1. The Acquisition of English Dative Alternation 報告者 : N95C0015 吳冠瑩 N95C0024 陳重諺

2. Abstract This experimental study investigates L1 transfer and overgeneralization of Chinese L2 Interlanguage development by focusing on the acquisition of English dative alternation by Taiwanese adult learners. In Chinese, the semantic constraints are less an issue, and most verbs become susceptible to dative alternation on adding the morpheme gei.

3. Questions In L2 acquisition of the dative alternation, would Chinese EFL learners be affected by the L1 structure [V+gei DP DP]? Would they acquire English dative alternation on a verb-by-verb basis or would they internalize a rule from the input and overgeneralize it to non-alternating verb?

4. Finding Even within the same L1, differences in the morphological and syntactic structure for Chinese to-dative and for-dative verbs will somehow alter their paths of interlanguage development in acquiring English dative construction.

5. Introduction Bley-Vroman (1990): adult learners lost their ability to access Universal Grammar (UG), and have available only the properties of UG that exist in their first language (L1). L2 adults rely largely on the input of L2 or refer to L1 in their Interlanguage(IL) development.

6. The main issues of this study Is the frequency of the input essential to acquisition? Which developmental errors arise in adult L2 acquisition? After adult learners have internalized their own specific rules in the target language, would they overgeneralize the rules?

7. Another Issues We conduct three experiments based on factors of frequency, L1 structure, and the degree of overgeneralization. How differences between to-datives and for-datives in L1 result in changes in Interlanguage development paths, and the complex nature of factors in language acquisition.

8. Theoretical Background Dative verb: allows alternation between two forms – one with both objects parallel and another with the indirect object within a prepositional phrase. Ex:a. John gave an apple to Mary. DP(DO) PP(IO) b. John gave Mary an apple. DP(IO) DP(DO)

9. Not all verbs take two objects alternate. Not all dative verbs that allow alternation in all circumstances Is there a principle that regulates the alternation? Is it possible for a L2 learner to acquire such a principle?

10. Principles that guide English dative alternation Semantic constraints are considered to be responsible for the alternation of the two forms. Pinker’s Broad Range Rule: alternation is allowed only when the goal or beneficiary argument is the potential possessor of the theme argument.

11. The prepositional form has thus a thematic core – “X causes Y to go to Z” The double-object form has the thematic core “X causes Z have Y” Ex: John sent Mary a letter. *John sent Spain a letter. (the goal argument Spain can be no potential possessor of the theme a letter)

12. Chinese dative verbs and the gei morpheme Chinese dative construction is made productive by the morpheme gei. The morpheme gei alone can either function as a verb or as a preposition marking the goal argument after verbs. Ex: 小玉給小明一本書 (v) 小花寄給小強一封信 (prep.)

13. Nevertheless, when gei functions as a verb, it allows only the double-object form. Ex: 老師給小明一支筆 (double-object) * 老師給一支筆 ( 給 ) 小明

14. Three categories of Chinese dative verbs

15. The syntactic framework of dative

16. Chinese dative verbs pattern syntactically with English dative verbs in that they allow both the prepositional dative form and the double-object construction, but differ from English dative verbs in that gei is conflated with the main verb in the double-object dative construction.

17. L1 Acquisition of the English Dative Alternation (Bowerman,1988) During development children tend to overgeneralize the double- object form of non-dative verbs. (Mazurkewich and White): Children’s awareness of the possession constraint. L1 children rely on internal mechanisms to form rules for determining dative alternation.

18. L2 Acquisition of the English Dative Alternation (Inagaki, 1997): adult L2 learners lose their ability to access UG and those who start to learn a L2 as adults have available only the properties of UG that are instantiated in their L1. Ex: * 志明丟春嬌一顆球 志明丟給春嬌一顆球 gei is not a preposition but a lexicalized morpheme to conflate with the main verb.

19. Summary of L2 acquisition of English dative alternation Children: with a positive input continues to appear, an internal restructuring shapes L2 development of Children. Adults: L2 acquisition is restrained by both the properties of UG instantiated in L1 and frequency of the input.

20. Questions 1.Whether Chinese-speaking adult learners would first accept the L1 【 V+gei DP DP 】 structure (equivalent to 【 V+to DP DP 】 in English ) instead of the double-object dative form. 2.Whether, as their level of proficiency improves, Chinese adult learners would accept the double- object form and overgeneralize the form to all dative verbs, even the ones without dative alternation.

21. 3. Whether the Fundamental Difference Hypothesis and the frequency of the input are important factors in acquisition of English dative alternation by Chinese- speaking adults

22. Interlanguage Development of Chinese Adult Learners’ Dative Acquisition

23. Experiment One Whether the beginning L2 learners would transfer their L1 grammar in acquiring the English dative structure. Whether participants can recognize the incorrect double-object dative form as they progress in their interlanguage development.

24. Hypothesis 1 The English incorrect DOD dative form 【 V+to DP DP 】 will have quite high acceptability in the group of low English proficiency due to L1 transfer. As the levels of proficiency of participants improve, they should be able to recognize the incorrect L1 structure 【 V+gei DP DP 】 in L2 syntax.

25. Results To-dative Chinese learners do have interlanguage development and their to-dative structure improves from junior to senior, and then to undergraduate and finally to graduate years

26. To-dative form pretty clearly at the very beginning and there was not much difference among the four groups. Figure: Accuracy rate of to-datives among 4 subject groups