Organizations: School of Information Science, Beijing Language and Culture University, Beijing, China · School of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Sun Yat-sen University, Shenzhen, China
While second language (L2) learners may acquire target syntactic word order, mapping this syntax onto appropriate prosodic structures remains a persistent challenge. This study investigates the fossilization and stability of the L2 syntax-prosody interface by comparing 67 native Mandarin speakers with 67 Vietnamese learners using the BLCU-SAIT corpus. By integrating C-ToBI boundary annotation with Dependency Grammar analysis, we examined both the quantity of prosodic boundaries and their mapping to syntactic relations. Results reveal a non-linear acquisition: although high-proficiency learners (VNH) converge to the native baseline in boundary quantity at the Major Phrase level (B3), their structural mapping significantly diverges. Specifically, VNH demote the prosodic boundary at the Subject-Verb (SBV) interface (Major Phrase B3 -> Prosodic Word B1), while erroneously promoting the boundary at the Verb-Object (VOB) interface (Prosodic Word B1 -> Major Phrase B3). This strategy allows learners to maintain high long phrasal output at the expense of structural accuracy. This results in a distorted prosodic hierarchy where the native pattern is inverted.
Figures & tables
\toprule Tag
Description
Example
\midrule SBV
subject-verb
I give her a bunch of flowers (I ← give)
VOB
verb-object
I give her a bunch of flowers (give → flowers)
IOB
indirect object
I give her a bunch of flowers (give → her)
FOB
fronting object
He reads any book (book ← read)
ATT
attribute
Red apple (red ← apple)
ADV
adverbial
Very beautiful (very ← beautiful)
Table 1: Harbin Institute of Technology Dependency Parsing Guidelines
\toprule Boundary Type
Speaker Type
No.of Boundary
\midrule Level:B1
CN group
225
VNH group
190
VNL group
341
\midrule Level:B2
CN group
155
VNH group
104
VNL group
173
Table 2: Number of prosodic boundaries
\toprule Contrast
Estimate
Std. Error
z value
p-value
\midrule (Intercept)
5.50472
0.06528
84.325
VNH
-0.12333
0.10862
-1.136
VNL
0.32677
0.11290
2.894
B2
-0.41671
0.09251
-4.505
B3
-1.25623
0.09324
-13.473
VNH:B2
-0.32482
0.15420
-2.106
**
Table 3: Negative binomial regression model results. Significance levels: *** for p-value <0.001, ** for p-value <0.01, * for p-value <0.05, . for p-value <0.1, and ns for p-value ≥ 0.1.
Figure 1: Deviation in Dependency Relation Frequency.( The zero line represents the CN as baseline. The bar length denotes the degree of deviation. Positive = Over-segmentation, Negative = Under-segmentation.)
\toprule Relation
Level
CN (Res)
VNL (Res)
VNH (Res)
\midrule ADV
B1
-0.45
-0.55
1.27
ATT
B1
0.13
0.25
-0.45
CMP
B1
1.78
1.49
-4.40
POB
B1
2.42
0.05
-4.20
SBV
B1
-3.60
0.18
6.02
VOB
B1
2.11
-0.37
-3.30
Table 4: Standardized Residuals of Syntactic Relations across Prosodic Boundaries. Values with absolute magnitude >1.96 (bold) indicate significant deviation from independence.