The Comparative Study of First and Second Language Development

1990 ◽  
Vol 12 (2) ◽  
pp. 135-153 ◽  
Author(s):  
Harald Clahsen
Keyword(s):  
Second Language ◽  
Universal Grammar ◽  
First Language ◽  
L2 Acquisition ◽  
Second Language Development ◽  
L2 Development ◽  
The Comparative Study ◽  
L1 And L2 ◽  
Relationship Of ◽  
The Relationship

This article discusses the relationship of first language (L1) and second language (L2) acquisition. First, different approaches to comparing L1 and L2 development are summarized. Then, I argue for a particular version of the fundamental difference hypothesis. Finally, I illustrate the hypothesis with some evidence from the acquisition of German syntax. It is claimed that the Universal Grammar (UG) approach provides a theoretical framework to explain differences between L1 and (adult) L2 development. In particular I argue that the observed L1/L2 differences can be accounted for by assuming that adult L2 learners cannot use principles of UG as a learning device in the same way as L1 learners use them.

The acquisition of the syntax of negation in French and German: contrasting first and second language development

1997 ◽  
Vol 13 (3) ◽  
pp. 227-263 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jürgen M. Meisel
Keyword(s):  
Second Language ◽  
Universal Grammar ◽  
Linguistic Knowledge ◽  
L2 Acquisition ◽  
Second Languages ◽  
Second Language Development ◽  
L1 Data ◽  
L2 Learners ◽  
L2 Development ◽  
L1 And L2

The acquisition of negation is perhaps the best-studied syntactic phenomenon in early interlanguage research,and many of these publications concluded that first (L1) and second language (L2) development had much more in common than had previously been assumed. In the present paper, the problem of whether the same underlying principles and mechanisms guide L1 and L2 acquisition will be re-examined from the perspective of more recent grammatical theory. The empirical basis consists of longitudinal case-studies of the acquisition of French and German as first and second languages. The L2 learners' first language is Spanish. In L1 data one finds a rapid, uniform and almost error-free course of development across languages exhibiting quite different morphosyntactic means of expressing negation. This is explained in terms of Parameter Theory, primarily referring to functional categories determining the placement of finite verbal elements. L2 acquisition, on the other hand, is characterized by considerable variability, not only crosslinguistically, but also across learners and even within individuals. This can be accounted for by assuming different strategies of language use. More importantly, different kinds of linguistic knowledge are drawn upon in L1 as opposed to L2. It is claimed that adult L2 learners, rather than using structure-dependent operations constrained by Universal Grammar (UG), rely primarily on linear sequencing strategies which apply to surface strings.

scholarly journals Investigating the acquisition of the Split-IP parameter and the V2 parameter in second language Afrikaans

2006 ◽  
Vol 22 (1) ◽  
pp. 64-94 ◽  
Author(s):  
Simone Conradie
Keyword(s):  
Second Language ◽  
English Learners ◽  
Universal Grammar ◽  
First Language ◽  
L2 Acquisition ◽  
L2 Learners ◽  
English Speaking ◽  
Parameter Resetting ◽  
L1 And L2 ◽  
Parameter Values

Researchers who assume that Universal Grammar (UG) plays a role in second language (L2) acquisition are still debating whether L2 learners have access to UG in its entirety (the Full Access hypothesis; e.g. Schwartz and Sprouse, 1994; 1996; White, 1989; 2003) or only to those aspects of UG that are instantiated in their first language (L1) grammar (the No Parameter Resetting hypothesis; e.g. Hawkins and Chan, 1997). The Full Access hypothesis predicts that parameter resetting will be possible where the L1 and L2 differ in parameter values, whereas the No Parameter Resetting hypothesis predicts that parameter resetting will not be possible. These hypotheses are tested in a study examining whether English-speaking learners of Afrikaans can reset the Split-IP parameter (SIP) (Thráinsson, 1996) and the V2 parameter from their L1 ([-SIP], [-V2]) to their L2 ([+SIP], [+V2]) values. 15 advanced English learners of Afrikaans and 10 native speakers of Afrikaans completed three tasks: a sentence manipulation task, a grammaticality judgement task and a truth-value judgement task. Results suggest that the interlanguage grammars of the L2 learners are [+SIP] and [+V2] (unlike the L1), providing evidence for the Full Access hypothesis.

Grammatical theory and L2 acquisition: a brief overview

1986 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-15 ◽  
Author(s):  
William Rutherford
Keyword(s):  
Second Language ◽  
Language Acquisition ◽  
Universal Grammar ◽  
First Language ◽  
First Language Acquisition ◽  
Parameter Setting ◽  
L2 Acquisition ◽  
Theoretical Approaches ◽  
Language Research ◽  
The Relationship

This paper reviews studies reported in the literature over the last few years having to do with grammatical acquisition and particular theoretical approaches aimed at explaining this aspect of second language research. Various attempts to involve the parameter-setting model of Universal Grammar are contrasted with other approaches invoking the Greenbergian tradition of research on universals. The issues discussed include, amongst other things, the need to explain fossilization and the nature of the relationship between second and first language acquisition.

The UG paradox in L2 acquisition

1989 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-29 ◽  
Author(s):  
Harald Clahsen ◽  
Pieter Muysken
Keyword(s):  
Second Language ◽  
Word Order ◽  
Universal Grammar ◽  
First Language ◽  
Target Language ◽  
L2 Acquisition ◽  
L2 Learners ◽  
L1 And L2

There is a considerable amount of recent evidence that stable principles of Universal Grammar (UG) are available to adult second language (L2) learners in structuring their intuitions about the target language grammar. In contrast, however, there is also evidence from the acquisition of word order, agreement and negation in German that there are substantial differences between first language (L1) and L2 learners. In our view, these differences are due to UG principles guiding L1, but not L2 acquisition. We will show that alternative ways of accounting for the L1/L2 differences are not successful. Finally we will deal with the question of how our view can be reconciled with the idea that L2 learners can use UG principles to some extent in the evaluation of target sentences.

Case morphology and word order in second language Turkish: Evidence from Greek learners

2011 ◽  
Vol 27 (2) ◽  
pp. 173-204 ◽  
Author(s):  
Despina Papadopoulou ◽  
Spyridoula Varlokosta ◽  
Vassilios Spyropoulos ◽  
Hasan Kaili ◽  
Sophia Prokou ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Second Language ◽  
Word Order ◽  
Second Language Learners ◽  
First Language ◽  
Matching Task ◽  
L2 Acquisition ◽  
Case Morphology ◽  
L2 Development ◽  
Order Constraints ◽  
On Line

The optional use of morphology attested in second language learners has been attributed either to a representational deficit or to a ‘surface’ problem with respect to the realization of inflectional affixes. In this article we contribute to this issue by providing empirical data from the early interlanguage of Greek learners of Turkish. Three experiments have been conducted, a cloze task, a sentence picture matching task and an on-line grammaticality judgement task, in order to investigate case morphology and its interaction with word order constraints. The findings of all three experiments point towards a variable use of case morphology, which is also observed in previous studies of Turkish as a second language (L2). Moreover, they show clearly that the learners face difficulties with non-canonical word orders as well as with the interaction of word order constraints and Case. On the other hand, the learners performed well on verbal inflections. On the basis of these findings, we argue that the developmental patterns in the early stages of L2 acquisition cannot be attributed to a global lack of functional categories but rather to more localized difficulties, which seem to be related to (a) whether the features in the L2 are grammaticalized in the first language and (b) the way these features are encoded in the morphosyntax of the first language. Moreover, we claim that processing factors and the specific properties of the morphological paradigms affect L2 development.

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.

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 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.

De Relatie Tussen Cognitieve Taakcomplexiteit En Linguïstische Performance Bij Het Schrijven In T1 En T2

2004 ◽  
Vol 72 ◽  
pp. 23-32 ◽  
Author(s):  
Folkert Kuiken ◽  
Ineke Vedder
Keyword(s):  
Second Language ◽  
University Students ◽  
Cognitive Complexity ◽  
Task Complexity ◽  
Cognitive Task ◽  
Linguistic Performance ◽  
L2 Development ◽  
L1 And L2 Writing ◽  
L1 And L2 ◽  
The Relationship

According to Robinson's Cognition Hypothesis of task-based L2 development, cognitively more demanding tasks will lead to the use of lexically and syntactically more complex language (Robinson 2001a, 2001b, in press). A different viewpoint is held by Skehan (1998) and Skehan & Foster (1999, 2001), who hypothesize that the more attention is required for a task because of its cognitive complexity, the less complex will be the linguistic output. The present research focuses on the relationship between taskcomplexity and linguistic performance in L1 and L2 writing. We report on an experiment carried out among 51 Dutch university students of Italian as a second language. The test included two writing tasks, in which cognitive task complexity was manipulated by varying the number of elements to be described and the required reasoning demands. Pre-existing knowledge of Italian was established by means of a pre-test. In the article, the results and theoretical and pedagogical implications of the study are discussed.

scholarly journals When timing is everything: Age of first-language acquisition effects on second-language learning

2007 ◽  
Vol 28 (3) ◽  
pp. 537-549 ◽  
Author(s):  
RACHEL I. MAYBERRY
Keyword(s):  
Second Language ◽  
Language Learning ◽  
First Language ◽  
L2 Acquisition ◽  
Linguistic Structure ◽  
Specific Effects ◽  
Sensory Motor ◽  
L1 Acquisition ◽  
L1 And L2 ◽  
Motor Modality

The present paper summarizes three experiments that investigate the effects of age of acquisition on first-language (L1) acquisition in relation to second-language (L2) outcome. The experiments use the unique acquisition situations of childhood deafness and sign language. The key factors controlled across the studies are age of L1 acquisition, the sensory–motor modality of the language, and level of linguistic structure. Findings consistent across the studies show age of L1 acquisition to be a determining factor in the success of both L1 and L2 acquisition. Sensory–motor modality shows no general or specific effects. It is of importance that the effects of age of L1 acquisition on both L1 and L2 outcome are apparent across levels of linguistic structure, namely, syntax, phonology, and the lexicon. The results demonstrate that L1 acquisition bestows not only facility with the linguistic structure of the L1, but also the ability to learn linguistic structure in the L2.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document