Within the discourse of generative grammar it has been proposed that Universal Grammar (UG) can be seen as an innate structure that governs the course of learning a language. The domain of UG is often also referred to as the “principles and parameters framework”. While principles can be seen as a set of rules (e.g. the linearity of language) that are applicable for all natural languages, certain parameters make up and have to be set according to different languages. As there is not much disagreement on the role of UG for the acquisition of a first language (L1), many researchers have discussed the question if and how UG constrains second language acquisition (L2A).
A large amount of research has been conducted within the field of the acquisition of reflexives in L2. Earlier approaches explained the acquisition of reflexives in L2A as a resetting of the Governing Category Parameter (GCP). Other approaches accounted the cross-linguistic variation in interpreting domain and orientation of anaphors to different categories of anaphors, namely X0 or head reflexives and XP or phrasal reflexives. It was then hypothesized that interpretation of these reflexives in L2A can either be the consequence of movement in Logical Form or a result of parameter settings regarding the agreement (AGR) parameter resulting in a relativized SUBJECT.
The aim of this paper is to give a short overview of the above mentioned approaches on the domain of reflexivity acquisition by presenting one study for each approach. The results of the different studies will be discussed with emphasis to the question to what extent they show evidence for the non-/availability of UG in L2A. Based on this, a suggestion is stated, that the relativized SUBJECT approach is most sufficient to explain UG-availability in terms of the Full Transfer/Full Access Hypothesis.
Table of Contents
1 Introduction
2 Three approaches to reflexive binding
2.1 The Multivalued Governing Category Parameter Approach
2.1.1 A Study: Makiko Hirakawa 1990
2.2 The Movement in Logical Form Approach
2.2.1 A study: Christie and Lantolf 1998
2.3 The Relativized SUBJECT Approach
2.3.1 A Study: Bennett 1994
3 Discussion
4 Conclusion
Research Objectives and Core Themes
This paper explores whether Universal Grammar (UG) constrains second language acquisition (L2A) by examining how various linguistic approaches explain the acquisition of reflexive binding properties in interlanguage grammars.
- The role of Universal Grammar in second language acquisition.
- The Governing Category Parameter (GCP) and reflexive binding.
- Movement in Logical Form as an explanation for anaphor interpretation.
- The Relativized SUBJECT approach regarding morphologically simplex and complex reflexives.
- Evidence for the Full Transfer/Full Access Hypothesis in L2 acquisition.
Excerpt from the Book
2.1 The Multivalued Governing Category Parameter Approach
The Governing Category Parameter (GCP) as proposed by Wexler and Manzini (1987) was of particular interest in the works of linguists focussing on the presence or absence of UG during L2A dating from the late 1980s to the mid 1990s. It defines the domains in which reflexive pronouns must be bound or can be free by means of a mulit-valued parameter. They state that: α is a governing category of β if α is the minimal category and has a subject, or has an INFL, or has TNS, or has an indicative TNS, or has a root TNS (Wexler and Manzini, 1987)
White (1989) simplifies this model by taking only three values, rather speaking of nearest clause, nearest finite clause and main clause as the relevant GCP values for anaphors e.g. in English, Russian and Korean. These values are in subset/superset relationship to each other. In Korean, as the most inclusive (or marked) language, the anaphor can take its antecedent “in the main clause or in any clause embedded in the sentence” (158), while English in this case is the most restrictive (or unmarked) language forming the subset as is shown in Figure 1.
Summary of Chapters
1 Introduction: This chapter defines the framework of Universal Grammar and outlines the research objective concerning how UG constrains the acquisition of reflexives in a second language.
2 Three approaches to reflexive binding: This chapter presents three theoretical frameworks—the Multivalued Governing Category Parameter, Movement in Logical Form, and the Relativized SUBJECT approach—along with empirical studies for each.
3 Discussion: This chapter critically analyzes the provided studies, addressing limitations and the validity of their conclusions regarding UG availability in L2A.
4 Conclusion: This chapter summarizes the findings and argues that the Relativized SUBJECT approach offers the most convincing explanation for how learners acquire reflexive binding with positive evidence.
Keywords
Universal Grammar, Second Language Acquisition, Reflexive Binding, Governing Category Parameter, Logical Form, Relativized SUBJECT, Interlanguage Grammars, Anaphors, Full Transfer/Full Access Hypothesis, Parameter Setting, Syntactic Theory, Binding Domain, Orientation, Morphological Agreement
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the central focus of this research?
The work investigates the role of Universal Grammar in second language acquisition by analyzing how learners acquire reflexive binding properties.
Which theoretical frameworks are covered?
The paper discusses the Multivalued Governing Category Parameter, the Movement in Logical Form approach, and the Relativized SUBJECT approach.
What is the primary objective of the study?
The aim is to evaluate whether current linguistic theories provide evidence for or against the availability of Universal Grammar in the acquisition of second language grammars.
What methodology is employed in the cited studies?
The studies primarily use picture identification tasks, truth value judgments, and multiple-choice tests to evaluate learners' interpretation of reflexives in various sentence types.
What is covered in the main body of the text?
The main body details specific theoretical models and contrasts them with empirical studies, followed by a critical discussion on the implications for UG-constrained interlanguage grammars.
Which keywords best characterize this work?
Core keywords include Universal Grammar, Second Language Acquisition, reflexive binding, Governing Category Parameter, and Logical Form.
How does the author explain the difference between X0 and Xmax reflexives?
The author distinguishes them based on morphological complexity, where X0 are monomorphemic and allow long-distance binding, while Xmax are complex and typically require local binding.
What is the significance of the Relativized SUBJECT approach according to the author?
The author concludes that it is the most convincing approach because it uses binary parameters and applies to the entire category of reflexives, providing a clear explanation for acquisition via positive evidence.
- Arbeit zitieren
- Diplom Sportwissenschaftler Dirk Steines (Autor:in), 2006, Wild or possible? How different approaches to reflexive binding explain the nature of interlanguage grammars in Second Language Acquisition, München, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/74501
