Editing Second-language acquisition (section)

=== Linguistic factors ===

Linguistic approaches to explaining second-language acquisition spring from the wider study of linguistics. They differ from cognitive approaches and sociocultural approaches in that they consider linguistic knowledge to be unique and distinct from any other type of knowledge.{{sfn|VanPatten|Benati|2010|p=71}}{{sfn|Ellis|2008|pp=405–406}} The linguistic research tradition in second-language acquisition has developed in relative isolation from the cognitive and sociocultural research traditions, and as of 2010 the influence from the wider field of linguistics was still strong.{{sfn|VanPatten|Benati|2010|p=5}} Two main strands of research can be identified in the linguistic tradition: [[Generative second-language acquisition|generative approaches]] informed by [[universal grammar]], and typological approaches.{{sfn|Ellis|2008|p=557}}

[[Typological universals]] are principles that hold for all the world's languages. They are found empirically, by surveying different languages and deducing which aspects of them could be universal; these aspects are then checked against other languages to verify the findings. The [[interlanguage]]s of second-language learners have been shown to obey typological universals, and some researchers have suggested that typological universals may constrain interlanguage development.{{sfn|VanPatten|Benati|2010|p=161}}

The theory of universal grammar was proposed by [[Noam Chomsky]] in the 1950s and has enjoyed considerable popularity in the field of linguistics. It focuses on describing the [[linguistic competence]] of an individual. He believed that children not only acquire language by learning descriptive rules of grammar; he claimed that children ''creatively'' play and form words as they learn language, creating meaning for the words, as opposed to the mechanism of memorizing language.{{sfn|Solé|1994|p=99}} The "universals" in universal grammar differ from typological universals in that they are a mental construct derived by researchers, whereas typological universals are readily verifiable by data from world languages.{{sfn|VanPatten|Benati|2010|p=161}}

Universal grammar theory can account for some of the observations of SLA research. For example, L2 users often display knowledge about their L2 that they have not been exposed to.{{sfn|VanPatten|Williams|2015|pp=36–37}} L2 users are often aware of ambiguous or ungrammatical L2 units that they have not learned from any external source, nor their pre-existing L1 knowledge. This unsourced knowledge suggests the existence of a universal grammar. Another piece of evidence that generative linguists tend to use is the [[poverty of the stimulus]], which states that children acquiring language lack sufficient data to fully acquire all facets of grammar in their language, causing a mismatch between input and output.<ref name=":2">{{Cite web|url=https://eclass.uoa.gr/modules/document/file.php/GS345/White%20%282003%29.%20Second%20Language%20Acquisition%20and%20Universal%20Grammar.pdf|title=Second Language Acquisition and Universal Grammar|last=White|first=Lydia|date=2003|website=Cambridge Textbooks in Linguistics}}</ref> The fact that children are only exposed to positive evidence yet have intuition about which word strings are ungrammatical may also be indicative of universal grammar. However, L2 learners have access to negative evidence as they are explicitly taught about ungrammaticality through corrections or grammar teaching.<ref name=":2" />

{{See also|Generative second-language acquisition|}}