Cover not available
Part of
Processability and Language Acquisition in the Asia-Pacific Region
Edited by Satomi Kawaguchi, Bruno Di Biase and Yumiko Yamaguchi
[Processability Approaches to Language Acquisition Research & Teaching 9] 2023
► pp. 91–114

Chapter 4
Extending PT to split ergative marking and differential object marking

Some hypotheses for L2 Hindi

 | Ghent University
 | Research Foundation Flanders (FWO)
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
Published online: 2 February 2023
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/palart.9.04bat
References (59)
References
Aissen, J. (2003). Differential object marking. Iconicity versus economy. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 17, 673–711. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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 The acquisition of case morphology in Russian as a second language (Unpublished doctoral dissertation).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
(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
Baten, K. (2013). The acquisition of the German case system by Dutch-speaking foreign language learners. John Benjamins.Google Scholar
(2019a). The elicitation of oral language production data: An exploration of the elicited imitation task. In R. Arntzen, G. Håkansson, A. Hjelde, J.-U. Keßler (eds.), Teachability and learnability across languages (pp. 97–118). John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2019b). Teaching the German case system: A comparison of two approaches to the study of learner readiness. In A. Lenzing, H. Nicholas, & J. Roos (Eds.), Widening contexts for Processability Theory. John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle 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 and methodological developments in Processability Theory (pp. 71–104). John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bossong, G. (1985). Empirische Universalienforschung: Differentielle Objektmarkierung in Neuiranischen Sprachen. Narr.Google Scholar
Bresnan, J. (2001). Lexical-functional syntax. Blackwell.Google Scholar
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
(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
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
(2003). Case systems: Beyond structural distinctions. In E. Brandner & H. Zinsmeister (Eds.), New perspectives on case theory (pp. 53–87). CSLI.Google Scholar
(2004). The status of case. In V. Dayal & A. Mahajan (Eds.), Clause structure in South Asian languages (pp. 153–198). Kluwer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Charters, H., & Muagututi’a, G. (2015). Processing alignments: Semantic, thematic and structural prominence in Samoan SLA. In K. Baten, A. Buyl, K. Lochtman, & M. Van Herreweghe (Eds.), Theoretical and methodological developments in Processability Theory (pp. 19–44). John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dalrymple, M., & Nikolaeva, I. (2011). Objects and information structure. Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Das, P. K. (2006). Grammatical agreement in Hindi-Urdu and its major varieties. Lincom.Google Scholar
de Hoop, H., &. Malchukov, A. (2008). Case-marking strategies. Linguistic Inquiries, 39, 565–587. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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 logoGoogle Scholar
Deo, A., & Sharma, D. (2007). Typological variation in the ergative morphology of Indo-Aryan languages. Linguistic Typology, 10, 369–418.Google Scholar
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
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
Dixon, R. M. W. (1994). Ergativity. Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dowty, D. R. (1991). Thematic proto-roles and argument selection. Language, 67, 547–619. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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
Feldman, H. (1986). A grammar of Awtuw. The Australian National University.Google Scholar
Håkansson, G. (2013). Processability Theory: Explaining developmental sequences. In M. del P. Garcia Mayo, M. J. Gutierrez Mangado, & M. Martinez Adrian (Eds.), Contemporary approaches to second language acquisition (pp. 111–128). John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jakobson, R. (1971 [1936]). Beitrag zur allgemeinen Kasuslehre. In R. Jakobson (Ed.), Selected writings II (pp. 23–71). Mouton.Google Scholar
Johnston, M. (1995). Stages of acquisition of Spanish as a second language. Australian Studies in Language Acquisition, 4, 1–28.Google Scholar
Kachru, Y. (2006). Hindi. John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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
Klein, U., & de Swart, P. (2011). Case and referential properties. Lingua, 121, 3–19. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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
Lenzing, A., & Pienemann, M. (2015). Exploring the interface between morpho-syntax and discourse/pragmatics/semantics. In K. Baten, A. Buyl, K. Lochtman, & M. Van Herreweghe (Eds.), Theoretical and methodological developments in Processability Theory (pp. 105–112). John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Levelt, W. J. M. (1989). Speaking. From intention to articulation. The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Malchukov, A. L. (2008). Animacy and asymmetries in differential case marking. Lingua, 118, 203–221. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mohanan, T. (1994). Argument structure in Hindi. CSLI.Google Scholar
Montrul, S. (2012). Is the heritage language like a second language? Eurosla Yearbook, 12, 1–29. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Montrul, S., Bhatt, R., & Bhatia, A. (2012). Erosion of case and agreement in Hindi heritage speakers. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 2, 141–76. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Montrul, S., Bhatt, R., & Girju, R. (2015). Differential object marking in Spanish, Hindi and Romanian as heritage languages. Language, 91, 564–610. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Narasimhan, B. (2005). Splitting the notion of ‘agent’: Case-marking in early child Hindi. Journal of Child Language, 32, 787–803. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Narasimhan, B., Budwig, N., & Murty, L. (2005). Argument realization in Hindi caregiver-child discourse. Journal of Pragmatics, 37, 461–495. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nordlinger, R. (1998). Constructive case: Evidence from Australian languages. CSLI.Google 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). John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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
Ponnet, A., Verbeke, S., & Baten, K. (2016). The acquisition of differential object marking in Hindi as a foreign language. Dutch Journal of Applied Linguistics, 5, 101–125. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Þorvaldsdóttir, S., & Garðarsdóttir, M. (2013). Fallatileinkun í íslensku sem öðru máli. Milli Mála, 5, 45–70.Google Scholar
Ranjan, R. (2016). Acquisition of ergative case in L2 Hindi-Urdu (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Iowa. DOI logo
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
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 logoGoogle 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). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Vasishth, S., & Joseph, B. D. (2002). Constellations, polysemy, and Hindi KO. Proceedings of the Berkeley Linguistics Society (BLS), 28, 137–146. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Verbeke, S. (2013). Alignment and ergativity in New Indo-Aryan languages. Empirical approaches to language typology. Mouton De Gruyter.Google Scholar
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
Zaenen, A., Maling, J., & Thrainsson, H. (1985). Case and grammatical functions: The Icelandic passive. Syntax and Semantics, 24, 95–136. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

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

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.