Universal Grammar (Ug) and Second Language Acquisition
Özet
This text explores the historical development of Universal Grammar (UG) and its implications for second language acquisition (SLA). UG, defined as a system of principles limiting human language forms, evolved from medieval modistic concepts into modern generative linguistics introduced by Noam Chomsky. Chomsky's framework developed through various phases, including Transformational Generative Grammar, Standard Theory, Government-Binding Theory, and the Minimalist Program. The theory emphasizes language innateness, addressing the "poverty of the stimulus" problem where children acquire complex languages despite insufficient environmental input. UG consists of invariant principles common across all human languages—such as structure-dependency, subjacency, and binding—and variable parameters like pro-drop, adjacency, and head-position, which vary across languages and must be reset by second language learners. Regarding SLA, researchers debate the accessibility of UG for adult learners. This has led to several key hypotheses, including the Fundamental Difference Hypothesis, which claims adult learning relies on general problem-solving rather than the Language Acquisition Device (LAD), and the Fundamental Identity Hypothesis, which asserts that the same language-specific mechanisms guide both first and second language acquisition. Empirical studies provide mixed insights into how parameters are reset and how heavily adult grammar remains constrained by UG principles.
Referanslar
Bavali, M. & Sadighi, F. (2008). Chomsky’s universal grammar and Halliday’s systemic functional linguistics: An appraisal and a compromise. Journal of Pan-Pacific Association of Applied Linguistics, 12:1, pp. 11-28.
Bley-Vroman, R. (1990). The logical problem of foreign language learning. Linguistic Analysis, 20:1-2, pp.3-49.
Brown, H.D. (2007). Principles of language learning and teaching (5th ed.). New York: Pearson Longman
Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge: The Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press.
Chomsky, N. (2006). Language and mind. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Crain, S., Khlentzos, D. & Thornton, R. (2010). Universal grammar versus language diversity. Lingua, 120, pp. 2668-2672.
Cook,V. J. (1997). Inside language. London: Edward Arnold.
Cook, V. J. and Newson, M. (2007). Chomsky’s universal grammar: An introduction (3rd ed.). Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.
Covington, M.A., (2009). Syntactic theory in the high middle ages. Cambridge : Cambridge University Press.
Çakir, S. (2006). The accessibility of universal grammar in the acquisition of constituent order parameter by the native speakers of Turkish who are acquiring English as a second language. (MA Thesis). Hacettepe University, Ankara.
Farahani, A.A.K., Mehrdad, A.G. & Ahghar,M.R. (2014). Access to universal grammar in adult second language acquisition. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 136, pp.298-3301.
Flynn, S. & Espinal, I. (1985). Head-initial/head-final parameter in adult Chinese L2 acquisition of English. Second Language Research, 1:2, pp. 93-117.
Gass, S.M. & Selinker, L. (2008). Second language acquisition: An introductory course (3rd ed.). New York: Routledge.
Gentile, G. (1995). Language acquisition and universal grammar:A survey of recent research.Universita’ Degli Studi Di Padova, Padova.
Gürel, A. (2003).Is the overt pronoun constraint universal? Evidence from L2 Turkish. In J.M. Liceras, H. Zobl & H. Goodluck (Eds.). Proceedings of the 6th Generative Approaches to Second Language Acquisition Conference (GASLA 2001): L2 Links. (pp.130-139). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.
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, pp. 187-226.
Hawkins, R. (2001). The theoretical significance of universal grammar in second language acquisition. Second Language Research,17:4, pp.345-367.
Hinzen, W. (2012). The philosophical significance of universal grammar. Language Sciences, 34, pp.635-649
Hinzen, W. (2014). The future of universal grammar research (Editorial introduction). Language Sciences, 46, pp. 97-99.
LaFond, L.F. (2001). The pro-drop parameter in second language acquisition revisited: A developmental account. (Doctoral Dissertation). University of South Carolina, Columbia.
McLaughlin, B. (1987). Theories of second-language learning. New York: Routledge
Musso, M. (2001). Does universal grammar underlie foreign language acquisition? A fMRI study. Neuroimage, 13:6, p. 574.
Nowak, M.A., Komarova, N.L. & Niyogi, P. (2001). Evolution of universal grammar. Science, New Series, 291:5501, pp.114-118.
O’Grady,W.(2003). The radical middle: Nativism without universal grammar. In C.J. Doughty and M.H. Long (Eds.). The handbook of second language acquisition. (pp.43-63). Oxford: Blackwell publishing
O’Grady,W.(2008).Innateness, universal grammar and emergentism.Lingua,118, pp .620-631.
Pallier, C., Dehaene, S., Poline, J.B., LeBihan, D., Argenti, A.M., Dupoux, E. & Mehler, J. (2003). Brain imaging of language plasticity in adopted adults: Can a second language replace the first?. Cerebral Cortex, 13, pp.155-161.
Sadeghi, S. (2006). The accessibility of universal grammar in the acquisition of structure-dependency in Persian learners of English. (MA thesis). The Islamic Azad University of Bandar Abbas, Bandar Abbas.
Sanz, C.(2005). Adult SLA: The interaction netween external and internal factors. In C. Sanz (Ed.). Mind and context in adult second language acquisition: Methods, theory and practice. (pp.3-20). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
Saville-Troike, M. (2006). Introducing second language acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
Schwartz, B.D. (1992). Testing between UG-based and problem-solving models of L2A: Developmental sequence data. Language Acquisition 2:1, pp.1-19.
Sterbenz, C. (2013). The Heartbreaking story of Genie, a feral child who will never learn to communicate. Business insider. Retrived from http://www.businessinsider.com/critical-period-for-language-acquisition-2013-10?op=1.
Thomas, M. (1991). Universal grammar and the interpretation of reflexives in a second language. Linguistic Society of America,67:2,pp.211-239.
Thomas, M. (1995). Medieval and modern views of universal grammar and the nature of second language learning. The Modern Language Journal, 79:3, pp.345-355.
Turan, Ü.D. (2006). Complex sentences: Noun Clauses, Relative Clauses, Adverbial Clauses. In Z. Balpınar (Ed.). Turkish Phology, Morphology and Syntax (Türkçe Ses, Biçim ve Tümce Bilgisi) (3rd ed.). (pp.219-252). Eskişehir: Anadolu University
Yang, C.D. (2004). Universal grammar, statistics or both?. Trends in Cognitive Sciences.8:10, pp.451-456.
White, L. (2003a). On the nature of interlanguage representation: Universal grammar in the second language. In C.J. Doughty and M.H. Long (Eds.). The handbook of second language acquisition. (pp.19-43). Oxford: Blackwell publishing
White, L. (2003b). Second language acquisition and universal grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
