Definition of UG

„ A set of principles and parameters that constrain all human languages. Universal Grammar „ UG is par t o f the human gene tic in Second Language Acquisition endowment and is encoded in the Language Acquisition Faculty (LAF).

2

And what is the LAF? Principles and Parameters of UG

„ “An innate component of the human mind „ A principle of UG is a statement that is that yields a particular language through true for all human languages. interaction with presented experience, a For example: device that converts experience into a The principle of structure dependency system of knowledge attained: knowledge „ A parameter must be set according to the of one or another language.” requirements of the language being acquired. For example: Chomsky (1986) The null subject parameter

3 4

Principle of Structural Dependency Principle of Structural Dependency

„ Grammatical rules do not depend on the „ Subject-auxiliary inversion in English linear ordering of the words in the – She will laugh. sentence, but on how these words are structured within constituents of specific types.

5 6

1 Principle of Structural Dependency Principle of Structural Dependency

„ Subject-auxiliary inversion in English „ Subject-auxiliary inversion in English – She will laugh. – She will laugh. – Will she laugh? – Will she laugh?

– The student who is takitakingng good notes will get an A.

7 8

Principle of Structural Dependency Principle of Structural Dependency

„ Subject-auxiliary inversion in English „ Subject-auxiliary inversion in English – She will laugh. – She will laugh. – Will she laugh? – Will she laugh?

– The student who is takitakingng good notes will get – The student who is takitakingng good notes will get an A. an A. – Is the student who taking good notes will get – Is the student who taking good notes will get an A? an A?

9 10

Principle of Structural Dependency Principle of Structural Dependency

„ Subject-auxiliary inversion in English „ Subject-auxiliary inversion in English

–[NPShe] will laugh. –[NPShe] will laugh.

– Will [NPshe] laugh? – Will [NPshe] laugh?

–[NPThe student who is taking good notesnotes]will –[NPThe student who is taking good notesnotes]will get an A. get an A.

– Will [NPthe student who is taking good notesnotes] get an A?

11 12

2 The Null (Ø) Subject Parameter The Null (Ø) Subject Parameter

1. I ate shepherds pie. 1. I ate shepherds pie. 2. Ho mangiato il risotto alla milanese. 2. Ø Ho mangiato il risotto alla milanese. 3. Mary speaks English very well 3. Mary speaks English very well 4. because she was born in the US. 4. because she was born in the US. 5. Vito parla l’italiano molto bene 5. Vito parla l’italiano molto bene 6. ma è nato negli stati uniti. 6. ma Ø è nato negli stati uniti.

13 14

The Logical Problem of Language Principles and Parameters of UG Acquisition

„ A principle of UG is a statement that is „ The linguistic input available to children underunder-- true for all human languages. determines the linguistic competence of adults. For example: „ Thus children acquire properties of language The principle of structure dependency that are not immediately obvious and that are not explicitly taught. „ A parameter must be set according to the „ If the child possesses only some general requirements of the language being cognitive ability to make generalizations from acquired. For example: input, many features of the adult language The null subject parameter cannot be acquired.

15 16

17 18

3 CoCo--occurrenceoccurrence of Binding Theory NPs and Pronouns

„ Janeii washed herj. „ *Janeii washed her ii . „ Binding: The association between a pronoun and an antecedent. „ Sheii washed Janej. „ *Sheii washed Janeii . „ Anaphoric: A term to describe an element (e.g. a „ Sheii washed herj. „ *Sheii washed herii . pp)ronoun) that derives its interp retation from some other expression in the discourse. „ Janeii watched „ *Sheii watched „ Antecedent: The expression an anaphoric television before sheii television before Janeii had her dinner. had her dinner. expression derives its interpretation from. „ Anaphora: The relationship between an anaphoric expression and its antecedent.

19 20

Binding Theory

1. **JohnJohnii saw himii . 2. John saw himself. 3. *Himself saw John.

4. **JohnJohnii saw Johnii . „ Principle A states that reflexives (and reciprocals , such as "each other") must always be bound in their domains. „ Principle B states that a pronoun must never be bound within its domain. „ Principle C states that RR--expressionsexpressions must never be bound. RR--expressionsexpressions are referentialreferential expressions: nonnon-- pronoun, uniquely identifiable entities, such as "the dog", or proper names such as "John".

21 22

The Logical Problem of Language UG and SLA Acquisition „ If the child comes to the acquisition task solely equipped „ with abilities to make generalizations from the input Are L1 and L2 acquisition comparable? data, it would seem impossible to arrive at the correct „ What would constitute evidence for UG in generalizations without a great many errors, if at all. SLA? „ In addition,,ppg the child appears to get little or no neg ative – A learners ’ knowledge of L2 goes beyond evidence because adults react to meaning and sociolinguistic appropriateness not to errors of form. what could be induced from the input. – A learners’ knowledge of L2 goes beyond „ The UG solution: Knowledge about what is and is not what could be reconstructed from the L1 possible in adult language stems in part from an innate (e.g., resetting parameters). universal grammar, containing principles and parameters which constrain grammars in various ways. – There are no violations of UG in interlanguage (no “wild grammars”).

23 24

4 A Test for the Availability of UG Subjacency in Adult SLA

„ The Principle of Subjacency is a constraint „ Schachter, J. (1989). “Testing a proposed on movement: universal.” In S. M. Gass & J. Schachter „ Movement of wh-wh- elements is cyclical. It (Eds.) , Linguistic perspectives on second may not take place over more than one language acquisition (pp. 7373--88).88). New bounding node at a time. York: Cambridge University Press.

25 26

Wh- movement in English Derivation of wh- movement

1. What did he say that he was reading? Two theories: 1. Cyclic: Each successively higherhigher clause (=CP) forms 2. What does she believe that he said that a separate cycle in the derivation of the question. he was reading? Each cycle leaves an intermediate trace. 3. What are th ey cl ai mi ng th at sh e b eli eves What did he say [t[t that he was reading t ?] that he said that he was reading? ii ii ii

4. What do you think that they are claiming 2. Noncyclic: Noncyclic: Derivation ooccursccurs in one fell swoop. that she believes that he said that he

was reading? Whatii did he say that he was reading tii ?

27 28

Cyclic derivation of wh- movement The fact that 1. Whatii did he say [t[tii that he was reading tii ?] 2. Whatii does she believe [t[tii that he said [t[tii that there are barriers he was reading tii ?]]

3. Whatii are they claiming [ tii that she believes [tii to wh-movement shows that he said [t[t that he was reading t ?]]] ii ii that derivation must be 4. Whatii do you think [t[tii that they are claiming [t[tii that she believes [t[t that he said [t[t that he was ii ii cyclic. reading tii ?]]]]

29 30

5 Barriers to whwh-- movement: Barriers to whwh-- movement: Sentential subject Noun complement

That Tom got an ‘A’ on his first exam The fact that you didn’t send your resume pleased him. shows your lack of interest.

That Tom got an ‘A’ on his first exam The fact that you didn’t send your resume pleased him. shows your lack of interest.

*What did that he got on his first exam *What does the fact that you didn’t send please Tom? prove your lack of interest? 31 32

Barriers to whwh-- movement: Barriers to whwh-- movement: Relative clause Embedded question

Bill found a principle that solves the problem They don’t know why Sue tolerates Larry. of equilibriumequilibrium.. They don’t know why Sue tolerates Larry. Bill found a principle that solves the problem of equilibrium. **WhoWho don’t they know why Sue tolerates?

*Which problem did Bill find a principle that solves? 33 34

A test for the availability of the Subjacency principle of subjacency in adult SLA

„ The Principle of Subjacency is a constraint „ Do SL learners know about subjacency on movement: constraints on wh-wh- movement in English? „ If so, where does this knowledge come – Movement of wh- elements is cyclical. It may from? not take place over more than one bounding – Transfer from learners’ L1 node at a time. – If there is no movement in L1, then the knowledge of adult second language learners „ In English, bounding nodes are IPand DP.DP. must be innate. That is, adult second language learners have access to UG.

35 36

6 Schachter’s Method Schachter’s Method

„ A syntax test e.g., „ A subjacency test e.g., – That oil prices will rise again is nearly certain. – What did that he got on his midterm please – There is a possibility that we can obtain the Andy? information elsewhere . – What does the fact that you didn ’tsendprove t send prove – Vicki doesn’t like deserts that have cream in your lack of interest? them. – What did Marian visit the store that had in – The police didn’t discovdiscoverer who the murderer stock? was. – What can’t you remember that you ate three days ago?

37 38

Schachter’s Method Native Speaker Results

Syntax Test Syntax Test

Pass FilFail Pass FilFail

Pass AABB Pass 14 1.8 Subjacency Subjacency Test Test Fail CD C D Fail 2.8 0.5

39 40

Results from Indonesian Learners Results from Chinese Learners

Syntax Test Syntax Test

Pass FilFail Pass FilFail

Pass 770.80.8 Pass 8.8 1.8 Subjacency Subjacency Test Test Fail 9.3 3 Fail 7.8 1.8

41 42

7 Results from Korean Learners Results are Mixed

„ Schachter (1989) concluded that UG is Syntax Test unavailable or of limited access in SLA. „ BleyBley--Vroman,Vroman, Felix & Ioup (1988) also tested L2 learners’ knowledge of subjacency violations. Pass FilFail They concluded that UG must still be active . „ White (1988) investigated whether NSs of Pass 3.3 0.5 French acquire knowledge of the boundary Subjacency status of the IP--nodenode in English. Low-Low- Test intermediate group had not reset the parameter, Fail 10.8 6.5 while a high-high-intermediateintermediate group did.

43 44

UG and SLA UG and SLA

„ Complete access „ Complete access „ No access (the Fundamental Difference – L2 learners have full access to UG principles. Hypothesis) – L1 provides learners withwith a ‘quick setting’ for the L2 parameter if the value is the same , „ PtilPartial access otherwise the L2 learner proceeds in the same „ Dual access way as the L1 learner.

45 46

UG and SLA UG and SLA

„ No access (the Fundamental Difference „ Partial access Hypothesis) – L2 learners have accessaccess to UG through their – L2 learners no longer have access to the L1. principles and parameters of UG. – They may be able to reset L1 parameters by – General learning principles replace UG. means of general learning strategies. – UG is accessible but the learning principles are not.

47 48

8 Problems with UG as UG and SLA a theory of SLA

„ Dual access 1. There is no learning theory in UG. How – L2 learners have access to UG but this is does the learner identify particular bits of partly blocked by the use of general learning language as relevant to the setting of ststrategies.rategies. certain parameters?

49 50

Problems with UG as Problems with UG as a theory of SLA a theory of SLA 2. UG only applies to “core” grammar, but 3. In order to test UG in SLA we must find there is much more grammar to be extremely rare grammatical structures. learned than just the core. And what about the learning of lexicon , phonology , semantics, sociolinguistic competence, discourse structures, etc?

51 52

Problems with UG as Problems with UG as a theory of SLA a theory of SLA 4. Even if we concede that the solution to 5. Evidence in UG studies is obtained from the logical problem of language grammaticality judgments, since these acquisition requires innate knowledge, are supposed to reflect competence. But need that knowledge be in the specific there are many problems with form of UG? Consider universal grammaticality judgments: they are just operating principles of language another kind of performance, learner’s acquisition such as those of Slobin or judgments are unstable, and individual Andersen. differences among learners are ignored.

53 54

9