The generative approach to second language (L2) acquisition (SLA) is a cognitive based theory of SLA that applies theoretical insights developed from within generative linguistics to investigate how second languages and dialects are acquired and lost by individuals learning naturalistically or with formal instruction in foreign, second language and lingua franca settings.Ellis, R. (1994): The Study of Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Gass, S. M. and Selinker, L. (2001): Second Language Acquisition: An Introductory Course. Second edition. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Gregg, K. R. (1994): Second language acquisition: history and theory. Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics.Second edition. Oxford: Pergamon, 3720–6.Jordens, P. and Lalleman, J. (eds) (1988):Language Development. Dordrecht:Foris.Ritchie, W. R. and Bhatia, T. J. (eds) (1996): Handbook of Second Language Acquisition. San Diego: Academic Press.Towell, R. and Hawkins, R. (1994):Approaches to Second Language Acquisition. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Doughty, C.J., Long, M.H. (2003). The Handbook of Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing. Central to generative linguistics is the concept of Universal Grammar (UG), a part of an innate, biologically endowed language faculty which refers to knowledge alleged to be common to all human languages.Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Chomsky, N. (1981). Lectures on Government and Binding. Dordrecht:Foris.Pinker, S. (1994). The Language Instinct.New York: William Morrow.White, L. (2003). On the Nature of Interlanguage Representation: Universal Grammar in the Second Language. In C.J. Doughty and M.C. Long (eds) The Handbook of Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing 19-42 UG includes both invariant principles as well as parameters that allow for variation which place limitations on the form and operations of grammar. Subsequently, research within the Generative Second-Language Acquisition (GenSLA) tradition describes and explains SLA by probing the interplay between Universal Grammar, knowledge of one's native language and input from the target language. Research is conducted in syntax, phonology, morphology, phonetics, semantics, and has some relevant applications to pragmatics.
Some of the main questions in GenSLA include:
whether UG is available to the adult L2 learner to guide acquisition and to what extent; whether L2 learners can reset linguistic parameters from their L1; whether second-language learners experience difficulties interfacing between different modules of the grammar; whether child second language acquisition differs from that of adults.Jabballa, M.M.H (2017). Access to Second Language Acquisition. Journal of Language Studies, Semiotics and Semantics, Vol. 8 (2) 479-484
As generative second language research endeavours to explain the totality of L2 acquisition phenomena, it is also concerned with investigating the extent of linguistic transfer, maturational effects on acquisition, and why some learners fail to acquire a target-like L2 grammar even with abundant input. Furthermore, studying L2 acquisition through a generative lens give linguists a better idea of the natural constraints on human languages and the inner workings of Universal Grammar.Haznedar, B. (2013). Child second language acquisition from a generative perspective. In Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism (pp. 26–47). John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Research in generative second-language acquisition is presented at a range of conferences, including: GASLA (Generative Approaches to Second Language Acquisition), GALANA (Generative Approaches to Language Acquisition - North America), and BUCLD (Boston University Conference on Language Development).
Prominent researchers of the topic include Suzanne Flynn of MIT, Bonnie Schwartz of University of Hawaii, Antonella Sorace of University of Edinburgh, and Lydia White of McGill University.
History Pre-GenSLA: 1960s-1970s In the late 1960s-early 1970s researchers observed that the language and errors of L2 learners were not random but systematic and evidence of rule-governed behaviour.Adjémian, C. (1976). On the nature of interlanguage systems. Language Learning, 26, 297–320.Corder, S. P. (1967). The significance of learners’ errors. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 5, 161–70.Nemser, W. (1971). Approximative systems of foreign language learners. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 9, 115–23.Selinker, L. (1972). Interlanguage.International Review of Applied Linguistics, 10, 209–31. From this observation researchers proposed the concept of interlanguage which refers to the language system used by L2 learners that contains interacting linguistic aspects of both the L1 and L2. This system theory regarding the interlanguage suggests that L2 learners have mental grammars that can be described with rules and principles.
The Beginnings of GenSLA:1980-1990s The history of GenSLA research begins in the 1980s prompted by two interconnected questions:
The logical problem of language acquisition How the logical problem of language acquisition applies to L2 acquisition in adulthood.
The logical problem of language acquisition refers to the observable mismatch between the primary linguistic data (PLD) or language specific input a child is exposed to and the state of their eventual language system, that is, children appear to acquire their native language quickly and with little negative feedback even when the input is uneven, inconsistent and unrepresentative of their ultimate linguistic competence. Some suggest in an argument commonly known as Poverty of the Stimulus (POS) that there are, in fact, certain properties of language that are too abstract, subtle and complex to be acquired by language input and the operation of domain general cognitive mechanisms alone. Similarly, children are not exposed to a rich wealth of linguistic data to be able to acquire all the rules and principles of their distinct language. Therefore, an extra component, such as the UG which consists of innate domain-specific linguistic knowledge, is needed to account for these POV properties.
Subsequently, starting from the assumption of UG GenSLA researchers asked how the problem of language acquisition applies to L2 acquisition in adulthood. This encompassed questions about what similarities and differences exist between child L1 acquisition and adult L2 acquisition and, in particular, whether or not adults also have access UG. Indeed, most theories and research in the first two decades of GenSLA actually revolved around this singular question to which there are four proposed answers:
L2 learners have direct or full access to UG L2 learners have partial access to UG L2 learners have indirect access to UG L2 learners have no access to UG.
GenSLA researchers assumed during these early decades that if they could show that a particular POS property operated or did not operate in L2 grammar they could generalize to other POS properties and to UG accessibility or non-accessibility in general. Because an L2 learner's L1 contains UG information available for transfer to their L2 it was thought that the strongest case for L2 access to UG would be evidence of knowledge in L2 learners that constituted instances of POS properties that are non-transferable. In other words, linguistic knowledge that could not be learned from L2 input, explicit learning, transfer from L1 knowledge, or the operation of domain general cognitive mechanisms.
Feature Focused: Late 1990s-early 2000s The field of GenSLA research experienced significant theoretical developments in the late 1990s/early 2000s following changes in generative linguistic theory inspired by Chomsky's minimalist program. These changes shifted the debate from questions solely about access to UG to the consideration of specific features in L2 grammars and how they are represented. The features under consideration here are linguistic units that reflect grammatical meanings such as tense, case, number, person, gender, or conceptual meanings such as evidentiality, habitual aspect and definiteness
One key characteristic of these features is that they reflect variation across languages in their overtness, which became particularly important to GenSLA research. A feature of a word or phrase is said to be overt if there is surface evidence of its existence within that word or phrase. By contrast, a feature of a word or phrase is said to be covert if there is no surface evidence of its existence within that word or phrase. This made interesting predictions about adult L2 learning behaviour, for example, that L2 overt morphology should be easier to acquire if the learner has similar overt features in their L1. In one relevant study it was shown that Russian but not Japanese L2 learners of English were, in line with these predictions, reliably sensitive to English plural errors, (Russian has overt plural morphology while Japanese does not).Jiang, N., Novokshanova, E., Masuda, K., & Wang, X. (2011). Morphological congruency and the acquisition of L2 morphemes. Language Learning, 61, 940–967.
Another important element of these features for GenSLA research is interpretability. A feature is said to be interpretable if it contributes to sentence meaning and uninterpretable if it has grammatical significance only. This predicted that only meaningful features should be accessible to adult L2 learners and purely grammatical features should not be accessible for L1 transfer. No access and partial access theories sometimes adopted this distinction, arguing that it explains much variation attested in adult L2 grammars. For example, that Chinese speakers learning English as an L2 often omit third-person singular agreement morphology in obligatory contexts could easily be explained because these features are uninterpretable in Chinese.Li, Y. (1990). Order and constituency in Mandarin Chinese. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.
New Populations: 2000s Onwards