Interlanguage Development: A Deep Dive into UG and SLA Theories
The Role of UG in Interlanguage Development
The role of UG in IL development: Adjemian, departing from a Chomskyan approach, considers interlanguage (IL) systems as natural linguistic systems, like any other language or linguistic system. These intermediate systems should receive the same attention as any other grammar in its final stage. L2 learners, like native speakers, can generate an infinite number of structures, but they may not be grammatical. Adjemian highlights the difference between IL and L1 grammars: the permeability of the latter. Other significant aspects of this approach include viewing language as a product of human mental developmental processes and individual linguistic experience, not as an object unrelated to individuals. This generative theory is valid for explaining grammar acquisition, but to explain other aspects like semantic and pragmatic problems, it resorts to Chomsky’s Government and Binding theory, which allows for theoretical questions about language, such as: To what extent are the grammars of transitional systems subject to the same restrictions as natural languages? Or, to what extent does markedness contribute to the learner’s progress from one stage to another?
Briefly explain the concept of markedness. The label “marked” is used in many different ways. For example, it can refer to items that appear less frequently in the world’s languages and are thus less typical (e.g., active vs. passive voice), or to forms with more informational content than their associated forms. Markedness doesn’t have to cover a whole language or level of language, such as syntax. It can refer to much more specific phenomena, like Eckman’s Markedness Differential Hypothesis (learners with an unmarked L1 structure have difficulty acquiring equivalent marked structures in L2; e.g., German: hant vs. English hand). Following Chomskyan theory, markedness is a property of forms requiring confirmation in the input for learner acceptance. Learners aren’t linguists and lack knowledge of marked or unmarked items; therefore, the idea of subconscious prior knowledge is involved. In linguistics, markedness refers to pragmatic, lexical, phonological, syntactic, and morphological phenomena (e.g., morphemes expressing tense, number, etc.). In the late 1970s and early 1980s, researchers applied the study of language universals to L2 contexts. Language universals are characteristics deduced from studying many languages, allowing linguists to develop language typologies based on structural analysis (e.g., English is an SVO language). This method reveals characteristics common to most languages. Less common characteristics are called marked, and more typical ones are unmarked. Although markedness and acquisition aren’t directly related, less frequent patterns are arguably harder to acquire.
What is parameter setting in second language acquisition? Markedness is viewed differently depending on the perspective. For generative grammarians in the Chomskyan tradition, it differs from Greenberg’s perspective. The Chomskyan approach states that languages cannot be classified solely by surface constituent order. According to the Chomskyan model, the characteristic of being marked or unmarked is governed by grammatical aspects allowing parametric variation. Natural languages differ grammatically. Some allow various word orders without meaning changes, while others use word order to signal subject or object. The Chomskyan view suggests a limited set of parameters admitting variation. For example, children learn languages without grammatical instruction. They seek features in the input data. These predictions are the reason for what Chomsky called UG. The child assumes the preferred (unmarked) option in UG unless the input shows a marked setting for a grammatical parameter. Since generating hypotheses from input on general logical grounds is endless, the Language Acquisition Device (LAD)’s task is to reduce hypotheses, first by limiting parameters for any language and second by providing preferred parameter settings. UG provides prior knowledge limiting grammar function. Children are corrected for vocabulary and pronunciation errors, but syntactic corrections are rare. This suggests the unmarked option is stricter; otherwise, children might create overly general rules. Not all UG limits have a default option; input tells the L1 learner how to set a particular UG option. This input disconfirming an L2 assumption is called positive evidence.
Briefly define variation. Native speakers use language variations depending on context. Control variability belongs to psycholinguistics. Speakers use default forms due to lacking pragmatic proficiency. Even if a learner knows different forms, tiredness, overgeneralizations, or distractions can lead to using less appropriate constructions. Cognitive variation occurs when a learner is unsure of a new grammatical rule and uses a familiar one, even if they suspect it’s incorrect.
Define the term teachability.. Teachability states that some language areas are teachable, while others aren’t. According to Pienemann’s Teachability Hypothesis, teachers must wait for natural acquisition processes before helping learners. Learners can’t learn features beyond their developmental stage.
Variability
Write about the concept of variability and comment on the following quotation. There are different kinds of variability in a speaker’s linguistic competence affecting methodological implications. Control variability (psycholinguistics) relates to performance competence during communication. Speakers might use incorrect forms due to lacking pragmatic competence, even if they know other forms. This variability has causes like overgeneralizations, tiredness, or distraction. Cognitive variability occurs when a speaker is unsure of a new grammatical rule, resorting to a familiar one, even if inadequate.
