Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-vfjqv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-29T20:51:18.429Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Statistics versus semantics: retreating from the dative overgeneralization errors by Chinese EFL learners

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 April 2024

Keshu Xiang Open the ORCID record for Keshu Xiang [Opens in a new window] ,
Jianhui Wei  and
Yuanyan Chen
Keshu Xiang
Affiliation:
Foreign Languages School, Guangxi Medical University, Nanning, Guangxi, China
Jianhui Wei*
Affiliation:
Foreign Languages School, Guangxi Medical University, Nanning, Guangxi, China
Yuanyan Chen
Affiliation:
Editorial Office of Journal of Guangxi Medical University, Guangxi Medical University, Nanning, Guangxi, China
*
Corresponding author: Jianhui Wei; Email: jianhui_wei1990@163.com
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This study investigated the effects of entrenchment, preemption, verb semantics, and morphophonological constraints in Chinese EFL (English as a Foreign Language) learners’ retreat from the overgeneralization errors of English dative alternations. Two groups of Chinese EFL learners rated the acceptability of 66 dative verbs in their well and ill forms. The results demonstrated that Chinese EFL learners were simultaneously sensitive to the multiple cues from entrenchment, preemption, semantic, and morphophonological constraints, indicating that Chinese EFL learners restricted the generalization of the dative alternation by utilizing both the statistical verb-bias information and semantic properties of the dative verbs. Moreover, the sensitivity of Chinese EFL learners to these constraints increases with the improvement of their English proficiency. These results validated the usage-based approaches to second language acquisition and provided an answer to the “Baker’s Paradox.”

Keywords

Entrenchmentmorphophonological constraintovergeneralizationpreemptionverb semantics
Type
Original Article
Information
Applied Psycholinguistics , First View , pp. 1 - 25
Check for updates
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2024. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Agirre, A. I. (2015). The acquisition of dative alternation in English by Spanish learners. Vigo International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 12, 63–90.Google Scholar
Ambridge, B., Barak, L., Wonnacott, E., Bannard, C., & Sala, G. (2018). Effects of both entrenchment and preemption in the retreat from verb overgeneralization errors: four reanalyses, an extended replication, and a meta-analytic synthesis. Collabra: Psychology, 1, 23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ambridge, B., & Brandt, S. (2013). Lisa filled water into the cup: the roles of entrenchment, preemption and verb semantics in German speakers’ acquisition of English locatives. Zeitschrift für Anglistik und Amerikanistik, 61, 245–263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ambridge, B, Doherty, L, Maitreyee, R, et al. (2022). Testing a computational model of causative overgeneralizations: child judgment and production data from English, Hebrew, Hindi, Japanese and K’iche’ [version 2; peer review: 2 approved, 1 approved with reservations]. Open Research Europe, 1, 1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ambridge, B., Maitreyeea, R., Tatsumij, T., Dohertya, L., Zichermand, S., Pedrom, P. M., Bannarda, C., Samanta, S., McCauleyc, S., Arnond, I., Bekmand, D., Efratid, A., Bermane, R., Narasimhanf, B., Sharmag, D.M., Nairh, R. B., Fukumurai, K., Campbellk, S., Pyel, C. (2020). The cross linguistic acquisition of sentence structure: computational modeling and grammaticality judgments from adult and child speakers of English, Japanese, Hindi, Hebrew and K’iche’. Cognition, 202, 104310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ambridge, B., Pine, J. M., & Rowland, C. F. (2012). Semantics versus statistics in the retreat from locative overgeneralization errors. Cognition, 2, 260–279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ambridge, B., Pine, J. M., Rowland, C. F., Freudenthal, D., & Chang, F. (2014). Avoiding dative overgeneralization errors: semantics, statistics or both? Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 2, 218–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ambridge, B., Pine, J. M., Rowland, C. F., Jones, R. L., & Clark, V. (2009). A semantics-based approach to the “no negative evidence” problem. Cognitive Science, 33, 1301–1316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ambridge, B., Pine, J. M., Rowland, C. F., & Young, C. R. (2008). The effect of verb semantic class and verb frequency (entrenchment) on children’s and adults’ graded judgments of argument-structure overgeneralization errors. Cognition, 106, 87–129.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Barr, D. J., Levy, R., Scheepers, C., & Tily, H. J. (2013). Random effects structure for confirmatory hypothesis testing: keep it maximal. Journal of Memory and Language, 68, 255–278.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bates, D., Kliegl, R., Vasishth, S., & Baayen, H. (2015). Parsimonious mixed models. arXiv preprint, arXiv:1506.04967.Google Scholar
Bidgood, A., Pine, J., Rowland, C., Sala, G., Freudenthal, D., & Ambridge, B. (2021). Verb argument structure overgeneralisations for the English intransitive and transitive constructions: grammaticality judgments and production priming. Language and Cognition, 13, 1–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bley-Vroman, R., & Yoshinaga, N. (1992). Broad and narrow constraints on the English dative alternation: some fundamental differences between native speakers and foreign language learners. University of Hawai‘i Working Papers in ESL, 11, 157–199.Google Scholar
Blumenthal-Dramé, A. (2012). Entrenchment in usage-based theories: What corpus data do and do not reveal about the mind. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boyd, J. K., & Goldberg, A. E. (2011). Learning what not to say: the role of statistical preemption and categorization in a-adjective production. Language, 87, 55–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Braine, M. D. S., & Brooks, P. J. (1995). Verb argument structure and the problem of avoiding an overgeneral grammar. In Tomasello, M. & Merriman, W. E. (Eds.), Beyond names for things: Young children’s acquisition of verbs (pp. 352–376). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Bresnan, J., & Ford, M. (2010). Predicting syntax: processing dative constructions in American and Australian varieties of English. Language, 86, 168–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brooks, P. J., Tomasello, M., Dodson, K., & Lewis, L. B. (1999). Young children’s overgeneralizations with fixed transitivity verbs. Child Development, 70, 1325–1337.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bybee, J. (2010). Language, usage, and cognition. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1957). Syntactic Structures. The Hague: Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, N. C. (2002). Frequency effects in language processing: a review with implications for theories of implicit and explicit language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24, 143–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, N. C. (2012). Frequency effects. In Robinson, P. (Ed.), The Routledge encyclopedia of SLA (pp. 260–265). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Ellis, N. C., Romer, U., & O’Donnell, M. B. (2016). Constructions and usage-based approaches to language acquisition. Language Learning, 66, 23–44.Google Scholar
Ellis, N. C., & Wulff, S. (2020). Usage-based approaches to L2 acquisition. In Vanpatten, B.., Keating, G. D., & Wulff, S. (Eds.), Theories in second language acquisition: Am introduction (3rd ed., pp. 63–82). New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, A. E. (1995). Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Goldberg, A. E. (2013). Argument structure constructions versus lexical rules or derivational verb templates. Mind & Language, 4, 435–465.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, A. E. (2019). Explain me this: Creativity, competition, and the partial productivity of constructions. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Green, G. (1974). Semantics and syntactic regularity. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
Gropen, J., Pinker, S., Hollander, M., Goldberg, R., & Wilson, R. (1989). The learnability and acquisition of the dative alternation in English. Language, 2, 203–257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Han, B. J., & Xue, F. (2014). Chinese EFL learners’ acquisition of the English dative alternation. Foreign Language Teaching and Research, 5, 759–770.Google Scholar
Hockett, C. F. (1960). The origin of speech. Scientific American, 203, 5–12.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Huang, L., & Li, X. (2020). Early, but not overwhelming: the effect of prior context on segmenting overlapping ambiguous strings when reading Chinese. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 9, 1382–1395.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Humboldt, W. (1836). On Language. Translated from the German by Peter Heath. Originally published as Uber die Verschienheit des Menschlichen Sprachbaues, 1836, Berlin: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kim, H, Shin, G., & Hwang, H. (2020). Integration of verbal and constructional information in the second language processing of English dative constructions. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 4, 825–847.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kuznetsova, A., Brockhoff, P. B., & Christensen, R. H. B. (2017). lmerTest package: tests in linear mixed effects models. Journal of Statistical Software, 13, 1–26.Google Scholar
Lau, S. H., Momma, S., & Ferreira, V. S. (2021). Learning structural alternations: what guides learners’ generalization? Cognition, 215, 104828.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Levin, B. (1993). English verb classes and alternations: A preliminary investigation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Mazurkewich, I. (1984).The acquisition of the dative alternation by second language learners and linguistic theory and linguistic theory. Language Learning, 34, 91–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oehrle, R. T. (1976). The grammatical status of the English dative alternation. Cambridge, MA: MIT.Google Scholar
Oh, E. (2006). A case study of structural transfer: The acquisition of English double objects by adult Korean speakers . Los Angeles, CA: University of Southern California.Google Scholar
Oh, E. (2010). Recovery from first language transfer: the second language acquisition of double objects by Korean speakers. Second Language Research, 26, 407–439.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oh, E., & Zubizarreta, M. L. (2006). Against morphological transfer. In Deen, K. U., Nomura, J., Schulz, B. and Schwartz, B. D. (eds.). Proceedings of the inaugural conference on generative approaches to language acquisition. North America Honolulu, HI: University of Connecticut.Google Scholar
Oh, E., & Zubizarreta, M.L. (2003). Does morphology affect transfer? The acquisition of English double objects by Korean native speakers. In: Burgos, A., Micciulla, L. and Smith, C. (eds). Proceedings of the 28th Annual Boston university conference on language development (pp. 402–413) Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Pinker, S. (1989). Learnability and cognition: The acquisition of argument structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Pinker, S. (2013). Learnability and cognition: the acquisition of argument structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Qi, J., & Wang, H. (2020). The roles of input frequency and semantic feature on the acquisition of the dative alternation by Chinese EFL learners. Foreign Language Education, 2, 76–80.Google Scholar
Robenalt, C., & Goldberg, A. E. (2016). Nonnative speakers do not take competing alternative expressions into account the way native speakers do. Language Learning, 66, 66–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Satterthwaite, F. E. (1946). An approximate distribution of estimates of variance components. Biometrics Bulletin, 6, 110–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sawyer, M. (1995). Learnability, teachability, and argument structure: Adult Japanese learners’ acquisition of the English dative alternation. PhD dissertation, Department of ESL, University of Hawai’i at Manoa.Google Scholar
Stefanowitsch, A. (2008). Negative entrenchment: a usage-based approach to negative evidence. Cognitive Linguistics, 19, 513–531.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tily, H., Gahlr, S., Arnon, I., Snider, N., Kothari, A., & Bresnan, J. (2009). Syntactic probabilities affect pronunciation variation in spontaneous speech. Language and Cognition, 1, 147–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whong-Barr, M., & Schwartz, B. D. (2002). Morphological and syntactic transfer in child L2 acquisition of the English dative alternation. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24: 579–616.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wolk, C., Wolfer, S., Baumann, P., Hemforth, B., & Konieczny, L. (2011). Acquiring English dative verbs: Proficiency effect in German L2 learners. In Carlson, L., Hölscher, C., & Shipley, T. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 33rd annual conference of the cognitive science society (pp. 2401–2406). Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.Google Scholar
Xiang, K., & Chang, H. (2023). Multiple constraints on second language processing of English dative alternation. Language Learning and Development, 4, 437–457.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Xu, Q. (2012). The role of relative lexical frequency in Chinese EFL learners’ learning of the English dative construction. Foreign Language Teaching and Research, 5, 706–718.Google Scholar
Zhang, X. (2017). Second language users’ restriction of linguistic generalization errors: the case of English un-prefixation development. Language Learning, 67, 569–598.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zhang, X., & Mai, C. (2018). Effects of entrenchment and preemption in second language learners’ acceptance of English denominal verbs. Applied Psycholinguistics, 39, 413–436.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zhang, X., & Wen, J. (2019). Exploring multiple constraints on second language development of English polysemous phrasal verbs. Applied Psycholinguistics, 5, 1073–1105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Xiang et al. supplementary material 1

Xiang et al. supplementary material
Download Xiang et al. supplementary material 1(File)
File 2 MB
Supplementary material: File

Xiang et al. supplementary material 2

Xiang et al. supplementary material
Download Xiang et al. supplementary material 2(File)
File 16.6 KB