Shuing Shyu

1
Shu-ing Shyu

• Ch 10 Linguistic Universal and SLA

Ellis, R. (1994). Second Language Acquisition.
2
Introduction

• Two approaches toward the study of the language
• Externalized (E) approach
• Internalized (I) approach
• Linguistic universals
• Typological universals (Greenberg 1966 Hawkins
  1983 Comrie 1984 Croft 1990)
• Universal Grammar (Chomsky)

3

• Interlanguage Theory Another perspective
• Adjemian (1976) interlanguages are natural
  language, subject to all the same constraints ?
  rule governed
• the grammatical nature of a learners IL rather
  than strategies (1976 306)
• Interlanguage Structural Conformity Hypothesis
  (Eckman 1991 24)
• The universal generalization that hold for the
  primary languages also hold for interlanguages.
• 11 adult Asians learning English
• ? final stop stop gt fricative stop (1991 24)

4
Typological universals and SLA-1

• Absolute universals (implicational universals)
• E.g. If a lg has a noun before a demonstrative,
  then it has a N before a RC (Hawkins 1983 84).
• If a lg is SOV, then if the adjective precedes
  the N, then the genitive precedes the N.
• ? in one direction only
• Universal tendencies (non-implicational
  universals)
• Exceptions? How many can be tolerated?

5
Typological universals and SLA-2

• Implicational Universals
• NP Accessibility Hierarchy (NPAH)
• Subj lt DO lt IO lt oblique lt genitive lt object of
  comparative (Comrie Keenan (1979))
• See table 10.1 (Jones 1991)
• The grammatical function of the relative clauses
  in the matrix clause has various degree of
  difficulity.
• 2. Markedness as relative phenomenon.
  Implicational universals presuppose a markedness
  relationship.
• If a lg has property X also has property Y ?
• Y is unmarked in relation to X.

6
Typological universals and SLA-3

• Evidence to determine the level of markedness of
  specific linguistic features
• Structure
• Behavior grammatical versatility (gender
  pronoun, active vs. passive)
• Frequency

7
Typologically motivated studies of SLA-1

• Qs
• What influence do typological universals have on
  the order of acquisition of grammatical features?
• What effect does markedness have on learning
  difficulity?
• How does the typological status of grammatical
  features in the native and target lgs affect L1
  transfer?

8
Typologically motivated studies of SLA-2

• Negative Placement
• Preverbal negation lt postverbal negation (Dahl
  (1979))
• Wode (1984) preverbal negation appears in
  interlg, but not present in either L1 or L2.
• ? absolute universal?
• Preposition stranding and pied piping
• Pied-piping lt prep stranding (implicational
  universal)
• (Mazurkewich 1984 Bardovi-Harlig 1987)
• Bardovi-Harlig (1987) markedness hypothesis is
  not tenable.

9
Typologically motivated studies of SLA-3

• Relativization
• Does the Accessibility Hierarchy (AH) account for
  avoidance behavior?
• Schachter (1974) left-branching lg speakers
  avoid using RCs in English
• Gass (1980 138) avoid relativizing on low
  positions in the AH
• He saw the woman who was kissed by the man. (OS)
• lt He saw the woman that the man kissed. (OO)
• Akagawa (1990) no support for AH in L1 Japanese
  speaking English as L2 ? mixed evidence
• Does the AH explain the order of acquisition of
  relativizable NP positions?
• Supporters Gass (1980), Pavesi (1986), Eckman,
  Bell Nelson (1988).

10
Typologically motivated studies of SLA-4

• Relativization
• Does the AH explain the use of pronominal copies?
• Support Gass (1979 1980), Hyltenstam (1984)
  markedness interacts with L1 transfer whether or
  not pronominal copies occurred in the learners
  L1
• Against Tarallo Myhill (1983)
• Does the AH explain the acquisition of the forms
  of different relativizers.
• Hawkins (1989) predicted by the AH
• Qui (S) lt que (O)lt dont (Genetive)
• Conclusion
• Markedness correlates with acquisition order
• But Tarallo Myhill (1983), Hawkins (1989)
  Learners construct rules for RC on the basis of
  the adjacency of categories in the surface
  configuration.

11
Typologically motivated studies of SLA-5

• Limitations
• Descriptive observations, rather than
  explanations
• Levels other than syntax (e.g. discourse) are
  neglected.

12
Universal Grammar and SLA-1

• To address 3 Qs
• 1. What does UG consist of?
• 2. What role does UG play in L1 acquisition?
• 3. What should the domain of a theory of SLA be?

