Gita Martohardjono

Second language acquisition: Theoretical and experimental issues in contemporary research

To what extent, if any, does Universal Grammar (UG) constrain second language (L2) acquisition? This is not only an empirical question, but one which is currently investigable. In this context, L2 acquisition is emerging as an important new domain of psycholinguistic research. Three logical possibilities have been articulated regarding the role of UG in L2 acquisition: The first is the “no access” hypothesis that claims that no aspect of UG is available to the L2 learner. The second is the “partial access” hypothesis that claims that only LI instantiated principles and LI instantiated parameter-values of UG are available to the learner. The third, called the “full access” hypothesis, asserts that UG in its entirety constrains L2 acquisition. In this paper we argue that there is no compelling evidence to support either of the first two hypotheses. Moreover, we provide evidence concerning functional categories in L2 acquisition consistent with the claim that UG is fully available to the L2 learner (see also Flynn 1987; Li 1993; Martohardjono 1992; Schwartz & Sprouse 1991; Thomas 1991; White 1989). In addition, we will attempt to clarify some of currently unclear theoretical issues that arise with respect to positing UG as an explanatory theory of L2 acquisition. We will also investigate in some detail certain crucial methodological questions involved in experimentally testing the role of UG in L2 acquisition and finally, we will present a set of experimental results of our own supporting the “Full Access” hypothesis.

Emergent literacy skills in bilingual children: evidence for the role of L1 syntactic comprehension

Abstract The study examines emergent literacy skills in a group of young English Language Learners who are dominant in their native language, Spanish. We investigate the relative contribution of syntactic comprehension in the L1 and L2 to the development of emergent reading skills in English. Participants were bilingual kindergarteners from two public schools in New York City. Two main tests were administered: a test of syntactic comprehension, given in both Spanish and English, and a test of literacy skills, specifically listening comprehension in both the L1 and L2 are significant predictors of performance on L2 listening comprehension, with L1 syntactic comprehension shown to be the stronger predictor. These findings provide support for the position that L1 knowledge may be accessible to facilitate comprehension in the L2, particularly in cases in which the learners are dominant in the L1 (cf. Riches & Genesee, 2006). We interpret our results as evidence that there are benefits to supporting the development of the native language in the homes and classrooms of ELLs.

Universal Grammar and second language acquisition: The null hypothesis

The target article advanced the null, unified and widely misinterpreted generative hypothesis regarding second language (L2) acquisition. Postulating that UG (Universal Grammar) constrains L2 knowledge growth does not entail identical developmental trajectories for L2 and first language (LI) acquisition; nor does it preclude a role for the L1. In embracing this hypothesis, we maintain a distinction between competence and performance. Those who conflate the two repeat fundamental and by no means unprecedented misconstruals of the generative enterprise, and more specifically, of the empirical content of the null hypothesis regarding L2 linguistic knowledge growth. We hope to have identified certain common goals, the adoption of which might constitute a firm foundation for continued productive interdisciplinary development of contemporary theoretical and experimental L2 acquisition research.

Morphological vs. phonological explanations for affix errors in agrammatism

ABSTRACT Background: There has been no consensus as to what explains the well-attested problems with inflection in individuals with agrammatic aphasia. Some studies point to a predominantly phonological influence while others view morphological factors as primary. Aims: The present study aims to investigate what morphological and phonological factors influence the production of inflectional suffixes in agrammatism. Methods & Procedures: Seven non-dysarthric and non-apraxic English-speaking agrammatic patients (mean age 53.2 years, range 35–69 years, at least 2 years post onset) were given a production task in which the morphological or phonological complexity of the environment of the inflectional morpheme was varied. Outcomes & Results: Analysis indicates that morphological factors (number and type of morpheme, real vs. pseudo stems), rather than phonological factors (sonority, suffix syllabicity, stem length) resulted in significantly higher error rates. Conclusion: Once morphological and phonological influences are teased apart in a controlled experiment, we see that morphological environments in the production of affixed forms in agrammatic aphasia play a greater role than phonological factors.

Intermorphology and Morphological Theory: A Plea for a Concession

In what follows we shall consider some characteristics of L2 (inter)morphology and attempt to show that the phenomena we have been able to discover in this area of inquiry are consistent with the model of morphology proposed in Ford and Singh (1983, 1984, 1985. to appear), without, of course, eliminating all possible alternatives. Before taking up intermorphology, the focus of this paper, it would however, be necessary to outline the theory of morphology in question and to clear some cobwebs.

Universal Grammar: Hypothesis space or grammar selection procedures? Is UG affected by Critical Periods?

Universal Grammar (UG) can be interpreted as a con- straint on the form of possible grammars (hypothesis space) or as a constraint on acquisition strategies (selection procedures). In this response to Herschensohn we reiterate the position outlined in Epstein et al. (1996a, r), that in the evaluation of L2 acquisition as a UG-constrained process the former (possible grammars/ knowledge states) is critical, not the latter. Selection procedures, on the other hand, are important in that they may have a bearing on development in language acquisition. We raise the possibility that differences in first and second language acquisition pertain- ing to both attainment of the end-state and course of development may derive from differences in selection procedures. We further suggest that for these reasons age effects in the attainment of na- tivelike proficiency must necessarily be separated from UG ef- fects.