The acquisition of locative inversion at the syntax-pragmatics interface by Chinese learners of English

Shan Jiang and Huiping Zhang
Harbin Engineering University | Northeast Normal University

This study investigated the acquisition of English locative inversion at the syntax-pragmatics interface by Chinese learners, and explored the factors for non-native performance within the framework of the Interface Hypothesis. A picture description test and a context-matching test were administered through an online questionnaire to 300 Chinese learners of English and twenty native speakers of English at a university in China. Follow-up interviews were conducted with thirty Chinese learners. Results showed that (1) compared with English natives, Chinese learners under-produced locative inversion, achieving native-like attainment until the advanced stage; (2) they also displayed a different preference pattern for locative inversion, converging to a native-like pattern by the advanced stage; (3) non-native performance in production was attributed to processing limitations and input frequency, while that in interpretation resulted from underspecification of form-function mapping, input frequency and contexts. The paper offers implications for syntax-pragmatics teaching and proposes future directions for L2 interface studies.

Publication history

Date received: 8 January 2024

Date accepted: 17 June 2024

Published online: 24 February 2025

Table of contents

1.Introduction

Adult L2 learners frequently fail to reach native-like attainment with regard to some aspects of grammar. Why are certain parts of L2 grammar more problematic? One influential account, the Interface Hypothesis (IH), was proposed to account for non-native ultimate attainment, suggesting that structures at the syntax-pragmatics interface pose special challenges to L2 learners (Sorace 2011Sorace, Antonella 2011 “Pinning Down the Concept of ‘Interface’ in Bilingualism.” Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism 1 (1): 1–33. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar). To date, syntax-pragmatics structures have received extensive investigation to validate the IH, particularly the distribution of subject-verb inversion and subject-verb word order in contexts of focus. Subject-verb inversion involves interpretation-related information structure, which is at the center of the predicted syntax-pragmatics interface vulnerability. Nonetheless, the empirical results obtained so far were highly mixed regarding the ease or difficulty with subject-verb inversion at the syntax-pragmatics interface. It is still an unresolved issue worth further investigation.

Overall, previous studies on the acquisition of subject-verb inversion by L2 learners can be divided into two categories. An impressive body of work supported the predictions of the IH, revealing that advanced learners exhibited non-native patterns with subject-verb inversion at the syntax-pragmatics interface (Belletti et al. 2007Belletti, Adriana, Elisa Bennati, and Antonella Sorace 2007 “Theoretical and Developmental Issues in the Syntax of Subjects: Evidence from Near-Native Italian.” Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 25 (4): 657–689. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar; Belletti and Leonini 2004Belletti, Adriana, and Chiara Leonini 2004 “Subject Inversion in L2 Italian.” In EUROSLA Yearbook, ed. by Susan H. Foster-Cohen, Michael Sharwood Smith, Antonella Sorace, and Mitsuhiko Ota, 95–118. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar; Domínguez 2013Domínguez, Laura 2013 Understanding Interfaces: Second Language Acquisition and First Language Attrition of Spanish Subject Realization and Word Order Variation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar; Domínguez and Arche 2014Domínguez, Laura, and María J. Arche 2014 “Subject Inversion in Non-Native Spanish.” Lingua 145: 243–265. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar; Hertel 2003Hertel, Tammy Jandrey 2003 “Lexical and Discourse Factors in the Second Language Acquisition of Spanish Word Order.” Second Language Research 19 (4): 273–304. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar; Lozano 2006Lozano, Cristóbal 2006 “Focus and Split Intransitivity: The Acquisition of Word Order Alternations in Non-Native Spanish.” Second Language Research 22 (2): 145–187. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar; Margaza and Gavarró 2022Margaza, Panagiota, and Anna Gavarró 2022 “The Distribution of Subjects in L2 Spanish by Greek Learners.” Frontiers in Psychology 12. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar; Teixeira 2020Teixeira, Joana 2020 “Gradient Optionality in L2 Acquisition at the Syntax-Discourse Interface: Evidence from Inversion in Advanced and Near-Native English.” Lingua 245. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar). For example, Teixeira (2020)Teixeira, Joana 2020 “Gradient Optionality in L2 Acquisition at the Syntax-Discourse Interface: Evidence from Inversion in Advanced and Near-Native English.” Lingua 245. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar found that advanced and near-native English learners with L1 Portuguese and L1 French exhibited optionality regarding syntax-pragmatics interface properties of locative inversion, and optionality may be influenced by four factors: construction frequency, the quantity and/or distance of the contextual information, L1-L2 (dis)similarity and L2 proficiency.

In contrast, some results were interpreted as challenges to the IH, suggesting native-like performance for subject-verb inversion at the syntax-pragmatics interface. Some studies employed offline or online tasks (Gupton and Calderón 2023Gupton, Timothy, and Silvia Sánchez Calderón 2023 “Focus at the Syntax-Discourse Interface in L2 Spanish: Optionality and Unaccusativity Reconsidered.” Second Language Research 39 (1): 185–229. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar; Leal and Hoot 2022Leal, Tania, and Bradley Hoot 2022 “L2 Representation and Processing of Spanish Focus.” Language Acquisition 29 (4): 410–440. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar). For instance, Gupton and Calderón (2023)Gupton, Timothy, and Silvia Sánchez Calderón 2023 “Focus at the Syntax-Discourse Interface in L2 Spanish: Optionality and Unaccusativity Reconsidered.” Second Language Research 39 (1): 185–229. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar utilized two bimodal linguistic tasks to test subject-verb and verb-subject word order in focus-related contexts in English learners of Spanish. They found that the syntax-pragmatics interface was acquired by the high intermediate level. Likewise, other corpus studies reported that L2 English learners with Italian, Spanish and Greek as L1s used subject-verb inversion under the same syntax-pragmatics condition as English natives did (Agathopoulou 2014Agathopoulou, Eleni 2014 “Automatically Arises the Question Whether…: A Corpus Study of Postverbal Subjects in the Greek-English Interlanguage.” In Major Trends in Theoretical and Applied Linguistics, ed. by Nikolaos Lavidas, Thomaï Alexiou, and Areti Maria Sougari, 168–184. Berlin: De Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar; Lozano and Mendikoetxea 2008Lozano, Cristóbal, and Amaya Mendikoetxea 2008 “Postverbal Subjects at the Interfaces in Spanish and Italian Learners of L2 English: A Corpus Analysis.” In Linking Up Contrastive and Learner Corpus Research, ed. by Gilquin Gaëtenelle, Szilivia Papp, and María Belén Díez-Bedmar, 85–125. Amsterdam: Rodopi. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar, 2010 2010 “Interface Conditions on Postverbal Subjects: A Corpus Study of L2 English.” Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 13 (4): 475–497. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar; Mendikoetxea and Lozano 2018Mendikoetxea, Amaya, and Cristóbal Lozano 2018 “From Corpora to Experiments: Methodological Triangulation in the Study of Word Order at the Interfaces in Adult Late Bilinguals (L2 Learners).” Journal of Psycholinguist Research 47 (4): 871–898. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar). In addition to the above studies, Teixeira (2021) 2021 “The Impact of Explicit Instruction on Different Types of Linguistic Properties: Syntactic vs. Syntax-Discourse Properties.” International Journal of Applied Linguistics 172 (1): 26–57. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar examined the impact of explicit instruction on the development of a syntactic and syntax-pragmatics interface property of locative inversion in Portuguese learners of English. The results demonstrated that the syntax-pragmatics interface was less permeable to instructional effects than syntax.

Against this backdrop, four main research drawbacks can be identified. Firstly, the target language combinations are highly limited in the literature (Leal and Hoot 2022Leal, Tania, and Bradley Hoot 2022 “L2 Representation and Processing of Spanish Focus.” Language Acquisition 29 (4): 410–440. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar). While most of the prior research targeted Indo-European languages, L1 Chinese–L2 English is an understudied language pairing, and Chinese speakers remain an under-examined population. Secondly, there is an evident scarcity of research adopting cross-sectional comparisons. It must be noted that Sorace (2011)Sorace, Antonella 2011 “Pinning Down the Concept of ‘Interface’ in Bilingualism.” Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism 1 (1): 1–33. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar contended the IH pertains only to near-native learners. However, an examination of developmental trajectory of the syntax-pragmatics interface is fundamental to learning more about whether optionality is indeed long-term and residual (Gupton and Calderón 2023Gupton, Timothy, and Silvia Sánchez Calderón 2023 “Focus at the Syntax-Discourse Interface in L2 Spanish: Optionality and Unaccusativity Reconsidered.” Second Language Research 39 (1): 185–229. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar). Additionally, the research method adopted in the existing literature is restricted to a quantitative method, whereas a qualitative method can more effectively tap into factors for the syntax-pragmatics vulnerability. Finally, scant attention has been paid to pedagogical enlightenment based on research findings, which is inconducive to promoting foreign language teaching of this interface.

In light of these inadequacies, the present study is aimed to advance the current discussion on the IH in four aspects via presenting new evidence from the perspective of Chinese learners’ acquisition of English locative inversion: (1) to extend the scope of exploration to the under-explored language pairing, L1 Chinese–L2 English; (2) to conduct cross-sectional comparisons with Chinese learners of different English proficiency levels, which allows us to report a discrete developmental pattern and trace a clear developmental trajectory; (3) to employ a qualitative approach to gain further insights into factors contributing to non-native performance at the syntax-pragmatics interface; (4) to give specific suggestions on the foreign teaching of the interface. Based on this, this study may empirically enrich the research on the acquisition of subject-verb inversion at the syntax-pragmatics interface, contributing to a more comprehensive understanding about the role this interface plays in the L2 acquisition process. In the meanwhile, a closer scrutiny on the difficulty in the acquisition of English syntax-pragmatics interface will shed light on the foreign teaching of the interface, helping L2 learners to reduce non-native performance. Specifically, this study addresses three research questions:

RQ1.

What are the features in the production of locative inversion at the syntax-pragmatics interface by Chinese learners of English?

RQ2.

What are the features in the interpretation of locative inversion at the syntax-pragmatics interface by Chinese learners of English?

RQ3.

What are the factors for non-native performance in the acquisition of locative inversion by Chinese learners of English?

2.Background

This section presents the IH serving as an analytical framework to factors for non-native performance, followed by the illustration of the target structure, i.e., locative inversion at the syntax-pragmatics interface.

2.1The interface hypothesis

Building on the notion of interfaces, the IH proposes a distinction between internal interfaces involving grammar-internal computation and external interfaces involving external pragmatic conditions on contextual appropriateness. In terms of the syntax-pragmatics interface, L2 learners need to acquire interface conditions and the processing principles that apply in real-time integration of syntactic and pragmatic information (Jiang and Zhang 2022Jiang, Shan, and Huiping Zhang 2022 “The Features and Factors in the Acquisition of English Existential Constructions at the Syntax-Pragmatics Interface by Chinese Learners.” Frontiers in Psychology 13: 983547. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar). As Sorace (2012) 2012 “Pinning Down the Concept of Interface in Bilingual Development: A Reply to Peer Commentaries.” Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism 2 (2): 209–217. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar pointed out, unlike many of the developmental problems that are reduced or eliminated as L2 proficiency grows, performance at the syntax-pragmatics interface may remain permanently unstable.

Why this interface is uniquely problematic for L2 learners? Five factors contribute to this interface vulnerability (Sorace and Serratrice 2009Sorace, Antonella, and Ludovica Serratrice 2009 “Internal and External Interfaces in Bilingual Language Development: Beyond Structural Overlap.” International Journal of Bilingualism 13 (2): 195–210. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar): (1) Underspecification of interface mappings. If a syntax-pragmatics mapping of a syntactic structure in L2 is specified, but L1 lacks a similar mapping, the L2 interface mapping will remain underspecified, which allows a wider range of possible mappings, giving rise to ambiguity and optionality. (2) Cross-linguistic influence in representations and/or in parsing strategies. Bilingual speakers’ knowledge representations in each language are influenced by the other language. L1 interface conditions may preserve and access in L2 use, potentially leading to residual optionality in L2 grammars. (3) Processing limitations. L2 learners must deploy cognitive resources to suppress the activation of their L1. They have fewer cognitive resources available, which makes them less efficient at accessing knowledge, coordinating information, allocating resources and computing syntax-pragmatics mappings. (4) The quantity and quality of input and exposure received by L2 learners. Compared to monolinguals, L2 learners experience a decrease in the overall quantity of input and are exposed to L2 spoken by other L2 speakers. This is likely to be particularly relevant to less efficient processing and reduced integration ability. (5) Bilingualism per se. L2 learners need to exercise executive control to inhibit the unwanted language. The present study focuses on the first four psycholinguistic determinants, rather than on the fifth one, which is general cognitive.

Additionally, as syntax-pragmatics structures are context-dependent, their processing needs to rapidly integrate and update changing contextual information from the context, and evaluate their functions within that context (Slabakova 2015Slabakova, Roumyana 2015 “The Effect of Construction Frequency and Native Transfer on Second Language Knowledge of the Syntax-Discourse Interface.” Applied Psycholinguistics 36 (3): 671–699. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar; Sorace 2016 2016 “Referring Expressions and Executive Functions in Bilingualism.” Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism 6 (5): 669–684. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar). This suggests that contextual factors should be taken into account in terms of interface vulnerability.

2.2The locative inversion at the syntax-pragmatics interface

By rearranging the canonical subject-verb word order, locative inversion is used as an information-structuring device, whose felicity depends on the relative discourse-status of the information represented by the displaced constituents. Specifically, a preposed constituent must not represent newer information than a postposed constituent does (Ward and Birner 2004Ward, Gregory, and Betty Birner 2004 “Information Structure and Non-Canonical Syntax.” In The Handbook of Pragmatics, ed. by Laurence R. Horn, and Gregory Ward, 153–174. Malden: Blackwell.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar, 169). The most common distribution of information is for a preverbal prepositional phrase (PP) to represent discourse-old information, while a postverbal subject represents discourse-new information. In this case, the PP is interpreted as topic, while the subject functions as focus (Birner 1994Birner, Betty J. 1994 “Information Status and Word Order: An Analysis of English Inversion.” Language 70 (2): 233–259. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar). To illustrate, in Example (1) the PP ‘at the wedding’ can be inferred on the basis of the association between marriages and weddings, representing discourse-old information, whereas noun phrases (NPs) ‘the mother, the stepmother and Debbie’ represent discourse-new information.

(1)

She got married recently and at the wedding was the mother, the stepmother and Debbie.

The syntax-pragmatics condition on locative inversion disallows a preverbal PP being less familiar in the discourse than a postverbal subject (Ward and Birner 2004Ward, Gregory, and Betty Birner 2004 “Information Structure and Non-Canonical Syntax.” In The Handbook of Pragmatics, ed. by Laurence R. Horn, and Gregory Ward, 153–174. Malden: Blackwell.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar, 171). As shown in Example (2), in sentence B1, ‘gym shirt’ is previously mentioned in question A, representing discourse-old information, while ‘in the hall closet’ introduces information unknown to the hearer, rendering this locative inversion infelicitous. In contrast, the non-inverted structure (B2) is felicitous.

(2)

A:Hey, mom, have you seen my gym shirt? I’m in a big hurry to get to the bus stop.
B1:In the hall closet is your gym shirt.
B2:Your gym shirt is in the hall closet.

Taking Chinese locative inversion into consideration, its syntax-pragmatics condition is consistent with that of English locative inversion (Han 2021Han, Jingquan 2021 “The Syntactic Derivation of Locative Inversion Constructions in Mandarin Chinese.” Modern Foreign Languages 44 (5): 147–157.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar); see Example (3). In this case, it’s unlikely for L1 negative transfer to surface in the acquisition of English locative inversion.

(3)

会场前方搭了一个台子，台上坐着主席团.

huì chǎng qián fāng dā le yí gè tái zi, tái shàng zuò zhe zhǔ xí tuán.

venue front build one platform, platform on sit presidium

‘In front of the venue is a platform, and on the platform sit presidiums.’

In summary, in our investigation, we concentrate on the most common information distribution mentioned above, and represent the two cases as [+focused subject context] and [−focused subject context] for brevity. For Chinese learners, the learning task is to discover the mapping rule between locative inversion and focused subject.

3.Methodology

3.1Participants

This study included 300 Chinese learners of English as the experimental group. They were freshmen, postgraduates and Ph.D. students majoring in English at a university in China. The experimental group was classified into three proficiency groups using purposive sampling, with each group consisting of 100 participants. Freshmen were sampled according to their English scores in the National College Entrance Examination (NCEE) in China. As the full score is 150, those who scored between 100 and 140 were assigned to the elementary group, aiming to exclude freshmen with extremely low or high English proficiency levels. The rationale for this group is that freshmen have neither received four years of undergraduate study nor passed National Postgraduate Entrance Examination, resulting in significantly lower English proficiency level than that of postgraduates and Ph.D. students. Postgraduates and Ph.D. students were chosen based on their scores in Test for English Majors-Grade 8 (TEM-8) in China. It has a full score of 100 and is the most large-scale, unified and authoritative test for English majors. Participants scoring between 60 and 65 were sampled as the intermediate group, while those above 70 as the advanced group. To validate the distinction between these two proficiency levels, a Mann-Whitney U test was conducted to compare the mean scores of the intermediate and advanced groups, revealing that the former had significantly lower score than the latter (z-value = −12.266, p < 0.001).

Given that some previous studies have neglected native-speaker results that do not adhere to predictions in terms of interface conditions (Gupton and Calderón 2023Gupton, Timothy, and Silvia Sánchez Calderón 2023 “Focus at the Syntax-Discourse Interface in L2 Spanish: Optionality and Unaccusativity Reconsidered.” Second Language Research 39 (1): 185–229. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar), this led us to suspect that a proper examination of native speakers was an attempt to better understand locative inversion at the syntax-pragmatics interface in actual use. We included twenty native speakers of English as the control group, who were foreign teachers with a master’s degree or undergraduates majoring in Chinese. This group was utilized to establish a benchmark to examine whether Chinese learners demonstrated any evidence of native-like acquisition. Detailed biographical data of each group is provided in Table 1.

Table 1.Biographical data of each group
Groups Samples Years of studying English Sampling standard Mean scores Number
ELE freshmen 10.9 100 ≤ English score of NCEE ≤ 140 123.5 100
INT postgraduates,
Ph.D. students		 16.8 60 ≤ score of
TEM-8 ≤ 65		  63.8 100
AD postgraduates,
Ph.D. students		 21.5 score of TEM-8 ≥ 70  72.4 100
NG foreign teachers and undergraduates  20

ELE = elementary group. INT = intermediate group. AD = advanced group. NG = native group.

3.2Research instruments

The major instruments were two tests and interviews. A picture description test aimed to test the production of locative inversion in focused subject contexts. A context-matching test was designed to examine the interpretation of the syntax-pragmatics condition of locative inversion. This is a suitable method to examine the real preferences of L2 learners (Margaza and Gavarró 2022Margaza, Panagiota, and Anna Gavarró 2022 “The Distribution of Subjects in L2 Spanish by Greek Learners.” Frontiers in Psychology 12. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar). Follow-up semi-structured interviews were conducted within a part of the Chinese learners to explore the latent factors affecting the acquisition of the syntax-pragmatics interface and triangulate our quantitative findings.

3.2.1Picture description test

The picture description test presented a total of twenty test items, of which ten were distractors (Appendix A). The distractors did not involve the phenomena examined so that they were not further analyzed. Of the ten experimental items, each experimental item provided a picture representing locations of some objects, followed by a particular question eliciting an answer with a subject that introduces new information, such as What’s + PP?, as in (4). Such questions can create focused subject contexts in which the use of locative inversion becomes more natural and likely. Furthermore, a series of sentence fragments were given in a random order to avoid elliptical answers. Participants were asked to answer each question by using all the fragments in one sentence while endeavoring to diversify their sentence patterns.

(4)

ex4.svg

What’s in the kitchen? (dog, in the kitchen, fridge)

_________________________________________

3.2.2Context-matching test

The context-matching test consisted of sixteen test items, including eight experimental items and eight distractors (Appendix B). Each test item presented a context closely reflecting everyday life situations, followed by question-answer pairs. The variables tested in the experimental items were: contexts ([+focused subject context], [−focused subject context]), and word orders (locative inversion, non-inverted structure). Each context variable had four test items.

In [+focused subject context], a question was formulated to trigger a response with a focused subject, establishing a context felicitous to postpone a subject, such as Who’s + PP?, as in (5). In this context, the PP represented old information and the subject represented new information, allowing the use of locative inversion. It has to be noted that the subjects in the response were formed with long NPs, as heavy subjects tended to postpone (Biber et al. 1999Biber, Douglas, Stig Johansson, Geoffrey Leech, Susan Conrad, and Edward Finegan eds. 1999 Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. Harlow: Longman.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar, 914). In [−focused subject context], a question including the subject in the response was asked, eliciting an infelicitous context for the use of locative inversion, such as Have you seen + NP?, as in (6). A question was followed by three response options in a random order: locative inversion, non-inverted structure and a distractor. Participants were required to evaluate the appropriateness of three responses in each of the sixteen test items. This test included a five-point Likert-scale from −2 (completely inappropriate) to 2 (completely appropriate).

(5)

Daniel and his little son are sitting by the window. Suddenly, they see a luxury car parking in front of their neighbor’s house. His son asks: “Who’s in the car?”

Daniel answers: _____.

  1. In the car is the mayor of Chicago.

  2. I can see that somebody is in the car.

  3. The mayor of Chicago is in the car.

(6)

Martin got up late this morning, so he must hurry to the bus stop. Unluckily, he can’t find his school uniform in his bedroom. He asks his mom: “Have you seen my school uniform?”

His mom answers: _____.

  1. In the closet is your school uniform.

  2. You must wear your school uniform.

  3. Your school uniform is in the closet.

3.2.3Semi-structured interviews

The questions in the interviews were guided by the factors for interface vulnerability outlined in Section 2.1. Regarding the picture description test, the questions centered on: (1) Why did you adopt this sentence to answer this question? (2) How challenging did you find it to construct this sentence? (3) Can you come up with alternative sentences to answer this question? Why were they not utilized during the test?

With regard to the context matching test, the questions primarily covered: (1) Why did you choose this appropriateness scale for locative inversion? (2) In comparison to the non-inverted structure, does locative inversion serve any distinct function, such as linking to the preceding sentence? (3) Do you think the use of locative inversion is constrained by contexts? Why? (4) How frequently do you encounter and employ locative inversion in your language use?

3.3Procedures

The data collection was carried out in three stages: pilot study, formal test and follow-up interviews. At first, a pilot study was conducted by randomly selecting ten learners from each L2 group and five native speakers to examine the test items and wording. Based on their feedback, the items were modified, and the time limit for formal testing was set.

After this, the two tests were administered to all the participants through an electronic questionnaire on an online questionnaire platform called Wenjuanwang. Participants were required to fill in the questionnaire within twenty minutes, which could induce processing pressure. A total of 320 online questionnaires were collected, all of which were valid because there was no outlier or incomplete response.

Ultimately, face-to-face semi-structured interviews were implemented. We invited ten participants from each L2 group on the condition that they were equipped with specialized English knowledge and interested in this experiment. They were notified of the research aims, while their personal information remained confidential throughout. Then, each interview was carried out in Putonghua for about half an hour and audio-recorded with participants’ permission. After the interviews, the qualitative data were transcribed by the researchers and checked by the interviewees.

3.4Data analysis

SPSS 26.0 was used to conduct analyses of the questionnaire data. We first codified the questionnaire data of the picture description test. An experimental item had a binary outcome — absence or presence of locative inversion. A value of ‘1’ was given for each locative inversion that participants produced, and a value of ‘0’ for other responses.

To address RQ1 and RQ2, a descriptive analysis was carried out to capture a general picture of each group’s performance regarding the production of locative inversion as well as preference patterns for locative inversion and non-inverted structure. It was run by comparing means. Then a statistical analysis was conducted using a generalized linear mixed model (GLMM) to examine whether L2 groups acquired locative inversion at the syntax-pragmatics interface to a native-like level. We opted for this model over repeated-measures ANOVAs because this model can consider whether individual variability on participants and items affected the results. In each model, the independent variables were modeled as fixed effects, such as group, context and word order. Participants and items were modeled as random effects.

In response to RQ3, qualitative content analysis was undertaken. We first read the transcriptions separately to identify the factors for non-native performance, guided by the IH. We then discussed our findings and classified the factors. The transcriptions and primary findings were reported to the interviewees via face-to-face talk. They agreed on the excerpts that were used to support each concluding remark.

4.Results

To answer the three research questions, this section first reports experimental results of the production and interpretation of locative inversion at the syntax-pragmatics interface, and subsequently presents qualitative results concerning factors for non-native performance in production and interpretation respectively.

4.1Results of production of locative inversion

Table 2 presents the production results of locative inversion in each group. The total percentage of L2 groups (14.3%, 22.7%, 32.4%) exhibited a progressive increase, yet remained much lower than that of the native group (40.0%). This result demonstrated that L2 groups under-produced locative inversion in focused subject contexts. Notably, the minimum number in the elementary group was ‘0’, indicating the presence of elementary learners who did not utilize locative inversion in their responses.

Table 2.Production results of locative inversion
Group Total number Total percentage Standard error (SE) Min. Max.
ELE 143 14.3% 1.2350 0 3
INT 227 22.7% 0.8406 2 5
AD 324 32.4% 0.8487 2 5
NG  80 40.0% 0.7182 3 5

To provide further insight into this phenomenon, we listed some typical responses from the experimental item shown in Section 3.2.1 (see Example [7]). The elementary group predominantly produced simple non-inverted and existential structures (e.g., ELE 36), and occasionally produced simple locative inversion (e.g., ELE 89). The intermediate and advanced groups were capable of producing more complex non-inverted and existential structures (e.g., INT 74, AD 51), but the former still tended to produce simple locative inversion (e.g., INT 23), while the latter could produce more complex locative inversion (e.g., AD 92). This demonstrated that advanced learners exhibited the capability to use locative inversion in a more flexible and proficient manner. In contrast, the native group mostly employed existential structures and locative inversion.

(7)

There’s a pink fridge and a yellow dog in the kitchen. (ELE 36)

In the kitchen is a dog and fridge. (ELE 89)

A fridge and a dog with a hat in its mouth are in the kitchen. (INT 74)

In the kitchen is a fridge and a dog. (INT 23)

There’s a dog holding a slipper in his mouth beside the fridge in the kitchen. (AD 51)

In the kitchen are a fridge and a dog with a hat in its mouth. (AD 92)

In the kitchen are a dog and a fridge. (NG 9)

As shown in Table 3, results from a GLMM suggested a significant main effect of group (p < 0.001), which revealed that English proficiency significantly impacted the production of locative inversion. The between-group comparisons showed that both the elementary and intermediate groups exhibited a significant difference from the native group (β = 1.016, SE = 0.1640, t = 6.196, p < 0.001; β = 0.493, SE = 0.1595, t = 3.090, p = 0.002). However, no significant difference was found between the advanced group and native group (β = 0.198, SE = 0.1581, t = 1.255, p = 0.210). This suggested that only the advanced group produced locative inversion to a native-like level.

Table 3.Results of GLMM
Fixed effects
Predictor F df1 df2 p
Intercept 25.225 3 3196 < 0.001
Group 25.225 3 3196 < 0.001

F = F-value. df = degree of freedom.

4.2Results of interpretation of locative inversion

Figure 1 offers an overview of preference patterns for locative inversion and non-inverted structure in each group. In [+focused subject context], L2 groups showed a higher rate of non-inverted structure than locative inversion, whereas in the native group the opposite was the case (1.47 ＞ 1.38). In [−focused subject context], L2 groups tended to accept locative inversion, but the native group clearly rejected it. The results suggested L2 groups exhibited a developmental tendency toward target-like patterns; however, their preference patterns still diverged from target patterns, represented as showing a lower preference for an appropriate locative inversion and a higher preference for an inappropriate one.

Figure 1.Mean scores of appropriateness of contexts in group
Figure 1.

In Table 4, there was a significant main effect of group, context and word order (p = 0.012, p < 0.001, p < 0.001), suggesting these variables significantly influenced the judgement of appropriateness. Paired comparisons showed that the elementary and intermediate groups significantly preferred non-inverted structure to locative inversion in [+focused subject context] (β = 0.771, SE = 0.184, t = 16.197, p < 0.001; β = 0.590, SE = 0.133, t = 14.230, p < 0.001). The elementary group showed no significant difference regarding locative inversion in [+focused subject context] and [−focused subject context] (β = 0.047, SE = 0.1072, t = 0.894, p = 0.683). Additionally, significant differences were detected between the elementary and native group (β = −0.330, SE = 0.1543, t = −4.139, p = 0.033) and between the intermediate and native group (β = −0.292, SE = 0.1517, t = −3.895, p = 0.048), but not between the advanced and native group (β = −0.220, SE = 0.1422, t = −1.437, p = 0.152). This revealed that the interpretation of the syntax-pragmatics condition reached a native-like level until the advanced group.

Table 4.Results of GLMM
Fixed effects
Predictor F df1 df2 p
Intercept  502.229 15 5104 < 0.001
Group    3.683  3 5104   0.012
Context  641.081  1 5104 < 0.001
Word order 2955.446  1 5104 < 0.001
Group*Context   13.416  3 5104 < 0.001
Group*Word order    5.042  3 5104   0.002
Context*Word order 2317.475  1 5104 < 0.001
Group*Context*Word order   46.825  3 5104 < 0.001

4.3Results of factors for non-native performance

4.3.1Production

The interviews revealed that both processing limitations and input frequency were key factors contributing to the underproduction of locative inversion by Chinese learners.

The factor of processing limitations was found to indicate in interviewees’ common responses that they immediately thought of existential and non-inverted structures as their preferred choices for expressing location. Nonetheless, those who produced locative inversion responded that they found it challenging due to its syntactic complexity and infrequent use. Their responses are shown in Example (8). Obviously, they had difficulty in processing locative inversion in time-limited tests.

(8)

  1. The question is ‘what’s on the bed’. They are a T-shirt and a pillow. It can be expressed by ‘There’s a T-shirt and a pillow on the bed’, or by canonical sentence ‘A T-shirt and a pillow are on the bed’. Apart from these, what other sentences can we use? We can place adverbials of place at sentence-initial position, that is, ‘On the bed is a T-shirt and a pillow’. (INT 4)

  2. I think it was a bit difficult. Inversion is rarely used and requires adjusting the position of adverbials of place and subject, so I’m not proficient in using it. Even when I wrote it out, I had to transform it into a canonical sentence to check its grammaticality. (AD 10)

Regarding input frequency, some interviewees thought that the reason of not adopting subject-verb inversion in the test was that they had been exposed to quantitatively insufficient subject-verb inversion, as shown in Example (9).

