The Study of Ergativity Acquisition by Persian-Speaking Learners of English

Zahra Sadat Roozafzai*
*ACECR Institute of Higher Education (Isfahan Branch), Iran.
Periodicity:October - December'2019


Considering the controversy about the nature of ergativity, the issue of whether a case morpheme is theta assigning or just structural case-marking, the present study tried to provide an evidence for either side or both. To this aim, the acquisition and use of ergative verbs were studied and possible explications of the errors were presented. According to the results, ergativity is not just a structural case, but a non-structural case marking. Besides, the uninterpretable features or feature trace can account for case errors and present potential explications for the agreement failure. Based on the principles and stages of the Contrastive Linguistics Hypothesis and Error Analysis, the results of the current study can be applicable for the practice of Teaching English as a Foreign Language (TEFL). After the linguistic description and explanation of the errors made by the Persian speakers, learning English as a foreign language, the TEFL practitioners can make use of the findings of the present study to see the points of difficulty and more focus on them.


Ergativity, Transitivity, Case-Marking, Feature Interpretability, EFL Learners.

How to Cite this Article?

Roozafzai, Z. S. (2019). The Study of Ergativity Acquisition by Persian-Speaking Learners of English. i-manager’s Journal on English Language Teaching, 9(4), 5-13.


[1]. Abdullayeva, O. (1993). The Acquisition of Ergative Verbs by Turkish EFL Students (Unpublished Postgraduate Thesis), Bilkent University, Ankara.
[2]. Aldridge, E. (2012). Antipassive and ergativity in Tagalog. Lingua, 122(3), 192-203.
[3]. Baker, M. C. (2012). On the relationship of object agreement and accusative case: Evidence from Amharic. Linguistic Inquiry, 43(1), 255-274.
[4]. Bavin, E. L., & Stoll, S. (Eds.). (2013). The Acquisition of Ergativity (Vol. 9). John Benjamins Publishing.
[5]. Bley-Vroman, R. (1988). The fundamental character of foreign language learning. In W. Rutherford & M. Sharwood Smith (Eds.), Grammar and Second Language Teaching: A Book of Readings (pp. 19-30). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
[6]. Bruening, B. (2007), Passamaquoddy as a Split Ergative Language and Its Consequences for Marantz's Ergative Case Generalization (Manuscript). University of Delaware.
[7]. Can, A. (2009). Acquisition of English ergative verbs by Turkish students: Yesterday and today. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 1(1), 2832-2837. 10.1016/j.sbspro.2009.01.504
[8]. Clark, V. P., Paul A. E., & Rosa, A. F. (1998). Language: Readings in Language and Culture. New York: St.Martin's Press.
[9]. Chomsky, N. (1986). Knowledge of Language: Its Nature, Origin, and Use. Greenwood Publishing Group.
[10]. Chomsky, N. (2000). Minimalist inquiries: The framework. In Roger Martin, David Michaels & Juan Uriagereka (Eds), Step by Step (pp. 89-155). Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
[11]. Chomsky, N. (2001). Derivation by phase. In Michael Kenstowicz (Ed.) Ken Hale: A Life in Language (pp. 1-52). Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
[12]. Coon, J. (2012). Split ergativity and transitivity in Chol. Lingua, 122(3), 241-256.
[13]. Crystal, D. (1987). The English Encyclopaedia of Language. Cambridge: Cambridge.
[14]. Dixon, R. M. W. (1994). Ergativity. Cambridge University Press.
[15]. Dixon, R. M. W. (1992). A New Approach to English Grammar on Semantic Principles. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
[16]. Hawkins, R. (1998, March). The inaccessibility of formal features of functional categories in second language acquisition. In Pacific Second Language Research Forum, Tokyo (Vol. 36).
[17]. Hawkins, R. (2000). Explaining Non-Target-Like Properties of L2 Grammars. Talk given at McGill University, Montréal, Québec.
[18]. Holmberg, A., & Odden, D. (2004). Ergativity and rolemarking in Hawrami. Syntax of the World's Languages (SWL 1), Leipzig, Germany.
[19]. Ingham, R. (1996). The ergative alternation in L2 acquisition. Lexicon Research Group Handbook, (pp. 35- 47).
[20]. Ju, M. K. (2000). Overpassivization errors by second language learners: The effect of conceptualizable agents in discourse. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 22(1), 85-111.
[21]. Karacaer, Z. (1998). Anadili Türkçe olan öğrencilerin İngilizce'deki istemsiz geçişsiz fiillerde karşılaştıkları sorunlar ve bu fiillerin öğretimine ilişkin öneriler (Problems encountered by the Turkish Larners of English relevant to the ergative verbs and suggestions about teaching these verbs). Eskiúehir Anadolu Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 8, 168-183.
[22]. Karimi, Y. (2012). Agreement in Iranian ergative languages: The competition of affixes and clitics. Studies in Linguistics, 4 (2), 1-18.
[23]. Kellerman, E. (1978). Giving learners a break: Native language intuitions as a source of predictions about transferability. Working Papers on Bilingualism Toronto, (15), 59-92.
[24]. Lardiere, D. (1998). Case and tense in the 'fossilized' steady state. Second Language Research, 14(1), 1-26.
[25]. Legate, J. A. (2008). Morphological and abstract case. Linguistic Inquiry, 39(1), 55-101.
[26]. Legate, J. A. (2012). Types of ergativity. Lingua, 122(3), 181-191.
[27]. Leung, Y. K. I. (2003). Failed features versus full transfer full access in the acquisition of a third language: Evidence from tense and agreement. In Proceedings of the 6th Generative Approaches to Second Language Acquisition Conference (pp. 199-207).
[28]. Mahajan, A. (2012). Ergatives, antipassives and the overt light v in Hindi. Lingua, 122(3), 204-214.
[29]. Marantz, A.(1991). Case and Licensing. In Germán F. Westphal, Benjamin Ao, and Hee-RahkChae (Eds.), Proceedings of the Eighth Eastern States Conference on Linguistics (pp. 234-253).
[30]. McFadden. T. (2003). Inherent Case and argument structure. In FGLS/SGL Conference.
[31]. Montrul, S. (1997). On the nature of interlanguage grammars: Causatives and transitivity in L2 English. Revised Version of) Article Presented at the American Association for Applied Linguistics, Orlando Florida.
[32]. Ramesh, R., & Sumathi, B. (2010). CAI in Learning Voice in English Grammar among Eighth Standard Students--An experimental study. i-manager's Journal on School Educational Technology, 6(2), 36-41. https://doi. org/10.26634/jsch.6.2.1314
[33]. Reber, A. S. (1993). Implicit Learning and Tacit Knowledge: An Essay on the Cognitive Unconscious. New York: Oxford University Press.
[34]. Robinson, P. (1997). Individual differences and the fundamental similarity of implicit and explicit adult second language learning. Language Learning, 47(1), 45-99.
[35]. Samanta, S. (2017). A study on the attitudes of teachers towards teaching English grammar as second language (L2) and their effects on instructional practices in West Bengal. i-manager's Journal on English Language Teaching, 7(2), 39-50. jelt.7.2.13495
[36]. Singaravelu, G. (2008). Video game based learning in English grammar. i-manager's Journal of Educational Technology, 5(3), 49-53. jet.5.3.511
[37]. Singaravelu, G. (2014). Impact of gadget based learning of grammar in English at standard II. i-manager's Journal on English Language Teaching, 4(2), 33-39.
[38]. Thouësny, S. (2014). How systematic and random are errors and mistakes in texts written by language learners of French? In 4th International Conference on Foreign Language Teaching and Applied Linguistics (FLTAL).
[39]. Tsimpli, I.M. & Roussou, A. (1991). Parameter-resetting in L2? UCL Working Papers in Linguistics 3, 149-170.
[40]. Van Valin, R. D. (2001). An Introduction to Syntax. Cambridge University Press.
[41]. White, L. (1985). The “pro‐drop” parameter in adult second language acquisition. Language Learning, 35(1), 47-61.
[42]. Whitman, R. L. (1970). Contrastive analysis: Problems and procedures. Language Learning, 20(2), 191-197.
[43]. Woolford, E. (2006). Lexical case, inherent case, and argument structure. Linguistic Inquiry, 37(1), 111-130.
[44]. Yeon, J. (2008). Is there ergativity in Korean?-The definition of ergativity and other uses of the term'ergative'[in Korean]. Han-Geul (Journal of the Korean Language Society), 282, 125-154.
[45]. Yip, V. (1994). Grammatical consciousness-raising and learnability. In T. Odlin (Ed.), Perspectives on Pedagogical Grammar (pp. 123-139). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
[46]. Zobl, H. (1989). Canonical typological structures and ergativity in English L2 acquisition. In Susan M. Gass & Jacquelyn Schachter (Eds.), Linguistic Perspectives on Second Language Acquisition (pp. 203-221). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Purchase Instant Access

Single Article

North Americas,UK,
Middle East,Europe
India Rest of world
Pdf 35 35 200 20
Online 35 35 200 15
Pdf & Online 35 35 400 25

If you have access to this article please login to view the article or kindly login to purchase the article
Options for accessing this content:
  • If you would like institutional access to this content, please recommend the title to your librarian.
    Library Recommendation Form
  • If you already have i-manager's user account: Login above and proceed to purchase the article.
  • New Users: Please register, then proceed to purchase the article.