Practical Information - Generative Linguistics in the Old World

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Word order and definiteness in the Norwegian DP: Complexity, frequency andstructural similarity in bilingual acquisition and attritionMarit Westergaard & Merete AnderssenUniversity of TromsøNowegian DP constructions are relatively complex, especially compared to English. Norwegianpossessives may be pre- or postnominal (1a, b), while English possessives are always prenominal(1c). The distinction between the two word orders in Norwegian is dependent on informationstructure; the prenominal adds contrastive stress on the possessor, while the postnominal isneutral. Furthermore, postnominal possessors have to co-occur with a noun in the definite form(1b). Norwegian also differs from English in having a suffixal definite article (1b, 2a) and inhaving definiteness marked twice in modified definite noun phrases (2b), by both a suffixalarticle and a preadjectival free determiner (double definiteness).(1) a. min stol b. stol-en min c. my chairmy chair chair.DEF my‘MY chair’ ‘my chair’(2) a. hus -et b. det gamle hus -ethouse.DEF DEF old house.DEF‘the house’ ‘the old house’These structures allow us to consider factors such as frequency, complexity, and structuralsimilarity: Postnominal possessives are used considerably more frequently than prenominalpossessives (75%), but are also argued to be more complex, involving both definiteness markingand syntactic movement (Anderssen & Westergaard 2010, Lødrup 2012). Prenominalpossessives, on the other hand, are structurally more similar to their English counterparts. Doubledefiniteness is both complex and infrequent. Within the DP structure, the suffix is extremelyfrequent, while the prenominal determiner is infrequent but structurally similar to English.In Anderssen & Westergaard (2010), monolingual Norwegian children are shown to use bothword orders in possessives, but to have a preference for the prenominal possessive constructionearly on, i.e. the least complex and least frequent one. This is argued to be an indication thatchildren do not simply pay attention to frequency, but choose the more economical construction(without syntactic movement). Anderssen & Westergaard (2012) investigate the use ofpossessives in Norwegian-English bilingual children and Norwegian heritage speakers in the US.The results reveal that, while the bilingual children have a stronger and more long-lastingpreference for prenominal possessives than the monolinguals, see (2), the heritage speakersalmost exclusively use postnominal possessor constructions, also with English loanwords, cf. (3).It is thus argued that, while the lack of complexity makes prenominal possessives the preferredorder in language acquisition, the high frequency of the postnominal possessor protects it againstlanguage attrition.(2) Den er ikke i min veska. (Sun, 1;10.16)it is not in my handbag.DEF(3) schoolhouse’n din (3M SpringG)schoolhouse.DEF your1
Similar findings have recently been made with respect to adjective-noun word order in Italian-German bilingual acquisition and attrition (Kupisch 2012), where the heritage speakers areargued to pay attention to frequency and structural difference.Against this backdrop, we re-evaluate the Anderssen & Westergaard (2012) data in this paperand argue that frequency is a more important factor in attrition than complexity or structuralsimilarity. We also provide some further data on double definiteness (cf. 2b) from one bilingualchild as well as a number of heritage speakers and compare the findings to monolingualacquisition (Anderssen 2006). Given that double definiteness is both complex and infrequent, weexpect it to be vulnerable in both bilingual groups, as it is in monolinguals, who have been shownto omit the prenominal determiner for an extended period of time, cf. (4). Our findings show thatthe bilingual child investigated to a large extent omits the suffix (55.6%, 10/18)), cf. example (5),even though this is produced in a target-consistent manner in her simple definites. The heritagespeakers, on the other hand, are found to omit the prenominal determiner as often as 57% (37/65)(and the suffix only 3.1%, 2/65), despite its structural similarity to English, cf. (6).(4) store trollet (Ina, 2;1.0)big troll.DEF (Target: det store trollet)(5) den stor ball (Emma 2;7.10)the big ball(Target: den store ballen)(6) engelske skolen (coon_valley_WI_sep_03gm)English school.DEF (Target: den engelsk skolen)We argue that our results support the hypothesis that complexity plays a more important role thanfrequency in acquisition. Furthermore, structural similarity may be a factor in bilingualacquisition. In attrition, on the other hand, frequency and structural difference seem to be themost important factors, accounting for the heritage speakers’ lack of prenominal determiners indouble definites as well as their overuse of postnominal possessives in Anderssen & Westergaard’s(2012) data.ReferencesAnderssen, M. 2006. The Acquisition of Compositional Definiteness in Norwegian. Doctoral dissertation,University of Tromsø.Anderssen, M. & M. Westergaard. 2010. Frequency and economy in the acquisition of variable wordorder. Lingua 120.11, 2569-2588.Anderssen, M. & M. Westergaard. 2012. Tospråklighet og ordstilling i norske possessivkonstruksjoner.Norsk Lingvistisk Tidsskrift 30, 170-197.Lødrup, H. 2012. Forholdet mellom prenominale og postnominale possessive uttrykk. H.-O. Enger, J. T.Faarlund & K. I. Vannebo (eds.), Grammatikk, bruk og norm, 189-203. Oslo: Novus.Kupisch, T. 2012. Language influence in developing vs. end-state grammars and the concept of “crosslinguisticovercorrection”. Poster presented at CASTL Decennium conference, University of Tromsø.2
Page 1 and 2:
GLOW Newsletter #70, Spring 2013Edi
Page 3 and 4:
INTRODUCTIONWelcome to the 70 th GL
Page 5:
Welcome to GLOW 36, Lund!The 36th G
Page 8 and 9:
REIMBURSEMENT AND WAIVERSThe regist
Page 10 and 11:
STATISTICS BY COUNTRYCountry Author
Page 12 and 13:
15:45-16:00 Coffee break16:00-17:00
Page 14 and 15:
14:00-15:00 Adam Albright (MIT) and
Page 16 and 17:
17:00-17:30 Anna Maria Di Sciullo (
Page 18 and 19:
16.10-16.50 Peter Svenonius (Univer
Page 20 and 21:
GLOW 36 WORKSHOP PROGRAM IV:Acquisi
Page 22 and 23:
The impossible chaos: When the mind
Page 24 and 25:
17. Friederici, A. D., Trends Cogn.
Page 26 and 27:
Second, tests replicated from Bruen
Page 28 and 29:
clusters is reported to be preferre
Page 30 and 31:
occur (cf. figure 1). Similar perfo
Page 32 and 33:
argument that raises to pre-verbal
Page 34 and 35:
Timothy Bazalgette University of
Page 36 and 37:
. I hurt not this knee now (Emma 2;
Page 38 and 39:
Rajesh Bhatt & Stefan Keine(Univers
Page 40 and 41:
SIZE MATTERS: ON DIACHRONIC STABILI
Page 42 and 43:
ON THE ‘MAFIOSO EFFECT’ IN GRAM
Page 44 and 45:
The absence of coreferential subjec
Page 46 and 47:
PROSPECTS FOR A COMPARATIVE BIOLING
Page 48 and 49:
A multi-step algorithm for serial o
Page 50 and 51:
Velar/coronal asymmetry in phonemic
Page 52 and 53:
On the bilingual acquisition of Ita
Page 54 and 55:
Hierarchy and Recursion in the Brai
Page 56 and 57:
Colorful spleeny ideas speak furiou
Page 58 and 59:
A neoparametric approach to variati
Page 60 and 61:
Lexical items merged in functional
Page 62 and 63:
Setting the elements of syntactic v
Page 64 and 65:
Language Faculty, Complexity Reduct
Page 66 and 67:
Don’t scope your universal quanti
Page 68 and 69:
Restricting language change through
Page 70 and 71:
4. Conclusion This micro-comparativ
Page 72 and 73:
2. Central Algonquian feature hiera
Page 74 and 75:
availability of the SR reading in (
Page 76 and 77:
Repairing Final-Over-Final Constrai
Page 78 and 79:
a PF interface phenomenon as propos
Page 80 and 81:
(b) Once the learner has determined
Page 82 and 83:
cognitive recursion (including Merg
Page 84 and 85:
can be null, or lexically realized,
Page 86 and 87:
feature on C and applies after Agre
Page 88 and 89:
Nobu Goto (Mie University)Deletion
Page 90 and 91:
Structural Asymmetries - The View f
Page 92 and 93:
FROM INFANT POINTING TO THE PHASE:
Page 94 and 95:
Some Maladaptive Traits of Natural
Page 96 and 97:
Constraints on Concept FormationDan
Page 98 and 99:
More on strategies of relativizatio
Page 100 and 101:
ReferencesBayer, J. 1984. COMP in B
Page 102 and 103:
Improper movement and improper agre
Page 104 and 105:
Importantly, while there are plausi
Page 106 and 107:
This hypothesis makes two predictio
Page 108 and 109:
(3) a. Það finnst alltaf þremur
Page 110 and 111:
(2) Watashi-wa hudan hougaku -wa /*
Page 112 and 113:
However when the VP (or IP) is elid
Page 114 and 115:
More specifically, this work reflec
Page 116 and 117:
modality, or ii) see phonology as m
Page 118 and 119:
(I) FWHA The wh-word shenme ‘what
Page 120 and 121:
1The historical reality of biolingu
Page 122 and 123:
Rita Manzini, FirenzeVariation and
Page 124 and 125:
Non-counterfactual past subjunctive
Page 126 and 127:
THE GRAMMAR OF THE ESSENTIAL INDEXI
Page 128 and 129:
Motivating head movement: The case
Page 130 and 131:
Limits on Noun-suppletionBeata Mosk
Page 132 and 133:
Unbounded Successive-Cyclic Rightwa
Page 134 and 135:
Same, different, other, and the his
Page 136 and 137:
Selectivity in L3 transfer: effects
Page 138 and 139:
Anaphoric dependencies in real time
Page 140 and 141:
Constraining Local Dislocation dial
Page 142 and 143: A Dual-Source Analysis of GappingDa
Page 144 and 145: [9] S. Repp. ¬ (A& B). Gapping, ne
Page 146 and 147: of Paths into P path and P place is
Page 148 and 149: Deriving the Functional HierarchyGi
Page 150 and 151: Reflexivity without reflexivesEric
Page 152 and 153: Reuland, E. (2001). Primitives of b
Page 154 and 155: on v, one associated with uϕ and t
Page 156 and 157: Merge when applied to the SM interf
Page 158 and 159: 1 SachsThe Semantics of Hindi Multi
Page 160 and 161: Covert without overt: QR for moveme
Page 162 and 163: Morpho-syntactic transfer in L3 acq
Page 164 and 165: one where goals receive a theta-rel
Page 166 and 167: 51525354555657585960616263646566676
Page 168 and 169: follow Harris in assuming a ranked
Page 170 and 171: changing instances of nodes 7 and 8
Page 172 and 173: Sam Steddy, steddy@mit.eduMore irre
Page 174 and 175: Fleshing out this model further, I
Page 176 and 177: (5) Raman i [ CP taan {i,∗j}Raman
Page 178 and 179: properties with Appl (introduces an
Page 180 and 181: econstruct to position A then we ca
Page 182 and 183: (5) Kutik=i ez guret-a.dog=OBL.M 1S
Page 184 and 185: sults summarized in (2) suggest tha
Page 186 and 187: Building on Bhatt’s (2005) analys
Page 188 and 189: Underlying (derived from ON) /pp, t
Page 190 and 191: out, as shown in (3) (that the DP i
Page 194 and 195: Visser’s Generalization and the c
Page 196 and 197: the key factors. The combination of
Page 198 and 199: Parasitic Gaps Licensed by Elided S
Page 200 and 201: Stages of grammaticalization of the
show all

Practical Information - Generative Linguistics in the Old World

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?