Second Language Acquisition

Error Analysis: Stephen Pit Corder (1967) & (1971)

(1967) Mistake vs Error Error analysis methodology: Collect data Identify errors Classify errors Quantify errors Identify source Remedy (1971) provided a model for identifying erroneous or idiosyncratic utterances in a second language. A major distinction is made between overt and covert errors. overt -erroneous utterances ungrammatically at the sentence level covert -grammatically well-formed but not according to context of communication.

Learner's psychotopology in transfer

(Kellerman, 1979): linguistic information is categorized along a continuum ranging between Language neutral (universal) vs. language specific items/forms Semantics/stylistics vs. language-specific phonology rules , idioms, etc. Perceived language distance (as viewed by learner)

Input ≠ intake

(Krashen) Learner must get comprehensible input (mixture of structures acquired and structures not yet acquired) to advance. Input: What is available to the learner. Intake: Input that is used in grammar-building.

Overproduction

(Part of transfer reconceptualization)Quantitatively different uses of forms based on L1

Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis (CAH): Methodology: Strong Version

1. Find out what the differences are between pairs of languages 2. On the basis of 1, you can predict areas in which L2 learners will have difficulties and those where they won't

Competence vs. Performance

A person may have an internalized system of rules that constitutes a basic linguistic competence, but this competence may not always be reflected in the person's actual use of the language (performance)

The set of relevant sentences allowed in English is a subset of the set of sentences allowed in Japanese. Starting with the English value, you could learn the Japanese value, but not vice-versa.

A possible way out for a child would be to start supposing the English parameter setting (the subset) and move to the Japanese setting if there is evidence for that in the Primary Linguistic Data. Subset principle

control variable

A variable that is kept constant during a controlled experiment. [Experimental studies with non—native speakers should include control groups of native speakers; Intervention studies should include control groups that do not receive intervention]

Can narrow four "standard positions" on L2A access to UG down to two

Access (full, partial): UG plays a role in (some areas of) L2 grammar development. No access (no, partial): UG does not play a role in (some areas of) (post-critical period) L2 grammar development.

Bailey, Madden, & Krashen (1974)

Adult L2A morpheme order study 33 NS of Spanish 40 NS of other languages Bilingual Syntax Measure Two adult groups showed similar performance; Evidence for positing a natural order for morpheme acquisition in L2A

Krashen: Affective Filter Hypothesis

Affective Filter: is a screen of emotion that can block language acquisition or learning if it makes the learner too self-conscious or too embarrassed to take risks during communicative exchanges; Optimal input occurs when the "affective filter" is low; The Affective Filter hypothesis, embodies Krashen's view that a number of 'affective variables' play a facilitative, but non-causal, role in second language acquisition. These variables include: motivation, self-confidence and anxiety.

What makes input into intake?

Apperception: Recognizing the gap between what L2'er knows and what there is to know. Comprehensibility: Either the semantic meaning is determinable or the relevant structural aspects are determinable. Attention: Selecting aspects of the knowledge to be learned from among many other possible things. Output: shapes input into a form useful for intake.

Basic vs. Applied Research

Applied research is research that seeks to answer a question in the real world and to solve a problem. Basic research is research that fills in the knowledge we don't have; it tries to learn things that aren't always directly applicable or useful immediately.

Differential learning rates

Ard & Homburg (1983, 1992) Transfer as a facilitation of learning Spanish and Arabic L1, English L2 It was the first time I ever saw her mute (Spanish & English words are cognates) shocked/crying/smiling/silent The door swung slowly on its old ____. (non-cognates) fringes/braids/clips/hinges Spanish speakers do better even on non-cognate words, presumably because they have more time to learn vocabulary - accelerated learning rates due to multiple cognates btw Spanish and English Zobl (1982)/Henkes (1974) Transfer causes "delayed reorganization" of the interlanguage French, Arabic, Spanish L1 children, English L2 Acquisition of copula (to be) French, Spanish children do not use copula at first, but move out of this stage Arabic children do not move out of this stage as quickly due to the absence of copula verbs in Arabic.

Against Behaviorism

As famously observed by Chomsky in his review of Skinner's Verbal Behavior, language isn't a collection of reinforced habits. Children learning an L1 do not simply reproduce what they've heard; they very often use language creatively, producing things they've never heard before, understanding things they've never heard before. They show evidence of internalized rules by producing forms like *He goed.

Against Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis (CAH)

CAH stressed the interfering effects of L1 on L2 learning and claimed that L2 learning is primarily a process of acquiring whatever items are different from the L1. This narrow view of interference ignored the intralingual effects of learning. Learners are consciously testing hypotheses about the target language from many possible sources of knowledge. Predictions of difficulty by means of contrastive procedures had many shortcomings. The process could not account for all linguistic problems or situations not even with the 6 categories. Lastly, the predictions of difficulty level could not be verified with reliability. CAH was empirically unsupported: It predicted some difficulties that were not observed in L2 learners It failed to predict some difficulties that were observed in L2 learners It is actually not at all straightforward to enumerate the "differences" between languages (hence, it is hard to predict where problems would arise, under the Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis).

Berko-Gleason (1989)

Children asked to form plural/past (-ed) of made-up words Wug test

Evidence supporting UG

Children go through stages during acquisition of their first language. These stages are quite consistent across children learning the same language. For example, the acquisition of grammatical morphemes in English seems to follow a consistent order: progressive ing, prepositions, plural, irregular past tense, possessive, articles, regular past tense, third person singular agreement, auxiliary be. Moreover, children across languages go through similar stages, fairly well tied to age (although rate does vary). E.g., babbling at 6 mo, intonation contours at 8 mo, one-word utterances at 1 year, two-word utterances at 1.5 years, word inflections at 2 years, questions and negatives soon after, complex constructions by around 5 years, mature speech around 10 years. Critical period effects point to biological component of language learning. Language ability does not seem to correlate with intelligence. Williams syndrome: General cognitive impairment, but language is mostly unaffected Specific Language Impairment: Vice versa Kids' systems are more complicated than the input data justifies.

Challenges of morpheme order studies

Do accuracy orders really reflect developmental sequences? Recall Wagner-Gough & Hatch (1975) evidence on L2A in a 5 year old Iranian child overusing the -ing (see Ch. 5); Since a morpheme is overused (overgeneralized) it will occur in obligatory contexts; does this count as acquisition? What about the individual variation present in study data? Rosansky (1976) Cross-sectional vs. longitudinal data do not yield comparable acquisition trajectories! Only a limited number of morphemes has been addressed Why can't the role of the L1 be part of a mentalist/cognitive approach to SLA? The basic motivation of morpheme order studies is a bit flawed, questioning the role of L1 is not the same as proving behaviorism wrong; Recall that the basic tenet of Behaviorism is that language learning is a habit forming process. Even Bailey, et. al. (1974) found differences between the two experimental groups, suggesting L1 influence.

Against Krashen's Theory of SLA

Does not focus/address output! There are no criteria to determine when the monitor is/is not in use! There is no way of knowing how much input is sufficient for acquisition to occur; What aspects of input will be "blocked by the affective filter?

prescriptive grammar

Don't split infinitives. Don't end sentences with prepositions. "Secret handshake" for the cultured.

factors and levels

Each independent variable manipulated in a study is a factor; Each factor has two or more levels Examples: Factor: Sentence (un)grammaticality, in a grammaticality judgment task 2 levels; Level 1= grammatical; Level 2 = ungrammatical; Factor: Age of Acquisition of English 4 levels Level1 = AoA at 0 (native speaker) Level2 = AoA between 4 and 7 Level3 = AoA between 8 and 10 Leel4 = AoA between 11 and 15 Factor: type of wh-question to be imitated in an elicited imitation task 3 levels: Level1 = Subject wh-question Level2 = Direct object wh-question Level3 = Indirect object wh-question

Research paradigms

Empirical research or Descriptive research (of pedagogical practice) (case studies)

How can a child set the Principle A options parameter?

Every sentence a kid learning English hears is consistent with both values of the parameter! If a child learning English decided to opt for the "sentence" version of the domain parameter, nothing would ever tell the child s/he had made a mistake. S/he would end up with non-English intuitions. A child learning Japanese can tell right away that their domain is the sentence, since they'll hear sentences where zibun refers to an antecedent outside the clause.

Examples of quantitative work

Experimental design, e.g.: Longitudinal Cross-sectional (administering treatment) Quantification of empirical data: Variables & measures Statistical analyses of the results- ensuring validity; Tabulation/graphic representation of results;

In favor of "full access"

First, note that pretty much any empirical argument purportedly for full access to UG in L2A cannot meet its goal. At best, it will show that in the area studied there is evidence for access to UG (i.e. partial access). Primary arguments for (full) access to UG in L2A: Second language learners obey certain universal principles which (appear to) work differently in the TL than in the learners' L1. Second language learners' IL knowledge shows evidence of a parameter setting different from their L1, indicating that the parameter options are still available. A simple example discussed by Flynn (1996) is L2A between Japanese and English. Japanese and English differ in their setting of the "head parameter", which indicates whether the object comes before the verb (Japanese, SOV, head-final) or after the verb (English, SVO, head-initial). L2 J-->E learners appear to very quickly set this IL parameter correctly, suggesting that they know that both head-initial and head-final are possible settings for this parameter, although their L1 parameter is committed to head-final.

Error treatment: Virgil & Oller (1976)

Fossilization may be the result of too many green lights when there should have been some yellow or red lights (affective & cognitive feedback makes the learner perpetuate the error).

"Transfer" hypotheses

Full Transfer: The initial parameter settings (and principle inventory) are transferred from L1. L1 is the starting point for the L2 IL. No Transfer: The initial parameter settings (and principle inventory) are independent from the L1. Parameters are either unset or set to some kind of universal default. Partial Transfer: Some of the parameter settings (and principle inventory) are transferred from L1, some are not.

Access/Transfer hypotheses

Full transfer/No access: L2A is fundamentally different from L1A, based on L1 knowledge plus conversion rules. Full transfer/Full access: L2A is as flexible as L1A, with L1 as the starting point. L1 and L2 "distance" should affect ease/course of acquisition. No transfer/Full access: L2A is as flexible as L1A, and the learner's L1 should not have an effect.

Topic-Comment Analyses

Functional/Functionalist approach Many functional approaches see language as molded by the demands of communication, which requires that attention be paid to the difference between: - information that is shared by both speaker and hearer (old information = topic) vs. - information that is known to only the speaker or hearer (new information = comment) ❖ The patterns of interaction between old and new information can be seen to give rise to "information structure", that is in turn seen to exert an effect on formal structure itself. E.g. of information structure: interplay between articles "a" and "the" in story narrative in English: Once upon a time there lived a little old man and a little old woman. One day the little old man went out to the forest to gather firewood ... Japanese (a "topic-prominent" language) marks subjects differentially: ❖ GA for subjects that represent new, unknown information ❖ WA for those that represent old, known information Mukashi-mukashi aru tokoro-ni ojiisan-to obaasan-GA imashita. once-upon-time certain place-LOC old-man-and old-woman-GA be-PAST Aru hi, ojiisan-WA yama-no hoo-e shibakari-ni dekakemashita. one-day old-man-WA mountain direction-to cut-wood-PURP set-out-PAST 'Once upon a time there was AN old man and old woman. One day, THE old man set off for the mountains to gather firewood.'

Subset principle/defaults

Hypothesis: A child obeys the Subset Principle and selects the most restrictive parametric value consistent with experience. A similar hypothesis: A child starts out with a default setting for the parameter (the default being the subset setting), changing the setting only if presented with evidence.

Another parameter: The domain for anaphors (like himself)

In English, smallest XP containing a subject, such as a subordinate clause. In Japanese: the entire sentence. Principle A. An anaphor must have a higher antecedent in some domain. Parameter: Option (a): domain = smallest clause containing the reflexive pronoun Option (b): domain = entire sentence containing the reflexive pronoun

Behaviorism

In the 1950's and 1960's, the techniques of language teaching were based on a behaviorist view of language. Language under this view is essentially a system of habits; learning proceeds by producing a response to a stimulus and receiving either positive or negative reinforcement (e.g., positive if your intended meaning was understood). Speaking consists of mimicking and analogizing; Speech is the practical reaction/response to some stimulus (based on animal learning lab experiments, e.g., by Skinner) If you receive enough positive reinforcement for a certain response it will become a habit.

SLA research philosophy: quantitative

In the Chomskyan tradition, language is viewed as residing within the individual; Language learning presents a biologically-driven acquisition process. Learners are viewed as `subjects' from an `objective' perspective, and researchers were expected to quantify 'objective facts';

Cognitive view of the Transfer theory

In the cognitive view of the Transfer theory, L2 learner and his/her perception of the L1-L2 differences & similarities is key; Transfer is subjective and may vary overtime; Besides the L1-L2 transfer, we maintain awareness of possible other sources of transfer, e.g., interlanguage transfer

Error Analysis: Interlingual and intralingual transfer

Interlingual (L1 and L2) transfer is a significant source of error for all learners; Intralingual transfer (within the target language itself) is a major factor in L2 learning. e.g., overgeneralization (e.g., DOES HE CAN..)

independent variable

Is manipulated by the experimenter (by assigning subjects to different groups, by constructing sentences of different types, etc.); May have an effect on the dependent variable

dependent variable

Is not manipulated by the experimenter; May change under the influence of the independent variables; There can be more than one of each variable type per design/study

Transfer reconceptualized

Kellerman & Sharwood Smith (1986); Sjoholm (1976) In the cognitive view of the Transfer theory, L2 learner and his/her perception of the L1-L2 differences & similarities is key

Interlanguage transfer in multilinguals

Klein (1995) Multilinguals are better language learners (due to enhanced metalinguistic awareness) Abunuwara (1992) and de Groot & Hoeks (1995) Proficiency may play a role in how a multilingual's languages interact Vildomec (1963) In early L3 production, function words tend to come from the L2, not the L1

Transfer Hypothesis

L1 influence—language transfer. An effect that L1 has on a learner's IL is often called "transfer"—something has been transferred from the knowledge of the first language and imposed on the learner's view of the target language. This might be vocabulary, this might be syntactic structure, this might be parameter settings—what is transferred and how important it is the acquisition process are important questions in the field. Learners rely extensively on their native language Two underlying learning processes are Positive & Negative Transfer (of knowledge from L1 into L2)

Cognitive View of the Transfer Theory

L2 learner and his/her perception of the L1-L2 differences & similarities is key; Transfer is subjective and may vary overtime; Besides the L1-L2 transfer, we maintain awareness of possible other sources of transfer, e.g., interlanguage transfer

Error Analysis: Usefulness in SLA

L2 learning is a process that is not unlike L1 learning in its trial-and-error nature. Learners commit errors and then benefit from various forms of feedback on those errors. Corder (1967): a learner's errors provide evidence: ... of how language is learned or acquired; ...what strategies or procedures the learner is employing in the discovery of the language."

Milestones in L1A

Language Stage Beginning Age Crying Birth Cooing 6 weeks Babbling 6 months Intonation patterns (responsive to input) 8 months One-word utterances 1 year Two-word utterances, telegraphic 18 months Word inflections 2 years Questions, negations 2½ years Rare and complex constructions 5 years Mature speech 10 years

Krashen: Monitor Hypothesis

Learning (as opposed to acquisition) serves to develop a monitor- an error detecting mechanism that scans utterances for accuracy in order to make corrections; As a corollary to the monitor hypothesis, language acquisition instruction should avoid emphasis on error correction and grammar This might inhibit language acquisition, particularly at the early stages of language development. According to Krashen, for the Monitor to be successfully used, three conditions must be met: The acquirer/learner must know the rule: This is a difficult condition to meet because it means that the speaker must have had explicit instruction. The acquirer must be focused on correctness: the learner must be thinking about form, and it is difficult to focus on meaning and form at the same time. Having time to use the monitor: The speaker is focused on form rather than meaning, resulting in the production and exchange of less information. Due to these difficulties, Krashen recommends using the monitor at times when it does not interfere with communication, such as while writing.

Types of Research Design

Longitudinal: Follow one subject or a small group of subjects over time; Cross-sectional: Test a group of subjects at a single point; Mixed: Test a group of subjects several times; compare results across subjects and over time;

Error vs. Mistake

Mistake -refers to a performance error that is either a random guess or a "slip", in that is a failure to utilize a known system correctly. Native speakers make mistakes. When attention is called to them, mistakes are self-corrected. Error -a noticeable deviation from the adult grammar of a native speaker, reflects the competence of the learner (Does John can sing?)

What makes input comprehensible?

Modification of speech to learner ("foreigner talk") Redundancy Negotiation for meaning (often, but not necessarily always, meaning is a precursor to being able to assign a syntactic representation).

Brown (1973)

Morpheme Acquisition order (L1) Longitudinal study Subjects: Adam, Eve, Sarah Morphemes studied in approximate order of acquisition: Present progressive -ing (Mommy running) In, on Plural -s (two books) Irregular past forms (Baby went) Possessive 's (daddy's hat) Uncontractable copula (Annie is a nice girl) Articles 'the' and 'a' Regular past -ed (She walked) Third-person regular -s (She runs) Third-person irregular

Dulay & Burt (1974)

Morpheme order study 60 Spanish, 55 Chinese children learning L2 English Bilingual Syntax Measure Based on Brown (1973) (# correct/required) A similar developmental pattern - evidence against the transfer hypothesis!

Krashen: Natural Order Hypothesis

Natural progression/order of language development exhibited by infants/young children and/or second language learners, child or adult. Level l: Pre-Production Stage (Silent Period): Minimal comprehension, no verbal production. Level II: Early Production Stage: Limited Comprehension; One/two-word response. Level III: Speech Emergence Stage: Increased comprehension; Simple sentences; Some errors in speech. Level IV: Intermediate Fluency Stage: Very good comprehension; More complex sentences; Complex errors in speech.

Types of Empirical Research Design

Naturalistic: Observe subjects in their natural setting; Experimental: Set up particular tasks that subjects participate in; Classroom: Include pre- and post-tests; Measure the effect of an intervention on the students' performance

"Access" hypotheses

No access hypothesis. UG is not involved in L2A. The end of the critical period marks the end of the availability of UG for language learning purposes. The no access hypothesis takes L2A to be a general learning process, not constrained by properties of UG. As such, we do not expect the IL of second language learners to conform to the specifications of UG. Full access hypothesis. UG does not change; it is "accessed directly" during L2A. L1A and L2A are fundamentally similar processes. The full access hypothesis supposes that the template is still available to instantiate the same way L1 was instantiated. The full access hypothis predicts that IL grammars of second language learners, while not the grammar of the target language, will still conform to the restrictions UG places on natural languages. It will operate under the same principles, and it will have parameters which are set to a setting which is possible in natural language. Indirect access hypothesis. UG per se is not involved in L2A, but UG shaped L1 and so properties of UG reflected in L1 are available during L2A. The indirect access hypothesis predicts that second language learners will have an IL which is essentially L1-plus. Learners are predicted not to be able to have principles or parameter settings which differ from the L1, but all of the parameter settings and principles operative in L1 should also be operative in the IL. Partial access hypothesis. Only part of UG is available for L2A; some parts are unavailable (for example, some parameter setting options). The partial access hypothesis supposes that certain parts of the template are no longer available (fixed in the L1 settings) but other parts can still be used to instantiate L2. The partial access hypothesis is the least well-defined. It places itself somewhere between full access and no access. We might see that a second language learner's IL shows evidence of parameter settings different from the L1; We might see evidence of principles not used in L1 but provided for in UG. The partial access hypothesis is the fallback position, the compromise we need to make if the facts don't fit into one of the other hypotheses.

Error Analysis Conclusions

One of the conclusions reached in error analysis studies was that the majority of errors did not come from interference caused by the learner's native language, but were rather "interlanguage-internal" errors. Error analysis can be considered a step along the way to the hypothesis that learners have an interlanguage—a grammatical system that is nevertheless not target-like.

Error Analysis

One of the next steps was to look seriously at the kind of errors learners were making. Since Contrastive Analysis turned out not to be a productive pedagogical tool, the idea behind Error Analysis was to look at errors that the students are making to determine the "source" of the error. Error ≠ mistake The idea is that errors could come either from some kind of interference from the learner's native language (interlingual), or simply from an incompletely developed knowledge of the target language (intralingual). It was hoped that by analyzing the source of the errors, we could learn more about the contributions of interference and development. distinguished from contrastive analysis by its examination of errors attributable to all possible sources; Not just those resulting from negative transfer of the native language.

Greenberg (1963)

Originated the study of typological universals between languages. The Typological Approach The focus of this approach is similarities/differences between languages ❖ Linguists attempt to determine linguistic typologies or what "type" of languages are possible. ❖ Main assumption: If a language has feature X, it will also have feature Y. "Headedness", constituent ordering, and Language Typology ❖ The 3 basic language types represented in the headedness patterns are SOV, SVO, and VOS, but ... ❖ The 3 most frequent language types are actually SOV, SVO, and VSO; ❖ VSO considered by some to be derived by "verb raising" from SVO; VSO languages: classical Arabic and Hebrew, Irish, Welsh.. ❖ SOV is most common, followed by SVO, together comprising 75% of world's languages Word order typology is defined by the normal ("unmarked") order of a declarative transitive sentence • Orders different from the basic order are nevertheless possible (in some L's more than others) due to syntactic operations (e.g., question formation) and the effects of "information structure" • E.g., English: Green beans, I love; asparagus, I hate. (OSV) What did you eat for lunch? (OSV) Why are we interested in WOs & headedness? Certain grammatical properties of languages "cluster" around the basic word order typology (esp. VO versus OV) (Greenberg, 1963). But parameters that "cluster" in L1 acquisition don't always do so in L2 ❖ E.g., in L1 acquisition of German, null subjects are initially allowed, but disappear when verb agreement is acquired, suggesting that these properties (null subjects and verb agreement) cluster; ❖ But in experiments involving L2 German learners, clear evidence for such clustering has not been observed (Clahsen & Hong 1995); ❖ It is not clear whether parameters (e.g., headedness) and typological features cluster in interlanguage ❖ It has been accepted as a default assumption that the clustering of properties of languages with a given typology will facilitate the L2 acquisition of other languages of similar typology, an assumption that is borne out by instructional experience. (This could be due to positive transfer from L1).

Evidence against simple imitation (i.e. per Behaviorism) in L1A

Overgeneralization of rules. "My teacher holded the baby rabbits."

Empirical research methodologies, approaches

Quantitative research (e.g. cross-sectional treatment study) Qualitative (Ethnographic; Action research; Case study) Mixed methods research Both the `quantitative' and `qualitative' fall into empirical studies; Empirical work involves systematic collection and analysis of data. Quantitative research involves quantification of data by means of statistic techniques; Qualitative research, refers to `non-quantitative' studies involving systematic data collection and analysis techniques. Quantitative: More objective; Involves measurement, numerical results, statistical tests; Likely to involve experimental set up; Qualitative: More subjective; 'soft data' - descriptive; Likely to involve naturalistic observation

linguistic intuition

Recognition of "right" and "wrong" grammar by native speakers

Sjoholm (1976)

Reconceptualizing the role of L1 L1 Finnish L2 English learners made transfer-induced errors attributable to Swedish (another L2) Swedish-Finnish bilinguals dominant in Swedish also made transfer-induced errors attributable to Swedish Perhaps the key to understanding "transfer" is tapping into learner's judgement of what is more likely to work in the TL (more similarities btw Swedish & English)

Transfer in Behaviorism: Proactive and Retroactive Inhibition

Retroactive inhibition- learning new habits leads to loss of previously established ones; In L2A context, (mostly restricted to young learners) -L1 loss/attrition is caused by learning an L2; Proactive inhibition -already learnt responses inhibit learning of new stimulus-response pairings; In L2A context, L1 knowledge "interferes" with L2A;

SLA research philosophy: qualitative

SLA is seen as a social activity occurring in context; To study such an activity, contextual and interactive dimensions of language use are examined; This approach would often involve qualitative, naturalistic, interactive data and data collection/interpretation methods.

UG in L2A

Seems like almost a "no-brainer"— whatever UG is doing for us in L1A, it seems not to be doing for us in L2A. All signs seem to point to L2A as a general learning process. People have actually argued that UG is still driving L2A, though, and we'll spend some time exploring why; this is one of the most active areas in L2A research today. There are conflicting suggestions in what we've seen so far with respect to UG and its involvement in L2A. First, there is the evidence of a sensitive/critical period, which seems to indicate that whatever it is that makes L1A easy for kids is missing or very weak in adult L2 learners. Yet, there is evidence that L2A progresses in similar stages, suggesting that there is some biological component as well.

Input into apperception

Some input is apperceived, some isn't. That which isn't is thought of as blocked by various "filters": Time pressure Frequency Affective (status, motivation, attitude, ...) Prior knowledge (grounding, analyzability) Salience (drawing attention)

Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis (CAH)

States that a language learners errors can be predicted by examining the similarities and differences between the language systems of the learners native language and target language [Deeply rooted in the behavioristic and structuralist approaches, the CAH claimed that the principal barrier to L2 is the interference of L1system with the 2nd system. If language is a set of habits and if L1 habits can interfere with TL habits, then the proper focus of teaching should be on where the L1 and TL differ, since these are going to be the places which cause the most trouble for learners. Difficulty/ease of learning a particular TL is determined by the differences between L1 and TL. Differences must be taught, similarities will be implicitly transferred from the L1.

Behaviorism: Operant Conditioning

Stimulus-response pairing If this is the way language works, it should be clear that to teach language should involve a lot of pattern repetitions, to instill proper habits in the learner (akin to learning skills, such as driving a car). For second language learning, there is also the matter of interfering habits from the L1; certain things habits would need to be "unlearned" in the context of the TL

CAH summation

Strong form: errors can be predicted Weak form: some are traceable to L1-L2 differences; Strong form: theoretically untenable Weak form: often impractical Lost ground to error analysis in the 1970s

Krashen: Acquisition vs. Learning Hypothesis

Subconscious process: One is unaware of the process as it is happening and when the new knowledge is acquired, the acquirer generally does not realize that he or she possesses any new knowledge. According to Krashen, both adults and children can subconsciously acquire language, and either written or oral language can be acquired. This process is similar to the process that children undergo when learning their native language. Acquisition requires meaningful interaction in the target language, during which the acquirer is focused on meaning rather than form. Learning a language is a conscious process, much like what one experiences in school. New knowledge or language forms are represented consciously in the learner's mind, frequently in the form of language "rules" and "grammar" and the process often involves error correction. Language learning involves formal instruction, and according to Krashen, is less effective than acquisition.

