Theories of Language Description

Presentation on

Review of the Article

Presented to: Sir Tahir Saleem Presented by: Muzammal IqbalNamreen Fiaz Saima Rashid

M.Phil Scholars English (Linguistics)University of Lahore Chenab campus

(Gujrat)

(REN HULIN, 2014)BIBLIOGRAPHY

REN HULIN, X. N. (2014). A STUDY OF CHOMSKY'S UNIVERSAL GRAMMAR IN SECOND LANGUAGE ACQUISITION. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL ON

STUDIES IN ENGLISH LANGUAGE AND LITERATURE (IJSELL), 7.

REVIEWED BY MUZAMMAL IQBAL

NAMREEN FIAZSAIMA RASHID

Summary

Universal Grammar and SLA The article discusses about Universal

Grammar presented by Chomsky. It has gained a lot of attention by linguists. The researchers have cited different researches and their results to the application of UG in SLA. They are addressing the problem that, the concept of UG is as much applicable to the SLA as it is in L1.

Universal Grammar and SLA

The most debatable question in the field of linguistics Whether linguistic capacities are innate or not

there are two thoughts

Nativist Empiricist Nativist

Children are born with some linguistics knowledge Empiricist

children acquire language from linguistic experience Since 1940s, behaviorism has dominant position in interpreting the

language learning

Learning is a process of stimulus and response.

Continue…

LAD

Chomsky put forward LAD to refer to the innate mechanism of language learning. UG• A way to introduce the idea of innate mechanism.• Special device of human brain• UG help people to learn language quickly • Unconscious and potential knowledge 1994, Cook stated that UG tries to account for the nature of the

language representation,• The nature of language learning • The nature of language use.

parameters UG characterize structure and processes children bring to task of L1

(principles and parameters). According to Cook Language properties inherent in human mind

make up UG Carrol (2005) parameters as a grammatical feature that can be set to

any of several values. Null-subject parameters Null-subject parameters

The language allows sentences without a subject, i.e (want more apples) this is correct in Italian or Spanish but not in English. Subject parameters

The language requires subjects for sentences to be grammatical, (I want more apple)

Parameters

Pro-drop parameter Relationship between subject and verb Pro-drop

Chinese is a pro-drop language as empty subject can occur and inversion can take place i.e, Xia yu le Non-pro-drop

English is a non-pro-drop language because every English sentence must have a subject, i.e, It is raining. Chomsky asserts that the grammar of a language can be regarded as

a particular set of values for these parameters.

UG Approach

UG is the overall system of the principles and parameters. Hyams’s parameter-setting theorists also indicate that

children were born not only with the parameters and but also with the values of the parameters.

UG has the strength to address theoretically the projection problem

The way in which learner know more than they could have learned from the input to which they have exposed. (Skehan, 77)

Focus of SLA study

The field of SLA study seems to be important both theoretically and practically .

The theoretical importance is closely related tour understanding of how language is represented in the mind and whether there is a difference between the way language is acquired and processed.

The practical importance arises from the assumption that an understanding of how languages are learned will lead to more effective teaching practices.

Three advances in SLA

I. The disentanglement of issues concerning L2 learning development from issues related to L2 classroom processes,

II. The discovery that the Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis was empirically inadequate,

III. The falling into disrepute of Lenneberg’s (1967) Critical Period Hypothesis for language acquisition

Three UG Hypothesis for SLA

I. Direct Accessibility HypothesisII. Indirect Accessibility HypothesisIII. In Accessibility Hypothesis

Three UG Hypothesis for SLA

Direct Accessibility Hypothesis Flynn and White have worked a lot on this hypothesis They assert that adult learners learn both L1 and L2 by setting parameters to UG.Flynn compare 2 groups of L2 learners of English Langauge. Group one: (background of Spanish)Group two:(background of Japanese and Chinese)

Continue…

Chinese is complement-head languagethey have shown no significance for syntaxwith the advanced stages of acquisition they learned forward bending. Spanish learners have recognized early

on that value of head parameters due to same value of head parameter in both Spanish and English.

So, Flynn proves the accessibility of UG to SLA.

Indirect Accessibility Hypothesis

White has explored parameters models on the basis of Flynn research. He asserts two questions;

The first is absolute constraint The second is effect of L1 parameters settings

on the learning of L2 parameters settings. White has given grammatical judgment of L1

in L2. It proves that L1 always effect L2. Although all languages have links with UG but in L2 learning it plays restricted role.

Inaccessibility Hypothesis

Clahsen (1986) made a study on word order acquisition.

He has chosen German Language For one group it is L1 For other group it is L2. First group learns SVO first and the

second group learn SOV.

Continue…

So, it was concluded that UG is inaccessible.

He argues that L2 learners construct grammar on the basis of general problem solving strategies.

This hypothesis proves that UG is accessible in L1 and not in L2.

SIMILARITIES & DISSIMILARITIES OF UG IN

SLA

similarities in L1 & L2 Arguments of Fries & Palmer

UG in SLA Similarities of morphemes Learning process

Differences in L1 & L2

Process of language acquisition Cognitive ability of children and adults Environment of learning L1 & L2 Input modes of learning L1 & L2 Interference of other languages

Application of UG in SLAArguments of Zhang

She states that UG to SLA is complicated because of fundamental differences

She argues that L2 learners already know L1.

This is the basic reason of difference between L1 & L2.

She concludes that L2 learning is quite different from L1.

She speaks in favor of Krashan who differentiates between L1 & L2 learning

Continue…

L1 is acquired language L2 is learned language Most of the scholars are in favor of

Indirect Accessibility Hypothesis

Problems according to Skehan

I. UG itself can’t stand stillII. UG researchers focus on what the

underlying theory deems to be important, means, the agenda is set from the fundamental discipline.

III. UG does not complement effectively the processing perspective.

Conclusion

Significant theory Principals & parameters Logical concepts Analysis of problems

Now Questions and comments are welcomed

THANK YOU