This paper identifies and examines a generally unnoticed convergence between a model of (adult) second language acquisition (Schwartz & Sprouse’s 1994, 1996 Full Transfer/Full Access, FT/FA) and an  influential model of creole genesis (Lefebvre’s 1998 Relexification Hypothesis, RH), both framed within generative grammar. It is shown that both FT/FA and RH make virtually identical claims about the initial state of adult grammatical development in the general case. In other words, Schwartz & Sprouse’s full transfer and Lefebvre’s relexification are complementary conceptualizations of the same basic phenomenon. To the extent that one of these hypotheses finds empirical support, the other hypothesis does as well.
Subsequent to the initial state, “canonical” second language development and creole development exhibit striking differences. This paper argues that these differences arise not from divergent underlying mechanisms, but rather from the quality and quantity of “target language” input: In creole genesis, this input is extremely limited, and the “target language” serves primarily as the source for the relexification process alone. In more typical second language acquisition (particularly, in tutored acquisition), the input is robust and persistent, and it is typically the case that morphosyntactic parameters are reset. This is because the resetting of morphosyntactic parameters results from failure-driven development, which is possible only if sufficient input is available.
The paper will also comment on differences between two scholarly communities: second language acquisition scholars and creole scholars.
It is suggested that the historicist emphasis of creole studies and the cognitive emphasis of second language studies obscure potentially valuable insights across the two subfields and urged that scholars in each community become better acquainted with the controversies and findings of the other.