10-19-09 lecture

8/3/2019 10-19-09 lecture

1/42

Second Language Acquisition:

Theory and Practice

Linguistics 200

Fall 2009

8/3/2019 10-19-09 lecture

2/42

Plan for Todays Lecture (10/19/09)

Announcements

Main topics from 10/5 lecture

Psychological perspectives on SLA: theories ofprocessing

U-shaped learning Socially-oriented theories of SLA

8/3/2019 10-19-09 lecture

3/42

Announcements

Next week (Oct. 26): Guest lecture on SLA and the brain(Prof. Loraine Obler, CUNY)

There will be NO section on Thursday this week (Oct. 22) Readings:

For today: Mitchell & Myles Chs. 4, 7, 8

For 10/26: Obler readings (#1, #2, on course website)

Midterm: Mon, Nov. 2 (short-answer questions on topics covered in lecture and in the required readings)

Please feel free to make use of our office hours, especiallyin advance of the midterm:

Jacobsen: Wed 11-12, 4-5, Fri 11-12

Jenks: Thurs 3-4

8/3/2019 10-19-09 lecture

4/42

Main topics from 9/28/09 lecture Input, interaction, and output in SLA Heritage Language Acquisition (Guest Lecture)

8/3/2019 10-19-09 lecture

5/42

Psychological perspectives on

SLA: transition theoriesApproaches to SLA based on linguistic models such as UG tend to be

property theories as they focus on the characteristics of native

speaker knowledge forming the end state of L1 acquisition (the target

also of L2 acquisition). Psychological approaches, by contrast, tend to be transitiontheories,

focusing more on the mechanisms by which L2 learners progress

through various stages of interlanguage prior to the end state.

8/3/2019 10-19-09 lecture

6/42


SLA: transition theoriesSuch transition theories fall roughly into two types depending on

whether or not they accept the distinction made by Noam Chomsky

between competenceand performance: (a) competence: the internal, abstract representation of grammar

that a native speaker possesses of his/her language.

(b) performance: the observable linguistic behavior based on

this knowledge, subject to real-world constraints such as

limitations of memory, time, physical characteristics of

the vocal apparatus, etc.

8/3/2019 10-19-09 lecture

7/42



whether or not they accept Noam Chomskys distinction between

competenceand performance: Some transition theories accept this distinction. These theories

agree that knowledge of language is in some sense unique but

seek to uncover mechanisms ofprocessing that govern theacquisition of such knowledge by L2 learners (called processing

theories).

8/3/2019 10-19-09 lecture

8/42



whether or not they accept Noam Chomskys distinction between

competenceand performance: Other transition theories reject this distinction. These theories

argue that linguistic knowledge consists in linguistic performanceitself

seek to explain the acquisition of language on the basis of generalpsychological processes that operate across all types of learning

focus in particular on the strengthening of neural connectionsbased on repeated exposure to similar patterns in the input

(emergenist/connectionist/constructionisttheories)

8/3/2019 10-19-09 lecture

9/42

Processing theoriesThese theories assume that

the human capacity for processing information is limited;

this affects the amount and kind of information humans are able to

focus attentionon (i.e., consciously control and manipulate) in the performance of a task at any given moment in time.

The locus of this processing capacity has been variously linked to short-term (vs. long-term) memory, and its limitations

working memory (the memory that can be brought to bear on a

particular task at a particular point in time)

declarative knowledge (knowledge aboutthings) vs. procedural

knowledge (knowledge how to do things)

The theoretical status of each of these, and how they are interrelated, is

the subject of ongoing debate. (For one model of this, see the ACT*

(Adaptive Control of Thought) model of Towell and Hawkins 1994

p. 109 in M&M)

8/3/2019 10-19-09 lecture

10/42

Processing theoriesPhonological short-term memory:one example of a subroutine of

working memory.

Studies such as Ellis and Schmidt 1997, Williams and Lovatt 2003

have shown that

the mechanism used when you keep repeating a phone number until

you are able to find something to write it down on

there is a correlation between phonological short-term memory

capacity and the ability to learn rules and to conceptualize

grammar abstractly.

8/3/2019 10-19-09 lecture

11/42

Automaticity Given that

human processing capacity is limited linguistic activity is complex and involves multitasking

among semantic, morphological, and phonological levels

it becomes critical in language acquisition to develop automaticity: the routinizing of linguistic procedures so they do not compete for limiting processing resources

e.g., the automatizing of morphological processes (such as verb

inflections) allows one to commit processing resources to

semantic and pragmatic levels of language (meaning and use).

this has been seen by some as a shift from declarative to

procedural knowledge, or by others as shifting the processing

load from short-term to long-term memory

8/3/2019 10-19-09 lecture

12/42

Automaticity A common example of an automatized linguistic routine: greeting

patterns

A: Hi

B: Hi, how are you?

A: Fine, and you?B: Fine, thanks.

This is so automatic that the response is often made before the question

A: Hi, Steve.

B: Good morning, Bill.A: Fine, and you?

8/3/2019 10-19-09 lecture

13/42

Automaticity

Automatized procedures can be the source of pitfalls for L2 learners:

At the 2000 G8 summit in Okinawa, Japan; exchange between thenPresident Clinton and Prime Minister Mori of Japan:Mori: Who are you? (thinking to say How are you?)

Clinton: Im Hillary Clintons husband.

Mori: I am too. (Gass & Selinker 2008)

8/3/2019 10-19-09 lecture

14/42

Processing Theories and SLA

Van Patten (2007)s Input Processing Model

1. The Primacy of Meaning Principle: Learners process input for meaning before they process it for form

Learners process lexical items before grammatical forms,

especially when both encode the same meaning.

Learners process nonredundant and meaningful grammatical

forms before they process grammatical forms that are either

redundant or non-meaningful.

E.g., in interpretation of English tense, is typically given in early stages

of L2 acquisition to processing temporal adverbs (such asyesterday,tomorrow) over tense marked by verb inflection (studied, study, will

study).

8/3/2019 10-19-09 lecture

15/42

Processing Theories and SLAVan Patten (2007)s Input Processing Model

2. The Sentence Location Principle: Learners tend to process items insentence-initial position before those in final position and those in

medial position.

Learners tend to assign subject or agent status to the first (pro)

noun they encounter in a sentence but lexical semantics, real-world knowledge, or context may

override this principle

Japanese word order and case marking:

Neko-ga nezumi-o toraeta. The cat caught the mouse

cat-NOM mouse-ACC caught-PAST Nezumi-o neko-ga toraeta. The cat caught the mouse Nezumi-ga neko-o toraeta. The mouse caught the cat. Neko-o nezumi-ga toraeta. The mouse caught the cat.

8/3/2019 10-19-09 lecture

16/42


Research on L2 processing capacity points to the following two kinds ofdevelopment:

o Relationship of form to meaning (Slobin 1979, Andersen 1990): One-to-one many-to-one

(early stages tend to exhibit set canonical word order)

o Exchange of grammatical information between linguistic constituents (Pienemann 1998):

No exchange (linguistic units treated in early stages as

prefabricated chunks)

exchange within smaller constituents (e.g., agreement of

gender, number in NPs)

exchange within larger units (e.g, agreement between

subject and predicate across entire S)

8/3/2019 10-19-09 lecture

17/42


Developmental stages in L2 German word order (Pienemann 1998): Stage 1: Canonical Word Order (SVO)

Die Kinder spielen mit Ball. The children play with the ball Stage 2: Adverb preposing (SVO order unchanged)

Dort Kinder spielen. Over there children play. Stage 3: Verb separation (grammatical info exchanged in VP) Aller Kinder mu die Pause machen. All children must a break

take.

