Cover not available
Article published In:
Australian Review of Applied Linguistics
Vol. 40:1 (2017) ► pp.19–39

A corpus-based study of contextual factors influencing Korean EFL learners’ dative alternation

Lexical verbs, syntactic weights, and information structures

| Seoul National University
| Seoul National University

English datives show two syntactic patterns, the double object dative (DOD) and the prepositional dative (PD). The alternation between DOD and PD is influenced by three contextual factors: lexical verbs, syntactic weights, and information structures. However, it has been observed that English dative alternation by second language (L2) learners significantly deviates from the native norm. Accordingly, this study examines whether the three factors are influential when L2 learners produce dative sentences, by analyzing a learner corpus and a native speaker corpus. Results show that the learners produced PD significantly more frequently than the native speakers did. Even when DOD should be contextually preferred, the learners produced many PD sentences. These results suggest that L2 learners have trouble noticing the contextual factors when structuring English datives. The finding is further discussed as it relates to the major tenets of L2 acquisition such as cross-linguistic transfer, constructional knowledge, and language processing.

Keywords: English dative structures, learner corpus, lexical verbs, end-weight principle, given-before-new principle
Article outline
  • 1.Influential factors in dative alternation
  • 2.Second language acquisition of dative structures
  • 3.Methodology
    • 3.1Corpora
    • 3.2Data Analysis
  • 4.Results
    • 4.1Overall distribution of dative structures and influences of lexical verbs
    • 4.2Influences of syntactic weight on dative alternation
    • 4.3Influences of information structure on dative alternation
  • 5.Discussion
    • 5.1The overproduction of PD
    • 5.2Lexical verbs
    • 5.3Syntactic weights and information structures
  • 6.Implications and limitations
  • Acknowledgements
  • References


This article is currently available as a sample article.

Published online: 1 December 2017
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/aral.40.1.03son
References
Arnold, J. E., Losongco, A., Wasow, T., & Ginstrom, R.
(2000) Heaviness vs. newness: The effects of structural complexity and discourse status on constituent ordering. Language, 76(1), 28–55. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S., Finegan, E., & Quirk, R.
(1999) Longman grammar of spoken and written English. New York: Longman.Google Scholar
Birner, B. J., & Ward, G.
(2009) Information structure and syntactic structure. Language and Linguistics Compass, 3(4), 1167–1187. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bresnan, J., Cueni, A., Nikitina, T., & Baayen, R. H.
(2007) Predicting the dative alternation. In G. Boume, I. Kraemer, & J. Zwarts (Eds.), Cognitive foundations of interpretation (pp. 69–94). Amsterdam: Royal Netherlands Academy of Science.Google Scholar
Bresnan, J., & Ford, M.
(2010) Predicting syntax: Processing dative constructions in American and Australian varieties of English. Language, 86(1), 168–213. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brown, M., Savova, V., & Gibson, E.
(2012) Syntax encodes information structure: Evidence from on-line reading comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language, 66(1), 194–209. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Callies, M., & Szczesniak, K.
(2008) Argument realization, information status and syntactic weight – A learner-corpus study of the dative alternation. In M. Walter & P. Grommes (Eds.), Fortgeschrittene Lernervarietäten. Korpuslinguistik und Zweitspracher-werbsforschung (pp. 165–187). Tübingen: Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Celce-Murcia, M., & Larsen-Freeman, D.
(1999) The grammar book: An ESL/EFL teacher’s course. Boston, MA: Heinle & Heinle.Google Scholar
Chang, L. -H. (2004) Discourse effects on EFL learners’ production of dative constructions. Journal of National Kaohsiung University of Applied Sciences, 331, 145–170.Google Scholar
Collins, P.
(1995) The indirect object construction in English: An informational approach. Linguistics, 33(1), 35–50. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cowan, R.
(2008) The teacher’s grammar of English with answers: A course book and reference guide. Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Erteschik-Shir, N.
(1979) Discourse constraints on dative movement. Syntax and Semantics, 121, 441–467.Google Scholar
(2007) Information structure: The syntax-discourse interface. Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Givón, T.
(1979) From discourse to syntax: Grammar as a processing strategy in discourse and syntax. Syntax and Semantics Ann Arbor, Mich., 121, 81–112.Google Scholar
Goldberg, A. E.
(1995) Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago; London: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Gries, S. T.
(2005) Syntactic priming: A corpus-based approach. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 34(4), 365–399. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gries, S. T., & Stefanowitsch, A.
(2004) Extending collostructional analysis: A corpus-based perspective on ‘alternations’. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 9(1), 97–129. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Grimshaw, J., & Prince, A.
(1986) A prosodic account of the to-dative alternation. Unpublished manuscript. Brandeis University, MA.Google Scholar
Hawkins, R.
(1987) Markedness and the acquisition of the English dative alternation by L2 speakers. Second Language Research, 3(1), 20–55. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hong, K. S.
(1991) Argument selection and case marking in Korean (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Stanford University, Stanford, CA.Google Scholar
Hovav, M. R., & Levin, B.
(2008) The English dative alternation: The case for verb sensitivity. Journal of Linguistics, 44(1), 129–167. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ishikawa, S.
(2011) A new horizon in learner corpus studies: The aim of the ICNALE project. In G. Weir, S. Ishikawa, & K. Poonpon (Eds.), Corpora and language technologies in teaching, learning and research (pp. 3–11). Glasgow, UK: University of Strathclyde Publishing.Google Scholar
Jäschke, K., & Plag, I.
(2016) The dative alternation in German-English interlanguage. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 381, 1–66. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kim, J. Y.
(2014) Information structure and L2 acquisition of the English dative alternation by Korean speakers (Unpublished master’s thesis). Korea University, Seoul.Google Scholar
Lapata, M.
(1999, June). Acquiring lexical generalizations from corpora: A case study for diathesis alternations. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 37th annual meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics on Computational Linguistics. DOI logo
Le Compagnon, B.
(1984) Interference and overgeneralization in second language learning: The acquisition of English dative verbs by native speakers of French. Language Learning, 34(3), 39–57. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lee, J. -H., & Kim, H. M.
(2011) The L2 developmental sequence of English constructions and underlying factors. Korea Journal of English Language and Linguistics, 11(3), 577–600. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lee, Y. S., Lee, E., & Kim, Y. -J.
(2008) How does information structure interact with acquisition of word order by Korean English learners? The Linguistic Association of Korea Journal, 16(3), 279–299.Google Scholar
Levin, B. (1993) English verb classes and alternations: A preliminary investigation. Chicago; London: University of Chicago press.Google Scholar
Marefat, H.
(2005) The impact of information structure as a discourse factor on the acquisition of dative alternation by L2 learners. Studia linguistica, 59(1), 66–82. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mazurkewich, I.
(1981) Second language acquisition of the dative alternation and markedness: The best theory (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Université de Montréal, Montréal.Google Scholar
(1985) Syntactic markedness and language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 7(1), 15–35. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mazurkewich, I., & White, L.
(1984) The acquisition of the dative alternation: Unlearning overgeneralizations. Cognition, 16(3), 261–283. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
O’Grady, W.
(1991) Categories and case: The sentence structure of Korean. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Oh, S. -Y.
(2014) Use of signaling nouns in published and Korean student academic writing in applied linguistics. English Teaching, 69(1), 147–172. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Park, K. -S.
(2011, March). Information structure and dative word order in adult L2 learners. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 11th Generative Approaches to Second Language Acquisition Conference (GASLA 2011).
Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G. N., & Svartvik, J.
(1972) A grammar of contemporary English. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Scott, M.
(2008) Wordsmith tools version 5. Lexical Analysis Software.Google Scholar
Sorace, A.
(2011) Pinning down the concept of “interface” in bilingualism. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 11, 1–33. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sung, M., & Yang, H.
(2016) Effects of construction-centered instruction on Korean students’ learning of English transitive resultative constructions. In S. De Knop & G. Gilquin (Eds.), Applied Construction Grammar (pp. 89–113). Berlin: de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tanaka, S.
(1987) The selective use of specific exemplars in second‐language performance: The case of the dative alternation. Language Learning, 37(1), 63–88. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Verhelst, N., Van Avermaet, P., Takala, S., Figueras, N., & North, B.
(2009) Common European framework of reference for languages: Learning, teaching, assessment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Wasow, T., & Arnold, J.
(2003) Post-verbal constituent ordering in English. Topics in English Linguistics, 431, 119–154.Google Scholar
Whong-Barr, M., & Schwartz, B. D.
(2002) Morphological and syntactic transfer in child L2 acquisition of the English dative alternation. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24(4), 579–616. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wolk, C., Wolfer, S., Baumann, P., Hemforth, B., & Konieczny, L.
(2011, December). Acquiring English dative verbs: Proficiency effects in German L2 learners. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 33rd annual conference of the Cognitive Science Society.
Yook, C.
(2012) L1 influence on ESL learners’ acquisition of English ditransitive constructions. English Teaching, 67(2), 27–50. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2013) The role of frequency in Korean learners’ acquisition of English dative construction. English Teaching, 68(1), 179–200. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 4 other publications

Park, Ji-Hyun & Min-Chang Sung
2023. Expansion of verb-argument construction repertoires in L2 English writing. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching 0:0 DOI logo
Yeh, Tzu-Fen
2021. A corpus-based investigation of semantic and syntactic differences between the two major future tense constructions. Concentric. Studies in Linguistics 47:1 ► pp. 34 ff. DOI logo
王, 韻涵, 宣妘 林 & 惠貞 蕭
2023. 日籍華語學習者於「送」雙及物構式的使用. Chinese as a Second Language Research 12:1 ► pp. 91 ff. DOI logo
蕭惠貞, 詹士微 & 魏吟玲
2024. 探究影響漢語雙及物構式語句產出之要素. Chinese as a Second Language Research 13:1 ► pp. 79 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 25 april 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.