The split IP parameter in second language learning /

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Author / Creator:Simoiu, Adela.
Imprint:Newcastle upon Tyne : Cambridge Scholars Pub., 2014.
Description:xxii, 233 p. ; 22 cm.
Language:English
Subject:
Format: Print Book
URL for this record:http://pi.lib.uchicago.edu/1001/cat/bib/10042659
Hidden Bibliographic Details
ISBN:9781443856584
1443856584 (hardback)
9781443860055 (ebook)
1443860050 (ebook)
Notes:Includes bibliographical references and index.
Table of Contents:
  • Acknowledgements
  • List of Abbreviations
  • Introduction
  • Chapter 1. How Many Factors in (Instructed) Second Language Design?
  • 1.1. Introduction
  • 1.2. Three factors in Language Design
  • 1.2.1. Genetic endowment
  • 1.2.2. Experience
  • 1.2.3. The role of principles not specific to the language faculty
  • 1.3. From LI to L2
  • 1.3.1. Genetic endowment in L2
  • 1.3.2. Experience
  • 1.3.3. Factors not specific to the language faculty in L2
  • 1.3.3.1. Principles of data analysis in L2
  • 1.3.3.2. Principles of structural architecture and developmental constraints in L2
  • 1.4. The role of UG in Second Language Acquisition
  • 1.4.1. No Access Hypotheses
  • 1.4.1.1. Clahsen and Muysken (1986)
  • 1.4.1.2. The Fundamental Difference Hypothesis (Bley-Vroman 1990)
  • 1.4.2. The Full Access Hypothesis
  • 1.4.3. UG access via L1
  • 1.4.3.1. The Full Transfer/Full Access Hypothesis
  • 1.4.3.2. A variant of UG access via L1
  • 1.4.4. L2 and minimalism
  • 1.5. Conclusion
  • Chapter 2. Parameter (Re)Setting in L2
  • 2.1. Introduction
  • 2.2. Principles and Parameters
  • 2.3. Parameters and L2
  • 2.4. Parameter Resetting in L2
  • 2.4.1. Parameter Resetting is possible
  • 2.4.2. Parameter resetting is partially possible
  • 2.4.3. Parameter Resetting is not possible
  • 2.4.4. Minimalism and parameters in L2
  • 2.4.4.1. The Failed Functional Feature Hypothesis
  • 2.4.4.2. The Interpretability Hypothesis
  • 2.5. Conclusions
  • Chapter 3. On the Split IP Hypothesis in English and Romanian
  • 3.1. The Inflectional Phrase: A short history
  • 3.1.1. From Aux to Inflection
  • 3.1.2. The Split IP Hypothesis
  • 3.1.3. The split IP Hypothesis: A revised version
  • 3.1.4. A hybrid approach
  • 3.1.5. The split IP parameter
  • 3.2. Characteristics of the Split IP parameter (SIP)
  • 3.2.1. The parameter in a nutshell
  • 3.2.2. The split IP parameter: Verbal morphology
  • 3.2.3. The split IP parameter: Verb movement
  • 3.2.4. The split IP parameter: Specifier positions
  • 3.2.4.1. Two subject positions
  • 3.2.4.2. Two object positions
  • 3.2.5. Conclusions
  • 3.3. Triggers of verb movement: Tense or Agreement?
  • 3.4. The split IP parameter in English
  • 3.5. The split IP parameter in Romanian
  • 3.5.1. Verb morphology in Romanian
  • 3.5.2. On verb movement
  • 3.5.3. Specifier positions: Subject positions
  • 3.5.4. More on specifier positions: Object positions and transitive expletive constructions
  • 3.5.4.1. Transitive expletive constructions
  • 3.5.4.2. Object shift
  • 3.6. Conclusions
  • Chapter 4. The Split IP Parameter in L2: Predictions for Second Language Learning
  • 4.1. The Split IP parameter in a nutshell
  • 4.2. The Split IP parameter and language acquisition
  • 4.3. Previous studies: Conradie (2005)
  • 4.3.1. Moving from a negative value to a positive one
  • 4.3.2. Afrikaans as a (+SIP) language
  • 4.3.3. The Split IP parameter in L2
  • 4.4. Conclusions so far
  • 4.5. Moving from positive (+) to negative (-)
  • 4.5.1. The Subset Principle in LI acquisition and L2 learning
  • 4.5.2. Romanian L1: A superset to English L2?
  • 4.6. Parameter clustering in L2?
  • 4.7. The split IP parameter in L2: The case of Romanian learners of English
  • 4.7.1. Hypotheses
  • 4.7.2. The question
  • 4.8. Predictions for SIP in second language learning
  • 4.8.1. Predictions - initial stage - full transfer?
  • 4.8.2. Predictions - final state - parameter resetting?
  • 4.9. Conclusions
  • Chapter 5. Two Studies Investigating L2 Initial and Final States
  • 5.1. The longitudinal study
  • 5.1.1. Aim
  • 5.1.2. Corpus
  • 5.1.3. Method
  • 5.1.4. Predictions
  • 5.1.5. Results and analysis
  • 5.1.5.1. Sentence-medial adverbs
  • 5.1.5.2. Questions
  • 5.1.5.3. Early L2 subjects
  • 5.1.5.4. TECs and OSCs
  • 5.1.5.5. English L1 acquisition-like errors
  • 5.1.6. Conclusions so far
  • 5.2. More data on verb movement: Elicited production with elementary and intermediate L2 learners
  • 5.2.1. Experiment 1: Sentence-medial adverbs
  • 5.2.1.1. Aim
  • 5.2.1.2. Subjects
  • 5.2.1.3. Method
  • 5.2.1.4. Results
  • 5.2.1.5. The case of 'sometimes'
  • 5.2.2. More data on verb movement: Post-verbal subjects
  • 5.2.2.1. Subjects and method
  • 5.2.2.2. Results and analysis
  • 5.3. Conclusions so far
  • 5.4. The experimental study
  • 5.4.1. Subjects
  • 5.4.2. Method
  • 5.4.2.1. The grammatically judgment task
  • 5.4.2.2. The sentence manipulation task
  • 5.4.3. Results
  • 5.4.3.1. Elementary - full transfer?
  • 5.4.3.2. Advanced learners (Ls) - parameter resetting?
  • 5.4.3.2.1. Grammaticality judgments
  • 5.4.3.2.2. Error analysis: Grammaticality judgement task
  • 5.4.3.2.3. Results from the sentence-manipulation task
  • 5.4.4. Conclusions so far
  • 5.4.5. Results: advanced learners (NLs) - parameter resetting?
  • 5.4.5.1. Grammaticality judgments
  • 5.4.5.2. Error analysis
  • 5.5. Conclusions
  • 5.6. Questions for further research
  • Appendices
  • References
  • Index