-
Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis
A systematic comparison between the source and target languages show areas of ease and difficulty in acquisition. -
Chomsky's review of Skinner's Verbal Behaviour
Chomsky shows the problems of a behaviourist account of language acquisition. The fall of Behaviourism greatly affects the view of transfer as a feature of SLA, since Contrastive Analysis was strongly associated to Behaviourism. -
Creative Construction
Dulay & Burt (1974) find a common L2 accuracy order in the acquisition of a number of grammatical morphemes in Chinese and Spanish speaking children. Other studies followed (Baily, Madden & Krashen 1974). Studies attempted to show a resemblance between their results and those obtained by Brown (1973) for First Language Acquisition. Universal mechanisms proposed were taken as strong evidence for lack of influence from the first language. -
Transfer does not equal Behaviourism
Other researchers keep on showing the effects of the first language on the acquisition process. The field starts to accep the idea that transfer and universal mechanisms are not mutually exclusive (Andersen, Lightbown, Schumann, Sharwood Smith). -
UG or not UG?
With the theory of Universal Grammar dominating the field, a group of researchers set out to show that the principles of UG apply to SLA (Flynn, White, Liceras). -
The L2 initial state
The debate about whether Universal Grammar is available to second language learners or not starts to be replaced by more specific questions: What sub-components of UG are available to the learner at the outset of the acquisition process? What is the role of the first languageUG settings? -
Partial Transfer Hypothesis
The No Parameter Resetting Hypothesis proposes that learners only have access to UG through their L1. Principles and parameters different from those of their L1 are not available to them and the existing ones cannot be reset (Schachter). The Modulated Structure Building Hypothesis argues that learners start with lexical projections and that functional features transfer at a later stage, which cannot be reset in the second language (Hawkins). -
Full Access / Impared Transfer Hypothesis
Vainikka & Young-Scholten's Minimal Trees Hypotehsis states that only lexical categories, transferred from L1, are projected at the beginning. Eubank's Valueless Features Hypothesis states that both lexical and functional categories transfer from L1 but functional categories lack tense and agreement values. -
Full Access / Full Transfer Hypothesis
According to this view, learners do have access to UG but they transfer all the parameter-settings from their L1 in an initial state and later revise and accommodate their hypotehses based on the input (Schwartz &Sprouse 1996). -
Full Access / No Transfer Hypothesis
Flynn (1996) argues that UG is available to second language learners and that, since learners can instantiate principles not available in their first languages, acquisition is not mediated by L1. -
No Access Hypothesis
Meisel (1997) suggests that SLL cannot access one of UG's fundamental principle - structure-dependency. Therefore he claims that UG is not available to SLL. -
Constructionism
Constructionism proposes that SLL make use of an array of resources, which include a limited set of parameters, L1 transfer, input and intake to construct the second language (Herschensohn).
