Cover not available
Article published In:
A cross-theoretical and cross-linguistic perspective on the L2 acquisition of case systems / L'acquisition de systèmes casuels en L2 : des études à travers plusieurs théories et langues
Edited by Kristof Baten and Saartje Verbeke
[Language, Interaction and Acquisition 11:1] 2020
► pp. 68–98

A processability approach to the development of case in L2 Icelandic

| University of Iceland
| University of Iceland
This article presents the findings of a study on the development of case assignment in Icelandic as a second language within the context of Processability Theory (PT) and compares them with previous PT studies on the development of case in L2 German, Russian, and Serbian. We argue that initially, learners are only able to appropriately mark subjects and objects in canonical positions (e.g., subjnom v objacc ). Later they are also able to mark arguments with the appropriate case in sentences that deviate from canonical word order (e.g., objacc/dat v subjnom ). In order to examine the case development in L2 Icelandic, 148 learners were asked to fill in the blanks of sentences with missing core arguments. Our results replicate for the most part the previous findings for L2 German, Russian, and Serbian. As such, the present study adds to the typological plausibility of PT as a framework that predicts and explains developmental sequences.
Keywords: Processability Theory, L2 case acquisition, Icelandic case system, positional case marking, functional case marking
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Case in Icelandic
  • 3.Processability theory and L2 case development
    • 3.1Theoretical tenets
    • 3.2Case acquisition in L2 German, Serbian, and Russian: A developmental hypothesis
  • 4.The study
    • 4.1Participants
    • 4.2Data collection
    • 4.3Data analysis
  • 5.Findings and discussion
    • 5.1The nominative subject
    • 5.2The accusative direct object
    • 5.3The dative indirect object
  • 6.Discussion and conclusion
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 4 June 2020
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/lia.00008.gar
References (27)
References
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 (pp. 177–193). Amsterdam: The European Second Language Association. Retrieved from [URL]
Baten, K. (2011). Processability Theory and German case acquisition. Language Learning, 61(2), 455–505. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2013). The acquisition of the German case system by foreign learners. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bresnan, J. (2001). Lexical-functional syntax. Malden MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Buyl, A., & Housen, A. (2015). Developmental stages in receptive grammar acquisition: A Processability Theory account. Second Language Research, 311, 523–550. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Di Biase, B., Bettoni, C., & 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). Amsterdam: The European Second Language Association. Retrieved from [URL]
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, 181, 272–300. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dyson, B., & Håkansson, G. (2017). Understanding second language processing. A focus on Processability Theory. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ellis, R. (1994). The study of second language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
(2008). Investigating grammatical difficulty in second language learning: Implications for second language acquisition research and language testing. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 18(1), 4–22. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Glahn, E., Håkansson, G., Hammarberg, B., Holmen, A., & Hvenekilde, A. (2001). Processability in Scandinavian second language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 231, 389–416. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Håkansson, G., & Norrby, C. (2007). 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
(2010). Environmental influence on language acquisition: Comparing second and foreign language acquisition of Swedish. Language Learning, 60(3), 628–650. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Håkansson, G., & Pienemann, M. (1999). A unified approach towards the development of Swedish as L2. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 281, 383–420.Google Scholar
Jónsson, J. G. (2003). Not so quirky: On subject case in Icelandic. In E. Brandner & H. Zinmeister (Eds.), New perspectives on Case Theory (pp. 129–164). Stanford CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Kawaguchi, S. (2005). Argument structure and syntactic development in Japanese as a second Language. In M. Pienemann (Ed.), Cross-linguistic aspects of Processability Theory (pp. 253–298). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Keatinge, D., & Keßler, J.-U. (2009). The acquisition of the passive voice in English as a foreign language: Production and perception. In Keßler and Keatinge (Eds.), Research in second language acquisition: Empirical evidence across languages (pp. 69–94). Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars.Google Scholar
Levelt, W. (1989). Speaking: From intention to articulation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Maling, J. (2002). Það rignir þágufalli á Íslandi [It rains dative in Iceland]. Verbs with Dative Objects in Icelandic. Íslenskt mál, 241, 31–105.Google Scholar
Pienemann, M. (1998). Language processing and second Language development: Processability Theory. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2005). An Introduction to Processability Theory. In M. Pienemann (Ed.), Cross-linguistic aspects of Processability Theory (pp. 1–60). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pienemann, M., & Keßler, J-U. (2011). Studying Processability Theory: An introductory textbook. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pienemann, M., & Lenzing, A. (2015). Processability Theory. In B. VanPatten & J. Williams (Eds.), Theories in second language acquisition. An introduction (pp. 159–179). New York: Routledge.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). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rahkonen, M., & Håkansson, G. (2008). Production of written L2-Swedish: Processability or input frequencies? In J.-U. Keßler (Ed.), Processability approaches to second language development and second language learning (pp. 135–164). Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars.Google Scholar
Svavarsdóttir, Á. (1993). Beygingakerfi nafnorða í nútímaíslensku [Morphological system of nouns in modern Icelandic.] Reykjavík: Málvísindastofnun Háskóla Íslands.Google Scholar
Zaenen, A., Maling, J., & Thráinsson, H. (1985). Case and grammatical functions: The Icelandic passive. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 31, 441–483. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Kawaguchi, Satomi, Bruno Di Biase & Yumiko Yamaguchi
2023. Chapter 1. Processability Theory, second language learning and teaching in the Asia-Pacific region. In Processability and Language Acquisition in the Asia-Pacific Region [Processability Approaches to Language Acquisition Research & Teaching, 9], ► pp. 1 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.