Home > Research > Publications & Outputs > Input type and parameter resetting

Links

Text available via DOI:

View graph of relations

Input type and parameter resetting: Is naturalistic input necessary?

Research output: Contribution to Journal/MagazineReview articlepeer-review

Published

Standard

Input type and parameter resetting: Is naturalistic input necessary? / Rothman, Jason; Iverson, Michael.
In: IRAL - International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, Vol. 45, No. 4, 19.12.2007, p. 285-319.

Research output: Contribution to Journal/MagazineReview articlepeer-review

Harvard

Rothman, J & Iverson, M 2007, 'Input type and parameter resetting: Is naturalistic input necessary?', IRAL - International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, vol. 45, no. 4, pp. 285-319. https://doi.org/10.1515/IRAL.2007.013

APA

Rothman, J., & Iverson, M. (2007). Input type and parameter resetting: Is naturalistic input necessary? IRAL - International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 45(4), 285-319. https://doi.org/10.1515/IRAL.2007.013

Vancouver

Rothman J, Iverson M. Input type and parameter resetting: Is naturalistic input necessary? IRAL - International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching. 2007 Dec 19;45(4):285-319. doi: 10.1515/IRAL.2007.013

Author

Rothman, Jason ; Iverson, Michael. / Input type and parameter resetting : Is naturalistic input necessary?. In: IRAL - International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching. 2007 ; Vol. 45, No. 4. pp. 285-319.

Bibtex

@article{8cac0c00ad7b4657b4b16039806f3480,
title = "Input type and parameter resetting: Is naturalistic input necessary?",
abstract = "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.",
author = "Jason Rothman and Michael Iverson",
year = "2007",
month = dec,
day = "19",
doi = "10.1515/IRAL.2007.013",
language = "English",
volume = "45",
pages = "285--319",
journal = "IRAL - International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching",
issn = "0019-042X",
publisher = "Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co. KG",
number = "4",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - Input type and parameter resetting

T2 - Is naturalistic input necessary?

AU - Rothman, Jason

AU - Iverson, Michael

PY - 2007/12/19

Y1 - 2007/12/19

N2 - 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.

AB - 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.

U2 - 10.1515/IRAL.2007.013

DO - 10.1515/IRAL.2007.013

M3 - Review article

AN - SCOPUS:37349044409

VL - 45

SP - 285

EP - 319

JO - IRAL - International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching

JF - IRAL - International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching

SN - 0019-042X

IS - 4

ER -