Models of tla


Published on

Published in: Business, Technology
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Models of tla

  2. 2. MODELS•The Cummulative Enhancement Model (CEM),•the L2 Status Factor•Typological Primacy Model (TPM).
  3. 3. THE CEM•proposed by Flynn et al. in 2004•first formal L3/Ln initial state model•based on the data presented by Vinnitskaya et al. (2002) Flynn et al. (2004)
  4. 4. Vinnitskaya et al. (2002)• studied the acquisition of the English Complementizer Phrase (CP) by three different groups of learners: 1. L1 Kazakh and L2 Russian 2. L1 Spanish 3. L1 Japanese.** The structure of the CP is dependent on thehead directionality of a language
  5. 5. Vinnitskaya et al. (2002): FINDINGS•Groups (1) and (2) behaved in a similar way•Group (3) behaved in a very different wayConclusion:• this difference was due to the fact that the L1Japanese group had not yet acquired the head-initial parameter whereas the first two groups had done so either in their L1 or their L2
  6. 6. Vinnitskaya et al. (2002) & Flynn et al. (2004)•all previously acquired languages can have a positive influence on the acquisition of a third or subsequent one.
  7. 7. Two main ideas behind the CEM•a model of the initial state as well as a theory of developmental sequence and ultimate attainment” (Rothman et al. 2011)•transfer is always facilitative: any prior linguistic system can either enhance the acquisition process of a subsequent language remain neutral
  8. 8. The L2 Status Factor•First definition:Hammarberg (2009): “a desire to suppress theL1 as being non-foreign and rely rather on aprior L2 as a strategy to approach the L3”
  9. 9. Bardel and Falk (2007)•analyzed the role of the L2 in syntactic transfer by looking at the placement of sentential negation in an L3**closely associated with the V2 rule•two different groups 1. one that had an L1 with V2 and an L2 without V2 2. one that had an L1 without V2 and L2 with V2.
  10. 10. Bardel and Falk (2007): FINDINGS•the group with an L2 with V2 correctly transferred this structure into the L3, whereas with V2 in their L1 only, did not transfer this structure.CONCLUSION•L2 syntactic structures are transferred into an L3 independently of typology
  11. 11. THE L2 STATUS FACTORMAIN CLAIM•privileged role of the L2 in L3 transfer.
  12. 12. THE TYPOLOGICAL PROXIMITY MODEL (TPM)•proposes multiple sources of transfer in multilingual syntactic acquisition•considers transfer to be conditioned by the psychotypological factors between the languages at play
  13. 13. Rothman and Cabrelli Amaro (2010)•looked at the Null-Subject Parameter (NSP) in the acquisition of French and Italian as either the L2 or the L3•All learners in the study had English as their L1 and one group had L2 Spanish and L3 French
  14. 14. Rothman and Cabrelli Amaro (2010): FINDINGS•subjects did not transfer properties of the NSP from their L1 English into the L3 French or Italian, but rather from their L2 Spanish.•the results show positive as well as negative transfer.
  15. 15. Rothman (2010)•further investigates the idea of (psycho)typology by looking at closely related languages: 1. one group of L3 learners of Brazilian Portuguese with L1 English and L2 Spanish. 1. a second group with L1 Spanish, L2 English and L3 Brazilian Portuguese.
  16. 16. Rothman (2010)•The linguistic phenomenon under investigation in this study was noun-raising, present and obligatory in all languages involved, with the exception of English.
  17. 17. Rothman (2010): FINDINGS•Results showed that all learners had successfully acquired the noun-raising ruleCONCLUSION•typological proximity is favoured as the transfer source•further support the Typological Primacy Model