ABSTRACT
The Ontogeny Phylogeny Model (OPM) is a revision of the Ontogeny Model (OM; Major, 1987d). The OM simply states that transfer 1 processes decrease over time, while developmental processes increase and then decrease (see Fig. 2.1). Although these basic claims appear to be sound, there are several problematic areas of the OM. Among them: The OM refers to L1 transfer and developmental processes, yet says nothing about the L2 component. Rather, it merely states that at early stages transfer processes predominate and developmental processes are infrequent, and at later stages both transfer and developmental processes decrease. Because the OM does not address the L2 component in IL, this could mean at the beginning stages L2 could either remain at zero or increase. During the later stages, only by implication can we infer that L2 processes must increase because L1 and developmental processes (universals) decrease and we assume L1, L2, and developmental processes must add up to 100%. Thus, the OM refers to L1 transfer and developmental processes, yet it is not explicit about the L2. Therefore, the OM does not deal with the development of the IL as a whole; rather it describes two but not all three of its components. In addition, the OM does not claim an idealized starting or ending point in IL development. We might assume that the starting point is 100% transfer and 0% developmental and the end point 0% transfer and 0% developmental, but this is not explicit in the model. Furthermore, the OM is more a model of performance than competence, as it limits its claims to substitutions and processes, rather than the nature of the IL system that allows processes to operate and to produce substitutions. Another problematic area is similarity. Although the OM claims similar phenomena are more difficult to learn than other phenomena, the model merely claims there are more transfer processes for similar phenomena but more developmental processes for phenomena that are “further apart” (p. 109); however, this statement does not imply anything about the chronological stages of development. Finally the OM makes no claims about markedness. The OPM accepts the basic claims of the OM but addresses these problematic issues.
