Tpological Universals & SLA (Linguistic Typology)

Hazırlayan

TYPOLOGICAL UNIVERSALS

(LINGUISTIC TYPOLOGY)

typological universals: Universals derived from an investigation of the commonalities of the world’s languages. The goal is to determine similarities in types of languages, including implicational universals (Gass & Selinker, 2008: 522) implicational universals: Common hierarchies across the world’s languages in which particular language elements are predicted by the existence of other language elements (Gass & Selinker, 2008: 518)

Typological Universals & Second Language Acquisition

(Eckman, 2012: 485-494)• The goal of SLA theory: to explain the development of linguistic

competence in L2 learner • Linguistic approaches to SLA tries to explain the growth of L2 competence

by showing…• The mental grammars (interlanguage grammars) of second language

learners are exposed to constraints on learnability. • One of the domains as a possible source of such constraints is linguistic

typology• The central thesis of linguistic typology

– the unidirectional, implicational generalizations formulated by typologists reflect constraints on human languages,

– these same generalizations may constrain the kinds of interlanguage grammars that L2 learners can acquire.

Typological Universals/Linguistic Typology

Typological Universals & SLA (Gass & Selinker, 2008: 191-218)

• Why is an understanding of language universals important to study of SLA?

• One of the early questions regarding the nature of second language systems: the extent to which interlanguage could be considered a “natural language”.

• “… ILs are linguistic systems in the same way that Natural Languages are. By “natural language” I mean any human language shared by a community of speakers and developed over time by a general process of evolution.” (Adjemian, 1976: 298)


• What does it mean to say that ILs, or learner languages, are natural systems?

• It does not mean that all ILs are as complex as all natural languages.

• The majority of complex syntax does not develop until late in the process of learning.

• If a given linguistic phenomenon appears to be impossible in any of the world’s languages, then it will also be an impossible form in a second language system.


• To what extent do the constraints that govern natural languages also govern learner language systems?


All universals that are true for primary languages are also true

forinterlanguages.

(Eckman, Moravcsik, and Wirth, 1989: 195)

• To what extent is the variability of learner languages limited?

• Would we be likely to find evidence of interlanguages that violate the generalizations?

One answer to these questions has been formulated as the

Interlanguage Structural Conformity Hypothesis


• Ways in which universals can be expected to affect the development of second language grammars:

• Affecting the shape of a learner’s grammar (If this is correct: no violation of a given universal evident in second language grammars).

• Affecting acquisition order (more marked forms would be the last to be acquired, or, in the case of implicational universals, one could expect fewer errors in the less marked forms).

• Being one of many interacting forces in determining the shape of learners’ grammars.


Studies Focusing on Markedness (Eckman, 2012: 485-494; Gass & Selinker, 2008: 191-218)

• Markedness: concept related to how common or typical a feature is• Earliest work using typological universals as explanatory principles: explain

various aspects of learning difficulty and transfer in SLA. • Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis (CAH): explain L2 learning difficulty on the

basis of differences between the native and target languages (Lado, 1957; Stockwell and Bowen, 1965)

• The claim: L2 learners transfer much of the structure of NL to the learning of TL• Difficulty resulted when NL and TL structures were different• The major problems of CAH were empirical: NL/TL differences were both

necessary and sufficient to explain L2 difficulty• The prediction: L2 learners should experience problems only in areas where the

NL and TL differ

Typological Universals/Linguistic Typology BUT, studies showed…- learners often produced errors in structures where NL and TL did not differ

- learners had no difficulty with areas of contrast between NL and TL (Dušková 1969, Gradman 1971).


• Proposals addressing problems with CAH invoked typological markedness • The Markedness Differential Hypothesis (Eckman 1977)• Differences between NL and TL were necessary to explain errors of L2

learners, but not sufficient• What was needed in addition: another way to calculate the difficult areas

between NL and TL• The central claim of the Markedness Differential Hypothesis (MDH):

Typological markedness reflects difficulty in second language acquisition (Eckman 1977)

• Marked structures are more difficult than unmarked structures



• Studies in support of claims of Markedness Differential Hypothesis• All of them on L2 phonology (see Eckman 2004 for a review).• Anderson (1987): analysed learning of onset & coda clusters in English

for subjects from 3 NL backgrounds: Egyptian Arabic, Mandarin Chinese, and Amoy Chinese

• The results supported the MDH • Performance of Chinese-speaking subjects was less target-like than

Arabic-speaking subjects on coda clusters• The difference in performance correlated with the degree of

markedness• Marked final clusters caused more errors than the marked initial clusters



• In addition to predicting difficulty in L2 acquisition / typological markedness to explain facts about language transfer

• Accessibility Hierarchy: developed in work by Keenan and Comrie (1977)• Representing an implicational generalization for relative clause types• The hierarchy represents a markedness relationship• Subject-type relative clause = least marked • Object of comparison type = most marked


First, all languages have subject relative clauses; and second,

predictions can be made such that if a language has a relative clause of the

type X , then it will also have any relative clause type higher on the

hierarchy.

Studies Focusing on Markedness (Eckman, 2012: 485-494; Gass & Selinker, 2008: 191-

218)• Gass (1979a; 1979b) presented data from learners of English with a

wide range of native languages (Italian, Arabic, Portuguese, Farsi, French, Thai, Chinese, Korean, and Japanese)

• Based on data from (a) free compositions (b) sentence combining (c) grammaticality judgments

• Argument: production of relative clauses by SL learners could be predicted on the basis of the Accessibility Hierarchy

• Result: With the exception of the genitive, the predictions of the Accessibility Hierarchy are borne out

• Performing better on the less marked relative clause types than they did on the more marked

• More likely to transfer NL relative clause structures that are less marked than those that are more marked


Verification

More marked

Less marked

Studies Focusing on Markedness (Eckman, 2012: 485-494; Gass & Selinker, 2008: 191-

218)• Hyltenstam (1984): resumptive pronouns (pronominal reflexes) in relative clauses• She danced with the man who [*he ] flew to Paris yesterday• The woman whom he danced with [her ] flew to Paris yesterday • An inverse relationship between the hierarchy and resumptive pronouns: resumptive

pronouns will be used in the lower hierarchical positions than in higher ones• Resumptive Pronoun Hierarchy: OCOMP > GEN > OPREP > IO > DO > SU• Hyltenstam (1984): investigated resumptive pronouns / data from acquisition of

Swedish as a SL by speakers of Spanish, Finnish, Greek, and Farsi• A picture identification task: subjects were asked a question, Who is in picture number

5? with the target response being a relative clause, the man who is running…• Results: conforming to the predictions of the hierarchy - more pronominal reflexes

occurred in positions lower on the hierarchy


Verification

This is the girli that whenever it rains shei cries


• In more recent years: The range of studies on relative clauses has been limited and a broader consideration of languages is needed

• Comrie (2003) proposes a different typology for some East Asian languages• O’Grady, Lee, and Choo (2003) noted a preference for subject over direct

object relative clauses in Korean• Jeon and Kim (2007): two kinds of Korean relative clauses: head-external and

head-internal relative clauses• In a study of 40 learners of Korean, they found limited support for predictions

of the Accessibility Hierarchy• In head-external relative clauses, there was a preference for subject over

direct object relative clauses, but in head-internal relative structures evidence for that preference did not exist


Counterexamples(Falsification)


• Ozeki and Shirai (2007): the acquisition of Japanese by Cantonese, English, and Korean speakers

• Introducing another level of complexity — animacy • Collecting oral data• Result: even low-proficiency learners used more direct object and oblique

(e.g., object of preposition) relative clauses than subject relatives• Contradicting the predictions of the accesibility hierarchy• Further: A subset of the learners (Chinese and English native speakers)

associated subject relative clauses with animate head nouns and direct object relative clauses with inanimate head nouns


Counterexamples(Falsification)


• Ozeki and Shirai (2007): a follow-up study with Cantonese learners of Japanese

• Using a sentence combining task• Results: subject and direct object relatives were easier than oblique

relative clauses (as would be predicted) • BUT• When learners converted direct object and oblique relative clauses into

subject relative clauses…• It was nearly always done with animates as heads. • Conclusion: The selection of relative clause types is sensitive to animacy



• All in all…. / Research on relative clauses suggests…• The predictions of accessibility hierarchy is generally confirmed• BUT • The situation shows greater complexity (e.g., semantics, language specifics)

than thought in the early years of research. • As Eckman (2007, p. 327) states,• “If the hierarchy [Noun Phrase Accessibility Hierarchy] is not as strongly

supported when other language types are brought into the data pool, then we need to make hypotheses about what kinds of principles could be postulated that would subsume both the SLA data from RC acquisition in European languages as well as the SLA data from typologically distinct languages.”


Universal Generalizations and Interlanguage Grammar

(Eckman, 2012: 485-494; Gass & Selinker, 2008: 191-218)• Learner language: idiosyncratic dialect (Corder, 1971), approximative system

(Nemser, 1971), interlanguage (Selinker, 1972).• The idea behind this concept: L2 learners construct their own internal

grammar of target language• Example: L2 relative clause of Hyltenstam (1984)• Spanish-speaking subjects produced Swedish relative clauses with a pattern

of resumptive pronouns • Neither NL in this case nor TL allows resumptive pronouns…. • The pattern cannot be accounted for in terms of either NL or TL • It is necessary to posit a separate principle, a rule of the interlanguage

grammar, to explain the data.


Universals as Constraints on Interlanguage Grammar

(Eckman, 2012: 485-494; Gass & Selinker, 2008: 191-218)• This finding (Hyltenstam, 1984) supported the assertion that….. • Although universal generalizations may be necessary to explain L2

utterances, NL/TL differences may not be necessary• This idea is embodied in the Structural Conformity Hypothesis (SCH),

(Eckman et al. 1989, Eckman, Moravcsik, and Wirth 1991).• The Structural Conformity Hypothesis (Eckman 1991: 24)• “The universal generalizations that hold for primary languages hold also

for interlanguages”• Most of the data reported in testing the Structural Conformity Hypothesis

has been in the area of L2 phonology…• Though there has been some work in syntax



(Eckman, 2012: 485-494; Gass & Selinker, 2008: 191-218)• The Structural Conformity Hypothesis (Eckman, 1991)• Eckman, Moravsik and Wirth (1989): The L2 syntactic study on the acquisition

of English questions• Eckman et al. (1989) elicited yes/no questions and wh-questions from ESL

learners of three NL backgrounds: Korean, Japanese, and Turkish• The relevant universal generalizations came from work by Greenberg (1963)• a. If a language has inversion of the subject and verb (auxiliary) in yes/no

questions, that language will also have inversion in wh-questions, but not vice versa.

• b. If a language has inversion in wh-questions, it will have sentence-initial wh-words and are stated in.



(Eckman, 2012: 485-494; Gass & Selinker, 2008: 191-218)• Eckman, Moravsik and Wirth (1989)• Subjects from Korean, Japanese, and Turkish NL backgrounds• Reason: DO NOT form questions with inversion

• DO NOT require wh-words to be sentence-initial• Findings: the generalization in (b) was upheld by all 14 IL grammars, while

(a) was confirmed by 13 subjects and disconfirmed by 1 • (systematically inverted subjects and auxiliaries in yes/no questions, but

inverted these elements in only about half of the wh-questions)• Does it suggest that the universal is not valid for second language data? • Invalidation of the claim that language universals is valid for all human

languages, including learner languages?

Typological Universals/Linguistic Typologya. If a language has inversion of the subject and verb (auxiliary) in yes/no questions, that language will also have inversion in wh-questions, but not vice versa.b. If a language has inversion in wh-questions, it will have sentence-initial wh-words and are stated in.


(Eckman, 2012: 485-494; Gass & Selinker, 2008: 191-218)• Gass & Selinker (2008: 201)• An alternative interpretation for the exception• Circumstances that might reduce the strength of this universal? • So many factors in SLA: NL, TL, pragmatics, processing limitations,

attitude, motivation, attentiveness • Predictions cannot be made in an absolute fashion. • Invalidate claims: When the exceptions seem to outweigh the

predictions of universals• Second language predictions: tendencies or probabilistic predictions • For 13, the linguistic universal wins out


Universals as Strategies for Intervention in Interlanguage Grammar (Eckman, 2012: 485-494)

• Testing The Structural Conformity Hypothesis by using typological universals as principles for teaching second languages (relative clauses)

• The rationale for intervention strategy• to take advantage of the implication embodied in the markedness

relationship • By teaching learner only one or more structures that are in a markedness

relationship…• The strategy• to teach a relative clause system containing only the oblique (object of a

preposition) relative clause type



• The aim of using implicational universals as an intervention strategy….

• to cause learners to generalize their learning from the structure being taught to structures which are not being taught

• If The Structural Conformity Hypothesis is correct,• If the learners acquire the structure being taught (in this example,

oblique relative clauses)• The learners would generalize in the direction from more marked

structures to less marked structures • Three studies in this area…



• Gass (1982): one control group and one experimental group • Both were being taught English relative clauses using the same textbook• After two groups were given the pre-test measures, the control group was

taught three kinds of relative clauses—subject, direct object, and oblique • The experimental group received instruction on only the oblique-type relative

clause• Duration: The instruction for each group was carried out over three days • Results: scores on the pre-test were not statistically significant between the

two groups • However - The results on post-test: only the experimental group's scores (not

those of the control group) were significantly different from the pre-test



• Eckman et al. (1988): replicated, extended Gass (1982) - one control, three experimental groups

• Pre-test: combining two sentences into one sentence containing a relative clause• The subjects were randomly assigned to 4 groups balanced on the basis of the

pre-test and native-language background• Each experimental group (3) was given a one-hour lesson on relative clause

formation in which only one relative clause type was taught: • Group 1: instructed on how to form only subject relative clauses• Group 2: direct-object relative clauses / Group 3: oblique relative clauses• The control group was given a lesson on something other than relative clauses • Three days after the instruction, the post-test was administered



• Eckman et al. (1988), Results: students in the control group did not perform any differently than they did on the pre-test

• The subjects trained on subject relative clause learned only that relative clause type (did not successfully generalize the instruction to the direct-object or oblique type of relative clause).

• Those instructed on direct-object relative clause generalized this instruction to subject relative clauses (but not to the oblique type).

• The students receiving instruction only on the oblique relative clause generalized to both the subject and direct-object relative clauses.

• Conclusion: The hypothesis that generalization of instruction would proceed unidirectionally from more marked structures to less marked structures was supported.



• Doughty (1991): Investigating performance of students trained on English relative clauses using computer-assisted instruction

• The markedness of relative clause type used for training• Whether rule-based or meaning-based instruction had an effect on the

learning• Results: Subjects learned equally well under both types of instruction• Subjects' generalization of learning went in the direction from the more

marked to the less marked relative clause type (not the reverse).• 3 studies employing implicational generalizations of (Noun Phrase)

Accessibility Hierarchy as intervention strategy have shown that….• L2 learners will necessarily generalize from more marked structures to less

marked structures (but not vice versa)


Functional Typology (Gass & Selinker, 2008: 191-218)

• Considering interlanguages from the perspective of linguistic structures • Looking at SLA from the perspective of how language functions (how

language is used for communication purposes)• The major concern: how different forms are used to express different

functions (how form and function relate to one another)• Considering isolated parts of language (e.g., syntax, morphology),• Functional approaches: consider meaning as central • Many aspects of language: pragmatics, semantics, syntax, morphology,

and lexicon• Multiple levels of language are considered simultaneously• Tense and aspect



• Tense and Aspect: The Aspect Hypothesis• A major question asked by researchers studying tense and aspect: How do

learners recognize what morphological markers (e.g., past tense, progressive) go with what verbs?

• The Aspect Hypothesis: “first and second language learners will initially be influenced by the inherent semantic aspect of verbs or predicates in the acquisition of tense and aspect markers associated with or affixed to these verbs” (Andersen and Shirai, 1994, p. 133).

• A semantic approach• Focusing on the influence of lexical aspect in the second language

acquisition of tense–aspect morphology



• Andersen (1986, 1991): a study of two native speakers of English, one child and one adolescent

• Learning L2 Spanish • An interesting distinction in their

development of tense–aspect marking• The past tense (preterit) markers

emerged with punctual and achievement verbs

• The imperfect markers emerged with verbs that indicate states


• Examples:

• (7-30) se parti— (punctual)• it broke• (7-31) ense–— (achievement)• s/he taught• (7-32) ten’a (state)• s/he had (imperfect form)


• Andersen proposed a sequence of developmental stages• The development of the past tense seemed to spread from • achievement verbs accomplishment verbs activities states• The situation is different for the imperfect: reverse order• states activities accomplishments achievements• Andersen argued: when tense–aspect morphology emerged in the

interlanguage of these two subjects, it was constrained by lexical aspect • A similar phenomenon has been reported in a variety of L2 and classroom

settings (e.g., Bardovi-Harlig, 1992a, 1992b; Bardovi-Harlig and Bergstršm, 1996; Bardovi-Harlig and Reynolds, 1995; Flashner, 1989; Hasbœn, 1995; Kaplan, 1987; Kumpf, 1984; Robison, 1990, 1995; Rocca, 2002; Shirai, 1995; Shirai and Kurono, 1998; see also reviews by Andersen and Shirai, 1994, 1996, and Bardovi-Harlig, 1999b, 2000)



• Findings from research in a number of target languages show the following:

• 1 Past/perfective morphology emerges with punctual verbs and verbs indicating achievements and accomplishments. The morphology then gradually extends to verbs expressing activities and states.

• punctual – achievements – accomplishments – activities - states• 2 Imperfective morphology emerges with activities and states, then

gradually spreads to achievement/ accomplishment and punctual verbs.• activities / states - achievement / accomplishment - punctual • 3 Progressive morphology is strongly associated with durative and

dynamic verbs (activities).


Falsifiability (Gass & Selinker, 2008: 191-218)

• How to deal with linguistic counterexamples? (way)• The domain of typological universals • 1. To weaken the strong claims to probabilistic ones or frequency claims:

question formation in the case of the Structural Conformity Hypothesis• 2. To claim that the interlanguage itself is shown in the variation,

compared to what native speakers do (Selinker, 1966)• 3. To explain the exceptions, put the blame on NL or TL, or on the

methodology used in data collection• In the work on relative clauses: not confirm the predictions made by the

Accessibility Hierarchy • Accounting for the discrepancies in terms of the data-collection measure.


REFERENCES

• Adjemian, C. (1976). On the nature of interlanguage systems. Language Learning, 26, 297–320.• Dušková,L. (1969). On Sources of Errors in Foreign Language Learning. International Review of Applied Linguistics 8: 11–37.• Eckman, F., Moravcsik, E., and Wirth, J. (1989). Implicational universals and interrogative structures in the interlanguage of

ESL learners. Language Learning, 39, 173–205.• Ekman, F.R. (2004). From Phonemic Differences to Constraint Rankings: Research on Second Language Phonology. Studies

in Second Language Acquisition 26: 513–49.• Eckman, F.R. (2012). Linguistic typology and second language acquisition. In: J.J. Song, ed., The Oxford Handbook of

Linguistic Typology, OUP Oxford, 618-633.• Gass, S. (1979a). An investigation of syntactic transfer in adult second language acquisition. Unpublished doctoral

dissertation, Indiana University, Bloomington.• Gass, S. (1979b). Language transfer and universal grammatical relations. Language Learning, 29, 327–344.• Gass, S., and Selinker, L. (2008). Second Language Acquisition: An Introductory Course. 3rd ed. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.• Gradman, H. (1971). Limitations of Contrastive Analysis Predictions. Working Papers in Linguistics 3: 11–15.• Greenberg, J. H. (1963). Some universals of grammar with particular reference to the order of meaningful elements. In J. H.

Greenberg (Ed.), Universals of Language (pp. 73–113). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.• Lado, R. (1957). Linguistics Across Cultures. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.• Stockwell, R., and Bowen, J. (1965). The Sounds of English and Spanish. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.


Tpological Universals & SLA (Linguistic Typology)

Education

Transcript of Tpological Universals & SLA (Linguistic Typology)