This piece of work intends to present the most cogitable positions concerning the functioning of universal principles in Second Language Acquisition (SLA) as they are commonly considered to work within First Language Acquisition (FLA). It will transpire that various aspects of SLA compared to FLA do not allow for a lucid and irrevocable answer to be given for this question.
In order to give the reader an idea of what Universal Grammar (UG) deals with, the first part of the paper sets up a conception of FLA to work on the basis of innate knowledge. Special emphasis is put on the content of Input as well as the realization of UG in terms of principles and parameters. Following SLA is scrutinized more closely with respect to the acquisition process and differences concerning the preconditions of both FLA and SLA before turning to the discussion of the major positions in linguistic research.
Table of Contents
1 Introduction
2 The idea of Universal Grammar
2.1 Introducing UG
2.2 UG vs. Input
2.2.1 Underdetermination
2.2.2 Degeneracy
2.2.3 Negative evidence
2.3 Principles and parameters of UG
2.3.1 Principles
2.3.2 Parameters
3 UG in Second Language Acquisition
3.1 Interlanguage grammar
3.2 L1 and L2 in comparison
3.3 Major positions
3.3.1 UG is completely available in SLA
3.3.2 UG is no longer available in SLA
3.3.3 UG is partially available in SLA
4 Conclusion
Objectives and Research Themes
The paper examines the applicability of the Universal Grammar (UG) framework—widely accepted in First Language Acquisition (FLA)—to the context of Second Language Acquisition (SLA). It investigates whether innate linguistic principles guide the acquisition of a second language or if different cognitive mechanisms are at play.
- Theoretical foundations of Universal Grammar (Principles and Parameters)
- Challenges to input-based language acquisition (Underdetermination, Degeneracy)
- Comparison of First and Second Language Acquisition processes
- Evaluation of the three major linguistic positions regarding UG access in SLA
- Analysis of fossilization and interlanguage development
Excerpt from the Book
2.2.1 Underdetermination
Certain features of a language are said to be “underdetermined by the input” (White 1989:5). In other words, these features are neither explicitly taught by parents nor abstracted from the data children are exposed to since the core of the features’ relevance is outside the utterances the learners hear. If the learners would make generalizations about language barely on the basis of input, thus only using their cognitive capacity, one would expect them not to succeed when exceptions of the generalizations made occur.
An example for this is the distribution of reflexive pronouns. These always involve a noun phrase to which they refer, i.e. they are coreferential. In (2) the intricate and at first sight apparently random possibilities of coreference of constituents are illustrated. Their complexity support the statement that it is rather implausible that children try to find out the rules when to apply for a certain type or not on a trial and error basis, since children simply do not make errors such a strategy would evoke. The words in italics are tested to be coreferential:
Summary of Chapters
1 Introduction: This chapter outlines the scope of the study, introducing the debate regarding the role of universal principles in Second Language Acquisition compared to First Language Acquisition.
2 The idea of Universal Grammar: This chapter establishes the theoretical framework of Universal Grammar, covering innate knowledge, input challenges like underdetermination, and the organization of principles and parameters.
3 UG in Second Language Acquisition: This chapter contrasts L1 and L2 acquisition processes and evaluates three main theoretical positions concerning the extent of UG availability for second language learners.
4 Conclusion: This chapter synthesizes the findings, arguing that the Partial Access Hypothesis offers the most applicable perspective while highlighting the need for further research.
Keywords
Universal Grammar, Second Language Acquisition, Innateness Hypothesis, Principles and Parameters, Underdetermination, Interlanguage Grammar, Fossilization, Full Access, No Access, Partial Access, Language Acquisition, Linguistics, Syntax, Mother Tongue, Competence.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the primary focus of this academic paper?
The paper explores whether the concept of Universal Grammar (UG), which helps explain how children acquire their first language, is also active and available during the process of acquiring a second language.
What are the central thematic areas discussed?
The core themes include the innateness hypothesis, the logic of linguistic principles and parameters, the challenges posed by language input, and the divergent theories regarding how adult learners process new language rules.
What is the core research question?
The research asks if L2 learners retain access to the innate linguistic structures that govern First Language Acquisition or if they rely exclusively on cognitive learning mechanisms.
Which scientific methods or approaches are utilized?
The work employs a theoretical analysis and literature review, comparing linguistic data, developmental models, and existing studies to evaluate three competing hypotheses about UG in SLA.
What is the main subject of the central chapters?
The main sections discuss the "projection problem," the mechanics of UG such as subjacency and head parameters, and the specific debate between the "Full Access," "No Access," and "Partial Access" hypotheses.
Which keywords best characterize this research?
Key terms include Universal Grammar, Second Language Acquisition, Interlanguage, Fossilization, Innateness Hypothesis, and Parameter Resetting.
How does the paper define the "projection problem"?
It describes the projection problem as the discrepancy between the limited, often imperfect input children receive and the complex, highly structured grammatical competence they eventually attain, implying the necessity of innate knowledge.
What is the significance of the "Partial Access Hypothesis" according to the author?
The author identifies this as the most plausible position because it acknowledges that while L2 learners may not have the same full access as L1 learners, they likely utilize a combination of transferred L1 knowledge and certain active UG components.
- Quote paper
- Daniel Schupmann (Author), 2004, The role of universal grammar in Second Language Acquisition (SLA), Munich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/32936
