Universal Grammar

From its very inception, Universal Grammar (UG) was cited as one of the most

powerful guiding components of the generative model (Chomsky, 1986a). This is

because universal grammar was defined as the common base connecting all languages

(Chomsky, 1965). This tied UG to the ideas of competence and the language faculty

itself. This is simply expressed in a recent definition by Chomsky,

The theory of the initial cognitive state is called Universal Grammar: the theory
of a particular stable state is a particular grammar. Acquiring the tacit knowledge
of French, Italian, Chinese, etc., is then made possible by the component of
mind-brain that is explicitly modeled by Universal Grammar, in interaction with
a specific course of linguistic experience. In the terms of comparative
linguistics, Universal Grammar is a theory of linguistic invariance, as it
expresses the universal properties of natural languages; in terms of the adopted
cognitive perspective, Universal Grammar expresses the biologically necessary
universals, the properties that are universal because they are determined by our
in-born language faculty, a component of the biological endowment of our
species.
(Chomsky, 2002:8-9)

In the current model UG proposes UG as a bundle of specific information about

language all humans are simply born knowing. In the modern view, UG is composed of

two different parts; principles and parameters. Principles are basic facts about language

that apply to all languages in the same way and all the time (Chomsky, 1981). They are

exceptionless, do not vary and are instantly useable to the language learner (Chomsky,

1988:62). The other component of UG are parameters. Parameters, like principles, are
also basically bundles of knowledge referring very specifically to language (Chomsky,

1981). They differ from principles in that they tend to be much more specific and they

also acquire a specific setting which varies from language to language. All humans are

born with the same parameters but the value settings for those parameters are not fixed.

They require a certain amount of experience to trigger their setting (Chomsky, 1988).

Thus, a learner exposed to a certain language has to select a particular setting for each

of the parameters.

Generative Views on Acquisition

The generative model has had profound affects on the field of language acquisition

studies. Most of these effects, however, have been in the area of first language

acquisition. While some of the basic ideas underlying the generative model have been

increasingly handled by second language researchers (see e.g., Cook, 1993; Flynn et al.,

1998; Braidi, 1999; Archibald, 2000; Hawkins, 2001; White, 2003), very little has been

integrated into actual second or subsequent language teaching practices to date, and for

good reason. A comment from Vivian Cook explains,

The theory of principles and parameters puts grammar on a different plane from
anything in language teaching. Hence teachers will not find any quick help with
carrying out conventional grammar teaching from such forms of grammar.
(Cook, 1996:33)
1. First Language Acquisition
The effects of the generative model on first language acquisition have been profound.

These effects came predominantly from the innateness hypothesis or the idea that

language (as a highly specified type of behavior) develops from an innate program in

the brain.

The generative model basically sees first language acquisition as following a

biologically determined program set specifically for language and not affected in any

major way by any other considerations in the brain or the environment. Because of UG

children are claimed not to learn language, as such, but to grow it naturally and without

any conscious effort. In this view, language learning is not a matter of choice but of a

nature. It is not something they do but some thing that happens to them (Chomsky,

1993:29).

The transition from the initial state to the steady state takes place in a
determinate fashion, with no conscious attention or choice. The transition is
essentially uniform for individuals in a given speech community despite diverse
experience.
(Chomsky, 1986a:51)

Because the language acquisition process is driven and regulated by UG only a

minimal amount of input is necessary (Chomsky, 1965). Input is needed to start UG

working. Once more, this input should be meaningful and presumably continuous

(Crain, 1993). Lightfoot (1999:63) describes a process he calls triggering, which claims
that the purpose of the input is to trigger the setting of a parameter. This is done

subconsciously and often on the basis of a single exposure simple enough to get the

child to somehow notice it. Based on this it is clear that language acquisition, in the

generative model is focused on how the parameters of are set and how language specific

rules are internalized to form the perfect competence that all native speakers are

assumed to have. It is also clear that lexical items, in line with the lexical

parameterization hypothesis (Wexler & Manzini, 1987) play a role in this.

2. Second or Subsequent Language Acquisition

Chomsky, (2002), adopting the forgetting maxim proposed by Mehler and Dupoux

(1992), claims that, “acquiring an element of linguistic knowledge amounts to

discarding the other possibilities offered a priori by the mind.” (p. 16). This means that

the full set of linguistic features once made available by UG in the first language

acquisition process is not there in the subsequent language acquisition process. Taking

phonology and the acquisition of phonemes as an example, Chomsky states that the

acquisition of certain set of phonemes used for one language necessarily entails the

forgetting of the phonemes used for other languages, which were once accessible at the

start. Thus, from the generative viewpoint it is not the structure of the first language

which influences the second, but rather the fact that the shape of UG changes.

Cook & Newson (1996) argue for three possible views on the status of
Universal Grammar in subsequent language acquisition. These three views put access to

UG on a continuum ranging from full access on the one end to no access on the opposite

end and partial or indirect access in the center. What is striking about these widely

accepted models is that they all contrast UG with extra-linguistic cognitive systems but

to different degrees. This calls into question the strict version of the modularity

hypothesis upon which the generative model is based. It would seem that in subsequent

language acquisition UG must interface with other cognitive functions not only in the

process of acquisition but also in regular performance. If this is so then the very nature

of the lexicon in subsequent language acquisition must also be different than what is

proposed in the standard generative model.

Access to Universal Grammar in Second Language acquisition

The question of whether L2 learners have access to UG has been perhaps the main topic

of research among those interested in applying principles and parameters theory to

second language acquisition. What could be the role of UG in L2 learning? Cook(1985)

put it as a choice between three possibilities. On is that L2 learners start from scratch;

they have direct access to UG and are uninfluenced by the Ll. Or they start from their

knowledge of the first language; they have indirect access to UG via the Ll. Or they do

not treat the L2 as a language at all; they have no access to UG and learn the L2 without
its help.

I. Direct access to UG

L2 learners may employ the principles of UG and set the parameters without any

reference to their L1 values. L2 speakers have parallel competence in L1 and L2- two

instantiations of UG.

Direct access model of L2 learning

L1 learning ------> L1 competence

↕
Universal grammar
↕
L2 learning ------> L2 competence

II. Indirect access to UG

L2 learning might also take the L1 instantiation of the UG steady stated as a

springboard and utilize the principles and parameters in the same way in the new

language as in the first. L2 learning has access to L1 competence, which was utimatelyu

based on UG. L2 competence will only reflect those parts of UG that are Made use of

the L1.

Indirect access model of L2 learning

L2 learning ------> L2 competence

↕
L1 learning ------> L1 competence
↕
Universal grammar

In indirect access, L2 knowledge is tied into L1 knowledge.

III. No access to UG

Second languages might also be acquired through non-natural means – other faculties of

the mind than language. In the no-access model, L2 competence is distinct from L1

competence and created in a totally different way.

No access model of L2 learning

L2 learning ------> L2 competence

L1 learning ------> L1 competence

↕
Universal grammar
L2 learning might differ from L1 learning in making no use of UG; a second language

can be learnt to some extent from a grammar book or form drills. L2 learning in this

case is a parallel process to L1 learning , but without any connection to UG.