Session 2 The Linguistics of SLA (1).doc

Session 2 The Linguistics of Second Language Acquisition1. The nature of languagen Languages are systematic, symbolic, and social.n A language is traditionally divided into different levels (lexicon, phonology, morphology, syntax, discourse) for description and analysis, but all levels must interact and function simultaneously in language use. (Does learning of grammar guarantee language use?) 2. Behaviorist view of language learningn learning by making a stimulus-response connection through habit-formation (imitation, repetition, reinforcement, conditioning)n Contrastive Analysis (CA): “an approach to the study of SLA which involves predicting and explaining learner problems based on a comparison of L1 and L2 to determine similarities and differences.” (p.34)n Lados view on L2 learning and contrastive analysis hypothesis (CAH) (Lados Linguistics Across Cultures,1957)n CAH assumptions (Gass & Selinker 2001:72-3)1) Contrastive analysis is based on a theory of language that claims that language is habit and that language learning involves the establishment of a new set of habits.2) The major source of errors in the production and/or reception of a second language is the native language.3) One can account for errors by considering differences between the L1 and the L2.4) A corollary to item 3 is that the greater the differences, the more errors will occur.5) What one has to do in learning a second language is learn the differences. Similarities can be safely ignored as no new learning is involved. In other words, what is dissimilar between two languages is what must be learned.6) Difficulty and ease in learning are determined respectively by differences and similarities between the two languages in contrast. n The psychological basis of CAH is transfer (positive vs. negative; facilitation vs. interference), product-oriented not process-oriented (cf. crosslinguistic influence)n CA: a way to determine potential errors, pedagogy-oriented ( pattern drills)comparison between L1 and L2 difference difficulty error n strong version: making predictionsn weak version: analyzing errors made by learners on the basis of NL-TL differences(part of error analysis)n criticisms of the strong versionprediction failure (Not all actually occurring errors were predicted; not all predicted errors occurred)language learned through habit-formation and imitation (cf. creative construction) confusion of linguistic descriptions with learning difficultythe sole role of L1 in L2 learningcomparison one (linguistic )level at a timeinadequate for the study of SLA in part because the behaviorist learning theory to which it is tied cannot explain the logical problem of language learning.n Hierarchy of difficulty (Stockwell et al. 1965)differentiation (e.g. ta vs. he and she)new categoryabsent categorycoalescingcorrespondence3. Error analysis (EA) n A reaction against CA (NL-TL comparison) with an emphasis on the learner (an internal focus on the learner, analysis of actual learner errors rather than potential errors)n Corder (1967) “The significance of learners errors”: errors are windows into the language learners mind.A shift in attitudes to errors: L2 learning was considered akin to that of the child who is “an active and creative participant in the language learning process, and structures of child language production began to be described and analyzed as grammatical systems in their own right rather than in terms of how they are deficient in comparison to adult norms.” Errors as evidence of IL (rule-governed system), as “a way the learner has of testing his hypothesis about the nature of the language he is learning”, not as a product of imperfect learning, not as something of pedagogical interest only; errors with reference to some external norm (i.e. TL), not with regard to the learners systemEA signifies emergence of SLA as an independent discipline due to its implications for cognitive science and linguisticsn EA stepscollecting errorsidentifying errorsclassifying errorsquantifying errorsanalyzing sourceremediation n inter- vs. intra-lingual errors, the former resulting from negative transfer or interference from the L1, the latter also known as developmental errors due to incomplete learning of L2 rules or overgeneralization of them. (Can you give some examples?)n Criticisms of EAtotal reliance of errors in the absence of other information (e.g. avoidance)difficulty in determining what an error is an error ofinadequacy in determining the causes of errors (falsifying the assumption that correct usage is equivalent to correct rule formation)multiple resources(A classic example from Corder (cited by Gass and Selinker 2001:89) is the German speaker who says You must not take off your hat when the intent is You dont have to take off your hat. In what sense is this an error? In what sense is it not?)One more example (see the appendix)4Morpheme Order StudiesDrawing on R. Browns (1973) baseline information on an L1 acquisition sequence (see Table 3.2 for a comparison between L1 and L2 morpheme acquisition orders, in Dulay & Burt, 1974).n Significance: to support creative construction, L1=L2 (Identity) Hypothesis, natural order, and challenge the concept of transfer (Dulay & Burt, 1982, Language Two).n Creative construction: the process in which children gradually reconstruct rules for speech they hear, guided by universal innate mechanisms which cause them to formulate certain types of hypotheses about the language system being acquired, until the mismatch between what they are exposed to and what they produce is resolved. n Morpheme order studies provide evidence for the above hypotheses. Try to prove that developmental factors rather than NL factors are at play and that universal mechanisms for L2 acquisition has to be considered primary, transfer is almost negligible.n Criticisms of the morpheme studies 1) artifact of the BSM (bilingual syntax measure)2) heterogeneity of subjects 3) morphemes with different meanings4) accuracy order not reflecting developmental sequences5) individual variation of data, cross-sectional vs. longitudinal data6) generalizability based on limited numbers of morphemesn Explanations for the morpheme order: Goldschneider and DeKeysers (2001) meta-analysis of the previous studies focused on five determinants (perceptual saliency, semantic complexity, morphophological regularity, syntactic category, and frequency), using oral data from 12 studies, involving 924 subjects. The five factors combine to explain 71% of the variance in acquisition order, but each factor only accounts for only a small part (16-36 per cent) of the variance: perceptual saliency r = .63, frequency r = .44, morphophological regularity r = .41. 5. Monitor Model (Krashen, 1978): a collection of five hypothesesn The acquisition-learning hypothesis: acquisition is like child-language acquiring L1, a subconscious process, using language for communication, implicit / informal / natural learning, focusing on meaning; learning is explicit and conscious learning of language rules. Acquisition and learning are taken as two independent systems for developing language knowledge.n The natural order hypothesis: Language is learned in a predictable order (based on the morpheme order studies)n The Monitor hypothesis: the acquired system is responsible for initiating speech, and the learned system serves as a Monitor or a check of the speech output. (Conditions for Monitor use: (1) time, (2) focus on form, (3) knowing the rule).n The input hypothesis: If there is a natural order of acquisition, how is it that learners move from one point to another? Answer: by receiving comprehensible input or i + 1. (Speaking is the result of acquisition and not its cause. If input is understood, and there is enough of it, the necessary grammar is automatically provided, i.e. it should not be taught. )n The Affective Filter hypothesis: Affect causes individual differences in L2 learning. (Acquisition comes about as a result of 3 factors: input, affective filter, LAD).n CritiquesDo learners develop two independent systems?How do learners generate utterances with the learned system in a formal setting?How can one evaluate the acquisition-learning systems without specific criteria?How is comprehension possible since Monitor is used in production?Is the natural order hypothesis well-founded?Is the linguistic level in the input hypothesis well defined and specific enough?What is the role of extralinguistic factors?How does the Affective Filter work?6. Universal Grammar (UG)n Definition: UG is a theory of the initial state So of the relevant component of the language faculty (Chomsky 1997:167) or the system of principles, conditions, and rules that are elements or properties of all human languages. (Chomsky 1975:29) n UG is postulated to explain the learnability problem (otherwise known as the logical problem, the projection problem, the Platos problem): the uniformly successful and speedy acquisition of language by children in spite of insufficient input. (the poverty-of-the-stimulus argument)n UG represents the language knowledge of the adult human mind and takes the form of abstract universal principles and variable settings for parameters. The universal principles, which are part of the human mind, require no learning. They specify the limited possibilities of variation in the form of parameters which need to be fixed in the course of language learning (e.g. the Head Direction parameter). n The process of learning the parameter values is called triggering the setting for the parameters. The triggering is predominantly caused by positive evidence, i.e. the grammatical sentences actually present in the language input. UG plays down the role of negative evidence either in its direct or indirect form. Direct negative evidence refers to the explicit correction of childrens errors. Indirect evidence refers to the non-occurrence of a linguistic feature in the language input.n UG-based approach to SLA researchn Basic questions(1) What is the initial state in SLA?(2) What is the nature of interlanguage, and how does it change over time?(3) What is the final state in SLA?n Access to UG hypothesis1) Full transfer/partial (or no) access: the initial state of L2 learning is the L1 final state.2) No transfer/full access: as in child language acquisition, the starting point for acquisition is UG.3) Full transfer/full access: like the first position, the starting point for L2 acquisition is the final state of L1, but unlike the first position, assumes the availability of UG.4) Partial transfer/full access: learners draw on both the L1 and UG.5) Partial transfer/partial access: ultimate attainment of an L2 is not possible because there is permanent impairment in the acquisition system.(If at least some access to UG is retained by L2 learners, then the process of IL development is in large part one of resetting parameters on the basis of input in the new language).n Fundamental Difference Hypothesis (FDH, Bley-Vroman 1989)FDH claims that unlike child L1 acquisition, L2 learners do not have access to UG. Rather, what they know of language universals is constructed through their L1. Furthermore, they rely on their general problem-solving abilities to learn the L2. L2 learning differs from L1 learning in important ways, e.g. incomplete knowledge, existence of a full linguistic system prior to L2 learning, differential learning results as compared with equipotentiality in L1 learning, motivation.n Falsification: UG-based research is difficult to falsify, because of the changing nature of the linguistic constructs on which it is based.n Minimalist Program (MP)Within the framework of MP, the lexicon assumes great importance. Parameterization is no longer in the syntax, but in the lexicon. To learn a language is to learn its lexicon. (To be continued)Activities on p.63References:Goldschneider, J. M. and R. DeKeyser. 2001. Explaining the natural order of L2 morpheme acquisition in English: A meta-analysis of multiple determinants. Language Learning 51:1-50.Halliday, M. A. K. 1975. Learning how to mean: Explorations in the development of language. London: Edward Arnold.AppendixAre there any errors in the following passage?This paper, in the light of the exploration of the neurological basis and psychological process of oral reading, proposes that performance on oral reading involves a readers perceptual, comprehending and production skills at different levels and therefore can serve as an indicator of EFL learners English language competence. To test the hypothesis, an experiment has been conducted with 125 college students oral reading recorded, tran