Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-vdxz6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T04:38:26.113Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Generative Research on Second Language Acquisition

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 November 2008

Lynn Eubank
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

A defining moment in the history of generative research on language acquisition was the advent of the Principles and Parameters (P&P) approach (Chomsky 1981). Generative research on second-language (L2) acquisition was no different in this regard, but there was a distinct twist: The L2 research agenda has also often been informed by the possibility that the L2 learner may not have “access” to the innate linguistic endowment described by Chomsky and others (Bley-Vroman 1990, Clahsen and Muysken 1986). It was thus perhaps inevitable that one might find a volume like Point Counterpoint (Eubank 1991), in which researchers with generally opposing viewpoints addressed this possibility. However, while the issue will likely be examined again in future volumes, an appraisal of more recent L2 research suggests that the “access” question no longer dominates the L2 research agenda. Instead, more recent work suggests an agenda in which “access” to UG is presupposed. The purpose of this review is thus not only to review research on the L2 “access” thesis from the 1980s and 1990s, but, more importantly, to provide an overview of more recent L2 research that is not fundamentally constrained by this issue.

Type
Language Acquisition and Attrition
Information
Annual Review of Applied Linguistics , Volume 15 , March 1995 , pp. 92 - 107
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1995

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY

Cook, V. 1993. Linguistics and second language acquisition. New York: St. Martin's Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eubank, L. (ed.) 1991. Point counterpoint. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flynn, S. and O'Neil, W. (eds.) 1988. Linguistic theory in second language acquisition. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoekstra, T. and Schwartz, B. (eds.) 1994. Language acquisition studies in generative grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
White, L. 1989. Universal Grammar and second language acquisition. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

UNANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY

Bennett, S. 1994. Interpretation of English reflexives by adolescent speakers of Serbo-Croatian. Second Language Research. 10.125–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bley-Vroman, R. 1990. The logical problem of foreign language learning. Linguistic Analysis. 20.3–49.Google Scholar
Bley-Vroman, R., Felix, S. and Ioup, G.. 1988. The accessibility of Universal Grammar in adult language learning. Second Language Research. 4.1–32.Google Scholar
Broselow, E. and Finer, D.. 1991. Parameter setting in second language phonology and syntax. Second Language Research. 7.35–59.Google Scholar
Carroll, S. and Swain, M.. 1993. Explicit and implicit negative feedback: An empirical study of the learning of linguistic generalizations. Studies in Second Language Acquisition. 15.357–386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, N. 1981. Lectures on government and binding. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. 1986. Knowledge of language. New York: Praeger.Google Scholar
Clahsen, H. 1984. The acquisition of German word order: A test case for cognitive approaches to L2 development. In Andersen, R. (ed.) Second languages: A crosslinguistic perspective. Rowley, MA: Newbury House. 219–242.Google Scholar
Clahsen, H. 1988. Parameterized grammatical theory and language acquisition: A study of the acquisition of verb placement and inflection by children and adults. In Flynn, S. and O'Neil, W. (eds.) Linguistic theory in second language acquisition. Dordrecht: Kluwer. 47–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clahsen, H. 1989. The UG paradox in L2 acquisition. Second Language Research. 5.1–29.Google Scholar
Clahsen, H. 1991. Constraints on parameter setting: A grammatical analysis of some acquisition stages in German child language. Language Acquisition. 1.361–391.Google Scholar
Clahsen, H. and Muysken, P.. 1986. The availability of universal grammar to adult and child learners–A study of the acquisition of German word order. Second Language Research. 2.93–119.Google Scholar
Cole, P. and Sung, L.-M.. 1994. Head movement and long-distance reflexives. Linguistic Inquiry. 25.355–406.Google Scholar
Cook, V. 1990. Timed comprehension of binding in advanced L2 learners of English. Language Learning. 40.557–599.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
duPlessis, J., Solin, D., Travis, L. and White, L.. 1987. UG or not UG, that is the question: A reply to Clahsen and Muysken. Second Language Research. 3.56–75.Google Scholar
Eubank, L. 1992. Verb movement, agreement and tense in L2 acquisition. In Meisel, J. (ed.) The acquisition of verb placement: Functional categories and V2 phenomena in language acquisition. Dordrecht: Kluwer. 225–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eubank, L. 1994a. Optionality and the initial state in L2 development. In Hoekstra, T. and Schwartz, B. (eds.) Language acquisition studies in generative grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 369–388.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eubank, L. 1994b. Sentence matching and processing in L2 development. Second Language Research. 9.253–280.Google Scholar
Eubank, L. 1994c. Towards an explanation for the late acquisition of agreement in L2 English. Second Language Research. 10.84–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eubank, L. In press. On the transfer of parametric values in L2 development. Language Acquisition.Google Scholar
Eubank, L. and Beck, M.. 1993. Generative research on second-language acquisition. In Hadley, A. Omaggio (ed.) Research in language learning. Lincolnwood, IL: National Textbook Company. 24–46.Google Scholar
Eubank, L. and Gregg, K.. In press. “Et in amygdala ego”?: UG, (S)LA, and neurobiology. Studies in Second Language Acquisition. 17.1.Google Scholar
Felix, S. 1988. UG-generated knowledge in adult second language acquisition. In Flynn, S. and O'Neil, W. (eds.) Linguistic theory in second language acquisition. Dordrecht: Kluwer. 277–294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Finer, D. and Broselow, E.. 1986. Second language acquisition of reflexive binding. Proceedings of the Sixteenth Annual Meeting of the North Eastern Linguistic Society. 154–168.Google Scholar
Flynn, S. 1989. The role of the head-initial/head-final parameter in the acquisition of English relative clauses by adult Spanish and Japanese speakers. In Gass, S. and Schachter, J. (eds.) Linguistic perspectives on second language acquisition. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. 89–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grondin, N. and White, L.. 1993. Functional categories in child L2 acquisition. Montreal: McGill University. Unpublished ms.Google Scholar
Johnson, J. and Newport, E.. 1989. Critical period effects in second language learning. Cognitive Psychology. 21.60–99.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lakshmanan, U. 1994. “The boy for the cookie”–Some evidence for the nonviolation of the Case Filter in child second language acquisition. Language Acquisition. 3.55–91.Google Scholar
Müller, N. 1994. Against parameter resetting in second language acquisition: Evidence from an Italian L2 learner acquiring German. University of Hamburg. Unpublished ms.Google Scholar
Pinker, S. 1994. The language instinct. New York: William Morrow and Company.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Poeppel, D. and Wexler, K.. 1993. The full competence hypothesis of clause structure in early German. Language. 69.1–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Progovac, L. 1993. Long-distance reflexives: Movement-to-Infl versus relativized SUBJECT. Linguistic Inquiry. 24.755–772.Google Scholar
Progovac, L. and Connell, P.. 1991. Long-distance reflexives, Agr-SUBJECTS, and acquisition. Wayne State University and Indiana University. Unpublished ms.Google Scholar
Radford, A. 1990. Syntactic theory and the acquisition of English syntax. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Schachter, J. 1989. Testing a proposed universal. In Gass, S. and Schachter, J. (eds.) Linguistic perspectives on second language acquisition. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. 73–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schachter, J. In press. Maturation and the issue of Universal Grammar in L2 acquisition. In Ritchie, W. and Bhatia, T. K. (eds.) Handbook of language acquisition. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Schwartz, B. 1990. Un-motivating the motivation for the Fundamental Difference Hypothesis. In Burmeister, H. and Rounds, P. (eds.) Variability in second language acquisition: Proceedings of the tenth meeting of the second language research forum, Volume 2. Eugene, OR: University of Oregon. 667–684.Google Scholar
Schwartz, B. 1993a. An alternative account of apparent inaccessibility to UG in L2A. Newcastle and Durham Working Papers in Linguistics. 1.240–250.Google Scholar
Schwartz, B. 1993b. On explicit and negative data effecting and affecting competence and linguistic behavior. Studies in Second Language Acquisition. 15.147–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schwartz, B. and Gubala-Ryzak, M.. 1992. Learnability and grammar reorganization in L2A: Against negative evidence causing the unlearning of verb movement. Second Language Research. 8.1–38.Google Scholar
Schwartz, B. and Sprouse, R.. 1994. Word order and nominative case in non-native language acquisition. In Hoekstra, T. and Schwartz, B. (eds.) Language acquisition studies in generative grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 317–368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thomas, M. 1989. The interpretation of English reflexive pronouns by non-native speakers. Studies in Second Language Acquisition. 11.281–303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thomas, M. 1993. Knowledge of reflexives in a second language. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thomas, M. In press. Acquisition of Japanese zibun and movement of anaphors in Logical Form. Second Language Research. 11.1.Google Scholar
Tomaselli, A. and Schwartz, B.. 1990. Analysing the acquisition stages of negation in L2 German. Second Language Research. 6.1–38.Google Scholar
Tsimpli, I.-M. and Roussou, A.. 1990. Parameter resetting in L2. UCL Working Papers in Linguistics. 2.149–189.Google Scholar
Vainikka, A. In press. Case in the development of English syntax. Language Acquisition. 3.3.Google Scholar
Vainikka, A. and Young-Scholten, M.. 1994a. Direct access to X'-theory. In Hoekstra, T. and Schwartz, B. (eds.) Language acquisition studies in generative grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 265–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vainikka, A. and Young-Scholten, M.. 1994b. The early stages in adult L2 syntax: Additional evidence from Romance speakers. University of Pennsylvania and University of Durham. Unpublished ms.Google Scholar
Wexler, K. 1992. Optional infinitives, head movement, and the economy of derivations in child grammar. Department of Brain and Cognitive Sciences and Department of Linguistics and Philosophy, MIT. [Center for Cognitive Sciences, Occasional Paper #45.]Google Scholar
Wexler, K. and Manzini, R.. 1987. Parameters and learnability in binding theory. In Roeper, T. and Williams, E. (eds.) Parameter setting. Dordrecht: Reidel. 41–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
White, L. 1988. Island effects in second language acquisition. In Flynn, S. and O'Neil, W. (eds.) Linguistic theory in second language acquisition. Dordrecht: Kluwer. 144–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
White, L. 1990. Another look at the logical problem of foreign language learning: A reply to Bley-Vroman. Linguistic Analysis. 20.50–63.Google Scholar
White, L. 1991a. Adverb placement in second language acquisition: Some effects of positive and negative evidence in the classroom. Second Language Research. 7.133–161.Google Scholar
White, L. 1991b. Long and short verb movement in second language acquisition. Canadian Journal of Linguistics. 37.273–286.Google Scholar
White, L. 1991c. Second language competence versus second language performance: UG or processing strategies. In Eubank, L. (ed.) Point counterpoint. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 167–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
White, L. 1992. Universal Grammar: Is it just a new name for old problems? In Gass, S. and Selinker, L. (eds.) Language transfer in language learning. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 217–232.Google Scholar
White, L. 1994. Clitics in child L2 French. McGill University. Unpublished ms.Google Scholar
White, L. In press. Input, triggers and second language acquisition: Can binding be taught? In Eckman, F. (ed.) Second language acquisition theory and pedagogy. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Zobl, H. 1994. Lexical/functional modularity in the lexicon and the interface debate in L2 pedagogy. Carleton University. Unpublished ms.Google Scholar
Zobl, H. and Liceras, J.. 1994. Functional categories and acquisition orders. Language Learning. 44.159–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar