英语论文网

Chapter 1 Introduction

1.1 Motivation and Objectives
Since the early 1980s, within the framework of generative approach, the question concerning the roleof Universal Grammar (UG) and first language (L1) transfer in SLA hasbeen extensively debated. Several different views can be identified: Fundamental Difference Hypothesisproposed by Bley-Vroman (1990) hypothesizes that secondhttps://www.51lunwen.org/languagethesis language (L2) learners do not have access toUG and UG does not constrain interlanguage; Full Access https://www.51lunwen.org/languagethesis/(Full Transfer) Hypothesis put forward bySchwartz and Sprouse (1994, 1996) states that L2 learners transfer their L1 grammar initial state into SLA;Full Access (No Transfer) Hypothesis suggested by Flynn and Martohardjono (1994), Flynn (1996), andEpstein et al. (1996) argues that the initial state of L2 grammar is UG rather than L1. By far, researchers arestill endeavoring to find proof to back their own claims.Articles belong to the functional category, the features of which vary from language to language.Language can differ as to which functional categories are realized in the grammar. Therefore, research onSLA to date has devoted a great deal of attention to the issue whether L2 learners get access to UG in theacquisition of articles. Researchers interpret UG-based L2 article acquisition with feature-based account(Hawkins et al., 1997; Snape, 2006), the semantics account (Ionin et al., 2004), the syntax-morphology andsyntax-pragmatics mapping account (Lardiere, 2005; Snape, 2006), the prosodic transfer account (Goad &White, 2006). In spite of a great number of arguments, no consensus about the accessibility of UG in L2article acquisition has been reached.The acquisition of English articles is notoriously for being difficulty for learners of English as L2, andthere have been a substantial amount of studies demonstrating that L2-English learners whose first L1s lackarticles tend to omit or misuse articles more frequently than learners whose L1s have articles (Huebner1985; Master, 1987; Thomas 1989; Murphy, 1997; Robertson, 2000; Ionin, 2003; White, 2003; amongstmany others). Article errors committed by L2-English learners mainly include two forms: omission andsubstitution. And the latter was usually attributed to the complexity of article semantics.In UG-based L2 article acquisition studies, some researchers have pointed out that even if the L1 lacksarticles, learners will still have access to UG semantic features, such as definiteness and specificity (e.g. Ionin et al., 2004; Leung, 2005) and thus must rely on UG in redeploying these features. Among theUG-based researches concerning the acquisition of article semantics, the most influential and controversialone in recent years is Ionin et al. (2004)’s Article Choice Parameter (ACP) and Fluctuation Hypothesis(FH). Ionin (2003) and Ionin et al. (2004) analyzed definiteness and specificity as the semantic contrastsmarking two-article system and argued that article choice is governed by a binary system named ACP. Onthe basis of ACP, FH was put forward to interpret the acquisition of article semantics by L2-Englishlearners. According to FH, L2-English learners with article-less L1s background will distinguish Englisharticles either by definiteness or specificity by accessing to semantic universals through UG until sufficientinput leads them to set the correct parameter.Ionin et al. (2004) find support for their hypothesis with Russian and Kore本论文由英语论文网提供整理，提供论文代写，英语论文代写，代写论文，代写英语论文，代写留学生论文，代写英文论文，留学生论文代写相关核心关键词搜索。