This article provides a Poverty of Stimulus argument for the participation of a dedicated linguistic module in second language acquisition. We study the second language (L2) acquisition of a subset of English infinitive complements that exhibit the following properties: (a) they present an intricate web of grammatical constraints while (b) they are highly infrequent in corpora, (c) they lack visible features that would make them salient, and (d) they are communicatively superfluous. We report on an experiment testing the knowledge of some infinitival constructions by near-native adult first language (L1) Spanish / L2 English speakers. Learners demonstrated a linguistic system that includes contrasts based on subtle restrictions in the L2, including aspect restrictions in Raising to Object. These results provide evidence that frequency and other cognitive or environmental factors are insufficient to account for the acquisition of the full spectrum of English infinitivals. This leads us to the conclusion that a domain-specific linguistic faculty is required.
AusínA (2001) On A-movement. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Connecticut, CT, USA.
2.
BakerCL (1979) Syntactic theory and the projection problem. Linguistic Inquiry10(4): 533–581.
3.
BerwickRCPietroskiPYankamaBChomskyN (2011) Poverty of the stimulus revisited. Cognitive Science35: 1207–42.
4.
BirdsongD (1992) Ultimate attainment in second language acquisition. Language68: 706–55.
5.
BirdsongD (2014) The critical period hypothesis for second language acquisition: Tailoring the coat of many colors. In: PawlakMAroninL (eds) Essential topics in applied linguistics and multilingualism. Springer International, pp. 43–50.
6.
Bley-VromanR (1983) The comparative fallacy in interlanguage studies: The case of systematicity. Language Learning33: 1–17.
7.
BobaljikJDLandauI (2009) Icelandic control is not A-movement: The case from case. Linguistic Inquiry40: 113–32.
8.
BoeckxCHornsteinN (2003) Reply to ‘Control is not movement’. Linguistic Inquiry34: 269–80.
9.
BoeckxCHornsteinN (2004) Movement under control. Linguistic Inquiry35: 431–52.
10.
BoeckxCHornsteinNNunesJ (2010) Control as movement: Volume 126. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
11.
BruhndeGaravitoJ (1997) Verb complementation, coreference and tense in the acquisition of Spanish as a second language. In: GlassWRPérez-LerouxAT (eds) Contemporary perspectives on the acquisition of Spanish: Volume 1. Sommerville, MA: Cascadilla Press, pp. 167–88.
12.
CaboDPYRothmanJ (2012) The (Il) logical problem of heritage speaker bilingualism and incomplete acquisition. Applied Linguistics33: 450–55.
13.
Cabrelli AmaroJIversonMGiancasproDHalloran GonzálezB (in press) Implications of L1 versus L2 transfer in L3 rate of acquisition. In: MolsingKBecker Lopes PernaCTramunt IbañosAM (eds) Linguistic approaches to Portuguese as an additional language. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
14.
ChomskyN (1995) The minimalist program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
15.
ClarkALappinS (2010) Linguistic nativism and the poverty of the stimulus. Chichester: John Wiley.
16.
CrainSThorntonR (1998) Investigations in Universal Grammar. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
17.
CulicoverPWJackendoffR (2001) Control is not movement. Linguistic Inquiry32: 493–512.
18.
D’AnglejanATuckerGR (1975) The acquisition of complex English structures by adult learners. Language Learning25: 281–96.
19.
DaviesM (2008) The Corpus of Contemporary American English (COCA): 520 million words, 1990–present. Available at: https://www.english-corpora.org/coca (accessed May 2019).
20.
DaviesM (2013) Corpus of News on the Web (NOW): 3+ billion words from 20 countries, updated every day. Available at: https://www.english-corpora.org/now (accessed May 2019).
21.
DaviesWDDubinskyS (2004) The grammar of raising and control: A course in syntactic argumentation. Oxford: Blackwell.
22.
DekydtspotterLSprouseRA (2001) Mental design and (second) language epistemology: Adjectival restrictions of wh-quantifiers and tense in English–French interlanguage. Second Language Research17: 1–35.
23.
EllisNC (1998) Emergentism, connectionism and language learning. Language Learning48: 631–64.
24.
EllisNC (2002) Frequency effects in language processing. Studies in Second Language Acquisition24: 143–88.
25.
EllisR (2005) Measuring implicit and explicit knowledge of a second language: A psychometric study. Studies in Second Language Acquisition27: 141–72.
26.
FolliRHarleyH (2007) Causation, obligation and argument structure: On the nature of little v. Linguistic Inquiry38: 197–238.
27.
GassSMMackeyA (2002) Frequency effects and second language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition24: 249–60.
28.
GibsonEPiantadosiSFedorenkoK (2011) Using mechanical Turk to obtain and analyze English acceptability judgments. Language and Linguistics Compass5: 509–24.
29.
GoodluckHBirchB (1988) Late-learned rules in first and second language acquisition. In: PankhurstJSharwood-SmithMvan BurenP (eds) Learnability and second languages: A book of readings. Dordrecht: Foris, pp. 94–115.
30.
GuastiMT (1993) Verb syntax in Italian child grammar: Finite and nonfinite verbs. Language Acquisition3: 1–40.
31.
HanYEllisR (1998) Implicit knowledge, explicit knowledge and general language proficiency. Language Teaching Research2: 1–23.
32.
HawkinsRChanCYH (1997) The partial availability of Universal Grammar in second language acquisition: The ‘failed functional features hypothesis’. Second Language Research13: 187–226.
33.
HeilJE (2015) Infinitivals at the end-state: Evidence for L2 acquisition of English non-finite complementation. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA. Retrieved from ProQuest (10003400).
34.
HornsteinN (1999) Movement and control. Linguistic Inquiry30: 69–96.
35.
HulstijnJH (2012) The construct of language proficiency in the study of bilingualism from a cognitive perspective. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition15: 422–33.
36.
IoninTMontrulS (2009) Article use and generic reference: Parallels between L1- and L2-acquisition. In: García-MayoMHawkinsR (eds) Second language acquisition of articles: Empirical findings and theoretical implications. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 147–73.
37.
JegerskiJVanPattenBKeatingGD (2011) Cross-linguistic variation and the acquisition of pronominal reference in L2 Spanish. Second Language Research27: 481–507.
38.
JohnsonJSNewportEL (1989) Critical period effects in second language learning: The influence of maturational state on the acquisition of English as a second language. Cognitive Psychology21: 60–99.
39.
LakshmananUSelinkerL (2001) Analysing interlanguage: How do we know what learners know?Second Language Research17: 393–420.
40.
LalekoOPolinskyM (2013) Marking topic or marking case: A comparative investigation of Heritage Japanese and Heritage Korean. Heritage Language Journal10: 40–64.
41.
LandauI (2003) Movement out of control. Linguistic Inquiry34: 471–98.
42.
LandauI (2013) Control in generative grammar: A research companion. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
43.
LandauI (2015) A two-tiered theory of control: Volume 71. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
44.
LangackerR (1995) Raising and transparency. Language71: 1–62.
45.
LardiereD (2003) Revisiting the comparative fallacy: A reply to Lakshmanan and Selinker, 2001. Second Language Research19: 129–43.
46.
LardiereD (2009) Some thoughts on the contrastive analysis of features in second language acquisition. Second Language Research25: 173–227.
47.
LópezL (2001) On the (non) complementarity of θ-theory and checking theory. Linguistic Inquiry32: 694–716.
48.
MacIntyrePDNoelsKAClémentR (1997) Biases in self-ratings of second language proficiency: The role of language anxiety. Language Learning, 47: 265–87.
49.
MacWhinneyB (2004) A unified model of language acquisition. In: KrollJFDe GrootAMB (eds) Handbook of bilingualism: Psycholinguistic approaches. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 49–67.
50.
MarianVBlumenfeldHKKaushanskayaM (2007) The Language Experience and Proficiency Questionnaire (LEAP-Q): Assessing language profiles in bilinguals and multilinguals. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research50: 940–967.
51.
MartohardjonoG (1993) Wh-movement in the acquisition of a second language: A crosslinguistic study of three languages with and without overt movement. Unpublished PhD dissertation, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, USA.
52.
McDanielDCairnsHS (1990) The processing and acquisition of control structures by young children. In: FrazierLDe VilliersJ (eds) Language processing and language acquisition. Dordrecht: Springer, pp. 313–25.
53.
McDanielDCairnsHSHsuJR (1991) Control principles in the grammars of young children. Language Acquisition1: 297–335.
54.
MontrulSSlabakovaR (2003) Competence similarities between native and near-native speakers. Studies in Second Language Acquisition25: 351–98.
55.
OrfitelliRPolinskyM (2017) When performance masquerades as comprehension. In: KopotevMLyashevskayaOMustajokiA (eds) Quantitative approaches to the Russian language. Abingdon: Routledge.
56.
OyamaS (1976) A sensitive period for the acquisition of a nonnative phonological system. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research5: 261–83.
57.
Pérez-TattamR (2007) Infinitival subordination in Spanish: A study of control, raising and ECM constructions in bilingual and non-native acquisition. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Ottawa, Ottawa. ON, Canada.
58.
