Stephen van Vlack

Sookmyung Women`s University

Graduate School of English

Introduction to Linguistics

Fall 2003

Answers for Cook and Newson, `Chapter 8b`.

1. What are the three different models of second language acquisition?

Basically three different types of models for second language acquisition in relation to UG theory have been proposed. They are the direct access model, the indirect access model, and then no access model. Actually, none of these are actually hard to understand. A second language learners we can intuitively get a feel for how these models might have been proposed. This does not however mean that they are valid. Well, and the first place all the models are completely reliant on the fact that UG actually exists and that UG is a specific or separate component. Cook and Newson point out that if UG actually does exist that UG can't really be separated from language learning. UG is language learning. What also seems to affect all this is the fact that second language learning is extremely complex and variant. In fact, we can go so far as to describe second language acquisition as diverse in it's very nature. This means it is an awful lot of variables which could affect what appears to be access to UG, which we have already established is basic language learning.

A couple of the main factors which might affect this are the language learning environment and the methodology for language learning. In environment we make a very strong distinction between second language and foreign language environments. Is assumed that in second language environment a lot of the language learning will actually occur outside the classroom in the real world and therefore into much more natural way. In the foreign language environment it is assumed that the language learning out of necessity will take place in the classroom away from the world world without any actual or meaningful language use. Obviously in the foreign language environment it would seem very difficult to be able to activate UG because, as Chomsky has often claimed in order to get parameters to reset a certain amount of meaningful input is required. It could be argued that such meaningful input simply doesn't exist in most foreign language learning environments. If we take Korea as an example, we can argue that in most school settings English is not treated as a language, English is treated as a subject. Students increased schools to not learn English: they learn about English. The distinction is extremely important. It is only when the students are actually learning English that they will be exposed to type of input they need will probably activate UG, that is if UG actually exists.

So you can see from all this but we're dealing with an extremely sticky problem. It is one that is not easily solved. Nor has really been well discussed in the entire setting a second language learning. Ideas about access to UG have basically been acquired by assessing the errors that learners make and even more importantly the grammaticality judgments that learners have. As far as grammaticality judgments go there is no guarantee that these grammaticality judgments are based on UG. This cause the issue even further.

2. Which of these models do you personally agree with the most? Cite evidence to support your argument.

This is an opinion question and there is no right of wrong answer for this. Still, it would seem that most of you would probably actually need to pick all three different options. Based on the level that you have attained you all must be good learners. From having worked with you it seems that you are all at different levels and that your relationships with English and even the way English is organized in your brains is different, but you all have strengths and weaknesses. The strengths and weaknesses probably correspond judgments in which you feel that you have full limited or no access to UG. This still does not prove that UG is there. It simply means that you have different strengths and weaknesses.

3. How does the idea of Clahsen and Muysken (1989) (pp. 295) get around the problems with the three different models of L2 learning and UG?

They came up with an interesting idea to try to kind of fix this problem. Clahsen an Muysken claim that principals (the general side of UG) are always available, at least potentially, but parameters are not available and can't actually be reset. This means that learners have to start with the parameter settings of their first language. Once more, if the target language has different parameter settings (and it is important to remember that all languages no matter how similar actually do have some different parameter settings) from the target language then the learners going to have to find mechanisms outside UG to learn how that language works in relation to those parameters. This is a very interesting idea. It is neat and simple, however, I'm not sure that there is experimental evidence to support this fully. Like almost all the theories that we discussed in this chapter, there seems to be tremendous amount of variation in variability, even in first language acquisition. This just goes to show that maybe language learning is not as innate as linguists have proposed for such a long time. Even the evidence just from our dealings in class has refuted their claim. In dealing with government, it was readily apparent that everyone in this class had some idea of government and how it works in English, particularly in relation to movement. These are things that your high school English teacher could not have taught you. It could be things that you might have picked up from the environment, or it could be part of UG. Either way you somehow came up with this knowledge.

4. What are the three different hypothesis for maturation and Universal Grammar?

Again there are three different hypotheses for maturation in relation to universal grammar. They are the continuity hypothesis, the discontinuity hypothesis, and the maturational hypothesis. The continuity hypothesis, supported by Pinker, claims that people are always open to UG. They have a constant access to UG throughout the acquisition process. As a result the utterances that these people, primarily children, make must and will always conform with UG. The reason why they may not conform to UG is because of other kind of limitations which exist outside of language, such as attention span, lack of vocabulary, or cognitive development. In the discontinuity hypothesis principles are realized differently at different stages in a person`s life. The acquisition process allows realization parameters stepwise and someone disjointed fashion. Following this discontinuity hypothesis view, learners move through different possible stages which all feed into each other and allow for the developments to occur. In the maturational hypothesis certain principles emerge in the mind at particular times. Basically the emergence of these principles is biologically determined. It is innate.

5. Which of these hypothesis do you personally agree with the most? Cive evidence to support your argument.

Again, it is hard to say which one is the most appropriate. The supporters of each of them cite evidence to support their hypothesis, but counter arguments are just as strong. This is particularly interesting which we consider that L1 acquisition is supposed to be regular and similar across language and culture boundaries. All of these hypotheses is designed to support the UG hypothesis and if UG really does exist, them only one of them can be right, but the diversity of evidence form child L1 acquisition is a problem. It must also be remembered that each of these theories about L1 acquisition are linked directly or indirectly to theories of access to UG in adult L2 acquisition. The continuity hypothesis is like the full access model while the discontinuity and the maturational hypotheses are linked, at least in spirit, to the indirect access model. It is interesting to note, that none of these ideas support the no access model, which I guess would be very strange for L1 acquisition.

6. What is the problem with all this positing of ideas in both L2 and L1 research?

The major problem in trying to draw conclusions about language acquisition that relate to both L1 and L2 processes is that the two are so different, at least on the surface. On the surface level the basic description of them is different. L1 acquisition has been described as being regular and fixed while l2 acquisition has been described as being irregular and various. This difference alone would force us to posit differences in relation to UG, but the differences need to be looked at more carefully. Acquisition does not occur in a vacuum or a box, in fact it could never occur in such conditions, both for L1 and L2. It is hard to tell what differences between L1 and L2 acquisition are the result of environmental (external) differences or differences in brain functions in relations to language or other systems and functions (internal). The two different areas affect each other strongly. Thus, it is very hard to draw on parallels between the two.