13
The Theory of UG-1

• Principles underlines the grammatical rules of
  all lgs
• Configurationality, Subjacency, Case theory, etc.
• Parameters variations among lgs
• two or more settings
• Word order, pro-drop, etc.
• Pro-drop properties

14
The Theory of UG-2

• Markedness UG provides a basis for determining
  markedness
• core and periphery features
• White (1989a) markedness as internal to the L,
  vs. sth external, evident only in extant lgs
  (markedness in lg typology).
• Zobl (1983) projection capacity
• Markedness is understood in relation to the
  amount of primary linguistic evidence needed to
  acquire a given property
• Evidence of one feature in a cluster may enable
  learners to acquire the other features associated
  with it, irrespective of whether they have
  experienced these features in the input.

15
UG and L1 Acquisition-1

• What is the nature of the childs experience of
  the target lg?
• The poverty of the stimulus
• What does the LAD (Lg Acquisition Device) consist
  of?

16
The poverty of the stimulus
17
The language faculty-1

• --UG ensures that relatively little evidence is
  needed for the child to determine that a given
  principle is operative in the TL or to decide
  which setting of a parameter is the right one
• --UG prevents children from construction wild
  grammars (Goodluck 1986)
• --errors can be unlearned on the basis of
  positive evidence
• ? a lg is learnable because the child needs to
  entertain only a small subset of the hypotheses
  that are consistent w/ the input data.

18
The methodology of UG-based studies-1

• (1) how to ensure that the subjects have the
  requisite level of L2 proficiency to demonstrate
  whether or not a particular principle is
  operating in their interlanguage grammar.
• (2) the need to rule out the effects of the L1
• direct access to UG
• indirect access through their L1
• E.g. L1 (Chinese, Japanese, Korean) -Subjacency
  L2Subjacency
• ? in accordance w/ UG constraints provided by not
  through formal instruction

19
The methodology of UG-based studies-2

• (3) parameter setting to establish which setting
  out of those possible is reflected in the
  learners interlanguage
• bi-directional studies w/ control groups
• L1 non-pro-drop-L2 pro-dropL1
• (English)-L2 (Spanish
• pro-drop-L2 non-pro-dropL1) L1
• (Spanish)-L2 (English)
• (4) Data collection
• elicited data have been preferred
• act-out tasks, picture identification task,
  sentence-joining, card-sorting tasks,
• grammaticality judgment task-making metalingual
  assessment.

20
The methodology of UG-based studies-3

• UG-based SLA research
• experimental in nature control and experiment
  groups, elicited data
• have precise hypotheses about the nature of SLA
• explanatory in nature (not the description of
  learner lg)
• Problems
• Grammaticality judgment
• Implicit or explicit knowledge?
• Whether UG is alive or dead in the L2 learner
• ? no clear evidence to support the hypotheses
  that learners acquire unmarked core features
  before marked peripheral features (e.g. dative
  alternation)

21
some empirical research-1

• Subjacency
• Studies for the availability of UG
• Richie (1978b)
• rightward movement of PP
• That a man has just passed by was not noticed
  in a car.
• Japanese graduate students can judge it less
  grammatical ? linguistic universals are intact in
  the adult (1978b43)
• Bley-Vroman, Felix, and Ioup (1988)
• 92 advanced Korean Ls of L2 English
• grammaticality judgment
• --response bias reject Ss irrespective of
  grammatical of ungrammatical Ss
• a reluctance to make use of not sure
• similar response pattern to NSs
• ? UG is accessible to adult learners
• White, Travis, and Maclachlan
• Malagasy Learners of English
• (subject extraction in wh- interroatives ok in
  Malagasy)
• judgment test, a written elicited production task
  
• nearly all high-intermediate Ls, 1/2
  low-intermediate Ls reject Subjacency vio.
• that Ls who accepted Ss violate Subjacency is
  because they had not reached a stage of syntactic
  development for the principle to become active
  (not acquired yet)

22
some empirical research-2

• Subjacency
• Studies against the availability of UG
• Schachter (1989)
• L1 Korean (no Subjacency), Chinese (weak
  subjacency), Indonesian (has subjacency, but not
  in wh-movement)
• English NS as controls judgment test
• different from NSs judgment
• NSs passed both the syntax and the subjacency
  tests.
• NNSs only passed the syntax tests.
• Bley-Vroman et al.(19888)
• ease of processing rather than UG
• Schachter Yip (1990)
• processing effects

23
some empirical research-3

• Subjacency
• Studies against the availability of UG
• Schachter (1989)
• Bley-Vroman et al.(19888)
• Schachter Yip (1990)
• processing effects
• ? relative acceptability rather than absolute
  obedience to UG
• more types of data elicited, not just
  grammaticality judgment tasks

24
some empirical research-4

• The pro-drop parameter
• parameter resetting
• White (1985 1986)
• parameter resetting
• ? L2 Ls opt for the L1 setting of the pro-drop P,
  as their proficiency increases they switch to the
  L2 setting
• White (1985) --pro-drop features cluster in IL
  grammars?
• L1 Spanish, French (1985,6)L1 Italian (1986)L2
  English
• Ss judgment task (missing expletives and pronouns
  subjects), some w/ ungrammatical S-V inversion,
  and a that-trace effect
• Ellis critics more reliable and valid data
  needed, not just judgment data
• Spanish and Italian Ls inclined to accept
  subjectless Ss, different from the French.
• Spanish Ls likely to accept that-trace than the
  French
• NO difference in judgments of Ss w/ ungrammatical
  S-V inversion
• ? L2 Ls dont interact directly w/ L2 data, but
  initially transfer L1 setting
• given time, reset L2 value
• TL features may cluster in IL G

25
some empirical research-5

• The pro-drop parameter
• parameter resetting
• Hilles (1986)
• Longitudinal data from Cancino et al. (1978)
• L1 Spanish (only one 12-yr old Colombian)
• L2 acquisition of English negatives and aux
• Hypothesis 1 Jorge L1 (pro-drop) switch to L2
  (null pro-drop)
• Hypothesis 2 the switch co-occurs w/ the
  emergence of aux, triggered by the acquisition of
  expletive subject ? Support her two hypotheses
• Hilles (1991)
• Longitudinal data from Cancino et al. (1978) L1
  6 Spanish (2 children, 2 adolescents, 2 adults)
• Q to what extent the use of pronominal Ss and V
  inflection were correlated overtime?
• 3 of the Ls (2 children, 1 adolescent) manifested
  a strong correlation b/w the emergence of
  pronominal Ss and V inflection
• ? their acquisition guided by UG (mirror L1
  acquisition)
• other 3 Ls no such correlation ? lack access to
  UG

26
some empirical research-6

• The pro-drop parameter
• parameter resetting
• Lakshmanan (1991)
• Longitudinal data of 3 children (Marta in Cancino
  ea al.s study, Muriel a French child in Gerbault
  1978, Uguisu Japanese by Hakuta 1974)
• ? support neither a transfer nor a
  developmental explanation
• ? no unequivocal evidence in favor of the
  clustering effect Hilles reported
• Phinney (1987)
• Bidirectional study English-speaking Ls of L2
  Spanish, Spanish-speaking Ls of L2 English
• written composition
• ? L1 value transfer
• ? no evidence of transfer

27
some empirical research-Summary

• ? no real support for a parameter-setting model
  of SLA., no clear evidence of any clustering
  effects (Lakshmanans and Phinneys)
• Learning principles (clearer results)
• L2 learners do not follow the Subset Principle

28

• Summary
• White L2 Ls do not have access to learning
  principles like the Subset principle. They build
  a superset L2 G, often influenced by L1. They
  restructure this G, creating a subset G by
  negative E.
• Testable hypotheses
• (1) L1 Ls will not make certain kinds of error
  whereas L2 Ls will ? Subset Principle operative
  in L1A
• (2) L2 Ls with no access to negative evidence
  will fail to eliminate superset errors (not
  investigated)
• (3) L2 Ls who receive formal instruction will
  eliminate errors. (received support Ch. 14)

29
The logical problem of SLA

• (i) SLA is essentially the same as for L1A
• (ii) SLA is different because L2 learners achieve
  variable success
• (iii) L2 competence is qualitatively different
  from L1 competence.
• ? different views regarding the role of UG in SLA

30
Access to UG in SLA (Table 10.3)

• The complete (direct) access view
  Parameter-setting Model (Flynn 1984 1987)
• (2) No-access view Clahsen and Muysken (1986
  Meisel 1991) (the Fundamental Difference
  Hypothesis)
• (3) Partial-access (indirect) view Schachter
  (1988) (i.e. via L1)
• (4) Dual access position Felix (1985)
  Competition Model

31
The role of negative evidence

• L1 Ls negative evidence not available
• L2 Ls have access to both corrective feedback
  explicit grammatical information
• Negative evidence is beneficial to L2 learning
• White (1991) Adv placement can be successfully
  learnt through formal instruction
• ? negative evidence triggers the resetting of a
  parameter to its L2 value
• Schwartz (1986) negative evidence can result in
  the A of grammatical knowledge
• Ellis if UG exists to enable children to acquire
  grammatical competence solely on the basis of
  positive E, it is hardly felicitous to propose
  that L2 Ls can access parts of it with the help
  of negative evidence. (p. 457)

32

• Thank you.