IN DEFENSE OF PARAMETER-SETTING IN L2 ACQUISITION - A REPLY

Bley‐Vroman and Chaudron (BV/C) (1990) challenge the theoretical and empirical validity of the results in Flynn (1983, 1987) and propose an alternative explanation of the reported results. In doing so, BV/C attempt to impugn the role of Universal Grammar (UG), particularly Parameter (P)‐setting, in L2 acquisition. In this paper, we demonstrate that BV/C's remarks are based on (1) failure to consider the theoretical and logical basis of the research paradigm they challenge; (2) simplistic interpretation of the parameter‐setting paradigm in UG, and (3) false assumptions regarding the statistical method, Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA). In addition, (4) the putative “more plausible interpretation” they propose is not theoretically viable, is based on false assumptions regarding the empirical facts of language processing, and is inconsistent with precise analyses of the data that it is attempting to explain. Therefore, it in no way provides an alternative explanation for the results of Flynn's empirical studies. Thus, of the two accounts, only the P‐setting explanation remains as a viable explanation. © 1990 Language Learning Research Club, University of Michigan