Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Introduction
A number of possible determinants of second language acquisition (SLA) have now
been considered—the learner’s first language (L1), input/interaction, and learner
strategies. One possibility that has not so far been considered is that SLA is governed
by properties of the two languages involved —the target and the native languages.
Wode (1980b), for instance, proposes that language acquisition manifests
‘developmental principles’, which he defines in terms of the linguistic properties of
the target language. He argues that the order of development is determined by the
nature of the linguistic rules that have to be acquired. This proposal is very different
from that discussed in the preceding chapter. There the process of development was
explained as the result of inductive strategies operating on the input data. Although
these strategies were defined with specific reference to SLA, they must nevertheless
be seen as general cognitive procedures which will be involved in other kinds of
development, quite apart fro m language. However, proposes that there is an
independent linguistic faculty that is responsible for language acquisition. The
developmental principles he discusses derive from lingua -cognitive abilities, rather
than general inductive abilities. Wode (198 4) makes this quite explicit:
. . . the kind of cognition required to be able to learn languages must be different
from the general cognition or the capacities underlying problem solving or the kind of
operations crucial in Piagetian types of developmenta l psychology.
The claim that language acquisition —first or second—is dependent on a separate
linguistic faculty which all human beings possess has already been discussed briefly in
Chapter 3, The purpose of this discussion was to provide the background to the study
of interlanguage universals. These universals, however, were explained by postulating
a ‘cognitive organizer’ (Dulay and Burt 1977) rather than by considering the formal
linguistic devices of the target language. That is, the regularities of SLA were seen as
the product of inductive procedures rather than of an independent language faculty.
The purpose of this chapter is to explore to what extent these regularities can be
accounted for in terms of purely linguistic properties which influence how
interlanguages can develop. The key concept in this chapter is that of linguistic
universals.
The study of linguistic universals has contributed to explanations of SLA in two ways.
First, it has been proposed that the linguistic properties of the target l anguage vary in
how difficult they are to acquire, according to whether they are universal or language -
specific. That is, those properties of the target language which are common to many
or all languages are easy to learn in comparison to those properties that are found in
few languages, or only in the target language. This approach involves a consideration
of just the target language. The second approach involves a comparison of the target
and native languages. It has been suggested that the study of lingu istic universals can
help to overcome one of the major problems of the Contrastive Analysis hypothesis,
namely that not all the linguistic differences between the native and target languages
result in learning difficulty (see Chapter 2). Linguistic univers als can be used to help
predict which differences lead to difficulty and which ones do not. Thus, the study of
linguistic universals has helped to revamp transfer theory.
This chapter will draw heavily on Chomsky’s theory of Universal Grammar and also
typological universals. These are explained in the section that follows. The next
section considers the role of universals in L1 acquisition, as it is here where the
pioneering research was done. Then the role of linguistic universals in SLA is
examined, with regard to their effects on grammar formation and on L1 transfer.
Finally some of the problems of the Universal Hypothesis are discussed.
Linguistic universals
Two rather different approaches to describing linguistic universals have been
adopted. Chomsky (e.g. 1965, 1980, 1981) seeks to identify linguistic universals by the
in-depth study of a single language. He argues that only in this way is it possible to
discover the highly abstract principles of grammar that constrain the form of any
specific grammar. He refers to these principles as Universal Grammar. In contrast,
Greenberg (1966) and those following in his path (e.g. Comrie 1981) have ser about
identifying universals by examining a wide range of languages from different language
families in order to discover what features they have in common. The universals
established in this way are referred to as typological universals.
Universal Grammar
Cook (1985) in a lucid explication of the Chomskyan view of Universal Grammar
writes:
The language properties inherent in the human mind make up ‘Universal Grammar’,
which consists not of particular rules or of a particular language, but a set of general
principles that apply to all languages.
Two questions arise from this definition: (1) Why are these propertie s ‘inherent in the
human mind ? ‘, and (2) What exactly are the ‘general principles that apply to all
languages?
Chomsky`s explanation for the innateness of Universal Grammar is that without a set
of innate principles it would not be possible for a child to learn the grammar of his
mother tongue. This is because the data available from the input are insufficient to
enable the child to discover certain rules. As those working in the Chomskyan
tradition put ir, the child‘s grammatical knowledge is necessaril y undetermined by the
input data. Felix (1984) gives three ways in which these data are inadequate. First,
some structures are so rare and marginal that it would not be possible for the child to
obtain sufficient exposure to them. Second, the only way in w hich wrong hypotheses
could be discarded would be if the input were to provide negative feedback, which, in
fact, it does not do. Third, the rules of any grammar are highly abstract and so do not
reflect the surface properties of the language.
As an example of the kind of argument that is used to justify the existence of a
genetically programmed Universal Grammar, consider the following two sentences:
1 We gave the book to the girl.
2 We explained the answer to the girl.
These sentences share the same surface structure, but whereas (1) contains an
indirect object and can be rewritten as (3):
3 We gave the girl the book.