LINGUISTICS AND LANGUAGE LEARNING:

THE UNIVERSAL GRAMMAR APPROACH

Theories in SLA Course (ELT 612)

Faculty of Education

Department of English Language Teaching

Cyprus International University

Spring Semester / 2015

Presented by

Farhad M. Rajab (20145018)

NOAM CHOMSKY

1960S

- If children learn language by

conditioning and imitation, why

do they say things they have

never heard before?

- Why make adults completely

novel sentences?

INTRODUCTION

The topic concentrates on:

1. The individual theoretical perspectives on SLL in general.

2. Universal Grammar by Noam Chomsky and other

followers over the last few decades.

3. Arguments from the first language Acquisition.

4. What does UG consist of?

5. Empirical evidence and hypotheses

6. Criticism of UG

DEALING WITH THE TOPIC SUCH QUESTIONS ARE

RAISED:

1. Can language be acquired without an innate

grammar?

2. Does universality imply innateness ?

3. Is language really uniquely human ?

4. How UG has been applied to the study of language

acquisition?

WHAT EXACTLY IS UG?

Universal grammar is usually defined as the “system of categories,

mechanisms and constraints shared by all human languages and considered

to be innate”.

These are generally thought to include formal universals (e.g. principles and

parameters) as well as substantive universals (e.g. lexical categories and

features).

Universal grammar is defined by Chomsky as

A. “the system of principles, conditions, and rules that are elements or

properties of all human languages. . . The essence of human language”

(Chomsky, 1978).

B. “ an intricate and highly constrained structure” consisting of “various

sub- systems of principles” (146).

ARGUMENTS FOR UG

Over the years, a number of arguments have been put

forward in support of this hypothesis. These include the

following:

1. LANGUAGE UNIVERSALS: (All) human languages share certain

properties.

2. CONVERGENCE: Children are exposed to different input

yet converge on the same grammar.

3. POVERTY OF THE STIMULUS: Children acquire knowledge for

which there is no evidence in the input.

4. NO NEGATIVE EVIDENCE: Children know which structures are

ungrammatical and do not acquire over general grammars in spite of the

fact that they are not exposed to negative evidence.

5. SPECIES SPECIFICITY: We are the only species that has language.

6. EASE AND SPEED OF CHILD LANGUAGE ACQUISITION: Children

learn language quickly and effortlessly, on minimal exposure.

7. UNIFORMITY: All children acquiring language go through the same

stages in the same order.

Aims of linguistic research:

Linguistic theory is not primarily concerned with SLA.

It aims :

-to describe the mental representations of language that are stored in the human mind.

-- What all human language have in common , and distinctive characteristics that make human language different from other system of communication.

-- to specify in what way individual human languages can differ from another.

its main goals as defined by Chomsky (1986) are to answer three basic questions about human language:

1. What constitutes Knowledge of language?

2. How is knowledge of language acquired?

3. How is knowledge of language put to use?

WHAT IS A LINGUISTIC THEORY

Universal Grammar is therefore a proper theory as it

explains the underlying linguistic knowledge in second

language learners’ mind.

Linguistic Theory

Explanatory Adequacy

( Explain why they are that

way)

Descriptive Adequacy

( to characterize what

human languages are like)

According to Noam Chomsky, UG focuses to answer three

basic questions about human language:

1. What constitutes Knowledge of language?

2. How is knowledge of language acquired?

3. How is knowledge of language put to use?

1. What constitutes Knowledge of language?

The UG approach claims that all human beings inherit a universal set of principles and parameters that control the shape human languages.

It provides a detailed descriptive framework which enables researchers to formulate well-defined hypotheses about the task facing the learner and analyzed in more focused manner.

Chomsky proposed principles are unvarying and apply to all natural languages, in contrast, Parameters possess a limited number of open values which characterize differences between languages.

But recently he argues that the core of human language is the lexicon which can be characterized as:

Lexical Categories and Functional Categories.

2. HOW IS KNOWLEDGE OF LANGUAGE ACQUIRED?

Chomsky first resorted to the concept of UG because he believes that children could not learn their first language so quickly and effortlessly without the help of an innate language faculty to guide them.

Children create a mental representation of language which not only goes beyond the input they are exposing but similar to that of other native speakers of the same language variety and this achieves at an age when they have difficulty grasping abstract concepts. Yet language is probably the most abstract piece of knowledge they will ever possess.

Moreover, learners of SLA are cognitively mature, therefore, they are resourceful to solve their problems and deal with abstract concepts.

But from a theoretical point of view many scenarios are

controversy around all these issues which are open to consider:

-- SLA is one example of a natural language so its constrained by

UG in the same way as native grammars are.

-- UG is impaired or does not constrain SL grammars (impaired)

and learners have to resort to general learning mechanisms,

that’s grammars do not necessarily conform to the general rules

underlying natural human languages.

--Others believe that the only principles and parameters

instantiated in the learners’ 1st language will be available and

that parameter resetting is impossible.

-

3. HOW IS KNOWLEDGE OF LANGUAGE PUT TO USE?

UG is concerned with knowledge of language that’s with the

abstract mental representation of language and the

computational mechanisms associated with it, which all

human possess called competence not performance.

A complete theory has also to define how we access our

knowledge base , and how it relates to a number of

sociolinguistic and psycholinguistic variables.

THE ARGUMENTS THAT SUPPORT THE EXISTENCE OF AN INNATE

LANGUAGE FACULTY IN CHILDREN ARE:

Stages are similar across children but there is a variety in

rate

Developmental Stages

These stages are similar across

languages

The language of child is rule governed and

systematic

Processing capacity limits the numbers of

rules that apply at any one time

Are resistant to correction

But this evidence could not conclude by many universalists because there must be a specific language module in the brain, and child language does not seem to be linked in a clear way to intelligence.

Steinberg (1993) states that ‘many famous people including Einstein, are reputed to have been slow to talk’. That means language is not linked to intelligence.

In support that language is not linked to intelligence. Bellugi et al. (1993) studied children suffering from Williams’ syndrome, a rare metabolic disorder that causes heart defects, mental retardation and distinctive facial appearance, the results show that these children show dissociation between language development and the kind of supposed cognitive prerequisite that Piaget and others argue that are necessary for language development

In 1995 both Smith and Tsimpli studied the case of brain –damaged man in details as he is unable to look for himself but can read, write, and communicate in any of 15-20 languages.

- Another evidence is found just the opposite that children who are cognitively normal but whose language is impaired known as SLI that’s language being deficient in specific ways .

Not only language seems to be largely separate from other cognitive aspects but also it separates from other cognitive faculties, for example the injuries in the brain have different symptoms depend on the location of the injury.

To explain why language in children just seems to

“grow” in the same way as teeth develop and start walking?

Aitchon presents Lenneberg’s criteria called The Biological

Foundations of Language as a list of six features:

The behavior emerges before its necessary

Its appearance is not the result of a conscious decision

Direct teaching and intensive practice have relatively little

effect

There is a regular

sequence of ‘milestones’ as

the behavior develops

its emergence is not triggered by

external evidence

There may be a critical period

for the acquisition of the behavior

WHAT DOES UG CONSIST OF?

UG approach claims that there is a universal set of principles

and parameters that control the shape of human language.

Government and Biding Theory

Language

Parameters :

possess a limited

number of open

values

Principles:

unvarying and

applicable to all

natural

languages

CONTINUING:

- A principle of UG is a statement that is true for all human

languages.

For example:

The principle of structure dependency.

- A parameter must be set according to the requirements of

the language being acquired.

For example:

The null subject parameter.

- The structure – dependency :

-Asserts that knowledge of language relies on the structural relationship

in the sentence such as words and morphemes rather than on the

sequence of words. To understand this sentences consist of phrases

structural grouping of words, sentences have phrase structure.

-For example: The child drew an elephant.

-NP: The child ,

-VP: drew and elephant ,

-VP further breaks up into a V: drew and NP: an elephant.

-These phrases can also break up into smaller constituents :

-NP: The child ……. Det. The , and N: Child

-NP: an elephant …. Det. An , and N: elephant.

In fact all the languages in the world are structured of phrase such as NP as the main or central element (the head) of this phrase is a noun or pronoun and sentences are made up of at least a NP or VP which in turn may optionally contain other phrases or even whole sentences.

The knowledge that languages are structure-dependent is a crucial aspect of all human languages that has many implications it’s a principle of UG which explains many of the operations we routinely perform in the language.

Ex.

Your cat is friendly

Is your cat friendly

We change the basic order of the sentence (SVO) because its not based on the linear order of the sentence but is structure - dependent.

Major aspect of the principle of structure dependency

-Movements in the sentence is not just a matter of recognizing phrases

and then of moving them around but of moving the right element in the

right phrase.

-Structure dependency can therefore be put forward as a universal

principle of language, so whenever elements of the sentence are

moved to form passive, question, or whatever such movement takes

account of the structural relationships of the sentence rather than the

linear order of the words. All known formal operations in the grammar

of English or of any other language are structure-dependent

-- Cook and Newson ( 1996) put it “ Movement in the sentence is not just a matter of recognizing phrases and then of moving the right element in the right phrase: movement depends on the structure of the sentence”

--Both lexical and functional categories form part of UG endowment , and do not have to be learnt. The child selects from on the basis of the input, as not all languages will necessary make use of all categories or their features.

-According to White ( 2003)

1. languages can differ as to which functional categories are realized in the grammar. ( Japanese lacks the category Det.)

2. Functional category features vary from one language to another. ( French has a gender feature while English does not).

3. Features are varied in strength. Infl features are strong in French and weak in English.

-

Parameters ( Paramedic)

According to White:

-Languages can differ as to which functional categories

are realized in the grammar.

-For ex. Japanese lacks the category of Det.

-The feature of a particular functional category can vary

from language to language.

-For ex. French has a gender feature while English doesn’t

.

-Features are said to vary in strength: a feature can be

strong in one language and weak in another.

-For ex. Inflections are strong in French and weak in

English.

Binary Parameters :

- Head first & head last

Head parameters determine the relative positioning of heads

with respect to their complements.

Ex. English is a head –first language because the head

appears before and Japanese is a head – last language as

the complement precedes the head.

- From an acquisitioned point of view children equipped with

UG do not need to discover that language is structured into

phrases and this principle forms a blueprint in mind, so they

know that all phrases in the language they are learning are

going to be ordered in relation to the head.

Governing Category Parameter:

It can be exemplified by the precise relationship between

reflexives and their non-phrase antecedents.

Ex. Mark wanted Tom to treat himself.

Here ( himself) can only refer to Tom, not to Mark as the

reflexive must be bound with a local domain in English. In

other languages that allow long binding such as Chinese,

himself can either refer to Tom or Mark.

Paramedics regarding to a functional category inflection

features associated with functional categories can be either

weak or strong with implications for syntactic properties of

that language. ( Fig.3.1 , p.69) (illustrates the parametric

variation for a functional category in English and French.)

-

-- Inf. In English is weak, while its strong in French.

-- In English verb remains as VP. In French the verb has to

rise to the I position to pick up tense and agreement within

an inflectional phrase.

--According to Chomsky, a language is not then a system of

rules but a set of specifications for parameters in a variant

system of principles of universal grammar.

Hypothesis about Parameters Resetting:

Children in early stages only have access to lexical categories

and lack functional categories.

Some contradictory facts about SLA process:

Learners do not seem to produce wild grammars, that is grammar

can only be constrained by UG. Does that suggest that only

principles of UG are available for them?

Learners produce grammar that are not necessarily like either

their first or second language. Does that suggest that parameter

settings other than those realize in this first and second languages

are available to them?

Some principles and parameters seem to be unproblematic to

reset , other more difficult or even impossible . Why?

Hypothesis 1: No access to UG

- proponents of this hypothesis argue that there is a critical

period for SLA and after puberty UG is no longer available to

SLLs.

-A study with immigrant children, age of arrivals, and

grammatical properties were examined.

-Results: the ones before seven performed native-like while

other made more errors.

-Opponents: it does not mean that adults grammars are not

universal grammar - constrained.

Hypothesis 2: Full access to UG

1. Full access / no transfer: Flynn (1996) claims that there is

no such thing as a critical period. UG is accessible at initial

stages of learning and parameter setting is done directly to

L2 values.

L2 acquisition is similar to L1 as learners can acquire

principles and parameter settings which do not exist in their

L1.

Research1: English speakers of Japanese can successfully

reset the head direction parameters ( from head-last to head

–first)

Research 2: Japanese could project subjancency principle

Wh-movement in English. (Flynn)

2. Full transfer/ Full access:

Proponents of this hypothesis believe that SLLs have full

access to UG principles and parameters whether or not they

are present in the learner’s 1st language.

In this view, 2nd language learners are thought to transfer all

the parameter settings from their first language in an initial

stage and revise their hypothesis when 2nd language fails to

conform these settings.

3. Full access/ impaired early representations:

The supporters of this hypothesis believe that learners can

reset parameters to 2nd language values , but initially

learners are lacking functional categories.

(1996 -98) Minimal trees approach: at initial stages only

lexical categories are projected and functional categories

develop later.

(1996) Valueless features: both lexical and functional

categories are transferred from L1 but functional categories

lack values such as tense, agreement and so on.

Hypothesis 3: Partial access

- No Parameter Resetting : Proponents of this hypothesis

claim that learners have only access to UG via their 1st

language. They have already set parameters of their 1st

language and this the basis for L2. other principles and

parameters are not available to them they have to resort

other mechanism for different parameter settings.

A- Universal Grammar - Native language knowledge

-B. Domain- specific learning - General problem-solving systems

-processes

-( Bley – Vroman, 1989)

Child Language

DevelopmentAdult Foreign Language

Learning

Research : English learners of Korean speakers failed to

recognize ‘Wh- Movement’ in English as there is no Wh-

movement in Korean so the subjancency principle is

presumably not operative.

Schatcher accepts that UG may be available for child

second language learners, but argues there is a critical

period that she calls as ( the window of opportunity)

Child second language learners pass through different

windows for different modules of the target language.

Impaired functional features: second language grammars are Universal Grammar- constrained, but that not all parameter settings will be available . SLLs will therefore try to accommodate the SL grammar within the settings they already have.

Modulated structure building: Hawkins & Chan argue that learners start with minimal trees that are lexical projections . Functional developments develop later. They argue that learners reanalyze the input to make it fit their first language setting.

Constructionism: it proposes that L2er uses a coalition of resources to construct 2nd language vocabulary and grammar; UG template, 1st language transfer, primary linguistic data, input and intake, instructional bootstrapping.

Criticism of UG Theory:

-Linguistically, this approach is concern only with syntax.

-Semantics, pragmatics and discourse are excluded.

-UG is concerned exclusively with the developmental linguistic route. Social and psychological variables are ignored.

-UG approach is methodological. The theory is preoccupied with modeling of competence, the study of naturalistic performance is not seen as a suitable source to analyze mental representation of language.

Thank you