The acquisition of the pro-drop parameter by non-native speakers of Spanish
Chomsky's (1981, 1995) principles and parameters proposal for language acquisition theory assumes that the child is genetically endowed with principles of Universal Grammar. These principles interact with environmental data to determine the particular language that the child will learn. Research into L1 acquisition strongly suggests that a child's parameter setting process takes place on the basis of fairly minimal positive evidence derived from the linguistic environment. Recent discussions of parameter setting in SLA have proposed various interpretations of this process. Two different models can be proposed: non-access to UG vs access to UG. The non-access to UG (Bley-Vroman, 1989; Clashen and Muysken, 1986) model claims that L1 and L2 acquisition are completely different learning mechanisms. In contrast, different versions of the access to UG model have recently been proposed. Some researchers have claimed that while L2 learners have full access to UG, their initial state grammars are different, involving either full transfer of L1 properties (Schwartz and Sprouse, 1996) or a partial transfer of L1 properties (Vainikka and Young-Scholten, 1996). Others have proposed partial access to UG (Tsimpli and Roussou,
Guijarro-Fuentes, P.
Linguistics
The acquisition of the pro-drop parameter by non-native speakers of Spanish. Chomsky's (1981, 1995) principles and parameters proposal for language acquisition theory assumes that the child is genetically endowed with principles of Universal Grammar. These principles interact with environmental data to determine the particular language that the child will learn. Research into L1 acquisition strongly suggests that a child's parameter setting process takes place on the basis of fairly minimal positive evidence derived from the linguistic environment. Recent discussions of parameter setting in SLA have proposed various interpretations of this process. Two different models can be proposed: non-access to UG vs access to UG. The non-access to UG (Bley-Vroman, 1989; Clashen and Muysken, 1986) model claims that L1 and L2 acquisition are completely different learning mechanisms. In contrast, different versions of the access to UG model have recently been proposed. Some researchers have claimed that while L2 learners have full access to UG, their initial state grammars are different, involving either full transfer of L1 properties (Schwartz and Sprouse, 1996) or a partial transfer of L1 properties (Vainikka and Young-Scholten, 1996). Others have proposed partial access to UG (Tsimpli and Roussou,
acquisition pro_drop parameter non_native_speaker spanish chomsky principles parameter proposal language_acquisition theory assume child genetically endow principle universal_grammar principle interact environmental_data determine particular language child_learn acquisition strongly suggest_child parameter set process take_place basis fairly minimal positive evidence derive linguistic_environment recent_discussion parameter set sla propose_various interpretation process two_different model_propose non access access non access model claim acquisition completely_different learn mechanism contrast different version access model recently propose researcher claim learner full access initial state grammar different involve either full transfer property partial transfer property young others propose partial access