We Have Moved On: Current Concepts and Positions in Generative SLA

Abstract

In this Forum piece, we address several common misunderstandings of the generative L2A framework that are current in the wider L2A literature. Many of these misunderstandings stem from proposals that, although tested and eventually discarded, are still cited as though they were still accepted and in active use. We hope that by addressing four of the most persistent myths, we can persuade the wider L2A field to let them go and move on. By highlighting what generative researchers have in common with the proponents of other frameworks, we want to pave the way for increased collaboration between frameworks.In our reading and conversations with graduate students and colleagues, we have encountered persistent myths in the wider second language acquisition (SLA) community's perceptions about the positions taken by generative L2 researchers. 'Generative' grammar refers to a finite set of universal rules (Universal Grammar) that generate all (and only) sentences that are acceptable in a given language. These (unconscious) rules form the basis of L2 acquisition (L2A); upon encountering target language input, native rules are reset and new rules are acquired. Although the input to learners is different, the null hypothesis of L2A is that it is fundamentally similar to child L1A, being human language acquisition.We offer the present update to address several common misunderstandings of the generative L2A framework. Many of these misunderstandings stem from proposals that, although tested and eventually discarded, are still cited as though they were still accepted and in active use. We hope that by addressing four of the most persistent myths, we can persuade the wider SLA field to let them go and move on. By highlighting what generative researchers have in common with the proponents of other frameworks, we want to pave the way for increased collaboration between frameworks.

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

“…For example, models that claim full transfer at the initial stages of adult SLA, such as full transfer/full access (Schwartz & Sprouse, 1996), are mutually exclusive to theories maintaining very limited or no transfer of functional categories or features such as Minimal Trees (Vainikka & Young-Scholten, 1994, 1996. However, the actual level of incompatibility across paradigms, in our view, is much less than what is largely held true (Rothman & VanPatten, 2013;Slabakova et al, 2014Slabakova et al, , 2015; but see de Bot, 2015, for arguments against) in large part because the questions each paradigm pursues are only partially overlapping. In addition to valid and appropriate scientific debates on the perception of significant incompatibility across various SLA paradigms, there are historical reasons for blatant misunderstanding of what particular SLA theories claim.…”

The Study of Heritage Language Development From a Bilingualism and Social Justice Perspective

“…There is consensus among SLA researchers that the quantity and quality of exposure to relevant language input must be part of the explanation for any kind of language development (e.g., Rankin & Unsworth, 2016;Rothman & Slabakova, 2018;Slabakova, Leal, & Liskin-Gasparro, 2014). However, the place afforded to such variables in HLD studies lags behind this understanding.…”

On the Role of Input in Second Language Acquisition: The Case of French Strong Pronouns

“…No one study can entirely disentangle the impact of each of these factors on learners’ interlanguage. Moreover, the arguments on both sides of the debate have gradually come to acknowledge that both factors (i.e., innate knowledge and input) have at least some role to play in interlanguage development (O'Grady, ; Slabakova et al., ). Therefore, the present study set out to investigate L2 acquisition of yet another linguistic structure where the form–meaning association in question is likely to be rarely encountered by L2 learners.…”

“…This study examined whether a semantic interpretation that is infrequent in the input typically available to second language (L2) learners and that is misrepresented in formal instruction can be acquired by L2 learners. It is generally agreed that input is paramount for L2 acquisition (Rankin & Unsworth, ; Slabakova, Leal, & Liskin‐Gasparro, ). However, although usage‐based accounts have attempted to demonstrate that the task of acquiring a (second) language can be accomplished through domain‐general/data‐driven algorithms, generative linguists have insisted on an important role of “domain‐specific cognitive principles or mechanisms constraining the acquisition of language” (Schwartz & Sprouse, , p. 138).…”