1887
  1. Home
  2. e-Journals
  3. Dutch Journal of Applied Linguistics
  4. Volume 5, Issue 2
  5. Article
Volume 5, Issue 2
  • ISSN 2211-7245
  • E-ISSN: 2211-7253
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

This article explores a grammatical structure — differential object marking (DOM) — that is particularly difficult for L2 learners to acquire. DOM is a phenomenon in which some direct objects are morphologically marked and others are not. In Hindi, animate direct objects are always marked with the objective case marker , whereas specific direct objects are only optionally marked with . Inanimate and non-specific direct objects are never marked with and take the unmarked nominative form. DOM in Hindi has been found to pose a problem to heritage speakers of Hindi. The present study investigates whether similar difficulties exist for foreign language learners. A cross-sectional study was conducted among 30 foreign language learners of Hindi completing an oral production task. The results suggest that the learners do not have difficulties with the concept of DOM in itself — they know that not every direct object needs to be marked —, but rather with the variable conditions under which DOM occurs. The study defines five developmental profiles, which reflect a gradual accumulation of contexts appropriately marked with the objective case.

© 2016 John Benjamins Publishing Company
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/dujal.5.2.01bat
2017-02-13
2024-12-12

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1075/dujal.5.2.01bat
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Aissen, J
    (2003) Differential object marking. Iconicity versus economy. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 21, 435–483. doi: 10.1023/A:1024109008573
     https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1024109008573 [Google Scholar]
  2. Artoni, D. , & Magnani, M
    (2013) LFG contributions in second language acquisition research: The development of case in L2 Russian. In M. Butt & T. Holloway King (Eds.), Proceedings of the LFG13 conference (pp.69–89). Stanford CA: CSLI.
     [Google Scholar]
  3. Baten, K
    (2013) The acquisition of the German case system by foreign language learners. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/palart.2
     https://doi.org/10.1075/palart.2 [Google Scholar]
  4. Baten, K. , & Håkansson, G
    (2015) The development of subordinate clauses in German and Swedish as L2s: A theoretical and methodological comparison. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 37, 517–547. doi: 10.1017/S0272263114000552
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263114000552 [Google Scholar]
  5. Baten, K. , & Verbeke, S
    (2015) The acquisition of the ergative case in Hindi as a foreign language. In K. Baten , A. Buyl , K. Lochtman , & M. Van Herreweghe (Eds.), Theoretical and methodological developments in Processability Theory (pp.71–104). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/palart.4.04bat
     https://doi.org/10.1075/palart.4.04bat [Google Scholar]
  6. Benmamoun, E. , Montrul, S. , & Polinsky, M
    (2013) Heritage languages and their speakers: Opportunities and challenges for linguistics. Theoretical Linguistics, 39, 129–181.
     [Google Scholar]
  7. Bossong, G
    (1985) Empirische Universalienforschung: Differentielle Objektmarkierung in Neuiranischen Sprachen. Tübingen: Narr.
     [Google Scholar]
  8. Butt, M
    (1993) Object specificity and agreement in Hindi/Urdu. 29th regional meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, 1, 80–103.
     [Google Scholar]
  9. Collentine, J
    (2004) The effects of learning contexts on morphosyntactic and lexical development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 26, 227–248.
     [Google Scholar]
  10. De Hoop, H. , & Narasimhan, B
    (2005) Differential case marking in Hindi. In M. Amberber & H. de Hoop (Eds.), Competition and variation in natural languages: The case for case (pp.321–346). Amsterdam: Elsevier. doi: 10.1016/B978‑008044651‑6/50015‑X
     https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-008044651-6/50015-X [Google Scholar]
  11. DeKeyser, R
    (1991) Foreign language development during a semester abroad. In B. Freed (Ed.), Foreign language acquisition research and the classroom (pp.104–119). Lexington, MA: DC Heath & Co.
     [Google Scholar]
  12. (2010) Monitoring processes in Spanish as a second language during a study abroad program. Foreign Language Annals, 43, 80–92. doi: 10.1111/j.1944‑9720.2010.01061.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1944-9720.2010.01061.x [Google Scholar]
  13. De Bot, K. , Lowie, W. , & Verspoor, M
    (2007) A dynamic systems theory approach to second language acquisition. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 10, 7–21. doi: 10.1017/S1366728906002732
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728906002732 [Google Scholar]
  14. De Swart, P
    (2006) Case markedness. In L. Kulikov , A. Malchukov , & P. de Swart (Eds.), Case, valency and transitivity (pp.249–267). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/slcs.77.16swa
     https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.77.16swa [Google Scholar]
  15. De Swart, P. , & De Hoop, H
    (2007) Semantic aspects of differential object marking. Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung, 11, 568–581.
     [Google Scholar]
  16. DiBiase, B. , Bettoni, C. , & Medojevic, L
    (2015) The development of case in a bilingual context: Serbian in Australia. In C. Bettoni & B. Di Biase (Eds.), Grammatical development in second languages: Exploring the boundaries of Processability Theory (Eurosla Monographs Series 3) (pp.195–212). Amsterdam: The European Second Language Association.
     [Google Scholar]
  17. Di Biase, B. , & Hinger, B
    (2015) Exploring the acquisition of differential object marking (DOM) in Spanish as a second language. In C. Bettoni & B. Di Biase (Eds.), Grammatical development in second languages: Exploring the boundaries of Processability Theory (Eurosla Monographs Series 3) (pp.213–242). Amsterdam: European Second Language Association.
     [Google Scholar]
  18. Guntermann, G
    (1995) The Peace Corps experience: Language learning in training and in the field. In B. Freed (Ed.), Second language acquisition in a study abroad context (pp.149–170). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/sibil.9.10gun
     https://doi.org/10.1075/sibil.9.10gun [Google Scholar]
  19. Howard, M
    (2005) On the role of context in the development of learner language: Insights from study abroad research. ITL International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 148, 1–20. doi: 10.2143/ITL.148.0.2002062
     https://doi.org/10.2143/ITL.148.0.2002062 [Google Scholar]
  20. Iggesen, O
    (2005) Case-asymmetry. Munich: Lincom.
     [Google Scholar]
  21. Isabelli, C. , & Nishida, C
    (2005) Development of the Spanish subjunctive in a nine month study abroad setting. In D. Eddington (Ed.), Selected proceedings of the 6th Conference on the acquisition of Spanish as first and second languages (pp.78–91). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla.
     [Google Scholar]
  22. Isabelli-Garcia, Christina
    (2010) Acquisition of Spanish gender agreement in two learning contexts: Study abroad and at home. Foreign Language Annals, 43(2), 289–303. doi: 10.1111/j.1944‑9720.2010.01079.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1944-9720.2010.01079.x [Google Scholar]
  23. Kachru, Y
    (2006) Hindi. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/loall.12
     https://doi.org/10.1075/loall.12 [Google Scholar]
  24. Klein, U. , & de Swart, P
    (2011) Case and referential properties. Lingua, 121, 3–19. doi: 10.1016/j.lingua.2010.07.005
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2010.07.005 [Google Scholar]
  25. Lazard, G
    (2001) Le marquage différentiel de l’objet. In M. Haspelmath (Ed.), Language typology and language universals (pp.873–885). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
     [Google Scholar]
  26. Lenzing, A
    (2015) Exploring regularities and dynamic systems in L2 development. Language Learning, 65, 89–122. doi: 10.1111/lang.12092
     https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12092 [Google Scholar]
  27. Lowie, W. , & Verspoor, M
    (2015) Variability and variation in Second Language Acquisition orders: A dynamic reevaluation. Language Learning, 65, 63–88. doi: 10.1111/lang.12093
     https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12093 [Google Scholar]
  28. Martoccio, A.M
    (2012) The acquisition of differential object marking in L2 Spanish learners. Unpublished PhD dissertation, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign.
     [Google Scholar]
  29. McManus, K. , & Mitchell, R
    (2015) Subjunctive use and development in L2 French: A longitudinal study. Language, Interaction, and Acquisition, 6, 42–73. doi: 10.1075/lia.6.1.02mcm
     https://doi.org/10.1075/lia.6.1.02mcm [Google Scholar]
  30. Mohanan, T
    (1994) Argument Structure in Hindi. Stanford, CA: CSLI.
     [Google Scholar]
  31. Montrul, S. , Bhatt, R. , & Bhatia, A
    (2012) Erosion of case and agreement in Hindi heritage speakers. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 2, 141–76. doi: 10.1075/lab.2.2.02mon
     https://doi.org/10.1075/lab.2.2.02mon [Google Scholar]
  32. Montrul, S. , & Gürel, A
    (2015) The acquisition of differential object marking in Spanish by Turkish speakers. In T. Judy & S. Perpiñán (Eds.), The acquisition of Spanish in understudied language pairings (pp.281–308). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/ihll.3.11mon
     https://doi.org/10.1075/ihll.3.11mon [Google Scholar]
  33. Montrul, S. , Bhatt, R. , & Girju, R
    (2015) Differential object marking in Spanish, Hindi and Romanian as heritage languages. Language, 91, 564–610. doi: 10.1353/lan.2015.0035
     https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2015.0035 [Google Scholar]
  34. Montrul, S
    (2016) The acquisition of heritage languages. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9781139030502
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139030502 [Google Scholar]
  35. Pallotti, G
    (2007) An operational definition of the emergence criterion. Applied Linguistics, 28, 361–382. doi: 10.1093/applin/amm018
     https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amm018 [Google Scholar]
  36. Pienemann, M
    (1998) Language processing and second language development: Processability Theory. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/sibil.15
     https://doi.org/10.1075/sibil.15 [Google Scholar]
  37. (2005) Cross-linguistic aspects of Processability Theory. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/sibil.30
     https://doi.org/10.1075/sibil.30 [Google Scholar]
  38. (2013) Processability and teachability. In C.A. Chapelle (Ed.), The encyclopedia of applied linguistics. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell.
     [Google Scholar]
  39. (2015) An outline of processability theory and its relationship to other approaches to SLA. Language Learning, 65, 123–151. doi: 10.1111/lang.12095
     https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12095 [Google Scholar]
  40. Rodríguez-Mondoñedo, M
    (2008) The acquisition of differential object marking in Spanish. Probus, 20, 111–145. doi: 10.1515/PROBUS.2008.004
     https://doi.org/10.1515/PROBUS.2008.004 [Google Scholar]
  41. Ticio, E
    (2015) Differential object marking in Spanish-English early bilinguals. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 5, 62–90. doi: 10.1075/lab.5.1.03tic
     https://doi.org/10.1075/lab.5.1.03tic [Google Scholar]
  42. Van Valin, R
    (1992) An overview of ergative phenomena and their implications for language acquisition. In D. Slobin (Ed.), The crosslinguistic study of language acquisition, Vol. 3 (pp.15–37). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
     [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1075/dujal.5.2.01bat
Loading
  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): Differential Object Marking; Foreign language acquisition; L2 Hindi; oral language production

Most Cited

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error