A Theory of Language Acquisition Is Not so Easy

The first part of this commentary discusses the minimal requirements that any serious theory of language acquisition must meet. It must take into account the particular properties of the human language processor and the (linguistic and nonlinguistic) input, as well as the specific motivation which causes the learner to apply the former to the latter. Neglecting, or even not keeping constant, some of these factors leads to a very distorted picture of the nature of language acquisition. In particular, claims about the difference between first (L1) and second language (L2) acquisition that ignore major variation in one of these components go astray. In the second part, the articles of White, Clahsen, Gasser, and Tomlin are discussed. If it is true that Universal Grammar plays no role in L2 acquisition, then, contrary to the claims made by those working in both areas, it can't play any role in L2 research, and thus L2 acquisition should look elsewhere for an appropriate theory. Connectionism, as suggested by Gasser, might be a place to look. At present, however, it is too unconstrained and more a descriptive language than a theory. Much in the spirit of Tomlin, it is argued that functions can indeed explain essential features of the acquisitional process. It is shown that the acquisition of the subject pronoun (and other referential devices) is essentially governed by functional rather than syntactical properties.