Hostname: page-component-6bf8c574d5-xtvcr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-02-15T21:38:42.989Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Discourse Markedness and Structural Markedness

The Acquisition of English Noun Phrases

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 November 2008

Craig Chaudron  and
Kate Parker
Craig Chaudron
Affiliation:
University of Hawaii, Manoa
Kate Parker
Affiliation:
University of Hawaii, Manoa
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This study investigates second language acquisition of English noun phrases in discourse, examining the effect of discourse markedness and structural markedness on the development of noun phrase use. English L2 noun phrase forms are examined within three universal discourse contexts: current, known, and new reference to topics. The targeted noun phrases forms include ø anaphora, pronouns and nouns with markers of definiteness and indefiniteness, including left dislocation and existential phrases. Based on expectedness within discourse, the least marked discourse context is reference to a current topic, and the most marked context is the introduction of a new referent as topic. Based on formal complexity, ø anaphora is the least marked structural form, and left-dislocated and existential noun phrases are the most marked. Free production and elicited imitation recall tasks, involving picture sequences that manipulated the three discourse contexts, were used to test Japanese learners' acquisition of noun phrase forms. They were evaluated by comparison with NS production. The results support predictions that L2 learners distinguish between discourse contexts, acquiring more targetlike forms in the least marked context first, and that they acquire the least marked structural forms earlier than the more marked ones.

Type
Articles
Information
Studies in Second Language Acquisition , Volume 12 , Issue 1 , March 1990 , pp. 43 - 64
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1990

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

Andersen, R. (1977). The impoverished state of cross-sectional morpheme acquisition/accuracy methodology (or: the leftovers are more nourishing than the main course). Working papers on bilingualism/Travaux de recherches sur le bilinguisme, 14 (pp. 47–82). Toronto: Ontario Institute for Studies in Education.Google Scholar
Bates, E. (1976). Language and context: The acquisition of pragmatics. New York: Academic.Google Scholar
Bates, E., & MacWhinney, B. (1979). A functionalist approach to the acquisition of grammar. In Ochs, E. & Schieffelin, B. B. (Eds.), Developmental pragmatics (pp. 167–211). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Bates, E., Kintsch, W., Fletcher, C. R., & Guiliani, V. (1980). The role of pronominalization and ellipsis in texts: Some memory experiments. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 6, 679–691.Google Scholar
Bentivoglio, P. (1983). Topic continuity and discontinuity in discourse: A study of spoken Latin-American Spanish. In Givon, T. (Ed.), Topic continuity in discourse: A quantitative cross-language study (pp. 255–311). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bialystok, E., & Frohlich, M. (1978). The aural grammar test: Description and implications. Working papers on bilingualism/Travaux de recherches sur le bilinguisme, 15. Toronto: Ontario Institute for Studies in Education.Google Scholar
Bower, G. H., & Cirilo, R. K. (1985). Cognitive psychology and text processing. In van Dijk, T. A. (Ed.), Handbook of discourse analysis, vol. 1: Disciplines of discourse (pp. 71–105). London: Academic.Google Scholar
Chafe, W. L. (1976). Givenness, contrastiveness, definiteness, subjects, topics, and point of view. In Li, C. (Ed.), Subject and topic (pp. 25–55). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Chen, P. (1986). Referent introducing and tracking in Chinese narratives. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of California at Los Angeles.Google Scholar
Clancy, P. M. (1980). Referential choice in English and Japanese narrative discourse. In Chafe, W. L. (Ed.), The pear stories: Cognitive, cultural, and linguistic aspects of narrative production (pp. 127–202). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
Clancy, P. M. (1985). The acquisition of Japanese. In Slobin, D. I. (Ed.), The crosslinguistic study of language acquisition, vol. I: The data (pp. 373–524). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Clark, H. H., & Marshall, C. R. (1981). Definite reference and mutual knowledge. In Joshi, A., Webber, B., & Sag, I. (Eds), Elements of discourse understanding (pp. 10–63). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Clark, H. H., & Sengul, C. J. (1979). In search of referents for nouns and pronouns. Memory and Cognition, 7, 35–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dahl, D. A., & Gundel, J. K. (1982). Identifying referents for two kinds of pronouns. Minnesota Papers in Linguistics and Philosophy of Language, 8, 10–29.Google Scholar
Davison, A. (1984). Syntactic markedness and the definition of sentence topic. Language, 60, (4), 797–846.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davison, A., & Lutz, R. (1985). Measuring syntactic complexity relative to discourse context. In Dowty, D. R., Kartunnen, L., & Zwicky, A. M. (Eds.), Natural language parsing (pp. 27–66). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Doi, T., & Yoshioka, K. (1987, 04). Which grammatical structure should be taught when? Implications of the Pienemeann-Johnston model to teaching Japanese as a foreign language/second language. Paper presented at the 9th Hawaii Association of Teachers of Japanese Conference on Japanese Language and Linguistics, Honolulu.Google Scholar
Duff, P. (1985). Syntacticization of topic in Japanese and Mandarin students' English: A test of Rutherford's model. Unpublished MA thesis in English as a Second Language, Department of ESL, University of Hawaii at Manoa.Google Scholar
Duff, P. (1986). Typology and transfer in ESL: The acquisition of subject prominence by Japanese and Mandarin learners. Unpublished manuscript, Department of ESL, University of Hawaii at Manoa.Google Scholar
Duranti, A., & Ochs, E. (1979). Left-dislocation in Italian conversation. In Givón, T. (Ed.), Syntax and semantics, vol. 12: Discourse and syntax (pp. 377–416). New York: Academic.Google Scholar
Eckman, F. (1977). Markedness and the contrastive analysis hypothesis. Language Learning, 27, 315–330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eckman, F. (1981). On the naturalness of interlanguage phonological rules. Language Learning, 31, 195–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eckman, F, Moravcsik, E., & Wirth, J. (Eds.). (1986). Markedness. New York: Plenum Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flynn, S. (1987). A parameter-setting model of L2 acquisition: Experimental studies in anaphora. Dordrecht: D. Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fox, A. (1983). Topic continuity in Biblical Hebrew narrative. In Givón, T. (Ed.), Topic continuity in discourse: A quantitative cross-language study (pp. 213–254). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Fox, B. (1985). Word order inversion and discourse continuity in Tagalog. Text, 5, (1/2), 39–54.Google Scholar
Fuller, J. W, & Gundel, J. K. (1987). Topic prominence in interlanguage. Language Learning, 37, 1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gallimore, R., & Tharp, R. G. (1981). The interpretation of elicited sentence imitation in a standardized context. Language Learning. 31. (2). 369–392.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gass, S. (1979). Language transfer and universal grammatical relations. Language Learning, 29, 327–344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Givón, T. (1979). On understanding grammar. New York: Academic.Google Scholar
Givón, T. (1983a). Topic continuity in discourse: An introduction. In Givón, T. (Ed.), Topic continuity in discourse: A quantitative cross-language study (pp. 1–41). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Givón, T. (1983b). In Givón, T. (Ed.), Topic continuity in discourse: A quantitative cross-language study. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Givón, T. (1983c). Topic continuity and word order pragmatics in Ute. In Givón, T. (Ed.), Topic continuity in discourse: A quantitative cross-language study (pp. 141–214). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Givón, T. (1983d). Topic continuity in spoken English. In Givón, T. (Ed.), Topic continuity in discourse: A quantitative cross-language study (pp. 343–363). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Givón, T. (1983e). Topic continuity in discourse: The functional domain of switch reference. In Haiman, J. & Munro, P. (Eds.), Switch-reference and universal grammar (pp. 51–82). Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Givón, T. (1984). Universals of discourse structure and second language acquisition. In Rutherford, W. E. (Ed.), Language universals and second language acquisition (pp. 109–136). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greenfield, P. M. (1979). Informativeness, presupposition, and semantic choice in single-word utterances. In Ochs, E. & Schieffelin, B. B. (Eds.), Developmental pragmatics (pp. 159–166). New York: Academic.Google Scholar
Gruber, J. S. (1969). Topicalization in child language. In Reibel, D. & Schane, S., (Eds.), Modern studies in English (pp. 422–447). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Gundel, J. K. (1977). Role of topics and comment in linguistic theory. Bloomington: Indiana University Linguistics Club.Google Scholar
Gundel, J. K. (1985). “Shared knowledge” and topicality. Journal of Pragmatics, 9, (1), 83–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gundel, J. K., & Tarone, E. E. (1983). “Language transfer” and the acquisition of pronominal anaphora. In Gass, S. & Selinker, L. (Eds.), Language transfer in language learning (pp. 281–296). Rowley, MA: Newbury.Google Scholar
Gundel, J. K., Stenson, N., & Tarone, E. (1984). Acquiring pronouns in a second language: Evidence for hypothesis testing. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 6, (2), 215–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haviland, S. E., & Clark, H. H. (1974). What's new? Acquiring new information as a process in comprehension. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 13, 512–521.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hilles, S. (1986). Interlanguage and the pro-drop parameter. Second Language Research, 2, 33–52.Google Scholar
Hinds, J. (Ed.). (1978). Anaphora in discourse. Edmonton: Linguistic Research.Google Scholar
Hinds, J. (1980). Japanese conversation, discourse structure, and ellipsis. Discourse Processes, 3, 263–286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hinds, J. (1984). Topic maintenance in Japanese narratives and Japanese conversational interaction. Discourse Processes, 7, 465–482.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hinds, J. (1987). Thematization, assumed familiarity, staging, and syntactic binding in Japanese. In Hinds, J., Maynard, S. K., & Iwasaki, S. (Eds.), Perspectives on topicatization: The case of Japanese ‘wa’ (pp. 83–106). Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hottel-Burkhart, N. G. (1986, March). Topic prominence and syntactic-pragmatic processing. Paper presented at the 20th Annual TESOL Convention, Anaheim.Google Scholar
Huebner, T. (1983a). A longitudinal analysis of the acquisition of English. Ann Arbor: Karoma.Google Scholar
Huebner, T. (1983b). Linguistic systems and linguistic change in an interlanguage. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 6, (1), 33–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huebner, T. (1985). System and variability in interlanguage syntax. Language Learning, 35, (2), 141–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hyams, N. M. (1986). Language acquisition and the theory of parameters. Dordrecht: D. Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hyltenstam, K. (1984). The use of topological markedness conditions as predictors in second language acquisition: The case of pronominal copies in relative clauses. In Andersen, R. (Ed.), Second languages: A cross-linguistic perspective (pp. 39–58). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Kellerman, E. (1985). If at first you do succeed. In Gass, S. M. & Madden, C. G. (Eds.), Input in second language acquisition (pp. 345–353). Rowley, MA: Newbury.Google Scholar
Lesgold, A. M., Roth, S. F, & Curtis, M. E. (1979). Foregrounding effects in discourse comprehension. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 18, 291–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Li, C. N., & Thompson, S. A. (1976). Subject and topic: A new typology of language. In Li, C. N. (Ed.), Subject and topic (pp. 457–590). New York: Academic.Google Scholar
Lust, B., Chien, Y-C, & Flynn, S. (1987). What children know: Methods for the study of first language acquisition. In Lust, B. (Ed.), Studies in the acquisition of anaphora, volume II: Applying the constraints (pp. 271–356). Dordrecht: D. Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lutz, R. D. (1985). The effect of pronoun type on first and second language perceptual strategies in Hindi. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Illinois at Urbana.Google Scholar
MacWhinney, B., & Bates, E. (1978). Sentential devices for conveying givenness and newness: A cross-cultural developmental study. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 17, 539–558.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maratsos, M. P. (1974). Preschool children's use of definite and indefinite articles. Child Development, 45, 446–455.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maratsos, M. P. (1976). The use of definite and indefinite reference in young children. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Mazurkewich, I. (1985). Syntactic markedness and language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 7, 15–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Naiman, N. (1974). The use of elicited imitation in second language acquisition research. Working papers on bilingualism/Travaux de recherches sur le bilinguisme, 2 (pp. 1–37). Toronto: Ontario Institute for Studies in Education.Google Scholar
O'Grady, W. (1987). Principles of grammar and learning. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Parrish, B., & Tarone, E. (n.d.). Article use in interlanguage: A study in task-related variability. Unpublished manuscript, University of Minnesota.Google Scholar
Pavesi, M. (1986). Markedness, discoursal modifications, and relative clause formation in a formal and an informal context. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 8, 38–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pearson, C. (1980). The Echelon Counter: A new instrument for measuring the vocabulary growth rate and the type-token relationship. Proceedings of the American Society for Information Sciences, 17, 364–366.Google Scholar
Pica, T., & Long, M. H. (1986). The linguistic and conversational performance of experienced and inexperienced teachers. In Day, R. R. (Ed.), Talking to learn: Conversation in second language acquisition (pp. 85–98). Rowley, MA: Newbury.Google Scholar
Reinhart, T. (1982). Pragmatics and linguistics: An analysis of sentence topics. Bloomington: Indiana University Linguistics Club.Google Scholar
Richards, B. (1987). Type/token ratios: What do they really tell us? Journal of Child Language, 14, 201–209.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rutherford, W. (1982). Markedness in second language acquisition. Language Learning, 32, 85–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rutherford, W. E. (1983). Language typology and language transfer. In Gass, S. & Selinker, L. (Eds.), Language transfer in language learning (pp. 358–370). Rowley, MA: Newbury.Google Scholar
Rutherford, W., & Altman, R. (1985). Discourse competence in L2 acquisition. Unpublished manuscript, Department of Linguistics, University of Southern California.Google Scholar
Schachter, J., & Rutherford, W. (1979). Discourse function and language transfer. Working papers on bilingual-ism/Travaux de recherches sur le bilinguisme, 19 (pp. 1–12). Toronto: Ontario Institute for Studies in Education.Google Scholar
Schumann, J. (1982). Simplification, transfer and relexification as aspects of pidginization and early second language acquisition. Language Learning, 32, (2), 337–366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schumann, J. (1987). Utterance structure in basilang speech. In Gilbert, G. G. (Ed.), Pidgins and Creole languages: Essays in memory of John E. Reinecke (pp. 139–160). Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.Google Scholar
Swain, M., & Naiman, N. (1974). Alternatives to spontaneous speech: Elicited translation and imitation as indicators of second language competence. Working papers on bitingualism/Travaux de recherches sur le bilinguisme, 3 (pp. 68–79). Toronto: Ontario Institute for Studies in Education.Google Scholar
Thompson, S. (1978). Modern English from a typological point of view. Some implications of the function of word order. Linguistische Berichte, 54, 19–35.Google Scholar
Tomlin, R. S. (1983). On the interaction of syntactic subject, thematic information, and agent in English. Journal of Pragmatics, 7, 411–432.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tomlin, R. S. (1984). The treatment of foreground-background information in the on-line descriptive discourse of second language learners. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 6, (2), 115–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Webber, B. L. (1983). So what can we talk about now? In Brady, M. & Berwick, R. C. (Eds.), Computational models of discourse (pp. 331–371). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
White, L. (1985). The pro-drop parameter in adult second language acquisition. Language Learning, 35, 47–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
White, L. (1986). Markedness and parameter setting: Some implications for a theory of adult second language acquisition. In Eckman, F., Moravcsik, E., & Wirth, J. (Eds.), Markedness (pp. 309–327). New York: Plenum.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
White, L. (1987). Markedness and second language acquisition: The question of transfer. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 9, 261–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yule, G. (1981). New, current and displaced entity reference. Lingua, 55, 41–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zobl, H. (1982). A direction for contrastive analysis: The comparative study of developmental sequences. TESOL Quarterly, 16, (2), 169–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zobl, H. (1986). A functional approach to the attainability of typological targets in L2 acquisition. Second Language Research, 2, (1), 16–32.Google Scholar