{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.022145328719723183, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.885714285714286, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
The current convergence in linguistic theory: some implications for second language acquisition research

To the outsider, generative grammar must appear to contain a bewildering variety of different frameworks for syntactic description, each with its own distinct goals, research programme and technical vocabulary. It seems fair to say that this seeming inability of theoretical linguists to get their own house in order has led many applied linguists to question whether even the most general conceptions of generative grammar have any relevance to their concerns. Despite superficial appearances, however, the differences between the major generative frameworks are relatively minor, and are steadily lessening. Indeed, a convergence is taking place among the three most important, namely, the government-binding theory, generalized phrase structure grammar, and lexical-functional grammar. In particular, all now accept two basic concepts governing grammatical processes: 'modularity' and 'locality'. According to the former, grammatical complexity results from the interaction of autonomous grammatical subsystems; according to the latter, grammatical processes are sharply constrained as to the degree of 'distance' that the elements involved may lie from each other. It will be argued that these convergences have interesting implications for those who wish to apply linguistic theory to the understanding of second language acquisition.