Hostname: page-component-7dd5485656-c8zdz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-10-31T03:54:41.322Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Zero Anaphora in Second Language Acquisition: A Comparison among Three Varieties of English

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 November 2008

Jessica Williams
Jessica Williams
Affiliation:
University of Illinois, Chicago
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

This study examines the use of zero anaphora in the English production of three speaker groups: native speakers, second language learners, and speakers of a non-native institutionalized variety. General discourse function for zero anaphora is found to be similar across speaker groups, although in many cases, ungrammatical by prescriptive standards. In addition, there are important quantitative and structural differences between the native speakers and non-native speakers in how this device is used. The results suggest that the relationship between performance data and second language acquisition needs to be reexamined. In particular, it cannot be assumed that spontaneous production of a given form isa direct indicator of acquisition and conversely, that non-production is necessarily proof of non-acquisition.

Information

Type
Articles
Information
Studies in Second Language Acquisition , Volume 10 , Issue 3 , October 1988 , pp. 339 - 370
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1988

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

Andersen, R. (1984). The one-to-one principle of interlanguage construction. Language Learning, 34, 77–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Butterworth, G., & Hatch, E. (1978). A Spanish speaking adolescent's acquisition of English syntax. In Hatch, E. (Ed.), Second language acquisition: A book of readings (pp. 231–245). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Chafe, W. (1976). Givenness, contrastiveness, defimteness, subjects, topics and point of view. In Li, C. (Ed.), Subject and topic (pp. 25–56). New York: Academic.Google Scholar
Chao, Y. R. (1969). Cantonese primer. New York: Greenwood.Google Scholar
Ellis, R. (1987). Interlanguage variability in narrative discourse: Style shifting in the use of past tense. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 9, 1–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fakhri, A. (1984). The use of communicative strategies in narrative discourse: A case study of a learner of Moroccan Arabic. Language Learning, 34, 15–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Felix, S. (1960). Interference, interlanguage and related issues. In Felix, S. (Ed.), Second language development: Trends and issues (pp. 93–107). Tübingen: Gunter Narr.Google Scholar
Givón, T. (1976). Topic, pronoun and grammatical agreement. In Li, C. (Ed.), Subject and topic (pp. 93–107). New York: Academic.Google Scholar
Givón, T. (1979). On understanding grammar. New York: Academic.Google Scholar
Givón, T. (1983a). Topic continuity in discourse: An introduction. In Givón, T. (Ed.), Topic continuity in discourse: A quantitative cross-language study. Typological Studies in Language (Vol. 3, pp. 1–41). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Givón, T. (1983b). Topic continuity in discourse: The functional domain of switch reference. In Haiman, J. & Munro, P. (Eds.), Switch reference and universal grammar. Typological Studies in Language (Vol. 2, pp. 51–82). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Givón, T. (1983c). Topic continuity in spoken English. In Givón, T. (Ed.), Topic continuity in discourse: A quantitative cross-language study. Typological studies in language (Vol. 3, pp. 343–363). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Givón, T. (1984). Universals of discourse structure and second language acquisition. In Rutherford, W. (Ed.), Language universah and second language acquisition (pp. 109–133). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gundel, J. (1978). Stress, pronominalization and the given-new distinction. Working Papers in Linguistics, 10, 1–13.Google Scholar
Gundel, J., Stenson, N., & Tarone, E. (1984). Acquiring pronouns in a second language: Evidence for hypothesis testing. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 6, 215–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gundel, J., & Tarone, E. (1983). Language transfer and the acquisition of pronominal anaphora. In Gass, S. & Selinker, L. (Eds.), Language transfer and language learning (pp. 281–296). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Halliday, M., & Hassan, R. (1976). Cohesion in English. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Hilles, S. (1986). Interlanguage and the pro-drop parameter. Second Language Research, 2, 16–32.Google Scholar
Huebner, T. (1983). A longitudinal study of the acquisition of English. Ann Arbor: Karoma.Google Scholar
Huebner, T. (1985). System and variability in interlanguage syntax. Language Learning, 35, 141–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hyams, N. (1983). The acquisition of parameterized grammars. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, City University of New York, New York.Google Scholar
Kachru, B. (1981). The pragmatics of non-native varieties of English. In Smith, L. (Ed.), English for cross-cultural communication (pp. 15–39). New York: St. Martins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Karmiloff-Smith, A. (1960). Psychological processes underlying pronominalization and non-pronominali-zation in children's connected discourse. In Kreiman, J. & Ojeda, A. (Eds.), Papers from the parasession on pronouns and anaphora (pp. 231–248). Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.Google Scholar
Klein, W. (1986). Second language acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kuno, S. (1975). Three perspectives in the functional approach to syntax. In Grossman, R. E., San, J., & Vance, T. J., (Eds.), Functionalism (pp. 276–336). Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.Google Scholar
Kuno, S. (1980). Functional syntax. In Moravcsik, E. & Wirth, J. (Eds.), Syntax and Semantics: Vol. 13. Current approaches to syntax (pp. 117–135). New York: Academic.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Li, C., & Thompson, S. (1979). Third person pronouns and zero anaphora in Chinese discourse. In Givón, T. (Ed.), Syntax and semantics: Vol. 12. Discourse and semantics (pp. 311–335). New York: Academic.Google Scholar
Lim, K. B. (1980). Language learning and language use among some Singapore students. RELC Journal, 31, 135–157.Google Scholar
Meisel, J. (1983). Strategies of second language acquisition: More than one kind of simplification. In Andersen, R. (Ed.), Pidginization and creolization as language acquisition (pp. 120–157). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Ochs, E. (1979). Planned and unplanned discourse. In Givón, T. (Ed.), Syntax and semantics: Vol. 12. Discourse and semantics (pp. 51–80). New York: Academic.Google Scholar
Perdue, C. (Ed.). 1984. Second language acquisition by adult immigrants: A field manual. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Pienemann, M. (1980). The second language acquisition of immigrant children. In Felix, S. (Ed.), Second language development: Trends and issues (pp. 41–56). Tübingen: Gunter Narr.Google Scholar
Platt, J. (1983). The Chinese background to Singapore English. New Papers on Chinese Language Use, 18, 105–117.Google Scholar
Platt, J., & Weber, H. (1960). English in Singapore and Malaysia: Status, features and functions. Kuala Lumpur: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Prince, E. (1981). Toward a taxonomy of given-new information. In Cole, P. (Ed.), Radical Pragmatics (pp. 199–255). New York: Academic.Google Scholar
Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G., & Svartvik, J. (1985). A comprehensive grammar of the English language. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Ritchie, W. (1986). Second language acquisition research and the study of non-native varieties of English: Some common issues. World Englishes, 5, 15–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schmerling, S. (1975). Asymmetric conjunction and rules of conversation. In Cole, P. & Morgan, J. (Eds.), Syntax and semantics: Vol. 3. Speech acts (pp. 211–231). New York: Academic.Google Scholar
Schumann, J. (1978). The pidginization process: A model for second language acquisition. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Schumann, J. (1984). Non-syntactic speech in Spanish-English basilang. In Andersen, R. (Ed.), Second languages: A cross-linguistic perspective (pp. 355–374). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Sharwood Smith, M. (1983). Cross-linguistic aspects of second language acquisition. Applied Linguistics, 4, 192–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sharwood Smith, M. (1986). The competence/control model, cross-linguistic influence and the creation of new grammars. In Kellerman, E. & Sharwood Smith, M. (Eds.), Cross-linguistic influence in second language acquisition (pp. 10–20). New York: Pergamon.Google Scholar
Slobin, D. (1977). Language change in childhood and history. In Macnamara, J. (Ed.), Language thought and language learning (pp. 185–214). New York: Academic.Google Scholar
Tay, M. (1982). The uses, users and features of English in Singapore. In Pride, J. (Ed.), New Englishes (pp. 51–76). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Tomlin, R. (1984). The treatment of foreground and background information in the on-line descriptive discourse of second language learners. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 6, 115–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
White, L. (1985). The “pro-drop” parameter in adult second language acquisition. Language Learning, 35,47–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, J. (1987a). The discourse functions of Variation in the use of subject pronouns. Paper presented at the University of Michigan Conference on Variation in Second Language Acquisition, Ann Arbor.Google Scholar
Williams, J. (1987b). Non-native varieties of English: A special case of language acquisition. English World-Wide, 8, 161–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, J. (1987c). Production principles in non-native institutionalized varieties of English. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.Google Scholar
Zobl, H. (1984). Uniformity and source-language variation across developmental continua. In Rutherford, W. (Ed.), Language universals and second language acquisition (pp. 185–218). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar