Utilizing Universal Grammar in Second Language Acquisition

The notion that there is universal grammar to all languages of human beings came from Chomsky’s view on first language acquisition. Chomsky was looking for an explanation for the fact that all children acquire their mother tongue in a certain time during their cognitive developmental period.

In addition, Chomsky has noticed that children encounter difficulty in understanding ordinary information, whereas children acquire a complex sophisticated language, which is far difficult, that ordinary information and knowledge. Chomsky has also noticed that children who are exposed to samples of language that were incomplete such as slips of the tongue will be eventually acquire their mother languages.

Moreover, He pointed out that children do not receive systematic feedback on the errors they make by their parents and eventually children will be successful in leaving the errors that they make as children and gain full competence when the grow up.

Chomsky originated the idea of the existence of a language acquisition device (LAD) in the brain of the human being. He claimed that (LAD) or an innate language faculty contain main principles of all languages in the world. The task of any child is to employ these principles in accordance with the environment in which he or she lives.

Chomsky introduced his notion of (LAD) and later universal grammar to give description of first language acquisition. This idea was accepted as an explanation of first language acquisition. However, some linguists raised the question whether the idea of universal grammar can be extended to second language acquisition? Some researches argued against extending the idea of universal grammar to second language acquisition. Their reason was the critical period hypothesis reference for acquiring the first language. The critical period hypothesis claimed that first language acquisition exists between childhood and puberty. Therefore, universal grammar is no longer available after the critical period hypothesis and cannot be extended to second language acquisition.

Other researcher, on the other hand, argued for extending universal grammar to second language acquisition. They claim that second language acquisition continues on the same basis of first language acquisition. They claimed that universal grammar is no longer neutral and it is opened to all languages. Their evidence is that the grammar of a second language is adopted in the basis of the grammar of their first language.

Researchers who study second language acquisition from the basis of universal grammar seek to discover a language user’s underlying linguistic competence what a learner knows about a language rather than focusing of the learner’s performance what a language user actually says or writes. As a result, researchers employ indirect means in order to investigate the competence of a second language user.

For example, a second language user will be asked to make judgment whether a certain sentence is grammatical or not. In this way, it is possible to determine whether a linguistic feature is part of the competence of a second language user even if it is rarely used. This example has been adopted from the experiment of asking a child to demonstrate by using toys the following sentence “the car bumped by the truck”. If the child does the opposite, we can say clearly that the linguistic feature which the passive in this case is not yet part of the competence of that child.

As a result of studying second language acquisition from universal grammar perspective, the monitor theory has emerged. The monitor theory shares a number of assumptions of the universal grammar but its scope is second language acquisition. In consistent with universal grammar, the assumption is that human beings acquire their language without instruction and systematic feedback. Krashen developed the monitor theory and it based on five hypotheses.

The first hypothesis is the fundamental hypothesis. This hypothesis has to do with making a distinction between “acquisition” and “learning”. Acquisition, on the one hand, is an unconscious process developed cognitively and it is innately driven. On the other hand, learning is a conscious problem – solving process in the shape of language study. The second hypothesis is the monitor hypothesis. This hypothesis suggests that what has been learned is used as editing tools for language acquisition.

For example, a second language learner who has learned that in English contains irregular plurals will edit word such as “foots” into “feet”. The third hypothesis is the natural order hypothesis. This hypothesis is related to the predictable stage when acquiring a second language. For example, it clear that a second language learner of English will not be able to learn the formation of WH – questions before learning the formation Yes-No questions. The fourth hypothesis is the comprehensible input hypothesis.

This hypothesis related to the suggestion that language acquisition cannot happen without exposing a language learner to a meaningful varied linguistic input. The fifth hypothesis is the affective filter hypothesis. This hypothesis has to do with motivation. It is clear that motivation plays an important role in second language acquisition.

There are pitfalls of the monitor theory. First, the monitor theory has been criticized for the vagueness of the hypotheses and for the fact that some these hypotheses are difficult to investigate empirically. However, the monitor theory has its own impact on second language teaching and learning.

Reference:

“Second Language Acquisition”, (ch7) Norbert Schmitt (ed) (2010), An Introduction to Applied Linguistics, Hodder Education.

By

Mohammed Al – Herz

Email: m_alherz1-at-hotmail.com

Supervised by: Dr. Alaeddin Hussain

King Faisal University