Chapter published in:
Widening Contexts for Processability Theory: Theories and issues
Edited by Anke Lenzing, Howard Nicholas and Jana Roos
[Processability Approaches to Language Acquisition Research & Teaching 7] 2019
► pp. 105–130

Case within the phrasal procedure stage

Sequences of acquisition in Russian L2

This chapter investigates the acquisition of case in Russian L2 within the VP and the PP, two structures belonging to the same Processability Theory (PT)-based stage of acquisition, namely the Phrasal procedure stage. I claim that a crucial aspect of the intra-stage development is determined by the different nature of case assignments involved in the given structures. The study is conducted with a group of 15 learners of Russian L2 with varied L1 backgrounds. The analysis of their semi-spontaneous speech shows that (1) case within the VP develops from lack of case assignment to configurational, lexical, and eventually grammatical assignment, and (2) case within the PP develops from lack of case assignment to configurational and lexical case assignments. To conclude, the study confirms the cross-linguistic prediction that case develops from no marking to case assignment by position, and eventually to grammatical case assignment.
Published online: 28 November 2019
https://doi.org/10.1075/palart.7.05art
References

References

Artoni, D.
(2015) The development of case morphology in Russian as a second language (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Verona.Google Scholar
Artoni, D., & Magnani, M.
(2013) LFG contribution in second language acquisition research: The development of case in Russian L2. In М. Butt & T. H. King (Eds.), Proceedings of the LFG13 conference (pp. 69–89). Stanford, CA: CSLI.Google Scholar
(2015) Acquiring case marking in Russian as a second language. An exploratory study on subject and object. In C. Bettoni & B. Di Biase (Eds.), Grammatical development in second languages: Exploring the boundaries of Processability Theory (pp. 177–193). Paris: Eurosla.Google Scholar
Baten, K.
(2011) Processability Theory and German case acquisition. Language Learning 61(2), 455–505. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Baten, K.
(2013) The acquisition of the German case system by foreign language learners. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Baten, K., & Verbeke, S.
(2015) The acquisition of the ergative case in Hindi as a foreign language. In K. Baten, A. Buyl, K. Lochtman, & M. Van Herreweghe (Eds.), Theoretical development in Processability Theory (pp. 71–104). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bayram, F.
(2013) Acquisition of Turkish by heritage speakers: A processability approach (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Newcastle.Google Scholar
Bettoni, C., & Di Biase, B.
(2015) Processability Theory: Theoretical bases and universal schedules. In C. Bettoni & B. Di Biase (Eds.), Grammatical development in second languages: Exploring the boundaries of Processability Theory (pp. 19–79). Paris: Eurosla.Google Scholar
Bettoni, C., Di Biase, B., & Medojević, L.
(2015) The development of case: A study of Serbian in contact with Australian English. In C. Bettoni & B. Di Biase (Eds.), Grammatical development in second languages: Exploring the boundaries of Processability Theory (pp. 195–212). Paris: Eurosla.Google Scholar
Buttkewitz, P.
(2014) Case acquisition in Turkish: Determining stages of processability. Manuscript delivered at the 14th Annual International Symposium of Processability Approaches to Language Acquisition (PALA), (pp. 22–23). University of Paderborn.
Franks, S., & House, R.
(1982) Genitive themes in Russian. In K. Tuite, R. Schneider, & R. Chametzky (Eds.), Papers from the 18th Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society (pp. 155–168). Chicago, IL: Chicago Linguistic Society.Google Scholar
Gvozdev, A. N.
(1961) Voprosy izučenija detskoj reči. Moscow: Izdatel’stvo akademii pedagogičeskich nauk.Google Scholar
Jakobson, R.
(1936) Beiträge zur Allgemeinen Kasuslehre: Gesamtbedeutungen der russischen Kasus. In Travaux du Cercle Linguistique de Prague 6, 240–288. Reprinted in (1966) in E. P. Hamp, F. W. Housolder, & R. Austerlitz (Eds.), Readings in linguistics II (pp. 51–89). Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Kempe, V., & MacWhinney, B.
(1998) The acquisition of case marking by adult learners of Russian and German. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 20(4), 543–587. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
King, T. H.
(1995) Configuring topic and focus in Russian. Stanford, CA: CSLI.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
Pallotti, G.
(2007) An operational definition of the emergence criterion. Applied Linguistics 28(3), 361–382. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Pienemann, M.
(1984) Psychological constraints on the teachability of languages. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 6(2), 186–214. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Pienemann, M.
(1998) Language processing and second language development: Processability Theory. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Pienemann, M., Di Biase, B., & Kawaguchi, S.
(2005a) Extending Processability Theory. In M. Pienemann (Ed.), Cross-linguistic aspects of Processability Theory (pp. 199–251). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Pienemann, M., Di Biase, B., Kawaguchi, S., & Håkansson, G.
(2005b) Processing constraints on L1 transfer. In J. F. Kroll & A. M. B. de Groot (Eds.), Handbook of bilingualism: Psycholinguistic approaches (pp. 128–153). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Smith, M. B.
(1987) The semantics of dative and accusative in German: An investigation in cognitive grammar. San Diego, CA: University of San Diego.Google Scholar
Timberlake, A.
(2004) A reference grammar of Russian. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Vigliocco, G., Butterworth, B., & Garrett, M. F.
(1996) Subject-verb agreement in Spanish and English: Differences in the role of conceptual constraints. Cognition 61(3), 261–298. CrossrefGoogle Scholar