Universal Grammar Principles Research Articles

Contrast and Construction in a Parameter‐Setting Model of L2 Acquisition

There is an emerging awareness in the field of L2 acquisition regarding the contributions made by both Contrastive Analysis (CA) and Creative Construction (CC) theories of L2 acquisition. CA theories indicate that the L1 experience is important in L2 acquisition, and CC theories indicate that principles of acquisition independent of this experience are also integral to L2 learning. Reconciliation of these two aspects within a principled, empirically‐based theory of L2 acquisition has been difficult (cf. Eckman 1977, 1984; Zobl 1980; Andersen 1983, 1984; Gundel and Tarone 1983; Liceras 1983; Rutherford 1983, 1984; White 1985).This paper argues that the parameter‐setting model of Universal Grammar (UG) (proposed by Flynn 1983a, b, 1987) for L2 acquisition provides the scaffolding necessary for an integration of these two components within one explanatory account. Consistent with CC, L2 learners within this model use principles of UG isolated in L1 acquisition in the construction of the L2 grammar; however, when values of parameters associated with these principles differ between the L1 and the L2, learners assign a new value to cohere with the values for the new target language. The L1 experience counts in determining whether such a new assignment of a parametric value is necessary. This aspect of the model is consistent with a traditional CA theory of L2 learning.Empirical support for this model is provided by a study that investigates the role of the head‐initial/head‐final parameter (Stowell 1981) in adult L2 acquisition of pronoun anaphora. Two groups of adults — L1 speakers of Spanish, a head‐initial language and L1 speakers of Japanese, a head‐final language — were studied in their elicited production of English, a head‐initial language. Results indicate that both groups of learners use the head‐initial/head‐final parameter as a source of structural organization for the L2. Results also indicate that Japanese speakers (L1 ≠ L2) are sensitive, from early stages of acquisition, to the mismatch in head‐direction in English and Japanese, and that they assign new values to this parameter to cohere with the target L2 value. These speakers are thus argued to have the head‐initial/head‐final parameter set in two different ways.Parameters of acquisition in the two cases correspond to those isolated for L1 acquisition of English; however, the point at which this similarity is observed depends upon the degree of correspondence between the two languages.

The acquisition of parameterized grammars

In this paper, I look at some problems that arise if second language learners are assumed to acquire the L2 on the basis of unconstrained hypothesis testing, since this crucially involves the assumption of the availability of negative evidence and does not seem to be sufficiently 'fine-tuned' for the learner to acquire certain aspects of the L2 grammar. Instead, it is proposed that L2 acquisition, like L1, may involve the prior knowledge of a number of highly contrained principles of Universal Grammar which restrict the number of options available to the learner. In some cases, these principles may be subject to parametric variation, so that they do not work in identical fashion in L1 and L2, allowing for the possibility of transfer of the L1 parameter setting. Taking subjacency as a case in point, a pilot study is reported in which native speakers of French and Spanish learning English as a second language were tested for their judgements on the bounding status of S in the L2 grammar. In English S is a bounding node, whereas in French and Spanish it is not. It was found that subjects were less accurate in their judgements on the bounding status of S in English than native-speaking controls, with a number of subjects consistently transferring the L1 parameter. In most cases, subjects showed improvement with increasing level of ESL proficiency. The majority of subjects adopted a consistent position with respect to the question of the bounding status of S, suggesting that they were not indulging in unconstrained hypothesis testing.

On ‘the Galilean style’ of linguistic inquiry

The Specified Subject Condition (henceforth SSC) and Tensed SCondit~ on (henceforth TSC) were proposed in early seventies by Chomsky as principles of universal grammar, restricting application of both syntactic movement and rules of semantic interpretation. An early informal reference to these conditions can be found in (Chomsky 1971:34-40). The first detailed technical discussion of SSC and TSC appeared in Conditions on transformations (henceforth (Chomsky 1973)). Since publication of latter work, these two conditions have played a fundamental role in theory of universal grammar (henceforth UG) within Chomskyan approach to study of language. The developmental history of these two conditions in fact provides us with helpful insight into important aspects of both substantive and methodological developments which Chomsky's general linguistic theory has undergone within The time has come for psychologists and linguists to adopt the Galilean style of inquiry in study both of mind in general and of language in particular. Such is position more than once argued for by Chomsky in recent writings. On face of it, the Galilean style ~s a new mode of ~nqu~ry ~n theoretical linguistcs; overall aim of this essay ~s to see how this apparent novelty holds up under methodological analysis. Before turning to a number of specific questions about the Galilean style, however, it will be in order to take a brief look at main components of Chomsky's argument for adoption of this mode of inquiry past decade.