UG or not UG, that is the question: a reply to Clahsen and Muysken

1987 ◽  
Vol 3 (1) ◽  
pp. 56-75 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jean duPlessis ◽  
Doreen Solin ◽  
Lisa Travis ◽  
Lydia White
Keyword(s):  
Adult Learners ◽  
Learning Strategies ◽  
Word Order ◽  
Ad Hoc ◽  
Additional Data ◽  
Universal Grammar ◽  
L2 Acquisition ◽  
Natural Languages ◽  
German Word ◽  
Germanic Languages

In a recent paper, Clahsen and Muysken (1986) argue that adult second lan guage (L2) learners no longer have access to Universal Grammar (UG) and acquire the L2 by means of learning strategies and ad hoc rules. They use evidence from adult L2 acquisition of German word order to argue that the rules that adults use are not natural language rules. In this paper, we argue that this is not the case. We explain properties of Germanic word order in terms of three parameters (to do with head position, proper government and adjunc tion). We reanalyse Clahsen and Muysken's data in terms of these parameters and show that the stages that adult learners go through, the errors that they make and the rules that they adopt are perfectly consistent with a UG incor porating such parameters. We suggest that errors are the result of some of the parameters being set inappropriately for German. The settings chosen are nevertheless those of existing natural languages. We also discuss additional data, from our own research on the acquisition of German and Afrikaans, which support our analysis of adult L2 acquisition of Germanic languages.

The acquisition of word order in Dutch and German as L1 and L2

1988 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
pp. 41-65 ◽  
Author(s):  
Peter Jordens
Keyword(s):  
Simple Model ◽  
Adult Learners ◽  
Word Order ◽  
Universal Grammar ◽  
First Language ◽  
Linguistic Theory ◽  
L2 Acquisition ◽  
German Word ◽  
L2 Learners ◽  
L1 And L2

In a recent paper, Clahsen and Muysken (1986) argue that children acquiring German as their first language have access to the 'move alpha' matrix when constructing a grammar for German. This should explain why children have SOV base order and the rule of verb-fronting from the very beginning. In this paper, it is argued that children's OV utterances cannot be related trans formationally to VO utterances. Initially, children acquire OV and VO with different sets of verbs.Clahsen and Muysken (1986) also claim that interlanguage rules of adult L2 learners are not definable in linguistic theory. Du Plessis et al. (1987) reply to this in arguing that the interlanguage rules of adults acquiring L2 German word order fall within the range of systems permitted by the Headedness parameter, the Proper Government parameter, and the Adjunction parameter. Therefore, these adult learners should have access to Universal Grammar (UG). It is argued here that it is not necessary to make this assumption. The L2-acquisition data can be easily accounted for within a simple model of L1-structural transfer.

The availability of universal grammar to adult and child learners - a study of the acquisition of German word order

1986 ◽  
Vol 2 (2) ◽  
pp. 93-119 ◽  
Author(s):  
Harald Clahsen ◽  
Pieter Muysken
Keyword(s):  
Second Language ◽  
Learning Strategies ◽  
Word Order ◽  
Universal Grammar ◽  
First Language ◽  
German Word ◽  
In The Beginning

Children learning German as their first language grasp its verb-final character from the very beginning. Adults learning German as a second language tend to assume in the beginning that it has a subject-verb-object order, and modify this hypothesis only gradually. We argue that this difference is due to the fact that children have access to the 'move alpha' matrix when learning the language, allowing them to make more abstract hypotheses, while adults can only rely on general learning strategies.

scholarly journals The role of case marking and word order in cross-linguistic structural priming in late L2 acquisition

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Merel Muylle ◽  
Bernolet Sarah ◽  
Robert Hartsuiker
Keyword(s):  
Word Order ◽  
Language Variation ◽  
Structural Priming ◽  
Artificial Language ◽  
L2 Acquisition ◽  
Learning Paradigm ◽  
Natural Languages ◽  
Case Marking

Several studies found cross-linguistic structural priming with various language combinations. Here, we investigated the role of two important domains of language variation: case marking and word order. We varied these features in an artificial language (AL) learning paradigm, using three different AL versions in a between-subjects design. Priming was assessed between Dutch (no case marking, SVO word order) and a) a baseline version with SVO word order, b) a case marking version, and c) a version with SOV word order. Similar within- language and cross-linguistic priming was found in all versions for transitive sentences, indicating that cross-linguistic structural priming was not hindered. In contrast, for ditransitive sentences we found similar within-language priming for all versions, but no cross-linguistic priming. The finding that cross-linguistic priming is possible between languages that vary in morphological marking or word order, is compatible with studies showing cross-linguistic priming between natural languages that differ on these dimensions.

Are Classroom and Naturalistic Acquisition the Same?

1989 ◽  
Vol 11 (3) ◽  
pp. 305-328 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rod Ellis
Keyword(s):  
Language Learners ◽  
Word Order ◽  
L2 Acquisition ◽  
Language Pedagogy ◽  
German Word ◽  
Information Gap ◽  
Study Support

This article reports a study of the classroom acquisition of German word order rules by adult, successful language learners. Data elicited by an information-gap task performed by 39 learners of L2 Germanat two points in time are used to describe the sequence of acquisition of three obligatory word order rules. A comparison of this sequencewith that reported for naturalistic learners of German revealed no difference, despite the fact that the order in which the rules were introduced and the degree of emphasis given to the rules in the instruction differed from the naturalistic order. The classroom learners, however, did appear to be more successful than the naturalistic learnersin that they reached higher levels of acquisition in a shorter period of time. The results of this study support the claim that the classroom and naturalistic L2 acquisition of complex grammatical features such as word order follow similar routes. They also suggest that classroom learners may learn more rapidly. These findings are discussed with reference to both theories of L2 acquisition and language pedagogy.

Article use in L2 English by L1 Russian and L1 German speakers

2014 ◽  
Vol 33 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Manuela Schönenberger
Keyword(s):  
Adult Learners ◽  
Empirical Study ◽  
Basic Assumption ◽  
Universal Grammar ◽  
Systematic Errors ◽  
L2 Acquisition ◽  
Russian Speakers ◽  
University Level ◽  
Influential Theory ◽  
Clear Support

AbstractArticle misuse and omission are common errors in article use in L2 English. A particularly influential theory concerned with article misuse is that of Ionin (2003a, 2003b), whose basic assumption is that, in L2 acquisition, adult learners still have access to Universal Grammar. Central to her theory is the concept of the Article-Choice Parameter, which is set to either definiteness or specificity in article-based languages. According to Ionin’s Fluctuation Hypothesis, speakers of a language without articles fluctuate between the two settings of this parameter and produce systematic errors in article choice. Speakers of an L1 with articles have been shown to transfer the parameter value from their L1 to L2 English. This paper tests the predictions made by Ionin’s account, based on data from an empirical study with a group of German speakers and two groups of Russian speakers. One of the Russian groups had studied English for a longer period of time, and at university level, and also had knowledge of another L2 with articles besides English. The results from this study do not provide clear support for Ionin’s account. The German group rarely misused articles, as predicted, but only one of the Russian groups showed fluctuation. The Russian group with fewer years of English study and generally no knowledge of another L2 with articles showed variable patterns of article misuse and also often omitted articles. An explanation of why the two Russian groups differed is proposed.

Evidence for parameter-sensitive acquisition : a contribution to the domain-specific versus central processes debate

1990 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
pp. 39-59 ◽  
Author(s):  
Helmut Zobl
Keyword(s):  
Adult Learners ◽  
English Language ◽  
Universal Grammar ◽  
Parameter Setting ◽  
L2 Acquisition ◽  
Specific System ◽  
Language Faculty ◽  
Central Processing ◽  
Domain Specific ◽  
Acquisition Task

Much current work on L2 acquisition is defined by the hypothesis that adult learners embark on the acquisition task with a language faculty whose structure is significantly less modular that than of the L1learner. The domain-specific system, which has available to it the principles and conditions of Universal Grammar, has been replaced by content-neutral, central processes and the learner's L1as the principal means by which an L2 can be internalized. An important corollary of this hypothesis is that acquisition will be piecemeal and will not evidence the effects associated with parameter setting.In this paper we attempt to demonstrate that adult L2 acquisition is module - and parameter-sensitive. The focus of the inquiry falls on the acquisition of the principle of structural government and the English language value of the agreement parameter by Japanese-speaking learners. Although the data supporting the claim come primarily from production, their analyses furnish compelling evidence that central processing, as it is currently understood, cannot account for the way attributes of these parametric choices cohere together.

Language, innateness of

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Fiona Cowie
Keyword(s):  
Language Acquisition ◽  
Learning Strategies ◽  
Universal Grammar ◽  
Science Research ◽  
Structural Features ◽  
Natural Languages ◽  
Domain Specific ◽  
American Philosophy ◽  
Noam Chomsky ◽  
Anglo American

Is there any innate knowledge? What is it to speak and understand a language? These are old questions, but it was the twentieth-century linguist, Noam Chomsky, who forged a connection between them, arguing that mastery of a language is, in part, a matter of knowing its grammar, and that much of our knowledge of grammar is inborn. Rejecting the empiricism that had dominated Anglo-American philosophy, psychology and linguistics for the first half of this century, Chomsky argued that the task of learning a language is so difficult, and the linguistic evidence available to the learner so meagre, that language acquisition would be impossible unless some of the knowledge eventually attained were innate. He proposed that learners bring to their task knowledge of a ‘Universal Grammar’, describing structural features common to all natural languages, and that it is this knowledge that enables us to master our native tongues. Chomsky’s position is nativist because it proposes that the inborn knowledge facilitating learning is domain-specific. On an empiricist view, our innate ability to learn from experience (for example, to form associations among ideas) applies equally in any task domain. On the nativist view, by contrast, we are equipped with special-purpose learning strategies, each suited to its own peculiar subject-matter. Chomsky’s nativism spurred a flurry of interest as theorists leaped to explore its conceptual and empirical implications. As a consequence of his work, language acquisition is today a major focus of cognitive science research.

The UG paradox in L2 acquisition

1989 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-29 ◽  
Author(s):  
Harald Clahsen ◽  
Pieter Muysken
Keyword(s):  
Second Language ◽  
Word Order ◽  
Universal Grammar ◽  
First Language ◽  
Target Language ◽  
L2 Acquisition ◽  
L2 Learners ◽  
L1 And L2

There is a considerable amount of recent evidence that stable principles of Universal Grammar (UG) are available to adult second language (L2) learners in structuring their intuitions about the target language grammar. In contrast, however, there is also evidence from the acquisition of word order, agreement and negation in German that there are substantial differences between first language (L1) and L2 learners. In our view, these differences are due to UG principles guiding L1, but not L2 acquisition. We will show that alternative ways of accounting for the L1/L2 differences are not successful. Finally we will deal with the question of how our view can be reconciled with the idea that L2 learners can use UG principles to some extent in the evaluation of target sentences.

‘I me Mine’ The Acquisition of Dutch Pronominal Possessives by L1 Children, L2 Children and L2 Adults

2008 ◽  
Vol 155 ◽  
pp. 23-52
Author(s):  
Elma Nap-Kolhoff ◽  
Peter Broeder
Keyword(s):  
Adult Learners ◽  
Young Children ◽  
First Language ◽  
Spontaneous Speech ◽  
L2 Acquisition ◽  
Possessive Constructions ◽  
Speech Data ◽  
L2 Learners ◽  
Dutch Language ◽  
L1 Acquisition

Abstract This study compares pronominal possessive constructions in Dutch first language (L1) acquisition, second language (L2) acquisition by young children, and untutored L2 acquisition by adults. The L2 learners all have Turkish as L1. In longitudinal spontaneous speech data for four L1 learners, seven child L2 learners, and two adult learners, remarkable differences and similarities between the three learner groups were found. In some respects, the child L2 learners develop in a way that is similar to child L1 learners, for instance in the kind of overgeneralisations that they make. However, the child L2 learners also behave like adult L2 learners; i.e., in the pace of the acquisition process, the frequency and persistence of non-target constructions, and the difficulty in acquiring reduced pronouns. The similarities between the child and adult L2 learners are remarkable, because the child L2 learners were only two years old when they started learning Dutch. L2 acquisition before the age of three is often considered to be similar to L1 acquisition. The findings might be attributable to the relatively small amount of Dutch language input the L2 children received.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document