Cover not available
Part of
Multidisciplinary Approaches to Bilingualism in the Hispanic and Lusophone World
Edited by Kate Bellamy, Michael W. Child, Paz González, Antje Muntendam and M. Carmen Parafita Couto
[Issues in Hispanic and Lusophone Linguistics 13] 2017
► pp. 123–145

Chapter 6
The Compounding Parameter and L2 acquisition

| Universidade Federal de São Paulo

This chapter investigates the L2 acquisition of the cluster of structures related to the positive setting of the Compounding Parameter (TCP: nominal compounding (N+N), resultative structures (RS), verb+particle constructions (V+PRT), double object constructions (DOC), and preposition stranding (PrepStr)) in the development of the interlanguage of Brazilian learners of English. Since Brazilian Portuguese (BP) has the negative setting of TCP, the possible acquisition of the cluster in this context may serve as evidence for poverty of the stimulus effects in L2 acquisition. Two groups of Brazilian learners of English, one intermediate and one advanced, were tested and compared. The results suggest that the acquisition of [+]TCP-related cluster of structures by the advanced group as well as their developing knowledge by the intermediate group might be indicative of access to UG.

Keywords: L2 acquisition, Compounding Parameter, interlanguage, poverty of stimulus, access to UG
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.The Compounding Parameter
    • 2.1A cluster of five structures
    • 2.2The Compounding Parameter in L2
  • 3.The Compounding Parameter in the acquisition of English by Brazilian learners
  • 4.The Experiment
  • 5.Results
  • 6.Discussion
  • 7.Conclusions
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
  • Appendix
Published online: 31 May 2017
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/ihll.13.06mar
References
Bley-Vroman, R.
(1983) The comparative fallacy in interlanguage studies: The case of systematicity. Language Learning, 33, 1–17. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1990) The logical problem of foreign language learning. Linguistic Analysis, 20, 3–49.Google Scholar
Child, M.
(2017) The Typological Primacy Model and bilingual types: Transfer differences between Spanish/English bilinguals in L3 Portuguese acquisition. In K. Bellamy, M. Child, P. González, A. G. Muntendam, & M. C. Parafita Couto (Eds.), Multidisciplinary approaches to bilingualism in the Hispanic and Lusophone world. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, N.
(1981) Lectures on government and binding. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Dekydtspotter, L., Sprouse, R. A., & Anderson, B.
(1997) The interpretive interface in L2 acquisition: The process-result distinction in English-French interlanguage grammars. Language Acquisition, 6, 297–332. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dekydtspotter, L., Sprouse, R. A., & Swanson, K.
(2001) Reflexes of mental architecture in second-language acquisition: The interpretation of discontinuous combien extractions in English-French interlanguage. Language Acquisition, 9, 175–227. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Depiante, M.
(2000) The syntax of deep and surface anaphora: A study of null complement anaphora and stripping/bare argument ellipsis. Unpublished PhD dissertation, University of Connecticut, Storrs.Google Scholar
Hale, K., & Keyser, S. J.
(1993) On argument structure and the lexical expression of syntactic relations. In K. Hale & S. J. Keyser (Eds.), The view from Building 20: Essays in linguistics in honor of Sylvain Bromberger. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Herschensohn, J.
(2000) The second time around: Minimalism and L2 acquisition (Language Acquisition and Language Disorders 21). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hoekstra, T.
(1988) Small clause results. Lingua, 74, 101–139. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hyams, N.
(1986) Language acquisition and the theory of parameters. Dordrecht: D. Reidel. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kanno, K.
(1997) The acquisition of null and overt pronominals in Japanese by English speakers. Second Language Research, 14, 376–388.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1998) The stability of UG principles in second language acquisition: Evidence from Japanese. Linguistics, 36, 1125–1146. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kato, M.
(2005) A gramática do letrado: Questões para a teoria gramatical. In M. A. Marques, E. Koller, J. Teixeira, & A. S. Lemos (Eds.), Ciências da linguagem: Trinta anos de investigação e ensino (pp.131–145). Braga: CEHUM /U. do Minho.Google Scholar
Kayne, R.
(1984) Connectedness and binary branching. Dordrecht: Foris. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Larson, R.
(1988) On the double object construction. Linguistic Inquiry, 19, 335–391.Google Scholar
Liceras, J.
(1989) On some properties of the ‘pro-drop’ parameter: Looking for missing subjects in non-native Spanish. In S. Gass & J. Schachter (Eds.), Linguistic perspectives on second language acquisition (pp. 109–133). Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Liceras, J., & Valenzuela, E.
(1998) The compounding parameter in L2 acquisition: The subset principle revisited. Paper presented at GASLA 1998 , University of Pittsburgh and Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, September.
Liceras, J., & Díaz, L.
(2000) Triggers in L2 acquisition. Studia Linguistica, 54(2), 197–211. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lobato, L.
(2004) Afinal, existe a construção resultativa em português? In L. Negri, M. J. Foltran & R. Pires de Oliveira (Eds.), Sentido e significação (pp.142–179). São Paulo: Contexto.Google Scholar
Marcelino, M.
(2007) O parâmetro de composição e a aquisição/aprendizagem de L2. Unpublished PhD dissertation, University of Campinas, Campinas, São Paulo.Google Scholar
(2014) Resultativas em português brasileiro. Veredas Online – Sintaxe das Línguas Brasileiras, 18(1), 121–137.Google Scholar
McDaniel, D., Mckee, C., & Cairns, H.
(1996) Methods for assessing children’s syntax. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Norris, J., & Ortega, L.
(2003) Defining and measuring SLA. In C. Doughty & M. Long (Eds.), The handbook of second language acquisition. Oxford: Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Oliveira, C. S. F., & Marcelino, M.
(2014) A construção resultativa verdadeira em português brasileiro. Confluência, 47(2), 120–138.Google Scholar
Salles, H. M.
(1997) Prepositions and the syntax of complementation. Unpublished PhD dissertation, University of Wales, Bangor.Google Scholar
Schachter, J.
(1988) Second language acquisition and its relationship with Universal Grammar. Applied Linguistics, 9, 219–235. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Scher, A. P.
(1996) As construções com dois complementos no Inglês e no Português do Brasil: Um estudo sintático comparativo. Unpublished PhD dissertation, University of Campinas, Campinas, São Paulo.Google Scholar
Schwartz, B. D., & Sprouse, R. A.
(1996) L2 cognitive states and the full transfer/full access model. Second Language Research, 12, 40–72. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2000) When syntactic theories evolve: Consequences for L2 acquisition research. In J. Archibald (Ed.), Second language acquisition and linguistic theory (pp. 156–187). Malden, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
(2013) Generative approaches and the poverty of the stimulus. In J. Herschensohn, & M. Young-Scholten, (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 137–158). Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Slabakova, R.
(2002) The compounding parameter in second language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24, 507–540. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2008) Meaning in the second language. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Snyder, W.
(1995) Language acquisition and language variation: The role of morphology. Unpublished PhD dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Snyder, W., & Stromswold, K.
(1997) The structure and acquisition of English dative constructions. Linguistic Inquiry, 28, 281–317.Google Scholar
Snyder, W.
(2000) On the nature of syntactic variation: Evidence from complex predicates and complex word-formation. Language, 77, 324–342. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2001) On the nature of syntactic variation: Evidence from complex predicates and complex word-formation. Language, 77, 324–342. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2012) Parameter theory and motion predicates. In V. Demonte & L. McNally (Eds.), Telicity, change, and state: A cross-categorial view of event structure (OSTL 39) (pp. 279–299). Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Snyder, W., & Sugisaki, K.
(2002) Preposition stranding and the compounding parameter: A developmental perspective. In B. Skarabela, S. Fish & A. H.-J. Do (Eds.), BUCLD 26: Proceedings of the 26th Boston University Annual Conference on Language Development (Vol. 2; pp. 677–688). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Vainikka, A., & Young-Scholten, M.
(1994) Direct access to X-bar theory: Evidence from Korean and Turkish adults learning German. In T. Hoekstra & B. D. Schwartz (Eds.), Language acquisition studies in generative grammar (Language Acquisition and Language Disorders 8) (pp. 265–316). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
White, L.
(1985) The pro-drop parameter in adult second language acquisition. Language Learning, 35, 47–62. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1989) Universal grammar and second language acquisition (Language Acquisition and Language Disorders 1). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2003) Second language acquisition and Universal Grammar. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 1 other publications

Muysken, Pieter
2017. Chapter 13. The global and the local. In Multidisciplinary Approaches to Bilingualism in the Hispanic and Lusophone World [Issues in Hispanic and Lusophone Linguistics, 13], ► pp. 313 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 12 april 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.