Hostname: page-component-7dd5485656-zlgnt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-10-30T23:13:37.888Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Syntactic Markedness and Language Acquisition

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 November 2008

Irene Mazurkewich
Irene Mazurkewich
Affiliation:
Concordia University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The aim of this paper is to demonstrate the role played by linguistic universals in second language acquisition. Research reported here focuses on the acquisition of dative structures and dative questions in a passive context in English by French and Inuit (Eskimo) students. Data were also elicited from native English-speaking students to serve as the norm. The data are interpreted within the theory of markedness and core grammar, as well as Case theory. The results of the testing, showing that unmarked forms are acquired before marked ones, are consistent with the predictions made by the theory of markedness and the property of adjacency which is crucial for Case assignment.

Information

Type
Articles
Information
Studies in Second Language Acquisition , Volume 7 , Issue 1 , February 1985 , pp. 15 - 35
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1985

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

REFERENCES

Allen, C. 1980. Movement and deletion in Old English. Linguistic Inquiry 11; 261–323.Google Scholar
Bresnan, J. 1972. Theory of complementation in English grammar. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. 1980. Rules and representations. New York: Columbia University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, N. 1981a. Markedness and core grammar. In Belletti, A., Brandi, L., & Rizzi, L. (eds.), Theory of markedness in generative grammar. Pisa: Scuola Normale Superiore.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. 1981b. Principles and parameters in syntactic theory. In Hornstein and Lightfoot (eds.).Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. 1981c. Lectures on government and binding. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. 1982. Some concepts and consequences of the theory of government and binding. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Eckman, F. R., Bell, L. H., & Nelson, D. (eds.). 1984. Universals of second language acquisition. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Emonds, J. 1972. Evidence that indirect object rule is a structure-preserving rule. Foundations of Language 8; 546–61.Google Scholar
Emonds, J. 1976. A transformational approach to English syntax. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Fillmore, C. 1965. The indirect object construction in English and the ordering of transformations. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Fischer, S. 1971. The acquisition of verb-particle and dative constructions. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Fischer, S. 1976. Child language as a predictor of language change. Wording Papers in Linguistics 8; 71–104.Google Scholar
Hornstein, N., & Lightfoot, D. (eds.). 1981. Explanations in linguistics. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Hornstein, N., & Weinberg, A.. 1981. Case theory and preposition stranding. Linguistic Inquiry 12; 55–91.Google Scholar
Huybregts, R., & van Riemsdijk, H.. 1982. Noam Chomsky on the generative enterprise. Dordrecht: Foris Publications.Google Scholar
Hyltenstam, K. 1982. Language typology, language universals, markedness and second language acquisition. Paper presented at the 2nd European-North American Workshop on L2 Acquisition Research. Göhrde, Germany, 08 1982.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, R. 1975. Morphological and semantic regularities in the lexicon. Language 51; 639–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jackendoff, R., & Culicover, P.. 1971. A reconsideration of dative movements. Foundations of Language 7; 397–412.Google Scholar
Kayne, R. 1983. Connectedness and binary branching. Dordrecht: Foris Publications.Google Scholar
Mazurkewich, I. 1981. Second language acquisition of the dative alternation and markedness: The best theory. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Université de Montréal.Google Scholar
Mazurkewich, I. 1984a. The acquisition of the dative alternation by second language learners and linguistic theory. Language Learning 34; 91–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mazurkewich, I. 1984b. Dative questions and markedness. In F. R. Eckman, L. H. Bell, & D. Nelson (eds.).Google Scholar
Mazurkewich, I., & White, L.. 1984, The acquisition of the dative alternations: Unlearning overgeneralizations. Cognition 16; 261–283.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Oehrle, R. T. 1976. The grammatical status of the English dative alternation. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Otsu, Y., van Riemsdijk, H., Inoue, K., Kamio, A., & Kawasaki, N. (eds.). 1983. Studies in generative grammar and language acquisition. Tokyo: Editorial Committee.Google Scholar
Pustejovsky, J., & Burke, V. (eds.). 1981. Markedness and learnability. University of Massachusetts Occasional Papers in Linguistics, Vol. 6.Google Scholar
Riemsdijk, H. van. 1978. A case study in syntactic markedness: The binding nature of prepositional phrases. Dordrecht: Foris Publications.Google Scholar
Roeper, T., Lapointe, S., Bing, J., & Tavakolian, S.. 1981. A lexical approach to language acquisition. In Tavakolian, S. (ed.), Language acquisition and linguistic theory. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Ross, J. R. 1968–1977. Goodbye to whom, hello to who. In Fox, S., Beach, W. & Philosoph, S., (eds.), CLS book of squibbs cumulative index. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Rutherford, W. E. 1982. Markedness in second language acquisition. Language Learning 32; 85–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stowell, T. A. 1981. Origins of phrase structure. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Vinet, M-T. 1979. Dialect variation and a restrictive theory of grammar: A study of intransitive prepositions in a variety of French. Montreal Working Papers in Linguistics 13; 107–35.Google Scholar
White, L. 1983. Markedness and parameter setting: Some implications for a theory of adult second language learning. McGill Working Papers in Linguistics 1; 1–21.Google Scholar
Williams, E. S. 1974. Rule ordering in syntax. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Williams, E. S. 1975. Small clauses in English. In Kimball, J. (ed.), Syntax and semantics, Vol. 4. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar