Hostname: page-component-6bb9c88b65-zjgpb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-07-17T13:47:09.689Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Second Language Acquisition and Universal Grammar

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 November 2008

Lydia White
Lydia White
Affiliation:
McGill University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In this article, the motivation for Universal Grammar (UG), as assumed in the principles and parameters framework of generative grammar (Chomsky, 1981a, 1981b), is discussed, particular attention being paid to the logical problem of first language acquisition. The potential role of UG in second language (L2) acquisition is then considered. Three different positions are reviewed: (a) the claim that UG is not available to L2 learners; (b) the claim that UG is fully available; and (c) the claim that the L2 learner's access to UG is mediated by the mother tongue. This raises the issue of what kind of evidence can be used to decide between these three positions. Recent experimental research which argues for one or another of these positions by investigating the L2 status of the Subjacency Principle is reviewed, and the implications of this research are discussed.

Information

Type
Articles
Information
Studies in Second Language Acquisition , Volume 12 , Issue 2 , June 1990 , pp. 121 - 133
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

Bley-Vroman, R. (1989). What is the logical problem of second language learning? In Gass, S. & Schachter, J. (Eds.), Linguistic perspectives on second language acquisition (pp. 41–68). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bley-Vroman, R., Felix, S., & Ioup, G. (1988). The accessibility of universal grammar in adult language learning. Second Language Research, 4, 1–32.Google Scholar
Bohannon, J. N., & Stanowicz, L. (1988). The issue of negative evidence: Adult responses to children's language errors. Developmental Psychology, 24, 684–689.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, R., & Hanlon, C. (1970). Derivational complexity and the order of acquisition in child speech. In Hayes, J. R. (Ed.), Cognition and the development of language (pp. 11–53). New York: Wiley.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. (1986a). Barriers. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1986b). Knowledge of language: Its nature, origin, and use. New York: Praeger.Google Scholar
Clahsen, H. (1990). The comparative study of first and second language development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 12, 135–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clahsen, H., & Muysken, P. (1986). The availability 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
Ellis, R. (1985). Understanding second language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Flynn, S. (1987). A parameter-setting model of L2 acquisition. Dordrecht: Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flynn, S., & O'Neil, W. (Eds.) (1988). Linguistic theory in second language acquisition. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fodor, J. A. (1983). The modularity of mind. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grimshaw, J., & Rosen, S. T. (in press). Knowledge and obedience: The developmental status of the binding theory. Linguistic Inquiry.Google Scholar
Hirsh-Pasek, K., Treiman, R., & Schneiderman, M. (1984). Brown and Hanlon revisited: Mothers' sensitivity to ungrammatical forms. Journal of Child Language, 11, 81–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lightfoot, D. (1982). The language lottery: Toward a biology of grammars. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Martohardjono, G., & Gair, J. (1989). Apparent UG inaccessibility in SLA: Misapplied principles or principled misapplications? Paper presented at the Conference on the Interaction of Linguistics, Second Language Acquisition and Speech Pathology, University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee.Google Scholar
McLaughlin, B. (1987). Theories of second language learning. London: Edward Arnold.Google Scholar
Otsu, Y. (1981). Universal grammar and syntactic development in children: Toward a theory of syntactic development. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Pankhurst, J., Sharwood Smith, M., & Van Buren, P. (Eds.). (1988). Learnability and second languages: A book of readings. Dordrecht: Foris.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. Paper presented at the 13th Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development.Google Scholar
Schachter, J. (1988a). On the issue of completeness in second language acquisition. Paper presented at the 13th Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development.Google Scholar
Schachter, J. (1988b). Second language acquisition and its relationship to Universal Grammar. Applied Linguistics, 9, 219–235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schachter, J. (1989). Testing a proposed universal. In Gass, S. & Schachter, J. (Eds.), Linguistic perspectives on second language acquisition (pp. 73–88). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sportiche, D. (1981). Bounding nodes in French. Linguistic Review, 1, 219–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wexler, K., & Culicover, P. (1980). Formal principles of language acquisition. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
White, L. (1985). Is there a logical problem of second language acquisition? TESL Canada, 2(2), 29–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
White, L. (1988a). Island effects in second language acquisition. In Flynn, S. & O'Neil, W. (Eds.), Linguistic theory in second language acquisition (pp. 144–172). Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
White, L. (1988b). Universal grammar and language transfer. In Pankhurst, J., Sharwood Smith, M., & Van Buren, P. (Eds.), Learnability and second languages: A book of readings (pp. 36–61). Dordrecht: Foris.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: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zobl, H. (1983). Markedness and the projection problem. Language Learning, 33, 293–313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar