universal-grammar

山东大学应用语言学论文题目TheRoleofUGintheInterlanguageGrammar学院外国语学院专业名称英语语言文学研究生姓名雷扬学号2009109562011年2月2ContentsAbstract31.Introduction32.DebateovertheAvailabilityofUG42.1NoAccesstoUG42.2FullAccesstoUG52.3IndirectAccesstoUGviaL153.EvaluationofFormerStudies64.PartialAccesstoUG84.1SubjacencyPrinciple94.2NullSubjectParameter94.3ArgumentStructure104.4LanguageFeatures114.5ComprehensiveTheory135.Conclusion13References143AbstractThispaperdiscussestheavailabilityofUniversalGrammarinSecondlanguageacquisition.Anumberoftheoreticalpositionsconcerningtheissueareintroducedandexamined.ThepositionofnoaccesstoUG,fullaccesstoUGandindirectaccesstoUGviaL1areillustratedwithrelatedempiricalstudies.Theproblemsinthosehypothesesareraisedtoshowthattheirfindingsarenotcompletelyreliable.Intheend,throughdiscussingseveralrepresentativeareasofUG,wecometothecomprehensivetheorythatL2learnershavepartialaccesstoUGwherelearnersmayaccesstoUGparametersthatareoperatingintheirL1andresetparametersnottappedbyL1.UGandcognitivemechanismareseenasinteractingwitheachother,withUGinitiatingtheacquisitionandalsoencompassingthecognitiveprocess.Keywords:UniversalGrammar;accesstoUG;secondlanguageacquisition;generallearningstrategies.1.IntroductionSincethedevelopmentofUniversalGrammarinmodernlinguisticsbytheoristssuchasNoamChomskyinthe1950s,ithasbeenwidelyadoptedtoaccountforlanguageacquisition.UniversalGrammarisasetofabstractrulesthatgovernthefunctioningofalllanguages,whichisnotspecifictoonecertainlanguage.Itoffersawaytoanswerthelogicalproblemoflanguageacquisition,thatis,thefinalachievementsoflanguagelearnersarefarmorecomplexandadvancedthanthelimitedinput,anditisalsotrueinsecondlanguageacquisition.Soaquestionhasarisenthat“doesUGstillplayaroleinSLAandcontrolitslearningprocessbyinnatelinguisticprinciples?”Inthispaper,anumberoftheoreticalpositionsconcerningaccessibilitytoUGinL2acquisitionwillbeintroducedandexamined.ItwillbearguedthatL2learnershavepartialaccesstoUGwherelearnersmayaccesstothoseUGparametersthatareoperatingintheirL1aswellastheparametersthatthey4cannotretrievebacktoL1withthehelpofgenerallearningstrategies.2.DebateovertheAvailabilityofUG2.1NoAccesstoUGOnonesideofthedebateareresearcherswhoclaimthatUGcannotshapeL2acquisition.CriticalPeriodhypothesisarguesthatafterpubertyfirstlanguagelearnerscannotdrawonaninnate‘languageacquisitiondevice’.IfUGisconstrainedbycriticalperiod,L2learnerscannotaccesstoitbeyondacertainagelevel.Perhapsthemostconvincingevidenceforthispositionisthecommonphenomenonthatimmigrantchildrenalwaysbecomenative-likespeakerswhiletheirparentsrarelydo,becausetheyhavealreadylostthechanceofaccessingtoUG.In1989,JohnsonandNewportconductedaninfluentialstudyonagroupofL1speakersofChineseorKoreanusingagrammaticalityjudgmenttask.TheresultssuggestedacorrelationbetweenageofarrivalintheUnitedStatesandthenative-likejudgmentsonawidevarietyofstructuresofEnglishgrammar.Immigrantsimmersedinasecondlanguagebeforetheageof7wereabletoachievenativefluencyinthelanguage,however,afterthatageperformancewaslow.Therefore,studentswhoareover7yearsoldcouldnolongerdrawupontheinnatelanguagelearningmechanism.StudiessupportingnoaccesspositiontendtofocusonthefundamentaldifferencesbetweenL1andL2acquisition,andtheultimateattainmentsoftheacquisitionprocess.Bley-Vroman(1989)establishedFundamentalDifferenceHypothesisinwhichhelistedninesignificantdifferencesbetweenadultlanguagelearningandchildlanguagelearning.Normalchildreninevitablyachieveperfectmasteryofthelanguage,whileadultforeignlanguagelearnersdonot.Heholdsthepositionthatadultlanguagelearningisratheraproblemsolvingprocessthananaturallanguagelearningdevelopment.Schachter(1989)studiedL2adultnativespeakersofKoreanwithrespecttowh-movementandsubjacency.SubjacencyisnotobservedinthesyntaxofKorean,sosubjectshavenoexposuretoitintheirL1.Datawerecollectedfromgrammaticality5judgmentonsubjacencyviolations.SchachterfoundthatnativeKoreanspeakersfailedtorejectsubjacencyviolationsandappearedtobeoperatingatchance,whichsupportsclaimsoftheunavailabilityofUG.2.2FullAccesstoUGAnotherpossibilityisthatUGcontinuestoregulateL2learningasitdoesinfirstlanguageacquisition,andL2acquisitionisconsideredtobeaninteractionbetweenUGandL2input.Flynn(1996)adoptsthisposition,claimingthatthereisnosuchthingasCriticalPeriod,afterwhichUGceasestooperate.Shegoesontoreviewarangeofempiricalstudies,andoneofthemisaresearchaboutJapaneselearnersofEnglish.Intheresearch,Japaneseparticipantscansuccessfullyresetthehead-directionparameterfromhead-finaltohead-initial.Anotheraspectofevidencecomesfrom‘impossibleerrors’,thatis,interlanguagegrammardoesnotviolateinvariantlinguisticprinciples.Thomas(1991)supportstheproposaloffullaccesstoUGbyinvestigatingtheinterpretationofEnglishreflexivepronounsbynativespeakersofJapaneseandSpanish.ThedistributionofanaphorsissubjecttotheBindingTheory,whichlinguistsciteasknowledgeoflanguageattributedtoUG.L2Learnersdidnotreceiveexplicitinstructionabouttherulesgoverninganaphorsintheirpreviousstudy,sotheyinterpretedanaphorsinaccordancewithlegitimateparametersettingofUG.There