Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7fkt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T21:10:27.308Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Introduction: The Nordic languages and second language acquisition theory

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 September 2010

Ute Bohnacker  and
Marit Westergaard
Ute Bohnacker
Affiliation:
Department of Linguistics and Philology, Uppsala University, Box 635, SE-751 26 Uppsala, Sweden. [email protected]
Marit Westergaard
Affiliation:
Center for Advanced Study in Theoretical Linguistics, Faculty of Humanities, Social Sciences and Education, University of Tromsø, N-9037 Tromsø, Norway. [email protected]
Get access

Extract

The theme of this special issue of the Nordic Journal of Linguistics was intended to solicit contributions on Nordic languages being acquired as non-native languages as well as work on Nordic-language native speakers learning a second language, not necessarily a Nordic one. We adopted a wide definition of the term ‘second language’ (L2), i.e. a non-native (second, third, etc.) language acquired in late childhood, adolescence or adulthood, in a naturalistic or an instructed setting.

Type
Introduction
Information
Nordic Journal of Linguistics , Volume 33 , Special Issue 2: The Nordic Languages and Second Language Acquisition Theory , October 2010 , pp. 99 - 104
Copyright
Copyright © Nordic Association of Linguistics 2010

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

Belletti, Adriana, Bennati, Elisa & Sorace, Antonella. 2007. Theoretical and developmental issues in the syntax of subjects: Evidence from near-native Italian. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 25, 657–689.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bohnacker, Ute. 2005. Nonnative acquisition of Verb Second: On the empirical underpinnings of universal L2 claims. In den Dikken, Marcel & Tortora, Cristina (eds.), The Function of Function Words and Functional Categories, 41–77. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bohnacker, Ute. 2007. On the ‘vulnerability’ of syntactic domains in Swedish and German. Language Acquisition 14 (1), 1–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bohnacker, Ute & Rosén, Christina. 2008. The clause-initial position in L2 German declaratives: Transfer of information structure. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 30 (4), 511–538.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carroll, Mary & Lambert, Monique. 2003. Information structure in narratives and the role of grammaticised knowledge. In Dimroth, Christine & Starren, Marianne (eds.), Information Structure and the Dynamics of Language Acquisition, 268–287. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Foster-Cohen, Susan & Doehler, Simona Pekarek (eds.). 2003. EUROSLA Yearbook 3. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Håkansson, Gisela, Pienemann, Manfred & Sayehli, Susan. 2002. Transfer and typological proximity in the context of L2 processing. Second Language Research 18, 250–273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hammarberg, Björn. 2001. Roles of L1 and L2 in L3 production and acquisition. In Cenoz, Jasone, Hufeisen, Britta & Jessner, Ulrike (eds.), Cross-linguistic Influence in Third Language Acquisition: Psycholinguistic Perspectives, 21–41. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hammarberg, Björn. 2004. Teoretiska ramar för andraspråksforskning. In Hyltenstam, Kenneth & Lindberg, Inger (eds.), Svenska som andraspråk – i forskning, undervisning och samhälle, 25–78. Lund: Studentlitteratur.Google Scholar
Hulk, Aafke & Müller, Natascha. 2000. Bilingual first language acquisition at the interface between syntax and pragmatics. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 3, 227–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klein, Wolfgang & Perdue, Clive. 1997. The basic variety (or: couldn't natural languages be much simpler?). Second Language Research 13, 301–347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pienemann, Manfred (ed.). 2005. Cross-linguistic Aspects of Processability Theory. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rothman, Jason. 2009. Pragmatic deficits with syntactic consequences? L2 pronominal subjects and the syntax–pragmatics interface. Journal of Pragmatics 41, 951–973.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schwartz, Bonnie & Sprouse, Rex. 2000. When syntactic theories evolve: Consequences for L2 acquisition research. In Archibald, John (ed.), Second Language Acquisition and Linguistic Theory, 156–186, Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Sorace, Antonella & Filiaci, Francesca. 2006. Anaphora resolution in near-native speakers of Italian. Second Language Research 22, 339–368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
von Stutterheim, Christiane. 2003. Linguistic structure and information organisation: The case of very advanced learners. In Foster-Cohen, & Doehler, Pekarek (eds.), 183–206.Google Scholar
Westergaard, Marit, 2003. Unlearning V2: Transfer, markedness, and the importance of input cues in the acquisition of word order in English by Norwegian children. In Foster-Cohen, & Doehler, Pekarek (eds.), 77–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
White, Lydia. 2009. Grammatical theory: Interfaces and L2 knowledge. In Ritchie, William C. & Bhatia, Taj K. (eds.), The New Handbook of Second Language Acquisition, 49–68. Leeds: Emerald.Google Scholar