Pérez-TattamR (2011) Second language competence: The acquisition of complex syntax in Spanish. Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
59.
PerforsATenenbaumJBWonnacottE (2010) Variability, negative evidence, and the acquisition of verb argument constructions. Journal of Child Language37: 607–42.
60.
PetersH (2012) Non-finite complementation in French L2: A learner corpus approach. In: PonsonnetMDaoLBowlerM (eds) Proceedings of the 42nd Australian Linguistics Society Conference - 2011. Canberra: ANU Research Repository, pp. 315–350. Available at: http://hdl.handle.net/1885/9420 (accessed May 2019).
61.
RegierTGahlS (2004) Learning the unlearnable: The role of missing evidence. Cognition93: 147–55.
62.
ReichleRV (2010) Near-nativelike processing of contrastive focus in L2 French. In: VanPattenBJegerskiJ (eds) Research in second language processing and parsing. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 321–344.
63.
RothmanJ (2008) Why all counter-evidence to the critical period hypothesis in second language acquisition is not equal or problematic. Language and Linguistics Compass2: 1063–88.
64.
RothmanJGoodin-MayedaCE (2007) The acquisition of aspect in L2 Portuguese and Spanish: Exploring native/non-native performance differences. In: BaauwSDrijkoningenFPintoM (eds) Romance languages and linguistic theory 2005. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 131–48.
65.
RothmanJIversonM (2008) Poverty-of-the-stimulus and SLA epistemology: Considering L2 knowledge of aspectual phrasal semantics. Language Acquisition15: 270–314.
66.
RothmanJSlabakovaR (2018) State of the scholarship: The Generative Approach to SLA and its Place in Modern Second Language Studies. Studies in Second Language Acquisition40: 417–42.
67.
SchützeCT (1996) The empirical base of linguistics: Grammaticality judgments and linguistic methodology. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago.
68.
SchwartzBDSprouseRA (1996) L2 cognitive states and the Full Transfer/Full Access model. Second Language Research12: 40–72.
69.
SchwartzBDSprouseRA (2013) Generative approaches and the poverty of stimulus. In: HerschensonJYoung-ScholtenM (eds) The Cambridge handbook of language acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 137–58.
70.
SlabakovaRMontrulS (2003) Genericity and aspect in L2 acquisition. Language Acquisition11: 165–96.
71.
SlobinDI (1997) The origins of grammaticizable notions: Beyond the individual mind. In: SlobinDI (ed.) The crosslinguistic study of language acquisition: Volume 5. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum, pp. 265–323.
72.
SongHSSchwartzBD (2009) Testing the Fundamental Difference Hypothesis: L2 adult, L2 child, and L1 child comparisons in the acquisition of Korean wh-constructions with negative polarity items. Studies in Second Language Acquisition31: 323–361.
73.
SoraceA (2005) Selective optionality in language development. In: CornipsLCorriganKP (eds) Syntax and variation: Reconciling the biological and the social. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 55–80.
74.
SoraceA (2010) Using magnitude estimation in developmental linguistic research. In: BlomEUnsworthS (eds) Experimental methods in language acquisition research: Volume 27. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 57–72.
75.
SprouseJ (2011) A validation of Amazon Mechanical Turk for the collection of acceptability judgments in linguistic theory. Behavior Research Methods43: 155–67.
76.
The British National Corpus (2007) The British National Corpus, version 3 (BNC XML edition). Oxford: The British National Corpus. Distributed by Bodleian Libraries, University of Oxford on behalf of the BNC Consortium. Available at: http://www.natcorp.ox.ac.uk (accessed May 2019).
77.
TruscottJSharwood-SmithMS (2004) Acquisition by processing: A modular perspective on language development. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition7: 1–20.
78.
WhiteL (1989) Universal grammar and second language acquisition: Volume 1. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
79.
WhiteL (2003) Second language acquisition and universal grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
80.
WhiteEJGeneseeFSteinhauerK (2012) Brain responses before and after intensive second language learning: Proficiency based changes and first language background effects in adult learners. PloS One7: e52318.
81.
WolterBGyllstadH (2013) Frequency of input and L2 collocational processing. Studies in Second Language Acquisition35: 451–82.
82.
WoodJ (2012) Against the movement theory of control: Another argument from Icelandic. Linguistic Inquiry43: 322–30.
83.
WulffSEllisNC (2018) Usage-based approaches to second language acquisition. In: MillerDBayramFRothmanJSerratriceL (eds) Bilingual cognition and language: The state of the science across its subfields. Studies in Bilingualism, volume 54. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 37–56.
84.
YangC (2018) A formalist perspective on language acquisition. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism8: 665–706.
