Cover not available

In:Theoretical Issues in Second Language Research: Challenges and new directions
Edited by Junya Fukuta, John Matthews and Shigenori Wakabayashi
[Studies in Bilingualism 69] 2026
► pp. 43–67

Chapter 3
Moving toward a finer-grained analysis and deeper explanation in a generative approach to L2 grammars

 | Utsunomiya University
 | Utsunomiya University
This content is being prepared for publication; it may be subject to changes.
Abstract
This chapter argues that generative approaches to second language acquisition (GenSLA) should move beyond broad descriptive generalizations toward finer-grained analyses and deeper explanation. Drawing on the distinction between description and explanation, as well as different levels of explanation, we critically evaluate influential hypotheses in GenSLA, including the Bottleneck Hypothesis, the Interface Hypothesis, the Fluctuation Hypothesis, and the Feature Reassembly Hypothesis. While these proposals have contributed valuable descriptive insights, they often fail to specify underlying mechanisms or to generate sufficiently constrained, falsifiable predictions. Building on recent developments in the Minimalist Program, the chapter demonstrates how more analytically refined approaches can yield novel empirical predictions and principled explanations of L2 morphosyntactic phenomena. Through detailed discussion of recent studies and alternative explanatory proposals, the chapter highlights the importance of theory-driven research in uncovering the architecture of interlanguage grammars and clarifying the role of Universal Grammar in L2 development.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Description and (levels of) explanation
  • 3.GG in L2 acquisition: Its achievements and challenges
    • 3.1GenSLA in the ‘Principles and Parameters’ Framework
    • 3.2Minimalism
  • 4.Attempts for better descriptions and explanations
    • 4.1Toward finer-grained analyses: The case of Kimura and Hirokawa (2025)
    • 4.2Toward deeper explanation
      • 4.2.1Explaining intra-speaker variability in inflection
      • 4.2.2A principle of global economy
      • 4.2.3Representational deficits
      • 4.2.4The role of UG revisited
  • 5.Conclusion
  • Author queries
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
References (107)
References
Baker, M. C. (1988). Incorporation: A theory of grammatical function changing. The Chicago University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Balcom, P. (1997). Why is this happened? Passive morphology and unaccusativity. Second Language Research, 13, 1–9. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bannai, M. (2011). The nature of variable sensitivity to agreement violations in L2 English. In L. Roberts, G. Pallotti, & C. Bettoni (Eds.), Eurosla Yearbook 11 (pp. 115–137). John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bley-Vroman, R. W., Felix, S. W., & Ioup, G. L. (1988). The accessibility of universal grammar in adult language learning. Second Language Research, 4, 1–32.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Borer, H. (1984). Parametric syntax: Case studies in Semitic and Romance languages. Foris. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bošković, Ž. (2007). On the locality and motivation of Move and Agree: An even more minimal theory. Linguistic Inquiry, 38, 589–644. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bošković, Ž., & Lasnik, H. (Eds.) (2007). Minimalist syntax: The essential readings. Blackwell.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Choi, M-H. (2009). Acquiring Korean wh-in situ constructions by native English speakers. Language Research, 45, 349–392.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1957). Syntactic structures. Mouton. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1965). Aspects of the theory of syntax. The MIT Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1981). Lectures on government and binding. Foris.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1986). Knowledge of language: Its nature, origin, and use. Praeger.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1995). The minimalist program. The MIT Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2000). Minimalist inquiries: The framework. In R. Martin, D. Michaels, & J. Uriagereka (Eds.), Step by step: Essays on minimalism in honor of Howard Lasnik (pp. 89–155). The MIT Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2001). Derivation by phase. In M. Kenstowicz (Ed.), Ken Hale: A life in language (pp. 1–52). The MIT Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2007). Approaching UG from below. In U. Sauerland & H.-M. Gärtner (Eds.), Interfaces + recursion = language?: Chomsky’s minimalism and the view from syntax-semantics (pp. 1–30). Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2008). On phases. In R. Freidin, C. P. Otero, & M. L. Zubizarreta (Eds.), Foundational issues in linguistic theory: Essays in honor of Jean-Roger Vergnaud (pp. 133–166). The MIT Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Chu, C-Y., Gabriele, A., & Minai, U. (2013). Acquisition of quantifier scope interpretation by Chinese-speaking learners of English. In C.-Y. Chu, C. E. Coughlin, B. L. Prego, U. Minai, & A. Tremblay (Eds.), Selected proceedings of the 5th conference on Generative Approaches to Language Acquisition North America (GALANA 2012) (pp. 157–168). Cascadilla Proceedings Project.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dulay, H. C., & Burt, M. K. (1974). Should we teach children syntax? Language Learning, 23, 245–58. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Eastwell, P. (2014). Understanding hypotheses, predictions, laws, and theories. Science Education Review, 13, 16–21.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Embick, D., & R. Noyer. (2001). Movement operations after syntax. Linguistic Inquiry, 32, 555–595. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Embick, D., & Noyer, R. (2007). Distributed morphology and the syntax-morphology interface. In G. Ramchand & C. Reiss (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of linguistic interfaces (pp. 289–324). Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fukuta, J., & Yano, M. (2023). Daini gengo kenkyu no kakaeru mondaiten no kaiketuhou. [Solutions to issues in second language research]. In J. Fukuta, M. Yano, & Y. Tamura (Eds.), Daini gengo kenkyu no shikouhou: Ninchi shisutemu no kenkyu ni wa nani ga hituyou ka [Methods of thought in second language research: What is required for the study of cognitive systems?] (pp. 39–62). Kurosio Publishers.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Garfinkel, A. (1981). Forms of explanation. Yale University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gil, K. H., & Marsden, H. (2013). Existential quantifiers in second language acquisition: A feature reassembly account. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 3, 117–149. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Goad, H., & White, L. (2004). Ultimate attainment of L2 inflection: Effects of L1 prosodic structure. In S. Foster-Cohen, M. Sharwood Smith, A. Sorace, & M. Ota (Eds.), Eurosla Yearbook 4 (pp. 119–45). John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Goad, H., White, L., & Steele, J. (2003). Missing inflection in L2 acquisition: Defective syntax or L1-constrained prosodic representations? Canadian Journal of Linguistics, 48, 243–63. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gregg, K. R. (1993). Taking explanation seriously; or, let a couple of flowers bloom. Applied Linguistics, 14, 276–294. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1996). The logical and developmental problems of second language acquisition. In W. Ritchie & T. Bhatia (Eds.) Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 49–81). Academic Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Haegeman, L. (2005). Thinking syntactically: A guide to argumentation and analysis. Wiley–Blackwell.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Halle, M., & Marantz, A. (1993). Distributed morphology and the pieces of inflection. In K. Hale & S. J. Keyser (Eds.), The view from building 20 (pp. 111–76). The MIT Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hawkins, R. (2001). The theoretical significance of Universal Grammar in second language acquisition. Second Language Research, 17, 345–367. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hawkins, R., & Casillas, G. (2008). Explaining frequency of verb morphology in early L2 speech. Lingua, 118, 595–612. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hawkins, R., & Chan, C. (1997). The partial availability of Universal Grammar in second language acquisition: The ‘failed functional feature hypothesis’. Second Language Research, 13, 187–226. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hawkins, R., & H. Hattori. (2006). Interpretation of English multiple wh-question by Japanese speakers: A missing uninterpretable feature account. Second Language Research, 22, 269–301. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hawkins, R., & Liszka, S. (2003). Locating the source of defective past tense marking in advanced L2 English speakers. In R. van Hout, A. Hulk, F. Kuiken, & R. Towell (Eds.), The interface between syntax and lexicon in second language acquisition (pp. 21–44). John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Haznedar, B. (1997). Child second language acquisition of English: A longitudinal case study of a Turkish-speaking child (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Durham University.
Haznedar, B., & Schwartz, B. D. (1997). Are there optional infinitives in child L2 acquisition? In E. Hughes, M. Hughes, & A. Greenhill (Eds.), Proceedings of the 21st annual Boston University conference on language development (pp.257–268). Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hirakawa, M. (1990). A study of the L2 acquisition of English reflexives. Second Language Research, 6, 60–85.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1995). L2 acquisition of English unaccusative constructions. In D. MacLaughlin & S. McEwen (Eds.) Proceedings of the 19th annual Boston University Conference on Language Development (pp. 291–302). Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hopp, H. (2013). Introduction: The development of L2 morphology. Second Language Research, 29, 3–6. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ionin, T., Ko, H., & Wexler, K. (2004). Article semantics in L2 acquisition: The role of specificity. Language Acquisition, 12, 3–69. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jensen, I. N., Slabakova, R., Westergaard, M., & Lundquist, B. (2020). The Bottleneck Hypothesis in L2 acquisition: L1 Norwegian learners’ knowledge of syntax and morphology in L2 English. Second Language Research, 36, 3–29. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Johnson, J., & Newport, E. (1991). Critical period effects on universal properties of language: The status of subjacency in the acquisition of a second language. Cognition, 39, 215–258. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kimura, T. (2022a). Feature selection, feature reassembly, and the role of Universal Grammar: The acquisition of wh-questions by Japanese and Chinese learners of English (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Chuo University.
(2022b). Explaining the difficulty with the L2 acquisition of scope interpretation by speakers of a scope-rigid language. In T. Leal, E. Shimanskaya, & C. A. Isabelli (Eds.), Generative SLA in the age of minimalism: Features, interfaces and beyond (pp. 41–66). John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2025). Problems and prospects in L2 syntax research within the generative framework. Second Language, 24, 84–101.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(to appear). Revisiting Universal Grammar in L2 acquisition: Weak conformity and linguistic dissonance resolution. Second Language Research.
Kimura, T., & Hirokawa, T. (2025). More evidence on the unergative-unaccusative distinction in second language grammars. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 15, 404–423. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kimura, T., & Wakabayashi, S. (2024). UG-as-Guide in selection and reassembly of an uninterpretable feature in L2 acquisition of wh-questions: Evidence from islands and scope. In M. Velnić, A. Dahl & K. Listhaug (Eds.), Current Perspectives on Generative SLA–Representations, Processing and Development (pp. 316–348). John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(to appear). Generative grammar. In H. Nesi & P. Milin (Eds.), International encyclopedia of language and linguistics (3rd ed.). Elsevier.
King, G., Keohane, R. O., & Verba, S. (1994). Designing social inquiry: Scientific inference in qualitative research. Princeton University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Klein, E. (1993). A problem for UG in L2 acquisition. Issues in Applied Linguistics, 4, 33–56.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1995). Evidence for a ‘wild’ L2 grammar: When PPs rear their empty heads. Applied Linguistics, 16, 87–117. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kuribara, C. (2004). Misanalysis of subjects in Japanese-English interlanguage. Second Language, 3, 69–94.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lardiere, D. (1998). Dissociating syntax from morphology in a divergent end-state grammar. Second Language Research, 14, 359–75. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2008). Feature assembly in second language acquisition. In J. M. Liceras, H. Zobl, & H. Goodluck (Eds.), The role of formal features in second language acquisition (pp. 106–140. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2009). Some thoughts on the contrastive analysis of features in second language acquisition. Second Language Research, 25, 173–227. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lipton, P. (2004). Inference to the best explanation (2nd ed.). Routledge.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mai, Z., & Yuan, B. (2016). Uneven reassembly of tense, telicity and discourse features in L2 acquisition of the Chinese shì … de cleft construction by adult English speakers. Second Language Research, 32, 247–276. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Manzini, M. R., & Wexler, K. (1987). Parameters, binding theory, and learnability. Linguistic inquiry, 18, 413–444.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Marsden, H. (2024). Quantifiers and scope. In T. Ionin, S. Montrul, & R. Slabakova (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of second language acquisition, morphosyntax and semantics. (pp. 414–425). Routledge. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Martohardjono, G. (1993). Wh-movement in the acquisition of a second language: A cross-linguistic study of three languages with and without movement (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Cornell University.
May, R. (1985). Logical form; Its structure and derivation. The MIT Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
McCarthy, C. (2008). Morphological variability in the comprehension of agreement: An argument for representation over computation. Second Language Research, 24, 459–486. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Meisel, J. (1991). Principles of Universal Grammar and strategies of language learning: Some similarities and differences between first and second language acquisition. In L. Eubank (Ed.), Point counterpoint: Universal Grammar in the second language (pp. 231–76). John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1997). The acquisition of the syntax of negation in French and German: Contrasting first and second language acquisition. Second Language Research, 13, 227–263. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Miyamoto, Y., & Iijima, Y. (2003). On the existence of scrambling in the grammar of Japanese elementary EFL learners. In S. Foster-Cohen & S. P. Doehler (Eds.), Eurosla Yearbook Volume 3 (pp. 7–27). John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pesetsky, D., & Torrego, E. (2007). The syntax of valuation and the interpretability of features. In S. Karimi, V. Samiian, & K. W. Wilkins (Eds.), Phrasal and clausal architecture: Syntactic derivation and interpretation (pp. 262–294). John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Prévost, P., & White, L. (2000). Missing surface inflection or impairment in second language acquisition? Evidence from tense and agreement. Second Language Research, 16, 103–133. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Quicoli, A. C. (2008). Anaphora by phase. Syntax, 11, 299–329. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Richards, N. (2016). Contiguity Theory. The MIT Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rizzi, L. (1982). Issues in Italian Syntax. Foris. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ross, J. R. (1967). Constraints on variables in syntax (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). MIT.
Saito, M. (2007). Notes on East Asian argument ellipsis. Language Research, 43, 203–227.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schachter, J. (1989). Testing a proposed universal. In S. Gass & J. Schachter (Eds.), Linguistic perspectives on second language acquisition (pp. 73–88). Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schwartz, B. D. (1998). The second language instinct. Lingua, 106, 133–60. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schwartz, B. D., & Sprouse, R. A. (1994). Word order and nominative case in nonnative language acquisition: A longitudinal study of (Ll Turkish) German interlanguage. In T. Hoekstra & B. D. Schwartz (Eds.), Language acquisition studies in Generative Grammar (pp. 317–368). John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1996). L2 cognitive states and the Full Transfer/Full Access model. Second Language Research, 12, 40–72. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sharwood Smith, M. (1988). On the role of linguistic theory in explanations of second language developmental grammars. In S. Flynn & W. O’Neil (Eds.), Linguistic theory in second language acquisition (pp. 173–198). Kluwer. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Shibuya, M., & Wakabayashi, S. (2008). Why are L2 learners not always sensitive to subject-verb agreement? In L. Roberts, F. Myles, & A. David (Eds.), Eurosla Yearbook Volume 8, (pp. 235–258). John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Slabakova, R. (2002). The compounding parameter in second language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24, 507–40. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2008). Meaning in the second language. Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2009). Features or parameters: Which one makes SLA easier, and more interesting to study? Second Language Research, 25, 313–24. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sorace, A. (2011). Pinning down the concept of “interface” in bilingualism. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 1, 1–33. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tsimpli, I.-M. (2003). Clitics and determiners in L2 Greek. In J. M. Liceras, H. Zobl & H. Goodluck (Eds.), Proceedings of the 6th Generative Approaches to Second Language Acquisition Conference (GASLA 2002) (pp. 331–339). Cascadilla Proceedings Project.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tsimpli, I. M., & Dimitrakopoulou, M. (2007). The Interpretability Hypothesis: Evidence from wh-interrogatives in second language acquisition. Second Language Research, 23, 215–242. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tsimpli, I. M., & Roussou, A. (1991). Parameter resetting in L2? University College London Working Papers in Linguistics, 3, 149–69.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tsimpli, I. M., & Sorace, A. (2006). Differentiating interfaces: L2 performance in syntax-semantics and syntax-discourse phenomena. In D. Bamman, T. Magnitskaia, & C. Zaller (Eds.), Proceedings of the 30th annual Boston University Conference on Language Development (pp. 653–664). Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Umeda, M. (2006). Wh-movement in L2 grammars: Evidence for parameter resetting. In K. U. Deen, J. Nomura, B. Schulz, & B. D. Schwartz (Eds.), Proceedings of the inaugural GALANA conference (pp. 389–400). UConn WPL/MITWPL.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wakabayashi, S. (1996). The nature of interlanguage: SLA of reflexives. Second Language Research, 12, 266–303. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1997). The acquisition of functional categories by learners of English (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Cambridge.
(2002). The acquisition of non-null subjects in English: A minimalist account. Second Language Research, 18, 28–71. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2009). Lexical learning in second language acquisition: Optionality in the numeration. Second Language Research, 25, 335–341. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2021). A principle of economy in derivation in L2 grammar: Do everything in narrow syntax. Second Language Research, 37, 521–545. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wakabayashi, S., Kimura, T., Matthews, J., Akimoto, T., Hokari, T., Yamazaki, T., & Otaki, K. (2021). Asymmetry between person and number features in L2 subject-verb agreement. In D. Dionne & L. A. Covas (Eds.), Proceedings of 45th annual Boston University Conference on Language Development (BUCLD) (pp. 735–745). Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wexler, K. (2004). Theory of phasal development: Perfection in child grammar. In A. Csirmaz, A. Gualmini, & A. Nevins (Eds.), MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 48: Plato’s problems: Papers on language acquisition (pp. 159–209). MITWPL.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
White, L. (1985). The pro-drop parameter in adult second language acquisition. Language Learning, 35, 47–62. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2003). Second language acquisition and universal grammar. Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2008). Some puzzling features of L2 features. In J. M. Liceras, H. Zobl, & H. Goodluck (Eds.), The role of formal features in second language acquisition (pp. 300–326). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2009). Some questions about feature re-assembly. Second Language Research, 25, 343–348. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2011). Second language acquisition at the interfaces. Lingua, 121, 577–590. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wu, M-J. & Ionin, T. (2022). L1-Mandarin L2-English learners’ acquisition of English double-quantifier scope. In In T. Leal, E. Shimanskaya, & C. A. Isabelli (Eds.) Generative SLA in the age of Minimalism: Features, interfaces and beyond (pp. 93–114). John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Yatsushiro, K. (1999). Case licensing and VP structure (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Connecticut.
Yonemori, Y. (2007). Abudakushon. [Abduction]. Keiso Shobo.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Yuan, B. (2014). ‘Wh-on-earth’ in Chinese speakers’ L2 English: Evidence of dormant features. Second Language Research, 30, 515–549. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Zobl, H. (1989). Canonical typological structures and ergativity in English L2 acquisition. In S. Gass & J. Schachter (Eds.), Linguistic perspectives on second language acquisition (pp. 203–221). Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue