Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-hfldf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-01T10:46:24.163Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Syntax, Semantics, and SLA

The Convergence of Possessive and Existential Constructions

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 November 2008

Patricia A. Duff
Patricia A. Duff
Affiliation:
University of British Columbia
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper examines the intersection of syntax and semantics in second language acquisition (SLA), a perspective on language learning that has received relatively little attention in the past, in ordertoanswer the following question: Why do English-as-a-second-language (ESL) learners tend to use the same morpheme (e.g., HAVE) for Possessives (P) and Existentials (E), when English has separate forms (HAVE, THERE BE) for these two functions? Working within a functionalist framework, data are analyzed from the longitudinal case study of a Cambodian adult who, despite formal ESL instruction and residence in an English-speaking community, persistently uses the form has for both P and E. Although first language transfer can be invoked as a partial explanation forthis, it alone cannot account for the systematic conflation of P and E in interlanguage. Rather, it is argued that the shared semanticproperties of P/E, together with syntactic, pragmatic, and perceptual characteristics of native language, interlanguage, and second language constructions, make this overlap imminently transferable, especially in untutored or low-level instructed SLA.

Type
Articles
Information
Studies in Second Language Acquisition , Volume 15 , Issue 1 , March 1993 , pp. 1 - 34
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1993

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Agha, A. (1990). Lexical structure and grammatical categories in Lhasa Tibetan (Vol. 1). Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Chicago, Chicago.Google Scholar
Andersen, R. W. (1980). Creolization as the acquisition of a secondlanguage as a first language. In Valdman, A. & Highfield, A. (Eds.), Theoretical orientations in Creole studies (pp. 273–295). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Andersen, R. W. (1983). Transfer to somewhere. In Gass, S. & Selinker, L. (Eds.), Language transfer in language learning (pp. 177–201). Rowley, MA: Newbury.Google Scholar
Andersen, R. W. (1984). The One to One Principle of interlanguage construction. Language Learning, 34, 77–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Andersen, R. W. (1990). Models, processes, principles, and strategies: Second language acquisition inside and outside the classroom. In VanPatten, B. & Lee, J. F. (Eds.), Second language acquisition–Foreign language learning (pp. 45–68). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual matters.Google Scholar
Berman, R. A. (1978). Modern Hebrew structure. Tel Aviv: University Publishing Projects.Google Scholar
Bickerton, D. (1981). Roots of language. Ann Arbor, MI: Karoma.Google Scholar
Bickerton, D., & Odo, C. (1976). Change and variation in Hawaiian English, I: General phonology and pidgin syntax (Final report on NSF Project No. GS-39748). Honolulu: Social Sciences and Linguistics Institute, University of Hawaii.Google Scholar
Cannon, B. (1985). A deaf Polish immigrant's acquisition of English negation through TDD discourse: A longitudinal case study. Unpublished master's thesis, University of Hawaii at Manoa, Honolulu.Google Scholar
Chesterfield, K., & Levinson, G. (1979). The interlanguage of a Brazilian ESL learner. Unpublished manuscript, University of California, Los Angeles.Google Scholar
Clark, E. (1970). Locationals: A study of the relations between ‘existential’, ‘locative’ and ‘possessive’ constructions. Working Papers on Language Universals (No. 3, pp. L1–L26). Stanford, CA: Language Universals Project, Stanford University.Google Scholar
Clark, E. (1978). Locationals: Existential, locative, and possessive constructions. In Greenberg, J. H. (Ed.), Universals of human language: Vol. 4. Syntax (pp. 85–126). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Duff, P. A. (1985, March). Problem-solving in the second language classroom. Paper presented at the TESOL '85 Convention, New York.Google Scholar
Duff, P. A. (1988, March). The progression toward subject prominence in the interlanguage of Chinese middle school students. Paper presented at the Eighth Second Language Research Forum, University of Hawaii at Manoa, Honolulu.Google Scholar
Duff, P. A. (in press). Tasks and IL performance: An SLA research perspective. In Crookes, G. & Gass, S. (Eds.), Tasks in language learning. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual matters.Google Scholar
Ehrman, M. (1972). Contemporary Cambodian: Grammatical sketch. Washington, DC: Foreign Service Institute.Google Scholar
Gass, S. M. (1984). A review of interlanguage syntax: Language transfer and language universals. Language Learning, 54, 115–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gasser, M. (1988). A connectionist model of sentence generation in a first and second language. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles.Google Scholar
Givón, T. (1979). On understanding grammar. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Givón, T. (1988). The pragmatics of word-order: Predictability, importance and attention. In Hammond, M., Moravcsik, E. A., & Wirth, J. W. (Eds.), Studies in syntactic typology (pp. 243–284). Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gundel, J. K. (1988). Universals of topic-comment structure. In Hammond, M., Moravcsik, E. A., & Wirth, J. W. (Eds.), Studies in syntactic typology (pp. 209–239). Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hatch, E., & Hawkins, B. (1985). Second language acquisition: An experiential approach. In Rosenberg, S. (Ed.), Advances in applied psycholinguistics (Vol. 1, pp. 241–283). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
He, S. (1989). Participant and setting in possessive and existential domain: A cognitive grammar approach to you in Mandarin Chinese. In Carlson, R., DeLancey, S., Gildea, S., Payne, D., & Saxena, A. (Eds.), Proceedings of the Fourth Meeting of the Pacific Linguistics Conference (pp. 229–238). Eugene: University of Oregon.Google Scholar
Henry, P. L. (1957). An Anglo-English dialect of North Roscommon. Dublin: Department of English, University College.Google Scholar
Huebner, T. (1979). Order-of-acquisition vs. dynamic paradigm: A comparison of method in interlanguage research. TESOL Quarterly, 13, 21–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huebner, T. (1983). A longitudinal study of the acquisition of English. Ann Arbor, MI: Karoma.Google Scholar
Huebner, T. (1989). Establishing point of view: The development of coding mechanisms in a second language for the expression of cognitive and perceptual organization. Linguistics, 27, 111–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Isačenko, A. V. (1974). On ‘HAVE’ and ‘BE’ languages. In Flier, M. (Ed.), Slavic Forum (pp. 43–77). The Hague: Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jackendoff, R. (1983). Semantics and cognition. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Kahn, C. H. (1966). The Greek verb “to be” and the concept of being. Foundations of Language, 2, 245–265.Google Scholar
Kuno, S. (1973). The structure of the Japanese language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Langacker, R. (1987). Cognitive grammar (Vol. 1). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Li, C. N., & Thompson, S. (1976). Subject and topic: A new typology for language. In Li, C. N. (Ed.), Subject and topic (pp. 457–490). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Lightbown, P. M. (1987). Classroom language as input to second language acquisition. In Pfaff, C. (Ed.), First and second language acquisition (pp. 169–187). Cambridge: Newbury.Google Scholar
Lightbown, P. M., & Spada, N. (1990). Focus-on-form and corrective feedback in communicative language teaching: Effects on second language learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 12, 429–448.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lloyd-Jones, M. (1987). A contextual analysis of non-referentialthere in American English usage. Unpublished master's thesis, University of California, Los Angeles.Google Scholar
Long, M. H., & Sato, C. J. (1984). Methodological issues in interlanguage analysis: An interactionist perspective. In Davies, A., Criper, C., & Howatt, A.P.R. (Eds.), Interlanguage (pp. 253–279). Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Lyons, J. (1967). A note on possessive, existential, and locative sentences. Foundations of Language, 3, 390–396.Google Scholar
Masica, C. P. (1976). Defining a linguistic area. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
McCawley, J. D. (1988). The syntactic phenomena of English (Vol. 1). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Niimura, T. (1986). The English interlanguage of a native Japanese speaker. Unpublished master's thesis, University of California, Los Angeles.Google Scholar
Odlin, T. (1989). Language transfer. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Perlman, A. M. (1975). Deep and surface aspects of Hawaiian English existentials. In Grossman, R., San, L., & Vance, T. (Eds.), Papers from the Eleventh Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistics Society (pp. 423–428). Chicago: Chicago Linguistics Society.Google Scholar
Pinker, S. (1986). Productivity and conservatism in language acquisition. In Demopoulis, W. & Marras, A. (Eds.), Language learning and concept acquisition (pp. 54–79). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
Pinker, S. (1989). Learnability and cognition. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Platt, J. T., & Weber, H. (1980). English in Singapore and Malaysia: Status, functions, and features. Kuala Lumpur: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Platt, J. T., Weber, H., & Ho, M. L. (1983). Singapore and Malaysia. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reuland, E., & ter Meuland, M. (Eds.). (1987). The representation of (in)definiteness. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Rutherford, W. (1983). Language typology and language transfer. In Gass, S. & Selinker, L. (Eds.), Language transfer in second language learning (pp. 358–370). Rowley, MA: Newbury.Google Scholar
Rutherford, W. (1989). Preemption and the learning of L2 grammars. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 11, 441–457.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sasaki, M. (1990). Topic prominence in Japanese EFL students' existential constructions. Language Learning, 40, 337–368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sato, C. J. (1990). The syntax of conversation in interlanguage development. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.Google Scholar
Schmidt, R. W. (1990). The role of consciousness in second languagelearning. Applied Linguistics, 11, 17–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sharwood Smith, M. (1990). Input from within: Utrecht research intocross-linguistic influence in formal language learning environments. In Dechert, H. W. (Ed.), Current trends in European second language acquisition research (pp. 219–229). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual matters.Google Scholar
Slobin, D. I. (1985a). Crosslinguistic evidence for the language making capacity. In Slobin, D. I. (Ed.), The crosslinguisticstudy of language acquisition: Vol. 2. Theoretical issues (pp. 1157–1256). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Slobin, D. I. (Ed.). (1985b). The crosslinguistic study of language acquisition: Vol. 2. Theoretical issues. Hills-dale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Talmy, L. (1983). How language structures space. In Pick, H. & Acredolo, L. (Eds.), Spatial orientation: Theory, research, and application (pp. 225–282). New York: Plenum Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tomlin, R. S. (1990). Functionalism in second language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 12, 155–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Trévise, A. (1986). L'émergence et la spécification des marqueurs de prédication en langue 2. In Giacomi, A. & Véronique, D. (Eds.), Acquisitions d'unelangue étrangère: Perspectives et recherches (pp. 365–382). Aix-en-Provence: Université de Provence.Google Scholar
Trévise, A., & Porquier, R. (1986). Second language acquisition by adult immigrants: Exemplified methodology. Studies inSecond Language Acquisition, 8, 265–275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Véronique, D. (1983). Observations préliminaires sur li dansl'interlangue d'Abdelmalek. Acquisitions du François par des travailleurs Marocains. Papiers de Travail (Vol. 1, pp. 155–180). Aix-en-Provence: Université de Provence.Google Scholar
Yip, V. (1988). There are some Chinglish existential constructions often cause learnabilityproblems. Unpublished manuscript. University of Southern California, Los Angeles.Google Scholar
Zobl, H. (1980). Developmental and transfer errors: Their common bases and (possibly) differential effects on subsequent learning. TESOL Quarterly, 14, 469–482.CrossRefGoogle Scholar