Hostname: page-component-6bf8c574d5-b4m5d Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-02-16T15:50:37.991Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

THE EVOLVING CONTEXT OF THE FUNDAMENTAL DIFFERENCE HYPOTHESIS

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 June 2009

Robert Bley-Vroman
Robert Bley-Vroman*
Affiliation:
University of Hawai‘i
*
*Address correspondence to: Robert Bley-Vroman, Department of Second Language Studies, University of Hawai‘i, Honolulu, HI 96822; e-mail: [email protected].
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Foreign language learning contrasts with native language development in two key respects: It is unreliable and it is nonconvergent. At the same time, it is clear that foreign languages are languages. The fundamental difference hypothesis (FDH) was introduced as a way to account for the general characteristics of foreign language learning. The FDH was originally formulated in the context of the theory of rich Universal Grammar, and this theory has guided much foreign language acquisition research over the past two decades. However, advances in the understanding of language have undermined much of the supporting framework.

The FDH—indeed all of SLA research—must be rethought in light of these advances. It is proposed here that (a) foreign language grammars make central use of patches, which are also seen as peripheral phenomena in native languages; (b) non-domain-specific processes are used in foreign language acquisition, but that these are also employed—although more effectively because they are integrated into the language system—by native language development; and (c) foreign language online processing relies heavily on the use of shallow parses, but these are also available in native language processing, although less crucially.

Type
Research Articles
Information
Studies in Second Language Acquisition , Volume 31 , Special Issue 2: THE FUNDAMENTAL DIFFERENCE HYPOTHESIS TWENTY YEARS LATER , June 2009 , pp. 175 - 198
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2009

