Investigating the acquisition of the Split-IP parameter and the V2 parameter in second language Afrikaans

Researchers who assume that Universal Grammar (UG) plays a role in second language (L2) acquisition are still debating whether L2 learners have access to UG in its entirety (the Full Access hypothesis; e.g. Schwartz and Sprouse, 1994; 1996; White, 1989; 2003) or only to those aspects of UG that are instantiated in their first language (L1) grammar (the No Parameter Resetting hypothesis; e.g. Hawkins and Chan, 1997). The Full Access hypothesis predicts that parameter resetting will be possible where the L1 and L2 differ in parameter values, whereas the No Parameter Resetting hypothesis predicts that parameter resetting will not be possible. These hypotheses are tested in a study examining whether English-speaking learners of Afrikaans can reset the Split-IP parameter (SIP) (Thráinsson, 1996) and the V2 parameter from their L1 ([-SIP], [-V2]) to their L2 ([+SIP], [+V2]) values. 15 advanced English learners of Afrikaans and 10 native speakers of Afrikaans completed three tasks: a sentence manipulation task, a grammaticality judgement task and a truth-value judgement task. Results suggest that the interlanguage grammars of the L2 learners are [+SIP] and [+V2] (unlike the L1), providing evidence for the Full Access hypothesis.

[1]  Jane Grimsahw.  Knwoledge and obedience: the developmental status of the binding theory , 1990 .

[2]  Rex A. Sprouse,et al.  L2 cognitive states and the Full Transfer/Full Access model , 1996 .

[3]  J. Bobaljik,et al.  Subject positions and the roles of TP , 1996 .

[4]  Pieter Muysken,et al.  The UG paradox in L2 acquisition , 1989 .

[5]  Harald Clahsen,et al.  The availability of universal grammar to adult and child learners - a study of the acquisition of German word order , 1986 .

[6]  Nigel Duffield,et al.  Assessing L2 knowledge of Spanish clitic placement: converging methodologies , 1999 .

[7]  Rex A. Sprouse,et al.  The Interpretation of Quantification at a Distance in English-French Interlanguage: Domain Specificity and Second-Language Acquisition , 2000 .

[8]  Dalila Ayoun.  Verb movement in French L2 acquisition , 1999, Bilingualism: Language and Cognition.

[9]  Sabine Iatridou,et al.  About agr(P) , 1990 .

[10]  Rex A. Sprouse,et al.  Word Order and Nominative Case in Non-Native Language Acquisition: A longitudinal study of (L1 Turkish) German Interlanguage , 1994 .

[11]  Cecilia Yuet Hung Chan,et al.  The partial availability of Universal Grammar in second language acquisition: the ‘failed functional features hypothesis’ , 1997 .

[12]  Anne Vainikka,et al.  Gradual development of L2 phrase structure , 1996 .

[13]  J. Bobaljik,et al.  Two Heads Aren’t Always Better Than One , 2002 .

[14]  Lydia White,et al.  UG or not UG, that is the question: a reply to Clahsen and Muysken , 1987 .

[15]  Höskuldur Thráinsson.  On the (Non-) Universality of Functional Categories , 1996 .

[16]  Lydia White.  Adverb placement in second language acquisition: some effects of positive and negative evidence in the classroom , 1991 .

[17]  Molly Diesing,et al.  Yiddish VP Order and the Typology of Object Movement in Germanic , 1997 .

[18]  Jean-Yves Pollock.  Verb movement, universal grammar and the structure of IP , 1989 .

[19]  Boping Yuan.  The status of thematic verbs in the second language acquisition of Chinese: against inevitability of thematic-verb raising in second language acquisition , 2001 .

[20]  Anne Vainikka,et al.  Direct Access to X’-Theory: Evidence from Korean and Turkish adults learning German , 1994 .

[21]  Höskuldur Thráinsson.  Object Shift and Scrambling , 2008 .

[22]  Roger Hawkins,et al.  Universal Grammar and the acquisition of French verb movement by native speakers of English , 1993 .

[23]  J. Zwart.  Clitics in Dutch: evidence for the position of INFL , 1991 .