The state of emergentism in second language acquisition

2003 ◽  
Vol 19 (2) ◽  
pp. 95-128 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kevin R. Gregg
Keyword(s):  
Second Language ◽  
Second Language Acquisition ◽  
Language Acquisition ◽  
Universal Grammar ◽  
A Priori ◽  
The State ◽  
Learning Mechanisms ◽  
Language Competence ◽  
Domain Specific ◽  
The Mind

‘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’.

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).

UG and SLA: The access question, and how to beg it

1996 ◽  
Vol 19 (4) ◽  
pp. 726-727 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kevin R. Gregg
Keyword(s):  
Second Language ◽  
Second Language Acquisition ◽  
Language Acquisition ◽  
Research Methodology ◽  
Universal Grammar ◽  
Begging The Question ◽  
Relevant Evidence ◽  
The Mind

AbstractEpstein, Flynn, and Martohardjono trivialize the question of access to universal grammar in second language acquisition by arguing against a straw-man version of the no-access position and by begging the question of how second language (L2) knowledge is represented in the mind/brain of an adult L2 learner. They compound their errors by employing a research methodology that fails to provide any relevant evidence.

Acquisition of Morphology and Syntax

1988 ◽  
Vol 9 ◽  
pp. 42-53
Author(s):  
Bogdan Krakowian
Keyword(s):  
Second Language ◽  
Second Language Acquisition ◽  
Language Acquisition ◽  
Early Development ◽  
State Of The Art ◽  
Universal Grammar ◽  
The State ◽  
Research Questions

The early development of second language acquisition [SLA] research in the area of morphology and syntax can be traced in some excellent publications both exemplifying and evaluating the state of the art in this area (e.g., Anderson 1981, Davies, Criper, and Howatt 1984, Hatch 1983, Wode 1981b). The research questions identified and pursued at that time have continued to occupy researchers. (The ones which are the most important and relevant for the discussion here are as follows: 1 the problem of regularity in interlanguage [IL] morphology and syntax; 2) the contribution of Universal Grammar to SLA, and 3) variability in IL performance. The problems enumerated above will provide a framework for the discussion of the acquisition of morphology and syntax. Some additional comments on other, related issues will be included.

Modularity, working memory, and second language acquisition: A research program

2017 ◽  
Vol 33 (3) ◽  
pp. 313-323 ◽  
Author(s):  
John Truscott
Keyword(s):  
Working Memory ◽  
Second Language ◽  
Second Language Acquisition ◽  
Language Acquisition ◽  
Research Program ◽  
The State ◽  
Important Place ◽  
The Subject ◽  
The Mind ◽  
The Way

Considerable reason exists to view the mind, and language within it, as modular, and this view has an important place in research and theory in second language acquisition (SLA) and beyond. But it has had very little impact on the study of working memory and its role in SLA. This article considers the need for modular study of working memory, looking at the state of common approaches to the subject and the evidence for modularity, and then considering what working memory should look like in a modular mind. It then sketches a research program to explore working memory within a modular mind and particularly its role in SLA. This is followed by a brief look at the way that the Modular Online Growth and Use of Language (MOGUL) approach can serve as a framework for such a program.

scholarly journals THE ROBUSTNESS OF CRITICAL PERIOD EFFECTS IN SECOND LANGUAGE ACQUISITION

2000 ◽  
Vol 22 (4) ◽  
pp. 499-533 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert M. DeKeyser
Keyword(s):  
Second Language ◽  
Second Language Acquisition ◽  
Language Acquisition ◽  
Critical Period ◽  
Learning Mechanisms ◽  
Domain Specific ◽  
Grammaticality Judgment ◽  
Period Effects ◽  
High Level ◽  
Adult Immigrants

This study was designed to test the Fundamental Difference Hypothesis (Bley-Vroman, 1988), which states that, whereas children are known to learn language almost completely through (implicit) domain-specific mechanisms, adults have largely lost the ability to learn a language without reflecting on its structure and have to use alternative mechanisms, drawing especially on their problem-solving capacities, to learn a second language. The hypothesis implies that only adults with a high level of verbal analytical ability will reach near-native competence in their second language, but that this ability will not be a significant predictor of success for childhood second language acquisition. A study with 57 adult Hungarian-speaking immigrants confirmed the hypothesis in the sense that very few adult immigrants scored within the range of child arrivals on a grammaticality judgment test, and that the few who did had high levels of verbal analytical ability; this ability was not a significant predictor for childhood arrivals. This study replicates the findings of Johnson and Newport (1989) and provides an explanation for the apparent exceptions in their study. These findings lead to a reconceptualization of the Critical Period Hypothesis: If the scope of this hypothesis is limited to implicit learning mechanisms, then it appears that there may be no exceptions to the age effects that the hypothesis seeks to explain.

scholarly journals Comparing and explaining the trajectories of first and second language acquisition: in search of the right mix of psychological and linguistic factors

1998 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 29-30 ◽  
Author(s):  
GERARD KEMPEN
Keyword(s):  
Second Language ◽  
Second Language Acquisition ◽  
Language Acquisition ◽  
Language Processing ◽  
Universal Grammar ◽  
Emotional Reactions ◽  
Parameter Setting ◽  
Learning Mechanisms ◽  
L2 Learners ◽  
L1 And L2

When you compare the behavior of two different age groups which are trying to master the same sensori-motor or cognitive skill, you are likely to discover varying learning routes: different stages, different intervals between stages, or even different orderings of stages. Such heterogeneous learning trajectories may be caused by at least six different types of factors:(1) Initial state: the kinds and levels of skills the learners have available at the onset of the learning episode.(2) Learning mechanisms: rule-based, inductive, connectionist, parameter setting, and so on.(3) Input and feedback characteristics: learning stimuli, information about success and failure.(4) Information processing mechanisms: capacity limitations, attentional biases, response preferences.(5) Energetic variables: motivation, emotional reactions.(6) Final state: the fine-structure of kinds and levels of subskills at the end of the learning episode.This applies to language acquisition as well. First and second language learners probably differ on all six factors. Nevertheless, the debate between advocates and opponents of the Fundamental Difference Hypothesis concerning L1 and L2 acquisition have looked almost exclusively at the first two factors. Those who believe that L1 learners have access to Universal Grammar whereas L2 learners rely on language processing strategies, postulate different learning mechanisms (UG parameter setting in L1, more general inductive strategies in L2 learning). Pienemann opposes this view and, based on his Processability Theory, argues that L1 and L2 learners start out from different initial states: they come to the grammar learning task with different structural hypotheses (SOV versus SVO as basic word order of German).

Universal Grammar and the critical age

1998 ◽  
Vol 21 (4) ◽  
pp. 611-612
Author(s):  
Julia Herschensohn
Keyword(s):  
Second Language ◽  
Second Language Acquisition ◽  
Language Acquisition ◽  
Universal Grammar ◽  
Differences Of Opinion ◽  
Central Argument ◽  
Critical Age

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.

Parameters or cues?

2004 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
pp. 35-36 ◽  
Author(s):  
BRIAN MACWHINNEY
Keyword(s):  
Second Language ◽  
Second Language Acquisition ◽  
Language Acquisition ◽  
Hebbian Learning ◽  
Universal Grammar ◽  
Back Propagation ◽  
Parameter Setting ◽  
Functional Categories ◽  
The Core ◽  
Over Time

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.

The acquisition of preposition stranding by second language learners and parametric variation

1985 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 18-46 ◽  
Author(s):  
Paul van Buren ◽  
Michael Sharwood Smith
Keyword(s):  
Second Language ◽  
Second Language Acquisition ◽  
Language Acquisition ◽  
Learning Strategies ◽  
Universal Grammar ◽  
Target System ◽  
Binding Theory ◽  
Pilot Studies ◽  
Preposition Stranding ◽  
Government Binding

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