Criterial Features and the CASP Model of SLA - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

1 / 100
About This Presentation
Title:

Criterial Features and the CASP Model of SLA

Description:

Criterial Features and the CASP Model of SLA John A. Hawkins Department of Linguistics, UC Davis Acknowledgments The findings reported here are based on joint work ... – PowerPoint PPT presentation

Number of Views:193
Avg rating:3.0/5.0
Slides: 101
Provided by: jhaw150
Category:
Tags: casp | sla | criterial | features | model | work

less

Transcript and Presenter's Notes

Title: Criterial Features and the CASP Model of SLA


1
  • Criterial Features and the CASP Model of
    SLA
  • John A. Hawkins
  • Department of Linguistics, UC Davis

2
  • From 2005-2011 I co-directed a research program
    on second language learning at Cambridge
    University (the English Profile Programme) with
    three components
  • (a) Cambridge Learner Corpus CLC 40 million
    words of written English from learners around the
    world
  • (b) Computational techniques CLC was first
    searchable lexically, with 76 error codes
    subsequently tagged for parts of speech and
    parsed using an automatic parser, RASP, Briscoe
    et al 2006
  • (c) New research methodology designed to yield
    practical benefits for learning/teaching/assessmen
    t, and to make a theoretical contribution to SLA.

3
  • The key theoretical and methodological
    innovations include
  • (i) the concept of criterial features, as a means
    of distinguishing levels of proficiency in the
    learning of a second language
  • (ii) the development of a general learning model,
    CASP (complex adaptive system principles of
    SLA) informed by the criterial features of the
    CLC and by other empirical studies in the
    literature.
  • These two innovations, especially CASP, were
    developed on the basis of joint work with my
    principal collaborator, Luna Filipovic (then
    Cambridge, now University of East Anglia).
    Further assistance from members of the Cambridge
    team is recognized in the Acknowledgements at the
    end of this talk.

4
  • Criterial features are properties of learners
    English that are distinctive and characteristic
    of L2 proficiency at the different levels. The
    CLC scripts have been graded by Cambridge
    examiners and assigned grades A-F at each of six
    levels of proficiency, following the Common
    European Framework of Reference (CEFR), see the
    Council of Europe 2001
  • Levels C2 Mastery CPE
  • C1 Effective Operational Proficiency CAE
  • B2 Vantage FCE
  • B1 Threshold PET
  • A2 Waystage KET
  • A1 Breakthrough
  • When searching for criterial differences
    between levels we focussed on the scripts of
    students who had achieved passing grades of A-C
    at each level.

5
  • The questions that motivated this research are
  • 1) how much of the grammar and lexicon of
    English do learners actually know and/or
    produce at each of these CEFR levels?
  • 2) what empirical patterns and principles are
    there in these developing second language stages
    of English? and
  • 3) what are the practical benefits, for
    learning, teaching and assessment of gathering
    this information?

6
  • Electronic corpora of learner English make it
    possible for us to answer these questions.
  • The CLC is the biggest learner corpus of
    English or of any language. It gives us empirical
    evidence for developmental stages in the learning
    of new constructions, words and word meanings.
  • It gives us quantitative data on learner errors
    in syntax, morpho-syntax and lexical choice.
  • It was originally searchable only lexically,
    in conjunction with the error codes. Subsequently
    it has been tagged and parsed using the automatic
    parser, RASP.

7
  • Sample Error Codes in the CLC
  • RN Replace noun Have a good travel
    (journey)
  • RV Replace verb I existed last weekend in
    London

  • (spent)
  • MD Missing determiner I spoke to President
    (the)
  • I have car
    (a)
  • AGV Verb agreement error The three birds is
    singing

  • (are)
  • IV Incorrect Verb Inflection I spended last
    week in London (spent)
  • FJ Wrong Adjective Form The situation got
    worst (worse)
  • UQ Unnecessary Quantifier A little bit
    quite common (quite common)
  • DY Derivation of Adverb It happened
    fastly (fast)

8
  • Briscoes RASP (Robust Accurate Statistical
    Parser)
  • identifies parts of speech (PoS)
    probabilistically tagging
  • generates a parse forest representation
    containing all possible subanalyses with
    associated probabilities
  • weighted Grammatical Relations yielded by the
    n-best parses of the input.

9
(No Transcript)
10
  • Criterial features can be found in all areas
    of English syntax, morphology, phonology, the
    lexicon, semantics, and discourse. They
    distinguish higher proficiency levels from lower
    levels in an efficient way.
  • In this talk some of these features are
    illustrated, as is the theoretical learning model
    derived from them, CASP.

11
  • An analogy
  • Languages change over time, and when historians
    of English examine Old English, Middle English
    and Early Modern English, they focus on important
    differences between these stages, not on what
    stayed the same. Similarly in a learning context,
    we are interested in changes from one level to
    another.

12
  • There are different types of criterial features.
    Here we focus on just two
  • Positive Criterial Features
  • These refer to positive, i.e. correct,
    linguistic properties of English that have been
    acquired at a certain L2 level and that generally
    persist at all higher levels. A property P (e.g.
    a new construction type) acquired at B2 may
    differentiate that level and higher levels from
    A1, A2, B1 and will be criterial for the
    former. Or P may be acquired at C2 and
    differentiate this level from all lower levels.

13
  • Negative Criterial Features
  • These are incorrect properties of English, or
    errors, that occur at a certain level or levels
    and with a characteristic frequency. Both the
    presence versus absence of the errors, and
    especially their frequency (the "error
    bandwidth"), can be criterial for the level(s).

14
  • Examples of Positive Criterial Features
  • (from Hawkins Filipovic 2012 and using data
    from the CLC)
  • The A levels (A1 and A2)
  • Simple intransitive clauses (NP-V) and the
    slightly more complex transitive (NP-V-NP)
    sentence types are present from the beginning
  • He went. (NP-V) A1
  • He loved her. (NP-V-NP) A1

15
  • Modal auxiliary verbs like may, might, can and
    must appear first at A1 or A2, but only in some
    of their senses.
  • Can is first attested in the PERMISSION sense at
    A1 and in the POSSIBILITY sense at A2
  •  
  • And if you want, you can bring pencils or pens.
    (PERMISSION) A1
  • In this magazine you can see all the new C.D.s
    and all the dates of the concerts. (POSSIBILITY)
    A2

16
  • Noun Phrase sequences of Pronoun plus Infinitive
    are found at A2
  • something to eat A2
  • nothing to do A2
  • as are postnominal modifiers with participial
    ed
  • beautiful paintings painted by famous
    Iranian painters A2

17
  • Lexical verbs appearing at the A levels are
    typically among the most basic and frequent verbs
    of English they appear first in their most basic
    and frequent senses.
  • Verbs attested at A1 include
  • catch, eat, give, put, take and walk

18
  • New lexical verbs appearing at A2 include
  • break, cut, hit, push, stand, and fall
  • again typically in their most basic and literal
    senses. For break this includes its primary
    physical sense
  •  
  • I broke a beautiful glass. A2
  •  
  • for cut it includes the following example in its
    primary sense
  • First I cut the cake with my mother. A2

19
  • The B Levels (B1 and B2)
  • The new features at B1 involve more complex
  • syntax, e.g. an Object Control structure such
    as
  • I ordered him to gather my men to the hall
    B1
  • him is both the object of ordered and the logical
  • subject of gather here.
  • This is a criterial construction for B1 and
    higher
  • levels which distinguishes them from the A
    levels.

20
  • Structures like the following with finite or
    non-finite subordinate clauses and movement of
    the WH-word (how, where, etc) to the front of its
    clause are also first attested at B1
  • I dont know how I could have done it B1
  • I did not know where to look for it B1

21
  • And postnominal modifiers in participial ing
    become productive at B1
  • I received your mail asking for the sales
    report B1

22
  • Structures with a finite subordinate clause
    positioned to the right of predicates like is
    true and seems with a subject it are also
    criterial for B1 and higher levels
  • Its true that I dont need a ring to make me
    remember you
  • B1
  •  i.e. so-called Extraposition structures

23
  • A large number of new lexical verbs appear for
    the first time at B1 including
  • divide, fit, grab, spill, stick and tear
  • And the meanings of the verbs that appeared
    first at A1 and A2 begin to expand from their
    basic senses.

24
  • break appears for the first time in the
    extended sense of INTERRUPT at B1
  •  
  • At last I managed to break the routine of the
    city B1

25
  • Constructions that are criterial for B2 and
  • higher levels include secondary predications
  • go and paint the houses yellow and blue
    B2
  •  
  • with yellow and blue predicated of the direct
    object
  • houses

26
  • Extraposition structures with a non-finite
    subordinate clause positioned to the right of its
    predicate are B2
  • It would be helpful to work in your group as
    well B2

27
  • And so-called Pseudocleft structures with an
    initial what functioning as subject of its verb
  • What fascinated me was that I was able to lie on
    the sea surface
  • B2

28
  • Subject-to-Subject Raising constructions
    appear first at B2 with most of the higher verbs
    and adjectives that trigger this rule, for
    example prove
  •  
  • The car has proved to be one of the most
    important inventions of our century
    B2
  • Similar examples are found at B2 with other
    raising verbs and adjectives (The car happened to
    be , The car appeared to be , The car turned
    out to be , The car is likely to be , etc)

29
  • New lexical verbs at B2 include
  • acquire, capture, drag, rush, spread,swallow
  • and new meanings and uses are attested for the
    verbs that appeared earlier.

30
  • For break, first attested at A2, these include
    new collocations such as break a promise or break
    the law
  •  
  •   For cut, also an A2 verb, they include new
    meanings at B2 such as REDUCE in cut the cost

31
  • The C Levels (C1 and C2)
  • Subject-to-Object Raising constructions with
    the verb believe appear first at C1 and are
    criterial for the C levels
  •  
  • I believe her to be this countrys best
    representative C1
  •  

32
  • Passivized Subject-to-Object Raising
    constructions such as the following with assumed
    are also criterial for C1
  • the low cost of membership and entry was assumed
    to be an advantage. C1

33
  • Sequences of two prenominal s genitives are
    found at C1
  • in the brides familys house C1
  • Structurally
  • in the brides familys house

34
  • New lexical verbs appearing first at C1 include
  • accumulate, boast, quote, reassure, shape and
    stain
  • along with new meaning possibilities for the
    verbs already introduced. E.g. break appears
    first in the idiomatic sense of break the bank at
    C1.

35
  • New features appearing at C2 include less common
    Subject-to-Object Raising constructions with
    higher predicates such as presume, declare and
    remember
  •  
  • He presumed work to be the way to live
    C2

36
  • New lexical verbs at C2 include
  • stagger, sway, limp, saunter, raid,squander
  • New meanings for break at C2 include original
    figurative senses such as the attested break the
    wall that surrounds him.

37
  • Negative Criterial Features
  • One major distinguishing feature of the C levels
    can be seen in the low frequencies for negative
    features or error types such as those
    illustrated above.
  • There are significant improvements in ALL of the
    syntactic and morpho-syntactic error types at the
    C levels.

38
  • By contrast, at the B levels improvements are
    relatively modest, and for many error types the
    scores actually get worse, especially at B2,
    before they get better again at C1.

39
  • The error codes involve morpho-syntactic errors
    of inflection, derivation and grammatical form,
    syntactic errors of omission, positioning and
    co-occurrence, and errors of appropriate lexical
    choice. It is clear that learners at the C levels
    are increasingly mastering these rules of
    English, whereas B-level learners are not (see
    Hawkins Filipovic 2012 for details).

40
  • We must now ask WHY do we see these patterns in
    the data and why do we see the criterial features
    changing the way they do at the different levels?
    In particular, WHAT is it about the features of
    the higher proficiency levels that makes them
    late acquired rather than early?

41
  • It cannot simply be that learners are imitating
    the words and constructions they are explicitly
    taught in their textbooks.
  • First, because there are many different
    textbooks and teaching methods around the world.
  • But secondly because learners learn more than
    they are explicitly taught, from their reading
    materials, papers, magazines, movies, TV,
    conversations, etc.
  • I.e. second language learning shares many
    similarities with first language learning, but
    not all obviously.

42
  • For example, more frequently occurring words and
    constructions are learned before less frequent
    ones,
  • and simpler words, constructions and meanings
    are learned before more complex ones,
  • in both first and second language acquisition.

43
  • E.g. learning English nouns and verbs with high
    frequencies of use is easier than learning those
    with lower frequencies, because they are
    encountered more frequently (greater exposure)
  • frequent lexical items are overrepresented at
    first in L2 English, moving gradually to L1
    English norms (see Hawkins Buttery 2009,
    Hawkins Filipovic 2012)

44
  • The constructions of English that are learned
    earliest are those that occur most frequently in
    the input, as reflected in e.g. the British
    National Corpus. This could be established by
    comparing the CLC with the British National
    Corpus (BNC), see Williams (2007).

45
  • The new constructions that are criterial for A2,
    B1 and B2, in Williams (2007) data, appear to be
    learned in direct proportion to their frequency
    in the input, as reflected in the BNC. The more
    exposure, the earlier the acquisition and the
    easier the learning.
  • This is shown in Tables 1, 2 and 3. Table 1 lists
    the new construction types found, for example, at
    B1. Tables 2 and 3 give the frequency
    correlations between the CLC and the BNC for the
    different levels.

46
  • Table 1 New B1 Verb Co-occurrence Frames
  • NP-V-NP-NP She asked him his name
  • NP-V-VPinfin (Wh-move) He explained how to do
    it
  • NP-V-NP-V(ing) (Obj Control) I caught him
    stealing
  • NP-V-NP-PP (Pto) (Subtype Dative Movement) He
    gave a big kiss to his mother
  • NP-V-NP-(to be)-NP (Subj to Obj Raising) I found
    him (to be) a good doctor
  • NP-V-NP-Vpastpart (Vpassive) (Obj Control) He
    wanted the children found
  • NP-V-P-Ving-NP (Ving) (Subj Control) They
    failed in attempting the climb
  • NP-V-Part-NP-PP I separated out the
    three boys from the crowd
  • NP-V-NP-Part-PP I separated the three boys out
    from the crowd
  • NP-V-S (Wh-move) He asked how she did it
  • NP-V-PP-S They admitted to the authorities
    that they had entered illegally
  • NP-V-Part She gave up
  • NP-V-S (whether Wh-move) He asked whether
    he should come
  • NP-V-P-S (whether Wh-move) He thought about
    whether he wanted to go

47
  • Table 2 Frequencies for Verb Co-occurrence
    Frames in English Corpora (including BNC)
  • Average Token Frequencies in the BNC for the new
    Verb Co-occurrence Frames appearing at the
    learner levels
  • A2 B1 B2/C1/C2
  • 1,041,634 38,174 27,615

48
  • Table 3 Frequency Ranking
  • Average Frequency Ranking in the BNC for the new
    Verb Co-occurrence Frames appearing at the
    learner levels
  • A2 B1 B2/C1/C2
  • 8.2 38.6 55.6

49
  • These kinds of data enable us to set up the
    following principle of second language learning
    (for which there are also well-attested parallels
    in first language learning, see e.g. Tomasello
    2003, Diessel 2004, MacWhinney 2005)

50
  • (1) Maximize Frequently Occurring Properties
    (MaF)
  • Properties of the L2 are learned in proportion
    to their frequency of occurrence (as measured,
    for example, in the BNC) more frequent exposure
    of a property to the learner facilitates its
    learning and reduces learning effort.
  • I.e. more frequent properties will result in
    earlier L2 acquisition, more of the relevant
    properties learned, and fewer errors, in general.
    Infrequency makes learning more effortful, with
    precise predictions depending on other factors.

51
  • Highly correlated with frequency is another
    principle of second language learning (shared
    with first language learning) that involves the
    relative simplicity or complexity of structures
    and meanings. The criterial grammatical features
    of earlier levels are, in general, simpler than
    those of later levels.

52
  • In phonology also simpler consonants and
    consonantal distinctions are acquired earlier
    than more complex ones (see e.g. Eckman 1984).
  • Simpler and more basic meanings for verbs are
    acquired earlier than more complex and derived
    extensions in meaning, figurative uses, etc.

53
  • The verb break in its basic physical sense at A2
  • break in the sense of INTERRUPT (break the
    routine) B1
  • break an agreement, promise, etc. B2
  • break the bank (idiomatic) C1
  • break the wall that surrounds him (original
    figurative) C2

54
  • (2) Maximize Structurally and Semantically
    Simple Properties (MaS)
  • Properties of the L2 are learned in proportion
    to their structural and semantic simplicity
    simplicity means there are fewer properties to be
    learned and less learning effort is required.
  • I.e. simpler properties will result in earlier
    L2 acquisition, more of the relevant properties
    learned, and fewer errors. Complexity makes
    learning more effortful, in general, since there
    are more properties to be learned, with precise
    predictions depending on other factors.

55
  • In second language learning we also see
    transfer effects from the first language,
    either positive (when the transfer results in a
    correct L2 property) or negative (when it results
    in an error).
  • This is one thing that differentiates second
    from first language acquisition.

56
  • E.g. speakers of languages with definite and
    indefinite articles find it easier to acquire the
    article system of English than do speakers of
    languages without articles (see Hawkins Buttery
    2009, 2010)

57
  • Errors involving missing definite and
    indefinite articles in the L2 English of the CLC
    are consistently low when the L1s also have
    articles.
  • Recall MD I spoke to President (the)
  • I have car (a)

58
  • Table 4 (next slide) shows missing determiner
    error rates for the and a at all proficiency
    levels for French, German and Spanish as first
    languages. All three languages have an article
    system. (Data from Hawkins Buttery 2009)
  • The figures indicate the percentage of errors
    with respect to the total number of correct uses.
    For instance a percentage of 10.0 would
    indicate that a determiner was omitted 1 in every
    10 times that it should have appeared.
  • We see generally low error rates for these
    languages, without significant deviation between
    levels.

59
  • Table 4 Missing Determiner Error Rates for L1s
    with Articles
  • Missing the
  • A2 B1 B2 C1
    C2
  • French 4.76 4.67 5.01 3.11
    2.13
  • German 0.00 2.56 4.11 3.11
    1.60
  • Spanish 3.37 3.62 4.76 3.22 2.21
  • Missing a
  • A2 B1 B2 C1 C2
  • French 6.60 4.79 6.56 4.76 3.41
  • German 0.89 2.90 3.83 3.62 2.02
  • Spanish 4.52 4.28 7.91 5.16
    3.58

60
  • Table 5 (next slide) shows missing determiner
    error rates for the and a at all levels for
    Turkish, Japanese, Korean, Russian and Chinese as
    first languages. These languages do not have an
    article system.
  • There is a general linear improvement, i.e. a
    decline, in error rates across the levels with
    increasing proficiency (shown from left to
    right).
  • Chinese shows an interesting inverted U-shaped
    progression, especially in the case of missing
    a.

61
  • Table 5 Missing Determiner Error Rates for L1s
    without Articles
  • Missing the
  • A2 B1 B2 C1 C2
  • Turkish 22.06 20.75 21.32 14.44 7.56
  • Japanese 27.66 25.91 18.72 13.80 9.32
  • Korean 22.58 23.83 18.13
    17.48 10.38
  • Russian 14.63 22.73 18.45 14.62 9.57
  • Chinese 12.41 9.15 9.62 12.91 4.78

62
  • Table 5 continued
  • Missing a
  • A2 B1 B2 C1 C2
  • Turkish 24.29 27.63 32.48 23.89 11.86
  • Japanese 35.09 34.80 24.26 27.41 15.56
  • Korean 35.29 42.33 30.65 32.56 22.23
  • Russian 21.71 30.17 26.37 20.82 12.69
  • Chinese 4.09 9.20 20.69 26.78 9.79

63
  • One of the learning principles proposed in
    Hawkins Filipovic (2012) to account for these
    data is Maximize Positive Transfer

64
  • (3) Maximize Positive Transfer (MaPT)
  • Properties of the L1 which are also present in
    the
  • L2 are learned more easily and with less
    learning
  • effort, and are readily transferred, on
    account of
  • pre-existing knowledge in L1.
  • Shared L1/L2 properties should result, in
    general, in earlier L2 acquisition, in more of
    the relevant properties being learned, and in
    fewer errors, unless these shared properties
    involve e.g. high complexity and are impacted by
    other factors. Dissimilar L1/L2 properties will
    be harder to learn by virtue of the additional
    learning that is required, again in general.

65
  • More generally, Filipovic Hawkins (2013)
    provide a multi-factor model of learning,
    supported and informed by data in the CLC, and
    comprising a set of interacting principles such
    as those illustrated.

66
  • The model is a type of complex adaptive system
    (see Gell-Mann 1992) and is called the CASP
    model, short for complex adaptive system
    principles of SLA.

67
  • The principles interact, sometimes reinforcing
    each other (e.g. early acquired frequent items
    are also often simple), sometimes competing to
    produce variable outputs and alternative
    interlanguages.
  • Some of the principles are more general, others
    more specific. Two of the more general
    principles are
  • (A) Minimize Learning Effort and (B) Minimize
    Processing Effort.

68
  • (A) Minimize Learning Effort (MiL)
  • Learners of a second language (L2) prefer to
    minimize learning effort when they learn the
    grammatical and lexical properties of the L2.
  •  
  • Learning effort is minimized when shared
    properties of the L1 can be transferred directly
    into the L2 (MaPT), when properties of the L2 are
    frequently occurring in the L2 input (MaF), when
    structural and semantic properties of the L2 are
    simple rather than complex (MaS), and when there
    are fewer linguistic items to be learned in a
    given grammatical or lexical domain.

69
  • (B) Minimize Processing Effort (MiP)
  • Learners of a second language (L2) prefer to
    minimize processing effort when they use the
    grammatical and lexical properties of the L2,
    just as native speakers do.
  •  
  • E.g. even when more complex properties have been
    learned at an acquisition stage, L2 learners will
    still prefer to use simpler properties, just like
    native speakers do.
  •  

70
  • Principles (A) and (B) are principles of least
    effort. If these were the only principles
    determining learning and production our learner
    corpora would reveal increasingly minimal
    outputs.
  • Clearly, they do not. MLUs (i.e. mean length of
    utterance figures) increase at each higher
    proficiency level (cf. Hawkins Filipovic
    2012ch.2.2) as greater use is made of less
    frequent and more complex structures and
    meanings
  • A2 7.9
  • B1 10.8
  • B2 14.2
  • C1 17.3
  • C2 19.0

71
  • The reason is that learners are trying to
    increase their expressive power in the L2, and to
    behave like native speakers, which means learning
    and using the mix of infrequent and frequent, and
    complex and simple, linguistic items, just like
    native speakers do.

72
  • (C) Maximize Expressive Power (MaE)
  • Learners of a second language (L2) prefer to
    maximize their expressive power, i.e. to
    formulate in the L2 whatever thoughts they would
    wish to express in the L1, and to perform the
    same language functions as L1 users.
  • Successive stages of acquisition reveal more
    native-like L2 outputs with increasingly complex
    and less frequent structures for the expression
    of increasingly complex thoughts, in partial
    opposition to principles (A) MiL and (B) MiP.

73
  • (D) Maximize Communicative Efficiency (MaC)
  • Learners of a second language (L2) prefer to
    maximize their communicative efficiency in
    relation to the hearer and his/her mental model.
  • Communication is efficient when the message (M)
    intended by the speaker (S) is calibrated to the
    hearer's (H) mental model in such a way as to
    achieve accurate comprehension of M with rapid
    speed.
  • This requires sometimes more, sometimes less,
    processing effort, in partial opposition to
    principle (B) MiP.
  • Principle (D) can help us explain some
    interesting differences between positive and
    negative transfers, i.e. transfers from the L1
    that are correct rather than error-ful.

