Linguistic Aspects of Interlanguage

Linguistic Aspects of Interlanguage

Typological universals: relative clauses

Languages vary in whether they have relative clause structures. Some languages have them, while other languages do not. The linguistic difference influences the ease with which learners are able to learn relative clauses. Learners whose L1 includes relative clauses find them easier to learn than learners whose L1 does not.

A hierarchy of relativization, known as the accessibility hierarchy serves an example of how SLA and linguistics can assist each other. On the one hand, linguistic facts can be used to explain and even predict acquisition. On the other hand, the result of empirical studies of L2 acquisition can be used to refine our understanding of linguistic facts.

Universal Grammar

Noam’s Chomsky’s theory of Universal Grammar argues that language is governed by a set of highly abstract principles that provide parameters which are given particular settings in different languages.

The question of whether learners whose L1 permits both local and long-distance binding of reflexives can learn that a language like English permits only local binding may seem a rather trivial matter. In fact, though it concerns an issue of considerable theoretical importance-the extent to which a language other than our mother tongue is fully learnable.

Learnability

Chomsky has claimed that children learning their L1 must rely innate knowledge of language because otherwise the task facing them is an impossible one. His argument is that the input to which children are exposed is insufficient to enable them to discover the rules of the language they are trying to learn (poverty of the stimulus)

The input consists not only positive evidence (it provides information only about what is grammatical in the language), because learners can never be sure they will not hear sentence where the adverb is between the verb and direct object, but also negative evidence (input that provides direct evidence of what is ungrammatical in a language) that would make it possible for children to find out that sentences like the one above are ungrammatical.

The Critical Period Hypothesis

The critical period hypothesis states that there is a period during which language acquisition is easy and complete (native-speaker ability is achieved) and beyond which it is difficult and typically incomplete. It was grounded in research which showed that people who lost their linguistic capabilities, for example as a result of an accident, were able to regain them before puberty but were unable to do do afterwards.

Access to UG

There are a number of theoretical positions

1.      Complete access

It is argued that learners begin with the parameter settings of their L1 but subsequently learn to switch to the L2 parameter settings.

2.      No access

It is argued that Universal Grammar is not available to adult L2 learners.

3.      Partial access

It is argued that learners have access to parts of Universal Grammar but not others.

4.      Dual access

It is argued that adult L2 learners make use of both Universal Grammar and general learning strategies (blocking the operation of Universal Grammar, causing learners to produce ‘impossible’ errors and failing to achieve full competence).

Markedness

Markedness refers to the general idea that some structures are more ‘natural’ or ‘basic’ than other structures. In typological linguistics, unmarked structures are those that are common in the world’s languages. In Chomskyan linguistics, unmarked structures are those that are governed by Universal Grammar and which, therefore require only minimal evidence for acquisition. Marked structure are those that lie outside Universal Grammar.

Cognitive Versus Linguistic Explanation

The answer whether linguistic universals and markedness are seen as exerting a direct effect on L2 acquisition or whether they are seen as having only an indirect effect, mediated by psycholinguistic mechanism of the kind considered earlier. There is no consensus on whether L2 acquisition is to be explained in terms of a distinct and innate language faculty or in terms of general cognitive abilities issue. It should be noted however that Universal Grammar does not claim to account for the whole of a language or even the whole of the grammar of a language.