L2 Acquisition of Chinese Directed Manner-of-motion with Goal PPs

882 views

Published on

Ke Peng's Presentation at the 23rd North American Conference on Chinese Linguistics (NACCL-23).

Published in: Education, Technology
0 Comments
1 Like
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Views
Total views
882
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
1
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
5
Comments
0
Likes
1
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

L2 Acquisition of Chinese Directed Manner-of-motion with Goal PPs

  1. 1. L2 Acquisition of Chinese Directed Manner of Motion with Goal PPs<br />Ke Peng • 彭珂<br />University of Arizona<br />Western Kentucky University<br />kekepengpeng@gmail.com<br />
  2. 2. Overview<br />Introduction <br /><ul><li>Definition
  3. 3. Research Questions</li></ul>Theoretical Frameworks<br />Methodology<br /><ul><li>Research Design
  4. 4. Tasks and Participants
  5. 5. Factors/ Variables</li></ul>Results<br /><ul><li>Acquisition of TRANSITIVITY
  6. 6. Acquisition of GOAL</li></ul>Brief Discussion<br />
  7. 7. 1. Introduction<br />causativedirected manner of motion<br />
  8. 8. 1. Introduction<br />[Semantically Complex]<br /><ul><li>kicking / manner & cause of motion
  9. 9. the boy/ agent
  10. 10. the ball/ theme
  11. 11. to the wall/ goal</li></ul>[ENG] The boy kicked the ball to the wall.<br />[CHN]<br />男孩把球踢到了墙边。<br />the boy BA ball kick to wall-side<br />‘The boy kicked the ball to the side of the wall.’<br />
  12. 12. 1. Introduction<br />[Semantically Complex]<br /><ul><li>walking / manner of motion
  13. 13. the nurse/ agent
  14. 14. the old lady/ theme
  15. 15. to the house/ goal</li></ul>[ENG] The nurse walked the old lady (back) home.<br />[CHN]<br />护士陪(着)老太太走(回)到家。<br />the nurse accompany (ZHE) old lady walk (back) home <br />‘The nurse accompanying the old lady walked (back) home.’<br />
  16. 16. 1. Introduction<br />CAUSATIVE<br />EVENT<br />MOTIONEVENT(MANNER)<br />GOAL<br />Research Questions: <br />How to account for the Chinese-English distinctions?<br />What does this mean to English-speaking learners of Chinese?<br /><ul><li>Learnable?
  17. 17. When? How?</li></li></ul><li>2. Theoretical Frameworks<br />Cross-linguistic variation?  Bigger question<br />linking rules?<br />Syntactic Structure<br />Lexical Semantics<br />(Event Structure)<br />mapping rules?<br /><ul><li>Different approaches
  18. 18. lexical approach (Jackendoff, 1990; Rappaport-Hovav & Levin, 1999; Wechsler, 2005)
  19. 19. syntactic approach (Travis, 1994; van Hout, 1996; Chomsky, 1981; Hoekstra, 1984; Kayne, 1985; Folli & Harley, 2006)</li></li></ul><li>2. Theoretical Frameworks<br /><ul><li>Different conflation patterns (Talmy, 1985 & 1991)
  20. 20. Manner Languages: Satellite-framed lexicalizationManner Verb [MANNER/CAUSE + MOVE] + Satellite [PATH]
  21. 21. Path Languages: Verb-frame lexicalizationPath Verb [PATH + MOVE] (+ adjunct MANNER/CAUSE expression)
  22. 22. Chinese (Chen, 2003; Lin, 2003)
  23. 23. Equipollently-framed Language (Slobin, 2004)
  24. 24. Grammaticalization of Chinese?</li></li></ul><li>2. Theoretical Frameworks<br /><ul><li>Light Verbs Syntax of Chinese (Huang, 1997 & Lin, 2001)</li></ul> Arguments in Chinese sentences are licensed in the syntactic representation (S-Syntax) by way of the complementation of light verbs, whereas arguments in English are licensed at the sub-syntactic level of grammar (L-Syntax).<br /><ul><li>Answer to RQ 1:
  25. 25. Chinese-English variation: Lexicalization Parameter
  26. 26. CAUSATIVE: Light Verb Ba
  27. 27. GOAL: Light Verb Dao
  28. 28. ACCOMPANY: Light Verb Zhe</li></li></ul><li>2. Theoretical Frameworks<br />Research Question 2 <br />Learnability? When and How? <br />
  29. 29. 2. Theoretical Frameworks<br /><ul><li>Implication on Language Acquisition
  30. 30. switch setting & parameter selection (Haegeman, 1988)
  31. 31.  not explaining language variability  feature assembly (Lardiere, 2008)
  32. 32. Cross-linguistic variation btw. L1 and L2 in patterns of semantics-syntax correspondence affect L2 acquisition (Juffs, 1996)
  33. 33. Overgeneralization
  34. 34. L1 permits more ways of realizing a particular argument structure in the syntax than the L2
  35. 35. Undergeneralization
  36. 36. L2 learner fail to acquire aspects of L2 argument structure which are not available in L1</li></li></ul><li>3. Methodology: Research Design<br /><ul><li>Pilot Study
  37. 37. Frog Story Retelling (Lin, 2003)
  38. 38. Difficult to elicit the kind of verbs
  39. 39. Difficulty with the prepositional phrases
  40. 40. Translation Task (Error Analysis, N=33)
  41. 41. Creative expressions[CAUSE] 玛丽把/使马跳过栏杆。Mary BA bǎ/shǐmǎtiàoguolángān Mary take/cause horse jump over fence
  42. 42. Confusion with 去qù ‘go’, 来lái ‘come’, 出chū ‘exit’</li></li></ul><li>3. Methodology: Research Design<br /><ul><li>Experiment: Acceptability Judgment
  43. 43. Participants
  44. 44. Native Speakers (N= 40) – reliability & validity
  45. 45. Crobach’sα = 0.701
  46. 46. Non-native Speakers (N= 33) – intermediate & advanced
  47. 47. Conducted online: DatStat Illume
  48. 48. Two tasks</li></li></ul><li>3. Methodology:Experiment (Task 1)<br />Guiding Question: <br />What did the man do to the baby? 他对孩子做了什么? <br />Task 1: <br />Try to describe the picture in a short transitive sentence in English.  <br />尽量用一句简单的(及物动词)英语描述此图。<br />Answers<br />He put/placed the (sleeping) baby in/on/to (the) bed. <br />He carried/ tried to carry the baby (over)to the bed.<br />He tucked the sleeping baby into bed.<br />
  49. 49. 3. Methodology:Experiment (Task 2)<br />Vocabulary<br />抱:bào(hold...in the arm)   把:bǎ(Ba Construction)  <br />他: tā(he) 小孩: xiǎohái(little baby)   <br />床上:chuáng(bed) shàng(top/up)到:dào(to)     着/著:zhe(Zhe Construction)<br />
  50. 50. 3. Methodology: Variables<br />
  51. 51. 3. Methodology: Variables<br />
  52. 52. 4. Results: TRANSITIVITY<br />Q: distinction btw. transitive & intransitive verbs<br />
  53. 53. 4. Results: TRANSITIVITY<br />Q: distinction btw. transitive & intransitive verbs<br />
  54. 54. 4. Results: TRANSITIVITY<br /><ul><li>Two-way repeated measures ANOVA
  55. 55. significant differences amongst the three groupsF(2,70)= 28.96, p < .001
  56. 56. significant differences btw. transitive and intransitive sentencesF(1,70) =28.96, p < .001
  57. 57. significant interaction btw. the participant groups & TRANSITIVITY F(2,70) = 48.42, p< .001
  58. 58. Simple effect of the factor TRANSITIVITY for intermediate learners F(1,16)= 4.21, p = .057
  59. 59. Simple effect of the factor GOAL for advanced learners F(1,15)= 24.92, p < .001
  60. 60. Simple effect of the factor GOAL for native speakers F(1,39)= 719.66, p < .001
  61. 61. similar judgment on transitive sentences
  62. 62. F(2,72)=2.23, p= .116
  63. 63. different judgment on intransitive sentences
  64. 64. F(2,72)=48.53, p< .001</li></li></ul><li>4. Results: TRANSITIVITY<br /><ul><li>distinction btw. transitive & intransitive verbs
  65. 65. Yes for advanced learners.
  66. 66. transitive verb
  67. 67. Yes for both NNS groups.
  68. 68. intransitive sentences
  69. 69. 3 tier</li></li></ul><li>4. Results: GOAL<br />Q: distinction btw. Pre- & post-verbal PPs<br />
  70. 70. 4. Results: GOAL<br />Q: distinction btw. Pre- & post-verbal PPs<br />
  71. 71. 4. Results: GOAL<br /><ul><li>Two-way repeated measures ANOVA
  72. 72. significant differences amongst the three groups F(2,70)= 4.27, p < .001
  73. 73. significant differences btw. pre- and post-verbal PP F(1,70)= 30.43, p < .001
  74. 74. significant interaction btw. the participant groups & GOAL F(2,70) = 4.125, p< .050
  75. 75. Simple effect of the factor GOAL for intermediate learners F(1,16)= 2.11, p = .165
  76. 76. Simple effect of the factor GOAL for advanced learners F(1,15)= 2.32, p = .148
  77. 77. Simple effect of the factor GOAL for native speakersF(1,39)= 120.01, p < .001
  78. 78. significant difference in their judgment on Pre-verbal PPF(2,72)=17.83, p< .001 (Post Hoc Comparison: sig. differences btw NNSs & NSs)
  79. 79. significant difference in their judgment on Post-verbal PPF(2,72)= 3.36, p < .050 (Post Hoc: significant differences btw NSs & Intermediate Learners)</li></li></ul><li>4. Results: GOAL<br /><ul><li>Distinction btw. pre- and post-verbal Goal PPs
  80. 80. No.
  81. 81. Post-verbal PPs for GOAL
  82. 82. Yes for both advanced.
  83. 83. Pre-verbal PPs
  84. 84. NSs vs NNSs</li></li></ul><li>5. Discussion: Pedagogical Implications<br /><ul><li>Syntactic approach (Light Verb Syntax): make more sense
  85. 85. SLA: Parameter Setting or Feature Assembly?
  86. 86. Understand the interlanguage development process
  87. 87. Identify the challenges in CFL students’ learning
  88. 88. Language Instruction</li></li></ul><li>Thank you !<br />Questions? <br />彭珂<br />kekepengpeng@gmail.com<br />

×