(9)

Maybe I’m not familiar with subject-verb inversion, which was learned when learning the grammar of full and partial inversion. I merely did some grammatical exercises at that time, but normally I was not exposed to this sentence pattern. It was somewhat useless. (ELE 7)

4.3.2Interpretation

This study identified three factors for the interpretation of English locative inversion at the syntax-pragmatics interface, namely, underspecification of form-function mapping, input frequency and contexts.

Two sets of evidence suggested that interviewees lacked awareness of form-function mapping of locative inversion. One was that they failed to recognize the information status of subject and locative phrase, resulting in inappropriate ratings. Precisely, in [+focused subject context], some interviewees deemed locative inversion less appropriate than non-inverted structure due to its infrequent use and perceived inconsistency with spoken contexts. In [−focused subject context], some interviewees considered locative inversion appropriate based on its relevance to the given test scenario. These two instances are shown respectively in Example (10). The other evidence was that interviewees were unaware of locative inversion’s information-structuring function (see Example [11]).

(10)

  1. ‘In the yard is a string of beautiful lanterns’, this sentence responses to the question, but using inversion in this context may not seem entirely appropriate as this sentence pattern is seldom used in oral conversations. ‘A string of beautiful lanterns is in the yard’, this is the most appropriate. (AD 2)

  2. The question is ‘have you seen my school uniform’, and the answer is ‘in the closet is your school uniform’. It is in consistent with the question. Although inversion may not be frequently used, I can get across its meaning. (AD 9)

(11)

The function of this sentence pattern is to convey the presence of something in a particular location. It seems that it can set the scene at the beginning of a story. It is typically employed less frequently than ‘there be’ sentences. (AD 3)

With respect to input frequency, the interviewees demonstrated that they were rarely exposed to and used subject-verb inversion, except for the time when they initially learned about this structure, as shown in Example (12).

(12)

Normally, the exposure to and frequency of using locative inversion are rather low, particularly in terms of actual use. I encountered this structure more frequently only during the period when I studied its grammar and completed targeted exercises. Consequently, I perceived the purpose of learning this sentence pattern was for grammatical tests. (ELE 10)

Regarding the context constraint, the interviewees held that locative inversion was context-independent due to the fact that they’d never learned about any context constraint in English classes or textbooks (see Example [13]).

(13)

The use of inversion is not constrained by specific contexts. It can be used whenever there is a need to articulate something in a particular location or to vary sentence patterns. (INT 5)

5.Discussion

According to the findings, the syntax-pragmatics condition of subject distribution was particularly difficult for Chinese learners, as evidenced by the observation that they displayed non-native performance even at the advanced stage. We interpret these results as being consonant with the IH, that is, this interface is a significant source of residual and lasting non-nativeness in L2 interlanguage. This section provides a further explanation on the acquisitional features as well as factors for non-native performance.

5.1Discussion on production of locative inversion

In general, this study found that the elementary and intermediate groups produced locative inversion in focused subject contexts significantly less often than the natives. Although native-like attainment was observed in the advanced group, it still produced a lower rate of locative inversion than the native group did. The results suggested that the syntax-pragmatics interface imposed a greater processing burden and was a locus of learning difficulties for Chinese learners. Thus, the results were in accordance with the predictions of the IH of vulnerability at the syntax-pragmatics interface. It’s worth noting that proficiency levels had an effect on the realization of focused subject, signaling a developmental trend towards a more native-like pattern. This partially echoed the results of prior studies (Belletti et al. 2007Belletti, Adriana, Elisa Bennati, and Antonella Sorace 2007 “Theoretical and Developmental Issues in the Syntax of Subjects: Evidence from Near-Native Italian.” Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 25 (4): 657–689. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar; Belletti and Leonini 2004Belletti, Adriana, and Chiara Leonini 2004 “Subject Inversion in L2 Italian.” In EUROSLA Yearbook, ed. by Susan H. Foster-Cohen, Michael Sharwood Smith, Antonella Sorace, and Mitsuhiko Ota, 95–118. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar; Domínguez 2013Domínguez, Laura 2013 Understanding Interfaces: Second Language Acquisition and First Language Attrition of Spanish Subject Realization and Word Order Variation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar; Hertel 2003Hertel, Tammy Jandrey 2003 “Lexical and Discourse Factors in the Second Language Acquisition of Spanish Word Order.” Second Language Research 19 (4): 273–304. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar; Teixeira 2020Teixeira, Joana 2020 “Gradient Optionality in L2 Acquisition at the Syntax-Discourse Interface: Evidence from Inversion in Advanced and Near-Native English.” Lingua 245. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar). Despite discrepancies in L1-L2 pairings and L2 proficiency, these studies universally reported that L2 learners produced subject-verb inversion at a significant lower rate than native speakers. For instance, Domínguez (2013)Domínguez, Laura 2013 Understanding Interfaces: Second Language Acquisition and First Language Attrition of Spanish Subject Realization and Word Order Variation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar found that English learners’ use of Spanish subject-verb inversion increased with proficiency but never reached native-like rates. Taken together, the syntax-pragmatics interface presented prolonged difficulties, even if it was eventually acquirable.

In contrast, other previous studies showed different results (Agathopoulou 2014Agathopoulou, Eleni 2014 “Automatically Arises the Question Whether…: A Corpus Study of Postverbal Subjects in the Greek-English Interlanguage.” In Major Trends in Theoretical and Applied Linguistics, ed. by Nikolaos Lavidas, Thomaï Alexiou, and Areti Maria Sougari, 168–184. Berlin: De Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar; Lozano and Mendikoetxea 2008Lozano, Cristóbal, and Amaya Mendikoetxea 2008 “Postverbal Subjects at the Interfaces in Spanish and Italian Learners of L2 English: A Corpus Analysis.” In Linking Up Contrastive and Learner Corpus Research, ed. by Gilquin Gaëtenelle, Szilivia Papp, and María Belén Díez-Bedmar, 85–125. Amsterdam: Rodopi. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar, 2010 2010 “Interface Conditions on Postverbal Subjects: A Corpus Study of L2 English.” Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 13 (4): 475–497. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar; Mendikoetxea and Lozano 2018Mendikoetxea, Amaya, and Cristóbal Lozano 2018 “From Corpora to Experiments: Methodological Triangulation in the Study of Word Order at the Interfaces in Adult Late Bilinguals (L2 Learners).” Journal of Psycholinguist Research 47 (4): 871–898. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar). By comparing learner corpora and an English native corpus, these studies confirmed that L2 learners of English obeyed the syntax-pragmatics condition when using subject-verb inversion, as natives did. These findings revealed that the syntax-pragmatics interface should not necessarily be more taxing in processing. In our view, the contradictory results might be brought about by the distinctions in test instruments. The first kind of results was concluded from elicitation production tasks which prevented reflection and put extra load on L2 learners’ cognitive resources, resulting in more taxing-to-produce locative inversion. While the second kind was yielded from written essays in L2 learners’ corpora, such untimed offline measures allowed learners sufficient time to reanalyze their sentences. Hence, this may conceivably mask problems resulting from processing inefficiencies and may not be the most adequate method to test the IH (Teixeira 2020Teixeira, Joana 2020 “Gradient Optionality in L2 Acquisition at the Syntax-Discourse Interface: Evidence from Inversion in Advanced and Near-Native English.” Lingua 245. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar).

5.2Discussion on interpretation of locative inversion

The current study discovered that in [+focused subject context], L2 groups attributed a weaker level of acceptance to appropriate locative inversion, showing non-native-like preference. Similar findings in some earlier studies revealed that L2 learners displayed a strong preference for non-inverted structure, and a weak preference for subject-verb inversion in focus-related contexts (Domínguez 2013Domínguez, Laura 2013 Understanding Interfaces: Second Language Acquisition and First Language Attrition of Spanish Subject Realization and Word Order Variation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar; Domínguez and Arche 2014Domínguez, Laura, and María J. Arche 2014 “Subject Inversion in Non-Native Spanish.” Lingua 145: 243–265. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar; Gupton and Calderón 2023Gupton, Timothy, and Silvia Sánchez Calderón 2023 “Focus at the Syntax-Discourse Interface in L2 Spanish: Optionality and Unaccusativity Reconsidered.” Second Language Research 39 (1): 185–229. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar; Lozano 2006Lozano, Cristóbal 2006 “Focus and Split Intransitivity: The Acquisition of Word Order Alternations in Non-Native Spanish.” Second Language Research 22 (2): 145–187. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar; Teixeira 2020Teixeira, Joana 2020 “Gradient Optionality in L2 Acquisition at the Syntax-Discourse Interface: Evidence from Inversion in Advanced and Near-Native English.” Lingua 245. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar). For example, Gupton and Calderón (2023)Gupton, Timothy, and Silvia Sánchez Calderón 2023 “Focus at the Syntax-Discourse Interface in L2 Spanish: Optionality and Unaccusativity Reconsidered.” Second Language Research 39 (1): 185–229. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar found that low-intermediate English learners of Spanish preferred non-inverted structure in subject narrow-focus contexts and subject corrective focus contexts, diverging from native-like ratings. Gathering evidence from these studies, judging contextual felicity of subject-verb inversion posed problem to L2 learners, whose preference for non-inverted structure might not be overridden by syntax-pragmatics constraints. It could be partly explained in that non-inverted structure was the most frequent and highly accessible, whereas subject-verb inversion was infrequent and restricted by discourse conditions (Leal and Hoot 2022Leal, Tania, and Bradley Hoot 2022 “L2 Representation and Processing of Spanish Focus.” Language Acquisition 29 (4): 410–440. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar). As Chinese learners had difficulty in integrating syntactic and discourse information of locative inversion, they tended to resort to a pragmatically neutralized default structure, non-inverted structure, exhibiting an especial preference for it even at the advanced stage.

Additionally, this study found that L2 groups diverged from native rejection of locative inversion in [−focused subject context]. Crucially, the elementary group failed to distinguish an appropriate locative inversion from an inappropriate one, while the intermediate and advanced groups made a greater distinction by contextual felicity as proficiency increased. This indicated that the correlation between contexts and locative inversion presented substantial acquisition difficulties for Chinese learners. They were insensitive to the fact that the context where the PP was interpreted as focus and the subject as topic was infelicitous for locative inversion. Our result aligned with previous work suggesting that L2 learners often ignored contextual information and overgeneralized subject-verb inversion to pragmatically odd contexts (Domínguez and Arche 2014Domínguez, Laura, and María J. Arche 2014 “Subject Inversion in Non-Native Spanish.” Lingua 145: 243–265. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar; Lozano 2006Lozano, Cristóbal 2006 “Focus and Split Intransitivity: The Acquisition of Word Order Alternations in Non-Native Spanish.” Second Language Research 22 (2): 145–187. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar; Teixeira 2020Teixeira, Joana 2020 “Gradient Optionality in L2 Acquisition at the Syntax-Discourse Interface: Evidence from Inversion in Advanced and Near-Native English.” Lingua 245. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar).

5.3Discussion on factors for non-native performance

5.3.1Production

In our investigation, even when Chinese and English locative inversion worked similarly such that positive transfer could be expected, this did not prevent divergence at the syntax-pragmatics interface by Chinese learners. We identified two factors for underproduction of locative inversion, processing limitations and input frequency. They will be discussed in the remainder of this section.

In one aspect, structures at the syntax-pragmatics interface are more taxing owing to the fact that L2 learners are inefficient in real-time integration of syntactic and pragmatic information (Sorace 2011Sorace, Antonella 2011 “Pinning Down the Concept of ‘Interface’ in Bilingualism.” Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism 1 (1): 1–33. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar). In the production of locative inversion, Chinese learners had to keep contextual information activated and evaluate the information status of the PP and subject. As was evident from the interviews, the complex syntactic structure of locative inversion had already imposed great processing difficulty on Chinese learners. Undoubtedly, the integration of contextual information would be more costly and bring extra processing load, which may exceed their available cognitive resources and cause processing inefficiencies. On the contrary, non-inverted and existential structures were much simpler in syntactic structure and easier to process. Consequently, Chinese learners overwhelmingly produced these two structures to relieve processing load in online production, resulting in the underproduction of locative inversion.

Additionally, as mentioned in Section 2.1, adequate and unambiguous L2 input is the premise of native-like acquisition at the syntax-pragmatics interface. In the context of foreign language learning, Chinese learners had limited exposure to locative inversion except during their formal learning experiences. Our justification for low input frequency was supported by qualitative data. The scarce input of locative inversion reduced both the automaticity in accessing and processing this structure, and the chances of using it in real-time production. Consequently, elementary and intermediate Chinese learners tended to produce high-frequency existential and non-inverted structures. With increased exposure to English, advanced learners encountered locative inversion more frequently, thus they gained greater proficiency in producing it and approached target-like production.

5.3.2Interpretation

Based on the interview data, the non-native preference patterns for locative inversion by Chinese learners contributed to three factors, underspecification of form-function mapping, input frequency and contexts. They will be elaborated in turn in the following part.

Firstly, as pointed out in Section 2.2, the learning task of locative inversion involves its syntax-pragmatics mapping. Focused subject can be expressed by different syntactic means, such as locative inversion and existential structures. Given the unspecific one-to-many mappings, Chinese learners faced the challenge of identifying whether locative inversion could map onto focused subject. Our interviews revealed that they did not discover that locative inversion can realize focused subject. Instead, they associated this function with non-inverted structure, given the observation that elementary and intermediate learners showed a much stronger preference for non-inverted structure over locative inversion. With increased exposure to English, advanced learners came to recognize the discourse function of locative inversion and attributed a higher acceptance.

Secondly, as previously noted, the lack of adequate input added to the difficulty in learning locative inversion by Chinese learners, which contributed to distinctions in acceptance rate compared to English natives. Additionally, drawing on previous English input, learners have learned that non-inverted structure can be used in various contexts, thus displaying a strong preference for it in [+focused subject context].

Finally, to master syntax-pragmatics structures, L2 learners must observe and evaluate the broader context and their functions within that context in order to coordinate context-form pairings. Chinese learners encountered challenges in identifying the specific context that licensed the use of locative inversion for the reason that context-form pairings were often not transparent, and they lacked sufficient exposure to contextual experiences or formal instruction on contextual knowledge. As a result, elementary and intermediate learners judged appropriateness without taking contextual information into account, resulting in divergent preference patterns. As advanced learners gained more contextual experience, they became more sensitive to contextual information and exhibited a native-like preference pattern despite minor differences.

6.Conclusion

Within the framework of the IH, this study examined the acquisition of locative inversion at the syntax-pragmatics interface by Chinese learners of English with three proficiency levels, and uncovered factors for non-native performance. It was found that the acquisition of the syntax-pragmatics interface posed special difficulty and reached a native-like level until the advanced stage. Precisely, Chinese learners under-produced locative inversion in focused subject contexts and diverged from native-like distribution of locative inversion. The under-production was attributed to processing limitations and input frequency, while the divergent interpretation was due to underspecification of form-function mapping, contexts and input frequency.

This study has several pedagogical implications. To address the problem of poor syntax-pragmatics competence among Chinese learners, it’s crucial to refine English classroom instruction by regulating the factors influencing the acquisition of this interface. Firstly, teachers should provide learners with explicit instruction targeting the syntax-pragmatics mapping of locative inversion, and help them gain awareness of subject placement flexibility and the effect of syntax-pragmatics condition on word orders. Secondly, teachers should incorporate sufficient authentic materials that feature locative inversion. Exposing learners to materials that contain it could be beneficial in familiarizing them with its usage. Thirdly, teachers should elaborate on the contextual constraint of locative inversion and offer varied discourse contexts, guiding learners to experience its usage pattern in contexts. This can enhance learners’ sensitivity to contextual information and facilitate the integration of locative inversion and contexts. Lastly, teachers should engage learners in online tasks to practice interpreting and producing locative inversion and provide feedback on errors, which may positively influence their efficiency in the real-time integration of syntactic and pragmatic information.

This study offers several noteworthy implications for further exploration on L2 interface acquisition and teaching. First, the findings lend more support to the IH. Notably, the delayed acquisition of English syntax-pragmatics interface suggests that this interface is most likely to remain especially difficult for Chinese learners, given the similarities in syntax-pragmatics interface condition between Chinese and English. Second, by shedding light on the acquisition of the syntax-pragmatics interface throughout development, this study broadens our understanding of how the effects proposed by the IH manifest as long-term and residual challenges. Additionally, qualitative data allow us to weigh in directly on the factors for non-native performance, thereby validating that these factors play a crucial role in determining Chinese learners’ non-native performance. Finally, these findings could be informative for the teaching of the syntax-pragmatics interface in an effort to avoid non-native performance.

Funding

Research funded by Educational Science Planning Program in Heilongjiang Province “Research on Data-Driven Learning Model of College English under the Background of Smart Education” (GJB1424038) to Shan Jiang.

Open Access publication of this article was funded through a Transformative Agreement with Northeast Normal University.

References

Agathopoulou, Eleni
2014 “Automatically Arises the Question Whether…: A Corpus Study of Postverbal Subjects in the Greek-English Interlanguage.” In Major Trends in Theoretical and Applied Linguistics, ed. by Nikolaos Lavidas, Thomaï Alexiou, and Areti Maria Sougari, 168–184. Berlin: De Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
① ②
Belletti, Adriana, Elisa Bennati, and Antonella Sorace
2007 “Theoretical and Developmental Issues in the Syntax of Subjects: Evidence from Near-Native Italian.” Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 25 (4): 657–689. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
① ②
Belletti, Adriana, and Chiara Leonini
2004 “Subject Inversion in L2 Italian.” In EUROSLA Yearbook, ed. by Susan H. Foster-Cohen, Michael Sharwood Smith, Antonella Sorace, and Mitsuhiko Ota, 95–118. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
① ②
Biber, Douglas, Stig Johansson, Geoffrey Leech, Susan Conrad, and Edward Finegan
eds. 1999 Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. Harlow: Longman.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
①
Birner, Betty J.
1994 “Information Status and Word Order: An Analysis of English Inversion.” Language 70 (2): 233–259. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
①
Domínguez, Laura
2013 Understanding Interfaces: Second Language Acquisition and First Language Attrition of Spanish Subject Realization and Word Order Variation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
① ② ③ ④
Domínguez, Laura, and María J. Arche
2014 “Subject Inversion in Non-Native Spanish.” Lingua 145: 243–265. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
① ② ③
Gupton, Timothy, and Silvia Sánchez Calderón
2023 “Focus at the Syntax-Discourse Interface in L2 Spanish: Optionality and Unaccusativity Reconsidered.” Second Language Research 39 (1): 185–229. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
① ② ③ ④ ⑤ ⑥
Han, Jingquan
2021 “The Syntactic Derivation of Locative Inversion Constructions in Mandarin Chinese.” Modern Foreign Languages 44 (5): 147–157.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
①
Hertel, Tammy Jandrey
2003 “Lexical and Discourse Factors in the Second Language Acquisition of Spanish Word Order.” Second Language Research 19 (4): 273–304. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
① ②
Jiang, Shan, and Huiping Zhang
2022 “The Features and Factors in the Acquisition of English Existential Constructions at the Syntax-Pragmatics Interface by Chinese Learners.” Frontiers in Psychology 13: 983547. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
①
Leal, Tania, and Bradley Hoot
2022 “L2 Representation and Processing of Spanish Focus.” Language Acquisition 29 (4): 410–440. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
① ② ③
Lozano, Cristóbal
2006 “Focus and Split Intransitivity: The Acquisition of Word Order Alternations in Non-Native Spanish.” Second Language Research 22 (2): 145–187. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
① ② ③
Lozano, Cristóbal, and Amaya Mendikoetxea
2008 “Postverbal Subjects at the Interfaces in Spanish and Italian Learners of L2 English: A Corpus Analysis.” In Linking Up Contrastive and Learner Corpus Research, ed. by Gilquin Gaëtenelle, Szilivia Papp, and María Belén Díez-Bedmar, 85–125. Amsterdam: Rodopi. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
① ②
2010 “Interface Conditions on Postverbal Subjects: A Corpus Study of L2 English.” Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 13 (4): 475–497. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
① ②
Margaza, Panagiota, and Anna Gavarró
2022 “The Distribution of Subjects in L2 Spanish by Greek Learners.” Frontiers in Psychology 12. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
① ②
Mendikoetxea, Amaya, and Cristóbal Lozano
2018 “From Corpora to Experiments: Methodological Triangulation in the Study of Word Order at the Interfaces in Adult Late Bilinguals (L2 Learners).” Journal of Psycholinguist Research 47 (4): 871–898. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
① ②
Slabakova, Roumyana
2015 “The Effect of Construction Frequency and Native Transfer on Second Language Knowledge of the Syntax-Discourse Interface.” Applied Psycholinguistics 36 (3): 671–699. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
①
Sorace, Antonella
2011 “Pinning Down the Concept of ‘Interface’ in Bilingualism.” Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism 1 (1): 1–33. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
① ② ③
2012 “Pinning Down the Concept of Interface in Bilingual Development: A Reply to Peer Commentaries.” Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism 2 (2): 209–217. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
①
2016 “Referring Expressions and Executive Functions in Bilingualism.” Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism 6 (5): 669–684. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
①
Sorace, Antonella, and Ludovica Serratrice
2009 “Internal and External Interfaces in Bilingual Language Development: Beyond Structural Overlap.” International Journal of Bilingualism 13 (2): 195–210. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
①
Teixeira, Joana
2020 “Gradient Optionality in L2 Acquisition at the Syntax-Discourse Interface: Evidence from Inversion in Advanced and Near-Native English.” Lingua 245. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
① ② ③ ④ ⑤ ⑥
2021 “The Impact of Explicit Instruction on Different Types of Linguistic Properties: Syntactic vs. Syntax-Discourse Properties.” International Journal of Applied Linguistics 172 (1): 26–57. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
①
Ward, Gregory, and Betty Birner
2004 “Information Structure and Non-Canonical Syntax.” In The Handbook of Pragmatics, ed. by Laurence R. Horn, and Gregory Ward, 153–174. Malden: Blackwell.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
① ②

Appendix A.Picture description test

  1. app1-fig1.svg

    Why does he ask for leave? (ask for leave)

  2. app1-fig2.svg

    What’s on the desk? (laptop, on the desk, lamp)

  3. app1-fig3.svg

    How does she wash clothes? (wash clothes)

  4. app1-fig4.svg

    What’s beside the bed? (desk, chair, beside the bed)

  5. app1-fig5.svg

    What do children usually do in winter? (in winter)

  6. app1-fig6.svg

    What’s on the farm? (on the farm, cow, goat)

  7. app1-fig7.svg

    Why did the boy hurt his leg? (hurt)

  8. app1-fig8.svg

    What’s under the desk? (under the desk, toy car)

  9. app1-fig9.svg

    How long does it take them to get to the airport? (It takes…)

  10. app1-fig10.svg

    What’s on the bed? (shirt, on the bed, pillow)

  11. app1-fig11.svg

    What do you think of the room? (think)

  12. app1-fig12.svg

    What’s outside the house? (outside the house, tree, bike)

  13. app1-fig13.svg

    Why does the little boy laugh at the king? (laugh at)

  14. app1-fig14.svg

    What’s in the kitchen? (dog, in the kitchen, fridge)

  15. app1-fig15.svg

    Where are they going on the weekend? (be going to)

  16. app1-fig16.svg

    What’s on the plate? (banana, on the plate, apple)

  17. app1-fig17.svg

    Why does she call her teacher to ask for leave? (ask for leave)

  18. app1-fig18.svg

    What’s in the garden? (in the garden, statue, fountain)

  19. app1-fig19.svg

    How well does he play basketball?

