Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-6bf8c574d5-vmclg Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-02-21T15:36:38.170Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

1 - Formal Linguistic Approaches to Adult L2 Acquisition and Processing

from Part I - Theories

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 June 2019

By
Jason Rothman ,
Fatih Bayram ,
Ian Cunnings  and
Jorge González Alonso
Edited by
John W. Schwieter  and
Alessandro Benati
John W. Schwieter
Affiliation:
Wilfrid Laurier University
Alessandro Benati
Affiliation:
American University of Sharjah, United Arab Emirates
Get access

Summary

The relative conformity with which (typically developing) children attain adult grammatical competence—ultimate attainment—and the similarity in developmental paths along which they progress is remarkable (e.g., Ambridge & Lieven, 2011; Clark, 2003; Guasti, 2002; Synder, 2007). This achievement is, however, so ubiquitous and mundane that we seldom marvel at it. Of course, monolingual adult grammars may also differ from one another, especially for some domains of grammar (e.g., Dąbrowska, 1997, 2012), but such variability pales in comparison to the variation in adult non-native second language (L2) grammars. Indeed, the path and outcomes of L2 acquisition can be highly variable from one individual to another, even under seemingly comparable contexts. Individual and group-level factors in adulthood that either do not apply or apply with much less consequence in young childhood conspire to explain at least some of the gamut of L2 variability.

Type
Chapter
Information
The Cambridge Handbook of Language Learning , pp. 13 - 40
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2019

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

Abrahamsson, N., & Hyltenstam, K. (2008). The robustness of aptitude effects in near-native second language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 30, 481–509.Google Scholar
Abrahamsson, N., & Hyltenstam, K. (2009). Age of onset and nativelikeness in a second language: Listener perception versus linguistic scrutiny. Language Learning, 59, 249–306.Google Scholar
Alemán Bañón, J., Fiorentino, R., & Gabriele, A. (2014). Morphosyntactic processing in advanced second language (L2) learners: An event-related potential investigation of the effects of L1–L2 similarity and structural distance. Second Language Research, 30, 275–306.Google Scholar
Alemán Bañón, J., Miller, D., & Rothman, J. (2017). Morphological variability in second language learners: An examination of electrophysiological and production data. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 43(10), 1509–1536.Google ScholarPubMed
Ambridge, B., & Lieven, E. (2011). Child language acquisition: Contrasting theoretical approaches. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Berwick, R. C., & Chomsky, N. (2017). Why only us: Recent questions and answers. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 43, 166–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berwick, R. C., Chomsky, N., & Piattelli-Palmarini, M. (2012). Poverty of the stimulus stands: Why recent challenges fail. In Piattelli-Palmarini, M. & Berwick, R. C. (eds.), Rich languages from poor inputs (pp. 19–42). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Berwick, R. C., Pietroski, P., Yankama, B., & Chomsky, N. (2011). Poverty of the stimulus revisited. Cognitive Science, 35(7), 1207–1242.Google Scholar
Bley-Vroman, R. (1983). The comparative fallacy in interlanguage studies: The case of systematicity. Language Learning, 33(1), 1–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bley-Vroman, R. (1989). What is the logical problem of foreign language learning? In Gass, S. M. & Schachter, J. (eds.), Linguistic perspectives on second language acquisition (pp. 1–68). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bley-Vroman, R. (2009). The evolving context of the fundamental difference hypothesis. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 31, 175–198.Google Scholar
Bruhn de Garavito, J. (2011). Subject/object asymmetries in the grammar of bilingual and monolingual Spanish speakers: Evidence against connectionism. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 1(2), 111–148.Google Scholar
Bylund, E., Abrahamsson, N., & Hyltenstam, K. (2012). Does first language maintenance hamper nativelikeness in a second language? A study of ultimate attainment in early bilinguals. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 34, 215–241.Google Scholar
Bylund, E., Hyltenstam, K., & Abrahamsson, N. (2013). Age of acquisition effects or effects of bilingualism in second language ultimate attainment? In Granena, G. & Long, M. (eds.), Sensitive periods, language aptitude, and ultimate L2 attainment (pp. 69–102). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carroll, S. E. (2001). Input and evidence: The raw material of second language acquisition. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the theory of syntax. Boston, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1981). A note on non-control PRO. Journal of Linguistic Research, 1(4), 1–11.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1982). Some concepts and consequences of the theory of government and binding. Boston, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1995). The minimalist program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (2001). Derivation by phase. In Kenstowicz, M. (ed.), Ken Hale: A life in language (pp. 1–52). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Clahsen, H., & Felser, C. (2006a). Grammatical processing in language learners. Applied Psycholinguistics, 27, 3–42.Google Scholar
Clahsen, H., & Felser, C. (2006b). How native-like is non-native language processing? TRENDS in Cognitive Sciences, 10, 564–570.Google Scholar
Clahsen, H., & Felser, C. (2018). Some notes on the Shallow Structure Hypothesis. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 40(3), 693–706.Google Scholar
Clahsen, H., & Muysken, P. (1989). The UG paradox in L2 acquisition. Second Language Research, 5, 1–29.Google Scholar
Clark, E. (2003). Languages and representations. In Gentner, D. & Goldin-Meadow, S. (eds.), Language in mind (pp. 17–23). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Crain, S. (2012). The emergence of meaning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Coppieters, R. (1987). Competence differences between native and near-native speakers. Language, 63, 544–573.Google Scholar
Coughlin, C. E., & Tremblay, A. (2013). Proficiency and working memory based explanations for nonnative speakers’ sensitivity to agreement in sentence processing. Applied Psycholinguistics, 34(3), 615–646.Google Scholar
Cunnings, I. (2017). Parsing and working memory in bilingual sentence processing. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 20(4), 659–678.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Curtiss, S. (1977). Genie: A psycholinguistic study of a modern day “wild child”. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Dąbrowska, E. (1997). The LAD goes to school: A cautionary tale for nativists. Linguistics, 35, 735–766.Google Scholar
Dąbrowska, E. (2012). Different speakers, different grammars: Individual differences in native language attainment. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 2(3), 219–253.Google Scholar
DeKeyser, R. M. (2000). The robustness of critical period effects in second language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 22, 499–533.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dörnyei, Z. (1998). Motivation in second and foreign language learning. Language Teaching, 31(3), 117–135.Google Scholar
Dörnyei, Z. (2003). Attitudes, orientations, and motivations in language learning: Advances in theory, research, and applications. Language Learning, 53(S1), 3–32.Google Scholar
Dörnyei, Z. (2014). The psychology of the language learner: Individual differences in second language acquisition. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Ellis, N. C. (1998). Emergentism, connectionism and language learning. Language Learning, 48, 631–664.Google Scholar
Felser, C., & Cunnings, I. (2012). Processing reflexives in a second language: The timing of structural and discourse-level constraints. Applied Psycholinguistics, 33(3), 571–603.Google Scholar
Felser, C., Cunnings, I., Batterham, C., & Clahsen, H. (2012). The timing of island effects in nonnative sentence processing. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 34(1), 67–98.Google Scholar
Felser, C., Sato, M., & Bertenshaw, N. (2009). The on-line application of Binding Principle A in English as a second language. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 12(4), 485–502.Google Scholar
Fitch, W. T., & Hauser, M. D. (2004). Computational constraints on syntactic processing in a nonhuman primate. Science, 303(5656), 377–380.Google Scholar
Fitch, W. T., Hauser, M. D., & Chomsky, N. (2005). The evolution of the language faculty: Clarifications and implications. Cognition, 97(2), 179–210.Google Scholar
Foote, R. (2011). Integrated knowledge of agreement in early and late English–Spanish bilinguals. Applied Psycholinguistics, 32(1), 187–220.Google Scholar
Franceschina, F. (2005). Fossilized second language grammars: The acquisition of grammatical gender. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Friederici, A. D., Pfeifer, E., & Hahne, A. (1993). Event-related brain potentials during natural speech processing: Effects of semantic, morphological and syntactic violations. Cognitive Brain Research, 1(3), 183–192.Google Scholar
Fuchs, E., & Flügge, G. (2014). Adult Neuroplasticity: More Than 40 Years of Research. Neural Plasticity, 2014: 541870, 1–10.Google Scholar
Granena, G., & Long, M. (2013). Age of onset, length of residence, language aptitude, and ultimate L2 attainment in three linguistic domains. Second Language Research, 29(3), 311–343.Google Scholar
Grüter, T., & Rohde, H. (2013). L2 processing is affected by RAGE: Evidence from reference resolution. Paper presented at The 12th Conference on Generative Approaches to Second Language Acquisition (GASLA).Google Scholar
Grüter, T., Rohde, H., & Schafer, A. J. (2017). Coreference and discourse coherence in L2. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 7(2), 199–229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guasti, M. (2002). Language development: The growth of grammar. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Hauser, M. D., Chomsky, N., & Fitch, W. T. (2002). The faculty of language: What is it, who has it, and how did it evolve? Science, 298(5598), 1569–1579.Google Scholar
Hawkins, R. (2001). The theoretical significance of Universal Grammar in second language acquisition. Second Language Research, 17(4), 345–367.Google Scholar
Hawkins, R., & Casillas, G. (2008). Explaining frequency of verb morphology in early L2 speech. Lingua, 118, 595–612.Google Scholar
Hawkins, R., & Chan, C. (1997). The partial availability of UG in second language acquisition: The Failed Functional Features Hypothesis. Second Language Research, 13, 187–226.Google Scholar
Hopp, H. (2013). Grammatical gender in adult L2 acquisition: Relations between lexical and syntactic variability. Second Language Research, 29, 33–56.Google Scholar
Jiang, N. (2004). Morphological insensitivity in second language processing. Applied Psycholinguistics, 25(4), 603–634.Google Scholar
Jiang, N. (2007). Selective integration of linguistic knowledge in adult second language learning. Language Learning, 57, 1–33.Google Scholar
Johnson, J. S. (1992). Critical period effects in second language acquisition: The effect of written versus auditory materials on the assessment of grammatical competence. Language Learning, 42(2), 217–248.Google Scholar
Johnson, J. S., & Newport, E. L. (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.Google Scholar
Johnson, J. S., & Newport, E. L. (1991). Critical period effects on universal properties of language: The status of subjacency in the acquisition of a second language. Cognition, 39(3), 215–258.Google Scholar
Juffs, A., & Harrington, M. (1995). Parsing effects in second language sentence processing: Subject and object asymmetries in wh- extraction. Studies in second language acquisition, 17(4), 483–516.Google Scholar
Juffs, A., & Harrington, M. (1996). Garden path sentences and error data in second language sentence processing. Language learning, 46(2), 283–323.Google Scholar
Kaan, E., Harris, A., Gibson, E., & Holcomb, P. (2000). The P600 as an index of syntactic integration difficulty. Language and Cognitive Processes, 15(2), 159–201.Google Scholar
Kam, X. N. C., & Fodor, J. D. (2012). Children’s acquisition of syntax: Simple models are too simple. In Piattelli-Palmarini, M. & Berwick, R. C. (eds.), Rich languages from poor inputs (pp. 43–60). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kam, X. N. C., Stoyneshka, I., Tornyova, L., Fodor, J. D., & Sakas, W. G. (2008). Bigrams and the richness of the stimulus. Cognitive Science, 32, 771–787.Google Scholar
Kanno, K. (1997). The acquisition of null and overt pronominals in Japanese by English speakers. Second Language Research, 13, 265–87.Google Scholar
Kanno, K. (1998). The stability of UG principles in second language acquisition. Linguistics, 36, 1125–1146.Google Scholar