Stage 4: Verb second (subject-verb inversion; agreement in VP)

Dann hat sie wieder die knoch gebringt. Then has she brought

again the bone. Stage 5: Verb-final in subordinate clauses

Er sagte da er nach hause kommt. He said that he home (will)

come.

8/3/2019 10-19-09 lecture

18/42

Restructuring

Increased automaticity of linguistic routines in L2 results in

processing capacity being freed up

increased attention being paid to internal structure oflinguistic units

prefabricated linguistic chunks being broken down,ultimately forcing

a restructuringof the mental representation of grammar existing up to that point.

8/3/2019 10-19-09 lecture

19/42

Restructuring

Data from L2 child learner of English (Wong-Fillmore 1976): Lookit, like that. Lookit gas. Looky, chicken. Lookit four.Lookit, looky = an unanalyzed attention-getting marker? Data from same child at a later period:

Get it! Stop it! Internal analysis ofverb + it, indicating restructuring.

8/3/2019 10-19-09 lecture

20/42

Restructuring

Restructuringfrequently entails a (temporary) destabilization of the grammatical system, so that

previously target-like correct forms acquired as prefabricated

chunks arereanalyzed into constituent parts and reassembled

by rule;

but until the proper range of application of such rules are acquired, they are often misapplied, resulting in the appearance of non-target-like forms not previously observed;

these eventually are corrected as the proper constraints on rule

application are acquired and the system becomes once more

stable.This gives rise to the phenomenon ofU-shaped learning (examples

later)

8/3/2019 10-19-09 lecture

21/42

Emergenist/constructionist Theories

These theories reject the distinction between language competence and performance:

they argue that linguistic knowledge consists in linguisticperformance itself;

they seek to explain the acquisition of language on the basis ofgeneral psychological processes that operate across all types oflearning

focusing in particular on the strengthening of neural connectionsbased on repeated exposure to similar patterns in the input.

These theories, relying as they do on statistical occurrence in input,encounter the problem of poverty of stimulus motivating the

innateness hypothesis for L1 acquisition (and L2 acquisition?).

8/3/2019 10-19-09 lecture

22/42


Sokolik and Smith (1992) created a computer network model that was

able to correctly predict the gender of previously unencountered

French nouns on the basis of statistical correlations between spelling(e.g., endings such as -ette, -tion, -eur, -on) and gender learned

from previous input.

8/3/2019 10-19-09 lecture

23/42


The Competition Model (MacWhinney 2002, 2004): L2 processing involves competition among various cues Interpretation of the meaning of a given word order depends on

which of these cues wins out.

Cues involved in sentence interpretation in English: The cows eat the grass. (1) Word order: first NP in active declarative sentence is agent (2) Lexical semantics/real world knowledge about cows, grass (3) Morphology (subject-verb agreement points to cows as subject)These cues are in competition in

The grass eats the cows.but (1) and (3) are sufficiently strong in English to win out over (2)

8/3/2019 10-19-09 lecture

24/42


In Italian various word orders are possible (Gass & Selinker 2008): Giovanna ha comprato il pane. (SVO) Giovanna has bought the bread.

Allora, compro io il vino. (VSO) Then Ill buy the wine. Ha comprato il vino Aldo. (VOS) Aldo has bought the wine. No, il vino lha comprato Antonella. (OVS) No, its Antonella who bought the wine.Here cues (2) and (3) are primary, together with pragmatic contextual

information:

(1) Word order

(2) Lexical semantics/real world knowledge (3) Morphology (subject-verb agreement)

8/3/2019 10-19-09 lecture

25/42


In the Competition Model, the competition among the following will beresolved in different ways depending on the strength of each

Meaning-based cues L1-based cues Cues based on frequency of L2 pattern input

Where morphological agreement does not resolve the issue, English and

Italian cues present the possibility of different resolutions.

La matita guarda il cane. the pencil looks at the dog

8/3/2019 10-19-09 lecture

26/42

U-shaped LearningStage I Stage III

Stage II

Correct utterances

Deviant utterances

8/3/2019 10-19-09 lecture

27/42

U-shaped Learning: the English

progressive

Lightbrown (1983), in a study of acquisition of L2 English progressive

by French L1 children, found

In grade 6, asked to describe a picture, the subjects tended to respond:

He is taking a cake.

By grade 7, at a later stage of acquisition of English, the same group

tended to respond:

He take a cake.

8/3/2019 10-19-09 lecture

28/42

U-shaped Learning: the English

progressive

Lightbrown hypothesized:

In grade 6, the learners had been presented only with the Englishprogressive, and thus equated it with the French simple present

In grade 7, when they were presented with the English simplepresent, two forms (the progressive and the simple present)

competed for the semantic space occupied by a single form in

French, causing a period of destabilization until the correct

boundaries of usage between the two were acquired.

8/3/2019 10-19-09 lecture

29/42

U-shaped Learning: two types of

intransitivesLinguistic research has uncovered a cross-linguistic distinction between

two types of intransitives, called unergatives and unaccusatives.

Unaccusatives UnergativesExamples die, arrive, exist,

remain, appear, freezerun, swim, dance,

worryLexical semantics Change of location/

state, continuation of

state, existence, (dis)

appearance

Intentional (controlled)

processes, actions

Argument structure Internal argument(subject noun acts like

object of transitive)

External argument

(subject noun acts like

subject of transitive)

8/3/2019 10-19-09 lecture

30/42


intransitivesUnaccusatives versus unergatives in English

Unaccusatives Unergatives

-er nominalization *dier, *arriver,

*exister, *remainer runner, worrier,swimmer, dancerThere inversion There arrived a

ackage at the door. *There swam a boyin the pool.

Resultative

constructions

The river froze solid. *The athlete rantired.

8/3/2019 10-19-09 lecture

31/42


intransitivesUnaccusatives versus unergatives in other languages

Unaccusatives Unergatives

Italian Use ofessere

auxiliary;

Ne-cliticization

Use ofavere

auxiliary;

No ne-cliticization

Japanese, Korean Quantifier float No quantifier float

Russian Genitive of absence

with neuter

agreement

No genitive of

absence and regular

subject agreement

8/3/2019 10-19-09 lecture

32/42


intransitivesCommon errors in L2 English:

Unaccusative non-target phenomenon: spurious passive My grandmother was died when I was a child. Unergative non-target phenomenon: John shouted hoarse. (Intended meaning: John shouted himself hoarse)

8/3/2019 10-19-09 lecture

33/42


intransitivesOshita (2001), in a study of acquisition of English intransitives by L1

Japanese subjects, found

Stage I

Lexicon: unaccusative = unergative Syntax: superficially target-like (mostly NP-V)

Stage II

Lexicon: unaccusative unergative Syntax: appearance of errors with unaccusative

Stage III

Lexicon: unaccusative unergative Syntax: disappearance of non-target phenomena

8/3/2019 10-19-09 lecture

34/42


intransitivesSubjects in Stage II of Oshitas study:

(a) avoided NP-Verb patterns with unaccusatives, such as A big package arrived on my birthday. (b) created spurious passives with unaccusatives, such as A big package was arrived on my birthday.Oshitas analysis:

(a) is due to too rigidly associating internal arguments with syntactic

object position.

(b) is due to mistakenly overmarking movement of internal arguments to subject position with passive morphosyntax.

These errors are corrected (aligned with the target language) by

Stage III, thus completing the U curve.

