Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-qlrfm Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-14T07:42:40.829Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Sources of Linguistic Knowledge and Uniformity of Nonnative Performance

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 November 2008

Helmut Zobl
Helmut Zobl
Affiliation:
Carleton University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Tacit linguistic knowledge derives from experience of the input data or from domain-specific principles without the interaction of experience. Recognition of constraint violations is generally deemed to call upon the second kind of knowledge source. This paper proposes that this epistemological distinction should be reflected in native speaker and nonnative speaker performance. More precisely, performance should be more uniform across the species where it engages knowledge without the interaction of experience. A review of six studies investigating nonnative speaker acceptability judgments supports the predicted asymmetry. The paper concludes that the observed asymmetry supports the modular position on nonnative linguistic knowledge.

Type
Articles
Information
Studies in Second Language Acquisition , Volume 14 , Issue 4 , December 1992 , pp. 387 - 402
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

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
Birdsong, D. (1989). Metalinguistic performance and interlinguistic competence. New York: Springer.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
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
Bowerman, M. (1987). Commentary: Mechanisms of language acquisition. In MacWhinney, B. (Ed.), Mechanisms of language acquisition (pp. 443–466). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1980). On cognitive structures and their development: A reply to Piaget. In Piatelli-Palmarini, M. (Ed.), Language and learning: The debate between Jean Piaget and Noam Chomsky (pp. 35&54). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1981). Lectures on government and binding. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Clahsen, H., & Muysken, P. (1989). The UG paradox in L2 acquisition. Second Language Research, 5, 1–29.Google Scholar
Cook, V. (1988). Chomsky's Universal Grammar: An introduction. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Coppieters, R. (1987). Competence differences between native and near-native speakers. Language, 63, 544–573.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fanselow, G. (1987). Konfigurationalität. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.Google Scholar
Felix, S. (1985). More evidence on competing cognitive systems. Second Language Research, 1, 47–72.Google Scholar
Felix, S. (1988). UG-generated knowledge in adult second language acquisition. In Flynn, S. & O'Neill, W. (Eds.), Linguistic theory in second language acquisition (pp. 277–294). Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fodor, J. D., & Crain, S. (1987a). Sentence matching and overgeneration. Cognition, 26, 123–169.Google Scholar
Fodor, J. D., & Crain, S. (1987b). Simplicity and generality of rules in language acquisition. In MacWhinney, B. (Ed.), Mechanisms of language acquisition (pp. 35–63). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Freedman, S., & Forster, K. (1985). The psychological status of overgenerated sentences. Cognition, 19, 101–131.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gerken, L, & Bever, T. (1986). Linguistic intuitions are the result of interactions between perceptual processes and linguistic universals. Cognitive Science, 10, 457–476.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gold, E. (1967). Language identification in the limit. Information and Control, 10, 447–474.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gregg, K. (1984). Krashen's monitor and Occam's razor. Applied Linguistics, 5, 79–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hawkins, J. (1988). Explaining language universals. In Hawkins, J. (Ed.), Explaining language universals (pp. 3–28). Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Hornstein, N., & Lightfoot, D. (1981). Introduction. In Hornstein, N. & Lightfoot, D. (Eds.), Explanation in linguistics (pp. 9–31). London: Longman.Google Scholar
Johnson, J., & Newport, E. (1989). Critical period effects in second language learning: The influence of maturational state on the acquisition of English as a second language. Cognitive Psychology, 21, 60–99.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Koopman, H. (1984). The syntax of verbs. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Krashen, S. (1982). Principles and practice in second language acquisition. Oxford: Pergamon.Google Scholar
Maling, J., & Zaenen, A. (1982). A phrase structure account of Scandinavian extraction phenomena. In Jacobson, P. & Pullum, G. (Eds.), The nature of syntactic representation (pp. 229–282). Dordrecht: Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martohardjono, G. (1991, February). Gradience in acceptability in second language acquisition. Paper presented at the Second Language Research Forum, University of Southern California, Los Angeles.Google Scholar
Martohardjono, G., & Flynn, S. (1991, October). Towards a theory of L2 acquisition: Principles of UG or transfer from the L1. Paper presented at the Conference on Theory Construction and Methodology in Second Language Acquisition Research, Michigan State University, East Lansing.Google Scholar
Matthews, R., & Demopoulos, W. (Eds.). (1989). Learnability and linguistic theory. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McLaughlin, B. (1978). The monitor model: Some methodological considerations. Language Learning, 28, 309–332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pinker, S. (1979). Formal models of language learning. Cognition, 7, 217–283.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pinker, S. (1984). Language learnability and language development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Pinker, S. (1989). Markedness and language development. In Matthews, R. & Demopoulos, W. (Eds.), Learnability and linguistic theory (pp. 107–127). Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pollock, J. (1989). Verb movement, universal grammar and the structure of IP. Linguistic Inquiry, 20, 365–424.Google Scholar
Riemsdijk, H. V., & Williams, E. (1986). Introduction to the theory of grammar. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Roeper, T. (1987). The acquisition of implicit arguments and the distinction between theory, process and mechanism. In MacWhinney, B. (Ed.), Mechanisms of language acquisition (pp. 309–344). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Rutherford, W. (1988). Questions of learnability in second language acquisition. Unpublished manuscript, Department of Linguistics, University of Southern California, Los Angeles.Google Scholar
Schachter, J. (1988). Second language acquisition and its relationship to Universal Grammar. Applied Linguistics, 9, 213–234.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
Schwartz, B. (1986). The epistemological status of second language acquisition. Second Language Research, 2, 120–159.Google Scholar
Schwartz, B. (1987). The modular basis of second language acquisition. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Southern California, Los Angeles.Google Scholar
Sharwood Smith, M. (1986). Comprehension versus acquisition: Two ways of processing input. Applied Linguistics, 7, 239–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sorace, A. (1988). Intuitions in interlanguage development: The problem of indeterminacy. In Pankhurst, J., Sharwood Smith, M., & Van Buren, P. (Eds.), Learnability and second languages (pp. 167–190). Dordrecht: Foris.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
VanPatten, B. (1988). How juries get hung: Problems with the evidence for a focus on form in teaching. Language Learning, 38, 243–260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wexler, K., & Culicover, P. (1980). Formal principles of language acquisition. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google 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. (1989). Universal Grammar and second language acquisition. Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
White, L. (1991, March). Long and short verb movement in second language acquisition. Paper presented at the Second Language Research Forum, University of Southern California, Los Angeles.Google Scholar
Zobl, H. (1989, October). Grammaticality intuitions of multilingual and unilingual nonprimary language learners. Paper presented at the 14th Annual Boston University Language Development Conference, Boston.Google Scholar