Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-c4f8m Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-19T02:28:44.894Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Child Second Language Acquisition of Syntax

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 November 2008

Usha Lakshmanan
Usha Lakshmanan
Affiliation:
Southern Illinois University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Recent advances in linguistic theory within the principles and parameters framework have exerted considerable influence on the field of second language acquisition. SLA researchers working within this framework of syntactic theory have investigated the extent to which developing second language grammars are constrained by principles of Universal Grammar (UG). Much of the UG-based SLA research in the 1980s focused on adult L2 acquisition, but the role of UG principles in child L2 acquisition remained largely unexplored. More recently, however, this state of affairs has begun to change as SLA researchers are becoming more and more interested in child second language syntactic development. In this paper, I review recent and current developments in UG-based child SLA research, and I argue that child SLA has a valuable role to play in enabling us to arrive at a better understanding of the role of biological factors in language acquisition and in strengthening the links between SLA and linguistic theory. Specifically, I discuss the findings of child SLA studies with respect to the following issues: the role of UG parameters in child SLA, the status of functional categories and their projections in child SLA, and the nature of the evidence available to and used by child L2 learners. The overall picture emerging from these studies suggests that child L2 developing grammars are indeed constrained by Universal Grammar. While it is not fully clear at the present time whether the child L2 learners& knowledge is a result of direct access to UG or indirect access to UG (i.e., through the mediation of the L1), the evidence indicates that L1 transfer (at least in certain syntactic domains) cannot be entirely ruled out.

Type
State of the Art
Information
Studies in Second Language Acquisition , Volume 17 , Issue 3 , September 1995 , pp. 301 - 329
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1995

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

Abney, S. (1987). The English noun phrase in its sentential aspects. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Adams, M. (1978). Methodology for examining second language acquisition. In Hatch, E. (Ed.), Second language acquisition: A book of readings (pp. 278–296). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Bates, E., Bretherton, I., & Snyder, L. (1988). From first words to grammar: Individual differences and dissociable mechanisms. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bloom, P. (1990). Subjectless sentences in child language. Linguistic Inquiry, 21, 491–504.Google Scholar
Bloom, P. (1993). Grammatical continuity in language development: The case of subjectless sentences. Linguistic Inquiry, 24, 721–734.Google Scholar
Burger, D. (1992). The acquisition of English complementizers and relative clauses in a Japanese-dominant bilingual child in the United States. Unpublished manuscript, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale.Google Scholar
Cancino, H., Rosansky, E., & Schumann, J. (1978). The acquisition of English negatives and interrogatives by native Spanish speakers. In Hatch, E. (Ed.), Second language acquisition: A book of readings (pp. 207–230). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Cazden, C., Cancino, H., Rosansky, E., & Schumann, J. (1975). Second language acquisition in children, adolescents and adults. Final report submitted to the National Institute of Education, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1981). Lectures on government and binding. Dordrecht: Foris.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
Chomsky, N. (1991). Some notes on economy of derivation and representation. In Freidin, R. (Ed.), Principles and parameters in comparative grammar (pp. 417–454). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1992). A minimalist program for linguistic theory (MIT Occasional Papers in Linguistics 1). Cambridge: Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Department of Linguistics and Philosophy.Google Scholar
Clahsen, H. (1984). The acquisition of German word order: A test case for cognitive approaches to L2 development. In Andersen, R. (Ed.), Cross-linguistic series on second language research (pp. 219–242). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Clahsen, H., Eisenbeiss, S., & Vainikka, A. (1994). The seeds of structure: A syntactic analysis of the acquisition of case marking. In Hoekstra, T. & Schwartz, B. (Eds.), Language acquisition studies in generative grammar (pp. 85–118). Amsterdam: Benjamins.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
Cole, P., Hermon, G., & Sung, L. (1990). Principles and parameters of long-distance reflexives. Linguistic Inquiry, 21, 1–22.Google Scholar
Cook, V. (1993). Linguistics and second language acquisition. New York: St. Martin's Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Corder, S. P. (1977). Simple codes and the source of the second language learner's initial heuristic hypothesis. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 1, 1–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Curtiss, S. (1980). The critical period and feral children. UCLA Working Papers in Cognitive Linguistics, 2, 21–36.Google Scholar
Deprez, V., & Pierce, A. (1993). Negation and functional projections in early grammar. Linguistic Inquiry, 24, 25–68.Google Scholar
Dulay, H., & Burt, M. (1973). Should we teach children syntax? Language Learning, 23, 245–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dulay, H., & Burt, M. (1974). Natural sequences in child second language acquisition. Language Learning, 24, 37–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Epstein, S., Flynn, S., & Martohardjono, G. (1993, January). The continuous access hypothesis: Some evidence from functional categories in adult L2 acquisition. Paper presented at the Workshop on Recent Advances in Second Language Acquisition, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
Eubank, L. (1994). Towards an explanation for the late acquisition of agreement in L2 English. Second Language Research, 10, 84–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eubank, L. (1993/1994). On the transfer of parametric values in L2 development. Language Acquisition, 3, 183–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Felix, S. (1980). Interference, interlanguage, and related Issues. In Felix, S. (Ed.), Second Language Development (pp. 93–108). Tübingen: Gunter Narr.Google Scholar
Felix, S. (1985). More evidence on competing cognitive systems. Second Language Research, 1, 47–72.Google Scholar
Felix, S. (1991). The accessibility of Universal Grammar in second language acquisition. In Eubank, L. (Ed.), Point/counterpoint: Universal Grammar in the second language (pp. 89–104). Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Finer, D. (1991). Biding parameters in second language acquisition. In Eubank, L. (Ed.), Point/counterpoint: Universal Grammar in the second language (pp. 351–374). Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Finer, D., & Broselow, E. (1986). Second language acquisition of reflexive binding. Proceedings of the North Eastern Linguistic Society, 16, 154–168.Google Scholar
Flynn, S. (1989). The role of the head-initial/head-final parameter in the acquisition of English relative clauses by adult Spanish and Japanese speakers. In Gass, S. & Schachter, J. (Eds.), Linguistic perspectives on second language acquisition (pp. 89–108). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flynn, S., & Martohardjono, G. (1994, March). Evidence for universal in the acquisition of syntax: A consideration of functional categories and wh-movement. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Association of Applied Linguistics, Baltimore, MD.Google Scholar
Fukui, N. (1986). A theory of category projection and its applications. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
Gass, S. (1988). Integrating research areas: A framework for second language studies. Applied Linguistics, 9, 198–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gass, S. (1993). Second language acquisition: Past, present and future. Second Language Research, 9, 99–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gass, S., & Lakshmanan, U. (1991). Accounting for interlanguage subject pronouns. Second Language Research, 7, 181–203.Google Scholar
Gass, S., & Selinker, L. (1994). Second language acquisition: An introductory course. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Gerbault, J. (1978). The acquisition of English by a five-year-old French speaker. Unpublished master's thesis, University of California, Los Angeles.Google Scholar
Goodluck, H. (1991). Language acquisition. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Grondin, N. (1992). Functional projections in child second language acquisition of French. Unpublished master's thesis, McGill University, Montreal.Google Scholar
Grondin, N., & White, L. (1993). Functional categories in child L2 acquisition of French. McGill Working Papers in Linguistics, 9, 121–145.Google Scholar
Guilfoyle, E., & Noonan, M. (1992). Functional categories and language acquisition. Canadian Journal of Linguistics, 37, 241–272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hakuta, K. (1974). Prefabricated patterns and the emergence of structure in second language acquisition. Language Learning, 24, 287–297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hakuta, K. (1975). Becoming bilingual at the age of five: The story of Uguisu. Unpublished senior honors thesis, Harvard University, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Hakuta, K. (1976). A case study of a Japanese child learning English as a second language. Language Learning, 26, 321–351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hatch, E. (1983). Psycholinguistics: A second language perspective. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Hickey, T. (1993). Identifying formulas in first language acquisition. Journal of Child Language, 20, 27–43.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hilles, S. (1991). Access to Universal Grammar in second language acquisition. In Eubank, L. (Ed.), Point/counterpoint: Universal Grammar in the second language (pp. 305–338). Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hirakawa, M. (1990). A study of the L2 acquisition of English reflexives. Second Language Research, 6, 60–85.Google Scholar
Huang, J. (1970). A Chinese child's acquisition of English syntax. Unpublished master's thesis, University of California, Los Angeles.Google Scholar
Hyams, N. (1986). Language acquisition and the theory of parameters. Dordrecht: Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hyams, N. (1992a). The genesis of clausal structure. In Meisel, J. (Ed.), The acquisition of verb placement: Functional categories and V2 phenomena in language acquisition (pp. 371–400). Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hyams, N. (1992b). A reanalysis of null subjects in child language. In Goodluck, H., Roeper, T., & Weissenborn, J. (Eds.), Theoretical studies in language acquisition (pp. 249–269). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Hyams, N., & Safir, K. (1991). Evidence, analogy and passive knowledge: Comments on Lakshmanan. In Eubank, L. (Ed.), Point/counterpoint: Universal Grammar in the second language (pp. 411–418). Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hyams, N., & Wexler, K. (1993). On the grammatical basis of null subjects in child language. Linguistic Inquiry, 24, 421–460.Google Scholar
Jaeggli, O., & Hyams, N. (1988). Morphological uniformity and the setting of the null subject parameter. Proceedings of the North Eastern Linguistic Society, 18, 238–253.Google Scholar
Jaeggli, O., & Safir, K. (1989). The null subject parameter and parametric theory. In Jaeggli, O. and Safir, K. (Eds.), The null subject parameter (pp. 215–238). Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, J., & Newport, E. (1991). Critical period effects on universal properties of language: The status of subjacency in the acquisition of a second language. Cognition, 39, 215–258.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Johnson, J., Watkins, R., & Rice, M. (1992). Bimodal bilingual language development in a hearing child of deaf parents. Applied Psycholinguistics, 13, 31–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, K. (1991). Object positions. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 9, 577–636.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Katada, F. (1991). The LF representation of anaphors. Linguistic Inquiry, 22, 287–313.Google Scholar
Koopman, H. (1992). On the absence of case chains in Bambara. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 10, 555–594.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krashen, S., Long, M., & Scarcella, R. (1979). Age, rate, and eventual attainment in second language acquisition. TESOL Quarterly, 13, 573–582.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krashen, S., & Scarcella, R. (1978). On routines and patterns in language acquisition and performance. Language Learning, 28, 283–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kuhberg, H. (1992). Longitudinal L2-attrition versus L2-acquisition in three Turkish children—Empirical findings. Second Language Research, 8, 138–154.Google Scholar
Lakshmanan, U. (1989). Accessibility to Universal Grammar in child second language acquisition. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.Google Scholar
Lakshmanan, U. (1991). Morphological uniformity and null subjects in child second language acquisition. In Eubank, L. (Ed.), Point/counterpoint: Universal Grammar in the second language (pp. 389–410). Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lakshmanan, U. (1993/1994). “The Boy for the Cookie”–Some evidence for the non-violation of the Case Filter in child second language acquisition. Language Acquisition, 3, 51–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lakshmanan, U. (1994). Universal Grammar in child second language acquisition. Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lakshmanan, U., & Selinker, L. (1994). The status of CP and the tensed complementizer that in the developing L2 grammars of English. Second Language Research, 10, 25–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lakshmanan, U., & Teranishi, K. (1994). Preferences versus grammaticality judgments: Some methodological issues concerning the governing category parameter in SLA. In Tarone, E., Gass, S., & Cohen, A. (Eds.), Research methodology in second language acquisition (pp. 185–206). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Larsen-Freeman, D. (1976). An explanation for the morpheme acquisition order of second language learners. Language Learning, 26, 125–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Larsen-Freeman, D., & Long, M. (1991). An introduction to second language acquisition research. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Lebeaux, D. (1988). Language acquisition and the form of the grammar. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
Lightbown, P. (1977). Consistency and variation in the acquisition of French. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Columbia University, New York.Google Scholar
Lightbown, P. (1983). Exploring relationships between developmental and instructional sequences in L2 acquisition. In Seliger, H. & Long, M. (Eds.), Classroom-oriented research in second language acquisition (pp. 217–243). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Lightbown, P., & White, L. (1987). The influence of linguistic theories on language acquisition research. Language Learning, 37, 483–510.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lust, B. (1994). Functional projection of CP and phrase structure parameterization: An argument for the “strong continuity hypothesis.” In Lust, B., Suner, M., & Whitman, J. (Eds.), Syntactic theory and first language acquisition: Crosslinguistic perspectives: Vol. 1. Heads, projections, and learning (pp. 85–118). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Mahajan, A. (1992). The specificity condition and the CED. Linguistic Inquiry, 23, 510–516.Google Scholar
McLaughlin, B. (1978). Second language acquisition in childhood. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Meisel, J. (Ed.). (1990). Two first languages—Early grammatical development in bilingual children. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Meisel, J. (Ed.). (1992). The acquisition of verb placement. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Milon, J. (1974). The development of negation in English by a second language learner. TESOL Quarterly, 8, 137–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miyagawa, S. (1993). LF case-checking and minimal link condition. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics, 19, 213–254.Google Scholar
O'Grady, W. (1991). Language acquisition and the pro-drop phenomenon: A response to Hilles. In Eubank, L. (Ed.), Point/counterpoint: Universal Grammar in the second language (pp. 339–350). Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ozeki, M. (1995). Functional categories in the acquisition of Japanese and English by a two-year-old child. Unpublished M.A. research report, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale.Google Scholar
Peters, A. (1983). The units of language acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Pienemann, M. (1984). Psychological constraints on the teachability of languages. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 6, 186–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pienemann, M. (1989). Is language teachable? Applied Linguistics, 10, 52–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pinker, S. (1989). Learnability and cognition. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Plough, I. (1992). Indirect negative evidence: The middle child. Unpublished manuscript, Michigan State University, East Lansing.Google Scholar
Poeppel, D., & Wexler, K. (1993). The full competence hypothesis of clause structure in German. Language, 69, 1–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pollock, J. (1989). Verb movement, Universal Grammar and the structure of IP. Linguistic Inquiry, 20, 365–424.Google Scholar
Radford, A. (1990). Syntactic theory and the acquisition of English syntax. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Ravem, R. (1978). Two Norwegian children's acquisition of English syntax. In Hatch, E. (Ed.), Second language acquisition: A book of readings (pp. 148–154). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Rizzi, L. (1990). Relativized minimality. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Roeper, T., & Weissenborn, J. (1990). How to make parameters work: Comments on Valian. In Frazier, L. & de Villiers, J. (Eds.), Language processing and language acquisition (pp. 147–162). Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Saleemi, A. (1990). Null subjects, markedness, and implicit negative evidence. In Roca, I. (Ed.), Logical issues in language acquisition (pp. 235–258). Dordrecht: Foris.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schachter, J. (1990). On the issue of completeness in second language acquisition. Second Language Research, 6, 93–124.Google Scholar
Schwartz, B. (1987). The modular basis of second language acquisition. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Southern California, Los Angeles.Google Scholar
Schwartz, B. (1992). Testing between UG-based and problem-solving models of L2A: Developmental sequence data. Language Acquisition, 2, 1–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schwartz, B. (1993, January). Lexical and functional categories in L2A: A principled explanation for explaining transfer. Paper presented at the Workshop on Recent Advances in Second Language Acquisition, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Schwartz, B., & Gubala-Ryzak, M. (1992). Learnability and grammar reorganization in L2A: Against negative evidence causing an unlearning of verb movement. Second Language Research, 8, 1–38.Google Scholar
Schwartz, B., & Sprouse, R. (1994). Word order and nominative case in nonnative language acquisition: A longitudinal study of (L1 Turkish) German interlanguage. In Hoekstra, T. & Schwartz, B. (Eds.), Language acquisition studies in generative grammar (pp. 317–368). Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Selinker, L., Swain, M., & Dumas, G. (1975). The interlanguage hypothesis extended to children. Language Learning, 25, 139–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Snow, C., & Hoefnagei-Höhle, M. (1982). School age second language learners' access to simplified input. Language Learning, 32, 411–430.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thomas, M. (1989). The interpretation of English reflexive pronouns by non-native speakers. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 11, 281–303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thomas, M. (1990). Acquisition of the Japanese reflexive zibun by unilingual and multilingual learners. In Burmeister, H. & Rounds, P. (Eds.), Variability in second language acquisition: Proceedings of the Tenth Second Language Research Forum (pp. 701–718). Eugene: University of Oregon.Google Scholar
Thomas, M. (1991a, October). “Degree-0” learnability, morphology, and Binding Domains. Paper presented at the 16th Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development,Boston.Google Scholar
Thomas, M. (1991b). Universal Grammar and the interpretation of reflexives in a second language. Language, 67, 211–239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tiphine, U. (1983). The acquisition of English statements and interrogatives by French-speaking children. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Kiel, Kiel.Google Scholar
Vainikka, A., & Young-Scholten, M. (1994). Direct access to X-bar theory: Evidence from Korean and Turkish adults learning German. In Hoekstra, T. & Schwartz, B. D. (Eds.), Language acquisition studies in generative grammar (pp. 265–316). Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Valian, V. (1990). Logical and psychological constraints on the acquisition of syntax. In Frazier, L. & de Villiers, J. (Eds.), Language processing and language acquisition (pp. 119–146). Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Valian, V. (1991). Syntactic subjects in the early speech of American and Italian children. Cognition, 40, 21–81.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Valian, V. (1992). Categories of first syntax: Be, be + ing, and nothingness. In Meisel, J. (Ed.), The acquisition of verb placement: Functional categories and V2 phenomena in language acquisition (pp. 401–422). Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wang, Q., Lillo-Martin, D., Best, C., & Levitt, A. (1992). Null subject versus null object: Some evidence from the acquisition of Chinese and English. Language Acquisition, 2, 221–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weinreich, U. (1953). Languages in contact. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Wexler, K., & Manzini, R. (1987). Parameters and learnability in binding theory. Roeper, T. & Williams, E. (Eds.), Parameter setting (pp. 41–76). Dordrecht: Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
White, L. (1985). The pro-drop parameter in adult second language acquisition. Language Learning, 35, 47–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
White, L. (1989). Universal Grammar and second language acquisition. Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
White, L. (1990/1991). The verb-movement parameter in second language acquisition. Language Acquisition, 1, 337–360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
White, L. (1992a). Long and short verb movement in second language acquisition. Canadian Journal of Linguistics, 37, 273–286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
White, L. (1992b). On triggering data in L2 acquisition: A reply to Schwartz and Gubala-Ryzak. Second Language Research, 8, 120–137.Google Scholar
White, L. (in press-a). Clitics in child L2 French. In Hawkins, R. & Clahsen, H. (Eds.), Generative approaches to first and second language acquisition. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
White, L. (in press-b). Input, triggers and second language acquisition. In Eckman, F., Highland, D., Lee, P., Mileman, J., & Rutkowski, R. (Eds.), Second language acquisition theory and pedagogy. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
White, L. (in press-c). Universal Grammar and second language acquisition: Current trends and new directions. In Ritchie, W. & Bhatia, T. (Eds.), Handbook of language acquisition. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Wode, H. (1978). Developmental sequences in naturalistic L2 acquisition. In Hatch, E. (Ed.), Second language acquisition: A book of readings (pp. 101–117). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Wong-Fillmore, L. (1976). The second time around: Cognitive and social strategies in second language acquisition. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Stanford University, Stanford, CA.Google Scholar