CHAPTER 6
A FUNCTIONAL-TYPOLOGICAL APPROACH CAH rejected (1970's)
TO SECOND LANGUAGE ACQUISITION THEORY
by Fred r. Eckman
I. INTORDUCTION
A function-typological approach to SLA
• "Use of universal, linguistic generalization that have been postulated on
the basis of L1" (p. 195)
• "To state generalization about the occurrence, co-occurrence, or absence
of the structures in any given language" (p. 195)
• "To suggest explanation for these universals" (p. 195)
Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis (CAH) (Lado, 1957)
⇓ Incorporation of markedness
Markedness Differential Hypothesis (MDH) (Eckman, 1977)
⇓ Continued use of markedness/Elimination of NL-TL differences
Structural Conformity Hypothesis (SCH) (Eckman, 1984; Eckman,
Morovscik, & Wirth, 1989)
II. THE MARKEDNESS DIFFERENTIAL HYPOTHESIS
A. Background
CAH conceptualized and developed (1940's - 1960's)
• Fried, 1945; Lado, 1957; Moulton, 1962; Stockwell & Bowen, 1965
• The primary explanatory principle in SLA theory (Wardhaugh, 1970)
• The hypotheses claim that "all areas of difficulty in L2 acquisition can be
explained in terms of the structural differences between the NL and the
target language (TL)" (p. 196)
• "(T)he CA holds that NL-TL differences are both necessary and
sufficient to explain the difficulty that occurs in L2 learning" (p. 196)
• "We assume that the student who comes in contact with a foreign
language will find some features of it quite easy and others extremely
difficult. Those elements that are similar to his native language will be
simple for him, and those elements that are different will be difficult"
(Lado, 1957, p. 2)
• Structuralists - "language as a set of habits"
• Generative grammarians - "language as a system of rules"
• Counter examples (Sciarone, 1970; Duškove, 1969; Richards, 1971)
• Dulay & Burt (1972, 1973, 1974)
− "(T)he process of L2 acquisition was guided by the learner's innate
language acquisition device (LAD)" (Eckman, p. 197)
− "NL-TL differences are neither necessary nor sufficient to explain L2
errors, and thus the role of L1 interference in explaining errors in L2
acquisition was severely discounted" (Eckman, p. 197)
MDH (Eckman, 1977)
§ "To reconcile the two seemingly divergent positions" (the CAH/creative
construction) (p. 197)
§ "To address some of the empirical problems of the CAH" (p. 197)
§ "NL-TL differences were necessary to predict L2 difficulty, but these
differences were not sufficient" (p. 197)
§ "The areas of difficulty that a language learner will have can be predicted
on the basis of a systematic comparison of the grammars of the NL, the
TL, and the markedness relations stated in universal grammar"
(pp. 197-198)
(a) Those areas of the TL that differ from the NL and are more marked
than the NL will be difficult.
(b) The relative degree of difficulty of the areas of the TL that are more
marked than the NL will correspond to the relative degree of
markedness.
(c) Those areas of the TL that are different from the NL, but are not
more marked than the NL will not be difficult.
B. Assumptions Underlying the MDH
Markedness
§ "If the presence of a structure p in a language implies the presence of
some other structure, q, but the presence of q in some language does not
imply the presence of p, then structure p is marked relative to structure q,
and structure q is unmarked relative to structure p." (p. 198)
Three cliams made by the MDH (p. 198)
§ "L2 difficulty can be predicted on the basis of two considerations"
− The difference between the NL and TL
− The markedness relationships within those areas of differences
§ "(T)he degree of difficulty among those TL structures that are different
from those in the NL will correspond directly to the degree of
markedness"
§ "(T)hose TL differences that are not more marked will not be difficult"
→ "Through the incorporation of markedness, the MDH can account for
why some L2 errors resemble errors made during the acquisition of TL
as an L1" (p. 199)
C. Supporting Evidence
The MDH can explain some fact that the CAH cannot explain:
§ "(W)hy some NL-TL differences do not cause difficulty" (p. 199)
− The MDH "claims that simply the existence of NL-TL differences is
not sufficient to cause difficulty" (p. 200)
− The MDH "predicts a directionality of difficulty whereas the CAH
cannot without the incorporation of additional assumptions" (p. 200)
§ "(W)hy some differences are associated with degrees of difficulty and
other are not" (p. 199)
D. Evaluation of the MDH
Empirical value (by evaluating the hypotheses against facts)
Explanatory value (by evaluating the hypotheses against other hypotheses)
§ It can account for "the fact that certain NL-TL differences do not cause
difficulty" (p. 201)
− e.g. Hyltenstam (1984) - Relative-clause study
§ "(M)arkedness ... is not a matter of judgment of conjecture; it is an
empirical matter." (p. 201) (cf. Ellis0, 1994)
§ The determination of markedness as in (3) "is independent of any L2
facts" (p. 202)
E. Problems with the MDH - An exception to the hypotheses
Errors that "reflect a markedness relationship, but the structure in which
this difficulty occurs is not an areas in which the NL and TL are different"
(p. 202)
§ Hyltenstam's (1984) findings and Accessibility Hierarchy
− See TABLE 1 (p. 203)
III. THE STRUCTURE CONFORMITY HYPOTHESIS
A. Background
SCH (Eckman, 1984, 1991; Eckman et al., 1989)
§ (7) "All universal that are true for primary languages are also true for
ILs" (p. 204)
B. Assumptions Underlying the SCH
§ ILs are linguistic systems (Selinker, 1972; Adjémian, 1976)
§ This does not mean "IL structures conform to the same universal
constraints as do the structures of L1s" (p. 205)
C. Supporting Evidence
§ Ritchie, 1978; Schmidt, 1980
§ Eckman et al. (1989)
− English interrogative structure/Wh-inversion, Yes-no inversion
§ Eckman (1991)
− Fricative-stop Principle/Resolvability Principle
D. Evaluation of the SCH
§ Explains the problem of an exception - Hyltenstam, 1984
§ "All of the facts that support the MDH will also support the SCH."
(p. 207)
IV. THE SCH AND RECENT PROPOSALS
Differences between Functional-typological and UG approaches
§ The "type of generalization stated" (p. 208)"
§ The "types of explanation given for these generalizations" (p. 208)
Claims made by the proponents of the UG school
§ "(P)rinciples of UG constrain not only L1 grammars, but also L2
grammars" (p. 209) - See Chapters 2-5.