Universidad de Guadalajara

Maestra en Enseanza del Ingls como Lengua Extranjera

Module II: Linguistic Description For Foreign Language
Teaching

Reflection 3.5 Universal

Grammar

Tutors Name: Dra. Mara Luisa Arias Moreno

Name: Humberto Marino Ramrez

E-mail: humber_marino@hotmail.com

March 24th, 2014

 Reflection 3.5
Reflection 3.5
In the previous reading, the authors discuss two opposing hypotheses regarding the role of
Universal Grammar in Second Language Acquisition: The Fundamental Difference Hypothesis
and The Access to UG Hypothesis. Which one do you agree more with? Think about your
students and their English performance in class, can you find any examples there to support
your answer?

According to Gass and Selinker the Universal Grammar UG can be defined as: the
system of principles, conditions and rules that are elements or properties of all human
languages. As these authors mention, a way to understand this is a metaphor where a
principle would be that all cars must drive on one side of the road in a specific country.
Maybe in France they must drive on the right and in Britain on the left but all countries
have a principle to drive on a specific side. Within UG there are two opposing hypotheses:
The Fundamental Difference Hypotheses and the Access to UG hypothesis. In this text I
am going to say with which of these I agree more and why do I think this.

I definitely agree more with the Access to UG hypothesis because of the evidence found in
Gass and Selinkers reading: There have been studies about Japanese students who were
able to figure out sentences of English that are totally different from their mother tongue.
These students could not have understood the English sentences based only on their
native grammar. Therefore Structure dependence (the ability to figure out the structure of
sentences) is a parameter of UG in every person(as long he is not impaired).

V.J. Cook gives examples of rules that belong to Universal Grammar: Structure
dependency, head parameter and the projection principle. Structure Dependence is a
characteristic very important to ESL teachers because it doesnt matter that students dont
know much about the structure of English, they can figure out meanings of sentences as
long as they know what a few words mean. In my English class of secondary introductory
level I am amazed to see how my students decipher the instructions in their textbook even
though its only in English. In the past I thought I had to translate all the instructions for
them but as we have shared more time together they have come to understand many
sentences from the words that they already know and the words that are similar to
Spanish.

Another example of my students Universal Grammar is how they understand phrases

even though the head is positioned in a different place than Spanish: in English the
adjective goes first and then the noun: green house while in Spanish its the opposite: la
casa verde. My students perfectly understand this kind of English sentences despite the
order of words; it is in the production phase that they have a hard time because their
interlanguage comes in and they want to build phrases in English according to Spanish
grammar: I want to live in the house green they say. I decide not to worry about this
because its happening what the Full Transfer/ Full Access theory says: the starting point
is the L1 grammar but there is full access to UG during the process of acquisition. I usually
correct them but I am aware that they are still drawing accommodation patterns from their
previous grammar.

The projection principle says that the syntax and lexicon are closely tied together; in other
words: it is needed to know whether some verbs must have a direct or indirect object as its
complement (transitive and intransitive verbs). For example: the verb play needs a
complement: play the drums and the verb give needs a direct and indirect object: Mike
gives a ball to Mary. When using these 2 sentences my students use their Universal
Grammar or as some other authors have called it: intuition for languages. When my
students know what like means they intuitively know that after this verb goes something
that is loved by the speaker. E.g. I like sports. Even though they dont know what a
transitive verb is they feel the need of writing something after the verb like to complete
the phrase. In the same way when my students know the meaning of send they notice that
a thing must be written after this verb: They send a postcard

A common saying among low grade students is I dont understand English, I am not
good at languages, I dont have ability for French, No se me da el ingls. But according
to the Access to UG Hypothesis all humans (as long as theyre not impaired ) can use their
Universal Grammar and their knowledge of their native language to help them successfully
understand and learn a second language. Probably the problem of these students is that
they have been exposed to an input way above their English level and so they think that
languages are hard for them. I can give them an i + 1 input and tell them that they have a
Universal Grammar ability and so they can figure out meanings of English sentences
easily.

In this text I have come to the conclusion that even though the two hypothesis I mentioned
earlier have some elements of truth I agree more with the Access to UG Hypothesis; I do
this mostly because of the experiments to Japanese students where they were able to
figure out meanings of English sentences even though they had a structure different from
their mother tongue. Structure dependence, head parameter and Projection principle are
Universal Grammar principles that all languages have and through their UG ability all
students can get to know meaning of sentences of a foreign language even though the
head of a noun phrase has a different position compared to their mother tongue. Intuitively
learns of English can know that certain verbs need a direct and indirect object to go with
them. In sum the Universal Grammar is a wonderful thing that all human beings have been
endowed with.
Bibliografa
Cook, V. (1989). Universal Grammar Theory and the Classroom. Oxford: Pergamon Press.

Cook, V., & Mark, N. (s.f.). Chomsky's Universal Grammar. An introduction. USA: Blackwell.

Gass Susan M., S. L. (1994). Second Language Acquisition. New York and London: Routledge.

Johansson, S. (1991). Universal Grammar and the Innateness Hypothesis. Sweden.