Generative second-language acquisition

Pre-GenSLA: 1960s-1970s In the late 1960s-early 1970s researchers observed that the language and errors of L2 learners were not random but systematic and evidence of rule-governed behaviour. From this observation researchers proposed the concept of interlanguage which refers to the language system used by L2 learners that contains interacting linguistic aspects of both the L1 and L2. This system theory regarding the interlanguage suggests that L2 learners have mental grammars that can be described with rules and principles. Therefore, an extra component, such as the UG which consists of innate domain-specific linguistic knowledge, is needed to account for these POV properties. Another important element of these features for GenSLA research is interpretability. New Populations: 2000s Onwards By the 2000s it was generally accepted that adult SLA differed from child L1 acquisition in process and typical outcomes and there was evidence for adult accessibility in at least some properties of UG. This motivated GenSLA theory to shift focus from questions just about UG accessibility and specific features to describing and explaining variation at group and individual levels. This casts doubt on the critical period hypothesis (CP) that age is the determining factor in convergent language acquisition, another rich area of debate in GenSLA research With respect to child L2 acquisition, it was hypothesized that if child and adult L2 learners follow the same developmental path this would call into question the claims made by some GenSLA researchers that differences between L1 and L2 learners are due to the inaccessibility of UG. This is because in GenSLA child L2 learners under the age of 7 to 8 are hypothesized to have access to UG. Thus, if the developmental paths of child and adult L2 learners overlap significantly it is likely that the basis of difference is the shared experience they have with their L1. If, however, if they follow different developmental paths this would seem to support the claim that adult L2 learners do not have access to UG; their learning must instead be due to other factors. Finally, in multilingual acquisition, if it were shown that adult L2 learners can transfer POS properties only available from their L2 to their L3 or L4 etc. this could also be used to cast doubt on the CP hypothesize. In addition, there has been a movement towards examining children's L2 acquisition. The study of child SLA is argued to be an important way of examining both child L1 acquisition and adult L2 acquisition. Unlike adults, children acquiring an L2 are considered to have full and direct access to Universal Grammar, and are typically more successful at retainment of the L2 and reaching a state of fluency. Some scholars have argued that examining child L2 acquisition is an essential tool in solving the debate over adult access to UG Most recent work on child L2 acquisition within generative framework has focused on the following 3 major issues: • L1 influence in child L2 acquisition, • The availability of functional categories (emphasis on the acquisition of tense-agreement and tense-aspect), • Morphological variability. ==Access Theories==

No Access Theories of no access argue that adult second language learners do not have access to UG. One source of evidence for this position stems from research observations made in the 1970s and 80s that children experience a critical period or reduced ability over time to acquire a functional L1 morphosyntactic system that ends around puberty. L2 acquisition, however, does not share this similarity with late L1 acquisition, L2 learners being generally more successful than the latter. Additionally, child L2 and adult L2 learners differ greatly in the developmental paths they take and their ultimate attainment. refers to how linguistic methods of language acquisition applied in early childhood are not available for adult learners, which points to a fundamental difference in access to UG between child and adult learners. Adult L2 acquisition resembles the process of general adult learning in fields where there is no domain-specific learning system believed to exist. Direct Access Theories of direct access argue that UG is still directly accessible to adult second language learners, in addition to syntactic property transfer from their L1. Some experts have commented that theories of direct access could also be characterized as direct access since the learner is not restricted only to UG principles and parameter settings of the L1 grammar due to the resetting and restructuring that occurs with the learning of the L2. Feature Reassembly Hypothesis, Prosodic Transfer Hypothesis, Interface Hypothesis. Indirect Access The indirect access viewpoint considers the possibility that access to a second language grammar is first through a first language, where the second language then causes a resetting and restructuring of the learners understanding of grammar once they have been exposed to the second language. Partial Access Theories of partial access argue that L2 learners have partial, but not full access to UG through their L1. ==Generative SLA in the Classroom==

Teaching ESL Scholars in Generative SLA have suggested that their research is relevant in developing effective methods of teaching a second language in classroom settings including bilingual, immersion, second dialect education and second language literacy programs. Practical GenSLA researchers seek to go beyond "passive" acquisition and utilize theories in SLA to efficiently teach L2s. Research on practical, educational usage of GenSLA theories have been explored in L2s such as Spanish, English, German and French. or Alzheimers patients. Insights from GenSLA could also help multilingual children by ensuring educators not confuse problems of second language acquisition with learning disabilities, bilinguals undergoing primary language loss or deaf and hearing children learning sign language as a first or second language. == Applications: Word Order Acquisition ==

There have been debates regarding how one can apply the principles of Generative L2 Acquisition to individuals acquiring a second language with a different word order from their L1 (for example individuals whose L1 was SOV and are now learning a SVO language, or vice versa). Some researchers have hypothesized that on the basis of the full transfer full access theory, individuals will use L1 grammar and parameter setting initially during their acquisition of L2, but would still have access to the UG. This notion contains features of both the direct and indirect theories of UG, which involves some form of access to the UG. However, research has shown that not all individuals acquiring the L2 will produce transfers from their L1, as the transfer process depends on the structural components of the L1. Instead, some linguists have argued that the process of second language acquisition can be accounted for by general learning principles and in fact not does correspond to having access to the UG. Therefore, this particular issue of different word-order acquisition can be used to call into question if the direct access theory of UG is relevant to second language acquisition, or if a no access theory is more plausible. ==Criticism==

There has been some criticism regarding Generative L2 Acquisition on the basis of methodology and other linguistic theories. Methodological Issues There have been claims that there are several methodological issues in generative research. The subjects need to have a requisite level of the L2 to see if a principle is operating in their interlanguage grammar. Furthermore, complex structures are often needed to test for interlanguage grammar, and the speakers need to be able to competently engage with the structures within their current L2 capacity. It is also difficult to rule out the influence of the L1, if the languages present similar principles that are in question. One of the most controversial methodological issues in generative second language acquisition is regarding what L2 data is collected. There is a need to obtain information about competence rather than performance, and it is difficult to obtain samples which contain the complex structures necessary to observe UG-related parameters and principles. Elicited data is preferred, but still problematic based on the skill level of the speaker, and is not considered naturally occurring speech. The phases have been termed the "Bare VP Stage", the "Underspecified VP Stage" and the "Agr-P Stage" The controversy surrounding the MTH has to do with methodological problems and theoretical problems which emerge in the hypothesis. Despite the controversial nature of the hypothesis, MTH has been considered an extremely strong and valuable contribution to SLA research and generative grammar as a whole. They contest the existence of the logical problem of acquisition and the existence of UG hypothesized to fill the alleged explanatory gap. If this is true it would throw the generative approach to SLA into question. Supporters of GenSLA argue, however, that in order to disprove the logical problem of acquisition detractors would have to either show there are no instances of poverty of stimulus properties or when input alone is insufficient, one needs to explain the child's resulting competence in virtue of the operation of domain general cognitive mechanisms, statistical learning or processing considerations. They subsequently point to the fact that this has not yet been attempted exhaustively and no parsimonious alternatives have been offered to explain how poverty of stimulus properties are acquired. The logical problem of language acquisition is thought to prevail so long as there are any poverty of stimulus properties that cannot otherwise be accounted for. ==Beyond L2==

The recent decades have witnessed an expansion of L2 field to L3 acquisition. The main researchers and publishing venues remained the same while the number of models and hypotheses regarding multilingual language acquisition have soared. Nearly all of them are nested in generative linguistics. There are three main groups of models: partial transfer, wholesale transfer, and those rejecting transfer. The key question on which the models differ is what the source of linguistic transfer is, and what the role of previous languages are. ==See also==