Presentation on theme: "MICHAEL A. SHARWOOD SMITH MAY 18 TH, 2013 12.00-13.30. Current trends in L2 research Najnowsze tendencje w badaniach nad nabywaniem jêzyka obcego/drugiego."— Presentation transcript:
MICHAEL A. SHARWOOD SMITH MAY 18 TH, 2013 12.00-13.30. Current trends in L2 research Najnowsze tendencje w badaniach nad nabywaniem jêzyka obcego/drugiego Current trends in L2 research Najnowsze tendencje w badaniach nad nabywaniem jêzyka obcego/drugiego
Lecture Overview 1. What is SLA? 2. The Main Questions. 3. Differing Points of View
Its NOT about Teaching!! SLA (or L2A) is about how people acquire two (or more) languages at any age and under any circumstances
Simultaneous L2A Young children fully acquiring more than one language in the home or in the community or both.
A heritage language Young children fully acquiring one language spoken widely in the community and... partially acquiring another language at home (heritage language) up to near-native levels
Sequential L2A Children acquiring another language in the community after gaining native levels in their first For example, when the family moves to another country and the children are between 4 and 18
Sequential L2A Children acquiring another language (at primary or secondary school) OR adults after gaining native levels in their first Sometimes called foreign language acquisition (FLA) or instructed SLA
Summarising... L2A is about learners at any age and in any kind of learning situation. It is not about instruction/language planning
Logically... Instruction/language planning methodology should be informed by research on the relevant type of L2A.
In reality,... it is often is not informed by the latest SLA research Sometimes it is not informed by any SLA research at all!
Language is a mental system, that humans in a given situation are able somehow to construct in their heads.
Basic Characteristics of Child Language Acquisition
The Miracle Children master a very complex mental system.. before they can read and write before they can analyse what they are doing Spontaneously, without serious thought. Without their grammar being corrected. (Parents know this isnt needed!)
Stages in First Language (L1) Learning Between five and seven months, babies begin to play with sounds and their vocal noises begin to sound like consonants and vowels. Between seven and eight months they begin to babble in real syllables. Around their first birthday, they begin to understand and produce words. By four they have become little native speakers. What remains is a process of literacy (language enrichment)
Basic Characteristics of sequential SECOND Language Acquisition
Two fundamental points of view L2A is fundamentally different from L1A Selinker ; later: Bley-Vroman, Tsimpli L2A is fundamentally the same as L1A Dulay, Burt , Krashen ; later: White, Schwartz
LARRY SELINKER His paper Interlanguage came out in 1972 IL is: an emerging L2 system. How do we recognise it? By the systematic behaviour of L2 learners
LARRY SELINKER IMPORTANT IMPORTANT: Interlanguage is not the same as errors. (IL) INTERLANGUAGE (IL) is everything that is systematic whether or not it conforms to native speaker norms. NON-NATIVE SYSTEM IL is by definition a NON-NATIVE SYSTEM.
LARRY SELINKER not Aspects of learner performance that are incidental, not revealing any system, are not part of interlanguage. (IL) INTERLANGUAGE (IL) is everything that is systematic whether or not it conforms to native speaker norms.
LARRY SELINKER claimed that.. An L2 learners mind was not the same as the one that learned L1. And the evidence for this? Only 5% gain anything like native like abilty in L2. The end of Lenneberg's critical period for L1 acquisition also signals a critical period for any other, later learned language. After this our mind/brain is no longer the same!
Analyse L2 production! What processes explain systematic features of IL? IL PROCESSES: FOSSILISATION. Features not changing? Despite repeated exposure and practice some or all of the system remains IL. More input no longer leads to intake! LANGUAGE TRANSFER: Some IL rules are ones that derive from L1 OVERGENERALISATION: Some IL rules are regularisations of rules derived from L2
LARRY SELINKER also: TRANSFER OF TRAINING. Unintended effects of teacher focus: overuse of certain difficult structures STRATEGIES OF COMMUNICATION: simplification: dropping articles, only simple vocabulary, emphatic style STRATEGIES OF LEARNING: Rote memorisation
IL1 IL2 NATIVE SPEAKER SYSTEM IL5 IL4 IL3 IL as an emerging L2 system INEVITABLE FOSSILISATION AT SOME STAGE
IL1 IL2 NATIVE SPEAKER SYSTEM IL5 IL3 An emerging L2 system IL4 INEVITABLE FOSSILISATION AT SOME STAGE
NATIVE SPEAKER SYSTEM An emerging L2 system IL1 IL2 IL5 IL3 IL4 IL Central IL processes result in recurring patterns : LT X% carried over from L1 (LT) X% as in L2 OG X% non-native, based on L2 (OG) TofT X% caused by teaching (TofT) Plus CS X% for easy communication (CS) LS X% from attempts to learn (LS)
NATIVE SPEAKER SYSTEM Example 1 IL1 IL2 IL5 IL3 IL4 IL Central IL processes result in recurring patterns : 40LT 40% carried over from L1 (LT) 10 10% as in L2 45OG 45% non-native, based on L2 (OG) 2TofT 2% caused by teaching (TofT) Plus 2CS 2% for easy communication (CS) 1LS 1% from attempts to learn (LS)
NATIVE SPEAKER SYSTEM Example 2 IL1 IL2 IL5 IL3 IL4 IL Central IL processes result in recurring patterns : 20LT 20% carried over from L1 (LT) 35 35% as in L2 35OG 35% non-native, based on L2 (OG) 2TofT 2% caused by teaching (TofT) Plus 3CS 3% for easy communication (CS) 0LS 0% from attempts to learn (LS)
Creative Construction : early challenges to Selinkers theory
There seems to be information in the outside world. Somehow it has come inside the learners heads (minds) First, ideas that many SLA researchers still share.
Crazy and less crazy statements that we make about learning I cant get it into my head She tried to hammer her point home Nothing seemed to penetrate his thick skull Growing, Developing, Learning Language and other facts ODPORNY NA WIEDZĘ
A better way of looking at learning is in terms of GROWTH or DEVELOPMENT GROWTH or DEVELOPMENT Take the analogy of a plant. If it has access to nutrients in the soil and is exposed to sunshine (warmth) and water, it grows not The sun, water or what nutrients there are in the earth do not determne how the plant will grow (how many leaves, what colour flowers etc.) Growing, Developing, Learning
how many leaves, what colour flowers etc (determined inside!)
If language is not something that enters our heads and stays and decides what is inside then: How does language grow inside the learner? So we need to have better idea of what, in LANGUAGE learning is the equivalent of the soil nutrient, sun and the water etc. Language?
The learner is exposed to language information available in the outside world. Watching how language grows INSIDE the learner: it is plain to see that learners must need that information (for language to grow inside them) Not all that information has an impact on the growth of the language The arguments are about why that is so. Conclusion SO FAR..
now absent Selinker claims that SECOND language learning mechanism cannot do the job as the now absent FIRST language mechanisms. Thats why L2 grammars fossilise. must Grammatical growth almost always must stop before native like ability emerges DISAGREEMENT
not Another school of thought claims that FIRST language learning mechanisms do not disappear and are ALSO used in SECOND language learning. may Grammatical growth may stop but it doesnt have to. It does not stop because it cant go on growing! DISAGREEMENT
Burt and Dulay experimented on L2 learners and concluded that L2 grammatical growth more or less followed the same pattern as L1 growth. Grammars grow following some inbuilt sequence! IL1 IL2 IL3 IL5 IL4 Native!!! 8 Interlanguage Theory: Theory:
They took the radical line and claimed that, L2 acquisition was driven by the same processes as L1 acquisition. this they called CREATIVE CONSTRUCTION The language is built anew in the learners mind. Recreated from the L2 input Not reconstructed from the L1. RECREATED NOT RECONSTRUCTED
The learner REcreates the L2 from the beginning subconsciously without the need for correction They even told teachers not to teach syntax: Dulay, H. C., & Burt, M. K. (1973). Should we teach children syntax? Language Learning, 23, 245-258
Dulay and Burt denied the validity of the Critical Period for L2 and hence also the basis for Selinker's theory.
Their evidence was drawn from immigrants in California (Spanish and Chinese speaking) They were interested whether the sequence of learning English revealed by L1 studies could be replicated with L2 learners irrespective of their L1 background!
Shortcut: order of difficulty predicts order of actual acquisition. Rather than painstakingly follow through individual learners (like Roger Browns Adam, Eve and Sarah) over a period of time they opted for a cross-sectional approach: at one time You take a groups of learners at one time and look at the percentage of errors with specially selected structures. BURT & DULAY
The reasoning was that the order of error-causing structures should also reflect the order in which those structures would actually be acquired so that, in the experimental results, the form that always caused fewer errors relative to the others, would be fully acquired earlier..and so on. BURT & DULAY Missing contractible copula s : Shes here Hes my brother always less frequent than: Missing possessives Marys car Johns Ipad.
Some research into L1 acquisition suggested that this was a safe assumption. BURT & DULAY
acquired How did they decide that structure was acquired? Answer: they opted for figure like 90% correct in contexts where that form would be expected in native speech. not As soon as a form was not supplied in just 10% of those contexts, it was regarded as officially acquired. Note: It is assumed here that even natives do not score 100% all the time! BURT & DULAYs 90% CRITERION
Which structures did they decide to investigate? They chose structures that had already been investigated in child language(L1), i.e., grammatical morphemes You could guarantee these would turn up very frequently in spontaneous everyday speech : the, a(n), s plural, 3rd persons, irregular past tense Examples: the, a(n), s plural, 3rd persons, irregular past tense BURT & DULAY
They found an interesting similarity between the L1 and L2 English orders Not identical but similar. More to the point, all learners showed the same order of difficulty and were thus assumed also to be acquiring things in the same order BURT, DULAY
01 Fixed morpheme orders (90%) catS catS they ARE runnING they ARE runnING sheS a bad girl sheS a bad girl sheS in the house sheS in the house THE house, A house THE house, A house ran, went, saw ran, went, saw she walkS, he runS she walkS, he runS JimS cat, MaryS dog. JimS cat, MaryS dog. 90 81 66 58 33 12 05 Error Rates <90% = acquired
01 Fixed morpheme orders (90%) catS catS they ARE runnING they ARE runnING sheS a bad girl sheS a bad girl sheS in the house sheS in the house THE house, A house THE house, A house ran, went, saw ran, went, saw she walkS, he runS she walkS, he runS JimS cat, MaryS dog. JimS cat, MaryS dog. 90 Error Rates <90% = acquired
Other fixed orders 1.Intonation questions 2.Wh word added in front 3.Subj-verb inversion with do 1.Neg place finally (or in front) 2.Neg placed before verb 3.Neg placed before aux verb 4.Neg place after (MODAL) verb 5.Neg place after verb (DO) You know my friend? You know my friend? Why you come here? Why you come here? Why do you come here Why do you come here I like milk, no I like milk, no I not like milk I not like milk I not must see him I not must see him I must not see him I must not see him I do not like milk I do not like milk
'Interference' or 'developmental errors? They associated transfer explanations with (despised) behaviourism so.. What was Dulay and Burt's reaction to 'errors' than looked as though they were caused by L1 Interference? Example I no can come' (from Spanish BURT, DULAY
THEY SAID 2 THINGS: 1. Errors can often seem like L1-based but turn out to be equally explainable as 'developmental' because children learning L1 English produce the same construction 2. The same orders revealed by our experiments with learners with different language backgrounds suggest that we first look for developmental explanations where possible. BURT, DULAY
THEIR CONCLUSION: Grammatical interference was much less important than previously thought! Some L1 like errors were not interference Others were simply performance strategies and did not reflect the learner system but ambitioud ways to communicate when the current L2 system fails. BURT, DULAY
Conscious learning of grammar had no impact on the growth of the acquired L2 system It can however affect performance under certain circumstances. KRASHENS CONTRIBITION
CorrectionFrom outside outside OUTPUT Explicit knowledge about grammar Natural SpontaneousNatural Spontaneous Speech or Writing OUTPUT CONSCIOUS Monitor thinking, analysing.. 0 CorrectedCorrectedSpeech&Writing Test people NOW and you get a measure of ONLY their acquired knowledge WAIT & test people NOW and you may get a measure of : mixture ( a mixture (acquired plus learned knowledge) COMPARE 100% sub conscious L2 Grammar ACQUIRED SO FAR Milliseconds
(1) The Acquisition-Learning Hypothesis. adults have two distinctive ways of developing competences in second languages.. acquisition, that is by using language for real communication... learning.. "knowing about" language KRASHENS FIVE HYPOTHESES
(2) The Monitor Hypothesis 'conscious learning... can only be used as a Monitor or an editor (This expresses a development of the idea behind the original Monitor Model)
Acquired grammar subconscious ? SLOW LIMITED CONSCIOUS MONITOR 3 Now not 1 but 3 limitations: 1.TIME NEEDED but also: 2.SIMPLE RULES ONLY 3.WILLINGNESS TO MONITOR (individual learners vary here) Monitor use: NOW three conditions not one.
