Week 12. Language Universals, and the beginnings of a model

1
GRS LX 700Language Acquisition andLinguistic
Theory

• Week 12.Language Universals, and the beginnings
  of a model

2
Typological universals

• 1960s and 1970s saw a lot of activity aimed at
  identifying language universals, properties of
  Language.
• Class of possible languages is smaller than you
  might think.
• If a language has one property (A), it will
  necessarily have another (B).
• AB, AB, AB but never AB.

3
(Typological) universals

• All languages have vowels.
• If a language has VSO as its basic word order,
  then it has prepositions (vs. postpositions).

VSO? Adposition type Yes No
Prepositions Welsh English
Postpositions None Japanese
4
Markedness

• Having duals implies having plurals
• Having plurals says nothing about having duals.
• Having duals is markedinfrequent, more complex.
  Having plurals is (relative to having duals)
  unmarked.
• Generally markedness is in terms of comparable
  dimensions, but you could also say that being VSO
  is marked relative to having prepositions.

5
Markedness

• Markedness actually has been used in a couple
  of different ways, although they share a common
  core.
• Marked More unlikely, in some sense.
• Unmarked More likely, in some sense.
• You have to mark something marked unmarked is
  what you get if you dont say anything extra.

6
Unlikeliness

• Typological/crosslinguistic infrequency.
• VOS word order is marked.
• More complex constructions.
• ts is more marked than t.
• The non-default setting of a parameter.
• Non-null subjects?
• Language-specific/idiosyncratic features.
• Vs. UG/universal features?

7
Berlin Kay 1969 Color terms

• (On the boundaries of psychophysics, linguistics,
  anthropology, and with issues about its
  interpretation, but still)
• Basic color terms across languages.
• It turns out that languages differ in how many
  color terms count as basic. (blueish,
  salmon-colored, crimson, blond, are not basic).

8
Berlin Kay 1969 Color terms

• The segmentation of experience by speech symbols
  is essentially arbitrary. The different sets of
  words for color in various languages are perhaps
  the best ready evidence for such essential
  arbitrariness. For example, in a high percentage
  of African languages, there are only three color
  words, corresponding to our white, black, red,
  which nevertheless divide up the entire spectrum.
  In the Tarahumara language of Mexico, there are
  five basic color words, and here blue and
  green are subsumed under a single term.
• Eugene Nida (1959)

9
Berlin Kay 1969 Color terms

• Japanese (Japan)
• Korean (Korea)
• Pomo (California)
• Spanish (Mexico)
• Swahili (East Africa)
• Tagalog (Philippines)
• Thai (Thailand)
• Tzeltal (Southern Mexico)
• Urdu (India)
• Vietnamese (Vietnam)

• Arabic (Lebanon)
• Bulgarian (Bulgaria)
• Catalan (Spain)
• Cantonese (China)
• Mandarin (China)
• English (US)
• Hebrew (Israel)
• Hungarian (Hungary)
• Ibibo (Nigeria)
• Indonesian (Indonesia)

10
Eleven possible basic color terms

• White, black, red, green, yellow, blue, brown,
  purple, pink, orange, gray.
• All languages contain term for white and black.
• Has 3 terms, contains a term for red.
• Has 4 terms, contains green or yellow.
• Has 5 terms, contains both green and yellow.
• Has 6 terms, contains blue.
• Has 7 terms, contains brown.
• Has 8 or more terms, chosen from purple, pink,
  orange, gray

11
Color hierarchy

• White, black
• Red
• Green, yellow
• Blue
• Brown
• Purple, pink, orange, gray
• Even assuming these 11 basic color terms, there
  should be 2048 possible setsbut only 22 (1) are
  attested.

12
Color terms

• BW Jalé (New Guinea) brilliant vs. dull
• BWR Tiv (Nigeria), Australian aboriginals
  in Seven Rivers District, Queensland.
• BWRG Ibibo (Nigeria), Hanunóo (Philippines)
• BWRY Ibo (Nigeria), Fitzroy River people
  (Queensland)
• BWRYG Tzeltal (Mexico), Daza (eastern Nigeria)
• BWRYGU Plains Tamil (South India), Nupe
  (Nigeria), Mandarin?
• BWRYGUO Nez Perce (Washington), Malayalam
  (southern India)

13
Color terms

• Interesting questions abound, including why this
  order, why these elevenand there are potential
  reasons for it that can be drawn from the
  perception of color spaces which we will not
  attempt here.
• The point is This is a fact about Language If
  you have a basic color term for blue, you also
  have basic color terms for black, white, red,
  green, and yellow.

14
Implicational hierarchy

• This is a ranking of markedness or an
  implicational hierarchy.
• Having blue is more marked than having (any or
  all of) yellow, green, red, white, and black.
• Having green is more marked than having red
• Like a set of implicational universals
• Blue implies yellow Brown implies blue
• Blue implies green Pink implies brown
• Yellow or green imply red Orange implies brown
• Red implies black Gray implies brown
• Red implies white Purple implies brown

15
L2A?

• Our overarching themeHow much is L2/IL like a
  L1?
• Do IL/L2 languages obey the language universals
  that hold of native languages?
• This question is slightly less theory-laden than
  the questions we were asking about principles and
  parameters, although its similar
• To my knowledge nobody has studied L2
  acquisitions of color terms

16
Question formation

• Declarative John will buy coffee.
• Wh-inversion What will John buy?
• Wh-fronting What will John buy?
• Yes/No-inversion Will John buy coffee?
• Greenberg (1963)
• Wh-inversion implies Wh-fronting.
• Yes/No-inversion implies Wh-inversion.

17
Wh-inversion?Wh-fronting

• English, German Both.
• What will John buy?
• Japanese Korean neither.
• John will buy what?
• Finnish Wh-fronting only.
• What John will buy?
• Unattested Wh-inversion only.
• Will John buy what?

18
Y/N-inversion?Wh-inversion

• English Both
• Will John buy coffee? What will John buy?
• Japanese Neither
• John will buy coffee? John will buy what?
• Lithuanian Wh-inversion only.
• John will buy coffee? What will John buy?
• Unattested Y/N-inversion only.
• Will John buy coffee? What John will buy?

19
Eckman, Moravcsik, Wirth (1989)

• L1 Korean (4), Japanese (6), Turkish (4)
• L2 English
• Note L1s chosen because they are neither/neither
  type languages, to avoid questions of transfer.
• Subjects tried to determine what was going on in
  a scene by asking questions.

20
Eckman, Moravcsik, Wirth (1989)

• Example Y/N Qs
• Did she finished two bottle wine?
• Is Lou and Patty known each other?
• Sue does drink orange juice?
• Her parents are rich?
• Is this story is chronological in a order?
• Does Joan has a husband?
• Yesterday is Sue did drink two bottles of wine?

21
Eckman, Moravcsik, Wirth (1989)

• Example Wh-Qs
• Why Sue didnt look solution for her problem?
• Where Sue is living?
• Why did Sue stops drinking?
• Why is Pattys going robbing the bank?
• What they are radicals?
• What Sue and Patty connection?
• Why she was angry?

22
Eckman et al. (1989)wh-inv?wh-fronting?result
s
Whinv Whfr
SM K 25 NO 100 YES
UA T 54 NO 100 YES
TS J 70 NO 100 YES
MK K 80 NO 100 YES
RO J 88 NO 100 YES
KO J 95 YES 100 YES
MH J 95 YES 100 YES
NE T 95 YES 100 YES
SI J 95 YES 100 YES
G T 100 YES 100 YES
MA T 100 YES 100 YES
ST J 100 YES 100 YES
TM K 100 YES 100 YES
YK J 100 YES 100 YES
23
Eckman et al. (1989)YN-inv.? wh-inv.?results
YNinv WHinv
SM K 8 NO 25 NO
MK K 38 NO 80 NO
YK J 51 NO 100 YES
TS J 67 NO 70 NO
TM K 83 NO 100 YES
RO J 85 NO 88 NO
BG T 86 NO 100 YES
MA T 88 NO 100 YES
UA T 91 YES 54 NO
KO J 93 YES 95 YES
MH J 95 YES 95 YES
NE T 100 YES 95 YES
SI J 100 YES 95 YES
ST J 100 YES 100 YES
24
Eckman, Moravcsik, Wirth (1989)
Yes/no inversion Wh-inversion Yes (VS) No (SV)
Yes (VS) 5 4
No (SV) 1 4
25
Eckmans Markedness Differential Hypothesis

• Markedness. A phenomenon or structure X in some
  language is relatively more marked than some
  other phenomenon or structure Y if
  cross-linguistically the presence of X in a
  language implies the presence of Y, but the
  presence of Y does not imply the presence of X.
• Duals imply plurals.
• Wh-inversion implies wh-fronting.
• Blue implies red.

26
Markedness Differential Hypothesis

• MDH The areas of difficulty that a second
  language learner will have can be predicted on
  the basis of a comparison of the NL and TL such
  that
• Those areas of the TL that are different from the
  NL and are relatively more marked than in the NL
  will be difficult
• The degree of difficulty associated with those
  aspects of the TL that are different and more
  marked than in the NL corresponds to the relative
  degree of markedness associated with those
  aspects
• Those areas of the TL that are different than the
  NL but are not relatively more marked than in the
  NL will not be difficult.

27
MDH exampleWord-final segments

• Voiced obstruents most marked Surge
• Voiceless obstruents Coke
• Sonorant consonants Mountain
• Vowels least marked Coffee
• All Ls allow vowels word-finallysome only allow
  vowels. Some (e.g., Mandarin, Japanese) allow
  only vowels and sonorants. Some (e.g., Polish)
  allow vowels, sonorants, but only voiceless
  obstruents. English allows all four types.

28
Eckman (1981)
Spanish L1 Spanish L1 Mandarin L1 Mandarin L1
Gloss IL form Gloss IL form
Bob b p Tag tæg
Bobby b bi And ænd
Red r?t Wet w t
Wet w t Deck d?k
Sick sIk Letter l?t r
Bleeding blidIn
c
e
c
e
e
e
e
29
MDH exampleWord-final segments

• Voiced obstruents most marked Surge
• Voiceless obstruents Coke
• Sonorant consonants Mountain
• Vowels least marked Coffee
• Idea Mandarin has neither voiceless nor voiced
  obstruents in the L1using a voiceless obstruent
  in place of a TL voiced obstruent is still not L1
  compliant and is a big markedness jump. Adding a
  vowel is L1 compliant. Spanish has voiceless
  obstruents, to using a voiceless obstruent for a
  TL voiced obstruent is L1 compliant.

30
MDH and IL

• The MDH presupposes that the IL obeys the
  implicational universals too.
• Eckman et al. (1989) suggests that this is at
  least reasonable.
• The MDH suggests that there is a natural order of
  L2A along a markedness scale (stepping to the
  next level of markedness is easiest).
• Lets consider what it means that an IL obeys
  implicational universals

31
MDH and IL

• IL obeys implicational universals.
• That is, we know that IL is a language.
• So, we know that languages are such that having
  word-final voiceless obstruents implies that you
  also have word-final sonorant consonants, among
  other things.
• What would happen if we taught Japanese L2
  learners of English onlyand at the outsetvoiced
  obstruents?

32
Generalizing with markedness scales

• Voiced obstruents most marked Surge
• Voiceless obstruents Coke
• Sonorant consonants Mountain
• Vowels least marked Coffee
• Japanese learner of English will have an easier
  time at each step learning voiceless obstruents
  and then voiced obstruents.
• Butif taught voiced obstruents immediately, the
  fact that the IL obeys implicational (markedness)
  universals means that voiceless obstruents come
  for free.

33
Nifty!

• Does it work? Does it help?
• Answers seem to be
• Yes, it seems to at least sort of work.
• Maybe it helps.
• Learning a marked structure is harder. So, if you
  learn a marked structure, you can automatically
  generalize to the less marked structures, but was
  it faster than learning the easier steps in
  succession would have been?

34
Change from pre- to post-testEckman, Bell,
Nelson (1988)
35
The Noun Phrase Accessibility Hierarchy

• Keenan Comrie (1977) observed a hierarchy among
  the kinds of relative clauses that languages
  allow.
• The astronaut (that) I met yesterday.
• Head noun astronaut
• Modifying clause(that/who) I met yesterday.
• Compare I met the astronaut yesterday.
• This is an object relative because the place
  where the head noun would be in the simple
  sentence version is the object.

36
The Noun Phrase Accessibility Hierarchy

• There are several kinds of relative clauses,
  based on where the head noun comes from in the
  modifying clause
• The astronaut
• I met yesterday object
• who met me yesterday subject
• I gave a book to indirect object
• I was talking about obj. of P
• whose house I like Genitive (possessor)
• I am braver than obj. of comparative

37
The Noun Phrase Accessibility Hierarchy

• Turns out Languages differ in what positions
  they allow relative clauses to be formed on.
• English allows all the positions mentioned to be
  used to make relative clauses.
• Arabic allows relative clauses to be formed only
  with subjects.
• Greek allows relative clauses to be formed only
  with subjects or objects.

38
Resumptive pronouns

• The guy who they dont know whether he wants to
  come.
• A student who I cant make any sense out of the
  papers he writes.
• The actress who Tom wondered whether her father
  was rich.
• In cases where relative clause formation is not
  allowed, it can sometimes be salvaged by means of
  a pronoun in the position that the head noun is
  to be associated with.

39
NPAH and resumptive pronouns

• Generally speaking, it turns out that in
  languages which do not allow relative clauses to
  be formed off a certain position, they will
  instead allow relative clauses with a resumptive
  pronoun in that position.
• Arabic allows only subject relative clauses. But
  for all other positions allows a resumptive
  pronoun construction, analogous to
• The book that John bought it.
• The tree that John is standing by it.
• The astronaut that John gave him a present.

40
NPAH

• The positions off which you can relativize
  appears to be an implicational hierarchy.

Lang. SUB DO IO OP GEN OCOMP
Arabic
Greek ? ?
Japanese /
Persian ()
41
Noun Phrase Accessibility Hierarchy

• More generally, there seems to be a hierarchy of
  difficulty (or (in)accessibility) in the
  types of relative clauses.
• A language which allows this
• Subj gt Obj gt IO gt OPrep gt Poss gt OComp

42
Noun Phrase Accessibility Hierarchy

• More generally, there seems to be a hierarchy of
  difficulty (or (in)accessibility) in the
  types of relative clauses.
• A language which allows this
• Will also allow these.
• Subj gt Obj gt IO gt OPrep gt Poss gt OComp

43
Noun Phrase Accessibility Hierarchy

• More generally, there seems to be a hierarchy of
  difficulty (or (in)accessibility) in the
  types of relative clauses.
• A language which allows this
• Will also allow these. But not these
• Subj gt Obj gt IO gt OPrep gt Poss gt OComp

44
Relation to L2A?

• Suppose that KoL includes where the target
  language is on the NPAH.
• Do L2ers learn the easy/unmarked/simple relative
  clauses before the others?
• Do L2ers transfer the position of their L1
  first?
• Does a L2ers interlanguage grammar obey this
  typological generalization (if they can
  relativize a particular point on the NPAH, can
  they relativize everything higher too?)?

45
NPAH and L2A?

• Probably The higher something is on the NPAH,
  the easier (faster) it is to learn.
• So, it might be easier to start by teaching
  subject relatives, then object, then indirect
  object, etc. At each step, the difficulty would
  be low.
• But, it might be more efficient to teach the
  (hard) object of a comparisonbecause if L2ers
  interlanguage grammar includes whatever the NPAH
  describes, knowing that OCOMP is possible implies
  that everything (higher) on the NPAH is possible
  too. That is, they might know it without
  instruction. (Same issue as before with the
  phonology)

46
NPAH in L2A

• Very widely studied implicational universal in
  L2Amany people have addressed the question of
  whether the IL obeys the NPAH and whether
  teaching aa marked structure can help.
• Eckman et al. (1989) was about this second
  question

47
Change from pre- to post-testEckman, Bell,
Nelson (1988)
48
Doughty (1991)

• Investigating several issues at once
• Effectiveness of type of instruction
• Meaning oriented
• Rule oriented
• Effectiveness of teaching down the markedness
  hierarchy (teaching a marked structure and
  allowing learner-internal generalization to an
  unmarked structure).

49
Doughty (1991)

• Subjects 20 international students taking
  intensive ESL courses, without much prior
  knowledge of relative clauses. Average length of
  stay in the US was 3.7 months.
• Tasks
• Grammaticality judgment
• Sentence completion

50
Doughty (1991)

• Subjects were pretested, then over two weeks (10
  weekdays) they came in to a computer lab to take
  a language lesson. Then, immediately
  afterwards, subjects were posttested.
• In the language lessons, one of three possible
  things happened
• Subject got the meaning oriented treatment
• Subject got the rule oriented treatment
• Subject got the control treatment

51
Doughty (1991)

• Daily lessons were a text of 5-6 sentences (of a
  two-week long story) containing an relative
  clause formed on the object of a preposition.
• This is the book that I was looking for.
• Recall Noun phrase accessibility hierarchy
• SU gt DO gt IOgt OP gt GEN gt OCOMP

52
Procedure

• Three steps
• Skim
• Reading for understanding (experimental section)
• Scan
• Skim Subjects saw the text for 30 seconds, with
  title, first sentence and last sentence
  highlightedthis is to get the idea of what the
  text is about.

53
Procedure

• Reading for understanding Each sentence
  displayed consecutively at the top of the screen.
  Three different possibilities
• MOG Also saw dictionary help (2m) and semantic
  explanations (referents, synonyms) (2m),
  including relationship between head noun and
  relative pronoun.
• ROG Saw a little animated presentation of
  deriving a OPREP sentence from two sentences
  (This is the book, I was looking for the book,
  This is the book which I was looking for)
• COG Saw each sentence, 2.5 minutes.

54
Procedure

• Scan. Re-scan paragraph in order to be able to
  answer two questions about it, then write out a
  summary (NL).

55
Pretest
S SU do IO OP GE OC
9 -
8 - -
10 - - - - -
13 - - - - -
12 - - - - - -
11 - - - - - -
CoG
S SU do IO OP GE OC
3 - - - -
5 - - - -
21 - - - -
7 - - - - -
2 - - - - -
6 - - - - -
4 - - - - -
1 - - - - - -
S SU do IO OP GE OC
17 - - -
20 - - - - -
15 - - - - -
19 - - - - - -
14 - - - - - -
16 - - - - - -
MOG
ROG
56
Posttest
S SU do IO OP GE OC
9
8
10 - - -
13 - - - -
12 - - - - -
11 - - - - - -
CoG
S SU do IO OP GE OC
3
5
21
7
2 - -
6 - -
4 - - - - -
1 - - - -
S SU do IO OP GE OC
17
20 -
15 - - - -
19 - -
14 - - - - -
16 - - - - -
MOG
ROG
57
Group mean gain scores
58
Results

• Both experimental groups showed strong positive
  effects (Second Language Instruction Does Make a
  Difference).
• The control group did too (simply from exposure)
  but not as dramatic.
• Both types of instruction appear to be equally
  effective with respect to gain in relativization
  ability.
• Comprehension-wise, MOG scored 70.01 vs. ROGs
  43.68 and CoGs 40.64. Significant.
• Subjects improved basically following the NPAH by
  being taught just a marked position.

