Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dzt6s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-30T16:41:54.034Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

SECOND LANGUAGE EPISTEMOLOGY

Take Two

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 June 2009

Laurent Dekydtspotter
Laurent Dekydtspotter*
Affiliation:
Indiana University
*
*Address correspondence to: Laurent Dekydtspotter, Indiana University, Ballantine Hall 642, 1020 E. Kirkwood Ave., Bloomington, IN 47405; e-mail: ldekydts@indiana.edu.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article presents evidence that supports the claim that second language (L2) grammars arise in a domain-specific, informationally encapsulated module with contents provided by Universal Grammar and enriched by native language knowledge, as entertained by Schwartz (1986, 1987, 1999) contra Bley-Vroman (1990). I consider state-of-the-art evidence representative of a body of research on the poverty of the stimulus (POS) that argues for the domain-specificity of L2 representations, with a main focus on interpretation. Then I examine interpretive evidence relevant to the role of informational encapsulation and compositionality in SLA. I seek to demonstrate that the acquisition of syntax-linked interpretive properties where the POS is severe provides opportunities for a type of fingerprinting of mental organization that can inform a variety of epistemologically relevant questions.

Type
Research Articles
Information
Studies in Second Language Acquisition , Volume 31 , Special Issue 2: THE FUNDAMENTAL DIFFERENCE HYPOTHESIS TWENTY YEARS LATER , June 2009 , pp. 291 - 321
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2009

