Chinese as a Second Language (漢語教學研究—美國中文教師學會學報) 52:1 (2017), 55–76.DOI 10.1075/csl.52.1.03liISSN 2451-828x / E-ISSN 2451-8298 © John Benjamins Publishing Company

Stylistic variation in L1 and L2 ChineseNative speakers, learners, teachers, and textbooks

Xiaoshi LiMichigan State University

This study examines stylistic variation patterns in L1 and L2 Chinese, focusing on two linguistic structures: morphosyntactic particle DE and subject pronoun. The data were from thirteen native speakers, four Chinese instructors, twenty-three L2 Chinese learners, and four Chinese textbooks. Results from variation analysis with frequency description show four general patterns. First, instructors used overt forms of stylistic variants in class significantly more frequently than native speakers did in conversations. Second, learners tended to overuse the overt forms compared with their native speaker peers. Third, learner patterns of stylistic variation aligned closely with those of their teachers. Finally, un-like teacher input, textbook input demonstrated mixed results compared with learner patterns. For DE use, learners’ patterns aligned significantly with those in textbooks, but did not for subject pronoun use. The implications for stylistic variation in conversational and written Chinese are discussed and suggestions are offered for Chinese and foreign language instruction.

Keywords: stylistic variation, Chinese, sociolinguistics, foreign language instruction

1. Introduction

Native speakers frequently use a variety of language forms to express similar meanings. In addition, depending on different linguistic and social contexts, these forms might carry varying stylistic meanings in terms of formality, clarity, tone, and politeness, among other qualities. Language learners often struggle with using the appropriate language variations in authentic social contexts even after years of language learning. Learners need to acquire not only the correct language forms but also, more importantly, the nuances of the stylistic meanings that these forms convey, and be able to produce variable speech styles appropriately. To this end,

56 Xiaoshi Li

an understanding of native speakers’ and learners’ patterns of language variation, how and why their patterns are different, and the factors influencing the patterns, is necessary.

Previous studies on sociolinguistic variation have found a variety of reasons for the variability in learners’ interlanguage, including linguistic, social, psycho-logical, developmental, and educational factors (Bayley, 1994, 1996; Dewaele & Mougeon, 2004; Dewaele, 2004; X. Li, 2010a; Mougeon & Rehner, 2001; Mougeon, Rehner, & Nadasdi, 2004; Rehner, Mougeon, & Nadasdi, 2003; Wolfram, 1985; Young, 1991). In recent decades, there have been a number of variation studies, especially in French, that showed empirically that teachers and textbooks have a significant impact on learners’ use of sociolinguistic variants. Mougeon and his associates, through investigation of a variety of French language structures, found that vernacular speech is not authentically represented by teachers and textbooks, which overuse the prestige forms of variants. The researchers claim this overuse to be a “disservice” to the students (Dewaele & Mougeon, 2004; Mougeon, Nadasdi, & Rehner, 2010; Mougeon & Rehner, 2001; Mougeon, Rehner, & Nadasdi, 2004; Nadasdi, Mougeon, & Rehner, 2005, 2008; Rehner & Mougeon, 1999, 2003; Rehner, Mougeon, & Nadasdi, 2003). They also found that educational factors, including teachers’ input and instructional materials, have a significant impact on the use of sociolinguistic variants by French L2 or immersion learners, and that students fol-low teachers’ patterns of sociolinguistic use of variants. For example, Etienne and Sax (2009) examined 22 French textbooks in the U.S. and found that the three tar-get stylistic variants (i.e. on vs. nous, ne deletion vs. ne retention, and interrogative structures) were not represented consistently and their authentic uses were often misrepresented. Therefore, the researchers called for the redesign of the French language textbooks to incorporate more authentic use of the language.

Corresponding to the increasing research interest in sociolinguistic varia-tion, more and more SLA researchers have become interested in the implications of sociolinguistic research for foreign language teaching: whether it is necessary to explicitly teach sociolinguistic competence in the classroom, and if so, how (Cohen, 2008; Etienne & Sax, 2006; 2009; Lemmerich, 2010; Lyster, 1994; Taguchi, 2015; Valdman, 2003). For example, De Vito (1991) advocated incorporating na-tive speaker norms into French immersion and foreign language education based on the mismatch found in her study between French native speaker use of four grammatical features and the treatment of these features in French second lan-guage textbooks. In another study, Harlow (1990), examining the differences of speech act strategies used by French native and nonnative speakers, advocated the incorporation of social variables such as age and familiarity between speak-ers into the teaching of speech acts in French. Valdman (2003) proposed a peda-gogical norm that takes into consideration the fact that members of any linguistic

Stylistic variation in L1 and L2 Chinese 57

community shift their speech styles depending on their social contexts and inten-tions. She found that explicit instruction of variable forms resulted in learners’ “more accurate performance and less puristic attitudes toward language variation” (2003, p. 76).

This study aims to contribute to this line of research in the context of L2 Mandarin Chinese (hereafter Chinese). The study examines the stylistic varia-tions demonstrated in the speech of L2 Chinese (CSL) learners, Chinese native speakers, and Chinese teachers, as well as in advanced-level L2 Chinese textbooks. Research questions include:

What are the general patterns of the use of stylistic variants by L2 Chinese learn-ers, Chinese native speakers, Chinese teachers, and Chinese language textbooks? Are they different? If so, how?

Before I present my study, in the following sections, I will first present the defini-tion of sociolinguistic competence and stylistic variation, followed by descriptions of the target language features.

2. Sociolinguistic competence and stylistic variation

Since Hymes’s proposal of the concept of communicative competence, which em-phasized the importance of “what to say to whom in what circumstances and how to say it” (Hymes, 1972, p. 277), scholars and language instructors have ap-proached and explored this concept from different perspectives. One perspec-tive involves conceptualizing appropriateness of language use in a social context (Dewaele, 2008). In the field of sociolinguistics, Lyster (1994, p. 263) defined the concept of sociolinguistic competence as “the capacity to recognize and produce so-cially appropriate speech in context.” An important component of sociolinguistic competence is the ability to style-shift appropriately. For example, ne in French, the first particle of negation, is a widely-studied sociolinguistic variant. L2 French learners need to know when to omit it, because keeping it all the time would sound too formal or like classroom French. Consequently, researchers have conducted an array of studies investigating relevant factors that affect the use of target linguistic forms (Abreu, 2009; Lyster, 1994; Mougeon & Rehner, 2001; Mougeon, Rehner, & Nadasdi, 2004; Rehner, Mougeon, & Nadasdi, 2003). Besides linguistic factors rel-evant to the target variants that influence learners’ use of the variants, studies have found that social, developmental, and educational factors, such as proficiency lev-el, gender, age, social network, interlocutor, time spent in the target language en-vironment, instructor speech, and textbooks, also play very important roles. This study investigates L2 Chinese learners’ stylistic variation patterns and compares

58 Xiaoshi Li

them with variation patterns demonstrated by Chinese native speakers, learners’ instructors, and textbooks, aiming to explore the role of instructional factors in L2 Chinese stylistic variation. The study focuses on variation in the use of two linguistic forms: morphosyntactic particle DE and subject pronoun in Chinese.

