Anna Vainikka

Anne Vainikka is a linguist specialising in the syntax of second language acquisition (SLA). She is most notable within linguistics and SLA for developing the Minimal Trees Hypothesis with Martha Young-Scholten,[1] an "important theory,"[2] where 'tree' is a metaphor of syntax for the branching structure showing how words of a phrase or sentence co-relate.[3] The hypothesis concerns what aspects of a language learner's first language (L1) is carried over into the grammar of their second language (L2), in addition to mechanisms of universal grammar that allow new acquisition to take place.

Whereas many researchers lean towards a 'Full Transfer' view in which all the L1 grammar transfers[4] - i.e. the initial state of the L2 is the final state of the first - Young-Scholten and Vainikka have argued that only lexical categories (e.g. the noun phrase) are drawn from the L1, and that functional categories (e.g. the inflectional phrase that represents tense) do not; rather, the learner 'grows' new ones because they start their L2 acquisition with only a 'minimal' syntactic tree.

Several competing accounts for the role of transfer and universal grammar persist in SLA; the Minimal Trees Hypothesis remains particularly controversial, and has been strongly critiqued in syntactic research on both empirical and conceptual grounds: some researchers argue that linguistic behaviour does not follow the model,[5] and others claim that it is theoretically misconceived.[6] For example, the idea that a component of language could be absent from the initial stage, so that the system selectively extracts only one part of the L1, is unacceptable to those who favour 'Full Transfer' rather than 'Partial Transfer'.[7]

See also

References

  1. Vainikka & Young-Scholten (1994; 1996; 1998).
  2. Slabakova, Roumyana (2001). Telicity in the second language. John Benjamins. p. 16. ISBN 978-90-272-2494-1.
  3. Vainikka & Young-Scholten (2003).
  4. Unsworth, Parodi, Sorace & Young-Scholten (2005).
  5. e.g. White (1991), for French.
  6. White (2003: 68-78), for review; Schwartz & Sprouse (1994); Schwartz (1998).
  7. Schwartz & Sprouse (1996).

Bibliography

This article is issued from Wikipedia - version of the Wednesday, April 27, 2016. The text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution/Share Alike but additional terms may apply for the media files.