4 It’s NOT about Teaching!! SLA (or L2A) is about how people acquire two (or more) languages at any age and under any circumstances
5 Simultaneous L2AYoung children fully acquiring more than one language in the home or in the community or both.
6 A ‘heritage’ languageYoung children fully acquiring one language spoken widely in the community and...partially acquiring another language at home (heritage language) up to near-native levels
7 Sequential L2AChildren acquiring another language in the community after gaining native levels in their firstFor example, when the family moves to another country and the children are between 4 and 18
8 Sequential L2AChildren acquiring another language (at primary or secondary school) OR adults after gaining native levels in their firstSometimes called ‘foreign language acquisition’ (FLA) or ‘instructed SLA’
9 Summarising...L2A is about learners at any age and in any kind of learning situation.It is not about instruction/language planning
10 Logically...Instruction/language planning methodology should be informed by research on the relevant type of L2A.
11 In reality,... it is often is not informed by the latest SLA research Sometimes it is not informed by any SLA research at all!
12 The Basics of Language Acquisition ]The Basics of Language Acquisition
14 What is actually happening during LA? ]What is actually happening during LA?
15 Language is a mental system, that humans in a given situation are able somehow to construct in their heads.
16 Basic Characteristics of Child Language Acquisition
17 The Miracle Children master a very complex mental system.. before they can read and writebefore they can analyse what they are doingSpontaneously, without serious thought.Without their grammar being corrected. (Parents know this isn’t needed!)
18 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)
19 Basic Characteristics of sequential ‘SECOND’ Language Acquisition
20 Two fundamental points of view L2A is fundamentally different from L1ASelinker ; later: Bley-Vroman, TsimpliL2A is fundamentally the same as L1ADulay, Burt , Krashen ; later: White, Schwartz
22 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
23 Interlanguage is not the same as ‘errors’. LARRY SELINKERIMPORTANT:Interlanguage is not the same as ‘errors’.INTERLANGUAGE (IL) is everything that is systematic whether or not it conforms to native speaker norms.IL is by definition a NON-NATIVE SYSTEM.
24 LARRY SELINKERAspects of learner performance that are incidental, not revealing any system, are not part of interlanguage.INTERLANGUAGE (IL) is everything that is systematic whether or not it conforms to native speaker norms.
25 LARRY SELINKER claimed that.. An L2 learner’s 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!
26 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 L1OVERGENERALISATION: Some IL rules are regularisations of rules derived from L2
27 LARRY SELINKERalso:TRANSFER OF TRAINING. Unintended effects of teacher focus: overuse of certain ‘difficult’ structuresSTRATEGIES OF COMMUNICATION: simplification: dropping articles, only simple vocabulary, emphatic styleSTRATEGIES OF LEARNING: Rote memorisation
28 IL as an emerging L2 system INEVITABLE FOSSILISATIONAT SOME STAGENATIVESPEAKER SYSTEMIL5IL4IL3IL2IL1
29 INEVITABLE FOSSILISATION An emerging L2 systemINEVITABLE FOSSILISATIONAT SOME STAGENATIVESPEAKER SYSTEMIL5IL4IL3IL2IL1
30 An emerging L2 systemCentral IL processes result in recurring patterns:X% carried over from L1 (LT)X% as in L2X% non-native, based on L2 (OG)X% caused by teaching (TofT)PlusX% for easy communication (CS)X% from attempts to learn (LS)NATIVESPEAKER SYSTEMIL5IL4IL3IL2IL1
31 Example 1 Central IL processes result in recurring patterns: 40% carried over from L1 (LT)10% as in L245% non-native, based on L2 (OG)2% caused by teaching (TofT)Plus2% for easy communication (CS)1% from attempts to learn (LS)NATIVESPEAKER SYSTEMIL5IL4IL3IL2IL1
32 Example 2 Central IL processes result in recurring patterns: 20% carried over from L1 (LT)35% as in L235% non-native, based on L2 (OG)2% caused by teaching (TofT)Plus3% for easy communication (CS)0% from attempts to learn (LS)NATIVESPEAKER SYSTEMIL5IL4IL3IL2IL1
33 Creative Construction: early challenges to Selinker’s theory
34 First, ideas that many SLA researchers still share. There seems to be information in the outside world.Somehow it has come inside the learner’s heads (minds)i
35 Growing, Developing, Learning Crazy and less crazy statements that we make about ‘learning’“I can’t get it into my head’“She tried to hammer her point home”“Nothing seemed to penetrate his thick skull”Language and other ‘facts’ODPORNY NA WIEDZĘ
36 Growing, Developing, Learning A better way of looking at learning is in terms ofGROWTH or DEVELOPMENTTake the analogy of a plant.If it has access to nutrients in the soil and is exposed to sunshine (warmth) and water, it ‘grows’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.)
37 how many leaves, what colour flowers etc (determined inside!)
38 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?
39 Conclusion SO FAR..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 languageThe arguments are about why that is so.
40 DISAGREEMENTSelinker claims that SECOND language learning mechanism cannot do the job as the now absent FIRST language mechanisms.That’s why L2 grammars ‘fossilise’.Grammatical growth almost always must stop before native like ability emerges
41 DISAGREEMENTAnother school of thought claims that FIRST language learning mechanisms do not disappear and are ALSO used in SECOND language learning.Grammatical growth may stop but it doesn’t have to. It does not stop because it can’t go on growing!
42 Grammars grow following some inbuilt sequence! Native!!!IL2IL4InterlanguageTheory:IL3IL1IL5Burt 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!‘8’Native!!!7654321
43 RECREATED NOT RECONSTRUCTED They took the radical line and claimed that, L2 acquisition was driven by the same processes as L1 acquisition.this they calledCREATIVE CONSTRUCTIONThe language is built anew in the learner’s mind.Recreated from the L2 inputNot reconstructed from the L1.
44 The learner REcreates the L2 from the beginning subconsciously without the need for correctionThey even told teachers not to teach syntax:Dulay, H. C., & Burt, M. K. (1973). Should we teach children syntax? Language Learning, 23,
45 Dulay and Burt denied the validity of the ‘Critical Period for L2’ and hence also the basis for Selinker's theory.
46 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!
47 BURT & DULAYShortcut: order of difficulty predicts order of actual acquisition.Rather than painstakingly follow through individual learners (like Roger Brown’s Adam, Eve and Sarah) over a period of time they opted for a cross-sectional approach:You take a groups of learners at one time and look at the percentage of errors with specially selected structures .
48 Missing contractible copula ‘s : BURT & DULAYMissing contractible copula ‘s :She’s hereHe’s my brotheralways less frequent than: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.Missing possessive ‘sMary’s carJohn’s Ipad.
49 BURT & DULAYSome research into L1 acquisition suggested that this was a safe assumption.
50 BURT & DULAY’s 90% CRITERION 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.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!
51 BURT & DULAY Which structures did they decide to investigate? They chose structures that had already been investigated in child language(L1), i.e., grammatical morphemesYou could guarantee these would turn up very frequently in spontaneous everyday speechExamples: the, a(n), ‘s’ plural, 3rd person ‘s’, irregular past tense
53 BURT, DULAYThey found an interesting similarity between the L1 and L2 English ordersNot 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
54 Fixed morpheme orders (90%) Error Rates<90% = ‘acquired”catSthey ARE runnINGshe’S a bad girlshe’S in the houseTHE house, A houseran, went, sawshe walkS, he runSJim’S cat, Mary’S dog.01900190018101660158013301120105
55 Fixed morpheme orders (90%) Error Rates<90% = ‘acquired”catSthey ARE runnINGshe’S a bad girlshe’S in the houseTHE house, A houseran, went, sawshe walkS, he runSJim’S cat, Mary’S dog.01900190019001900190019001900190
56 Other fixed orders You know my friend? Intonation questions Why you come here?Why do you come hereI like milk, noI not like milkI not must see himI must not see himI do not like milkIntonation questionsWh word added in frontSubj-verb inversion with doNeg place finally (or in front)Neg placed before verbNeg placed before aux verbNeg place after (MODAL) verbNeg place after verb (DO)
57 BURT, DULAY '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
58 BURT, DULAYTHEY SAID 2 THINGS:Errors can often seem like L1-based but turn out to be equally explainable as 'developmental' because children learning L1 English produce the same constructionThe same orders revealed by our experiments with learners with different language backgrounds suggest that we first look for developmental explanations where possible.
59 THEIR CONCLUSION: BURT, DULAY Grammatical interference was much less important than previously thought!Some L1 like errors were not interferenceOthers were simply performance strategies and did not reflect the learner system but ambitioud ways to communicate when the current L2 system fails.
