This is a presentation made from chap5 in the book John Archibald, 2000ed. Second Language Acquisition and Linguistic Theory.

1. WHEN SYNTACTIC THEORIES
EVOLVE:
CONSEQUENCES FOR L2
ACQUISITION RESEARCH
Author: Bonnie D. Schwartz & Rex A. Sprouse
Presenter: Fatima Flor
2018.10.17 KOREA UNIVERSITY

2. INTRODUCTION
Generative Grammar
Noam Chomsky
 In theoretical linguistics, generative grammar refers to
a particular approach in the study of syntax.
 This grammar devises a set of rules of construction
that may help in generating sentences or structures in an
infinitely large number. This grammar attempts to
produce all and only grammatical sentences of language.

3. • UG severe restrictions class of
grammar
Accounts for:
 Rapidity& effortlessness of children's L1
Acquisition
 Selecting from only a small subset of the
logically possible formal systems.

4. GENERATIVE RESEARCH ON NON-NATIVE L2
ACQUISITION
Do interlanguage "grammars" fall
within the bounds set?
If they do not...
What are their formal properties?

5. STRONG UG HYPOTHESIS
 L2 Acquisition is always constrained by the PRINCIPLES
of UG.

6. Testing L2 data against the Formal Constraints of UG
Lydia White
Emphasized Poverty of Stimulus in Generative
L2 Acq. Research
STILL...
Defending or refuting the Strong UG hypothesis
Issue of Underdetermination

7.  Mustering Support for the Strong UG hypothesis:
Demonstrate that Interlanguage phenomena pose a poverty of
the stimulus problem and are not just "UG-compatible"
UG compatible analysis of L2 data set does not, on its own,
constitute an argument for Strong UG H. (Demonstration of UG-
derived poverty of the stimulus effect)
 Undermining the Strong UG hypothesis:
Demonstrate that an Interlanguage system violates well
established universals of human language.
UG-incompatible analysis of L2 data set does not, on its own,
constitute an argument against Strong UG H.

8. IN GENERATIVE L2 ACQUISITION RESEARCH
ISSUE OF UG ISSUE OF L1 INFLUENCE
Purpose:
To illustrate just how the revisions in Ling. theory can
fundamentally affect the conclusions drawn
in Generative L2 Acq. Research

9.  Positions regarding the role of UG/ L1 transfer in L2 ACQ.
 1. CLAHSEN AND MUYSKEN (1986)
 Looked at the naturalistic L2 acq. Of German
SOV (1a) surface pattern is obscured through
Verb-second (V2) (1b) phenomenon
All 3 L1 romance languages have surface
SVO order with possibility for Adjunct
S-V-O order

10.  CLAHSEN AND MUYSKEN Acquisition path of L2
acquirers >>>L2ers
ST1: Romance-like
SVO
ST2: Adjunct S-V-O
ST3: Nonfinite verbal
elements occur
clause-finally.
ST4: Subject-verb
inversion appears
St5:-----
ST6: Finite verb in
embedded clauses
begins to occur in

11. DUPLESSIS (1987)
 Reanalysis at ST3 VP is
underlyingly head-final.
 Claim that the finite verb moves ST4 the topicalized XP moves to Spec,
 Leftward to the infl position and CP and finite verb moves to Comp
(C)
Adverd adjoins to IP

12.  PURPOSE:
TO ILLUSTRATE HOW INDEPENDENTLY MOTIVATED
REVISIONS OF SYNTACTIC THEORY CAN REFINE OUR
UNDERSTANDING OF THE CLASS OF LANGUAGES ALLOWED
BY UG.

13.  2. VAINIKKA & YOUNG SCHOLTEN (1994,1996)
 Minimal Trees Hyp. lexical projections and their linear
order transform from L1 to Interlanguage, but functional
projections do not.
 Turkish and Korean begin with verb-final
Word order in surface syntax.
•Verb movement will arrive only
When verbally related functional proj
ections are added.

14. Example from the TRANSFER debate of Mid 1990s.
Purpose:
To illustrate the fragility of models of L2 acquisition that
depend crucially on fine details of syntactic theory.

15. 3. EUBANK (1993/1994)
 Disputes the transfer of feature strength
 View: It would be illogical to suppose that the strength of
features associated with functional heads transfers in L2
acquisition since the morphology itself does not transfer.
 It is on the basis of inflectional morphology that Feature
Strength is determined.
 Functional categories>>> DoTransfer
 The strength of the features associated with them>>> Does
not Transfer.

16. The negator pas Must follow the
finite verb.
Absence of verb raising, L2er
has no way of choosing between
Weak (no overt verb movement)
Strong (verb raising)
For AgrS and settles temporarily
on [nonfinite]

17. Poverty of Stimulus in L2 Acquisition
The poverty of the stimulus in language acq. Refers to
linguistic knowledge for which no external evidence (i.e.
input) is available
Contextualizing the poverty of the stimulus problem
 "Developmental" Poverty: Children create intermediate grammars that
rule out what their input tells them is possible
 Schonenberger>>>L1 acq. Study on verb placement in embedded
clauses.
 Two young L1ers
consistently fail to place the embedded finite
verb.

18.  Realm of the meaning children assign
 Boster and Crain(1994) English L1 Acq.>>>investigated
 Quantified sentences, subject is modified by every and the VP contains disjunction
or
 (17) Every ghostbuster will choose a cat or a pig
 Circumstances under (17) is true
 a. distributed
 b. exclusive
 "Developmental" and "final-state" poverty of the stimulus effects are both
underdetermined ling. Knowledge whose source can only be internal to the lang.
Acquirer.

19.  SCHWARTS and SPROUSE (1994)
 Longitudinal study of acq.of German word order by Cevdet.
 Unexpected developmental pattern of verb placement

20. The case study involved the
discovery of a relatively
simple asymmetry in
distributional syntax from a
corpus of naturalistic
production data.

21.  More complex asymmetries in distributional syntax- TL final-
state
MARTOHARDJONO (1993)
 Study of L2ers' Knowledge of various constraints on (output)
Wh-movement.
 Focus>>>strong vs. Weak violations of grammatical principles

22.  The investigation of the syntax-semantics interface in
Interlanguage.
 Purpose>>>To determine whether L2ers end up with
knowledge about interpretative restrictions associated with
particular synactic form.
 DEKYDTSPOTTER, SPROUSE AND ANDERSON (1997)
 Investigate the interpretation of French Dyadic nominals
 English speakers acq. French by tutoring.

23. Purpose:
 To show: In work investigating the role of UG in L2 acq, the
establishment of clear UG-derived L2 poverty of the
stimulus problems serves as an antidote to changes in
syntactic theory.

24. Comparative Interlanguage Development
 Author's suggestion for immunizing the investigation of L1
transfer
 Comparative Interlang. Is the key to investigating the extent of
transfer
 In the acquisition of some phenomenon P in a given target lang,
compare the developmental paths of L2ers whose L1s are,
with respect to P, typologically distinct.
 Divergence>>> transfer
 Uniform developmental path>>>No transfer

25. CONCLUSION
L2 acquisition researches should perhaps more frequently take a step
back from technicalities of their particular framework and ask broader
questions.