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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Developmental dynamics in L1 and L2 acquisition: Processability Theory and generative entrenchment

1998 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-20 ◽  
Author(s):  
MANFRED PIENEMANN
Keyword(s):  
Second Language ◽  
Second Language Acquisition ◽  
Language Processing ◽  
Universal Grammar ◽  
Mathematical Concept ◽  
Structural Features ◽  
L2 Acquisition ◽  
Generative Entrenchment ◽  
Processability Theory ◽  
L1 And L2

This paper has two major objectives: (1) to summarise Processability Theory, a processing-oriented approach to explaining language development and (2) to utilise this theory in the comparison of development in LI and L2 acquisition. Proponents of the Fundamental Difference Hypothesis (between L1 and L2) assume that L1 development can be explained with reference to Universal Grammar (UG) which, in their view, is inaccessible to L2 learners. Instead, they claim that a second language develops on the basis of language processing strategies.I will show that the fundamentally different developmental paths inherent in first and second language acquisition can both be explained on the basis of the same language processing mechanics (as specified in Processability Theory). I will demonstrate that the developmental differences between L1 and L2 are caused by the qualitatively different early structural hypotheses which propagate through the acquisition process. The concept of “propagation of structural features” will be viewed as “generative entrenchment,” a logical-mathematical concept, which has proved to be highly productive in examining other kinds of developmental processes.

scholarly journals ENGLISH ARTICLE CHOICES BY VIETNAMESE EFL LEARNERS

2018 ◽  
Vol 34 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Nguyen Thi Quyen
Keyword(s):  
Second Language ◽  
Empirical Research ◽  
Universal Grammar ◽  
Semantic Features ◽  
Efl Learners ◽  
Target Article ◽  
L2 Learners ◽  
Article System ◽  
L1 And L2

This paper investigates the choice of articles by L1 (frst language) Vietnamese learners of L2 (second language) English under the framework proposed by Ionin, Ko and Wexler (2004). According to their Fluctuation Hypothesis and Article Choice Parameter, L2 learners of English whose L1 does not have articles have direct, universal grammar-mediated access to universal semantic features of the article system, i.e. defniteness and specifcity. The dual article system of English encodes defniteness, which leads L2 learners whose L1 lacks a proper article system to fluctuate between the two values of the Article Choice Parameter, that is, defniteness and specifcity. Although empirical research has been done to examine the acquisition of article system by both L1 and L2 learners as well as to validate the hypothesis, the results obtained from the research appear to be inconclusive, laying a fruitful area for further investigation. The current research was carried out with the aim to enrich L2 data with respect to the article acquisition domain and, more importantly, to examine Ionin et al.’s (2004) conclusions regarding the effect of specifcity on the choice of article. The study was also motivated by the scarcity of research looking at how Vietnamese learners of L2 English acquire the target article system.

L2 acquisition of English synthetic compounding is not constrained by level-ordering (and neither, probably, is L1 )

1995 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
pp. 20-56 ◽  
Author(s):  
Donna Lardiere
Keyword(s):  
Universal Grammar ◽  
L2 Acquisition ◽  
Specific Nature ◽  
Chinese Speakers ◽  
Alternative Approach ◽  
L2 Learners ◽  
L1 Influence ◽  
Native Chinese Speakers ◽  
L1 And L2

This article investigates the acquisition of English synthetic compounding by native Spanish and native Chinese speakers. Data are presented which con tradict the claim by Gordon (1985), Clahsen (1991) and Clahsen et al. (1992) that morphological level-ordering is universally, innately available to lan guage learners to guide their acquisition of compounding constraints. Empirical arguments are given which show that compounding, at least, can not be universally subject to the particular inflectional constraints - namely, a restriction on plurals in compounds - imposed by the level-ordering mod els cited in the above acquisition studies. I also present additional experi mental results which demonstrate that L2 learners of English freely violate this restriction, and that such violations reflect particular L1 influence. I suggest an alternative approach to analysing the role of Universal Grammar in the acquisition of compounding which better accounts for both the L1 and L2 English data, by considering 1) the interaction of syntactic principles with lexical derivation; 2) the parametric differences between the L1 and L2; and 3) the language-specific nature of morphological affixation.

The emergence of speech segmentation in adult L2 learners of French

2019 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
pp. 22-44 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ellenor M. Shoemaker ◽  
Sophie Wauquier
Keyword(s):  
Second Language ◽  
Speech Segmentation ◽  
Classroom Setting ◽  
Phonological Development ◽  
Phonological Acquisition ◽  
L2 Acquisition ◽  
Phonological Learning ◽  
Orthographic Representations ◽  
L2 Learners ◽  
L1 And L2

AbstractThe beginning stages of speech segmentation in a second language (L2) have received little attention to date. The literature on L2 phonological acquisition tends to focus on learner populations who have access to discrete (orthographic) forms through exposure to the L2 in a classroom setting. Specifically, the existing literature on L2 acquisition of French liaison holds that the processing of liaison is greatly influenced by orthographic representations and that L1 and L2 phonological learning subsequently follow distinctly different developmental paths. We present data suggesting that more naturalistic L2 learners, who have had little formal L2 instruction and whose exposure is primarily oral, process liaison employing strategies previously observed only in children learning L1 French, calling into question the assumption that L1 and L2 phonological acquisition differ fundamentally and suggesting rather that phonological development depends on both the quality and quantity of the input to which the L2 learner is exposed.

Child Second Language Acquisition of Syntax

1995 ◽  
Vol 17 (3) ◽  
pp. 301-329 ◽  
Author(s):  
Usha Lakshmanan
Keyword(s):  
Second Language ◽  
Second Language Acquisition ◽  
Language Acquisition ◽  
Universal Grammar ◽  
Linguistic Theory ◽  
Direct Access ◽  
L2 Acquisition ◽  
Syntactic Theory ◽  
L2 Learners

Recent advances in linguistic theory within the principles and parameters framework have exerted considerable influence on the field of second language acquisition. SLA researchers working within this framework of syntactic theory have investigated the extent to which developing second language grammars are constrained by principles of Universal Grammar (UG). Much of the UG-based SLA research in the 1980s focused on adult L2 acquisition, but the role of UG principles in child L2 acquisition remained largely unexplored. More recently, however, this state of affairs has begun to change as SLA researchers are becoming more and more interested in child second language syntactic development. In this paper, I review recent and current developments in UG-based child SLA research, and I argue that child SLA has a valuable role to play in enabling us to arrive at a better understanding of the role of biological factors in language acquisition and in strengthening the links between SLA and linguistic theory. Specifically, I discuss the findings of child SLA studies with respect to the following issues: the role of UG parameters in child SLA, the status of functional categories and their projections in child SLA, and the nature of the evidence available to and used by child L2 learners. The overall picture emerging from these studies suggests that child L2 developing grammars are indeed constrained by Universal Grammar. While it is not fully clear at the present time whether the child L2 learners& knowledge is a result of direct access to UG or indirect access to UG (i.e., through the mediation of the L1), the evidence indicates that L1 transfer (at least in certain syntactic domains) cannot be entirely ruled out.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document