GRS LX 700
Language Acquisition
and
Linguistic Theory
Week 12.
Language Universals, and the
beginnings of a model
Typological universals



1960’s and 1970’s saw a lot of activity
aimed at identifying language universals,
properties of Language.
Class of possible languages is smaller
than you might think.
If a language has one property (A), it will
necessarily have another (B).

+A+B, –A–B, –A+B but never +A–B.
(Typological) universals

All languages have vowels.

If a language has VSO as its basic word order,
then it has prepositions (vs. postpositions).
VSO?
Adposition type
Yes
No
Prepositions
Postpositions
Welsh
None
English
Japanes
e
Markedness




Having duals implies having plurals
Having plurals says nothing about having duals.
Having duals is marked—infrequent, more
complex. Having plurals is (relative to having
duals) unmarked.
Generally markedness is in terms of comparable
dimensions, but you could also say that being
VSO is marked relative to having prepositions.
Markedness




“Markedness” actually has been used in
a couple of different ways, although
they share a common core.
Marked: More unlikely, in some sense.
Unmarked: More likely, in some sense.
You have to “mark” something marked;
unmarked is what you get if you don’t
say anything extra.
“Unlikeliness”

Typological/crosslinguistic infrequency.


More complex constructions.


[ts] is more marked than [t].
The non-default setting of a parameter.


VOS word order is marked.
Non-null subjects?
Language-specific/idiosyncratic
features.

Vs. UG/universal features…?
Berlin & Kay 1969: Color
terms



(On the boundaries of psychophysics,
linguistics, anthropology, and with issues
about its interpretation, but still…)
Basic color terms across languages.
It turns out that languages differ in how
many color terms count as basic. (blueish,
salmon-colored, crimson, blond, … are not
basic).
Berlin & Kay 1969: Color
terms

The segmentation of experience by speech symbols is
essentially arbitrary. The different sets of words for color in
various languages are perhaps the best ready evidence
for such essential arbitrariness. For example, in a high
percentage of African languages, there are only three
“color words,” corresponding to our white, black, red,
which nevertheless divide up the entire spectrum. In the
Tarahumara language of Mexico, there are five basic color
words, and here “blue” and “green” are subsumed under a
single term.
 Eugene Nida (1959)
Berlin & Kay 1969: Color
terms










Arabic (Lebanon)
Bulgarian (Bulgaria)
Catalan (Spain)
Cantonese (China)
Mandarin (China)
English (US)
Hebrew (Israel)
Hungarian (Hungary)
Ibibo (Nigeria)
Indonesian (Indonesia)










Japanese (Japan)
Korean (Korea)
Pomo (California)
Spanish (Mexico)
Swahili (East Africa)
Tagalog (Philippines)
Thai (Thailand)
Tzeltal (Southern Mexico)
Urdu (India)
Vietnamese (Vietnam)
Eleven possible basic color
terms








White, black, red, green, yellow, blue, brown,
purple, pink, orange, gray.
All languages contain term for white and black.
Has 3 terms, contains a term for red.
Has 4 terms, contains green or yellow.
Has 5 terms, contains both green and yellow.
Has 6 terms, contains blue.
Has 7 terms, contains brown.
Has 8 or more terms, chosen from {purple, pink,
orange, gray}
Color hierarchy







White, black
Red
Green, yellow
Blue
Brown
Purple, pink, orange, gray
Even assuming these 11 basic color terms, there should
be 2048 possible sets—but only 22 (1%) are attested.
Color terms







Jalé (New Guinea) ‘brilliant’ vs. ‘dull’
Tiv (Nigeria), Australian aboriginals in
Seven Rivers District, Queensland.
BWRG
Ibibo (Nigeria), Hanunóo (Philippines)
BWRY
Ibo (Nigeria), Fitzroy River people (Queensland)
BWRYG
Tzeltal (Mexico), Daza (eastern Nigeria)
BWRYGU Plains Tamil (South India), Nupe (Nigeria), Mandarin?
BWRYGUO Nez Perce (Washington), Malayalam (southern India)
BW
BWR
Color terms


Interesting questions abound, including why
this order, why these eleven—and there are
potential reasons for it that can be drawn
from the perception of color spaces which
we will not attempt here.
The point is: This is a fact about Language:
If you have a basic color term for blue, you
also have basic color terms for black, white,
red, green, and yellow.
Implicational hierarchy




This is a ranking of markedness or an
implicational hierarchy.
Having blue is more marked than having (any or
all of) yellow, green, red, white, and black.
Having green is more marked than having red…
Like a set of implicational universals…





Blue implies yellow
Blue implies green
Yellow or green imply red
Red implies black
Red implies white
Brown implies blue
Pink implies brown
Orange implies brown
Gray implies brown
Purple implies brown
L2A?




Our overarching theme:
How much is L2/IL like a L1?
Do IL/L2 languages obey the language
universals that hold of native languages?
This question is slightly less theory-laden
than the questions we were asking about
principles and parameters, although it’s
similar…
To my knowledge nobody has studied L2
acquisitions of color terms…
Question formation

Declarative: John will buy coffee.


Wh-inversion: What will John buy?
Wh-fronting: What will John buy?
Yes/No-inversion: Will John buy coffee?

Greenberg (1963):

Wh-inversion implies Wh-fronting.
 Yes/No-inversion implies Wh-inversion.

Wh-inversionWh-fronting

English, German: Both.


Japanese Korean: neither.


John will buy what?
Finnish: Wh-fronting only.


What will John buy?
What John will buy?
Unattested: Wh-inversion only.

*Will John buy what?
Y/N-inversionWh-inversion

English: Both


Japanese: Neither


John will buy coffee? John will buy what?
Lithuanian: Wh-inversion only.


Will John buy coffee? What will John buy?
John will buy coffee? What will John buy?
Unattested: Y/N-inversion only.

Will John buy coffee? What John will buy?
Eckman, Moravcsik, Wirth
(1989)




L1: Korean (4), Japanese (6), Turkish (4)
L2: English
Note L1s chosen because they are
neither/neither type languages, to avoid
questions of transfer.
Subjects tried to determine what was
going on in a scene by asking questions.
Eckman, Moravcsik, Wirth
(1989)

Example Y/N Qs:
Did she finished two bottle wine?
 Is Lou and Patty known each other?
 Sue does drink orange juice?
 Her parents are rich?
 Is this story is chronological in a order?
 Does Joan has a husband?
 Yesterday is Sue did drink two bottles of
wine?

Eckman, Moravcsik, Wirth
(1989)

Example Wh-Qs:
Why Sue didn’t look solution for her problem?
 Where Sue is living?
 Why did Sue stops drinking?
 Why is Patty’s going robbing the bank?
 What they are radicals?
 What Sue and Patty connection?
 Why she was angry?

Eckman et
al. (1989)
wh-inv
whfronting?
results
%
Whinv
%
Whfr
SM K
25
NO
100
YES
UA
T
54
NO
100
YES
TS
J
70
NO
100
YES
MK K
80
NO
100
YES
RO J
88
NO
100
YES
KO
J
95
YES
100
YES
MH J
95
YES
100
YES
NE
T
95
YES
100
YES
SI
J
95
YES
100
YES
G
T
100
YES
100
YES
MA T
100
YES
100
YES
ST
J
100
YES
100
YES
TM
K
100
YES
100
YES
YK
J
100
YES
100
YES
%
Eckman et
al. (1989)
YN-inv.
wh-inv.?
results
YNinv
%
WHinv
SM
K 8
NO
25
NO
MK
K 38
NO
80
NO
YK
J 51
NO
100 YES
TS
J 67
NO
70
TM
K 83
NO
100 YES
RO
J 85
NO
88
BG
T 86
NO
100 YES
MA
T 88
NO
100 YES
UA
T 91
YES
54
NO
KO
J 93
YES
95
YES
MH
J 95
YES
95
YES
NE
T 100
YES
95
YES
SI
J 100
YES
95
YES
ST
J 100
YES
100 YES
NO
NO
Eckman, Moravcsik, Wirth
(1989)
Yes/no inversion
Wh-inversion
Yes (VS)
No (SV)
Yes (VS)
5
4
No (SV)
1
4
Eckman’s Markedness
Differential Hypothesis

Markedness. A phenomenon or structure X in some
language is relatively more marked than some other
phenomenon or structure Y if cross-linguistically the
presence of X in a language implies the presence of Y,
but the presence of Y does not imply the presence of X.



Duals imply plurals.
Wh-inversion implies wh-fronting.
Blue implies red.
Markedness Differential
Hypothesis

MDH: The areas of difficulty that a second
language learner will have can be predicted on the
basis of a comparison of the NL and TL such that:



Those areas of the TL that are different from the NL and
are relatively more marked than in the NL will be difficult;
The degree of difficulty associated with those aspects of
the TL that are different and more marked than in the NL
corresponds to the relative degree of markedness
associated with those aspects;
Those areas of the TL that are different than the NL but
are not relatively more marked than in the NL will not be
difficult.
MDH example:
Word-final segments





Voiced obstruents
Voiceless obstruents
Sonorant consonants
Vowels
most marked
Surge
Coke
Mountain
least marked
Coffee
All Ls allow vowels word-finally—some only allow vowels.
Some (e.g., Mandarin, Japanese) allow only vowels and
sonorants. Some (e.g., Polish) allow vowels, sonorants,
but only voiceless obstruents. English allows all four
types.
Eckman (1981)
e
e
IL form
[b p]
[b bi]
[rt]
[w t]
[sIk]
Mandarin L1
Gloss
IL form
Tag
[tæg ]
And
[ænd ]
Wet
[w t]
Deck
[dk]
Letter
[lt r]
Bleeding
[blidIn]
e
e
c
c
e
Spanish L1
Gloss
Bob
Bobby
Red
Wet
Sick
MDH example:
Word-final segments





Voiced obstruents
Voiceless obstruents
Sonorant consonants
Vowels
most marked
Surge
Coke
Mountain
least marked
Coffee
Idea: Mandarin has neither voiceless nor voiced obstruents in
the L1—using a voiceless obstruent in place of a TL voiced
obstruent is still not L1 compliant and is a big markedness
jump. Adding a vowel is L1 compliant. Spanish has voiceless
obstruents, to using a voiceless obstruent for a TL voiced
obstruent is L1 compliant.
MDH and IL




The MDH presupposes that the IL obeys
the implicational universals too.
Eckman et al. (1989) suggests that this is at
least reasonable.
The MDH suggests that there is a natural
order of L2A along a markedness scale
(stepping to the next level of markedness is
easiest).
Let’s consider what it means that an IL
obeys implicational universals…
MDH and IL




IL obeys implicational universals.
That is, we know that IL is a language.
So, we know that languages are such that
having word-final voiceless obstruents implies
that you also have word-final sonorant
consonants, among other things.
What would happen if we taught Japanese L2
learners of English only—and at the outset—
voiced obstruents?
Generalizing with
markedness scales






Voiced obstruents
Voiceless obstruents
Sonorant consonants
Vowels
most marked
Surge
Coke
Mountain
least marked
Coffee
Japanese learner of English will have an easier time at
each step learning voiceless obstruents and then voiced
obstruents.
But—if taught voiced obstruents immediately, the fact that
the IL obeys implicational (markedness) universals
means that voiceless obstruents “come for free.”
Nifty!


Does it work? Does it help?
Answers seem to be:
Yes, it seems to at least sort of work.
 Maybe it helps.


Learning a marked structure is harder. So, if
you learn a marked structure, you can
automatically generalize to the less marked
structures, but was it faster than learning
the easier steps in succession would have
been?
Change from pre- to post-test
Eckman, Bell, & Nelson (1988)
8
7
6
Subj Group
Obj Group
O.P. Group
Controls
5
4
3
2
1
0
Subj
Obj
O.P.
The Noun Phrase
Accessibility Hierarchy






Keenan & Comrie (1977) observed a hierarchy among the
kinds of relative clauses that languages allow.
The astronaut [(that) I met yesterday].
Head noun: astronaut
Modifying clause:
(that/who) I met — yesterday.
Compare: I met the astronaut yesterday.
This is an object relative because the place where the head
noun would be in the simple sentence version is the object.
The Noun Phrase
Accessibility Hierarchy


There are several kinds of relative clauses, based
on where the head noun “comes from” in the
modifying clause:
The astronaut…






[I met — yesterday]
[who — met me yesterday]
[I gave a book to —]
[I was talking about —]
[whose house I like —]
[I am braver than —]
object
subject
indirect object
obj. of P
Genitive (possessor)
obj. of comparative
The Noun Phrase
Accessibility Hierarchy

Turns out: Languages differ in what
positions they allow relative clauses to be
formed on.

English allows all the positions mentioned
to be used to make relative clauses.
Arabic allows relative clauses to be
formed only with subjects.
Greek allows relative clauses to be
formed only with subjects or objects.


Resumptive pronouns




The guy who they don’t know whether he wants to
come.
A student who I can’t make any sense out of the
papers he writes.
The actress who Tom wondered whether her
father was rich.
In cases where relative clause formation is not
allowed, it can sometimes be salvaged by means
of a pronoun in the position that the head noun is
to be associated with.
NPAH and resumptive
pronouns

Generally speaking, it turns out that in languages which do
not allow relative clauses to be formed off a certain
position, they will instead allow relative clauses with a
resumptive pronoun in that position.

Arabic: allows only subject relative clauses. But for all
other positions allows a resumptive pronoun construction,
analogous to:



The book that John bought it.
The tree that John is standing by it.
The astronaut that John gave him a present.
NPAH

The positions off which you can relativize
appears to be an implicational hierarchy.
Lang.
Arabic
Greek
Japanes
e
Persian
SUB
–
–
–
DO
+
–
–
IO
+
+?
–
OP
+
+?
–
GEN OCOMP
+
+
+
+
+/ –
–
(+)
+
+
+
+
Noun Phrase Accessibility
Hierarchy

More generally, there seems to be a
hierarchy of “difficulty” (or
“(in)accessibility”) in the types of relative
clauses.
A language which allows this…

Subj > Obj > IO > OPrep > Poss > OComp

Noun Phrase Accessibility
Hierarchy

More generally, there seems to be a
hierarchy of “difficulty” (or
“(in)accessibility”) in the types of relative
clauses.
A language which allows this…
Will also allow these.

Subj > Obj > IO > OPrep > Poss > OComp


Noun Phrase Accessibility
Hierarchy

More generally, there seems to be a
hierarchy of “difficulty” (or
“(in)accessibility”) in the types of relative
clauses.
A language which allows this…
Will also allow these. But not these…

Subj > Obj > IO > OPrep > Poss > OComp


Relation to L2A?




Suppose that KoL includes where the target
language is on the NPAH.
Do L2’ers learn the easy/unmarked/simple
relative clauses before the others?
Do L2’ers transfer the position of their L1 first?
Does a L2’ers interlanguage grammar obey this
typological generalization (if they can relativize a
particular point on the NPAH, can they relativize
everything higher too?)?
NPAH and L2A?



Probably: The higher something is on the NPAH,
the easier (faster) it is to learn.
So, it might be easier to start by teaching subject
relatives, then object, then indirect object, etc. At
each step, the difficulty would be low.
But, it might be more efficient to teach the (hard)
object of a comparison—because if L2’ers
interlanguage grammar includes whatever the
NPAH describes, knowing that OCOMP is possible
implies that everything (higher) on the NPAH is
possible too. That is, they might know it without
instruction. (Same issue as before with the
phonology)
NPAH in L2A

Very widely studied implicational universal
in L2A—many people have addressed the
question of whether the IL obeys the
NPAH and whether teaching aa marked
structure can help.

Eckman et al. (1989) was about this
second question…
Change from pre- to post-test
Eckman, Bell, & Nelson (1988)
8
7
6
Subj Group
Obj Group
O.P. Group
Controls
5
4
3
2
1
0
Subj
Obj
O.P.
Doughty (1991)


Investigating several issues at once:
Effectiveness of type of instruction
Meaning oriented
 Rule oriented


Effectiveness of teaching “down the
markedness hierarchy” (teaching a
marked structure and allowing learnerinternal generalization to an unmarked
structure).
Doughty (1991)

Subjects: 20 international students taking
intensive ESL courses, without much prior
knowledge of relative clauses. Average
length of stay in the US was 3.7 months.

Tasks:
Grammaticality judgment
 Sentence completion

Doughty (1991)

Subjects were pretested, then over two weeks (10
weekdays) they came in to a computer lab to take
a “language lesson”. Then, immediately
afterwards, subjects were posttested.

In the language lessons, one of three possible
things happened:



Subject got the “meaning oriented treatment”
Subject got the “rule oriented treatment”
Subject got the “control treatment”
Doughty (1991)

Daily lessons were a text of 5-6 sentences
(of a two-week long “story”) containing an
relative clause formed on the object of a
preposition.


This is the book that I was looking for.
Recall: Noun phrase accessibility
hierarchy:
SU > DO > IO> OP > GEN > OCOMP
Procedure…

Three steps:




Skim
Reading for understanding (experimental section)
Scan
Skim: Subjects saw the text for 30 seconds, with
title, first sentence and last sentence
highlighted—this is to “get the idea” of what the
text is about.
Procedure…

Reading for understanding: Each sentence
displayed consecutively at the top of the screen.
Three different possibilities:



MOG: Also saw dictionary help (2m) and semantic
explanations (referents, synonyms) (2m), including
relationship between head noun and relative pronoun.
ROG: Saw a little animated presentation of deriving a
OPREP sentence from two sentences (This is the
book, I was looking for the book, This is the book
which I was looking for)
COG: Saw each sentence, 2.5 minutes.
Procedure…

Scan. Re-scan paragraph in order to be
able to answer two questions about it, then
write out a summary (NL).
CoG
Pretest
S
SU do
IO
OP GE OC
9
+
+
+
+
+
-
8
+
+
-
+
+
-
10
+
-
-
-
-
-
13
+
-
-
-
-
-
12
-
-
-
-
-
-
11
-
-
-
-
-
-
S
SU do
IO
OP GE OC
3
+
+
-
-
-
-
5
+
-
-
+
-
-
21
+
-
-
+
-
-
7
+
-
-
-
-
-
S
SU do
IO
OP GE OC
2
+
-
-
-
-
-
17
+
+
-
-
+
-
6
+
-
-
-
-
-
20
+
-
-
-
-
-
4
+
-
-
-
-
-
15
+
-
-
-
-
-
1
-
-
-
-
-
-
19
-
-
-
-
-
-
14
-
-
-
-
-
-
16
-
-
-
-
-
-
MOG
ROG
CoG
Posttest
S
SU do
IO
OP GE OC
9
+
+
+
+
+
+
8
+
+
+
+
+
+
10
+
+
-
+
-
-
13
+
-
-
-
+
-
12
+
-
-
-
-
-
11
-
-
-
-
-
-
S
SU do
IO
OP GE OC
3
+
+
+
+
+
+
5
+
+
+
+
+
+
21
+
+
+
+
+
+
7
+
+
+
+
+
+
S
SU do
IO
OP GE OC
2
+
+
+
+
-
-
17
+
+
+
+
+
+
6
+
+
+
+
-
-
20
+
+
-
+
+
+
4
+
-
-
-
-
-
15
+
+
-
-
-
-
1
+
+
-
-
-
-
19
+
+
+
+
-
-
14
+
-
-
-
-
-
16
+
-
-
-
-
-
MOG
ROG
Group mean gain scores
40
MOG
ROG
CoG
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
SU
DO
IO
OP
GEN
OC
Results





Both experimental groups showed strong positive effects
(“Second Language Instruction Does Make a Difference”).
The control group did too (simply from exposure) but not
as dramatic.
Both types of instruction appear to be equally effective
with respect to gain in relativization ability.
Comprehension-wise, MOG scored 70.01 vs. ROG’s 43.68
and CoG’s 40.64. Significant.
Subjects improved basically following the NPAH by being
taught just a marked position.
Comments

Note that:
ROG subjects improved in their ability to
relativize, yet didn’t do so well on the
comprehension tests—meaning isn’t utmost in
getting the structural rules.
 MOG subjects got the structural properties
even though not directly instructed in them
(meaning didn’t get in the way).

What about markednessbased shortcuts?




It looks like training them on OPREP
successfully brought subjects to be able to
relativize on everything higher (Subj., Dir. Obj.,
Indir. Obj.).
But mysteriously, many people also seemed to
get OCOMP by the post-test.
Interlanguage grammars do seem to obey the
typological requirements on languages (NPAH).
Is genitive mis-analyzed in the NPAH typological
work, given that it seems to be gotten early…?
Transfer, markedness, …

Do (2002) looked at the NPAH going the
other way, EnglishKorean.
English: Relativizes on all 6 positions.
 Korean: Relativizes on 5 (not OCOMP)


Found a very similar
pattern to what we
saw from Doughty’s
experiment.
S
SU do
IO
OP GE
13
+
+
+
+
+
14
+
+
+
+
-
16
+
+
+
-
-
29
+
+
-
-
-
31
+
-
-
-
-
20
-
-
-
-
-
Transfer, markedness, …



The original question Do was looking at
was: Do English speakers transfer their
position on the NPAH to the IL Korean?
But look: If English allows all 6 positions,
why do some of the learners only relativize
down to DO, some to IO, some to
OPREP?
We haven’t even reached the question of
transfer yet—it looks like they start over.
Subset principle?
A tempting analogy… in some
cases, parameters seem to be
ranked in terms of how
permissive each setting is.

I
E
Null subject parameter
Option (a): Null subjects are permitted.
 Option (b): Null subjects are not permitted.


Italian = option a, English = option b.
Reminder: Subset Principle

The idea is




If one has only positive evidence, and
If parameters are organized in terms of
permissiveness,
Then for a parameter setting to be learnable,
the starting point needs to be the subset
setting of the parameter.
The Subset principle says that learners
should start with the English setting of the
null subject parameter and move to the
Italian setting if evidence appears.
I
E
Reminder: Subset Principle




The Subset Principle is basically that learners
are conservative—they only assume a
grammar sufficient to generate the sentences
they hear, allowing positive evidence to serve to
move them to a different parameter setting.
Applied to L2: Given a choice, the L2’er
assumes a grammatical option that generates a
subset of the what the alternative generates.
Does this describe L2A?
Is this a useful sense of markedness?
Subset principle and
markedness

Based on the Subset principle, we’d expect the
unmarked values (in a UG where languages are
learnable) to be the ones which produce the
“smallest” grammars.

Given that in L1A we don’t seem to see any
“misset” parameters, we have at least indirect
evidence that the Subset principle is at work. Is
there any evidence for it in L2A? Do these NPAH
results constitute such evidence?
Subset vs. Transfer


The Subset Principle, if it operating, would say
that L2A starts with all of the defaults, the
maximally conservative grammar.
Another, mutually exclusive possibility (parameter
by parameter, anyway) is that L2A starts with the
L1 setting.


This means that for certain pairs of L1 and L2, where
the L1 has the marked (superset) value and L2 has the
unmarked (subset) value, only negative evidence could
move the L2’er to the right setting.
Or, some mixture of the two in different areas.
NPAH and processing?


At least a plausible alternative to the NPAH results
following from the Subset Principle is just that
relative clauses formed on positions lower in the
hierarchy are harder to process. Consider:
The astronaut…






who [IP t met me yesterday]
who [IP I [VP met t yesterday]]
who [IP I [VP gave a book [PP to t ]]]
who [IP I was [VP talking [PP about t ]]]
whose house [IP I [VP like [DP t ’s house]]]
who [IP I am [AP brave [degP -er [thanP than t ]]]]
SUB
DO
IO
OPREP
GEN
OCOMP
NPAH and processing?


If it’s about processing, then the reason
L2’ers progress through the “hierarchy”
might be that initially they have limited
processing room—they’re working too
hard at the L2 to be able to process such
deep extractions.
Why are they working so hard?

(Well, maybe L2A is like learning calculus?)
NPAH and processing?





Is the NPAH itself simply a result of processing?
The NPAH is a typological generalization about
languages not about the course of acquisition.
Does Arabic have a lower threshhold for
processing difficulty than English? Doubtful.
The NPAH may still be real, still be a
markedness hierarchy based in something
grammatical, but it turns out to be confounded
by processing.
So finding evidence of NPAH position transfer is
very difficult.
Subset problems?

One problem, though, is that many of the
parameters of variation we think of today don’t
seem to be really in a subset-superset relation.
So there has to be something else going on in
these cases anyway.

VT



Yes: √SVAO, *SAVO
No: *SVAO, √SAVO
Anaphor type


Monomorphemic: √LD, *Non-subject
Polymorphemic: *LD, √Non-subject
Mazurkewich (1984)




John gave a book to Mary
John gave Mary a book.
“unmarked”
“marked”
To whom did John give a book? “unmarked”?
Who did John give a book to?
“marked”

Assuming that the second of each pair is marked,
Mazurkewich asked about timing of each in L2A.

But although maybe more languages allow the first of
each pair than the second, the pied-piping example should
make us suspicious. Sounds kind of stilted for being the
unmarked option…
Mazurkewich (1984)




French-->English and Inuktitut-->English
French lacks pied-piping and double-object
constructions.
Inuktitut is different enough that it is hard to
find an analog to either the marked or
unmarked constructions. (or so it is claimed)
Did the L2’ers prefer the unmarked
structures? Did they acquire them first?
Mazurkewich (1984)




French-L1 beginners do appear to “prefer” the
unmarked structures (2-to-1), and the marked
structures gain ground as L2’ers become more
advanced.
But French lacks the marked structure; did they
“start with the unmarked structure” or did they
“start with the structure of their L1”?
As for Inuktitut, they weakly “preferred” the
unmarked structures (beginners 77% to 98%).
Not very dramatic, not very convincing.
Mazurkewich (1984)

Worse, on a different task (“question the italicized
phrase”), although the French speakers showed
a moderate preference for “unmarked” (piedpiping) structures, the Inuktitut speakers
showed a preference for the marked
structure.

However, it could be that the whole experiment
isn’t getting at what we want. The controls
preferred the marked structure 3 or 4-to-1, so
these “unmarked” structures seem to be marked
from a language-internal perspective. Plus, this
Problems so far

If L1 has an “unmarked” value for something
and L2 has a “marked” value, if the L2’er
prefers (or, better, learns more quickly) the
“unmarked” value, it could be either transfer
or reverting to an unmarked value.

The actual marked/unmarked set must be
convincingly chosen—means nothing if
we aren’t actually looking at
marked/unmarked.
Best test would be…




Find a convincing marked vs. unmarked
pair, …
Find an L2 which allows only the marked
option, …
Test speakers of an L1 which also only
allows the marked option, …
…and see if L2’ers use/accept the
unmarked option early on.
Liceras (1985, 1986)

Another potential marked/unmarked
pair:
Allows Ø comp. (marked; English)
 Disallows Ø comp. (unmarked; Spanish)


EnglishSpanish
Beginners: 49% acceptance of Ø comp.
 Intermediate: 25% acceptance.
 Advanced: 9% acceptance.


Looks like transfer (not initial
Schwartz (1993)

Back to the questions:




How is a L2 acquired?
Is L2 knowledge like native knowledge?
Supposing it is, then knowing the rules isn’t really part of
knowing the language.
Of course, you can learn the rules and consciously follow
them. But is that knowing English?




Prepositions are things you don’t end a sentence with.
Strive to not split your infinitives.
Don’t be so immodest as to say I and John left; say John
and I left instead.
Impact is not a verb.
Schwartz (1993)

Schwartz distinguishes two kinds of knowledge:

Learned linguistic knowledge


I want to definitely avoid splitting my infinitives.
Competence

*Who did John laugh after asking whether I spread the
rumor that bought the coffee?
L1A



UG (the range of possible languages/grammars)
LAD (a system for getting from the data to the
particular parameter setting for the target
language—not a conscious process, nor available
to conscious introspection)
PLD (positive input)

Would it help the LAD to get rules explicitly?
(“Use do to avoid stranding tense in Infl”; “Don’t extract
an embedded subject out from under an overt
complementizer”; “You want the other spoon.”)
L2A

If L1AD can’t really use this information, why would
we necessarily think that the rules we learn in
French class are in the right form to “be absorbed”
by the L2AD, if such a thing exists…?

That is: L2 has things about it which can only be
learned with the help of negative evidence (or an
L2AD). Yet this doesn’t guarantee that negative
evidence will help.
How can we tell the difference
between LLK and
competence?

(Well-formulated) parameters have wideranging effects. For example, verb raising:
*X: F question can’t use do-support.
 Y: F adverbs ok between V and Obj.


Train subjects on *X. If they reset the
parameter, a) they should “automatically”
know Y as well, and b) they can use
negative evidence.
Schwartz’s model
LAD
KoL
blah blah blah
So why does it seem to be
useful to be taught the rules?


Perhaps—knowing the rules (though it is
LLK) allows you in a way to generate your
own PLD. It’s that PLD, the output of using
the rules, which the “L2AD” can make use
of when constructing KoL.
This might explain the apparent truth that
practicing helps a lot more than just
memorizing the rules…?
Krashen’s “Monitor Model”

An early and influential model of second
language acquisition was the “Monitor
Model”, based on five basic hypotheses:
The Acquisition-Learning Hypothesis
 The Monitor Hypothesis
 The Natural Order Hypothesis
 The Input Hypothesis
 The Affective Filter Hypothesis

The Acquisition-Learning
Hypothesis





Acquisition and Learning are different.
Acquisition refers to the (subconscious) internalizing of
implicit rules, the result of meaningful naturalistic
interaction using the language.
Learning refers to the conscious process that results in
knowing about the language, e.g., the result of classroom
experience with explicit rules. (LLK)
That is, you can learn without acquiring (or acquire without
learning).
Krashen hypothesizes that learned and acquired rules are
stored differently; one cannot eventually be converted into
the other; they are simply different.

Perhaps, or maybe the speculation on the previous slide was right.
The Natural Order Hypothesis


Acquisition proceeds in a “natural order” (i.e. the
order of morpheme acquisition discussed
earlier).
This says nothing about learning, only
acquisition.

Also: Krashen’s actual hypothesis is based on posthoc analysis of the order L2’er do seem to acquire
these morphemes—there’s no underlying theoretical
machinery. That’s not to say that there couldn’t be
some, of course.
The Monitor Hypothesis

A linguistic expression originates in the
system of acquired knowledge, but prior to
output a “Monitor” checks it against
consciously known rules and may modify
the expression before it is uttered.
Learned
competence
(the Monitor)
Acquired
competence
output
The Monitor Hypothesis

For the Monitor to work, you need to



Be able to focus on the form (time, attention)
Know the rule
So, under pressure (e.g., time pressure), the
Monitor may not be operating…
Learned
competence
(the Monitor)
Acquired
competence
output
The Monitor Hypothesis

The Monitor would probably be the place
where things like “don’t split infinitives” and
“don’t end a sentence with a preposition”
live as well.
Learned
competence
(the Monitor)
Acquired
competence
output
The Input Hypothesis

The Input Hypothesis draws on the Natural
Order Hypothesis; the idea is that there is
a natural order of acquisition, but in order
to advance from one step to the next, a
learner needs to get comprehensible input,
input which provides evidence for the
stage one level past the learners’ current
level. The idea is that only this level of
input is useful for the advancement of
acquisition.
The Input Hypothesis



Krashen’s view on acquisition: Speaking does
not cause acquisition, it is the result of
acquisition, having built competence on the
basis of comprehensible input.
If input is at the right level and comes in
sufficient quantity, the necessary grammar is
automatically acquired.
The language teacher’s main role, then, is to
provide adequate amounts of comprehensible
input for the language learners.

Let’s stick to the model and not the politics here…
Input ≠ intake



Inuktitut—input:
Qasuiirsarvigssarsingitluinarnarpuq
‘Someone did not find a completely suitable
resting place.’
tired cause.be suitable not
someone
Qasu-iir-sar-vig-ssar-si-ngit-luinar-nar-puq
not place.for find completely 3sg
Input ≠ intake

After three long nights of gripning, John finally
found his slipwoggle.

Knowing so much about the rest of the sentence
can tell us quite a bit about the parts we don’t
know yet. (Slipwoggle is a noun, a possessible
thing; to gripen(?) is a verb, a process that one
can perform over an extended period of time). We
can then make use of this to build our language
knowledge (here, vocabulary).
Input ≠ intake



(Krashen) Learner must get comprehensible
input (mixture of structures acquired and
structures not yet acquired) to advance.
Input: What is available to the learner.
Intake: Input that is used in grammarbuilding.
What makes input into
intake?

Apperception: Recognizing the gap between what L2’er
knows and what there is to know.

Comprehensibility: Either the semantic meaning is
determinable or the relevant structural aspects are
determinable.
Attention: Selecting aspects of the knowledge to be
learned (from among many other possible things) for
processing.
Output: Forcing a structural hypothesis, elsewhere used
to shape input into a form useful for intake.


Input  apperception


Some input is apperceived, some isn’t.
That which isn’t is thought of as blocked
by various “filters”:
Time pressure
 Frequency non-extremes
 Affective (status, motivation, attitude, …)
 Prior knowledge (grounding, analyzability)
 Salience (drawing attention)

The Affective Filter
Hypothesis

Another aspect of the need for
comprehensible input is that it must be “let
in” by the learner. Various “affective”
factors like motivation, anxiety, can “block”
input and keep it from effectively
producing acquisition.
The overall model

Although Krashen’s “Monitor Model”
suffers from a lack of specific testable
details, it has had a significant impact on
L2A research, and has an intuitive appeal.
An interesting idea
(courtesy of Carol Neidle)

If you were to learn French, you would be
taught conjugations of regular and
irregular verbs. Regular -er verbs have a
pattern that looks like this:
Infinitive: donner ‘give’
 1sg
je donne 1pl nous donnons
 2sg
tu donnes 2pl vous donnez
 3sg
il donne
3pl ils donnent

Some French “irregulars”





Infinitive: donner ‘give’
1sg
je donne
1pl
2sg
tu donnes
2pl
3sg
il donne
3pl
nous donnons
vous donnez
ils donnent
Another class of verbs including acheter ‘buy’ is
classified as irregular, because the vowel quality
changes through the paradigm.




Infinitive: ceder ‘yield’
1sg
je cède
2sg
tu cèdes
2pl
3sg
il cède
3pl
1pl
nous cédons
vous cédez
ils cèdent
Some French “irregulars”





Infinitive: donner ‘give’
1sg
je donne
1pl
2sg
tu donnes
2pl
3sg
il donne
3pl
nous donnons
vous donnez
ils donnent
The way it’s usually taught, you just have to
memorize that in the nous and vous form you
have “é” and in the others you have “è”.




Infinitive: ceder ‘yield’
1sg
je cète
1pl
2sg
tu cètes
2pl
3sg
il cète
3pl
nous cédons
vous cédez
ils cèdent
Some French “irregulars”




However, the pattern makes perfect phonological sense in
French—if you have a closed syllable (CVC), you get è,
otherwise you get é.
[sd] (cède)
[se.de] (cédez)
So why is this considered irregular?
Because in English, you think of the sounds in cédez as
[sed.de], due to the rules of English phonology.




Infinitive: ceder ‘yield’
1sg
je cède
2sg
tu cèdes
3sg
il cède
1pl
2pl
3pl
nous cédons
vous cédez
ils cèdent
Some French “irregulars”



Because in English, you think of the sounds in cédez as
[sed.de], due to the rules of English phonology.
Since in all of these cases, English phonology would have
closed syllables, there’s no generalization to be drawn—
sometimes closed syllables have é and sometimes they
have è.
What could we do?




Infinitive: ceder ‘yield’
1sg
je cède [sed] 1pl
2sg
tu cèdes [sed] 2pl
3sg
il cède [sed] 3pl
nous cédons
vous cédez
ils cèdent
[sed.dõ]
[sed.de]
[sed]
Some French “irregulars”


If people are really “built for language” and are able to pick
up language implicitly (as seems to be the case from
everything we’ve been looking at), then if people are
provided with the right linguistic data, they will more or
less automatically learn the generalization.
Problem is: The English filter on the French data is
obscuring the pattern, and hiding the generalization.




Infinitive: ceder ‘yield’
1sg
je cède [sed] 1pl
2sg
tu cèdes [sed] 2pl
3sg
il cède [sed] 3pl
nous cédons
vous cédez
ils cèdent
[sed.dõ]
[sed.de]
[sed]
Some French “irregulars”


Something to try: Provide people with the right data, see if
they pick up the pronunciation. Perhaps: exaggerate
syllabification. (attention) Perhaps try to instill this aspect
of the phonology first.
Et voilà. Perhaps this will make these “irregulars” as easy
to learn as regulars!

The downside: I have no idea if this would actually work.

Infinitive: ceder ‘yield’
1sg
je cède “sed” 1pl
2sg
tu cèdes “sed” 2pl
3sg
il cède “sed” 3pl



nous cédons
vous cédez
ils cèdent
“se—dõ”
“se—de”
“sed”
“Incomprehensible input”

So this is another way in which input might
be “incomprehensible”—not that it is
inherently incomprehensible (i.e. not that it
would be incomprehensible to a L1’er), but
that the prism of the L1 is getting in the
way of seeing the data for what it really is.
Some critiques on record re:
the Monitor Model

Are acquired and learned rules really stored so separately
that they cannot interact? Gass & Selinker’s textbook
points out that “it is counterintuitive to hypothesize that
nothing learned in a formal situation can be a candidate
for [fluent, unconscious speech]”.

But this doesn’t seem to be a very persuasive objection—
First, counterintuitiveness is not an argument. Second,
even if formal, learned rules are stored completely
separately, nothing prevents the use of these rules in
production from providing input to the acquisition system,
providing an indirect “conversion” of knowledge.
Some critiques on record re:
the Monitor Model

G&S also observe (attributing the objection to Gregg)
that in Krashen’s model, the Monitor only affects output
(speech, writing), but anecdotal evidence for use of
formally learned rules in decoding heard utterances is
easy to come by.

Perhaps this is true of Krashen’s particular statement,
but there seems to be no need to toss out all aspects of
his hypotheses based on an oversight of this sort—it
seems easily repairable by extending the model to allow
learned competence to also monitor input and provide
input to the acquired competence.

Of course, Krashen may have meant it, but that’s irrelevant. He’s
one guy with good ideas and bad ideas like anyone.
Some critiques on record re:
the Monitor Model

Most of the objections to the Monitor Model focus on the
impreciseness of the hypotheses; although Krashen may
not have treated them this way, they clearly must be
used only as a starting point, a way to think about the
process of L2A.

Further research in this direction needs to be focused on
trying to refine the existing “hypotheses” to yield testable
(falsifiable) hypotheses with a higher degree of
specificity.









