Part of
Theoretical and Methodological Developments in Processability TheoryEdited by Kristof Baten, Aafke Buyl, Katja Lochtman and Mieke Van Herreweghe
[Processability Approaches to Language Acquisition Research & Teaching 4] 2015
► pp. 21–44
Edited by Kristof Baten, Aafke Buyl, Katja Lochtman and Mieke Van Herreweghe
[Processability Approaches to Language Acquisition Research & Teaching 4] 2015
► pp. 21–44
Chapter 2. Processing Alignments
Semantic, Thematic and Structural Prominence in Samoan SLA
PT proposes two key hypotheses to account for sentence-like structures in early SLA: (i) the Unmarked Alignment Hypothesis says that learners map the most prominent semantic role onto the subject function and the most prominent structural position; (ii) the Topic Hypothesis says that learners do not differentiate subject and topic (Pienemann, DiBiase & Kawaguchi, 2005). This chapter identifies theory-internal problems for these claims, and presents empirical data which shows that they do not hold for Samoan SLA. For theoretical reasons, no NPs produced by early learners can be considered ‘subjects’ and, while initial NPs in early L2 Samoan tend overwhelmingly to be semantically prominent, the converse is not true, initial NPs are not always topical, and semantically prominent NPs may be focal, or background. An account of the observed facts is provided within the framework of LFG without exceeding the procedural capacities accorded to early learners by PT.
References (43)
Aissen, J. (1999/2001). Markedness and subject choice in optimality theory. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 17, 673-711. Reprinted in Legendre, G., Grimshaw, J., & Vikner, S. (Eds.) 2001. Optimality-theoretic syntax (pp. 61-96). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. 
Bresnan, J. (1982). The mental representation of grammatical relations. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
. (2001). Lexical functional syntax. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Chafe, W. (1976). Givenness, contrastiveness, definiteness, subjects, topics and point of view. In C.N. Li (Ed.), Subject and topic (pp. 25-55). New York, NY: Academic Press.
Charters, H, Dao, L, & Jansen, L. (2007). Reassessing the applicability of Processability Theory: The Weaver++ model and ESL nominal plural marking. Second Language Research, 27, 509-533.
Charters, H., Jansen, L., & Dao, L. (2012). Think of a number: Conceptual transfer in the second language acquisition of English plural-marking. CogniTextes, 8, uploaded Dec 28. <[URL]>
Choi, H.-W. (1999). Optimizing structure in context: Scrambling and information structure. Stanford, CA: CSLI.
Cook, K.W. (1991). The search for subject in Samoan. In R. Blust (Ed.), Currents in Pacific linguistics (Pacific Linguistics, Series C, no 117). Canberra: ANU
. (1993). A cognitive account of Samoan lavea and galo verbs. In R.A. Geiger & B. Rudzka-Ostyn (Eds), Conceptualizations and mental processing in language (Cognitive Linguistics Research) (pp. 567-592). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
Dalrymple, M., & Nikolaeva, I. (2011). Objects and information structure. Cambridge: CUP.
Dixon, R.M.W. (1987). Studies in ergativity. New York, NY: Elsevier.
Dowty, D. (1991). Thematic proto-roles and argument selection. Language, 67, 547-619.
Erteschik-Shir, N. (2007). Information structure: The syntax-discourse interface. Oxford: OUP.
Falk, Y. (2001). Lexical-functional grammar: An introduction to parallel constraint-based syntax. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Fillmore, C. (1968). The case for case. In E. Bach & R.T. Harms (Ed.), Universals in linguistic theory (pp. 1-88). New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.
Givón, T. (Ed.). (1983). Topic continuity in discourse. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Huang, C-T.J. (1982). Logical relations in Chinese and the theory of grammar. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, MIT.
. (1984). On the distribution and reference of empty pronouns. Linguistic Inquiry, 15, 531-574.
Keenan, E. (1976). Towards a universal definition of subject. In C.N. Li (Ed.), Subject and topic (pp. 305-334). New York, NY: Academic Press.
Kempen, G. & Hoenkamp, E. (1987). An incremental procedural grammar for sentence formulation. Cognitive Science, 11, 201-258.
Kempen, G. (1998). Comparing and explaining the trajectories of first and second language acquisition: in search of the right mix of psychological and linguistic factors. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 1, 29-30.
Klein, W. & Perdue, C. (1992). Utterance structure: Developing grammars again. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Lambrecht, K. (1987). Sentence focus, information structure and the thetic-categorial distinction. Paper presented at Proceedings of the 13th annual meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society.
. (1994). Information structure and sentence form. Cambridge: CUP.
Larsen-Freeman, D. & Long, M. (1991/2014). An introduction to second language acquisition research. New York, NY: Longman.
Lee, H.J. (2001). Markedness and word order freezing. In P. Sells (Ed.), Formal and empirical issues in optimality-theoretic syntax (pp. 63-128). Stanford, CA: CSLI.
Levelt, W.J.M. (1989). Speaking. From intention to articulation. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.
Levelt, W.J.M., Roelofs, A. & Meyer, A.S. (1999). A theory of lexical access in speech production. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 22, 1-38.
Li, C.N. (1976). Subject and topic. New York, NY: Academic Press.
Manning, C.D. (1996). Ergativity: Argument structure and grammatical relations. Stanford, CA: CSLI.
Mosel, U. & Hovdhaugen, E. (1992). Samoan reference grammar. Oslo: Scandinavian University Press.
Muagututi’a, G. (2010). Acquiring Samoan syntax: Ergativity and processability in SLA. Unpublished MA thesis, University of Auckland.
Pienemann, M. (1998). Language processing and second language development: Processability Theory. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
. (2005). Cross-linguistic aspects of Processability Theory. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Pienemann, M., Di Biase, B., & Kawaguchi, S. (2005). Extending Processability Theory. In M. Pienemann (Ed.), Cross-linguistic aspects of Processability Theory (pp. 199-251). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Prince, Ellen. (1981). Toward a taxonomy of given-new information. In P. Cole (Ed.), Radical pragmatics (pp. 223-255). New York, NY: Academic Press.
Rappaport Hovav, M. & Levin, B. (2007). Deconstructing thematic hierarchies. In A. Zaenen, J. Simpson, T.H. King, J. Grimshaw, J. Maling, & C. Manning (Eds.), Architectures, rules, and preferences: Variations on themes by Joan W. Bresnan (pp. 385-402). Stanford, CA: CSLI.
Reinhart, Tanya. 1982. Pragmatics and linguistics. An analysis of sentence topics. Philosophica, 27, 53 - 94
Sato, C. (1982). Form and function in the English interlanguages of two Vietnamese children. Paper presented at the Georgetown University Round Table, pre-conference session on the Analysis of Spoken Discourse, March.
. (1985). Task variation in interlanguage phonology. In S. Gass & C. Madden (Eds.), Input in second language acquisition (pp. 181-196). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
. (1988). Origins of complex syntax in interlanguage development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 10(3), 371-95.
Simpson, J. (2001). Warlpiri morpho-syntax: A lexicalist approach (Studies in Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 23). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Xu, L., & Langendoen, T. (1985). Topic structures in Chinese. Language, 61, 1-27.
Cited by (2)
Cited by two other publications
Baten, Kristof & Aaricia Ponnet
2023. Extending PT to split ergative marking and differential object marking. In Processability and Language Acquisition in the Asia-Pacific Region [Processability Approaches to Language Acquisition Research & Teaching, 9], ► pp. 91 ff. 
[no author supplied]
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 21 december 2024. 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.