Article published in:
Dutch Journal of Applied Linguistics
Vol. 5:2 (2016) ► pp. 101–125

The acquisition of differential object marking in Hindi as a foreign language

This article explores a grammatical structure — differential object marking (DOM) — that is particularly difficult for L2 learners to acquire. DOM is a phenomenon in which some direct objects are morphologically marked and others are not. In Hindi, animate direct objects are always marked with the objective case marker ko, whereas specific direct objects are only optionally marked with ko. Inanimate and non-specific direct objects are never marked with ko and take the unmarked nominative form. DOM in Hindi has been found to pose a problem to heritage speakers of Hindi. The present study investigates whether similar difficulties exist for foreign language learners. A cross-sectional study was conducted among 30 foreign language learners of Hindi completing an oral production task. The results suggest that the learners do not have difficulties with the concept of DOM in itself — they know that not every direct object needs to be marked —, but rather with the variable conditions under which DOM occurs. The study defines five developmental profiles, which reflect a gradual accumulation of contexts appropriately marked with the objective case.
Keywords: L2 Hindi, oral language production, Foreign language acquisition, Differential Object Marking
Published online: 23 February 2017
https://doi.org/10.1075/dujal.5.2.01bat
References

References

Aissen, J.
(2003) Differential object marking. Iconicity versus economy. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 21, 435–483. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Artoni, D., & Magnani, M.
(2013) LFG contributions in second language acquisition research: The development of case in L2 Russian. In M. Butt & T. Holloway King (Eds.), Proceedings of the LFG13 conference (pp. 69–89). Stanford CA: CSLI.Google Scholar
Baten, K.
(2013) The acquisition of the German case system by foreign language learners. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Baten, K., & Håkansson, G.
(2015) The development of subordinate clauses in German and Swedish as L2s: A theoretical and methodological comparison. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 37, 517–547. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Baten, K., & Verbeke, S.
(2015) The acquisition of the ergative case in Hindi as a foreign language. In K. Baten, A. Buyl, K. Lochtman, & M. Van Herreweghe (Eds.), Theoretical and methodological developments in Processability Theory (pp. 71–104). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Benmamoun, E., Montrul, S., & Polinsky, M.
(2013) Heritage languages and their speakers: Opportunities and challenges for linguistics. Theoretical Linguistics, 39, 129–181. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bossong, G.
(1985) Empirische Universalienforschung: Differentielle Objektmarkierung in Neuiranischen Sprachen. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Butt, M.
(1993) Object specificity and agreement in Hindi/Urdu. 29th regional meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, 1, 80–103.Google Scholar
Collentine, J.
(2004) The effects of learning contexts on morphosyntactic and lexical development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 26, 227–248. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
De Hoop, H., & Narasimhan, B.
(2005) Differential case marking in Hindi. In M. Amberber & H. de Hoop (Eds.), Competition and variation in natural languages: The case for case (pp. 321–346). Amsterdam: Elsevier. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
DeKeyser, R.
(1991) Foreign language development during a semester abroad. In B. Freed (Ed.), Foreign language acquisition research and the classroom (pp. 104–119). Lexington, MA: DC Heath & Co.Google Scholar
(2010) Monitoring processes in Spanish as a second language during a study abroad program. Foreign Language Annals, 43, 80–92. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
De Bot, K., Lowie, W., & Verspoor, M.
(2007) A dynamic systems theory approach to second language acquisition. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 10, 7–21. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
De Swart, P.
(2006) Case markedness. In L. Kulikov, A. Malchukov, & P. de Swart (Eds.), Case, valency and transitivity (pp. 249–267). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
De Swart, P., & De Hoop, H.
(2007) Semantic aspects of differential object marking. Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung, 11, 568–581.Google Scholar
DiBiase, B., Bettoni, C., & Medojevic, L.
(2015) The development of case in a bilingual context: Serbian in Australia. In C. Bettoni & B. Di Biase (Eds.), Grammatical development in second languages: Exploring the boundaries of Processability Theory (Eurosla Monographs Series 3) (pp. 195–212). Amsterdam: The European Second Language Association.Google Scholar
Di Biase, B., & Hinger, B.
(2015) Exploring the acquisition of differential object marking (DOM) in Spanish as a second language. In C. Bettoni & B. Di Biase (Eds.), Grammatical development in second languages: Exploring the boundaries of Processability Theory (Eurosla Monographs Series 3) (pp. 213–242). Amsterdam: European Second Language Association.Google Scholar
Guntermann, G.
(1995) The Peace Corps experience: Language learning in training and in the field. In B. Freed (Ed.), Second language acquisition in a study abroad context (pp. 149–170). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Howard, M.
(2005) On the role of context in the development of learner language: Insights from study abroad research. ITL International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 148, 1–20. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Iggesen, O.
(2005) Case-asymmetry. Munich: Lincom.Google Scholar
Isabelli, C., & Nishida, C.
(2005) Development of the Spanish subjunctive in a nine month study abroad setting. In D. Eddington (Ed.), Selected proceedings of the 6th Conference on the acquisition of Spanish as first and second languages (pp. 78–91). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla.Google Scholar
Isabelli-Garcia, Christina
(2010) Acquisition of Spanish gender agreement in two learning contexts: Study abroad and at home. Foreign Language Annals, 43(2), 289–303. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kachru, Y.
(2006) Hindi. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Klein, U., & de Swart, P.
(2011) Case and referential properties. Lingua, 121, 3–19. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lazard, G.
(2001) Le marquage différentiel de l’objet. In M. Haspelmath (Ed.), Language typology and language universals (pp. 873–885). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Lenzing, A.
(2015) Exploring regularities and dynamic systems in L2 development. Language Learning, 65, 89–122. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lowie, W., & Verspoor, M.
(2015) Variability and variation in Second Language Acquisition orders: A dynamic reevaluation. Language Learning, 65, 63–88. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Martoccio, A.M.
(2012) The acquisition of differential object marking in L2 Spanish learners. Unpublished PhD dissertation, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign.Google Scholar
McManus, K., & Mitchell, R.
(2015) Subjunctive use and development in L2 French: A longitudinal study. Language, Interaction, and Acquisition, 6, 42–73. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Mohanan, T.
(1994) Argument Structure in Hindi. Stanford, CA: CSLI.Google Scholar
Montrul, S., Bhatt, R., & Bhatia, A.
(2012) Erosion of case and agreement in Hindi heritage speakers. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 2, 141–76. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Montrul, S., & Gürel, A.
(2015) The acquisition of differential object marking in Spanish by Turkish speakers. In T. Judy & S. Perpiñán (Eds.), The acquisition of Spanish in understudied language pairings (pp. 281–308). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Montrul, S., Bhatt, R., & Girju, R.
(2015) Differential object marking in Spanish, Hindi and Romanian as heritage languages. Language, 91, 564–610. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Montrul, S.
(2016) The acquisition of heritage languages. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Pallotti, G.
(2007) An operational definition of the emergence criterion. Applied Linguistics, 28, 361–382. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Pienemann, M.
(1998) Language processing and second language development: Processability Theory. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2005) Cross-linguistic aspects of Processability Theory. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2013) Processability and teachability. In C.A. Chapelle (Ed.), The encyclopedia of applied linguistics. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
(2015) An outline of processability theory and its relationship to other approaches to SLA. Language Learning, 65, 123–151. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Rodríguez-Mondoñedo, M.
(2008) The acquisition of differential object marking in Spanish. Probus, 20, 111–145. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ticio, E.
(2015) Differential object marking in Spanish-English early bilinguals. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 5, 62–90. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Van Valin, R.
(1992) An overview of ergative phenomena and their implications for language acquisition. In D. Slobin (Ed.), The crosslinguistic study of language acquisition, Vol. 3 (pp. 15–37). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 5 other publications

Bhatia, Archna & Silvina Montrul
2020.  In The Acquisition of Differential Object Marking [Trends in Language Acquisition Research, 26], ► pp. 261 ff. Crossref logo
Bhatia, Archna & Silvina Montrul
2020.  In The Acquisition of Differential Object Marking [Trends in Language Acquisition Research, 26], ► pp. 261 ff. Crossref logo
Montrul, Silvina, Archna Bhatia, Rakesh Bhatt & Vandana Puri
2019. Case Marking in Hindi as the Weaker Language. Frontiers in Psychology 10 Crossref logo
Rodríguez-Ordóñez, Itxaso
2020.  In The Acquisition of Differential Object Marking [Trends in Language Acquisition Research, 26], ► pp. 105 ff. Crossref logo
Rodríguez-Ordóñez, Itxaso
2020.  In The Acquisition of Differential Object Marking [Trends in Language Acquisition Research, 26], ► pp. 105 ff. Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 06 march 2021. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.