Showing papers on "Universal grammar published in 2014"

Child language acquisition: Why universal grammar doesn't help

Abstract: In many different domains of language acquisition, there exists an apparent learnability problem to which innate knowledge of some aspect of universal grammar (UG) has been proposed as a solution. The present article reviews these proposals in the core domains of (i) identifying syntactic categories, (ii) acquiring basic morphosyntax, (iii) structure dependence, (iv) subjacency, and (v) the binding principles. We conclude that, in each of these domains, the innate UG-specified knowledge posited does not, in fact, simplify the task facing the learner.

Linguistic Theory, Universal Grammar, and Second Language Acquisition

Abstract: Generative linguistic theory aims to provide a characterization of the linguistic competence of native speakers of a language and to explain how it is possible for child first language acquirers to achieve that competence. The generative perspective on second language (L2) acquisition has parallel goals, specifically, to account for the nature and acquisition of interlanguage competence. In this framework, language use is assumed to be based upon an abstract linguistic system, a mental representation of grammar. To summarize so far, the linguistic competence of native speakers of a language includes knowledge of ambiguity and of ungrammaticality, as exemplified by the preceding restrictions on wh-movement. The generative perspective on L2 explores the nature of interlanguage competence by adopting a variety of performance measures to try to discover the essential characteristics of underlying mental representations. Spontaneous production data might seem to provide an obvious source of information as to the nature of interlanguage competence.

PERSPECTIVES Child language acquisition: Why universal grammar doesn't help

Abstract: In many different domains of language acquisition, there exists an apparent learnability prob - lem to which innate knowledge of some aspect ofuniversalgrammar (UG) has been proposed as a solution. The present article reviews these proposals in the core domains of (i) identifying syntactic categories, (ii) acquiring basic morphosyntax, (iii) structure dependence, (iv) subja - cency, and (v) the binding principles. We conclude that, in each of these domains, the innate UG- specified knowledge posited does not, in fact, simplify the task facing the learner.

Universal Grammar and Biological Variation: An EvoDevo Agenda for Comparative Biolinguistics

Abstract: Recent advances in genetics and neurobiology have greatly increased the degree of variation that one finds in what is taken to provide the biological foundations of our species-specific linguistic capacities. In particular, this variation seems to cast doubt on the purportedly homogeneous nature of the language faculty traditionally captured by the concept of “Universal Grammar.” In this article we discuss what this new source of diversity reveals about the biological reality underlying Universal Grammar. Our discussion leads us to support (1) certain hypotheses advanced in evolutionary developmental biology that argue for the existence of robust biological mechanisms capable of canalizing variation at different levels, and (2) a bottom-up perspective on comparative cognition. We conclude by sketching future directions for what we call “comparative biolinguistics,” specifying which experimental directions may help us succeed in this new research avenue.

Review of the Influence of L1 in L2 Acquisition

Abstract: L1 has a significant influence on second language study. However, how L1 influence L2 is very complicated and abstract. But to study the mechanism of how L1 influence L2 is significant because L2 acquisition is making contribution on many fields like education and psychology. L1 is one of the central elements influencing SLA. In this course paper, we are going to overview what linguists have done about L1 and L2 and what approaches and theories they have made.

What Is Un-Cartesian Linguistics?

Abstract: Un-Cartesian linguistics is a research program with the aim of rethinking the nature of grammar as a domain of scientific inquiry, raising new questions about the constitutive role of grammar in the organization of our (rational) minds and selves. It reformulates the ‘Cartesian’ foundations of the modern Universal Grammar project, shifting emphasis away from the study of a domain-specific ‘innate’ module separate from thought, to the study of a sapiens-specific mode of cognition conditioned by both grammatical and lexical organization, and thus a particular cognitive phenotype, which is uniquely also a linguistic one. The purpose of this position paper is to introduce and motivate this new concept in its various dimensions and in accessible terms, and to define the ‘Un-Cartesian Hypothesis’: that the grammaticalization of the hominin brain in the evolutionary transition to our species uniquely explains why our cognitive mode involves a capacity for thought in a propositional format.

Iconic features

Abstract: Sign languages are known to display the same general grammatical properties as spoken languages (‘Universal Grammar’), but also to make greater use of iconic mechanisms. In Schlenker et al.’s ‘Iconic Variables’ (Linguist Philos 36(2):91–149, 2013), it was argued that loci (= positions in signing space corresponding to discourse referents) can have an iconic semantics, in the sense that certain geometric relations among loci (subset and relative complementation, as well as high/low position relative to the signer) are preserved by the interpretation function. Here we ask whether plural and height specifications of loci display the formal behavior of phi-features in remaining uninterpreted in focus- and ellipsis-constructions (as in the bound readings of, e.g., Only Mary admires herself, or of Mary admires herself, and John does too). Data from ASL and LSF show that plural and height specifications may indeed remain uninterpreted in these constructions; furthermore, there are cases in which a single high locus is construed iconically and left uninterpreted in the course of ellipsis resolution. We argue that our data are compatible with two theories. According to the Strong View, plural and height specifications of loci display exactly the behavior of spoken language features. According to the Weak View, our data just show that plural and height specifications share the behavior of features and other non-assertive elements in being separable from the referential terms they specify. Our LSF data are compatible with the Weak View; our ASL data might provide support for the Strong View. While our aim is merely to open the debate about the featural status of iconic specifications, the question is of some importance: if features are innate and primitive elements of grammar, and if some of them have an intrinsically geometric semantics, the signed modality might play a greater role than is usually thought at the very core of Universal Grammar.

The Linguistic Philosophy of Noam Chomsky

Abstract: Noam Chomsky, one of the most famous linguists of the twentieth century, based his linguistic works on certain philosophical doctrines. His main contribution to linguistics is Transformational Generative Grammar, which is founded on mentalist philosophy. He opposes the behaviourist psychology in favour of innatism for explaining the acquisition of language. He claims that it becomes possible for human child to learn a language for the linguistic faculty with which the child is born, and that the use of language for an adult is mostly a mental exercise. His ideas brought about a revolution in linguistics, dubbed as Chomskyan Revolution. According to him, the part of language which is innate to human being would be called Universal Grammar. His philosophy holds a strong propensity to rationalism in search of a cognitive foundation. His theory is a continuation of analytic philosophy, which puts language in the centre of philosophical investigation. He would also be identified as an essentialist. This paper considers various aspects of Chomsky’s linguistic philosophy with necessary elaborations. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3329/pp.v51i1-2.17681

Evaluating learning-strategy components: Being fair (Commentary on Ambridge, Pine, and Lieven)

Abstract: I completely agree with Ambridge, Pine, and Lieven (AP&L) that anyone proposing a learning-strategy component needs to demonstrate precisely how that component helps solve the language acquisition task. To this end, I discuss how computational modeling is a tool well suited to doing exactly this, and that it has the added benefit of highlighting hidden assumptions underlying learning strategies. I also suggest general criteria relating to utility and usability that we can use to evaluate potential learning strategies. As a response to AP&L’s request for universal grammar (UG) components that actually do work, I additionally provide a review of one potentially UG component that is part of a successful learning strategy for syntactic islands, and that satisfies the evaluation criteria I propose.

The Cambridge Handbook of Linguistic Anthropology: Linguistic diversity and universals

Abstract: e phenomenon of human language appears in two opposite manifestations: on the one hand, the phenomenon manifests itself in thousands of individual languages, dialects and sociolects, and these come with differences that are oen so obvious and easy to notice (e.g. different sounds, words, ways of saying things) that people can debate about them and deploy them for marking social or national boundaries. On the other hand, language manifests itself as a universal phenomenon that is shared by our entire species, processed by a brain that is in many fundamental aspects identical for all members of the species, learned efficiently by every infant in the first few years, and used for universally comparable means in communication. Understanding how these two opposite manifestations can be reconciled has been at the core of linguistic research for ages, and the pendulum has swung back and forth between emphasizing one or the other side. In the first half of the 20th century, it was taken for granted that diversity is enormous and constantly evolving, while in the second half, linguistics has sent a strong message that despite all diversity, languages are built on a single universal grammar. From outside linguistics, it is difficult to find one’s way in this opposition, especially so because the opposition is oen fraught with ideological assertions, social factions in the scientific community and a bewildering proliferation of theories that try to sell the right way of studying language (such as “the Minimalist Program”, “Lexical-Functional Grammar”, “Cognitive Grammar” and dozens more, see Heine & Narrog 2012 for a recent collection). But for anthropology, just like for any other discipline in the neighborhood of linguistics, the dual nature of language as both a diverse and universal phenomenon is of key importance: for example, if we want to understand the role that language plays in shaping society and ideas, we need to know where variation is played out in language and where it is constrained, and what forces determine universal trends and paerns. e present chapter aims to chart out the relevant issues, trying to stay away from the thickets of ideologies and competing theories in order to highlight what I see as the more fundamental questions. I begin by illustrating the variousways inwhich languages differ from each other (Section 2) and then raise the question in what sense one can talk abut universals despite this apparent diversity and variation (Section 3). e concluding section (Section 4) summarizes the current state of the art in universals research.

Some notes on bare nouns in Haitian creole and in Gungbe: a transatlantic Sprachbund perspective

Abstract: This paper discusses noun phrases in Haitian Creole (HC), a French-derived Creole, and in Gungbe, a Gbe language. These languages exhibit "bare noun phrases" (BNPs) in a wider range of positions than in French, English and the other most commonly studied Romance and Germanic languages. Studies on the formation of HC show that many of the creators of the earliest Creole varieties in 17th-century Saint-Domingue were native speakers of Niger-Congo languages including Gbe language. We believe that by close analysis of specific domains of the Creole (e.g. BNPs) and by comparing these patterns to their analogues in the languages in contact during the emergence of the Creole, we can better understand how Universal Grammar regulates the emergence of new varieties out of language contact.

No-Choice Parameters and the Limits ofSyntactic Variation

Abstract: It is a general fact about natural languages that they exhibit what we will call ‘structured variation’: on the one hand, some hypothetical possibilities are unattested (gaps) and, on the other, the same patterns recur in large numbers of unrelated languages (commonalities). In fact, some features occur so frequently that they cannot be due to chance, whether or not they are universal: leftwards movement, Subject>Object order, and verb-based answers to yes-no questions are all cases in point. A key task for linguistic theory is therefore to explain the existence of this structured variation. What remains unclear, though, is the extent to which the explanation for these gaps and commonalities should be purely formal in nature, or in other words, to what extent their explanation should stem from Universal Grammar (UG). Formal and functional explanations of linguistic phenomena are often portrayed as opposite poles of explanation. From an extreme formalist perspective, all explanations stem from UG, with structured variation effectively being built into the innate language faculty. From an extreme functionalist perspective, on the other hand, no explanations stem from UG as such a thing does not exist and the hallmark properties of structured variation instead stem from the functional pressures on human languages. The juxtaposition of formal and functional explanations is misleading, however, as it is perfectly conceivable that the commonalities and asymmetries across human languages might be shaped by both formal constraints and functional pressures (cf. i.a. Newmeyer 2005, Anderson 2008, Haspelmath 2008, Nichols 2008, Kiparsky 2008 for broad agreement that this is so). This position crucially raises the question of how formal and functional considerations might interact and also of their relative importance in relation to one another. Previous proposals regarding the how question have varied in relation to the point at which functional pressures come into play: do they shape grammars gradually over time, as proposed by Bybee (1998), or are grammars shaped online during processing, as argued by Hawkins (1994, 2004)? They have also varied on the way in which formal and functional considerations interact: are the latter organism-external, as standardly assumed or is it feasible to think in terms of certain functional pressures as having been “biologised” in one way or another (cf. Kiparsky 2008)? In this connection, Kiparsky (2008:25-6) observes that “we could speculate that evolutionary pressures might have caused the innate learning mechanism to favor grammars that optimize perception, production, and/or stable transmission in certain ways. A language designed in modular fashion, with different levels of representation subject to their own constraints, may well be the most efficient for this combination of tasks”. Chomsky’s (2005) “three factors”

A processing investigation of the accessibility of the uninterpretable gender feature in L2 French and L2 Spanish adjective agreement

Abstract: Lardiere (2009) hypothesizes that second-language (L2) grammar development involves the reassembly of features in the constraints of Universal Grammar. Feature reassembly assumes the domain-specific Agree operation, in which an (interpretable) feature on a probing node values an uninterpretable counterpart feature on a goal node, and spell-out computations, providing morphological expression to these nodes. Because features express class membership (e.g., feminine expressions), Hawkins and Casillas (2008) proposed that agreement in non-advanced L2 acquisition may involve co-occurrence between expressions, computed presumably according to feature compatibility (e.g., Shieber, 1986). These two types of agreement computations predict distinct processing profiles and grammar-processing relations. Results from a self-paced moving-window experiment targeting overt adjective agreement in superlative constructions revealed that L1-English L2-French/Spanish learners’ profiles appear more consistent with feature valuation. Form sensitivity lagged behind computational ability in low-proficiency learners, suggesting that L2 grammar acquisition is subserved by a universal parsing mechanism (e.g., Dekydtspotter, 2001; Schwartz, 1999).

The Initial State in the L2 Acquisition of Phrase Structure

Abstract: This chapter focuses on the acquisition of English, and in particular on the end state: the linguistic knowledge of deaf adults. This model of the acquisition of English by deaf people has also been tested and supported in other studies. It also examines knowledge of American Sign Language (ASL) exhibited by the deaf participants in some of the studies reported here, for use as a baseline in comparison to their knowledge of English. Universal Grammar (UG) is the set of universal linguistic principles that hold for all languages, along with certain parameters that define a limited extent of linguistic variation. According to the UG theory, language acquisition is mediated by innate knowledge of these universal linguistic principles and parameters, part of the Language Acquisition Device (LAD). Although a bit more about the acquisition of ASL in these groups is discussed, this chapter focuses on their acquisition of English.

The sociolinguistics of grammar

Abstract: 1. Introduction: Language variation, contact, and change in grammar and sociolinguistics (by Afarli, Tor A.) 2. Language ecology, language evolution, and the actuation question (by Mufwene, Salikoko S.) 3. Syntactic change: Between universal grammar and fuzzy grammar (by Newmeyer, Frederick J.) 4. Language contact, linguistic variability and the construction of local identities (by Cornips, Leonie M.E.A.) 5. The social side of syntax in multilingual Oslo (by Nistov, Ingvild) 6. The expansion of the Preterit in Rioplatenese Spanish: Contact induced? (by Flogstad, Guro) 7. Constructing diasystems: Grammatical organisation in bilingual groups (by Hoder, Steffen) 8. Syntactic frames and single-word code-switching: A case study of Mandarin Chinese - Norwegian bilingualism (by Afarli, Tor A.) 9. Norwegian discourse ellipses in the left periphery - interacting structural and semantic restrictions (by Nygard, Mari) 10. The myth of creole "exceptionalism" (by Bickerton, Derek) 11. Some notes on bare noun phrases in Haitian Creole and Gungbe: A transatlantic Sprachbund perspective (by Aboh, Enoch O.) 12. Coding in time: On the historical character of linguistic knowledge (by Gregersen, Frans) 13. Index

Contrastive rhetoric and discourse analysis: Who writes what to whom? When? In what circumstances?

Abstract: The Contrastive rhetoric (CR) model has moved in different directions, trying in various ways to account for the text generator, the text receiver, the text itself, and the discourse and sociolinguistic environment in which text generation and text reception occur. The model has been influenced by the evolution of other developments in discourse analysis and has influenced the developments. CR model takes the position that the order of arrangement is a culturally-coded phenomenon. In the time frame in which CR evolved, the only quantifiable aspect of a text readily available for analysis consisted of its linguistic features, and in a world which stressed empirical research, quantifiable features were important; ethnographic studies are of more recent origin. This chapter discusses the Universal Grammar (UG) model that constitutes a mentalist theory claiming that all human beings within the normative range have a biological endowment consisting of an 'innate language faculty' which permits children to acquire the grammar of any particular language.

Some notes on bare noun phrases in Haitian Creole and Gùngbè

Abstract: This paper discusses noun phrases in Haitian Creole (HC), a French-derived Creole, and in Gungbe, a Gbe language These languages exhibit “bare noun phrases” (BNPs) in a wider range of positions than in French, English and the other most commonly studied Romance and Germanic languages Studies on the formation of HC show that many of the creators of the earliest Creole varieties in 17th-century Saint-Domingue were native speakers of Niger-Congo languages including Gbe language We believe that by close analysis of specific domains of the Creole (eg BNPs) and by comparing these patterns to their analogues in the languages in contact during the emergence of the Creole, we can better understand how Universal Grammar regulates the emergence of new varieties out of language contact

Development of interventions for language impairment: Why universal grammar may be harmful (Commentary on Ambridge, Pine, and Lieven)

Abstract: Although theories of specific language impairment grounded in universal grammar (UG ) have advanced the description of SLI considerably, they provide limited utility as far as treatment is concerned. Because UG assumes deficits in language principles and parameter setting, remediation of the difficulty is not possible; rather, reliance on compensatory mechanisms is recommended. Compensatory mechanisms rely on the same learning principles as are adopted by theorists that adopt a more emergentist view. Thus, we agree with Ambridge, Pine, and Lieven that a UG-based approach is redundant and recommend focusing efforts on identifying and strengthening treatment strategies associated with general learning principles instead.

Wh-Inquiries into Modern Greek and Their Theoretical Import(ance)

Abstract: Within the framework of Generative Grammar, a standard (hypo)thesis has been that a (broad) wh-parameter may distinguish between two types of languages: those that front wh-elements (e.g., English) and those that realize them in situ (e.g., Chinese). Wh-fronting languages may also attest in situ arrangements, and a tacit (hypo)thesis, tied to the one above, is that in situ configurations translate to echo questions, while fronting configurations are genuine (information-seeking) questions. Neat as this taxonomy might look like, more recently it has been shown that, in Modern Greek, which is a typically wh-fronting language, each wh-configuration may map to either meaning. On the assumption that syntax mediates between form and meaning, mapping the former to the latter, the question that the Modern Greek evidence raises is to what extent syntax regulates the form-meaning associations under consideration. In other words, the question is “how much” of the relevant semantics is registered in the corresponding syntactic structures. Capitalizing on already documented evidence from distribution, interpretation, and intonation, the present paper argues that syntax encodes certain aspects of the relevant semantics, and pans out a formal system that attributes other aspects of this semantics to a direct interaction between PF and LF, thereby recognizing the existence of this interface area. The theoretical import(ance) of this analysis (part of which is prefigured elsewhere) is that it revisits the standard organization of the Grammar, as viewed from a Minimalist perspective.

Main second language acquisition theories: from structuralism to complexity

Abstract: This article presents a literature review of the main second language acquisition (SLA) theories. It first deals with the very beginning of SLA studies in the middle of the 20 th century, focusing on the studies of Fries and Lado, and then moves on to describe some of the theoretical proposals over the past four decades. Ten theories are briefly described: the structural or behaviorist approach, the pidginization hypothesis or acculturation theory, the identity approach, the input or comprehension hypothesis, the interaction hypothesis, the output hypothesis, the universal grammar theory, the sociocultural theory, the connectionist theory, and the complex systems framework.

Rediscovering the Alphabet - On the Innate Universal Grammar.

Abstract: Universal Grammar (UG) theory has been one of the most important research topics in linguistics since introduced five decades ago. UG specifies the restricted set of languages learnable by human brain, and thus, many researchers believe in its biological roots. Numerous empirical studies of neurobiological and cognitive functions of the human brain, and of many natural languages, have been conducted to unveil some aspects of UG. This, however, resulted in different and sometimes contradicting theories that do not indicate a universally unique grammar. In this research, we tackle the UG problem from an entirely different perspective. We search for the Unique Universal Grammar (UUG) that facilitates communication and knowledge transfer, the sole purpose of a language. We formulate this UG and show that it is unique, intrinsic, and cosmic, rather than humanistic. Initial analysis on a widespread natural language already showed some positive results.

Acquisition of the Wh-interrogativeConstruction by Japanese Junior High School EFL Learners

Abstract: In this paper, we investigate the acquisition of yes/no and wh interrogative constructions in English by Japanese junior high school EFL learners. Since the 1970’s, syntactic researchers have focused on subject/non-subject asymmetries with wh-movement (Koopman, 1983; among others), which some (Lasnik & Saito, 1984; among many others) have attempted to explain in terms of the Empty Category Principle (ECP) proposed by Chomsky (1981), considered to constitute one of the principles of universal grammar. Since the late 1980’s, in the field of Second Language Acquisition (SLA), some researchers have investigated the relationship between universal grammar and second language acquisition (White, 1989, 2003; among others), and EFL learners’ developmental sequences of the wh-interrogatives (Pienemann, Johnston, & Brindley, 1988; among others). Furthermore, some SLA researchers report that Korean/Japanese university EFL learners showed an argument/adjunct asymmetry and a subject/object asymmetry in the level of acquisition with respect to the wh-interrogative construction (Lee, 2008; Hasebe, Maki, & Umezawa, 2012; among others). However, the results of the previous studies are not consistent. Our research question is then what results of the previous studies will be actually supported by examining the acquisition of the wh-interrogative construction by Japanese junior high school EFL learners. To address this question, we created the Wh-interrogative Formation Test in English, and administered it to 259 Japanese junior high school EFL learners. The organization of this paper is as follows. Section 2 provides a review of the literature relevant for the subsequent sections, and Section 3 presents the materials used in this study. Section 4 reports the results of the analysis, and Section 5 discusses what the findings might suggest. Finally, Section 6 concludes this paper.

Chomsky's anomaly: inner speech

Abstract: Chomsky has restricted his linguistics to intra-personal language, which he refers to as inner speech. He does not include interpersonal communication or speech acts. But the literature on inner speech shows it to be quite free-form and irregular in both syntax and semantics. It cannot be formalized as Chomsky tries to do. This problem weakens Chomsky's claim to have found a universal grammar. Chomsky has restricted his linguistics to language as it is used for thinking, which he recognizes as inner speech. He is not talking about language as communication or as speech acts. As he said in On Nature and Language (2002) Language is not properly regarded as a system of communication. It is a system for expressing thought, something quite different . . . language use is largely to oneself: "inner speech" for adults, monologue for children. (pp. 76- 77) More recently, in a similar vein, he said Now let us take language. What is its characteristic use? Well, probably 99.9% of its use is internal to the mind. You can't go a minute without talking to yourself. It takes an incredible act of will not to talk to yourself. (2012, p. 11) In addition to concentrating on inner speech, he also restricts his science to linguistic forms or rules. He calls these rules competence as opposed to performance. This is similar to Saussure's distinction between langue (language) and parole (speech). These then are Chomsky's starting points. I will show that these commitments create serious problems for Chomsky's linguistics. Inner speech is quite irregular, much more so than interpersonal or outer speech. It is also difficult to say there is a "competence" or "langue" dimension for inner speech. The competence aspect is primarily rules, but inner speech, being private, has no audience to carry or enforce the rules. In fact its major rule is efficiency, whatever that might imply for any given individual.

Remarks on Nonconcatenative Affixation

Abstract: On the basis of two case studies taken from unrelated languages, Berber (Afroasiatic) and German (Indoeuropean), this paper shows that the linear order of nonconcatenative markers in templates corresponds to their relative hierarchical position. In Berber, a VSO language, the linear order of the markers in the verb template is head-final. In Standard German, an SOV language, it is head-initial. The linear order of nonconcatenative markers in templates is thus predicted by the Mirror Principle. In a second step, I show that the co-occurrence of morphosyntactic features in a single templatic position is constrained by syntactic locality: A given templatic site may only host multiple morphosyntactic features, if those features belong to the same syntactic domain.In summary, the nonconcatenative morphological phenomena discussed in this paper are subject to general principles of syntactic structure. I put forth the hypothesis that this observation holds universally. Nonconcatenative marking cannot be considered an exotic characteristic of a particular language, or family of languages, e.g., Afroasiatic or Semitic. It is part of Universal Grammar. The theory of grammar cannot treat it as exceptional.

Interlanguage syntax of L2 Persian speakers: the case of resumptive pronouns in English relative clauses

Abstract: Whether UG is accessible to L2 learners, or whether L2 acquisition is constrained by Universal Grammar (UG) has been a debatable issue among researchers. Schwartz and Sprouse (1996) suggested the Full Transfer Full Access hypothesis (FTFA), in which the initial state of L2 is considered L1 grammar, and L2 learners are believed to have full access to UG. Therefore, parameter resetting is considered possible. This study was an attempt to investigate the development of the interlanguage grammar of Persian speakers acquiring English as a second language at different proficiency levels, and specifically focused on English relative clauses, in the light of FTFA hypothesis. The syntactic parameter under investigation was resumptive pronouns (RPs). While RPs are generally disallowed in English relative clauses, the use of an RP in the Persian counterparts is perfectly acceptable and required. Therefore, in the case of resumptive pronouns available in the L1 (Persian) but not in the L2 (English), the prediction was that the Persian learners of English language would have problems in abandoning the resumptive strategy in L2 clause. A grammaticality judgment task was given to two groups of adult Persian speakers acquiring English as a second language (advanced and intermediate groups) and the tendencies within the two groups on the grammaticality judgement task fitted well with the predictions made by the 'full transfer' claim of the FTFA. Also, it was found that advanced L2ers can successfully reconstruct their grammar according to the L2 setting.

Language death and diversity: philosophical and linguistic implications

Abstract: Much of this reflects (or even summarizes) Davidson’s philosophical program, but much of it also reflects a (perhaps, defining) tendency in analytic philosophy as a whole: language, especially ordinary language, is to be taken as a guide to how things are. For much of the 20th century, analytic philosophers have been referring to examples taken from the English language to prove their points, oddly ignoring the thousands of other living languages under the apparent assumption that all there is to be learned from language can be learned from just that one. In the last few decades this has been changing (a bit), and (a few) other languages are now (sometimes) taken into account as well. Linguists have been aware of the great variety among languages for much longer, of course, and although the Chomskyan research program of Universal Grammar was originally based on similarities between just a hand-full of languages, it is gradually extended and refined by bringing more and more languages into its scope. (On the other

PERSPECTIVES News, somewhat exaggerated: Commentary onAmbridge, Pine, and Lieven

Abstract: Ambridge, Pine , and Lieven ( 2014; AP&L) state that, contrary to the claim by the proponents of universal grammar (UG), the innate knowledge attributed to child learners does not contribute to language acquisition. They review the domains of cate gories, basic morphosyntax, structure dependence, subjacency , and binding principles and conclude that these domains present no learnability problem. UG does not help lan guage learning, we are told. It is dead, or should be. Those across the theoretical divide might feel like Mark Twain upon reading his obituary, that the reports of this death have been exaggerated. Debates in the behavioral sciences often take the form not of conversations, but of dogs barking up different trees. The two leading paradigms in acquisition, generative and usage-based approaches , focus respectively on representation and process. Generative or grammar-based approaches focus on the formal properties of children’s language. Usage-based approaches emphasize interactions and the gradual nature of learning . Is there something to be learned across paradigms? Let us start by acknowledging what seems most useful in AP&L’s presentation : the questions it highlights . What does it mean to say that a given category is innately avail able to children? Can we say that a given category (say , determiners) is given by UG, if not all languages have it? How are the learned elements mapped into the semantic and formal space for each category, given the range in variation that we see? These and sev eral other questions that their article highlights are important, by anyone’s account. To address them, we concentrate on claims around two of the domains discussed in their article: syntactic categories and conditions on long -distance extraction, also known as subjacency. As we show in our discussion, these two domains appear to be at the two extremes of the learning continuum, with categories involving much parametrization and hence requiring substantive learning, and subjacency representing largely invariant formal universals for which there is little evidence of learned behavior. According to AP&L , the notion of innate syntactic categories suffers from three core problems. The first concerns how distributionally extracted information gets linked to categories. The proposed mechanisms are deemed insufficient, because they do not ex tend to other categories beyond nouns and verbs . Second, according to AP&L, UG ap proaches have a data-coverage (a .k.a. empirical adequacy) problem, because some * We would like to thank Mihaela Pirvulescu and Charles Yang for useful discussions of some of the points presented in this commentary .