current trends in european second language acquisition research

title:CurrentTrendsinEuropeanSecondLanguageAcquisitionResearchMultilingualMatters(Series);51

author: Dechert,HansW.publisher: MultilingualMatters

isbn10|asin: 185359024Xprintisbn13: 9781853590245ebookisbn13: 9780585225845

language: English

subjectSecondlanguageacquisition--Congresses,Languageandlanguages--Studyandteaching--Europe--Congresses.

publicationdate: 1990lcc: P118.2.C871990ebddc: 428/.007

Secondlanguageacquisition--Congresses,

subject: Languageandlanguages--Studyandteaching--Europe--Congresses.

Pagei

CurrentTrendsinEuropeanSecondLanguageAcquisitionResearch

Pageii

MultilingualMatters

AgeinSecondLanguageAcquisitionBIRGITHARLEY

BilingualismandtheIndividualA.HOLMEN,E.HANSEN,J.GIMBELandJ.JøRGENSEN(eds)

BilingualisminSocietyandSchoolJ.JøRGENSEN,E.HANSEN,A.HOLMENandJ.GIMBEL(eds)

BilingualismandSpecialEducationJIMCUMMINS

Bilingualism:BasicPrinciplesHUGOBAETENSBEARDSMORE

Code-MixingandCodeChoiceJOHNGIBBONS

CulturalStudiesinForeignLanguageEducationMICHAELBYRAM

TheEducationofLinguisticandCulturalMinoritiesintheOECDCountries

STACYCHURCHILL

IntrospectioninSecondLanguageResearchC.FAERCHandG.KASPER(eds)

KeyIssuesinBilingualismandBilingualEducationCOLINBAKER

LanguageAcquisition:TheAgeFactorD.M.SINGLETON

LanguageinaBlackCommunityVIVEDWARDS

LanguageandEducationinMultilingualSettingsBERNARDSPOLSKY(ed.)

LearnerLanguageandLanguageLearningC.FAERCH,K.HAASTRUPandR.PHILLIPSON

MethodsinDialectologyALANR.THOMAS(ed.)

MinorityEducation:FromShametoStruggleT.SKUTNABB-KANGASandJ.CUMMINS(eds)

MinorityEducationandEthnicSurvivalMICHAELBYRAM

ModellingandAssessingSecondLanguageAcquisitionK.HYLTENSTAMandM.PIENEMANN(eds)

OralLanguageAcrosstheCurriculumDAVIDCORSON

RaisingChildrenBilingually:ThePre-SchoolYearsLENOREARNBERG

TheRoleoftheFirstLanguageinSecondLanguageLearningHÅKANRINGBOM

SchoolinginaPluralCanadaJOHNR.MALLEA

VariationinSecondLanguageAcquisitionSUSANGASS,CAROLYNMADDEN,DENNISPRESTONand

LARRYSELINKER(eds)

Pleasecontactusforthelatestbookinformation:MultilingualMatters,BankHouse,8aHillRoad,

Clevedon,AvonBS217HH,England.

Pageiii

MULTILINGUALMATTERS51SeriesEditor:DerrickSharp

CurrentTrendsinEuropeanSecondLanguageAcquisitionResearch

EditedbyHansW.Dechert

MULTILINGUALMATTERSLTDClevedonPhiladelphia

Pageiv

Disclaimer:Thisbookcontainscharacterswithdiacritics.WhenthecharacterscanberepresentedusingtheISO8859-1characterset(http://www.w3.org/TR/images/latin1.gif),netLibrarywillrepresentthemastheyappearintheoriginaltext,andmostcomputerswillbeabletoshowthefullcharacterscorrectly.Inordertokeepthetextsearchableandreadableonmostcomputers,characterswithdiacriticsthatarenotpartoftheISO8859-1listwillberepresentedwithouttheirdiacriticalmarks.

LibraryofCongressCataloging-in-PublicationDataCurrenttrendsinEuropeansecondlanguageacquisitionresearch/editedbyHansW.Dechert.p.cm.(Multilingualmatters:51)PapersoriginatingfromaworkshopheldJuly27-281985atGeorgetownUniversityinconjunctionwiththe1985LSA/TESOLSummerInstitute.Includesbibliographiesandindexes.1.SecondlanguageacquisitionCongresses.2.LanguageandlanguagesStudyandteachingEuropeCongresses.I.Dechert,HansW.(Hans-Wilhelm)II.LSA/TESOLInstitute(1985:GeorgetownUniversity)III.LinguisticSocietyofAmerica.IV.TeachersofEnglishtoSpeakersofOtherLanguages.V.Series:Multilingualmatters(Series):51.P118.2.C871989428'.007dc1988-25207

BritishLibraryCataloguinginPublicationDataCurrenttrendsinEuropeansecondlanguageacquisitionresearch(Multilingualmatters;51)1.Foreignlanguageskills.Acquisition.Research.

Research.I.Dechert,HansW.401'.9

ISBN1-85359-024XISBN1-85359-023-1Pbk

MultilingualMattersLtd

BankHouse,8aHillRoad&1900FrostRoad,Suite101Clevedon,AvonBS217HHBristol,PA19007EnglandU.S.A.

Copyright©1990HansW.Dechertandtheauthorsofindividualchapters

AllrightsreservedNopartofthisworkmaybereproducedinanyformorbyanymeanswithoutpermissioninwritingfromthepublisher.

IndexcompiledbyMegDavies(SocietyofIndexers)TypesetbyPhotoGraphics,Honiton,DevonPrintedandboundinGreatBritainbyWBCPrint,Bristol

Pagev

CONTENTS

Preface vii

Introduction 1

PartOne:TheoryandMethodologyinSecondLanguageAcquisitionResearch

1NounsandVerbsintheLearner'sLexiconRainerDietrich

13

2TypologicalMarkednessasaResearchToolintheStudyofSecondLanguageAcquisitionKennethHyltenstam

23

3ForeignLanguageAcquisitionandtheDevelopmentofAutomaticityJaakkoLehtonen

37

4CompetingPlansinSecondLanguageProcessingHansW.Dechert

51

PartTwo:Children'sFirstandSecondLanguageAcquisition

5EarlyBilingualReading:RetrospectsandProspectsRenzoTitone

67

6 83

TheRelationshipBetweenNativeandForeignLanguageLearningAbility:EducationalandLinguisticFactorsPeterSkehan

7InvestigationsintoClassroomDiscourseWernerHüllen

107

8TheLinguisticsofEnunciativeOperationsandSecondLanguageLearningDanielleBailly

119

PartThree:ReferenceinSecondLanguageAcquisition

9TheDevelopmentofMeansforTemporalityintheUnguidedAcquisitionofL2:Cross-linguisticPerspectivesColetteNoyau

143

Pagevi

10ReferenceandDiscourseStructureintheLearningofFrenchbyAdultMoroccansDanielVéronique

171

PartFour:Cross-LinguisticInteractioninSecondLanguageAcquisition

11EffectsofTransferinForeignLanguageLearningHåkanRingbom

205

12InputfromWithin:UtrechtResearchintoCross-linguisticInfluenceinFormalLanguageLearningEnvironmentsMichaelSharwoodSmith

219

13LanguageContactandCultureContact:TowardsanIntegrativeApproachinSecondLanguageAcquisitionResearchElsOksaar

230

BiographicalDataonContributors 245

ListofResearchProjects 251

Index 253

Pagevii

PREFACEThisvolumeistheresultofthecommoneffortsofmanymorepeopleinvolvedinSLAresearchthanthosewhosecontributionsitcollects.

InaletterofMay25th1984DeborahTannen,theDirectorofthe1985LSA/TESOLSummerInstituteaskedmewhetherI'dliketoorganise'somesortofasymposiumlinkinglinguisticstoteachingESL...'ontheoccasionofthe1985SummerInstitute.Myimmediateanswerwasthatthisseemedtobeachallengingsuggestion.YetIwascarefulenoughnottoagreeimmediatelyasIrealisedthatorganisingsuchaworkshopinayear'stimewouldcreatemanyproblemsamongwhichthetaskofraisingfundswasnottheeasiestone.DuringthefollowingmonthsIcontactedmanyindividualsaswellasinstitutionsandaskedthemfortheirassistance.Allinall,therewasanoverwhelminglypositivereactiontotheideaoftheGeorgetownWorkshopsothatIfinallycametotheconclusionthatImightaswellsay'yes'!InaletterofAugust22nd1984ProfessorTannenofficiallyinvitedmetoorganise'aspecialworkshoponthetopic"CurrentTrendsinEuropeanSecondLanguageAcquisitionResearch"totakeplaceJuly27thand28thinconjunctionwiththe1985InstituteoftheLinguisticSocietyofAmericaandtheTeachersofEnglishtoSpeakersofOtherLanguages,tobeheldjointlyonthecampusofGeorgetownUniversitythesummerof1985.'Shefurtherstatedinthesameletter'IbelievethereisagreatneedtobringtotheawarenessoftheAmericanandInternationallinguisticsandTESOLcommunities,theimportantworkbeingdonebyEuropeanresearchersinthisfield.'

'EuropeanSecondLanguageAcquisitionResearch',thesecondpartoftheWorkshop'stopicandthisvolume'stitleis,ofcourse,anoverextension.Iamfullyawareofit.ThereisnotsuchathingasaunifiedSLAresearchtraditioninEurope.Eveniftherewas,themany

constraintsimposedontheWorkshoppersonal,organisational,temporal,andlastbutnotleastfinancialones,onlypermittedmetoasksomescholarsfromsomecountriestopresentanddiscusssomeoftheirideas.AllofusattheWorkshoprealisedthatwecouldnotclaimtogivemorethanaglimpseintothe

Pageviii

enormousrichnessandvarietyinEuropeanSLAresearch.Actually,theexperiencethatthereexistssuchadiversifiedresearchtraditioninEuropeofwhichwewerejustapartisperhapsoneofthemostintriguingresultsofourmeeting.Allthisismeantwiththephrase'CurrentTrends',thefirstpartofthetopicoftheWorkshopandthetitleofthefollowingpages.Tobesure,becauseoftheorganisationalrestrictionsanddifficultiesalludedtoabovevariousEuropeanculturesandlanguages,andthusresearchtraditions,areoverrepresentedinthisvolume;othersareunderrepresented,ornotrepresentedatall.Thereis,forinstance,aseverelyfeltlackofcontributionsdealingwithEasternEuropeanresearch.Nevertheless,thedecisiontomeetatGeorgetownanddiscussourresearchactivitieswiththeparticipantsoftheSummerInstituteinspiteoftheselimitationshasprovedtobeanextremelyrewardingone.TomyknowledgeithasbeenthefirstWorkshopofthatsortandofthatsizeevertotakeplaceintheUnitedStates.

SomeofthearticlescollectedinthisvolumeareidenticaloralmostidenticalwiththepapersreadattheWorkshop.Mostofthem,however,representmodifiedversionswrittenafterwardsinlightofthediscussionsduringtheWorkshop.

Formecollecting,reading,andeditingthemhasbeenanexcitingexperience,firstlybecauseoftheremarkablevarietyofmethodologiesapproachingtheproblemofSLA,andsecondlybecauseoftheconceptualandculturaldifferencessurfacingthroughthem.Editingsuchacollectioninthecourseoftimehasprovedtobearathercomplicatedtask.Thisistosaythatmanyportionsofthisvolumehaveundergonevariousstagesofmodificationduringthelasttwoyears.IhavebeenfortunateenoughtohavehadmygraduatestudentassistantsSilkeBaier,BärbelTreichel,andBrigitteSchwarzpatientlyreadingandrereadingthevariousversionsduringthe'growth'ofthefinalmanuscript,thussharingwithmetheirknowledgeinAPA

standards.ThisprocedurecouldonlybepractisedwiththekindhelpofM.Burba,B.Carl-Mast,andC.Kuchta,thesecretariesintheDepartmentofEnglishandRomanceLanguagesandLiteraturesoftheUniversityofKassel.

Isurelyhopethatmyintentiontopreserveeachcontribution's'flair',itsparticularshadeofcultureandwealthofthoughthasbeenrealisedinspiteoftheneedtostandardiseit.WiththeexceptionofthetwonativespeakersofEnglishamongus,allarticleswerewrittenbylearnersofEnglishasasecondorforeignlanguage.IhopethatthemanylinguisticcompromisestobefoundonthefollowingpagesmaybeacceptablefornativeEnglishreaders.Unfortunatelythisprocedurehastakenlotsoftime.

Pageix

FirstofallIwouldliketothankallcontributorstothisvolumefortheirpatience.SecondlyIwishtothanktheofficialsofGeorgetownUniversityforgivingustheopportunitytomeetatthisinspiringcampusandparticipateinthevariousactivitiesofthe1985LSA/TESOLSummerInstitute.InthiscontextIamparticularlygratefultoDeborahTannenforsuggestingtheoriginalideaoftheWorkshop,andtohercolleaguesandthestaffintheDepartmentofLinguisticsofGeorgetownUniversitywhohaveallmadeourstayaverypleasantandsuccessfulone.Amongthem,HeidiByrnesdeservesaspecialwordofthanksforthenever-endingassistancesheofferedtousbeforeandduringtheWorkshop.JohnHammerfromtheLinguisticSocietyofAmericadidhisbesttoactivatehisconnectionsandovercomeourproblemsintheplanningandfinancingoftheWorkshop.

ThisWorkshopwouldnothavebeenpossiblewithoutthegrantsmadeavailabletotheparticipantsfromtheFederalRepublicofGermanybytheGermanResearchCouncil(DeutscheForschungsgemeinschaft),thefinancialgrantsprovidedtootherparticipantsbytheEuropeanCulturalFoundationinAmsterdam,andtheassistancegivenbyvariousnationalsponsorsandEuropeanuniversities.

IfinallywishtothankMultilingualMatters,ourpublisher,fortheclosecooperationandprofessionaldiligenceinbringingoutthisvolume.

HANSW.DECHERTKASSEL,MARCH1988

INTRODUCTIONItistheobjectofthisvolume,asithasbeenthegoaloftheGeorgetownWorkshop,tobringtotheawarenessofitsreadersexamplesoftheworkbeingdoneinEuropeanSLAresearch.

WhenIaddressedmycolleaguesinvariousEuropeanresearchgroupsandaskedthemtoparticipateintheWorkshopitwasmyprimaryintentionthattheymightrepresentalargevarietyofdifferent,evencontroversial,researchtraditions.Theywereaskedtoreportontheirongoingresearchwithoutbeinggivenanythematicconstraints.ThestructuringoftheWorkshopwasdoneaftertheindividualproposalsandabstractsofthepaperstobereadhadbeensubmitted.Eventuallynotallscholarswhohadexpressedtheirconsenttoparticipatewereabletodoso.Therewas,inotherwords,acertainlackofconsistencyinthefinalthematicstructureoftheWorkshopduetothesecancellations.ThisisreflectedinthestructureofthisvolumewhichfollowsexactlythesequenceofpresentationsattheWorkshop.Yetitseemstome,howeverfragmentaryitmayappear,thatafterallthisvolumedoesrepresentarichselectionoftopicsandmethodologieswhicharecharacteristicofcurrenttrendsinEuropeanSLAresearch.

ItwasmysecondintentiontointroduceouraudienceattheWorkshopaswellasthereadersofthisvolumetovariousestablishedSLAresearchprojects.Forthisreasontheparticipantswereaskedtoelaborateontheseprojectsintheirpresentations.Alistoftheseprojectswhicharereferredtoonthefollowingpagesisgivenintheindexsection.Itstandsforarichresearchtraditionwhich,tomyknowledge,hasnotbeendescribedindetail,norevenbeenfullyperceivedintheinternationalSLAliterature.

SLAmaycurrentlybesaidtobebynomeansadequatelyunderstood,

ordescribed,ormodelled,eitherinEuropeoranywhereelse.Afterdecadesofintensiveresearchwestilldonothavesatisfactoryanswerstomanyimportantquestions,evenelementaryones,suchastheroleofthefirstlanguageinSLA.SLAis,asthevariousimplicitorexplicitcontroversies

onthefollowingpagesdisclose,acontroversialissue.Thisisevenmoresowhenitcomestotheproblemtowhatendsandinwhatwaysecondlanguagesshouldbetaught.Is,forinstance,theanswertothatproblemreallyassimpleastheproponentsofacommunicationorientedapproachhavemadeusbelieveformanyyears?Orisitnotevidentthatmetalinguisticawarenessdevelopsparalleltolearners'linguisticprogress?WhythenshouldnotmetacognitionhaveanessentialfunctioninSLAaswell?

ThisvolumebringstogetherresearchfindingsinrestrictedareasofSLA.NoneofthefollowingarticleswouldclaimtocovermorethanasmallsegmentofinformationrelevanttotheoveralltopicSLA:theacquisitionofaparticularsecondlanguage;theacquisitionprocessofaparticularlearnerorgroupoflearners;theinteractionoftwoormoreparticularlanguages,similarordistant;theacquisitionwithinaparticularlinguisticandculturalenvironment;theacquisitionofparticularlinguisticphenomenaornon-verbalbehavioremes;theacquisitionataparticulardevelopmentalstageofthetotallearningprocess;theacquisitiononparticularlevelsofcognitionanddescription;theexemplificationofaparticularresearchapproachormethodology,andsoforth.ThetremendousvarietyofsuchindividualapproachesdiscussedonthefollowingpagessuggeststhatSLAisnot,andmustnotbeseenas,asimplehomogeneousprocesswhichmaybeeasilyassessedwithonemethodormodelledintermsofonetheory.

Tosumup,thearticlescollectedinthisvolumerepresenttheresearcheffortsofvariousEuropeanscholarsandgroupsofscholarswhohaveapproachedthecomplexphenomenonofacquiringdifferentsecondlanguagesfromdifferentperspectivesandatdifferentlevelsinthelightofdifferentparadigms.Itismyhopethatthearticleswillcontributetotheinternationaldiscussionacrosslanguages,researchtraditions,andculturalconstraints.ForcenturiesEuropehasbeenaplaceofcontinuouscontactandinteractionoflanguagesandcultures.

ItisanexcellentfieldforthestudyofSLA.

PartOne,TheoryandMethodologyinSecondLanguageAcquisitionResearch,comprisesfourcontributionsbytwoScandinavianandtwoGermanresearchers.Theyelaborateonthenotionsoflexicon(Dietrich),typologicalmarkedness(Hyltenstam),automaticity(Lehtonen),andcompetition(Dechert)asbasictheoreticalconceptsinthediscussionofL2production,andreactiontimedata.

RainerDietrichdiscussesinhisarticleNounsandVerbsintheLearner'sLexicontheorderofacquiringnounsandverbsinfirstandsecondlanguageacquisitionandraisestheissueofatheoreticalexplanationforsuchorderintermsofchildren'saswellasadults'cognitivedevelopment.ThedatacollectedwithintheframeworkoftheEuropeanScienceFoundationproject

comprisetheoralreproductionofafilmbythreeearlyadultlearnersofGerman,twoItaliansandaTurk.R.Dietrichpresentsthefirstresultsofhispilotanalysisofthesedata,theearlyindividualrepertoireofhisinformants,theproportionofdifferentcategories,andtheindividualrateofgrowthinthesubjects'lexicon.

TheseresultsdemonstratethatbeginningadultL2learners,likechildren,intheirreproductionofafilmpickupmorenominalreferentialitemsthanpredicativeones.TheuseofverbsincreasesinlaterstagesofL2acquisition.Thenoun-verbratioinearlyadults'narrativereproductionmaybeinterpretedasareflectionofmorefundamentalpropertiesofcomplexverbalbehaviour.

KennethHyltenstaminhisarticleTypologicalMarkednessasaResearchToolintheStudyofSecondLanguageAcquisitionbaseshisargumentsontheconceptoflinguisticmarkedness,whichhasbeenemployedinvariousSLAstudiesinordertoassesswhatL2featuresareacquiredatwhatstageofdevelopmentorwhatL2featuresareeasyordifficulttoacquire.K.Hyltenstamargues(a)thatthenotionoftypologicalmarkednessisvaluableinthehypothesisformationphaseofSLAresearch,(b)thatitcannotbeconsideredasatisfactoryexplanatoryconcept,and(c)that,however,SLAdatacontributetoageneraltheoryofmarkednessand,generallyspeaking,toatheoryoflanguage.HeexpandshistheoreticaldiscussionofmarkednessthroughempiricaldatatakenfromtwostudiesontheuseofdifferentaspectsofSwedish(a)inthetreatmentofpronominalcopiesinSwedishrelativeclausesbyadultlearnersofSwedishwithaFinnish,Greek,Persian,andSpanishL1-background,and(b)inthetreatmentofvoicinginstopsbychildandadultlearnersofSwedishwithFinnishastheirprimarylanguage.

JaakkoLehtonenproposesreactiontimemeasurementasavaluableempiricalresearchinstrumentinhisarticleForeignLanguage

AcquisitionandtheDevelopmentofAutomaticity.Hesetsoutwithadiscussionofthedevelopmentofsecondlanguageproceduralknowledgeinthelightoftwoexperiments(a)onewithFinnishuniversitystudentsattheUniversityofJyväskylälearningEnglish,orGerman,orSwedish,and(b)withGermanuniversitystudentsattheUniversityofKassellearningEnglish,orFrench,orSpanish.HefocuseshisanalysisofthedataonthedevelopmentanddegreeofautomaticityasfoundthroughthemeasurementofdifferencesintheReactionTime(RT)latenciesofhissubjects,testedinvariouslinguisticdecisiontasksontheacceptabilityofvisuallypresentedcorrect/incorrectL2sentences.

Automatisedsecondlanguageperceptionandproductionprocessesaretypicalofcompetentlinguisticbehaviour.AccordingtoAndersen,theremaybefivestagesinthedevelopmentofsuchautomaticity:unconsciousincompetence,consciousincompetence,consciouscompetence,unconsciouscompetence.Thisfourthstageseemstobethefinalgoaloftheidealsecondlanguagelearner,whereasthefifthstage,conscioussupercompetence,mightonlycharacterisepeakperformanceandknowledge.Decisiontimesarelikelytoindicatethedegreesofautomaticity;thefasterthereactiontime,thehigherthelevelofautomaticity.RT-measurementpromisestoprovideanextremelyvaluabletoolinSLAresearchmethodology.

HansDechertinhisarticleCompetingPlansinSecondLanguageProcessingpresentsfivecasesofblendingtobetakenasindicationsofanunderlyingcompetitionofplans.Competitionisheldtocharacterisethehumaninformationprocessingsystemingeneral.Secondlanguageprocessing,inotherwords,isseenasbeingdeterminedbygeneralsystemcharacteristicswhichmaybefoundinothertypesofsystemoutputaswell.Examplesofsuchsystemcharacteristicsarethehighflexibilityattheperipheryandapotentiallackofcentralcontrolundertaskstressconditions.InanintroductorypassagethefamouscaseofthecollisionoftwojetplanesontheIslandofTenerifein1977isinterpretedasastrikingbehaviouralexampleofthecompetitionofplansinthedecisionprocessesofoneofthepilots.ThefollowinglinguisticsamplesarealltakenfromtheKasselcorpusofsecondlanguageproductiondata.ThefirstonerevealsacaseofblendingofanadvancedlearnerofEnglishintheoralproductionofanL2frozenbinomial.ThesecondlinguisticexampleonthesentencelevelistakenfromanarrativeoralproductionofanativespeakerofEnglish.Blendsasindicationsofcompetitionarefoundintheoralproductionsofnativeandnon-nativespeakers.Thethirdsampleisacaseofwrittenproductionofan

advancedadultGermanlearnerofEnglishonthecollocationlevel.Blends,thus,arefoundinoralaswellaswrittenlanguageproductions.IntheconcludingportionanintentionalblendfoundinanarticlefromtheWallStreetJournalgivesanexampleofblendingforstylisticandargumentativereasons.Blendsoccurunintentionallyaswellasintentionally.Forapsycho-linguisticsoflanguageprocessingblendsgiveimmediateaccesstothemechanismsofinformationprocessingwhichisverylikelytobeaparallel,distributed,andcompetitivesystem.

TheSecondPart,Children'sFirstandSecondLanguageAcquisition,containsarticlesbyanEnglish,Italian,German,andFrenchauthor.Inallfourreportstheinformants'secondlanguageacquisitionisrelatedtotheirfirstlanguagedevelopment.Theyalldeal,onewayortheother,with

projectsontheteachingofsecondlanguagesintutoredpre-schoolandschoolcontexts.

PeterSkehan'scontributiontothetopicSLA,TheRelationshipBetweenNativeandForeignLanguageLearningAbility:EducationalandLinguisticFactors,standsinanempiricalresearchtraditionthathascalledparticularattentiontolanguagelearningabilityofthelearnerandtheindividualdifferencesorlearnertypeswhichareresponsibleforvariationinlanguageachievement.Hisownprojectwhichisafollow-upstudyofthewell-knownBristolLanguageProjectbyGordonWellsissituatedinthetraditionofforeignlanguageaptitudemeasuring.Itattemptstorelatethreesetsofvariables(a)themeasureoffirstlanguageacquisition,(b)themeasureofforeignlanguageacquisition,and(c)themeasureofforeignlanguageachievement.Eachofthesevariablesandtherespectivetestsaredescribedindetail.

SinceP.Skehan'sreportiscloselyrelatedwiththeBristolProject,anextensivereviewofthemethodology(thetestinstruments)anditsresultsfollows.Apreliminaryoutlineofthefirstresultsofhisownstudyconcerning(a)thefirstlanguage-foreignlanguageaptituderelationship,(b)theforeignlanguageaptitude-foreignlanguageachievementcorrelations,and(c)thefirstlanguagedevelopment-foreignlanguageachievementcorrelationsisthenpresented,summarisedanddiscussed.

Asfarasforeignlanguageachievementisconcerned,theseresultssuggestthatfirstlanguageindividualdifferencesareuncorrelatedwithvariationsinforeignlanguageperformance.Theotherstrikingresultofthestudyisthatlearningaforeignlanguageinschoolsettingsislikelytobesuccessfulwhenthestudentisabletocopewithliteracyandtomakesenseofthetypicalverbalclassroomactivities(questionanswering,drills,dialogues).

RenzoTitonetakesupaspecialcaseinSLAresearchthathasbeenanissueofdebateinEuropeformorethantwentyyears,EarlyBilingualReading:RetrospectsandProspects.Thequestionofthefeasibilityofteachingreadingintwolanguagessimultaneouslyatpre-schoolageandthestudyoffactorsunderlyingtheprocessesofearlybilingualreadinghasattractedtheparticularinterestofstudentsofchildbilingualismandSLA.Earlybilingualliteracymayhavepositiveeffectsupontheintellectualgrowthofchildren.

InretrospectTitonegivesanextensiveaccountoftheliteratureonearlybilingualreadingbeforeheoutlinesindetailTheEarlyBilingualReadingExperimentalProject,itsaims,itsmethodology,anditsevaluationinstruments.Thislarge-scaleprojectwiththeauthor'sstandardmaterials,

TheEarlyBilingualReadingKit,hasbeenunderwayforseveralyearsinbilingual/multilingual(French/Italian;German/Italian)partsofItaly,andintheBasquecountry(Basque/Castilian).

Fromamethodologicalpointofview,WernerHüllensuggests,InvestigationsIntoClassroomDiscourseprovidevalidaccesstothestudyofSLA,asclassroomdiscourseismorecontrolledandpatternedthannaturaldiscourseandmaybeeasilysegmentedintorelativelyunequivocalunits.Languagelearningintheclassroomisonlyaspecialcaseofcommunication.Itmust,however,belookedatinitsownright.Hüllen'sanalysesattempttoexplainclassroomperformancedataassymptomsofprocessesaimingatsuccessfulcommunication.

Inthesecondpartofhisarticle,Hüllendescribestheresultsofthreeexperimentswhichheandhisassociateshavepresented.Theobjectiveofthefirststudy,devotedtolearningsequencesforsyntacticandsemanticrules,wastheanalysisofclassroomdiscourseinwhichstudentswereaskedtorememberandrepeatpassagesfromatextbook.Theinvestigatorsthencomparedthemodeltextwiththelearners'utterances.Thedeviationswhichwerefoundwerecategorisedlikethis:(a)learnerspreferredsimplerstructures;(b)learnerspreferredsimplerwords;(c)learnerstendedtocutdownthemodeltextintominiaturetextswithoutusingproperconnectors.Thelearners'performancewasobviouslybasedonasemanticnucleus.Thesecondstudyonthespeechplanningofteachersinvestigatedtheuseofimpromptuelements(suchasyes,right,OK,ornon-verbalelementssuchassmiling)byteachersandstudents.Inthesequenceofteacher-studentdiscourseintheclassroom:elicitation-response-evaluation,thelastsub-unit,evaluation,whichalsoleadstothefollowingunit,provedtobeofparticularinterest.Impromptuelementsandtheintrusionofsourceelementsinthissub-unitindicatealackofcontrol.L1interferencedependsonthestrainofthemoment.

Thethirdstudyaimedattheidentificationandquantificationoftherhetoricaldistributionofspeechactsbetweenteacherandlearnerinclassroomdiscourse.Learners'speechisuniformcomparedwithteachers'speechandwiththeirowneverydaydiscourse.Itismainlyuptotheteachertoinstigateinitiative,elicitative,commenting,andevaluativespeechacts.

TypicaloftheformalapproachofteachingEnglishtoFrenchlearnersinaschoolsetting,whichDanielleBaillyreportsuponinhercontributionTheLinguisticsofEnunciativeOperationsandSecondLanguageLearningare(a)thegrammaticalprogressionand(b)anexplicitconceptualisationphase.Theybothaimatmakingthelearnerfullyawareofthefunctioningoflanguageoperationsoflocationanddetermination.Thisremarkably

unconventionalapproachisbasedontheTheoryofEnunciativeOperations(TEO)oftheFrenchlinguistAntoineCulioli.

D.BaillydevotesthefirstintroductorypartofherarticletothebasicassumptionsofTEO.Shethenreportsona15-year-longteachingexperimentbasedonTEO.ItsresultsindicatethatL2learninginformalsettingsdependsontwodeterminingfactors:tutoringstrategiesinspiredbyTEOlinguisticspositivelyinfluencelearnersacquiringtheirL2.Ametalinguisticapproachoflanguageteachingthatconcentratesongeneralisablelanguageoperations,andonthelearner'sinterlanguageasrelatedtotheseoperations,influencesinterlanguagedevelopmentitself.Ontheotherhand,itmustnotbeoverlookedthatgeneralcognitiveandlinguisticmechanismsmayinterferewiththispositiveinfluence.Inafollowingsectionofherarticletheauthorexemplifieshertheoreticalstatementswiththreeextractsfromclassroomdiscourse.TheseextractsaretoillustratethepotentialcognitiveactivitieswhichareinitiatedthroughaTEObasedteachingmethod.InconclusionD.Baillydevelopsafollow-upresearchdesignandanumberofhypothesestobetested.

PartThreeofthevolumetakesupanissuewhich,amongothers,hasbeenoneofthecentraltopicsintheEuropeanScienceFoundationProjectReferenceinSecondLanguageAcquisition.Theauthorshavebeenassociatedwiththisprojectforyears.C.NoyauhasbeenthecoordinatoroftheParisteam,andD.VéroniqueoftheAix-en-Provenceteam.

ColetteNoyau'sstudyTheDevelopmentofMeansforTemporalityintheUnguidedAcquisitionofL2:Cross-LinguisticPerspectivesdealswiththeearlyinformalacquisitionoflinguisticexpressionsoftemporalityinFrenchasfoundintheoralnarrativesandconversationsofthreeadultSpanish-speakingrefugees(aColombianmaleandtwoChileanfemaleinformants)inParis,coveringaperiodof18months.

TheresultsforthelanguagepairSpanishSL-FrenchTLarecomparedwitheachotherandwithothersimilarlanguagepairsfromthecorpusoftheESFprojectinordertoidentifyrecurrentstagesofdevelopmentamongtheinformantsacrossSLsandTLs.

Thestudyproposesathree-stageprocedure:(a)thedescriptionofindividuallearnerlanguagesystemsatdifferentstagesofacquisition,(b)thereconstructionofthepsycholinguisticprocessesresponsibleforthem,and(c)thetheoreticalexplanationoftheseprocessesunderstudy.Samplesoftheinformants'speechdataarepresented,analysed,anddiscussed.Thevariouslexico-syntacticandmorphologicalmeansfortemporalityaswellasthedevelopmentaltrendsinthelearnerdataareanalysed.Thesechaptersarefollowedbyadiscussionoftheinfluenceoftheconceptualstructure,oftheparticulardiscursiveneeds,andofthesourcelanguageontheorganisationofdiscourse.

Theresultsofthestudyarefinallysummarised:theproblemoftheearlyacquisitionofTLmeansthatconceptualdomain(suchastemporality)ismultiple.AdultlearnersmayrelyontheirknowledgeoftheworldandthusbeabletocommunicatewithalimitedTLrepertoire.Aconcept-orientedcross-linguisticapproachtothestudyofSLAenablesustounderstandatadeeperleveltheconceptualcategoriesresponsibleforcertainL2utterances.

TheaimofDanielVéronique'sarticleReferenceandDiscourseStructureintheLearningofFrenchbyAdultMoroccansistoinvestigatetheextenttowhichtheacquisitionandtheuseofL2expressionsofreferencetoperson,time,andspaceintheearlystageofdevelopmentofanArabicspeakingmaleadultlearningFrencharediscoursedependent,andconversely,howfarsuchreferentialactivitiescontributetohisdiscourseorganisation.D.Véronique'sdataconfirmhisassumptionthatreferentialvaluesforlexicalitemsarecontextuallyboundandareindependentofthetargetsystem'ssemanticandpragmaticvaluesofthedeterminersthatoccurinthelearnersystem.

TheauthorelaboratesthetheoreticalframeworkforhisstudyandreviewstherelevantliteratureontheacquisitionofreferenceanddiscoursestructureinFrenchingeneral.HethensummarisespreviousworkontheproblemoftheacquisitionofreferencebyMoroccans,inparticular,includingotherfindingsonthesubjectofthispresentarticle,oneoutoffourArabiclearnersofFrenchintheEuropeanScienceFoundationProject.TherearefeaturesofreferenceandofdiscourseorganisationthatremainstableacrossthethreeoralreproductionsofthesameCharlieChaplinfilmoverthewholeperiodoftwoyears.Thethreemostremarkablechangesacrossthesethreeversionsare(a)agradualdisappearanceofzeroanaphoraaspronominalmarkingonVPbecomesmoreconstant,(b)anextensionofthenon-personalpronominalparadigm,and(c)achangeinthe

organisationofthenarrativefrommonofunctionalmarkerstomoreplurifunctionalmarkers.Thereseemstobeonlyminorinteractionwiththesubject'sL1.Thereisconsiderableconvergencewithotherfindingsaboutthesamesubjectandothersubjectswithasimilarbackground.

ThefinalPart,Cross-linguisticInteractioninSecondLanguageAcquisition,addressesanoldquestioninSLAresearchwhichhasonlyrecentlyfoundnewinterest.Thethreearticles,basedonresearchdoneinFinland,TheNetherlands,andGermany,explorethemutualproceduraldependenceoflanguagesandculturesintheacquisitionofL2fromdifferentanglesandunderdifferentlabels(transfer:Ringbom;inputfrom

within:Sharwood-Smith;contact:Oksaar).Thecovertermcross-linguisticinteractionismeanttodenotethisnewresearchtrendinEurope.

HåkanRingbom,whoseworkduringthepasttenyearshastoalargeextentbeendevotedtothestudyofcross-linguisticinteractionbetweenFinnish,Swedish,andEnglishamongtheFinnish-andSwedish-speakingpopulationofFinlandacquiringEnglishattemptstodrawaninsightinthecomplexityoflinguisticinteraction.AfterashortdiscussionofthenotionoftransferinSLAresearchhereferstoarepresentativesetofdataconcerninglisteningandreadingcomprehension,spelling,andtheuseofarticlesandprepositionsofnativeandnon-nativelearnersofEnglishwithdifferentL1background.TheanalysisofthesedatarefutesthenaiveexpectationthatSwedish-speakingFinnswoulddobetterinanytestofEnglishthananequivalentgroupofFinnsspeakingFinnish,adistantlanguage.Infact,therearestrikingdifferencesinthelearners'trialtomakeuseoftheirprimarylinguisticknowledgewhencomprehendingorproducingL2utterances,orlearningisolateditemsversuscomplexrelationshipsbetweenitems,orbeingbeginningoradvancedlearners.

Whatthiscontributionmakesperfectlyclearisthattransferbetweenlanguagesinthelearnerdoestakeplace.However,onlyanintensivestudyofthevariouslevels,areasandmechanismsofthatinteractioninvariouslanguageswillpreventusfromprematureconclusionsaboutcross-linguisticinfluence,asasimplisticcontrastiveanalysismaysuggest.

MichaelSharwoodSmithinhispaperdescribesthetheoreticalandinstitutionalframeworkoftheSLAresearchbeingdoneintheDepartmentofEnglish,UniversityofUtrecht,TheNetherlands.Partofthisresearchisundertakentomeettheneedsoffacultyandstudentsthroughanassessmentofcross-linguisticinfluenceinthelightofthe

competence-controldistinction.

SharwoodSmithdiscussesthenotionsofcross-linguisticinfluenceaswellastransferandinterferencewhichhaveafundamentalroleintheproject.AlearnerwhohasL2competencewillusehisorherL1inordertocommunicateincasesofinsufficientcontroloverhisL2.Cross-linguisticinfluenceinthiscaseistheresultofacontrolstrategy.Cross-linguisticinfluenceatthecompetencelevel,onthecontrary,maybeseenasinput-from-within.Dataconcerning(a)theadverbialplacement,(b)sententialcomplementation,and(c)propositionstrandingofDutch,Finnish,French,German,Polish,andSpanishlearnersofEnglishillustratethislineofargumentation.

QuiteinaccordancewithH.Ringbom'sstatements,SharwoodSmithconcludeshispaperwiththeassertionthatcross-linguisticinteractionis

ahighlycomplexphenomenon.Whatisneeded,therefore,aremoreresearchandamorepowerfulexplanatorytheory.

TheconcludingcontributionofPartFour,LanguageContactandCultureContact:TowardsanIntegrativeApproachinSecondLanguageAcquisitionResearchbyElsOksaar,basedonhertwolong-termresearchprojectsattheUniversityofHamburg,seekstoexpandtheobjectofSLAresearch:sinceaparticularlanguageisembeddedinaparticularculture,anapproachthatintegrateslanguageandcultureaswellaslanguagecontactandlanguageacquisitionisnecessary.Languageis(a)accompaniedbyparalinguisticelementswhoserolediffersbetweendifferentculturalsystems.Languageis(b)connectedwithnon-verbalandextraverbalsignals.Anintegrativeapproachstartsfromtheprincipleofthepart-wholerelationshipinlanguageandculture.

Socioculturalbehaviourissystematisedintheculturememodel.Culturemesareenactedthroughbehavioremeswhichmaybeverbal,paralinguisticand/ornon-verbal,and/orextraverbal.Verbal,non-verbalandextraverbalbehavioremesvaryconsiderablyfromculturetoculture.Deviationsfromculturallydeterminednormsmayleadtomisunderstandingsinintra-andinterlinguisticcontactsituationsandcreatelinguisticandsituationalinterference.Onthebasisoftheexistingsituationalnormsaspeaker/hearerisexpectedtobehaveinacertainwayaccordingtothesocioculturalgroupheorshebelongsto.Secondlanguageacquisitionmustbeconsideredasanintegralpartofalargerentityaculture.WeneedanintegrativeapproachinSLAresearchthatinvestigateslinguisticandculturalphenomena,anapproachinwhichtheindividualisseenincontactwiththenewlanguageandthenewculture.

PART1THEORYANDMETHODOLOGYINSECONDLANGUAGEACQUISITIONRESEARCH

1NounsandVerbsintheLearner'sLexiconRainerDietrich

InhercontributiontoKuczaj'svolumeonLanguage,CognitionandCulture(1982)Gentnerpresentsacollectionofobservationsonchildlanguagedevelopmentwhich,apartfromalotofdifferencesindetail,haveonestructuralfeatureincommon:thatis,thatnounsarelearnedbeforeverbs.EvidenceisgivenforbothproductionandcomprehensionandforlanguagesasdifferentasTurkish,English,German,Japanese,MandarinChinese,andKaluli.Itis,ofcourse,clearthatnounandverbinthiscontextdonotrefertodistributionallydefinedsurfacecategories.Whatismeantbythemisthedichotomy'betweenobjectreferenceandpredication;whetherthepredicationisofstates,actions,relationshipsorattributesisasecondaryquestion.Thecorrespondingsyntacticcontrastisbetweenthecategoryofnounsandthecompositepredicatecategorycomposedofverbs,prepositions,adjectivesandadverbs'(Gentner,1982:302).

Onemayaskwhatthereasonsforthisare.Whydochildrenobviouslyprefernominaloververbalmaterialwhentheystarttolearnalanguage?Gentner'sexplanationgoesbacktothepsychologyofperceptionandherfundamentalreasoningisasfollows:asapartoftheperceptualworldobjectsarecomposedofperceptivebitswhicharemoresalient,moreconcrete,morestableand,whichisthemostrelevantfact,morecohesiveintermsofspatialpropertiesthanprocesses,propertiesandrelations.Asaconsequenceofthis,conceptsofobjectsaremorecohesive,too,thanthoseofpredicates,theperceptualelementsofwhichare'moresparselydistributedthroughtheperceptualfield'(Gentner,1982:324).

Thefactthattheconceptsofobjectshavetheseperception-basedpropertiesofsaliency,stability,andcohesivenessthenmakesiteasierforthechildtomatchthispartofhisorherknowledgewiththestreamoflinguisticinput.Andthereforenounsarelearnedbeforeverbs,althoughthelinguisticpropertiesofthematerialinvolved,suchasrelativefrequency,

morphologicalcomplexity,orwordorderphenomenawouldnotnecessarilycauseustoexpectit.Sofarthen,thereisunambiguous,universalandconvincingevidencethatintheveryearlystagesoflanguageacquisitionthechildmakesselectionsfromamongthelinguisticinputheorsheisexposedto,andfirstpicksupthenominal,referentialmaterialinsteadofverbs,adjectives,adverbs,andprepositions.Thereis,secondly,aperception-basedpsychologicaltheorytoaccountfortheseobservations,whichclaimsthatnounsareeasierforthechildtotakeinbecauseoftheperceptualconstancyofobjectsandthecorrespondingconceptsinthechild'smind.Althoughthistheorysoundsplausibleandreasonable,itisinfactnomorethanatheoreticalconsiderationandallowsforalternativehypothesesaswell,suchaslinguisticandsociolinguisticones.

Thesimultaneousdevelopmentofcognitiveandlinguisticcapacitieshasparticularrelevanceinthepsychologicaltheoryofnominaldominance.Acontroloftheinfluenceoftheperceptualandcognitivestructuresandprocesseswouldbepossibleifthereweresubjectsfacingthesamelanguageacquisitionproblemwithouttheadditionalcomplicationofcognitivedevelopment.Iftherewereanadultpersonwithcompletelydevelopedconceptualknowledgeoftheworld,andthatpersonhadtoacquireanewlanguagewithoutformalteachingbutjustlikeachildsimplybyexposuretothenaturallanguageenvironment,thatwouldmakeitpossibletocontroltheinfluenceofperceptionandcognitionversusalternativefactors.Andsuchasituationisgiveninmillionsofcasesinthesecondlanguageacquisitionofadultimmigrants.Whatthenwouldoneexpecttooccurinnaturalsecondlanguageacquisitionofadults?LetusfirstrecollectfromGentner'sargumentationthemainprocessesperformedbythechild'smindwhichseemtooversimplifythecase:

1.Perceptionoftherealworld,whichpresentstothechildanaturalpartitionfavouringthingsandobjectsoverprocesses,states,

properties,andrelations.

2.Theformationofconceptsalongthelinesoftheperceptualworld.

3.Thelinguisticcoding,thatis(a)breakingdownthestreamofutterancesand(b)bringingintocorrespondencewitheachotherconceptualandlinguisticelements.

Whatnow,whenanadultpersonfacesasecondlanguageandbeginstoacquirethatlanguageinanaturaluntutoredway,thatis,byusingitincommunicativeinteraction?Therearedifferencesinmanyifnotallparametersbetweenthechild'smentalandlinguisticabilitiesandthatofanadultlearneroflanguagetwo.

Theadultpersontobeginattheendhasbuiltuparichanddetailedlexiconaspartofhisorherfirstlanguage.

Heorshehasdevelopedasystemofconceptscontainingitemswhichrepresenttheworldofobjectsaswellasotheroneswhichrefertoprocesses,relations,andtheotherpredicativecategories.

Heorsheisfamiliarwiththefactthatthereareconcrete,salient,andspatiallyrelatedperceptivebitsintheworldwhichtogetherformanobject,andmoreabstractandsparselydistributedperceptivebitswhichindifferentwaysofconflationandcombinationconstituteaprocess,astate,orarelation.Inshort:heorsheistrainedtoperceivetheworldaroundhimorherintermsofhisorherconceptualknowledgewhichismoreorlessdeterminedbyhisorherlanguage.Howwouldoneexpect,then,theadultsecondlanguagelearnertoprocessthelexicalmaterialoftheforeignlanguage?Sincethereisnolongertheproblemofmakingsenseoftheperceptualworld,noneedforsimultaneousconceptformationalongwiththesemanticlearning,onewouldexpectthegrowthoftheL2-lexicontobedeterminedbythecommunicativeneedsofthelearner,thelinguisticparametersofL2,andthestructureofthelearner'sL1-background.IfallthisdeterminedthestrategyofacquiringthevocabularyofthesecondlanguageonewouldexpecttheL2-lexicontocomprisenounsaswellasverbs,auxiliaries,andprepositionsfromtheonset,and,forreasonsofinputfrequencyinGerman,thedefiniteandindefinitearticles.Andonewouldpredictcross-linguisticdifferences,whenpeoplewithdifferentL1-backgroundslearnthesameforeignlanguage.WhetherthisreasoningisadequateornotisoneofthetopicsoftheEuropeanresearchprojectonsecondlanguageacquisitionofadultimmigrantssponsoredbytheEuropeanScienceFoundationinStrasbourg.Beforewelookattheobservationsavailablesofar,somemorebackgroundinformationontheprojectasawholeshouldbepresentedforbetterunderstanding.

1

Asfarassecondlanguagestudiesareconcerned,thereareatleastfouraspectsofthisprojectwhich,toourknowledge,gobeyondpreviousrelatedresearch.Firstly,thenumberoflanguagesbothsourceandtargetwhicharesimultaneouslystudied;secondly,theattempttocarryoutacoordinatedlongitudinalstudy(overaperiodof21/2years)inthesedifferentlanguageenvironments;thirdly,therangeandtypeoflinguisticphenomenawhoseacquisitionisinvestigated;andfinally,theattempttorelatethesemultipleskillstoeachotherandtovariousnonlinguisticfactorswhichmaydeterminetheiracquisition.TheprojectisacomparativestudyinfiveEuropeancountries:France,Germany,GreatBritain,theNetherlands,andSwedenwiththecorrespondingtargetlanguagesFrench,German,English,Dutch,andSwedish.Sixsourcelanguagesaretakenintoaccount:Arabic,Finnish,Italian,Punjabi,Spanish,andTurkish.Theprojectwillrunoversixyearswithastaffofabout30researchers.

Theprojecthasthreeojectives:

1.Aninvestigationofthepsychologicalandsocialfactorsthatcanbeshowntodeterminethestructureandtempooflanguageacquisition.

2.Adescriptionofthestructuralandtemporalpropertiesofthelanguageacquisitionprocess,thatis,establishingwhatcommunicativedevicesareavailabletoadultsattheonsetofacquisition,whatdevicesspecifictothetargetlanguageareacquired,inwhatorder,andatwhatraterelativetoeachother.

3.Aninvestigationofadultimmigrants'useoftheTL,whichinvolvesadescriptionbothofaninformant'slanguagesystematagiventimeandofhowthissystemisputtouseineverydayinteraction.

Asmentionedabove,theTLsareFrench,German,English,Dutch,andSwedish.Theywerechosenbecausetheyarethemostimportantlanguagesforimmigrantworkers(rangingfromGermanwithabout5.5millionpotentiallearnerstoDutchwithmorethanhalfamillion).Foreachtargetlanguagetwosourcelanguageswereselected.Theselectionwasessentiallybasedontwocriteria.First,thoselanguageswiththelargestnumberofnativespeakers(inagiventargetcountry)shouldbegivenpriority.Second,itshouldbepossibletomakelinguisticallyinterestingcomparisons;thismeansthatpairedcomparisonsshouldbemadeoftheacquisitionofonetargetlanguagebyspeakersofsourcelanguageswithverydifferentstructuresandoftheacquisitionoftwoTLsbyspeakerswiththesameSL.Overaperiodof21/2years,datawerecollectedfrombothinitiallearnersandinsomecountriesfromresidentlearners.Obviously,thereisnoidealwaytoobtainallrelevantdata;so,awholerangeoftechniqueswasusedwhichmayberoughlysubdividedintotwogroups:weaklyprestructuredfreeconversationandstrongerprestructuredplannedencounterswithexperimentalelicitationofparticularsecondlanguageperformances.Whilstitistruethatlanguageacquisitionproceedson

manydifferentlevels,itisobviouslybeyondthescopeofthisprojectoranyprojecttostudyalllinguisticaspectsofalearner'sacquisitionandrelatethemtotheexplanatoryfactors.Fourbroadtopicsofinvestigationhavethereforebeenchosen:(a)understanding,misunderstanding,breakdownofcommunication,(b)thematicstructureofutterances,(c)referencetoperson,space,andtime,(d)processesinthedevelopinglexicon,

ThesearefirstresultsofapilotanalysisoftheearlyL2lexicalrepertoireofthreeinitiallearners.Thestudydrawsondatafromaretellingofthecontentofafilm.Theinformantsareshownashortfilmclip(21/2minutes).Itisanoldsilentfilmwhichshowsasequenceofmishapscentredaroundafarewellsceneatarailwaystation.Thepeopleinvolvedareayoungman(HaroldLloyd),hisfiancée,andherparents,awoman

withababyinawickerbasket,thestationmaster,andagroupoftravellers.Salientobjectsarethetraintheyoungmanwantstocatch;hissuitcase;thewickerbasketwiththebabyinit;andahorse-drawncarriage.Thereis,inaddition,aseriesofevents,movements,processes,andactionsperformedbyandhappeningtothevariouspersonsandobjectsrespectively.Thus,thefilmissuitedtoelicitingvariouskindsofreferences,attributes,andpredications.TheinformantseesthefilmthreetimesandthentellswhathappenedfirstinGermanandtheninhisorherfirstlanguage.Theexperimentwasrunthreetimesinintervalsofseventotenmonths.So,wehavethreecomparablesetsofdataoveraperiodofabouttwoyears.

Table1showssomeofthefirstresults:thesizeoftheindividuallexicalrepertoires(lemma);theproportionsofthedifferentcategories;andthedifferencesbetweenthefirstandsecondperformance(t1versust2),thatis,theindividualgrowthrateoftwoItalians(Angelina,Tino),aTurkishlearner(Ilhami)and,forreasonsofcomparison,ofaGermannativespeaker(Stefan).

Atafirstglancenoclear-cutdevelopmentorprofileisshownbythesefigures;neitheristhereanyobservablenominalorverbaldominanceintherepertoiresusedinthedifferentretellings.Therearedevelopmentalprocessescommontoallthelearners,andtherearedifferences.

Allthreeofthelearnersmadesomeprogressintermsoftheabsolutesizeoftherepertoireavailabletothematt1versust2.

TABLE1.SizeoflexiconsofsubjectsAngelina Tino Ilhami Stefant1 t2 t1 t2 t1 t2

Items 27 33 28 47 35 68 185%Nouns 40.7 45.5 28.6 23.4 34.3 23.5 25.1%Pronouns 11.1 9.1 7.1 10.6 5.7 4.4 10.6%Verbs 18.5 24.2 28.6 29.8 17.1 32.4 23.1%Adjectives 3.7 6.1 - 2.1 5.7 4.4 4

%Adverbs - - 17.6 12.8 14.3 19.1 20%Prepositions 14.8 9.1 7.1 6.4 5.7 5.9 11.3

Allthelearnershavecommandofitemsinallrelevantcategoriesfromtheonsetwithonlyoneexception;Angelinadoesnotuseadverbs,althoughtherewasastrongstimulusinthefilmasisconfirmedbyStefan'sreactiontoit.Whatabouttheverb-nounratio,then?

Table2showsthenumbersresultingfrombothperformances;avalueof1indicatesequalproportionsofverbsandnouns,avaluebelow1indicatesmorenounsthanverbs,avalueabove1moreverbsthannouns.Asthetableshows,theverb-nounratiooftheGermannativespeakeris0.98.Thelearnerinformants,however,seemtoexhibitdifferentindividualdevelopments.Angelina'srepertoireshowsastrongpreponderanceofnounswithaslightincreaseofverbs.Tinostartsatanalmosttarget-like-ratioof1,runningintoanoverproductionofverbsattimet2,whereasIlhami,afterastartwithanominallanguage,alsoseemstocounterbalancebyanincreaseinusingverbs.

TABLE2.Comparisonoftheverb-noun-ratiobetweent1andt2t1 t2

Angelina 0.45 0.53Tino 1 1.27Ilhami 0.5 1.39Stefan 0.98

Amoredetailedinvestigationoftheindividualdevelopments,andespeciallythedifferentgrowthratesofthethreesecondlanguagelearners,mightshedsomelightontheintricatesituation.Table3presentsamuchmoreregularpattern,indeed.

Threedifferentgrowthratespersubjectarecalculated:theoverallgrowthrateoftherepertoireasawholeand,besidesthis,theisolatedvaluesofthedevelopmentintheverbalandnominalcategories.As

caneasilybeseen,aclearanddistinctdevelopmentalpatternresultsfromthesevalues.Angelinawithanoverallgrowthrateof22.2%istheslowestlearner;theincreaseofTino'srepertoireamountsto67.8%,andIlhamiisbyfarthefastestlearner.Thenewwords,however,arenotequallydistributedovertheverbalandnominalcategories.Thenominalcategoryseemstobeindependentofthegeneraldevelopment;itsexpansionissteadyanduniformforallofthethreesubjects.Thedevelopmentoftheverbalrepertoire,however,iscompletelydifferent,butneverthelessregularaccordingtotheprinciple:thebetterthelearnerthehighertheincreaseoftheverballexicon.

TABLE3.GrowthratespersubjectItemsatt1

Itemsatt2

%growth %growthofN

%growthofV

Angelina 27 33 22.2 36.4 60Tino 28 47 67.8 37.5 75Ilhami 35 68 94.2 33.3 233.3

Anappropriateinterpretationofthesefindingshastotakeintoconsiderationthatthevaluesandratioslistedinthetablesabovearebasedonobservationsofadevelopingprocessfocusingonearlyphasesbutobviouslynotontheearliestonesinallcases.Sinceknowledgeoftheveryfirstphasescouldnotbeobtainedbydirectobservationitcanonlybeinferredfromtheevidenceavailablesofar.Andtheresultofatheoreticalbacktrackingisthefactthattheveryearlylexiconoftheadultlearner,likethatofthechild,isamainlynominalone.Themoreorlessrapiddevelopmentoftheverbalcategoryisasubsequentprocess.Theoverallpicture,then,isthesameasinfirstlanguageacquisition.Attheverybeginning,theadultlearner,likethechild,picksupmorereferentialitemsthanpredicativeones.Thecorrectnessofthesetheoreticalassumptionsisconfirmedbyadditionalanalysesofamuchbroaderdatabase,namelythatofthecross-sectionalstudyoftheformerHeidelbergProject.Asampleof3500utterancesfromconversationswith40ItalianandSpanishimmigrantworkerswasdividedintotwosubgroups:utterancescontainingaverb(V)andutteranceswithoutaverb.Meanlengthofutterances(MLU)wascalculatedforbothsubgroups.Figure1showstheresultingdistribution.

2MLUiswidelytakenasavalidmeasureofrelativelinguisticmaturityatleastasfarastheearlyphasesofacquisitionandlowrangeMLU-valuesareconcerned.OnthebasisoftheseexperiencesFigure1presentsadditionalconvincingevidencethatverbalelementsmostly

appearinlaterphasesoftheacquisitionprocessthannouns.

Wethenmightaskwhetheradultsproceedthesamewayforthesamereasonsaschildrenareknowntodo.TheanswerisYesandNo.

No,becauseadultsarenolongerstrugglingwithperceptualbitsofrelationsandprocessessparselyspreadoverthefieldofperception.Adultsarefamiliarwithperceptionsofrelations,processes,andstates.

No,becauseasopposedtochildrenadultshaveestablishedverbalconceptsagainstwhichtheycanmatchthestreamofL2-inputand,thus,pickupverbalmaterialaswellasreferentialexpressionsofthesecond

Figure1.Meanlengthofutterancesinacross-sectionalstudyoftheHeidelbergproject

languagetheyareexposedto.Why,then,doadults,likechildren,takethereferentialapproachtolanguage?ImagineyouwereaskedtotellastoryliketheplotoftheHaroldLloydfilmandyouhadthechoiceeithertodothejobwithoutusingasinglenounorwithoutaverb.Ifyoutryoutbothways,youwillrealisethatwithapurelynominalversionenoughofthenarrativeskeletonofthestorycanbebuiltup,enoughatleasttoguaranteeaminimumofcomprehension.

Aguy.HaroldLloyd.Station.Station.Girlfriend.HaroldLloyd.Mother.Girlfriend.Father.Girlfriend.Ablacklady.Station.Blacklady.Baby.Baby.Floor.Suitcase.HaroldLloyd.Stationofficer.Signal.Train....

Contrastedwiththis,apurelyverbaltextwouldbeforinstance:

Come.Hastoleave.Say'Goodbye.'Kiss.Come.Putdown.Take.Run....

Whycananarrationbeproducedwithnounsbutnotpurelywithverbs?Thereseemtoexistgeneralmacrostructuralrulesfordifferentkindsofcomplexverbalactionslikenarratives,orders,argumentation,andsoforth.Asfarasnarrativesareconcerned,someofthegeneralrequirementsmightbe:

Firstbuildupthestage,introducepersons,indicateplaceandtime.

Relatetheeventsoneaftertheotherinindicativemode.

Makeexplicitlyclearwhentheactorchanges.

...

Theseglobalpatternsaredifferentfordifferenttypesofcomplexactions.Astheexampleaboveshows,therearecomplexactionstheforegroundinformationofwhichcanbegivenbyaskeletonofnominalreferentialexpressions.Amongthesearenarratives,orders,andcommands.Thereare,ontheotherhand,patternsinwhichmoreverb-likeinformationisrequiredtoprocesstheforegroundinformation,forinstancethedescriptionoftherulesforplayingchess.Therelevantinformation,inthiscase,consistsofmovements,relations,informationastowhattodoundercertainconstellations.Thereferentialinformationismainlysuppliedbytheglobalpattern.

Consideringtheprocessesoflanguageacquisitionagain,thenoun-verbratioinearlyadultlearners'languagecouldbeareflectionofthesefundamentalstructuralpropertiesofcomplexverbalactions.Angelina,then,doesnotmanagemorethanthekernelinformationof

thenarration,whichisreferencetopersonsandobjects.Supplementaryinformationcaninmostcasesbeinferredfromtheglobalrulesofthatpatternandfromthesemanticsoftheparticularnouns.TinoandIlhami,themoreadvancedlearnerswithalargerlexiconandmoreverbalmaterial,candomorethanonlygivethepureskeletonofwhathashappened.Theyrefertobackgroundinformationandevenperformevaluations.

Besidesotherphenomena,thecategoricalfeaturesoflexicalrepertoiresinearlylanguageacquisitionstrengthentheassumptionsofglobalpatternsofcomplexverbalactions.Alearner,havingonlylimitedcommandofthe

language,automaticallyaimsfirsttodevelopthemostcrucialandimportantpartsofthelexicalmaterialofthenewlanguage.Andforthefirstverbalactivitiesofadultimmigrantsthesearethenouns.

NotestoChapter1

1.ForfulldescriptionoftheprojectcomparePerdue,C.,1984,SecondLanguageAcquisitionbyAdultImmigrants:AFieldManual.Rowley,MA:NewburyHouse.

2.Thesestatisticswereprogrammed,runandprintedbyWolframSteckner.

Reference

GENTNER,D.,1982,Whynounsarelearnedbeforeverbs:linguisticrelativityversusnaturalpartitioning.InS.A.Kuczaj(ed.),LanguageDevelopment:LanguageCognitionandCulture.Hillsdale,NJ:Erlbaum,301-34.

2TypologicalMarkednessasaResearchToolintheStudyofSecondLanguageAcquisitionKennethHyltenstam

Background

Researchintosecondlanguageacquisitionhasprovidedagrowingbodyofobservationsthatpointtoregularitiesindevelopmentalsequencing,inpatternsoftransfer,andinthecommunicativeuseofasecondlanguage.AnumberoffruitfulattemptshavebeenmadetorevealgeneralprinciplesthatwouldpredictstructuralregularitiesforvariousL1/L2combinationsindifferentsettings.Discoveringsuchprinciplesis,ofcourse,onecentralaimforatheoryofsecondlanguageacquisition.

Theapproachtakeninthestudiesthatwillbepresentedherehasitsbackgroundinadevelopmentinlinguisticresearchduringthelastfifteenyearsthatinvolvesanewcross-fertilisationofdifferentresearchbranchesthathadbeeninvestigatedmoreorlessinisolationfromeachotherforsometime.Therearenumerousexamplesofsuchcross-fertilisation,forexamplebetweensociolinguisticresearchandhistoricallinguistics(e.g.Weinreich,Labov,&Herzog,1968),betweenthesetwoareasandpidginandcreolestudies(Traugott,1977),betweenpidginandcreolestudiesandstudiesoflanguageacquisition,inparticularsecondlanguageacquisition(e.g.Schumann,1978),andsoforth.Notleastinterestingistherecentdrawingtogetheroftypologicalresearchontheonehandandformalsyntaxontheother(Hawkins,1983).

Thistendencytorelateresearchfromoneareaoflinguisticapplication

toanotherwasofcoursebroughtaboutbytheobservationthatextensivesimilaritiesinstructuralregularitiesseemedtoexistinthevariousbranches.

Thus,acentraltaskwastodescribethesesimilaritiesingreaterdetail.Themoregeneralandpervasivethesimilarities,themoreprobabletheexistenceofcommonunderlyingprinciples,centraltothetheoryoflanguage.

Asaframeworkinthissearchforsimilaritiesinlinguisticstructuring,thecross-linguisticperspectivehashelpedresearchersidentifywhatisgeneralandwhatisparticular,forexampleinfirst(Slobin,1982;Berman,1984)andsecondlanguageacquisition(e.g.Johansson,1973),bothfieldswherethecross-linguisticaspecthasplayedanimportantrole.Thisiswherelanguagetypologyandconceptsusedinthisfieldsuchaslanguageuniversalsandmarkednessarepotentiallyapplicable.Forexample,languagetypologyhelpsusposequestionsonpossibleinteractionsofL1andL2inagivenlearningsituationinthatthepropertiesofthetwolanguagescanbeframedinauniversalperspective.Questionssuchaswhatisuniquefortheparticularlanguages,howcorrespondingstructuresdifferinmarkedness,andsoforth,canbespecified.

AspecificimpetusforthestudiesIwillpresentherewasthefactthatthelanguagetypologyapproachhaddevelopedasaframeworkforsecondlanguageacquisitionresearchinSwedenasearlyasthe1970s.Forexample,phonologicalsecondlanguageacquisitionresearchwascarriedoutwithinatypologicalframeworkbyFaithAnnJohanssonintheearly1970s(Johansson,1973),andsyntacticandsemanticstudiesbyBjörnHammarbergandÅkeViberginthemiddleandlate1970s(see,forexample,Hammarberg&Viberg,1977;Viberg,1983).ThisresearchdevelopmentinSwedencan,amongotherreasons,beseenasaconsequenceofthepedagogicalneedsofalinguisticallyheavilyheterogeneousimmigrantpopulation.Amongapopulationoflessthan500,000persons(i.e.thenumberofforeigncitizensinSweden),some140languagesarerepresented.

Now,howcanthefieldoflanguagetypologymorepreciselybeusefulforresearchintosecondlanguageacquisition?Mostimportant,inmyview,istheroletheregularitiesfoundinlanguagetypologyplayasabasisforhypothesesinthedescriptivephaseofsecondlanguageacquisitiondata.Thetypologicalregularitiesgiveideasonwhattolookoutfor.Further,ataninitialexplanatorylevel,wecaninvestigatewhetherprinciplessuchasproposedhierarchiesandmarkednessconditionshaveanypredictivevalueforphenomenasuchasdevelopmentalsequencesandtransfer.

BeforeIgointothepresentationofthepresentstudies,Iwouldjustliketomention,inordertoavoidconfusion,thatthenotionsoflanguageuniversalsandmarkednesswillbeusedinastrictlytypologicalsensehere.Thesamenotionsarealsousedwithdifferentassumptionsinrecentderivativesofgenerativegrammar,aframeworkwhichisnowgaining

increasedapplicationinsecondlanguageacquisitionresearch(seee.g.White,1983;SharwoodSmith,1983;Mazurkewich,1985).

TheStudies

ThetwosecondlanguageacquisitionstudiesIwillpresenthereweredesignedtoassessstructuralareaswheretypologicalpatterningseemedtobereasonablyreliablydescribed.Oneconcernedthepatternofretention/deletionofpronominalcopiesinrelativeclauses,theotherthevoicedistinctioninstops.Bothareashadbeendiscussedearlierinsecondlanguageacquisitionresearch(seeSchachter,1974;Ioup&Kruse,1977;Gass,1979;Eckman,1977,forrelativeclauses,andEckman,1977,alsoforvoicinginstops).BothareashadalsobeenidentifiedasproblematicforsecondlanguagelearnersofSwedishwithcertainL1s.Thepresentationofthestudieswillnecessarilybebriefandinconclusivehere.Forfurtherdetailsconcerningthestudyofpronominalcopiesinrelativeclauses,seeHyltenstam(1984),andconcerningthestudyofthevoicedistinctioninstops,Hyltenstam&Magnusson(1983).

PronominalCopiesinRelativeClauses

Withregardtothephenomenonofpronominalcopiesinrelativeclauses,languagesdifferbothwithrespecttowhethertheyusethisstrategyornot,and,iftheydo,towhatextent.EnglishandSwedishareexamplesoflanguagesthatdonotusethisdevice,atleastnotinsimplerelativeclauses.Iftheydid,examplessuchasthefollowing,whichIhavetakenfromSchachter(1974),wouldhavebeengrammaticalundercoreferenceconditionsbetweenthepronounandtheheadnounoftherelativeclause.

Subject:theboythathecameDirectobject:theboythatJohnhithimIndirectobject:theboythatIsentalettertohim

Objectofpreposition:theboythatIsatnearhimPossessivenounphrase:theboythathisfatherdiedObjectofcomparison:theboythatJohnistallerthanhim

ThetypologicaldistributionoftheuseofpronominalcopieshasbeenfoundtoreflectthesocalledNPAccessibilityHierarchy(Keenan&Comrie,1977).Thisgeneralisationstatesthatthereisauniversalhierarchyofpositions,thatis,grammaticalfunctions,outofwhichanNPmaybe

relativised.Thishierarchyis,infact,reflectedintheorderinwhichtheexamplesabovearegiven.Wethushave

SU>DO>IO>OBL>GEN>OCOMP

(whereSU=subject,DO=directobject,IO=indirectobject,OBL=obliqueobject,inEnglishandSwedish,objectofpreposition,GEN=genitive,OCOMP=objectofcomparison).Thedistributionofpronominalcopiesisthusinaccordwiththishierarchy,asseeninTable1.

TALBE1.Typologicalpatternsforretention(+)ordeletion(-)ofpronominalcopiesinrelativeclausesSU DO IO OBL GEN OCOMP- - - - - - mostmarked- - - - - +- - - - + +- - - + + +- - + + + +- + + + + ++ + + + + + leastmarked

Typologicalmarkednessconditionscanbeformulatedbothforthegrammaticalfunctionsassuchandfortheuseofpronominalcopiesonthebasisofimplicationalstatements,whichcanbederivedfromthepatterninginthistable.Theimplicationalstatementsareasfollows:ifaparticulargrammaticalfunctioninthehierarchyisrelativisableinanygivenlanguage,thenallpositionshigherinthehierarchymustalsoberelativisableinthatlanguage.Parallelformulationscanbegivenforthedeletionofpronominalcopiesinrelativeclauses:ifapronominalcopyisdeletedinaparticularpositioninthehierarchy,itmustalsobedeletedinallpositionshigherinthehierarchy.Ifwedefinethetypologicallyimplyingtermasmoremarkedthantheimpliedterm,wegetthemarkednessconditionsas

statedinTable1.

Inthepresentstudy,thechoiceofL1'stoberepresentedamongthelearnerswasmadeonthegroundsthatbothmarkedandunmarkedlanguagesshouldbeincluded.Tofindappropriatelanguages,thedescriptionsgiveninKeenan&Comrie(1977)werefollowed.Thus,thedecisionwasmadetoincludeFinnish,Greek,Persian,andSpanish.ThepatternsofpronominalcopiesintheselanguagesandSwedish,accordingtoKeenanandComrie,arethoseseeninTable2.

TABLE2.Retention(+)anddeletion(-)ofpronominalcopiesinSwedish,Finnish,Spanish,Greek,andPersianrelativeclausesSU DO IO OBL GEN OCOMP- - - - - - Swedish- - - - - Finnish- - - - - Spanish- - +? +? + + Greek- (+) + + + + Persian

()=optional?=inconclusivedata

Thequestions,now,thatwereofparticularinteresttomewerethefollowing:

1.DolearnerswhoseL1containsmarkedformsproduceunmarkedstructuresevenwhentheyareacquiringalanguagewithsimilarlymarkedforms?

2.Istheuniversalhierarchyfordeletionofpronominalcopiesretainedinthelearners'interlanguage?If,forexample,alearnerinitiallyusespronominalcopiesandthenlearnstosuppressthem,aretheythenfirstsuppressedinthehigherpositionsinthehierarchy?

Thesubjectsinthisstudywere45adultlearnersofSwedish,12fromeachlanguagegroupexceptfortheFinnishgroupwheretherewereonly9.AllthesubjectsattendedSwedishlanguagecoursesandwereatafairlyadvancedlevel;atthetimeofinvestigationtheyhadreceived350-600hoursofinstruction.

Theelicitationmaterialconsistedofasetofeightpicturesforeachrelativisablefunction.Thesetfortheobjectfunctionexemplifiestheprocedure(cf.Appendix).Ineachsetthereweretwopicturesofwomen,twoofmen,twoofgirls,andtwoofboys,andforeachofthemtwopredicatescouldbeused.Theeightpictureswerenumbered

1-8,anditwasthesubject'stasktoorallyidentifythepersononeachnumberedpicture.Thequestionaskedwas'Whoisnumberx?'andtheanswerexpectedwouldbe'Themanwhosings',forexample.Withineachset,fiveresponseswereelicitedinarow,then,inalastcycle,onefurtherresponsewaselicitedfromeachoftheeightsetsofpictures.Therationalebehindthispictorialtask,ofcourse,wastohavethesubjectsunambiguouslyidentifyreferentsamongasetofminimallydifferingobjects,ataskwhichrathernaturallyelicitsrelativeclauses.

TheresultscanbeseenfromTable3-6,whereallresponsesofasubjectonaparticulargrammaticalfunctionhavebeencollapsed.Thisprocedurewasjustifiedsincetherewaslittlevariationwithinagivenrelativisedfunctionforallsubjects.Foradisplayoftherawdata,seeHyltenstam(1984:48f).

Table3.ImplicationalscaleshowingpronominalretentionforPersianlearnersofSwedish.ScalingaccordingtotheNPAccessibilityHierarchy.

Scalability93.1

Table4.ImplicationalscaleshowingpronominalretentionforGreeklearnersofSwedish.ScalingaccordingtotheNPAccessibilityHierarchy.

Scalability97.1(if0=-)or98.7(if0=+)

Table5.ImplicationalscaleshowingpronominalretentionforSpanishlearnersofSwedish.ScalingaccordingtotheNPAccessibility

Hierarchy.Scalability90.3

Table6.ImplicationalscaleshowingpronominalretentionforFinnishlearnersofSwedish.ScalingaccordingtotheNPAccessibilityHierarchy.Scalability85.2-92.6dependingonwhether0=+or-

Aswecansee,pronominalcopiesareusedinallgroupsoflearners,evenbythosewhodonothavethemintheirfirstlanguage.Thepatternseemstobedependentalsoonfirstlanguagestructure,however,astherearemorecopiesintheSwedishofthoselearnerswhoseL1usesthisstrategymorefrequently.Itis,forexamplenotprobablethatFinnishspeakerswouldusepronominalcopieshighinthehierarchyeveninearlierphasesofacquisition.Itis,however,

possiblethatthecorrectgeneralisationisthat

learnersusepronominalcopiesinhigherpositionsintheirinterlanguagethanintheirnativelanguages;note,forexample,theGreeklearnerswhodonotusepronominalcopiesinDOpositionintheirL1accordingtoournormdescriptionfromKeenanandComrie(1977),whereasintheinterlanguageofsomeoftheGreekspeakers,thisisafairlycommonsolution.TheSpanishgroupwouldseemtobeparticularlyinterestingforquestion1above,sinceinspiteofthefactthatSpanish,accordingtoourdescription,doesnotusepronominalcopies,suchadeviceisemployedtoaconsiderableextentintheirSwedishinterlanguage.AcloserlookatdescriptionsofSpanishreveals,however,thattheKeenanandComriedescriptionseemstoholdtrueforstandardvarietiesofSpanish,butthattherearecolloquialvarieties,especiallyincertainregionsoftheSpanishspeakingcommunity,wherepronominalcopiesareindeedemployed.Unfortunately,thestudyreportedheredidnotcheckforhowtheactuallearnersoftheinvestigationwouldexpresstherequiredutterancesintheirL1,butL1structuremaybepartoftheexplanationforthepatternintheSwedishinterlanguageoftheSpanishspeakinggroup.

TheresultoftheFinnishgroupisthusthemostcrucialevidenceinthisstudy,thatourquestion1canbegivenanaffirmativeanswer:althoughpronominalcopiesdonotoccurinFinnish,thelearners'L1,norinSwedish,theirL2,wefindasmallnumberofoccurrencesintheirinterlanguage.Thenumberofoccurrencesis,aswecansee,extremelysmallbutinthewidertheoreticalframeworkofthisinvestigation,themereexistenceofthecategoryisofsignificance.

Withregardtothesecondquestion,thatis,whetherthehierarchyisreflectedintheinterlanguagesofthelearners,aglanceatTables3-6givessomeindicationthattheremightbeafairlygoodmappinghere.

Deviationsfromtheimplicationalpatternsareindicatedbycircled

entries.Scalabilityfiguresshowthatthesubjectsadheretothetypologicallyvalidpatternstoahighdegree.Parenthetically,weactuallygetabetterfitforoursecondlanguageacquisitiondata,ifweinverttheorderbetweenOCOMPandGENontheonehandandbetweenIOandOBLontheotherinthehierarchy.

Interestingly,thesameresultforthepositionsOCOMPandGENwasobtainedinanacceptabilitystudyamongfirstlanguagelearners(Hawkins&Keenan,1974),suggestingthatapsychologicallyvalidhierarchymightbeslightlydifferentfromthetypologicalone(forfurtherdiscussionofthispoint,cf.Hyltenstam,1984).

Inareplicationofmy1984studywiththesameelicitationinstrument,Pavesi(1986)achievedparallelresultstothosethathavejustbeendescribed.

HersubjectswereadolescentandadultItalianlearnersofEnglishinbothformalandinformalsettings.BothlanguagesinvolvedinPavesi'sstudy,asL1andL2respectively,werelanguageswithmarkedformsintheareaofpronominalretention/deletion.Inspiteofthefactthatnoneofthelanguagesretainpronominalcopiesinrelativeclauses,theinterlanguageoftheselearnerscontainednumerousinstancesofsuchelements.Infact,thelearnersofthisstudyproducedmorerelativeclauseswiththanwithoutpronominalcopiesandadheredtothesameimplicationalpatternasthesubjectsofmyownstudy,thatis,totheaccessibilityhierarchy.Moreover,theinversionofOCOMPandGENandIOandOBLrespectivelygavehigherscalabilityfiguresalsointhisstudy.

TheresultsofthisreplicationprovidesevenstrongersupportforthecontentionthatevenincaseswherebothL1andL2containmarkedforms,thelearnercancomeupwiththetypologicallycorrespondingunmarkedform.Further,intheprocessofoppressingtheunmarkedforminfavourofthemarkedone,thelearneradherestopatternsthathavebeenidentifiedfornaturallanguagesonatypologicalbasis.Atpresent,however,thegeneralityoftheseresultsforotherstructuralareasremainstobeinvestigated.

TheVoiceDistinctioninStops

ThestudyoftheacquisitionofthevoicedistinctioninSwedishstopsinvolvedalsoacomparisonbetweenfirstandsecondlanguageacquisitiondata,buthere,wewillconsideronlytheL2data.Thestudywascarriedoutinco-operationwithEvaMagnusson,aphoneticianandspeechtherapistattheUniversityofLund.

Typologicalmarkednessconditionsforvoicinginstopscanbeformulatedattwolevels.Atamoregenerallevel,itiscommonlyacceptedsinceJakobson'sformulationin1941thatvoicedstopsimply

theirvoicelesscounterparts.Foraqualificationofthisstatement,seeHyltenstam&Magnusson(1983).Thismeansthatifalanguagehasvoicedstops,itnecessarilyalsohasvoicelessstops.Therefore,voicedstopsareconsideredmoremarkedthanvoicelessstops.Atamorespecificlevel,thereseemstobearegulardifferenceincontextualdistributionofthedistinctionaccordingtoDinnsen&Eckman(1975).Accordingtothisproposal,theexistenceofavoicedistinctioninwordfinalpositionimpliesthemaintenanceofthesamedistinctioninmedialposition,whichinturnimpliesthemaintenanceinwordinitialposition.WethushavethepatterngiveninTable7,whereexamplesoflanguageswiththedifferentdistributionsaregiven.(ThecaseofFinnishisnottotallyclear-cut,sincethislanguagehasamarginaldistinctionbetweentandd.Finnishdisnotgivenaphonemicstatusinalldescriptionsduetothefactthatitismarginalinthephonologicalsystem.

Itis,forexample,restrictedtomorphologicalcontextinthatitoccursonlyincertaininflectionalforms,andinmanyvarietiesofFinnish,itdoesnotoccuratall.)

TALBE7.TypologicalpatternsforvoicinginstopsInitial Medial Final+ + + e.g.Swedish mostmarked+ + - e.g.German+ - - e.g.Corsican- - - e.g.Finnish leastmarked

OnthebasisofthepatterninginTable7,itcanbestatedthatitismoremarkedtomaintainthevoicedistinctioninwordfinalpositionthaninmedialpositionwhereitinturnismoremarkedthanininitialposition.Itistheleastmarkedcasenottomaintainthedistinctionatall.

Now,oneofthequestionsaskedinthisstudywasthefollowing:

Intheacquisitionofthevoicedistinctioninstopsinasecondlanguagesetting,arethemarkednessconditionsasformulatedonthebasisoftypologicalfactsreflectedinthelearner'soutputduringtheperiodofacquisition,thatis,wouldthelearnerbemoreadvancedintheacquisitionofthevoicedistinctioninthelessmarkedcontexts?

ThesecondlanguagelearnersofthisstudywerechildandadultnativespeakersofFinnish.TheywerechosenforthestudyonthecriterionthattheyhadstillnotcompletelymasteredthevoicedistinctioninSwedish,butexhibitedvariableuseofvoicinginSwedishvoicedstops,indicatingthattheacquisitionalprocesshadstarted.Thereweretenadultsandsixchildren,4to6yearsofage.Thedatawereelicitedwiththehelpofpicturesillustratingwordswhichcontainvoicedandvoicelessstops,andeveryeffortwasmadetocoverallpossiblestructuralcontextsofthestops.Thedatawereanalysedauditorilyin

twosteps.Inthefirststepitwasdecidedwhetherthemanifestationfellwithinthenormallyacceptedvariationornotforvoicedstopsinthevariouscontexts.Inthesecondstep,anarrowtranscriptionofallmanifestationswasundertaken.Here,onlytheresultfromthefirstanalyticalstepwillbepresented.Foramoredetailedpresentationoftheresults,seeHyltenstam&Magnusson(1983:7-15).

TheresultsareshowninTable8.

TABLE8.Proportionsofacceptablyproducedvoicedstopsinwordinitial,-medial,and-finalposition

V_V V_V V_/b/ children 44 40 10

adults 68 38 33/d/ children 92 56 55

adults 89 87 86/g/ children 64 60 30

adults 59 56 45

Verybriefly,ascanbeseenintheTable,thevoicedstopsareproducedacceptablymoreoftenininitialpositionthaninmedialposition,wheretheyareinturnmoreacceptablethaninfinalposition.Thus,itseemsthatwecananswerourquestionforthisstudyintheaffirmative:aparalleldoesexistbetweenthetypologicaldataandoursecondlanguageacquisitiondatainthisphonologicalarea.

Conclusions

Eventhoughthesetwostudiesarefarfromconclusive,especiallyconsideringthesmallnumberofsubjectsinvolvedandthefactthattheyarecross-sectionalratherthanlongitudinal,theresultsdopointtotheusefulnessoftypologicaldataandnotionssuchasmarkednessforsecondlanguageacquisitionresearch.Asmentionedintheintroductorypartofthispaper,Ibelievetheusefulnessisparticularlysalientinthedescriptivephaseofresearch.Thus,Idonotseetypologicalmarkednessasanexplanatoryconceptforstructuralregularitiesinsecondlanguageacquisitiondata,whereIwouldratherlookforexplanationsataprocessinglevel.Inphonology,forexample,thephysiologicalconstraintsinproductionandperceptionprovideanobviousframeofexplanation.Asregardsthepragmaticandsemanticlevelsoflanguage,morecentralandcognitiveaspectsoflanguageprocessingmustbetakenintoconsideration.Phenomenasuchas

referenceanddeepcaserelations,whicharebothinvolvedinthedecipheringoftherelativisedfunctioninrelativeclauses,mightbedealtwithinthisway.Totaketheexampleofpronominalcopiesinrelativeclauses,oneexplanationthatsuggestsitselfforthefactthatpronominalcopiesareusedinsomerelativisedfunctionsbutnotinothers,andmoreextensivelybylanguagelearnersthanbynativespeakers,isthattheymakethereferentialconditions

oftherelativeclauseclearerandthesemanticrelationshipsbetweentheverbanditsargumentsmoretransparent.Inshort,thepronominalcopiesmakethedeeprelationsoftherelativeclauseshowupatthesurfacemoreclearly,andthisisanobviouswayofmakingiteasiertoprocess.Ifitisthecase,asseemsreasonable,thattheNPAccessibilityHierarchyhasapsychologicalvalidityinthesensethatrelativeclauseswithfunctionslowinthehierarchyaremoredifficulttoprocess,thentheuseofpronominalcopiescanbeseenasameanstoreducetheprocessingloadwhereitislargest.

Finally,asisobviousfromthediscussionofresultsinthisarticlelanguagetypologyseemstobeausefulbasisformakingpredictionsonsecondlanguageacquisitionpatterning,ifdueconsiderationisgiventohowthestructuresofthelanguagesinvolvedinthelearningsituation(L1andL2)patternwithinatypologicalframework.

Appendix

References

BERMAN,R.A.,1984,Crosslinguisticfirstlanguageperspectivesonsecondlanguageacquisitionresearch.InR.W.ANDERSEN(ed.),SecondLanguages:ACrosslinguisticPerspective.Rowley,MA:NewburyHouse,13-36.

DINNSEN,D.A.&ECKMAN,F.,1975,Afunctionalexplanationofsomephonologicaltypologies.InR.GROSSMAN,J.SAN&T.VANCE(eds),Functionalism.Chicago:ChicagoLinguisticSociety,126-139.

ECKMAN,F.,1977,Markednessandthecontrastiveanalysishypothesis.LanguageLearning27,315-330.

GASS,S.,1979,Languagetransferanduniversalgrammaticalrelations.LanguageLearning29,327-344.

HAMMARBERG,B.&VIBERG,Å.,1977,Theplace-holderconstraint,languagetypology,andtheteachingofSwedishtoimmigrants.StudiaLinguistica31,106-163.

HAWKINS,J.A.,1983,WordOrderUniversals.NewYork:AcademicPress.

HAWKINS,S.&KEENAN,E.L.,1974,Thepsychologicalvalidityoftheaccessibilityhierarchy.PaperpresentedattheSummerMeetingoftheLinguisticSocietyofAmerica.

HYLTENSTAM,K.,1984,Theuseoftypologicalmarkednessconditionsaspredictorsinsecondlanguageacquisition:Thecaseofpronominalcopiesinrelativeclauses.InR.W.ANDERSEN(ed),SecondLanguages:ACrosslinguisticPerspective.Rowley,MA:NewburyHouse,39-58.

HYLTENSTAM,K.&MAGNUSSON,E.,1983,Typologicalmarkedness,contextualvariation,andtheacquisitionofthevoicecontrastinstopsbyfirstandsecondlanguagelearnersofSwedish.InT.K.BHATIA&W.

RITCHIE(eds),Progressioninsecondlanguageacquisition(SpecialIssue),IndianJournalofAppliedLinguistics9,1-18.

IOUP,G.&KRUSE,A.,1977,Interferenceversusstructuralcomplexityinsecondlanguageacquisition:Languageuniversalsasabasisfornaturalsequencing.InH.D.BROWN,C.A.YORIO&R.H.CRYMES(eds),OnTESOL'77:TeachingandLearningEnglishasaSecondLanguage.Washington,DC:TESOL.

JAKOBSON,R.,1941,Kindersprache,AphasieundallgemeineLautgesetze.Uppsala:Almqvist&Wiksell.

JOHANSSON,F.A.,1973,ImmigrantSwedishPhonology:AStudyinMultipleContactAnalysis.Lund:CWKGleerup.

KEENAN,E.L.&COMRIE,B.,1977,Nounphraseaccessibilityanduniversalgrammar.LinguisticInquiry8,63-99.

MAZURKEWICH,I.,1985,Syntacticmarkednessandlanguageacquisition.StudiesinSecondLanguageAcquisition7,15-36.

PAVESI,M.,1986,Markedness,discoursalmodes,andrelativeclauseformationinaformalandaninformalcontext.StudiesinSecondLanguageAcquisition8,38-55.

SCHACHTER,J.,1974,Anerrorinerroranalysis.LanguageLearning24,145-151.

SCHUMANN,J.H.,1978,ThePidginizationProcess:AModelforSecondLanguageAcquisition.Rowley,MA:NewburyHouse.

SHARWOODSMITH,M.,1983,Crosslinguisticaspectsofsecondlanguageacquisition.AppliedLinguistics4,192-199.

SIOBIN,D.,1982,Universalandparticularintheacquisitionoflanguage.InL.R.

GLEITMAN&E.WANNER(eds),LanguageAcquisition:TheStateoftheArt.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,128-170.

TRAUGOTT,E.CLOSS,1977,Naturalsemantax:itsroleinthestudyofsecondlanguageacquisition.InS.P.CORDER&E.ROULET(eds),TheNotionsofSimplification,Interlanguages,andPidginsandtheirRelationtoSecondLanguagePedagogy.Neuchâtel:FacultédesLettres,132-162.

VIBERG,Å.,1983,Theverbsofperception:atypologicalstudy.InB.BUTTERWORTH,B.COMRIE&Ö.DAHL(eds),Explanationsforlanguageuniversals[specialissue].Linguistics21(1).Berlin:Mouton,123-162.

WEINREICH,U.,LABOV,V.&HERZOG,M.I.,1968,Empiricalfoundationsforatheoryoflanguagechange.InW.P.LEHMANN&Y.MALKIEL(eds),DirectionsforHistoricalLinguistics.Austin,TX:UniversityofTexasPress,95-188.

WHITE,L.,1983,Markednessandparametersetting:Someimplicationsforatheoryofadultsecondlanguagelearning.McGillWorkingPapersinLinguistics1,1-21.

3ForeignLanguageAcquisitionandtheDevelopmentofAutomaticityJaakkoLehtonen

Thebiasofthepresentpaperistodiscusssomeaspectsinthedevelopmentofforeignlanguage(FL)proceduralknowledgeintermsoftheresultsoftestswithFinnishstudentsofEnglish,German,andSwedishattheUniversityofJyväskyläandwithGermanstudentsofEnglish,French,andSpanishattheUniversityofKasselinWestGermany(fortheconceptofproceduralknowledgeinFLprocessing,seeDechert&Raupach,1985).Thefocusinthisdiscussionisontheassessmentofthedevelopmentandthedegreeofautomaticityonthebasisofthedifferencesinthereactiontime(RT)latenciesoftheinformantsinvariouslinguisticdecisiontasks.TheGermandatawerecollectedincooperationwiththeKAPPApsycholinguisticresearchgroupoftheUniversityofKassel.

Investigationintothecognitiveprocessesunderlyinglanguageperceptionandproductionistheultimatetaskofpsycholinguistics.TodayitisalsooneofthefocusesofresearchintheJyväskyläCross-LanguageProject,whichismorethantenyearsold.Inthecontrastiveframeworkthiskindofemphasismeansanalysingthelearner'slanguageprocessingmodesorstrategiesascomparedtotheprocessesinhisorhernativelanguagebehaviourandtotheprocessesofthenativespeakersofthetargetlanguage.ToquoteHansDechert(1983:122),'contrastivepsycholinguistics,lessinterestedintheproductsoffirstandsecondlanguagesthanContrastiveLinguisticsis,seekstoinvestigatetheunderlyingprocessesofperceptionandproduction.Whatweshouldbelookingat...isnotsomuchthedifferent

linguisticsystemsthelearnerisstrugglingagainst,buttheoneinformationprocessingsystemheorshehasandtheproceduresheorsheusestodealwithhisorherlinguisticin-andoutput.'

Intheperceptionandproductionofspeechtheprocessesoftheidentificationofvariouslinguisticstructuresandtheretrievalofwordsfrommemorymusttakeplaceinrealtime.Iftheprocessesaretooslow,thecommunicativeconsequencesarefatalbothtothespeakerandtothelistener.Asaspeaker,aslowprocessorbecomesdisfluent,andhisorherspeechischaracterisedbyfrequentandlonghesitationpausesandotherdisfluencies.Asalistener,heorshelosesthetrackeasilyandisunabletogeneraterelevantresponsesininteraction.Botharetypicalcharacteristicsofaforeignlanguagespeakerorlistener(seee.g.Lehtonen,1979).Inadditiontothemostobviousgeneralexplanationofthesephenomena,thatis,toolowalevelofallkindsofknowledgerelatingtotheforeignlanguage,therearetwofeaturesofhisorherproceduralknowledgeresultinginadelayintherateofprocessingwhichserveasapartialexplanationforthedisfluenciesofhisorherFLprocessing:(a)theFLspeakermaynothavedevelopedanetworkofsemantic,lexical,grammatical,textual,andpragmaticassociationswhichwouldfacilitatetheprocessingand/or(b)theprocesseshavenotbeenautomatisedandarethereforetime-consuming.Theyalsorequirealargeamountofsystemcapacity,anddistractthesystemfromenteringahigherlevelofprocessing.

Shiffrin&Dumais(1980)distinguishbetweentwoqualitativelydifferentformsofcognitiveprocessing:controlledandautomatic.Controlledprocessingrequiresattentionanddecreasesthesystemcapacitywhichisavailableforotherprocessing.Automaticprocessingdoesnotnecessarilydemandprocessingresources,whichmeansthatthereiscapacityinthesystemforhigher-levelprocessing.Everydayexamplesofautomatisedsequencesare,forinstance,drivingacar,playingthepiano,typing,andreadingaloud,whichallinvolveaspectsofrathercomplexbehaviour.

AccordingtoMcLaughlin,Rossman&McLeod(1983),thedistinctionbetweencontrolledandautomaticprocessesisrelatedto

thedegreetowhichtheskillsinquestionhavebeenroutinisedandestablishedinlongtermmemory:iftheskillsarewell-masteredandpermanent,informationprocessingcanbesaidtobeautomatic.Itisworthnoticinghavingtheforeignlanguagelearningsituationinmindthatretrainingtoadoptanewautomaticsequencecanbearduousandmoredifficultthantheinitiallearningprocess.Thissuggeststhatifthereisanyproceduraltransferfromthenativelanguageprocessingmodeduringtheprocessofforeignlanguageacquisition,aninhibitoryeffectcouldbeexpectedtotakeplaceinacquisitionasconcernsprocesseswhichareautomatisedinthemothertonguebutmustbemodifiedtofitthetargetlanguagesystem.

Thereareseveralinstrumentalmethodswhichcanbeappliedforthepurposesofpsycholinguisticexperimentation.Likewise,thepossibilitiesofcontrollingthetestingprocedureasawholeareunlimited.Thepresentarticleconcentratesontheapplicationofreactiontimemeasurementstotheanalysisofautomaticandcontrolledtransferinprocessingfromthenativelanguageandofthedevelopmentofautomaticityintheforeignlanguagespeaker'slanguageprocessingsystem.Thewaystherearetolearnaboutthehumaninformationprocessingsystemareratherrestricted:wecananalyseitsprintouts,thatis,spokenandwrittentexts,producedinvariouscontexts;wecantrytodiscoveritsweakpointsbylistingerrorsthatitmakes,orwecanfeedintothemachinevariousproblemswhicharesimpleenoughandseehowaccuratelyandhowfastitsucceedsinsolvingthem.Thisiswhatisattemptedwiththereactiontimeexperiments.

Itwillbehypothesisedforthepurposesofthepresentarticlethatreactiontimesreflectthedegreeofautomaticity:thefasterthereactionisthehigherthelevelofautomaticityindecisionmaking.ThiskindofinterpretationofRTdataimpliesthattherearetwomodesofretrieval,ortwoaccessmodestolinguisticknowledgeinthecentralnervoussystem:automaticandcontrolled.Sometasksconsumemorecognitiveresourcesandinvolveslowerprocessing;thesearecalledcontrolledprocesses.Automaticprocessesagainutilisearelativelypermanentsetofassociativeconnectionsandproceedatafasterrate.Bothcontrolledandautomaticprocessescaninprinciplebeeitherconsciousornot(McLaughlin,Rossman&McLeod,1983).Sincemostautomaticprocessesoccurwithgreatspeed,theyaremostlyhiddenandareunattainablebyconsciousperceptionandintrospection.McLaughlin,Rossman&McLeod(1983)emphasisetheconceptualdistinctionbetweenautomaticityandconsciousness:thedistinctionbetweenautomaticandcontrolledprocessingisnot

basedonconsciousandsubconsciousawarenessbut,instead,relatestothedegreetowhichtheskillsinquestionhavebeenroutinisedandestablishedinlongtermmemory.Thisalsoimpliesthataprocessrequirestrainingtobeautomatic.

Thepoorerperformanceofbilingualsintheirsecondlanguageis,accordingtoEdithMägiste(1984),duetotheirfailuretoachievethesamelevelofautomaticfamiliaritywithwordsofthesecondlanguageasmonolingualsubjectsachieve.Similarly,FavreauandSegalowitz(1983)concludeintheirstudyofbilingualCanadiansthatthelessskilledreadersshowedlessautomaticity(orinhibitionlessfacilitation)intheirsecondlanguagethanthemoreskilledreadersdidortheythemselvesdidintheirfirstlanguage.

TheExperiment

Thestartinghypothesisissimpleinthatreactionstofamiliarandautomatisedstructuresarefasterandmoreaccurate,whiledecisionsconcerningtheacceptabilityoflessfamiliarconstructsareslowerandlessaccurate.Thelinguistictasksinthepresentexperimentsincludecorrect/incorrectdecisionsofsentenceswhichdo,ordonot,containanapparentgrammaticalerror.Itwillbehypothesisedthatsuchacceptabilityteststouchupontheproductionmechanismintwoways:(a)ifthelistener/readeracceptsthepattern,itimpliesthatheorsheacceptsthesameconstructalsoinhisorherownspeech;and(b)afastrateofreactionindicatesahighdegreeofavailabilityofthedatafortheprocessingmechanismandahighlevelofautomaticityinthedecisionprocess(forfurtherdiscussion,seeLehtonen&Sajavaara,1985).

Itisknownfromexperiencethatthereactiontimetoasimpleyes/nostimulus(e.g.lighton/lightoff)isaboutonefifthofasecond.Thistimeincludestheidentificationofthestimulus,itscategoricalrecognition,theselectionandplanningoftheresponseandthemotoractivity.Ifthetaskismorecomplex,iftheinformanthastochoosebetweentwoormorealternatives,thereactiontimestendtogrowlonger.Insimpleword/nonworddecisiontasksandinlexicalnamingtasks,typicalreactiontimesofnativeinformantsvaryaround600milliseconds.Inacceptabilitytaskswithshortsentencesinaforeignlanguagethetimesneededforthedecisionmayvaryfromonesecondtoseveralseconds(Lehtonen&Sajavaara,1985).Theinterpretationofreactiontimestolinguisticstimuliisoftenproblematic,becausethereisnostraightforwardrelationshipbetweenreactiontimesandthecomplexityofthetaskintermsofthelinguisticcomplexityofthestimulus.Linguisticcomplexityorthecomplexityofthestimulusaccordingtoagivengrammaticaltheoryisnotnecessarilyisomorphic

withtheproceduralcomplexityofthetaskinquestion.TheinterpretationoftheresultsofcontrastiveorinterlanguageRT-testsissomewhateasier,becauseacomparisonoftheforeignlanguagespeaker'sandthenative'sreactionsassuchservesasdatafortheestablishmentofthedegreeofsimilaritybetweentheforeignlanguagespeaker'sandthenative'sprocesses.

Table1summarisessomeofthemostrecenttestscarriedoutbytheJyväiskyläCross-LanguageProject.Inthesetestsatotalnumberof91EnglishsentencesandavaryingnumberofcorrespondingFinnish,Swedish,andGermansentenceswerepresentedtachistoscopicallytoagroupof20FinnishuniversitystudentsofEnglishattheUniversityofJyväskylä,Finland.Inaddition,theEnglishandGermansentenceswerepresentedtoagroupofGermanstudentsofEnglishattheUniversityofKassel,FederalRepublic

ofGermany.Thetaskwastodecide,asfastaspossible,whetherthesentenceseenonthescreenwascorrectornot,orwhetherthetranslationofthesentencewhichwasseeninoneofthesubtestsonthescreenbelowtheEnglishsentencewascorrectornot.Theinformantsreactedbypushingoneoftwobuttonsbeforethem.InbothlanguagegroupshalfofthestudentshadcompletedtheirtermabroadorhadstayedforaperiodofsixmonthsormoreinanEnglish-speakingcountry.TenoftheFinnishstudentshadGerman,andfiveSwedishastheirminorsubject.MostoftheGermansubjectshadFrenchorSpanishastheirminorsubjectsatuniversity.

TABLE1.MeandecisiontimeswithspeakersofFinnish,German,andEnglishtovariousacceptabilitydecisiontasks

sentences translation1 2 3 4 5

speakersof English Finnish German Swedish E/Fi E/Ge E/SwFinnish(N=20)

2870 2426 3379 3082 3446 3962 3784

German(N=20) 2178 - 1785 - - 2306 -English(N=15) 1998 - - - - - -

Figuresincolumn1standforthereactiontimesofFinnish,GermanandEnglishinformantstoanacceptabilitydecisionofvisuallypresentedsentencesinEnglish(1),column2inFinnish,3inGermanand4inSwedish.Column5representsreactionsintasksinwhichthesubjectswereaskedtodecidewhetherthetranslationofanEnglishsentencewascorrectornot.Thedifferenceofthemeansbetweenthemothertonguereactionsandthetwoforeignlanguagedecisiontasksarestatisticallystronglysignificant,bothintheFinnishandintheGermangroup.Ineachsubtest,thestimuliwerepresentedinarandomisedorder.Variousdistractorsentenceswereusedtopreventconsciousmonitoringofanyfeaturesinthetestsentences.Thesyntacticandlexicalstructureofthesentenceswasassimpleas

possible.Sentencelengthvariedslightlybuteachsentencetookonlyonelineinthetachistoscopicprojection.ThelinguisticproblemsembeddedinthesentenceswereselectedfromtheerroranalysisdatacollectedbytheJyväskyläCross-LanguageProject.Accordingly,mostoftheerroneousstimuliweresimilartotypicalerrorsmadebyFinnishstudentsofEnglish,German,andSwedish.

Thetestpatternwasoriginallyconstructedfortheassessmentoftheinfluenceofthenativelanguageaswellasofanyotherforeignlanguage

ontheprocessingofagiventargetlanguage.ThehypothesiswasthatEnglish,whichisthefirstforeignlanguagetaughttothegreatmajorityofFinnishcomprehensiveschoolchildren,mightinterfereinthelearningofSwedish,Germanandotherforeignlanguages.

Afewwordsmaysufficetoillustratethisaspectinthedata:ingeneral,therewassomeevidenceinthedatawhichsuggeststheexistenceofsomeL3-transferinthedecisiontasks.Forinstance,inthetranslationtaskoneofthefastestreactionsbyFinnswasthedecisionontheGermantranslationofthesentenceHewasgivenabook=*ErwurdeeinBuchgegeben.

1ThemajorityoftheFinns(12outof20)acceptedthisincorrectGermansentence,whichwas,ofcourse,rejectedbythenativeGermans,thedecisiontimebeingthefastestofallEnglish-Germansentencepairs.AsimilarpieceofevidenceforL3-transferataratherautomatisedlevelofprocessingistheFinns'reactiontoa'falsefriend'inGermanandSwedishsentences:17outof20Finnishinformantsacceptedveryfast(theratewasthe7thoutof23sentences)theerroneousGermantranslationofTheyrushedtothestation=*SieraschtenzumBahnhof(proSieeiltenzumBahnhof).Similarly18outof20acceptedtheSwedishnonsense-translation*Lisarasadetillparken(Sw.rasa'torage')oftheEnglishsentenceLisarushedtotheparkwithanaverageRTof3630milliseconds.ItisinterestingtoseethatthegreatmajorityoftheFinnsalsoacceptedtheerroneouswords*raschenandrasainisolatedGermanandSwedishsentencesrespectivelywithacorrespondingspeedandunanimity:German*ErraschtezurBank16/20'right'in3060msec,andSwedish*HonrasadetillStockman17/20'right'in2780milliseconds.Itissomewhatconfusingthatatthesametimethesameinformantsapparentlyknewtherightword,whichisindicatedbythefactthat17/20ofthemalso

acceptedthecorrectSwedishsentencePellerusadeinihuset'Pellerushedintothehouse'veryfast(2675msec).Similarly,abouthalfoftheFinnishstudentsacceptedtheisolatederroneoussentence*IchwurdeeinBuchgegeben,althoughafteralongdecisiontime(3805msec)but10outof20alsoacceptedthecorrectsentenceMirwurdeeinAutogegeben'Iwasgivenacar'.

IneachgroupofTable1thetasksinaforeignlanguagerequiredmoretimethanthedecisionsinthemothertongue.ThisisinaccordancewithearlierfindingsfromseveraldifferenttasksinwhichtheRT'softheFinnishstudentsofEnglishandGermantothenativeandtargetlanguagestimuliwererecorded(seee.g.Lehtonen&Sajavaara,1985);inalltesttypesthestudents'reactionstoforeignlanguagestimulihadbeenslowerthanthoseofthenativespeakersandslowerthantheirreactionstostimuliintheirmothertongue.ThishasbeeninterpretedasanindicationofalackofautomaticityintheFLprocedures.

ThedifferencebetweenthemeanreactiontimesoftheFinnishgroupandtheGermangroupinTable1issurprisinglyhigh.TheGermansarefasterintheirmothertonguedecisions,butthedifferencebetweenthetwogroups'twoEnglishlanguagetasksisstillhigher.Severaltentativeexplanationsarepossible.Thephysicaltestenvironmentsweredifferent,butthisshouldhaveratherbenefitedtheFinnishgroup,whichwastestedinapropertestingstudio.Otherwisetheconditionswereidentical:similarinstructions,thesameexpositiontime(2sec),andthesamepicturesizeonthescreen.AmoreprobableexplanationfortheFinns'longerreactiontimescanbefoundinadifferentfocusofattentionamongtheFinnishandGermanFLstudents.TheFinnishstudentshadlearnedatschooltomonitortheformalcorrectnessoftheutterancesbothintheirmothertongueandinforeignlanguages.ThisfocusonerrorsandgrammaticalcorrectnessatthecostoffluencyofdeliveryandcommunicativeskillsmayhavebeenfurtherreinforcedbyFinnishuniversityeducation.TheGermanstudentsmayhavebeentaughtmoreinteractiveskillsandtheymayhavebeenencouragedtocommunicateeveniftheirutterancesarenotalwaysformallyperfect.ThishypothesisissupportedbythepreliminaryfindingsthattheGermansseemtomakemoreerrorsintheirreactionstotheunanimouslycorrectorfalsesentencesintheirnativelanguagethanFinnsdo.Butthereisonemoreexplanationwhichistheoreticallyobviousbuthardtoverify:thetypologicalinterrelationshipofthelanguages.GermansmaybefasterinEnglishbecauseofthestructuralsimilarityofthesetworelatedlanguages.TheFinns'reactionstotasksinanyGermaniclanguageareslowerbecausetheycannottransfertheproceduralschemataoftheirmothertonguetotheprocessingoflanguageswhicharetotallyunrelatedtotheirnativelanguage(cf.Ringbom,1979,1985).

Phenomenainforeign-languageprocessing,however,dependonseveralotherfactorsinadditiontothedifferencesandsimilarities

betweenthesourceandtargetlanguages.Theseare,amongotherthings,culturalpatterns,motivationalfactors,theamountoflanguagecontacts,andthemodeoflanguageexposition.Thelastfactor,thatis,whethertheknowledgeoftheforeignlanguagehasbeenacquiredprimarilyinnaturalisticinteractionwithnativespeakersinvarioussocialsituationsorwhethermostofithasbeenacquiredinformalclassroomsituations,appearstobeespeciallyimportantforthedevelopmentofnative-likeautomaticity.TheFinnishinformantshadbeentaughtEnglish(orGerman)forthemostpartthroughtraditionalteacher-centredmethods.BecauseFinlandisalmostentirelymonolingualandthereispracticallynoimmigrationfromothercountries,Finns,exceptthoselivinginthenarrowbilingualcoastalarea,hadonlybeenminimallyexposedtoreallifecommunicativeFLsituations.

Althoughthevariationinreactiontimesbetweenindividualshasnotyetbeenanalysedindetail,somepreliminaryremarksarepossiblehere.ThemeanreactiontimesofindividualinformantsofthetwolanguagegroupstoeachsubtestaregiveningraphicforminFigure1andFigure2.Ineachfigure,theinformantshavebeenarrangedintheorderoftherateofthereactionsinthenativetonguetasks.Therunningnumberofthosestudentswhohadcompletedtheirtermabroadisitalicised.PreliminaryinspectionofthereactiontimesseemstosuggestthatthestayofsixmonthsinanEnglishspeakingcountrydidnotspeedupthereactionratesineitherlanguagegroup.ThisfindingcontradictsearlierresultswhichshowedasignificantquickeningoftheFinns'reactionstoEnglishidiomsandcollocationsintheresidencegroup.ItisalsoworthnoticinginFigure1andFigure2thatFinnsandGermansseemtoexperiencethedifficultyofthetranslationtaskinadifferentway:thetranslationtaskrequiredmoretimethanindividualsentencesforallFinnsexceptno.12,butintheGermangrouptherearenineinformantswhoperformedthetranslationtaskfasterthantheEnglishsentencetask.

Automaticprocessinghasbeensaidtofreecognitivecapacityforhigherleveltaskssuchasintegrationofinformationandinferencing.Itispossibletohypothesisethatinthecaseofisolatedsentencesorsentencepairssuchasthoseincludedinthetestsreportedabove,automaticprocessingproceedsindependentlyatseverallevelssimultaneously.Oneoftheselevelscouldbeoneofacceptability,whichinvolvesdecisionsontheacceptabilityandnon-acceptabilityofutterances.Itcouldbepossibletohypothesisetheexistenceofanacceptability-detectionautomaton,whichautomaticallyweighsthe'familiarityvalue'oftheincomingsentenceinthecaseofthenatives'reactionstounambiguoussentences.Accordingtothishypothesisboththerejectionoferroneousstimuliandtheacceptanceofcorrectsentencesarefastandautomatic,ifthestimulusexceedsthe

thresholds.Butifthefamiliarity/unfamiliarityfallsbelowthethresholdvalue,orifthesentencedeviatesfromwhatisplausible,amonitoringorsearchingprocessistriggeredwhichresultsinlengthenedreactionsinthecaseofnativespeakers.Thishypothesisexplains,forinstance,thenativeGermans'andtheFinnishstudents'reactionstoGermansentencesinoneofourearliertests(Lehtonen&Sajavaara,1985).ThemajorityoftheFinnishstudentsacceptedveryfasttheerroneoussentence*HastduvielePhotosgenommenwhichwasconstruedonthebasisoftheFinnishcollocationottaavalokuvia'totakephotos',becauseofthetransferfromtheirmothertongue,whilethenativesneededalmostthesametimeastheFinnstorejectit.Apparentlythissentencedidnotexceedtherejectionthresholdbuttriggeredasearchforsuchcontextsinwhichthesentencecouldbepossible.

Thetheoryofgrammaticaldecision-makingcanbeintegratedintothegeneralmodelofsignaldetection,whichexplainstheslowerresponsesfoundinthetestsonthebasisoftheconceptofstimulusfamiliarity.Accordingtothisconcept,itemsthatfallbelowthethresholdofunfamiliarityorabovethethresholdoffamiliarityarerespondedtoveryquickly,becausetheyrequirenosearchofmemory.Butitemswhichfallbetweenthetwothresholdsarerespondedtoonlyafterarelativelytime-consumingmemorysearch(cf.Lachman&Butterfield,1979).Intestslikethosereportedabove,thesentenceswhichfallunanimouslybelowthelevelofacceptabilityorplausibility,andarethereforerejected,andthesentenceswhichcorrespondtothegeneralpatternsofexpectations,andareaccordinglyaccepted,elicitamarkedlyfasterreactioninthenativespeakersthanthosethatfallbetweentwothresholds(cf.Lehtonen&Sajavaara,1983).Theforeignlanguagestudents,ontheotherhand,becauseoftheirsmallamountofknowledgeinthenewlanguage,maynothavedevelopedsuchanetworkofassociationswhichwouldfunctionlikean'acceptabilityautomaton'.Consequently,theyneedmoretimefortheirdecision-making.

Thereareseveraldifferenttheorieswhichcouldbeadaptedtotheanalysisanddescriptionofautomaticityinthelanguageprocessingoftheforeignlanguagelearner.Logan(1985)presentsaviewofautomaticitywhichisdifferentfromthatoftherepresentativesoftheautomatic-controlleddichotomytheory.Hereferstoaninterestingaspectofautomaticity,skillandcontrol:normally,skilled,thatis,moreautomatised,performanceisbettercontrolledthanlessskilledperformance;skilledperformersareusuallyabletocontroltheirperformancebetterthanunskilledperformers,eventhoughtheirperformanceislikelytobemoreautomatic.Accordingly,hesuggeststhatthecontrastbetweenautomaticityandcontrolmaybeanartifact,andthatthegeneralbeliefthatautomaticityandcontrolareopposites

maybemistakenor,atleast,overstated.AccordingtoLogan,psychologistsoftencharacterisephenomenaasdichotomies.Inthisway,automaticityintheliteratureiscontrasted,ifnotwithcontrol,withsomebinaryoppositesuchasstrategicprocessingorconsciousprocessing.Loganalsocriticisesthestandardtheoryofautomaticity,whichdescribesautomatisationasareductionoftheresourcesneededtoperformatask.AccordingtoLogan,skilledperformerscarryouttheirtasksdifferentlyfrombeginners;thismeansthatautomatisationisratherashiftinthekindsofresourcesusedthanamerereductionoftheresources.

Itseemsobviousthatthedevelopmentofnative-likeautomaticityiscrucialintheprocessofforeignlanguageacquisition.Futureresearchquestionstobeansweredinclude,amongothers,thefollowing:whatistheroleofnativelanguageautomaticityintheprocessofFLacquisition?Is

TheFinnishinformants'reactiontimestovariouslinguisticdecisiontasks

TheGermaninformants'reactiontimestovariouslinguisticdecisiontasks

thereanytransferatthelevelofautomatisedprocesses,andhowdoeslanguageprocessingautomaticitydevelop?Whatistheroleofpracticeinproducingautomaticityisitpossibleonlybydoing,byexperiencingandexercising?And,lastbutnotleast,whatismeantbyautomaticityafterall?Yet,inMcLaughlin's(1983)words,anadequatetheoryofsecondlanguagelearningshouldincludenotonlyspecificationofhowautomaticandcontrolledprocessesarecoordinatedbutalsoanunderstandingoftheroleandfunctionofconsciousness.

GeneralDiscussion

Thereisnoreasontobelieveinanyuniversaltheoryofthedevelopmentofautomaticityinforeignlanguageacquisitionatthepresentstateofpsycholinguisticresearch,butthereisnoneedtofavourultimatepessimismeither.IthasbeensuggestedsomewherethatapsycholinguistislikeablindIndiantryingtodescribeanelephant.Atthepresentstateofourexperimentalknowledgeoflanguageprocessingourtheoriesandmodelsnecessarilycontainblackboxesorhypotheticalassumptionsaboutvariousstructuresandprocesses.Buttherearemorewindowsthanjustonethroughwhichonecantrytopeepintotheboxesandlearnabouttheirstructureandprospectivelineofaction.Oneoftheavailablewindowsisthemeasurementofthetimesneededinvariouslinguisticdecisiontasks,whichwasdiscussedabove.

Butevenifmanyoftheprocessesbeyondthedevelopmentofautomaticityareunknown,wecanagreewiththeclaimthatautomatisedprocesses(ascontrarytoconsciousplanning)aretypicalofcompetentlinguisticbehaviour.Andersen(1986)suggeststhatthepathtocommunicationcompetencecouldbedescribedasconsistingoffivelevels.Thelowestlevelisthatofunconsciousincompetence,wherecommunicatorsmakemistakesbutareunawareoftheirerrors.

Leveltwoisthatofconsciousincompetence,whichmeansunpleasantawarenessofthepoorqualityofone'sperformance(thisstageiscriticalbecauseconsciousnessofincompetencemayaddtoanxietyandactuallydecreasecompetence;cf.Lehtonen,Sajavaara,&Manninen,1985).Thethirdlevelisthatofconsciouscompetence,sincethecommunicatorthoughtfullyandanalyticallymodifieswhatheorsheisdoing.Thenextlevel,whichisthegoaloflanguagelearning,isthatofunconsciouscompetence:theskillsaresowellmasteredthatawarenesscanbedirectedtolistening,tocollectingfeedback,andtowardotherenvironmentalstimuli.Andersenfinallydescribesonemorelevelofcompetence,thatofconscioussupercompetence,whichisneededforpeakperformance.Itisworthnoticing

thatinthistheoryunconsciousnessappearsatboththelowestandthehighestlevelofcommunicativecompetence.Intheseterms,competencereferstoskillswhicharemasteredautomatically,savingresourcesforhigherlevelprocessing.

Boththelinguistandthelanguageteachersometimesunderestimatethecomplexityofthecontrolmechanismswhichunderliecompetentorsuccessfullanguagebehaviour:acompetentperformerhastocontrolhisorherpersonalgoals,heorshehastoorganisediverseperceptionsintoacoherentplanofaction,heorshehastoadapthisorherbehaviourtosituationalneeds,heorshehastopredictandexplaintheother'scommunicativebehaviour,heorshehastocontrolbothverbalandnonverbalcuesoftheother'sbehaviour,heorshehastocontroltheturn-takingprocedures,fillpauses,reacttointerruptionsand,atthesametime,seekappropriatewordsandutterancesinhisorhermemory,planhisorherownspeech,anddecodethatofhisorherinterlocutor.Andmostofthisissupposedtoproceedsubconsciouslyinanautomatisedmanner.Oneobviousproblemintheattemptstoassessthedegreeofautomaticityisthattheprocessesorprocedures(ormaybescriptsandschemata)whichautomatisearenotequaltotheentireperformancebutrepresentindividualaspectsorpartialsubroutines.Consequently,decisiontimescanberecordedwithaconclusionthatthefastertimeisaconsequenceofahigherlevelofautomaticity,butwedonotknowwhichoneoftheprocedureswasautomatisedandresultedinthefasterbehaviourandinwhichway.

NotestoChapter3

1.Ungrammaticalotherwiseerroneoussentencesaremarkedwithanasterisk

References

ANDERSEN,P.A.,1986,Consciousness,cognition,andcommunication.

WesternJournalofSpeechCommunication50(1),87-101.

DECHERT,H.W.,1983,Apleaforcontrastivepsycholinguistics.InK.SAIAVAARA(ed.),Cross-languageAnalysisandSecondLanguageAcquisition1,Jyvaskylä:UniversityofJyväskylä,115-123.

DECHERT,H.W.&RAUPACH,M.,1985,HypothesenzurZweitsprachenproduktion.InR.EPPENEDER(ed.),Lernersprache:ThesenzumErwerbeinerFremdsprache.München:GoetheInstitut,219-288.

FAVREAU,M.&SEGALOWITZ,N.S.,1983,Automaticanticontrolledprocessesinthefirst-andsecond-languagereadingoffluentbilinguals.MemoryandCognition11(6),563-574.

LACHMAN.R.&BUTTERFIELD,E.C.,1979,CognitivePsychologyandInformationProcessing:AnIntroduction.Hillsdale,NJ:Erlbaum.

LEHTONEN,J.,1979,SpeechrateandpausesintheEnglishofFinns,SwedishspeakingFinns,andSwedes.InR.PALMBERG(ed.),PerceptionandProductionofEnglish.PapersinInterlanguage.Abo:AboAkademi,35-51.

LEHTONEN,J.&SAJAVAARA,K.,1983,Acceptabilityandambiguityinnativeandsecondlanguagemessageprocessing.InH.RINGBOM(ed.),PsycholinguisticsandForeignLanguageLearning.PublicationsoftheResearchInstituteofAboAkademiFoundation.Abo:AboAkademi,101-125.

1985,PsycholinguisticTestingofTransferinForeign-languageSpeechProcessing(SeriesB.paperno.117).Trier:UniversityofTrier.

LEHTONEN,J.,SAJAVAARA,K.&MANNINEN,S.,1985,Communicationapprehensionandattitudestowardaforeignlanguage.ScandinavianWorkingPapersinBilingualism5,53-62.

LOGAN,G.D.,1985,Skillandautomaticity:Relations,implications,andfuturedirections.CanadianJournalofPsychology39(2),367-386.

MÄGISTE,E.,1984,Strooptaskanddichotictranslation:Thedevelopmentofinferencepatternsinbilinguals.JournalofExperimentalPsychology10(2),304-315.

MCLAUGHLIN,B.,ROSSMAN,T.&McLEOD,B.,1983.Secondlanguagelearning:Aninformation-processingperspective.LanguageLearning33(2),135-158.

RINGBOM,H.,1979,TheEnglishofFinns,Swedes,andSwedishFinns:Someconcludingremarks.InR.PALMBERG(ed.),PerceptionandProductionofEnglish:PapersonInterlanguage.Abo:AboAkademi,

77-85.

1985.TheinfluenceofSwedishontheEnglishofFinnishlearners.InH.RINGBOM(ed.),ForeignLanguageLearningandBilingualism.Abo:AboAkademi,39-71.

SAJAVAARA,K.&LEHTONEN,J.,1986,Themothertongueandtheforeignlanguageininteraction.InD.KASTOVSKY&A.SZWEDEK(eds),LinguisticsAcrossHistoricalandGeographicalBoundaries.InHonourofJacekFisiak:Vol.2.Descriptive,Contrastive,andAppliedLinguistics.Berlin:MoutondeGruyter.1443-1455.

SHIFFRIN,R.M.&DUMAIS,S.T.,1980,Thedevelopmentofautomatism.InJ.R.ANDERSON(ed.),CognitiveSkillsandtheirAcquisition.Hillsdale,NJ:Erlbaum,111-140.

4CompetingPlansinSecondLanguageProcessingHansW.Dechert

OnMarch27th1977,duetotheexplosionofaterrorist'sbombintheterminalatLasPalmasontheislandofGranCanaria,twoairplanes,amongothers,weredivertedtoLosRodeosAirportclosetoSantaCruzonthenearbyislandofTenerife.Theweatheronthisparticulardaywasfoggy.Runwayvisibilitywasworseningduringtheafternoon.Therewereothercircumstanceswhichcontributedtothedramaticcourseofevents

1:theinadequatetechnicalequipmentatLosRodeos(thecentrelightsontherunwaydidnotfunction,twooutofthethreeradiofrequenciesforthetransmissionofmessagesbetweenthetowerandthecockpitshadbeenoutoforderduringtheprecedingsixmonths,therewasnogroundradartotracetaxiingplanes);thenarrowwidthoftheslipways;theSpanishaccentofthetowerpersonnel;theheavycongestionoftheairfieldandasaconsequencethehightaskstressonthethreeairtrafficcontrollersinthetowerandonthecrews,especiallythepilotsandcopilots.At5:06p.m.,afterseveralhoursofrefuellingandwaiting,aBoeing747,flightnumberKLM4805,onacharterflightfromAmsterdamtoLasPalmas,with234passengersandacrewof14onboard,begantotaxialongtherunwayandtogainspeedinordertotakeoff,withouthavingreceivedfinaltakeoffclearancefromairtrafficcontrol.ItcollidedwithanotherBoeing747,flightnumberPanAm1736,onacharterflightfromLosAngelesandNewYorktoLasPalmas,taxiingdowntherunwayandwaitingforinformationfromthetower,carrying373passengersandacrewof16.AfterstrikingtheAmericanplane,KLM4805crashedtotheground

andexplodedimmediately.Notasinglepersonescaped.Fivehundredandseventy-sevenpassengersandcrewmemberswerekilledinthisfatalaccident,themostseriousonethathadhappenedinthehistoryofaviation.

Whatweretherealcausesofthisaccident?WhydidthecaptainofKLM4805takeoffwithoutbeinggivenfinaltakeoffclearance?BesidesthelistingofanumberofimmediateanswerstothesequestionstheAirLine

PilotsAssociationStudyGroupReportgaveparticularregardtothefactthatthecaptainofKLM4805wastheheadofhisairline'sFlightTrainingDepartmentandhadspentmostofhistimeduringtheprecedingsixyearsininstructingandtrainingpilotsaccordingtoahighlycondensedandstandardisedtrainingprogramme.Thereportdescribesthisfunctionasfollows:

Thetaskofatraininginstructoristocompressthemaximumamountoftrainingintotheavailablesimulatororairplanetime.Inordertoaccomplishthis,hemaydelete[italicsadded]normallyrealisticAirTrafficControlproceduresanddelays[italicsadded]whentrainingandcheckingacrew.TherearenoAirTrafficControlconstraintsinthesimulatorandonlyminimalconstraintstotheoperationofthetrainingaircraft.Inthesimulator,theinstructoractsasthecontroller[italicsadded],alwaysrespondingaffirmativelytothetraineepilot'srequestsforexpeditedhandlingduringemergencies.TheinstructorgenerallyissuesAirTrafficControlandtakeoffclearancetothecrewjustpriortothefinalitemsofpre-takeoffchecklist.Thereisneveraneedforthecrewtoholdthesimulatorinpositionawaitingtakeoffclearance.(Reason&Mycielska,1982:216.)

WhattheStudyGroupReportquiteobviouslysuggestsisthepossibilitythattheDutchcaptain'sattempttosolveanunusuallycomplicatedrealtaskwasseriouslyimpededbyhismanyyears'experienceasatraininginstructor.Theremayhavebeen,inotherwords,competition

(a)betweenthenatureandcomplexityoftherealtaskandthenatureandcomplexityofthesimulatedtasks;

(b)betweentheimmediateactiontobetakentosolvetherealtaskandthesimulatedactionspractisedinthesimulatedtasks;

(c)betweenanattitudethatanticipatesimmediateaffirmativeevidenceandresponseandanattitudethattakesintoconsiderationdisconfirmingevidenceandresponse;

(d)betweentherealroleofcaptainoftheairplaneandthesimulatedroleofcontrollerinthetrainingprogramme,thatis,betweenthestatusandauthorityattributedtotheroleofcaptainintherealtaskandthestatusandauthorityattributedtotheroleofcontrollerinthesimulatedtask;

(e)betweentherealroleofcaptainoftheairplaneandtherealroleofAirTrafficControl,thatis,betweenthestatusandauthorityattributedtotheroleofcaptainintherealtaskandthestatusand

authorityattributedtotheroleofAirTrafficControlintherealtask;

(f)betweenthesimulatedroleofcontrollerinthetrainingprogrammeandtherealroleofAirTrafficControl,thatis,betweenthestatusandauthorityattributedtotheroleofcontrollerinthesimulatedtaskandthestatusandauthorityattributedtotheroleofAirTrafficControlintherealtask.

Thiscompetitionmusthaveeventuallyendedupinablendinwhichacleardistinctionbetweenrolesandactionstobetakentosolvetherealtaskwereblurred:theAirTrafficControl'srealclearancewhichwasnotatallmeanttofunctionasthefinaltakeoffclearancealthoughthetermtakeoffwasmentionedandtheanticipatedfinaltakeoffclearancewhichwasnevergivenbyAirTrafficControlweremixedup.TheKLMcaptainactedasiffinaltakeoffclearancehadbeengiven.

Whathasthisgottodowiththetopicofthischapter'CompetingPlansinSecondLanguageProcessing'?

Anytheoryofhumanaction(andoflanguageprocessing)mustconsiderthatquitefrequentlyplansforactionandsequencesofplansforactionrunoutofcontrolandcombinetoformunintendedandunforeseenbehaviourandlanguage.Usuallywehardlynoticesuchblends.SometimestheyhavedisastrousconsequencesasinthecaseoftheTenerifecrash.

Blendsaretheresultofacompetitionoftwo(perhapsmore)planswhichcannotbesolvedwithinthesystem.Althoughsuchcompetitionmayleadtoerroneousbehaviourandlanguage,ourabilitytoplanandreasonintermsofmorethanonesolutiontothetaskweareconfrontedwithismostlikelytheverysourceofthedynamics,flexibility,andadaptabilityofthehumanactionsystem.ThisisthebasicideabehindBaar'scompetingplanshypothesis(1980a,1980b;cf.alsoDechert,1983c;Reason,1984).Thishypothesiscorresponds

withquiteadifferentlineofresearchconcerningtheintegrationofcompetinginformationintheproductionofnovelreconstructedmemories.Thephenomenonofcompromisememories,sofarmainlystudiedintherecollectionforcolours(Bornstein,1976;Hall&Loftus,1984;Loftus,1977),furtherexemplifiesanapparentlygeneraltendencyofthehumaninformationprocessingsystem:theintegrationofcompetingitemsofinformation.InLoftus'experimentsubjects,whohadbeenshownanumberofslideswithanautomobileaccidentinvolvingagreencar,andlater,onpurposegiventhewronginformationbluecar,selectedabluegreenhuewhichobviouslyrepresentedacompromise,orablendbetweenthetwocompetingitemsofinformation(Loftus,1977).

Sample1

ThefollowingtextwasproducedbyanadvancedGermanlearnerofEnglish.

2ItistakenfromalargecorpusoforalreproductionsofanAmericanIndiannarrative'TheLonesomeOpossum'(Levitas,Vivelo&Vivelo,1974:12).3

TEXT1Episodes3and4ofthenon-nativereproductionoftheOpossumstory

AFTERTHAT(0.18)um(3.74)SHE(0.29)TOOKHERBABY(0.24)/AND(0.51)uh(0.98)WENTALONGWITHTHEBABYTHROUGHTHEFOREST(0.44)//THERETHEYMET(1.02)um(2.01)AN(9.49)WOLF(1.33)/ohIforgotsomething/[chuckles]umBEFORE(0.46)THE(0.12)BABY(0.19)WAS(0.16)FEEDEDWITH(0.09)um(1.38)A(0.1)RATTLESNAKEINTHISHOUSE(0.5)/AND(0.12)THEOPOSSUMWAS(0.32)VERYANGRYABOUTTHAT(1.69)//ANDLATERON[chuckles](0.14)WHENTHEYWENTALONGINTHEFOREST(0.2)/umTHEOPOSSUMGAVEHERBABY(0.72)AFAWNTOEAT(0.98)//THIS(0.44)met(0.64)m(0.1)mjaMET(2.2)uhWASDISCOVEREDBYTHEWOLF(0.06)AND(0.1)THEWOLFWANTEDTOHAVESOMEOFTHEMEAT(0.52)//BUTTHEOPOSSUMSAID(0.22)THATTHEY(0.12)DON'THAVE(0.08)ANY(1.3)//

s(0.26)uhBUTBECAUSE(0.1)THEWOLFHAD(0.26)ABORROWwithit(0.18)WITHIT/uhTHEOPOSSUM(0.3)GOTAFRAID(0.23)/ANDTHEYWENTUP(0.16)ATREEWITHTHEBABY(0.09)//THERETHEBABYDIED(1.74)/

Line22isofparticularinterest.TheblendBORROWstandsfortheirreversiblebinomial

BOWANDARROWBO RROW

Noattemptismadetocorrecttheblendandwedonotevenknowifthesubjectwasawareofit.Itisafineexampleofcompetitiveplanning.

Thereis,firstofall,ahigherlevelprocessingproblemthestudentmustsolve:theestablishmentofcoherenceconcerningthegendertobeattributedtoWOLF.ThissubprocessisindicatedbytherepetitionofWITHIT.GenderattributionisaspecialproblemcharacteristicofGermanlearnersofEnglishsincethereisafixedsystemofgrammaticalgenderintheirL1ofwhichtheyknowthatitcannotbetransferredintoEnglishwheregenderattribution,especiallywithanimalsinnarratives,ismuchmoreopen.Thisproblemproducestaskstress.

ThebinomialBowandArrowisirreversibleinEnglishjustasistheGermanequivalentPfeilundBogen.

AsPeters(1983:57-59)hasshown,theacquisitionofthisbinomialbyAmericanchildrenisaverycomplicatedoneandtakesacomparativelylongtime.Binomialsingeneral,andfrozenbinomialsinparticular,representaspecialcaseofsyntagmaticformulaicunitsoflanguageprocessing.Theyarehighlyproceduralisedinprimaryspeechproduction.Fromacontrasrivepointofview,thereversaloforderacrosslanguagesisverylikelytocreateparticularprocessingproblems.

Ashasbeenwidelydiscussedintheliteratureonbinomials,itisnotonlythesemanticconstraints,butalsothesyllabicandrhythmicgestaltwhichdeterminetheirproductionandreceptionwithinandacrosslanguages,accordingtoarepresentationmodeloflanguageprocessing(Slowiaczek,1981).

Thebinomial

German PfeilundBogen

'××'××English BowandArrow>

Bo(r) row

ischaracterisedby

(a)thereversedorderofelements;

(b)thesamesyllabicandrhythmicgestaltofthewholeunitinGermanandEnglish:'××'××;

(c)thephonologicalandetymologicalsimilarityofoneelementinGermanandEnglish

German Bogen (bo: ) fromOHG 'bogo

English bow (bou) fromOE 'boga

(d)andthepossibilityofavowelblendbetweenGermanandEnglish

German o:

blend in'

English ou

(e)thephonologicalandetymologicaldissimilarityoftheotherelementinGermanandEnglish

German Pfeil

English arrow

(f)theexistenceofasemanticallytotallydissimilarbutrhythmicallyandphonologicallypartlysimilarwordinEnglishborrow,consistingof(i)afirstsyllablebo(r),bearingthemainstress,asintheequivalentsyllableofthesecondelementBogenintheGermanbinomial;(ii)avowelinthisfirstsyllableresultingfromavowelblend fromGermano:andEnglishou;and(iii)asecondsyllable-row,takenoverfromthesecondsyllableoftheequivalentEnglishwordarrow,thephonologicallyandetymologicallydissimilarsecondelementoftheEnglishbinomialwhosefirstsyllableisbearingthemainstress.

AllthesefactorsareresponsiblefortheinteractionofanL1andL2inducedplan,theircompetitionandfinalblending,inadditiontothetaskstressexertedbythepronominalisationproblem.Itisthiskindofindirectinteraction(interference)oflanguageswhichdeservesparticularattentioninL2processingresearch.

Sample2

Intheoralreproductionofacartoon'WishingWell',takenfromthe

elicitationmaterialGoldman-Eisler(1961:162-174)usedinherexperiments,oneofourexchangestudents,agirlfromEngland,producedthefollowingtext:

4

TEXT2NativereproductionoftheWishingWellstory

AMANANDAWOMANAREWALKINGUPTOAWISHINGWELL(1.0)//A::N(2.5)THEWOMANISSMILING(0.26)/BUTthey(1.64)THEMANISNOTSMILING(0.62)/PERHAPSHEKNOWSTHATTHEWOMANISGOINGTO:(1.80)um(0.36)ASKHERSOMEMONEYTOPUTINTHEWISHINGWELL(5.0)//THEWOMAN(0.62)HASGOTTHEtheyMONEY(0.76)/

ANDSHEISTHROWINGITINTOTHEWISHINGWELL(0.96)/THEMANDOESN'TLOOKVERYINTERESTED(3.18)//A::N(6.67)THEYARENOWWALKINGAWAYFROMTHEWELL(1.14)/THEWOMANISSMILING(2.86)/A::N(2.98)AGAINTHEMAN(1.98)ISN'TSMILING(12.18)/A:NDINTHISPICTURETHEMAN(0.46)ISNOTWEARINGABEARD(0.66)//SOTHEWOMAN(0.72)MUSTHAVEWISHED(1.36)a::nTHATHISBEARDWOULDDISAPPEAR(0.7)//THEMANDOESN'TLOOKVERYHAPPYABOUTTHIS//

5

ThepassageTHEWOMANISGOINGTOASKHERSOMEMONEYisofparticularinterestforus.Itisablendofthetwounderlyingsentences:

Thewomanisgoingtoask him(for)

somemoney

Thewomanisgoingtoask (for)her

money

THEWOMANISGOINGTOASK

HER SOMEMONEY

Whatsheintendstosayisperfectlyclear:

Heknowsthatthewomanisgoingtoaskhimforsomemoneytoputitinthewishingwell.

Thisideamaybedirectlyinferredfromthe'knowing'facial

expressionofthehusbandinthecartoon.That'swhyheisnotsmiling!Thereisnoindicationinthecartoon,however,thattheladymaynothavethemoneyshewantstoputinthewellandthatshemustaskhimforthatmoney.Sherathercarriesapursewithherwhichmakesclearthatitishermoneythatisbeingused.Thereis,inotherwords,everyjustificationforthedevelopmentofthesecondplan(andfinalstatement)inwhichhermoneyistalkedabout.Thefirstplanisthestudent'sinvention.Herknowledgeoftheworldwherewomenaskformoneyisaddedtothecartoonandtheman'ssmilingisperceivedandinterpretedaccordingtothemoney-claiming-wife-scriptshehasinhermind.Thereisacollisionofscriptswhichexplainstheblendinthisparticularportion,suchasthecomparativelylongpausesprecedingandfollowingthispassageareindicationsofthehightaskstress.

Blendsoccurinfirstandsecondlanguageprocessing.Theymustnotbetakenasaparticularindicationofalimitedlinguisticcompetence,butratherasaspeciallimitationorcharacteristic,ifyouwillofthehumaninformationprocessingsystemingeneral.

Sample3

Inahithertounpublishedpaper'CollocationalBlendsofAdvancedSecondLanguageLearners',

6P.Lennon,anEnglishcolleagueofmineintheKasselresearchgroup,andIhavebeendealingwiththecompetitionofplansinwrittenlanguage.Afterwehadcomeacrossanastonishinglylargenumberofcollocationalblendsinthefinalexaminationessaysoftwohighlycompetentstudents,thesametopicwasgiventosevenotheradvancedstudentsforexperimentalreasons:

Topic

1.TheBritishpolicehavebeenadvisedbyanOxfordUniversitystudygrouptobasetheamountoffinesformotoringoffencesonhowmuchtheoffenderearns,ratherthanhavingafixedfineforaparticularoffence.

2.Thisraisesthemoralissueofwhetherthepunishmentshouldfitthecrimeortheoffender.

3.Withreferencetomotoringoffencesinparticular,butalsotocrimeandpunishmentmoregenerally,discussthisissue.

4.WhatdoyouseeastheadvantagesanddisadvantagesoftheOxfordstudygroup'ssuggestionbothwithrespecttomotoringoffences,andintermsofitspossibleapplicationtootheroffences?

TaskAnalysis

Asonemayimagineandastheposthocanalysesinthestudydisclosed,thistopicandthewayitwasphrasedproducedmanyproblemsforallstudents:Aboveallthistopicisquitecomplex.Itmaybeanalysedasfollows:

Sentence1.Presentationofdiscussionmaterial:statementoftheOxfordUniversityStudyGroup'sadvicetotheBritishpolice.

Sentence2.Inferencebythequestionsetterpresentationofmorediscussionmaterial:moralissueofwhetherpunishmentingeneralshouldfitthecrimeortheoffender.

Sentence3.Formulationoftaskproperinstructiontothewritertodiscusstheissueofwhetherthepunishmentshouldfitthecrimeortheoffender,specificallywithreferencetomotoroffences;and,generally,withreferencetocrimeandpunishment.

Sentence4.Additionalinformationonhowtoapproachthetask:discussionoftheadvantagesanddisadvantagesofthestudygroup'sadvice,giveninthefirstsentence.

Blends

Letmediscussoneofthemanycollocationalblendswhichwerefoundinthedata:

'TomethereisadifferencewhethersomebodystealsapooroldladyDM50.-or...goestoabigstoreandtakesanythingwhichisworthDM50.-'

Thisstatementis,ofcourse,amixtureofthetwoEnglishexpressions

(Forme,...)thereisadifferencebetween+NPand+NP

asinthesentence

FormethereisadifferencebetweenthefinancialsituationofapooroldladyandØ(thefinancialsituationof)abigdepartmentstore.

and

(Tome,...)itmakesadifferencewhetherNP+VPorNP+VP

asinthesentence

TomeitmakesadifferencewhetherDM50.-arestolenfromapooroldladyoranobjectofthesamevalueisstolenfromabigdepartmentstore.

OutofthelargevarietyofequivalentGermancollocationalphrasestoexpressthesameideasomemaybeeasilyblendedaswell;forthisreason,wecannotsaywhethertheEnglishblendwasinfluencedbyaninteractionwiththesubject'sL1.

Itisimportanttonote,however,thatapurelyformalanalysisofthelinguisticstructureoftheEnglishblenddoesnotfullyrevealtheunderlyingcompetitionofplans.Thelargercontextualenvironmentmustbetakenintoconsideration.Thismaybedonebylookingatthefunctionoftheblendedstatementinquestionandbyexpandingit:

Statement

'Tomethereisadifferencewhethersomebodystealsapooroldlady

DM50.-or...goestoabigstoreandtakesanythingwhichisworthDM50.-'

Function

Quiteinaccordancewiththemessageofthetwoprecedingstatements:

(a)'Thenwehavetoseethattherearedifferentoffencesconcerningdanger'and

(b)'Thereisadifferencewhetherapersondrives100km/hthroughacityorsomebodyparkedhiscarwrong.'(which,ofcourse,isanotherblend).

Thisstatement,accordingtotheinstructiongiventothewriter,attemptstogiveanexampleforotherthanmotoringoffences,aftertheperspectivehasshiftedfromtheparticularcategoryofmotoringoffencestoamoregeneralnotionofoffences,exemplifiedbyrobbery.

Expansion

Whateveralegalsystemwhichdoesnotsufficientlydiscriminatebetweensingleindividualcasesmaydemand,Ithewriterofthisessaystronglyarguethattherearedifferencesastotheeffectsoffencesbringaboutforpotentialvictims.Oneandthesameoffence,suchasstealingDM50.-oranobjectofthesamevalue,committedtwicedoeshaveanentirelydifferenteffect.ThetheftofatinyinsignificantitemworthDM50.-fromadisplayoftensofthousandsofothersuchitemsinabigdepartmentstore('anything')isonlyaminorinsignificantdelictifoneconsiderstheactualdamagebeingdonetotheextremelywealthyownersorshareholderswhoarenotaffectedpersonallyanyhow,especiallyifoneisawarethattheftsarecoveredbyaninsurance.Forapooroldlady,quitecontrarytothat,thesuddenunexpectedlossofDM50.-mayhavedisastrousfinancialandpsychologicalconsequences.Anylegalsystemwhichtakesnonoticeofsuchdifferencesbetweendifferentvictimswithdifferentsocialstatus,income,andchanceofrecoveryisextremelyunjust.Itdoesmakeadifferencethattherearedifferences.

Itistheconceptualambiguityofthestatementandtheessay'scentralnotiondifference,whichisresponsibleforthecompetitionand

blendingofthetwocollocationalexpressions.

Collocationalblendsonthesentencelevelarebynomeansrestrictedtosecondlanguageproduction.'Overlappings'havebeenfoundintheproductionsofnativespeakersofEnglishaswellandhavebeendiscussedinthecompositionresearchliteraturejustrecently(Daiute,1984).

Conclusion

IntheJune21st1985editionofTheWallStreetJournalthereappearedanarticlewiththeheadline'JimmyReagan'.Thisarticlewasacriticalcomment

onPresidentReagan'spressconferenceonJune18th1985inwhichhegaveaverycarefulconsiderationofthestepstobetakentofreetheAmericanhostagesheldincustodybytheLebaneseAmal.

PresidentReagan'spressconferenceTuesdaymusthavemadeJimmyCarterfeelgood,butit'shardtofindanothersavinggrace.IfthepositionstakedoutbyMr.Reaganistobetakenatfacevalue,hehasjustissuedengravedinvitationstoterroriststhroughouttheworld.

Andattheendofthearticle'sfinalparagraph:

Ofcourse,theUScannot'pinpoint'thevillain.SounderthePresident'srhetoric,itcannotmovetoassertAmericaninterests.ThiswasPresidentCarter'slogicinIran.ItwasnotPresidentReagan'slogicinGrenada.Thepresidentwonthepublic'ssupportforactioninsteadofinaction;intheTWAcaseitseemsthereismuchsupportinthecountryfortakingactionratherthandoingnothing.WhetherthePresident'srhetoriconTuesdayistobetakenashisfinalwordofcourseremainstobeseen.

Theimpliedmeaningoftheblend'JimmyReagan'inthecontextofthedramaticeventsintheLebanonintheJuneof1985isperfectlycleartothereaderevenbeforehestartsreadingthetext:heisremindedofananalogybetweenPresidentCarter'shesitantbehaviourduringtheTehranhostagecrisisandPresidentReagan'ssupposedinactivityasseeminglyrevealedbythestatementsmadeduringthepressconference.ThecriticalimplicationsofthatanalogyareadditionallyenforcedbythefactthatRonaldReagan'scriticismofPresidentCarter'shandlingtheTehrancrisisduringhis1980electioncampaignconsiderablycontributedtohisvictory.'HiscampaigncontemptforCarter'sfailuretowinanearlyreleaseoftheUShostagesheldinIran(''Theyshouldn'thavebeentheresixdays,letalonesixmonths'')wasthrownbackathimatsuchmoments'(Time,July1st1985:15).Theblendofnamesin'JimmyReagan'isusedtocommentcriticallyonPresidentReagan'sstatementsduringthepressconferenceintermsofhisownsuccessfulcriticismofPresidentCarter

inananalogicalsituation,ortoputitinanothermoregeneralway,thisblendservesasarhetoricalmeansofanalogicalreasoning.

BlendsinthesomewhatbroadersenseofacovertermwhichIhavebeenusingthroughoutthisarticleisapreferredpatternofrhetoricandofwordformationinEnglish.InanarticleinAmericanSpeech(1974)

M.Bryantlists306examplesfrommodernAmericanEnglish.Thereisalsoavastliteratureonthevarioussynchronicanddiachronicaspectsofblends.Sinceblends,asourexampleindicates,areeasilyformedandunderstood,theymayeasilyservetofillinasemanticslotforwhichtwoplanscompetewhosefinaldissolutionisintendedtobeachievedbythehearerorreader.Blendingoccursonvariouslinguisticlevels,theword,thephrase,andthesentencelevel,inspokenaswellasinwrittenlanguage,unintentionallyaswellasintentionallyforstylistic,rhetoricorevenadvertisingreasons.Blendsarebasedonaninherentanalogybetweentwosemanticdimensionswhichtheyconnect.Inlanguageproductiontheymaybesubsumedtowhatisgenerallyconsideredanerror.Forpsycholinguisticstheyprovideimmediateaccesstotheinnerworkingsofproduction,especiallywhentheygoalongwithotherindicationsofplanningandediting,suchastemporalvariables,andsoforth.

Insuchaperspectivetheyaretracesofthecontactandtheinteractionofvariouscultures,cognitivesystemsandlanguages.Suchacontactandinteractionwithinahearerorspeakerorwithinaspeechcommunitymaybejudgedasapotentialdangerforthesingularityandpurityofthedominantlanguageandculture.Itmayalsobeseen,viceversa,asapotentialsourceofenrichmentanddepth.Thesameistrueinparticularwiththephenomenonofcompetitionofplansandofblending.TherearenumerousexamplesofeitherwayofinterpretinglanguagecontactandinteractioninEurope.

NotestoChapter4

1.ThisaccountofthefatalcourseofeventsfollowscloselythedetailedrecordgiveninReason&Mycielska,1982:210-217.Theanalysisofthepossiblemaincausefortheseeventsdiffersconsiderablyfromtheonesuggestedbytheseauthors.

2.CompareDechert,1984:162-164.

3.ThisistheoriginaltextoftheIndiannarrativewhichwaspresentedtothesubjectbeforetheoralreproduction.Thetwoepisodesinquestionareitalicised:

Shecametoahouse.Somebodywasthereandsheaskediftheyhadseenanybodygoingby,carryingababy.Thepersoninthehousesaid'Yes.'Theopossumwentinthedirectiontheyindicatedandontheroadshemettwopeopleandaskedthemthesamequestion.Thenshehadbeentotwoplacesandmettwopeople,andsangher'lonesomesong'twice.Afterawhileshecametoanotherplace.Inthatplacethebabyhadbeenhidden.Therewerefourorfivehouses,someoccupiedandsomeempty.Theopossumaskedherquestionandsomebodypointedtoahousesaying.'Theygotthebabyinthere.'Shewentover,openedthedoorandfoundthebabyinside.Somebodyhadkilledarattlesnake,cookedit,andgivenittothebabytoeat.Themotherwasangryandtoldthemtotakeitaway.Shetookthebabyandstartedhome.Shekilledalittlefawn,atesomeofthemeat,andgavesometothebaby.Theystayedthereawhile.That

madethreetimesshesangthesong.Awolfcametothatplaceandsmelledthemeat.Theopossumliedandsaidshehadnomeat,butthewolfsmelledthemeat.Thewolfgotabowandarrow.Thentheopossumwasafraidshewouldbekilled.Shewentupabigtree,tookthebabywithherandstayedupinthetopofthetree.Thebabydiedupthereinthetree.Thatwasthefourthtimeshesangthesong.Theoldopossumcamedownandwalkedaway.Shefoundaskunkwhowasherfriendandwenthomewiththeskunk.Theylaydowntogetherandsang.Theysanganother'lonesomesong'andthentheybothdied.

4.Dechert,1983a:92;Keytosymbolsusedinthetranscriptions

(2.66) Pause(266/100sec.).

uh FilledPause.

THEWELL

CapitalLetters:IntendedIdealVersion.

the SmallLetters:FalseStart,ParentheticalRemarketc.

UnitBoundaryLines:

/ Rise-Fall..

IntonationContour+Pause:EpisodicUnit.

Fall-Rise

// FallingIntonationContour+Pause:Episode.

5.CompareDechert,1983b:36-40.

6.Thisarticle'Collocationalblendsofadvancedsecondlanguagelearners:Apreliminaryanalysis'istoappearin:WieslawOleksy(ed),ContrastivePragmatics.Amsterdam,TheNetherlands:JohnBenjamins.

References

BAARS,B.J.,1980a,Onelicitingpredictablespeecherrorsinthelaboratory.InV.A.FROMKIN(ed.),ErrorsinLinguisticPerformance:SlipsoftheTongue,Ear,Pen,andHand.NewYork:AcademicPress,307-318.

1980b,Thecompetingplanshypothesis:Anheuristicviewpointonthecausesoferrorsinspeech.InH.W.DECHERT&M.RAUPACH(eds),TemporalVariablesinSpeech:StudiesinHonourofFriedaGoldman-Eisler.JanuaLinguarumSeriesMaior86.TheHague:Mouton,39-49.

BORNSTEIN,M.H.,1976,Namecodesandcolormemory.AmericanJournalofPsychology89,269-279.

BRYANT,M.M.,1974,Blendsareincreasing.AmericanSpeech49,163-184.

DAIUTE,C.A.,1984,Performancelimitsonwriters.InR.BEACH&L.S.BRIDWELL(eds),NewDirectionsinCompositionResearch.NewYork:TheGuilfordPress,205-224.

DECHERT,H.W.,1983a,Firstandsecondlanguageprocessing:similaritiesanddifferences.RassegnaItalianadiLinguisticaApplicata15(2/3),77-93.

1983b,Somepsycholinguisticconsiderationstowardsatheoryofsecondlanguageprocessing.InH.RINGBOM(ed),PsycholinguisticsandForeignLanguageLearning:PapersfromaConferenceheldinStockholmandÅbo.Åbo,Finland:ÅboAkademi,30-46.

1983c,Thecompeting-planshypothesis(CPH)extendedtosecond-

languagespeechproduction.InR.DIPIETRO,W.FRAWLEY&A.WEDEL.(eds),TheFirst

DelawareSymposiumonLanguageStudies:SelectedPapers.Newark,DE:UniversityofDelawarePress,269-282.

1984,Individualvariationinlanguage.InH.W.DECHERT&M.RAUPACH

(eds).SecondLanguageProductions.Tübingen:Narr,156-185.

GOLDMAN-EISLER,F.,1961,Hesitationandinformationinspeech.InC.CHERRY(ed),InformationTheory.London:Butterworths,162-174.

HALL,D.F.&LOFTUS,E.F.,1984,Thefateofmemory:discoverableordoomed?InL.R.SQUIRE&N.BUTTERS(eds),NeuropsychologyofMemory.NewYork:TheGuilfordPress,25-32.

LEVITAS,G.,VIVELO,F.R.&VIVELO,J.J.(eds),1974,AmericanIndianProseandPoetry:WeWaitintheDarkness.NewYork:Putnam'sSonsandCapricornBooks.

LOFTUS,E.F.,1977,Shiftinghumancolormemory.MemoryandCognition5,696-699.

PETERS,A.M.,1983,TheUnitsofLanguageAcquisition.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.

REASON,J.,1984,Thepsychopathologyofeverydayslips:accidentshappenwhenhabitgoeshaywire.TheSciences24(5),45-49.

REASON,J.&MYCIELSKA,K.,1982,Absent-minded?ThePsychologyofMentalLapsesandEverydayErrors.EnglewoodCliffs,NJ:Prentice-Hall.

SLOWIACZEK,M.L.,1981,ProsodicUnitsasLanguageProcessingUnits.Unpublisheddoctoraldissertation,UniversityofMassachusetts.

PART2CHILDREN'SFIRSTANDSECONDLANGUAGEACQUISITION

5EarlyBilingualReading:RetrospectsandProspectsRenzoTitone

TheoreticalPerspectives:EarlyBilingualReading(EBR)andtheChild'sPsychologicalDevelopment

Bilingualreadingisrelatedontheonehandtointellectualgrowthandontheothertobasiceducation.Itisthereforenecessarytodefinesomebasicconceptsconnectedwiththethreeareasofprimaryconcern,namelythemutualrelationshipbetweenlanguageandintelligencefromadevelopmentalpointofview,theinterdependencebetweenbilingualismandreading,andtherelationshipbetweenbilingualreadingandbasiceducation.

EarlyBilingualismandIntelligence

Bilingualismisnotamonolithicstateofmindandbehaviourbutakindoflinguisticcompetencehavingvaryingdegrees.Usuallyonelanguageisdominant,atleastinoneareaorlevelofcommunication.Truebilingualism,orfullyfluent,orbalancedbilingualismimpliesafunctionallysufficientcommandoftwolanguagesystemswithregardtophonological,grammatical,lexical,andpragmaticabilities.Onlywithrespecttobalancedbilingualsisitpossibletoconsidertheeffectsofbilingualismoncognitivegrowth.

Contrarytoearlierindicationsmorerecentfindingsconfirmthatbilingualchildrenappeartohaveamentalflexibility,asuperiorityinconceptformation,andamorediversifiedsetofmentalabilities(Peal&Lambert,1962;Bain&Yu,1978;andotherresearchers).

Moreparticularlyithasbeenclaimedthat'metalinguisticawarenessis

theprimaryvariablemediatingthepositiveeffectsofbilingualismonacademicachievement.Theargument,insummaryform,isthatfullyfluentbilingualismresultsinincreasedmetacognitive/metalinguisticabilitieswhich,

inturn,facilitatereadingacquisitionwhich,inturn,leadstohigherlevelsofacademicachievement'(Tunmer&Myhill,1984:176).Metacognitiveabilitiesimplythehabitualcapacitytoreflectuponandmanipulatethoughtprocesses,whilemetalinguisticconsciousnessimpliestheabilitytoreflectuponandmanipulatelanguageconceptsandfunctions.Thesuggestionisthattheprocessofconceptuallyseparatingtwolanguagesintofunctionallyindependentsystemsresultsbothinanincreaseofmetacognitiveabilityandinthestrengtheningofmetalinguisticawareness.Insupportofthissuggestionareseveralrecentstudieswhichseemtoindicatethatbilingualsdo,infact,enjoysuperiormetalinguistic,aswellasmetacognitive,functioning(e.g.studiesbyBen-Zeev,1977;Ianco-Worrall,1972;Cummins,1978;Feldman&Shen,1971,quotedinTunmer&Myhill,1984:177).

EarlyBilingualismandReading

Thereissufficientevidencethatreadingacquisitiondependstoaverylargeextentonthedevelopmentofbothmetacognitiveandmetalinguisticabilities.Inotherterms,thedevelopmentofconsciouscontrolofperceptionandcognitionononehandandoftheformalaspectsoflanguageontheotherplayacentralroleinlearningtoread.Morespecifically,itcanbestatedthatefficientlearningtoreadrequiresgoodphonologicalawareness(recognitionanddistinctionofsoundsorphonemes),distinctwordawareness,sufficientformawareness(i.e.consciouscontrolofgrammaticalformsandfunctions),andpragmaticawareness(orabilitytouseandappropriatelyselectcommunicationrulesinpertinentsituations).

Furthermore,'theviewthatmetalinguisticawarenessisaprerequisiteskillisnotinconsistentwiththepossibilitythatreadinginstructionincreasesmetalinguisticawareness,whichwouldexplainthesharpincreasesinmetalinguisticabilitiesoftenobservedamongbeginning

readers'(Tunmer&Bowey,1984:167).

Ontheotherhand,itremainstruethatbalancedbilingualismenhances,inturn,metacognitiveandmetalinguisticdevelopmentinveryyoungchildren(4-8yearsofage).Theargumentthencouldbephrasedasfollows:bothbilingualismandreadingarestimulatedandfosteredbythegradualacquisitionofmetacognitiveandmetalinguisticabilities;whereasbilingualreadingisexpectedtoenhancebothlinguisticcompetenceandcognitivedevelopmenttoaveryhighdegreeandataveryprecociousagelevel.Agreatmanyfindingssupporttheconclusionthatlearningtoreadasearlyasfromtheageofthreeresultsingreaterintellectualflexibility,consciouscognitivecontrolandricherlinguisticcompetenceascomparedwithilliterate

peers(seeDoman,1975;Cohen,1977).Itisthereforesafetoinferthatearlybilingualreadingabilityshouldhaveastrongimpactuponthechild'scognitiveandlinguisticgrowth.

EarlyBilingualGrowth:AnObjectiveofBasicEducation

Itismoreandmorewidelygrantedtodaythatinterethniccommunicationandworld-mindednessarebasicneedsofthecosmopolitancitizenofthefuture.Adefenceofthisstatementwillseemsuperfluous.Theprogressofhumancivilisationdependsonproducingagenerationofpeace-makers,peace-lovers,andpeace-bearers.Itisalsounquestionablethatdemocracyisbuiltuponeducationforpersonalaswellasinternationalunderstandingandcooperation....Butitisessential,also,thatthe'NewMan'ofcivilisedsocietywillhavetobeacreativelearner,endowedwithanabilitytodecodeculturalandmoralmessagesfromalltheexperiencesofhumankind.Nowtheseaxiomsimplyarejectionofmonoculturalismandofitsalliedstate,monolingualism,takeninitsnarrowestsense.Theyalsodemandthatwetakeanewlookatbasiceducation.Education,understoodastheformationofthehumanpersonalityinitsfundamentaldimensions,willhavetostepbeyondthemereteachingofthe'threeR's';itwillhavetoreflectconcernforthesocialisationofthehumaninfant,andhisethicalorientationintheworldofvalues.Itwilldemandabasiccapacityforcommunicationandwillseektopromoteasensitivitytothediversityofculturesandlanguages....Ibelievethat...bilingualeducationmustseektoensurepersonalityformationandmentalhealth,broadmindednessinsolvinghumanproblems,flexibilityinstrengtheningintellectualpowers,andmeta-linguisticawareness.(Titone,1984:7-8)

Nowreadingisconsideredmostrightlytobecentralintheinstrumentalsystemleadingtogeneraleducation.Therefore,nodoubtbilingualreadingcanbecomethemainsourceforall-roundpersonalityformation,intellectually,emotionally,andsocially.

Amongotherauthors,itisencouragingtofindinDonaldson'sbook,Children'sMinds(1978),thesuggestionthatabetterintroductioninto

formalactivitiessuchasreadingwillaidthechildingraspingtheformalordisembeddedcharacterofthinkingwhichschoolingdemands.InDonaldson'sview,readinginparticularwillcontributetolanguageawareness.Muchmoresowithbilingualreading,which,ifcarriedoutsinceveryearlychildhood,willcertainlylaythefoundationofopen-mindededucationatanagewhenprejudicesarestillunknown.

Retrospects:CaseStudiesofEarlyBilingualReaders

TheodoreAndersson,inhiscaptivatingbookletThePreschoolYears(1981)onfamilyreadingintwolanguages,startsoffbyquotingBurtonWhitewhoexpressedwithemphasishisbelief'thattheeducationaldevelopmentsthattakeplaceintheyearorsothatbeginswhenachildisabouteightmonthsoldarethemostimportantandmostinneedofattentionofanythatoccurinhumanlife'(1975:129-130).ItisparticularlyuptothepointwhatBenjaminBloomreportsafterextensiveresearch,namelythat'putintermsofintelligencemeasuredatage17,fromconceptiontoage4theindividualdevelops50%ofhismatureintelligence....Thiswouldsuggesttheveryrapidgrowthofintelligenceintheearlyyearsandthepossiblegreatinfluenceoftheearlyenvironmentonthisdevelopment'(1964:68).Allthisamountstounderscoringtheuniqueimportanceofearlyreadingcarriedonwhilethechild'sbrainshowsahighdegreeofplasticityandundifferentiation.

TheCaseforEarlyReading

Themovementinfavourofearlylearningtoreadisbecomingimpressiveandcoveringmanydifferentcountries.ThestartingpointwassignalledbythemarvellousexperienceinitiatedbyGlennDomanwithhisbookHowtoTeachYourBabytoRead(1964),whichrecountedconvincingprinciplesandfascinatingcases.AccordingtoDoman:

1.Tinychildrenwanttolearntoread.

2.Tinychildrencanlearntoread.

3.Tinychildrenarelearningtoread.

4.Tinychildrenshouldlearntoread.(1964:9)

FactsprovingthetruthofDoman'sassumptionsarecountless.Domanacquiredvaluableexperiencewithearlyreaders,whichhesetforthpersuasivelyinhispopularbook,addressedtomothers.Inithedeclares:'Childrencanreadwordswhentheyareoneyearold,sentenceswhentheyaretwo,andwholebookswhentheyarethreeandtheyloveit'(1964:1).

FollowingDomanmanyeducatorssincetheearlysixtieshavetriedouthismethodorsimilaronesandhavereachedwonderfulresults.Andersson(1981)quotes23instancesofwhichatleastfivearenotmerecasestudiesbutexperimentalinvestigations.BesideDoman'sname,thenamesofSöderbergh,JaneTorrey,Goodman,Fries,Durkin,Terman,

Cohan,Fowler,Hughes,Lado,Callaway,Steinberg,Emery,Witte,Ledson,Smethurst,Perlish,TaftWatson,andsoforthhavebecomewidelyknownasmarkingsignificantmilestonesinthehistoryofthemovement.Casestudieshavemultiplied(Miño-Garcés,1981).Besidesthesecasesrelatedtohomeinfluence,someinvestigationscanbequoted,liketheoneconductedbytheDenverPublicSchools(1961-1962)andanotherreportedonbyHarveyNeilPerlish(1968)ontheeffectivenessoftelevisionreadingprogrammes,ortheCRAFTProject(Harris,Morrison,Serwer&Gold,1968)onacomparisonofacademicachievementofearlyreadersandnon-earlyreaders,orespeciallyDurkin'sfirststudy(1966)ontheachievementofearlyreadersfromfirstgradetotheendofgradesix.Hermainconclusionwasthat'overtheyears,theearlyreadersinthisresearchcontinuedtoshowhigherachievementinreadingthanthenon-early-readerswithwhomtheywerematched'(p.110).

Andersson'saccountsofearlyreadingarefarfromexhaustive.InEuropethemovementhasfoundfollowers.AratherdetailedaccountbySchmalohr(1973)reviewsseveralhomecasestudies(Kratzmeier,1967;Walter,1967)andalsoinstitutionalinvestigationscarriedoninkindergartens.OfparticularinterestistheexperimentorganisedbyLückert(1967,1968)withthecooperationof240familiesontwo-yearoldchildren.Specificstudies(bySchmalohr,1969;Schüttler-Janikulla,1969;Brem-Graeser,1969;Rüdiger,1970;Wilke-Denig,1972)aimedatexaminingyoungchildreninschoolsettingssoastoascertaintheeffectsofearlyreadingonintelligence,languagedevelopment,socio-emotionalgrowth,long-rangereadingability.Resultswerebyandlargepositive(seereviewsinSchmalohr,1971).

ButoneofthebestexperimentswascarriedoutbyRachelCoheninFrance(1977)andreportedoninherbookL'ApprentissagePrécocedelaLecture.Onehundredandsixty-onechildrenweretested;theiragesrangedbetween3;8and4;11.Theuseofamultipletestbattery

evidencedthatyoungchildrenofpre-schoolagecanlearntoread,andsecondlythatreadingcanhelpthemtodeveloptheirabilitytograspandformulatebasicconcepts.

Finally,itcanbeaddedthatsince1976theChairofEducationalPsycholinguistics(UniversityofRome,Italy),headedbyR.Titone,hasassignedfiveexperimentaldoctoraldissertations(partlypublished)dealingwithearlyreadingprojectscarriedoutindifferentkindergartensthroughoutItaly.Threeconclusionshavebeendrawnasaresultofsuchinvestigations:(a)childrencanlearntoreadfromtheageofthree;(b)theirintellectualimprovementcanbeseenasaresultofproperreadinginstruction(incomparisonwithcontrolgroupsofnon-readers);(c)readingcanbetaughtinkindergartensettingsbywell-trainedteachers(Annessi,1979).

TheCaseforEarlyReadinginTwoLanguagesorEarlyBilingualLiteracy(Ebl)

Whatkindofrelationshipcantherebebetweenpre-schoolreadingandthebilingualchild?Andersson,onopeningchapter3ofhisbook(1981:31),rightlycomments:

Ifamonolingualchildcangetaheadstartbylearningtoreadbeforegoingtoschool,whycan'tabilingualchildgetadoubleheadstartbylearningtoreadtwolanguagesbeforeenteringschool?Noonewoulddenytheeducationalimportanceofskillinreading;norwouldmanydenytheadvantageofaknowledgeoftwospokenlanguages.Thetheoreticaladvantageofknowinghowtoreadandwriteintwolanguageswouldseemtobeself-evident,andyetbiliteracyisrarelyemphasisedasanobjectiveinourschools.

Inordertoexaminemorecloselythepsychologicalaspectsandtheeducationaloutcomesofearlybilingualreading,Andersson(1981:32-45)presentsthreecasesofpre-schoolbiliteracy.

MarianaandElenaPasthavelearnttoreadinbothEnglishandSpanish,theformerbeginningatage1;5,thelatterataboutthesameage.WordgameswithwordcardswereusedfollowingapproximatelywhatDoman(1964)suggestsinhismethod.DuringherthirdandfourthmonthofreadingMarianawasalreadyskilledinreadingsentences,andshewasfrequentlyreadingindependently.Atage3;8shewasreadingEnglishattheleveloftheaveragefirstgraderinthesecondhalfoffirstgrade.ThesamewasrevealedwithregardtoSpanish.Atage4;11herenteringabilingualkindergartendidtherest.

RaquelandAurelioChristianalsolearnttoreadEnglishandSpanishveryearly.At18monthsRaquelhadalreadyaskedherparentsthenamesofthelettersastheyboughtheranalphabetbookinSpanish.Aureliotooknointerestinthealphabetuntilmuchlater,butabsorbedwordsbymereassociation.Neitherchildhadmuchinterestinreading

booksofanylengthuntilaboutfive.ReadingSpanishathometransferredtoreadingEnglishwhentheyenteredschool.Laterprogressingradeschoolwasexcellentforbothchildren.

YuhaandChinhaOkRoLeeareKorean/Englishbilingualsandbiliterates.SinceYuha'sdevelopmentinKoreanwasfarinadvanceofherdevelopmentinEnglish,herfatherdecided,inordertoprepareherforkindergarten,toinitiateherintoreadinginEnglish,herweakerlanguage.Yuhalikedtowatchtelevision,especially'SesameStreet',andlearntallof

thelettersoftheEnglishalphabet.Thenherparentstaughthertoreadsystematically.ShelearnthowtoreadfirstinEnglish,whilethelanguageofinstructionandexplanationwasKorean.Butlateron,inonemonth,thankstoaspecialprogramme,YuhalearnttoreadandwriteKoreanjustbeforeshebecameafirstgrader.Leeobservesthatattheendof1-monthinstructionYuha'sskillsinreadingandwritingtheKoreanlanguagewerebetterthanhercorrespondingEnglishskills.Biliteracyismorethanjustknowledgeoftwolanguages;itimpliesbehavingproperlyintwocultures.Infact,Leewritesabouthisdaughter:'ShespeaksandbehaveslikeanAmericanamongAmericans;shespeaksandbehaveslikeaKoreanamongKoreans.EarlybilingualreadingseemstohaveaidedherforherbilingualandbiculturaladjustmentintheUnitedStates'(Lee,1977:143-144).

Andersson(1981)submitsthefollowingcorrectconclusions:

Theexperienceofthechildreninthethreebilingualfamilies...suggeststhat,farfrombeingadoubleburden,learningtoreadintwolanguagesisadoublejoy,leadingtoapositiveself-image.Theterm'early'intheexpressions'earlyreading'or'earlyreader'isseentovaryallthewayfromagesixmonths,aswithKimioSteinberg,tonearlyfiveyears,asinthecaseofYuhaLee,suggestingthatthisconceptis,oratleastcanbe,quiteflexible.

Onenotessignificantuniformitiesamongtheparent-teachersinvolvedinthecasesIhavecited.Theyexertnopressureonthechild;rathertheytrytosensewhatwillinterestthechild.Theparent-teacher'staskseemstoconsistinreadingthechild'swishesandininventinggamestostimulatethisinterest.Successfulparentsseemtoincludetheiryoungchildintheirconversationsandactivities.Aboveall,earlyreadingappears,asinthecaseofYuhaLee,toberelatedtoestablishingasenseofpersonalandsocialvalues.Parentswhoread,study,anddiscussinterestingorimportantsubjectsinthepresenceoftheirchildrenandwhoanswertheirchildren'squestionscreateacloserelationshipwiththeirchildren,arelationshipwhicholderchildrenarequicktoadoptwiththeiryoungersiblings.(pp.

44-45)

ExperiencesandinvestigationsonearlybilingualreadingaretakingimpetusnowasisdocumentedbyresearchreportsandthelaunchingofthenewIPRA(InternationalPreschoolReadingAssociation)Newsletter.AmongmorerecentreportsitisworthconsideringwhatElsOksaar,UniversityofHamburg,hastriedtocheckwithherinvestigationonagroupofbilingualchildren(1984).Ofthe20bilingualchildren(frommiddleandworkingclasses)whogrewuphearingandspeakingGermanandSwedish,orGermanandEnglish,orSwedishandEstonian,13(65%)couldreadandwriteboth

languagesmoreorlessfluentlybytheageoffourtofiveyears.InthecontrolgroupofsixmonolingualGermanorSwedishspeakingchildren,four(67%)demonstratedthisability.

Sheaddsthatofthe13childreninherprojectwholearnttoreadtwolanguagesbeforetheywerefiveyearsold,10childrenwerenotexposedtoanyoneparticularmethod,butratherasortofmethodologicalpluralism,inwhichtheinteractionbetweenthechildandmotherorotherreferencepersonplayedadominantrole.Thechildrenwerereadaloudtoinbothlanguagesveryearly,followingthewellknownrule'onelanguageoneperson';theyknewmuchofthisbyheartand,finally,wantedtoreadthemselves.

Furthermore,shenotesthatinbilingualmarriagesthechildrenusuallylearntoreadfirstinthelanguageofthemother,orinthefamilylanguage.Thefactthatinlearningtoreadthesecondlanguage,theyhadnodifficulties,andprogressedevenmorequicklythaninthefirstlanguage,wouldseemtosupportthegenerallyacceptedstatementthatchildrenactuallyonlyhavetolearntoreadonce,andthatthisskillcanbetransferredfromonelanguagetoanother.

ThetransfereffectfromonelanguagetotheotherisalsoconfirmedbyHélèneBusinger(1984)whenshewritesaboutherbilingualchildthat'hisabilitytovisualiseandmemorisewordswastransferredtothesecondlanguageandhesucceededinreadingwith[her]ashortbookinEnglishentitled''TeddyBears1to10''.Sotheexperimenthashadaverypositiveeffectonhisbilingualism.Ithasalsoencouragedhimtobecomebiliterate'(p.8).

WithregardtomethoditisworthrecallingwhatNguyênNgocBich(1984)writesinconcludingherreportontheprogressinreadingofherVietnamese-speakingchild,VictorQuang.Bich(1984)remarksthat

Theelementofplayisanintegralpartofthelearningprocessofyoungchildren;oneneedstostartwithvocabularythatisnotonlysimplefromthelinguisticpointofviewbutalsoisimmediatelyrecognisedinthechild'senvironment;comprehensionandmiscueanalysisareallveryimportantpartsofteachingasonetriestostructurethechild'slearningenvironment.And,ofcourse,itisofprimaryimportancethatthechildbeallowedtotestandusehiscreativepowertodevelopnewsentencesandgainasenseofpower,ofownership.Thus,farfrombeingapassiveprocessofdecodingandunderstandingonlywhatisthere,thereadingprocessshouldbeseenandallowedtobethecreativeprocessithasalwaysbeen.(p.8)

Nowthequestionis:canbilingualreadingbetaughtinpre-elementaryschoolsbyteachers?Andwhynotuseearlybilingualreadinginstructionasameanstoaiddisadvantagedchildrenlikemigrants'children?Theanswertosuchquestionscanbegivenonlybyinstitutionalexperimentstobecarriedonwithlargersamplesofyoungsubjects.Itisthisperspectivethatwillnowbeillustrated.

Prospects:AResearchProjectonEarlyBilingualLiteracy

Iwilltrytosummarisethemainlinesofaresearchprojectdesignedbythewriteraimedatdevelopingtheexperimentalconditionsforteachingearlybilingualreadingininstitutionalsettings.Theessentialtraitsofthisprojecthavealreadybeenoutlinedinapreviousessay(Titone,1983).

TheEarlyBilingualReadingExperimentalProject

Steppingfrommereexperiencetoscientificexperimentationmeansdefiningmoreaccuratelyobjectives,materials,instruments,andevaluationmeasures.

Itisadvisable:(a)toclarifythebasicissuesconnectedwithearlybilingualreading(duringthepre-schoolyears),itspsycho-educationalaspects,itsadvantagesandpossibledrawbacks;(b)toprepareatransitionfrommereoccasionalexperienceinfamilycirclestotruescientificexperimentationinkindergartenand/ornurseryschools;(c)todesignandbuildappropriateteachingmaterialslinkedwithchildmotivationandlanguageabilities.

Thepresentauthorhasbuiltspecialmaterials(areadingkitandguidebookforparentsandteachers)forteachingplayfullytoreadintwolanguagessimultaneously(viz.Italian/English;Italian/French;Italian/German;Italian/Spanishisbeingprepared;Castilian-Spanish/Basqueisbeingtriedout).Adiscussionoftheexperimentalparadigmfollows.

AimsoftheResearch

Thisresearchintendstocheck:(a)thepossibilityandeffectivenessofsimultaneouslearningtoreadintwolanguagesfromtheageoffouryears(inanycasebeforesix);(b)thecorrelationbetweenearlyliteracyandbilingualdevelopment;(c)thecorrelationbetweenearlybiliteracyandcognitivedevelopment;(d)thecorrelationbetweenearlybilingualliteracyandtheovercomingofcognitiveandlinguisticdisadvantagesoflower-classorimmigrants'children.

ResearchMethodology

Theexperimentalcontroloftheabovevariablesshallconsistofthefollowingprocedures:

1.pre-testingverbalintelligenceandascertainingthenon-existenceofreadingabilityatthestart;

2.thesystematicuseofappropriatereadingmaterialspreparedbyR.Titone,namelythe'EarlyBilingualReadingKit'(Titone,1977):thematerialsshouldbeappliedforatleastoneschoolyear;

3.post-testingbilingualreadingcompetenceonthebasisoftheabovematerial.

Specialscoringscalesarebeingproducedinordertocompareindividualresults.Subjectswillbeassessedwithrespecttoage,sex,socio-economiclevel,learningmotivation,IQ,rateoforallanguagedevelopment.RawscoreswillbeprocessedbyTitone'sresearchteam.Teachingcanbecarriedonalsobyparentsifcompetent;butasarulekindergartenteacherswilldotheteachingundersupervision.

StandardmaterialsarepublishedbyA.ArmandoEditore(ViadellaGensola,60-61,00153Roma,Italy).Eachkitwillserveformorethanonechild(twoorthree,nomore).

EvaluationInstruments

Thefollowingdataandmeasureswillbecollected:

1.Intelligencepre-test:TheWechslerIntelligenceScaleforChildrenatpre-schoolageoranotherequivalentverbalintelligencetestcanbeused.Tobeadministeredbeforestartingtheexperiment.

2.Bilingualismpre-test:forcheckinglinguisticcompetenceinL1andL2onthebasisofvisualormotorstimuli(picturetest).Verbalresponsesintermsofshortnarrativeswillbeevaluatedasto:

(a)phonologicalcorrectness;

(b)grammaticalcorrectnessandcompleteness;

(c)lexicalrichness(quantityandappropriateuseofwords);

(d)verbalfluency.

Practically:Oneshouldcheckfor:

(a)numberofpronunciationerrorsonthetotalofwords;

(b)numberoferrorsonthetotalofsentences;

(c)numberofwordsandnumberoferrorsofmeaningonthetotalofwords;

(d)rhythm(fast,middle,slow)ofutterances.

3.Pre-readingtest:readingofone'sownfirstandlastnamesprintedontheblackboardoroncardboard(incapitalletters).

4.Readingpost-test:basedonthereadingmaterialofthelastbookletpresentedinthekit;checkspeed,correctness,comprehension(totalnumberoferrors).

5.Bilingualismpost-test:thesameinitialpicturetest;checknumberofwords,sentences,descriptivedetailsthroughcomparisonwithinitialresults(pre-test).

6.Intelligencepost-test:bymeansofthesameinitialtestinanalternativeform.

7.Questionnaire:tobesubmittedtobothparentsandteachers(seebelow).

QuestionnaireonEarlyBilingualReadingExperience

Thequestionnairecanbeadministeredorallyorinwriting.

1.Atwhatagedidyourchildbegintospeak?

2.Whendidheorshebegintofindamusementinscribbling?

3.Whendidheorsheshowinterestinwritingorinwrittenthings,like:neonsigns?advertisingintelevision?posters?comics?wordsconnectedwithpictures?...

(Pleaseindicateageingeneral,ifremembered,foreachtypeofobjects).

4.Atwhatagedidthefirstreadingtakeplace:inonelanguage?intheotherlanguage?

5.Whatdidheorshelearntoread:inonelanguage?intheother

language?

6.Didheorsheshowfastorslowprogress?

7.Howoftendoesheorsheshowthedesiretoread?duringtheday?(numberoftimes)duringtheweek?(numberoftimes)

8.Howlongdoeshisorherapplicationtoreadinglast?lessthan10minutes?morethan30minutes?...

9.Hasheorshebeenundergoinganebbandflowprocessinhisorherreadinginterests?Inwhatperiodofage(andforhowlong)didheorshekeephisorherreadinginterestalive?Inwhatperiodofage(andforhowlong)didheorsheneglectorrejectreading?...

10Whatishisorherpresentdegreeofinterestinreading?highmiddlelow...

11.Areyouinfavourof(oragainst)readingatpre-schoolage?Why?...

TeachingMethod

ThegeneralhintsgivenhererefertoTitone'sBilingualReadingMethodasmaterialisedinthereadingkitpublishedbyA.ArmandoinRome.However,keepingtheseindicationsinmind,othertypesofmaterialscanbedesigned,especiallyifthetwolanguagesdonotincludeItalian.Thepresenthintsconcernthegeneralteachingapproach,somebasicsuggestions,andtheuseofthematerial.

Onepreliminaryquestion:Isreadingintwolanguagesreallyeasy?Inordertoanswerthisquestionwemustfirstpointouttheactivitieswhichfacilitatethechild'slearningtoreadinasinglelanguage:

1.Searchandnaminggamesforobjects,animals,lovedpersons;gamesdealingwiththeinexhaustiblecuriositytowardsanenvironmentwheresurpriseiscontinuous,wheretheunknownisapotentialforpersonalconquest.

2.Globalattainmentofsomerealitiesandlatertentativeanalyses:inthekitchen,tools;inthegarden,plants;inthetrain,wheels;indolls,legs,arms,head;andsoforth.

Itisnodifferentinthehandlingofbilingualreading:somebasicactivitiescomeintoplayinenjoyablegameswhichsolicitspontaneouscuriositytowards:

(a)theoralandwrittenknowledgeofwordsorsoundshavingtodowithobjects,animals,peopleofparticularinterest;

(b)theglobalperceptionofeasysentencesdealingwiththechild'sexperience,thatis,welldefined,knownobjectsofcertaininterest:one'sownbody,atoy,familymembers...

Objectswhicharenotfamiliarorwordswhicharenotyetpossessedintheoralformshouldbeavoided,asshouldsingleletterstotallyisolatedfromthecontextofaphraseorsentence.Thespokenand

knownmustalwaysprecedethewritten.

Ourmethodimpliessomepreliminarysuggestionssuchasthefollowing:

1.Beginwithagameorpleasantconversation.

2.Focusuponawordorasentenceinoneofthetwolanguages,writingitonacardorindicatingitontheappropriatechartorinabooklet(seeTitone'smaterial);readitaloudandhavethechildrepeatit.

Inthefirstphaseoneshouldnotworryabouthavingthechilddistinguishbetweenthesingleletters.Thesewillbediscoveredspontaneouslybythechildandonecan,inanycase,pointthemoutlaterinthewrittenorspokenword.

3.Themainmethodofteachingachildalanguageisthroughplay.Everythingshouldappearlikeagameofdiscoveryandinventioninwhichwords,andlateronletters,servetoconstructsentences,asifitwereaquestionofplacingoneblockupontheother,brickuponbrick....Manyspontaneousgamescancomeaboutthroughthechild'sinitiative,othersmaybeinventedbytheeducator.

Thegamesmaybenumerousandvaried.Somemaybeofthefollowingtypes:matchingthecardswithwordsandthenlaterwithsentences;rapidreadingcontests;findingtherightcardasinagameofcards;actioncards,likeinMontessori's'commandgame';sentencestoconstructinthiscasecardswithwordsorsentencepiecesshouldbeused:thechildisaskedtoread,understand,linkupthesinglecardsinanorderinsuchawayastomakeupasentence;whenheorshehasfinished,heorshereadsthewholeconstructedsentencealoud.

ThematerialincludedintheboxpreparedbyR.Titone(1977)isdividedasfollows:

1.ThewordsmommyanddaddyontwoseparatecardswhichhavethewordwritteninL1ononeside,andthewordwritteninL2ontheoppositeside.

2.Twentywordsdealingwiththechildhim-orherself,eachonaseparatecard,inbothlanguages.

3.Basicvocabularyrelativetotheimmediateworldofthechild.

4.Essentialvocabularyfortheformationofsentences.

5.Vocabularytobeinsertedinstructuredsentences.

6.Fourbookletsforprogressivelydifficultreading,havingaseriesofpictures,eachofwhichiscoupledwithasentenceinbothlanguages.

7.Thealphabetinbothlanguages,withreferencestowordsof

immediateuse.

Thesubdivisionofthematerialcorrespondstoanexactgradingofdifficultytobemetwithbythechild.

Aseducators(parentsandteachers)havefoundout,thechilddoesnotfinditstrangethatobjectsandactionsarenotonlysaidintwodifferentlanguages,butarealsowrittenandreadintwodifferentlanguages.If,infact,heorshelivesinabilingualenvironmentheorshewillbereadynotonlyforhearingsounds,words,andsentencesintwolanguages,butalsoforseeingbooks,magazines,comicsandprintedmatterofallsortsintwolanguagesaswell.

Detailedinstructionsonhowtogoaboutineachphasearegivenintheguideaccompanyingthematerial(Titone,1977).Basicallytheinstructionalmethodisgroundedontheassumptionthatoptimallearningtakesplacewhenthereisharmonybetween:

Visualsensations(V)

Auditorysensations(A)

Tactilesensations(T).

TheVATlanguagelearningsystememphasisesthefundamentalaspectsandfactorsofaneasymeansoflearningbilingualreadingbasedontheuseof:

(a)thevisual(recognitionoftheformsofwords),

(b)theauditory(associationofsoundandwrittenword),

(c)thetactile(touchingthecardsonwhichthewordsarewritten)

asapatternofmeaningintegratedbythedirectandjoyfulexperienceofthechildinteractingwiththeadult.

Onestepatatime,onewordatatime,onesentenceatatime,onepageatatime!Thematerialisnevershownallatoncetothechild,norarethesuccessivepartsshownbeforetheprecedingstephasbeenconquered.

ConcludingRemarks

Whoarethetargetsofthisearlyreadingmethod?

Atthismomenttheuseofthe'EarlyBilingualReadingKit'byR.Titoneisrecommendedandbeingusedwithchildrenfromtheageoffourliving:

(a)inbilingualfamilies;

(b)inbilingualormultilingualareas(inItaly,especiallytheFrench-ItalianspeakingareaofValled'Aosta,theGerman-ItalianareaofAltoAdige/Bozen;intheBasqueCountry);

(c)inimmigrants'children'shomesorschools.

However,afewattemptsarebeingmadeinbilingualorinternationalkindergartens(Turin,Milan,Rome).Resultsarenotyetavailableduetotheshorttimeelapsedsincethebeginningoftheexperiment,althoughtheimpressionsgatheredfromparentsandeducatorsaresofarfavourable.

ItisnoteworthythatTitone'smethodandmaterialhasbeenadaptedtoanexperimentalprojectwhichisbeingcarriedonintheBasqueCountry

withBasque-Castilianbilingualchildren(ages4to6).Thecoordinator,Dr.AnttonKaiferArana,hastranslatedandadaptedthe'EarlyBilingualReadingKit'intoCastilianandEuskaraandisusingittoteachalargenumberofchildrenreadinginbothlanguagesatthesametime.TheprojectwillachievetheresultofstrengtheningcommandofL1,namelytheBasquelanguage,whichhaslostgroundinrecenttimes.Theprojectisstimulatingwidepopularinterest.

Nodoubtmanyproblemsarestillopentodiscussionandresearch.Butthewriterbelievesthatthereissufficientwarrantforpositiveconfirmationofthemainhypothesesoutlinedatthebeginningofthisarticle.Inparticular,itisbelievedthatgreatadvantageswillbeachievedonbehalfofthemaintenanceofbilingualcompetenceinimmigrantchildreninmanycountries.ThisexpectationseemstobefulfilledbyanattemptofapplyingthemethodtoItalianimmigrantchildreninsomeGerman-speakingareasofSwitzerlandasinCanada.Promisesaresubstantial.Thisopportunitycannotbemissed.

References

ANDERSSON,T.,1981,AGuidetoFamilyReadinginTwoLanguages.ThePreschoolYears.Rosslyn,VA:NationalClearinghouseforBilingualEducation.

ANNESSI,A.F.,1979,Laletturaprecoce,fattorepositivodellosviluppocognitivo.RassegnaItalianadiLinguisticaApplicata40(1-2),327-334.

BAIN,B.C.&YU,A.,1978,TowardanintegrationofPiagetandVygotsky:Across-culturalreplication(France,Germany,Canada)concerningcognitiveconsequencesofbilinguality.InM.PARADIS(ed.),AspectsofBilingualism.Colombia,SC:HornbeamPress.

BÍCH,NGUYÊNNGOC,1984,Learningtoreadinbilingualsetting,IPRA

Newsletter,Winter.

BLOOM,B.S.,1964,StabilityandChangeinHumanCharacteristics.NewYork,NY:JohnWiley&Sons.

BREM-GRAESER,L.,1969,BerichtüberdieErgebnissederFruhforderunginMünchnerKindergärten.SchuleundPsychologie16,334-345.

BUSINGER,1984,Acasestudyinearlyreading,IPRANewsletter,Summer'Fall.

COHEN,R.,1977,L'apprentissageprécocedelalecture.Paris:PressesUniversitairesdeFrance.

DOMAN,G.,1975,HowtoTeachyourBabytoRead.NewYork,NY:RandomHouse.

DONALDSON,M.,1978,Children'sMinds.Glasgow:Collins.

DURKIN,D.,1966,ChildrenwhoReadEarly:TwoLongitudinalStudies.NewYork,NY:TeachersCollegePress.

HARRIS,A.J.,MORRISON,C.,SERWER.B.L.&GOLD,L.,1968,AContinuationof

theCRAFTPROJECTComparingReadingApproacheswithDisadvantagedUrbanNegroChildreninPrimaryGrades.NewYork,NY:DivisionofTeachersEducators.

KRATZMEIER,N.,1967,Kleinkindlesen.SchuleundPsychologie,14,215-222.

LEE,O.R.,1977,EarlyBilingualReadingasanAidtoBilingualandBiculturalAdjustmentforaSecondGenerationKoreanChildintheU.S.Ph.D.dissertation.Washington,DC:GeorgetownUniversityPress.

LÜCKERT,H.R.,1967,LesenlernenimVorschulalteralsAktionderbasalenBildungsforderung.SchuleundPsychologie14,297-312.

1968,Lesen-einSpielmitBildernundWörtern.Ravensburg:Maier.

MIÃO-GARCÉS,F.,1981,EarlyReadingAcquisitionSixPsycholinguisticCaseStudies.Washington,DC:GeorgetownUniversityPress.

OKSAAR,E.,1984,BilingualReadingandWritingintheEarlyYears.PaperpresentedattheThirdInternationalCongressfortheStudyofChildLanguage,Austin,TX,July8-14.

PEAL,E.&LAMBERT,W.E.,1962,Therelationofbilingualismtointelligence.PsychologicalMonographsGeneralApplied76,wholeno546.

PERLISH,H.N.,1968,InW.SMETHURST,TeachingYoungChildrentoRead.NewYork,NY:McGrawHill.

RÜDIGER,D.,1970,AnsatzundersteBefundeeinerexperimentellenLängsschnittstudiezumLesenlernenimVorschulalter.SchuleundPsychologie17,72-96.

SCHMAIOHR,R.,1969,PsychologischeUntersuchungzumDuisburgerFrühleseversuch.SchuleundPsychologie16,145-159.

1971,PsychologiedesErstlese-undSchreibunterrichts.Munchen:Reinhardt.

SCHUTTLER-JANIKULLA,K.,1969,VorschulischesLesenlernenundintellektuelleLeistungssteigerung,SchuleundPsychologie16,169-179.

TITONE,R.,1977,AGuidetoBilingualReading.Rome:Armando.

1983,Earlybilingualreading:Fromexperiencetoexperiment.RassegnaItalianadiLinguisticaApplicata15,(1),79-83.

1984,Earlybilingualgrowth:Anobjectiveofbasiceducation.TheInternationalSchoolsJournal7,Spring,7-16.

TUNMER,WE.&BOWEY,J.A.,1984,Metalinguisticawarenessandreadingacquisition.InW.E.TUNMER,C.PRATT&M.L.HERRIMAN(eds),MetalinguisticAwarenessinChildren.Berlin:SpringerVerlag,144-168.

TUNMER,W.E.&MYHILL,M.E.,1984,Metalinguisticawarenessandbilingualism.InW.E.TUNMER,C.PRATT&M.L.HERRIMAN(eds).MetalinguisticAwarenessinChildren.Berlin:SpringerVerlag,169-187.

WALTER,K.H.,1967,SollenkleineKinderlesenlernen?KleineKinderlesen,schreiben,rechnen.Duisburg:Goldmann.

WHITE.B.,1981.InT.ANDERSSON,AGuidetoFamilyReadinginTwoLanguages.ThePreschoolYears.Rosslyn,VA:NationalClearinghouseforBilingualEducation.

WIIKE,J.&DENIG,F.,1971,VorschulerziehungundSteigerungderIntelligenzleistung,SchuleundPsychologie19,37-44.

6TheRelationshipBetweenNativeandForeignLanguageLearningAbility:EducationalandLinguisticFactorsPeterSkehan

GeneralRationale:ResearchintoLanguageLearningAbility

Mostresearchintoforeignlanguagelearninghasemphasisedinstructionalandmethodologicalfactors.Ingeneralthisresearch,interestingthoughitis,hasfailedtofindanyclearindicationsthatanyparticularmethodofforeignlanguageinstructionissuperiortoanyotherwhenglobalcomparisonsaremade.ThePennsylvaniaProject(Smith,1970),forexample,didnotfindanyclearadvantageforcognitive-codelearningoveraudiolingualmethods.Similarly,theYorkstudyontheeffectivenessofthelanguagelaboratory(Green,1975)didnotsuggestanycleardifferencebetweenchildrenwithaccesstoalaboratoryandthoselackingsuchexposure.Morerecently,Davies&Beretta(1985),havereportedresultssuggestingthataproceduralsyllabus,asimplementedthroughtheBangaloreProject,whileslightlysuperiortotraditionalmethods,isnotsuperiorinalldomainsoflanguagelearning.

Incontrast,analternativeresearchtradition,thatintocharacteristicsofthelanguagelearner,althoughperhapsgeneratingsmallerquantitiesofresearch,hasyieldedmorepromisingresultsintermsofbeingabletoaccountforlanguagelearningsuccess.Carroll(1965,1982),forexample,hasconsistentlyshownhowimportantforeignlanguageaptitudeisforpredictionsofclassroomforeignlanguagelearningsuccess,whileReyes(1983)hasalsoattestedtotheimportanceofaptitudeinaninformalsetting.Gardner(1986)hasresearchedinto

differencesinattitudeandmotivation,

anddemonstratedtheirimportanceforschool-basedlearning,revealinganaffectivedimensionforpredictionclearlydistinctfromthecognitiveabilitiesthatmakeupaptitude.Anotherareawhichhasreceivedattentioninthelastdecadeisthatoflearnerstrategies.Naiman,Fröhlich,Stern&Tedesco(1978)haveprovidedinterestingbiographicaldatawhichhelpstocharacterisehighlysuccessfullanguagelearners,whileWongFillmore(1976,1979)conductedalongitudinalstudyofasmallgroupofyoungSpanish-speakingchildrenlearningEnglishinthefirstyearsofschool.Sheproposesthatseveralcognitiveandsocialstrategiesaccountforthedegreeofsuccessthatthechildrenachieved.

Thesevariousstudieshavebeenverysuggestiveofthedimensionsofindividualdifferencesthatmayaccountforvariationinsecondandforeignlanguageachievement.Itistobehopedthatsuchresearchwillgrowinimportanceandthatweshallseefurtherstudieswhichperhapsinvestigatetheinterrelationshipsbetweenthesedifferentclassesofindividualdifferencevariables.EquallyinterestingwouldbestudiessimilartothatofWesche(1982)whoinvestigatedaptitudemethodologyinteractions,demonstratingthatstudentsidentifiedasbelongingtodifferent'learnertypes'didparticularlywellwhenpairedwithappropriatemethodologies,andparticularlypoorlywhentheyweremismatchedintermsofinstructionalconditions.Suchresultsare,ofcourse,verysignificantforthemethodologycomparisonswhichwerediscussedatthebeginningofthissectionsinceitmaywellhavebeenthatindividualdifferencesbetweensubjectsin(say)thePennsylvaniastudy,interactingwithmethodology,cancelledoutordisguisedactualtreatmenteffects.

Againstthisbackground,thepresentprojectissituatedinoneofthemaintraditionsofresearchintoindividualdifferences,thatofforeignlanguageaptitude.Itattemptstorelatethreesetsofvariables:

1.Measuresoffirstlanguageacquisition

2.Measuresofforeignlanguageacquisition

3.Measuresofforeignlanguageachievement.

Eachoftheseareaswillnowbedescribedinmoredetail.

IndividualDifferencesinFirstLanguageLearning

Mostfirstlanguageresearchhasemphasiseduniversalprocessesoflanguageacquisition.Investigatorshaveattemptedtouncovergeneralfeaturesoflanguageprocessinganddevelopmentalchange,suchasdevelopmentalorderofcertainmorphemes,ortheroleofmaternalspeechinlanguagedevelopment.However,therearesomeresearchstudieswhichemphasiseindividualdifferencesinfirstlanguageacquisitionandthevariation

thatexistsbetweenlearners,bothintermsofrateoflearningaswellasintermsofroute.TheclearestandmostcomprehensiveexampleofastudyofrateofdevelopmentformsapartoftheBristolLanguageProject(Wells1981,1985).TheBristolresearchhassoughttodeterminetheextentofthevariationinfirstlanguagedevelopmentonanumberofdifferentdimensions.Indicesofsyntactic,semanticandfunctionallanguagedevelopment,aswellastheacquisitionofpragmaticcompetencehavebeendeveloped.Inaddition,considerableinformationhasbeenassembled,fromtapetranscriptsaswellasinterviewdata,ontherelevantenvironmentalfactorswhichareassociatedwiththevariationintherateoffirstlanguagedevelopment.Theseindicesshowthatthereismassivevariationintherateatwhichfeaturesofone'sfirstlanguageareacquired.Attheageof42months,forexample,intermsofmeanMorphemeLengthofUtterance(MLU):

Wefindthatchildrenscoringashighastwostandarddeviations(+2SDs)abovethemeanhaveascorethatisgreaterthanthemeanofthesampleasawholeatthetimeofthelastobservationoftheolderchildren(18monthslater),whilethosescoringaslowastwoSDsbelowthemeanhaveascoreequivalenttothemeanobservedforthesampleasawholeasmuchas15monthsearlier.(Wells,1985:124)

Furthermore,thereisevidencetolinkrateoflanguagedevelopment,butnotcourseofdevelopment,withfeaturesofspeechaddressedtothechildren(Barnes,Gutfreund,Satterley&Wells,1983).Inparticular,theuseof'extending'responsesbymothers,ofdirectrequestsforcontrol,andofamountofadultspeechareassociatedwithamorerapidcourseofsubsequentdevelopment.

Severalinvestigatorshavealsotriedtouncoverdifferentroutesoflanguagedevelopment,andtolinkthesetodifferentstylesandstrategiesoflearning.Nelson(1973,1981),forexample,hasproposedareferential/expressivedichotomy,withchildrenintheformer

categorytendingtonameobjectsandacquiremoreextensivevocabulariesearlyinlifewhilethoseinthelattercategoryarelessnoun-dependentintheirearlyvocabularygrowth,andmoreconcernedwithexpressiveusesoflanguage.Bloom,Lightbown,&Hood(1975)havemadearelateddistinctionbetween'substantive'(nominal)childrenwhotendinearlylanguagedevelopmenttouseSVOsentenceconstructionsandmorenouns,and'relational'(pronominal)children,whorelymoreonpronominalforms,pivot-openconstructions,andimitations.Bloometal.(1975)proposetheseasalternativeroutestolaterlanguagedevelopment.Peters(1983)hasalsomadeasimilardistinctionbetweenaholistic/gestaltstyle,ontheonehand,andamoreanalyticalstyle,whileBretherton,McNew,Snyder&Bates(1983)suggestthat

varyingdegreesofanalyticityunderliethevariousdichotomiesproposedintheliterature.

IndividualDifferencesinForeignLanguageLearningAptitude

Therehavealsobeenstudiesofindividualdifferencesinforeignlanguageaptitude.Heretheunderlyingrationaleisthatthereisasetofabilitiesuniquelyrelatedtosuccessinforeignlanguagelearningwhichareseparatefromverbalintelligence,ontheonehand,andpreviousachievement,ontheother(Carroll,1965,1974).Itisproposedthattheseabilitiesconstitutegeneralcompetencesorlearningcapacitieswhichenablesomepeopletolearnlanguagesfasterthanothers.

Carroll(1965,1982)hasproposedthefollowingcomponentsforaptitude:

InductiveLanguageLearningAbility:'theabilitytoinferorinducetherulesgoverningasetoflanguagematerials,givensamplesoflanguagematerialsthatpermitsuchinferences.'

GrammaticalSensitivity:'theabilitytorecognisethegrammaticalfunctionsofwords(orotherlinguisticentities)insentencestructures.'

PhonemicCodingAbility:'anabilitytoidentifydistinctivesounds,toformassociationsbetweenthosesoundsandsymbolsrepresentingthem,andtoretaintheseassociations.'

RoteLearningAbilityforForeignLanguageMaterials:'theabilitytolearnassociationsbetweensoundsandmeaningsrapidlyandefficientlyandtoretaintheseassociations.'(Carroll,1982:105)

Carrollhasdevelopedatestbatterybasedonthesepostulatedcomponentsofaptitude(Carroll&Sapon,1957).Otherinvestigators,drawingonsimilaraptitudetheory,havealsoproducedalternativeaptitudebatteriesforusewithdifferentagegroupsorsituations(Pimsleur,1966;Green,1975;Davies,1971;Petersen&Al-Haik,

1976).Suchbatteriesusuallyproducemultiplecorrelationswithforeignlanguageachievementintherange0.40to0.75,dependingontheinstructionalconditions.Suchbatterieshavealsobeenusedtoassistincounsellingofstudents(Pimsleur,1968)aswellasthebasisforassigningstudentstomoresuitableteachingmethodologies(Wesche,1982).

IndividualDifferencesinForeignLanguageAchievement

Itiswidelyandreliablyestablishedthatthereareconsiderabledifferencesinforeignlanguageachievement.Thesearesometimesrelatedtodifferencesinforeignlanguageaptitude(Carroll,1982),sometimestoaffectivefactors(Gardner&Lambert,1972),sometimestolearnerstrategies(Naiman,Fröhlich,Stern&Tedesco,1978),sometimestoenvironmentalfactorssuchasopportunitiesforlanguageuseorinstructionalconditions(Long,1982),andsometimessimplytotime(Carroll,1975).Althoughthereiscontroversyastowhatismeasuredbylanguageproficiencytests,forexamplewhetherthereisaunitarylanguagecompetence(seee.g.Oller,1983)orwhetheraspectsofinteraction(Morrow,1979)andplanningofspeech(Brown&Yule,1984)areproperlyexaminedbyexistinglanguagetests,forpresentpurposesthecrucialfactoristhatthereisnodisagreementovertheextentoftheindividualdifferencesinforeignlanguageachievementandproficiency.Consequently,theonlyrequirementinthisareaisagoodrangeofteststoassessachievement.

TheBristolLanguageProject

Ithasonlybeenpossibletoinvestigatethethreebasicsetsofvariables(firstlanguagedevelopment,foreignlanguageaptitude,andforeignlanguageachievement)thankstotheexistenceoftheBristolLanguageProjectandthehelpandencouragementofProfessorGordonWells.ProfessorWellsgenerouslyagreedthatafollow-upstudyofthechildreninvolvedintheBristolstudycouldbeundertakenand,priortohisdeparturefromBristolfortheOntarioInstituteforStudiesinEducation,helpedtosetupthepresentresearch,

1fundedin1984-1985byagrantfromtheBritishEconomicandSocialResearchCouncil.

Inviewofthislongitudinalaspecttothecurrentresearch,adescriptionoftheBristolProjectisnownecessary.TheBristolProjecthasbeenstudyingatotalof125children,bornin1969-1970or1971-1972,byobtainingextensivetaperecordingsofthechildren'sspeechinnaturalsituations(Wells,1981,1985).Foreachofthe125childrenthereare10recordings,atthree-monthlyintervals,eachyieldingabout30minutesofconversationwithanaverageof150utterancesbythechildandaboutasmanybyspeakerstothechild.ThetaperecordingshavebeenanalysedwithintheframeworkofacomprehensivecodingschemedevelopedbytheBristolresearchteam(Wells,1972,1975).

Figure1.TheBristolcodingscheme.

Thecodingschemeprovidesforanalysisofthechildren'sutterancesintermsofinterpersonalpurpose,experientialcontent,appropriateness,andcontextofutteranceoccurrence.TherelationshipbetweenthesecodingdevicesisshowninFigure1(drawnfromWells,1972:20).Inaddition,utterancesarecodedforsyntacticstructureandwell-formedness.Thecodingschemeisclearlycomprehensive,andinfluencedstronglybycontemporarydevelopmentsinlinguistics,particularlythoseassociatedwithHalliday(1970)andFillmore(1968).

SubsequentphasesoftheBristolProjecthaveinvestigatedthetransitionofasub-groupofthetotalpopulationtoschool,andtothechangedlinguisticdemandsthatthisnewenvironmenthasmade,forexample,subsequentlanguagedevelopment,thebeginningofreading,therelationshipbetweenearlierinteractionpatternsinthehomeandsubsequentinteractionpatternsinschool.Infact,therehavebeentwofollow-upstudiesinvolving20and32children(total=52)fromtheoriginalsample,withthemostrecentdatacollectedbytheBristolteamthreeyearsago,when32oftheyoungerchildrenwereextensivelyassessedattheageof10+.

ThecurrentsituationisthatasofJanuary1985thetwoagegroupsofchildrenweretwelveandahalftothirteenandahalf,andfourteenandahalftofifteenandahalfyearsoldrespectively.Theyareallembarkedon

asecondaryschoolcareerandarestudyingorhavestudiedaforeignlanguageintypicalclassroomconditions.

Theexistenceofsuchextensivefirstlanguagedataonsuchalargegroupofchildren,togetherwiththepotentialforgatheringdataontheirforeignlanguageperformance,isunique.Nocomparablestudyexistsorhasexistedintheworld,anditrepresentsanopportunitytostudythedevelopmentoflanguageabilitythatisunlikelytoberepeatedforsomeconsiderabletime.

GeneralDescriptionandResearchDesign

Thefundamentalaimofthepresentresearchprojectistoexamineinter-relationshipsbetweenthreeareasoflanguagefirstlanguagedevelopment,foreignlanguageaptitude,andforeignlanguageachievement.Inparticular,theprojectultimatelyaimsto:(a)investigatewhethergreaterrateofprogressinfirstlanguagedevelopmentisassociatedwithhigherforeignlanguageaptitudeandalsohigherforeignlanguageachievement;(b)examinewhetherpatternsoffirstlanguagedevelopmentarerelatedtopatternsofforeignlanguageaptitude;(c)explorefirst,whetherforeignlanguageachievementisdependentoncapacitieswhichmaybearesidueoffirstlanguagelearningability,andwhetherforeignlanguageaptitudecanberegardedasanoperationalmeasureofthisresidualability,orsecond,whetherpossiblerelationshipsbetweenfirstlanguageacquisitionandforeignlanguageaptitudearemoreconnectedtofeaturesoftheenvironmentinwhichthefirstlanguagewaslearned.

Theindicesusedtomeasureperformanceineachofthethreekeyareaswillnowbedescribed.

IndicesofFirstLanguageDevelopment

TheseindiceswereproducedbytheBristolteam,andwerealready

availableoncomputerfiles.

2Themainindiceswhichwereusedwere:

1.Globalmeasuresofrateofdevelopment,forexample,MLU,BristolScaleLevel.3

2.Specificmeasuresofrateofdevelopment,forexample,rangeoflanguagefunctionsused;developmentofmodification;complexityofnounphrasesused.

3.Test-basedmeasuresofcomprehensionandvocabularysize.

4.Demographic/biographicalindicesoffamilycircumstances,for

example,classoffamilybackground,parentaloccupations,andsoforth.

5.Measuresofthequantityandtypeofspeechandliteracy-basedactivitiesthechildrenwereexposedto.

ThefirsttwosetsofmeasureswerederivedfromthespontaneouslanguagerecordedinthehomebytheBristolResearchteam.Thetwocohortsofchildrendifferedintermsofageatthetimeofdatacollection.Datawascollectedontheyoungercohortatthree-monthlyintervalsbetweentheagesof15and42months,andontheoldercohortbetween39monthsand60months.Inotherwords,therewasanoverlapbetweenthetwocohortsforthedatacollectionat39and42monthstoprovideabasisforcomparison.Forsomepurposesthesimilarityofthecohortsenablesthemtobemergedforothersitdoesnot,butinanycasethetotalagerangeof15to60monthsallowsafairlyextendedperspectiveonthecourseoflanguagedevelopment.

Thethirdsetofmeasureswasobtainedfromtestsgiventothechildrenataround39months(bothcohorts)and57and66months(oldercohortonly).Thedemographicmeasuresweredrawnfrominterviewandbackgrounddata,whilethefifthsetofmeasureswerebasedpartlyontape-recordedinformationandpartlyoninterviewdata.

IndicesofForeignLanguageAptitude

Becauseoftimeconstraintsintermsofhowmuchaccesswasthoughtfeasiblewiththechildren,asetofaptitudesub-testswasselectedwhichwouldbeeasytoobtainanduse,andalsoberelativelybrieftoadminister,thatis,couldbecompletedinatwo-hourtestingsession.Inaddition,thetestbatterysoassembledwasthought,inthetimeavailablefortesting,tosamplethesub-componentsofaptitudeascomprehensivelyaswaspossible.Thetestsused

4were:

AH2: averbalintelligencetest

EMLAT1: HiddenWords

EMLAT2: MatchingWords

YorkLanguageAptitudeTest

PLAB5: SoundDiscrimination

PLAB6: Sound-SymbolAssociation

TheAH2waschosenasa'marker'testforgeneralverbalintelligence.ThefirsttesttakenfromtheElementaryModernLanguageAptitudeTest,

HiddenWords,requiresthecandidatetouseamisspelledversionofawordasabasisforguessingwhattheoriginalwordwas.Itispostulatedthatthisisdoneonthebasisofnativelanguagevocabularyandalsophonemiccodingability.ThesecondEMLATtest,MatchingWords,requiresthecandidatetofindtheword(fromfivepossibilities)inasecondsentencewhichfulfilsthesamegrammaticalfunctionasaparticularwordinafirstsentence.ThetestattemptstomeasureCarroll'sgrammaticalsensitivityfactor(Carroll,1982).TheYorktestis'ofthepupil'sabilitytoproduceformsinanunknownlanguage(Swedish)ontheanalogyoftheformspresented'(Green,1975:72).Inotherwordsitisatestofinductivelanguagelearningability.FinallythetwoPimsleurtestsassessauditoryability,withPLAB5focusingonsounddiscriminationincontext,andPLAB6thecandidate'sabilitytorelatesoundtosymbol.

Itwasfeltthatthisbatteryoftestsprovidesmeasuresofverbalintelligence,grammaticalsensitivity,inductivelanguagelearningability,andauditoryability/phonemiccodingability.Assuchtheyprovideareasonablywidesamplingofthecomponentsofaptitude(Carroll,1965,1982;Skehan,1980a).Themajoromission(throughlackoftime)isanyconsiderationofmemoryability,theothermajorfactorthathasbeenshowntobeimportantinaptitude(Carroll,1982;Skehan;1980b,1982,1986).

IndicesofForeignLanguageAchievement

Aswiththelanguageaptitudemeasuresitwasnecessarytofindeasilyavailableassessmentinstruments.Afteranexaminationofarangeofpossiblemeasures,itwasdecidedtousetheNFER/APUtestsforbothFrenchandGerman.

5SeparatetestsareavailableforSpeaking,Listening.Writing,andReading.Thetestshavethetwinadvantagesthattheyhave

establishedhighreliabilities,havingbeensubjectedtoaconsiderableamountofitemanalysisandsoforthandthattheyweredesignedforasituationcomparabletotheonebeinginvestigated,thatis,useinawidevarietyofschoolswithawidevarietyofmethodologiesandtextbooks.Itwasfeltthatsuchabatteryoftestswouldbemostabletocopewiththeproblemofhownottodisadvantageanyparticularschoolbecauseofthemethodologyithadused.InadditionthereareseveralparallelversionsoftheNFERtests,thusallowingretestingtobedoneonastandardmeasuringbase.

TheNFER/APUtestsaredesignedforuseduringthesummertermofthesecondyearoflanguagestudy.Theycanbeadministeredlaterthanthisandstilldiscriminateeffectively,indeedtheyarequiterobustintermsofusabilityinthirdandfourthyearsoflanguageinstruction.However,they

cannotbeusedearlierthanthesummertermofthesecondyear.ForthisreasonthechildrenfromtheoldercohortwhoarestillstudyingFrenchweretestedduringthespringterm1985,whilethechildrenfromthesecondcohortstudyingFrenchhavebeentestedduringthesummerterm,buttheseresultshaveyettobeanalysed.

SummaryofPhaseOneResearchDesign

TheinvestigationisbasedonindicesalreadyavailablefromtheBristolLanguageProjectfor(1),andthecollectionoftestdatafor(2)and(3).Theaccumulationofsuchdataisintendedtoanswerquestionson:(a)therelationshipbetweenindividualdifferencesinfirstlanguagedevelopmentandforeignlanguageachievement,thatis,whetherfastdevelopersinthemothertonguelearnforeignlanguagesmorequickly:(b)theoriginofforeignlanguageaptitude,thatis,whethersuchaptitudecanberegardedastheresidueofafirstlanguagelearningability;(c)thesimilarityofthedimensionsoffirstlanguagedevelopment,ontheonehand,andforeignlanguageaptitudeandachievement,ontheother;(d)therelativecontributionsofenvironmentalinfluences,suchasclassoffamilybackgroundandthenatureofthelinguisticenvironmentofthechildtosubsequentlanguagedevelopment,versusindividualmakeupconcernedeitherwithrouteorrateofdevelopment.

Figure2.Theresearchdesign

Theresultswhichfollowarepreliminary,andwillbesupplementedinthefuturebytheaccumulationofmuchmoredata.However,theydoallowsomediscussionofeachoftheabovequestions.

Results

ThesituationatthetimeofwritingisthattheaptitudetestinghasbeencompletedforbothcohortsoftracedchildrenfromtheBristolProject.Theresultsusedforthefirstlanguageacquisitionforeignlanguageaptitude

correlationsarethereforebasedonNsof53and50respectively.Foreignlanguageachievementtestresults,althoughnowavailable,haveonlybeenanalysedfortheoldercohort.

6Indeed,becausetheolderchildrenareinthefourthyearofsecondaryschooling,bywhichtimeitispossibletostopstudyingaforeignlanguage,theirnumberisconsiderablyreduced(N=23).Theproblemsheredonotsimplyinvolvereducednumbers,however.Inaddition,onehastotakeaccountofsubjectselectioninthatthosewhocontinuetostudyFrenchmaydosoforavarietyofreasons.SomeschoolsmaynotallowFrenchtobedropped.OtherschoolsmayonlycontinuetoofferFrenchtothosewhoareatleastmoderatelysuccessfulatit.Alternatively,wherepupilchoiceisconcerned,thismayimplicatedifferentialvaluingofschoolsubjects,orperhapsparentalattitude.InallofthesecasesthereasonswhysomepupilspursuethestudyofFrenchmayalsoinfluencethepatternofrelationshipbetweentheindicesused.This,obviously,hasimplicationsforthegeneralisabilityoftheresults.Itwillbenecessary,therefore,towaitfortheachievementtestingwiththeyoungercohort,scheduledforthesummerterm,beforeanysatisfactoryconclusionscanbedrawn.However,forthemoment,theavailablecorrelationswillbereported,astheydoatleastprovidesomerelevantinformation,evenifitisincomplete.

FirstLanguage-foreignLanguageAptitudeRelationships

Table1summarisestherelationshipsfoundfortheoldercohort.Severalpointsneedtobemadeabouttheinformationinthistable.

First,structuralindicesoffirstlanguagedevelopmenttendtoenterintohighercorrelationwithsubsequentaptitudethandothemoresemantic/pragmaticindices.MLUs42;rangeofadjectivesand

determiners;rangeofnominalphrasecomplexity,forexample,allhavesignificantpatternsofcorrelationwithlanguageanalyticaspectsoflanguageaptitude.TheBristolScalealsohassignificantcorrelations,perhapsreflectingthefactthatitisthemorestructuralaspectsofthescalewhicharedifferentiatingbetweenthechildrenattheagelevelsconcerned.However,therangeofsyntacticcomplexitymeasure,andMLUs57enterintoveryfewsignificantcorrelations.ThelattermeasurewasnotexpectedtocontinuetodifferentiatebytheBristolteamasasourceofimportantvariationsinceitissimplybasedonlengthofutterance,anincreasinglyunreliableindicatorofsyntacticcomplexity.Thepoorperformanceoftherangeofsyntacticcomplexitymeasureis,however,moredifficulttounderstand,anditspoorshowingwillhavetoawaitfutureexplanation.Oneshouldalsonotewiththemorestructuralpredictorsthattheyshowalowerlevelofrelationship,ingeneral,

TABLE1.Firstlanguage-foreignlanguageaptitudecorrelationsAH2 EMLAT

1EMLAT2

YORK PLAB5

PLAB6

Familybackground 0.59** 0.37** 0.55** 0.56** 0.19 0.33**Parentalinterestinlateracy 0.37** 0.34** 0.46** 0.36** 0.20 0.16Otchildreadto 0.55** 0.31* 0.46** 0.51** 0.20 0.16Totalparentaleducation 0.48** 0.29* 0.48** 0.41** 0.08 0.29*MLUs42mths. 0.31* 0.32* 0.52** 0.35** 0.12 0.39**Comprehension39mths. 0.30* 0.34** 0.45** 0.34** 0.28* 0.48**EPTV(Vocab.Test)39mths. 0.54** 0.45** 0.48** 0.50** 0.32* 0.28*Rangeoflanguagefunctions 0.00 0.05 0.09 -0.04 0.09 0.06Rangeofsentencemeanings 0.35** 0.30* 0.29* 0.09 0.19 0.04Rangeofadjectivesanddeterminers 0.43** 0.30* 0.44** 0.25* 0.00 0.31*Rangeofmodality,aspect+timemarkers

0.17 0.21 0.40** 0.24* 0.16 0.27*

MLUs57mths. 0.23 0.30* 0.15 0.05 -0.14 -0.03Comprehension57mths. 0.36** 0.23 0.51** 0.43** 0.27* 0.27*EPVT(Vocabulary)test)66mths. 0.33** 0.36** 0.21 0.37** 0.11 0.18Rangeofsyntacticcomplexity 0.15 0.2 0.28* 0.04 0.23 0.20Rangeofnominalphrasecomplexity 0.36** 0.39** 0.43** 0.26* 0.19 0.31*BristolScale42mths. 0.3* 0.26* 0.34** 0.29* 0.16 0.42**BristolScale57mths. 0.33** 0.31* 0.38** 0.17 0.48** 0.11N=53: SignificanceLevels 0.05=0.24

0.01=0.33

withthemoreauditoryaptitudetests,particularlythosefromPimsleur'sLAB.

Second,therearesignificant,andsometimessizeablecorrelationsbetweenthecomprehension

7/vocabularyindicesoffirstlanguagedevelopmentandsomeoftheforeignlanguageaptitudeindices.Thisappliesparticularlytothevocabularymeasure,andparticularlyattheearliertestingat39months.

Third,andundoubtedlyrelatedtothepreviouspoint,thebiographical/demographicvariablesenterintoconsistentlysignificantcorrelations.ThisappliesmostclearlytotheIQscorebutisclearalsofortheEMLAT2andYorktests,suggestingthatitis,onceagain,goingtobedifficulttodisentangleenvironmentalfromotherinfluences,andprobablydifferentenvironmentalinfluencesfromoneanother.

Fourth,andfinally,themoreauditory-basedaptitudetestsaretheleastwellpredictedfromthefirstlanguagedevelopmentalindices.Althoughthereareexceptionstothis,forexample,BristolScale42mthsandPLAB6:0.42,andBristolScale57mthsandPLAB5:0.48,themediancorrelationsforthedifferentaptitudemeasuresarerevealing.Theyare,indescendingorder:EMLAT2,0.43:AH2,0.35:YorkTest,0.34:EMLAT1,0.31:PLAB6,0.27:PLABS,0.19.Interestingly,mostofthehighercorrelationswiththeauditoryaptitudetestsareproducedbycomprehension/vocabularyindicesoffirstlanguagedevelopment,suggestingperhapsadistinctdimensionforthedevelopmentofbothfirstlanguageskillsaswellasforeignlanguageaptitude.

ForeignLanguageAptitude-foreignLanguageAchievement

Table2showstherelevantcorrelations.Thesecorrelationsaretheleastinnovativeofthepresentstudy,duplicatingmuchpreviouswork.Evensoitcanbesaidthatthecorrelationsareunusuallyanduniformlyhighlyrelativetoothercomparableresearch(Carroll&Sapon,1957;Davies,1971;Green,1975).Thisisprobablyfortworeasons.First,theNFERtestsareprobablymorereliableandvalidthanmostachievement/proficiencyteststhatareusedinstudiesofthissort.Second,thesamplingproceduresused

TABLE2.Languageaptitude-foreignlanguageachievementcorrelationsAH2 EMLAT

1EMLAT2

YORK PLAB5

PLAB6

Listening 0.55 0.49 0.66 0.68 0.07 0.49Speaking 0.59 0.55 0.66 0.68 0.10 0.33

Speaking 0.59 0.55 0.66 0.68 0.10 0.33Reading 0.58 0.73 0.67 0.65 0.16 0.50Writing 0.68 0.64 0.69 0.74 0.17 0.48

N=23:SignificanceLevels .05=.41.01=.53

bytheBristolLanguageProjectdeliberatelyproducedawiderangeofchildrenintermsoffamilybackground(althoughthenon-randomnatureofthedrop-outrateforthechildrenstillstudyingFrenchmayhavecounteractedthistosomedegree).Boththesereasonseffectivetestsaswellasheterogeneityofsamplingtendtoprovidethecircumstancesforhighcorrelationstoemerge.ThattheydidsointhepresentcaseindicatesthatwehavefertilegroundonwhichtoinvestigatetheotherrelationshipsinvolvedinthetriangleofvariablesshowninFigure1.

FirstLanguageDevelopment-foreignLanguageAchievement

Table3showstherelevantcorrelations.Quiteclearly,thesecorrelationsaregenerallylowerthanthoseshownintheothertables.Thestructuralfirstlanguageindicesconsistentlyfailtoreachstatisticalsignificance,withmostcorrelationsbelow0.20.Interestingly,itisoneofthemoresemanticfirstlanguagemeasureswhichleadstohighercorrelations,rangeofmodality,aspect,andtimemarkers,yetdespiteconsistency(0.36/0.24/0.39/0.26),noneofthecorrelationsachievessignificance.

Thebiographical/demographicvariables,thatis,familybackground,parentalliteracy,amountthechildisreadto,parentaleducation,frequentlyenterintohigherrelationships.Familybackground,forexample,generatescorrelationsinexcessof0.40.However,thehighestrelationshipsshowninthetableare,quiteclearly,thosebetweenthecomprehension/vocabularymeasurestakenrelativelyearlyinlife(39-66months)andforeignlanguageachievementatagefourteen.Comprehension39monthsleadstocorrelationsinthehigh0.40s,asdoesComprehension57months,whileEPVT66(VocabularyTest)leadstocorrelationsthataverageinthemid0.50s,astonishinglyhighvalueswhenoneconsidersthetimeintervalsinvolved.

SummaryofResults

First,itshouldberepeatedthatthesearepreliminaryresults,andthatthemainseriesofcomparisons,involvingtheyoungercohort,willonlybepossibleasresultsbecomeavailablefromthesummerterm'stestingprogramme.However,theseresultsarewhatareavailableatthetimeofwriting.Intermsofthebasicsetsofrelationshipthatwereinvestigated,onecansaybroadlyspeaking,that:(a)firstlanguagedevelopmentandforeignlanguageaptitudearesignificantlyrelatedatamoderatelevel;(b)foreignlanguageaptitudeandforeignlanguagesuccessarestronglyrelated;(c)first

TABLE3.Firstlanguage-foreignlanguageachievementcorrelationsListening Speaking Reading Writing

Familybackground 0.43* 0.57* 0.47* 0.47*Parentalinterestinliteracy 0.23 0.35 0.38 0.24Qtchildreadto 0.19 0.37 0.18 0.21Totalparentaleducation 0.24 0.43* 0.34 0.32MLUs42mths 0.19 0.20 0.18 0.13Comprehension39mths 0.57** 0.45* 0.48* 0.42*EPTV(Vocab.Test)39mths 0.29 0.21 0.33 0.31Rangeoflanguagefunctions -0.25 -0.17 -0.14 -0.20Rangeofsentencemeanings -0.09 -0.22 -0.10 -0.20Rangeofadjectivesanddeterminers -0.07 -0.22 -0.11 -0.08Rangeofmodality,aspect+timemarkers 0.36 0.24 0.39 0.26MLUs57mths -0.17 -0.13 -0.02 -0.08Comprehension57mths 0.49* 0.49* 0.55** 0.46*EPVT(Vocabularytest)66mths 0.67** 0.48* 0.57** 0.52*Rangeofsyntacticcomplexity 0.00 0.04 0.04 -0.05Rangeofnominalphrasecomplexity 0.16 0.22 0.25 0.21BristolScale42mths 0.04 0.02 0.03 0.05BristolScale57mths 0.00 0.10 0.05 0.06N=23: SignificanceLevels0.05=0.41

0.01=0.53

languagedevelopmentandforeignlanguagesuccessdonotseemtohaveadirectrelationshiptooneanother;(d)familybackgroundindicesarerelatedtolanguageaptitudemeasuresatamoderatelevel,andtoachievementmeasuresataweak-to-moderatelevel;(e)comprehensionandvocabularyindicesobtainedearlyinlifearerelatedtosubsequentaptitudeandachievementatamoderate/moderate-to-stronglevel.

8

Inaddition,itisclearthatthedifferentsetsofvariableshavedifferentnumbersofdimensions.Theforeignlanguageachievementmeasureslookuni-dimensional,withalowestintercorrelationof0.86(betweenlisteningandwritingtheothercorrelationsareshowninthegrandcorrelationmatrixgiveninAppendixB).Foreignlanguageaptitude,however,lookstohavetwodimensions,involvinggrammaticalabilityandauditoryability.(Theresultsoffactoranalyseswhicharesoontobeconductedmayresultinadifferentstructureappearingmoresatisfactory.)However,themostcomplexareaseemstobethatoffirstlanguagedevelopment.Therearethemorestructuralindices,suchasrangeofsyntacticcomplexityandrangeofnominalgroupcomplexity;comprehension/vocabularyindices;linguisticenvironmentindices;andbiographical/familybackgroundindices.ThedifferentgroupsofpredictorsofFLachievemententerintodifferentlevelsofrelationship.Inaddition,itislikelythattheyinteractwithoneanotherincomplexways.Certainlythecomplexityofthepatternsofrelationshipwillbeamajorfocusintheproposeddevelopmentofthepresentstudy,asitinvestigatesindividualindicesfurther,andexaminespotentialinteractionsbetweenthem.

Discussion

Severalissuesareworthdiscussinginrelationtotheseresults.Firstofall,thereisthequestionoftheoriginoflanguageaptitude.Theresultsindicaterelationshipsbetweenaptitudeandfirstlanguageindicesbasedonspontaneousdatathataresignificantbutmoderate.Incontrast,aptitudeentersintostrongerrelationshipswithbothbiographical/backgroundvariablesaswellaswiththetest-basedcomprehensionandvocabularyindices.Toacertainextent,therefore,theseresultsmaybetakenasevidencethatmoreanalyticcomponentsofaptitude(i.e.thosemeasuredbytheEMLAT2andYorktests)arearesidualabilityofindividualdifferencesinfirstlanguagelearning

ability.TheMLUs-EMLAT2correlationof0.52,forexample,theRangeofAdjectivesandDeterminersEMLAT2valueof0.44,andtheRangeofNounPhraseComplexityEMLAT2figureof0.43allsuggestthatcertainfeaturesofearlysyntaxandcomplexityoflanguageusearerelatedtocomponentsofaptitude.Furtherworkwillattemptafiner-grainedanalysisofthesefirstlanguagedevelopmentalindicestotrytoisolatewhichofthemrelatetosubsequentaptitude.Perhapssuchanalysiswillbeabletouncoverreasonswhysomeofthefirstlanguagevariablesdonotenterintoclearrelationshipswithaptitude,since,ithastobeadmitted,theresultsobtainedarehardlyuniform.

Evenmoreimportant,theaptitudemeasuresenterintoevenhigherrelationshipswiththebackgroundandtest-basedindices.Infact,thetest-

basedindicesandthebackgroundindicesthemselvesoftencorrelatequitehighlyattheageof39months(severalcorrelationsabove0.50:seeAppendixB),althoughthelevelofrelationshipwiththelatertestmeasuresaredistinctlylower.Inanycase,thereisthepossibilitythatthebackgroundindicesandthetest-basedmeasuresrelatetosomesimilarunderlyingdimension.Furtherworkwillberequiredonthisissue.However,mostcruciallyhere,thelinguisticdevelopmentalindicesdonotcorrelateveryhighlywiththebackground/testmeasures,suggestingthatthelinguisticindicesandbackground/testindicesprovideindependentsourcesofpredictionforsubsequentlanguageaptitude.Furtherregressionanalyseswillclarifythisissue.Forthepresent,theevidencesuggeststhataptitudetestscoresarepartlyassociatedwithearlylinguisticdevelopmentandpartlywithbackground.

ThesecondpartofthetriangleofrelationshipsfromFigure2thatwillbecommentedonhereisthatbetweentheearlymeasuresandforeignlanguageachievement.Thefirstlanguageindicesenterintonegligiblerelationships,whilethefamilybackgroundandtest-basedmeasuresenterintomuchhigherrelationships,ofteninexcessof0.50,andinonecase(EPVT66monthsListening)ashighas0.67(althoughherethesmallsamplesizecounselscautionininterpretation).

Onthefaceofittheseresultsaredepressingintermsoftheoriginalhypothesessincetheysuggestthatfirstlanguageindividualdifferencesareuncorrelatedwithvariationinforeignlanguageperformance.Thepointneedstobemade,however,thatthedependentvariablethatisbeingused(test-basedforeignlanguageperformance)mightnotbetheidealvariabletoexamineinordertoinvestigatetheoriginalhypothesis.Itmaywellbethattheissuehereisthenatureofconventionalsecondaryschoolbasedlanguageinstruction,suchthatthetypeoftuitionprovidedmaynotbeespeciallycommunicative,ordrawuponstudents'oralabilities,but

insteademphasisea'cover-the-textbook'approach.

InfactitisusefultobroadenthediscussionatthispointandconsidersomeotherdatafromtheBristolLanguageProject.Subsequentphasesofthestudy(seeWells,1985)havefollowedsub-setsofthechildrenastheyenteredtheschoolsystem,andtrackedtheirprogressuptoageof10+.Theresultsfromthisphaseofthestudy(Wells,Homewood,&Offord,1983;Wells,Barnes,&Wells,1985)suggestthatalthoughduringthe5-10agerangetherearewideindividualdifferencesinorallanguageability,thesedifferencesdonotcorrelatewithexaminationperformanceorwithliteracy-linkedskills.Ratherthechild'spreparednessforliteracyonentrytoschoolisthemostsignificantpredictorofhowwellthechildwilldoinconventionalschoolassessment.Itseemsasthoughthecapacitytohandlethesymbolic,

decontextualisedaspectsoflanguagehave,atleastpartially,adifferentsetofdeterminantstothoseinvolvedinorallanguageperformance(Wells,1985;Tizard&Hughes,1984).Somechildren,andthereisasocialclasslinkagehere,seembetterabletohandlethissideoflanguageusethanothers.This,ofcourse,ishighlysignificantsinceitisliteracy-linked,examination-orientedaspectsofperformancethatleadtoeducationalsuccess,andthefactthataparticularlearnermayhaveveryeffectiveorallanguageskillsmaycountforrelativelylittleifthesearenotmatchedbysimilarabilitiestodealwithcontext-disembeddedlanguage(Donaldson,1978).

Theparadoxofthisanalysisisthatitisbeingappliedtoforeignlanguagelearning.Itmightbethoughtthatwhiletheaboveanalysismightapplytoothercurriculumsubjects,itwouldbeirrelevanttothestudyofaforeignlanguage,whereitmightbethoughtthattheemphasisonskilledperformance,creativelanguageuse,andtheneedtolearnlanguagebyusinglanguagewouldproduceadifferentsetofconditionstothatwhichoperateselsewhere.Theresultsavailablehereare,however,moreconsistentwiththeviewthatlearningaforeignlanguageatschoolisjustlikelearninganyothersubject.Theresultssuggestthataconsiderableproportionofthesuccessinlanguagestudyrelatestotheabilitytocopewithliteracy,andtotheabilitytomakesenseofthedecontextualisedritualofdisplayquestions,patterndrills,andunbelievabledialoguescharacteristicofmanyclassrooms.Thesuccessfulstudentisabletocopewiththesecharacteristics,andonehopes,whenthesituationisappropriate,totranscendthem.Itwouldbenicetothinkthatthemovetowardsmorecommunicativelanguageteachingwillreducetherelianceonskilleddecontextualisersandinsteadallowlearners'oralabilitiestobeexploitedandbuiltuponmoreeffectively.

NotestoChapter6

1.Thisarticle,naturally,reflectsthestateoftheartatthetimeoftheGeorgetownWorkshop.

2.TheauthorisgratefultoSallyBarnes,SchoolofEducation,UniversityofBristol,formakingthisinformationavailable.

3.PleaseseeAppendixAformoredetaileddescriptionsoftheseindices.

4.TheauthorwouldliketoexpresshisgratitudetoMaryGutfreund,LucileDucroquet,BrianRichards,andZuzannaCrouchfortheirextensiveworkincarryingouttheactualtestingprogrammefortheaptitudeaswellastheachievementdata.

5.ThanksareduetoPeterDicksonoftheNFERForeignLanguagesSectionforhishelpinarrangingfortheuseofthesetests,togetherwithinstructionintheiradministration.

6.Forthisreason,thatisconsistencyofcomparison,thedatareportedinthefollowingtablesisfortheoldercohortthroughout.

7.However,itmustbesaidthatthecomprehensionmeasuremaynothavebeensatisfactorilyadministered.Wells(1985:39)expressescautionwithrespecttoitsvalidity,sointerpretationsofcorrelationsbetweenthecomprehensionscoreandotherindiceswillhavetobedonecircumspectly.

8.SeeAppendixAformoredetaileddescriptionsoftheindices.

AppendixA

ExtendedDescriptionsofVariablesUsed

Familybackground:Thefamilybackgroundscalerangesinvaluefrom6to18.Scoresarebasedonthemother'sandfather'soccupations(asbasedontheRegistrarGeneral'sscale)andonmother'sandfather'seducation,basedonatwo-pointscaledevelopedbytheBristolteam.TheformulausedisF.Occup.+M.Occup.+2(F.Educ.+M.Educ.).FurtherdetailsareprovidedinWells(1985:21-22).

Parentalinterestinliteracy:Duringtheinterviewconductedwitheachfamily,parentswereaskedabouttheirownreadinghabits.Ascalewasderivedbasedonthenumberofbooksownedbytheparentsandalsotheamountthateachparenthadreadduringthepreviousyear.Thereweresubstantialdifferencesbetweenthefamiliesonthisvariable.

Quantitychildwasreadto:Againfromthefamilyinterview,dataweregatheredontheamountthatmothersreadtotheirchildren.Asix-stepscalewasderivedfromthesedata.

Totalparentaleducation:Fortheparentaleducationscales,finerdiscriminationswereusedthanwiththefamilybackgroundmeasure.Anindexwasdevelopedforeachparentreflectingintermediatestagesofeducation,suchasstraightforwardschool-leavingatvariousages

withoutanyqualifications;CSEversus'O'versus'A'level;vocationaltraining;professionalqualifications;tertiaryeducation.

MLUs42and57months:ThisindexisbasedonpreviousworkofBrown(1973),whoproposedthatthebestsinglemeasureofdevelopmentinfirstlanguageisthemeanlengthofutteranceinmorphemes.Brownsuggestedthatincreasinglengthisanindexofdevelopingcontrolofthelanguagesystemwhenonegivescreditforgreatermorphemiccomplexity.TheBristolteamusedavariantofBrown'soriginalmeasureinthattheyeliminatedfromcalculationsutteranceswhichwereclassifiedasunstructured.Inparticular,theydidnotincludeinthecorpusforscoringMLUs(wheres=structured)utteranceswhichwereonewordpositiveornegativeidiomaticresponses,forexample,yes,no;idiomaticresponsesofgreaterlength,forexample,comeon,pushoff;textualquotation,suchasnurseryrhymesorpartsofadvertisementjingles;routinefunctionalformulae,forexample,hello,please;andexclamations.

Comprehension39and57months:Thistestcontained63itemscoveringawiderangeofsentencetypes,andinvolvedthechildinthe'acting-out'technique.Itemswereadministeredonascaleofincreasingdifficulty.However,itmustbe

mentionedthatWells(1985:39)saysofthistest:'Unfortunatelytheeffectivenessofthecomprehensiontestasameasureofreceptivelanguagedevelopmentwasseriouslycompromisedbyasystematicfailuretoobservetheinstructionsontheselectionsofitemstobeadministeredoneachoccasion'.Thetestscoresareincludedinthepresentstudybecausetheyenterintointerestingrelationshipswiththeaptitudeandachievementtests.Theircompleteinterpretation,however,willhavetobepostponeduntilfurtherinformationisavailableontheexactconditionsoftheiradministration.

EPVT(Englishpicturevocabularytest)39and66months:Thisisatestoflisteningcomprehensionofindividualvocabularyitems.

Rangeoflanguagefunctions:Thisisacumulativescorewhichcountsthenumberofdifferentfunctionsofinterpersonalpurposeusedbythechild.ItisalsoreferredtoinWells(1985)aspragmaticrange.

Rangeofsentencemeanings:Thismeasureisanindicationoftherangeofrelationshipsbetweenparticipantsencodedintheutterancesused.ItderivesfromscalesdescribedmorefullyintheManualfortheCodingofChildSpeechdevelopedbytheBristolteamandreflectssemanticmeaningssuchasbenefactiverelationship,agentchangeofstageandsoforth.

Rangeofadjectivesanddeterminers:Thisindexprovidesameasureofamountofnounphrasemodificationthatisused.

Rangeofmodality,aspect,andtimemarkers:Thisindexreflectsthechild'suseofmodificationsofthepropositionasawholewhichgobeyondthenuclearmeaningoftheclause.Theindexthereforeisameasureofthechild'sattemptstoindicatetheprobabilityofoccurrenceoftheeventinquestion;thetemporalstatusoftheeventinquestion;andlocationintimeoftheeventinquestion.Furtherdetailsrelevanttothisindexaretobefoundonpp.77-78ofWells(1985).

Rangeofsyntacticcomplexity:Thisisanindicationofthemeannumberofclauseconstituentsperutterance,targetingon34structuralelements.Additionalcreditisgiveninthisscoreforeveryclauseafterthefirst.

Rangeofnominalphrasecomplexity:Thisisanindicationoftherangeofpossibleelementsinnounphrasesandisbasedontheuseofprepositions,modifiers,differenttypesofheadword,andsimpleandcomplexqualifiers.

AppendixBGrandcorrelationmatrix

FaroBkg

ParLit

QtRd.

ParEd.

MLU42

Corn39

EPV39

FunSonmea

AdjDet

RngMod

FamilyBackgr.

- 66 54 92 23 54 58 02 30 22 34

Par.Inter.Lit. - 56 58 07 22 31 -06 26 22 34QtChld.readto

- 37 09 04 35 -07 18 04 13

TotalPar.Educ

- 27 52 51 01 27 16 36

MLUs42 - 30 24 39 16 29 38Comprehen.39

- 58 17 35 30 40

EPVT(Vocab)39

- 17 35 32 50

RangeFunctions

- 19 06 09

RangeSent.Mean.

- 42 48

RangeAdj.Deter.

- 30

RangeModal.Etc.

-

MLUs57Comprehen.57EPVT(Vocab)66

AppendixBContinuedSynCorn

NomCom

BSc42

BSc57

AH2EML1

EML2

YrkPLB5

FamilyBack. 13 33 14 25 59 37 55 56 19Par.Inter.Lit. 11 28 03 04 37 34 46 36 20QtChld.readto 09 38 -02 16 55 31 46 51 20Tot.Par.Educ 11 28 10 26 48 29 48 41 08MLUs42 42 34 45 59 31 32 52 35 12Comprehen.39 30 33 42 32 30 34 45 34 28EPVT(Vocab)39 27 31 33 30 54 45 48 50 32RangeFunctions 26 -03 45 18 00 05 09 -04 09RangeSent.Mean. 47 36 16 20 35 30 29 09 19RangeAdj.Deter. 47 59 15 46 43 30 44 25 00RangeModal.etc 50 28 13 22 17 21 40 24 16MLUs57 25 41 02 09 23 30 15 05 -14Comprehen.57 55 54 32 55 36 23 51 43 27EPVT66 16 07 11 03 33 36 21 37 11RangeSyn.Compx. - 47 43 55 15 20 28 04 23RangeNom.Compx.

- 31 49 36 39 43 26 19

BristolScale42 - 54 32 26 34 29 16BristolScale57 - 33 31 38 17 48AH2 - 58 74 72 32EMLAT1 - 55 36 27EMLAT2 - 62 25York - 27PLAB5 -PLAB6ListeningSpeakingReadingWriting

References

BARNES,S.B.,GUTFREUND,M.,SATTERLY,D.J.&WELLS,C.G.,1983,Characteristicsofadultspeechwhichpredictchildren'slanguagedevelopment.JournalofChildLanguage10,65-84.

BERETTA,A.&DAVIES,A.,1985,EvaluationoftheBangaloreProject.EnglishLanguageTeachingJournal39(2),121-127.

BLOOM,L.,LIGHTBOWN,P.&HOOD,L.,1975,Structureandvariationinchildlanguage,MonographsoftheSocietyforResearchinChildDevelopment40(SerialNo.160).

BRETHERTON,I.,McNEW,S.,SNYDER,L.&BATES,E.,1983,Individualdifferencesat20months:analyticandholisticstrategiesinlanguageacquisition.JournalofChildLanguage10,293-320.

BROWN,R.,1973,AFirstLanguage:TheEarlyStages.London:AllenandUnwin.

BROWN,G.&YULE,G.,1984,TeachingtheSpokenLanguage.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.

CARROLL,J.B.,1965,Thepredictionofsuccessinintensiveforeignlanguagetraining.InR.GLASER(ed.),Training,Research,andEducation.NewYork:Wiley,87-136.

1974,Theaptitude-achievementdistinction:thecaseofforeignlanguageaptitudeandproficiency.InD.R.GREEN(ed.).TheAptitude-AchievementDistinction.Monterey,CA:McGrawHill,289-303.

1975,TheTeachingofFrenchasaForeignLanguageinEightCountries.Stockholm:AlmquistandWiksell.

1982,Twenty-fiveyearsofresearchonforeignlanguageaptitude.InK.C.DILLER(ed),IndividualDifferencesandUniversalsinLanguageLearningAptitude.Rowley,MA:NewburyHouse,83-118.

CARROLL,J.B.&SAPON,S.M.,1957,ModernLanguageAptitudeTest.NewYork:PsychologicalCorporation.

DAVIES,A.,1971,LanguageaptitudeinthefirstyearoftheU.K.secondaryschool.RELCJournal,June1971,4-19.

DONALDSON,M.,1978,Children'sMinds.London:Penguin.

FILLMORE,C.J.,1968,Thecaseforcase.InE.BACH&R.T.HARMS(eds),UniversalsinLinguisticTheory.NewYork:Holt.Rinehart,andWinston.

FILLMORE,L.W.,1976,Thesecondtimearound:cognitiveandsocialstrategiesinsecondlanguageacquisition.Doctoraldissertation,StanfordUniversity.(Publishedin1979,AnnArbor,MI:UniversityMicrofilms.)

1979,Individualdifferencesinsecondlanguageacquisition.InC.J.FILLMORE,W.S.Y.WANG&D.KEMPLER(eds),IndividualDifferencesinLanguageAbilityandLanguageBehavior.NewYork:AcademicPress.

GARDNER,R.C.,1986,SocialPsychologyandSecondLanguageLearning:TheRoleofAttitudesandMotivation.London:EdwardArnold.

GARDNER,R.C.&LAMBERT,W.E.,1972,AttitudesandMotivationinSecondLanguageLearning.Rowley,MA:NewburyHouse.

GREEN,P.S.,1975,TheLanguageLaboratoryinSchool:TheYorkStudy.Edinburgh:OliverandBoyd.

HALLIDAY,M.A.K.,1970,Languagestructureandlanguagefunction.InJ.LYONS(ed),NewHorizonsinLinguistics.Harmondsworth:Penguin,140-165.

LONG,M.H.,1982,Doessecondlanguageinstructionmakeadifference?Areviewofresearch.TESOLQuarterly17(3),359-382.

MORROW,K.,1979,Communicativelanguagetesting:Revolutionorevolution?

InC.J.BRUMFIT,&K.JOHNSON(eds),TheCommunicativeApproachtoLanguageTeaching.Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress,143-157.

NAIMAN,N.,FRÖHLICH,M.,STERN,H.H.&TEDESCOA.,1978,TheGoodLanguageLearner.Toronto:OntarioInstituteforStudiesinEducation.

NELSON,K.,1973,Structureandstrategyinlearningtotalk.MonographsoftheSocietyforResearchinChildDevelopment38,(1-2).

1981,Individualdifferencesinlanguagedevelopment:implicationsfordevelopmentandlanguage.DevelopmentalPsychology17,170-187.

OLLER,J.W.(ed),1983,IssuesinLanguageTestingResearch.Rowley,MA:NewburyHouse.

PETERS,A.,1983,TheUnitsofLanguageAcquisition.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.

PETERSEN,C.R.&AL-HAID,A.,1976,ThedevelopmentoftheDefenseLanguageBattery(DLAB).EducationalandPsychologicalMeasurement36,369-380.

PIMSLEUR,P.,1966,ThePimsleurLanguageAptitudeBattery.NewYork:HarcourtBraceJovanovich.

1968,Languageaptitudetesting.InA.DAVIES(ed.),LanguageTestingSymposium:APsycholinguisticApproach.Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress,98-106.

REVES,P.,1983,WhatMakesaGoodLanguageLearner?Unpublisheddoctoraldissertation.HebrewUniversityofJerusalem.

SKEHAN,P.,1980a,Memory,languageaptitude,andsecondlanguageperformance.Polyglot2(3),53-70.

1980b,Languageaptitude:areview.EnglishLanguageResearchJournal1,85-101.

1982,Memoryandmotivationinlanguageaptitudetesting.Unpublisheddoctoraldissertation,UniversityofLondon.

1986,Clusteranalysisandtheidentificationoflearnertypes.InV.J.COOK(ed),ExperimentalApproachestoSecondLanguageLearning.Oxford:Pergamon,81-94.

SMITH,P.D.,1970,AComparisonoftheCognitiveandAudiolingualApproachestoForeignLanguageInstruction.Philadelphia:CentreforCurriculumDevelopment.

TIZARD,B.&HUGHES,M.,1984,YoungChildrenLearning.London:Fontana

WELLS,C.G.,1975,CodingManualfortheDescriptionofChildSpeechinConversationalContext(rev.ed.),UniversityofBristol,SchoolofEducation.

1981,LearningThroughInteraction.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.

1985,LanguageDevelopmentinthePre-schoolYears.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.

WELLS,C.G.,BARNES,S.B.&WELLS,J.,1985,LinguisticInfluencesonEducationalAttainment.FinalreporttotheDepartmentofEducationandScience,HomeandSchoolInfluencesonEducationalAttainmentProject.UniversityofBristol:DepartmentofEducationandScience,ElizabethHouse,YorkRoad,London.

WELLS,C.G.,HOMEWOOD,J.&OFFORD,D.,1983,HomeandSchoolInfluencesonEducationalAttainment.FinalReporttotheSpencerFoundation.UniversityofBristol.

WESCHE,M.B.,1982,Languageaptitudemeasuresinstreaming,

matchingstudentswithmethods,anddiagnosesoflearningproblems.InK.C.DILLER(ed.).IndividualDifferencesandUniversalsinLanguageLearningAptitude.Rowley,MA:NewburyHouse,119-154.

7InvestigationsintoClassroomDiscourseWERNERHÜLLEN

Thisarticleconsistsoftwoparts.ThefirstcontainssomegeneralassumptionsthatunderlieinvestigationsintoclassroomdiscoursethatsomecollaboratorsandIhavecarriedout.Asthepaper'slengthisratherlimited,suchassumptionscanonlybegivenasbarestatementswithoutdoingmuchinducingorproving.

Further,inthisfirstpart,anattemptwillbemadeatexplainingwhysuchinvestigationsintoclassroomdiscoursemayevenbesuperiortothemethodsofnaturallanguageacquisitionanalysisoutsidetheclassroom.Inthissectionasomewhatcriticalattitudetowardssomeofthecontemporaryundertakingsinthisfieldwillbecomevisible.Again,owingtothelimitationsoflength,noexamplescanbegiven.

Thesecondpartofthepaperconsistsofreportsaboutthreeprojectsthatrestontheassumptionsandfollowtheintentionsjustdescribed.

Ishallcontinuallydifferentiatebetweenacquisition,whichissupposedtobenatural,andlearning,whichissupposedtobeformalorartificial.Iwanttostressthatthisisonlyaconvenientsimplificationofterminologyforacomplexmatter.Itdoesnotmeanthatinmyopinionthereissomethinglikepureacquisitionorpurelearningastwoindependenttypesofinteriorisingalanguage.Onthecontrary,Ibelievethatweneverdotheonewithouttheother,thoughoneofthetwowaysisalwayspredominantincertainsituations.

Threestatementscanbemadeuponthenatureofteachingandlearning(Hüllen,1983):

1.Thereisaconnectionbetweenteachingandlearning;teachingtriggersoffthelearningprocessthoughwedonotknowinwhichdirectionandtowhatextent.Allexperiencepointstothefactthattheteachingconceptandthelearningresultareonlypartlyidentical.

2Learningisdependentonteaching(thisisaconsequenceofthefirststatement),butteachingisitselfalsodependentonlearning.Teachingmethodologymustbegearedtothemechanismoflearninginordertobeeffective.

3Thereisundoubtedlyamentalforcefortheprocessingoflanguagedatainman(thisisagainaconsequenceofthesecondstatement),butwedonotknowmuchaboutitsautonomywithreferencetootherfacultiesofthehumanmindandwithreferencetoenvironmentalfactors.Allexperiencepointstothefactthattherearevariouswaystolearnalanguageaccordingtovaryingcircumstancesbutthatsuchvariouswayshaveimportantelementsincommon.Themechanismoflearningmentionedaboveshowsitselfratherasanamoeba:itisundoubtedlythere,butitsshapevariesconstantlyanditis,thus,difficulttograsp.

Fortheanalysisofforeignlanguagelearningintheclassroomtheseexperiencesexcludetwologicallypossibleviewpoints:thattheteachercanjustdowhatheorshewantsintheclassroombecausethelearnerwillfollowhimorheranyway,andthattheteachercandonothingintheclassroombesidesprovidinginputbecausethelearnerwillnotfollowhimorheranyway.Neithertheteachernorthelearnerareautonomousinwhattheydowhenteachingandlearningisgoingon.Actually,nolearnerhaspresumablythoughtheorsheisautonomousand,whatismoreimportant,nointelligentteacherhasdonesoeither.Scholarswhothinktheymustarguewithteachersaboutthisengagethemselvesinanissueofonlyrhetoricalvalue.Thewholebusinessofforeignlanguageteachingmethodologyonlymakessenseifweassumethatlearningalanguageisaprocesswhichcanbeinfluenced,butnotadlibitum,anditisexactlythelimitedopennessoflearningtoteachwhichhastobeexplored(Felix,1982;Hüllen,1984).

Onewayofdoingthisisbyinvestigatingdiscourseintheclassroomwiththehelpofdiscourseanalysis(Sinclair&Coulthard,1975;Stubbs,1976).Thismeansusingadescriptivemodelwhichwasoriginallysetuptodescribecommunicationbycompetentspeakersratherthanbyteachersandlearners(Lörscher,1983).However,theboundariesbetweencommunicationandlanguagelearningareverydifficulttodraw.Anysortoflearningisconnectedwithfindingnewandappropriateexpressionsformeanings.Iflanguagecompetenceisourabilitytoproduceandtounderstandutteranceswhichwehaveneverproducedorheardbefore,competenceisindeedalsoourfacultytolearnalanguage.

Foreignlanguagelearningthenis,atleastonanabstractlevel,aspecialandparticularlydramaticcaseofwhatwealwaysdowhenwe

combinemeaningswiththemeanstoexpresstheminparticularcircumstances.(Itgoeswithoutsayingthatthereisalsoaconventionalisedformoflinguisticperformancewherenolearninginthesensementionedaboveisinvolved.)Thisstateofaffairsallowsustoapproachforeignlanguagelearningintheclassroomasaspecialkindofcommunication(Hüllen,1976;Hüllen&Jung.1979).

Duringthelasttwodecadesmuchprogresshasbeenmadeintheinvestigationofso-callednaturallanguageacquisitionofthefirstandofanyfurtherlanguage.Theresultsoftheseinvestigations(Dechert&Raupach,1980;Felix,1982;Nicholas&Meisel,1983;Wode,1981),thoughsometimescontradictoryandthusnotgenerallyaccepted,cannotandneednotbereportedhere.Ithasbecomecustomary(atleastintheFederalRepublicofGermany)totransferfindingsaboutnaturallanguageacquisitiontoforeignlanguagelearningandtolookatthelatterasaspecialcaseoftheformer(Klein,1984).Themaintopicofinvestigationinthiscontextisthatafixedsequentialorderoflearning(e.g.morphologicalitems)saidtobecharacteristicoflanguageacquisition,isalsosupposedtoshowupinforeignlanguagelearningorwoulddosoiftheteachingwasbetter.

Theattempttoanalyseforeignlanguagelearningintheclassroomwiththehelpofinsightsintolanguageacquisitionisalegitimateoneaslongasweareawareofthefactthatthereareelementsinthelearningsituationwhichnevershowupintheacquisitionsituationandwhich,thus,cannotbeadequatelyanalysedinthisway.Wecannotregardthecontextofclassroomlearningassomedebasedformofthecontextoflanguageacquisitionbutmustlookatitinitsownright.Forthatmatter,thesameholdstrueifwegointheoppositedirection,thatis,ifwetrytoelucidatelanguageacquisitionfromourinsightsintolanguagelearning.Thereisnoinherentreasonwhywehavetolookintolanguageacquisitionfirstand/orintolanguagelearningsecond.Whatwedointhisrespectisnotamatteroftruth,butofusefulness

fortheanalysis.

Themethodcurrentlywidelyacceptedforlanguageacquisitionresearchisanalysingproductsofperformanceandexplainingthemassymptomsofprocessesinthemind.Assuch,processesofahigherintellectualorder,towhichlanguageperformancealwaysbelongs,areinevitablygoal-oriented;suchagoalmustindeedbeobservedasabasisofourdataanalysis.Itiscommunicationwhichwouldbecalled'successful'byanativespeakerinagivensituation.Ouranalysis,then,triestoexplainproductsofperformanceassymptomsofprocesseswhichstriveatestablishingsuccessfulcommunication(Edmondson&House,1981;Kasper,1981).

Thisprocedurewhichowesalottogestaltpsychologywithoutadmittingit,leavessomedoubtastoitsreliance.First,itisessentiallyobserver-orientedandnotacquirer-oriented.Itreconstructsaprocessinthemindfromdatabygivingthemsenseaccordingtotheexperienceoftheobserver.Althoughtheobservermaybeveryparticularintryingtofindthespeaker'scommunicationgoal,itisnotatallclearwhetherheorsheactuallysucceeds.Theanalystmayverywellestablishhisorherownconceptionofsenseinthedatawhichdeviatesfromthespeaker's.Second,thisprocedurelacksameasurementforgeneralisation.Itisnotclearwhetheranutteranceistobelookeduponassignificantornot.Thereasonforthisisthatweusuallyworkwithdecontextualisedutteranceswhichdonotallowanyconclusionontheirpositionwithinthemomentarystateofcompetenceoftheacquirer.Third,thereisnounanimitywithinlanguageacquisitionresearchontheunitofinvestigation.Isitaword,asyntagma,anutteranceoranadjacencypair?Asmostdataareelicitedindialogue,thequestionofthedegreetowhichutterancesofacquirersarepredeterminedbytheelicitationsoftheresearchersarises.

Thesethreepointsofcriticismshowthatwehavenotasmuchcontroloverthemethodofouranalyticalworkandtheextenttowhichourmethoditselfdeterminesourfindingsaswewish.Classroomdiscourse,however,putsusinatleastaslightlybetterposition.Itismorecontrolledandpatternedthanotherdiscourseandcanbebrokendownintorelativelyclearunitsofcommunication.Thethreeproblematicalareascanbemoreeasily(though,ofcourse,nottotally)overcomepreciselybecauseoftheseformalqualities.Whenanalysingclassroomdiscourse,theanalystisequallydistantfromlearnerandteacher,thatis,fromthetwopartnersincommunication,andcanobservetheinterdependenceoftheirutterances.Asaunitofinvestigationtheexchangebetweenthetwooffersitselfquite

naturally.Ameasurementforgeneralisationcanbefoundwithinthefairlynarrowlimitsofclassroomcommunication,sinceagoalofcommunicativeactscan,asarule,beclearlyderivedfromthequestionsoftheelicitativeactsoftheteacher.

Thus,therearegoodmethodologicalreasonsforanalysingclassroomdiscourseastheoutwardappearanceofforeignlanguagelearninginitsownright,orevenfortryingtoelucidatenaturallanguageacquisitionfromit.Ofcourse,wemustkeepinmindthatwhatmakesclassroomdiscourseopentoanalysisisessentiallyanalienationfromnaturalundirectedformsofcommunication(Edmondson&House,1981),sothattherewillbealwaysthetaskofdeterminingthedifferencesbetweentheoneandtheother.Discourseanalysisgivesusthetoolstodothis.

Thethreeprojectsnowtobedescribedanalysedetailsofthelearner-teachercommunication,buttheydoitwithinthegeneralframeworkdescribedabove.Theyarethusmeanttoprovideafewmosaicstoneswhich,supplementedwithmanyothers,eventuallymayyieldapicture.

Project1(Hüllen&Löscher,1979)

Astretchofclassroomdiscoursewasanalysedinwhichtheteacher,withthehelpofquestions,triedtomaketheclassrepeatatextfromtheirbookintheparticularwayinwhichtheyrememberedit.Theobjectiveoftheinvestigationwastocomparehowfarlearnerutterancesdeviatedfromthemodeltext,whichmeansthatutteranceswhichwereidenticalwiththemodeltextcouldbeignored.TheanalyticaltoolwasanadaptationofSinclairandCoulthard'sdiscoursemodel.Fivehundredandeighty-twoutterances(acts)oflearnerswhowereintheirsecondandthirdyearofEnglishwereanalysed.

Threemainfactsbecamevisible:

1.Learnerspreferredsimplerstructurestothemodeltext,mostofallinpredicates,butalsoinnounphrasesandprepositionalphrases.Theywoulduseforexample,

-predicateswithoutmodalsinsteadofpredicateswithmodals;

-nounphraseswithoutpossessivepronounsinsteadofwithpossessivepronouns;

-directspeechinsteadofreportedspeech.Learnersalsopreferredthepresenttothepasttense.

2.Learnerspreferredsemanticallysimplerwordsthanthemodeltext.Theywouldforexample,exchange

-be+complementforaverblexeme;

-not+adjectiveforan(opposite)adjectivelexeme;

-lexemeswithgeneralmeaningforlexemeswithspecificmeaning.

3.Learnerstendedtocutthecohesivemodeltextintoslicesofindependentminiaturetextswithoutsentenceconnectors.Anexceptiontothiswassimplytheinsertionofand,whichappearedmorefrequentlythaninthemodeltextitself.(ExamplesaregivenintheAppendix.)

Allthreestrategiescanbeseenasheadinginthesamedirection.Theyproduceatextwhichconsistsofaseriesofbare,unmodifiedassertions.Or,toputitnegatively,theyproduceatextwithoutmodalandotherwisemodifyingelementsandwithoutexplicitlinksbetweensentences(apartfromand).

Keepinginmindthelimitationsofthedata,wecanhypothesisethatlearnershadasortofsemanticnucleusintheirperformance,consistingof,forexample,thesimpleverbphraseasapredicateinthepresenttense,whichtheyfellbackonintheirownutterances.Thisnucleuscouldbeenrichedbymorecomplexstructureslikethepasttenseandmodals.Thus,present,past,modals+present/pastobviouslymarkasequenceoflearningfromtheeasytothemoredifficultwhichthelearnersrunthroughintheoppositedirectionwhentheyfindthatsomecommunicativetaskistoodemandingforthem.

Othersyntacticnucleiarearticle+nounwhichcanbeenrichedbydemonstrativeandpossessivepronounsandadditionallybyadjectives.Prepositionalphrasestogetherwiththeenvelopingsentenceareobviouslyfelttobemorecomplexthantwoindependentsentences,becausetheyarere-wordedinthisway.Semantically,wecanhypothesisethattheunitofperformanceforverbsis,ofcourse,thelexeme,butthattheanalyticparaphrasebe+adjectiveisjustasfrequentandthusasfundamentalasthesimpleverblexemeandisindeedinmanycasesevenpreferred.Insentencestructure,embeddingscomeafterparatacticindependentsentences.

Thisprojectis,ofcourse,onlyoflimitedvalidity.Itshouldbeduplicatedinordertogaingeneralisabilityanditwillhavetobeextendedtomanykindsoftextsifeventuallyasequenceoflearningwithintheverbandthenounphraseistobeestablished.Criteriaotherthansyntacticandsemanticcomplexitywillhavetobeobserved,likecontrastiveness.Inthecasedescribeditwasobservedthatthechoiceoflexemes,forexample,wasadditionallyguidedbycontrastiveinfluences,butitdidnotbecomeclearwhichwasstronger,contrastiveinfluenceorthequestforsimplicity.Insyntacticstructuresnocontrastivedeviationswerefound.

Project2(Hüllen,1982)

Astretchofclassroomdiscoursewasanalysedwithreferencetoimpromptuelementsusedinitbyteachersandbylearners(Enkvist,1982).Suchelementsaremarkedbyspontaneityenactedinrealtime.Itmay,therefore,bedoubtfulwhethertheyoccuratallinclassroomdiscourse,whoseoutstandingfeatureisformalisationandpredeterminedpattern.

Initsmosttypicalform,discourseinaforeignlanguageclassconsistsofanelicitationutteredbytheteacherandaresponseutteredbyapupilwhichisfollowedbyanotherevaluativeutterancebytheteacher(Lörscher,1983).Asarule,learnersinaclassknowthekindofresponsetheyare

expectedtogive(though,ofcourse,theysometimesdonotknowtheresponseitself).Teacherselicittheirlearners'responsesnormallyinafairlycalculatedandtextdependentway.Sothereseemstobenothingimpromptuhere.Butthefollow-uputterances,whichexpresstheteacher'sevaluationofthelearner'sperformance,aredifferent.Theyconsistofwordslikeyes,right,no,okay,wrong,well,ah,mhmand/ornon-verbalsignslikeshakingornoddingone'shead,smiling.brow-beatingetc.Inonestretchof150actsthereoccurred43suchevaluatives,sometimeschainedtogether(yes,right,okay).

Thefollow-upsastheconcludingthirdpartofteacher-learnerexchangesareveryimpromptuandtheyarealsoheavilydominatedbythesourcelanguage,whichinthiscasewasGerman.Yes/ja,right/richtig,wrong/falsch,no/nein,perhaps/vielleichtoccurparticularlyoftenwithyesholdingtheabsoluterecord.ThisinterferencefromGermanalsoaccountsforthetotalabsenceofexpressionslikefine,Isee,well-done,goodgirl.orothers.SometimeseventeacherswhousuallymakeapointofconductingtheentireconversationinEnglishwillfallbackonGermaninterjectionslikeja,ach,aha.Needlesstosay,theaccompanyingnon-verbalsignsareallGerman.

Asthesequenceelicitation/response/evaluativeisthenormalexchangeunitinclassroomdiscourse,itslastmember,theevaluative,gainsparticularimportance.Itisthesub-unitofdiscoursewhichleadstothenextexchangeunit.Itisthepointinclassroomdiscoursewhereastepforwardismadeandwhich,therefore,callsforthespecialattentionofteacherandlearneralike.Thereisoftenaglidebetweenthisfollow-upandthenextelicitationwhichmayberealisedasaplanningpause(emptyorfilled),andcontainsmorefalsestarts,repetitionsandinterjectionsthanisusual.Mostfrequentisagainyes.(ExamplesaregivenintheAppendix.)

Follow-uputterancestogetherwiththeseglidesserveatleastfourfunctions:

1.Theyareplanningspansfortheteacher,whomustthinkofwhattodonext.

2.Theyarelubricantsinthediscourse,avoidingembarrassinggapsofsilence.

3.Theygivereinforcingorcorrectinginformationtothelearner.

4.Theymanipulatethelearner'sattention.

Thefrequencyandobviousfunctionalloadofsuchelementsinthelanguageofteachershasitsobviouscounterpartintheconspicuousabsenceoftheminthelanguageoflearners.Thoughthereareoccasionalhesitationphenomenaandfalsestarts,theyoccurmuchlessfrequently.Theproblemishowtoaccountforthisstateofaffairs.

Impromptuelementsobviouslysignalplanningphaseswhichprecedetherealisationofspeech.Inthesesub-unitstheteacherisbusyreinforcingthelearnerandplanningthenextexchangeatthesametime;therefore,thisisthemomentwhenhisorherlinguisticegoisreallyatwork,somuchsothatitdoesnotcontrolitselfbututtersuncontrolledandstructurallyloosepiecesoflanguage.Thisalsoexplainswhythesourcelanguageintrudesmorethanitusuallydoesatsuchmoments.Thestressoftheplanningtaskaccountsforthefactthatthespeakerisdominatedbyutteranceswhichheorsheknowsfromhisorhermothertongue.

Theabsenceofsuchimpromptuelementsinthelanguageoflearnerssignalsthattheydonotgothroughrealplanningphasesatall,butthattheelicitationoftheteachertriggersaperformativeactbygoingbacktosomeperformanceproductstoredinthemind.Whatlearnersproduceinsuchmomentsisnotcreativelyplannedspeechbutrememberedorcodedspeech.

Theseobservationscanleadtoatleasttwoquiteimportantconsequences:

1.Ifthecreativeplanningofone'sownspeechissupposedtobeanimportantactinlanguagelearning,becauseitobviouslyisanimportantactintheperformanceofnativespeakers,thelearnersshouldhaveachanceofgoingthroughit.Makingittooeasyforlearnersmaybekeepingthemfromanimportantexercise(Hüllen,1983).

2.Mothertongueinterferenceisnotsomuchduetothesimilaritiesofthesystems,butdependsonthestrainofthemoment,onthemental'depth'inwhichthespeechactiscreatedbythespeaker.Absenceofsuchinterference,therefore,canindeedmeanthatsomebodyisabletoplanhisorherutterancesintheforeignlanguagethathisorhercompetenceindeedequalsthatofanativespeaker.Itcan,however,

alsomeanthataspeakerdoesnotplanhisorherutterancesatallbutjustverbalisespremeditatedtexts.

Project3(Hüllen&Lorscher

*,1979;Lörscher,1983)

Thedescriptionofclassroomdiscourseallowsustoidentifycertaintypesofactsandtofindoutwhichquantitativeshareeachofthemoccupiesinthewholediscourse.Suchactsareforexample,

-phaticwithvariousfunctionslikeplanningphasesorback-channelcomments;

topicreferringtothesubject/topicunderdiscussion;

-linguisticreferringtothelanguageitself,thatis,itsmeaningoritsformalandpragmaticcorrectness;

-organisingwiththefunctionsofopeningandclosingdiscourseandofallocatingturns;

-correcting(withobviousfunctions);

-commentingwhichoftenoverlapswithcorrectingacts;

-evaluatingwiththefourfunctionsmentionedabove;

-repeatingwhichseemstobeparticularlyclassroomspecific;

-asidewithnorelationtotheclassroomdiscourse.

Thedistributionofsuchactsinclassroomdiscourseisofcourseveryuneven.Tobeginwith,75%ofallutterancescomefromtheteacher;onlytheremaining25%fromthelearners.Learnersutterveryfewphaticandlinguisticactsthesearealmostentirelytheteacher'sandnoorganisingactsatall.Topicalactscomprisethebulkofwhatthelearnerssay.Accordingtothiswayofgrouping,thelearners'speechintheclassroomisuniformwhencomparedtotheteacher'sspeech,butalsowhencomparedtoeverydaydiscourse.Furthermore,teachersinstigateinitiativeandelicitativeactsaswellascommentingandevaluativeones,thatisfollow-ups,whereaslearnersarelimitedtoresponsiveandreactiveacts.

Suchfindingsshould,ofcourse,notbeusedforcriticisingteachersandtheirroleinclass.Theyshouldbetakenasaninsightintothediversityofspeechactsincommunicationforwhichlearnersmustbeprepared.Withtheexceptionperhapsofrepeatingacts,alltheothersalsooccurineverydaydialogueandmustbemasteredeventuallybyourlearners,althoughindifferentwordingandrhetoricalpatterns,

sincepartnersincommunicationdonotconfronteachotherinteacherandlearnerroles.Fromthisquantifyinganalysis,thealienatingcharacterofclassroomdiscoursecanindeedbemadeclear;somethingwhichmustsomehowbeovercomebyteachingmethodology.

Thethreeprojectsdescribedenterthewideareaofinvestigationsintoclassroomdiscourseatquitedifferentpoints.Thefirstisdevotedtolearningsequencesforsyntacticandsemanticrules,thesecondtoteacherspeechplanningunderthespecialaspectofcontrastiveness,thethirdtotherhetoricaldistributionofspeechactsbetweenteacherandlearners.Allthreeprojectsarcofapreliminarycharacterandbegformuchmoreintensiveresearch.

Thereareofcourseothertopicstobeobserved,forexample,communicationstrategiesinaforeignlanguage,forwhichnopilotstudycouldbegiven(Faerch&Kasper,1983).Alltheseinvestigationstreatthelearningprocessessentiallyasaprocessofcommunication.Learningis

indeedcommunicatingunderspecialcircumstancesandwithspecialaims.Theoutwardappearanceofcommunication,however,isdiscourse.

Appendix

Project1

1. begintolaugh®laugh

couldnotbelieve®didnotbelieve

2.1hecame®hewasat

thebedmeasured®thebedwas...long

2.2mad®notquiteright

straight®notcrooked

2.3ask®say

crash®flyagainst

walked®went

3. S(whenhewaslisteningtosomemusic)®Heheardmusic+S

Project2

T: YourhomeworkfortodaywastofindoutalltheidiomsorexpressionsthathavetodowithsportandfindanequivalentinplainEnglish.Canwegothroughthisnow.(5sec)

Yes.Angela

L: Ithinkthefirstidiomfromsportis'sittinginthesame

boat'andinmodernEnglishIwouldsay,eh,'weareallinthesamesituation.

T: Right.

Weareallinthesamesituation.

Good.

T: Doesanybodyrememberthetitleofthestory?

Bert.

L: Herbert,thehumanradio.

T: Yes,okay.

Now,whowasHerbert?

Doyourememberanythingabouthim?

Yes,pleaseGuido.

L: Herbertwasaboy...

T: mhm

L: inEngland...

T: mhm

L:andhehave,haveagoodmother.

T:Stop,stop,therewasamistake.

L:hasagoodmother.

T:Aha,willyoupleaserepeatthesentence.

L:Hehasagoodmother.

T:Aha,butyousaid,hewasinEngland.Soyoumustusethepasttenseinthesecondpartofyoursentenceaswell.

L:Hewasagoodboyand...

T:Let'sseeifwecanrememberthethingsthatMaryputonthesandcastlestomakethemlooknice.

Whatwerethey?Thethingssheputonthesandcastles...

Yes,Judy.

L:Itwasamushle.

T:What?Isthatright?

Eh,Steven.

L:shell.

T:Ashell,that'stheEnglishword,isn'tit?

Shell,that'sright.Okay.

Isaidthethingssheputso...

[NVnomination]

L:shells.

T:Theywereshells.

Okay.

Therightsentence,listen.

ThethingsMaryputonhersandcastleswereshells.

ThethingsMaryputonhersandcastleswereshells.

Everyone.

Project3

Teacher % Learner %

phatic 55 8.97 3 1.97

topic 7 1.14 5 3.29

linguistic 119 19.41 70 46.05

aside 12 1.96 9 5.92

organising 195 31.81 28 18.42

correcting 6 0.98 27 17.76

commenting 47 7.67 19 12.50

evaluative 80 13.05 0 0

repeating 58 9.46 19 12.50

References

DECHERT,H.W.&RAUPACH,M.(eds),1980,TowardsaCrosslinguisticAssessmentofSpeechProduction.Frankfurt:Lang.

EDMONDSON,W.&HOUSE,J.,1981,Let'sTalkandTalkAboutIt.Munchen:Urban&Schwarzenberg.

ENKVIST,N.E.(ed),1982,ImpromptuSpeech:ASymposium.Åbo:ÅboAkademi.

FAERCH,C.&KASPER,G.,1983,StrategiesinInterlanguageCommunication.London:Longman.

FELIX,S.W.,1982,PsycholinguistischeAspektedesZweitsprachenerwerbs.Tübingen:Narr.

HÜLLEN,W.,1976,FremdsprachendidaktikundlinguistischePragmatik.DieNeuerenSprachen75,217-229.

1982,Observationsrelatedtoimpromptuelementsinclassroomdiscourseandtothefunctionofsuchelementsforforeignlanguageteachingandlearning.InN.E.ENKVIST(ed),ImpromptuSpeech:ASymposium.Åbo:Åbo:Akademi,207-219.

1983,Onsomedidacticconsequencesfrominsightsintothemechanismoflanguageacquisitionandlanguagelearning.InS.W.FELIX&H.WODE(eds),LanguageDevelopmentattheCrossroads.Tübingen:Narr,145-150.

1984,StreitbareAnmerkungenzuS.W.Felix'PsycholinguistischeAspektedesZweitsprachenerwerbs',StudiumLinguistik15,102-109.

HÜLLEN,W.&JUNG,L.,1979,SprachstrukturundSpracherwerb.Düsseldorf:BagelundFranke.

HÜLLEN,W.&LORSCHER,W.,1979,Lehrbuch,Lernerund

Unterrichtsdiskurs.Unterrichtswissenschaft4,313-326.

KASPER,G.,1981,PragmatischeAspekteinderInterimsprache.Tubingen:Narr.

KLEIN,W.,1984,Zweitsprachenerwerb.EineEinfuhrung.Konigstein/Ts.:Athenäum.

LÖRSCHER,W.,1983,LinguistischeBeschreibungundAnalysevonFremdsprachenunterrichtalsDiskurs.Tübingen:Narr.

NICHOLAS,H.&MEISEL.,J.,1983,Secondlanguageacquisition:Thestateoftheart.InS.W.FELIX&H.WODE(eds),LanguageDevelopmentattheCrossroads.Tübingen:Narr.

SINCLAIR,J.McH.&COULTHARD,M.,1975,TowardsanAnalysisofDiscourse:TheEnglishUsedbyTeachersandPupils.London:OxfordUniversityPress.

STUBBS,M.,1976,Language,SchoolsandClassrooms.London:Methuen.

WODE,H.,1981,LearningaSecondLanguage:Vol.I.AnIntegratedViewofLanguageAcquisition.Tübingen:Narr.

8TheLinguisticsofEnunciativeOperationsandSecondLanguageLearningDanielleBailly

Introduction

Itisourbasicassumptionthatthetheoryofenunciativeoperations(TEO),developedbyAntoineCulioli,representsapowerfulmodelforthestructuringofL2inputandthepresentationofmetalinguisticexplanationsinL1aboutL2tostudentsintutoredsecondlanguageacquisition.ThepreciseframeworkwithinwhichwehaveworkedistheteachingofEnglishasaforeignlanguagetoFrench11-year-oldlearners.

1Theefficiencyoftheoreticallinguisticsinthiscontextappearstobethreefold:

1.Itseemstoprovidecoherentcriteriafortheselectionanddelimitationofsampleswhichareconsideredtobefundamentalandthussuitableforteachingmaterial.IfL1andL2maybeassumedastwospecificmodesorsetsoftraceswhichhumansubjectsusetoexpressgeneralisablelanguageoperations,linguisticsmayprovidethetheoreticalframeworktodescribesourceandtargetlanguages,asbeingidenticalindepthanddifferentonthesurface.Weexpectthisprocedureoftheselectionoflinguisticessentialscommontobothtobeanencouragingwayforthemodellingofasystemofrepresentationsthatactuallymapssubjects'realspeakingactivities.

2.Linguisticsenablesthedidacticiantotransposehisorher

theoreticalknowledgeintoready-for-usepedagogicalmaterialwithoutdisregardingthespecificlinguisticstatusofsuchatransposition.Whereas,forinstance,naturalcommunicationisconstrainedbygenuinespatio-temporal,modal,referential/textualphenomena,thatistosay,arealhere-and-nowdiscourseanchoringforagivensetofcommunicationpartners,oraretraceablenarrativestatusfora

giventext,L2comprehension/productionintheclassroomisdifferentfromthis,remainscommunicativelynon-functionalandsimulative.Thisbiasesanycommunicationintheclassroom,andverbalinteractioninparticular,andentailsparticularmodalshiftsanddeterminativeblurrings.Itisthetaskofthelinguisttoanalysethem.

3.Finally,linguisticshelpsthedidacticiantotakeintoaccounttwokindsofcomplementaryrequirementsofthematerialaswellasofthestrategies:first,theclassicalL1-L2interference,asforinstance,inthecaseoftheaspectualsystemforaFrenchmanlearningEnglishasaforeignlanguageandsecond,thedevelopmentalandconceptualdifficultiesinherentintheapprehensionofcertainlinguisticnotions,asinthecaseoftermslikecomparison,generic,hypothesis,andsoforth.

Sincetheraisingoflearners'consciousnessoflinguisticfunctioningisassumedtofacilitatetheirL2-acquisitiontogetherwithintensivepractice,ofcourseitistheappliedlinguist'stasktomaterialisealternativechoicesinconcreteexperiments.Letusconcentrateontwopedagogicaldeviceswhicharetypicalforourapproach:

(a)concerningthearrangementandpresentationofteachingmaterial:awellstructuredgrammaticalprogression,and

(b)concerningthesequencesofteaching:aconceptualisationphase,conceivedofasastrategicelementintheteachingprocess.

Grammaticalprogressionlinkseachuniquemicro-systeminthesequenceofthetotalcourse(forinstance,thetenses,thedeterminers,andsoon)totheothermicro-systemsbothinacommunicativelyplausibleandlinguisticallycoherentway.Theconceptualisationphasecoversaveryshortperiodoftime,infactabouttwentyminutesaweekinatotaloffourhours'teaching.ItincludesindividualandcollectivereflectionontheL2intheL1.Thisphasewebelievetobe

originalinourconcept.Itdiffersfromthetraditionalgrammarlessonaswellasfromthecommunicativeapproach,currentlypractisedinlanguageteaching.Itaimsatmakinglearnersawareoflanguageoperationssuchaslocation,determination,quantification.Themetalinguisticexplanationsgiventothemfocusonthecognitiveandculturalsymbolisationthroughlanguage(s).LearnersarethuslednotonlytofollowtheorganisationofL2normsassuchandasdistinctivefromtheirL1,butalsotoexpresstheirowninterlanguageactivities.TheytesttheirindividualhypothesesonL2functioning;theyevaluatethedegreeofaccuracyoftheirownandothers'productions.Suchmetalinguisticreasoningdependsonaneffortofjustificationandasearchforstructuralaswellascommunicativecoherencecriteria.

Asfortheteacher,thisapproachrequirestheuseofasuitablemetalanguage;heorshewillclassifyandlabeltextunitsandtextarrangementsandspecifytheminrelationtotheclassesofextralinguisticsituationstheycorrespondwith.Itisthelearner'staskthentointernalisesuchconceptsastime-tenserelationshipmodality,voice,determination,deixisandanaphoryaslinkedtotopologicalabstractlocationselaboratedfromagivendiscourseorigin.ThusthelearneristrainednotonlytoidentifyandcombineelementsofsurfaceL2semiosis,buttorecognisetheinvisiblelanguageinvariantsthatliebehindthem.Incourseoftimeheorshemustincreasinglybecomeawareofsuchspeaker-addresseetypesofrelationshipsandbeabletodefinesuchthoughtexperiencesbehindtheexperimentalspeechsituations.Andbehindthelexicaldiversityheorsheislikelytobeconfrontedwith,asinglemeaningvalueinagivencontextandenvironmentwillbeevident,evenifthemarker(s)usedarepotentiallypolysemic.Technically,themetalinguisticdevicesappliedintheclassroomincludedenominations,manipulations,comparisons,representations,simulationsinvolvingL2.Assuch,thesedevicesareclassical,buttheircontentismadeasrigorous,linguisticallyspeaking,aspossible.Suchaconceptionoflinguisticspreventsusfromseparatingsyntaxandsemantics,formalgrammarorrulesandthepragmaticcommunicativefunctiontheyhave.InproceedingtowardnearnativeL2competence,learnersaremeantto'decentre'

2themselvesinagraduallyincreasingmetalinguisticawareness,withouteverbeingabletobeexpertsinlinguistics.Theteacher,asfarashisorherpartisconcerned,shouldstrivetobeafullycompetentlinguist,ifnotaninventor.

Forthesecondlanguageacquisition(SLA)researcheritisextremelyvaluabletobecomeawareofmetalinguisticandepilinguisticdata,3

especiallyelicitedduringthemaieuticdialoguewhichwecallconceptualisationphase.Theyprovidedeepinsightintotheclassificatoryandargumentativeactivitiesofsecondlanguagelearnersandcontributetremendouslytoabetterunderstandingofthesalientorvulnerableaspectsofsecondlanguageacquisition.Suchakindofresearchisnecessarilymultidisciplinaryandcomplex.Variousmethodologiesmustindeedcombineinsuchimplicatedexperiments,theobjectunderstudyitselfbeingheterogeneousandvariable.Therefore,weasSLAresearchersmustborrowourtoolsnotonlyfromtheoreticallinguisticsbutalsofrompsycholinguistics,psychology,sociolinguistics,institutionalanalysis,4theeducationalsciences,andsoon.Inlanguagepedagogywemayevenhavetocreatemorethanwecanborrow.

Weshallnowexaminemorecloselythelinguisticsofenunciativeoperations.5

Thetheoryofenunciativeoperations(TEO)isbothaformaltheoryandadescriptivetheoryofthesingularityofspeechofthehumansubjectasavariablespeaker.Formalstandsforametalinguisticsystemofrepresentationaccordingtowhichnumeroussetsofvariableoccurrencesoftextsmaybeanalysed,inordertoextractafewhypothesisedabstractinvariantsfromthem.Conversely,itservestopredictandaccountforsurfaceformsandvaluesabovethesedeepinvariants.Differentlevelsofunitsandrelationsarethushypotheticallyrevealedandreconstructed.

Atthemostfundamentallevelofgenerallanguageactivity,thelinguistfindsasetofprimitivenotions.Theyconveysemanticandlogicalvalue;theyareorderedinpresyntacticrelationsaccordingtoreferentialpropertiessuchasdegreeofanimacy,intentionality,agentiveness,modesofunfoldingofevents,kindsofintrinsicdeterminationandrelatedness,andsoon.Onthisbasis,predicativerelations,linkedtosyntacticstructuresareproduced/recognisedbyspeakingsubjectsandreconstructedbythelinguist.Theserelationsaredependentontheruleswhichspecifyagivenlanguage,includingthemorpho-syntacticandlexicalcompatibilityrequirements.Thelinguistlastlydistinguishestheenunciativerelationswhichaccountforthespeaker'sownlocationandviewpointonreality:hisorherpersonalandinterpersonaljudgementsandadjustments,andsoforth.

Thismethodoflinguistictheorisingmaybeillustratedbythefollowingnotation

Itmeansthat,foragivenspeaker

1.whoischaracterisedbyhisorheremunciativecoordinates(whichareexpressedwiththeroundedletters)

(a) .symbolisinghisorherenunciativesituation,

(b) symbolisingoneormoreactants(speaker(s)/hearer(s))inthediscourse,and

(c) :symbolisinganenunciativespace/timeanchoringfortheutterance;

2.thereisanutterance,symbolisedbythecompleteformula,whichisthetraceoflocationoperations,performedbyalocationoperatorÎandthelocationofapredicativecontent<arb>,wherebyastandsfortheprimitivesourceelements,bforthetargetelements,andrfortherelator.Thispredicativelocationismodalisedandthematisedenunciativelybythespeaker'srelatingofhisorherenunciativecoordinatesto

(a)whatheorsheperceivesasthethemeSoftheutteranceand

(b)thatwhichcontributestoitslocationT.

Thatistosay,theoveralltextualcontentorganisestheelements<arb>,S,andT,startingfromandaccordingtotheoriginalanchorageimposedbytheextralinguisticelements , , ,andÎ.If,forinstance,aspeakeridentifiesapredicativecontentwithhisorherownsituationsothatthetimeofspeakingcoincideswiththepresenttimeanddeicticreferenceintheutterance,thenthepresentprogressivewillexpressthespeaker'sproximitytothemessagecontent:

(1)Look!Johniseatinganapple[now].

Thisproximityappearsintheco-referencewiththeaddressee'Look!',aswell.InthisexampleV+-inginthepresenttenseconveysa /Trelationshipofthetype:Tidenticalwith ,orTÎ ,or:samevalueformessageasspeaker'ssituationisidenticalorassociatedwithpredication<arb>.Inthissameexampletherelationship /Sisofthekinddifferentfrom,as'John'referstoathirdperson,whoistalkedabout,andthespeakerbeingthefirstpersontalkingtoanaddressee,thesecondperson(SÏ ).

Letusnowtakeanexampleofadifferenttype:

(2)Menaremortal.

Inthisgenericutterancenoapparentorspecifiedspeakertakeschargeofthecontent;theepsilonlocationisoftheabsenceofrelationtypebetweenspeakerandpredicativereference<formen,tobemortal>.Inturn,both /Sand relationshipsareofthesameimpersonalandgeneraltype,thespeakerdeliberatelychoosingtoappearuninvolved.

Thecommunicativeaspectofthetheory,howeverformalitmaybe,canbeseenfromthissimplifiedexample.Itdoesindeedgiveaprecisedescriptionofthevariablelanguageactivityofhumanbeings(andnotanidealisationofanabstractspeaker/hearer).Itrather

attemptstospecifytheuniqueconditionsofproduction/comprehensionforeachanalysedutterance.Thisimpliestheconsiderationofitsspace/timeandnotionaldiscourseuniverse,beitpragmaticallyrealorfictitious.Thismayconcernsimpledeixis,theinclusionofextralinguisticostensiveororientationalfoundationsofspeech,ormorecomplexconstructionswhichdisclosethespeaker'sparaphrasticmodulationsonagivenmatrix,dependingontheirenunciativeviewpoint.

Wemay,forexample,comparethefollowingtwosentences:

(3)(a)Athiefstolethreepaintingsfromthemuseum.

(b)Threepaintingswerestolenfromamuseum(byathief).

Fromasemanticperspectivethesetwosentencesareequivalent.Fromanenunciativeperspectivetheyarenot.Normallyonewouldratherbeinclinedtochoosethesecondversioninordertofocusontheobject(Threepaintings...).

Thetheorymustaccountforrhetorical,stylistic,orargumentativevariation,notonlysyntacticallythroughactiveversuspassiveconstructions,butalsobyestablishingalinkbetweensomespeakerperspectiveandsomeequivalentlinguisticdevice.Intheprecedingexample(3)(b)communicativeemphasisandsymbolicfocusthusconvergetowardaninanimategoal(thepaintings),whichbecomesthesurfacegrammaticalsubject.Morpho-syntacticchoicesbetweentwostructures,thesecond,apassivestructure,beingderivedfromthefirstone,anactivestructure,aresymbolicforsubjective,orforsociallycoded,speakingperspectives.

