Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 2K views

    The Universal Hypothesis

    Uploaded by

    Edher Quintanar
    1. The document discusses the Universal Hypothesis which proposes that linguistic universals determine the course of second language acquisition. 2. It suggests that learners more easily acquire patterns that conform to universals than those that do not, and that markedness explains developmental routes. 3. Where the first language manifests universals, it can assist development through transfer, especially if the second language rule is marked. However, the hypothesis has problems, as the validity of linguistic universals is unclear, and markedness criteria are doubtful for research. Evidence is inconclusive and ignores variability.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    The Universal Hypothesis

    Uploaded by

    Edher Quintanar
    2K views28 pages
    1. The document discusses the Universal Hypothesis which proposes that linguistic universals determine the course of second language acquisition. 2. It suggests that learners more easily acquire patterns that conform to universals than those that do not, and that markedness explains developmental routes. 3. Where the first language manifests universals, it can assist development through transfer, especially if the second language rule is marked. However, the hypothesis has problems, as the validity of linguistic universals is unclear, and markedness criteria are doubtful for research. Evidence is inconclusive and ignores variability.

    Original Description:

    summary of the universal hypothesis

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1. The document discusses the Universal Hypothesis which proposes that linguistic universals determine the course of second language acquisition. 2. It suggests that learners more easily acquire patterns that conform to universals than those that do not, and that markedness explains developmental routes. 3. Where the first language manifests universals, it can assist development through transfer, especially if the second language rule is marked. However, the hypothesis has problems, as the validity of linguistic universals is unclear, and markedness criteria are doubtful for research. Evidence is inconclusive and ignores variability.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pptx, pdf, or txt
    2K views28 pages

    The Universal Hypothesis

    Uploaded by

    Edher Quintanar
    1. The document discusses the Universal Hypothesis which proposes that linguistic universals determine the course of second language acquisition. 2. It suggests that learners more easily acquire patterns that conform to universals than those that do not, and that markedness explains developmental routes. 3. Where the first language manifests universals, it can assist development through transfer, especially if the second language rule is marked. However, the hypothesis has problems, as the validity of linguistic universals is unclear, and markedness criteria are doubtful for research. Evidence is inconclusive and ignores variability.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pptx, pdf, or txt
    of 28
    At a glance
    Powered by AI
    The text discusses the Universal Hypothesis and how linguistic universals and L1 transfer may influence second language acquisition. It also discusses markedness theory and criticisms of the Universal Hypothesis.

    The text discusses how L1 transfer functions as an auxiliary evaluation measure when the L2 rule is obscure. It also discusses how learners may proceed through developmental stages faster if their L1 pattern corresponds to a universal.

    Markedness theory states that unmarked or weakly marked rules are easier to acquire than marked or strongly marked rules. It suggests learners will rely on their L1 if it has an equivalent unmarked rule when the L2 rule is marked.

    The Universal

    Hypothesis
    Aranda Martnez Luis Fernando Quintanar Ruiz Edher Gonzalo
    Fragoso Tellez Jhoanna Karina Trejo Cervantes Derick Noe
    Martnez Osorio Teresa Eridani
    1. Linguistic Universals and L1 Transfer

    2. The Transfer of L1 Unmarked Forms

    3. The Non-transfer of L1 Marked Forms

    4. Some Problems with the Universal


    Hypothesis

    5. Summary and Conclusion


    Linguistic Universals
    and L1 Transfer
    The Transfer of L1
    Unmarked Forms
    Zobl : Transfer functions only as an
    <auxiliary evaluation measure>.

    Transfer assumes control when the projection device: is unable to set a


    particular parameter of grammar.

    The learners falls back on his L1 knowledge when the L2


    rule is obscure.
    Causes of Obscurity
    L2 is typologically inconsistent: Typological Indeterminacy:
    The universal relationships The location of a particular
    between rules are not parameter is personal.
    evident in the L2.

    The learner solves this The learner solves this


    problem by turning to his problem by turning to his
    L1. L1.
    For Zolb:

    L1 influence will be found only in peripheral rules

    Transfer will occur when the L1 structure is obscure

    The condition for transfer to take place is


    Eckman (1997):

    Transfer effects are most in evidence when the L1 setting is


    unmarked and the L2 setting marked.

    The Markedness Differential Hypothesis: The areas of the target


    language which will be difficult are those ones which are both
    (different from and marked than the L1)
    Kellerman (1984):

    Where the L1 pattern corresponds with a universal developmental


    stage in SLA, the learner may proceed to that stage faster than
    learners whose L1s do not have the pattern.

    Hammarberg (1979)
    Negation in English learners of L2 Swedish ( Same pattern: Subject + main verb
    + negation + complement).
    English: He is not here Swedish: Han r inte hr

    Negation in Spanish learners of L2 English (Different pattern: Subject +


    negation + main verb + complement).
    Spanish: No est aqu English: He is not here
    The Non-transfer of L1
    Marked Forms
    The non-transfer of L1 marked forms

    Arguments and evidence support that the non-transfer of L1 marked


    forms, they are by no means definitive.

    Kellerman learners tends to avoid one-to-one correspondences


    between the L1 and L2 when meanings are considered far from
    prototypical , even though error can result.

    U-shaped behavior error frecuency following a low-high-low


    pattern as development takes place.
    This shows that learners initially transfer both marked and
    unmarked features.

    The acceptance or rejection of L1 peripheral features may be


    complicated by developmental factors.

    Liceras (1984) say that non-transfer of marked forms is mixed.


    Learners carry over marked constructions from the L1 to the L2.
    The theory of markedness offers a number of interesting and plausible
    hypotheses the role of transfer in SLA, but there is no agreement
    regarding the precise nature of the interaction between L1 and L2
    features from the point of view of linguistics universals.
    Some Problems with
    the Universal
    Hypothesis

    The universal hypothesis:


    An attempt to explain how linguistic factors operate in
    interlanguage or in SLA.
    Even though these factors show a big tendency to be
    universal, this hypothesis cant be taken as proven,
    because of a number of problems which are going to be
    mentioned in the next slide.
    1. Linguistic universals must be seen to have psycholinguistic
    validity if they are to be treated as a determinant of SLA:

    How human mind works.

    Chomskys concept of universal grammar.


    2. The distinction between acquisition and development:

    How can they be separated.

    No obvious reason.
    3. Chomskys poverty of the stimulus argument:

    Degenerate input.

    Data-driven hypothesis dont explain LA.


    4. The cavalier attitude to markedness (Kellerman, 1984):

    Pro-drop (marked, white) (unmarked, Hyams).

    Doubtful markedness for empirical research.


    5. Competence by Chomsky:

    Performance as a window for competence.

    Error patterns.
    Summary and
    Conclusion
    The Universal Hypothesis states that there are linguistic
    universals which determine the course of SLA as follows:

    1. Linguistic universals impose constrains on the form that


    interlanguages can take.

    2. Learners find it easier to acquire patterns that conform to


    linguistic universals that those that do not. The linguistic
    markdness of L2 rules explains the developmental route.

    3. Where the L1 manifests linguistic universals, it is likely to assist


    interlanguage development through transfer.
    Linguistic universals have been investigated by the in-deth study
    of a single language:

    Those working in this tradition argue that there is a Universal


    Grammar that constrains the kind of hypotheses that the
    learner can form and that it is innate.
    An alternative approach to investigating linguistic universals is
    to study a large number of languages in order to discover
    typological universals.
    In both L1 and L2 acquisition the effect of linguistic universals has
    been investigated primary in terms of the markeness theory.

    This states that some rules are unmarked or weakly marked and
    others marked or more strongly marked.

    Various criteria have been proposed for determining the markedness


    or a rule.
    Chomsky proposes that an unmarked rule is one that requires no or
    minimal triggering from the environment.

    A typologycal universal or a strong universal tendency can also be


    considered as unmarked.

    Language acquisition proceeds by mastering the easier unmarked


    properties before the difficult marked ones.
    In SLA there is also evidence to suggest that when the L2 rule is
    marked, the learner will turn to his L1, particulary is this has an
    equivalent unmarked rule.

    The evidence in support of the Universal Hypothesis is inclusive.

    Number of theorical and methodological problems.

    The Hypothesis tends to discount pragmatic explanations and ignores


    variability in interlanguage.

    You might also like