SEVEN THEORIES OF SLA

SEVEN THEORIES OF SLA:
1.The Acculturation Model
Brown (1980) defined 'as the process of becoming adapted to a new culture'. In addition, an elaborated version of Schumann's model--the Nativization Model-- is discussed, with reference to Andersen (1980;1981;1983b) “... second language acquisition is just one aspect of acculturation and the degree to which a learner acculturates to the terget language group will control the degree to which he acquires the second language.(Schumann 1978:34)
Acculturation, and hence SLA determined by the degree of social and psycological distance between the learner and the language culture. Schumann (1978b) lists the various factors that determined them. The social variables govern whether the learning is 'good' or 'bad' . The psycological factors are effective in nature. They include 1) language shock 2) culture shock 3) motivation and 4) ego boudaries.
The Nativization Model
Andersen builds on Schumann's acculturation model, in particular by providing a cognitive dimension which Schumann does not consider. He, to a much greater extent, is concerned with learning processes. Andersen sees two general forces; nativization and denativization. Nativization consists of assimilation while denativization involves accomodation.
Evaluation; The acculturation and nativist models focus on the power mechanisms of SLA. They provide explanations of why L2 learners, unlike first language learners, often fail to achieve a native-like competence. The acculturation and nativization Models address naturalistic SLA, where the L2 learners has contact with the target language community.
2.Accomodation Theory
Giles concerns to investigate how intergroup uses language reflect basic social and psycological attitudes in inter etnic communication. Giles agrees with Gardner(1979) that motivation is the primary determinant of L2 proviciency. This is governed by a number of key variables: 1) Identification of the individual learner with his ethnic in group. 2) Inter – ethnic comparison. 3) perception of ethno-linguistic vitality. 4) Perception of in group boundaries. 5) Identification with other ingroup social categories. Accomodation theory also accounts for learner's variable linguistic output. Giles et al.(1977) writes ...people are continually modifyng their speech with others so as to reduce or accentuate the linguistic(and hence) social differences between them depending on their perception of the interactive situation.
Evaluation; This theory does not explain assembly mechanisms nor account for the developmental sequence. The strenght of accomodation theory is that it encompasses language acquisition and language use within a single framework. This theory provides an explanation of language-learner language variability.
3.Discourse Theory
Halliday(1975) shows that the development of the formal linguistic devices for realizing basic language function grows out of the interpersonal uses to which language is put. As Cherry (1979: 122) puts it: Through communicating with other people, children accomplish actions in the world and develop the rules of language structure and use. This view of how the development takes place is called discourse theory. The main principles by Hatch(1978c;1978d)
are: 1) SLA follow a 'natural' route in syntatical development. 2) Native speaker adjust their speech in order to negotiate meaning with non-native speakers. 3) The conversational strategies used to negotiate meaning, and the resulting adjusted input, influence the rate and route of SLA in a number of ways, namely: a) the learner learns the grammar of the L2 in the same order as the frequency order of the various features in the input. b) the learner acquire commonly occuring formulas and then later analyses these into their component parts; c) learner is helped to construct sentences vertically; vertical structures are the percursors of horizontal structues. 4) Thus, the'natural' route is the result of learning how to hold conversations.
Evaluation; the basic question that second language acquisition research addresses is: how can we describe the process of second language acquisition. (Hatch 1980:177—my italic). He tries to provide an answer to his question by qualitative analyses of face-to-face interaction involving L2 learners. Hatch herself notes: We have not been able (nor have we tried) to show how, or if, making messages simpler or more transparent promotes language learning (1980 :181). Hatch is too aware of the huge leap that is made from 'low infernce descriptions' to 'high -inference explanation'. The discourse theory does not address the nature of the learner strategies responsible for SLA.
4.The monitor Model
The theory is seriuosly flawed in a number of respects, in particular in its treatment of language-learner variability. The model consists of five hypothesis; 1) the acquisition learning hypothesis. 2) the natural order hypothesis. 3) the monitor hypothesis. Krashen argues that monitoring has an extremely limited function in language performance, even where adult are concerned. He gives three conditions for its use; a) there must be sufficient time. b) the focus must be on form and not meaning and. c) the user must know the rule. 4) the input hypothesis, input that comprehensible to the learner will automatically be at the right level. 5) the affective filter hypothesis. It deals with how affective factors relate to SLA, and covers the ground of the Acculturation model. Causative variables taken into account in the Monitor Model. Krashen also discusses a number of other factors; a) aptitude. b) role of the first language c) routines and patterns. d) individual differences and e) age.
Evaluation; Three central issues for detailed consideration are the 'acquisition-learning' distinction, it has been called 'theological', it has been formulated in order to specific goal, namely that succesful SLA is the result of 'acquisition' (James 1980). the monitor, the only evidence for monitoring lies in the language user's own account of trying to apply explicit rules ( e.g Cohen and Robbins 1976) and Krashen's treatment of variability , Variability the monitor model is a'dual competence' theory of SLA. It proposes that the learner's knowledge of the L2, which is reflected in variable performance, is best characterized in terms of two separate competence, which Krashen labels'acquisition' and 'learning' .
5.The Variable Competence Model
The model is based on two distinctions—one of which refers to the process of language use and the product. The process of language use is to be understood in terms of the distnction between linguistic knowledge and the ability to make use of this knowledge. Widowson (1984) refers to a knowledge of rules as a competence and to a knowledge of the procedures involved in using rules to construct discourse as capacity. It follows from this view of the process of language use that the product, different types of discourse is the result of either or both of the variable competence and variable application of procedures for actualizing knowledge in discourse. Procedures for actualizing knowledge are of two types, which Ellis(1984a) refers to as primary and secondary processes each set of processes refered as dicourse and cognitive processes respectively. Discourse process: simplify the semantic structures of a masages by omitting meaning element that are communicatively redundant or that can be realized by a non verbal devices (e.g mime). Cognitive process: a). Construct an underlying conceptual structures of a massage b). Compare this structure with the frame of reference share with and interlecutor c). Eliminate redundant element and element for which know lexical item is available. To summarize this model, proposes: 1). There is a single knowdlege store containing variable interlanguage rules according how automatic and how analyzed the rules are. 2). The learner possesses a capacity for language uses which consist of primary and secondary discourse and cognitive processes. 3). L2 performance is variable as a result of whether primary processes employing unanalized L2 Rules are utilized in unplanned discourse or secondary process employing analized L2 rules are utilized in planed discourse. 4). Development occurs as a result of acquisition of new L2 rules through participation in various types of discourse and activation of L2 rules which initialy exist in either non automatic unanalized form or in an analized form so they can be used in unplaned dicourse.
Evaluation.: The variable competence model of SLA attemps to account for the availability of languages learners and the external and internal processes responsible for SLA.
6.The universal hypothesis
The universal hypothesis provides an interesting account of how the languages properties of the target language and the learner's first language may influence the course development. The value the universal hypothesis for SLA teory is twofold :1. it a focuses attention on the natural of the taget laguages it self. Wode's (980 b: 136/7) claims the linguistic devices used in a given languages are the major variable determining linguistic sequences 2. it provides a subtle and pesuasive reconsederation of transfer as an important factor in SLA.
7.A neurofucntional theory
Lamendella (1979:5/6) defines, A neurofucntional perspective on language attempts to characterize the neurolinguistic information processing systems responsible for the development and use of language. Hacth (1983a: 213) puts it, 'there is no single “black box” for language in the brain'. Therefore, it is better to speak of'the relative contribution of some areas more than others under certain condition'(Selinger 1982:309). Neurofucntional accounts of SLA have considered the contribution of The left hemisphere and The right hemisphere of the brain. Right hemisphere functioning is generally asscociated with holistic processing, it has been suggested (e.g by Obler 1981; Krashen 1981a) that the right hemisphere is responsible for the storing and processing of formulaic speech. The right hemisphere may also involved in pattern practice in classroom SLA. Selinger (1982) suggest that it may act as an initial staging mechanism for handling patterns which can then be re-examined later in left hemisphere functioning. Left hemisphere functioning, in general the left hemisphere is asscociated with the creative language use, including syntatic and semantic processing and the motor operations involved in speaking and writing. Walsh and Diller (1981) distinguish two board types of functioning, lower order functioning and higher order functioning.
Lamendella's Neurofucntional theory
Lamendella distnguishes two basic of types of language acquisition: (1) Primary language acquisition and (2) Secondary language acquisition. (1) is found I the child 's acquisition of one or more languages from 2 to 5 years. (2) is subdivided into a) foreign language learning b) second language acquisition. Lamendella pinpoints two systems as particularly important for language functioning; (1) The communication hierarchy: this has responsibility for language and other form of interpersonal communication. (2) The cognitive hierarchy: this control a variety of cognitive information processing activities that are also part of language use. Foreign language acquisition is marked by the use of the input and also affect the operation of learner strategies. Input comprises the inherent properties of the target language system and the formally and interactionally adjusted features found in foreigner and teacher talk

THE ROLE OF FORMAL INSTRUCTION IN SECOND LANGUAGE ACQUISITION

THE ROLE OF FORMAL INSTRUCTION IN SECOND LANGUAGE ACQUISITION

THE ROLE OF FORMAL INSTRUCTION IN SECOND LANGUAGE ACQUISITION

Introduction

This chapter looks at second language acquisition in a classroom setting. It considers whether instruction makes a difference to SLA. This is an important issue, because it addresses the question of the role played by environmental factors in SLA. It is also an important educational issue, as language pedagogy has traditionally operated on the assumption that grammar can be taught.

Two board types of SLA can be identified according to the acquisition setting;

1. Naturalistic SLA.
2. Classroom SLA.

It was pointed out that classroom discourse can be distorted, in comparisons to naturally occurring discourse. An important question therefore is in what ways this distortion, which is largely brought about by the attempt to instruct rather than to converse, affects the route and rate of SLA in the classroom. By considering how formal instruction affects SLA it is possible to address the wider issue of the role environmental factors.

In many instructional methods an assumption is made that focusing on linguistic form aids the acquisition or grammatical knowledge or to put it another way, that raising the learner’s consciousness about the nature of target language rules helps the learner to internalize them.

In the case of deductive methods this is self-evidently the case. But it is also true in ‘habbit methods’ methods such as audio-legal lingualism , as the purpose of the practice provided is to focus on specific linguistic forms, which the learner is encouraged to induced and of which ultimately he will form a more or less, conscious mental representation.

Another assumption of formal instruction is that the order in which grammatical features are taught will govern the order in which they are learnt. Language syllabuses are organized in such a way as to facilitate the correlation between the teaching order and the learning order.

The investigation of the role of formal instruction can be undertaken in two ways. First, an answer to the question ‘Does formal instruction aid SLA?’ can be sought. Secondly, the question ‘What kinds of formal instruction facilitate SLA the most?’ can be tackled. In the first question there is an assumption that all types of formal instructions share certain basic premises and that it is, therefore possible to talk generically of ‘ Formal instruction’. In the second question there is an assumption that formal instruction in general is facilitative and that the important issue is what is distinguishes the more successful from the least successful types.

What the different instructional methods had in common was a focus on form, manifested, for instance, in the provision of feedback by the teacher for correcting formal errors.

This chapter has four sections. The first examines its effect on the route of SLA. The secondly examine its effect on the rate/success of SLA. In the third section, explanations of the result reported in the first two sections will be reviewed. Finally, the conclusion briefly considers the implications for both SLA theory and language pedagogy.

The effects of formal instruction on the route of SLA

The route of SLA was considered in term of general sequence of development and the order in which specific grammatical features were acquired. The evidence for the reported universality of the sequence and the minor differences in the order come from (1) morpheme studied (2) longitudinal studies. These studies how ever were of either pure naturalistic SLA or mixed SLA. The morpheme and longitudinal studies will again be considerers separately.

Morpheme studies of classroom SLA

The morpheme studies can be divided into two groups. In the first group are five studies that investigated second language learners. In the other group are four studies investigated foreign language learners

Perkins and Larsen freeman (1975) investigated the morpheme; they used two tasks to collect data;

1. A translation test.
2. A description task based on a non-dialogue film.

On (1) the morpheme orders before and after instruction differed significantly, but on (2) there was no significant difference. In other words, the teaching and learning orders were different. Taken together, these studies suggest but do not prove that formal instruction does not alter the order of acquisition of grammatical morphemes when the learners is engaged in language use and is focused on meaning.

This general conclusion holds true irrespective of whether the learners are children or adults and most interestingly, irrespective of whether the learners are in foreign or second language environments. Formal instruction appears, then to have only a negligible effect on the morpheme order manifest in spontaneous language use. However, morpheme orders measure accuracy rather than acquisition. In order to obtain a more reliable picture of the effects of instruction on L2 development, it is necessary to turn to the longitudinal studies of translation structures.

Longitudinal studies of classroom CLA

Curiously the case-study approach, so central to the methodological baggage of first and second language acquisition researchers has not typically, been thought sensible for learners in class. There are very few longitudinal studies of classroom SLA. The three that will be discussed here are Felix (1981), Ellis (1984a) and Schumann (1978b). The available longitudinal evidence, therefore is even slighter that provided by the morpheme studies. The general teaching method was a traditional audio-lingual one, the grammatical structures that Felix report on are negation, interrogation, sentence types, and pronoun. For each structure, parallels were found between tutored and naturalistic SLA. In a classroom where the instruction is very formal, learners are constantly being forced to produce structures they are not ready for. Felix suggests that they solve the problem that this poses for them in one of two ways. Either they select random from the structures in their repertoire, irrespective of syntactic or semantic appropriateness, or they follow the same rules that characterize the early stages of naturalistic language acquisition.

Ellis examined negatives, interrogatives, and a number of verb phrase morpheme. All of these structures were formally taught at one time. When the communicative speech produced by the learners in the classroom was analysed, it was shown to display a pattern of development more or less identical to that observed in naturalistic SLA.

In Schumann’s study a deliberate attempt was made to teach an adult L2 learner how to negate. This took place in the context of a longitudinal study of what was otherwise naturalistic SLA. Prior to the instructional experiment the learner’s negative utterances were collected, Schumann concluded that the instruction influenced the learner’s production only in test-like situations, while normal communication remained unaffected.

Taking these studies together, the following can be hypothesized:

1. Instruction does not circumvent the processes responsible for the sequence of development evident in transitional structures such as negatives an interrogative in naturalistic SLA.
2. When classroom learners are required to produce structures beyond their competence, idiosyncratic forms are likely to result.
3. The distorted input may prolong certain stages of development and slow down the emergence of some grammatical features.
4. Classroom learners are able to make use of knowledge acquired through formal instruction when they are focused on form.

Summary

Morpheme studies and longitudinal studies of SLA together indicate that although formal instruction may develop L2 knowledge, this knowledge manifests itself in language use only where the learner is attending to form. It does not, therefore, except in relatively minor ways, affect the natural route of SLA which is evident in communicative speech. To use the distinction between sequence and order of development, we can say that the overall sequence of development is not affected by formal instruction, while order of development is hardly disturbed either. Formal instruction influences knowledge only at the careful end of the interlanguage stylistic continuum, not the vernacular end. These conclusions, however, are necessarily tentative, as there have been few studies of classroom SLA, particularly longitudinal.

This section has examined three theoretical positions which provide explanations of why formal instruction does not affect the natural sequence of SLA but does facilitate more rapid development. The non interface position proposed by Krashen claims that ‘acquisition’ and ‘learning are separate. Because ‘acquisition’ is responsible for the natural sequence, the ‘learning’ that results from formal instruction cannot influence it. However, classroom provides opportunities for comperhesinble input will accelerate ‘acquisition’.

The interface position also posits two types of L2 knowledge, but Argus that they are related so that ‘learning’ (or explicit knowledge) can become ‘acquisition’ (or implicit knowledge) when it is sufficiently practised. A weaker version of this position, however, states that ‘learning’ does not so much turn into ‘acquisition’ as facilitate it, when the learner is ‘ready’. The variability position differs from the other two positions in that it recognizes a variety of different ‘styles’, each calling on knowledge types that vary in terms of analicity and automaticity. Different task require the utilization of different kinds of knowledge. Formal instruction contributes directly or indirectly to there internalization of these different knowledge types and in so doing enables the classroom learner to perform a wider range of linguistic tasks than the naturalistic learner.

All there positions provide arguments to account for the result of the empirical research into the effect of formal instruction. These have been considered in some detail. At the moment there is insufficient evidence to make a clear choice between them. It is not likely that such evidence will be forthcoming until there are more qualitative studies of the classroom discourse that result from formal instruction and of the linguistic development that such discourse induces.

Conclusion: some implications

This chapter began by asserting that the investigation of the role played by instruction in SLA was of significant for both SLA theory and language pedagogy. In this conclusion I shall briefly consider some of the implications.

