Transcript BBI 3209 Language Acquisition - UPM EduTrain Interactive Learning

BBI 3209
LANGUAGE ACQUISITION
Wong Bee Eng
Faculty of Modern Languages and Communication
Universiti Putra Malaysia
2
Unit 4 – The role of UG in L1 acquisition
Unit 5 – The observable phenomena in SLA/ SLL
Unit 6 – The cognitive approach to SLA/ SLL
Unit 7 – The role of universal grammar in SLA/ SLL
Wong Bee Eng FBMK UPM
Unit 4 – The role of UG in L1 acquisition
3
Universal Grammar
Principles
Parameters
L1 Acquisition
Wong Bee Eng FBMK UPM
Unit 5 – The observable phenomena in SLA/ SLL
4
Transfer of properties of the L1 into the L2
- Phonological properties
- Morphological properties
- Syntactic properties
Staged development in SLA/ SLL
Systematicity in SLA/ SLL across learners
Variability in SLA/ SLL
Incompleteness in SLA/ SLL
Wong Bee Eng FBMK UPM
Unit 6 – The cognitive approach to SLA/ SLL
5
The Perceptual Saliency Approach
Learnability/Teachability Hypothesis
Information Processing Models
- McLaughlin’s information processing model
- Andersen’s ACT* model
Wong Bee Eng FBMK UPM
Unit 7 – The role of universal grammar in SLA/ SLL
6
THE UNIVERSAL GRAMMAR APPROACH
The main goals of linguistic theory are to answer the
following questions:

What constitutes knowledge of language?

How is knowledge of language acquired?

How is knowledge of language put to use?
Wong Bee Eng FBMK UPM
1. What Constitutes Knowledge of Language?
7



Knowledge of language – subconscious mental
representation of language which underlies all
language use.
We inherit a universal set of principles and
parameters (Chomsky, 1981, 1986a, 1986b).
Principles – invariant
Wong Bee Eng FBMK UPM
8


Parameters – a limited number of open values
which characterize differences between languages.
This approach – provides a detailed descriptive
framework for second language (SLA) research.
Wong Bee Eng FBMK UPM
2. How is Knowledge of Language Acquired?
9



The logical problem of language learning –
degenerate input.
UG – makes the task easier.
In SLA – learners are faced with the same logical
problem of constructing a grammar of the L2 on
the basis of fragmentary input and of having to
construct abstract representations on the basis of
the samples of language they actually encounter.
Wong Bee Eng FBMK UPM
10
The manner in which L2 learners go about this is
probably NOT the same as the process in L1
acquisition – 3 reasons



A. different needs
B. already have an L1 – with the parameters set to
the values of the L1
C. L2 learners – cognitively mature, able to solve
problems, able to deal with abstract concepts.
Wong Bee Eng FBMK UPM
3. How is Knowledge of Language Put to Use?
11



UG is concerned with knowledge of language –
competence, not how language is used in real life
– performance.
Performance – domain of a theory of language
use, in which linguistic competence is only one
aspect.
Another aspect of language use also has to define
how we access our knowledge base (affected by
sociolinguistic and psycholinguistic variables).
Wong Bee Eng FBMK UPM
Arguments from L1 acquisition
12




L1 acquisition – NOT linked to intelligence.
Dissociation between language development and
cognitive development (aspects of cognition)
Williams syndrome – a metabolic disorder – heart
defects, mental retardation, distinctive facial
expression
Bellugi et al. (1993) – a dissociation between
language development and the kind of cognitive
prerequisites which Piaget argue are necessary for
language development in such children.
Wong Bee Eng FBMK UPM
13


Smith and Tsimpli (1995) - Christopher –
savant – brain damaged but can read, write
and communicate in about 17 languages.
Has low performance IQ but has an
average/above average verbal IQ.
Wong Bee Eng FBMK UPM
14



Specific Language Impairment – SLI (Gopnik and
Crago, 1991; Pinker, 1994).
Children – cognitively normal but language
impaired
Characterized by language being deficient in
specific ways, possibly inherited – some aspects of
language at least might be genetically controlled.
Wong Bee Eng FBMK UPM
15


Language seems separate from other aspects of
cognition although the 2 interact
Language itself seems to be modular in nature
Broca’s aphasia (front and above the left ear)
– impaired speech production – effortful, hesitant and
non-fluent, almost no grammatical structure, mainly
specific nouns and few verbs
- comprehension of speech remains good

Wong Bee Eng FBMK UPM
16




Wernicke’s aphasia – results from injury to the
Wernicke’s area (around and under the left ear.
Effortless, fluent and rapid speech but vague and
incomprehensible – grammatically complex and well
structured, but lacking in content words with specific
meaning; general Ns and Vs (something, stuff, put, did)
comprehension of speech – impaired.
Specific areas of the brain deal with specific aspects
of language.
Wong Bee Eng FBMK UPM

17



6 Features of Language Development (Biologically
triggered behaviour) (Aitchison, 1989, p.67 based on
Lenneberg (1967))
1. The behaviour emerges before it is necessary.
2. Its appearance is not the result of a conscious
decision.
3. Its emergence is not triggered by external
events (though the surrounding environment must be
sufficiently ‘rich’ for it to develop adequately).
Wong Bee Eng FBMK UPM
18



4. Direct teaching and intensive practice have
relatively little effect.
5. There is a regular sequence of ‘milestones’ as
the behaviour develops, and these can usually be
correlated with age and other aspects of
development.
6. There may be a ‘critical period’ for the
acquisition of the behaviour.
Wong Bee Eng FBMK UPM
UNIVERSAL GRAMMAR
WHAT DOES UG CONSIST OF?
19
The theory has many versions.
 from phrase structure rules to
 the Principles and Parameters framework (Chomsky,
1986a,b; 1987) to
 the Minimalist Programme (Chomsky, 1995).
 essentially the goal is the same, i.e. to characterise the
innate language faculty.
Wong Bee Eng FBMK UPM
20

The different versions have varying emphases –
this is the result of search for descriptive adequacy –
to account for the details of increasing numbers of
typologically unrelated languages
while the search for explanatory adequacy – to make
effective cross-language generalizations..
Wong Bee Eng FBMK UPM
21

A theory of language must show how each
particular language can be derived from a
uniform initial state under the ‘boundary
conditions’ set by experience. … The search for
descriptive adequacy seems to lead to evergreater complexity and variety of rule systems,
while the search for explanatory adequacy
requires that language structure must be invariant,
except at the margins.
(Chomsky, 2000: 7)
Wong Bee Eng FBMK UPM
22
Principles
 Initial state – a set of universal principles which
specify the limited possibilities of variation –
parameters.
Parameters
 Need to be fixed (set).
 Language learning – constrained.
Wong Bee Eng FBMK UPM
E.g. of a principle – Structure Dependency
23
The knowledge that languages are Structure
Dependent can explain Subject Auxiliary Inversion,
Passivisation, etc.
The way we move elements is not based on the linear
order of the sentence.
Structure Dependency – a principle of UG
Wong Bee Eng FBMK UPM
Also part of our UG endowment
24


Syntactic categories – both lexical and functional
and do no have to be learnt.
Universal inventory of categories that the child
selects from on the basis of the input, as not all
languages will make use of all categories or their
features.
Wong Bee Eng FBMK UPM
25
PARAMETERS
Languages – organized hierarchically in terms
of phrases (structure – dependency).


But there are rules which differ between
languages – Parameters.
E.g. Head Parameter – specifies the position
of the head in relation to its complement(s).
Wong Bee Eng FBMK UPM
26

Parameters – language –specific knowledge.

Head parameter and it is stated as:


The parameter that determines the relative positioning
of heads with respect to their complements (Radford,
1997; 20).
‘a language is… a set of specification for parameters in
an invariant system of principles of UG’ (Chomsky, 1995:
388).
Wong Bee Eng FBMK UPM
27



Language acquisition – learning the LEXICON; i.e.
learning the VOCABULARY of the language and
settings of parameters.
Abstract principles – specified as before.
Parameters – contained in the FUNCTIONAL
categories only.
Wong Bee Eng FBMK UPM
L1 Acquisition
28

The core element of a phrase is the head.

Complements optionally modify the head.

Another type of modifier is the Specifier – also
an optional modifier.
Wong Bee Eng FBMK UPM
29




In L1 acquisition, children would know that
sentences are made of phrases which comprise
the Specifier-Head-Complement structure.
They don’t have to learn this since this is part of
the child’s innate knowledge.
But they would not know the exact ordering of
these elements in their language.
They need linguistic input in order to set the
head parameter.
Wong Bee Eng FBMK UPM
30


The number of possibilities with regard to the
ordering of these three elements is constrained. The
following are the possibilities:
Specifier-Head-Complement (like the English
language)

Specifier-Complement-Head

Head-Complement-Specifier
Wong Bee Eng FBMK UPM

31
Examples of utterances of a 20-month-old boy
(from Radford, 1997: 22).
Head (V)
Touch
Cuddle
Want
Complement
heads
book
crayons
Head (P)
In
To
With
Complement
school
mummy
potty
Wong Bee Eng FBMK UPM
32


Acquiring this aspect of word order involves the
simple task of setting a binary (two-way) either
head-first or head-last parameter at its
appropriate value.
In other words, UG would tell the child that the only
possible choices are for languages to be head-first
or head-last.
Wong Bee Eng FBMK UPM
Universal Grammar and second language acquisition
Theoretical relevance of UG to SLA/SLL
33
Clear from its appeal in L1 acquisition – as it is a theory
of natural languages and so to say that it has no part to
play in SLA is to say L2es are not natural languages.
A major impetus for SLA research was the discovery that
L1 and L2 acquisition are similar in many ways, e.g. the
morpheme studies.
Wong Bee Eng FBMK UPM
34
L1 acquisition – due to a blueprint in the brain.
L2 learners – go through fairly rigid stages too although
here it is more complicated –

L2 learners are more cognitively mature

L2 learners already know at least one other language

L2 learners have different motivations for learning an L2.
Wong Bee Eng FBMK UPM
35
The notions of

Initial State

Steady State
Wong Bee Eng FBMK UPM
36


These facts have important implications that have to
be addressed.
If the UG hypothesis is the right one for L1
acquisition, then a number of logical possibilities exist
for SLA.
Wong Bee Eng FBMK UPM
37
A. L2es are not UG-constrained
L2es are not constrained by UG principles and
parameters, and they do not behave like natural
languages.
Wong Bee Eng FBMK UPM
38
B. L2es are UG-constrained
i. Full access:
the whole of UG is available to L2 learners, in the
same way as it is to L1 learners.
ii. Partial access:
Some parts of UG are not available any longer.
Wong Bee Eng FBMK UPM
Principles and parameters in SLA/SLL
39
Studies to show learners do not violate the structure
dependency principle.
Learners seem to know that the L2 will be hierarchically
structured in terms of phrases, rather than linearly
ordered.
Wong Bee Eng FBMK UPM
Debates and hypotheses about parameter resetting
40
Empirical evidence
3 views/hypotheses
A. L2 learners have no access to UG
B. L2 learners have full access to UG.
C. L2 learners have partial access to UG.
Wong Bee Eng FBMK UPM
3 views/hypotheses
41
A. L2 learners have no access to UG
UG is no longer available to L2 learners.
Proponents of this view argue that there is a ‘critical
period’ for language acquisition during children’s
early development, and that adult L2 learners have
to resort to other learning mechanisms.
Wong Bee Eng FBMK UPM
Reasons
42


The commonsense observation that immigrant
children become native-like speakers of their L2,
whereas their parents rarely do (see e.g. Johnson
and Newport, 1989).
However, adult grammars are generally UGconstrained (Hawkins, 2001; White, 2003).
Wong Bee Eng FBMK UPM
43

Studies tend to focus on differences
between L1 and L2 acquisition, and on
differences in the end result of the
acquisition process.
Wong Bee Eng FBMK UPM
B. L2 learners have full access to UG.
44
3 sub-views
Full access/no transfer –
UG continues to underpin SLA, for adults as well
as children and there is not such thing as a
critical period.
Wong Bee Eng FBMK UPM
45
Full transfer/full access –
L2 learners have full access to UG principles and
parameters, whether or not they are present in the
learners’ L1.
Wong Bee Eng FBMK UPM
46
Full access/impaired early representations – Learners can
reset parameters to the L2 values, but hat initially,
learners lack functional categories altogether.
Minimal Trees approach – only lexical categories are
projected initially, which transfer from the L1.
Valueless Features Hypothesis – similar account; both
lexical and functional categories are transferred
early on (with a short stage in which only lexical
categories are transferred early on), but functional
categories lack values such as tense, agreement, etc.
and are present as syntactic markers only (i.e.
inflections may be lacking, but the syntactic
operations linked to these categories are in place.)
Wong Bee Eng FBMK UPM
C. L2 learners have partial access to UG
47
2 sub-views
No parameter resetting
Learners only have access to UG via their L1.
They have already accessed the range of principles applying
to their L1, and set parameters to the L1 values, and this
forms the basis for L2 development.
Other principles and parameter settings are not available to
them, and if the L2 has parameter settings different from
those of their L1, they will have to resort to other
mechanisms in order to make the L2 data fit their internal
representations.
Such mechanisms – rooted in general problem-solving
strategies, and not UG-based.
Wong Bee Eng FBMK UPM
48
Impaired functional features
L2 grammars are UG-constrained, but
not all parameter settings are
available to the learners.
L2 learners try to accommodate the L2
grammar within the settings they
already have, i.e. access to
parametric options is unlike L1
acquisition.
Wong Bee Eng FBMK UPM
49
Modulated structure building
Learners begin with ‘minimal trees’, lexical
projections determined by L1.
a.
Functional projections develop gradually, with
L1 functional features transferring on to the
L2, but only when the relevant syntactic
representation has been sufficiently
elaborated to instantiate the property in
question.
Wong Bee Eng FBMK UPM
50
b.
Constructionism
The L2 learner uses a coalition of resources
– a UG template, L1 transfer, primary
linguistic data, its mediation in social
discourse (input and intake) and
instructional bootstrapping – to construct
L2 vocabulary and grammar.
Wong Bee Eng FBMK UPM
Evaluation
51
Scope and achievement of the UG approach
The UG view of language
The UG view of language acquisition
The UG view of the language learner
Wong Bee Eng FBMK UPM
EVALUATION OF UG-BASED APPROACHES TO SLA
52
A. The UG Theory
 The UG theory is a theory of language (linguistic
theory) which aims to describe and explain human
language, not a learning theory.


It is only indirectly relevant to SLA research – to
understand the acquisition process and what it is
that learners have to acquire.
UG research – primarily concerned with the
description and explanation of the formal system
underlying language.
Wong Bee Eng FBMK UPM
53





In the past, it focused mainly on morphosyntax –
outstanding research which will feed into a
comprehensive SLA theory.
Recently, more interest has been shown in phonology,
morphology and the lexicon.
However, semantics, pragmatics and discourse are still not
considered.
Scope – does not include a theory of processing, or a
theory of learning.
It is a property theory, not a transition theory.
Wong Bee Eng FBMK UPM
The UG view of language
54

The object of study is still the sentence and its
internal structure, rather than any larger unit of
language. This includes the study of smaller units
(words, morphemes and phonemes) and how
different elements relate to one another.
Wong Bee Eng FBMK UPM
Criticisms
55




Major criticism – it studies language clinically, in a vacuum, as a
mental object rather than a social or psychological one.
This approach views the speaker/learner not as an individual
with varied characteristics, nor as a social being but as an
idealized receptacle for the UG blueprint (innate knowledge).
The emphasis is not on the speaker/learner (the person) but on
language as the object of study.
In spite of these criticisms – it is highly influential as a linguistic
theory and is the most sophisticated tool for analyzing language
today.
Wong Bee Eng FBMK UPM
The UG view of language acquisition
56
Weaknesses




UG-based approaches criticized for the same
reasons as the theory itself.
In the past - concerned with syntax mainly.
Now, the areas of phonology, morphology and the
lexicon are being investigated.
Semantics, pragmatics and discourse ignored.
Wong Bee Eng FBMK UPM
57


Concerned mainly with the developmental
linguistic route followed by L2 learners –
concerned with documenting and
explaining the nature of L2 linguistic
system.
It ignores the social and psychological
variables which affect the rate of the
acquisition process.
Wong Bee Eng FBMK UPM
Strengths
58


The UG approach to SLA research – highly
influential and fruitful.
Has generated a wealth of studies that have
enhanced our understanding of L2
morphosyntactic development.
Wong Bee Eng FBMK UPM
59

It is useful tool for linguistic analysis – to
describe the interlanguage of the learners,
the L2 and the L1 of the learner.
Researchers are able to formulate welldefined and focused hypotheses in
empirical work. SLA research – increase
our knowledge of human language (the
main aim of UG theory).
Wong Bee Eng FBMK UPM
60

It is useful in explaining some facts about SLA.
E.g. it has informed our understanding of the
phenomena of staged development and systematicity
in SLA – i.e. if learners are constrained by UG, their
development should be staged and systematic (just
like L1 development is).
This theory can explain transfer/cross-linguistic influence
in terms of principles and parameters – i.e. whether
parameters can be reset.
Wong Bee Eng FBMK UPM
The UG view of the language learner
61
Only interested in the learner as the possessor
of a mind that contains language;
assumption is all humans are endowed with
such a mind, and variations between
individuals are of little concern to UG
theorists.
Wong Bee Eng FBMK UPM
Conclusion
62

Meet the criteria of a good theory as it
makes explicit statements of the grounds it
aims to cover and the claims it makes, by
having systematic procedures for theory
evaluation, by attempting to explain and
describe some of the L2 phenomena and by
engaging increasingly with other theories in
the field.
Wong Bee Eng FBMK UPM
63
Final Examination
Questions will be based on units 4, 5, 6 and 7 of
the module and
the second face-to-face lecture.
Wong Bee Eng FBMK UPM
64
Types of questions:
MCQs
T/F
Structural
Short essays/paragraphs
Wong Bee Eng FBMK UPM
Assignment 2
Deadline for submission: Week 11, Sem 2 2014
65
Topic: Provide a historical overview of the major
frameworks (linguistic, psychological, and cognitive
perspectives) on Second Language acquisition (SLA).





Include your name, matriculation number, topic of your
assignment, and date due.
Assignment should be typed and double-spaced with
12 pt. font.
Use APA style in your citations and references.
Turn in a hard copy and an electronic version to my
email on the due date.
Do NOT plagiarise.
Wong Bee Eng FBMK UPM
References



Mitchell, R. and Myles, F. (2004). Second
Language Learning Theories (2nd ed.). London:
Arnold.
Ortega, L. (2009). Understanding second
language acquisition. London: Hodder Arnold.
VanPatten, B. & Williams, J. (Eds.) (2007).
Theories in Second Language Acquisition. Mahwah:
Lawrence Erlbaum.