Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Verb Movement in Generative SLA and the Teaching of Word Order Patterns

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Universal Grammar and the Second Language Classroom

Part of the book series: Educational Linguistics ((EDUL,volume 16))

Abstract

This chapter looks at basic word order, providing an overview of generative accounts of differences in word order between German, French, and English. It reviews GenSLA studies that investigate English word order in learners with German-type or French-type first languages and that show how the word order properties from one’s native language can lead to difficulties in acquisition in the second language. On this basis, it is argued that word order is an area which should be explicitly taught and advocates development of grammatical enquiry skills in learners, through a grammaring approach to teaching.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Given that verb movement has been the subject of much theorizing in the history of the generative enterprise, the presentation of the syntax of verb movement here is necessarily rather simplified. The original formulations and analyses of verb movement in the languages considered here are due to Pollock (1989) and den Besten (1983). More detailed consideration of a range of issues can be found in Lightfoot and Hornstein (1994).

  2. 2.

    This is a somewhat simplified picture in order to concentrate on the pertinent points. The derivation of the surface subject position is not represented, and the representation of adverbs and negation in syntax may be subject to various alternative analyses.

  3. 3.

    This is one of a number of competing models of the relative roles of UG and the L1 in L2 development (see White 2003: Ch. 3). Most of these, in common with FT/FA, assume access to UG but propose differences with regard to the extent of L1 influence.

  4. 4.

    Scrambling is subject to a range of syntactic, semantic, and pragmatic constraints. It would go far beyond the scope of this chapter to deal with it any detail. For more detail on scrambling in German, see Haider (2010: Ch. 4).

  5. 5.

    Another methodological caveat is in order as the measure of complexity used is acknowledged to be just one of a range of possible measures, which may have yielded different results (Spada and Tomita 2010: 289).

  6. 6.

    Lardiere (2009) notes that the broad parameter resetting approaches tested in such early studies did not meet with success, indicating the need to reevaluate how parameters are conceptualized.

  7. 7.

    At least some of the studies covered by Norris and Ortega (2000) held posttests up to 48 weeks after instruction and therefore can be considered to be comparable with the research by White and colleagues.

  8. 8.

    There are obviously wider issues surrounding when, how, and to whom grammaring should be introduced (refer to Larsen-Freeman 2003: 150–154). On general issues of when to employ grammar instruction, Celce-Murcia (1991) provides useful guidelines.

  9. 9.

    Celce-Murcia and Larsen-Freeman (1998) discuss an extensive range of grammatical properties of English based on the grammaring approach of interaction of form, meaning, and use. They discuss adverbials (Ch. 25) and focus and emphasis (Ch. 30), which provide a number of points that may be helpful in addressing nontarget verb movement and V2 properties in L2 English. However, they are obviously aimed at a more general audience and deal with factors that are not directly relevant for present purposes.

  10. 10.

    SVAO does of course occur in heavy NP shift in English as in (i). This could be analyzed, perhaps with advanced students, in terms of the constraints on this marked order.

    1. (i) 

      I answered honestly all the questions posed to me by the lawyer.

  11. 11.

    The nature of the constructions considered here means that they are likely more appropriate for quite advanced learners. The distribution of be could be supplemented by discussion of locative or stylistic inversion. This would lend itself to hypothesis formation in terms of the sort of verbs which may invert and the contexts where inversion is possible and/or necessary. This would, however, probably only be appropriate for very advanced learners.

References

  • Ayoun, D. 2003. Parameter-setting in language acquisition. London: Continuum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ayoun, D. 2005. Verb movement in Spanish: “Mixed languages” and bilingualism. In Proceedings of the 4th international symposium on bilingualism, ed. J. Cohen, K.T. McAlister, K. Rolstad, and J. MacSwan, 143–162. Somerville: Cascadilla Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bohnacker, U. 2006. When Swedes begin to learn German: From V2 to V2. Second Language Research 22(4): 443–486.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bohnacker, U. 2007. On the ‘vulnerability’ of syntactic domains in Swedish and German. Language Acquisition 14(1): 31–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Celce-Murcia, M. 1991. Grammar pedagogy in second and foreign language teaching. TESOL Quarterly 25(3): 459–480.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Celce-Murcia, M., and D. Larsen-Freeman. 1998. The grammar book. An ESL/EFL teacher’s course. Boston: Heinle & Heinle.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chu, W., and B. Schwartz. 2005. Another look at ‘verb raising’ in the L2 English of Chinese speakers. In Proceedings of the 7th Generative Approaches to Second Language Acquisition Conference GASLA 2004, ed. L. Dekydtspotter et al., 66–85. Sommerville: Cascadilla.

    Google Scholar 

  • Delfitto, D. 2005. Adverb classes and adverb placement. In The Blackwell companion to syntax, vol. 1, ed. M. Everaert and H. van Riemsdijk, 83–120. Malden: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • den Besten, H. 1983. On the interaction of root transformations and lexical deletive rules. In On the formal syntax of the Westgermania, ed. W. Abraham, 47–131. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ellis, R. 2002. Does form-focused instruction affect the acquisition of implicit knowledge? Studies in Second Language Acquisition 24: 223–236.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ellis, N.C. 2005. At the interface: Dynamic interactions of explicit and implicit language knowledge. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 27: 305–352.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ellis, R. 2006. Current issues in the teaching of grammar: An SLA perspective. TESOL Quarterly 40(1): 83–107.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eubank, L., J. Bischof, A. Huffstutler, P. Leek, and C. West. 1997. ‘Tom eats slowly cooked eggs’: Thematic verb raising in L2 knowledge. Language Acquisition 6: 171–199.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grüter, T. 2006. Another take on the L2 initial state: Evidence from comprehension in L2 German. Language Acquisition 13(4): 287–317.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haider, H. 2010. The syntax of German. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Hawkins, R., R. Towell, and N. Bazergui. 1993. Universal Grammar and the acquisition of French verb movement by native speakers of English. Second Language Research 9(3): 189–233.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Herschensohn, J. 1998. Minimally raising the verb issue. In Proceedings of the 22nd annual Boston University conference on language development, ed. A. Greenhill, M. Hughes, H. Littlefield, and H. Walsh, 325–336. Somerville: Cascadilla Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krashen, S., and T. Terrell. 1983. The natural approach: Language acquisition in the classroom. Oxford: Pergamon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lardiere, D. 2009. Further thoughts on parameters and features in second language acquisition: A reply to peer comments. Second Language Research 25(3): 409–422.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Larsen-Freeman, D. 1991. Teaching grammar. In Teaching English as a second or foreign language, 3rd ed, ed. M. Celcia-Murcia, 279–296. Boston: Heinle & Heinle.

    Google Scholar 

  • Larsen-Freeman, D. 2003. Teaching language. From grammar to grammaring. Boston: Heinle & Heinle.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lightfoot, D., and N. Hornstein. 1994. Verb movement: An introduction. In Verb movement, ed. D. Lightfoot and N. Hornstein, 1–18. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • MacWhinney, B. 1997. Implicit and explicit processes – Commentary. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 9(2): 277–281.

    Google Scholar 

  • Norris, J., and L. Ortega. 2000. Effectiveness of L2 instruction: A research synthesis and quantitative meta-analysis. Language Learning 50(3): 417–528.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pollock, J.-Y. 1989. Verb movement, UG and the structure of IP. Linguistic Inquiry 20: 365–424.

    Google Scholar 

  • Robertson, D., and A. Sorace. 1999. Losing the V2 constraint. In The development of second language grammars: A generative approach, ed. E. Klein and G. Martohardjono, 317–361. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwartz, B., and M. Gubala-Ryzak. 1992. Learnability and grammar reorganization in L2A: Against negative evidence causing the unlearning of verb movement. Second Language Research 8: 1–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schwartz, B., and R. Sprouse. 1994. Word order and nominative case in nonnative language acquisition: A longitudinal study of L1 Turkish-L2 German interlanguage. In Language acquisition studies in generative grammar, ed. T. Hoekstra and B. Schwartz, 317–368. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwartz, B., and R. Sprouse. 1996. L2 cognitive states and the Full Transfer/Full Access model. Second Language Research 12(1): 40–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spada, N., and Y. Tomita. 2010. Interactions between type of instruction and type of language feature: A meta-analysis. Language Learning 60(2): 263–308.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Swan, M. 2006. Does grammar teaching work? Modern English Teacher 15(2): 5–13.

    Google Scholar 

  • Trahey, M., and L. White. 1993. Positive evidence and preemption in the second language classroom. Second Language Research 12: 111–139.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Westergaard, Marit. 2003. Unlearning V2: Transfer, markedness and the importance of input cues in the acquisition of word order in English by Norwegian children. In EUROSLA yearbook, vol. 3, ed. S.H. Foster-Cohen and S. Pekarek Doehler, 77–101. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

    Google Scholar 

  • White, L. 1990/1991. The verb-movement parameter in second language acquisition. Language Acquisition 1: 337–360.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • White, L. 1991. Adverb placement in second language acquisition: Some effects of positive and negative evidence in the classroom. Second Language Research 7: 133–161.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • White, Lydia. 1992. Long and short verb movement in second language acquisition. Canadian Journal of Linguistics 37: 273–286.

    Google Scholar 

  • White, Lydia. 2003. Second language acquisition and universal grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • White, L., N. Spada, P. Lightbrown, and L. Ranta. 1991. Input enhancement and L2 question formation. Applied Linguistics 12(4): 416–432.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yuan, B. 2001. The status of thematic verbs in the second language acquisition of Chinese: Against inevitability of thematic-verb raising in second language acquisition. Second Language Research 17: 248–272.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zobl, H. 1995. Converging evidence for the ‘acquisition-learning’ distinction. Applied Linguistics 16(1): 35–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of English Business Communication, Vienna University of Economics and Business, Vienna, Austria

    Tom Rankin

Authors
  1. Tom Rankin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Tom Rankin .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. , Dept. of Linguistics & Phonetics, University of Leeds, Woodhouse Lane, Leeds, LS2 9JT, United Kingdom

    Melinda Whong

  2. , School of English Lit, Lang & Ling, University of Sheffield, Jessop West, 1 Upper Hanover St.,, Sheffield, S3 7RA, United Kingdom

    Kook-Hee Gil

  3. , Dept. of Lang & Ling Science, University of York, Heslington, York, YO10 5DD, United Kingdom

    Heather Marsden

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2013 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Rankin, T. (2013). Verb Movement in Generative SLA and the Teaching of Word Order Patterns. In: Whong, M., Gil, KH., Marsden, H. (eds) Universal Grammar and the Second Language Classroom. Educational Linguistics, vol 16. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-6362-3_4

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation