Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t8hqh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-29T20:05:42.635Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The subset principle in second language acquisition

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 November 2008

Dalila Ayoun
Dalila Ayoun*
Affiliation:
University of Hawai'i at Manoa
*
University of Hawaii, 467 Moore Hall, 1890 East-West Road, Honolulu, HI 96822
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This study investigates the applicability of the Subset Principle in the second language (L2) acquisi:ion of the Oblique-Case Parameter by 45 learners of French. First, the Subset Principle is defined and discussed, along with its learnability predictions in first language (L1) acquisition. Then, a brief overview of the relevant literature in L2 acquisition shows that the applicability of the Subset Principle is very much debated. In the present study, the results of a grammaticality judgment task and a correction task provide partial support for the Subset Principle. It seems that the learners have acquired the lack of Exceptional-Case marking and preposition stranding, two of the syntactic properties tested, based on the positive evidence available to them. However, they failed to reject a number of ungrammatical instances of dative alternation and dative passive, leading them to an overgeneralized grammar. It is suggested that L2 learners may need direct or indirect negative evidence to constrain their grammar. Further research is needed to conclude whether the Oblique-Case Parameter really is a parameter of Universal Grammar, and if so, whether adult L2 learners are able to reset their parameters to the proper target language values.

Type
Articles
Information
Applied Psycholinguistics , Volume 17 , Issue 2 , April 1996 , pp. 185 - 213
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1996

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

Baker, C. L. (1979). Syntactic theory and the projection problem. Linguistic Inquiry, 10, 533–581.Google Scholar
Barsalou, L. 1987. The instability of graded structures: Implications for the nature of concepts. In Neisser, U. (Ed.), Concepts and conceptual development: Ecological and intellectual factors in categorizations (pp. 101–140). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Berent, G. (1993). Noun phrase accessibility and relative clause learnability. Unpublished manuscript, Rochester Institute of Technology, Rochester, NY.Google Scholar
Berent, G. (1994). The Subset Principle in first and second language acquisition. In Cohen, A., Gass, S., & Tarone, E. (Eds.), Research methodology in second-language acquisition (pp. 17–39). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Berwick, R. (1985). The acquisition of syntactic knowledge. Cambridge: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Birdsong, D. (1991). On the notion of “critical period” in UG/L2 theory: A response to Flynn and Manuel. In Eubank, L. (Ed.), Point-counterpoint: Universal Grammar in the second language (pp. 147–165). Amsterdam: J. Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bley-Vroman, R., Felix, S., & loup, G. (1988). The accessibility of Universal Grammar in adult language learning. Second Language Research, 4, 1–32.Google Scholar
Carroll, S., & Swain, M. (1993). Explicit and implicit negative feedback: An empirical study of the learning of linguistic generalizations. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15, 357–386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chaudron, C. (1983). Research on metalinguistic judgements: A review of theory, methods and results. Language Learning, 33, 343–377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1981). Lectures on government and binding. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1986). Barriers. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N., & Lasnik, H. (1977). Filters and control. Linguistic Inquiry, 8, 425–504.Google Scholar
Finer, D. (1989, 02). Binding parameters in second language acquisition. Paper presented at the Second Language Research Forum, University of California at Los Angeles.Google Scholar
Finer, D., & Broselow, E. (1986). Second language acquisition of reflexive binding. Proceedings of the North Eastern Linguistic Society. 16, 154–168.Google Scholar
Fodor, J. (1989). Learning the periphery. In Matthews, R. J. & Demopoulos, W. (Eds.), Learnability and linguistic theory (pp. 129–154). Boston: Kluwer Academic.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fodor, J. (1989). (in press). How to obey the Subset Principle: Binding and locality. In Lust, B., Hermon, G., & Kornfilt, (Eds.), Syntactic theory and first language acquisition (Vol. 2, pp. 429–451). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Fotos, S., & Ellis, R. (1991). Communicating about grammar: A task-based approach. TESOL Quarterly. 25, 605–628.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hamilton, R. (1995). Strength of evidence in the Subset Principle debate in L2A: Distinguishing logical from developmental predictions. Proceedings of the 19th Boston University Conference on Language Development.Google Scholar
Hirakawa, M. (1989, 04). L2 acquisition of English reflexives by speakers of Japanese. Paper presented at the Conference on the Interaction of Linguistics, Second Language Acquisition and Speech Pathology, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee.Google Scholar
Hornstein, N., & Weinberg, A. (1981). Case theory and prosition stranding. Linguistic Inquiry, 12, 55–92.Google Scholar
Hyams, N. (1986). Language acquisition and the theory of parameters. Dordrecht: D. Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kapur, S., Lust, B., Harbert, W., & Martohardjono, G. (1993). Universal Grammar and learnability theory: The case of binding domains and the “Subset Principle” In Reuland, E. & Abraham, W. (Eds.), Knowledge and language: Vol. 1. From Orwell's problem to Plato's problem (pp. 185–216). Boston: Kluwer Academic.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kayne, R. (1979). Rightward NP movement in French and English. Linguistic Inquiry, 10, 710–719.Google Scholar
Kayne, R. (1981). On certain differences between French and English. Linguistic Inquiry, 12, 349–371.Google Scholar
Kayne, R. (1984). Connectedness and binary branching. Dordrecht: Foris.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klein, E. (1993). Toward second language acquisition: A study of null-prep. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MacLaughlin, D. (in press). Language acquisition and the Subset Principle. Linguistic Review.Google Scholar
MacWhinney, B., & Snow, C. (1985). The Child Language Data Exchange System. Journal of Child Language, 12, 271–296.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
MacWhinney, B., & Snow, C. ( 1990). The Child Language Data Exchange System: An update. Journal of Child Language, 17, 457–472.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Manzini, R., & Wexler, K. (1987). Parameters, binding theory and learnability. Linguistic Inquiry, 18. 413–444.Google Scholar
Pesetsky, D. (1995). Zero syntax. MIT Press.Google Scholar
Pinker, S. (1989). Learnability and cognition. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Pollock, J. (1989). Verb movement, UG and the structure of IP. Linguisuc Inquiry. 20. 365–424.Google Scholar
Rizzi, L. (1982). Issues in Italian syntax. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Rizzi, L. (1990). Relativized minimality. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Roeper, T. (1981). On the deductive model and the acquisition of productive morphology. In Baker, C. L. & McCarthy, J. J. (Eds.), The logical problem of language acquisition (pp. 129–164). Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Sawyer, M. (1995). Learnability, teachability and argument structure: Adult Japanese learners' acquisition of the English dative alternation. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Hawai'i at Manoa.Google Scholar
Sheppard, K. (1991). At sea in SLA: Evidence of UG in the acquisition of French and English verbs. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, City College of New York.Google Scholar
Snyder, W., & Stromswold, K. (in press). The structure and acquisition of English dative constructions. Linguistic Inquiry.Google Scholar
Stowel, T. (1981): Origins of phrase-structure. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
Stromswold, K. (1988). The acquisition implications of Kayne's Theory of Prepositions. Unpublished manuscript, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
Stromswold, K. (1989, 10). Using naturalistic data: Methodological and theoretical issues (or how to lie with naturalistic data). Paper presented at the 14th Annual Boston University Child Language Conference.Google Scholar
Takami, K. (1992). Preposition stranding: From syntactic to functional analyses. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thomas, M. (1989). The interpretation of English reflexive pronouns by non-native speakers. Studies in Second Lanaguage Acquisition, 11, 281–301.Google Scholar
Weinberg, A., & Hornstein, N. (1978). Preposition stranding and Case marking, Mimeograph, Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Harvard.Google Scholar
Wexler, K. (1981). Some issues in the theory of learnability. In Baker, C. L. & McCarthy, J. (Eds.), The logical problem of language acquisition (pp. 30–52). Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Wexler, K., & Hamburger, H. (1973). On the insufficiency of surface data for the learning of transformational languages. In Hintikka, K. J. J., Moravcsik, J. M. E., & Suppes, P. (Eds.), Approaches to natural language (pp. 166–179). Dordrecht: D. Reidel.Google Scholar
Wexler, K., & Manzini, M. R. (1987). Parameters and learnability in binding theory. In Roeper, T. & Williams, E. (Eds.), Parameter setting (pp. 41–76). Dordrecht: D. Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
White, L. (1987). Markedness and second language acquisition: The question of transfer. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 9, 261–286.Google Scholar
White, L. (1989a). The adjacency condition on case assignment: Do L2 learners observe the Subset Principle? In Gass, S. & Schachter, J. (Eds.), Linguistic perspectives on second language acquisition (pp. 134–158). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
White, L. (1989b). Linguistic universals, markedness and learnabiity: Comparing two different approaches. Second Language Research, 5, 127–140.Google Scholar
White, L. (1989c). Universal Grammar and second language acquisition. Amsterdam: John Benjamin.Google Scholar
White, L. (1990). Implications of learnability theories for second language learning and teaching. In Halliday, M. A. K., Gibbons, J., & Nicholas, H. (Eds.), Learning, keeping and using language: Selected papers from the Eighth World Congress Applied Linguistics (pp. 271–286). Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Wolfe, Quintero K. (1992). Learnability and the acquisition of extraction in relative clauses and wh-questions. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 14, 39–70.Google Scholar
Zobl, H. (1988). Configurationality and the Subset Principle: the acquisition of VI by Japanese learners of English. In Pankhurst, J., Smith, M. Sharwood, & Buren, P. van (Eds.), Learnability and second languages (pp. 116–131). Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar