Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-g8jcs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T20:59:01.308Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

EVIDENCE FOR THE FUNDAMENTAL DIFFERENCE HYPOTHESIS OR NOT?

Island Constraints Revisited

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 June 2009

Alyona Belikova  and
Lydia White
Alyona Belikova*
Affiliation:
McGill University
Lydia White
Affiliation:
McGill University
*
*Address correspondence to: Alyona Belikova, Department of Linguistics, McGill University, 1085 Dr. Penfield Avenue, Montreal, QC, H3A 1A7, Canada; e-mail: [email protected].
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article examines how changes in linguistic theory affect the debate between the fundamental difference hypothesis and the access-to-Universal Grammar (UG) approach to SLA. With a focus on subjacency (Chomsky, 1973), a principle of UG that places constraints on wh-movement and that has frequently been taken as a test case for verifying second language (L2) access to UG, we reanalyze earlier L2 findings in terms of a revised constraint, which effectively prohibits extraction out of subjects and adjuncts. We show that L2 learners indeed observe such a constraint on wh-movement, and, at the same time, we suggest that recent claims for a universal computational system (e.g., Chomsky, 1995; Uriagereka, 1999) make the respective roles of the first language and UG difficult to tease apart.

Type
Research Articles
Information
Studies in Second Language Acquisition , Volume 31 , Special Issue 2: THE FUNDAMENTAL DIFFERENCE HYPOTHESIS TWENTY YEARS LATER , June 2009 , pp. 199 - 223
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

Baker, C. L. (1970). Notes on the description of English questions: The role of an abstract question morpheme. Foundations of Language, 6, 197–219.Google 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. 42–68). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bley-Vroman, R. (1990). The logical problem of foreign language learning. Linguistic Analysis, 20, 3–49.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
Cattell, R. (1976). Constraints on movement rules. Language, 52, 18–50.Google Scholar
Choi, M.-H., & Lardiere, D. (2006a, April). Acquiring the interpretation of wh-expressions in Korean as a second language. Paper presented at Generative Approaches to Second Language Acquisition 8 (GASLA 8), Banff, Canada.Google Scholar
Choi, M.-H., & Lardiere, D. (2006b). The interpretation of wh-in-situ in Korean second language acquisition. In Belletti, A., Bennati, E., Chesi, C., Di Domenico, E., & Ferrari, I. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 2005 Conference on Generative Approaches to Language Acquisition (GALA 2005) (pp. 125–136). Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1964). Current issues in linguistic theory. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1973). Conditions on transformations. In Anderson, S. R. & Kiparsky, P. (Eds.), A festschrift for Morris Halle (pp. 232–286). New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.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
Chomsky, N. (1995). The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Crain, S., & Lillo-Martin, D. (1999). An introduction to linguistic theory and language acquisition. Oxford: Blackwell.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
Grimshaw, J. (1990). Argument structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Hale, K. (1996). Can UG and the L1 be distinguished in L2 acquisition? Brain and Behavioral Sciences, 19, 728–730.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. (2005). Revisiting wh-movement: The availability of an uninterpretable [wh] feature in interlanguage grammars. In Dekydtspotter, L., Sprouse, R. A., & Liljestrand, A. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 7th Generative Approaches to Second Language Acquisition Conference (GASLA 2004) (pp. 124–137). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Hawkins, R., & Chan, Y.-H. C. (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
Horvath, J., & Siloni, T. (2003). Against the little-v hypothesis. In Falk, Y. N. (Ed.), Proceedings of the Israel association for theoretical linguistics (IATL), 19, 1–15. Retrieved November 17, 2007, from http://linguistics.huji.ac.il/IATL/19/HorvathSiloni.pdf.Google Scholar
Huang, C.-T. (1982a). Logical relations in Chinese and the theory of grammar. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
Huang, C.-T. (1982b). Move wh in a language without wh-movement. The Linguistic Review, 1, 369–416.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 Scholar
Kayne, R. (1984). Connectedness and binary branching. Dordrecht: Foris.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kim, S. (1989). Wh-phrases in Korean and Japanese are QPs. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics, 11, 119–138.Google Scholar
Lee, H.-S. (1982). Asymmetry in island constraints in Korean. Unpublished manuscript, University of California Los Angeles.Google Scholar
Li, X. (1998). Adult L2 accessibility to UG: An issue revisited. In Flynn, S., Martohardjono, G., & O’Neil, W. (Eds.), The generative study of second language acquisition (pp. 232–286). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.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
Martohardjono, G., & Gair, J. (1993). Apparent UG inaccessibility in second language acquisition: Misapplied principles or principled misapplications? In Eckman, F. (Ed.), Confluence: Linguistics, L2 acquisition and speech pathology (pp. 79–103). Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Müller, G. (2007, April). On deriving CED effects from the PIC. Paper presented at the 30th Annual Colloquium of Generative Linguistics in the Old World (GLOW XXX), University of Tromsø, Norway.Google Scholar
Nishigauchi, T. (1986). Quantification in syntax. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
Nishigauchi, T. (1990). Quantification in the theory of grammar. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nunes, J., & Uriagereka, J. (2000). Cyclicity and extraction domains. Syntax, 3, 20–43.Google Scholar
Reinhart, T. (1981). A second COMP position. In Belletti, A., Brandi, L., & Rizzi, L. (Eds.), Theory of markedness in generative grammar (pp. 517–557). Pisa: Scuola Normale Superiore di Pisa.Google Scholar
Rizzi, L. (1982). Issues in Italian syntax. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Ross, J. R. (1967). Constraints on variables in syntax. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
Sabel, J. (2002). A Minimalist analysis of syntactic islands. The Linguistic Review, 19, 271–315.Google Scholar
Saito, M. (1985). Some asymmetries in Japanese and their theoretical implications. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
Saito, M., & Fukui, N. (1998). Order in phrase structure and movement. Linguistic Inquiry, 29, 439–474.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.Google Scholar
Schachter, J. (1990). On the issue of completeness in second language acquisition. Second Language Research, 6, 93–124.Google Scholar
Schwartz, B. D. (1993). On explicit and negative data effecting and affecting competence and linguistic behavior. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15, 147–163.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). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Sportiche, D. (1981). Bounding nodes in French. The Linguistic Review, 1, 219–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stepanov, A. (2007). The end of CED? Minimalism and extraction domains. Syntax, 10, 80–126.Google Scholar
Stowell, T. (1981). Origins of phrase structure. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
Umeda, M. (2005). Wh-movement in Japanese-English interlanguage: Evidence from scope and reconstruction. In Brugos, A., Clark-Cotton, M., & Ha, S. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 29th Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development (pp. 616–626). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Umeda, M. (2006). Wh-movement in L2 grammars: Evidence for parameter resetting. In Deen, K. U., Nomura, J., Schulz, B., & Schwartz, B. D. (Eds.), Proceedings of the Inaugural Conference on Generative Approaches to Language Acquisition - North America (pp. 389–400). Storrs, CT: University of Connecticut Occasional Papers in Linguistics.Google Scholar
Umeda, M. (2008). Second language acquisition of Japanese Wh-constructions. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, McGill University, Montreal.Google Scholar
Uriagereka, J. (1999). Multiple spell-out. In Epstein, S. & Hornstein, N. (Eds.), Working Minimalism (pp. 251–282). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Uziel, S. (1993). Resetting Universal Grammar parameters: Evidence from second language acquisition of subjacency and the empty category principle. Second Language Research, 9, 49–83.Google Scholar
White, L. (1985). The acquisition of parameterized grammars: Subjacency in second language acquisition. Second Language Research, 1, 1–17.Google Scholar
White, L. (1988). Island effects in second language acquisition. In Flynn, S. & O’Neill, W. (Eds.), Linguistic theory in second language acquisition (pp. 144–172). Dordrecht: Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
White, L. (1990). Second language acquisition and Universal Grammar. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 12, 121–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
White, L. (1992). 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. (1995). Chasing after linguistic theory: How minimal should we be? In Eubank, L., Selinker, L., & Sharwood Smith, M. (Eds.), The current state of interlanguage: Studies in honor of William E. Rutherford (pp. 63–71). Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
White, L. (2003). Second language acquisition and Universal Grammar. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
White, L., & Juffs, A. (1998). Constraints on wh-movement in two different contexts of non-native language acquisition: Competence and processing. In Flynn, S., Martohardjono, G., & O’Neil, W. (Eds.), The generative study of second language acquisition (pp. 111–129). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Yuan, B. (2008). Discrepancy in English speakers’ L2 acquisition of Chinese wh-words as existential polarity words: The L1-dependent interface hypothesis. In Slabakova, R., Rothman, J., Kempchinksy, P., & Gavruseva, E. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 8th Generative Approaches to Second Language Acquisition Conference (GASLA 2007) (pp. 272–284). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar