Hostname: page-component-6766d58669-kn6lq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-17T23:20:39.537Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Comparative Study of First and Second Language Development

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 November 2008

Harald Clahsen
Harald Clahsen
Affiliation:
Universität Düsseldorf
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article discusses the relationship of first language (L1) and second language (L2) acquisition. First, different approaches to comparing L1 and L2 development are summarized. Then, I argue for a particular version of the fundamental difference hypothesis. Finally, I illustrate the hypothesis with some evidence from the acquisition of German syntax. It is claimed that the Universal Grammar (UG) approach provides a theoretical framework to explain differences between L1 and (adult) L2 development. In particular I argue that the observed L1/L2 differences can be accounted for by assuming that adult L2 learners cannot use principles of UG as a learning device in the same way as L1 learners use them.

Information

Type
Articles
Information
Studies in Second Language Acquisition , Volume 12 , Issue 2 , June 1990 , pp. 135 - 153
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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

REFERENCES

Andersen, R. (Ed.). (1984). Second languages: A cross-linguistic perspective. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Andersen, R. (1988). Models, processes, principles, and strategies: Second language acquisition in and out of the classroom. IDEAL, 3, 77–95.Google Scholar
Bley-Vroman, R. (in press). The logical problem of foreign language learning. Linguistic Analysis.Google Scholar
Bley-Vroman, R., & Chaudron, C. (1988). Review essay: A critique of Flynn's parameter setting model of second language acquisition. University of Hawaii Working Papers in ESL, 7(1), 67–107.Google Scholar
Bley-Vroman, R., Felix, S., & Ioup, G. (1988). The accessibility of universal grammar in adult language learning. Unpublished manuscript, University of Hawaii, Manoa.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bowerman, M. (1985). What shapes children's grammars? In Slobin, D. (Ed.), The cross-linguistic study of language acquisition (Vol. 2, pp. 1257–1320). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Brown, R. (1973). A first language: The early stages. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1981). Lectures on government and binding. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Clahsen, H. (1982). Spracherwerb in der Kindheit: Eine Untersuchung zur Entwicklung der Syntax bei Kleinkindern. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Clahsen, H. (1984). The acquisition of German word order: A test case for cognitive approaches to second language development. In Andersen, R. (Ed.), Second languages: A cross-linguistic perspective (pp. 219–242). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Clahsen, H. (1988a). Critical phases of grammar development: A study of the acquisition of negation in children and adults. In Jordens, P. & Lalleman, J. (Eds.), Language development (pp. 123–148). Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Clahsen, H. (1988b). Parameterized grammatical theory and language acquisition: A study of the acquisition of verb placement and inflection by children and adults. In Flynn, S. & O'Neill, W. (Eds.), Linguistic theory in second language acquisition (pp. 47–75). Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clahsen, H., Meisel, J., & Pienemann, M. (1983). Deutsch als Zweitsprache: Der Spracherwerb ausländischer Arbeiter. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Clahsen, H., & Muysken, P. (1986). The accessibility of Universal Grammar to adult and child learners: A study of the acquisition of German word order. Second Language Research, 2, 93–119.Google Scholar
Clahsen, H., & Muysken, P. (1989). The UG paradox in L2 acquisition. Second Language Research, 5, 1–29.Google Scholar
De Haan, G., & Tuijnman, K. (1988). Missing subjects and objects in child grammar. In Jordens, P & Lalleman, J. (Eds.), Language development (pp. 101–122). Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Den Besten, H., & Rutten, J. (1988). On verb raising, extraposition and free word order in Dutch. Unpublished manuscript, Universiteit van Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Dulay, H., Burt, M., & Krashen, S. (1982). Language two. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ervin-Tripp, S. (1974). Is second language learning like the first? TESOL Quarterly, 8, 111–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Felix, S. (1982). Psycholinguistische Aspekte des Zweitsprachenerwerbs. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Felix, S. (1987). Cognition and language growth. Dordrecht: Foris.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Felix, S. (1988). UG generated knowledge in L2 acquisition. In Flynn, S. & O'Neill, W. (Eds.), Linguistic theory in second language acquisition (pp. 277–294). Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Finer, D. (1988). Modularity and lexical parameterization in the adult grammar. Unpublished manuscript, State University of New York, Stony Brook.Google Scholar
Flynn, S. (1987). A parameter-setting model of L2 acquisition: Experimental studies in anaphora. Dordrecht: Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flynn, S. (1988). Nature of development in L2 learning and implications for theories of language acquisition in general. In Flynn, S. & O'Neill, W. (Eds.), Linguistic theory in second language acquisition (pp. 76–89). Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flynn, S., & O'Neill, W. (Eds.). (1988). Linguistic theory in second language acquisition. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grewendorf, G., & Sternefeld, W. (Eds.). (1989). Scrambling and barriers. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Haegeman, L. (1988). Verb projection raising: An adjunction analysis. Unpublished manuscript, University of Geneva.Google Scholar
Hilles, S. (1989). Access to Universal Grammar in second language acquisition. Paper presented at SLRF 1989, UCLA.Google Scholar
Hoehle, T. (1983). Topologische Felder. Unpublished manuscript, University of Cologne.Google Scholar
Jenkins, L. (1988). Second language acquisition: A biolinguistic approach. In Flynn, S. & O'Neill, W. (Eds.), Linguistic theory in second language acquisition (pp. 109–116). Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klein, W. (1986). Second language acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koopman, H. (1984). The syntax of verbs. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Lebeaux, D. (1987). Language acquisition and the form of the grammar. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
Lenneberg, E. (1967). Biological foundations of language. New York: Wiley.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Long, M. (1988). Maturational constraints on language development. University of Hawaii Working Papers in ESL, 7(2), 1–53.Google Scholar
Meisel, J., Clahsen, H., & Pienemann, M. (1981). On determining developmental stages in natural second language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 3, 109–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pfaff, C. (Ed.). (1987). First and second language acquisition processes. Cambridge, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Phinney, M. (1987). The pro-drop parameter in second language acquisition. In Roeper, T. & Williams, E. (Eds.), Parameter setting (pp. 221–238). Dordrecht: Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pinker, S. (1984). Language learnability and language development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Rizzi, L. (1982). Issues in Italian syntax. Dordrecht: Foris.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rutherford, W. (1988). Questions of learnability in second language acquisition. Unpublished manuscript, University of Southern California.Google Scholar
Schachter, J. (1988). On the issue of completeness in second language acquisition. Unpublished manuscript, University of Southern California.Google Scholar
Sellner, M. (1988). Relativsatz und Subjazenz beim L2 Erwerb des Deutschen. Unpublished manuscript, University of Salzburg.Google Scholar
Slobin, D. (1973). Cognitive prerequisites for the development of grammar. In Ferguson, C. & Slobin, D. (Eds.), Studies of child language development (pp. 175–208). New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
Slobin, D. (1985). Crosslinguistic evidence for the language-making capacity. In Slobin, D. (Ed.), The cross-linguistic study of language acquisition (pp. 1157–1256). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Stowell, T. (1981). The origins of phrase structure. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Tomaselli, A., & Schwartz, B. (in press). Analyzing the acquisition stages of negation in L2 German: Support for UG in adult SLA. Second Language Research.Google Scholar
Webelhuth, G., & den Besten, H. (1987, March-April). Remnant topicalization and the constituent structure of VP in the Germanic SOV languages. Paper presented at the GLOW Colloquium, Venice.Google Scholar
Wexler, K., & Culicover, P. (1980). Formal principles of language acquisition. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
White, L. (1988). Island effects in second language acquisition. In Flynn, S. & O'Neill, W. (Eds.), Linguistic theory in second language acquisition (pp. 144–172). Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
White, L. (1990). Second language acquisition and universal grammar. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 12, 121–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
White, L. (in press). The adjacency condition on case assignment: Do L2 learners observe the subset principle? In Gass, S. & Schachter, J. (Eds.), Linguistic perspectiues on second language acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Wode, H. (1981). Learning a second language: An integrated view of language acquisition. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Woods, B. (1980). Observations on the neurological basis for initial language. In Caplan, D. (Ed.), Biological studies in mental processes (pp. 149–158). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Zobl, H. (1988). Configurationality and the subset principle. In Sharwood Smith, M. & van Buren, P. (Eds.), Learnability and second (pp. 116–131). Dordrecht: Foris.CrossRefGoogle Scholar