Exploring Second Language Acquisition through Chomsky's Universal Grammar: The Role of Innate Principles, Parameter Resetting, and Challenges in Adult Learning

Introduction

This essay will examine the process of second language acquisition (SLA) within the context of Chomsky's Universal Grammar (UG) approach. UG posits that the human brain possesses an inherent set of grammatical principles governing the architecture of all natural languages (Chomsky & Lasnik, 2008; Jackendoff & Pinker, 2005). These principles are theorized to direct and delimit the acquisition of a second language in adulthood, thereby establishing a fundamental groundwork for language learning. Knowing this, the following three chapters will respectively focus on the initiation, progression, and challenges faced by adult second language (L2) learners, during which the important theoretical arguments of UG and my own examples supporting them will be discussed.

Beginning: L1 Transfer and Access to UG

UG believes that the initial state in L2 acquisition is shaped by learners' pre-existing knowledge of their first language (L1) and an innate language faculty comprising universal principles (White, 2003). This inherent capacity allows individuals to form a linguistic representation – a mental grammar – of the target language, drawing from the input they receive (ibid.). This view challenges the behaviourist claim that language acquisition occurs solely through input and output processes, contending that an innate language module within the brain facilitates acquisition (Clark & Lappin, 2010; Crain, 1991). Further evidence for this innate predisposition towards language acquisition comes from the Poverty of the Stimulus argument, which maintains that despite receiving insufficient linguistic input, children are nevertheless able to acquire sophisticated language systems (Clark & Lappin, 2010).

Consequently, the initial stage involves the transfer of L1 knowledge, guided and confined by UG principles reacting to L2 input. Hypotheses such as the Full Transfer/Full Access Hypothesis (Schwartz & Sprouse, 1996) propose that this initial state entails a comprehensive transfer of L1 grammar to the L2, followed by progressive refinement as L2 learners obtain input and generate new interlanguage representations. In the later development of this argument, adult L2 learners' initial state is believed to be founded on the principles and parameters (P&P; see Section 2 for more) of their L1, subsequently modified (or technically, reset) based on the linguistic input from the L2 (Chomsky & Lasnik, 2008; Tsimpli & Roussou, 1991). From my own learning experience, the difficulty in learning (or even realising) the English articles ("the", "a", and "an") at the beginning of L2 acquisition as a Chinese learner can be ascribed to UG's impact on the learning progression. If we generalise this experience based on UG, similar difficulties will be prominent in every L1 that lacks an analogous grammatical feature to L2, requiring the active implementation of UG principles to discern the accurate application.

Progress: Parameter Resetting and Fossilisation

The above-mentioned concept of P&P is a core aspect of UG, proposing the existence of innate principles governing all human languages, with variations captured through parameters. These principles, comprising linguistic knowledge common to humans, foster language acquisition, while parameters, reflecting language-specific variation, enable customization to diverse linguistic environments. In this respect, during language acquisition, adult learners of an L2 undergo a phenomenon known as 'parameter resetting’ (Tsimpli & Roussou, 1991). This process entails the adaptation of an individual's interlanguage grammar through the establishment of new parameter values, which align with the target language. The UG approach postulates that this transformative process is facilitated by 'positive evidence' derived from exposure to the L2 input. Consequently, such evidence enables learners to converge on the correct parameter settings, ultimately refining their grammatical competence (Schwartz & Sprouse, 1996).

Consider, for instance, the pro-drop parameter - a linguistic feature that determines whether a language permits the omission of subject and object pronouns (Hilles, 1986). In English, explicit subject pronouns are obligatory; conversely, in Chinese, their omission is permissible. For a Chinese speaker acquiring English, such as the author, adjusting this parameter is essential to preclude pro-drop constructions in the L2 context. To exemplify, when presented with the inquiry, "Have they tried the uniforms?", an appropriate response from a Chinese speaker learning English necessitates the modification of the pro-drop parameter to incorporate the pronoun: "They will try them before the class," instead of, "^ will try ^ before the class" – a construction that may appear sufficiently natural to Chinese speakers, including myself.

Unfortunately, L2 learners will encounter difficulties in parameter resetting, a process significantly influenced by the occurrence of fossilisation (Selinker, 1972; Selinker & Lakshmanan, 1992). Fossilisation describes the permanent establishment of deviant linguistic structures in an L2 learner's interlanguage, obstructing progression towards native-like proficiency (Han, 2004). One potential explanation for this phenomenon is the critical period hypothesis (Hartshorne et al., 2018; Johnson & Newport, 1989), suggesting that language acquisition transpires optimally within a specific time frame, followed by a marked decline in language learning capacity. It is however crucial to acknowledge the existence of other potential explanations for fossilisation, both within and beyond the realm of UG. For example, an individual may experience satisfaction with their current L2 proficiency due to its sufficiency in addressing communication needs, causing a conscious or unconscious cessation of further efforts (Han, 2004). For me, this particularly manifests in the phonological domain, as it poses a lesser impact on communication accuracy. Challenges such as the adoption of stress-timed structures rather than syllable-timed patterns (as in Chinese) persistently arise for me.

Challenges

While satisfaction and other factors undoubtedly contribute to the success of the process, it is important to recognise that sociocultural elements – encompassing learning context, time, resources, and so on – primarily function as moderators rather than determinants, as corroborated by previous research (Lantolf, 2000; Lantolf & Thorne, 2006). Consequently, this section will expound upon two critical challenges, including linguistic and processing factors. Given this essay’s primary focus on UG, these contributing factors will be examined in the context of their potential to impede access to UG.

In relation to linguistic aspects, the complexities surrounding L2 acquisition in adults stem from the intricate nature of the target language's grammar, vocabulary, and phonology. Once speakers have successfully established their L1 system, aided by UG, the linguistic incongruity of L2 raises questions concerning the continued availability of UG to support further modifications to the linguistic system. While some researchers argue that UG accessibility is limited to L1 acquisition (Clahsen & Muysken, 1986), others contend that UG principles persistently influence L2 acquisition throughout adulthood (Schwartz & Sprouse, 1996). Drawing on personal experience with L2 acquisition, the incongruity between Chinese and English hindered comprehension of L2 grammar, such as the subjacency principle in wh-questions and the more elaborate transformation rules governing wh-questions, because Chinese question formation adheres to an in-situ rule.

In terms of cognitive and processing factors, beyond the above-mentioned variables, the challenges in L2 learning mainly encompass working memory capacity (Daneman & Merikle, 1996), attention (Ellis & Sagarra, 2010), and executive function (Kapa & Colombo, 2014). Within the context of UG, the impact of these cognitive processes on L2 learning remains contentious. Some scholars propose an interaction between these elements and UG principles during L2 acquisition (Hawkins & Chan, 1997), whereas others contend that these processes are separate from UG, contributing to L2 learning in a broader sense (DeKeyser, 2000). One of the pieces of evidence supporting a domain-specific (UG-specific) account is in the investigations into L2 syntax acquisition, which reveal that adult learners may exhibit a greater reliance on explicit learning strategies and rule-based processing compared to children, potentially impeding their ability to access implicit UG knowledge (Dienes & Perner, 1999).

Conclusion

In conclusion, this essay has provided a comprehensive analysis of second language acquisition within the framework of Chomsky's Universal Grammar approach. By examining the initiation, progression, and challenges faced by adult L2 learners, I have highlighted the role of UG principles in shaping the linguistic representations and facilitating the learning process. The intricate interplay between innate capacities, parameter resetting, and other influences such as cognitive and processing factors contribute to the complexity of L2 learning. While the availability and extent of UG's influence on adult L2 acquisition remain contentious, it is evident that this theoretical perspective has significantly advanced our understanding of language acquisition dynamics. Ultimately, continued research and investigation into the applicability of UG to second language acquisition promise to further illuminate the multifaceted process of language learning, providing invaluable insights for both learners and educators alike.

References

Chomsky, N., & Lasnik, H. (2008). The Theory of Principles and Parameters. In The Theory of Principles and Parameters (pp. 506–569). De Gruyter Mouton. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110095869.1.9.506

Clahsen, H., & Muysken, P. (1986). The availability of universal grammar to adult and child learners-a study of the acquisition of German word order. Interlanguage Studies Bulletin (Utrecht), 2(2), 93–119.

Clark, A., & Lappin, S. (2010). Linguistic Nativism and the Poverty of the Stimulus. John Wiley & Sons.

Crain, S. (1991). Language acquisition in the absence of experience. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 14(4), 597–612.

Daneman, M., & Merikle, P. M. (1996). Working memory and language comprehension: A meta-analysis. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 3(4), 422–433.

DeKeyser, R. M. (2000). The robustness of critical period effects in second language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 22(4), 499–533.

Dienes, Z., & Perner, J. (1999). A theory of implicit and explicit knowledge. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 22(5), 735–808.

Ellis, N. C., & Sagarra, N. (2010). Learned Attention Effects in L2 Temporal Reference: The First Hour and the Next Eight Semesters. Language Learning, 60(s2), 85–108. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2010.00602.x

Han, Z. (2004). Fossilization in adult second language acquisition. Multilingual Matters.

Hartshorne, J. K., Tenenbaum, J. B., & Pinker, S. (2018). A critical period for second language acquisition: Evidence from 2/3 million English speakers. Cognition, 177, 263–277. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2018.04.007

Hawkins, R., & Chan, C. Y. (1997). The partial availability of Universal Grammar in second language acquisition: The ‘failed functional features hypothesis.’ Second Language Research, 13(3), 187–226.

Hilles, S. (1986). Interlanguage and the pro-drop parameter. Interlanguage Studies Bulletin (Utrecht), 2(1), 33–52. https://doi.org/10.1177/026765838600200103

Jackendoff, R., & Pinker, S. (2005). The nature of the language faculty and its implications for evolution of language (Reply to Fitch, Hauser, and Chomsky). Cognition, 97(2), 211–225.

Johnson, J. S., & Newport, E. L. (1989). Critical period effects in second language learning: The influence of maturational state on the acquisition of English as a second language. Cognitive Psychology, 21(1), 60–99. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0285(89)90003-0

Kapa, L. L., & Colombo, J. (2014). Executive function predicts artificial language learning. Journal of Memory and Language, 76, 237–252.

Lantolf, J. P. (Ed.). (2000). Sociocultural Theory and Second Language Learning (1st edition). OUP Oxford.

Lantolf, J. P., & Thorne, S. L. (2006). Sociocultural theory and genesis of second language development. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006.

Schwartz, B. D., & Sprouse, R. A. (1996). L2 cognitive states and the full transfer/full access model. Second Language Research, 12(1), 40–72.

Selinker, L. (1972). Interlanguage.

Selinker, L., & Lakshmanan, U. (1992). Language transfer and fossilization: The multiple effects principle. Language Transfer in Language Learning, 197–216.

Tsimpli, I.-M., & Roussou, A. (1991). Parameter-resetting in L2. UCL Working Papers in Linguistics, 3, 149.

White, L. (2003). Second language acquisition and universal grammar. Cambridge University Press.