The acquisition of Hindi split-ergativity and differential object marking by Dutch L1 speakers: systematicity and variation

References

• Aissen, Judith. 2003. Differential object marking: Iconicity vs. economy. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 21(3). 435–483. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1024109008573.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Andringa, Sible & Aline Godfroid. 2020. Sampling bias and the problem of generalizability in applied linguistics. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 40. 134–142.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Artoni, Daniele. 2013. The acquisition of case morphology in Russian as a second language. [ Unpublished PhD dissertation]. University of Verona.
   Google Scholar
• Artoni, Daniele, and Marco Magnani 2015. Acquiring case marking in Russian as a second language: an exploratory study on subject and object. In Camilla Bettoni and Bruno Di Biase (eds.), Grammatical development in second languages: Exploring the boundaries of Processability Theory, 177–194. Eurosla Monographs Series 3.
   Google Scholar
• Baten, Kristof. 2013. The Acquisition of the German Case System by Foreign Language Learners. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
   Google Scholar
• Baten, Kristof & Aaricia Ponnet. 2023. Extending PT to split ergative marking and differential object marking. In Satomi Kawaguchi, Bruno Di Biase and Yumiko Yamaguchi (eds.), Processability and Language Acquisition in the Asia-Pacific Region 9, 91–114. https://doi.org/10.1075/palart.9.04bat
   Google Scholar
• Baten, Kristof, & Saartje Verbeke. 2015. The acquisition of the ergative case in Hindi as a foreign language. In Kristof Baten, Aafke Buyl, Katja Lochtman, & Mieke Van Herreweghe (eds.), Theoretical and methodological developments in Processability Theory, 71–104. https://doi.org/10.1075/palart.4.04bat
   Google Scholar
• Bates, Douglas, Martin Mächler, Ben Bolker & Steve Walker. 2015. Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software 67(1). 1–48. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v067.i01
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bossong, Georg. 1991. Differential object marking in Romance and beyond. New analyses in Romance linguistics. 143–170. https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.69.14bos
   Google Scholar
• Bresnan, Joan, Aash Asudeh, Ida Toivonen & Steven Wechsler. 2015. Lexical-functional syntax. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons.
   Google Scholar
• Butt, Miriam. 1993. Object specificity and agreement in Hindi/Urdu. 29th Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society 1. 80–103.
   Google Scholar
• Butt, Miriam. 2006. Theories of case. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Butt, Miriam. 2017. Hindi/Urdu and related languages. In The Oxford handbook of ergativity. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Butt, Miriam &Tracy Holloway King. 2004. The status of case. In Veneeta Dayal and Anoop Mahajan (eds.), Clause structure in South Asian languages, 153–199. Dordrecht: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-2719-2_6
   Google Scholar
• Caspi, Tal. 2010. A dynamic perspective on second language development. Groningen: University Library Groningen dissertation.
   Google Scholar
• Cenoz, Jasone & Durk Gorter. 2019. Multilingualism, translanguaging, and minority languages in SLA. The Modern Language Journal 103. 130–135.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dixon, Richard M. 1994. Ergativity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Dowty, David R. 1991. Thematic proto-roles and argument selection. Language 67. 547–619.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dulieu, Jean. 1974. Paulus de Boskabouter 7: Ali Baba en de Rover. Bussum: Van Holkema & Warendorf.
   Google Scholar
• Dyson, Bronwen Patricia. 2021. Dynamic variation in second language acquisition: A language processing perspective. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
   Google Scholar
• Dyson, Bronwen Patricia & Gisela Håkansson. 2017. Understanding second language processing: A focus on Processability Theory. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
   Google Scholar
• Eberhard, David M., Gary F. Simons & Charles D. Fennig (eds.). 2021. Ethnologue: Languages of the world, 4th edn Dallas: SIL International.
   Google Scholar
• Ellis, Rod. 2015. Understanding second language acquisition, 2nd edn. Oxford Applied Linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Evans, Nicholas & Steven C. Levinson. 2009. The myth of language universals: Language diversity and its importance for cognitive science. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 32(5). 429–448. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X0999094X
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Everaert, Christine. 2004. Basisgrammatica van het Hindi. Gent: Academia Press.
   Google Scholar
• Douglas Fir Group. 2016. A transdisciplinary framework for SLA in a multilingual world. The Modern Language Journal 100(S1). 19–47.
   Google Scholar
• Fox, John. 2003. Effect displays in R for generalised linear models. Journal of Statistical Software 8(1). 1–27. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v008.i15
   Google Scholar
• García, Ofelia. 2011. Bilingual education in the 21st century: A global perspective. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
   Google Scholar
• Graves, Spencer, Hans-Peter Piepho, & Luciano Selzer. 2019. multcompView: Visualizations of paired comparisons. R Package Version 0.1-8. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=multcompView
   Google Scholar
• Harrell, Frank E. J. 2021. rms: Regression modeling strategies. R package version 6.2-0. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=rms
   Google Scholar
• Harrell, Frank E. J. & Charles Dupont. 2021. Hmisc: Harrell miscellaneous (4.5-0). https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=Hmisc
   Google Scholar
• Haznedar, Belma. 2006. Persistent problems with case morphology in L2 acquisition. In C. Lléo (ed.), Interfaces in multilingualism. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
   Google Scholar
• Heugh, Kathleen. 2013. Multilingual education policy in South Africa constrained by theoretical and historical disconnections. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 33. 215–237. http://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190513000135
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hulstijn, Jan H. 2015. Discussion: How different can perspectives on L2 development be? Language Learning 65(1). 210–232.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Henrich, Joseph, Steven J. Heine & Ara Norenzayan. 2010. The weirdest people in the world?. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 33(2–3). 61–83.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kachru, Yamuna. 2006. Hindi, vol. 12. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
   Google Scholar
• Klein, Udo & Peter de Swart. 2011. Case and referential properties. Lingua 121. 3–19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2010.07.005
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Larsen-Freeman, Diane. 2007. On the complementarity of chaos/complexity theory and dynamic systems theory in understanding the second language acquisition process. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 10(1). 35–37. https://doi.org/10.1017/S136672890600277X
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Levelt, Willem J. M. 1989. Speaking. From intention to articulation. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• López, Luis. 2012. Indefinite objects: Scrambling, choice functions, and differential marking. Cambridge, MA: MIT press.
   Google Scholar
• Lowie, Wander, & Marjolijn Verspoor. 2015. Variability and variation in second language acquisition orders: A dynamic reevaluation. Language Learning 65 (1): 63–88.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lüdecke, Daniel. 2018. ggeffects: Tidy data frames of marginal effects from regression models. Journal of Open Source Software 3(26). 772. https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.00772
   Google Scholar
• Lüdecke, Daniel. 2023. sjPlot: Data Visualization for Statistics in Social Science. R package version 2.8.14. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=sjPlot
   Google Scholar
• Malchukov, Andrej L. 2008. Animacy and asymmetries in differential case marking. Lingua 118. 203–221. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2007.02.005
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mardale, Alexandru. 2008. Microvariation within differential object marking. Revue roumaine de linguistique 53(4). 448–467.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mardale, Alexandru & Montrul, Silvina (eds.). 2020. The acquisition of differential object marking, vol. 26. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
   Google Scholar
• McManus, Kevin. 2022. Methodology and design in corpus-based SLA research. [Keynote presentation] European Second Language Association, Fribourg (Switzerland), August 22.
   Google Scholar
• Mohanan, Tara. 1994. Argument structure in Hindi. Stanford: Center for the Study of Language.
   Google Scholar
• Montaut, Annie. 2004. A grammar of Hindi. München: Lincom Europa.
   Google Scholar
• Montrul, Silvina A. 2019. The acquisition of differential object marking in Spanish by Romanian speakers. Revista Española de Lingüística Aplicada (RESLA). 32(1). 185–219.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Montrul, Silvina A., Archna Bhatia, Radesh M. Bhatt, & Vandan Puri. 2019. Case marking in Hindi as the weaker language. Frontiers in Psychology 10. 461. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00461
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Montrul, Silvina A., Rakesh M. Bhatt & Archna Bhatia. 2012. Erosion of case and agreement in Hindi heritage speakers. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism 2(2). 141–176. https://doi.org/10.1075/lab.2.2.02mon
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Montrul, Silvina A. & Ayşe Gürel. 2015. The acquisition of differential object marking in Spanish by Turkish speakers. In Tiffany Judy and Silvia S. Perpiñán (eds.), The acquisition of Spanish by speakers of less commonly studies languages, 281–308. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
   Google Scholar
• Montrul, Silvina A. & Noelia Sánchez-Walker. 2013. Differential object marking in child and adult Spanish heritage speakers. Language Acquisition 20(2). 109–132. https://doi.org/10.1080/10489223.2013.766741
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Narasimhan, Buvana. 2005. Splitting the notion of ‘agent’: Case-marking in early child Hindi. Journal of Child Language 32. 787–803.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Narasimhan, Buvana, Nancy Budwig & Lalita Murty. 2005. Argument realization in Hindi caregiver–child discourse. Journal of Pragmatics 37(4). 461–495. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2004.01.005
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nash, John C. 2014. On best practice optimization methods in R. Journal of Statistical Software 60(1). 1–14. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v060.i02
   Google Scholar
• Nash, John C., & Varadhan, Ravi. 2011. Unifying optimization algorithms to aid software system users: Optimx for R. Journal of Statistical Software 43(1). 1–14. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v043.i09
   Google Scholar
• Neuwirth, Erich. 2022. RColorBrewer: ColorBrewer palettes. R package version 1.1-3. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=RColorBrewer
   Google Scholar
• Pallotti, Gabriele. 2007. An operational definition of the emergence criterion. Applied Linguistics 28(3). 361–382.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pienemann, Manfred. 1998. Language processing and second language development: Processability theory, vol. 15. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
   Google Scholar
• Pienemann, Manfred, Frank Lanze, Howard Nicholas, & Anke Lenzing. 2022. Stabilization: A dynamic account. In Alessandro G. Benati & John W. Schwieter (eds.), Second Language Acquisition Theory: The legacy of Professor Michael H. Long, 29–76. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
   Google Scholar
• Ponnet, Aaricia, Kristof Baten, & Saartje Verbeke. 2016. The acquisition of differential object marking in Hindi as a foreign language. Dutch Journal of Applied Linguistics 5(2). 101–125. https://doi.org/10.1075/dujal.5.2.01bat
   Google Scholar
• Ponnet, Aaricia & Ludovic De Cuypere. 2023. Replication data for: The acquisition of Hindi split-ergativity and differential object marking by Dutch L1 speakers: systematicity and variation. https://doi.org/10.18710/3YWQ8R; DataverseNO, V1.
   Google Scholar
• R Core Team. 2023. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Vienna, Austria. https://www.r-project.org/
   Google Scholar
• Ranjan, Rajiv. 2016. Acquisition of ergative case in L2 Hindi-Urdu. The University of Iowa dissertation.
   Google Scholar
• Sarkar, Deepayan. 2008. Lattice: Multivariate data visualization with R. Springer-Verlag. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-75969-2
   Google Scholar
• Spoelman, Marianne & Marjolijn Verspoor. 2010. Dynamic patterns in development of accuracy and complexity: A longitudinal case study in the acquisition of Finnish. Applied Linguistics 31(4). 532–553.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stoll, Sabine & Balthazar Bickel. 2013. Capturing diversity in language acquisition research. In Balthasar Bickel, Lenore A. Grenoble, David A. Peterson, & Alan Timberlake (eds.), Language typology and historical contingency: In honor of Johanna Nichols, 195–216. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
   Google Scholar
• Tarone, Elaine. 1988. Variation in interlanguage. London: Edward Arnold.
   Google Scholar
• Verbeke, Saartje. 2013. Alignment and ergativity in new Indo-Aryan languages. Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter.
   Google Scholar
• Verbeke, Saartje & Aaricia Ponnet. 2022. Animacy, specificity, and verb semantics: What drives differential object marking in Hindi? In Tatiana Oranskaia & Anvita Abbi (eds.), The heart of change. Issues on variation in Hindi, 133-154. Heidelberg: HASP.
   Google Scholar
• Verspoor, Marjolijn, Wander Lowie & Kees de Bot. 2021. Variability as normal as apple pie. Linguistics Vanguard 7(2). 20200034. https://doi.org/10.1515/lingvan-2020-0034
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Verspoor, Marjolijn, Wander Lowie & Marijn Van Dijk. 2008. Variability in second language development from a dynamic systems perspective. The Modern Language Journal 77. 214–231.
   Google Scholar
• Wickham, Hadley. 2016. ggplot2—Elegant graphics for data analysis. Springer. https://www.springer.com/gp/book/9780387981413
   Google Scholar
• Wickham, Hadley, Romain François, Lionel Henry, Kirill Müller & Davis Vaughan. 2021. dplyr: A Grammar of Data Manipulation (1.0.5). https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=dplyr
   Google Scholar