Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dlnhk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T04:30:22.685Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Positive Evidence and Preemption in the Second Language Classroom

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 November 2008

Martha Trahey  and
Lydia White
Martha Trahey
Affiliation:
McGill University
Lydia White
Affiliation:
McGill University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

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.

Type
Articles
Information
Studies in Second Language Acquisition , Volume 15 , Issue 2 , June 1993 , pp. 181 - 204
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1993

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

Bates, E., & MacWhinney, B. (1987). Competition, variation and language learning. In MacWhinney, B. (Ed.), Mechanisms of language acquisition (pp. 157–193). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Belletti, A. (1991). Generalized verb movement: Aspects of verb syntax. Turin: Rosenberg and Sellier.Google Scholar
Berwick, R. (1985). The acquisition of syntactic knowledge. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bowerman, M. (1987). Commentary: Mechanisms of language acquisition. In MacWhinney, B. (Ed.), Mechanisms of language acquisition (pp. 443–466). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1981). Lectures on government and binding. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1989). Some notes on economy of derivation and representation. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics, 10, 43–74.Google Scholar
Clark, E. (1987). The principle of contrast: A constraint on language acquisition. In MacWhinney, B. (Ed.), Mechanisms of language acquisition (pp. 1–33). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Hilles, S. (1986). Interlanguage and the pro-drop parameter. Second Language Research, 2, 33–52.Google Scholar
Hirakawa, M. (1989). A study of the L2 acquisition of English reflexives. Second Language Research, 6, 60–85.Google Scholar
Hyams, N. (1986). Language acquisition and the theory of parameters. Dordrecht: Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Iatridou, S. (1990). About AgrP. Linguistic Inquiry, 21, 551–577.Google Scholar
Pinker, S. (1984) Language learnability and language development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Pinker, S. (1986). Productivity and conservatism in language acquisition. In Demopoulos, W. & Marras, A. (Eds.), Language learning and concept acquisition (pp. 54–79). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
Pollock, J. -Y. (1989). Verb movement, Universal Grammar and the structure of IP. Linguistic Inquiry, 20, 365–424.Google Scholar
Rutherford, W. (1989). Preemption and the learning of L2 grammars. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 11, 441–457.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schwartz, B. (1993). On explicit and negative data effecting and affecting competence and linguistic behavior. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15, 147–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schwartz, B., &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
Trahey, M. (1992). Positive evidence, pre-emption and parameter resetting in second language acquisition. Unpublished master's thesis, McGill University, Montreal.Google Scholar
Valian, V. (1990). Null subjects: A problem for parameter-setting models of language acquisition. Cognition, 35, 105–122.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wexler, K., & Manzini, R. (1987). Parameters and learnability in binding theory. In Roeper, T. & Williams, E. (Eds.), Parameter setting (pp. 41–76). Dordrecht: Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
White, L. (1989a). The principle of adjacency in second language acquisition: Do L2 learners observe the Subset Principle? In Gass, S. & Schachter, J. (Eds.), Linguistic perspectives on second language acquisition (pp. 134–158). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
White, L. (1989b). Universal Grammar and second language acquisition. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle 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). The verb-movement parameter in second language acquisition. Language Acquisition, 1, 337–360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
White, L. (1992a). Long and short verb movement in second language acquisition. Canadian Journal of Linguistics, 37, 273–286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
White, L. (1992b). On triggering data in L2 acquisition: A reply to Schwartz and Gubala-Ryzak. Second Language Research, 8, 120–137.Google Scholar
Zobl, H. (1988). Configurationality and the subset principle: The acquisition of V' by Japanese learners of English. In Pankhurst, J., Smith, M.Sharwood, & Van Buren, P. (Eds.), Learnability and second languages: A book of readings (pp. 116–131). Dordrecht: Foris.CrossRefGoogle Scholar