Hostname: page-component-7dd5485656-npwhs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-10-30T17:23:49.554Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Principled Theories of L2 Acquisition

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 November 2008

Suzanne Flynn
Suzanne Flynn
Affiliation:
M. I. T.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'

Information

Type
Review Articles
Information
Studies in Second Language Acquisition , Volume 7 , Issue 1 , February 1985 , pp. 99 - 108
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1985

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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

REFERENCES

Brown, R. 1973. A first language. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Broselow, E. Forthcoming. An investigation of transfer in second language phonology. IRAL.Google Scholar
Chao, W. 1981. PRO drop languages and non-obligatory control. In Chao, W. & Wheeler, D. (eds.), University of Massachusetts occasional papers in linguistics, Vol. 7, pp. 46–74. Amherst, MA: University of Massachusetts.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. 1970. Remarks on nominalization. In Jacobs, R. & Rosenbaum, P. S. (eds.), Readings in English transformational grammar, pp. 184–221. Waltham, MA: Ginn.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. 1980. Rules and representations. New York: Columbia University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, N. 1981. Lectures on government and binding, the Pisa lectures. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. 1982. Some concepts and consequences of the theory of government and binding. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. 1984. Changing perspectives on knowledge and use of language. Unpublished manuscript, MIT.Google Scholar
Dulay, H., & Burt, M. K.. 1974. A new perspective on the creative construction process in child second language acquisition. Language Learning 24; 253–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eckman, F. 1977. Markedness and the contrastive analysis hypothesis. Language Learning 27; 315–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flynn, S. 1981. The effects of first language branching direction on the acquisition of a second language. In Harbert, W. and Herschensohn, J. (eds.), Cornell working papers in linguistics, pp. 50–62. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University.Google Scholar
Flynn, S. 1983a. A study of the effects of principal branching direction in second language acquisition: The generalization of a parameter of universal grammar from first to second language acquisition. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Cornell University.Google Scholar
Flynn, S. 1983b. Similarities and differences between first and second language acquisition: Setting the parameters of universal grammar. In Rogers, D. R. and Sloboda, J. A. (eds.), Acquisition of symbolic skills, pp. 485–500. New York and London: Plenum.Google Scholar
Flynn, S. 1984. A universal in L2 acquisition based on a PBD typology. In Eckman, F. and Bell, L. (eds.), Universals in second language acquisition, pp. 75–87. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Flynn, S. in press. Second language acquisition of pronoun anaphora: Resetting the parameters. In Lust, B. (ed.), Language acquisition studies of anaphora. The Netherlands: Reidel.Google Scholar
Flynn, S. in preparation. Adult L2 acquisition: Resetting the parameters of universal grammar.Google Scholar
Flynn, S. with Espinal, I.. 1984. Contrastive analysis redefined: Resetting the parameters of universal grammar: Comparison of the acquisition of pronominal anaphora by Spanish, Japanese and Chinese adult L2 learners of English. Paper given at the World Congress of Applied Linguistics, 08 1984, Brussels, Belgium, pp. 8, 16.Google Scholar
Gass, S., & Selinker, L. (eds.). 1983. Language transfer in language learning. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Gundel, J., & Tarone, E.. 1983. Lexical transfer and the acquisition of pronominal anaphora. In S. Gass and L. Selinker (eds.), pp. 281–96.Google Scholar
Haegeman, L. 1982. Counterfactual conditionals in English and Dutch. Unpublished manuscript, University of Ghent.Google Scholar
Hale, K. 1982. Preliminary remarks on configurationality. In Pustejovsky, J. and Sells, P. (eds.). Proceedings of Nels 12, pp. 86–96. Amherst, MA: University of Massachusetts.Google Scholar
Huang, C.-T.J. 1982. Logical relations in Chinese and the theory of grammar. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Hust, J., & Brame, M.. 1976. Jackendoff on interpretive semantics. Linguistic Analysis 2; 243–78.Google Scholar
Hyams, N. 1983. The acquisition of parameterized grammars. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, CUNY.Google Scholar
Jaeggli, O. 1980. On some phonologically null elements in syntax. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
James, C. 1981. Contrastive analysis. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Kramsch, C. 1981. Discourse analysis and second language teaching. Language in education: Theory and practice, vol. 37. Washington, D.C.: CAL.Google Scholar
Kramsch, C. 1984. Interaction et discours dans la classe de langue. Paris: Hatier, Credif.Google Scholar
Krashen, S. 1981. Second language acquisition and second language learning. Oxford: Pergamon Institute of English.Google Scholar
Kuno, S. 1978. Generative discourse analysis in America. In Dressler, W. (ed.), Current trends in textlinguistics, pp. 275–94. New York: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Liceras, J. 1983. Markedness, contrastive analysis and the acquisition of Spanish syntax by English speakers. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Toronto.Google Scholar
Lust, B. 1981. Constraint on anaphora in child language: A prediction for a universal. In Tavakolian, S. (ed.), Language acquisition and linguistic theory, pp. 74–96. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Lust, B. 1983. On the notion ‘principal branching direction’: A parameter of universal grammar. In Otsu, Y., van Riemsdyk, H., Inoue, K., Kamio, A. and Kawasaki, N. (eds.) Studies in generative grammar and language acquisition, pp. 187–201. Tokyo: Monbusho Grant for Scientific Research.Google Scholar
Lust, B., Loveland, K., & Kornet, R.. 1980. The development of language: Syntactic and pragmatic constraints. Linguistic Analysis 6; 359–92.Google Scholar
Mazurkewich, I. 1984a. Dative questions and markedness. In Eckman, F., Bell, L., and Nelson, D. (eds.), Universals of second language acquisition, pp. 119–31. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Mazurkewich, I. 1984b. The acquisition of the dative alternation by second language learners and linguistic theory. Language Learning 34; 91–110.Google Scholar
Newmeyer, F. 1983. Grammatical theory: Its limits and its possibilities. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Radford, A. 1982. Transformational syntax. London: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Reinhart, T. 1981. Definite NP anaphora and c-command domains. Linguistic Inquiry 12; 605–36.Google Scholar
Rizzi, L. 1982. Issues in Italian syntax. Dordrecht: Foris.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roeper, T. 1981. On the deductive model and the acquisition of productive morphology. In Baker, C. L. and McCarthy, J. J. (eds.), The logical problem of language acquisition, pp. 129–50. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Torrego, E. 1981. Spanish as a pro-drop language. Unpublished manuscript, University of Massachusetts.Google Scholar
Solan, L. 1983. Pronominal reference: Child language and the theory of grammar. The Netherlands: Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
White, L. 1984. The pro-drop parameter in adult second language acquisition. Revised version of paper given at Boston University Language Acquisition Conference,October 1983.Google Scholar
Zobl, H. 1980. The formal and developmental selectivity of L1 influence on L2 acquisition. Language Learning 30; 43–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar