The Role of Innate Knowledge in First and Second Language Acquisition - by Hasanbey Ellidokuzoglu - Education

IX. CONCLUSION AND SUMMARY

The results did not show a clear effect of UG in SLA as item 8 could not be detected and items 3 and 10 are only marginally higher than the others. However, the fact that 3 and 10 are scored highest among others without being able to articulate the relevant rule shows that they relied on their subconscious intuitions which are somewhat affected by UG-based knowledge.

The reason why their intuitions are not clear enough might be due to their prior conscious learning experience in a formal context which is hypothesized to hinder naturalistic language acquisition. As Felix and Weigl (1991) points out classroom L2 learners are greatly constrained in their formal learning context. They draw a distinction between a language specific (LS) system, which corresponds to Chomsky's LAD, and a general problem-solving (PS) system to account for the success and failure of naturalistic and classroom learners. So, the degree of access to UG is determined by the type of learning mechanism that is involved in SLA. The more the LS-system is involved, the more direct access there will be, and the more the PS- system is involved, the more indirect access (or even no access) will take place. Definitely there must be more studies carried out in this area to arrive at a conclusive decision. But a tentative conclusion might be that UG is still alive for those who knows how to activate it.

APPENDIX

1.
A: Hey! Look at the accident outside. A man is lying dead on the street.
B: I have never seen a dead person in my life nor do I want to see one.

2.
A: No one has come to pick up the books, and the office will be closed during the weekend.
B: Oh really?
A: Yes. Who do you think is going to pick them up?
B: I will.
A: OK, see you.

3.
Mother: The room is real mess. Whose turn is it for cleaning? Yours or John's?
Son: We don't take turns. Just tell me: Who do you want to clean the room?
Mother: I'd like you to do that. OK?
Son: Yeah, why not.

4.
Teacher: Bob will not be able to go out this weekend.
Student: Sir, what is the purpose of this punishment?
Teacher: Never will he want to do the same thing again once he is punished.
Student: I really don't think so.

5.
Student: Sir, do you have some free time?
Teacher: I'm afraid not. Can we talk after lunch?
Student: I was just going to ask a simple question.
Teacher: OK, then. Go ahead.

6.
A: Is the oral exam finished?
B: Not yet. There are a few more students to be interviewed.
A: Who does the teacher want to see next?
B: Call Robert. He must be the next person on the list.

7.
A: Hey! Where are you going with all those books?
B: Can't you see that I am going to the library?
A: Come on. This is Friday evening. Let's go to the movies.
B: Sorry. I have to study.

8.
Student: Sir, I don't have time to go to the library.
Can you tell John to do the research?
Teacher: John is not the student who should be doing that.
You are the person who I want to do the research.

9.
A: What will you do after you graduate?
B: I really miss my family. I am definitely going to go
back home just after graduation.

10.
A: John looks quite excited about the final game.
B: Which team does he want to win the final? The Bulls or the Pistons?
A: The Bulls, of course.

REFERENCES

Bickerton, D. (1981) Roots of Language. Ann Arbor: Karoma publishers.

------------- (1983) Creole language. Scientific American. 249:116-122.

Bley-Vroman, R. (1988). The fundamental character of foreign language learning. In W. Rutherford & M. Sharwood Smith (Eds.), Grammar and second language teaching (pp. 19-29). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.

Bulut, T. (1996). How Turkish adults learning English interpret English Reflexives. Paper presented at Second IATEFL Balkan ELT Conference. Bogazici Univrstity,Istanbul. 5-7 September.

Carston, R. (1988). Language and cognition. In F. J. Newmeyer (Ed.), Linguistics: The Cambridge Survey: Vol. III. Language: Psycological and Biological aspects. (pp. 39-69) Cambridge: CUP.

Cem, A. (1996). Universal Grammar in Second Language Acquisition: Knowledge of Reflexives by Turkish Learners. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation. Hacettepe University.

Clashen, H., & Muysken, P. (1989). The UG paradox in L2 acquisition. Second Language Research, 5, 1-29.

Cook, V. (1988). Chomsky's Universal Grammar. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

Felix, S. (1988). UG-generated knowledge in adult second language acquisition. In S. Flynn and W. O'Neil (Eds.), Linguistic theory in second language acquisition (pp. 277-294). Dordrecht: Kluwer.

Felix, S., & Weigl., W. (1991). Universal Grammar in the classroom: The effects of formal instruction on Second Language Acquisition. Second Language Research, 7, 162-181.

Gregg, K.(1984). Krashen's Monitor and Occam's Razor. Applied Linguistics, 5, 79-100.

Gleitman, L. and Gleitman, H. (1997) What is language made out of? Lingua. 100:29-55.

Haiman, J. (1997) Repitition and identity. Lingua: 100: 57-70

Jackendoff, R. (1993) Patterns in the Mind. New York: Harvester Wheatsheaf.

Karmiloff-Smith, A. (1992) Beyond Modularity: A Developmental Perspective on Cognitive Science. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.

Piaget, J. (1980). The psychogenesis of knowlegdge and its epistemological significance. In M. Piattelli-Palmarini (Ed.), Language and learning: The debate between Jean Piaget and Noam Chomsky. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Pinker, S. (1994). The Language Instinct. New York: William Morrow.

Slobin, I. (1979) Psycholinguistics. Illinois: Scott Forestman

Contact the Author
Go Home

Sign Guestbook

View Guestbook

Language Translator

Visitors: 12198

Page Updated Thu May 11, 2006 7:26am EDT