Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dzt6s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T17:31:17.452Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Morphological uniformity and the null subject parameter in adult SLA

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 November 2008

William D. Davies
William D. Davies
Affiliation:
The University of Iowa
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

An area of keen interest in applying Chomsky's UG parameter-setting model to SLA has been the Pro-Drop or Null Subject Parameter (Cyrino, 1986; Hilles, 1986; Phinney, 1987; White, 1985, 1986). However, the nature of this parameter changes dramatically from the Jaeggli (1982) and Rizzi (1982) conception with Jaeggli and Safir's (1989) proposal linking uniform morphological agreement paradigms with null subjects. Data reported here show a number of L2 learners exhibit knowledge that English is morphologically nonuniform yet still accept English null subject sentences. This is inconsistent with the predictions of the Morphological Uniformity Hypothesis and renders uncertain its applicability to SLA. The results are considered in light of a number of possible positions that can be adopted when faced with data that disconfirm a hypothesis within the UG SLA research program; it is concluded that the Morphological Uniformity Hypothesis is disconfirmed and that any reformulation of the Null Subject Parameter must take these results into consideration.

Type
Articles
Information
Studies in Second Language Acquisition , Volume 18 , Issue 4 , December 1996 , pp. 475 - 493
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

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
Borer, H. (1989). Anaphoric AGR. In Jaeggli, O. & Safir, K. (Eds.), The Null Subject Parameter (pp. 69–109). Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1981a). Lectures on government and binding. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1981b). Principles and parameters in syntactic theory. In Hornstein, N. & Lightfoot, D. (Eds.), Explanation in linguistics (pp. 32–75). London: Longman.Google 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
Comrie, B. (1984). Why linguists need language acquirers. In Rutherford, W. (Ed.), Language universals and second language acquisition (pp. 11–29). Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cyrino, S. (1986). The Pro-Drop Parameter and second language acquisition. Unpublished master's thesis, University of Iowa, Iowa City.Google Scholar
Davies, W. (1988, 04). The re-emergence of the Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis. Paper presented at the University of Rochester, Rochester, NY.Google Scholar
Davies, W., & Kaplan, T. (1995, 10). Native speaker vs. L2 learner grammaticality judgments. Paper presented at the Second Language Research Forum, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York.Google 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
Eckman, F. (1984). Universals, typology, and interlanguage. In Rutherford, W. (Ed.), Language universals and second language acquisition (pp. 79–105). Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, R. (1990). Grammaticality judgements and learner variability. In Burmeister, H. & Rounds, P. (Eds.), Variability in second language acquisition: Proceedings of the Tenth Meeting of the Second Language Research Forum (pp. 25–60). Eugene: Department of Linguistics, University of Oregon.Google Scholar
Ellis, R. (1991). Grammaticality judgements and second language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 13, 161–186.CrossRefGoogle 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. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Finer, D., & Broselow, E. (1986). Second language acquisition of reflexive binding. Proceedings of the Northeast Linguistic Society, 16, 154–168.Google Scholar
Foster-Cohen, S. (1993). Directions of influence in first and second language acquisition research. Second Language Research, 9, 140–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gass, S. (1993). SLA: Past, present, and future. Second Language Research, 9, 99–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gass, S. (1994). The reliability of second-language grammaticality judgments. In Tarone, E., Gass, S., & Cohen, A. (Eds.), Research methodology in second-language acquisition (pp. 303–322). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Gass, S., & Ard, J. (1980). L2 data: Their relevance for language universals. TESOL Quarterly, 16, 443–452.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goss, N., Ying-Hua, Z., & Lantolf, J. (1994). Two heads may be better than one: Assessing mental activity in L2 grammaticality judgments. In Tarone, E., Gass, S., & Cohen, A. (Eds.), Research methodology in second-language acquisition (pp. 263–286). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Hilles, S. (1986). Interlanguage and the Pro-Drop Parameter. Second Language Research, 2, 33–52.Google Scholar
Hilles, S. (1989). Access to UG in second language acquisition. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles.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). Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huang, C. T. J. (1989). Pro-Drop in Chinese: A generalized control theory. In Jaeggli, O. & Safir, K. (Eds.), The Null Subject Parameter (pp. 185–214). Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hyams, N. (1986). Language acquisition and the theory of parameters. Dordrecht: Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jaeggli, O. (1982). Topics in Romance syntax. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Jaeggli, O., & Hyams, N. (1988). Morphological uniformity and the setting of the Null Subject Parameter. Northeastern Linguistic Society, 18, 238–252.Google Scholar
Jaeggli, O., & Safir, K. (1989). The Null Subject Parameter and parametric theory. In Jaeggli, O. & Safir, K. (Eds.), The Null Subject Parameter (pp. 1–44). Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lakshmanan, U. (1986). The role of parametric variation in adult SLA: A study of the “Pro-Drop” Parameter. Papers in Applied Linguistics—Michigan, 2, 97–118.Google Scholar
Lakshmanan, U. (1991). Morphological uniformity and null-subjects in child second language acquisition. In Eubank, L. (Ed.), Point counterpoint: Universal Grammar in the second language (pp. 389–410). Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lakshmanan, U. (1994). Universal Grammar in child second language acquisition. Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lantolf, J. (1990). Reassessing the Null-Subject Parameter in second language acquisition. In Burmeister, H. & Rounds, P. (Eds.), Variability in second language acquisition: Proceedings of the Tenth Meeting of the Second Language Research Forum (pp. 429–452). Eugene: Department of Linguistics, University of Oregon.Google Scholar
Liceras, J. (1989). On some properties of the “Pro-Drop” Parameter: Looking for missing subjects in non-native Spanish. In Gass, S. & Schachter, J. (Eds.), Linguistic perspectives on second language acquisition (pp. 109–133). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liceras, J. (1991, 10). Grammaticality judgements revisited: The content of empty categories in native and non-native Spanish. Paper presented at the conference on Theory Construction and Methodology in Second Language Acquisition Research, Michigan State University, East Lansing.Google Scholar
Lillo-Martin, D. (1991). Universal Grammar and American Sign Language. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lust, B. (1988). Universal Grammar in second language acquisition: Promises and problems in critically relating theory and empirical studies. In Flynn, S. & O'Neil, W. (Eds.), Linguistic theory in second language acquisition (pp. 309–328). Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lyons, C. (1989). The Null Subject Parameter in the acquisition of English as a second language. Unpublished master's thesis, University of Iowa, Iowa City.Google Scholar
Munnich, E., Flynn, S., & Martohardjono, G. (1994). Elicited imitation and grammaticality judgment tasks: What they measure and how they relate to each other. In Tarone, E., Gass, S., & Cohen, A. (Eds.), Research methodology in second-language acquisition (pp. 227–243). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Newmeyer, F. (1986). Linguistic theory in America. Orlando, FL: Academic Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Perlmutter, D. (1971). Deep and surface structure constraints in syntax. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Google Scholar
Perlmutter, D., & Zaenen, A. (1984). The Indefinite Extraposition construction in Dutch and German. In Perlmutter, D. & Rosen, C. (Eds.), Studies in relational grammar 2 (pp. 171–216). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Phinney, M. (1987). The Pro-Drop Parameter in second language acquisition. In Roeper, T. & Williams, E. (Eds.), Parameter setting (pp. 221–238). Dordrecht: Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Platt, E. (1989, 04). Assessing the viability of a parameter-setting model For second language acquisition: A study of adult Spanish and Vietnamese learners of English. Paper presented at the Eighteenth Annual University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee Linguistics Symposium.Google Scholar
Pollock, J.-Y. (1989). Verb movement, Universal Grammar, and the structure of IP. Linguistic Inquiry, 20, 365–424.Google Scholar
Rizzi, L. (1982). Issues in Italian syntax. Dordrecht: Foris.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schwartz, B. (1987). The modular basis of second language acquisition. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Southern California, Los Angeles.Google Scholar
Tomaselli, A., & Schwartz, B. (1990). Analysing the acquisition stages of negation in L2 German: Support for UG in adult SLA. Second Language Research, 6, 1–38.Google Scholar
Wang, Q., Lillo-Martin, D., Best, C., & Levitt, A. (1992). Null subjects and objects in the acquisition of Chinese. Language Acquisition, 2, 221–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
White, L. (1985). The “Pro-Drop” Parameter in adult second language acquisition. Language Learning, 35, 45–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
White, L. (1986). Implications of parametric variation for adult second language acquisition: An investígation of the Pro-Drop Parameter. In Cook, V. (Ed.), Experimental approaches to second language learning (pp. 55–72). New York: Pergamon Press.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). Universal Grammar: Is it just a new name for old problems? In Gass, S. & Selinker, L. (Eds.), Language transfer in language learning (pp. 217–232). Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar