Lecture: Psycholinguistics Professor Dr. Neal R. Norrick

_____________________________________

Psycholinguistics

Universität des SaarlandesDept. 4.3: English Linguistics

SS 2009

6. Second Language Acquisition6.1 Contrastive Analysis

growing out of work by Fries (1945) and Weinreich (1953) most work on Second Language Acquisition in the 40's and 50's shared the assumptions of Contrastive Analysis (Lado 1957)

Contrastive Analysis based on transfer • from Native Language (NL) to Target Language (TL) or First Language (L1) to Second Language(L2)• shared structures facilitate acquisition• distinct structures cause problems • positive transfer when L1 and L2 share structures

e.g. Det Adj N structure in NP in English and German

the mean dog - der böse Hund

negative transfer when L1 and L2 have different structures

e.g. Adv V NP in German versus Adv NP V in English

Morgen fahren wir nach hause Tomorrow we go home

so research in Second Language Acquisition tended to revolve around comparison of language pairs

Language Acquisition was seen as developing a set of habits to be practiced in accordance with Behaviorist Theory

but researchers found errors not predictable bylanguage differences, and the psycholinguisticprocess of language acquisition can't be describedsolely in terms of linguistic products

6.2 Approximative Systems and Interlanguage

In the 1960's, linguists rejected Behaviorism and

became interested in mentalistic theories

evidence was mounting for a third system between

L1 and L2

Nemser (1971) recognized an approximative system

for the learner with features of both L1 and L2

Selinker (1972) introduced the term Interlanguagefor this individual language system

Interlanguages are highly variable, due to:• limited cognitive attention, given so much to learn

and remember simultaneously • learners lack of knowledge of rules• simultaneous pull from L1 and L2 • they represent transitional stages of development

but L2 tends to fossilize at some stage, due to:

1. Negative transfer from L1

e.g. putting temporal Adv before locative Adv

They went last week to Berlin.

2. Overgeneralization of L2 rules e.g. extending progressive pattern to stative verbs

I'm knowing him a long time

3. Simplification of L2 rules e.g. failure to apply sequence of tenses (or back shift)

I thought it is a joke 

• it's often difficult to tell what causes an error, since these three factors interact

• the concern with rules and errors makes interlanguages spill over into error analysis research

6.3 Error Analysis

concern with interlanguage and errors it contains and their relation gave rise to research in Error Analysis

1. Researchers first look for idiosyncrasies in learner's production

when a learner says: I want to know the English

we must first determine the intention behind it: either correct expression of desire involving knowledge of English people or incorrect expression

of desire involving the English Language

2. Then they try to describe the structure in terms of the grammars of both L1 and L2

I want to know the English

involves an overuse of the definite article from

the point of view of English grammar;

does it reflect the grammar of the learner's L1, where abstract nouns take definite articles?

3. Finally, they seek to explain the structure as interference or the learner's hypothesis-testing if the learner uses this sort of construction systematically, it's part of an interlanguage;

but it may be a single careless mistake or an attempt to test this particular structure as well this attempt at explanation can get muddled, due to the unclear distinction between competence and performance

Error Analysis ends up as a method of describing data, but not a psycholinguistic theory of language acquisition

Error Analysis loses sight of the whole picture of

developing competence in L2 by focusing on errors;• we could instead equate knowledge of L2 with

fluency and understandability rather than lack of errors;

• or we could instead focus on what learners do rightand test to see if they do it right intuitively

6.4 Innateness, Input, Natural Order of

Acquisition in L2

The Innateness Debate from child language research carries over to research in second language acquisition

Does the Language Acquisition Device (LAD) work for

L2 as for L1?If the LAD is at work, there should be a Natural Order of

Acquisition in L2 as in L1.

Could L2 learners simply reset the parameters from L1?

Dulay & Burt (1973) posit natural order of acquisition in L2 parallel to what Brown (1973)

found for L1

at least learners with the same L1 background go

through the same stages in acquiring L2

1. plural -s on nouns: the books2. progressive -ing on verbs: they driving3. forms of main verb be: this is London,

she was there

4. forms of auxiliary be: she's driving

5. articles a and the: a cat, the dog

6. irregular past tenses: went, ate, came

7. 3rd person sing pres -s: she waits

8. possessive -s: Sally's truck

Dulay & Burt (1974) found even greater regularity of order if features were ordered into groups

Group 1: progressive -ing, plural -s, copula beGroup 2: auxiliary be, articlesGroup 3: irregular pastGroup 4: regular past, 3rd pers -s, possessive -s

Dulay & Burt use cross-sectional testing, i.e. whatpercentage of which forms show up for a group of learners, while Brown used longitudinal testing, i.e. at what stage do kids control (90% correct) certain forms

other problems with tests for order of acquisition in L2

• tests based purely on English: what about other languages with lots more inflection or no inflection?

• tests failed to distinguish variants like a versus an, and degrees of irregularity e.g. in past tense told, bought, went

• if no firm order of acquisition can be shown, then

there's no reason to assume that acquisition of L2

and L1 are alike.

Even if LAD makes input unimportant in L1

acquisition, the status of input in L2 a remains aproblem:

• What kind of input should learners receive?• Does correcting errors help?

6.5 Krashen's Input Hypothesis and

the Monitor Model

Language Acquisition versus Language Learning

subconscious acquisition like children's L1

acquisition

• not affected by correction• not based on formally learned rules

but conscious learning in L2 context changes things

• input is filtered and output is monitored• conscious learning results in knowing about

learning rules only acts as Monitor

natural order of acquisition in L2 just as in L1

• not based on linguistic complexity• but Monitor disturbs the natural order

affective filter based on types of motivation• integrative lowers filter• instrumental can raise filter• empathy for L2 group lowers filter

Monitor has its source in Piaget's

Formal Operations Stage• consciously formulates and edits output• disturbs the natural order of acquisition

Monitor use conditions• time• focus on form

(not involved in message)• must know the rule

the monitor is not limited to conscious rules,

but conscious learning is limited to the monitor

Krashen uses Monitor to describe

individual differences

overusers, underusers, optimal users

Organizer

innate language acquisition faculty (like Chomsky's LAD)

gradually organizes input (without conscious attention) reflected in: • errors• transitional constructions• natural order of acquisition

Input

input understood in context is the primary factor

in L2 acquisition

caretaker speech is ideal intake:

1. here & now: immediate environment

2. syntactically simple

3. communication for action in context

Input Hypothesis

We acquire i + 1, the next rule along the natural order,

by understanding messages containing i + 1.

(a necessary but not sufficient condition for acquisition)

i = current level in phonology, morphology, syntax, lexis

learner controls get in constructions like I get mail/you got mail,

and learner can form passives with be like he was stopped by a cop

i + 1 = constructions just beyond current level, e.g. combining the two

hears passive constructions with get like we got stopped by a cop

Factors

1. delaying speaking L2 helps

2. comprehension precedes production in

L2 acquisition

3. comprehension in interaction provides best intake

4. best input contains structures one step beyond current knowledge, i.e. i + 1

critique of Krashen:

1. McLaughlin (1978) denies clear distinction

between consciously learned rules of L2 and

unconsciously acquired feel for L2

Krashen's appeal to introspection is unacceptable

2. focus on quality of input loses sight of processing • input ignores functioning of Organizer• offers no insight into relation between L1 and L2

• offers no account of bilingual competence

3. comprehensible input as structures one step

beyond current knowledge not operationalizable• we can't completely characterize either

i or i + 1

• this suggests that we learn L2 one rule at a time rather than combinations of syntax, lexis, phonology

4.The Monitor functions in a more-or-less fashion, not like an on-off switch if filters work differentially in input phase,

they should apply differentially in output phase, allowing Monitor use to varyincrementally

Note: Krashen sometimes speaks of an output filter blocking performance of acquiredrules to account for fossilization in

L2 acquisition

5.Krashen's system is circular, components are incestuously related• if the natural order of acquisition holds, then the

Monitor was not working• if the natural order is disturbed, then the Monitor

was working but no independent evidence of Monitor etc

6.6 Formulaic speech

Formulaic speech also violates normal acquisition

order

but formulas play a special role in L2 acquisition

because they represent structures beyond

current competence

routines like be careful, let's play and you knowpatterns like that's ___ and Do you want____?

affect L2 acquisition positively

• perhaps because they facilitate interaction• perhaps because they develop into syntax

Formulaic speech remains unanalyzed initially

routines & formulas learned top-down versus bottom-up

may reflect different overall style of acquisition

but in later acquisition, formulas and idioms create extra problems, because they require memorization item by item

7. Bilingualism

individual bilingualism versus societal bilingualism

Compare: bilingualism versus diglossia (Ferguson)

balanced versus unbalanced bilingualism

dominant, usually first, native language

versus

weaker, second or foreign language (second or foreign language for special purpose)

7.1 Becoming bilingual

• childhood acquisition (during critical period)• later acquisition (after critical period)• as second language in second language culture• as foreign language in first language culture

7.2 Advantages and disadvantages of bilingualism

obviously bilingualism is socially advantageous

nobody questions the value of adults learning foreign language, though kids learn languages more easily

but psychologists question effects of childhood acquisition of bilingualism

some tests show that acquiring two languages• slows progress in both• slows intellectual development generally

test group: lower class immigrant children where the home language

enjoyed no prestige

other tests show that acquiring two languages• has no effect on progress in either• can improve linguistic creativity• correlates with higher intelligence

test group: upper middle class children self-selected for exposure to a

second language