60 KRASHEN’S CONTRIBITION Conscious learning of grammar had no impact on the growth of the ‘acquired’ L2 systemIt can however affect performance under certain circumstances.
61 Timing when you test Explicit knowledge about grammar CONSCIOUS Monitorthinking , analysing..Explicit knowledge about grammarTiming when you test100% subconsciousL2 GrammarACQUIRED SO FAROUTPUT‘Natural’ SpontaneousSpeech or WritingOUTPUTCorrectionFrom‘outside’‘Corrected’Speech&WritingTest people NOW and you get a measure of ONLY their acquired knowledgeWAIT & test people NOW and you may get a measure of :a mixture (acquired plus learned knowledge)MillisecondsCOMPARE
62 KRASHEN’S FIVE HYPOTHESES (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‘
63 (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)
64 Monitor use: NOW three conditions not one. Now not 1 but 3 limitations:TIME NEEDED but also:SIMPLE RULES ONLYWILLINGNESS TO MONITOR (individual learners vary here)SLOW LIMITED CONSCIOUS MONITOR?Acquired grammarOutput 1(‘pure’)Output 2(mixed andpossibly more correct)CONSCIOUSsubconscious
65 (4) The Input Hypothesis. 'humans acquire language in only one way - by understanding messages or by receiving "comprehensible input
66 (5) The Affective Filter Hypothesis. a mental block, caused by affective factors ... that prevents input from reaching the language acquisition device'
67 The Creative Construction one explanation for ‘apparent’ fossilisation.Emotional blockAffective Filter?Reduced sensitivity to inputORGANIZEinputL2 inputSpeech/Writing
69 The properties of learner systems at given points in time (T1,T2,T3) TWO AREAS OF FOCUSThe properties of learner systems at given points in time (T1,T2,T3)Processing: the relationship between knowledge and how knowledge is processed on-line
70 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?
71 PredictionsIF older L2 learners develop L2 grammatical knowledge without access to UG, then:1) the L2 systems they develop using general problem solving mechanisms may well have properties are not possible in natural languages.2) they will need grammatical correction.3) their L2 grammar will never become native.
72 PredictionsIF older L2 learners still have some/complete access to UG, then:1) the L2 systems they develop will have only properties are possible in natural languages.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.3) their L2 grammar may become native given sufficient and adequate exposure to the language.
73 The properties of learner systems at given points in time (T1,T2,T3) The ‘UG’ group
74 Processing: the relationship between knowledge and how knowledge is processed on-line L2 Processing during productionL2Processing during comprehensionL2 processing during acquIsition
75 L2 Processing during production Manfred Pieneman
76 Explaining L2 Performance Up to this point, L2 performance had been used to support two different positionsSelinker says it shows L2 learners possess their own systems and these systems (ILs) remain non-native. LAD not working so:L1A not =L2ABurt, Dulay & Krashen say that evidence of fixed orders show that LAD is still working so:L1A=L2A (essentially at least)
77 Explaining Stages of Acquisition B, D & K’s explanation?No explanation yet. Mysterious operations of the L1/L2 Organiser (LAD).There are fixed stages.Source of evidence?Development of grammatical morphemes
78 Explaining Stages of Acquisition Pienemann’s explanation?Moving from easily processed structures to less easily processed structures.Some constructions follow a fixed order.Some do not.
79 Explaining Stages of Acquisition Source of evidence?Development of syntax (word order & lawful combinations of words)
80 The MULTIDIMENSIONAL MODEL Pienemann’s first explanation was called:The MULTIDIMENSIONAL MODEL
81 LARGE quantity of data (cf. BDK’s) ZISA project (Zweitspracherwerb italienischer, portugiesischer und spanischer Arbeiter)Meisel, Clahsen and Pienemann (1981)The major result from the ZISA research was the well known developmental sequence in the L2 acquisition of German word orderLARGE quantity of data (cf. BDK’s)
82 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’) .
83 translations into English German main clauses/simple sentences [literal translations into English used as examples]Verb secondI see stars [Also OK in English]Often see I stars [NOT OK in English]Stars see I often. [NOT OK in English]V2translations into English
84 Verb final position (in main clauses/simple sentences) Complex verb forms separate and the non-finite form goes to the end.*I have stars seen*Often have I stars seen*Stars I have often seenNON-finiteFormFINAL POSITION
85 main clauses/simple sentences Another example with modal auxiliary can:*I can stars see*Often can I stars see*Stars I can often seeNON-FINITEVerb ForminFINAL POSITION
86 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 saw2. (I said) that I stars seen have
87 German Basic Word Order stages summarised 00 Stage 1: Canonical Word Order (SVO)Stage 2: Adverb pre/postposing (A SVO A)Stage 3: Verb Separation (SVOv)Verb 2nd (AVSO, OVS..)Verb final (in subclauses) (---,SOvV)
88 German Word Order: Examples (adapted) SVOSVO KEPT [NO SUBJECT VERB INVERSION when adverb optionally added]NON-FINITE VERBS NOW GO TO THE ENDVERB GOES TO OBLIG. VERB 2nd POSITION FORCING SUBJ. AND VERB TO INVERTFINITE VERBS GO TO THE END OF A SUBCLAUSE (AFTER ANY NON-FINITE VERB)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
89 Pienemann then asked: ANSWER: NO Is everything in the L2 grammar acquired in a fixed order?ANSWER: NO
90 Developmental Features Some aspects of grammar develop in a fixed order according to their current processability.Here, learners differ in their speed (rate) of learning grammatical features but follow the same orderThese features are called “developmental features”Individuals CANNOT follow different paths in acquiring these features: the order cannot be influenced in any way
91 Variational featuresSome aspects of grammar vary according to learning situation sand the individualgrammatical features may IN PRINCIPLE be acquired in any orderthese are called “variational features’ (like? prepositions, different types of article, adverb)Individuals may follow different paths in acquiring these features.
92 More comparisons with DBK research Subects Italian & Spanish migrant workers learning L2 GermanMuch larger body of data (compare with creative construction data)Major traditional area of syntax (compare with the morpheme order)
93 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 PROCESSINGEasily processed constructions acquired first
94 Processability: the general idea Canonical Word Order (SVO) is the most “processable” order of elements
95 Processability: the general idea Placing things at the beginning and end is next“preserving the canonical order”
96 Processability: the general idea Then comes moving things from inside to outside and vice versa“disrupting the canonical order”
97 Processability: the general idea as first conceived Switching things round inside the sentence is the least processable“disrupting the canonical order”
98 ‘EMERGENCE’Pienemann later introduced a new criterion for acquisition called the EMERGENCE criterion.
99 Important: A New Definition of ‘Acquisition’! when the the new feature “emerges”this for acquisition implies only a few spontaneous occurrences of the new features (4 or 5x)this contrasts sharply with the Brown L1/ D,B & K 90% criterion of acquisitionemergence criterion
100 We now have two alternative definitions of ‘acquired’! “Acquired” implies a particular construction/form:A) ‘regularly appears in learner production’ (BDK)ORB) has spontaneously appeared a few times in learner production(Pienemann)
101 Developments in P’S theory He turned to TWO sources to expand his modelLevelt’s speech production modelLexical Functional GrammarRESULT: an considerable enrichment of his model AND A NEW NAME:PROCESSABILITY THEORY
102 Teachability Hypothesis Teaching cannot force a new developmental stage to appear.Compare this to Krashen’s approach to grammar teachingJust don’t teach grammar!)
103 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.
104 The main claim of PTThe 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 Levelt’s (1989) speaking model (Pienemann, 2005, p. 2).
105 The main claim of PTThis 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 Levelt’s (1989) theory of production.
106 Stages of AcquisitionStages of Acquisition Predicted by Processability Theory.Processability Theory predicts a universal order of acquisition of five processing procedures illustrated by five stages.
107 Stage 1First, 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..
108 Stage 2At 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.
109 Stage 2In 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.
110 Stage 3At 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.
111 Stage 4At 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.
112 Stage 4In 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.
113 Stage 5At the final stage, Stage 5, s-procedure is able to call ‘S’ as a procedure, which means that subordinate clauses can be formed.
114 Processability and teachability are the main ideas ConclusionPienemann’s experimentation and theorising provide an interesting alternative to the other proposalsProcessability and teachability are the main ideasAt the very least, an explanation is provided for fixed orders of development in PRODUCTION
115 L2 Processing during comprehension Bill VanPatten
116 Input processing (VanPatten) How learners make connections between form in the input and meaningHis theory is based on processing so….Is this like Pienemann?
117 Input processing (VanPatten) No. This is about input processingIt is not about learner production (output)
118 Input processing (VanPatten) VanPatten’s approach is all about what learners NOTICE in the inputWhat do they PAY ATTENTION TO as they are trying to understand L2 utterances?
119 Input processing capacity of L2 learners is limited Assumption:Input processing capacity of L2 learners is limitedOnly certain features will receive attention during input processing.
120 When learners process input, they filter the input What becomes INTAKE?When learners process input, they filter the inputEveryone agrees that input is reduced and modified into a new entity called ‘intake’
121 It suggests that there are biases and constraints in input processing behaviour For example:The Primacy of Content Words PrincipleThe Lexical Preference PrincipleThe Preference for Nonredundancy PrincipleThe Meaning-before-Nonmeaning Principle)The Availability of Resources PrincipleThe Sentence Location Principle
122 Primacy of Meaning Principle 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
123 The Primacy of Meaning Principle comprises of sub-principles:
124 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
125 The Primacy of Content Words Content Words are in white, below)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
126 The Lexical Preference Principle 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)
127 The Lexical Preference Principle Learners will tend to rely on lexical items, not grammatical forms, 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)Question: When will you go?Answer? I go tomorrowQuestion: What does John do?Answer? He avoid.. HalinaConsequence?
128 The Preference for Nonredundancy Principle Learners are more likely to process nonredundant meaningful grammatical form before they process redundantmeaningful grammatical formsMy cat sleeps ten hours everyday
129 The Preference for Nonredundancy Principle Learners are more likely to process nonredundant meaningful grammatical form before they process redundantmeaningful formsMy cat sleep ten hour everyday
131 The Sentence Location Principle Learners tend to process items in sentence initial position before those in final position and those in medial position1332
132 The First Noun Principle Learners tend to interpret the first noun as the Agent/Subject.Example: learners of L2 Polish will first tends to interpret Kota przystraszyl pies as:The cat frightened the dog.They do not at first pay attention to the morphology of kot signallin OBJECT status!
133 Developments in P’S theory He turned to TWO sources to expand his modelLevelt’s speech production modelLexical Functional GrammarRESULT: an considerable enrichment of his model AND A NEW NAME:PROCESSABILITY THEORY
134 VanPatten summarisedVanPatten’s experimentation and theorising provide an interesting alternative to the other proposalsHe provides no new explanations for fixed orders of development but rather principles to explain how L2 forms in the input get noticed
135 Implications for teaching UG groupPienemannVanPatten
136 UG researchers had no special interest in pedagogical implications. UG group and teaching.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 KrashenIf they have no access and if pushed to talk about pedagogy, they might say that, then traditional teaching methods should be applied.
137 Pienemann’s Teachability Hypothesis Teaching cannot force a new developmental stage to appear.Compare this to Krashen’s approach to grammar teachingJust don’t teach grammar!)
138 Teachability Hypothesis Variational features can be taughtDevelopmental 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].
139 Teachability Hypothesis QuestionS:What does ‘close to the point when this structure is acquired in the natural setting’ mean?How do you know when that point has arrived?
140 Pienemann’s Teachability Hypothesis The feature must emerge independently in the learner’s 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.
141 VanPatten’s Processing Instruction (PI) approach Focus on processing L2 INPUT and not on producing L2 utterances.It’s all about noticing.
142 VanPatten’s Processing Instruction (PI) approach Techniques can be applied to help learners process input.These techniques must exploit the leaner’s instinctive preference for extracting meaning (and related strategies)They must make certain forms and syntactic structures easier to notice and process.
143 Learner’s follow First Noun Principle Just one exampleLearner’s follow First Noun PrincipleMany 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:
144 A Maria la llama Juan Picture showing Juan calling Maria Picture showing Maria calling JohnA BQuestion: match the following sentence to the right picture:A Maria la llama JuanObject markerObject marker
145 Many, many other developments in L2 theory Different approachesDifferent areas of the languageDifferent aspects of L2 systems (properties/processing/transition)New techniques (eye-tracking, brain-imaging)
146 CONCLUSIONFrom a new field of research which branched from the applied linguistics of language teachingSLA has become a fully-fledged independent area of theoretical and experimental research