Learnability and grammar reorganization in L2A: against negative evidence causing the unlearning of verb movement

Abstract

This paper reassesses the role of Negative Evidence (NE) in nonnative language acquisition. We argue that the grammar-building process cannot make use of NE to restructure (Interlanguage) grammars - irrespective of logical need. The empirical basis comes from White's (1991a; 1991b) study of French speakers acquiring English, where the 'Verb Movement' parameter and the particular learnability problem of 'unlearning' thematic Verb- movement were the focus. The L2ers start off assuming the L1 value of [+] Verb-movement, thus incorrectly allowing the order S V Adv O in English, and the issue is whether NE can force a switch to the [-] value, whereby S V Adv O should be excluded. While it is indisputable that the L2ers changed their linguistic behaviour as a direct consequence of their exposure to NE, the conclusion we draw is quite distinct from that of White.

Based on both the postinstruction data and an argument grounded in formal learnability theory, we show that an inherent contradiction must be imputed to the Interlanguage 'grammar' to account for the results: in addition to no longer permitting S V Adv O, the L2ers also (incorrectly) disallow S V Adv PP; to exclude the latter, the grammar must have 'un learned' base-generating Adverbs to the right of VP but other data dispute this, i.e., S V O/PP Adv is still allowed. Since natural language grammars cannot contain such inherent contradictions, we conclude that a natural language grammar could not be the source of this L2 behaviour. Our explanation is that the L2ers simply extended the *S V Adv O pattern that they were taught. In sum, there is no evidence that NE caused the L2ers to unlearn Verb-movement and hence NE did not restructure the Interlanguage grammar. Implications of this conclusion are discussed in relation to the issues of learnability and 'UG-accessibility' in L2A.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Baker, C.L. 1979: Syntactic theory and the projection problem. Linguistic Inquiry 10: 533-81.

Belletti, A. 1990: Generalized verb movement: aspects of verb syntax . Turin: Rosenberg and Sellier .

Berwick, R. 1985: The acquisition of syntactic knowledge. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Birdsong, D. 1989: Metalinguistic performance and interlinguistic competence . Berlin: Springer-Verlag .

Bley-Vroman, R. 1986: Hypothesis testing in second language acquisition theory . Language Learning 36: 353-76.

— in press: The logical problem of foreign language learning. Linguistic Analysis.

Bley-Vroman, R. , Felix, S. and loup, G. 1988: The accessibility of Universal Grammar in adult language learning. Second Language Research 4: 1-32.

Borer, H. and Wexler, K. 1987: The maturation of syntax. In Roeper, T. and Williams, E. , editors, Parameter setting. Dordrecht : Reidel, 123-72.

Carroll, S. and Swain, M. 1991: Negative evidence in second language acquisition . Ms. Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, Toronto . (Paper presented at Second Language Research Forum (SLRF), USC, 28 February.)

10.

Chomsky, N. 1981: Lectures on government and binding. Dordrecht: Foris.

11.

— 1989: Some notes on economy of derivation and representation . In Laka, I. and Mahajan, A., editors, MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 10. Cambridge, MA : Department of Linguistics and Philosophy, MIT, 43-74.

12.

Emonds, J. 1978: The verbal complex V' - V in French. Linguistic Inquiry 9: 151-75.

13.

Eubank, L. , editor. 1991: Point-counterpoint: Universal Grammar in the second language. Philadelphia : John Benjamins.

14.

Fodor, J.A. 1983: Modularity of mind. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

15.

Gubala-Ryzak, M. in preparation. Negative evidence and the L2 unlearning of verb movement? A counter-analysis based on learnability considerations and 'object shift' . Ms. Boston University.

16.

Haegeman, L. 1991: Adverb positions and second language acquisition. Some implications for second language teaching. Ms. Université de Genève.

17.

Holmberg, A. 1986: Word order and syntactic features in the Scandinavian languages and English. Stockholm: Department of General Linguistics, University of Stockholm .

18.

Hornstein, N. and Lightfoot, D. 1981: Introduction. In Hornstein, N. and Lightfoot, D. editors, Explanation in linguistics. New York: Longman, 9-31.

19.

Hyams, N. 1986: Language acquisition and the theory of parameters . Dordrecht: Reidel.

20.

Jackendoff, R. 1972: Semantic interpretation in generative grammar. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

21.

Johnson, K. in press: Object positions. Natural language and linguistic theory .

22.

Krashen, S. 1981: Second language acquisition and second language learning . Oxford: Pergamon Press .

23.

Larson, R. 1988: On the double object construction. Linguistic Inquiry 19: 335-91.

24.

MacLaughlin, D. 1991: Language acquisition and the subset principle. Ms. Boston University.

25.

Manzini, R. and Wexler, K. 1987: Parameters, binding theory, and learnability. Lingustic Inquiry 18: 413-44.

26.

Pinker, S. 1984: Language learnability and language development . Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

27.

— 1989: Learnability and cognition: The acquisition of argument structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

28.

Pollock, J.-Y. 1989: Verb movement, Universal Grammar, and the structure of IP. Linguistic Inquiry 20: 365-424.

29.

Roeper, T. and Williams, E. , editors, 1987: Parameter setting. Dordrecht: Reidel.

30.

Rizzi, L. 1990: Relativized minimality. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

31.

Schachter, J. 1989: Testing a proposed universal. In Gass, S. and Schachter, J. , editors, Linguistic perspectives on second language acquisition . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 73-88.

32.

Schwartz, B.D. 1986: The epistemological status of second language acquisition . Second Language Research 2: 120-59.

33.

— 1987: The modular basis of second language acquisition. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Southern California .

34.

— 1988: A reply to Gregg: In defence of theory building . Second Language Research 4: 157-73.

35.

— 1991a: Conceptual and empirical evidence. A response to Meisel . In Eubank, L. , editor, Point-counterpoint: Universal Grammar in the second language. Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 277-304.

36.

— 1991b: On explicit and negative evidence affecting and effecting competence and performance. Ms. Boston University . (Paper presented at the Concordia University/McGill University Colloquium on The Role of Instruction in Second Language Acquisition , 11 July.)

37.

Schwartz, B.D. and Gubala-Ryzak, M. 1991: On negative evidence not engaging UG: some positive consequences. (Paper presented at Second Language Research Forum (SLRF), USC, 2 March.)

38.

Schwartz, B.D. and Vikner, S. 1989: All verb second clauses are CPs. Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 43: 27-49.

39.

Stich, S. 1978: Beliefs and subdoxastic states. Philosophy of Science 45: 499-518.

40.

White, L. 1987: Against comprehensible input: The input hypothesis and the development of L2 competence. Applied Linguistics 8: 95-110.

41.

— 1988: Island effects in second language acquisition. In Flynn, S. and O'Neil, W. , editors, Linguistic theory in second language acquisition. Dordrecht: Reidel, 144-72.

42.

— 1991a: Adverb placement in second language acquisition: Some effects of positive and negative evidence in the classroom. Second Language Research 7: 133-61.

43.

— 1991b: The verb-movement parameter in second language acquisition . Language Acquisition 1: 337-60.

44.

— to appear: Long and short verb movement in second language acquisition . In Lefebvre, C. , Lumsden, J. and Travis, L. , editors, Functional category theory.

45.

White, L. , Spada, N. , Lightbown, P. and Ranta, L. 1991: Input enhancement and L2 question formation. Applied Linguistics 12, 416-32.

46.

Williams, E. 1987: Introduction. In Roeper, T. and Williams, E. , editors, Parameter setting. Dordrecht: Reidel , vii-xix.