In order investigate the role of instruction in SLA, it is necessary to separate out the effects that formal instruction has on the route of SLA and on the rate/ successes of SLA. Where the route is concerned, formal instruction appears to have no major effect. The overall sequence of development associated with natural communicative language use does not change, while only a few minor and temporary differences in the acquisition of specific grammatical features have been observed. Thus classroom SLA appears to involve the same processing strategies as naturalistic SLA. Where the rate/ successes is concerned, instruction is facilitative, although only in terms of relative utility, not in terms of absolute effects. These results must be treated tentatively, as there has been little empirical research.

There different positions have been advanced to explain classroom SLA. The non interface position, associated with Krashen (1982), distinguishes ‘acquired’ and ‘learnt’ knowledge and argues that they are separate. This position offers a convincing explanation a why formal instruction fails to influence the natural route of SLA, as this is a reflection of ‘acquisition’. The explanation it gives for why formal instruction aids the rate/ successes of SLA is less clear. The interface position, associated with Stevick (1980) and Sharwood-Smith (1981) among others, claim that ’learnt’ or explicit knowledge can turn into ‘acquired’ or implicit knowledge if there is enough practice. This position offers an explanation for the rate/ successes finding, but it less convincing about the route finding. The variability position, associated with Tarone (1983) and Bialystok (1982), sees acquisition and language use closely linked, such that different types of knowledge arise from and are required for the performance of different language tasks.

This position deals comfortably with the route finding (which occurs in a particular kind performance) and can explain the rate/ success finding if it is assumed that the learner who has access to a variety of different knowledge types will outperform one who is more reliant on a single kind of knowledge. However, it is premature to choose from among these positions.

The study of the role of instruction in SLA has implications for both SLA theory and language pedagogy. In the case of the former, is stresses in importance of act knowledge the structural properties of SLA which are relatively immune to environmental differences. Where language pedagogy is concerned, it sheds light on the code-communications dilemma, although once again it would be premature to come to any firm conclusions about the effectiveness of formal grammar teaching.

Second language acquisition theory

Studying the role of instruction can throw on the contribution of environmental factors in SLA. The classroom environment provides a different kind of input from a natural setting. If environmental factors are important of SLA, it might be predicted that (1) The acquisitional route in the two setting will be different, and (2) the rate/ success of SLA in the two setting will also differ. The research reviewed in the earlier sections shows that (1) does not arise, while (2) may. The failure of the classroom setting to influence the route of SLA can be explained in two ways. First, it might be taken to show the real determinants of SLA are learner-internal rather than environmental factors. That is, despite differences in input, the L2 learner will follow the same developmental path, because, although there are differences in the types of input to be found in each setting, there are also similarities.

The natural sequence is the product of one type language use-spontaneous communication-which, although restricted in classroom context, does take place. The first explanation follows a native’s interpretation. What is the quite clear, whatever interpretation is adopted, is that SLA possesses certain structural properties which are immune to environmental differences in learnt in classroom and natural setting. The effect of environmental factors appears to be restricted largely to how quickly and how much of the L2 the learner acquires.

Language pedagogy

Looking at instruction from the view point of the learner rather than the teacher is salutary. It puts into perspective the widely held view that if instruction is based on a sound syllabus and employs motivating techniques, acquisition will result. Unless account is taken of the structural properties of SLA, success is by no means certain.

Teacher ought not to feel obligated to ensure that his teaching also follows it, as it is far more important that the teacher works from a syllabus which he finds logically acceptable. Brumfit argues that language teaching will be most successful when it follows as well-worked out plan which directs and organizes what the teacher does. The second reason for reticence is that, although there is a fair degree of agreement among SLA researches concerning what happens in SLA.

There is a far less agreement about why it happens in the why it does. This has been evident in the different positions adopted to explain the result of research into the effects of formal instruction. Briefly outline what attitude to the code-communication dilemma is held by protagonists of each of the three positions considered in the previous section

1. The non-interface position.

Krashen (1982) pays close attention to the role of grammar teaching in classroom SLA. He sees two uses for it. First, it enables the monitor to function by providing for ‘learning’. However, monitor use is restricted to occasions when the learner has time to access his ‘learnt’ knowledge, and is also restricted by the fact that only a small sub-section of total rules of a L2 are ‘learnable’. The second use of grammar teaching is to satisfy learners’ curiosity about the nature of the L2 grammatical system ‘grammar appreciation’. The use of conscious grammar is limited, therefore, that the role of teaching is to afford opportunities for communications, rather than to draw attention to the L2 code.

Krashen (1981b) lists the defining characteristic of what he considers an effective pedagogical programme;

1. The classroom input must be comprehensible.
2. The programme must consist of ‘communicative activities’, as only these will ensure that he input is interesting and relevant.
3. There should be no attempt to follow a grammatically sequenced programme.
4. The input must be of sufficient quantity (hence importance of extensive reading).

1. The interface position

Where the non-interface position emphasizes the importance of communication and minimizes the importance of the code, the interface position asserts the contribution of the code. Sharewoos-Smith (1981) sees grammar teaching as a short cut to communicative ability. That is, the adult learner who has his attention drawn to features of the code can practise these, both in and out of the classroom, until he can use them subconsciously in fluent communicative speech. Consciousness-raising, therefore, does not require that the learner is able to verbalize the rules he has learnt. For Sharwood-Smith, then, the important issue is not whether the code should be taught, but in what way it should be taught.

1. The variability position

The variability position stresses importance of matching the learning process with the type of instruction. Instruction must consider the specific goals of the learner and attempt to provide the appropriate form of knowledge to achieve those goals. The ‘goals’ refer to the type of language use that the learner needs (or wants) to engage in. if the goal is to participate in natural conversation, the learner will need to develop his vernacular style by acquiring L2 knowledge that is automatic but unanalysed.

This can be achieved directly by means of instruction that emphasizes communication in the classroom. It may also be achieved indirectly by teaching that focuses on the code, if there are also sufficient practice opportunities to trigger the passage of knowledge from the careful to the vernacular style.

Chomsky's Theory in SLA

  Chomsky’s UG. How can it be exploited in SLA research?

Universal grammar can be simply defined as a set of universal innate principles of grammar shared by all languages.That a child will not be able to learn its mother tongue without a set of innate principles ,because the linguistic data it is exposed to are too poor is the central point of the UG.The theory given by the American linguist Chomsky, attempts to explain language acquisition in general, not describe specific languages.The key features of the UG are given below. 

UG consists of different kinds of universals.Chomsky identifies two types:substantive and formal.Substantive universals consist of fixed features such as the distinctive phonetic features of which sounds are made or syntactic categories such as noun,verb,and object.Formal universals are more abstract.They are statements about what grammatical rules are possible in languages.

Formal and substantive universals are constrains and therefore delimit the options by setting parameters which must then be fixed according to the particular input data that the child obtains. 

So,the principles and parameters which can be defined as a framework in human brain make UG possible. UG holds  a set of principles and parameters arranged into modules such as Binding Theory and it is a computation system that ranges from the component of  Phonological Form to the component of Logical Form ,that is ,from ’sound’ to ’meaning’.

The rules the child learns can be unmarked or marked.The universals that the child learns form the core grammar and the distinctive features are termed as peripheral.

To sum up, there are some innate universal principles without which a child cannot master his mother tongue.But the input data are also a must as the input triggers the LAD.

Effects of UG parameters on L2A

There are certain principles of UG that vary from language to language. The variation is built into UG in the form of parameters with different settings. Parameter settings between the L1 and the L2 may be both identical and different. If identical, L2 learners need not result it: but if different they have to reset it. Again when a particular parameter is not available in the L1, the learners have to activate it newly in their L2. Thus on these issues the UG hypothesis makes a number of important observations that best explain L2A. For instance, as White(1989) points out, though UG is available in L2A, it cannot necessarily interact immediately with the L2 input. The initial hypothesis that works in the mind of the learners is that L1 parameter value applies to it. As a result L2 learners initially use L1 parameter value to organize the L2 data that causes transfer effects in the interlanguae. However, finally L2 learners become able to reset the parameter setting appropriate to the L2. Towell and Hawkins(1994) also express the same view. According to them this transfer of L1 parameter setting can have two effects. If the setting in the L2 happens to be the same as the setting in the L1, then the learner should get grammatical properties of the L2 which are dependent on that parameter setting right from the very beginning of acquisition. Where the settings differ between the L1 and the L2 the learner would initially be expected to get wrong grammatical properties in the L2 dependent on that parameter setting.

Some of the empirical studies done on the use of parameter setting also show positive evidence for the UG hypothesis. White refers to three pro-drop parameter studies, one carried out by herself and the other two by Phinncy(1987) and Hilles(1986) each of which clearly suggests that Spanish learners of English become finally able to avoid omission of subject-nouns and free subject-verb inversion in English, though at the initial stage L1 interference occurs. Towell and Hawkins (1994) mention the study by Hulk (1991) that investigated the acquisition of French word order by a group of Dutch speaking subjects. Hulk’s finding also reveal that in spite of the presence of L1 value at early stages, Dutch learners gradually become able to reset the parameter setting and acquire French word order. Another grammatically judgment task by White 1988cited in White1989, p.113) on Subjacency violation suggests that native speakers of French are able to recognize “S” as a bounding node for Subjacency in English, though in French “S” is not a bounding node.

Markedness

The concept of markedness is one more important issue to be discussed here. Researchers have used this as a source of explanation and prediction in L2A. According to Ellis markedness theory can help to explain why some differences between the native and the target language lead to learning difficulty, while other differences do not.” Markedness refers to those aspects of a language that are unnatural and complex. If a parameter has more than one value, one of them is said to be more natural than the other. So, the natural one is unmarked and the other is marked. According to UG, “unmarked aspects of grammar are those that are directly related to Universal Grammar and form the “core”: marked aspects are less directly related to Universal Grammar and form the “peripheral grammar”. Therefore, from markedness study one prediction can logically be deducted that L2 learners will find unmarked aspects of the L2 much easier to learn than marked ones, because unmarked aspects are directly related to UG. Moreover, since unmarked aspects are easier to learn, if can also be assumed that unmarked settings will occur in interlanguage before marked settings. Furthermore, the masrkedess concept offers a good explanation of L1 interference in the L2 grammars. The concept suggests that L2 learners will always tend to transfer unmarked values of the L1 to their interlanguage. The study by Mazurkewich 1984 shows that French learners of English find unmarked “pied-piping” sentences like

3.a To whom did John give the book     

 easier than marked “preposition-stranding” sentences like

3.a Who did John give the book to

Thus markedness study demonstrates further evidence that UG is effective and plays a vital role in explaining L2A.

3. Counter Arguments

So far an attempt has been made to consider the evidence that has led some of the researchers to assume that UG plays a crucial role in L2A. But there are many researchers who hold contrary views. According to them UG is not accessible to L2 learners, and hence cannot play any role in L2A. They also differ with some of the basic assumptions made by the UG based researchers. Besides, a number of empirical studies also strengthen their position against the UG hypothesis some of which are mentioned below.

Larsen-Freeman and Long claim that the input is not degenerate because “both caretaker speech and language addressed to non-native speakers have been found to be well-formed.” As cited in Melaughlin, Schachter has pointed out that “phenomena such as confirmation checks, clarification requests, and failures to understand quality as negative input.” Thus the poverty of the stimulus argument has been under attack. The argument of Structure-dependence is also refuted by Parker 1989(mentioned in Larsn-Freeman and Long 1991). Parker argues that the rule of structure-dependence can be gathered from the input, it does not require any innate knowledge. She also raises questions about Subjaccency effects. She illustrates that Subjaccency effects “can be accounted for without recourse to innate linguistic knowledge: through the assumption in a theory of learning of a preference for continuity.” In another grammatically judgment task by Schatcher as White reports Korean and Indonesian learners failed to reject Subjaccency violations. The theory of markedness also causes much debate. Various definitions have been used. As a result, same aspects are classified as unmarked by one researcher and marked by another. It is not true either that L2 learners always acquire or transfer unmarked form. In a related study, White 1983 finds that sometimes learners carry over marked constructions from the L1 to the L2.

Conclusion

As mentioned, it is clear that no uniform view can be established about the role of UG in L2A. There are both arguments and counter-arguments on the issue. Empirical studies have done so far also reveal mixed findings. But the research in the domain is still in its initial stage and has been restricted to a very limited area. Until the research is carried out in other untrodden area of L2A no final judgment on the issue is possible. However, on the basis of findings revealed so far against and for the hypothesis, it becomes evident that researchers tend to use UG as a source of hypothesis about L2A. In this case at least, it is to be admitted that UG can be used very effectively. It helps in a great deal to explain many of the problems of L2A that could otherwise have been left unresolved. It helps to make some important predictions particularly about interlanguage and transfer effects of the L.1.Therefore, it can be affirmed that Universal Grammar plays a crucial role in second language acquisition and more research on the issue might explore new dimensions.