In:Developing, Modelling and Assessing Second Languages:
Edited by Jörg-U. Keßler, Anke Lenzing and Mathias Liebner
[Processability Approaches to Language Acquisition Research & Teaching 5] 2016
► pp. 3–34
Get fulltext
The development of argument structure in the initial L2 mental grammatical system
Available under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives (CC BY-NC-ND) 4.0 license.
For any use beyond this license, please contact the publisher at rights@benjamins.nl.
Published online: 29 June 2016
https://doi.org/10.1075/palart.5.01len
https://doi.org/10.1075/palart.5.01len
This chapter investigates the development of argument structure in early L2 acquisition. I view argument structure and its development within the context of the Multiple Constraints Hypothesis (Lenzing 2013) and its core claim that the L2 initial mental grammatical system is constrained at the different levels of linguistic representation. I argue that at the beginning of the L2 acquisition process, argument structure is not fully developed. In particular, I claim that essential syntactic features are missing which are required to align semantic and syntactic information in the L2 speech production process. The constraints on argument structure lead to direct mapping processes from arguments to surface form. I present a combined cross-sectional and longitudinal study of beginning learners of L2 English with German as L1 in a formal context. The analysis of the oral speech production data focuses on argument structure and its development in the L2 acquisition process. The results of the analysis support my claims concerning the initial constraints at the level of argument structure.
References (17)
Alsina, A. 1996. The role of argument structure in grammar: Evidence from Romance. Stanford, CA: CSLI.
Bresnan, J., & Kanerva, J. (1989). Locative inversion in Chichewa: A case study of factorization in Grammar. Linguistic Inquiry 20(1): 1-50.
Dalrymple, M. (2001). Syntax and semantics. Lexical functional grammar. Vol. 34. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Falk, Y. (2001). Lexical-functional grammar: An introduction to parallel constraint-based syntax. Stanford, CA: CSLI.
Fabri, R. (2008). Lexical functional grammar. In J.-U. Keßler (Ed.), Processability approaches to second language acquisition: Development and second language learning (pp. 31-67). Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars.
Gass, S., & Mackey, A. (2007). Data elicitation for second and foreign language research. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Gerngross, G., & Puchta, H. (2003a). Playway 3 rainbow edition. Teacher’s book. Innsbruck: Helbling/ Leipzig: Klett.
Johnstone, R. (2000). Context-sensitive assessment of modern languages in primary (elementary) and secondary education: Scotland and the European experience. Language Testing 17(2), 123-143.
Lenzing, A. (2013). The development of the grammatical system in early second language acquisition – The Multiple Constraints Hypothesis. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Mackey, A., & Gass, S. (2005). Second language research. Methodology and design. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Pienemann, M. (1998). Language processing and second language development. Processability Theory. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Pienemann, M, & Lenzing, A. (2015). Processability Theory. In B. VanPatten & J. Williams (Eds.), Theories in second language acquisition. An introduction, 2nd edition (pp. 159-179). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Pienemann, M., & Mackey, A. (1993). An empirical study of children’s ESL development and Rapid Profile. In P. McKay (Ed.), ESL development. Language and literacy in schools (Vol. 2; pp. 115-259). Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia and National Languages and Literacy Institute of Australia.
Pienemann, M., DiBiase, B., & Kawaguchi, S. (2005). Extending Processability Theory. In M. Pienemann (Ed.), Cross- linguistic aspects of Processability Theory (pp. 199-251). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.