7.pdf


Preview of PDF document 7.pdf

Page 12335

Text preview


519017
research-article2013

SLR30110.1177/0267658313519017

Article

Multiple Grammars and Second
Language Representation

second
language
research
Second Language Research
2014, Vol. 30(1) 3–36
© The Author(s) 2013
Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0267658313519017
slr.sagepub.com

Luiz Amaral and Tom Roeper
University of Massachusetts Amherst

Abstract
Move2 This paper presents an extension of the Multiple Grammars Theory (Roeper, 1999) to provide a
step1 formal mechanism that can serve as a generative-based alternative to current descriptive models
of interlanguage. The theory extends historical work by Kroch and Taylor (1997), and has been

Move1 taken into a computational direction by Yang (2003). The proposal is based on the idea that any
step2 human grammar readily accommodates sets of rules in sub-grammars that can seem (apparently)
contradictory. We discuss the rationale behind this proposal and establish a dialogue with recent

Move3 research in SLA, multilingualism, L3 acquisition, and L2 processing. We compare the Multiple
step1 Grammars explanation to optionality in L2 to other current proposals, and provide experimental
results that can demonstrate the existence of active sub-grammars in the linguistic representation
of L2 speakers.

Keywords
Multiple Grammars, Interlanguage, Universal Bilingualism, Second Language Acquisition, UG.

Introduction
Multiple Grammars (MG) is a theory of representation and acquisition that was originally proposed by Roeper (1999) to explain how idiosyncratic, incompatible rules could
co-exist in adult monolingual grammars, and how they played a role in child first language acquisition. The extension of a model that was also called Universal Bilingualism
to describe the interlanguage representation in adult second language learners, and bilinguals in general, seems to be an obvious next step, although the consequences of this
extension are not necessarily trivial.
Different from traditional learnability theory, MG does not presuppose that new input
requires the speaker to change a rule in the grammar in a way that either information is
Corresponding author:
Luiz Amaral, University of Massachusetts Amherst, 300 Massachusetts Avenue, Amherst, MA 01003, United
States.
Email: amaral@spanport.umass.edu