Linguistic Aspects of Interlanguage

    1.       Typological universals: relative clauses

A good example of how linguistic enquiry can shed light on inter-language development can be found in the study of relative clauses. As we have seen, languages vary in whether they have relative clause structures. Some languages, like English and Arabic, have them, while other languages, like Chinese and Japanese, do not. This linguistic difference influences the ease with which learners are able to learn relative clauses. Learners whose L1 includes relative clauses find them easier to learn than learners whose L1 does not and, consequently, they are less likely to avoid learning them.

    2.       Universal grammar

SLA also owes a considerable debt to another branch of linguistics-that associated closely with Noam Chomsky’s theory of Universal Grammar (UG). Chomsky argues that language is governed by a set of highly abstract principles that provide parameters which are given particular settings in different languages.

Let us  consider an example. A general principle of language is that ii permits co-reference by means of some form of reflexive. Thus, in the English sentence:

The actress blamed herself.

the subject, ‘actress’, is co-referential with the reflexive, ‘herself’ in the sense that both words refer to the same person. However, reflexives also vary cross-linguistically. In the case of English, a reflexive can only co-refer to a subject within the same clause, as in the example above. Thus, English only permits ‘local binding’. ‘Long-distance binding’, where the reflexive co-refers to a subject in another clause, is prohibited.

    3.       Learnability

Chomsky has claimed that children learning their L1 must rely on innate knowledge of language because otherwise the task facing them is an impossible one. His argument is that the input to which children are exposed is insufficient to enable them to discover the rules of the language they aretrying to learn. This insufficient is reffered to as the poverty of the stimulus. For example, a child learning English needs to discover taht sentences like this are ungrammatical :

Sam kicked fiercely his toy car.

because English does not permit an adverb between the verb and the direct object. Can this be learned solely on the basis of input? The argument is that it cannot if the input consists only of positive evidence (i.e. it provides information only about what is grammatical in the language) because learners can never be sure they will not hear a sentence where the adverb is between the verb and direct object. Negative evidence (i.e. input that provides direct evidence of what is ungrammatical in  a language) would make it possible for chilfren to find out that sentences like the one above are ungrammatical.

    4.       The critical period hypothesis

The critical period hypothesis states that there is a period during which language acquisition is easy and complete (i.e. native-speaker ability is achieved) and beyond which it is difficult and typically incomplete.

    5.       Access to UG

a.       Complete access

It is argued that learners begin with the parameter settings of their L1 but subsequently learn to switch to the L2 parameter settings.

b.      No access

The argument here is that UG is not available to adult L2 learners.

c.       Partial access

Another theoretical possibility is that learners have access to parts of UG but not others.

d.      Dual access

According to this positionn, adult L2 learners make use of both UG and general learning strategies.

    6.       Markedness

This uncertainty regarding the contributin of linguistic theory to the study of L2 acquisition is also evident in another area of the linguistic enquiry. This term refers to the general idea that some structures are more ‘natural’ or ‘basic’ than other structures. In typological lingusitics, unmarked structures are those that are common in the wrold’s languages. Number of hypothesis relating to markedness have been examined in SLA : One is that learners acuire less marked structures before more marked ones. We need to be sure that it is markedness and not some other factor that determines the order of acquisition. Learners are more likely to acquire a frequent but marked structure before an infrequent but marked structure than vice versa. Learners are much more likely to transfer unmarked structures from their L1 than they are marked structure.

    7.       Cognitive versus linguistic explanations

The typological study of languages affords interesting predictios about what learners will acquire first and what they will transfer from their L1. Finely-tuned hypothesis about what structures will cause learning diffculty and raises important questions about whether L2 and L1 acquisiotion are the same or different. It comes down to whether L2 acquisition is to be explained in terms of a distinct and innate language fculty or in terms of general cognitive abilities. UG does not claim to accountfor the whole of a language or even the whole of the grammar of a language. The existence of different components of language that are learned in the differnet ways, some through UG and others with the assistance of general cognitive abilities.