Hostname: page-component-cb9f654ff-kl2l2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-08-27T09:30:31.578Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

CHOICE OF WORDS MATTERS, BUT SO DOES SCIENTIFIC ACCURACY

REPLY TO PEER COMMENTARIES

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 July 2019

Laura Domínguez ,
Glyn Hicks  and
Roumyana Slabakova
Laura Domínguez
Affiliation:
University of Southampton
Glyn Hicks
Affiliation:
University of Southampton
Roumyana Slabakova
Affiliation:
University of Southampton and NTNU, The Norwegian University of Science and Technology
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'

Information

Type
Critical Commentary
Information
Studies in Second Language Acquisition , Volume 41 , Issue 2 , May 2019 , pp. 283 - 286
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2019 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

Footnotes

We wish to start by thanking the colleagues who have offered responses to our commentary that provide useful insight, context, and criticism. It was the express goal of our piece to start a discussion about terminology, and we are pleased to see various opinions clearly expressed and cogently argued. We aim here to address some of the issues raised in the responses, and we take the opportunity to elaborate on some of the ideas for which we originally argued.

References

REFERENCES

Otheguy, R. (2019). A commentary on terminology choice in generative acquisition research: The case of “incomplete grammars” in heritage acquisition, by Domínguez, Laura, Hicks, Glyn, and Slabakova, Roumyana. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 41, 265–268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schroeder, M. (2017). Investigating the learnability of a rogue grammar: Null subject parameter resetting in second language acquisition (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Southern Illinois University at Edwardsville.Google Scholar
Schwartz, B., & Sprouse, R. (2000). When syntactic theories evolve: Consequences for L2 acquisition research. In Archibald, J. (Ed.), Second language acquisition and linguistic theory (pp. 156–186). Oxford, UK: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Thomas, M. (1991). Do second language learners have “rogue” grammars of anaphora. In Eubank, L. (Ed.), Point counterpoint: Universal grammar in the second language (pp. 375–388). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins Publishing.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thomas, M. (1995). Acquisition of the Japanese reflexive zibun and movement of anaphors in logical form. Second Language Research, 11(3), 206–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
White, L. (2003). Second language acquisition and universal grammar. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar