Is L1 Acquisition Fundamentally Different from L2 Acquisition?—Evidence from L1 Child and L2 Adult Acquisition of Double Object Construction

doi:10.3969/j.issn.1674-8921.2017.03.016

Abstract

CLC Number:

H315.9

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.

References

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]	Shihong DU, Yu WANG. Reflections upon Reductionism and Holism in Eco-translatology [J]. Contemporary Foreign Languages Studies, 2021, 451(1): 86-96.
[2]	ZHAN Jun. The Framework and the Componential Elements of of Business English Descipline [J]. Contemporary Foreign Languages Studies, 2020, 450(6): 7-18.
[3]	CHEN Xinren. A Note on the Internationalization of Research Outputs by Scholars in the Field of Foreign Studies [J]. Contemporary Foreign Languages Studies, 2020, 450(6): 5-6.
[4]	ZHANG Siyong. Translation Process Research from Interdisciplinary Perspectives: A Survey and Some Reflections [J]. Contemporary Foreign Languages Studies, 2020, 449(5): 91-100.
[5]	SHANG Wenbo. A Corpus based Study on the Explicitation of Logical Relations in Translated Academic Texts——A Case Study of the Translation of Handbook of Social Justice in Education [J]. Contemporary Foreign Languages Studies, 2020, 449(5): 110-120.
[6]	ZHU Xiaoying. On Huang Yuanshen’sAesthetic Ideas of Translation [J]. Contemporary Foreign Languages Studies, 2020, 449(5): 23-33.
[7]	ZHU Bo. On Translation for Strategic Communication——A Case Study of "China Keywords Project" [J]. Contemporary Foreign Languages Studies, 2020, 446(2): 111-118.
[8]	LI Chao, WANG Shouhong. Translation as a Way of Interpretation [J]. Contemporary Foreign Languages Studies, 2020, 446(2): 119-128.
[9]	GONG Gang, ZHAO Jiao. The “Corresponding Translation” Theory: The Ideal State of Literary Translation [J]. Contemporary Foreign Languages Studies, 2020, 445(1): 102-110.
[10]	PENG Wenqing, WANG Jinbo. Inheritance or Plagiarism: A Case Study of Cheung Yik-man's Partial Translation of San Guo Yan Yi [J]. Contemporary Foreign Languages Studies, 2019, 19(06): 98-110.
[11]	FENG Quangong, GU Tao. On Translation Landscape in Tourist Areas: Exemplified by the West Lake Scenic Area in Hangzhou [J]. Contemporary Foreign Languages Studies, 2019, 19(06): 83-97.
[12]	Sakai Hirobumi. Scattered Recollections of the Japanese Translation of September's Fable and Others [J]. Contemporary Foreign Languages Studies, 2019, 19(05): 85-95.
[13]	CHU Dongwei. Art for Art's Sake: On Translating Zhang Wei's Fiction [J]. Contemporary Foreign Languages Studies, 2019, 19(05): 96-105.
[14]	ZHOU Yuanhang. An Approach to Style Criticism of Literary Translation: A Case Study of Goldblatt's Translation of the Republic of Wine [J]. Contemporary Foreign Languages Studies, 2019, 19(05): 106-117.
[15]	DENG Lingyun, YU Huan. A Comparative Study and Its Implications of Translation Quality Requirements in China and Foreign Countries [J]. Contemporary Foreign Languages Studies, 2019, 19(04): 115-123.