Universal Grammar in Second Language Acquisition - Research Paper Example

? Universal Grammar in Second Language Acquisition Universal Grammar belongs to an innate naturally endowed linguistic faculty. It puts limitations upon grammars, limiting their form (the account of likely grammatical groups, in the extensive sense, for instance, syntactic, phonological, semantic), and how they function (the computational organism, principles, which the grammar is based on). Universal Grammar includes invariant ideologies and parameters. Whereas theories such as Government- Binding (GB), Optimality Theory or Minimalism vary as in what way specifically they handle notions like parameters and principles, there is an accord that certain language properties are too non-concrete, subtle as well as intricate to be acquired without hypothesizing innate and explicitly linguistic restraints. This paper is a reflective essay on Universal grammar in Second Language Acquisition. Universal Grammar is a concept appropriate to the linguistic competence issue, for instance, a notion concerning the grammatical representation nature. Although Universal Grammar affords constraints on potential grammars in the acquisition process, it is not an acquisition theory. This fact is often misconstrued, possibly owing to expressions like LAD (Language Acquisition Device) that numerous persons earlier equated with Universal Grammar. Nevertheless, it might be more correct to consider Universal Grammar as merely part of Language Acquisition Device or faculty of language. The Language Acquisition Device will as well have to encompass learning ideologies, triggering algorithms, and processing doctrines. In other terms, on top of a constraints theory on Inter-Language representation, a concept on means of acquiring that representation is needed; a developmental theory (whether it is in first Language or second Language acquisition) (Epstein, Flynn & Martohardjono, 1996). Although Universal Grammar adds to enlightenment on languages’ acquisition, this is in the manner of how learners happen to know properties, which go far past the input; how learners know that particular things are impossible, why parsing are of single sort instead of another. Universal Grammar claims that these properties about language do not require to be learned. What motivates for Universal Language? It is the assertion that, however, in the instance of L1 (first languages), there exists a rational language acquisition problem, an incongruity amid what enters (specifically, the primary dialectal data) as well as what gets out (a parsing). In other terms, the input establishes the output (Epstein, Flynn & Martohardjono, 1996). Supposing a rational problem of first languages acquisition, persons have inquired whether the case is the same for second languages. This inquiry remains dominant - do second language learners get insentient information (a psychological representation), which goes further than the second language input? If they do, can alternative causes of this information be eliminated, for instance, the first language? The solidest example for the function of Universal Grammar in Second Language Acquisition is that the second language elements cannot be acquired from input only or from input and non-domain-specific learning doctrines or from the first grammar only (Schwartz & Sprouse, 1996). Supposing that there exists indeed a rational problem of second language acquisition, investigators have enquired more Universal Grammar-specific enquiries. In the ‘80s, the Universal Grammar question seemed comparatively straight forward (as well as relatively universal): Is Universal Grammar available (or reachable) to second language learners? Do inter-language grammars show proof of being restrained by Universal Grammar principles? Several principles were explored, such as the ECP, Binding Principle A and Subjacency. The hypothesis was that if one can establish that certain Universal Grammar principle works or does not work, then this simplifies to other philosophies, hence to Universal Grammar availability or non-availability, generally (Vainikka &Young-Scholten, 1994). Much contemporary research focuses on Inter-Language representation nature. Specific grammatical elements are examined and assertions are made concerning how these elements are represented within the Inter-Language Grammar. In several instances, the “does this emanate from Universal Grammar or first language?” query as well as “does this denote access to Universal Grammar?” query is not overtly addressed (correctly in my opinion). The emphasis on Inter-Language representation reveals itself particularly evidently in existing research concerning the second language initial state. A range of primary state assertions have been articulated: the first language parsing is the original state (Schwartz & Sprouse, 1996); Universal Grammar is the original state (Epstein, Flynn & Martohardjono, 1996); a parsing with verbal but not practical groupings is the original state (Vainikka &Young-Scholten, 1994). Theories concerning the original state are concepts concerning the representation, which second language learners start off with, the depiction, which that they employ to understand the second language input. These, therefore, are not concepts concerning Universal Grammar availability (in contrast to Epstein, Flynn & Martohardjono (1996) who misguidedly equate claims concerning representations devoid of functional groupings with assertions concerning partial access to Universal Grammar). The representation nature in development is as well an issue. Certainly, earlier claims concerning parameter reorganizing were claims concerning the representation nature at different phases, though they were not continually viewed in that way. The increase in papers exploring detailed Inter-Language knowledge aspects within various domains mirrors the current matter with representational problems, and increasingly sophisticated explorations in the subject (Schwartz & Sprouse, 1996). With the matter shifting to Inter-Language Grammars ‘nature considered within their individual right, the inquiry arose whether they exist constantly as natural language organisms, or whether they exist as ‘rogue’ (for instance, failing to adhere to Universal Grammar constraints. In the cases, Inter-Language Grammars are claimed to establish (or not establish) elements not found anywhere within natural languages, therefore, indirectly placing doubt upon Universal Grammar’s involvement. (The response undertakes the practice of presenting an alternative exploration of similar data, and disclosing that such circumstances do arise within natural languages.) Several researchers have stated that L2 acquisition concepts must explicate both the developmental problem and representational problem. Much Universal Grammar and Second Language Acquisition research has concentrated on the L2 learner’s nature of grammar, searching for proof for or even against the UG’s principles as well as parameters involvement, and has discovered the initial state’s nature, and the evolving grammar. These are the issues of representation (Schwartz & Sprouse, 1996). Conclusively, the Universal Grammar inquiry is a fragment of a broader query: How are the accepted linguistic grammars like? Indeed, Universal Grammar is suggested as a response to that inquiry. By concentrating more over what Inter-Language Grammars are like (their make-up instead of their source), therefore, working out a more productive manner of examining the Universal Grammar’s involvement. It is crucial to take into consideration that assertions for Universal Grammar operation in second language acquisition are merely assertions that inter-language grammars (ILG) will fall in a restricted range, where the ‘assumption space’ is quantified by Universal Grammar. Assuming that the sole function of Universal Grammar is to limit the space hypothesis obtainable to the acquirer of language, Full Restriction could be a better perspicuous term than the customary ‘Full Access.’ If such terms have to be used whatsoever, this one has numerous benefits, since it concentrates one’s attention upon the ILG’s properties (the acquirer’s representation), whereas simultaneously reminding people that the limitations come from Universal Grammar (Vainikka &Young-Scholten, 1994). References Epstein, S., Flynn, S., & Martohardjono, G. (1996). Second Language Acquisition: Theoretical And Experimental Issues In Contemporary Research. Brain and Behavioral Sciences 19: 677-758. Schwartz, B., & Sprouse, R. (1996). L2 Cognitive States And The Full Transfer/Full Access Model. Second Language Research 12: 40-72. Vainikka, A., & Young-Scholten, M. (1994). Direct Access To X’-Theory: Evidence From Korean And Turkish Adults Learning German. In T. Hoekstra & B. Schwartz (Eds.), Language Acquisition Studies In Generative Grammar (pp. 265-316). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Read More