Adjektivbøyning i norsk – kongruenstilegnelse hos polskspråklige norskinnlærere

Janik, Marta Olga

doi:10.14746/9788394719883

Cited by 1 publication

(4 citation statements)

References 71 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This systematic behaviour gives support to the PT predictions about a stage-wise development, where attributive agreement (Stage 3) is a prerequisite for predicative agreement (Stage 4). The same order of development has been found in earlier studies (e.g., Glahn et al, 2001;Lichtman, 2009;Bonilla, 2014) and to a smaller extent in Janik (2016).…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 87%

“…Studies on adjectival agreement often conflate number and gender and present results on general target-language accuracy (e.g., Bartning, 2000;Dewaele & Veronique, 2001;Janik, 2016). In our study, we disentangle singular agreement marking from plural agreement marking and credit the learner with number agreement marking if there is a difference between the marking of the adjective and noun in the singular and in the plural, even if there is no marking of gender differences in the singular context (i.e., all adjectives are unmarked in singular).…”

Section: Number and Gendermentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Their hypothesis was that the L1 French learners (with agreement) would outperform the L1 English learners (with no agreement), but this was not observed. Similarly, Gudmestad et al (2020) (Ringbom, 1987;Janik, 2016;Ragnhildstveit, 2017). Janik (2016) examined three groups of learners of L2 Norwegian, L1 English, L1 German and L1 Polish.…”

Section: L1 Influencementioning

confidence: 99%

“…Similarly, Gudmestad et al (2020) (Ringbom, 1987;Janik, 2016;Ragnhildstveit, 2017). Janik (2016) examined three groups of learners of L2 Norwegian, L1 English, L1 German and L1 Polish. The results showed that the Polish and German learners performed better than the English learners, but the accuracy scores were not very different (Polish, 91% correct; German, 93.3% correct; and English, 88.5% correct).…”

Section: L1 Influencementioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Developmental stages challenging cross-linguistic transfer: L2 acquisition of Norwegian adjectival agreement in attributive and predicative contexts

Håkansson

Arntzen

2021

Journal of the European Second Language Association

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study presents cross-sectional data on adjectival agreement in second-language (L2) learners of Norwegian with four different first languages (L1s). The target language has full noun phrase agreement between article, adjective and noun, and the source languages represent different agreement conditions, similar to or different from the target language. Sixteen learners participated in the study, and their oral production of adjective agreement was analysed individually. Two hypotheses were proposed. First, learners will develop adjectival agreement in a piecemeal way and follow the developmental stages predicted by Processability Theory (Pienemann, 1998), with attributive and predicative agreement implicationally ordered. Second, learners with adjective agreement in the L1 will transfer that into the L2, whereas learners without agreement in the L1 will not use agreement. Under the first hypothesis, we expect the learners to be distributed along a developmental scale, with some learners applying agreement in attributive positions only and others applying agreement in both the attributive and predicative positions. Under the second hypothesis, we anticipate a difference between the groups: Learners with agreement in their L1 will mark agreement in all contexts where it occurs in the L1, whereas learners who do not have agreement in their L1 will fail to mark agreement overall. The comparison demonstrates larger differences within the L1 groups than between the L1 groups. This suggests a gradual acquisition of agreement, with the agreement features and positions emerging one by one rather than being transferred from the L1.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 87%

Section: Number and Gendermentioning

confidence: 99%