OPENING
1. BACKGROUND
In the
first part of this work, the learnability issue hasbeen considered from primary
language perspective. The 'logicalproblem of acquisition' and the 'poverty of
stimulus' argumentlead to the well-known idea of an innate language faculty at
work.
Second
language acquisition as the process of learning another language after the
basic of the first have been acquired, starting at about five years of age and
thereafter. Sometime researchers refer to this process as sequential language
acquisition to differentiate it from bilingual ac quistion, which is the
acquision of two languages simulataneously from infancy. Apparently, when a
young child learns two language at the some time, the principles which govern
monolingual first language acquisition apply to the acquisition of both
language.
Second
language acquisition includes learning a new language in a foreign language
context. Second language refer to both foreign and host language and the
learning priciple discussed apply to the acquisition of both. Target language
refer to the language being learned or taught.
Some
arguments in support of the existence of the language facultyin primary
acquisition can be usefully employed in second languageacquisition research; on
the other hand, first and second languageacquisition present several
differences in several respects, whichmakes a comparison between the two
processes an arduous task. Thefirst step in trying to make explicit the
relationship between L1and L2 processes is to restate the issue in UG terms.
CHAPTER II
EXPLANATION
1. Concept
of sla
a.
Direct negative evidence
It is reasonable to assume that most second
languageacquisition occurs in presence of direct negative evidence. Thereare
two sources of direct negative evidence, namely, explicitcorrection of
ungrammatical forms and explanation of grammaticalrules Both types of evidence
are more likely to occur in guidedlearning than in spontaneous learning, where
they are limited oreven unavailable.There is agreement among linguists that
negative evidence isprovided to adult learners, at least in classroom
environment inthe form of correction or explanation of grammar rules,
thoughthere is less consensus on the role they assume in the
acquisitionprocess. Moreover, the effective use of this type of data insecond
language grammar construction"it has been observed that the provision of
negativefeedback (i.e. corrections) does not appear to lead tomore accurate performance,
at least not immediately.Even when the negative feedback is provided in
thecourse of ordinary conversation (i.e. in the form ofexpansions and
paraphrases serving as confirmationchecks and requests for clarification),
there is stillno evidence to suggest that learner amend his
hypothesisimmediately" (Ellis, 1985: 174).
Second language learners do not appear to have
control over theirmistakes, nor can they make use of correction in
grammarconstruction. Furthermore, a comparison between guided andspontaneous
learning demonstrates that in both contexts secondlanguage learners will follow
a common route of developmentirrespective of the type of input they receive
(Ellis: 1985: 202).In other words, correction of ungrammatical forms does not
seem toalter in any way the process of acquisition nor does it seem torule out
the role of UG in second language acquisition. On theother hand, the fact that
empirical studies on the efficacy ofcorrection have not proved conclusive,
"do not mean thatcorrection plays no role in language learning" and
that one mayexpect that further research "may also uncover specific
situationsin which error correction may be effective". (Dulay, Burt
andKrashen, 1982: 36).The role of 'explanatory evidence' is another questionablesource
of grammar construction in second language acquisition. Thenature of grammar
rules involved in formal instruction is greatlydissimilar from the type of
unconscious language knowledge whichcharacterizes UG.
b.
Indirect negative evidence
If
certain types of unmarked sentence structures constructionfail to occur in the
input data when they are expected to appear,this may constitute indirect
evidence of the existence of a markedproperty in the target language grammar.
Schwartz (1987: 282)considers this type of data as the relevant one in second
languagegrammar construction. In fact, whereas direct negative
data"imputes to the language faculty the questionablecapacities of
comparing grammatical with ungrammaticalsentences or simply making use of
metalinguisticknowledge in its computations, indirect negativeevidence does
not".In other words, if UG plays a role in second language
acquisition,indirect rather than direct negative evidence is the proper typeof
data second language learners rely on.
c.
Simplified registers
The
direct counterpart to motherese in second languageacquisition is 'teacher-talk'
or 'foreigner-talk', depending onthe situational and environmental context in
which they appear.Although simplified, these two forms of adjusted input are
used,respectively, by teachers and natives. Crucially, they do notcontain
ungrammatical simplifications, but they share some commonsurface properties:
slow speech rate, shorter utterances,preference of co-ordination over
subordination, use of recurrentforms. Their main function is to facilitate
communication andcomprehension with foreign language learners. However, as
opposedto motherese, which contributes to the developement of grammarknowledge,
"no direct causal relation between teacher- andforeigner-talk and L2 grammatical
knowledge exists" (Schwartz,1987: 199). Additional sources of positive
input are normallyprovided in guided learning, namely, sample reading and
classroomlectures among others.
at least
at syntax level. The difference betweensuccessful and unsuccessful learners
rests precisely on the factthat, whereas the former receive some perfect (i.e.
grammaticallycorrect) L2 input, the latter are submitted to a greater amount
ofdegenerated input in the form of interlanguage talk. Somelinguists point out
that, actually, first language learnerssometimes get degenerated input as well.
Recent studies in childlanguage acquisition demonstrate just the opposite:
motherese isnot a form of degenerate input.
2. the
goal of sla
Second language acquisition –
naturalistic, instructed, or both – has long been a common activity for a
majority of the human species and is becoming ever more vital as second
languages themselves increase in importance. In manyparts of the world,
monolingualism, not bilingualism or multi lingualism, is the marked case. The
300–400 million people whose native language is English, for example, are
greatly outnumbered by the 1–2 billion people for whom it is an official second
language. Countless children grow up in societies where they are exposed to one
language in the home, sometimes two, another when they travel to a nearby town
to attend primary or secondary school, and a third or fourth if they move to a
larger city or another province for tertiary education or for work.
3. The Language Acquisition Device
Earlier
theories of language acquisition regarded language acquisition as a process of
imitation and reinforcement, a kind of 'habit formation'. According to this
view, the child would learn linguistic forms by a process of analogy with other
forms. The last decades have marked the decline of this concept of language
acquisition. Many observations and studies indicate that the child cannot
proceed in the acquisition of language by relying only on a process of analogy.
By no means, in fact, can such a process account for the richness of language,
creativity and for the complexity of language, given the limitations of data
actually available to the child.
Later
formulations of grammar acquisition in the context ofgenerativism postulate the
existence of some kind of cognitivemechanism governing and permitting the
acquisition of language,the 'language acquisition device' (henceforth LAD). It
isundeniable that the environment affects L1 learners. In order tolearn a
language, children need the incoming data, but alsosomething that allows them
to process the data they are exposedto. In the following passage, Chomsky
postulates the existence ofLAD:"Having some knowledge of the
characteristics of theacquired grammars and the limitations on the availabledata,
we can formulate quite reasonable and fairlystrong empirical hypotheses
regarding the internalstructure of the language-acquisition device
thatconstructs the postulated grammars from the given data"(Chomsky, 1968:
113).According to this view, the content of LAD is a system ofuniversal
principles and parameters fixed through the availabledata.
There
is agreement among linguists that the process ofacquiring a language is very
peculiar and complex. There is,however, not much consensus about the nature of
the mechanismwhich governs it. In particular, various proposals have been
madeabout the nature of the LAD and its psychological basis.
4. Universal
Grammar theory
a)
Principles and parameters
According
to Chomsky (1981b: 7), UG "is taken to be a characterization of the
child's pre-linguistic initial state". It consists of "a system of
principles with parameters to be fixed,along with a periphery of marked exceptions"
(Chomsky, 1986a: 150 - 151). The "core grammar" entails a set of
universal principles, which apply in all languages, and a set of parameters
which may vary from language to language. By contrast, the "peripheral grammar"
is made up of quirks and irregularities of language. The theory of UG must
observe two conditions: "on the one hand, it must be compatible with the diversity
of existing (indeed possible) grammars. At the same time, UG must be
sufficiently constrained and restrictive in the options it permits so as to
account for the fact that each of these grammars develops in the mind on the
basis of quite limited evidence...[i.e. thelogical problem]. What we expect to
find, then, is a highly structured theory of UG based on a number of fundamental
principles that sharply restrict the class of attainable grammars and narrowly
constrain their form, but with parameters that have to be fixed by experience"
(Chomsky, ib.: 3-4).
On
the role of parameters in syntactic theory Wexler and Manzini (1987) remark: "parameters
have been introduced into linguistic theoryas a solution to the fundamental
problem of linguistics:the tension between the existing variety of
naturallanguages and the necessity of explaining how c hildrencan actually
learn the grammars of their particular languages".
The
parameters being part of a 'higher' principle, the set of principles is not
increased by their presence (modularity of the model). In this sense, parameters
permit the description and explanation of linguistic phenomena, which otherwise
would have to be explained by a number of redundant rules; furthermore, the introduction
of parameters accounts and limits the range oflinguistic variation across
languages.
b)
Subtheories of grammar
The
explanation of linguistic phenomena is not the outcome of one single principle
but rather the result of the interaction of several principles and parameters.
A recent development in syntactic theory which underlies UG is
'Government-Binding Syntax' (Chomsky, 1981b, 1986). The name 'Government-Binding'
(henceforth GB) originates from two primary aspects of the overall theory: "bounding
theory poses locality conditions on certain processes and related items. The
central notion of government theory is the relation between the head of a construction
and categories dependent on it. θ-theory is concerned with the assignment of
thematic roles such as agent-of-action, etc. [...] Binding theory is concerned with
relations of anaphors, pronoun, names and variables to possible antecedents.
Case theory deals with assignment of abstract Case and its morphological realization.
Control theory determines the potential for reference of the abstract
pronominal element PRO" (Chomsky, 1981b: 6).
Each
'module' of the theory is a subcomponent of the general theory: the theory of
government deals with the assignment of cases together with the case theory, or
it accounts for the referential possibilities in the sentence together with the
binding theory; bounding theory limits the distance that an item may move. The
range of variation across languages is defined by parameters which can be fixed
either to the negative or the positive value of each single language. UG theory
is closely linked to the learnability issue. In order to have an idea of what
UG may consist of and the relevance for language acquisition, some of its
meaningful principles and parameters formulated by linguists will be mentioned.
c)
Structure-dependence
Structure-dependence
is a universal principle holding across all syntactic categories of language.
There is no language in the world which contravenes this principle: "grammatical
transformations are necessarily structuredependent, in that they manipulate
substrings only in terms of their assignment to categories" (Chomsky,
1965:55).
CHAPTER III
CLOSING
A. CONLUSION
All in all,
despite the differences between first and secondacquisition processes, the consideration
of the poverty ofstimulus argument seems to hold true in second
languageacquisition process as well. On the reasonably fair assumptionthat much
L2 knowledge is underdetermined, two equally possiblesolutions to the logical
problem of second language acquisitioncan be formulated, which correspond to
the Fundamental Difference
Hypothesis and
Fundamental Identity Hypothesis:
1)
UG is no longer available to adult second languagelearners, though they
may tap first language competence insecond language grammar construction.
Second languageacquisition is the product of some general
problem-solvingmechanism which proceeds on a basis of trial and error. Thisview
is supported, among others, by Bley-Vroman (1989: 53)
2)
adult second language learners do have (partial) access toUG, namely,
they still use actively the language faculty insecond language acquisition.
Furthermore, they are alsosupposed to have access to first language abstract
propertiesof language (Flynn, 1988: 179; Clahsen and Muysken, 1989:23).
In the following chapters the second solution is
supported. In fact, implicit in the parameter-setting view of second
languageacquisition is the idea that UG principles and (perhaps)parameters are
still an active force, though reduced, in secondlanguage grammar construction.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Dulay, Heidi. 1982. Language Two. New York: Oxford University Press
No comments:
Post a Comment