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. 71–104

Chapter 4. The Acquisition of the Ergative Case in Hindi as a Foreign Language

| Ghent University
| Research Foundation Flanders (FWO-Vlaanderen)
Using the framework of Processability Theory (PT), this chapter examines the development of the Hindi case system in the interlanguage of Dutch-speaking foreign language learners. A number of studies have already adopted the PT framework to describe, predict and explain the development of case marking systems in different languages (e.g., German, Russian and Serbian). These studies demonstrated that PT was a suitable framework for predicting and explaining case development. Because German, Russian and Serbian are accusative languages, the question arises whether PT as a conceptual framework is also applicable to the foreign language acquisition of a language with ergative features such as Hindi. The present chapter therefore addresses case development in L2 Hindi, thereby testing the claim that PT possesses universal applicability. Spontaneous oral production data were collected from 11 foreign language learners of Hindi. In accordance with PT, the study results indicate that three stages of development occur; in particular, learners begin with no feature unification, transition through direct mapping, and eventually attain feature unification.
Published online: 11 December 2015
https://doi.org/10.1075/palart.4.04bat
Cited by

Cited by 5 other publications

Artoni, Daniele
2019.  In Widening Contexts for Processability Theory [Processability Approaches to Language Acquisition Research & Teaching, 7], ► pp. 105 ff. Crossref logo
Bhatia, Archna & Silvina Montrul
2020.  In The Acquisition of Differential Object Marking [Trends in Language Acquisition Research, 26], ► pp. 261 ff. Crossref logo
Bhatia, Archna & Silvina Montrul
2020.  In The Acquisition of Differential Object Marking [Trends in Language Acquisition Research, 26], ► pp. 261 ff. Crossref logo
Montrul, Silvina, Archna Bhatia, Rakesh Bhatt & Vandana Puri
2019. Case Marking in Hindi as the Weaker Language. Frontiers in Psychology 10 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 17 october 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

Aksu-Koç, A. & Slobin, D.
(1985) The acquisition of Turkish. In D. Slobin (Ed.), The cross-linguistic study of language acquisition (pp. 839-878). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Andersen, R.W.
(1978) An implicational model for second language research. Language Learning, 28(1), 221-282. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Artoni, D. & Magnani M.
(2013) LFG contributions in second language acquisition research: The development of case in L2 Russian. . In M. Butt & T. Holloway King (Eds.), Proceedings of the LFG13 Conference (pp. 69-89). CSLI Publications.
Austin, J.
(2012) The case-agreement hierarchy in acquisition: Evidence from children learning Basque. Lingua, 122, 289-302. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Babyonyshev, M.
(1993) The acquisition of the Russian case system. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics, 19, 1-43.Google Scholar
Baten, K.
(2013) The acquisition of the German case system by foreign language learners. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bavin, E., & Stoll, S.
(Eds.) (2014) The acquisition of ergativity. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Blake, B.J.
(2001) Case. Cambridge: CUP. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Block, D.
(1996) Not so fast: Some thoughts on theory culling, relativism, accepted findings and the heart and soul of SLA. Applied Linguistics, 17(1), 63-83. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bornkessel-Schlesewsky, I., Kumar Choudhary, K., Witzlack-Makarevich, A., & Bickel, B.
(2008) Bridging the gap between processing preferences and typological distributions: Initial evidence from the online comprehension of control constructions in Hindi. In M. Richards & A. Malchukov (Eds.), Linguistische Arbeitsberichte (Vol. 86; pp. 397-436). Leipzig.Google Scholar
Bowerman, M.
(1985) What shapes children's grammar? In D. Slobin (Ed.), The crosslinguistic study of language acquisition (pp. 1257-1314). Hillsdale NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Braine, M.
(1992) What sort of innate structure is needed to 'bootstrap' into syntax? Cognition: International Journal of Cognitive Science, 45, 77-100. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Butt, M.
(2006) Theories of case. Cambridge: CUP. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2009) Case in lexical-functional grammar. In A. Malchukov & A. Spencer (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Case (pp. 59-71). Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Butt, M. & King, T.H.
(2004) The status of case. In V. Dayal & A. Mahajan (Eds.), Clause structure in South Asian languages (pp. 153-198). Dordrecht: Kluwer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cabrera, M.
(2010) Intransitive / inchoative structures in L2 Spanish. In C. Borgonovo, M. Español-Echevarría, & P. Prévost (Eds.), Selected proceedings of the 12th Hispanic Linguistics Symposium (pp. 160-170). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.Google Scholar
Charters, H., Dao, L., & Jansen, L.
(2011) Reassessing the applicability of processability theory: The case of nominal plural. Second Language Research, 27(4), 509-533. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Clahsen, H., Eisenbeiß, S., & Vainikka, A.
(1994) The seeds of structure: A syntactic analysis of the acquisition of case marking. In T. Hoekstra & B.D. Schwartz (Eds.), Language acquisition studies in generative grammar (pp. 85-118). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Creissels, D.
(2009) Uncommon patterns of core term marking and case terminology. Lingua, 119(3), 445-459. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Das, P.K.
(2006) Grammatical agreement in Hindi-Urdu and its major varieties. Munich: Lincom.Google Scholar
Davison, A.
(1999) Ergativity: Functional and formal issues. In M. Darnell, E.A. Moravcsik, F.J. Newmeyer, M. Noonan, & K. Wheatley (Eds.), Functionalism and formalism in linguistics (pp. 177-210). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Di Biase, B. & Kawaguchi, S.
(2002) Exploring the typological plausibility of processability theory: Language development in Italian second language and Japanese second language. Second Language Research, 18(3), 274-302. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Dixon, R.
(1994) Ergativity: Cambridge: CUP. Crossref
Dulay, H.C. & Burt, M.K.
(1974) Natural sequences in child second language acquisition. Language Learning, 24(1), 37-53. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Eisenbeiß, S., Bartke, S., & Clahsen, H.
(2005) Structural and lexical case in child German: Evidence from language-impaired and typically developing children. Language Acquisition: A Journal of Developmental Linguistics, 13(1), 3-32. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Eisenbeiß, S., Narasimhan, B., & Voeĭkova, M.
(2009) The acquisition of case. In A. Malchukov & A. Spencer (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of case (pp. 369-383). Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Ezeizabarrena, M.J.
(2012) The (in)consistent ergative marking in early Basque: L1 vs. child L2. Lingua, 122, 303-317. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ezeizabarrena, M.J., & Larrañaga, M.P.
(1996) Ergativity in Basque: A problem for language acquisition? Linguistics 34, 955-991. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gagarina, N., & Voeĭkova, M.
(2009) Acquisition of case and number in Russian. In U. Stephany & M.D. Voeĭkova (Eds.), Development of nominal inflection in first language acquisition (pp. 179-215). Berlin: De Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Glahn, E., Håkansson, G., Hammarberg, B., Holmen, A., Hvenekilde, A., & Lund, K.
(2001) Processability in Scandinavian second language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 23(3), 389-416. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Goddard, C.
(1982) Case systems and case marking in Australian languages: A new interpretation. Australian Journal of Linguistics 2, 167-196. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Håkansson, G., & Norrby, C.
(2008) Processability Theory applied to written and oral Swedish. In F. Mansouri (Ed.), Second language acquisition research: Theory-construction and testing (pp. 81-94). Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars.Google Scholar
Hansen, L.
(1980) Learning and forgetting a second language: The acquisition, loss and reacquisition of Hindi-Urdu negated structures by English-speaking children. Unpublished PhD dissertation, University of California, Berkeley.Google Scholar
(1983) The acquisition and forgetting of Hindi-Urdu negation by English-speaking children. In K. Bailey, M. Long, & S. Peck (Eds.), Second language acquisition studies (pp. 93-103). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
(1986) Universals in relative clause acquisition: Evidence from child and adult L1 and L2 learners of Hindi-Urdu. Language Learning, 36(2), 143-158. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hook, P.E., & Koul, O.N.
(2004) Case as agreement. In P. Baskararao & K.V. Subarao (Eds.), Non-nominative subjects (Vol.1; pp. 213-225). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Jansen, L.
(2008) Acquisition of German word order in tutored learners: A cross-sectional study in a wider theoretical context. Language Learning, 58(1), 185-231. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kaplan, R.M., & Bresnan, J.
(1982) Lexical-functional grammar: A formal system for grammatical representation. In J. Bresnan (Ed.), The mental representation of grammatical relations (pp. 173-281). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Kawaguchi, S.
(2000) Acquisition of Japanese verbal morphology: Applying processability theory to Japanese. Studia Linguistica, 54(2), 238-248. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Keenan, E.L.
(1976) Towards a universal definition of "subject". In C.N. Li (Ed.), Subject and topic (pp. 303-333). New York, NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Keine, S.
(2007) Reanalysing Hindi split-ergativity as a morphological phenomenon. In J. Trommer & A. Opitz (Eds.), 1-2-many (pp. 73-127). Leipzig: Linguistische Arbeitsberichte.Google Scholar
Kersten, K.
(2009) Profiling child ESL acquisition: Practical and methodological issues. In J.-U. Keßler & D. Keatinge (Eds.), Research in second language acquisition: Empirical evidence across languages (pp. 267-294). Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars.Google Scholar
Ketrez, F.N., & Aksu-Koç, A.
(2009) Early nominal morphology in Turkish: Emergence of case and number. In U. Stephany & M.D. Voeikova (Eds.), Development of nominal inflection in first language acquisition: A cross-linguistic perspective (pp. 15-48). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lakshmanan, U.
(1999) Object shift and the position of NegP in the child L2 grammars of Hindi. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Representation and process: Proceedings of the third Pacific Second Language Research Forum (pp. 23-36). Tokyo: PacSLRF.Google Scholar
(2006) Child L2 acquisition and the fossilization puzzle. In Z. Han & T. Odlin (Eds.), Studies of fossilization in second language acquisition (pp. 100-133). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Lakshmanan, U., & Ozeki, M.
(1996) The case of the missing particle: Objective case assignment and scrambling in the early grammar of Japanese. In A. Stringfellow, D. Cahana-Amitay, E. Hughes, & A. Zukowsk (Eds.), Proceedings of the 20th Annual Boston Conference on Language Development (pp. 431-442). Somerville, Ma: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Larrañaga, M.P.
(2000) Ergative Sprachen, akkusative Sprachen: der Erwerb des Kasus bei bilingualen Kindern. Frankfurt: Vervuert.Google Scholar
(2001) Die Markierung des Subjekts bei bilingual baskisch-spanisch aufwachsenden Kindern. In W. Boeder & G. Hentschel (Eds.), Variierende Markierung von Nominalgruppen in Sprachen unterschiedlichen Typs (pp. 255-274). Oldenburg: BIS-Verlag.Google Scholar
Levelt, W.J.M.
(1989) Speaking. From intention to articulation. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Mahajan, A.
(1990) The A/A-bar distinction and movement theory. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Manning, C.D.
(1996) Ergativity. Argument structure and grammatical relations. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Mansouri, F., & Duffy, L.
(2005) The pedagogic effectiveness of developmental readiness in ESL grammar instruction. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics, 28(1), 81-99.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Mayer, M.
(1969) Frog, where are you? New York, NY: Dial Press.Google Scholar
Medojevic, L.
(2009) Applying processability theory and its extension to Serbian as a family and community language in Australia. In J.-U. Keßler & D. Keatinge (Eds.), Research in second language acquisition: Empirical evidence across languages (pp. 175-212). Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars.Google Scholar
Meerholz-Härle, B., & Tschirner, E.
(2001) Processability Theory: Eine empirische Untersuchung. In K. Aguado & C. Riemer (Eds.), Wege und Ziele: Zur Theorie, Empirie und Praxis des Deutschen als Fremdsprache (und anderer Fremdsprachen). Festschrift für Gert Henrici (pp. 155-175). Hohengehren: Schneider.Google Scholar
Meisel, J.M., Clahsen, H., & Pienemann, M.
(1981) On determining developmental stages in natural second language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 3(2), 109-135. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Montaut, A.
(2004) A grammar of Hindi. Munich: Lincom.Google Scholar
Montrul, S., Bhatt, R., & Bhatia, A.
(2012) Erosion of case and agreement in Hindi heritage speakers. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 2(2), 141-176. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Narasimhan, B.
(2005) Splitting the notion of 'agent': Case-marking in early child Hindi. Journal of Child Language, 32(4), 787-803. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Narasimhan, B., Budwig, N., & Murty, L.
(2005) Argument realization in Hindi caregiver-child discourse. Journal of Pragmatics, 37(4), 461-495. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ochs, E.
(1982) Ergativity and word order in Samoan child language. Language 58(3), 646-671. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(1986) Variation and error: A sociolinguistic study of language acquisition in Samoa. In D. Slobin (Ed.), The cross-linguistic study of language acquisition (Vol.1; pp. 783-838). Hillsdale NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Ochs, E., & Schieffelin, B.
(1995) The impact of language socialization on grammatical development. In P. Fletcher & B. Macwhinney (Eds.), The handbook of child language (pp. 73-95). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Pallotti, G.
(2007) An operational definition of the emergence criterion. Applied Linguistics, 28(3), 361-382. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Pandharipande, R., & Kachru, Y.
(1977) Relational grammar, ergativity, and Hindi-Urdu. Lingua, 41, 217-238. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Pienemann, M.
(1998a) Developmental dynamics in L1 and L2 acquisition: Processability theory and generative entrenchment. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 1(1), 1-20. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(1998b) 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
Pienemann, M., & Håkansson, G.
(1999) A unified approach toward the development of Swedish as L2: A processability account. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 21(3), 383-420. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Pinker, S.
(1984) Language learnability and language development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Pye, C.
(1990) The acquisition of ergative languages. Linguistics, 28(1291-1330). CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Schieffelin, B.
(1981) A developmental study of pragmatic appropriateness of word order and case marking in Kaluli. In W. Deutsch (Ed.), The child's constructions of language (pp. 105-120). New York, NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar
(1985) The acquisition of Kaluli. In D. Slobin (Ed.), The crosslinguistic study of language acquisition: Theoretical issues (pp. 52-593). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Schlesinger, I.
(1982) Steps to language: Towards a theory of native language acquisition. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Schmitz, K.
(2006) Indirect objects and dative case in monolingual German and bilingual German/Romance language acquisition. In D. Hole, A. Meinunger, & W. Abraham (Eds.), Datives and other cases: Between argument structure and event structure (pp. 239-268). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Slobin, D.I.
(1966) The acquisition of Russian as a native language. In F. Smith & G.A. Miller (Eds.), The genesis of language (pp. 129-148). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Ura, H.
(2006) A parametric syntax of aspectually conditioned split-ergativity. In A. Johns, M.D. & Ndayairagije (Eds.), Ergativity: Emerging issues (pp. 111-142). Dordrecht: Springer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Van Valin, R.
(1992) An overview of ergative phenomena and their implications for language acquisition. In D. Slobin (Ed.), The crosslinguistic study of language acquisition (Vol. 3; pp. 15-37). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Verbeke, S.
(2013) Alignment and ergativity in new Indo-Aryan languages. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Weeks, L.A.
(1990) Cross-linguistic research on early grammatical mapping. In M. Rothweiler (Ed.), Spracherwerb und Grammatik. Linguistische Untersuchungen zum Erwerb von Syntax und Morphologie (pp. 50-86). Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag.Google Scholar
Zhang, Y.
(2004) Processing constraints, categorial analysis, and the second language acquisition of the Chinese adjective suffix -de(ADJ). Language Learning, 54(3), 437-468. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2005) Processing and formal instruction in the L2 acquisition of five Chinese grammatical morphemes. In M. Pienemann (Ed.), Cross-linguistic aspects of Processability Theory (pp. 155-177). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar