Chapter 4
Extending PT to split ergative marking and differential object marking
Some hypotheses for L2 Hindi
This chapter proposes a developmental sequence for the L2 acquisition of two linguistic phenomena in Hindi, namely split ergativity and differential object marking. The proposal builds on the universal key mechanisms of Processability Theory, i.e., the transfer of grammatical information between constituents (i.e., so-called ‘feature unification’) and the linking of arguments and constituents to grammatical functions (so-called ‘a-to-f mappings’ or ‘c-to-f mappings’), which have been successful in explaining the acquisition of case markers cross-linguistically, i.e., in L2 German, L2 Russian, and L2 Serbian. In addition, the proposal will build on newer developments within PT, which give greater weight to semantic considerations, as evident from a study on differential object marking in L2 Spanish. The present chapter will argue for a development that starts with emerging mappings between prototypical semantic characteristics of thematic roles and case marking, and that evolves to eventual associations of these mappings with grammatical functions.
Article outline
- 1.Introduction
- 2.PT on L2 case acquisition
- 3.Hindi case marking
- 4.L2 acquisition of Hindi case marking
- 5.Developmental hypotheses on split ergativity and DOM in L2 Hindi
- 6.Conclusion
-
Notes
-
References
References (59)
Aissen, J.
(
2003)
Differential object marking. Iconicity versus economy.
Natural Language and Linguistic Theory,
17, 673–711.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Artoni, D.
(
2013)
The acquisition of case morphology in Russian as a second language (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Verona.
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.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Artoni, D., & Magnani, M.
(
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 (
Eurosla Monographs Series 3) (pp. 177–194). Eurosla.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Baten, K.
(
2013)
The acquisition of the German case system by Dutch-speaking foreign language learners. John Benjamins.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Bossong, G.
(
1985)
Empirische Universalienforschung: Differentielle Objektmarkierung in Neuiranischen Sprachen. Narr.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Bresnan, J.
(
2001)
Lexical-functional syntax. Blackwell.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Butt, M.
(
2009a)
Case in lexical-functional grammar. In
A. Malchukov &
A. Spencer (Eds.),
The Oxford handbook of case (pp. 59–71). Oxford University Press.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Butt, M.
(
2009b)
Modern approaches to case: An overview. In
A. Malchukov &
A. Spencer (Eds.),
The Oxford handbook of case (pp. 27–43). Oxford University Press.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Butt, M., & King, T. H.
(
1991)
Semantic case in Urdu. In
L. Dobrin,
L. Nichols, &
R. M. Rodriguez (Eds.),
Papers from the 27th regional meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, 31–45. CLS.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Butt, M., & King, T. H.
(
2003)
Case systems: Beyond structural distinctions. In
E. Brandner &
H. Zinsmeister (Eds.),
New perspectives on case theory (pp. 53–87). CSLI.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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). Kluwer.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Charters, H., & Muagututi’a, G.
Dalrymple, M., & Nikolaeva, I.
(
2011)
Objects and information structure. Cambridge University Press.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Das, P. K.
(
2006)
Grammatical agreement in Hindi-Urdu and its major varieties. Lincom.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
de Hoop, H., &. Malchukov, A.
(
2008)
Case-marking strategies.
Linguistic Inquiries,
39, 565–587.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
de Hoop, H., &. Narasimhan, B.
(
2005)
Differential case marking in Hindi. In
M. Amberber &
H. de Hoop (Eds.),
Competition and variation in natural languages: The case for case (pp. 321–346). Elsevier.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Deo, A., & Sharma, D.
(
2007)
Typological variation in the ergative morphology of Indo-Aryan languages.
Linguistic Typology,
10, 369–418.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Di Biase, B., Bettoni, C., & Medojevic, L.
(
2015)
The development of case in a bilingual context: Serbian in Australia. In
C. Bettoni &
B. Di Biase (Eds.),
Grammatical development in second languages: Exploring the boundaries of Processability Theory (
Eurosla Monographs Series 3) (pp. 195–212). Eurosla.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Di Biase, B., & B. Hinger
(
2015)
Exploring the acquisition of differential object marking (DOM) in Spanish as a second language. In
C. Bettoni &
B. Di Biase (Eds.),
Grammatical development in second languages: Exploring the boundaries of Processability Theory (
Eurosla Monographs Series 3) (pp. 213–242). Eurosla.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Dixon, R. M. W.
(
1994)
Ergativity. Cambridge University Press.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Dowty, D. R.
(
1991)
Thematic proto-roles and argument selection.
Language,
67, 547–619.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Farley, A. P., & McCollam, K.
(
2004)
Learner readiness and L2 production in Spanish: Processability Theory on trial.
Estudios de Lingcüística Aplicada,
40, 47–69.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Feldman, H.
(
1986)
A grammar of Awtuw. The Australian National University.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Jakobson, R.
(
1971 [1936])
Beitrag zur allgemeinen Kasuslehre. In
R. Jakobson (Ed.),
Selected writings II (pp. 23–71). Mouton.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Johnston, M.
(
1995)
Stages of acquisition of Spanish as a second language.
Australian Studies in Language Acquisition,
4, 1–28.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Kachru, Y.
(
2006)
Hindi. John Benjamins.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Keine, S.
(
2007)
Reanalysing Hindi split-ergativity as a morphological phenomenon. In
J. Trommer &
A. Opitz (Eds.),
1-2-many (pp. 73–127). Linguistische Arbeitsberichte.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Klein, U., & de Swart, P.
(
2011)
Case and referential properties.
Lingua,
121, 3–19.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Lakshmanan, U.
(
2006)
Child L2 acquisition and the fossilization puzzle. In
Z. Han &
T. Odlin (Eds.),
Studies of fossilization in second language acquisition (pp. 100–133). Multilingual Matters.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Lenzing, A., & Pienemann, M.
Levelt, W. J. M.
(
1989)
Speaking. From intention to articulation. The MIT Press.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Malchukov, A. L.
(
2008)
Animacy and asymmetries in differential case marking.
Lingua,
118, 203–221.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Mohanan, T.
(
1994)
Argument structure in Hindi. CSLI.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Montrul, S., Bhatt, R., & Bhatia, A.
Montrul, S., Bhatt, R., & Girju, R.
(
2015)
Differential object marking in Spanish, Hindi and Romanian as heritage languages.
Language,
91, 564–610.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Narasimhan, B.
(
2005)
Splitting the notion of ‘agent’: Case-marking in early child Hindi.
Journal of Child Language,
32, 787–803.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Narasimhan, B., Budwig, N., & Murty, L.
(
2005)
Argument realization in Hindi caregiver-child discourse.
Journal of Pragmatics,
37, 461–495.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Nordlinger, R.
(
1998)
Constructive case: Evidence from Australian languages. CSLI.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Pienemann, M., Di Biase, B., & Kawaguchi, S.
Pienemann, M., & Keßler, J.-U.
(
2012)
Processability Theory. In
S. Gass &
A. Mackey (Eds.),
Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 228–246). Routledge.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Ponnet, A., Verbeke, S., & Baten, K.
Þorvaldsdóttir, S., & Garðarsdóttir, M.
(
2013)
Fallatileinkun í íslensku sem öðru máli.
Milli Mála,
5, 45–70.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Ranjan, R.
(
2016)
Acquisition of ergative case in L2 Hindi-Urdu (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Iowa.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
Tippets, I.
(
2011)
Differential object marking: Quantitative evidence for underlying hierarchical constraints across Spanish dialects. In
L. A. Ortiz-López (Ed.),
Selected proceedings of the 13th Hispanic Linguistics Symposium (pp. 107–117). Cascadilla Proceedings Project.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Ura, H.
(
2006)
A parametric syntax of aspectually conditioned split-ergativity. In
A. Johns,
D. Massam, &
J. Ndayairagije (Eds.),
Ergativity: Emerging issues (pp. 111–142). Springer.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Vasishth, S., & Joseph, B. D.
(
2002)
Constellations, polysemy, and Hindi KO.
Proceedings of the Berkeley Linguistics Society (BLS),
28, 137–146.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Verbeke, S.
(
2013)
Alignment and ergativity in New Indo-Aryan languages. Empirical approaches to language typology. Mouton De Gruyter.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Verbeke, S., & Ponnet, A.
Forthcoming).
Animacy, specificity and verb semantics. What drives differential object marking in Hindi? Annals of Hindi Studies.
Witzlack-Makarevich, A., & Seržant, I. A.
(
2017)
Differential argument marking: Patterns of variation. In
I. A. Seržant &
A. Witzlack-Makarevich (Eds.),
Diachrony of differential argument marking (pp. 1–40). Language Science Press.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Zaenen, A., Maling, J., & Thrainsson, H.
(
1985)
Case and grammatical functions: The Icelandic passive.
Syntax and Semantics,
24, 95–136.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Cited by (1)
Cited by 1 other publications
Ponnet, Aaricia & Ludovic De Cuypere
2024.
The acquisition of Hindi split-ergativity and differential object marking by Dutch L1 speakers: systematicity and variation.
Language Acquisition 31:2
► pp. 145 ff.
![DOI logo](//benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 5 july 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.