LET'S MAKE UP YOUR MIND

1999 ◽  
Vol 21 (4) ◽  
pp. 635-655 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bonnie D. Schwartz
Keyword(s):  
Theoretical Study ◽  
Universal Grammar ◽  
Generative Grammar ◽  
L2 Acquisition ◽  
Nonnative Language ◽  
The Mind ◽  
Language Module

This essay defends the idea that language is a unique, genetically underwritten (informationally encapsulated) “module of the mind” and considers some consequences such a stance holds for the psycholinguistic study of nonnative language (L2) acquisition. As is well known, language as conceived within the tradition of generative grammar (e.g., Chomsky, 1965, 1975, 1980, 1986) is unlike other types of cognition and its basis (viz., Universal Grammar) is innately given; this is the position I support in this paper. Specifically, I begin by summarizing the main arguments for this position, after which I discuss (following Segal, 1996) four different conceptions of what a module is and then devote particular attention to the theory developed by Fodor (1983, 1985) on the architecture of mind (his “modularity thesis”). There follows a comparison between the distinct views held by Chomsky and by Fodor on the conception of “the language module” and on the structure of mind more generally. Arguing that the two views are not inherently incompatible, I offer a speculation on how to begin to reconcile them, which leaves me well positioned to advance three specific implications for the theoretical study of L2 acquisition within the framework of generative grammar, couched within a theory of the modular mind.

Andrés Bello

1997 ◽  
Vol 24 (3) ◽  
pp. 331-348
Author(s):  
Enrique Obediente ◽  
Francesco D’Introno
Keyword(s):  
Relative Clauses ◽  
Universal Grammar ◽  
Generative Grammar ◽  
Symbolic System ◽  
Philosophical Work ◽  
Independent System ◽  
Philosophical Position ◽  
Grammatical Analysis ◽  
The Mind ◽  
Andres Bello

Summary In this article we will analyze two aspects of Andrés Bello’s (1781–1865) grammatical thought: its relation to the English empiricists and its similarity with generative grammar. His relation to the English empiricists is due to the fact that Bello spent 19 years in London, where he became familiar with the work of Locke, Berkeley, Hume and Reid. In fact his philosophical work, Filosofía del entendimiento, sounds like some of those philosophers’ essays. From the empiricists Bello derives the idea that there is no innate universal grammar with rules present in all languages, as well as his concept of language as an independent system of arbitrary and conventional signs. From Reid he derived his interpretation of the evolution of the language: signs start as ‘natural’ (i.e., they allow humans to communicate without any particular language), and then they become ‘artificial’, i.e., arbitrary and conventional, particular to each grammatical system. Because of his philosophical position, Bello has been compared to structuralist linguists. Here we will show that some of Bello’s grammatical thoughts can be compared with those of Chomsky. The reason for this is that in his grammatical analysis Bello uses concepts reminiscent of generative grammar. For example, Bello proposes the notion of an ‘latent proposition’ similar to that of ‘deep sttaicture’. And when he analyzes for example relative clauses and elliptical constructions, he uses concepts that are familiar to generative grammarians. In other words, the paper tries to show that methodologically and analytically Bello shares some concepts present in Chomsky’s linguistic theory. It also shows differences between Bello and Chomsky, and concludes by pointing out that the major difference between the two linguists is that Bello assumes language can be learned through a symbolic system, while Chomsky assumes language to be innate and independent of other cognitive systemsof the mind.

Emergent knowledge of a universal phonological principle in the L2 acquisition of vowel harmony in Turkish: A ‘four’-fold poverty of the stimulus in L2 acquisition

2016 ◽  
Vol 33 (2) ◽  
pp. 179-206 ◽  
Author(s):  
Öner Özçelik ◽  
Rex A. Sprouse
Keyword(s):  
Language Acquisition ◽  
Explicit Instruction ◽  
Universal Grammar ◽  
Vowel Harmony ◽  
Phonological Development ◽  
L2 Acquisition ◽  
Pervasive System ◽  
Nonnative Language ◽  
Nonnative Acquisition

A significant body of theoretically motivated research has addressed the role of Universal Grammar (UG) in the nonnative acquisition of morphosyntax and properties of the syntax–semantics interface, but very little research has addressed the role of phonological principles of UG in nonnative language acquisition. Turkish has a regular and pervasive system of vowel harmony for which classroom second language (L2) learners receive explicit instruction and abundant input; however, there are also cases of non-canonical vowel harmony in Turkish, for which classroom learners receive no instruction and rather little input. In this study, we show that English–Turkish L2ers come to exhibit sensitivity to the ‘No Crossing Constraint’ of UG (Goldsmith, 1976; Hammond, 1988) when calculating non-canonical vowel harmony in the context of underlyingly pre-specified non-velarized laterals (i.e. ‘light’ [l]), despite the poverty of the stimulus and potentially misleading effects of classroom instruction and standard Turkish orthography. We argue that this supports the view that nonnative phonological development is guided by (at least one principle of) UG.

Second Language Acquisition and Universal Grammar

1990 ◽  
Vol 12 (2) ◽  
pp. 121-133 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lydia White
Keyword(s):  
Second Language ◽  
Second Language Acquisition ◽  
Language Acquisition ◽  
Potential Role ◽  
Mother Tongue ◽  
Universal Grammar ◽  
First Language ◽  
Generative Grammar ◽  
L2 Acquisition

In this article, the motivation for Universal Grammar (UG), as assumed in the principles and parameters framework of generative grammar (Chomsky, 1981a, 1981b), is discussed, particular attention being paid to thelogical problemof first language acquisition. The potential role of UG in second language (L2) acquisition is then considered. Three different positions are reviewed: (a) the claim that UG is not available to L2 learners; (b) the claim that UG is fully available; and (c) the claim that the L2 learner's access to UG is mediated by the mother tongue. This raises the issue of what kind of evidence can be used to decide between these three positions. Recent experimental research which argues for one or another of these positions by investigating the L2 status of the Subjacency Principle is reviewed, and the implications of this research are discussed.

The Role of Universal Grammar in Nonnative Language Acquisition

2016 ◽  
pp. 288-304 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bonnie Schwartz ◽  
Rex Sprouse
Keyword(s):  
Language Acquisition ◽  
Universal Grammar ◽  
Target Language ◽  
L2 Acquisition ◽  
Concerted Effort ◽  
Early Language ◽  
Standard Assumption ◽  
Domain Specific ◽  
Nonnative Language

Children, at least children acquiring their native language (L1), develop grammars vastly underdetermined by the primary linguistic data available to them, converging on both obvious and subtle properties of the target language (TL), rapidly, (essentially) uniformly, and reflexively (i.e., without effort or intentional instruction). In contrast, (adult) nonnative language (L2) acquisition, even under optimal conditions of TL exposure, displays more varied outcomes, frequently with readily observable divergence from the TL, often despite concerted effort and instruction. The standard assumption in mainstream generative grammar is that (L1) children display target convergence because early language acquisition is guided and constrained by the set of innate domain-specific cognitive structures generally referred to as Universal Grammar (UG). This chapter considers conceptual issues surrounding as well as empirical evidence for and against the claim that (despite initial appearances) some or all of the principles and primes of UG likewise guide and constrain (adult) L2 acquisition.

Précis of Foundations of Language: Brain, Meaning, Grammar, Evolution,

2003 ◽  
Vol 26 (6) ◽  
pp. 651-665 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ray Jackendoff
Keyword(s):  
Cognitive Neuroscience ◽  
Universal Grammar ◽  
Parallel Architecture ◽  
Generative Grammar ◽  
Central Problem ◽  
Cognitive Sciences ◽  
Linguistic Performance ◽  
Incremental Evolution ◽  
Language Capacity ◽  
The Mind

The goal of this study is to reintegrate the theory of generative grammar into the cognitive sciences. Generative grammar was right to focus on the child's acquisition of language as its central problem, leading to the hypothesis of an innate Universal Grammar. However, generative grammar was mistaken in assuming that the syntactic component is the sole course of combinatoriality, and that everything else is “interpretive.” The proper approach is a parallel architecture, in which phonology, syntax, and semantics are autonomous generative systems linked by interface components. The parallel architecture leads to an integration within linguistics, and to a far better integration with the rest of cognitive neuroscience. It fits naturally into the larger architecture of the mind/brain and permits a properly mentalistic theory of semantics. It results in a view of linguistic performance in which the rules of grammar are directly involved in processing. Finally, it leads to a natural account of the incremental evolution of the language capacity.

Transfer and unlearning of topic prominence by Chinese learners of English

2021 ◽  
Vol 0 (0) ◽  
Author(s):  
Hui Chang ◽  
Lilong Xu
Keyword(s):  
Second Language ◽  
Universal Grammar ◽  
L2 Acquisition ◽  
L1 Transfer ◽  
Chinese Speakers ◽  
English Only ◽  
Cognitive States ◽  
Chinese Learners ◽  
Topic Constructions ◽  
Chinese Learners Of English

Abstract Chinese allows both gapped and gapless topic constructions without their usage being restricted to specific contexts, while English only allows gapped topic constructions which are used in certain contexts. In other words, Chinese uses ‘topic prominence’, whereas English does not. The contrast between English and Chinese topic constructions poses a learnability problem for Chinese learners of English. This paper uses an empirical study investigating first language (L1) transfer in the case of Chinese learners of English and the extent to which they are able to unlearn topic prominence as they progress in second language (L2) English. Results of an acceptability judgment test indicate that Chinese learners of English initially transfer Chinese topic prominence into their English, then gradually unlearn Chinese topic prominence as their English proficiency improves, and finally unlearn Chinese topic prominence successfully. The results support the Full Transfer Theory (Schwartz, Bonnie & Rex Sprouse. 1996. L2 cognitive states and the Full Transfer/Full Access model. Second Language Research 12. 40–72) and the Variational Learning Model (Yang, Charles. 2004. Universal Grammar, statistics or both? Trends in Cognitive Sciences 8. 451–456), but contradict the proposal that the topic prominence can never be transferred but may be unlearned from the beginning in Chinese speakers’ acquisition of English (Zheng, Chao. 2001. Nominal Constructions Beyond IP and Their Initial Restructuring in L2 Acquisition. Guangzhou: Guangdong University of Foreign Studies Ph.D. dissertation). In addition, the type of topic constructions that is used and whether or not a comma is added after the topic have an effect on learners’ transfer and unlearning of topic prominence. It is proposed that the specification of Agr(eement) and T(ense) as well as the presence of expletive subjects in English input can trigger the unlearning of topic prominence for Chinese learners of English.

SECOND LANGUAGE SYNTAX: A GENERATIVE INTRODUCTION. Roger Hawkins. Oxford: Blackwell, 2001. Pp. xviii + 386. $41.95 paper.

2002 ◽  
Vol 24 (3) ◽  
pp. 493-494
Author(s):  
Silvina Montrul
Keyword(s):  
Second Language ◽  
Universal Grammar ◽  
L2 Acquisition ◽  
Specific System ◽  
Modulated Structure ◽  
Present Evidence ◽  
Introductory Textbook ◽  
Syntactic Knowledge ◽  
Structure Building ◽  
L2 Development

This book is intended as an introduction both to the principles and parameters framework (Chomsky, 1981) and to the second language (L2) acquisition of syntactic representations. Hawkins's basic aim is to present evidence for the view that L2 learners progressively build subconscious mental grammars (i.e., a syntactic system) guided by Universal Grammar—an innate, language-specific system. However, this volume is not just an introductory textbook presenting and summarizing the work of other researchers in this particular field. Indeed, the book has another major aim: Within the context of the most current debates on the L2 acquisition of syntactic knowledge, Hawkins introduces his own theory of L2 development, which he terms Modulated Structure Building.

Second language acquisition: Theoretical and experimental issues in contemporary research

1996 ◽  
Vol 19 (4) ◽  
pp. 677-714 ◽  
Author(s):  
Samuel David Epstein ◽  
Suzanne Flynn ◽  
Gita Martohardjono
Keyword(s):  
Second Language ◽  
Second Language Acquisition ◽  
Universal Grammar ◽  
Functional Categories ◽  
L2 Acquisition ◽  
Psycholinguistic Research ◽  
Explanatory Theory ◽  
Parameter Values ◽  
Theoretical Issues

AbstractTo what extent, if any, does Universal Grammar (UG) constrain second language (L2) acquisition? This is not only an empirical question, but one which is currently investigable. In this context, L2 acquisition is emerging as an important new domain of psycholinguistic research. Three logical possibilities have been articulated regarding the role of UG in L2 acquisition: The first is the “no access” hypothesis that claims that no aspect of UG is available to the L2 learner. The second is the “partial access” hypothesis that claims that only LI instantiated principles and LI instantiated parameter-values of UG are available to the learner. The third, called the “full access” hypothesis, asserts that UG in its entirety constrains L2 acquisition.In this paper we argue that there is no compelling evidence to support either of the first two hypotheses. Moreover, we provide evidence concerning functional categories in L2 acquisition consistent with the claim that UG is fully available to the L2 learner (see also Flynn 1987; Li 1993; Martohardjono 1992; Schwartz & Sprouse 1991; Thomas 1991; White 1989). In addition, we will attempt to clarify some of currently unclear theoretical issues that arise with respect to positing UG as an explanatory theory of L2 acquisition. We will also investigate in some detail certain crucial methodological questions involved in experimentally testing the role of UG in L2 acquisition and finally, we will present a set of experimental results of our own supporting the “Full Access” hypothesis.

scholarly journals The Linguistic Philosophy of Noam Chomsky

2014 ◽  
pp. 103-122 ◽  
Author(s):  
Binoy Barman
Keyword(s):  
Twentieth Century ◽  
Universal Grammar ◽  
Analytic Philosophy ◽  
Generative Grammar ◽  
Philosophical Investigation ◽  
Human Being ◽  
Noam Chomsky ◽  
Human Child ◽  
Mental Exercise ◽  
Linguistic Philosophy

Noam Chomsky, one of the most famous linguists of the twentieth century, based his linguistic works on certain philosophical doctrines. His main contribution to linguistics is Transformational Generative Grammar, which is founded on mentalist philosophy. He opposes the behaviourist psychology in favour of innatism for explaining the acquisition of language. He claims that it becomes possible for human child to learn a language for the linguistic faculty with which the child is born, and that the use of language for an adult is mostly a mental exercise. His ideas brought about a revolution in linguistics, dubbed as Chomskyan Revolution. According to him, the part of language which is innate to human being would be called Universal Grammar. His philosophy holds a strong propensity to rationalism in search of a cognitive foundation. His theory is a continuation of analytic philosophy, which puts language in the centre of philosophical investigation. He would also be identified as an essentialist. This paper considers various aspects of Chomsky’s linguistic philosophy with necessary elaborations.DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3329/pp.v51i1-2.17681

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document