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

Anderson, B. (2002). The fundamental equivalence of native and nonnative grammars: Evidence from argument licensing and adjective position in L2 French. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Indiana University, Bloomington.Google Scholar
Bley-Vroman, R. (1983). The comparative fallacy in interlanguage studies: The case of systematicity. Language Learning, 33, 1–17.Google Scholar
Bley-Vroman, R. (1990). The logical problem of foreign language learning. Linguistic Analysis, 20, 3–49.Google Scholar
Bley-Vroman, R. (1997, October). Features and patterns in foreign language learning. Plenary talk presented at the Second Language Research Forum, East Lansing, MI.Google 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
Borgonovo, C., Bruhn de Garavito, J., & Prévost, P. (2005). Acquisition of mood distinctions in L2 Spanish. In Burgos, A., Clark-Cotton, M. R., & Ha, S. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 29th Boston University Conference on Language Development (pp. 97–108). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Borgonovo, C., & Prévost, P. (2003). Knowledge of polarity subjunctive in L2 Spanish. In Beachley, B., Brown, A., & Conlin, F. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 27th Boston University Conference on Language Development (pp. 150–161). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1986). Barriers. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1998). Minimalist inquiries: The framework. In Martin, R., Michaels, D., & Uriagereka, J. (Eds.), Step by step (pp. 89–155). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Clahsen, H., & Felser, C. (2006a). Continuity and shallow structures in language processing. Applied Psycholinguistics, 27, 107–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clahsen, H., & Felser, C. (2006b). Grammatical processing in language learning. Applied Psycholinguistics, 27, 3–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clahsen, H., & Muysken, P. (1986). The availability of Universal Grammar to adult and child learners: A study in 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
Dekydtspotter, L. (2001). The universal parser and interlanguage: Domain-specific mental organization in the comprehension of combien interrogatives in English-French interlanguage. Second Language Research, 17, 91–143.Google Scholar
Dekydtspotter, L., Anderson, B., & Sprouse, R. A. (2007). Syntax-semantics in English-French interlanguage: Advancing second language epistemology. In Ayoun, D. (Ed.), The handbook of French applied linguistics (pp. 75–102). Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dekydtspotter, L., & Hathorn, J. (2005). Quelque chose…de remarquable in English-French acquisition: Mandatory, informationally encapsulated computations in second language interpretation. Second Language Research, 21, 291–323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dekydtspotter, L., & Outcalt, S. D. (2005). A syntactic bias in scope ambiguity resolution in the processing of English-French cardinality interrogatives: Evidence for informational encapsulation. Language Learning, 55, 1–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dekydtspotter, L., & Petrush, R. A. (2006). On the acquisition of ne que ‘only’ in English-French. In Grantham O’Brien, M., Shea, C., & Archibald, J. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 8th Generative Approaches to Second Language Acquisition Conference (GASLA 2006): The Banff conference (pp. 25–32). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Dekydtspotter, L., & Renaud, C. (2009). On the contrastive analysis of features in second language acquisition: Uninterpretable gender on past participles in English-French processing. Second Language Research, 25, 255–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dekydtspotter, L., Schwartz, B. D., & Sprouse, R. A. (2006). The comparative fallacy in L2 processing research. In Grantham O’Brien, M., Shea, C., & Archibald, J. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 8th Generative Approaches to Second Language Acquisition Conference (GASLA 2006): The Banff Conference (pp. 33–40). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Dekydtspotter, L., & Sprouse, R. A. (2001). Mental design and (second) language epistemology: Adjectival restrictions of wh-quantifiers and tense in English-French interlanguage. Second Language Research, 17, 1–35.Google Scholar
Dekydtspotter, L., Sprouse, R. A., & Anderson, B. (1997). The interpretive interface in L2 acquisition: The process-result distinction in English-French interlanguage grammars. Language Acquisition, 6, 297–332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dekydtspotter, L., Sprouse, R. A., & Anderson, B. (1998). Interlanguage A-bar dependencies: Binding construals, null prepositions and Universal Grammar. Second Language Research, 14, 341–358.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dekydtspotter, L., Sprouse, R. A., & Swanson, K. A. B. (2001). Reflexes of mental architecture in second-language acquisition: The interpretation of combien extractions in English-French interlanguage. Language Acquisition, 9, 175–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
de Swart, H. (1992). Intervention effects, monotonicity and scope. In Baker, C. & Dowty, D. (Eds.), Proceedings of the Second Conference on Semantics and Linguistic Theory (pp. 387–406). Columbus: Ohio State University Press.Google Scholar
Du Plessis, J., Solin, D., Travis, L., & White, L. (1987). UG or not UG, that is the question: A reply to Clahsen and Muysken. Second Language Research, 3, 56–75.Google Scholar
Epstein, S. A., Flynn, S., & Martohardjono, G. (1996). Second language acquisition: Theoretical and experimental issues in contemporary research. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 19, 677–714.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fodor, J. D. (1983). Modularity of mind. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fodor, J. D. (2000). The mind does not work that way. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goad, H., & White, L. (2006). Ultimate attainment in interlanguage grammars: A prosodic approach. Second Language Research, 22, 243–268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goad, H., White, L., & Steele, J. (2003). Missing inflection in L2 acquisition: Defective syntax or L1-constrained prosodic representations? Canadian Journal of Linguistics, 48, 243–263.Google Scholar
Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In Cole, P. & Morgan, J. (Eds.), Speech acts: Syntax and semantics (Vol. 3, pp. 41–58). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hawkins, R. (2001). The theoretical significance of Universal Grammar in second language acquisition. Second Language Research, 17, 345–367.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hawkins, R., & Chan, C. Y.-H. (1997). The partial availability of Universal Grammar in second language acquisition: The ‘failed functional features hypothesis.’ Second Language Research, 13, 187–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hawkins, R., & Hattori, H. (2006). Interpretation of English multiple wh-questions by Japanese speakers: A missing uninterpretable feature account. Second Language Research, 22, 269–301.Google Scholar
Haznedar, B. (1997). L2 acquisition by a Turkish-speaking child: Evidence for L1 influence. In Hughes, E., Hughes, M., & Greenhill, A. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 21st Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development (pp. 245–256). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Haznedar, B., & Schwartz, B. D. (1997). Are there optional infinitives in child L2 acquisition? In Hughes, E., Hughes, M., & Greenhill, A. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 21st Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development (pp. 257–268). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Huang, C.-T. J. (1982). Logical relations in Chinese and the theory of grammar. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, MA.Google 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.Google ScholarPubMed
Kanno, K. (1997). The acquisition of null and overt pronominals in Japanese by English speakers. Second Language Research, 13, 265–287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klein, E. (1993). A problem for UG in L2 acquisition. Issues in Applied Linguistics, 4, 33–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klein, E. (1995). Evidence for a ‘wild’ L2 grammar: When PPs rear their empty heads. Applied Linguistics, 16, 87–117.Google Scholar
Klein, E. (2001). (Mis)construing null prepositions in L2 intergrammars: A commentary and proposal. Second Language Research, 17, 37–70.Google Scholar
Lardiere, D. (1998a). Case and tense in the ‘fossilized’ steady state. Second Language Research, 14, 1–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lardiere, D. (1998b). Dissociating syntax from morphology in a divergent end-state grammar. Second Language Research, 14, 359–375.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lardiere, D. (2000). Mapping features to forms in second language acquisition. In Archibald, J. (Ed.), Second language acquisition and linguistic theory (pp. 102–109). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Lardiere, D. (2005). On morphological competence. In Dekydtspotter, L., Sprouse, R. A., & Liljestrand, A. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 7th Generative Approaches to Second Language Acquisition Conference (GASLA 2004) (pp.178–192). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Lardiere, D. (2009). Some thoughts on the contrastive analysis of features in second language acquisition. Second Language Research, 25, 173–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lardiere, D., & Schwartz, B. D. (1997). Feature-marking in the L2 development of deverbal compounds. Journal of Linguistics, 33, 327–353.Google Scholar
Martohardjono, G. (1993). Wh movement in the acquisition of a second language: A cross-linguistic study of three languages with and without overt movement. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY.Google Scholar
McCarthy, C. L. (2007). Morphological variability in second language Spanish. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, McGill University, Montreal.Google Scholar
Montrul, S. (2000). Transitivity alternations in L2 acquisition: Toward a modular view of transfer. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 22, 229–273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Montrul, S., & Slabakova, R. (2003). Competence similarities between native and near-native speakers: An investigation of the preterite/imperfect contrast in Spanish. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 25, 351–398.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O’Grady, W. (2005). Syntactic carpentry: An emergentist approach to syntax. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
O’Grady, W. (2008). Innateness, Universal Grammar, and emergentism. Lingua, 118, 620–631.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pérez-Leroux, A. T., & Glass, W. (1997). OPC effects in the acquisition of Spanish. In Pérez-Leroux, A. T. & Glass, W. (Eds.), Contemporary perspectives on the acquisition of Spanish: Developing grammars (Vol. 1, pp. 149–165). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Prévost, P., & White, L. (2000). Missing surface inflection or impairment in second language acquisition? Evidence from tense and agreement. Second Language Research, 16, 103–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schachter, J. (1989). Testing a proposed universal. In Gass, S. M. & Schachter, J. (Eds.), Linguistic perspectives on second language acquisition (pp. 73–88). New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schwartz, B. D. (1986). The epistemological status of second language acquisition. Second Language Research, 2, 120–159.Google Scholar
