Contrast and Construction in a Parameter‐Setting Model of L2 Acquisition

There is an emerging awareness in the field of L2 acquisition regarding the contributions made by both Contrastive Analysis (CA) and Creative Construction (CC) theories of L2 acquisition. CA theories indicate that the L1 experience is important in L2 acquisition, and CC theories indicate that principles of acquisition independent of this experience are also integral to L2 learning. Reconciliation of these two aspects within a principled, empirically-based theory of L2 acquisition has been difficult (cf. Eckman 1977, 1984; Zobl 1980; Andersen 1983, 1984; Gundel and Tarone 1983; Liceras 1983; Rutherford 1983, 1984; White 1985). This paper argues that the parameter-setting model of Universal Grammar (UG) (proposed by Flynn 1983a, b, 1987) for L2 acquisition provides the scaffolding necessary for an integration of these two components within one explanatory account. Consistent with CC, L2 learners within this model use principles of UG isolated in L1 acquisition in the construction of the L2 grammar; however, when values of parameters associated with these principles differ between the L1 and the L2, learners assign a new value to cohere with the values for the new target language. The L1 experience counts in determining whether such a new assignment of a parametric value is necessary. This aspect of the model is consistent with a traditional CA theory of L2 learning. Empirical support for this model is provided by a study that investigates the role of the head-initial/head-final parameter (Stowell 1981) in adult L2 acquisition of pronoun anaphora. Two groups of adults — L1 speakers of Spanish, a head-initial language and L1 speakers of Japanese, a head-final language — were studied in their elicited production of English, a head-initial language. Results indicate that both groups of learners use the head-initial/head-final parameter as a source of structural organization for the L2. Results also indicate that Japanese speakers (L1 ≠ L2) are sensitive, from early stages of acquisition, to the mismatch in head-direction in English and Japanese, and that they assign new values to this parameter to cohere with the target L2 value. These speakers are thus argued to have the head-initial/head-final parameter set in two different ways. Parameters of acquisition in the two cases correspond to those isolated for L1 acquisition of English; however, the point at which this similarity is observed depends upon the degree of correspondence between the two languages.

[1]  G. Richard Tucker,et al.  The Acquisition of Complex English Structures by Adult Native Speakers of Arabic. , 1978 .

[2]  Lawrence M. Solan,et al.  A Comparison of Null and Pronoun Anaphora in First Language Acquisition Studies in the Acquisition of Anaphora: Defining the Constraints , ) , 1986 .

[3]  Mario Montalbetti,et al.  After binding : on the interpretation of pronouns , 1984 .

[4]  Marina K. Burt,et al.  A NEW PERSPECTIVE ON THE CREATIVE CONSTRUCTION PROCESS IN CHILD SECOND LANGUAGE ACQUISITION1 , 1974 .

[5]  Irene Mazurkewich,et al.  THE ACQUISITION OF THE DATIVE ALTERNATION BY SECOND LANGUAGE LEARNERS AND LINGUISTIC THEORY , 1984 .

[6]  G. Richard Tucker,et al.  THE ACQUISITION OF COMPLEX ENGLISH STRUCTURES BY ADULT LEARNERS1 , 1975 .

[7]  B. P. Taylor,et al.  THE USE OF OVERGENERALIZATION AND TRANSFER LEARNING STRATEGIES BY ELEMENTARY AND INTERMEDIATE STUDENTS OF ESL1 , 1975 .

[8]  Liliane Haegeman.  Scope phenomena in English and Dutch and L2 acquisition: A Case Study , 1985 .

[9]  John Limber,et al.  THE GENESIS OF COMPLEX SENTENCES , 1973 .

[10]  Noam Chomsky.  Review of B.F. Skinner, Verbal Behavior , 1959 .

[11]  Vivian Cook,et al.  THE COMPARISON OF LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT IN NATIVE CHILDREN AND FOREIGN ADULTS , 1973 .

[12]  Suzanne Flynn,et al.  Production vs. Comprehension: Differences in Underlying Competences , 1986, Studies in Second Language Acquisition.

[13]  William E. Rutherford,et al.  DESCRIPTION AND EXPLANATION IN INTERLANGUAGE SYNTAX: STATE OF THE ART , 1984 .

[14]  Kenneth Hyltenstam.  IMPLICATIONAL PATTERNS IN INTERLANGUAGE SYNTAX VARIATION , 1977 .

[15]  J. Fodor,et al.  Semantic focus and sentence comprehension , 1979, Cognition.

[16]  Suzanne Flynn.  Principled Theories of L2 Acquisition , 1985, Studies in Second Language Acquisition.

[17]  A. Sciarone.  CONTRASTIVE ANALYSIS – POSSIBILITIES AND LIMITATIONS , 1970 .

[18]  Roland G. Tharp,et al.  THE INTERPRETATION OF ELICITED SENTENCE IMITATION IN A STANDARDIZED CONTEXT , 1981 .

[19]  Esther Torrego Salcedo.  On inversion in Spanish and some of its effects , 1984 .

[20]  Libuše Dušková,et al.  ON SOURCES OF ERRORS IN FOREIGN LANGUAGE LEARNING , 1969 .

[21]  Fred R. Eckman.  MARKEDNESS AND THE CONTRASTIVE ANALYSIS HYPOTHESIS , 1977 .

[22]  Carolyn G. Madden,et al.  IS THERE A “NATURAL SEQUENCE” IN ADULT SECOND LANGUAGE LEARNING? , 1974 .

[23]  Irene Mazurkewich,et al.  Syntactic Markedness and Language Acquisition , 1985, Studies in Second Language Acquisition.

[24]  ARTICLE USAGE AND OTHER LANGUAGE SKILLS , 1971 .

[25]  Lydia White,et al.  THE “PRO-DROP” PARAMETER IN ADULT SECOND LANGUAGE ACQUISITION , 1985 .

[26]  Suzanne Flynn,et al.  Similarities and Differences between First and Second Language Acquisition: Setting the Parameters of Universal Grammar , 1983 .