Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-7cvxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T10:39:38.944Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Second Language Acquisition and Syntactic Theory in the 21st Century

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 July 2010

Juana M. Liceras
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Syntactic theory has played a role in second language acquisition (SLA) research since the early 1980s, when the principles and parameters model of generative grammar was implemented. However, it was the so-called functional parameterization hypothesis together with the debate on whether second language learners activated new features or switched their value that led to detailed and in-depth analyses of the syntactic properties of many different nonnative grammars. In the last 10 years, with the minimalist program as background, these analyses have diverted more and more from looking at those syntactic properties that argued for or against the various versions of the UG-access versus non-UG-access debate (UG for Universal Grammar) and have more recently delved into the status of nonnative grammars in the cognitive science field. Thus, using features (i.e., gender, case, verb, and determiner) as the basic units and paying special attention to the quality of input as well as to processing principles and constraints, nonnative grammars have been compared to the language contact paradigms that underlie subsequent bilingualism, child SLA, creole formation, and diachronic change. Taking Chomsky's I-language/E-language construct as the framework, this article provides a review of these recent developments in SLA research.

Type
Research Article
Information
Annual Review of Applied Linguistics , Volume 30 , March 2010 , pp. 248 - 269
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2010

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Adger, D. (2003). Core syntax: A minimalist approach. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Adjémian, C. (1976). On the nature of interlanguage systems. Language Learning, 26, 297–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alexiadou, A., & Anagnostopoulou, E. (1998). Parametrizing AGR: Word order, V-movement and EPP-checking. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 16, 491–539.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Andersen, R. (1983). Pidginization and creolization as language acquisition. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Beck, M-L. (1998). L2 acquisition and obligatory head movement. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 29, 311–348.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Becker, A., & Veenstra, T. (2003). The survival of inflectional morphology in French-related creoles. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 25, 283–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bel, A. (2001). Teoria lingüística i adquisició del llenguatge: anàlisi comparada dels trets morfològics en català i en castellà [Linguistic theory and language acquisition: A comparative analysis of morphological features in Catalan and Castilian Spanish]. Barcelona: Institut d'Estudis Catalans [Barcelona: Institute for Catalan Studies].Google Scholar
Bickerton, D. (1984). The language bioprogram hypothesis. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 7, 173–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bickerton, D. (1996). A dim monocular view of Universal Grammar access. Commentary to S. Epstein, S. Flynn, & G. Martohardjono. Second language acquisition: Theoretical and experimental issues in contemporary research. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 19, 716–717.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bickerton, D. (1999). How to acquire language without positive evidence: What acquisitionists can learn from creoles. In DeGraff, M. (Ed.), Language creation and language change: Creolization, diachrony and development. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Bley-Vroman, R. (1989). What is the logical problem of foreign language learning? In Gass, S. & Schachter, J. (Eds.), Linguistic perspectives on second language acquisition (pp. 41–68). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1970). Remarks on nominalization. In Jacobs, R. & Rosenbaum, P. (Eds.), Readings in English transformational grammar (pp. 184–221). Waltham, MA: Ginn-Blaisdell.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1977). On wh-movement. In Culicover, P., Wasow, T., & Akmajian, A. (Eds.), Formal syntax (pp. 71–132). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1981). Lectures on government and binding. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Foris.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1986). Knowledge of language: Its nature, origin, and use. New York: Praeger.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1993). A minimalist program for linguistic theory. In Hale, K. & Keyser, S. J. (Eds.), The view from Building 20. Essays in linguistics in honor of Sylvain Bromberger (pp. 1–52). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1995). The minimalist program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (2001). Derivation by phase. In Kenstowicz, J. (Ed.), Ken Hale: A life in language (pp. 1–52). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (2007). Approaching UG from below. In Sauerland, U. & Gärtner, H.-M. (Eds.), + recursion = language? Chomsky's minimalism and the view from syntax-semantics, (pp.1–29). Berlin, Germany: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (2008). On phases. In Freidin, R., Otero, C. P., & Zubizarreta, M. L. (Eds.), Linguistic theory: Essays in honor of Jean-Roger Vergnaud (pp. 133–166). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, N., & Lasnik, H. (1993). The theory of principles and parameters. In Jacobs, A., von Stechow, W., & Vennemann, T. (Eds.), Syntax. An international handbook of contemporary research (pp. 506–569). Berlin, Germany: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clahsen, H., Bartke, S., & Göllner, S (1997). Formal features in impaired grammars: A comparison of English and German SLI children. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 10, 151–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Corder, S. P. (1967). The significance of learners’ errors. IRAL, 4, 161–170.Google Scholar
DeGraff, M. (1999). Language creation and language change: Creolization, diachrony and development. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
DeKeyser, R. M. (2000). The robustness of critical period effects in second language acquisition. SSLA, 22, 499–533.Google Scholar
Díaz, L., Bel, A., & Bekiou, K. (2008). Interpretable and uninterpretable features in the acquisition of Spanish past tenses. In Liceras, J. M., Zobl, H., & Goodluck, H. (Eds.), The role of formal features in second language acquisition (pp. 484–512). New York: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Ellis, R. (1994). The study of second language acquisition. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Epstein, S., Flynn, S., & Martohardjono, G. (1996). Second language acquisition: Theoretical and experimental issues in contemporary research. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 19, 677–758.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eubank, L. (1996). Negation in early German-English interlanguage: More valueless features in the L2 initial stage. Second Language Research. 12, 73–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flynn, S. (1983). A study of the effects of principal branching direction in second language acquisition: The generalization of a parameter of Universal Grammar from first to second language acquisition, Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Cornell University, Ithaca, NY.Google Scholar
Fontana, J. (1993). Phase structure and the syntax of clitics in the history of Spanish. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.Google Scholar
Fontana, J. (1994). A variationist account of the development of the Spanish clitic system. In Beals, K. (Ed.), Papers from the 13th regional meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society: Vol. 2. The parasession on variation in linguistic theory (pp. 87–100). Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.Google Scholar
Fontana, J. (1997). On the integration of second position phenomena. In VanKemenade, A. & Vincent, N. (Eds.), Parameters of morphosyntactic change (pp. 207–249). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Grondin, N., & White, L. (1996). Functional categories in child L2 acquisition of French. Language Acquisition, 5, 1–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guillelmon, D., & Grosjean, F. (2001). The gender marking effect in spoken word recognition: The case of bilinguals. Memory and Cognition, 29, 503–511.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hawkins, R., Casillas, G., Hattori, H., Hawthorne, J., Husted, R., Lozano, C., et al. (2008). The semantic effects of verb raising and its consequences in second language grammars. In Liceras, J. M., Zobl, H., & Goodluck, H. (Eds.), The role of formal features in second language acquisition (pp. 328–351). New York: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Hawkins, R., & Chan, Y.-H. C. (1997). The partial availability of Universal Grammar in second language acquisition: The failed functional features hypothesis. Second Language Research, 13, 187–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hawkins, R., & Franceschina, F. (2004). Explaining the acquisition and non-acquisition of determiner-noun gender concord in French and Spanish. In Paradis, J. & Prévost, P. (Eds.), The acquisition of French in different contexts (pp. 175–205). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hawkins, R., & Hattori, H. (2006). Interpretation of English multiple wh-questions by Japanese speakers: A missing uninterpretable feature account. Second Language Research, 22, 260–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haznedar, B. (1997). Child second language acquisition of English: A longitudinal case study of a Turkish-speaking child. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Durham, UK.Google Scholar
Haznedar, B. (2001). The acquisition of the IP system in child L2 English. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 23, 1–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haznedar, B. (2003). The status of functional categories in child second language acquisition: Evidence from the acquisition of CP. Second Language Research, 19, 1–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haznedar, B., & Gavruseva, E. (2008). Current trends in child second language acquisition: A generative perspective. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Herschensohn, J. (2007). Language development and age. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hornstein, N., Nunes, J., & Grohmann, K. H. (2005). Understanding minimalism. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hulk, A., & Müller, N. (2000). Cross-linguistic influence at the interface between syntax and pragmatics. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 3, 227–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jakubowicz, C., & Roulet, L. (2008). Narrow syntax or interface deficit? Gender agreement in French. In Liceras, J. M., Zobl, H., & Goodluck, H. (Eds.), The role of formal features in second language acquisition (pp. 184–225). New York: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Johnson, J. S., & Newport, E. L. (1989). Critical period effects in second language learning. Cognitive Psychology, 21, 60–99.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Johnson, J. S., & Newport, E. L. (1991). Critical period effects on universal properties. Cognition, 39, 215–258.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kroch, A. (1994). Morphosyntactic variation. In Beals, K. (Ed.), Papers from the 13th Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society: Vol. 2. The parasession on variation and linguistic theory (pp. 180–201). Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.Google Scholar
Kroch, A. (2001). Syntactic change. In Baltin, M. & Collins, C. (Eds.), The handbook of contemporary syntactic theory (pp. 699–729). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Lakshmanan, U., & Selinker, L. (1994). The status of CP and the tensed complementizer that in the developing L2 grammars of English. Second Language Research, 10, 25–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lardiere, D. (2006). Comparing creole genesis with SLA in unlimited-access contexts: Going beyond relexification. In Lefebvre, C., White, L., & Jourdan, Ch. (Eds.), L2 acquisition and creole genesis: Dialogues (pp. 401–427). Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lardiere, D. (2008). Feature assembly in second language acquisition. In Liceras, J. M., Zobl, H., & Goodluck, H. (Eds.), The role of formal features in second language acquisition (pp. 106–140). New York: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Lardiere, D. (2009). Some thoughts on the contrastive analysis of features in second language acquisition. Second Language Research, 25, 173–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lefebvre, D. (1998). Creole genesis and the acquisition of grammar: The case of Haitian creole. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lefebvre, C., & Lumsden, J. (1989). Les langues créoles et la théorie linguistique [Creole languages and linguistic theory]. Revue Canadienne de Linguistique, 34, 319–337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lefebvre, C., White, L., & Jourdan, C. (2006). L2 acquisition and creole genesis. Dialogues. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leung, Y-K. I. (2008). The verbal functional domain in L2A and L3A: Tense and agreement in Cantonese-English-French interlanguage. In Liceras, J. M., Zobl, H., & Goodluck, H. (Eds.), The role of formal features in second language acquisition (pp. 378–403). New York: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Liceras, J. M. (1983). Markedness, contrastive analysis and the acquisition of Spanish as a second language. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Toronto, Ontario, Canada.Google Scholar
Liceras, J. M. (1985). The value of clitics in non-native Spanish. Second Language Research, 1, 4–36.Google Scholar
Liceras, J. M. (1986). Linguistic theory and second language acquisition: The Spanish nonnative grammar of English speakers. Tubingen: Gunter Narr.Google Scholar
Liceras, J. M. (1996). To “grow” and what to “grow”: that is one question. Commentary to Epstein, Flynn, & Martohardjono, Second language acquisition: Theoretical and experimental issues in contemporary research. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 19, 734.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liceras, J. M. (1997). The now and then of L2 growing pains. Views on the acquisition and use of a second language. In Díaz Rodríguez, L. & Pérez Vidal, C. (Eds.), EUROSLA '97 Proceedings (pp. 65–85). Barcelona: Universitat Pompeu Fabra.Google Scholar
Liceras, J. M. (2003). Monosyllabic place holders in early child language and the L1/L2 “Fundamental Difference Hypothesis.” In Kempchinsky, P. & Piñeiros, C.-L. (Eds.), Theory, practice and acquisition: Papers from the sixth Hispanic linguistics symposium and the fifth conference on the acquisition of Spanish and Portuguese (pp. 258–283). October 2002. Somerville: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Liceras, J. M. (2007). La adquisición de lenguas segundas y la encrucijada Lengua-I(interna) / Lengua-E(xterna) en la adquisición, el cambio diacrónico y la formación de criollos [Second language acquisition at the I(nternal)-language/E(xternal)-language crossroads in acquisition, diachronic change and creole formation]. In Mairal, R., et al. (Eds.), Actas del XXIV Congreso Internacional de AESLA. Aprendizaje de lenguas, uso del lenguaje y modelación cognitiva: perspectivas aplicadas entre disciplinas [Proceedings of the 24th International Congress of AESLA. Language learning, language use and cognitive modelling: Applied perspectives across disciplines]. (pp. 67–90). Madrid: UNED.Google Scholar
Liceras, J. M. (2009). On parameters, functional categories and features . . . and why the trees shouldn't prevent us from seeing the forest. Second Language Research, 25 (2), 279–289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liceras, J. M., Fernández Fuertes, R., & Pérez-Tattam, R. (2008). Null and overt subjects in the developing grammars (L1 English/L1 Spanish) of two bilingual twins. In Pérez-Vidal, C., Juan Garau, M., & Bel, A. (Eds.), A portrait of the young in the new multilingual Spain (pp. 111–134). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Liceras, J. M., Fernández Fuertes, R., Perales, S., Pérez-Tattam, R., & Spradlin, K. T. (2008). Gender and gender agreement in the bilingual native and the non-native grammar: A view from child and adult functional-lexical mixings. Lingua, 118, 827–851.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liceras, J. M., Fernández Fuertes, R., & Alba de la Fuente, A. (in press). Overt subjects and copula omission in the Spanish and the English grammar of English-Spanish bilinguals: On the locus and directionality of interlinguistic influence. First Language.Google Scholar
Liceras, J. M., Martínez, C., Pérez-Tattam, R., Perales, S., & Fernández Fuertes, R. (2006). L2 acquisition as a process of creolization: Insights from child and adult code-mixing. In Lefebvre, C., White, L., & Jourdan, C. (Eds.), L2 acquisition and creole genesis: Dialogues (pp. 113–144). Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liceras, J. M., & Senn, C. (2009). Linguistic theory and the analysis of minority languages: Native, immigrant and heritage Spanish. Lengua y Migración, 1, 39–74.Google Scholar
Liceras, J. M., Spradlin, K. T., Fernández Fuertes, R. (2005). Bilingual early functional-lexical mixing and the activation of formal features. International Journal of Bilingualism, 9, 227–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liceras, J. M., Zobl, H., & Goodluck, H. (2008). Introduction. In Liceras, J. M., Zobl, H., & Goodluck, H. (Eds.), The role of formal features in second language acquisition (pp. 1–19). New York: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Marantz, A. (1995). The minimalist program. In Webelbuth, G. (Ed.), Government and binding theory and the minimalist program (pp. 349–382). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Mazurkevich, I. (1984). The acquisition of the dative alternation by second language learners and linguistic theory. Language Learning, 34, 91–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meisel, J. (1997). The acquisition of the syntax of negation in French and German: Contrasting first and second language development. Second Language Research, 13, 227–263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meisel, J. (2008). Second language acquisition or successive first language acquisition. In Haznedar, B. & Gavruseva, E. (Eds.), Current trends in child second language acquisition: A generative perspective (pp. 55–80). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mobaraki, M., Vainikka, A., & Young-Scholten, M. (2008). The status of subjects in early child L2 English. In Haznedar, B. & Gavruseva, E. (Eds.), Current trends in child second language acquisition: A generative perspective (pp. 209–235). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Montrul, S. (1997). On the parallels between diachronic change and interlanguage grammars: The L2 acquisition of the Spanish dative system. Spanish Applied Linguistics, 1, 87–113.Google Scholar
Montrul, S. (2008). Incomplete acquisition in bilingualism. Re-examining the age factor. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Najmi, A. (2009). Clause structure in the development of child L2 English of L1 Arabic. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.Google Scholar
Niyogi, P., & Berwick, R. C. (1995). The logical problem of language change (Tech. Rep.) Cambridge, MA: MIT, AI Lab.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Perales, S., & Liceras, J. M. (2009, March). Unexpected constructions in SLA: A diachronic approach. Paper presented at the 10th Generative Approaches to Second Language Acquisition Conference (GASLA 10), University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.Google Scholar
Pesetsky, D., & Torrego, E. (2001). T to C movement: Causes and consequences. In Kenstowicz, M. (Ed.), Ken Hale: A life in language (pp. 355–426). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pesetsky, D., & Torrego, E. (2007). The syntax of valuation and the interpretability of features. In Karimi, S., Samiian, V., & Wilkins, W. (Eds.), Phrasal and clausal architecture. Syntactic derivation and interpretation (pp. 262–294). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Platzack, C. (2008). Uninterpretable features and EPP: A minimalist account of language buildup and breakdown. In Liceras, J. M., Zobl, H., & Goodluck, H. (Eds.), The role of formal features in second language acquisition (pp. 48–80). New York: Erlbaum.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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Radford, A. (2004). Minimalist syntax: Exploring the structure of English. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Radford, A. (2008). Feature correlations in nominative case marking in L1, L2 and native English. In Liceras, J. M., Zobl, H., & Goodluck, H. (Eds.), The role of formal features in second language acquisition (pp. 82–104). New York: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Roberts, I., & Roussou, A. (2003). Syntactic change. A minimalist approach to grammaticalization. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schumann, J. (1978). The pidginization process: A model for second language acquisition. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Schwartz, B. (2004). Why child L2 acquisition. In Kampen, J. V. & Baauw, S. (Eds.), The Proceedings of GALA 2003. LOT Occasional Series (pp. 47–66). Utrecht University, Netherlands.Google Scholar
Schwartz, B., & Sprouse, R. (1996). L2 cognitive states and the full transfer/full access model. Second Language Research, 12, 40–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Selinker, L. (1972). Interlanguage. IRAL, 3, 209–231.Google Scholar
Senn, C. (2008). Reasuntivos y doblado del clítico: En torno a la caracterización del término ‘casi nativo.’ Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.Google Scholar
Sorace, A. (2003). Near-nativeness. In Long, M. & Doughty, C. (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 130–152). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Travis, L. (2008). The role of features in syntactic theory and language variation. In Liceras, J. M., Zobl, H., & Goodluck, H. (Eds.), The role of formal features in second language acquisition (pp. 22–47). New York: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Tsimpli, I.-M. (2001). LF-interpretability and language development: A study of verbal and nominal features in Greek normally developing and SLI children. Brain and Language, 77, 432–448.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tsimpli, I.-M., & Dimitrakopoulou, M. (2007). The interpretability hypothesis: Evidence from wh-interrogatives in second language acquisition. Second Language Research, 23, 215–242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tsimpli, I-M., & Mastropavlou, M. (2008). Feature interpretability in L2 acquisition and SLI: Greek clitics and determiners. In Liceras, J. M., Zobl, H., & Goodluck, H. (Eds.), The role of formal features in second language acquisition (pp. 142–183). New York: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Unsworth, S., & Schwartz, B. (2006). Paths of development in L1 and L2 acquisition. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vainikka, A., & Young-Scholten, M. (1996). Gradual development of L2 phrase structure. Second Language Research, 12, 7–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Naerssen, M. (1980). How similar are Spanish as a first language and Spanish as a second language? In Scarcella, R. & Krashen, S. D. (Eds.), Research in second language acquisition (pp. 146–154). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Van Naerssen, M. (1981). Generalizing second language acquisition hypotheses across languages: A test case in Spanish as a second language. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Southern California, Los Angeles.Google Scholar
Van Naerssen, M. (1986). Hipótesis sobre la adquisición de una segunda lengua: Consideraciones inter-lenguaje; comprobación en el español [Second language acquisition hypotheses: Interlinguistic approaches. Evidence from Spanish]. In Meisel, J. (Ed.), Adquisición del lenguaje / Aquisiçao da linguagem [Language acquisition]. Frankfurt: M. Kaus-Dieter Vervuert.Google Scholar
Valdés, G. (2000). AATSP Professional Development Series Handbook for Teachers K-16, Vol. I: Spanish for Native Speakers (pp. 1–20). New York: Harcourt College Publishers.Google Scholar
Valenzuela, E. (2008). On CP positions in L2 Spanish. In Liceras, J. M., Zobl, H., & Goodluck, H. (Eds.), The role of formal features in second language acquisition (pp. 534–558). New York: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
White, L. (1985). The “pro-drop” parameter in adult second language acquisition. Language Learning, 35, 47–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
White, L. (2009). Some questions about feature reassembly. Second Language Research, 25, 343–348.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Winford, D. (2003). An introduction to contact linguistics. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Zobl, H. (1979). Systems of verb classification and cohesion of verb—complement relations as structural conditions of interference in a child's L2 development. Working Papers in Bilingualism, 18, 25–63.Google Scholar
Zobl, H., & Liceras, J. M. (1994). Functional categories and acquisition orders. Language Learning, 44, 159–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zobl, H., & Liceras, J. M. (2005). Accounting for optionality in nonnative grammars: Parametric change in diachrony and L2 development as instances of internalized diglossia. In Dekydtspotter, L., Rex A. Sprouse, and Audrey Liljestrand (Eds.), Proceedings of the seventh Generative Approaches to Second Language Acquisition conference (GASLA 2004) (pp. 283–291). April 2004. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.Google Scholar
Zobl, H., & Liceras, J. M. (2006). Competing grammars and parametric shifts in second language acquisition and the history of English and Spanish. In Bamman, D., Magnitskaia, T., & Zaller, C. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 30th Boston University Conference on Language Development (BUCLD), (pp.713–724). November 2005. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar