1Week 3b. UG and L2A:Access and transfer hypothesesCAS LX 400Second Language AcquisitionUG and L2A• There are conflicting suggestions in what we’veseen so far with respect to UG and its involvementin L2A.• First, there is the evidence of a sensitive/criticalperiod, which seems to indicate that whatever it isthat makes L1A easy for kids is missing or veryweak in adult L2 learners.• Yet, there is evidence that L2A progresses insimilar stages, suggesting that there is somebiological component as well.L2A vs L1A• There are several differences in thesituations of L2A and L1A. Among them:– L2 learners are more cognitively mature.– L2 learners already know at least one language.– L2 learners have highly variable motivationsfor learning a second language“Access” hypotheses• No access hypothesis. UG is not involved in L2A.– The end of the critical period marks the end of theavailability of UG for language learning purposes.• Full access hypothesis. UG does not change; it is“accessed directly” during L2A.– L1A and L2A are fundamentally similar processes.• Indirect access hypothesis. UG per se is not involved inL2A, but UG shaped L1 and so properties of UGreflected in L1 are available during L2A.• Partial access hypothesis. Only part of UG is availablefor L2A; some parts are unavailable (for example,some parameter setting options).“Transfer” hypotheses• Where does L2A start? What is the initialstate of second language acquisition?• A L2’er has a first language already…whateffect does this have? The first language is(under the Principles & Parameters view)grammatically described as a set ofparameter settings—what role do the L1settings play?“Transfer” hypotheses• Full Transfer: The initial parameter settings (andprinciple inventory) are transferred from L1. L1 is thestarting point for the L2 IL.• No Transfer: The initial parameter settings (andprinciple inventory) are independent from the L1.Parameters are either unset or set to some kind ofuniversal default.• Partial Transfer: Some of the parameter settings (andprinciple inventory) are transferred from L1, some arenot.2Transfer• Commonsense intuitive notions of L2Asuggest that transfer plays a significant role;that you approach second language learning“starting from” your native language.• This would suggest that learning a “nearby”language should be easier—most parametersettings would be set correctly and wouldnot require adjustment in the IL.Transfer• The idea that a “nearby” language might be easier tolearn sounds in a way similar to Contrastive Analysis,but in this context it is a better defined enterprise. Wecan measure distance between languages in terms ofspecific parameter values. We can say what counts as“the same difference” (part of a cluster ofparametrically-related properties) and what doesn’t.• We can get at questions of what is transferred bylooking at what/whether properties of L2A seem to beaffected by the L1 of the second language learner.Access/Transfer• We can now list the basic hypotheses out there whichwe will want to explore and evaluate (not includingretreats to partial transfer and/or access).• Full transfer/No access: L2 knowledge isfundamentally different from L1 knowledge, based onL1 knowledge plus conversion rules.• Full transfer/Full access: L2A is as flexible as L1A,with L1 as the starting point. L1 and L2 “distance”should affect ease/course of acquisition.• No transfer/Full access: L2A is as flexible as L1A, andthe learner’s L1 should not have an effect.Access hypotheses• The model these hypotheses work with isessentially that UG provides a blueprint or atemplate for languages, which is used tocreate a concrete instantiation of alanguage.•Principles•Parm 1: — (A, B)•Parm 2: — (A, B, C)•…•Active Principles•Parm 1: A•Parm 2: B•…UGL1L1AAccess hypotheses• Once L1 has been instantiated, the templatemight become unavailable. In this case, theonly available information about whatlanguages are like is what’s instantiated inL1.•Principles•Parm 1: — (A, B)•Parm 2: — (A, B, C)•…•Active Principles•Parm 1: A•Parm 2: B•…UGL1Access hypotheses• This is essentially the view of no access and indirectaccess.– Indirect access supposes that the principles and parameters ofL1 are available in forming an instantiation of L2– No access supposes that L2A does not even have directaccess to L1; presumably everything L2-related is translatedthrough L1, the mapping is learned in another way.•Principles•Parm 1: — (A, B)•Parm 2: — (A, B, C)•…•Active Principles•Parm 1: A•Parm 2: B•…UGL13Access hypotheses• The full accesshypothesis supposesthat the template is stillavailable to instantiatethe same way L1 wasinstantiated.•Principles•Parm 1: — (A, B)•Parm 2: — (A, B, C)•…•Active Principles•Parm 1: A•Parm 2: B•…UGL1L1A•Active Principles•Parm 1: B•Parm 2: A•…L2L2AAccess hypotheses• The partial accesshypothesis supposes thatcertain parts of the templateare no longer available(fixed in the L1 settings)but other parts can still beused to instantiate L2.•Principles•Parm 1: — (A, B)•Parm 2: — (A, B, C)•…•Active Principles•Parm 1: A•Parm 2: B•…UGL1L1A•Active Principles•Parm 1: A•Parm 2: B•…L2L2ADistinguishing between accesshypotheses• The no access hypothesis takes L2A to be a general learningprocess, not constrained by properties of UG.• As such, we do not expect the IL of second languagelearners to conform to the specifications of UG. Part of themotivation for UG was that language has complex structureunderdetermined by the evidence, and without UG guidancewe would expect that the IL would be free to exhibitproperties unlike any natural language (L1).• So we look for “wildness” in the IL grammar of secondlanguage learners—for indications of grammar which wouldnot qualify as an L1.Distinguishing between accesshypotheses• The full access hypothesis, on the otherhand, predicts that IL grammars of secondlanguage learners, while not the grammar ofthe target language, will still conform to therestrictions UG places on natural languages.It will operate under the same principles,and it will have parameters which are set toa setting which is possible in naturallanguage.Distinguishing between accesshypotheses• The indirect access hypothesis predicts thatsecond language learners will have