Universal Grammar in child Second Language Acquisition: Null subjects and morphological uniformity. Usha Lakshmanan. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 1994. Pp. 162. $35.00 cloth.

1996 ◽  
Vol 18 (3) ◽  
pp. 373-374
Author(s):  
Susan Foster-Cohen
2011 ◽  
Vol 11 ◽  
pp. 165-190 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tiffany Judy

Assuming transfer of the L1 grammar, in the present study the question of whether all parameters can be reset even with access to UG is examined in light of the subset/superset relationship. Specifically, the resetting of the Null Subject Parameter (NSP) in L2 learners of English (L1 Spanish) is investigated by means of examining the application of the Overt Pronoun Constraint (Montalbetti 1984), a property that clusters with the null subject setting only, as well as acceptance/rejection of null subjects in English. Since English does not syntactically license empty subjects, but Spanish does, the two languages are in a subset/superset relationship such that Spanish is the superset grammar. Therefore, the results stand to shed light on the validity of the Subset Principle (Berwick 1982; Manzini and Wexler 1987; Wexler and Manzini 1987) and its learnability constraints applied to second language acquisition (SLA) where transfer might impede convergence on the narrow syntactic property despite full access to Universal Grammar.


1998 ◽  
Vol 21 (4) ◽  
pp. 611-612
Author(s):  
Julia Herschensohn

Differences of opinion between Epstein, Flynn & Martohardjono (1996) and some commentators can be traced to different interpretations of Universal Grammar (UG) form or strategy. Potential full access to the form of linguistic universals in second language acquisition may be distinguished from access to UG strategy, but Epstein et al.'s dismissal of the Critical Age Hypothesis clouds their central argument.


2004 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
pp. 35-36 ◽  
Author(s):  
BRIAN MACWHINNEY

Truscott and Sharwood Smith (henceforth T&SS) attempt to show how second language acquisition can occur without any learning. In their APT model, change depends only on the tuning of innate principles through the normal course of processing of L2. There are some features of their model that I find attractive. Specifically, their acceptance of the concepts of competition and activation strength brings them in line with standard processing accounts like the Competition Model (Bates and MacWhinney, 1982; MacWhinney, 1987, in press). At the same time, their reliance on parameters as the core constructs guiding learning leaves this model squarely within the framework of Chomsky's theory of Principles and Parameters (P&P). As such, it stipulates that the specific functional categories of Universal Grammar serve as the fundamental guide to both first and second language acquisition. Like other accounts in the P&P framework, this model attempts to view second language acquisition as involving no real learning beyond the deductive process of parameter-setting based on the detection of certain triggers. The specific innovation of the APT model is that changes in activation strength during processing function as the trigger to the setting of parameters. Unlike other P&P models, APT does not set parameters in an absolute fashion, allowing their activation weight to change by the processing of new input over time. The use of the concept of activation in APT is far more restricted than its use in connectionist models that allow for Hebbian learning, self-organizing features maps, or back-propagation.


1985 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 18-46 ◽  
Author(s):  
Paul van Buren ◽  
Michael Sharwood Smith

This paper discusses the application of Government Binding Theory to second language acquisition in the context of a project which is looking into the acquisition of preposition stranding in English and Dutch. The bulk of the discussion focuses on the theoretical problems involved. Firstly, the potential value of Government Binding Theory in principle is considered both in terms of the formulation of linguistic questions per se and also in terms of more specifically acquisitional questions having to do with the speed and order of acquisition. Secondly, some results in the pilot studies conducted so far in Utrecht are examined with respect to the theoretical usefulness of the framework adopted. The potential of the framework to generate sophisticated linguistic research questions is found to be undeniable. The acquisitional aspects need to be elaborated and adapted to cope with the special features of second, as opposed to first, language acquisition. This involves an elaboration of scenarios to be investigated: one in which the learner's initial assumption is that the unmarked setting of a given parameter of Universal Grammar holds for the target system, one in which the settings of parameters shared by the target and native systems are assumed to be identical, the second being a 'cross linguistic' scenario. These possibilities are considered in the light of the nature of evidence derived from the input and in the light of a set of possible learning strategies derived from the scenarios. The scenarios, the types of evidence and the strategies are spelled out in terms of the specific problem of preposition stranding in Universal Grammar, in Dutch and in English.


2004 ◽  
Vol 28 (3) ◽  
pp. 682-703 ◽  
Author(s):  
Fred Eckman

This paper considers the question of explanation in second language acquisition within the context of two approaches to universals, Universal Grammar and language typology. After briefly discussing the logic of explaining facts by including them under general laws (Hempel & Oppenheim 1948), the paper makes a case for the typological approach to explanation being the more fruitful, in that it allows more readily for the possibility of ‘explanatory ascent’, the ability to propose more general, higher order explanations by having lower-level generalizations follow from more general principles. The UG approach, on the other hand is less capable of such explanatory ascent because of the postulation that the innate, domain-specific principles of UG are not reducible in any interesting way to higher order principles of cognition (Chomsky 1982).


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document