1887
Volume 6, Issue 4
  • ISSN 1879-9264
  • E-ISSN: 1879-9272
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

This article examines the knowledge of topic and subject particles in heritage speakers and L2 learners of Japanese and Korean. We assume that topic marking is mediated at the syntax-information structure interface, while subject marking pertains to narrow syntax. In comparing phenomena mediated at different levels of linguistic organization, we provide evidence for the hypothesis that information structure-level phenomena present greater challenges for bilingual speakers than those mediated within syntax. While these results may be interpreted as evidence of generalized interface-related deficits, we show that such a global explanation is not supported. Instead, a more nuanced account is developed, based on the recognition of different types of topic (anaphoric, generic, and contrastive) and different types of subject (descriptive and exhaustive). Under the proposed account, non-native speakers’ deficits follow from three unrelated effects: the status of topic as an interface category, structural complexity, and the memory demands necessary for its interpretation in context.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/lab.14018.lal
2016-03-25
2019-04-25
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Argyri, E. & Sorace, A.
    (2007) Cross-linguistic influence and language dominance in older bilingual children. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 10(7), 79–99. doi: 10.1017/S1366728906002835
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728906002835 [Google Scholar]
  2. Avrutin, S.
    (1999) Development of the Syntax-Discourse Interface. Kluwer: Dordrecht. doi: 10.1007/978‑94‑017‑1239‑2
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-1239-2 [Google Scholar]
  3. Belletti, A. , & Leonini, C.
    (2004) Subject inversion in L2 Italian. EUROSLA yearbook, 4, 95–118. doi: 10.1075/eurosla.4.06bel
    https://doi.org/10.1075/eurosla.4.06bel [Google Scholar]
  4. Benmamoun, E. , Montrul, S. , & Polinsky, M.
    (2010) Prolegomena to heritage linguistics [White paper]. University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign and Harvard University. Retrieved fromwww.nhlrc.ucla.edu/pdf/HL-whitepaper.pdf.
  5. (2013a) Heritage languages and their speakers: Opportunities and challenges for linguistics. Theoretical Linguistics, 39, 129–181. doi: 10.1515/tl‑2013‑0009
    https://doi.org/10.1515/tl-2013-0009 [Google Scholar]
  6. (2013b) Defining an “ideal” heritage speaker (a reply to peer commentaries). Theoretical Linguistics, 39, 259–294. doi: 10.1515/tl‑2013‑0018
    https://doi.org/10.1515/tl-2013-0018 [Google Scholar]
  7. Bos, P. , Hollebrandse, B. & Sleeman, P.
    (2004) Introduction: The pragmatics-syntax and the semantics-syntax interface in acquisition. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 42, 101–110. doi: 10.1515/iral.2004.004
    https://doi.org/10.1515/iral.2004.004 [Google Scholar]
  8. Choi, H.W.
    (1999) Optimizing Structure in Context: Scrambling and Information Structure. Stanford: CSLI.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Chomsky, N.
    (1995) The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Chomsky, N. & Miller, G.
    (1963) Introduction to the formal analysis of natural languages. In R. D. Luce , R. R. Bush , & E. Galanter (Eds.), Handbook of Mathematical Psychology (pp.269–321.) New York: Wiley.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Donaldson, B.
    (2011) Left dislocation in near-native French. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 33, 399–432. doi: 10.1017/S0272263111000039
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263111000039 [Google Scholar]
  12. (2012) Syntax and discourse in near-native French: Clefts and focus. Language Learning, 62(3), 902–930. doi: 10.1111/j.1467‑9922.2012.00701.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2012.00701.x [Google Scholar]
  13. Domínguez, L.
    (2013) Understanding Interfaces: Second Language Acquisition and First Language Attrition of Spanish Subject Realization and Word Order Variation. LALD, 55. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/lald.55
    https://doi.org/10.1075/lald.55 [Google Scholar]
  14. Fanselow, G. & Frisch, S.
    (2006) Effects of processing difficulty on judgments of acceptability. In G. Fanselow , C. Féry , R. Vogel , & M. Schlesewsky (Eds.), Gradience in Grammar (pp.291–316). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press. doi: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199274796.003.0015
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199274796.003.0015 [Google Scholar]
  15. Ferreira, F. , & Clifton, C.
    (1986) The independence of syntactic processing. Journal of Memory and Language, 25, 348–368. doi: 10.1016/0749‑596X(86)90006‑9
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-596X(86)90006-9 [Google Scholar]
  16. Frazier, L.
    (1985) Syntactic complexity. In D. Dowty , L. Karttunen , & A. Zwicky (Eds.), Natural Language Parsing: Psychological, Computational and Theoretical Perspectives (pp.129–189. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511597855.005
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511597855.005 [Google Scholar]
  17. Gibson, E. , Piantadosi, S. , & Fedorenko, K.
    (2011) Using Mechanical Turk to obtain and analyze English acceptability judgments. Language and Linguistic Compass, 5, 509–524. doi: 10.1111/j.1749‑818X.2011.00295.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-818X.2011.00295.x [Google Scholar]
  18. Halliday, M.A.K. & Hasan, R.
    (1976) Cohesion in English. London: Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Hawkins, R. & Hattori, H.
    (2006) Interpretation of English multiple wh- questions by Japanese speakers: A missing uninterpretable feature account. Second Language Research, 22(3), 269–301. doi: 10.1191/0267658306sr269oa
    https://doi.org/10.1191/0267658306sr269oa [Google Scholar]
  20. Heycock, C.
    (2008) Japanese -wa, -ga, and information structure. In S. Miyagawa, & M. Saito (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Japanese Linguistics (pp.54–83). Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Hulk, A. & Müller, N.
    (2000) Bilingual first language acquisition at the interface between syntax and pragmatics. Bilingualism : Language and Cognition , 3(3), 227–244.
  22. Ivanov, I.
    (2012) L2 acquisition of Bulgarian clitic-doubling: A test case for the Interface Hypothesis. Second Language Research, 28(3), 345–368. doi: 10.1177/0267658312452066
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0267658312452066 [Google Scholar]
  23. Iverson, M. , Kempchinsky, P. & Rothman, J.
    (2008) Interface vulnerability and knowledge of the subjunctive/indicative distinction with negated epistemic predicates in L2 Spanish. EUROSLA Yearbook, 8, 135–163. doi: 10.1075/eurosla.8.09ive
    https://doi.org/10.1075/eurosla.8.09ive [Google Scholar]
  24. Iwasaki, S.
    (1987) “Identifiability, scope-setting, and the particle wa: A study of Japanese spoken expository discourse.” In Hinds, J. , Iwasaki, S. , & S. Maynard (Eds.), [Typological studies in language, 14]. Perspectives on topicalization: The case of Japanese wa (pp.107–142). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/tsl.14.06iwa
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.14.06iwa [Google Scholar]
  25. Jackendoff, R.
    (2002) Foundations of Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198270126.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198270126.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  26. Kishimoto, H.
    (2009) Topic prominency in Japanese. The Linguistic Review, 26, 465–513. doi: 10.1515/tlir.2009.017
    https://doi.org/10.1515/tlir.2009.017 [Google Scholar]
  27. Koornneef, A.
    (2008) Eye-Catching Anaphora. Utrecht: LOT International Dissertation Series.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Koornneef, A. , Avrutin, S. , Wijnen, F. , & Reuland, E.
    (2001) Tracking the preference for bound-variable dependencies in ambiguous ellipses and only-structures. InJ. Runner (Ed.), [Syntax and semantics, 37]. Experiments at the interfaces (pp.67–100). Bingley, UK: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Kuno, S.
    (1972) Functional sentence perspective: A case study from Japanese and English. Linguistic Inquiry, 3(3), 269–320.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. (1973) The Structure of the Japanese Language. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Kuroda, S.-Y.
    (1965) Causative forms in Japanese. Foundations of Language, 1, 30–50.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. (1992) Japanese Syntax and Semantics. Dordrecht: Kluwer. doi: 10.1007/978‑94‑011‑2789‑9
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-2789-9 [Google Scholar]
  33. (2005) Focusing on the matter of topic: A study of wa and ga in Japanese. Journal of East Asian Linguistics, 14, 1–58. doi: 10.1007/s10831‑004‑2701‑5
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10831-004-2701-5 [Google Scholar]
  34. Kwon, N. , Kluender, R. , Kutas, M. & Polinsky, M.
    (2013) Subject/object processing asymmetries in Korean relative clauses: Evidence from ERP data. Language, 89, 537–585. doi: 10.1353/lan.2013.0044
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2013.0044 [Google Scholar]
  35. Laleko, O.
    (2010) The Syntax-Pragmatics Interface in Language Loss: Covert Restructuring of Aspect in Heritage Russian. Doctoral dissertation, University of Minnesota.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Laleko, O. & Kawamura, H.
    (2011) Grammatical restructuring in intergenerational language shift: The case of heritage Japanese. Paper presented at the56th Annual Conference of the International Linguistics Association. Rutgers, 15–17 April.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Laleko, O. , & Polinsky, M.
    (2013) Marking topic or marking case? Heritage Language Journal, 10(2), 40–64.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Langacker, R.
    (2000) A dynamic usage-based model. InM. Barlow and S. Kemmer (Eds.), Usage-Based Models of Language (pp.1–64). Stanford: CSLI.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Leal Méndez, T. , Rothman, J. & Slabakova, R.
    (2015) Discourse-sensitive clitic-doubled dislocations in heritage Spanish. Lingua, 155(4), 85–97. doi:10.1016/j.lingua.2014.01.002
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Lee, H.S. & Thompson, S.A.
    (1989) A discourse account of the Korean accusative marker. Studies in Language, 13, 105–128. doi: 10.1075/sl.13.1.04tho
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.13.1.04tho [Google Scholar]
  41. Lewis, S. & Phillips, C.
    (2015) Aligning grammatical theories and language processing models. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 44(1), 27–46. doi: 10.1007/s10936‑014‑9329‑z
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10936-014-9329-z [Google Scholar]
  42. Li, C.N. & Thompson, S.A.
    (1976) Subject and topic: A new typology of language. In C.N. Li (Ed.), Subject and Topic (pp.457–461). Austin: University of Texas Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  43. Lozano, C.
    (2006) Focus and split intransitivity: The acquisition of word order alternations in non-native Spanish. Second Language Research, 22(2), 145–187. doi: 10.1191/0267658306sr264oa
    https://doi.org/10.1191/0267658306sr264oa [Google Scholar]
  44. Machida, N. , Miyagawa, S. , & Wexler, K.
    (2004) A-chain maturation reexamined: why Japanese children perform better on ‘full’ unaccusatives than on passives. In Csirmaz, A. , Gualmini, A. , & A. Nevins (Eds.), MIT Working Papers in Linguistics, 48 (pp.91–112). MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
    [Google Scholar]
  45. Maynard, S.K.
    (1980) Discourse Functions of the Japanese Theme Marker ‘Wa.’Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Northwestern University.
    [Google Scholar]
  46. Montrul, S.
    (2002) Incomplete acquisition and attrition of Spanish tense/aspect distinctions in adult bilinguals. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 5, 39–68. doi: 10.1017/S1366728902000135
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728902000135 [Google Scholar]
  47. (2004) Subject and object expression in Spanish heritage speakers: A case of morphosyntactic convergence. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 7(2), 125–142. doi: 10.1017/S1366728904001464
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728904001464 [Google Scholar]
  48. (2005) Second language acquisition and first language loss in adult early bilinguals: Exploring some differences and similarities. Second Language Research, 21(3), 199–249. doi: 10.1191/0267658305sr247oa
    https://doi.org/10.1191/0267658305sr247oa [Google Scholar]
  49. (2011) Multiple interfaces and incomplete acquisition. Lingua, 121, 591–604. doi: 10.1016/j.lingua.2010.05.006
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2010.05.006 [Google Scholar]
  50. Montrul, S. , Foote, R. , & Perpiñán, S.
    (2008) Gender agreement in adult second language learners and Spanish heritage speakers: The effects of age and context of acquisition. Language Learning: A Journal of Research in Linguistic Studies, 58, 503–553. doi: 10.1111/j.1467‑9922.2008.00449.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2008.00449.x [Google Scholar]
  51. Müller, N. & Hulk, A.
    (2001) Crosslinguistic influence in bilingual language acquisition: Italian and French as recipient languages. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 4(1), 1–21. doi: 10.1017/S1366728901000116
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728901000116 [Google Scholar]
  52. Nakanishi, K.
    (2001) Prosody and information structure in Japanese: A case study of topic marker wa. In N. Akatsuka & S. Strauss (Eds.), Japanese/Korean Linguistics, 10, 434–447.
    [Google Scholar]
  53. O’Grady, W.
    (2011) Interfaces and processing. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 1(1), 63–66. doi: 10.1075/lab.1.1.08ogr
    https://doi.org/10.1075/lab.1.1.08ogr [Google Scholar]
  54. Ono, H.
    (2001) EPP-driven XP movement in Japanese. In M. Antrim , G. Goodall, M. Schulte-Nafeh, & V. Samiian (Eds.), Proceedings of WECOL99. California State University: Freshno, CA.
    [Google Scholar]
  55. A.T. Pérez-Leroux & Glass, W.R.
    (1997) “OPC effects on the L2 acquisition of Spanish.” In Pérez-Leroux, A.T. & W.R. Glass (Eds.), Contemporary perspectives on the acquisition of Spanish. Vol.I: Developing Grammars (pp.149–165). Sommerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  56. Phillips, C.
    (2013) Parser-grammar relations: We don’t understand everything twice. In Sanz, M. , I. Laka , & M. Tanenhaus (Eds.), Language Down the Garden Path: The Cognitive and Biological Basis for Linguistic Structures (pp.294–315.) Oxford, England: Oxford University Press. doi: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199677139.003.0017
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199677139.003.0017 [Google Scholar]
  57. Platzack, C.
    (2001) The vulnerable C-domain. Brain and Language, 77, 364–377. doi: 10.1006/brln.2000.2408
    https://doi.org/10.1006/brln.2000.2408 [Google Scholar]
  58. Polinsky, M.
    (1997) American Russian: Language loss meets language acquisition.In W. Browne (Ed.), Annual Workshop on Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics: The Cornell Meeting (pp.370–406). Ann Arbor: Michigan Slavic Publications.
    [Google Scholar]
  59. (2006) Incomplete acquisition: American Russian. Journal of Slavic Linguistics, 14, 191–262.
    [Google Scholar]
  60. (2008a) Heritage language narratives. In D. Brinton , O. Kagan , & S. Bauckus (Eds.), Heritage Language Education: A New Field Emerging (pp.149–164). New York: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  61. (2008b) Without aspect. In G. Corbett & M. Noonan (Eds.), Case and Grammatical Relations (pp.263–282). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/tsl.81.13pol
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.81.13pol [Google Scholar]
  62. (2011) Reanalysis in adult heritage language: A case for attrition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 33, 305–28. doi: 10.1017/S027226311000077X
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S027226311000077X [Google Scholar]
  63. Polio, C.
    (1995) “Acquiring nothing? The use of zero pronouns by nonnative speakers of Chinese and the implications for the acquisition of nominal reference. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 17, 353–377. doi: 10.1017/S0272263100014248
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263100014248 [Google Scholar]
  64. Reuland, E.
    (2011) Anaphora and Language Design. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  65. Rizzi, L.
    (1997) The fine structure of the left periphery. InL. Haegeman (Ed.), Elements of Grammar. Handbook in Generative Syntax (pp.281–337). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
    [Google Scholar]
  66. Rothman, J.
    (2007) Pragmatic solutions for syntactic problems: Understanding some L2 syntactic errors in terms of pragmatic deficits. In S. Baauw , F. Drijkoningen & M. Pinto (Eds.), Romance Languages and Linguistic Theory(pp.299–320). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
    [Google Scholar]
  67. (2009) Pragmatic deficits with syntactic consequences?: L2 pronominal subjects and the syntax-pragmatics interface. Journal of Pragmatics, 41, 951–973. doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2008.07.007
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2008.07.007 [Google Scholar]
  68. Rothman, J. & Slabakova, R.
    (2011) The mind-context divide: On acquisition at the linguistic interfaces. Lingua, 121, 568–576. doi: 10.1016/j.lingua.2011.01.003
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2011.01.003 [Google Scholar]
  69. Serratrice, L. Sorace, A. & Paoli, S.
    (2004) Crosslinguistic influence at the syntax-pragmatics interface: Subjects and objects in English-Italian bilingual and monolingual acquisition. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 7(2), 183–205. doi: 10.1017/S1366728904001610
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728904001610 [Google Scholar]
  70. Shibatani, M.
    (1977) Grammatical relations and surface cases. Language, 53, 789–809. doi: 10.2307/412912
    https://doi.org/10.2307/412912 [Google Scholar]
  71. Shimojo, M.
    (2006) Properties of particle ‘omission’ revisited. Toronto Working Papers in Linguistics, 26, 123–140.
    [Google Scholar]
  72. Shimojo, M. & Choi, H.-W.
    (2000) On asymmetry in topic marking: the case of Japanese WA and Korean NUN. In A. Okrent , & J. Boyle (Eds.), Chicago Linguistic Society, 36(1) (pp.455–467). Chicago, IL: Chicago Linguistic Society.
    [Google Scholar]
  73. Slabakova, R. & Ivanov, I.
    (2011) A more careful look at the syntax-discourse interface. Lingua, 121, 637–651. doi: 10.1016/j.lingua.2010.05.003
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2010.05.003 [Google Scholar]
  74. Slabakova, R. , Kempchinsky, P. & Rothman, J.
    (2012) Clitic-doubled left dislocation and focus fronting in L2 Spanish: A case of successful acquisition at the syntax-discourse interface. Second Language Research, 28(3), 319–343. doi: 10.1177/0267658312447612
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0267658312447612 [Google Scholar]
  75. Sorace, A.
    (2004) Native language attrition and developmental instability at the syntax-discourse interface: Data, interpretations and methods. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 7 (2), 143–145. doi: 10.1017/S1366728904001543
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728904001543 [Google Scholar]
  76. (2005) Selective optionality in language development. InL. Cornips & K.Corrigan, (Eds.), Syntax and Variation: Reconciling the Biological and the Social (pp.55–80). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/cilt.265.04sor
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.265.04sor [Google Scholar]
  77. (2009) Internal and external interfaces in bilingual language development: Beyond structural overlap. International Journal of Bilingualism, 13(2), 195–210. doi: 10.1177/1367006909339810
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1367006909339810 [Google Scholar]
  78. (2011) Pinning down the concept of ‘interface’ in bilingualism. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 1, 1–33. doi: 10.1075/lab.1.1.01sor
    https://doi.org/10.1075/lab.1.1.01sor [Google Scholar]
  79. Sorace, A. , & Keller, F.
    (2005) Gradience in linguistic data. Lingua,115, 1497–1524. doi: 10.1016/j.lingua.2004.07.002
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2004.07.002 [Google Scholar]
  80. Sorace, A. , & Serratrice, L.
    (2009) Internal and external interfaces in bilingual language development: Beyond structural overlap. International Journal of Bilingualism, 13(2), 195–210. doi: 10.1177/1367006909339810
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1367006909339810 [Google Scholar]
  81. Sorace, A. , Serratrice, L. Filiaci, F. , & Baldo, M.
    (2009) Discourse conditions on subject pronoun realization: Testing the linguistic intuitions of older bilingual children. Lingua, 119, 460–477. doi: 10.1016/j.lingua.2008.09.008
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2008.09.008 [Google Scholar]
  82. Sprouse, J.
    (2011) A validation of Amazon Mechanical Turk for the collection of acceptability judgments in linguistic theory. Behavior Research Methods, 43, 155–167. doi: 10.3758/s13428‑010‑0039‑7
    https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-010-0039-7 [Google Scholar]
  83. Stevenson, S. & Merlo, P.
    (1997) Lexical structure and processing complexity. Language and Cognitive Processes, 12(1–2), 349–399. doi: 10.1080/016909697386880
    https://doi.org/10.1080/016909697386880 [Google Scholar]
  84. Takezawa, K.
    (1987) A configurational approach to case-marking in Japanese. Doctoral dissertation, University of Washington.
    [Google Scholar]
  85. Tateishi, K.
    (1994) The syntax of ‘subjects.’ Studies in Japanese Linguistics, 14, 91–108.
    [Google Scholar]
  86. Tomioka, S.
    (2009) Contrastive topics operate on speech acts. InM. Zimmermann & C. Féry (Eds.) Information Structure: Theoretical, Typological and Experimental Perspectives (pp.115–138). Oxford University Press. doi: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199570959.003.0006
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199570959.003.0006 [Google Scholar]
  87. (2010) A scope theory of contrastive topic. Iberia: International Journal of Theoretical Linguistics, 2, 113–130.
    [Google Scholar]
  88. Tsimpli, I. , Sorace , A., Heycock, C. , & Filiaci, F.
    (2004) First language attrition and syntactic subjects: A study of Greek and Italian near-native speakers of English. International Journal of Bilingualism, 8(3), 257–277. doi: 10.1177/13670069040080030601
    https://doi.org/10.1177/13670069040080030601 [Google Scholar]
  89. Tsimpli, I. & Sorace, A.
    (2006) Differentiating interfaces: L2 performance in syntax-semantic and syntax-discourse phenomena. In D. Bamman , T. Magnitskaia & C. Zaller (Eds.), Proceedings of the 30th Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development (pp.653–664). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  90. Tsutsui, M.
    (1984) Particle ellipses in Japanese. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign.
    [Google Scholar]
  91. Ueda, M.
    (1993) On the phrase structure of Japanese and English clauses. InN. Hasegawa (Ed.), Japanese Syntax in Comparative Grammar (pp.9–44). Tokyo: Kurushio.
    [Google Scholar]
  92. Valenzuela, E.
    (2006) L2 end state grammars and incomplete acquisition of the Spanish CLLD constructions. In R. Slabakova , S. Montrul & P. Prévost (Eds.), Inquiries in Linguistic Development: In Honor of Lydia White (pp.283–304). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/z.133.16val
    https://doi.org/10.1075/z.133.16val [Google Scholar]
  93. Vermeulen, R.
    (2005) Two types of multiple nominative constructions in Japanese. University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics, 11, 1, 305–319. Retrieved fromrepository.upenn.edu/pwpl/vol11/iss1/24.
    [Google Scholar]
  94. White, L.
    (2003) Fossilization in steady state L2 grammars: Implications of persistent problems with inflectional morphology. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 6(2), 129–141. doi: 10.1017/S1366728903001081
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728903001081 [Google Scholar]
  95. (2011) Second language acquisition at the interfaces. Lingua, 121, 577–590. doi: 10.1016/j.lingua.2010.05.005
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2010.05.005 [Google Scholar]
  96. Yatabe, S.
    (1999) Particle ellipsis and focus projection in Japanese. Language, Information, Text, 6, 79–104.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/lab.14018.lal
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/lab.14018.lal
Loading

Data & Media loading...

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