4. RESULTS and DISSCUSSION
4.3.2 Discussion
4.3.2.1 Examination on Transitivization Hypothesis
國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
64
animate subjects are able to do something actively whereas inanimate subjects are not, so participants prefer to use active voice on animate subjects and passive voice on inanimate subjects. Previous studies also supported that agent and experiencer are always animate (Jackendoff, 1978) while theme and patient are more typically viewed as inanimate (Kittilä, Västi, & Ylikoski, 2011). Moreover, similar research has been evidenced that theme-experiencer verbs has greater tendency in passive voice than agent-theme or experience-theme verbs (Ferreira, 1994).
4.3.2.1 Examination on Transitivization Hypothesis
Transitivization hypothesis argued that L2 learners treat unaccusatives as
transitives underlyingly (Yip, 1990). For the transitivation hypothesis from Yip (1990, 1995), some comments from Ju (2000) are as follows:
“As Yip (1995) argued, if learners accept the ungrammatical transitives (We disappeared our heads) as grammatical and reject correct unaccusative equivalents
(Our heads disappeared), then it is likely that these learners consider these verbs to be transitive. In other words, this hypothesis predicts that no learners reject We
dispaaeared our heads while accepting Our heads were disappeared. If this prediction
turns out to be true, it would provide crucial support for the transitivization hypothesis as a viable explanation for overpassivization errors in English interlanguages.”
Based on the analysis about transitivization hypothesis on unaccusatives, those
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
who accept passive voice on an unaccusative verb (Our heads were disappeared) would not reject its transitive counterparts (We disappear our heads). However, animacy effect is not in favor of the transitivization hypothesis. We compared the transivization hypothesis and the results of animacy effect below
Table 19: Comparision between transitivization hypothesis and animacy effect
Transitivization Hypothesis Animacy Effect While accept A bus was vanished A bus was vanished.
Not reject The old man vanished a bus. The old man vanished
According to the above table, if transitivization hypothesis is true, the sentence The old man vanished a bus will not be rejected. However, animacy effect tells us that
L2 learners tend to use active voice on animate subjects and passives, on inanimate subjects. Therefore, it is possible that the active voice The old man vanished would be accepted since the subject is an animate. In the way, animacy effect implicated that fact that The old man vanished a bus appears to be unacceptable to L2 learners.
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
66
CHAPTER FIVE
CONCLUSION
This chapter aims to summarize the study and give a conclusion based on the
discussion above. The chapter involves three sections. First, major findings of the study are summarized. Second, some pedagogical implication for Chinese in English teaching is offered. Third, limitations and suggestions are illustrated for further research.
5.1 Major Findings of the Study
The first research question is to examine if the learning of non-alternating
unaccusatives for L2 Chinese speakers of English with different proficiency presents U-shaped curve as Kellerman’s study (1978). The result showed that language development of U-shaped learning is not only in L1 Dutch but also in L1 Chinese.
The findings suggested some important issue as follows. First, U-shaped learning of non-alternating unaccusatives in Chinese appears to indirectly evidence the fact that the knowledge of unaccusatives is prior to passives. This supports the idea that unaccusatives would be subsumed under passives (Zobl, 1989). Second, the result suggested that typological differences might not change the development of language learning of unaccusatives. Third, the language development of non-alternating
unaccusatives presents U-shaped learning as like that of alternating unaccuatives in
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
Kellerman (1978).
The second research question deals with the influences of passives and
alternating unaccusatives on the U-shaped learning of non-alternating unaccusatives.
The results showed that the correct rate of alternating unaccusatives will not rise as learners’ English proficiency increases. Instead, learners with higher English
proficiency incorrectly use alternating unaccusatives more easily. That is, the higher English proficiency learners are, the more preference L2 learners view alternating unaccusatives as non-alternating unaccusatives. The fact could be explained by assuming that there is no classification of alternating unaccusatives for L2 Chinese learners. As the assumption provided by Permultter (1978), unaccusatives falls into single category without the differences between transitive and intransitive
counterparts. Moreover, compared with the learning of unaccusatives, L2 learners could control the use of passives soon but they would have in difficulty learning non-alternating unaccusatives. As for alternating unaccusatives, even
high-intermediate learners still could not correctly use alternating unaccusatives well.
The third research question involves animacy effect in learning of
non-alternating unaccusatives. The results indicated that animacy effect would influence the determination of voice forms. L2 learners tend to use passive voice when subject is inanimate whereas they are apt to use active when subject is animate.
‧
What is of interest is that the results indirectly rule out transitivization hypothesis provided by Yip (1995).
5.2 Pedagogical Implication in Language Teaching
According to the result of L2 Chinese speakers learning non-alternating unaccusatives with different proficiency, a U-shaped curve is represented. It
implicated the fact that L2 learners on the level of low-intermediate could correctly use non-alternating unaccusatives from Chinese to English. The reason for the correct usage might be the form mapping from Chinese to English. Later, learners seem to be confused with passive voice. It might suggest that both passives and non-alternating unaccusatives share semantic passive; L2 learners seem reluctant to accept semantic passive with active form.
Table 20: Form and semantic in active and passives among different verbs Form Semantic
Zobl, 1989), L2 learners seem reluctant to accept form active while sentences involve semantic passive. However, there exist form active and passive, and form passive in Chinese.
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
(37) Bing rong-hua LE Ice melt LE ‘The ice melted.’
From the above example, semantic passive with a form in active voice is common in topic-comment structures in Chinese. That is, the NP-V word order with semantic passive in Chinese would help L2 learners avoid making overpassivization once they do form mapping. Additionally, L2 learners have to be reminded that
non-alternating unaccusatives involve the verbs of existence and appearance (Levin &
Hovav, 1995). Consequently, for the verbs of existence and appearance, L2 learners could map the NP-V word order from Chinese into English to achieve the use of non-alternating unaccusatives in English.
5.3 Limitations and Suggestions
In the study, there are some limitations and suggestions that need to be
mentioned for further research. First, students in Taiwan began to learn English at the first grade in elementary school. They had received lots of English input and might have learned some structures at the time. Thus, some participants might have learned passives in elementary school even if passives are introduced at nine grades. In the way, the proficiency of Group A in our study might not match our expectation well.
Likewise, cram schools are commonly seen in Taiwan. Students could learn preview
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
70
lessons and even learn more advanced courses there. Even if we had classified their English proficiency based on their ages, this may not separate students’ proficiency accurately. One way to solve the problems is to give participants a pretest to make sure their proficiency and exclude the students who had learned advanced English in cram schools. In the light, the experiment in the study will be more accurate and reliable.
Second, using alternating unaccusatives to test animacy effect would be better than using non-alternating unaccusatives. In the experimental design of animacy effect, Ideally, the tested items should be one sentence with animacy subject and one sentence with inanimate subject; besides, it would be better if both sentences belong to the same verb.
Table 21: Examples of the study of animacy effect by using alternating unaccusatives in CET task
Chinese input English equivalent
鋼鐵人融化了 _______________________________
冰融化了 _______________________________
In the above table, the only difference in Chinese input is the subjects: one with animate subject and the other one with inanimate subject. It would be more
convincing to say animacy effect influence voice forms when participants use active
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
voice in 鋼鐵人融化了 and use passive voice in 冰融化了. The disadvantage of
using non-alternating unaccusatives is that non-alternating unaccusative verbs are not allowed to be presented in passive voice. Thus, the reason for those who do not choose non-alternating unaccusatives with passives might be because they had not seen the usage before.
Table 22: Examples of the study of animacy effect by using non-alternating unaccusatives in CET task
Chinese input English equivalent
這隻貓咪動了 _______________________________
球彈起來了 _______________________________
As the above table shows, participants might not use The cat was moved in 這隻 貓咪動了 not because of animacy effect but because of input shortage of this
sentence. Therefore, a huge frequency effect might affect participants’ judgment when they are given non-alternating unaccusatives. Alternating unaccusatives would be a better choice for testing animacy effect in CET task.
‧
Balcom, P. (1997). Why is this happened? Passive morphology and unaccusativity.
Second Language Research, 13(1), 1-9.
Bardovi-Harlig, K. (1987). Markedness and salience in second-language acquisition.
Language Learning, 37(3), 385-407.
Branigan, H. P., Pickering, M. J., & Tanaka, M. (2008). Contributions of animacy to grammatical function assignment and word order during production. Lingua, 118(2), 172-189.
Burzio, L. (1986). Italian syntax: A government-binding approach: Dordrecht, The Netherlands: D. Reidel Publishing Co.
Croft, W. (1995). Modern syntactic typology. Approaches to language typology, 85-144.
Dowty, D. (1991). Thematic proto-rules and argument selection. Language, 67(3), 547-619.
Ferreira, F. (1994). Choice of passive voice is affected by verb type and animacy.
Journal of Memory and Language, 33(6), 715-736. doi:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/jmla.1994.1034
Givón, T. (1995). Functionalism and grammar. Amsterdam: J. Benjamins.
Green, C. (1996). The origins and effects of topic-prominence in Chinese-English interlanguage. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 34(2), 119-135.
Huang, C.-T. J. (1982). Logic relations in Chinese and the theory of grammar.
Cambridge: MIT dissertation.
Jackendoff, R. (1978). Grammar as evidence for conceptual structure: na.
Ju, M. K. (2000). Overpassivization errors by second language learners. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 22(01), 85-111. doi: doi:null
Kellerman, E. (1978). Giving learners a break: Native language intuitions as a source of predictions about transferability. Working Papers in Bilingualism, 15, 59-92.
Kellerman, E. (1979). The problem with difficulty. Interlanguage Studies Bulletin, 4, 27-48.
Kittilä, S., Västi, K., & Ylikoski, J. (2011). Case, animacy and semantic roles (Vol.
99): John Benjamins Publishing.
Kleinmann, H. H. (1977). Avoidance behavior in adult second language acquisition.
Language Learning, 27(1), 93-107.
Levin, B., & Hovav, M. R. (1995). Unaccusativity: At the syntax-lexical semantics interface. Cambridge, MA: MIT.
Li, C. N., & Thompson, S. A. (1976). Subject and topic: A new typology of language.
‧
In C. N. Li (Ed.), Subject and Topic (pp. 457-489). New York: Academic.
Li, C. N., & Thompson, S. A. (1981). Mandarin Chinese: A functional reference grammar. Berkeley: U of California P.
Lightbown, P. M. (1983). Exploring relationships between developmental and instructional sequences in L2 acquisition. In H. S. a. M. H. Long (Ed.),
Classroom Oriented Research in Second Language Acquisition (pp. 217-243).
Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Montrul, S. (1999). Causative errors with unaccusative verbs in L2 Spanish. Second Language Research, 15(2), 191-219. doi: 10.1191/026765899669832752 Oshita, H. (1998). "The Unaccusative Trap": L2 acquisition of English intransitive
verbs. Linguistics and Language Behavior Abstracts (LLBA) database.
Oshita, H. (2001). The unaccusative trap in second language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 23(2), 279-304.
Perlmutter, D. (1978). Impersonal passives and the unaccusative hypothesis (BLS No.4).
Rutherford, W. (1989). Preemption and the learning of L2 grammar. Studies in Second Language Acquisition.
Sasaki, M. (1990). Topic prominence in Japanese EFL students' existencial constructions. Language Learning, 40, 337-368.
Schachter, J. W. R. (1979). Discourse function and language transfer. Working Papers in Bilingualism.
Shyu, S.-I. (1995). The syntax of focus and topic in Mandarin Chinese. Los Angeles:
University of Southern California dissertation.
Sorace, A. (1993a). Incomplete vs. divergent representations of unaccusativity in non native grammars of Italian. Second Language Research, 9(1), 22-47. doi:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/026765839300900102
Sorace, A. (1993b). Unaccusativity and auxiliary choice in non-native grammars of Italian and French: Asymmetries and predictable indeterminacy. Journal of French Language Studies, 3(1), 71-93.
Sorace, A., & Shomura, Y. (2001). Lexical constraints on the acquisition of split intransitivity. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 23(2), 247-278.
Yip, V. (1990). Interlanguage ergative constructions and learnability [microform] / Virginia Yip. [Washington, D.C.]: Distributed by ERIC Clearinghouse.
Yip, V. (1995). Interlanguage and learnability: From Chinese to English: Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins Publishing Co.
Yuan, B. (1999). Acruiring the unaccuative/unergative distinction in a second
language: Evidence from English-speaking learners of L2 Chinese. Linguistics, 37, 275-296.
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
74
Zhang, S. I. (1987). A study of interference of the subjeless sentence in Chinese.
English Teaching, 11:3, 69-84.
Zobl, H. (1989). Canonical typological structures and ergativity in English L2 acquisition. In S. M. Gass & J. Schachter (Eds.), Linguistic Perspectives on Second Language Acquisition (pp. 203-221). New York: Cambridge UP.
‧
I. Grammaticality judgment: In each sentence, please circle one/two of the two answers so that the sentence is grammatically correct.
e.g. Many people (invited/were invited) to the party.
1. The boat (sank/was sunk).
2. He (remained/was remained) cool.
3. The window (broke/was broken).
4. The house (remained/was remained) cool.
5. A black box (emerged/was emerged) 6. The room (cleaned/was cleaned).
7. A bus (vanished/was vanished) 8. The book (bought/was bought).
9. The stone (rolled down/was rolled down) the lane.
10. I (reminded/was reminded) to turn off the light.
11. The monster (melted/was melted) 12. The picture (appeared/was appeared) 13. The iron man (broke/was broken)
14. The first creature (discovered/was discovered) 15. The ice (melted/was melted)
16. A cat (emerged/was emerged)
17. The new product (invented/was invented).
18. A panda (appeared/was appeared)
19. He (rolled down/was rolled down) the lane.
20. The room (booked/was booked).
21. The old man (vanished/was vanished) 22. He (teased/was teased).
23. The dog (sank/was sunk).
24. I (attracted/was attracted).
‧
II. Chinese to English test: Please translate the following sentences into English equivalents.
‧
Alternating and Non-alternating Unaccusative, and Passive Verbs in GJ Task
Number Alternating