Chapter 2. Processing Alignments
Semantic, Thematic and Structural Prominence in Samoan SLA
PT proposes two key hypotheses to account for sentence-like structures in early SLA: (i) the Unmarked Alignment Hypothesis says that learners map the most prominent semantic role onto the subject function and the most prominent structural position; (ii) the Topic Hypothesis says that learners do not differentiate subject and topic (Pienemann, DiBiase & Kawaguchi, 2005). This chapter identifies theory-internal problems for these claims, and presents empirical data which shows that they do not hold for Samoan SLA. For theoretical reasons, no NPs produced by early learners can be considered ‘subjects’ and, while initial NPs in early L2 Samoan tend overwhelmingly to be semantically prominent, the converse is not true, initial NPs are not always topical, and semantically prominent NPs may be focal, or background. An account of the observed facts is provided within the framework of LFG without exceeding the procedural capacities accorded to early learners by PT.
References (43)
References
Aissen, J. (1999/2001). Markedness and subject choice in optimality theory. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 17, 673-711. Reprinted in Legendre, G., Grimshaw, J., & Vikner, S. (Eds.) 2001. Optimality-theoretic syntax (pp. 61-96). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Bresnan, J. (1982). The mental representation of grammatical relations. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Bresnan, J. (2001). Lexical functional syntax. Malden, MA: Blackwell.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Chafe, W. (1976). Givenness, contrastiveness, definiteness, subjects, topics and point of view. In C.N. Li (Ed.), Subject and topic (pp. 25-55). New York, NY: Academic Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Charters, H, Dao, L, & Jansen, L. (2007). Reassessing the applicability of Processability Theory: The Weaver++ model and ESL nominal plural marking. Second Language Research, 27, 509-533. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Charters, H., Jansen, L., & Dao, L. (2012). Think of a number: Conceptual transfer in the second language acquisition of English plural-marking. CogniTextes, 8, uploaded Dec 28. <[URL]>![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Choi, H.-W. (1999). Optimizing structure in context: Scrambling and information structure. Stanford, CA: CSLI.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Cook, K.W. (1991). The search for subject in Samoan. In R. Blust (Ed.), Currents in Pacific linguistics (Pacific Linguistics, Series C, no 117). Canberra: ANU![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Cook, K.W. (1993). A cognitive account of Samoan lavea and galo verbs. In R.A. Geiger & B. Rudzka-Ostyn (Eds), Conceptualizations and mental processing in language (Cognitive Linguistics Research) (pp. 567-592). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Dalrymple, M., & Nikolaeva, I. (2011). Objects and information structure. Cambridge: CUP. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Dixon, R.M.W. (1987). Studies in ergativity. New York, NY: Elsevier.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Dowty, D. (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)
Erteschik-Shir, N. (2007). Information structure: The syntax-discourse interface. Oxford: OUP.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Falk, Y. (2001). Lexical-functional grammar: An introduction to parallel constraint-based syntax. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Fillmore, C. (1968). The case for case. In E. Bach & R.T. Harms (Ed.), Universals in linguistic theory (pp. 1-88). New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Huang, C-T.J. (1982). Logical relations in Chinese and the theory of grammar. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, MIT.
Huang, C-T.J. (1984). On the distribution and reference of empty pronouns. Linguistic Inquiry, 15, 531-574.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Keenan, E. (1976). Towards a universal definition of subject. In C.N. Li (Ed.), Subject and topic (pp. 305-334). New York, NY: Academic Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Kempen, G. & Hoenkamp, E. (1987). An incremental procedural grammar for sentence formulation. Cognitive Science, 11, 201-258. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Kempen, G. (1998). Comparing and explaining the trajectories of first and second language acquisition: in search of the right mix of psychological and linguistic factors. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 1, 29-30. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Lambrecht, K. (1987). Sentence focus, information structure and the thetic-categorial distinction. Paper presented at Proceedings of the 13th annual meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society.
Lambrecht, K. (1994). Information structure and sentence form. Cambridge: CUP. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Larsen-Freeman, D. & Long, M. (1991/2014). An introduction to second language acquisition research. New York, NY: Longman.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Lee, H.J. (2001). Markedness and word order freezing. In P. Sells (Ed.), Formal and empirical issues in optimality-theoretic syntax (pp. 63-128). Stanford, CA: CSLI. ![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Levelt, W.J.M. (1989). Speaking. From intention to articulation. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Levelt, W.J.M., Roelofs, A. & Meyer, A.S. (1999). A theory of lexical access in speech production. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 22, 1-38. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Li, C.N. (1976). Subject and topic. New York, NY: Academic Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Manning, C.D. (1996). Ergativity: Argument structure and grammatical relations. Stanford, CA: CSLI.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Mosel, U. & Hovdhaugen, E. (1992). Samoan reference grammar. Oslo: Scandinavian University Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Muagututi’a, G. (2010). Acquiring Samoan syntax: Ergativity and processability in SLA. Unpublished MA thesis, University of Auckland.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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 logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Prince, Ellen. (1981). Toward a taxonomy of given-new information. In P. Cole (Ed.), Radical pragmatics (pp. 223-255). New York, NY: Academic Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Rappaport Hovav, M. & Levin, B. (2007). Deconstructing thematic hierarchies. In A. Zaenen, J. Simpson, T.H. King, J. Grimshaw, J. Maling, & C. Manning (Eds.), Architectures, rules, and preferences: Variations on themes by Joan W. Bresnan (pp. 385-402). Stanford, CA: CSLI.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Reinhart, Tanya. 1982. Pragmatics and linguistics. An analysis of sentence topics. Philosophica, 27, 53 - 94![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Sato, C. (1982). Form and function in the English interlanguages of two Vietnamese children. Paper presented at the Georgetown University Round Table, pre-conference session on the Analysis of Spoken Discourse, March.
Sato, C. (1985). Task variation in interlanguage phonology. In S. Gass & C. Madden (Eds.), Input in second language acquisition (pp. 181-196). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Sato, C. (1988). Origins of complex syntax in interlanguage development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 10(3), 371-95. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Simpson, J. (2001). Warlpiri morpho-syntax: A lexicalist approach (Studies in Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 23). Dordrecht: Kluwer.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Xu, L., & Langendoen, T. (1985). Topic structures in Chinese. Language, 61, 1-27. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Cited by (2)
Cited by two other publications
Baten, Kristof & Aaricia Ponnet
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 25 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.