Constraining second language word order optionality: scrambling in advanced                 English-German and Japanese-German interlanguage

Hopp, Holger

doi:10.1191/0267658305sr246oa

Cited by 36 publications

(25 citation statements)

References 31 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…We agree with Papp's (2000) claim that if input is perceived as being vague or not robust enough by non-native speakers, a stage of optional judgements can persist even at advanced levels of L2 acquisition (see also Hopp 2005). Since learners do not typically have access to explicit instruction on the different word alternations available in Spanish, they can only rely on the evidence available in the linguistic input to achieve full convergence in this area.…”

Section: Introductionsupporting

confidence: 63%

Subject inversion in non-native Spanish

Domínguez

Arche

2014

Lingua

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study presents new empirical evidence on the L2 acquisition of Spanish SV-VS contrasts, a syntax-pragmatics interface phenomenon. Results from a context-dependant preference task involving unergative and unaccusative verbs in different focus situations (broad and narrow focus) reveal that beginner and intermediate English speakers prefer SV in all contexts. In contrast, advanced learners, who clearly know that VS is possible in Spanish, show a pattern of optionality with unergative verbs (in both broad and narrow focus contexts), whereas VS is correctly preferred with unaccusative verbs in both broad and narrowly-focused contexts. We argue that these results can be explained by a representational deficit according to which the VS order is overgeneralized to unergative verbs regardless of the discursive situation. We argue that learners' overuse of VS structures is exacerbated by the lack of clear evidence for the use of SV and VS forms in the native input.

show abstract

Section: Introductionsupporting

confidence: 63%

Subject inversion in non-native Spanish

Domínguez

Arche

2014

Lingua

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Even more remarkably, the nativelike pattern differentiates between two relatively complex and unacceptable types of sentence, which the learners cannot transfer from the native language and they have not been taught to reject. Such findings and others like it are suggestive of access to universal grammatical principles (e.g., Dekydtspotter, Sprouse, & Anderson, 1998;Dekydtspotter, Sprouse, & Swanson, 2001;Hopp, 2005 In principle, it should be relatively easy to disprove claims of a logical problem: Show that there are no instances of PoS or, when it is agreed by all that input alone is insufficient to explain resulting competence, that the grammatical knowledge in question falls out straightforwardly from domain general cognition and/or processing principles. That there is no logical problem has been argued rather extensively (e.g., Bybee, 2010;Evans, 2014;Gerken, Wilson, & Lewis, 2005;Goldberg, 2013;Gries, 2012;O'Grady, 2005;Redington, Charter, & Finch, 1998;Tomasello, 2003).…”

Section: What Is Different About Generative Approaches? Poverty Of Thmentioning

confidence: 98%

The Generative Approach to Sla and Its Place in Modern Second Language Studies

Rothman

Slabakova

2017

Stud Second Lang Acquis

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This type includes so‐called ‘soft structures’ (Sorace ; Sorace and Keller ) that lie at the interface between syntax and semantics, syntax and pragmatics, and syntax and discourse (see, e.g. Montrul ; Serratrice, Sorace, and Paoli ; Hopp ; Sorace and Filiaci ; Montrul and Bowles ; Ivanov ; Slabakova, Kempchinsky, and Rothman ). The unaccusative variant of verbs of causative alternation mentioned earlier is a case in point (see Example 4).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Re‐engaging the interface debate: strong, weak, none, or all?

Han

Finneran

2013

Int J App Linguistics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In the history of SLA research, the relationship between explicit and implicit knowledge has incited heated debate, culminating in, broadly, three disparate positions: (a) the non‐interface; (b) the weak‐interface; and (c) the strong‐interface. In this paper, we re‐engage the theoretical debate. Unlike the previous discussions, however, which typically find researchers espousing one position against another – usually the non‐interface position, we claim that in the interlanguage of any L2 learners, there is likely both explicit and implicit knowledge, but, more important, three types of relationships co‐existing between them: a strong interface, a weak interface, and no interface. We argue that further advances in SLA research would benefit from a concerted effort to identify which aspects of grammar are susceptible to a strong, weak, or no interface relation.

show abstract

Constraining second language word order optionality: scrambling in advanced English-German and Japanese-German interlanguage

Abstract: To cite this version:Holger Hopp. Constraining second language word order optionality: scrambling in

Cited by 36 publications

References 31 publications

Subject inversion in non-native Spanish

Subject inversion in non-native Spanish

The Generative Approach to Sla and Its Place in Modern Second Language Studies

Re‐engaging the interface debate: strong, weak, none, or all?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About