Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-xtgtn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-17T14:05:34.598Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

L2 FUNDAMENTALS

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 June 2009

Roumyana Slabakova
Roumyana Slabakova*
Affiliation:
University of Iowa
*
*Address correspondence to: Roumyana Slabakova, Department of Linguistics, University of Iowa, 557 English Philosophy Building, Iowa City, IA 52242; e-mail: Roumyana-slabakova@uiowa.edu.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Research Articles
Information
Studies in Second Language Acquisition , Volume 31 , Special Issue 2: THE FUNDAMENTAL DIFFERENCE HYPOTHESIS TWENTY YEARS LATER , June 2009 , pp. 155 - 173
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2009

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Adger, D. (2003). Core syntax: A minimalist approach. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baker, M. (1996). The polysynthesis parameter. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Birdsong, D. (2005). Interpreting age effects in second language acquisition. In Kroll, J. F. & de Groot, A. (Eds.), Handbook of bilingualism: Psycholinguistic approaches (pp. 109–128). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bley-Vroman, R. (1989). What is the logical problem of foreign language learning? In Gass, S. M. & Schachter, J. (Eds.), Linguistic perspectives on second language acquisition (pp. 41–68). New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bley-Vroman, R. (1990). The logical problem of foreign language learning. Linguistic Analysis, 20, 3–49.Google Scholar
Carroll, S. E. (2001). Input and evidence: The raw material of second language acquisition. Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1981). Lectures on government and binding. Foris: Dordrecht.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1986). Knowledge of language: Its nature, origin, and use. New York: Praeger.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1995). The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1998). Minimalist inquiries: The framework. MIT Occasional Papers in Linguistics, 15, 1–56.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (2001). Derivation by phase. In Kenstowicz, M. (Ed.), Ken Hale: A life in language (pp. 1–52). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (2004). Beyond explanatory adequacy. In Belleti, A. (Ed.), Structures and beyond: The cartography of syntactic structures (Vol. 3, pp. 104–131). Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, N. (2005). Three factors in language design. Linguistic Inquiry, 36, 1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clahsen, H., & Felser, C. (2006). Grammatical processing in language learners. Applied Psycholinguistics, 27, 3–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DeKeyser, R. (2000). The robustness of critical period effects in second language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 22, 495–533.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DeKeyser, R., & Larson-Hall, J. (2005). What does the critical period really mean? In Kroll, J. F. & de Groot, A. (Eds.), Handbook of bilingualism: Psycholinguistic approaches (pp. 88–108). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Dekydtspotter, L., Sprouse, R. A., & Thyre, R. (1999/2000). The interpretation of quantification at a distance in English-French interlanguage: Domain-specificity and second language acquisition. Language Acquisition, 8, 265–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
de Villiers, J. (2007). The interface of language and theory of mind. Lingua, 117, 1858–1878.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fodor, J. (1983). Modularity of mind. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fodor, J. (2000). The mind does not work that way. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guasti, M. T. (2002). Language acquisition: The growth of grammar. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Guasti, M. T., Chierchia, G., Crain, S., Foppolo, F., Gualmini, A., & Meroni, L. (2005). Why children and adults sometimes (but not always) compute implicatures. Language and Cognitive Processes, 20, 667–696.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hale, K. (1996). Can UG and L1 be distinguished in L2 acquisition? Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 19, 728–730.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hawkins, R., & Chan, C. Y.-H. (1997). The partial availability of Universal Grammar in second language acquisition. Second Language Research, 13, 187–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hawkins, R., & Hattori, H. (2006). Interpretation of English multiple wh-questions by Japanese speakers: A missing uninterpretable feature account. Second Language Research, 22, 269–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hopp, H. (2007). Ultimate attainment at the interfaces in second language acquisition: Grammar and processing. Groningen, The Netherlands: Grodil Press.Google Scholar
Hulstijn, J. H. (2005). Incidental and intentional learning. In Doughty, C. J. & Long, M. H. (Eds.), The handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 349–381). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Hulstijn, J. H., & Ellis, R. (Eds.). (2005). Theoretical and empirical issues in the study of implicit and explicit second-language learning [Special issue]. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27(2).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Indefrey, P. (2006). A meta-analysis of hemodynamic studies on first and second language processing: Which suggested differences can we trust and what do they mean? Language Learning, 56(Suppl. 1), 279–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jackendoff, R. (2002). Foundations of language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krämer, I. (2000). Interpreting indefinites: An experimental study of children’s language comprehension. Utrecht, The Netherlands: LOT.Google Scholar
Lardiere, D. (2008). Feature assembly in second language acquisition. In Liceras, J. M., Zobl, H., & Goodluck, H. (Eds.), The role of formal features in second language acquisition (pp. 106–140). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Lardiere, D. (2009). Some thoughts on the contrastive analysis of features in second language acquisition. Second Language Research, 25, 173–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Legate, J. A., & Yang, C. (2007). Morphosyntactic learning and the development of tense: A new approach to root infinitives. Language Acquisition, 14, 315–344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O’Grady, W. (1997). Syntactic development. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O’Grady, W. (2005). The radical middle: Nativism without universal grammar. In Doughty, C. J. & Long, M. H. (Eds.), The handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 43–62). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Papafragou, A., & Musolino, J. (2003). Scalar implicatures: Experiments at the semantics-pragmatics interface. Cognition, 86, 253–282.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pollock, J.-Y. (1989). Verb movement, Universal Grammar and the structure of IP. Linguistic Inquiry, 20, 365–424.Google Scholar
Reinhart, T. (2006). Interface strategies: Optimal and costly computations. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schwartz, B. D., & Sprouse, R. A. (1996). L2 cognitive states and the full transfer/full access hypothesis. Second Language Research, 12, 40–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Slabakova, R. (2002). The compounding parameter in second language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24, 507–540.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Snyder, W. (1995). Language acquisition and language variation: The role of morphology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Working Papers in Linguistics.Google Scholar
Snyder, W. (2001). On the nature of syntactic variation: Evidence from complex predicates and complex word-formation. Language, 77, 324–342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tsimpli, I., & Dimitrakopoulou, M. (2007). The interpretability hypothesis: Evidence from wh-interrogatives in second language acquisition. Second Language Research, 23, 215–242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Unsworth, S. (2005). Child L2, adult L2, child L1: Differences and similarities—A study on the acquisition of direct object scrambling in Dutch. Utrecht, The Netherlands: LOT.Google Scholar
Unsworth, S. (2007). L1 and L2 acquisition between sentence and discourse: Comparing production and comprehension. Lingua, 117, 1930–1958.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Hout, A. (2008). Acquiring perfectivity and telicity in Dutch, Italian and Polish. Lingua, 118, 1740–1765.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
White, L. (1989). Universal Grammar and second language acquisition. Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
White, L. (1990/1991). The verb movement parameter in second language acquisition. Language Acquisition, 1, 337–360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yang, C. (2002). Knowledge and learning in natural language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Yang, C. (2004). Universal Grammar, statistics, or both? Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 8, 451–456.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Yang, C. (2006). The infinite gift: How children learn and unlearn the languages of the world. New York: Scribner.Google Scholar