  20. app1-fig20.svg

    What’s on the wall? (on the wall, painting)

Appendix B.Context-matching test

  1. Jeffery moved into a new apartment by the sea. He invited his friends to his house to have a party this Sunday. They are enjoying themselves and playing the music very loudly. His neighbor knocks on the door and asks: “Can you turn the music down?”

    Jeffery answers: _____.

    1. You can join our party. (−2  −1  0  1  2)

    2. I’m sorry to have bothered you. (−2  −1  0  1  2)

    3. The party is very exciting. (−2  −1  0  1  2)

  2. Daniel and his little son are sitting by the window. Suddenly, they see a luxury car parking in front of their neighbor’s house. His son asks: “Who’s in the car?”

    Daniel answers: _____.

    1. In the car is the mayor of Chicago. (−2  −1  0  1  2)

    2. I can see that somebody is in the car. (−2  −1  0  1  2)

    3. The mayor of Chicago is in the car. (−2  −1  0  1  2)

  3. Maggie has been saving money in recent months because she wants to buy a computer. Her friend Nicola is going through financial difficulties. Nicola asks: “You know I’m having a hard time. Could you lend me some money?”

    Maggie answers: _____.

    1. I can lend you some money. (−2  −1  0  1  2)

    2. You’d better save money. (−2  −1  0  1  2)

    3. Money is essential for life. (−2  −1  0  1  2)

  4. Martin got up late this morning, so he must hurry to the bus stop. Unluckily, he can’t find his school uniform in his bedroom. He asks his mom: “Have you seen my school uniform?”

    His mom answers: _____.

    1. In the closet is your school uniform. (−2  −1  0  1  2)

    2. You must wear your school uniform. (−2  −1  0  1  2)

    3. Your school uniform is in the closet. (−2  −1  0  1  2)

  5. Rachel is interning in a company. She has been very busy and has worked overtime these days. Her colleague Sarah has something important and has to leave early this afternoon. Sarah asks: “Could you help me finish my work?”

    Rachel answers: _____.

    1. You shouldn’t leave early. (−2  −1  0  1  2)

    2. It’s your duty to do it. (−2  −1  0  1  2)

    3. I’ll try my best to do it. (−2  −1  0  1  2)

  6. Susan is going to be late for work, and she must hurry because of an important meeting in the morning. Unfortunately, she can’t find her file pocket in the study. She asks her husband: “Have you seen a black file pocket?”

    Her husband answers: _____.

    1. The file pocket is on the nightstand. (−2  −1  0  1  2)

    2. Look for the file pocket carefully. (−2  −1  0  1  2)

    3. On the nightstand is the file pocket. (−2  −1  0  1  2)

  7. Kevin and Louis are neighbors. Kevin keeps a cat. He’ll be away on business tomorrow, but he can’t take the cat with him. He asks Louis: “Could you help me take care of my cat?”

    Louis answers: _____.

    1. I’ll feed your cat carefully. (−2  −1  0  1  2)

    2. My cat is cuter than yours. (−2  −1  0  1  2)

    3. I’ll take a good care of it. (−2  −1  0  1  2)

  8. Jane’s family has just moved into a new villa with a huge back yard, and they’ve decorated the yard in recent days. Her friend heard about this and asked her: “What’s in the yard?”

    Jane answers: _____.

    1. In the yard is a string of beautiful lanterns. (−2  −1  0  1  2)

    2. We’ve put many things in the yard. (−2  −1  0  1  2)

    3. A string of beautiful lanterns is in the yard. (−2  −1  0  1  2)

  9. Michael and Leo are in the company cafeteria, and they are talking about what to have for lunch. Michael loves meat, but Leo is a vegetarian. Michael asks: “The daily special is the steak. Would you like some?”

    Leo answers: _____.

    1. This is your favorite. (−2  −1  0  1  2)

    2. I don’t like meat. (−2  −1  0  1  2)

    3. You must like the steak. (−2  −1  0  1  2)

  10. Mrs. Green is busy cleaning the room because her guests are coming soon. It suddenly occurs to her that the guests will probably want some coffee after lunch. She asks her husband: “Where’s the coffee grinder?”

    Her husband answers: _____.

    1. On the kitchen counter is the coffee grinder. (−2  −1  0  1  2)

    2. I don’t think that we have a coffee grinder. (−2  −1  0  1  2)

    3. The coffee grinder is on the kitchen counter. (−2  −1  0  1  2)

  11. Marina and Joe are talking about their father, who has been selling their family’s possessions after their mother died. They are wondering how to stop him. Marina asks: “What should we do?”

    Joe answers: _____.

    1. I haven’t figured it out yet. (−2  −1  0  1  2)

    2. You must figure it out. (−2  −1  0  1  2)

    3. We must do something. (−2  −1  0  1  2)

  12. Emma and Kate are on their way to the library. Emma walks slowly because her bag is quite heavy. Seeing this, Kate says: “Your bag looks pretty full and heavy. What’s in it?”

    Emma answers: _____.

    1. Many books and a laptop are in my bag. (−2  −1  0  1  2)

    2. I know that lots of things are in my bag. (−2  −1  0  1  2)

    3. In my bag are many books and a laptop. (−2  −1  0  1  2)

  13. Albert and Bobby like listening to CDs. Albert just bought a latest CD of his favorite singer. Bobby borrowed this CD, but he accidentally broke it. He asks: “Can I buy a same one for you?”

    Albert answers: _____.

    1. Never mind, it’s not a big deal. (−2  −1  0  1  2)

    2. Carefulness is really important. (−2  −1  0  1  2)

    3. You are so careless with my CD. (−2  −1  0  1  2)

  14. Diana and her secretary are at the office. She is told that the original document of the building project needs to be signed by the president. She asks her secretary: “Where’s the original document?”

    The secretary answers: _____.

    1. The original document is on the shelf. (−2  −1  0  1  2)

    2. We can find the original document. (−2  −1  0  1  2)

    3. On the shelf is the original document. (−2  −1  0  1  2)

  15. Caroline works part-time at a restaurant. Her mom has been badly ill in hospital for a month, so she is quite uneasy. She brings fried chicken to a customer instead of beef steak. The customer asks: “Have I ordered this?”

    Caroline answers: _____.

    1. You must remember what you’ve ordered. (−2  −1  0  1  2)

    2. I’m sorry for giving you the wrong dish. (−2  −1  0  1  2)

    3. You know that this dish is very tasty. (−2  −1  0  1  2)

  16. Linda, Maggie and Nancy used to be high school classmates. Linda got married last week and invited Maggie to her wedding. Nancy is curious about her wedding and asks Maggie: “Who was at the wedding ceremony?”

    Maggie answers: _____.

    1. Her father and stepmother were at the wedding ceremony. (−2  −1  0  1  2)

    2. I didn’t pay attention to people at the wedding ceremony. (−2  −1  0  1  2)

    3. At the wedding ceremony were her father and stepmother. (−2  −1  0  1  2)

Address for correspondence

Huiping Zhang

Northeast Normal University

Renmin Street

Changchun

China

huiping1023@163.com

Biographical notes

Shan Jiang, PhD, is an associate-professor-to-be in Harbin Engineering University. She majors in second language acquisition. She has published a fruitful line of peer-reviewed SSCI/CSSCI journal articles, and has taken part in several National and Provincial Social Science Projects in China.

ORCiD logo with linkhttps://orcid.org/0000-0002-6487-9013

Huiping Zhang, PhD, is a full professor of Applied Linguistics. She is also a doctoral supervisor in Northeast Normal University. She has published more than 50 peer-reviewed SSCI/CSSCI journal articles on topics related to language learning and teaching. She serves as an editorial reviewer on the editorial boards of several Chinese and international refereed journals.

ORCiD logo with linkhttps://orcid.org/0000-0002-2523-700X
 
Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue