1. Week 8. Second Language Acquisition: introduction GRS LX 700 Language Acquisition and Linguistic Theory

2. Scientific study of language What constitutes one’s knowledge of language? What constitutes one’s knowledge of language? How is that knowledge acquired? How is that knowledge acquired? Looking at adult native languages, we’ve found that language is very complex (see LX 522, 523, for example) Looking at adult native languages, we’ve found that language is very complex (see LX 522, 523, for example) Looking at kids, we’ve found that kids seem to learn this complicated system with surprisingly little help from the environment. Looking at kids, we’ve found that kids seem to learn this complicated system with surprisingly little help from the environment.

3. L1 acquisition We posited a genetic predisposition for language, something which guides the kinds of languages kids learn (Universal Grammar): We posited a genetic predisposition for language, something which guides the kinds of languages kids learn (Universal Grammar): Kids learn fast Kids learn fast Kids end up with systems that are more complicated than the input data justifies (they can judge ungrammatical sentences in the same way as other native speakers). Kids end up with systems that are more complicated than the input data justifies (they can judge ungrammatical sentences in the same way as other native speakers). Kids don’t fail to learn language despite differences in environment, and without getting or making use of negative evidence. Kids don’t fail to learn language despite differences in environment, and without getting or making use of negative evidence. Kids seem to go through similar stages, across kids, across languages. Kids seem to go through similar stages, across kids, across languages.

4. But what about L2 acquisition? Adults seem to have a harder time learning language than kids do learning their first language (there may be a “critical period”). Adults seem to have a harder time learning language than kids do learning their first language (there may be a “critical period”). Adult second language learners rarely reach a native-speaker-like level of competence. Adult second language learners rarely reach a native-speaker-like level of competence. Adult second language learners already know a language. Adult second language learners already know a language. Adult second language learners are often given negative evidence (“you don’t say it that way”) when taught in a classroom. Adult second language learners are often given negative evidence (“you don’t say it that way”) when taught in a classroom.

5. L2A seems very different from L1A. Is L2A like learning to play chess? Like learning calculus? Do we just learn the rules of the language and apply them (sometimes forgetting some of the rules, never quite learning all of them, etc.)? Is L2A like learning to play chess? Like learning calculus? Do we just learn the rules of the language and apply them (sometimes forgetting some of the rules, never quite learning all of them, etc.)? It’s very tempting to think that’s true. It’s very tempting to think that’s true.

6. Scientific study of language What constitutes one’s knowledge of language? What constitutes one’s knowledge of language? How is that knowledge acquired? How is that knowledge acquired? We can still study these questions in L2A as well and try to determine the answers, whether they are related to the answers we got for L1A or not. We can still study these questions in L2A as well and try to determine the answers, whether they are related to the answers we got for L1A or not. And perhaps surprisingly, they might be. And perhaps surprisingly, they might be.

7. L2 competence Learners of a second language have some kind of (systematic) linguistic knowledge. They have retained their L1 knowledge, and they have knowledge of a sort which approximates (perhaps poorly) the knowledge held by a native speaker of the learner’s L2. Learners of a second language have some kind of (systematic) linguistic knowledge. They have retained their L1 knowledge, and they have knowledge of a sort which approximates (perhaps poorly) the knowledge held by a native speaker of the learner’s L2. This knowledge is often referred to as an interlanguage grammar—not L1, not L2, but something different (…and to what extent this knowledge might be related to or influenced by L1 or L2 is yet to be determined). This knowledge is often referred to as an interlanguage grammar—not L1, not L2, but something different (…and to what extent this knowledge might be related to or influenced by L1 or L2 is yet to be determined).

8. A real-world example, Japanese case-marker omission Adult knowledge is complicated, relies on the Empty Category Principle, which says that an empty category (including a dropped Case marker) must be properly governed. Adult knowledge is complicated, relies on the Empty Category Principle, which says that an empty category (including a dropped Case marker) must be properly governed. The long and the short of this in Japanese is that you can drop a Case marker in object position but you cannot drop a Case marker in subject position. The long and the short of this in Japanese is that you can drop a Case marker in object position but you cannot drop a Case marker in subject position.

9. Kanno 1996 John ga sono hon o yonda. nom that book acc read ‘John read that book.’ John ga sono hon o yonda. nom that book acc read ‘John read that book.’ John ga sono hon _ yonda. nom that book Ø read ‘John read that book.’ John ga sono hon _ yonda. nom that book Ø read ‘John read that book.’ * John _ sono hon o yonda. Ø that book acc read ‘John read that book.’ * John _ sono hon o yonda. Ø that book acc read ‘John read that book.’

10. Kanno 1996 English speakers (learning Japanese) know the ECP, because they know: English speakers (learning Japanese) know the ECP, because they know: Who did you say Ø t left? Who did you say Ø t left? *Who did you say that t left? *Who did you say that t left? But this is a very different context of use from the use in Case marker drop. The question is: Do English speakers respect the ECP in their interlanguage grammar (toward Japanese)? But this is a very different context of use from the use in Case marker drop. The question is: Do English speakers respect the ECP in their interlanguage grammar (toward Japanese)? A broader way to ask the question: Is the interlanguage grammar constrained by UG? A broader way to ask the question: Is the interlanguage grammar constrained by UG?

11. Kanno 1996 To discover the answer Kanno tested 26 college students in Japanese II on case particle drop. To discover the answer Kanno tested 26 college students in Japanese II on case particle drop. Kanno looked at what the students would have been exposed to by the textbook up to the point where they took the test, to see if they were taught when not to drop the case markers. Kanno looked at what the students would have been exposed to by the textbook up to the point where they took the test, to see if they were taught when not to drop the case markers.

12. What the Japanese II students saw… 41 cases of object case-marker drop, like: 41 cases of object case-marker drop, like: Enpitsu Ø kudasai ? pencil give ‘Can you give me a pencil?’ Enpitsu Ø kudasai ? pencil give ‘Can you give me a pencil?’ 8 cases of subject case-marker drop, in the exceptional case when it is allowed (with a final emphatic particle—these don’t violate the ECP): 8 cases of subject case-marker drop, in the exceptional case when it is allowed (with a final emphatic particle—these don’t violate the ECP): John Ø sono hon o yonda yo. John that book acc read part ‘John (indeed) read the book.’ (I think) John Ø sono hon o yonda yo. John that book acc read part ‘John (indeed) read the book.’ (I think)

13. What the Japanese II students saw… Certain verbs have nominative case on their objects, and case can be dropped on those objects too… Certain verbs have nominative case on their objects, and case can be dropped on those objects too… John ga kankokugo (ga) dekimasu. John nom Korean nom can-do ‘John can speak Korean.’ John ga kankokugo (ga) dekimasu. John nom Korean nom can-do ‘John can speak Korean.’ 69 of 110 such verbs in the book had the object case marker dropped. 69 of 110 such verbs in the book had the object case marker dropped.

14. What the Japanese II students saw… Japanese allows arguments to be omitted (somewhat like Italian pro drop), so there were many cases with just one argument (the object) with no case marker: Japanese allows arguments to be omitted (somewhat like Italian pro drop), so there were many cases with just one argument (the object) with no case marker: Kami Ø irimasu ka? paper need Q ‘Do you need paper? / Is paper necessary?’ Kami Ø irimasu ka? paper need Q ‘Do you need paper? / Is paper necessary?’

15. What the Japanese II students saw… Worst of all, the topic marker can be dropped, which looks a lot like a subject marker being dropped. Worst of all, the topic marker can be dropped, which looks a lot like a subject marker being dropped. Tanaka-san (wa) itsu kaimasita ka? top when bought Q ‘When did Tanaka buy it?’ ‘As for Tanaka, when did he buy it?’ Tanaka-san (wa) itsu kaimasita ka? top when bought Q ‘When did Tanaka buy it?’ ‘As for Tanaka, when did he buy it?’

16. What the Japanese II students saw… “ga [nom] might be deleted, but with a reduction of the emphasis and focus conveyed by its inclusion.” (No hint that sometimes—even usually—it is not allowed) “ga [nom] might be deleted, but with a reduction of the emphasis and focus conveyed by its inclusion.” (No hint that sometimes—even usually—it is not allowed) “If o [acc] is deleted, [the object] would simply lose a bit of its emphasis and focus. On the other hand, the addition of o would give added emphasis and focus.” “If o [acc] is deleted, [the object] would simply lose a bit of its emphasis and focus. On the other hand, the addition of o would give added emphasis and focus.”

17. The poor Japanese II students… There’s pretty much no way they could have reached the right generalization based on what they were provided. There’s pretty much no way they could have reached the right generalization based on what they were provided. Nom can be dropped from object position Nom can be dropped from object position Top can be dropped from subject position Top can be dropped from subject position Nom subject can be dropped with a particle Nom subject can be dropped with a particle Explicit instruction was only about emphasis. Explicit instruction was only about emphasis. But did they anyway? But did they anyway?

18. The experiment To test this, the sentences used wh-words. Wh-words in general do not allow topic marking, so if the particle is dropped from a subject wh-word, it could not have been a topic drop. To test this, the sentences used wh-words. Wh-words in general do not allow topic marking, so if the particle is dropped from a subject wh-word, it could not have been a topic drop. subject wa wh-phrase Ø verb Q? subject wa wh-phrase Ø verb Q? *subject Ø wh-phrase acc verb Q? *subject Ø wh-phrase acc verb Q? pro wh-phrase Ø verb Q? pro wh-phrase Ø verb Q? *wh-phrase Ø pro verb Q? *wh-phrase Ø pro verb Q?

19. (missing controls) There are a couple of things that this experiment lacks… There are a couple of things that this experiment lacks… Naturalness of a dropped case marker is tested, but never the naturalness of an overt case or topic marker on a wh-phrase. Naturalness of a dropped case marker is tested, but never the naturalness of an overt case or topic marker on a wh-phrase. Wh-phrases are used because they do not permit topic marking—but do the students know this? Wh-phrases are used because they do not permit topic marking—but do the students know this?

20. Kanno’s results studentsnative speakers NP wa NP Ø2.402.60 NP Ø NP o1.76 (0.64)1.36 (1.24) pro NP Ø2.582.86 NP Ø pro1.64 (0.98)1.31 (1.55)

21. Kanno’s results

22. UG in L2A The conclusion is that L2 learners of Japanese have nevertheless (statistically significantly) gotten the rule about dropping subject case markers, despite the lack of evidence from the textbook, the instructor, or even English. The conclusion is that L2 learners of Japanese have nevertheless (statistically significantly) gotten the rule about dropping subject case markers, despite the lack of evidence from the textbook, the instructor, or even English. It appears that UG is still constraining language in some way even in adult second language acquisition. It appears that UG is still constraining language in some way even in adult second language acquisition.

23. All I really needed to know I learned in UG “The linkage of concept and sound can be acquired on minimal evidence, so variation [among languages] here is not surprising. However, the possible sounds are narrowly constrained, and the concepts may be virtually fixed. It is hard to imagine otherwise, given the rate of lexical acquisition, which is about a word an our from ages two to eight, with lexical items typically acquired on a single exposure, in highly ambiguous circumstances, but understood in delicate and extraordinary complexity that goes vastly beyond what is recorded in the most comprehensive dictionary, which, like the most comprehensive traditional grammar, merely gives hints that suffice for people who basically know the answers, largely innately.” Chomsky (2000, New Horizons in the Study of Language and Mind), p. 120. “The linkage of concept and sound can be acquired on minimal evidence, so variation [among languages] here is not surprising. However, the possible sounds are narrowly constrained, and the concepts may be virtually fixed. It is hard to imagine otherwise, given the rate of lexical acquisition, which is about a word an our from ages two to eight, with lexical items typically acquired on a single exposure, in highly ambiguous circumstances, but understood in delicate and extraordinary complexity that goes vastly beyond what is recorded in the most comprehensive dictionary, which, like the most comprehensive traditional grammar, merely gives hints that suffice for people who basically know the answers, largely innately.” Chomsky (2000, New Horizons in the Study of Language and Mind), p. 120.

24. Influence of UG in some form is probably inevitable… Like in L1A, the input is almost certainly degenerate, and the negative evidence there might be isn’t enough to make the subtle complexities of language learnable, and for negative evidence (in the form of correction) to be of any use, L2 learners have to make errors, yet for these subtle complexities, the learners don’t seem to make the crucial errors that would be required to learn them. Like in L1A, the input is almost certainly degenerate, and the negative evidence there might be isn’t enough to make the subtle complexities of language learnable, and for negative evidence (in the form of correction) to be of any use, L2 learners have to make errors, yet for these subtle complexities, the learners don’t seem to make the crucial errors that would be required to learn them. Kanno’s experiment (among others) shows that L2 learners seem to “go beyond the evidence.” Kanno’s experiment (among others) shows that L2 learners seem to “go beyond the evidence.”

25. How is UG “used” in L2A? What is UG really? What is UG really? Probably the simplest view of it is that UG constrains the kinds of languages we can learn. For the moment, assume we’re talking about L1A. Probably the simplest view of it is that UG constrains the kinds of languages we can learn. For the moment, assume we’re talking about L1A. UG says: You can’t learn a language that lacks the ECP. You can’t learn a language that doesn’t respect constraints on movement out of an island… UG says: You can’t learn a language that lacks the ECP. You can’t learn a language that doesn’t respect constraints on movement out of an island…

26. How is UG “used” in L2A? UG shaped your L1, we take that to be essentially beyond dispute in some form… but when you learn L2, you still know L1. UG shaped your L1, we take that to be essentially beyond dispute in some form… but when you learn L2, you still know L1. So, perhaps: UG constrains how you learn L2 (directly, like it constrained your L1) So, perhaps: UG constrains how you learn L2 (directly, like it constrained your L1) Or, perhaps: Your L1 constrains how you learn L2 (indirectly, UG constrains L1, L1 constrains L2) Or, perhaps: Your L1 constrains how you learn L2 (indirectly, UG constrains L1, L1 constrains L2) Or, perhaps: Nothing language-related constrains how you learn L2—it’s like learning chess. Or, perhaps: Nothing language-related constrains how you learn L2—it’s like learning chess.

27. How is UG “used” in L2A? A somewhat standard terminology has developed for these concepts… A somewhat standard terminology has developed for these concepts… Full Access—UG constrains L2A. Full Access—UG constrains L2A. (Partial Access—UG constrains L2A partly.) (Partial Access—UG constrains L2A partly.) Indirect Access—L1 constrains L2A. Indirect Access—L1 constrains L2A. No Access—UG is not involved in L2A. No Access—UG is not involved in L2A.

28. An independent question— what role does L1 play in L2A? Full Transfer—the properties (parameters) of L1 are taken as the “starting point” in L2A. Full Transfer—the properties (parameters) of L1 are taken as the “starting point” in L2A. Partial Transfer—some of the parameters of L1 are taken as the “starting point” in L2A, while some others start in an independent setting. Partial Transfer—some of the parameters of L1 are taken as the “starting point” in L2A, while some others start in an independent setting. No Transfer—the parameter settings of L1 do not affect L2A. No Transfer—the parameter settings of L1 do not affect L2A.

29. Access hypotheses The model these hypotheses work with is essentially that UG provides a blueprint or a template for languages, which is used to create a concrete instantiation of a language. The model these hypotheses work with is essentially that UG provides a blueprint or a template for languages, which is used to create a concrete instantiation of a language. Principles Parm 1: — (A, B) Parm 2: — (A, B, C) … Active Principles Parm 1: A Parm 2: B … UG L1 L1A

30. Access hypotheses Once L1 has been instantiated, the template might become unavailable. In this case, the only available information about what languages are like is what’s instantiated in L1. Once L1 has been instantiated, the template might become unavailable. In this case, the only available information about what languages are like is what’s instantiated in L1. Principles Parm 1: — (A, B) Parm 2: — (A, B, C) … Active Principles Parm 1: A Parm 2: B … UG L1

31. Access hypotheses Indirect access supposes that the principles and parameters of L1 (but not the information in UG). are available in forming an instantiation of L2. Indirect access supposes that the principles and parameters of L1 (but not the information in UG). are available in forming an instantiation of L2. No access supposes that L2A does not even have direct access to L1; presumably everything L2-related is translated through L1, the mapping is learned in another way. No access supposes that L2A does not even have direct access to L1; presumably everything L2-related is translated through L1, the mapping is learned in another way. Principles Parm 1: — (A, B) Parm 2: — (A, B, C) … Active Principles Parm 1: A Parm 2: B … UG L1

32. Access hypotheses The full access hypothesis supposes that the template is still available to instantiate L2 the same way L1 was instantiated. The full access hypothesis supposes that the template is still available to instantiate L2 the same way L1 was instantiated. Principles Parm 1: — (A, B) Parm 2: — (A, B, C) … Active Principles Parm 1: A Parm 2: B … UG L1 L1A Active Principles Parm 1: B Parm 2: A … L2 L2A

33. Access hypotheses A partial access hypothesis supposes that certain parts of the template are no longer available (fixed in the L1 settings) but other parts can still be used to instantiate L2. A partial access hypothesis supposes that certain parts of the template are no longer available (fixed in the L1 settings) but other parts can still be used to instantiate L2. Principles Parm 1: — (A, B) Parm 2: — (A, B, C) … Active Principles Parm 1: A Parm 2: B … UG L1 L1A Active Principles Parm 1: A Parm 2: C … L2 L2A

34. Distinguishing between access hypotheses The no access hypothesis takes L2A to be a general learning process, not constrained by properties of UG. The no access hypothesis takes L2A to be a general learning process, not constrained by properties of UG. As such, we do not expect the IL of second language learners to conform to the specifications of UG. We expect that the IL would be free to exhibit properties unlike any natural language (L1). As such, we do not expect the IL of second language learners to conform to the specifications of UG. We expect that the IL would be free to exhibit properties unlike any natural language (L1). So we look for “wildness” in the IL grammar of second language learners—for indications of grammar which would not qualify as an L1. So we look for “wildness” in the IL grammar of second language learners—for indications of grammar which would not qualify as an L1.

35. Distinguishing between access hypotheses The full access hypothesis, on the other hand, predicts that IL grammars of second language learners, while not the grammar of the target language, will still conform to the restrictions UG places on natural languages. It will operate under the same principles, and it will have parameters which are set to a setting which is possible in natural language. The full access hypothesis, on the other hand, predicts that IL grammars of second language learners, while not the grammar of the target language, will still conform to the restrictions UG places on natural languages. It will operate under the same principles, and it will have parameters which are set to a setting which is possible in natural language.

36. Distinguishing between access hypotheses The indirect access hypothesis predicts that second language learners will have an IL which is essentially L1-plus. They are predicted not to be able to have principles or parameter settings which differ from the L1, but all of the parameter settings and principles operative in L1 should also be operative in the IL. The indirect access hypothesis predicts that second language learners will have an IL which is essentially L1-plus. They are predicted not to be able to have principles or parameter settings which differ from the L1, but all of the parameter settings and principles operative in L1 should also be operative in the IL.

37. Distinguishing between access hypotheses The partial access hypothesis is the least well-defined. It places itself somewhere between full access and no access. The partial access hypothesis is the least well-defined. It places itself somewhere between full access and no access. We might see that a second language learner’s IL shows evidence of parameter settings different from the L1 (or not, depending on which parts of UG we are hypothesizing L2A access to). We might see that a second language learner’s IL shows evidence of parameter settings different from the L1 (or not, depending on which parts of UG we are hypothesizing L2A access to). We might see evidence of principles not used in L1 but provided for in UG. We might see evidence of principles not used in L1 but provided for in UG. The partial access hypothesis is basically the fallback position, the compromise we need to make if the facts don’t fit into one of the other hypotheses. The partial access hypothesis is basically the fallback position, the compromise we need to make if the facts don’t fit into one of the other hypotheses.

38. In favor of no access… The well-known “critical period” effects seem to point toward a view like no access; adult L2A is much less uniform, typically not fully successful, and appears to involve much more conscious effort. The well-known “critical period” effects seem to point toward a view like no access; adult L2A is much less uniform, typically not fully successful, and appears to involve much more conscious effort. Proponents argue that their observations about differences in the course and end result of L2A (vs. L1A) indicate that principles of UG are not being obeyed (for example, learners positing rules that appeal to linear order, rather than structure, contra Structure Dependency). Proponents argue that their observations about differences in the course and end result of L2A (vs. L1A) indicate that principles of UG are not being obeyed (for example, learners positing rules that appeal to linear order, rather than structure, contra Structure Dependency).

39. In favor of no access… Meisel (1997) looked at L1A and L2A of negation in German, French, and Basque. Meisel (1997) looked at L1A and L2A of negation in German, French, and Basque. In L1A in the three languages, negation appears to go through similar stages. In L1A in the three languages, negation appears to go through similar stages. First, it is placed externally (generally initially, sometimes finally), unlike in the adult language First, it is placed externally (generally initially, sometimes finally), unlike in the adult language No(t) I go homeI go home no(t). No(t) I go homeI go home no(t). Then, it appears sentence-internally, in an appropriate position with respect to the tensed verb for the target language (differs by language). Then, it appears sentence-internally, in an appropriate position with respect to the tensed verb for the target language (differs by language). L1A: Once children show evidence of knowing how to use finite verbs, they seem to have no particular trouble with the syntax of negation in the target language. L1A: Once children show evidence of knowing how to use finite verbs, they seem to have no particular trouble with the syntax of negation in the target language.

40. In favor of no access… For L2A, the consensus opinion from previous studies seems to be that second language learners, regardless of target and first languages seem to go through pretty much invariant stages with respect to negation. For L2A, the consensus opinion from previous studies seems to be that second language learners, regardless of target and first languages seem to go through pretty much invariant stages with respect to negation. First, preverbal or initial negation. First, preverbal or initial negation. Then, more target-like internal negation. Then, more target-like internal negation. Sounds like the L1A sequences; this made people eager to try to apply the same explanations. Sounds like the L1A sequences; this made people eager to try to apply the same explanations. However, almost all of these studies used English as the target language, and in fact some studies seemed to have “missed” the first stage. However, almost all of these studies used English as the target language, and in fact some studies seemed to have “missed” the first stage.

41. In favor of no access… Closer investigation reveals that not all second language learners go through an “initial negation” stage, even if the L1 has preverbal negation. Closer investigation reveals that not all second language learners go through an “initial negation” stage, even if the L1 has preverbal negation. And, unlike in L1A, where there is an initial negation stage, it does not seem to disappear at the same time as the control of finite verbs. And, unlike in L1A, where there is an initial negation stage, it does not seem to disappear at the same time as the control of finite verbs. Whereas “initial negation” in L1A is usually sentence-initial (before the subject), “initial negation” in L2A is often preverbal (but after the subject). Whereas “initial negation” in L1A is usually sentence-initial (before the subject), “initial negation” in L2A is often preverbal (but after the subject). Meisel suggests that initial negation is actually a characteristic of a certain kind of learner, a reflection of a strategy that (some) people use in L2A. Meisel suggests that initial negation is actually a characteristic of a certain kind of learner, a reflection of a strategy that (some) people use in L2A.

42. In favor of no access… Rather than observing structure-dependent negation placement based on [±finite], the results tend to suggest strategies based on linear order (i.e. put negation after the verb). Rather than observing structure-dependent negation placement based on [±finite], the results tend to suggest strategies based on linear order (i.e. put negation after the verb). Meisel concludes that any UG involvement in L2A is much less clear given these differences between L1A and L2A. Meisel concludes that any UG involvement in L2A is much less clear given these differences between L1A and L2A.

43. Concerning this argument Notice that this is primarily an argument about sequence of acquisition. Roughly, the idea is: Because the sequence of L1A and L2A do not match, and assuming L1A is driven by UG, L2A can’t be also driven by UG. Notice that this is primarily an argument about sequence of acquisition. Roughly, the idea is: Because the sequence of L1A and L2A do not match, and assuming L1A is driven by UG, L2A can’t be also driven by UG. In short, this seems to be an argument about whether the (L1) LAD is involved in L2A. It doesn’t really fully reach the question of whether UG constrains L2A. In short, this seems to be an argument about whether the (L1) LAD is involved in L2A. It doesn’t really fully reach the question of whether UG constrains L2A.

44. Concerning this argument Whether or not we take this to show no access to UG, we need to keep in mind that: Whether or not we take this to show no access to UG, we need to keep in mind that: the “invariant sequence” (at least in the acquisition of negation) in L2A is on shakier ground than previous research seemed to suggest. the “invariant sequence” (at least in the acquisition of negation) in L2A is on shakier ground than previous research seemed to suggest. the contingencies between finiteness and verb position with respect to negation (suggesting that they “go together” in L1 grammars) don’t seem to hold of L2A. the contingencies between finiteness and verb position with respect to negation (suggesting that they “go together” in L1 grammars) don’t seem to hold of L2A.

45. In favor of full access… First, note that pretty much any empirical argument purportedly for full access to UG in L2A cannot actually meet its goal. At best, it will show that in the area studied there is evidence for access to UG (i.e. partial access). First, note that pretty much any empirical argument purportedly for full access to UG in L2A cannot actually meet its goal. At best, it will show that in the area studied there is evidence for access to UG (i.e. partial access). However, full access is a stronger position, so we want to take that as the null hypothesis if we see evidence for some access, adopting a partial access view only if we see that there is also evidence for no access in other areas. However, full access is a stronger position, so we want to take that as the null hypothesis if we see evidence for some access, adopting a partial access view only if we see that there is also evidence for no access in other areas.

46. In favor of full access… Threads of argumentation: Threads of argumentation: Second language learners obey certain universal principles which (appear to) work differently in the TL than in the learners’ L1. Second language learners obey certain universal principles which (appear to) work differently in the TL than in the learners’ L1. Second language learners’ IL knowledge show evidence of a parameter setting different from their L1, indicating that the parametric options are still available Second language learners’ IL knowledge show evidence of a parameter setting different from their L1, indicating that the parametric options are still available

47. In favor of full access… A simple example discussed by Flynn (1996) is L2A between Japanese and English. A simple example discussed by Flynn (1996) is L2A between Japanese and English. Japanese and English differ in their setting of the “head parameter”, which indicates whether the object comes before the verb (Japanese, SOV, head-final) or after the verb (English, SVO, head- initial). Japanese and English differ in their setting of the “head parameter”, which indicates whether the object comes before the verb (Japanese, SOV, head-final) or after the verb (English, SVO, head- initial). L2 J-->E learners appear to very quickly set this IL parameter correctly, suggesting that they know that both head-initial and head-final are possible settings for this parameter, although their L1 parameter is committed to head-final. L2 J-->E learners appear to very quickly set this IL parameter correctly, suggesting that they know that both head-initial and head-final are possible settings for this parameter, although their L1 parameter is committed to head-final.

48. In favor of full access… Flynn on Subjacency… Flynn on Subjacency… In Japanese, wh-words are not “moved” to the beginning of a wh-question; Japanese is a “wh- in-situ” language. Its wh-words appear in the same position that the trace “appears” in English. In Japanese, wh-words are not “moved” to the beginning of a wh-question; Japanese is a “wh- in-situ” language. Its wh-words appear in the same position that the trace “appears” in English. Subjacency is concerned only with displacement of wh-words. It is a principle which says that a wh-word cannot be displaced out of certain kinds of islands (conjunctions, embedded questions, complex noun phrases, …). Subjacency is concerned only with displacement of wh-words. It is a principle which says that a wh-word cannot be displaced out of certain kinds of islands (conjunctions, embedded questions, complex noun phrases, …).

49. In favor of full access… Thus, Subjacency does not seem to rule out any wh-questions in Japanese. It is possible to ask questions like: Thus, Subjacency does not seem to rule out any wh-questions in Japanese. It is possible to ask questions like: ‘You met the man that gave what to Mary?’ ‘You met the man that gave what to Mary?’ Cf. *What i did you meet the man that gave t i to Mary? Cf. *What i did you meet the man that gave t i to Mary? Flynn takes this to mean that Subjacency is essentially “inactive” in Japanese. It does not play a role in wh-question formation in Japanese. Flynn takes this to mean that Subjacency is essentially “inactive” in Japanese. It does not play a role in wh-question formation in Japanese.

50. In favor of full access… Supposing that Subjacency is not active in Japanese, Flynn considers L2A of English by Japanese speakers. Supposing that Subjacency is not active in Japanese, Flynn considers L2A of English by Japanese speakers. Would these second language learners nevertheless obey Subjacency in English? Would these second language learners nevertheless obey Subjacency in English? Do they still have access to this principle provided by UG even though it is not used in their L1? Do they still have access to this principle provided by UG even though it is not used in their L1? Flynn’s experiments seem to indicate that Japanese speakers learning L2 English do obey Subjacency, and concludes that they must therefore still have access to UG during L2A. Flynn’s experiments seem to indicate that Japanese speakers learning L2 English do obey Subjacency, and concludes that they must therefore still have access to UG during L2A. But cf. Johnson & Newport later on… But cf. Johnson & Newport later on…

51. In favor of indirect access? The difference between indirect access and no access is very subtle, if it is even a real distinction. The difference between indirect access and no access is very subtle, if it is even a real distinction. No access claims that UG is not involved at all, that second language learning is basically general problem-solving. No access claims that UG is not involved at all, that second language learning is basically general problem-solving. Indirect access claims that UG is not involved directly, only the “parts of it” which have been selected in L1. Indirect access claims that UG is not involved directly, only the “parts of it” which have been selected in L1.

52. In favor of indirect access? Surely the idea behind the no access hypothesis is that when using an L2, you essentially come up with a sentence in your L1 and then “convert” it using the rules you learned about the L2 (or vice versa for perception). Surely the idea behind the no access hypothesis is that when using an L2, you essentially come up with a sentence in your L1 and then “convert” it using the rules you learned about the L2 (or vice versa for perception). So, both hypotheses really say that you know what you know about L1 and there is no further contribution of UG. There is no possibility to choose a different parameter setting for L2. So, both hypotheses really say that you know what you know about L1 and there is no further contribution of UG. There is no possibility to choose a different parameter setting for L2.

53. Partial access? As mentioned previously, partial access is really just a fallback position if there seems to be some evidence for access in one area of “UG” but conflicting evidence for no access in another area. As mentioned previously, partial access is really just a fallback position if there seems to be some evidence for access in one area of “UG” but conflicting evidence for no access in another area. In a sense, this might mean this hypothesis is more likely to be right, but there is no way to argue for partial access distinct from arguments for full or no access in subdomains of grammar. In a sense, this might mean this hypothesis is more likely to be right, but there is no way to argue for partial access distinct from arguments for full or no access in subdomains of grammar.

54. Getting at the “IL grammar” What do the L2 learners know? What do the L2 learners know? *Productions: We don’t have a great deal of success learning about the structure of linguistic knowledge in the native speaker domain by looking just at productions. Things aren’t different for L2 learners. *Productions: We don’t have a great deal of success learning about the structure of linguistic knowledge in the native speaker domain by looking just at productions. Things aren’t different for L2 learners. No information on what is ungrammatical—at best, information on what is dispreferred/avoided. No information on what is ungrammatical—at best, information on what is dispreferred/avoided. Performance errors happen, but that doesn’t indicate a lack of competence. Performance errors happen, but that doesn’t indicate a lack of competence.

55. Grammaticality judgments One way of testing people’s (whole) competence is to ask them to rate sentences in their second language. One way of testing people’s (whole) competence is to ask them to rate sentences in their second language. Who did you say that bought John dinner? 1-bad2-a little weird3-natural Who did you say that bought John dinner? 1-bad2-a little weird3-natural I wonder what will John wear tomorrow. 1-bad2-a little weird3-natural I wonder what will John wear tomorrow. 1-bad2-a little weird3-natural

56. GJ tasks aren’t perfect, though… As in any experiment, you may have biases… As in any experiment, you may have biases… Some people are hesitant to take an extreme position, may never rate a sentence 1 or 3. Some people are hesitant to take an extreme position, may never rate a sentence 1 or 3. Some people may rate the sentences based on how much sense it makes, rather than on the syntactic structure. And it’s hard to correct for that, because if you ask someone what’s wrong with Some people may rate the sentences based on how much sense it makes, rather than on the syntactic structure. And it’s hard to correct for that, because if you ask someone what’s wrong with What did you laugh after John bought for Sue? What did you laugh after John bought for Sue? (or how to correct it), even native speakers won’t be able to say. (or how to correct it), even native speakers won’t be able to say.

57. GJ tasks But we have the same trouble with kids too… We can try to employ the same kinds of tricks with adults… But we have the same trouble with kids too… We can try to employ the same kinds of tricks with adults… acting out a sentence acting out a sentence identifying which picture best depicts the subject matter of the sentence identifying which picture best depicts the subject matter of the sentence judging whether a sentence is true or false of a scene. judging whether a sentence is true or false of a scene. answering an ambiguous question to see wh-word scope. answering an ambiguous question to see wh-word scope. …

58. Locating the source of the errors Suppose that an adult L2 learner of E. rates Suppose that an adult L2 learner of E. rates What did you laugh after John bought for Sue? What did you laugh after John bought for Sue? as natural. Does that mean they don’t know Subjacency? Well, not necessarily. They may also now understand how to make complex clauses, adverbial clauses, etc. Well, not necessarily. They may also now understand how to make complex clauses, adverbial clauses, etc. Like with kids and quantifiers Principle B, one can only really say that people know or don’t know a principle of UG once they have the appropriate structures to apply them to. Like with kids and quantifiers Principle B, one can only really say that people know or don’t know a principle of UG once they have the appropriate structures to apply them to.

59. “How involved is UG in L2A?” Very (UG constrains IL) vs. not (L1 constrains IL) Very (UG constrains IL) vs. not (L1 constrains IL) To figure out which is right, we need to look at UG constraints or parameters which are not used in the learner’s L1. If there is something that holds in all languages, say, the  -criterion, showing that L2 learners respect the  -criterion doesn’t tell us whether that is because UG required it or because their L1 does. To figure out which is right, we need to look at UG constraints or parameters which are not used in the learner’s L1. If there is something that holds in all languages, say, the  -criterion, showing that L2 learners respect the  -criterion doesn’t tell us whether that is because UG required it or because their L1 does.

60. Two things to look at Parameter settings which vary between L1 and L2… Parameter settings which vary between L1 and L2… English: Bounding nodes for Subjacency are DP and IP. English: Bounding nodes for Subjacency are DP and IP. Italian/French: Bounding nodes for Subjacency are DP and CP. Italian/French: Bounding nodes for Subjacency are DP and CP. Universal principles which are inapplicable in L1 but apply in L2… Universal principles which are inapplicable in L1 but apply in L2… The ECP as used to control case marker drop in Japanese The ECP as used to control case marker drop in Japanese

61. “Universal principles inapplicable in L1?” As our theories of syntax develop, finding such things becomes harder and harder, since the goal of theoretical syntax is in general to say “All languages are really the same except for some very surface-y phenomena.” As our theories of syntax develop, finding such things becomes harder and harder, since the goal of theoretical syntax is in general to say “All languages are really the same except for some very surface-y phenomena.”

62. wh-movement Circa 1981, English moved its wh-words, Japanese didn’t, so Subjacency wasn’t relevant for Japanese. Circa 1981, English moved its wh-words, Japanese didn’t, so Subjacency wasn’t relevant for Japanese. However, since then, the proposals have changed—all languages move their wh-words to SpecCP, just some do it after SS. However, since then, the proposals have changed—all languages move their wh-words to SpecCP, just some do it after SS. Evidence has appeared which shows that under the right conditions, Japanese does respect Subjacency. Evidence has appeared which shows that under the right conditions, Japanese does respect Subjacency. Thus: Looking at whether Japanese speakers learning English respect Subjacency or not still hasn’t necessarily gotten away from L1. Thus: Looking at whether Japanese speakers learning English respect Subjacency or not still hasn’t necessarily gotten away from L1.

63. Kanno again Even Kanno’s experiment, neat as it is, doesn’t really escape L1 under this kind of view—if we were right about how the ECP is formulated. Even Kanno’s experiment, neat as it is, doesn’t really escape L1 under this kind of view—if we were right about how the ECP is formulated. The ECP controls that-trace phenomena in English (arguably), but it is actually a constraint against ungoverned empty categories. The ECP controls that-trace phenomena in English (arguably), but it is actually a constraint against ungoverned empty categories. If E. speakers know the ECP, they know this. If E. speakers know the ECP, they know this. If the ECP controls case drop in Japanese because these are empty categories, then if English speakers know the ECP, then they’ll know not to drop subject case markers. If the ECP controls case drop in Japanese because these are empty categories, then if English speakers know the ECP, then they’ll know not to drop subject case markers.

64. In general The L2A literature tends to take a fairly old, conservative view of UG. It tends to assume that UG provides options from which languages choose, and that something that a language doesn’t choose might become unavailable as a choice later. The L2A literature tends to take a fairly old, conservative view of UG. It tends to assume that UG provides options from which languages choose, and that something that a language doesn’t choose might become unavailable as a choice later. That is, the underlying assumption seems to be that English speakers don’t know the ECP, really. What they know is to behave according to the way the ECP would require for embedded subject questions. ? That is, the underlying assumption seems to be that English speakers don’t know the ECP, really. What they know is to behave according to the way the ECP would require for embedded subject questions. ?

65. Parameters The bottom line is: it’s going to be hard to make a convincing case that you’ve got a principle of UG which is not known (utilized) by an L1 speaker. Perhaps, if you are lucky, you might find something plausible now, but advances in syntactic theory will do everything they can to undermine your position. The bottom line is: it’s going to be hard to make a convincing case that you’ve got a principle of UG which is not known (utilized) by an L1 speaker. Perhaps, if you are lucky, you might find something plausible now, but advances in syntactic theory will do everything they can to undermine your position. However, languages do differ in the values of the parameters (e.g., Subjacency). However, languages do differ in the values of the parameters (e.g., Subjacency).

66. Parameters We can also look at aspects of parameter setting in L2A. We can also look at aspects of parameter setting in L2A. Part transfer (what settings get adopted as part of the initial state of the the second language learner’s interlanguage grammar?), part accessibility/involvement of UG (can second language learners “reset” these parameters? If so, the lists of options provided by UG are still available—that is, UG is available/involved). Part transfer (what settings get adopted as part of the initial state of the the second language learner’s interlanguage grammar?), part accessibility/involvement of UG (can second language learners “reset” these parameters? If so, the lists of options provided by UG are still available—that is, UG is available/involved).

67.                       