Hostname: page-component-7bb8b95d7b-dtkg6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-09-12T13:02:11.723Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Markedness, Discoursal Modes, and Relative Clause Formation in a Formal and an Informal Context

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 November 2008

Maria Pavesi
Maria Pavesi
Affiliation:
University of Edinburgh
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Typological markedness has been suggested as a possible explanation or a means of predicting the development of Interlanguage (IL) syntax (Eckman, 1977; Hyltenstam, 1978, 1984; Rutherford, 1982). More specifically, the Accessibility Hierarchy (AH) (Keenan & Comrie, 1977, 1979) has been used to predict the acquisitional order of relative clauses in a second language (Hyltenstam, 1984). No research, however, has been conducted to investigate the possible influence of learning context on relative clause (RC) formation. In this study, English relative clauses were elicited from two groups of Italian learners. The first group was composed of 48 formal learners and the second group of 38 informal learners. It was hypothesized that the order as predicted by the AH would be yielded by both groups with the formal group's IL exhibiting more marked structures than the informal group's. The type of discourse—planned versus unplanned—to which learners were mostly exposed was thought to have an effect on the level of linguistic elaboration achieved.

Type
Research Article
Information
Studies in Second Language Acquisition , Volume 8 , Issue 1 , February 1986 , pp. 38 - 55
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1986

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

Borland, H.E. 1983. The acquisition of some features of English syntax by four groups of adolescent migrants to Australia. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Edinburgh.Google Scholar
Brown, E.K. & Miller, J. E.. 1982. Syntax: Generative grammar. London: Hutchinson.Google Scholar
Brown, G. 1985. A frequency count of 190,000 words in the London-Lund corpus of English conversation. Journal of Behavioural Research Methods, Instrumentation and Computation 16; 501–31.Google Scholar
Comrie, B. 1981. Language universals and linguistic typology. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Comrie, B. & Keenan, E.L.. 1979. Noun phrase accessibility revisited. Language 55; 649–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cummins, J. 1979. Cognitive/Academic language proficiency, linguistic interdependence, the optimum age questions and some other matters. Working Papers on Bilingualism 19; 197–205.Google Scholar
Eckman, F.R. 1977. Markedness and the contrastive analysis hypothesis. Language learning 27; 315–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, R. 1984. The role of instruction in second language acquisition. Paper presented at the IRAALBAAL Seminar on the Formal and Informal Contexts of Language Learning, Dublin.Google Scholar
Gass, S. 1979. Language transfer and universal grammatical relations. Language Learning 29; 327–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Givón, T. 1979. On understanding grammar. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Greenberg, J.H. 1963. Some universals of grammar with particular reference to the order of meaningful elements. In Greenberg, J. H. (ed.), Universals of Language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Greenberg, J.H. 1966. Language universals. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Hatch, E. 1983. Psycholinguistics: A second language perspective. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Hyltenstam, K. 1984. The use of typological markedness as a predictor in second language acquisition: The case of pronominal copies in relative clauses. In Andersen, R. W. (ed.), Second language: A crosslinguistic perspective. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Ioup, G. & Kruse, A.. 1977. Interference versus structural complexity as a predictor of second language relative clause acquisition. In Henning, C. (ed.), Proceedings of the second language research forum. Los Angeles: UCLA.Google Scholar
Jakobson, R. 1971. Signe zero. In Jakobson, R., Selected writings. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Keenan, E.L. & Comrie, B.. 1977. Noun phrase accessibility and universal grammar. Linguistic Inquiry 1; 63–99.Google Scholar
Kumpf, L. 1984. Comments on the paper by Gass and Ard. In Rutherford, W. (ed.), Language universal and second language acquisition. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Ochs, E. 1979. Planned and unplanned discourse. In Givon, T. (ed.), Syntax and semantics, Vol. 12: Discourse and semantics. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Riemsdijk, H. van. 1978. A case study in syntactic markedness. Lisse: Peter de Ridder.Google Scholar
Romaine, S. 1982. Socio-historical linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Romaine, S. 1984. The language of children and adolescents. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Rutherford, W. 1982. Markedness in second language acquisition. Language Learning 32; 85–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schachter, J. 1974. An error in error analysis. Language Learning 24; 205–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tarallo, F. & Myhill, J.. 1983. Interference and natural language processing in second language acquisition. Language Learning 33; 55–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Trubetzkoy, N. 1939. Grundzüge der phonologie. Travaux du Cercle Linguistique de Prague 7.Google Scholar
Waugh, L.R. 1982. Marked and unmarked: A choice between unequals in semiotic structure. Semiotica 38:299–318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wode, H. 1984. Some theoretical implications of L2 acquisition research and the grammar of interlanguages. In Davies, A., Criper, C., & Howatt, A. (eds.), Interlanguage. Edinburgh: University Press.Google Scholar
Zobl, H. 1984. Cross-language generalizations and the contrastive dimension of the interlanguage hypothesis. In Davies, A., Criper, C., & Howatt, A. (eds.), Interlanguage. Edinburgh: University Press.Google Scholar