(4) The Input Hypothesis. 'humans acquire language in only one way - by understanding messages or by receiving "comprehensible input
The Affective Filter Hypothesis. (5) The Affective Filter Hypothesis. a mental block, caused by affective factors... that prevents input from reaching the language acquisition device'
ORGANIZER ? Emotional block Reduced sensitivity to input Affective Filter input The Creative Construction one explanation for apparent fossilisation.
TWO AREAS OF FOCUS 1. The properties of learner systems at given points in time (T1,T2,T3) 2. Processing: the relationship between knowledge and how knowledge is processed on-line
Vast increase in linguistic sophistication The same fundamental questions could be asked: 1 ) Must older L2 learners develop L2 grammatical knowledge without access to the limitations and help supplied by UG? 2) Do older L2 learners still have some/complete access to UG?
Predictions IF older L2 learners develop L2 grammatical knowledge without access to UG, then: properties are not possible in natural languages. 1) the L2 systems they develop using general problem solving mechanisms may well have properties are not possible in natural languages. grammatical correction 2) they will need grammatical correction. never become native 3) their L2 grammar will never become native.
Predictions IF older L2 learners still have some/complete access to UG, then: properties are possible in natural languages. 1) the L2 systems they develop will have only properties are possible in natural languages. grammatical correction 2) they will not need grammatical correction but will be even be able to acquaire subtle aspects of the L2 they have no conscious knowledge of. may become native 3) their L2 grammar may become native given sufficient and adequate exposure to the language.
THE UG GROUP The properties of learner systems at given points in time (T1,T2,T3)
L2 PROCESSING DURING PRODUCTION L2PROCESSING DURING COMPREHENSION L2 PROCESSING DURING ACQUISITION Processing: the relationship between knowledge and how knowledge is processed on-line
L2 Processing during production Manfred Pieneman 0
Up to this point, L2 performance had been used to support two different positions Up to this point, L2 performance had been used to support two different positions Selinker says it shows L2 learners possess their own systems and these systems (ILs) remain non-native. LAD not working so: L1A not =L2A L1A not =L2A is Burt, Dulay & Krashen say that evidence of fixed orders show that LAD is still working so: L1A=L2A L1A=L2A (essentially at least) Explaining L2 Performance
s explanation B, D & Ks explanation? No explanation yet. Mysterious operations of the L1/L2 Organiser (LAD). There are fixed stages. Source of evidence? Development of grammatical morphemes Explaining Stages of Acquisition
1. Moving from easily processed structures to less easily processed structures. 2. Some constructions follow a fixed order. 3. Some do not. Explaining Stages of Acquisition Pienemanns explanation?
Source of evidence? Development of syntax (word order & lawful combinations of words ) Explaining Stages of Acquisition
Pienemanns first explanation was called: The MULTIDIMENSIONAL MODEL
Meisel, Clahsen and Pienemann (1981) Meisel, Clahsen and Pienemann (1981) German word order The major result from the ZISA research was the well known developmental sequence in the L2 acquisition of German word order LARGE quantity of data (cf. BDKs) LARGE quantity of data (cf. BDKs) ZISA project ( Zweitspracherwerb italienischer, portugiesischer und spanischer Arbeiter)
German word order is quite strict especially with regard to VERB order: The finite verb must come second in main clauses/simple sentences (Often saw I John) Complex verb forms (have seen John) separate and the non-finite form goes to the end (have John seen). ZISA project ( Zweitspracherwerb italienischer, portugiesischer und spanischer Arbeiter)
I see see stars. [Also OK in English] Often see see I stars. [NOT OK in English] Stars see see I often. [NOT OK in English] German main clauses/simple sentences [literal translations into English used as examples] V2 Verb second translations into English
Complex verb forms separate and the non-finite form goes to the end. haveseen *I have stars seen haveseen *Often have I stars seen haveseen *Stars I have often seen Verb final position (in main clauses/simple sentences) NON- finite Form FINAL POSITION
can Another example with modal auxiliary can: cansee *I can stars see cansee *Often can I stars see cansee *Stars I can often see main clauses/simple sentences NON- FINITE Verb Form in FINAL POSITION
Subclauses in complex sentences Learners only use simple sentences at the beginning. Later on, after first copying in subordinate clauses the order they have already acquired, L2 learners are finally able to go and apply Verb Final position to ALL verbs in subordinate clauses : 1. (I said) that I stars saw 2. (I said) that I stars seen have
H Stage 1: Canonical Word Order (SVO) H Stage 2: Adverb pre/postposing (A SVO A) H Stage 3: Verb Separation (SVOv) H Verb 2 nd (AVSO, OVS..) H Verb final (in subclauses) (---,SOvV) German Basic Word Order stages summarised 00
1.SVO 2.SVO KEPT [NO SUBJECT VERB INVERSION when adverb optionally added] 3. NON-FINITE VERBS NOW GO TO THE END 4. VERB GOES TO OBLIG. VERB 2nd POSITION FORCING SUBJ. AND VERB TO INVERT 5.FINITE VERBS GO TO THE END OF A SUBCLAUSE (AFTER ANY NON-FINITE VERB) German Word Order: Examples (adapted) KINDER SPIELEN MIM BALL Children play with (the) ball) DA KINDER SPIELEN THERE children play ALLE KINDER MUSS DIE PAUSE MACHEN All children MUST the break HAVE DAN HAT SIE WIEDER DIE KNOCH GEBRINGT Then HAVE THEY again the bone bringed ER ZAGTE DASS ER NACH HAUSE KOMT He said that HE to house COMES 12m
Pienemann then asked: H Is everything in the L2 grammar acquired in a fixed order? H ANSWER: NO
Developmental Features H Some aspects of grammar develop in a fixed order according to their current processability. H Here, learners differ in their speed (rate) of learning grammatical features but follow the same order H These features are called developmental features H Individuals CANNOT follow different paths in acquiring these features: the order cannot be influenced in any way
Variational features H Some aspects of grammar vary according to learning situation sand the individual H grammatical features may IN PRINCIPLE be acquired in any order H these are called variational features (like? prepositions, different types of article, adverb) H Individuals may follow different paths in acquiring these features.
H Subects Italian & Spanish migrant workers learning L2 German H Much larger body of data (compare with creative construction data) H Major traditional area of syntax (compare with the morpheme order) More comparisons with DBK research
Description vs Explanation The developmental (fixed) sequence is actually provided with an explanation (compare with Creative Construction model) Explanation is different from description!! P.s explanation has to do with EASE OF PROCESSING Easily processed constructions acquired first
Processability: the general idea Canonical Word Order (SVO) is the most processable order of elements
Processability: the general idea Placing things at the beginning and end is next preserving the canonical order
Processability: the general idea Then comes moving things from inside to outside and vice versa disrupting the canonical order
Processability: Processability: the general idea as first conceived Switching things round inside the sentence is the least processable disrupting the canonical order
Pienemann later introduced a new criterion for acquisition called the EMERGENCE criterion. EMERGENCE
Important: A New Definition of Acquisition! H when the the new feature emerges H this for acquisition implies only a few spontaneous occurrences of the new features (4 or 5x) 90% criterion H this contrasts sharply with the Brown L1/ D,B & K 90% criterion of acquisition emergence criterion
We now have two alternative definitions of acquired! H Acquired implies a particular construction/form: H A) H A) regularly appears in learner production (BDK) H OR H B) H B) has spontaneously appeared a few times in learner production H (Pienemann)
He turned to TWO sources to expand his model Levelts speech production model Lexical Functional Grammar RESULT:an considerable enrichment of his model AND A NEW NAME: PROCESSABILITY THEORY PROCESSABILITY THEORY Developments in P S theory
Teaching cannot force a new developmental stage to appear. Compare this to Krashens approach to grammar teaching Just dont teach grammar!) Teachability Hypothesis
PT is a theory of second language acquisition centered on the premise that the ability to produce speech in a second language is limited by the one-by- one acquisition of five speech processing procedures, all of which are the same procedures by which a mature speaker generates grammatical utterances.
The main claim of PT is that learnability is restricted by computational constraints of the language processor: as such, learning a language requires the gradual acquisition of language-specific processing procedures based on Levelts (1989) speaking model (Pienemann, 2005, p. 2). The main claim of PT
This view of language performance is complimented by a theory of grammar; PT is based on Lexical-functional grammar [LFG] (Kaplan & Bresnan, 1982) a model of grammar that reflects many of the psycholinguistic principles prominent in Levelts (1989) theory of production. The main claim of PT
Stages of Acquisition Predicted by Processability Theory. Processability Theory predicts a universal order of acquisition of five processing procedures illustrated by five stages. Stages of Acquisition
First, at Stage 1, learners are limited to producing lemma, i.e. words or formulaic expressions. No exchange of information is possible, and thus no feature matching, or unification.. Stage 1
At Stage 2, category procedure, the ability to assign a category to the lemma, develops. An example of a category is the feature plurality; in Spanish, for example, the plural -s would emerge here as the learner becomes able to add s to lemmas to indicate plurality. Stage 2
In terms of syntax, at Stage 2, learners begin to produce strings based on canonical word order, which involves a prototypical mapping of the most prominent thematic role, i.e. agent, to the initial position in c-structure, i.e. subject (The Unmarked Alignment Hypothesis; Pienemann, Di Biase, and Kawaguchi, 2005, p.229). This is possible because it is assumed that learners are able to define categories such as verb and subject, but mapping is restricted by the inability to unify features. Stage 2
At Stage 3, phrasal procedure emerges, which involves the ability to merge features as well as the ability to determine positions in terms of phrases instead of just words (Pienemann, 2005, p.27). At this point, in terms of morphology, features such as plurality can be matched across other elements within the same constituent, i.e. noun phrase agreement. Stage 3
At Stage 4, s-procedure develops: that is, at this stage, the function of the phrase is determined through appointment rules and sent to s- procedure, where the information is stored as the sentence is developed. Through s-procedure, information can be exchanged across constituent boundaries, and more target-like word order phenomena are found based on language-specific syntactic rules. Stage 4
In terms of morphology, inter-phrasal information can be exchanged, which involves the exchange of information across constituent boundaries, e.g. subject-verb agreement in English. Stage 4
At the final stage, Stage 5, s-procedure is able to call S as a procedure, which means that subordinate clauses can be formed. Stage 5
Conclusion PIENEMANNS EXPERIMENTATION AND THEORISING PROVIDE AN INTERESTING ALTERNATIVE TO THE OTHER PROPOSALS PROCESSABILITY AND TEACHABILITY ARE THE MAIN IDEAS AT THE VERY LEAST, AN EXPLANATION IS PROVIDED FOR FIXED ORDERS OF DEVELOPMENT IN PRODUCTION
L2 Processing during comprehension Bill VanPatten 0
Input processing (VanPatten) How learners make connections between form in the input and meaning His theory is based on processing so…. Is this like Pienemann?
Input processing (VanPatten) input No. This is about input processing It is not about learner production (output)
Input processing (VanPatten) VanPattens approach is all about what learners NOTICE in the input What do they PAY ATTENTION TO as they are trying to understand L2 utterances?
Assumption: Input processing capacity of L2 learners is limited Only certain features will receive attention during input processing.
When learners process input, they filter the input Everyone agrees that input is reduced and modified into a new entity called intake What becomes INTAKE?
For example: The Primacy of Content Words Principle The Primacy of Content Words Principle The Lexical Preference Principle The Lexical Preference Principle The Preference for Nonredundancy Principle The Preference for Nonredundancy Principle The Meaning-before-Nonmeaning Principle) The Meaning-before-Nonmeaning Principle) The Availability of Resources Principle The Availability of Resources Principle The Sentence Location Principle The Sentence Location Principle It suggests that there are biases and constraints in input processing behaviour
Because of working memory constraints and because they are paying attention to meaning- bearing prosodic cues are only able to: process input for meaning before they can process it for form. This he calls the Primacy of Meaning Principle Primacy of Meaning Principle
The Primacy of Meaning Principle comprises of sub- principles:
The Primacy of Content Words Principle going to, chicken, the, kitchen, who, nasty, beauty, when, well, as, and, have (as in I have finished), have (as in I have three chairs), her
1. Content Words are in white, below) The Primacy of Content Words going to, chicken, the, kitchen, who, nasty, beauty, when, well, as, and, have (as in I have finished), have (as in I have three chairs), her
grammatical form Learners will tend to rely on lexical items, not grammatical form, to get meaning when both encode the same semantic information. I will go tomorrow (future time) Two houses (plurality) John avoids Halina (third person singular) The Lexical Preference Principle
grammatical forms Learners will tend to rely on lexical items, not grammatical forms, to get meaning when both encode the same semantic information. The Lexical Preference Principle I will go tomorrow (future time) Two houses (plurality) John avoids Halina (third person singular) Question: When will you go? Answer? I..... go tomorrow Question: What does John do? Answer? He avoid.. Halina Consequence?
Learners are more likely to process nonredundant meaningful grammatical form before they process redundant meaningful grammatical forms My cat sleeps ten hours everyday The Preference for Nonredundancy Principle
Learners are more likely to process nonredundant meaningful grammatical form before they process redundant meaningful forms My cat sleep ten hour everyday The Preference for Nonredundancy Principle
Learners tend to process items in sentence initial position before those in final position and those in medial position The Sentence Location Principle 1332
first noun Learners tend to interpret the first noun as the Agent/Subject. L2 Kota przystraszyl pies as: Example: learners of L2 Polish will first tends to interpret Kota przystraszyl pies as: The cat frightened the dog. The cat frightened the dog. They do not at first pay attention to the morphology of kot signallin OBJECT status! The First Noun Principle
He turned to TWO sources to expand his model Levelts speech production model Lexical Functional Grammar RESULT:an considerable enrichment of his model AND A NEW NAME: PROCESSABILITY THEORY PROCESSABILITY THEORY Developments in P S theory
VanPatten summarised VANPATTENS EXPERIMENTATION AND THEORISING PROVIDE AN INTERESTING ALTERNATIVE TO THE OTHER PROPOSALS HE PROVIDES NO NEW EXPLANATIONS FOR FIXED ORDERS OF DEVELOPMENT BUT RATHER PRINCIPLES TO EXPLAIN HOW L2 FORMS IN THE INPUT GET NOTICED
Implications for teaching UG group Pienemann VanPatten
UG researchers had no special interest in pedagogical implications. It was clear to them that if L2 learners maintained access to UG, they need to acquire the L2 naturally as suggested by Dulay, Burt and Krashen If they have no access and if pushed to talk about pedagogy, they might say that, then traditional teaching methods should be applied. UG group and teaching.
Teaching cannot force a new developmental stage to appear. Compare this to Krashens approach to grammar teaching Just dont teach grammar!) Pienemanns Teachability Hypothesis
Teachability Hypothesis Variational features can be taught Developmental features cannot be taught An L2 structure can be learnt from instruction only if the learner's IL is close to the point when this structure is acquired in the natural setting" (Pienemann 1984:201) [my italics].
Teachability Hypothesis Question S : 1.What does close to the point when this structure is acquired in the natural setting mean? 2.How do you know when that point has arrived?
The feature must emerge independently in the learners spontaneous production (a few times) Practising a developmental feature in class once it has emerged can help the learner to get through to the next stage faster. Teachers must wait until it appears. Pienemanns Teachability Hypothesis
Focus on processing L2 INPUT and not on producing L2 utterances. Its all about noticing. VanPattens Processing Instruction (PI) approach
Techniques can be applied to help learners process input. These techniques must exploit the leaners instinctive preference for extracting meaning (and related strategies) They must make certain forms and syntactic structures easier to notice and process. VanPattens Processing Instruction (PI) approach
Learners follow First Noun Principle Many languages allow first noun to be an OBJECT. English learners of Spanish will initially not notice object markers and process the first noun as a subject/agent. An exercise might take the following form: Just one example
Picture showing Juan calling Maria Picture showing Maria calling John Question: match the following sentence to the right picture: A Maria la llama Juan A B Object marker
Many, many other developments in L2 theory Different approaches Different areas of the language Different aspects of L2 systems (properties/processing/transition) New techniques (eye-tracking, brain- imaging)
CONCLUSION From a new field of research which branched from the applied linguistics of language teaching SLA has become a fully-fledged independent area of theoretical and experimental research