Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-mnklg Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-12T08:19:37.260Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Argument structure in second language acquisition*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 October 2008

Lydia White
Lydia White
Affiliation:
Department of Linguistics, McGill University, 1001 Sherbrooke Street West, Montréal, Canada H3A 1 G5
Get accessRights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper investigates the effects of the first language (LI) on second language (L2) argument structure, in two situations: (i) LI sentences form a superset of those permitted in the L2; (ii) L2 sentences form a superset of those permitted in the LI. An experiment was conducted on 55 anglophone children learning French in Canada. Subject completed a perference task, comparing sentences which varied the types of arguments and adjuncts, and their ordering. Result indicate that the subject differed from a native speaker control group in various ways; English argument structure had effects but learners were also sensitve to properties of French which are distinct from English.

Information

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of French Language Studies , Volume 1 , Issue 2 , September 1991, pp. 189 - 207
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1991

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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

REFERENCES

Adjémian, C. (1983). The transferability of lexical properties. In Gass, S. and Selinker, L. (eds.), Language Transfer in Language Learning Learning. Rowley, MA: Newbury House, pp.250–268.Google Scholar
Andersen, R. (1983). Transfer to somewhere. In Gass, S. and xSelinker, L. (eds.), Language Transfer in Language Learning. Rowley, MA: Newbury House, pp.177–201.Google Scholar
Birdsong, D. (1989). Metalinguistic Performance and Interlinguistic Competence. New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1981). Lectures on Government and Binding. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1982). Some Concepts and Consequences of the Theory of Goverment and Binding. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Cook, V. (1988). Chomsky's Universal Grammer: an Introduction. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Le, Compagnon B. (1984). Interference and overgeneralization in second language learning: the acquisition of English dative verbs by native speakers of French. Language Learning, 34: 39–67.Google Scholar
Pinker, S. (1984). Language Learnability and Language Development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Pollock, J. (1989). Verb movement, Universal Grammar and the Structure of IP. Linguistic Inquiry, 20: 365–424.Google Scholar
Stowell, T. (1981). The Origins of Phrase Structure. Unpublished Ph. D. thesis, M.I.T..Google Scholar
White, L. (1987). Markedness and second language acquistion: the question of transfer. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 9, 261–286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
White, L. (1989). Universal Grammar and Second Language Acquistion. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
White, L. (1991a). Adverb placement in second language acquistion: some effects of positive and negative evidence in the classroom. Second Language Research, 7: 131–161.Google Scholar
White, L. (1991b). The verb-movement parameter in second language acquistion. Language Acquisition, I:337–360.Google Scholar
Williams, E. (1981). Argument structure and morphology. The Linguistic Review, I:81–114.Google Scholar