Alemu,H. & D.Ado
Addis Ababa University, Ethiopia; Addis Ababa University, Ethiopia
Vol.10 No.1 (Serial No.16) 2022
The purpose of this article is twofold. First, it explores the order of the development of nominal and verbal gender of Amharic, which is one of the Ethio-Semitic languages. Second, it provides empirical evidence for the typological plausibility of processability theory (PT). In fact, PT has been tested in typologically different languages (e.g., English, Italian, and Japan); however, it does not have any validation from Ethiopian languages in general and Ethio-Semitic languages in particular yet. Relevant data was collected from sixteen respondents via picture description tasks, short storytelling, interviews, story re-telling, and spot the difference tasks. Distributional analysis was conducted for the analysis, and the point of emergence of target structures was determined using the emergence criteria. Accordingly, the result shows that the development of gender assignment is compatible with processability theory’s predictions in that lexical procedure precedes phrasal procedure, which is followed by S-procedure. Moreover, the masculine gender emerged earlier than its feminine counterpart at all developmental stages. However, subject agreement markers in pro-drop context emerged at stage two preceding subjectverb agreement. This finding is against processability theory’s claim that suggests subject agreement markers only emerge at stage four of the processability hierarchy disregarding their stages of development in pro-drop context in particular
processability theory, gender agreement, developmental stages, morpho- syntax, Amharic interlanguage
Bonilla, C. L. 2012. Testing Processability Theory in L2 Spanish: Can readiness or markedness predict development? [D].Doctoral Dissertation. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh.
Bonilla, C. L. 2015. From Number Agreement to the Subjunctive: Evidence for processability theory in L2 Spanish [J]. Second Language Research, 31(1):53-74.
Bresnan, J. 2001. Lexical-Functional Syntax[M]. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.
Charters, H., L. Dao & L. Jansen. 2011. Reassessing the Applicability of Processability Theory: The case of nominal plural [J]. Second Language Research, 27(4):509-533.
Chomsky, N. 1981. Lectures on Government and Binding[M]. Dordrecht: Foris Publications.
Cohen, M. 1970. Traité de Langue Amharique (2nd Édition) [M]. Paris: Institut d’Ethnologie.
Australian National University.
Di Biase, B. 2007. A Processability Approach to the Acquisition of Italian as a Second Language: Theory and applications [D]. Doctoral Dissertation. Canberra: Australian National University.
Dyson, B. 2009. Processability Theory and the Role of Morphology in English as a Second Language Development: A longitudinal study [J]. Second Language Research, 25(3):355-376.
Ellis, R. 1989. Are Classroom and Naturalistic Acquisition the Same? A Study of the Classroom Acquisition of German Word Order Rules [J]. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 11(3):305-328.
Gass, S. M. & L. Selinker. 2008. Beyond the Domain of Language [A]. In S. M. Gass, J. Behney & L. Plonsky (eds.). Second Language Acquisition: An introductory course (3rdEdition) [C]. New York: Routledge, 395-448.
Hatch, E. M. & A. Lazaraton. 1991. The Research Manual: Design and statistics for applied linguistics[M]. New York: Newbury House Publishers.
Husseinali, G. T. 2006. Processability and Development of Syntax and Agreement in the Interlanguage of Learners of Arabic as a Foreign Language[M]. Austin: The University of Texas at Austin.
Jia, G. 2003. The Acquisition of the English Plural Morpheme by Native Mandarin Chinese-speaking Children [J].Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 46:1297-1311.
Kaplan, R. & J. Bresnan. 1982. Lexical-functional Grammar: A formal system for grammatical representation
[A]. In Bresnan, J. (ed.). The Mental Representation of Grammatical Relations [C]. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 173-281.
Kormos, J. 2014. Speech Production and Second Language Acquisition[M]. London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.
Kozicki, M. 2018. Planning of the Amharic Language against a Background of Planning Processes in Ethnic and of Artificial Languages[D]. Doctoral Dissertation.Poznań: Adam Mickiewicz University.
Kramer, R. 2009. Definite Markers, Phi-features, and Agreement: A morphosyntactic investigation of the Amharic DP[M]. Santa Cruz: University of California.
Kramer, R. 2014. Gender in Amharic: A morphosyntactic approach to natural and grammatical gender [J]. Language sciences, 43:102-115.
Leslau, W. 1995. Reference Grammar of Amharic[M]. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
Leung, T. & G. Halefom. 2017. The Theory and Syntactic Representation of Control Structures: An analysis from Amharic [J]. Glossa: a journal of general linguistics, 2(1):1-33.
Long, M. 1991. Focus on Form: A design feature in language teaching methodology [A]. In K. de Bot, R. B. Ginsberg & C. Kramsch (eds.).Foreign Language Research in Cross-cultural Perspective [C]. Amsterdam: John Benjamin’s Publishing Company, 39-42.
Oulhaj, A. 2015. The Developmental Stages of the Acquisition of Arabic By Adult English-speaking Learners: Processability theory and the formulaic language [D]. Doctoral Dissertation. Milwaukee: University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee.
Pallotti, G. 2007. An Operational Definition of the Emergence Criterion [J].Applied Linguistics, 28(3):361-382.
Pienemann, M. 2005. Cross-linguistic Aspects of Processability Theory[M]. Amsterdam: John Benjamin’s Publishing Company.
Spinner, P. 2011. Second Language Assessment and Morphosyntactic Development [J]. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 33(4):529-561.
Weldeyesus, W. M. 2004. Case Marking Systems in Two Ethiopian Semitic Languages [J]. Colorado Research in Linguistics, 17(1):7.
Yimam, B. 2006. The Interaction of Tense, Aspect and Agreement in Amharic Syntax [A]. In J. Mugane, J. P. Hutchison & D. A. Worman (eds.). Selected Proceedings of the 35th Annual Conference on African Linguistics: African languages and linguistics in broad perspectives [C]. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project, 193-202.