Cover not available

Article published In: Australian Review of Applied Linguistics
Vol. 40:1 (2017) ► pp.19–39

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload PDF
authorization required

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
Published online: 1 December 2017
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/aral.40.1.03son
Abstract
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.
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
References (47)
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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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 logo with link to Google Scholar
Birner, B. J., & Ward, G. (2009). Information structure and syntactic structure. Language and Linguistics Compass, 3(4), 1167–1187. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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 logo with link to Google Scholar
Bresnan, J., & Ford, M. (2010). Predicting syntax: Processing dative constructions in American and Australian varieties of English. Language, 86(1), 168–213. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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 logo with link to Google Scholar
Celce-Murcia, M., & Larsen-Freeman, D. (1999). The grammar book: An ESL/EFL teacher’s course. Boston, MA: Heinle & Heinle.Google Scholar logo with link to 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 logo with link to Google Scholar
Collins, P. (1995). The indirect object construction in English: An informational approach. Linguistics, 33(1), 35–50. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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 logo with link to Google Scholar
Erteschik-Shir, N. (1979). Discourse constraints on dative movement. Syntax and Semantics, 121, 441–467.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2007). Information structure: The syntax-discourse interface. Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to 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 logo with link to Google Scholar
Goldberg, A. E. (1995). Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago; London: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gries, S. T. (2005). Syntactic priming: A corpus-based approach. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 34(4), 365–399. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Grimshaw, J., & Prince, A. (1986). A prosodic account of the to-dative alternation. Unpublished manuscript. Brandeis University, MA.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hawkins, R. (1987). Markedness and the acquisition of the English dative alternation by L2 speakers. Second Language Research, 3(1), 20–55. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hong, K. S. (1991). Argument selection and case marking in Korean (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Stanford University, Stanford, CA.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hovav, M. R., & Levin, B. (2008). The English dative alternation: The case for verb sensitivity. Journal of Linguistics, 44(1), 129–167. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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 logo with link to Google Scholar
Jäschke, K., & Plag, I. (2016). The dative alternation in German-English interlanguage. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 381, 1–66. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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 logo with link to 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.
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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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 logo with link to Google Scholar
Levin, B. (1993). English verb classes and alternations: A preliminary investigation. Chicago; London: University of Chicago press.Google Scholar logo with link to 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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 logo with link to Google Scholar
(1985). Syntactic markedness and language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 7(1), 15–35. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mazurkewich, I., & White, L. (1984). The acquisition of the dative alternation: Unlearning overgeneralizations. Cognition, 16(3), 261–283. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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 logo with link to Google Scholar
Scott, M. (2008). Wordsmith tools version 5. Lexical Analysis Software.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sorace, A. (2011). Pinning down the concept of “interface” in bilingualism. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 11, 1–33. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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 logo with link to Google Scholar
Wasow, T., & Arnold, J. (2003). Post-verbal constituent ordering in English. Topics in English Linguistics, 431, 119–154.Google Scholar logo with link to 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2013). The role of frequency in Korean learners’ acquisition of English dative construction. English Teaching, 68(1), 179–200. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (4)

Cited by four other publications

Park, Ji-Hyun & Min-Chang Sung
2024. Expansion of verb-argument construction repertoires in L2 English writing. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching 62:2 ► pp. 903 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
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
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

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 14 november 2025. 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.

Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue