Which One of Chomsky’s Binding Theory and the Coargument-based Binding Theory: L2 Learner’s Choice

The ultimate goal of this paper is to provide a detailed analysis of L2 learners’ acquisition of binding. It is worth noting that the L2 learners seem to support Chomsky’s binding theory and the coargunment-based binding, but they preferred Chomsky’s binding theory to the coargument-based binding theory. In the case of local binding, 75% of the L2 learners entertained Chomsky’s binding theory, whereas in the case of LD-binding, 60% of the L2 learners entertained the coargument-based binding theory. Chomsky’s binding Theory consists of local binding and LD-binding. These are accounted for by the c-command condition and the governing category. The coargument-based binding theory is accounted for by the assumption that binding principle A applies between the coarguments of a predicate. In this paper, we carried out two surveys with respect to the two hypotheses. A pretest was performed without providing information about the two hypotheses. A posttest was performed after providing the two hypotheses. After this, we considered the SD and t-value. This paper argues that our t-value (2.036) is larger than 1.96, which in turn suggests that this t-value shows a meaningful difference between the pretest and posttest. This paper also argues that local binding was first acquired by the Korean learners of English, followed by LD-binding, c-command (overlapping reference), and the TSC, in that order. A major point to note is that learning difficulty arose and errors resulting from negative transfer occurred since Korean and English are not identical. A further point to note is that the L2 learners acquired less marked structures before more marked ones.