GROUP 5

ANNIS LUTHFIANA 2201410051

AULYA PURNAWIDHA D. 2201410053

FITA ARIYANA 2201410075

CHAPTER 7

LINGUISTIC ASPECTS OF

INTERLANGUAGE

BY: ROD ELLIS

Languages vary in whether they have relative

clauses structures. This linguistic difference

influences the ease with which learners are able to

learn relative clauses.

TYPOLOGICAL UNIVERSALS: RELATIVE CLAUSES

In language like English, a relative clause can

be attached to the end of matrix clause:

The police have caught the man who

bombed the hotel.

Or they can be embedded in the main clause:

The man who bombed the hotel has been

caught by the police.

Linguistic have shown that languages are

more likely to permit relative clauses

with a subject pronoun than with an

object pronoun. It is called accessibility

hierarchy.

For example:

the use of who rather than the use of

whom

Relative pronoun function

Example

Subject The writer who won the Booker prize is my lofelong friend.

Direct object The writer whom we met won the Booker prize.

Indirect object The writer to whom I introduced you won the Booker prize

Object of preposition The writer with whom we had dinner won the Booker prize.

Genitive The writer whose wife we met won the Booker prize

Object of comparative The writer who I have written more books than has won the Booker prize.

The accesibility hierarchy serves as

an example of how SLA and

linguistics can assist each other.

Linguistic facts can be used to

explain and even predict

acquisition.

The results of empirical studies of

L2 acquisition can be used to

refine our understanding of

linguistic facts.

Effects of relative clause structure on L2 acquisition

◦It is easier to learn a L2 with relative clauses if you

already know them from your L1.

◦There are two ways to use relative clauses in English:

attached to the end of a sentence or interrupting a main

clause.

Learners of L2 English tend to use the first possibility.

Noam Chomsky`s theory of Universal grammar:

Example: (Reflexives)

UNIVERSAL GRAMMAR

governed by a set of highly abstract principles.Language

Only local binding

English

Local and long-distance binding

Japanese

Result: Japanese Learners of L2 English do have to

learn that reflexives in English permit only local

binding. The question if they are able to do so could

not be answered clearly. Not even by a number of

studies. It is not absolutely clear, although very

important.

Children learning their L1 must rely on innate knowledge of a language.

Poverty of stimulus insufficiency which enables children to

discover the rules of a language.

Input Positive evidence: what is gramatical

their parents do not generally correct their

grammatical mistakes

Negative evidence: what is ungrammatical

LEARNABILITY

The input seriously undetermines learning,

it does not provide the information needed

for learning to be successful

Children must have prior knowledge of

what is grammatically possible and

impossible and that this is part of their

biological endowment.

The Critical Period Hypothesis

states that there is a period when language acquisition is easy and

complete, and beyond which it is difficult and incomplete.

People who lost their linguistic capabilities: as a result of an

accident, were able to regain them totally before puberty but

were unable to do so afterwards.

The Critical Period Hypothesis

There is a considerable evidence that supports the claim that L2

learners who begin lerning as adults are unable to achieve native-

speaker competence in either grammar or pronunciation

(Immigrants in the United States).

Not all learners are subject to critical periods. Some achieve

native-speaker ability from an adult start.

The relative lack of success of most L2 learners in comparison

to L1 learners suggests that there may be radical differences in

the way first and second languages are acquired.

Complete Access

No Access

Partial Access

Dual Access

Access to UG

Chomskyan linguisticsUnmarked structures are those that are governed by UG and which, therefore require only

minimal evidence for acquisition.

Markedness

For example, ‘local binding’ of reflexives is considered unmarked in relation to

‘long-distance binding’.

Hypothesis relating to markedness:

The learners acquire less marked structures before more marked

ones.

Learners are much more likely to transfer unmarked structures

from their L1 than they are marked

structured.

It has been proposed that learners are much more likely to transfer unmarked structures from their L1 than their marked structures.

For example:

English contrasts the sounds /t/ & /d/Word initially (tin/din) , word medially (betting/bedding), finally (wet/wed)

German, however, only contrasts these two sounds word initially and medially

There is no consensus on whether L2 acquisition is to be explained in terms of a distinct and innate language faculty or in terms of general cognitive abilities.

It allows for modularity – the existence of different components of language that are learned in different ways, some through UG and others with the assistance of general cognitive abilities.

Cognitive Versus Linguistic Explanations