Week 14b. Wrapping up

1
CAS LX 400Second Language Acquisition

• Week 14b. Wrapping up

2
Some things we know about native languages

• Language involves vast amounts of complex
  knowledge, generally untaught, but shared between
  native speakers of the same language/dialect, an
  apparently also mostly shared across languages.
  Universal Principles.
• Languages differ in certain details, but at one
  level, range of variation appears to be highly
  limited. Parameters. Languages have a shape.
• Languages also have certain cultural aspects,
  (seemingly) non-universal, taught.

3
Some things we know about native languages

• The differences between knowing one language and
  another are primarily knowing
• Different vocabulary
• Different roots
• Different morphology and rules of morphological
  combination
• Different parameter settings (perhaps in the
  lexicon of the language)
• Does the language allow null subjects?
• Does the verb move to T?
• Does the language allow complex onsets in its
  syllables?
• Different cultural conventions
• Standard way to refuse, an invitation, apologize,
  
• Idiomatic meanings for words and word groups
• Cultural literacy for metaphors and allusions
• Prescriptive rules

4
Whats the goal of second language acquisition?

• Certainly, no single goal.
• To become fluent, near-native (to approximate a
  native speaker as closely as possible).
• To become competent, able to communicate in the
  target language.
• To satisfy the language requirement in order to
  graduate and get a high-paying job in your
  uncles Wall Street firm.
• To impress potential spouses.

5
Whats the best we can hope for?

• Focusing on people whose goal is near-nativeness,
  what should their target be?
• Same knowledge in TL as a monolingual speaker of
  that language has?
• Same knowledge of TL and L1 as a simultaneous
  bilingual of the two languages has?
• Are these different?
• If not, it doesnt matter.
• If so, wed guess the latter.

6
Humans are language machines

• Kids seem to be built to learn language.
• They learn a system which is more complex than
  the data they receive.
• They learn it quickly.
• They appear to expend very little conscious
  effort in this pursuit.
• They reach a very consistent end-state compared
  to that of other learners.
• They progress through similar stages within and
  across languages.

7
Humans are language machines

• Pidgin/creole results also suggest some kind of
  bioprogram aiding kids in language learning.
• Creoles are the result of innovation from
  impoverished input
• probably like regular L1 acquisition anyway
• Innovations across creoles are very similar
• Articles 3-way distinction (spec.def.,
  spec.indef., nonspec.). Tense Anterior (stative,
  action distinction), Modality Irrealis (future,
  conditionals), Aspect Nonpunctual (progressive,
  iterative, durative). Two Cs (realized vs.
  hypothetical).

8
Adult L2A

• Measured against either monolingual native
  speakers or simultaneous bilinguals, adults
  learning a second language seem to share very few
  of these propertiesit seems like adults are not
  built to learn languages.
• Appears to be arduous
• Incomplete success
• Fossilization

9
Modeling the humancapacity for language

• UG provides the parameters and contains the
  grammatical system that makes use of them.
• LAD sets the parameters based on the PLD.
  Responsible for getting language to kids.

LAD
UG
PLD
Subjacency
NPAH
10
L2A

• Perhaps the LAD operates in L1A but not in adult
  L2A, that the language input needs to find its
  way into the interlanguage some other way.

intake
LAD
UG
Subjacency
NPAH
11
Critical period

• Lenneberg (1967). Critical periods are rampant in
  the natural world.
• CP for developing binocular vision in macaque
  monkeys, cats.
• CP for imprinting in birds
• Delay in cataract surgery can fail to yield
  sight.
• And in language-related domains too
• Genie, kept from language input until 137
• Young kids can recover from CNS damage in ways
  adults seem not able to.

12
Critical period

• If exists, best candidate for cause is brain
  development.
• Lateralization? Maybe, but probably finished too
  early.
• Myelinization (limits plasticity)? Maybe, but
  probably finished too late. But maybe.
• In the model of acquisition, what goes away?
• LAD?
• Plasticity in possible language knowledge (locked
  in place)?

13
Critical period

• Johnson and Newport. Found negative correlation
  between age of initial exposure to language and
  eventual performance. Tested subjects judgments
  concerning violations of Subjacency (limits
  possible wh-questions, putative universal
  principle). Rapid drop-off of performance after
  initial age around 14.
• White and Genesee, Birdsong cite small number of
  late learners who do seem to reach a level where
  they are indistinguishable from native speakers.
• So, it seems like there is at least a sensitive
  period, but certain people (who work hard, care a
  lot?) can overcome the obstacle.

14
Natural order

• Roughly at least, L2ers seem to acquire the L2
  along the same trajectory as one another.
• Case and word order before is and are, later
  would, later have and -en.
• There seems to be some kind of natural order of
  acquisition.
• How might we understand this in terms of that UG
  picture from before? Any ideas?

15
UG access and transfer

• To what extent do second language learners know
  what languages are like? (Do they still know
  what all the possibilities are?)
• To what extent do second language learners assume
  that the language theyre learning is like the
  language they already know?

16
Markedness and what languages are like

• Typological universals reduce the number of
  possible languages.
• Marked implies unmarked
• having a dual implies having a plural
• having purple implies having green
• having wh-inversion implies having wh-fronting
• having yes-no inversion implies having
  wh-inversion
• being able to form relatives on OPREP implies
  being able to form relatives on IO

17
Markedness and what languages are like

• Eckman, Moravcsik, Wirth (1989).
• J/K/T?E. All wh-fronted some had wh-inversion
  (wh-inv?wh-fronting). Some yn-inv, all had
  wh-inv. Some other (wh-inv). (yn-inv?wh-inv).
• IL seems to obey typological universalsits a
  language in the relevant sense.
• Markedness Differential Hypothesis (Eckman)
  Difficulty in learning area of L2 from L1 if they
  differ and L2 version is more marked.
• Some evidence that teaching marked structures is
  hard, but gives you unmarked structures for free.

18
Markedness and what languages are like

• Verb classes (Vendler) Achievement,
  accomplishment, activity, state.
• Perfective appears on verb class scale in
  opposite order as imperfective (Spanish as L2).
• Past perfectiveachievement lt accomplishment lt
  activity lt state
• Past imperfectivestate lt activity lt
  accomplishment lt achievement

19
Markedness and what languages are like

• Sonority hierarchy
• a gt i gt r gt l gt n gt s gt t
• Syllables as sonority waves languages differ on
  steepness requirements between margin and
  nucleus.
• Most evidence that we have so far points to a big
  role for transfer in phonological parameters and
  not a lot of parameter resetting.
• Yet, the evidence in the phonology might be more
  readily available.

20
Bilingual properties

• Fluent bilinguals conversing tend to code-switch
  or code-mix.
• Where languages can be switched inside a sentence
  seems to be constrained.
• Equivalence constraint where languages map
  onto one another.
• Free morpheme constraint Allowed where cutting
  there doesnt leave any bound morphemes.

21
Code-mixing

• When does code-switching/mixing happen? Various
  functions
• Quotations of a speaker of the mixed-to language
• Habitual interjections
• Reiteration/clarification
• Topic/comment differentiation
• Social distance/authority
• Making distinctions not available in NL

22
Code-mixing

• MacSwan 1999 Two pools of lexical items,
  combined by the syntactic computational system.
  Code mixing picking some of the words of each
  sentence from each lexicon. Only requirement is
  that they fit togetherif one language requires
  agreement between items, agreement must be there.
• Spanish negative no a clitic attaching to
  following verb, so cant code mix from Spanish to
  anything else after no. El no wants to go.
• You cant double agreement He doesnt quiere
  ir.
• Greek (3 genders) hard to mix with Spanish and
  Catalan (2 genders) whenever agreement causes
  conflict.

23
UG access and transfer

• Meisel (1997) L2A and L1A have different
  sequences (negation).
• Flynn (1996) J?E learners can
• Set head parameter (Abundant evidence).
• Obey Subjacency (Universal constraint).
• Vs. Johnson Newport (1991) adult C?E learners
  cant??
• Kanno (1996) E?J learners can
• Obey ECP (new context, but universal constraint).

24
UG access and transfer

• White (1991). Child L2ers can be taught that
  English disallows SVAO but they forget within a
  year. Doesnt correlate with SAVO. Trahey (1996)
  (flooding) same failure to cluster.
• Hawkins et al. (1993). E?F 1) NegV a unit, 2)
  SVAO via HNP shift. Faking French.

25
UG access and transfer

• White (1985, 1986) S?E vs. F?E. Allowability of
  VS about the same, S?E accepted more missing
  subjects.
• MacLaughlin (1998) Two parameters of anaphor
  binding. Moving from , to , shows
  evidence of , for some learners (others
  perhaps went through ,).
• Option made available by UG (parameter setting in
  neither NL nor TL attested in the IL).

26
UG access and transfer

• Prévost White (1999, 2000) L2 E, L2 G found
  no nonfinite verbs pronounced as finite, but
  plenty of finite verbs pronounced as nonfinite.

27
Conclusions?

• LAD probably atrophied (critical period) Meisel
  1997.
• Universal constraints (also active in L1)
  constrain ILwould be true even if we were just
  talking about speaking L1 with L2 words (Flynn
  1996, Kanno 1996)
• L2 learners (even kids) dont seem to set the
  verb movement or null subject parameters for the
  target language (predicted clustering not
  observed) (White, Trahey, Hawkins et al.).
• Parameters of binding theory if correctly
  analyzed do seem to be being reset. The one piece
  of positive evidence weve got.

28
VYS and development

• Vainikka Young-Scholten L2ers build up their
  syntactic trees from the bottom start with a
  non-complex VP only, transfer head parameter
  (comparing K/T L1 with I/S L1). Then, TP, AgrP,
  CP, until full tree.
• VP stage, very few T elements, no C elements (no
  embedded clauses, fronted non-subject
  wh-phrases). Predominantly neg-V and adv-V
  orders.
• TP stage, modals, auxes, optional verb movement.
• AgrP stage, like TP stage but with agreement
  paradigm acquired.
• CP embedded clauses, proper wh-movement.
• Paradis et al. (1998) AgrP seems to come before
  TP in child L2A E?F.

29
ESF project

• Perdue Klein (1992) Three basic learner
  varieties (based on production).
• Nominal Utterance Organization
• Unconnected nounsmissing structuring power of
  verb
• Infinite Utterance Organization
• Verbs prevalent. No distinction between finite
  and nonfinite verbs. Limited number of patterns.
  Pragmatic mode? (Controller first, new
  information last)
• Finite Utterance Organization
• Distinguishes finite nonfinite
• Vs. avoidance? Productions vs. lab and POS.

30
Effects of language in use

• In discourse, information flows. Some information
  is new, some is known, and this is often
  linguistically encoded (e.g. pronouns only for
  old information).
• Do L2ers use language in the context correctly?
  (Like a target speaker)

31
Effects of language in use

• Languages seem to be able to be split into topic
  prominent and subject prominent languages
  (perhaps simply a parameter), based on whether
  the subject or the topic has the most prominence
  in the structure of a sentence.
• Givón and pragmatic mode (topic-comment) vs.
  later syntactic mode (target like).
• Universal topic prominent stage? (Fuller Gundel
  1987, Givón)
• Initial experiments werent very good Jin 1994
  shows that transfer seems to play the biggest
  roleL2 Chinese isnt easy.
• Syntax and pragmatics orthogonal?

32
Ge (Huebner 1983)

• Ge used is(a) to mark the boundary between topic
  and comment. Later is(a) disappeared and then
  reappeared just in the contexts in which English
  would have be.
• Ges use of da was sensitive to topichood (and
  other things) for a while until Ge landed on
  English-like usage.
• Grammatical form preceded correct usage in
  context.

33
Interlanguage pragmatics

• Cultures differ on when and how speech acts
  (apology, refusal, etc.) are performed.
• Usually learned late, after other grammatical
  competence is fairly well-developed.
• Important for interpersonal relationshipsavoiding
  the appearance of rudeness or obsequiousness.
• Transfer of cultural speech act norms seems to
  depend on the perception of distance between the
  NL and TL (noticing the difference).

34
How is L2 acquisition done?

• McLaughlin suppose mind Apple (1MHz
  computer with 48K RAM).
• Conscious tasks require attention, attention
  takes resources. Practice makes automatic,
  attention-free. When under conscious control,
  processes are flexible, can be applied to novel
  situations. Once automatic, hard to suppress or
  alter. Fossilization.
• McL automaticization causing restructuring in
  a pretty nonspecific way, threatens fossilization
  story. A crucial problemcurrently hopelessly
  vague.

35
Input vs. intake

• Learner needs comprehensible input (something
  that can be analyzed in terms of knowledge
  already acquired) to advance.
• Bardovi-Harlig (1995) and aspect students with
  prerequisites to pluperfect in reverse order
  reports (simple past, reverse order reports)
  benefited from instruction. Others didnt.
• Intake is input used in grammar building.

36
Input vs. intake

• For input to become intake, attention to form is
  required (VanPatten), attention to form competes
  with attention to content. Given a choice,
  content wins, so most meaningless morphology is
  least likely to be noticedslow to learn.
• Finding semantic roles MacWhinney Bates
  competition model (cues word order, case
  marking, agreement probably used in L1 ambiguity
  resolution, also in L2?).
• Learning strategiesattention under conscious
  control? (but OMalley and Chamot 1990 explored,
  looking for successful learning strategies and
  teaching them as a skill prior to
  instructionfound only marginal effect)

37
Input to intake

• Apperception (noticing the gap)
• Blocked by filters (time pressure, mid-range
  frequency, motivation, )
• Comprehensibility (meaning or structure
  discernible)
• Foreigner talk (simplified sort of)

38
Input to intake

• Attention (focusing on aspect of language to be
  learned)
• Negotiation for meaning (helps focus on
  non-native-like aspects of learner language)
• Output (forces a structural hypothesis)
• Even with no real analysis you can often
  comprehend the gist of the conversation.
• To say something, you need a syntax, forced
  choice.
• Interactors (and to some extent observers) had
  advantage over non-interactors (Mackey 1999)

39
Input to intake

• Doughty (1991) ESL, Meaning vs. form instruction
  vs. control, testing RC formation. Experimental
  groups strong positive effect on ability to
  relativize meaning group better on
  comprehension.
• Dissociated meaning from structureROG got the
  structure and not the meaning.

40
Input to intake

• For intake to work (in any kind of automatic
  way), the data must be available. But the L1 can
  potentially filter out useful information.
• Infants start with but lose the ability to
  distinguish non-native contrasts.
• French irregulars cédez vs. cède.
• Phonological features, distinctions, l/r in
  Mandarin vs. Japanese geminates in E?J.

41
Language attrition

• L1 attritionaltering L1 parameter settings?
• Null subjects Italian speakers immersed in
  English will sometime produce/accept overt
  subjects where monolinguals would not. Broadening
  the contexts in which they can use overt pronouns
  (not forgetting how to use null subjects).

42
?

• ? ?
• ?
• ? ?
• ? ?
• ?
• ?