Universals, innateness and explanation in second language acquisition

2004 ◽  
Vol 28 (3) ◽  
pp. 682-703 ◽  
Author(s):  
Fred Eckman

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).

2003 ◽  
Vol 19 (2) ◽  
pp. 95-128 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kevin R. Gregg

‘Emergentism’ is the name that has recently been given to a general approach to cognition that stresses the interaction between organism and environment and that denies the existence of pre-determined, domain-specific faculties or capacities. Emergentism thus offers itself as an alternative to modular, ‘special nativist’ theories of the mind, such as theories of Universal Grammar (UG). In language acquisition, emergentists claim that simple learning mechanisms, of the kind attested elsewhere in cognition, are sufficient to bring about the emergence of complex language representations. In this article, I consider, and reject, several a priori arguments often raised against ‘special nativism’. I then look at some of the arguments and evidence for an emergentist account of second language acquisition (SLA), and show that emergentists have so far failed to take into account, let alone defeat, standard Poverty of the Stimulus arguments for ‘special nativism’, and have equally failed to show how language competence could ‘emerge’.


2003 ◽  
Vol 19 (4) ◽  
pp. 359-376
Author(s):  
Margaret Thomas

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’.


1989 ◽  
Vol 5 (2) ◽  
pp. 127-140 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lydia White

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.


1998 ◽  
Vol 21 (4) ◽  
pp. 611-612
Author(s):  
Julia Herschensohn

Differences of opinion between Epstein, Flynn & Martohardjono (1996) and some commentators can be traced to different interpretations of Universal Grammar (UG) form or strategy. Potential full access to the form of linguistic universals in second language acquisition may be distinguished from access to UG strategy, but Epstein et al.'s dismissal of the Critical Age Hypothesis clouds their central argument.


2004 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
pp. 35-36 ◽  
Author(s):  
BRIAN MACWHINNEY

Truscott and Sharwood Smith (henceforth T&SS) attempt to show how second language acquisition can occur without any learning. In their APT model, change depends only on the tuning of innate principles through the normal course of processing of L2. There are some features of their model that I find attractive. Specifically, their acceptance of the concepts of competition and activation strength brings them in line with standard processing accounts like the Competition Model (Bates and MacWhinney, 1982; MacWhinney, 1987, in press). At the same time, their reliance on parameters as the core constructs guiding learning leaves this model squarely within the framework of Chomsky's theory of Principles and Parameters (P&P). As such, it stipulates that the specific functional categories of Universal Grammar serve as the fundamental guide to both first and second language acquisition. Like other accounts in the P&P framework, this model attempts to view second language acquisition as involving no real learning beyond the deductive process of parameter-setting based on the detection of certain triggers. The specific innovation of the APT model is that changes in activation strength during processing function as the trigger to the setting of parameters. Unlike other P&P models, APT does not set parameters in an absolute fashion, allowing their activation weight to change by the processing of new input over time. The use of the concept of activation in APT is far more restricted than its use in connectionist models that allow for Hebbian learning, self-organizing features maps, or back-propagation.


Author(s):  
ZhaoHong Han

At the recent CLTA-S2 conference, a spirited debate occurred between critics of second language acquisition (SLA) research and researchers who embraced it. Fascinating as it was, neither camp appeared to have convinced the other, but, more important, the debate left much of the audience flummoxed. In this paper, I intend to provide a follow-up, attempting to clarify a) the relationship between research and teaching in the context of Chinese as a second language (CSL), b) misunderstandings on the part of critics over research findings, and c) potential pitfalls in interpreting the SLA literature. My goal is to encourage, as well as contribute to, further communication between the two camps, for the ultimate good of CSL instruction and learning.


1985 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 18-46 ◽  
Author(s):  
Paul van Buren ◽  
Michael Sharwood Smith

This paper discusses the application of Government Binding Theory to second language acquisition in the context of a project which is looking into the acquisition of preposition stranding in English and Dutch. The bulk of the discussion focuses on the theoretical problems involved. Firstly, the potential value of Government Binding Theory in principle is considered both in terms of the formulation of linguistic questions per se and also in terms of more specifically acquisitional questions having to do with the speed and order of acquisition. Secondly, some results in the pilot studies conducted so far in Utrecht are examined with respect to the theoretical usefulness of the framework adopted. The potential of the framework to generate sophisticated linguistic research questions is found to be undeniable. The acquisitional aspects need to be elaborated and adapted to cope with the special features of second, as opposed to first, language acquisition. This involves an elaboration of scenarios to be investigated: one in which the learner's initial assumption is that the unmarked setting of a given parameter of Universal Grammar holds for the target system, one in which the settings of parameters shared by the target and native systems are assumed to be identical, the second being a 'cross linguistic' scenario. These possibilities are considered in the light of the nature of evidence derived from the input and in the light of a set of possible learning strategies derived from the scenarios. The scenarios, the types of evidence and the strategies are spelled out in terms of the specific problem of preposition stranding in Universal Grammar, in Dutch and in English.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document