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 Schwartz, B. D.
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?

The epistemological status of second language acquisition

Bonnie D. Schwartz

University of Southern California

In this paper I argue for the necessity of recognizing the epistemological basis of language (and hence of linguistic theory) for research in and theories of second language acquisition. In particular, I review the arguments for a generative approach to linguistic theory (e.g. Chomsky, 1965, 1975, 1981) and for why language as a system of knowledge must be distinct from other sorts of know ledge (Fodor, 1983), with the purpose of clarifying many misconceptions that seem to have arisen with respect to the work in generative grammar over the last 20 years. After doing this I argue that the null hypothesis for second language acquisition is, as concerns its mental representation of linguistic knowledge, that its epistemological status should be assumed to be the same as that of L 1 until proven otherwise. I then demonstrate how SLA theory (e.g. Krashen, 1981) can be elucidated by subsuming (parts of) L2 under linguistic theory with its firm epistemological basis, and how, in particular, one could empirically test Krashen's theory as well as any other theory of SLA that assumes L 1 and L2 to be epistemologically equivalent. In addition I discuss the need for researchers to consider the special epistemological status of linguistic knowledge before prescribing L2 pedagogy. In sum this is a paper that takes a step back into the philosophical debate concerning the mental status of language in general in order for us to be able to take a step forward in second language research in particular.

Second Language Research, Vol. 2, No. 2, 120-159 (1986)
DOI: 10.1177/026765838600200202


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
International Journal of BilingualismHome page
J. Rothman
Knowledge of A/A'-dependencies on subject extraction with two types of infinitives in non-native Portuguese adult bilingualism
International Journal of Bilingualism, March 1, 2009; 13(1): 111 - 140.
[Abstract] [PDF]


Home page
Language TestingHome page
R. DeKeyser
Towards a valid measurement of monitored knowledge
Language Testing, December 1, 1990; 7(2): 147 - 157.
[Abstract] [PDF]