儿童母语习得与成人二语习得是否存在本质差异？——以双宾句习得为例

doi:10.3969/j.issn.1674-8921.2017.03.016

摘要/Abstract

摘要： 本文通过梳理有关双宾句儿童母语习得和成人二语习得研究,旨在探讨儿童母语习得和成人二语习得是否存在本质差异,以验证“本质差异假说”。以往研究表明,不管是儿童母语习得还是成人二语习得过程中,都存在双宾句结构泛化和双宾句优先现象;但由于受到母语迁移的影响,双宾句儿童母语习得和成人二语习得在诸多方面表现出差异,但这些差异并非质的差异。因此,就双宾句习得而言,儿童母语习得与成人二语习得不存在本质差异,不支持“本质差异假说”。

关键词: 双宾句, 儿童母语习得, 成人二语习得, 本质差异假说

Abstract: This paper reviews L1 child and L2 adult acquisition of double object construction, so as to test the Fundamental Difference Hypothesis. Previous studies indicate that both L1 child and L2 adult learners tend to overgeneralize and prefer double object construction. However, their performance differs quantitatively in some respects due to L1 transfer. As far as the acquisition of double object constructions is concerned, the Fundamental Difference Hypothesis is falsified.

中图分类号:

H315.9

方少华, 常辉. 儿童母语习得与成人二语习得是否存在本质差异？——以双宾句习得为例[J]. 当代外语研究, 2017, 17(03): 90-95.

FANG Shaohua, CHANG Hui. Is L1 Acquisition Fundamentally Different from L2 Acquisition?—Evidence from L1 Child and L2 Adult Acquisition of Double Object Construction[J]. Contemporary Foreign Languages Studies, 2017, 17(03): 90-95.

参考文献

Baker, C.L. 1979. Syntactic theory and the projection problem [J]. Linguistic Inquiry 10(4): 533-581.
Bley-Vroman, R. 1989. What is the logical problem of foreign language learning? [A]. In S. Gass＆ J. Schachter (eds.) . Linguistic Perspectives on Second Language Acquisition [C]. New York: Cambridge University Press. 41-68.
Bley-Vroman, R. 1990. The logical problem of foreign language learning [J]. Linguistic Analysis 20(1):3-49.
Bley-Vroman, R. 2009. The evolving context of the fundamental difference hypothesis [J]. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 31(2):175-198.
Bley-Vroman, R. & N. Yoshinaga. 1992. Broad and narrow-range constraints on the English dative alternation: Some fundamental differences between native speakers and foreign language learners [A]. Working Papers in ESL [C]. Hawaii: University of Hawaii. 157-199.
Bowerman, M. & W. Croft. 2008. The acquisition of the English causative alternation [A]. In M. Bowerman & P. Brown (eds.). Cross-linguistic Perspectives on the Argument Structure: Implications for Language Acquisition [C]. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum. 279-308.
Campbell, A. & M. Tomasello. 2001. The acquisition of English dative constructions [J]. Applied Psycholinguistics 22(2): 253-267.
Chan, A. 2010. The Cantonese double object construction with “give” in bilingual children: the role of input [J]. International Journal of Bilingualism 14(1): 65-85.
Chomsky, N. 1981. Lectures on Government and Binding [M]. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Chomsky, N. 1995. The Minimalist Program [M]. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Clahsen, H. & C. Felser. 2006. Continuity and shallow structures in language processing [J]. Applied Psycholinguistics 27(1):107-126 .
Clahsen, H. & P. Muysken. 1989. The UG paradox in L2 acquisition [J]. Second language research 5(1):1-29.
Goldberg, A.E. 1995. Constructions: A construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure [M]. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Goldberg, A.E., D.M. Casenhiser & N. Sethuraman. 2004. Learning argument structure generalizations [J]. Cognitive Linguistics 15(3): 289-316.
Gropen, J., S. Pinker, M. Hollander, R. Goldberg & R. Wilson. 1989. The learnability and acquisition of the dative alternation in English [J]. Language 65(2): 203-257.
Harley, H.B. 1995. Subjects, Events, and Licensing [D]. Cambridge: MIT.
Herschensohn, J. 2009. Fundamental and gradient differences in language development [J]. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 31(31):259-289.
Huang, S. 1994. A comparative study of the dative alternation in Mandarin and Taiwanese [A]. In D. Hua (eds.). Constraints on Dative Acquisition by Chinese ESL Learners [C]. Hongkong: CUHK Papers in Linguistics. 1-27.
Inagaki, S. 1997. Japanese and Chinese learners' acquisition of the narrow-range rules for the dative alternation in English [J]. Language Learning 47(4):637-669.
Juffs, A. 1996. Learnability and the Lexicon [M]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Lardiere, D. 1998. Dissociating syntax from morphology in a divergent end-state grammar [J]. Second Language Research 14(4):359-375.
Mazurkewich, I. & L. White. 1984. The acquisition of the dative alternation: Unlearning overgeneralizations [J]. Cognition 16(3):261-283.
Montrul, S. 2009. Reexamining the fundamental difference hypothesis: What can early bilinguals tell us [J]. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 31(2):225-257.
Ninio, A. 1999. Pathbreaking verbs in syntactic development and the question of prototypical Transitivity [J]. Journal of Child Language 26(3):619-654.
Oh, E. 2010. Recovery from first-language transfer: The second language acquisition of English double objects by Korean speakers [J]. Second Language Research 26(3):407-439.
Pinker, S. 1989. Learnability and Cognition [M]. Cambridge: The MIT Press.
Prévost, P. & L. White. 2000. Missing surface inflection or impairment in second language acquisition? Evidence from tense and agreement [J]. Second Language Research 16(2):103-133.
Slabakova, R. 2009. L2 Fundamentals [J]. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 31(2):155-173.
Snyder, W. & K. Stomswold. 1997. The structure and acquisition of English dative constructions [J]. Linguistic Inquiry 28(2):281-317.
Tomasello, M. 2003. Constructing a Language: A Usage-Based Theory of Language Acquisition [M]. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Whong-Barr, M. & B. Schwartz. 2002. Morphological and syntactic transfer in child L2 acquisition of the English dative alternation [J]. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 24(4): 579-616.
Wolfe-Quntero, K. 1992. The Representation and Acquisition of the Lexical Structure of English Dative Verbs: Experimental Studies of Native English Speakers and Japanese and Chinese Adult Learners of English [D]. Manoa: University of Hawaii.
戴曼纯. 2012. 对“根本性差异假说”的质疑[J]. 外语与外语教学(1):16-19.
胡学文. 2007. 中国学生英语双宾构式的习得——一项基于语料库的对比研究[J]. 外语研究(5):48-53.
刘丹青. 2001. 汉语给予类双及物结构的类型学考察[J]. 中国语文(5):387-396.
马俊周. 2012. 中国英语学习者习得英语狭域与格动词研究(硕士学位论文)[D]. 长沙:湖南大学.
许琪. 2012. 相对频率对中国英语学习者习得介词与格结构的作用[J]. 外语教学与研究(5):706-716.
杨江锋. 2013. 基于SWECCL的中国英语学习者与格换位结构习得研究[J]. 外语教学与研究(6):53-57.

[1]	杜世洪, 王渝. 生态翻译学的还原论与整体论思考[J]. 当代外语研究, 2021, 451(1): 86-96.
[2]	湛军. 商务英语学科框架与构成要素[J]. 当代外语研究, 2020, 450(6): 7-18.
[3]	陈新仁. 外语学者科研成果国际化刍议[J]. 当代外语研究, 2020, 450(6): 5-6.
[4]	张思永. 翻译过程的跨学科研究发展与思考[J]. 当代外语研究, 2020, 449(5): 91-100.
[5]	尚文博. 基于语料库的英汉学术翻译文本逻辑关系的显化特征——以Handbook of Social Justice in Education的翻译为例[J]. 当代外语研究, 2020, 449(5): 110-120.
[6]	朱晓映. 黄源深翻译美学思想探析[J]. 当代外语研究, 2020, 449(5): 23-33.
[7]	朱波. 翻译的战略传播观——以“中国关键词”项目为例[J]. 当代外语研究, 2020, 446(2): 111-118.
[8]	李朝, 王守宏. 训诂视角下的翻译路径[J]. 当代外语研究, 2020, 446(2): 119-128.
[9]	龚刚, 赵佼. “妙合”:文学翻译的佳境[J]. 当代外语研究, 2020, 445(1): 102-110.
[10]	彭文青, 王金波. 借鉴还是抄袭？——张亦文《三国演义》英文节译本存疑[J]. 当代外语研究, 2019, 19(06): 98-110.
[11]	冯全功, 顾涛. 旅游景区的翻译景观研究——以杭州西湖风景名胜区为例[J]. 当代外语研究, 2019, 19(06): 83-97.
[12]	坂井洋史. 漫忆《九月寓言》日译本及其他[J]. 当代外语研究, 2019, 19(05): 85-95.
[13]	褚东伟. 为了艺术的艺术:张炜小说英译散论[J]. 当代外语研究, 2019, 19(05): 96-105.
[14]	周远航. 论文学翻译风格的批评路径——以《酒国》的翻译为例[J]. 当代外语研究, 2019, 19(05): 106-117.
[15]	邓凌云, 余环. 中外笔译质量要求的对比研究与启示[J]. 当代外语研究, 2019, 19(04): 115-123.