Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-m9kch Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-02T13:07:18.660Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

On the “wrong-headedness” of generative entrenchment

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 May 2003

BONNIE D. SCHWARTZ
Affiliation:
Department of Linguistics and English Language, University of Durham, Elvet Riverside II, New Elvet, Durham DH1 3JT, UK. E-mail: B.D.Schwartz@durham.ac.uk

Extract

The main thesis Pienemann puts forward is that while L1 acquisition and L2 acquisition of a particular language (e.g. German) exhibit non-parallel paths of development, such a difference does not entail that the processing resources claimed to be responsible for transitioning from one stage to the next are any different in the two situations. The cause of the difference in routes, he suggests, is the difference in departure points. In the German case at hand, L1 acquirers begin with an SOV grammar, while L2 acquisition, according to Pienemann, starts off SVO (“canonical order”). “Generative entrenchment” of SVO is what makes the ensuing development distinct from that of L1 German: “once a decision has been made and a new structure has been added, it is very costly, if not impossible, for the developmental process to move to a different developmental path.” I think there's something very right about this general picture – but also that part of it is “wrong-headed.”

Type
Peer Commentaries
Copyright
© 1998 Cambridge University Press

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.)

Footnotes

Thanks to Rex Sprouse, my partner in crime.