6

Thesamekindofsymbolicperspectivemaybeseenonaradicallydifferentsemiosis,inthecoreoftheTEOtreatmentofasemanticitemsuchasthelexemeby,forinstance.Inthiscasewearedealingwithonemarkeronly,butahighlypolysemicone.Thequestioniswhatkindofrelationshipmayconnectthevariousshadesofitsmeaning,hownativespeakersproduceandperceivethemintheirspeechcommunity,andhowtheyareindividuallycapableofdifferentiatingandinterpretingeachparticularmeaningvalue,howeverspecificandsingularitmaybeinlightofthecontextinwhichitoccurs.By,forinstance,asweknow,canconveymanydifferentmeanings,suchasagent,means,ormanner.Itmayalsomeanduring(Hetravelledbynight.)orfororwith(It'sallrightbyhim.).Allthesedifferentshadesofmeaningmaybederivedfromoneelementarycomponentwhosesignificanceisdisclosedinsentencessuchas

(4)(a)Thehousewaslocateddownbytheriverside.

inwhichthephrase'downbytheriverside'meansnextto(equivalenttotheGermanbei).Thisformalandsemanticnuclearunitbasicallymeansnear,adjacentto,accompanyingtheneighbouringelementwithadominatedstatusrelatedtothatelement.Etymologywillconfirmthisinterpretation.Fromthisprimitiveaccompaniment-operationwemay,forinstance,deriveanagent-complement-value,forintheagent-action-goalrelationinapassivesentencewiththeconcludingformulabyx,theagentcomplementistogetherwiththeaffectedgoalanddominatedbyit,asforexamplein

(4)(b)Thehousewasdecoratedbythechildren.

Actually,wethusfindacomparablekindoflocationoperationin4(a)aswellasin4(b),althoughthemeaningfulconstructin4(b)whereitis

symbolicallymetaphorisedfrom4(a)ismoreelaborated.Inbothcasesnon-salientelements

(4)(a)...theriverside.

and

(4)(b)...thechildren.

arereferredtoothercognitivelymoresalientelements

(4)(a)Thehousewaslocated

and

(4)(b)Thehousewasdecorated...

Similarly,thesentence

(5)Itisallrightbyhim

expressestopologicalapproximationwiththederivedmeaningeffectofrelatednessorconcernment.'Him'actsbothasaborderandasalocatedorcomparativeelement.'Itisallright'actsasalocatororreferentialpointsinceitistheelementthatisstatedandqualified.

Apsycholinguisticcorroborationofthelocator/locatedelementordominant/dominateddissymmetryintheaccompanimentoperationmaybe,forinstance,foundinthephrases

(6)(a)adoorwithalock

or

(b)anapartmentwithakitchen

ascontrastedwith

*alockwithadoor

or

*akitchenwithanapartment.

Whatisenunciativeintheseexamplesisnotaspeaker'schoicebetweentwoformal,structuralarrangementstowhichheorsheattributessymbolicvalue,butaspeaker'ssymbolicactivitywiththehelpofaformalsign,namelythemarkersbyorwith,whichcorrespondtoanaccompanimentoperationandproducemetaphoricallyaseriesofcontext-sensitivemeanings.

Syntacticandmorpho-semanticmodulationsrepresentanintermediatekindofprocedure.Letus,forinstance,considerthetwofollowingsentences:

(7)(a)I'vebeenwriting(andwriting)allmorning.

(b)I'vewrittenalotoflettersthismorning.

Thetenseinbothsentencesisthesame(presentperfect),but7(a)iscontinuousand7(b)isnot(whichis,bytheway,ratherdifficultforaFrenchlearnerofEnglish).Theonlyotherdifferencesare:in7(a),absenceofanobject,emphasisontheprocess,theuseofatemporalquantifierexpressedthrougha'scanning'operation:all;in7(b)presenceofaquantifiedobject,theestablishmentofdeicticandpunctualtemporalreference:this.Inaway,thespeakerhashadanenunciativechoicebetweentwowaysofreferringtothesame'objective'temporalreality;however,theemphasisonaverylongprocessin7(a)orthe'finalassessment'ofasituationin7(b)isdifferent.Thespeaker'sperspectivecanbeanalysedthroughatopologicalapproachofaspect:in7(a)the'open'continuousaspectV+ingaccountsforthespeaker'smodalimplicationtowardtheeventrelated,stillinexistenceatthetimeofspeaking;in7(b),the'closed'non-continuousaspectsignalsthespeaker'smutative-resultativerupturebetweenpastandpresent.Butinbothcases,thespeakerhasusedtheformalcategoryofaspect(continuityorrupture),togetherwithamorpho-syntacticdevice(atense),evaluativesemantemes(all,alotof),andintonationpatternstoconstructsymbolicallyhisorherfeelings.Howeverdiversetheconstructionsmaybe,thetheorymodelsabstractdistances,orchanges,ordeformations,andspecifiestheminrelationshipwithastartingpoint:thespeaker'senunciativecoordinates,or,morebroadly,ahumanbeing'slocativeevaluation(quantification/qualificationdeterminativecriteria)oftheelementsoftheworldheorshechoosestoreferto.

Thistypeofpsychogeneticinterpretationoflinguisticmarkersmayberelevantforthestudyofchildspeechdevelopment.Ifoneconsiderslanguagetracesascompoundsoffundamentalvalues,itis

enlighteningtoknow,forinstance,thataneight-year-oldchildwasfoundtoinventthedeconstructedandlogicallysimplerphrase:justeque(justthat)toexpresssauf(except)whichhewasnotabletomasteryet(cf.Franckel,1984.personalcommunication).

Inthissamelineofthought,pragmaticscanbetreatedasasymbolicalnetworkofconstructedmeanings,ahyper-syntax,sotospeak.Indeed,relationshipsbetweenhumanbeingscanbeformalisedandassumedtocorrespondtoasetoflanguagerules.Forinstance,thepsychologicalandsocialextralinguisticdominancerelationshipsbetweenpeoplecanbelinguisticallyexpressedthroughthemodalitysystem(deontic/request,desiderative/will,andsoon).Notonlyspeakingsituations,butpartsofhumaninteractionandofthestatusoftheobjectsoftheworldcanfindtheirsemiotic,transferredechowithinlanguage.

InconclusionofthisverysuperficialsurveyofTEO,consideredasbothaformalandcommunicativetheory,twoaspectswhicharegenerallyantithetic,letusthenoutlineoneofitsmainepistemologicalcharacteristics.Althoughconceivedasamultilevelsetofheterogeneousoperations,partlysemantic,morpho-andphono-syntactic,butalsocognitive,semiotic,sociocultural,andsoon,thistheoryhypothesisesoperationsaslinkedtoeachotherthroughanendogenouscomplexification.Thisrevealsapost-Piagetianconstructivistpsycholinguisticapproachtolinguisticcausality:thatis,aprecisecognitiveconceptionofsymbolicactivitydisplayedthroughlanguage.Fromdeeppreconstructstofirstoccurrencesofnotionaldomainsandmoreelaboratedconstructionsinsurfacestructures,asortofhistoryofutterancescanthenbetracedbackbythelinguist,whichiscomposedofacontinuousseriesofarticulateddeterminativeandlocativeacts.Thiswholeprocessfromemergencetorealisationthusappearstobelogicallyunified,thetheoryitselfbeingahighlymetalinguisticreflectionofspeakers'languageproductionasasophisticatedbutnaturalbehaviour.

7Whtwehavebeenlookingforandbelievetohavefoundinthetheoryofenunciativeoperationsisnotonlyapowerfulexplanationoftherealityoflanguageandofinterlanguagephenomena,butalsoatheoreticalapproachthatiscompatiblewithwhatisknownoflearners'wayofreasoningandproblem-solvingstrategiesingeneral.

Experiment8

Methodology

WehaveobservedsomeofthelinguisticandcognitivestrategiesemployedbyFrenchlearnersacquiringEnglish,withinthetheoreticalframeworkofTEO.ThedidacticsettingwasanEnglishclassof

twelveandthirteenyearoldchildreninaParisiansuburb.Itwasobservedandtape-recordedforanentireyear.TheclassroomteacherhadbeentrainedinTEOandknewhowtoadaptittothepedagogicalsituation.Asstatedabove,theteachingmaterialincludedgrammaticalprogressionandconceptualisationphases.Therecordingsprovideddatawhichweanalysedfromdifferentpointsofview.

DescriptionofData

Thetaperecordingsprovideddatathatwereclassifiedaccordingtodifferentkindsofepilinguistic(spontaneous,intuitional,andsemi-conscious)

andmetalinguistic(conscious,formallyverbalised,andcontrolled)processesrelatedtoL2learningactivity.Particularlyinvestigatedweretheinteractionsbetweenmetalinguisticinputfromtheteacherandthelearners'treatmentofsuchinput.Teacherinputandlearneroutputwereclassifiedunderthreespecificlabels:objects,categories,andnotions.Wealsoclassifiedtheprocesseswhichwereresponsibleforthesedataaseithercognitiveorsemiotic.Theformerconcernedvariousmentalactivitiesfromeffectuation(realisation)andrepresentationtootheractivitiesinitiatingsystemsofclassificationandargumentation.Thelatterinvolvedverbal,semiverbal,andnonverbalprocesses.

WhatwecalledobjectsweretheL2elementsprovidedbytheteacheraswellasthelearners'interlanguage.ByexposingthelearnerstoL2sequences,theteacheraimsatleavingtheirsemispontaneousorganisingcapacityfreetointerpretsuchmaterial:thatis,heorsheattemptstoenablethemtoidentifyunitsandcombinetheminstructures,andrecognisetheirstabilityinspiteoftheirdiverselexicalandsituational'clothing'.Thelearners'interlanguageconstitutesasomewhatindirecttraceoftheirgradualdiscovery.

WhatwecalledcategorieswaslinkedtosetsofexplanatoryconceptsaboutthefunctioningofL2whicharebasictotheteacher'sandlearners'formulations.TheseconceptswerediscussedinL1.Whateverthesemioticmediummaybe,definitionalormetaphoricalwords,comments,paraphrases,figures,diagrams,theanalyticalmaterialpresentedtothelearnershelpsthemtointernalisethelinguisticstatus(thefunctionandreferentialvalue)ofagivenL2surfaceunitortextualarrangement.Thisreferstothefieldofvalidityofmorpho-syntacticrules(paradigmaticandsyntagmaticclassesandrelations)aswellaslexicalcompatibilitywithsuchrules.Butitalsoreferstothecommunicationalanddiscursivemotivationforeachgrammaticaltransformation.Essentiallyitinvolvespredicative

relations.Itmayeitherimplyworkingontraditionalpartsofspeechoronlinguisticparadigmsproper(flexions,cases,prepositionalphrases,syntagmaticcontrasts,etc.).

Togiveanexample:whenexplainingthecategoricalphenomenonofaspect,theteachermakesthelearnerawareofthedifferentwaysaspeakermayperceiveand/orexpresstheprocessorstateofaneventasittakesplace(beginning,duration,end,repetition,punctualoccurrence,andsoon),inrelationtothedifferentmarkers,sometimesmorpho-syntactic,sometimeslexical,sometimesbothatthesametime.

Whatwecallednotionsalsoconcernedmetalinguisticexplanatorymaterial.Thismaterialdealswiththegeneralreferentialoperationsaspeaker

constructstoapprehendreality:itmaybeasdiverseaspropersemanticconcepts,orenunciativecharacteristics,oreventextualorganisationinrelationtotheextralinguisticdatawhichitmapsforinstance,conceptsofobligation,ofcertainty,ornumber,ordegreeofspecification,ortemporalrelation,oranaphora,andsoon.Inallthesecasesitistheteacher'saimtoenablethelearnerstobecomeconsciousofthesenotionsandverbalisethemclearly.Suchanalyticaltoolsastheelementsofenunciativecoordinates(speaker,utterance,deixis,factualorcounter-factualjudgementorprojection,occurrence(s),location,etc.)must,onewayoranother,bemastered.Thepedagogicalworkonthesenotionsimpliesmoreargumentativethanclassificatoryprocedures:itinvolvesmorehypothetico-deductiveandinductivereasoningthanmeremechanicallisting.

Theinternalisationofthethreekindsofphenomenaobjects,categories,notionsimpliescognitiveactivitiesrelatedtoeffectuationandrepresentation.Effectuation,asforexampletheproductionofL2,comprisesrole-playing,reading,writing,problem-solving,andsequencemanipulationsandmobilisessensory-motor,graphic,gestual,imaginativeactsofallkinds.Representation,likenaming,autonomouslymanipulatinglanguage,symbolisingphenomena,andsoon,mobilisesmoreabstractbehaviourbothofdifferentiationandgeneralisation.Cognitivelytheseactivitiesconcernreasoningprocesses,andsemioticallytheyconcerntheconcretecodingusedtoconveysuchmentalcontents.

Results

OurresultsseemtoindicatethattutoredlearningofL2dependsontwoapparentlycontradictorybutpossiblyequallypowerfuldeterminingfactors:ontheonehand,itappearsthattutoringstrategiesinspiredbyTEOlinguisticsdecisivelyandpositivelyinfluencethewaylearnersacquireasecondlanguage.Inotherwords,a

metalinguisticapproachofsecondlanguageteaching,whichexplicitlydealswithgeneralisablelanguageoperationsandwiththeinterlanguageasrelatedtothemappearstoinfluencethesubstanceofinterlanguageactivityitself:rhythmofevolution,permanence,anddegreeofmasteryofL2acquisition.Ontheotherhand,atthesametimegeneralcognitive,andevenlinguistic,mechanismsdointerferewiththisinfluence.

Asfarascognitivemechanismsareconcerned,ourstudy,likemanyothers,confirmsthepermanentinfluenceofsuchphenomenaassimplification,regularisation,andanalogy.Theypersistentlyprevailovertheteacher'smethodologicalendeavourswhetheritisplaindrillsorscientific

explanation.Theteacherhastoresignhimorherselftolearners'irrationalassociations,erroneoushypotheses,segmentingmistakes,polyvalentinterpretations,avoidancestrategies,andthelike.

Astolinguisticmechanisms,whatourinvestigationspecificallyemphasisesisthedifficultyencounteredbysecondlanguagelearnersinacquiringthevalueofL2markersthatrefertoindetermination.Thereareparticularlearningobstaclesinherenttoeverythingthatimpliesaconceptualdistanceorestrangementfromthelearner/speaker,eitherinreferenceorinenunciativelocationandevaluation:anythingthatisperceivedasdistal,multiple,uncountable,iterative,interrogative,indifferent,negativewilltendtobeuninterestingandmatterless.Inshort,whateverconveysanotionofvagueness,whateverisoppositeto'whatisclose,whatisgood,whatisme'(cf.Tanz,1980)inlinguistictermsoraswemightsay:whateverimpliesablurringinthedistinctnessoftopologicalborders,eitherintheapprehensionofoccurrenceslinkedtonotionaldomains,orintheenunciativelocationactivities,inhibitslearning.Suchdifficultiesarestronglylinkedtoproblemsofcommunicative,thatisaffective,attitudinal,orevensocio-culturalmotivation.When,forinstance,role-playinginL2simulationsarepractisedintheclassroom,theobserverfrequentlyrealiseshowlearnerscanlosemotivationwhensuchactivitiesaresituatedoutsiderealspaceandrealtime.Motivationandlearningefficiencygrow,inversely,wheneverdeicticallyproximal/osten-sive,concrete,speaker-associatedL2contentsareinvolved.Evenwhentheclassdealswithfictionalmaterial(sketches,cartoons,narrations),onenoticesthestrongimpactontheacquisitionofeasilyevocativethemes.Theseobservationscorroboratewiththeprincipleofcognitivepsychology,thatthe'figurativeunderliestheoperative'.

Theselectionoflinguisticfeaturesthatcorrespondtosuchmotivation,namelyL2itemsillustratingthe'hereandnow'aspectswithregardto

agentivity,place,experience,personalidentificationandsoonisessentialfortheteachingofL2,atleastinthebeginningstagesoflearning.

Lastly,ourstudytendstodemonstratethat,onaverygeneralandsystemiclevelofanalysis,afour-poleinteractivenetworkrelatestheauto-andhetero-referencesofbothteacherandlearners,intheorganisationandregulationofsecondlanguageacquisition.Thesefourspheresenclosethepedagogicactantsinspecificinterpretativemicro-universeswhicharefarfromalwayscoinciding.Thereremaindifferencesinmetalanguage,insensitivitytoproblems,inrelevantsaliences,inbackground.Ontheirarticulation,though,dependsthesuccessorfailureoflearning.

Thisdoesnotrenderthetheoreticalquestionoftherelativeamountofinvarianceandvariationinlearning,whichiscrucialinSLAresearch,

morepredictableinrespecttoagiveninputandtogivendataprocessingcausalitiesanddeterminisms.Theanalysisiscomplicatedbythefactthatthesystemicnetwork,whichgovernseachtypeofactorintervention,seemstoproduceeachtimeauniquecombinationofinterpretablelanguageeventsintheclassroom.Andyet,itwouldbeessentialforSLAresearchtoprovidetheanswerstosuchquestions,ifitistocontributesignificantlytotheimprovementoflearning.'Everything-works-as-if'and'black-box'modelsarenotsatisfactoryinthisrespect.

SamplesfromData

9

Learnermotivationduetoexplicitgrammaticalconceptualisationhasbeenoneofthetopicsofparticularinterestinourstudy.Outofthe50classroomepisodesselectedforanalysisinourstudyten,almostallofthemhaveinonewayoranothershownlearners'enthusiasmandactiveefforttounderstandandapplytheiracquiredknowledge.Thismotivationbecameapparentinmanyways,suchaspositiveanswerstoobserver'squestions,exuberantjoyintheclassroom,remarkstotheeffectthattimewaspassingveryquickly,inoneword:pleasure.Thelearners'reactionswereunanimous.Wheneverweobservedsuchclasses,wewerestruckbythestudents'affectireaswellasintellectualinvolvement.Thiswasconfirmedintheobservationsofotherresearchersbetween1969and1985.

Thesubjectivereasonsforsuchsuccessareeasytofind:throughouttheprocessofmakingthelearnerawareoflinguisticphenomena,theteacherappealstohisorherpersonallanguageexperienceinL1andmakesuseofthisinL2.Forinstance,whenateacherasksanadolescentlearnersuchquestionsas:'Whatdoescertaintymeantoyou?Howdoyouanalyseitscomponentssource,circumstances,

object,andsoon?',orwhenheorsheasksan11-year-oldlearnerwhatthedifferenceisbetweenthedeterminersin:'Bringachair!'and'Holdthechair!',theteachergiveseverypossiblecluetohelpthelearnertomasterthenon-arbitrarinessofeachspecificmarkerinthelinguisticmicro-system.Thisisnolongerformalgrammar,butlivingpsycholinguisticsinaction.Itonlyremainstobeverbalised,inthelearners'ownwordsfirst,andtheninamorestandardisedform.Rulesareonlyoneway,amongmany,toformulatemajorlanguagefunctions.Thiswaychildrenfeelfreetopooltheirindividualideasonthenotionsandmarkervaluesunderstudy,expressthemintuitivelyfirst,andthenmetalinguistically.

Extract1

Topic:Tense/aspectlocationthepreterite.

Subjects:11-year-olds,firstyearofEnglishasaforeignlanguage.

Thepointsummedupbytheteacheristhedoubleaspectualvalue

10ofthepreterite,eitherreferringtoonceortoseveraltimesforthesame-edmarker.

Shewritesthefollowingtwosentencesontheblackboard:

'Lastnight,Iwatchedtelevision.'

'Lastsummer,Iwatchedtelevisioneverynight.'

Thensheaskswhatdifferencethelearnerscanperceive:

Learner1:'Bothareended.'

Learner2:'Bothsaywhathappened,butnothowlongitwentonfor.'

Learner3:'Inone,ithappenedonce;intheother,ithappenedseveraltimesandlongago.'

Teacher:'HowamIgoingtorepresentthesecondcase?'

Learner3:(comestotheblackboardanddraws):

Hesays:'Ineedthree.'

Theteacherwritesontheblackboard:

(a)'I'mwatchingT.V.'

(b)'IwatchT.V.everynight.'

(c)'Yesterday,IwatchedT.V.'

(d)'Lastsummer,IwatchedT.V.everynight.'

Sheasks:'Whatdoyounotice?'

L1:'There'swatcheverywhere.'

L2:'Something'schanging.'

L3:'(b)ispastandfutureaswell.'

L4:'(c)ispast.'

Teacher:'Onceorseveraltimes?'

L5:'Several.'(Theothersyellindignantlyatthemistake.)

Teacher:'Isthereadifferencebetween(c)and(d)?'

L1:'Inthepast,it'salwaysthesame,butinthepresentitisn't.'

L3:'Ohyeah,it'sfunny!'

Teacher:'What'smostcertain?'(silence)

'What'sleastcertain?'

L2:'Preterite.'

Teacher:'Mostcertain?'

L4:'Realpresent.'

Teacher:'Why?'

L5:'It'shappeningjustnow.'

Teacher:'Andwhyispreteritelesscertain?'

L1:'Becauseyoucan'tseeagain.'

L3:'Theonlythingyoucandoisremember.'

Extract2

Topic:Modalschangeoftense.

Shewritesthefollowingtwosentencesontheblackboard:

'Janeisababynow,shecan'twalk.'

'Butin1990,she'llbeableto.'

Teacher:'Haveweseensomethinglikethatalready?'

L1:'Yes,withmust.'

L2:'Yes,withmust,too,yougottoputanotherstuff.'

Teacher:'Andinthepreterite?'

L3:'Also.'

Teacher:'Whydidwehavetochangetheauxiliary,whenwechangedtenses?'

L4:'Inthefuture,you'renotsureit'sgonnahappen,soyougottosayit!'

Teacher:'Andinthepast?'

L5:'Well,thistimeyou'resure.'

L1:'Ohreally?Youhadtodosomething,butnobody'ssureyoudidit!'

L2:'Yes,Iwassure;butmaybeyoudidn'tknow!'

L5:'Anyway,inthepast,it'salwaysflabby.'

L4:'Yes,mentally,intellectually(!!!)'

Teacher:'So,here,withcan?Whathappens?'

L3:'Well,youdothesame,butnotwiththesamestuff;orifyoudon'twanttodonothing,youjustdonothing.'

Extract3

Topic:Noundeterminers.

Teacher:'Somechocolate,whatkindofquantityisit?'

L1:'Youdon'tknow.'

Teacher:'SupposeIwanttobemoreprecise:WhatwouldIhavetosay?'

L2:'Twocups.'

L3:'Or:Youjustkeepaneyeonit!'

Teacher:'WhydoIhavetouseameasureorweightunitifIwanttobemoreprecise?Woulditbethesamewithawordlikeorange?'

L4:'Whataboutmilkorsugar?'

L5:'Wellyouknow,inEnglandthey'vegotpowderedsugar,soyougotnoproblem!Butwehavelumps,one,two,three.'

Teacher:'Let'scomebacktochocolate:Canyousayonechocolate?'

L3:'Well,I'minapub,Idon'taskforchocolate,Isay:Givemewhitewine!'

L2:'Chocolate,yougotbarsorlittlesquares'.

Teacher:'Tellmethedifferencebetween:''givemesomechocolatepowder''and:"givemesomeapples".'

L1:'Well,yougottheplural.'

L2:'Samething,butyoucouldcounttheapples,evenifyoudon'twantto:thechocolatepowder,evenifyouwantedto,youcouldn't.'

ThesethreeepisodesillustratewhyTEOisspecificallysuitedtoelicitlearners'cognitiveactivity.TEOaimsatmakinglanguageoperationsasapparentaspossible,sothatteachersmayexplainandlearnersmayunderstandthem,eveninaverysimplifiedandapproximateway.SincethisunderstandinghasbeenfoundtofacilitateL2acquisition,

allconditionsaremettohavelearners'cognitiveactivitysurface,andthereforemakeitaccessibletoSLAresearch.

Theseexamplesdemonstratethatlearnersmaybebroughttodiscriminatebetweentheformalvaluesinlexicalormorpho-syntacticitems.

Extract1

InExtract1,the-edverbendingmustbeunderstoodaspotentiallybivalent,thatis,punctualoriterative.Lexicalphraseslikelastnight,everynight,lastsummeraretobeunderstood,respectively,aspunctualoriterative/durative.Besides,thepersonandtensemarkingdependsonthemodalforcethespeakergrantstotheprocessofreference,accordingtohisorherinvolvementintheevokedtime-tenserelationship.Inotherwords,thesemanticandgrammaticalcontext-sensitivenessmustbeanalysed.Everybitofformalinformationmustbegivenastatus,adenomination,avalidapplication,andsoon.

Extract2

InExtract2,everysurfacemarkerchangemustbeunderstoodtocorrespondwithreferentialvaluechange;here,itdoesnotonlymeanachangeoftime/tenselocation,butaninsightintothespeakers'perspectiveoneventswhentheychangemodals:thediscussionaboutdegreesofcertaintyshowstherelativeenunciativefreedomofchoiceleftopentothespeakers.Thisfreedomdelightslearners.

Extract3

Extract3revealsthatthereferencecuts,accordingtolanguages,isanobjectofwonderforchildren.AculturaldifferencesuchastheshapeofsugarinFranceandinEngland,forinstance,entailsalinguisticchangeofnoundeterminersaccordingtothenounclassification(uncountableorcountable)characteristicforeachlanguage.

Theseexamplesmaynotbeearth-shakingintermsoflinguisticscience,butintheclassroomdynamic,theywillarousethechildren'slivelyinterestandconcernforlanguageanalysis.Suchapositiveattitudetowardsanalyticreasoningwillhavetheeffectthattheybothassimilatewhattheylearnmorequickly,andrememberitbetter.

Discussion

ConfirmationofHypotheses

Thereisnodoubtthatappealingtotheintelligibilityofthoughtexperiencescontributestomakingthelearnerunderstandthatlanguagesareparaphrasesofoneanotherinrespectoflanguageinvariants.Heorshethereforeshiftsmoreeasilyfromonetotheother.Theautonomylearnersacquirehelpsthemcontroltheirpre-andpost-errorcorrectingsystems,andtoevolvemorerapidlyfromonestageofinterlanguagetothenextone;theyrealisethattheyareprogressing,andfeelthattheireffortshavebeenrewarded.Thisdoes

notmean,though,thatthisapproach,intheend,willnecessarilybemorepowerfulthannaturalsecondlanguageacquisition.

11

PrinciplesforFurtherResearch

Thefirststageofourexperiment(1969-1984)hasledustodefineamorecontrolledarrayofresearchquestions.Itisnecessarytoraise,test,andvalidateclearerpreliminaryhypotheseswhicharelikelyto

constitutetheoutlineofaSLAmodel.First,itseemstousnecessaryto'learnthelesson'fromthepreviousCharlirelleteachingexperimentanddrawthepsycholinguisticconclusionsforafuturedesign.Fromthispointofview,theobservationofadidacticsettingwithintheschoolsystemappearsnottobethebest.Thereareindeedtoomanydiversevariablesthatbiasthecausesandeffectstheresearcherislookingforinthedata.Thesevariablesaresocio-institutional,pragmatic,andaffective.Thismeansthatnostableresultscanbepredicted.Weareallfamiliarwiththevulnerableanddominatedstatusofalearnerandthepressuresheorsheissubmittedto:artificialcommunication(inemergency),evaluationbias(markingandselection),sometimesfearandinhibition.Allthesephenomenainterferewithapurelycognitiveanalysis.Thesefactorsmaybe,ifnoteliminated,atleastdiminished,inadifferentkindofdidacticsetting:atutorialone,forinstance.Amoresuppleorganisationmightallowtheresearchertoexaminetheacquisitionofsinglelinguisticconcepts.Thisleadsustoprotocol-research.

12Suchatypeofresearchimpliestheconstruction,application,andevaluationofnewteachingmaterialundercontrolledconditions.

ThesubjectswillbeasmallgroupofFrenchadults,completebeginnersofE.F.L.Adults,indeed,aresupposedtohaveafullmasteryofformalcognitiveoperations.13Learners,teacher/observer,14pragmaticparametersofthedidacticsituation(space,time,objects,simulatedactionsandL2productionandsoon)willbespecifiedandcorrelatedineverypossibleway.Eachchangeinthesituationwillitselfbegivenastatus,aswellasthelinguisticeffectobservedintheverbalandnonverbaldata.Forabettermetalinguisticanalysisofthewholecorpusthelearners'conflictsofchoices,strategies,hypotheses,andproblem-solvingprocedures,mustbe

tracedback.Thelearnersmustbemadecapableofidentifyingthesalientcluesofthesituationaldynamic,sothattheymayregulatetheirbehaviouraccordingly.Theymustbeconsciousoftheiractivities.Theymustworkouttheirownrepresentations.Theymustanticipateandgeneralisetheirstrategies.

Theteachermustanticipatewhatpartofthelinguisticsystemneedstobeexplained.Rule-coordinationmustbeinsured,inrelationwiththegradualaddingofnewcomplexities.Learners'errors,whattheyfeeltobeallowedorforbiddenorwhattheyareunsureof,willbeobserved.Criteriafor'incorrectness'willbespecified.Differenttypesoflearners,theexplainersandtheproducers,willbesortedout.Methodological(probabilisticandnotlinear)precautionshavetobefollowedindata-processing.15

Thelinguistichypothesesweshalltestwillberoughlythefollowing:

Hypothesis1:therearelanguageinvariants,partlylinkedtolanguageacquisitioninvariantsthroughtopologicaldeformabilitylaws;unstablesystemsarethereforerelatedtostableonesthroughmodulation,dependingonthesituationalandcontextualconstraintsofthelearningsituation.

Hypothesis2:thecomplementarycomponentsoflanguageacquisitioninvariantsarerelatedtogeneralcognitiveacquisitioninvariants.Evenintensivemetalinguistictrainingcannotinfluencethem.

Hypothesis3:inspiteofthis,thedevelopmentofmetalinguisticawarenesschannelsinterlanguageinpredictablestagesandprovides'short-cuts'foracquisition.

Hypothesis4:thedidacticsituationbiasesthelawsoflinguisticdeterminationinaspecificway.

Hypothesis5:consequently,interlanguagetopologicalconstructionsdisplaycorrespondingshiftsinspeechlocations('anchorings'andsaliences),comparedtonaturalcommunication.

Hypothesis6:verbalandnon-verbalobservablesarethetracesofalltheseoperations,butarenotinabi-univocalrelationshipwiththem.

Thestudywillbelongitudinal,eitherconcerningthesubjects'personalevolutionortheinput-outputcollectivedynamic.

Conclusion

TEOappearstousasapromisingtheorybothforlanguagedidacticsandforpsycholinguisticSLAresearch.Fewstudieshaveasyetbeenconductedinthisfield,butwethink,iftheyaredonesystematically,theyarelikelytoofferabetterunderstandingofinvariance/variationinteraction,notonlyinlanguagelearning,butindiscursiveactivityin

general.

16

NotestoChapter8

1.WorkdonebytheCharlirelleresearchgroup,anacronymforDepartmentofResearchinLanguageLearning,InstitutCharlesV,UniversitéParisVII.

2.WeusethiswordinaPiagetiansense:acquirealargerandmoreabstractivecapacitytorelativisespeechphenomenabymovingawayfromone'sown'hereandnow'situation.

3.'Epilinguistic'referstothesubconscious,naturalreflectionaspeakermayapplytolanguage(fromA.Culioli).

4.Thatis,interpretingclassroomactivityaccordingtothebehaviourandrolewhicheachsocialagentteacher,learnersassumesintheschoolsetting.

5.Asmentionedbefore,thetheoryofenunciativeoperationswasdevelopedbyAntoineCulioli.

6.ItsoundsindeedmorenaturalifonesaysJohneatsanapple,than*anappleeatsJohn,butafantasticstylemightofcourseinversetheseproperties:language,asweknow,isspontaneouslyspeaker-associatedandsymbolical.Fromsuchcriteria,asurfacesentencelikethatcarsellswellmightseemcontradictory:unintentionalreferenceforcarastransitivelyincompatiblewithintentionalverbtosell,andwithabsenceofobject.Buttheanomalyisonlyapparent,sincetheunspecifiedagentindirectlyappearsthroughtheobligatorymodifier(well),andsincethedeterminedstatusofcar(cf.,that)enablesittobethematised.The<arb>structureisdeeplyinstantiated,thoughnotinaSVOsurfaceway:Somebodysellsthatcarwell.

7.IfwehadtocompareCulioli'smodelwith,forinstance,Halliday's,perhapswecouldverybrieflysaythatthedifferencesareimportant,althoughsomeresemblancesdoappear:Culioliisnotastructuralist,whereasHallidayseemstohaveremainedone,hisformalisationaimsbeingcompatiblewithlogicandpsychology,whereasHallidayappearstobemoreofaspeechactspragmatician.Lastly,Culiolishowsadialecticpreoccupationwithaccountingforthedynamicsoflanguageelaboration,whereasHallidayratherseemstobeinclinedtogiveasystemic,methodologicallystratified,descriptionoflanguageproductsandfeatures.Inaword,perhaps:taxonomicinterpretation(Halliday)versuscalculativemodel(Culioli).

8.Comparealso'BehindtheWords,'EquipeCharlirelle(1975&1976).

9.ComparealsoElémentsdeDidactiquedesLangues,Bailly(1984).

10.Thisisanexampleforatopicthatwaschosenatthisearlystageofteaching.

11.Inthisrespect,weagreewithKrashen'sdistinctionbetweenacquisitionandlearning,butwedonotthinktheyshouldbeseparated(notevenmethodologically),astheyarehighlyinteractivementaloperations.Theformalmonitor,ifpsycholinguisticallyconceived,mustfollowtheschemesofnaturalmentaloperations,whiledevelopingawarenessandcontrol,withoutchangingtheirnature.

ThemonitorwillthenpermitthecomparisonofL2withL1andwithinterlanguage,asbeing,allthreeofthemandeachoneinitsownway,submittedtotheorganisationoflanguageinvariants.Rule-obediencethereforerathercomestoequatethelearner'smetalinguisticassentwiththecoherenceandnecessityofsuchrules,andhisorherconsequentapplicationoftheminL2production.

12.Thismethodologicalapproachhasbeenappliedinalaterphaseoftheproject.

13.InthePiagetiansenseoftheword.

14.Alinguistwhowastrainedincognitivescienceaswell.

15.AccordingtomodelsdevelopedinArtificialIntelligenceandCognitiveScience.

16.IwishtoexpressmysincerethankstoMrsMargaretBordezandMrsWendyHalffforreadingovermyEnglishandsuggestingimprovementsinstyle.

Bibliography

BAILLY,D.,1984,ElémentsdeDidactiquedesLangues.Paris:LesLanguesModernes.

BERTHOUD,A.C.,1982,ActivitéMétalinguistiqueetAcquisitiond'uneLangueSeconde.Bern:PeterLang.

BESSE,H.&PORQUIER,R.,1984,GrammairesetDidactiquedesLangues.Paris:CrédifHatier.

BOUSCAREN,J.,BYRAMJEE,B.,CHUQUET,J.,COTTIER,E.,DEMAIZIÈRE,F.,FILHOL-DUCHET,B.,HERLIN,O.&MAYER,A.,1984&1985,CahiersdeGrammaireAnglaise.Paris:Ophrys.

EQUIPECHARLIRELLE,1975&1976,BehindtheWords,6e&5e(Méthoded'enseignementdel'anglais),OCDL-HatierdistribuéparM.D.I.,ParcdesArpents,B.P.69-78630OrgevalCedex.

CAIN,A.,1980,ThéorieLinguistiqueetApprentissagedel'Anglais.Unpublisheddoctoraldissertation,UniversitéParisVII,Paris.

CULIOLI,A.,1965-1984,Articles,cours,séminaires,disponiblesauDépartementdeRecherchesLinguistiques,(D.R.L.)UniversitéParisVII,Paris.

CULIOLI,A.&DESCLES,J.P.,1982,SystémedeReprésentationsLinguistiquesetMétalinguistiques.Paris:LaboratoiredeLinguistiqueFormelle.

FRANCKEL,J.J.&FISHER,S.(eds),1983,Linguistique,Énonciation,AspectetDétermination.Paris:Editionsdel'EcoledesHautesEtudesenSciencesSociales.

GAUTHIER,A.,1982,OpérationsÉnonciativesetApprentissaged'uneLangueÉtrangèreenMilieuScolaire.75013Paris:LesLanguesModernes.

GROUSSIER,M.L.&CHANTEFORT,P.,1976,GrammaireAnglaiseetThèmesConstruits.Paris:Hachette.

GUILLEMIN,J.,1982,LaTraduction,SyntaxeComparéeduFrançaisetdel'Anglais.Paris:Ophrys.

TANZ,C.,1980,StudiesintheAcquisitionofDeicticTerms.Cambridge,MA:HarvardUniversityPress.

TRÉVISE,A.,1980,Elémentsd'Analysedel'ActivitéLangagièredesÉtudiantsFrancophonesApprenantl'AnglaisenMilieuInstitutionnel.Unpublisheddoctoraldissertation.UniversitéParisVII.Paris.

PART3REFERENCEINSECONDLANGUAGEACQUISITION

9TheDevelopmentofMeansforTemporalityintheUnguidedAcquisitionofL2:Cross-LinguisticPerspectivesColetteNoyau

Introduction

ThisarticledealswiththeacquisitionoftemporalityinFrenchbyadultSpanish-speakingimmigrants.TheEuropeanresearchprojectonSecondLanguageAcquisitionbyAdultImmigrantsorganisedbytheEuropeanScienceFoundation(E.S.F.,Strasbourg,France)andcoordinatedbytheMax-Planck-InstituteforPsycholinguistics(Nijmegcn,TheNetherlands)bearsontheacquisitionoffivetargetlanguages(TL)byspeakersofsixsourcelanguages(SL).ThelongitudinalstudyofthedevelopmentofL2overthefirstthreeyearsofstayinthehostcountryisbasedonmonthlyrecordingswitheachinformant,withthesamedatacollectionproceduresandagendaforallSL-TLpairs(seePerdue,1982).Aftercompletionofthedatacollectionphase,thecross-linguisticanalysesareunderway,followingthepreliminaryanalysesofdatafromoneSL-TLpairwhichhavebeenconductedduringdatacollection.

Themainapproachintheanalysisisaconceptualone(seeStutterheim&Klein,1986.henceforthS&K).Thequestionis:howdoesanadultacquiringasecondlanguagethroughhisorhercommunicativeneedsinaTLenvironmentconstructthemeansforreferringtoagivenconceptualdomaininL2inourcase,temporalityadjustthemtohisorherconcreteneedsforcommunicating,andprogressivelyexpandthemtowardstheTL?

TheoverallorganisationofresearchallowsustolookforrecurrentdevelopmentalstepsamonginformantsacrossSLsandTLs.Itisthushopedtocometoaclearerpictureofthegeneralstructureofsecondlanguageacquisition(developmentalsequencesanddynamicsofacquisition),aswellasofsomeofthefactorsatplay(cognitivefactors,propensityfactorslinkedtolearners'needs,attitudesandmotivations,exposuretoTL).

ThepresentarticledealsmainlywiththedevelopmentoftemporalityinFrenchbythreeLatin-AmericanrefugeesamongtheSpanish-speakinginformantsoftheParisteamwithintheEuropeanproject.

1TheresultsobtainedforthelanguagepairSpanishSL/FrenchTLwillthenbeconfrontedwithresultsfromsimilarstudiesforotherlanguagepairs,inordertochecktheimpactoftheproximityoflanguages(andtherepresentationofthisproximitybythelearners)ontheacquisitionprocess.

MethodologicalIssues

TheknowledgeofL2byalearnerisnotdirectlyobservable,buthastobeaccessedthroughtheusesofL2,thatismainlythroughthediscursiveactivityofthelearneringivencommunicativesituations.Inadditiontothelearner'sproduction,complementarydatamaybefoundinpunctualcluesfromhisorhercomprehensionactivity(whereitfails:whenmisunderstandingorincomprehensionarise,cf.Trévise&Hérédia,1984),andfromhisorherspontaneousmetalinguisticactivity(hesitations,reformulations,metalinguisticverbalisations,cf.Noyau,1984,alsoGiacobbe&Cammarota,1986).

TheindividualL2systemofalearneratagivenmoment,or'learnerlanguage',isunstablebydefinition,giventhetensionsthatpushittoevolvetowardstheTL(thelinguisticenvironment,theneedsto

communicate,andthepropensitytolearn:seePerdue,1982).Thelearnerlanguageisalsopermeabletothelinguisticvarietiesitcomesincontactwith(seethediscussionofthisfeatureoflearnerlanguagesbyFrauenfelder,Noyau,Perdue,&Porquier,1980,whichwerefertoforthiswholetheoreticalframework),butithassystematicity,andcanthereforebedescribedlinguistically.

Forstudyingtheacquisitionprocessofasecondlanguage,wehavetoproceedatdifferentlevels:

1.Describeindividualsystems(learnerlanguages),whicharetobeconsideredasunknownlanguagesofwhichthelearneristheunique

speaker,atdifferentmomentsoftheacquisition.

2.Reconstructthepsycholinguisticprocessesunderlyingtheobservableoutcomeofthelinguisticactivity.

3.Seekexplanationsoftheprocessesunderstudy.

Todoso,thelinguisthastopartfromhisorherglobalunderstandingofthediscursiveproductionsofthelearner.Thisenableshimorhertoreconstructthemeaningoftheseproductions,anactivitywhichisdistinguishedfromtheunderstandingofthelearner'sdiscourseinasituationbythenativehearer.Forthelinguist,fromtheglobalinterpretationoftheproductionsintheirsituationalcontext,thetaskistolookforregularrelationsbetweenlinguisticmarkersandsemanticvalueswhichneednotbeparalleltothoseencodedbyeithertheSLortheTL(Trévise&Porquier,1986,addressthisissueonexamplesofL2analysisfromdifferentlinguisticdomains).

Thisleadstothesearchforananalysisframeworkwhichwouldnotbelinkedtooneparticularlanguage,thusimposingthefilterofagivensetofcategoriesonthedata.AconceptualapproachofL2acquisitionprovidessuchaframework.

Thefirststepconsistsofalanguage-independentanalysisoftheconceptualdomain,whichgivesarepresentationoftheconceptualcategoriesthatmaybeencodedbyaspeakerinlanguage.Thesecondstepistolookatthewayinwhichagivenlanguagealearnerlanguage,hisorherSL,theTLencodessomeoftheseconceptualcategories,andatthedevicesusedforit.

OnemayhypothesisethatthepathofdevelopmentinL2ispartlydependentontheconceptualknowledgewhichtheadultspeakeralreadyhas.Asaconsequence,explanationsofthelinguisticacquisitionwillberelatedinsomewaytotheconceptuallevel.

Amessageintentionhastoberepresentedintermsofalanguage-independentconceptualisation(Pottier,1974).Asregardstemporality,thestudiesavailablebylogicians/linguisticssinceReichenbachbringtotheforethemaincomponentsofthisconceptualareawhicharelikelytobeencodedlinguisticallybyspeakersintheirlanguageinonewayoranother:

1.Externaltemporalfeaturesoftheevents.Thelocationofeventsonatimeaxis,whichwecanrefertowiththelabeltemporallocation:thislocationisachievedinrelationwithazeropoint(anorigo)ontheaxis,whichcanbegivenindifferentways:

=thelocationisachievedbyanorientedtemporalscale

giveninthecultureofagroup,likeacalendar(calendarictemporallocation);

=thelocationisestablishedinrelationtothemomentofspeech,whichdeterminesabeforeandanafterintheflowoftime,andgivestheframetothe(linguistic)deictictemporallocation;

=thelocationisachievedinrelationtoanothereventorprocesswhichisalreadylocatedintime:inthiscase,wecanspeakabouttemporalrelation.

Inallcases,therelationsimplyconceptualcategorieslikeorderandinclusion(hencethenotionsofafter,before,simultaneous,[totallyorpartially]includedin,forexample).

2.Internaltemporalpropertiesofevents,whichmaybeeitherobjectiveproperties(durativepunctualiterative...events,cf.Aktionsartatthelinguisticlevel)orfromthepointofviewoftheobserver(eventsseenascompletedornotongoinghabitual,etc.,cf.aspectinsomelanguages).

Althoughthenaturallogicofhumanbeingsmaynotbeusingallthe(combinationsof)categoriesofformallogic,everylinguisticutteranceofaspeakerimpliessomeoftheabovementionedtemporaldimensionsandhastolocateaneventintimeinrelationtosomereferencepointortootherevents,ortospecifysomeoftheirtemporalcharacteristics.Wemayassumethateverylanguageisabletoencodeallpossibletemporalnotions,beitobligatorilyoroptionally,givingthemamoreorless'central'place,directlyorindirectly,andataloworhighcost.Thismayimplyinprincipleallthestructurallevelsofthelanguage.

AttheearlystagesofacquisitionofanL2,alearnerstilllacksthemasteryoftheobligatorymarkersoftheTL(forexample,morphologicalmarkersappearratherlateinL2acquisition).Heorshe

willthenleavemanymoreaspectstoimplicitorindirectmarkingthanisthecaseintheTLorthanheorshedoesinhisorherSL.Hencethecrucialimportanceoflookingatthediscursiveactivityofthelearnerinconcretecommunicativetasks,inwhichtheroleofthecontextandofthesituationareclear.

DataBase

Asfortemporality,itisimportanttodistinguishbetweenparticulartasksinthedatabase.Forexample,afilmretellingtaskrequirestheexpressionofsequencesofeventswithtemporalrelationsbetweenthem.Butnoeventneedbesituatedinrelationtothespeechtimeandtherecount

oftheeventsmaybesituatedinafictitiouspastspaceaswellasinafictitiouspresent(atemporal)space.OthertasksusedintheEuropeanProject,likeroutedirectionsorstageinstructions,maybelocatedinafuturespace,ortreatedaspureinjunctivesbythespeaker.Butwegettherichestpictureoftemporalityinfreeconversation,wheretheinformantmayrelatethingswhichhappenedtohimorherrecentlyoratamoreremotetime,maytalkaboutintentionsandprojectsinthefuture,oraboutpresentsituations.Andinconversationthepersonalnarrativesarethemosttemporallystructureddiscursivesamples.Thereforepersonalnarrativesconstitutethemaindatabaseforouranalysisoftemporality.

Forthepresentstudy,datafromthefirst18monthsofindividualmonthlyrecordingswiththreeofthelongitudinalinformantsoftheLatinAmericangroupacquiringFrenchwereanalysed:

AL,Colombianmaleinformant,firstrecordingafterelevenmonthsinFrance;

BE,Chileanfemaleinformant,firstrecordingafterfourmonthsinFrance;

GR,Chileanfemaleinformant,firstrecordingafterthreemonthsinFrance.

Foreachone,theearliestsampleofnarrativefromafteroneyearofacquisitionapproximately(henceforthT1)iscontrastedwithasecondnarrativefromaboutoneyearlater(T2).However,theinventoriesoflinguisticdevicesavailabletoaninformantatagiventimebearonthewholeindividualrecordingwhichthenarrativeisextractedfrom(60to90min.).

2

LinguisticMeansforReferringtoTimeinFrenchL2andTheirDevelopment

TemporalityinDiscourse

Narrativesarehighlystructureddiscursiveobjects.Manystudiesonnarrativityhavedescribedthedifferentcomponentsofthisdiscoursegenre(seeLabov,1972;Kintsch&vanDijk,1975;Adam,1978;amongothers).Asregardsthetemporaldimensioninnarratives,theorientationestablishesthereferencetopersons,places,timelocation,circumstances.Thedevelopmentbringssequencesofeventswhichmaybeorganisedintosub-sequencesorepisodes.Thoseeventswhichconstitutetheplot,orstory-line,arelinkedin

differentwaystosecondaryinformation(thebackground).Finally,wemayfindanevaluation,whichoftenclosesthenarrativeassuch.

Aninterestingandveryfrequentsub-caseisthe'dialoguenarrative',inwhichthesequenceofreportedeventsisasequenceofspeechacts.ThisisnotapeculiarityofL1orL2learners'discourse,asisshownforexamplebythestudiesofTannen(1983,forthcoming)on'constructeddialogue'inconversationalandliterarynarrative.

Thesequencesofnarratedeventsneednotbestructuredinalinearway.Agiveneventmaybesub-dividedintosub-eventslateronindiscourse,oraseriesofsmallerscaleeventsmaybeclusteredintoone.Thesearedecisionsofthespeaker,whomaychoosetosegmentortocondenseinvariousdegreesthecontentsheorsherefersto(seeBowerman,1984,forthisphenomenoninchildren'snarratives).

AnadultL2learnermasterstheseskillsintheSL,andneednotacquirethemanymore.Heorshealsoknowshowtorelyonknowledgeheorshesupposestosharewiththehearer,forleavingpartoftheinformationtoconveytoindirectorevenimplicitmention.

InformantBEwasrecordedfromfourmonthsafterherarrival,atatimewhensheknewvirtuallynoFrench.Herearlynarrativepassagesaremerequestion-answersequencesinwhichallthetemporalinformationisgivenintheinterviewer'sturns.Thefirstnarrativeassuch,whichshetakestheinitiativeof,isfoundafter13monthsofstay,andcontainsstillmanySLsequences,non-verbalpredicates,andprosodicstructuringofdiscourse.

BE+13Narrative1:Dangerofdrowning(1stversion)

3

1.eh[3e]hm+quandehpetit+

'hmIhm+whenhmlittle'

2.lametcommeça(gestedepeur)+'thesealikethat'(gestureoffright)

3.maismoilamer+'butmethesea'

4.maiscómosellamales[ßag-a]cómose[di]++[me](geste)'buthowdoyoucallthe(waves)howdoyousay++me(gesture)'<aht'entraînait?...lamert'emportait?>'ohwasdraggingyou...theseawascarryingyouaway?'

ouioui'yesyes'<etalors?>'andthen?'

5.ymoimeafirmédeunpieddeungarçon...'andIIclingtoafootofaboy'

6.yél[sortise]...'andhegetout()'

7.etmaman+'[aparti]toutsuite!''andmum+gorightaway'(6-7=hetookmeoutandmum(said):'wemustleaverightaway')<ohlalalala+tuaseupeurhein>'oh+youwerescared,weren'tyou?'oui!'yes'

8.maman[nepade]lamerjamaisjamaiseh'mumnotoftheseaneverneverhm'

9.'[sorti(r)]toutsuiteici'...'getoutrightawayhere'(8-9=mumsaid'I(don'twant/don'tgoto)thebeachnevernever,getoutofhereimmediately)<ettoutlemondeavu?>'andeverybodysaw?'si'yes'

10.etmoiàcôté[3ue](x)laérue

'andmebesideplay()thestreet'

11.yaprèscommeça'andafterlikethat(gestureoffright)'(10-11=andthenIplayedinthenextstreetandIwasscared)

Althoughthelinguisticmeansproperareveryscarce,wealreadyfinddifferentiateddiscoursefunctionswhichbuildafullnarrative:backgroundinformation,explicitlyconnectedevents,sequencesofreportedspeech,andaclosing(resultativesituation).ButtheinformantreliesheavilyonthecooperationoftheTLspeaker.FourteenmonthslatershetellsanotherTLinterviewerthesamestory:

BE+27Narrative2:Dangerofdrowning(2ndversion)

...[paske3e]peuràlamer'...becauseI'mscaredatthesea'<ahbon+pourquoi?>'isit?whyso?'

1.ouais[paske+kwand30ete]petit'yeahbecausewhenIwasachild'

2.[3e]unaccidentdanslamerhmm'Ihaveanaccidentinthesea'

3.ouais[paskese]trèsfortlamerenauChili'yeahbecauseit'sverystrongtheseainChile'

4.yyo[3e]peur'andmeI'mscared'

5.[paske]lamer[meameatumb]/'becausetheseahasfall-me'elcomment[seapel]la/*nosécómo[sapelel]/'thehowiscalledtheIdon'tknowhowitiscalled'cuando[ko'mensa]à[sortir]'whenitstartscomingout'(=thewaves!)

6.y[meatumbe]'andithasfall-me'

7.yaprès[3eswe]danslamer'andafterwardsIaminthesea'

8.yporça[ke3e]peuràlamer'andforitthatI'mscaredatthesea'

9.et[solamã]àcôté

'andonlyaside'

Thelearnerhaspracticallynomoreverblessutterances,andusesmorediversifiedconnectors,includingconnectorslike'porçaque'and[paske](=because)forrelatinganeventtoapreviousonewithanadditionalcausallink.

InformantGRproducedonlyveryshortnarrativesequencesinthefirstsixmonthsofrecordings,likethefollowing:

GR+61stnarrativesample

1.yo[arriße]àôC[ke]unfoyerdetránsito'Iarrive(d)inCwhichisatransitoryrefugeecamp'

2.etahehah[reste]*comosedice'[du]mesenC'andremain(ed)howdoyousaytwomonthsinC'

3.ydeahi[sorti]hF'andfromtheregotoF'(anotherrefugeecamp)

Thefirstlongnarrativeisintroducedthroughherinitiative,asanillustrationtoageneralquestionoftheintervieweraboutracialdiscrimination:

GR+16Narrativeonracialism

1.<ettupensesquelesFrançaisontlamêmeattitudepourlesChiliensetpourlesAfricainsparexemple?>'andyouthinkthatFrenchpeoplehavethesameattitudetowardsChileanandAfricanpeopleforexample?'non'no'non?tuasremarquédesdifferences?'no?didyounoticeanydifferences?'oui[paske]'yesbecause'unfois[ regard/ ale]por[ levestimãn]'onceIlook/Igoforgettingtheclothes'porroesenfantsetpormoi'formychildrenandforme'

2.et[se]un/unmadame[kedi]'andthere-isaladywhosay'

3.''vous[reste]icivousvous[pase]madame''-'youstayhereyoucomehereMrs'

4.y[3e/3earriße]ehàdixheures'andIarriveat10'

5a.etlemonsieur[se]/-comment[se]?[nosepa]comment

[sedi]'andthemanit-is/howisit?Idon'tknowhowtosay'

5b.[seleprimjer]personne[kese-ave]unrendez-vous-pourlui(...)'it-isthefirstpersonwh-there-isanappointmentforhim'

6.[il(=elle)di]'he(=she)say'

7.nonvous[reste]ici'noyoustayhere'

8.et[se]la/ladame[kekepase]'andit-istheladywh-come'

<etladamec'étaittoi?>'andyouwerethelady?'

9."oui"-yo[di]'yes-Isay'

10."non[se]Monsieur"-'no-it-isthisman'

11."non"[medi]'nosaytome'

12."[elreste]ici"'hestayhere'<etlemonsieurc'étaitqui?>'andwhowastheman?'

13.[se]unnoir[se]unAfricain'it-isablackit-isanAfrican'<ettupensesquec'étaitàcausedeça?>'andyouthinkthatitwasbecauseofthat?'

14.oui[paskese/sevjolent]la/ladameaveclemonsieur'yesbecauseit-isviolenttheladywiththeman'

15.et[ penskesepor/porle]couleur'andIthinkthatit-isbecauseofthecolour'<tupensesoui?>'doyouthinkso?'

16.ouiet[ ledi]'yesandIsaytoher'

17.'non[ ne ]pasde[vestimãn]merci''noIdon'tbuy(=take)clothesthankyou'

18.et[ parti]àmamaisontrèsfurioso(laughs)

'andIgohomeveryangry'

-15-

background 1 5 14 -13-

reportedspeech 3 7-8 10 12 17

plot

backmove 4

chronological 2 6 9 11 16 18

Thetemporalsequence

4isstraightforward,withtheexceptionof4,whichgoesbacktoatimebeforethestartingpointofherstory.Shelackstherightlinguisticdevicesforit,expressesherfeelinguncomfortable,andfinallyfindsasolutionwithanumeral.Shestilllacksdirectdevicesfor'movingback'intime.

LetusseeanotherexampletheverysimplealthoughlivelynarrativeofGRatT2,madeofalinearsequenceoffivenarrativepropositions,closedbyanevaluation(10:ohlala!).

GR+27Narrative2

1.ypor[paje]lemétroleticketdemétro[jenepaje]pas[paske]\'andforpayinginthemetrothemetroticketIdon'tpaybecause'<tupassesendessous>'yougothroughunderthe...'

2.oui...l'autrejour..uninspecteur[medi]'yestheotherdayaninspectortellme'

3.'votreticket''yourticket'

4.'ah'[ledi]'ahsaytohim'

5."no[ nea]pasdeargent'noIhavenomoney'

6."[ swi]en[ ]"(=chômage)'Iamunemployed'

7.[ lemostre]macartede[ ]'Ishowhimmyunemploymentcard'

8."ah"[medi]'ahtellme'

9."ça[fe]rien"'noproblem'

10."ohlàlà"(laughs)

background =1= 10

reportedspeech »3 =5-6= 9

plot 2 4 7 8

Let'slooknowatAL'sfirstnarrativesample(hisfirstrecording,AL+11),wherehetellshowhewenttoregisterattheunemploymentoffice:

AL+11Narrative1:Registeringforunemployment

5

<vousneparliezpasfrançaismaisvousvousêtesquandmêmeinscritauchômage?>

'youdidnotspeakFrenchbutyetyouregisteredforunemployment?'oui[jemeskri]alchômage'yesIregisterforunemployment'<alorscommentças'estpassé?>'sowhathappened?'

1.eh+*un*amidemonfrè(re)+[medike]'hm+afriendofmybrother+tellmethat'

2.el[parla]'hespeak'

3.elamiel[parla]français+'thefriendhe[speak]French'

4.yél[medike]'andhetellmethat'

5.parainscription[ilja]elchômage+'forregistertherebetheunemployment'

6.et[a]unmonsieur'and(be,have,to)aman'

7.[keparla]espagnolitalienfrançaisbeaucoupdelangues'whospeakSpanishItalianFrenchmanylanguages'

8.yé1[medike]'andhetellmethat'

9.pasproblema../'noproblem'

10.yyo[swiale]aveclui'andIgowithhim'

11.y'si[sere]possible'andifbepossible

12.[kejemeskri]''thatIregister'

13.[paske]elseñorB+'becausemisterB'

14.él[sapel]B+él[me]/'hebecalledB+heme'

15.[jeparle]aveclui'Ispeakwithhim'

16.[lesplike]elproblemademoiydemafamilia*...'explaintohimtheproblemofmeandofmyfamily'

17.yélme/él[ekrileformular]*ytodo'andheme/hewritetheformandeverything'

18.y*pasproblema+'andnoproblem'

19.aprèseh+[ ]unrendez-vousconunamademoiselle'afterhm+I(have)anappointmentwithamiss'

20.yyo[nepußeparle]bien+'andIcannotspeakwell'

21.[paskeledike]'becausetell(him,her)that'

22.[jeneparla]français'InotspeakFrench'

23.yaprèselle[parleke]'andaftershespeakthat'

24.[jensepakrir]...'Icannotwrite'

25.*yo*[solaman/ solaman]decireh[dir]'Ionly/Ilearnonlysayhmsay'

26.'[jeneparloe

]pasfrançais[jeneparloe]pasfrançais''InotspeakFrenchInotspeakFrench'

27.*yentoncesy+y[lekomprende]'andthenand+andunderstand(him,her,it)'

summary 0

background -3- -6-7- -14-

reportedspeech -2- -5- -9- »11-12 -26- -22- -24-

plot:

backmove 13-15-16 25 21

chronological 1 4 8 10×17 18 19 20 23 27

O=A+B+C

EpisodeA=1(2-3)-,4(5)

EpisodeB=-(3-7-,-13-14-:15-,16-8(9)-,10-,(»11-12)-,17-,18

EpisodeC=25(26)-,19-,21(22)-,20--,23(24)-,27

ALisafasterlearner.Fromthefigureabove4itappearsthatafter11monthsofstayheisabletoproduceaverycomplexnarrative:itisintroducedbyasummary,thetemporallyorderedeventsofthestorylinearelinkedtobackgroundinformationandgroupedintothreeepisodes,antithechronologicalorderisinterruptedbybackmoves.Allthisisachievedwithrestrictedlinguisticmeans(seesection'Lexico-syntacticmeansfortemporality'below)withoutconsistentmorphologicalvariation

ontheverb,andwithonlyafewconnectorsandlexicalexpressions.

AtT2(22monthsofstay),thelinguisticrepertoireofALhasnotchangeddrastically(apartfromanobviousincreaseinlexicon).Thecomplexityofthenarrativecapacitystillfindsitslimitswheremorphologicaldistinctionswouldbeneededfortimelocation,asinthefollowingmisunderstandingontime:

<etturetournerasàlapréfecturepourlelogement?>'andwillyougobacktothepréfectureforthelodging?'

1.oui[ /japre+jale]autrefois'yesI(after)Igoothertime'

2.[paske]toujours[ija]logement+aussidelamairie'becausealwaystherebelodging+alsofromthetownhall'<hm+tuyesalléoutuiras?>'hm+haveyoubeenorwillyougothere?'

3.non+[joire]/'no+Igo/'

4.non[ ]déjà[ ale]là-bas/oui?+'no+IalreadyIgothereyes?'

5.après[ ale]autrefois(laughs)+[ ire]autrefois'afterIgoothertime+Igoothertime<hm+donctuneI'ASpasfait?outul'asfait?>'hm+soyouhaven'tdoneit?orhaveyoudoneit?'

6.non+déjà[ lafe]oui?+'no+alreadyIdoityes?'

7.APRES[ lafere]autrefois+oui?'afterIdoitothertimeyes?'

8.chaque[vente]jourschaquemois[ alepaske...]'everytwentydayseverymonthIgobecause...'

9.[paskeilfo]toujoursnon?+'becauseonemustalwaysno?'

10.[paske]lapersonne[kilvwa]...'becausethepersonwhheorshesee'

11.[ilvakrwaje]'hewillbelieve'

12.[ke... ]besoindel'appartament'non?'thatIneedthefiatno?'

(10-12=becauseifthepersonseesmeheorshewillbeconvincedthatIneedtheflat)

TheTLinterlocutorispuzzledbythecontradictionintermsoftheTLbetweenmarkerswhichpointtothepast:[ale],autrefois,andherquestionaboutfutureperspectives.IntermsofAL'sinterlanguage,[ale]stilldoesnotbeartemporalinformation,'autrefois'isanSLderivedadverbialforrepetition(cf.Span.otravez=anothertime).Forsolvingtheproblemhetriesoutwithamarkedformforexpressingfuture:[ire](cf.Span.iré=Iwillgo),[fere].Thefinalsolution,whichbreaksthemisunderstanding,istheuseofquantitativeinformation(seeline8).

5

Forcomparingthelearners'L2knowledgebetweenspeakersoratayear'sdistance(T1-T2),thedegreeofcomplexityofproducednarrativesdoesnotappeartobeareliableindexofdevelopmentinitself,itdependsalsoverymuchontheintrinsiccomplexityoftheeventstoreferto,onthediscursivestyleoftheindividualspeakers,andontheopportunitiesofagivenconversationforelicitingnarratives.ButallthesestoriesremindusthatanadultlearnerputstouseafullydevelopedspeakercompetenceinL2acquisition.

Forestablishingthecomparisons,wehavetorelatethestructureofthenarrativesobtainedwiththelinguisticmeans,lexico-syntacticaswellasmorphological,availabletothelearneratthesameacquisitionphase.

Lexico-syntacticMeansforTemporality

Inthissectionwegiveashortaccountofthelexico-syntacticmeans(adverbialsandadverbialclauses)forexpressingtimelocationandrelationsandtheirevolutionbetweenT1andT2forallthreeinformants(fordetailedanalysesseeNoyau,1986;seealsoonGR,Trévise,1984;andonBE,Vasseur,1985).

Theslowestinformant,BE,reliedalongtimeonthecooperationofthenative,whichsheknewhowtoelicit(seethetwonarrativesamplesabove!),andonSLorSL-derivedexpressions.Thisisthereasonwhywefindafewinstancesoftemporalclauseswithcuando[kwan(d)]quandmuchbeforeshewouldbeabletouseverbalclausesconsistently.After13monthsofstay,shehadstillonlyafewcalendaricexpressionswithoutPreporwithSLen,whichwemayassignapunctual(locationbydistancefromareferencepoint)oradurativevalueaccordingtosharedknowledgeorplausibility,amarkerofconsecution:après,andnoproperdeicticexpression(fornow,yesterday,etc.).After27monthsofstay,shehadacquireddeicticexpressionslike[mannõ](=now),aujourd'hui(=today),andusedadiversifiedinventoryofcalendaric

expressions:predominantlyNPs,andPrepPswithaprès,jusqu'à(=after,until),aswellasformulaslike[(s)afe],[ilja](=ago).Sheshowedacleargeneralisationofdeicticexpressionstoanaphoricvalues:cesoir(®intheevening),maintenant(®then),andhadacquirednoproperanaphoricexpression.

AsforGR,atT1sheuseddeicticadverbialslike[ajerswa](=yesterdayevening),variouslexicalexpressionswithdurative,punctualoriterativevalues,andhadalreadyfrequenttemporalsubordinationswithquand.After25monthsinFrance,shehaddiversifiedherinventoryoflexicalexpressions,allowingmorequantitativeprecisionfordistanceandfrequence.

ForAL,wecouldnotobservetheinitialsteps,asafter11monthshehadalreadyreachedastateofdevelopmentwhichwasbroadlycomparabletoBE'sorGR'sstateatT2.Thedevelopmentinthesecondyearofstaybroughtmorediversifiedlexicalexpressions,butabovealltheirsyntacticcomplexification:

ladernièrefois[kejovjen]ici

(=lasttimeIcomehere)

vous[veneelkel]jourquejele[marke]unrendez-vous

(=youcomebackthatdaywh-Iwritedownanappointmentforyou)

Forallofthem,wenoticethelateappearance(ifatall)ofanaphorics,andthetendencytoresorttosomeconnectorswhicharerecognisedandmemorisedduetotheircloseresemblancetoSL(Prepsaswellassubordinators),fromearlystageson.

MorphologicalMeansforTemporality

ForBE,thefirststageshowsfewverballexemesatall,orsheresortedtoSLverbs.Then,atT1ofthisstudy,sheacquiredverbsasmere

lexicalunitswithauniqueform.AtT2,theverbstendtoappearundermorethanoneform(shortform:V-Ølongform:V-eifortheregularverbs),butwithoutanytemporaldistribution.Towardstheendofthedatacollectionperiod(29monthsofstay),shewouldusesomepreverbalmorphs,precursorsofAux([a]V,[e]V,[swi]V),innon-actualcontexts(completedeventsandalsoforprospectiveevents),butwithatendencytoovergeneralisethemtoactualeventsalso.Shehadnotyetreachedadevelopmentalstateinwhichmorphologycansupporttense.

GR'smorphologicaldevelopmentfollowssimilarlines,withthevariationV-Ø/V-[e]showingovergeneralisationofthelastformtonon-pasteventsinsubordinateclauseswhereasthefirstoneisnotfoundanylongerforpasteventsatT2.

AL'sfirststepsindiscoveringverbalmorphologycouldnotbeobserved,butalthoughhislexiconcontainedanimportantnumberofverballexemesfromT1on,theseappearedofteninauniqueform,orshowedovergeneralisationofV-[e]untillate.After44monthsofstay(endofthestudy),somepreverbalmorphswereusedandV-Ø/V-[e/i]orAux+Vwerecontrastedintemporallycontrastedcontexts(actual/completed)foralimitednumberofverbs.Tensedistinctionswerejustabouttosettle.

EvolutionaryTrends

ThemainevolutionarytrendsforSpanish-speakinglearnersofFrench,onthebasisofthesecasestudiesandofobservationsfromotherinformants,arethefollowing(formoredetailsseeNoyau,1986).Asregardsindirectmeans:

heavyrelianceonpragmaticinferencesbaseduponworldknowledgeorsharedinformation,andoncontext,particularlyonaspectualpropertiesoftheverballexemesorthereportedsituations,aboveallinthefirststages;

useofdiscursiveconfigurationswhichsupportanimplicittemporalstructuringofevents(likethe'naturalorder',theuseofreportedspeech,andthefrequentcontrasts,whichappeartobeafavouritefigureoftherhetoricsoflearnerlanguages).Thisimposesquiteaburdenonthehearerforthereconstructionofthetemporalinformation;

specialisationfortemporalindicationsoflinguisticmeansfromotherareas,asspatialexpressions,andcausalconnectorsformovingback

intime.

Asforthelinguisticmeans:

initialrelianceonlexicalexpressions(withidiosyncraticsyntacticinsertion:PrepØ,thenPrepsinfluencedbySLuse),whichdiversifybothsyntacticallyandintheirprecisesemanticfunctions,mostlywithaquantifier/numeral+acalendarunit;

predominanceofdeicticexpressions,whichtendtobeovergeneralisedtoanaphoricuses;

progressivesyntacticcomplexificationofadverbials,andratherearlytemporalsubordination;

lateappearanceofverbalmorphology,whichdiversifiesandprogressivelyfindsadistributionwhichcontradictslessoftentheTL,withoutbeingabletobeartensecategoriesinaconsistentwayuntiltheendofthelongitudinalstudy(aboutfouryearsofstay)(seeNoyau,1986).

Cross-linguisticPerspectivesontheAcquisitionofMeansforTemporalityinL2

6

AcentralquestioninthedevelopmentoftemporalityinL2isthefollowing:Whydosomefeaturesappearbeforeothersinthelearners'systems?Somepotentialexplanatoryfactorscometomind:

(a)theconceptualstructureassuch;

(b)thediscursiveneedsofthespeaker;

(c)theSLwaysofencodingtheconceptualstructure;

(d)theintrinsicrelativedifficultyofacquisitionofthelinguisticmeansinTL.

Cross-linguisticstudiesareanecessarysteptoabetterunderstandingoftheacquisitionprocess,becausetheyarelikelytoprovideevidenceoftherelativeweightofsuchfactorsintheconstructionofthelearnerlanguage.IntheresultsavailablesofarfromanalysesoftemporalityinL2learnervarietiesbothwithintheE.S.F.projectonsecondlanguageacquisitionbyadultimmigrantsandonotherdata,somestrongconvergencesappear,andsomedifferenceswhichcanleadtopreliminaryhypothesesonthefactorsatplay.

Amongtheconvergentfeaturesarethefollowing:

earlyuseoflexicaldevicesfortemporallocationandrelations;

lateacquisitionofmorphologicalcategories,whichdevelopongivenfavourableverballexemesfirst.(Conceptualfactorssuchastheinherentsemanticpropertiesoftheverbsarelikelytobestudiedataglobalcross-linguisticlevelwhileotherslikefrequencyofgivenformsininput,relativedegreeofmorphologicalcomplexity,saliency,transparency,havetobeenvisagedacrossSLsforagivenTL);

initialrelianceonthesequentialorderingofeventsindiscoursefortemporalrelation,andmoregenerallyonsomediscourseorganisationprinciples;

massiveuseofquotedspeech,whichpermitstofallbacktoa(derived)deicticanchoring.

DifferencesacrossSL/TLpairs(asfarasthecurrentstateofthestudiesallowstogeneralise)arethefollowing:

early/lateappearanceofPrepPandofsubordinationintheadverbialmeans;

earlier/latermorphologicalmarkingoftense;

predominanceornotofaspectualcategoriesovertemporalcategories,whichallowslearnervarietiestodifferentiatemorphologicallyforegroundandbackgroundevents(forexampleforPunjabilearnersopposedtoItalianlearnersofEnglish,cf.Bhardwaj,1986a,b).

Manyoftheconvergentfeaturesmightbeexplainedfromacognitivepointofviewintermsoftheconceptualstructureoftemporality,orintermsofthediscursiveneedslinkedtothisconceptualstructure,morelikelythanintermsoflinguisticuniversals.Butsomeofthecross-linguisticdifferencesmayalsobelinkedtotheconceptuallevel,intermsofthemoreorlesscentralplaceofagivencategorywhichisencodedinaTLinthelinguisticsystemsofdifferentSLs.OtherdifferencesmaybeexplainedintermsoftheintrinsicrelativedegreeofdifficultyofacquisitionofthelinguisticdevicesacrossTLs(here,additionalevidencemightbedrawnfromparallelcross-linguisticdifferencesintheacquisitionoftheselanguagesasL1s).

Letuslookateachofthesepotentialfactorsmoreprecisely.

TheInfluenceoftheConceptualStructureItselfonthePathofDevelopment

Astheconceptualknowledgeofthespeakersservesasaframeworkinproducingandunderstandingdiscourse,predictionslikethefollowingonecanbeformulated:TheappearanceofagivenL2-formforproductioninthelearner'slanguagedependson'thedegreetowhichthegiventemporalcategorycanbeconveyedimplicitly'(Stutterheim

&Klein,1986).Letustakesomeexamples:

Example1:Forestablishingareferencepointintime,explicitmeansaregenerallyrequiredthiscanonlybeleftimplicitwhenthetemporalreferenceisalreadygivenbytheinterlocutor,inhisorherquestionforexample;hencetheearlyuseofadverbialsandgenerallylexicalmeans.Thistemporalinformationisusuallygivenatthebeginningofthesentence,resultinginapattern:

temporallocation-event.

quandpetit-lamercommeça(BE+13)

enelmoisdeavril-melapel]portéléphone(BE+15)

Example2:Forexpressingtherelativeorderofasequenceofevents,iftheeventsareexpressedinanorderwhichisparalleltotheorderinwhichtheyfolloweachotherintime,noexplicitmeansarerequired.Butifforsomereason,theorderofmentiondiffersfromtheorderofsuccessionintime,ithastobemadeexplicit.Thisisdoneeitherbyrelocatingtheeventsintime,orbyexpressingthetemporalrelationsometimesbyboth,inmanydiscursivecontrasts.

Example3:Thespeakerhastoconveythedifferenceoffunctionbetweenforegroundevents,whichformthetemporalstory-line(eachonefunctionsasreferencetimeforthefollowingutterance),andbackgroundones,whichgiveaframetotheeventsofthestory-line.Iftheverbsinvolvedhavesomeinherenttemporalcharacteristics(e.g.punctualontheonehand,durativeontheotherhand),therelationbetweenforegroundandbackgroundiseasyforthehearertoreconstruct,asarelationframe-embeddedevent.

Example: quand[iliabite]là-basmongarçon

(=when(we)livetheremyson

[illkase]unbras

hebreakanarm)

Butifbothverbsare,say,punctual,anexplicitmarkingoftheirrelationsisrequired,forexampleintheformofanaspectualmarkingofcompletion.Itisinsuchcasesthatthefirstusesofge-VarefoundinGerman.InFrench,wethenfindoccurrencesofsemi-Auxlike[fini]+V,[komens(e)]+V.Theneedformakingclearthisconceptualrelationgivesanaccountoftheobserveddevelopmentofaspectualdistinctionsbeforepurelytemporaldistinctionsinlearnersystemsofmanylanguagepairs(Houdaifa,1983,Arabic/French;Schlyter,1984,

Swedish/French;Kumpf,1984,Japanese/English;Andersen,1984,English/Spanish;Stutterheim,1984,Turkish/German).

TheinfluenceoftheconceptualstructureinvolvedleadstosimilaritiesinthedevelopmentofL2acrosslanguagepairs,whichneednotbetiedtolinguisticuniversals.Wemayalsoconsiderifthesimilaritiesintheearlierconstructionofaspectualcategorieswithrespecttotemporalonesinchildren'sacquisitionofL1maybelinkedtotheconceptualstructurealthoughasregardstheacquisitionofL1,thetaskofthechildisbothaconceptualaswellaslinguisticone,whichleadsustobecarefulininferringsimilarprocessesfromL1/L2acquisitionalsimilarities.

TheInfluenceoftheDiscursiveNeeds

Atanystageofacquisition,thelearnerhastocopewiththetaskofreportingtemporallycomplexclustersofevents.Heorshemayrefrainfromdoingsoinsomecasesbytopicavoidanceorbysimplificationofthecontents,feelingthathisorhercapacityinL2won'tdo.Heorshemayrelyonthehelpofthenativeandonthescaffoldingofferedbytheinterlocutor(seeBE'snarrative1above),whichprovidesatthesametimegoodinputfortheacquisitiontocontinue.Butinthatcase,thelearnermaychooseimplicitlytolettheelementsprovidedbytheinterlocutorformpartofthejointlyconstructeddiscourse,likeinBE'sfirstandsecondcyclesofdata,ormaytakethemovertohisorherownproduction,repeatingoradaptingtheminhisorherownutterance,likeBEstartsdoinginthethirdcycleofdata(cf.Vasseur,1985).Heorshemayfinallytaketheriskofexpressingthecomplexrealitiesheorshehasinmindwithhisorherlimitedlinguisticmeans(likeALdoesrightfromthebeginningofthedatacollectionperiod,seehisnarrative1above).

Attheinitialacquisitionstages,whenthegrammaticaldevicesarestillpoor,thelearnermustrelyheavilyonthelexicon,forlocatingeventsintime,andonsomeunriskydiscourseorganisationprinciplesforconveyingthetemporalrelations,likethechronologicalorderprinciple.Thisresultsinaveryfrequentthree-partdiscursivestructurewhichisfoundindatafromalltheexistingstudiesontemporalityinL2:

RT-El,E2,E3,...En-Clsg

initialreferencetime-sequenceofevents-closing

Thefirstelementofthestructuregivesthereferencetimeofthefirsteventinthefollowingsequence:

before

enkeer,engang,unfois(=once)

l'autrejour(=theotherday)

enveckasen(=oneweeklater)

enChili(=inChile)

ichkleinekinder(=Ismallchild)

[ ]quandpetit(=Iwhenyoung)

moiquand[illvjen]ici(=Iwhenhe-comehere)

Thesecondpartofthistypicalstructureconsistsofasequenceofevents.(EltoEn)eitherjuxtaposed,orlinkedtogetherby'and','et',y,...orby'after','unddann','(en)dan','ochsen'.yaprès',....

Thereferencetimeofthefirsteventisusuallygivenbytheinitialsegment,butthetemporallocationofanEi+1istoreconstructasconsecutivetothelocationofEi,whenamarkerofconsecutionisgiven,oraseithersimultaneousorconsecutiveinthecaseofmerejuxtapositionorcoordination.

Thethirdelementofthediscursivestructuremaybe

(a)aconclusivemarker:

et[se]fini

et[se]tout

(b)anevaluation:

ypasproblème

ahlala!

(c)asummary.

Obviously,allonewantstotellcannotfitinsuchasimplestructure,andthespeaker(orthehearer)facesthelimitationsofitwhenacomment,orbackmovetoananteriorperiodoftime,comesup(seetheunderstandingprobleminAL'sextractfromanarrativeonhousingproceedingsatT2).

Variousstudieshavefoundadifferentialmorphologicaltreatmentofforegroundeventsinoppositiontotherestofthetext(Kumpf,1984;Schlyter,1984,forexample),butwithapparentlyoppositesolutions.Kumpf'sJapaneselearnerofEnglishseemstousethebaseformforallforegoundevents,markingpast(ormorepreciselycompletiveness)inthebackgroundonly,whereasSchlyter'sSwedishunguidedlearnersofFrenchseemtouseAux-Vformsforpunctualeventswhichmovetheplotforward,foractionsofhumanbeings,androotV-formsforstatesandbackgroundactionslinkedbyacausalsubordinator.Here

again,differentidiosyncraticformalsolutionspointatageneralprocessinthelearnersatafunctionallevel.

TheInfluenceoftheSL

TheroleofSLintheacquisitionofL2canbeseenattwodifferentlevelsatleast.Intheearlystagesofacquisition,SLprovidesthelearnerwithaninitialhypothesissetasfor(a)whichconceptualcategoriesarecentralinthelanguage,thatis,arelikelytoberepresentedingrammar,andasfor(b)whichtypesofstructuraldevicesarelikelytobearthisconceptualinformation.

Obviouslytheseinitialhypothesesaremodifiedsoonasacquisitionproceedsandtheyareconfirmed,orreplaced,orabandonedbythe

learner.IntheE.S.F.project,themost'exotic'SLsasregardstemporalcategoriesareTurkishandPunjabi.

ForTurkishlearnersofGerman,previouscross-sectionalstudies(Aksu,Dittmar,Klein,&Stutterheim,1982;Stutterheim,1984)haveshownthattheytendtospecialiselexicalmeansforobligatorygrammaticisedconceptualcategoriesoftheirSL,astheoppositionsbetween

witnessedpast/non-witnessedpast(markedbylearnerswith'vielleicht'(perhaps);

nearpast/remotepast,markedwith'vorher'/'ganzvorher'respectively.

Butthisdoesnotimplythat'additional'(fromtheviewpointofTL)categoriestakenfromanSLarelikelytobiasstronglythepathofacquisitionofL2.Theyonlygiveaspecialvaluetogivenlexicalunits,whichtendtoappearoverfrequently.'Missing'grammaticisedcategoriesintheSLoughttohaveadeeperinfluenceonthecourseofL2acquisition.

Punjabi(seeSimonot,1983;Bhardwaj,1983,1986a,b)isatense-freelanguage.Theverbformscategoriseaspectualdistinctionslikecompleted/incompleted,ongoing,habitualorpotential,andarelationalcategoryas'completedbeforeanotherevent',butnodeictictemporalcategoryatall.PunjabilearnersofEnglishtendtoconstructL2verbalsystemsinwhichthebaseformisopposedtothe-ingform:

baseformcompletedprocesses+definitefuture

-ingformongoingoruncompletedprocesses+ordinaryfuture

(Forfuture,theoppositionisamodalone.)

ThelocationofeventsintimeislefttolexicaImeansandtodiscourse

principles,inallthePunjabidataofEnglishstudiedsofar.ThetaskofconstructingdeictictensecategoriesappearsinfacttobeverydifficultforPunjabilearners,whointhelightoftheirSL,havenoreasontobesensitivetothisaspectofthevaluesofEnglishverbalmorphology.ItwillbecrucialtolookatfurtherdevelopmentalstagesfromPunjabis,andtocomparetheirdevelopmentwiththeItalianlearnersofEnglish,whohavedeictictensecategoriesintheirSL,andseemtoconstructabasictenseoppositionpast/non-past(seeBhardwaj,1986a,b).

LetuslookatthelinguisticsideofthepotentialinfluenceofSLontheacquisitionoftemporalityinL2,thatis,thetypesofstructuraldevicesforconveyingtheconceptualinformationthatmaybeinferredfromtheSL.

ItalianandSpanish-speakinglearnerstendtomakeearlyuseoftemporalPrepPandoftemporalsubordination:

wann...,wenn...inGermanL2

cuando,[kwan],quand...inFrenchL2

whereasTurkishlearnersdonot.HereisanexampleofaminimalnarrativebyaTurkishlearnerofGerman(Stutterheim,1984):

meinmannunfall-krankenhauszweimonat(myhusbandaccident-hospitaltwomonths)

ComparethiswiththenarrativeofBEabove,ataveryundevelopedacquisitionalstage.

ForFrenchL2,onemightarguetheproximityoflanguagesandtheformalsimilarityofcertainPrepsandconjunctions.ForGermanL2,thisargumentdoesnotapply.OnehypothesiscouldbethatItalianandSpanish-speakinglearnershavegivenexpectationsasregardsthestructuraldeviceswhicharelikelytobearthetemporalinformationinthesentence,basedonstructuralpropertiesoftheirSL.Hereagain,Spanish-speakinglearnersofSwedishontheonehand,whoseemtoacquireearlyPrepsandsubordinators,andArabic-speakinglearnersofFrenchontheotherhand,whodonot,shouldprovideadditionalevidence.

TheRelativeIntrinsicDifficultyofAcquisitionofGivenLinguisticMeansintheTLs

LetuslookattheoralmorphologyofFrenchverbs.The[-elendingislikelytocorrespondto:

regularinfinitive

regularpastparticiple

imperfect(the3rdpssg+3rdpl)forallverbs

present(2ndpl+politenessform)foralmostallverbs

[e]aspreverbalAuxmaycorrespondto:

'avoir'1stpssgpresent

'être'2ndand3rdpssgpresent

andforalearnerwithanSLphonologylikeSpanish,whodoesnotdistinguishbetween/oe

*/ande,aquantityofpreverbalmorphemes:

pronouns:'je'1stsgsubject,

theclitics'me,''te,''le,''les'asobjectordative

thereflexive'se'

thenegation'ne'

may(ormaynot)beblendedwithAux[e].Generallyspeaking,themainpossiblemarkersforpastareallbutsalientforthelearners.Onlyafewmarkersaresalientandunambiguous:

theAux[a],[ave],[swi],[sõ]

(forformingpassécomposé)

endingslike[-ra],[-rõ](forfuture).

ThewholeverbalmorphologyofFrenchcanbesaidtobeopaquetothelearners.Asaconsequencelearnerproductions,eveniftheydonotraiseunderstandingproblemsatthelevelofcommunication,arefarfromeasyfortheresearchertointerpret.

Comparatively,inGermanmorphologytheregularmarkersforpreterite[-te()]andforpastparticiple[ge-]aswellastheAuxforms'hab(e),''hat','bin,''sind,'...haveahighsaliency.ThismayhelptounderstandwhyintheFrenchdatabase,positivemorphologicalmarkersfortenseappearsolate(seesection'MorphologicalMeansforTemporality'above),whereastheTurkishandItalianlearnersofGermanconstructanoppositionbaseform/ge-formrelativelysoon(cf.Stutterheim,1984andAksu,Dittmar,Klein&Stutterheim,1982).

ConcludingRemarks

Fromtheanalysisofthesefirstlongitudinalsamplesofdatafromtwoyearsofearlyacquisition,itappearsthattheproblemofthelearnerinacquiringdevicesforaconceptualdomainliketemporalityismultiple.

Heorshecanrelyonanimportantbodyofknowledgedrawnfromtheexperienceofbeinganadultspeakerofafullydevelopedlanguage,

andonallhisorhercapacitytograsptheworldandinferbroaderprinciplesfromlimitedevidence.Heorshemaymakethemostoutofalimitedrepertoireoflinguisticmeansforcommunication,withhisorherabilitytocombinelinguisticandnon-linguisticinformationforgivingtheinterlocutorenoughcuesforreconstructingthemessageintention.Theseresourcesallowhimorhertocommunicatewhileheorsheislearning.

Butmeanwhile,heorshehastoanalyseandidentifythepeculiarsetsofchoicesoftheTLinstructuringtheperceptionoftheworld,and

therehisorhercompetenceasanativespeakerofanotherlanguagehelpsandcreatesproblemsatthesametime.

Beyondtheconstructionofgrammarbythelearner,aconcept-orientedapproachinthestudyofsecondlanguageacquisitionwillallowabetterunderstandingatadeeperlevel,ofhowandwhysomecategoriestendtobeconstructedmoreorlesseasilyintheinterlanguage.Across-linguisticapproachinthisperspectivewillgiveaccesstotheinfluenceonthisprocessoftheconceptualcategorieswhichareprivilegedintheSLorTL,andallowustoweightherelativeimportanceofthedifferentlevelsoforganisationoflanguageintheacquisitionprocess.

NotestoChapter9

1.ThedatawhichareusedinthisstudyhavebeencollectedandtranscribedbyallthemembersoftheParisteamoftheE.S.F.Project.Thankstoallofthemalsoforthediscussionoftheseanalyses.

2.

Informant'smonthsofstayat T1 and atT2

AL 11 22

BE 13 27

GR 16 24

Whenwerefertosamplesofdata,thenotationisthefollowing:NN+18=theinitialsoftheinformant'spseudonym+lengthofstayinmonths.

3.Thetranscriptionconventionsarethefollowing:

porque SLsegment

[paske] segmentinphonetictranscription

+,++,+++ short,medium,longpause

nnnn/ self-interruption

| risingintonation

IInnnnII sequencewithahightoneofvoice.

Thenumbersareusedtoidentifythenarrativesegments.TheformulasanddiagramswiththeseRomannumbersrepresentthetemporalorganisationofthenarratives.

4.Thediagramsaremeanttorepresenttherelationbetweenthenarrativesampleand(a)thechronologyofevents,alongatimeaxis;(b)thediscursivelevels.Afewadditionalsymbolsare;

--+-->thetimeaxis,withtheutterancetimeasorigo

-2- durativesituation

»5 prospectiveevent

5.Thesetwonarratives,aswellasGR'sNarrative2,havebeenanalysedinsomedetailinNoyau,1984,andinamoreexhaustivewayinNoyau.1986.SeealsoforGR,Trévise,1984;forBE,Vasseur,1985.

6.ThissectionowesmuchtoStutterheim&Klein,1986.

References

ADAM,J.-M.,1978,Lacohésiondessequencesdepropositionsdanslamacrostructurenarrative.LangueFrançaise38,101-117.

AKSU,A.,DITTMAR,N.,KLEIN,W.&STUTTERHEIM,C.VON,1982,OntheAcquisitionofTemporalityinGermanbyAdultMigrantWorkers.PaperdeliveredattheSecondEuropean-North-AmericanWorkshoponSecondLanguageAcquisition,Göhrde,F.R.G.

ANDERSEN,R.,1984,TheDevelopmentofVerbalMorphologyintheSpanishofEnglishSpeakers.Workingpaper,WorkshoponTemporality,Max-PlanckInstitutfürPsycholinguistik,Nijmegen.

BHARDWAJ,M.,1983,January,AspectualandTemporalReferenceinthePunjabiVerbSystemandtheInfluenceofthisSystemontheNaturalAcquisitionofEnglishasaSecondLanguage.PaperdeliveredattheSSRCWorkshop,Southall.

1986a,AnAnalysisofTemporalityinInterlanguageNarratives.ESFProjectpaper.

1986b,ReferencetoTimebyTwoMoreAcquirersofEnglish.ESFProjectpaper.

BOWERMAN,M.,1984,EventSegmentation.+EventSegmentation,Continued:MoreonEventCondensation.Workingpapers,WorkshoponTemporality,Max-PlanckInstitutfürPsycholinguistik,Nijmegen.

FRAUENFELDER,U.,NOYAU,C.,PERDUE,C.&PORQUIER,R.,1980,Connaissance

enlangueétrangère.Langages57,43-60.

GIACOBBE,J.&CAMMAROTA,M.A.,1986,Learner'shypothesesfortheacquisitionoflexis.StudiesinSecondLanguageAcquisition8(3).327-342.

HOUDAÏFA,T.,1983,Laréférencepersonnelleettemporelledanslerécitd'unapprenantenmilieunaturel.Acquisitiondufrançaispardestravailleursmarocains.PapiersdeTravail1,125-140.

KINTSCH,W.&VANDIJK,T.,1975,Commentonserappelleetrésumedeshistoires.Langages40,98-116.

KUMPF,L.,1984,Temporalsystemsanduniversalityininterlanguage:Acasestudy.InF.R.ECKMAN,L.H.BELL&D.NELSON(eds),UniversalsofSecondLanguageAcquisition.Rowley,MA:NewburyHouse,132-143.

LABOV,W.,1972,LanguageintheInnerCity:StudyintheBlackEnglishVernacular.Philadelphia:UniversityofPennsylvaniaPress.

NOYAU,C.,1984,thedevelopmentofmeansfortemporalityinFrenchbyadultSpanish-speakers:linguisticdevicesandcommunicativecapacities.InG.EXTRA&M.MITTNER(eds),StudiesinSecondLanguageAcquisitionbyAdultImmigrants.TilburgStudiesinLanguageandLiterature6.Tilburg,TheNetherlands:TilburgUniversity,113-137.

1986,L'AcquisitionduFrançaisdansleMilieuSocialpardesAdultesHispanophones:LaTemporalité.Unpublisheddoctoraldissertation,SorbonneUniversity,Paris.

PERDUE,C.(ed),1982,SecondLanguageAcquisitionbyAdultImmigrants.AFieldManual.Strasbourg:EuropeanScienceFoundation.

POTTIER,B.,1974,LinguistiqueGénérale,ThéorieetDescription.Paris:Klincksieck.

SCHLYTER,S.,1984,L'AcquisitiondesFormesetdesFonctionsVerbalesFrançaisespardesApprenantsSuédois.PaperdeliveredattheNinthCongressofScandinavianRomanists,Helsinki.

SIMONOT,M.,1983,January,'LongTimeGo':NarrativeTechniquesofaSecondLanguageSpeaker.PaperdeliveredattheSSRCWorkshop,Southall.

STUTTERHEIM,C.VON,1984,DerAusdruckderTemporalitätinderZweitsprache:EineUntersuchungzumErwerbdesDeutschendurchturkischeGastarbeiter.Reviseddoctoraldissertation,FreieUniversitätBerlin.Berlin:WalterdeGruyter.

SIUTTERHEIM,C.VON&KLEIN,W.,1986,Aconcept-orientedapproachtosecondlanguagestudies.InC.W.PFAFF(ed.),FirstandSecondLanguageAcquisitionProcesses.Rowley,MA:NewburyHouse.

TANNEN,D.,1983,'Itakeouttherockdok!':howGreekwomentellaboutbeingmolested(andcreateinvolvement).AnthropologicalLinguistics25(3),359-374.

(forthcoming).IntroducingconstructeddialogueinGreekandAmericanconversationalandliterarynarrative.InF.COULMAS(ed.),ReportedSpeechAcrossLanguages.

TRÉVISE,A.,1984,SomeRemarksontheExpressionofTemporalityintheSpeechofaSpanish-speakingAdultAcquiringFrenchinaNaturalSetting.Workingpaper,WorkshoponTemporality,Max-PlanckInstitutfürPsycholinguistik,Nijmegen.

TRÉVLSE,A.&HÉRÉDIA,C.DE,1984,Lesmalentendus:Effetdeloupesurcertainsphénomènesd'acquisitiond'unelangueétrangère.InC.NOYAU

&R.PORQUIER(eds),CommuniquerdanslaLanguedel'Autre.Paris:PressesUniversitairesdeVincennes.

TRÉVISE,A.&PORQUIER,R.,1986,Secondlanguageacquisitionbyadultimmigrants:Exemplifiedmethodology.StudiesinSecondLanguageAcquisition8(3),265-275.

VASSEUR,M.T.,1985,BE:ALongitudinalStudyofTemporalityinaSpanish-speakingLearner'sPersonalNarratives.ESFProjectpaper.

10ReferenceandDiscourseStructureintheLearningofFrenchByAdultMoroccansDanielVeronique

Introduction

Theaimofthispaper

1istoexploretherelationshipthatexistsbetweenreferenceanddiscourseorganisationintheearlystagesoftheacquisitionofasecondlanguageinanaturalisticsettingbyadultlearners.IfwehypothesisethatinhisorherfirstattemptsatproductioninL2,thelearnercanonlyrelyonthefollowingresources:

(a)knowledgeoflanguageproductionactivitiesandcommunicativeinteractioninL1;

(b)useofnon-verbalsignals(betheysourceculturespecificornot);

(c)knowledgeofsomegeneralprinciplesfororganisingtheinformationtodeliver;

(d)lexicalitemsinL2,

itfollowsthatgivinginformationaboutobjects,theirstateandchangeofstate,aboutdegreeofacquaintancewithapersonorobject,andaboutthespatio-temporalcorrelatesofactionsandprocesses(i.e.thebasicsofproductiveactivities)isoneofthemostinfluentialfactorsintheshapingofutterancesanddiscourseinL2.

Inthispaper,Iwouldliketoinvestigatetheextenttowhichthe

acquisitionanduseoftheL2pronominalsystemandofreferentialexpressionsinthetargetlanguage,ofspatialandtemporalmarkingarediscoursedependent.ItismycontentionthattheBickertonianspecific/nonspecificorstate/nonstatedichotomiesinlanguageacquisitionandlanguageevolution

donotapplytoL2learning.Ishallsupporttheviewthatinthedataavailableatleast,referentialvaluesforlexicalitemsarecontextuallyboundandareindependentoftheTLsemanticandpragmaticvaluesofthedeterminersthathappentooccurinthelearnersystem.IamawarethatitcanberetortedinanswertothecriticismlevelledatBickerton's(1981)dichotomiesthatadultscannotbeexpectedtoactivatetheirinnatebioprograminsecondlanguagelearning.ThisisnoargumentformesinceIbelievethatwecansatisfactorilyexplainlanguageacquisitionwithoutrecoursetosuchaconstruct.

Iwouldthusliketoassesshowfardiscourseconstraintssuchasthoseinvolvedinthetaskofstory-retellingaffectthemarkingofreferentialactivities.Ifurtherwishtoevaluatetheshareofmeansotherthanthosetiedtoreference,suchaswordorderorconnectorsforexample,tothestructuringofdiscourseactivitiesinaparticulartask.

Thefirstsectionofthisarticle'ReferenceandDiscourseStructure'developsthetheoreticalframeworkofthestudyandreviewssomeoftherelevantliteratureontheacquisitionofreferenceanddiscoursestructureinFrenchasasecondlanguage.Inthesecondsection,'AcquisitionofReferenceinFrenchbyAdultMoroccans'IsummarisepreviousworkontheacquisitionofreferencebyMoroccanadultsincludingfindingsonAbdelmalek'sinterlanguage(IL),oneinformantforthisstudy.Inthethirdandfourthsections'TheInformant'and'TheCharlieChaplinExperiment'Iintroducetheinformantandthedesignoftheexperiment.Thefindingsofthestudyarepresentedanddiscussedinthefinalsections'Findings'and'Discussion'.

ReferenceandDiscourseStructure

Referentialactivitycanbeapproachedfromtwodifferentperspectives:asacomponentofwhatGivón(1984)callspropositionalsemantics,thatis,attheclauselevelorinrelationshiptocohesion

(Halliday&Hasan,1976)ordiscoursepragmatics(Givón,1984).Obviouslinksexistbetweenthefunctionsofreferentialexpressionswithinthepropositionanditspragmaticrolesinrelationtotheprecedingandsubsequentutterances.Whenmentioningthesetwolevelsoffunction,itshouldbeborneinmindthatreferenceisbutoneofthelinguisticdomainsthathelpfosterthediscoursefabric.Predicationisanotheroneoftheselinguisticrealmsthatcontributestronglytodiscourseorganisation.

Halliday&Hasan(1976)verycarefullydistinguishbetweendiscoursestructureandwhattheycallcohesion.Accordingtothem,discoursestructure

referstosometypeofstructurelargerthanasentencesuchasaparagraphforexample,whereascohesionisasemanticandpragmaticentity.Iusethetermdiscourseinaverybroadsensetorefertothewayinwhichsentencesareboundandrelatedtogethertoformlargerentitiestheprototypeofwhichisthenarrative(Labov,1972).Discoursestructurethenisnotastaticdevicesituatedatarankabovethesentence,butacovertermtodesignatethesetofmeansandthepragmaticeffectstheyproducewhichenablethespeakerandthehearer,eachwithinhisownperspective,todistinguishforinstancebetweenbackgroundandforegroundinformation,orevaluationandsummarywithinanarrative.

Inthisarticle,Ihavesingledoutreferentialactivityasoneofthemajorsetsofmeansbywhichdiscoursecomesintobeing.Doubtlessly,manyothermeanscontributetodiscoursefabric.Itismycontentionthattheoriginofsyntaxmustbesoughtindiscourse.Inthatrespect,IshareGivón'sview(1979)thatthedistinctionbetweendiscoursestructureandsentencestructureis,insomesense,anarbitraryone.However,Imustadmitthatlinguisticresearchhasveryclearlydemonstratedthatconstraintsinterveneattheclauselevelsuchas,forinstance,thosethattieclassesofNPstogivenclassesofverbswhich,althoughtheymightoriginateindiscourse,donotaffectthediscourselevelperse.Ontheotherhand,theexistenceofspecificpatternsofdiscourseorganisationwhicharenotstrictlydependentontheclauselevel,suchasthoseanalysedbyDeulofeu(1980)forspokenvernacularFrench,canbedemonstratedaswell.

ReferenceandDiscourseStructureinL2Acquisition

Thetheme-themedistinctionanditsapplicationtotheanalysisofdataproducedbylearnersintheirfirststagesofL2acquisitionhasbeendiscussedrecentlyinvariousarticlesbyDittmar(1984),Schumann(1983).andTrévise(1986).Ihavesingledoutfordiscussionthe

importantcross-linguisticanalysisbyKlein&Perdue(1986)whichdealspartlywithdatafromaFrenchL2learner.IshallalsosummariseenpassantworkdonebyGiacomi(1986)andDeulofeu(1986)onMoroccanArabiclearnersofFrench.

Klein&Perdue(1986)attempttounderstandhowalearnerwhodoesnotpossess'thenormalsyntacticdevices'availabletoanativespeaker,organiseshisorherutterances.TheylistaseriesofprinciplesoflinearisationoflexicalitemswhichcouldbeappliedbyalearnerlackingsyntacticmeanseitherbecauseofL1influence,ofthelearner'smetalinguisticawarenessofL2,ofhisorherattempttofacilitatehisorherinterlocutor'sunderstanding,orbecausetheprincipleisdeemeduniversal.Oneobjectiontothisapproachcanberaised:whatishypothesisedbytheauthorstobethespecialcaseof

theL2learnercouldbethecaseofthenativespeaker,aswell.Thenativespeakercanuseanarrayofbothsyntacticandthematicmeanstoorganisehisorherutteranceswithoutdoingitbydefault,sotosay.

Analysesofthe'CharlieChaplin'retellingbyItalianslearningGermanandEnglish,andbyaSpanishspeakerlearningFrenchrevealthefollowing.InthecaseofVito,theItalianlearningGerman,thearrangementproblemsencounteredinhisILaresolvedaccordingtothefollowingdistinctions:

1.PresentationalshaveafinalNP,othersaninitialNP.

2.WhentwoNPsarepresent,theagentoccupiesfirstposition.

Althoughothercomplicatingfactorsdooccasionallyintervene,Vito'sutterancesseemtofollowtheseconstraints.TheycanalsobefoundinRudolfo'sretelling.Itseems,however,thathemakesextensiveuseofanassociativecontextualisation.Besides,rulesofreferencedonotoperateincasesofsubordination,anddifferentintonationcontoursareusedtomarkintroductionsandconclusionstoepisodes.

Ramon'sretelling,theonlycaseofalearnerofFrenchasL2,isthemostintricateone.TheassessmentofthemaintypeofutterancesusedbyRamondisclosesthatinthesequencesØ-VandNominativeclitic-V,Øandnominativecliticarecomplementarilydistributed.Thismaybeexplainedeitherasmaintenanceorchangeoffunctionoftheprecedingreferent.IntheformercaseØisused,exceptwhenthespanofreferenceisabovetwoutterances,andinthelattercasecliticsareused.Re-introductionofanentityisdonethroughalexicalN.

AccordingtoKleinandPerdue(1986),themaintenanceofreferencebypronounsorØ,ortheirre-introductionseemtobedeterminedbyepisodeboundarieswhichRamonhasdevisedforhimself,independentofthematerialpresentedtohim.ThiswouldexplainthefrequencyofoccurrenceofN-VandN-clitic-Vpatterns.

ThefindingsofKleinandPerdueconcerningtheuseofNPsinrelationtoVformsconfirmpreviousworkbyGivón.TheyarealsoquiteinaccordancewithwhatwasfoundinAbdelmalek'sretellings,asweshalldiscusslater.TheycorrespondwithTrévise's(1986)findingsontheuseof[se]inGloria'sdata,aSpanishlearnerofFrench.

InordertofullyappreciateourfindingsintheAbdelmalekstudy,itisnecessarytocontrastitwithpreviousworkontheacquisitionofutterancepatternsbyMoroccanArabicspeakers.

Deulofeu(1983)identifiesthreemaintopic/commentpatternsinthefirsttwoencountersofAbderrahim,anotherMoroccaninformant:

(a)withoutany'constructional'element,forexample,monsieurJosémonsieurTayebdirecteur(misterJosémisterTayebdirector)

(b)withan'elementary'verbforexample,lamusique[se]bien(musicit'sgood)

(c)with'full'verbsforexample,lefacteur[ ]enveloppeparlemonsieurparlamaison(thepostman[Igive]envelopebythemanbythehouse)

Deulofeuarguesthatinallthesecasesthefirsttermisatopicbecause:

(a)itisnotcompulsory;

(b)itisneverindefinite;

(c)itcouldnotbe'translated'byanagentorasubjectinthetargetlanguage(TL).

Deulofeu(1986)assumesthatduringL2acquisitionbothgrammaticalanddiscursivestructuresarelearnedinparallel.HebelievesthatalthoughthesyntacticorganisationofILdoesnotdiffermuchfromthatoftheTLfromaqualitativepointofview,itsinterpretationbyaTLspeakermightprovetobedifficult.DeulofeushowsthatoneMoroccaninformant,Abdelmalek,isabletouseallthediscursivedevicesavailabletoanativespeakertostructuretheinformationhewantstoconvey.Despitethis'knowledge'however,misunderstandingcropsupinthelearner'sinteractionwithaTLinvestigatorbecauseofthemannerinwhichheusesthediscursivedevices,amannerpartiallyifnottotallydifferentfromthatofaTLspeaker.Itisthecommunicativestyleswhichseemtodiffer.

Giacomi(1986)studiesthestructuringofutterancesthroughtheinterplayofquestionsandanswersinthefirst,fifth,andninthencounterswithAbdelmalek.Hedrawsupalistofthelexicalmeansusedbytheinformantinhisinteractionwiththeinvestigator:repetitionofalexicalitemgivenbytheinvestigatorone-wordanswers.HealsomentionsanotherdevicefrequentlyusedforthestructuringofutterancesbyAbdelmalek:propositionalaccumulation.InhisanalysisofdatacomparabletoDeulofeu(1986).Giacomi(1986)comestoslightlydifferentconclusions.AlthoughheagreeswithDeulofeuthatthereisnogreatdifferencebetweenanarrativetoldbyaTLspeakerandtoldbyalearner,hedrawsattentiontothespecificuseofparceque,après,andyenabyAbdelmalek.Thosemarkers

seemtobeusedeithertointroducebackground(yena)orforegrounditems(parceque,après).Wewillcomebacktothispointlater.

Finally,Houdaïfa(1986)inhisanalysisofdatafromthefirstcycleofinvestigationwithAbderrahimgivessomeinformationonthewayhisutterancesarestructured.Henotesthatalthoughthestatusofpredicatecanbeassignedtoagivenlexicaliteminagivenutterance,nosatisfactorycriteriaareavailabletodistinguishbetweennounsandverbsinAbderrahim'sutterances.Houdaïfastressesthefrequencyofzeroanaphorainsubjectpositioninvariousdiscourse(suchasmentionofthetopicinapreviousclause)andsyntacticcontexts(withinterrogativesornegation,forinstance).Hefinallymentionstheuseofawordorderpatternbasedonthethematic-rhematicdichotomyandthefrequentuseofthematicmarkersc'estandilya.Houdaïfaarguesthataparallelmustbedrawnbetweenthedevelopmentofpronominalreferenceandthegrowingsyntacticstructuringoftheinformant'sutterances.

AcquisitionofReferenceinFrenchbyAdultMoroccans

ThereferentialactivitiesofAbdelmalek,oneMoroccaninformant,canbestbestudiedifseenwithinthegeneralframeworkoftheacquisitionofmeanstorefertopeople,space,andtimeasusedbyMoroccanadults.Suchastudyofthedevelopmentoflinguisticmeanstorefertoselforothersandtospatio-temporalcorrelatesofeventsandprocessesacrossindividuallearnersshowsmanycommonalities.

NominalReference

Coupler(1983)presentsastudyoftheacquisitionofpronominalreference.ItisbasedonextractsfromthefirstsixencounterswithZahra,afemalesubjectwho,atthetimethedatacollectionstarted,hadbeeninFranceforapproximatelyoneyear.Coupiernotesthattheinformant'sutterancestendtobeorganisedaccordingtoatheme-

rhemedivision.ShefurthernotesthatinZahra'sinterlanguagemorphologyisofnohelpindecidingtowhichsyntacticclassagivenlexicalitembelongs.Shedrawsattentiontotheplurifunctionalityofmorpheme-likeelementslike[e]or[li]andtheirvariants.Coupier'sstudyiscentredonsuchmorpheme-likeitemsimmediatelyprecedingtherheme-predicateinZahra'sutterances.Duringthethreefirstencounters,self-referenceismainlyexpressedthroughthefollowing:

Jeormoije,whicharetheusualTLformsinsubjectorthematicposition,areusedveryinfrequentlyintheexamineddata,buttendtobecomeimportantbytheendoftheobservationperiod.IncontextswhereTLwould

Coupier'sstudyofZahraconfirmsapreviousstudybyVéronique(1983)onpronominalreferenceinAbdelmalek'sIL.ItseemsthatduringthefirststepsinL2,themaininformationastowhetherreferenceistoselfornot,liesintheuseornon-useofmoi,giventhatzeroanaphoraisafrequentfeature,governedbythematiccontinuity(seealsoHoudaïfa,1986;andDeulofeu,1986).Assoonasthedistinctionbetweenfullandcliticpronounsaswellasapossibledistinctionbetweenthemeandgrammaticalsubjectseemtobemastered,pronominalreferenceintheILtendstobecomesimilartothatoftheTL.

Houdaïfa(1986)describespronominalreferenceinAbderrahim'sIL.Forself-reference,jeandmoijeareused,butalsoilasisthecasewithZahra.Forreferencetotheaddressee,tuisusedasintheTL.Torefertosomeotherperson,je+predicateoril+predicateareused.Thus,theacquisitionofpronominalreferencebyAbderrahimseemstoproceedalongsimilarlinesaswithZahraandAbdelmalek.AcliticformfromTL(eitherje[TL+speakerpronoun]oril[TL-speaker-addresseepronoun])isappendedtothepredicateandthisunanalysed(?)blockisusedassuch.Specificreferencetoselforothersismadethroughtheuseoffullpronounsorthroughthecontext.Itshouldbe

addedthatzeroanaphoraaswellaspresentativeandexistentialreferenceareusedwhenthetopicisclearlyintheforeground.

Véronique(1984)givessupporttothistrendbypullingtogetherdatafromZahra(seeCoupier,1983),Rquia(firstthreeinterviews),Abdelmalek(firsteightinterviews)andAbdessamad(firstinterview).Itwouldevenbepossibletogroupinformantsonanacquisitionalscaleindicatingwhether:

(a)theyaddamorpheme-likeunanalysedformtothepredicatebeit[li],[le],[i]oreven[ ]ornot;

(b)theyrefertoselfpreferentiallybymeansof(moi)+jeorthrough

(c)theyuse[jãna]/[ja]or[se]extensivelytoavoidreferencetoselfthroughpronominalforms;

(d)referencetoselforothersisestablishedmainlythroughthelinguisticcontextratherthanbyexplicitpronominalmarking.

Véronique(1985a)analyses(seeTable1)themannerinwhichAbdelmalekandAbdessamadrefertopersonsandobjectsbylookingatthetypesofNPsandpronoun-likeformstheyuseduringthefirsttenencountersofthedatacollectioncycle.Concerningtheacquisitionanduseoflexicalreferentialexpressionsthemainfindingsare:

1.Inthefirststages,thelexicalitemsareacquiredandusedassuchwithoutanyattentionbeingpaidtowhethertheitemisprecededbyadeterminerornot,ortothesemanticandpragmaticvalueofthegivendeterminer.

2.LexicalNPsderivetheirreferentialvaluemainlythroughthelinguisticcontext.Thisexplainswhyzerodeterminersareemployedinamannersimilartozeroanaphora.

3.Half-waythroughtheperiodofobservation.Abdelmalekacquiresthedefinite/indefinitedistinction.Hestartsusingreferentialexpressionsoftheformindefinitedeterminer+Nountointroducenewreferentsanddefinitedeterminer+Nountorefertoknownitems.Thedefinite/indefinitedistinctionhasbeenmasteredbyAbdessamadalreadyattheoutsetofthedatacollectioncycle.

4.Nodemonstrativearticleisusedbyeitherinformantduringthephaseofobservation.Thisimpliesthatsequencesofdefinitedeterminer+NounorevenØ+NounmustbeendowedwithspecificdeicticforceinIL.

SpatialReference

Houdaïfa(1986)includesastudyofthesyntaxandsemanticsoftheverbsofmovement,ofdirection,andofpositionindatafromthefirsttenencounterswithAbderrahim.Thefollowingverbsareanalysed:partir,arriver,sortir,venir,rester,aller,marcher.Apartfromadetailedspecificationofthesyntacticdistributionofeachverb,Houdaïfa(1986)providesthefollowinginformationaboutspatialreferenceinAbderrahim'sIL:

(a)Themainspatialprepositionsusedinconjunctionwiththe

TABLE1.pronominalreference(referencetoself).Zahra Abdelmalek Rquia

ArrivalinFrance

1981 09.1981 1981

Periodofdatacollection

6monthlyencountersbetween18.11.82and23.07.83(248days)



Forms formulaicuseofje+[kõprã]+[se]moi+Pred.*

formulaicuseof[ nepa][ krwa](moi)+Pred.(moi)+(li)+Pred.

moi+Pred.(moi)je+Pred.(Self-correctionsofmoi+il+Pred.intomoi+je+Pred.canbeobserved.)

Beginningwiththethirdencounter(after111days)theTL-likeform(moi)+je+Pred.canalsobeobserved.

Beginningwiththefourthencounter(after109days)theTL-likeform(moi)+je+Prod.canalsobeobserved.

*Predicate

movementverbsareà,avec,par,andàcôté.ItshouldbenotedthatmostspatialexpressionshavetheformV+prep.+NinAbderrahim'sIL;

(b)partirisusedbyAbderrahimwhereverallerwouldbeusedinTL;

(c)somespatialprepositionsareovergeneralisedduringspecificencounters,forinstance,parinthefirstthreeinterviewsoravecinthefifth.

Véronique(1985b)describestheacquisitionofthelinguisticmeansofspatialreferencebyAbdelmalekandAbdessamad.Thisstudyisbasedonconversationsandspecifictasksrecordedduringthefirstcycleofdatacollection.Itsmainfindingsare:

1.Despitesomemarkeddifferencesintheconstructionofspatialexpressions,AbdelmalekandAbdessamadsharethesameverbsofmovement:entrer,rentrer,partir,monter,aller,venir,descendre,sortir,marcher,tomber,passer,rester,tourner.ThislistisdifferentfromtheonegivenaboveforAbderrahim.

2.Thetwoinformantsdivergeinthemannertheybuildtheirreferentialexpressions.Fromthestart,AbdessamadlikeAbderrahimusesV+preposition+N,theprepositionbeinginmostcasesà,whereasAbdelmalekstartsoutwithV+Ø+NtoendupwithV+à+Nattheendofourobservationperiod.

3.Thespatialexpressionsmusteredbytheinformantsvaryduetothepragmaticconstraintsimposeduponthembytheelicitationsituation.Thus,itwasobservedthatonlyasubsetoftheverbsavailabletoAbdelmalekandAbdessamadwasusedbythemintherecordedconversationsandnarratives.

4.Thistaskvariationcanbefurtherexplainedbythetypeofschematisation(Talmy,1983)theinformantneedstoexpressin

variousdiscoursecontexts.Insomeofthedataelicitationtechniques,bothinteractantscanseethereferentsandsharethesituationwherevariousspatialexpressionsmustbeproducedbytheinformant.Inothercases,inadifferentsetting,theinformantmustreconstructaspatialdomainknowntobothpartners.Inothercasesstill,theinformantmustdescribemovementsandspatialsettingstotheinvestigator,ofwhichthelatterisunaware.Thatisthecasewhennarrativesinvolvingspatialreferenceareproducedbyaninformant.

Houdaïfa&Véronique(1984)extendtheanalysisofVéronique(1985b)totwootherinformants,ZahraandAbderrahim.Onlythemainresultswillbesummarisedhere.

IntheAsh-TrayExperimentdatathefollowingisobserved(seePerdue,1982)forthefourinformants:

1.Thecanonicalformofreferentialexpressionsinthattaskis

whereVisacausativemovementverblikeposer(toplace);thereferentisusuallyspecifiedlexicallyexceptwhenitisreplacedbyzeroanaphorabecauserulesoftopiccontinuityapplyandtherelatumisoftenspecifiedbyadeicticratherthanbyanoun.

2.Thereisanimportantvariationacrossinformantsinthewayreferentialexpressionsarebuilt.AbdelmalekandAbdessamadhaveamoreimportantlexisforVthanZahraorAbderrahim.

3.Itemscommontoallinformantsincludecausativeverbs[uvrir]and[ferme]andspatialprepositionsdansandpour.

4.Twomainspatialschematisationsareexpressedinthistask:movementtowardsagoalandinclusionofoneobjectinanother.Thelatterisexpressedmainlythroughtheuseofdansandnotbymeansofacausativeofmovementsuchasmettre.

Dataonroutedescriptionsyieldthefollowingcommoncharacteristics:

(a)Theorderofdescriptionfollowsthespatio-temporalconfigurationtobedescribed;

(b)thedescriptionisorderedasifthenarratorproceededmentallyfromonesalientreferencepointtoanother;

(c)thementionofagivenreferencepointinthespatialdescriptionallowsfordigressionsandcomments;

(d)movementfromonereferencepointtoanotherisexpressedmainlythroughverbs.

RoutedescriptionsinL1andL2haveonefeatureincommon:theinformantseemstojourneyacrossamentalmapasheorshetalksabouttheroute.DifferencesbetweenthetwosetsofdataderivefromthefactthattheinformantshavealargerstockofspatialexpressionsinL1thanL2.Besidesthereferencepointsmentionedinbothnarrativesdifferbecauseofculturalbackground.ThusinL1,placesknowntoNorthAfricanmigrantworkersarementioned,whereasinL2Frenchculturebasedreferencepointsarechosen.

Houdaïfa&Véronique's(1984)studyconfirmsoneimportantfeaturenoticedpreviously:thevarioustypesofspatialexpressionsproducedin

varioussettingsdiffernotsomuchintheverbsasintheprepositionsandadverbsused.

TemporalReference

Houdaïfa(1983a,b)dealswithtemporalreferenceinthedataoftwoinformants,AbdelmalekandAbdessamad.DespitethefactthatafairamountofverbalmorphologyisobservedinILdataentrerforinstanceisfoundunderthefollowingforms:[eantre],[ãtre].[syiãtre]itdoesnotseemtofulfilspecifictemporaloraspectualfunctions.However,HoudaïfanotesthatinAbdelmalek'sdataatleast,thedistributionofverbalformsseemstobedeterminedbytheexistenceofvariousdimensionsinAbdelmalek'snarrative.Thestorylineismarkedbya+VformswhereasVstemsandV+eformsareusedinthebackground.InAbdessamad'sdata,localconstraintsgovernthedistributionofverbalforms.Thus,iftwoverbalformsoccurinsuccession,thesecondverbhasaV+eform.MorphologybeingrarelyusedinILtoexpresstemporality,temporalreferenceisexpressedthroughthefollowingdevices:

(a)strictobservanceofthechronologicalsequenceofeventstoberecountedandoftheirspatialsettingshence,theimportanceofdates;

(b)useofconnectorssuchasalors,aprèswhichallowacontrastbetweenwhathappensbeforeandafterthereferencepoint;

(c)useof'situants'suchasbierandaujourd'huiwhichmarkthepointofdeparturefromthesequenceofevents;

(d)recoursetoaspectualoperatorssuchasparfois,jamaisandchaquefois.

Summary

AmongthemoststrikingfeaturesobservedintheacquisitionofreferencebytheMoroccaninformants,thefollowingshouldbe

stressedbecauseoftheirrelevance:

(a)theapparentlynon-functionaluseofthedefinitearticleintheconstructionofnominalexpressions;

(b)theprogressivecliticisationofthesegmentappendedtothepredicate;

(c)theacquisitionoflocativeprepositionsinadeterminedorder:ï>à>dans>pour;

(d)theapparentlynon-functionalmotivationofverbalmorphologyinIL.

Anotherimportanthintprovidedbythepreliminaryanalysesisthecloselinksthatmayexistbetweentheuseofnewlexicalitems,theactivityofreferringtopersons,objectsorspaceandthestructuringofutterancesintermsofthetheme-rhemedichotomy.Ineffect,suchdiscourseconstraintsastopiccontinuity,referentialcontinuity,ortopicswitchapplywithreferencetopersonsandspaceaswellaswiththestructuringofutterances.ItwouldseemthatanimplicationalrelationshipholdsbetweenthemasteryoftheTLpronominalsystem,andmorepreciselyofthecliticversusfullpronoundichotomy(whereitexists),andthemarkingofobligatorysubject.

TheInformant

Abdelmalek,themaininformantforthisstudy,isoneofthefourlongitudinalinformantswehaveworkedwithduringthepastthreeyearsintheEuropeanScienceFoundation(ESF)researchprojectonsecondlanguageacquisition(Perdue,1982).Atthetimedatacollectionstarted,hewastwentyandhadbeenlivinginFranceillegallyforapproximatelytwelvemonths(hewasgrantedamnestyin1981).HisfirstlanguageisMoroccanArabicandheknowssomeSpanishfromlivinginNorthernMoroccoandfromhavingspentsomethreeyearsinSpain.AbdelmalekattendedprimaryschoolinMoroccobutdroppedoutaftertwoyears.

SincethattimehedidnotreceiveanytypeofinstructionexceptforaonehourlanguagecourseheattendedinFranceduringhisfirstyearofstayorso.AfterhismigrationtoFrance,AbdelmalekhasworkedasafishermanonaboatownedbyabossofItalianorigin,thenasaclothessellerinamarketwhosecurrentcustomersarespeakersofArabic.AbdelmalekprovedverycooperativeduringthecourseofourfieldworkandthoughtthatparticipationinthestudywouldhelphimimprovehismasteryofFrench.Heisaverygoodstorytellerasallthedatacollectedfromhimhasproved.

AtthetimewhenthefirstCharlieChaplinExperimentwassubmittedtoAbdelmalek,hisILhadthefollowingcharacteristicsinthedomainofreferencetopersonsandobjects:

(a)relianceoncontextforthereferentialvaluesoflexicalNPs;

(b)fullpronounsfillingthethematicslotwhile'thewouldbecliticparadigmseemedtobereducedatonestagetooneitemlialternatingwithØ;

(c)rarityofprepositions,beittomarksemanticlinksbetweenNPsorforanyotherpurpose.

ThisstudycanbeviewedasafurtherexplorationofthepropertiesofAbdelmalek'sILinthereferentialanddiscoursedomains.

TheCharlieChaplinExperiment

InthistaskdevisedbytheHeidelbergESFteam,extractsof'ModernTimes'havebeenorganisedintwoepisodes.Theresearcherandtheinformantwatchepisodeonetogether,thentheresearcherleavestheroomandtheinformantwatchesepisodetwobyhimself.Theresearcherreturnsandtheinformantmustretelltheendofthefilm.Hereisasummaryofthecontentsofthe'ModernTimes'extractsusedinthisexperiment.ThisresuméisborrowedfromKlein&Perdue(1985):

Episode1Subtitle:America1930Poverty,Hunger,Unemployment

Charliegetsintoademonstrationagainstunemployment,istakenfortheleaderandputintoprison.Atdinneroneofhisfellow-prisonershidesheroininthesalt-cellar,andCharliehelpshimselfbymistake.Withthedrughegainsaheroicalforce:hefoilsanattempttoescapeandfreesthedirectorwho,ingratitude,releaseshimwithaletterofrecommendationforajob.Charliedoesn'tfeeltooenthusiasticaboutthisbecauseinprisonheisbetteroff,hefeels,thanatliberty.Parallelwiththisweseeasecondstory:ayounggirl(whosefatherisawidower,unemployedandwithoutthemeanstofeedhisthreechildren)stealsfoodforherfamily.Herfatherisshotinademonstration,andthechildrenhavetogotoanorphanage.Thegirlmanagestoescapeatthelastmoment.

Episode2Subtitle:DeterminedtoReturntoPrison

Charliefindsworkinashipyard.Clumsilyhecausesthelaunchingofashipthatwasnotfinished.Heisimmediatelyfiredandisallthemoredeterminedtogobacktoprison.Thegirlroamsthroughthe

streetshungrily,andstealsaloafofbread.WhenshetriestoescapesherunsintoCharlieandbothfalltotheground.Awoman,whowatchedthetheft,callsthebaker.Thepolicemancomestoarrestthegirl.Charlietriestoclaimresponsibilityforthetheftbutitdoesn'twork.Thegirlismarchedofftoprison.

Charlietriesagaintogettoprison.Hegoestoarestaurant,eatsasmuchashecan,callsapolicemanfromthestreetandtellshimthathehasnomoneytopaythebill.Heisarrested.

Inthepolice-carheagainmeetsthegirlwhostolethebread.Inanaccidenttheyareboththrownout.Thegirlsuggeststhatheescapewithher,andhedoes.Inthegardenofamiddle-classhousetheyrestforawhile,andwatchthecouplewholivetheresayatendergood-byetoeachotherinfrontoftheirhouse.Middle-classconjugalbliss.Charlieandthegirldreamofanexistencelikethat.AfewdayslaterthegirlhasasurpriseforCharlie,havingfoundsuchahouseforbothofthem.Ofcourse,itisaruinedcabininamiserablecondition,sothataseriesofhilariousaccidentshappenwhentheyfirstcometoseeit.Buttheywon'tletthisdisturbtheirhappiness.Inthelastpictureweseethemwalkingonalongroadthatdisappearsintothehorizon.

Thistaskisofspecialinterestforthestudyofreferenceanddiscoursestructure:

1.Ononehand,bothinteractants,speakerandhearer,haveasharedknowledgeofsomecharactersandsomeeventsinthefilm.Thiscommonknowledgefacilitatesthetaskofprocessingthenarration.

2.Ontheotherhand,theinformantwithhislimitedlinguisticresourcesmustintroduceinformationinthecaseofsomeothercharactersandsomeothereventsinthefilmwhicharenewtothehearer.

Inthisexperiment,hemustrefertoatleasttendifferentcharacters,fourdifferentobjectsandsixdifferentplaces.Someoftheseareknowntospeakerandhearerwhereasothersareunknowntothehearer.AmongtheknownfiguresareCharlieChaplin,ayounggirl,thedirectoroftheprison,andsoforth.Thebakerandthewomanwitnesstothetheft,however,mustbeintroducedbythespeaker.Amongtheunknownobjects,therearealoafofbread,awoodblockandfurnitureinthehouse.Whereastheshipyardandtheprisonhavebeenseenbyspeakerandhearer,subsequentplacessuchastherestaurant,thepolice-car,orthecabinmustbeaddedbythespeaker.

Inexaminingthethreeretellingsof'ModernTimes'byAbdelmalekwhichhavebeencollectedataninemonths'interval,

2Ishallbeaddressingthefollowingissue:whataretheelementswhichstructureAbdelmalek'snarrativesandwhatisthecontributionofreferentialactivitiestothisstructuringofthenarrative?Toachievethispurpose,theanalysiswillbearonthefollowingpoints:

(a)theformsusedinthefirstandsubsequentmentionofthecharacters;

(b)themeansusedtoavoidreferringtopersonsorevents;

(c)thesignallingofsubeventsofthetwomainepisodesandtheuse

ofsuchmarkersasjãna(thereis),voilà(thereis/itis)oraprès(afterwards);

(d)wordorderinrelationtospecificverbs.

ThefindingswillbecomparedtothoseofGiacomi(1986)andGiacomi&Vion(1986)bearingonthesameinformantandtothoseofKlein&Perdue(1985).

Findings

3

'ModernTimes'Cycle1

Inthisfirstretellingwhichisapproximately357wordslong,Abdelmalekchosetostarthisrecountingatthepointwheretheinvestigatorlefttheroom.Inthesubsequentexperiments,heretoldthewholestoryfromtheverybeginning.

ParticipationandStateofAffairs(FirstandSubsequentMention)

Characterscanbementionedthroughoneofthesepossibilities:useofpropernounsanduseoflexicalitems.Tothesetwoclassespronounsintheirdeicticfunctionsmustbeaddedaswellasanaphora(includingcataphora),beitthroughapronounorzero.Onceacharacterhasbeenestablishedinthefore,itisnecessarytomaintaincontinuityofreferenceunlessaswitchofreferenceoccurs.Thisshouldtheninturnbesignalled(seeLyons,1977;Givón,1983).

UseofNPs:ItshouldfirstofallbementionedthatintermsofthemorphologyofNPsandpronounsforthatmatter,nodistinctionofgenderismarkedandthesameholdstruefornumber.Inversion1and24ofthisfirstretellingof'ModernTimes',themainfemalecharacterisintroducedasle/lafemmewhichcouldbe+Presupposedand±

SpecificinBickerton'sterminology.CharlieChaplinisintroducedbypropername.Thesecondfemalecharacterisintroducedinversion1as

[li]femme[kegardeilavole]unrestaurant5

(thewomanwhowitnessedhestolealoafofbread)andas

[li]femme[salegardeilavole]

(thewomanthatshewitnessedhestole)

inversion2.Inbothcasestheclauseappendedtothelexicalitemfemmebestowsa+Specificfeaturetothereferentialexpression.Secondary

characterssuchasthepolicemanorthebakerarementionedwithlexicalNPsoftheformle+Nwhichcouldhavespecificorgenericmeaningaccordingtocontext.Othercharacterssuchastheforemanorthefellowprisonerarejustnotmentioned.

SubsequentmentionofCharlieiseitherthroughtheuseofapropername(20tokensinall)orthroughthe'allpurpose'pronounil/li.Thetwofemalecharactersaresubsequentlyreferredtoaslafemme.Linguisticcontextandsharedknowledgeenablethehearertounderstandwhoisbeingreferredto.Thepolicemanisdesignatedbylapolicewhichisambiguousinsofarasthisexpressionhasgeneric(referringtothepoliceforce)aswellasspecificmeaning(viz.apoliceman).Inonecaseanumeralisused

[jana]unpolice

(thereisonepolice(man))

andinanothercaseanapproximationofpoliceman[pulisi]isresortedto.AnexaminationofthestructureoftheNPsrevealsthatle/li/la+Nisoverwhelminglyused.Ofthe21differentlexicalitemsoccurringinthetext,19combinewithle...toyield55tokensofthatstructure(seeTable2).Ofthetwolexicalitemswhichdonotcombinewithle,jardinhasaparticularstatusbecauseitalwaysseemstobeprecededbyunintheinformant'sretellingsof'ModernTimes'.Onecaseofclearalternationintheuseofunandlewiththesamelexicalitemhasbeennoticed:thefirstmentionoftheloafofbreadisunrestaurantandinsubsequentoccurrences,thesequenceisle+N.ThusitwouldseemthatatthisstageinhislearningofFrench,Abdelmalek'sFrenchreflectstwotypesofreferentialassumptions:

1.Asubsetoflexicalitemsassociatesbetterwithgivendeterminersdespitethelinguisticcontext.

2.Thedistinctionbetweenunandle+Nisusefulifonewantsto

markanitemofinformationasnewandthenreferbacktoitasgiven.

TABLE2.ModernTimescycle1:Thenominalphrase.

Ø+N beaucoupde+N

Tokens.55 3 2 1

ItmusthoweverbementionedthattheoverwhelmingnumberofpseudodefiniteNPsinthisandthesubsequentretellingsof'ModernTimes'neednotindicateaspecifictraitofAbdelmalek'sIL:instandardFrenchdiscourseorinspokenFrench,definitearticle+NisprobablythemostfrequentformofNP(Deulofeu,personalcommunication).Ineffect,itwouldseemthatthegreatnumberofle/li/la+NinthedataobtainedfromAbdelmalekcouldbeaccountedforbyoneorseveralofthesefactors:

(a)amarkednessfactor,le+Nbeinglessmarkedthanun+Norce+N;

(b)ataskdependentfactor,thatis,innarrativesmostentitiesareusuallyreferredtobyle+Nsegments,atleastinspokenFrench(Deulofeu,personalcommunication);

(c)asyntacticfactor,un+Nismuchlessfrequentinthepreverbalslotthanle+N;ineffectallcasesofun+Narepostverbal(Deulofeu,personalcommunication);

(d)alexicalfactor,objectsthatpertaintothepersonalsphereorrefertosuchpropertiesasprofessionandsoforth,tendtobeassociatedinFrenchwithle+N(Deulofeu,Houdaïfa,personalcommunication).

OnelastwordaboutreferentialNPsinretellingcycle1:therelianceonsemanticequivalenceasdefinedbythelinguisticcontext.Thus,inonecasepatronisusedinsteadofboulangerandinanothercase,aspecifictermrestaurantisusedinsteadofthecovertermpain.

UseofPronouns:The'allpurpose'cliticil/liisusedtosupplementtermswhichcanbeinsertedinthesubject/topicslot.Thusthegendermarkingisneutralisedandoccasionallythenumbermarking,too.However,ashasbeenmentionedbefore,themaincharactersarereferredtobymeansoflexicalitemsorzeroanaphoraafterfirstmention.Hereissuchanexample:

il[eveni]lapoliceØ[letrape]lafemme

(itcamethepoliceØittookholdofthewoman)

Forreferencetopersonsorobjectsthatcouldoccupyobjectposition,Abdelmalekusesapostposedpronounwhoseformisdifferentfromil/li,forexample,[itrape]le(itseizedit).

TworemarkablefeaturesinAbdelmalek'suseofpronounsforreferenceare(althoughtheirfunctionalstatusdiffers):

(a)Topicswitchwithoutanycorollarypronominalswitch.Thesameli/ilusedfortheyoungwomanisappliedtotheelderoneinthe

followingutterancewithoutanyparticularindicationthattherehasbeenaswitchofreference;

(b)recoursetoadiscursivedevicebasedontheuseoffullpronounsandofidentificationalse.

Suchtopicswitchwithoutacorollarychangeinpronounsleadstoopacityasinthefollowingpassage:

[ilaparti]laboulanger[ilavole]unrestaurant

[ilavole]commelefemme[salegardeilavole]

il[madi]lepatronlafemme[ilavole]lerestaurant

(hewenttothebakerhestolealoafofbreadhestoleasthewomanthats/hewaslookinghestoles/hetoldmethebossthewomans/hehasstolentheloafofbread)

Thecontrastingdevicethroughwhichapositivevalueisattributedtothetopicisrepresentedbyafullpronounandanegativevalue:[se]+negativemodality.Thisisanefficientprocedure,usedinthethreeretellingswehaveanalysed.Hereisoneinstanceofthisdevice:

[se]paslefemmeil[madi]moi[levole]lerestaurant

(itisnotthewomanhetoldmeIhestoletherestaurant)

TheSignallingofSubevents.

Thenarrativeprogressesveryclearlythroughtheuseofaprès(afterwards)whichmarksboththematicandtemporalsuccessivity.[Se](itis)and[jãna](thereis)areusedforcommentsandbackgroundinformation.SuchadiscourseorganisationhasalsobeendescribedforthefirstnarrativecollectedfromAbdelmalek,somethreemonthsbeforethefirst'ModernTimes'experiment(Giacomi,1986).Withintherealmofbackgroundinformation,[se]and[jãna]playdifferentroles(seeTrévise,1986).[Se]isusedforidentificationanddirect

deicticfunctions(thisiswhyitisusedinthecontrastiverhetoricaldevicedescribedabove),whereas[jãna]markstheexistenceofthesubsequentterm,statesthat

Table3.ModernTimescycle1:Discoursemarkers.

après [jana] [se] voilà bon alorsTokens: 13 4 6 Ø Ø 1

thespeaker'possesses'agivenobject,whichistotherightof[jãna],andframestemporalinformation.Itshouldbenotedthat[se]freelycombineswiththenegation(outofsixtokensfivearecombinedwithpas);thisislessfrequentwith[jãna](onecaseofcombinationwiththatmarkeroutoffivetokens).

Deulofeu(1986)hasobservedveryconvincinglythatinthisretellingandthesubsequentoneofcycle2aprèsactsasanepisodemarkerwhichconstrainsthemarkingofthetheme:wheneverinthenewepisodemarkedbyaprèsanewthemeisintroduceditmustbeexplicitlyindicatedbytheuseofalexicalitem.Otherwise,itisimpliedthatthemaincharacteroftheplotCharlieisreferredto.Inthiscasepronominalreferencethroughilorzeroanaphorasuffice.ItisalsoattheseboundariesthatbreachesinthecanonicalVXwordorderforverbsofemergencecanbeobserved.

Itshouldbenotedthatwheneverinteractionissupposedtotakeplacebetweentwocharacters,reportedspeechisintroducedbythemarker[madi];[ilmadi]and[madi/lafemme]arethetwomainsequencesthatservetointroducethewordsassignedtothecharactersofthissilentmovie.

VerbsandWordOrder

Inversion2oftheretelling,thereare74utterancescomprisingV.

6Only13instancesofVXorderhavebeencounted.Theverbsinvolvedare[trape],[ ],[mõte],[tõbe],[parti],[veni],and[madi].Theyaremainlyverbsofmovementandaverbofsaying.Thecaseof[veni]isquitestriking;outofeighttokenssixfollowtheVXpattern.ManyfactorsexplainthisparticularVXorderwhilethegeneraltrendistousecanonicalXVwordorder.Forexample,inthesourcelanguagethedominantpatternisVX.Fortypologicalanddiachronicreasons(seeGivón,1984).itseemsthatverbsofappearance,of

emergenceandofgraspingtendtofollowaVXpattern.ThistrendisalsoillustratedintheTL.AtleastthosetwofactorsseemtoaccountforthewordorderVX.

'ModernTimes'Cycle2

Thissecondretellingis640wordslong.ThistimeAbdelmaleknarratesthewholefilmshowntohim.

CharactersandStateofAffairs(FirstandSubsequentMention)UseofNPs:


Ø+N beaucoupde+N [de]+N numeral+N

74 9 9 4 6 1

Asintheretellingoftheprecedingcycle,mostNPsareprecededbyle/la/li.Thisconfirmsatrendsignalledinapreviousstudy(Véronique,1985a)andalreadyobservedinthe'ModernTimes'datafromthefirstcycle.However,manymorelexicalitemsoccurwithcontrastingdeterminersthanintheprevioustask.Besidesunbateau~lebateau,wefindsuchothercontrastingpairsasledrap~desdraps,tintableauØ[piti]tableaubeaucoupdestableaux.Itisobviousthatinthesecases,atleast,thedistinctionbetweenthesequencesofdeterminers+Nounsisfunctionallymotivated.Thelexemejardin,however,stillassociatesonlywithun.Thus,Abdelmalek'sILinthedomainoftheuseofNPsillustratestwodivergingtendencies:

(a)generalisationoftheplurifunctionalmarkerle/la/liinthisparticularlinguistictask.Otherdataconfirmthistendency(Karmiloff-Smith,1979);

(b)expressionofreferentialvaluesthroughthechoiceoftherelevantdeterminersinsteadofpuredependenceonthecontext.

Despitethisdevelopmentinthelinguisticmeansforexpressingreferentialvalues,therulesgoverningtopiccontinuitystillapplytothedataanalysed.Thus,inthefollowingutterance,oncereferencetoCharlieisestablishedheisnotmentionedforawhile:

CharlieChaplin[eveni]Ø[uvre]laporte

avecuntableau[imõt]Ø[tõbe]aveclatête

voilàil[prepar]les[ ]+aprèsØ[uvr]

laporteet/etØ[ ]avec

(CharlieChaplincameØopensthedoorwithaboardheclimbsØfallswiththeheadO.K.hepreparesthefoodthenØopensthedoorandlandØplungewith)

Oncethereisaswitchofreferenceasinthefollowingexample,thentherelevanttopicismentioned:

avecleCharlieChapline(Topic1)[ ]seul[ ]aveclarueseul[jãna]descamionseuh[jãna]desdrapeauxpour[li]voiturevoilàØ[letrape]+++[se]pasvraiçacommeledrap(Topic2)[letõbe]leChaplin(Topic1)[iprã]le+[fo]lecamion(Topic3)voilaØ

(withtheCharlieChaplin[Topic1]hewalksbyhimselfhewalkswiththestreetalonetherearelorriesthereareflagsforthecarO.K.Øhetakes+++that'snottrueliketheflag[Topic2]it/hefallstheChaplin[Topic1]hetakesit+mustthelorry[Topic3]O.K.itfalls)

(ReferencethroughvoilàandfullNPsforeachtopicswitch.)

UseofPronouns:Inretellingcycle2,themoststrikingdevelopmentoccursnotinthesphereofpersonalpronouns,althoughheusestu(you)whichremindsoneofli,forexample,voilà[eparti]avecpetitefilledéjàtu[vole](sogonewithsmallgirlalreadyyousteal),meaningshesteals.RealprogressisfoundintherealmofwhatFrenchgrammarsusuallycallindefinitepronouns.[Swila](thisone),adeicticpronounknowntoAbdelmalekquiteearlyduringthefirstcycleofdatacollection(Abdelmalekusedça,a'wouldbe'demonstrativepronouninthefirstencounters),isusedthreetimesincontrasttol'autre(theotherone)(8tokens)andquelqu'un(someone)(2tokens).Thus,besidesthepersonalpronounparadigmcompletedbyafulluseofmoi-jewhichhasbeenacquiredduringthefirstcycleofdatacollection(Véronique,1983),Abdelmalekhenceforthhasrecoursetoadistaldeicticpronounl'autreandaproximalpronoun[swila].

Althoughcasesofzeroanaphoracanstillbeobserved,itmustbenoticedthatmostcasesoftopicmaintenanceortopicswitchareclearlymarkedatleastbyaclitic.

Thecontrastivediscursivedevice[se]pasX;moiX(itisnotX;meX)isagainusedinretellingcycle2.

AvoidanceofReference

Inretellingcycle1,ilmadi/iladi(hetoldme/hetold)wasusedintwoinstancesforintroducingquotedspeech.Thesamecanbeobservedinretellingcycle2.ThroughtheuseofthisformulaicexpressionAbdelmalekisabletoavertreferencetosuchsecondarycharactersastheforemanorthedirectoroftheprisonbyquotingspeechattributedtothemwithoutexplicitlynamingthem.

TheSignallingofEpisodes

Asinretellingcycle1,episodesseemtobemainlysignalledthroughtheuseofaprès(afterwards).Butthisisalsooneofthefunctionsofthepolyfunctionalvoila(so,thus).Besides,verbsofemergencedohelptoindicatechangeofepisode.Theruleswhichgoverntopicswitchandtopicmaintenanceinthevicinityofaprès(seeDeulofeu,1986)observedinretellingcycle1alsoholdforthisnarrative.

TABLE5.ModernTimescycle2:Discoursemarkers.après [jãna] [se] voilà bon alors15 21 25 44 1 2

DiscourseMarkers

Themajorchangeinnarrativestyleisthemassiveuseofvoilà.Whereasinretellingcycle1,therewasaveryclear-cutdistinctionbetweenforegroundandbackgroundmarkers,voilàisusedonbothdimensions.Intheforeground,itisusedincontrastwithaprès(afterwards)forclose-upsasitwere,forexample,

après[ireste]leprison[parte]il[ ]savec:le/cuisinevoilà[ ]

(thenhestayedinprisonwentheeatswiththekitchenhereheate)

Inthebackground,itismainlyusedinintroducingquotedspeechinconjunctionwith[ilmadi].Besides,voilàhasaphaticenunciativefunctioninreportedspeech.Theepisodemarkingandthephaticfunctionsofvoilàareillustratedinthefollowingexample:

voilà[i/trap]laclé[uvr]laporte++

voilà[vje

*]lapolicevoilatoibiengentil

(sohesnatchesthekeyopensthedoor++herecomesthepolicesoyouareverynice)

VerbsandWordOrder

Outofapproximately132tokensofverbs,121areinanXVframehowever,someverbshavezeroanaphoraand11inaVXframe.Venir(tocome)accountsforsevencases,butnotalltokensofvenirareVX.

ThereareatleastthreecasesofvenirwhichareclearlyXV.Thischangeinwordorderseemstobelinkedtoepisodeboundary.

'ModernTimes'Cycle3

Thethirdretellingisapproximately780words.Asinretellingcycle2,theinformantchosetorecounttheexcerptshehadwatchedintoto.

FirstandSubsequentMentionofCharacters

UseofNPs:NPstructureismorecomplexinthisretelling;inatleasttwocasesthiscanbetracedbacktoL1influence,forexample,tonpèredeelle(yourfatherofshe,meaningherfather).Le+Nis,however,predominantlyused.Un+Nisalwaysusedtorefertoobjects,nevertorefertopersons.Thisisconstantthroughoutthethreeretellings.Still,theuseofun+Nforunknownitemsandofle+Ntorefertothemoncetheyhavebeenmentionedcontinues.


Ø+N beaucoupde+N [de]+N numeral+Nl'autre+N

poss.+N

75 6 3 Ø 6 2 1 1

Onecaseofregressioninthelexiconcanbeobserved.Inthefirstnarrative,thetwofemalecharactersarereferredtoaslefemmeandlefemme+'wh'-phrase.Inretellingcycle2,theyarelexicallycontrastedaslafemmeandladame.Innarrative3,Abdelmalekreferstoleelleasthemainfemalecharacterandl'autreasthesecondone.

Bythesametoken,itshouldbenotedthatCharlieChaplin,themaincharacter'spropername,ismentionedonlyninetimeswhereasintheprecedingretellings,ittotalledtwentytokens.Thisdrasticreductionistiedtogreatersyntactisation.

UseofPronouns:Nocaseofzeroanaphoraisobserved.Thisimplies

thattheinformantmasterstheTL'scliticsystem.IfinthecaseoftopiccontinuitythereisaclitictraceinVP,themorphologyofVproperisdeviant.Inretellingcycle3,practicallyalltokensofVareprecededbyanovergeneralisedelementmwhichprobablycomesfromTLme(me,myself)inreflexiveverbs.

Inthisretelling,l'autreandquelqu'unareusedasinnarrative2.Hereisonecaseofcontrastmarkedbypronominalswitchquelqu'un~lui:

il.[maparti]laprison++[jãna]quelqu'un

il[mafe]desdroguesparexemple...il[mareste][ ]+luiil[pãs]desel...

(hegoesmyselftheprison++thereissomeonehehastakenmyselfdrugsforexample...hestaysmyselfeathimhethinksofsalt)

Itshouldbenotedthateveninthethirdcyclecasesofavoidanceofpronominalreferencethroughtheuseof[se]canbeobserved,forexample:

[ilmadi]voilabon[se]gentil

(hetoldmesowellitisnice)

AvoidanceofReference

Casesofnon-mentionofsecondaryfiguresthroughtheuseofformulaicexpressions[ilmadi]canbeobservedasinthepreviousnarrative.

DiscourseMarkers

AstheinformantmastersmoreoftheTL,theorganisationofhisnarrativestendstobecomemoreintricatewiththeuseofplurifunctionalitemssuchasvoilôor,inthisversion,bon.Thisnewessentiallyphaticelementtakesoversomeofthefunctionsofvoilà,thatis,itservestomarkepisodeboundaries,itappearsincollocationwith[madi]andhasaconclusivevalue.However,bonisneverusedtointroduceacharacteraswasthecasewithvoilà.Attimes,bothmarkersco-occur.

TABLE7.ModernTimescycle3:Discoursemarkers.après [jana] [se] voila bon alors

6 4 19 13 28 Ø

VerbsandWordOrder

Asinthetwopreviousretellings,thedominantwordorderisXV.Approximately139tokenshavebeencounted;13tokensofVXprovided

mainlybyverbsofmotionsuchasvenir(tocome)(fourcasesoutofsix),arriver(toarrive),sortir(todepartetc.)andsoforth,verbsofgraspsuchas[trape](toseize,tograsp)andofsayingsuchas[madi],havebeencounted.

Summary

ThefollowingfeaturesofreferenceandofdiscourseorganisationhaveremainedconstantacrossthethreeretellingsdespitethetimefactorandthestructuralreorganisationofAbdelmalek'sIL:

(a)theoverwhelmingpredominanceofle+Nforreferentiallexicalexpressionswhenreferringtopersons,whetheralreadymentionedornot;

(b)theuseof[se]toidentifycharactersandthe[se]pasmoi...discursivedevice([se]bearingmorefrequentlyanegativemodality);

(c)theuseof[jana]toexpresspossessionandexistence,andtointroducespatialandtemporalreference;

(d)thenon-signallingofgivenepisodesorgivencharactersthroughtheuseofquotedspeechandof[iladi/ilmadi];

(e)theuseofaprèsasepisodeboundarymarker.

Thethreemostremarkablechangesacrossthethreeversionsof'ModernTimes'are:

(a)agradualdisappearanceofzeroanaphoraaspronominalmarkingonVPbecomesmoreconstant;

(b)anextensionofthenon-personalpronominalparadigmwiththeuseofproximal[swila],distall'autre,anddefinitequelqu'un;

(c)achangeintheorganisationofthenarrativefrommonofunctionalmarkerssuchas[jana]andaprèstomoreplurifunctionalitemssuch

asvoilôandbon.

Discussion

Iwouldfinallyliketo

(a)discussthepossibleinfluenceofL1bytakingaquickglanceattheL1'ModernTimes'version;

7

(b)comparethefindingsofthisarticlewithotherfindingsaboutAbdelmalek'sIL;

(c)commentuponsimilaritieswiththefindingsofKlein&Perdue(1985);

(d)speculateaboutpossibleexplanationsforthemodificationsindiscoursestructurethathavebeenobservedespeciallyvis-à-visreferentialactivity.

L1influence:IfIapplythesamegridofanalysistotheArabicdataobtainedfromAbdelmalek,thefollowingfeaturescanbeobserved:

1.Forthemaincharacters,CharlieChaplinisalwaysreferredtoashe,whereasalexicaloppositionlbent(thegirl)~lamra(thewoman)makesitpossibletodistinguishcharacters.

2.Amongsecondarycharacters,thefatherismentionedthroughlexicalitem,whereasthedirectoroftheprisonisnotandtheforemanisdesignatedbylaxor(theotherone).

3.Obviously,thefullsystemofL1determinersisusedtomarkgivenandnewitems,theuseofdemonstrativearticle+Nmustparticularlybestressed.

4.ObjectsthatarealwaysindefiniteintheILversionaredefiniteintheArabicversionifneedsbe;thisisthecaseoftheborroweditem[ ](thegarden).

5.Avoidanceofnaminginthecaseoftheprisondirectorisespeciallypractisedthroughgalu(hesaid).

6.Themaindiscoursemarkersusedare (and)andmaelli(when).

7.Obviously,alltheverbsoccurringintheArabicversionof'ModernTimes'areVX,exceptfortwounclearcases.

FromthisquickglancethroughtheL1dataitisquiteclear,however,thattheinfluenceofL1intheshapingoftheretellingcannotreallybeevoked.Theonlypossibleinfluencecouldbetheuseofformulaic

[ilmadi]whichplaysthesameroleasgalu.

Abdelmalek'sIL:WhenthefindingsofthisstudyarecomparedtootherstudiesonAbdelmalek'sIL(seeGiacomi,1986;Giacomi&Vion,1986)aremarkablemeasureofconvergencecanbeobserved.Inthefirstretellingof'ModernTimes',Abdelmalekuses[jãna],seandaprèsinexactlythesamewayasintheearlynarrativesofthefirstcycleofdatacollection(forinstancenarrative1.1intheGiacomicorpus).Theoverwhelminguseofvoilainthesecondretellingof'ModernTimes'ispreciselycomparabletowhatGiacomiandVionobserveinnarrative2.1.

ComparisonwithKlein&Perdue(1985):ManyofthefindingsofthatpaperapplytothedatafromAbdelmalek.Thus,therulesfor

TABLE8.Discoursemarkersinotherlinguistictasks(fromGiacomi&Vion,1986).interview 11 21 17 14linguistictask narrative narrative roleplay conversation'voilà' 0 158 7 2'il[madi]' 0 69 4 14'moije[di]' 0 33 0 1

maintenanceandshiftofreferencedescribedbytheseauthorsareonaparwithwhatwasfoundinAbdelmalek'sretellings.Thedifferenceincopingwiththeagent/topicslotandwiththeobjectslotwasalsoobserved.Theuseof[se]foridentificationalpurposewasalsonotedinAbdelmalek'sdata.

OnemajorpointofdifferenceliesinthesensitivityofepisodeboundariesinAbdelmalek'sdataascomparedtotherulesapplyingtodatafromRamòn.ThemarkingofepisodesbyAbdelmalekresultsfromvariousfactorsincludingtheuseofaprès,bonorvoila,andwordorder.However,nootherconstraintsseemtoapplybesidestherulethatatanepisodeboundarytheunmarkedcaseisreferencetothemaincharacter,Charlie,andthatinothercaseslexicalspecificationisexpected.Subordination,forinstance,doesnotseemtoexertanyparticularinfluenceonmaintenanceorswitchofreference.

Causalfactors:L1influencecannotbyitselfexplainthestructuringofthethreenarrativesanalysed.Stillitcould,however,explaintheextensiveuseof[ilmadi].Besidestaskdependentfactorssuchasacquaintancewiththeinvestigatorandmainlytherequirementsimposedontheinformant'sdiscourse,twootherfactorscanbethoughtof.CertainfeaturesofAbdelmalek'sILcouldbeexplainedbytypologicaltrends.SuchseemstobethecaseoftheVXorderwithelementaryverbs([jana/se]),verbsofmotion,ofemergenceandofgrasp.However,inthisparticularcaseL1verbsofthiscategory

followthesamepattern.

Besidestypology,anothermajorfactoristhedynamicsoflanguageacquisitionitself.Itseemsquiteclearthatafull-fledgedpronominalsystemaffectsreferencemaintenanceandreferenceshiftbypreventingambiguity.Itisalsoclearthattheacquisitionofamarkerthattakesoverpartofthefunctionsfulfilledbyanotherform,affectsthewholefabricofdiscourse.

Conclusion

Istartedoffwiththeaimoftestinghowfartheacquisitionofreferencetoperson,butalsototimeandspace,wasdiscoursedependent,andconverselyhowfarreferentialactivitiescontributedtotheshapingofdiscourse.Itseemstomethattherelationshipbetweendiscoursestructureandthementionofcharactersandobjectshasbeenestablished.However,ithasalsobeenestablishedthatothermeanssuchastheuseofspecificdiscoursemarkersorofwordordercontributetothemarkingofdiscourse.Onestrikingfeatureonthatcountistheevolutionfromtheuseofrathermonofunctionalmarkerssuchasaprèstomorepolyfunctionalitemssuchasbonandvoilà.ItisasifmasteryofTLmorphologyledtogreaterfreedominthechoiceofwordswhichrelateeventsandactions.

NotestoChapter10

1.IwishtothankAbdelmalekforhiscooperationandDiegoRuizforhishelpatvariousstagesofthisarticle.ThedatahavebeencollectedbyEt-TayebHoudaïfaandDanielVéronique,transcribedbyTayebHoudaïfaandcheckedbyDanielVéronique.IextendmythankstoHoudaïfa.Allerrorsare,ofcourse,ofmyresponsibility.

2.Thecycle1experimenttookplaceon02.04.83,thecycle2experimentwason29.02.84andthelastexperimentwasperformedon20.04.85.

3.IwouldliketothankJoséDeulofeuandTayebHoudaïfaforthestimulatingdiscussionoftheretellingsofAbdelmalek.Someoftheirideasarerepresentedinthissection.

4.Fortechnicalreasons,theinformanthadtobeinterruptedinhisretelling(version1).Whentheinterviewresumed,theinformantspontaneouslystartedanewfromthebeginningofhisretelling

(version2).Countshavebeenmadeonlyonversion2butdatafrombothtextsareusedforlinguisticanalysis.

5.Forthesakeofsimplicity,thedatahasbeentranscribedwithminimalphoneticsophistication.

6.Awordofcautionisinorderhere.Obviously,itisnotclearinAbdelmalek'sILwhetherallpredicatesareverbs,whetherheusesarealpronominalsystem,andwhethertheNPsheuseshavethesameformasthosefoundinTL(letalonethesamerangeofreferentialvalues).Allthoselabelsareusedhereforthesakeofconvenience.

7.TranscribedandglossedbyEt-TayebHoudaïfa.

References

BICKERTON,D.,1981,RootsofLanguage.AnnArbor,MI:KaromaPress.

COUPLER,C.,1983,AcquisitiondelaRéférencePersonnelleenFrançaisparune

JeuneFemmeMarocaine.DEAthesis,Aix-en-Provence:UniversitédeProvence.

DEULOFEU,J.,1980,Organisationdiscursiveetconstructionsgrammaticalesdanslesénoncésdefrançaisparléenrelationavecleproblèmedelavariationensyntaxe.Communicationau15èmeCongrèsInternationaldePhilologieetdeLinguistiqueRomanes,PalmadeMajorque.

1983,Premieresremarquessurlaconstitutiondelagrammairedansl'interlangued'uninformateur.AcquisitionduFrançaispardesTravailleursMarocains.PapiersdeTravail1,64-79.

1986,Surquelquesprocédésdehierarchisationdel'informationdanslesrécitsd'apprenantsmarocainsenmilieunaturel:Pouruneconceptionsoupledesrapportsentrephénomènesdemicro-etdemacro-thématisation.InA.Giacomi,&D.Véronique(eds),Acquisitiond'uneLangueÉtrangère:PerspectivesetRecherches.Aix-en-Provence:PublicationsUniversitédeProvence,263-284.

DITTMAR,N.,1984,SemanticfeaturesofpidginizedlearnervarietiesofGerman.InR.W.ANDERSEN(ed.),SecondLanguages:ACross-linguisticPerspective.Rowley,MA:NewburyHouse,243-270.

GIACOMI,A.,1986,Processusdestructurationdel'énoncéenacquisitionetinteractions.InA.GIACOMI&D.VÉRONIQUE(eds),Acquisitiond'uneLangueÉtrangère:PerspectivesetRecherches.Aix-en-Provence:Publicationsdel'UniversitédeProvence,287-303.

GIACOMI,A.&VION,R.,1986,Metadiscursiveprocessesintheacquisitionofasecondlanguage.StudiesinSecondLanguageAcquisition8,355-368.

GIVÒN,T.,1979,OnUnderstandingGrammar.NewYork,NY:AcademicPress.

1983,Topiccontinuityindiscourse:Thefunctionaldomainofswitchreference.InJ.HAIMAN&P.MUNRO(eds),SwitchReference:TypologicalStudiesinLanguage.Amsterdam:JohnBenjamins.

1984,Syntax:AFunctional-typologicalIntroduction.Amsterdam:JohnBenjamins.

HALLIDAY,M.A.K.&HASAN,R.,1976,CohesioninEnglish.London:Longman.

HOUDAÏFA,T.,1983a,L'organisationdelaréférencetemporelledansuneinterlangue.AcquisitionduFrançaispardesTravailleursMarocains.PapiersdeTravail1,95-114.

1983b,Laréférencetemporelleetpersonnelledanslerécitd'unapprenantenmilieunaturel.AcquisitionduFrançaispardesTravailleursMarocains.PapiersdeTravail1,141-154.

1986,Quelquesaspectsdelagrammairedesverbeset,enparticulier,desverbesdemouvementdansl'interlangued'unmigrant.InA.GIACOMI&D.VÉRONIQUE(eds),Acquisitiond'uneLangueEtrangère:PerspectivesetRecherches.Aix-en-Provence:Publicationsdel'UniversitédeProvence,447-473.

HOUDAÏFA,T.&VÉRONIQUE,D.,1984,LaréférencespatialedanslefrançaisparlépardesmarocainsàMarseille.InG.EXTRA&M.MITTNER

(eds),StudiesinSecondLanguageAcquisitionbyAdultImmigrants.Tilburg:TilburgUniversity,211-261.

KARMILOFF-SMITH,A.,1979,AFunctionalApproachtoChildLanguage.AStudyofDeterminersandReference.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.

KLEIN,W.&PERDUE,C.,1985,Thelearner'sproblemofarrangingwords.Nijmegen:ESFWorkingPaper.

1986,Commentrésoudreunetâcheverbalecomplexeavecpeudemoyenslinguistiques?InA.GIACOMI&D.VÉRONIQUE(eds),Acquisitionsd'uneLangueÉtrangère:PerspectivesetRecherches.Aix-en-Provence:Publicationsdel'UniversitédeProvence,305-330.

LABOV,W.,1972,LanguageintheInnerCity:StudyinBlackEnglishVernacular.Philadelphia:UniversityofPennsylvaniaPress.

LYONS,J.,1977,Semantics(Vols.1-2).Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.

PERDUE,C.(ed.),1982,SecondLanguageAcquisitionbyAdultImmigrants:AFieldManual.Strasbourg:EuropeanScienceFoundation.

SCHUMANN,J.H.,1983,UtterancestructureinBasilangspeech.InG.G.GILBERT(ed.),PidginandCreolelanguages:EssaysinMemoryofJohnE.Reinecke.AnnArbor,MI:Karoma.

TALMY,L.,1983,Howlanguagestructuresspace.InH.PICK&L.ACREDOLO(eds),SpatialOrientation:Theory,ResearchandApplication.NewYork:PlenumPress,225-282.

TRÉVISE,A.,1986,Topicalisation,isittransferable?InE.KELLERMAN&M.SHARWOODSMITH(eds),CrosslinguisticInfluenceinSecondLanguageAcquisition.London:PergamonPress,186-206.

VÉRONIQUE,D.,1983,Observationspréliminairessurlidansl'interlangued'Abdelmalek.AcquisitionduFrançaispardesTravailleursMarocains.PapiersdeTravail1,155-180.

1984,Apprentissagenatureletapprentissageguidé.LeFrançaisdansleMonde185,45-52.

1985a,Dequelquesaspectsdel'apprentissagedelaréférencenominaleenfrançais.AcquisitionduFrançaispardesTravailleurs

Marocains.PapiersdeTravail2,97-133.

1985b,Acquisitiondelaréférencespatialeenfrançaispardesadultesmarocains:observationsàpartird'uneenquêtelongitudinale.AcquisitionduFrançaispardesTravailleursMarocains.PapiersdeTravail,2,135-167.

PART4CROSS-LINGUISTICINTERACTIONINSECONDLANGUAGEACQUISITION

11EffectsofTransferinForeignLanguageLearningHakanRingbom

TodayitisgenerallyacknowledgedthatlanguagetransferisanimportantsubjectofstudywhichplaysasubtleandpervasivepartinL2-learning.Transfercan,rathergenerally,bedescribedasthewaysinwhichknowledgeofthemothertongue(andotherlanguages)influencesthelearningofanotherlanguage.Itpresupposessomecross-linguisticsimilaritythattheL2-learnerhasperceived.WhentheL2-learnertriestofacilitatehislearningtaskbymakinguseofwhateverpriorknowledgeheorshehas,heorshewillalsorelyontheknowledgethatoriginatesinhisorherL1,providedthatheorshecanperceivethisL1-knowledgeofsomeotherlanguageasaworkablereferenceframe.

Ifwe,then,acceptthattransferexists,wehavetoinvestigatehowandwhenandwhylearnerstransferwhat,andhowmuch.WeshouldalsorememberthathypothesesabouttheL2canbeformednotonlyonthebasisofL1-knowledgeorL2-knowledgeseparately,butalsoasaresultofinteractionbetweenL1-andL2-knowledge.

Adistinctionoftenmade,particularlyintransferstudiessome10to15yearsago,wasthatbetweenpositiveandnegativetransfer.PositivetransfermeansthattheL1hasafacilitatingeffectonlanguagelearningwhereasnegativetransfer,orinterference,causesthelearnertomakeerrors.Inrecentyears,however,manyscholars(e.g.Gass&Selinker,1983;Faerch&Kasper,inpress;Sajavaara&Lehtonen,1988)havedisapprovedofthisdistinction.Theydosoprimarilybecausethetwodistincttypesoftransferapplyonlyattheproductlevel,whereasthedistinctionisnotseenasrelevanttowhatthese

scholarsareprimarilyconcernedwithintheirresearch,thatis,theunderlyingprocessesinthelearner.

However,itdoesnotseemtobenecessarytodoawaywiththedistinctionaltogether,aslongaswecanmakeitquiteclearthatwearehereindeeddiscussingonanotherplane,theproductlevel,nottheprocesslevel.Forpracticalandtheoreticalpurposes,thequestionwhetherandtowhatextentthemothertonguehasafacilitatingoraninhibitingeffectonL2-learningisbynomeansatrivialone.Sofar,thediscussionoftransferhasbeenmuchcolouredbythefactthatithasalmostwithoutexceptionoccurredinthecontextoferroranalysisandwhatcanbeseenastangibleevidenceoftransferhasalmostinvariablybeennegativetransfer.Itisarelativelystraightforwardtasktocomparedifferencesofthelearner'sendproduct,hisinterlanguage,withtheL2-normandonthebasisofthesedifferencesconcludethattransferisverynearlysynonymouswithnegativetransfer.Itismuchmorecomplicatedtospecifywhereorhowthelearner'sL1hasfacilitatedhisL2-comprehensionor-production.ThereareveryfewinvestigationsanalysinghowthelearnercanprofitablymakeuseofhisautomatisedL1-knowledgebyextendingit,andperhapsmodifyingitintheprocess,toL2-learning(see,however,Faerch,Haastrup,&Phillipson,1984).

Onlyinvocabularylearninghasthefacilitatingeffectofcognatesbeenstudiedinanydetail(cf.e.g.Hammer,1978),butwestilllackcomparativestudieswhichwouldalsoconsiderotherlinguisticareasthanlexis,withtheaimofplacingcognatesinamoregeneralperspectiveoflanguagetransfer.Tostudytransferweshould,withArdandHomburgintherecentcomprehensiveanthologybyGassandSelinkeronLanguageTransfer(1983),emphasisetheimportanceofcomparingdatafromspeakersofdifferentlanguagegroups.ArdandHomburgcompareSpanish-speakingandArabic-speakingsubjectswhotooktheMichiganTestofEnglishLanguageProficiency.Theproblemwithstudyingsuchdifferentimmigrantgroupsinordertolearnsomethingabouttransferis,however,thatitisimpossibletosay

towhatextentthedifferencesbetweentheSpanishandtheArabicspeakersmightbeduetoinevitableculturalandeducationaldifferencesofageneralnatureratherthantothelinguisticdifferencesbetweenthegroups.

OnecountrywherethesituationisuniquelyfavourableforinvestigationoftransferisFinland.Finlandisabilingualcountrywithtwoofficiallanguages,FinnishandSwedish.Finnishisspokenby93%ofthepopulation,whereasSwedishisspokenbyalittleover6%.TheSwedish-speakingpopulationisconcentratedtothecoastalareasinthesouthandwestofthecountry.ThegreatmajorityoftheSwedish-speakingFinnsregardthemselvesnotasSwedeslivinginFinland,butprimarilyasFinns,merelywithamothertonguedifferentfromthatofthemajorityofthepopulation.Formorethan

40yearstherehasbeennolanguageconflictbetweenthesegroups,whichdonotdiffermuchfromeachotherasfarascultureandeducationareconcerned.Thus,althoughtherearegreatdifferencesbetweentheFinnishandtheSwedishlanguages,itispossibletoregardFinlandasabilingual,butalmostuniculturalcountry,oratleastasuniculturalasitispossibletofindanywhereinthebilingualcountriesintheworld.

Ifwestarttostudyhowthesetwolanguagegroupslearnathirdlanguage,English,wecanexpecttofindsomeinterestingdifferenceswhichcanbereferredbacktothetotallydifferentmothertonguesofthetwogroups,whereastheculturalandeducationaldifferencesarenegligible.SinceSwedishiscloselyrelatedtoEnglish,butFinnishistotallyunrelatedtotheGermaniclanguages,thesedifferencescanbeseenastypifyingthedifferencesbetweenlearninganL2relatedtoL1andanL2unrelatedtothemothertongue.

Toanon-Scandinavianaudience,however,itneedstobeespeciallyemphasisedthatthecontextoflearningEnglishinFinlandisverymuchthatofaforeignlanguagelearningsituation,wheretheteacherandtheclassroomareveryimportant,whereasthereislittlechanceforthestudentstopractisetheirEnglishbytalkingtonativeEnglishspeakers.MostAmericanstudies,ontheotherhand,dealwithimmigrantsorstudentslearningEnglishinanaturalsettingwheretheyaresurroundedbythetargetlanguage.Theroleoftransferishardlythesameinthesetwolearningsituations.ThoughnotmuchisknownwithcertaintyaboutthedifferentextentofL1-influenceonthesetwodifferentsituations,itisneverthelessmostplausiblethatthereismoretransferinclassroomlearningsituationsthaninthesituationsofunguidedsecondlanguageacquisition(cf.Meisel,1983;Tarone,1979).

SinceSwedishandEnglisharecloselyrelated,alargenumberof

Swedishwordsaresimilar,near-identicalorevenidenticaltoEnglishwordsinform,andwithmeaningsthatareoftenclosetoEnglishwords,thoughbynomeansalwaysidentical.Finnish,ontheotherhand,belongsnottotheIndo-EuropeanbuttotheFinno-Ugrianfamilyoflanguages.Itisanagglutinativelanguage,whichmakesespeciallygreatuseofendingstoindicatelinguisticfunctions.SomelinguisticcategorieswhicharcbasictotheGermaniclanguages,aboveallarticlesandprepositions,arenotfoundinFinnish.

ThewordstressinFinnishisalwaysonthefirstsyllable,withoutexception.Inlexis,too,resemblancestotheGermaniclanguagesareextremelyfewandinsignificant,sinceFinnishhastraditionallytakenaveryrestrictiveattitudetoloanwords.

AresearchprojecthasbeengoingonforsomeyearsattheDepartmentofEnglishattheSwedishuniversityofÅboAkademiinFinland.Ingeneralterms,itsstartinghypothesisisthatSwedish-speakingFinns,orSwedes,asIshallcalltheminthefollowing,woulddobetterinanytestofEnglishthananequivalentgroupofFinns.ItcanbeexpectedthattheadvantageoftheSwedeswholearnarelatedlanguage,comparedwiththeFinnswholearnanunrelatedlanguage,willappearatalllevelsandstagesoflearning.Withoneminorexception,thatofEnglishspelling,thishypothesishasalsobeenborneoutinallexperiments.

Analysisoftheresults,however,showsthatthedifferencesbetweenFinnsandSwedesmakethemselvesfeltdifferentlyindifferenttypesoftests.InthisarticleIcandealwithonlysomeoftheseanalyses,andformoredetailedstudiesIrefertothepapersontheprojectlistedinaseparatebibliography(cf.pp.218),and,especially,tomybookontheroleoftheL1inforeignlanguagelearning(Ringbom,1987).

Table1showsthemeanfiguresforthelisteningandreadingcomprehensiontestsofamultiplechoicetypeintheNationalMatriculationExamination,whereEnglishisacompulsorysubject.

Table1revealsthatthecandidatesfromtheSwedishschoolsinFinlandattainconsistentlyhighermarksthanthecandidatesfromtheFinnishschools,

TABLE1.ResultsintheNationalMatriculationExaminationinEnglishinFinland(meanscoresofcandidates)

ListeningComprehension(max.30p.)

ReadingComprehension(max.30p.)

Year Finnishschool

Swedishschool

Finnishschool

Swedishschool

1974 19.7 22.4 24.1 25.71975 21.6 24.8 22.8 24.71976 18.5 22.4 18.6 22.0

1977 18.5 23.2 23.4 25.31978 22.1 25.2 22.9 25.21979 23.3 26.4 19.4 21.61980 20.9 25.0 18.4 19.91981 22.5 25.4 22.1 25.01982 21.2 24.6 23.6 26.41983 22.8 26.1 23.3 25.41984 25.6 28.3 22.3 24.41985 19.6 23.0 20.5 23.4Numberofcandidates:Approximately12×25,000Fi.=300,000

12×1,500Sw.=18,000

andfurthershowsthateachyearthedifferenceisgreaterforthelisteningcomprehensionexam(exceptfor1981,whenthedifferenceisthesameforbothlisteningcomprehensionandreadingcomprehension).

TestsofpartialdictationgiventoFinnishandSwedishgroupsoflearnersshowthesametrend.ListeningcomprehensionappearstobeaskillwhereFinns,comparedwithSwedes,haveespeciallygreatproblems,eventhoughsometestsofvocabularyknowledge,grammarortranslationgiventothesamepopulationshaverevealedrelativelyinsignificantdifferences.

AtestgiventotheapplicantsforuniversityentranceshowedthattherewaspracticallynodifferencebetweentheFinnsandtheSwedesinanEnglishsoundrecognitiontest,whereasapartialdictationtest,wherethecandidateshadtoprovideacoherentversionofatext,gavesignificantlybetterresultsfortheSwedes.Thetimepressurepresentinanysituationinvolvingcomprehensionofacoherenttextwasobviouslyrelevant,andadetailedanalysisoftheindividualwordsinthedictationshowedthatthegreatestdifferencesbetweentheFinnsandtheSwedesinerrorfrequencyoccurrednotinlow-frequencywords,butinwordsliketo,in,had,of,the,andhimoccurringincontextsnextto'difficult'wordsorphrasesthatposedproblemstobothgroups.Togiveanexample,inthegivencontext'itwouldbemadeuptohiminotherways'88.5%oftheSwedesbutonly35%oftheFinnsincludedtheprepositiontointheirrenderings.

TheonlyaspectoftheEnglishlanguagewhereFinnsregularlydoatleastaswellas,andusuallybetterthanSwedes,isspelling.FinnishlearnersofEnglishmakerelativelyfewspellingerrors,ifwehereexcludetheirmarkedproblemsofdistinguishingbetweenvoicedandunvoicedstopswhich,infact,isanindicationofperceptiondifficulties,notofspellingdifficulties.TheFinns'goodspelling

abilitymayalsobethoughttoindicatetheothersideofthecoin,asitwere,oftheirproblemsincopingwiththetimepressureofalisteningsituation.AsforeignlanguagelearnersinaFinnishcontexttheynormallymeetwithwrittenformsofEnglishwordsmoreoftenthanthespokenforms,andevenatafairlyadvancedstageoflearning,somelearnersmayhavestoredthewordsintheirgraphemic,notphonologicalform.ThussomeFinnishlearnersmaystoretheword/p:s/intheform/p rse/,sincethatishowanequivalentFinnishwordwouldhavebeenstoredifitexisted.Attheearlieststagesofaforeignlanguagelearningsituationthisisnotanunnaturalthingtodo,butFinnsmaywellgoonwiththiswayofstoringwordslongerthantheSwedesdo,partlybecauseofthecloserelationbetweenspellingandpronunciationthatexistsintheFinnishlanguage.

IfsuchamethodofstoringgivesFinnishlearnersagoodabilitytospellwords,itisahighlyuneconomicalprocessinalisteningsituation.TheFinnishlearneristhenlandedwiththeextrataskofdrawinganequivalencebetweentheactualheardformandthewrittenformstoredinthemind.Underthetimepressureofalisteningsituationitwilloftentaketoolongtoactivatetheword,andthisfrequentlyresultsinfaultycomprehensionorstaccatospeechwithawkwardpauses.

Asfarasproductionoflexicaltermsisconcerned,cross-linguisticsimilaritywithoutidentitymay,ofcourse,oftenleadtoerrors,butasfarascomprehensionisconcerned,itdoesnotnormallytakeverylongtoacquireavagueorpartialunderstandingofsimpletextswritteninalanguagecloselyrelatedtoone'sL1.Animportantcharacteristicofreceptiveskillsis,infact,thatthecommunicationaspectsareinfocus:thelistener/readernormallyconcentratesonunderstandingthemessagewithoutpayingmuchattentiontoitsstructuraldetails.Syntaxislessimportantforcomprehensionthanproduction(cf.Ulijn&Kempen,1976:495)andacceptabilityandgrammaticalityareconceptsofmuchlessimportancetothelistening/readingprocessthantospeakingorwriting.Thus,avagueknowledgeofL2-lexis,whichisprimarilytheresultofinferencingonthebasisofarelatedL1(cf.Haastrup,1984),maytaketheSwedishlearnerofEnglishquitefar.AfterhavingmasteredarudimentaryknowledgeofEnglishgrammar,hecancombinethisknowledgewithrelevantL1-knowledgetogetaworkablebasisforfiguringouttheapproximategeneralmeaningofanEnglishtext.Forproduction,thisworkstoamuchmorelimitedextent:thelearnerwillhereneedamuchmoreextensiveandamuchmoreaccurateskillinordertoproducealanguagecreatively.Butevenforproductiveskills,thefactthatthelearnerofarelatedL2hasbeenabletoattainareceptiveknowledgeinquiteashorttimeputshiminanadvantageousposition,

comparedwiththelearnerofanunrelatedlanguage.Thisisbecausewecanassumethatthereisconsiderableinteractionbetweenreceptiveandproductiveskillsinthelearningprocess,andifthelearnercananchorhislearninginsomekindofpreviousL2-knowledge,ratherthanhavingtostartfromscratch,hislearning,especiallyoflexis,willbemuchfacilitated.

However,eventoattainanelementaryreceptiveskill,thelearnermusthaveanideaofhowthebasiclinguisticcategoriesinthetargetlanguagefunction.ThisisnotnecessarilytheresultofL2-teaching,orevenofconsciousL2-learning;inthelearningofacloselyrelatedL2,thelearner'sL1hasalreadyprovidedhimwithaconsiderablepartofthisessentialknowledgeautomatisedinhismind.IfwecompareFinnishlearnersofEnglishwithSwedishlearners,thecategoriesofarticlesandprepositionsareofspecialinterest,sinceSwedishbasicallyusesthesamesystemwith

thesewordclassesasEnglish,whereasthesegrammaticalcategoriesdonotexistinFinnish.InFinnish,case-endingsand,forarticles,wordordermayexpressthefunctionsexpressedbyarticlesandprepositionsinGermaniclanguages,butsimpleone-to-oneequivalencesareheremuchhardertoestablishbetweenFinnishandEnglishthanbetweenSwedishandEnglish.

AlthoughtheEnglisharticlesandprepositionscausedifficultiestoalllearnersofEnglish,asfarastheproductiveskillsgo,theFinnishbeginninglearnerfacesespeciallygreatproblemsevenforcomprehension,sincehecannotdirectlyrelateprepositionsandarticlestothelinguisticrealityheisfamiliarwith.Hehastolearntheveryprinciplesofhowthesecategoriesfunction,somethingtheSwedishlearnerhadautomatisedbeforeheevenstartedtolearnEnglish.

Earlierworkonerroranalysishas,asexpected,revealedthattheuseofarticlesisanespeciallyproblematicareaforbothFinnsandothergroupsoflearnerswhoseL1doesnothavethearticlesystem(Duskova

*,1969,forCzechlearners;Oller&Redding,1971;andforFinnishlearners,Herranen,1978;Sajavaara,1981,1983;Granfors&Palmberg,1976;Ringbom,1978a;cf.alsoKellerman,1984).TheresearchonFinnishlearnersshowsthatmostoftheirerrors,especiallyatearlyandintermediatestagesoflearning,consistofomittingthearticles,aboveallthedefinitearticle,wheretheyshouldhavebeenincluded.Atearlystagesoflearning,andevenafterthat,aFinnishlearnermayunconsciouslyperceivearticlesandprepositionsasredundant(cf.George,1972),inthesamewayasanativeAmericanorSwedestartingtolearnFinnishoftenperceivesmostofthefifteenFinnishcaseendingsofthenounasredundantandfrequentlyomitsthem.

Ifomissionofthesecategoriesofhigh-frequencywordsareespeciallycharacteristicofFinnishlearnersofEnglish,afrequencycountmayalsobeexpectedtorevealthis.WecanalsoexpectcleardifferencesbetweenadvancedandlessadvancedFinnishlearnersandbetweennativeandnon-nativespeakers.Theresultsofsuchacountofhigh-frequencywordsinlearnerlanguageisreportedinRingbom(1985c).Thecorpusanalysedconsistedof300EnglishessayswrittenintheNationalMatriculationExamination.OnehundredandfiftyofthesewerefromFinnish-languageschoolsand150fromSwedish-languageschools.Onthebasisoftheirmarksawardedbytheexaminers,theseessaysweredividedintothreecategories:good,intermediate,andpoor.Thefrequenciesofthesesixgroupsofnon-nativeessayswerecomparedwiththreegroupsofnativespeakers.ThefirstwastheBrownCorpus,SectionA,PressReportage,asreportedinZettersten'sword-frequencylist(1978).ThesecondgroupwhichfromamaturationalpointofviewismostcomparabletothelearnersinFinland

consistedof50Americanfirst-yearundergraduatesatPurdueUniversity,Indiana,andthethirdof50essayswrittenby15-year-oldpupilsatHookergateComprehensiveSchoolinRowlandsGill,NorthernEngland.

ThemainhypothesistobetestedwasthatcomparedwiththeothergroupsthepoorFinnishessaysandtosomeextentalsotheintermediateFinnishessayswouldshowlowerfrequenciesofEnglisharticlesandofthoseprepositionsforwhichsimpleone-to-onecorrespondencestoFinnishareparticularlydifficulttoestablish,especiallyof,on,andby.ThefrequenciesofsuchcommonEnglishprepositionswhereone-to-onecorrespondencescanbefoundtoworkinthegreatmajorityofcases,thatisinandwith,wereexpectedtoshowverylittlevariationinallninegroups.ThegoodSwedishessayswere,ontheotherhand,expectedtoshowall-roundfrequenciesverysimilartothoseoftheAmericanstudents.

Itwillnotbepossibleformetocommentonthedetailsofthisfrequencycount,butitsmainpointshavebeenbroughtintothestaplediagram(Figure1).Thisstaplediagramshowsthatthehypotheseshavebeenverified.ThefigureshowingthefrequenciesofthepoorFinnsisconsiderablydifferentfromtheotherfigures,whereasthefigureforthegoodFinnsresemblesthatofboththegoodSwedesandtheAmericanstudentsquiteclosely.Thediagramalsorevealssomeotherinterestingpoints.Thus,forinstance,thelowfrequenciesofofandbyinthepoorFinns,thepoorSwedesandtheEnglishschool-childrennodoubtindicateaveryinfrequentuseofpassivesandtheof-genitive.ButthemainresultofthiswordfrequencystudysupplementsearliererroranalysesinthatitshowsthatlessadvancedlearnerstendtoavoidusingsuchlinguisticfeaturesasareabsentintheL1,andthereforeeasilyperceivedasredundantorperhapsmerely'difficult'.

ItisobviousthattheL1ofthelearnersisamostimportantvariableaccountingforthedifferencebetweenhigh-frequencywordsinthelessadvancedlearners.Itisalsoobviousthatthisvariableinteractswithothervariables,forinstancewithwhatmightbecalledlinguisticsophistication,sincetherearealsoconsiderablefrequencyvariationsbetweenthethreenative-speakergroups.

CanthelowfrequencyofarticlesandprepositionsinthelessadvancedFinnishlearnersthenbetakenasanexampleoftransfer?AsIseeit,theanswermustbenohere,sincenothinghasbeendirectlytransferredfromtheL1andaccordingtomydefinitiontransferisbasedonperceivedsimilarity.Itisrathertheresultoflackoftransfer,orperhapspreferablycovertcross-linguisticinfluence,becausewhatliesbehindtheFinnishavoidanceofarticlesandprepositionsis,infact,theabsenceofareferenceframeintheL1.Atearlystagesoflearning,inparticular.transferoccurs

Figure1Wordfrequencystudy

intheSwedishlearnerratherthantheFinnishlearner,sincetransfercannottakeplacewithoutthelearnerassumingsomebasiccross-linguisticsimilarity.Wedonotestablishnegativerelationsuntilwearesurethatapositiverelationdoesnotexist(cf.Noordman-Vonk,1979).Psychologically,similaritiesareperceivedbeforedifferences,andinthewordsofCarlJames(1980:169),'itisonlyagainstabackgroundofsamenessthatdifferencesaresignificant'.

Whenonelearnsarelatedlanguage,itiseasytoperceiveanumberofcross-linguisticsimilarities,particularlyindevelopingone'sreceptiveknowledge.Inalllearning,thelearnertriestosimplifyhistaskbymakingasmuchuseofpreviousknowledgeaspossible,andarelatedL1ishereofprimaryimportance.AsCorder(1979)putsit,tolearnarelatedlanguageisataskofadifferentmagnitudethanlearninganunrelatedlanguage:thereissimplysomuchmoretolearninanunrelatedlanguage.

Thisbringsustothecontrastiveanalysishypothesis,whichwasseverelycriticisedinAmericainthelate1960sand1970s.WhenLadoandhisfollowersstatedthatcross-linguisticdifferencesbetweenL1andL2inevitablyleadtolearningdifficultiestheycanbecriticisedbecausetheyfocusedondifferenceswhentheyreallyshouldhavefocusedonsimilarities.Thecontrastiveanalysishypothesismight,however,bereinstatedintheformthatabsenceofperceivedsimilarities,forinstancebetweentotallyunrelatedlanguages,produceslearningconditionswheretransferdoesnoteasilydevelopandlearningisthereforedelayedattheimportantinitialstages.Forthebeginninglearnertheeaseofachievingabasicreceptivecompetencelargelydependsonhownaturallyroughandsimplifiedequivalencescanbeperceivedbetweenindividualmorphological,lexical,andphrasalitems.Theprincipleofmakingasmuchuseofpreviousknowledgeaspossibleworksdifferentlyoncomprehensionthanonproductionandalsodifferentlyonthelearningofindividual

itemsversusthelearningoftheunderlyingsystemofrelationsbetweentheseitems.Here,however,thegreaterimportanceofcomprehensioncomparedwithproductionmustbestressed,comingasitdoesatanearlierstageoflearning.ThebasicfacilitatingeffectofL1-transferisnolongerobviouswhenthelearnerstartslearningmorecomplexrelationshipsthanthesimplifiedone-to-one-equivalencesbetweenL1andL2thatheorsheestablishedatthebeginningofhisorherlearningandsoonhastomodify.Agoodknowledgeofsuchcomplexrelationshipsisobviouslyneededbothforapreciseunderstandingandfortheabilitytocreateintelligibleutterancesoneself.However,wemayassumethatitwillbeeasiertoconvertwhatoneisalreadyabletounderstandintouseforproductionthantostarttoacquiretherulesofproductionfromscratch.

References

ARD,J.&HOMBURG,T.,1983,Verificationoflanguagetransfer.InS.GASS&L.SELINKER(eds),LanguageTransferinLanguageLearning.Rowley,MA:NewburyHouse,157-176.

CORDER,S.P.,1979,Languagedistanceandthemagnitudeofthelanguagelearningtask.StudiesinSecondLanguageAcquisition2(1),27-36.

DUSKOVA,L.,1969,Onsourcesoferrorsinforeignlanguagelearning.IRAL7(1).11-36.

FAERCH,C.,HAASTRUP,K.&PHILLIPSON,R.,1984,LearnerLanguageandLanguageLearning.Clevedon:MultilingualMatters.

FAERCH,C.&KASPER,G.(inpress).Perspectivesonlanguagetransfer.AppliedLinguistics.

GASS,S.&SELINKER,L.(eds),1983,IntroductiontoLanguageTransferinLanguageLearning.Rowley,MA:NewburyHouse.

GEORGE,H.V.,1972,CommonErrorsinLanguageLearning:InsightsfromEnglish.Rowley,MA:NewburyHouse.

GRANFORS,T.&PALMBERG,R.,1976,ErrorsmadebyFinnsandSwedish-speakingFinnslearningEnglishatacommercialcollegelevel.InH.RINGBOM&R.PALMBERG(eds),ErrorsMadebyFinnsandSwedish-speakingFinnsintheLearningofEnglish.AFTIL5.Åbo:ÅboAkademi.

HAASTRUP,K.,1984,LexicalInferencing.PaperreadattheSeventhAILACongress,Brussels.

HAMMER,P.,1978,TheUtilityofCognatesinSecondLanguageAcquisition.PaperreadattheFifthAILACongress,Montreal.

HERRANEN,T.,1978,ErrorsmadebyFinnishuniversitystudentsintheuseoftheEnglisharticlesystem.InK.SAJAVAARA,J.LEHTONEN&R.MARKKANEN(eds),JyväskyläContrastiveStudies6.FurtherContrastivePapers.Jyväskylä:UniversityofJyväskylä,74-95.

JAMES,C.,1980,ContrastiveAnalysis.London:Longman.

KELLERMAN,E.,1984,TheempiricalevidencefortheinfluenceoftheL1ininterlanguage.InA.DAVIES,C.CRIPER&A.P.R.HOWATT(eds).Interlanguage.Edinburgh:EdinburghUniversityPress,98-122.

MEISEL,J.M.,1983,Transferasasecond-languagestrategy.LanguageandCommunication3(1),11-46.

NOORDMAN-VONK,W.,1979,RetrievalfromSemanticMemory.Berlin:Springer.

OLLER,J.W.JR.&REDDING,E.,1971,Articleusageandotherlanguageskills.LanguageLearning21(1),85-95.

RINGBOM,H.,1978a,WhatdifferencesaretherebetweenFinnsandSwedish-speakingFinnslearningEnglish?PapersandStudiesinContrastiveLinguistics7,133-145.

1985a,TransferinrelationtosomeothervariablesinL2-learning.InH.RINGBOM(ed),ForeignLanguageLearningandBilingualism.PublicationsoftheResearchInstituteoftheÅboAkademiFoundation,105,9-21.Åbo:ÅboAkademi.

1987,TheRoleoftheFirstLanguageinForeignLanguageLearning.Clevedon:MultilingualMatters.

SAJAVAARA,K.,1981,TheNatureofFirstLanguageTransfer:EnglishasL2inaForeignLanguageSetting.PaperpresentedattheFirstEuropean-NorthAmericanWorkshoponCross-LinguisticSecondLanguageAcquisitionResearch,LakeArrowhead,CA.

1983,ThearticleerrorsofFinnishlearnersofEnglish.InC.C.ELERT

A.SEPPÄNEN(eds),Finnish-EnglishLanguageContact:PapersfromaWorkshop.UmeåPapersinEnglish4.Umeå:UniversityofUmeå,72-87.

SAJAVAARA,K.&LEHTONEN,J.,1988,Aspectsoftransferinforeignlanguagelearners'reactiontoacceptability.InH.W.DECHERT&M.RAUPACH(eds).TransferinLanguageProduction.Norwood,NJ:Ablex.

TARONE,E.,1979,Interlanguageaschameleon.LanguageLearning29,181-191.

ULIJN,J.M.&KEMPEN,G.A.M.,1976,Theroleofthefirstlanguageinsecondlanguagereadingcomprehension:someexperimentalevidence.InG.NICKEL(ed.),ProceedingsoftheFourthInternationalCongressofAppliedLinguistics:Vol.1.Stuttgart:Hochschulverlag,495-507.

ZETTERSTEN,A.,1978,AWord-frequencyListbasedonAmericanEnglishPressReportage.Copenhagen:AkademiskFörlag.

TheÅboAkademiProject:SeparateBibliography

RINGBOM,H.,1978b,Theinfluenceofthemothertongueonthetranslationoflexicalitems.InterlanguageStudiesBulletin-Utrecht3(1),80-101.

1982,Theinfluenceofotherlanguagesonthevocabularyofforeignlanguagelearners.InG.NICKEL&D.MEHLS(eds),ErrorAnalysis,ContrastiveLinguisticsandSecondLanguageLearning.PapersfromtheSixthCongressofAppliedLinguistics,Lund1981[SpecialIssue].Iral85-96.

1983a,Borrowingandlexicaltransfer.AppliedLinguistics4(3),207-212.

1983b,Onthedistinctionsofitemlearningversussystemlearning

andreceptivecompetenceversusproductivecompetenceinrelationtotheroleofL1inforeignlanguagelearning.InH.RINGBOM(ed.),PsycholinguisticsandForeignLanguageLearning.PapersfromaConferenceheldinStockholmandÅbo,October25-26,1982.PublicationsoftheResearchInstituteoftheÅboAkademiFoundation86,163-173.Åbo:ÅboAkademi.

1985b,TheinfluenceoftheSwedishontheEnglishofFinnishlearners.ForeignLanguageLearningandBilingualism.PublicationsoftheResearchInstituteoftheÅboAkademiFoundation105,39-71.Åbo:ÅboAkademi.

1985c,WordfrequenciesinFinnishandFinland-Swedishlearnerlanguage.ForeignLanguageLearningandBilingualism.PublicationsoftheResearchInstituteoftheÅboAkademiFoundation105,23-37.Åbo:ÅboAkademi.

1986,Crosslinguisticinfluenceandtheforeignlanguagelearningprocess.InE.KELLERMAN&M.SHARWOODSMITH(eds),CrosslinguisticInfluenceinSecondLanguageAcquisition.Oxford:PergamonPress,150-162.

12InputfromWithin:UtrechtResearchintoCross-linguisticInfluenceinFormalLanguageLearningEnvironmentsMichaelSharwoodSmith

Introduction

ThispaperwilldiscussvariousaspectsofresearchintotheacquisitionofEnglishasaforeignlanguagewhichhasbeencarriedoutattheUniversityofUtrechtwheretheunderlyingaimhasbeen,inequalmeasurethegatheringofdatafromlearnersatDutchschoolsanduniversitiesandthedevelopmentofarichertheoreticalframeworkforfurtherinvestigation.

Overthelasttenyears,thedepartmentofEnglishhasbeendevelopingaprogrammeoftrainingandresearchintosecondlanguageacquisitionspeciallyadaptedtomeettheneedsoffacultyandstudents.Partofthishasinvolvedthecreationofacorpus,orrathercorpora,formoreorlessdescriptivepurposes,andpartofithasbeentheexplorationoflinksbetweensecondlanguageacquisitionandothertheoreticaldisciplinesinordertoimprovethetheoreticalunderpinnings.Theaimofthispaper,then,istogivesomeideaoftheworkthathasbeendonesofar.Inviewofspacelimitations,therewillbetwoareasoffocus,namelysyntaxandwhatwecallcross-linguisticinfluence.Thismeans,forexample,thatworkonlexicalandphonologicalaspectswillbeignoredandlikewisethestudiesonattitudesandmotivationwillnotbetouchedon:cross-linguisticinfluence(CLI)confinesthediscussiontohowlanguagesystemsinteractwithinthelearner.

First,abriefmentionwillbemadeofthewayresearchiscarriedout

atthedepartmentofEnglishatUtrecht.Thenthetheoreticalworkwillbe

discussedandthiswillbefollowedbyillustrationfromprojectscarriedoutwithinthelastfewyears.

TheUtrechtProgramme

TheEnglishDepartmentisresponsiblefortrainingsomefivehundredstudentsatonetimeinEnglishlanguageandliterature:Englishisthemediumofinstruction.Thelanguagesidecoverstheoreticallinguistics,secondlanguageacquisitionstudiesandinstructioninEnglish.Secondlanguageacquisitionisnowanofficiallineofstudyasdistinctfromlinguisticsandpracticallanguagetraining.Italsomeansthat,althoughstudentsmaydotheirfinalthesis(afterfouryears)onan'appliedtopic',thatis,onehavingtodowiththepedagogicalsideofsecondlanguageresearch,theobligatoryprogrammeinsecondlanguageacquisitionis'non-applied',thatistosay,itfocusesonthetheoreticalaspectsaloneandthelinkswithothertheoreticaldisciplines.Atypicalstudentgraduatinginsecondlanguageacquisitionwilldoobligatorycoursesinlinguisticsandsecondlanguageacquisitionandasetofoptionalappliedandnon-appliedcoursesinvolvingtermpaperssomeofwhichmaybepublishedinworkingpaperform.Heorshewillthengraduatebywritingamaster'sthesis(doktoraalscriptie).Somethesesmaybelinkedwithafacultyresearchprogramme:thisisencouragedbutnotrequiredofstudents.

Oneofthewaysstudentsmaydoresearchisbyinvestigatingthedevelopmentoffellowstudentsinloweryears:inthiswaydataarecollectedwhichareofuseasexperimentalandtheoreticaltrainingbutwhichmayalsoservetheappliedpurposesofthelanguageinstructionprogramme.Theothersideofthecoinisthewayinwhichthelanguageinstructionprogrammeisorganisedtofacilitatesecondlanguageresearch.Forexample,studentsarerequiredtodoacertainlimitednumberoftestscarriedoutforresearchpurposesaspartof

theirnormallanguagetraining.Also,thethree-yearwritingprogrammeisstructuredinsuchawaythatastudentundergoinginstructionactuallycollectsdatafortheresearchprogramme.Asfarasthestudentisconcerned,thesedataarenotcollectedprimarilyforresearchpurposesbutfirstandforemostasameansofpromotinginstructionalfeedback.Whatstudentsactuallydoisextracterrorsplussurroundingexplanatorycontextfromtheirwrittencompositionsandentertheseontospeciallydesignedsheets.Inthisway,duringthecoursetheyeacheffectivelycreateanindividualisedcorpusoftheirownerrors.ThiscorpusisthenusedforthepurposeofimprovingtheirEnglishandtakestheplaceofgeneralisedcommentariesabouttheerrorsthatthatstudent'sparticulargrouphasmade

onagivenwrittenassignment.WhenthatparticularcourseiscompletedthecorpusisabsorbedintothelargercorpusofwrittenEnglishmuchofwhichhasbeencomputerised.Thislargercorpusisthenusedbystaffandstudentsdoingresearchintosecondlanguageacquisition.Oraldataarealsocollectedfromthevariousinterviewandroleplayteststhatstudentshavetoundergoandthesearealsousedforresearchpurposes.However,itshouldbesaidthat,despitetheavailabilityofsuchcorpusmaterial,areasonablenumberofstudentsprefertodotheirworkoutsidetheDepartmentandoverahundredDutchsecondaryschoolshavebeenvisitedbystudentsforthepurposesofinvestigationintovariousaspectsoftheacquisitionofEnglishinformalcontexts.

InadditiontothelocallyconstructedcorporaandtheeasyaccesstoDutchsecondaryschools,thereareotheradvantagesenjoyedbytheDepartmentincludingcloselinkswithotherdepartmentsintheNetherlands(inparticularinNijmegen)andabroad,forexampleinPoland,Finland,andtheFederalRepublicofGermany.Thisallowsforacertainmeasureofcooperationwhereby,forinstance,elicitationtestsconstructedinoneplacemaybecarriedoutinanother.Also,theInterlanguageStudiesBulletinhasbeeneditedherefromitsinceptionasisitssuccessor,SecondLanguageResearch.Furthermore,UtrechtisthevenuefortheLARS

1seriesofsymposia,whichbringsstaffandstudentsintodirectcontactwithactiveresearchersfromabroadandthishasallcontributedtothedevelopmentofafavourableenvironmentforresearch.

TheTheoreticalFramework

Overthelastthreeorfouryears,ageneralframeworkhasbeen

developedwherebylinksbetweensecondlanguageresearchandtheoreticallinguisticshavebeenexploited.Akeyaspectofthisisthecleardistinctionmadebetweenacquisitioninthesenseofdevelopmentofknowledgeovertimeandthoseprocesseswhichhavetodowiththeaccessingandintegrationofknowledgeduringperformanceatagivenmomentintime.OneimportantstimulusforthisexplicitdistinctionhasbeenthegeneraldissatisfactionwiththenotionofacquisitionasusedbyresearcherssuchasKrashen(seeDulay,Burt,&Krashen,1982)wherethedistinctionisnotpaidmuchmorethanlipservice.ConsiderationoftheworkintheoreticallinguisticsfollowingChomsky,wherecompetenceisdistinctfromperformancemechanisms,aswellasconsiderationofthetheoreticallineofresearchdevelopedbyEllenBialystokwhereshehasmadequalitativedistinctionswithinthegeneralnotionsofproficiency(seeforexampleBialystok,1981)hasledtothe

adoptionofthecompetence/controlmodelofacquisition.Thisframeworkcombinedtheknowledge/controldistinctionofBialystok's(seeBialystok&SharwoodSmith,1985)andthecompetence/performancedistinctionfamiliarfromgenerativegrammar.Wefindthereworkingofknowledgeandcontrolintoaformthatiscompatiblewithaparticularschooloftheoreticallinguisticresearchafruitfulbasisforrefiningquiteanumberofwell-wornconceptssuchasacquisitionandtransfer.Thismaybeeffectedinsuchawayastodrawontheprecisetoolsdevelopedovertheyearsbylinguistsinthatparticulartradition.Italsohastheeffectoffacilitatingmuchmorelinguisticallysophisticatedaccountsofthestructuresinvestigatedaswillbeillustratedinamoment.Moregenerally,qualitativedistinctionswithinsuchgeneralconceptsasacquisitionallowforthecreationofspecificmeasurementtechniquessothatcertainelicitationdevicescanfocusontheintuitionsandassumptionsagivenlearnerhasaboutthetargetlanguage;whileotherscantesttothelimitthecontrolwhichthatlearnerhasoverthat(interlanguage)knowledgebothinreceptionandproduction,thatis,byincreasingtaskstress.Clearlythereareanumberofobjectionsthatonemighthavetoanyparticularsetoftheoreticalassumptionsandclaimsbutitseemsthat,atapracticallevel,researchcanproceedmuchmoresystematicallyandfruitfullyifmoretimeistakenfromdatagatheringanddevotedinsteadtoenrichingthetheoreticalbasesothat'facts'gleanedfromcorporacanbeincorporatedintoareasonedaccountofprocessesthataregoingon.Ifthatparticulartheoreticalbasecaninterfacewithasubstantialandcoherentbodyofresearchfromarelateddisciplinethenithasaheadstartontheoreticalbasesthataredevelopedinrelativeisolationfromotherdisciplines.TheChomskyanframeworkdoesallowsuchaninterfaceandthisiswhywefinditattractive.

Toturnnowspecificallytothenotionofcross-linguisticinfluence

(CLI),whichembodiesvarious,frequentlylooselyemployedconceptssuchastransferandinterference(seeKellerman&SharwoodSmith,1988),severaldistinctionscannowbemadewithinthecompetence/controlmodel.Forexample,wemayaskourselvestowhatdegreeapparentinterferencefromL1onL2(orviceversaincasesoflanguageattrition)maybeattributedtoagenuinedivergenceofthelearnercompetencefromnative-speakernormsratherthantoimmaturecontrolovercompetence.

Crudelyput,isitthecasethatthelearner'knowsitbutcan'tshowit'orisitthecasethatthelearnersimplydoesnot'knowit'(knowledgeherebeingusedinthemorecommonlyemployedsenseofnativespeakerortargetcompetence)?Wherethelanguagelearnerdoeshavetherelevanttypeofcompetencebutstillhasinsufficientcontroloverit,itisthenhypothesisedthatheorsherecruitsnativelanguage(orother)competencetoachievewhatevercommunicativegoalheorshehadinmind.CLIhere

wouldbetheresultofacontrolstrategy.Ontheotherhand,learnersinthismodelmayactuallyconstructmentalrepresentationsofthetargetlanguage(thatis,interimorinterlanguagecompetence)onthebasisoftheirownnativelanguagesystem.Inthiscase,wewouldtalkofCLIatthelevelofcompetence,andwewouldexpectthatelicitationdevicesdesignedtotapintuitionsandassumptionswouldbearthisout.CLIatthecompetencelevelmaybeseenasinputfromwithinsincethedevelopingL2grammarisconstructedonthebasisofaninteractionbetweeninputandinbuiltacquisitionalmechanismsthatweallpossess.Thesemechanismsfeednotonlyoninformationfromoutside,thatis,exposuretoprimarylanguagedata,butalsooninformationfromwhatthelearneralreadypossesses,forexample,L1competence.ThisreflectsanenduringadherencetoacognitiveviewoflanguagetransfercharacteristicsofEuropeanthinkingespecially.Morespecifically,thegenerative(Chomskyan)dimensionofthenotionofcompetenceusedhereallowsamoresubtleanalysisofhowalearnermightexploitfamiliarlinguisticknowledgeinbuildinguptargetlanguageknowledge.Forexample,thesurfacestructureofaDutchdeclarativemainclausemaybeSVO(Subject-Verb-Object)asisthesurfacestructureofanequivalentEnglishclause.Theproductionof(andacceptanceof)SVOorderbythelearnerinthisinstancemaysuggestconformitytoEnglishnativespeakernorms.However,ifweacceptthatDutchmainclauseorderisactuallyderivedfromadifferentunderlyingorderSOVasisacceptedbymostgenerativelinguists,whereasEnglishsurfaceSVOorderconformstotheunderlyingorder,thenwecannotassumethattheDutchlearner'sperformanceisaguaranteeofattainmentofnativespeakernormcompetence(seevanBerkel,1987,forinvestigationsintowordorderacquisition).Theadoptionofthecompetence/controlmodelthereforerequiresamoresensitiveexaminationofthelearner'scurrentstatetoestablishwithanydegreeofcertaintywhetherheorshehasproperlyresetwhatinChomskyantermscouldbecalledthewordorder

parameterforEnglishasunderlyingSVO.Thusitisthatapparent(superficial)conformitywiththenativespeakernormsaswellasexplicitdeviancefromthenormscanbothberelevanttothestudyofCLIatthelevelofcompetence.

Somepeoplemightobjecttothecompetence/controldistinctionbysayingthatitisaminoroneandsuggestingthatwhatis'knownbutnotfullycontrolled'issimplyaprecursorofwhatisknownandcontrolled.Theimplicationisthenthatlookingatspontaneous(well-controlled)behaviourissufficient.ThisobjectiontolookingatcontrolseparatelycanbecounteredbypointingtothephenomenonofU-shapedbehaviour(seeKellerman,1985;Kellerman&SharwoodSmith,1988,forfullerdiscussion).Here,formsmayappearinearlylearnerperformanceandthengivewaytonon-

nativeformsatalaterdate.Hencetheappropriateandapparentlyfacileuseoftargetformsisnoguaranteethatacquisitionhascometoahalt:futuredevelopmentmightbringaboutdivergencefromthetargetinperformance.U-shapedbehaviourshowsthatformsmaybeonlysuperficiallytarget-likeandhaveunderlyingthemananalysisthatisdifferentfromthatofanativespeakerusingthesameforms.Also,lookingonlyatwell-controlledstructuresmightobscurecertainacquisitionalprocessesthatremainatthelevelofcompetenceandneverreallycometolightinthelearner'sspontaneouslanguagebehaviour.Inthiswaywewouldmissoutonvaluableinformationaboutthechangingassumptionsandintuitionslearnershaveaboutthetargetsystem.

SomeUtrechtStudies

AdverbialPlacement

Since1977therehavebeenanumberofstudiesonadverbialplacementrangingfromminorpilotstudiestoafairlylargescaleprojectinvolvingresearchintotheacquisitionofthisparticularaspectofEnglishbyFinnish,Polish,French,German,aswellasDutchlearners.Theaimofthislastproject(seeBourgonje,Groot,&SharwoodSmith,1985)wastotestforcommon'universal'patternsofdevelopmentintheadverbialplacementoflearnersofEnglishcomingfromstrikinglydifferentlanguagebackgrounds.ThestimulusforthiswastheworkdonebyresearchersfollowingtheDulay,Burr,andKrashenapproachwhichhadfocusedmostlyifnotexclusivelyonfairlylow-levelmorphologicalphenomena(followingworkinchildlanguagebyRogerBrown,andothers),onbeginnersandonlearnersacquiringthelanguageinanEnglish-speakingenvironment.Theideawasthatadverbialplacementwassuchan'unruly'area(cf.Jackendoff,1972)thatevenlearnersinaformalenvironmentreceivingtraditionalinstructionintheformofrulesandother

metalinguisticdeviceswouldhaveinthiscasetorelymainlyuponexposuretothetargetlanguagefortheirintuitionsaboutadverbs,andinparticularaboutthenormal,canonicalpositionsinEnglish.Thismightmanifestitself,itwashypothesised,intheformofsomecommonpatternsofdevelopment.However,researchfindingsusingacceptabilityjudgementtasksandtasksinvolvingactualpositioningofgivenadverbsinvariouscontextsshowedthatlearnersdidseemtorecruitnativelanguageknowledgeevenataveryadvancedlevel.Forexample,Finnishlearnerstendedtopreferpost-verbpositionswherePolishlearnerspreferredpre-verbpositions.Thisagreedwithnativespeakerinformantinformationabouttheequivalent(canonical)placementbehaviourintheirownlanguages.Thisallowedusto

concludethatwherePoles(forexample)correctlyplacedaparticularadverbinapreverbalpositionitmightstillberegarded(potentiallyatleast)asreflectinginterlanguagecompetenceandnotasanindicationofafullattainmentofnativespeakernorms.Italsoallowedustoconcludethat,althoughtherewassomeevidenceforahierarchyofdifficultyforgiventypesofplacement,foralllearners,thatis,irrespectiveoflanguagebackground,therewerequitestrikingdifferencesintheinterlanguageofthevariouslanguagegroups.

Notalllanguage-specifictrendscouldbeeasilyexplained.OfparticularinterestwasatendencyshownintheDutchandGermandatatoplaceadverbsbeforetheauxiliaryasin'*Ialwaysmustseehim',atendencythatwasalsonoticedintheUtrechtcorpusoflearnerEnglish.ThistendencytoplaceadverbsinwhatinEnglishiseitheramarkedoranunacceptablepositionsuggestsCLIsinceitwasparticularlynoticeableintheDutchandGermanlearners,andDutchandGermanaretypologicallyrelatedlanguages.ThecuriousthingwasthatequivalentsentencesintheL1(inbothcases)werealsounacceptablesothatdirect'transfer'couldberuledout.Sometentativeexplanationshavebeenputforward(seeSharwoodSmith,1985),forexample:

1.Thattheauxiliary/mainverbdistinctionbeinglessclear-cutinDutchandGermanencouragedasimplepre-'verb'placementstrategywithnodistinctionmadeforthetypeofverbinvolved.

2.ThatbroadtypologicalprocessesareatworkwherebyEnglishisbeingtreatedasanSVOlanguage,likeDutchandGerman.

Infact,EnglishusedtobeSOVandSvenJacobsonhasshownhow,asEnglishmovedfromSOVtoSVO,thecanonicalpositionofthepreverbaladverbmovedfrompre-auxiliarypositiontopre-mainverb(post-auxiliary)position(seeJacobson,1981).Thismorecomplexexplanationwouldencouragetheviewthatdeviantadverbial

placementmightbeanepiphenomenon,thatis,anindicationofsomemorebasicdistinctionbetweenthecurrentlearnergrammarandthatofanativespeakerofthetargetlanguage.Onlyareasonablysophisticatedexaminationofthetheoreticallinguisticimplicationsofthis(forexample,implicationsconcerningadjacentwordsandabstractcaseassignment)wouldallowlighttobeshedonthisparticularparadoxicalexampleofCLI.Whatisquiteevidentatanyrateisthatadverbialplacementisanareaoffossilisationataveryadvancedstageofacquisition.ItisalsoanareawhichishighlysensitivetolanguageattritionasanotherprojectcarriedoutatUtrechthasshown(seeGalbraith,1982;VanVlerken,1980;SharwoodSmith,1983).BritishandAmericanchildrenlivingintheNetherlandsshowadestabilisationofnativespeakernormsafteraperiodoftwoyearsandthisinacountrywhereEnglishisaprestige

foreignlanguageusedbythepopulationeitherreceptivelyorproductivelytoamuchgreaterdegreethanischaracteristicofaforeignasopposedtosecondlanguage.Clearly,thisareaofgrammarmeritsagreatdealoffurtherinvestigation.

SententialComplementation

Therehavealsobeenanumberofpilotstudiesintosententialcomplementationwhichhaveshownsimilarkindsoftrendsasweremanifestintheadverbialprojects,namelyevidenceofconformitytocommonpatternsofdevelopmentreportedinotherareasbutalsointerestinglanguage-specifictrendssuggestingCLI.TheoriginalimpetustothisresearchwasJanetAnderson'sworkonSpanishacquirersofEnglish(Anderson,1978)inwhichsheclaimedtohavediscoveredahierarchyofdifficultywhichsuggestedauniversalpatternratherthanonedictatedbythestructureofSpanish.Forexample,therewasanoveralltendencytoprefertheto-infinitiveoverotherconstructionssuchasgerundorthat-clauses.Shehadnooverarchingexplanationforherfindingsexceptthespeculationthatstructuralcomplexitymayhavesomethingtodowithitsincelearnersseemtoprefertheshortsimplestructurestothemorecomplexone(shebasedheranalysisofcomplexityonLakoff,1968).Studiesby,forexample,Bakker(1983),Polomska(1982)andVanVugt&VanHelmond(1984)showedthatDutchlearnersalsohaveanoverallpreferencefortheto-infinitivebutthatAnderson'seconomyprincipledidnotseemtoworkastheshortgerundprovedtypicallytobeacquiredlate,asopposedtothelongerthat-construction.SinceDutchhastheequivalentofthelatterbutnottheformer,itwouldseemthatCLIisthemostlikelyexplanationhere.Thisarea,likeadverbialsalsoprovestobepartiallyinaccessibletomanyadvancedlearnersandmanytendtooverextendtheuseoftheto-infinitivemorethanotherconstructionsbeyondthelimitsimposedbythetargetnorms.VanVugt&VanHelmond(1984)usingacompetence/control-based

designfortheirstudy(likeBakker,1983)foundthatthirdyearstudentsattheDepartment(thatis,aftertwoorthreeyearsofinstructionandintensiveexposuretowrittenandspokenEnglish)showednorealadvanceoverfirstyearstudentsintheircontrolofsententialcomplementation.Therewas,however,someadvanceintheAcceptabilityJudgementTest,whichwasdesignedtotapcompetencemoredirectly.Inotherwords,withinthetheoreticalframeworksketchedabove,someacquisitionhadtakenplaceatthelevelofcompetencebutwasnotevidentattheleveloffluentcontrol.

PrepositionStranding

ThemostrecentprojectstartedatUtrechtinvolvesadirectapplicationofChomsky'sgovernment-bindingtheorytotheacquisitionofthephenomenonknownaspreposition-stranding,thatistosay,thefailuretomoveaprepositionwithitscomplementNPtoinitialpositioninquestionandrelativeconstructions.LinguistsgenerallyarguethatifalanguageisprepositionalitismorelikelynottorequirethatprepositionsshouldbemovedwiththeNP.Thiswouldmake,forexample,asentencelike'OnwhatamIsitting?'more'normal',thatis,unmarked,thanwhatisactuallymorecommonwithinEnglishitself,'WhatamIsittingon?'.Infact,anormalprepositionallanguagewouldruleoutthesecondversion.InChomsky'stermsthishastobetranslatedintolearnabilitytermsinthefollowingway:childrenexposedtodatafromalanguagecontainingprepositionswillassumethat,unlessthereisviolationofthisassumptioninthedata(andtheyperceiveit),prepositionsshouldmoveandnotbeleftstrandedattheendofthesentence/clause.Inotherwords,whenlearninglanguageslikeFrenchandPolish,wherestrandingisruledout,theywillnotneedtohavepositiveconfirmationthatthisiswhattheyshoulddo.Ignoringthewaythisinbuiltpreferenceisexplainedinthetheory(intermsofprinciplesofgrammarlikesubjacencyandtheemptycategoryprinciple,cf.VanBuren&SharwoodSmith,1985),itisinterestingtospeculatewhetherthisnotionofmarkednesshasanyeffectontherateandorderofacquisition.Isiteasier,forexample,forSpanishlearnersofEnglishtoacquirethemarkedstructureorisitmoredifficult?AndwhathappenswithEnglishlearnersofSpanish?Therehavebeenclaimsintheliteratureoneitherside.Mazurkewich(1984)maintainsthatmarkednessequalsacquisitionaldifficultywhereasWhite(1983)claimsthattheL1willdictatethepreference,thatis,shefavoursaCLI-basedapproach.TheDutch-Englishcaseisinterestingbecausebothareinsomesensemarkedlanguages.Both

strandprepositionsbutwhereasEnglishstrandsmoregenerally,DutchonlystrandswheretherelevantNPisanR-pronoun(cf.VanRiemsdijk,1978)forexample,waar,daar,er.WilltheinitialassumptionoftheDutchlearnerofEnglishbeinfluencedbymarkednessconsiderationsinthatheorshewillstartbyrefusingtostrand;orwillthatlearnerimpose(marked)DutchstructureonEnglishandaccordinglystrandselectively,identifyingsomeequivalentofR-pronounsinEnglish,thatis,what...on(waar....op):orthirdly,willthelearnertreatEnglishasalesscomplicatedlanguageandreadilystrand'promiscuously'sotospeakandthuschanceonsomethinglikethetargetnormsatanearlystageofdevelopment?Theseandmanyotherquestionsspringfromaconsiderationofthelinguisticandlearnabilityissuesas

appliedtosecondlanguagelearningandtheprojectisintooearlyastateitselftoprovideanythingmorethanintriguingpuzzles.Butfindingstodatecertainlysuggest,atleastinsomelearners,anattempttoimposeDutchstructureonEnglish.Sincetheprocessesdictatingstrandingarefairlysubtlewemaysuspectthatformalinstructioncanhavelittletodowiththeirbehaviourandthat,again,mainlysubconsciousandtheoreticallyinterestingprocessesareatwork(forfurtherdiscussionseeVanBuren&SharwoodSmith,1985).

Conclusion

Toconclude,therehavebeenthreemaingeneraltruthsthathavebecomecleartousinUtrechtasaresultofourinvestigationssofar.Thefirstisthatcross-linguisticinfluenceisahighlycomplexphenomenonandnotatallaspresentedinsimpleaccountsofinterferenceortransferfamiliarfromworkintheseventies.Second,arichertheoreticalbasisforexaminingCLI(amongstotheraspectsofacquisition)isnotaluxurybutanabsolutenecessity,andthirdly,thattheenrichmentmustcertainlyinvolvethemoredirectapplicationoftheworkcarriedoutrecentlyintheareaoftheoreticallinguistics.Intheprocessofdiscoveringorconfirmingthesetruths,wehave,likeourcolleaguesinsomeoftheotherEuropeancentres,gatheredsomeinterestingdataontheacquisitionofEnglishbyadvancedlearners.Wehavealsoseenhowalanguagedepartmentcanfunctiontoservetheendsofresearchsothateducationalconcernsarenotneglected.Atthesametime,wehavealsocometothecertainknowledgethatifsecondlanguagestudiesareevergoingtoproperlyserveappliedends,theywillneedtodevelopseparatelyandnotberequiredateverysteptojustifythemselvesinpracticalterms.

NotetoChapter12

1.LanguageAcquisitionResearchSymposium(intheUniversityof

Utrecht)

References

ANDERSON,J.,1978.Orderofdifficultyinadultsecondlanguageacquisition.InW.C.RITCHIE(ed.).SecondLanguageAcquisitionResearchIssuesandImplications.NewYork:AcademicPress.91-108.

BAKKER.C.,1983.TheEconomyPrincipleintheProductionofSententialVerb

Complements.Unpublishedmaster'sdissertation,UniversityofUtrecht.

BIALYSTOK,E.,1981,Theroleoflinguisticknowledgeinsecondlanguageuse.StudiesinSecondLanguageAcquisition4,31-45.

BIALYSTOK,E.&SHARWOODSMITH,M.,1985,Interlanguageisnotastateofmind:anevaluationoftheconstructforsecondlanguageacquisition.AppliedLinguistics6(2),101-117.

BOURGONJE,B.,GROOT,P.&SHARWOODSMITH,M.,1985,TheacquisitionofadverbialplacementinEnglishasaforeignlanguage:acrosslinguisticstudy.InterlanguageStudiesBulletin8(2),93-103.

DULAY,H.,BURT,M.&KRASHEN,S.,1982,LanguageTwo.Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress.

GALBRAITH,N.,1982,AStudyofLanguageTransferinLanguageLoss.Unpublishedmaster'sdissertation,UniversityofUtrecht.

JACKENDOFF,R.,1972,SemanticInterpretationinGenerativeGrammar.Cambridge.MA:MITPress.

JACOBSON,S.,1981,PreverbalAdverbsandAuxiliaries.Stockholm:Almquist&Wiksell.

KELLERMANE.1985,TheempiricalevidencefortheexistenceofL1ininterlanguage.InA.DAVIES,C.CRIPER&A.HOWATT(eds).Interlanguage.Edinburgh:EdinburghUniversityPress,98-129.

KELLERMAN,E.&SHARWOODSMITH,M.,1988,Theinterpretationofsecondlanguageoutput.InH.W.DECHERT&M.RAUPACH(eds),TransferinLanguageProduction.Norwood,NJ:Ablex,217-235.

LAKOFF,R.,1968,AbstractSyntaxandLatinComplementation.Cambridge,MA:MITPress.

MAZURKEWICH,I.,1984,Theacquisitionofdativealternationbysecondlanguagelearnersandlinguistictheory.LanguageLearning34,91-109.

POLOMSKA,M.,1982.PreferenceandDevianceintheChoiceofSententialComplementsbyDutchSpeakersofEnglish.M.A.WorkingPaper.UniversityofUtrecht.

SHARWOODSMITH,M.,1983,Onfirstlanguagelossinthesecondlanguageacquirer:problemsoftransfer.InS.GASS&L.SELINKER(eds),LanguageTransferinLanguageLearning.Rowley,MA:NewburyHouse,222-231.

1985,Frominputtointake:Onargumentationinsecondlanguageacquisition.InS.GASS&C.MADDEN(eds),InputinSecondLanguageAcquisition.Rowley.MA:NewburyHouse,394-403.

VANBUREN,P.&SHARWOODSMITH,M.,1985,Theacquisitionofpreposition-strandingbysecondlanguagelearnersandparametricvariation.SecondLanguageResearch1(1),18-46.

VANRIEMSDIJK,H.1978,ACaseStudyinSyntacticMarkedness.Lisse:PeterdeRidderPress.

VANVIERKENM.,1980,AdverbialPlacementinEnglish:aStudyofFirstLanguageLoss.Unpublishedmaster'sdissertation,UniversityofUtrecht.

VANVUGT,M.&VANHELMOND,K.,1984,AnInvestigationintotheProductionofSententialVerbComplementsbyAdvancedLearnersofEnglishinanEFLSituation.UnpublishedM.A.WorkingPaper,UniversityofUtrecht.

WHITFL.,1983,Markednessandparametersetting:SomeimplicationsforatheoryofadultsecondlanguageacquisitionMcGillJournalofLinguistics11,1-21.

13LanguageContactandCultureContact:TowardsanIntegrativeApproachinSecondLanguageAcquisitionResearchElsOksaar

Introduction

Thedevelopmentofsecondlanguageacquisition(SLA)researchinthelastdecadeshasledtoachangeofparadigm.WhereasinthepasttheresearchinterestinSEAwasmorefocusedonthelanguageitselfandontheteacher,therehasbeenashiftofattentiontoamorelearner-centredview.Thisresultsinanincreasingconcerninthelearner'sinterlanguageandinhiscommunicativecompetence.

Howthesecondlanguageisacquiredisthesubjectofanumberofhypotheses:theContrastiveHypothesis,theIdentityHypothesis,theInputHypothesis,thePidginisationHypothesis,andsoforth.

However,untestedhypothesesarenotinfrequentlyraisedtothelevelofafactas,forexample,Krashen'sMonitorModel(seeBausch&Kasper,1979;vanElsetal.,1984;Lightbown,1985).Thisisamethodologicalerrorthathandicapsbothresearchandpractice.

Ontheotherhanditshouldnotbeforgottenthatgalvanisationoftheresearchsceneisusefulasitmaystipulateadiscussiononsecondlanguageacquisitioninwhichnotthemodelbutthehumanbeingiscentral.Anindividual-centredapproachtolanguageacquisitionandlanguageteachingisindeeddifficult,butitismorerealisticthanatheoreticalmodelapproach(Oksaar,1984;Hüllen,1984).

Aninterestingparallelcanbefoundinthedevelopmentofcontactlinguistics,anotunimportantfieldinsecondlanguageresearch.Wefindinrecentdecadesaseriesofimportantrecognitionsandattemptsattypologisations.However,constructionofmodels,whichisrelevantfortheoreticalaswellasforappliedlinguistics,doesnotshowthesameprogressindiscovery.Moreattentionispaidtothetransferoflinguisticformsandmeaningsthantoothercommunicativeconstituentsmodifyingorreplacingthem.Theimportantissueofthetransferofsocioculturalnormsandpatternsofinteraction,too,belongstoanareawhichisstillinitsinfancy,thoughthenecessityofincludingtheseaspectshasalreadybeenstressedintheseventies(Oksaar,1975b).

Theaimofthisarticleistowidenthecommunication-orientedperspectivetoSLAresearchthroughtheintegrativeapproachofverbalandotherelementsofwhichalearnerhastohavecommandwheninteractinginSL.ThisbringsustotheculturemetheoryandthecentralroleofcultureroesandbehavioremesinSLAresearch,whichwearegoingtodiscussonthebackgroundofinteractionalcompetenceandtwonewcongruences:pragmaticandsemiotic.

TheempiricalfoundationofmyanalysisderivesfromourHamburglongtermproject:theBilingualLanguageBehaviourProject(twelveyears)inAustralia,USA,Canada,andSweden,completedin1980andthecurrent,ten-yearMultilingualLanguageAcquisitionProject,involvingchildrengrowingupwithtwo,threeorfourlanguages.

Thefollowingfactsshouldbeemphasisedaspremisesforouranalysis.Languageuseinface-to-faceinteractiontakesplaceintheecologicalnearmilieuofpeople,inwhichnotonlylinguistic,butalsoculturallyconditionedbehaviouralrulesarevalid,whichcallforthandregulatesituationallyconditionedbehaviouralpatternsbothforthelearnerandfortheteacher.Traditionallinguisticmodelsandanalysis

instrumentsarenotsufficienttodescribeaperson'scodeswitching,situationalinterference,hisviolationsofpragmaticandsemioticcongruence,ortounderstandtheirfunctionsandsignalvalues.

Aslanguageispartofacultureandatthesametimeamediumtodescribeculture,therearelanguageaswellasculturecontacts.Butthemediumofthesecontactsistheactingindividual,whonotonlytakespartinlanguagesandcultures,butisalsocreativeinbothofthem.Whichfactorsinfluencehisorherinteractionalcompetence?Howdocommunicativemisunderstandingsarise?

TheProblemofIntegration

Anintegrativeapproachtolanguagecontacthastopayattentiontothefactthatlanguageasameansofexpressionandcommunicationismorecomplexinitsspokenthanitswrittenform,becauseitinvolvesandisconnectedwithmoreinformationcarriersthantheverbalones.

First:spokenlanguageisneverexistentwithoutparalinguisticelements.Theirrole,however,incolouringthemessageincertainwaysisoftendifferentlyconditionedbydifferentculturalsystems(Hayes,1972).

Second:spokenlanguageisconnectedwithnonverbalandextraverbalsignals.Hayes(1972:145)turnsourattentiontothefact:'Ifthesesignals,differentlyconditionedbyeveryculturalsystem,withdifferenteffectsonthelinguisticsystem,arenotproperlyreceivedandsent,communicationisimpeded'.

Thenecessityofanintegrativeapproachisobviouswhenweareinterestedinlanguageuse.Anintegrativeapproachstartsfromtheprincipleofthepart-wholerelationshipinlanguageandcultureanddoesnotisolatetheverbalmeansofexpressionfromothersemioticonessuchasparalinguistic,nonverbalandextraverbalmeansofcommunication.Itsbasicunitisthecommunicativeact(Oksaar,1975a),inwhichtheinteractionalcompetenceofaspeaker/hearerisrealised.Thecommunicativeact,whichisthewholeframeofactioninwhichthespeechactivitytakesplace,includesinteractionswithallcommunicativeelements.Thecommunicativeactisembeddedinsituationsandcreatessituationsitself,changestheoriginalonesandsoforth.Amongthemostimportantelementsofcommunicativeactsare:

1.Partner/audience.(Here,ofcourse,distinctionsmustbemadeaccordingtotheageandothersocialvariablesofthepartner)

2.Theme/themes.

3.Verbalelements.

4.Paralinguisticelements:intonation,stress,andvoiceinflection.

5.Nonverbal(kinesic)elements:gaze,gesture,andotherbodylanguagesigns.

6.Extraverbalelements:proxemicelements,temporalsignals.

7.Thetotalityofemotionalandaffectiveelementsofbehaviour.

Astononverbalelements,thoughtheirmeaningmustbeviewedcontextually,theydohavestereotypedaspects,forexample,hand-wave,bow,headshake,nodinvariousculturecontexts.Malinowski(1935:26)pointstotheintegralroleofgestureinspeechas'quiteimportantforourunderstandingofanutteranceastheoneortwosignificantmovementsorindicationswhichactuallyreplaceanutteredword'.

ContrarytothespeechactofAustinandSearle,thecommunicativeacthastheadvantageofretainingbothsenderandreceiverrelatednessincommunicationandthecommunicativeelements.Thespeechacttheoryistooone-sidedlysender-related,theverbalunitsdominateandothercomponentsofthecommunicativeacthavenotbeentakenintoconsideration.

Whatweactuallyobserveinface-to-faceinteractionareelementsofthecommunicativeactthatbelongtotheinteractionalcompetenceofaperson.Theparameterinteractionalcompetence(Oksaar,1977)canbedefinedastheabilityofaperson,ininteractionalsituations,toperformandinterpretverbal,paralinguistic,nonverbalandextraverbalcommunicativeactions,accordingtothesocioculturalandsociopsychologicalrulesofthegroup.IthasbeennecessarytodifferentiatetheconceptofcommunicativecompetenceofHymes(1967),inordertogetaparameterforface-to-faceinteractiononly.

1Interactionalcompetence,thus,ispartofthecommunicativecompetence.Itstressesthefactthatcommunicativeabilitiescanbedividednotonlyintoverbal,nonverbalandextraverbalcomponents,butalsointoactionalandnonactional,asonecanalsocommunicatebysilence.Thisparameterismoredifferentiatedthanotherconceptswhichfollowedlater,forexampleSchmidt&Richards'(1980)pragmaticcompetence,usedasasynonymforcommunicativecompetenceinHymes'ssense.ThetermpragmaticcompetenceisalsousedbyThomas(1983:92)for'theabilitytouselanguageeffectivelyinordertoachieveaspecificpurposeandtounderstandlanguageincontext'.Theconceptsocialcompetence(Bell,1976),too,isnotconcreteenough.Itreferstoacompetencehousingsocialfunctionsoflinguisticforms.AlsothedescriptivemodelofcommunicativecompetencebyCanale&Swain(1980)isnotsufficienttocovertheinteractionalcomponentsofthecommunicativeact.

Gumperz(1984:280)suggestsredefiningthenotionofcommunicativecompetenceas:'Theknowledgeofdiscourseprocessingconventionsandrelatedcommunicativenormsthatparticipantsmustcontrolasapreconditiontobeingabletoenlistandsustainconversationalco-operation'.However,neitherhenortheotherauthorsmentionedrefertotheconceptofthemoreconcreteinteractionalcompetence,which,togetherwiththecommunicativeact,enablesustoanalyseinteractioninawidersemioticcontextandmorerealisticallythanthemodelsofcommunicativecompetencereferredto.Itnotonlycombinesverbalelementswithkinesicandothercommunicativecomponentsbutalsomakesitpossibletofocusonthereasonswhichfavourinteractionalunderstandingorcausemisunderstandings.Thefocusisonthecomponentsofthecommunicativeact.Inthissocioculturalbehaviourpatternsinrespecttoanotherpersonarerealised.Theyformacentralareaintheinteractionalcompetence,becausetheymaysendinformationbeforetheverbalchannelisactivatedortogetherwithit.

TheCulturemeModel

Socioculturalbehaviourpatternscanbesystematisedbytheculturememodel(Oksaar,1979,1983).Itsunitsaretheculturemes:thatpeoplegreeteachother,thatsomebodyaddressesaperson,thankshimorher,asksforsomething,choosesappropriatetopics,andsoforth,accordingtosituationaldemands.Culturemesarerealisedthroughbehavioremes,whichmaybeverbal,paralinguisticand/ornonverbal,and/orextraverbal.

2Thismeansthatinagivensocietywecanempiricallydeterminecertainofthebehaviourpatternsofourfellowsandthewaythesepatternsconveymessages.However,therearedifferencesintherealisationoftheculturemesalreadyinonelanguagecommunity,whichaffectsthecontactsituationevenmore.

LetusconsidertherealisationofthepolitenessculturemegreetinginGermanandsomeotherlanguages.Whatbehavioremesareimportant?

VerbalBehavioremes

AshasbeenshowninOksaar(1953),thechoiceoftheverbalbehavioremedependsontimeandsocialvariables.

1.Timevariables:Therearetwotypesoftimetoconsider:timeaspartofthedayandtimeaspartofthecontactperiod.IntheinitialphaseofcontactgutenTag(goodday)isused,or,correspondingtothetimeofdaygutenMorgen(goodmorning)orgutenAbend(goodevening).ThereisnoequivalentfortheEnglishgoodafternoon.GuteNacht(goodnight),however,isusedonlyintheconcludingphaseofthecontact,aswellasaufWiedersehen(hopingtoseeyouagain).Theexpressionsoftheinitialphase,then,aremoretime-boundthanphase-

bound.Thatmeansthattheirusageallowsdeviationsfromtheruleoffixedposition;however,theyarenotgenerallycommonasgreetingsforleave-taking.InEnglishonehastoobserveotheraspectsofthecontact.Raith(1985:174)pointsoutthat'inEnglishonedistinguisheswhetheracontacttakesplaceforthefirsttimeornot(''Howdoyoudo?''vs."Howareyou?");inEnglishonedifferentiatesbetweenashorterandlongerseparation("Bye,bye"vs."goodbye")'.

2.Socialvariables:age,gender,socialrelationship,status,androle.Dependingonthedegreeofformality,thereisinGermanascalefrominformalTag,orhallobetweenfriendstothemoreformalgutenTag,FrauMüllerandstillmoreformalgutenTag,FrauProfessororFrauProfessor+name.Thatthemoreformal

behavioremeisfilledalsobythetitleandnamebearswitnesstothesensibilitytosocialrelations.InEnglish,theaddresseeofthegreetingisalsoverbalisedbysocialstatusandname:goodmorning,MrsSmith,inFrench,byherstatusonly:bonjour,Madame,inSwedishwithoutanysocialsignals:goddag.InHungarianthesituationismorecomplicated.Balazs(1985:171)pointstothefactthatdespitealleffortsatdemocratisation'Hungarianmenstillgreetwomenwithkezétcsókolom[...(I)kiss(your)hand],whilecsókolomrepresentsashorterandmoreintimateform.Arespectedhousewifewouldstillconsiderasimplejónopot[...goodday]asaninsult...sincetodayonlycleaningwomenorsimilarpersonsaregreetedthisway.Theexpandedformjónapotkivánok[...Iwishyouagoodday],especiallywhentheappropriateformofaddressisadded,soundsmuchbetter,orstillfairlyreserved'.

Differentsocialrelationshipscanbemarkedbyvariousbehavioremesinthesamegreetingsituation.TheageoftheactorplaysanimportantroleintheexamplethatBalazs(1985)givesfortheHungarianbehavioremes:

Itcanhappen...thatanelderlymanencountersseveralpeopleonthestairsatthesametime.Tothewifeofhisneighbourhesayskezétcsókolom[...(I)kiss(your)hand],totheconcièrgejonapot(kivánok),[...goodday],tohisneighbourszervuszorszevaszandtothesonofhisneighbourszia.

SzervuszisthesimplifiedformoftheLatingreetingformulaservushumillimus(yourhumble/devotedservant)andisused'onlybyequalswhousetheT-formorbyolderpersonswhengreetingyoungerones'(p.171).

ParalinguisticBehavioremes

InBritishEnglishgoodday,goodmorning,goodafternoon,goodeveningareoftenusedwithafallingintonationwhenmeeting

somebody,andwitharaisingintonationasfarewellgreeting.InGerman,too,paralinguisticfactorsmaysignalthebeginningortheendofcontact;however,asarule,afallingintonationsignalsfarewell.RaisingintonationingutenTagusuallysignalsmorethanjustfulfilmentofapolitenessnormawishtostartaconversation,positivefeelings,andsoforth.

NonverbalBehavioremes

InGerman,interactionalcompetenceincludes,withrespecttononverbalbehaviour,theobservanceofvariablesofactions:handshake,bow,nod,hat-tipping,andsoforth.Shouldeverygreetingbeaccompaniedbyahandshake,ornot?Ifthepartnerisnotinahurry,ahandshakeisanexpectedpartoftheactofgreeting.InEnglishcultureandinSwedenahandshakeisobligatoryonlywhenmeetingforthefirsttime.InEasternandArabiccountries,embracingandkissesoncheeksarecustomary,inSouth-EastAsiavarioustypesofbowing.AccordingtoDodd(1982:219)Americans,whensayinghello,use'agreetinggesturesuchasthepalm...extendedoutwardwiththefingerspointingupward,inthemannerofwaving,movingthepalmfromsidetoside'.And:'astheysaygoodbye,NorthAmericansplacethepalmoftherighthanddown,extendthefingers,andmovethefingersupanddown.InIndia,WestAfrica,andCentralAmericasuchagesturewouldimplybeckoning,asifyouwerecallingacaboraskingsomeonetomovetowardyou'.

ExtraverbalBehavioremes

InGerman,interactionalcompetenceincludeswithrespecttoextraverbalbehaviour,observanceofvariablesintimeandspace,aswellassocialvariables,theircombinationsandactions.

1.Thecombinationoftimeandsocialvariablesintheinitialphasedemandsananswertothequestion:Whoshouldgreetfirst?Theyoungerpersonortheolderone?Themanorthewoman?Inthehierarchy,thelowerorthemoreelevated?WhereasinGermanyandinSwedentheyoungerandthelowerinhierarchyissupposedtogreetfirst,thisruleisbrokenincaseofgender:themanhastogreetfirst,theplacehavingnosignificance.InEngland,however,thecasemaybethatthewomangreetsamanfirst,whenmeetinghiminthestreetandinpublicplaces:theplaceisanimportantfactor.

2.Thecombinationoftimeandspacevariablesincludewhomustalwaysgreetfirst,whenandwhere.InGermany,oneissupposedtogreetwhenenteringaroom,evenadoctor'swaitingroom;thelatterwouldnotbedoneinSweden.

SituationalInterference

Alreadyonthebasisoftheseconsiderationsitisobviousthatdeviationsfrombehavioremesconditionedbythesituationcanleadtomisunderstandingsinintra-aswellasinterlinguisticcontactsituations.ThesecanbeduetotheinfluencefromL1andC1.Thenotionofinterferencehasbeenusedfordeviationsfromthenormsofonelanguageconcerningverbalmeansthroughtheinfluenceofanother.However,itcannotcountfordeviationscausedbytheinfluenceofthepragmaticnormsofthesituation.WhenaSwedeinGermanyisusingGermanDuaddressingsomebodywhenthepolitenesspronounSieisprescribedbythepragmaticnorms,itisnotsimplyadeviationfromthelinguisticnormsofL2,butfromthesocioculturalnormsofC2,causedbyC1,theSwedishnorms.Ithas,therefore,beennecessarytodifferentiatetheconceptofinterferenceanddistinguishbetweenlinguisticandsituationalinterferences(Oksaar,1975b).

Situationalinterferencesaredeviationsfromthepragmaticconventionsofthesituationsinwhichthecommunicativeacttakesplace,arisingthroughtheinfluenceofthebehaviourpatternsofanothergrouporcommunityincorrespondingsituations.Therearedifferentsituationalnormsonwhichspeakers/listenersbasetheirexpectationsofhowothersshouldbehave.Situationalinterferencescoverproductionandinterpretationofmessages.

Inusingtheculturememodelwithitsvariouskindsofbehavioremes,weareabletoanalysesituationalinterferencesonaratherconcretelevel.Bydoingso,wemayexplainculturallypatternedbehaviourinaconsiderablywiderareathanhasbeendone,becausebehavioremesmaybefoundinanychannelandnotonlyintheverbalone.

SomeExamples

InthefollowingIshalldiscussanumberofculturemes,the

behavioremesofwhichmayeasilyleadtosituationalinterferences,becausetherearegreatdifferencesinvariouscultures.Languagelearnershavetolearnwhatsignalstolookfor,contactlinguistsmayshowwhichcommunicativeresultssituationalinterferencesmayleadto.Thus,thequestionisnotonlywhy,fromthepointofthenativespeaker,anon-appropriatecommunicativeacttakesplace,butalsowhateffectitcanhaveontheactandontherelationbetweentheinteractants.

Weshallfirstlookattheculturalsignalswhichmaybeimportantbeforetheverbalandkinesicmessagesaresent.

Thereis,first,thequestionoftheamountofcodedinformation,accordingtovarioussituations.Hall(1977:91-92)speaksofhigh-context(HC)messagesandlow-context(LC)onesseeingthefirstatoneendandtheotherattheotherendofthecontinuum:'Ahigh-contextcommunicationormessageisoneinwhichmostoftheinformationiseitherinthephysicalcontextorinternalisedintheperson,whileverylittleisinthecoded,explicit,transmittedpartofthemessage'.ForHallalow-contextcommunicationisjusttheopposite:'Themassoftheinformationisvestedintheexplicitcode'(pp.105-106).ItistruethatnocultureistotallyHCorLC,butwhiletheChinese,Japanese,peopleoftheMiddleEast,theFrench,Spanish,andItaliansbelongtothehighcontextpeople,AmericansandEuropeansliketheGermans,Swiss,andScandinaviansbelongtothelowcontextgroup(Hall&Hall,1983).Ofcourse,therearegreatindividualdifferencesineverycultureconcerningthecontext,butasarule,theremaybeconflicts,whenhighcontextpeoplemeetwithlowcontextpeople.'Highcontextpeopleareapttobecomeimpatientandirritatedwhenlowcontextpeoplegivetheminformationtheydon'tneed'(Hall&Hall,1983:28).Ontheotherside,theyassumethatthelistenerknowswhattheirrealmatterisinacommunicativeact,andthereforetheyveryoftenonlygivehints.

IfonelooksatthebehavioremesthroughanextendedversionoftheclassicformulaofLasswell,asking:whosignals/interpretswhat,how,when,where,why,andwithwhateffect,onefindsagreatvarietyofpossibilitiesalsointheareaofonecommonlanguage.

Beforeonestartsspeaking,thepartnermayhaveexpectationsaboutthestructureoftheconversation.Theirexistencebecomesevidentwhentheyarenotfulfilled,asthefollowingAmerican-Frenchcontactsituationillustrates.TheformerSecretaryofStateHenryKissingerwritesabouthismeetingwithdeGaulle:'AttheendofthedinnerattheElisée...anaidetoldmethattheGeneralwishedtoseeme.

WithouttheslightestattempttosmalltalkdeGaullegreetedmewiththequery:"Whydon'tyougetoutofVietnam?"'(1979:109-110).Kissingermusthaveawaitedsmalltalk,whichwouldhavebeenthecaseinacorrespondingsituationintheUSA.Hemusthavehadalotofnonverbalandextraverbalsignalsthatmadehimconclude:'TheGeneralconsideredPresidentialAssistantsasfunctionarieswhoseviewsshouldbesolicitedonlytoenabletheprincipalstoestablishsometechnicalpoint;hedidnottreatthemasautonomousentities'(p.109).

Thehandlingoftimeandtheattitudestowardstimeareimportantextralinguisticfactorsininteractionalcompetence.Letuslookatthenormsofpunctuality.InSweden,absolutepunctualityisexpected,in

privateaswellasinofficialcircumstances;itisinmanysituationsevenwelcomeifonecomesafewminutesbeforethetime.InGermany,whenoneisinvitedtodinnerat7p.m.,thenormsofpolitenessdonotdemandabsolutepunctuality;however,asiscustomaryinothercircumstances,forexampleatuniversities,theacademicquarter(arrivingaquarterpastthehour)isexpected.InLatinAmerica,whatiscalledpunctualityinmanysituationsimpliesamuchlaterarrivalthaneventhatexpectedinGermany.Differencesinthisareacaninfluenceacommunicativeactbeforeitreallystarts.

Thecommunicationprocessitselfcanbeinfluencedbydifferencesusingthetimeincommon.Here,threefactorsareimportant:toknowthetimewhentotalk,howmuchtotalk,andhowmuchtimetoallottopauses.Therearegreatindividualandculturaldifferences.ThesedifferencescanbenoticedalreadyinEurope,betweenScandinaviansandGermans,forinstance.Scandinavians,especiallyFinns,makelongerpausesthanGermansanddonotverbaliseeverythingatonceduringcommunication.LikeTurksandJapanese,theyareawareofthefactthatthelistenerknowsthattheirsilenceisactive,athinkingsilence.Germans,however,havemanymoresignals,includingverbalones,whilelistening.ThiscanbeirritatingforaFinnorSwede.Germans,ontheotherhand,characterisethemasslowandnoteasytotalkto.Asamatteroffact,Scandinaviansarenotboundtosmalltalk.ThismaycomplicatetheirconversationespeciallywithAmericansforwhomsmalltalkhasanimportantfunctioninacommunicativeact.

AninstructiveapproachtosystematisethetimefactorhasbeenmadebyHall(1959)andHall&Hall(1983).Theydifferentiatebetweenmonochronicandpolychronictime.'Monochronictime(M-time)meansdoingonethingatime.Polychronictime(P-time)meansdoingmanythingsatonce'(1983:22).Itisevidentthattheremustbegreatdifferencesinthedegreeofthesesystems.M-timepeoplehavetimescheduled,theyhavetolearntoconcentrateononethingatatime.In

P-timeculturemanythingsareoccurringsimultaneously,'appointmentsareapttomeanverylittleandmaybeshiftedaroundatthelastminute....Sincepromptnessmeanslittletothepolychronicperson,theirfailuretobepunctualcanbestressfulforsomeonefromamonochronicculture.Andifthepolychronicpersondoesnottelephonetoexplainhistardiness,monochronicpeoplemaytakeoffence'(1983:23).

Tosumupsofar:basedonwhichsocioculturalgroupthespeaker/hearerbelongsto,therearedifferentsituationalnorms,onwhichhebaseshisexpectationsofhowtheothershouldbehave,ofwhatisexpectedofhimandofhowhehimselfshouldbehave.Weshallnowconsidera

fewcasesofsituationalinterferencefromtheverbalandnonverbalarea.

Verbalarea.InEstonian,Finnish,andSwedish,onefindstheculturemecompliment,justasinallotherEuropeanlanguagesandinAmericanEnglish.Itisrealisedinapproximatelythesamesortofsituations.Complimentsareusedinthephaticfunction.Fromthepointofviewofthespeakertheyhavesocialvalueestablishingapositiverelationtothehearer.Theyserveasacontactanddialogueinitiationstrategy.However,thereactiontoacomplimentisconnectedtovariousbehaviourpatterns.Inthethreelanguagecommunitiesmentionedabovecomplimentsshouldbeeitherdeclined,oratleastverymuchweakened.Foranobject,thisisaccomplishedbypresentingtheage,price,ororiginoftheobjectinsuchawaythatthecomplimentappearsnottobejustified.

IfMrsXistoldthatshehasabeautifuldresson,shecanrespondinthreepossiblewaystoexpressthatthisisnotso:usuallybyemphasising,(a)itsage(Ohno,it'sjustanoldthing!),(b)itslowprice(Ohno,itwasverycheap!),or(c)itsoriginoflowprestige(Ohno,it'sjustsomethingIpickedupinasaleorOhno,it'sjustsomethingImademyself!).However,accordingtothenormsinEnglishspeakingcountries,itisexpectedthatthereceiverinsuchasituationthanksthespeakerforthecompliment.AsituationalinterferenceariseswhenmultilingualEstonians,FinnsorSwedesintheircorrespondingnativelanguagethanksomeoneforacompliment.Theseinterferencesmay,however,alsobecomepartsofnewconventions.ItcanbetracedtotheAnglo-Saxoninfluence,whenaGermanthankssomeone,inGerman,foracompliment.Duringthisprocessofchangeinsuchbehaviourpatterns,misunderstandingsmayoccur.

Theresultofacommunicativemisunderstandingorconflictisnot

alwaysimmediatelyevident.If,inasituationwheretheverbalrealisationoftheculturemethankingisobligatory,apersondoesnotbehaveaccordingtothisnorm,thefollowingconsequencesmustbeexpected:hisbehaviourwillbeinterpretedasasignofimpolitenessorarroganceorindifference,andthiscanhaveconsequencesforthecommunicationwhichfollows.Grammaticalcorrectnessneednotcorrelatewithcommunicativecorrectnessandadequacy.

Choiceoftopicandmannerofrepresentationcanalsobementionedinthiscontext.InEurope,ifastrangeraskspersonalquestions,suchas:'Areyoumarried?','Howoldareyou?','Howmuchdoyouearn?',or,referringtoanobject:'Howmuchdiditcost?',heviolatesmanynormsofthecommunicativeact,whereasinmanyAsiancountriesthesequestions

areacceptable.Theparalinguisticrepertoireofrepresentationisalsosubjecttovariousnorms:aninterferencearises,forexample,whenaJapaneseinGermanygivessomeoneasadmessagewithasmile.

Here,thereisaninterestingcorrelationbetweenknowledgeofalanguageandoftheculture,fromthestandpointofthereceiver.Themorecompetentaspeakerisinalanguage,thebetterthehearerexpectshisculturalcompetencetobe.Consequently,lackofcontrolofculturemerealisationinalinguisticallycompetentspeakerwillnotbeexcusedeasily.

Nonverbalarea.InGermandankecanbeinterpretedasyesaswellasno,thanks,accordingtothesituation.IfaGreekmeansnoandemphasiseswhatheissayingbyrepeatedlymovinghisheadupanddown,thiskinememayleadtoamisunderstanding,sinceitcanbeinterpretedasnodding,anexpressionofagreement,andthereforeasyes.Hereweseesituationalinterferencefromanonverbalpartofthebehavioreme,whichmeansnoforaGreek.

Inasituationinwhichavisitorisofferedsomething,forexampleapieceofcake,EstonianandHungarianculturemesprescribethat,insteadofacceptingatonce,thevisitordeclines.Theofferisexpectedtoberepeatedatleastonce.Germannorms,ontheotherhand,prescribeapromptdecision.Adeviationfromthispromptdecision,causedbyinterferencefromEstonianorHungarianbehavioremes,canhaveunfavourableresults.

Wecannowestablishaperson-centredbehaviouralmodelofface-to-faceinteraction.Thismodelrepresentsacomplexinteractiveprocess.Itis,firstofall,anonverbalprocessinwhichthehearerreceivessignalsfromthespeakerthroughvariouschannels,suchasthevisualorauditive,beforeheorsheisevenspokento.Thespeaker'swayoflooking,hisorherfacialexpression,gestures,andclothing,forinstance,areallfactorswhichinfluencethehearer'sattitude.Thispre-

phaseformspartoftheinterpretationstructurewhichmay,however,changeinthecourseoftheactualconversation.

Duringsuchaconversationotherfactorsmayadditionallyinfluencethehearer.Deviationsfromthenormsofprosody,suchaspitchorvolume,mayalreadyleaveanimpressiononthehearerthatthespeakerisimpolite,rude,orwily,orisaccusinghimofsomething.Theother'stoneofvoiceisgenerallyinterpretedaccordingtoone'sownnorms,evenifoneispatientwithpossiblelinguisticinterferenceofforeigners.Inthismanner,prejudicesmaybedeepenedandstereotypesintensified.Themeta-levelofcontactshouldbeexploredmorecarefully;however,thispresupposesrecognitionoftheproblem.

Theinteractionoftheelementsofacommunicativeactcanberepresentedbyacongruencemodel.Understandingandmisunderstandingdependonatleastfourcongruences.Apartfromtheusualcongruences,semanticandgrammaticalcongruence,wemustdealwithpragmaticandsemioticcongruence.Iconsiderpragmaticcongruencetobeagreementbetweenthecontentsoftheverbal,paralinguistic,andnonverbalinformationcarriers.Semioticcongruencepointstoagreementofbehaviourpatternsintime,space,andaction.Theentirecommunicativeactmustcorrespondtothenormsofthesituation.

Conclusion

Inlearninganewlanguageyoulearnmoreaboutyourmothertongue,too.Throughstudyingforeignculturesoneunderstandsone'sown.Alanguagemustbeconsideredandtaughtaspartofalargerentityaculture.Iwouldliketoclosethisarticlewiththefollowingstatement:theself-evidentorobviousprovestobemuchlesssoifoneproceedsfromtheindividualandnotfromthelanguage,becauseeachlearnerbringshisowncreativecharacteristicstothelearningandinteractingprocess.Weneedahumanlinguisticapproachforlinguisticandculture-contactinvestigationsandforeffectiveSLAresearch.

NotestoChapter13

1.FordiscussionseeElsOksaar(1977:138-141).

2.AdifferentuseofculturemeandbehavioremeisfoundinPike(1967).

References

BALAZS,J.,1985,DisturbancesandmisunderstandingintheuseofaddressformsinHungarian.InR.J.BRUNT&W.ENNINGER(eds),InterdisciplinaryPerspectivesatCross-culturalCommunication.

Aachen:Rader,163-172.

BAUSCH,K.-R.&KASPER,G.,1979,DerZweitsprachenerwerb:MöglichkeitenundGrenzender'groben'Hypothesen.LinguistischeBerichte64,3-35.

BELL,R.T.,1976,Sociolinguistics.London:Batsford.

BRUNT,R.J.&ENNINGER,W.(eds),1985,InterdisciplinaryPerspectivesatCross-culturalCommunication.Aachen:Rader.

CANALE,M.&SWAIN,M.,1980,Theoreticalbasesofcommunicativeapproachestosecondlanguageteachingandtesting.AppliedLinguistics1,1-47.

DODD,C.H.,1982,DynamicsofInterculturalCommunication.Dubuque,IA:WilliamC.Brown.

GUMPERZ,J.J.,1984,Communicativecompetencerevisited.InD.SCHIFFRIN(ed.),Meaning,FormandUseofContext:LinguisticApplications.Washington,DC:GeorgetownUniversityPress,278-302.

HALL,E.T.,1959,TheSilentLanguage.GardenCity,NY:AnchorPress.

1977,BeyondCulture.GardenCity,NY:AnchorPress.

HALL,E.T.&HALL,M.REED,1983,HiddenDifferences.Hamburg:Stern.

HAYES,A.S.,1972,Paralinguisticsandkinesics:Pedagogicalperspectives.InT.A.SEBOEK,A.S.HAYES&M.C.BATESON(eds).ApproachestoSemiotics.TheHague:Mouton,145-172.

HÜLLEN,W.,1984,Textandtense.LAUT-paper:PedagogicalEnglishGrammar14(SeriesB100/14).Trier:UniversityofTrier,LinguisticAgency.

HYMES,D.,1967,Modelsoftheinteractionoflanguageandsocialsetting.JournalofSocialIssues23(2),8-28.

KISSINGER,H.,1979,WhiteHouseYears.Boston:Little,Brown&Company.

LIGHTBOWN,P.M.,1985,Greatexpectations:Second-languageacquisitionresearchandclassroomteaching.AppliedLinguistics6,173-189.

MALINOWSKI,B.,1935,CoralGardensandTheirMagic.London:Allen&Unwin.

OKSAAR,E.,1975a,SpracherwerbundKindersprache:PädolinguistischePerspektiven.ZeitschriftfürPädagogik21,719-743.

1975b,AsociolinguisticanalysisofbilingualbehaviourinSweden.InK.-H.DAHLSTEDT(ed.),TheNordicLanguagesandModernLinguistics2.Stockholm:Almqvist&Wiksell,609-620.

1977,SpracherwerbimVorschulalter:EinfuhrungindiePädolinguistik.Stuttgart:Kohlhammer.

1979,ZurAnalysederkommunikativenAkte.WirkendesWort29,391-404.

1983,Multilingualismandmulticulturalismfromthelinguist'spointofview.InT.HUSÉN&S.OPPER(eds),MulticulturalandMultilingualEducationinImmigrantCountries.Oxford:PergamonPress,17-36.

1984,Spracherwerb-Sprachkontakt-SprachkonfliktimLichteindividuumzentrierterForschung.InE.OKSAAR(ed.),Spracherwerb-Sprachkontakt-Sprachkonflikt.NewYork:DeGruyter,243-266.

PIKE,K.L.,1967,LanguageinRelationtoaUnifiedTheoryoftheStructureofHumanBehaviour.TheHague:Mouton.

RAITH,J.,1985,Intercultural(mis-,non-)understanding,ethnographyofcommunication,languageteaching.InR.J.BRUNT&W.ENNINGER

(eds),InterdisciplinaryPerspectivesatCross-culturalCommunication.Aachen:Rader,173-188.

SCHMIDT,R.E.&RICHARDS,J.C.,1980,Speechactsandsecondlanguagelearning.AppliedLinguistics1,129-157.

THOMAS,J.,1983,Cross-culturalpragmaticfailure.AppliedLinguistics4,91-112.

VANELS,T.,BONGAERTS,T.,EXTRA,G.,VANOS,C.&JANSSEN-VANDIETEN,A.M.(eds),1984,AppliedLinguisticsandtheLearningandTeachingofForeignLanguages.London:EdwardArnold.

BIOGRAPHICALDATAONCONTRIBUTORSDanielleBaillycurrentlyisProfessorofLinguisticsandAppliedLinguisticsattheDepartmentofLinguistics,UniversityofLilleIII,France.ShereceivedherPhDfromtheUniversitéSorbonneinParis.From1959to1968D.BaillyworkedasProfesseuragrégéed'enseignementsecondaireinToulouseandParis,France.Between1966and1968shewasAssistantProfessorattheSorbonneandfrom1968to1985MaîtreAssistantattheUniversityofParisVII.In1985sheacceptedtocalltotheUniversityofLille,France,ProfessorBaillyduringhercareerhasbeenassociatedwiththreenationalSLAresearchgroups,theCommissionNationaled'ÉtablissementdesProgrammesd'EnseignementdesLanguesPourleSecondaire(=NationalCommissiononLanguageAcquisitioninSecondarySchools),theCommissiondesGrandesEcoles,GroupeLanguesVivantes,andtheGroupedeRecherchesenPsycholinguistique,UniversitéParis(=thePsycholinguisticResearchGroupintheUniversityofParisVII).

HansW.DecherthasbeenProfessorintheDepartmentofEnglishandRomanceLanguagesandLiteraturesintheUniversityofKassel,FederalRepublicofGermanysince1972.In1954hereceivedhisPhDfromtheJohann-Wolfgang-Goethe-UniversityinFrankfurt.HetaughtatRutgersUniversity,USAandtheJustus-Liebig-UniversityinGiessen.HewasChairmanofhisDepartmentintheacademicyear1978/79.ProfessorDechertwasinchargeofthefollowinginternationalsymposiaatKassel:KasselWorkshopontheTheoryofSecond-LanguageAcquisition(1976),PausologicalImplicationsofSpeechProduction(1978),PsycholinguisticModelsofProduction(1980),TransferinProduction:APsycholinguisticApproach(1982)andTheSecondInternationalCongressofAppliedPsycholinguistics

(1987).AtpresentH.DechertisaVice-PresidentoftheInternationalSocietyofAppliedPsycholinguistics.Hehasfocusedhisresearchontemporalvariablesinspeechandthepsycholinguisticsofsecondlanguagespeech

productionofadvancedspeakersofEnglishandGermanwithintheKasselPsycho-andPragmalinguisticResearchGroup(KAPPA).

RainerDietrichisProfessorintheDepartmentofGermanasaForeignLanguageintheRuprecht-Karls-UniversityHeidelberg,FederalRepublicofGermany.AsagraduatestudentheattendedtheUniversityofHeidelbergandtheUniversityofSaarbrücken,whereheobtainedhisPhDwithathesisoncomputationallinguistics.In1974hereceivedthevenialegendiforGermanicandAppliedLinguisticsintheUniversityofHeidelberg(Habilitation).From1979to1981hewaschairmanoftheDepartmentofModernLanguagesinHeidelberg,between1983and1985Vice-PresidentoftheUniversity.ProfessorDietrichisontheeditorialboardofthejournalLinguistischeBerichte.HeisespeciallyknownforhiscontributionstotheEuropeanScienceFoundationprojecton'SecondLanguageAcquisitionofAdultImmigrants'.Hewasthechiefco-ordinatoroftheGermanteaminthisproject.

WernerHüllen,atpresentProfessorofLinguisticsintheDepartmentofLiteratureandLinguisticsattheUniversityofEssen,FederalRepublicofGermany,receivedhisPhDintheUniversityofColognein1951.In1952/53hewasgivenaone-yearappointmentaslecturerattheUniversityofBirmingham,England.In1963heacceptedthepositionofProfessorofDidacticsofEnglishLanguageandLiteratureinthePädagogischeHochschuleRheinland(=Teachers'TrainingCollegeRheinland),whichlaterbecamepartoftheUniversityofDüsseldorf.From1973to1977hewasProfessorofAppliedLinguistics/EnglishandDidacticsoftheEnglishLanguageattheUniversityofTrier.In1977hewasgivenacallasProfessorofEnglishPhilology/LinguisticsandTheoryofModernLanguageTeachingintheUniversityofEssen.Intheacademicyears1970-72and1980-81W.HüllenactedasChairmanofhisDepartment.Duringthesummerterm1985helecturedattheUniversityofVienna,

Austria,asaVisitingProfessor.Inthelate70sandearly80shewascloselyassociatedwithanationwideresearchprojectontheacquisitionandteachingofforeignlanguages,initiatedandsponsoredbytheGermanResearchCouncil(DeutscheForschungsgemeinschaft).ProfessorHüllenhaseditedvariousreadersandpublishednumerousarticlesindictionariesandprofessionaljournals.

KennethHyltenstamisAssociateProfessorintheDepartmentofResearchonBilingualism,InstituteofLinguistics,UniversityofStockholm,Sweden.AsagraduatestudentheattendedtheUniversityofLund,Sweden,andtheUniversityofEdinburgh,Scotland.HereceivedhisPhDfromtheUniversityofLundwithadissertationon'ProgressinimmigrantSwedish

syntax:avariabilityanalysis'(1978).From1978to1981K.HyltenstamwasAssistantProfessorofLinguisticsatLund.ProfessorHyltenstamactedasPresidentofASLA,theSwedishAssociationofAppliedLinguisticsfrom1979to1983.HehasbeentheeditorofthejournalScandinavianWorkingPapersonBilingualismsince1982andhaspublishedvariousarticlesincongressvolumesandseveralpapersinthejournal,LanguageLearning,amongothers.Atpresent,ProfessorHyltenstamworksonalargerprojectintheareaofbilingualismindementia.

JaakkoLehtonenisProfessorofAppliedLinguisticsandSpeechattheUniversityofJyväskylä,Finland.HehadhisgraduatetrainingintheUniversityofJyväskyläandtheUniversityofHelsinki,andreceivedhisPhDfromtheUniversityofJyväskyläin1970.From1972to1984hewasAssociateProfessorofPhoneticsattheUniversityofJyväskylä.ThereafterhewasappointedHeadofhisDepartment.From1975to1981healsotaughtasaDocentofPhoneticsattheUniversityofTurku,Finland,andasaDocentofAppliedLinguisticsandPhoneticsattheUniversityofTampere,Finland.Inco-operationwithK.SajavaarahehasbeenengagedintheJyväskyläCross-LanguageResearchProjectsince1975.BothofthemarethecoeditorsoftheJyväskyläCross-LanguageStudies.

ColetteNoyauatpresentisaMaitredeconférences(=AssociateProfessor)attheInstitutd'ÉtudesHispaniques(=InstituteforSpanishStudies)oftheUniversityofParisVIII,France.DuringhergraduatestudiessheattendedtheUniversitéSorbonne,Paris,andreceivedherPhDfromtheUniversitéParisIV.From1966-1969sheparticipatedinaresearchprojectoftheBureaupourl'EnseignementdelaLangueetdelaCivilisationFrançaiseàl'Étranger(=OfficefortheTeachingofFrenchasaSecondLanguage)intheInstitutPédagogiqueNational,theFrenchNationalEducationalInstituteinParis.

ElsOksaar,ProfessorofGeneralandComparativeLinguisticsattheUniversityofHamburg,FederalRepublicofGermany,receivedherPhDfromtheUniversityofStockholmin1953aftergraduatestudiesinStockholm,BonnandHamburg.From1958to1967shewasAssociateProfessorintheGermanicDepartmentoftheUniversityofStockholm,afterhavingreceivedthevenialegendiin1958(Habilitation).SheworkedasavisitingscholarattheUniversityofHamburgaswellasattheAustralianNationalUniversityatCanberra.Since1967E.OksaarhasbeenfullProfessorandDirectoroftheInstituteofGeneralandComparativeLinguisticsattheUniversityofHamburgandHeadoftheResearchCenterforLanguageContactandMultilingualism.In1979shewasResearchFellowoftheJapanSocietyfor

thePromotionofScienceinTokyo.In1987shewasappointedmemberoftheWissenschaftsratoftheFederalRepublicofGermany.Duringtheacademicyear1987/88shewasaFellowattheInstituteforAdvancedStudyBerlin(WissenschaftskollegzuBerlin).Since1979shehasbeenamemberoftheFinnishAcademyofSciences.In1986shewasawardedanhonoraryPhDdegreebytheUniversityofHelsinki,andin1987bytheUniversityofLinköping,Sweden.ProfessorOksaarhasbeenactiveinvariousnationalandinternationalprofessionalorganisations.ShewasafoundingmemberoftheInternationalAssociationfortheStudyofChildLanguageandheldtheofficeofPresidentbetween1975and1978.SheisnowamemberoftheExecutiveCommittee.Between1982and1985shewasaVice-PresidentoftheInternationalSocietyofAppliedPsycholinguistics.From1975shehasservedasthePresidentoftheAILACommissiononChildLanguage.ProfessorOksaariscoeditorofthejournalsZeitschriftfürgermanistischeLinguistik,FirstLanguage,IndianJournalofLinguistics,andSemantischeHefte.ShehasalsobeenamemberofthereadingcommissionoftheJournalofChildLanguage.From1967to1979ProfessorOksaarwasinchargeof'TheBilingualLanguageBehaviorProject',assessingthelanguagedevelopmentofEstoniansinSweden,Australia,USA,andCanada,andofGermansinSwedenandAustralia.SheistheDirectorofthe'HamburgLanguageAcquisitionProject'andthecomparativeresearchproject'IdentityandLanguage'.

HåkanRingbomisAssociateProfessorintheDepartmentofEnglishatÅboAkademi,theSwedishlanguageuniversityofFinland,Turku(Åbo).HereceivedhisPhDfromÅboAkademiwithadissertationonOldandMiddleEnglishpoetryin1968.In1973hepublishedamonographonthestyleofGeorgeOrwell'sessays.H.Ringbom'smainconcerninappliedlinguisticsandcontrastivepsycholinguisticsinrecentyearshasincreasinglyfocusedontheroleofL1inSLA.For

aboutadecadehehasledaresearchproject,supportedbytheAcademyofFinland,onthedifferencebetweenFinns(thespeakersofanon-Indo-EuropeanFinno-Ugrianlanguage)andSwedish-speakingFinns(aGermaniclanguage)acquiringEnglish(anotherGermaniclanguage).Theresultsofthislong-termstudyprojecthavebeenpublishedinthevolumeTheRoleoftheFirstLanguageinForeignLanguageLearning(Clevedon:MultilingualMatters,1987).

MichaelSharwoodSmithiscurrentlyAssociateProfessorintheDepartmentofEnglish,UniversityofUtrecht,TheNetherlands.AftergraduatingatSt.AndrewsheworkedintheBritishCentreinSwedenand,aftergraduatestudiesattheUniversityofEdinburgh,attheDepartmentofEnglish,AdamMickiewiczUniversity,Poznan

*,Poland,fromwhichhereceivedhisPhD.

HehasparticipatedintheDutchprojecton'DevelopmentalProcessesinForeignLanguageAcquisition'intheLanguageAnalysisandLanguageEducationProgrammeandsupervisedtheDutchPureResearchFoundationprojecton'AdverbialPlacementinEnglishasaForeignLanguage'.HeistheorganiseroftheLARS(LanguageAcquisitionResearchSymposia)atUtrecht.ProfessorSharwoodSmithisco-editorofthejournalSecondLanguageResearch,thesuccessortotheInterlanguageStudiesBulletin.Hispublicationsincludevarioustheoreticalstudiesofsecondlanguageacquisition

PeterSkehanhasbeenaLecturerinEducation,withspecialreferencetoEnglishforspeakersofotherlanguages,attheInstituteofEducation,LondonUniversity,DepartmentofEnglishforSpeakersofOtherLanguages(ESOL)since1982.AsagraduatestudentheattendedtheUniversityofWesternOntario,London,Ontario,Canada,wherehereceivedanMAdegreeinPsychology,andtheUniversityofParisIII,whichhefinishedwithaMaitriseinEFL.HereceivedhisPhDfromLondonUniversity,BirkbeckCollegein1982withadissertationwiththetitleMemoryandMotivationinLanguageAptitudeTesting.From1977to1982heworkedintheEnglishDepartment,BirminghamUniversity,England.Dr.SkehanisDirectorofthe'FirstandForeignLanguageLearningAbilityComparison'researchprojectwhichhasbeenfollowingupthechildrenfromthefamousGordonWells'BristolLanguageStudynowthattheyarelearningforeignlanguagesinschools.TogetherwithP.Meara,P.Skehanisgeneraleditoroftheseries'SecondLanguageAcquisition'publishedbyEdwardArnold,London.Hisresearchhasmainlydealtwithlanguageaptitudetesting.

RenzoTitoneisProfessorofEducationalPsycholinguisticsandHeadoftheDepartmentofDevelopmentalPsychologyattheUniversityofRome'LaSapienza',Italy.HereceivedhisgraduatetraininginPsychologyattheSalesianUniversityofRome,Italy,andFordham

University,NewYork,USA.In1947hereceivedhisPhDfromtheSalesianUniversityofRome.From1947to1950hetaughtatNewtonCollege,USA,from1954to1969attheSalesianUniversityinRome,from1961to1969atGeorgetownUniversity,Washington,DC,USAandfrom1971to1972attheUniversitiesofCataniaandVenice,Italy.From1960to1966hewasHeadoftheDepartmentofDidacticsattheSalesianUniversity,in1972HeadoftheDepartmentofLanguageDidacticsattheUniversityofVenice,andsince1985hehasbeenHeadoftheDepartmentofDevelopmentalPsychologyattheUniversityofRome.ProfessorTitoneistheDirectorofthe'EarlyBilingualLiteracyProject',the'ResearchonMetalinguisticDevelopmentProject',andthe'InterculturalandInteruniversityProgramme'oftheUniversityofRome.HeisalsothefirstPresidentofTESOLItaly,the

PresidentoftheInternationalSocietyofAppliedPsycholinguistics,theFounderandDirectoroftheItalianCentreforAppliedLinguisticsandthePresidentoftheScientificCommitteefortheco-ordinationoftheFLESProjectoftheItalianMinistryofEducation.ProfessorTitoneisthefounderandEditor-in-chiefofthejournalsStudiesofEducationalPsychology,andRassegnaItalianadiLinguisticaApplicata(=ItalianReviewofAppliedLinguistics).Heistheauthorof77booksand350articles(writteninortranslatedintoItalian,English,French,Portuguese,Serbo-Croatian,andRussian)innumerousnationalandinternationaljournals.

DanielVéroniqueatpresentisAssistantProfessorattheDepartmentofGeneralandAppliedLinguistics,UniversitédeProvence,Aix-en-Provence,France.Heattendedthesameuniversityduringhisgraduatestudies,beforehereceivedhisPhDwithadissertationon'Analysecontrastive,analysed'erreurs,uneapplicationdelalinguistiqueàladidactiquedeslanguesII'(=Contrastiveanderroranalysis:Linguisticsappliedtothedidacticsofsecondlanguageacquisition)in1983.From1975to1986Dr.VéroniqueworkedasanassistantintheGeneralandAppliedLinguisticsDepartmentofhisuniversity.HeistheAix-en-Provenceco-ordinatoroftheGroupedeRecherchesurl'AcquisitiondesLangues(GRAL)(=SLAResearchGroup)andhasbeenassociatedwiththeESF(EuropeanScienceFoundation)researchprojectinmigrantworkers'SLA.HeisalsoamemberoftheInstitutd'EtudesCreoles(=InstituteofCreoleStudiesoftheUniversityofProvence).InadditiontohisvariousstudiesinSLAofadultimmigrantsinEurope,mainlyfromNorthAfrica,hisresearchhasespeciallyfocusedonpidginisationandcreolisation.HehasalsostudiedthesemanticsandsyntaxofMauritiancreole.

LISTOFRESEARCHPROJECTSÅboAkademiProject,pp.9,205-218.

BangaloreProject,p.83.

BilingualLanguageBehaviourProject,pp.10,230-242.

BristolLanguageProject,pp.5,83,85,87-104.

Charlirelle(DepartmentofResearchinLanguageLearning,lnstitutCharlesV,UniversityofParisVII)ResearchProject,pp.6f,119-138.

CRAFTProject,p.71.

EarlyBilingualReadingProject,pp.5f,75-81.

EssenClassroomDiscourseProjects,pp.6,111-117.

ESF(EuropeanScienceFoundation)Project,pp.2,7f,13-22,143-170,171-199.

HeidelbergResearchProject,pp.19f.

JyväskyläCross-LanguageProject,pp.37-50.

KAPPA(KasselPsycho-andPragmalinguistic)ResearchProject,pp.3f,40f,54-63.

MultilingualLanguageAcquisitionProject,pp.10,230-242.

PennsylvaniaForeignLanguageProject,pp.83f.

UtrechtESLProject,pp.19f,219-229.

YorkProject,p.83.

INDEXNote:L1=firstlanguage;L2=secondlanguage;TEO=Theoryofenunciativeoperation.Figuresinitalicsrefertotablesanddiagrams.

A

Ability,languagelearning5,83-105

components86,91,98

origin98

variationsin84-7,92

Acceptabilitytasks40-1,41,44-5,224,226

AccessibilityHierarchy25-31,34

Accumulation,propositional175

Achievement,variations87

Acquisition

definition221-2

learner-centredapproach230-1

natural43,108-9

Act,communicative232-3,237-42

Act,phatic114-15,117

Adults

acquisitionofthenouns,verbs3,14-15,17-22

classroomacquisitionofL227-33,136-7

naturalacquisitionofL28,15-18,143,148-60,171-99

Adverbs

avoidance18

placement224-6

intemporalreference159,161

Affect,influenceonL2achievement87

AirLinePilotsAssociationStudyGroupReport52-3

Analysis,language,inclassroom131-5

Anaphora8

adultL2learners158,176-7,181,186,188,190,192,196

Andersen,P.A.4,48

Anderson,Janet226

Andersson,Theodore70-1,72-3

Arana,AnttonKaifer81

Ard,J.&Homburg,T.206

Articles,inL2acquisition211-12

Aspect,development159,161,162

Attrition,language225-6

Austin,J.L.233

Automaticity,development3-4,37-49

Awareness,metalinguistic2,67-8,69,121,131,137,173

B

Bears,B.J.53

Bailly,Danielle6-7,119-39

Bakker,C.226

Balazs,J.235

BangaloreProject83

Behaviour,U-shaped223-4

Behaviouremes10,231,234,237-8

extraverbal236

nonverbal236,241

paralinguistic235

verbal234-5,240-1

Bell,R.T.233

Bialystok,Ellen221-2

Bich,NguyênNgoc74-5

Bickerton,D.171-2,186

BilingualBehaviourProject231

Bilingualism,early

andintelligence67-8

andreading68-9,75

argumentsfor70-5

andbasiceducation69-70

Biliteracy,seereading,bilingual

Binomials,acquisition55-6

Blending,ofcompetingplans4,52-62

Bloom,Benjamin70

Bloom,L.,Lightbown,P.&Hood,L.85

Bretherton,I.,McNew,S.,Snyder,L.&Bates,E.85-6

BristolLanguageProject5,85,87-100

aptitudeandachievement95-6

L1-L2achievement96,97

L1-L2aptitude93-5,96

researchdesign89-92

Brown,R.101,224

Bryant,M.61-2

Businger,Hélène74

C

Canale,M.&Swain,M.233

Carroll,J.B.83,86,91

Carter,Jimmy60-1

Cataphora,adultL2learners186

CharlieChaplinexperiment174,184-6,186-92,193-5

Charlirelleresearchgroup136,138n.

Child

cognitivedevelopment2,13-14,19-20

andearlyreading5,68-71,75

L2acquisition32-3

speechdevelopment13,126

Chomsky,N.221-3,227

Class,social,andlanguageachievement100,

seealsoenvironment

Classroom,transferin207

Cliticisation177,182-3,188,192,194

Cohen,Rachel71

Cohesion172-3

Communication,styles175

Communicationorientedapproach2

Competence

communicative233,242

conscious/unconscious4,48-9

andcontrol9,45,49,221-6

interactional223,225,231,232-3,236,238-9

andperformance221-2

pragmatic233,242

social233

Competition

-ininformationprocessing4

-intaskplanning52-3

Complementation,sentential226

Complexity

structural6,40,111-12,226

syntactic93,94,98,102,111-12,157-9

Compliment240

Comprehension

effectsoftransfer208,209-11,216

measurement94,94,95,96-8,97,101,102n.

Conceptacquisition

andbilingualism67

andearlyreading71

andSLAresearch145

andtemporality161-2,168

Conceptualisation,inL2acquisition6,120-1,127,131

Congruence

pragmatic231,242

semiotic231,242

Connectors,useof6,111,150,158-9,172,182

Consciousness,inL2acquisition39,48

Constructivistapproach127

Contactlinguistics231

Context,inreference8,183,187-8

Continuity,thematic177

Contrastiveanalysishypothesis9,37,216,230

Control

andautomaticity45

strategies9,49

Corder,S.P.216

Coupier,C.176-7

Culioli,Antoine7,119,138n.

Culture,contact10,230-42

Culturemetheory231,234-6,237

Culturemes10,231,234,240-1

D

Data

collection37,40-1,87-8,90,146-7,220-1

elicitationtechniques16-17,27,

30,32,56,180,221,222-3

Davies,A.&Beretta;A.83

Dechert,Hans4,37,51-64

Decisiontasks37,40-8,41,44,46-7

Decision-making,grammatical44-5

Definitearticle,inreference182

Determination6,133-4,135,178,187,191,197

Deulofeu,J.173,174-5,188,190

Dictation,partial,effectsoftransfer209

Dietrich,Rainer2-3,1,13-22

Dinnsen,D.A.&Eckman,F.31

Directspeech,usebylearners111

Discourse

classroom6,107-17

markers193,194,195,197,197,198

structure8,171,172-6,185

Discourseanalysis108,110

Dittmar,N.173

Dodd,C.H.236

Doman,Glenn70,72

Donaldson,M.68

Dulay,H.,Burr,M.&Krashen,S.224

Durkin,D.71

Dutch,asL1225-8

E

EarlyBilingualReadingExperimentalProject5-6

Effectuation128-9

Elicitationtests221,222-3

Elicitation-response-evaluation6,112-15

Embedding,usebylearners112

English

asL1234-5

asL231,40-8,54-5,59-60,119,127-35,165,207-12,219-28

advancedlearners4,54-5,58

Enunciativeoperation,theoryof(TEO)7,119,121-37

datasamples131-5

experiment127-31

researchtopics135-7

Environment,inlanguageacquisition85,87,92,94,95,96-9,97,100-1

Episodes,signalling190,193,195,196,198

Erroranalysis206,211,212

EuropeanScienceFoundationProject2-3,7-8,15-16,143-68,183

Exposure,L243-4,224

F

Favreau,M.&Segalowitz,N.S.39

Fillmore,CJ.88

Fillmore,L.W84

Finnish

asL126,27,29,29-30,32-3,42-4,206-16,213

phonology31-2

Flexibility,andbilingualism67

Fossilisation225

French

discoursestructure8,172,176-83

asL2143-4,147-60,166-7,174,183-8

Function,linguistic119-20,131,172

Functions,grammatical25-8

G

Gardner,R.C.83-4

Gass,S.&Selinker,L.206

Gender,attribution55

Gentner,D.13-14

German

asL137,42-4,54-5,225,234-6

asL240-2,44,165-7,174

Gesture232

Giacomi,A.173,175,186

Giacomi,A.&Vion,R.186,197

Givòn,T.172-4

Glide,teacheruseof113

Goal,communicative109-10

Goldman-Eisler,F56

Grammar

acquisition175

progression120,127

sensitivityto86,91

Greek,asL126,27,28,30

Green,P.S.91

Greeting,ascultureme234-6

Gumperz,J.J.233

H

Hall,E.T.238,239

Hall,E.T.&Hall,M.Reed238,239

Halliday,M.A.K.88,138n.

Halliday,MA.K.&Hasan,R172-3

Hammarberg,Bjorn24

Hayes,A.S.232

Houdaïfa,T.176-80,182,188

Houdaïfa,T.&Véronique,D.180-2

Hüllen,W.&Lörscher,W.111-12,114-16

Hüllen,Werner6,107-18

Hyltenstam,Kenneth3,23-36

Hyltenstam,Kenneth&Magnusson,Eva31,32

Hymes,D.233

I

Identityhypothesis230

Immigrants

andearlybilingualreading75,80-1

languageacquisition15-16,143-4

Incompetence,conscious/unconscious4,48

Indeterminationmarkers130

Inputhypothesis230

Interaction

competence,seecompetence,interactional

cross-linguistic9-10,24,219,222-8

Interference

L16,54-6,113-14,120,194,222,228

L242

situational10,237-42

Interlanguage7,157,168,206,230

morphology176-7,182

syntax175

inTEO120,127-9,135,137

useofpronominalcopies27,30-1

InterlanguageStudiesBulletin221

Intonation235

Italian,asL1166-7,174

J

Jacobson,Sven225

Jakobson,R.31

James,Carl216

Johansson,FaithAnn24

JyväskylaCross-LanguageProject37,40-8

K

Keenan,E.L.&Comrie,B.26,30

Kissinger,Henry238

Klein,W.&Perdue,C.173,174,184-6,196,198

Knowledge,procedural37-8,221-2

Krashen,S.D.138n.,221,230

Kuczaj,S.A.13

Kumpf,L.164

L

L1

-andL2achievement8,96,97,97-100,157,164-5,167-8,196-8,223

-andL2aptitude93-5,94,96,98-9

-variationsinacquisition84-6,92,109

seealsotransfer

L2

acquisition,cross-linguisticdifferences161

aptitudeandachievement95,95-6,98

classroommethods108-17,119-35

learning

andL1acquisition109

observability144-5

variationsinacquisition5,84,86-7,92,130-1,137

Laboratory,language83

Lado,R.216

Language,spoken232

LanguageAcquisitionResearchSymposia221

Languagecontact10,230-42

integrativeapproach10,232-3

Learnability227

Learnertypes5,84

Lee,O.R.73

Lehtonen,Jaakko3,37-49

Lennon,P.58

Lexicon

acquisition2-3,13-22,156

-individualrepertoires17,17-18,18,19

Literacy,andschoolsuccess99-100

Loanwords5,207

Location6,121-5

temporal,seetemporality

Loftus,E.F.53

Logan,G.D.45

Lörscher,W.114-16

Lückert,H.R.71

M

McLaughlin,B.48

McLaughlin,B.,Rossman,T.&McLeod,B.38,39

Mägiste,Edith39

Magnusson,Eva31

Malinowski,B.232

Markedness,linguistic3,23-34,188,227

Markers

adultacquisition8,146,157,167,171,175-6,185,188-91

discourse193,194,195,197,197,198

studentacquisition131,133,135

Materials,teaching

forearlybilingualreading75-6,78-80

grammaticalprogressionin119,120,127

Mazurkewich,I.227

Memories,compromise53

Messages,high/low-context238

Metacognition2

MichiganTestofEnglishLanguageProficiency206

Misunderstanding,cultural10,231,233,238-41

MonitorModel230

Moroccan,asL1172,174-6,183-4

Morphemes,developmentalorder84

Morphology,acquisition158-9,160-1,166-7,176,182,194,199

Motivation,inL2learning83-4,130-1

MultilingualLanguageAcquisitionProject231

N

Naiman,N.,Frohlich,M.,Todesco,A.&Stern,H.H.84

Narrative

dialogue148

asdiscourse173

temporalityin147-57

useofnouns20-1

Needs,discursive163-4

Nelson,K.85

Nouns,orderofacquisition2-3,13-14,17-22,18

Noyau,Colette7,143-70

O

Oksaar,Els10,73-4,230-43

Overlap,L160

P

Parents,roleinearlybilingualreading72-3

Pause,planning113-14

Pavesi,M.30-1

PennsylvaniaProject83,84

Perception

L24

andlanguageacquisition13-14,19,37-8

andreadingacquisition68

Performance

classroom6

andcompetence221-2

Perlish,HarveyNeil71

Persian,asL126,27,28

Peters,A.M.55,85

Phonology

earlyawareness68

inL2acquisition33

Pidginisationhypothesis230

Pike,K.L.242n.

Plan,competition4,51-63

Planning,inclassroomdiscourse6,113-14

Polomska,M.226

Pragmatics126

Predication128,172,176

inchildlanguagedevelopment13

Preposition-stranding227-8

Prepositions

effectsoftransfer211-12

locative182,183

Presentationals174

Processing,representationmodel55

Processing,cognitive

L138,84

L24,37-8,109-10,145

automatic/controlled38-9,40-5,48-9

Production

effectsoftransfer210-11,216

oral4,40,54-7,99-100

written4,58

Pronominalcopies25-31,26,27,33-4

Pronominals,inL2acquisition8,171,174,176-8,179,183,186-8,

188-9,190,192,194-5

Pronunciation,effectsoftransfer209

Protocolresearch136

Proximity,language144,166

Punctuality,attitudestowards238-9

Punjabi,asL1165

R

Raith,J.235

Reactiontime3-4,37-8,39,40-1,48-9

Reading,bilingual5-6,67-81

argumentsfor5,70-5

evaluation76-7

researchproject75-81

Reagan,Ronald60-1

Reason,J.&Mycielska,K.52,62n.

Reference

acquisition33

adult19-21,176,183-4,186-96

anddiscourseorganisation8,171-83

avoidance185,192,195

anddiscourseorganisation,inL2acquisition173-6

nominal176-8

spatial178-82,195

switch191-2,198

temporal182,196

Relation,temporal146,160,162-3

Relations,deepcase33-4

Relativeclauses,pronominalcopies25-31,33-4

Representation128-9,136

andsituationalinterference241

Researchmethodology109-10

Reyes,P.83

Ringbom,Håkan9,205-18

Role-playing130

S

Schachter,J.25

Schlyter,S.164

Schmalohr,R.71

Schmidt,R.E.&Richard,J.C.233

Schumann,J.H.173

Searle,J.R.233

SecondLanguageAcquisitionbyAdultImmigrants143

SecondLanguageResearch221

Self-reference176-8,179

Semantics,propositional172

Semiotics120-1,125,126-7,128-9

Sentence

complementation226

structure173

SharwoodSmith,Michael9-10,219-29

Shiffrin,R.M.&Dumais,S.T.38

Signals

detection45

non-verbal10,113,232,237-9,241

Sinclair,J.McH.&Coulthard,M.111

Skehan,Peter5,83-106

SLA,ascontroversial1-2

Smalltalk,attitudestowards238-9

Socialrelationship,asbehaviourvariable234-5,236

Space,asbehaviourvariable236

Spanish

-asL126,27,29,29,30,143-4,148-59,166,226-7

-asL2227

Speech,maternal,andL1acquisition84,85

Speechacttheory233

Speechacts,classroomdistribution6,114-15,117

Spelling,effectoftransfer209-10

Spontaneity,inclassroomdiscourse6,112-14,128

Stops,voicedistinction31-3,32,33,209

Strategies,learner84,85,87,111-12,127-35,136

Stress,Finnish207

Structures,languages,cross-linguisticperspective24,25-7,33

Stutterheim,C.von&Klein,W.161,169n.

Supercompetence,conscious4,48-9

Swedish

asL1206-16,214

asL23,25-33,166

Syntax,anddiscourse173

T

Tannen,Deborahvii,ix,148

Taskstress51,55-7,222

Teachingmethods

communication-based100,120

current trends in european second language acquisition research

Documents