Dependency resolutions of null and overt subjects in English speakers' L2 Chinese: Evidence for the cue-based model

被引:3
作者
Xu, Lilong [1 ]
Yuan, Boping [1 ,2 ,3 ]
机构
[1] Shanghai Jiao Tong Univ, Shanghai, Peoples R China
[2] Univ Cambridge, Cambridge, England
[3] Shanghai Jiao Tong Univ, Sch Foreign Languages, Shanghai 200240, Peoples R China
关键词
cue-based model; L2 dependency resolutions; overt subjects; syntactic; pragmatic cues; DISCOURSE; ACQUISITION; PRONOUNS; SPANISH;
D O I
10.1177/02676583221135189
中图分类号
G40 [教育学];
学科分类号
040101 ; 120403 ;
摘要
This study investigates whether there are different first-language-second-language (L1-L2) dependency resolutions by focusing on less-studied crosslinguistic variances in L2 acquisition of Chinese, a null-subject language, by speakers of English, a non-null-subject language. The overt subject pronoun of a Chinese main clause has free orientation and its antecedent can be the subject or object of the preceding causal subordinate clause, depending on pragmatic biases. The null subject of a Chinese main clause, however, is subject-oriented, and this subject orientation is not affected by any pragmatic bias. English does not allow null subjects, and like Chinese, overt subject pronouns in English have free orientation. An acceptability judgement task and an interpretation task were adopted and the results suggest that only the free orientation of overt subjects, but not the subject orientation of null subjects, is acquirable for English-speaking learners; they are found to be influenced by the pragmatic bias. This provides evidence for the cue-based model (Cunnings, 2017), which states that L1-L2 differences in dependency resolution can be explained in terms of L1-L2 differences in susceptibility to interference and L2ers' over-reliance on discourse-based/pragmatic cues. It is also observed that in L1 Chinese, competition between the target antecedent and distractors occurs during the reading of the sentence, while in L2 Chinese, this occurs after the reading of the sentence. These findings add to our growing understanding of different mechanisms in L1 vs. L2 dependency resolutions.
引用
收藏
页码:301 / 325
页数:26
相关论文
共 42 条
[1]   The processing role of structural constraints on the interpretation of pronouns and anaphors [J].
Badecker, W ;
Straub, K .
JOURNAL OF EXPERIMENTAL PSYCHOLOGY-LEARNING MEMORY AND COGNITION, 2002, 28 (04) :748-769
[2]   pro as a Minimal nP: Toward a Unified Approach to Pro-Drop [J].
Barbosa, Pilar P. .
LINGUISTIC INQUIRY, 2019, 50 (03) :487-526
[3]   Random effects structure for confirmatory hypothesis testing: Keep it maximal [J].
Barr, Dale J. ;
Levy, Roger ;
Scheepers, Christoph ;
Tily, Harry J. .
JOURNAL OF MEMORY AND LANGUAGE, 2013, 68 (03) :255-278
[4]   THE PSYCHOLOGICAL CAUSALITY IMPLICIT IN LANGUAGE [J].
BROWN, R ;
FISH, D .
COGNITION, 1983, 14 (03) :237-273
[5]  
Chomsky Noam., 1995, MINIMALIST PROGRAM, DOI DOI 10.1017/S0022226702271625
[6]   ANAPHORA RESOLUTION AND REANALYSIS DURING L2 SENTENCE PROCESSING Evidence from the Visual World Paradigm [J].
Cunnings, Ian ;
Fotiadou, Georgia ;
Tsimpli, Ianthi .
STUDIES IN SECOND LANGUAGE ACQUISITION, 2017, 39 (04) :621-652
[7]   Parsing and Working Memory in Bilingual Sentence Processing [J].
Cunnings, Ian .
BILINGUALISM-LANGUAGE AND COGNITION, 2017, 20 (04) :659-678
[8]  
Felser C., 2016, EMPIRICAL PERSPECTIV
[9]   Processing reflexives in a second language: The timing of structural and discourse-level constraints [J].
Felser, Claudia ;
Cunnings, Ian .
APPLIED PSYCHOLINGUISTICS, 2012, 33 (03) :571-603
[10]  
Grice Paul., 1975, SYNTAX SEMANTICS, P41, DOI DOI 10.1163/9789004368811_003