59
Comments

• Note that
• ROG subjects improved in their ability to
  relativize, yet didnt do so well on the
  comprehension testsmeaning isnt utmost in
  getting the structural rules.
• MOG subjects got the structural properties even
  though not directly instructed in them (meaning
  didnt get in the way).

60
What about markedness-based shortcuts?

• It looks like training them on OPREP successfully
  brought subjects to be able to relativize on
  everything higher (Subj., Dir. Obj., Indir.
  Obj.).
• But mysteriously, many people also seemed to get
  OCOMP by the post-test.
• Interlanguage grammars do seem to obey the
  typological requirements on languages (NPAH).
• Is genitive mis-analyzed in the NPAH typological
  work, given that it seems to be gotten early?

61
Transfer, markedness,

• Do (2002) looked at the NPAH going the other way,
  English?Korean.
• English Relativizes on all 6 positions.
• Korean Relativizes on 5 (not OCOMP)
• Found a very similarpattern to what wesaw from
  Doughtysexperiment.

S SU do IO OP GE
13
14 -
16 - -
29 - - -
31 - - - -
20 - - - - -
62
Transfer, markedness,

• The original question Do was looking at was Do
  English speakers transfer their position on the
  NPAH to the IL Korean?
• But look If English allows all 6 positions, why
  do some of the learners only relativize down to
  DO, some to IO, some to OPREP?
• We havent even reached the question of transfer
  yetit looks like they start over.

63
Subset principle?
A tempting analogy in some cases, parameters
seem to be ranked in terms of how permissive each
setting is.
I
E

• Null subject parameter
• Option (a) Null subjects are permitted.
• Option (b) Null subjects are not permitted.
• Italian option a, English option b.

64
Reminder Subset Principle

• The idea is
• If one has only positive evidence, and
• If parameters are organized in terms of
  permissiveness,
• Then for a parameter setting to be learnable, the
  starting point needs to be the subset setting of
  the parameter.
• The Subset principle says that learners should
  start with the English setting of the null
  subject parameter and move to the Italian setting
  if evidence appears.

I
E
65
Reminder Subset Principle

• The Subset Principle is basically that learners
  are conservativethey only assume a grammar
  sufficient to generate the sentences they hear,
  allowing positive evidence to serve to move them
  to a different parameter setting.
• Applied to L2 Given a choice, the L2er assumes
  a grammatical option that generates a subset of
  the what the alternative generates.
• Does this describe L2A?
• Is this a useful sense of markedness?

66
Subset principle and markedness

• Based on the Subset principle, wed expect the
  unmarked values (in a UG where languages are
  learnable) to be the ones which produce the
  smallest grammars.
• Given that in L1A we dont seem to see any
  misset parameters, we have at least indirect
  evidence that the Subset principle is at work. Is
  there any evidence for it in L2A? Do these NPAH
  results constitute such evidence?

67
Subset vs. Transfer

• The Subset Principle, if it operating, would say
  that L2A starts with all of the defaults, the
  maximally conservative grammar.
• Another, mutually exclusive possibility
  (parameter by parameter, anyway) is that L2A
  starts with the L1 setting.
• This means that for certain pairs of L1 and L2,
  where the L1 has the marked (superset) value and
  L2 has the unmarked (subset) value, only negative
  evidence could move the L2er to the right
  setting.
• Or, some mixture of the two in different areas.

68
NPAH and processing?

• At least a plausible alternative to the NPAH
  results following from the Subset Principle is
  just that relative clauses formed on positions
  lower in the hierarchy are harder to process.
  Consider
• The astronaut
• who IP t met me yesterday SUB
• who IP I VP met t yesterday DO
• who IP I VP gave a book PP to t IO
• who IP I was VP talking PP about t OPREP
• whose house IP I VP like DP t s house GEN
• who IP I am AP brave degP -er thanP than t
  OCOMP

69
NPAH and processing?

• If its about processing, then the reason L2ers
  progress through the hierarchy might be that
  initially they have limited processing
  roomtheyre working too hard at the L2 to be
  able to process such deep extractions.
• Why are they working so hard?
• (Well, maybe L2A is like learning calculus?)

70
NPAH and processing?

• Is the NPAH itself simply a result of processing?
• The NPAH is a typological generalization about
  languages not about the course of acquisition.
• Does Arabic have a lower threshhold for
  processing difficulty than English? Doubtful.
• The NPAH may still be real, still be a markedness
  hierarchy based in something grammatical, but it
  turns out to be confounded by processing.
• So finding evidence of NPAH position transfer is
  very difficult.