Write about psycholinguistic versus sociolinguistic variability. Labov distinguished language styles as a continuum from least to most attention: casual speech, careful speech, reading, word lists, and minimal pairs. Tarone, similarly, describes IL styles as a continuum from a stable subordinate style (almost free from L1 influence) to a superordinate style (more attention paid, more L1 influence). Tarone proposed that IL variability consists of variable and categorical rules based on context, ranging from formal to vernacular styles. When learners pay more attention to form, some categorical rules become more variable, and some variable rules become more categorical, influenced by the target language. Sharwood Smith restricts “native command” to fluent and spontaneous speakers in all contexts.
Explain briefly Pienemann’s Teachability Hypothesis. Pienemann’s research on German migrant workers revealed a stable order in German word order acquisition. Learners from different languages started with canonical SVO order, then manipulated it. Once canonical order is established, manipulation is possible. Placing elements at the beginning or end is easiest; moving internal elements is hardest. These processing laws state a fixed acquisition order; certain structures are acquired only after learners pass through appropriate stages and acquire processing prerequisites. Learners who haven’t reached a stage won’t benefit from teaching, while those who have will. Teachers can then help learners apply new processing skills to relevant areas. This hypothesis claims that L2 learners process structures in a fixed order, from less to more complex. A prefixed acquisition order makes teaching features beyond a learner’s developmental stage useless. This is crucial for classroom syllabus administration and error correction.
Define “positive evidence.” Briefly explain the concept of fossilization. Fossilization (Selinker, 1972) is the final stage where development in certain areas stops despite continued language exposure and learning attempts. Fossilised UG view hypothesizes that some L2 learners lose their original language-learning ability, relying on general learning principles and L1 examples to build an L2 system. Learners build IL grammar from L1 grammar; L2 input reveals L1-exclusive elements, requiring adjustments. Some UG principles no longer operate on L2 but through L1, making UG inactive. In fossilized IL, learners rely on L1, producing structures violating L2 UG, but they are unaware because UG is inactive. This approach suggests that L2 learning is always incomplete because learners can’t benefit from UG guidance.
Write about consciousness-raising, metalinguistic knowledge, and metalinguistic awareness. Intervention doesn’t always mean raising learners’ awareness of language structure. There’s debate on whether metalinguistic information helps build subconscious competence. Ways to expand or restrict information processing include making relevant input evidence salient (considering Pienemann’s theory). According to Sharwood Smith, “consciousness-raising” doesn’t require teaching rules; it can highlight input aspects (e.g., exaggerated intonation) without explaining L2 structure formation (input salience enhancement). This can be problematic because highlighting crucial communication aspects might hide morpho-syntactic signs needed for development. Another way to increase sensitivity to negative evidence is to contrast and compare languages, but learner benefits are uncertain. Manipulating crosslinguistic perceptions can lead to learners rejecting forms (e.g., idioms) or transferring L1 forms to L2. Even if it can’t eliminate overgeneralization, it can stimulate processes that would normally occur later.
Markedness and acquisition. “Marked” labels forms or structures requiring rule extension or possessing more informational content, while “basic” forms are unmarked. In acquisition, markedness relates to complex vs. simple, with simplicity implying easier learning. However, marked can also mean less common, making it more noticeable and attractive. Learners don’t know what’s marked or unmarked; subconscious precognition is involved. Marked structures can be acquired before unmarked ones (e.g., children acquiring stranded prepositions before non-stranded ones), possibly because marked versions are more frequent in the input, suggesting frequency overrules markedness. Some argue that early ILs evolve like pidgins and creoles, showing fixed word order, lack of inflection, missing copulas, etc. A demarked IL would be a skeletal IL built with marked characteristics as evidenced in the input.
What is Schumann’s Pidginization model about? A pidgin is a restrictive language serving only communication. The pidginized nature of early L2 is due to social isolation. Schumann’s model states that basic grammar elaboration depends on socio-psychological factors, mainly the speaker’s perceived closeness to the L2 community. Complexification is possible if the learner is psychologically closer to the target culture. For example, a Mexican Spanish woman working in the USA intending to return to Mexico and lacking sympathy for North American culture will develop pidgin-like forms and fossilize early.
Eckman’s Markedness differential Hypotheses. This yields predictions about L2 learning. For example, complete devoicing of voiced obstruents in word-final position (e.g., German hand) is unmarked, while maintaining voicing (English or French) is marked. Eckman argues that learners with unmarked L1 structures have difficulty acquiring equivalent marked structures in L2. It’s harder for German or Dutch speakers to pronounce English [hand] than for English or French speakers to say German [hant].
Andersen’s Denativization theory. Contrary to Schumann’s Pidginization model, Andersen believes that the move from a skeletal system is due to reduced restricted L2 input. An internal denativization process starts, where learners stop assimilating L2 input to an internal language model.
Grammar and Other Language Aspects in L2 Teaching/Learning
Grammar has received most attention in LA studies. Should other parts of language receive equal consideration for L2 teaching/learning? (write your personal opinion) Following Chomsky, children don’t need grammatical instruction to learn languages. They are rarely corrected syntactically; corrections focus on pronunciation or vocabulary. Applying this to L2 learners, grammar is important because languages have different grammatical rules (e.g., word order). However, observing lexis helps learners guess how target language grammar functions. Lexical acquisition helps discover usage rules. Grammar is essential, but to avoid boredom, learners need to see improvement, which isn’t solely reflected in grammatical knowledge but in communicative ability. Individual learner characteristics and goals determine L2 proficiency and instruction. For example, focusing on pronunciation might be more beneficial than grammar for someone interested in improving verbal communication. Classroom activities promoting spontaneous L2 constructions (e.g., guessing games) encourage communicative proficiency without focusing on grammar. Language teaching should be based on spoken language grammar, not written norms, to promote speaking skills and natural interaction.
Briefly define implicit and explicit knowledge. L1 grammar acquisition is implicit, extracted from usage experience; exposure to linguistic input suffices. L2 acquisition usually needs explicit learning resources. A child might not know the meaning of “plural,” but they’ll say “two sweets.” Acquiring L2 involves developing implicit knowledge, but the role of explicit knowledge in implicit knowledge acquisition is debated. Children learning L2 show higher implicit knowledge, while adults show higher explicit knowledge.
Write about the weaknesses in the standard creative construction. Flynn and O’Neil point out that the Creative Construction Hypothesis (CCH) shows constructing processes in L2 acquisition independent of L1, but like Contrastive Analysis Theory, it doesn’t explain how SLA is attained. CCH doesn’t explain which principles govern SLA; its weaknesses include: not stating whether the inbuilt syllabus applies to all language subsystems; not differentiating between knowledge development (competence) and developmental sequences; not accounting for individual variation; and not properly applying the principles of the linguistic framework it supports (generative grammar).
The early IL hypothesis reviewed: The Chomskyan distinction between competence and performance leads to conceptual differences between IL as knowledge and as online processing. If IL processes are knowledge changes, learners perform in L2 by copying L1 rules, basing L2 knowledge on L1 knowledge. If IL processes are based only on L1 input, learners lack mental representation of L2 rules and resort to performance mechanisms for L1. This leads to transfer errors, not necessarily systematic, but performance errors because learners lack resources and use these mechanisms even if they know L1 isn’t providing correct grammatical information. A third possibility is that there’s no distinction between competence and performance; knowing a language means using it.
Two types of overgeneralisation: According to Selinker, three central processes relate to interlanguage: linguistic transfer, overgeneralization, and transfer of training. When learners overgeneralize an L2 rule, three questions arise: Is it due to L1 transfer? Is it from learned L2 structures? Is it due to excessive practice and emphasis on certain forms?
Creative Construction reviewed: IL theory states that SLA has intermediate stages with developmental patterns and crosslinguistic influence between L1 and L2. Dulay and Burt, with other CCH representatives, argue for a similar acquisition route in L1 and L2, matching Corder’s inbuilt syllabus (each subsystem is acquired in a fixed order).
The role of the mother tongue undervalued CCH considers L1 and L2 acquisition processes similar. Learners subconsciously select input elements and develop language according to an inner program (acquisition route, internal syllabus). Advocates reject environmentally determined acquisition (behaviorist view), claiming it’s learner-determined. Crosslinguistic influence isn’t explained behaviorally, and knowledge transfer isn’t assessed linguistically.
The role of conscious process: Krashen’s postulates on language acquisition include: acquisition-learning hypothesis (acquisition is subconscious, like L1 development, requiring meaningful communication); no interface theory (learned knowledge never becomes acquired); and monitor hypothesis (fluency results from acquired, not learned, knowledge; learning acts as a monitor correcting acquired system output). Three conditions are needed for successful monitor use: time, conscious grammatical knowledge, and focus on form and correctness. The role of comprehensible input is also crucial.