Sie sind auf Seite 1von 28

The Universal

Hypothesis
Aranda Martnez Luis Fernando Quintanar Ruiz Edher Gonzalo
Fragoso Tellez Jhoanna Karina Trejo Cervantes Derick Noe
Martnez Osorio Teresa Eridani
1. Linguistic Universals and L1 Transfer

2. The Transfer of L1 Unmarked Forms

3. The Non-transfer of L1 Marked Forms

4. Some Problems with the Universal


Hypothesis

5. Summary and Conclusion


Linguistic Universals
and L1 Transfer
The Transfer of L1
Unmarked Forms
Zobl : Transfer functions only as an
<auxiliary evaluation measure>.

Transfer assumes control when the projection device: is unable to set a


particular parameter of grammar.

The learners falls back on his L1 knowledge when the L2


rule is obscure.
Causes of Obscurity
L2 is typologically inconsistent: Typological Indeterminacy:
The universal relationships The location of a particular
between rules are not parameter is personal.
evident in the L2.

The learner solves this The learner solves this


problem by turning to his problem by turning to his
L1. L1.
For Zolb:

L1 influence will be found only in peripheral rules

Transfer will occur when the L1 structure is obscure

The condition for transfer to take place is


Eckman (1997):

Transfer effects are most in evidence when the L1 setting is


unmarked and the L2 setting marked.

The Markedness Differential Hypothesis: The areas of the target


language which will be difficult are those ones which are both
(different from and marked than the L1)
Kellerman (1984):

Where the L1 pattern corresponds with a universal developmental


stage in SLA, the learner may proceed to that stage faster than
learners whose L1s do not have the pattern.

Hammarberg (1979)
Negation in English learners of L2 Swedish ( Same pattern: Subject + main verb
+ negation + complement).
English: He is not here Swedish: Han r inte hr

Negation in Spanish learners of L2 English (Different pattern: Subject +


negation + main verb + complement).
Spanish: No est aqu English: He is not here
The Non-transfer of L1
Marked Forms
The non-transfer of L1 marked forms

Arguments and evidence support that the non-transfer of L1 marked


forms, they are by no means definitive.

Kellerman learners tends to avoid one-to-one correspondences


between the L1 and L2 when meanings are considered far from
prototypical , even though error can result.

U-shaped behavior error frecuency following a low-high-low


pattern as development takes place.
This shows that learners initially transfer both marked and
unmarked features.

The acceptance or rejection of L1 peripheral features may be


complicated by developmental factors.

Liceras (1984) say that non-transfer of marked forms is mixed.


Learners carry over marked constructions from the L1 to the L2.
The theory of markedness offers a number of interesting and plausible
hypotheses the role of transfer in SLA, but there is no agreement
regarding the precise nature of the interaction between L1 and L2
features from the point of view of linguistics universals.
Some Problems with
the Universal
Hypothesis

The universal hypothesis:


An attempt to explain how linguistic factors operate in
interlanguage or in SLA.
Even though these factors show a big tendency to be
universal, this hypothesis cant be taken as proven,
because of a number of problems which are going to be
mentioned in the next slide.
1. Linguistic universals must be seen to have psycholinguistic
validity if they are to be treated as a determinant of SLA:

How human mind works.

Chomskys concept of universal grammar.


2. The distinction between acquisition and development:

How can they be separated.

No obvious reason.
3. Chomskys poverty of the stimulus argument:

Degenerate input.

Data-driven hypothesis dont explain LA.


4. The cavalier attitude to markedness (Kellerman, 1984):

Pro-drop (marked, white) (unmarked, Hyams).

Doubtful markedness for empirical research.


5. Competence by Chomsky:

Performance as a window for competence.

Error patterns.
Summary and
Conclusion
The Universal Hypothesis states that there are linguistic
universals which determine the course of SLA as follows:

1. Linguistic universals impose constrains on the form that


interlanguages can take.

2. Learners find it easier to acquire patterns that conform to


linguistic universals that those that do not. The linguistic
markdness of L2 rules explains the developmental route.

3. Where the L1 manifests linguistic universals, it is likely to assist


interlanguage development through transfer.
Linguistic universals have been investigated by the in-deth study
of a single language:

Those working in this tradition argue that there is a Universal


Grammar that constrains the kind of hypotheses that the
learner can form and that it is innate.
An alternative approach to investigating linguistic universals is
to study a large number of languages in order to discover
typological universals.
In both L1 and L2 acquisition the effect of linguistic universals has
been investigated primary in terms of the markeness theory.

This states that some rules are unmarked or weakly marked and
others marked or more strongly marked.

Various criteria have been proposed for determining the markedness


or a rule.
Chomsky proposes that an unmarked rule is one that requires no or
minimal triggering from the environment.

A typologycal universal or a strong universal tendency can also be


considered as unmarked.

Language acquisition proceeds by mastering the easier unmarked


properties before the difficult marked ones.
In SLA there is also evidence to suggest that when the L2 rule is
marked, the learner will turn to his L1, particulary is this has an
equivalent unmarked rule.

The evidence in support of the Universal Hypothesis is inclusive.

Number of theorical and methodological problems.

The Hypothesis tends to discount pragmatic explanations and ignores


variability in interlanguage.

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen