Haiyong Liu
The Acquisition of Mandarin Reflexives by English Speakers
I. Mandarin Reflexives
I.1 Properties of Mandarin Reflexives
There are two types of
reflexives in Mandarin Chinese: the simplex reflexive ‘ziji’ and the complex reflexives ‘pronoun + ziji,’ for example woziji
‘myself’, niziji ‘yourself’, taziji ‘him/herself’, womenziji ‘ourselves’, nimenziji ‘yourselves’, and tamenziji ‘themselves’. Reflexive
possessives are formed by suffixing the genitive de to reflexives, for example: zijide
‘self’s or one’s own’ and tazijide
‘his/her own.’
The complex reflexives
behave like their English counterparts; i.e. they are bound locally; also note
that they agree with their antecedents only in number and person features, not
gender:
(1) Zhangsan xihuan taziji.
Zhangsan like himself
‘Zhangsan likes
himself.’
(2) Zhangsan shuo wo xihuan woziji/*taziji.
Zhangsan
say I like
myself/himself
‘Zhangsan says that I like myself/himself.’
Simplex reflexives, on the other hand, can be both
locally and long-distance bound:
(3) Zhangsani shuo Lisij xihuan zijii/j.
Zhangsan say Lisi like self
‘Zhangsan says that Lisi likes himself/him.’
There are, however, two other rules that interfere with the long-distance binding scenario: first, non-third person DPs cannot serve as long-distance binder; and second, intervening non-third person DPs, subject or object, block long-distance binding (Tang, 1989); for example, unlike (3), in (4) only the local Lisi can function as the binder for ziji, not the long-distance wo, because the latter is a non-third person pronoun; in (5), because of the blocking of non-third person wo, Zhangsan, the remote third-person cannot be the binder for ziji:
(4) Woi shuo Lisij xihuan ziji*i/j.
I say Lisi like self
‘I say Lisi likes himself/*me.’
(5) Zhangsani shuo woj xihuan ziji*i/j.
Zhangsan say
I like ziji
‘Zhangsan says I
like myself/*him.’
Nevertheless, it should be
pointed out that the two blocking constraints are not restrictive to all
speakers (Tiedemann, 1984). Some speakers, for instance, mark (4) and (5) as ambiguous.
What is more, while English reflexives take both subject
and object antecedents as in (6), Mandarin reflexives can only take subject
antecedents but not object antecedents as in (7):
(6) John told Lee about himself.
(7) Zhangsani gei Lisij yizhang zijii/*j de zhaopian.
Zhangsan give Lisi a self ‘s picture
‘Zhangsan gives Lisi a picture of Zhangsan/*Lisi.’
Also, in contrast to
English, Chinese reflexives can be well-formed in subject position in embedded
clauses:
(8) Ta shuo ziji shi xuesheng.
he say self is student
‘He says that he is a student.’
I. 2 Analyses on Long-Distance Complex Reflexives
As shown from the data
above, the distribution of Chinese complex reflexives can be explained by
Binding Principle A (Chomsky, 1981), according to which an anaphor is bound in
its governing category.
Chinese simplex reflexives,
however, seem to have violated Binding Principle A. Various theories have been
proposed to explain the possibility of long-distance binding in Chinese as well
as in many other languages like Korean, Japanese, Iceland, and Russian etc.
Three analyses are very influential: Subset Principle (Wexler and Manzini,
1987), LF Movement approach (Battistella, 1989; and Cole, Hermon, and Sung,
1990), and Logophoricity analysis of long-distance reflexives (Huang and Liu,
2000).
Subset Principle is a
parametric account. It arrays reflexives across languages into inclusive
hierarchies in terms of the markedness of their governing categories and proper
antecedents.
For example, a is a governing category for b iff a is the minimal category
which contains a and:
1.
has
a subject, or
2.
has
an INFL(inflection), or
3.
has
a TNS (tense), or
4.
has
an indicative TNS, or
5.
has
a root TNS.
All these parameters for a valid governing category are in a subset relationship: type-1 languages, which can be represented by English, have the most restrictive therefore least marked local binding domain. Type-2 languages are like Italian, type-3 Russian, and type-4 Icelandic. Mandarin represents the other extreme of the hierarchy, the most marked languages that allow long-distance binding with fewest restrictions.
At the same, there is a hierarchy of proper antecedents, showing whether a language has, for bound a, a proper antecedent as:
1. a subject b; or
2. any element b.
On the proper antecedent hierarchy, we see a different picture: Chinese now is one of the most restrictive yet least marked type-1 languages in that it allows only subjects as antecedents; English is now the most marked language that allows both subject and object as antecedents.
Wexler and Manzini extends their theory to learnability, arguing that due to the fact that only positive evidence is possible in first language acquisition, children start from the least marked language, i.e. type-1 language, in their acquisition. Then, with the help of positive evidence, they move along the hierarchy upward until they reach what their language is like. Data from Chien, Welxer, and Chang (1993) supports this learning modal: Chinese children prefer local binders up to age 6, despite that Chinese allows both local and long-distance binding. No literature on how Subset Principle works for proper antecedent parameters is found.
LF movement account for long-distance binding argues that the relationship between ziji and its antecedents is covertly local in nature. It argues that at LF, reflexives, from an argument position, move to the INFL where their potential binder is located (Cole, Hermon and Sung, 1990), or ajoin to an Ā position of the INFL where its binder is located (Huang and Tang, 1991). Cole, Hermon and Sung argue that the fact ziji can land at [HEAD, IP] is derived from the fact that Chinese lacks verb agreement.
Consequently, because subject is located in IP, such a covert-local binding also explains the subject-orientated nature of Chinese reflexives and predicts the possibility of ziji showing up in subject position in embedded clauses, as in (8).
Let us take a look at how (3) is derived in (9): ziji lands at IP2 at LF if it is bound by Lis;i and IP1 if it is bound by Zhangsan, the long-distance antecedent:
(9) CP
fh
IP1
fh
Zhangsan I’
fh
I’ VP
fh
shuo CP
say fh
IP2
fh
Lisi I’
fh
VP
fh
V’
fh
xihuan ti
To solve the problem of non-third person blocking effects, Tang (1989) proposes two language-specific rules: the optional Feature Copying Rule for local binding of ziji and the obligatory and iterative Feature Re-indexing Rule for long-distance binding of ziji.
Very few direct discussions concerning the acquisition issue have been given in the LF movement analysis. Chien, Wexler and Chang (1993)’s experiment proved that children’s preference for local binding can neither be explained by the hypothesis that children are not able to move ziji at LF or the hypothesis that children can move ziji at LF but cannot transfer features from its antecedent to ziji at an Ā-position.
Huang and Liu (2000) separate locally bound reflexives and long-distance bound reflexives. They call the former anaphors, obeying Principle A; and the latter logophors that are more like pronouns. The blocking effects of the logophors are accounted for from perceptual effects resulting from conflicting ‘anchors’ of discourse-sensitive NPs that include first- and second- person pronouns. No acquisition study has been done directed by such an analysis.
What is worth mentioning is that there are some typological characteristics of long-distance reflexives: they are usually mono-morphemic like ziji; they often take subject antecedents. It seems that long-distance binding and subject-orientation cluster together. Blocking effects, however, have only be found in two Chinese dialects: Mandarin and Teochew; but not in other languages that allow long-distance binding; a phenomenon Cole, Hermon, and Huang (2000) call the Non-universality of Blocking.
II. Theories on Second Language Acquisition
We have seen that ziji (i) can be bound long-distance,
(ii) must be bound by a subject, and (iii) only remotest, not intervening,
third person NPs can serve as long-distance binders. This paper is aimed to
examine if and how these properties are acquired by adult speakers of English,
who are studying Mandarin as a second language (L2).
The fundamental questions in
adult second language acquisition are if Universal Grammar (UG) can be accessed
by language learners and what role their first language (L1) plays in their
acquisition process.
There are basically two
hypotheses regarding these concerns. First, Bley-Vromen (1989) and Bley-Vromen,
Felix, and Ioup (1988) argue for an approach with no or partial UG access. They
argue for Fundamental Differences between Second Language Acquisition (SLA) and
First Language Acquisition (L1A); the former, unlike the latter, has no access
to UG and what guides the learners in their acquisition is their native
language and their non-linguistic problem-solving skills.
Other linguists argue that
SLA has Direct Access to UG (Thomas, 1991; Finerand Broselow, 1986; Schwartz,
1990 and 1992; MacLaughlin 1996; and Gass, 1996; Schwartz and Sprouse, 1996;
among many others). An important piece of evidence they hold is that in SLA
parameters can be reset to values that are not present in L1.
Direct Access also takes
into consideration the role L1 plays in SLA. For example, Full Access/Full
Access Hypothesis (Schwartz and Sprouse, 1996) proposes that both L1 and UG
function in SLA; the former is the initial state for SLA and the latter
triggers parameter resetting if some representations are not available in L1.
Note that unlike L1
Acquisition, both negative and positive evidences are available in SLA. White
(1991) indicates that instruction including negative evidence is more effective
in helping L2 learners.
III. Experiment
3.1 Hypotheses
Based on the analyses on the
properties of ziji and theories on
SLA, I make the following hypotheses.
First, I am interested in
seeing how Subset Principle works for SLA. We know that L1A is different from
SLA in that only positive evidence is available in the former while both
positive and negative evidences are available in the latter. We also know that
Subset Principle (SP) is based on a positive-evidence-driven learning model.
If we take a closer look,
however, English speakers should still be able to acquire Chinese parameters
with only positive evidence. Suppose, an English speaker, following SP, starts
from the least marked parameter for governing category, i.e. local binding, he
or she should be able to extend it to both local and long-distance binders with
the help of positive evidence. On the other hand, the same speaker should start
with only the parameter of subject-orientation. Later on, however, due to the
lack of positive evidence hinting parameter for both subject- and
object-orientations, the speaker should stop here without moving upward; i.e.
they would never switch the antecedent parameter setting to that like of
English. Therefore, it seems that Subset Principle predicts that a second
language learner should be able to establish parameters in the target language.
This prediction, however,
raises two questions. First, if positive evidence alone can help second
language learners arrive at the parameters of the target language, what is the
use of negative evidence in SLA, which is actually frequently encountered in
second-language teaching? Second, can this model correctly capture how
beginners start while learning a second language; i.e. do they really start
with the least marked parameter? If so, it would follow that beginners start
with UG rather than L1, since the least marked parameters are indeed UG
parameters, but not necessarily parameters in the speakers’ native language.
Whether SP works for SLA or not depends if it can correctly predict what the
initial state is like.
Apart from the above discussions, I assume that the
distinction between marked and unmarked parameters predict that English
speakers should have trouble acquiring the Blocking effects and the possibility
of ziji appearing in subject position
in embedded clauses; since these two facts are highly marked and
Chinese-specific.
Second, if Full Transfer/Full Hypothesis (Schwartz and
Sproouse, 1996) is true, beginners should show more transfer than advanced
learners, since L1 is considered to be the initial state for SLA. And we also
should be able to predict that more advanced learners should show parameter
resetting, a sign being guided by UG. To be more specific, in our case,
beginners should prefer local-binding of ziji
and they should allow both subject and object as antecedents for ziji. More advanced learners should show
fifty-fifty preferences for local and long-distance binding; and they should
allow less or no object-orientation.
L1 transfer should also prevents beginners from
recognizing Blocking effects and ziji
in embedded subject position, which are not found in their L1. More advanced
learners should have developed some sense of these two mechanisms.
3.2 Methodology
3.2.1 Participants.
I gave questionnaire to five UCLA first-year Mandarin
students who have studied Chinese for three quarters, age ranging from 19 to
21. The use of ziji is still not
covered in their textbook. I also included four more advanced Chinese learners:
two Chinese TAs at UCLA who have been studying Chinese for five to six years
and have once lived in Chinese-speaking environment for two to three years;
another one has been taken all the Chinese language classes at UCLA and live
with a Chinese-speaking nephew; an another one who has a degree in Chinese
history and has been studying Chinese for 25 years. Also there are five native
Chinese speakers as controls.
3.2.2 Questionnaire:
I prepared a questionnaire
of 24 questions, which include (I) translations, eight Chinese sentence were
given and they needed to translate them into English and were told to write out
all the readings they could get if a sentence were ambiguous; (II) multiple
choices for correct translations, they were given eight Chinese sentences
together with several English translations, they were asked to circle the
correct translations and write out the other possible ones that were missing;
(III), picture matching, I borrowed Finer and Browselow’s pictures and the
Chinese version of their sentences:
(10) Pang Xiansheng zhidao Shou Xiansheng yao hua ziji
Mr. Fat know Mr. Skinny want paint self
‘Mr. Fat knows that Mr. Skinny want to paint himself/him.’
