This article is a defence of the Full Transfer/Full Access (FT/FA) model. FT/FA hypothesizes that the initial state of L2 acquisition is the final state of L1 acquisition (Full Transfer) and that failure to assign a representation to input data will force subsequent restructurings, drawing from options of UG (Full Access). We illustrate the FT/FA model by reviewing our analysis of the developmental Turkish-German Interlanguage data of Schwartz and Sprouse (1994) and then turn to other data that similarly receive straightforward accounts under FT/FA. We also consider two other competing hypotheses, both of which accept Full Access but not Full Transfer: the Minimal Trees hypothesis (no transfer of functional categories) of Vainikka and Young-Scholten (1994; 1996) and the Weak Transfer hypothesis (no transfer of the values associated with functional categories) of Eubank (1993/94). We provide an example of (extremely robust) L2 acquisition data that highlight the inadequacy of the Minimal Trees hypothesis in regard to stages of Interlanguage subsequent to the L2 initial state. As for Weak Transfer, we show that the morphosyntactic empirical foundations which drive the entire approach are flawed; hence the Weak Transfer hypothesis remains without motivation. Finally, we consider several conceptual issues relating to transfer. These all argue that the FT/FA model provides the most coherent picture of the L2 initial cognitive state. In short, FT/FA embodies the most suitable programme for understanding comparative Interlanguage development.

Psychologically speaking, all linguistic behavior is the overt manifestation of some type of underlying knowledge that is represented in the mind/brain of an individual. Exposure to linguistic data is necessary for growth of the system of knowledge. On the basis of only overt linguistic behavior, how can we ascertain whether the native and nonnative knowledge systems that people have are of distinct or similar types? Is there a (necessary) relationship between type of knowledge and type of linguistic exposure?The hypothesis to be defended is that negative data and explicit data result in a type of knowledge that is not to be equated with linguistic competence. The claim is not that negative and explicit data cannot give rise to knowledge; rather, the specific claim is that only positive data can effect the construction of an interlanguage grammar that is comparable to the knowledge system that characterizes the result of first language acquisition.

No abstract

No abstract

In this paper I argue for the necessity of recognizing the epistemological basis of language (and hence of linguistic theory) for research in and theories of second language acquisition. In particular, I review the arguments for a generative approach to linguistic theory (e.g. Chomsky, 1965, 1975, 1981) and for why language as a system of knowledge must be distinct from other sorts of know ledge (Fodor, 1983), with the purpose of clarifying many misconceptions that seem to have arisen with respect to the work in generative grammar over the last 20 years. After doing this I argue that the null hypothesis for second language acquisition is, as concerns its mental representation of linguistic knowledge, that its epistemological status should be assumed to be the same as that of L 1 until proven otherwise. I then demonstrate how SLA theory (e.g. Krashen, 1981) can be elucidated by subsuming (parts of) L2 under linguistic theory with its firm epistemological basis, and how, in particular, one could empirically test Krashen's theory as well as any other theory of SLA that assumes L 1 and L2 to be epistemologically equivalent. In addition I discuss the need for researchers to consider the special epistemological status of linguistic knowledge before prescribing L2 pedagogy. In sum this is a paper that takes a step back into the philosophical debate concerning the mental status of language in general in order for us to be able to take a step forward in second language research in particular.