1887
  1. Home
  2. e-Journals
  3. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics
  4. Volume 30, Issue 3
  5. Article
Volume 30, Issue 3
  • ISSN 1384-6655
  • E-ISSN: 1569-9811
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

This study examines how contextual factors influence the English dative alternation in written production by Chinese EFL learners, with native English usage serving as the benchmark for comparison. The dataset contained 2,492 tokens of the dative alternation (e.g. vs. ), extracted from a British English corpus and a Chinese learner English corpus, respectively. Seven probabilistic constraints of the constituents were annotated: length, complexity, pronominality, definiteness, animacy, person, and concreteness. Mixed-effects logistic regression analyses revealed substantial similarities in the core probabilistic grammar of the dative alternation between British English and Chinese learner English. However, the impact of pronominality, definiteness, and person differed. These findings suggest that L2 learners are capable of discerning contextual cues within implicit input and incorporating them into their own language usage. Nevertheless, the degree to which these cues can be acquired varies with input features and processing limitations.

© John Benjamins Publishing Company
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/ijcl.23044.gan
2025-08-19
2026-03-09

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1075/ijcl.23044.gan
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Alsop, S., & Nesi, H.
    (2009) Issues in the development of the British Academic Written English (BAWE) corpus. Corpora, 4(1), 71–83. 10.3366/E1749503209000227
     https://doi.org/10.3366/E1749503209000227 [Google Scholar]
  2. Anthony, L.
    (2022) AntConc (Version 4.0.10) [Computer Software]. Tokyo, Japan: Waseda University. Available fromhttps://www.laurenceanthony.net/software
     [Google Scholar]
  3. Baayen, R. H.
    (2008) Analyzing linguistic data: A practical introduction to statistics using R. Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511801686
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511801686 [Google Scholar]
  4. Baayen, R. H., Davidson, D. J., & Bates, D. M.
    (2008) Mixed-effects modeling with crossed random effects for subjects and items. Journal of Memory and Language, 59(4), 390–412. 10.1016/j.jml.2007.12.005
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2007.12.005 [Google Scholar]
  5. Baker, C. L.
    (1979) Syntactic theory and the projection problem. Linguistic Inquiry, 10(3), 533–581. https://www.jstor.org/stable/4178133
     [Google Scholar]
  6. Barth, D., & Kapatsinski, V.
    (2018) Evaluating logistic mixed-effects models of corpus-linguistic data in light of lexical diffusion. InD. Speelman, K. Heylen, & D. Geeraerts (Eds.), Mixed-effects regression models in linguistics: Quantitative methods in the Humanities and Social Sciences (pp.99–116). Springer. 10.1007/978‑3‑319‑69830‑4_6
     https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-69830-4_6 [Google Scholar]
  7. Bates, D., Mächler, M., Bolker, B., & Walker, S.
    (2015) Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software, 67(1), 1–48. 10.18637/jss.v067.i01
     https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v067.i01 [Google Scholar]
  8. Bayley, R.
    (2007) Second language acquisition: A variationist perspective. InR. Bayley & C. Lucas (Eds.), Sociolinguistic variation: Theories, methods, and applications (pp.133–144). Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511619496.008
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511619496.008 [Google Scholar]
  9. Bernaisch, T., Gries, S. T., & Mukherjee, J.
    (2014) The dative alternation in South Asian English(es): Modelling predictors and predicting prototypes. English World-Wide, 35(1), 7–31. 10.1075/eww.35.1.02ber
     https://doi.org/10.1075/eww.35.1.02ber [Google Scholar]
  10. Bresnan, J., Cueni, A., Nikitina, T., & Baayen, R. H.
    (2007) Predicting the dative alternation. InG. Bouma, I. Krämer, & J. Zwarts (Eds.), Cognitive foundations of interpretation (pp.69–94). Royal Netherlands Academy of Science.
     [Google Scholar]
  11. Bresnan, J., & Ford, M.
    (2010) Predicting syntax: Processing dative constructions in American and Australian varieties of English. Language, 86(1), 168–213. 10.1353/lan.0.0189
     https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.0.0189 [Google Scholar]
  12. Bresnan, J., & Hay, J.
    (2008) Gradient grammar: An effect of animacy on the syntax of give in New Zealand and American English. Lingua, 118(2), 245–259. 10.1016/j.lingua.2007.02.007
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2007.02.007 [Google Scholar]
  13. Bresnan, J., & Nikitina, T.
    (2009) The gradience of the dative alternation. InL. Uyechi & L. H. Wee (Eds.), Reality exploration and discovery: Pattern interaction in language and life (pp.161–184). CSLI Publications.
     [Google Scholar]
  14. Callies, M., & Szczesniak, K.
    (2008) Argument realisation, information status and syntactic weight — A learner-corpus study of the dative alternation. InM. Walter & P. Grommes (Eds.), Fortgeschrittene Lernervarietäten: Korpuslinguistik und Zweitsprachenerwerbsforschung (pp.165–187). Niemeyer. 10.1515/9783484970342.2.165
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783484970342.2.165 [Google Scholar]
  15. 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]
  16. Compagnon, B. L.
    (1984) Interference and overgeneralization in second language learning: The acquisition of English dative verbs by native speakers of French. Language Learning, 34(3), 39–67. 10.1111/j.1467‑1770.1984.tb00341.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-1770.1984.tb00341.x [Google Scholar]
  17. de Swart, P., Lamers, M., & Lestrade, S.
    (2008) Animacy, argument structure, and argument encoding. Lingua, 118(2), 131–140. 10.1016/j.lingua.2007.02.009
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2007.02.009 [Google Scholar]
  18. Deshors, S. C.
    (2014) A case for a unified treatment of EFL and ESL: A multifactorial approach. English World-Wide, 35(3), 277–305. 10.1075/eww.35.3.02des
     https://doi.org/10.1075/eww.35.3.02des [Google Scholar]
  19. (2021) Contextualizing past tenses in L2: Combined effects and interactions in the present perfect versus simple past alternation. Applied Linguistics, 42(2), 269–291. 10.1093/applin/amaa017
     https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amaa017 [Google Scholar]
  20. Dubois, T., Paquot, M., & Szmrecsanyi, B.
    (2023) Alternation phenomena and language proficiency: The genitive alternation in the spoken language of EFL learners. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 19(3), 427–450. 10.1515/cllt‑2021‑0078
     https://doi.org/10.1515/cllt-2021-0078 [Google Scholar]
  21. Ellis, N. C.
    (2006a) Language acquisition as rational contingency learning. Applied Linguistics, 27(1), 1–24. 10.1093/applin/ami038
     https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/ami038 [Google Scholar]
  22. (2006b) Selective attention and transfer phenomena in L2 acquisition: Contingency, cue competition, salience, interference, overshadowing, blocking, and perceptual learning. Applied Linguistics, 27(2), 164–194. 10.1093/applin/aml015
     https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/aml015 [Google Scholar]
  23. (2022) Second language learning of morphology. Journal of the European Second Language Association, 6(1), 34–59. 10.22599/jesla.85
     https://doi.org/10.22599/jesla.85 [Google Scholar]
  24. Ellis, N. C., & Ferreira-Junior, F.
    (2009) Construction learning as a function of frequency, frequency distribution, and function. The Modern Language Journal, 93(3), 370–385. 10.1111/j.1540‑4781.2009.00896.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2009.00896.x [Google Scholar]
  25. Ellis, N. C., & Wulff, S.
    (2019) Cognitive approaches to second language acquisition. InJ. Schwieter & A. Benati (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of language learning (pp.41–61). Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781108333603.003
     https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108333603.003 [Google Scholar]
  26. Engel, A., Grafmiller, J., Rosseel, L., & Szmrecsanyi, B.
    (2022) Assessing the complexity of lectal competence: The register-specificity of the dative alternation after give. Cognitive Linguistics, 33(4), 727–766. 10.1515/cog‑2021‑0107
     https://doi.org/10.1515/cog-2021-0107 [Google Scholar]
  27. Fillmore, C.
    (1965) The indirect object construction in English and the ordering of transformations. Mouton.
     [Google Scholar]
  28. Fox, J., & Weisberg, S.
    (2019) An R companion to applied regression. Sage.
     [Google Scholar]
  29. Führer, M.
    (2009) The dative alternation in the interlanguage of German learners of English (Unpublished bachelor’s thesis). Universität Siegen, Germany.
     [Google Scholar]
  30. Garretson, G. M., O’Connor, C., Skarabela, B., & Hogan, M.
    (2004) Coding practices used in the project optimality typology of determiner phrases. corpus.bu.edu/documentation/BUNPCorpus_coding_practices.pdf
     [Google Scholar]
  31. Gelman, A.
    (2008) Scaling regression inputs by dividing by two standard deviations. Statistics in Medicine, 27(15), 2865–2873. 10.1002/sim.3107
     https://doi.org/10.1002/sim.3107 [Google Scholar]
  32. Granger, S.
    (1996) From CA to CIA and back: An integrated approach to computerized bilingual and learner corpora. InK. Aijmer, B. Altenberg, & M. Johansson (Eds.), Languages in contrast: Text-based cross-linguistic studies (pp.37–51). Lund University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  33. (2015) Contrastive interlanguage analysis: A reappraisal. International Journal of Learner Corpus Research, 1(1), 7–24. 10.1075/ijlcr.1.1.01gra
     https://doi.org/10.1075/ijlcr.1.1.01gra [Google Scholar]
  34. Gries, S. T.
    (2005) Syntactic priming: A corpus-based approach. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 34(4), 365–399. 10.1007/s10936‑005‑6139‑3
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s10936-005-6139-3 [Google Scholar]
  35. (2015) The most under-used statistical method in corpus linguistics: Multi-level (and mixed-effects) models. Corpora, 10(1), 95–125. 10.3366/cor.2015.0068
     https://doi.org/10.3366/cor.2015.0068 [Google Scholar]
  36. (2016) Variationist analysis: Variability due to random effects and autocorrelation. InP. Baker & J. Egbert (Eds.), Triangulating methodological approaches in corpus linguistic research (pp.108–123). Routledge.
     [Google Scholar]
  37. (2021a) (Generalized linear) mixed-effects modeling: A learner corpus example. Language Learning, 71(3), 757–798. 10.1111/lang.12448
     https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12448 [Google Scholar]
  38. (2021b) Statistics for Linguistics with R: A practical introduction (Third ed.). Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110718256
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110718256 [Google Scholar]
  39. Gries, S. T., & Ellis, N. C.
    (2015) Statistical measures for usage-based linguistics. Language Learning, 65(S1), 228–255. 10.1111/lang.12119
     https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12119 [Google Scholar]
  40. Gries, S. T., & Stefanowitsch, A.
    (2004) Extending collostructional analysis: A corpus-based perspective on ‘alternations’. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 9(1), 97–129. 10.1075/ijcl.9.1.06gri
     https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.9.1.06gri [Google Scholar]
  41. Gries, S. T., & Wulff, S.
    (2013) The genitive alternation in Chinese and German ESL learners: Towards a multifactorial notion of context in learner corpus research. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 18(3), 327–356. 10.1075/ijcl.18.3.04gri
     https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.18.3.04gri [Google Scholar]
  42. (2021) Examining individual variation in learner production data: A few programmatic pointers for corpus-based analyses using the example of adverbial clause ordering. Applied Psycholinguistics, 42(2), 279–299. 10.1017/S014271642000048X
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S014271642000048X [Google Scholar]
  43. Gropen, J., Pinker, S., Hollander, M., Goldberg, R., & Wilson, R.
    (1989) The learnability and acquisition of the dative alternation in English. Language, 65(2), 203–257. 10.2307/415332
     https://doi.org/10.2307/415332 [Google Scholar]
  44. Gudmestad, A.
    (2012) Acquiring a variable structure: An interlanguage analysis of second-language mood use in Spanish. Language Learning, 62(2), 373–402. 10.1111/j.1467‑9922.2012.00696.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2012.00696.x [Google Scholar]
  45. Hawkins, J. A.
    (1994) A performance theory of order and constituency. Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511554285
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511554285 [Google Scholar]
  46. Hawkins, R.
    (1987) Markedness and the acquisition of the English dative alternation by L2 speakers. Second Language Research, 3(1), 20–55. 10.1177/026765838700300104
     https://doi.org/10.1177/026765838700300104 [Google Scholar]
  47. Inagaki, S.
    (1997) Japanese and Chinese learners’ acquisition of the narrow-range rules for the dative alternation in English. Language Learning, 47(4), 637–669. 10.1111/0023‑8333.00024
     https://doi.org/10.1111/0023-8333.00024 [Google Scholar]
  48. Jackendoff, R., & Culicover, P.
    (1971) A reconsideration of dative movements. Foundations of Language, 7(3), 397–412. https://www.jstor.org/stable/25000540
     [Google Scholar]
  49. Jäschke, K., & Plag, I.
    (2016) The dative alternation in German⁃English interlanguage. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 38(3), 485–521. 10.1017/S0272263115000261
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263115000261 [Google Scholar]
  50. Kilgarriff, A., Baisa, V., Bušta, J., Jakubíček, M., Kovář, V., Michelfeit, J., Rychlý, P., & Suchomel, V.
    (2014) The Sketch Engine: Ten years on. Lexicography, 1(1), 7–36. 10.1007/s40607‑014‑0009‑9
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s40607-014-0009-9 [Google Scholar]
  51. Labov, W.
    (1972) Sociolinguistic patterns. University of Pennsylvania Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  52. Li, Y., Szmrecsanyi, B., & Zhang, W.
    (2023) The theme-recipient alternation in Chinese: Tracking syntactic variation across seven centuries. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 19(2), 207–235. 10.1515/cllt‑2021‑0048
     https://doi.org/10.1515/cllt-2021-0048 [Google Scholar]
  53. Lu, X.
    (2010) Automatic analysis of syntactic complexity in second language writing. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 15(4), 474–496. 10.1075/ijcl.15.4.02lu
     https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.15.4.02lu [Google Scholar]
  54. (2011) A corpus-based evaluation of syntactic complexity measures as indices of college-level ESL writers’ language development. TESOL Quarterly, 45(1), 36–62. 10.5054/tq.2011.240859
     https://doi.org/10.5054/tq.2011.240859 [Google Scholar]
  55. Mazurkewich, I.
    (1984) The acquisition of the dative alternation by second language learners and linguistic theory. Language Learning, 34(1), 91–109. 10.1111/j.1467‑1770.1984.tb00997.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-1770.1984.tb00997.x [Google Scholar]
  56. McDonough, K.
    (2006) Interaction and syntactic priming: English L2 speakers’ production of dative constructions. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28(2), 179–207. 10.1017/S0272263106060098
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263106060098 [Google Scholar]
  57. Nam, C. F. H., Mukherjee, S., Schilk, M., & Mukherjee, J.
    (2013) Statistical analysis of varieties of English. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, 176(3), 777–793. https://www.jstor.org/stable/43965661. 10.1111/j.1467‑985X.2012.01062.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-985X.2012.01062.x [Google Scholar]
  58. Pinker, S.
    (1989) Learnability and cognition: The acquisition of argument structure. The MIT Press. 10.7551/mitpress/4158.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/4158.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  59. Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G., & Svartvik, J.
    (1985) A comprehensive grammar of the English language. Longman.
     [Google Scholar]
  60. R Core Team
    R Core Team (2024) R: A Language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Vienna, Austria. https://www.R-project.org/
     [Google Scholar]
  61. Robinson, P.
    (2001) Task complexity, cognitive resources, and syllabus design: A triadic framework for examining task influences on SLA. InP. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp.287–318). Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139524780.012
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139524780.012 [Google Scholar]
  62. Röthlisberger, M., Grafmiller, J., & Szmrecsanyi, B.
    (2017) Cognitive indigenization effects in the English dative alternation. Cognitive Linguistics, 28(4), 673–710. 10.1515/cog‑2016‑0051
     https://doi.org/10.1515/cog-2016-0051 [Google Scholar]
  63. Schilk, M., Mukherjee, J., Nam, C., & Mukherjee, S.
    (2013) Complementation of ditransitive verbs in South Asian Englishes: A multifactorial analysis. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 9(2), 187–225. 10.1515/cllt‑2013‑0001
     https://doi.org/10.1515/cllt-2013-0001 [Google Scholar]
  64. Schmidt, R.
    (2001) Attention. InP. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp.3–32). Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139524780.003
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139524780.003 [Google Scholar]
  65. Szmrecsanyi, B., & Engel, A.
    (2023) A variationist perspective on the comparative complexity of four registers at the intersection of mode and formality. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 19(1), 79–113. 10.1515/cllt‑2022‑0031
     https://doi.org/10.1515/cllt-2022-0031 [Google Scholar]
  66. Szmrecsanyi, B., Grafmiller, J., Heller, B., & Röthlisberger, M.
    (2016) Around the world in three alternations: Modeling syntactic variation in varieties of English. English World-Wide, 37(2), 109–137. 10.1075/eww.37.2.01szm
     https://doi.org/10.1075/eww.37.2.01szm [Google Scholar]
  67. 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. 10.1111/j.1467‑1770.1968.tb01312.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-1770.1968.tb01312.x [Google Scholar]
  68. Tarone, E.
    (1988) Variation in interlanguage. Edward Arnold.
     [Google Scholar]
  69. Verspoor, M., Lowie, W., & de-Bot, K.
    (2021) Variability as normal as apple pie. Linguistics Vanguard, 7(s2), 20200034. 10.1515/lingvan‑2020‑0034
     https://doi.org/10.1515/lingvan-2020-0034 [Google Scholar]
  70. Wasow, T., & Arnold, J.
    (2003) Post-verbal constituent ordering in English. InG. Rohdenburg & B. Mondorf (Eds.), Determinants of grammatical variation in English (pp.119–154). Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110900019.119
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110900019.119 [Google Scholar]
  71. Wen, Q., Liang, M., & Yan, X.
    (2008) The Spoken and Written English Corpus of Chinese Learners 2.0 (SWECCL 2.0). Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  72. Wickham, H.
    (2016) ggplot2: Elegant graphics for data analysis. Springer. 10.1007/978‑3‑319‑24277‑4
     https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-24277-4 [Google Scholar]
  73. Wolk, C., Wolfer, S., Baumann, P., Hemforth, B., & Konieczny, L.
    (2011) Acquiring English dative verbs: Proficiency effects in German L2 learners. InL. Carlson, C. Hölscher, & T. Shipley (Eds.), Proceedings of the 33rd annual conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp.2401–2406). Cognitive Science Society.
     [Google Scholar]
  74. Wulff, S., & Gries, S. T.
    (2019) Particle placement in learner language. Language Learning, 69(4), 873–910. 10.1111/lang.12354
     https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12354 [Google Scholar]
  75. Wulff, S., Lester, N., & Martinez-Garcia, M. T.
    (2014) That-variation in German and Spanish L2 English. Language and Cognition, 6(2), 271–299. 10.1017/langcog.2014.5
     https://doi.org/10.1017/langcog.2014.5 [Google Scholar]
  76. Xiang, K., & Chang, H.
    (2020) A multifactorial analysis of the processing of English dative alternations by advanced English L2 learners. Modern Foreign Languages, 43(2), 188–199.
     [Google Scholar]
  77. (2023) Multiple constraints on second language processing of English dative alternation. Language Learning and Development, 19(4), 437–457. 10.1080/15475441.2022.2149399
     https://doi.org/10.1080/15475441.2022.2149399 [Google Scholar]
  78. Xu, Q.
    (2016) Item-based foreign language learning of give ditransitive constructions: Evidence from corpus research. System, 631, 65–76. 10.1016/j.system.2016.08.008
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2016.08.008 [Google Scholar]
  79. Zeng, X., Shirai, Y., & Chen, X.
    (2023) A corpus-based study of the acquisition of the English progressive by L1 Chinese learners: from prototypical activities to marked statives. Linguistics, 61(3), 749–778. 10.1515/ling‑2020‑0199
     https://doi.org/10.1515/ling-2020-0199 [Google Scholar]
  80. Zhang, D., & Xu, J.
    (2023) Dative alternation in Chinese: A mixed-effects logistic regression analysis. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 28(4), 559–585. 10.1075/ijcl.21086.zha
     https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.21086.zha [Google Scholar]
  81. Zuur, A. F., Ieno, E. N., & Elphick, C. S.
    (2010) A protocol for data exploration to avoid commonstatistical problems. Methods in Ecology and Evolution, 1(1), 3–14. 10.1111/j.2041‑210X.2009.00001.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2041-210X.2009.00001.x [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1075/ijcl.23044.gan
Loading
Examining contextual constraints on the English dative alternation in L2 written production
International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 30, 265 (2025); https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.23044.gan
/content/journals/10.1075/ijcl.23044.gan
/content/journals/10.1075/ijcl.23044.gan
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): EFL learners; English dative alternation; multifactorial analysis; probabilistic grammar; syntactic variation

Most Cited

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error