Hostname: page-component-6898cfcb55-kwdml Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-12T03:56:12.752Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Universals and Second Language Acquisition

Some Comments on the State of Current Theory

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 November 2008

Susanne Carroll and
Jürgen M. Meisel
Susanne Carroll
Affiliation:
The Ontario Institute for Studies in Education
Jürgen M. Meisel
Affiliation:
Universität Hamburg
Get accessRights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

On the basis of a critical analysis of the articles in this issue, we argue for a shift in emphasis in the investigation of universals in second language acquisition (SLA). To construct a psycholinguistically plausible theory of acquisition, research must proceed simultaneously on a number of different fronts: the elaboration of (a) a theory of computation consistent with human biology, (b) a theory of structural universals and variation, (c) a theory of meaning, and (d) a theory of pragmatics which must tie in with both a theory of cognitive development and a theory of sociocultural knowledge. None of the theories popular at present address all of these issues. We suggest that there is much room for consensus, but that achieving it will require keeping an eye firmly focused on the long-term objectives.

Information

Type
Commentraies
Information
Studies in Second Language Acquisition , Volume 12 , Issue 2 , June 1990, pp. 201 - 208
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1990

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. (1988). Metalinguistic performance and interlinguistic competence. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
Birdsong, D. (1989). Lux et verisimilitudo: Judgment data in second language acquisition theory. Paper presented to the 14th Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development, Boston, MA.Google 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
Carey, S. (1982). Semantic development, the state of the art. In Wanner, E. & Gleitman, L. R. (Eds), Language acquisition: The state of the art (pp. 347–389). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Carey, S. (1987). Conceptual change in childhood. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Carroll, S. E. (1989a). Language acquisition studies and a feasible theory of grammar. Canadian Journal of Linguistics, 34, 399–418.Google Scholar
Carroll, S. E. (1989b). Second language acquisition and the computational paradigm. Language Learning, 39, 535–594.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1975a). Remarks on nominalization. In Chomsky, N., Studies on semantics in generative grammar (pp. 11–61). The Hague: Mouton. (Reprinted from R. A. Jacobs& P. S. Rosenbaum (Eds.). [1970]. Readings in English transformational grammar. Waltham, MA: Ginn.)Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1975b). Some empirical issues in the theory of transformational grammar (pp. 120–202). The Hague: Mouton. (Reprinted from Peters, S. (Ed.). [1972]. Goals of linguistics theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.)Google Scholar
Clahsen, R, Meisel, J. M., & Pienemann, M. (1983). Deutsch als Zweitsprache: Der Spracherwerb auständischer Arbeiter. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.Google Scholar
Clahsen, H., & Muysken, P. (1986). The accessibility of universal grammar to adult and child learners: A study of the acquisition of German word order. Second Language Research, 2, 93–119.Google Scholar
Clahsen, H., & Muysken, P. (in press). The UG paradox in L2 acquisition. Second Language Research.Google Scholar
Davis, H. (1987). The acquisition of the English auxiliary system and its relation to linguistic theory. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada.Google Scholar
Dresher, B. E. (1987). In defense of UG. Toronto Working Papers in Linguistics, 8, 60–79.Google Scholar
Dresher, B. E., & Kaye, J. D. (in press). A computational learning model for metrical phonology. Cognition.Google Scholar
Fodor, J. A., & Pylyshyn, Z. (1988). Connectionism and cognitive architecture: A critical analysis. In Pinker, S. & Mehler, J. (Eds.), Connections and symbols (pp. 3–71). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press/Bradford.Google Scholar
Grimshaw, J. (1989). Linguistic experimentation. Paper presented to the 14th Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development, Boston, MA.Google Scholar
Hinton, G. (1988, October). Learning and generalization in simulated neural networks. Paper presented to the O.I.S.E. Applied Cognitive Science Colloquium Series, Toronto, Canada.Google Scholar
Landau, B., & Gleitman, L. R. (1985). Language and experience: Evidence from the blind child. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Macnamara, J. (1984). Names for things: A study of human learning. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Meisel, J. M. (1983). Strategies of second language acquisition: More than one kind of simplification. In Andersen, R. W. (Ed.), Pidginization and creolization as language acquisition (pp. 120–157). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Meisel, J. M., Clahsen, H., & Pienemann, M. (1981). On determining developmental stages in natural second language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 3, 109–135.Google Scholar
Pinker, S., & Prince, A. (1988). On language and connectionism: Analysis of a parallel distributed processing model of language acquisition. In Pinker, S. & Mehler, J. (Eds.), Connections and symbols (pp. 73–193). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press/Bradford.Google Scholar
Plunkett, K., & Marchman, V. (1989). Pattern association in a back propagation network: Implications for child language acquisition (Technical Report 8902). La Jolla: University of California, San Diego, Center for Research in Language.Google Scholar
Quirk, R., & Svartvik, J. (1966). Investigating linguistic acceptability. The Hague: Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schachter, J. (1988). On the issue of completeness in second language acquisition. Paper presented to the 13th Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development, Boston, MA.Google Scholar
Slobin, D. (1973). Cognitive prerequisites for the development of grammar. In Ferguson, C. A. & Slobin, D. (Eds.), Studies of child language development (pp. 75–208). New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
Ullmann, M., Pinker, S., Hollander, M., Prince, A., & Rosen, J. T. (1989). Growth of regular and irregular vocabulary and the onset of overregularization. Paper presented to the 14th Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development, Boston, MA.Google Scholar
Wode, H. (1981). Learning a second language: An integrated view of language acquisition. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.Google Scholar