Article published in:
The Acquisition of Spanish in Understudied Language Pairings
Edited by Tiffany Judy and Silvia Perpiñán
[Issues in Hispanic and Lusophone Linguistics 3] 2015
► pp. 281308
Cited by

Cited by 2 other publications

Park-Johnson, Sunny K.
2019. Case Ellipsis: Acquisition of Variability by Young Heritage Speakers of Korean. International Multilingual Research Journal 13:1  pp. 15 ff. Crossref logo
Ponnet, Aaricia, Kristof Baten & Saartje Verbeke
2016. The acquisition of differential object marking in Hindi as a foreign language. Dutch Journal of Applied Linguistics 5:2  pp. 101 ff. Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 11 september 2021. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.

References

References

Aissen, J.
(2003) Differential object marking: Iconicity vs. economy. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 213, 435–448. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Aygen, G.
(2002) Finiteness, Case and Clausal Architecture. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Harvard University.
(2007) Specificity and subject-object positions/scope interactions in Turkish. Dil ve Edebiyat Dergisi/Journal of Linguistics and Literature, 4(2), 56–87.Google Scholar
Bardel, C., & Falk, Y.
(2007) The role of the second language in third language acquisition: The case of Germanic syntax. Second Language Research, 23, 459–484. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bossong, G.
(1991) Differential object marking in Romance and beyond. In D. Wanner & D. Kibbee (Eds.), New Analyses in Romance Linguistics. Selected Papers from the XVIII Linguistic Symposium on Romance Languages (pp.143–170). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bowles, M., & Montrul, S.
(2009) Instructed L2 acquisition of differential object marking in Spanish. In R.P. Leow, H. Campos, & D. Lardiere (Eds.), Little Words. Their History, Phonology, Syntax, Semantics, Pragmatics and Acquisition (pp. 199–210). Washington DC: Georgetown University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, N.
(2001) Derivation by phase. In K.L. Hale & M. Kenstowicz (Eds.), Ken Hale: A Life in Language (pp. 1–54). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Enç, M.
(1991) The semantics of specificity. Linguistic Inquiry, 22, 1–25.Google Scholar
Erguvanlı, E.
(1984) The Function of Word Order in Turkish Grammar. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Grosjean, F.
(2008) Studying Bilinguals. Oxford: OUP. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Grosjean, F., & Py, B.
(1991) La restructuration d’une première langue: L’intégration de variantes de contact dans la compétence de migrants bilingues. La Linguistique, 27, 35–60.Google Scholar
Girard, E.
(1995) Intégration de variantes de contact dans la compétence de bilingues de deuxième génération. Master’s thesis, University of Neuchâtel, Switzerland.
Guijarro-Fuentes, P.
(2011) Feature composition in differential object marking. In L. Roberts, G. Pallotti, & C. Bettoni (Eds.), EUROSLA Yearbook 11 (pp. 138–164). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2012) The acquisition of interpretable features in L2 Spanish: Personal a. Bilingualism, Language and Cognition, 15(4), 701–720. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Guijarro-Fuentes, P., & Marinis, T.
(2007) Acquiring the syntax/semantic interface in L2 Spanish: The personal preposition ‘a’. In L. Roberts, A. Gürel, S. Tatar, & L. Martı (Eds.), Eurosla Yearbook 7 (pp. 67–87). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2011) Voicing language dominance: The acquisition of interfaces by English/Spanish bilingual adolescents. In K. Potowski & J. Rothman (Eds.), Bilingual Youth: Spanish in English-speaking Societies (pp. 227–248). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Halloran, B., & Giancaspro, D.
(2012, October). Examining L3 transfer models: The acquisition of differential object marking in L3 Brazilian Portuguese. Poster presented at GALANA, University of Kansas, Lawrence.
Kornfilt, J.
(1997) Turkish. Descriptive Grammars Series. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
(2003) Scrambling, subscrambling, and case in Turkish. In S. Karimi (Ed.), Word Order and Scrambling, (pp. 125–155). Malden, MA: Blackwell. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kural, M.
(1997) Postverbal constituents in Turkish and the linear correspondence axiom. Linguistic Inquiry, 28, 498–519.Google Scholar
Laca, B.
(2006) El objeto directo. In C. Company (Ed.) Sintaxis histórica del español. Vol I: La frase verbal. México: Universidad Autónoma de México.Google Scholar
Lardiere, D.
