Cover not available
Part of
The Acquisition of Differential Object Marking
Edited by Alexandru Mardale and Silvina Montrul
[Trends in Language Acquisition Research 26] 2020
► pp. 105–131

Chapter 4
The acquisition of Differential Object Marking in Basque as a sociolinguistic variable

 | California State University Long Beach
Following variationist approaches to second language acquisition, this study examines the variable use of Differential Object Marking (DOM) in Basque as a second language and tests whether attitudes towards Basque DOM plays a role in its use. The spontaneous speech of 15 advanced learners and 12 intermediate learners were compared to the speech of 24 Basque-dominant bilinguals. Attitude data was gathered by means of a matched-guise experiment in which participants rated a number of guises with DOM based on two traits (Basqueness and correctness). Results indicated that the learners’ differences in constraining the use of Basque DOM were affected by their attitudes towards DOM, providing further evidence that social meaning plays a role in acquisition process of L2 grammars.
Keywords: Differential Object Marking, Basque, language acquisition, language attitudes
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Differential Object Marking in Basque
  • 3.The study
    • 3.1Participants
    • 3.2Tasks
      • 3.2.1Sociolinguistic interviews
      • 3.2.2Matched-Guise experiment
  • 4.Results
    • 4.1Sociolinguistic interviews
    • 4.2Matched-guise experiment
  • 5.Discussion and conclusions
  • Notes
  • References
  • List of abbreviations
Published online: 18 June 2020
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/tilar.26.04rod
References (60)
References
Alfaraz, G. (2011). Accusative object marking: A change in progress in Cuban Spanish? Spanish in Context, 8(2): 213–234. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Arregi, K., & Nevins, A. (2012). Morphotactics: Basque auxiliaries and the structure of spellout. Dordrecht: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Arretxe, J. (1994). Basauriko Euskara. Basauri: Basauriko Udala.Google Scholar
Austin, J. (2006). Dative overmarking in Basque: Evidence of Basque-Spanish contact. Euskalingua, 9, 136–145.Google Scholar
(2014). Transfer and contact-induced variation in child Basque. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 1576.Google Scholar
Backus, A. (2012). A usage-based approach to borrowability. In E. Zenner & G. Kristiansen (Eds), New perspectives on lexical borrowing (pp. 19–39). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Balasch, S. (2011). Factors determining Differential Object Marking within its domain of variation. In J. Michnowicz & R. Dodsworth (Eds), Selected Proceedings of the 5th Workshop on Spanish Sociolinguistics (pp. 113–124). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Bates, D., Mächler, M., Bolker, B. M., & Walker, S. C. (2015). Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software, 67(1), 1–48. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bayley, R. (2005). Second language acquisition and sociolinguistic variation. Intercultural Communication Studies, 14(2), 1–15.Google Scholar
Comrie, B. (2011). Alignment of case marking of full noun phrases. In M. S. Dryer & M. Haspelmath (Eds.), The world atlas of language structures online. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology.Google Scholar
Croft, W. (2002). Typology and language universals. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dahl, O., & Fraurud, K. (1996). Animacy in grammar and discourse. In T. Fretheim & J. K. Gundel (Eds.), Reference and referent accessibility (pp. 47–64). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dewaele, J-M. (2004). Retention or omission of ne in advanced French interlanguage. The variable effect of extralinguistic factors. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 8(3), 333–350. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2007). Diachronic and/or synchronic variation? The acquisition of sociolinguistic competence in L2 French. In D. Ayoun (Ed.), Handbook of French applied linguistics (pp. 208–236). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Drager, K. (2013). Experimental methods in sociolinguistics. In J. Holmes & K. Hazen (Eds.), Research methods in sociolinguistics: A practical guide (pp. 58–73). Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Eusko Jaurlartiza. (2016). VI. Inkesta Soziolinguistikoa. Vitoria-Gasteiz: Eusko Jaurlaritzaren Argitalpen Zerbitzu Nagusia.Google Scholar
Fernández, B., & Rezac, M. (2016). Differential Object Marking in Basque varieties. In B. Fernández & J. Ortiz de Urbina (Eds.), Microparameters in the grammar of Basque (pp. 93–139). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Franco, J. (1993). On object agreement in Spanish (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Southern California.Google Scholar
García-García, M. (2014). Differentielle Objektmarkierung bei unbelebten Objekten im Spanischen. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Geeslin, K., & Long, A. Y. (2014). Sociolinguistics and second language acquisition: Learning to use language in context. New York, NY: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Guijarro-Fuentes, P. (2012). The acquisition of interpretable features in L2 Spanish: Personal a. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 15(4), 701–720. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heine, B., & Kuteva, T. (2005). Language contact and grammatical change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hogeweg, L. & Hoop, H. de, 2010. Children and transitivity: The subject-object asymmetry in a natural setting. In P. Brandt & M. García-García (Eds.), Transitivity. Form, meaning, acquisition, and processing (pp. 143–160). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Howard, M., Mougeon, R., & Dewaele, J-M. (2013). Sociolinguistics and language acquisition. In R. Bayley, R. Cameron, & C. Lucas (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of sociolinguistics (pp. 340–359). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hualde, J. I., Elordieta, G., & Elordieta, A. (1994). The Basque dialect of Lekeitio. Bilbao & Donostia: University of the Basque Country.Google Scholar
Ibarra, O. (1995). Ultzamako hizkera. Inguruko euskalkiekiko harremanak. Iruñea: Nafarroako Gobernua.Google Scholar
Jäger, G. (2004). Learning constraint sub-hierarchies: The bidirectional gradual learning algorithm. In R. Blutner & H. Zeevat (Eds.), Optimality theory and pragmatics (pp. 251–287). Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Labov, W. (2001). Principles of linguistic change, Vol. 2: Social factors. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Landa, A. (1995). Conditions on null objects in Basque Spanish and their relation to leísmo and clitic doubling (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Southern California.Google Scholar
Matras, Y., & Sakel, J. (2007). Investigating the mechanisms of pattern replication in language convergence. Studies in Language, 31(4), 829–865. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mounole, C. (2012). Evolution of the transitive verbs in Basque and apparition of datively marked patients. In G. Authier & K. Haude (Eds.), Ergativity, valency and voice (pp. 355–380). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Montrul, S. (2016). The acquisition of Differential Object Marking. Plenary presented at the International Colloquium on the Acquisition of Differential Object Marking. Fédération Typology et Universaux Linguistiques CNRS, Paris, 10 December.Google Scholar
Montrul, S., & Bowles, M. (2009). Back to the basics: Differential Object Marking under incomplete acquisition in Spanish heritage speakers. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 12(3), 363–383. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Montrul, S., & Sánchez-Walker, N. (2013). Differential Object Marking in child and adult Spanish heritage speakers. Language Acquisition, 20(2), 109–132. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Montrul, S., & Gürel, A. (2015). The acquisition of Differential Object Marking in Spanish by Turkish speakers. In T. Judy & S. Perpiñán (Eds.), Acquisition of Spanish in understudied language pairings (pp. 281–307). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Montrul, S., Bhatt, R., & Girju, R. (2015). Differential Object Marking in Spanish, Hindi, and Romanian as heritage languages. Language, 91(3), 564–610. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nance, C., McLeod, W., O’Rourke, B., & Dunmore, S. (2016). Identity, accent aim, and motivation in second language users: New Scottish Gaelic speakers’ use of phonetic variation. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 20(2), 164–191. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nediger, W., Pires, A., & Guijarro-Fuentes, P. (2019). Integrating linguistic theory and experimentation in L2 Acquisition: Learning of Spanish Differential Object Marking by Portuguese and English speakers. Applied Linguistics Review, 10(2), 219–240. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Odria, A. (2014). Differential Object Marking and the nature of dative case in Basque varieties. Linguistic Variation, 14(2), 289–317. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2017). Differential Object Marking and datives in Basque syntax (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of the Basque Country.Google Scholar
Ormazábal, J., & Romero, J. (2013). Object clitics, agreement and dialectal variation. Probus, 25(2), 301–344. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ortega, A., Amorrortu, E., Goirigolzarri, J., Urla, J., & Uranga, B. (2014). New Basque speakers: Linguistic identity and legitimacy. Digithum, 16, 47–58.Google Scholar
Ortega, A., Urla, J., Amorrortu, E., Goirigolzarri, J., & Uranga, B. (2015). Linguistic identity among new speakers of Basque. International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 231, 85–105. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ponnet, A., Baten, K., & Verbeke, S. (2016). The acquisition of Differential Object Marking in Hindi as a foreign language. Dutch Journal of Applied Linguistics, 5(2), 101–125. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rehner, K. (2002). The development of aspects of linguistic and discourse competence by advanced second language learners of French (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Toronto.Google Scholar
Rodríguez-Ordóñez, I. (2013). Contact-induced phenomena in Gernika Basque: The case of dative overmarking. In C. Howe, S. E. Blackwell, & M. L. Quesada (Eds.), Selected proceedings of the 15th Hispanic Linguistics Symposium (pp. 236–251). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
(2016). Differential Object Marking in Basque: Grammaticalization, attitudes and ideological representations (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.Google Scholar
(2017). Reexamining Differential Object Marking as a linguistic contact-phenomenon in Gernika Basque. Journal of Language Contact, 10(2), 318–352. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(in press). Basque Differential Object Marking as a contact-induced phenomenon: How and why? Journal of Language Contact.
Sagarzazu, T. (2005). Hondarribiko eta Iruneko euskara. Irun: Alberdania.Google Scholar
Schwenter, S. (2014). Two kinds of Differential Object Marking in Portuguese and Spanish. In P. Amaral & A. M. Carvalho (Eds.), Portuguese-Spanish interfaces: Diachrony, synchrony and contact (pp. 237–260). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Shain, C., & Tonhauser, J. (2010). The synchrony and diachrony of Differential Object Marking in Paraguayan Guaraní. Language Variation and Change, 22(3), 321–346. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sloetjes, H., & Wittenburg, P. (2008). Annotation by category – ELAN and ISO DCR. In S. Moeller, F. Gödde, & M. Wolters (Eds.), Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (pp. 816–820). Paris: LREC.Google Scholar
Suñer, M. (1988). The role of agreement in clitic-doubled constructions. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 6(3), 391–434. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tagliamonte, S. (2006). Analysing sociolinguistic variation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tarone, E. (2007). Sociolinguistic approaches to second language acquisition research-1997–2007. The Modern Language Journal, 91(1), 837–848. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tippets, I. (2010). Differential Object Marking in Spanish: A quantitative variationist study (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). The Ohio State University.Google Scholar
Urla, J., Amorrortu, E., Ortega, A., & Goirigolzarri, J. (2018). Basque standardization and the new speaker: Political praxis and the shifting dynamics of authority and value. In P. Lane, J. Costa & H. De Korne (Eds.), Standardizing minority languages: Competing ideologies of authority and authenticity in the global periphery (pp. 24–46). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
Walker, J. (2014). Variation analysis. In R. Podesva & D. Sharma (Eds.), Research methods in linguistics (pp. 440–459). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zubiri, I. (1991). Gramática didáctica del euskera. Donostia: HABE.Google Scholar
Cited by (5)

Cited by five other publications

Gondra, Ager
2024. Syntactic outcomes of socially (un)restricted bilingualism in Spain. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism 14:3 ► pp. 340 ff. DOI logo
Leivada, Evelina, Itxaso Rodríguez-Ordóñez, M. Carmen Parafita Couto & Sílvia Perpiñán
2023. Bilingualism with minority languages: Why searching for unicorn language users does not move us forward. Applied Psycholinguistics 44:3 ► pp. 384 ff. DOI logo
Odria, Ane & Anna Pineda
2023. A micro-comparative approach to DOM in language-contact environments. In Differential Object Marking in Romance [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today, 280], ► pp. 315 ff. DOI logo
Ó Murchadha, Noel & Lauren Kavanagh
2022. Language ideologies in a minority context: An experimental study of teachers’ responses to variation in Irish. Journal of Sociolinguistics 26:2 ► pp. 197 ff. DOI logo
Rodríguez‐Ordóñez, Itxaso
2021. The role of social meaning in contact‐induced variation among new speakers of Basque. Journal of Sociolinguistics 25:4 ► pp. 533 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 28 september 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.