Search

Most human beings grow up speaking more than one language; a lot of us also acquire an additional language or languages other than our mother tongue. This Element in the Second Language Acquisition series investigates the human capacity to learn additional languages later in life and introduces the seminal processes involved in this acquisition. The authors discuss how to analyze learner data and what the findings tell us about language learning; critically assessing a leading theory of how adults learn a second language: Generative SLA. This theory describes both universal innate knowledge and individual experiences as crucial for language acquisition. This Element makes the relevant connections between first and second language acquisition and explores whether they are fundamentally similar processes. Slabakova et al. provide fascinating pedagogical questions that encourage students and teachers to reflect upon the experiences of second language learners.

Transformational generative grammar (TGG) and systemic functional grammar (SFG) are two of the most influential theoretical linguistic schools. Previous literature has mostly taken the two approaches as two contrastive perspectives to language. In the present study, the author focused on the non-contradictory side of the two approaches to see how they could be bound together to supplement each other in terms of linguistic competence, syntax and pragmatics, thus forming a more comprehensive picture of language. This paper ends with a discussion on the application of these two grammars in second language acquisition and second language teaching. Findings have shown that instead of being completely contradictory and mutually exclusive, SFG and TGG supplement each other and together present us a more holistic picture of language with their own strengths and weaknesses. Key words: Transformational generative grammar, systemic functional grammar, second language teaching and acquisition.

This dissertation investigates second language (L2) development in the domains of morphosyntax and semantics. Specifically, it examines the acquisition of definiteness and specificity in Russian within the Feature Re-assembly framework (Lardiere, 2009), according to which the hardest L2 learning task is not to reset parameters but to reconfigure, or remap features from the way they are assembled in the L1 into new formal configurations in the L2. Within the Feature Re-assembly approach, it has been argued that re-assembling features that are represented overtly in the L1 and mapping them onto those that are encoded covertly by context in the L2 will present a greater difficulty than re-assembling features in the opposite direction (Slabakova, 2009). This dissertation examines the acquisition of four linguistic properties (types of modifiers, word order, indefinite determiners and case marking) that encode definiteness and specificity overtly or covertly in L2 Russian by English and Korean speakers. The native languages of the learners were chosen specifically in order to test various overt-covert mappings. The data obtained from two experimental tasks (grammaticality and felicity judgments) completed by 56 Russian native speaker controls, 51 Englishand 53 Koreanspeaking learners support Slabakova’s prediction that overt-to-covert realization of the feature is more challenging than covert-to-overt realization. In addition, the findings uncovered other important factors facilitating or impeding acquisition, such as the nature of the form-to-meaning mapping (one-to-one or one-to-many) and the availability of clear, unambiguous evidence for a certain mapping in the input available to learners. Results also reveal that the presence or absence of the L1 transfer depends on the overt/covert status of the feature in the L2. That is, when the feature is marked overtly in both the L1 and L2, L1 transfer has facilitative effect on the acquisition of the feature. On the contrary, when the feature is marked covertly in both the L1 and L2, L1 transfer has

A generative approach to language acquisition is no different from any other in assuming that target language input is crucial for language acquisition. This discussion note addresses the place of input in generative second language acquisition (SLA) research and the perception in the wider field of SLA research that generative SLA ‘ignores’ the input. This impression may have arisen because generative SLA researchers have tended not to systematically study quantitative distribution of input properties, nor qualitative properties of the input available to learners. We argue that precisely these sorts of studies would be at least beneficial, if not indispensable, to the development of a comprehensive (generative) theory of SLA. Furthermore, a welcome side-effect of more systematic engagement with input would be potential for greater accessibility for generative SLA in the wider field of second language (L2) studies.

So far, the comprehension and production language modes have typically been studied separately in generative second language acquisition research, with the focus shifting from one to the other. This article revisits the asymmetric relationship between comprehension and production by examining the second language (L2) acquisition of the noun phrase in Bulgarian by speakers of English. Drawing on data from a forced choice comprehension task and elicited production task, I show that in some cases production of certain grammatical features may precede the full comprehension of their relevance to the morpho-syntax of the target language. An explanation is sought based on (1) Jackendoff’s (2002) parallel architecture of the linguistics modules, and (2) feature differentiation based on their relevance to syntax proper and semantics. Structural features with no semantic bearing (e.g. [gender]) are argued to be overlooked by the parser in comprehension. Conversely, features with a semantic load (e.g. [number]) are argued to cause an overload in the semantic tier in production. This, in turn, prevents their overt realization. This study sets the stage for future investigations into the phenomenon exploiting more refined methodology, which will allow for teasing apart the theoretical proposal from task effects.

Debate and discussion are crucial for the advancement of our fields in order to understand the phenomena we seek to explain. When these debates are cast from an adversarial position, the value of the discussion is lost. In this sense, we are disappointed by the acrimony of de Bot’s reaction to our Forum essay. Most of his points, even those he characterizes as ‘beyond doubt’, are anecdotal and subjectively selected, whereas others are plainly wrong, such as his contention that generative second language acquisition (GenSLA) presentations have virtually disappeared from major conferences. One need only look at the programs of recent and upcoming conferences (e.g. the Generative Approaches to Second Language Acquisition conference, the Boston University Conference on Language Development), graduate programs that continue to provide doctoral-level preparation in GenSLA,1 and well-established journals (e.g. Second Language Research, Studies in Second Language Acquisition) to be assured that GenSLA is an intellectually vigorous field of science.

A generative grammar for a language L generates one or more syntactic structures for each sentence of L and interprets those structures both phonologically and semantically. A widely accepted assumption in generative linguistics dating from the mid-60s, the Generative Grammar Hypothesis (GGH), is that the ability of a speaker to understand sentences of her language requires her to have tacit knowledge of a generative grammar of it, and the task of linguistic semantics in those early days was taken to be that of specifying the form that the semantic component of a generative grammar must take. Then in the 70s linguistic semantics took a curious turn. Without rejecting GGH, linguists turned away from the task of characterizing the semantic component of a generative grammar to pursue instead the Montague-inspired project of providing for natural languages the same kind of model-theoretic semantics that logicians devise for the artificial languages of formal systems of logic, and “formal semantics” continues to dominate semantics in linguistics. This essay argues that the sort of compositional meaning theory that would verify GGH would not only be quite different from the theories formal semanticists construct, but would be a more fundamental theory that supersedes those theories in that it would explain why they are true when they are true, but their truth wouldn’t explain its truth. Formal semantics has undoubtedly made important contributions to our understanding of such phenomena as anaphora and quantification, but semantics in linguistics is supposed to be the study of meaning. This means that the formal semanticist can’t be unconcerned that the kind of semantic theory for a natural language that interests her has no place in a theory of linguistic competence; for if GGH is correct, then the more fundamental semantic theory is the compositional meaning theory that is the semantic component of the internally represented generative grammar, and if that is so, then linguistic semantics has so far ignored what really ought to be its primary concern.

This review article selects and elaborates on the important issues of adult second language acquisition research in the second decade of the twenty-first century. The fundamental question of whether adult second language acquisition and child first language acquisition are similar or different is addressed throughout the article. The issues of a critical period for acquisition, the importance of the linguistic input, and processing are discussed. Generative as well as usage-based perspectives are considered. Future research concerns and promising areas of investigation are proposed.

Starting from the premise that second language acquisition (SLA) is a fundamentally (though not exclusively) psychological process, and that applied linguists should therefore be aware of relevant ...

In recent research on L2 acquisition, there has been considerable emphasis on interfaces between the linguistic system and grammar external components, such as syntax/discourse, or between different modules of grammar, such as syntax/semantics, syntax/morphology or morphology/phonology. This has led to proposals that difficulties experienced by L2 learners can be explained in terms of problems with integrating linguistic phenomena relevant to certain interfaces. With some exceptions, there has been a tendency to consider at least some interface phenomena as inherently problematic, while others are inherently unproblematic. This paper provides an overview of L2 research on interfaces, comparing different interface domains. I conclude that we must be wary of assuming that all linguistic interfaces are equally problematic or unproblematic or that different linguistic phenomena pertaining to the same interface will necessarily behave alike.

This article serves as a state-of the-science review of the blossoming field of generative third language (L3) acquisition as well as an introduction to this special issue on the same topic. We present and argue for the relevance of adult L3/L n acquisition for many perennial questions that have sat at the core of linguistic approaches to adult language acquisition since the Principles and Parameters framework was first adopted into second language acquisition (SLA; e.g. Flynn, 1985, 1987; Liceras, 1985; White, 1985a, 1985b; Schwartz, 1986). Furthermore, we highlight the unique, specific questions that have emerged from studying L3/L n from a generative perspective thus far while suggesting refinements to these questions and additional ones that should emerge in future inquiry.

The novelty of Lardiere's proposal does not reside in her so-called `rehabilitation' of Contrastive Analysis. In generative second language acquisition research, appeal to the best available analyses and descriptions of the languages under investigation has always been a top priority, whether the focus was parameters, functional categories or features. The novelty resides in her putting feature assembly at the forefront of the research agenda. However, arguing for feature assembly, Lardiere fails to highlight the validity and potential of constructs such as parameter-setting and feature selection, mainly because feature assembly cannot exist without feature selection, and because the deductive value of parameters can be enhanced by research meant to discover how features combine.

Taking a generative perspective, we divide aspects of language into three broad categories: those that cannot be learned (are inherent in Universal Grammar), those that are derived from Universal Grammar, and those that must be learned from the input. Using this framework of language to clarify the “what” of learning, we take the acquisition of null (and overt) subjects in languages like Spanish as an example of how to apply the framework. We demonstrate what properties of a null-subject grammar cannot be learned explicitly, which properties can, but also argue that it is an open empirical question as to whether these latter properties are learned using explicit processes, showing how linguistic and psychological approaches may intersect to better understand acquisition.

Second language acquisition (SLA) is a field that investigates child and adult SLA from a variety of theoretical perspectives. This article provides a survey of some key areas of concern including formal generative theory and emergentist theory in the areas of morpho-syntax and phonology. The review details the theoretical stance of the two different approaches to the nature of language: generative linguistics and general cognitive approaches. Some results of key acquisition studies from the two theoretical frameworks are discussed. From a generative perspective, constraints on wh-movement, feature geometry and syllable structure, and morphological development are highlighted. From a general cognitive point of view, the emergence of tense and aspect marking from a prototype account of inherent lexical aspect is reviewed. Reference is made to general cognitive learning theories and to sociocultural theory. The article also reviews individual differences research, specifically debate on the critical period in adult language acquisition, motivation, and memory. Finally, the article discusses the relationship between SLA research and second language pedagogy. Suggestions for further reading from recent handbooks on SLA are provided. WIREs Cogni Sci 2011 2 277-286 DOI: 10.1002/wcs.106 For further resources related to this article, please visit the WIREs website.

This paper explores connections between developments in generative linguistic theory and research on second language (L2) acquisition. Its aim is to counter the claim that generative linguistic theory is irrelevant to the study of L2 acquisition.

This article reviews recent research on the second language acquisition of meaning with a view of establishing whether there is a critical period for the acquisition of compositional semantics. It is claimed that the functional lexicon presents the most formidable challenge, while syntax and phrasal semantics pose less difficulty to learners. Findings from the neurofunctional imaging (PET, fMRI) and electrophysiology (ERPs) of L2 comprehension are reviewed and critically examined. Since it is argued that experimental tasks suggesting differential acquisition of L2 syntax and semantics are in need of linguistic refinement, further evidence is marshalled from behavioural studies of L2 acquisition of semantics to fill in the current gap in L2 comprehension modelling. The 15 studies reviewed here point to no apparent barrier to ultimate success in the acquisition of phrasal semantics.

This article is concerned with the question as to whether the components of grammar (syntax, semantics and phonology) have a similar architecture. I provide a modest historical background to the recurrent discussion about the parallelisms between syntax and phonology within Generative Grammar and mention some ‘meta-patterns’, i.e., shared properties of linguistic structures in different modules that are quite general and most likely not even specifically linguistic. I also discuss Anderson's [Anderson, J., 1992. Linguistic Representation: Structural Analogy and Stratification. Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin] idea of Structural Analogy, the idea that, all things being equal, linguistic components and levels have similar structural properties. I argue in favor of a division between a word and a sentence subsystem for each of the three parallel grammatical components. Finally, I offer a general discussion of the place of phonology in the grammar and its relationship to phonetics. This section also sums up the main points of this article.

In a criticism of my paper ‘Exaption and Linguistic Explanation’, Crain and Pietroski argue that Generative Grammar provides deep generalizations concerning the way children acquire competence in languages. I show that their examples of analyses are mere descriptions and that an exaptive approach to language acquisition provides more insightful avenues to explore.

Two textbooks written by Lydia White, one published in 1989 and the other in 2003, introduce generative research on second language acquisition and evaluate existing proposals about the role of Universal Grammar. Comparison of the two texts provides an opportunity to examine some of the conventions the field uses in representing itself to a novice readership. It also brings to light certain aspects of the field’s development during a 14- year interval. A point of particular interest is that this interval spans a shift in the language commonly used to pose questions about the relationship of Universal Grammar to second language acquisition, from the metaphor of ‘access’ to the metaphor of ‘constraint’.

This article reviews studies in second language classroom research from a cross-theoretic perspective, arguing that the classroom holds the potential for bringing together researchers from opposing theoretical orientations. It shows how generative and general cognitive approaches share a view of language that implicates both implicit and explicit knowledge, and that holds a bias towards implicit knowledge. Arguing that it is implicit knowledge that should be the object of research, it proposes that classroom research would benefit from incorporating insights from a generative understanding of language. Specifically, there is a need for a more nuanced view of the complexity of language in terms of linguistic domain, and the interaction between those domains. Generative second language acquisition research that shows developmental differences in terms of both linguistic domain and interface is reviewed. The core argument is a call for more attention to the ‘what’ of language development in classroom research and, by implication, teaching practice. As such, the language classroom is seen to offer potential for research that goes beyond paradigm to address both the ‘what’ and the ‘how’ of language development.

Contents: S. Flynn, Introduction. Part I:Functional Categories. U. Lakshmanan, Functional Categories and Related Mechanisms in Child Second Language Acquisition. A. Vainikka, M. Young-Scholten, The Initial State in the L2 Acquisition of Phrase Structure. B.D. Schwartz, On Two Hypotheses of "Transfer" in L2A: Minimal Trees and Absolute L1 Influence. S.D. Epstein, S. Flynn, G. Martohardjono, The Strong Continuity Hypothesis: Some Evidence Concerning Functional Categories in Adult L2 Acquisition. J.W. Gair, Functional Categories in L2 Acquisition: Homegrown or Imported? Commentary on Part I. Part II:Constraints on Wh-Movement. X. Li, Adult L2 Accessibility to UG: An Issue Revisited. L. White, A. Juffs, Constraints on Wh-Movement in Two Different Contexts of Nonnative Language Acquisition: Competence and Processing. D.C. Lillo-Martin, The Acquisition of English by Deaf Signers: Is Universal Grammar Involved? G. Martohardjono, Measuring Competence in L2 Acquisition: Commentary on Part II. Part III:Binding and Related Issues. T. Al-Kasey, A.T. Perez-Leroux, Second Language Acquisition of Spanish Null Subjects. S. Bennett, L. Progovac, Morphological Status of Reflexives in Second Language Acquisition. N. Yusa, A Minimalist Approach to Second Language Acquisition. K. Christie, J.P. Lantolf, Bind Me Up Bind Me Down: Reflexives in L2. M. Thomas, Binding and Related Issues in L2 Acquisition: Commentary on Part III. Part IV:Phonology. J. Archibald, Metrical Parameters and Lexical Dependency: Acquiring L2 Stress. A. Youssef, I. Mazurkewich, The Acquisition of English Metrical Parameters and Syllable Structure by Adult Native Speakers of Egyptian Arabic (Cairene Dialect). W. O'Neil, The Rhythm Rule in English and the Growth of L2 Knowledge.

This special issue provides a state-of-the-art overview of the theories, models and research methodology in the phonological acquisition of a third language (L3). The present contributions have bee...

This article focuses on the current state of affairs in the field of Arabic computational linguistics. It begins by briefly monitoring relevant trends in phonetics and phonology, morphology, syntax, lexicology, semantics, stylistics, and pragmatics. Then, the chapter describes changes or special accents within formal Arabic syntax. After some evaluative remarks about the approach opted for, it continues with a linguistic description of literary Arabic for analysis purposes as well as an introduction to a formal description, pointing to some early results. The article hints at further perspectives for ongoing research and possible spinoffs such as a formalized description of Arabic syntax in formalized dependency rules as well as a subset thereof for information retrieval purposes.

This accessible textbook provides a clear and practical introduction to phonology, the study of sound patterns in language. Designed for students with only a basic knowledge of linguistics, it teaches in a step-by-step fashion the logical techniques of phonological analysis and the fundamental theories that underpin it. Through over sixty graded exercises, students are encouraged to make their own analyses of phonological patterns and processes, based on extensive data and problems sets from a wide variety of languages. Introducing Phonology equips students with the essential analytical skills needed for further study in the field, such as how to think critically and discover generalizations about data, how to formulate hypotheses, and how to test them. Providing a solid foundation in both the theory and practice of phonology, it is set to become the leading text for any introductory course, and will be invaluable to all students beginning to study the discipline.

In this paper, I address the nature of the mental representation of an interlanguage grammar. The focus will be on the necessity of positing some sort of hierarchical constituent structure to account for L2 phonology. I discuss relevant data from the domains of the acquisition of segments, syllables, moras, and metrical structure. The interaction of these domains is discussed.In addition, I look at the acquisition of onset clusters and argue that the acquisition of liquids is correlated with the acquisition of consonantal sequences. Evidence from language change, language typology, and language acquisition suggests that there is a causal relationship between the two. The theoretical framework of feature geometry and derived sonority gives us the apparatus to explain what the second-language learners are doing.

The claim that linguistics should build explicit models of natural languages and put forth an explanatory theory of linguistic knowledge is shared by several contemporary approaches and cannot be taken as the hallmark of generative grammar today. If one tries to isolate its distinctive features, one is led to present a series of debates, rather than a set of theoretical assumptions. No consensus has yet been achieved concerning the stand that the model should take concerning such crucial questions as the status of the syntactic objects which the computational system manipulates, the derivational or representational nature of the grammatical system, the link between linear order and dominance relations, the psychological reality of derivations. In fact, the profound unity of the various generative approaches today lies in the common goal to develop a cognitive model of linguistic competence, aiming both at characterizing linguistic diversity as such and at unifying the study of syntax and morphology and the study of acquisition

Unification-based (or constraint-based) grammars have developed in the last 20 years as alternative models to the main theory of generative grammar. Initially syntax oriented, they now inspire works in phonology, morphology and semantics. In being completely formalized, they appear as the true inheritors of the generative program of Chomsky 1957. They are also building a bridge with computational linguistics and psycholinguistics., Abeillé Anne. Grammaires génératives et grammaires d'unification. In: Langages, 32ᵉ année, n°129, 1998. Diversité de la (des) science(s) du langage aujourd'hui. pp. 24-36.

There are the main differences between traditional phonology and generative phonology in terms of methodologies, depth and scope, which can be applied to the design and interaction in individual teaching. Generative phonology or modern phonology is more advanced than traditional phonology, but most learners can’t understand the generative phonology, so their differences can help the students understand phonology and know their nuances. The definition of phonology, the research scope and methodologies of phonology , the contrasts between traditional phonology and generative phonology from the three respects of methodology, depth and scope, which play the instructive significance on the individual teaching and the future of phonology.

Syntax – the study of sentence structure – has been at the centre of generative linguistics from its inception and has developed rapidly and in various directions. The Cambridge Handbook of Generative Syntax provides a historical context for what is happening in the field of generative syntax today, a survey of the various generative approaches to syntactic structure available in the literature and an overview of the state of the art in the principal modules of the theory and the interfaces with semantics, phonology, information structure and sentence processing, as well as linguistic variation and language acquisition. This indispensable resource for advanced students, professional linguists (generative and non-generative alike) and scholars in related fields of inquiry presents a comprehensive survey of the field of generative syntactic research in all its variety, written by leading experts and providing a proper sense of the range of syntactic theories calling themselves generative.