| Beginning with Ritchie (1978), no less than 20 studies have probed the issue of Universal Grammar (UG) access by adult second language (L2) learners. In a majority of these studies the results pointed toward UG accessibility. Schachter (1989a, 1990) found it to be otherwise. While these studies are extensively cited, as well as reviewed in some detail as to the principle(s) tested and the implications of their outcomes, a closer look reveals weaknesses that greatly diminish their meaningfulness. These weaknesses are discussed in detail in this paper, providing a justification for the improvements in the design and execution of the research conducted here.;This study was based primarily on work by Schachter (1989a, 1990). Unlike that study and others, however, participants' proficiency levels were rigorously controlled via a standardized criterion that also renders the study replicable, and the balanced empirical design made possible the application of statistical procedures that compare the means, not only for overall performance but for individual syntactical domains as well, between and within groups, while avoiding Type I errors. In addition, the items were presented via a computer program, insuring that each individual was presented with a unique random sequence of exemplars. It also enabled decision times to be recorded. Participants indicated their level of confidence for each response on a 7-point Likert scale.;L2 learners whose first language (L1) backgrounds (i.e., German/Dutch and Indonesian) display the principle of Subjacency, and who are at an advanced level of proficiency, were compared as a group in their performance to a group of L1 speakers of the target language on a 66-item grammaticality judgment test probing UG access via wh-fronting. L2 learners whose L1 backgrounds (i.e., Chinese and Korean) do not display the principle of Subjacency, and who are at an advanced level of proficiency, also were compared. The results were contrary to Schachter's findings. Advanced adult learners whose L1s were of the non-wh-fronted variety were able to perform with comparable accuracy to L1 English speakers, so that they appear to have UG access. Decision times and confidence ratings yielded little insight, since no consistent patterns emerged that could be interpreted logically. |
