Functional categories and acquisition orders
Abstract
We analyzed some earlier studies of English L1 and L2 morpheme orders, basing our analysis on current functional categories theory. Our analysis meets two long-standing charges against morpheme order data; namely, that the heterogeneity of the morphemes does not yield up any insights into L2 acquisition and that the English language-based orders lack generalizability. We suggest that the salient differences between the L1 and the L2 orders reduce to a number of simple contrasts. These involve (a) the category-specific emergence of functional categories in L1 versus their cross-category development in L2; (b) an L2 ordering hinging crucially on the lexical head versus inflectional head distinction in L2 and its absence in L1; (c) the at least coequal, or possibly even spearheading, role that inflections play vis-à-vis free functional categories in L1 versus the earlier and independent emergence of the latter in L2; and (d) the apparently greater difficulty that affix-movement poses for L2 learners.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Children tend to have more difficulties with inflectional morphemes than lexical morphemes.
“children tend to have more difficulties with inflectional morphemes than lexical morphemes (e.g., Zobl and Liceras, 1994).”
From The roles of L1 transfer, L2 exposure, and morphological salience in bilingual children's L2 English morphological development (2025) · cites this paper as Zobl and Liceras, 1994
A free morpheme is typically acquired before a bound morpheme.
“According to the Functional Category Theory, a lexical morpheme is typically acquired earlier than a functional morpheme, and a free morpheme is typically acquired before a bound morpheme.”
From The roles of L1 transfer, L2 exposure, and morphological salience in bilingual children's L2 English morphological development (2025) · cites this paper as Zobl and Liceras (1994)
A lexical morpheme is typically acquired earlier than a functional morpheme.
“According to the Functional Category Theory, a lexical morpheme is typically acquired earlier than a functional morpheme, and a free morpheme is typically acquired before a bound morpheme.”
From The roles of L1 transfer, L2 exposure, and morphological salience in bilingual children's L2 English morphological development (2025) · cites this paper as Zobl and Liceras (1994)
Zobl and Liceras (1994) proposed that the acquisition order of functors/morphemes can be explained by grouping morphemes into categories based on their syntactic roles.
“Zobl and Liceras (1994) suggest that the acquisition order of functors/morphemes can be explained by grouping morphemes into categories based on their syntactic roles.”
From The roles of L1 transfer, L2 exposure, and morphological salience in bilingual children's L2 English morphological development (2025) · cites this paper as Zobl and Liceras (1994)
According to Zobl and Liceras's theory, free lexical morphemes are acquired before bound functional ones.
“According to their theory, free lexical morphemes are acquired before bound functional ones.”
From The roles of L1 transfer, L2 exposure, and morphological salience in bilingual children's L2 English morphological development (2025) · cites this paper as Zobl and Liceras (1994)
The results regarding syntactic category seem to be in line with the prediction by the Functional Category Theory (Zobl and Liceras, 1994).
“Furthermore, the results regarding the syntactic category seem to in line with the prediction by the Functional Category Theory (Zobl and Liceras, 1994).”
From The roles of L1 transfer, L2 exposure, and morphological salience in bilingual children's L2 English morphological development (2025) · cites this paper as Zobl and Liceras, 1994
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Sequencing in SLA: Phonological Memory, Chunking, and Points of Order
Ellis, N. C. (1996) · Studies in Second Language Acquisition · doi:10.1017/s0272263100014698 · Cited by 837 · see citing works
Gradual development of L2 phrase structure
Vainikka, A., & Young-Scholten, M. (1996) · Second Language Research · doi:10.1177/026765839601200102 · Cited by 528 · see citing works
Wang, X., McMillen, S., & Shi, Y. (2025) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2025.1566442 · Cited by 3 · see citing works
“Zobl and Liceras (1994) suggest that the acquisition order of functors/morphemes can be explained by grouping morphemes into categories based on their syntactic roles.”
Influential
- Authors
- Zobl, H., & Liceras, J.
- Affiliations
- Carleton University (CA)
- University of Ottawa (CA)
- Corresponding author
- Liceras, Juana
- ORCID
- Liceras, Juana
- Venue
- Language Learning
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 1994-03
- Volume
- 44
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 159-180
- ISSN
- 0023-8333 (ISSN-L)
- 1467-9922
- OpenAlex
- W2026460174
- Cited by
- 143
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 6 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 10 · 2013: 3 · 2012: 5
- FWCI
- 19.51
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Language Learning (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Language and Linguistics › Syntax, Semantics, Linguistic Variation
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Language and Linguistics › EFL/ESL Teaching and Learning
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Second Language Acquisition and Learning
- Keywords
- morpheme order, functional categories, second language acquisition, morphological development
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
