Multiple Grammars and the Logic of Learnability in Second Language Acquisition

Abstract

The core notion of modern Universal Grammar is that language ability requires abstract representation in terms of hierarchy, movement operations, abstract features on words, and fixed mapping to meaning. These mental structures are a step toward integrating representational knowledge of all kinds into a larger model of cognitive psychology. Examining first and second language at once provides clues as to how abstractly we should represent this knowledge. The abstract nature of grammar allows both the formulation of many grammars and the possibility that a rule of one grammar could apply to another grammar. We argue that every language contains Multiple Grammars which may reflect different language families. We develop numerous examples of how the same abstract rules can apply in various languages and develop a theory of how language modules (case-marking, topicalization, and quantification) interact to predict L2 acquisition paths. In particular we show in depth how Germanic Verb-second operations, based on Verb-final structure, can apply in English. The argument is built around how and where V2 from German can apply in English, seeking to explain the crucial contrast: “nothing” yelled out Bill/*“nothing” yelled Bill out in terms of the necessary abstractness of the V2 rule.

Mechanisms underlying speech sound discrimination and categorization in humans and zebra finches

“…Among birds, species like corvids and some parrots show cognitive abilities at a level comparable to that of primate species (ten Cate and Healy 2017 ). Also, budgerigars show more evidence of abstraction in an auditory rule learning mapping than zebra finches (Spierings and ten Cate 2016 ), which in turn seem capable of detecting more regularities in auditory signals than pigeons (ten Cate et al 2016 ). For this reason, we suggest that further comparative studies are needed to reveal the phylogenetic distribution and evolution of different types of categorization systems and how and why the differences between various species, including humans, evolved.…”

A Multilingual Perspective on Translanguaging

“…For precisely these reasons, some have proposed that all linguistic systems, even those of so-called monolinguals, are internally richly diverse, leading many to view monolingualism, not multilingualism, as a social construction. For instance, Roeper (1999Roeper ( , 2003Roeper ( , 2011Roeper ( , 2016 has argued that the sort of system-internal differentiation typically associated with multilinguals is universal and that even monolinguals have an integrated system of internally differentiated subcomponents developed to manage the contradictory structural requirements of their grammars. I have incorporated Roeper's idea in the representation of the integrated multilingual model in Figure 1. (Also see Adger, 2006, and references cited there.…”

“…Based on an examination of the evidence, I-languages are clearly linguistically diverse, in the sense that a single I-language will exhibit sometimes contradictory patterns (e.g., OV and VO word order), supporting the integrated model of multilingualism illustrated in Figure 1. I have made the point, too, following Roeper (1999Roeper ( , 2016, that so-called monolinguals are also linguistically diverse, each possessing knowledge of different social languages and speech registers appropriate to different contexts of use. This evidence is sufficient to make the case that individual multilingualism is psychologically real, contrary to the view expressed by García and colleagues as the basis for their critique of codeswitching.…”

Integrated, Not Isolated: Defining Typological Proximity in an Integrated Multilingual Architecture

“…As we discuss below, what is needed is a model that extends beyond the traditional notion of (innate) parameters (a concept that Cook, 1991 , already began to adjust in his initial proposal of multicompetence), as suggested in the ongoing research carried out in the Principles and Parameters model (P&P, Chomsky, 1982 ) and beyond. Recent theorizing has sought to eliminate the reliance on such parameters for a number of reasons, opting instead for “realization options” (Boeckx, 2016 , p. 90; also see Roeper, 2016 for similar ideas) 2 . To briefly clarify this point, operations in the Narrow Faculty of Language (Hauser et al, 2002 ) are reduced significantly to notions of Merge, (possibly) recursion, and another subset of locally-defined operations (such as Agree and c-command) (see e.g., Chomsky et al, 2017 for a detailed overview of the current state of this research program).…”