A Linguistic Analysis of the Written Production of Second Language Learners : The Variation of Article Usage by Adult Chinese Learners of English

This study aims to test Robertson’s lexical transfer principle, which posits that Chinese learners use demonstratives (particularly this) and the numeral one as markers of definiteness and indefiniteness. This is tested by analysing Chinese learners’ written production collected from the Spoken and Written English Corpus of Chinese Learners 2.0 (SWECCL 2.0). The purpose is to understand the variation of article usage by adult Chinese learners of English. More specifically, the study examines to what extent articles, possessive and demonstrative pronouns are used in Chinese learners’ English and how definite and indefinite articles are used by the Chinese learners. Findings suggest that Robertson’s lexical transfer principle was corroborated by the present study. In addition, Chinese learners prefer to use demonstrative determiners, the possessive determiner our, and the numeral one to perform the function of marking definiteness and indefiniteness. In particular, the learners try to use the demonstrative determiners that and this in the anaphoric function instead of the definite article, and the demonstrative determiner those is frequently used in the cataphoric function. What is more, the learners use the numeral one as a marker of indefiniteness, and it is also used as a marker of definiteness in the anaphoric function. Further, the possessive determiner our is used as a marker of definiteness in larger situation uses referring to something unique. To this end, the study is able to show that the definite article is used to perform the function of marking indefiniteness, and in some particular contexts the definite article functions as a Chinese specifier in Chinese learners’ English. Also, the indefinite article is frequently used in quantifier phrases but is rarely used in other functions. There are three main reasons that may explain why Chinese learners use determiners variously. Firstly, the choice of determiners by Chinese learners is influenced by linguistic contexts. Secondly, because of learning strategies, Chinese learners try to ignore the anaphoric function and cataphoric function that they are not yet ready to process in article usage. Thirdly, interlanguage grammar influences the optionality in the use of articles. 

Ne videt, ne znat – det direkta objektets kasus vid två negerade ryska verb

This essay examines the case of the direct object in Russian sentences with the negated verbs не видеть and не знать. For each verb, 50 contexts were downloaded from the newspaper corpus of the Russian National Corpus and analysed with respect to the semantic properties of the direct object and the negated verb. The theories and concepts used for the analysis have been outlined in Padutjeva, 2006. The analysis of не видеть suggests that the main difference between the genitive and the ac-cusative case is to be found in the notion of non-existence or absence implicated by the verb’s semantics. In utterances with не видеть as a predicate, this notion is always present and is expressed by the genitive case. The speaker may also choose to ignore it by using the accusa-tive and thus emphasize some other aspect of the described situation. The examined properties of reference, definiteness and denotative status of the direct object seem to play a secondary role for how case is used. Their influence is to delimit the meaning of the objective genitive to either non-existence or absence. No similar conclusions could be drawn from the examination of не знать. The reason for this is that the concept of private sphere, used by Padutjeva to explain the use of objective geni-tive with this verb, could not be properly established during the analysis. Just as the notion of absence is crucial for the understanding of the objective genitive when it occurs with не видеть, the concept private sphere seems to be the key to understand it when it occurs with не знать.