Interpretation Of Chinese Resultative Ⅴ-Ⅴ Compounds By The L2 English- And Japanese- Speaking Learners

Resultative construction(hence RC) is a phenomenon which exists in an array of language. Thus,it is not strange that it also exists in Chinese,Japanese and English. However, the appealing thing is that apart from the similar semantic representations, the properties of the argument structure, the causativity, the event structure and even the surface syntactic structure of RC varies from language to language. We may make a comparative research among the English, Chinese and Japanese according to four crucial standard:1,whether to allow the existence of resultative verb compounds;2,whether to obey the Direct Object Restriction;3,whether to allow the ambiguities of the RC;4, whether to allow the unergative causative translation. After the comparative description of the four differences, we may launch a further study targeted on the mechanisms employed for the derivation of argument structure and the syntactic analyticity. Under the framework of the pure lexicon mechanism, we can find out the mechanisms by answering the questions listed below Firstly, why can the Japanese and Chinese RVC both violate the DOR? This is because unlike the English RC, which is a pure syntactic structure, both the Japanese and Chinese RVC are purely lexicon whereby all the argument structure derivation projection obeys the typical word formation process instead of the syntactic mechanism. Secondly, why the Chinese and Japanese languages have a divergence with respects to the ambiguity of the RVC? It is because the Japanese RVC has a different M-head with the Chinese RVC, and the more strict semantic constraint and the deletion mechanism of argument rules out all the ambiguous possibilities. Thirdly, why the Chinese V-V resultative compounds have different causative translation pattern? This is because Chinese English, and Japanese belongs to the different language types according to their degree of argument realization in syntactic structure:1,full realization language e.g. English; 2, freedom realization language e.g. Chinese 3, the middle one---partial realization language e.g. Japanese. This feature decides which degree of lexicon conflation the languages will undergo before the lexicons’entering into a syntactic computation. For English, before inputting into the syntactic computation, all the lexical verbs will undergo a full process of conflation. all the formal features (including the theta-grid) need to be checked off for a syntactic derivation, and all the arguments must occur in appropriate positions{subject, object, complement}. Opposite to English, since the Chinese verb does not undergo a verb conflation, when it enters into a syntactic computation, we regard it as a ’pure’ verb, which is only equipped with a conceptual structure instead of an argument structure. And for the Japanese, all the lexical verbs will undergo a partial verb conflation.Furthermore, the different mechanisms employed both for compound fusion and the causative translation may produce different internal interface which may cause the considerable acquisition delay. For example, regarding the sentence involving the DOR,the acquisition process of the sentence involves the semantic relationships directly generated from the argument structure along with the reconstruct of the syntactic structure, which is a typical lexicon-syntax interface. And for the Japanese - speakers’acquisition of ambiguous sentence, it would be a syntax-semantic interface. Because this process requires the L2 learners to re-product the theta-grid by allowing the adjust of the lexicon derivation projection under the highly similar syntactic structure.Among recent decades, a new thesis named interface hypothesis has been a new hot topic in the second acquisition area. Many researchers believe that the real barrier of second language acquisition doesn’t locate in any single domain ie. vocabulary, syntax and so on, but happens when the brain need to progress two domains together ie. syntax---semantic. Most researches believe the L2 learners have no problem to acquire the internal interfaces even it may cause a consierable delay. However, both Yuan(2010) and Zhao(2012) claim "interfaces, whether internal or external, are complex enterprise in L2 acquisiton and may not always lead to domain—wide problem". This essay is a response to the interface hypothesis and targeted the internal interfaces. The empirical study was conducted involving 12 English-speaking learners of Chinese,19 Japanese—speaking learner of Chinese and a control group of 12. According to the significant differences (by spss), this empirical study supports the conclusion addressed by Zhao(2010) and Zhao(2012), that the interfaces should not be treated holistically. The current study has shown that while purely syntactic reconstruct such the RVC obey DOR can be acquired at very early state, the internal interfaces has a varies situation. For some internal interfaces such as the reconstruction of thematic relationship under the framework of lexicon mechanism for English-speaking learners, or the interpretation of the ambiguous reading for English-speaking learners are easily acquirable at the high-intermediate state. In the mean time, for some other internal interface such as the unergative-causative alternation for English-speaking learners, are radically not acquirable at the high-intermediate state, moreover, the non-improvement between the HI and LI groups may predicate a considerable delay or an unaquirable acquisition in the future.Furthermore, it also offers a evidence to prove the influence of L1 transfer and the lack of both positive and negative input. By the comparisons of English-speaking and Japanese-speaking learners’ interpretation of the semantic relationship of the RVC, it reveals a obvious L1 transfer in Japanese-speaking learner’s L2 Chinese grammar. By comparisons of English-speaking and Japanese-speaking learners’L2 grammar of the unergative -- caustivization, there is a L1 transfer at English-speaking learners’L2 grammar. And there also exists a trace of L1 transfer at Japanese-speaking learners’ L2 grammar about the unaccusative-causative alternation.If we want to solve this problem during the class teaching, we need to adopt the country-specific strategy. Making different teaching methods according to the different languages would be a rational way. For Japanese-speaking learners, it would be very hard for them to realize the depth difference of RVC under the similar surface syntactic structure. Thus, both the explicit explanation and the contructivism implicit instruction should be applied in the teaching process. For the English—speaking learners, re- constructing the grammar of causativity alternation and encouraging the learners to practice the RVC initiatively would be the acquisition difficulties. Hence, the task-based teaching methods which focus on form would be more suitable in this circumstance.