Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
Second Language Research
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Papp, S.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

Stable and developmental optionality in native and non-native Hungarian grammars

Szilvia Papp

University of Edinburgh

The existence of optionality is well attested in natural languages. It can be defined as the coexistence of two variants of a given construction with identical Logical Form (LF) representations within the same grammatical system. The existence of optionality within both stable (native and non-native) and developing grammars seems to contradict the fundamental claim of the Minimalist Program (MP). In the MP, syntactic optionality is excluded within the computational system because of economy principles which require an ‘optimal realization of interface conditions' (Chomsky, 1995: 171).As a result, movement is possible only if it is necessary. Movement which is possible but not necessary (i.e., truly optional) is not permitted. Thus, at the level of competence, optionality may occur precisely because neither alternative qualifies as a unique optimal realization of interface conditions.

This article presents evidence from the grammaticality intuitions of native speakers and English-speaking second language (L2) learners of Hungarian about optional and categorical constructions. It is argued that while often observed, stable native optionality is highly restricted and difficult to capture. This might be due to the fact that developmental L1 optionality disappears when the input that children receive is sufficient and/or sufficiently robust. Where the input is not sufficient, optionality lingers on, creating fuzzy grammars and borderline cases in grammaticality. However, such stable native optionality may eventually be resolved by categorization (one alternative is expunged from the grammar) or by semantic differentiation (leading to quasi-optionality).

While stable native optionality is unpredictable, developmental optionality is relatively predictable in both early and end-state non-native grammars. The nature of early L2 optionality depends on the characteristics of the initial state. Advanced and end-state non-native optionality persists only if the target language input is non-robust or parametrically ambiguous. Therefore the resolution of optionality at ultimate attainment depends not only on the L2 initial state but also on the intrinsic nature of the primary linguistic data that the learners are exposed to. It is well known that the evidence L2 learners receive is qualitatively different from that obtained by first language (L1) acquirers, and quantitatively limited compared to it. This, in conjunction with the hypotheses created initially, may lead to non-native-like representations that are nonoptimal realizations of the interface conditions. In the face of non-robust and parametrically ambiguous data, L2 learners are either found to fall back on L1 values or resort to general learning strategies, thus ultimately exhibiting divergent representations in end-state grammars.

Second Language Research, Vol. 16, No. 2, 173-200 (2000)
DOI: 10.1191/026765800666966395


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


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
Second Language ResearchHome page
C. Lozano
Focus and split-intransitivity: the acquisition of word order alternations in non-native Spanish
Second Language Research, April 1, 2006; 22(2): 145 - 187.
[Abstract] [PDF]


Home page
Second Language ResearchHome page
H. Hopp
Constraining second language word order optionality: scrambling in advanced English-German and Japanese-German interlanguage
Second Language Research, January 1, 2005; 21(1): 34 - 71.
[Abstract] [PDF]


Home page
Second Language ResearchHome page
T. J. Hertel
Lexical and discourse factors in the second language acquisition of Spanish word order
Second Language Research, October 1, 2003; 19(4): 273 - 304.
[Abstract] [PDF]


Home page
Second Language ResearchHome page
D. Douglas
Performance consistency in second language acquisition and language testing research: a conceptual gap
Second Language Research, October 1, 2001; 17(4): 442 - 456.
[Abstract] [PDF]