiful’ to me, so I felt very upset.” (JCLC, KA) In these cases, the speakers intend to negate the happening of episodic events in the past, so mei rather than bu should be used. It should be noted that when the agent’s volition is activated by a certain structure, intentional words, or the context,

192

7 Results of the Corpus-Based Study

bu can be used to negate the agent’s volition. Such examples were also found in the corpora, as given in (86) and (87). The stress structure yidianer…ye…, “at all” in (86) and the intentional verb yunxu, “allow” in (87) could license the use of bu.5 (86) Laotianye yidianr mang ye bu bang ta, ta na nian siyue qushi le. God a little favor also not help him he that year April pass-away LE “(Intended) God showed no mercy at all on him. He passed away in April that year.” (HSK, KI) (87) Baba ba men guan hao, bu yunxu wo chuqu. Dad BA door close good not allow me go-out “(Intended) Dad closed the door and did not allow me to go out.” (JCLC, KI) The Choice of bu/mei in Negating Future Events (FE) The third category related to temporal frameworks is the negation of future events. As shown in Table 7.3, very few tokens were extracted from the written corpora regarding the choice of bu/mei in negating future events. For L1-English learners, less than five tokens were found at all levels. For L1-Korean learners, most tokens were produced by intermediate and high-intermediate learners with high accuracy rates (KI: 100%; KPI: 94%). Only one error was found, as shown in (88). Interestingly, the learner used bu correctly in negating a past habitual activity but mistakenly used meiyou for the negation of a future event. (88) Xiwang zhe ge xueqi zhong *meiyou kuangke, yinwei shang ge xueqi Hope this semester middle not skip-class because last CL semester jingchang bu lai shangke, erqie chengji ye bu tai hao. often not come have-class and grade also not very good “(Intended) I hope I will not skip class this semester since I often did not come to have class last semester and got not very good grades.” (ECIC, KPI) 7.3.2.2

Summary of the Main Results

WE have presented L1-English and L1-Korean learners’ choice of bu/mei in the negation of three types of temporal frameworks. The main results are recapitulated as below. (1) The negation of past habitual activities by using bu instead of mei seems to pose great difficulty for L2 learners. (2) L2 learners could choose mei with a high accuracy in negating past episodic events despite showing certain optionality before intermediate level.

5

C. Wang (2011) discussed the factors that may trigger the volitional reading of bu, such as stress, adverbs (e.g., jiu, just), etc.

7.3 Results of the Production of bu/mei in Each Category of Constructions … Table 7.4 Accuracy rates of the use of bu/mei in negating different lexical aspects by L1-English and L1-Korean learners in the Corpora

Statives

Ach./Acc.

EE

100% (17/17)

100% (8/8)

ELI

95% (111/117)

100% (37/37)

EI

99% (86/87)

100% (23/23)

EHI

100% (59/59)

86% (6/7)

EA

100% (36/36)

100% (14/14)

KE

96% (23/24)

100% (7/7)

KLI

96% (128/133)

100% (24/24)

KI

98% (739/757)

96% (164/171)

KHI

98% (464/473)

97% (83/84)

KA

100% (151/151)

97% (30/31)

193

Notes Statives: “bu/*mei +Statives”, e.g., 小李不/*没认识我的妹妹 Ach./Acc.: “mei/*bu +Ach./Acc.”, e.g., 小李没/*不看完那本书

(3) L2 learners (L1-Korean learners) could use bu accurately in negating future events despite few items of this category available in the written Chinese learner corpora.

7.3.3 Results of the Production of bu/mei in Negating Different Lexical Aspects This section reports L1-English and L1-Korean learners’ performance in the choice of bu/mei in negating two types of lexical aspects, including statives and achievements/accomplishments.6 Based on the data from the four written learner corpora, the accuracy rates of using bu/mei in negating different lexical aspects by L2 learners from elementary to advanced proficiency are displayed in Table 7.4.

7.3.3.1

The Choice of bu/mei in Negating Statives

First, we look at L1-English and L1-Korean learners’ performance in the choice of negation markers for statives. As shown in Table 7.4, the accuracy rates reach above 95% at all levels for learners from both backgrounds, indicating that L2 learners readily established a high sensitivity to the use of bu in the negation of statives at an 6

In line with the experimental study, we extracted items with resultative complement structure and consider such items as the tokens for achievements/accomplishments, such as V-wan, “finish doing …”, V-dong, “understand by doing…”, etc. As mentioned in Chap. 3, there remain disputes whether resultative complements are achievements or accomplishments or both. This is not the focus of the present study since both types are negated by mei. Thus, such items are categorized as achievements/accomplishments (Ach./Acc.) in this study.

194

7 Results of the Corpus-Based Study

Table 7.5 Frequencies of zhidao (“to know”) and xihuan (“to like”) co-occurring with bu/mei in the Corpora

zhidao “know”

xihuan “like”

EE

59% (10/17)

35% (6/17)

ELI

37% (43/117)

19% (22/117)

EI

16% (14/87)

13% (11/87)

EHI

14% (8/59)

15% (9/59)

EA

6% (2/36)

11% (4/36)

KE

67% (16/24)

13% (3/24)

KLI

45% (60/133)

14% (19/133)

KI

38% (291/757)

13% (100/757)

KHI

31% (147/473)

12% (57/473)

KA

28% (43/151)

21% (32/151)

early stage and they retained a strong determinacy in using bu rather than mei for statives across all levels. However, a few errors were still found at low-intermediate and intermediate levels, as exemplified in (89), (90), and (91). It is noteworthy that errors tend to occur in cases when the situation is set in the past. (89) Dangshi wo jiazhuang *meiyou zhidao. Then I pretend not know “(Intended) Back then I pretended that I did not know.” (HSK, KI) (90) Ganggang lai de shihou juede shenme dou bu hao, dui shenme dou *meiyou gan xingqu. Just come DE time think what all not good to what all not feel interest “(Intended) When I just came here, I thought nothing was good and I was not interested in anything.” (ECIC, KHI) (91) Ta shang ge xueqi meiyou zai zheli xuexi, suoyi wo *mei renshi ta. She last CL semester not at here study so I not know her (JCLC, KLI) “(Intended) She was not studying here last semester, so I did not know her.” A closer look at the target tokens in this category revealed that stative verbs zhidao, “to know” and xihuan, “to like” occurred quite frequently in L2 learners’ production, as shown in Table 7.5. Especially at the elementary level, the verb zhidao, “to know”, was used in more than half of the statives in negative sentences (EE: 59%; KE: 67%). More varieties of stative verbs or phrases were produced at higher proficiency levels.

7.3.3.2

The Choice of bu/mei in Negating Achievements/Accomplishments

Then we turn to L2 learners’ performance in the negation of achievement/accomplishments. As seen in Table 7.4, L1-English learners at the elementary level and high-intermediate level produced very few target items, yet they achieved a high accuracy (85–100%) just like the other levels. As for L1-Korean learners,

7.3 Results of the Production of bu/mei in Each Category of Constructions …

195

except for the elementary group, learners from the low-intermediate to advanced levels all gained a high accuracy (above 95%) by correctly choosing mei in negating achievements/accomplishments. Still, a total of 12 errors due to misuse of bu were found, mainly at the intermediate and high-intermediate levels, as exemplified in (92), (93), and (94). In these examples, mei, rather than bu, should be used. (92) Xianzai renmen bu zhongshi, erqie *bu yishi dao chouyan gei women dailai de yanzhong pohuai. Now people not pay-attention and not realize reach smoke to us bring DE serious damage “(Intended) Nowadays people are not paying attention and have not realized the serious damage smoking has brought to us.” (HSK, KHI) (93) Wo xin li gandao shifen shangxin nanguo, dan wo *bu biaolu chulai yinwei pa jiaren hui geng shangtong. I heart inside feel very sad depressed but I not show out because afraid family will more grieved “(Intended) I felt very sad deep in my heart but I did not show it since I was afraid that my family would be more grieved.” (ECIC, KI) (94) Wo cong zuowan jiu bu duan de kesou, jihu *bu shui-zhao-jiao. I from last-night just not stop DE cough almost not fall-asleep (ECIC, KI) “(Intended) I have been coughing since last night. I almost did not fall asleep.” 7.3.3.3

Summary of the Main Results

WE have reported L1-English and L1-Korean learners’ production of bu/mei in negating two types of lexical aspects. The main results are summarized below. (1) L2 learners achieved a high accuracy in negating statives by using bu instead of mei as early as the elementary stage. The stative verbs with the highest frequency in this category are zhidao, “to know” and xihuan, “to like”, especially at the elementary and low-intermediate levels. (2) In the negation of achievements/accomplishments, L2 learners also gained a high accuracy by using mei instead of bu. Errors occurred mainly before the advanced stage but they were few.

7.3.4 Results of the Production of bu/mei in Negating Different Grammatical Aspects This section reports the results of L1-English and L1-Korean learners’ use of negation markers bu/mei in the negation of three types of grammatical aspects, the perfective aspect (-le), the experiential aspect (-guo), and the durative aspect (-zhe). Based on the

196

7 Results of the Corpus-Based Study

Table 7.6 Accuracy rates of the use of bu/mei in negating different grammatical aspects by L1English and L1-Korean in the Corpora (% accuracy) bu+V(*-le)+O

mei+V(*-le)+O

Neg+V-guo

Neg+V-zhe

EE

100% (28/28)

100% (15/15)

0

0

ELI

100% (128/128)

98% (60/61)

100% (22/22)

0

EI

100% (126/126)

93% (39/42)

100% (10/10)

0

EHI

100% (80/80)

92% (12/13)

100% (6/6)

0

EA

100% (58/58)

100% (18/18)

3/3

0

KE

98% (40/41)

90% (19/21)

2/2

0

KLI

98% (158/162)

96% (49/51)

100% (31/31)

0

KI

99% (1150/1164)

89% (263/294)

98% (171/174)

4/5

KHI

99% (746/754)

87% (91/105)

100% (126/126)

0

KA

100% (302/302)

93% (40/43)

100% (43/43)

0

Notes “bu+V(*-le)+O”: e.g., 小李不喝(*了)啤酒; “mei+V(*-le)+O”: e.g., 小李没看(*了)电影 “Neg+V-guo”:小李没/*不吃过法国菜; “Neg+V-zhe”:小李没/*不带着地图

data in the four written learner corpora, we examined the frequencies of the (non)cooccurrence of bu/mei and these three aspect markers in L2 learners’ production of Chinese negation. The accuracy rates of the use of bu/mei in the negation of the three types of grammatical aspects by L2 learners are shown in Table 7.6.

7.3.4.1

The (Non)Co-occurrence of bu and the Perfective Aspect Marker -le

First, we examine whether L1-English and L1-Korean learners are sensitive to the incompatibility between bu and the perfective aspect marker -le. As seen in Table 7.6, L1-English learners achieved 100% accuracy at all levels with no errors found. L1-Korean learners also gained nearly 100% accuracy at all levels despite a few errors before the advanced level. Such high accuracy rates suggest L2 learners’ high sensitivity toward the incompatibility between bu and the perfective aspect marker -le in the production. For illustration, errors with the co-occurrence of bu and -le are exemplified in (95), (96), and (97). In these examples, -le should be deleted. (95) Wo de hanyu shuiping yiban, wo bu zhidao-*le fayin shang de wenti. I DE Chinese level average I not know-LE pronunciation on DE problem “(Intended) My Chinese is just at average level, so I do not know the problems with my pronunciation.” (HSK, KHI) (96) Wo bu mingbai-*le zhege wenti, qing ni zai shuo yi xia. I not understand-LE this-CL problem please you again one time “(Intended) I do not understand this problem. Please explain it again.” (JCLC, KHI)

7.3 Results of the Production of bu/mei in Each Category of Constructions …

197

(97) Tamen zhi kan le liang ge fangshi de chabie, bu kan-*le jieguo. They only look LE two CL method DE difference not look-LE result “(Intended) They only paid attention to the differences between the two methods without attending to the results.” (ECIC, KI) 7.3.4.2

The (Non)Co-occurrence of mei with the Perfective Aspect Marker -le

Then it comes to the results of the (non)co-occurrence of mei with the perfective aspect marker -le in the production of L1-English and L1-Korean learners. Results from the data in the written corpora find that L1-English learners gained a high accuracy at all levels (above 90%), as seen in Table 7.6. Only five errors were found, mainly at the intermediate level. As for L1-Korean learners, they also had a high accuracy in this category, but there appears to be much variability across different levels. The accuracy rates reached 90% at the elementary level and rose to 96% at the low-intermediate level, then decreased to an accuracy of below 90% at the intermediate and high-intermediate level (89%/87%), and yet increased to 93% accuracy at the advanced stage. Such variability seems to suggest that prolonged indeterminacy may exist in L1-Korean learners’ grammar regarding the incompatibility between mei and -le before the advanced stage. For illustration, examples of errors with the co-occurrence of mei and -le produced by L2 learners are given in (98), (99), and (100). Women dou shi hen chenmo, suoyi hu xiang yijuhua ye mei shuo-*le. We all be very silent so each-other one-CL utterance also not say-LE “(Intended) All of us were silent and we did not even say one word to each other.” (HSK, KI) (99) Wo budan mei tou-*le ta de dongxi, faner ta ziji diu le. I not-only not steal-LE he DE thing instead he self lose-LE “(Intended) I did not steal his thing. Instead, he himself lost it.” (TOCFL, EA) (100) Dang daxuesheng yihou ta yici ye meiyou cong mama nali ling-*le lingyongqian. (JCLC, KI) become college-student after he one-CL also not from Mom there take-LE money “(Intended) After she went to college, she had never asked her Mom for money.” (98)

7.3.4.3

The Choice of bu/mei in Negating the Experiential Aspect Marker -guo

We now turn to L2 learners’ performance in the choice of bu/mei in negating the experiential aspect marked by -guo based on the data from the written corpora. It was found that both L1-Korean and L1-English learners achieved a high accuracy

198

7 Results of the Corpus-Based Study

by correctly choosing mei in the negation of the experiential aspect marker -guo. As shown in Table 7.6, the accuracy rate is 100% at all levels except for the intermediate L1-Korean learners with an accuracy of 98%, which is still quite high, indicating that L2 learners were quite certain and consistent in using mei in the negation of V-guo. Two of the three errors are listed in (101) and (102). (101) Zheyang de wenti, wo *bu tai xiang-guo de wenti. This DE problem I not very think-GUO DE problem “I have not thought about such problems.” (HSK, KI) (102) Mama peng nan shi de shihou yi ci ye *bu dao-guo. Mom hit difficult matter DE time one time not fall-GUO “When Mom met difficulties, she never fell down.” (HSK, KI) 7.3.4.4

The Choice of bu/mei in Negating the Durative Aspect Marker -zhe

Then, we report L2 learners’ choice of bu/mei in negating the durative aspect marker -zhe. As seen in Table 7.6, only five tokens were extracted from the four corpora regarding the negation of V-zhe, all produced by intermediate L1-Korean learners. In these five tokens, mei was used in four items and bu was used in one item, as exemplified in (103)–(107). Among the four tokens using mei, only (103) is acceptable, and -zhe can be deleted in this case. In (104), verbs such as yunhan, “imply”, or yiwei, “mean”, when followed by -zhe, are usually negated by bu rather than mei.7 In (105), it is unacceptable to collocate kai-zhe, open-zhe with xin, “heart” though kai-zhe men, “keep the door open” is acceptable. As for (106), -zhe should be deleted since the speaker simply negated an episodic event in the past. In (107), bu was correctly used to negate yiwei, “mean”. Based on these examples in learners’ production, we conjecture that the negation of V-zhe may pose great difficulty for L2 learners. (103) Wo zhidao nimen hen xiang ting wo de xiangfa huozhe wo weilai de jihua, danshi nimen mei bi-zhe wo, jiu deng wo shuo. I know you very want listen I DE opinion or I future DE plan but you Not force-ZHE I just wait I talk “I know you want to listen to my opinions or my future plan, but you have never forced me to tell you but just wait for me to talk.” (HSK, KI) (104) Suiran liuxing gequ fuhe renmen de weikou er bei renmen xihuan, dan wo renwei ta que ?meiyou yunhan-zhe na-zhong xiwang. although popular song match people DE appetite and by people like but I think it yet no imply-ZHE that-CL hope “Although popular songs satisfy people’s taste and people like them, I think they do not have that kind of hope.” (HSK, KI) 7

Evidence was found from data in the BCC corpus, a large online corpus of Mandarin Chinese (http://bcc.blcu.edu.cn). No tokens were extracted with the co-occurrence of mei(you) and yunhanzhe and only four tokens were found with the co-occurrence of bu and “yunhan-zhe” in double negative sentences. Besides, totally 677 tokens were found with the co-occurrence of bu and yiweizhe and only two tokens with the co-occurrence of meiyou and yiwei-zhe.

7.3 Results of the Production of bu/mei in Each Category of Constructions …

199

(105) Zhe ge dou shi ?meiyou kai-zhe xin kan haizi, yinggai xian guanxin haizi de aihao shi shenme. this CL all be not open-ZHE heart look child should first care child DE hobby be what “The cause of such a problem (generation gap) is that parents are not openhearted enough to pay attention to their children. They should attend to what their children are interested in.” (HSK, KI) (106) You yi tian ta turan da dianhua gei wo, mei shuo-*zhe yizhi ku. have one day she suddenly make phone to me not talk-ZHE all-the-time cry “One day she suddenly called me and kept crying without talking.” (TOCFL, KI) (107) Wo bu xiguan shuo xin li hua, dan zhe bing bu yiwei-zhe wo dui nimen meiyou ganqing. I not used-to speak heart inside speech but this just not mean-ZHE I for you no emotion “I am not used to speaking my mind, but this just does not mean that I have no feelings for you.” (HSK, KI) 7.3.4.5

Summary of the Main Results

(1) L2 learners gained a high accuracy in the production of bu/mei+V-(*le). A few errors occurred due to the redundant use of -le but mainly at the intermediate proficiency level. Much variability was attested in the negation of mei+V-le by L1-Korean learners. (2) L2 learners chose mei in negating V-guo consistently and accurately with few errors. (3) L2 learners produced very few items regarding the negation of V-zhe, and bu and mei were alternatively used in the negation of V-zhe by L2 learners.

7.3.5 Results of the Production of bu/mei in the Conditional Clause Finally, this section presents the results of L1-English and L1-Korean learners’ use of bu/mei in three types of structures in conditional clauses in the four written corpora, including “if…bu+VC/V-bu-C, …”, “if…bu+V-de-C/V-de+bu-C, …”, and “if…bu/mei+V-zhe, …”. Since both structures in each type are possible in conditional clauses, we simply report the total number of the items for each form to demonstrate the preference of L2 learners in the production of Chinese negation in these categories, as shown in Table 7.7.

0

0

0

EA

1

3

2

2

0

0

KI

KHI

KA

2

4

0

0

KE

KLI

0

0

0

EI

EHI

0

6

0

0

ELI

if +V-bu-C,.

EE

if +bu-VC,.

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

if…bu-V-de-C,…

1

0

5

0

0

0

0

0

1

0

if…V-de-bu-C,…

Table 7.7 Use of bu/mei in conditional clauses by L1-English and L1-Korean learners in the Corpora

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

if +bu-V-zhe,.

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

if +mei-V-zhe,

200 7 Results of the Corpus-Based Study

7.3 Results of the Production of bu/mei in Each Category of Constructions …

7.3.5.1

201

The Position of bu in Potential Complement Constructions in Conditionals

First, we examined L1-English and L1-Korean learners’ placement of bu in the potential complement constructions in conditional clauses. In all the seven target items produced by L1-English learners, bu was positioned between the verb and the complement, as shown in (108). Among the thirteen items produced by L1-Korean learners at different levels, eleven of them (85%) had the structure “if…V-bu-C, …”, and only two items (15%) had the structure “if…bu-VC”, as exemplified in (109). The results tentatively suggest that L2 learners preferred the word order of “V+bu+C” in conditional clauses, which is the same as in declarative sentences. (108) Ruguo ting-bu-dong laoshi de yingwen, zenme ban if listen-not-understand teacher DE English how do “What should I do if I cannot understand the teacher’s English?” (TOCFL, EE) (109) Na shihou yi tian bu jian-dao ni, wo jiu juede haoxiang diu le xie shenme. That time one day not see you I then feel seem lose LE what “At that time, if I did not see you for one day, I would feel as if I lost something.” (ECIC, KI) In addition, we also noted cases in which mei was correctly used in front of the verbal complement, as shown in the example in (110). (110) Ruguo ni hai meiyou zhaodao heshi de difang, ni keyi kaolü banjin zhege dalou. if you still not find proper DE place you can consider move-in this building “If you have not found a good place yet, you may consider moving to this building.” (TOCFL, ELI) 7.3.5.2

The Position of bu in Descriptive Complement Constructions in Conditionals

Then we turn to L1-English and L1-Korean learners’ placement of bu in descriptive constructions in the conditional clause. As seen in Table 7.7, only seven items of this category were extracted from the four written corpora. In all those seven items (one was produced by L1-English learners, and six by L1-Korean learners), bu was put after the particle -de and before the complement in conditional clauses, as exemplified in (111). This suggests that L2 learners preferred the word order of “V-de+bu+C” in conditional clauses, which is the same as in declarative sentences. (111) Ruguo kao-de bu hao, jiu hui Hanguo qu baoming jundui. if take-exam-DE not good then return Korea to enlist army (ECIC, KA) “If I do not do well in the exam, I will go back to Korean to enlist in the army.”

202

7.3.5.3

7 Results of the Corpus-Based Study

The Use of bu/mei in the Negation of the Durative Aspect in Conditionals

We also intended to examine L1-English and L1-Korean learners’ use of bu/mei in the negation of the durative aspect marked by -zhe in conditional clauses in the written corpora. However, no items within this category were extracted from the written corpora.

7.4 Summary of the Main Results WE have reported the results of L2 learners’ production of Chinese negation in three types of structures in conditional clauses. The following are the main results: (1) L2 learners preferred the word order “V+bu+C” rather than “bu+VC” in conditional clauses in production. (2) L2 learners preferred the word order “V-de+bu+C” rather than “bu+V-de+C” in conditional clauses in production. (3) No tokens for the use of “Neg+V-zhe” in conditional clauses were found in the corpus data.

7.5 Comparisons of the Results from the Experimental Study and the Corpus-Based Study In Sects. 7.2 and 7.3 we have presented the results of the Chinese learner corpus data in the corpus-based study. With an attempt to present a more comprehensive picture of L2 acquisition of Chinese negation, this section will compare the results of the judgment data reported in Chap. 6 and the results of the learner corpus data in this chapter.

7.5.1 Negation in Verbal Complement Constructions The first category under our investigation is L1-English and L1-Korean learners’ judgment and production of bu/mei in three types of verbal complement constructions, including the resultative complement construction (mei+VC), the potential complement construction (V+bu+C), and the descriptive complement construction (V-de+bu+C). In general, it was found that L2 learners from both backgrounds successfully attained sensitivity to the position of negation markers in these constructions. In the experimental study, although L2 learners showed indeterminacy toward the position of bu/mei in those above constructions at the elementary level, they established nativelike sensitivity at higher levels with increased Chinese proficiency. The

7.5 Comparisons of the Results from the Experimental Study …

203

corpus-based study yielded similar results for intermediate and advanced learners’ production of bu/mei in the verbal complement constructions. They gained a high accuracy rate in the placement of bu/mei in these constructions with few errors found. However, there remain some asymmetries between L2 learners’ judgment and production of bu/mei in the verbal complement constructions. In the experimental study, L2 learners gained nativelike sensitivity to the ungrammaticality of “*bu+V+C” at intermediate level but they were still not so determinate as natives in accepting “V+bu+C” even at the high-intermediate level. However, they produced a large number of items with “V+bu+C” with a high accuracy rate according to the data from the corpora. Regarding the negation of descriptive complement constructions, L2 learners achieved nativelike sensitivity in rejecting “*bu+V-de+C” and accepting “V-de+bu+C” at an early stage in the GJT task, but they only produced a rather small number of items with “V-de+bu+C” as shown in the corpus data.

7.5.2 Negation and Temporal Information Secondly, we examined L1-English and L1-Korean learners’ acquisition of the interaction between negation and temporal information in Chinese. Specifically, we focused on the choice of negation markers in three situations: the use of bu in negating past habitual activities, the use of mei in negating past episodic events, and the use of bu in negating future events. Results from the judgment data in the experimental study suggest that L2 learners from both backgrounds had great difficulty with the negation of past habitual activities. At earlier stages, they incorrectly accepted mei and rejected bu. With increased Chinese proficiency, they gradually developed determinacy in accepting bu in negating past habitual but still showed uncertainty in rejecting mei. In accordance with these results from the experimental study, it was found in the learner corpus data that L2 learners had a low accuracy rate in the choice of negation markers for past habitual activities. They tended to use mei instead of bu in such situations even at the advanced level (mainly L1-Korean learners; not enough production data available for L1-English learners). As for the negation of past episodic events, L2 learners from both backgrounds achieved nativelike sensitivity in rejecting bu and accepting mei at an early stage in the GJTs (low-intermediate level). Accordingly, they all gained a high accuracy rate by choosing mei in such situations in the production as attested in the corpus data. The third case is the use of bu in negating future events. Results from the GJTs indicate that L2 learners converged with natives in rejecting mei for the negation of future events at an early stage (low-intermediate level). Consistent with their performance in the judgment, L2 learners gained a high accuracy by correctly choosing bu for negating future events as manifested in the corpus data (mainly L1-Korean learners; few data of this category available for L1-English learners).

204

7 Results of the Corpus-Based Study

7.5.3 Negation and Lexical Aspect The third category we examined was L1-English and L1-Korean learners’ acquisition of the constraint of lexical aspect on Chinese negation. In the experimental study, results from the judgment data indicate that L2 learners from both backgrounds showed uncertainty in rejecting mei and accepting bu for the negation of statives at the elementary level. Similarly, they were also indeterminate with the negation of achievements/accomplishments at the early stages. However, they achieved nativelike sensitivity in rejecting mei in negating statives and bu in negating achievements/accomplishments at later stages with increased Chinese proficiency. In line with their performance in the judgment tasks, L2 learners obtained a high accuracy in negating statives and achievements/accomplishments as evinced in the corpora data. They correctly used bu for the negation of statives and mei for the negation of achievements/accomplishments except for several occasional errors at the intermediate proficiency.

7.5.4 Negation and Grammatical Aspect Apart from lexical aspect, we also investigated L2 learners’ acquisition of the interaction between Chinese negation and grammatical aspect. The first type is the incompatibility between bu/mei and the perfective aspect marker -le. Results from the GJTs in the experimental study reveal that L2 learners were not decided in rejecting the co-occurrence of bu/mei and -le at the elementary level but they developed nativelike sensitivity toward the incompatibility of bu/mei and -le at higher proficiency. Besides, it was found that L2 learners achieved nativelike performance in rejecting “*bu+Vle” earlier (intermediate level) than they did in rejecting “*mei+V-le” (advanced level). Similar results were obtained from the production data in the corpora. Given most of the data were from learners with intermediate and advanced Chinese proficiency, a high accuracy rate (98%-100%) was obtained with very few errors due to illicit use of bu with -le. By contrast, the accuracy rate regarding the incompatibility of mei and -le ranged from 87 to 98% before the advanced stage with errors due to the cooccurrence of mei and -le. Such variability seems to suggest L2 learners’ insensitivity toward the ungrammaticality of “mei+V-le” before attaining advanced proficiency. The second type is the choice of bu/mei for the negation of the experiential aspect marked by -guo. Results from the judgment data show that L2 learners from both backgrounds demonstrated nativelike sensitivity toward the incompatibility between bu and -guo as early as the elementary stage. Consistent with such results, the data from the corpora also reveal a high accuracy of L2 learners’ performance in negating the experimental aspect. They correctly used mei instead of bu in their production. The last type is the choice of bu/mei for the negation of the durative aspect marked by -zhe. Results from the GJTs showed that L2 learners were equivocal to the use of

7.6 Interim Summary

205

bu/mei in negating V-zhe even at the advanced level. In the corpus data, quite few items were found regarding the negation of the durative aspect, yet both bu and mei were found to be used to negate V-zhe by L2 learners, in line with the results from the judgment data.

7.5.5 Negation and Hypothetical Context Finally, we probed into L2 learners’ acquisition of the constraints of hypothetical context on the choice of negation markers. Results from the judgment data indicate that L2 learners had great difficulty detecting the constraint of the hypothetical context on the use of negation markers in certain structures, including the placement of bu in front of potential complement phrase (bu+VC), also the placement of bu in front of descriptive complement phrase (bu+V-de+C), as well as the use of bu in negating the durative aspect marked by -zhe (bu+V-zhe). They tended to reject such structures regardless of the hypothetical context at lower proficiency levels. However, advanced L1-English learners achieved nativelike performance in accepting the licensed “bu+VC” in the hypothetical context (only in the written mode), but L2 learners from both grounds did not converge with natives in the other two cases. When it comes to the results from the corpus-based study, very few data regarding negation in the conditional clause were extracted from the corpora. Still, among those few tokens, L2 learners were found to prefer the order of “V+bu+C” and “Vde+bu+C” in conditional clauses, consistent with the results from the experimental study. Since no items were found regarding the negation of the durative aspect in the conditional clause, it remains unknown which negation marker L2 learners would choose in this case.

7.6 Interim Summary This chapter has reported the results of L1-English and L1-Korean learners’ production of Chinese negation based on data from four written Chinese learner corpora. We have examined closely L2 learners’ use of bu/mei in different categories of constructions. The results of the corpus data are largely consistent with the results of the judgment data elicited from the experimental study. Since the corpora we used are not controlled according to the design of the present study, the distribution and frequencies of the target tokens vary greatly across different categories and there were no tokens extracted for some categories (e.g., “Neg+V-zhe” in conditional clauses). While we acknowledge such drawbacks of using corpus data in our research, the production data provide more authentic evidence for L2 learners’ use of Chinese negation markers. In the following chapter, we will discuss the results of our study within the theoretical frameworks presented in Chap. 2.

Chapter 8

Discussion

Abstract The findings of this study do not completely support the assumptions of the Interface Hypothesis. While L2 acquisition at narrow syntax involved with Chinese negation is not problematic as predicted, it is not completely borne out that internal interfaces pose few problems to L2 learners since L2 acquisition at internal interfaces involved with Chinese negation is not successful across the board but dependent on variables, such as the salience of the forms, the consistency and frequency of L2 input, as well as the complexity of the constraints involved. The Feature Reassembly Hypothesis offers a satisfactory explanation for our findings on the acquisition of the [±realis] features encoded with Chinese negation by L2 learners. However, the predictive power of the FRH could be strengthened by taking into consideration the constraints on the detectability of features and the process of feature reassembly. Moreover, the study reveals an effect of task modality in L2 learner’ access to explicit and implicit knowledge about Chinese negation.

8.1 Introduction In Chaps. 6 and 7, we have presented the results of the experimental study and the corpus-based study on the acquisition of Chinese negation by L1-English and L1Korean learners. The experimental study reveals L2 learners’ judgment of Chinese negation with the written and aural GJTs, while the corpus-based study provides evidence for L2 learners’ production of Chinese negation based on production data from four written Chinese learner corpora. This chapter discusses these results within the theoretical frameworks presented in Chap. 2. First, based on the Interface Hypothesis, we examine L1-English and L1-Korean learners’ performance at the multiple interfaces involved with Chinese negation and probe into the factors that may affect L2 acquisition at these interfaces. Then, within the framework of the Feature Reassembly Hypothesis, we explore whether L1-English and L1-Korean learners could detect and reassemble the distinctive features encoded with Chinese negation in different categories of licensing contexts and look into the contributors to feature detectability and reassembly. After an overall comparison between the IH and the FRH in accounting for L2 acquisition of Chinese negation, we inspect the © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2023 J. Wang, Interfaces and Features in Second Language Acquisition, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-8629-1_8

207

208

8 Discussion

representation of explicit and implicit knowledge of Chinese negation in L2 grammar based on the assumption of the distinction between explicit and implicit knowledge. Finally, we evaluate the methodological merits of employing both elicitation data and corpus data in L2 acquisition research and give a summary of the main findings in response to our research questions raised in Chap. 5.

8.2 The IH and L2 Acquisition at Multiple Interfaces Implicated with Chinese Negation As stated in Sect. 2.2.2, the IH predicts that narrow syntax is easy to access and immune from optionality effects, while the structures that involve syntax and other linguistic domains present residue optionality in L2 acquisition. It is further suggested that internal interfaces should be less problematic than external interfaces. In Sect. 5.3.1, specific IH-based predictions have been made on the acquisition of Chinese negation implicated with multiple interfaces. In this section, we will first examine whether these predictions are confirmed with the results of the present study on the acquisition of Chinese negation by L2 learners, and then assess the validity of the IH in accounting for L2 acquisition.

8.2.1 Full Attainment at the Narrow Syntax Overall, the results of our study indicate that L1-English learners and L1-Korean learners performed similarly in the negation of verbal complement constructions, except that they displayed different development paths in the negation of descriptive complement construction. It is also found that the narrow syntax involved with Chinese negation could be fully attained by L1-English and L1-Korean learners, but such full attainment is gradually established with increased Chinese proficiency. It also takes more effort for L2 learners from both L1 backgrounds to acquire the negation of potential complement construction than the negation of the resultative/descriptive complement construction. As stated in (1) in Sect. 5.3.1, we predicted that narrow syntax involved with Chinese negation should be unproblematic for L2 learners. This prediction is confirmed by the results of L1-English and L1-Korean learners’ acquisition of the position of negation markers in verbal complement constructions, including the resultative complement construction (mei+VC), the potential complement construction (V+bu+C), and the descriptive complement construction (V-de+bu+C). As reported in Sect. 6.3.1, the results from the experimental study with GJTs show that both L1-English and L1-Korean learners established a nativelike representation of the positions of bu/mei in those three types of verbal complement constructions with increased Chinese proficiency. On one hand, they gained nativelike sensitivity in

8.2 The IH and L2 Acquisition at Multiple Interfaces Implicated …

209

rejecting the illicit placement of negation markers in verbal complement constructions, on the other, they converged with the Chinese negatives in accepting the licit position of negation markers in those complex constructions. Consistent with the judgment data, the production data from the L2 Chinese corpora also reveal that L2 learners from both L1 backgrounds placed the negation markers in verbal complement constructions with a high accuracy (89–100%), as seen in Table 7.2 in Chap. 7. Taken together, these findings lend support to the assumption of the IH that L2 acquisition at narrow syntax is insusceptible to representational deficits and ultimately acquirable. According to Sorace (2011, p. 15), accessing the syntactic level in structures involving only narrow syntax is not as costly as accessing and integrating two levels of representation in interface structures involving syntax and other linguistic modules. The results of our study are also compatible with previous studies on L2 acquisition at narrow syntax (Sorace 1993; White and Genesee 1996; Montrul 2010). As reviewed in Sect. 4.3, Yuan (2004) investigated the acquisition of Chinese negation and found that L2 learners from three L1 backgrounds (English, German, and French) all readily acquired the position of bu in simple predicate sentences (S+Adv+V+O) after one year’s study. By extending the research domain to the position of bu/mei in more complex sentences with verbal complements, the present study attests to complete attainment of the syntactic positions of bu/mei in complex predicate sentences as well by L2 Chinese learners. Notwithstanding the above success, the development patterns in L2 acquisition of negation in verbal complement constructions indicate that L2 acquisition at narrow syntax is a gradual process. Overall, L2 learners with lower Chinese proficiency are indecisive with the position of bu/mei in verbal complement constructions, but they acquire target-like syntactic knowledge about Chinese negation with increased proficiency. As reported in Sect. 6.3.1.1, elementary L1-English and L1-Korean learners showed indeterminacy in rejecting the illicit movement of mei to the postverbal position in resultative complement constructions (*V+mei+C) in both modes, and they also did not robustly accept the licit form (mei+VC) at this stage. However, L2 learners from both L1 backgrounds exhibited even stronger sensitivity to the anomaly (*V+mei+C) than the natives at the low-intermediate and above levels in the written mode and converged with the natives at the high-intermediate level in the aural mode. They also gained nativelike determinacy in accepting the licit form at the intermediate levels. Correspondingly, in the production data from learner corpora, elementary L1-English learners had a relatively lower accuracy (89%) than those with higher proficiency levels (100%), as shown in Table 7.2 in Sect. 7.2.1. Similarly, as seen in Sect. 6.3.1.2, elementary L1-English and L1-Korean learners also wavered in rejecting the placement of bu in the pre-verbal position in potential complement constructions (*bu+VC) in both modes, but they performed within the natives’ range at the low-intermediate level in the written mode and at the intermediate level in the aural mode. L2 learners from both backgrounds did not converge with the natives in accepting the licit structure “V+bu+C” until the advanced stage in both modes. By contrast, the results of Chinese learner corpus data show that L2 learners produced negative potential constructions with a high accuracy even at the elementary

210

8 Discussion

level (L1-English: 100%; L1-Korean: 94%), as seen in Table 7.2 in Sect. 7.2.1. A closer examination of the items produced by elementary L2 learners reveals that the tokens of certain structures take up a high frequency in L2 production, such as V +bu+dong, “cannot understand” (27%, 9/33), zhao-bu-dao “cannot find” (24%, 8/33), and V +bu+liao, “cannot finish doing…” (21%, 7/33). It is likely that L2 learners’ representation of negative potential complement constructions at the early stages is merely formulaic at the lexical level. That is, they tend to store and retrieve negative potential complement constructions holistically without further analysis. We argue that the high accuracy in elementary learners’ production of “V+bu+C” in the corpora may not necessarily suggest successful acquisition of the negation of potential complement constructions in general. As for the position of bu in descriptive complement constructions, as presented in Sect. 6.3.1.3, elementary L1-English and L1-Korean learners diverged from the natives in rejecting the illicit placement of bu in “*bu+V-de+C” in the written mode. With increased proficiency, intermediate L1-English learners and low-intermediate L1-Korean learners gained nativelike sensitivity to the violation of word order in “*bu+V-de+C” in the written mode. By contrast, in the aural mode, L1-English learners exhibited nativelike sensitivity at the elementary level, whereas L1-Korean learners converged with the natives at the low-intermediate level. Elementary L2 learners from both backgrounds did not robustly accept the licit structure “Vde+bu+C”, but they converged with the natives readily at the low-intermediate level in both modes. Consistent with the judgment data, the results of the learner corpus data indicate that L1-Korean learners beyond the low-intermediate level reached 100% accuracy in the negation of descriptive complement constructions, as seen in Table 7.2 in Sect. 7.2.1 (there was no sufficient data on L1-English learners’ production in this category). It is noteworthy that L1-Korean learners gained nativelike sensitivity to the illicit “*bu+V-de+C” at an earlier stage (low-intermediate) than L1-English learners did (intermediate) in the written mode, while in the aural mode, L1-English learners converged with the natives in rejecting this form earlier (elementary) than L1-Korean learners did (low-intermediate). Such discrepancies may be attributed to an interaction between task modality and L1 influence, which will be discussed further in Sect. 8.5.2. Another issue to note is that L1-English and L1-Korean learners tend to acquire the negation of potential complement construction later than the negation of the other two constructions. As mentioned above, L2 learners from both backgrounds converged with the natives in accepting “mei+VC” and “V-de+bu+C” at the intermediate levels, but they did not converge with the natives in accepting “V+bu+C” until the advanced stage, though they had achieved nativelike sensitivity in rejecting the illicit “bu+VC” at the low-intermediate level. This might be interpreted from two perspectives. First, as analyzed in Sect. 3.2.1, bu occupies [head, NegP] and precedes VP, which is the predominant position of the sentential negator bu. In the negation of potential complement, however, bu is used as an infix following the verb, which may lead to uncertainty in L2 learners’ judgment. Second, L2 learners could resort to modal auxiliaries, such as neng, “can”, to express ability or possibility, and simply add bu to the auxiliaries to express the negative meaning. As attested in Li’s (2013) study

8.2 The IH and L2 Acquisition at Multiple Interfaces Implicated …

211

on the acquisition of potential complement constructions by L2 Chinese learners, L2 learners tend to confuse the negative potential complement construction with negative modals. We examined the learner corpus data in our study and found errors due to the misuse of “Neg+modal”, as exemplified in (112). In (112a), shuo-bu-chulai, “speaknot-out”, should be used, and in (112b), xiang-bu-chu, “think-not-out”, should be used. *bu neng shuo chulai. (112) a. Dangshi, wo lian yi-ju-hua ye back then I even one-CL-utterance not can speak out. “I could not say anything at that time.” (HSK, KHI) b. Wode danao ye *bu neng xiangchu qita geng hao de banfa. my brain also not can think-out other even good DE method “I could not come up with a better method.” (HSK, KHI) The development patterns in L2 acquisition of negation in verbal complement constructions above seem to indicate that high proficiency is a prerequisite for the successful acquisition at the narrow syntax involved with Chinese negation. As reviewed in Sects. 4.2 and 4.3, the delay in acquiring negation in more complex constructions has also been documented both in Chinese children (Zhang et al. 2006; Fan 2009) and L2 Chinese learners (Wang 1999; Chang and Zheng 2014). L2 learners need sufficient input of the target language to develop knowledge about the position of negation markers in verbal complement constructions.

8.2.2 Variability at Internal Interfaces According to the IH, internal interfaces should be less problematic than external ones. The present study has investigated L2 acquisition at multiple internal interfaces involved with Chinese negation, including the syntax-semantics interface, the syntaxmorphology interface, and the syntax-semantics-morphology interface. The results of the present study provide evidence for the variability at internal interfaces and show that L2 acquisition at internal interfaces is not successful across the board but dependent on variables as argued by Yuan (2010).

8.2.2.1

The Syntax-Semantics Interface: Variable-Dependent Convergence

As stated in (2) of Sect. 5.3.1, we predicted that L2 learners could achieve success at the syntax-semantics interface involved with Chinese negation. This prediction is not completely borne out since there seems to be much variability in L2 learners’ acquisition of the semantic constraints on Chinese negation. The results of the judgment data and the production data from Chinese learner corpora reveal that L2 Chinese learners could achieve nativelike representation of the lexical aspectual constraints on Chinese negation, while their acquisition of temporal constraints on negation is

212

8 Discussion

not successful across the board even at the advanced level, and the acquisition of clause-level semantic constraints on negation poses great challenge to L2 learners. In the following, we will discuss in more detail L2 learners’ performance in the three categories involving the syntax-semantics interface. (1) Fully-specified lexical aspectual constraint on Chinese negation As noted in Sect. 3.2.3.2, Chinese negation interacts with lexical aspect of the predicate. Specifically, bu co-occurs with statives while mei does not, and mei co-occurs with achievements/accomplishments, while bu does not. The results of our study indicate that the lexical aspectual constraint on negation could be fully represented in L2 Chinese grammar, yet this is subject to factors such as L2 proficiency and L1 influence. The results of the judgment data indicate that L1-English and L1-Korean learners could achieve nativelike sensitivity to the subtle interaction between negation and lexical aspect with increased proficiency. For the negation of statives, as seen in Sect. 6.3.3.1, L1-English learners converged with the natives in accepting the licit use of bu at the high-intermediate level in the written mode, while L1-Korean learners did so at the elementary level in both modes. L1-English learners demonstrated a U-shaped pattern by showing nativelike sensitivity in rejecting the illicit use of mei at the low-intermediate and the advanced level in the written mode, while L1-Korean learners performed within the range of the natives at the low-intermediate level in both modes. For the negation of achievements/accomplishments, as reported in Sect. 6.3.3.2, L1-English learners and L1-Korean learners gained nativelike determinacy in accepting the licit use of mei at the low-intermediate level in the aural mode, and high-intermediate level in the written mode. Moreover, L2 learners from both backgrounds exhibited nativelike sensitivity in rejecting the illicit use of bu for negating achievements/accomplishments at the low-intermediate level in the written mode and the intermediate level in the aural mode. Accordingly, as reported in Table 7.4 in Sect. 7.2.3, the production data by English speakers and Korean speakers from Chinese learner corpora also yield a high accuracy rate (above 95%) in the use of negation markers for different types of lexical aspect. The present study on L2 acquisition of the lexical aspectual constraint on Chinese negation is comparable to the studies on L2 acquisition of auxiliary selection (Sorace 1993; Montrul 2004, 2005; Kraš 2009). As reviewed in Sect. 2.2.3, these studies found that near-native L2 learners from different L1 backgrounds could achieve nativelike sensitivity to the use of the auxiliaries (e.g., assere/avere in Italian) which is dependent on split transitivity of the predicate, in accord with the results of our study. In a broader sense, the findings of our study are consistent with previous studies that testify success at the syntax-semantics interface (Dekydtspotter and Sprouse 2001; Dekydtspotter et al. 2001; Tsimpli and Sorace 2006; Sorace and Serratrice 2009; Rothman et al. 2010). Just as L2 acquisition at narrow syntax, the lexical aspectual constraint on the choice of negation markers in Chinese is not attained from the start. This is more evident in the judgment data from the GJTs. In general, L2 learners with lower Chinese proficiency exhibited uncertainty in rejecting the illicit use of mei for

8.2 The IH and L2 Acquisition at Multiple Interfaces Implicated …

213

statives and the illicit use of bu for achievements/accomplishments. More specifically, L1-English learners did not reject the illicit use of mei for negating statives firmly before attaining advanced proficiency in the written mode, and elementary L1Korean learners were also hesitant with “*mei+statives” in both modes, as shown in Sect. 6.3.3.1. Elementary L1-English and L1-Korean learners showed optionality in rejecting the illicit use of bu for the negation of achievements/accomplishments in both modes and low-intermediate L2 learners from both backgrounds were still indeterminate in this case in the aural mode. Such development patterns are comparable to the development path of Chinese children’s acquisition of the interaction between lexical aspect and negation. As reviewed in Sect. 4.2, Zhou et al. (2014) found that adultlike knowledge of the lexical aspectual constraints on negation is not established in the grammar of L1 children until the age of 4;7, before which age there remain problems in the choice of negation markers for different lexical aspects. In this study, although adult L2 learners are cognitively mature, they still need to attain higher proficiency before developing sensitivity to the subtle restriction of lexical aspect on the choice of negation markers in Chinese. Apart from L2 proficiency, the influence of L1 also plays a facilitative role in the acquisition of the lexical aspectual constraint on Chinese negation on the part of L1-Korean learners. This is evident in the judgment of the negation of statives. As mentioned above, L1-Korean learners converged with the natives in accepting the licit use of bu much earlier (elementary level) than L1-English learners did (highintermediate level). Meanwhile, L1-Korean learners established steady and nativelike sensitivity to the illicit use of mei for negating statives earlier (low-intermediate level) than L1-English learners did (advanced level). The advantage of L1-Korean learners over L1-English learners may be attributed to the lexical semantic constraint on Korean negation, which is comparable to the lexical aspectual constraint on Chinese negation. As presented in Sect. 3.4, the two primary negation markers in Korean, an(i) and mos, are sensitive to the lexical meaning of the predicate. Perception verbs, such as alta, “know”, should be negated by mos, but not an(i). Correspondingly, in Chinese, stative verbs, such as zhidao, “know”, should be negated by bu, but not mei. Such similarity may render L1-Korean learners more sensitive to the interaction between negation and the lexical meaning of the predicate. By contrast, English negation is not subject to such lexical constraints. The role of L1 influence in L2 acquisition at the syntax-semantics interface has also been observed in previous studies (e.g., Yuan 2010; Umeda 2008). (2) Incomplete representation of temporal constraint on Chinese negation The second category involving the syntax-semantics interface is the interaction between negation and temporal constraints. As analysed in Sect. 3.2.3.2, temporal information affects the interpretation of the predicate with activity verbs, and then constrains the choice of negation markers. More specifically, bu, but not mei, is compatible with past habitual activities and absolute future events, while mei, but not bu, is compatible with past episodic events. The results of our study reveal that the temporal constraints on Chinese negation appears to be not completely represented

214

8 Discussion

in L2 grammar. While both L1-English learners and L1-Korean learners achieved nativelike performance in the negation of past episodic events and absolute future events with increased proficiency, they still diverged from the natives in the negation of past habitual activities even at the advanced stage. We first examine the evidence from the judgment data elicited from the GJTs. As shown in Sect. 6.3.2.2, L1-English and L1-Korean learners converged with the natives in accepting the licit use of mei for negating past episodic events at the low-intermediate level in the aural mode and at the high-intermediate level in the written mode. Meanwhile, both L2 groups attained nativelike sensitivity to the illicit use of bu in this case at the elementary level in the aural mode and at the lowintermediate level in the written mode. As for the negation of absolute future events, as reported in Sect. 6.3.2.3, both L1-English and L1-Korean learners performed within the range of the natives in accepting the use of bu after attaining high-intermediate or advanced proficiency. Low-intermediate L1-English learners also demonstrated nativelike sensitivity to the anomaly in the use of mei for negating future events in both modes, while L1-Korean learners did so at the elementary level in the written mode, and they also converged with the natives later at the low-intermediate level in the aural mode. However, as seen in Sect. 6.3.2.1, L2 learners from both backgrounds did not robustly accept the use of bu for negating past habitual activities until the advanced stage, yet they showed persistent optionality and deviated from the natives in rejecting the illicit use of mei at all levels. Further evidence comes from the production data from Chinese learner corpora. Overall, L2 learners had a higher accuracy in the choice of negation markers in the negation of past episodic events and future events, yet they had a much lower accuracy in the negation of past habitual activities due to the misuse of mei in such situations. As presented in Table 7.3 in Sect. 7.2.2, the accuracy of the use of negation markers for past habitual activities by intermediate, post-intermediate, and advanced learners was 50% (7/14), 47% (6/13), and 50% (2/4), respectively, around the chance level. L2 learners. By contrast, the accuracy of the use of negation markers for past episodic events and absolute future events reached more than 90% at these levels. On one hand, these findings suggest that L1-English and L1-Korean learners are aware of the interaction between negation and temporal information, denoted by time adverbials in the present study. They readily achieved nativelike sensitivity in the choice of negation markers for past episodic events and absolute future events at an early stage (at the elementary or low-intermediate level). Although there are no tense markings on verbs in Chinese, temporal devices, such as time adverbials (e.g. zuotian, “yesterday”, mingtian, “tomorrow”), are frequently used for locating the events in time (Smith et al. 2001; Lin 2003b), so it is expected that L2 learners could easily detect and make use of these cues in the choice of negation markers. On the other hand, the persistent problem in negating past habitual activities may imply that L2 Chinese learners mistakenly associate mei with past time and bu with non-past time without attending to the specific meaning of the predicate. In other words, they fail to make further distinctions between past one-time activities and past habitual activities in the choice of negation markers. Even though advanced L2 learners in our study converged with the Chinese natives in accepting bu for negating

8.2 The IH and L2 Acquisition at Multiple Interfaces Implicated …

215

past habitual activities, they were still reluctant to reject the use of mei, suggesting the attempt of delinking mei with past time ending in vain. Such findings are consistent with the results of Li’s (2004, 2009) studies on the use of negation markers by L2 Chinese learners. It was found that L2 learners tended to correlate mei with past time, resulting in a low accuracy in the negation of past habitual activities or volition (46–62%). While Y. Li only investigated elementary and intermediate learners, our study furnishes more evidence of advanced learners and shows their problems with the negation of past habitual activities. The difficulty with the distinction of the habitual and episodic event in past time has also been identified in Montrul and Slabakova’s (2003) study on the acquisition of semantic implications of the preterite-imperfect contrast in Spanish by English speakers. While past habitual and episodic events are negated by different negation markers in Chinese, they are marked with different morphological inflections in Spanish, past habitual with imperfect tense (e.g., Marcelo robaba en el autobus, “Marcelo would rob in the bus”), whereas past episodic event with preterite tense (e.g., Marcelo robó en el autobus, “Marcelo robbed in the bus”). The results show that only the near-native converged with the natives with knowledge of such distinctions, while the advanced and superior groups did not. In our study, the advanced group also diverged from the Chinese negation in rejecting the use of mei for negating past habitual activities. Nevertheless, as shown in Sect. 6.3.2.1.2, the individual results indicate that five advanced learners (one English speaker and four Korean speakers) acquired the negation of past habitual activities. A closer look at their language background reveals that these participants majored in Chinese (pursuing bachelor or master’s degree), which may imply that they had more opportunities to use Chinese in their study. Their convergence with the natives suggests that it is challenging yet still possible for L2 Chinese learners to establish target-like representation in this aspect with sufficient Chinese input. Future research is required by investigating learners with near-native Chinese proficiency. The role of L1 influence is also captured in L2 acquisition of the temporal constraints on Chinese negative structure, but it is only evident in the negation of absolute future events. The results from the judgment data bear out that L1-Korean learners were more determinate in accepting the use of bu for negating future events and were also more sensitive to the illicit use of bu in this case before the highintermediate level. This might be because the two negation markers in Korean, an(i) and mos, are subject to semantic constraints, partially similar to bu/mei in Chinese, though these constraints are not the same, as presented in Sect. 3.5. However, English negation is not subject to semantic constraints. We will go back to this issue in Sect. 8.3.2.1 with the feature-based account. (3) Difficulty with the acquisition of the constraint of hypothetical context on negation The third category involving the syntax-semantics interface is the interaction between negation and the hypothetical context. As stated in Sect. 3.2.3.2, the hypothetical context denoted by conditional clauses could license the placement of negation markers in front of verbal complement which is otherwise illicit in declarative matrix

216

8 Discussion

sentences (*bu+VC; *bu+V-de+C). The results of the present study show that the constraint of hypothetical context is not properly represented in L2 grammar even at the advanced stage. Evidence from the judgment data attests that L2 learners had great difficulty in recognizing the hypothetical context as the licenser in the negation of verbal complement constructions. As expected, Chinese natives rejected the illicit position of bu in front of verbal complement in declarative matrix sentences (“*bu+VC”; “*bu+Vde+C”) but readily accepted the licensed use of bu in front of verbal complement in conditional clauses. However, as seen in Sect. 6.3.5.1, L1-English and L1-Korean learners showed great indeterminacy in accepting the use of bu preceding the verb phrase licensed by the hypothetical context in both modes. Although their acceptance of the licensed form increased as a function of higher proficiency, L2 learners from both backgrounds still deviated from the natives even at the advanced proficiency. Similarly, as seen in 6.3.5.2, the mean ratings of “(if) bu+V-de+C, …” by L2 learners from elementary to high-intermediate also fall between 2 and 3. Although the group results show that L1-English learners, not L1-Korean learners, converged with the natives at the advanced stage in the written mode, the individual results reveal that less than half (43%) of the advanced learners made accurate judgments, in sharp contrast with the natives (93%). L2 learners’ difficulty in recognizing the licensing function of the hypothetical context is further confirmed in the production data from Chinese learner corpora. As reported in Sect. 7.2.5, L2 learners seldom placed the negation marker bu in front of verbal complement in conditional sentences (“(if) bu+VC, …”, 2/13; “(if) bu+Vde+C, …”, 0/7). Rather, the placement of negation markers in verbal complement constructions tends to remain the same (“V+bu+C”/“V-de+bu+C”) regardless of the meaning of the context (declarative vs. hypothetical). Admittedly, this argument should not be considered as conclusive since the total number of the target items is quite small. Given the findings above, we suggest that acquisition at the syntax-semantics interface can also be a locus of difficulty for L2 learners, in contrast to the assumption of the IH that problems may be absent at the syntax-semantics interface, which is considered as an internal interface (Tsimpli and Sorace 2006; Sorace and Serratrice 2009). On the other hand, our findings are consistent with studies that attest to residue optionality in L2 acquisition at the syntax-semantics interface in the case of interpreting wh-expressions (Umeda 2008; Yuan 2008, 2010). Interestingly, Yuan (2010) also identified the hypothetical context as one of the licensers for the existential reading of wh-words in Chinese. This study found that it was not until the advanced stage that L1-English learners established nativelike licenser-licensee relationship between the if -word and the wh-existentials. Results of our study also show that only advanced English learners detected the licensing power of the hypothetical context in the written GJT (not in the aural mode). The difficulty in acquiring the constraint of hypothetical context on negation may arise from at least two factors. One is the non-localness of the hypothetical context conveyed by conditional clauses. Such a cue at the clause-level may be less detectable than the cues at the lexical level such as verbs or verb phrases that vary

8.2 The IH and L2 Acquisition at Multiple Interfaces Implicated …

217

in lexical aspect or time adverbials denoting temporal information. According to the Shallow Structure Hypothesis (Clahsen and Felser 2006), L2 learners are more attentive to lexical-semantic cues in the local domain during L2 processing and thus their representation of L2 grammar is “shallower and less detailed” than native speakers (p. 32). It is likely that L2 learners simply pay attention to the verbal complement in the choice of negation markers regardless of the conditional clause. The other factor might be the ambiguous evidence available in Chinese input regarding the negation of verbal complement constructions in conditional clauses. As exemplified in (113), (114), and (115) (cited from BCC corpus1 ). It is evident that varied structures “bu+VC/bu+V-de+C”, “V+bu+C/V-de+bu+C”, and “mei+VC/mei+V-de+C” are available in conditional sentences. Such variable input with subtle interpretive differences may obscure L2 learners regarding the negation of verbal complement in conditional clauses.2 (113) a. Duiyuan-men bu zhaodao ta shi bu hui jia. Team-member-Pl not find him pledge not return home “The team members pledged that they would not go back home if they did not find him.” b. Yaoshi wo-de ma bu pao-de kuai yixie, yexu tianhei yihou cai neng huilai. If my horse not run-DE fast a little perhaps day-dark after then can return “If my horse does not run a little faster, then perhaps I will not get back until dark.” (114) a. Ruguo zhao-bu-dao gongzuo, wo yexu qu Bali. If cannot find job I perhaps go Paris “If I cannot find a job, perhaps I will go to Paris.” bu hao, wo keneng yao nian wu nian. b. Jiaru wo kao-de If I take-exam-DE not good I may need study five year “If I do not do well in the exams, I may have to study for five years.” jia ba. (115) a. Ruguo mei zhaodao gongzuo, liang-zhou hou wo jiu hui If not find job two-week after I just return home Part. “If I do not find a job, I will go home two weeks later then.” b. Yaoshi wo mei shan-de kuai, wo zhe-ba lao gutou jiu quan rang ni zhuang-san-le. If I not dodge-DE fast I this-CL old bone then all let you hit-apart-LE 1 An online Chinese corpus built by Beijing Language and Culture University. The website is http:// bcc.blcu.edu.cn. 2 According to existing studies on the markers of counterfactuality in Mandarin Chinese (e.g., Wang, 2012; Yong, 2016), negation is closely related to counterfactuals and the use of mei in conditionals is more likely to generate a counterfactual reading than bu, though neither bu nor mei are dedicated markers for counterfactuality. When bu is used, the conditionals tend to receive a hypothetical reading, that is, the context of the protasis has open truth value, and subjective emotions are added (Wang, 2012, p. 173). For the distinction between hypothetical and counterfactual conditionals, see Taylor (1997, p. 302).

218

8 Discussion

“If I had not dodged, my old bones would have been hit apart by you.” To sum up, we have discussed the variability in L2 acquisition at the syntaxsemantics interface based on the results of the present study. Obviously, such an internal interface is not immune from problems across the board, in opposition to the prediction of the Interface Hypothesis. Rather, the subtlety of some semantic constraints (e.g., past habitual activities) may cause persistent, if not insurmountable, difficulties to L2 learners. The transparency and frequency of the semantic cues, the consistency of the input, L1 influence, and L2 proficiency may be the variables that affect L2 acquisition at the syntax-semantics interface.

8.2.2.2

The Syntax-Morphology Interface: Selective Optionality

As noted in Sect. 3..2.3.3, Chinese negation interacts with grammatical aspect markers. Specifically speaking, negation markers bu/mei are incompatible with the perfective aspect marker -le, and mei, but not bu, is compatible with the experiential aspect marker -guo and the durative aspect marker -zhe (V-zhe in declarative sentences). The results of our study show that such morphosyntactic knowledge is selectively represented in L2 Chinese grammar at the advanced stage. The underlying factors include input frequency and consistency as well as L2 proficiency. As stated in (3) of Sect. 5.3.1, we predicted that L2 Chinese learners may have prolonged difficulty in acquiring the negation-aspect interactions which involves the syntax-morphology interface. This prediction, however, is not completely supported since selective optionality is manifest in L2 learners’ acquisition of the grammatical aspectual constraints on Chinese negation. The results bear out that nativelike knowledge of the interaction between bu/mei and the experiential aspect marker -guo is established early on, and the interaction between bu/mei and the perfective aspect marker -le is represented in L2 grammar with increased proficiency. However, there seems to be persistent optionality with the negation of durative aspect (-zhe) in L2 grammar. Evidence from the judgment data indicates that L1-English and L1-Korean learners gained nativelike sensitivity to the interaction between bu/mei and V-guo readily. As shown in Sect. 6.3.4.3, both L2 groups converged with the natives in accepting the licit co-occurrence of mei and V-guo at the elementary level in both modes. Meanwhile, they also performed within the range of the natives in rejecting the illicit co-occurrence of bu and V-guo at the elementary level in the written mode and at the intermediate level in the aural mode. For the negation of the perfective aspect, as seen in Sect. 6.3.4.1, L2 learners from both backgrounds achieved nativelike sensitivity to the incompatibility between bu and V-le at the low-intermediate level in both modes, yet they did not converge with the natives in rejecting the illicit co-occurrence of mei and V-le until the advanced stage in both modes. These findings are further corroborated by the production data from Chinese learner corpora. As seen in Table 7.6 in Sect. 7.2.4, L2 learners had a high accuracy in the negation of V-guo (98–100%), and they seldom misused bu with V-le (98–100%) but

8.2 The IH and L2 Acquisition at Multiple Interfaces Implicated …

219

still made errors by using mei with V-le even at the high-intermediate (87%) and advanced stages (93%). As reviewed in Sect. 4.3, Chang and Zheng (2014) found that L2 acquisition of the morphological constraints (aspect markers -le/guo, considered as semantic constraints in their study) on Chinese negation developed slowly compared with the acquisition of the syntactic properties of negation markers. The results of our study suggest that L2 learners could attain a nativelike representation of the morphological constraints (-le/guo) on Chinese negation, which is in line with the findings of Wen and Schwartz’s (2014) study on the same issue. This study also attests to full specification of the negation-aspect interactions (bu/mei and V-le/guo) in advanced L1-English learners’ Chinese grammar. The successful acquisition of L2 morphosyntax (the negation of V-le/guo) shown in the present study lends support to the assumption of the IH that internal interfaces (the syntax-morphology interface) pose fewer problems in L2 acquisition. However, such a finding is inconsistent with previous studies that have extensively documented the difficulty or even fossilization in acquiring L2 morphosyntax (Long 2003; Lardiere 1998; White 2003; Hawkins and Liszka 2003; Jiang 2004, 2007). Despite abundant input and direct exposure to the target language, L2 learners whose L1 does not instantiate the relevant functional category tend to suffer from persistent problems in providing appropriate morphological forms for the verbs. It should be noted that these studies are mainly concerned with L1-L2 pairings in which L1 is an isolated language, such as Chinese, and L2 is an inflected language, such as English. From a reversed direction, the present study examined the acquisition of Chinese by learners speaking English (inflected) and Korean (agglutinative), both with the overt morphology of tense/aspect on the verbs. Therefore, it is possible that L1-English and L1-Korean learners pay close attention to morphological forms in L2 in Chinese corresponding to their L1 markings, which may partly account for their early acquisition of the incompatibility between bu and -le/guo at an early stage. In accord with our findings, Hawkins and Liszka (2003) found that Japanese speakers and German speakers whose L1s have tense morphology did better in the production of inflected verbs than Chinese speakers whose L1 does not have tense markings on verbs. Another contributing factor for L2 learners’ early convergence in acquiring the incompatibility between bu and V-le/guo may be related to their interpretation of the temporal meanings encoded with negation markers and aspect markers. Recall that in Sect. 8.2.2.1, we inferred that L2 learners tend to link mei with past events and bu with non-past events. Previous studies on the acquisition of Chinese aspect markers have shown that L2 learners tend to mark events in the past with -le or -guo (Wen 1995, 1997; Jin 2003). Based on such evidence, it is understandable that L2 learners could easily detect that bu is semantically incompatible with -le/guo. On the other hand, the association of mei with past time may lead to their late acquisition of the incompatibility between mei and -le until the advanced proficiency. Apart from a negation marker, mei in Chinese can also function as a verb meaning “do not have” and it is compatible with the perfective aspect marker -le, such as “ta mei-le gongzuo, he lost his job”. Such variable input in Chinese may obscure L2 learners in detecting the incompatibility between mei and V-le, resulting in their target-deviant performance before attaining advanced proficiency.

220

8 Discussion

Despite successful attainment of the negation of V-le/guo, we found that L1English and L1-Korean learners failed to acquire the negation of V-zhe even at the advanced level. As shown in Sect. 6.3.4.4, both L2 learner groups showed great indeterminacy in accepting the co-occurrence of mei and V-zhe and they were not sensitive to the incompatibility between bu and V-zhe (in declarative matrix sentences), with means falling between 2 (“probably ungrammatical”) and 3 (“probably grammatical”). Besides, L2 learners produced few items (total: 5 tokens) regarding the negation of the durative aspect, as shown in the learner corpus data in Sect. 7.2.4. L2 learners’ difficulty with the negation of the durative aspect in Chinese may arise from the complexity of the durative aspect marker -zhe, the low-frequency of V-zhe used in negative forms, and the variable input on the negation of V-zhe. First, the functions of the durative aspect marker -zhe are complicated. As an imperfective aspect marker, -zhe presents a continuous and stable situation and has a background effect when appearing in the subordinate clause of complex sentences (Smith 1997, pp. 273–274). The use of -zhe is further confounded by its variations in register in that it is used more frequently in the written than in spoken language (Klein et al. 2000). Due to such complexity, -zhe is found to be acquired later than -le/guo in previous studies on L2 acquisition of Chinese aspect markers (e.g. Wen 1997; Jin and Hendriks 2005). Secondly, L2 learners’ indeterminacy may be due to the low frequency of -zhe in negative sentences. According to a corpus-based study by Xiao and McEnery (2008, p. 25), the ratio of the negative and positive forms is 1/5 for the experiential aspect (-guo), 1/11 for the perfective aspect (-le), yet as low as 1/202 for the durative aspect (-zhe), suggesting that -zhe rarely occurs in negative sentences. This is, as suggested by Xiao and McEnery (2008), probably due to the antithesis between the inherently assertive nature of -zhe and negation. Moreover, the evidence on the negation of V-zhe is inconsistent in the Chinese input. When used in a negative sentence, -zhe is either negated by bu in some formulaic expressions, such as bu yiweizhe, “do not mean…”, and bu cunzai-zhe, “do not exist…”, or in conditional clauses (see the analyses in Sect. 3.2.2) or negated by mei in declarative matrix sentences. When negated by mei, -zhe is often omitted, as exemplified in (116) (cited from (18) in Xiao and McEnery 2008, pp. 30–31). ta de jinzhan (116) a. Renmen guanzhu-zhe people pay attention-ZHE he DE progress “People have been paying attention to his progress.” ta de jinzhan b. Renmen meiyou guanzhu people not pay attention he DE progress “People do not pay attention to his progress.” As a matter of fact, such inconsistency with the negation of -zhe is also reflected in the non-categorial performance of Chinese natives in our study. As reported in Sect. 6.3.4.4, the group results reveal that the natives tended to reject bu (Written: M = 1.83; Aural: M = 2.10) and accept mei (Written: M = 3.60; Aural: M = 3.48) in the negation of V-zhe. However, the individual results show that 60% of the natives consistently rejected bu and accepted mei in the negation of V-zhe in the written GJT, yet only 27% did so in the aural mode, in sharp contrast to their

8.2 The IH and L2 Acquisition at Multiple Interfaces Implicated …

221

judgment of the negation of V-le/guo with proportions of more than 80% or even 100%. Such a phenomenon of optionality in native speakers has also been captured in the literature, which is arguably attributed to the subtlety of the linguistic structure under investigation or language varieties (e.g. Cho and Slabakova 2017; Montrul and Slabakova 2003; Meisel et al. 2011). Due to the complexity, low-frequency, and variability of the negation of -zhe in the target input, L2 learners exhibited persistent optionality in this category, on a par with the Chinese native speakers. Just as the syntax-semantics interface, L2 acquisition at the syntax-morphology interface is idiosyncratic and should not be treated holistically either. L2 learners’ success or the failure is not domain-wide but dependent on variables (Yuan 2010), such as L1-L2 pairings, the complexity of the morphemes involved, and the frequency and consistency of the target input.

8.2.2.3

The Syntax-Semantics-Morphology Interface: Persistent Divergence

In Sect. 3.2.3.4, it is noted that bu is incompatible with the durative aspect marker -zhe in declarative matrix sentences, but the co-occurrence of bu and -zhe could be licensed by the hypothetical context in conditional clauses, thus involving the syntaxsemantics-morphology interface. The results of our study seem to suggest that such knowledge of multiple conditions is defective in L2 Chinese grammar even at the advanced stage. As stated in (4) of Sect. 5.3.1, we predicted that L2 learners would have great difficulty with the syntax-semantics-morphology interface involved with Chinese negation. This prediction is confirmed by the results from the judgment data in the experimental study. Evidence from the judgment data attests that L1-English and L1-Korean learners at all levels failed to detect the subtle interaction between the negation of the durative aspect (V-zhe) and hypothetical context denoted by conditional clauses. As seen in Sect. 6.3.5.3, L2 learners from both backgrounds exhibited great optionality with the negation of the durative aspect regardless of whether it is in the declarative context or the hypothetical context. The individual results reveal that almost none of L2 learners acquired the licensing function of the hypothetical context on the negation of the durative aspect with bu. Such persistent divergence at the syntax-semantics-morphology interface is congruent with the findings of previous studies on the acquisition of structures with multiple interface conditions (Hopp 2007; Mai 2013). As reviewed in Sect. 2.2.3, these studies found that multiple constraints of varied nature present considerable difficulties to L2 learners and it is only possible for highly-proficient learners to attain nativelike representation of some constraints but not all. The findings of our study lend support to Hopp’s (2011) suggestion that computational complexity should be considered as a crucial factor in accounting for interface vulnerability. According to Hopp, integration demands at different interfaces depend on “the types and the amount of information that need to be integrated” and “the ways information is mapped onto syntax” (p. 45). In the previous section, we

222

8 Discussion

have discussed L2 learners’ protracted optionality in the negation of -zhe, suggesting that they have not instantiated the morphological constraint of -zhe on the choice of negation markers in L2 Chinese grammar. The clause-level semantic constraint of hypothetical context, as analysed in (3) in Sect. 8.2.2.1, also poses great difficulties for L2 learners. Therefore, it could be very demanding for L2 learners to integrate these morphological-semantic constraints on Chinese negation.

8.2.3 Re-assessing the Validity of the IH in SLA In Sects. 8.2.1 and 8.2.2, we have examined the predictions of the IH with the results of the present study. We argue that that L2 acquisition at narrow syntax is not problematic, but it is not completely borne out that internal interfaces pose few problems to L2 learners. In this section, we will re-assess the validity of the IH in accounting for L2 acquisition.

8.2.3.1

Narrow Syntax versus Interface

The foremost assumption of the IH is that structures only involving syntactic computation is immune to optionality, while those involving syntax and other linguistic domains may present residue optionality (Sorace 2006; Sorace and Filiaci 2006; Sorace 2011). Based on this assumption, as presented in Sect. 3.2.3, we have identified narrow syntax and internal interfaces implicated with Chinese negation, the former regarding the syntactic position of negation markers in verbal complement constructions, and the latter regarding the semantic and morphological constraints on negative structures. Our empirical study provides supporting evidence for the IH that narrow syntax involved with Chinese negation could be fully established in L2 grammar, whereas internal interfaces are susceptible to much variability for L2 Chinese learners. However, the distinction between “narrow syntax” and “interface” has incurred many controversies among researchers on L2 acquisition at interfaces. One of the key issues is about the notions of “narrow syntax” and “interface”. Some researchers doubt if there exist structures that are only implicated with syntactic constraints, since “every single felicitous utterance involves discourse and must be read off at all linguistic interfaces” (Montrul 2011, p. 603). Domínguez (2013, p. 90) also contends that there seems to be no clear theoretical support for the distinction between narrow syntax and interface structures based on existing modular models (e.g., Jackendoff 2002; Reinhart 2006) and all structures “necessarily qualify as being interface-based in the IH sense”. In addition, Duffield (2011) maintains that the posthoc analysis in the IH based on “phenomenological or behavioral effects” may run the risk of circularity reasoning (p. 36). In view of such disputes, Sorace (2011) argues that the different status of syntactic principles in contrast with non-syntactic ones in acquisition and processing has been repeatedly emphasized in models assuming language modularity (e.g., Burkhardt 2005). Further, the distinction between “narrow

8.2 The IH and L2 Acquisition at Multiple Interfaces Implicated …

223

syntax” and “interface” could neatly account for L2 ultimate attainment in pure syntactic structures but not interface structures as shown in previous studies, such as the convergence in the acquisition of subjacency principle (narrow syntax) in English by near-native learners (White and Genesee 1996). Sorace (2012) reiterates that the term “interface” is used as a descriptive device for capturing the different conditions related to syntactic realization. From our point of view, the contrast between “narrow syntax” and “interface” in the framework of the IH is more learning-oriented rather than purely theorydriven. Theoretically, all sentences need to be interpreted at the syntax-morphologysemantics-discourse interface. However, from the perspective of L2 learners in language acquisition, these factors could be teased apart and examined separately. Take the acquisition of Chinese negation in the current study as an example, L2 learners’ fundamental task is to figure out the position of negation markers, whether it is preverbal or post-verbal. In this case, the grammaticality of the negative sentence depends on the syntactic position of negation markers, thus involving narrow syntax. By manipulating the position of negation markers in the GJTs, we could explore whether L2 learners could acquire knowledge on the narrow syntax involved with Chinese negation. Since Chinese has two primary negation markers, bu and mei, another challenging task for L2 learners is to distinguish bu from mei by figuring out the constraints of varied nature on Chinese negation, in which case multiple interfaces are involved, such as the syntax-semantics interface and the syntax-morphology interface. Based on such analyses, we have examined L1-English and L1-Korean learners’ acquisition at these internal interfaces involved with Chinese negation and revealed the underlying variables in L2 acquisition at interfaces. Therefore, the distinction between narrow syntax and interface enlightens researchers to locate the source of difficulties L2 learners may encounter from a finer perspective. The other crucial issue is the conflicting empirical evidence regarding L2 acquisition at narrow syntax. While the present study captures full attainment at the narrow syntax in L2 acquisition of Chinese negation, in support of the IH, some existing studies have reported a deficit in the acquisition of pure syntactic properties by highly proficient learners (Argyri and Sorace 2007; Domínguez 2013; Zhao 2014), as reviewed in Sect. 2.2.3. This seems to run against the assumption of unproblematic narrow syntax in the IH. On one hand, as stressed by Sorace (2011, p. 9), the IH was proposed for “the highest possible level of ultimate attainment in L2”. It is possible that the bilinguals or L2 learners in those studies reporting a deficit in narrow syntax do not pass as near-native speakers. For example, Zhao (2014) admitted that even stricter and more formal criteria were required in the screening of the subjects. In our study, as discussed in Sect. 8.2.1, L2 learners with lower Chinese proficiency showed much indeterminacy with the position of negation markers in verbal complement constructions, but they converged with the natives with increased proficiency. On the other hand, Sorace (2012, p. 210) also considers abandoning the neat dichotomies of narrow syntax and interface by acknowledging that narrow syntax with complex computations may also be a locus of difficulty. However, in our view, Sorace’s point here is not to give up the distinction between narrow syntax and interface completely but divert the focus of research to systematicity across interfaces in L2 acquisition.

224

8 Discussion

As suggested by Hopp (2011, p. 46), it seems promising to explore whether there is a systematic relation between processing at narrow syntax or interfaces and “computational complexity/capacity”. This is evidenced by the different development patterns in the acquisition of negation in simple predicate sentences and complex predicate sentences. Recall that Yuan (2004) found first-year Chinese learners readily acquired the position of negation markers in simple predicate sentences (see Sect. 4.3), while we found that it is not until the intermediate or even advanced proficiency that L2 learners achieved nativelike sensitivity to the position of negation markers in more complex verbal complement constructions. Despite the disputes mentioned above, the fundamental distinction between narrow syntax and interface made by the IH provides a feasible approach for L2 acquisition studies. Within a more fine-grained perspective, we could further delineate the development of L2 knowledge and locate the source of residue optionality in highly-proficient L2 grammar in terms of the specific constraints on different structures.

8.2.3.2

Internal Interfaces

The IH makes a further differentiation between internal interfaces and external interfaces, proposing that internal interfaces could be ultimately acquired while external ones may be the locus of divergence in acquisition (Tsimpli and Sorace 2006; Sorace and Serratrice 2009). The primary issue of this proposal is the split in the empirical evidence from studies on L2 acquisition at internal interfaces and external interfaces. We will dwell on internal interfaces since the present study has investigated L2 acquisition at internal interfaces involved with Chinese negation. As reviewed in Sect. 2.2.3, the results of some existing studies are consistent with the prediction of the IH that internal interfaces can be ultimately attained (Belletti et al. 2007; Dekydtspotter and Sprouse 2001; Dekydtspotter et al. 2001; Montrul 2004, 2005; Rothman et al. 2010). However, the findings of our study on the acquisition of Chinese negation appear to have demonstrated much variability in L2 acquisition at internal interfaces, in line with a number of previous studies (Yuan 2010; Jiang 2004, 2007; Lardiere 2005; Long et al. 2003; Umeda 2008; White 2003). In the Sect. 8.2.2.1, we suggested that convergence at the syntax-semantics interface involved with negation is not completely attained by L2 learners. For example, L2 learners’ representation of the temporal constraint on Chinese negation is target-deviant since they have difficulty with the negation of past habitual activities. Besides, in Sect. 8.2.2.2, we have revealed L2 Chinese learners’ selective optionality at the syntax-morphology interface because of factors such as input frequency and consistency. In Sect. 8.2.2.3, we have also attested the representational deficit at the syntax-morphology-semantics interface in L2 Chinese grammar due to computational complexity at this interface. Such incongruent evidence seems to undermine the predictability of the IH. White (2011a) holds that it is improper to make domain-wide generalizations for L2 learners/speakers with respect to ease or difficulty in acquiring interface structures.

8.2 The IH and L2 Acquisition at Multiple Interfaces Implicated …

225

The differing results from the studies testing the IH show that problems at interfaces are “construction-specific instead of across-the-board, and possibly languagespecific as well” (White 2011a, p. 582). Domínguez (2013) also claims that there is neither theoretical nor empirical evidence that certain interfaces should cause more problems than others by default. While acknowledging that the neat dichotomy of internal and external interface may be too rigid, Sorace (2012, p. 210) suggests that internal interfaces can also be “computationally complex and resource-consuming” (see also the discussion in Hopp 2011). Notwithstanding the weakened predicative power to some extent, the IH does offer a straightforward account for the problems at interfaces in terms of computational complexity. Leaving aside the issue of ultimate attainment, interface structures, especially those involved with multiple interfaces, indeed can pose substantial challenges to L2 learners. Research on L2 acquisition at interfaces could offer us more insight into the mechanism of L2 acquisition considering that not all L2 learners could or intend to achieve near-native proficiency. For instance, in our study on L2 acquisition at the syntax-morphology interface, we found that L2 learners acquired the negation of -guo early on, then the negation of -le, and finally, the negation of -zhe, if it could be eventually acquired at all. In addition, regarding the syntax-semantics interface, we found L2 learners established nativelike knowledge about the negation of past episodic events and future events but had incomplete knowledge about the negation of past habitual activities. The most intriguing issue here is not so much whether ultimate convergence is attainable as what factors underlie such an uneven development at the syntax-morphology/semantics interface. A better understanding of the source of L2 learners’ problems also has implications for the instruction of relevant structures. Therefore, instead of totally denying the validity of the IH, we concur with Yuan (2010) that the IH needs to be refined by considering the variables that modulate the acquisition of interface structures, such as the nature of the category, cross-linguistic influence, and the properties of the target input. As discussed in Sect. 8.2.2, the present study has also revealed that L2 acquisition at internal interfaces is dependent on variables such as the salience of the forms (time adverbials vs. clause-level hypothetical context), the consistency and frequency of L2 input (the negation of V-guo versus the negation of V-zhe), as well as the complexity of the constraints involved (the syntax-morphology-semantic interface). Such a variable-dependent approach with the IH is also embraced by Mai (2013) and Zhao (2012, 2014).

8.2.4 Summary In this section, we have discussed the results of the present study on the acquisition of Chinese negation within the framework of the IH. Given that the findings do not completely support the assumptions of the IH, we have re-assessed the validity of this hypothesis and suggested a variable-dependent approach to the refinement of the IH. Since the IH focuses on the mappings between syntax and other linguistic domains,

226

8 Discussion

it does not take into consideration whether the features encoded in different linguistic forms (lexical/morphological/semantic/pragmatic) are properly selected and configured by L2 learners. By contrast, the Feature Reassembly Hypothesis (Lardiere 2005, 2008, 2009a, 2009b) is concerned with whether L2 learners could detect and reassemble the features of lexical items and functional categories. In Chinese, as analyzed in Sect. 3.2.2, the mood features ([±realis]) underlie the distinctive distribution of the two negation markers bu and mei. In the next section, we will examine whether L2 Chinese learners could detect and reassemble the mood features encoded in Chinese negation within the framework of FRH.

8.3 The FRH and L2 Acquisition of the Mood Features Encoded with Chinese Negation As reviewed in Sect. 2.3, the FRH proposes that L2 learners initially map the L2 item onto the perceived corresponding L1 item with similar grammatical function and meaning (Lardiere 2008, 2009a). With increased proficiency, they would reassemble the features of the L2 item by adding or deleting relevant features. Based on these assumptions, we have made predictions regarding the acquisition of the mood features ([±realis]) encoded with Chinese negation by L1-English and L1-Korean learners, as seen in Sect. 5.3.2. This section will examine these predictions with the results of our empirical study. First, we will present the overall pattern in L2 acquisition of [±realis] features implicated with Chinese negation by relating to the assumptions of the FRH and our predictions stated in Chap. 5. Then, we will discuss L2 learners’ performance in the reassembly of [±realis] features represented in different categories of licensing contexts in more details. Based on these discussions, we will evaluate the explanatory and predictive power of the FRH in SLA.

8.3.1 Overall Patterns in the Reassembly of the [±realis] Features It has been noted in Chap. 3 that the mood features ([±realis]) encoded with Chinese negation are not overtly marked by dedicated morphemes but represented in contexts. The present study has focused on four categories of such contexts as presented in Table 3.2 in Sect. 3.2.2.3, repeated here in Table 8.1. We have also compared the features encoded with negation in Chinese, English, and Korean as summarized in Table 3.3 in Sect. 3.5 and repeated in Table 8.2. As stated in 3.2.2.3, it is assumed that the uninterpretable mood features in NegP (bu: [–realis]/[uIRR]; mei: [+realis]/[uR]) should be checked and deleted by the interpretable mood features in ModP denoted by the distinct categories of contexts. Therefore, L2 learners from both backgrounds need to detect the mood features in

8.3 The FRH and L2 Acquisition of the Mood Features Encoded … Table 8.1 The [±realis] features represented in multiple categories of licensing contexts

Table 8.2 Features encoded in negation in Chinese, English, and Korean

227

Irrealis

Realis

Typical

Deontic modality (e.g. keyi, “can”; yinggai, “should”)

Existence; Possession Realization of activities Past experiences of events

Untypical

Property; Habitual activity Future activity Mental state Abstract relations Ability Possibility

Realization of mental state Comparison relations Presupposition in discourse

Chinese

English3

Korean

Keys: IRR, for the [–realis] feature, R for the [+realis] feature

different contexts that could license the use of bu/mei. Then, L1-English learners’ task is to add the [–realis] feature to bu and the [+realis] feature to mei, whereas L1-Korean learners need to de-link the mapping from the features assembled with negation markers an(i) and mos in Korean and reassemble the [–realis] feature and the [+realis] feature with bu and mei, respectively. As stated in (5) in Sect. 5.3.2, we predicted that L2 learners may have difficulty in differentiating bu from mei in different contexts due to their insensitivity to the [±realis] features encoded with Chinese negation. In general, this prediction is confirmed by the results of the present study. The results from the judgment data indicate that lower proficiency L2 learners were undetermined in accepting the licit use of bu in [–realis] contexts and in rejecting the illicit use of bu in [+realis] contexts. Meanwhile, they also did not robustly accept the licit use of mei in [+realis] contexts and exhibited uncertainty in rejecting the illicit use of mei in [–realis] contexts. The results from the production data also show that lower proficiency L2 learners mistakenly used bu in [+realis] contexts and mei in [–realis] contexts. Moreover, results from the judgment data reveal that L1-Korean learners demonstrated stronger sensitivity to the [–realis] feature represented in some contexts (statives; absolute future events) than L1-English learners, corroborating our prediction that L1-Korean learners may have an advantage over L1-English learners, as stated in (6) in Sect. 5.3.2. Moreover, in line with our prediction in (7) in Sect. 5.3.2, 3

As noted in Sect. 3.3, the negation marker no in English is mainly used for negating nominal constituents, not for verbs, so we focus on the analysis of not, the sentential negator in English.

228

8 Discussion

the results of our study bear out that L2 learners with higher Chinese proficiency could reassemble the [±realis] features encoded with Chinese negation. Target-like configurations of these features are attainable, as shown in the performance of individual learners in the advanced group, despite great difficulty in detecting the [±realis] features that are deeply embedded in some contexts (e.g., the [+realis] feature represented in the durative aspect marked by -zhe in declarative sentences and the [–realis] feature represented in past habitual activities and hypothetical conditionals). The findings of the present study thus provide supporting evidence for the FRH (Lardiere 2005, 2008, 2009a). On one hand, the broad range of indeterminacy at the preliminary stages suggest that L2 learners initially establish a mapping between negation markers bu/mei in Chinese and the corresponding negation markers in their L1s (English/Korean), and there is influence of L1 feature configurations in their acquisition of Chinese n egation. Just as claimed by Lardiere (2009a), L2 learners bring fully-assembled grammar categories with an L1 feature set in the first step of mapping. As seen in the Table 8.2, English negation, represented by not, does not encode any distinctive features, while Korean negation, represented by an(i) and mos, does not neatly encode [±realis] features, it is thus unsurprising that L2 learners from both backgrounds had problems with the choice of bu/mei in different contexts at lower proficiency levels. Recall that [±realis] features are arguably implicated with specificity in English and complementation in Korean, respectively (see Sects. 3.3 and 3.4), yet L2 learners from both backgrounds did not readily establish the association between such features and Chinese negation, echoing the standpoint of the FRH that the approach of parametric feature-selection is insufficient to account for L2 acquisition (Lardiere 2007a, 2007b, 2008). Rather, it is argued that L2 learners need to make a contrastive analysis of the configuration of relevant features between L1 and L2, and then reassemble the features associated with specific L2 items based on L2 input, which may pose challenges to L2 learners (Lardiere 2005, 2008, 2009a). Nevertheless, since the negator mos in Korean is partially encoded with [–realis] feature, such a similarity may, to some extent, facilitate L1-Korean learners’ assembly of the [–realis] feature with bu. On the other hand, it seems possible for L2 learners to achieve success in the (re-) assembly of the [±realis] features encoded with Chinese negation as a function of increased proficiency, validating the assumption of the FRH that features in contrast are ultimately acquirable (Lardiere 2008, 2009a). With sufficient Chinese input and increased proficiency, L2 learners could keep track of the complementary distribution of bu and mei and acquire their distinctive features (bu bears [–realis] and mei bears [+realis]). The findings of our study are also compatible with those of previous studies on the acquisition of features by L2 learners within the framework of the FRH (e.g., Cho and Slabakova 2014; Cho 2017; Cho and Slabakova 2017; Dekydtspotter and Renaud 2009; Hwang and Lardiere 2013; Ionin et al. 2011; Shimanskaya and Slabakova 2015).

8.3 The FRH and L2 Acquisition of the Mood Features Encoded …

229

8.3.2 Nonparallel Reassembly of the [±realis] Features in Different Licensing Contexts As mentioned above, the [±realis] features are not overtly marked by specific morphemes in Chinese. Instead, they are embedded in various categories of contexts, which license the use of bu or mei. The present study covers four categories of such licensing contexts, including temporal information, lexical aspect, grammatical aspect, and hypothetical context, summarized in Table 8.1. The results from our research indicate that the reassembly of the [±realis] features is not parallel across different licensing contexts. It seems easier for L2 learners to establish target-like configurations of these features with Chinese negation in some contexts (e.g., the experiential aspect) than others (e.g., past habitual activities), and it presents considerable difficulties for them to acquire the [–realis] feature embedded in the hypothetical context which could license the use of bu in the negation of potential/descriptive complement and the durative aspect. This section will discuss L2 learners’ performance in reassembling the [±realis] features in each category of licensing context separately.

8.3.2.1

Reassembly of the [±realis] Features Represented by Temporal Information

The first category of licensing contexts is triggered by temporal information denoted by time adverbials, including three subcategories, absolute future events ([–realis]), past habitual activities ([–realis]), and past episodic events ([+realis]). As noted in Sect. 3.2.2.4, we assume that bu bears the uninterpretable feature [–realis] whereas mei bears the uninterpretable feature [+realis]. Therefore, bu is licensed in the negation of absolute future events and past habitual activities, while mei is licensed in the negation of past episodic events. It turns out that the [–realis] feature encoded with bu could be reassembled in these contexts but reassembling the [+realis] feature with mei appears to be difficult for L2 learners even at the advanced stage due to residue interference from the [+past] feature. First, the results of our study reveal that L1-English and L1-Korean learners with lower Chinese proficiency are not quite sensitive to the [–realis] feature encoded with bu in this category of contexts triggered by temporal information. However, with increased Chinese proficiency, advanced L2 learners from both backgrounds attain nativelike configuration of the [–realis] feature with bu in these contexts. Specifically, the development patterns of feature reassembly demonstrate that L1-English and L1Korean learners tend to gain nativelike sensitivity to the feature clash between bu and the context of past episodic events ([+realis]) before they robustly assemble bu with the [–realis] feature and accept the use of bu licensed in the contexts that represent the [–realis] feature. In addition, they detect the [–realis] feature represented in the context of past habitual activities later than they do in the context of absolute future events.

230

8 Discussion

Evidence from the judgment data indicates that both L2 learner groups acquired the illicit use of bu in the negation of past episodic events at an early stage. As reported in Sect. 6.3.2.2, only elementary L2 learners from both backgrounds exhibited uncertainty in rejecting the illicit use of bu in this context, while those at the lowintermediate and above levels gained nativelike sensitivity to such anomaly readily. Both L2 learner groups also gradually acquired the licensed use of bu in the negation of absolute future events and past habitual activities which represent the [–realis] feature. As shown in Sect. 6.3.2.3, elementary and low-intermediate L1-English learners were uncertain with the use of bu for negating absolute future events in both modes. Nevertheless, L1-English learners rising from the intermediate level (in the written mode) and L1-Korean learners from elementary level (in both modes) all tended to accept the use of bu in this context and both L2 learner groups achieved nativelike determinacy at the high-intermediate or advanced stage. Comparatively, L2 learners detected the licensing function of past habitual activities on the use of bu at a later stage. As seen in Sect. 6.3.2.1, L1-English and L1-Korean learners from the elementary to the high-intermediate proficiency showed persistent hesitation in accepting the use of bu licensed in the context of past habitual activities, yet they eventually converged with the natives at the advanced stage. The development patterns revealed by the judgment data above are further corroborated by the production data from Chinese learner corpora. As presented in Sect. 7.2.2, though elementary L1-Korean learners and low-intermediate L1-English learners had a relatively lower accuracy rate (82%) due to the misuse of bu for negating past episodic events, they gained higher accuracy rates (91–97%) at the intermediate and above levels. L1-Korean learners at the (high-)intermediate level had a high accuracy (94–100%) in the negation of absolute future events, yet they only performed at chance level (46–50%) in the negation of past habitual activities (no sufficient data is available for L1-English learners in these contexts). We suggest there are at least two factors leading to L2 learners’ difficulty with the [–realis] feature embedded in past habitual activities. One is the incongruent configurations of the [±realis] features between L1 and L2. According to the FRH, reassembling the feature set in L2 from that of L1 constitutes the main source of difficulty in L2 acquisition (Lardiere 2008, 2009a). Typological studies on the category of reality status reveal that realis situations are typically associated with past time, whereas irrealis situations with future time, though variations exist across languages (Elliott 2000). As noted in Sects. 3.3 and 3.4, both English and Korean tended to categorize past-time events as realis situations and future-time events as irrealis situations. In Chinese, while past episodic events are encoded with the [+realis] feature, past habitual activities represent the [–realis] feature. Due to L1 influence, L1-English and L1-Korean learners may consider contexts in the past time as realis situations. This may enable them to detect the feature clash between bu and past episodic events at an early stage but may hinder them from acquiring the licensed use of bu in past habitual activities. The influence of L1 feature configurations on L2 feature reassembly has also been reported in previous studies (e.g., Arche et al. 2010; Cho 2017; Dekydtspotter and Renaud 2009; Domínguez et al. 2011; Shimanskaya and Slabakova 2015).

8.3 The FRH and L2 Acquisition of the Mood Features Encoded …

231

The other factor may be the peripheral status of past habitual activities in representing irrealis contexts which license the use of bu. As analyzed in Sect. 3.2.2, the case of absolute feature events is considered as one of the typical irrealis contexts licensing the use of bu, whereas the category of habitual activities provides an untypical irrealis context for the use of bu (Zhang and Yan 2010). According to the prototype account in L2 acquisition (Shirai and Andersen 1995; Hu 2002), it is more difficult for L2 learners to acquire peripheral usages than prototypical ones. For example, Hu (2002) found that L2 learners of English gained a lower accuracy in the acquisition of past tense in subjunctive clause (peripheral usage) than the acquisition of past tense denoting definite past events (prototype usage). Based on this account, it should be more challenging for L2 learners to detect the [–realis] feature involved with past habitual activities. Such a prototype effect has also been documented in previous studies on the acquisition of L2 features (Ionin et al. 2011; Spinner 2013). Second, it seems that the [+realis] feature is not properly assembled with mei in the contexts triggered by temporal information, instead, the [+past] feature appears to be associated with mei in early L2 grammar. Even at the advanced level, L2 grammar is divergent from the target grammar in the configuration of the [+realis] feature with mei, yet it is still possible for L2 learners to acquire this feature. The results of our study reveal that elementary L2 learners tended to accept mei in the contexts that encode the [+past] feature, including past episodic events ([+past; +realis]) and past habitual events ([+past; –realis]). Meanwhile, they also tended to reject mei in the context that encodes the [–past] feature, i.e., absolute future events ([–past; –realis]). With increased proficiency, L2 learners from both backgrounds converged with the natives in accepting the licensed use of mei in past episodic events and rejecting the illicit use of mei in absolute future events readily, yet they showed prolonged optionality in rejecting the illicit use of mei in past habitual activities even at the advanced stage. Evidence from the judgment data indicates that L2 learners from both backgrounds tended to accept the use of mei for negating past episodic events starting from the elementary level, and they converged with the natives readily at the low-intermediate level, as reported in Sect. 6.3.2.2. Similarly, as seen in Sect. 6.3.2.3, starting from the elementary level, both L2 learner groups tended to reject the illicit use of mei for negating absolute future events, with means below 2 (“probably ungrammatical”) in both modes (except L1-English learners in the aural mode, M = 2.29). Elementary L1-Korean learners exhibited nativelike sensitivity to the feature clash in the written mode while the low-intermediate L1-English learners converged with the natives readily in both modes. Accordingly, as mentioned above, the production data from Chinese learner corpora elicits that L2 learners with beyond intermediate proficiency had a very high accuracy (91–100%) in the negation of past episodic events and absolute future events. By contrast, evidence in the judgment data bear out that L2 learners at all levels failed to converge with the natives in rejecting mei for negating past habitual activities. On the contrary, as seen in Sect. 6.3.2.1, elementary L2 learners from both backgrounds tended to accept the use of mei in this context. At later stages, they showed persistent indeterminacy to the illicit use of mei. This is further supported

232

8 Discussion

by the high error rates (50–64%) in the negation of past habitual activities due to the misuse of mei shown in the production data from the Chinese learner corpora. Based on these findings, we argue that the [+past] feature, rather than the [+realis] feature, is assembled with mei in early L2 grammar. The lingering impact of the [+past] feature results in L2 learners’ persistent difficulty in detecting the feature clash between mei and the context of past habitual activities even at the advanced stage. Nevertheless, as mentioned in 8.2.2.1, five of the advanced L2 learners achieved success with increased Chinese proficiency, suggesting the possibility of reassembling the [+realis] feature with mei by L2 Chinese learners. Interestingly, such an early assembly of the [+past] feature by L2 learners has also been observed in Mai and Yuan (2016)’s study on the acquisition of the feature bundle [+past, +telic, +given] encoded with shi…de cleft construction in Chinese. This study found that L1-English learners assembled the [+past] feature before the [+telic] feature. On one hand, as suggested by Mai and Yuan, this may be due to the compulsory tense markings on finite verbs in English and Korean. L1-English and L1-Korean learners are thus quite sensitive to the temporal information denoted by time adverbials in Chinese. On the other hand, more importantly, this may be also due to a prototype effect as mentioned above. The category of past time events is a prototypical case for the [+realis] feature typologically. As noted in Sect. 3.2.2, the typical situation for the use of mei is to negate the realization of events, whereas the use of mei in future time is highly restricted by discourse information, thus an untypical usage of mei. Another question is, why did advanced L2 learners successfully assemble the [– realis] feature with bu but fail to assemble the [+realis] with mei in general? Recall that elementary L2 learners tended to associate mei with the [+past] feature, but they did not seem to link bu with the [–past] feature. This may be attributed to the abundant positive evidence in the Chinese input that informs L2 learners the use of bu in different temporal frameworks. Apart from negating future events and habitual activities, bu also negates volitions and statives regardless of time, as exemplified in (117) (cited from BCC corpus). As suggested by Wang (2011, p. 308), adverbs such as jiu (“just”) could trigger the volitional reading in (117a) and thus bu is more appropriate. Without such adverbs, the sentence can denote a past episodic event, and mei can be used.4 In (117b), only bu can be used to negate stative verbs such as xihuan (“like”). The availability of such evidence may help L2 learners avoid linking bu with the [–past] feature but assemble the [–realis] feature with bu. As noted in Sect. 7.2.2.2, we found evidence in the learner corpus data that L2 learners also used bu correctly for negating volitions in the past. (117)

4

a. Wo shanghui jiu gaosu-guo ni, ni jiu bu/ ?mei ting. I last-time just tell-GUO you you just not listen “I told you last time, but you just did not listen.” b. Wo xiaoshihou bu/*mei xihuan zhe-zhong lao fangzi.

Wang (2011) also argues that stress can also trigger the volitional reading. When bu is stressed, even if the adverb jiu is deleted, the sentence in (117a) can still be negated by bu. We agree with Wang in this case.

8.3 The FRH and L2 Acquisition of the Mood Features Encoded …

233

I little not like like this-CL old house “I did not like such kind of old houses when I was little.” However, there seems to be no negative evidence in the target input informing L2 learners of the illicit use of mei for negating past habitual activities. Rather, the strong association between mei and the [+past] feature makes it hard for them to reject the use of mei in a [+past, –realis] context. Thirdly, we found that L1-Korean learners possess an advantage over L1-English learners in establishing target-like reassembly of the [–realis] feature encoded with bu in the context of future events. The results from the judgment data bear out that L1-Korean learners demonstrated more determinacy than L1-English learners in accepting bu and rejecting mei for negating absolute future events ([–realis]) before the high-intermediate stage. As mentioned above, elementary L1-English learners were reluctant to accept the use of bu licensed in this context and they diverged from the natives in rejecting mei in this case in both modes. In contrast, elementary L1-Korean learners tended to accept the use of bu in this context, and they gained nativelike sensitivity in rejecting mei in the written mode (convergence at the low-intermediate level in the aural mode). We suppose that the advantage of L1-Korean learners might be attributed to the similarity in the feature set encoded with negation in Korean and Chinese. As presented in Table 8.2, Korean negation marker mos is encoded with a subset of the [–realis] feature, partially comparable to bu in Chinese which bears the [–realis] feature, whereas English negation is not involved with the [±realis] features. At the initial stage of mapping, L1-Korean learners may correspond bu with mos, which to some extent could increase their sensitivity to the distinctive distributions of bu/mei in certain contexts, such as absolute future events. Such a positive L1 transfer effect is also found in the licensing context of statives, which will be discussed in the following section.

8.3.2.2

Reassembly of the [±realis] Features Represented by Lexical Aspect

The second category of licensing contexts is triggered by lexical aspect, including two subcategories: statives ([–realis]) and achievements/accomplishments ([+realis]), the former licensing the use of bu, while the latter licensing the use of mei. Our study provides empirical evidence that the [±realis] features with bu/mei could be reassembled in L2 Chinese grammar in this category of licensing contexts with increased proficiency. The development patterns of feature reassembly also show that the [– realis] feature encoded with bu is reassembled before the [+realis] feature with mei for L1-Korean learners, while an opposite pattern for L1-English learners. First, the results from the present study bear out that L2 learners with lower proficiency do not steadily assemble the [–realis] feature with bu in the licensing contexts triggered by lexical aspect, but they achieve a nativelike configuration with increased proficiency. Overall, L1-Korean learners establish the licensing function

234

8 Discussion

of statives ([–realis]) on the use of bu early on, and they attain nativelike sensitivity to the feature clash between bu and achievements/accomplishments ([+realis]) at a later stage. In contrast, L1-English learners achieve nativelike sensitivity to the clash between bu and achievements/accomplishments before detecting the licensed function of statives on the use of bu. As revealed in the judgment data in Sect. 6.3.3.1, L1-Korean learners converged with the natives by accepting the use of bu for negating statives early at the elementary level in both modes, while L1-English learners did not robustly accept the use of bu licensed in this context until the high-intermediate stage in the written mode and they diverged from the natives even at the advanced stage in the aural mode. In the negation of achievements/accomplishments, as seen in Sect. 6.3.3.2, L2 learners from both backgrounds wavered in rejecting the illicit use of bu in both modes at the elementary stage, but they gained nativelike sensitivity readily at the low-intermediate level in the written mode and at the intermediate level in the aural mode. Correspondingly, the results of the production data presented in Sect. 7.2.3 indicate that L2 learners in general had a high accuracy in the negation of statives (above 95%) and they seldom misused bu for the negation of achievements/accomplishments. Second, we found that L2 learners show insufficient sensitivity to the [+realis] feature encoded with mei in the licensing contexts triggered by lexical aspects at lower proficiency levels, but they reassemble this feature with mei successfully as a function of increased proficiency. To be more specific, L1-Korean learners develop strong sensitivity to the feature clash between mei and statives before detecting the licensing function of achievements/accomplishments on the use of mei. In contrast, L1-English learners acquire the licensed use of mei in the context of achievements/accomplishments before they establish nativelike sensitivity to the mismatch between mei and statives. Evidence from the judgment data indicates that elementary L2 learners from both backgrounds were uncertain with the negation of achievements/accomplishments ([+realis]) using mei in both modes, as shown in Sect. 6.3.3.2, but both L2 learner groups converged with the natives at the low/high-intermediate levels (aural/written). In the negation of statives, as seen in Sect. 6.3.3.1, elementary L1-Korean learners showed uncertainty in rejecting the illicit use of mei in both modes, but they achieved nativelike sensitivity readily at the low-intermediate level. Though elementary L1English learners tended to reject mei in this case, they still diverged significantly from the natives in the written mode (convergence at all levels in the aural mode). Showing a U-shaped pattern, L1-English learners converged with the natives at lowintermediate and the advanced stage in the written mode. The results from the production data elicit that L2 learners had a high accuracy (above 96%) in the negation of achievements/accomplishments after attaining low-intermediate proficiency and they seldom misused mei in the negation of statives. Third, it seems that L1-Korean learners possess an advantage over L1-English learners in the reassembly of the [–realis] feature encoded in the context of statives. Evidence comes from the results of the judgment data that L1-Korean learners accepted the licit use of bu for negating statives ([–realis]) more robustly than L1English learners at the elementary, intermediate, and high-intermediate levels in the

8.3 The FRH and L2 Acquisition of the Mood Features Encoded …

235

aural mode, as well as at the intermediate level in the written mode. Meanwhile, L1Korean learners also rejected the illicit use of mei in this context more rigidly than L1-English learners at the intermediate and high-intermediate levels in the written mode. Recall that in Sect. 8.3.2.1, we found that L1-Korean learners assembled the [– realis] feature represented in absolute future events earlier than L1-English learners, which is attributed to the similarity between the feature set encoded with mos in Korean and bu in Chinese. Apart from this, another similarity is that negation in Korean is also sensitive to lexical meaning, which may play a facilitative role in the detection and assembly of the [–realis] feature represented in statives on the part of L1-Korean learners. As noted in Sect. 3.4, in Korean, perception verbs, such as alta, “know”, are negated by mos but not an(i). In Chinese, stative verbs such as zhidao, “know”, can be negated by bu but not mei. Such lexical correspondence between L1 and L2 may enable L1-Korean learners to attend to the subtle restriction of verb semantics on the choice of negation markers. These findings provide more evidence for L1 influence in the process of feature assembly as proposed by the FRH and are compatible with previous studies which also capture L1 transfer effect in the acquisition of L2 features (e.g., Cho and Slabakova 2014; Cho 2017; Hwang and Lardiere 2013; Ionin et al. 2011; Iverson et al. 2008; Muroya 2013; Yuan and Zhao 2009). One problem is why L1-English learners assembled the [+realis] feature represented in achievements/accomplishments at a relatively earlier stage than the [–realis] feature in statives. Unlike L1-Korean learners, L1-English learners have nothing to transfer from L1 since English negation does not encode such features. We conjecture that this might be due to the cue of the complement in achievements/accomplishments in Chinese. As noted in Sect. 3.2.2, achievements/accomplishments in Chinese are expressed by resultative verb compounds such as chi-wan, “eat up”, zhao-dao, “find”, etc. The complements wan, “finish” and dao, “to” may give learners a clue that the predicate denotes a completed event, a typical realis situation compatible with mei. This, however, is by no means easy, since nativelike configuration of the [+realis] feature is not established until the high-intermediate stage. After all, verbal compounds are more complex than single verbs.

8.3.2.3

Reassembly of the [+realis] Feature Represented by Grammatical Aspect

The third category of licensing context is triggered by grammatical aspect, including three subcategories, the perfective aspect marked by -le, the experiential aspect marked by -guo, and the durative aspect marked by -zhe, all of which are encoded with the [+realis] feature, thus licensing the use of mei but not bu. It should also be noted that when the sentence is negated by mei, -le should be deleted, while -guo should be retained, and -zhe is optionally deleted. The results of our study suggest that nativelike configuration of the [+realis] feature with mei and the [–realis] feature with bu in the context of the experiential aspect was established in L2 grammar at an earlier stage, and then the context of the perfective aspect. However, it seemed

236

8 Discussion

difficult for L2 learners to detect the [+realis] feature represented in the context of the durative aspect in declarative matrix sentences, which licenses the use of mei. First, the results from our study elicit that L2 learners from both backgrounds readily assemble the [+realis] feature with mei in the context of the experiential aspect early on. The sensitivity to the [+realis] feature encoded with mei in the context of the perfective aspect seems to render L2 learners indecisive over the illicit co-occurrence of mei and V-le before the advanced stage. These learners have extended difficulty in detecting the [+realis] feature represented in the durative aspect even at the advanced stage. As shown in the judgment data in Sect. 6.3.4.3, both L2 learner groups converged with the natives with a firm acceptance of mei for negating V-guo ([+realis]) as early as the elementary level in both modes. Correspondingly, as shown in Sect. 7.2.4, the production data from Chinese learner corpora showed that L2 learners from both backgrounds achieved nearly 100% accuracy by using mei for negating V-guo. In the case of the perfective aspect, L1-English and L1-Korean learners exhibited persistent indeterminacy in rejecting the co-occurrence of mei and V-le ([+realis]) before attaining advanced proficiency, as seen in Sect. 6.3.4.2. This is further corroborated by the results from the production data in Sect. 7.2.4. They had a relatively lower accuracy rate at the intermediate and high-intermediate levels (87–93%) due to the redundant use of -le in sentences negated by mei. As for the case of the durative aspect, L2 learners from both backgrounds at all levels showed persistent uncertainty with the licensed use of mei for negating V-zhe ([+realis]), as shown in Sect. 6.3.4.4. Nevertheless, the individual results indicate that it is still possible for L2 learners to detect the [+realis] feature represented in this context and assemble it with mei. Second, it is also found that L1-English and L1-Korean learners attain nativelike sensitivity to the [–realis] feature encoded with bu in the contexts of the experiential aspect and the perfective aspect at the preliminary stages, but they are not sensitive to the feature clash between bu and the durative aspect ([+realis]) even at the advanced stage. Evidence from the judgment data in Sect. 6.3.4.3 indicates that L2 learners from both backgrounds rejected the illicit co-occurrence of bu and V-guo as rigidly as the natives at the elementary level in the written mode and at the intermediate level in the aural mode. This is also evidenced in the production data that they barely misused bu for the negation of V-guo, as seen in Sect. 7.2.4. In the case of the perfective aspect, the results from the judgment data reveal that both L2 learner groups were indeterminate in rejecting the illicit co-occurrence of bu and V-le ([+realis]) at the elementary stage in both modes, as seen in Sect. 6.3.4.1, yet they gained nativelike sensitivity to their incompatibility readily at the low-intermediate level. Likewise, the results from the production data show that they seldom misused bu with V-le, as reported in Sect. 7.2.4. In contrast, as seen in 6.3.4.4, L1-English and L1-Korean learners at all levels showed much hesitation in rejecting the illicit co-occurrence of bu and V-zhe in declarative sentences in both modes. L2 learners’ early acquisition of the [+realis] feature instantiated in the bound morpheme -guo suggests that functional morphology does not necessarily constitute a source of difficulty in feature reassembly. This seems to run against the argument in Yuan (2010) that functional-morpheme licensors are more difficult to acquire than

8.3 The FRH and L2 Acquisition of the Mood Features Encoded …

237

lexical-word licensors in L2 acquisition. As reviewed in Sect. 2.2.3, this study found that L2 learners acquire the existential reading of Chinese wh-words licensed by the lexical-words (negators, non-factive words, etc.), but they fail to detect the licensing power of all the functional-morphemes, including inferential particle -le, the yes– no particle -ma, and A-not-A. Yuan interprets that functional-morpheme licensors are more opaque in meaning and less prominent in pronunciation than lexical-word licensors, and thus these two groups of licensors are dealt with differently in L2 Chinese grammar (p. 255). While this account seems tenable for the findings of Yuan’s study, it is not attested in the present study since L2 learners in our study acquire the functional morpheme licensor -guo for the use of mei at an early stage. Nevertheless, the findings of our study are compatible with Yuan’s (2010) another suggestion that the licensing power of the licensors in the target language grammar has implications in L2 grammar. Yuan observes that all the lexical-words have a strong licensing power, the functional morphemes -le and -ma have a moderate licensing power, while A-not-A only has a weak licensing power in the native Chinese grammar. In our study, we find that the experiential aspect (-guo) has a strong licensing power for the use of mei, as evidenced in the categorical acceptance of mei and rejection of bu for negating V-guo by the Chinese natives. As seen in the individual results in Sect. 6.3.4.3.2, 93% of the natives consistently accepted mei and rejected bu in the negation of V-guo in the written mode, and 100% did so in the aural mode. As an experiential aspect marker, -guo denotes an experience of past events, which is a typical realis situation for the use of mei (see Table 3.1, Sect. 3.2.2). As mentioned in Sect. 8.2.2.2, the ratio of -guo used in negative and positive forms in Chinese is 1/5, much higher than that of -le (1/11) and -zhe (1/202) (Xiao and McEnery 2008, p. 25). Thus, the target language input could provide L2 learners with sufficient and consistent evidence for using mei in the negation of V-guo, which enables them to detect the [+realis] feature represented in -guo and assemble mei with the [+realis] feature easily. Accordingly, they robustly assemble the [–realis] feature with bu despite lack of direct negative evidence. It seems likely that such a strong licensing power overrides the categorical restriction in the assembly of the [+realis] feature triggered by the functional morpheme -guo. By contrast, the licensing power of -zhe for the use of mei seems not very strong. This is evident in the non-categorial choice of mei for negating V-zhe by the Chinese natives. The individual results presented in Sect. 6.3.4.4.2 elicit that 60% of the natives consistently accepted mei and rejected bu in the written mode, and only 27% did so in the aural mode. Recall that there is much variation in Chinese input regarding the negation of V-zhe due to constraints of verb meaning, the mood of sentences, and so on. The frequency of -zhe in the negative forms is very low compared with that of -guo as mentioned above. Such factors could well account for L2 learners’ persistent difficulty in detecting the [+realis] feature triggered by -zhe, which could license the use of mei. As for the perfective aspect, the much wider range of the use of -le may lead to L2 learners’ indeterminacy in detecting the [+realis] feature represented in -le at the elementary stage. The multi-functionality of -le is notoriously acknowledged, since it could denote the termination or completion of an event, the change of state, or a sense of unexpectedness (Li and Thompson 1989). It is also revealed that L2 learners

238

8 Discussion

gain nativelike sensitivity to the incompatibility between mei and V-le ([+realis]) much later (advanced) than to the feature clash between bu and V-le ([+realis]) (low-intermediate). This may be because L2 learners tend to assemble mei with the [+realis] feature and bu with the [–realis] feature in the context of the perfective aspect ([+realis]). As noted in Zhang and Yan (2011), the incompatibility between mei and -le is probably not due to feature anomaly but to diachronic linguistic factors. Such irregularity may render L2 learners indecisive in the rejection of the co-occurrence of mei and V-le. These findings are in line with the results from previous studies that also attest to the role of input consistency and regularity in feature reassembly (e.g. Guijarro-Fuentes 2012; Ionin et al. 2011).

8.3.2.4

Reassembly of the [–realis] Feature Represented by Hypothetical Conditionals

The fourth category of licensing contexts is triggered by hypothetical conditional clauses, including three cases, potential complement construction in the conditional clause, descriptive complement construction in the conditional clause, and the durative aspect in conditional clauses, all of which represent the [–realis] feature, thus licensing the use of bu.5 In general, the results of our study reveal that it presents great difficulties for L2 learners to detect the [–realis] feature represented in hypothetical conditionals, which licenses the use of bu in the negation of verbal complement constructions (bu+VC/bu+V-de+C) and the durative aspect (bu+V-zhe), yet it is still possible for them to achieve nativelike configurations of the [–realis] feature with bu in this category with increased Chinese proficiency. Evidence from the judgment data indicates that both L2 learner groups were hesitant in accepting the licensed use of bu in hypothetical conditionals, in stark contrast with the robust acceptance of the natives. As shown in Sect. 6.3.5.1, L2 learners at all levels exhibited persistent uncertainty in accepting the use of bu in the negation of resultative compounds in conditionals in both modes. Nevertheless, we argue it is possible for L2 learners to acquire the use of bu for negating resultative compounds in hypothetical conditionals, as evidenced by the success of individual learners at the advanced stage (Written mode: four English speakers and five Korean speakers; Aural mode: seven English speaks and three Korean speakers). In the negation of descriptive complement constructions in conditional clauses, as shown in Sect. 6.3.5.2, L1-Korean learners tended to reject this form from the lowintermediate to the high-intermediate level in the written mode, corresponding with their rejection of “bu+V-de+C” in declarative matrix sentences. Despite an increase in their acceptance of “bu+V-de+C” in conditional clauses at the advanced level in the 5

We are aware that mei can also be used in these contexts, as illustrated in the example (115) given in Sect. 8.2.2.1. Our main purpose here is to test if L2 learners could detect the licensing function of the hypothetical context on the use of bu. Without such a context, it will be ungrammatical to place bu in front of the verbal complement phrase or the durative aspect V-zhe in declarative matrix sentences (see the analysis in Sect. 3.2, Chap. 3). Therefore, we focus on the assembly of the [–realis] with bu in this category.

8.3 The FRH and L2 Acquisition of the Mood Features Encoded …

239

written mode (a decrease in the aural mode), the performance of L1-Korean learners still diverged from the natives. In contrast, L1-English learners from the elementary to the high-intermediate level showed persistent indeterminacy in accepting “bu+Vde+C” in conditional clauses, but they eventually converged with the natives at the advanced stage, though only in the written mode. As shown in Sect. 6.3.5.3, L2 learners from both backgrounds also showed great indeterminacy in accepting the use of bu for the negation of -zhe licensed in the hypothetical conditionals, with means mostly falling between 2 and 3 in the written mode before attaining advanced proficiency. Despite convergence with the natives at the advanced stage, the individual results reveal that almost none of the L2 learners detected the licensing function of the hypothetical context ([–realis]) on the use of bu for negating V-zhe due to insensitivity to the clash between bu and -zhe ([+realis]) in the declarative matrix sentences (see Sect. 6.3.5.3). As mentioned above, only several L2 learners at the advanced stage recognized the [+realis] feature encoded with -zhe in the declarative matrix sentences, so it may take longer time for them to realize that the hypothetical context converts the [+realis] feature into [–realis], thus licensing the co-occurrence of bu and -zhe. Further evidence comes from the production data on L2 learners’ use of negation markers in conditional clauses. As presented in Sect. 7.2.5, among the limited number of the target tokens in this category, L2 learners seldom placed bu in front of verbal complement constructions. Instead, they preferred the order of “V+bu+C/V-de+bu+C” in conditional clauses as in declarative matrix sentences. As discussed in Sect. 8.2.2.1, we attribute L2 learners’ difficulty in detecting the licensing function of hypothetical context on negation to at least two factors: opaqueness of the licensor and ambiguous evidence in the input. These factors make it hard for L2 learners to detect the [–realis] feature embedded in the hypothetical context and causes considerable difficulties in the configuration of these features with negation in L2 Chinese grammar. Our findings are congruent with the results from previous studies attesting that how the features are represented affects the development of feature reassembly (Cho and Slabakova 2014; Guijarro-Fuentes 2012; Hwang and Lardiere 2013; Ionin et al. 2011; Lee and Lardiere 2016). As reviewed in Sect. 2.3.4, for instance, Cho and Slabakova (2014) consider overtness of the features as one of the contributors to L2 learners’ varying degrees of difficulty in assembling the definiteness feature in Russian. They view features that are expressed with dedicated functional morphology are overt, such as the expression of definiteness by articles in English, whereas features that are expressed by context or periphrastic means are covert. In our view, the overtness of features is relative rather than absolute. In Cho and Slabakova’s study, the definiteness feature expressed by word order is regarded as covert while the adjectival possessor-modifier is regarded as an overt way of expressing definiteness. In Chinese, the [±realis] features are covertly represented in multiple categories of context. We argue that the hypothetical context may be more covert than the other licensing contexts, including temporal information, lexical aspect, and grammatical aspect markers. The difficulty with feature reassembly in conditionals has also been reported in Ahern et al.’s (2014) research on the acquisition of the mood morphology in if-conditionals in Spanish by English speakers and French speakers.

240

8 Discussion

8.3.3 Evaluating the Explanatory and Predictive Power of the FRH in SLA The previous section has examined the reassembly of the mood features encoded with Chinese negation by L1-English and L1-Korean learners within the framework of the Feature Reassembly Hypothesis. The findings from our study provide supporting evidence for the FRH by revealing the process of initial mapping and the eventual reassembly of the [±realis] features encoded with Chinese negation in distinct categories of contexts by L2 learners. This section will evaluate the explanatory and predictive power of the FRH in comparison with the other feature-based hypotheses.

8.3.3.1

Feature Reassembly in Accounting for L2 Acquisition

The FRH postulates that feature reassembly, rather than feature selection, constitutes the main source of difficulty in L2 acquisition (Lardiere 2008, 2009a). This proposal gives a promising explanatory account for L2 acquisition as testified by the findings from the present study and a spate of previous studies (e.g., Cho and Slabakova 2014; Cho 2017; Cho and Slabakova 2017; Choi 2009; Domínguez et al. 2011; Hwang and Lardiere 2013; Ionin et al. 2011; Mai and Yuan 2016; Spinner 2013). First, the FRH addresses the problems in L2 acquisition when the target features are available in learners’ L1. The FRH claims that even if the corresponding features in L2 are also available in L1, these features may be represented in diverse ways and/or configured with different lexical items, which may present great challenges to L2 learners. As noted in Sects. 3.3 and 3.4, the distinction of realis/irrealis is associated with the specificity of indefinite noun phrases in English, and has impact on complementation in Korean, suggesting that the [±realis] features are available in these two languages. The present study shows that most of L1-English and L1-Korean learners with advanced proficiency still have problems assembling the [–realis] feature instantiated in the hypothetical context and the [+realis] feature embedded in the durative aspect marker -zhe in declarative matrix sentences in their representations of Chinese negation. This is difficult to explain by a feature-selection account, such as the Representational Deficit Hypothesis (Hawkins and Liszka 2003; Hawkins 2005) (for the review of the RDH, see Sect. 2.3.2). Lardiere (2009a) also argues that even the “same” feature selected by L1 and L2 may not precisely correspond to each other, which may further complicate the task of feature reassembly. For example, the [+plural] feature may have different interpretations in a language with singular/plural distinction from another language with singular/dual/plural distinction (p. 217). Such an observation is also borne out by the results of our study. As mentioned in Sect. 3.2.2.3, the categorization of realis and irrealis varies across languages. While English and Korean consider past events as realis, Chinese makes further distinctions between past episodic events and past habitual activities, the former being encoded with the [+realis] feature, and the latter with the [–realis] feature. Consequently, L2 learners from both backgrounds

8.3 The FRH and L2 Acquisition of the Mood Features Encoded …

241

show persistent indeterminacy with the [–realis] feature represented in past habitual activities before attaining advanced proficiency. Secondly, the FRH offers a plausible explanation for the issues regarding interpretable and uninterpretable features in L2 acquisition. Arguing against the Interpretability Hypothesis (Tsimpli and Dimitrakopoulou 2007) (for the review of this hypothesis, see Sect. 2.3.2), the FRH contends that feature interpretability is “fundamentally irrelevant” to the outcome of L2 acquisition (Lardiere 2018, p. 44). On one hand, it is pointed out that the problems in L2 acquisition are not restricted to uninterpretable features since interpretable features may also require reassembly, which has been testified in previous studies (e.g., Cho and Slabakova 2014; Domínguez et al. 2011; Spinner 2013). On the other hand, it is suggested that features are “ultimately acquirable”, including uninterpretable features (Lardiere 2009a, p. 214). This is supported by the results from our study along with previous studies (e.g., Gil and Marsden 2013; Hettiarachchi and Pires 2016). In the current research, as stated in Sect. 3.2.2.3, the [±realis] features involved with Chinese negation are assumed to be uninterpretable and thus need to be checked against the interpretable [±realis] features encoded in distinct categories of contexts. As discussed in Sects. 8.3.1 and 8.3.2, the results of our study show that it is possible for L2 learners to detect the [±realis] features in different licensing contexts and assemble the [–realis] feature with bu and the [+realis] feature with mei despite great difficulties in certain contexts as mentioned above. Furthermore, the FRH captures the dynamic process of L2 development from initial mapping to feature reassembly. Under the framework of the FRH, L2 development calls for two tasks: a mapping task and a feature reassembly task (Lardiere 2008, 2009a). At the stage of initial mapping, it is predicted that L2 learners tend to seek L2 forms corresponding to those in L1 based on their functions or meanings. In the present study, the target-deviant performance of L2 learners at lower proficiency levels suggests their early attempt at initial mapping between L1 and L2. L1 transfer effect, if there is, usually appears at this stage, as evidenced in the advantage of L1-Korean learners over L1-English learners in assembling the [–realis] feature in our study. With more exposure to the target input, L2 learners proceed with the more demanding task of feature assembly in a gradual fashion, in contrast with the “all-or-nothing” assumption of parameter setting account. As discussed in the previous section, L2 learners at higher proficiency levels fulfill nativelike assembly of the [±realis] features encoded with Chinese negation (though in certain contexts, only individual learners achieve convergence). The two-step proposal of the FRH has been applied by researchers to track the development of L2 grammar. As reviewed in Sect. 2.3.4, one representative study is Gil and Marsden’s (2013) application of the FRH to re-interpret a series of existing studies on the L2 acquisition of existential quantifiers. They conclude that the FRH offers a “superior” acquisition model that leads to a stronger explanatory account of interlanguage development beyond the initial state and that the assumptions of the FRH are “fully testable” given the finite mapping possibilities and ways of feature reassembly (pp. 144–145). It is evident that the FRH puts strong emphasis on feature assembly in accounting for L2 acquisition because “appealing simply to the parametric (non)selection of

242

8 Discussion

features is too simplistic” (Lardiere 2008, p. 111). This, however, has incurred much controversy among L2 researchers. As pointed out by White (2009), the FRH seems to focus on situations where L1 and L2 are presumed to share features and dismiss the case of feature addition when the target feature is not selected in learners’ L1. It is presumed that new feature selection would constitute a special case of feature reassembly (p. 345). Domínguez et al. (2011) share the same concern about whether feature selection is always successful as assumed by the FRH and whether this process can cause problems in L2 acquisition as well. In our view, the FRH seems to have a broader criterion for feature selection than other feature-based approaches. According to Lardiere (2008), a feature is selected if this feature is associated with syntactic computations in a language, regardless whether it is realized “inflectionally or lexically, or even overtly realized or not” (p. 111). In contrast, the Representational Deficit Hypothesis posits that a feature is selected if it is morpho-syntactically specified via overt morphemes in the syntax (Hawkins and Liszka 2003; Hawkins 2005). As reviewed in Sect. 2.2.3, Hawkins and Liszka (2003) hold that English selects the [±past] features in finite T with the consequence of obligatory inflections on the verb, whereas Chinese does not on since verbs are not marked for tense in this language. In view of little consensus among researchers over this issue, Lardiere (2009a) maintains that to decide the specific criteria for whether a particular feature is selected by a language is a methodological problem, which may be as arbitrary as deciding on the criteria for whether a feature is successfully acquired. Diverging from the criterion of overt morphemes in the RDH, she suggests that the interpretation of some features may not be associated with “particular distinct morpho-lexical items” but with certain word orders or other lexical items (Lardiere 2009a, p. 184). Citing Mandarin Chinese as an example, Lardiere contends that Chinese indeed selects a [+definite] feature in D and this feature is instantiated in demonstratives and nominal expressions, and implicated with the expression of plural in Chinese, even though a specific definite article like the in English is not available in this language. Under the above assumption of the FRH, to some extent feature selection has become a trivial matter since it is hard to argue that a feature is not selected in a language without thorough investigation. The feature may be covertly represented by a certain lexical item or word order or discourse context, with a subtle interaction with a certain structure. As reviewed in Sect. 2.3.4, Mai and Yuan (2016) examined the assembly of the feature bundle [+past, +telic, +given] encoded with the shi…de cleft construction. They assume the selection of the [+past] feature in Chinese, contra the assumption of Hawkins and Liszka (2003) mentioned above. Along the same line, the present study has assumed the selection of the [±realis] features in Chinese, English, and Korean, despite lack of dedicated morphemes for these features in these languages. As stated in Sect. 3.2.2.3, these features can be covertly represented by varied categories of devices, including temporal information, lexical aspects,

8.3 The FRH and L2 Acquisition of the Mood Features Encoded …

243

grammatical aspect markers, and hypothetical conditionals.6 More importantly, the [±realis] features are encoded with the two primary negation markers bu/mei in Chinese. By contrast, in English, as noted in Sect. 3.3, the [±realis] features are not associated with negation (not), but with the interpretation of noun specificity in that indefinite objects in realis contexts tend to be interpreted as referring to specific entities (Chafe et al. 1995; Givón 1995). In Korean, as noted in Sect. 3.4, while the [–realis] feature is partially encoded with the negator mos (negative modal), the realis/irrealis distinction is closely involved with complementation in that the two nominalizers in complement clauses, (u)m and ki, are used in realis and irrealis contexts, respectively (Horie 2000).

8.3.3.2

Feature Detectability and the Constraints on Feature Reassembly

The FRH claims that detectable feature contrast is acquirable in principle (Lardiere 2009a). That is, target-like feature reassembly is expected to be attained ultimately. Consistent with this assumption, the present study has attested that the [±realis] features encoded with Chinese negation are acquirable by L2 learners with increased L2 proficiency. However, the variability in the process of feature reassembly is not well predicted under the current framework of the FRH. As shown in Sect. 8.3.2, the process of feature reassembly is not parallel across different categories of contexts that represent the [±realis] features. L2 learners readily establish target-like configurations in some contexts (the experiential aspect), yet in general they still diverge from the natives even at the advanced stage in other contexts (e.g., past habitual activities, hypothetical context). It appears that the FRH makes no clear commitment to the detectability of features and does not quite endorse the role of objective properties such as perceptual salience of features in predicting feature detectability. Lardiere (2007b) holds a pessimistic attitude toward the factors comprising perceptual salience of target structures suggested by Long (2003), including frequency, communicative value, and semantic weight. She contends that these factors can hardly be quantified like entities but are “a function of individual learners’ own perceptions filtered through the lens of their own experience, processing abilities, and pre-existing linguistic representations” (Lardiere 2007b, p. 233). In an ambivalent tone, Lardiere (2009a) suggests that the basis of the detectability of features is the observation of formal contrast and “to the extent formal morphological and word order contrasts are in fact detectable to adult L2 learners” (p. 215). Moreover, Lardiere (2009b, p. 410) contends that it is “the wrong distinction to make in terms of perceptual salience”, against the proposal of Birdsong (2009) and Archibald (2009), who suggest that feature strength or perceptual salience may account for the difference in detecting 6 There is a set of modal auxiliaries in Chinese, such as hui, keyi, neng, etc. They are assumed to encode the [–realis] feature (see Table 3.1 in Sect. 3.2.2.3). The negation of modal auxiliaries is not examined in the present study.

244

8 Discussion

interpretable and uninterpretable features. Lardiere argues that case is usually considered as an uninterpretable feature, but pronominal case distinctions are salient and easily acquirable. By contrast, tense and number are considered interpretable, yet past tense marking and plural marking are often optionally omitted by L2 learners. Despite more semantic content and overt presence, interpretable features may also vary in their detectability. Lardiere also shows disagreement with Slabakova (2009)’s claim of the role of overtness in the representation of features above based on evidence of the persistent variability in the production of L2 morphology at the late stages of development. With these arguments, Lardiere concludes that more research is required to explore whether and to what degree of variability it will occur for particular target structures in the L2 grammar of particular learners (Lardiere 2009b, p. 420). While Lardiere’s conservative position is reasonable, this may weaken the predictive power of the FRH to a certain degree. Based on this hypothesis, we make general predictions about the initial mapping and feature reassembly in L2 acquisition of the [±realis] features encoded with Chinese negation. As commented by White (2009, p. 347), the FRH offers a plausible “post hoc explanation” of some L2 phenomena, yet this approach needs to be reinforced with more predictive power, such as predictions about whether certain features are harder to re-assemble than others, or whether certain L1-L2 combinations require more reassembly than others, etc. Similarly, Montrul and Yoon (2009) also raise questions about whether there is a logical order in the acquisition of features and what factors may constrain feature reassembly. Lardiere (2009b) acknowledges the legitimacy of these comments and questions, yet she still maintains that “the degree of difficulty for re-assembly in one direction for L1x acquiring L2y may not be the same as that for L1y acquiring L2x” (p. 420). As mentioned in Sect. 2.3.3, the most recent work by Lardiere et al. (2018) reviewed the factors underlying feature detectability. She recognizes the association of feature detectability with perceptual salience of the target input and input frequency attested in previous studies and stresses the role of the complexity of co-occurrence conditions on the expression of a certain feature. Nevertheless, Lardiere argues that what matters more is how accurately L2 learners could predict the features in particular contexts based on L1 knowledge. In our view, the emphasis on learner’s expectation is not to dismiss the role of objective properties of the target input but consider the complex interaction between L1 knowledge and L2 input in feature detectability. Referring to the results of our study examined within the FRH in Sects. 8.3.1 and 8.3.2, we have revealed multiple factors that may affect feature detectability and thus constrain feature reassembly. First, the frequency of the lexical item involved with the target feature plays a significant role. Although it is indeed impractical to report the frequency of the relevant item in the input received by L2 learners, the frequency of this item in the target language can still shed a light on this issue. For example, since -guo has a much higher frequency than -zhe in negative sentences in Chinese, we assume that L2 learners are exposed to more input of items with the structure of “mei+V-guo” than “mei-V-zhe”, which accounts for their earlier assembly of the [+realis] feature with mei in the context of the experiential aspect yet target-deviant configuration in the context of the durative aspect. This also suggests that the detectability of features is affected by the frequency of the lexical form

8.3 The FRH and L2 Acquisition of the Mood Features Encoded …

245

representing this feature rather than simply the fact that this feature is overtly realized as morphemes, be it lexical or functional. Second, consistency of the association between the target feature and the lexical form may affect the detectability of the feature and its reassembly. Take the [–realis] feature in Chinese for example, it can be triggered either by absolute future events or past habitual activities. As noted in Sect. 3.2.2.3, absolute future events are categorized as typical irrealis contexts, there is a relatively stable and regular link between future events and the [–realis] feature, which licenses the use of bu. By contrast, habitual activities are considered as untypical irrealis contexts (Zhang and Yan 2010). While past episodic events are typically associated with the [+realis] feature, past habitual activities represent the [–realis] feature. Such inconsistency may obscure L2 learners in detecting the [–realis] feature encoded in past habitual activities, resulting in the delay in assembling this feature with bu until the advanced stage. However, they show sensitivity to the [–realis] feature represented in absolute future events at an earlier stage. Another example is the [+realis] feature represented by the perfective aspect marker -le suffixed to the verb. According to Zhang and Yan (2010), although mei is licensed by the [+realis] feature, the verb-final -le needs to be deleted in the negative sentence due to diachronic language development (for details, see Sect. 3.2.3.3). What confounds the picture further is the complicated functions of the particle -le. While mei does not co-occur with verb-final -le, it could co-occur with the sentence-final -le, which denotes change of information (Li and Thompson 1989). Such irregularity in the matching between the feature and lexical form in the target input results in the late acquisition of the subtle interaction between mei and the perfective aspect marker. Furthermore, L2 proficiency is another important contributor to feature reassembly. It is with sufficient input and increased proficiency that L2 learners could proceed from initial mapping to ultimate reassembly of features. Presumably, there is no sufficient negative evidence in the target input informing L2 learners of illicit association of a certain feature and lexical forms. Although corrective feedback may be available in classroom-based L2 instruction, it is occasional and unsystematic. For example, in Chinese natural input, there is no direct negative evidence for the ungrammatical use of mei for negating statives. Besides, even if L2 learners fail to assemble the [±realis] features with bu/mei, this will not lead to parsing problems in their interpretation of these two negation markers. In line with Mai and Yuan (2016), we also follow Yang’s (2004) acquisition model by suggesting that feature assembly is driven by statistical learning. This model assumes that language acquisition is motivated by “domain-general probabilistic learning mechanisms” with cumulative input and innate Universal Grammar (Yang 2004, p. 451). With prior linguistic knowledge, L2 learners keep track of the statistical information in the input regarding the co-occurrence of a certain feature and lexical items. In the acquisition of Chinese negation, L2 learners must compute the probabilistic information of the distinct lexical environments in which bu or mei appear. Such a task cannot be fulfilled without sufficient Chinese input and higher proficiency. This explains, for instance, why elementary L2 learners are insensitive to the incompatibility between mei and

246

8 Discussion

statives ([–realis]), whereas those with higher proficiency achieve nativelike sensitivity. L2 learners also track distinctive features that may be associated with certain lexical items. As discussed in Sect. 8.3.2.1, mei is frequently used to negate past events, which represents a typical realis situation, so L2 learners tend to associate the [+past] feature with the use of mei by accepting mei for negating past events and rejecting mei for negating future events. It is not until the advanced stage that they come to realize that this feature is overridden by the [–realis] feature in the negation of habitual activities, as evidenced by their convergence with the natives in accepting the use of bu in this context. Nevertheless, the advanced group still show indeterminacy in rejecting the illicit use of mei, suggesting that more indirect negative evidence from the input is required. Finally, L1 feature configurations may also exert an influence on L2 feature reassembly. This is predicted by the FRH. As analyzed in Sects. 8.3.2.1 and 8.3.2.2, L1-Korean learners seem to take a lead in assembling the [–realis] feature in certain contexts (statives, future events) at the initial stages. This is probably due to the similar selection of this feature to wire with negation in Korean and Chinese despite only partial similarity, as shown in Table 8.2. Moreover, L2 learners from both groups have great difficulty de-linking the [+past] feature with the [+realis] feature in the context of past habitual activities. We speculate this might be because these two features are closely related in learner’s L1 (English/Korean) and the [+realis] feature is prototypically associated with the [+past] feature typologically (Elliott 2000). While Chinese partitions past events into past episodic events ([+realis]) and past habitual activities ([–realis]), English and Korean attach the [+realis] feature with past events holistically. It should be noted that the above factors interact closely with each other in the process of feature reassembly and L2 development. According to Gass et al. (2007), the effect of input frequency depends on L2 learners’ noticing of the input, which is subject to factors such as L1 influence. In the present study, we speculate that L1-Korean learners’ earlier assembly of the [-realis] feature with bu in the negation of statives is due to their awareness of the subtle interaction between negation and lexical aspect, which is also instantiated in Korean negation. By contrast, L1-English learners might dismiss such an interaction by simply storing some formulaic chunks early from the elementary stage due to the high frequency of certain items in the input (e.g. bu zhidao/xihuan). As will be discussed in the following Sect. 8.5, access to those formulaic chunks facilitated L1-English learners’ judgment in the aural mode but unstable performance was revealed in the written mode owing to the fuzziness of the explicit knowledge about the negation of statives. However, with longer time of exposure to the target input, the effect of L1 influence could be overridden by L2 learners’ increased proficiency. As mentioned above, nativelike configurations of the features encoded with bu/mei could be established in highly-proficient L2 learners’ Chinese grammar (e.g. the negation of statives). To sum up, based on the findings of the present study, the predictive power of the FRH can be reinforced by incorporating the multiple factors underlying feature detectability and reassembly in L2 acquisition, including the frequency and consistency of the association between the feature and lexical items, L2 proficiency, and

8.4 Comparison of the IH and the FRH in Accounting for L2 Acquisition …

247

L1 feature configurations. These factors all together contribute to the variability in the reassembly of L2 features.

8.3.4 Summary This section has discussed the results of our study within the framework of the FRH. It turns out that the FRH offers a satisfactory explanation for our findings on the acquisition of the [±realis] features encoded with Chinese negation by L2 learners. However, the predictive power of the FRH could be strengthened by taking into consideration the constraints on the detectability of features and the process of feature reassembly. A closer examination of the variability in assembling the [±realis] features in different licensing contexts by L2 learners has revealed multiple factors affecting feature detectability and reassembly, including L2 proficiency, and frequency and consistency of the lexical form encoded with the target features, as well as L1 feature configurations.

8.4 Comparison of the IH and the FRH in Accounting for L2 Acquisition of Chinese Negation In Sects. 8.2 and 8.3, we have examined the assumptions of the IH and the FRH with the findings of the present study on the acquisition of Chinese negation by L1-English and L1-Korean learners, respectively. This section will make a comparison of these two hypotheses in accounting for L2 acquisition. Driven by the IH and FRH, the present study has investigated L2 acquisition at interfaces involved with Chinese negation and the reassembly of the [±realis] features encoded with negation markers bu/mei by L2 learners. It has been shown in our discussions above that we could have a better understanding of the underlying variables in L2 development and the possible source of difficulties in L2 acquisition. By focusing on interfaces and features respectively, the IH and the FRH have adopted a more fine-grained approach to L2 acquisition studies (White 2009). These two hypotheses are among the most influential L2 acquisition theories in the generative approach and have spurred a spate of studies on L2 acquisition at interfaces and the acquisition of L2 features up to the present (see the review in Rothman and Slabakova 2017). Comparatively speaking, the IH is in a better position to capture the contrast between structures that only involve syntactic constraints and those involving crossdomain factors, i.e., narrow syntax and interface structures. Interfaces are further distinguished between and external interfaces, while the FRH seems to disregard such distinctions. Based on the IH, we have not only identified narrow syntax regarding the position of negation markers in verbal complement constructions, but also multiple

248

8 Discussion

internal interfaces regarding the semantic/morphological constraints on Chinese negation, including the syntax-semantics interface, the syntax-morphology interface, and the syntax-semantics-morphology interface. Such a categorization enables us to locate the source of possible difficulties in L2 acquisition at different interfaces. For example, as discussed in Sect. 8.2.2.1, it is found that L2 learners have great difficulty with the negation of past habitual activities and the durative aspect (-zhe), as well as the placement of negation markers in conditional clauses. In contrast, within the framework of the FRH, the multiple constraints on Chinese negation, considered as semantic or morphological by its nature in the IH, are unified by the [±realis] features, as shown in Table 8.1. On the other hand, the FRH seems to give a more promising account for L2 development patterns. With data from Chinese learners ranging from elementary to advanced proficiency level, the present study has documented the dynamic process of L2 acquisition of Chinese negation. As seen in Table 8.2, we make a comparison of the feature configurations of negation in Chinese, English, and Korean. The results of L2 learners’ performance at different developmental stages are interpreted by referring to the stage of initial mapping and the stage of feature reassembly as a function of increased proficiency. However, as stressed in Sorace (2011), the IH applies to the most proficient L2 speakers since it aims to locate the source of residue optionality in end-state L2 grammar and the ultimate attainment of L2 learners. In other words, the IH seems to pay less attention to the developmental stages of L2. This has been questioned by some L2 researchers (e.g., Lardiere 2011) and many of the studies based on the IH include participants with lower proficiency. This study has also provided empirical evidence for the re-assessment of the IH and the FRH in the case of L2 acquisition of Chinese negation. The IH predicts that L2 learners have problems integrating cross-domain information in interface structures. Not completely in line with this prediction, the results of our research have shown much variability in L2 acquisition at interfaces, lending support to the variable-dependent approach to interface vulnerability (Yuan 2010) rather than the domain-wide assumption of the IH. In view of the conflicting results of previous studies, it seems too rigid to make holistic predictions regarding L2 acquisition at interfaces. As suggested by Domínguez (2013), the nature of the interface does not determine whether it is problematic or not in L2 acquisition. That is, what kind of constraints are involved with the target structure, syntactic, semantic, or pragmatic, does not necessarily point to the outcome of L2 acquisition. Shifting the focus on interfaces to features, the FRH proposes that feature reassembly constitutes the main source of difficulties for L2 learners, yet it predicts the possibility of ultimate success in the acquisition of L2 features. This has been largely confirmed by the results of our study, but the nonparallel reassembly of the target features represented in different categories of contexts motivates us to explore the contributors to feature detectability and strengthen the predictive power of the FRH, including the properties of the target input, L2 proficiency, and L1 feature configurations. As mentioned in Chap. 1, Domínguez (2013) suggests that approaches to L2 acquisition such as the IH “focus on mapping issues, assuming that feature selection is not problematic for L2 speakers”, whereas approaches such as the FRH “do not focus

8.5 The Representation of Explicit and Implicit Knowledge in L2 Grammar

249

on issues arising from the need to form new mappings” (p. 222). The present study has been framed in the IH and the FRH, with an attempt to interpret the acquisition of Chinese negation by L2 learners from different perspectives. By doing so, we have a better understanding of L2 acquisition at narrow syntax and interfaces and refine the IH with a variable-dependent approach. Meanwhile, we gain more insight into the source of difficulties confronted with L2 learners in the process of feature reassembly and suggest that the predictive power of the FRH should be reinforced by considering the factors that affect feature detectability more systematically.

8.5 The Representation of Explicit and Implicit Knowledge in L2 Grammar As reviewed in Sect. 2.4, it is presumed that L2 learners have a dichotomous representation of explicit and implicit knowledge of the target language and different language tasks may affect how they draw on their linguistic knowledge. Explicit knowledge is conscious, declarative, and accessible only in controlled tasks, whereas implicit knowledge is intuitive, procedural, and accessible in spontaneous tasks (Ellis et al. 2009). The present study has investigated whether task modality plays a role in L2 learners’ retrieval of their knowledge of Chinese negation by employing a written GJT and an aural GJT. As stated in (8) in Sect. 5.3.3, L2 learners may have a better performance in the written mode than in the aural mode since they could resort to explicit knowledge in the written task in which learners presumably have more control than in the aural task. This section will examine whether this prediction is confirmed by the results of our study and discuss L2 learners’ performances across the two modes in their judgment of negation in Chinese.

8.5.1 Access to Explicit Knowledge in the Written Task In line with our prediction, the results from the experimental study revealed a facilitation effect of explicit knowledge in L2 learners’ judgment of Chinese negation in the written task in certain categories at the preliminary stages, including the position of negation markers in verbal complement constructions and the negation of the experiential aspect (-guo). It turns out that L2 learners show more sensitivity to the anomalous word order related to negation markers when the test stimuli are presented visually. Evidence from the judgment data reveals that L1-English and L1-Korean learners from the elementary to intermediate level exhibited more determinacy in rejecting the illicit position of mei in “*V+mei+C” in the written mode than in the aural mode, as seen in Sect. 6.3.1.1. Besides, as shown in Sect. 6.3.1.2, elementary and low-intermediate L1-Korean learners, but not L1-English learners, also rejected the ungrammatical

250

8 Discussion

“*bu+VC” more rigidly in the written mode than in the aural mode. Despite no significant difference found in L1-English learners’ judgment of “*bu+VC” across the two modes at each level, the results still bear out that they gained nativelike sensitivity at the low-intermediate level in the written mode, earlier than their convergence with the natives in the aural mode (at the intermediate level). In addition, as reported in Sect. 6.3.1.3, low-intermediate L1-Korean learners were more determinate in the rejection of “bu+V-de+C” in the written mode than in the aural mode. A similar task modality effect is also found in the judgment of negation and the experiential aspect marker -guo. As shown in Sect. 6.3.4.3, low-intermediate L2 learners from both backgrounds rejected the illicit co-occurrence of bu and V-guo with more confidence in the written mode than in the aural mode. These findings are compatible with previous studies that attest higher accuracy of L2 learners’ judgments in the written mode than the aural mode (Haig 1991; Johnson 1992; Murphy 1997). As reviewed in Sect. 2.4, explicit knowledge is accessible through controlled processing, while implicit knowledge is retrievable through automatic processing (Ellis et al. 2009). It has also been empirically validated that written stimuli tend to invite the use of explicit knowledge, whereas aural stimuli tend to trigger the use of implicit knowledge (Loewen 2009; Spada et al. 2015; Kim and Nam 2017). In the aural GJT task, the respondents need to process the evanescent aural stimuli immediately to parse the whole sentence (Anderson 1980; Danks 1980; Rost 1990). Although learners have access to implicit knowledge in this mode, lower proficiency learners presumably have not established nativelike implicit knowledge about the position of negation markers in verbal complement constructions or the interaction between negation and aspect markers. As suggested by Ellis (2009), L2 learners’ implicit knowledge is subject to their L2 development. Therefore, they could not detect the ungrammaticality in the test stimuli automatically, resulting in their indeterminacy in rejecting the ungrammatical word orders and the illicit co-occurrence of bu and -guo in the aural task. By contrast, in the written mode, L2 learners have sufficient time to pay close attention to the syntactic position of negation markers and the choice of negation markers for different aspect markers. Unlike in the aural mode, they could re-read the sentence in the written mode and exploit their explicit knowledge of negation markers in Chinese to make the judgment, which may account for their better performance in the written task. It is noteworthy that task modality only has an impact on the performance of L2 learners at lower proficiency levels (before high-intermediate7 ) but not on the performance of higher proficiency L2 learners. This is congruent with the account of the explicit-implicit interface (Smith 1981; DeKeyser 1998; Ellis 1993), according to which explicit knowledge can be converted into implicit knowledge through practice. With sufficient target input, L2 learners at higher proficiency levels may have established automatized explicit knowledge of Chinese negation, which, as suggested by 7

Elementary L2 learners may not necessarily display such as a task modality effect since they have neither explicit nor implicit knowledge of the target structure and show indeterminacy in both modes, such as their judgment of “*bu+V-le”, with means falling between 2 and 3 (see Figs. 6.35 and 6.36 in Sect. 6.3.4.1).

8.5 The Representation of Explicit and Implicit Knowledge in L2 Grammar

251

DeKeyser (2003), can be considered as functionally equivalent to implicit knowledge. Equipped with such knowledge, L2 learners could thus make as accurate judgments in the aural mode just as in the written mode. Nevertheless, we remain cautious with such interpretations since no exact time limit was set in the aural GJT in the present study. Another interesting issue is why the task modality effect is mainly manifest in L2 learners’ judgment on the syntactic position of negation markers, but not in other categories, such as the choice of negation markers in different temporal frameworks. We surmise that this might be because L2 learners are more likely to construct declarative rules for the placement of Chinese negation markers in verbal complement constructions. Moreover, such rules may be explicitly taught in the instruction of Chinese.8 Ellis (2006) makes a distinction between grammatical structures/features based on whether they can be explained with a transparent rule. For example, plural marker -s and past tense marker -ed are considered as features with “ready rules-of-thumb” and are probably taught explicitly (p. 458). Thus, L2 learners may have explicit knowledge of these features. By contrast, hypothetical conditionals and dative alternations in English are formally and conceptually complicated, so it is difficult to formulate “a simple rule of thumb” without reference to technical metalanguage (p. 457).9 This type of structure is presumed to be acquired through implicit learning. Based on this distinction, it is supposed to be easy to describe the surface word order of a negative sentence than to explain the semantic constraints on the choice of negation markers, including temporal information, lexical aspect, and hypothetical context. More crucially, L2 learners are expected to establish an accurate representation of the rules of word order, such as “the negation marker mei should precede verbal phrase”, as in “mei+VC”, or “the negation marker bu can be inserted between the verb and the adjective to express possibility”, as in “V+bu+C”. It is due to access to such accurate explicit knowledge that L2 learners have a better performance the written mode in the judgment of the position of negation markers in verbal complement constructions. However, even if L2 learners may attempt to induce a rule such as “mei is used for negating a past event”,10 such explicit knowledge is not always reliable since bu should be used to negate past habitual activities. As presented in Sect. 3.2.2, the interaction between negation and time as well as aspect markers is quite complicated. 8

In one of the most influential Chinese textbooks, New Practical Chinese Reader Textbook (Liu, 2007), there is an introduction of the rules for the negation of descriptive complement construction, saying “the structural particle -de must be placed between the verb and the complement of state; to create the negative form, bu should be placed before the complement of state (p. 15)”. Such rules are also explicitly presented as “V-de+Adv (hen/bu)+Adj”. Similarly, regarding the resultative complement, it says “the particle -le or any objects must be placed behind the resultative complement, and mei(you) is commonly used in the negation” (p. 87). 9 According to Han and Ellis (1998), explicit knowledge can be categorized into analysed knowledge and metalanguage. The former refers to “knowledge about L2 items and structures of which learners are aware though not necessarily fully conscious”, whereas the latter is about the technical language used to analyse or describe a language (pp. 5–6). It is suggested that analysed language can be independent of whether the learner has acquired the technical terms of metalanguage. 10 According to our informal communications with some of the participants after the experiment, they reported that they would use mei in the past time, and bu in the non-past time.

252

8 Discussion

It has been reported in Sects. 6.3.2 and 6.3.4 that L2 learners were quite indecisive in rejecting the incorrect use of mei for negating past habitual activities and the illicit co-occurrence of mei and -le/-zhe in both modes. In addition, elementary L2 learners also exhibited uncertainty in the rejection of bu and -le in both modes. Such findings seem to suggest that L2 learners do not have precise explicit knowledge about the use of bu/mei in these contexts. Consequently, there is no facilitation effect of the written mode in their judgment on these categories. The task modality effect is also captured in low-intermediate L1-English and L1Korean learners’ rejection of “*bu+V-guo”, suggesting that that L2 learners have developed some explicit knowledge about the negation of V-guo. This also indicates that it is not that only syntactic knowledge could be analyzed and represented as explicit knowledge in L2 grammar. Rather, L2 morphological knowledge can also be represented explicitly with consistent and frequent evidence in the target input. As discussed in Sect. 8.2.2.2, unlike the negation of -le and -zhe, there is high consistency in using mei for the negation of V-guo. Given such evidence, L2 learners may abstract a declarative rule that “mei should be used for negating V-guo”.11 This rule is represented in L2 grammar as early as at the elementary level, as evidenced in their nativelike sensitivity in rejecting “*bu+V-guo” at this stage in the written mode, earlier than their convergence with the natives in the aural mode (intermediate level) (see Sect. 6.3.4.3). However, access to such knowledge is constrained by tasks with different cognitive loads. Recall in Sect. 8.2.2.2, we have mentioned that Wen and Schwartz (2014) also investigated the acquisition of negation-aspect interactions in L2 Chinese. They found that it is not until the advanced stage that L2 learners establish nativelike sensitivity to the interaction between negation markers (bu/mei) and aspect markers (-le/-guo). The discrepancy in the timeline of L2 development between our study and Wen and Schwartz’s study may be attributed to the different tasks employed in these two studies. The real-time self-paced reading task in Wen and Schwartz’s study is supposed to be more demanding than the aural GJT task in the present study, and even more than the written GJT task. Taken together, these findings indicate that the retrieval of L2 knowledge is highly dependent on the cognitive loads required by the tasks (Ellis 2005, 2006), in line with the results of previous studies (Jiang 2004, 2007; Hopp 2007, 2010).

8.5.2 Access to Implicit Knowledge in the Aural Task Against our prediction, the results of our study seem to show that access to implicit knowledge may also bring benefits to L2 learners’ performance in the more 11

The grammar rules for the negation of V-guo and V-zhe are also introduced in the New Practical Chinese Reader Textbook (Liu, 2007) mentioned above, saying that “the negative of -guo is mei(you)…guo” (p. 175) and “the negative form of V-zhe+O is mei(you)+V-zhe” (p. 239). L2 learners’ difficulty with the negation of -zhe suggests that even though the explicit instruction of rules may not necessarily lead to their representation of relevant explicit knowledge in their grammar.

8.5 The Representation of Explicit and Implicit Knowledge in L2 Grammar

253

demanding aural task in certain categories, including the judgment of the position of bu in descriptive complement construction and the negation of statives. The results of our study suggest that L1-English learners rely on formulaic chunks before formulating accurate explicit knowledge of certain L2 structures or features at the early stages. As reported in Sect. 6.3.1.3, L1-English learners attained nativelike sensitivity to the illicit word order in “bu+V-de+C” as early as at the elementary level in the aural mode, earlier than their convergence with the natives at the intermediate level in the written mode. Besides, as seen in Sect. 6.3.3.1, L1-English learners gained nativelike sensitivity in the rejection of “mei+statives” as early as at the elementary level, while they exhibited a U-shaped pattern with convergence with the natives at the low-intermediate level and the advanced level. According to the distinction between explicit and implicit knowledge, as stated in Sect. 2.4.1, implicit knowledge is accessible in spontaneous language use, such as the aural GJT task, whereas explicit knowledge can be retrieved in planned language tasks with more cognitive resources available, such as the written GJT task. Ellis (1993) suggests that implicit knowledge is comprised of formulaic knowledge and rule-based knowledge, the former consisting of “ready-made chunks of language”, while the latter consisting of “generalized and abstract structures that have been internalized” (p. 93). It is possible that L1-English learners at the early stages simply rely on formulaic chunks to make the judgments in the aural mode. As suggested by Ellis et al. (2003), learning of abstract constructions “begins with chunking and committing formulae to memory” (p. 12). It has been observed that unanalyzed chunks and formulae characterize both L1 and L2 acquisition at the beginning stage (see the review in Ellis 2003). Recall that in Sect. 7.3.3.1, we reported that among the seventeen target items regarding the negation of statives produced by elementary L1-English learners, ten of them (59%) are bu zhidao, “do not know”, and six (35%) are bu xihuan, “do not like”. We argue that the high accuracy in their production may be due to the use of such formulaic expressions. Similarly, elementary L1-English learners might access chunks stored in their memory to make judgments. Another contributing factor may be that the retrieval of explicit knowledge in the written task might have an adverse effect on L2 learners’ performance in the judgment. If they had established precise explicit knowledge about the negation of descriptive complement constructions (“V-de+C”) and statives, they would have performed better in the written mode, just as the facilitation effect of explicit knowledge discussed in the Sect. 8.5.1, or at least similarly in both modes. In our study, L1-English learners’ judgments of “*bu+V-de+C” and “*mei+statives” were not random, rather, they tended to reject these illicit forms in both modes,12 as seen in Sects. 6.3.1.2 and 6.3.3.1. In view of this, we suppose that they might have developed some preliminary knowledge of the use of negation markers in these situations, but such explicit knowledge is not robust enough at the lower proficiency levels, leading to their uncertainty in the written task. As pointed by Ellis (2006, 2009), L2 explicit knowledge is often fuzzy and inaccurate, especially in more complicated structures 12

An exception is intermediate L1-English learners’ rating of “*mei+statives” in the written mode (M = 2.25). This issue will be discussed in Sect. 8.5.3.

254

8 Discussion

or features. In the previous section, we argue that the rule of syntactic word order should be easy to deduce for L2 learners. This argument should be revised in that complex structures may obscure lower-proficiency L2 learners. While negation in the resultative/potential complement constructions involves the verb and the complement (“mei+VC” and “V+bu+C”), there is an additional particle -de in the descriptive complement constructions (“V-de+bu+C”). The results from L2 production data in the corpora also show that the frequency of “V-de+bu+C” is much lower than the other two constructions (see Table 7.1 in Sect. 7.2.1), suggesting that L2 learners tend to avoid using this structure in production. In the case of “bu/*mei+statives”, the underlying rule is not quite transparent to L2 learners due to the subtlety of the semantic constraints of statives on Chinese negation (more discussion of this in Sect. 8.5.3). One question remains why the pattern of better performance in the aural mode than the written mode is only observed in L1-English learners but not in L1-Korean learners. As mentioned in Sect. 8.5.1, low-intermediate L1-Korean learners rejected the illicit “bu+V-de+C” more firmly in the written mode than in the aural mode, showing a reversed pattern to the judgment of L1-English learners. As mentioned in Sect. 3.4, negation markers follow the main verb in the long-form negation in Korean, similar to the post-verbal position of bu in “V-de+bu+C” in surface structure. By contrast, English negation marker not, with the do-support, precedes the main verb, as in “he did not run very fast”. Such surface similarity may play a facilitative role in L1-Korean learners’ formulation of explicit knowledge about the word order in “V-de+bu+C”, contributing to their convergence with the natives readily at the low-intermediate level in both modes. As for the case of statives, unlike L1English learners, L1-Korean learners at all levels performed similarly across the two modes and they gained nativelike sensitivity in the rejection of “*mei+statives” at the low-intermediate level (see Sect. 6.3.3.1). This might be attributed to positive transfer from L1 on the part of L1-Korean learners. As mentioned in Sect. 8.2.2.1, similar to negation in Chinese, Korean negation also partially bears the [–realis] feature and interacts with lexical semantics. The results of our study suggest that L1-Korean learners attain strong sensitivity to the clash between mei and the [–realis] feature represented by statives at an earlier stage, having an advantage over L1-English learners. In terms of the representation of L2 knowledge, L1-Korean learners may be more receptive to the lexical constraint on the choice of negation markers in Chinese and they establish a more robust representation of explicit/implicit knowledge regarding the negation of statives. The role of L1 transfer in the representation of explicit/implicit knowledge has also been shown in previous studies (e.g., Tokowicz and MacWhinney 2005; Kotz 2009; Hopp 2010). Unexpectedly, task modality effect is also revealed in Chinese natives’ judgment of certain categories of negative sentences in our study. As seen in Sects. 6.3.1 and 6.3.2, Chinese natives rejected the illicit “*V+mei+C” and the use of mei for negating future events more rigidly in the aural mode than in the written mode. Such results are unexpected since these illicit forms are not acceptable in Chinese, as reflected in their aural judgment. One speculation for the cause of such inaccurate judgments in the

8.5 The Representation of Explicit and Implicit Knowledge in L2 Grammar

255

written mode is that the native group in our study did not read the test sentences wordby-word as L2 learners did but made their judgments of the ungrammatical sentences holistically without paying attention to the details of word order. As a result, they simply ignored the transposed position of negation marker mei and the illicit use of mei in negating future events in certain cases in the written mode. Interestingly, in an opposite direction, Chinese natives rejected the use of bu for negation past episodic events with more determinacy in the written mode (M = 1.13) than in the aural mode (M = 1.58) though they tended to reject the use of bu in both modes. As suggested by Wang (2011), volitional meaning may be triggered by stress and licenses the use of bu. This might be why Chinese natives wavered slightly in rejecting bu in the aural mode. More research is needed before a firm conclusion can be reached.

8.5.3 U-Shaped Behaviour in the Representation of Explicit Knowledge Interestingly, as mentioned above, a U-shaped curve is displayed in L1-English learners’ judgment of “*mei+statives” in the written mode. Despite an early convergence with the natives at the low-intermediate level, there was a decline in their determinacy in rejecting the illicit use of mei at the (high-) intermediate levels, and yet a final convergence at the advanced stage. Compared with their steady performance in the aural mode, such fluctuating development in the written mode probably reflects their effort at constructing explicit knowledge regarding the negation of statives in offline tasks. As shown in Table 7.5 in Sect. 7.2.3.1, the stative verbs in lower proficiency L2 learners’ production of Chinese negation are confined to several high-frequency verbs, such as zhidao, “know”, and xihuan, “like”, which are among the test stimuli of our study (see Appendix 1). It is likely that they simply store up formulaic strings such as “bu-zhidao, bu-xihuan in the lexicon by “chunking” in terms of psychological theories (Ellis et al. 2003), resulting in their nativelike performance in the judgment and high accuracy in the production at the early stages. With increased proficiency, there is an expansion of L2 vocabularies and they may encounter seemingly conflicting evidence in the target input with the licit use of mei for negating statives in certain contexts. For example, bu should be used to negate the stative verb renshi, “know” to express “A does not know B”, but when one intends to express that “A has not got to know B”, mei can also be used as exemplified in (118) (cited from BCC corpus13 ), though it is also felicitous to use bu in such cases. Such a usage is restricted in that the adverb hai or the mood particle ne are often used. Given such inconsistent evidence, L2 learners may attempt to analyze the rules explicitly, yet the subtle differences render L2 learner confused with the choice of negation markers for statives, as evidenced in their indeterminate judgments in the written 13

BCC is an open online corpus of Chinese. The website is http://bcc.blcu.edu.cn. Based on the corpus data, we calculated the ratio of using bu (22724 tokens) and mei (239 tokens) for negating renshi, that is, 95:1, suggesting bu is preferably used in the negation of such a stative verb.

256

8 Discussion

Fig. 8.1 U-shaped behavior (Kellerman 1985)

task, especially at the intermediate level, with means falling between 2 (“probably ungrammatical”) and 3 (“probably grammatical”). It is not until the advanced stage that L1-English learners re-gained nativelike sensitivity in rejecting “*mei+statives” in both modes. (118)

Na shihou, wo hai mei renshi ni ne. that time I still not know you NE-Particle “Back then, I had not got to know you yet.”

Our findings are compatible with those of earlier studies that also observe Ushaped behavioral development in language acquisition (Kellerman 1985; Bialystok 1986; McLaughlin 1990; Plunkett and Marchman 1991). Originally, the U-shaped behavior is referred to as a phenomenon in child cognitive development (Strauss and Stavy 1982). Kellerman (1985) made the earliest attempt to apply this concept in second language acquisition to describe systematic linguistic behavior over time in three distinct stages, as illustrated in the diagram in Fig. 8.1 (adapted from Kellerman 1985, p. 346). According to Kellerman (1985, p. 352), the first stage is characterized by learners’ target-like performance in some limited linguistic domain. It is assumed that learners produce “appropriate chunks deriving either from L2 or generated out of the L1”, just as the case in low-intermediate L1-English learners’ nativelike sensitivity to “*mei+statives” owing to formulaic storage of “bu+statives” on high-frequency stative verbs. The second stage is characterized by target-deviant performance. Learners try to “reorganize their mental representations of these structures into a system within the relevant subdomain”. In our study, this is reflected in intermediate and high-intermediate L1-English learners’ indecisiveness in rejecting “*mei+statives” due to fuzzy explicit knowledge about the negation of statives. The third stage signals a turn to target-like performance, as in advanced L1-English learners’ convergence with the natives in both modes. Kellerman speculates that the development from stage 1 to stage 2, and finally stage 3 is probably attributable to the instruction method and the length of L2 study time (L2 proficiency). While the

8.6 The Approach of Employing Both Elicitation Data and Corpus Data …

257

results of the present study have attested the role of L2 proficiency, future research may investigate whether the instruction method affects L2 development.

8.5.4 Summary This section has examined the role of task modality in L2 learner’ access to explicit and implicit knowledge about Chinese negation. On one hand, access to explicit knowledge in the written task may strengthen L2 learners’ sensitivity to the grammatical anomaly in some categories related to Chinese negation, such as the syntactic position of negation markers. On the other hand, access to implicit knowledge of formulaic chunks of certain categories (e.g., the negation of statives) may enable L2 learners to perform better in the aural mode than in the written mode when their explicit knowledge about these categories is still fuzzy and inaccurate. The results also suggest that the effect of task modality is subject to factors such as structural/feature complexity and regularity, L2 proficiency, as well as L1-L2 similarity. The representation of explicit knowledge about the negation of statives in L1-English learners’ grammar provides an interesting testing case for the U-shaped behavior in L2 development.

8.6 The Approach of Employing Both Elicitation Data and Corpus Data in L2 Acquisition Research In previous sections, we have interpreted the results of the present study with relevant theories on L2 acquisition. The sources of our data include grammaticality judgment tests and learner corpora, thus a combination of elicitation data and more authentic corpus data. In this section, we focus on the methodological merits of using both elicitation data and corpus data in L2 acquisition research. As pointed out by Ellis and Barkhuizen (2005, p. 49), “no one method will provide an entirely valid picture of what a learner knows or thinks”. Much L2 acquisition research, especially with generative approaches, has relied heavily on elicitation data through experimental tasks such as grammaticality judgment test, elicited imitation task, or self-paced reading task (Granger 2002; Lozano and Mendikoetxea 2013; Ellis 1994). The confluence of corpus linguistics and second language acquisition has drawn close attention to learner corpus research (Granger 2002, 2004; Gilquin and Gries 2009; Myles 2005; McEnery and Hardie 2011), and it is getting more recognized that elicitation data and corpus data are “not conflicting but complementary sources” and they reflect “different facets of language acquisition” (Granger 2012, p. 1). Recent years have seen an increase of studies bringing together elicitation data and corpus data in L2 acquisition research (e.g., Gilquin 2007; Wulff 2009;

258

8 Discussion

Lozano and Mendikoetxea 2013; Meunier and Littré 2013; Littré 2015; Rebuschat et al. 2017).

8.6.1 The Merits of Using Elicitation Data Elicitation data from rigidly controlled experiments provide a window to the L2 knowledge and allow a more systematic study of the confounding factors underlying L2 acquisition (Gilquin et al. 2009). One way to explore the nature of the abstract representations of the target language in UG-based L2 research is to “force learners into stating what is possible and what is not possible in their second language” (Mackey and Gass 2016, p. 58). Just as in the present study, we are not only interested in whether L2 learners could correctly accept the licit use of bu/mei in different negative structures but also whether they could reject the illicit use of these two negation markers in certain situations. For example, the judgment of test stimuli in minimal pairs, such as “bu+statives” and “*mei+statives”, could inform us whether L2 learners have established sensitivity to the [–realis] feature encoded with bu and the [+realis] feature with mei in the context of statives. If we had only analyzed the corpus data, we would find that L2 learners had a high accuracy (above 95%) in the negation of statives starting from the elementary level (see Table 7.4 in Sect. 7.2.3) and might mistakenly conclude that L2 learners have no problems with the negation of this category. However, as shown in Sect. 6.3.3.1, the results from the judgment of “*mei+statives” by elementary learners from both L1 backgrounds reveal that they were indeterminate in rejecting this illicit form. Given this, we examined closely at the corpus data of low proficiency learners and found that they produced a large proportion (Elementary: 59%-67%) of several high-frequency stative verbs, such as zhidao, “know”, xihuan, “like” (see Table 7.5 in Sect. 7.2.3.1), which explains their high accuracy at the early stages. By manipulating the task modality (written vs. aural) of the grammaticality judgment test, we could probe into the representation of explicit and implicit knowledge of negation in L2 grammar. As discussed in Sect. 8.5.2, the divergence in L1-English and L1-Korean learners’ development path in their judgment of “Neg+statives” in both modes unveils the role of L1 influence in the representation of L2 knowledge. Apart from these factors, L2 proficiency, another important contributor to L2 acquisition, is more straightforwardly shown through learners’ gradual development patterns in the experimental study. Based on the individual results of L2 learners at each proficiency, we have also worked out the acquisition sequence of different categories of negative structures in Chinese (see Sect. 6.4). Although we managed to collect some corpus data from low-proficiency learners, it is still insufficient compared with the data from high-proficiency learners. As shown in Table 5.3 in Sect. 5.4.3, two of the four corpora used in our study mainly cover the data of intermediate and advanced proficiency learners. This is actually a practical issue since low-proficiency learners are not quite ready to write essays in L2 and their written data are more difficult to collect. Without enough data from elementary learners, it would be hard to explore

8.6 The Approach of Employing Both Elicitation Data and Corpus Data …

259

the initial state of L2 grammar and possible L1 transfer effect which is usually manifest at the early stages of L2 development. However, elicitation data from elementary learners with well-designed experiments could address this problem. Among the fifteen subcategories of negation under investigation (see Table 5.2 in Sect. 5.4.2), six have a very low frequency14 in L2 learners’ production in the corpora, including the descriptive complement constructions (1%), past habitual activities (0.5%), future events (1%), the durative aspect -zhe (0.1%), and all three types of hypothetical conditional clauses (0.3%). Such deficiency of tokens of the target structures may be one of the reasons why some L2 researchers are reticent about using corpus data when they intend to study a particular structure which may not occur frequently in natural production (Lozano and Mendikoetxea 2013; Mackey and Gass 2016). Nevertheless, by employing the judgment tasks with well-designed test stimuli, we could examine L2 learners’ grammar knowledge about Chinese negation in those infrequent categories.

8.6.2 The Merits of Using Corpus Data Corpus data from large-scale learner corpora could furnish more authentic evidence to the findings based on elicitation data from the experimental study and reinforce the validity and generalizability of these findings (Gilquin 2007; Housen 2002; Myles 2005). Elicitation data, particularly judgment data, has incurred harsh criticism from L2 researchers. For instance, Birdsong (1989, p. 101) argues that judgment data are prone to “response biases and limited informativeness”. Granger et al. (2002) recognizes the difficulty in inviting a large number of subjects to take part in experiments and thus L2 research has a “relatively narrow empirical base” due to the small number of subjects (p. 2). Still, Gilquin and Gries (2009) holds that elicitation data tend to be “noisy, volatile, less objective, and less generalizable than previously assumed” (p. 3). However, researchers acknowledge that metalinguistic data may take on validity with support from data of language use, such as learner corpus data (Birdsong 1989; Gilquin et al. 2009). In our research, the corpus data from Chinese learner corpora present more authentic evidence for L2 learners’ use of negation markers in Chinese. Admittedly, the number of the participants in the experimental study is not large enough (five levels and around 20 participants at each level for each L1 background). We thus managed to collect L2 production data on the use of Chinese negation from four written Chinese interlanguage corpora, with an overall scale of about 15.19 million characters (for the details of each corpus, see Table 5.3 in Sect. 5.4.3). The databases of these learner corpora are mostly compositions in standardized Chinese proficiency

14

Here the frequency is calculated by dividing the total number of the tokens produced by L1English and L1-Korean learners at all levels in each subcategory (e.g., the descriptive complement constructions, DCC) by the total number of the tokens of all test categories.

260

8 Discussion

tests (e.g. HSK15 and TOCFL16 ) and assignments in Chinese courses. Despite some degree of control by variables such as the time limit or the topic, essay writing can be regarded as authentic written data since “learners are free to write what they like rather than having to produce items the investigator is interested in” (Granger 2002, p. 5). More importantly, the results from the corpus data on the use of Chinese negation markers in general serve as validators for the findings from the experimental study. As shown in Sect. 7.4, the results from the production data in Chinese learner corpora are largely compatible with those from the judgment data, suggesting that our findings on L2 acquisition of Chinese negation are generalizable to larger groups of L2 Chinese learners, at least L1-Korean learners, considering the limited corpus data from L1-English learners. For example, as shown in Sect. 6.3.2.1, the results of the judgment data bear out that L2 learners from both L1 backgrounds did not robustly accept the licit use of bu for negating past habitual activities until the advanced stage and they were reluctant to reject the illicit use of mei at all levels. This is confirmed by the results from the corpus data that their accuracy in this category was merely around the chance level (46–50%) at the intermediate and the high-intermediate levels (insufficient data for advanced learners). As presented in Sect. 7.2.2.1, those specific examples with the misuse of mei for negating past habitual activities support our analysis of L2 learners’ difficulty with this category. Another example is the incompatibility between mei and the perfective aspect marker -le. As seen in Sect. 6.3.4.2, L2 learners showed much indeterminacy in rejecting the co-occurrence of mei and V-le before attaining advanced proficiency. Correspondingly, the learner corpus data also capture the redundant use of -le after the verb when mei is used, as seen in Sect. 7.2.4.2. Furthermore, the corpus data from the Chinese learner corpora offer crucial quantitative information about the target categories on negation in L2 production, which gives us a clue to the interpretation of L2 learners’ performance in the judgment tasks. For example, as shown in Sect. 6.3.1.3, L1-English learners gained nativelike sensitivity to the illicit “*bu+V-de+C” earlier in the aural mode (elementary) than in the written mode (intermediate). Assuming the possibility of access to explicit knowledge in the written mode, as stated in Sect. 8.5.1, the low frequency of “Neg+V-zhe” (0.1%) in the Chinese learner corpora is congruent with the low ratio of this form in natural Chinese input (the ratio of “Neg+V-zhe” and “V-zhe”: 1/202, cited from Xiao and McEnery 2008, p. 25). These data could account for L2 learners’ persistent optionality in the choice of negation markers for the durative aspect (V-zhe). Finally, in a broader sense, our study shows that learner corpus data have the potential to contribute to hypothesis-driven L2 research with formal approaches. Gilquin et al. (2009, p. 10) observe that corpus linguists predominantly adopt an “exploratory” approach driven by corpus data rather than hypotheses. Lozano and Mendikoetxea 15

HSK stands for the Hanyu Shuiping Kaoshi, an official Chinese proficiency test in mainland China. 16 TOCFL stands for Test of Chinese as a Foreign Language, the standardized Chinese proficiency test for non-native speakers in Taiwan.

8.7 Interim Summary of the Main Findings

261

(2013, p. 68) also consider that learner corpus research has been mostly descriptive with “very little reference to current theories of L2 acquisition” and large-scale learner corpora have been more favored in pedagogical and functional approaches to SLA but not formal approaches. In the present study, the Chinese learner corpus data were used to examine the assumptions of the Interface Hypothesis and the Feature Reassembly Hypothesis along with the elicitation data from judgment tasks, as presented in Sects. 8.2 and 8.3. Despite the low frequency of certain categories as mentioned above, the production data in Chinese learner corpora also inform us of L2 acquisition at the multiple interfaces involved with Chinese negative structures and the reassembly of the mood features encoded with the two negation markers (bu/mei).

8.6.3 Summary This section has demonstrated that elicitation data and learner corpus data are complementary to each other in L2 acquisition research. By bringing together these two types of data, we could combine their merits and reduce their disadvantages in this hypothesis-driven research on L2 acquisition of Chinese negation. The elicitation data provide more inclusive and inferential evidence in all target categories on Chinese negation, whereas the learner corpus data offer more authentic and corroborative evidence for the use of negation markers by L2 learners. The present study thus contributes to the line of L2 acquisition research at the intersection of experimental and corpus-based approaches.

8.7 Interim Summary of the Main Findings The present study has investigated the acquisition of Chinese negation by English speakers and Korean speakers by employing both grammaticality judgment data and learner corpus data. The results of our study enable us to answer the research questions we raised in Sect. 5.2, repeated here. (1) Could L2 Chinese learners attain target-like knowledge of the narrow syntax of Chinese negation? The answer is yes. L2 Chinese learners can achieve success at the narrow syntax of Chinese negation, lending support to the prediction of the IH that narrow syntax is not problematic in L2 acquisition. The results of the judgment data and the learner corpus data consistently show that L2 learners from both backgrounds successfully acquire the position of negation markers in the three types of verbal complement constructions, including the resultative complement construction, the potential complement construction, and the descriptive complement construction. L2 learners also acquire

262

8 Discussion

the negation of the potential complement construction later than the negation of the other two constructions. (2) Could L2 Chinese learners converge with natives at the multiple interfaces involved with Chinese negation? The answer is yes but not across the board. L2 learners show much variability at the multiple internal interfaces involved with Chinese negation, not quite in line with the prediction of the Interface Hypothesis that internal interfaces cause few problems in L2 acquisition. First, the results reveal that L2 learners’ success at the syntax-semantics interface is not domain-wide across the three categories of semantic constraints. While they gain nativelike sensitivity to the lexical aspectual restriction on Chinese negation, their knowledge about the temporal constraints on negation is not complete in the case of past habitual activities, and they have great difficulty detecting the licensing function of hypothetical context on the use of negation markers. Second, it is found that L2 learners manifest selective optionality at the syntaxmorphology interface implicated with Chinese negation. They establish nativelike sensitivity to the interaction between Chinese negation and the perfective/experiential aspect (V-le/guo) but exhibit persistent indeterminacy in the negation of the durative aspect (V-zhe). L2 learners also display an uneven development pattern in acquiring the negation of the perfective/experiential aspect (V-le/guo). They converge with Chinese native speakers in acquiring the negation of V-guo much earlier than the negation of V-le. Third, the results indicate that L2 learners have great difficulty at the syntaxsemantics-morphology interface involved with Chinese negation. It is proved challenging for L2 learners to integrate linguistic knowledge from multiple domains (syntax, semantics, and morphology). On one hand, they show much uncertainty in the negation of the durative aspect (V-zhe) with mei in declarative matrix sentences. On the other hand, they fail to detect the licensing power of hypothetical context on the negation of the durative aspect (V-zhe) with bu in conditional clauses. (3) Could L2 Chinese learners detect and reassemble the features encoded with Chinese negation? The answer is a tentative yes. It is found possible for L2 learners to attain nativelike configurations of the mood features encoded with Chinese negation, thus supporting the proposal of the Feature Reassembly Hypothesis that features in contrast are ultimately attainable. However, L2 learners’ reassembly of the [±realis] features with Chinese negation is uneven across different categories of licensing contexts. First, in the licensing contexts triggered by temporal information, the results show that L2 learners successfully reassemble the [–realis] feature with bu, yet they in general diverge from the natives in the reassembly of the [+realis] feature with mei due to the interference of the [+past] feature. However, the individual results suggest that it is still possible for them to acquire the [+realis] feature represented by temporal information.

8.7 Interim Summary of the Main Findings

263

Second, in the licensing contexts triggered by lexical aspect, it is revealed that L2 learners from both L1 backgrounds could detect the distinct mood features represented in statives ([–realis]) and achievements/accomplishments ([+realis]), and they attain nativelike configuration by associating the [–realis] feature with bu and the [+realis] feature with mei in this category of contexts. Third, in the licensing contexts triggered by grammatical aspect markers, the results indicate that L2 learners could detect the [+realis] feature instantiated by the experiential aspect marker (-guo) and the perfective aspect marker (-le) and assemble this feature with mei. Meanwhile, they assemble the [–realis] feature with bu in these contexts with sensitivity to the clash between bu and V-guo/le. Nevertheless, it is very hard for L2 learners to recognize the [+realis] feature represented in the durative aspect marker -zhe in declarative sentences, which licenses the use of mei. Still, the success of individual learners suggests that it is possible for L2 learners to reassemble this feature with mei in such a licensing context. Lastly, in the licensing contexts triggered by hypothetical conditionals, the results bear out that L2 learners in general have prolonged difficulty in detecting the [–realis] feature represented by the hypothetical context, which licenses the placement of bu in front of the resultative/descriptive complement construction (VC/V-de+C) and the durative aspect (V-zhe). Nevertheless, in view of several L2 learners’ nativelike performance, we argue that it is possible for L2 learners to assemble the [–realis] feature with bu in the licensing contexts represented by hypothetical conditionals. (4) Does Chinese proficiency play a role in L2 acquisition at interfaces involved with Chinese negative structures and the assembly of the features encoded with bu/mei? The answer is yes. In terms of interfaces, in general, L2 learners at the lower proficiency levels diverge from the natives at the narrow syntax and internal interfaces involved with Chinese negation. They show indeterminacy with the position of negation markers in different verbal complement constructions and are not quite sensitive to the semantic/morphological constraints on Chinese negative structures. With increased Chinese proficiency, L2 learners with higher proficiency converge with the natives at narrow syntax but their convergence at the internal interfaces is not domain-wide as mentioned above. In terms of features, overall, L2 learners with lower proficiency set up an initial mapping between negation markers in their L1 and the corresponding negation markers in Chinese and assemble bu/mei with the features encoded with negation markers in their L1. They seem to be unaware of the [±realis] features encoded with bu/mei and show target-deviant performance in the licensing contexts for the use of bu/mei. However, as a function of increased proficiency, L2 learners detect the [±realis] features in different licensing contexts and reassemble the [–realis] feature with bu and the [+realis] feature with mei, though they still have difficulty in detecting these features in some contexts as mentioned above. The crucial role of L2 proficiency suggests that the quantity of L2 input is an important contributor to L2 development. Without sufficient input and a high proficiency, it would be impossible for L2 learners to capture the subtle interaction between Chinese

264

8 Discussion

negation and time, aspect, as well as hypothetical context. More specifically, input frequency accounts for the uneven development patterns in the acquisition of different target categories by L2 learners, such as their acquisition of the negation of the experiential aspect at an early stage. While acknowledging the role of L2 input quantity, we also found that the quality of L2 input also matters in L2 acquisition at interfaces and the reassembly of L2 features. When L2 input is consistent and regular, L2 learners could gain sensitivity to the constraints on interface structures or the features encoded with L2 items more easily. Otherwise, it may take a longer time of exposure to the target language for L2 learners to establish a nativelike representation of the target structures. (5) Is there any cross-linguistic influence in the acquisition of Chinese negation by English speakers and Korean speakers? The answer is yes. On one hand, the overt morphological marking of tense and the configuration of the [±realis] features seem to have an impact on L2 learners’ perception of the temporal constraints on Chinese negation at the initial stages. This renders L2 learners from both backgrounds quite sensitive to the temporal information but also to some extent dependent on such information in the choice of negation markers. On the other hand, L1-Korean learners have an advantage over L1-English learners in acquiring the negation of statives and future events due to a positive transfer from Korean negation which is also partially associated with the mood feature like Chinese negation. The flexibility in the position of negation markers in Korean (short form vs. long form) seems to enable L1-Korean learners to establish explicit knowledge about the position of bu in descriptive complement construction earlier than L1-English learners. (6) Do L2 learners perform differently across tasks with different cognitive loads? The answer is yes but not domain-wide. Task modality (written vs. aural) indeed constrains L2 learners’ access to explicit or implicit knowledge, but this factor also interacts with other factors such as L2 proficiency, structure/feature complexity, and L1 influence. The results reveal that L2 learners from both L1 backgrounds perform better in the less demanding written mode in the judgment of the position of negation markers and the negation of the experiential aspect. L1-English learners perform better in the aural mode in the judgment of statives and the position of descriptive complement construction due to due to reliance on formulaic chunks. They display U-shaped behavior in acquiring the negation of statives in the written mode because of unsteady explicit knowledge. (7) Are the results of production data consistent with those of judgment data? The answer is yes. Overall, the results of production data on the use of negation markers from Chinese learner corpora provide corroborative evidence for the findings from grammaticality judgment data on negation. The approach of employing both elicitation data and learner corpus data proves to be advantageous in L2 acquisition research.

References

265

References Ahern, Aoife, José Amenós-Pons, and Pedro Guijarro-Fuentes. 2014. Interfaces in the interpretation of mood alternation in L2 Spanish: Morpho-phonology, semantics and pragmatics. Eurosla Yearbook 14(1): 173–200. Anderson, John R. 1980. Cognitive psychology and its implications. New York: W. H. Freeman. Arche, María J., Laura Dominguez, and Florence Myles. 2010. The L2 acquisition of the semantics and morphology of Aspect: a study of the acquisition of the Spanish imperfect-preterit contrast by native speakers of English. Presented at the Workshop on Tense and Aspect in Generative Grammar: Typology and Acquisition, Lisbon (Portugal). Archibald, John. 2009. Phonological feature re-assembly and the importance of phonetic cues. Second Language Research 25(2): 231–233. Argyri, Efrosyni, and Antonella Sorace. 2007. Crosslinguistic influence and language dominance in older bilingual children. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 10(1): 79–99. Belletti, Adriana, Elisa Bennati, and Antonella Sorace. 2007. Theoretical and developmental issues in the syntax of subjects: Evidence from near-native Italian. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory, 25(4): 657–689. Bialystok, Ellen. 1986. Factors in the growth of linguistic awareness. Child Development 57 (2): 498–510. Birdsong, David. 1989. Metalinguistic performance and interlinguistic competence. Berlin: Springer-Verlag. Birdsong, David. 2009. Uninterpretable features: psychology and plasticity in second language learnability. Second Language Research 25(2): 235–243. Burkhardt, Petra. 2005. The syntax-discourse interface: representing and interpreting dependency. John Benjamins, Amsterdam/Philadelphia. Chafe, Wallace L. 1995. The realis-irrealis distinction in Caddo, the Northern Iroquoian languages, and English. In Modality in grammar and discourse, eds. Joan Bybee, and Suzanne Fleischman, 349–365. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Chang, Hui, and Lina Zheng. 2014. On the acquisition of Chinese negative constructions by L1 English learners. Research on Chinese as a Second Language (1), 116–126. (In Chinese) Cho, Jacee, and Roumyana Slabakova. 2014. Interpreting definiteness in a second language without articles: The case of L2 Russian. Second Language Research, 30(2): 159–190. Cho, Jacee, and Roumyana Slabakova. 2017. A feature-based contrastive approach to the L2 Acquisition of Specificity. Applied Linguistics 38(3): 318–339. Cho, Jacee. 2017. The acquisition of different types of definite noun phrases in L2-English. International Journal of Bilingualism 21(3): 367–382. Clahsen, Harald, and Claudia Felser. 2006. Grammatical processing in language learners. Applied Psycholinguistics 27(1): 3–42. Danks, Joseph H. 1980. Comprehension in listening and reading: Same or different? In Reading and understanding, eds. Danks, Joseph H., Frank B. Murray, and Kathy J. Pezdek, 1–39. Newark, DE: International Reading Association. DeKeyser, Robert. 1998. Beyond focus on form: Cognitive perspectives on learning and practicing second language grammar. In Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition, eds. Catherine Doughty, and Jessica C. Williams, 42–63. New York: Cambridge University Press. DeKeyser, Robert. 2003. Implicit and explicit learning. In The handbook of second language acquisition, eds. Catherine Doughty, and Michael H. Long, 313–348. Oxford, England: Blackwell. Dekydtspotter, Laurent, and Rex A. Sprouse. 2001. Mental design and (second) language epistemology: Adjectival restrictions of wh-quantifiers and tense in English-French interlanguage. Second Language Research 17(1): 1–35. Dekydtspotter, Laurent, Rex A. Sprouse, and Kimberly A. B. Swanson. 2001. Reflexes of mental architecture in second-language acquisition: The interpretation of combien extractions in EnglishFrench interlanguage. Language Acquisition 9(3): 175–227.

266

8 Discussion

Dekydtspotter, Laurent, and Claire Renaud. 2009. On the contrastive analysis of features in second language acquisition: Uninterpretable gender on past participles in English-French processing. Second Language Research 25(2): 255–267. Domínguez, Laura, María J. Arche, & Florence Myles. 2011. Testing the predictions of the FeatureAssembly Hypothesis: Evidence from the L2 acquisition of Spanish aspect morphology. In Proceedings of the 35th Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development, eds. Nick Danis, Kate Mesh, and Hyunsuk Sung, 183–196. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press. Domínguez, Laura. 2013. Understanding interfaces: Second language acquisition and first language attrition of Spanish subject realization and word order variation (Vol. 55). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing. Duffield, Nigel. 2011. Loose ends? Commentary on Sorace. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism 1(1): 35–38. Elliott, Jennifer R. 2000. Realis and irrealis: Forms and concepts of the grammaticalisation of reality. Linguistic Typology 4(1): 55–90. Ellis, Nick. 2003. Constructions, chunking, and connectionism: The emergence of second language structure. In The handbook of second language acquisition, eds. Catherine Doughty, and Michael H. Long, 63–103. Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishing. Ellis, Rod. 1993. The structural syllabus and second language acquisition. TESOL Quarterly 27(1): 91–113. Ellis, Rod. 1994. The study of second language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University. Ellis, Rod 2005. Measuring implicit and explicit knowledge of a second language: A psychometric study. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 27 (2): 141–172. Ellis, Rod. 2006. Modelling Learning Difficulty and Second Language Proficiency: The Differential Contributions of Implicit and Explicit Knowledge. Applied Linguistics 27(3): 431–463. Ellis, Rod. 2009. Implicit and explicit learning, knowledge and instruction. In Implicit and explicit knowledge in second language learning, testing and teaching, eds. Rod Ellis, Shawn Loewen, Catherine Elder, Rosemary Erlam, Jenefer Philp, and Hayo Reinders, 3–25. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Ellis, Rod, and Gary Barkhuizen. 2005. Analysing learner language. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Fan, Li. 2007. The early acquisition of negative words in Mandarin Chinese. Modern Foreign Languages (Quarterly) 30(2): 144–154. (In Chinese) Gass, Susan M., and Alison Mackey. 2007. Input, interaction, and output in second language acquisition. In Theories in second language acquisition: An introduction, eds. Bill VanPatten, and Jessica Williams, 175–199. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Gil, Kook-Hee, and Heather Marsden. 2013. Existential quantifiers in second language acquisition: A feature reassembly account. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism 3(2): 117–149. Gilquin, Gaëtanelle. 2007. To err is not all: What corpus and elicitation can reveal about the use of collocations by learners. Zeitschrift für Anglistik und Amerikanistik 55(3): 273–291. Gilquin, Gaëtanelle, and Stefan Th. Gries. 2009. Corpora and experimental methods: A state-ofthe-art review. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 5(1): 1–26 Givón, Thomas. 1995. Modal prototypes of truth and action. In Functionalism and grammar, ed. Givón, Thomas, 112–170. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing. Granger, Sylviane. 2002. A bird’s-eye view of learner corpus research. In Computer learner corpora, second language acquisition and foreign language teaching, eds. Sylviane Granger, Joseph Hung, and Stephanie Petch-Tyson, 3–33. Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing. Granger, Sylviane. 2004. Computer learner corpus research: Current status and future prospects. Language and Computers 52: 123–146. Guijarro-Fuentes, Pedro. 2012. The acquisition of interpretable features in L2 Spanish: Personal a. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 15(4): 701–720. Haig, Geoffrey. 1991. Universal Grammar and second language acquisition: the influence of task type on late learners’ access to the subjacency principle. TESL monograph, McGill University.

References

267

Han, Youngju, and Rod Ellis. 1998. Implicit knowledge, explicit knowledge and general language proficiency. Language Teaching Research 2(1): 1-23. Hawkins, Roger, & Sarah A. Liszka 2003. Locating the source of defective past tense marking in advanced L2 English speakers. Language Acquisition and Language Disorders 30: 21–44. Hawkins, Roger. 2005. Explaining full and partial success in the acquisition of second language grammatical properties. Second Language 4: 7–25. Hettiarachchi, Sujeewa, & Pires, Acrisio. 2016. L2 Acquisition of wh-Features and syntactic constraints: evidence for Full-Access approaches. In Proceedings of 6th Conference on Generative Approaches to Language Acquisition North America (GALANA 2015), eds. Laurel Perkins, Rachel Dudley, Juliana Gerard, & Kasia Hitczenko, 48–59. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project. Hopp, Holger. 2007. Ultimate attainment at the interfaces in second language acquisition (Doctoral dissertation). Groningen University. Hopp, Holger. 2010. Ultimate attainment in L2 inflection: Performance similarities between nonnative and native speakers. Lingua 120(4): 901–931. Hopp, Holger. 2011. Extended patterns and computational complexity. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism 1(1): 43–47. Horie, Kaoru. 2000. Complementation in Japanese and Korean. In Complementation: Cognitive and Functional Perspectives, ed. Kaoru Horie, 11–32. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing. Housen, Alex. 2002. A corpus-based study of the L2-acquisition of the English verb system. In Computer learner corpora, second language acquisition and foreign language teaching, eds. Sylviane Granger, Joseph Hung, and Stephanie Petch-Tyson, 77–116. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing. Hu, Guangwei. 2002. Psychological constraints on the utility of metalinguistic knowledge in second language production. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 24(3): 347–386. Hwang, Sun Hee, and Donna Lardiere. 2013. Plural-marking in L2 Korean: A feature-based approach. Second Language Research 29(1): 57–86. Ionin, Tania, Silvina Montrul, Ji-Hye Kim, and Vadim Philippov. 2011. Genericity distinctions and the interpretation of determiners in second language acquisition. Language Acquisition 18(4): 242–280. Iverson, Michael, Paula Kempchinsky, and Jason Rothman. 2008. Interface vulnerability and knowledge of the subjunctive/indicative distinction with negated epistemic predicates in L2 Spanish. Eurosla Yearbook 8(1): 135–163. Jackendoff, Ray. 2002. Foundations of language: Brain, meaning, grammar, evolution. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Jiang, Nan. 2004. Morphological insensitivity in second language processing. Applied Psycholinguistics 25(4): 603–634. Jiang, Nan. 2007. Selective integration of linguistic knowledge in adult second language learning. Language Learning, 57(1), 1–33. Jin, Limin. 2003. The development of aspect marking in L2 Chinese by English native speakers (Doctoral dissertation). University of Cambridge. Jin, Limin, and Henriëtte Hendriks. 2005. The development of aspect marking in L1 and L2 Chinese. Working Papers in English and Applied Linguistics 9: 69–99. Johnson, Jacqueline S. 1992. Critical period effects in second language acquisition: The effect of written versus auditory materials on the assessment of grammatical competence. Language learning 42(2): 217–248. Kellerman, Eric. 1985. If at first you do succeed. In Input in Second Language Acquisition, eds. Susan Gass, and Carolyn G. Madden, 345–353. Rowley, Mass.: Newbury House. Kim, Jeong-eun, & Nam, Hosung. 2017. Measures of implicit knowledge revisited: Processing modes, time pressure, and modality. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 39(3): 431–457. Klein, Wolfgang, Ping Li, and Henriette Hendriks. 2000. Aspect and assertion in Mandarin Chinese. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 18: 723–770.

