Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-gb8f7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T06:22:34.820Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Second Language Acquisition and Language Universals Research

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 November 2008

Bernard Comrie
Bernard Comrie
Affiliation:
University of Southern California
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

To the extent that language universals represent internal properties of human beings, one would expect them to manifest themselves in first language (L1) acquisition. Whether they should also manifest themselves in second language (L2) acquisition depends on whether or not language universals remain accessible to adults. The relation between L2 acquisition and language universals research is examined with respect to three phenomena: extraction, where the subset principle makes interesting predictions, although the second language data are far from clear; structure dependence, where there is evidence for the continuation beyond puberty of a general formal property of language; and the distribution of overt reflexives, which has a functional basis and therefore poses the interesting question whether or not this functional basis is accessible to language learners.

Type
Commentraies
Information
Studies in Second Language Acquisition , Volume 12 , Issue 2 , June 1990 , pp. 209 - 218
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1990

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

Chomsky, N. (1981). Principles and parameters in syntactic theory. In Hornstein, N. & Lightfoot, D. (Eds.), Explanation in linguistics: The logical problem of language acquisition (pp. 32–75). London: Longman.Google Scholar
Comrie, B. (1984). Form and function in explaining language universals. In Butterworth, B., Comrie, B., & Dahl, Ö. (Eds.), Explanations for language universals (pp. 87–103). The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Comrie, B. (1989). Language universals and linguistic typology (2nd ed.). Oxford: Basil Blackwell; Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Givón, T. (1983). Topic continuity in discourse: An introduction. In Givón, T. (Ed.), Topic continuity in discourse: A quantitative cross-language study (pp. 1–41). Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greenberg, J. H. (1966). Some universals of grammar with particular reference to the order of meaningful elements. In Greenberg, J. H. (Ed.), Universals of language (2nd ed., pp. 73–113). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Kuno, S. (1974). The position of relative clauses and conjunctions. Linguistic Inquiry, 5, 117–136.Google Scholar
Wexler, K., & Manzini, R. (1987). Parameters and learnability in binding theory. In Roeper, T. & Williams, E. (Eds.), Parameter setting (pp. 41–76). Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar