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 HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Jansen, L. M. Search for Related Content Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

Second language acquisition: from theory to data

Australian National University, Canberra

Clahsen's (1988) and Clahsen and Muysken's (1989) claim that subject–verb agreement and verb-second are unrelated in the acquisition of German second language acquisition (SLA) has met a number of counterpositions; for example: Pienemann and Johnston (1987) and Pienemann (1988; 1998), Jordens (1988), Eubank (1992; 1994) and Vainikka and Young-Scholten (1994; 1996). The conflicting claims source essentially the same data. The presentation and analysis of these data is scrutinized and a number of inconsistencies and methodological questions are identified. The paper argues that, when it comes to underpinning theoretical claims, more rigour in data description should be exercised.

Second Language Research, Vol. 16, No. 1, 27-43 (2000)
DOI: 10.1191/026765800671563747


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

This article has been cited by other articles:

				G. Pallotti An Operational Definition of the Emergence Criterion Applied Linguistics, September 1, 2007; 28(3): 361 - 382. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				W. Rutherford and M. Thomas The Child Language Data Exchange System in research on second language acquisition Second Language Research, April 1, 2001; 17(2): 195 - 212. [PDF]