Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-7drmj Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-04T21:45:10.277Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Pragmatic, Semantic, and Syntactic Constraints and Grammaticalization

A Longitudinal Perspective

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 November 2008

Romuald Skiba  and
Norbert Dittmar
Romuald Skiba
Affiliation:
Freie Universität Berlin
Norbert Dittmar
Affiliation:
Freie Universität Berlin
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This contribution will compare the acquisition of German of three adult Poles over a period of 3 years. As background to the acquisition of grammatical features in German (e. g., morphology, auxiliary and modal verbs, constituency structure, temporality), an acquisition profile of the informants will be constructed. With the help of computer-aided corpus descriptions, the sequences in acquisition will be specified.

Information

Type
Articles
Information
Studies in Second Language Acquisition , Volume 14 , Issue 3 , September 1992 , pp. 323 - 349
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1992

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

Brown, R. (1973). A first language. The early stages. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bruner, J. (1978). From communication to language—A psychological perspective. In Markova, J. (Ed.), The social context of language (pp. 17–48). Toronto: Wiley.Google Scholar
Bußmann, . (1990). Lexikon der Sprachwissenschaft. Stuttgart: Kröner.Google Scholar
Clahsen, H., Meisel, J., & Pienemann, M. (1983). Deutsch als Zweitsprache. Der Spracherwerb ausländischer Arbeiter. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Clahsen, H., Vainikka, A., & Young-Scholten, M. (1990). Lernbarkeitstheorie und Lexikalisches Lernen. Eine kurze Darstellung des LEXLERN-Projektes. Linguistische Berichte, 130, 466–477.Google Scholar
Clark, E., & Clark, H. (1977). The psychology of language. New York: Hardcord & Brice.Google Scholar
Dik, S. (1978). Functional grammar (North Holland Series 37). Amsterdam: North Holland.Google Scholar
Dittmar, N. (1981). On the verbal organisation of L2 tense marking in an elicited translation task by Spanish immigrants in Germany. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 3, 136–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dittmar, N. (1985). Semantic features of pidginized learner varieties of German. In Andersen, R. W. (Ed.), Second languages (pp. 243–270). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Dittmar, N. (1989). Proto-semantics and emergent grammars. Paper presented at the conference Modality in Language Acquisition. Berlin: Freie Universität Berlin.Google Scholar
Dittmar, N. (1991). “Charlie komm arbeit aber das arbeit nich gut.” Le connecteur aber comme metteur en scene du discours en allemand L2. Une étude de cas en perspective longitudinale. In Russier, C., Stoffel, H., & Véronique, D. (Eds.), Modalisations en langue étrangère (pp. 123–132). Aix-en-Provence: Publications de l'Université de Provence.Google Scholar
Dittmar, N. (in press). Proto-semantics and emergent grammars I. In Dittmar, N. & Reich, A. (Eds.), Modality in language acquisition/Modalité et acquisition. Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Dittmar, N., & Kuhberg, H. (1988). Der Vergleich temporaler Ausdrucksmittel in der Zweitsprache Deutsch in Lernervarietäten zweier elfjähriger Kinder mit den Ausgangssprachen Polnisch und Tü;rkisch anhand von Longitudinaldaten. In Vater, H. & Ullmer-Ehrich, V. (Eds.), Temporalsemantik (pp. 308–329). Tübingen: Niemeyer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dittmar, N., Reich, A., Schumacher, M., Skiba, R., & Terborg, H. (1990). Die Erlernung modaler Konzepte des Deutschen durch erwacnsene polnische Migranten. Eine empirische Längsschnittstudie. Informationen Deutsch als Fremdsprache, 17, 125–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dittmar, N., & Terborg, H. (1991). Modality and second language learning: A challenge for linguistic theory. In Ferguson, C. & Huebner, T. (Eds.), Second language acquisition and linguistic theory (pp. 347–384). Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Frauenfelder, U., Selinker, L., & Tarone, E. (1976). Systematicity/variability and stability/instability in inter-language systems. In Brown, H. D. (Ed.), Papers in second language acquisition (pp. 93–134). Proceedings of the Sixth Annual Conference on Applied Linguistics, University of Michigan, January 30–February 1, 1975, Research Club in Language Learning, Ann Arbor, MI.Google Scholar
Giacobbe, J. (1989). Construction des mots et construction du sens. Cognition et interaction dans l'acquisition du français par des adultes hispanophones. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Université VII, Paris.Google Scholar
Giv´on, T. (1979). On understanding grammar. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Hatch, E. M. (1983). A second language perspective. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Hopper, P. (1987). Emergent grammar and the a priori grammar postulate. In Tannen, D. (Ed.), Linguistics in context: Connecting observation and understanding (pp. 117–134). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
Klein, W. (1982). Der Ausdruck der Temporalität im ungesteuerten Spracherwerb. In Rauh, G. (Ed.), Essays on deixis (pp. 149–168). Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Klein, W. (1986). Second language acquisition. An introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klein, W., & Dittmar, N. (1979). Developing grammars: The acquisition of German by foreign workers. Heidelberg: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Langacker, R. W. (1986). An introduction to cognitive grammar. Cognitive Science, 10, 1–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McLaughlin, B. (1987). Theories of second language acquisition. London: Edward Arnold.Google Scholar
Meillet, A. (1912). L'Evolution des formes grammaticales. In Rivista di scienza. XXVI, 6. Republished in Meillet A. (1921) Linguistique historique et linguistique générale. Seconde Edition, (pp. 130–148). Paris: Champion.Google Scholar
Meisel, J. (1987). Reference to past events and actions in the development of natural second language acquisition. In Pfaff, C. (Ed.), First and second language acquisition processes (pp. 206–224). Cambridge, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Sapir, E. (1921). Language: An introduction to the study of speech. New York: Harcourt, Brace.Google Scholar
Sato, C. J. (1986). Conversation and interlanguage development: Rethinking the connection. In Day, R. (Ed.), Talking to learn: Conversation in second language acquisition (pp. 23–45). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Sato, C. J. (1988). Origins of complex syntax in interlanguage development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 10, 371–395.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schumacher, M. (1989). Der Ausdruck “platz” in den Lernervarietäten von J(anka). Unpublished manuscript, Project P-MoLL, Freie Universität Berlin, Berlin.Google Scholar
Schumacher, M. (1991). Der Ausdruck räumlicher Referenz in Lernervarietäten von polnischen Migranten, BPZ 3. In Fachbereich Germanistik der Freien Universität (Ed.), Linguistische Arbeiten und Berichte Berlin (LAB 24) (pp. 1–106). Berlin: Freie Universität Berlin.Google Scholar
Schumacher, M., & Skiba, R. (1991). Prädikative Ausdrücke in den Lernervarietäten einer polnischen Deutschlernerin unter Berücksichtigung lernerspezifischer Wortarten. Eine Longitudinalstudie, BPZ 5. In Fachbereich Germanistik der Freien Universität (Ed.), Linguistische Arbeiten und Berichte Berlin (LAB 25) (pp. 1–44). Berlin: Freie Universität Berlin.Google Scholar
Schumann, J. (1978). The pidginization process: A model for second language acquisition. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Seliger, H. W., & Shohamy, F. (1989). Second language research methods. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Skiba, R. (1989a). Funktionale Beschreibung von Lernervarietäten. Das Berliner Projekt P-MoLL. In Reiter, N. (Ed.), Sprechen und Hören. Akten des 23. Linguistischen Kolloquiums Berlin 1988 (pp. 181–191). Tübingen: Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Skiba, R. (1989b). Modal verbs and their syntactical characteristics in elementary learner varieties. Paper presented at the conference Modality in Language Acquisition, Freie Universität Berlin, Berlin.Google Scholar
Skiba, R. (1991). Funktionale Analyse des Spracherwerbs einer elementaren polnischen Deutschlernerin. Unpublished manuscript, Project P-MoLL, Freie Universität Berlin, Berlin.Google Scholar
Skiba, R. (in press). Modal verbs and their syntactical characteristics in elementary learner varieties. In Dittmar, N. & Reich, A. (Eds.), Modality in language acquisition/Modalité et acquisition des langues. Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Slobin, D. I. (1971). Psycholinguistics. Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman.Google Scholar