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.

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).

scholarly journals Is There a "Logical Problem" of Second Language Acquisition?

1985 ◽  
Vol 2 (2) ◽  
pp. 29 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lydia White
Keyword(s):  
Second Language ◽  
Second Language Acquisition ◽  
Language Acquisition ◽  
Input Data ◽  
Universal Grammar ◽  
L2 Acquisition ◽  
Logical Problem ◽  
Acquisition Process ◽  
Generative Theory ◽  
Complex Knowledge

Arguments for universal grammar (DO) in generative theory are based on the so called "logical problem of language acquisition." The nature of the problem becomes apparent when we consider the end product of the acquisition process and compare this to the input data, which do not seem sufficiently rich or precise to allow the learner to work out all the complexities of the adult grammar, unless one assumes the availability of certain innate principles (DO). In this paper, I will suggest that this orientation is also useful when one comes to consider second language acquisition. If we focus on the successful second language (L2) learner, it would appear that he or she will also achieve complex knowledge of the L2 which goes well beyond the input. This suggests that DO might have a role to play in L2 acquisition as well, and raises the question of whether the way that DO has operated in the Ll has any effects in L2 acquisition. I will briefly look at current L2 research that presupposes a DO framework, as well as suggesting some directions for further research.

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.

Developmental dynamics in L1 and L2 acquisition: Processability Theory and generative entrenchment

1998 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-20 ◽  
Author(s):  
MANFRED PIENEMANN
Keyword(s):  
Second Language ◽  
Second Language Acquisition ◽  
Language Processing ◽  
Universal Grammar ◽  
Mathematical Concept ◽  
Structural Features ◽  
L2 Acquisition ◽  
Generative Entrenchment ◽  
Processability Theory ◽  
L1 And L2

This paper has two major objectives: (1) to summarise Processability Theory, a processing-oriented approach to explaining language development and (2) to utilise this theory in the comparison of development in LI and L2 acquisition. Proponents of the Fundamental Difference Hypothesis (between L1 and L2) assume that L1 development can be explained with reference to Universal Grammar (UG) which, in their view, is inaccessible to L2 learners. Instead, they claim that a second language develops on the basis of language processing strategies.I will show that the fundamentally different developmental paths inherent in first and second language acquisition can both be explained on the basis of the same language processing mechanics (as specified in Processability Theory). I will demonstrate that the developmental differences between L1 and L2 are caused by the qualitatively different early structural hypotheses which propagate through the acquisition process. The concept of “propagation of structural features” will be viewed as “generative entrenchment,” a logical-mathematical concept, which has proved to be highly productive in examining other kinds of developmental processes.

Theories of second language acquisition: three sides, three angles, three points

2005 ◽  
Vol 21 (4) ◽  
pp. 393-414 ◽  
Author(s):  
Margaret Thomas
Keyword(s):  
Second Language ◽  
Second Language Acquisition ◽  
Language Acquisition ◽  
Cognitive Bias ◽  
Sociocultural Theory ◽  
The Other ◽  
Theory Construction ◽  
L2 Acquisition ◽  
Point Evaluation ◽  
Evaluation Metric

Three recent books take up different positions in the on-going debate about how, and out of what, to construct a theory of second language (L2) acquisition. Johnson (2004) advocates a ‘dialogically based approach’, inspired by Vygotsky’s sociocultural theory and Bakhtin’s ‘dialogized heteroglossia’, with which she would replace what she views as a prevailing ‘cognitive bias’ in the field. Block (2003) similarly supports a ‘more interdisciplinary and socially informed orientation’ to second language acquisition. But Block wants to reform rather than replace certain assumptions of what he represents as the best existing theory of second language acquisition, namely, Susan Gass’ Input-Interaction-Output model (IIO model). Jordan (2004), on the other hand, argues forcefully that theorizing about second language acquisition must be based on a rationalist epistemology. He provides a set of ‘Guidelines’ for theory construction, including six assumptions foundational to rationalist inquiry in general, and a five-point evaluation metric against which rival theories can be judged. He also passes on a list of six ‘practices to be avoided’. Jordan encourages the cultivation of many, varied, theories so long as they observe the rationalist Guidelines. He goes on to criticize a broad sample of L2 research, commenting on whether specific proposals do or do not adhere to the Guidelines. This article reviews all three scholars’ positions in this important debate, which has the potential to sharpen second language theorists’ sense of what they are doing and how they should do it.

Contributions of the study of Japanese as a second language to our general understanding of second language acquisition and the definition of second language acquisition research

2003 ◽  
Vol 19 (1) ◽  
pp. 76-94 ◽  
Author(s):  
Shigenori Wakabayashi
Keyword(s):  
Second Language ◽  
Second Language Acquisition ◽  
Language Acquisition ◽  
First Language ◽  
The Other ◽  
Linguistic Knowledge ◽  
L2 Acquisition ◽  
Definition Of

Japanese has figured frequently in second language acquisition (SLA) research, but more often than not it appears as the first language (L1) rather than the target. In this article, first I discuss the problems addressed and the insights obtained in these studies. I then consider two issues. One is what the field of SLA research should include. I suggest that it should include two categories, namely Core SLA Research, where second language (L2) linguistic knowledge is investigated, and Broad SLA research, where researchers study factors that influence the development of L2 knowledge. The other issue is what we can expect in Core SLA research concerning the L2 acquisition of Japanese. This article illustrates how studies of the L2 acquisition of Japanese can contribute to our understanding of SLA.

First- and Second-Language Acquisition and CILC

2020 ◽  
pp. 214-240
Author(s):  
Eva Duran Eppler ◽  
Gabriel Ozón
Keyword(s):  
Second Language ◽  
Second Language Acquisition ◽  
Language Acquisition ◽  
Language Contact ◽  
Language Change ◽  
L2 Acquisition ◽  
Language Variation And Change ◽  
Language Data ◽  
L1 And L2

This chapter explores the contested role of L1 and L2 acquisition in contact-induced linguistic change (CILC). We first identify three factors underlying these controversies (field of research; theoretical approach; and methodological limitations/advances), before discussing two elements language change and language acquisition have in common (i.e., isolated individuals cannot accomplish either, and both have to be studied through natural language data, with its attendant high degree of variation). We go on to define key terms and concepts for the role of L1 and L2 acquisition in contact-induced language change, including first and second language acquisition (L1A and L2A), bilingual first language acquisition, language variation and change, language contact and contact-induced language change. In the main section we discuss the role of L1A and L2A in CILC, and examine different language-acquisition scenarios, in particular their potential for leading to CILC. We use these different language-acquisition types as testing grounds for the motivations behind (i.e., causes for, and triggers of) language change, and arrive at tentative conclusions about which of these language-acquisition scenarios is more likely to play a role in CILC, and why.

On evaluating arguments for special nativism in second language acquisition theory

1996 ◽  
Vol 12 (4) ◽  
pp. 398-419 ◽  
Author(s):  
Fred R. Eckman
Keyword(s):  
Second Language ◽  
Second Language Acquisition ◽  
Language Acquisition ◽  
Null Hypothesis ◽  
Universal Grammar ◽  
Research Programme ◽  
L2 Acquisition ◽  
L2 Learning ◽  
Interlanguage Grammars ◽  
Second Language Acquisition Theory

This article attempts to evaluate several arguments that have been put forth in favour of special nativism in SLA. Specifically, the cases for each of the following claims are considered: 1) that Universal Grammar (UG) being implicated in L2 acquisition is the null hypothesis; 2) that any theory of SLA necessarily needs a theory of grammar; and 3) that showing that interlanguage grammars are underdetermined by the available input implies that UG must be accessible in L2 learning. In each case, it is argued that the arguments for special nativism are not compelling, and that it is therefore reasonable to consider a research programme in SLA theory that is based on general nativism.

scholarly journals The Role of Presuppositionality in the Second Language Acquisition of English Articles

2010 ◽  
Vol 41 (2) ◽  
pp. 213-254 ◽  
Author(s):  
Heejeong Ko ◽  
Tania Ionin ◽  
Ken Wexler
Keyword(s):  
Second Language ◽  
Second Language Acquisition ◽  
Language Acquisition ◽  
Universal Grammar ◽  
Experimental Results ◽  
L2 Acquisition ◽  
Experimental Findings ◽  
English Articles ◽  
L1 Acquisition

This article investigates the role of presuppositionality (defined as the presupposition of existence) in the second language (L2) acquisition of English articles. Building upon the proposal in Wexler 2003 that young English-acquiring children overuse the with presuppositional indefinites, this article proposes that presuppositionality also influences article (mis)use in adult L2 acquisition. This proposal is supported by experimental results from the L2 English of adult speakers of Korean, a language with no articles. The experimental findings indicate that presuppositional indefinite contexts trigger overuse of the with indefinites in adult L2 acquisition, as in child L1 acquisition (cf. Wexler 2003). The effects of presuppositionality are teased apart from the effects of other semantic factors previously examined in acquisition, such as scope (Schaeffer and Matthewson 2005) and specificity (Ionin, Ko, and Wexler 2004). The results provide evidence that overuse of the in L2 acquisition is a semantic rather than pragmatic phenomenon. Implications of these findings for overuse of the in L1 acquisition are discussed. This article also has implications for the study of access to Universal Grammar in L2 acquisition, as well as for the number and type of semantic universals underlying article choice crosslinguistically.

First language acquisition... second language acquisition: ‘What’s Hecuba to him or he to Hecuba?’

2001 ◽  
Vol 17 (4) ◽  
pp. 329-344
Author(s):  
Susan Foster-Cohen
Keyword(s):  
Second Language ◽  
Second Language Acquisition ◽  
Language Acquisition ◽  
Research Question ◽  
First Language ◽  
Language Learner ◽  
First Language Acquisition ◽  
L2 Acquisition ◽  
L1 Acquisition ◽  
L1 And L2

Second language (L2) research appeals to first language acquisition research frequently and standardly. It is important, however, to take stock from time to time of the uses that second language acquisition (SLA) makes of its sister field. Whether we use first language (L1) research to generate or bolster the importance of a particular research question, to argue for a fundamental similarity or a fundamental difference between the two sorts of acquisition, or to offer guidance in the formulation of research paradigms, it is important that we do so with our critical eyes open.This article examines the possible and specific relationships between L1 acquisition and SLA, with the aim of showing that a number of assumptions warrant closer inspection. It begins by examining the expressions ‘first language acquisition’ and ‘second language acquisition’, suggesting that the syntactic and lexical parallelism between the two masks important issues internal to the fields involved. It then explores problems in distinguishing L1 from L2 acquisition from three different perspectives: individual language learner histories, the data, and the mechanisms proposed to account for the two types of acquisition. Finally, it takes a brief look at the sociology of L1 and L2 studies, and suggests that second language study has yet to assume fully its rightful place in the academy.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document