1993
DOI: 10.1075/lald.4.08mar
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Apparent UG Inaccessibility in Second Language Acquisition

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

6
20
0

Year Published

2003
2003
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
4
3
1

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 67 publications
(32 citation statements)
references
References 0 publications
6
20
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The results show that subjects have more errors in judgment of WH-island and appositive clauses but are more accurate in the structure of subject clauses and relative clauses. The phenomenon is referred to as "strong violation" and "weak violation" in the study of Martohardjono [17]. According to Martohardjono, removing the WH-element from the relative clause is a "strong violation," while removing WH -island structure is a "weak violation," and subjects generally judge the "strong violation" more accurately [17].…”
Section: Subjacency Principlementioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…The results show that subjects have more errors in judgment of WH-island and appositive clauses but are more accurate in the structure of subject clauses and relative clauses. The phenomenon is referred to as "strong violation" and "weak violation" in the study of Martohardjono [17]. According to Martohardjono, removing the WH-element from the relative clause is a "strong violation," while removing WH -island structure is a "weak violation," and subjects generally judge the "strong violation" more accurately [17].…”
Section: Subjacency Principlementioning
confidence: 99%
“…The phenomenon is referred to as "strong violation" and "weak violation" in the study of Martohardjono [17]. According to Martohardjono, removing the WH-element from the relative clause is a "strong violation," while removing WH -island structure is a "weak violation," and subjects generally judge the "strong violation" more accurately [17]. In relative clauses structure, the WH-element violates the subjacency principle by directly crossing three boundaries with a single movement, the most apparent ungrammatical movement compared to other constructions.…”
Section: Subjacency Principlementioning
confidence: 99%
“…If the lack of access to the lexifier was not the reason prompting creole evolution, then there must have been other factors at play. In contrast to Mufwene (1996), who sees creoles as restructured versions of their lexifiers, and Chaudenson (2001), who describes their evolution as the result of cyclical squared approximations to the European superstrate, McWhorter proposes that plantation creoles were once pidgins that were expanded into full-fledged languages by either children or adults (McWhorter 1997(McWhorter , 2000. As a result of this, Chaudenson's (1979Chaudenson's ( , 1992) and Mufwene's (1996) frameworks, as well as those proposed by the creolists who subscribe to some version of the limited access model, would be seriously flawed.…”
Section: The Lack Of Spanish Creoles On the Mainlandmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…in Chinese, Korean, and Japanese; cf. Birdsong 1992;Johnson & Newport 1989;Martohardjono & Gair 1993;White 1992;White & Juffs 1998;etc. ).…”
Section: Susijos No Repetan [La] Gente Mayómentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The conclusions on the accessibility of UG during L2 acquisition have been variable but results have suggested that the mastery of such structures may be difficult to obtain, especially if the learner's L1 does not present such constructions (e.g., in Chinese, Korean, and Japanese) (cf. Johnson & Newport 1989;Birdsong 1992;White 1992;Martohardjono & Gair 1993;White & Juffs 1998;among others).…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%