8/3/2019 10-19-09 lecture

35/42

Socially-oriented theories of SLA

SLA research within framework of socio-culturaltheory of the Russian psychologist Lev Semyo-

novich Vygotsky (1896-1934)

SLA research modeled on sociolinguistic researchon language variation, esp. in tradition of William

Labov

8/3/2019 10-19-09 lecture

36/42

Vygotskyan Socio-cultural theoryKey concepts:

Language as a tool for thought, one of a number of symbolic

artifacts in human activity that mediatehumans with their environment

Language develops through stages ofregulation(a) object-regulation (use of objects to develop cognitive skills)

(b) other-regulation (activities in which other humans provide a

scaffolding for the performance of activities) (c) self-regulation (activities performed without external help) Development from (b) to (c) is a process ofinternalization by

which language moves from an inter-personal to an intra-personallevel

This occurs in a Zone of Proximal Development, the distanceseparating the current level of ability to act independently from a

potentially higher level attainable through collaborative or guided

activity

8/3/2019 10-19-09 lecture

37/42

Vygotskyan Socio-cultural theory

Examples of SLA research in Vygotskyan framework

Donato (1994) observes collaborative scaffolding in L2 classroom

activities, such as following in a lesson on French reflexive verbs:A: ...and then Ill say tu as souvenu notre anniversaire de mariage or should I say

mon anniversaire?

B: Tu as C: Tu as A: Tu as souvenu you remembered

C: Yeah, but isnt that reflexive? Tu tasA: Ah, tu tas souvenuB: Oh, its tu esA: Tu esC: tu es, tu es, tu A: Tes, tu tes

C: tu tes

A: Tu tes souvenu

Note that final product of this collaboration is not due to any single

member of the group

8/3/2019 10-19-09 lecture

38/42

Vygotskyan Socio-cultural theory

The phenomenon ofprivate speechis viewed in this framework as amanifestation of the transition of language from the inter-personal to

the intra-personal level (i.e., as a manifestation ofinternalization)

Ohta (2001) observes repetition and vicarious responsesin theJapanese language classroom as special cases of such private speech.

Teacher: Kuizu wa muzukashikatta desu ka? Was the quiz difficult? Student A: Iie. NoStudent B: E::h yasashii desu (quietly) It is easy (error: sd be past)

Teacher: Yashikatta desu ne It was easy, right?Student B: Yasashikatta desu (quietly) It was easy

In the following example, Student B produces an incorrect vicarious

response to the teachers question, then self-corrects, all with

lowered volume typical of private speech.

8/3/2019 10-19-09 lecture

39/42

SLA and Sociolinguistic

PerspectivesVariationin language can be conditioned by various factorsE.g., phonological variation:

(a) conditioning by linguistic environment: pronunciation of /t/ in

top tub return [th] in word or syllable initial position stop stub astern [t] when preceded by [s] (b) not conditioned by linguistic environment (free variation):

pronunciation of /t/ in dating, writer, voted [th] or [] between vowels before an unstressed syllable

8/3/2019 10-19-09 lecture

40/42


Perspectives

Sociolinguistic research in the tradition of William Labov has been

largely concerned with finding socialenvironments conditioning

such free variation

Variation conditioined by stylistic register (see previous examples of dating, etc.)

Variation conditioned by class/ethnicity: deletion of final /t, d/ in Detroit Afro-American speech (Preston 1996)

Gender-based variation: correlation between female speech and conservative/high prestige styles (Romaine 2003)

8/3/2019 10-19-09 lecture

41/42


Perspectives

What about variation in L2 interlanguage? Possible sources:

effects of prestige varieties in L1: Schmidt (1977), in study of L2 English of speakers of L1 Cairene

Arabic showed a positive correlation between frequency of use of

// and level of education (// occurs in free variation with /s/ and /t/ in certain environments in Arabic, with // being a prestige

variety)

sensitivity of L2 speakers to social environments in L2 (Tarone 1988)

But there is clearly a limit to how much sociolinguistic variables can

account for variation in L2 interlanguage: non-systematicvariationmust account for a large part of such variation, particularly in the

transitional stages where interlanguage systems are unstable or

subject to hypothesis testing.

8/3/2019 10-19-09 lecture

42/42

Fornexttime(Oct26)

L2 language learning and the brain (guest lecture)

Read two Obler readings on course website

10-19-09 lecture

Documents