1) The document summarizes a colloquium on research with low-literate adolescent and adult second language learners. It discusses several presenters and their research, including on Somali immigrant youth, alphabetic literacy development, and teacher preparation. 2) For low-literate learners, current SLA theories may not apply since they are based on literate learners who can visualize and manipulate language forms. Research is needed on how non-literate adults process oral language and acquire an L2. Studies show illiterate adults do not segment speech into words. 3) One case study examines an adolescent learner's errors and suggests his ability to recall corrections may relate to his developing literacy level

1. COLLOQUIUM: RESEARCH WITH
LOW-LITERATE ADOLESCENT &
ADULT L2 LEARNERS
Andrea Decapua Elaine Tarone
College of New Rochelle University of Minnesota

2. Colloquium Participants
 Elaine Tarone: SLA of low-literate L2 learners
 Andrea Decapua: Cognition, learning and formal
education
 Kendall King & Martha Bigelow: Symbolic power of print
literacy among Somali immigrant youth
 Nicole Pettitt: A longitudinal study of a learner‟s
development of aphabetic literacy & L2
 Ranya Khan: Comparative case-study of 2 classrooms
 Patsy Vinogradov: Preparation of teachers of students
with limited formal schooling

3. SLA of adults & adolescents w low
alphabetic print literacy
 Brief review of research on alphabetic print literacy &
oral language processing by adults & adolescents
 Among monolinguals
 Among second-language learners
 We desperately need more research
 Some research questions & hypotheses
(Tarone & Bigelow 2012)

4. What does it mean to know a language?
(What is an interlanguage rule system like?)
Must be consciously
assembled out of learned Grows unconsciously
rules guided by built-in syllabus
Explicit knowledge Implicit knowledge

5. Current Theories of SLA
 Input and Interaction (Gass & Madden 1987; Gass &
Varonis 1994)
 Sociocultural (Lantolf 2000)
 Noticing Hypothesis (Schmidt 1994, 2001)
 Corrective feedback in SLA (Lyster & Mori 2006)

6. Current SLA theories state:
 L2 learners must notice and focus on forms used
in communication to acquire those forms
 But these theories are based on data from
alphabetically literate learners …
 If you‟re not alphabetically literate, are you
missing a cognitive tool you need to visualize
and mentally manipulate language forms that
have no meaning? To „notice the gap‟ between
your forms and others‟?
 Do SLA theories only apply to the alphabetically
literate L2 learner?

7. Studies of language processing by
non-literate monolingual adults
 These studies show there‟s an interaction between
degree of alphabetic print literacy and awareness of
linguistic units in oral input
 Scholes (1998) preliterate adults don‟t segment speech
into „words‟
 Many similar studies are summarized in Tarone, Hansen
& Bigelow (2013)

8. LESLLA website
http://www.leslla.org/

9. Selected Findings:
 Kurvers, Hout & Vallen (2006, 2007): alphabetic
literacy --> awareness of the word and the phoneme as
units
 Non alphabetically literate adults learning L2 viewed
language as means of communication, but not a string of
linguistic units
 Onderlinden et al. (2009): degree of alphabetic literacy
correlates with degree of ability to identify word
boundaries in L2 learners
 Young-Scholten & Strom (2006): L2 learners‟ phonemic
awareness only after learning to read; notions of syllable,
onset, rhyme developed independently. Knowing names of
letters is NOT related to phonemic awareness or decoding
ability.

10. How do adults without phonemic
awareness process oral L2 input?
 Bigelow, et al (2006) replicated a standard SLA oral
recast study with 8 low literate Somali adolescent
multilingual learners
 Errors with word order or do support in questions
(don‟t change meaning; totally form based)
 There was a significant positive relationship
between alphabetic print literacy level and the
ability to recall oral recasts of these errors
 Consistent with notion that alphabetic print
literacy level affects phonemic awareness in
processing oral L2

11. “Abukar” (Tarone & Bigelow, 2007)
 15 years old, in 9th grade
 Began formal schooling in US 4.5 years earlier
(after 4 yrs in refugee camp)
 Scores show relatively low literacy level but
developing oral proficiency:
 English literacy: 6 out of 9 possible
 Somali literacy: 4 out of 9
 SPEAK: 50 out of 60 possible
 Question stage: 5 out of 6 possible

12. Abukar‟s errors
Abukar: … what, what he is looking?
Abukar: Why he is mad?
Abukar: … why he come this room?

13. Example 1 (1 on 1, not classroom)
1 Abukar: What he sit on, what he SIT on, or whatever?
2 MB: What is he sitting on?
3 Abukar: Mhm.
4 MB: What is he sitting on? Again. Repeat.
5 Abukar: What he sitting on?
6 MB: What IS he sitting on?
7 Abukar: Oh. What he sitting on?
8 MB: What IS he sitting on?
9 Abukar: What IS he sitting on?
(from Tarone & Bigelow 2007)

14. Example 2
01 Abukar: Why he is mad? Why [he], he is mad?
02 MB: [yeah]
03 MB: Why IS he mad?
04 Abukar: Why HE is mad? Why
05 MB: Why IS he mad?
06 Abukar: Why IS he mad? Why is, [is he]…

15. Example 3
 01 Abukar: OK (pause) what is barrel, what is, what is
the thing in it?
 02 What is there? Is it, is there pennies in it?
 03 MB: Yeah. Um, again. Are pennies in the jar?
 04 Abukar: Is, are the penny in the jar?
 05 MB: Yes. And, um,
 06 Abukar: (whispers) jar
 (30+ turns later) Abukar: Oh. Oh. Is this jar have, this
jar, is this jar full of money?

16. We wonder…
 Do all L2 forms have to be explicitly noticed to be
acquired?
 Can low literate adult L2 learners acquire some L2 forms
implicitly, without explicit analysis? OR,
 Do these learners structure their explicit working
memory for language in some way that researchers don‟t
see?
 Can we capitalize on what preliterate learners do notice
in oral input to improve their acquisition of L2 grammar?

17. Thank you!
etarone@umn.edu