Article published in:
Theoretical and Methodological Developments in Processability Theory
Edited by Kristof Baten, Aafke Buyl, Katja Lochtman and Mieke Van Herreweghe
[Processability Approaches to Language Acquisition Research & Teaching 4] 2015
► pp. 19–44

Chapter 2. Processing Alignments

Semantic, Thematic and Structural Prominence in Samoan SLA

| University of Auckland
| University of Hawai’i
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.
Published online: 11 December 2015
https://doi.org/10.1075/palart.4.02cha
References
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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bresnan, J
(1982) The mental representation of grammatical relations. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
(2001) Lexical functional syntax. Malden, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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. http://​cognitextes​.revues​.org​/611Google Scholar
Choi, H.-W
(1999) Optimizing structure in context: Scrambling and information structure. Stanford, CA: CSLI.Google Scholar
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: ANUGoogle Scholar
(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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Dalrymple, M., & Nikolaeva, I
(2011) Objects and information structure. Cambridge: CUP. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Dixon, R.M.W
(1987) Studies in ergativity. New York, NY: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Dowty, D
(1991) Thematic proto-roles and argument selection. Language, 67, 547-619. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Erteschik-Shir, N
(2007) Information structure: The syntax-discourse interface. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Falk, Y
(2001) Lexical-functional grammar: An introduction to parallel constraint-based syntax. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Givón, T
(Ed.) (1983) Topic continuity in discourse. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Kempen, G. & Hoenkamp, E
(1987) An incremental procedural grammar for sentence formulation. Cognitive Science, 11, 201-258. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Klein, W. & Perdue, C
(1992) Utterance structure: Developing grammars again. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Larsen-Freeman, D. & Long, M
(1991/2014) An introduction to second language acquisition research. New York, NY: Longman.Google Scholar
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. Google Scholar
Levelt, W.J.M
(1989) Speaking. From intention to articulation. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Li, C.N
(1976) Subject and topic. New York, NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Manning, C.D
(1996) Ergativity: Argument structure and grammatical relations. Stanford, CA: CSLI.Google Scholar
Mosel, U. & Hovdhaugen, E
(1992) Samoan reference grammar. Oslo: Scandinavian University Press.Google Scholar
Muagututi’a, G
(2010) Acquiring Samoan syntax: Ergativity and processability in SLA. Unpublished MA thesis, University of Auckland.Google Scholar
Pienemann, M
(1998) Language processing and second language development: Processability Theory. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2005) Cross-linguistic aspects of Processability Theory. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Prince, Ellen
(1981) Toward a taxonomy of given-new information. In P. Cole (Ed.), Radical pragmatics (pp. 223-255). New York, NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Reinhart, Tanya
1982 Pragmatics and linguistics. An analysis of sentence topics. Philosophica, 27, 53 - 94Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
(1988) Origins of complex syntax in interlanguage development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 10(3), 371-95. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Simpson, J
(2001) Warlpiri morpho-syntax: A lexicalist approach (Studies in Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 23). Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Xu, L., & Langendoen, T
(1985) Topic structures in Chinese. Language, 61, 1-27. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 1 other publications

No author info given
2017.  In Understanding Second Language Processing [Bilingual Processing and Acquisition, 4], Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 14 may 2022. 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.