i

THE ACQUISITION PROCESS OF CHINESE NEGATIVE COMPARISON CONSTRUCTIONS

BY L2 CHINESE LEARNERS

Mo Jialin

Beijing Foreign Studies University

Visting Scholar, University of Louisville

Abstracts: As a convincing way to evaluation, comparison is counted as one of the

most common and crucial mental operations of the human brain. The negative

comparison structures or constructions bear the function of revealing the ways by which

we compare the distinctions between two or among several entities or events in terms of

the qualities, the quantities, the natures, and the scopes. The Chinese negative

compassion constructions (CNCCs) are composed of the negators “bu” (不), “mei”（没）

and the comparative markers “bi”（比），“ji”（及）and “ru”（如）etc. Actually, the most

commonly used and prototypical CNCCs are those that carry the negative comparison

makers “buru”(不如) “meiyou”（没有） “buji”（不及） and“bubi”（不比）. Although

the studies on CNCCs have been conducted form the ontological diachronic and

typological perspective, the acquisition of the Chinese negative comparison structures

by the L2 Chinese learners is nearly an uncharted territory. However, the mastery of

CNCCs by the L2 Chinese learners is far form error-free.

Under the guidance of linguistic theories, like the natural order hypothesis,

information processing model, markedness theory and prototype theory, based on the

data collected from the questionnaires and analyzed by SPSS, the author categorized

and accounted for the errors in the use of CNCCs made by the foreign students in China.

By doing so, the acquisition sequence of CNCCs was sorted out, and the acquisition

process of this construction was unfolded in a scientific and systematic way.

More specifically, the subsequent research questions have been investigated

systematically:

(1) Is there any significant difference between the frequencies of the four CNCCs in

native speakers’ utterances and those in L2 Chinese learners’ expressions? Whether L2

Chinese learners on different Chinese proficiencies follow the same frequency sequence

ii

in the acquisition process of CNCCs?

(2) Is there a positive correlation between the L2 Chinese proficiencies and their

acquisition of CNCCs?

(3) Are there any inevitable factors that affect the acquisition of CNCCs? If the

answer is positive, what are they? In the acquisition process of CNCCs, what linguistic

explanations can be used to account for the errors in the L2 Chinese learners’

interlanguage?

By answering the research questions, conclusions are therefore summarized as

follows:

First and foremost, no significant distinction exists between the frequencies of the

four CNCCs in the native speakers’ utterances and those in non-native speakers’

expressions. Instead, the consistency of these frequencies emerges in the Chinese native

speakers’ utterances (“meiyou” > “buru” > “buji”) and the output of the L2 Chinese

learners (“meiyou” > “buru” > “buji”).

Secondly, a positive correlation exists between the foreign students’ Chinese

proficiencies and their acquisition of CNCCs .The L2 Chinese learners with higher

Chinese proficiency will acquire the Chinese negative comparison constructions better.

Thirdly, some inevitable factors that affect the acquisition of the Chinese negative

comparison constructions, like markedness characteristics of the linguistic items,

lexicon chunk and the prototype of the cognitive categories, were investigated and

explained on the bases of the linguistic theories concerned.

Finally, on the foundation of the current study, some suggestions are given to the

instructors of Teaching Chinese as a Foreign Language in China. In teaching CNCCs,

the optimal sequence of instruction would better be in the “meiyou” > “buru” > “buji” >

“bubi” pattern. Besides, the suitable stage or due time and proper intensity of instruction

are recommended to be taken into considerations in classroom teaching.

Keywords: Teaching Chinese as a Foreign Language, Chinese negative

comparison constructions, sequence of frequency, linguistic theories

iii

外国留学生汉语否定差比句的习得研究

莫嘉琳

摘要：“比较”被认为是人类最为普遍与至关重要的心理运算方式之一。在人

类语言中，“否定比较结构”承担着比较多方差异的表意与交际功能。汉语否定差

比标记主要由否定副词“不”、“没” 与比较标记“比”、“及”、“如”构成。最常

用的汉语否定差比结构（CNCCs），亦即“不如”、“没有”、“不及”“不比”等否

定比较句，也正是外国留学生汉语习得的难点和重点之一。国内学界对于汉语否

定差比结构的研究多从本体的、历时的、类型学的视角出发，在语言学理论尤其

是二语习得理论框架下进行的汉语否定差比句习得研究尚未真正展开。

本研究旨在观察汉语否定差比结构“不如”、“没有”、“不及”“不比”的使用

频率，推断其习得顺序，借助对留学生中介语中的错误进行描写、分类、解释，

总结出影响汉语否定差比结构正确习得的因素并对该习得过程中的规律性现象展

开了系统的理论阐释。

研究工作在西安外国语学院汉学院三个留学生混合班以及陕西师范大学国际

汉学院越南留学生班中进行。依据自然分班情况及留学生汉语水平考试（HSK）

的成绩，研究者将参与调查的国外留学生分为四个水平递增的小组展开研究。问

卷调查包括个人信息和汉语否定差比结构知识测试两部分，被试按要求在课堂 30

分钟内完成问卷。

陕西师范大学文学院二年级中文基地班亦参加了汉语否定差比结构的测试。

测试结果代表了以中文为母语者对此结构的使用情况，并与留学生对汉语否定差

比句的习得情况相对照。

此外，研究者统计了知识测试部分中四类汉语否定差比结构出现的频率，参

照统一评分标准将留学生对该结构的掌握情况量化，并将该变量输入 SPSS 统计软

件进行了分析。

研究结果表明：

汉语母语与留学生中介语中对四类汉语否定差比句的使用频率并不存在显著

性差异。相反，四类结构的使用频率顺序在目的语和中介语两个系统中相吻合，

符合二语习得中的频率效应。四个小组中汉语水平不同母语背景各异的留学生对

汉语否定差比结构的使用频率均遵循“没有>不比>不如 >不及的顺序，验证了自

iv

然顺序假说。

被试的汉语水平被证实与被试对汉语否定差比结构的掌握呈显著的正相关，水

平越高的被试，其对否定比较结构的习得越好。

留学生对汉语否定差比结构的习得受到诸如语言标记性程度，词汇模块、范畴

原型等因素的影响与制约。遵循标记性理论，原型理论，积极发挥词汇模块的功

能有助于催化汉语差比否定结构的习得。

最后，笔者以国外留学生对汉语否定差比结构的习得研究为基础，为该结构的

对外汉语教学提出了建议，以资一线教学工作者借鉴。

首先，在国外留学生中出现了不比结构的泛化，因此在对外汉语教材的编写及

教学过程中，肯定比较句（比字句）的否定结构应处理为“没有”而非“不比”。

这样更吻合中文表达汉语否定差比结构的频率规律及本族人的使用习惯。四个否

定差比结构的引入及教学顺序建议为“没有” > “不如” > “不及” > “不比”。

其次，对特定语言项目的习得需要相应的知识储备与铺垫。如对否定差比句的

习得只能在肯定比较结构习得的基础上进行。根据可教性假说，只有通过自然习

得能掌握的语言项目才可以用来进行课堂教授并加速习得进程。亦即，只有当习

得者的中介语系统自身趋向于习得某一具体语言项目时，该语言项目才能通过指

导习得。因此，对外汉语教学应遵循可教性假设，选择好课堂指导时间。

最后，从教学指导的时间和强度来看，非标记性的，典型的语言项目应该先行

指导、适度讲解。标记性的、非典型的、不易掌握的语言项目宜后讲授，指导强

度应有所加大以降低语言项目难度带来的习得困难。

关键词：对外汉语教学 汉语否定差比结构 频率顺序 语言理论

v

Table of Contents

Chapter 1 Introduction…………………………………………………1

1.1 A Brief Introduction to the Comparison Constructions …………….1 1.2 A Brief Introduction to NCCs in English ……………………….3 1.3 Introduction to NCCs in Chinese……………………………………4

1.3.1 Introduction to “meiyou”-Construction……………………………… 4

1.3.2 Introduction to “buru” & “buji”–Construction … … … … … … … … … 6

1.3.3 Introduction to “bubi”-Construction…………………………………..7

1.4 The Goal of the Present Study……………………………………...8 1.5 The Organization of this Thesis …………………………………....8

Chapter 2 Literature Review …………………………………………9

2.1 Investigations: a Synchronic and Ontological Perspective………..…9 2.2 Investigations: a Diachronic Perspective .………………………11 2.3 Investigations: a Typological Perspective………………………...12

Chapter 3 Methodology ………………………………………………..14

3.1 Research Questions……………………………………………….14 3.2 Methods……………………………………………………………..14

3.2.1 Site……………………………………………………………....14

3.2.2 Subjects………………………………………………………....15

3.2.3 Instruments and Tasks……………………………………...……16

3.2.4 Data Collecting…………………………………………………17

3.2.5 Data Analyzing… … … … … … … … … … …… … … … … … … 1 7

Chapter 4 Results and Discussion……………………...……………18

4.1 Research Question One …................................................................18 4.1.1 Results of the Research Question One………………………………18

4.1.2 Discussion………………………………………………………19

4.2 Research Question Two…………………………………….……22 4.2.1 Results of Research Question Two ………………………………22

4.2.2 Discussion ……………………………………………………..…23

4.3. Research Question Three………………………………………....…24 4.3.1 The Error Analysis of CNCCs…………………………………....…24

4.3.1.1 The Errors and Their Types in Four Groups………………………..…25

4.3.1.2 The Frequencies of Errors and Their Type in Four Groups……………….27

4.3.2 Factors Affecting the CNCCs…………………..………………..….28

4.3.2.1 Marked Item and Unmarked Item. ……………..………………...28

4.3.2.2 The Role of Chunk in the Acquisition of CNCCs …………..……...29

4.3.2.3 The Role of Prototype in the Acquisition of CNCCs……………..…....30

Chapter 5 Conclusion………………………….…………………….....32

5.1 Major Findings ………………………….…………………….....32 5.2 Implications Based on This Study………….…………………….....34

5.2.1 The Methodological Implications ……………………………...34

5.2.2 The Pedagogical Implications…………….………………………...35

5.2.2.1 Pedagogical Implication One…………….………………………...35

5.2.2.2 Pedagogical Implication Two………….………………………...36

5.2.2.3 Pedagogical Implication Three…………….…………………….....36

5.3 Limitations…………….…………………………….…………….....37

Bibliography …………….…………………………….…………….....39 Appendix I: Questionnaire…………….…………........…………….....44 Appendix II: Abbreviations: ………………………..............……...48

Papers Published：……………………………..........................……49

1

Chapter 1 Introduction

Comparison, a convincing way to evaluation, is counted as one of the most

common and crucial mental operations of the human brain. The negative comparison

structures or constructions bear the functions of revealing the way by which we

compare the distinctions between two or among more entities or events in terms of the

qualities, the quantities, the natures and the scopes. The endeavor in the analysis of

acquisition process of the Chinese negative comparison constructions (CNCCs) is

supportive for investigating how the foreign students, the learner of Chinese as the

second language, acquire the constructions after various errors being made.

To pave the path for the research on the acquisition process of CNCCs,

introductions to the following relevant issues should be given the priority: (1) the

definition and classification of the comparative constructions and the negative

comparison constructions (2) the negative comparison constructions in English (3) the

negative comparison structures in Chinese.

1.1 A brief introduction to the comparison constructions

A comparative sentence is a sentence that expresses a relation based on similarities

or differences of more than one entity that can be a person, a product, an action, etc.

(Nitin, 2006a). In a comparative sentence, each object has a set of features, which are

used to compare objects.

A comparison can be made between two or among more objects, groups of objects,

between one object and the rest of the objects. It can also be made between an object

and its previous or future versions.

Lerner& Pinkal (1992) defines comparatives as universal quantifiers over degrees.

For instance, in the comparative sentence “John is stronger than Tom”, the degree is the

height of Tom, and John is above the degree.

Doran et all (1994) classified two broad types of comparatives:

(1) Metalinguistic Comparatives: Those that compare the extent to which an entity

has one property to a greater or lesser extent than another property. For example,

“Ronald is angrier than upset.”

(2) Propositional Comparatives: Those that make a comparison between two

2

propositions. This category has three subcategories:

i. Nominal Comparatives: They compare the cardinality of two sets of entities

denoted by nominal phrases, e.g.: “Paul ate more grapes than bananas”

ii. Adjectival Comparatives: They usually contain words that end with –er,

more, less, etc. occurring with the conjugate (than) and equative as (ex: as good as). e.g.:

“Ford is cheaper than Volvo.”

iii. Adverbial Comparatives: They are similar to nominal and adjectival ones

except that they generally occur after a verb phrase. E.g.: “Tom ate more quickly than

Jane.”

Then there are superlatives which are a form of adjectives or adverbs that express

the highest or a very high degree of quality of what is being described.①

Based on its use in reality and its semantic representation, the comparative

constructions can be categorized into four types (Nitin, 2006b). The first three of which

are gradable comparatives and the fourth one is non-gradable comparative.

The gradable types are defined on the basis of the relationships of greater or less

than, equal to other or the others.

(1) Non-Equal Gradable: Relations of the type greater or less than that express an

ordering of some objects with regard to certain features.

(2) Equative: Relations of the type equal to that state two objects as equal with

respect to some features.

(3) Superlative: Relations of the type greater or less than all others that rank one

object over all others.

(4) Non-Gradable: Sentences which compare features of two or more objects, but

do not grade them. Sentences which imply:

i. Object A is similar to or different from Object B with regard to some

features.

ii. Object A has feature F1, Object B has feature F2 (F1 and F2 are usually

substitutable).

iii. Object A has feature F3 but object B does not have F3.

In English, a comparative sentence will carry the optional comparative marker, like

“than”, “as” etc. In this sense, comparative constructions might be classified into two

groups: one is of explicit class, which carries the comparative marker; the other class is ① The superlative constructions won’t be the object or focus of the present study, for the sack of time and space.

3

of implicit comparative constructions without comparative markers. The comparative

meanings are realized by the semantic inferences or pragmatic devices. For example, the

English sentence “I’m more beautiful and nicer than Mary, but she got more acceptance

than me in election which is unfair.” is an explicit one for the occurrences of

comparative marker “than”. In the utterance like “He got the 4 points in the job

interview, but mine is 5, so how do you like to judge our performance?”, the

comparative meaning is conveyed by the speaker through the semantic or logic

inference, and the fact that “my performance is better than his” is revealed implicitly.

The author fixes the scope and focus of the research by cutting the line between the

implicit comparative constructions and the explicit ones. The thesis only studies explicit

comparative constructions as the research object. In fact, the explicit ones are more

representative and prototypical for they are used more commonly than the implicit ones.

1.2 A brief introduction to NCCs in English

The negative comparison constructions express the comparison in a negative

perspective.

In a semantic view, the negative perspective means that the quantity, quality or

scale of one (group of) entity is inferior to that of the other (group of) entity or entities

on a certain dimension where the comparison is unfolded. In daily communications, the

negative comparison constructions are generally used to describe the distinctions and

uneven states of the entities.

In a formal view, negative comparison constructions are composed of the negative

markers (no, not, litter) and the comparative markers (than, as).

The negative comparison sentences in English are usually constituted out of the

following constructions:

no more …than, not … any more than, no less … than, not …any less … than etc.

For example:

(1) The job is no better than a common laborer’s.

(2) One who fails to control English sociolinguistic variables does not know

English any more than one who fails to know the grammar and words.

(3) The issue will be no less important than they are today.

What is noteworthy here is the fact that the meaning carried by the negative

4

comparison sentence is not necessarily negative. For instance, in the sentence “the

situation is not worse than we expected”, the form is negative for the appearance of the

negative word “not”, while the meaning is not negative for the combination of the

negative marker and the negative adjective cancels the negative implication and turns it

into a positive one.

1.3 Introduction to NCCs in Chinese

The negative comparison constructions in Chinese are also composed of the

negators “bu”, “mei” and the comparative markers “bi” “ji” “ru” etc. The most

prototypical and commonly used CNCCs are those carry the negative comparison

makers “buru” “meiyou” “buji” and “bubi”.

The first three negative comparison markers are generally used to unfold the

inferior relationship between the entities.

To get a closer observation to these items, we can check them one by one.

1.3.1 Introduction to “meiyou”-construction

Basically, “meiyou”-construction ② can be categorized into the subsequent

patterns③:

(1) A + meiyou + B + adjective

Ta meiyou wo congming

他 没有 我 聪明

He is not, than me (more) clever

comparee negative

comparison marker

reference point parameter

(2) A + meiyou + B + verb + de + adverb

Qi che meiyou huoche Pao de Kuai

汽车 没有 火车 跑 得 快

② The sentence which expresses comparison by the negative comparison maker “meiyou” is called “meiyou”-construction. ③ The criterion used for categorizing the patterns of “meiyou”-construction is fixed according to the frequency of each “meiyou”-construction pattern in authentic Chinese. Actually, most of “meiyou”-construction is realized as the three patterns in Mandarin Corpus of State Language Commission.

5

The car no, than the train runs faster

comparee negative

comparison marker

reference

point

parameter

(3) A + verb + de + meiyou + B + adverb

Qi che pao de meiyou huoche Kuai

汽车 跑 得 没有 火车 快

The car runs no, than the train faster

comparee negative comparison

marker

reference

point

parameter

In these tables ④ , some terms need to be explained for the sake of better

interpretation and understanding.

Comparee, the comparative subject, symbolized by A, is the cognitive focus of the

proposition. The comparison between A and B in the dimension of a concrete parameter

aims to reveal some attributes or characteristics of A. The comparee is usually a noun, a

pronoun or a noun phrase.

B is the reference point of the comparison. Based on the attributes or features of B,

the comparee is more accessible to understanding. To some extent, B functions as a

standard or criterion by which the characteristics of the comparee are described,

measured or evaluated.

Parameter, a value set in the concrete context, is the comparative value of the

proposition. For action of running, the parameter should be “fast” or “slow” in the

dimension of the speed. As for the comparison of performance in exam, the parameter

can be “high” or “low” in the dimension of scoring. When the judgment on the physical

appearance of women is taken into consideration, the parameter might be “beautiful” or

“graceful” in the dimension of looking.

In “meiyou”-constrcution, the parameter tends to be positive or unmarked. For

instance, the sentence “wo meiyou ni tiao de gao” (I can’t jump higher than you do) is

④ In his interpretation of the clause as representation, the ergativity by Halliday (2000) sheds lights on the way of demonstrating the Chinese negative comparison sentences in this thesis.

6

acceptable while the opposite proposition “ wo meiyou ni tiao de di”( I can’t jump

lower than you do) is grammatically correct but semantically and pragmatically

unacceptable. The reason is rooted in the presupposition of the two sentences, and the

theory of markedness is also available to account for this phenomenon. For the sake of

space, the author does not want to dive into this issue deeply here. In the part of

literature review, more supporting explanations will be found (see 2.1).

Besides, the information in the tables shows that the order of the comparative

components, like comparee, negative comparison marker, and parameter, is different

both in Chinese and English.⑤ Incidentally, this difference of comparative constructions

in distinctive languages has been investigated systematically by Greenberg (1966) in

typological perspective.

1.3.2 Introduction to “buru” & “buji”–construction

Some of the most pervasive “buru” constrictions in Chinese are demonstrated as

follows:

(1)A + “buru” + B + adjective

(2)A + “buru” + B + verb + de + adverb

(3)A + verb + de + “buru” + B + adverb

(4)A + “buru” + B

The first three types are similar to the three coordinate comparative constructions

marked by “meiyou” which have been discussed previously. So the fourth type of

“buru”-construction will be unfolded with corresponding examples:

Susan de hanyu

shuiping

buru John. omitted

parameter

Susan 的 汉语水平 不如 John. omitted parameter

Susan ’s Chinese

proficiency

is not , than John’s better

comparee negative comparison

marker

reference

point

parameter

⑤ For example, in English, we normally say “Tom is stronger than John” which follows the “comparee(Tom)- parameter (stronger) –comparative marker (than) —reference point (John)” pattern. However, in Chinese, the elements in CNCCs obey the “comparee-comparative marker-reference point-parameter” sequence. Generally, the utterance “Tom bi John qiangzhuang” is likely to be found in authentic Chinese.

7

From the table, a noteworthy linguistic phenomenon in “buru”-construction is

unfolded that the comparative parameter is optional. The comparative value can be

omitted in Chinese but not in English, which is another difference between the negative

comparisons in the two languages.

The “buji”-construction bears a close relation with “buru”-construciton, and in most

case or under normal circumstances, they can be used interchangeably.

1.3.3 Introduction to “bubi”-construction

The understanding of “bubi”-constrcution is more controversial and complicated

than the other three constructions. Generally, the “bubi”-constrcution has two

possibilities for interpretation. It can be clearly manifested in the following two

examples:

Wo shuxue chengji bubi ni Gao

我 数学 成绩 不比 你的 高.

My math score is no

than

yours higher

comparee Negative

comparison

maker

reference

point

parameter

In this interpretation, “bubi” means “to be no higher than” which can be

symbolized as the mark “<”.

Wo shuxue chengji bubi ni Gao

我 数学 成绩 不比 你 高.

My math score is ,to yours equal

comparee negative

comparison

maker

reference

point

parameter

In the re-reading, “bubi” means “to be equal to”, symbolized as the mark “=”.

Therefore, the understanding of the “bubi”-sentence should be developed on the

8

basis of the contexts or concrete situations which functions as the filter narrowing the

interpretations into an appropriate one. ⑥

1.4 The goal of the present study

Under the guidance of linguistic theories concerned and especially the relative SLA

models, based on the data collected from the questionnaires, the author intends to

collect, categorize, analyze and account for the errors made by the foreign students in

their utterance containing CNCCs. By doing so, the frequency sequence in the

acquisition process of CNCCs can be sorted out, and the acquisition process of this

construction can be expected to be revealed. More specifically, the revealed phenomena

or regularities in the acquisition process of CNCCs will be supportive for the

instructions conducted in the classroom of Teaching Chinese as a Foreign Language.

1.5 The organization of this thesis

The present thesis is composed of five parts. Chapter One elaborates some related

technical terms like the comparison construction and CNCCs, sorts out the use of

Chinese comparative constructions, and reveals the focus of research which the author

will dive into. Chapter Two demonstrates the pertaining researches already done by

other projects and researches, so that the repeated and unnecessary laboring can be

saved up. Chapter Three unfolds the research questions, methodologies and some details

in the procedure of data collecting and analyzing in the thesis. On the basis of the

previous chapters, Chapter Four draws some regularities and findings out of the

phenomena in the acquisition process. Further, the significance of these findings will be

discussed. Chapter Five summarizes the attainments in the whole research and reveals

the methodological limitations. Some suggestions for further research are also expected

to be drawn.

⑥ The use of “bubi” construction is still an arguable or controversial issue among the Chinese grammarians. The interpretation of the use of “bubi”-construction here follows the opinion held by Liu Yuehua (2002).

9

Chapter 2 Literature review

The study of the Chinese negative comparative construction of “bubi” “buru’’

“buji” “meiyou” at home and abroad has attracted the linguists’ attention in diversifying

ways. Basically, these researches are primarily approached from the following three

aspects:

2.1. Investigations: a synchronic and ontological perspective

First and foremost, CNCCs have been studied from a synchronic and ontological

perspective. The attempts of these researches are to reveal the constitution and the

nature of the negative comparison sentences. And by doing so, the distinctions among

“bubi” “buru’’ “buji” and “meiyou” can be clarified, and the use of the negative

construction might be described in accordance with the criterion of the grammatical

correction and pragmatically appropriateness.

Lü Shuxiang(1980) distinguishes the use of “bubi” and “meiyou” by the

manifestation of the two supporting sentences.

(1) “他不比我高”。

Ta bubi wo gao

他 不比 我 高

He is equal to me in height

comparee negative

comparison marker

reference point parameter

(2) “他没有我高”。

Ta meiyou wo gao

他 没有 我 高

He is not, than me tall(er)

comparee negative

comparison marker

reference point parameter

10

In Lü’s view, the implication of sentence (1) is presumably “we are equal in terms

of height”, while sentence (2) implies the meaning of “he is shorter than me”. He argues

“bubi” is related with the mark “=”, while the verb “meiyou” functions as the symbol

“<”.

But Liu Yuehua (2002) accounts for the “bubi”-structure in a different way. He

holds that the structure of “A+ bubi+ B” bears two possibilities of interpretation .One

possibility is that A is superior to B, and the other case is that A is equal to B(see 1.3.3).

The discussion of the “bubi”-sentence and “meyou”-sentence in Xiang

Yuanmao(1992)’s paper is also insightful. He proposes that both of the structures are the

negative forms of the comparison construction but they differ in the meaning, function

and collocation.

Zhao Jinming (2001) categorizes the comparative system into four sub-categories,

and he argues that the structure “A+ meiyou +B+ na’me” ,as the negative form of “A+

you +na’me +B ”structure , denotes the relation that A is inferior to B. However, the

structure “A +bubi+ B”, the negative form of “A+ bi + B” refers to the case that A is

either equal to B or inferior to B. Obviously, Zhao’s argument about the use of “bubi” is

in the line with Liu Yuehua’s idea.

According to Xiang Yuanmao (1992) and Xu Yanqing (1997), the comparative

verb “bubi” can be accompanied by a marked adjective or adverb (derogative and

negative adjective or adverb) while the “meiyou” is often followed by an unmarked

adjective or adverb (commendatory or positive adjective or adverb). To get a closer

examination, the subsequent two sentences should be checked:

(3) 我国综合实力不比印度差。

Woguo de zonghe

shili

bubi Yindu cha

我国综合实力 不比 印度 差

The integrated

strength of China

is not, than Indian’s weaker

comparee negative

comparison marker

reference point parameter

11

(4) 我国综合实力没有印度差。

Woguo de zonghe

shili

meiyou Yindu cha

我国综合实力 没有 印度 差

The integrated

strength of China

is not, than Indian’s weaker

comparee negative

comparison marker

reference point parameter

In surface level, the two sentences are semantically and logically similar. But, the

sentence (3) is acceptable while the sentence (4) questionable. The reason lies in the

different presupposition of the two propositions. The presupposition of the former is the

expectation that the integrated competence of china should be equal to or exceed

Indian’s. Such an expectation is normal. While for the latter, the presupposition is the

unreasonable anticipation that China falls behind India in term of the integrated

strength.

Compared with the “bubi” and “meiyou”-structure, the use and mastery of the

“buru” and “buji”-construction is not so controversial and complicated , the agreement

has been attained that both the “buru” and “buji” symbolize an inferior relation. In most

cases, they can be used interchangeably.

2.2. Investigations: a diachronic perspective

The second type of investigations of the negative comparison structure was

developed in the diachronic dimension.

By collecting the data in the classical Chinese novels, such as A Dream of Red

Mansions, The Romance of the Three Kingdoms, Journey to the West, Water Margin etc,

Zhang Cheng (2004) offeres the proposal that in the Ming Dynasty there were two types

of comparative construction characterized by different word order: the bi-construction

and ru(si)-construction. From the Ming Dynasty to the Qing Dynasty, the function of the

bi-construction gradually expanded until it eventually became dominant in the northern

Chinese dialects, while in the south the diffusion of the bi-construction shows a

somewhat different process. Although the focus of this paper is to uncover the diffusive

12

tendency of the bi-construction and ru (si)-construction from the Ming Dynasty to the

Qing Dynasty, the discussion of CNCCs are also involved. He holds the phenomenon

that the negative construction appears in a very low frequency in the literature works of

Ming and Qing Dynasty. In Journey to the West, Water Margin, Jin Ping Mei three

works, only four sentences denoting the negative comparison can be found. Generally,

“buru” was used more often than “bubi” in classics of Ming and Qing dynasty.

Zhao Jinming (2002a) studied the evolvement of the bi-structures on the basis of

dialects in China. He has discovered that in the northern Chinese dialects, the

comparative structure expressions are closer to those of mandarin Chinese, but the

comparative structures in the south dialects are similar to the ancient Chinese.

2.3 Investigations: a typological perspective

The third approach in comparative constructions studies is unfolded in the

typology dimension. The comparative construction offer a perspective for the researcher

to reveal something regarding with the language universals. According to Greenberg

(1966), the comparison construction serves as a criterion for categorizing the languages

into different types. After the investigation being developed on the basis of analyzing

more than 30 kinds of languages, a language universal rule is drawn. Such a universal

rule maintained that if the order of the comparison construction in a certain language

follows the “reference point – comparative marker—adjective” sequence, this language

belongs to the “OV” type language in which the occurrence of the object is before the

appearance of the verb. If the order of the comparison construction in a certain language

follows the “adjective –comparative marker —reference point” sequence, this language

belongs to the “VO” type language in which the occurrence of the object is after the

appearance of the verb.

For example, in English, we normally say “Tom is stronger than John” which

follows the pattern of “adjective (stronger) –comparative marker (than) —reference

point (John)”, so the English as a language belongs to the “VO”-type language. In

English, it is the case that the verb goes first than the object, so we say “I love you”

instead of “Je t’aime (I you love)”

Based on the statistics collection of 625 languages, Dryer (1992) advocates that the

“OV” type-language adopts the “reference point---adjective” order in comparison

structure, while the “VO”-type language will chose the “adjective---reference point”

13

pattern in comparison construction. However, all grammar leaks. Dryer finds that the

situation in Chinese can be counted as an exception. Chinese is the “VO”-type language

but adopts the “reference point- adjective” (WO bi ni gao) structure in comparison

sentence.

Zhao Jinming (2006) from the perspective of linguistic typology investigates the

significance of the errors which were committed by L2 Chinese learners in Chinese

comparative sentences .The errors are analyzed form the distances between the

comparative constructions in the target language, Chinese, and those in the first

language of the learners.

Among all the endeavors in the ontological, diachronic and typological aspects, the

investigations of CNCCs are primarily focused on the nature of the negative

comparative system itself, on the distinctions between the different structures in this

system, on the use of these negative comparative sentences for the native speakers, on

the historical evolvements of the comparative constructions and on the typological

universals revealed by negative comparison constructions.

All in all, in this chapter, the author has demonstrated the relative researches

already done by the linguists in and abroad. As the study of the negative comparison

constructions overseas is not so blooming and the investigation in CNCCs is a

considerably demanding task for the foreign researchers, the literature overseas is quite

limited. In China, the SLA theories fail to find a pervasive echo in the academic field of

Teaching Chinese as a Foreign Language, which prevents the researches in the CNCCs

from being developed under the guidance of the SLA theories and being studied on the

shoulder of the achievements attained in the domain of SLA abroad. The acquisition of

the Chinese negative comparison structures by the L2 Chinese learners is nearly an

uncultivated land. However, the mastery of CNCCs by the L2 Chinese learners is far

form error-free. So under the guidance of SLA theories and other linguistic models,

based on the data collected from the questionnaires, the author aims to collect,

categorize, and account for the errors made by the foreign students in the use of CNCCs.

By doing so, the acquisition sequence of CNCCs can be sorted out, and the acquisition

process of this construction can be expected to be established.

14

Chapter 3 Methodology

This chapter consists of two components: the research questions and the method in

which the research is conducted. In the part of method, the four subcomponents, like

subjects, instruments, data-collecting and data-analysis are elaborated.

3.1 Research questions

The present study aims to investigate L2 Chinese learners’ acquisition process of

CNCCs, more specifically, to clarify the factors exerting influences on such an

acquisition process, to figure out the frequency of the occurrences of the “bubi” “buru”

meiyou” and “buji” constructions in the foreign students’ interlanguage, and compare

these frequencies with those of the Chinese native speakers’ expressions. Besides, the

relations between the foreign students’ Chinese proficiency and their performances on

CNCCs will also be taken into considerations in the course of the research-conducting.

(1) Is there any significant difference between the frequencies of the four CNCCs

in native speakers’ utterances and those in L2 Chinese learners’ expressions? Whether

L2 Chinese learners on different Chinese proficiency follow the same frequency

sequence in the acquisition process of CNCCs?

(2) Is there a positive correlation between the L2 Chinese proficiencies and their

acquisition of CNCCs?

(3) Are there any inevitable factors that affect the acquisition of CNCCs? If the

answer is positive, what are they? In the acquisition process of CNCCs, what linguistic

explanations can be made to account for the errors in the L2 Chinese learners’

interlanguage?

3.2 Methods

In the elaboration of the methods of the study, the subjects, instruments, the means

by which the data are collected and the procedures of data-analysis will be clarified in

an explicit, transparent and sufficiently detailed way.

3.2.1 Site

The study was conducted in the spring of 2007 in the School of Chinese Studies of

Xi’an International Studies University, the International Institute of Chinese Study and

15

the Chinese School in Shaanxi Normal University

3.2.2 Subjects

The foreign subjects of the questionnaire of CNCCs are grouped into four categories.

The first one consisted of 20 foreign students with different first language background

in Class Five, the School of Chinese Studies of Xi’an International Studies University.

Some of them had passed the 3 or 4 grades in the HSK⑦ (Primary Proficiency) test. The

second group, Class Six in the same institute, included 13 foreign students with

different nationalities, some of whom had passed the 4 or 5 grades in the HSK (Primary

Proficiency) test. The third mixed team in the same institute was composed of the

foreign students in Class Seven with 8 members and Class eight with 6 students.

Considering the case that there was no significant difference in their Chinese

proficiency and that the sizes of the two classes are quite small, they were investigated

as an integrated team. Some students in this team had passed the 6,7or 8 grades in the

HSK (intermediate Proficiency) test. The fourth group with 17 testees was the Vietnam

class in the International Institute of Chinese Study in Shaanxi Normal University.

Some of these participants were the successors in the 7or 8 grades test of HSK

(intermediate Proficiency). In the Chinese Department of a certain Vietnam university,

they had majored Chinese for two years. Till the time of questionnaire-conducting, they

had experienced 6 months Chinese-training program in China and should be viewed as

the considerably advanced learners. In brief, the arrangement of group one to group four

was ordered in an ascending sequence in terms of the foreign students’ Chinese

proficiencies identified by the learners’ performances in the HSK test and their attained

scores in the examinations at the end of the latest term.

The Chinese participants of the questionnaire of CNCCs were 30 students in the

Chinese School in Shaanxi Normal University. All the participants were sophomore and

in the same class. In order to get a qualified data, the participants were required to finish

all the three tasks (see Appendix I ) on CNCCs by their language intuition, so that the ⑦ HSK is the officially standard Chinese proficiency test for the learners acquiring Chinese as the second language. It consists of three (fundamental, primary and intermediate, advanced) levels. The fundamental level is made up with degree 1, degree 2 and degree 3. The learners on this level are required master 400-3000 vocabularies and the correspondent grammar points. The primary and intermediate levels include 8 degrees in which degree 1 to 5 are counted as the primary level, and the 6 to 8 are viewed as the intermediate level. The learners on the primary and intermediate are demanded to pick up 2000-5000 vocabularies and corresponding grammar points. The advanced level is classified into 3 degrees, degree 9 to 11, on which the learners are required to acquire 5000-8000 vocabularies and the relative grammar points. In this thesis all the participants of the test are the learner on the primary and intermediate level as the fundamental learners are totally ignorant in CNCCs and the advanced learners are not available in the Chinese training program which conducted in the universities.

16

judgments could be given at the first sight without more introspection.

3.2.3 Instruments and tasks

Two instruments have been engaged in the study. The first one is the Mandarin

Corpus of State Language Commission established by the Institute of Applied

Linguistic Ministry of Education. The collected authentic data (more than 50 million

characters) in this corpus cover more than 40 subcategories in Science of human,

Science of Nature and General category and were tagged in a scientific and

well-organized way. The nature Chinese linguistic data in CNCCs in the corpus serve as

the basis and solid foundation for the questionnaire designed.

The second instrument contributed to this research is the questionnaire designed by

the author based on the data collected form the corpus, the Chinese grammar manual

and the previous achievements attained by other researchers in the field of Teaching

Chinese as a Second Language. In the course of questionnaire-designing, the foreign

students’ Chinese proficiency, the difficulty, the discrimination, the validity and the

reliability of each test item are taken into consideration. Six revised and refined versions

have contributed to bring the questionnaire into a more reliable and applicable

appearance.

The questionnaire (see Appendix I) is divided into two parts, the background

information of the subjects and the three tasks designed to test the mastery of CNCCs

by the four groups of foreign students.

By completing task One, the subjects in each group are expected to make five

sentences based on some given propositions and the suitable one out of the four

negative comparison markers “buru”, “bubi”, “meiyou” and “buji” is required to occur

in the sentence. Each marker can be either chosen repeatedly or ignored in their

sentences according to the judgment and preference of the testee. The only criterion for

the task of making sentences is to ensure the created sentence grammatically correct and

pragmatically acceptable.

Task Two is blanks-filling. The subjects are demanded to fill the blanks in 15

uncompleted sentences by choosing an appropriate one out of the four negative

comparison markers in each sentence and thus the correctness of the sentence will be

justified.

Task Three is designed in a true-or-false judgment form. 15 negative comparison

sentences are presented in either correct or ill forms by the designer. The participants

17

are required to mark the correct negative comparison sentence with √, the wrong

expression with the symbol ×.

3.2.4 Data collecting

The data were collected by questionnaire handed out for all the above mentioned

foreign participants in each four classes. The participants were required to complete all

the background information parts and CNCCs tests within 30 minutes during the class

time. The researcher attended their classes with the permission of the teacher. If there

were any doubt about the content of the questionnaire, the explanation and the

elaboration had been given. Their performances in the test part were scored by a

standard criterion which makes it possible to compare the mastery of CNCCs between

groups or within each group.

The tests in CNCCs were also handed out to the 30 Chinese students. Since the 150

sentences carrying the four negative comparison markers were collected, the

frequencies of the four items in the Chinese native speakers’ utterances or expressions

were calculated, and the frequency sequence of the occurrence of the four items in

mandarin could be ordered as well. By doing so, the reference point for the frequency

sequence in the interlangueges of the foreign students could be settled, and the

comparison between the two types of frequency sequence could make a huge difference

for the present research.

3.2.5 Data analyzing

To discover the frequencies of the four constructions, i.e. “bubi” “buru” meiyou”

and “buji” constructions in both Chinese native speakers’ language and L2 Chinese

learners’ interlanguage, the actual occurrences of the four markers were counted in each

copy of the questionnaires. Besides, all the qualified copies were scored with a standard

criterion. The performances of all the participants which were quantized as the attained

scores were put into the SPSS and were analyzed further for satisfying the demands of

the research.

18

Chapter 4 Results and discussion

In this chapter, the data collected form the questionnaire were put into the

SPSS11.5. The comparative studies were made between the group of the Chinese native

speakers and the four foreign-learner groups .Fatherly, the comparative study were also

developed in between with the four foreign-learner groups themselves. Based on these

comparative studies, the research questions of the thesis were answered which provided

a solid foundation for drawing the conclusions and implications.

4.1 Research question one

Is there any significant difference between the frequencies of the four CNCCs in

native speakers’ utterances and those in L2 Chinese learners’ expressions? Whether L2

Chinese learners on different Chinese proficiencies follow the same frequency sequence

in the acquisition process of CNCCs?

4.1.1 Results of the research question one

The frequencies and the occurrences of the four constructions, “bubi” “buru”

meiyou” and “buji”, in foreign students’ interlanguages are collected by the task one of

the part B in the questionnaire (see 3.2.3). Among the 320 collected sentences, the

frequencies of the four comparative markers are shown as the subsequent tables:

Table 4.1: the occurrences of the four CNCCs in the foreign students’

interlanguges

meiyou bubi buru buji missing population

Group 1 33 21 12 5 29 100

Group 2 23 18 7 7 10 65

Group 3 22 21 14 10 3 70

Group 4 53 17 8 1 6 85

Total 126 82 41 23 48 320

19

Table 4.2: the frequencies of the four CNCCs in the foreign students’

interlanguges

meiyou bubi buru buji missing population

Group 1 33% 21% 12% 5% 29% 100%

Group 2 35.38% 27.69% 10.77% 10.77% 16% 100%

Group 3 31.43% 30% 20% 14.29% 5% 100%

Group 4 62.35% 20% 9.41% 1.18% 7% 100%

Total 39.38% 25.63% 12.81% 7.18% 15% 100%

Form the tables, the sequence of the frequencies of the four constructions in the

population can be ordered as follows:

In group 1, the frequency sequence obeys the pattern: “meiyou” > “bubi” > “buru”

> “buji”

As for group 2, the frequency sequence is “meiyou” > “bubi” > “buru”= “buji”

Group 3 follows the frequency sequence pattern: “meiyou” > “bubi” > “buru” >

“buji”

Group 4 also falls in the frequency sequence pattern: “meiyou” > “bubi” > “buru”

> “buji”

For all the testees, the frequency rank of the four CNCCs is “meiyou” > “bubi” >

“buru” > “buji”.

A closer observation and analysis shows that the four groups and all the testees as a

population group follow the sequence pattern “meiyou” > “bubi” > “buru” > “buji”.

4.1.2 Discussion

After analysis work done, it is apparently shown that nearly all the learners follow

the same frequency pattern of the four CNCCs, no matter what their mother tongues are

and what Chinese proficiency level their have achieved. Such a phenomenon doesn’t

emerge by chance and can find its theoretical support in Krashen’s Natural Order

Hypothesis.

20

Based on Chomsky’s Universal Grammar,⑧ Krashen (1983) holds that if language

acquisition is powered by a specific program, and if this program is innate, we would

expect all language acquirers to move along the same pathway to mastery. There would

be a predictable and necessary sequence of SLA; and learners acquiring Chinese as an

L2 would, all things being equal, follow the same pathway. As Natural Order

Hypothesis suggests, there is a natural sequence of acquisition of CNCCs in all the L2

Chinese learners regardless of their L1. Some of CNCCs are early-acquired and some

are late-acquired.

The data of CNCCs in Chinese native speaker group are displayed in the following

table:

Table 4.3: The occurrences and frequencies of the four CNCCs in the target

language

meiyou bubi buru buji missing population

Occurrence 79 7 33 31 0 150

frequency 52.67% 4.67% 22% 20.67% 0% 100%

As the table shows, the frequency sequence of the four CNCCs follows the

subsequent pattern: “meiyou” > “buru” > “buji” > “bubi”.

The sequences of the appearances of the three items “meiyou”, “buru” and “buji”

are identical in the L2 Chinese learners groups and the Chinese native speakers group.

Such three markers are ordered by a descending occurrence both in interlanguage of the

L2 Chinese learners and the target language. There exists a coordination between the

frequent sequences of the three items in the interlanguage (“meiyou” > “buru” > “buji”)

and the target language (“meiyou” > “buru” > “buji”).

The frequency effect in SLA is a possible source for offering an appropriate

account for this phenomenon. According to the frequency effect, the linguistic input

⑧ Universal grammar is a theory of linguistics postulating principles of grammar shared by all languages, thought to be innate to humans. It attempts to explain language acquisition in general, not describe specific languages. Universal grammar proposes a set of rules that would explain how children acquire their language(s), or how they construct valid sentences of their language. If children are disposed for learning any language, human language in the world must have the same underlying principles in common which is what we called language universals or linguistics universal. Although the UG is primarily established to account for the L1 acquisition, some linguists, like Krashen, insist that it also bears the explanation power in SLA domain. Doubtlessly, UG theory can easily find the academic echo in Krashen’s natural order hypothesis.

21

with high frequency is more likely to be taken in and be picked up, that is, the more

frequently a form appears, the more likely it is to be noticed and be integrated in the

interlanguage system. Since the negative comparison marker “meiyou” is the most

pervasively used language item (52.67%) in the Chinese native speakers’ linguistic

output, it is more likely to be the candidate as the language exposure or input to the L2

Chinese learners. As a linguistic item with most high frequency, the marker “meiyou” is

easer to master than the other three negative comparative constructions for the L2

Chinese learners. In fact, the high frequency of “meiyou” in the L2 Chinese learners’

output itself (39.38%) is an indicator to reveal the best mastery of “meiyou” among the

four CNCCs. The frequency effect works on the “buru” and “buji” in the same way. In

nature, the consistence between the two sequences is the consistence between the high

frequency linguistic input and the high frequency of the linguistic output for the foreign

students. As Ellis (1996b) maintains the language to which the learner is exposed to

contains a range of linguistic forms which occur with varying frequency. Similarly , the

learners’ output contains a range of linguistic forms used with varying frequency. The

notion of frequency is important because there is evidence to show that input frequency

matches output frequency.

What is noteworthy here is the essential elaboration that the frequency effect is not

the sole factor exerting the influence on the SLA. On the basis of Skehen’s (1998)

information processing model, factors such as the salience , instruction , individual

differences in processing ability , readiness to notice , task demand ,and selective effect

of task are all the curtail elements which can facilitate the SLA. As all the Skehen’s

“6+1” factors together provide a solid foundation for the high input qualities, the

prominence of the frequency effect in this thesis does not mean the denial of the

function of other elements. In contrast, the relation between the seven elements is by no

means contradictory but complementary.

However, a remarkable distinction lies in the occurrence of the marker “bubi”. As

for the L2 Chinese learners, the “bubi” is used with a considerable high frequency

25.63%, in contrast to the 4.67% appearance in the Chinese native speakers’ utterance.

So the question to be discussed will be how to account for the significant distinctions t

in the use of the negative comparison marker “bubi” between IL and TL.

The phenomenon demonstrates that the frequency of the negative comparative

marker “bubi” in foreign students’ utterances is significantly higher than that in the

22

Chinese native speakers’ utterance. One possible explanation is attributive to the

influence of the teachers’ instruction. Some of the textbooks or teachers tend to simply

introduce the negative comparison construction “bubi” as the negative form of the

“bi”-comparison constructions. After such instructions being given, the learners will use

the “bubi”-construction more frequently. As Krashen (1985) holds, the acquisition

sequence does not necessarily depend on simplicity of form while it could be influenced

by classroom instruction. And Selinker (1972) too, argues there are five principal

processes operated in interlanguage and one of the factors is so called “transfer of

training”, which is to some degree equivalent to Krashen’s classroom instruction.

Another possible reason lies in the L2 Chinese learners’ basic knowledge in the

negative constructions. As we know, in Chinese, one pervasive resolution to change a

sentence into negative form is to add a negative adverb “bu” in front of the predict of

the sentence . The positive comparison construction “wo bi ni go” (I’m taller than you)

can be transformed into a negative comparative sentence “wo bubi ni gao” by adding an

adverb “bu” before “bi”. Before the foreign students are well-informed of some other

negative comparative markers, like “meiyou” and “buru” etc, they will normally choose

the negative marker “bubi” in their utterance. So in their language output, the frequency

of the negative marker “bubi” is far more pervasive than that in the Chinese native

speakers’ linguistic data.

4.2 Research question two

Is there a positive correlation between the foreign students’ Chinese

proficiencies and their acquisition or mastery of CNCCs?

4.2.1 Results of the research question two

To clear out the existence of the positive correlation between the foreign students’

Chinese proficiencies and their performances on using CNCCs, the Spearman’s

correlation test has been engaged. The construct of the foreign students’ Chinese

proficiency is represented as their performance on the HSK test, and their masteries of

the Chinese negative comparative constructions are quantified as their attained scores in

the designed test. Among the 64 subjects of this research, only 21 successors of the

HSK test are found. Their Chinese proficiencies vary form the 3 degree to 8 degree in

the primary and intermediate levels.

The two groups’ data are put into SPSS and analyzed for the investigation of

23

correlations between the two variables. The results of the SPSS analysis are

demonstrated as follow:

Table 4.4: The correlation between the L2 Chinese learners’ Chinese

proficiencies and their masteries of CNCCs

Correlations

HSK MCNCCs

Spearman's rho HSK Correlation

Coefficient

1.000 .530

Sig. (1-tailed) . .007

N 21 21

MCNCCs Correlation

Coefficient

.530 1.000

Sig. (1-tailed) .007 .

N 21 21

** Correlation is significant at the .01 level (1-tailed).

4.2.2 Discussion

As table 4.4 shows, the significance of the correlation is 0.53(P=0.01), which

indicates that there exists a significant positive correlation between the two variables.

So the finding to be drawn is apparent: the L2 Chinese learners’ Chinese proficiencies

and their masteries of the Chinese negative comparison constructions are positive

correlated. The higher their Chinese proficiencies indicate the better performances they

possess on the Chinese negative comparison test. The hypothesis 2 is testified by the

Spearman’s correlation test and can be accepted.

The positive correlation between the foreigner learners’ Chinese proficiencies and

the masteries on CNCCs can also be identified or verified from another perspective.

As the author mentions in 3.2.2, the arrangement of group one to group four is

ordered in an ascending sequence in terms of the foreign students’ Chinese proficiencies

which are identified by the learners’ performances in the HSK test and their attained

scores in the examinations at the end of the latest term. What is interesting is the

24

phenomenon that the mean scores on CNCCs test of the four groups were also in an

ascending sequence.

Table 4.5: The mean score of the Chinese negative comparison constructions

test attained by four groups

mean score of

the Chinesse negative comparison constructions test

Group 1 31.95

Group 2 37.23

Group 3 40.07

Group 4 42.18

As the table uncovers, The L2 Chinese learners with the higher Chinese proficiency

generally obtain the higher scores on the test, which is the indicator of their mastery of

the knowledge in negative comparison constructions.

4.3. Research question three

Are there any inevitable factors affecting the acquisition of CNCCs? If the answer

is positive, what are they? In the acquisition process of CNCCs, what linguistic theories

can be applied to account for the errors in the learners’ interlanguage?

4.3.1 The error analysis of CNCCs

Among the foreign speakers’ Chinese expressions in negative comparison

constructions, various types of errors emerged.

In the theoretical framework of the Error Analysis, the error is not viewed as a

failure in the mastery of the target language in contrast to the doctrine of the Contrastive

Analysis Hypothesis. Rather, the error functions as an indicator to reveal the learners’

progress in approximating the target language. The attitude to the error in EA also

dramatically changed. Error, the indicator of the learners’ achievement in language

acquisition, should not and can not be avoided. The error in the interlanguage manifests

the learners’ hypothesis-making attempts on the basis of the linguistic data around them

and their efforts in risk-taking and hypothesis-testing by creating the novel sentences

and expecting the correction being given, when some errors emerge.

25

Due to the significance of EA in SLA, the author plans to analyze the errors in the

expressions carrying CNCCS, categorize the sentences which are grammatically ill or

pragmatically unacceptable into distinctive groups, try to account for the reason why

these errors were made and aim to offer some suggestions or implications for the

teaching of the Chinese negative comparison constructions.

4.3.1.1 The errors and their types in four groups

Based on the investigations of the errors made by the foreign students in each of

the four groups, some regularity is to be unfolded.

In the collected 272 sentences⑨, 28 sentences are grammatically undesirable or

semantically unacceptable. All the wrong sentences (the sentences that are not correct in

accordance with target language norm) are categorized into four types, each of which

will be illustrated by one sample⑩.

Type 1: Redundancy of the quantifier.

Sample 1: ni lai de shjian meiyuo wo zao 30 fenzhong.

ni lai de

shijian

meiyou wo zao 30 fenzhong

你来的时间 没有 我 早 30 分钟

The time

you came

is no, than mine earlier 30 minites

comparee negative

comparison

marker

reference

point

parameter redundance

For sample one, “30 minutes” is the redundancy as the negative comparison

construction can not be allowed to collocate with the quantifier or the expressions which

denote the concepts of quantity.

⑨ 48 sentences out of 320 are missing data. ⑩ The presentative examples are made by the learners in different groups.

26

Type 2: Mismatch between the comparee and the reference point.

Sample 2: wo meiyou xiaohong gui.

wo meiyou xiaohong gui

我 没有 小红 贵

I am no… than xiaohong expensive

comparee negative

comparison marker

reference

point

parameter

Sample 2 is grammatically right but semantically ill. The comparee and the

reference point of the construction should not be “I” and “XiaoHong” but the price of

my skirt and xiaohong’s. There lacks a correspondence or accordance between the

compare and the reference point.

Type 3: Redundancy of the comparative marker

Sample 3: Ann zai zhongguo bi susan meiyou na’me chang.

Ann zai

zhongguo (de

shijian)

bi susan meiyou na’me

chang

Ann 在中国(的

时间)

比 susan 没有 那么长

(The time) Ann

in China

Than susan no…than so long

comparee comparative

marker

reference

point

negative

comparison marker

parameter

As for Sample 3, two comparative makers emerge in one sentence, which make the

expression ill-formed. What’s more, the comparee is not a complete one. The

disappearance of “the time” makes the expression unacceptable for the Chinese native

speakers.

27

Type 4: Disorder of the comparative elements

Sample 4: wo bubi xiaohong gui mai qunzi

wo bubi xiaohong gui mai qunzi

我 不比 小红 贵 买裙子

I am no… than xiaohong expensive buy the

skirt

comparee

(incomplete)

negative

comparison

marker

reference

point

parameter comparee

(incomplete)

In the ill-formed sentence 4, the sequence of the negative comparison elements is

disordered.The comparee in the sentence is divided into 2 parts and distributed in a

wrong way.

4.3.1.2 The frequencies of errors and error types in four groups

The subsequent table reveals the distribution of the four types of errors in the four

groups and the rates of the errors of each group are demonstrated as well.

Table 4.6: The distribution of the four types of errors and the rates of the

errors in each group

Error

Type

1

Error

Type

2

Error

Type

3

Error

Type

4

Sums

of

errors

Sums of

collected

sentences

Error

Rate%

missing

data

popu

latio

n

G1 2 8 1 1 12 71 16.90 29 100

G2 3 4 0 1 8 55 14.55 10 65

G3 0 3 2 0 6 67 8.96 3 70

G4 0 2 0 0 2 79 2.53 6 85

Total 5 17 3 2 28 272 10.29 48 320

As the table 4.6 shows, in the group one, all of the four types of errors are found.

The sum of errors and the error rate is the largest one compared with the other three

higher proficiency groups. With the increase of the Chinese proficiency, the sum of

28

errors and the error rate in group 2 to 4 show a descending tendency. The higher

Chinese proficiency group made the lesser types of errors and the error rate becomes

lower as well.

4.3.2 Factors affecting CNCCs

In their performances on the tasks of CNCCs, the factors affected the foreign

students’ successes or failures can be elaborated in this part.

4.3.2.1 Marked item and unmarked item.

In the task two, all the subjects were required to complete the sentences by filling

the blankets with the four given negative comparison constructions “meiyou”, “bubi” ,

“buru” and “buji”.

Even in the advanced group four, the success rate in sentence nine is quite low

(less than half of the class had passed this item).

Sentence Nine: wo de shougongyipin ________ni de zuo de Cha. (My craft is not

poorly-made than yours)

The unique suitable answer for this sentence-completing task is “bubi” which can

be followed by the marked elements. While the other three negative comparison marker

can not serve this context. The reason for revealing the low rate of the foreign students’

masteries lies in the markedness theory and its application in the SLA acquisition.

The idea of markedness goes back to the Prague School of linguistics, in particular

to N. S. Trubetzkoy（Wang Lifei 1999）. It was originally conceived of as applicable to

phonemes standing in a privative opposition to each other, i.e. when one phoneme is

differentiated from the other by an additional relevant feature, e.g. voicing, nasalization

or rounding. The phoneme which possesses this distinctive mark is called "marked", the

other is called "unmarked". Trubetzkoy later supplemented this material criterion of

phonemic markedness with a distributional diagnostic: in positions (defined

syntagmatically) where the given phonemic contrast is neutralized it is the unmarked

phoneme which actually appears. With the growing realization of the heuristic and

explanatory fruitfulness of the concept of markedness, it was applied to just about every

level and component of language. Obviously, the SLA study will not stands out as an

excerption. In fact, researchers in second-language acquisition have considered the

application of linguistic markedness theory to aspects of second-language learning

(White, 1987). The markedness theory here will be extended to explain why some

non-native-speaker errors are made by the L2 Chinese learners.

29

Markedness theory in SLA hypothesizes that the difficult linguistic item can be

predicted by the marked or unmarked characteristics of the linguistic items .In the

comparative constructions, the parameter indicates the domain in which the comparison

unfolded (see 1.3.1). Generally, in English comparison constructions, the parameter is

presented by unmarked indicators, like “taller”, “bigger” and “elder”, rather than the

marked piece, like “shorter” or “smaller”. For instance, the utterance “I’m not taller than

you” is more authentic and acceptable in daily life than the expression “I’m not shorter

than you”. It is also the case in most Chinese negative comparison construction. Say, the

sentence “wo de gongzi meiyou ni shao” (my salary is not poorly-paid than yours) is

questionable and seldom appears in daily linguistic data. The reason lies in the

presupposition of the sentence which states that “poorly-paid salary” is the criterion in

the judgment of the income. Apparently, such a presupposition stands against the

peoples’ general psychological expectation that the higher salary, the better.

But the “bubi”-construction stands as an exception which can be followed by the

marked parameters. “Wo de gongzi bubi ni shao” (my salary is no more poor than yours)

is acceptable which indicates the proposition that my salary is either equal or higher

than yours. As the marked characteristics of the comparative parameter in the

“bubi”-construction, the error of “bubi”-construction in this context is quite significant

and the acquisition rate of this function of “bubi”-construction in the L2 Chinese

learners is far from satisfactory.

4.3.2.2 The role of chunk in the acquisition of CNCCs

In the Sentence 14 of Task Two (see Appendix I), all the advanced L2 Chinese

learners (group four ) succeeded in offering the right answer “buru” to complete the

Chinese idiom “bai wen buru yi jian”(hundred times hearing is no more than once

seeing) .The high correction rate is due to the influence of the lexicon chunk in SLA.

As Lewis (1993) defines, lexicon chunks are not only the single words but also the

word combinations that can be recognized, learnt, decoded and encoded as the holistic

units. They are the learning resources as well as the ready-made resources for

immediate service. Learners begin by memorizing some unanalyzed chunks or

sentences without knowing their internal structure and use them as a whole for

communicative purpose. In the process of SLA, chunk is supportive for improving the

fluency and accuracy of the linguistic output. What should be highlighted is the fact that

the fluency and the accuracy brought by chunk-using is not the indicator of the real

30

mastery of the relative linguistic item. In other words, chunk helps in performance while

rule-development in language increases competence. (Hu Zhuanglin 2002) The chunk

can only be helpful in language using but fails to improve the learner’s linguistic

capacity. From the learning perspective, developing the rule-based system through

reconstruction of the chunk is more significant as this qualitative change makes creative

use of language possible.

In the Sentence 14, even all the subjects were successful in completing the

sentence “baiwen buru yi jian”, the high correct rate can not be viewed as the evidence

for the real understanding and mastery of the negative comparison construction “buru”.

4.3.2.3. The role of prototype in the acquisition of CNCCs

Ungerer (2001) points out that the cognitive category always consists of good and

bad members. The “best example of a categories” , “salient examples”, “clearest cases

of category membership”, “most representative of things included in a class” or “central

and typical members” ( Rosch 1978; Lackoff 1986;Brown 1990, Tvesky,1990)) are

what we called prototypes. In cognitive linguistics the prototypes are most fully

developed on the basic level. The relationship between the prototype structure and the

basic level notion is a perfect kind of symbiosis. Since the prototypes are mainly stored

on basic level, the largest amount of information bout an item can be obtained with the

least cognitive effort. This principle is called cognitive economy (Ungerer, 2001) and it

explains why the basic level is particularly well suited to meet out cognitive needs.

In the Task Three, the true-or-false judgments on the given negative comparison

constructions were required to complete. In the first sentence “xiaozhang gezi buru

xiaowang gezi gao”, nearly all the testees ticked the right marker. But for the correct

second sentence “xiaozhang gezi buru xiaowang gao”, 42 foreign students out of 64

(65.63%) marked the wrong marker.

Why the mastery of the complete negative comparison sentence (sentence 1) is

nearly perfect while the variable forms of the complete negative comparison sentence

(sentence 2) are far from perfect? The reason should be dived into the cognitive

linguistics and the prototype of the negative comparison constructions.

According to the principle of the cognitive economy, the effective cognitive

process should be a economical one, in which with the least cognitive effort, the

maximal amount of information are accessible. Both Sentence 1 and 2 are correct with

the same information that “xiaozhang isn’t taller than xiaowang”. Sentence One

31

“xiaozhang gezi buru xiaowang gezi gao” is standard form with the appearance of all

the elements of comparison construction. However, the Sentence Two is more

economical than Sentence One by omitting the word “gezi” after “xiaowang”. Actually,

the Sentence Two is more frequently used than standard-form Sentence One in the

Chinese native speakers’ daily utterances or expressions for the economic and

convenient sake. The L2 Chinese learners failed to treat this omission as a way to

express the same information more effectively but viewed this omitted variation as an

incomplete construction which is the possible cognitive and psychological roots

accounting for the poor performance in the judgments on the omitted version of the

negative comparison construction. To put it in another way, since the foreign students

(L2 Chinese learners) treat the complete and standard form of the “buru”- construction

as the prototype and neglected the application of the principle of the cognitive economy

in CNCCs, the error rate in this test item is considerably high and far from satisfactory.

32

Chapter 5 Conclusion

This chapter is composed of three components, major findings, implications and

limitations. The main findings reveal some phenomena and some regularities in the L2

Chinese learners’ acquisition of CNCCs. The second part shows the constructive

significance of the research itself and the implications of the research findings. Finally,

the limitations of the study are exposed, which makes it possible to conduct the further

investigation on the basis of the present research.

5.1 Major findings

On the foundation of the entire previous endeavor, some regularities and major

findings in the foreigners’ acquisition process of CNCCs would be summarized as

follows:

First and foremost, there is no significant distinction in the frequencies of the four

negative comparison constructions between IL of L2 Chinese learners and TL. Instead,

the consistency of these frequencies sequence emerges in the Chinese native speakers’

utterances (“meiyou” > “buru” > “buji”) and the output of the L2 Chinese learners

(“meiyou” > “buru” > “buji”). The frequency effect in the Skehen’s information

processing theory functions as the possible resource to account for this phenomenon.

The frequency effect holds that, the linguistic input with high frequency is more likely

to be taken in and be picked up. In other words, the more frequent a form is, the more

likely it is to be noticed and then becomes integrated in the interlanguge system.

As for the frequency of the negative marker “bubi”, a remarkable distinction exists

between the IL of the foreign student learners and the TL. Such a divergence is possibly

caused by the influence of the L2 Chinese learners’ basic knowledge in the negative

construction. Before the foreign students are well-informed of some other negative

comparative markers, like “meiyou” “buru” etc, they will normally choose the negative

marker “bubi” as the negative form of “bi”-construction in their expression to realize

the negative function. So in their language output, the frequency of the negative marker

“bubi” is far more pervasive than that in the Chinese native speakers’ linguistic data.

The problem may be further explained in terms of “diffusion” idea. Ellis (1999a,)

accounts for how form-function networks are constructed and points out that L2

33

acquisition involves a first stage, the ‘acquisition phrase’, where new forms are acquired

and used in free variation, and subsequent stages, the ‘reorganization phrase’ where

learners sort these forms into functional pigeon-holes. The initial form-function

correlations that learners establish are not likely to correspond to those found in the

target language.

Secondly, a positive correlation between the foreign students’ Chinese

proficiencies and their performances on using CNCCs has been verified by the

Spearman’s correlation test in SPSS. The construct of the foreign students’ Chinese

proficiency is represented as their performance on the HSK test, and their masteries of

the Chinese negative comparative construction are quantified as their attained scores in

the designed test. Through the correlation testing, a 0.53 correlation has been found

significant at the .01 level (1-tailed) which suggests that a positive correlation between

the foreign students’ Chinese proficiencies and their performance on using the Chinese

negative comparison construction exists in the process of the L2 Chinese learners’

acquisition process. Normally, the L2 Chinese learners with higher Chinese proficiency

will achieve the negative comparison construction better.

Last but not least, by analyzing the errors in the L2 Chinese learners’ interlanguge,

some inevitable factors affecting the acquisition of the Chinese negative comparison

construction, like marked nature of the linguistic items, lexicon chunk and the prototype

of the cognitive categories, are investigated.

The markedness theory suggests that the parameter in the comparison construction

tends to be unmarked adjective or adverb instead of marked one. Normally, the

utterance “I’m not taller than you” is more authentic and acceptable in daily

communication than the expression “I’m shorter than you”. It is also the case in most

Chinese negative comparison construction. Say, the sentence “wo de gongzi meiyou ni

shao” (my salary is not poorly-paid than yours) is questionable and seldom appears in

daily linguistic data. But the “bubi”-construction stands as an exception which can be

followed by the marked parameters. “Wo de gongzi bubi ni shao” (my salary is no more

poor than yours) is acceptable which indicates the proposition that my salary is either

equal to or higher than yours. Since the marked are the qualified candidates for the

“bubi”-construction, the error of “bubi”-construction in this context is quite significant

and the acquisition rate of this function of “bubi”-construction in the L2 Chinese

learners’ interlanguge is far from satisfactory.

34

Lexicon chunks, the learning resources as well as the ready resources for

immediate service are proved to be helpful in the foreign students’ performance on the

negative comparison construction. But the improvement of the performance brought

out by chunk should not be regarded as the success in the mastery of acquisition of the

negative comparison construction. In other words, the chunk in SLA can only work in

performance level rather than the competence level.

Prototypes are the “best example of a categories”, “salient examples”, “clearest

cases of category membership”, “the most representative of things included in a class”

or “central and typical members” in the cognitive categories. Such a prototype

functions as the facilitator in the process of the SLA. The typical member or prototype

of the negative construction should be easy to acquire for the sake of the cognitive

economy principle. But when the confusion or wrong judgment occurs in the L2

Chinese learners’ acquisition process, the errors are more likely to appear.

5.2 Implications based on this study

The implication of the present research will be summarized from two perspectives:

one is the implication of the research itself for the academic forum of Teaching Chinese

as a Foreign Language. The other is the implications for the teaching of the negative

comparison constructions practically in the classroom.

5.2.1 The methodological implications

In the literature review part, some previous studies of the negative comparison

constructions should have been expected to be collected. However, after an exhaustive

search being conducted, the author failed to find a copious of research articles or

monographs on the negative comparison construction under the guidance of the thriving

SLA theory. In China, the SLA theories fail to find a pervasive echo in the academic

field of Teaching Chinese as a Foreign Language either, which prevents the researches

in the Chinese negative comparison construction from being developed under the

guidance of the SLA theory and being studied on the shoulder of the achievements

attained in the domain of SLA abroad. The acquisition of the Chinese negative

comparison structure by the L2 Chinese learners is almost an uncultivated issue.

Therefore, based on the data collected from the corpus and questionnaires, by

virtue of the relevant SLA theories, like Krashen’s natural order hypothesis, Skehen’s

information processing model and the appropriate data analysis through SPSS, some

35

phenomena in the process of the negative compassion construction are described,

discussed and explained systematically. Although this methodology is already a formula

in the quantitative study in the SLA field, the researches in Teaching Chinese as a

Foreign Language seldom adopt this approach in their studies. Therefore one of the

implications in this thesis is to demonstrate an accessible way by which the study of

Teaching Chinese as a Foreign Language can be conducted.

5.2.2 The pedagogical implications

The significance of the study and its findings is far more than itself. Actually, all the

acquaintances of CNCCs and their acquisition by the learners facilitate the innovations

in the textbook-compiling and the improvements of the teaching methods in the

classroom.

5.2.2.1 Pedagogical implication one

Finding One shows that the consistency of the frequencies of the four CNCCs

emerges in the Chinese native speakers’ utterances (“meiyou” > “buru” > “buji”) and

the output of the L2 Chinese learners (“meiyou” > “buru” > “buji”).Further, within the

four groups such a consistency could also be found. The finding suggests that a natural

order exists in CNCCs acquisition. Nearly all the learners with different L1 follow the

same frequency type (“meiyou” >“bubi” > “buru” > “buji”) in the process.

On the other side of the coin, a divergence also manifests itself between the

Chinese native speakers and the L2 Chinese learners. In the utterances and expressions

of the L2 Chinese learners, the frequency of “bubi” (25.63%) is much higher than that

(4. 67%) in the native speakers’ linguistic output. This divergence may rise from some

problems in the textbook-compiling 11and the instruction effect in the classroom. Most

students are simply told that the negative form of the “bi”-comparative construction is

the “bubi” structure. However, this accordance in the form doesn’t work well in the real

application of the Chinese negative comparison constructions. For the Chinese native

speakers, the first choice to express the negative comparative notion will be the

“meiyou”-construction as the data of the questionnaire manifest. So the actual

acquisition sequence of CNCCs will be “meiyou” > “buru” > “buji” > “bubi”

In fact, a scientific and effective way in the negative comparison construction

11 In fact, most of the present Chinese textbook for the L2 Chinese learners simply take the “bubi”-construction as the negative form of the “bi”-construction which, to some extent, should be responsible for the generalization of the “bubi”-construction in the foreign students’ acquisition of CNCCs.

36

teaching is the one obeying the natural order or frequency rank. As Vivian Cook (2000b)

maintains that the instructor should “follow the L2 learning order as closely as possible

in the teaching”. The order of teaching should follow the order found in L2 acquisition

as much as possible.

For the teaching in negative comparison construction, the optimal sequence of the

four constructions would better be in the “meiyou” > “buru” > “buji” > “bubi” pattern.

5.2.2.2 Pedagogical implication two

As the author has mentioned, the L2 Chinese learners’ Chinese proficiencies and

their masteries of the Chinese negative comparison construction are positively

correlated. The higher their Chinese proficiency indicates the better performance on the

Chinese negative comparison test will be achieved. So the due time to give the

instruction to the learners should be taken into consideration. A leaner who has grasped

the negative construction and positive comparative constructions will be expected to

learn the negative comparison construction. In other word, the mastery of a certain

linguistic point has to be based on some necessary knowledge foundations. Piennemann

(1984)’s teachability hypothesis is also in the same line which states that “an L2

structure can be learnt from instruction only if the learner’s interlanguge is close to the

point when this structure is acquired in the nature setting”. When the structure can be

acquired in the nature setting, some fundamental bases should have been mastered by

the learners. So the time of instruction should be appropriate.

5.2.2.3 Pedagogical implication three

As a way of detect the distance between the interlanguge and target language, Error

analysis has been applied in this research. The implication in this part focus on how to

view, explain and treat errors in the acquisition of negative comparison construction

correctly.

Errors are normal and inevitable, and function as the evidence of the learning

process. They facilitate the understanding of the L2 learners’ system which is regarded

by Selinker as “interlanguage”. Corder (1967) argues that the error could tell the

instructors “how far towards the goal the learner has progressed and consequently, what

remains for him to learn”

The markedness hypotheses and the prototype theory have shed lights on the

research. The pedagogical implication in these aspects will be interlocked with the ease

or intensity of the instruction. Generally, the unmarked and typical item can be acquired

37

with litter cognitive effort while the marked and peripheral one will be more

effort-consuming. Even restricted instruction are given to the unmarked or prototypical

linguistic points, they are easy to be acquired. In this sense, the instruction should be

given more intensively for the learners in the acquisition of marked and untypical

linguistic item. Therefore, the suitable time and proper intensity of instruction are

recommended to be taken into considerations in classroom teaching.

5.3 Limitations

For sorts of reason, limitations are absolutely inevitable in the research. The most

prominent limitation in this thesis lies in the methodological perspective. In other words,

the means by which the study was conducted is far from ideal. Many precious and

significant ideas compromised to the external limitations and were sacrificed.

In the course of data-collecting, the least effort-consuming way in the author

blueprint is to use two corpuses. One is the Mandarin Corpus of State Language

Commission established by the Institute of Applied Linguistic Ministry of Education .In

this corpus the frequency of the four negative comparison constructions will be

collected in an effective and economical way. The other is the corpus of Chinese as

interlanguage designed by the institute of teaching Chinese as foreign language in

Beijing Language and Culture University. By using the latter, the frequencies of the four

CNCCs and their errors in L2 Chinese learners’ utterances will be accessible. Since all

of the data in the corpus were collected from the Chinese composition, all the linguistic

outputs were kept from the threat of the elicitations. That is, all the data in the corpus

are naturally occurred in the L2 Chinese learners’ utterance which ensures the data

highly reliable and valid. But for the sack of policy, the author failed to buy the data in

the latter after more than ten times’ connection being conducted during half a month.

Under the circumstance, an alternative way of data-collecting was adopted.

Questionnaire was developed and be refined for times before it was handed out in the

hands of testees. Although the maximal efforts were consumed to ensure the qualities of

the data, it was far form ideal. Another limitation is the size of the group. Compared

with the other class in university, the size of the class which offers Chinese teaching or

training program for the foreign students is extremely small. It is quite common and

acceptable that a class just possess one or two members. The group with 20 students in

our research is the largest one in the city of Xi’an. Actually, the small size of the groups

38

not only restricted the quality and explanation force of the collected data but prevented a

further analysis of the data through SPSS as well. However imperfect the data are, the

cooperation and patience offered by the 64 testees with more than ten sorts of

nationalities is definitely precious and crucial for the author to complete the present

research.

To sum up, due to the limited research capability and restricted academic resources,

the present study only focuses on some key point for discussion but neglects other

pertaining problems. And specifically, the acquisition of the Chinese negative

comparison constructions by the foreign students is a totally fresh topic for the author to

complete. The lack of the previous study on this topic makes it a tough task and hard to

be error-free.

39

Bibliography

Beck, S., Toshiko, O., & Koji, S. 2004. Comparative Construction in Japanese vs.

English. Proceedings of NELS33.

Biber, D., Conard, S. & Reppen, R. 2000. Corpus Linguistics .Beijing: Foreign

Language Teaching and Research Press.

Brown, C. H. 1990. A survey of category types in natural language. In S. L. Tsohatzidis

(Ed.), Meanings and Prototypes. Studies in linguistic categorization. London:

Routledge.

Brown, H.D.2002 Principles of Language Learning and Teaching. Beijing: Foreign

Language Teaching and Research Press.

Carroll, D.W. 2000. Psychology of Language. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and

Research Press.

Chao, Yuen Ren. 1968. A Grammar of Spoken Chinese. California: University of

California Press.

Cook, V. 2000a.Linguistics and Second Language Acquisition. Beijing: Foreign

Language Teaching and Research Press.

Cook, V. 2000b.Second Language Learning and Language Teaching. Beijing: Foreign

Language Teaching and Research Press.pp.28-35.

Corder, S. P. 1967. The significance of learners' errors .International Review of Applied

Linguistics 5: pp.165-170

Dekker and Martin Stokhof (eds.) 1991.Proceedings of the Eighth Amsterdam

Colloquium.Amsterdam: ILLC, University of Amsterdam

Doran, C., Egedi, D., Hockey, B. A., Srinivas, B. & Zaidel, M.1994. XTAG system --- a

wide coverage grammar for English. In COLING-94, pp.922--928. [On-line]. Available

Telnet: http://citeseer.ist.psu.edu/article/doran94xtag.html

Dryer, M. 1992. The Greenbergian word order correlations. Language 68:pp.81-138.

Ellis, R. 1999a.The Study of Second Language Acquisition Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign

Language Education Press. p366

Ellis, R. 1999b.Understanding Second Language Acquisition Shanghai: Shanghai

Foreign Language Education Press.p.297

Fu, Yi Chin. 1978. Comparative Structure in English and Mandarin Chinese.

40

Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation. The University of Michigan.

Greenberg, J.H. 1966. Some universals of grammar with particular reference to the order

of meaningful elements. In Greenberg, Joseph H. (ed.) Universals of Language.

Mass Cambridge: M.I.T. Press.

Greenberg J.H.1966.Language universals with special reference to feature hierarchies.

The Hague: Mouton Press.

Greenberg, J.H. 1987. The present status of markedness theory: a reply to Scheffler.

Journal of Anthropological Research 43.4:pp.367-374.

Halliday, M.A.K. 2000 An introduction to Functional grammar Beijing: Foreign

Language Teaching and Research Press. pp. 161-175.

Hong Wei-mei. 1991. Comparative Structure in Mandarin Chinese. Unpublished MA

thesis, National Tsing Hua University, Hsingchu,Taiwan.

Hu zhuanglin, 2002, linguistics: An advanced course book. Beijing: Perking University

Press.p. 587

James, C. 2001. Error in Language Learning and Use: Exploring Error Analysis.

Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.

Jian-shiung shie, 2002. Variety of English comparative sentences. Journal of Da-Yeh

University, 2: pp 69-78

Krashen, S. 1976. Formal and informal linguistic environments in language acquisition

and language learning. TESOL Quarterly, 10: pp.157-168.

Krashen, S. 1981. Second language acquisition and second language learning. Oxford:

Pergamon Press.

Krashen, S. 1983. Principles and practices of second language acquisition. Oxford:

Pergamon Press.

Krashen, S. 1985. The input hypothesis: Issues and implications. London: Longman.

Lakoff, G. 1986. Classifiers as a reflection of mind. In Craig, C. G., (ed). Noun classes

and categorization. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Lerner, J.-Y. & M. Pinkal .1992. Comparatives and nested quantification, in Paul

Lightbown, M. & Spada, N. (eds). 2002. How Languages Are Learned Shanghai:

Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.

Lewis，M．1993．The Lexical Approach：The State of ELT and a Way Forward．Hove，

UK： Language Teaching Publications．

Nitin, J & Bing, L. 2006a. Identifying Comparative Sentences in Text Documents.

41

Proceedings of the 29th Annual International ACM SIGIR Conference on

Research & Development on Information Retrieval (SIGIR-06), Seattle.

Nitin, J & Bing, L. 2006b. Mining Comparative Sentences and Relations. Proceedings

of 21st National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI-2006), Boston,

Massachusetts, USA.

Nunan, D. 2001. Second Language Teaching and Learning. Beijing: Foreign Language

Teaching and Research Press.

Pienemann, M. 1984. Psychological constraints on the teachability of languages. Studies

in Second Language Acquisition 6. 2: pp. 186-214

Rosch, E.1973. Natural categories. Cognitive Psychology 4:pp328-350.

Rosch, E.1975. Cognitive representations of semantic categories. Journal of

Experimental Psychology, General 7. pp. 573-605.

Rosch, E.1977. Human categorization. In N.Warren (ed.). 1977. Studies in

cross-cultural psychology. London: Academic Press. pp. 1-49.

Rosch, E 1978. Principles of categorization. In Rosch, E& Lloyd, B. (eds.) Cognition

and Categorization. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates

Selinker, L.1972.Interlanguage.International Review of Applied Linguistics 5: pp.

209-300

Schwatrz, L.J. 1980. Syntactic markedness and frequency of occurrence. In T.A.Perry

(ed.). 1980. Evidence and argumentation in linguistics. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.

pp. 315-333.

Stern, H.H. 1999.Fundamental Concepts of Language Teaching. Shanghai: Shanghai

Foreign Language Education Press.

Skehen, P.1998. A cognitive approach to Language learning. Oxford: Oxford

University.

Spolsky. B, 2000.Conditions for Second Language Learning: Introduction to a General

Theory. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.

Tversky, B. 1990. Where partonomies and taxonomies meet. In S. L. Tsohatzidis (Ed.),

Meanings and prototypes: Studies on linguistic categorization London: Routledge.

pp. 334-344.

Ungerer, F. & Schmid, H.J. 2001. An Introduction to Cognitive Linguistics. Beijing:

Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.

Wen Qiufang.2001. Applied Linguistics: Research Methods and Thesis Writing. Beijing:

42

Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.

White, L.1987. Markedness and second language acquisition: the question of transfer.

Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 9.

Zhang Cheng, 2004. Comparative construction in Ming dynasty, Language and

Linguistics.3: pp. 705-725.

Greenberg, J.H. 1984. 某些主要跟语序有关的语法普遍现象, [J].国外语言学, (2).

黎锦熙,1924.新著国语文法, [M].北京: 商务印书馆.

蒋静,2003.比较句的语义偏向及主观程度的差异, [J].上海师范大学学报, (7).

李兵,1990.音系标记理论的产生与发展, [J].新疆师范大学学报, (3).

李蓝,2002.现代汉语方言差比句的语序类型, [J].方言, (3).

李贤景,2000.三种否定比较句的联系与区别——“不如”、“不比”、“没有”型比较句考察, [D].

北京语言文化大学

刘润清,1999.外语教学中的科研方法, [M].北京: 外语教学与研究出版社

吕叔湘,1944.中国文法要略, [M]. 北京: 商务印书馆

吕叔湘,1980.现代汉语八百词, [M].北京: 商务印书馆

刘月华,2002.实用现代汉语语法, [M].北京: 商务印书馆

沈家煊,1997.类型学的标记模式, [J].外语教学与研究. (1).

沈家煊,1999.不对称和标记论, [M].南昌：江西教育出版社

沈家煊,2001.语言的 “主观性”和 “主观化”, [J],外语教学与研究, (4).

唐承贤,2003a. 标记理论探析, [J].外语研究, (4).

唐厚广,1997. “不如”句研究, [J].锦州师范学院学报, (2).

谢仁友,2006.现代汉语歧义句式 “X 不比 Y·Z”的语义类型, [J].语文研究, (2).

谢仁友,2006. “X 不比 Y·Z”三种语义类型的历史来源, [J].古汉语研究, (4).

谢筱莉,2006.英汉语比较结构对比研究, [D]湖南师范大学

相原茂(日本).,1992.汉语比较句的两种否定形式—“不比”型和”没有”型,[J].语言教学与研究,(3).

徐燕青,1996.“不比” 型比较句的语义类型, [J].语言教学与研究, (2).

徐燕青,1997.“没有”型比较句的初步考察, [J].世界汉语教学, (1).

王立非,1994.英语反义形容词的语义标记研究, [J].外语研究, (2).

王立非,1999.布拉格学派与标记理论, [J].外语研究, (1).

王立非,2002.语言标记性的诠释与扩展, [J].福建外语, (4).

文秋芳,2003.频率作用与二语习得, [J]. 外语教学与研究, (3).

赵金铭,2001.论汉语的比较范畴, [J].中国语言学报, (3).

赵金铭,2002a.汉语差比句的南北差异及其历史嬗变, [J].语言研究, (3).

43

赵金铭,2002.差比句的语义指向类型比较研究, [J].中国语文, (3).

赵金铭,2006.从类型学视野看汉语差比句偏误, [J].世界汉语教学, (4).

张建,2006.“比”字句否定式的多维度考察, [J].云南大学学报, (3).

张友和,2002.差比句否定形式的语义特征及其语用解释, [J].汉语学习, (5).

44

Appendix I: Questionnaire

The following questionnaire is designed for the research on the foreign students’

acquisition process of the Chinese negative comparison construction .All the data

collected will be highly confidential and will be used for the research only. Sincere

thanks for your patience and cooperation.

Part A: Background information:

1. 姓名 (name):

2: 年龄 (age)

3: 性别 ( gender)

4. 你来中国多长时间了? (How long have you been in China?)

5. 你的母语是什么? (What is your mother tongue?)

6. 你曾经参加过汉语水平考试吗? 结果怎样?(Have you ever taken part in HSK, if yes,

what does the result turn out to be?)

7. 你怎么看中国和中国文化? (What is your feeling about China and Chinese

culture?)

8. 你为什么学习中文?(Why do you study Chinese?)

45

Part B: Information on the mastery of negative comparison construction

一、请根据所给句子提示的事实,写出汉语否定比较句。

注意：

1、每句均可选用“不比”“不如”“不及”“没有”中能使句子成立的任意一词。

2、句子应包含括号内的形容词。

Task One: make negative comparison sentences based on the truth facts offered by

each of the given sentences.

Attention:

1. For each sentence, you are to choose any one of the expressions as“不比”“不

如”“不及”“没有” which can ensure the correctness of the sentence.

2. Your sentences should include the words in the brackets.

1．我买裙子 (skirt) 花了 500 元，小红买裙子花了 600 元。（贵 expensive)

2．Ann 到中国只有 3 个月, Susan 来中国已经一年了。(长 longer)

3. 汽车的速度是每小时 70 公里（70km/h)，火车的速度是每小时 120 公里（120km/h)。

（快 quicker )

4.我早晨 8 点到教室, 你 8 点半才来。(早 earlier)

5. 你的数学成绩 (mathematics score) 是 86 分，Ann 的数学成绩是 85 分。(高 higher)

46

二.用“不比”“不如”“不及”“没有”填空。

Task Two: fill the blanks with any of “不比”“不如”“不及”“没有”to make each sentence

correct and acceptable.

1．这种现象 (phenomenon) 在英语中也有，但 汉语普遍 (common) 。

2.她的汉语水平（Chinese Proficiency) 她姐姐。

3.我的工资（salary) 你的少。

4．在商业上（commercially), 法国的实力 (actual strength) 英国。

5.他长得很像姚明（Yao, Chinese NBA star player)，只是 那么高。

6．在这方面, 人脑 (human brain) 电脑(computer)强。

7.她 苏珊 (Susan) 漂亮, 但却更受同学们喜欢。

8.我国选手 (player) 的合作能力 (Cooperative ability) 美国。

9.我做的手工艺品 (handicraft) 你做的差。

10.统计表明 (statistics shows), 2001 年台湾的经济 (economy) 远 2000 年。

11.他的伤口 (wound) 还 针尖 (pinpoint) 大, 你不用太担心 (worry).

12.女孩 (girls) 跑得 男孩 (boys) 快。

13.新课本 (the new textbook) 以前的难 (difficult),但却更加实用 (practical)了。

14.百闻 (hundred times hearing) 一见 (once seeing) 。

15.事情 这么简单 (simple) ，还有很多因素 (factors) 需要考虑 (take… into

consideration) 。

47

三.判断下列句子的正误, 正确的打√, 错误的打×。

Task Three: please make your judgments on the following sentences and mark the correct by

√, the wrong by ×.

1.小张个子不如小王个子高。 ( )

2.小张不如小王个子高。 ( )

3.他水平没有小王那么低。 ( )

4.他水平没有小王低。 ( )

5. 在韩国发行的报纸的种类,比中国的没有那么多 ( )

6. 坐火车去没有坐船去慢。 ( )

7. 坐火车去不比坐船去慢。 ( )

8.你又不比我强多少, 我为什么要听你的。 ( )

9.小张没有小王高三公分 (centimeter) 。 ( )

10.弟弟学中文不比哥哥的学习好 ( )

11.现在过年没有以前热闹了。 ( )

12.北京的冬天比我国家的不冷。 ( )

13.家里虽好总不及厂 (factory) 里。 ( )

14.外国的月亮不圆比中国的。 ( )

15.天安门广场的景色 (scenery) 不比白天更漂亮. ( )

48

Appendix II: Abbreviations:

CNCC: Chinese negative comparison construction

CNCCs: Chinese negative comparison constructions

EA: error analysis

HSK: Hanyu Shuiping Kaoshi (Chinese proficiency test)

IL: interlanguage

L1: first language

L2: second language

MCNCCs: mastery of the Chinese negative comparison constructions

NCCs: negative comparison constructions

SLA: second language acquisition

TL: target language

49

Papers Published：

1．索绪尔任意性原则的论争及其哲学指归，陕西师范大学学报，06 年第 3 期

2．《新视野大学英语》教材系统评估，西安外院学报（外语教学)06 年专辑第 27 卷

3．对唐诗《回乡偶书》英译文的语篇功能分析，外语与语言学文集，香港社会科学出版社，

06 年 6 月