BBI 3209 Language Acquisition

1. BBI 3209Language 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

3. Unit 4 – The role of UG in L1 acquisition Universal Grammar Principles Parameters L1 Acquisition Wong Bee Eng FBMK UPM

4. Unit 5 – The observable phenomena in SLA/ SLL 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

5. Unit 6 – The cognitive approach to SLA/ SLL The Perceptual Saliency Approach Learnability/Teachability Hypothesis Information Processing Models - McLaughlin’s information processing model - Andersen’s ACT* model Wong Bee Eng FBMK UPM

6. Unit 7 – The role of universal grammar in SLA/ SLL 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

7. 1. What Constitutes Knowledge of Language? • Knowledge of language – subconsciousmental 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

9. 2. How is Knowledge of Language Acquired? • 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

11. 3. How is Knowledge of Language Put to Use? • 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

12. Arguments from L1 acquisition • 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

19. UNIVERSAL GRAMMAR WHAT DOES UG CONSIST OF? 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 forexplanatory 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 ever-greater 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 principleswhich specify the limited possibilities of variation – parameters. Parameters • Need to be fixed (set). • Language learning – constrained. Wong Bee Eng FBMK UPM

23. E.g. of a principle – Structure Dependency 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

24. Also part of our UG endowment • 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

28. L1 Acquisition • 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) Complement Touch heads Cuddle book Want crayons Head (P) Complement In school To mummy With 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-lastparameter 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

33. Universal Grammar and second language acquisition Theoretical relevance of UG to SLA/SLL 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

39. Principles and parameters in SLA/SLL 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

40. Debates and hypotheses about parameter resetting 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

41. 3 views/hypotheses 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

42. Reasons • 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 UG-constrained (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

44. B. L2 learners have full access to UG. 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

47. C. L2 learners have partial access to UG 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. 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. 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