How Noam Chomsky explains his theory and how others show their objections towards

1. LINGUISTICS AND LANGUAGE LEARNING:
THE UNIVERSAL GRAMMAR APPROACH
Theories in SLA Course (ELT 612)
Faculty of Education
Department of English Language Teaching
Cyprus International University
Spring Semester / 2015
Presented by
Farhad M. Rajab (20145018)

2. NOAM CHOMSKY
1960S
- If children learn language by
conditioning and imitation, why
do they say things they have
never heard before?
- Why make adults completely
novel sentences?

3. INTRODUCTION
The topic concentrates on:
1. The individual theoretical perspectives on SLL in general.
2. Universal Grammar by Noam Chomsky and other
followers over the last few decades.
3. Arguments from the first language Acquisition.
4. What does UG consist of?
5. Empirical evidence and hypotheses
6. Criticism of UG

4. DEALING WITH THE TOPIC SUCH QUESTIONS ARE
RAISED:
1. Can language be acquired without an innate
grammar?
2. Does universality imply innateness ?
3. Is language really uniquely human ?
4. How UG has been applied to the study of language
acquisition?

5. WHAT EXACTLY IS UG?
Universal grammar is usually defined as the “system of categories,
mechanisms and constraints shared by all human languages and considered
to be innate”.
These are generally thought to include formal universals (e.g. principles and
parameters) as well as substantive universals (e.g. lexical categories and
features).
Universal grammar is defined by Chomsky as
A. “the system of principles, conditions, and rules that are elements or
properties of all human languages. . . The essence of human language”
(Chomsky, 1978).
B. “ an intricate and highly constrained structure” consisting of “various
sub- systems of principles” (146).

6. ARGUMENTS FOR UG
Over the years, a number of arguments have been put
forward in support of this hypothesis. These include the
following:
1. LANGUAGE UNIVERSALS: (All) human languages share certain
properties.
2. CONVERGENCE: Children are exposed to different input
yet converge on the same grammar.
3. POVERTY OF THE STIMULUS: Children acquire knowledge for
which there is no evidence in the input.

7. 4. NO NEGATIVE EVIDENCE: Children know which structures are
ungrammatical and do not acquire over general grammars in spite of the
fact that they are not exposed to negative evidence.
5. SPECIES SPECIFICITY: We are the only species that has language.
6. EASE AND SPEED OF CHILD LANGUAGE ACQUISITION: Children
learn language quickly and effortlessly, on minimal exposure.
7. UNIFORMITY: All children acquiring language go through the same
stages in the same order.

8. Aims of linguistic research:
Linguistic theory is not primarily concerned with SLA.
It aims :
-to describe the mental representations of language that are stored in
the human mind.
-- What all human language have in common , and distinctive
characteristics that make human language different from other
system of communication.
-- to specify in what way individual human languages can differ from
another.
its main goals as defined by Chomsky (1986) are to answer three
basic questions about human language:
1. What constitutes Knowledge of language?
2. How is knowledge of language acquired?
3. How is knowledge of language put to use?

9. WHAT IS A LINGUISTIC THEORY
Universal Grammar is therefore a proper theory as it
explains the underlying linguistic knowledge in second
language learners’ mind.
Linguistic Theory
Explanatory Adequacy
( Explain why they are that
way)
Descriptive Adequacy
( to characterize what
human languages are like)

10. According to Noam Chomsky, UG focuses to answer three
basic questions about human language:
1. What constitutes Knowledge of language?
2. How is knowledge of language acquired?
3. How is knowledge of language put to use?

11. 1. What constitutes Knowledge of language?
The UG approach claims that all human beings inherit a universal
set of principles and parameters that control the shape human
languages.
It provides a detailed descriptive framework which enables
researchers to formulate well-defined hypotheses about the task
facing the learner and analyzed in more focused manner.
Chomsky proposed principles are unvarying and apply to all
natural languages, in contrast, Parameters possess a limited
number of open values which characterize differences between
languages.
But recently he argues that the core of human language is the
lexicon which can be characterized as:
Lexical Categories and Functional Categories.

12. 2. HOW IS KNOWLEDGE OF LANGUAGE ACQUIRED?
Chomsky first resorted to the concept of UG because he
believes that children could not learn their first language so
quickly and effortlessly without the help of an innate
language faculty to guide them.
Children create a mental representation of language which
not only goes beyond the input they are exposing but similar
to that of other native speakers of the same language variety
and this achieves at an age when they have difficulty
grasping abstract concepts. Yet language is probably the
most abstract piece of knowledge they will ever possess.
Moreover, learners of SLA are cognitively mature, therefore,
they are resourceful to solve their problems and deal with
abstract concepts.

13. But from a theoretical point of view many scenarios are
controversy around all these issues which are open to consider:
-- SLA is one example of a natural language so its constrained by
UG in the same way as native grammars are.
-- UG is impaired or does not constrain SL grammars (impaired)
and learners have to resort to general learning mechanisms,
that’s grammars do not necessarily conform to the general rules
underlying natural human languages.
--Others believe that the only principles and parameters
instantiated in the learners’ 1st language will be available and
that parameter resetting is impossible.
-

14. 3. HOW IS KNOWLEDGE OF LANGUAGE PUT TO USE?
UG is concerned with knowledge of language that’s with the
abstract mental representation of language and the
computational mechanisms associated with it, which all
human possess called competence not performance.
A complete theory has also to define how we access our
knowledge base , and how it relates to a number of
sociolinguistic and psycholinguistic variables.

15. THE ARGUMENTS THAT SUPPORT THE EXISTENCE OF AN INNATE
LANGUAGE FACULTY IN CHILDREN ARE:
Stages are similar
across children but
there is a variety in
rate
Developmental
Stages
These stages are
similar across
languages
The language of child
is rule governed and
systematic
Processing capacity
limits the numbers of
rules that apply at
any one time
Are resistant to
correction

16. But this evidence could not conclude by many universalists
because there must be a specific language module in the brain,
and child language does not seem to be linked in a clear way to
intelligence.
Steinberg (1993) states that ‘many famous people including
Einstein, are reputed to have been slow to talk’. That means
language is not linked to intelligence.
In support that language is not linked to intelligence. Bellugi et
al. (1993) studied children suffering from Williams’ syndrome, a
rare metabolic disorder that causes heart defects, mental
retardation and distinctive facial appearance, the results show
that these children show dissociation between language
development and the kind of supposed cognitive prerequisite
that Piaget and others argue that are necessary for language
development

17. In 1995 both Smith and Tsimpli studied the case of brain –
damaged man in details as he is unable to look for himself
but can read, write, and communicate in any of 15-20
languages.
- Another evidence is found just the opposite that children
who are cognitively normal but whose language is impaired
known as SLI that’s language being deficient in specific
ways .
Not only language seems to be largely separate from other
cognitive aspects but also it separates from other cognitive
faculties, for example the injuries in the brain have different
symptoms depend on the location of the injury.

18. To explain why language in children just seems to
“grow” in the same way as teeth develop and start walking?
Aitchon presents Lenneberg’s criteria called The Biological
Foundations of Language as a list of six features:
The behavior emerges before its necessary
Its appearance is not the result
of a conscious decision
Direct teaching
and intensive
practice have
relatively little
effect
There is a
regular
sequence of
‘milestones’ as
the behavior
develops
its emergence is
not triggered by
external evidence
There may be
a critical period
for the
acquisition of
the behavior

19. WHAT DOES UG CONSIST OF?
UG approach claims that there is a universal set of principles
and parameters that control the shape of human language.
Government and Biding Theory
Language
Parameters :
possess a limited
number of open
values
Principles:
unvarying and
applicable to all
natural
languages

20. CONTINUING:
- A principle of UG is a statement that is true for all human
languages.
For example:
The principle of structure dependency.
- A parameter must be set according to the requirements of
the language being acquired.
For example:
The null subject parameter.

21. - The structure – dependency :
-Asserts that knowledge of language relies on the structural relationship
in the sentence such as words and morphemes rather than on the
sequence of words. To understand this sentences consist of phrases
structural grouping of words, sentences have phrase structure.
-For example: The child drew an elephant.
-NP: The child ,
-VP: drew and elephant ,
-VP further breaks up into a V: drew and NP: an elephant.
-These phrases can also break up into smaller constituents :
-NP: The child ……. Det. The , and N: Child
-NP: an elephant …. Det. An , and N: elephant.

22. In fact all the languages in the world are structured of phrase
such as NP as the main or central element (the head) of this
phrase is a noun or pronoun and sentences are made up of
at least a NP or VP which in turn may optionally contain
other phrases or even whole sentences.
The knowledge that languages are structure-dependent is a
crucial aspect of all human languages that has many
implications it’s a principle of UG which explains many of the
operations we routinely perform in the language.
Ex.
Your cat is friendly
Is your cat friendly
We change the basic order of the sentence (SVO) because
its not based on the linear order of the sentence but is
structure - dependent.

23. Major aspect of the principle of structure dependency
-Movements in the sentence is not just a matter of recognizing phrases
and then of moving them around but of moving the right element in the
right phrase.
-Structure dependency can therefore be put forward as a universal
principle of language, so whenever elements of the sentence are
moved to form passive, question, or whatever such movement takes
account of the structural relationships of the sentence rather than the
linear order of the words. All known formal operations in the grammar
of English or of any other language are structure-dependent

24. -- Cook and Newson ( 1996) put it “ Movement in the sentence
is not just a matter of recognizing phrases and then of moving
the right element in the right phrase: movement depends on
the structure of the sentence”
--Both lexical and functional categories form part of UG
endowment , and do not have to be learnt. The child selects
from on the basis of the input, as not all languages will
necessary make use of all categories or their features.
-According to White ( 2003)
1. languages can differ as to which functional categories are
realized in the grammar. ( Japanese lacks the category Det.)
2. Functional category features vary from one language to
another. ( French has a gender feature while English does not).
3. Features are varied in strength. Infl features are strong in
French and weak in English.
-

25. Parameters ( Paramedic)
According to White:
-Languages can differ as to which functional categories
are realized in the grammar.
-For ex. Japanese lacks the category of Det.
-The feature of a particular functional category can vary
from language to language.
-For ex. French has a gender feature while English doesn’t
.
-Features are said to vary in strength: a feature can be
strong in one language and weak in another.
-For ex. Inflections are strong in French and weak in
English.

26. Binary Parameters :
- Head first & head last
Head parameters determine the relative positioning of heads
with respect to their complements.
Ex. English is a head –first language because the head
appears before and Japanese is a head – last language as
the complement precedes the head.
- From an acquisitioned point of view children equipped with
UG do not need to discover that language is structured into
phrases and this principle forms a blueprint in mind, so they
know that all phrases in the language they are learning are
going to be ordered in relation to the head.

27. Governing Category Parameter:
It can be exemplified by the precise relationship between
reflexives and their non-phrase antecedents.
Ex. Mark wanted Tom to treat himself.
Here ( himself) can only refer to Tom, not to Mark as the
reflexive must be bound with a local domain in English. In
other languages that allow long binding such as Chinese,
himself can either refer to Tom or Mark.
Paramedics regarding to a functional category inflection
features associated with functional categories can be either
weak or strong with implications for syntactic properties of
that language. ( Fig.3.1 , p.69) (illustrates the parametric
variation for a functional category in English and French.)

28. -
-- Inf. In English is weak, while its strong in French.
-- In English verb remains as VP. In French the verb has to
rise to the I position to pick up tense and agreement within
an inflectional phrase.
--According to Chomsky, a language is not then a system of
rules but a set of specifications for parameters in a variant
system of principles of universal grammar.

29. Hypothesis about Parameters Resetting:
Children in early stages only have access to lexical categories
and lack functional categories.
Some contradictory facts about SLA process:
Learners do not seem to produce wild grammars, that is grammar
can only be constrained by UG. Does that suggest that only
principles of UG are available for them?
Learners produce grammar that are not necessarily like either
their first or second language. Does that suggest that parameter
settings other than those realize in this first and second languages
are available to them?
Some principles and parameters seem to be unproblematic to
reset , other more difficult or even impossible . Why?

30. Hypothesis 1: No access to UG
- proponents of this hypothesis argue that there is a critical
period for SLA and after puberty UG is no longer available to
SLLs.
-A study with immigrant children, age of arrivals, and
grammatical properties were examined.
-Results: the ones before seven performed native-like while
other made more errors.
-Opponents: it does not mean that adults grammars are not
universal grammar - constrained.

31. Hypothesis 2: Full access to UG
1. Full access / no transfer: Flynn (1996) claims that there is
no such thing as a critical period. UG is accessible at initial
stages of learning and parameter setting is done directly to
L2 values.
L2 acquisition is similar to L1 as learners can acquire
principles and parameter settings which do not exist in their
L1.
Research1: English speakers of Japanese can successfully
reset the head direction parameters ( from head-last to head
–first)
Research 2: Japanese could project subjancency principle
Wh-movement in English. (Flynn)

32. 2. Full transfer/ Full access:
Proponents of this hypothesis believe that SLLs have full
access to UG principles and parameters whether or not they
are present in the learner’s 1st language.
In this view, 2nd language learners are thought to transfer all
the parameter settings from their first language in an initial
stage and revise their hypothesis when 2nd language fails to
conform these settings.
3. Full access/ impaired early representations:
The supporters of this hypothesis believe that learners can
reset parameters to 2nd language values , but initially
learners are lacking functional categories.

33. (1996 -98) Minimal trees approach: at initial stages only
lexical categories are projected and functional categories
develop later.
(1996) Valueless features: both lexical and functional
categories are transferred from L1 but functional categories
lack values such as tense, agreement and so on.
Hypothesis 3: Partial access
- No Parameter Resetting : Proponents of this hypothesis
claim that learners have only access to UG via their 1st
language. They have already set parameters of their 1st
language and this the basis for L2. other principles and
parameters are not available to them they have to resort
other mechanism for different parameter settings.

34. A- Universal Grammar - Native language knowledge
-B. Domain- specific learning - General problem-solving systems
-processes
-( Bley – Vroman, 1989)
Child Language
Development
Adult Foreign Language
Learning

35. Research : English learners of Korean speakers failed to
recognize ‘Wh- Movement’ in English as there is no Wh-
movement in Korean so the subjancency principle is
presumably not operative.
Schatcher accepts that UG may be available for child
second language learners, but argues there is a critical
period that she calls as ( the window of opportunity)
Child second language learners pass through different
windows for different modules of the target language.

36. Impaired functional features: second language grammars
are Universal Grammar- constrained, but that not all
parameter settings will be available . SLLs will therefore try
to accommodate the SL grammar within the settings they
already have.
Modulated structure building: Hawkins & Chan argue that
learners start with minimal trees that are lexical projections .
Functional developments develop later. They argue that
learners reanalyze the input to make it fit their first language
setting.
Constructionism: it proposes that L2er uses a coalition of
resources to construct 2nd language vocabulary and
grammar; UG template, 1st language transfer, primary
linguistic data, input and intake, instructional bootstrapping.

37. Criticism of UG Theory:
-Linguistically, this approach is concern only with syntax.
-Semantics, pragmatics and discourse are excluded.
-UG is concerned exclusively with the developmental
linguistic route. Social and psychological variables are
ignored.
-UG approach is methodological. The theory is
preoccupied with modeling of competence, the study of
naturalistic performance is not seen as a suitable source
to analyze mental representation of language.

38. Thank you