Main Article Content
This paper discusses the fundamental conceptualization of second language acquisition under Generative perspective. Linguists under Generative Approach claim that second language acquisition is constrained by Universal Grammar (UG) because L2 learners, like L1 acquirers, also face with ‘the poverty of stimulus’. In addition, they also claim that it is possible for L2 learners to transfer their L1 properties such as phonetics, syntax, and semantics, into their L2 acquisition because they have their L1 knowledge when commencing L2 acquisition. Nevertheless, there are disagreements on the degree of access to UG and the degree of L1 transfer. Such disagreements lead to three different hypotheses: Direct Access, Indirect Access, and No Access.
MFU Connexion: Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences has an exclusive right to publish the accepted articles in any form. However, the author retains the following rights:
1. The right to the ownership of the article;
2. The right to use all or part of the article in his/her other works;
3. The right to re-produce the article for personal use or for use in the author’s organisation, in which case the author must obtain permission from MFU Connexion: Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences;
4. The right to make copies of all or part of the work for educational use or for the author’s use in classroom teaching; and
5. The right to include the work (both the preprinted and printed versions) in an institutional repository.
Bley-Vronman, R. (1989a) ‘What is the logical problem of foreign language learning?’, in Gass, S. and Schachter, J. (eds.) Linguistic Perspectives on Second Language Acquisition, New York: Cambridge University Press, pp. 41-72.
Brown, R., and Hanlon, C. (1970) ‘Derivational complexity and order of acquisition in child speech’, in Hayes, J. R. (ed.) Cognition and the Development of Language, New York: Wiley.
Brown, R. (1973) A first language: The early stages, London: George Allen and Unwin.
Brown, R., Cazden, C. and Bellugi, U. (1973) ‘The child’s grammar from I to III’, in Ferguson, C. and Slobin, D. (eds.) Studies of Child Language Development, vol. 20 (1), pp. 49-59.
Chomsky, N. (1965) Aspect of the theory of syntax, Cambridge: MIT Press.
Chomsky, N. (1981a) Lectures on government and binding, Dordrecht: Foris.
Chomsky, N. (1981b) ‘Principles and parameters in syntactic theory’, in Hornstien, N. and Lightfoot, D. (eds.) Explanation in Linguistics: The Logical Problem in Language Acquisition, London: Longman, pp. 32-75.
Chomsky, N. (1986a) Barriers, Cambridge: MIT Press.
Chomsky, N. (1986b) Knowledge of language: Its nature, origin, and use, New York: Praeger.
Chomsky, N. (1988) Language and problems of knowledge: The Managua lectures, Cambridge: MIT Press.
Chomsky, N. (1993) ‘A minimalist program for linguistics theory’, in Hale, K. and Keyser, S. J. (eds.) The View from Building 20, Cambridge: MIT Press, pp. 1-52.
Clahsen, H., and Muysken, P. (1986) ‘The availability of universal grammar to adult and child learners: a study of the acquisition of German word order’, Second Language Research, vol. 2, pp. 93-119.
Clahsen, H, and Muysken, P. (1989) ‘The UG paradox in L2 acquisition’, Second Language Research, vol. 5, pp. 1-29.
Cook, V., and Newson, M. (1996) Chomsky’s Universal Grammar: An introduction, Oxford: Blackwell.
Dulay, H., and Burt, M. (1975) ‘A new approach to discovering universal strategies of child second language acquisition’, in D. Dato (ed.) Developmental Psycholinguistics: Theory and Applications, Georgetown University Round Table on Languages and Linguistics. Washington: Georgetown University Press, pp. 209-233.
Epstein, S., Flynn, S., and Martohardjono, G. (1996) ‘Second language acquisition: Theoretical and experimental issues in comtemporary research’, Brain and Behavioral Sciences, vol. 19, pp. 677-758.
Epstein, S., Flynn, S., and Martohardjono, G. (1998) ‘The strong continuity hypothesis: Some evidence concerning functional categories in adult L2 acquisition’, in Flynn, S. Martohardjono, G. and O’Neil, W. (eds.) The Generative Study of Second Language Acquisition, Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum, pp. 61-77.
Flym, S. (1996) ‘A parameter setting approach to second language acquisition’, in Ritchie, W. and Bhatia, T. (eds.) Handbook of Language Acquisition, San Diego: Academic Press, pp. 121-58.
Haznedar, B. (1997) ‘L2 acquisition by a Turkish speaking-child: evidence of L1 influence’, in Hughes, E., Hughes, M. and Greenhill, A. (eds.) Proceedings of the 21st Boston University Conference on Language Development, Somerville: Cascadilla Press, pp. 257-268.
Krashen, S. D., and Seliger, H. W. (1975) ‘The essential contributions of formal instructions in adult second language learning’, TESOL Quarterly, vol. 9, pp. 173-183.
Krashen, S. (2002a) ‘The comprehension hypothesis and its rivals’, Selected papers from the Eleventh International Symposium on English Teaching/Fourth Pan-Asian Conference, English Teachers Association /ROC. Taipei: Crane Publishing Company, pp. 395-404.
Platzack, C. (1996) ‘The initial hypothesis of syntax: a minimalist perspective on language acquisition and attrition’, in Clahsen, H. (ed.) Generative Perspective on Language Acquisition: Empirical Findings, Theoretical Considerations, Cross-Linguistic Comparisons, Amsterdam: John Benjamin, pp. 396-414.
Scharchter, J. (1988) ‘Second language acquisition and its relationship to Universal Grammar’, Applied Linguistics, vol. 9(3), pp. 219-235.
Schwartz, B. D., and Sprouse, R. A. (1994) ‘Word order and nominative case in nonnative language acquisition: a longitudinal study of Turkish German interlanguage’, in Hoekstra, T. and Schwartz, B. D. (eds.) Language Acquisition Studies in Generative Grammar, Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 317-368.
Schwartz, B. D., and Sprouse, R. A. (1996) ‘L2 cognitive states and the Full Transfer/Full Access model’, Second Language Research, vol. 12, pp. 40-72.
Schwartz, B. D., and Sprouse, R. A. (2000a). ‘The use and abuse of linguistics theory in L2 acquisition research’ in Juffs, A., Talpas, T., Mizera, G. and Burtt, B. (eds.) Proceedings of GASLA IV. University of Pittsburgh Working Papers in Linguistics, pp. 176-187.
Schwartz, B. D., and Sprouse, R. A. (2000b) ‘When syntactic theories evolve: Consequences for L2 acquisition research’, in Archibald, J.(ed.) Second Language Acquisition and Linguistic Theory, Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 156-186.
Slabakova, R. (2001) Telicity in the second language, Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Vainikka, A., and Young-Scholten, M. (1994) ‘Direct access to X’-theory: Evidence from Korean and Turkish adults learning German’, in Hoekstra, T. and Schwartz, B. D. (eds.) Language Acquisition Studies in Generative Grammar, Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 265-316.
White, L. (1985a) ‘Is there a logical problem of second language acquisition?’, TESL Canada, vol. 2, pp. 29-41.
White, L. (1989) Universal grammar and second language acquisition, Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
White, L. (2003) Second language acquisition and universal grammar, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.