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.

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.

scholarly journals Investigating the acquisition of the Split-IP parameter and the V2 parameter in second language Afrikaans

2006 ◽  
Vol 22 (1) ◽  
pp. 64-94 ◽  
Author(s):  
Simone Conradie
Keyword(s):  
Second Language ◽  
English Learners ◽  
Universal Grammar ◽  
First Language ◽  
L2 Acquisition ◽  
L2 Learners ◽  
English Speaking ◽  
Parameter Resetting ◽  
L1 And L2 ◽  
Parameter Values

Researchers who assume that Universal Grammar (UG) plays a role in second language (L2) acquisition are still debating whether L2 learners have access to UG in its entirety (the Full Access hypothesis; e.g. Schwartz and Sprouse, 1994; 1996; White, 1989; 2003) or only to those aspects of UG that are instantiated in their first language (L1) grammar (the No Parameter Resetting hypothesis; e.g. Hawkins and Chan, 1997). The Full Access hypothesis predicts that parameter resetting will be possible where the L1 and L2 differ in parameter values, whereas the No Parameter Resetting hypothesis predicts that parameter resetting will not be possible. These hypotheses are tested in a study examining whether English-speaking learners of Afrikaans can reset the Split-IP parameter (SIP) (Thráinsson, 1996) and the V2 parameter from their L1 ([-SIP], [-V2]) to their L2 ([+SIP], [+V2]) values. 15 advanced English learners of Afrikaans and 10 native speakers of Afrikaans completed three tasks: a sentence manipulation task, a grammaticality judgement task and a truth-value judgement task. Results suggest that the interlanguage grammars of the L2 learners are [+SIP] and [+V2] (unlike the L1), providing evidence for the Full Access hypothesis.

Constraining second language word order optionality: scrambling in advanced English-German and Japanese-German interlanguage

2005 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
pp. 34-71 ◽  
Author(s):  
Holger Hopp
Keyword(s):  
Second Language ◽  
Word Order ◽  
Universal Grammar ◽  
First Language ◽  
Target Language ◽  
Transfer Effects ◽  
L1 Transfer ◽  
Remnant Movement ◽  
Functional Features ◽  
Japanese Learners

This study documents knowledge of UG-mediated aspects of optionality in word order in the second language (L2) German of advanced English and Japanese speakers ( n = 39). A bimodal grammaticality judgement task, which controlled for context and intonation, was administered to probe judgements on a set of scrambling, topicalization and remnant movement constructions. Given first language (L1) differences and Poverty of the Stimulus, English and Japanese learners face distinct learnability challenges. Assuming Minimalist grammatical architecture (Chomsky, 1995), convergence on the target language would entail the unimpaired availability of Universal Grammar (UG), i.e., computational principles and functional features beyond their L1 instantiation. Irrespective of L1, the L2 groups are found to establish systematic native-like relative distinctions. In addition, L1 transfer effects are attested for judgements on scrambling. It is argued that these findings imply that interlanguage grammars are fully UG constrained, whilst initially informed by L1 properties.

scholarly journals Perceived foreign accent in first language attrition and second language acquisition: The impact of age of acquisition and bilingualism

2011 ◽  
Vol 34 (2) ◽  
pp. 361-394 ◽  
Author(s):  
HOLGER HOPP ◽  
MONIKA S. SCHMID
Keyword(s):  
Second Language ◽  
Second Language Acquisition ◽  
Age Of Onset ◽  
First Language ◽  
Target Language ◽  
Foreign Accent ◽  
L2 Acquisition ◽  
L2 Learners ◽  
The One ◽  
The Impact

ABSTRACTThis study investigates constraints on ultimate attainment in second language (L2) pronunciation in a direct comparison of perceived foreign accent of 40 late L2 learners and 40 late first language (L1) attriters of German. Both groups were compared with 20 predominantly monolingual controls. Contrasting participants who acquired the target language from birth (monolinguals, L1 attriters) with late L2 learners, on the one hand, and bilinguals (L1 attriters, L2ers) with monolinguals, on the other hand, allowed us to disentangle the impacts of age of onset and bilingualism in speech production. At the group level, the attriters performed indistinguishably from controls, and both differed from the L2 group. However, 80% of all L2ers scored within the native (attriter) range. Correlational analyses with background factors further found some effects of use and language aptitude. These results show that acquiring a language from birth is not sufficient to guarantee nativelike pronunciation, and late acquisition does not necessarily prevent it. The results are discussed in the light of models on the role of age and cross-linguistic influence in L2 acquisition.

The Comparative Study of First and Second Language Development

1990 ◽  
Vol 12 (2) ◽  
pp. 135-153 ◽  
Author(s):  
Harald Clahsen
Keyword(s):  
Second Language ◽  
Universal Grammar ◽  
First Language ◽  
L2 Acquisition ◽  
Second Language Development ◽  
L2 Development ◽  
The Comparative Study ◽  
L1 And L2 ◽  
Relationship Of ◽  
The Relationship

This article discusses the relationship of first language (L1) and second language (L2) acquisition. First, different approaches to comparing L1 and L2 development are summarized. Then, I argue for a particular version of the fundamental difference hypothesis. Finally, I illustrate the hypothesis with some evidence from the acquisition of German syntax. It is claimed that the Universal Grammar (UG) approach provides a theoretical framework to explain differences between L1 and (adult) L2 development. In particular I argue that the observed L1/L2 differences can be accounted for by assuming that adult L2 learners cannot use principles of UG as a learning device in the same way as L1 learners use them.

On the Difference Between L1 and L2 Acquisition of Phonology

1987 ◽  
Vol 32 (3) ◽  
pp. 245-259
Author(s):  
Terry Piper
Keyword(s):  
Second Language ◽  
Language Acquisition ◽  
First Language ◽  
First Language Acquisition ◽  
L2 Acquisition ◽  
Sound System ◽  
Phonological Processes ◽  
L2 Learners ◽  
The Difference ◽  
L1 And L2

It has been argued extensively that children acquiring a second language (L2) simplify the target sounds of that language using the same phonological processes as children use in acquiring their first language (L1) (cf. Hecht and Mulford 1982; Piper, 1984a, 1984b; Garnica and Herbert 1979). Since these processes are generally thought to be universal, it is not surprising that this should be the case. Nevertheless, there are differences between L1 and L2 learners both in the simplification processes they use and in the way they use them. Some processes do not appear at all or appear unsystematically in L2 learners; some processes are retained much longer by L2 learners than would be expected given their early disappearance in L1 learners. In this paper, I take a closer look at the incidence, duration and systematicity of these processes in the developing phonology of ten ESL children, and attempt to demonstrate some ways in which normal acquisition of the L2 sound system by children differs from first language acquisition.

The acquisition of the syntax of negation in French and German: contrasting first and second language development

1997 ◽  
Vol 13 (3) ◽  
pp. 227-263 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jürgen M. Meisel
Keyword(s):  
Second Language ◽  
Universal Grammar ◽  
Linguistic Knowledge ◽  
L2 Acquisition ◽  
Second Languages ◽  
Second Language Development ◽  
L1 Data ◽  
L2 Learners ◽  
L2 Development ◽  
L1 And L2

The acquisition of negation is perhaps the best-studied syntactic phenomenon in early interlanguage research,and many of these publications concluded that first (L1) and second language (L2) development had much more in common than had previously been assumed. In the present paper, the problem of whether the same underlying principles and mechanisms guide L1 and L2 acquisition will be re-examined from the perspective of more recent grammatical theory. The empirical basis consists of longitudinal case-studies of the acquisition of French and German as first and second languages. The L2 learners' first language is Spanish. In L1 data one finds a rapid, uniform and almost error-free course of development across languages exhibiting quite different morphosyntactic means of expressing negation. This is explained in terms of Parameter Theory, primarily referring to functional categories determining the placement of finite verbal elements. L2 acquisition, on the other hand, is characterized by considerable variability, not only crosslinguistically, but also across learners and even within individuals. This can be accounted for by assuming different strategies of language use. More importantly, different kinds of linguistic knowledge are drawn upon in L1 as opposed to L2. It is claimed that adult L2 learners, rather than using structure-dependent operations constrained by Universal Grammar (UG), rely primarily on linear sequencing strategies which apply to surface strings.

Resetting Universal Grammar parameters: evidence from Second Language Acquisition of Subjacency and the Empty Category Principle

1993 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
pp. 49-83 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sigal Uziel
Keyword(s):  
Second Language ◽  
Second Language Acquisition ◽  
Language Acquisition ◽  
Universal Grammar ◽  
First Language ◽  
Target Language ◽  
L2 Acquisition ◽  
Empty Category ◽  
Parameter Values ◽  
Category Principle

This article is concerned with whether the principles of UG are available in adult Second Language Acquisition (SLA) as in child first language acquisi tion. My hypothesis is that these principles are fully available to the L2 learner, and that the process of L2 acquisition is, in fact, a process of parameter-reassignment or new assignment in which the L2 learner resets the parameter-values of the L1 to their values in the L2. In order to test this hypothesis, I built on previous work by Martohardjono (1991) and conducted a study which examined the acquisition of two principles of UG, Subjacency and the Empty Category Principle, by native speakers of Hebrew learning English as a second language. I made a series of predictions with respect to the patterns of acquisition for various constructions in the target language, based on the assumption that L2 grammars are systems of knowledge guided by the internal logic, or 'systematicity' specified by UG. These predictions were borne out by the results of my study, leading to the conclusion that UG is indeed available in SLA. My conclusion corroborates other studies in the field which have reached similar conclusions (e.g., Flynn, 1987; White, 1988 and Martohardjono, 1991).

Case morphology and word order in second language Turkish: Evidence from Greek learners

2011 ◽  
Vol 27 (2) ◽  
pp. 173-204 ◽  
Author(s):  
Despina Papadopoulou ◽  
Spyridoula Varlokosta ◽  
Vassilios Spyropoulos ◽  
Hasan Kaili ◽  
Sophia Prokou ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Second Language ◽  
Word Order ◽  
Second Language Learners ◽  
First Language ◽  
Matching Task ◽  
L2 Acquisition ◽  
Case Morphology ◽  
L2 Development ◽  
Order Constraints ◽  
On Line

The optional use of morphology attested in second language learners has been attributed either to a representational deficit or to a ‘surface’ problem with respect to the realization of inflectional affixes. In this article we contribute to this issue by providing empirical data from the early interlanguage of Greek learners of Turkish. Three experiments have been conducted, a cloze task, a sentence picture matching task and an on-line grammaticality judgement task, in order to investigate case morphology and its interaction with word order constraints. The findings of all three experiments point towards a variable use of case morphology, which is also observed in previous studies of Turkish as a second language (L2). Moreover, they show clearly that the learners face difficulties with non-canonical word orders as well as with the interaction of word order constraints and Case. On the other hand, the learners performed well on verbal inflections. On the basis of these findings, we argue that the developmental patterns in the early stages of L2 acquisition cannot be attributed to a global lack of functional categories but rather to more localized difficulties, which seem to be related to (a) whether the features in the L2 are grammaticalized in the first language and (b) the way these features are encoded in the morphosyntax of the first language. Moreover, we claim that processing factors and the specific properties of the morphological paradigms affect L2 development.

Reading-time studies of second language ambiguity resolution

2005 ◽  
Vol 21 (2) ◽  
pp. 98-120 ◽  
Author(s):  
Despina Papadopoulou
Keyword(s):  
Second Language ◽  
Ambiguity Resolution ◽  
Argument Structure ◽  
Second Language Learners ◽  
Structural Information ◽  
Target Language ◽  
L2 Acquisition ◽  
L2 Learners ◽  
On Line ◽  
The Impact

This article provides a review of studies that have examined the ambiguity resolution strategies employed when processing a second language (L2). The way second language learners parse the L2 input has not yet been thoroughly investigated, although recently there has been an increasing interest in this area. The exploration of the mechanisms L2 learners use to parse ambiguous constructions allows us to examine not only aspects of L2 acquisition that still remain obscure, but also the validity of existing theories of parsing. The studies reported in this article look at three different types of ambiguous construction in the L2, and their results are discussed in relation to the L2 performance pattern. Most of the findings show that even advanced L2 learners are slower readers than native speakers and apply processing routines that depart from those best suited for processing the target language input. In addition, although L2 learners show sensitivity to lexical cues such as verb argument structure when processing the L2 input, they are less likely to rapidly employ structural information on line. The issues of the transfer of processing mechanisms from the first language (L1) to the second as well as the impact of L2 exposure on the adoption of the L2 processing routines are still unresolved and need to be further investigated.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document