3. Morphosyntactic particle DE and subject pronoun use in Chinese

Both the morphosyntactic particle DE and subject pronoun are sociolinguis-tic variants in Chinese and their uses demonstrate variation by native speakers (retention vs. deletion of DE; overt vs. null form for subject pronoun). Their use is influenced by various linguistic and social factors (Chang, 1994; Chappell & Thompson, 1992; Jia & Bayley, 2002; X. Li, 2010b; X. Li, Chen, & Chen, 2012; Liu, 2003). In this section, I briefly introduce the relevant literature on these two vari-ants and their linguistic functions and environments.

3.1 Morphosyntactic particle DE

DE is the most frequently-used word in Chinese (Xiao, Rayson, & McEnery, 2009) and features optionality and multifunctionality (Shi & Li, 2002). DE has three pri-mary grammatical functions: genitive marker, attributive marker, and nominaliza-tion marker (Li & Thompson, 1981; Yip & Rimmington, 2004). Based on empirical data, X. Li (2010a, 2010b) ascertained that DE use is optional in these three major functions. DE use is also optional when DE structures are immediately followed by a demonstrative (D) or a number+classifier (NC) structure. This study focuses on optional cases of DE, and the following is a brief explanation of each function with examples extracted from the L2 learner dataset.

As a genitive marker, DE shows the possessive relationship between the modi-fier and the head noun (N) or noun phrase (NP), as in Example (1).1

1. Transcription conventions Li and Thompson (1981):

att Attributive (de) neg Negationcl Classifier nom Nominalizer (de)cop Copular pfv Perfective Aspect (-le)crs Current Relevant State (le) pl Pluraldem Demonstrative prep Preposition (zài).gen Genitive (-de)

Stylistic variation in L1 and L2 Chinese 59

(1)

他们tā-menhe-pl

的degen

父母fùmŭparents

‘their parents’

As an attributive marker, DE can connect the head N/NP with an adjective (ADJ DE N/NP), a noun (N DE N/NP), a verb (V DE N/NP), a phrase (Phrase DE N/NP), or a relative clause (Subject DE N/NP). See Examples (2)–(6).

(2)

我wŏI

得dĕihave

知道zhīdàoto know

很多hĕnduōmany

新xīnnew

的deatt

情况。qíngkuàngsituations

‘I have to get to know many new situations.’

(3)

俄罗斯éluósīRussia

的deatt

城市chéngshìcity

‘Russian cities’

(4)

喝hēdrink

的deatt

水shuĭwater

不negnot

好hăogood

‘The water (I) drank was not good.’

(5)

吃chīeat

饺子jiăozidumplings

的deatt

时候shíhoutimes

也yĕalso

很hĕnvery

多。duōmany

‘There were many times (I) ate dumplings.’

(6)

我wŏI

最zuìmost

喜欢xĭhuānlike

的deatt

城市chéngshìcity

是shìcop

上海。shànghăiShanghai

‘My favorite city is Shanghai.’

As a nominalization marker, DE occurs when there is no head noun or noun phrase (N/NP) and helps the modifier acquire a nominal feature. There are also cases when DE does not nominalize the modifier. I include them in this category because they share the feature of having no head word. See Example (7), where DE nominalizes the modifier 喜欢 (xǐhuān, ‘like’).

(7)

我wǒI

喜欢xǐhuānlike

的denom

是shìcop

游泳。yóuyǒngswim

‘What I like is swimming.’

60 Xiaoshi Li

When DE is followed by a demonstrative (D) or number (N)+classifier (C), it is often omitted, as in Example (8).

(8)

我wŏI

(的)(de)(gen)

那nàdem

个gècl

朋友péngyoufriend

‘That friend of mine’

Studies have shown that DE use by Chinese native speakers is influenced by vari-ous factors. Chappell and Thompson (1992) and Liu (2003) examined the use of DE in a phrasal structure, NP1 DE NP2, and found that DE use by native speak-ers is influenced by a combination of pragmatic, structural, and semantic factors. Chang (1994) explored DE use in another phrasal structure, Adj. DE NP, and showed that DE use is influenced by the information status and discourse func-tions of the NP, and the relationship between the NP and other possible candidate NPs within a shared discourse. X. Li (2010b) included every function of DE in her investigation and explored both linguistic and social factors. Her results showed that DE use is influenced by DE functions as well as age, occupation, gender, and formality. Females, teachers, and older speakers tend to use DE more than males, students, and younger speakers. DE is used more in formal than in informal set-tings. Greater use of DE sounds more formal and literary. As to DE use by L2 Chinese learners, X. Li (2010a) showed that it is influenced by DE functions, pro-ficiency level, length of residence in China, and gender. Higher proficiency level, longer time in a target-language environment, and being female all tend to pro-mote DE deletion. In addition, learners’ patterns align with the patterns in their teachers’ speech and textbooks.

3.2 Subject pronoun use

In Chinese, both subjects and objects can be realized through a full NP, a personal pronoun, or a null form. This study focuses on the alternation between personal pronoun and null form in the subject position as illustrated in Example (9). As shown here, the first mention of the subject (我 meaning ‘I’) is realized by a per-sonal pronoun and the second mention is in the null form.

(9)

我wŏI

在zàiprep

阳朔yángshuòYangshuo

的deatt

时候，Øshíhou, Øtime, Ø

认识rènshíknow

了lepfv

很多hĕnduōvery many

很多hĕnduōvery many

旅游者。lǚyóuzhĕtourists

‘When I was in Yangshuo, I got to know many tourists.’

It is widely acknowledged that one of the major constraints on subject pronoun use involves referent switch: whether or not there is a switch between subject

Stylistic variation in L1 and L2 Chinese 61

referents in two adjacent clauses (Bayley & Pease-Alvarez, 1996, 1997; Cameron, 1992, 1993; Flores-Ferrán, 2002, 2004; Jia & Bayley, 2002). There are two major conditions among referents in adjacent clauses. The first is when the subject refer-ents are the same, as in Example (10).

(10)

我wŏI

有时候yŏushíhòusometimes

晚上wănshàngevening go

回家，Øhuíjiā, Øhome, Ø

看kànwatch

电视diànshìtv

后hòuafter

ØØØ

就jiùthen

睡觉。shuì jiàogo to bed

‘Sometimes I go back home in the evening. I will go to bed after watching TV.’

The other condition is when the subject referent changes in the second clause, as in Example (11).

(11)

我wŏI

来哈尔滨以后，lái hāĕrbīn yĭhòu,come Harbin after,

他走了。tā zŏu lehe leave pfv

‘After I came to Harbin, he left.’

When there is a referent switch between two adjacent subjects, several cases need further categorization. First, the subject pronouns in the two clauses could be dif-ferent, but the underlying entities are the same, as in Example (12). In this exam-ple, the underlying referents of the omitted subject “you” in speaker A’s question and the subject “I” in speaker B’s answer are actually the same person.

(12)

A.

八月份bā yuèfènAugust

的deatt

时候shíhoutime

ØØØ

做zuòdo

什么？shénmewhat

‘What are you going to do in August?’

B.

我wǒI

还háistill

没méinot

决定。juédìngdecide

‘I haven’t decided yet.’

In another case of a referent switch, the subject referents could partially overlap between two adjacent clauses. See Example (13).

(13)

他tāHe

是shìcop

杨玉林yáng yùlínYang Yulin

的degen

朋友。péngyŏu.friend.

他们Tā-menHe-pl

一起yīqĭtogether

当兵。dāngbīngjoin:army

‘He is Yang Yulin’s friend. They joined the army together.’

In the third condition, the subject referent in the preceding clause is not in subject position, but in another part of the sentence (W. Li, 2004, 2006); this is possible

62 Xiaoshi Li

because of that unique and frequent feature in Chinese language, topic chain. The subject can be an object in the preceding clause (Example  14), a fronted topic (Example 15), or in another position in the sentence structure (Example 16).

(14)

其实qīshíactually

我wŏI

认识rènshíknow

她。tā.her.

她Tāshe live prep

住在zhù zàiCommercial

商业shāngyèUniversity

大学。dàxué

‘I actually know her. She lived at the University of Commerce.’

(15)

这点，zhèdiăn,this,

我wŏI

觉得juédefeel

ØØØ

不bùneg

太tàivery

好。hăogood

‘I think this is not very good.’

(16)

他们tā-menhe-pl

很hĕnvery

长chánglong

时间shíjiāntime

跟gēnwith

我wŏme

争斗。zhēngdòu.fight.

然后，ránhòu,Then,

我wŏI

长大zhăngdàgrow:up

了，le,pfv,

明白míngbáiunderstand

了。lecrs

‘They fought with me for a long time. Then, I understood them after I grew up.’

Subject pronoun is a widely-studied sociolinguistic variant in variation studies (e.g. Bayley & Pease-Alvarez, 1996, 1997; Flores-Ferrán, 2002; Jia & Bayley, 2002; X. Li et al., 2012; Travis, 2007). The two major linguistic constraints are referent switch and subject person/number. Social factors include age, gender, occupation, and discourse context. Jia and Bayley (2002) found that Chinese subject pronoun use is influenced by discourse context. X. Li et al. (2012) found that older speak-ers/teachers/females tend to use overt pronouns in subject positions more than younger speakers/students/males. As to subject pronoun use by L2 Chinese learn-ers, X. Li (2014) found it is influenced by various linguistic factors including ref-erent switch, subject person/number/animacy, sentence type, referent specificity, discourse (conversation vs. elicited narrative), learner’s native language, gender, and proficiency level.

This study includes bigger datasets than previous studies and compares the general patterns of DE use and subject pronoun use by Chinese college students, Chinese teachers, advanced-level learners of Chinese, and the textbooks used by the learners. By doing so, we can gain a better understanding of what learners need to focus on in order to produce more sociolinguistically appropriate native-like language features, and how we as language instructors can help them.

Stylistic variation in L1 and L2 Chinese 63

4. Methodology

4.1 Data

The data in this study come from a larger project on the use of sociolinguistic variants by Chinese native speakers and CSL learners, and include four sources. The first source was a series of casual interviews between the author and 23 CSL learners (13 females and 10 males; mean age of 26) at two major universities in China. They were enrolled in high-intermediate or advanced Chinese classes, and came from four native language groups: English, Korean, Japanese, and Russian. The learners were interviewed twice in one semester with approximately ten weeks in between. The interviews covered casual topics such as favorite teacher, favor-ite book, experience in China, friends, and travelling experiences. Each interview lasted 45 minutes to an hour.

The second data source included the author’s conversations with 13 Chinese college students from one of the universities where the CSL learners were study-ing. Ten of these native speakers were from the northern Chinese province of Heilongjiang and three from other provinces of China, but all of them spoke fluent Mandarin, which is the focus of the study. This native speaker group consisted of six female and seven male students with an average age of 18.7. The native speak-ers were interviewed once for about 30 to 40 minutes. The interviews were carried out in Mandarin and the topics were similar to those of the CSL learner interviews.

The third data source was the L2 learners’ instructors in their Chinese classes. There were four instructors (three females and one male). Their classroom speech was audio-recorded. The instructors had been teaching Chinese formally for 34, 20, 4, and 4 years, respectively.

The fourth data source was four Chinese textbooks used in the learners’ class-es.2 The reading texts in the lessons taught were used for analysis. Grammar and exercise sections were not examined. Most of these texts were selected from au-thentic newspaper articles, literary works, and magazines in China; therefore,

2. The four textbooks were the following:

1. Song, L. (Ed.). (2004). Advanced Chinese Reading and Writing 高级汉语读写教程. Beijing: Beijing Language and Culture University Press.

