Abstract
Clahsen's (1988) and Clahsen and Muysken's (1989) claim that subject–verb agreement and verb-second are unrelated in the acquisition of German second language acquisition (SLA) has met a number of counterpositions; for example: Pienemann and Johnston (1987) and Pienemann (1988; 1998), Jordens (1988), Eubank (1992; 1994) and Vainikka and Young-Scholten (1994; 1996). The conflicting claims source essentially the same data. The presentation and analysis of these data is scrutinized and a number of inconsistencies and methodological questions are identified. The paper argues that, when it comes to underpinning theoretical claims, more rigour in data description should be exercised.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 27-43 |
| Number of pages | 17 |
| Journal | Second Language Research |
| Volume | 16 |
| Issue number | 1 |
| DOIs | |
| Publication status | Published - Jan 2000 |
Fingerprint
Dive into the research topics of 'Second language acquisition: From theory to data'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.Cite this
- APA
- Author
- BIBTEX
- Harvard
- Standard
- RIS
- Vancouver