The Push and Pull of Syntax and Pragmatics over

The Push and Pull of Syntax and Pragmatics over Reflexives: The System Exchange Hypothesis* Darcy Sperlich**

Sperlich, Darcy(2017), “The Push and Pull of Syntax and Pragmatics over Reflexives: The System Exchange Hypothesis,” Language & Information Society 32. As learners of a second language progress past the advanced stage, there are certain features that may continue to set near-native speakers apart from native speakers. This may be apparent in non-native like acquisition of the phonology (retaining L1 features), having a non-native like control of the grammar, or not having a full sociopragmatic understanding. In this study, we examine bilinguals’ understanding of reflexive pronouns that straddle the syntactic-pragmatic interface due to how their L1 and L2 process reflexives. Exploratory by nature, we examine five native English speakers, one Spanish speaker and one Chinese speaker with a mixed background. The aim of this article is to understand their interpretation of the Chinese reflexive pronoun ziji ‘self’which is understood here to be pragmatically regulated (Huang 2000). The key question is whether the participants have a native-like interpretation of ziji, matched with native-like processing. This is achieved by using phased choice methodology (Sperlich 2015) and using subjective measures of confiI would like to thank the reviewers for their constructive feedback. Data is drawn from Sperlich (2013). Any remaining errors remain my own. National Central University, Taiwan The Push and Pull of Syntax and Pragmatics over Reflexives: The System Exchange Hypothesis | 423

dence and knowledge source, including reaction timing, to arrive at a well-rounded understanding of how the judgement was made. Ultimately, it is found that pragmatic ziji does present some difficulties for our participants, namely they have continued difficulty in selecting for the long-distant antecedent given their preference for the local antecedent, which is reflected in timing measures. Thus, they have yet to fully transition their L2 anaphoric systems to a pragmatic-style one as is present in Chinese, presenting a possible area of fossilization. This issue gives raise to the System Exchange Hypothesis introduced in this study. keywords: reflexive pronoun, bilingual, binding, pragmatics, syntax, ziji

1. Introduction Languages process reflexives through different systems, with Huang (2000) suggesting that there is a syntactic-pragmatic continuum in understanding anaphora use (an application of Givon’s (1979) original continuum). Extending this idea to bilingualism research, when mixing two languages that operate on different end of the continuum (e.g., English on the syntactic end, Chinese on the pragmatic end) there is a possibility that each language’s different strategies will negatively affect each other through transfer. That is, an English learner of Chinese acquiring Chinese ziji ‘self’ will need to transition from syntactic to pragmatic strategies in order to have native-like use and comprehension of ziji. Such a strategy shift occurs between two interfaces, but not in the sense of Sorace and Filiaci’s (2006) Interface hypothesis as there is no coordination of pragmatic and syntactic information. Rather, we are focused on the status of the anaphoric system in bilinguals, that is those who have acquired Chinese to a degree to be labelled a ‘near-native Chinese speaker’ (NNCS). If there has been a 424 | 언어와 정보 사회 제32호

new anaphoric system developed in this population, then we would predict that our near-native speakers of Chinese would not use syntactic processing strategies in their Chinese, and instead will interpret Chinese ziji as Chinese native speakers do by using pragmatics. It should be pointed out however, that the study in the second language (L2) acquisition of reflexive pronouns in Chinese has been conducted from a syntactic viewpoint (e.g., Kong 2011; Yuan 1998; Dugarova 2008), given that much theoretical work on ziji has been conducted through syntactic lenses (e.g., Huang and Liu 2001). The syntactic approach however has been argued to be erroneous theoretically (Huang 1994, 2000), and by logical extension to that of the syntactic theories behind the L2 acquisition of Chinese reflexive pronouns (cf. Sperlich 2013, 2015, 2016a, 2016b). Namely, Huang (1994, 2000, among other works) espoused a pure pragmatic approach to Chinese reflexive pronouns, whereby ziji’s distribution is predicted by Huang’s revised neo-Gricean pragmatic theory of anaphora, without having to make recourse to syntactic mechanisms (e.g., Binding theory) that do not make correct predictions. It is proposed thatthe NNCS studied here have the syntactic/semantic makeup of Chinese reflexive pronouns (e.g., what positions they may occur in, what type of antecedents they may be anteceded by), but the NNCS will have features of their L1 binding system in their L2 which will be incompatible. In other words, they may not have fully acquired the pragmatic anaphoric binding system of Chinese, as those with English as their L1 follow syntactic binding strategies. Thus in essence, NNCS could have an L1 binding system present in their L2 that would lead to processing difficulties. The research questions pursued are: 1. How do near-native speakers of Chinese bind ziji? 2. If they do not bind ziji in a native-like fashion, what is the cause? The Push and Pull of Syntax and Pragmatics over Reflexives: The System Exchange Hypothesis | 425

The article is structured as follows; Section 2 overviews the syntactic versus pragmatic arguments surrounding Chinese ziji favoring a pragmatic theory; Section 3 discusses the second language acquisition viewpoint; Section 4 details the experiment undertaken; Section 5 analyzes the data while Section 6 presents the discussion and conclusion.

2. Pragmatics versus Syntax The theoretical viewpoint taken in this study is that the system controlling reflexive pronouns can be dominated by either syntax or pragmatics (Huang 2000). A language where syntax dominates reflexive pronouns is English (Chomsky 1995), whereas pragmatics dominates in Chinese (Huang 2000). That is not to say however that syntax in Chinese or pragmatics in English has no place, rather Huang (2000) adopted the idea of Givón (1979) suggesting that languages fall upon a pragmatic-syntactic continuum, of which anaphora forms a part. Thus instead of taking a syntactic theory as the basis of investigating reflexive pronouns here (which is common), Huang’s (1994, 2000) revised neoGricean pragmatic theory of anaphora (RNGPTA) makes much more accurate predictions regarding Chinese anaphora than any other current syntactic theory. Briefly overviewing the RNGPTA, the crux of the theory is that speakers make use of three Levinsonian maxims (Levinson 2000) in order to guide their antecedence selection; (Q)uanity, (I)nformativeness and (M)anner, among other mechanisms specified by Huang (2000). As this article focuses on Chinese, a guiding example of how this works is provided by analyzing (1) below (taken from Sperlich (2013)):

426 | 언어와 정보 사회 제32호

(1) Xiao Wang1 shuo Xiao Wang

say

Xiao Ming2 bu Xiao Ming

xihuan ziji1/2.

NEG like

self

‘Xiao Wang1 said that Xiao Ming2 doesn’t like self1/2.’

Firstly, the environment of ziji is that of a logophoric one trigged by shuo. Ziji, being able to used logophorically (to express the internal speaker’s point of view, for example), can be interpreted as being anteceded by Xiao Wang. Another function of ziji is to simply reflexive-mark its predicate, thus being locally coreferential with Xiao Ming. Focusing on the LD-binding, there is another form which is able to do this, ta ‘he’, putting it into competition with ziji. However, ta does not have a logophoric feature, and its use will not induce a logophoric reading like ziji does. Thus the use of ziji is more marked, and under the M-principle using a marked form is for a reason—here it is to express logophoricity. A syntactic theory cannot account for this data, such as C.T.-J. Huang and Liu’s (2001) dual ziji theory (ziji is both an anaphor and a logophor) due to the circular logic employed. In sum, while the review cannot do the RNGPTA theory justice, more can be read in much more detail in the references cited here. Reflexive pronouns can be distinguished between polymorphemic and monomorphemic reflexives. The former are also known as complex reflexives, and take the form pronoun+self, as in himself or taziji in Chinese (or self+self forms). The latter category is also known as simplex reflexives of the form ‘self’, which is absent from English (apart from being in headlines) but is found in Chinese (ziji) and is commonly used. Reflexive pronouns like ziji have the feature of being able to be bound long-distantly (LD), meaning that ziji is able to be bound outside the clause it occupies. This is in contrast to complex reflexives, which do not usually have this ability. According to Huang (2000), this is due (in part) to ziji having a logophoric feature, placed within a logophoric environment this can allow The Push and Pull of Syntax and Pragmatics over Reflexives: The System Exchange Hypothesis | 427

ziji to be LD bound. English’s himself on the other hand is not used logophorically as Chinese ziji is, but however it may be bound outside of a clause it resides in (a non-argument position), such as within a prepositional phrase (Baker 1995), whereas Chinese ziji may occupy an argument position. The application of these observations is that NNCS are not expected to fully grasp the logophoric use of ziji, due to logophoricity being expressed differently in their L1 (English). This is part of the larger picture, being that Chinese regulates its reflexive pronouns pragmatically, thus if the NNCS’s L1 does this syntactically (stemming from theoretical picture presented here) there will be a clash of systems.

3. Second Language Acquisition and Reflexive Pronouns Near-native speakers of Chinese are a minor group of focus when it comes to reflexive pronoun acquisition, as the usual population focus is on L2 learners undergoing formal language instruction at the time of testing. This is mainly due to the difficulty in finding such participants, given that there is no concentrated grouping of them as there are of L2 learners at university. Overall, there have been several studies in near-native speakers’ acquisition of pronouns in general which can provide some perspective. Secondly, due to the different perspective taken on reflexive theory here, we view past second language acquisition (SLA) ziji studies done with a syntactic perspective (e.g., Dugarova 2007, 2008; Kong 2009, 2011; Yuan 1994, 1998) through pragmatic lenses; there is little in the literature on the pragmatic approach to reflexive pronouns in Chinese SLA (apart from the current author, cf. Sperlich 2013, 2015, and 2016a). To begin, as we are dealing with reflexive pronouns from both syntactic and pragmatic angles, one might invoke Sorace’s (2011) Interface Hypothesis 428 | 언어와 정보 사회 제32호

in order to explain the possible issues our NNCS may have. However, we do not believe that this hypothesis is suited for the current study as Chinese native speakers do not interface between syntactic and pragmatic strategies in the resolution of reflexive pronouns, as Italian native speakers do with pronouns. Nor do we believe that a syntax processing hypothesis such as Clashen and Felser’s (2006) Shallow Processing Hypothesis would be a suitable alternative given that syntactic processing is not at issue with reflexive pronoun resolution in Chinese. That is, a second language speaker of Chinese needs to learn how to process Chinese reflexive pronouns pragmatically, and not rely on a syntactic binding system to achieve antecedence. In understanding near-native speaker anaphora use/interpretation behavior through a select few articles, Sorace and Filiaci (2006) observed that near-native speakers of Italian differ from native Italian speakers in their antecedent assignment of pronouns in forward and backward anaphora contexts. Namely, Sorace and Filiaci (2006) hypothesized that the near-natives had acquired the syntax of Italian pronominals, however they had difficulties in the pragmatic aspects of reference assignment, and its integration with syntactic information. Belletti et al. (2007) found differences between English near-native speakers of Italian and native Italian speakers, showing the former’s inability to encode pragmatic information on top of the syntactic information they have already acquired. This thus shows near-natives have trouble integrating information at the interfaces (see also Rothman (2009) finding similar results for English near-native speakers of Spanish). Zhao (2014) found that English near-natives of Chinese have issues with null pronouns and ta ‘he/she/it’. It was found that the null pronoun element does not have interpretative problems as compared to the pronoun ta—possibly due to the topicializaion element. Taking a brief look at the SLA of ziji by (non-near-natives) English speakers (Dugarova 2007, 2008; Kong 2009, The Push and Pull of Syntax and Pragmatics over Reflexives: The System Exchange Hypothesis | 429

2011; Yuan 1994, 1998), all studies take a syntactic viewpoint with no studies available taking a pragmatic viewpoint. Native Chinese speakers are able to take into account more than one possible antecedent for ziji (LD or local), however English learners of Chinese have difficulties in binding by the LD antecedent, preferring to locally bind. Without considering their syntactic explanations regarding ziji, instead it is suggested that they have difficulties transitioning from syntactic to pragmatic strategies, that is there is interference from their L1 as their L1 binding system is incompatible with their L2. In lieu of a workable theory that includes pragmatic processes at its core, I instead propose a new one entitled the ‘System Exchange Hypothesis’. This idea focuses on the systems that languages ‘A’ and ‘B’ use to regulate phenomenon ‘X’. If the systems are different (in terms of the ‘modules’ used) as in a syntactic versus pragmatic system, this difference will be apparent in the learner’s interlanguage. If the systems are similar (e.g., two pragmatic systems), then it is matter of tweaking the interlanguage system only. It is believed that the new system can be developed fully (only after the advanced learner stage), but even then it is not guaranteed (the transition is not binary, but rather a continuum which starts when learning a language). Applied here, NNCS whose L1 is English have to transition from their L1 syntactic strategies to new L2 pragmatic strategies to resolve antecedence pragmatically. If they continue to use their L1 systems, then this will not result in successful reflexive pronoun resolution in Chinese all the time. That is, it may work for local binding cases, but certainly it will deny the NNCS operating properly in the LD scenarios. Finally, the L2 pragmatic system is not developed out of nothing, rather it has pragmatics as its base (neo-Gricean in this case) found in the L1, which is applied to developing the L2 system. The same argument can be made of speakers of those L1s which use pragmatic strategies to regulate their reflexive pronouns, who learn an L2 which uses syntactic 430 | 언어와 정보 사회 제32호

strategies: they use their syntactic systems available to them and modify them to their L2—after subconsciously discovering that their L1 system does not suit the L2 (that is of course, if the L1 system is making incorrect predictions in the L2). In sum, the acquisition of a different anaphoric system presents challenges to learners whose L1 does not use the same strategies as the L2, and this persists in near-native speakers over different anaphoric elements.

4. Experimental Methodology The aim of the experiment is to discover if there is a difference in treatment between LD and local antecedents for ziji in NNCS by eliciting judgement data that reflects their actual competence. It is for this reason that the phased choice methodology is adopted (which can be read in detail in Sperlich (2015)), given that past methodologies eliciting anaphoric judgements have masked judgements. Briefly, as this experiment deals with multiple possible antecedents of ziji, it is important to present each possible antecedent separately from the other using separate questions. Presenting an example of how this works, (2) shows an actual test sentence. Notice that there are two possible antecedents for ziji, yingxiong (hero) and huairen (villain). (2) Zhongdu de

yingxiong bu

poisoned POS hero

zhidao shi huairen dusi

ziji de.

NEG know SHI villain poison self DE

‘The poisoned hero doesn’t know that the devious villain poisoned himself.’

This is then followed by a question (3) where the participant assesses one possible antecedent of ziji. Further on, the participant assesses the other antecedent. The Push and Pull of Syntax and Pragmatics over Reflexives: The System Exchange Hypothesis | 431

(3) The hero doesn’t know that the villain poisoned himself (translated from Chinese)

ziji = The hero

Y/N

The advantage of this approach (as opposed to, say, multiple choice) is that one choice will have limited influence over another. This is termed the Interpretive Judgement Test. The second type (also utilized) is shows the same sentence again, but with a truth-value judgement statement instead. In order to further reduce risk of items influencing one another, three different types of randomizations were used; intersentential, whereby the antecedent questionrandomly appears; intrasentential, whereby the stimulus randomly appears; and finally block randomization. Discussing the structure of the sentences tested, ziji occupies the final NP position in the sentence, that is after all possible antecedents. The sentences are either biclausal (as in (2) above) or triclausal, thus allowing for either two or three possible antecedents for ziji. In addition to this, each sentence is either biased (as in (2) above) or neutral to the LD antecedent. What this means is that in order to check if our participants have acquired the pragmatic rules surrounding ziji, there should be a strong following of bias given the antecedent decision in Chinese is made pragmatically in a given context. That is to say, compared to a neutral sentence there is no such imposition to encourage LD binding, in that under a pragmatic system there is no pragmatic guidance to select either antecedent in a neutral sentence. In total, there are 11 sentence types tested (with two tokens each and 22 distracters), named as follows:1)

1) Note that the label ‘finite/nonfinite’ occurs with these sentences, as these sentences were also tested in English (see Sperlich 2013). The position taken for Chinese is that while finiteness may exist in Chinese, it is currently impossible to distinguish this. Thus, they are treated as 432 | 언어와 정보 사회 제32호

N-F/NF (Biclausal Neutral Finite/nonfininte) P-F/NF (Biclausal Pragmatic Bias to Matrix Subject Finite/nonfinite) PS-F/NF (Biclausal Pragmatic+Semantic Bias to Matrix Subject Finite/nonfinite) T-N (Triclausal Neutral Finite) P-LD1 (Triclausal Pragmatic Bias to Matrix Subject Finite) PS-LD1 (Triclausal Pragmatic+Semantic Bias to Matrix Subject Finite) P-LD2 (Triclausal Pragmatic Bias to First Embedded Subject Finite) PS-LD2 (Triclausal Pragmatic+Semantic Bias to First Embedded Subject Finite)2) Apart from judgement data, three cognitive measures were used to understand the processing ease/difficulties participants might encounter. These are reaction timing, confidence and knowledge source attribution. Reaction timing is measured from when the participant is presented with the stimulus, to when they make a judgement. After the judgement is made, the participant then selects their confidence level as below (4): (4) 4 – Certain, you have no doubts that you are right 3 – Quite confident 2 – More or less guessing 1 – Guess (i.e you could have flipped a coin, 50/50 chance of getting it right)

Finally, following Dienes and Scott (2005) we subjectively measure what a participant bases their judgements on, selecting from one below in (5):

not having finiteness and can be considered as one sentence type. 2) All test sentences can be found in the Appendix. The Push and Pull of Syntax and Pragmatics over Reflexives: The System Exchange Hypothesis | 433

(5) G = Guess – you guessed the answer, just like flipping a coin. I = Intuition – you don’t know why you are right, it’s a ‘feeling’ that you have. R = Rule – you have learnt the rule before and you are knowingly applying it to the sentence, and you can say what the rule is.

Time pressure is given to the participants giving them 45 minutes to finish the test. A vocabulary list is also given to participants to help counteract unknown words. Finally, the participants are labelled ‘near-native’ based upon their self-report information. In total seven participants took part (three females and four males), with their ages ranging between 27-61. They have been using Chinese in a range of 10-43 years, with a weekly usage between 3-10 hours, with all spending time in China. Native Chinese speakers (CNS) speaking Standard Mandarin formed the control group. The group has 6 male and 19 female participants, their ages ranging from 17-60. The experimental procedure followed as thus: This study makes use of two separate tests, one using the interpretive judgement test (done first), and the other using the truth-value judgement test (done last, with on average a few days between the first). The tests were done on a computer in a lab/private room. Participants entered their biodata and information about their language use. Then the test instructions are provided, with practice items, and then the actual test started.

434 | 언어와 정보 사회 제32호

5. Results The results will first give an overall picture of the participants’ reflexive binding knowledge per sentence, and then focus on how the biased versus neutral sentences are treated. This also involves how the psycholinguistic measures are used in different sentence types.

5.1. Biclausal and Triclausal Sentences Discussing the control group first (CNS, Table 1), it can be said that all the patterns of binding in each sentence are highly significant (p< .001) using Fisher’s exact, apart from N-F whereby CNS prefer neither LD or LC antecedent.3) Thus, the data indicates clearly that CNS antecedent judgements are heavily influenced by contextual information. Secondly, in comparing CNS versus NNCS, note in Table 1 significance is rated in the sentence title area (along with odds ratio, if significant), indicating if NNCS behave differently to CNS. Overall, NNCS differ from CNS, especially in the LD conditions. Odds ratio gives us the degree of CNS producing LD interpretations over NNCS, noting here that these ratios are very high. Thus, CNS are more likely to have LD interpretations than NNCS. Observing Table 2, take note that the statistical significance of Y/N judgement differences are entered in the test sentence title area (measured via Fisher’s exact test). That some sentences did not reach significance (individually at least) 3) This is to be expected as there is no pragmatic bias to the LD or local antecedent, essentially rendering free choice. One may notice that N-NF is significant, LD binding is preferred. Upon close examination of the material there was a token which semantically gave preference to the matrix subject; excluding this we would see the same pattern occurring. The Push and Pull of Syntax and Pragmatics over Reflexives: The System Exchange Hypothesis | 435

could be attributed to the sample size gathered here (for an overall descriptive summary of the cognitive measures refer to Table 4). Beginning with the neutral sentences (N-F/NF), it is clear that the preference is for the local antecedent, although there is some LD binding occurring. Note that it takes longer (time in milliseconds) to reject the LD antecedent than to accept it(also with the local antecedent). Moving onto the biased sentences (P-F/NF, PS-F/NF), we find that the pattern of following bias to the LD antecedent is a recurring one, although again we find cases of local binding present. Timing-wise we see that the LD antecedent is selected the fastest for YES, and the rejection being the slowest. Confidence-wise, we find the acceptance of the LD antecedent eliciting the highest confidence, and rejecting it gives the lowest. Focusing now on Table 3 which shows the triclausal sentences, similar patterns to the biclausal sentences are evident. Firstly, in the neutral sentence (T-N), we find that the local antecedent is preferred. In the biased to the first LD antecedent sentences (P/PS-LD1) the preference is towards LD1, which is judged at a slower rate compared to the local antecedent. The P/PS-LD2 sentences on the other hand shift the binding preference towards LD2 (along with more local binding), but results in less confident judgements. Investigating the combined biclausal sentences in a neutral versus biased sentence paradigm, in the Y/N distribution of the two antecedents in the combined neutral sentences, a Fisher’s exact finds significant differences (p= .0024), showing that the preference for the local antecedent holds. Conducting the same test for the combined biased sentences gives p = .0001, thus we can confirm that NNCS participants do indeed follow bias. Moreover, comparing the neutral versus biased sentence Y/N for the LD antecedent shows significant differences (Fisher’s exact, p = .0004), as well as for the local antecedent (p = .0004). In comparing the overall confidence levels, we find no significant interactions between 436 | 언어와 정보 사회 제32호

antecedent type between sentences and within sentences—the confidence level means are very close together. In timing, the P-NF sentence shows there are differences between the two antecedents LD (M = 8459, SD = 8673) and local (M = 15408, SD = 13913); t(-2.161) = 41.88, p = .036. The only significant overall timing difference is found in the neutral sentence local antecedent (M = 12426, SD = 9332) versus the biased sentence local antecedent (M = 17475, SD = 17474) through an independent t-test; t(-2.277) = 138.213, p = .024. Investigating the triclausal sentences along similar lines does not find any significant interactions, mostly likely due to the number of antecedents present in the sentences. Table 5 details how the measures pattern with one another (this includes target and distracter items). It can be noted that use of Guess (G) is minimal, and the preferred range is between 3-4 in confidence (CF), and Intuition (I) is the preferred knowledge source used reported. Rule (R) only appears with high confidence ratings. As reported in Sperlich (2016b) for the other groups, NNCS pattern closely with them. That being, in the highest and lowest confidence levels we find quick timing, in that if someone really does not know or really does know, then naturally they will have a quicker reaction to that compared to the middle levels. [Table 1] CNS Y/N results

p< .05 = *; p< .01 = **; p< .001 = ***; LD = Long-distant antecedent; LC = Local antecedent

The Push and Pull of Syntax and Pragmatics over Reflexives: The System Exchange Hypothesis | 437

[Table 2] NNCS biclausal sentence results

p< .05 = *; p< .01 = **; p< .001 = ***; LD = Long-distant antecedent; LC = Local antecedent

[Table 3] NNCS triclausal sentence results

p< .05 = *; p< .01 = **; p< .001 = ***; LD = Long-distant antecedent; LC = Local antecedent

[Table 4] NNCS confidence, knowledge source and reaction timing per antecedent, per sentence

LD = Long-distant antecedent; LC = Local antecedent; G = Guess; I = Intuition; R = Rule

438 | 언어와 정보 사회 제32호

[Table 5] NNCS overall time vs. knowledge source vs. confidence

5.2. Further Participant Investigation One NNCS is trilingual in Chinese, Korean and English, and another participant is a native Spanish speaker. Both have lived many years in an English environment and have excellent control of their English. However, as they have different L1 backgrounds to the others, I investigated to see if their patterns are significantly different. Nothing in their Y/N data suggest that they are operating any differently to the rest of the group—it appears that regardless of their language background they still perform as the other participants. Whether or not this is attributable to their Chinese language proficiency or L1, remains to be seen. However, it is clear that they treat reflexive pronouns differently to that of native Chinese speakers.

5.3. Results Summary In sum, it is certain that NNCS treat the LD and local antecedent of ziji differently in biased and neutral conditions. That is, while they do respond to

The Push and Pull of Syntax and Pragmatics over Reflexives: The System Exchange Hypothesis | 439

bias, there is still local binding interference. The data from reaction timing and confidence is less clear, with the latter not reaching a degree significance between sentence and antecedent types. Reaction timing on the other hand does show that there is an increased processing burden on the local antecedent in the biased sentences as compared to the neutral sentences.

6. Discussion and Conclusion What evidence is there that NNCS are exhibiting non-native like behavior in their binding patterns? The points of evidence are: 1. There is a preference for local binding in the neutral sentences, and while they LD bind to a certain degree, there is continued local binding in the biased sentences. 2. There is an increased cognitive loading in binding for local antecedents in biased sentences as compared to neutral sentences. 3. There are differences in behavior between NNCS and CNS, the latter allowing more LD binding. The interpretation of these points is that essentially NNCS are dealing with negative language transfer from their L1.4) That is, while we do see a response

4) As for the trilingual speaker, this may be an issue of competing systems in all three languages, producing competing systems in the participant’s Chinese. As for the Spanish speaker, while Spanish does not have reflexive pronouns (it has clitics), it is possible that there are pragmatic principles behind Spanish anaphora (Blackwell 2002), but it is not clear here how that might influence the binding choices made, and there is also possible influence from English as well. 440 | 언어와 정보 사회 제32호

to the pragmatic bias, it is not to the same high degree of native Chinese speakers, nor as weak as English learners of Chinese (Sperlich 2013, 2015, 2016a). In fact, they appear to operate closer to Korean learners of Chinese, who happily respond to bias without a strong selection of the local antecedent (cf. Sperlich 2013, 2016a), along with Japanese learners of Chinese (Yuan 1998). This negative transfer, is not a result of difficulties with supposed acquisition of Chinese syntactic mechanisms governing the binding of ziji, as argued previously in the literature. Rather, the hypothesis advanced here is that the NNCS L1 anaphoric system is incompatible with their L2, namely the syntactic anaphoric strategies in their L1 are being used in their L2 (which uses pragmatic binding strategies), resulting in non-native binding behavior. To emphasize, these results cannot be interpreted as NNCS failing to acquire Chinese syntax surrounding ziji, NNCS have failed to acquire Chinese pragmatics surrounding ziji; which is supported by theory. This is perhaps somewhat surprising, indicating that acquiring near-native proficiency in binding of reflexives is quite a task, regardless of the years of input (as was found by Demerci (2000) regarding Turkish learners of English). This therefore suggests that the acquisition ofthe anaphoric system is a prime fossilization target, in that if L1 influence is not erased from the L2 anaphoric system, it will continue to have lingering influence. If we consider the reverse, pragmatic influence on a syntactic system, there is evidence that such a shift also has difficulties. For example, numerous Chinese learners of English (including that of Korean learners of English) studies show that LD binding is present in the early stages of SLA acquisition, which diminishes over time (e.g., Lee 2008; Yip and Tang 1998). However, in biased environments, LD binding is still present. Thus, we have a mirror situation whereby English learners of Chinese will bind locally in neutral sentences and somewhat The Push and Pull of Syntax and Pragmatics over Reflexives: The System Exchange Hypothesis | 441

in biased sentences with some following of pragmatics, essentially reducing local binding preference (but still is present); Chinese/Korean learners of English on the other hand will bind both locally and long-distantly in neutral sentences and follow LD bias in the biased sentences, only for the LD binding to reduce over time (but not completely over com. This study has found that reflexive pronoun resolution in near-native speakers of Chinese is non-native like (to a degree), due to L1 interference of a syntactic anaphoric system being imposed on their L2 interlanguage. If unchecked, it is suggested here that the anaphoric system may be the target for fossilization, just as it has been established that null/ overt pronoun use/interpretation presents continued difficulties for near-native speakers (e.g., English bilinguals of Italian). Rather than appealing to interfacing problems, or incomplete syntactic acquisition, the hypothesis put forward here, the System Exchange Hypothesis, predicts that these difficulties arise from transferring from one system to another (e.g., from a syntactic to a pragmatic system). Thus, another prediction is that if the systems are similar, e.g. pragmatic to pragmatic (as shown in Sperlich 2013, 2016a), then there will be less difficulties. What this means is that we should see similar binding patterns, rather than divergent ones we see now. Therefore, it is suggested to focus more research on the status of learners’ and near-native speakers’ anaphoric systems giving pragmatics serious consideration.

442 | 언어와 정보 사회 제32호

References Baker, C. L.(1995), “Contrast, discourse prominence, and intensification, with special reference to locally free reflexives in British English,” Language 71, 63–101. Belletti, A., Bennati, E., and Sorace, A.(2007), “Theoretical and developmental issues in the syntax of subjects: Evidence from near-native Italian,” Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 25, 657-689. Blackwell, S.(2002), Implicatures in Discourse, Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Chomsky, N.(1995), The Minimalist Program, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Clahsen, H., and Felser, C.(2006), “Grammatical processing in language learners,” Applied Psycholinguistics 27, 3-42. Dienes, Z., and Ryan, S.(2005), “Measuring unconscious knowledge: Distinguishing structural knowledge and judgment knowledge,” Psychological Research 69, 338-351. Demirci, M.(2000), “The role of pragmatics in reflexive interpretation by Turkish learners of English,” Second Language Research 16, 325-353. Dugarova, E.(2007), “Acquisition of the Chinese reflexive ‘ziji’ by Russian and English speakers,” In N. Hilton, R. Arscott, K. Barden, A. Krishna, S. Shah, and M. Zellers (Eds.), CamLing: Proceedings of the Fifth University of Cambridge Postgraduate Conference in Language Research, Cambridge: Cambridge Institute of Language Research, 48-55. Dugarova, E.(2008), “Interpretation of the Chinese reflexive ‘ziji’ by English speakers,” In B. Yuan (Ed.), Theoretical and Empirical Approach to Applied Chinese Language Studies, London: Cypress Book Company, 7-16. Givón, T.(1979),On Understanding Grammar, New York: Academic Press. Huang, C.-T. J., and Liu, C.-S. L.(2001), “Logophoricity, attitudes and ziji at the interface,” In P. Cole, G. Hermon, and C.-T. J. Huang (Eds.), Syntax and Semantics 33: Long-Distance Reflexives, New York: Academic Press, 141-195. Huang, Y.(1994), The Syntax and Pragmatics of Anaphora: A Study with Special The Push and Pull of Syntax and Pragmatics over Reflexives: The System Exchange Hypothesis | 443

Reference to Chinese, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Huang, Y.(2000), Anaphora: A Cross-linguistic Study, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Kong, S.(2009), “The interpretation of Chinese monomorphemic and polymorphemic anaphors by adult English speakers,” Hong Kong Journal of Applied Linguistics 12, 45-62. Kong, S.(2011), “Monomorphemic and polymorphemic anaphors in L2 Chinese,” Journal of Chinese Linguistics 39, 451-477. Lee, K.-Y.(2008), “The role of pragmatics in reflexive interpretation by Korean learners of English,” In M. Bowles (Ed.), Selected Proceedings of the 2007 Second Language Research Forum, Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project, 97-112. Levinson, S.(2000), Presumptive Meanings: The Theory of Generalized Conversational Implicature, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Rothman, J.(2009), “Pragmatic deficits with syntactic consequences?: L2 pronominal subjects and the syntax–pragmatics interface,” Journal of Pragmatics 41, 951-973. Sorace, A.(2011), “Pinning down the concept of ‘interface’ in bilingualism,” Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism 1, 1-33. Sorace, A., and Filiaci, F.(2006), “Anaphora resolution in near-native speakers of Italian,” Second Language Research 22, 339-368. Sperlich, D.(2013), The Acquisition of Long-Distance Reflexives in Chinese as an Interlanguage: An Experimental Study, Ph.D. Dissertation: The University of Auckland. Sperlich, D.(2015), “Assessing anaphoric relations via the phased choice methodology,” International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching 53, 355-388. Sperlich, D.(2016a), “Pragmatic or syntactic ziji? Evidence from language transfer,” Journal of Cognitive Science 17, 607-652. Sperlich, D.(2016b), “Implementing psycholinguistic measures to amplify judge444 | 언어와 정보 사회 제32호

ment data,” Global Communication and Beyond: Language, Culture, Pedagogy and Translation: Selected Papers from the APLX 2015 International Conference on Applied Linguistics, Taipei: Crane, 122-144. Yip, V., and Tang, G.(1998), “Acquisition of English reflexive binding by Cantonese learners: Testing the positive transfer hypothesis,” In M. Beck (Ed.), Morphology and its Interfaces in Second Language Knowledge, Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 165-193. Yuan, B.(1994), “Second language acquisition of reflexives revisited,” Language 70, 539-545. Yuan, B.(1998), “Interpretation of binding and orientation of the Chinese reflexive ziji by English and Japanese speakers,” Second Language Research 14, 324340. Zhao, L.-X.(2014), “Ultimate attainment of anaphora resolution in L2 Chinese,” Second Language Research 30, 381-407.

Darcy Sperlich Department of English, National Central University, Taiwan E-mail: [email protected]

접수일자: 2017년 6월 24일 심사완료: 2017년 11월 9일 게재확정: 2017년 11월 9일

The Push and Pull of Syntax and Pragmatics over Reflexives: The System Exchange Hypothesis | 445

Appendix English test sentences provided for reference only.

N-F/NF Tom knows that Dick thinks highly of himself. 老王认为老陈觉得自己很了不起° Tom thinks that Dick saw a photo of himself in the newspaper. 老王认为老陈看见了自己在报纸上的照片° Tom wants Dick to give himself more time. 老王要老陈给自己多一点时间° Tom wants Dick to post himself a letter. 老王要老陈寄一封信给自己°

P-F/NF Confucius believed that the new disciple had not yet studied the writings about himself. 孔子相信新的弟子还没有读过关于自己的文章° The teacher believes that the student will give himself an apple in every class. 老师相信学生每一堂课都会给自己一颗苹果° The Emperor commissioned the artist to paint a portrait of himself. 皇帝派画家画一幅自己的画像° The Emperor commissioned the architect to design a new royal capital for himself. 皇帝派设计师设计一座新的皇都给自己°

PS-F/NF The poisoned hero doesn’t know that the devious villain poisoned himself.

446 | 언어와 정보 사회 제32호

中毒的英雄不知道是坏人毒死自己的° The injured policeman said that the drunken motorist assaulted himself. 受伤的警察说酒醉的驾驶攻击自己° The old soldier wants to tell the young man the terrible war stories about himself. 老兵想要跟年轻人说自己可怕的打仗的故事° The arrogant movie star wants to show the weak director the rewritten parts about himself. 自大的电影明星给软弱的导演看自己角色重改的部分°

T-F Tom heard that Dick thinks that Harry had hurt himself. 老王听说老陈认为老李伤害了自己° Tom thought that Dick said that Harry hates himself. 老王以为老陈说老李讨厌自己°

P-LD1 The visiting president knows that the school teacher said that the student had met himself once before. 来参观的总统知道学校老师说学生有见过自己° The school boy hopes that the teacher will guarantee that the school bully won’t tease himself in class tomorrow. 小学生希望老师会保证校园流氓明天上课不会欺负自己°

PS-LD1 The famous scientist thinks that a colleague knows that the journalist will interview himself tomorrow. 有名的科学家认为同事知道明天会有记者来采访自己° The imprisoned president suspected that the colonel knew that the general would The Push and Pull of Syntax and Pragmatics over Reflexives: The System Exchange Hypothesis | 447

overthrow himself. 被囚禁的总统怀疑中校知道将军会推翻自己°

P-LD2 The doctor found out that the patient doesn’t know that the chemist prescribed himself with the wrong medication. 医生发现病人不知道药剂师开错药给自己° The cook heard that the customer complained that the waiter served himself with the wrong main. 厨师听见客人抱怨服务生上错菜给自己°

PS-LD2 The student heard that the lazy teacher knows that the angry principal will fire himself tomorrow. 学生听说懒惰的老师知道生气的校长明天会解聘自己° The happy teacher believes that the bad student knows that the principal will expel himself tomorrow. 快乐的老师相信坏学生知道校长明天会开除自己°

448 | 언어와 정보 사회 제32호