This document provides an overview and comparison of Universal Grammar theory and Usage-Based theory of second language acquisition. It discusses key aspects of each theory, including Chomsky's idea of an innate Language Acquisition Device and principles and parameters approach under Universal Grammar. It also outlines the main tenets of Usage-Based theory, such as the idea that language learning is constructed based on input processing and that structure emerges from usage. The document notes debates around each theory and areas of common misunderstanding.

1. Universal grammar
and Usage-based
theory of second
Language
acquisition(SLA)Professor: Jila Naeini (Ph.D.)
Student: Zahra Bayani

3. Like any other type of learning, language learning is not a
linear process, and therefore cannot be deemed as
predictable as many models of SLA. As Larsen-Freeman
and Long state, there are at least forty theories of SLA but
here we mention those ones which have caused more impact
in the field of SLA as well as pre and Chomskyan
approaches.

4. 6. Universal Grammar and LAD
In the field of linguistics, after the nativist who
claims that children are born with some
linguistic knowledge,
and the empiricist that assert children acquire
language from linguistic experience,
Something questioned in Chomsky’s mind.
What was that ???

5. LAD creation:
In certain situations in which the child is not
presented with any consistent linguistic model,
they appear to have the capacity to invent some
aspects of language. This gave insight for
Chomsky’s innate of language. Originally, he
puts forward language acquisition device to refer
to the innate mechanism of language learning
and late he illustrates UG as a way to introduce
his idea.

6. Chomsky believes that UG is special device of
human brain which can help people learn
language quickly. It is an unconscious and
potential knowledge which exists in human brain
without learning and determines the existing
appearance of human language.

7. What is SLA and Why is important?
 SLA becomes a field in its own right since 1960s,
the study of SLA focuses on the developing knowledge
and the use of language by children and adults who
already know at least one other language.
 In 1980 it is possible to read nearly everything that
has written about SLA theory and related studies to
keep up with the newest current ideas.

8. Logical problem of SLA or Learnability problem:
Many linguists are researching on that whether UG are
available to L2 learning or not. With regard to SLA, the
question is more complicated. On one hand, the first
language is available to L2 learners. On the other hand,
the end result of L2 learning is not native-like
competence as it is the case in the L1 acquisition. Thus
other research mainly focuses on the extent that L2
learners have access to the innate system, especially the
concept of principles and parameters.

9. Different types of hypothesis to innate system :
1. The direct accessibility : if UG can be used in the first
language, it also can be applied in L2 learning. L2 learner
makes full use of UG including the part which is not
reflected in his mother tongue.
2. The indirect accessibility: UG works in SLA through the
grammar of mother tongue. When the parameter setting of
L2 is different from that of first language, L2 learner
cannot use the parameter which has been lost in UG.
3. Inaccessibility hypothesis: It denies all the influence of
UG on SLA, assuming that the parameters of UG have
been set in the process of first language acquisition, which
cannot be reset in SLA.

10. The problems of UG in SLA:
 L1 acquisition is natural and unconscious while the SLA
is conscious.
 Cognitive ability of children is immature while that of
adult is already mature.
 The environment of L1 acquisition and that of SLA are
different.
 Different inputs: L1 input occurs through spoken
language. While L2 input is mingle of spoken, written, as
well as notation.
 In L1acquisition, there is no interference from other
language. But L2 learner uses mother tongue constantly.

11. I know you are
bored,
But be patient
please…

12. Usage-based approaches to SLA:
The usage-based theory of language acquisition was
introduced by Michael Tomasello (2003). According to
him, this is an input-based learning and various
approaches to SLA can be labeled as “usage-based.”

13. Usage-based or Exemplar-
based(PROTOTYPES) learning:
Much of our language use is formulaic, that is,
we recycle phrasal constructions that we have
memorized from prior use. language learning is
in large parts implicit in the sense of taking place
without the learner being consciously aware of it.

14. According to UB theory:
language structure emerges from language use.
children build their language relying on their
general cognitive skills.

15. UB main hypothesis :
1. UB approaches assume that all language
knowledge, is ‘constructed’ on the basis of the
input, and learning take place implicitly during
meaning-focused input processing.
2. The relationship between quantity and quality of
input is important: Because the input to which
adult L2 learners are exposed to, is
fundamentally different – in both quantity and
quality – from the L1 input which is typically
available to young children.

16. UB main principles and theoretical basis :
According to Tomasello (2003), the usage-based
approach to linguistic communication may be
summarized in the two principles:
meaning is use and structure emerges from use.
1.The first principle represents how people use
linguistic conventions to achieve social ends.
2.The second principle represents that how
meaning-based grammatical constructions
emerge from individual acts of language use.

17. Combining the two approaches above, Tomasello
proposed a usage-based theory of language acquisition.
He stated that children acquire language equipped with
two sets of cognitive skills:
‘Intention-reading’: what children must do to determine
the goals or intentions of mature speakers when they use
linguistic conventions to achieve social ends.
‘Pattern-finding’: what children must do in order to
extract abstract linguistic constructions from the
individual utterances.
Therefore, this theory has two main dimensions:
functional and grammatical.

18. Main approaches of UB theory to SLA:
1.Exposure to input is necessary for SLA.
2. A good deal of SLA happens incidentally.
3. Learners come to know more than what they
have been exposed to in the input.
4. Learners’ output (speech) often follows
predictable paths with predictable stages in the
acquisition of a given structure.
5. SLA is variable across linguistic subsystems.

19. Notable points about UB theory of SLA:
 First, one must always begin with communicative function. So even
in early months of age, human infants communicate in some fairly
sophisticated ways. e.g. by pointing.
 Second, when we turn to children’s early linguistic communication,
the most basic unit of linguistic experience, is not the word but the
utterance.
 Third, based on this theory a linguistic construction is prototypically
a unit of language that comprises multiple linguistic elements used
together for a relatively coherent communicative function.
 Finally, the key theoretical point is that when we conceptualize
children’s early grammatical competence, we see that the SLA
acquisition processes needed are not so different from those we need
for L1 word learning.

20. Common Misunderstanding about this theory:
At the heart of most of misunderstandings is the
idea that usage-based analyses only do number-
crunching, with too much of a focus on the effects
that the frequency of constructions and other cues
play in the learning process.
But, no usage-based theorist would claim that
frequency is the only factor impacting SLA. In fact,
there is a lively debate among usage-based theorists
about the exact role frequency effects play in this
complex network.

21. Common objections to UB theory:
The three most common objections are:
1.It cannot deal with more complex constructions,
especially those involving two verbs and syntactic
embedding.
2. It cannot specify how the generalization process is to
be constrained, and
3. It does not deal with the so-called ‘poverty of the
stimulus’.

22. Conclusion:
And the final point is that…
Language is a complex adaptive system that comprises
the interactions of many players: people who want to
communicate and a world to be talked about. It operates
across many different levels, different human
configurations, and different timescales. Taking out any
one of these levels, a different pattern emerges and a
different conclusion is reached. But nevertheless, like
other complex dynamic systems, there are many
systematic actions that emerge to form the things that a
SLA theory should explain.

23. References:
Chomsky, N. A. (1976). Reflections on language. Pantheon: New York.
Gass, S. M., & Mackey, A. (2015). Theories in second language acquisition: An
introduction. New York: Rotledge.
Ghalebi, R., & Sadighi, F. (2015). The usage-based theory of language acquisition:
A review of Major Issues . Journal of Applied Linguistics and Language
Research , 2(6), 190-195.
Krashen, S. D. (1987). The monitor model for second language acquisition, In: R. C.
Gingras, (Ed.). Second language acquisition & Foreign language teaching
(pp. 1-26). Center for Applied Linguistics: Washington.
Larsen-Freeman, D., & Long, M. H. (1991). An introduction to second language
acquisition research. Longman: New York.
White, L.(2003). Second language acquisition and universal grammar. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511815065
Tomasello, M. (2003). Constructing a Language: A Usage-Based Theory of
Language Acquisition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.