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

REFERENCES

Ayoun, D. (2002). Parameter-setting theory in first and second language acquisition. New York: Continuum.Google Scholar
Beck, M.-L. (1998). L2 acquisition and obligatory head movement: English-speaking learners of German and the local impairment hypothesis. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 20, 311–348.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berger, J. O. (1985). Statistical decision theory and Bayesian analysis (2nd ed.). New York: Springer Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blevins, J. (2006). A theoretical synopsis of evolutionary phonology. Theoretical Linguistics, 32, 117–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bley-Vroman, R. (1988). The fundamental character of foreign language learning. In Rutherford, W. & Sharwood Smith, M. (Eds.), Grammar and second language teaching (pp. 19–30). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Bley-Vroman, R. (1989). What is the logical problem of foreign language learning? In Gass, S. M. & Schachter, J. (Eds.), Linguistic perspectives on second language acquisition (pp. 41–68). New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bley-Vroman, R. (1990). The logical problem of foreign language learning. Linguistic Analysis, 20, 3–49.Google Scholar
Braidi, S. (1998). The acquisition of second-language syntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1980). Rules and representations. New York: Columbia University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1981a). Lectures on government and binding. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1981b). Principles and parameters in syntactic theory. In Hornstein, N. & Lightfoot, D. (Eds.), Explanation in linguistics: The logical problem of language acquisition (pp. 123–146). London: Longman.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1982). Some concepts and consequences of the theory of government and binding. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1986a). Barriers. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1986b). Knowledge of language: Its nature, origin and use. New York: Praeger.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1995). The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomksy, N. (1997). Questions: São Paulo. DELTA: Documentação de Estudos em Lingüística Teórica e Aplicada, 13, 123–128.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (2000). New horizons in the study of language and mind. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, N. (2004). Beyond explanatory adequacy. In Belletti, A. (Ed.), Structures and beyond: The cartography of syntactic structures (Vol. 2, pp. 104–131). Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, N. (2005). Three factors in language design. Linguistic Inquiry, 36, 1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Christiansen, M. H., & Chater, N. (2008). Language as shaped by the brain. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 31, 489–509.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Clahsen, H., & Felser, C. (2006a). Continuity and shallow structures in language processing. Applied Psycholinguistics, 27, 107–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clahsen, H., & Felser, C. (2006b). Grammatical processing in language learners. Applied Psycholinguistics, 27, 3–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clahsen, H., & Hong, U. (1995). Agreement and null subjects in German L2 development: New evidence from reaction time experiments. Second Language Research, 11, 57–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clark, A., & Eyraud, R. (2006). Learning auxiliary fronting with grammatical inference. In Proceedings of the 8th Conference on Computational Natural Language Learning (CoNLL-X) (pp. 125–132). Stroudsburg, PA: Association for Computational Linguistics.Google Scholar
Clark, A., & Eyraud, R. (2007). Polynomial identification in the limit of substitutable context-free Languages. Journal of Machine Learning, 8, 1725–1745.Google Scholar
Clark, A., & Thollard, F. (2004, August). Partially distribution-free learning of regular languages from positive samples. Paper presented at the 20th International Conference on Computational Linguistics, Geneva.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Culicover, P. W., & Jackendoff, R. (2005). Simpler syntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dekydtspotter, L., & Hathorn, J. C. (2005). Quelque chose. de remarquable in English-French acquisition: Mandatory, informationally encapsulated computations in second language interpretation. Second Language Research, 21, 291–323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Emonds, J. E. (1986). Grammatically deviant prestige constructions. In Brame, M., Contreras, H., & Newmeyer, F. (Eds.), Festschrift for Sol Saporta (pp. 93–129). Seattle, WA: Noit Amrofer.Google Scholar
Eubank, L. (1993/1994). On the transfer of parametric values in L2 development. Language Acquisition, 3, 183–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eubank, L. (1994). Optionality and the initial state in L2 development. In Hoekstra, T. & Schwartz, B. D. (Eds.), Language acquisition studies in generative grammar: Papers in honor of Kenneth Wexler from the 1991 GLOW workshops (pp. 369–388). Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eubank, L. (1996). Negation in early German-English interlanguage: More valueless features in the L2 initial state. Second Language Research, 12, 73–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fillmore, C. J., & Kay, P. (1999). Grammatical constructions and linguistic generalizations: The what’s X doing Y? construction. Language, 75, 1–33.Google Scholar
Fillmore, C. J., Kay, P., & O’Connor, M. C. (1988). Regularity and idiomacity in grammatical constructions: The case of let alone. Language, 64, 501–538.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gambell, T., & Yang, C. D. (2003). Scope and limits of statistical learning in word segmentation. Unpublished manuscript, Yale University, New Haven, CT.Google Scholar
Gambell, T., & Yang, C. D. (2004). Scope and limits of statistical learning in word segmentation. In Moulton, K. & Wolf, M. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 34th Northeastern Linguistic Society Meeting (NELS) (pp. 29–30). Amherst, MA: GLSA.Google Scholar
Goldberg, A. (1995). Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Goldberg, A. (2006). Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hale, K. (1996). Can UG and L1 be distinguished in L2 acquisition? Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 19, 726–728.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hall, R. A. Jr. (1973). The transferred epithet in P. G. Wodehouse. Linguistic Inquiry, 4, 92–94.Google Scholar
Hawkins, J. A. (1999). Processing complexity and filler-gap dependencies across grammars. Language, 75, 244–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hawkins, J. A. (2004). Efficiency and complexity in grammars. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hawkins, R. (2001). Second language syntax: A generative introduction. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Hawkins, R., & Chan, C. Y.-H. (1997). The partial availability of Universal Grammar in second language acquisition: The ‘failed functional features hypothesis.’ Second Language Research, 13, 187–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Herschensohn, J. (2000). The second time around: Minimalism and L2 acquisition. Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ioup, G., Boustagui, E., Tigi, M. E., & Moselle, M. (1994). Reexamining the critical period hypothesis: A case study of successful adult SLA in a naturalistic environment. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 16, 73–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jackendoff, R. (2002). Foundations of language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jackendoff, R. (2005). Alternative minimalist visions of language. Chicago Linguistics Society (CLS), 41, 189–226.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, R., & Pinker, S. (2005). The nature of the language faculty and its implications for evolution of language (Reply to Fitch, Hauser, and Chomsky). Cognition, 97, 211–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kehler, A. (2002). Coherence, reference and the theory of grammar. Stanford, CA: Center for the Study of Language and Information.Google Scholar
Kluender, R. (1998). On the distinction between strong and weak islands: A processing perspective. In Culicover, P. & McNally, L. (Eds.), Syntax and semantics 29: The limits of syntax (pp. 241–279). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Kluender, R., & Kutas, M. (1993). Subjacency as a processing phenomenon. Language and Cognitive Processes, 8, 573–633.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lappin, S., & Shieber, S. M. (2007). Machine learning theory and practice as a source of insight into Universal Grammar. Journal of Linguistics, 43, 393–427.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lardiere, D. (1998a). Case and tense in the ‘fossilized’ steady state. Second Language Research, 14, 1–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lardiere, D. (1998b). Dissociating syntax from morphology in a divergent L2 end-state grammar. Second Language Research, 14, 359–375.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lasnik, H., & Sobin, N. (2000). The who/whom puzzle: On the preservation of an archaic feature. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 18, 343–371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levine, R. D., & Sag, I. A. (2003). WH-nonmovement. Gengo Kenkyu: Journal of the Linguistic Society of Japan, 123, 171–220.Google Scholar
McCawley, J. A. (1988). The syntactic phenomena of English. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Montrul, S. (2000). Transitivity alternations in L2 acquisition: Toward a modular view of transfer. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 22, 229–273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morgan, J. L. (1972). Verb agreement as a rule of English. Chicago Linguistics Society (CLS), 8, 278–286.Google Scholar
Newmeyer, F. J. (2004). Against a parameter-setting approach to typological variation. Linguistic Variation Yearbook, 4, 181–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Newmeyer, F. J. (2005). Possible and probable language: A generative perspective on language typology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oaksford, M., & Chater, N. (2007). Bayesian rationality: The probabilistic approach to human reasoning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O’Grady, W. (2005). Syntactic carpentry: An emergentist approach to syntax. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O’Grady, W. (2008). Language without grammar. In Ellis, N. C. & Robinson, P. (Eds.), Handbook of cognitive linguistics and second language acquisition (pp. 139–167). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Paradis, M. (1994). Neurolinguistic aspects of implicit and explicit memory: Implications for bilingualism and SLA. In Ellis, N. C. (Ed.), Implicit and explicit learning of languages (pp. 393–419). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Paradis, M. (2004). A neurolinguistic theory of bilingualism. Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pica, P. (2001). Introduction. Linguistic Variation Yearbook, 1, v–xii.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pinker, S., & Jackendoff, R. (2005). The faculty of language: What’s special about it? Cognition, 95, 201–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Prévost, P., & White, L. (2000). Missing surface inflection or impairment in second language acquisition? Evidence from tense and agreement. Second Language Research, 16, 103–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pullum, G. K., & Scholz, B. C. (2002). Empirical assessment of stimulus poverty arguments. The Linguistic Review, 19, 9–50.Google Scholar
Schachter, J., & Gass, S. M. (Eds.). (1989). Linguistic perspectives on second language acquisition. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Schmidt, R. (1983). Interaction, acculturation, and the acquisition of communicative competence. In Wolfson, N. & Judd, E. (Eds.), Sociolinguistics and language acquisition (pp. 137–174). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Schmidt, R. (1990). The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 11, 17–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schumann, J. (1978). The pidginisation process: A model for second language acquisition. Rowley MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Schwartz, B. D., & Sprouse, R. A. (1994). Word order and nominative case in non-native language acquisition: A longitudinal study of (L1 Turkish) German interlanguage. In Hoekstra, T. & Schwartz, B. D. (Eds.), Language acquisition studies in generative grammar: Papers in honor of Kenneth Wexler from the 1991 GLOW workshops (pp. 317–167). Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schwartz, B. D., & Sprouse, R. A. (1996). L2 cognitive states and the full transfer/full access model. Second Language Research, 12, 40–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Slabakova, R. (2006). Is there a critical period for semantics? Second Language Research, 22, 302–338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sobin, N. (1997). Agreement, default rules, and grammatical viruses. Linguistic Inquiry, 28, 318–343.Google Scholar
Tomasello, M. (1998). The return of constructions. Journal of Child Language, 25, 431–442.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tomasello, M. (2003). Constructing a language. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Townsend, D. J., & Bever, T. G. (2001). Sentence comprehension: The integration of habits and rules. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tsimpli, I.-M., & Roussou, A. (1991). Parameter resetting in L2? UCL Working Papers in Linguistics, 3, 149–169.Google Scholar
Ullman, M. T. (2001). The neural basis of lexicon and grammar in first and second language: The declarative/procedural model. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 4, 105–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ullman, M. T. (2005). A cognitive neuroscience perspective on second language acquisition: The declarative procedure model. In Sanz, C. (Ed.), Mind and context in adult second language acquisition (pp. 141–178). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Ullman, M. T. (2006). The declarative/procedural model and the shallow structure hypothesis. Applied Psycholinguistics, 27, 97–105.Google Scholar
Valiant, L. (1984). A theory of the learnable. Communications of the ACM, 27, 1134–1142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Warren, B. (1983, May). A nervous report: The transferred epithet and body language. Paper presented at the Nordic Conference for English Studies, Hanasaari/Hanaholmen, Finland.Google Scholar
Weiß, H. (1998). Syntax des Bairischen: Studien zur Grammatik einer natürlichen Sprache. [The syntax of Bavarian: Studies on the grammar of a natural language.] Tübingen: Niemeyer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weiß, H. (2001). On two types of natural languages: Some consequences for linguistics. Theoretical Linguistics, 27, 87–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weiß, H. (2004). A question of relevance: Some remarks on standard languages. Studies in Language, 28, 648–674.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
White, L. (1989). Universal Grammar and second language acquisition. Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
White, L. (1990/1991). The verb-movement parameter in second language acquisition. Language Acquisition, 1, 337–360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
White, L. (1991). 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. (1992). Long and short verb movement in second language acquisition. Canadian Journal of Linguistics, 37, 273–286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
White, L. (2003). Second language acquisition and Universal Grammar. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar