Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-jbqgn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-30T10:34:19.572Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Lexical Constraints on Syntactic Acquisition

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 November 2008

Josh Ard  and
Susan M. Gass
Josh Ard
Affiliation:
The University of Michigan
Susan M. Gass
Affiliation:
Michigan State University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper investigates what has traditionally been viewed as syntactic acquisition, with the goal of questioning whether what appears to be syntactic acquisition is more appropriately described as lexical or semantic acquisition. Data come from responses to a grammaticality judgment test by learners of English as a second language at two proficiency levels. Four syntactic structures were examined. The sentences tested varied in the verbs used (e.g., John donated/gave Mary a present; John donated/gave a present to Mary). The results suggest that less proficient subjects use syntactic strategies, more proficient learners use more semantic based strategies, and there is more lexical differentiation at the lower levels of proficiency. Thus, as learners gain in proficiency, there is an increased influence of the semantic relatedness of lexical items.

Type
Articles
Information
Studies in Second Language Acquisition , Volume 9 , Issue 2 , June 1987 , pp. 233 - 252
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1987

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

REFERENCES

Berent, G. (1985). Markedness considerations m the acquisition of conditional sentences. Language Learning, 35, 337–372.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berwick, R., & Weinberg, A. (1984). The grammatical basis of linguistic performance: Language use and acquisition. Cambridge, MA: MIT.Google Scholar
Bialystok, E. (1981). The role of linguistic knowledge in second language use. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 4, 31–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chaudron, C. (1983). Research on metalinguistic judgments: A review of theory, methods and results. Language Learning, 33, 343–377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, N. 1970. Remarks on nominalization. In Jacobs, R. & Rosenbaum, P. (Eds.), Readings in English transformational grammar (pp. 184–221). Waltham, MA: Ginn and Company.Google Scholar
D'Anglejan, A., & Tucker, R. (1975). The acquisition of English complex structures by adult learners. Language Learning, 25, 281–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, R. (1985). Understanding second language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Flynn, S. (1983). A study of the effects of principal branching direction in second language acquisition: The generalization ofa parameter of universal grammar from first to second language acquisition. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY.Google Scholar
Gass, S. (1979). Language transfer and universal grammatical relations. Language Learning, 29, 327–344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gass, S. (1983). The development of L2 intuitions. TESOL Quarterly, 17, 273–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gass, S. (1984). A review of mterlanguage syntax: Language transfer and language universals. Language Learning, 34, 115–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gass, S. (1986a). An interactional approach to L2 sentence interpretation. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 8, 19–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gass, S. (1986b). Sentence interpretation in second language acquisition. Keynote address presented at the Pacific Linguistics Conference,Eugene, Oregon.Google Scholar
Gass, S., & Ard, J. (1984). Second language acquisition and the ontology of language universals. In Rutherford, W. (Ed.), Language universals and second language acquisition (pp. 33–68). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kellerman, E. (1979). Transfer and non-transfer: Where we are now. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 2, 37–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liceras, J. (1983). Markedness, contrastive analysis, and the acquisition of Spanish syntax by English speakers. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Toronto.Google Scholar
MacWhinney, B. (1986). Competition and language. Keynote address presented at the Pacific Linguistics Conference,Eugene, Oregon.Google Scholar
Mazurkewich, I. (1984). The acquisition of the dative alternation by second language learners. Language Learning, 34, 91–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rutherford, W. (1982). Markedness in second language acquisition. Language Learning, 32, 85–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rutherford, W. (1983). Language typology and language transfer. In Gass, S. & Selinker, L. (Eds.), Language transfer in language learning (pp. 358–370). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Rutherford, W. (1984). Description and explanation in interlanguage syntax: State of the art. Language Learning, 34, 127–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tarone, E. 1979. Interlanguage as chameleon. Language Learning, 29, 181–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Visser, F. Th. (1970). An historical syntax of the English language. Leiden: E. J. Brill.Google Scholar
White, L. (1985). The “pro-drop” parameter in adult second language acquisition. Language Learning, 35, 47–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar