In the field of second language acquisition, research on aspect has focused on the morphological mappings of grammatical aspect and lexical semantics of verbs in the past score of years (e.g. Kumpf 1984, Kaplan 1987, Robison 1990, 1995, Andersen 1991, Bardovi-Harlig 1992, Shirai 1993, Andersen and Shirai 1996). Nonetheless, empirical studies on the relationships between aspectual meaning and certain constructions have been relatively underrepresented (cf. Slabakova 2001, Huang and Yang 2005). In English, resultative constructions are such an exemplar which pertains to aspectual interpretations. It is pointed out that the constructions denote an aspectually telic event (e.g. Hoekstra 1988, Goldberg 1991, Tenny 1994, Snyder 1995, Filip 1999, Goldberg and Jackendoff 2004). A typical example of English resultative constructions is shown in (1), in which a resultative complement red is involved.
(1) John painted the house red. (Snyder 1995:460)
Resultative constructions, nevertheless, are not a unique hallmark of the English language. Comparable to English resultative constructions, Mandarin Chinese has two ways to form resultatives, namely resultative verb compounds (RVCs) and resultative V-de constructions (e.g. Li and Thompson 1982, Huang 1988, 1992, Li 1990, 1998, 1999, Zhang 2001, Tai 2003). The following sentences illustrate these two types of resultative constructions in Mandarin Chinese.
(2) Wo didi shuai-sui-le yi-zhi huaping. (RVC)
I brother smash-broken-PERF one-CL vase ‘My brother smashed a vase into pieces.’
(3) Ta ma-de wo shuo bu chu hua lai. (RESULTATIVE V-DE)
he scold-DE I speak not out word come
‘He scolded me so harshly that I could not speak a word.’ (Li 1999:445)
The resultative element is expressed in the form of the resultative verb compound, as
sui ‘broken’ in (2), and the clause wo shuo bu chu hua lai ‘I cannot speak a word’ in
(3). Although both English and Chinese resultative constructions involve a resultative element, they display different morphosyntactic structures. In English resultatives, the main verb and the resultative complement are split in their syntactic positions, as shown by painted and red in (1). In Mandarin Chinese, however, the action verb and the resultative verb are adjacent and form a verb compound together, as shuai-sui
‘smash-broken’ in (2), and resultative V-de constructions are characterized by an obligatory morpheme de, as in (3). These differences may pose a challenge for Chinese learners of English as a second language in the acquisition of the telic constructions in English.
In addition to resultative constructions, some researchers have associated other English constructions with telic construal, viz. verb-particle constructions and double object constructions (e.g. Snyder 1995), as illustrated in (4)-(5).
(4) The student took off his glasses. (VERB-PARTICLE CONSTRUCTION) (5) a. The secretary gave a present to her boss. (DATIVE CONSTRUCTION)
b. The secretary gave her boss a present. (DOUBLE OBJECT CONSTRUCTION)
Given their similar aspectual property, the present study links English verb-particle
constructions and double object/dative constructions together, in conjunction with resultative constructions, under investigation. This study aims to examine the acquisitional difficulties of the three telicity-associated constructions in L2 English.
Besides, the formation of this study is also motivated by the lively theoretical debate on the relationships of the three telicity-related constructions. Some theorists propose that the three constructions form a cluster (e.g. Kayne 1984, 1985, Hoekstra 1988, Snyder 1995), whereas some linguists suggest that they should not be subsumed under the same family of constructions (e.g. Tenny 1994, Baker 1997, Di Sciullo 1999). In spite of the theoretical disagreement, there has been a dearth of empirical evidence on the issue as to whether the three constructions belong to the same cluster.
Basically, there are only two empirical studies on the issue retrieved from the literature, one L1 study (Snyder and Stromswold 1997) and one L2 study (Slabakova 2001).1 As seminal the two studies are, their methodologies are subject to some limitations. The question concerning the relationships of the three purportedly related constructions is still awaiting a satisfactory answer. Thus, further empirical research on these constructions is necessary.
Moreover, according to Chomsky (1981), superficially distinct constructions will emerge around the same time in the process of acquisition if they belong to a cluster of constructions. Given the theoretical disagreement and lack of well-documented empirical evidence on the issue of clustering, the present study, based on Chomsky’s assumption, aims to explore the L2 acquisition of the three English constructions as a source of evidence.
In short, the present study attempts to discover degrees of difficulty of the
1 In addition to Snyder and Stromswold’s (1997) and Slabakova’s (2001) acquisition studies on English telicity-related constructions, Huang and Yang (2005) also conducted an empirical inquiry into constructions bearing on telicity in L2 Chinese. The constructions under investigation included Chinese directionals/locatives, resultatives (resultative verb compounds and resultative V-de constructions), and double object constructions.
English telicity-related constructions in L2 acquisition and to shed some light on the contentious question of their relationships. With the objectives in mind, this study probes into second language acquisition of the three constructions in English by Chinese speakers.
1.2 Research Background
The term ‘telicity’, introduced by Garey (1957:106), refers to whether a situation has ‘a natural final endpoint, or intrinsic bound’ (Smith 1997:19). A telic event is true of a natural endpoint such that when an event attains a natural endpoint, a concomitant change of state takes place and the event is completed. An atelic event, in contrast, does not have such a natural outcome and thus ‘can stop at any time’ (Smith 1997:19), as shown in (6).
(6) a. John loves Mary. (ATELIC STATIVE) b. Sam strolled in the park. (ATELIC ACTIVITY) c. Sam coughed. (ATELIC SEMELFACTIVE) d. Mary reached the top. (TELIC ACHIEVEMENT)
e. Sylvia drew a picture. (TELIC ACCOMPLISHMENT) (Smith 1997:177-182)
In the literature, a consensus has been reached on English telicity marking in basic SV(O) structures (e.g. Vendler 1967, Verkuyl 1972, 1999, Comrie 1976, Dowty 1979, 1991, Smith 1991, 1997, Tenny 1994, Jackendoff 1996, Olsen and Resnik 1997, Kreidler 1998, Filip 1999, Slabakova 2001). It has been found that English telicity marking is compositional and primarily hinges on the calculation of two components:
the lexical semantics of the main verb and the quantization/specification status of the internal argument.
The lexical meaning of a matrix verb plays a crucial role in determining the telicity interpretation of a situation. The examples in (6) illustrate telic versus atelic meanings that the main verbs contribute to. The verb in (6a) itself is a stative verb that denotes a state of a strong feeling of affection. The state has an arbitrary endpoint rather than a natural final endpoint and is regarded as an atelic situation. Besides stative verbs, dynamic verbs like stroll and cough do not encode an intrinsic bound as well. For example, one can stroll back and forth in a park for hours. Such verbs conventionally denote an atelic event per se. On the contrary, verbs such as reach and
draw, together with their direct objects, signify a delimited event, as (6d) and (6e)
suggest. When the natural endpoint is reached, the event is completed—a telic event.
Thus, in light of the role of lexical semantics of a main verb with different aspectual interpretations, the present study takes properties of main verbs into consideration in the research design.
The quantization/specification status of an internal NP argument also exerts a material influence on the telicity reading of a sentence in English. All the sentences in (7) denote past tense and perfective viewpoint aspect.
(7) a. Carol ate. (ATELIC) b. Carol ate a pear/the pear/a bag of pears. (TELIC) c. Carol ate pears. (ATELIC) d. Carol ate rice. (ATELIC)
In spite of the identical matrix verb ate, they depict an atelic event except for the ones in (7b). The example in (7a) contains only a verb and does not have an explicit direct object. It describes an atelic activity without any specification of what Carol ate; thus, the event of Carol’s eating is not delimited. In a similar vein, the situations in
(7c)-(7d) are not delimited either. The direct object is a bare plural NP in (7c) and a mass noun in (7d). Since the internal arguments in these examples are not quantified/
specified, the events are not delimited and telic. In contrast, the sentences in (7b) contain a quantified/specified direct object. The determiners a/the and the measure words a bag of specify the quantification status of the internal argument pear(s), which yields the telic readings of the sentences. As the quantization/specification status of the internal argument is not the research focus of this study, the internal arguments in the present research design are specified direct objects so as to circumvent a potential effect induced by direct objects.
In addition to the linguistic properties, L2 proficiency may contribute to variations in second language acquisition. There has been a voluminous literature on the role of L2 proficiency in acquisition (Kellerman 1983, Sasaki and Hirose 1996, Whong-Barr and Schwartz 2001, Ying 2004, among others). For example, some studies point out the U-shaped behavior exhibited by beginners, intermediate learners, and advanced ones in L2 development (e.g. Kellerman 1983), while some investigations show contrasting tendencies between high- and low-proficiency learners (e.g. Whong-Barr and Schwartz 2001). Moreover, task effects have been discussed in the acquisition research (Larson-Freeman 1976, Tarone 1985, Rothman 2007, among others). Task-induced quantitative and qualitative variations are reported in several studies (e.g. Hyltenstam 1984), whereas researchers like Chaudron (1983) claim that tasks are not a variable per se. A related issue to task effects is the relationships of comprehension and production in acquisition. It is conventionally assumed that comprehension precedes production (McCarthy 1954). However, empirical evidence points to two directions with respect to the sequence of comprehension and production (cf. Ehri 1976, Janson and Schulman 1983, Wu and Wen 1997, McKee et al. 1998). In view of the factor of L2 proficiency and task
effects in acquisition, this study also examines these two variables.
1.3 Research Questions
The present empirical study aims to address the following five research questions.
1) Do our subjects acquire the three telicity-related constructions in English approximately concurrently, exhibit a sequence of acquisition, or learn them in a piecemeal fashion?
2) Do different properties of the telicity-related constructions display varying degrees of difficulty and contribute to a different order of acquisition?
3) Is L2 proficiency a variable influencing the acquisition of the telicity-associated constructions?
4) Do different tasks on the telicity-associated constructions yield parallel results? If yes, does comprehension precede production consistently?
5) What other patterns are elicited with respect to the telicity-related constructions?
1.4 Significance of the Study
The issue concerning the relationships of English telicity-associated constructions has been animatedly debated (cf. Kayne 1984, 1985, Hoekstra 1988, Tenny 1994, Snyder 1995, Baker 1997), but there has been a paucity of empirical evidence on the issue. Thus, the theoretical question is worth addressing. The present study does not endeavor to provide a definitive answer to the issue. Rather, this study, adopting a quantitative and qualitative approach, aims to resort to second language acquisition of the constructions as a source of evidence and to shed some light on the theoretically controversial issue. Besides linking the three constructions together under consideration, this study looks into the acquisition of different properties of the
constructions in an effort to discover the interaction of construction effects and property effects in second language development. Finally, L2 proficiency and task effects (comprehension versus production) are explored in this study as well.
1.5 Organization of the Thesis
This thesis is organized as follows. Chapter Two deals with main properties of the three telicity-associated constructions in English and Mandarin Chinese, and reviews previous relevant theoretical as well as empirical studies. Chapter Three is devoted to the research design of this study, and Chapter Four reports and discusses the experimental results. Finally, Chapter Five offers concluding remarks and suggestions for further research.
C
HAPTERT
WOL
INGUISTICP
ROPERTIES ANDL
ITERATURER
EVIEW OFT
ELICITY-R
ELATEDC
ONSTRUCTIONSThis chapter consists of four sections. Section 2.1 discusses major properties of the three telicity-related constructions in English, in conjunction with comparison and contrast of pertinent characteristics in Mandarin Chinese. Sections 2.2 and 2.3 review some theoretical and empirical studies on the telicity-associated constructions in English, respectively. Section 2.4 is a summary of this chapter.
2.1 Properties of Telicity-Related Constructions
This section is concerned with key properties of the three telicity-related constructions at issue, especially those properties to which all the constructions exhibit great resemblance. Since the present study is an L2 empirical study, with English as the target language and Chinese as the mother tongue, relevant properties in the two languages are compared and contrasted accordingly. The comparison and contrast can serve as the basis for the research design of the present study.
Characteristics of resultative, verb-particle, and dative/double object constructions are dealt with in the following subsections.
2.1.1 Resultative Constructions in English and Chinese
English resultative constructions have drawn a great deal of research in the fields of semantics and syntax (e.g. Hoekstra 1988, 1992, Goldberg 1991, Carrier and Randall 1992, Tenny 1994, Filip 1999, Goldberg and Jackendoff 2004). They can be categorized into three major classes on the basis of verbal properties, as in (1).
(1) a. He hammered the metal red. (TRANSITIVE) b. The butter melted to a liquid. (ERGATIVE)
c. He drank himself into the grave. (UNERGATIVE) (Hoekstra 1988:119)
In the literature, transitive resultatives are treated as part of the same telic family as verb-particle constructions and double object constructions (e.g. Hoekstra 1988, Snyder 1995). Hence, the present study focuses on transitive resultatives in English resultative constructions. In this type of resultatives, resultative complements can be expressed in three forms, namely an adjectival phrase, a prepositional phrase, and a noun phrase (Carrier and Randall 1992, Tenny 1994), as illustrated below.
(2) a. She painted the barn red. (AP) b. She pounded the dough into a pancake. (PP) c. She painted the barn a weird shade of red. (NP)
(Carrier and Randall 1992:183)
In Mandarin Chinese, there are two ways to form resultatives, viz. resultative verb compounds (RVCs) and resultative V-de constructions (e.g. Li and Thompson 1982, Huang 1988, 1992, Jaxontov 1988, Li 1990, 1998, 1999, Zhang 2001, Tai 2003, Lin 2004, Wu 2004, Xiao and McEnery 2004), as in (3).
(3) a. Wo didi shuai-sui-le yi-zhi huaping. (RVC) I brother smash-broken-PERF one-CL vase
‘My brother smashed a vase into pieces.’
b. Ta ma-de wo shuo bu chu hua lai. (RESULTATIVE V-DE) he scold-DE I speak not out word come
‘He scolded me so harshly that I could not say a word.’ (Li 1999:445)
Resultative verb compounds consist of V1 and V2 (Li and Thompson 1982:54), as
shuai ‘to smash’ and sui ‘broken’ in (3a). The first verb encodes the action of the
event, and the second verb signals the resultant state. Thus, resultative verb compounds are also termed ‘action-result’ verb compounds (Tai 1984:290). On the other hand, resultative V-de constructions are characterized by an obligatory morpheme de attached to the first verb.1 As (3b) shows, the action verb ma ‘to scold’
is indicative of the causing event, whereas the resultant state is encoded by the resultative clause wo shuo bu chu hua lai ‘I cannot speak a word’.
Two main properties of English resultative constructions are discussed below, i.e.
verb types and predication.
2.1.1.1 Stative versus Dynamic Verbs
It is pointed out that resultative constructions have the effect of telicity conversion (Hoekstra 1988, Tenny 1994, Snyder 1995, Filip 1999). The constructions could convert a sentence that denotes an atelic event into a sentence with telic construal, if the resultative predicate is felicitous with the original sentence. For example, the VP wring the towel inherently denotes an atelic event, as indicated by the durative adverbial phrase for five minutes in (4a), while the addition of the resultative complement dry coerces a delimited interpretation over the non-delimited one, as in (4b).
(4) a. He wringed the towel for five minutes.
b. He wringed the towel dry in/#for five minutes. (Tenny 1994:38)
1 There has been considerable debate regarding the matrix versus embedded relationships of the two verbs in the Chinese V-de constructions (e.g. Li and Thompson 1982, Huang 1988, Tai 2003). This issue is beyond the scope of the present study; thus, it will not be discussed here.
Although resultative complements have such a delimiting effect, the function does not apply to all types of verbs in English. Resultative expressions are compatible with felicitously dynamic verbs,2 as in (5). Nonetheless, they cannot apply to any stative verbs, for stative verbs cannot be converted into verbs that do denote a telic event (e.g. Slabakova 2001), as illustrated in (6).
(5) a. She wiped the table.
b. She wiped the table clean.
(6) a. He loved her.
b. *He loved her touched.
In Chinese, resultative constructions also convey telic messages, as exemplified in (3).
In contrast to English, Chinese resultatives in RVCs are compatible with some stative verbs, as in (7), and Chinese stative verbs can also appear in resultative V-de constructions when verb copying is applied, as shown in (8).
(7) a. Ta ai-si-le ta.
he love-die-PERF her ‘He loved her to death.’
b. Ta hen-tou-le Lisi.
he hate-thoroughly-PERF Lisi.
‘He hated Lisi extremely.’
(8) Ta ai ta ai-de jihu fahuang.
he love her love-DE nearly go.crazy ‘He loved her so much that he nearly went crazy.’
2 All the verbs in telic constructions are dynamic verbs, whereas not all the dynamic verbs are congruent with telic constructions. The expression ‘felicitously dynamic verbs’ is used here to avoid overgeneralizations.
2.1.1.2 Predication
Although English resultative predicates have three forms to modify a nominal argument, the argument of which they can be predicated is constrained. Resultative complements are predicated only of the direct object in English (Carrier and Randall 1992, Tenny 1994), as in (9). In contrast, depictives, which should be distinguished from resultatives, may describe the subject or the object, as in (10).
(9) a. Susan pounded the metali flati. (RESULTATIVE)
b. *Susani pounded the metal tiredi.
(10) a. I cut the breadi hoti. (DEPICTIVE)
b. The horsei cannot run a furlong tiredi. (Tenny 1994:58, 153-154).
Unlike English resultatives, Chinese resultative expressions are more flexible in predication (Li 1998, 1999). Resultative elements in RVCs allow ambiguous interpretations for one sentence in some cases. They can be predicated of the object, as in (11a), or the subject, as in (11b). Similarly, modification of the resultative VP in V-de constructions can apply to the object, as in (3b), or to the subject in cases like (12).
(11) Youyoui zhui-leii/j-le Taotaoj le.
Youyou chase-tired-PERF Taotao PAR
a. ‘Youyou chased Taotao and as a result Taotao became tired.’
b. ‘Youyou chased Taotao and as a result Youyou became tired.’ (Li 1998:296) (12) Woi xiang-de taj [ chi bu xia fan]i.
I miss-DE her eat not down food
‘I missed her so much that I lost my appetite.’ (Li 1999:448)
2.1.2 Verb-Particle Constructions in English and Chinese
English verb-particle constructions, as the name itself suggests, consist of a main verb and a particle (e.g. Bolinger 1971), as shown in (13).
(13) a. He looked up his friends.
b. They turned down my request.
In Mandarin Chinese, four directional verbs shang ‘to ascend’, xia ‘to descend’,
qi ‘to rise’, and chu ‘to emerge’, and five result verbs diao ‘to fall’, zou ‘leave’, zhu
‘to fasten’, dao ‘to reach’, and kai ‘to open’ are regarded as Chinese verb particles in the literature (Teng 1977, Chen 2003), as illustrated in (14).
(14) a. Ta zhongyu kao-shang-le daxue.
he eventually take.an.exam-up-PERF university ‘He eventually got admitted to a university.’
b. Wo xiang-chu-le yi-ge banfa.
I think-out-PERF one-CL solution
‘I thought out a solution.’ (Chen 2003:27, 31)
Verb-particle constructions in English are characterized by two major properties.
One is inapplicability to stative verbs, and the other is particle movement, as explicated below.
2.1.2.1 Stative versus Dynamic Verbs
According to Bolinger (1971:85), verb particles contain two features, ‘one of motion-through-location, the other of terminus or result’. Like resultatives, the presence of verb particles can convert verbs denoting an atelic event into telic ones
(Bolinger 1971, Tenny 1994, Snyder 1995). For instance, the interpretation of walk
the course is ambiguous between a delimited and a non-delimited reading. On the one
hand, walk the course can be interpreted as a telic event, in which one walks from the onset of the course to the end. On the other hand, one can walk back and forth without covering the entire path. However, when a verb particle is added, the atelic reading is overridden by a telic interpretation, as in (15).
(15) Tom walked the course through in/#for ten minutes. (Tenny 1994:36)
Accordingly, verb particles are compatible with felicitously dynamic verbs, as the above example suggests. The delimiting function of verb particles disallows telic particles to co-occur with any stative verbs, since it is impossible to convert such verbs into verbs that do denote a telic event (Slabakova 2001), as in (16).
(16) a. She liked the man.
b. *She liked the man through.
Like English verb particles, the so-called verb particles in Chinese also denote telic meanings, as in (14). Although English verb-particle constructions do not apply to any stative verbs, Chinese counterparts can change the aspectual properties of sentences with a stative verb. An example is shown in (17), where the particle shang ‘up’
contributes to an inchoative interpretation of the sentence, i.e. the starting point of falling in love (Huang and Hsieh 2008).
(17) a. Ta ai na-ge yuangong.
she love that-CL employee ‘She loves that employee.’
b. Ta ai-shang-le na-ge yuangong.
she love-up-PERF that-CL employee ‘She fell in love with that employee.’
2.1.2.2 Particle Movement
Another hallmark of verb-particle constructions is particle movement. Verb particles can optionally appear on either side of an internal argument NP (Bolinger 1971, Fraser 1976), as in (18).
(18) a. He ran up the bill.
b. He ran the bill up.
However, when the direct object is a pronoun, the verb particle is obligatorily placed after it, as in (19) (Quirk et al. 1985, Biber et al. 1999).
(19) a. How fast can you pick it up?
b. *How fast can you pick up it? (Biber et al. 1999:932)
Chinese verb particles, in contrast, are not subject to the same particle movement as
Chinese verb particles, in contrast, are not subject to the same particle movement as