Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dlnhk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T20:31:35.243Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Markedness and the Acquisition of Referential Forms

The Case of Zero Anaphora

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 November 2008

Carmen Muñoz
Carmen Muñoz
Affiliation:
University of Barcelona
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper is based on a study by Chaudron and Parker (1990) on the effect of discourse markedness and structural markedness on the development of noun phrase use. In the previous study, it was found that zero anaphora, the least marked form on the two counts, did not fulfill the general predictions drawn from the two markedness scales, and no explanation was offered for that phenomenon. The research presented here partially replicates that study but focuses on the use of zero anaphora in written text, distinguishing between pragmatically constrained and syntactically constrained zero anaphora. Our findings are discussed in light of this distinction, and an explanation lying in the interaction among markedness, the L1, and the L2 is proposed.

Type
Replication Study
Information
Studies in Second Language Acquisition , Volume 17 , Issue 4 , December 1995 , pp. 517 - 527
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1995

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

Bardovi-Harlig, K. (1987). Markedness and salience in second-language acquisition. Language Learning, 37, 385–407.Google Scholar
Chaudron, C., & Parker, K. (1990). Discourse markedness and structural markedness: The acquisition of English noun phrases. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 12, 43–64.Google Scholar
Clements, J. C. (1994). Notes on topicalization and object drop in Spanish. In Mazzola, M. (Ed.), Issues and theory in Romance linguistics: Selected papers from the Linguistic Symposium on Romance Languages XXIII, April 1–4, 1993 (pp. 219–237). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Eckman, F. (1977). Markedness and the contrastive analysis hypothesis. Language Learning, 27, 315–330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eckman, F. (1985). The markedness differential hypothesis: Theory and applications. In Wheatley, B., Hastings, A., Eckman, F., Bell, L., Krukar, G., & Rutkowski, R. (Eds.), Current approaches to second language acquisition: Proceedings of the 1984 University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee Linguistics Symposium (pp. 3–21). Bloomington: Indiana University Linguistics Club.Google Scholar
Fuller, J. W., & Gundel, J. K. (1987). Topic prominence in interlanguage. Language Learning, 37, 1–18.Google Scholar
Gass, S. (1980). An investigation of language transfer in adult second language learners. In Scarcella, R. & Krashen, S. (Eds.), Research in second language acquisition (pp. 132–141). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Givón, T. (Ed.). (1983). Topic continuity in discourse: A quantitative cross-language study. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Gundel, J. K. (1980). Zero NP-anaphora in Russian: A case of topic-prominence. In Kreiman, J. & Ojeda, A. E. (Eds.), Parasession on pronouns and anaphora (pp. 139–146). Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.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
Muñoz, C. (1988). La referencia al sujeto tópico en el texto castellano y en el texto inglés. In Actas del X Congreso Nacional AEDEAN (pp. 399–406). Zaragoza: University of Zaragoza.Google Scholar
Muñoz, C. (1994). Análisis de un universal del discurso en inglés y castellano: El Universal de Cantidad de Givón. Paper presented at the XII Congreso Nacional de Lingüística Aplicada, Autonomous University of Barcelona.Google Scholar
Muñoz, C. (1995). The non-use of zero anaphora in the interlanguage of Spanish learners of English. Paper presented at the meeting of the Réseau Européen de Laboratoires sur l'Acquisition, Ramon Llull University, Barcelona.Google Scholar
Prince, E. (1981). Toward a taxonomy of given-new information. In Cole, P. (Ed.), Radical pragmatics (pp. 223–255). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
White, L. (1985). The “pro-drop” parameter in adult second language acquisition. Language Learning, 35, 47–62.Google Scholar
White, L. (1989). Universal Grammar and second language acquisition. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Williams, J. (1989). Pronoun copies, pronominal anaphora and zero anaphora in second language production. In Gass, S., Madden, C., Preston, D., & Selinker, L. (Eds.), Variation in second language acquisition: Discourse and pragmatics (pp. 153–189). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual matters.Google Scholar
Zobl, H. (1982). A direction for Contrastive Analysis: The comparative study of developmental sequences. TESOL Quarterly, 16, 169–183.Google Scholar
Zobl, H. (1984). Uniformity and source-language variation. In Rutherford, W. E. (Ed.), Language universals and second language acquisition (pp. 185–218). Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar