Hostname: page-component-cc8bf7c57-hbs24 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-11T23:00:49.908Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

On Explicit and Negative Data Effecting and Affecting Competence and Linguistic Behavior

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 November 2008

Bonnie D. Schwartz
Bonnie D. Schwartz
Affiliation:
University of Durham
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Psychologically speaking, all linguistic behavior is the overt manifestation of some type of underlying knowledge that is represented in the mind/brain of an individual. Exposure to linguistic data is necessary for growth of the system of knowledge. On the basis of only overt linguistic behavior, how can we ascertain whether the native and nonnative knowledge systems that people have are of distinct or similar types? Is there a (necessary) relationship between type of knowledge and type of linguistic exposure?

The hypothesis to be defended is that negative data and explicit data result in a type of knowledge that is not to be equated with linguistic competence. The claim is not that negative and explicit data cannot give rise to knowledge; rather, the specific claim is that only positive data can effect the construction of an interlanguage grammar that is comparable to the knowledge system that characterizes the result of first language acquisition.

Type
Articles
Information
Studies in Second Language Acquisition , Volume 15 , Issue 2 , June 1993 , pp. 147 - 163
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1993

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
Belletti, A. (1990). Generalized verb movement: Aspects of verb syntax. Turin: Rosenberg and Sellier.Google Scholar
Bernstein, J. (1991). DPs in French and Walloon: Evidence for parametric variation in nominal head movement. Probus, 3, 1–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berwick, R. (1985). The acquisition of syntactic knowledge. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Bley-Vroman, R. (1986). Hypothesis testing in second language acquisition theory. Language Learning, 36, 353–376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bley-Vroman, R. (1990). The logical problem of foreign language learning. Linguistic Analysis, 20, 3–49.Google 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
Borer, H., & Wexler, K. (1987). The maturation of syntax. In Roeper, T. & Williams, E. (Eds.), Parameter setting (pp. 123–172). Dordrecht: Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1975). Reflections on language. New York: Pantheon.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1980). On cognitive structures and their development: A reply to Piaget. In Piattelli-Palmarini, M. (Ed.), Language and learning: The debate between Jean Piaget and Noam Chomsky (pp. 35–54). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.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
Clahsen, H. (1991). Constraints on parameter setting: A grammatical analysis of some acquisition stages in German child language. Language Acquisition, 1, 361–391.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
Clahsen, H., & Muysken, P. (1989). The UG paradox in L2 acquisition. Second Language Research, 5, 1–29.Google Scholar
Cohen, A., & Robbins, M. (1976). Toward assessing interlanguage performance: The relationship between selected errors, learners' characteristics, and learners' explanations. Language Learning, 26, 45–66.Google Scholar
Crain, S. (1991). Language acquisition in the absence of experience. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 14, 597–650.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
duPlessis, 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
Emonds, J. (1978). The verbal complex V'-V in French. Linguistic Inquiry, 9, 151–175.Google Scholar
Felix, S. (1988). UG-generated knowledge in adult second language acquisition. In Flynn, S. & O'Neil, W. (Eds.), Linguistic theory in second language acquisition (pp. 277–294). Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Finer, D., & Broselow, E. (1986). Second language acquisition of reflexive-binding. Proceedings of the North Eastern Linguistic Society (NELS), 16, 154–168.Google Scholar
Fodor, J. A. (1983). Modularity of mind. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hilles, S. (1986). Interlanguage and the pro-drop parameter. Second Language Research, 2, 33–52.Google Scholar
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). Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Hornstein, N., & Lightfoot, D. (1981). Introduction. In Hornstein, N. & Lightfoot, D. (Eds.), Explanation in linguistics (pp. 9–31). New York: Longman.Google Scholar
Hyams, N. (1986). Language acquisition and the theory of parameters. Dordrecht: Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klein, E. (1990). What UG does not explain. In Burmeister, H. & Rounds, P. (Eds.), Variability in second language acquisition (pp. 417–428). Eugene: University of Oregon.Google Scholar
Krashen, S. (1981). Second language acquisition and second language learning. Oxford: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
MacLaughlin, D. (1992, October). Language acquisition and the subset principle. Paper presented at the 17th Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development,Boston.Google Scholar
Manzini, R., & Wexler, K. (1987). Parameters, binding theory, and learnability. Linguistic Inquiry, 18, 413–444.Google Scholar
Meisel, J. (1991). Principles of Universal Grammar and strategies of language use: On some similarities and differences between first and second language acquisition. In Eubank, L. (Ed.), Point-counterpoint: Universal Grammar in the second language (pp. 231–276). Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meisel, J., Clahsen, H., & Pienemann, M. (1981). On determining developmental stages in natural second language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 3, 109–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pierce, A. (1989). On the emergence of syntax: A cross-linguistic study. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
Pollock, J.-Y. (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: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Roeper, T., & Williams, E. (Eds.). (1987). Parameter setting. Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
Schachter, J. (1989). Testing a proposed universal. In Gass, S. & Schachter, J. (Eds.), Linguistic perspectives on second language acquisition (pp. 73–88). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google 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, Los Angeles.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. (1989). Ruling out negative evidence in second language acquisition. Unpublished manuscript, Universitë de Genève/Boston University.Google Scholar
Schwartz, B. D. (1991). Conceptual and empirical evidence: A response to Meisel. In Eubank, L. (Ed.), Point-counterpoint: Universal Grammar in the second language (pp. 277–304). Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Schwartz, B. D. (1992, October). An alternative account of apparent inaccessibility to UG in L2A. Paper presented at the 17th Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development, Boston.Google Scholar
Schwartz, B. D., & Gubala-Ryzak, M. (1992). Learnability and grammar re-organization in L2A: Against negative evidence causing the unlearning of verb movement. Second Language Research, 8, 1–38.Google Scholar
Schwartz, B. D., & Sprouse, R. (in press). Word order and Nominative Case in nonnative language acquisition: A longitudinal study of (LI Turkish) German Interlanguage. In Hoekstra, T. & Schwartz, B. D. (Eds.), Language acquisition studies in generative grammar: Papers in honor of Ken Wexler from the GLOW 1991 Workshops. Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Schwartz, B. D., & Tomaselli, A. (1990). Some implications from an analysis of German word order. In Abraham, W., Kosmeijer, W., & Reuland, E. (Eds.), Issues in Germanic syntax (pp. 251–274). The Hague: Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stich, S. (1978). Beliefs and subdoxastic states. Philosophy of Science, 45, 499–518.Google Scholar
Tomaselli, A., & Schwartz, B. D. (1990). Analysing the acquisition stages of negation in L2 German: Support for UG in adult SLA. Second Language Research, 6, 1–38.Google Scholar
Vainikka, A., & Young-Scholten, M. (in press). 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: Papers in honor of Ken Wexler from the GLOW 1991 Workshops. Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Weissenborn, J., Goodluck, H., & Roeper, T. (Eds.). (1992). Theoretical issues in language acquisition: Continuity and change in development. London: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
White, L. (1985). The pro-drop parameter in adult second language acquisition. Language Learning, 35, 47–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
White, L. (1987). Against comprehensible input: The input hypothesis and the development of L2 competence. Applied Linguistics, 8, 95–110.CrossRefGoogle 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. (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. (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. (1992c). Subjacency violations and empty categories in L2 acquisition. In Goodluck, H. & Rochemont, M. (Eds.), Island constraints (pp. 445–464). Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
White, L., Travis, L., & Maclachlan, A. (1992). The acquisition of wh-question formation by Malagasy learners of English; evidence for Universal Grammar. Canadian Journal of Linguistics, 37, 341–368.Google Scholar