Only Connect: The Interface Debate in Second Language Acquisition

Chapter
Part of the Second Language Learning and Teaching book series (SLLT)

Abstract

One commonly used term in recent second language acquisition literature is interface. It is used in different senses. Even for those who have adopted a generative linguistic approach to second language (L2) development, there are alternative views. Frequently, the focus is on interfaces that mark the boundary between the inner core of language that is governed by cognitive principles that are unique to language and those areas which lie outside. Here, the talk is, for example, of the syntax/pragmatics or syntax/discourse interface or the syntax/phonetics interface (cf. Sorace 2010). It is often stated that sources of difficulty characteristic of L2 acquisition may not be located within the core area, but rather in how it connects with structures outside, i.e. across the relevant interfaces. For example, while learners whose L1 requires grammatical subjects to appear in all contexts, may rapidly acquire the empty subject position of null subject languages like Polish, they have persistent difficulties in identifying what, pragmatic or discourse factors dictate their use in certain contexts rather than in others. However, there are also approaches that explain interfaces somewhat differently, namely those inspired by Jackendoff’s proposals concerning the language faculty (Jackendoff, 1987, 2002; Carroll, 2001, 2007; Truscott and Sharwood Smith, 2004; Truscott and Sharwood Smith, forthcoming). Such approaches add a badly needed processing dimension to the debate. There are also emergentist approaches that do without interface-based distinctions, such as O’Grady’s (2005), which require interface problems to be explained in different ways.

Keywords

Language Acquisition Conceptual Structure Language Faculty Universal Grammar Phonological Structure 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Bley-Vroman, R. 1990. The logical problem of foreign language learning. Linguistic Analysis 20: 3-49.Google Scholar
  2. Bley-Vroman, R. 2009. The evolving context of the Fundamental Difference Hypothesis. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 31: 175-198 Google Scholar
  3. Brown, R. 1973. A first language. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University PressGoogle Scholar
  4. Carroll, S. 2001. Input and evidence: The raw material of second language acquisition. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  5. Carroll, S. 2007. Autonomous Induction Theory. In Theories in second language acquisition, eds. B. VanPatten and J. Williams, 155-174. London: Routledge. Google Scholar
  6. Chomsky, N. 1965. Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  7. Culicover, P. and R. Jackendoff. 2005. Simpler syntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Dulay, H. C. and M. K. Burt. 1974. Natural sequences in child second language acquisition. Language Learning 24: 37-53.Google Scholar
  9. Goad, H and L. White. 2008. Prosodic structure and the representation of L2 functional morphology: A nativist approach Lingua 118: 577-594.Google Scholar
  10. Hauser, M., N. Chomsky and W. T. Fitch. 2002. The language faculty: What is it, who has it, and how did it evolve? Science 298: 1569-1579.Google Scholar
  11. Holland, J. H., K. J. Holyoak, R. E. Nisbett and P. R. Thagard. 1986. Induction: Processes of inference, learning and discovery. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  12. Jackendoff, R. 1987. Consciousness and the computational mind. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  13. Jackendoff, R. 2002. Foundations of language: Brain, meaning, grammar, evolution. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  14. O’Grady, W. 2005. Syntactic carpentry: An emergentist approach to syntax. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  15. O’Grady, W. 2008. The emergentist program. Lingua 118: 447-64.Google Scholar
  16. Pinker, S. and R. Jackendoff. 2005. The faculty of language: What’s special about it? Cognition 95: 201-236.Google Scholar
  17. Krashen, S. D. 1985. The input hypothesis: Issues and implications. New York, Longman.Google Scholar
  18. Schwartz, B. D. 1999. The second language instinct in language acquisition: Knowledge, representation and processing, eds. A. Sorace, C. Heycock and R. Shillcock, 133-160. Dordrecht: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  19. Sharwood Smith, M. 2004. In two minds about grammar: On the interaction of linguistic and metalinguistic knowledge in performance. Transactions of the Philological Society 102: 255-280 Google Scholar
  20. Selinker, L. 1972. Interlanguage. IRAL 10: 209-231.Google Scholar
  21. Sorace, A. 2011. Pinning down the concept of ‘interface’ in bilingualism. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism 1: 1-33.Google Scholar
  22. Truscott, J. and M. Sharwood Smith. 2004. Acquisition by processing: A modular perspective on language development. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 7: 1-20.Google Scholar
  23. Truscott, J. and M. Sharwood Smith, forthcoming. Input, intake, and consciousness: The quest for a theoretical foundation. Studies in Second Language Acquisition. Google Scholar
  24. Wexler, K. and P. Culicover. 1980. Formal principles of language acquisition. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  25. White, L. 2003. Second language acquisition and Universal Grammar. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  26. Zyzik, E. 2009. The role of input revisited: Nativist versus usage-based models. L2 Journal 1: 42-61.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.The Academy of Social SciencesWarsawPoland
  2. 2.Heriot-Watt UniversityEdinburghUK
  3. 3.University of EdinburghEdinburghUK

Personalised recommendations