This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Hamilton, R. Search for Related Content Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

Against underdetermined reflexive binding

c/o Linguistics Program, University of South Carolina, Columbia, SC 29208, USA

Reflexive binding has for a decade now been a fruitful area of inquiry for researchers seeking to establish that adult second language (L2) learners have access to Universal Grammar (UG), in this case access to the binding conditions. For example, it has been claimed that some L2 learners of English allow English reflexives to be bound by long-distance (LD) antecedents even when such LD binding is underdetermined for these learners with respect to their first language grammar(s) and the L2 input. I present four major reasons why the data underlying this claim do not support UG access. First, there are theoretical and empirical difficulties with the Agr(eement)-based account of reflexive binding assumed by these researchers that undercut the argument for UG access from these studies. Secondly, underdetermination fails to obtain in principle due to the possibility of semantically-based logophoric binding in the relevant languages. Thirdly, there are theoretical and empirical reasons to call into question the assumption (necessary to a UG-access account) that L2 learners mistook polymorphemic English reflexives for monomorphemic reflexives. Finally, there are several methodological factors which likely inflated the rate of LD binding in many of the relevant studies, again undercutting the argument for UG access from putative underdetermination.

Second Language Research, Vol. 12, No. 4, 420-446 (1996)
DOI: 10.1177/026765839601200405


CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?