Acquisition of English Prenominal and Postnominal Genitives
محورهای موضوعی : Journal of Teaching English Language Studies
1 - Islamic Azad University, Takestan Branch
کلید واژه: Genitive Case, Prenominal Genitive, Pronominal genitive, Postnominal genitive,
چکیده مقاله :
This study examined the acquisition of prenominal and postnominal genitives by Iranian EFL learners. Two variables were considered: possessive categories and language proficiency. We considered the influence of possessive categories such as lexical modifier, semantic relationship, and weight and syntactic complexity on genitive alternations by Iranian EFL learners. Also, we examined whether the learners' different levels of language proficiency have any effect on the acquisition of the prenominal and postnominal genitives. To do this, 120 male and female students at BA and MA levels with ages between 23 and 28 were employed. After administering a proficiency test, they were divided into two groups: high (58 students) and low (62 students). The results indicated that possessive categories including lexical modifier, semantic relationship and weight and syntactic complexity improved the students’ acquisition. Also, there existed a positive correlation between the students’ mastery level in English and the acquisition of prenominal and postnominal genitives.
Aitken, M. (2009). The English possessive Marker in a Framework of Relevance. Journal of Language and Communication Studies, 43, 119-13.
Altenberg, B. (1982). The genitive v. the of-construction. A study of syntactic variation in 17th century English. Lund: LiberForlag.
Biber, D. (2003). Compressed noun-phrase structure in newspaper discourse: the competing demands of popularization vs. economy. In Aitchison, J. & D. M. Lewis (eds.) New Media Language. London/New York: Longman. 169-81.
Grafmiller, J. (2010). Variation in English Genitives Across Modality and Genre.
MS. Stanford University, Department of Linguistics.
Hellar, D. (2002). Possession as a Lexical Relation: Evidence from the Hebrew Construct State. WCCFL 21 Proceeding, ed.L. Mikkelsen & C. Potts, 101- 114. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.
Hinrichs, L. & B. Szmrecsanyi.(2007). Recent changes in the function and frequency of Standard English genitive constructions: A multivariate analysis of tagged corpora. English Language and Linguistics, 11(3), 437–474.
Hundt, M. & Mair, C. (1999). Agile and uptight genres: The corpus-based approach to language change in progress. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 4, 221–242.
Kreyer, R. (2003). Genitive and of-construction in modern written English Processability and human involvement. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 8(2), 169–207.
Lardiere, D. (1998). Case and Tense in the 'fossilized' steady state. Second Language Research, 14 (1), 1-26.
Levin, B. (2008). The English Dative Alternation: The case for verb sensitivity. Journal of Linguistics, 44, 129-167.
Pienemann, M. (1989). Is Language teachable? Psycholinguistics experiments and hypotheses. Applied Linguistics, 10, 52-97.
Pienemann, M. (1992). Language processing and second language development: Processability theory. Amesterdam: Berlin.
Raab-Fischer, R. (1995). Löst der Genitiv die of-Phrase ab? Eine korpusgestützte Studie zum Sprachwandel im heutigen Englisch. Zeitschrift für Anglistik und Amerikanistik 43 (2), 123-132.
Rosenbach, A. (2002). Genitive Variation in English. Conceptual Factors in Synchronic and Diachronic Studies. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyte.
Rosenbach, A. (2003). Aspects of iconicity and economy in the choice between the s-genitive and the of-genitive in English. Determinants of Grammatical Variation in English. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Scott, A, Dension, D, & Börjars, K. (2007). Is the English possessive ’s truly a right edge phenomenon.MS. Manchester University, Department of Linguistics.
Shih, S, Grafmiller, J, FutrelI,R, Bresnan, J. (2009). Rhythm’s role in genitive and dative construction choice in spoken English. Deutsche Gesellschaft für Sprachwissenschaft Workshop: Rhythm Beyond the Word. Osnabruck, Germany, March.
Shiina, M. (2002). ‘Vocatives in Early Modern English Comedies: Vocatives as Pragmatic Markers’, Paper Presented at the Workshop of Historical Pragmatics at the 12t International Conference of English Historical Linguistics, Glasgow, August 2002.
Stefanowitsch, A. (2003). Constructional semantics as a limit to grammatical alternation: The two genitives of English. In Gunter Rohdenburg and Britta Mondorf (eds), Determinants of grammatical variation in English: 413-441. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Strunk, J. (2004). Possessive construction in modern low saxon. Unpublished MA thesis, Stanford University, Department of English.
Suda, K. (2007). The acquisition of pronominal case-marking by Japanese learners of English. Second Language Research, 23(2), 179-214.
Szmrecsányi, B & Hinrichs, L. (2008). Probabilistic determinants of genitive variation in spoken and written English: a multivariate comparison across time, space, and genres. In T. Nevalainen,I. Taavitsainen, P. Pahta, and M. Korhonen, (eds.), The Dynamics of Linguistic V.
Tagliamonte, S & Jarmasze, L. (2008). Variation and change in the English genitive: A sociolinguistic perspective. The 82nd Annual Meeting of the Linguistic Society of America. Chicago, January 4.