Keating, G. D. (2009). Sensitivity to violations of gender agreement in native and nonnative Spanish: An eye-movement investigation. Language Learning, 59(3), 503–535.Google Scholar
Kim, E., Baek, S., & Tremblay, A. (2015). The role of island constraints in second language sentence processing. Language Acquisition, 22(4), 384–416.Google Scholar
Lasnik, H., & Lidz, J. (2017). The argument from the poverty of the stimulus. In Roberts, I. (ed.), Oxford Handbook of Universal Grammar (pp. 221–249). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Lenneberg, E. (1967). Biological foundations of language. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Lewis, J. D., & Elman, J. L. (2001). Learnability and the statistical structure of language: Poverty of stimulus arguments revisited. In Skarabela, B., Fish, S., & Do, A. H. J. (eds.), Proceedings of the twenty-sixth annual Boston University Conference on Language Development (pp. 359–370). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla.Google Scholar
Linck, J. A., Osthus, P., Koeth, J. T., & Bunting, M. F. (2014). Working memory and second language comprehension and production: A meta-analysis. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 21(4), 861–883.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Long, M. (2005). Problems with supposed counter-evidence to the critical period hypothesis. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 43(4), 287–317.Google Scholar
Marsden, H. L., & Slabakova, R. (2017). Grammatical meaning and the second language classroom: introduction. Language Teaching Research, 1–11.Google Scholar
Marsden, H. L., Whong, M., & Gil, K. H. (2018). What’s in the textbook and what’s in the mind: Polarity item “any” in learner English. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 40(1), 1–28.Google Scholar
Martohardjono, G. (1993). Wh-movement in the acquisition of a second language: A cross-linguistic study of 3 languages with and without overt movement. Unpublished PhD dissertation, Cornell University.Google Scholar
Meisel, J. M. (2011). First and second language acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Montalbetti, M. (1984). After binding: On the interpretation of pronouns. Unpublished PhD dissertation, Massachusets Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
Omaki, A., & Schulz, B. (2011). Filler-gap dependencies and island constraints in second-language sentence processing. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 33(4), 563–588.Google Scholar
Ortega, L. (2013). SLA for the 21st century: Disciplinary progress, transdisciplinary relevance, and the bi/multilingual turn. Language Learning, 63(S1), 1–24.Google Scholar
Ortega, L. (2016). Multi-competence in second language acquisition: Inroads into the mainstream. In Cook, V. and Wei, L. (eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of Linguistic Multi-Competence (pp. 50–76). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Osterhout, L., & Holcomb, P. J. (1992). Event-related brain potentials elicited by syntactic anomaly. Journal of Memory and Language, 31(6), 785–806.Google Scholar
Osterhout, L., McKinnon, R., Bersick, M., & Corey, V. (1996). On the language specificity of the brain response to syntactic anomalies: Is the syntactic positive shift a member of the P300 family? Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 8(6), 507–526.Google Scholar
Paradis, M. (2009). Declarative and procedural determinants of second languages. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Patterson, C., Trompelt, H., & Felser, C. (2014). The online application of binding condition B in native and non-native pronoun resolution. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 1–16.Google Scholar
Pérez-Leroux, A. T., & Glass, W. (1997). OPC effects in the L2 acquisition of Spanish. In Pérez-Leroux, A. T. & Glass, W. (eds.), Contemporary perspectives on the acquisition of Spanish. Vol. 1: Developing grammars (pp. 149–165). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Pérez-Leroux, A. T., & Glass, W. (1999). Null anaphora in Spanish second language acquisition: Probabilistic versus generative approaches. Second Language Research, 15, 220–249.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.Google Scholar
Rankin, T. (2017). Working memory and L2 acquisition and processing. Second Language Research, 33(3), 389–399.Google Scholar
Rankin, T., & Unsworth, S. (2016). Beyond poverty: Engaging with input in generative SLA. Second Language Research, 32, 563–572.Google Scholar
Reali, F., & Christiansen, M. H. (2003). Reappraising poverty of stimulus argument: A corpus analysis approach. In Brugos, A., Micciulla, L., & Smith, C. E. (eds.), Proceedings supplement of the 28th annual Boston University conference on language development (Epub, access at: http://www.bu.edu/bucld/proceedings/supplement/vol28/). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla.Google Scholar
Reali, F., & Christiansen, M. H. (2005). Uncovering the richness of the stimulus: Structure dependence and indirect statistical evidence. Cognitive Science, 29, 1007–1028.Google Scholar
Roberts, L., González Alonso, J., Pliatsikas, C., & Rothman, J. (2018). Evidence from neurolinguistic methodologies: Can it actually inform linguistic/language acquisition theories and translate to evidence-based applications? Second Language Research, 34(1), 125–143.Google Scholar
Robinson, P. (2001). Individual differences, cognitive abilities, aptitude complexes and learning conditions in second language acquisition. Second Language Research, 17(4), 368–392.Google Scholar
Robinson, P. (2005). Aptitude and second language acquisition. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 25, 46–73.Google Scholar
Robinson, P. (2013). Aptitude in second language acquisition. In Chapelle, C. (ed.), The encyclopedia of applied linguistics (pp. 198–202). Malden, MA: Wiley–Blackwell.Google Scholar
Ross, J. R. (1967). Constraints on variables in syntax. PhD dissertation, Massachusets Institute of Technology [later published in 1986 as Infinite syntax! (Norwood, NJ: Ablex).]Google Scholar
Rothman, J. (2008). Why all counter-evidence to the critical period hypothesis in second language acquisition is not equal or problematic. Language and Linguistics Compass, 2(6), 1063–1088.Google Scholar
Rothman, J., & Guijarro-Fuentes, P. (2010). Input quality matters: Some comments on input type and age-effects in adult SLA. Applied Linguistics, 31(2), 301–306.Google Scholar
Rothman, J., & Iverson, M. (2010). Independent normative assessments for bi/multilingualism, Where art thou. In Cruz-Ferrera, M. (ed.), Multilingual norms (pp. 33–51). Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Rothman, J., & Slabakova, R. (2018). State of the scholarship: The generative approach to SLA and its place in modern second language studies. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 40(2), 417–442.Google Scholar
Sagarra, N., & Herschensohn, J. (2010). The role of proficiency and working memory in gender and number agreement processing in L1 and L2 Spanish. Lingua, 120(8), 2022–2039.Google Scholar
Sagarra, N., & Herschensohn, J. (2011). Proficiency and animacy effects on L2 gender agreement processes during comprehension. Language Learning, 61(1), 80–116.Google Scholar
Sagarra, N., & Herschensohn, J. (2013). Processing of gender and number agreement in late Spanish bilinguals. International Journal of Bilingualism, 17(5), 607–627.Google Scholar
Schachter, J. (1988). Second language acquisition and its relation to Universal Grammar. Applied Linguistics, 9, 219–235.Google Scholar
Schachter, J. (1990). On the issue of completeness in second language acquisition. Interlanguage Studies Bulletin (Utrecht), 6(2), 93–124.Google Scholar
Schachter, J., & Yip, V. (1990). Grammaticality judgements: Why does anyone object to subject extraction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 12, 379–392.Google Scholar
Schwartz, B. D. (1986). The epistemological status of second language acquisition. Second Language Research, 2, 120–159.Google Scholar
Schwartz, B. D. (1998). The second language instinct. Lingua, 106, 133–160.Google Scholar
Schwartz, B. D., & Sprouse, R. A. (1996). L2 cognitive states and the full transfer/full access model. Second Language Research, 12, 40–72.Google Scholar
Schwartz, B. D., & Sprouse, R. A. (2000). When syntactic theories evolve: Consequences for L2 acquisition research. In Archibald, J. (ed.), Second language acquisition and linguistic theory (pp. 156–186). Malden, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Schwartz, B. D., & Sprouse, R. A. (2013). Generative approaches and the poverty of the stimulus. In Herschensohn, J. & Young-Scholten, M. (eds.), The Cambridge handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 137–158). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Slabakova, R. (2013). Adult second language acquisition: A selective overview with a focus on the learner linguistic system. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 3, 48–72.Google Scholar
Sturt, P. (2003). The time-course of the application of binding constraints in reference resolution. Journal of Memory and Language, 48(3), 542–562.Google Scholar
Snyder, W. (2007). Child language: The parametric approach. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Traxler, M. J., & Pickering, M. J. (1996). Plausibility and the processing of unbounded dependencies: An eye-tracking study. Journal of Memory and Language, 35(3), 454–475.Google Scholar
Tsimpli, I. M., & Dimitrakopoulou, M. (2007). The interpretability hypothesis: Evidence from wh- interrogatives in second language acquisition. Second Language Research, 23(2), 215–242.Google Scholar
Ullman, M. T. (2005). A cognitive neuroscience perspective on second language acquisition: The declarative/procedural model. In Sanz, C. (ed.), Mind and context in adult second language acquisition: Methods, theory and practice (pp. 141–178). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Ullman, M. T. (2016). The declarative/procedural model: A neurobiological model of language learning, knowledge, and use. In Small, S. L. (ed.), Neurobiology of language (pp. 953–968). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Google Scholar
White, L. (1985). Is there a “logical problem” of second language acquisition? TESL Canada Journal, 2(2), 29–41.Google Scholar
White, L. (1992). Subjacency violations and empty categories in second language acquisition. In Goodluck, H. & Rochemont, M. (eds.), Island constraints (pp. 445–464). Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
White, L. (2003). Second language acquisition and Universal Grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
White, L. (2018). Formal linguistics and second language acquisition. In Miller, D., Bayram, F., Rothman, J., & Serratrice, L. (eds.), Bilingualism: The state of the science across its subfields (pp. 57–77). Amsterdam and Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Williams, J. N., Möbius, P., & Kim, C. (2001). Native and non-native processing of English wh- questions: Parsing strategies and plausibility constraints. Applied Psycholinguistics, 22(4), 509–540.Google Scholar
Whong, M., Gil, K. H., & Marsden, H. (eds.) (2013). Universal Grammar and the second language classroom. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
Yang, C., & Montrul, S. (2017). Learning datives: The Tolerance Principle in monolingual and bilingual acquisition. Second Language Research, 33, 119–144.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×