1 |
Instructing Malaysian children with HFASD in English as a second language
|
|
|
|
BASE
|
|
Show details
|
|
2 |
[In Press] The Italian Roots in Australian Soil (IRIAS) multilingual speech corpus : speech variation in two generations of Italo-Australians
|
|
|
|
BASE
|
|
Show details
|
|
3 |
Lexical and morphological development : a case study of Malay English bilingual first language acquisition
|
|
|
|
BASE
|
|
Show details
|
|
4 |
The acquisition of english grammar among Malay-English bilingual primary school children
|
|
|
|
BASE
|
|
Show details
|
|
5 |
The influence of the environmental language (Lε) in Mandarin-English bilingual development : the case of transfer in wh- questions
|
|
|
|
BASE
|
|
Show details
|
|
6 |
The development of plural expressions in a Malay-English bilingual child
|
|
|
|
BASE
|
|
Show details
|
|
7 |
Exploring the acquisition of differential object marking (DOM) in Spanish as a second language
|
|
|
|
BASE
|
|
Show details
|
|
8 |
The development of Italian as a second language
|
|
|
|
Abstract:
Italian is a nonconfigurational, null-SUBJ headmarking language characterised by a rich morphology and a flexible syntax which is highly sensitive to pragmatic and discourse choices.1 From the point of view of the effect of pragmatics on syntactic structure, Van Valin (2005: 77) locates Italian among languages with ‘flexible syntax and rigid focus’. English, on the other hand, is among languages with ‘rigid syntax and flexible focus’, which makes the contrast between the two languages intriguing. These typological characteristics are of interest to PT in two fundamental ways. First, with regards to the notion of transfer of grammatical information within and between phrases of a sentence (cf. ch. 1, § 4.1, this volume), Di Biase & Kawaguchi (2002) show that, despite the basic contrast with English, Italian interlanguage data fully validates the universal hypotheses about the development of morphological structures and their interaction with syntax as hypothesised in Pienemann (1998), who had not looked at any Romance languages. Secondly, and perhaps even more importantly, with regards to the LFG architecture of correspondences among its three parallel levels of linguistic representation, the need to account for the nonconfigurationality of Italian syntax contributed substantially to the formulation of PT’s hypotheses about the development of syntactic structures at the interface with discourse-pragmatics (cf. ch. 1, § 4.2, this volume). As a matter of fact, Di Biase & Kawaguchi (2002) pioneered the use of the newly formalised LFG DFs in PT, thus foreshadowing the extension later developed in Pienemann, Di Biase & Kawaguchi (2005). In what follows, unlike any previous treatments of Italian processability, we revisit and expand the morphosyntactic framework for Italian L2 development and propose a theoretically motivated way forward for dealing with the so-called intrastage phenomena (cf. § 2).We also offer a fairly comprehensive discussion of the interface between syntax and discourse-pragmatics, with empirical support (cf. § 3).
|
|
Keyword:
Italian language; second language acquisition; syntax; XXXXXX - Unknown
|
|
URL: http://handle.uws.edu.au:8081/1959.7/uws:31957 http://www.eurosla.org/monographs/EM03/3Italian.pdf
|
|
BASE
|
|
Hide details
|
|
9 |
Grammatical Development in Second Languages: Exploring the Boundaries of Processability Theory
|
|
|
|
BASE
|
|
Show details
|
|
10 |
Processability theory : theoretical bases and universal schedules
|
|
|
|
BASE
|
|
Show details
|
|
11 |
Exploring processability theory-based hypotheses in the second language acquisition of a child with autism spectrum disorder
|
|
|
|
BASE
|
|
Show details
|
|
12 |
Acquiring V2 in declarative sentences and constituent questions in German as a second language
|
|
|
|
BASE
|
|
Show details
|
|
13 |
The development of case : a study of Serbian in contact with Australian English
|
|
|
|
BASE
|
|
Show details
|
|
14 |
Academic literacy development : does video commentary feedback lead to greater engagement and response than conventional written feedback?
|
|
|
|
BASE
|
|
Show details
|
|
|
|