The Role of Universal Grammar in Second Language Acquisition
Most people acquire a language at a young age; however, there is a group of people who also learn a language later on – second language learners. The details of second language acquisition is hotly debated by researchers due to its mystery with the role of internal mechanisms. In Chomsky’s Universal Grammar, Cook and Newson (1996) describe that the process of second language acquisition is similar to that of first language acquisition being applied to the Language Acquisition Device model, which is embedded with Universal Grammar. However, along with the compelling evidence of the critical period hypothesis, I argue that the role of Universal Grammar is limited in second language acquisition unlike in first language acquisition; second language acquisition behaves like an unnatural system because is not constrained by UG principles and parameters.
Although Cook and Newson (1996) admit that L2 learning is more complex than that of L1 since it happens at a later stage of cognitive development suggesting that the weaker relationship between language and cognition, they believe in innateness extending from Chomsky’s theory of Universal Grammar. However, if it is true that the role stays the same in L2 learning, why a majority of people is less efficient in their second language than in their first language? Therefore, Universal Grammar, which is an innate biologically endowed language faculty, seems to play not enough role, if at all, in second language acquisition suggesting that L2 is acquired with domain-general mechanism. Domain-general learning capacities propose that different domains are utilized for an individual to acquire a language, in this case, L2. Second language learners intuitively depend on other various cues (e.g., social cues, acoustic cues, visual cues, and etc.) due to the inactivation of UG. As a result, they develop unique habits for the learning to progress. For example, many language learners write down the sound of pronunciation of a L2 word in their native language to remember better. The use of other mental faculties in second language acquisition suggests that it is different from first language acquisition.
Regarding the poverty-of-the-stimulus argument, Universal Grammar principles do not directly influence L2 learners. The only possible way is through the “their own minds with the knowledge that they already have of a first language, rather than UG itself” (Cook & Newson, 1996, p. 130). Cook and Newson (1996) state that L2 learning requires explanations and memorization of grammar because the learning process is unnatural compared to the experience of L1 children. Moreover, I believe that the concept of language transfer, which describes how learners’ L2 acquisitions are influenced by their native languages because their previous knowledge impacts their ability to acquire a new language independent of UG, also describes the differences within the learners’ cognitive levels. With that in mind, foreign accent or certain characteristic mistakes such as verb tenses and articles are examples of L1 residues in L2. The influence of L1 on L2 creates the process of acquisitions to be impossible to be the same.
Critical period affects second language learning. The critical period hypothesis claims that there is a certain developmental period in life that a language must be learned to reach a native proficiency, which explains why it is rare to find people who speak their L2 equally as or better than L1. The study of Johnson and Newport (1989) strengthens the argument. By collecting 46 native Korean or Chinese speakers who have been at least living in the United States for three consecutive years with minimum of five years of English language exposure, their purpose was to see if the critical period extends to second language acquisition by testing Lenneberg’s (1967) critical hypothesis, which found that there is evidence of a critical period in L1 studies and in language deprivation studies; for example, the case of Genie. During the experiment, the participants completed three steps: grammaticality judgement task, language background interview and a self-report of motivational and attitudinal measures. The results show a clear and strong relationship between the age of acquisition and ultimate performance. Earlier age of acquisition obtains higher scores as age of arrival from three to seven achieve native performance while language learning ability significantly “declines as the human matures and plateaus at a low level after puberty” (Johnson & Newport, 1989, p. 90). The results of the study also generalize to my personal experience. About 10 years ago, my dad and I came to the United States together to study, but our proficiencies of English differ due to the fact that L2 acquisition started when I was a teenager while he was in mid 40s. Recently, my dad told me that he moved as early as possible for my English skills.
In conclusion, the process of first language acquisition contrasts with second language acquisition. While L1 learning happens naturally, L2 learning happens as the learner actively seeks out to learn the language. Universal Grammar does not operate in the same way as it does in primary language acquisition. Instead, other sources such as previous knowledge and language transfer determine one’s proficiency of a secondary language, and the age serves as the most significant factor as the critical period hypothesis argues.
_______________________________________________________________
References
Cook, V., & Newson, M. (1996). General concepts of language acquisition. Chomsky’s Universal Grammar: An Introduction. Oxford: Blackwell
Johnson, J., & Newport, E. (1989). Critical period effects in second language learning: The influence of maturational state on the acquisition of English as a second language. Cognitive Psychology, 21(1), 60-99. doi: 10.1016/0010-0285(89)90003-0