Language acquisition and the Subset Principle

MacLaughlin, Dawn

doi:10.1515/tlir.1995.12.2.143

Cited by 18 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…For example, Berent (1994) argued that there are design and methodological problems with some of the previously mentioned studies, so that the L2 data offered as evidence for the unavailability of the SP do not accurately represent the knowledge under investigation. Going even further, Hermon (1992) and MacLaughlin (1995) argued that the SP is untestable because there are no parameters in current theory that present a subset-superset problem. Mac-Laughlin discussed the Case Adjacency parameter, the pro-drop parameter, the Bounding Node parameter, and the Governing Category parameter, concluding in each case that either the parameters are empirically inadequate or that the phenomena themselves do not involve subset-superset relations.…”

Section: University Of Iowamentioning

confidence: 99%

“…2. The SP is untestable since no existing parameter values truly exhibit the subsetsuperset relationship (Hermon, 1992;MacLaughlin, 1995).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…I am also grateful to Silvina Montrul for testing in Montreal and Argentina, and to Carlos Benavides, Judy Liskin-Gasparro, Paula Kempchinsky, and Michelle Willert for help with the testing in Iowa. 1 However, see MacLaughlin (1995) for arguments that the pro-drop parameter does not really present a subset problem. 2 Note that, as White (1996: 100, footnote 9) points out, these authors do not refute the SP on principled grounds, and it is possible in fact that such parameters be discovered that would warrant its operation.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

The Compounding Parameter in Second Language Acquisition

Slabakova

2002

Stud Second Lang Acquis

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article presents an experimental study investigating the compounding parameter in the L2 Spanish interlanguage of English and French NSs in light of the Subset Principle and its predictions for the process of L2 development. The compounding parameter (Snyder, 1995, 2001) argues that languages permit complex predicate constructions like verb particles, resultatives, and double objects if and only if they can productively form N-N compounds. English exhibits the plus value of the parameter, allowing N-N compounds and the related constructions, whereas in Spanish and French these compounds and constructions are ungrammatical. Because English also allows periphrastic constructions of the same meaning, which are the only option in French and Spanish, English represents the superset parameter value to the Spanish and French subset value. At issue is whether L2 learners are able to acquire the subset value of the compounding parameter based on the naturalistic input they receive. In this case, the learning task involves realizing that some L1 constructions are unavailable in the L2. Results indicate that the learners initially transfer the L1 (superset) value and do not start with the subset value of the parameter. Findings also inform the debate on whether negative evidence can engage UG-related acquisition. Ten of the 26 advanced subjects were able to successfully reset the whole parameter based on negative data for only two of the four constructions in the cluster. This fact suggests that it is not impossible for negative evidence to be utilized in grammar reorganization.

show abstract

Section: University Of Iowamentioning

confidence: 99%

“…2. The SP is untestable since no existing parameter values truly exhibit the subsetsuperset relationship (Hermon, 1992;MacLaughlin, 1995).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The Compounding Parameter in Second Language Acquisition

Slabakova

2002

Stud Second Lang Acquis

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Thus, Yuan (1994) proposes that pronoun+zisin should be selected and transferred to JLsE's IL grammar in the course where they learn the English reflexives, and Ishino and Ura (2009) propose that zibun-zisin, instead, should be selected and transferred. Those proposals, no matter how much descriptive sufficiency they might have on empirical grounds, have a conceptually fatal problem, however: As correctly pointed out by MacLaughlin (1995), there is no theoretically/conceptually evident reason as to which one of the Japanese reflexives is to be selected as the representative of them and transferred to JLsE's IL grammar. Unless this issue is given a lucid solution, LTA is not sufficient on conceptual grounds.…”

Section: Ltamentioning

confidence: 99%

Syntactic Feature Transfer and Reflexive Binding in Interlanguage

Ishino

2012

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…The question here, then, is whether L2 learners can overcome a stage in which their grammar allows wh-scope marking and, if so, what enables them to do so. In this respect one idea to pursue is that one is dealing with a situation that is only an apparent superset-subset relation (MacLaughlin, 1995). In such cases, the input exhibits other syntactic properties -i.e.…”

Section: Puzzles For the Acquisition Of English Complex Questionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Syntactic creativity in second language English: wh-scope marking in Japanese-English interlanguage

Schulz

2011

Second Language Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article documents a fairly rare kind of interlanguage phenomenon, namely one in which interlanguages exhibit syntactic constructions that are grammatical neither in a learner's native language nor in his or her target language, but are nevertheless typologically attested. The target construction is wh-scope marking, a cross-linguistically attested form of complex question formation. Using an elicited production experiment, an off-line acceptability judgment task and an on-line acceptability judgment task, it is argued that wh-scope marking is a genuine phenomenon in Japanese-English interlanguages despite the fact that it is ungrammatical both in English and in Japanese. Given that the acquisition of wh-scope marking cannot be explained by these learners' first language nor by their target language, the current study investigates what other mechanism these learners might be drawing on in their acquisition process. The article proposes that whscope marking in Japanese-English interlanguages results from a simplification strategy that learners adopt in order to ease the processing burden.

show abstract

Language acquisition and the Subset Principle

Cited by 18 publications

References 0 publications

The Compounding Parameter in Second Language Acquisition

The Compounding Parameter in Second Language Acquisition

Syntactic Feature Transfer and Reflexive Binding in Interlanguage

Syntactic creativity in second language English: wh-scope marking in Japanese-English interlanguage

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About