Universal Grammar Plays a Major Role in Second Language Acquisition

Victor Birkner, Chile

Victor Birkner has got a master’s degree in Applied Linguistics with TESOL from the University of Sheffield. He works in different universities in Santiago de Chile. His interests are Language teaching methodology, teaching English to young learners, and World Englishes. E-mail: victorbirkner@gmail.com

Menu

Introduction
Background
Examples
Conclusions
References

Introduction

Language is a human attribution which allows communication among us. However, how language is acquired is a mystery which several theories have tried to decipher. Noam Chomsky proposed the theory of Universal Grammar which produced a remarkable impact in the study of language acquisition both L1 and L2. The influence has reached other fields such as psychology and computer parsing of language. (Cook & Newson, 2007:1). This essay supports the idea the UG has a major influence in second language acquisition based on the evidence some researchers have found considering that research conducted on UG is more accurate than other kinds of SLA investigation (Krashen, 2009: 260). Nevertheless, this does not mean that UG is the only factor which is involved in second language acquisition but the most significant.

Background

What is Universal Grammar?

Universal Grammar has been defined as an innate capacity available to all human beings. (Chomsky, 1976:29) defines UG as “the system of principles, conditions, and rules that are elements or properties of all human languages”. In other words, two concepts are involved in language acquisition. They are principles and parameters. The principles are shared by all languages. For example, all languages share the X’-schema which consists on the hierarchal organization from the level of words to the phrasal level (Whong et al., 2013:4). On the other hand, parameters vary from language to language and consist on a limited variation of how principles can be applied depending on the input received. An example of this feature is the null subject parameter which offers two choices namely, [+null subject] for those languages which allow the omission of the subject and [-null subject] for languages where subjects cannot be omitted. (Whong et al., 2013:4). To sum up, the theory of Universal Grammar is two-fold. On the one hand, describes the language in terms of grammar and on the other hand intends to explain how knowledge of a language is acquired (Ellis, 2009:430).

Universal Grammar and Second Language Acquisition

UG theories have been used to explain how language is acquired both in L1 and L2. Some of these theories have shown that UG is the main factor involved when acquiring a second language. Even though it seems to be true, it does not mean that it is the only factor which is involved. First of all, when a person is acquiring a second language, the leaner goes through different stages in his way to reach the native competence of the target language, so interlanguage is developed. Studies have shown that interlanguage grammars are governed by Universal Grammar in some respects (Doughty, 2003:18-19). White claims that these principles of Universal Grammar realized in interlanguage are evident when learners are able to use linguistic properties which were not learned neither from the input nor from the first language grammar. Furthermore, there are certain conditions that should be met in order to prove that interlanguage grammars are governed by UG principles (White, 2003:22-23):

1. It should not be acquired from L2 input under any circumstances.
2. It should differ both from L1 and L2.

White (2003) proposes that second language learning goes through five steps in the initial phase in which steps one, two and three are based on the native language and therefore, stages four and five are UG based as the initial phase. (Gass & Selinker, 2008:165-166 )

1. Full transfer/Full access
2. Minimal trees
3. Valueless features
4. Initial hypothesis of syntax
5. Full access (without transfer).

Examples

Research

In order to demonstrate the strong influence UG has in second language acquisitions several studies have been carried out to find empirical evidence. Some of these studies evidence the principles of UG and others deal with UG parameters. Regarding UG principles investigations have been conducted on subjacency (Ritchie 1978b). The investigation carried out in an American university consisted on the study of twenty adult Japanese graduate students and native speakers who were required to judge sentences. Most of the subjects judged the sentences which were out of the rule as “less grammatical”. Even though there were some subjects which violated the constraint Ritchie concluded that there was enough evidence to assume “that linguistic universals are intact in the adult” (1978 b) (Ellis, 2009: 443).

Later in 1988 further study on subjacency was conducted by Bley-Vroman, Felix and Loup. This time the subjects were 92 Korean students of English at advanced level who had been living in the United States for a long time. The results concluded that it was almost impossible to deny the hypothesis that Universal Grammar is not accessible to adult students (Ellis, 2009: 443).

When it comes to parameters research studies to collect empirical evidence were undertaken. The investigations had as a goal to find evidence if the learners were able to reset a parameter found in their native language to the value of the target language. In case of resetting occurred that would account as an evidence of the ever-present UG. Additionally, it also aimed to test if the students reset all the structures related to a parameter. Examples of these investigations were those ones carried out by Lydia White both in 1985 and 1986 (Ellis, 2009:445). She tested the pro-drop parameter in adult learners. The subjects were students of English whose native language were Spanish and French in 1985, whereas in 1986 she included Italian students. It is essential to bear in mind that Spanish and Italian are pro-drop languages and conversely, French and English are non-pro-drop languages. After the students judged some sentences with null subject pronouns, some ungrammatical subject-verb inversion, and some sentences with a “that” trace White concluded:

1. L2 learners do not interact directly with L2 data but, instead, initially transfer the L1 setting of a parameter.
2. Given time, leaners are able to reset a parameter to the target language value.
3. Interlanguage grammars may be influenced by features of the target-language, although not entirely as predicted by linguistic theory.

These investigations would fail to provide strong evidence of a model parameter-setting of second language acquisition. In general, learners who have a pro-drop native language usually omit the subject pronoun in the target language but later gradually start using it. Nonetheless, Ellis, claims that UG would not offer a clear explanation for this (Ellis, 2009: 447). Likewise, Cook (1988), argues that learners of a second language would use their L1 as an alternative source to UG (Ellis, 2009:452).

Review of further research

Further investigations have been carried out in the same line. In 2002 Lozano conducted research on “the interpretation of overt and null pronouns in non-native Spanish”. He investigated both the Overt Pronoun Constraint (OPC) and the Contrastive Focus Constraint (CFC). The subjects were divided into three groups. They were the control group, whose members were native Spanish speakers, and two experimental groups consisting on Greek and English natives. The subjects had to judge 12 target sentences (6 OPC, 6 CFC) and 12 distractors. They had to judge the sentences as “more or less acceptable (as opposed to grammatical)” ranging them from +2 completely acceptable to -2 completely unacceptable. Each target sentence contains a Likert rating Scale of 5 points.

The results of the investigation revealed that universal principles govern OPC constructions whereas language specific parameters constrain CFC structures. Even though these results are modest, as Lozano admits, they support the idea that UG governs OPC reading principles of second and third language grammars. Conversely, the results show that knowledge of CFC structures is constrained by the leaner’s native language.

In 2004 Ying H. studied “L2 learners’ interpretation of operator-variable binding in VP ellipsis” (Han, 2008:148). In this research there were three groups of participants: a) 22 native speakers of English learning Chinese at intermediate level, b) 15 native speakers of English learning Chinese at advanced level c) the control group composed of 20 native speakers of Chinese. The students had to judge indicating whether they agree or disagree with the statements they were presented. The materials used in the research involved 17 Chinese VP-ellipsis structures including a lexical verb and 17 VP ellipsis sentences which include the verb “shi” (be). Additionally, the list included 64 fillers some of them did not involve VP-ellipsis. Finally, the results showed evidence that the constructions studied seem to have resulted from UG options regardless the knowledge the learners might have of lexical variables in their L1.

Conclusions

The research analysed in this essay show that UG plays an important role in second language acquisition. They provide evidence that the both principles and parameters are omnipresent in the learners’ interlanguage even though they are not aware. Principles such as subjacency and parameters such as pro-drop in the investigations described show that UG is an essential factor in terms of second language acquisition regardless other factors which are also involved such as L1.

References

Bley-Vroman, R, (1988) The Fundamental Character of Foreign Language Learning. In Ellis R. (1999) The Study of Second Language Acquisition. Oxford. Oxford University Press.

Chomsky, N, (1976) Reflections on Language. London. Temple Smith. In Second Language Learning and Teaching Fourth Edition. Cook V. (2008) UK. Hodder Education.

Cook, V and Newson, M, (2007) Chomsky’s Universal Grammar: An Introduction. Oxford. Blackwell. 1996.

Doughty, C, (2003) The Handbook of Second Language Acquisition. UK. Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

Ellis, R, (1999) The Study of Second Language Acquisition. Oxford. Oxford University Press.

Gass, S. and Selinker, L, (2008) Second Language Acquisition: An Introductory Course. Third Edition. UK. Routledge.

Han, Z-H, (2008) Understanding Second Language Process. UK. Multilingual Matters.

Krashen, S, (2009) Principles and Practice in Second Language Acquisition. University of Southern California. Internet edition.
www.sdkrashen.com/content/books/principles_and_practice.pdf

Lozano, C, (2002) The Interpretation of Overt and Null Pronouns in Non-Native Spanish. Durham Working Papers. Vol. 8 pp 53-66.

Ritchie, W, (1978 b) The Right Roof Constraint in Adult Acquired Language. In Ellis, R. (1999) The Study of Second Language Acquisition. Oxford. Oxford University Press.

Whong, M. et al. (2013) Universal Grammar and the Second Language Classroom. London. Springer.

White, L, (1985) The Pro-Drop Parameter in Adult Second Language Acquisition. In Ellis, R. (1999) The Study of Second Language Acquisition. Oxford. Oxford University Press.

White, L, (1986) Implications of Parametric Variation for Adult Second Language Acquisition. In Ellis, R. (1999) The Study of Second Language Acquisition. Oxford. Oxford University Press.

White, L, (2003) Second Language Acquisition and Universal Grammar. Cambridge. Cambridge University Press.

Ying, H, (2004) L2 Learners’ Interpretation of Operator-Variable Binding in VP Ellipsis. In Han, Z-H. (2008) Understanding Second Language Process. UK. Multilingual Matters.

Please check the English Language Improvement for Teachers course at Pilgrims website.
Please check the Teaching Advanced Students course at Pilgrims website.