(11) Pang Xiansheng rang Shou Xiansheng hua ziji.
Mr. Fat let Mr. Skinny paint self
‘Mr. Fati lets Mr. Skinny paint himselfi.’
And IV, grammaticality
judgment, six Chinese sentences were given and they needed to judge which ones
were ungrammatical and were told to translate those that they think to be
grammatical.
Five grammar items were
tested:
1.
Locality of simplex
reflexives (4 sentences):
I.1: Gubo shuo Palanka xihuan ziji.
Gubo say Palanka
like self
‘Gubo says that Palanka likes herself/him.’
II.7: Li Xiaolong xiwang xuesheng men zhidao Palanka xihuan ta-ziji.
Bruce Lee
hope students know Palanka like him/her self
‘Bruce hopes students know that Palanka likes herself.’
III. 2: *Women dou xihuan tamen-ziji de TA.
we
all like their own TA
‘We all like their own TA.’
III.
4: *Wang he Ding zhidao Gubo changchang
shuo Li Xiaojie xihuan tamen
Wang and
Ding know Gubo often say Miss Li like
them-
ziji
selves
‘Wang Hong and Ding Yun know
that Gubo often says Miss Li likes themselves.’
2: Subject Orientation (9 sentences):
I. 2: Li Xiansheng gaosu zhexie xuesheng Wang Taitai bu xihuan ziji.
Mr. Li
tell these students
Mrs. Wang not like
self
‘Mr Wang tells these
students that Mrs. Wang does not like herself/him/*them.’
I.
3: Gubo rang Palanka chi ziji de fan.
Gubo
let Palanka eat self ‘s food
‘Gubo
lets Palanka eat his/*her food.’
I.
7: Gubo rang Palanka piping ziji.
Gubo
let Palanka criticize self
‘Gubo
lets Palanka criticize him/*her.’
II.
2: Palanka gaosu Gubo ziji mei chifan.
Palanka
tell Gubo self not eat
‘Palanka
tells Gubo that she/*he didn’t eat.’
II.3:
Zhangsan gaosu wo Lisi bu xihuan ziji.
Zhangsan tell
I Lisi not like
self
‘Zhangsan
tells me that Lisi does not like himself/*him/*me.’
II. 5: Gubo gei Palanka yizhang ziji-de zhaopian.
Gubo
give Palanka a self’s picture.
‘Gubo
gives Palanka a picture of himself/*her.’
III.
2: Pang Xiansheng xiang rang Shou
Xiansheng hua ziji.
Mr.
Fat want let Mr. Skinny paint self
‘Mr.
Fat wants to let Mr. Skinny paint him/*himself.’
IV.
5: *Gubo gei Palanka he Wang Laoshi
yizhang ta-ziji de zhaopian.
Gubo
give Palanka and Prof. Wang a his/herself’s picture
‘Gubo gave Palanka and
Professor Wang a picture of himself/*themselves.’
IV.
6: *Gubo gei Palanka he Wang Laoshi
yizhang tamen-ziji de zhaopian.
Gubo
give Palanka and Prof. Wang a themselves’ picture
‘Gubo gave Palanka and
Professor Wang a picture of *himself/ *themselves.
3: Local or Long – Distance (6 sentences):
I. 2: Li Xiansheng gaosu zhexie xuesheng Wang Taitai bu xihuan ziji.
Mr. Li
tell these students
Mrs. Wang not like
self
‘Mr Wang tells these
students that Mrs. Wang does not like herself/him/*them.’
I.
6: Li Xiaolong shuo Palanka da ziji.
Bruce
Lee say Palanka hit self
‘Bruce
Lee says that Palanka hit him/herself.’
I.
8: Gubo shuo Palanka bu zhidao ziji de mama zai Luoshanji.
Gubo
says Palanka not know self ‘s mom
in Los Angeles
‘Gubo says that Palanka does
not know that his/her mom is in Los Angeles.’
II.
6: Palanka xiang Gubo zhidao Li
Xiaolong xihuan ziji.
Palanka
think Gubo know Bruce Lee
like self
‘Palanka
thinks that Gubo knows that Bruce Lee likes him/her/himself.’
III.
1: Pang Xiansheng zhidao Shou Xiansheng
yao hua ziji.
Mr.
Fat know Mr. Skinny will
paint self
‘Mr.
Fat knows that Mr. Skinny will paint him/himself.’
IV.
3 Wo xiang Gubo zhidao Wang Laoshi bu
gei ziji shuohua.
I think Gubo know
Prof. Wang not with self talk
‘I think Gubo know that
Professor Wang does not talk with him/herself/*me.’
4: Blocking Effects (6 sentences):
I.
4 Wo xiwang Palanka xihuan ziji.
I hope
Palanka like self
‘I
hope Palanka likes herself/*me.’
I.
5 Gubo xiang wo zhidao Palanka
xihuan ziji.
Gubo think
I know Palanka
like self
‘Gubo
thinks that I know Palanka likes herself/*him/*me.’
II.
3 Zhangsan gaosu wo Lisi bu xihuan ziji.
Zhangsan tell
I Lisi not like self
‘Zhangsan
tells me that Lisi does not like himself/*him/*me.’
II.
4 Ta shuo wo zhidao ziji de pengyou zai UCLA xuexi.
he say
I know self’s
friend at UCLA study
‘He
says that I know that my/*his friends are studying at UCLA.’
II.
8 Wo zhidao Lisi bu xihuan ziji.
I know
Lisi not like self
‘I
know Lisi does not like himself/*me.’
IV.
3 Wo xiang Gubo zhidao Wang Laoshi bu
gei ziji shuohua.
I think
Gubo know Prof.
Wang not with self talk
‘I think Gubo know that
Professor Wang does not talk with him/herself/*me.’
5. Subject in Embedded Clause (2
sentences, one actual test and one hint)
II. 2: Palanka gaosu Gubo ziji mei chifan.
Palanka tell
Gubo self not eat
‘Palanka tells Gubo that she/*he didn’t eat.’
IV. 1: Ta mei shuo ziji shi xuesheng.
he not say self
is student
‘He didn’t say that he is a student.’
Before the test, I gave
beginners a small lecture on the use of ziji
cf. Appendix A. I introduced simplex ziji,
complex ziji and possessive
reflexives. I pointed out the ambiguity caused in sentences with simplex ziji and that such ambiguity is not
available in sentences with complex ziji, like:
(12) Gubo zhidao Palanka xihuan ziji.
Gubo know Palanka like self
‘Gubo knows that Palanka likes herself/him.’
(13) Gubo zhidao Palanka xihuan taziji.
‘Gubo knows Palanka likes herself/*him.’
In order to show the possibility of ziji appearing in subjec position, I presented them with a common Chiense saying, which represents that ziji can be used in subject position:
(14) Ziji de shiqing ziji zuo.
self ‘s thing self do
‘One should do one’s own things (don’t rely on other people)
3.2.3: Results
I first wrote down the
number of people who gave the same answers; of course, some of the answers were
correct, and some of which are incorrect; for example, in the Group of
Beginners, for problem I. 3 that was used to test subject orientation, 1 person
co-referred ziji with the subject, 2
persons co-referred it with the object, and 2 persons co-referred with both.
Co-referring ziji with the subject is
the correct answer, so one point earned by that person was given to the total
point, and no point was earned by the 2 persons who chose the incorrect object
antecedent. And half point was given to each of the two people who translated
this question as ambiguous, 1 in total. Now, we got 2 by adding the 1 point
from subject co-referring and 1 from the ambiguous co-referring:
|
Subject Orientation |
Subject: 1 |
Object: 2 |
Ambiguous: 2 |
Total Point: 2 |
And then I added the total
points for: I.2, I.3, I.7, II.3, II.4, II.5, III.2, IV.5, and IV. 6 together,
since all of them were used to test for subject orientation. So, the whole
Group of Beginners got 25.5 for subject orientation.
For local and long-distance
preference tests, I arbitrarily gave point to local-preference and no point was
given to long-distance preference, since unlike other items, there is no
correct or incorrect answer for local and long-distance binding of simplex
reflexives.
Here are the results of all
the groups in all tested items[1]:
From (15), we can see that in terms of locality for complex
reflexives or anaphors, advanced speakers and native speakers are very similar.
Beginners, however, scored only 50% of that for native speakers.
Predicted by both Subset
Principle and Full Transfer / Full Access Hypothesis, beginners should start
with the English parameter: the least marked parameter and the source for their
L1 transfer. By default, they are expected not to be able to violate Principle
A. They, on the contrary, seemed to have gone even further from local-binding
than native speakers: if the locality constraint on anaphor had always been
noticed, each group should get 20 points; native speakers got 60% right yet
beginners got only 35% right.
In the same vein, beginners
should also prefer local governing category for simplex reflexives, but again,
they show actually very close results with native speakers, 14.5 vs. 15. If the
speaker always had always chosen the local antecedent, the total point for each
group of 5 should be 30. So, we can see that actually all the three groups are
actually doing at chance level, allowing half local binders and half
long-distance binders, 14.5, 14, and 15.
I did mention the
distinction between simplex and complex reflexives and the possible ambiguity
in simplex reflexive binding but not in complex reflexive binding, a
combination of both positive and negative evidence.
I argue that the bad
performance by beginners in the locality of anaphor may be attributed to their
incomplete distinction between simplex and complex reflexives. Such a
un-distinction, on the hand, indicates that these beginners are aware of the
existence of long-distance binding, something not available in their native
language. The half-half preference for long-distance and local reflexives also
shows that UG is accessible at the initial state; remember that the
introduction of reflexives are totally new to these beginners.
Then, how about transfer at
initial state? From the fact that beginners are doing much worse than native
speakers in subject orientation: 25 vs. 36 (45 would be the total if speakers
had chosen only subject orientation), we can see that English speakers tend to
use both subject and object antecedents for ziji-binding, a transfer
from their L1.
What is interesting is that
none of the five beginners marked ziji
in embedded subject position as grammatical, while all the five native speakers
marked it as grammatical. This can also show the transfer effect from English,
since English does not allow reflexives in subject position at all. I did give
them examples on ziji being used in
subject position in the small lecture, but it did not seem to be as helpful as
examples on long-distance binding.
This
fact may also serve as a counterexample for pure Problem-Solving Hypothesis in
SLA. Actually, given the example of ziji
as matrix subject in the small lecture, the case of ziji appearing in embedded clause should be easier to understand,
since after all the embedded subject is bound by the matrix subject. But none
of the beginners got the correct answer by getting the hint from the lecture
and II.2 where ziji is found in
embedded subject position.
We
do not see the clustering effect from this result as predicted by the
typological concerns; i.e. long-distance binding and subject-orientation
usually go hand by hand. Speakers seem to have less trouble grasping the
possibility of long-distance binding, but they seem to have more trouble resetting
their parameter from a super-set language to a subset one, i.e. in term of
proper antecedent parameter. Does this indicate that upward parameter-setting
is easier than downward parameter setting? Further studies are in demand.
For
the Blocking effects, we have seen that their applications vary among even
native speakers and no satisfactory theoretical explanation has been offered
for this fact. It would not be very surprising therefore for us to see that all
the three groups did almost the same, 16.5, 19.4, and 18.5 out of a perfect 30,
with more advanced speakers having an even higher score than native speakers.
This result proves the influence of markedness in language acquisition.
Blocking effects are higher non-universal and therefore highly-marked.
Beginners tend to have more problems acquiring this, which is actually is a
very judgment for native speakers.
After
discussing this, it is easier to answer the question of UG access. We have seen
that UG is accessible even for beginners. More advanced speakers did better in
all categories than speakers and even better than natives in Blocking effects
identification, which may serve as examples for parameter resetting, a result
of UG access.
But
again, the progress made by advanced speakers is not the same across all the
tested items. They did better in anaphor locality observation and in the
possibility of long-distance binding and Blocking effect, but their progress is
not very significant in subject orientation and in Embedded Subject. Are these
imbalances due to the markedness of each of the category? Or are they related
to the difficulty of downward parameter resetting?
IV. Conclusion
From
the results of the experiment, we can see that UG is accessible to SLA and at
the same time, L1 transfer has strong effect too. This is consistent with Full
Transfer/Full Access Hypothesis. The only difference I found is that at initial
state, UG, together with L1 transfer, is accessible too; in our study, it seems
to be triggered through negative evidence in instruction. Though Subset
Principle did not capture very well the picture of the initial state of SLA, we
do see the effects of markdedness in SLA and hat it seems upward parameter
resetting seems to be easier than downward parameter resetting. No clustering
effects are found in SLA.
References
Battistella, Edwin (1989)
Chinese Reflexives: A Movement to INFL Approach, Lingusitics, 27: 987-1012
Bley-Vromen, R. (1989) What
is the Local Problem of Foreign Language learning. In Gass, S and J. Schatcher
eds., Handbook of Second Language Acquisition, Academic Press
Bley-Vroman, Robert, Sascha
Felix, and Georgette Ioup, (1988) The Accessibility of Universal Grammar in
Adult Language Learning,
Chien, Yu-Chin, Kenneth
Wexler, and Hsing-Wu Chang (1993) Children’s Development of Long-Distance
Binding in Chinese, Journal of Eastern
Asian Linguistics 2: 229-259
Chomsky, Noam (1981)
Lectures on Government and Binding, Dordrecht, Foris
Cole, Peter, Gabriella Hermon, and C.-T.
Huang (2000) Long Distance Reflexives – The State of the Art, Long Distance
Reflexives, Syntax and Semantics, New York
Cole, peter, Gabrielle Hermon, and Li-May
Sung (1990) Principles and Parameters of Long-Distance, Linguistic Inquiry 21: 1-22
Finer, D and E. Broselow (1986) Second
Language Acquisition of Reflexive Binding. NELS
16: 154-168
Gass, Susan (1996) Second Language
Acquisition and Linguistic Theory: The Role of Language Transfer Handbook of
Second Language Acquisition, Handbook of Second Language Acquisition, Academic
Press
Huang, C.-T. And C.-S. Luther Liu (2000)
Logophorcity, Attitudes and Ziji at
the Interface, Syntax and Semantics, New York
Huang, C.-T. James, and C.-C. Jane Tang
(1991) The Local nature of the Long - Distance Reflexives in Chinese. In J.
Koster and E. Reuland, eds., Long - Distance Anaphor
MacLaughlin, Dawn (1996) Second Language Acquisition of English
Reflexives: Is There Hope Beyond Transfer? BUCLD
20: 453-464
Schwartz, B and R. Sprouse (1996) Second Language Cognitive States and
the Full Transfer/Full Access Model, SLR
12: 40-72
Schwartz, B. (1992) Testing between UG-based and Problem-solving Modals
of Second Language Acquisition: Developmental Sequence Data, Language Acquisition 2.1 1-9
Schwartz, B. (1990) Un-Motivating the Motivation for the Fundamental
Difference Hypothesis, Proceedings of the 10th Annual Second
Language Acquisition Research Forum, University of Oregon
Tang, Chin-Chen Jane (1989) Chinese Reflexives, Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 7: 93-121
Thomas, Margaret (1991) Universal Grammar and the Interpretation of
Reflexives in a Second Language, Language
67: 211-239
Tiedemann R (1984) Universal Grammar and Anaphora in Chinese (written
in Chinese), unpublished M.A. thesis, National Taiwan Normal University
Wexler, Kenneth and M. Rita Manzini (1987), Parameter and Learnability
in Binding Theory, in Thomas Roeper and Edwin Williams (eds), Parameter Setting
41-76, Reidel Publishing Company
White, Lydia (1991) Adverb Placement in Second Language Acquisition:
Some Effects of Positive and Negative Evidence in the Classroom, Second Language Research 7: 133-161
Appendix A: Scores:
|
|
Beginners |
Advanced Learners |
Native Speakers |
|
Locality of Anaphor |
7 |
10.5 / 13.1 |
14 |
|
Subject Orientation |
25.5 |
22 / 27.5 |
36 |
|
Blocking |
16.5 |
15.5 / 19.4 |
18.5 |
|
Local or LD |
14.5 |
14 / 17.5 |
15 |
|
Embedded Subject |
0 |
2 / 2.5 |
5 |