Chapter 1 Introduction
1.1 Research Background
In the field of language acquisition research, the no-negative evidence problem isbelieved to be a central issue (Bowerman, 1982, 1988). It is the same with second languageacquisition due to the lack of evidence and some other factors. In order to produce novelutterance, second language learners always use certain lexical items, such as noun phrases,verbs to constitute a sentence structure that they have never seen. However, they do notalways produce the well-formed sentence structure, instead, they sometimes overproduce orovergeneralize, applying noun phrases and verbs in a certain sentence structure that are notpermitted (i.e. ungrammatical) in the target language. Therefore, it is always a great challengefor second language learners to reach native target in composing well-formed sentences,which leads to the issue of argument structure acquisition.In linguistics, the interface between syntax and semantics is generally accepted to be adifficult branch. Therefore, argument structure, which is thought to be the interface betweensyntax and semantics (Bresnan, 2001), obviously aroused intense discussion in the researchof language acquisition. The research of argument structure acquisition starts from firstlanguage acquisition (Grimshaw, 1981, 1990; Pinker, 1984, 1989; Gleitman, 1990;Tomasello et al., 1998; Brooks & Tomasello, 1999; Borer, 2004). It is not until secondlanguage get further development that the acquisition of argument structure in secondlanguage win much attention and are extensively investigated (Zobl, 1989; Hirakawa, 1995;Montrul, 1999, 2001a, 2001b, 2001c). Four types of verbs are mainly studied: alternatingtransitive verbs, non-alternating transitive verbs, unaccusative verbs and unergative verbs.Among the four types of verbs, the alternating issue and unaccusative issue have attracted themost attention in both theoretical and experimental research.
…………
1.2 Significance of the Present Study
It is common that L2 learners make errors in the acquisition of argument structure. Toaddress this issue, it is necessary to study how L2 learners acquire argument structure. Unlikeother works which are committed to the research of languages which experiencemorphological change (e.g. Turkish), this thesis investigates the acquisition of argumentstructure by Chinese learners of English in the framework of valency theory.Among the large amount of work on the acquisition of argument structure, it isdiscovered that most research on the L2 acquisition of argument structure focuses on thecomparison between two languages that present morphological differences on the verbs in therealization of argument structure (Montrul, 1999, 2001a, 2001b, 2001c; Oshita, 2000). Somestudies investigate the role of differences of syntactic strucutures of the two languages beingstudied (Narasimhan, et al., 2005). Some make a research on the distinction of unergative andunaccusative. Still some others get evidence from input or other aspects. On the other hand,the main languages studied on this issue are languages that have a characteristic ofmorphological change. In general, among the research investigating this issue, most of themare investigated from the approach of syntactic bootstrapping, semantic bootstrapping, verbfrequency, or the interaction of some of the above factors.
…………
Chapter 2 Literature Review
2.1 Theoretical Background
Valency theory, which has its basis on dependency grammar, tells about the dominantcapability of the verb and the dependency relationship between the verb and otherconstituents in a sentence. Valency theory has long been applied to research of variouslanguages; whereas most of them focus on the theoretical research of language, especially onlexicography (Thomas, et al., 2004), seldom has been done in the field of languageacquisition, especially in second language acquisition.Valency is first introduced to the field of linguistics by the French linguist Tesniere(1953) in his Esquisse Dune Syntaxe Structurale, and then gets further development in thecontext of Dependency Grammar developed in Elements de syntaxe structural (1959). Thebasis of valency theory is dependency grammar which emphasizes the existence of adependency relationship between verbs and their relevant complements. Tesniere uses theconcept of valency to specify how many nouns a verb can dominates, which means that verbshave a dependency relationship with a certain number of nouns. He makes it clear that thereexists a connection between words in a sentence and that it is this connection that builds upthe dependency relationship between the dominating constituent and the dependentconstituent(s). For example, in sentence Mary cried, cried is the dominating verb, while Maryis the dependent constituent. In this sentence, cried dominates Mary.
…………
2.2 Previous Studies
Valency and argument structure, both as an important phenomenon, have aroused theinterests of linguists in both theoretical and empirical research and have experienced a longhistory. The study of valency theory can date back to 1960s in Tesniere‘s work. It is furtherand fully studied by German linguists Helbig and Schenkel (1968) and Fillmore (1968).Valency theory are studied mainly by theoretical researchers whereas seldom is applied toempirical research, especially language acquisition research. However, previous studies lay asolid foundation for the subsequent researchers. Argument structure, although appeared muchlater than valency theory, has invoked hot discussions in the field of linguistics. Being acontroversial issue, argument structure has been studied extensively in language acquisitionresearch. The research of valency theory, though can be studied from the perspective of adjectivesand even prepositions, are mostly committed to the valency study of verbs. Dated back to the1960s, valency theory has experienced a long history with empirical study comes relativelymuch later.
……….
Chapter 3 Methodology ....... 19
3.1 Participants ......... 19
3.2 Materials...... 20
3.3 Procedures .......... 20
Chapter 4 Results .......... 24
4.1 Vocabulary Translation Task .......... 24
4.2 Valence Judgment Task .... 24
4.3 Grammaticality Judgment Task...... 30
4.4 Sentence Production Task ....... 37
4.5 Summary ..... 39
Chapter 5 Discussion..... 41
5.1 Learners‘Awareness of Verb Valence .......... 41
5.2 Level of Difficulty in the Acquisition of Argument Structure ........ 43
5.3 The Effects of English Proficiency Level .... 47
5.4 Summary ..... 49
Chapter 5 Discussion
The present study focuses on the acquisition of argument structure by Chinese learnersof English. Valency theory is employed to account for the observed results. Parameters asEnglish proficiency level, verb class are incorporated in the analysis. This chapter is designedto address the research questions mentioned in chapter 1 based on the results provided inchapter 4. In this chapter, four sections are included: section 5.1 address learners‘ awarenessof verbs valency; section 5.2 deals with learners‘ performance and learning difficulty in theacquisition of argument structure with the aid of GJT and SPT; section 5.3 handles thequestion of how learners‘ English proficiency level influences their awareness of verbvalency and their acquisition of argument structure; section 5.4 is an overview of this chapterby providing a brief summary.
…………
Conclusion
This thesis explores the acquisition of English verb argument structure by Chineselearners of English based on valency theory. Three groups of learners who are at threedifferent English proficiency levels participate in this study. This thesis tries to investigatelearners‘ awareness of verb valency and learners‘ difficulty in acquiring the argumentstructures of English verbs, thus further figuring out whether learners‘ awareness of verbvalency influence their acquisition of English verb argument structure. Finally, whetherlearners‘ performance develops as their English proficiency level improves is also underinvestigation. This chapter consists of three parts: major findings, implications, andlimitations and directions for further research. With respect to learners‘ awareness of English verb valence, this study suggests Chineselearners have awareness of English verb valency. They have significantly more awareness ofthe valance of monovalence verbs and bivalence verbs than that of the valence of alternatingverbs. Notably, even the 2nd-year English majors are proved to be problematic in judging thevalence of alternating verbs correctly. As far as learners‘ awareness of the valence ofmonovalence verbs and that of the valence of the bivalence verbs are concerned, statisticcomparison reveals there is no significant difference. However, the results still show a slightadvantage of leaners‘awareness of the valence of bivalence over that of monovalence verbs.
..........
Reference (omitted)
