In the intricate landscape of second language acquisition, one of the most perplexing challenges for learners involves mastering reflexive pronouns—a fundamental linguistic element deeply embedded in syntactic and semantic frameworks. A groundbreaking study by Zeng and Gao, soon to be published in Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, revisits this issue with a fresh perspective that refutes long-held assumptions about the role of first language (L1) transfer in the acquisition of English reflexives by learners of Chinese origin. Their findings illuminate how lexical learning, rather than grammatical transfer, predominantly governs how English reflexive reference is acquired by speakers whose native tongue features the complex reflexive ziji.
For decades, traditional theories posited that L1 grammatical structures heavily influence how second language (L2) learners acquire equivalent linguistic forms. In particular, previous studies suggested that Chinese learners of English incorrectly extended the long-distance binding properties of ziji—a reflexive pronoun that can refer to antecedents across considerable syntactic distances—onto English reflexives such as himself. Zeng and Gao’s extensive empirical data, however, challenges this assumption by meticulously examining learners’ acceptance patterns of reflexive antecedents in English.
The research carefully distinguished between two primary uses of English reflexives: the local binding context, which demands a nearby antecedent as prescribed by English syntax, and a hypothetical long-distance use reminiscent of ziji. Participants in the study, drawn from various proficiency levels, were tested on their judgments of reflexive reference, including scenarios involving long-distance object antecedents—a crucial but overlooked condition in earlier investigations. Contrary to the transfer hypothesis, none of the participants rejected long-distance object antecedents while accepting both local and long-distance subject antecedents, thus demonstrating that the Chinese ziji-like pattern did not take root in their English reflexive acquisition.
Instead, the results align compellingly with the Lexical Learning Hypothesis, an alternative framework that highlights the role of lexical item learning and gradual semantic refinement in L2 acquisition. Zeng and Gao’s analysis revealed a clear developmental trajectory: low-proficiency learners often exhibited a free and unsystematic use of English reflexives, akin to exploratory lexical attempts without strict adherence to syntactic constraints. This early stage gradually gave way to more target-like judgments, with increasing proficiency correlating to orthodox acceptance of local antecedents and rejection of improper long-distance antecedents, charting a pathway similar to native child language development.
This parallel progression between L2 learners and native children is especially striking, as it suggests that the underlying linguistic faculty responsible for reflexive binding is universally available, irrespective of whether language acquisition unfolds in infancy or adulthood. The study draws on prior research indicating that the same essential cognitive mechanisms underpin both L1 and L2 acquisition processes, although contextual factors such as age and proficiency level modulate the pace and manifestations of learning.
One of the most notable contributions of this study is its nuanced account of developmental errors. Among less proficient learners, asymmetric judgments about reflexive reference in finite versus non-finite clause conditions were prevalent. These errors reflect cognitive and grammatical challenges known to trouble learners at early stages, particularly difficulties in processing complex clause structures. Encouragingly, as proficiency increased, the occurrence of such errors diminished, underscoring the dynamic nature of acquisitional development and the learner’s growing command over syntactic complexities.
Another crucial insight concerns the limited role of input frequency and explicit instruction in shaping reflexive reference acquisition. The research team confirmed through interviews with English instructors that reflexive antecedent selection rules are not explicitly taught in Chinese ESL classrooms, and learners receive scarce negative evidence about ungrammatical long-distance antecedents. Despite this paucity of instruction and corrective input, learners still gravitate toward the linguistically appropriate patterns over time, further reinforcing the notion that reflexive acquisition is driven by inherent, universal learning mechanisms rather than rote memorization or L1 interference.
The absence of significant L1 transfer effects raises intriguing questions about the specificity and permeability of transfer phenomena. The authors invoke Eubank’s weak transfer hypothesis, which posits that morphology-driven features and certain syntactic properties resist cross-linguistic transfer due to their tightly constrained, language-specific nature. This perspective provides a coherent explanation for why the complex binding conditions embedded in Chinese ziji did not permeate into English reflexive use among the Chinese-speaking participants.
Nevertheless, the authors acknowledge important limitations in their scope, notably that participants had already achieved intermediate proficiency and likely surpassed the earliest stages of L2 learning where transfer effects might be most pronounced. This temporal limitation leaves open the possibility that L1 transfer plays a more significant role during initial exposure and acquisition phases, meriting investigation with beginner learners and longitudinal studies.
Another acknowledged limitation is the homogeneity assumption underlying many acquisition studies. L2 learners vary widely in cognitive capacity, exposure, motivation, and processing speed, factors which intersect with but are distinct from proficiency. While the current research focused primarily on proficiency-related developmental patterns, future inquiries could benefit from integrating psycholinguistic and cognitive individual differences to unravel how these variables interact with universal linguistic constraints during reflexive acquisition.
Contextually, the implications of this study extend beyond reflexive pronouns themselves, touching upon the broader question of the universality of grammatical principles across languages and learner populations. By demonstrating that English reflexive acquisition follows a predictable and universal developmental path—akin to native acquisition trajectories and independent of L1 grammatical transfer—the research supports the broader conception of Universal Grammar (UG) as a governing principle in language learning. This view posits that certain core linguistic properties are innately constrained and unaffected by surface language differences.
Zeng and Gao’s work also contributes to ongoing debates about the nature of linguistic input and its sufficiency for language learning. Their findings validate the idea that complex syntactic rules are not always explicitly taught or made salient through corrections and yet can be internalized through exposure combined with innate cognitive mechanisms. This suggests a nuanced interaction between input-driven learning and inherent linguistic faculties, in which the latter compensates for gaps in explicit instruction and negative evidence.
The broader ramifications for language pedagogy are significant. ESL curricula might reconsider the necessity and timing of explicit teaching for subtle grammatical phenomena such as reflexive binding, especially in contexts where universal mechanisms can facilitate naturalistic acquisition. This places emphasis on providing rich and varied linguistic input over prescriptive grammar drills alone, and encourages instructors to focus on comprehension and contextualized language use.
Furthermore, the study prompts a reevaluation of transfer theories that have traditionally dominated second language acquisition discourse. While transfer undoubtedly influences some linguistic domains, this research exemplifies areas where transfer is minimal or absent, highlighting the need for more granular and domain-specific models of how different aspects of language are acquired.
In sum, the study by Zeng and Gao opens new horizons in understanding second language acquisition by providing robust evidence that lexical learning, supported by universal grammatical principles, underpins the mastery of English reflexive pronouns among L1-Chinese learners. It conclusively demonstrates that L1 grammatical transfer does not dictate reflexive reference patterns in the L2, challenging assumptions and enriching linguistic theory with fresh empirical clarity.
As the field advances, this research invites scholars to explore other syntactic and semantic properties of reflexives, to delve into earlier stages of L2 development, and to integrate cognitive and psycholinguistic factors into comprehensive models of multilingual language acquisition. Unlocking these layers will not only deepen our scientific grasp of bilingualism but also enhance educational strategies for millions of learners navigating multiple linguistic worlds.
Subject of Research:
Article Title:
Article References:
Zeng, L., Gao, F. Re-examining second language acquisition of English reflexives: new evidence for lexical learning driven process and against first language Transfer. Humanit Soc Sci Commun 12, 1063 (2025). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-025-05466-8
Image Credits: AI Generated
