This paper is a reflective essay on Universal grammar in Second Language Acquisition. Universal Grammar is a concept appropriate to the linguistic competence issue, for instance, a notion concerning the grammatical representation nature.
Although Universal Grammar affords constraints on potential grammars in the acquisition process, it is not an acquisition theory. This fact is often misconstrued, possibly owing to expressions like LAD (Language Acquisition Device) that numerous persons earlier equated with Universal Grammar. Nevertheless, it might be more correct to consider Universal Grammar as merely part of Language Acquisition Device or faculty of language. The Language Acquisition Device will as well have to encompass learning ideologies, triggering algorithms, and processing doctrines. In other terms, on top of a constraints theory on Inter-Language representation, a concept on means of acquiring that representation is needed; a developmental theory (whether it is in first Language or second Language acquisition) (Epstein, Flynn & Martohardjono, 1996). Although Universal Grammar adds to enlightenment on languages’ acquisition, this is in the manner of how learners happen to know properties, which go far past the input; how learners know that particular things are impossible, why parsing are of single sort instead of another. Universal Grammar claims that these properties about language do not require to be learned. What motivates for Universal Language? It is the assertion that, however, in the instance of L1 (first languages), there exists a rational language acquisition problem, an incongruity amid what enters (specifically, the primary dialectal data) as well as what gets out (a parsing). In other terms, the input establishes the output (Epstein, Flynn & Martohardjono, 1996). Supposing a rational problem of first languages acquisition, persons have inquired whether the case is the same for second languages. This inquiry remains dominant - do second language learners get insentient information (a psychological representation), which goes further than the second language input? If they do, can alternative causes of this information be eliminated, for instance, the first language? The solidest example for the function of Universal Grammar in Second Language Acquisition is that the second language elements cannot be acquired from input only or from input and non-domain-specific learning doctrines or from the first grammar only (Schwartz & Sprouse, 1996). Supposing that there exists indeed a rational problem of second language acquisition, investigators have enquired more Universal Grammar-specific enquiries. In the ‘80s, the Universal Grammar question seemed comparatively straight forward (as well as relatively universal): Is Universal Grammar available (or reachable) to second language learners? Do inter-language grammars show proof of being restrained by Universal Grammar principles? Several principles were explored, such as the ECP, Binding Principle A and Subjacency. The hypothesis was that if one can establish that certain Universal Grammar principle works or does not work, then this simplifies to other philosophies, hence to Universal Grammar