Chapter 1 the study of collocations

particular noun phrase proceeds along an implicational order.  For example, 
sentences with NP in subject position are predicted to relativise easier than 
sentences with NP in direct object position.  Keenan and Comrie suggest that 
the Accessibility Hierarchy could be considered as an acceptability ordering 
within each language and used for the explanation of syntactic processes in 
learners' interlanguage.  A number of studies have used the Accessibility 
Hierarchy for testing predictions concerning ease or difficulty of acquisition.  
Gass (1979) and Gass and Ard (1980) tested relative clause formation in English 
by learners from different L1 backgrounds.  The results indicate that learners 
followed the constraints of the Accessibility hierarchy in their English 
regardless of their L1 background.  All learners found it easier to relativise 
sentences with NP in subject position than sentences with NP in direct object 
position. 
 
Markedness was also examined as a factor affecting L2 acquisition in the 
Principles and Parameters approach (White 1989).  Although there are a 
number of definitions of markedness, most of them consider the structures 
which are exceptions to linguistic generalisations, or which are of low 
 
179

---

frequency across the world's languages, or which are very complex (White 
1989:117).  Markedness has been used to make predictions about L1 and L2 
acquisition.  It has been claimed that developmental sequences of language 
structures based on the criterion of markedness can predict ease or difficulty of 
acquisition of specific language structures.  For example, it was shown that 
learners acquire unmarked forms, i.e. the unmarked dative prepositional 
phrase complement (e.g. Mary gave the book to John), before marked forms, i.e. 
marked double noun phrase constructions (e.g. Mary gave John the book) 
(Mazurkewich 1984).  The limitations of the markedness theory in predicting 
developmental sequences of L2 acquisition are reported by White (1987).  In an 
investigation of the value of markedness as a predictor of L1 transferability, 
White (1987) concludes that even though markedness can affect acquisition, it is 
not a clear predictor of what L2 learners will or will not transfer from L1. 
 
The above studies provide evidence that there are stages of L2 learner 
development which are sequenced in a predictable order and which can be 
identified and described with a certain degree of accuracy. What is also evident 
from the studies reviewed so far is that grammar (in the form of syntax, word-
order or morphology) has been the central issue in L2 acquisition research.  In 
contrast, phonology and vocabulary have not been investigated to the same 
extent that grammar has (Tarone, Swain & Fathman, 1976).  Other limitations 
reported by Tarone et al. are the undeveloped methodology for data collection 
and data analysis (the limitations of data collection instruments such as the 
 
180

---

BSM have been noted by a number of researchers), and finally the limited 
number of replicated studies in L2 acquisition. 
 
The focus on form rather than function is another limitation in the 
interlanguage studies (Long & Sato 1984). Long and Sato also argue that more 
research is needed in "a broader array of morphosyntactic features, e.g. 
complex syntactic structures, and for lexical choice" (Long & Sato 1984:279).   
 
In the next sections of this chapter a representative selection of studies in 
phonology and vocabulary acquisition are reviewed.