71
Subset problems?

• One problem, though, is that many of the
  parameters of variation we think of today dont
  seem to be really in a subset-superset relation.
  So there has to be something else going on in
  these cases anyway.
• V?T
• Yes vSVAO, SAVO
• No SVAO, vSAVO
• Anaphor type
• Monomorphemic vLD, Non-subject
• Polymorphemic LD, vNon-subject

72
Mazurkewich (1984)

• John gave a book to Mary unmarked
• John gave Mary a book. marked
• To whom did John give a book? unmarked?
• Who did John give a book to? marked
• Assuming that the second of each pair is marked,
  Mazurkewich asked about timing of each in L2A.
• But although maybe more languages allow the first
  of each pair than the second, the pied-piping
  example should make us suspicious. Sounds kind of
  stilted for being the unmarked option

73
Mazurkewich (1984)

• French--gtEnglish and Inuktitut--gtEnglish
• French lacks pied-piping and double-object
  constructions.
• Inuktitut is different enough that it is hard to
  find an analog to either the marked or unmarked
  constructions. (or so it is claimed)
• Did the L2ers prefer the unmarked structures?
  Did they acquire them first?

74
Mazurkewich (1984)

• French-L1 beginners do appear to prefer the
  unmarked structures (2-to-1), and the marked
  structures gain ground as L2ers become more
  advanced.
• But French lacks the marked structure did they
  start with the unmarked structure or did they
  start with the structure of their L1?
• As for Inuktitut, they weakly preferred the
  unmarked structures (beginners 77 to 98).
• Not very dramatic, not very convincing.

75
Mazurkewich (1984)

• Worse, on a different task (question the
  italicized phrase), although the French speakers
  showed a moderate preference for unmarked
  (pied-piping) structures, the Inuktitut speakers
  showed a preference for the marked structure.
• However, it could be that the whole experiment
  isnt getting at what we want. The controls
  preferred the marked structure 3 or 4-to-1, so
  these unmarked structures seem to be marked
  from a language-internal perspective. Plus, this
  gives the learner a lot of evidence.

76
Problems so far

• If L1 has an unmarked value for something and
  L2 has a marked value, if the L2er prefers
  (or, better, learns more quickly) the unmarked
  value, it could be either transfer or reverting
  to an unmarked value.
• The actual marked/unmarked set must be
  convincingly chosenmeans nothing if we arent
  actually looking at marked/unmarked.

77
Best test would be

• Find a convincing marked vs. unmarked pair,
• Find an L2 which allows only the marked option,
• Test speakers of an L1 which also only allows the
  marked option,
• and see if L2ers use/accept the unmarked option
  early on.

78
Liceras (1985, 1986)

• Another potential marked/unmarked pair
• Allows Ø comp. (marked English)
• Disallows Ø comp. (unmarked Spanish)
• English?Spanish
• Beginners 49 acceptance of Ø comp.
• Intermediate 25 acceptance.
• Advanced 9 acceptance.
• Looks like transfer (not initial unmarkedness)
  (contra Liceras hypothesis)

79
Schwartz (1993)

• Back to the questions
• How is a L2 acquired?
• Is L2 knowledge like native knowledge?
• Supposing it is, then knowing the rules isnt
  really part of knowing the language.
• Of course, you can learn the rules and
  consciously follow them. But is that knowing
  English?
• Prepositions are things you dont end a sentence
  with.
• Strive to not split your infinitives.
• Dont be so immodest as to say I and John left
  say John and I left instead.
• Impact is not a verb.

80
Schwartz (1993)

• Schwartz distinguishes two kinds of knowledge
• Learned linguistic knowledge
• I want to definitely avoid splitting my
  infinitives.
• Competence
• Who did John laugh after asking whether I spread
  the rumor that bought the coffee?

81
L1A

• UG (the range of possible languages/grammars)
• LAD (a system for getting from the data to the
  particular parameter setting for the target
  languagenot a conscious process, nor available
  to conscious introspection)
• PLD (positive input)
• Would it help the LAD to get rules
  explicitly?(Use do to avoid stranding tense in
  Infl Dont extract an embedded subject out
  from under an overt complementizer You want
  the other spoon.)

82
L2A

• If L1AD cant really use this information, why
  would we necessarily think that the rules we
  learn in French class are in the right form to
  be absorbed by the L2AD, if such a thing
  exists?
• That is L2 has things about it which can only be
  learned with the help of negative evidence (or an
  L2AD). Yet this doesnt guarantee that negative
  evidence will help.

83
How can we tell the difference between LLK and
competence?

• (Well-formulated) parameters have wide-ranging
  effects. For example, verb raising
• X F question cant use do-support.
• Y F adverbs ok between V and Obj.
• Train subjects on X. If they reset the
  parameter, a) they should automatically know Y
  as well, and b) they can use negative evidence.

84
Schwartzs model
KoL
LAD
blah blah blah
85
So why does it seem to be useful to be taught the
rules?

• Perhapsknowing the rules (though it is LLK)
  allows you in a way to generate your own PLD.
  Its that PLD, the output of using the rules,
  which the L2AD can make use of when
  constructing KoL.
• This might explain the apparent truth that
  practicing helps a lot more than just memorizing
  the rules?

86
Krashens Monitor Model

• An early and influential model of second language
  acquisition was the Monitor Model, based on
  five basic hypotheses
• The Acquisition-Learning Hypothesis
• The Monitor Hypothesis
• The Natural Order Hypothesis
• The Input Hypothesis
• The Affective Filter Hypothesis

87
The Acquisition-Learning Hypothesis

• Acquisition and Learning are different.
• Acquisition refers to the (subconscious)
  internalizing of implicit rules, the result of
  meaningful naturalistic interaction using the
  language.
• Learning refers to the conscious process that
  results in knowing about the language, e.g., the
  result of classroom experience with explicit
  rules. (LLK)
• That is, you can learn without acquiring (or
  acquire without learning).
• Krashen hypothesizes that learned and acquired
  rules are stored differently one cannot
  eventually be converted into the other they are
  simply different.
• Perhaps, or maybe the speculation on the previous
  slide was right.

88
The Natural Order Hypothesis

• Acquisition proceeds in a natural order (i.e.
  the order of morpheme acquisition discussed
  earlier).
• This says nothing about learning, only
  acquisition.
• Also Krashens actual hypothesis is based on
  post-hoc analysis of the order L2er do seem to
  acquire these morphemestheres no underlying
  theoretical machinery. Thats not to say that
  there couldnt be some, of course.

89
The Monitor Hypothesis

• A linguistic expression originates in the system
  of acquired knowledge, but prior to output a
  Monitor checks it against consciously known
  rules and may modify the expression before it is
  uttered.

Learned competence (the Monitor)
Acquired competence
output
90
The Monitor Hypothesis

• For the Monitor to work, you need to
• Be able to focus on the form (time, attention)
• Know the rule
• So, under pressure (e.g., time pressure), the
  Monitor may not be operating

Learned competence (the Monitor)
Acquired competence
output
91
The Monitor Hypothesis

• The Monitor would probably be the place where
  things like dont split infinitives and dont
  end a sentence with a preposition live as well.

Learned competence (the Monitor)
Acquired competence
output
92
The Input Hypothesis

• The Input Hypothesis draws on the Natural Order
  Hypothesis the idea is that there is a natural
  order of acquisition, but in order to advance
  from one step to the next, a learner needs to get
  comprehensible input, input which provides
  evidence for the stage one level past the
  learners current level. The idea is that only
  this level of input is useful for the advancement
  of acquisition.

93
The Input Hypothesis

• Krashens view on acquisition Speaking does not
  cause acquisition, it is the result of
  acquisition, having built competence on the basis
  of comprehensible input.
• If input is at the right level and comes in
  sufficient quantity, the necessary grammar is
  automatically acquired.
• The language teachers main role, then, is to
  provide adequate amounts of comprehensible input
  for the language learners.
• Lets stick to the model and not the politics
  here

94
Input ? intake

• Inuktitutinput
• Qasuiirsarvigssarsingitluinarnarpuq
• Someone did not find a completely suitable
  resting place.
• tired cause.be suitable not
  someoneQasu-iir-sar-vig-ssar-si-ngit-luinar-nar-p
  uq not place.for find completely
  3sg

95
Input ? intake

• After three long nights of gripning, John finally
  found his slipwoggle.
• Knowing so much about the rest of the sentence
  can tell us quite a bit about the parts we dont
  know yet. (Slipwoggle is a noun, a possessible
  thing to gripen(?) is a verb, a process that one
  can perform over an extended period of time). We
  can then make use of this to build our language
  knowledge (here, vocabulary).

96
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.

97
What makes input into intake?

• Apperception Recognizing the gap between what
  L2er 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) for processing.
• Output Forcing a structural hypothesis,
  elsewhere used to shape input into a form useful
  for intake.

98
Input ? apperception

• Some input is apperceived, some isnt.
• That which isnt is thought of as blocked by
  various filters
• Time pressure
• Frequency non-extremes
• Affective (status, motivation, attitude, )
• Prior knowledge (grounding, analyzability)
• Salience (drawing attention)

99
The Affective Filter Hypothesis

• Another aspect of the need for comprehensible
  input is that it must be let in by the learner.
  Various affective factors like motivation,
  anxiety, can block input and keep it from
  effectively producing acquisition.

100
The overall model

• Although Krashens Monitor Model suffers from a
  lack of specific testable details, it has had a
  significant impact on L2A research, and has an
  intuitive appeal.

101
An interesting idea(courtesy of Carol Neidle)

• If you were to learn French, you would be taught
  conjugations of regular and irregular verbs.
  Regular -er verbs have a pattern that looks like
  this
• Infinitive donner give
• 1sg je donne 1pl nous donnons
• 2sg tu donnes 2pl vous donnez
• 3sg il donne 3pl ils donnent

102
Some French irregulars

• Infinitive donner give
• 1sg je donne 1pl nous donnons
• 2sg tu donnes 2pl vous donnez
• 3sg il donne 3pl ils donnent
• Another class of verbs including acheter buy is
  classified as irregular, because the vowel
  quality changes through the paradigm.
• Infinitive ceder yield
• 1sg je cède 1pl nous cédons
• 2sg tu cèdes 2pl vous cédez
• 3sg il cède 3pl ils cèdent

103
Some French irregulars

• Infinitive donner give
• 1sg je donne 1pl nous donnons
• 2sg tu donnes 2pl vous donnez
• 3sg il donne 3pl ils donnent
• The way its usually taught, you just have to
  memorize that in the nous and vous form you have
  é and in the others you have è.
• Infinitive ceder yield
• 1sg je cète 1pl nous cédons
• 2sg tu cètes 2pl vous cédez
• 3sg il cète 3pl ils cèdent

104
Some French irregulars

• However, the pattern makes perfect phonological
  sense in Frenchif you have a closed syllable
  (CVC), you get è, otherwise you get é.
• s?d (cède) se.de (cédez)
• So why is this considered irregular?
• Because in English, you think of the sounds in
  cédez as sed.de, due to the rules of English
  phonology.
• Infinitive ceder yield
• 1sg je cède 1pl nous cédons
• 2sg tu cèdes 2pl vous cédez
• 3sg il cède 3pl ils cèdent

105
Some French irregulars

• Because in English, you think of the sounds in
  cédez as sed.de, due to the rules of English
  phonology.
• Since in all of these cases, English phonology
  would have closed syllables, theres no
  generalization to be drawnsometimes closed
  syllables have é and sometimes they have è.
• What could we do?
• Infinitive ceder yield
• 1sg je cède sed 1pl nous cédons sed.dõ
• 2sg tu cèdes sed 2pl vous cédez sed.de
• 3sg il cède sed 3pl ils cèdent sed

106
Some French irregulars

• If people are really built for language and are
  able to pick up language implicitly (as seems to
  be the case from everything weve been looking
  at), then if people are provided with the right
  linguistic data, they will more or less
  automatically learn the generalization.
• Problem is The English filter on the French data
  is obscuring the pattern, and hiding the
  generalization.
• Infinitive ceder yield
• 1sg je cède sed 1pl nous cédons sed.dõ
• 2sg tu cèdes sed 2pl vous cédez sed.de
• 3sg il cède sed 3pl ils cèdent sed

107
Some French irregulars

• Something to try Provide people with the right
  data, see if they pick up the pronunciation.
  Perhaps exaggerate syllabification. (attention)
  Perhaps try to instill this aspect of the
  phonology first.
• Et voilà. Perhaps this will make these
  irregulars as easy to learn as regulars!
• The downside I have no idea if this would
  actually work.
• Infinitive ceder yield
• 1sg je cède sed 1pl nous cédons sedõ
• 2sg tu cèdes sed 2pl vous cédez sede
• 3sg il cède sed 3pl ils cèdent sed

108
Incomprehensible input

• So this is another way in which input might be
  incomprehensiblenot that it is inherently
  incomprehensible (i.e. not that it would be
  incomprehensible to a L1er), but that the prism
  of the L1 is getting in the way of seeing the
  data for what it really is.

109
Some critiques on record re the Monitor Model

• Are acquired and learned rules really stored so
  separately that they cannot interact? Gass
  Selinkers textbook points out that it is
  counterintuitive to hypothesize that nothing
  learned in a formal situation can be a candidate
  for fluent, unconscious speech.
• But this doesnt seem to be a very persuasive
  objectionFirst, counterintuitiveness is not an
  argument. Second, even if formal, learned rules
  are stored completely separately, nothing
  prevents the use of these rules in production
  from providing input to the acquisition system,
  providing an indirect conversion of knowledge.

110
Some critiques on record re the Monitor Model

• GS also observe (attributing the objection to
  Gregg) that in Krashens model, the Monitor only
  affects output (speech, writing), but anecdotal
  evidence for use of formally learned rules in
  decoding heard utterances is easy to come by.
• Perhaps this is true of Krashens particular
  statement, but there seems to be no need to toss
  out all aspects of his hypotheses based on an
  oversight of this sortit seems easily repairable
  by extending the model to allow learned
  competence to also monitor input and provide
  input to the acquired competence.
• Of course, Krashen may have meant it, but thats
  irrelevant. Hes one guy with good ideas and bad
  ideas like anyone.

111
Some critiques on record re the Monitor Model

• Most of the objections to the Monitor Model focus
  on the impreciseness of the hypotheses although
  Krashen may not have treated them this way, they
  clearly must be used only as a starting point, a
  way to think about the process of L2A.
• Further research in this direction needs to be
  focused on trying to refine the existing
  hypotheses to yield testable (falsifiable)
  hypotheses with a higher degree of specificity.

112
?

• ? ?
• ?
• ? ?
• ? ?
• ?
• ?