2. LITERATURE REVIEW
2.4 Typology Issue
國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
stage, learners achieve the use of unaccusatives. This hypothesis predicts the
U-shaped learning in the acquisition of English break by L2 Dutch (Kellerman, 1978, 1979) and the learning of progressive tense –ing (Lightbown, 1983).
Within the U-shaped learning, study (Kellerman, 1978, 1979) evidenced that Dutch speakers in a certain level of L2 English reject the transferability of NP-V order in the alternating unaccusative verb break. Additionally, the reluctance of NP-V word order in alternating unaccusatives is as strong as that in non-alternating unaccusatives to the Italians and Japanese subjects (Oshita, 1998). Zobl (1989) also provided that unaccusatives would be subsumed under passives. Therefore, it is possible that non-alternating unaccusatives are prior to passives and there would be
overpassivization on non-alternating unaccuatives in a certain time as the predication by Unaccusative Trap Hypothesis. Therefore, we hypothesize that there might be a U-shaped curve in learning of non-alternating unaccusatives for L1 Chinese learning English.
2.4 Typology Issue
There are typological differences in languages: a subject-prominent language and
a topic-prominent language. In Kellerman (1978), the study of U-shaped curve in learning of alternating unaccusatives break is conducted by L1 Dutch, which is a subject-prominent language. Research concerning early topic-prominent language in
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
20
L1 has been evidenced to come into the effect on L2 (Givón, 1995; Rutherford, 1989;
Sasaki, 1990; Schachter, 1979). The characteristics of topic-prominent language in Chinese in learning of unaccusatives need to be illustrated.
2.4.1 Chinese Topic-comment Structure
Languages can be characterized by subject-prominent languages (SP) and topic-prominent language (TP) based on sentence information role, subject-predicate or topic-comment structure (Li & Thompson, 1976). Chinese is referred to as a topic-prominent language (Li & Thompson, 1976, 1981). Studies have shown that Chinese L1 topic-comment structures influence L2 English learning, as exemplified below.
(19) a. Irrational emotions are bad but rational emotions/ must use for judging.
Topic / Comment
(Schachter, 1979) b. …and there is a mountain/ separate two lakes.
Topic / Comment
(Schachter & Celece-Murcia, 1971) c. To do this/ must have patience. (Zhang, 1987)
Topic / Comment
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
d. China people/ live conditions very poor. (Green, 1996) Topic / Comment
According to above sentences, Chinese speakers may transfer their L1
topic-comment structures to L2 English. In addition, a topic of a sentence is usually the object of the sentence.
(20) a. Wo you zhe-ben shu I own this-CL book ‘I own this book.’
b. Zhe-ben shu, wo you This-CL book, I own ‘This book, I own.’
The NP Zhe-ben shu in (20a) is an object, but it moves to the sentence-initial
position in (20b) as a topic, by which the process is known as topicalization. Studies agreed that the NP zhe-ben shu in (20b) is regarded as a patient since it exists in a marked position instead of a usual object position (Huang, 1982; Shyu, 1995). Most importantly, the NP zhe-ben shu in (20b) holds an active voice. That is,
topic-comment structure is an NP-V word order in Chinese in active voice.
2.4.1.1 Topic-comment Structure on L2 English Passives
Topic-comment structure in Chinese in active voice might turn out to be passive
‧
(Li & Thompson, 1976, 1981) The above example is a topic-comment structure in Chinese. When it translates into English, there must be a null pronoun insertion or a passive voice. Therefore, for these sentences, there will be a translation mismatch in voice forms between Chinese and English (Li & Thompson, 1981). The reason for the mismatch might be that passive voice in Chinese could exist without passive morphology2. Additionally, according to Yip (1995), L2 learners tend to passivize unaccusatives as soon as an object is in the subject position.
2.4.1.2 Topic-comment Structure on L2 English Unaccusatives
On the other hand, topic-comment structure with NP-V word order in active voice in Chinese is similar to the structure of unaccusatives. As we mentioned before, the internal argument of unaccusatives would move to the subject position as a patient or theme (Dowty, 1991; Perlmutter, 1978). In the way, both topic-comment structure
2 Chinese passive morphology Bei not necessarily appeared in the passive meaning. That is, it is plausible that a sentence contains passive meaning without passive morphology Bei.
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
in Chinese and unaccusatives might share the same NP-V word order in active voice.
The example of topic-comment structure in Chinese in active voice is as follows.
(22) a. Che-huo fa-sheng LE Car accident happen LE ‘A car accident happened.’
In (22), 車禍發生了 “che huo fa sheng le” is a topic-comment structure in
active voice in Chinese. Interestingly, its English equivalent is A car accident happened, which is also an active voice like Chinese. In sum, topic-comment
structures might somehow facilitate the learning of English passives due to the patient/theme in the subject position or might help the learning of unaccusatives because both topic-comment structure and unaccusatives share the same NP-V word order in active voice.
2.5 Two Hypotheses on Unaccusatives: Transitivization Hypothesis and
Postverbal NP Movement Hypothesis
According to Yip (1990), L2 learners tend to passivize unaccusatives since they view unaccusatives as underlyingly transitives. It appears to be reasonable that learners correctly use passive voice on alternating unaccusatives but incorrectly overextend passivization on non-alternating unaccusatives.
(23) a. Someone broke the window.
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
24
b. The window was broken. (Kellerman, 1978) (24) a. *A truck happened a car accident.
b. *A car accident was happened.
Learners might group alternating and non-alternating unaccusatives as transitive verbs, so (23b) and (24b) would be observed through learning of unaccusatives.
Although the hypothesis could explain the phenomenon as in (22) and (23), it may not refer to the fact that overpassivization results from transitiviztion unaccusatives (Ju, 2000).
The other hypothesis argued that overpassivization results from the postverbal NP movement (Zobl, 1989). There is a lexical rule of unaccusatives in the D-structure.
(25) [ __ [V NP]] (i.e. [ __ [sink the ship]] ) (Ju, 2000) Zobl presented that L1 Japanese learners learning English would produce I was just patient until dried my clothes instead of I was just patient until my clothes had
dried. He suggested that there would be a NP movement happened between
D-structure and S-structure. However, Oshita (1998) argued that the phenomenon of postverbal NP movement with respect to unaccusatives could be observed in L1 Italian and Spanish, rarely in L1 Japanese and Korean speakers.