The Universal Hypothesis

GARCIA VILLEGAS MARIA AURORA ROSAS RAMÍREZ RODRIGO

HERNÁNDEZ COLMENERO ANA PAULA SÁNCHEZ LOPEZ GEMA YOLOTZIN
HERNÃNDEZ MARTÍNEZ KEYLA XIMENA SÁNCHEZ CHICO AIMEE CELINA
RIVERA CUEVAS KRISTAL UREÑA SALAS GUADALUPE ABIGAIL
RODARTE ESCAMILLA RUBEN

To start with...
Linguistic universal can be used to help predict
which differences lead to difficulty and which ones
do not, in language acquisition .
Chomsky seeks to identify linguistic universal by the
in-depth stufy of a single language. He argues that
only in this way is it possible to discover the highly
abstract principles of grammar. He refers to these
principles as Universal grammar.

Universal Grammar by
Chomsky
"The language properties inherent in the
human mind make up, "Universal grammar",
which consist not of particular rules or of a
particular language, but a set of general
principles that apply to all languages." Cook
(1985)

Chomsky's (author of Universal Felix (1984) gives three ways in which these
Grammar) explanation for the dato are inadequate. First, some structures
innate principles is thaht wothout a are so rare and marginal; second, the way un
set of innate principles it would not which wrong hypothesis could be discarded
possible for a child to learn the would be if the input were to provide
grammar of his mother tongue. This negative feedback; and third, teh rules of
is because the data available from any grammar are highly abstract and so do
the input are insufficient to enble not reflect the surface properties of the
the child to discover certain rules. language.

Universal grammar is made up of "Formal"

and "Substantive" universals

Substantive Formal
Consist of fixed features such as They are statements about what
distinctive phonetic features with their grammatical rules are possible.
syntatic categories such as noun, verb,
subject etc.

Universal sets parameters which mus the be fixed

according to the particular input data that the child
obtains. These rules delimit the number of options
which the child needs to explore.

"Core" and "Periphery"

Those rules that child discover But there are also other rules that Universal
with help of universal grammar Grammar does not determiner, called
form part of "core". "Periphery". Those rules are derived from the
That according to the theory history of the language, that have been
of "Markedness" : Core rules borrowed from other languages. According
are unmarked, that is, the to the "Markedness": Periphery rules are
accord with the general marked; that is, they are exceptional in some
tendencies of language. way.
 Typological Universals

To start with...
Typological universals are
identified by examining a
representative sample of
natural languages, taking care
to ensure that the sample is
free from the bias that might
result from concentrating on
a single language or family of
languages.

3 types of universals
Substantive, formal, and
implicational, the first 2
correspond to the universals of
universal grammar.

Implicational
Relate the presence of one linguistic property to the presence of some other
property or properties.

2 Rather different types of implicational universals arise.

Clustered
The properties are related in
such a way that any one of
them implies the existence of
the others.

Hierarchical

The related properties are

ordered in such a way that the
presence of one property
implies the presence of all the
properties higher -but no lower-
in the hierarchy.

Both of these categories

apply to the three types
of universals

Universals are also Tendencies occur when there

differentiated according to is a statistical probability of a
whether they are absolute or linguistic universal being
tendencies. found, but there are also
exceptions.

Absolute universals have no

exceptions.
 Linguistic universals and L1 acquisition
The relationship between linguistic universals and L1 acquisition has
been most thoroughly explored in terms of Universal Grammar, which
is the solution called "the logical problem of language acquisition".
Without Universal Grammar, it would not be possible for a child to
acquire a language successfully.

The child creates a hypothesis

by means of inductive
procedures and then amends
this in the light of the
feedback from the
environment

The child's task is to try out the

options available to him and
select the one that corresponds
to the positive evidence
provided by the environment

DEVELOPMENT ACQUISITION

It is real-time learning of It is language learning

a language. It is unaffected by
influences nor only by maturation and it
Universal Grammar but dependent entirely on
also by other non- the learner's language
linguistic factors such as faculty
memory capacity and
general cognitive abilities

The terms "acquisition" and "development"

correspond to the better- known pair of terms,
"competence" and "performance"

Linguistic universals and SLA

Chomsky has discussed th e logical problem of

acquisition almost entirely from the point of view of the
child.

Adults seem to do as well, if no better, than children,

and, more important, they manifest a similar
developmental route in SLA.

It must be assumed thet there is a single mechanism for

learning languages.

SLA involves two languages: The target language and

The learners native language.
The first is: what we use does the L2 learner makes of his
L1 knowledge of linguistic universals? The second is:
does the core/periphery distiction have any bearing on
the use that the L2 learner makes of his L1 knowledge?
 Linguistc Universals in Interlanguage
Development
This section consider what and how extent
linguistic universal contribute to interlanguage
development, begginig with examining
theoretical questions and reviewing a number
of empirical studies.

1st Theorical question

It's about the relationship between linguistic and
channel capacity in SLA.

In SLA it is not clear whether the learner is subject

to the same maturational constraint as the child.

Channel capacity still seems to play a part in some aspects of

SLA.

Ellis (1982) has suggested that L1 and L2 learners produce very

similar kinds of utterances in the early stages of development.

Cook (1975) provides evidence that speech processing memory

operates in SLA as well as in L1 acquisition, and that apply only
when the learner reaches a certain developmental point.

2nd Theorical question

It's about hypothesis testing because it's one of the central
processes in interlanguage development.

In natural environments the learner is not likely to encounter

negative feedback and therefore will not be able to discomfirm
certain hypotheses which be might have induced from the
available data.

Only in classroom settings will sufficient negative feedback be

available, and even then it is likely to be erratic and inconsistent

However the route of SLA in classroom contexts and in

natural settings appears to be the same, that suggest even
if negative feedback is available, acquisition is not affected.

Cook's conclusion is that the learners uses positive

evidence to fix the parameters set by Universal Grammar.

Empirical studies have examined three related hypotheses

to do with the effect of universals in interlanguage
development:

1. Interlanguage: It's subject to the constrainss imposed by

linguistic universals.
2. Implicational Universal: Can be used to predict the order in
wich propierties of the L2 appear in interlanguage.
3. Unmarked Properties: L2 learners learn unmarked propierties
before marked propierties of the target language.
Gass (1979) investigate the acquisitio of relative clauses by
adult L2 learners of Englis. She found a close correlation
comparing the accuracy order for different relative
pronanoun functions.
Gass's study lends support to the second hypothesis.

Students were given instruction on a universally more

difficult position in the relative clause and were then
tested to see if they could generalize thir knowledge to an
easier position. The result showed they could.

There have been several studies that have investigated

whether the markedness scale is able to predict the
order of development in SLA.

Rutherford and Gass review a number of these.

Wode uses acquisition of L2 negation to justify his claim:

Subject + neg + verb phrase
Wode notes that preverbal negation appears in the
developmental order even if it is not present in either
the target language or the learner's native language.

Rutherford (1982) provides an interesting ilustration of

how markedness factors can influence SLA, can be
explained by markedness theory:

1. What's that?
2. What are those?
3. I don't know what those are.
4. I don't know what this is.

Simple questions, (1) and (2), can be considered

unmarked in relation to embedded questions (3) and
(4), and are learn first.
Singular (1), is unmarked in relation to plural (2)and is
learn first. But plural embedded questions (4), are learn
before singular embedded questions (5), because the
unlearning of the inversion rule for simple questions
occurs with the last learn question type first.

All these studies show that language universals may

influence how L2 grammars are formed.

There is evidence to show that universals place constraints

on interlenguage, that acquisition may follow the hierarchical
ordering of features, and that unmarked or less marked
features are acquired before marked or more marked
features.

In addition, it is probably too simplistic to expect a

straightforward correlation between linguistic universal and
SLA.

As Gass points out, we should not assume that the effect of

linguistic universals will be uniform.
 Linguistic universals and L1 transfer

Markedness Theory
The basic assumption is that unmarked settings
of parameters will occur in interlanguage
before marked settings, even if the L2 provides
evidence of a marked setting
Thus it is predicted that no transfer will take
place from native to target language when the L1
has a marked setting

The most obvious case of

transfer is:
where the native language shows an unmarked
setting and the target language a marked one.
In other words, the unmarked setting is the
setting that might be expected to take place if
the learner was following Universal Grammar.

The transfer of L1 unmarked forms.

Transfer is most likely to occur when the L1 construction is unmarked, but Zobl's theory also
allows for the transfer of marked forms. The learner falls back on his L1 knowledge when the L2
rule is obscure. Zobl describes two main ways in which obscurity can arise:

The L2 is typologically The L2 is typological

inconsistent. indeterminancy.

*The normal implicational relationships *When the setting of a particular parameter is

among rules are not manifest in the L2. idiosyncratic, that is it varies across languages
*This way the projection which the learner so that there are a large number of possible
makes on the basis of his expectancy that settings. For example, the position of adverbs,
the 'universal' implicational patterns will which is highly variable in different languages.
hold is refuted by the L2 data. * Again the learner is likely to resort to his L1 to
*The learner solves this problem by turning solve the learnability problem.
to his L1, particularly if the equivalent L1 *L1 influence will be felt only in peripheral rules
rule is unmarked. where there are no universals, or only very
weak tendencies.

Transfer
The condition for transfer to take place is not whether the
L1 has a marked construction, but whether the L2 has.
If a particular L2 rule is obscure, it cannot be easily
derived by means of the learner's projection device,
the learner falls back on his L1 and may be prepared to
transfer even a marked rule to solve his learnability
problem.

Eckman 1997, argues

That the areas of the target language which will
be difficult are those areas which are both
different from the L1 and relatively more marked
than the LI.

Kellerman 1984, proposes

That where the L1 pattern corresponds with a universal
developmental stage in SLA, the learner may proceed to that
stage faster than learners whose L2 do not have the pattern.
Learnesrs can get a "leg up" the developmental ladder with the
halp of their L1.
The opposite is also possible. If the L1 contains an unnatural
pattern that corresponds to an early developmental pattern,
progress may be slowed down.
 The non-transfer of K
L1 marked forms
KELLERMAN 1979

Suggests learners tend to avoid Kelerman calls "U-shaped

one-to-one correspondences behaviour" , with error
between L1 and L2 when frequency following a low-high-
meanings are consider ow pattern as development
prototypical. takes place.

Learners may initially transfer

both marked and unmarked
features , while in more
advanced interlanguage they
resist transferring marked
features.
Thus te acceptance or rejection
of L1 peripheral features may be
compicated by developmental
factors.

Zobl 1984
Whereas English does not:
Investigated L1 French/L1 E
nglish learner's use of "How How many do you want
many..." constructions. oranges?
French permits extractions of a How many oranges do you
noun phrase modified by want?
'combien':

Combien voulez-vous
d'oranges?
Combien d'oranges voulez-
vous?

Zobl argued that non.extraction represents the unmarked

rule, and extraction the marked one.

Liceras 1983

Investigated preposition The evidence for the non-

stranding. Found that 43% transfer of marked forms
of her English speaking is mixed. White (1984)
subjects accepted argues strongly that
stranding in Spanish at learners may have
the begginer level. difficulty in 'unsetting’
marked parameters in the
L1 when they learn a L2.
She claims that learners
carry over marked
constructions from the L1
to the L2. Furthermore,
she suggests that once
the marked L1 form has
been established in
interlanguage, it may be
difficult to dislodge it,
with the result that
fossilization occurs.
It often happens that the L1 (17) is more explicit than (18),
possesses both an unmarked because it contains more
and a marked setting of the grammatical information (i.e.
same parameter. 'Combien' there is a subject and the verb is
extraction in French is a case in tensed). A L2 learner with
point. Kellerman (1979) proposes English as his L1 will be more
that in such cases it will be the L1 likely to transfer (17). This may
construction that is most occur even if the L2 has only the
explicit and, therefore, least marked construction.
marked that will be transferred.
Zobl's study could be
interpreted as illustrating this.
Kellerman gives other examples.
For instance in pairs like:

17 He claims that he knows

18 He claims to know it.

In conclusion, the theory of markedness offers a number of

interesting and plausible hypotheses about the role of transfer in
SLA, but there is at the moment no agreement regarding the precise
nature of the interaction between L1 and L2 features from the point
of view of linguistic universals. The following reflect widely held
views, but there are alternative opinions for which at least some
evidence can be found.

1 Learners transfer unmarked L1 forms when the

corresponding L.2 forms are more marked.
2. The effect of the L1 will be observed more strongly where
peripheral rules in the L.2 are concerned.
3 In general, marked forms are not transferred into
interlanguage, particularly when the L1 possesses both
marked and unmarked constructions.
4 Marked forms may be transferred in the early stages of SLA.
5 An 1.1 pattern that corresponds to an interlanguage
universal c accelerate or delay SLA, depending on whether
the correspondence is with an early- or late-occurring
developmental pattern
 SOME PROBLEMS WITH THE
UNIVERSAL HYPOTHESIS
The Universal Hypothesis is an attempt to
explain how linguistic factors operate in
interlanguage. It refers to a relationship
between language universals and Second
Language Acquisition.

1st Problem
1.- The concept of Universal
Grammar as an innate faculty
in the mind. The potential to
communicate is the real
human innate capacity.

2nd Problem
2.- Distinction between
acquisition and development. It
is not clear how both can be
separated. Which aspects of
language learning are
constrained by language or
cognitive faculties?

3rd Problem
3.- “The poverty of the stimulus
argument”. The claim of “a
degenerated input could not
provide an adequate data
basis for setting the
parameters of language” has
been shown to be empirically
unfounded.

4th Problem
4.- The cavalier attitude to
markedness>> The whole
construct of markedness must
be considered of doubtful value
for empirical research.

5th Problem
5.- The describing and
explaining of competence: what
type of performance provides
the best window for looking at
competence: different
performance styles
(grammatical, spontaneous
speech)

Reference -Ellis, R. (1985). Understanding Second Language Acquisition. Oxford University Press.
file:///Users/b/Downloads/Understanding%20Second%20Language%20Acquisition%20by%20Rod%20Ellis%20(1)%20(1).p
df