Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-mnklg Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-12T07:56:52.501Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Now for some facts, with a focus on development and an explicit role for the L1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 February 2010

Bonnie D. Schwartz
Affiliation:
Department of Linguistics and English Language, University of Durham, Durham DH1 3JT, England, b.d.schwartz@durham.ac.uk

Abstract

Curiously, two central areas are unaddressed by Epstein et al.: (i) L1A–L2A differences; (ii) L2 development. Here, findings relevant to (i) and (ii) – as well as their significance – are discussed. Together these form the basis for contesting Epstein et al.'s “Full Access” approach, but nonetheless analyses of the L2 data argue for UG-constrained L2A. Also discussed is the inadequacy of accounts (like Epstein et al.'s) without an explicit and prominent role for the L1.

Information

Type
Open Peer Commentary
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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable