Second Language Acquisition: Theory and Practice

Linguistics 200 Fall 2009

Plan for Todays Lecture (10/19/09)

Announcements Main topics from 10/5 lecture Psychological perspectives on SLA: theories of processing U-shaped learning Socially-oriented theories of SLA

Announcements
Next week (Oct. 26): Guest lecture on SLA and the brain (Prof. Loraine Obler, CUNY) There will be NO section on Thursday this week (Oct. 22) Readings: For today: Mitchell & Myles Chs. 4, 7, 8 For 10/26: Obler readings (#1, #2, on course website) Midterm: Mon, Nov. 2 (short-answer questions on topics covered in lecture and in the required readings) Please feel free to make use of our ofce hours, especially in advance of the midterm: Jacobsen: Wed 11-12, 4-5, Fri 11-12 Jenks: Thurs 3-4

Main topics from 9/28/09 lecture

Input, interaction, and output in SLA Heritage Language Acquisition (Guest Lecture)

Psychological perspectives on SLA: transition theories

Approaches to SLA based on linguistic models such as UG tend to be property theories as they focus on the characteristics of native speaker knowledge forming the end state of L1 acquisition (the target also of L2 acquisition). Psychological approaches, by contrast, tend to be transition theories, focusing more on the mechanisms by which L2 learners progress through various stages of interlanguage prior to the end state.

Psychological perspectives on SLA: transition theories

Such transition theories fall roughly into two types depending on whether or not they accept the distinction made by Noam Chomsky between competence and performance: (a) competence: the internal, abstract representation of grammar that a native speaker possesses of his/her language. (b) performance: the observable linguistic behavior based on this knowledge, subject to real-world constraints such as limitations of memory, time, physical characteristics of the vocal apparatus, etc.

Psychological perspectives on SLA: transition theories

Such transition theories fall roughly into two types depending on whether or not they accept Noam Chomskys distinction between competence and performance: Some transition theories accept this distinction. These theories agree that knowledge of language is in some sense unique but seek to uncover mechanisms of processing that govern the acquisition of such knowledge by L2 learners (called processing theories).

Psychological perspectives on SLA: transition theories

Such transition theories fall roughly into two types depending on whether or not they accept Noam Chomskys distinction between competence and performance: Other transition theories reject this distinction. These theories argue that linguistic knowledge consists in linguistic performance itself seek to explain the acquisition of language on the basis of general psychological processes that operate across all types of learning focus in particular on the strengthening of neural connections based on repeated exposure to similar patterns in the input (emergenist/connectionist/constructionist theories)

Processing theories
These theories assume that the human capacity for processing information is limited; this affects the amount and kind of information humans are able to focus attention on (i.e., consciously control and manipulate) in the performance of a task at any given moment in time. The locus of this processing capacity has been variously linked to short-term (vs. long-term) memory, and its limitations working memory (the memory that can be brought to bear on a particular task at a particular point in time) declarative knowledge (knowledge about things) vs. procedural knowledge (knowledge how to do things)

The theoretical status of each of these, and how they are interrelated, is the subject of ongoing debate. (For one model of this, see the ACT* (Adaptive Control of Thought) model of Towell and Hawkins 1994 p. 109 in M&M)

Processing theories
Phonological short-term memory: one example of a subroutine of working memory. the mechanism used when you keep repeating a phone number until you are able to nd something to write it down on Studies such as Ellis and Schmidt 1997, Williams and Lovatt 2003 have shown that there is a correlation between phonological short-term memory capacity and the ability to learn rules and to conceptualize grammar abstractly.

Automaticity
Given that human processing capacity is limited linguistic activity is complex and involves multitasking among semantic, morphological, and phonological levels it becomes critical in language acquisition to develop automaticity: the routinizing of linguistic procedures so they do not compete for limiting processing resources e.g., the automatizing of morphological processes (such as verb inections) allows one to commit processing resources to semantic and pragmatic levels of language (meaning and use). this has been seen by some as a shift from declarative to procedural knowledge, or by others as shifting the processing load from short-term to long-term memory

Automaticity
A common example of an automatized linguistic routine: greeting patterns A: B: A: B: Hi Hi, how are you? Fine, and you? Fine, thanks.

This is so automatic that the response is often made before the question A: Hi, Steve. B: Good morning, Bill. A: Fine, and you?

Automaticity
Automatized procedures can be the source of pitfalls for L2 learners: At the 2000 G8 summit in Okinawa, Japan; exchange between then President Clinton and Prime Minister Mori of Japan: Mori: Who are you? (thinking to say How are you?) Clinton: Im Hillary Clintons husband. Mori: I am too. (Gass & Selinker 2008)

Processing Theories and SLA

Van Patten (2007)s Input Processing Model 1. The Primacy of Meaning Principle: Learners process input for meaning before they process it for form Learners process lexical items before grammatical forms, especially when both encode the same meaning. Learners process nonredundant and meaningful grammatical forms before they process grammatical forms that are either redundant or non-meaningful. E.g., in interpretation of English tense, is typically given in early stages of L2 acquisition to processing temporal adverbs (such as yesterday, tomorrow) over tense marked by verb inection (studied, study, will study).

Processing Theories and SLA

Van Patten (2007)s Input Processing Model 2. The Sentence Location Principle: Learners tend to process items in sentence-initial position before those in nal position and those in medial position. Learners tend to assign subject or agent status to the rst (pro) noun they encounter in a sentence but lexical semantics, real-world knowledge, or context may override this principle Japanese word order and case marking: Neko-ga nezumi-o toraeta. The cat caught the mouse cat-NOM mouse-ACC caught-PAST Nezumi-o neko-ga toraeta. The cat caught the mouse Nezumi-ga neko-o toraeta. The mouse caught the cat. Neko-o nezumi-ga toraeta. The mouse caught the cat.

Processing Theories and SLA

Research on L2 processing capacity points to the following two kinds of development: o Relationship of form to meaning (Slobin 1979, Andersen 1990): One-to-one many-to-one (early stages tend to exhibit set canonical word order) o Exchange of grammatical information between linguistic constituents (Pienemann 1998): No exchange (linguistic units treated in early stages as prefabricated chunks) exchange within smaller constituents (e.g., agreement of gender, number in NPs) exchange within larger units (e.g, agreement between subject and predicate across entire S)

Processing Theories and SLA

Developmental stages in L2 German word order (Pienemann 1998): Stage 1: Canonical Word Order (SVO) Die Kinder spielen mit Ball. The children play with the ball Stage 2: Adverb preposing (SVO order unchanged) Dort Kinder spielen. Over there children play. Stage 3: Verb separation (grammatical info exchanged in VP) Aller Kinder mu die Pause machen. All children must a break take. Stage 4: Verb second (subject-verb inversion; agreement in VP) Dann hat sie wieder die knoch gebringt. Then has she brought again the bone. Stage 5: Verb-nal in subordinate clauses Er sagte da er nach hause kommt. He said that he home (will) come.

Restructuring
Increased automaticity of linguistic routines in L2 results in processing capacity being freed up increased attention being paid to internal structure of linguistic units prefabricated linguistic chunks being broken down, ultimately forcing a restructuring of the mental representation of grammar existing up to that point.

Restructuring
Data from L2 child learner of English (Wong-Fillmore 1976): Lookit, like that. Lookit gas. Looky, chicken. Lookit four. Lookit, looky = an unanalyzed attention-getting marker? Data from same child at a later period: Get it! Stop it! Internal analysis of verb + it, indicating restructuring.

Restructuring
Restructuring frequently entails a (temporary) destabilization of the grammatical system, so that previously target-like correct forms acquired as prefabricated chunks are reanalyzed into constituent parts and reassembled by rule; but until the proper range of application of such rules are acquired, they are often misapplied, resulting in the appearance of non-target-like forms not previously observed; these eventually are corrected as the proper constraints on rule application are acquired and the system becomes once more stable. This gives rise to the phenomenon of U-shaped learning (examples later)

Emergenist/constructionist Theories
These theories reject the distinction between language competence and performance: they argue that linguistic knowledge consists in linguistic performance itself; they seek to explain the acquisition of language on the basis of general psychological processes that operate across all types of learning focusing in particular on the strengthening of neural connections based on repeated exposure to similar patterns in the input. These theories, relying as they do on statistical occurrence in input, encounter the problem of poverty of stimulus motivating the innateness hypothesis for L1 acquisition (and L2 acquisition?).

Emergenist/constructionist Theories
Sokolik and Smith (1992) created a computer network model that was able to correctly predict the gender of previously unencountered French nouns on the basis of statistical correlations between spelling (e.g., endings such as -ette, -tion, -eur, -on) and gender learned from previous input.

Emergenist/constructionist Theories
The Competition Model (MacWhinney 2002, 2004): L2 processing involves competition among various cues Interpretation of the meaning of a given word order depends on which of these cues wins out. Cues involved in sentence interpretation in English: The cows eat the grass. (1) Word order: rst NP in active declarative sentence is agent (2) Lexical semantics/real world knowledge about cows, grass (3) Morphology (subject-verb agreement points to cows as subject) These cues are in competition in The grass eats the cows. but (1) and (3) are sufciently strong in English to win out over (2)

Emergenist/constructionist Theories
In Italian various word orders are possible (Gass & Selinker 2008): Giovanna ha comprato il pane. (SVO) Giovanna has bought the bread. Allora, compro io il vino. (VSO) Then Ill buy the wine. Ha comprato il vino Aldo. (VOS) Aldo has bought the wine. No, il vino lha comprato Antonella. (OVS) No, its Antonella who bought the wine. Here cues (2) and (3) are primary, together with pragmatic contextual information: (1) Word order (2) Lexical semantics/real world knowledge (3) Morphology (subject-verb agreement)

Emergenist/constructionist Theories
In the Competition Model, the competition among the following will be resolved in different ways depending on the strength of each Meaning-based cues L1-based cues Cues based on frequency of L2 pattern input Where morphological agreement does not resolve the issue, English and Italian cues present the possibility of different resolutions. La matita guarda il cane. the pencil looks at the dog

U-shaped Learning
Stage I Correct utterances Stage III

Deviant utterances Stage II

U-shaped Learning: the English progressive

Lightbrown (1983), in a study of acquisition of L2 English progressive by French L1 children, found In grade 6, asked to describe a picture, the subjects tended to respond: He is taking a cake.

By grade 7, at a later stage of acquisition of English, the same group tended to respond: He take a cake.

U-shaped Learning: the English progressive

Lightbrown hypothesized: In grade 6, the learners had been presented only with the English progressive, and thus equated it with the French simple present In grade 7, when they were presented with the English simple present, two forms (the progressive and the simple present) competed for the semantic space occupied by a single form in French, causing a period of destabilization until the correct boundaries of usage between the two were acquired.

Linguistic research has uncovered a cross-linguistic distinction between two types of intransitives, called unergatives and unaccusatives. Unaccusatives Unergatives die, arrive, exist, run, swim, dance, Examples
remain, appear, freeze worry

U-shaped Learning: two types of intransitives

Lexical semantics

Change of location/ state, continuation of state, existence, (dis) appearance Internal argument (subject noun acts like object of transitive)

Intentional (controlled) processes, actions

Argument structure

External argument (subject noun acts like subject of transitive)

U-shaped Learning: two types of intransitives

Unaccusatives versus unergatives in English Unaccusatives -er nominalization There inversion *dier, *arriver, *exister, *remainer Unergatives runner, worrier, swimmer, dancer

There arrived a *There swam a boy package at the door. in the pool.

Resultative constructions

The river froze solid. *The athlete ran tired.

U-shaped Learning: two types of intransitives

Unaccusatives versus unergatives in other languages Unaccusatives Italian Use of essere auxiliary; Ne-cliticization Quantier oat Genitive of absence with neuter agreement Unergatives Use of avere auxiliary; No ne-cliticization No quantier oat No genitive of absence and regular subject agreement

Japanese, Korean Russian

U-shaped Learning: two types of intransitives

Common errors in L2 English: Unaccusative non-target phenomenon: spurious passive My grandmother was died when I was a child. Unergative non-target phenomenon: John shouted hoarse. (Intended meaning: John shouted himself hoarse)

U-shaped Learning: two types of intransitives

Oshita (2001), in a study of acquisition of English intransitives by L1 Japanese subjects, found Stage I Lexicon: unaccusative = unergative Syntax: supercially target-like (mostly NP-V) Stage II Lexicon: unaccusative unergative Syntax: appearance of errors with unaccusative Stage III Lexicon: unaccusative unergative Syntax: disappearance of non-target phenomena

U-shaped Learning: two types of intransitives

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

Oshitas analysis: (a) is due to too rigidly associating internal arguments with syntactic object position. (b) is due to mistakenly overmarking movement of internal arguments to subject position with passive morphosyntax. These errors are corrected (aligned with the target language) by Stage III, thus completing the U curve.

Socially-oriented theories of SLA

SLA research within framework of socio-cultural theory of the Russian psychologist Lev Semyonovich Vygotsky (1896-1934) SLA research modeled on sociolinguistic research on language variation, esp. in tradition of William Labov

Vygotskyan Socio-cultural theory

Key concepts: Language as a tool for thought, one of a number of symbolic artifacts in human activity that mediate humans with their environment Language develops through stages of regulation (a) object-regulation (use of objects to develop cognitive skills) (b) other-regulation (activities in which other humans provide a scaffolding for the performance of activities) (c) self-regulation (activities performed without external help) Development from (b) to (c) is a process of internalization by which language moves from an inter-personal to an intra-personal level This occurs in a Zone of Proximal Development, the distance separating the current level of ability to act independently from a potentially higher level attainable through collaborative or guided activity

Vygotskyan Socio-cultural theory

Examples of SLA research in Vygotskyan framework Donato (1994) observes collaborative scaffolding in L2 classroom activities, such as following in a lesson on French reexive verbs:
A: ...and then Ill say tu as souvenu notre anniversaire de mariage or should I say mon anniversaire? B: Tu as C: Tu as A: Tu as souvenu you remembered C: Yeah, but isnt that reexive? Tu tas A: Ah, tu tas souvenu B: Oh, its tu es A: Tu es C: tu es, tu es, tu A: Tes, tu tes C: tu tes A: Tu tes souvenu

Note that nal product of this collaboration is not due to any single member of the group

Vygotskyan Socio-cultural theory

The phenomenon of private speech is viewed in this framework as a manifestation of the transition of language from the inter-personal to the intra-personal level (i.e., as a manifestation of internalization) Ohta (2001) observes repetition and vicarious responses in the Japanese language classroom as special cases of such private speech. In the following example, Student B produces an incorrect vicarious response to the teachers question, then self-corrects, all with lowered volume typical of private speech. Teacher: Kuizu wa muzukashikatta desu ka? Was the quiz difcult? Student A: Iie. No Student B: E::h yasashii desu (quietly) It is easy (error: sd be past) Teacher: Yashikatta desu ne It was easy, right? Student B: Yasashikatta desu (quietly) It was easy

SLA and Sociolinguistic Perspectives

Variation in language can be conditioned by various factors E.g., phonological variation: (a) conditioning by linguistic environment: pronunciation of /t/ in top tub return [th] in word or syllable initial position stop stub astern [t] when preceded by [s] (b) not conditioned by linguistic environment (free variation): pronunciation of /t/ indating, writer, voted [th] or [] between vowels before an unstressed syllable

SLA and Sociolinguistic Perspectives

Sociolinguistic research in the tradition of William Labov has been largely concerned with nding social environments conditioning such free variation Variation conditioined by stylistic register (see previous examples of dating, etc.) Variation conditioned by class/ethnicity: deletion of nal /t, d/ in Detroit Afro-American speech (Preston 1996) Gender-based variation: correlation between female speech and conservative/high prestige styles (Romaine 2003)

SLA and Sociolinguistic Perspectives

What about variation in L2 interlanguage? Possible sources: effects of prestige varieties in L1: Schmidt (1977), in study of L2 English of speakers of L1 Cairene Arabic showed a positive correlation between frequency of use of // and level of education (// occurs in free variation with /s/ and /t/ in certain environments in Arabic, with // being a prestige variety) sensitivity of L2 speakers to social environments in L2 (Tarone 1988) But there is clearly a limit to how much sociolinguistic variables can account for variation in L2 interlanguage: non-systematic variation must account for a large part of such variation, particularly in the transitional stages where interlanguage systems are unstable or subject to hypothesis testing.

Fornexttime(Oct26)
L2 language learning and the brain (guest lecture)

Read two Obler readings on course website