Hostname: page-component-5d59c44645-klj7v Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-02-28T19:57:33.077Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Comprehension of competing argument marking systems in two Australian mixed languages*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 November 2011

University of Michigan
University of Queensland & University of Manchester
Address for correspondence: Carmel O'Shannessy, Department of Linguistics, University of Michigan, 440 Lorch Hall, 611 Tappan Street, Ann Arbor, MI 48109-1220,


Crosslinguistic influence has been seen in bilingual adult and child learners when compared to monolingual learners. For speakers of Light Warlpiri and Gurindji Kriol there is no monolingual group for comparison, yet crosslinguistic influence can be seen in how the speakers resolve competition between case-marking and word order systems in each language. Light Warlpiri and Gurindji Kriol are two new Australian mixed languages, spoken in similar, yet slightly different, sociolinguistic contexts, and with similar, yet slightly different, argument marking systems. The different sociolinguistic situations and systems of argument marking lead to a difference in how speakers of each language interpret simple transitive sentences in a comprehension task. Light Warlpiri speakers rely on ergative case-marking as an indicator of agents more often than Gurindji Kriol speakers do. Conversely, Gurindji Kriol speakers rely on word order more often than Light Warlpiri speakers do.

Research Article
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2011

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.)



We wish to thank several people for their input on this paper. Our research assistants in Lajamanu: Tanya Hargraves Napanangka, Leah Johnson Napaljarri, and Elaine Johnson Nangala; and in Kalkaringi: Samantha Smiler Nangala-Nanaku, who was instrumental in organising the children and adults for this study and in helping conduct the study. The Principal of Lajamanu Community Education Centre, Frank Atkinson, and staff, especially Gina Atkinson, for ease with data collection. Melissa Bowerman, Penelope Brown and Jane Simpson for experiment design, and Jidong Cheng for liaison with animation creators. Anonymous reviewers of this Journal. This work was funded by the Australian Research Council (Aboriginal Child Language Project), the Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics (Nijmegen, The Netherlands), the University of Melbourne and the University of Sydney.


Austin, J. (2007). Grammatical interference and the acquisition of ergative case in bilingual children learning Basque and Spanish. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 10 (3), 315331.Google Scholar
Baayen, H. (2008). Analyzing linguistic data: A practical introduction to statistics using R. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bakker, P. (2003). Mixed languages as autonomous systems. In Bakker & Matras (eds.), pp. 107–150.Google Scholar
Bates, E. (1982). Functional constraints on sentence processing: A cross-linguistic study. Cognition, 11, 245299.Google Scholar
Bates, E., & MacWhinney, B. (1987). Competition, variation and language learning. In MacWhinney, B. (ed.), Mechanisms of language acquisition, pp. 157193. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Bates, E., MacWhinney, B., Caselli, C., Devescovi, A., Natale, F., & Venza, V. (1984). A cross-linguistic study of the development of sentence interpretation strategies. Child Development, 55, 341354.Google Scholar
Bavin, E. L., & Shopen, T. (1985). Children's acquisition of Warlpiri: Comprehension of transitive sentences. Journal of Child Language, 12, 597610.Google Scholar
Charola, E. (2002). The verb phrase structure of Gurindji Kriol. Honors thesis, University of Melbourne.Google Scholar
Clark, H. H. (1973). The language-as-fixed-effect fallacy: A critique of language statistics in psychological research. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behaviour, 12, 335359.Google Scholar
Cook, V., Iarossi, E., Stellakis, N., & Tokumaru, Y. (2003). Effects of the L2 on the syntactic processing of the L1. In Cook, V. (ed.), Effects of the second language on the first, pp. 193213. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Dalton, L., Edwards, S., Farquarson, R., Oscar, S., & McConvell, P. (1995). Gurindji children's language and language maintenance. International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 113, 8398.Google Scholar
de Houwer, A. (1990). The acquisition of two languages from birth: A case study. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Dixon, R. M. W. (1979). Ergativity. Language, 55 (1), 59138.Google Scholar
Döpke, S. (2000a). Cross-linguistic structures in simultaneous bilingualism. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Döpke, S. (2000b). Generation of and retraction from cross-linguistically motivated structures in bilingual first language acquisition. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 3 (3), 209226.Google Scholar
Egan, A. (1986). Pintaru-kurlu “The Quail”. Yuendumu: Bilingual Resources Development Unit.Google Scholar
Gass, S. (1987). The resolution of conflicts among competing systems: A bidirectional perspective. Applied Psycholinguistics, 8, 329350.Google Scholar
Genesee, F., Nicoladis, E., & Paradis, J. (1995). Language differentiation in early bilingual development. Journal of Child Language, 22, 611631.Google Scholar
Hale, K. (1973). Person marking in Walbiri. In Anderson, S. & Kiparsky, P. (eds.), A Festschrift for Morris Halle, pp. 308344. New York: Rinehart and Winston, Inc.Google Scholar
Hale, K. (1982). Some essential features of Warlpiri verbal clauses. In Swartz, S. (ed.), Papers in Warlpiri grammar: In memory of Lother Jagst, pp. 217314. Darwin: Summer Institute of Linguistics – Australian Aborigines Branch.Google Scholar
Hale, K. (1992). Basic word order in two “free word order” languages. In Payne, D. (ed.), Pragmatics of word order flexibility, pp. 6382. Amsterdam & Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Hardy, F. (1968). The unlucky Australians. Melbourne: Nelson.Google Scholar
Hualde, J. I., & de Urbina, J. O. (2003). A grammar of Basque. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Kail, M. (1989). Cue validity, cue cost, and processing types in sentence comprehension in French and Spanish. In MacWhinney & Bates (eds.), pp. 77–117.Google Scholar
Kilborn, K., & Ito, T. (1989). Sentence processing strategies in adult bilinguals. In MacWhinney & Bates (eds.), pp. 257–291.Google Scholar
MacWhinney, B. (1987a). Applying the competition model to bilingualism. Appplied Psycholinguistics, 8, 315327.Google Scholar
MacWhinney, B. (1987b). Mechanisms of language acquisition. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
MacWhinney, B. (2005). Extending the Competition Model. International Journal of Bilingualism, 9 (1), 6984.Google Scholar
MacWhinney, B., & Bates, E. (eds.) (1989). The crosslinguistic study of sentence processing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
MacWhinney, B., Bates, E., & Kliegl, R. (1984). Cue validity and sentence interpretation in English, German, and Italian. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behaviour, 23, 127150.Google Scholar
Matras, Y., & Bakker, P. (2003a). The study of mixed languages. In Matras & Bakker (eds.), pp. 1–20.Google Scholar
Matras, Y., & Bakker, P. (eds.) (2003b). The mixed language debate. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Mayer, M. (1969). Frog, where are you? New York: Dial Books for Young Readers.Google Scholar
McConvell, P. (1996). Gurindji grammar. Ms., Canberra: AIATSIS.Google Scholar
McConvell, P., & Meakins, F. (2005). Gurindji Kriol: A mixed language emerges from code-switching. Australian Journal of Linguistics, 25 (1), 930.Google Scholar
McDonald, J. (1989). The acquisition of cue-category mappings. In MacWhinney & Bates (eds.), pp. 375–396.Google Scholar
McGregor, W. (2010). Optional ergative case-marking systems in a typological perspective. Lingua, 20 (7), 1610–636.Google Scholar
Meakins, F. (2011). Case marking in contact: The development and function of case morphology in Gurindji Kriol. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Meakins, F. (2008a). Land, language and identity: the socio-political origins of Gurindji Kriol. In Meyerhoff, M. & Nagy, N. (eds.), Social lives in language, pp. 6994. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Meakins, F. (2008b). Unravelling languages: Multilingualism and language contact in Kalkaringi. In Simpson & Wigglesworth (eds.), pp. 247–264.Google Scholar
Meakins, F. (2009). The case of the shifty ergative marker: A pragmatic shift in the ergative marker in one Australian mixed language. In Barddal, J. & Chelliah, S. (eds.), The role of semantics and pragmatics in the development of case, pp. 5991. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Meakins, F. (2010). The development of asymmetrical serial verb constructions in an Australian mixed language. Linguistic Typology, 14 (1), 138.Google Scholar
Meakins, F. (to appear). Which mix? – Code-switching or a mixed language – Gurindji Kriol. Journal of Pidgin and Creole Languages, 27 (1).Google Scholar
Meakins, F., & O'Shannessy, C. (2005). Possessing variation: Age and inalienability related variables in the possessive constructions of two Australian mixed languages. Monash University Linguistics Papers, 4 (2), 4364.Google Scholar
Meakins, F., & O'Shannessy, C. (2010). Ordering arguments about: Word order and discourse motivations in the development and use of the ergative marker in two Australian mixed languages. Lingua, 20 (7), 16931713.Google Scholar
Meisel, J. M. (1986). Word order and case marking in early child language. Evidence from simultaneous acquisition of two first languages: French and German. Linguistics, 24, 123183.Google Scholar
Milroy, L. (1987). Language and social networks. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Müller, N., & Hulk, A. (2001). Crosslinguistic influence in bilingual acquisition: Italian and French as recipient languages. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 4 (1), 121.Google Scholar
O'Shannessy, C. (2004). The monster stories: A set of picture books to elicit overt transitive subjects in oral texts. Nijmegen: Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics. [Unpublished series]Google Scholar
O'Shannessy, C. (2005). Light Warlpiri – a new language. Australian Journal of Linguistics, 25 (1), 3157.Google Scholar
O'Shannessy, C. (2006). Language contact and children's bilingual acquisition: Learning a mixed language and Warlpiri in northern Australia. Ph.D. thesis, University of Sydney.Google Scholar
O'Shannessy, C. (2008). Children's production of their heritage language and a new mixed language. In Simpson & Wigglesworth (eds.), pp. 261–282.Google Scholar
O'Shannessy, C. (2009). Language variation and change in a north Australian Indigenous community. In Preston, D. & Stanford, J. (eds.), Variationist approaches to Indigenous minority languages, pp. 419439. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
O'Shannessy, C. (2011). Competition between word order and case-marking in interpreting grammatical relations: A case study in multilingual acquisition. Journal of Child Language, 38 (4), 763792.Google Scholar
Paradis, J., & Navarro, S. (2003). Subject realization and crosslinguistic interference in the bilingual acquisition of Spanish and English: What is the role of the input? Journal of Child Language, 30, 371393.Google Scholar
Pinheiro, J., & Bates, D. (2000). Mixed-effects models in S and S Plus. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
Raaijmakers, J., Schrijnemakers, J., & Gremmen, F. (1999). How to deal with “The language-as-fixed-effect fallacy”: Common misconceptions and alternative solutions. Journal of Memory and Language, 41, 416426.Google Scholar
Reyes, I., & Hernandez, A. E. (2006). Sentence interpretation strategies in emergent bilingual children and adults. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 9 (1), 5169.Google Scholar
Sankoff, D. (1988). Variable rules. In Ammon, U., Dittmar, N. & Mettheier, K. J. (eds.), Sociolinguistics: An international handbook of the science of language and society, pp. 984997. Berlin & New York: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Serratrice, L., Sorace, A., & Paoli, S. (2004). Crosslinguistic influence at the syntax–pragmatics interface. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 7 (3), 183205.Google Scholar
Simpson, J. (2008). Expressing pragmatic constraints on word order in Warlpiri. In Grimshaw, J., King, T. H., Maling, J., Manning, C., Simpson, J. & Zaenen, A. (eds.), Architectures, rules and preferences: Variations on themes by Joan W. Bresnan, pp. 403427. Stanford, CA: Center for the Study of Language and Information.Google Scholar
Simpson, J., & Wigglesworth, G. (eds.) (2008). Children's language and multilingualism: Indigenous language use at home and school. London & New York: Continuum.Google Scholar
Slobin, D. I., & Bever, T. (1982). Children use canonical sentence schemas: A crosslinguistic study of word order and inflections. Cognition, 12, 229265.Google Scholar
Smith, N. (2000). Symbiotic mixed languages: A question of terminology. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 3 (2), 122123.Google Scholar
Swartz, S. (1991). Constraints on zero anaphora and word order in Warlpiri narrative text. Darwin: Summer Institute of Linguistics.Google Scholar
Thomason, S. G. (2001). Language contact: An introduction. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Thomason, S. G., & Kaufman, T. (1988). Language contact, creolization, and genetic linguistics. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Wavehill, R. J. (2000). Nyawuyinangkulu larrpa kujilirli yuwanani ngumpit-ma kartiyarlu [The massacre of Gurindji people by white people], translated by Charola, E.. Katherine: Diwurruwurru-jaru Aboriginal Corporation.Google Scholar
Wulfeck, B., Juarez, L., Bates, E., & Kilborn, K. (1986). Sentence interpretation strategies in healthy and aphasic bilingual adults. In Vaid, J. (ed.), Language processing in bilinguals: Psycholinguistic and neuropsychological persectives, pp. 199220. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Zwanziger, E. E., & Allen, S. M. (2005). Crosslinguistic influence in bilingual acquisition: Subject omission in learners of Inuktitut and English. Journal of Child Language, 32, 893909.Google Scholar