Universal Grammar
Universal Grammar (UG) continues the tradition which Chomsky introduced in his earlier work. Two concepts in particular have been of central importance:
(1) What needs to be accounted for in language acquisition is linguistic competence, or speaker/hearers’ underlying knowledge of language. This is distinguished from linguistic performance, or speaker- hearers’ actual use of language in specific instances.
(2) Such knowledge of language goes beyond what could be learned from the input people receive. This is the logical problem of language learning, or the poverty-of-the stimulus argument.
Chomsky and his followers have claimed since the 1950s that the nature of speaker/hearers’ competence in their native language can be accounted for only by innate knowledge that the human species is genetically endowed with. They argue that children (at least) come to the task of acquiring a specific language already possessing general knowledge of what all languages have in common, including constraints on how any natural language can be structured. This innate knowledge is in what Chomsky calls the language faculty, which is “a component of the human mind, physically represented in the brain and part of the biological endowment of the species” (Chomsky 2002 :1). What all languages have in common is Universal Grammar.
If a language faculty indeed exists, it is a potential solution to the “logical problem” because its existence would mean that children already have a rich system of linguistic knowledge which they bring to the task of L1 learning. They wouldn’t need to learn this underlying system, but only build upon it “on the basis of other inner resources activated by a limited and fragmentary linguistic experience” (Chomsky 2002 :8). In other words, while children’s acquisition of the specific language that is spoken by their parents and others in their social setting requires input in that language, the acquisition task is possible (and almost invariably successful) because of children’s built-in capacity. One of the most important issues in a UG approach to the study of SLA has been whether this innate resource is still available to individuals who are acquiring additional languages beyond the age of early childhood.
Until the late 1970s, followers of this approach assumed that the language acquisition task involves children’s induction of a system of rules for particular languages from the input they receive, guided by UG. How this could happen remained quite mysterious. (Linguistic input goes into a “black box” in the mind, something happens, and the grammatical system of a particular language comes out.) A major change in thinking about the acquisition process occurred with Chomsky’s (1981) reconceptualization of UG in a Principles and Parameters framework (often called the Government and Binding [GB] model), and with his subsequent intro duction of the Minimalist Program (1995).
Principles and Parameters
Since around 1980, the construct called Universal Grammar has been conceptualized as a set of principles which are properties of all languages in the world. Some of these principles contain parameters, or points where there is a limited choice of settings depending on which specific language is involved. Because knowledge of principles and parameters is postulated to be innate, children are assumed to be able to interpret and unconsciously analyze the input they receive and construct the appropriate L1 gram mar. This analysis and construction is considered to be strictly constrained and channeled by UG, which explains why L1 acquisition for children is relatively rapid and always successful; children never violate core principles nor do they select parametric values outside of the channel imposed by UG, even though there might be other logical possibilities.
An example of an early principle which Chomsky posited stipulates that every phrase in every language has the same elements including a Head: e.g. a noun phrase (NP) must always have a noun head (N), a verb phrase (VP) must always have a verb head (V), a prepositional or postpositional phrase (PP) must always have a preposition or postposition head (P), and so forth. The only choice, or parameter setting, that speakers have in different languages is Head Direction, or the position of the head in relation to other elements in the phrase. There are only two possible choices: head initial or head-final.
Children who are learning English L1 receive input that lets them know that English generally has a head-initial parameter setting. This is because they hear sentences with the following word order:
In contrast, children who are learning Japanese L1 receive input that lets them know that Japanese has a head-final parameter setting. They hear sentences with the following word order:
Japanese and English word orders are largely, though not entirely, a “mirror image” of one another. Children acquiring English or Japanese as their L1 need to hear only a limited amount of input to set the parameter for this principle correctly. That parameter setting then presumably guides them in producing the correct word order in an unlimited number of utterances which they have not heard before, since the general principle stipulates that all phrases in a language tend to have essentially the same structure. (Not all languages are completely consistent, however. In English and Chinese, for example, since modifiers precede the noun head, the NP is head-final, but the object NP follows the Verb.)
Other principles and parameter settings that account for variations between languages include those that determine whether or not agreement between subject and verb must be overtly expressed, and whether or not a subject must be overtly present (the “null subject” parameter). For example, English speakers must say It is raining, with a meaningless overt subject it, whereas subjects are omitted in Chinese Xia yu ‘Down rain’ and Spanish Está lloviendo ‘Is raining.’ There is no complete listing of invariant principles and principles with parametric choices in UG, and there perhaps will never be one, since proposals concerning their identity change as the theory evolves. In any case, the specification of universal principles and parameters is relevant to theoretical developments and understandings, and may have practical value in L2 teaching. But children have no use for such a list, of course, and could not understand it if one were available. Principles and parameters per se are not, cannot, and need not be learned in L1 acquisition, as they are assumed to be built into the Language Acquisition Device (LAD) we are born with. This may also partially hold true for older second language learners, though an awareness of parameter settings in an L2 may help focus perception on input and thus facilitate learning.
What is acquired in L1 acquisition is not UG itself; UG is already present at birth as part of the innate language faculty in every human being, although maturation and experience are required for the manifestation of this capacity. Child acquisition of a specific language involves a process of selecting from among the limited parametric options in UG those that match the settings which are encountered in linguistic input.
In a radical change from his earlier Transformational-Generative (TG) theory, Chomsky no longer believes that acquisition involves induction of a language-specific system of rules, based on input and guided by UG. Rather, he argues that there are just extremely general principles of UG and options to be selected. The acquisition of vocabulary has become much more important in his recent theory, because lexical items are thought to include rich specification of properties that are needed for parameter setting and other features of grammar, as well as for interpretation of semantic meaning. “Knowing” the noun foot in English, for instance, means knowing how it is pronounced and what it refers to, that it is a noun and can function as the head of an NP, and that it takes an irregular plural form; “knowing” the verb chi ‘eat’ in Chinese means knowing its pronunciation and meaning, that it is a verb and the head of a VP, and that it normally requires a direct object, often the “dummy object” fan (literally ‘rice’).
The starting point (or initial state) for child L1 acquisition is thus UG, along with innate learning principles that are also “wired in” in the language faculty of the brain. What is acquired in the process of developing a specific language is information from input (especially vocabulary) that the learner matches with UG options. The eventual product is the final state, or adult grammar (also called “stable state”). Intermediate states in development are “state L” (L 1, L 2, L 3, . . .). As summarized by Chomsky:
From this perspective, how acquisition occurs for children is “natural,” “instinctive”, and “internal to the cognitive system.” Unlike SLA, attitudes, motivation, and social context (beyond provision of the minimal input that is required) play no role. The question of why some learners are more successful than others is not considered relevant for L1 acquisition, since all native speakers in this view attain essentially the same “final state.” (This conceptualization does not take into account further development of different registers, such as hip-hop, sports reporting, or formal written English.)
UG and SLA
Three questions are of particular importance in the study of SLA from a UG perspective:
• What is the initial state in SLA?
• What is the nature of Interlanguage, and how does it change over time?
• What is the final state in SLA?
Initial state
As discussed in the section on L1 versus L2 acquisition in the previous chapter, learners already have knowledge of L1 at the point where L2 acquisition begins; they already have made all of the parametric choices that are appropriate for that L1, guided by UG. Some L1 knowledge is clearly transferred to L2, although exactly which features may transfer and to what degree appears to be dependent on the relationship of L1 and L2 (perhaps involving markedness of features similar to those discussed under Functional Typology below), the circumstances of L2 learning, and other factors. When L1 and L2 parameter settings for the same principle are the same, positive transfer from L1 to L2 is likely; when L1 and L2 parameter settings are different, negative transfer or interference might occur.
For example, I once heard one Navajo girl (who was at an early stage of English L2 acquisition) describe the location of a doll to her teacher:
The child’s phrase wagon in is a postpositional phrase with the head P in placed after wagon. This does not match the English head-first parameter setting, which requires the head in at the beginning of the phrase. The Navajo language (like Japanese) has a head-final setting, and wagon in is a direct translation of Navajo word order for tsinaab˛a˛as bi-í? ‘wagon it- in.’ The child who produced this English sentence was inappropriately transferring a parameter setting from Navajo L1 to English L2.
L2 learners may still have access to UG in the initial state of SLA as well as knowledge of L1, but there is no agreement on this. Four possibilities have been suggested (see e.g. Cook 1988):
Learners retain full access to UG as an innate guide to language acquisition, even when they are learning languages subsequent to their L1.
Learners retain partial access to UG, keeping some of its components but not others.
Learners retain indirect access to UG through knowledge that is already realized in their L1 but have no remaining direct access.
Learners retain no access to UG and must learn L2 via entirely different means than they did L1.
Nature and development of Interlanguage
Interlanguage (IL) is defined in the Principles and Parameters perspective as intermediate states of L2 development (IL 1, IL 2, IL 3, etc.), which is compatible with the notion of IL as “interim grammars” that was introduced in the 1960s and 1970s. If at least some access to UG is retained by L2 learners, then the process of IL development is in large part one of resetting parameters on the basis of input in the new language. For example, the L1 speaker of Japanese or Navajo who is learning English L2 needs to reset the Head Direction parameter from head-final to head-initial; the L1 speaker of English who is learning Japanese or Navajo needs to reset it from head initial to head-final.
Learners change the parameter setting (usually unconsciously) because the L2 input they receive does not match the L1 settings they have. If access to UG is still available, then that will limit their choices (as it does in L1) and their IL grammars will never deviate from structures that are allowed by UG. If learning principles that are part of the language faculty are also still available, then sufficient information to make these changes is available from the positive evidence they receive, i.e. the input that is provided from experiencing L2 in natural use or formal instruction. Negative evidence, including explicit correction, is often also provided to L2 learners (especially if they receive formal language instruction), and this probably plays a role in parameter resetting for older learners. (Evidence for different positions on why and how parameter resetting occurs is discussed in Gregg 1996 and White 2003.)
Constructionism, an approach to SLA which has been formulated within Chomsky’s Minimalist Program (e.g. Herschensohn 2000), considers IL development as the progressive mastery of L2 vocabulary along with the morphological features (which specify word form) that are part of lexical knowledge. While the general principles and parameters that constitute UG do not need to be learned, “morphological paradigms must gradually be added to the lexicon, just like words” (White 2003 :194). The stages and variability which characterize IL development are accounted for because of initially incomplete specification of these features in learners’ competence. While parameter setting and mastery of morphological features are linked in L1 acquisition, this approach claims that they are not necessarily linked for older learners in SLA. Failure to reach a state of full feature specification in the lexicon is seen as the primary reason that many L2 learners fossilize at an intermediate level of development without attaining near-native competence.
Of particular relevance for L2 learners and teachers is the critical role of lexical acquisition in providing information for parameter (re)setting and other aspects of grammar in a UG approach. This is in sharp contrast to the structuralist and behaviorist position which was reviewed near the beginning of this chapter, that all of the basic grammatical structures of L2 could (indeed should) be learned in conjunction with minimal vocabulary.
If access to UG or the learning principles of the language faculty are no longer available for SLA, then IL development would need to be explained as a fundamentally different learning process than that which takes place for L1. Evidence that IL does not violate the constraints of UG and that it cannot be accounted for completely by either L1 transfer or L2 input are used to argue against the no access position.
Final state
While the question of why some learners are more successful than others is not relevant for basic L1 acquisition (since all children achieve a native “final state”), the question is highly relevant for SLA. All approaches to this topic need to account for the great variability which is found in the ultimate level of attainment by L2 learners. There are several possibilities within the UG framework. These include the following:
• All learners may not have the same degree of access to UG.
• Different relationships between various L1s and L2s may result in differential transfer or interference.
• Some learners may receive qualitatively different L2 input from others.
• Some learners may be more perceptive than others of mismatches between L2 input and existing L1 parameter settings.
• Different degrees of specification for lexical features may be achieved by different learners.
Linguistic interfaces
For SLA, the most important recent development within Chomsky’s generative linguistic theory is the application of interface concepts to language learning content, processes, and outcomes. While the primary focus of UG theory and research remains on syntax, attention to linguistic interfaces greatly enhances the importance accorded different types of meaning: lexical, grammatical, semantic, and pragmatic/discourse (Slabakova 2010). This approach continues Chomsky’s early claim that the language faculty is modular (with separate components for syntax, phonology, semantics, etc.) and elaborates on his Principles and Parameters Model (1981), where the core computational system (syntax) has to relate to the output of phonological and semantic modules (Rothman and Slabakova 2011).
Lexical meaning resides in the words that are stored in our mental dictionaries. When we learn an additional language, some of the words that we acquire are equivalent in meaning to words that we know in our L1, but many are not translation equivalents. We saw in our discussion of Contrastive Analysis, for instance, that the scope of meaning for the English word leg covers the scope of three different words in Spanish: pierna ‘leg of humans’; pata ‘leg of animals or furniture’; etapa ‘leg of a race or trip’.
Grammatical meaning is often carried by inflectional morphology, including information about number, gender, tense, and aspect. The form cats, for instance, includes the lexical meaning of cat plus the grammatical marking of “plural.” Interpreting the meaning of even this small word requires processing a lexical-morphological interface.
Semantic meaning at the phrase and sentence levels requires processing the combined lexical and grammatical meanings of all the words in a phrase or sentence plus their order, which is a syntax-semantics inter face.
Pragmatic/discourse meaning adds consideration of context and real-world knowledge, and may be accounted for as a syntax-pragmatic/ discourse interface.
While some aspects of these interfaces may be universal and not require learning, others show clear differences between L1 and L2. These may be a significant source of transfer between languages as well as contributors to incomplete second language learning (i.e. fossilization). Lexical and grammatical meaning present the greatest challenges in multilingual acquisition because those modules capture language variation. Phrase- and sentence-level semantics often requires some resetting of parameters in L2, but choices are very limited, and principles are common to all languages. At the semantics-pragmatics/ discourse interface, L2 learners also transfer universal properties. “It follows that in order to acquire meaning in an L2, the learner has to go through the inflectional morphology, and hence, morphology is the bottleneck of acquisition . . . Phrasal and linguistic pragmatic meaning comes for free!” (Slabakova 2010 :244). (Also see overviews by White 2009, 2011 and Rothman and Slabakova 2011). In spite of the greatly enhanced attention to meaning, there are other issues in SLA that are still not addressed, or are not addressed satisfactorily, by a UG approach which has an essentially internal focus on the mental organization of the learner. We now turn to consider some major alternative views.
الاكثر قراءة في Linguistics fields
اخر الاخبار
اخبار العتبة العباسية المقدسة
