Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-wzw2p Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-28T07:54:20.446Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Learnability and the Acquistion of Extraction in Relative Clauses and Wh-Questions

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 November 2008

Kate Wolfe Quintero
Kate Wolfe Quintero
Affiliation:
University of South Carolina
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Learnability theory is an investigation of the cognitive principles that determine developmental stages and eventual success in language acquistion. The focus of this study is on the learning principles within learnability theory that account for developmental stages in adult second language acquisition. Three learning principles, cumulative development, continuity, and conservatism, predict a complex sequence of development in the acquisition of relative clauses and wh-questions in English. They predict an early no-prep stage, gradual development through two additional stages of greater embeddedness of the extracted noun, stranded before nonstranded prepositional structures, and the likelihood of resumption at early stages. These predictions are confirmed by data from previous studies and are further investigated in this study by means of elicited production data collected from 35 Japanese learners of English and 17 native speakers of English. The data show the expected stages of development and confirm the relevance of learning principles to a comprehensive theory of learnability in second language acquisition (SLA).

Type
Articles
Information
Studies in Second Language Acquisition , Volume 14 , Issue 1 , March 1992 , pp. 39 - 70
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1992

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.)

References

Andersen, R. (1984). The one-to-one principle of interlanguage construction. Language Learning, 34, 77–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderson, J. R. (1983). The architecture of cognition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Atkinson, M. (1982). Explanation in the study of child language development. Cambridge. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bardovi-Harlig, K. (1987). Markedness and salience in second-language acquistion. Language Learning, 37, 385–407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bates, E., & MacWhinney, B. (1987). Competition, variation, and language learning. In MacWhinney, B. (Ed.), Mechanisms of language acquisition (pp. 157–193). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Berwick, R. (1985). The acquistion of syntactic knowledge. Cambridge, MA: M.I.T. Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Birdsong, D. (1990). Universal grammar and second language acquisition theory: A review of a research framework and two exemplary books. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 12, 331–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bley-Vroman, R. (1989). What is the logical problem of foreign language learning? In Gass, S. & Schachter, J. (Eds.), Linguistic perspectives on second language acquisition (pp. 41–68). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bowerman, M. (1982). Starting to talk worse: Clues to language acquisition from children's late speech errors. In Strauss, S. (Ed.), U-shaped behavioral growth. New York: Academic.Google Scholar
Bowerman, M. (1987). Commentary. In MacWhinney, B. (Ed.), Mechanisms of language acquisition (pp. 443–466). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Brown, R., & Hanlon, C. (1970). Derivational complexity and the order of acquisition of child speech. In Hayes, J. R. (Ed.), Cognition and the development of language. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Celce-Murcia, M., & Larsen-Freeman, D. (1983). The grammar book: An ESL/EFL teahcer's course. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1981a). Lectures on government and binding. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1981b). Principles and parameters in syntactic theory. In Hornstein, N. & Lightfoot, D. (Eds.), Explanation in linguistics: The logical problem of language acquisition (pp. 32–75). London: Longman.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1986). Barriers (Linguistic Inquiry Monograph No. 13). Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts of Technology.Google Scholar
Clahsen, H. (1984). The acquisition of German word order: A test case for cognitive approaches to L2 development. In Andersen, R. (Ed.), Second languages: A cross-linguistic perspective (pp. 219–242). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Clahsen, H., & Muysken, P. (1989). The availability of universal grammer 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
Clark, E. V. (1987). The principle of contrast: A constraint on language acquisiton. In MacWhinney, B. (Ed.), Mechanisms of language acquisition (pp. 1–33). Hillsdate, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Doughty, C. (1988). The effect of instruction on the acquisition of relativization in English as a second language, Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
Eckman, F., Bell, L., & Nelson, D. (1988). On the generalization of relative clause instruction in the acquisition of English as a second language. Applied Linguistics, 9, 1–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eckman, F., Moravcsik, E., & Wirth, J. (1989). Implicational universals and interrogative structures in the interlanguage of ESL learners. Language Learning, 39, 173–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Felix, S. (1987). Cognition and language growth. Dordrecht: Foris.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Finer, D., & Broselow, E. (1986). Second language acquisition of reflexive binding. Proceedings of the North Eastern Linguistic Society (Vol. 16, pp. 154–168). Amherst, MA: University of Massachusetts.Google Scholar
French, M. (1984). Markedness and the acquisition of pied-piping and preposition stranding. McGill University Working Papers in Linguistics, 2, 131–144.Google Scholar
Gass, S. (1979). Language transfer and universal grammatical relations. Language Learning, 29, 327–344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gass, S. (1982). From theory to practice. In Hines, M. & Rutherford, W. (Eds.), On TESOL '81 (pp. 129–139). Washington, DC: TESOL.Google Scholar
Gazdar, G., Klein, E., Pullum, G., & Sag, I. (1985). Generalized phrase structure grammar. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Gleitman, L. (1981). Maturational determinants of language growth. Cognition, 10, 103–114.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hildebrand, J. (1987). The acquisition of preposition stranding. Canadian Journal of Linguistics, 32, 65–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hornstein, N., & Lightfoot, D. (1981). Introduction. In Hornstein, N. & Lightfoot, D. (Eds.), Explanation in linguistics: The logical problem of language acquisition (pp. 9–31). London: Longman.Google Scholar
Hyltenstam, K. (1984). The use of typological markedness conditions as predictors in second language acquisition: The case of pronominal copies in relative clauses. In Andersen, R. (Ed.), Second languages: A cross-linguisitic perspective (pp. 39–58). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Ioup, G., & Kruse, A. (1977). Interference. vs. structural complexity in second language acquisition: Language universals as a basis for sequencing. In Brown, H. D., Yorio, C., & Crymes, R. (Eds.), On TESOL '77 (pp. 159–171) Washington, DC: TESOL.Google Scholar
Kaplan, R., & Bresnan, J. (1982). Lexical-functional grammar: A formal system for grammatical representation. In Bresnan, J. (Ed.), The mental representation of grammatical relations (pp. 173–281). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Karmiloff-Smith, A. (1984). Children's problem solving. In Lamb, M., Brown, A., & Rogoff, B. (Eds.), Advances in developmental psychology (Vol. 3). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Kean, M. (1986). Core issues in transfer. In Kellerman, E. & Sharwood Smith, M. (Eds.), Crosslinguisitic influence in second language acquisition (pp. 80–90). New York: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
Keenan, E. L., & Comrie, B. (1977). Noun phrase accessibility and universal grammar. Linguistic Inquiry, 8, 63–99.Google Scholar
Kellerman, E. (1985). If at first you do succeed…. In Gass, S. M. & Madden, C. G. (Eds.), Input in second language acquisition (pp. 345–353). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Klein, E. C. (1990, 03). What UG does not explain. Paper presented at the Second Language Research Forum, University of Oregon, Eugene.Google Scholar
Krashen, S. (1985). The input hypothesis: Issues and implications. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Krashen, S., Long, M., & Scarcella, R. (1979). Age, rate, and eventual attainment in second language acquisition. TESOL Quarterly, 13, 573–582.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Long, M. H. (1990). Maturational constraints on language development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 12, 251–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MacWhinney, B. (1978). The acquisition of morphophonology. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 43 (Serial No. 1).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MacWhinney, B. (Ed.). (1987). Mechanisms of language acquisition. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
MacWhinney, B. (1990). Implementations are not conceptualizations: Revising the verb learning model. Unpublished manuscript, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA.Google Scholar
Mallinson, G., & Blake, B. J. (1981). Language typology. Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
Mazurkewich, I. (1984). The acquisition of the dative alternation by second language learners and linguistic theory. Language Learning, 34, 91–.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O'Grady, W. (1987). Principles of grammar and learning. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Pankhurst, J., Sharwood Smith, M., & Van Buren, P. (Eds.). (1988). Learnability and second languages: A book of readings. Dordrecht: Foris.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pavesi, M. (1986). Markedness, discoursal modes, and relative clause formation in a formal and an informal context. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 8, 109–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peters, A. M. (1983). The units of language acquisition. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Peters, A. M. (1985). Language segmentation: Operating principles for the perception and analysis of language. In Slobin, D. I. (Ed.), The crosslinguistic study of language acquisition: Vol, 2. Theoretical issues (pp. 1029–1064). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Pienemann, M., & Johnston, M. (1987). A predictive framework of SLA. Unpublished manuscript, the University of Sydney and AMES NSW, Australia.Google Scholar
Pinker, S. (1984). Language learnability and language development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Pinker, S. (1989). Learnability and cognition: The acquisition of argument structure. Cambridge, MA: M. I. T. Press.Google Scholar
Pinker, S., & Mehler, J. (Eds.). (1988). Connections and symbols. Cambridge, MA: M. I. T. Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Radford, A. (1990). Syntactic theory and the acquisition of English syntax. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Rumelhart, D. E., McClelland, J. L. (1986). Parallel distributed processing: Explorations in the microstructure of cognition (Vols. 1–2). Cambridge, MA: Bradford Books.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rumelhart, D. E., & McClelland, J. L. (1987). Learning the past tenses of English verbs: Implicit rules or parallel distributed processing. In MacWhinney, B. (Ed.), Mechanisms of language acquisition (pp. 195–248). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Rutherford, W. E. (1989). Preemption and the learning of L2 grammars. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 11, 441–457.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schachter, J. (1988). Second language acquisition and its relationship to Universal Grammar. Applied Linguistics, 9, 219–235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Slobin, D. I. (1971). Pyscholinguistics. Glenview, III: Scott, Foresman & Co.Google Scholar
Slobin, D. I. (1985). Crosslinguistic evidence for the language-making capacity. In Slobin, D. I. (Ed.), The crosslinguistic study of language acquisition: Vol 2.Theoretical issues (pp. 1157–1249). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Stowell, T. (1981). The origins of phrase structure. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, M. I. T., Cambridge: MA.Google Scholar
Van Riemsdijk, H. (1978). A case study in syntactic markedness: The binding nature of prepositional phrases. Lisse, The Netherlands: de Ridder.Google Scholar
Wexler, K. (1979, 06). Untitled presentation at the Workshop on Learnability, Laguna Beach, CA.Google Scholar
Wexler, K., & Manzini, M. R. (1987). Parameters and learnability in binding theory. In Roeper, T. and Williams, E. (Eds.), Parameter setting (pp. 41–76). Dordrecht: Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
White, L. (1987). Markedness and second language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 9, 261–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
White, L. (1989a). The principle of adjacency in second language acquisition: Do L2 learners observe the subset principle?. In Gass, S. & Schachter, J. (Eds.), Linguistic perspectives on second language acquisition (pp. 134–158). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
White, L. (1989b). Universal grammar and second language acquisition. Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zobl, H. (1988). Configurationality and the subset principle: The acquisition of V' by Japanese learners of English. In Pankhurst, J., Sharwood Smith, M., & Van Buren, P. (Eds.), Learnability and second languages. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar