Search

This thesis investigates L2 acquisition within the framework of Principles and Parameters (Chomsky, 1981) and the Minimalist program (Chomsky, 1995). Specifically, it investigates the L2 acquisition of definite and indefinite articles in English by Saudi Arabic L1 speakers in light of the Article Choice Parameter (ACP) and the associated Fluctuation Hypothesis (Ionin, 2003; Ionin, Ko and Wexler, 2004), and in light of the Feature Reassembly Hypothesis (Lardiere, 2008, 2009a, 2009b) and Slabakova's (2009) associated proposal for a cline of difficulty in feature reassembly. These two approaches assume Full Transfer and Full Access in SLA (Schwartz and Sprouse, 1994; 1996). A comparison is made between the two opposing approaches to SLA and a new descriptive explanation for the widely observed inability of adult L2 learners to achieve target-like performance presented. Results from a forced-choice elicitation test and written translation test show that the acquisition of the definite article the is less difficult than the acquisition of the articles a and null. Further, the L2 acquisition of the article a is less difficult than the acquisition of the article null. Finally, the acquisition of the article null used with indefinite plural NPs is less difficult than the acquisition of the article null used with indefinite mass NPs. These findings cannot be explained within a parameter resetting approach to L2 acquisition where the SAspeaking L2 learners' predicted task in the L2 acquisition of definiteness in English is regarded as transferring the definiteness setting of the ACP from SA to the L2 interlanguage (Ionin, 2003; Ionin et al., 2004; Ionin, Maldonado and Zubizarreta, 2008). On the other hand, it appears that these findings are consistent with the Feature Reassembly Hypothesis (Lardiere, 2008, 2009a, 2009b) and partially consistent with Slabakova's (2009) proposal. Thus, a feature reassembly-based explanation for L2 acquisition is proposed where it shows, first, that L2 acquisition which involves just mapping is less difficult than that which involves mapping and reassembly. Second, this feature reassembly-based explanation reveals that the nature of the phonological realisation of a morpheme that represents a feature also plays a role in determining the level of difficulty in Slabakova's proposal (i.e., the role of detectability of the target item). Third, this explanation suggests that mapping (Full Transfer) and feature reassembly (Full Access) take place at the same time. Finally, the feature reassembly-based explanation shows that the detectability of supporting evidence related to the target item also plays a role in determining the level of difficulty in L2 acquisition.