(2008) Feature-assembly in second language acquisition. In J. Liceras, H. Zobl, & H. Goodluck (Eds.), The Role of Formal Features in Second Language Acquisition (pp. 106–140). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
(2009) Some thoughts on the contrastive analysis of features in second language acquisition. Second Language Research, 25, 173–227. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Leonetti, M.
(2004) Specificity and differential object marking in Spanish. Catalan. Journal of Linguistics, 3, 75–114.Google Scholar
Lewis, G.L.
(1967) Turkish Grammar. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Lidz, J.
(2006) The grammar of accusative case in Kannada. Language, 82, 10–32. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
López, L.
(2012) Indefinite Objects. Scrambling, Choice Functions and Differential Marking. Linguistic Inquiry Monograph, 63. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Montrul, S.
(2004) Subject and object expression in Spanish heritage speakers: A case of morpho-syntactic convergence. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 7(2), 125–142. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2011) Interfaces and incomplete acquisition. Lingua, Special issue on Interfaces in Language Acquisition, 212(4,) 591–604. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Montrul, S., & Bowles, M.
(2009) Back to basics: Differential object marking under incomplete acquisition in Spanish heritage speakers. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 12(3), 363–383. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2010) Is grammar instruction beneficial for heritage language learners? Dative case marking in Spanish. The Heritage Language Journal, 7(1), 47–73.Google Scholar
Montrul, S., & Sánchez-Walker, N.
(2013) Differential object marking in child and adult Spanish heritage speakers. Language Acquisition, 20, 1–24. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Montrul, S., Dias, R., & Santos, H.
(2011) Clitics and object expression in the L3 acquisition of Brazilian Portuguese. Structural similarity matters for transfer. Second Language Research, 27(1), 21–58. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Pensado, C.
(1995) El complemento directo preposicional: Estado de la cuestión y bibliografía comentada. In C. Pensado (Ed.). El complemento directo preposicionalEl complemento directo preposicional (pp. 11–59). Madrid: Visor. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Perpiñán, S.
(2013, April). Direct object expression and its semantic properties in Catalan-Spanish bilingualism. 43rd Linguistics Symposium on Romance Languages, City University of New York (CUNY Graduate Center, April 19).
Rodríguez-Mondoñedo, M.
(2007) The Syntax of Objects: Agree and Differential Object Marking. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation. University of Connecticut.
(2008) The acquisition of differential object marking in Spanish. Probus, 20, 111–145. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Schwartz, B.D., & Sprouse, R.A.
(1996) L2 cognitive states and the full transfer/full access model. Second Language Research, 12, 40–72. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Sorace, A.
(2011) Pinning down the concept of “interface” in bilingualism. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 1(1), 1–33. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ticio. E.
in press). Differential object marking in Spanish-English early bilinguals. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism.
Torrego, E.
(1998) The Dependency of Objects. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Underhill, R.
(1976) Turkish Grammar. Cambridge: MA: The MIT Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Von Heusinger, K.
(2005) The evolution of Differential Object Marking in Spanish. In K. Von Heusinger, G. Kaiser, & E. Stark (Eds.), Proceedings of the Workshop Specificity and the Evolution/Emergence of Nominal Determination Systems in Romance. Fachbereich Sprachwissenschaft der Universität Konstanz, Arbeitspapier Nr. 119. (pp. 33–70). Konstanz: University of Konstanz.Google Scholar
(2008) Verbal semantics and the diachronic development of DOM in Spanish. Probus, 20, 1–31. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Von Heusinger, K., & Kornfilt, J.
(2005) The case of the direct object in Turkish: Semantics, syntax and morphology. Turkic Languages, 9, 3–44.Google Scholar
Weissenrieder, M.
(1990) Variable uses of the direct-object marker A. Hispania, 73, 223–231. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Zagona, K.
(2002) The Syntax of Spanish. Cambridge: CUP. CrossrefGoogle Scholar