Accessibility navigation


Input type and parameter resetting: is naturalistic input necessary?

Rothman, J. and Iverson, M. (2007) Input type and parameter resetting: is naturalistic input necessary? International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 45 (4). pp. 285-319. ISSN 1613-4141

Full text not archived in this repository.

It is advisable to refer to the publisher's version if you intend to cite from this work. See Guidance on citing.

To link to this item DOI: 10.1515/IRAL.2007.013

Abstract/Summary

It has been argued that extended exposure to naturalistic input provides L2 learners with more of an opportunity to converge of target morphosyntactic competence as compared to classroom-only environments, given that the former provide more positive evidence of less salient linguistic properties than the latter (e.g., Isabelli 2004). Implicitly, the claim is that such exposure is needed to fully reset parameters. However, such a position conflicts with the notion of parameterization (cf. Rothman and Iverson 2007). In light of two types of competing generative theories of adult L2 acquisition – the No Impairment Hypothesis (e.g., Duffield and White 1999) and so-called Failed Features approaches (e.g., Beck 1998; Franceschina 2001; Hawkins and Chan 1997), we investigate the verifiability of such a claim. Thirty intermediate L2 Spanish learners were tested in regards to properties of the Null-Subject Parameter before and after study-abroad. The data suggest that (i) parameter resetting is possible and (ii) exposure to naturalistic input is not privileged.

Item Type:Article
Refereed:Yes
Divisions:No Reading authors. Back catalogue items
Faculty of Life Sciences > School of Psychology and Clinical Language Sciences > Department of Clinical Language Sciences
Faculty of Life Sciences > School of Psychology and Clinical Language Sciences > Language and Cognition
ID Code:33092
Publisher:de Gruyter

University Staff: Request a correction | Centaur Editors: Update this record

Page navigation