Give syntax a chance

2004 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
pp. 21-22
Author(s):  
DEREK BICKERTON
Keyword(s):  
Language Acquisition ◽  
Universal Grammar ◽  
The Other ◽  
Christian Theology ◽  
Holy Ghost ◽  
Acquisition Device

As an occasional visitor to the land of SLA, I found myself somewhat mystified by the approach of Truscott and Sharwood Smith (henceforth TSS). Unless I have totally misunderstood them, they are arguing against the separate existence of both a Language Acquisition Device (LAD) and a Universal Grammar (UG). But who ever thought they were two? Occasionally linguists may write about one rather than the other, but I have always assumed them to be the same thing appearing in different guises (like Christ and the Holy Ghost in Christian theology). If you have UG, why would you need LAD? Processing with the aid of UG seems the only way to go – to the extent that UG is available to SLA, an issue TSS does not directly address.

Universals, innateness and explanation in second language acquisition

2004 ◽  
Vol 28 (3) ◽  
pp. 682-703 ◽  
Author(s):  
Fred Eckman
Keyword(s):  
Second Language ◽  
Second Language Acquisition ◽  
Language Acquisition ◽  
Universal Grammar ◽  
Higher Order ◽  
The Other ◽  
Language Typology ◽  
Domain Specific ◽  
Other Hand ◽  
Typological Approach

This paper considers the question of explanation in second language acquisition within the context of two approaches to universals, Universal Grammar and language typology. After briefly discussing the logic of explaining facts by including them under general laws (Hempel & Oppenheim 1948), the paper makes a case for the typological approach to explanation being the more fruitful, in that it allows more readily for the possibility of ‘explanatory ascent’, the ability to propose more general, higher order explanations by having lower-level generalizations follow from more general principles. The UG approach, on the other hand is less capable of such explanatory ascent because of the postulation that the innate, domain-specific principles of UG are not reducible in any interesting way to higher order principles of cognition (Chomsky 1982).

Language acquisition without Universal Grammar: a general nativist proposal for L2 learning

1996 ◽  
Vol 12 (4) ◽  
pp. 374-397 ◽  
Author(s):  
William O'Grady
Keyword(s):  
Second Language ◽  
Second Language Acquisition ◽  
Language Acquisition ◽  
Universal Grammar ◽  
L2 Learning ◽  
Acquisition Device ◽  
L1 Acquisition

This article explores the prospects for a 'general nativist' theory of first and second language acquisition. A modular acquisition device that does not include Universal Grammar (UG) is outlined and its role in the emergence of an L1 is considered. The relevance of this proposal for a theory of SLA is then explored, leading to the suggestion that the properties and outcome typical of postadolescent L2 learning can be traced to the fact that adults have only partial access to the L1 acquisition device.

Universal Grammar: Hypothesis space or grammar selection procedures? Is UG affected by Critical Periods?

1998 ◽  
Vol 21 (4) ◽  
pp. 612-614
Author(s):  
Gita Martohardjono ◽  
Samuel David Epstein ◽  
Suzanne Flynn
Keyword(s):  
Second Language Acquisition ◽  
Language Acquisition ◽  
Universal Grammar ◽  
The Other ◽  
Critical Periods ◽  
L2 Acquisition ◽  
Selection Procedures ◽  
Hypothesis Space ◽  
Knowledge States ◽  
Acquisition Strategies

Universal Grammar (UG) can be interpreted as a constraint on the form of possible grammars (hypothesis space) or as a constraint on acquisition strategies (selection procedures). In this response to Herschensohn we reiterate the position outlined in Epstein et al. (1996a, r), that in the evaluation of L2 acquisition as a UG- constrained process the former (possible grammars/ knowledge states) is critical, not the latter. Selection procedures, on the other hand, are important in that they may have a bearing on development in language acquisition. We raise the possibility that differences in first and second language acquisition pertaining to both attainment of the end-state and course of development may derive from differences in selection procedures. We further suggest that for these reasons age effects in the attainment of nativelike proficiency must necessarily be separated from UG effects.

Phonology in Universal Grammar

2016 ◽  
pp. 152-182
Author(s):  
Brett Miller ◽  
Neil Myler ◽  
Bert Vaux
Keyword(s):  
Language Acquisition ◽  
Recent Literature ◽  
Universal Grammar ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Computational System ◽  
Initial State ◽  
Linguistic Data ◽  
Artificial Languages ◽  
Acquisition Device ◽  
The Mind

This chapter draws a distinction between Universal Grammar (the initial state of the computational system that underwrites the human capacity for language) and the Language Acquisition Device (the complex of components of the mind/brain involved in constructing grammar+lexicon pairs upon exposure to primary linguistic data). It then considers whether there are any substantive phonological components of Universal Grammar strictu sensu. Two of the strongest empirical arguments for the existence of such phonological content in UG have been (i) apparent constraints on the space of variation induced from the typological record, and (ii) apparently universal dispreferences against certain phonological configurations (known as markedness). The chapter examines these arguments in the light of recent literature, concluding that the phenomena submit at least as well to historical, phonetic, or other non-UG explanations. We suggest that language acquisition experiments, involving natural and artificial languages, may be a more fruitful domain for future research into these questions.

scholarly journals A Critique to Fundamental Differences Hypothesis

2017 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
pp. 137
Author(s):  
Jing Ding
Keyword(s):  
Language Acquisition ◽  
Language Learning ◽  
Universal Grammar ◽  
Foreign Language Learning ◽  
Theoretical Explanation ◽  
Supporting Evidence ◽  
Logical Problem ◽  
Acquisition Device ◽  
Influential Theory

Chomsky’s Theory of Universal Grammar was proposed in response to “the logical problem of language acquisition”, that is, how children come to acquire L1with ease and complete success despite the insufficiency of the L1 stimulus. Chomsky attributes the phenomenon to the Language Acquisition Device or UG inherited by human brain. Since “the logical problem” exists in SLA. What is the role of LAD or UG in SLA? Or, is UG accessible to L2 learners? This is a question that has attracted SLA researchers since the establishment of UG theory. This paper gives some own analysis of one of the most influential theory of UG accessibility—Fundamental Difference Hypothesis, which belongs to the no-access views and points out its weakness by discussing its theoretical explanation as well as the supporting evidence. To be more specific, this paper will discuss mainly 2 points, one is the nine fundamental characters of foreign language learning and the other is its theoretical explanation related to the Critical Period Hypothesis.

Universal Grammar in Language Acquisition

1988 ◽  
Vol 33 (4) ◽  
pp. 367-393 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sascha W. Felix
Keyword(s):  
Language Acquisition ◽  
Input Data ◽  
Developmental Process ◽  
Universal Grammar ◽  
Linguistic Theory ◽  
The Other ◽  
Data Driven ◽  
Specific Nature ◽  
The Past ◽  
External Evidence

Progress in linguistic theory during the past 20 years has made it increasingly clear that language acquisition must be viewed as an essentially deductive process in which the child analyzes the input data s/he is exposed to on the basis of an innately specified set of restrictive principles — technically known as Universal Grammar — which narrowly constrain the kinds of hypotheses a child will consider vis-à-vis a given set of data (cf. Chomsky 1980, 1981, 1986; Hornstein and Lightfoot 1981; White 1982; Felix 1987). As a consequence, there is a growing interest in the question of how exactly principles of Universal Grammar interact with the child’s linguistic experience during the course of language acquisition (see e.g., Pinker 1984; Hyams 1986; Lust 1986b; Roeper and Williams 1987 among others for some more recent proposals). It appears that there are currently at least two competing views about the nature of this interaction. One of these views which I shall call “perceptionism” holds that the task of Universal Grammar (UG) is essentially restricted to constraining the types of intermediate grammars that the child will construct, while the developmental process itself is essentially data-driven, i.e., driven by the child’s (changing) perception of the external evidence. The other view which may be termed “maturationism” claims that UG is both responsible for the types of (intermediate) grammars that in principle may emerge and at the same time for the specific nature of the developmental process. Under the maturationist view language acquisition is therefore seen as a process that is driven primarily by internal, i.e., biologically determined maturational mechanisms.

Introduction

2018 ◽  
pp. 1-10
Author(s):  
Vsevolod Kapatsinski
Keyword(s):  
Language Acquisition ◽  
Universal Grammar ◽  
Visual Input ◽  
Learning Mechanisms ◽  
Innate Knowledge ◽  
Acquisition Device ◽  
Biological World ◽  
Language Universals ◽  
Knowledge Of Language ◽  
First Words

By the time you were just a year old, you had learned which sound distinctions matter and which do not. From the constant streams of acoustic and visual input, you had extracted a few acoustic forms and linked them to meanings—your first words. The muscles of your tongue, jaw, and larynx (and a few others) had been shaped into producing intricate, precisely coordinated patterns that would reproduce some of these complex patterns of sound closely enough to evoke the adept at producing words and sentences you had never heard before, planning and executing a novel sequence of muscle movements to convey a novel meaning. These feats appear miraculous, impossible for mere animals to accomplish. And indeed, they have led many researchers of language acquisition to posit that we are born knowing much about what human languages are like (Universal Grammar) and equipped with specialized learning mechanisms, tailored to the acquisition of language, mechanisms not subject to the laws that govern learning in the rest of the biological world (the Language Acquisition Device). The aim of this book is to convince you that this conclusion is—if not wrong—then at least premature. Language acquisition is simply learning. This book is one illustration of how accepting this proposition gets us much closer to explaining why languages are the way they are—the ultimate goal of linguistic theory—than does accepting innate knowledge of language universals and the Language Acquisition Device. Learning changes minds, and changing minds change the tools they use to accomplish their communicative goals to fit....

Two textbook representations of second language acquisition and Universal Grammar: ‘access’ and ‘constraint’

2003 ◽  
Vol 19 (4) ◽  
pp. 359-376
Author(s):  
Margaret Thomas
Keyword(s):  
Second Language ◽  
Second Language Acquisition ◽  
Language Acquisition ◽  
Universal Grammar ◽  
The Other ◽  
Relationship Of ◽  
The Relationship

Two textbooks written by Lydia White, one published in 1989 and the other in 2003, introduce generative research on second language acquisition and evaluate existing proposals about the role of Universal Grammar. Comparison of the two texts provides an opportunity to examine some of the conventions the field uses in representing itself to a novice readership. It also brings to light certain aspects of the field’s development during a 14- year interval. A point of particular interest is that this interval spans a shift in the language commonly used to pose questions about the relationship of Universal Grammar to second language acquisition, from the metaphor of ‘access’ to the metaphor of ‘constraint’.

scholarly journals The Acquisition of Syntax: A Nativist Perspective vs. A Cognitivist Perspective

2017 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
pp. 5 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rashid Al-Balush
Keyword(s):  
Second Language ◽  
Second Language Acquisition ◽  
Language Acquisition ◽  
Natural Language ◽  
Cognitive Skills ◽  
The Other ◽  
Human Beings ◽  
Cognitive Mechanisms ◽  
Grammatical Knowledge ◽  
Acquisition Device

This paper looks into how two main frameworks view the acquisition of syntax. These are the nativist approach which claims that language is acquired because human beings are equipped with a language acquisition device in the form of grammatical knowledge, and the cognitivist approach which views language like the other cognitive skills and so claims that we acquire language using general cognitive mechanisms that are not specific to language. The paper reviews a number of studies that report on the acquisition of various aspects of the syntax of natural language; the studies are from both frameworks. The paper then evaluates the claims of the reviewed studies in light of the respective findings, as well as in light of how the findings may be interpreted by the other framework. The paper also presents an analysis of the argumentation techniques that the respective authors use, as well as of how effective they are. It concludes with a proposal for a line of research which is based on research techniques and findings in second language acquisition. 

Linguistic universals, markedness and learnability: comparing two different approaches

1989 ◽  
Vol 5 (2) ◽  
pp. 127-140 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lydia White
Keyword(s):  
Second Language ◽  
Second Language Acquisition ◽  
Language Acquisition ◽  
Universal Grammar ◽  
The Other ◽  
L2 Acquisition ◽  
Subset Principle ◽  
Similarities And Differences ◽  
L1 And L2 ◽  
Language Learnability

There are currently two different linguistically-based approaches to universals in second language acquisition, one stemming from typological universals (Greenberg, 1966) and the other from Chomskyan Universal Grammar. Associated with each approach is a concept of markedness. Typologists define markedness implicationally; current theories of language learnability define markedness in terms of the Subset Principle. Although coming from very different perspectives, these two definitions of markedness coincide in a number of predictions they make for L1 and L2 acquisition. Similarities and differences between these two approaches to markedness and acquisition are discussed in this paper.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document