The scope of the Prosodic Transfer Hypothesis

References

1. Goad, H., & White, L.
   (2008) Prosodic structure and the representation of L2 functional morphology: A nativist approach. Lingua, 118(4), 577–594. 10.1016/j.lingua.2007.01.008
   https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2007.01.008 [Google Scholar]
2. Goad, H., & White, L.
   (2009) Prosodic transfer and the representation of determiners in Turkish-English interlanguage. InN. Snape, Y.-K. I. Leung, & M. Sharwood-Smith (Eds.), Representational deficits in SLA: Studies in honor of Roger Hawkins (pp.1–26). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/lald.47.04goa
   https://doi.org/10.1075/lald.47.04goa [Google Scholar]
3. Goad, H., White, L., & Steele, J.
   (2003) Missing inflection in L2 acquisition: Defective syntax or L1-constrained prosodic representations?Canadian Journal of Linguistics, 48(3/4), 243–263.
   [Google Scholar]
4. Goad, H. & White, L.
   (2019) Prosodic Effects on L2 Grammars. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism. 10.1075/lab.19043.goa
   https://doi.org/10.1075/lab.19043.goa [Google Scholar]
5. Hawkins, R., & Liszka, S.
   (2003) Locating the source of defective past tense marking in advanced L2 English speakers. InR. van Hout, A. Hulk, F. Kuiken, & R. Towell (Eds.), The interface between syntax and lexicon in second language acquisition (pp.21–44). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/lald.30.03haw
   https://doi.org/10.1075/lald.30.03haw [Google Scholar]
6. Ionin, T., Ko, H., & Wexler, K.
   (2004) Article semantics in L2 acquisition: The role of specificity. Language Acquisition, 12(1), 3–69. 10.1207/s15327817la1201_2
   https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327817la1201_2 [Google Scholar]
7. Lardiere, D.
   (1998) Case and tense in the ‘fossilized’ steady state. Second Language Research, 14(1), 1–26. 10.1191/026765898674105303
   https://doi.org/10.1191/026765898674105303 [Google Scholar]
8. Lieberman, M.
   (2013, January). The importance of comprehension to a rounded view of second language acquisition. Paper presented at the Department of Linguistics, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT. Cited inGoad, H. & White, L. 2019 Prosodic Effects on L2 Grammars. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism.
   [Google Scholar]
9. Prévost, P., & White, L.
   (2000) Missing surface inflection or impairment in second language acquisition? Evidence from tense and agreement. Second Language Research, 16(2), 103–133. 10.1191/026765800677556046
   https://doi.org/10.1191/026765800677556046 [Google Scholar]
10. Özçelik, Ö.
    (2016) The Prosodic Acquisition Path Hypothesis: Towards explaining variability in L2 acquisition of phonology. Glossa, 1(1): 28. 1–48. doi:  10.5334/gjgl.47
    https://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.47 [Google Scholar]
11. Özçelik, Ö.
    (2017) The Foot is not an obligatory constituent of the Prosodic Hierarchy: “stress” in Turkish, French and child English. The Linguistic Review, 34(1). 157–213. 10.1515/tlr‑2016‑0008
    https://doi.org/10.1515/tlr-2016-0008 [Google Scholar]
12. Özçelik, Ö.
    (2018) Universal Grammar and second language phonology: Full Transfer / Prevalent Access in the L2 acquisition of Turkish “stress” by English and French speakers. Language Acquisition, 25(3), 231–267. 10.1080/10489223.2017.1293672
    https://doi.org/10.1080/10489223.2017.1293672 [Google Scholar]
13. Sorace, A.
    (2011) Pinning down the concept of “interface” in bilingualism. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 1(1), 1–33. 10.1075/lab.1.1.01sor
    https://doi.org/10.1075/lab.1.1.01sor [Google Scholar]
14. Trenkic, D.
    (2007) Variability in L2 article production – beyond the representational deficit vs. processing constraints debate. Second Language Research, 23(3), 289–327. 10.1177/0267658307077643
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0267658307077643 [Google Scholar]