Abstract
This study draws on usage-based approach to language learning and investigates the role of syntactical indeterminacy and token frequency in constructional acquisition, for which reflexive verb constructions were selected as the testing field. Syntactic structures of reflexive verbs are either by reflexive constructions or adjectival passive, which have a polysemous interrelationship within the verb. To examine whether syntactic indeterminacy and token frequency play a role in the acquisition of reflexive verb constructions, a test of reflexive verb constructions and a baseline test formed with transitive verbs were developed and administered to L2 learners of an intermediate proficiency level. The findings show: (1) L2 reflexive verb constructions were less acquired than transitive constructions, suggesting that syntactic indeterminacy had an impact upon sentence production; (2) no significant difference was found between the productions of reflexive constructions and adjectival passives, but descriptive statistics showed that learners were attracted to the adjectival passive for production; (3) production of both syntactic structures reflected token frequency trend from COCA, indicating the important role of frequency in complex constructional acquisition.
*This study was awarded the Paper of Excellence in 2015 National Conference of English Language Education held by CELEA. The author is thankful to Professor Zhang Wenzhong for suggestions and help.
(Copyedited by Duncan Sidwell & Ding Yanren)
About the author
Xu Chengping is a doctoral student of Applied Linguistics at Nankai University. Her research efforts focus on second language acquisition and language teaching methodology.
References
Blake, N. F. (2002). A grammar of Shakespeare’s language. New York: Palgrave.10.1007/978-1-4039-1915-1Search in Google Scholar
Blake, N. (2004). The Cambridge history of the English language, Vol. II. U.K.: Cambridge University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Bruening, B. (2014). Word formation is syntactic: Adjectival passives in English. Natural Language Linguist Theory, 32, 363-422.10.1007/s11049-014-9227-ySearch in Google Scholar
Bybee, J. (1995). Regular morphology and the lexicon. Language and Cognitive Processes, 10, 425455.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195301571.003.0008Search in Google Scholar
Bybee, J. (2006). From usage to grammar: The mind’s response to repetition. Language, 82, 711-733.10.1353/lan.2006.0186Search in Google Scholar
Croft, W. (2001). Radical construction grammar: Syntactic theory in typological perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198299554.001.0001Search in Google Scholar
Culicover, P. W., & Jackendoff, R. (2010). Simpler syntax. Beijing: World Publishing Company.Search in Google Scholar
DeKeyser, R. M. (2005). What makes learning second-language grammar difficult? A review of issues. Language Learning, 55, 1-25.10.1111/j.0023-8333.2005.00294.xSearch in Google Scholar
Ellis, N. C. (2006). Language acquisition as rational contingency learning. Applied Linguistics, 27(1), 1-24.10.1093/applin/ami038Search in Google Scholar
Ellis, N. C. (2008). The dynamics of second language emergence: Cycles of language use, language change, and language acquisition. The Modern Language Journal, 92, 232-249.10.1111/j.1540-4781.2008.00716.xSearch in Google Scholar
Ellis, N. C. (2012). Formulaic language and second language acquisition: Zipf and the phrasal Teddy Bear. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 32, 17-44.10.1017/S0267190512000025Search in Google Scholar
Ellis, N. C., & Ferreira-Junior, F. (2009). Construction learning as a function of frequency, frequency distribution, and function. Modern Language Journal, 93, 370-385.10.1111/j.1540-4781.2009.00896.xSearch in Google Scholar
Gardner, D., & Davies, M. (2014). A new academic vocabulary list. Applied Linguistics, 35(3), 305327.10.1093/applin/amt015Search in Google Scholar
Haney, D. W. (2004) A diachronic and semantic analysis of Deponent verbs in Spanish and Latin. LSO Working Papers in Linguistics, 4, 33-46. Madison, Wisconsin: University of Wisconsin-MadisonSearch in Google Scholar
Holme, R. (2012). Cognitive linguistics and the second language classroom. TESOL Quarterly, 46(1), 6-29.10.1002/tesq.5Search in Google Scholar
Lu, Gusun. (2007).英汉大词典 [English-Chinese dictionary]. Shanghai: Shanghai Translation Publishing House.Search in Google Scholar
McDonough, K., & Kim, Y. (2009). Syntactic priming, type frequency, and EFL learners’ production of wh-questions. Modern Language Journal, 93, 386-398.10.1111/j.1540-4781.2009.00897.xSearch in Google Scholar
Meltzer-Asscher, A. (2010). Adjectives and argument structure. PhD Dissertation, Tel Aviv University.Search in Google Scholar
Newman, J., & Rice, S. (2006). Transitivity schemas of English EAT and DRINK in the BNC. In S. T. Gries & A. Stefanowitsch (Eds.), Corpora in cognitive linguistics: Corpus-based approaches to syntax and lexis (pp. 225-60). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Search in Google Scholar
Palmer, F. R. (1974). The English verb. London: Longman.Search in Google Scholar
Regier, T. (2005). The emergence of words: Attentional learning in form and meaning. Cognitive Science, 29, 819-865.10.1207/s15516709cog0000_31Search in Google Scholar
Rowland, C. (2007). Explaining errors in children’s questions. Cognition, 104，106-134.10.1016/j.cognition.2006.05.011Search in Google Scholar
Schmitt, N., Schmitt, D., & Clapham, C. (2001). Developing and exploring the behavior of two new versions of the vocabulary levels test. Language Testing,18(1), 55-88.10.1177/026553220101800103Search in Google Scholar
Steinbach, M. (2002). Middle voice: A comparative study in the syntax-semantics interface of German. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/la.50Search in Google Scholar
Sugaya, N., & Shirai, Y. (2009). Can L2 learners productively use Japanese tense-aspect markers? A usage-based approach. In R. Corrigan, E. Moravcsik, H. Ouali, & K. Wheatley (Eds.), Formulaic language, vol. 2: Acquisition, loss, psychological reality, functional applications, 423-444. Amsterdam, the Netherlands: John Benjamins.10.1075/tsl.83.10sugSearch in Google Scholar
Taylor, J. (2012). The mental corpus: How language is represented in the mind. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199290802.001.0001Search in Google Scholar
Wang, W. Z., Luo, S. M., Liu X. L., & S. Z., Yu. (2009). 英汉作格动词语义、句法及其界面比 较[The semantics and syntax of English and Chinese ergative verbs and their interface: A comparative study]. Foreign Language Teaching and Research, 41(3), 193-201.Search in Google Scholar
Wulff, S., Ellis, N. C., Römer, U., Bardovi-Harlig, K., & LeBlanc, C. (2009). The acquisition of tense-aspect: Converging evidence from corpora, cognition, and learner constructions. Modern Language Journal, 93, 354-369.10.1111/j.1540-4781.2009.00895.xSearch in Google Scholar
Xu, C. P. (2015).英语三论元反身使役动词的句法一语义接ロ研究[Exploring syntax-semantics interface of English three-argument reflexive causative verbs]. Language Education, 3(3), 6066.Search in Google Scholar
Year, J., & Gordon, P. (2009). Korean speakers’ acquisition of the English ditransitive construction: The role of verb type, input distribution, and frequency. Modern Language Journal, 93, 399-417.10.1111/j.1540-4781.2009.00898.xSearch in Google Scholar
© 2016 FLTRP, Walter de Gruyter, Cultural and Education Section British Embassy
