Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rdxmf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T00:05:40.593Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Methodological problems related to research on L2 Norwegian anaphors

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 September 2010

Guro Busterud
Guro Busterud*
Affiliation:
NTNU, Institutt for nordistikk og litteraturvitenskap, 7491 Trondheim, Norway. [email protected]
Get access

Abstract

This article focuses on the methodological challenges involved in investigating anaphoric binding in Norwegian as a second language. Norwegian anaphors can be bound both locally and non-locally, and since anaphors vary cross-linguistically, it is interesting to explore whether and where L2 speakers of Norwegian allow such target-like local and non-local binding in their L2. Sentences with two possible antecedents might be ambiguous for L2 speakers, and the truth-value judgment task is generally considered to be the best method for eliciting knowledge of L2 speakers' intuitions of anaphoric binding in ambiguous sentences. In Norwegian, long-distance binding cannot cross a finite clause boundary, and the long-distance anaphor cannot be locally bound. Because of this, the truth-value judgment task is sometimes less adequate for testing all relevant binding structures in Norwegian. Dialectal variations in Norwegian pose additional challenges for the study of the acquisition of anaphors in an L2. This paper discusses the implications of these methodological challenges.

Keywords

anaphorsdialectal variationlong-distance bindingL2 acquisitionmethodological problemstruth-value judgment task
Type
Research Article
Information
Nordic Journal of Linguistics , Volume 33 , Special Issue 2: The Nordic Languages and Second Language Acquisition Theory , October 2010 , pp. 145 - 168
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

Åfarli, Tor A. 1997. Syntaks. Setningsbygning i norsk [Syntax: Sentence building in Norwegian]. Oslo: Samlaget.Google Scholar
Akiyama, Yasuhiro. 2002. Japanese adult learners’ development of the locality condition on English reflexives. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 24 (1), 27–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Broselow, Ellen & Finer, Daniel. 1991. Parameter setting in second language phonology and syntax. Second Language Research 7 (1), 35–59.Google Scholar
Büring, Daniel. 2005. Binding Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Busterud, Guro. 2006. Anaforer i norsk som andrespråk [Anaphors in Norwegian as a second language]. MA thesis, Institutt for nordistikk og litteraturvitenskap, The Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU).Google Scholar
Cho, JunMo. 2006. The effect of UG in the L2 acquisition of long-distance binding. Studies in Generative Grammar 16 (2), 193–209.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1981. Lectures on Government and Binding. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Cole, Peter, Hermon, Gabriella & Sung, Li-May. 1990. Principles and parameters of long-distance reflexives. Linguistic Inquiry 21 (1), 1–22.Google Scholar
Cook, Vivian J. 1986. The basis for an experimental approach to second language learning. In Cook, Vivian J. (ed.), Experimental Approaches to Second Language Learning, 3–22. New York: Pergamon.Google Scholar
Crain, Stephen & McKee, Cecile. 1985. The acquisition of structural restriction on anaphora. In Berman, Steve, Choe, Jae Woong & McDonough, Joyce (eds.), North East Linguistics Society (NELS) 15, 94–110. Amherst, MA: University of Massachusetts, GLSA.Google Scholar
Crain, Stephen & Thornton, Rosalind. 1998. Investigations in Universal Grammar: A Guide to Experiments on the Acquisition of Syntax and Semantics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Davidson, Donald. 1967. Truth and meaning. Synthese 17, 304–323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Finer, Daniel. 1991. Binding parameters in second language acquisition. In Eubank, Lynn (ed.), Point Counterpoint: Universal Grammar in the Second Language, 351–374. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Finer, Daniel & Broselow, Ellen. 1986. Second language acquisition of reflexive binding. In Berman, Steve, Choe, Jae Woong & McDonough, Joyce (eds.), North East Linguistics Society (NELS) 16, 154–168. Amherst, MA: University of Massachusetts, GLSA.Google Scholar
Flynn, Suzanne & Foley, Claire. 2009. Research methodology in second language acquisition from a linguistic perspective. In Ritchie, Willian C. & Bhatia, Tej K. (eds.), The New Handbook of Second Language Acquisition (2nd edn.), 29–41. Bingley: Emerald.Google Scholar
Gass, Susan. 2001. Innovations in second language research methods. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 21, 221–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hellan, Lars. 1988. Anaphora in Norwegian and the Theory of Grammar. Dordrecht: Foris.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hirakawa, Makiko. 1990. A study of the L2 acquisition of English reflexives. Second Language Research 6, 60–85.Google Scholar
Hu, Jianhua, Pan, Haihua & Xu, Liejiong. 2001. Is there a finite vs. non-finite distinction in Chinese? Linguistics 39, 1117–1148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huang, James, Li, Audrey & Li, Yafei. 2009. The Syntax of Chinese. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huang, Yan. 2000. Anaphora: A Cross-linguistic Study. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Husby, Olaf. 2008. Introduction. In Husby, Olaf (ed.), An Introduction to Norwegian Dialects, 12–13. Trondheim: Tapir.Google Scholar
Isdahl, Åshild. 2009. ,,Bokmål er en maske jeg tar på meg i situasjoner som krever en viss avstand. Dialekta er meg”: om skriftlige praksisformer på nettstedet Facebook [‘Bokmål is a mask I put on in situations requering some distance. The dialect is me’: Written practice on the internet site Facebook]. MA thesis, Institutt for nordistikk og litteraturvitenskap, The Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU).Google Scholar
Kim, Ji-Hye, Montrul, Silvina & Yoon, James. 2009. Binding interpretations of anaphors by Korean heritage speakers. Language Acquisition 16 (1), 3–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klein, Elaine C. & Martohardjono, Gita. 1999. Investigating second language grammars: Some conceptual and methodological issues in generative SLA research. In Klein, Elaine C. (ed.), The Development of Second Language Grammars, 3–34. Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lakshmanan, Usha & Teranishi, Keiko. 1994. Preferences versus grammaticality judgments: Some methodological issues concerning the governing category parameter in second-language acquisition. In Tarone, Elanie E., Gass, Susan M. & Cohen, Andrew D. (eds.), Research Methodology in Second-language Acquisition, 185–206. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Lødrup, Helge. 2008. Objects binding reflexives in Norwegian. Norsk Lingvistisk Tidsskrift 26 (2), 136–160.Google Scholar
Lust, Barbara, Flynn, Suzanne & Chien, Yuchin. 1987. What children know: Methods for the study of first language acquisition. In Lust, Barbara (ed.), Studies in the Acquisition of Anaphora, vol. II: Applying the Constraints, 271–356. Dordrecht: Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Matsumura, Masanori. 1994. Japanese learners’ acquisition of the locality requirement of English reflexives. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 16, 19–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moshagen, Sjur Nørstebø & Trosterud, Trond. 1990. Non-clause-bounded reflexives in Mainland Scandinavian. Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 46, 47–53.Google Scholar
Read, Charles & Hare, Victoria Chou. 1979. Children's interpretation of reflexive pronouns in English. In Eckman, Fred & Hastings, Ashley (eds.), Studies in First and Second Language Acquisition, 98–116. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Reinhart, Tanya & Reuland, Eric. 1993. Reflexivity. Linguistic Inquiry 24 (4), 657–720.Google Scholar
Reuland, Eric & Everaert, Martin. 2001. Deconstructing binding. In Baltin, Mark & Collins, Chris (eds.), The Handbook of Contemporary Syntactic Theory, 634–669. Malden, MA: Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reuland, Eric & Koster, Jan. 1991. Long-distance anaphora: An overview. In Koster, Jan & Reuland, Eric (eds.), Long-distance Anaphora. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Safir, Ken. 2004. The Syntax of Anaphora. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sollid, Hilde. 2005. Språkdannelse og -stabilisering i møtet mellom kvensk og norsk [Language formation and stabilization in the meeting between Kvensk and Norwegian]. Oslo: Novus.Google Scholar
Strahan, Tania. 2003. Long-distance Reflexives in Norwegian: A Quantitative Study. Munich: Lincom Europa.Google Scholar
Thomas, Margaret. 1991. Universal Grammar and the interpretation of reflexives in a second language. Language 67 (2), 211–239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thomas, Margaret. 1995. Acquisition of the Japanese reflexive zibun and movement of anaphors in logical form. Second Language Research 11 (3), 206–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vikør, Lars. 1989. The position of standardized vs. dialectal speech in Norway. International Journal of Sociology of Language 80, 41–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wakabayashi, Shigenori. 1996. The nature of interlanguage: SLA of English reflexives. Second Language Research 12 (3), 266–303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Watanabe, Eriko, Fuji, Chisato, Kabuto, Yoshie & Murasugi, Keiko. 2008. Experimental evidence for the parameter resetting hypothesis: The second language acquisition of English reflexive-binding by Japanese speakers. Nanzan Linguistics (special issue) 3 (2), 263–283.Google Scholar
Wexler, Ken & Manzini, Rita. 1987. Parameters and learnability in binding theory. In Roeper, Thomas & Williams, Edwin (eds.), Parameter Setting, 41–76. Dordrecht: Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
White, Lydia, Bruhn-Garavito, Joyce, Kawasaki, Takako, Pater, Joe & Prévost, Philippe. 1997. The researcher gave the subject a test about himself: Problems and ambiguity and preference in the investigation of reflexive binding. Language Learning 47 (1), 145–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yuan, Boping. 1994. Second language acquisition of reflexives revisited. Language 70 (3), 539–545.CrossRefGoogle Scholar