Validity; Reliability

Success of measuring what was planned; strength of conclusion; Research is repeatable/replicable Validity: The results show what we think they show: The measurements indeed tap into the concepts that we attempted to operationalize: e.g., the number of classroom hours in fact informs us about learners' overall amount of input The results are generalizable beyond the particular test items to the phenomenon as a whole: E.g., if we are measuring judgements of relative clauses, we need to include different types of relative clauses (subject, object & in different position in the sentence); The results are generalizable beyond the experimental group to the larger population: E.g., the group of L1-English L2-Spanish learners in the study is representative of L1-English L2-Spanish learners in general Reliability: The study results have to be replicable: If a different researcher uses our test instrument with the same type of population (college educated native speakers of Standard English), they should obtain the same or similar results; Some ways of measuring reliability: Split the subject sample, randomly, in 2 halves and see if the results are similar across the 2 halves; Re-test the same subjects at different points in time and see if the results are similar (however people learn from repetition, so results are unlikely to be identical); Reliability in coding and rating: In coding/rating (coding the number of utterances in a learner's speech; rating the foreign accent of a group of speakers): it is crucial to have at least 2 coders or raters; Determine inter-rater variability: how much do the raters agree?

Properties of L2A

Systematicity. Although the result of (partial) L2A is often full of "errors", the knowledge (IL) of the learner is still systematic, as is the process of learning. We will explore some of these systematic properties, in hope of explaining why they exist. Variability. At the same time, there is also a great deal of variability both in the productions of second language learners and between second language learners (rate, errors)—significantly more than found in L1A. Routines/chunks. It is common for second language learners to initially use memorized "chunks" (keskesay "chien"?) which appear grammatical but are unanalyzed (qu'est-ce que c'est "chien"?). Of course, any eventual successful knowledge of the target language requires knowing the internal makeup of such chunks.

Avoidance

The TL structures a learner does not produce but comprehends Dagut & Laufer (1985): Differences between L1 & L2: L1 Hebrew L2 English learners prefer one-word equivalents of phrasal verbs, e.g., "enter" to phrasal verbs like "come in" (L1 has no phrasal verbs)

Krashen's theory of second language acquisition consists of five main hypotheses:

The acquisition vs. learning hypothesis The monitor hypothesis, The natural order hypothesis, The input hypothesis, and The affective filter hypothesis.

In favor of "indirect access"?

The difference between indirect access and no access is very subtle, if it is even a real distinction. No access claims that UG is not involved at all, that second language learning is basically general problem-solving. Indirect access claims that UG is not involved directly, only the "parts of it" which have been selected in L1. The idea behind the no access hypothesis is that when using a second language, you essentially come up with a sentence in your L1 and then "convert" it using the rules you learned about the L2 (or vice versa for perception). So, both hypotheses really say that you know what you know about L1 and there is no further contribution of UG. There is no possibility to choose a different parameter setting for L2.

Parameters

The dominant formal theory of first language acquisition holds that children have access to a set of parameters by which languages can differ; acquisition is the process of setting those parameters Part of the genetic endowment (UG) is a specification of the parameters by which languages can vary from one another.

interlanguage grammar

The intermediate grammar that a second language learner creates on the way to acquiring the (more or less) complete grammar of the target language

Creative Construction Hypothesis

The native language learner does not have much influence over acquisition of another language-Each learner constantly creates hypotheses about the patterns of the language he's learning. [Dulay & Burt (1974) - All humans have some innate propensity for language - children reconstruct L2 in the same fashion that they learn L1. Empirically tested by morpheme order studies.]

In favor of "no access"

The well-known "critical period" effects seem to point toward a view like no access; adult L2A is much less uniform, typically not fully successful, and appears to involve much more conscious effort. Proponents argue that their observations about differences in the course and end result of L2A (vs. L1A) indicate that principles of UG are not being obeyed; For L2A, the consensus from pervious studies is that second language learners, regardless of target and first languages go through pretty much invariant stages. First, preverbal or initial negation. Then, more target-like internal negation. Sounds like the L1A sequences; this made people eager to try to apply the same explanations. However, almost all of these studies used English as the target language. Closer investigation reveals that not all second language learners go through an "initial negation" stage, even if the L1 has preverbal negation. And, unlike in L1A, where there is an initial negation stage, it does not seem to disappear at the same time as the control of finite verbs. Whereas "initial negation" in L1A is usually sentence-initial (before the subject), "initial negation" in L2A is often preverbal (but after the subject).

Against Error Analysis

There is a danger in too much attention to learner's errors. A classroom teacher can become so preoccupied with noticing errors that the correct utterances in L2 go unnoticed. While the diminishing of errors is important, the ultimate goal of L2 learning is the attainment of communicative fluency. The matter of how to correct errors is exceedingly complex. Research on error correction methods is not at all conclusive about the most effective method or technique for error correction.

Monitor Model

This model is based on five Krashen hypotheses: the Acquisition-Learning Hypothesis (acquisition occurs unconsciously, learning is conscious knowledge of the second language); the Natural Order Hypothesis (language rules are acquired in a predictable order); the Monitor Hypothesis (the learned system acts as a monitor of the acquired system), the Input Hypothesis; and the Affective Filter Hypothesis (motivation, attitude, self-confidence, and anxiety affect second language acquisition). [This theory states that acquisition and learning are two separate processes. Learning is to know about a language - formal knowledge; Acquisition is the unconscious mind related activity that occurs when the language is used in conversation.

Clarifying a model of UG

UG in a sense constrains the "shape of our linguistic knowledge." We can't learn/know a language that doesn't conform to this shape. Things of this shape have the universal properties of language (all languages have a basic word order). Certain variation is possible within the confines of this shape; these are the parameters. The Language Acquisition Device (LAD) takes the Primary Linguistic Data (PLD) to determine the settings of the parameters (in L1 acquisition). UG provides the parameters and contains the grammatical system that makes use of them. LAD sets the parameters based on the PLD.

No access and indirect access hypotheses

UG provides a blueprint or a template for languages, which is used to create a concrete instantiation of a language. Once L1 has been instantiated, the template might become unavailable. In this case, the only available information about what languages are like is what's instantiated in L1. This is essentially the view of no access and indirect access. Indirect access supposes that the principles and parameters of L1 are INDIRECTLY available in forming an instantiation of L2 No access supposes that L2A does not even have direct access to L1; the mapping is learned in another way.

Formal theory-based methodologies in SLA

Use quantitative, empirical data on learners' production and comprehension of the target language to make inferences about the underlying grammar; Studies start with a research question (RQ) or hypothesis which stems from theoretical considerations and/or prior findings; The predictions generated by the research hypothesis are tested using production and/or comprehension methods.

Fossilization

Various erroneous features that persist despite what is otherwise a reasonably fluent command of the language. This phenomenon is most saliently manifested phonologically in 'foreign accents' in the speech of those who have learned a L2 after puberty;

Krashen: Comprehensible Input Hypothesis

We acquire language only when we understand language that contains structure that is "a little beyond" where we are now (from Vygotsky's concept of Zone of Proximal Development). Input needs to be comprehensible. Input + 1 /Zone of Proximal Development/ is Input/instruction that is just above the students' abilities. Requirements for Instruction: must be embedded in a meaningful context; modified (paraphrasing, repetition), collaborative/interactive and multimodal.

Interlanguage Transfer

What about other previously known languages besides the L1? Interlanguage transfer Influence of one L2 on another Questions for general theories of transfer Is transfer between two L2s the same or different from transfer from an L1 to an L2? Is there transfer between interlanguages?

Different paths of acquisition

Zobl (1982) Path of L2 development depends on L1 Chinese, Spanish L1 children, English L2 Acquisition of definite article (the) L1 Chinese: early use of "this" as a determiner to the exclusion of "the" (classifiers are used in Chinese) L1 Spanish: use "this" and "the" from early on (determiners and articles are used in Spanish) For transfer of learning to occur, L2 learners must see resemblance between L1 and L2 before recognizing that the L1 can be useful; Role of salience (availability in the input) & frequency of an L2 structure in the input; Learner as decision maker: learner's perception of the L1-L2 distance determines amount/nature of transfer

Qualitative research examples

`text analysis' focuses on formal features of discourse; `ethnography' involves detailed portrayal of communication in a `field', e.g. the classroom; `narrative accounts' contain corpus of natural and continuous narration, such as studies of diary or life history; `verbal reports' are topic centered reports or interviews; `classroom interaction analysis' involves a coding scheme that classifies utterances in classroom interaction.

Givon (1979)

a central figure in functional linguistics, distinguishes: ❖ "pragmatic" mode of expression: topic-comment structure; old info precedes new info in the early learners' productions (even if organizing utterances such that the precedence of novel information with old information is honored results in ungrammatical output) ❖ "syntactic" mode of expression: subject-predicate structure; word order signals semantic case functions, linear ordering of sentence constituents may be inconsistent with the topic-comment structure but is grammatical in a language; when in this mode of Typological & Functional approaches to SLA expression, learners overcome the initial drive to put given information before new at all costs; ❖ SLA research motivated by work of Givon postulates development from an early "pragmatic" stage where word order is organized around topic-comment patterns (Dittmar 1984, Huebner 1983, Sato 1990): E.g. (1) German interlanguage (Dittmar 1984): Ich alleine - nicht gut. I alone not good (2) English interlanguage (L1 speaker of Lao/Hmong) (Huebner 1983): ai werke everdei, + isa woter da trii "As for work I do everyday, it involves watering the plants." Development from "pragmatic mode" to "syntactic mode" (i.e., from "function" (topiccomment) to "form" (morphology and inflection)) is seen to be encouraged by "communicative pressure" But in fact full development of morphology and inflection is not always seen in interlanguage. In fact, functional morphology is supplied sporadically by many learners and is often omitted during early L2 development. Is this because (a) "communicative pressure" to develop these is insufficient? (b) these are better accounted for by the subjective need (varying with the learner) to "assimilate to social environment"? (c) formal features such as morphology and inflection cannot in fact be accounted for in purely functional terms?

latent variable

a variable that is not directly observed but is inferred or estimated from observed variables [Something you didn't control for that is messing up your study.]

Functional/Functionalist Approach

approaches to language (unlike formal approaches): ❖ view language structure not as an independent formal system, but as being molded by the functions language performs, particularly in the realms of cognition (thought processes) and communication (conveying of thought to others) ❖ reject (at least implicitly) the notion of language universals being attributed to a genetic blueprint unique to language, but rather attributes them to cognitive processes of a more general character Bardovi-Harlig (2000): ❖ L2 learners pass through pragmatic lexical morphological stages in development, reflecting decreasing reliance on context, increasing reliance on lexical and inflectional expression (e.g., in the expression of tense). ❖ Emergence of morphology is slow; uninflected forms linger (and irregular morphology precedes regular morphology, revealing that acquisition of rules is more resourceintensive than acquisition of unique forms (such as exceptions to the rules) ❖ Instructed learning is beneficial to acquisition of morphology & grammar rules! ❖ Functional approach cannot be said to have been successful in demonstrating that communicative needs drive development of morphology and syntax beyond some very basic levels;

Contrastive Analysis: Clifford Prator (1967)

captured a grammatical hierarchy in six categories of difficulty applicable to both grammatical and phonological features of language. Most of the examples are taken from English and Spanish (L1 English learning L2 Spanish) Level 0. No difference or contrast is present between the two languages. The learner can simply transfer a sound, structure, or lexical item from the native language to the target language. Level 1. Coalescence two items in the native language become coalesced into essentially one item in the target language. Example: English 3rd p. possessives require gender distinction (his/her) and in Spanish they do not (su) Level 2. Under-differentiation -an item in the native language is absent in the target language. The learner must avoid that item. Example: (adjectives in Spanish require gender (alto/alta) Level 3. Reinterpretation -an item that exists in the native language is given a new shape or distribution. Example: new phonemes require new distribution of speech articulators -/r/, etc. Level 4. Over-differentiation -a new item must be learned. Example: English speakers must learn the use of determiners in Spanish -man is mortal/El hombre es mortal. Level 5. Split -one item in the native language becomes two or more in the target language requiring the learner to make a new distinction. English speakers must learn the distinction between (ser) and (estar)

Error Analysis: Describing Errors

classification into grammatical categories identifying general ways in which the learners utterances differ from target-language utterance Omission: leaving out items which are required Misinformation: use of one grammatical form instead of another Misordering: putting words in a wrong order Source or errors: Inter-lingual Intra-lingual Context of learning

descriptive grammar

describes a language - the way that people use it - w/out judging whether the utterance is correct or incorrect [Not rules that an NS is generally taught or would know how to articulate.]

Cross-linguistic influence

is a generic term for different ways in which different language systems in the mind interact and affect either the linguistic performance or the linguistic development (or both) of the individual concerned (Sharwood Smith 1983). This typically refers to different languages. Example: the influence of Korean on a Korean native speaker who is learning Japanese or French. [Selective transfer (mentalist view) New terminology (later 1980s & 1990s): cross-linguistic influence: Transfer Avoidance Differential rates of learning (rather than transfer from L1) Kellerman & Sharwood Smith (1986) Transfer as a creative process Selectivity in transfer Qualitative view of transfer How and when do learners use the L1/other L2s?]

Child Language Acquisition

is highly uniform: Same developmental milestones regardless of which language is acquired; For specific languages, possibly the same order of acquisition of grammatical morphemes

Error Analysis: Stephen Pit Corder (1973)

progression of language learners in four stages based on observations of what the learner does in terms of errors alone. 1st stage -random errors, called pre-systematic in which the learner is only vaguely aware that there is some systematic order to a particular class of items. 2nd stage -(emergent) stage: The learner is growing in consistency in linguistic production. Learner has begun to discern a system and to internalize certain rules. Its characterized by 'backsliding" -seems to grasp a rule or principle and then regresses to previous stages. 3rd stage -truly systematic stage: The learner manifests more consistency in producing the second language. Learners correct their errors when they are pointed out. Final stage -stabilization stage (postsystematic stage): The learner has relatively few errors; Fluency and intended meanings are not problematic. This fourth stage is characterized by the learner's ability to self-correct.

Error treatment: Bailey (1985)

recommended a useful taxonomy for error treatment classification; 7 basic options complemented by 8 possible features BASIC OPTIONS To treat or to ignore To treat immediately or delay To transfer treatment (other learners) or not To transfer to another individual, subgroup or the whole class To return , or not, to original error maker after treatment To allow other learners to initiate treatment To test for efficacy of the treatment POSSIBLE FEATURES Fact or error indicated Location indicated Opportunity for new attempt given Model provided Error type indicated Remedy indicated Improvement indicated Praise indicated

Against Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis (CAH): Zobl (1980)

showed that French learners of English failed to show evidence of a predicted error, but English learners of French did. In French, object pronouns generally come before the verb: Je les vois 'I see them (lit. I them see)'. In English object pronouns come after the verb: I see them. French learners of English never produced *I them see. English learners of French did produce things like *Je vois elle ('I see her' cf. Je la vois).

head parameter

specifies the order between the head and complement: Japanese/Turkish: verb follows object English: verb precedes object Children can hear evidence for this, they can set this parameter.

Operationalization

the process of assigning a precise method for measuring a term being examined for use in a particular study