26.816, Diss: English, Mandarin Chinese; Language Acquisition, Linguistic Theories, Syntax: Lee: 'Learning and Unlearning Object Drop in Anaphoric and Non-anaphoric Contexts in L2 English'

[The LINGUIST List via LINGUIST]

LINGUIST List: Vol-26-816. Fri Feb 06 2015. ISSN: 1069 - 4875.

Subject: 26.816, Diss: English, Mandarin Chinese; Language Acquisition, Linguistic Theories, Syntax: Lee: 'Learning and Unlearning Object Drop in Anaphoric and Non-anaphoric Contexts in L2 English'

Moderators: linguist at linguistlist.org (Damir Cavar, Malgorzata E. Cavar)
Reviews: reviews at linguistlist.org (Anthony Aristar, Helen Aristar-Dry, Sara Couture)
Homepage: http://linguistlist.org

Editor for this issue: Danuta  Allen <danuta at linguistlist.org>
================================================================


Date: Fri, 06 Feb 2015 23:52:47
From: Chi-wai, Patrick LEE [patrickchiwailee at gmail.com]
Subject: Learning and Unlearning Object Drop in Anaphoric and Non-anaphoric Contexts in L2 English

 
Institution: Newcastle University 
Program: School of English Literature, Language & Linguistics (SELLL) 
Dissertation Status: Completed 
Degree Date: 2014 

Author: Chi-wai Patrick Lee

Dissertation Title: Learning and Unlearning Object Drop in Anaphoric and
Non-anaphoric Contexts in L2 English 

Dissertation URL:  https://theses.ncl.ac.uk/dspace/handle/10443/2488

Linguistic Field(s): Language Acquisition
                     Linguistic Theories
                     Syntax

Subject Language(s): Chinese, Mandarin (cmn)
                     English (eng)


Dissertation Director(s):
Anders Holmberg
Clare Wright

Dissertation Abstract:

Chinese allows object drop in contexts where there is an antecedent (anaphoric
contexts), where English generally requires an overt object pronoun (e.g.
Mary’s bike is broken. I am going to repair *(it) for her). In non-anaphoric
contexts, however, English allows a null cognate object e as in Mary reads [e]
every night whereas Chinese requires an overt cognate object (kan-shu,
literally ‘read-book’). Previous SLA studies indicate Chinese learners of L2
English have problems unlearning anaphoric object drop in English, generally
ascribed to effects of L1 transfer. This study brings a novel perspective to
the L2 learnability problem by incorporating Cheng and Sybesma’s (1998)
proposed negative correlation between the two rules: that allowing object drop
in anaphoric contexts is incompatible with allowing object drop in
non-anaphoric contexts. The following questions are posed:
(1) To what extent can Chinese learners of English (CLE) learn the
non-anaphoric null cognate object rule?
(2) To what extent do CLE use anaphoric object drop? 
(3) To what extent does unlearning use of null objects in anaphoric contexts
correspond to learning use of null objects in non-anaphoric contexts? 

This study tested 85 adult CLE in Hong Kong, with 22 native English speaker
controls, using an innovative battery of judgment and production tasks. The
findings demonstrated that CLE could be 100% target-like in using null
arbitrary cognate objects, but were more variable in using anaphoric object
drop (ranging from 60-100%). It is concluded that CLE are not necessarily
restricted by L1 transfer effects but can successfully learn the null
arbitrary cognate object interpretation rule for L2 English, and this seems to
demonstrate access to UG in L2 when there is learning under poverty of
stimulus. The difference in success between the two rule conditions show no
support for Cheng and Sybesma’s (1998) hypothesis that there is a connection
between allowing anaphoric object drop and disallowing non-anaphoric object
drop.







----------------------------------------------------------
LINGUIST List: Vol-26-816	
----------------------------------------------------------