Universal Grammar and Second Language Acquisition

Dear Colleagues,

Lively debates in the 1990s explored questions about the nature of access to Universal Grammar in Second Language Acquisition (see White, 2003 for review). It is not clear that these debates were ever definitively resolved in favour of full access or no/partial access models, with continued discussion of each type of position (e.g., Bley Vroman 2009; Schwartz & Sprouse, 2021; Snape et al. 2009). Given developments in the wider field of generative SLA research in the meantime, the aim of this special issue is to return to questions of the nature and role of UG in SLA considering recent empirical and theoretical advances.

One area which has seen much progress is investigation of UG and previously learned languages in multilingual acquisition and the similarities or differences between L2, L3, Ln acquisition (see Schwartz & Sprouse, 2021 and Westergaard, 2021 as well as the commentaries on each paper). This research contextualises SLA within a wider multilingual acquisition paradigm and can provide fresh perspectives on the question of the role of UG in SLA. 

The exploration of non-native processing has also been a research focus. Such work might have an explicit commitment to UG and seek to integrate processing and parsing within generative theory (e.g., Dekydtspotter & Renaud, 2014). Other research may assume qualitative similarity in native and non-native processing, perhaps implicitly assuming that linguistic representations are UG-constrained and seeking to locate performance issues in multilingual processing limitations such as working memory (Juffs, 2004) or lexical access (Hopp, 2017). Still other processing research assumes qualitative differences in non-native processing, proposing that L2 sentence processing can only ever compute less detailed, “shallow” syntactic representations (Clahsen & Felser, 2006), with obvious consequences for the sort of linguistic representations which can possibly result. 

Processing issues, or more general mapping issues, have also been invoked in further models of L2 development. The Interface Hypothesis (Sorace, 2011) assumes that integrating grammar and discourse will prove difficult in L2 acquisition, possibly due to limitations on processing resources. Behavioural differences between L1 and late L2 performance have been assigned to the mapping between underlying linguistic representations and surface morphophonological forms (the Missing Surface Inflection Hypothesis, Prévost & White, 2000).  Mapping between underlying features, semantics and overt morphological forms is also invoked by Feature Reassembly (Lardiere, 2009) and the Bottleneck Hypothesis (Slabakova, 2008). In these cases, there is continuity between native and non-native acquisition in terms of UG access, but constructing target representations is complicated by transfer of L1 properties and issues arise assigning surface forms to underlying representations.

This focus on mapping/interface issues reflects wider theoretical development with respect to the nature of UG. A Minimalist conception which limits UG in essence to a structure building operation such as Merge necessarily leads to greater focus on the interfaces of the grammar with production and comprehension. In light of an innate language faculty which is less elaborated, factors which are not specific to language have a greater role to play in explaining the nature of human language, specifically experience and general principles of cognition and computation (Chomsky, 2005). In addition to these general developments in generative theory and concomitant progress in acquisition research, one might also explore in further detail the relevance of specific contemporary models of syntax, for instance Cartography, Nanosyntax, Parameter Hierarchies, etc. And this in turn raises the perennial question of the nature of the relationship between syntactic theory and generative SLA (White, 1995).

Given the range of advances in the areas outlined above, the time would be ripe to invite reconsideration of the role and nature of UG in non-native acquisition. We invite conceptual and empirical contributions addressing issues such as the following:

• How do we conceptualise the role of UG in contemporary generative SLA? What is the role of the L1 or other previously learned languages?
• What is the division of labour in explanation of properties of non-native language acquisition between UG and second or third factors?
• What is the evidence base for UG-constrained representations (for instance how to empirically distinguish representational deficits from processing effects)?
• How can statistical learning and input effects be reconciled with UG in non-native language acquisition?
• What is the relationship between specific models of syntactic theory and non-native acquisition: do models of syntactic theory provide novel or falsifiable predictions for non-native acquisition?

We request that, prior to submitting a manuscript, interested authors initially submit a proposed title and an abstract of 400-600 words summarizing their intended contribution. Please send it to the guest editor ([email protected]) or to Languages editorial office ([email protected]). Abstracts will be reviewed by the guest editor for the purposes of ensuring proper fit within the scope of the special issue. Full manuscripts will undergo double-blind peer-review.

References

Bley-Vroman, R. (2009). The evolving context of the fundamental difference hypothesis. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 31(2), 175–198.

Chomsky, N. (2005). Three Factors in Language Design. Linguistic Inquiry, 36(1), 1–22.

Clahsen, H., & Felser, C. (2006). Grammatical processing in language learners. Applied Psycholinguistics, 27(1), 3–42.

Dekydtspotter, L. & Renaud, C. (2014). On second language processing and grammatical development: The parser in second language acquisition. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 4(2), 131–165

Hopp, H. (2017). Cross-linguistic lexical and syntactic co-activation in L2 sentence processing. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 7(1), 96–130.

Juffs, A. (2004). Representation, processing and working memory in a second language. Transactions of the Philological Society, 102, 199–225.

Lardiere, D. (2009). Some thoughts on the contrastive analysis of features in second language acquisition. Second Language Research, 25(2), 173–227.

Prévost, P., & White, L. (2000). Missing surface inflection or impairment in second language acquisition? Evidence from tense and agreement. Second Language Research, 16(2), 103–133.

Schwartz, B. D., & Sprouse, R. A. (2013). Generative approaches and the poverty of the stimulus. In J. Herschensohn & M. Young-Scholten (Eds.). The Cambridge Handbook of Second Language Acquisition. (pp. 137–158). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Schwartz, B. D., & Sprouse, R. A. (2021). The full transfer/full access model and L3 cognitive states. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 11(1), 1-29.

Slabakova, R. (2008). Meaning in the second language. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

Snape, N., Leung, Y. I., & Sharwood Smith, M. (Eds.) (2009). Representational Deficits in SLA: Studies in Honor of Roger Hawkins. John Benjamins Publishing.

Sorace, A. (2011). Pinning down the concept of “interface” in bilingualism. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 1(1), 1–33.

Westergaard, M. (2021). Microvariation in multilingual situations: The importance of property-by-property acquisition. Second Language Research, 37(3), 379–407

White, L. (1995). Chasing after linguistic theory: How minimal should we be? In L. Eubank, L. Selinker, & M. Sharwood Smith (Eds.). The current state of interlanguage: Studies in honor of William E. Rutherford. (pp. 63-71). John Benjamins Publishing.

White, L. (2003). Second Language Acquisition and Universal Grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Prof. Dr. Tom Rankin
Guest Editor

Manuscript Submission Information

Manuscripts should be submitted online at www.mdpi.com by registering and logging in to this website. Once you are registered, click here to go to the submission form. Manuscripts can be submitted until the deadline. All submissions that pass pre-check are peer-reviewed. Accepted papers will be published continuously in the journal (as soon as accepted) and will be listed together on the special issue website. Research articles, review articles as well as short communications are invited. For planned papers, a title and short abstract (about 100 words) can be sent to the Editorial Office for announcement on this website.

Submitted manuscripts should not have been published previously, nor be under consideration for publication elsewhere (except conference proceedings papers). All manuscripts are thoroughly refereed through a double-blind peer-review process. A guide for authors and other relevant information for submission of manuscripts is available on the Instructions for Authors page. Languages is an international peer-reviewed open access monthly journal published by MDPI.

Please visit the Instructions for Authors page before submitting a manuscript. The Article Processing Charge (APC) for publication in this open access journal is 1400 CHF (Swiss Francs). Submitted papers should be well formatted and use good English. Authors may use MDPI's English editing service prior to publication or during author revisions.

• universal grammar
• SLA
• language acquisition
• generative theory
• cross-linguistic influence