Partial transfer, not partial access

1996 ◽  
Vol 19 (4) ◽  
pp. 744-745 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anne Vainikka ◽  
Martha Young-Scholten
Keyword(s):  
Universal Grammar ◽  
L2 Acquisition ◽  
Partial Transfer ◽  
Principles And Parameters

AbstractOur results support the idea that adults have access to the principles and parameters of Universal Grammar (UG), contrary to Epstein et al.'s misrepresentation of our work as involving partial access to UG. For both LI and L2 acquisition, functional projections appear to develop in a gradual fashion, but in L2 acquisition there is partial transfer in that the lowest projection (VP) is transferred from the speaker's LI.

Transfer and unlearning of topic prominence by Chinese learners of English

2021 ◽  
Vol 0 (0) ◽  
Author(s):  
Hui Chang ◽  
Lilong Xu
Keyword(s):  
Second Language ◽  
Universal Grammar ◽  
L2 Acquisition ◽  
L1 Transfer ◽  
Chinese Speakers ◽  
English Only ◽  
Cognitive States ◽  
Chinese Learners ◽  
Topic Constructions ◽  
Chinese Learners Of English

Abstract Chinese allows both gapped and gapless topic constructions without their usage being restricted to specific contexts, while English only allows gapped topic constructions which are used in certain contexts. In other words, Chinese uses ‘topic prominence’, whereas English does not. The contrast between English and Chinese topic constructions poses a learnability problem for Chinese learners of English. This paper uses an empirical study investigating first language (L1) transfer in the case of Chinese learners of English and the extent to which they are able to unlearn topic prominence as they progress in second language (L2) English. Results of an acceptability judgment test indicate that Chinese learners of English initially transfer Chinese topic prominence into their English, then gradually unlearn Chinese topic prominence as their English proficiency improves, and finally unlearn Chinese topic prominence successfully. The results support the Full Transfer Theory (Schwartz, Bonnie & Rex Sprouse. 1996. L2 cognitive states and the Full Transfer/Full Access model. Second Language Research 12. 40–72) and the Variational Learning Model (Yang, Charles. 2004. Universal Grammar, statistics or both? Trends in Cognitive Sciences 8. 451–456), but contradict the proposal that the topic prominence can never be transferred but may be unlearned from the beginning in Chinese speakers’ acquisition of English (Zheng, Chao. 2001. Nominal Constructions Beyond IP and Their Initial Restructuring in L2 Acquisition. Guangzhou: Guangdong University of Foreign Studies Ph.D. dissertation). In addition, the type of topic constructions that is used and whether or not a comma is added after the topic have an effect on learners’ transfer and unlearning of topic prominence. It is proposed that the specification of Agr(eement) and T(ense) as well as the presence of expletive subjects in English input can trigger the unlearning of topic prominence for Chinese learners of English.

SECOND LANGUAGE SYNTAX: A GENERATIVE INTRODUCTION. Roger Hawkins. Oxford: Blackwell, 2001. Pp. xviii + 386. $41.95 paper.

2002 ◽  
Vol 24 (3) ◽  
pp. 493-494
Author(s):  
Silvina Montrul
Keyword(s):  
Second Language ◽  
Universal Grammar ◽  
L2 Acquisition ◽  
Specific System ◽  
Modulated Structure ◽  
Present Evidence ◽  
Introductory Textbook ◽  
Syntactic Knowledge ◽  
Structure Building ◽  
L2 Development

This book is intended as an introduction both to the principles and parameters framework (Chomsky, 1981) and to the second language (L2) acquisition of syntactic representations. Hawkins's basic aim is to present evidence for the view that L2 learners progressively build subconscious mental grammars (i.e., a syntactic system) guided by Universal Grammar—an innate, language-specific system. However, this volume is not just an introductory textbook presenting and summarizing the work of other researchers in this particular field. Indeed, the book has another major aim: Within the context of the most current debates on the L2 acquisition of syntactic knowledge, Hawkins introduces his own theory of L2 development, which he terms Modulated Structure Building.

Second language acquisition: Theoretical and experimental issues in contemporary research

1996 ◽  
Vol 19 (4) ◽  
pp. 677-714 ◽  
Author(s):  
Samuel David Epstein ◽  
Suzanne Flynn ◽  
Gita Martohardjono
Keyword(s):  
Second Language ◽  
Second Language Acquisition ◽  
Universal Grammar ◽  
Functional Categories ◽  
L2 Acquisition ◽  
Psycholinguistic Research ◽  
Explanatory Theory ◽  
Parameter Values ◽  
Theoretical Issues

AbstractTo what extent, if any, does Universal Grammar (UG) constrain second language (L2) acquisition? This is not only an empirical question, but one which is currently investigable. In this context, L2 acquisition is emerging as an important new domain of psycholinguistic research. Three logical possibilities have been articulated regarding the role of UG in L2 acquisition: The first is the “no access” hypothesis that claims that no aspect of UG is available to the L2 learner. The second is the “partial access” hypothesis that claims that only LI instantiated principles and LI instantiated parameter-values of UG are available to the learner. The third, called the “full access” hypothesis, asserts that UG in its entirety constrains L2 acquisition.In this paper we argue that there is no compelling evidence to support either of the first two hypotheses. Moreover, we provide evidence concerning functional categories in L2 acquisition consistent with the claim that UG is fully available to the L2 learner (see also Flynn 1987; Li 1993; Martohardjono 1992; Schwartz & Sprouse 1991; Thomas 1991; White 1989). In addition, we will attempt to clarify some of currently unclear theoretical issues that arise with respect to positing UG as an explanatory theory of L2 acquisition. We will also investigate in some detail certain crucial methodological questions involved in experimentally testing the role of UG in L2 acquisition and finally, we will present a set of experimental results of our own supporting the “Full Access” hypothesis.

The Recovery of Case

2016 ◽  
Vol 2 (3) ◽  
Author(s):  
David Berlinski ◽  
Juan Uriagereka
Keyword(s):  
Universal Grammar ◽  
Noam Chomsky ◽  
Principles And Parameters

Jean-Roger Vergnaud’s famous 1977 letter to Noam Chomsky and Howard Lasnik assumed that case is obligatory. As Juan Uriagereka and David Berlinski argue, Vergnaud’s case filter was a vindication of the principles and parameters approach to language. Case is an aspect of Universal Grammar itself.

UG or not UG, that is the question: a reply to Clahsen and Muysken

1987 ◽  
Vol 3 (1) ◽  
pp. 56-75 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jean duPlessis ◽  
Doreen Solin ◽  
Lisa Travis ◽  
Lydia White
Keyword(s):  
Adult Learners ◽  
Learning Strategies ◽  
Word Order ◽  
Ad Hoc ◽  
Additional Data ◽  
Universal Grammar ◽  
L2 Acquisition ◽  
Natural Languages ◽  
German Word ◽  
Germanic Languages

In a recent paper, Clahsen and Muysken (1986) argue that adult second lan guage (L2) learners no longer have access to Universal Grammar (UG) and acquire the L2 by means of learning strategies and ad hoc rules. They use evidence from adult L2 acquisition of German word order to argue that the rules that adults use are not natural language rules. In this paper, we argue that this is not the case. We explain properties of Germanic word order in terms of three parameters (to do with head position, proper government and adjunc tion). We reanalyse Clahsen and Muysken's data in terms of these parameters and show that the stages that adult learners go through, the errors that they make and the rules that they adopt are perfectly consistent with a UG incor porating such parameters. We suggest that errors are the result of some of the parameters being set inappropriately for German. The settings chosen are nevertheless those of existing natural languages. We also discuss additional data, from our own research on the acquisition of German and Afrikaans, which support our analysis of adult L2 acquisition of Germanic languages.

Topic-drop versus pro-drop: null subjects and pronominal subjects in the Spanish L2 of Chinese, English, French, German and Japanese speakers

1999 ◽  
Vol 15 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-40 ◽  
Author(s):  
Juana M. Liceras ◽  
Lourdes Díaz
Keyword(s):  
Second Language Learners ◽  
Universal Grammar ◽  
Null Subjects ◽  
L2 Acquisition ◽  
Subject Pronouns ◽  
Clear Cut ◽  
Subordinate Clauses ◽  
Recent Developments ◽  
Null Subject Parameter ◽  
Early English

Recent developments within the so-called Principles and Parameters model of acquisition argue for a clear-cut separation of Universal Grammar (UG) principles from parametric options and locate all parameters within functional categories (Borer, 1984; Lebeaux, 1988; Chomsky, 1991). This has led Tsimpli and Roussou (1991) to propose that adult L2 (second language) learners have access to UG principles but do not reset the parameters of the L2, which amounts to saying that null subjects in the adult Spanish L2 may or may not have the same status as native Spanish null subjects, depending on the speakers’ L1 (first language) and the UG principles at stake. In the case of L1 acquisition, Rizzi (1994) and Hyams (1994) provide a competence account of null subjects in early child English which relate them to adult English Diary Drop and German-style topic-drop rather than to Spanish-style pro-drop. They specifically argue that these missing subjects are restricted to the first position of non- wh root clauses and that fixing the null subject parameter will consist of incorporating the ROOT=CP principle into this grammar. In this paper, we analyse the Spanish L2 oral spontaneous data produced by adult L1 speakers of pro-drop and topic-drop languages in an attempt to provide a competence account of null subjects in adult nonnative Spanish. Our data show that, unlike early English grammars, all the Spanish non-native grammars contain null subjects both in matrix and subordinate clauses, and that this is the case at the early and advanced stages. It also shows that many non-native pronominal subjects do not have the same value as native Spanish subjects and that subject pronouns are used for identification purposes. It is suggested that these data provide evidence for a model of L2 acquisition where adult non-native grammar construction resorts to a default licensing procedure which allows null pronouns provided they can be identified.

Positive Evidence and Preemption in the Second Language Classroom

1993 ◽  
Vol 15 (2) ◽  
pp. 181-204 ◽  
Author(s):  
Martha Trahey ◽  
Lydia White
Keyword(s):  
Second Language ◽  
Universal Grammar ◽  
First Language ◽  
Negative Evidence ◽  
Parameter Setting ◽  
L2 Acquisition ◽  
Verb Movement ◽  
Language Programs ◽  
Positive Evidence ◽  
Language Classroom

In this paper we show that supplying positive evidence in the second language (L2) classroom does not necessarily trigger the appropriate L2 value of a parameter of Universal Grammar. The parameter we investigate is the verb movement parameter of Pollock (1989), which accounts for the fact that English and French adverbs differ as to where they occur in relation to the verb: In French the verb raises past the adverb, allowing the order SVAO but not SAV, whereas in English the verb does not raise, allowing SAV but not SVAO. Fifty-four francophone children (aged 11) in intensive English-as-a-second-language programs in Quebec, Canada, were exposed to a 2-week input flood of specially prepared materials containing English adverbs used naturalistically. No form-focused instruction or negative evidence on adverb placement was provided. Subjects were pretested immediately prior to the input flood, posttested immediately afterward, and again 3 weeks later, on four different tasks. On all tasks there is a change between pretest and posttest behavior, namely, a dramatic increase in use of the English SAV order but little or no decline in incorrect usage of SVAO. Results are also compared to groups reported in White (1991a, 1991b); the subjects in the present study differ from both groups in the previous studies. The results of the present study suggest that positive evidence does not serve to preempt the first language parameter setting in this case; acquiring the correct English SAV order did not lead to loss of incorrect SVAO. Implications of this result for theories of preemption and parameter setting in L2 acquisition are discussed.

The L2 Basic Variety as an I-language

1997 ◽  
Vol 13 (4) ◽  
pp. 374-385 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jürgen M. Meisel
Keyword(s):  
Second Language Acquisition ◽  
Cognitive Processes ◽  
Universal Grammar ◽  
Inflectional Morphology ◽  
Functional Categories ◽  
L2 Acquisition ◽  
Language Faculty ◽  
Essential Properties ◽  
Language Capacity

The Basic Variety, as defined by Klein and Perdue (this volume), is understood as an instantiation of the essential properties of the human language capacity, and although, as the ‘initial fossilization point’ of adult second language acquisition, it lacks crucial features of fully fledged languages, the claim is that the BV is a natural language in the sense that it is constrained by principles of Universal Grammar (UG). In this discussion I raise a few points which may cast some doubt on the claim that the BV is an I-language. At the core of this debate, as far as (morpho)syntactic issues are concerned, one finds the problem of determining the role of functional categories in BV grammar. Crucially, in L2 acquisition in general and in the BV in particular, one does not find the same kind of developmental relation between the acquisition of overt inflectional morphology and word order patterns as is evidenced in L1 development. I conclude that neither UG nor the universal component of the language faculty, as envisaged by Klein and Perdue, can account adequately for the essential properties of L2 interlanguages, including the BV. One important reason is that, rather than relying on structure-dependent operations, as in L1 development, L2 learners resort to strategies referring to sequential ordering of surface strings. If this is correct, L2 varieties are a mix of both UG-constrained and non-grammatical cognitive processes.

The acquisition of word order in Dutch and German as L1 and L2

1988 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
pp. 41-65 ◽  
Author(s):  
Peter Jordens
Keyword(s):  
Simple Model ◽  
Adult Learners ◽  
Word Order ◽  
Universal Grammar ◽  
First Language ◽  
Linguistic Theory ◽  
L2 Acquisition ◽  
German Word ◽  
L2 Learners ◽  
L1 And L2

In a recent paper, Clahsen and Muysken (1986) argue that children acquiring German as their first language have access to the 'move alpha' matrix when constructing a grammar for German. This should explain why children have SOV base order and the rule of verb-fronting from the very beginning. In this paper, it is argued that children's OV utterances cannot be related trans formationally to VO utterances. Initially, children acquire OV and VO with different sets of verbs.Clahsen and Muysken (1986) also claim that interlanguage rules of adult L2 learners are not definable in linguistic theory. Du Plessis et al. (1987) reply to this in arguing that the interlanguage rules of adults acquiring L2 German word order fall within the range of systems permitted by the Headedness parameter, the Proper Government parameter, and the Adjunction parameter. Therefore, these adult learners should have access to Universal Grammar (UG). It is argued here that it is not necessary to make this assumption. The L2-acquisition data can be easily accounted for within a simple model of L1-structural transfer.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document