NOAM CHOMSKY VIVIAN COOK
(b. 1928) (b. 1940)
Universal Grammar (UG)
1
Outline

The language faculty

UG as a model of language acquisition

UG and SLA

SLA and the poverty-of-the-stimulus argument

Access to UG in SLA

UG and multicompetence
2
Revision of fundamental constructs in
Chomsky s (1965) early work
" competence - the underlying, implicit knowledge of language; internalized
system of rules (what s in people s minds);
 linguistic competence is an idealized knowledge of a native speaker
who has mastered the language perfectly;
 it is free from any regional or foreign influences;
 competence is the object of study for a linguist;
" performance - the actual linguistic production (what people actually say)
 the actual performance is affected by variables such as memory
limitations, distractions, shifts of attention and interest, errors, and
hesitation phenomena such as repeats, false starts, pauses, omissions
and additions,
 therefore, it is of no interest to a linguist.
3
NOAM CHOMSKY
The logical problem of language acquisition
(b. 1928)
(The poverty-of-the-stimulus argument, Plato s problem)
" What needs to be accounted for in language acquisition is the
underlying knowledge of the language, i.e. linguistic
competence.
" Such knowledge of language cannot be learned from the input
alone. (Why?)
" This means that some part of language knowledge must be
innate.
4
The language faculty
" All humans posses a language faculty, which is  a component of
the human mind, physically represented in the brain and part of
the biological endowment of the species (Chomsky 2002:1).
 People have a common universal code of communication, so they are
different from animals, who lack such a common code.
"  [T]he faculty of language in the broad sense & includes a
sensory-motor system, a conceptual-intentional system, and the
computational mechanisms for recursion, providing the capacity
to generate an infinite range of expressions from a finite set of
elements (Houser, Chomsky & Fitch 2002: 1569).
" So, in a sense, Chomsky s language faculty is a  language
organ . It is different from other organs in that it consists of
different systems differentiated by psychologists, which can be
5
studied separately.
Universal Grammar
" Universal Grammar forms part of the human language faculty
(language faculty in the narrow sense).
" Universal Grammar is what all languages have in common.
 This means that humans are born with the knowledge of all
human languages.
" Universal Grammar consists of principles and parameters.
 If a child is born with the knowledge of all human languages,
the language acquisition task consists in discovering the
particular language his parents speak.
6
Principles and parameters
" Principles are invariable. They characterize grammars of all
natural languages.
" Parameters vary across languages.
7
Principles and parameters
 Overall there is a principle that drivers have to keep
consistently to one side of the road, which is taken for granted
by all drivers in all countries. [...] The principle does not,
however, say, which side of the road people should drive on. A
parameter of driving allows the side to be the left in England and
Japan, and the right in the USA and France. The parameter has
two values or  settings - left and right. [...] So, a universal
principle and a variable parameter together set up the essence
of driving. The principle states the universal requirement on
driving; the parameter specifies the variation between
countries.
(Cook 1997: 250-251)
8
Principles and parameters - example
" Principle: Extended Projection Principle
 all sentences have subjects
" Parameter: pro-drop
" English permits declarative sentences with subjects:
He speaks.
but not declarative sentences without subjects:
*Speaks.
" Polish allows sentences without apparent subjects:
Mówi.
Such sentences nevertheless have a  null subject in the
underlying structure, called pro, which does not appear in the
surface structure:
pro mówi
" Polish is a pro-drop language, English is a non-pro-drop
9
language.
Core and periphery
" Knowledge of language involves:
 principles
core
 parameters
grammar
 lexical items, with specifications of how
each item may project on to the structure
periphery
of the sentence
 constructions, e.g.  The more, the merrier
" Core grammar can be described through UG principles and
parameters. UG is minimally relevant to the periphery.
" Criticism: It provides  a convenient way of disposing of elements
that do not fit current analyses of UG by pushing them out into
an undefined periphery (Cook 1993: 201).
10

The language faculty

UG as a model of language acquisition

UG and SLA

SLA and the poverty-of-the-stimulus argument

Access to UG in SLA

UG and multicompetence
11
Language acquisition
 What we  know innately are the principles of the various
subsystems of S0 [the initial state] and the manner of their
interaction, and the parameters associated with these principles.
What we learn are the values of these parameters and the
elements of the periphery (along with the lexicon to which
similar considerations apply). The language that we then know
is a system of principles with parameters fixed, along with a
periphery of marked exceptions (Chomsky 1986: 150-151).
" Parameter settings are not learned, they are  triggered by the
input. This is caused by positive evidence - things that are
actually present in the input.
12
Language acquisition
principles
Input L1 grammar
UG
parameters
13

The language faculty

UG as a model of language acquisition

UG and SLA

SLA and the poverty-of-the-stimulus argument

Access to UG in SLA

UG and multicompetence
14
UG and SLA
VIVIAN COOK (b. 1940)
L1 input a grammar of L1
principles
UG
parameters
L2 input a grammar of L2
"  If the UG argument is correct, no grammar should ever exist in
the human mind that breaches principles of UG or that has
variation in core grammar not covered by the settings for
parameters .
"  If L2 grammars are indeed independent L2 grammars learnt by
 natural language acquisition, being human grammars, they
should manifest the same principles and choose from the same
parameter settings as any other language.
(Cook 1993: 205)
15
Do L2 grammars have principles?
" The principle of structure-dependency:
All languages rely on structure; they never move arbitrary
words, but always move an element that plays a particular
part in sentence structure.
Sam is the cat that is black.
Is Sam the cat that is black?
*Is Sam is the cat that black?
" Japanese does not have syntactic movement, so it does not
require structure-dependency for movement.
" Otsu & Naoi (1986): Japanese learners can change sentences
with relative clauses into questions without breaking structure-
dependency. They can t have known that from their L1.
" Conclusion: L2 learners know the principles of UG.
16
Parameter settings in L2
(White 1986)
" Aim: to test whether L1 parameter settings influence L2 learning
" Subjects: 37 French (non-pro-drop) learners and 34 Spanish
and Italian (pro-drop) learners with comparable English
proficiency
" Method: grammaticality judgements on sentences like:
It is very cold outside.
In winter, snows a lot in Canada.
17
Parameter settings in L2
(White 1986)
Correct answers to grammaticality judgements of pro-drop:
Sentences with subjects Sentences without
subjects
% %
French 97 89
Spanish/Italian 90 61
Conclusion:  L1 parameters influence the adult learner s view of the
L2 data, at least for a while, leading to transfer errors (White 1986: 69).
This means that the L1 parameter settings have to be  deactivated in
L2 learning; the parameters have to be reset.
18
The poverty-of-the-stimulus argument in L1
acquisition (Cook 1991)
" Because people know aspects of language that they could not
have learned from the input, these must be built into the human
mind, i.e. inborn.
"  How do we come to have such rich and specific knowledge, or
such intricate systems of belief and understanding, when the
evidence available to us is so meagre? (Chomsky 1987).
" Step A: a native speaker knows X:
Is Sam the cat that is black?
*Is Sam is the cat that black?
19
The poverty-of-the-stimulus argument in L1
acquisition (Cook 1991)
" Step B: X could not have been acquired from forms of evidence
plausibly available
" The evidence a child obtains in the input is positive. The
sentences the child hears in the input are structure-dependent.
" If the child never hears sentences that are structure-
independent, how does the adult know that:
*Is Sam is the cat that black?
is ungrammatical?
" Positive evidence alone could never lead to the knowledge of
what cannot be said.
" Direct negative evidence does not occur. The child never
produces:
*Is Sam is the cat that black?
20
Therefore, adults never correct it.
The poverty-of-the-stimulus argument in L1
acquisition (Cook 1991)
" Step C: X is not learned
" Structure-dependency cannot be derived from any outside
evidence, but it is present in the mind.
" Step D: X is built-in to the mind
" Criticism:  The central point to the poverty-of-the-stimulus
argument is that the environment underspecifies the kinds of
grammar that people know; language knowledge is too
complicated to be learnt. In one way the argument resembles
the theological proof of the existence of God from the
complexity and beauty of the world (Cook 1991: 105).
21
The poverty-of-the-stimulus argument in SLA
(Cook 1991)
" Step A: a native speaker knows X does not apply to SLA
because all learners do not achieve the same competence.
" All speakers achieve final steady-state knowledge of L1 (Ss), i.e.
all native speakers share the same grammatical competence.
" Terminal knowledge of L2 (St) varies from learner to learner.
Even advanced L2 learners differ from native speakers in subtle
ways.
" Step A : some non-native speakers know X
22
The poverty-of-the-stimulus argument in SLA
(Cook 1991)
" Step B: X could not have been acquired from forms of evidence
plausibly available does not apply to SLA.
" Input in L1 acquisition is relatively uniform.
" L2 learners receive diverse kinds of input:
 in classroom learning the input is manipulated by the
teacher to facilitate learning,
 L2 learners receive negative evidence in the form of
corrections,
 L2 learners receive explanations of grammatical structures.
" Step B : X could not have been acquired from forms of evidence
actually available to those speakers is highly speculative
" Step C : X is not learned by those speakers - ?
" Step D : X is built-in to the mind - ???
23
Do L2 learners have access to UG?
(Cook 1991)
Universal Grammar
Other mental faculties
S0
direct
access
no access
L1 Ss L2 St
indirect access
24
Do L2 learners have access to UG?
(Cook 1993)
" no access position -  L2 learners acquire the L2 grammar
without any reference to UG; the grammar is learnt through
other faculties of the human mind, and so probably bears little
resemblance to usual linguistic competence; it is learnt in the
same way as any other aspect of knowledge - cookery, physics,
or whatsoever
" direct access position -  L2 learners learn in exactly the same
way as L1 learners; they set values for parameters according to
the L2 evidence they encounter without any other influence
" indirect access position -  L2 learners have access to UG
through what they know of the L1, but they start with the L1
parameter settings rather than the initial or default state
(Cook 1993: 210-211)
25
Do L2 learners have access to UG?
(Cook 1994, 1996)
" no access position - not confirmed;
 L2 learners show some knowledge of principles and
parameters, although they usually perform worse than native
speakers on grammaticality judgement tests
" direct access position - partially confirmed;
 L2 learners show some knowledge of principles and
parameters, even if these could not have been transferred
from the L1 (e.g. Otsu & Naoi 1986)
" indirect access position - partially confirmed;
 L2 learners show evidence of L1 influence (e.g. White 1986)
" None of these positions can be unambiguously confirmed by the
data. This means that:
 either access to UG varies in the same learner, depending
on the structure, which is not very likely,
26
 or the conceptualization is wrong.
The states metaphor (Cook 1993, 1996)
principles
UG
L1 input a grammar of L1
parameters
"  A study of English is a study of the realisation of the initial state
S0 under particular conditions (Chomsky 1986: 37).
" In L1 acquisition, S0 of UG is changed into a final steady-state
Ss.
"  Nothing comes out of the box: the box itself changes. The
language faculty is transformed into a final state representing
one of the possible human languages .
"  [I]f UG is the L1 grammar of Ss, the question of access has no
meaning. A computer occasionally warns one  A file cannot be
copied on to itself ; it is just as meaningless to speak of UG
27
having access to itself (Cook 1993: 243).
Multicompetence (Cook 1991)
"  Multicompetence is the compound state of mind with two
grammars (Cook 1991: 112).
" Multicompetence is  the knowledge of more than one language
in the same mind (Cook 2002: 10).
28
Multicompetence (Cook 1991, 1993, 1994)
" Within the UG framework, an L2 learner would need to have two
instantiations of UG in his/her head:
Compound input
Black box Multicompetence
L1 input
triggers settings Ss
L2 input
for UG parameters
St
Question: Does the UG clone itself in L2 acquisition?
" This means that parameter settings cannot function as an on/off
switch.
29
Multicompetence (Cook 1993: 244-245)
"  Chomsky defines the basis of linguistics in monolingual terms:
 We exclude, for example, a speech community of uniform
speakers, each of whom speaks a mixture of Russian and
French [...]. The language of such a speech community would
not be  pure in the relevant sense, because it would not
represent a single set of choices among the options permitted
by UG but would rather include  contradictory choices for
certain of these options (Chomsky 1986: 17).
" In a sense, Chomsky idealizes bilingualism out.
"  But, if most human beings arguably use more than one
language, basing linguistics on monolinguals is not so much a
convenient idealisation as a misleading representation of the
human species .
30
Conclusion
" UG is not an adequate theory to explain L2 acquisition or
bilingualism.
"  Any grammatical theory that purports to account for human
linguistic competence must also be able to account for bilingual
competence and the associated performance (Stenson 1990:
194).
"  Taking the monolingual s knowledge of language as the basis
of linguistics may be as useful as investigating cycling by
looking at a man on a monocycle (Cook 1993: 245).
31
Further reading:
Obligatory:
Cook, Vivian. 1993. Linguistics and second language acquisition.
Houndmills, HA: Macmillan, pp. 200-212, 242-245.
Recommended:
Cook, Vivian. 1993. Linguistics and second language acquisition.
Houndmills, HA: Macmillan, pp. 156-199.
Of interest:
Hauser, Mark D. - Noam Chomsky - W. Tecumseh Fitch. 2002.
The faculty of language: What is it, who has it, and how did it
evolve? Science 298: 1569-1579 (22 November 2002).
http://www.chomsky.info/articles/20021122.pdf
32