268

8 Discussion

Kotz, Sonja A. 2009. A critical review of ERP and fMRI evidence on L2 syntactic processing. Brain and Language 109(2–3): 68–74. Kraš, Tihana. 2009. The lexicon-syntax interface in L2 Italian: Ne-cliticisation with intransitive verbs. In Proceedings of the 10th Generative Approaches to Second Language Acquisition Conference (GASLA 2009), eds. Melissa Bowles, Tania Ionin, Silvina Montrul, and Annie Tremblay, 220–230. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project. Lardiere, Donna. 1998. Case and tense in the ‘fossilized’ steady state. Second Language Research 14(1): 1–26. Lardiere, Donna. 2005. On morphological competence. In Proceedings of the 7th Generative Approaches to Second Language Acquisition Conference (GASLA 2004), eds. Laurent Dekydtspotter, Rex A. Sprouse, and Audrey Liljestrand, 178–192. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project. Lardiere, Donna. 2007a. Acquiring (or Assembling) Functional Categories in Second Language Acquisition. In Proceedings of 2nd Conference on Generative Approaches to Language Acquisition North America (GALANA 2006), eds. Alyona Belikova, Luisa Meroni, and Mari Umeda, 233–244. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project. Lardiere, Donna. 2007b. Ultimate attainment in second language acquisition, Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Lardiere, Donna. 2008. Feature assembly in second language acquisition. In The role of formal features in second language acquisition, eds. Juana Liceras, Helmut Zobl, and Helen Goodluck, 106–140. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Lardiere, Donna. 2009a. Some thoughts on the contrastive analysis of features in second language acquisition. Second Language Research 25 (2): 173–227. Lardiere, Donna. 2009b. Further thoughts on parameters and features in second language acquisition: A reply to peer comments on Lardiere’s Some thoughts on the contrastive analysis of features in second language acquisition in SLR 25 (2). Second Language Research 25(3): 409–422. Lardiere, Donna. 2011. Who is the Interface Hypothesis about? Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism 1(1): 48–53. Lardiere, Donna. 2018. Detectability in feature reassembly. In Salience in second language acquisition, eds. Susan M. Gass, Patti Spinner, and Jennifer Behney, 41–63. New York: Routledge. Lee, Eunji, and Donna Lardiere. 2016. L2 acquisition of number marking in Korean and Indonesian: A feature-based approach. In Proceedings of the 13th Generative Approaches to Second Language Acquisition Conference (GASLA 2015), eds. David Stringer, Jordan Garrett, Becky Halloran, and Sabrina Mossman, 113–123. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project. Li, Charles N., and Sandra A. Thompson. 1989. Mandarin Chinese: A functional reference grammar. Berkeley: University of California Press. Li, Feng. 2013. Hanyu nengxing jiegou foudingshi ji liuxuesheng xide qingkuang kaocha (master’s thesis). Fudan University. (In Chinese) Li, Ying. 2004. Analysis of the Acquisition of bu/mei+V. Chinese Language Learning (5): 72–78. (In Chinese) Li, Ying. 2009. The influence of past time on CFL learners’ use of bu and mei. Journal of Yunnan Normal University (Teaching and Research on Chinese as a Foreign Language Edition) 7(6): 25–30. (In Chinese) Lin, Jo-wang. 2003b. Temporal reference in Mandarin Chinese. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 12(3): 259–311. Littré, Damien. 2015. Combining experimental data and corpus data: Intermediate French-speaking learners and the English present. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 11(1): 89–126. Liu, Xun. (ed.) 2007. New practical Chinese reader textbook (Vol. 2). Beijing: Beijing Language and Culture University Press. (In Chinese) Loewen, Shawn. 2009. Grammaticality judgment tests and the measurement of implicit and explicit L2 knowledge. In Implicit and explicit knowledge in second language learning, testing and teaching, eds. Rod Ellis, Shawn Loewen, Catherine Elder, Rosemary Erlam, Jenefer Philp, and Hayo Reinders, 94–112. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.

References

269

Long, Michael. 2003. Stabilization and fossilization in interlanguage development. In The handbook of second language acquisition, eds. Catherine J. Doughty, and Michael H. Long, 487–535. Malden, MA: Blackwell. Lozano, Cristóbal, & Mendikoetxea, Amaya. 2013. Corpus and experimental data: subjects in second language research. In Twenty Years of Learner Corpus Research: Looking Back, Moving Ahead. Corpora and Language in Use, eds. Sylviane Granger, Gaëtanelle Gilquin, Fanny Meunier, 313–323. Louvain-la-Neuve: Presses Universitaires de Louvain. Mai, Ziyin. 2013. Properties of the (shi)... de focus construction in adult L2 acquisition and heritage language acquisition of Mandarin Chinese (Doctoral dissertation). University of Cambridge. Mai, Ziyin, and 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. Mackey, Alison, and Susan M. Gass. 2016. Second language research: Methodology and design (2nd edition). New York, NY: Routledge. McEnery, Tony, and Hardie, Andrew. 2011. Corpus linguistics: Method, theory and practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. McLaughlin, Barry. 1990. Restructuring. Applied Linguistics 11(2): 113–128. Meisel, Jürgen M., Martin Elsig, and Matthias Bonnesen. 2011. Delayed grammatical acquisition in first language development: Subject-verb inversion and subject clitics in French interrogatives. Linguistic approaches to bilingualism 1(4): 347–390. Meunier, Fanny, and Damien Littré. 2013. Tracking learners’ progress: Adopting a dual ‘corpus cum experimental data’ approach. The Modern Language Journal 97(S1): 61–76. Montrul, Silvina, and Roumyana Slabakova. 2003. Competence similarities between native and near-native speakers: An investigation of the preterite-imperfect contrast in Spanish. Studies in second language acquisition 25(3): 351–398. Montrul, Silvina. 2004. Subject and object expression in Spanish heritage speakers: A case of morphosyntactic convergence. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 7(2): 125–142. Montrul, Silvina. 2005. Second language acquisition and first language loss in adult early bilinguals: Exploring some differences and similarities. Second language research 21(3): 199–249. Montrul, Silvina, and James Hye Suk Yoon. 2009. Putting parameters in their proper place. Second Language Research 25(2): 291–311. Montrul, Silvina. 2010. Dominant language transfer in adult second language learners and heritage speakers. Second Language Research 26(3): 293–327. Montrul, Silvina. 2011. Multiple interfaces and incomplete acquisition. Lingua 121(4): 591–604. Muroya, Akiko. 2013. Knowledge of syntax and verbal morphology in adolescent L2 English: A Feature Reassembly account. Kansas Working Papers in Linguistics, 34. Lawrence: University of Kansas KU Scholar Works. Murphy, Victoria A. 1997. The effect of modality on a grammaticality judgement task. Second Language Research 13(1): 34–65. Myles, Florence. 2005. Interlanguage corpora and second language acquisition research. Second Language Research 21(4): 373–391. Plunkett, Kim, and Marchman, Virginia A. 1991. U-shaped learning and frequency effects in a multi-layered perception: Implications for child language acquisition. Cognition 38(1): 43–102. Rebuschat, Patrick, Detmar Meurers, and Tony McEnery. 2017. Language Learning Research at the Intersection of Experimental, Computational, and Corpus-Based Approaches. Language Learning 67(S1): 6–13. Reinhart, Tanya. 2006. Interface strategies. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Rost, Michael. 1990. Listening in language learning. London: Longman. Rothman, Jason, and Roumyana Slabakova. 2017. The generative approach to SLA and its place in modern second language studies. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 40(2): 1–26. Rothman, Jason, Tiffany Judy, Pedro Guijarro-Fuentes, and Acrisio Pires. 2010. On the (Un)Ambiguity of Adjectival Modification in Spanish Determiner Phrases: Informing Debates on the Mental Representations of L2 Syntax. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 32(1): 47–77.

270

8 Discussion

Shimanskaya, Elena, and Roumyana Slabakova. 2015. Re-assembling objects: A new look at the L2 acquisition of pronominal clitics. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 38: 1–18. Shirai, Yasuhiro, and Andersen, Roger W. 1995. The acquisition of tense-aspect morphology: A prototype account. Language 71(4): 743–762. Slabakova, Roumyana. 2009. Features or parameters: which one makes second language acquisition easier, and more interesting to study? Second Language Research 25(2): 313–324. Smith, Carlota S. 1997. The parameter of aspect. Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Smith, Michael A. Sharwood. 1981. Consciousness-raising and the second language learner. Applied Linguistics 2(2): 159–168. Smith, Carlota S., and Erbaugh, Mary S. 2001. Temporal information in sentences of Mandarin. In New views in Chinese syntactic research: International symposium on Chinese grammar for the new millennium, eds. Liejong Xu, and Jingmin Shao, 514–542. Hangzhou: Zhejiang Education Publishing Group. Sorace, Antonella. 1993. Incomplete vs. divergent representations of unaccusativity in nonnative grammars of Italian. Second Language Research 9(1): 22–47. Sorace, Antonella. 2006. Interfaces in L2 Development. In Language acquisition and development: Proceedings of GALA 2005, eds. Adrianna Belletti, Elisa Bennati, Cristiano Chesi, Elisa Di Domenico, Ida Ferrari, 505–521. Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Press. Sorace, Antonella, and Francesca Filiaci. 2006. Anaphora resolution in near-native speakers of Italian. Second Language Research 22(3): 339–368. Sorace, Antonella, and Ludovica Serratrice. 2009. Internal and external interfaces in bilingual language development: Beyond structural overlap. International Journal of Bilingualism 13(2): 195–210. Sorace, Antonella. 2011. Pinning down the concept of “interface” in bilingualism. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism 1(1): 1–33. Sorace, Antonella. 2012. Pinning down the concept of interface in bilingual development: A reply to peer commentaries. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism 2(2): 209–217. Spada, Nina, Julie Li-Ju Shiu, and Yasuyo Tomita. 2015. Validating an elicited imitation task as a measure of implicit knowledge: Comparisons with other validation studies. Language Learning 65(3): 723–751. Spinner, Patti. 2013. The second language acquisition of number and gender in Swahili: A feature reassembly approach. Second Language Research 29(4): 455–479. Strauss, Sidney, and Ruth Stavy. (eds.) 1982. U-shaped behavioral growth. New York: Academic Press. Tokowicz, Natasha, and Brian MacWhinney. 2005. Implicit and explicit measures of sensitivity to violations in second language grammar: An event-related potential investigation. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 27(2): 173–204. Tsimpli, Ianthi, and Antonella Sorace. 2006. Differentiating interfaces: L2 performance in syntaxsemantics and syntax-discourse phenomena. In Proceedings of the 30th Boston University Conference on Language Development, eds. David Bamman, Tatiana Magnitskaia, and Colleen Zaller, 653–664. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press. Tsimpli, Ianthi, & Maria Dimitrakopoulou. 2007. The interpretability hypothesis: Evidence from wh-interrogatives in second language acquisition. Second Language Research 23(2): 215–242. Taylor, John R. 1997. Conditionals and polarity. In On Conditionals Again, eds. Scott Schwenter, Angeliki Athanasiadou, and Rene Dirven, 289–306. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Umeda, Mari. 2008. Second language acquisition of Japanese wh-constructions (Doctoral dissertation). McGill University. Wang, Canlong. 2011. The grammatical similarities of the negative words bu and mei in Modern Chinese. Chinese Language (4): 301–312. (In Chinese) Wang, Jianqin. 1997. The acquisition of negative constructions with bu and mei. Chinese Teaching in the World (3): 92–99. (In Chinese) Wang, Yuying. 2012. The ingredients of counterfactuality in Mandarin Chinese. (Doctoral dissertation). The Hong Kong Polytechnic University.

References

271

Wen, Xiaohong. 1995. Second language acquisition of the Chinese particle le. International Journal of Applied Linguistics 5(1): 45–62. Wen, Xiaohong. 1997. Acquisition of Chinese aspect. International Journal of Applied Linguistics 117(1): 1–26. Wen, Zhijun, and Bonnie Schwartz. 2014. Fully-specified L2 processing of negation-aspect interactions in Chinese. In Selected Proceedings of the 5th Conference on Generative Approaches to Language Acquisition North America (GALANA 2012), eds. Chia-Ying Chu, Caitlin E. Coughlin, Beatriz Lopez Prego, Utako Minai, Annie Tremblay, 128–139. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project. White, Lydia, and Fred Genesee. 1996. How native is near-native? The issue of ultimate attainment in adult second language acquisition. Second Language Research 12(3): 233–265. White, Lydia. 2003. Fossilization in steady state L2 grammars: Persistent problems with inflectional morphology. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 6(02): 129–141. White, Lydia. 2009. Grammatical theory: Interfaces and L2 knowledge. In The new handbook of second language acquisition, eds. William Ritchie, and Tej K. Bhatia, 49–68. Bingley, England: Emerald Group Publishing Ltd White, Lydia. 2011a. Second language acquisition at the interfaces, Lingua 121(4): 577–590. Wulff, Stefanie. 2009. Converging evidence from corpus and experimental data to capture idiomaticity. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 5(1): 131–159. Xiao, Richard, and Tony McEnery. 2008. Negation in Chinese: a corpus-based study. Journal of Chinese linguistics 36(2): 274–330. Yang, Charles. 2004. Universal grammar, statistics or both? Trends in Cognitive Sciences 8(10): 451–456. Yong, Qian. 2016. A Corpus-based study of counterfactuals in Mandarin. Language and Linguistics 17(6): 891–915. Yuan, Boping. 2004. Negation in French-Chinese, German-Chinese and English-Chinese Interlanguages. Transactions of the Philological Society 102 (2): 169–197. Yuan, Boping. 2008. Discrepancy in English speakers’ L2 acquisition of Chinese wh-words as existential polarity words: the L1 dependent interface hypothesis. In Proceedings of the 9th Generative Approaches to Second Language Acquisition Conference (GASLA 2008), eds. Roumyana Slabakova, Jason Rothman, Paula Kempchinsky, Elena Gavruseva, 272–284. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project. 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(2): 219–260. Yuan, Boping., and Yang Zhao. 2009. Reassembly of features in English speakers’ L2 Chinese resultative compound constructions. In Proceedings of the 10th Generative Approaches to Second Language Acquisition Conference (GASLA 2009), eds. Melissa Bowles, Tania Ionin, Silvina Montrul, Annie Tremblay, 69–76. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project. Zhang, Yunqiu., Zhonglin Wang, and Yonghua Xiao. 2006. Cognitive analysis of patterns and misuses of negative structures of pre-four-year-old children. Journal of Capital Normal University (Social Sciences Edition) (6): 70–77. (In Chinese) Zhang, Lifei, and Chensong Yan. 2010. Realis and Irrealis: the semantic foundation of Chinese negation markers’ grammatical meaning. Foreign Language and Literature 26 (4): 34–40. (In Chinese) Zhang, Lifei, and Chensong Yan. 2011. A cognitive study of Chinese negative con-struction: a corpus-driven study. Beijing: Higher Education Press. (In Chinese) Zhao, Xia Lucy. 2012. Interpretation of Chinese overt and null embedded arguments by Englishspeaking learners. Second Language Research 28(2): 169–190. Zhao, Xia Lucy. 2014. Ultimate attainment of anaphora resolution in L2 Chinese. Second Language Research 30(3): 381–407.

272

8 Discussion

Zhou, Ping, Stephen Crain, and Rosalind Thornton. 2014. Lexical aspect and the use of negation by Mandarin-speaking children. In C. Chu, C. Coughlin, B. Prego, U. Minai, & A. Tremblay (Eds.), Proceedings of the 5th Conference on Generative Approaches to Language Acquisition North America (GALANA 2012), eds. Chia-Ying Chu, Caitlin E. Coughlin, Beatriz Lopez Prego, Utako Minai, Annie Tremblay, 150–156. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.

Chapter 9

Conclusion

Abstract This study expands the testing ground of the Interface Hypothesis and the Feature Reassembly Hypothesis, and furnishes empirical evidence for the representation of explicit and implicit knowledge in L2 grammar with both judgment data and production data on L2 acquisition of Chinese negation. The findings of this study have implications for the instruction of negation in teaching Chinese as a foreign language (TCFL) with regard to teaching sequence, instruction of negative collocations, and L2 learning strategies. Future research is required to employ online, context-based tasks to provide empirical evidence of real-time L2 processing of Chinese negation and L2 acquisition at the external interface involved with Chinese negation.

9.1 Introduction The present study has investigated the acquisition of Chinese negation by English speakers and Korean speakers based on the Interface Hypothesis and the Feature Reassembly Hypothesis, as well as the assumption of the distinction between explicit and implicit knowledge in L2 grammar. In this concluding chapter, we will first examine the theoretical significance of the present study in second language acquisition, and then discuss the implications of our findings for the instruction of Chinese negation to L2 learners. Finally, limitations of this study will be discussed, and future research suggested.

9.2 Theoretical Significance in SLA With both judgment data and production data on L2 acquisition of Chinese negation, this study expands the testing ground of the IH and the FRH and furnishes empirical evidence for the representation of explicit and implicit knowledge in L2 grammar. First, the present study examines the predictions of the IH with evidence of L2 acquisition at the narrow syntax and internal interfaces involved with Chinese negative structures. On one hand, our research shows that the IH contributes to © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2023 J. Wang, Interfaces and Features in Second Language Acquisition, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-8629-1_9

273

274

9 Conclusion

second language research by drawing our attention to cross-domain interface structures instead of focusing on a certain linguistic domain, be it syntax, semantics, or morphology. From a finer perspective, the IH enlightens L2 researchers to locate the source of the divergence between L2 grammar and the target grammar. Based on the IH, this study sheds light on our understanding of L2 acquisition at multiple interfaces in the case of L2 acquisition of Chinese negation. On the other hand, the findings of our study do not completely support the IH since much variability is attested in L2 acquisition at internal interfaces implicated with Chinese negation. It is thus suggested that the IH should be refined by considering the variables underlying L2 acquisition at interfaces, such as the salience and complexity of the target forms, the consistency and frequency of L2 input, L2 proficiency, and L1 influence, in line with the variable-dependent approach to L2 acquisition at interfaces suggested by Yuan (2010). In other words, the goal of future research on L2 acquisition at interfaces is not so much to explore whether a certain interface is problematic or not, but to explore the variables that lead to convergence or breakdown at that interface. Second, this study examines the proposals of the FRH with evidence of L2 acquisition of the [±realis] features encoded with Chinese negation. The results of our study confirm that the FRH has a promising explanatory power in accounting for possible difficulties in second language acquisition. Different from other featurebased hypotheses, the FRH gives a reasonable explanation for the problems faced by L2 learners when the target feature is available in L1 or it is interpretable. The development path of L2 learners’ acquisition of the [±realis] features confirms the assumption of the FRH with respect to the dynamic process of L2 development from initial mapping to eventual feature reassembly. From another perspective however, the nonparallel reassembly of the [±realis] features in different licensing contexts suggests that the FRH needs to be strengthened by considering the multiple factors contributing to feature detectability and reassembly in L2 acquisition, such as the frequency and consistency of the association between the feature and lexical items, L2 proficiency, as well as L1 feature configurations. By incorporating the examination of the IH and the FRH in one study, we are in a better position to evaluate the validity of these two influential theories in second language acquisition research. As mentioned in Chap. 1, current L2 acquisition research has been framed in one of these two theories only (Domínguez 2013). Some researchers have attempted to re-examine previous IH-based studies in the framework of the FRH (Domínguez et al. 2011; Gil and Marsden 2013; Mai and Yuan 2016). The present study makes an attempt to explore the role of interfaces and features in the acquisition of Chinese negation by L2 learners. Lastly, this research probes into the representation of explicit and implicit knowledge in L2 grammar with evidence of L2 learners’ performances in tasks with different cognitive demands. The results show that task modality affects L2 learners’ access to explicit or implicit knowledge about the target language, but such a task modality effect is subject to the complexity of the structures, L1-L2 similarity, and L2 proficiency. Furthermore, access to accurate explicit knowledge may lead to a better performance of L2 learners in certain categories, and it is also possible for L2

9.3 Implications for the Instruction of Negation in TCFL

275

learners to develop implicit knowledge of formulaic chunks before they formulate accurate explicit knowledge.

9.3 Implications for the Instruction of Negation in TCFL The current study has examined the development of L2 grammar about Chinese negation and drawn up L2 acquisition sequence of different negative structures in Chinese. The findings are expected to bring about implications for the instruction of negation in teaching Chinese as a foreign language (TCFL) with regard to teaching sequence, instruction of negative collocations, and L2 learning strategies. First, the instruction of Chinese negation should be step-by-step. This research covers 15 categories of Chinese negative structures and it is found that L2 learners’ acquisition of these structures follows a sequence, as illustrated in Fig. 9.1. According to such a cline of difficulty, it is suggested that the easier categories should be introduced to L2 learners before the difficult ones. For example, it is advised to introduce the constraint of hypothetical context on negation in conditionals to L2 learners with higher Chinese proficiency. Meanwhile, instructors should be conscious that some categories may pose difficulties for elementary L2 learners, such as the deletion of -le when mei is used for negating “V-le + O”, and the use of mei for negating resultative complement constructions, the negation of potential complement constructions, as well as the negation of past habitual activities. It should be noted that the sequence drawn from our study is relative rather than absolute. Even though the negation of the experiential aspect (Neg + V-guo) is acquired at an early stage, we are not implying that such a category should be taught at the very beginning before the instruction of negation in simple predicate sentences with bare verbs (Neg + V). Although it is not difficult for L2 learners to acquire the position of negation marker in descriptive complement constructions, they may still avoid using this structure in the production. Therefore, more practice is needed to encourage their use of this structure when necessary. Second, we suggest that the Lexical Approach should be adopted in the instruction of negative collocations. In contrast with the traditional grammar-based approach,

Fig. 9.1 Cline of Difficulty of the 15 Categories of Chinese Negative Structures

276

9 Conclusion

the Lexical Approach advanced by Lewis (1993) suggests that “language consists of grammaticalized lexis rather than lexicalized grammar” (p. 89). Lexis is considered as the basis of language and lexical items are defined as “minimal units for certain syntactic purposes”, including words, polywords, and collocation, as well as institutionalized expressions (pp. 89–95). Teaching formulaic lexical units (“chunks”) instead of grammatical rules is also emphasized (Lewis 1997). Following the Lexical Approach, we suggest that negative collocations should be presented to L2 learners explicitly. For example, stative verbs about relations (e.g., dengyu, “equal to”), cognition (e.g., zhidao, “to know”), and mental state (e.g., xihuan, “to like”) can only be negated by bu. These kinds of words are limited in total number but highly frequent in use, so it is advised the negative forms of such words should be taught to L2 learners as collocations along with the positive forms. The negative forms of verbal complement constructions may also be taught this way, as illustrated in (119) below. L2 learners should also be reminded of the position of negation markers in these complex constructions. (119) a. Resultative: VC+le ↔ mei+VC b. Potential: V-de+C ↔ V+bu+C c. Descriptive: V-de+(Adv)+C ↔ V-de+bu+C Moreover, there are also fixed patterns related to the negation of grammatical aspects. The following patterns may be presented to students at a proper time. For (120a), it says only mei could be used to negate “V-le” and “-le” should be left out; (120b) says that only mei can be used with “V-guo” regardless of the lexical aspect of the verb itself; (120c) says that only mei can be used to negate “V-zhe” and “-zhe” is usually omitted. (120) a. Subj. V+le… ↔ Subj. mei+V+le… b. Subj. V+guo…↔ Subj. mei+V+guo c. Subj. V+zhe… ↔ Subj. mei+V(+zhe) Finally, instructors should be aware of the “time strategy” of L2 learners. The results of our study reveal that L2 learners are quite sensitive to temporal information in the use of Chinese negation markers and they tend to associate past time with the use of mei and have persistent problems in the negation of past habitual activities. In view of this, instructors may remind L2 learners not to rely on temporal information alone in the choice of bu/mei by providing contrastive contexts, as exemplified in (121). (121) a. Zuotian Maike mei/*bu lai shangke. yesterday Mike not come have-class “Mike did not come to class yesterday.” b. Yiqian Maike bu/*mei he pijiu. Before Mike not drink beer “Mike did not use to drink beer before.” c. Mingtian Maike bu/*mei lai xuexiao. tomorrow Mike not come school. “Mike is not coming to school tomorrow.”

9.4 Limitations and Future Research

277

9.4 Limitations and Future Research The limitations of the present study should be acknowledged. This research does not provide empirical evidence of real-time processing of Chinese negation by L2 learners. The study has elicited written and aural grammaticality judgment data to examine L2 learners’ knowledge about Chinese negation. Although the aural grammaticality judgment test was computerized using E-prime software, we did not obtain reliable evidence about L2 online processing of Chinese negation since no exact time limit was set on the participants’ responses. We were not able to set a fixed time for their judgment because a total of 15 categories of negative structures were included in the test stimuli and the length and complexity of these test sentences varied across different categories. The present study does not include negative structures that are implicated with “external interfaces”. The 15 categories under investigation cover Chinese negative structures that are implicated with narrow syntax and internal interfaces, so this study does not touch upon the assumption of the IH that external interfaces constitute the main source of difficulty in L2 acquisition. There remain other categories of negation, such as the use of bu for negating volitions and the use of mei for negating future events when there is a reference time. These cases can be considered as involving the external interface since discourse information constrains the choice of negation markers. Such categories can be better investigated using context-based tasks but were not quite appropriate to be included in context-free grammaticality judgment tasks in the present study. In addition, the learner corpus data of L1-English learners and learners with lower proficiency are very limited in our study. Though we have managed to include four existing Chinese learner corpora in our research, the number of the target tokens produced by L1-English learners is still not comparable to that of L1-Korean learners. Thus, we could not compare the performance of L1-English learners and that of L1Korean learners based on the production data in the corpora. Given the small number of the target tokens produced by learners with lower Chinese proficiency (before the intermediate level), we are not in a good position to compare their use of negation markers to the judgment of L2 learners at corresponding proficiency levels. To address the above issues, future research is required to employ more rigorous experimental techniques, such as a self-paced reading task or tasks using the ERP paradigm. By doing so, we could explore whether L2 learners are sensitive to the various constraints on Chinese negation during online processing. Context-based tasks, such as a context-based preference task, could be employed to probe into L2 acquisition at the external interface involved with Chinese negation. In addition, more effort should be made to collect additional production data of L1-English learners and learners with lower Chinese proficiency. For instance, we could employ well-designed speaking or writing tasks to elicit L2 learners’ production of Chinese negation.

278

9 Conclusion

References Domínguez, Laura, María J. Arche, & Florence Myles. 2011. Testing the predictions of the FeatureAssembly Hypothesis: Evidence from the L2 acquisition of Spanish aspect morphology. In Proceedings of the 35th Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development, eds. Nick Danis, Kate Mesh, and Hyunsuk Sung, 183–196. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press. Domínguez, Laura. 2013. Understanding interfaces: Second language acquisition and first language attrition of Spanish subject realization and word order variation (Vol. 55). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing. Gil, Kook-Hee, and Heather Marsden. 2013. Existential quantifiers in second language acquisition: A feature reassembly account. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism 3(2): 117−149. Lewis, Michael. 1993. The lexical approach: The state of ELT and the way forward. Hove, England: Language Teaching Publications. Lewis, Michael. 1997. Pedagogical implications of the lexical approach. In Second language vocabulary acquisition, eds. James Coady, and Thomas Huckin, 255−270. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Mai, Ziyin, and 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. 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(2): 219−260.

Appendix 1

Test Items Used in the Grammaticality Judgment Test

Category 1: The Position of bu/mei in Verbal Complement Constructions (1) Resultative Complement Constructions *V-mei-C

mei-VC

VC

*小红写没完作业。

小明没写完作业 。

小李写完了作业。

*小明做没好这件事。

小丁没做好这件事。

小美做好了这件事。

*小月找没到她的手机。

小文没找到他的手机。

小红找到了她的手机。

*小李看没完这本书。

小丽没看完这本书。

小王看完了这本书。

(2) Potential Complement Constructions *bu+VC

V-bu–C

*小明不写完作业。

小张写不完作业。

*小丁不做好这件事。

小红做不好这件事。

*小文不找到他的手机。

小丽找不到她的手机。

*小张不看完这本书。

小丁看不完这本书。

(3) Descriptive Complement Constructions *bu+V-de+C

V-de+bu–C

V-de-C

*小张不跑得快。

小丁跑得不快。

小王跑得很快。

*小李不写得好。

小明写得不好。

小丁写得很好。

*小月不走得快。

小红走得不快。

小李走得很快。

*小明不唱得好。

小张唱得不好。

小丽唱得很好。

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2023 J. Wang, Interfaces and Features in Second Language Acquisition, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-8629-1

279

280

Appendix 1: Test Items Used in the Grammaticality Judgment Test

Category 2 Temporal Information and Negation (4) Past Habitual Activities *yiqian+mei+V

yiqian(formerly)+bu+V

yiqian+V

*小李以前没喝酒。

小王以前不喝酒。

小张以前喝酒。

*小李以前没抽烟。

小丽以前不抽烟。

小红以前抽烟。

*小王以前没睡午觉。

小张以前不睡午觉。

小王以前睡午觉。

*小张以前没吃牛肉。

小李以前不吃牛肉。

小林以前吃牛肉。

(5) Past Episodic Events *zuotian (yesterday)+bu+V

zuotian+mei+V

zuotian+V

*小丁昨天不做蛋糕。

小张昨天没做蛋糕。

小王昨天做了蛋糕。

*小明昨天不洗衣服。

小李昨天没洗衣服。

小丁昨天洗了衣服。

*小文昨天不买手机

小张昨天没买手机。

小美昨天买了手机。

*小红昨天不去银行。

小月昨天没去银行。

小月昨天去了银行。

(6) Absolute Future Events *mingtia (tomorrow)+mei+V

mingtian+bu+V

mingtian+V

*小红明天没回学校。

小张明天不回学校。

小南明天要回学校。

*小丁明天没去北京。

小李明天不去北京。

小美明天要去北京。

*小陈明天没看电影。

小文明天不看电影。

小李明天要看电影。

*小李明天没坐火车。

小红明天不坐火车。

小王明天要坐火车。

Category 3 Lexical Aspect and Negation (7) Statives *mei+statives

bu+statives

statives

*小王没认识我的妹妹。

小张不认识我的妹妹。

小李认识我的妹妹。

*小明没知道我的爱好。

小张不知道我的爱好。

小宝知道我的爱好。

*小兰没知道我的生日。

小丁不知道我的生日。

小张知道我的生日。

*小南没喜欢我的衣服。

小丽不喜欢我的衣服。

小美喜欢我的衣服。

(8) Achievements/accomplishments (Ach. /Acc.)

Appendix 1: Test Items Used in the Grammaticality Judgment Test

281

*bu+Ach./Acc

mei+Ach./Acc

Ach./Acc

*小明不写完作业。

小明没写完作业 。

小李写完了作业。

*小丁不做好这件事

小丁没做好这件事。

小美做好了这件事。

*小文不找到他的手机

小文没找到他的手机。

小红找到了她的手机。

*小张不看完这本书。

小丽没看完这本书。

小王看完了这本书。

Category 4 Aspect Markers and Negation (9) The perfective aspect and bu *bu+V-le

bu+V

V

*小丁不喝了啤酒。

小王不喝啤酒。

小张喝啤酒。

*小李不学了英语。

小李不学英语。

小王学英语。

*小张不踢了足球。

小李不踢足球。

小李踢足球。

*小白不看了中文书。

小白不看中文书。

小明看中文书。

(10) The Perfective Aspect and mei *mei+V-le

mei+V

V-le

*小李没喝了咖啡。

小东没喝咖啡。

小红喝了咖啡。

*小王没买了苹果。

小王没买苹果。

小李买了苹果。

*小李没吃了早饭。

小兰没吃早饭。

小张吃了早饭。

*小明没拿了雨伞。

小明没拿雨伞。

小李拿了雨伞。

(11) The Experiential Aspect and bu/mei *bu+V-guo

mei+V-guo

V-guo

*小丽不坐过飞机。

小英没坐过飞机。

小张坐过飞机。

*小王不吃过法国菜。

小李没吃过法国菜。

小王吃过法国菜。

*小明不去过美国。

小丁没去过美国。

小李去过美国。

*小春不喝过中国茶。

小冬没喝过中国茶。

小明喝过中国茶。

(12) The Durative Aspect and bu/mei

282

Appendix 1: Test Items Used in the Grammaticality Judgment Test

*bu+V-zhe

mei+V-zhe

V-zhe

*小林不闭着眼睛。

小李没闭着眼睛。

小林闭着眼睛。

*小王不看着黑板。

小丁没看着黑板。

小林看着黑板。

*小李不带着地图。

小美没抱着孩子。

小丽抱着孩子。

*小张不抱着孩子。

小明没带着地图。

小丁带着地图。

Category 5 Hypothetical Context and Negation (13) Resultative Complement in Conditionals *bu+VC

(if)… bu+VC, …

*小明不写完作业。

小东不写完作业, 就要留在家里。

*小丁不做好这件事

小美不做好这件事, 老板就会生气。

*小文不找到他的手机

小兰不找到她的手机, 就得买新的。

*小张不看完这本书。

小英不看完这本书, 就会很担心。

(14) Descriptive Complement in Conditionals *bu+V-de+C

(if)… bu+V-de+C, …

*小张不跑得快。

小明不跑得快一点儿, 就会迟到。

*小李不写得好。

小东不写得好一点, 老师就会生气。

*小月不走得快。

小红不走得快一点, 妈妈就会骂她。

*小明不唱得好。

小林不唱得好一点儿, 大家就会笑他。

(15) Durative Aspect in Conditionals *bu+V-zhe

(if)… bu+V-zhe, …

*小林不闭着眼睛。

小丽不闭着眼睛, 就会很害怕。

*小王不看着黑板。

小丁不看着黑板, 老师就会生气。

*小李不带着地图。

小红不带着地图, 就会迷路。

*小张不抱着孩子。

小张不抱着孩子, 他就会哭。

Distractors (N = 72):

Appendix 1: Test Items Used in the Grammaticality Judgment Test

天气很热今天。

小丁开车去机场。

小东很晚才睡觉。

小文洗澡晚上。

火车站一点儿远。

饭馆儿里都是人。

小明家有三口人。

小丁回去英国了。

小李见面了小王。

小红每天起床七点。

这里很多下雨。

小王跑步了一个小时。

小王家离学校很近。

小美是很漂亮。

邮局在学校对面。

小红教室里看书。

小兰十点才起床了。

小李有两只猫。

公园里有很多人。

小英的房间很乱。

小春在看电视。

这次考试有点儿难。

很有意思中文课。

小红工作在银行。

小王去旅游了。

小月唱歌在房间。

小明回来了从上海。

教室里有五学生。

桌子上有三苹果。

这本书好看比那本。

小东的电脑坏了。

小明开车上班。

小美打了电话。

小张打球跟朋友。

小明洗衣服自己。

小张很少运动。

银行在医院旁边。

小美的钱用完了。

小林走出来房间了。

小东吃饭在饭馆儿。

苹果是昨天买。

教室有很多学生。

小李把蛋糕吃了。

中文难一点比英文

小江在学开车。

小张昨天去的北京。

小丽买了新衣服。

小王去图书馆了。

今天很热比昨天。

小美说英文得很好。

学校八点开始上课。

小丁写汉字很好。

小冬睡了五个小时。

小李住在学校。

这个菜太辣了。

很多人在地铁上。

小丁很高比小张。

小春会说英语。

小李回来学校了。

这里冬天非常冷。

有很多书图书馆。

天气越来越冷了。

小张想学开车。

银行旁边是图书馆。

小丽把门关上了。

这件衣服一点儿贵。

小丽来了北京三年。

很多人在地铁上。

小文买了一本书。

学校外面有饭馆儿。

小文的手机丢了。

小丁聪明非常。

283

Appendix 2

A Sample of the Grammaticality Judgment Test

(1) Instructions for English speakers:

(2) Instructions for Korean speakers:

(3) Instructions for Chinese native speakers:

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2023 J. Wang, Interfaces and Features in Second Language Acquisition, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-8629-1

285

286

Appendix 2: A Sample of the Grammaticality Judgment Test

Appendix 2: A Sample of the Grammaticality Judgment Test

287

288

Appendix 2: A Sample of the Grammaticality Judgment Test

Appendix 3

Sample of the Chinese Cloze Test

Instruction: One Chinese character is missing for each underlined word/phrase in the following passage. Please fill each blank with ONE appropriate Chinese character to make them complete. You may use pinyin when necessary.

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2023 J. Wang, Interfaces and Features in Second Language Acquisition, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-8629-1

289

290

Appendix 3: Sample of the Chinese Cloze Test

Appendix 4

Criteria for the Division of Chinese Proficiency in the Corpora

(1) Division of Chinese proficiency in TOCFL corresponding with HSK CEFR1

TOCFL

HSK

C2

Mastery

Level-6

C1

Fluent

Level-5

B2

Advanced

Level-4

B1

Intermediate

Level-3

A2

Elementary

Level-2

A1

Novice

Level-1

(cited from L. Zhang, 2014, p. 142) 1 CEFR stands for Common European Framework of Reference for Languages. It is an international standard for describing language ability. The website is http://www.cambridgeenglish.org/examsand-tests/cefr/

(2) Division of Chinese proficiency in ECIC corresponding with HSK1 ECIC Ele-1 Ele-2 Ele-3 HSK

0

0

Ele-4

Int-1

Int-2

Int-3

Int.-4

Ad-1

Ad-2

Level-3 Level-3 Level-4 Level-4 Level-5 Level-5 Level-6 Level-6

Keys: Ele-elementary; Int: Intermediate; Ad: Advanced

1

The information is available in the website: https://cilc.sysu.edu.cn/interlang/lang_page/.

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2023 J. Wang, Interfaces and Features in Second Language Acquisition, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-8629-1

291

Appendix 5

Means of Judgment and Standard Derivations in the Written and Aural GJTs by L2 learners and Chinese Natives

(1) Neg+RCC *V+mei+C

mei+VC

VC (control)

Written

Aural

Written

Aural

Written

Aural

M (SD)

M (SD)

M (SD)

M (SD)

M (SD)

M (SD)

EE (21) ELI (21) El (20) EHI (14) EA (14)

1.87 (0.58) 1.31 (0.31) 1.48 (0.56) 1.25 (0.44) 1.27 (0.42)

2.37 (0.53) 1.96 (0.59) 1.60 (0.70) 1.57 (0.65) 1.18 (0.32)

2.89 (0.65) 3.06 (0.60) 3.46 (0.51) 3.34 (0.71) 3.75 (0.38)

2.89 (0.76) 3.32 (0.62) 3.54 (0.49) 3.48 (0.83) 3.79 (0.29)

3.10 (0.53) 3.20 (0.58) 3.46 (0.38) 3.34 (0.57) 3.55 (0.30)

3.32 (0.48) 3.57 (0.40) 3.74 (0.32) 3.55 (0.62) 3.57 (0.51)

KE (20) KLI (20) KI (20) KHI (16) KA (16)

2.04 (0.87) 1.36 (0.62) 1.48 (0.56) 1.23 (0.41) 1.39 (0.59)

2.59 (0.85) 2.04 (0.89) 2.11 (0.81) 1.45 (0.61) 1.80 (1.00)

2.84 (0.60) 3.25 (0.73) 3.10 (0.74) 3.59 (0.44) 3.94 (0.14)

3.21 (0.64) 3.51 (0.42) 3.53 (0.58) 3.70 (0.59) 3.83 (0.31)

3.26 (0.55) 3.59 (0.43) 3.59 (0.52) 3.38 (0.77) 3.72 (0.48)

3.61 (0.42) 3.64 (0.49) 3.88 (0.21) 3.84 (0.27) 3.81 (0.38)

NC (15)

2.10 (0.69)

1.10 (0.39)

3.93 (0.20)

3.88 (0.27)

3.77 (0.32)

3.67 (0.51)

(2) Neg+PCC *bu+VC Written EE (21) ELI (21) El (20) EHI (14) EA (14)

V+bu+C Aural

Written

Aural

M (SD)

M (SD)

M (SD)

M (SD)

2.07 (0.55) 1.69 (0.68) 1.63 (0.59) 1.54 (0.48) 1.27 (0.54)

2.21 (0.65) 2.07 (0.78) 1.61 (0.64) 1.25 (0.37) 1.30 (0.37)

2.95 (0.50) 3.07 (0.48) 2.59 (0.76) 2.77 (0.73) 3.13 (0.65)

2.82 (0.75) 3.30 (0.53) 2.83 (0.66) 2.88 (0.87) 3.34 (0.59) (continued)

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2023 J. Wang, Interfaces and Features in Second Language Acquisition, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-8629-1

293

294

Appendix 5: Means of Judgment and Standard Derivations in the Written and Aural …

(continued) V+bu+C

*bu+VC Written

Aural

Written

Aural

M (SD)

M (SD)

M (SD)

M (SD)

KE (20) KLI (20) KI (20) KHI (16) KA (16)

2.10 (0.77) 1.56 (0.65) 1.56 (0.52) 1.42 (0.43) 1.36 (0.40)

2.70 (0.76) 2.06 (0.69) 1.93 (0.65) 1.48 (0.52) 1.67 (0.69)

2.95 (0.62) 2.81 (0.67) 2.90 (0.74) 2.94 (0.63) 3.52 (0.69)

2.91 (0.55) 2.95 (0.69) 3.15 (0.52) 2.91 (0.72) 3.42 (0.71)

NC (15)

1.35 (0.36)

1.37 (0.36)

3.87 (0.23)

3.70 (0.49)

(3) Neg+DCC *bu+V-de+C Written

V-de+bu+C Aural

Written

V-de+C (control) Aural

Written

Aural

M (SD)

M (SD)

M (SD)

M (SD)

M (SD)

M (SD)

EE (21) ELI (21) El (20) EHI (14) EA (14)

1.80 (0.73) 1.99 (0.82) 1.69 (0.54) 1.63 (0.76) 1.52 (0.47)

1.55 (0.62) 1.67 (0.90) 1.28 (0.37) 1.52 (0.51) 1.36 (0.60)

3.33 (0.79) 3.74 (0.41) 3.68 (0.38) 3.88 (0.24) 3.95 (0.14)

3.40 (0.66) 3.61 (0.47) 3.54 (0.67) 3.63 (0.55) 3.80 (0.30)

3.33 (0.80) 3.77 (0.33) 3.53 (0.52) 3.82 (0.30) 3.79 (0.46)

3.62 (0.63) 3.93 (0.23) 3.81 (0.48) 3.79 (0.46) 3.95 (0.14)

KE (20) KLI (20) KI (20) KHI (16) KA (16)

2.26 (0.86) 1.24 (0.38) 1.33 (0.45) 1.39 (0.54) 1.22 (0.42)

1.78 (0.67) 1.69 (0.82) 1.50 (0.51) 1.20 (0.31) 1.38 (0.56)

3.55 (0.63) 3.69 (0.46) 3.75 (0.32) 3.91 (0.26) 3.91 (0.22)

3.74 (0.49) 3.61 (0.60) 3.61 (0.67) 3.73 (0.52) 3.88 (0.24)

3.54 (0.61) 3.85 (0.38) 3.95 (0.10) 3.98 (0.06) 3.91 (0.27)

3.85 (0.24) 3.93 (0.23) 3.95 (0.17) 3.95 (0.19) 3.94 (0.19)

NC (15)

1.15 (0.36)

1.17 (0.36)

3.97 (0.09)

3.82 (0.32)

3.92 (0.20)

3.95 (0.19)

(4) yiqian+Neg+VP * yiqian-mei+VP

EE (21) ELI (21) El (20) EHI (14) EA (14)

yiqian-bu+VP

yiqian+VP (control)

Written

Aural

Written

Aural

Written

Aural

M (SD)

M (SD)

M (SD)

M (SD)

M (SD)

M (SD)

3.01 (0.58) 2.95 (0.65) 2.98 (0.64) 2.82 (0.82) 2.50 (0.79)

2.58 (0.78) 2.70 (0.72) 2.65 (0.93) 2.70 (0.92) 2.82 (0.59)

2.37 (0.76) 2.64 (0.86) 2.54 (0.90) 2.86 (1.11) 3.66 (0.39)

2.69 (0.72) 2.30 (0.86) 2.49 (0.73) 2.54 (0.81) 3.64 (0.39)

2.77 (0.68) 2.73 (0.83) 2.71 (0.87) 2.80 (0.88) 3.41 (0.71)

3.08 (0.43) 2.46 (0.73) 2.74 (0.78) 2.91 (0.86) 3.41 (0.62) (continued)

Appendix 5: Means of Judgment and Standard Derivations in the Written and Aural …

295

(continued) * yiqian-mei+VP

yiqian-bu+VP

Written

Aural

Written

Aural

yiqian+VP (control) Written

Aural

M (SD)

M (SD)

M (SD)

M (SD)

M (SD)

M (SD)

KE (20) KLI (20) KI (20) KHI (16) KA (16)

2.99 (0.83) 2.98 (0.86) 3.13 (0.54) 2.81 (0.99) 2.53 (0.87)

3.06 (1.00) 3.00 (0.58) 3.21 (0.61) 3.00 (0.78) 3.06 (0.92)

2.38 (0.94) 2.24 (0.97) 2.53 (0.93) 2.98 (1.08) 3.61 (0.58)

2.35 (0.96) 2.26 (0.80) 2.74 (0.89) 2.98 (1.19) 3.72 (0.38)

2.54 (0.70) 2.76 (0.78) 2.55 (0.75) 3.06 (0.87) 3.53 (0.53)

2.59 (0.71) 2.80 (0.85) 2.95 (0.58) 3.02 (1.01) 3.38 (0.42)

NC (15)

1.53 (0.53)

1.42 (0.70)

4.00 (0.00)

3.98 (0.06)

3.80 (0.42)

3.92 (0.15)

(5) zuotian+Neg+VP * yiqian+mei+VP

yiqian+bu+VP

yiqian+VP (control)

Written

Written

Written

Aural

Aural

Aural

M (SD)

M (SD)

M (SD)

M (SD)

M (SD)

M (SD)

EE (21) ELI (21) El (20) EHI (14) EA (14)

3.01 (0.58) 2.95 (0.65) 2.98 (0.64) 2.82 (0.82) 2.50 (0.79)

2.58 (0.78) 2.70 (0.72) 2.65 (0.93) 2.70 (0.92) 2.82 (0.59)

2.37 (0.76) 2.64 (0.86) 2.54 (0.90) 2.86 (1.11) 3.66 (0.39)

2.69 (0.72) 2.30 (0.86) 2.49 (0.73) 2.54 (0.81) 3.64 (0.39)

2.77 (0.68) 2.73 (0.83) 2.71 (0.87) 2.80 (0.88) 3.41 (0.71)

3.08 (0.43) 2.46 (0.73) 2.74 (0.78) 2.91 (0.86) 3.41 (0.62)

KE (20) KLI (20) KI (20) KHI (16) KA (16)

2.99 (0.83) 2.98 (0.86) 3.13 (0.54) 2.81 (0.99) 2.53 (0.87)

3.06 (1.00) 3.00 (0.58) 3.21 (0.61) 3.00 (0.78) 3.06 (0.92)

2.38 (0.94) 2.24 (0.97) 2.53 (0.93) 2.98 (1.08) 3.61 (0.58)

2.35 (0.96) 2.26 (0.80) 2.74 (0.89) 2.98 (1.19) 3.72 (0.38)

2.54 (0.70) 2.76 (0.78) 2.55 (0.75) 3.06 (0.87) 3.53 (0.53)

2.59 (0.71) 2.80 (0.85) 2.95 (0.58) 3.02 (1.01) 3.38 (0.42)

NC (15)

1.53 (0.53)

1.42 (0.70)

4.00 (0.00)

3.98 (0.06)

3.80 (0.42)

3.92 (0.15)

(6) mingtian+Neg+VP

EE (21) ELI (21) El (20) EHI (14) EA (14)

* mingtian+mei+VP

mingtian+bu+VP

mingtian+VP (control)

Written

Written

Written

Aural

Aural

Aural

M (SD)

M (SD)

M (SD)

M (SD)

M (SD)

M (SD)

1.96 (0.90) 1.68 (0.72) 1.39 (0.48) 1.45 (0.52) 1.27 (0.47)

2.29 (0.94) 1.54 (0.60) 1.46 (0.58) 1.34 (0.54) 1.18 (0.33)

2.50 (0.93) 2.77 (0.74) 3.01 (0.78) 3.73 (0.33) 3.61 (0.41)

2.63 (0.80) 2.60 (0.87) 2.66 (0.78) 3.34 (0.70) 3.52 (0.49)

3.31 (0.61) 3.38 (0.71) 3.69 (0.39) 3.75 (0.46) 3.91 (0.21)

3.51 (0.37) 3.65 (0.31) 3.76 (0.29) 3.88 (0.24) 3.98 (0.07) (continued)

296

Appendix 5: Means of Judgment and Standard Derivations in the Written and Aural …

(continued) * mingtian+mei+VP

mingtian+bu+VP

Written

Aural

Written

Aural

mingtian+VP (control) Written

Aural

M (SD)

M (SD)

M (SD)

M (SD)

M (SD)

M (SD)

KE (20) KLI (20) KI (20) KHI (16) KA (16)

1.69 (0.76) 1.28 (0.40) 1.21 (0.34) 1.31 (0.44) 1.33 (0.55)

1.70 (0.83) 1.43 (0.61) 1.30 (0.54) 1.45 (0.61) 1.17 (0.52)

3.30 (0.65) 3.19 (0.76) 3.34 (0.99) 3.13 (0.74) 3.81 (0.32)

3.43 (0.55) 3.28 (0.68) 3.21 (0.70) 3.70 (0.59) 3.73 (0.61)

3.30 (0.61) 3.58 (0.50) 3.84 (0.23) 3.88 (0.22) 3.92 (0.20)

3.64 (0.46) 3.59 (0.47) 3.84 (0.23) 3.84 (0.27) 3.98 (0.06)

NC (15)

1.30 (0.47)

1.03 (0.09)

3.97 (0.09)

3.95 (0.10)

4.00 (0.00)

3.97 (0.09)

Aural

Written

(7) Neg+Statives *mei+statives Written

bu+statives

statives (control) Aural

Written

Aural

M (SD)

M (SD)

M (SD)

M (SD)

M (SD)

M (SD)

EE (21) ELI (21) El (20) EHI (14) EA (14)

1.85 (0.66) 1.67 (0.46) 2.25 (0.79) 1.93 (0.84) 1.45 (0.52)

1.79 (0.59) 1.51 (0.48) 1.69 (0.60) 1.52 (0.63) 1.38 (0.41)

3.71 (0.36) 3.67 (0.39) 3.64 (0.38) 3.86 (0.27) 3.75 (0.38)

3.69 (0.35) 3.89 (0.22) 3.65 (0.55) 3.57 (0.42) 3.52 (0.54)

3.56 (0.47) 3.61 (0.48) 3.53 (0.51) 3.75 (0.34) 3.82 (0.30)

3.70 (0.55) 3.79 (0.36) 3.63 (0.32) 3.77 (0.30) 3.63 (0.44)

KE (20) KLI (20) KI (20) KHI (16) KA (16)

2.15 (0.94) 1.69 (0.70) 1.50 (0.56) 1.27 (0.37) 1.38 (0.68)

2.08 (0.98) 1.76 (0.66) 1.59 (0.79) 1.23 (0.48) 1.45 (0.81)

3.73 (0.46) 3.86 (0.26) 3.90 (0.24) 3.78 (0.36) 3.95 (0.19)

3.95 (0.17) 3.81 (0.52) 3.95 (0.17) 3.91 (0.22) 3.81 (0.34)

3.69 (0.44) 3.81 (0.46) 3.98 (0.11) 3.84 (0.34) 4.00 (0.00)

3.91 (0.19) 3.90 (0.24) 3.99 (0.06) 3.94 (0.19) 3.89 (0.24)

NC (15)

1.08 (0.32)

1.28 (0.46)

4.00 (0.00)

4.00 (0.00)

4.00 (0.00)

4.00 (0.00)

(8) Neg+Achievements/Accomplishments (Ach./Acc.)

EE (21) ELI (21) El (20) EHI (L4) EA (14)

*bu+Ach./Acc.

mei+Ach./Acc.

Ach./Acc. (control)

Written

Written

Written

Aural

Aural

Aural

M (SD)

M (SD)

M (SD)

M (SD)

M (SD)

M (SD)

2.07 (0.55) 1.69 (0.68) 1.63 (0.59) 1.54 (0.48) 1.27 (0.54)

2.21 (0.65) 2.07 (0.78) 1.61 (0.64) 1.25 (0.37) 1.30 (0.37)

2.89 (0.65) 3.06 (0.60) 3.46 (0.51) 3.34 (0.71) 3.75 (0.38)

2.89 (0.76) 3.32 (0.62) 3.54 (0.49) 3.48 (0.83) 3.79 (0.29)

3.10 (0.53) 3.20 (0.58) 3.46 (0.38) 3.34 (0.57) 3.55 (0.30)

3.32 (0.48) 3.57 (0.40) 3.74 (0.32) 3.55 (0.62) 3.57 (0.51) (continued)

Appendix 5: Means of Judgment and Standard Derivations in the Written and Aural …

297

(continued) *bu+Ach./Acc.

mei+Ach./Acc.

Written

Aural

Written

Aural

Ach./Acc. (control) Written

Aural

M (SD)

M (SD)

M (SD)

M (SD)

M (SD)

M (SD)

KE (20) KLI (20) KI (20) KHI (16) KA (16)

2.10 (0.77) 1.56 (0.65) 1.56 (0.52) 1.42 (0.43) 1.36 (0.40)

2.70 (0.76) 2.06 (0.69) 1.93 (0.65) 1.48 (0.52) 1.67 (0.69)

2.84 (0.60) 3.25 (0.73) 3.10 (0.74) 3.59 (0.44) 3.94 (0.14)

3.21 (0.64) 3.51 (0.42) 3.53 (0.58) 3.70 (0.59) 3.83 (0.31)

3.26 (0.55) 3.59 (0.43) 3.59 (0.52) 3.38 (0.77) 3.72 (0.48)

3.61 (0.42) 3.64 (0.49) 3.88 (0.21) 3.84 (0.27) 3.81 (0.38)

NC (15)

1.35 (0.36)

1.37 (0.36)

3.93 (0.20)

3.88 (0.27)

3.77 (0.32)

3.67 (0.51)

Aural

Written

(9) bu+V-(*le)+O *bu+V-le+O Written

bu+V+O

V+O (control) Aural

Written

Aural

M (SD)

M (SD)

M (SD)

M (SD)

M (SD)

M (SD)

EE (21) ELI (21) El (20) EHI (14) EA (14)

2.24 (0.96) 1.57 (0.58) 1.60 (0.67) 1.50 (0.56) 1.34 (0.42)

2.12 (0.90) 1.89 (0.71) 1.55 (0.50) 1.45 (0.57) 1.39 (0.62)

3.08 (0.51) 3.54 (0.44) 3.63 (0.55) 3.73 (0.43) 3.82 (0.30)

3.20 (0.52) 3.40 (0.58) 3.45 (0.55) 3.61 (0.54) 3.77 (0.36)

3.56 (0.43) 3.55 (0.58) 3.59 (0.51) 3.61 (0.50) 3.68 (0.48)

3.76 (0.28) 3.65 (0.44) 3.73 (0.43) 3.71 (0.49) 3.61 (0.66)

KE (20) KLI (20) KI (20) KHI (16) KA (16)

2.11 (0.74) 1.66 (0.77) 1.88 (0.78) 1.86 (0.84) 1.56 (0.59)

2.24 (0.81) 1.54 (0.67) 2.19 (0.92) 1.80 (0.74) 1.77 (1.02)

3.21 (0.45) 3.36 (0.73) 3.64 (0.34) 3.59 (0.52) 3.86 (0.30)

3.44 (0.56) 3.46 (0.74) 3.48 (0.49) 3.61 (0.61) 3.88 (0.24)

3.49 (0.55) 3.63 (0.54) 3.65 (0.42) 3.53 (0.63) 3.84 (0.39)

3.84 (0.22) 3.50 (0.67) 3.84 (0.25) 3.63 (0.49) 3.98 (0.06)

NC (15)

1.15 (0.42)

1.23 (0.48)

3.87 (0.39)

3.93 (0.11)

3.90 (0.16)

3.93 (0.11)

Written

Aural

Written

Aural

Written

Aural

M (SD)

M (SD)

M (SD)

M (SD)

M (SD)

M (SD)

2.26 (0.90) 2.07 (0.92) 2.06 (0.88) 2.45 (1.07) 1.41 (0.76)

2.33 (0.93) 2.42 (1.14) 2.04 (0.89) 2.64 (1.09) 1.36 (0.56)

3.07 (0.77) 3.24 (0.61) 3.36 (0.71) 3.50 (0.62) 3.79 (0.24)

2.98 (0.66) 3.00 (0.77) 3.10 (0.81) 3.30 (0.79) 3.70 (0.43)

3.08 (0.68) 3.61 (0.42) 3.59 (0.37) 3.82 (0.32) 3.89 (0.23)

3.30 (0.71) 3.69 (0.41) 3.78 (0.26) 3.82 (0.28) 3.91 (0.23)

(10) mei+V-(*le)+O *mei+V-le+O

EE (21) ELI (21) El (20) EHI (14) EA (14)

mei+V+O

V+O (control)

(continued)

298

Appendix 5: Means of Judgment and Standard Derivations in the Written and Aural …

(continued) mei+V+O

*mei+V-le+O

V+O (control)

Written

Aural

Written

Aural

Written

Aural

M (SD)

M (SD)

M (SD)

M (SD)

M (SD)

M (SD)

KE (20) KLI (20) KI (20) KHI (16) KA (16)

2.39 (0.89) 2.09 (1.09) 2.15 (1.03) 2.03 (1.02) 1.75 (0.89)

2.56 (1.03) 2.28 (1.03) 2.30 (0.85) 2.42 (0.99) 1.91 (0.92)

2.99 (0.81) 3.30 (0.68) 3.30 (0.65) 3.41 (0.58) 3.72 (0.55)

3.15 (0.69) 3.26 (0.64) 3.04 (0.61) 3.27 (0.61) 3.88 (0.27)

3.51 (0.42) 3.20 (0.89) 3.90 (0.30) 3.81 (0.28) 3.81 (0.44)

3.61 (0.51) 3.53 (0.61) 3.86 (0.19) 3.83 (0.28) 3.92 (0.22)

NC (15)

1.02 (0.06)

1.27 (0.49)

3.88 (0.23)

3.87 (0.27)

3.98 (0.06)

3.98 (0.06)

Aural

Written

(11) Neg+V-guo *bu+V-guo Written

mei+V-guo

V-guo (control) Aural

Written

Aural

M (SD)

M (SD)

M (SD)

M (SD)

M (SD)

M (SD)

EE (21) ELI (21) El (20) EHI (14) EA (14)

1.74 (0.62) 1.36 (0.62) 1.35 (0.40) 1.20 (0.33) 1.05 (0.20)

2.02 (0.87) 1.82 (0.79) 1.20 (0.30) 1.07 (0.21) 1.07 (0.21)

3.80 (0.36) 3.83 (0.33) 3.90 (0.27) 3.95 (0.20) 3.98 (0.07)

3.49 (0.57) 3.73 (0.35) 3.90 (0.19) 3.88 (0.32) 3.91 (0.23)

3.75 (0.30) 3.74 (0.45) 3.74 (0.52) 3.64 (0.81) 3.91 (0.23)

3.71 (0.36) 3.71 (0.61) 3.75 (0.53) 3.71 (0.59) 3.98 (0.07)

KE (20) KLI (20) KI (20) KHI (16) KA (16)

1.60 (0.69) 1.41 (0.65) 1.36 (0.57) 1.23 (0.41) 1.02 (0.06)

1.83 (0.84) 1.66 (0.64) 1.76 (0.80) 1.14 (0.30) 1.16 (0.36)

3.59 (0.54) 3.74 (0.47) 3.78 (0.47) 3.89 (0.26) 3.94 (0.19)

3.70 (0.40) 3.78 (0.50) 3.74 (0.42) 3.86 (0.30) 3.95 (0.19)

3.49 (0.68) 3.78 (0.52) 4.00 (0.00) 3.94 (0.19) 3.94 (0.25)

3.66 (0.56) 3.89 (0.39) 3.98 (0.08) 3.95 (0.14) 4.00 (0.00)

NC (15)

1.30 (0.62)

1.08 (0.15)

3.95 (0.19)

3.85 (0.28)

4.00 (0.00)

3.98 (0.06)

Aural

Written

(12) Neg+V-zhe *bu+V-zhe Written EE (21) ELI (21) El (20) EHI (14) EA (14)

mei+V-zhe

V-zhe (control) Aural

Written

Aural

M (SD)

M (SD)

M (SD)

M (SD)

M (SD)

M (SD)

2.52 (0.44) 2.69 (0.66) 2.88 (0.68) 2.95 (0.48) 2.52 (1.04)

2.57 (0.53) 2.79 (0.62) 2.73 (0.53) 2.73 (0.74) 2.50 (0.88)

2.69 (0.55) 2.32 (0.77) 2.30 (0.64) 2.48 (0.70) 2.21 (1.02)

2.61 (0.58) 2.36 (0.51) 2.40 (0.74) 2.54 (0.85) 2.45 (0.96)

2.83 (0.58) 3.49 (0.50) 3.51 (0.32) 3.75 (0.34) 3.89 (0.34)

2.86 (0.52) 3.30 (0.33) 3.35 (0.52) 3.64 (0.47) 3.96 (0.09) (continued)

Appendix 5: Means of Judgment and Standard Derivations in the Written and Aural …

299

(continued) mei+V-zhe

*bu+V-zhe

V-zhe (control)

Written

Aural

Written

Aural

Written

Aural

M (SD)

M (SD)

M (SD)

M (SD)

M (SD)

M (SD)

KE (20) KLI (20) KI (20) KHI (16) KA (16)

2.56 (0.66) 2.96 (0.94) 2.73 (0.88) 2.67 (0.97) 2.56 (0.71)

2.95 (0.57) 2.79 (0.74) 2.76 (0.80) 3.02 (0.87) 2.70 (0.92)

2.91 (0.52) 2.44 (0.85) 2.63 (0.84) 2.81 (0.90) 2.92 (0.75)

2.79 (0.70) 2.73 (0.77) 2.94 (0.77) 2.95 (0.80) 2.94 (0.99)

3.36 (0.52) 3.65 (0.48) 3.69 (0.41) 3.89 (0.22) 3.78 (0.43)

3.26 (0.54) 3.48 (0.66) 3.83 (0.27) 3.86 (0.26) 3.81 (0.36)

NC (15)

1.83 (1.00)

2.10 (0.86)

3.60 (0.54)

3.48 (0.47)

4.00 (0.00)

3.87 (0.39)

(13)

(if ) bu+VC, … *bu+VC Written

(if)…bu+VC, … Aural

Written

Aural

M (SD)

M (SD)

M (SD)

M (SD)

EE (21) ELI (21) El (20) EHI (14) EA (14)

2.07 (0.55) 1.69 (0.68) 1.63 (0.59) 1.54 (0.48) 1.27 (0.54)

2.21 (0.65) 2.07 (0.78) 1.61 (0.64) 1.25 (0.37) 1.30 (0.37)

2.25 (0.81) 2.11 (0.71) 2.25 (0.79) 2.36 (0.84) 2.75 (0.78)

2.77 (0.54) 2.65 (0.68) 2.30 (0.65) 2.73 (0.83) 2.93 (0.50)

KE (20) KLI (20) KI (20) KHI (16) KA (16)

2.30 (0.77) 1.56 (0.65) 1.56 (0.52) 1.42 (0.43) 1.36 (0.40)

2.70 (0.76) 2.06 (0.69) 1.93 (0.65) 1.48 (0.52) 1.67 (0.69)

2.24 (0.58) 1.95 (0.76) 2.16 (0.90) 2.02 (0.86) 2.59 (1.01)

2.90 (0.56) 2.64 (0.76) 2.51 (0.89) 2.19 (0.50) 2.33 (0.83)

NC (15)

1.35 (0.36)

1.37 (0.36)

3.47 (0.46)

3.55 (0.46)

Aural

Written

(14)

(if ) bu+V-de+C, … *bu+V-de+C Written

EE (21) ELI (21) El (20) EHI (14) EA (14)

(if)…bu+V-de+C, … Aural

M (SD)

M (SD)

M (SD)

M (SD)

1.80 (0.73) 1.99 (0.82) 1.69 (0.54) 1.63 (0.76) 1.52 (0.47)

1.55 (0.62) 1.61 (0.90) 1.28 (0.37) 1.52 (0.51) 1.36 (0.60)

1.99 (0.76) 2.43 (0.83) 2.51 (0.71) 2.59 (0.88) 3.23 (0.71)

2.40 (0.68) 2.43 (0.83) 2.38 (0.64) 2.61 (0.92) 3.00 (0.83) (continued)

300

Appendix 5: Means of Judgment and Standard Derivations in the Written and Aural …

(continued) (if)…bu+V-de+C, …

*bu+V-de+C Written

Aural

Written

Aural

M (SD)

M (SD)

M (SD)

M (SD)

KE (20) KLI (20) KI (20) KHI (16) KA (16)

2.26 (0.86) 1.24 (0.38) 1.33 (0.45) 1.39 (0.54) 1.22 (0.42)

1.78 (0.67) 1.69 (0.82) 1.50 (0.51) 1.20 (0.31) 1.38 (0.56)

2.14 (0.77) 1.89 (0.64) 1.86 (0.84) 1.69 (0.99) 2.64 (1.10)

2.51 (0.86) 2.66 (0.90) 2.13 (0.63) 2.02 (0.80) 1.91 (0.89)

NC (15)

1.15 (0.36)

1.17 (0.36)

3.83 (0.29)

3.80 (0.30)

Aural

Written

(15) (if) bu+V-zhe, … *bu+V-zhe Written

(if)…bu+V-zhe, … Aural

M (SD)

M (SD)

M (SD)

M (SD)

EE (21) ELI (21) El (20) EHI (14) EA (14)

2.52 (0.44) 2.69 (0.66) 2.88 (0.68) 2.95 (0.48) 2.52 (1.04)

2.57 (0.53) 2.79 (0.62) 2.73 (0.53) 2.73 (0.74) 2.50 (0.88)

2.76 (0.48) 3.07 (0.64) 2.76 (0.60) 2.88 (0.76) 2.95 (0.53)

2.76 (0.51) 3.01 (0.53) 2.79 (0.68) 3.18 (0.58) 3.27 (0.62)

KE (20) KLI (20) KI (20) KHI (16) KA (16)

2.56 (0.66) 2.96 (0.94) 2.73 (0.88) 2.67 (0.97) 2.56 (0.71)

2.95 (0.57) 2.79 (0.74) 2.76 (0.80) 3.02 (0.87) 2.70 (0.92)

2.65 (0.93) 2.86 (0.82) 2.91 (0.72) 2.77 (0.80) 3.34 (0.76)

2.95 (0.55) 3.20 (0.47) 2.93 (0.66) 2.92 (0.67) 3.06 (0.67)

NC (15)

1.83 (1.00)

2.10 (0.86)

3.37 (0.31)

3.55 (0.32)