Karolina Kaczmarek

12059128

Words: 3091

What is Universal Grammar? Explain the distinction between competence and performance.

Discuss how these points affect second language learning?

Introduction

Second language learning is an issue in the theory of linguistics that concerns many

researchers who try to answer a fundamental question, namely how do people learn a foreign

language. Since adults, in contrast to children, are observed to be less successful in language

learning, many questions are raised and different solutions are proposed. Additionally, some

researchers hold the view that second language learning process resembles first language

acquisition; others claim that these two are entirely different. Still, there seems to be no firm answer

for the success behind the second language learning. That is way, various theories are created and

different methods of research are applied.

In general, this essay will discuss as follows: UG, its components. Secondly, competence,

performance and it’s relation to second language learning. Subsequently, the definition of these

terms will be provided. Moreover, it will be viewed how the concepts presented above relate to

second language learning. Accordingly, some notions from second language learning research will

be outlined.

Universal Grammar

To begin with, Universal Grammar is an issue that is claimed to contribute profoundly to the

1
study of second language acquisition. Moreover, it is a term in linguistic theory, which claims that

all languages posses the same principles of grammar therefore occur to be similar. Additionally, it is

a grammar that is believed to be present in the mind of every child and, at the same time, justify the

tremendous speed and complex processes that account for child's language acquisition. As Mitchell

and Myles (2004:55) point out it is not possible for children to learn a language at such a speed due

to ”messy input,” that is, a language that children are exposed to, which is often ungrammatical and

referred to as a “poverty of stimulus”. It means that despite the fact of inefficiency in the case of

language presented, children postulate ingenuity in their language.

Yet, whether adults can achieve such creativeness in their language learning process remains

disputable. Accordingly, McLaughlin (1987 cited in Cook, 1993) argues that children seem to

master a language to such a degree that can hardly be achieved by an adult learner. Accordingly,

Mitchell and Myles (2004:78) write that the key aspect of this argument is the fact that adult

learners of a second language who are cognitively mature, know at least “one other language” and

have different motivations, though seem to be incapable of outperforming children in their learning

In other words, it may be claimed that there is a concept, a toll which is not available to adults.

Accordingly, to some researchers UG does not only refer to first language acquisition.

Recently, more and more attention seems to be given by the researchers to the way in which second

language is acquired. As Gass and Schachter (1989:72) states it is a common knowledge that

Universal Grammar is a theory that can be partly used as to define “adults mature grammatical

competence”. However, according to Critical Period Hypothesis, there is a certain age, around

puberty, until which a child is able to acquire a language that accounts for both children’s success in

language learning and adults’ failure to master it at the same level. However, in order to understand

this phenomenon it is worth to focus on UG in more detail.

2
 Universal Grammar and some of its components

Next paragraphs will try to explain the term of Universal Grammar in depth, and focus on its

components, basing on the information obtained from different sources. Accordingly, Universal

Grammar, (UG) in short, was first coined by Noam Chomsky who postulated that there has to be

one grammar that applies to all languages and justifies children's ability to grasp any language

presented to them in their early years (Pinker, 1984:5).Therefore, all languages may be regarded as

structurally similar and easy to compare. In addition, O'Grady and Archibald (2001:184) write

despite the fact that languages do possess some “superficial differences”, still they seem to be

similar at the level of sentence construction. Here, they stress the syntax of every language and

claim it to be divided into “lexicon” and “computational system”, where the first term is concerned

with vocabulary and information about the word's “pronunciation, form and meaning”. The latter,

can be understood as a process in which words are organized in a particular order, at the same time,

it is where structure-dependence is embedded. To compare, Chomsky (1964 cited in Cook,

1993:200) in his UG model makes the distinction between principles and parameters and classifies

them as major components that elucidates first language acquisition and alternatively second

language acquisition.

However, in order to understand the process of first language acquisition and second

language acquisition, it is important to write about the components of U G. As Chomsky, (cited in

Ellis 1997:65) explains language is “governed by a set of highly abstract principles that provide

parameters, which are given particular settings in different languages”. Then, it can be understood

that UG is divided into principles and parameters that “control the shape human languages can take,

and at the same time, make human languages similar to one another” (Mitchell and Myles,

2004:54). In other words, all languages are considered to have fixed rules, where principles remain

stable and principles can be modified.

3
 Yet, principles of a language are claimed to be universal and stable components of UG. As a

principle, for example one may consider the argument that all sentences must contain a Noun-

Phrase and a Verb-Phrase, which, at the same time is a feature of a structure dependency of a

language. Moreover, it is believed that all human languages are structure-dependent, therefore

regarded as similar. As argued above, this aspect is an example of a principle of Universal Grammar

(Mitchell and Myles, 2004:66). In other words, principles can be regarded as common features in all

languages.

On the contrary, parameters are notions that mark differences among languages. Yet, to

understand the discrepancy mentioned previously, it is worth to focus on the “structural properties”

of a language. Subsequently, an example of a well-known parameter in linguistics is a “head

parameter”. To illustrate, the head parameter is a notion that deals with language structure. It

determines the differences between languages, as the position of the head, in relation to other

compliments of a phrase, is central. An example of this is the claim that, English is believed to be

head-first language as the head “precedes the compliments”, whereas Japanese is regarded as a head

last-with the head of the phrase placed after its compliments (Mitchell and Myles, 2004:68). Here,

one can observe that apart from languages being similar, there are also aspects distinguishing them.

Competence and performance

Next paragraphs will discuss the issue of competence and performance and the difference

between these two. Firstly, it is widely believed that human language is creative and differs much

from other forms of communication. Here, the creativeness of a language can be understood by

means of infinite number of ‘novel’ sentences that can be produced. Yet, to achieve ‘this’

creativeness an individual has to present two things, namely the competence and performance.

Accordingly, Fromkin (2003:76) states that competence and performance is combined with the

creativity of a language and marked by discreteness. This discreetness can be defined as knowledge

4
of the “discrete units” and the way of joining them. To emphasize, a competent speaker, then,

would be an individual who not only understands the language but is also capable of using this

‘knowledge’ in order to communicate. To put it another way, the ability to receive a message and

respond to that message by means of a language would account for proficiency in that language.

Yet, the difference between competence and performance attracts the attention of many

researchers. To some, having the knowledge of a language (competence) is not the same as being

able to use it (performance). To support this view, Fromkin (2003:12) explains, “it is a difference

between what you know, which is your linguistic competence, and how you use this knowledge in

actual speech production and comprehension, which is your linguistic performance”. In addition,

Gass and Schachter (1989:11) notice that performance can be closely linked to ability to produce a

language. As they point out performance is dependable on ones ‘knowledge’, whereas competence

is the ‘knowledge’, therefore these two aspects are not equivalent.

Competence/ performance and SLA

Finally, there is a question of how UG, performance and competence influence second

language learning. By second language learning one may understand the process of mastering the

language other than the mother tongue (Ellis, 1997). As follows, competence and performance is

believed to influence the study of second language learning to a great extent. Thus, it seems that

there are different beliefs as to which competence or performance is more important. Additionally,

Hymes (1971) writes that the discrepancy between performance and competence has been used in

the research on communicative competence, which can be understood as learner’s ability to

differentiate what is appropriate, correct and effective language behavior in a communicative aim.

Still, there seems to be confusion when it comes to the definition of competence and

performance. Some researchers in an attempt to define these terms use concepts such as ability and

knowledge interchangeably, which most of the times leads to perplexity. As, in the example of the

5
Variable Competence Model, which deals with the variability in the learners output, it is not clear

whether the variability should be considered as a feature of performance or competence. On the one

hand, researchers define it as a “dependent on the task or situation,” therefore regarded as a

performance. On the other, when analyzing the systematicity in learners’ behavior it is perceived as

a competence. This confusion, then, leads to certitude that competence is heterogeneous, which in

itself is a contradiction to the idea of performance and competence and their disparity (Gass and

Schachter, 1989:20). Yet, as observed, no agreement can be reached as to competence and

performance application in second language research.

Furthermore, there is no concord as to which one; competence or performance should be

investigated in more detail. According to Chomsky (1965 cited in Mitchell and Myles 2004:10) the

priority should be given to the performance rather than competence as knowledge “held in our

minds” gives more insight in the language acquisition. However, competence and performance both

seem to be dependent on each other. As Cook (1993:5) writes, “competence as knowledge in the

minds cannot be tapped directly but through various forms of performance”. It can be understood

then that the language created in our minds (competence) cannot be investigated without the

examples language produced (performance). This view would explain why according to some

researchers performance and competence should be given equivalent attention.

Nevertheless, by analyzing students’ performance and competence second language

researchers are able to account for learning process that takes place in an individual. As Mitchell

and Myles (2004:12) write researchers view the way “in which language use (i.e. speaking or

writing a language) can contribute to language learning (i.e. developing grammatical or lexical

competence in the language)”. It can be also assumed that competence/performance gives insight on

pragmatics i.e. what is said indirectly, and how it is affected by the situation in which it is said

(Tudor, 2001:88).

Secondly, it helps in investigating the kind of language learners produce (interlangugage),

how this language changes over time, and account for the possible regularity present. Thirdly, it

6
provides explanation for learners’ errors and helps in discovering regularity among these

(Lightbown and Spada, 2006:77-86).That is to say, learners’ interlanguage helps in observing the

processes that account for second language learning.

Still, contrasting views are presented as to importance of performance and competence. One

such disagreement is among behaviorist and mentalist theories. The first one considers language

learning as a “product of teaching” where objective data acquired from learner’s output are valued.

The other, mentalist type presented by Chomsky holds the belief that language cannot be analyzed

on the basis of learners’ performance. Accordingly Chomsky postulates that the data which “could

not be observed” matter more (competence). A reason for this claim is the belief about the

relevance of the “speakers underlying competence” rather than performance (1959 cited in De Bot

et al., 2005:29).

Moreover, as stated, performance in comparison to competence is easier to assess. To give

an example, assessing knowledge of vocabulary in the topic of global warming would be easy

through writing of a short essay, which is a product, rather than trying to infer the grammar in an

indirect way. As Mitchell and Myles write “under controlled conditions with the use of

grammaticality judgment tests”, one is able to asses competence. In this way, one may claim that

data concerning learner’s competence can only be obtained through focus on learners’ performance

(Ellis, 1994).

However, the kind of competence that is investigated seems to matter significantly when it

comes to collecting data about second language learning complexity. Ideally, there could be one

competence to be investigated; however researchers have decided to split competence into various

types, which focus on various areas. Accordingly, Swain and Canale (1980) distinguish

grammatical, sociolinguistic, discourse and strategic competence. As shown, competence is

responsible for many aspects connected with language. Yet, the problem with this division is that it

is not clear, whether all types are equally important to second language learning or are some of

them superior to others.

7
 To clarify, Widdowson (1978 cited in Ellis, 1994) argues that a good second language

learner is an individual who performs communicative competence and linguistic competence.

Moreover, Ellis (1994: 69) points out that the latter is associated with language acquisition. In other

words, an individual equipped in these competences should be able to understand a message and at

the same time make himself comprehensible to others. As Ur clarifies language proficiency depends

on two things: accuracy (correctness) and fluency (reception and the ability to convey messages

with ease) (1996:103). However, argument continues, some researchers claim it is performance to

be analyzed, others believe in competence. Still, competence and performance may be regarded as

significant concepts contributing to SLL as they provide the evidence of learners attempt to master

any non-native language.

Universal Grammar and SLA

First of all, to answer this question it is interesting to discuss the matter in relation to

Fundamental Difference Hypothesis. According to Gass and Selinker (2008:165) UG is restricted to

adult second language learners. Hence, they argue that what these learners know about a language

“universals” stems from their native language. In this way second language learners are able to

make assumptions about a language, for example, there are “an infinitive number of sentences that

can be constructed or that they can understand sentences never heard before”. To sum up, in a

Fundamental Difference Hypothesis, native language is believed to negotiate knowledge between

second language speakers and UG.

Contrary to this Cook (1993:208) in the paragraph titled Access to UG in Second Language

Acquisition, presents three positions that account for second language learning process. The first

one is called no-access position in which learners of a second language acquire grammar regardless

UG and is learned similarly to any other knowledge. The second position, direct-access position,

postulates that L2 learning process resembles L1 learning process with the use of parameters and

8
qualities attributed to them. The third option called indirect access position points out that UG is

available to L2 learners through the knowledge about L1, i.e. the priority is given to L1 parameters

(Cook, 1993:210). As an example that accounts for L2 learner’s access to Universal Grammar,

Doughty and Long (2005:25) present a research on a group of Japanese students who manifest the

knowledge of “permissible antecedents for overt and null pronouns, which is not taught in the

Japanese textbooks or classes”. Therefore, it is assumed that this knowledge is unlikely to be

discovered by the students and must been “constrained by Universal Grammar” (ibid.). The

examples mentioned above may justify the belief that UG is available to adult learners.

Still, it could be argued that adult learners do not necessary resemble they way in which

children acquire the first language. Accordingly in terms of Universal Grammar it is claimed that

adult learners no longer have access to it. As Ellis (1994:36) points out age in second langue

learning is regarded as a controversial issue. She explains “the controversy centers around whether

there is a critical period for L2 acquisition and if so when it ends”. Subsequently, statement as such

may lead to general assumption that age influences second language learning. This term is known

as ‘critical period hypothesis’ which states that there has to be an age above which Universal

Grammar is no longer available (ibid.). Again there is no strong argument supporting credibility of

such an idea.

However, Selinker (1972 cited in Ellis 1985) argues that adults who obtain native-like

proficiency are scarcity. According to him, failure in adults to master a language to a native-like

degree could be related to no- access to UG or in the Lenneberg’s term latent language structure. As

Selinker goes on to explain that SLA can take place in two ways. One the one hand it can resemble

L1 acquisition and is based on the same mechanisms. On the other, it may use other mechanisms

that account for other types of learning than language, which is known as cognitive organizer (Ellis,

1985:49). Hence, lack of agreement makes L1 and L2 acquisition craving for more cross-sectional

research.

9
 Conclusion

To conclude, the concept of Universal Grammar regarded as innate and applicable in First

Language Acquisition, evokes contradictory statements in the case of Second Language Learning.

As presented in the essay, some researchers believe that Universal Grammar contributes to Second

Language Learning, it is evident in the example of access-position research; others reject such an

idea by issuing Fundamental Difference Hypothesis or postulating the logical problem of language

acquisition. Here, critical period acts as disputable matter. Secondly, the issue of competence and

performance, although claimed to give insight in the process of second language research, faces

disagreement as to importance among these two concepts. Accordingly, the Variable Competence

Model postulated, is said to investigate learners’ output. Also, as discussed in this essay, second

language learners’ competence/performance aids the following: analyzing learning process,

providing insight on pragmatics, accounting for learners’ errors; the language learners produce, its

changes over time and regularity present. All this can be regarded as important in the second

language research. Yet, as it can be observed, these are only few examples mentioned. As there is

no explicit agreement in L1 and L2 studies, further research should be conducted.

10
References

Cook, V. (1993). Linguistics and Second Language Acquisition. Basingstoke: Macmillan.

De Bot, K., Lowie, W., and Verspoor, M., (2005). Second Language Acquisition: an advanced
resource book. New York: Routledge.

Doughty, C.J and Long, M.H. (2005). The Handbook of Second Language Acquisition. Oxford:
Blackwell Publishing.

Ellis, R and Barkhuizen, G. (2005). Analyzing Learner Language. New York: Oxford University
Press.

Ellis, R. (1997). Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press

Ellis, R. (1994). Second Language Acquisition. In : Widdowson, H.G. Introductions to Language

Study. New York: Oxford University Press.

Ellis, R. (1985). Understanding Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Fromkin, V. (2003). An Introduction to Language. Boston, Mass: Thomson Heinle.

Gass, M. S. and Schachter, J. (1989). Linguistic Perspectives on Second Language Acquisition.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Gass, M. and Selinker, L. (2008). Second Language Acquisition: An Introductory Course. New
York: Routledge.

Harley, P., Allen, P., Cummins, J. and Swain, M. (1990). The Development of Second Language
Proficiency. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Hymes, D. (1971). On communicative Competence. Philadelphia, P.A.: University of Pennsylvania

Press.
11
Lightbown, P. M. and N., Spada, (2006). How Languages are Learned. 3rd ed. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.

Mitchell, R. and Myles, F. (2004). Second Language Learning Theories. 2nd ed. London: Oxford
University Press.

O’ Grady, W. and Archibald, J. (2001). Contemporary Linguistics. 4th ed. Boston: Bedford/St.

Martin’s.

Pinker, S. (1984). Language Learnability and Language Development. Cambridge,

Mass: London: Harvard University Press.

Schachter, J. (1989). Testing a proposed universal. In: Gass, S.M and J. Schachter (Eds.), Linguistic
Perspectives on Second Language Acquisition. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Swain, M. and M. Canale (1980). Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to second

language teaching and testing.

Tudor, I. (2001). The Dynamics of the Language Classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.

Ur, P. (1996). A Course in Language Teaching: Practice and Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.

12