8/10/2019 Second Language Aquisition and Universal Grammar
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/second-language-aquisition-and-universal-grammar 1/13
SSLA
12,121-133. Printed in the United States of America.
SECOND LANGUAGE
ACQUISITION AND UNIVERSAL
GRAMMAR
Lydia White
McGill University
In this article, the motivation for Universal Grammar (UG), as assumed
in the principles and parameters framework of generative grammar
(Chomsky, 1981a, 1981b), is discussed, particular attention being paid
to the logical problem of first language acqu isition. The potential role of
UG in second language (L2) acquisition is then considered. Three
different positions are reviewed: (a) the claim that UG is not available to
L2 learners; (b) the claim that UG is fully available; and (c) the claim that
the L2 learner s access to UG is med iated by the mother tongue. This
raises the issue of what kind of evidence can be used to decide
between these three positions. Recent experimental research which
argues for one or another of these positions by investigating the L2
status of the Subjacency Principle is reviewed, and the implications of
this research are discussed.
In recent years there has been a growing interest in the potential relevance of the
principles and parameters approach to linguistic universals, as realized in Govern-
ment and Binding (GB) Theory (Chomsky, 1981a, 1986b), for explaining certain
aspects of L2 acquisition. There are several reasons for this interest. First, it is only
comparatively recently that the logic l problem of language acquisition has been
well articulated. Focusing on the complexity of the end result of the acquisition
process and the fact that many aspects of the target grammar are not at all obvious
from the input, researchers have asked how language can be acquired in such cir-
cumstances (e.g., Lightfoot, 1982; Pinker, 1984; Wexler & Culicover, 1980). Linguists
This research was conducted with the assistance of the following research grants, for which I am grateful:
Social Science s and H umanities Research C ouncil Canada Research Fellowship *455—87—0201, Social S cien ces
and Humanities Research Council of Canada research grant *410—87—1071 (with Lisa Travis), and Government
of Que bec FCAR research grant *88 EQ 3630 (with Lisa Travis).
©
199
Cambridge University Press 0272-2631/90 5.00 + .00 1 2 1
8/10/2019 Second Language Aquisition and Universal Grammar
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/second-language-aquisition-and-universal-grammar 2/13
122 Lydia White
argue that there is an innate Universal Grammar (UG), consisting of principles and
parameters which help to explain the acquisition of language. Linguistic theory aims
to characterize these principles and parameters, thereby providing an account of our
linguistic competence. This raises the question of whether L2 learners also achieve
competence which goes beyond the input, and whether L2 acquisition is constrained
by principles of UG (Bley-Vroman, 1989; Rutherford, 1988; White, 1985; Zobl, 1983).
Second, although generative grammar has always assumed an innate component,
proposals for the content of UG were surprisingly sparse in earlier versions of the
theory, so that it was difficult to come up with specific hypotheses as to what might be
guiding the language learner. In contrast, at the present time, the form and content of
UG are the subject of extensive investigation. Proposals are considerably more pre-
cise than they were, and it has become possible to test whether UG is a component of
the second language acquisition process. Third, the concept of parameters within UG
has resulted in increasingly sophisticated accounts of similarities and differences
across languages. This is particularly useful in the L2 acquisition context, where there
are potentially interesting relationships between the m other tongue and the language
being acquired which may be explained in terms of parameters of UG.
THE LOGICAL PROBLEM OF LANGUAGE ACQ UISITION
Linguists motivate UG by pointing to the end result of first language acquisition,
namely the adult grammar. The linguistic competence of adults is abstract, subtle,
and complex. All (normal) children acquire this linguistic competence in their mother
tongue, despite the fact that there is a mismatch between the primary linguistic input
(the linguistic data that they are exposed to) and the system actually attained.
In particular, the input underdetermines linguistic competence. Children acquire
properties of language which are not immediately obvious and which are not explic-
itly taught; children and adults possess knowledge of grammaticality, ungrammatical-
ity, ambiguity, and various other subtle and complex phenomena, which go far
beyond the actual sentences that an individual learner may happen to have been
exposed to. An acquisition problem arises if we impute to the child only some general
cognitive ability to make analogies or generalizations solely on the basis of linguistic
input. If learning were of this type, one would expect the child to make many false
generalizations, to produce errors which have not been attested in child language,
and to fail to work out many properties of language.
The distribution of pronouns provides an example. A child has to learn when a
pronoun can refer to a noun phrase (NP) within the same sentence and when it
cannot. As indicated in (la ) and
(lb),
a noun phrase and a pronoun cannot refer to the
same person in a simple sentence, and the same is true of two pronouns, as in (lc):
(1) a. *Janej washed herj
b. *She,
washed Jan e
:
c. 'She, washed her.
However, these same sentences are grammatical when two different people are
involved, as in (2):
8/10/2019 Second Language Aquisition and Universal Grammar
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/second-language-aquisition-and-universal-grammar 3/13
L Acquisition
nd
U 23
(2) a. Jane ; washe d herj
b. Shej washed Janej
c. Shej wa shed her
f
When
the
child hears sentences like those
in
(2),
it is
likely
to be
clear from context
that
Jane
and the pronoun refer to two different people. But discovering that they
refer to two different people in particular utterances is not the same as knowing tha t
they
may
never refer
to the
same person
in
this kind
of
structure. Furthermore,
the
situation is different in complex sentences, as can be seen in 3):
(3) a. Janej wa tched television before shej had her dinner
b. Before Janej had her dinner she, wa tched television
c. Before
she, had her
dinner Jane, watched television
d. *Shej wa tche d television before Jan ej had her dinner
e. Shej wa tched television before she; had her dinner
In (3a), (3b),
and
(3c), Jane
and the
pronoun she
can be
coreferential
but can
also
refer to two different people; in other words, the sentences are potentially ambigu-
ous).
In
(3d) they must
be
disjoint
in
reference.
The
coreference
and
noncoreference
possibilities are not simply a matter of sentence type; it is not the case that coref-
erence is impossible in simple sentences and possible in multi-clause sentences, since
(lb)
and
3d) are both ungram matical, despite being different in this respect. Nor is
it a
matter of linear relationships between the noun phrase and the pronoun; Jane pre-
cedes the pronoun in 3a) and 3b), which are grammatical, but also precedes it in
(la),
which is ungrammatical. Jane follows
the
pronoun
in
(3c), which is grammatical,
and in lb), which is ungrammatical. Furthermore, the picture changes again when
the sentence contains two pronouns instead of a noun phrase and a pronoun: (3d) is
ungrammatical with intended coreference
but
coreference
is
possible between
the
two pronouns in
(3e).
However, this is not the case in (lc), where coreference remains
impossible between
the
two pronouns.
LI acquirers
are not
explicitly taught
the
coreference possibilities between
pro-
nouns and noun phrases. Nor is it clear how the distribution is to be learned from the
primary input alone. Although (3a), (3b),
and
(3c)
may be
heard with intended
coref-
erence,
it is not
necessary
in
these sentences;
but
disjoint reference
is
necessary
in
(la), (lb), and
(3d).
If NPs are replaced by pronouns, the possibilities change again. If
the child comes
to the
acquisition task equipped solely with abilities
to
extract
generalizations from input data,
it
would seem impossible
to
arrive
at the
correct
generalizations without a great many errors, if at all. The problem is confounded by
the fact that children appear
to get
little
or no
explicit negative evidence, that
is,
evidence about ungrammaticality, about what sentences
are not
possible
in the lan-
guage they are learning (Brown & Hanlon, 1970). Yet one of the things that children
acquire is knowledge
of
ungrammaticality;
in
this case, knowledge that
the
sentences
in 1) and (3d) are ungrammatical if coreference is intended.
1
It
has
been suggested that
the
logical problem
of
language acquisition
is
dimin-
ished by the fact that children get simplified input that is, input in the form of short,
simple, grammatical sentences (e.g., Ellis, 1985, p. 211; McLaughlin, 1987, pp. 105-
106). But such input will
not
help
at all
here. Suppose that
the
child gets input only
in
8/10/2019 Second Language Aquisition and Universal Grammar
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/second-language-aquisition-and-universal-grammar 4/13
124 Lydia White
the form of the sentences in (2), where context indicates that
Jane
and the pronoun
do not refer to the same person. This provides no clue as to the different behavior of
the pronouns, in terms of their coreference possibilities, in the sentences in (3). The
simple clause structures certainly do not solve the problem of how to treat pronouns
and NPs in more complex structures; indeed, if anything, they are highly misleading
since coreference possibilities crucially differ in simple clause and multiclause struc-
tures:
disjoint reference is always required in cases like (1), but only sometimes
required in cases like (3).
Plausible theories of language acquisition must assume realistic input (in other
words, that children proceed largely on the basis of positive evidence) and must
explain how children come by their unconscious knowledge of language on the basis
of this kind of input. Since input alone is insufficient to account for acquired proper-
ties of grammar, the assumption in generative grammar is that knowledge about
what is and is not possible stems in part from an innate UG, containing principles and
parameters which constrain grammars in various ways. In GB theory, the distribution
of pronouns and noun phrases (and also of reflexives and other anaphors) is deter-
mined by the Binding Theory (Chomsky, 1981a). This is part of UG and constitutes
knowledge that the child brings to bear on the acquisition task, thus reducing the
problem of acquiring the distribution of pronouns solely on the basis of input. Other
principles account for o ther subtle and complex properties.
PRINCIPLES AN D PARAMETERS O F UG
As w e have see n, a co nsideration of the logical prob lem of language acquisition has
led to proposals that certain aspects of language must be innately present in the first
language learner in th e form of Universal Grammar, accounting for th e fact that the
child acquires
all th e
com plexities
and
subtleties
of
grammar although these
are not
explicit in th e input data. UG consists, in part, of a number of fixed abstract princi-
ples.
These predispose
th e
child
to
organize language
in
certain ways
and
lead
to
rather limited possibilities for grammar construction, instead of the full range that
would b e logically possible if language learning proceeded only by applying general
inductive learning strategies.
An example of a principle of UG is Subjacency, which constrains how far catego-
ries,
such as wh- ex pressions, m ay move . Sen tence s like those in (4a) and (4b) are
ungrammatical, although th e corresponding statements in (4c) an d (4d) ar e
grammatical:
(4) a. *What did Mary wonder whether John had bought?
b. *What did Mary make the claim that John had seen?
c. Mary wondered whether John had bought a new car
d. Mary made the claim that John had seen a ghost
Furthermore, other wh- questions of equivalent length, complexity, or meaning are
grammatical, as ca n b e seen in (5):
(5) a. What did Mary believe that John had bought?
b. What did Mary claim that John had seen?
8/10/2019 Second Language Aquisition and Universal Grammar
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/second-language-aquisition-and-universal-grammar 5/13
L Acquisition and
UG
125
Wh-
movement is assumed to b e restricted by the Subjacency Principle, which stipu-
lates that movement
may not
take plac e over mor e than
o n e bounding node at a
time, where the bounding nodes
for
English are S and NP.
In
(6),
t h e
relevant bound -
ing nodes
for
(4a) and (4b) have been included. The trace (t) marks the original site of
the wh- word:
(6) a. *Whatj [3 did Mary wonder [ • whether [3 John had bought tj]]
b. *Whati
[s
did Mary make [
NP
the claim y that
[5
John had seen tj]]]
In (6a), t h e wh- word has crossed two S nodes, a nd in (6b) it has crossed two S nodes
and an NP node, in both cases violating Subjacency. In th e sentences in (5), on the
other hand,
what can
pass through
th e
intermediate wh- position
in
COMP
(the
position already occupied
by
whether
in 6a),
avoiding
a
Subjacency violation
by
moving in steps over one bo undin g n ode a t a time, as shown in (7):
(7) What, [s did Mary believe [ • t; that [g John had bought tj]]
It
is
unlikely that
th e
input will offer
th e
language learner clear evidence
to
distin-
guish between grammatical cases like (5) and ungrammatical cases like (4a) and (4b).
Much of the positive eviden ce from English will exemplify extensive wh- movement,
especially in simple sentences, and
it
is not clear how th e restrictions
on
its operation
in more complex structures are to be learn ed, unless one assum es built-in know ledg e
of Subjacency, which provides children with advance knowledge of these restrictions
and prevents them from making Subjacency violations
in the
course
of
language
acquisition (Otsu, 1981).
Although linguistic principles like Subjacency a re universal, this does no t mean
that every principle of UG necessarily operates in every language. Subjacency, for
example, does not operate
in
langua ges withou t syntactic move men t rules, since
it is
a constraint on movement and is of no relevance in th e absence of movement.
Languages which do not have wh- movem ent, such as Japanese, Korean, an d Chi-
nese, will provide
no
occasion
for
Subjacency
to
ope rate . One would not, however,
expect to find languages with wh- movement bu t without Subjacency. Although
languages vary in terms of their syntactic properties, principles a re fixed a n d must
apply to all languages which exhibit the relevant properties.
In addition to fixed principles, UG conta ins para me ter s, with param ete r settings
that differ from language to language. A central idea behind the concept
of a
parame-
ter is that several apparently indepe ndent properties of language ar e in fact related
and cluster together. By means of param eters, certain aspects of crosslinguistic varia-
tion are built into UG, aspects which could not easily
b e
induced from input alo ne.
A
particular parameter setting is triggered by input from the language being learned.
For example, Subjacency
has a
parameter associated with
it .
There
is
variation
across languages in terms of the bounding nodes that they adopt. In particular,
languages differ as to the bounding status of S; Italian and French, for exampl e, have
NP and S' as bounding nodes, bu t not S (Chomsky, 1981b; Rizzi, 1982; Sportic he,
1981).
2
This means that in thes e languag es certain ex tractio ns will b e possible which
are not possible in English. Equivalents of (4b) will still be ungrammatical because NP
and S' are bounding nodes, and the wh- word has crossed both of these. Sentences
8/10/2019 Second Language Aquisition and Universal Grammar
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/second-language-aquisition-and-universal-grammar 6/13
126 Lydia White
involving extractions from so-called
wh-
islands
3
such as
(4a),
on the other hand, will
be grammatical in French and Italian, because only one bounding node, namely S', is
crossed. Evidence that S is not a bounding node in these languages is provided by
sentences involving extractions out of
wh-
islands. Such sentences will trigger the
appropriate parameter setting.
Thus,
Subjacency is a principle of
UG
which limits movement so that at most one
bounding node can be crossed. This is fixed and applies across languages, with the
exception that it is irrelevant in the absence of syntactic movement. Associated with
it is a param eter which permits variation across languages; this parameter concerns
what counts as a bounding node for Subjacency.
ON THE AVAILABILITY OF UG IN SECOND
LANGUAGE ACQUISITION
Assuming that LI acquisition is mediated by innate universal principles, the question
arises as to whether L2 learners, particularly adults, still have access to the principles
and parameters of UG.
A
number of different positions on this question are represent-
ed in the literature, three of which will be discussed here (for further details, see
White, 1989b). The differences in these positions can be traced in part to whether
emphasis is on the relative lack of success of L2 learners (their knowledge, fluency,
and ultimate attainment rarely approach that of native speakers) or their success
(they do acquire many complex properties of language which are not transparent in
the input).
Many of those who focus on difficulties faced by L2 learners, and differences
between LI and L2 acquisition, have suggested that these differences and difficulties
can best be explained on the assumption that UG is no longer available to adult L2
learners (Bley-Vroman, 1989; Clahsen, 1990; Clahsen & Muysken, 1986; Schachter,
1988b). Proponents of this view argue that the learning mechanisms underlying adult
L2 acquisition are radically different from those underlying LI acquisition, and that
they are not unique to language.
In contrast is a position which assumes that
UG
is still available. As we have seen,
UG was motivated for LI acquisition by a consideration of the projection problem:
Despite the fact that certain properties of language are not explicit in the input,
native speakers end up with a highly complex, unconscious mental representation of
their language, suggesting that universal principles must mediate acquisition and
shape knowledge of language. It seems most unlikely that L2 input will contain
explicit information about these kinds of properties in the L2; thus, L2 input will
underdetermine the L2 gram mar in precisely the same way that LI input underdeter-
mines the LI grammar. If L2 learners attain unconscious knowledge of the L2 which
goes beyond the input and which could not be acquired on the basis of general
learning strategies or of the LI, it suggests that UG must still be involved. One
possibility, then, which represents the strongest form of the hypothesis that UG is
available, is that LI and L2 acquisition are identical with respect to the operation of
UG, and that UG explains the acquisition of complex linguistic knowledge in both
contexts.
8/10/2019 Second Language Aquisition and Universal Grammar
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/second-language-aquisition-and-universal-grammar 7/13
L Acquisition and U 127
A compromise position assumes that UG is still available but that the L2 learner's
access to it is mediated by LI knowledge. In fact, this position is consistent with two
very different assumptions about the essential availability of UG. On the one hand,
the LI might play a role and UG be unav ailable. In this view, UG is dead as an active
force in L2 acquisition, but aspects of it encoded in the LI can still be tapped. Thus,
L2 learners might give the impression of having access to complex and subtle knowl-
edge,
but this would be entirely due to their ability to tap this knowledge as encoded
in the LI. This means that fixed principles exemplified in the LI, as well as LI
parameter settings, will be accessible to the L2 learner. However, principles not
tapped by the LI will be inaccessible, and parameters cannot be reset to their L2
values. On the oth er han d, attributin g a role to the LI is also consistent with the claim
of the essential availability of UG (e.g., Flynn, 1987; White, 1988b). White's claim, for
example, is that the L2 learner may use principles and parameter sett ings from the
L I, at least initially, as an interim way of dealing with the L2 data. However, the
learne r is not assum ed to be necessa rily stuck with LI pa ram eter settings; instead,
parameter resetting to the L2 value is in principle possible, given appropriate L2
input interacting with a still active UG.
EVIDENCE
Theoretical and Methodological Considerations
What kind of evidence can decide among these possibilities? It is not sufficient to
point to general differences betw een LI an d L2 acquisition to argu e for non-availabili-
ty of UG, or to general similarities to argue for its availability. UG is a claim about
knowledge in a particular domain, a claim that our knowledge of language is con-
strained by certain a bstract but crucial principles. Therefore, th e poten tial availability
of UG in L2 acquisition must be investigated within this same domain. If UG is no
longer available to adults, and second language acquisition proceeds by means of
general cognitive abilities, L2 learners should not be able to work out abstract
properties of the L2 which are un derd eterm ined by the input data. W here the input is
insufficiently precise to allow L2 learners to induce the relevant properties of the
grammar, they should not be able to achieve full success. Thus, one form of evidence
for the hy pothesis that UG op erates in L2 acquisition will be ev iden ce tha t L2 lear ner s
in fact attain the kind of complex and subtle knowledge which is attributable to UG.
However, LI knowledge is a confounding factor. If a particular principle of UG
operates in both the LI and L2, and if L2 learners show evidence of observing this
principle, this could be attribute d to transfer of LI kno wled ge. Similarly, if L2 learn ers
show evidence of applying LI parameter settings to the L2, this is actually neutral
con cernin g the availability or non-availability of UG. Thu s, th e strongest arg um en ts
in favor of the operation of UG (complete or partial) in L2 acquisition will be made in
cases where effects of the LI can be minimized.
In order to eliminate the LI as a source of UG-like knowledge, two situations can
be isolated, one relevant to the operation of principles and the other relevant to
parameters. In the case of principles, if UG is not available, then L2 learners should
not
be able to sort out aspects of the L2 where both of the following hold:
8/10/2019 Second Language Aquisition and Universal Grammar
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/second-language-aquisition-and-universal-grammar 8/13
128 Lydia White
(8) a. some principle operates in the L2 but not the LI, and
b. the input underdetermines the L2 grammar.
Similarly,
in th e
case
of
parame ters, L2 learners should
not be
able
to
acquire
the
L2
value of a parameter where:
(9) a. the LI and
L2
have different values for some parameter, and
b.
the input underdetermines the L2 grammar.
If L2 lea rne rs successfully arriv e at the relevant properties of the L2 under such
conditions, then there is support for th e claim that UG is still truly accessible, rather
than inaccessible or weakly accessible only via the L I .
How can on e discover whether L2 learn ers have indeed arrived at the relevant
abstract properties
of
the L2? This is not so met hing that can
be
dete rmined simply by
observing the productions of L2 learners. For example, absence of UG violations in
spontaneous production does not allow o n e automatically to assume that UG is
operating, since a learner might fail by chance to produce structures which violate
principles of UG. Many of the relevant struc tures are fairly complex and simply might
not arise in the normal course of conversation or during observation by an experi-
menter. An L2 learner might never have occasion to utter a sen ten ce like (4b), and yet
might consider
it to be
grammatical. Conversely,
the
presence
of
violations does
not
necessarily mean that UG is un available; o ne needs to be sure that violations are
systematic rather than random.
If a
learner utters
a
sentence like (4b)
on
one particu-
lar occasion, this could just be a performance error, or it might be indicative of
linguistic com peten ce w hich is no t cons trained by Subjacency.
Thus, it is necessary for the experimenter to be able to manipulate the sentence
types to be investigated, rather than relying on their chance occurrence in produc-
tion data, and to investigate various aspects of L2 knowledge where the operation of
UG might have effects, looking at L2 comprehe nsion and production in a controlled
way. Since linguistic competence includes knowledge of ungrammaticality, L2 learn-
ers must somehow be made to reveal, directly or indirectly, whether they have this
knowledge, by means of tasks where sentences which violate universal constraints
are deliberately included
for
investigation.
If
learners show that they
do
indeed find
violations of UG to be ungrammatical, this lends support to the UG hypothesis. If, on
the other hand, they systematically accept UG violations, it supports claims for the
unavailability of UG.
Experimental Evidence for and Against UG Principles in SLA
In this section, some experimental evidence will be considered for and against the
operation of principles of UG. Subjacency will be used as an example, since a number
of experimental L2 acquisition studies have recently investigated the status of this
principle.
In order to demonstrate the operation of Subjacency most effectively, both of the
conditions outlined in (8) must hold. That is, L2 learners must not be able to draw on
LI knowledge to work out the restrictions on
wh-
movement in the L2, and these
restrictions must not be inducible from the L2 input alone. The first condition is met
by investigating learners whose Lls do not make use of wh- movement, who are
8/10/2019 Second Language Aquisition and Universal Grammar
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/second-language-aquisition-and-universal-grammar 9/13
L Acquisition and
U
129
learning an L2 which does. Such is the case with Chinese, Japanese, or Korean
learners of English. In these languages, wh- questions are formed without wh- move-
ment. The
wh-
word stays in situ in its deep structure position, rather than moving to
the front of the sentence as it would in English. In the Japanese sentences in (10), the
wh- word d re stays in the direct object DO) position:
4
(10) a. John-wa dare-o korositaka
John-TOP who-DO killed Q particle
'Who did John kill?'
b. John-wa Mary -ga dare-o kiratte-iru to sinzite-ita ka?
John-TOP Mary-particle who-DO hating-is that believing-was Q particle
'Who did John believe that Mary hated?'
As can be seen in (10b), wh- words are not extracted from embedded clauses to
form questions. It is precisely in the case of extraction that Subjacency becomes
relevant in languages like English, preventing certain kinds of extractions and allow-
ing others. If Japanese-speaking learners of English successfully acquire knowledge
of restrictions on wh- movement out of embedded structures in the L2, this will not be
attributable to their LI.
Are the restrictions inducible from the L2 input? It was argued earlier that the
input to LI acquirers underdetermines properties of wh- movement. This same un-
derdetermination holds true in the L2 acquisition context, unless L2 learners are
explicitly taught these rather obscure aspects of
wh-
movement in the classroom,
which seems implausible. While L2 learners will presumably both hear wh- structures
in naturalistic input and be taught certain aspects of question formation (especially
relating to simple clauses), it seems highly unlikely that they will be taught the
difference between grammatical cases of extraction from embedded clauses such as
(5), and ungrammatical cases such as (4). Thus, the L2 input (both naturalistic and
classroom input) underdetermines restrictions on
wh-
movement.
Two recent studies have made use of the differences between English and lan-
guages such as Korean, Japanese, and Chinese to investigate the availability of
Subjacency to L2 learners. Schachter (1988a) studied 21 adult native speakers of
Korean and 18 native speakers of Dutch; both groups were advanced ESL learners.
5
Korean, like Japanese, forms wh- questions in situ, as in (10). In consequence, Korean
speakers will not have had any exposure to Subjacency in the LI. Dutch, on the other
hand, is very similar to English with respect to wh- movement and Subjacency. Thus,
if Dutch speakers show evidence of observing Subjacency in English, this might be
due either to the operation of UG or to knowledge of Subjacency gleaned from the
LI. Korean speakers, then, provide the test case. If UG is available, they should
unconsciously know that Subjacency applies as soon as they discover that English has
wh-
movement; they should not make errors involving Subjacency violations when
they form questions, and they should be able to recognize Subjacency violations as
ungrammatical. In contrast, if UG is actually dead or only accessible in limited form
via the LI, such learners should not be able to work out the restrictions on
wh-
movement in the L2. In that case, only the Dutch learners should be able to recognize
Subjacency violations, since their LI provides them with knowledge of the relevant
principle to fall back on.
8/10/2019 Second Language Aquisition and Universal Grammar
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/second-language-aquisition-and-universal-grammar 10/13
130 Lydia White
Schachter tested subjects with a grammaticality judgment task, including ungram-
matical Subjacency violations and grammatical sentences of equivalent complexity.
She found that the native speakers of Korean were accurate in judging the grammati-
cal sentences, but many of them failed to reject Subjacency violations and appeared
to be operating at chance. In contrast, the Dutch-speaking subjects performed with
considerable accuracy, accepting the grammatical sentences and rejecting the un-
grammatical Subjacency violations, just like her native-speaker control group. These
results suggest that where a principle operates in a similar fashion in both the LI and
L2, it can still be accessed by the L2 learner. Where the LI does not exemplify a
principle, it does not appear to be accessible in the L2, explaining the poor perfor-
mance of the Korean speakers. In other words, these results support claims of the
essential unavailability of UG or its limited access only.
6
However, Grimshaw and
Rosen (in press), commenting on results from experiments on the Binding Theory in
LI acquisition, point out that if learners are not constrained by some principle of UG,
they should treat grammatical and ungrammatical sentences alike. If they treat UG
violations and nonviolations differently, this suggests that they must know the princi-
ple in question even though they do not always obey it in an experimental task. Thus,
Schachter's finding of accurate performance on grammatical sentences and chance
performance on ungramm atical ones in fact suggests that the two sentence types are
distinguished by L2 learners, and hence that Subjacency may be part of their uncon-
scious knowledge, although it may not be consistently obeyed.
In contrast to Schachter's results are those obtained by Bley-Vroman, Felix, and
Ioup (1988). Once again, Subjacency was investigated, with English as the L2 and
Korean as the LI. Subjects were 92 adult Korean speakers, at an advanced level of
English proficiency. The test was a grammaticality judgment task, using
wh-
move-
ment sentences, approximately half of which were ungrammatical. Although subjects
did not achieve the accuracy of native speakers, they correctly rejected Subjacency
violations at a considerably higher than chance level. This finding contrasts with
Schachter's results and suggests that
UG
must after all be active. If language learners
fail to perform perfectly but nevertheless show greater-than-chance knowledge of a
principle of UG, and if there is no other way they could have arrived at this knowl-
edge, one must assume that the principle is in fact available and that other factors
sometimes lead learners to override the principles in performance (Grimshaw &
Rosen, in press).
On the basis of these two studies, the L2 acquisition status of Subjacency in
particular and UG in general remains unresolved. Schachter's results suggest that
Subjacency is inaccessible to learners whose mother tongue does not make use of
wh-
movement. The results of Bley-Vroman et al. suggest that learners do attain
knowledge which is not attributable to the LI. Clearly, we need to isolate the source
of the differences in such results, and the question of UG availability must be pursued
with rigorous investigation of additional principles of UG.
Experimental Evidence for Parameter Resetting
Neither of these studies was concerned with the param eterization of bounding nodes
for Subjacency. Looking at parameters provides another way of investigating the
8/10/2019 Second Language Aquisition and Universal Grammar
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/second-language-aquisition-and-universal-grammar 11/13
L Acquisition
nd
UG 131
accessibility of UG to L2 learners. Again, in order to eliminate the effects of the LI,
the conditions in (9), repea ted here as (11), must hold.
(11) a. The LI and L2 have different values for some parameter, and
b.
the input underdetermines the L2 grammar.
If the L2 value of a param eter is acquired under these conditions, the accessibility of
UG is favored. In contrast, if the LI value is adopted, the situation is not so clear, since
this may be due to the unavailability of UG, to the fact that learners are in a stage
prior to resetting, or to a complex interplay of other factors, including the lack of
positive input in the L2 to lead to param eter resetting (cf. W hite, 1989a).
White (1988a) investigated whether native speakers of French acquire knowledge
of the bounding status of S in English. As discussed earlier, French has different
bounding nodes from English. The LI, therefore, cannot give precise evidence as to
what kinds of wh- extractions are possible in the L2. The positive L2 input is not
transparent on this point either, since English allows a wide range of
wh-
movement
structures and the input does not give sufficient cues as to what extractions are not
possible. Once again, then, we have a situation where the L2 input underdetermines
the L2 grammar, and the LI grammar cannot provide the required abstract knowl-
edge in the relevant form.
White's study included two groups of adult learners of English (one low intermedi-
ate and one high intermediate), who were asked to perform a number of tasks,
including a grammaticality judgment task containing ungrammatical Subjacency vio-
lations. Some sentences were ungrammatical in both French and English, involving
extractions from complex noun phrases, as in (4b), whereas others involved extrac-
tions from wh- islands, which were ungrammatical in English but not in French. Both
groups showed considerable accuracy on complex noun phrase violations sentences.
In these sentences, parameter resetting is not at issue; they are ungrammatical in
both languages, and the subjects' treatment of these sentences might have been due
to LI knowledge or to UG. However, in the case of
wh-
island violations, where the
bounding status of S is at issue, there is a significant difference between the two
experimental groups; the low intermediate group failed to reject structures where a
wh-
word had been moved out of a
wh-
island. These results suggest that English is
being treated like French in not having S as a bounding node; namely, the LI value of
the parameter for bounding nodes for Subjacency has been adopted. Subjects in the
high intermediate group, on the other hand, accurately rejected these sentences,
suggesting that they had reset this parameter and were treating S as a bounding node
in the L2. If so, the accessibility of UG is supported, given that appropriate informa-
tion about the bounding status of S is not available in the LI, and not easily inducible
from the L2 input alone.
IMPLICATIONS O F UG BASED RESEARCH
The question of
UG
accessibility in L2 acquisition is still unresolved. However, at the
very least, the studies discussed in this article indicate that there is accessibility via
the LI. While much promising recent research suggests that principles and parame-
8/10/2019 Second Language Aquisition and Universal Grammar
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/second-language-aquisition-and-universal-grammar 12/13
132 Lydia White
ters of UG are available (e.g., Flynn & O'Neil, 1988; Pankhurst, Sharwood Smith, &
Van Buren, 1988; and see W hite, 1989b, for general discussion), others argue that this
is not the case (for example, Clahsen, 1990). Although the main issue is still being
researched, UG-based approaches to L2 acquisition have a number of important
implications which hold true regardless of the final outcome. Generative grammar
holds that linguistic competence is essentially modular (Fodor, 1983). The UG per-
spective assumes the correctness of this claim for L2 acquisition as well. Second
language acquisition is not a unitary phenomenon, and it is unrealistic to expect
there to be one paradigm that will be able to em brace the whole field. Claims must be
made and tested within subdomains, of which the theory of UG is one . What the UG
perspective offers is the means to identify abstract properties of language, to study
certain aspects of L2 competence in depth, and to reach a greater understanding of
precisely what formal properties L2 learners unconsciously internalize (or fail to
internalize). Furthermore, this perspective suggests the need for sophisticated experi-
mental techniques, since L2 learners' use of language often conceals phenomena that
are not available to simple observation.
UG
certainly cannot provide an explanation
of everything that goes on in L2 acquisition and does not claim to do so. It does not
even account for all universal phenomena. For example, universal processing strate-
gies are different from, but certainly not incompatible with, principles of Universal
Grammar. The relevance of UG is strictly limited to providing a potential explanation
of the acquisition of rather formal aspects of language structure. Within this domain,
UG provides a suitable framework or paradigm from which to address issues of
importance within second language acquisition, a framework which gives new in-
sights and suggests new lines of research.
NOTES
1. Th e unavailability of negative evidenc e in LI acquisition has recen tly been questioned (e.g., Bohannon
& Stanowicz, 1988; Hirsh-Pasek, Treiman, & Schneiderman, 1984). However, the error types that parents
supposedly respond to do not involve the kinds of phe nom ena that UG seeks to explain. See White (1989b) for
a more detailed discussion of the negative evidence issue.
2. S' differs from S in that it includes a position for com ple m ent ize rs suc h as
that
an d
whether.
As
illustrated by the bracketing in (6a) and (6b), an S is usually contained within an S'. In current theory
(Chomsky, 1986a), S' is known as CP (complem entizer phrase) and S as IP (inflection phrase).
3.
A
wh-
island has a
wh-
phrase in the lower COMP, rathe r tha n a
non-wh-
complem entizer l ike
thai.
In
(4a), whether occupies the lower COMP position.
4. Japanese is an SOV language. Direct objects and clauses which are complements to the verb precede
the verb.
5. In addition, Scha chter looks at native speak ers of othe r L ls. Since the Subjacency issue is more
com plex in thes e cases, I will not discuss them here . Her results are also reported in Schach ter (1989), but
without those of the Dutch speakers.
6. See Martoha rdjono and Gair (1989) for an alte rnative analysis which explains Sc hachter's results
without having to assume the nonavailability of UG.
REFERENCES
Bley-Vroman, R. (1989). What is the logical problem of second language learning? In S. Gass & J. Schachter
(Eds.), Linguistic perspectives on second language acquisition (pp. 41-68). Cambridge: Cambridge Univer-
sity Press.
Bley-Vroman, R., Felix, S., & loup, G. (1988). The accessibility of universal grammar in adult language
learning. Second Language Research, 4, 1-32.
8/10/2019 Second Language Aquisition and Universal Grammar
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/second-language-aquisition-and-universal-grammar 13/13
L Acquisition and U 133
Bohannon, J. N., & Stanowicz, L. (1988). The issue of negative evidence: Adult responses to children's
language errors.
Developmental Psychology 24
684-689.
Brown, R., & Hanlon, C. (1970). Derivational complexity and the order of acquisition in child speech. In J. R.
Hayes (Ed.),
Cognition and the development of language
(pp. 11-53 ). New York: Wiley.
Chomsky, N. (1981a). Lectures on government and binding. Dordrecht: Foris.
Chomsky, N. (1981b). Principles and parameters in syntactic theory. In N. Hornstein & D. Lightfoot (Eds.),
Explanation in linguistics: The logical problem of language acquisition
(pp. 32-75 ). London: Longman.
Chomsky, N . (1986a). Barriers. Cam bridge, MA: MIT Press.
Chomsky, N. (1986b).
Knowledge of language: Its nature origin and use.
New York: Praeger.
Clahsen, H. (1990). Th e com parative study of first an d secon d la nguag e de velopm ent.
Studies in Second
Language Acquisition 12
135-153.
Clahsen, H., & Muysken, P. (1986). The availability of universal gram ma r to adult and child learn ers: A study of
the acquisition of German word order. Second Language Research, 2, 93-119.
Ellis,
R. (1985). Understanding second language acqu isition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Flynn, S. (1987).
A parameter-setting model o fL2 acquisition.
Dordrecht: Reidel.
Flynn, S., & O'Neil, W. (Eds.) (1988). Linguistic theory in second language acquisition. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Fodor, J. A. (1983).
The modularity of mind.
C ambridge , MA: MIT Press.
Grimshaw, J., & Rosen, S. T. (in press). Knowledge and obedience: The developmental status of the binding
theory. Linguistic Inquiry.
Hirsh-Pasek, K., Treiman, R., & Schne iderm an, M. (1984). Brown and Hanlon revisited: M others' sensitivity to
ungrammatical forms.
Journal of hild Language 11
81-88.
Lightfoot, D. (1982). The language lottery: Tow ard a biology of grammars. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Martohardjono, G., & Gair, J. (1989).
Apparent UG inaccessibility in SLA: Misapplied principles or principled
misapplications? Paper presented at the Conference on the Interaction of Linguistics, Second Language
Acquisition and Speech Pathology, University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee.
McLaughlin, B. (1987).
Theories of second language learning.
London: Edward Arnold.
Otsu, Y. (1981).
Universal grammar and syntactic development in children: Touiard a theory of syntactic
development. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, MIT.
Pankhurst, J., Sharwood Smith, M., & Van Buren, P. (Eds.). (1988). Learnability and second languages: A book
of readings. Dordrecht: Foris.
Pinker, S. (1984). Language learnability and language development. Cam bridge, MA: Harvard U niversity
Press.
Rizzi, L. (1982). Issues in Italian syntax. Dordrech t: Foris.
Rutherford, W. (1988).
Questions of learnability in second language acquisition.
Paper presented at the 13th
Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development.
Schachter,
J
(1988a).
On the issue of completeness in second language acquisition.
Paper presented at the 13th
Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development.
Schachter, J. (1988b). Second langu age acqu isition and its relationship to U niversal Gram mar. Applied Linguis-
tics, 9,
219-235.
Schachter, J. (1989). Testing a proposed universal. In S. Gass & J. Schachter (Eds.), Linguistic perspectives on
second language acquisition (pp. 73-88). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Sportiche, D. (1981). Bounding n odes in French.
Linguistic Review, 1,
219-246.
Wexler, K., & Culicover, P. (1980). Formal principles of language acquisition. Cam bridge, MA: MIT Press.
White, L. (1985). Is the re a logical problem of second langu age acquisition? TESL Canada, 2(2),
29- 41 .
White, L. (1988a). Island effects in second language acquisition. In S. Flynn & W. O'Neil (Eds.), Linguistic theory
in second language acquisition (pp. 144-172). Dordre cht: Kluwer.
White, L. (1988b). Universal grammar and language transfer. In J. Pankhurst, M. Sharwood Smith, & P. Van
Buren (Eds.), Learnability and second languages: A book of readings (pp. 36-61). Dordrecht: Foris.
White, L. (1989a). The principle of adjacency in second langua ge acquisition: Do L2 learners o bserve the
subset principle? In S. Gass & J. Schachter (Eds.),
Linguistic perspectives on second language acquisition
(pp. 134-158). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
White, L. (1989b).
Universal grammar and second language acquisition.
Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Zobl, H. (1983). Marke dness and the projection problem . Language Learning, 33, 293 -313 .