2. Ma, S. (Ed.). (2005). Advanced Modern Chinese: Level Three (Vol. 1) 现代汉语高级教程 (三年级教材:上册). Beijing: Beijing Language and Culture University Press.

3. Guo, Y., Fu, Y., & Chen, X. (Eds.). (2005). Oral Chinese: Level Three 汉语口语教程 (三年级教材). Beijing: Beijing Language and Culture University Press.

4. Zu, R., & Ren, X. (Eds.). (2005). Advanced Oral Chinese (2nd ed.) 高级汉语口语. Beijing: Beijing University Press.

64 Xiaoshi Li

the analysis of stylistic variation in these texts also manifests stylistic variation pat-terns in written Chinese.

In sum, this study collected and analyzed a total of 43 hours of the L2 learners’ conversational speech, eight hours of native speakers’ conversational speech, 16 hours of the instructors’ in-class speech, and 31 lesson texts from the textbooks.

4.2 Analytical approach

Aiming to examine the relationship between educational input (teacher speech and textbooks) and learner production of the target linguistic variants (particle DE and subject pronoun) as compared to the speech of native speaker peers, the researcher compared general patterns of variant use by learners, native speakers, teachers, and textbooks. Two aspects related to data analysis need to be clarified. First, previous studies that explored educational factors in the teaching of socio-linguistic variation examined how the variants were introduced and practiced in the textbooks, and how teachers used them (De Vito, 1991; Rehner & Mougeon, 2003). Since the participants in this study had high-intermediate and advanced levels of Chinese proficiency and had already been taught the target variants in their previous lower-level classes, this study analyzed how the variants were used by teachers and represented in the textbooks. Second, this study did not analyze variability within group (high-intermediate or advanced), because the study’s fo-cus was to glean the general relationship between learner speech and educational input, with native speaker speech as the benchmark.

Linguistic variation analysis was conducted on the data using GoldVarb X (Sankoff, Tagliamonte, & Smith, 2005). This program provides frequency analysis indicating how often variants are used as well as the factor weights that indicate the likelihood of variant use. The application values set in the program were the applications of DE and subject pronoun. Therefore, a factor weight over .50 would indicate favoring the overt form (i.e., DE use and explicit subject pronoun) and below .50 would indicate favoring the null forms. An input value indicated the overall likelihood of variant use in overt form in the dataset analyzed, and a fre-quency value indicated the percentage of variant use in overt form. In addition, a one-way ANOVA was used to compare the frequencies between groups to see if there were any differencies, and if so, what the differences were.

4.3 Coding

As I mentioned earlier, this study was part of a larger sociolinguistic study that included a larger number of independent variables. For the analysis of the particle DE, the independent variables included various DE functions, gender, formality,

Stylistic variation in L1 and L2 Chinese 65

proficiency level, length of stay in China, native language, and proficiency lev-el. For the analysis of the subject pronoun, the independent variables included subject person/number, subject-referent switch, sentence type, native language, length of stay in China, gender, discourse context, and proficiency level. All of the actual and potential occurrences of target language features (use and nonuse of DE; overt and null pronoun in subject positions) were identified, and coded with some exceptions. For DE, coding exceptions included the use of proper nouns, ref-ormations or repetitions, false starts, lexicalized expressions, multiple modifiers, and error cases. For subject pronoun use, coding exceptions included false starts, reformations or repetitions, and obligatory and prohibited cases. The coding was done by one researcher and then checked by another researcher. The author exam-ined all the discrepancies and discussed them with the second researcher to reach agreement. All three researchers were Chinese native speakers who were trained and experienced in coding Chinese natural speech data. The interrater reliability was .91 for DE coding and .92 for subject pronoun coding. Only the results that pertain to this study will be reported in the following.

5. Results

5.1 Use of the particle DE

Four separate runs of variation analyses for DE were conducted with GoldVarb X on the four datasets: native speakers’ speech, CSL learners’ speech, teachers’ speech, and textbook input. The results showed that although all four sources fa-vor the overt form of DE generally, the overall likelihood of DE use in learner speech (.83), teacher speech (.84), and textbooks (.85) is much higher than DE use in native speaker speech (.63). A one-way ANOVA was conducted to compare the frequencies across all four groups, and the results indicated that there was a statistically significant difference between groups: F(3, 24044) = 294.06 (p < .001). A Tukey post-hoc test revealed that frequency of overt DE use was significantly lower in the native speakers’ speech than in the CSL learners’ speech, teachers’ speech, or textbook input (p < .001). There were no statistically significant differ-ences in frequency among the learners’ speech, teacher input, and textbook input. Table 1 presents the results.

Since DE has many functions, further examination of DE use in different func-tion environments by different groups was conducted to see where the differences lay. Table 2 presents token frequency of explicit DE use by the four groups. The results show several trends. First, consistent with the results shown in Table 1 and Figure 1, learners used DE at a much higher rate than their native speaker peers,

66 Xiaoshi Li

especially in four DE functions: phrase as modifier, DE structure followed by a de-monstrative or number + classifier, genitive marker, adjective or noun as modifier. Second, learners’ patterns of DE use followed closely those of their teachers’ input and textbook input in all grammatical functions except for the verb as modifier (57%). Reexamination of the textbook data shows that 60% of the verb-as-modifi-er cases are four-syllable expressions (e.g., 读书习惯, dúshū xíguàn, reading hab-its). Four-syllable expressions are unique in Chinese, especially in Chinese writ-ing. The cases in this study are not lexicalized expressions, but the verb modifiers acquire a nominal feature and behave like noun modifiers (X. Li, 2010a).

Table 2. DE use in Chinese NSs’ speech, CSL learners’ speech, teacher input, and text-book input (in different functions) (token frequency)*

Chinese NSs’ speech

CSL learners’ speech

Teacher input Textbook input

Nominalization1 93 93 98 99

Relative clause2 91 99 100 100

Verb3 85 92 91 57

Phrase4 76 90 83 93

Followed by DorNC5 42 78 63 72

Genitive6 33 84 72 73

Adj+Noun7 26 56 55 48

Notes 1. Nominalization marker2. Relative clause as modifier3. Verb as modifier4. Phrase as modifier5. Followed by a demonstrative or number + classifier6. Genitive marker7. Adjective or noun as modifier* Data of teacher input and textbook input come from X. Li (2010a)

Table 1. DE use in Chinese NSs’ speech, CSL learners’ speech, teacher input, and text-book input (general pattern)

Native speakers’ speech

CSL learners’ speech

Teacher input Textbook input

Overall frequency (%) 55 77 76 75

Input value .63 .83 .84 .85

Number of tokens 4,505 14,220 2,458 2,535

Note: Data of teacher input and textbook input come from X. Li (2010a)

Stylistic variation in L1 and L2 Chinese 67

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

RELATIVE CLAUSE NOMINALIZATION VERB PHRASE FOLLOWED BY D/NC GENITIVE ADJ + N

(%)

NSs’ SpeechLearners’ Speech

Teacher InputTextbook Input

Figure 1. Frequency of DE use in NSs’ speech, learners’ speech, teacher input, and text-book input (different DE functions)

5.2 Subject pronoun

Four runs of variation analyses for subject pronoun use were conducted using GoldVarb X on the four datasets from native speakers’ speech, CSL learners’ speech, teacher input, and textbook input. The results showed that generally CSL learners (.60) and teachers (.60) favored overt subject pronoun use, but native speakers (.34) and textbooks (.26) favored null form. A one-way ANOVA was conducted to compare the frequencies across all four sources and the results re-vealed a statistically significant difference between groups, F(3, 25170) = 518.31 (p < .001). A Tukey post-hoc test revealed that the frequency of overt pronouns was significantly lower in native speakers’ speech (35.9%) than in learners’ speech (59.4%) or in teachers’ input (58.9%) (p < .001), but the frequency was higher than in textbook input (29.9%) (p < .001). Learners and teachers used overt subject pronouns at a significantly higher rate than textbooks (p < .001). There was no statistically significant difference in the frequencies of overt subject pronouns be-tween learners’ speech and teacher input. Table 3 presents the frequency results and the input values.

Table 4 presents the results of a further examination of subject pronoun use by different groups in different subject-referent switch conditions. Again, the fre-quency values refer to the percentage of explicit subject pronoun use. The pat-terns generally corroborate the results shown in Table 3, which are as follows: (1) Teachers used the overt language forms more than native speakers did; (2) Learners demonstrated much more frequent use of overt language forms compared with

68 Xiaoshi Li

their native speaker peers; (3) Textbooks included overt subject pronouns least frequently; and (3) Patterns found in the learners’ speech followed those in the teacher input closely, but frequencies in the learners’ data were generally higher than those in the teacher input.

There are two conditions in the textbook input that go against the general pattern  – “same underlying” (see Example  12) (63%) and “fronted topic” (see Example 15) (50%) – and are higher than native speaker frequencies (51% and 31%). Further examination of the data shows that these two conditions occur most of the time in the dialogues shown in the textbooks – 81.3% (13/16) for “same underlying” and 66.7% (4/6) for “fronted topic.”

Table 4. Subject pronoun use in Chinese NSs’ speech, CSL learners’ speech, teacher input, and textbook input (different referent switch conditions) (token frequency)

Native speakers’ speech

CSL learners’ speech

Teacher input Textbook input

Switch 52 71 70 52

Partial overlap 58 78 73 41

Other – subject 45 72 74 33

Same underlying 51 52 78 63

Fronted topic 31 85 56 50

Object – subject 42 65 47 27

No switch 24 46 38 18

Note: Data of native speakers and CSL learners come from X. Li (2014)

Table 3. Subject pronoun use in Chinese NSs’ speech, CSL learners’ speech, teacher input, and textbook input (general pattern)

Native speakers’ speech

CSL learners’ speech

Teacher input Textbook input

Overall frequency (%) 35.9 59.4 58.2 29.9

Input value .34 .60 .60 .26

Number of tokens 4,321 13,354 2,661 3,313

Note: Data of native speakers and CSL learners come from X. Li (2014)

Stylistic variation in L1 and L2 Chinese 69

0

20

10

40

30

80

70

60

50

90

SWITCH PARTIAL O OTHER-SUB SAME U FRONTED T OBJ-SUB NO SWITCH

(%)

NSs’ SpeechLearners’ Speech

Teacher InputTextbook Input

Figure 2. Subject pronoun use in Chinese NSs’ speech, CSL learners’ speech, teacher input, and textbook input (different referent switch conditions) (token frequency)

6. Discussion

Three aspects of the findings in this study merit discussion. First, the teachers used the overt forms of the target sociolinguistic variants at a significantly higher rate than the native speakers did in their everyday conversations. Since the teachers’ speech used in this study was collected during their classroom teaching, it is pos-sible that they accommodated the learners’ speech by adopting a clear, direct, and transparent speech style manifested by the use of more overt forms of language features (DE in optional contexts and overt subject pronoun). As outlined earlier, DE specifies the relationship between the modifier and the head noun or noun phrase. Subject pronoun, on the other hand, clearly indexes the referent in the con-text. Providing the overt forms of subject surely helps learners’ understanding of the referents. This finding is in line with previous studies that found a mismatch of sociolinguistic variant use in vernacular speech and teacher speech (X. Li, 2010a, 2014; Mougeon, Nadasdi, & Rehner, 2010; Mougeon, Rehner, & Nadasdi, 2004; Nadasdi, Mougeon, & Rehner, 2005; Rehner & Mougeon, 2003; Rehner, Mougeon, & Nadasdi, 2003). Corroborating these studies’ findings, this study found that the way native speakers use the language in colloquial speech is not authentically rep-resented in teachers’ classroom speech.

The second major finding is that learners tend to overuse the overt forms of the target features (i.e. DE use and overt subject pronoun) compared with their native speaker peers. This pattern seems to align with teachers’ speech patterns. Previous studies also found that learners overuse overt forms in optional contexts (Duff &

70 Xiaoshi Li

Li, 2002; Polio, 1995). For example, Duff and Li (2002) found that native speakers tend to be more conservative in marking LE in optional contexts than learners. Polio (1995) found that learners tend to produce overt pronouns in oral Chinese much more frequently than native speakers. Learners might choose to produce overt forms of language structures in optional contexts for the sake of correctness and clarity. In addition, learners usually consider their teachers the language au-thority and might adhere to their speech patterns unconsciously. Previous studies found significant impact of teacher speech on learners’ use of sociolinguistic vari-ants (X. Li, 2010a, 2014; Mougeon, Nadasdi, & Rehner, 2010; Mougeon, Rehner, & Nadasdi, 2004; Nadasdi, Mougeon, & Rehner, 2005; Rehner & Mougeon, 2003; Rehner, Mougeon, & Nadasdi, 2003) and the findings of this study support that.

Finally, unlike teacher input, another classroom input examined in this study – textbooks – demonstrated mixed results. The patterns of DE use in textbooks and teacher speech are very similar. However, the subject pronoun use in textbooks is significantly less frequent than that in teacher speech (except for two coreference conditions – “same underlying” and “fronted topic”) or in speech by native speak-ers. This finding is slightly different from previous studies, which found a cor-respondence between textbook input and learners’ use of sociolinguistic variants (Etienne & Sax, 2009; X. Li, 2010a; Rehner & Mougeon, 2003). This might be par-tially due to the difference in focus of this study’s textbook investigation. Previous studies examined lower-level language textbooks, analyzing their grammar, con-structed dialogues, and practice sections (De Vito, 1991; Etienne & Sax, 2009). In contrast, participants in this study were higher-level L2 Chinese learners and hence more advanced level textbooks were analyzed. In addition, this study ana-lyzed only the lesson texts appearing in the textbooks and did not analyze gram-mar and practice sections, because the target variants had already been introduced in the participants’ previous classes, and the practice sections in the textbooks did not focus on these two linguistic features. On another note, though, in the current study, the textbook texts examined for DE use and subject pronoun were the same but the patterns found were different. For DE use, learners’ patterns aligned with the patterns in textbooks, but for subject pronoun use, they were significantly dif-ferent. The frequency of subject pronoun use in textbooks was much lower than in learner speech, and even lower than in native speaker speech. I speculate that this is due to a significant difference between Chinese spoken discourse and writ-ten discourse in the use of anaphoric reference. The majority of the texts in the textbooks analyzed in this study came from authentic Chinese magazines, news-papers, and literary works. Previous studies have revealed the use of anaphoric reference as a main difference between oral and written discourse (Beaman, 1982; Chafe, 1982; Christensen, 2000). Chafe (1982) and Beaman (1982) claimed that the spontaneous and interactive nature of spoken discourse is the primary drive

Stylistic variation in L1 and L2 Chinese 71

for its difference from written discourse. More planning time allows the more fre-quent appearance of topic chains in Chinese written discourse. In topic chains where multiple clauses occur under the same topic, subjects tend to be omitted (W. Li, 2004). Christensen (2000) confirmed this tendency by showing that the omission of pronouns or noun phrases is more prevalent in Chinese written dis-course than in oral discourse. Less frequent appearance of subject pronouns in the textbooks analyzed in this study can be attributed to this feature of Chinese written discourse involving topic chains. It seems that, in this study, learner speech followed teacher speech pattern more than textbooks. The different patterns of variant use in textbooks found in this study are actually the patterns represented in authentic written Chinese, instead of the artificially-constructed dialogues typical in the lower-level textbooks analyzed in previous studies.

7. Conclusion and instructional implications

As shown in this study, learners’ use of sociolinguistic variants aligned with teach-er speech patterns more than with those found in textbooks. The findings bear important implications for foreign language education.

First, corroborating existing literature (Cohen, 2008; Etienne & Sax, 2006; 2009; X. Li, 2010a, 2014; Rehner & Mougeon, 2003; Taguchi, 2011, 2015), socio-linguistic variants need to be incorporated into foreign language education and explicitly instructed. Leaving the task entirely to the learners to figure out the ap-propriate use of the variants by listening to their teachers, reading the textbooks, and interacting with the native speakers is not effective, and can sometimes be misleading. Once we determine that it is necessary to incorporate the sociolin-guistic aspect of language learning into the curriculum despite its complexity, we can move on to explore what to teach and how to teach it.

Second, clear goals need to be set up regarding which language modality we are teaching, because the patterns of use of sociolinguistic variants are different in speech and writing, as shown in this study and previous literature. These goals are needed for both material design and teaching itself. Take subject pronoun use, for example: overt pronouns occur much less frequently in written Chinese; there-fore, when teaching this language structure, one must carefully analyze authentic Chinese texts for the representation of this linguistic form.

Third, it is important to design appropriate materials for target language forms, in which native speakers demonstrate variability, and explicitly teach these language forms as well as their pragmatic, stylistic, and social meanings. Existing literature has explored different ways to teach sociopragmatic or sociolinguis-tic variation. Taguchi (2015) conducted a comprehensive review of instructed

72 Xiaoshi Li

pragmatics and found two general trends: (1) explicit instruction with metaprag-matic information and production practice are effective for teaching pragmat-ics; and (2) implicit instruction with activities that involve learners’ noticing and processing of the target structures are more effective than mere exposure to in-put. Therefore, developing a high level of awareness is necessary in order to ac-quire complex pragmatic and sociolinguistic aspects of the target language. Lyster (1994) explored the use of a functional-analytic approach to teaching the French address forms tu and vous. Students were guided to explicitly learn and practice target variants. He found that this method significantly improved students’ ability to recognize the appropriate use of address forms and to use the variants appro-priately in both speaking and writing. Cohen (2008) argued for the importance of self-learning strategy training: “having the teachers give initial guidance and then leaving the actual learning of pragmatics to the students” (p. 231). Lemmirich (2010) proposed a web-based awareness-raising approach to teach sociopragmatic variation in L2 German. These are intriguing studies that provide valuable infor-mation. However, there is no textbook that incorporates empirical findings on sociopragmatic/sociolinguistic variation in a systematic fashion. Systematic in-structional materials need to be developed based on empirical findings about na-tive speaker patterns of language use in different contexts, with consideration to learners’ levels and target language features. In order to do this, close collaboration among language instructors, researchers, and textbook writers is needed. In addi-tion, textbook materials need to incorporate information about sociolinguistic/sociopragmatic features in the target language, including not only explicit expla-nations of the features but also presentations of authentic examples of the features in texts and exercises. In addition, different functions of target variants also need to be introduced at different stages of learning based on their levels of difficulty, since learners seem to acquire certain variants more easily than others because of varying features in different variant functions. For example, “same underlying” in subject pronoun use is acquired first, and “fronted topic” seems to be more dif-ficult, as demonstrated by the frequency differences between learners and native speakers in this study (1% – same underlying; 54% – fronted topic). It seems that variant functions that involve more discourse management are more difficult to acquire and need more assistance.

Finally, the best way to teach sociolinguistic/sociopragmatic variation is appro-priate inclusion of authentic materials into the curriculum. For example, Etienne and Sax (2006) advocated using films to teach stylistic variation. When choosing authentic materials, a variety of factors need to be examined, such as learners’ pro-ficiency levels, material content, student interest, target language structures, and teaching goals. Careful design of activities based on students’ language levels and teaching goals is also important.

Stylistic variation in L1 and L2 Chinese 73

8. Future directions

Turning back to the influence of textbooks on learner use of variants, the findings of this study bring up some intriguing research questions. How much does variant use in reading influence learner speech? How large a role do learner attention and noticing play in the acquisition of the variants? Do we need to consider modality when trying to teach students sociolinguistic variants? Do we need to investigate the use of sociolinguistic variants in both speech and writing in the native lan-guage? All these questions not only direct our future research but also the design of instructional materials that teach sociopragmatic/sociolinguistic variants. We need systematic investigation in different modalities so that we know what pat-terns learners need to acquire in order to produce authentic language in different social situations.

References

Abreu, L. (2009). Spanish subject personal pronoun use by monolinguals, bilinguals and second language learners. Unpublished Dissertation. University of Florida, Gainesville.

Bayley, R. (1994). Interlanguage variation and the quantitative paradigm: Past-tense marking in Chinese-English. In Elaine Tarone, Susan Gass, & Andrew D. Cohen (eds.), Research meth-odology in second language acquisition (pp. 157–183). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Bayley, R. (1996). Competing constraints on variation in the speech of adult Chinese learners of English. In Robert Bayley & Dennis R Preston (eds.), Second language acquisition and linguistic variation (pp. 97–120). Amsterdam: Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/sibil.10.05bay

Bayley, R., & Pease-Alvarez, L. (1996). Null and expressed subject pronoun variation in Mexican-descent children’s Spanish. In J. Arnold, R. Blake, B. Davidson, S. Schwenter, & J. Solomon (Eds.), Sociolinguistic variation: Data, theory, and analysis (pp. 85–99). Stanford, CA: Center for the Study of Language and Information.

Bayley, R., & Pease-Alvarez, L. (1997). Null pronoun variation in Mexican-descent children’s narrative discourse. Language Variation and Change, 9, 349–371. doi: 10.1017/S0954394500001964

Beaman, K. (1982). Coordination and subordination revisited: Syntactic complexity in spoken and written discourse. In Deborah Tannen (ed.), Coherence in spoken and written discourse (pp. 45–80). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Cameron, R. (1992). Pronominal and null subject variation in Spanish: Constraints, dialects, and functional compensation. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation: University of Pennsylvania.

Cameron, R. (1993). Ambiguous agreement, functional compensation, and non-specific tú in the Spanish of San Juan, Puerto Rico, and Madrid, Spain. Language Variation and Change, 5, 305–335. doi: 10.1017/S0954394500001526

Chafe, W. L. (1982). Integration and involvement in speaking, writing, and oral literature. In Deborah Tannen (ed.), Spoken and written language: Exploring orality and literacy (pp. 35–53). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

74 Xiaoshi Li

Chang, T. (1994). The interpretation of “DE” in Mandarin Chinese: A discourse analysis. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, University of San Francisco.

Chappell, H., & Thompson, S. A. (1992). The semantics and pragmatics of associative “de” in Mandarin Chinese. Cahiers de Linguistique Asie Orientale, 21(2), 199–229. doi: 10.3406/clao.1992.1422

Christensen, M. B. (2000). Anaphoric reference in spoken and written Chinese narrative dis-course. Journal of Chinese Linguistics, 28(2), 303–336.

Cohen, A. D. (2008). Teaching and assessing L2 pragmatics: What can we expect from learners? Language Teaching, 41(2), 213–235. doi: 10.1017/S0261444807004880

De Vito, N.O’C. (1991). Incorporating native speaker norms in second language materials. Applied Linguistics, 12(4), 383–396. doi: 10.1093/applin/12.4.383

Dewaele, J. -M. (2004). The acquisition of sociolinguistic competence in French as a foreign language: An overview. French Language Studies, 14, 301–319. doi: 10.1017/S0959269504001814

Dewaele, J. -M. (2008). “Appropriateness” in foreign language acquisition and use: Some theo-retical, methodological and ethical considerations. IRAL: International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 46(3), 235–255. doi: 10.1515/IRAL.2008.011

Dewaele, J. -M. & Mougeon R. (2004). Patterns of variation in the interlanguage of advanced second language learners. Special Issue of International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 42(4), 295–402.

Duff, P. & Li, D. (2002). The acquisition and use of perfective aspect in Mandarin. In M. Rafael Salaberry & Yasuhiro Shirai (eds.), The L2 acquisition of tense-aspect morphology (pp. 417–453). Amsterdam: Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/lald.27.17duf

Etienne, C. & Sax, K. (2006). Teaching stylistic variation through film. French Review, 79, 934–950.

Etienne, C. & Sax, K. (2009). Stylistic variation in French: Bridging the gap between research and textbooks. Modern Language Journal, 93(4), 584–606. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-4781.2009.00931.x

Flores-Ferrán, N. (2002). Subject personal pronouns in Spanish narratives of Puerto Ricans in New York City: A sociolinguistic perspective. Munich: Lincom Europa.

Flores-Ferrán, N. (2004). Spanish subject personal pronoun use in New York City Puerto Ricans: Can we rest the case of English contact? Language Variation and Change, 16(1), 49–73. doi: 10.1017/S0954394504161048

Harlow, L. L. (1990). Do they mean what they say?: Sociopragmatic competence and second language learners. The Modern Language Journal, 74(3), 328–351. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-4781.1990.tb01070.x

Hymes, D. (1972). On communicative competence. In J. B. Pride & J. Holmes (eds.), Sociolinguistics (pp. 269–293). Harmondsworth: Penguin.

Jia, L. & Bayley, R. (2002). Null pronoun variation in Mandarin Chinese. University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics, 8(3), 103–116.

Lemmerich, E. (2010). An explicit awareness-raising approach to the teaching of sociopragmatic variation in early foreign language learning. The University of Utah.

Li, C. N. & Thompson, S. A. (1981). Mandarin Chinese: A functional reference grammar. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Li, W. (2004). Topic chains in Chinese discourse. Discourse Processes, 37(1), 25–45. doi: 10.1207/s15326950dp3701_2

Stylistic variation in L1 and L2 Chinese 75

Li, W. (2006). Incorporating topic chains into pedagogical grammar of Chinese. Journal of Chinese Language Teachers Association, 41(1), 31–56.

Li, X. (2010a). Sociolinguistic variation in the speech of learners of Chinese as a second lan-guage. Language Learning, 60(2), 366–408. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9922.2009.00560.x

Li, X. (2010b). Variability in Chinese: The case of a morphosyntactic particle. Sociolinguistic Studies, 4(1), 227–252. doi: 10.1558/sols.v4i1.227

Li, X. (2014). Variation in subject pronominal expression in L2 Chinese. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 36(1), 39–68. doi: 10.1017/S0272263113000466

Li, X., Chen, X., & Chen, W. -H. (2012). Variation of subject pronominal expression in Mandarin Chinese. Sociolinguistic Studies, 6(1), 91–119. doi: 10.1558/sols.v6i1.91

Liu, H. -Y. (2003). A profile of the Mandarin NP: Possessive phrases and classifier phrases in spo-ken discourse. München: Lincoln GmbH.

Lyster, R. (1994). The effect of functional-analytic teaching on aspects of French immersion students’ sociolinguistic competence. Applied Linguistics, 15(3), 263–287. doi: 10.1093/applin/15.3.263

Mougeon, R., Nadasdi, T. & Rehner, K. (2010). The sociolinguistic competence of immersion stu-dents. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.

Mougeon, R. & Rehner, K. (2001). Acquisition of sociolinguistic variants by French immer-sion students: The case of restrictive expressions, and more. The Modern Language Journal, 85(3), 398–415. doi: 10.1111/0026-7902.00116

Mougeon, R., Rehner, K. & Nadasdi, T. (2004). The learning of spoken French variation by im-mersion students from Toronto, Canada. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 8(3), 408–432. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9841.2004.00267.x

Nadasdi, T., Mougeon, R. & Rehner, K. (2005). Learning to speak everyday (Canadian) French. Canadian Modern Language Review, 61(4), 543–561. doi: 10.3138/cmlr.61.4.543

Nadasdi, T., Mougeon, R. & Rehner, K. (2008). Factors driving lexical variation in L2 French: A variationist study of automobile, auto, voiture, char and machine. French Language Studies, 18, 365–381. doi: 10.1017/S0959269508003505

Polio, C. (1995). Acquiring nothing? The use of zero pronouns by nonnative speakers of Chinese and the implications for the acquisition of nominal reference. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 17, 353–377. doi: 10.1017/S0272263100014248

Rehner, K. & Mougeon, R. (1999). Variation in the spoken French of immersion students: To ne or not to ne, that is the sociolinguistic question. Canadian Modern Language Review, 56(1), 124–154. doi: 10.3138/cmlr.56.1.124

Rehner, K. & Mougeon, R. (2003). The effect of educational input on the development of so-ciolinguistic competence by French immersion students: The case of expressions of conse-quence in Spoken French. Journal of Educational Thought, 37(3), 259–281.

Rehner, K., Mougeon, R. & Nadasdi, T. (2003). The learning of sociolinguistic variation by ad-vanced FSL learners: The case of nous versus on in immersion French. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 25, 127–157. doi: 10.1017/S0272263103000056

Sankoff, D., Tagliamonte, S. & Smith, E. (2005). GoldVarbX: A variable rule application for Macintosh and Windows. http://individual.utoronto.ca/tagliamonte/goldvarb.html.

Shi, Y. & Li, C. N. (2002). The establishment of the classifier system and the grammaticalization of the morphosyntactic particle de in Chinese. Language Sciences, 24, 1–15. doi: 10.1016/S0388-0001(00)00048-6

Taguchi, N. (2011). Teaching pragmatics: Trends and issues. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 31, 289–310.

76 Xiaoshi Li

Taguchi, N. (2015). Instructed pragmatics at a glance: Where instructional studies were, are, and should be going. Language Teaching, 48(1), 1–50. doi: 10.1017/S0261444814000263

Travis, C. (2007). Genre effects on subject expression in Spanish: Priming in narrative and con-versation. Language Variation and Change, 19(2), 101–135. doi: 10.1017/S0954394507070081

Valdman, A. (2003). The acquisition of sociostylistic and sociopragmatic variation by instructed second language learners: The elaboration of pedagogical norms. In Carl S. Blyth (ed.), The sociolinguistics of foreign language classrooms: Contributions of the native, the near-native, and the non-native speaker (pp. 57–78). Boston: Heinle Thomson.

Wolfram, W. (1985). Variability in tense marking: A case for the obvious. Language Learning, 35, 229–253. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-1770.1985.tb01026.x

Xiao, R., Rayson, P. & McEnery, T. (2009). A frequency dictionary of Mandarin Chinese. New York: Routledge.

Yip, P. C. & Rimmington, D. (2004). Chinese: A comprehensive grammar. New York: Routledge.Young, R. F. (1991). Variation in interlanguage morphology. New York: Peter Lang.

摘要

本文探讨汉语作为第一语言和第二语言的总体风格变体规律。研究重点是形态句法虚词“的”和主语代词。数据来自于 13 个汉语母语使用者、四位汉语教师、 23 个汉语学习者和四本汉语教材。变体性分析和频率分析结果显示四个主要规律。第一，教师课堂上的语言中使用风格变体的频率明显高于汉语母语使用者在对话中的使用频率。第二，和同龄母语使用者比较，汉语学习者有过度使用风格变体的趋势。第三，学习者风格变体使用规律和他们老师的规律相近。最后，和第三点不同的是，教材中风格变体的使用规律和学习者的规律比较，结果不一。“的”的使用，学习者和教材中的规律显著相近，但是主语代词使用规律则不然。然后作者讨论了本研究对于汉语口语和笔语中风格变体规律研究的含义，还有对汉语外语教学的启示。

关键词: 风格变体, 社会语言学, 汉语外语教学

Author’s address

Xiaoshi LiDepartment of Linguistics and Germanic, Slavic, Asian and African LanguagesMichigan State UniversityB259 Wells Hall, 619 Red Cedar Rd.East Lansing, MI 48824

xli@msu.edu