Review Essay: A Critique of Flynn's Parameter-Setting Model of Second Language Acquisition

This paper is a critique of the parameter-setting model of second language acquisition proposed by Suzanne Flynn. Flynn has applied the notion of a universal head direction parameter to the prediction of acquisition of English adverbial clause structure and anaphoric relations by L1 Spanish, Japanese, and Chinese learners. In two studies involving elicited imitation and comprehension of target language sentences, Flynn argues that the head direction parameter explains the pattern of results. One proficiency group of Spanish learners revealed a greater ease in production of postposed (forward) pronoun anaphora over prcposcd (backward) anaphora, while Japanese and Chinese learners showed no differences. Flynn claims that the match in head direction between Spanish and English favors this outcome and related results, while Japanese and Chinese learners have difficulty because of the mismatch. This critique raises serious questions as to the adequacy of Flynn's methodology and model to investigate the issue or explain the results

Road and Narrow Constraints on the English Dative Alternation: Some Fundamental Differences Between Native Speakers and Foreign Language Learners

The acquisition of lexico-semantic constraints on syntactic structures is central to the development of native language competence. The study of the acquisition of such constraints by foreign language learners can illuminate differences between native and foreign language competence and their respective acquisition processes. One view of foreign language learning, the Fundamental Difference Hypothesis, suggests that the universal acquisition mechanisms which guide children in first language development may not be available to adults learning foreign languages. This view leads to the expectation that certain sorts of lexico-semantic constraints –the "broad" constraints based in theta theory– should be reliably acquired by foreign language learners, while those based on narrow semantic classes of verbs should not be. Two studies test these predictions, comparing the knowledge of the broad and narrow constraints on the English dative alternation by native speakers and non-native speakers with Japanese as first language. The results are generally consistent with the predictions, but additional research will be needed to sort out the effect of associative mechanisms and of universal motivating factors, such as the principle of object affectedness

Creating Structure-Based Communication Tasks for Second Language Development

Task based language teaching has gained favor among both second language teachers and researchers over the last decade. Arguments for the value of a "focus on fonn" and attention to forms in input have also been made by several SLA researchers, thus pointing to a role for grammar instruction in classroom SLA. It is suggested here that the use of communicative and meaningful classroom tasks can focus learners' attention on grammatical forms in input and, thus, facilitate their acquisition This proposal differs from other recent treatments of communicative grammar instruction in its emphasis on the following areas: 1) "closed" rather than "()pen" tasks; 2) comprehension-based before production-based tasks; 3) grammatical targets which have clear form-meaning relationships. Thus, while the proposal is more narrow in scope than some other treatments, it is much more specific: i.e., it proposes tasks in which communicative outcomes can be predicted and manipulated in advance by the designer and in which grammatical form and meaning are tightly linked. Such tasks are similar to those used to test learners' language processing capabilities in psycholinguistic research, though here they are used for pedagogical purposes. Examples include tasks covering a wide range of syntactic categories and functions. ln conclusion, we argue for an approach to designing tasks which incorporates: 1) a cognitive perspective on SLA and language processing, 2) insights from research on communicative task design from second language research, and 3) methods of measuring language development from psycholinguistics and inter1anguage variation studies. By combining these with language teachers' careful observations of their students' problems in comprehending and being comprehended, meaning and communicative tasks for grammar pedagogy can be designed

The generative approach to SLA and its place in modern second language studies

This article has two main goals. The first is to summarize and comment on the current state-of-affairs of generative approaches to SLA (GenSLA), thirty-five years into its history. This discussion brings the readership of SSLA up-to-date on the questions driving GenSLA agendas and clears up misconceptions about what GenSLA does and does not endeavor to explain. We engage key questions/debates/shifts within GenSLA such as focusing on the deterministic role of input in language acquisition, as well as expanding the inquiry to new populations and empirical methodologies and technologies used. The second goal is to highlight the place of GenSLA in the broader field of SLA. We argue that various theories of SLA are needed, showing that many existing SLA paradigms are much less mutually exclusive than commonly believed (cf. Rothman & VanPatten, 2013; Slabakova et al., 2014, 2015; VanPatten & Rothman, 2014) — especially in light of their different foci and research questions

Examining the LLAMA aptitude tests

This study assesses the reliability1 of the LLAMA aptitude tests (Meara, 2005). The LLAMA tests were designed as shorter, free, language-neutral tests loosely based on the MLAT tests (Carroll & Sapon, 1959). They contain four sub-components: vocabulary acquisition, sound recognition, sound-symbol correspondence and grammatical inferencing. Granena (2013) and Rogers et al. (2016) provided initial results regarding factors which might influence LLAMA test scores. This paper develops this previous work by examining some of issues raised with a larger cohort and focuses on the following research questions. 1. Are the LLAMA tests language neutral?2. What is the effect of bilingualism on LLAMA test scores?3. What is the effect of age on LLAMA test scores?4. How much variance can background factors account for in the LLAMA test results? Data were collected from 240 participants aged 10–75 for RQ1–3. We found no significant differences in terms of language background (RQ1) but instructed second language learners significantly outperformed monolinguals (RQ2). For RQ3 we found that the younger groups were outperformed by all the other groups. For RQ4, we investigated how much variance in LLAMA test results six individual background factors could explain. We combined data from Rogers et al. (2016) and this study giving 404 participants in total. Using a multiple regression analysis, we found that prior L2 instruction predicted more of the variance (6%) than any other factor. We suggest that when using the LLAMA tests, researchers should consider controlling for language learning experience. This study scrutinises the components of the LLAMA tests with a large set of data. We conclude that the results are robust across a range of individual differences but suggest that different norms may be needed for younger age groups and those who have received prior L2 instruction

Formal Linguistic Approaches to Adult Second Language (L2) Acquisition and Processing

The relative conformity with which (typically developing) children attain adult grammatical competence—ultimate attainment—and the similarity in developmental paths along which they progress is remarkable (e.g., Ambridge & Lieven, 2011; Clark, 2003; Guasti, 2002; Synder, 2007). This achievement is, however, so ubiquitous and mundane that we seldom marvel at it. Of course, monolingual adult grammars may also differ from one another, especially for some domains of grammar (e.g., Dąbrowska, 1997, 2012), but such variability pales in comparison to the variation in adult non-native second language (L2) grammars. Indeed, the path and outcomes of L2 acquisition can be highly variable from one individual to another, even under seemingly comparable contexts. Individual and group-level factors in adulthood that either do not apply or apply with much less consequence in young childhood conspire to explain at least some of the gamut of L2 variability