74
  • The three more specific principles introduced
    earlier follow from these more general
    principles
  • (1) Maximize Frequently Occurring Properties
    (MaF)
  • Properties of the L2 are learned in proportion
    to their frequency of occurrence more frequent
    exposure of a property to the learner facilitates
    its learning and reduces learning effort.
  • (2) Maximize Structurally and Semantically Simple
    Properties (MaS)
  • Properties of the L2 are learned in proportion
    to their structural and semantic simplicity
    simplicity means there are fewer properties to be
    learned and less learning effort is required.
  • (3) Maximize Positive Transfer (MaPT)
  • Properties of the L1 which are also present in
    the L2 are learned
  • more easily and with less learning effort, and
    are readily transferred,
  • on account of pre-existing knowledge in L1.

75
  • Lets now consider a fourth specific principle,
    involving negative transfers from the L1. CASP
    can explain some interesting puzzles here in the
    SLA literature
  • (4) Permit Negative Transfer (PNT)
  • Properties of the L1 which are not present in the
    L2 can be transferred, resulting in errors, as
    learners strive to achieve an expressive power
    and communicative efficiency in L2 comparable to
    that in their L1 (see principles C and D), while
    minimizing learning effort (principle A) and/or
    processing effort (principle B).
  • I.e. when grammatical and lexical properties are
    shared, transfers from L1 into L2 result in
    positive or correct properties in the L2. When
    properties are not shared, and the transfer still
    takes place, this results in negative or
    incorrect properties in the L2.

76
  • One major difference between positive and
    negative transfers is that there are severe
    limitations on expressive power and on
    communicative efficiency that can be conveyed by
    linguistic properties when they are not part of
    the L2 and are not used by its native speakers.
  • When native speakers communicate with L2 learners
    they tolerate and compensate for departures from
    the native language conventions. But when
    learners depart too radically from these
    conventions, they are not understood by native
    speakers.
  • Learners accordingly acquire a sensitivity to the
    native speakers ability to compensate for these
    violations in conventions of grammar and use.
  • This, we believe, plays a major role in
    determining whether and when negative transfer
    can occur and when errors will be found, see
    principle (5)

77
  • (5) Communicative Blocking of Negative Transfer
    (CBN)
  • The transfer of negative properties from L1
    to L2 is
  • filtered in proportion to communicative
    efficiency
  • (principle D) the more an L1 property
    impedes efficient
  • communication in L2, the less negative
    transfer there is.

78
  • In phonology substitution of L1 consonants like
    t or s or f for L2 ? in English thin
    minimizes learning and processing effort for
    learners whose L1s do not have this consonant,
    and these substitutions generally succede
    communicatively (Lado 1957).
  • In syntax Spanish Pro-Drop (e.g. is a beautiful
    country for it is a beautiful country) is often
    transferred into early L2 English to express the
    proposition in question and the removal of the
    subject it does not impede communicative success.
    This structure is simpler than its English
    counterpart with an overt subject, and transfer
    is not blocked, as predicted by our principle (3)
    MaS.
  • Similarly, many article omission errors do not
    diminish expressive power and communicative
    success, and at the same time they minimize
    learning and processing effort through the
    transfer of L1 structures, see above.

79
  • By contrast, Chinese prenominal relative clauses
    do not result in errors whereby the English man
    whom the woman loves is changed into its Chinese
    prenominal counterpart the woman loves whom man
  • This Chinese structure is complex and
    typologically marked cross-linguistically
    (Hawkins 2004, Eckman 2011), and if Chinese
    learners used it in L2 English, they wouldnt be
    understood.
  • More generally, many structures and meanings will
    often not transfer from L1 to an L2 even when
    they are shared, and will be blocked by
    principles (2) MaF, (3) MaS and (5) CBN.
  • I.e. our interacting CASP learning principles
    make predictions for when an L1 feature will
    transfer, and when it will not.

80
  • Consider the basic word orders of English and
    Japanese. These languages have mirror-image
    patterns, head-initial versus head-final, that
    are both frequent and productive across
    languages
  • went to the cinema versus the
    cinema to went,
  • (Greenberg 1966 Dryer 1992 Hawkins 1983,
    1994, 2004)

81
  • Head-final Japanese orders are not transferred
    into L2 English by Japanese learners, just as
    head-final Chinese noun phrases are not
    transferred into L2 English. Why not?
  • Because that would result in extreme
    communicative inefficiency speakers using
    Japanese or Chinese word orders in English L2
    would simply not be understood! By contrast,
    head-initial word order variants of Spanish that
    lack precise counterparts in English (e.g., I
    read yesterday the book) are negatively
    transferred into L2 English, and they they do not
    impact efficient communication.

82
  • We predict that because Japanese is a head-final
    language, the contrast with the mirror-image word
    order patterns of English is considerable and
    transferring head-final patterns into a
    head-initial language like English, and vice
    versa, would significantly impair communication.
    This is why it is imperative for Japanese
    learners of English, and English learners of
    Japanese, to acquire correct basic word orders in
    their L2s early.
  • But speakers of L1 languages with flexible SVO
    like Spanish do not have the same incentive,
    because even when they transfer incorrect orders
    from their L1 into a fundamentally similar
    head-initial English L2, communication is not
    significantly impaired. The CLC error data for
    Japanese and Spanish learners reflect this
    difference perfectly word order errors are rare
    or non-occurring for the former, but common for
    the latter.

83
  • (6) Order of Second Language Acquisition (OSLA)
  • The order of acquisition for properties of the L2
    is in accordance with general principles (A)-(D),
    and with the more specific principles and
    patterns that are supported empirically. These
    principles can be incorporated within a
    multi-factor model of SLA, the CASP model, and
    used to define possible versus impossible, and
    likely versus unlikely, interlanguage stages
    proceeding from a given L1 to a given L2.
  • These principles operate collectively to make
    constrained predictions for the acquisition of
    properties of L2 English and of other languages,
    and for their relative sequencing. Their
    interaction is complex, because there are several
    such principles, which sometimes compete and
    sometimes cooperate, because they are gradient,
    and because they have different relative
    strengths.

84
  • Some Practical Applications of this Research
  • Once criterial features of the different
    proficiency levels and the interacting principles
    of the CASP model have been defined, they can be
    put to use for learning, teaching and assessment
    purposes.

85
  • For Learning and Teaching
  • NB! Our criterial features are taken only from
    candidates who scored passing grades at each
    level.
  • Hence learners who are studying for the relevant
    level can now be told explicitly what their
    successful peers have mastered, and teachers can
    incorporate these features in their teaching.
    Grammatical and lexical properties of English,
    and teaching materials and methods built around
    them, can be calibrated to the criterial features
    of each level, making learning more efficient.

86
  • Learners striving for B1 can be introduced to
    Object Control structures that are first attested
    at B1 like
  • I ordered him to gather my men to the hall
    B1
  • and to subordinate clauses with WH-movement
  • I dont know how I could have done it B1
  • I did not know where to look for it B1

87
  • They can be introduced to the lexical verbs that
    successful candidates in B1 exams know, e.g.
  • divide, fit, grab, spill, stick, tear
  • and to the expanding meanings of verbs learned
    earlier
  • e.g. break appears for the first time in the
    extended sense of INTERRUPT at B1
  •  
  • At last I managed to break the routine of the
    city B1

88
  • Similarly for the other levels and their
    features.
  • More generally, grammar and vocabulary can be
    introduced in a sequence that reflects their
    frequency in the input and their inherent
    simplicity/complexity, as revealed both through
    the CLC and through native speaking corpora like
    the BNC.

89
  • For Assessment
  • This research provides content that can help to
    validate the scores that examiners of English
    have provided independently.
  • The assignment of a level and a grade to a
    sample of learner English currently relies on
    judgments that examiners make based on their
    experience and training. Examiners have learned
    to assign scores with good inter-examiner
    agreement, but there is still a certain amount of
    intuition that they bring to the task. Examiners
    are implicitly rather than explicitly aware of
    what to look for in many cases.

90
  • An individual script, let us abbreviate it as
    S, by a candidate taking an exam at level X can
    be searched for the presence versus absence of
    criterial features derived ultimately from all
    passing scripts at X, and from those at the
    immediately lower level X-1 or at the immediately
    higher level X1.

91
  • Script S may contain several constructions and
    lexical items that are features of B2 and higher
    levels. This establishes that S is at least B2.
    The script might contain no uniquely C-level
    features, however. These levels are eliminated,
    therefore, and B2 is supported. S may even
    contain a unique B2 feature. This all supports
    B2.

92
  • Criterial features can also be used in the
    preparation of diagnostic grammar tests that
    assign students to their appropriate levels of
    instruction based on their command of English
    grammar.

93
  • L1-specific ELT materials can be written for
    different groups of learners.
  • For learners whose first languages have no
    definite and indefinite articles, English
    language materials can encourage explicit and
    implicit learning in this area.

94
  • The learning stages, transfer effects and error
    types characteristic of Spanish learners of
    English can be reflected in textbooks and
    teaching materials designed specifically for
    them.
  • Similarly for Chinese learners, and Japanese
    learners, and Russians, etc.

95
  • Theoretical interest of this work
  • The criterial features we are extracting from
    the corpus are of direct benefit for
    theoreticians studying language acquisition. They
    provide a new set of empirical patterns that can
    inform predictive and multi-factor theories of
    learning such as CASP and they enable us to test
    and refine principles of frequency, complexity
    and transfer, as illustrated in this talk.
  • (see Hawkins Filipovic 2012 and Filipovic
    Hawkins 2013 for further details)

96
  • References
  • Briscoe, E., J. Carroll and R. Watson (2006) The
    second release of the RASP system. In
    Proceedings of the COLING/ACL 2006 Interactive
    Presentation Sessions, Sydney, Australia.
  • Council of Europe (2001) Common European
    Framework of Reference for Languages Learning,
    teaching, assessment. CUP, Cambridge.
  • Diessel, H. (2004) The Acquisition of Complex
    Sentences. CUP, Cambridge.
  • Dryer, M.S. (1992) The Greenbergian word order
    correlations, Language 68 805-55.
  • Eckman, F.R. (1984) Universals, typologies, and
    interlanguage. InW.E. Rutherford, ed., Language
    Universals and Second Language Acquisition, John
    Benjamins, Amsterdam, 79-105.
  • Eckman, F.R. (2011) Linguistic typology and
    second language acquisition. In J.J. Song, ed.,
    The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Typology, OUP
    Oxford, 618-633.
  • Filipovic, L J.A. Hawkins (2013) Multiple
    factors in second language
  • acquisition The CASP model, Linguistics
    51(1)145-176.
  • Gell-Mann, M. (1992) Complexity and complex
    adaptive systems. In J.A. Hawkins M.
    Gell-Mann, eds., The Evolution of Human
    Languages, Addison-Wesley, Redwood City, CA.
  • Greenberg, J.H. (1963) Some universals of
    grammar with particular reference to the order of
    meaningful elements, in J.H. Greenberg (ed.)
    Universals of Language, MIT Press, Cambridge,
    Mass.., 73-113.

97
  • Hawkins, J.A. (1983) Word Order Universals.
    Academic Press, New York.
  • Hawkins, J.A. (1994) A Performance Theory of
    Order and Constituency. CUP, Cambridge.
  • Hawkins, J.A. (2004) Efficiency and Complexity in
    Grammars. OUP, Oxford.
  • Hawkins, J.A. P. Buttery (2009) Using learner
    language from corpora to profile levels of
    proficiency Insights from the English Profile
    Programme. In L. Taylor C.J. Weir, eds.,
    Language Testing Matters, Proceedings of the 3rd
    ALTE Conference 2008, CUP, Cambridge, 158-175.
  • Hawkins, J.A. P. Buttery (2010) Criterial
    features in learner corpora Theory and
    illustrations, English Profile Journal 1.
  • Hawkins, J.A. L. Filipovic (2012) Criterial
    Features in L2 English Specifying the Reference
    Levels of the Common European Framework. CUP,
    Cambridge.
  • Lado, Robert 1957. Linguistics across cultures
    Applied linguistics for
  • language teachers. Ann Arbor, MI University
    of Michigan.
  • MacWhinney, B. (2005) A unified model of
    language acquisition. In J.F. Kroll A.M.B. de
    Groot, eds., Handbook of Bilingualism
    Psycholinguistic Approaches, OUP, Oxford.
  • Tomasello, M. (2003) Constructing a Language A
    Usage-based Theory of Language Acquisition,
    Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mass.
  • Williams, C.A.M. (2007) A preliminary study into
    verbal subcategorisation frame usage in the CLC,
    MS, RCEAL, University of Cambridge.

98
  • Acknowledgments
  • The findings reported here are based on joint
    work with Luna Filipovic (Cambridge Linguistics
    Department, now University of East Anglia), see
    Hawkins Filipovic 2012 and Filipovic Hawkins
    2013. The assistance of many other researchers
    and collaborators was vital. Special thanks to
  • Ted Briscoe of the Cambridge Computer Lab and
    his colleagues for use of the RASP parser
  • Paula Buttery of DTAL, Cambridge (see Hawkins
    Buttery 2009, 2010)
  • Dora Alexopoulou of the Education First Research
    Unit, DTAL, for advice and input
  • Andrew Caines of DTAL, Cambridge, for help
    with numerous syntactic searches
  • Annette Capel of CUP for help with the wordlist
    searches
  • Kristen Kennedy of UC Davis for help with MLU
    calculations
  • Mike Milanovic Nick Saville of Cambridge ESOL
    for theoretical and practical guidance and
    financial support (see below)
  • Mike McCarthy of CUP and Penn State U for advice
    and input
  • Roger Hawkey and Angeliki Salamoura of Cambridge
    ESOL for advice and English Profile Programme
    co-ordination
  • Lu Gram of the Computer Lab for help with error
    calculations and other searches
  • Caroline Williams of RCEAL, Cambridge for verb
    subcategorization data
  • and to
  • CUPs computational linguists who prepared "The
    ltSgt CompleatCompletelt/Sgt Learner Corpus
    Document" 2006, from which the error codes and
    examples sentences are taken.

99
  • Financial Support
  • The work reported here was made possible by
    generous financial support from Cambridge
    Assessment and from Cambridge University Press,
    within the context of the Cambridge English
    Profile Programme, and by research funds and a
    seed grant for international outreach from the
    University of California, Davis. This support is
    gratefully acknowledged.

100
  • Links to Learner Corpora for English and Other
    Languages
  • The EF (Education First) Cambridge Open Language
    Database for English (30 million words)
  • http//corpus.mml.cam.ac.uk/efcamdat/
  • Sylviane Grangers summary of learner corpora for
    English and other languages worldwide
  • https//www.uclouvain.be/en-cecl-lcworld.html
Write a Comment
User Comments (0)
About PowerShow.com