Hostname: page-component-7dd5485656-tbj44 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-10-31T13:07:25.731Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

On the verbal organization of L2 tense marking in an elicited translation task by Spanish immigrants in Germany1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 November 2008

Norbert Dittmar
Norbert Dittmar
Affiliation:
Freie Universität Berlin
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

This article describes the undirected learning (learning without explicit teaching) of tense markers in German by Spanish migrant workers. It will be shown that the remarkable differences the informants displayed in expressing the concept of tense are a function of the daily communicative routines which they developed in order to meet their communicative needs and demands. By examining very simplified learner varieties, I will demonstrate that a traditional grammatical analysis of tense is not capable of accounting for the wide range of expressions for temporal relations which were produced in an elicited Spanish-German translation task.

Information

Type
Articles
Information
Studies in Second Language Acquisition , Volume 3 , Issue 2 , Spring 1981 , pp. 136 - 164
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1981

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Becker, A., and Gutfleisch, I.. 1978. Semantische Analyse des Wortfeldes der Bewegungsverben. Albeitsbericht IV des Heidelberger Projekts ‘Pidgin-Deutsch’, Germanistisches Seminar der Universität Heidelberg, 44–64. (Manuscript).Google Scholar
Bialystok, E. 1978. Language skills and the learner: the classroom perspective. In Tesol 78, EFL policies, programs, practices. ed. by Blaterford, C. M. and Schlachter, P. F., 224–31. Washington: TESOL.Google Scholar
Bialystok, E., and Frölich, M.. 1978. Second language learning and teaching in classroom settings: the learning study. The Modern Language Centre, Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, Toronto. ED 180 228.Google Scholar
Bickerton, D. 1979. Diskussion von Andersens Beitrag zu TESOL 1979. Boston. Ms.Google Scholar
Clark, M.C., and Clark, E. V.. 1977. Psychology and language. An introduction to psycholinguistics. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.Google Scholar
Dittmar, N. 1979a. Fremdspracherwerb im sozialen Kontext. Das Erlernen von Modalver-beneine lexikalisch-semantische Analyse. Sprache und kontext, ed. by Klein, W., 84–103. Zeitschrift für Literaturwissenschaft und Linguistik, Göttingen.Google Scholar
Dittmar, N. 1979b. Semantische Merkmale pidginisierter Lernvarietaten des Deutschen. Vortrag auf dem Deutschen Romanistentag in Saarbrücken 1979. (Manuscript).Google Scholar
Dittmar, N. 1979c. Zum Nutzen von Ergebnissen der Untersuchung des ungesteuerten Zweitspracherwerbs ausländischer Arbeiter. Bildung und Ausbildung in der Romania, Vol. 2: Sprachwissenschaft und Landeskunde, ed. by Kloepfer, R., 371–96. Munich: Fink.Google Scholar
Dittmar, N. 1979d. Ordering adult learners according to language abilities. Second language development, ed. by Felix, S.. Munich: Narr. (To appear).Google Scholar
Dittmar, N., and Rieck, B-O.. 1977. Datenerhebung und Datenauswertung im Heidelberger Forschungsprojekt Pidgin-Deutsch spanischer und italienischer Arbeiter. Soziolinguistik und Empiric, Beiträge zu Problemen der Corpusgewinnung und -auswertung, ed. by Bielefeld, H. U., Hess-Lüttich, E. W. B., and Lundt, A., 59–88. Wiesbaden: Akademische Verlagsgesellschaft Athenaion.Google Scholar
Eichler, W., and Bünting, K. D.. 1978. Deutsche Grammatik. Form, Leistung, and Gerbrauch der Gegenwartssprache. Kronberg Ts: Scriptor.Google Scholar
Escarpanter, J. 1976. Introductión a la moderna gramática española. Madrid: Playor.Google Scholar
Gelhaus, H. 1977. Das Futur in ausgewahlten Texten der geschriebenen deutschen Sprache der Gegenwart. München: Max Hueber.Google Scholar
Grice, H. P. 1975. Logic and conversation. Syntax and semantics, vol. 3: Speech acts, ed. by Cole, P. and Morgan, J. L., 41–58. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Hakuta, K. 1974. Prefabricated patterns and the emergence of structure in second language acquisition. Language learning 24.287–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hatch, E. 1978. Discourse analysis and second language acquisition, ed. by Hatch, E., 401–35. Rowley, MA.: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Heidelberger Forschungsprojekt ‘Pidgin-Deutsch’ (HPD). 1976. Untersuchung zur Erlernung des Deutschen durch auslandische Arbeiter. Germanistisches Seminar of the University of Heidelberg. (Manuscript).Google Scholar
Heidelberger Forschungsprojekt ‘Pidgin-Deutsch’ (HPD). 1977. Die ungesteuerte Erlernung des Deutschen durch spanische und italienische Arbeiter. Eine soziolinguistische Untersuchung. OBST Beiheft 2, Osnabrück: Verlag der Universität Osnabrück.Google Scholar
Heidelberger Forschungsprojekt ‘Pidgin-Deutsch’ (HPD). 1978. Zur Erlernung des Deutschen durch auslandische Arbeiter: Wortstellung und ausgewahlte lexikalisch-semantische Aspekte. Research Report IV, Germanistisches Seminar of the University of Heidelberg. (Manuscript).Google Scholar
Kennedy, G. D. 1978. Conceptual aspects of language learning. In Richards, 117–33.Google Scholar
Klein, W., and Dittmar, N.. 1979. Developing grammars. The acquisition of German by foreign workers. Heidelberg: Springer.Google Scholar
Krashen, S. D. 1978. Individual variation in the use of the monitor. Second language acquisition research: issues and implications, ed. by Ritchie, W. C., 175–83. London, New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Labov, W. 1972. Language in the inner city: studies in Black English vernacular. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
Labov, W., and Fanshel, D.. 1978. Therapeutic discourse: psychotherapy as conversation. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Larsen-Freeman, D. E. 1978. An explanation for the morpheme accuracy order of learners of English as a second language. In Hatch, 371–79.Google Scholar
Lyons, J. 1978. Semantics Two. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Naiman, N. 1974. The use of elicited imitation in second language acquisition research. Working papers in Bilingualism 2.1–37.Google Scholar
Richards, J. C. (ed.). 1978a. Understanding second and foreign language learning. Rowley, MA.: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Richards, J. C. (ed.). 1978b. Models of language use and language learning. In Richards, 94–116.Google Scholar
Rieck, B. O. 1979. Zur ungesteuerten Erlernung des Deutschen durch auslandische Arbeiter. Paper given to the conference “German as a Second Language,”University of Regenberg,June 7–9.Google Scholar
Schumann, J. H. 1976. Second language acquisition research: getting a more global look at the learner. Papers in second language acquisition, ed. by H. D. Brown. Language Learning (Spec. Issue) 4.15–28.Google Scholar
Slobin, D. J. 1973. Cognition prerequisites for the development of grammar, ed. by Ferguson, C. and Slobin, D. S.. Studies in child language development, 9–26. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.Google Scholar
Sträuble, A. M. F. 1977. An exploratory analogy between decreolization and second language acquisition: negation. Proceedings of the Los Angeles Second Language Research Forum, ed. by Henning, C. A.. Los Angeles: Linguistics Department of the University of Southern California.Google Scholar
Tarone, E. 1978. The phonology of Interlanguage. In Richards, 224–31.Google Scholar
Tarone, E. 1979. Conscious communication strategies. Seattle. (Manuscript).Google Scholar
Tarone, E., Cohen, A. D., and Dumas, G.. 1976. A closer look at some interlanguage terminology: a framework for communication strategies. Working Papers of Bilingualism 9.15–20.Google Scholar
Tarone, E., Cohen, A. D., and Dumas, G., Frauenfelder, U., and Selinker, L.. 1976. Systematicity/variability and stability/instability in interlanguage systems. Papers in Second Language Acquisition, ed. by H. D. Brown. Language Learning (Spec. Issue) 4.93–134.Google Scholar