Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-rdgjk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-09T11:27:44.200Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Asymmetries in Second Language Acquisition Data

A Response to Birdsong

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 November 2008

Sascha Felix  and
Helmut Zobl
Sascha Felix
Affiliation:
Universität Passau
Helmut Zobl
Affiliation:
Carleton University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper responds to David Birdsong's discussion of the positions and the data presented in Felix (1988) and Zobl (1992). We attempt to clarify a number of misconceptions that we feel characterize his discussion and elaborate further on the performance and competence issues contained in the earlier papers.

Information

Type
Response
Information
Studies in Second Language Acquisition , Volume 16 , Issue 4 , December 1994 , pp. 475 - 484
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1994

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

References

REFERENCES

Birdsong, D. (1992). Ultimate attainment in second language acquisition. Language, 68, 706–755.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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
Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1981). Markedness and core grammar. In Belletti, A., Brandi, L., & Rizzi, L. (Eds.), Theory of markedness in generative grammar (pp. 123–146). Pisa: Scuola Normale Superiore.Google 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 (pp. 277–294). Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Felix, S., & Weigl, W. (1991). Universal Grammar in the classroom. Second Language Research, 7, 160–180.Google Scholar
Gass, S. (1983). The development of L2 intuitions. TESOL Quarterly, 17, 273–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gasser, M. (1990). Connectionism and universals of second language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 12, 179–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lightbown, P. (1983). Input and acquisition in and out of classrooms. Applied Linguistics, 6, 263–273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Masny, D., & d'Anglejan, A. (1985). Language, cognition and second language grammaticality judgements. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 14, 175–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pinker, S. & Prince, A. (1988). On language and connectionism: Analysis of a parallel distributed processing model of language acquistion. Cognition, 28, 73–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schachter, J. (1988). Second language acquisition and its relationship to universal grammar. Applied Linguistics, 9, 213–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
White, L. (1988). Island effects in second language acquisition. In Flynn, S. & O'Neil, W. (Eds.), Linguistic theory in second language acquisition (pp. 144–172). Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
White, L., & Genesee, F.. (1994). How native is near-native? The issue of ultimate attainment in adult second language acquisition. Manuscript submitted for publication.Google Scholar
White, L., & Trahey, M.. (1993). Positive evidence and preemption in the second language classroom. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15, 181–204.Google Scholar
Zobl, H. (1992). Sources of linguistic knowledge and uniformity of nonnative performance. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 14, 387–402.CrossRefGoogle Scholar