Generative second-language acquisition
[12] Furthermore, studying L2 acquisition through a generative lens give linguists a better idea of the natural constraints on human languages and the inner workings of Universal Grammar.
In the late 1960s-early 1970s researchers observed that the language and errors of L2 learners were not random but systematic and evidence of rule-governed behaviour.
[15][16][17][18] From this observation researchers proposed the concept of interlanguage which refers to the language system used by L2 learners that contains interacting linguistic aspects of both the L1 and L2.
Similarly, children are not exposed to a rich wealth of linguistic data to be able to acquire all the rules and principles of their distinct language.
[11][12][19] Therefore, an extra component, such as the UG which consists of innate domain-specific linguistic knowledge, is needed to account for these POV properties.
[12][13] Indeed, most theories and research in the first two decades of GenSLA actually revolved around this singular question to which there are four proposed answers: GenSLA researchers assumed during these early decades that if they could show that a particular POS property operated or did not operate in L2 grammar they could generalize to other POS properties and to UG accessibility or non-accessibility in general.
[11][12] The field of GenSLA research experienced significant theoretical developments in the late 1990s/early 2000s following changes in generative linguistic theory inspired by Chomsky's minimalist program.
[11][12] The features under consideration here are linguistic units that reflect grammatical meanings such as tense, case, number, person, gender, or conceptual meanings such as evidentiality, habitual aspect and definiteness[12] One key characteristic of these features is that they reflect variation across languages in their overtness, which became particularly important to GenSLA research.
This motivated GenSLA theory to shift focus from questions just about UG accessibility and specific features to describing and explaining variation at group and individual levels.
[11][12] For example, it was found that heritage bilinguals diverge from monolinguals in the ultimate state of their eventual language system in ways similar to adult L2 learners even though they are native speakers and even when the learning process takes places in a naturalistic setting in early childhood.
[22] This casts doubt on the critical period hypothesis (CP) that age is the determining factor in convergent language acquisition, another rich area of debate in GenSLA research [23][24][25] With respect to child L2 acquisition, it was hypothesized that if child and adult L2 learners follow the same developmental path this would call into question the claims made by some GenSLA researchers that differences between L1 and L2 learners are due to the inaccessibility of UG.
If, however, if they follow different developmental paths this would seem to support the claim that adult L2 learners do not have access to UG; their learning must instead be due to other factors.
[14] Unlike adults, children acquiring an L2 are considered to have full and direct access to Universal Grammar, and are typically more successful at retainment of the L2 and reaching a state of fluency.
One source of evidence for this position stems from research observations made in the 1970s and 80s that children experience a critical period or reduced ability over time to acquire a functional L1 morphosyntactic system that ends around puberty.
Instead, some linguists have argued that the process of second language acquisition can be accounted for by general learning principles and in fact not does correspond to having access to the UG.
Elicited data is preferred, but still problematic based on the skill level of the speaker, and is not considered naturally occurring speech.
[53] Despite the controversial nature of the hypothesis, MTH has been considered an extremely strong and valuable contribution to SLA research and generative grammar as a whole.
Supporters of GenSLA argue, however, that in order to disprove the logical problem of acquisition detractors would have to either show there are no instances of poverty of stimulus properties or when input alone is insufficient, one needs to explain the child's resulting competence in virtue of the operation of domain general cognitive mechanisms, statistical learning or processing considerations.
[56][57] They subsequently point to the fact that this has not yet been attempted exhaustively and no parsimonious alternatives have been offered to explain how poverty of stimulus properties are acquired.
[12] The logical problem of language acquisition is thought to prevail so long as there are any poverty of stimulus properties that cannot otherwise be accounted for.
The main researchers and publishing venues remained the same while the number of models and hypotheses regarding multilingual language acquisition have soared.