Schwartz, B. D. (1987). The modular basis of second language acquisition. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Southern California.Google Scholar
Schwartz, B. D. (1988). A reply to Gregg: In defence of theory building. Second Language Research, 4, 157–173.Google Scholar
Schwartz, B. D. (1990). Un-motivating the motivation for the fundamental difference hypothesis. In Burmeister, H. & Rounds, P. L. (Eds.), Variability in second language acquisition: Proceedings of the 10th Meeting of the Second Language Research Forum (pp. 667–684). Eugene: University of Oregon.Google Scholar
Schwartz, B. D. (1998). The second language instinct. Lingua, 106, 133–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schwartz, B. D. (1999). Let’s make up your mind: ‘Special nativist’ perspectives on language, modularity of mind, and nonnative language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 21, 635–655.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schwartz, B. D., & Gubala-Ryzak, M. (1992). Learnability and grammar reorganization in L2A: Against negative evidence causing unlearning of verb movement. Second Language Research, 8, 1–38.Google Scholar
Schwartz, B. D., & Sprouse, R. A. (1994). Word order and nominative case in nonnative language acquisition: A longitudinal study of (L1 Turkish) German interlanguage. In Hoekstra, T. & Schwartz, B. D. (Eds.), Language acquisition studies in generative grammar (pp. 317–368). Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schwartz, B. D., & Sprouse, R. A. (1996). L2 cognitive states and the full transfer/full access model. Second Language Research, 12, 40–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schwartz, B. D., & Sprouse, R. A. (2000a). The use and abuse of linguistic theory in L2 acquisition research. In Juffs, A., Talpas, T., Mizera, G., & Burtt, B. (Eds.), Proceedings of Generative Approaches to Second Language Acquisition IV (pp. 156–186). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Schwartz, B. D., & Sprouse, R. A. (2000b). When theories evolve: Consequences for acquisition research. In Archibald, J. (Ed.), Second language acquisition and linguistic theory (pp. 156–186). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Schwartz, B. D., & Tomaselli, A. (1990). Some implications from the analysis of German word order. In Abraham, W., Kosmeijer, W., & Reuland, E. (Eds.), Issues in Germanic syntax (pp. 251–274). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Slabakova, R. (2000). L1 transfer revisited: The L2 acquisition of telicity marking in English by Spanish and Bulgarian native speakers. Linguistics, 38, 739–770.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Slabakova, R. (2006a). Is there a critical period for semantics? Second Language Research, 22, 302–338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Slabakova, R. (2006b). Learnability in the second language acquisition of semantics: A bidirectional study of a semantic parameter. Second Language Research, 22, 498–523.Google Scholar
Slabakova, R. (2007). Scalar implicatures in L2 acquisition. In Caunt-Nulton, H., Kulatilake, S., & Woo, I. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 31st Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development (pp. 576–584). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Thomas, M. (1995). Acquisition of the Japanese reflexive zibun and movement of anaphors in logical form. Second Language Research, 11, 206–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tsimpli, I. M., & Dimitrakopoulou, M. (2007). The interpretability hypothesis: Evidence from wh interrogatives in L2 acquisition. Second Language Research, 23, 215–242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tsimpli, I. M., & Roussou, A. (1991). Parameter resetting in L2? UCL Working Papers in Linguistics, 3, 149–169.Google Scholar
Villalta, E. (1999). Resolution of scope ambiguity in how many questions. In Tamanjani, P., Hirotani, M., & Hall, N. (Eds.), Proceedings of the North East Linguistic Society (Vol. 29, pp. 443–457). Amherst: University of Massachusetts, Graduate Linguistics Student Association.Google Scholar
White, L. (1987). Against comprehensible input: The input hypothesis and the development of second-language competence. Applied Linguistics, 8, 95–110.Google Scholar
White, L. (1988). 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. (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, 12, 121–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
White, L. (1991). Adverb placement in second language acquisition: Some effects of positive and negative evidence in the classroom. Second Language Research, 7, 133–161.Google Scholar
White, L. (1992). On triggering data in L2 acquisition: A reply to Schwartz and Gubala-Ryzak. Second Language Research, 8, 120–137.Google Scholar
White, L. (2003). Second language acquisition and Universal Grammar. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
White, L., & Genesee, F. (1996). How native is near-native? The issue of ultimate attainment in adult second language acquisition. Second Language Research, 12, 238–265.Google Scholar
Whong-Barr, M., & Schwartz, B. D. (2002). Morphological and syntactic transfer in child L2 acquisition of the English dative alternation. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24, 579–616.Google Scholar
Yuan, B. (1998). Interpretation of binding and orientation of the Chinese reflexive ziji by English and Japanese speakers. Second Language Research, 11, 324–340.Google Scholar