A volume on second-language acquisition theory and pedagogy is, at the same time, a mark of progress and a bit of an anomaly. The progress is shown by the fact that the two disciplines have established themselves as areas of study not only distinct from each other, but also different from linguistic theory. This was not always the case, at least not in the United States. The anomaly results from the fact that this book deals with the relationship between L2 theory and pedagogy despite the conclusion that there is currently no widely-accepted theory of SLA. Grouped into five sections, the papers in this volume: * consider questions about L2 theory and pedagogy at the macro-level, from the standpoint of the L2 setting; * consider input in terms of factors which are internal to the learner; * examine the question of external factors affecting the input, such as the issue of whether points of grammar can be explicitly taught; * deal with questions of certain complex, linguistic behaviors and the various external and social variables that influence learners; and * discuss issues surrounding the teaching of pronunciation factors that affect a non-native accent.
The main goal of this study, first published in 1994, is to present a substantial part of the grammar of French. This goal is achieved by bringing together two aspects of syntactic investigation. First, the study focuses on a vast range of French clausal phenomena, including Object Raising constructions, Causative constructions of various types, Impersonal constructions, amongst many others. Second, the investigation is conducted within the framework of Relational Grammar. This title will be of interest to students of language and linguistics.
An argument that there are three kinds of English grammatical objects, each with different syntactic properties. In Edge-Based Clausal Syntax, Paul Postal rejects the notion that an English phrase of the form [V + DP] invariably involves a grammatical relation properly characterized as a direct object. He argues instead that at least three distinct relations occur in such a structure. The different syntactic properties of these three kinds of objects are shown by how they behave in passives, middles, -able forms, tough movement, wh-movement, Heavy NP Shift, Ride Node Raising, re-prefixation, and many other tests. This proposal renders Postal's position sharply different from that of Chomsky, who defined a direct object structurally as [NP, VP], and with the traditional linguistics text's definition of the direct object as the DP sister of V. According to Postal's framework, sentence structures are complex graph structures built on nodes (vertices) and edges (arcs). The node that heads a particular edge represents a constituent that bears the grammatical relation named by the edge label to its tail node. This approach allows two DPs that have very different grammatical properties to occupy what looks like identical structural positions. The contrasting behaviors of direct objects, which at first seem anomalous—even grammatically chaotic—emerge in Postal's account as nonanomalous, as symptoms of hitherto ungrasped structural regularity.