Mohamed Lekrama, M.A., profile picture
Uploaded byMohamed Lekrama, M.A.
PPT, PDF529 views

Stony brook class_presnt.ppt on interlanguage

This document discusses interlanguage grammar in second language acquisition. It begins by defining what an "error" means in second language acquisition versus dictionary definitions. It then discusses the interlanguage hypothesis, which posits that learners have a systematic, evolving mental grammar at each stage of second language acquisition. Learners' errors provide insights into their developing grammatical hypotheses. The document also discusses how the interlanguage hypothesis relates to theories about the influence of learners' first language and universal grammar on second language acquisition.

Embed presentation

Downloaded 20 times
1 / 109
2 / 109
3 / 109
4 / 109
5 / 109
6 / 109
7 / 109
8 / 109
9 / 109
10 / 109
11 / 109
12 / 109
13 / 109
14 / 109
15 / 109
16 / 109
17 / 109
18 / 109
19 / 109
20 / 109
21 / 109
22 / 109
23 / 109
24 / 109
25 / 109
26 / 109
27 / 109
28 / 109
29 / 109
30 / 109
31 / 109
32 / 109
33 / 109
34 / 109
35 / 109
36 / 109
37 / 109
38 / 109
39 / 109
40 / 109
41 / 109
42 / 109
43 / 109
44 / 109
45 / 109
46 / 109
47 / 109
48 / 109
49 / 109
50 / 109
51 / 109
52 / 109
53 / 109
54 / 109
55 / 109
56 / 109
57 / 109
58 / 109
59 / 109
60 / 109
61 / 109
62 / 109
63 / 109
64 / 109
65 / 109
66 / 109
67 / 109
68 / 109
69 / 109
70 / 109
71 / 109
72 / 109
73 / 109
74 / 109
75 / 109
76 / 109
77 / 109
78 / 109
79 / 109
80 / 109
81 / 109
82 / 109
83 / 109
84 / 109
85 / 109
86 / 109
87 / 109
88 / 109
89 / 109
90 / 109
91 / 109
92 / 109
93 / 109
94 / 109
95 / 109
96 / 109
97 / 109
98 / 109
99 / 109
100 / 109
101 / 109
102 / 109
103 / 109
104 / 109
105 / 109
106 / 109
107 / 109
108 / 109
109 / 109
Interlanguage Grammar in Second Language Acquisition Heejeong Ko MIT
“Error”?
“Error”? Dictionaries say …  An act that through ignorance, deficiency, or accident departs from or fails to achieve what should be done. (Meriam-Webster Dictionary)
“Error”? Dictionary views  An act that through ignorance, deficiency, or accident departs from or fails to achieve what should be done. (Meriam-Webster Dictionary)  An error is something that you have done which is considered to be incorrect or wrong, or which should not have been done. (Cobuild English Dictionary)
“Error”? Dictionary views  An act that through ignorance, deficiency, or accident departs from or fails to achieve what should be done. (Meriam-Webster Dictionary)  An error is something that you have done which is considered to be incorrect or wrong, or which should not have been done. (Cobuild English Dictionary)  A mistake. (dictionary.com)
“Errors” in Second Language Acquisition Errors in second language acquisition may mean something totally different.
“Errors” in Second Language Acquisition Errors in second language acquisition may mean something totally different. – L2-learners’ errors are not random. [cf. mistake]
“Errors” in Second Language Acquisition Errors in second language acquisition may mean something totally different. – L2-learners’ errors are not random. [cf. mistake] – L2-learners’ errors reflect learners’ systematic knowledge of grammar. [cf. accident act]
“Errors” in Second Language Acquisition Errors in second language acquisition may mean something totally different. – L2-learners’ errors are not random. [cf. mistake] – L2-learners’ errors reflect learners’ systematic knowledge of grammar. [cf. accident act] – L2-learners’ errors are informative data that we can use to probe into sophisticated linguistic hypotheses and predictions. [cf. incorrect/wrong act]
L2-Errors => Interlanguage Hypothesis Learners have an interlanguage grammar (= a mental representation of grammatical knowledge) at every stage of the acquisition process (Corder 1967, 1981; Selinker 1972).
L2-Errors => Interlanguage Hypothesis Learners have an interlanguage grammar (= a mental representation of grammatical knowledge) at every stage of the acquisition process (Corder 1967, 1981; Selinker 1972). Errors are evidence of hypotheses being tested; they are a sign of progress in learning;
L2-Errors => Interlanguage Hypothesis Learners have an interlanguage grammar (= a mental representation of grammatical knowledge) at every stage of the acquisition process (Corder 1967, 1981; Selinker 1972). Errors are evidence of hypotheses being tested; they are a sign of progress in learning; Interlanguage grammars are systematic and continuously evolving.
L2-Errors => Interlanguage Hypothesis Learners have an interlanguage grammar (= a mental representation of grammatical knowledge) at every stage of the acquisition process (Corder 1967, 1981; Selinker 1972). Errors are evidence of hypotheses being tested; they are a sign of progress in learning; Interlanguage grammars are systematic and continuously evolving. Argument: Learners acquire some aspects of the L2 grammar through similar stages, regardless of their L1.
L2-Errors => Interlanguage Hypothesis Learners have an interlanguage grammar (= a mental representation of grammatical knowledge) at every stage of the acquisition process (Corder 1967, 1981; Selinker 1972). Errors are evidence of hypotheses being tested; they are a sign of progress in learning; Interlanguage grammars are systematic and continuously evolving. Learners acquire some aspects of the L2 grammar through similar stages, regardless of their L1. L1 transfer is not the only process in L2 acquisition.
Today’s class We will discuss some important issues in understanding the interlanguage grammar in second language acquisition.
Today’s class What factors may contribute to the development of L2 interlanguage grammars?
Today’s class What factors may contribute to the development of L2 interlanguage grammars? What is the role of L1 for L2 interlanguage grammar?
Today’s class What factors may contribute to the development of L2 interlanguage grammars? What is the role of L1 for L2 interlanguage grammar? How do L2-learners acquire abstract and subtle grammatical properties without proper input or L1-transfer? Universal Grammar?
Today’s class What factors may contribute to the development of L2 interlanguage grammars? What is the role of L1 for L2 interlanguage grammar? How do L2-learners acquire abstract and subtle grammatical properties without proper input or L1-transfer? Universal Grammar? How do we study L2 interlanguage grammar? (methodology)
Today’s class What factors may contribute to the development of L2 interlanguage grammars? What is the role of L1 for L2 interlanguage grammar? How do L2-learners acquire abstract and subtle grammatical properties without proper input or L1-transfer? Universal Grammar? How do we study the L2 interlanguage grammar? (methodology) A case study: L2-acquisition of English articles
L1 influence
L1 and L2 acquisition: differences
L1 and L2 acquisition: differences  Knowledge of a language: L2-learners already have a language in place.
L1 and L2 acquisition: differences  Knowledge of a language: L2-learners already have a language in place.  Age: L2-learners are older than L1-learners
L1 and L2 acquisition: differences  Knowledge of a language: L2-learners already have a language in place.  Age: L2-learners are older than L1-learners  Ultimate attainment: In the absence of impairment or deprivation, all children succeed in acquiring their L1. But many L2-learners fail to acquire their L2 fully.
L1 and L2 acquisition: differences  Knowledge of a language: L2-learners already have a language in place.  Age: L2-learners are older than L1-learners  Ultimate attainment: In the absence of impairment or deprivation, all children succeed in acquiring their L1. But many L2-learners fail to acquire their L2 fully.  Explicit instruction: Children aren’t taught their first language. But many L2-learners do receive explicit instruction about the L2 grammar.
L1 and L2 acquisition: differences  Knowledge of a language: L2-learners already have a language in place.
Behaviorism: the role of L1 for SLA  Behaviorism: language as a set of habits (imitation, reinforcement, analogy) L1-acquisition as imitation and learning by analogy L2-acquisition = learning new habits
Behaviorism: the role of L1 for SLA  Behaviorism: language as a set of habits L1-acquisition as imitation and learning by analogy L2-acquisition = learning new habits positive transfer: facilitation L1 habit = L2 habit negative transfer: interference L1 habit ≠ L2 habit
Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis (CAH: Lado 1957)  Language learning = Learning a new habit  major source of errors in L2 is L1
Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis (CAH: Lado 1957)  Language learning = Learning a new habit  major source of errors in L2 is L1 Methodologically, analyze errors …
Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis (CAH: Lado 1957) Language learning = Learning a new habit major source of errors in L2 is L1  by comparing the L1 and the L2 when L1 = L2, learning is easy when L1 ≠ L2, learning is difficult the greater differences = more errors
Contrastive Analysis Language learning = Learning a new habit major source of errors in L2 is L1 comparing the L1 and the L2 when L1 = L2, learning is easy when L1 ≠ L2, learning is difficult  strong version: predicting where L2- errors should occur  weak version: explaining why L2-errors occur
L1-influence One of the differences between FLA and SLA is that L2 learners already have a set of knowledge about their L1. ↓ How does knowledge of L1 affect acquisition of L2 grammar? ↓ Behaviorism and the contrast analysis hypothesis (CAH) would expect that errors by L2 learners are the result mainly of transfer from their L1. ↓ BUT!
Problems with the CAH Not all errors can be accounted for by L1 transfer alone.
Problems with the CAH Not all errors can be accounted for by L1 transfer alone. • Too weak occurrence of errors that are not predicted. • Too strong non-occurrence of errors that are predicted
Problems with the CAH (too weak)  occurrence of errors that are not predicted.  Second language learner data reflect errors that go beyond the native language. (like child L1 learner data) – He comed yesterday. (Gass & Selinker 1994)
Problems with the CAH (too strong)  non-occurrence of errors that are predicted. (e.g. Zobl 1980)  French Je les voi I them see ‘I see them’ English I see them *I them see.
Problems with the CAH (too strong)  non-occurrence of errors that are predicted. (e.g. Zobl 1980)  French Je les voi I them see ‘I see them’ English I see them *I them see. L1-French learners’ L2-English : *I them see L2-English learner’s L1-French: Je voi les
Error Analysis (Corder 1967)  focus on explaining existing errors  distinction between mistakes (performance) and errors (competence): systematic interlanguage grammar  comparison between L2-data and TL
Error Analysis (Corder 1967) focus on explaining existing errors distinction between mistakes (performance) and errors (competence): systematic grammar/errors comparison between L2-data and TL  error collection  error identification  error classification  quantification  analysis of error source  design of pedagogical materials
Problems: Error Analysis
Problems: Error Analysis  disregard of number of obligatory contexts (avoidance issues, amount correct%)
Problems: Error Analysis  disregard of number of obligatory contexts (avoidance issues, amount correct%)  usage ≠ correct interpretation – Johna likes him *a/b
Problems: Error Analysis  disregard of number of obligatory contexts (avoidance issues, amount correct%)  usage ≠ correct interpretation  multiple interpretations of error sources (neither developmental nor TL-related)
The role of L1-transfer in L2- interlanguage grammars Transfer as avoidance (Schachter 1974) Learners avoid constructions in the TL that do not exist in the NL. Differential learning rates Similarities between the NL and the TL facilitate the learning rate. Overproduction Learners overuse of a TL structure that is similar to the NL. e.g., topic-comment structures in the L2-English of L1-Chinese speakers.
Neither the NL Nor the TL, but systematic However, L2-learners’ interlanguage grammars show … – patterns that come from neither the NL nor the TL; not derived from any obvious overgeneralization, strategic inference, or formal instruction. Yet, systematic!
Beyond L1-influence: Universal Grammar and Second Language Acquisition
Motivating UG: L1 acquisition Learnability arguments: –Child can learn subtle grammatical properties without being taught! –There is no obvious way of explaining Children’s knowledge of language
Motivating UG: L1 acquisition Let’s suppose that the child learn question formation: The girl is laughing  Is the girl __ laughing? Rule: front the “is”
Motivating UG: L1 acquisition What about complex questions? The girl who is in the room is laughing How do you turn this into a question?
Motivating UG: L1 acquisition What about complex questions? Possibility 1: move the first is (a linear order rule) The girl who is in the room is laughing  Is the girl who __ in the room is laughing?
Motivating UG: L1 acquisition What about complex questions? Possibility 1: move the first is (a linear order rule) The girl who is in the room is laughing  Is the girl who __ in the room is laughing? WRONG!
Motivating UG: L1 acquisition What about complex questions? Possibility 2: move the is that’s the main verb of the sentence (a structural rule) The girl who is in the room is laughing  Is the girl who is in the room _ laughing?
Motivating UG: L1 acquisition What about complex questions? Possibility 2: move the is that is the main verb of the sentence (a structural rule) The girl who is in the room is laughing  Is the girl who is in the room _ laughing? RIGHT!
Motivating UG: L1 acquisition What about complex questions? Possibility 2: move the is that is the main verb of the sentence (a structural rule) The girl who is in the room is laughing  Is the girl who is in the room _ laughing? RIGHT! => Children know it!
Motivating UG: L1 acquisition UG is motivated by learnability arguments: – The primary linguistic data (the input that the child is exposed to) underdetermine unconscious knowledge of language (the grammar that the child acquires) – Given the under-determination, it would be impossible to account for L1 acquirers’ achievement without postulating genetically built-in universal linguistic principles. => UG (Chomsky 1965).
Universal Grammar –Principles: invariant properties of language –Parameters: principles with a set of built-in options (values, settings)
Motivating UG: L2 acquisition In L2 acquisition, learners are faced, at least potentially, with a similar task to that of L1 acquirer. – There are abstract, complex, and subtle properties of grammar that are underdetermined by the L2 input and by L1 grammar.
Motivating UG: L2 acquisition If it turns out that L2 learners acquire abstract properties that could not have been induced from the input (or their L1), it can strongly indicate that UG constrains L2 interlanguage grammars systematically.
Motivating UG: L2 acquisition L2-study: knowledge of complex question formation (Otsu and Naoi 1986) – Subjects: 11 adolescent L1-Japanese L2-English learners – Japanese doesn’t front anything in questions – The L2-learners were taught how to form simple questions (Is the girl in the room?) but not how to form complex questions
Motivating UG: L2 acquisition Results: – 7 out of 11 L2-learners correctly applied the structural rule: • Is the girl who is the room ___ laughing? – Only 1 L2-learner incorrectly applied the linear order rule: • Is the girl who _ in the room is laughing? L2-study knowledge of complex question formation (Otsu and Naoi 1986)
UG-Access and L2 Acquisition The phenomenon underdetermined by the L2 input. – It cannot be acquired by observation of the L2 input, including statistical inference, analogy, or instruction. The phenomenon underdetermined by the L1 grammar as well. – Transfer of surface properties is ruled out as an explanation of knowledge that L2 learners attain. (White 2003:23)
Motivating UG: L2 acquisition If it turns out that the L2 learner acquires abstract properties that could not have been induced from the input, it can strongly indicate that UG constrains L2 interlanguage grammars. => Systematic L2 errors are predicted by linguistic theory about UG!
For example … – Reflexive binding (Finer and Broselow 1986; Finer 1991; Thomas 1991) – Verb-adverb placement (Eubank et al. 1997; Ionin and Wexler 2002) – Case-checking and Word order (Schwartz and Sprouse 1994) – Metrical parameters associated with stress assignment (Dresher and Kaye, 1990), Archibald (1992, 1993), Pater (1993) – Minimal Sonority Distance parameter (Broselow and Finer 1991).
UG and Article Semantics in L2-English My experimental studies on L2 acquisition of English articles by L1- Korean learners and L1-Russian speakers
UG and Article Semantics in L2-English – Korean and Russian lack articles
UG and Article Semantics in L2-English – Korean and Russian lack articles => no obvious L1 transfer.
UG and Article Semantics in L2-English – Korean and Russian lack articles => no obvious L1 transfer. – The usage of English articles is a subtle and complex phenomenon
UG and Article Semantics in L2-English – Korean and Russian lack articles => no obvious L1 transfer. – The usage of English articles is a subtle and complex phenomenon, so that there is no obvious L2 input or formal instruction on articles.
UG and Article Semantics in L2-English – Korean and Russian lack articles => no obvious L1 transfer. – The usage of English articles is a subtle and complex phenomenon, so that there is no obvious L2 input or formal instruction on articles. • Note. even if L1 has an article, L2-acquisition of articles is not a straightforward matter (e.g. L1- Spanish: Murphy 1997, for an overview)
Background: Article Misuse in L2-English L2-English learners make errors when using English articles: 1) Article omission 2) Article substitution, specifically… Overuse of the in the context “a” is correct Overuse of a in the context “the” is correct [Huebner 1983; Master 1987; Parrish 1987; Thomas 1989; Young 1996, Murphy 1997, Robertson 2000, Leung 2001, Ionin, Ko, Wexler 2003, to appear, Ionin 2003, Ko, Ionin, Wexler 2004, a.o.]
Examples: Article Misuse in L2-English  Production data from L1-Korean speakers: – “When he gave me the bible, he attached the memo which was written about the his love about me.” – “The most valuable object that I have received is the ball and the signature of the famous baseball player is signed on it” (Ionin 2003, Ionin, Ko, & Wexler 2003)
Examples: Article Misuse in L2-English  Production data from L1-Russian speakers: – “When I was living in Ulan-Ude yet unmarried my friends presented me the small seamese kitten.” – “I lost the health tooth, and I have realized after some time how it was valuable for me. It happened unexpectedly – I bit off the solid sweet and that’s all: my nice – facial! – tooth was fractured.” (Ionin 2003, Ionin, Ko, & Wexler 2003)
Understanding Article Misuse  Consensus: L2-English learners make errors when using English articles.  But, there has been no consensus for what causes L2-English errors (Thomas 1989).
Understanding Article Misuse  Consensus: L2-English learners make errors when using English articles.  But, there has been no consensus for what causes L2-English errors (Thomas 1989).  Insight: L2 learners may be sensitive to the fine-grained semantics of articles in English, guided by UG. – Linguistic perspectives are much needed in studying L2-English articles!
Studies on Article Semantics Articles cross-linguistically can encode the discourse-related distinctions of definiteness and specificity, where specificity is viewed as speaker intent to refer (cf. Fodor and Sag 1982). – See Fodor and Sag 1982, Abusch 1994, Reinhart 1997, Winter 1997, Kratzer 1998, among others, for discussion of specific indefinites.
Specific Indefinites and Non-specific Indefinites 1) A man just proposed to me in the orangery (though I’m much too embarrassed to tell you who it was). (Fodor & Sag 1982, ex. (7)) 2) A man is in the women’s bathroom (but I haven’t dared to go in there to see who it is). (Fodor & Sag 1982, ex. (8))
Specific Indefinites and Non-specific Indefinites  Specific indefinite “a” 1) A man just proposed to me in the orangery (though I’m much too embarrassed to tell you who it was). (Fodor & Sag 1982, ex. (7))  Non-specific indefinite “a” 2) A man is in the women’s bathroom (but I haven’t dared to go in there to see who it is). (Fodor & Sag 1982, ex. (8))
Specific Indefinites and Non-specific Indefinites  Specific “this” in English - John has {a, this} weird purple telephone. - John has {a, #this} telephone, so you can reach me there. (Maclaran 1982: 88, ex. (85))
Definiteness and specificity: (for a singular DP) If a DP of the form [D NP] is [+definite], the speaker and the hearer presuppose the existence of a unique individual in the set denoted by the NP. (for formal definitions, see Heim 1991). => the in English If an DP is the form [D NP] is [+specific], the speaker intends to refer to a unique individual in the set denoted by the NP, and considers this individual to possess some noteworthy property (cf. Fodor and Sag 1982; for formal definition, see Ionin 2003). => no morphological marking in English, but le in Samoan.
Hypothesis L2-learners are sensitive to the fine-grained semantic notion of specificity and definiteness available in UG.
Hypothesis L2-learners are sensitive to the fine-grained semantic notion of specificity and definiteness available in UG. Specific “a” => “the”
Prediction: Systematic Errors Specific indefinite => 1) William: I am here for a week. I am visiting (a, the, --) friend from college – his name is Sam Bolton, and he lives in Cambridge now. Non-specific indefinite => 2) Professor Clark: What is Professor Peterson doing? Secretary: She is meeting with (a, the, --) student, but I don’t know who it is.
Prediction: Systematic Errors Specific indefinite => “the” overuse 1) William: I am here for a week. I am visiting (a, the, --) friend from college – his name is Sam Bolton, and he lives in Cambridge now. Non-specific indefinite => 2) Professor Clark: What is Professor Peterson doing? Secretary: She is meeting with (a, the, --) student, but I don’t know who it is.
Prediction: Systematic Errors Specific indefinite => “the” overuse 1) William: I am here for a week. I am visiting (a, the, --) friend from college – his name is Sam Bolton, and he lives in Cambridge now. Non-specific indefinite => correct “a” use 2) Professor Clark: What is Professor Peterson doing? Secretary: She is meeting with (a, the, --) student, but I don’t know who it is.
Results: article use across contexts (N=39) L1-Korean learners overuse the with specific indefinites (22%) significantly more than with non-specific indefinites (4%) [p<.001]. Ionin, Ko & Wexler (to appear)
Results: article use across contexts (N=39) Both L1-Korean and L1-Russian learners of English overuse “the” with specific “a” more than with non- specific “a”. Ionin, Ko & Wexler (to appear)
Discussion: New finding The L2-learners’ errors in article usage are not random, but systematic. They occur primarily in specific indefinite “a” contexts (22%), but not in non-specific indefinite “a” contexts (4%).
Discussion: Implication L2-English learners have access to universal semantic distinction “specificity” that is not encoded by the morphology of articles by either their L1 or their L2.
Discussion L2-English learners have access to universal semantic distinction “specificity” that is not encoded by the morphology of articles by either their L1 or their L2. <= no obvious L1-transfer account..
Discussion L2-English learners have access to universal semantic distinction “specificity” that is not encoded by the morphology of articles by either their L1 or their L2. <= no obvious L1-transfer account.. <= no obvious account based on simple analogy or L2 input/instruction …
Discussion: implication The L2-learners’ errors in article usage are not random, but occur primarily in specific indefinite “a” contexts. => expected from the semantic theory about English articles in UG.
Discussion: Implication Abstract and subtle (but systematic) errors such as article choice in L2 acquisition is explained by linguistic theory about the semantics of articles in UG.
Methodology
Methodology data collection methods: – advantages & disadvantages of each – the choice of the method depends on the experimental question and hypothesis types of studies: – longitudinal vs. cross-sectional – naturalistic vs. experimental
Data Collection Methods spontaneous speech collection & transcription standardized language tests (e.g., TOEFL) tests from psychology (questionnaires) elicitation tests – elicited imitation (repeating complex sentences) – elicited production (e.g., filling in the blank with the right word) – language games (e.g., giving directions)
Data Collection Methods comprehension tasks – act-out tasks – picture-matching intuitional data – grammaticality judgments – preference / acceptability judgments – truth-value judgments – online sentence-matching
Keep in mind… Replication: a good empirical study should be replicable! It should be possible to obtain similar results with the same experimental design and an equivalent group of participants.
Activity I Adverb-verb order In English, an adverb cannot intervene between a verb and its object: – Mary is quietly eating soup. – *Mary is eating quietly soup. In some languages (e.g.,. French), the reverse order is correct. How would you determine whether L2- English learners are aware of adverb-verb order in English?
Activity II The sentence Every cat climbed up a tall tree in my back yard has two potential interpretations: a) Every cat climbed up a different tall tree in my back yard. b) Every cat climbed one particular tall tree in my back yard. However, this sentence does not have the reading, in which every modifies tall tree rather than cat: c) Every tall tree in my back yard was climbed on by a cat. How might you determine that L2-English learners allow interpretations (a) and (b) for this sentence, and disallow interpretation (c)?
Activity III The articles the and a have quite distinct meanings, as illustrated below: a) I saw a movie yesterday. The movie was interesting. b) I have five cats and two dogs. If I had to part with one of my pets, I would give away a cat. c) I have five cats and one dog. If I had to part with one of my pets, I would give away the dog. How might you test L2-English learners’ understanding of the meaning of the vs. a?
Take home message L2-interlanguage grammars L1-influence may explain some (but not all) L2- interlanguage grammars. UG and linguistic theory provide a useful insight for studying L2-interlanguage grammars related to subtle and complex phenomena (e.g. article choice): from neither L1 nor L2, but another natural language, sanctioned by UG! Methodological issues
Development of L2- interlanguage grammars
L1 and L2 acquisition: Differences Knowledge of a language: L2-learners already have a language in place. Age: L2-learners are older than L1-learners Ultimate attainment: In the absence of impairment or deprivation, all children succeed in acquiring their L1. But many L2-learners fail to acquire their L2 fully. Explicit instruction: Children aren’t taught their first language. But many L2-learners do receive explicit instruction in the L2.
Age effect Are children better than adults at learning a second language?
Age effect Age effects in phonology: – later age of arrival to an English-speaking country  greater foreign accent in English – Flege, Munro, and MacKay (1995): • Subjects: 240 L1-Italian L2-English learners • 15 years residence in Canada • Accents judged by native English speakers
Age effect Age effects in syntax: – later age of arrival to an English-speaking country  lower self-reported English proficiency – later age of arrival to an English-speaking country  on average, lower performance on tests of English grammar e.g. Performance on tests of English by L1-Korean and L1-Chinese L2-Engish learners. Data from Johnson and Newport (1989), reproduced in Birdsong and Molis (2001).
Age effect Possible explanations? – Only child L2-learners have access to Universal Grammar – Adults are more influenced by L1-transfer – Children are more motivated than adults to learn a new language – Children receive more input in the second language than adults do

More Related Content

PPTX
Interlanguage and the natural route of development ellis ch. 3
byMasrizal Mahmud
 
PPTX
Interlanguage hypothesis
byIndira Safadi
 
PPTX
Interlanguage
bykaniz fatema
 
PDF
Interaction and Developmental sequences
byShona Whyte
 
PDF
Interlanguage Analysis of Spanish Learners
byArdiansyah -
 
PDF
E10 02 (cap4)
byEDUCAUNSAVIRTUAL
 
PPTX
Interlanguage and interlanguage theory
byAbibAfzal
 
PPTX
Interlanguage7777
byElif Güllübudak
 
Interlanguage and the natural route of development ellis ch. 3
byMasrizal Mahmud
 
Interlanguage hypothesis
byIndira Safadi
 
Interlanguage
bykaniz fatema
 
Interaction and Developmental sequences
byShona Whyte
 
Interlanguage Analysis of Spanish Learners
byArdiansyah -
 
E10 02 (cap4)
byEDUCAUNSAVIRTUAL
 
Interlanguage and interlanguage theory
byAbibAfzal
 
Interlanguage7777
byElif Güllübudak
 

What's hot

PPTX
L2 interlanguage development
bygbrekke
 
DOC
Interlanguage in SLA
bySeptyanto Insomnia
 
PPT
Inter-language theory
byUniversity of Lahore
 
PPTX
Inter language
byAlvin Manalang
 
PPTX
Learner language
byAlan Bessette
 
PDF
Learner language
byShona Whyte
 
PPTX
Ppt of-interlanguage-chapter-3
byMuhammad Sajjad Raja
 
PPTX
SLA-Inter-language presentation
byamorenaz
 
PPTX
second language acquisition
byIslamic Azad University (IAU)- دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی
 
PPTX
Interlanguage
byH. R. Marasabessy
 
PPTX
Psycholinguistic aspects of interlanguage
byPiphyt Areaa
 
PDF
Inter language theory
byDr Shamim Ali
 
KEY
MODELING SECOND LANGUAGE LEARNERS’ INTERLANGUAGE AND ITS VARIABILITY
bysylviethouesny
 
PPT
Fossilization of the Interlanguage system.
byAna Stefanelli
 
PPTX
Chapter 5
byMona Dabagh
 
PPTX
PRESENTASI INTERLANGUAGE
byIsti Nurhayati
 
PPTX
Stages of Learner Language Development
byPuspita Pertiwi
 
PPTX
Applied linguistic: Contrastive Analysis
byIntan Meldy
 
PPTX
Social aspects of interlanguage
byLina Andriani
 
PPTX
Analysing interlanguage: how do we know what learners know?
byPun Yanut
 
L2 interlanguage development
bygbrekke
 
Interlanguage in SLA
bySeptyanto Insomnia
 
Inter-language theory
byUniversity of Lahore
 
Inter language
byAlvin Manalang
 
Learner language
byAlan Bessette
 
Learner language
byShona Whyte
 
Ppt of-interlanguage-chapter-3
byMuhammad Sajjad Raja
 
SLA-Inter-language presentation
byamorenaz
 
second language acquisition
byIslamic Azad University (IAU)- دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی
 
Interlanguage
byH. R. Marasabessy
 
Psycholinguistic aspects of interlanguage
byPiphyt Areaa
 
Inter language theory
byDr Shamim Ali
 
MODELING SECOND LANGUAGE LEARNERS’ INTERLANGUAGE AND ITS VARIABILITY
bysylviethouesny
 
Fossilization of the Interlanguage system.
byAna Stefanelli
 
Chapter 5
byMona Dabagh
 
PRESENTASI INTERLANGUAGE
byIsti Nurhayati
 
Stages of Learner Language Development
byPuspita Pertiwi
 
Applied linguistic: Contrastive Analysis
byIntan Meldy
 
Social aspects of interlanguage
byLina Andriani
 
Analysing interlanguage: how do we know what learners know?
byPun Yanut
 

Similar to Stony brook class_presnt.ppt on interlanguage

PPT
Stony Brook Class Presnt
byDr. Cupid Lucid
 
PPTX
Error Analys vms is. pptx.pptx
bySubramanian Mani
 
PPT
Chapter 8 cli cross linguistic interfernce
byLashika Dambadeniya
 
PPT
4 learner error analysis
byAhmed Hussein
 
PPT
4 learner language interlanguage
byAhmed Hussein
 
PPTX
Causes and Effects of Grammar Errors
byYhsar
 
PPTX
Causes and Effect of Errors.ppt free download
by2022bseng10
 
PPTX
Introduction to error analysis
byMuhmmad Asif
 
PPT
4learnerlanguageinterlanguage 130328142656-phpapp01
byazra1987
 
PPT
Error analysis
byabderrahim bellahcen
 
PPTX
Compare and Contrast First and Second Language Acquisition
byIsna Dwi Setianingsih
 
PPTX
Learner errors
byiBATEFL.COM
 
PPTX
Second-Language Acquisition (Cross-Linguistic Influence and Learner Language)
bySatya Permadi
 
PPTX
Introduction to Eror Analysis.pptx free download
by2022bseng10
 
PPTX
Language and linguistics error analysis
byMuhammadiyah University of Surakarta
 
PPT
Learner Language
bySantiago Betancur
 
PPTX
cAUSES OF ERRORS.pptx
bySyedNadeemAbbas6
 
PDF
The Linguistics of Second Language Acquisition
bykashmasardar
 
PPTX
Error Analysis (Errors explanation).pptx
bysairakhan999817
 
PPTX
3348280.pptx
by酷 李
 
Stony Brook Class Presnt
byDr. Cupid Lucid
 
Error Analys vms is. pptx.pptx
bySubramanian Mani
 
Chapter 8 cli cross linguistic interfernce
byLashika Dambadeniya
 
4 learner error analysis
byAhmed Hussein
 
4 learner language interlanguage
byAhmed Hussein
 
Causes and Effects of Grammar Errors
byYhsar
 
Causes and Effect of Errors.ppt free download
by2022bseng10
 
Introduction to error analysis
byMuhmmad Asif
 
4learnerlanguageinterlanguage 130328142656-phpapp01
byazra1987
 
Error analysis
byabderrahim bellahcen
 
Compare and Contrast First and Second Language Acquisition
byIsna Dwi Setianingsih
 
Learner errors
byiBATEFL.COM
 
Second-Language Acquisition (Cross-Linguistic Influence and Learner Language)
bySatya Permadi
 
Introduction to Eror Analysis.pptx free download
by2022bseng10
 
Language and linguistics error analysis
byMuhammadiyah University of Surakarta
 
Learner Language
bySantiago Betancur
 
cAUSES OF ERRORS.pptx
bySyedNadeemAbbas6
 
The Linguistics of Second Language Acquisition
bykashmasardar
 
Error Analysis (Errors explanation).pptx
bysairakhan999817
 
3348280.pptx
by酷 李
 

Recently uploaded

PDF
Projecte de la porta de la classe de primer A: Mar i cel.
byeduardrubio1
 
PDF
Digital Wellness in University Communities: Libraries as Guardians of Healthy...
bySylvester Ebhonu
 
PPTX
CHAPTER NO.08 HCP BY GG CLINICAL PHARMACY
byGanu Gavade
 
PDF
NAVIGATE PHARMACY CAREER OPPORTUNITIES.pdf
byMd. Zakaria Faruki
 
PPTX
Details of Muscular-and-Nervous-Tissues.pptx
byAshish Umale
 
PDF
Current Electricity for first year physiotherapy
byGanesh Jadhav
 
PDF
DHA/HAAD/MOH/DOH OPTOMETRY MCQ PYQ. .pdf
byAnmol Singh
 
PPTX
How to Manage Reception Report in Odoo 18 Inventory
byCeline George
 
PPTX
The Cell & Cell Cycle-detailed structure and function of organelles.pptx
byAshish Umale
 
PPTX
Accounting Skills Paper-II (Registers of PACs and Credit Co-operative Societies)
byDr. Sushil Bansode
 
PDF
Ketogenic diet in Epilepsy in children..
bymirzasania0810
 
PDF
1ST APPLICATION FOR ANNULMENT (4)8787666.pdf
bykonstantinantountoum1
 
PPTX
Pain. definition, causes, factor influencing pain & pain assessment.pptx
byPompi Begum
 
PDF
The Tale of Melon City poem ppt by Sahasra
bybitrasahasra
 
DOCX
Mobile applications Devlopment ReTest year 2025-2026
byDr. Mazin Mohamed alkathiri
 
PPTX
Limpitlaw "Licensing: From Mindset to Milestones"
byNational Information Standards Organization (NISO)
 
PDF
Projecte de la porta d'i5B: Els animals marins
byeduardrubio1
 
PPTX
2025-2026 History in your Hands Class 4 December 2025 January 2026 .pptx
byEilsONeill
 
PPTX
York "Collaboration for Research Support at U-M Library"
byNational Information Standards Organization (NISO)
 
PDF
FAMILY ASSESSMENT FORMAT - CHN practical
byDr. Sudhadevi Sadanandan
 
Projecte de la porta de la classe de primer A: Mar i cel.
byeduardrubio1
 
Digital Wellness in University Communities: Libraries as Guardians of Healthy...
bySylvester Ebhonu
 
CHAPTER NO.08 HCP BY GG CLINICAL PHARMACY
byGanu Gavade
 
NAVIGATE PHARMACY CAREER OPPORTUNITIES.pdf
byMd. Zakaria Faruki
 
Details of Muscular-and-Nervous-Tissues.pptx
byAshish Umale
 
Current Electricity for first year physiotherapy
byGanesh Jadhav
 
DHA/HAAD/MOH/DOH OPTOMETRY MCQ PYQ. .pdf
byAnmol Singh
 
How to Manage Reception Report in Odoo 18 Inventory
byCeline George
 
The Cell & Cell Cycle-detailed structure and function of organelles.pptx
byAshish Umale
 
Accounting Skills Paper-II (Registers of PACs and Credit Co-operative Societies)
byDr. Sushil Bansode
 
Ketogenic diet in Epilepsy in children..
bymirzasania0810
 
1ST APPLICATION FOR ANNULMENT (4)8787666.pdf
bykonstantinantountoum1
 
Pain. definition, causes, factor influencing pain & pain assessment.pptx
byPompi Begum
 
The Tale of Melon City poem ppt by Sahasra
bybitrasahasra
 
Mobile applications Devlopment ReTest year 2025-2026
byDr. Mazin Mohamed alkathiri
 
Limpitlaw "Licensing: From Mindset to Milestones"
byNational Information Standards Organization (NISO)
 
Projecte de la porta d'i5B: Els animals marins
byeduardrubio1
 
2025-2026 History in your Hands Class 4 December 2025 January 2026 .pptx
byEilsONeill
 
York "Collaboration for Research Support at U-M Library"
byNational Information Standards Organization (NISO)
 
FAMILY ASSESSMENT FORMAT - CHN practical
byDr. Sudhadevi Sadanandan
 

Stony brook class_presnt.ppt on interlanguage

  • 1.
    Interlanguage Grammar in SecondLanguage Acquisition Heejeong Ko MIT
  • 2.
  • 3.
    “Error”? Dictionaries say…  An act that through ignorance, deficiency, or accident departs from or fails to achieve what should be done. (Meriam-Webster Dictionary)
  • 4.
    “Error”? Dictionary views An act that through ignorance, deficiency, or accident departs from or fails to achieve what should be done. (Meriam-Webster Dictionary)  An error is something that you have done which is considered to be incorrect or wrong, or which should not have been done. (Cobuild English Dictionary)
  • 5.
    “Error”? Dictionary views An act that through ignorance, deficiency, or accident departs from or fails to achieve what should be done. (Meriam-Webster Dictionary)  An error is something that you have done which is considered to be incorrect or wrong, or which should not have been done. (Cobuild English Dictionary)  A mistake. (dictionary.com)
  • 6.
    “Errors” in SecondLanguage Acquisition Errors in second language acquisition may mean something totally different.
  • 7.
    “Errors” in SecondLanguage Acquisition Errors in second language acquisition may mean something totally different. – L2-learners’ errors are not random. [cf. mistake]
  • 8.
    “Errors” in SecondLanguage Acquisition Errors in second language acquisition may mean something totally different. – L2-learners’ errors are not random. [cf. mistake] – L2-learners’ errors reflect learners’ systematic knowledge of grammar. [cf. accident act]
  • 9.
    “Errors” in SecondLanguage Acquisition Errors in second language acquisition may mean something totally different. – L2-learners’ errors are not random. [cf. mistake] – L2-learners’ errors reflect learners’ systematic knowledge of grammar. [cf. accident act] – L2-learners’ errors are informative data that we can use to probe into sophisticated linguistic hypotheses and predictions. [cf. incorrect/wrong act]
  • 10.
    L2-Errors => InterlanguageHypothesis Learners have an interlanguage grammar (= a mental representation of grammatical knowledge) at every stage of the acquisition process (Corder 1967, 1981; Selinker 1972).
  • 11.
    L2-Errors => InterlanguageHypothesis Learners have an interlanguage grammar (= a mental representation of grammatical knowledge) at every stage of the acquisition process (Corder 1967, 1981; Selinker 1972). Errors are evidence of hypotheses being tested; they are a sign of progress in learning;
  • 12.
    L2-Errors => InterlanguageHypothesis Learners have an interlanguage grammar (= a mental representation of grammatical knowledge) at every stage of the acquisition process (Corder 1967, 1981; Selinker 1972). Errors are evidence of hypotheses being tested; they are a sign of progress in learning; Interlanguage grammars are systematic and continuously evolving.
  • 13.
    L2-Errors => InterlanguageHypothesis Learners have an interlanguage grammar (= a mental representation of grammatical knowledge) at every stage of the acquisition process (Corder 1967, 1981; Selinker 1972). Errors are evidence of hypotheses being tested; they are a sign of progress in learning; Interlanguage grammars are systematic and continuously evolving. Argument: Learners acquire some aspects of the L2 grammar through similar stages, regardless of their L1.
  • 14.
    L2-Errors => InterlanguageHypothesis Learners have an interlanguage grammar (= a mental representation of grammatical knowledge) at every stage of the acquisition process (Corder 1967, 1981; Selinker 1972). Errors are evidence of hypotheses being tested; they are a sign of progress in learning; Interlanguage grammars are systematic and continuously evolving. Learners acquire some aspects of the L2 grammar through similar stages, regardless of their L1. L1 transfer is not the only process in L2 acquisition.
  • 15.
    Today’s class We willdiscuss some important issues in understanding the interlanguage grammar in second language acquisition.
  • 16.
    Today’s class What factorsmay contribute to the development of L2 interlanguage grammars?
  • 17.
    Today’s class What factorsmay contribute to the development of L2 interlanguage grammars? What is the role of L1 for L2 interlanguage grammar?
  • 18.
    Today’s class What factorsmay contribute to the development of L2 interlanguage grammars? What is the role of L1 for L2 interlanguage grammar? How do L2-learners acquire abstract and subtle grammatical properties without proper input or L1-transfer? Universal Grammar?
  • 19.
    Today’s class What factorsmay contribute to the development of L2 interlanguage grammars? What is the role of L1 for L2 interlanguage grammar? How do L2-learners acquire abstract and subtle grammatical properties without proper input or L1-transfer? Universal Grammar? How do we study L2 interlanguage grammar? (methodology)
  • 20.
    Today’s class What factorsmay contribute to the development of L2 interlanguage grammars? What is the role of L1 for L2 interlanguage grammar? How do L2-learners acquire abstract and subtle grammatical properties without proper input or L1-transfer? Universal Grammar? How do we study the L2 interlanguage grammar? (methodology) A case study: L2-acquisition of English articles
  • 21.
  • 22.
    L1 and L2acquisition: differences
  • 23.
    L1 and L2acquisition: differences  Knowledge of a language: L2-learners already have a language in place.
  • 24.
    L1 and L2acquisition: differences  Knowledge of a language: L2-learners already have a language in place.  Age: L2-learners are older than L1-learners
  • 25.
    L1 and L2acquisition: differences  Knowledge of a language: L2-learners already have a language in place.  Age: L2-learners are older than L1-learners  Ultimate attainment: In the absence of impairment or deprivation, all children succeed in acquiring their L1. But many L2-learners fail to acquire their L2 fully.
  • 26.
    L1 and L2acquisition: differences  Knowledge of a language: L2-learners already have a language in place.  Age: L2-learners are older than L1-learners  Ultimate attainment: In the absence of impairment or deprivation, all children succeed in acquiring their L1. But many L2-learners fail to acquire their L2 fully.  Explicit instruction: Children aren’t taught their first language. But many L2-learners do receive explicit instruction about the L2 grammar.
  • 27.
    L1 and L2acquisition: differences  Knowledge of a language: L2-learners already have a language in place.
  • 28.
    Behaviorism: the roleof L1 for SLA  Behaviorism: language as a set of habits (imitation, reinforcement, analogy) L1-acquisition as imitation and learning by analogy L2-acquisition = learning new habits
  • 29.
    Behaviorism: the roleof L1 for SLA  Behaviorism: language as a set of habits L1-acquisition as imitation and learning by analogy L2-acquisition = learning new habits positive transfer: facilitation L1 habit = L2 habit negative transfer: interference L1 habit ≠ L2 habit
  • 30.
    Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis(CAH: Lado 1957)  Language learning = Learning a new habit  major source of errors in L2 is L1
  • 31.
    Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis(CAH: Lado 1957)  Language learning = Learning a new habit  major source of errors in L2 is L1 Methodologically, analyze errors …
  • 32.
    Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis(CAH: Lado 1957) Language learning = Learning a new habit major source of errors in L2 is L1  by comparing the L1 and the L2 when L1 = L2, learning is easy when L1 ≠ L2, learning is difficult the greater differences = more errors
  • 33.
    Contrastive Analysis Language learning= Learning a new habit major source of errors in L2 is L1 comparing the L1 and the L2 when L1 = L2, learning is easy when L1 ≠ L2, learning is difficult  strong version: predicting where L2- errors should occur  weak version: explaining why L2-errors occur
  • 34.
    L1-influence One of thedifferences between FLA and SLA is that L2 learners already have a set of knowledge about their L1. ↓ How does knowledge of L1 affect acquisition of L2 grammar? ↓ Behaviorism and the contrast analysis hypothesis (CAH) would expect that errors by L2 learners are the result mainly of transfer from their L1. ↓ BUT!
  • 35.
    Problems with theCAH Not all errors can be accounted for by L1 transfer alone.
  • 36.
    Problems with theCAH Not all errors can be accounted for by L1 transfer alone. • Too weak occurrence of errors that are not predicted. • Too strong non-occurrence of errors that are predicted
  • 37.
    Problems with theCAH (too weak)  occurrence of errors that are not predicted.  Second language learner data reflect errors that go beyond the native language. (like child L1 learner data) – He comed yesterday. (Gass & Selinker 1994)
  • 38.
    Problems with theCAH (too strong)  non-occurrence of errors that are predicted. (e.g. Zobl 1980)  French Je les voi I them see ‘I see them’ English I see them *I them see.
  • 39.
    Problems with theCAH (too strong)  non-occurrence of errors that are predicted. (e.g. Zobl 1980)  French Je les voi I them see ‘I see them’ English I see them *I them see. L1-French learners’ L2-English : *I them see L2-English learner’s L1-French: Je voi les
  • 40.
    Error Analysis (Corder1967)  focus on explaining existing errors  distinction between mistakes (performance) and errors (competence): systematic interlanguage grammar  comparison between L2-data and TL
  • 41.
    Error Analysis (Corder1967) focus on explaining existing errors distinction between mistakes (performance) and errors (competence): systematic grammar/errors comparison between L2-data and TL  error collection  error identification  error classification  quantification  analysis of error source  design of pedagogical materials
  • 42.
  • 43.
    Problems: Error Analysis disregard of number of obligatory contexts (avoidance issues, amount correct%)
  • 44.
    Problems: Error Analysis disregard of number of obligatory contexts (avoidance issues, amount correct%)  usage ≠ correct interpretation – Johna likes him *a/b
  • 45.
    Problems: Error Analysis disregard of number of obligatory contexts (avoidance issues, amount correct%)  usage ≠ correct interpretation  multiple interpretations of error sources (neither developmental nor TL-related)
  • 46.
    The role ofL1-transfer in L2- interlanguage grammars Transfer as avoidance (Schachter 1974) Learners avoid constructions in the TL that do not exist in the NL. Differential learning rates Similarities between the NL and the TL facilitate the learning rate. Overproduction Learners overuse of a TL structure that is similar to the NL. e.g., topic-comment structures in the L2-English of L1-Chinese speakers.
  • 47.
    Neither the NLNor the TL, but systematic However, L2-learners’ interlanguage grammars show … – patterns that come from neither the NL nor the TL; not derived from any obvious overgeneralization, strategic inference, or formal instruction. Yet, systematic!
  • 48.
    Beyond L1-influence: Universal Grammarand Second Language Acquisition
  • 49.
    Motivating UG: L1acquisition Learnability arguments: –Child can learn subtle grammatical properties without being taught! –There is no obvious way of explaining Children’s knowledge of language
  • 50.
    Motivating UG: L1acquisition Let’s suppose that the child learn question formation: The girl is laughing  Is the girl __ laughing? Rule: front the “is”
  • 51.
    Motivating UG: L1acquisition What about complex questions? The girl who is in the room is laughing How do you turn this into a question?
  • 52.
    Motivating UG: L1acquisition What about complex questions? Possibility 1: move the first is (a linear order rule) The girl who is in the room is laughing  Is the girl who __ in the room is laughing?
  • 53.
    Motivating UG: L1acquisition What about complex questions? Possibility 1: move the first is (a linear order rule) The girl who is in the room is laughing  Is the girl who __ in the room is laughing? WRONG!
  • 54.
    Motivating UG: L1acquisition What about complex questions? Possibility 2: move the is that’s the main verb of the sentence (a structural rule) The girl who is in the room is laughing  Is the girl who is in the room _ laughing?
  • 55.
    Motivating UG: L1acquisition What about complex questions? Possibility 2: move the is that is the main verb of the sentence (a structural rule) The girl who is in the room is laughing  Is the girl who is in the room _ laughing? RIGHT!
  • 56.
    Motivating UG: L1acquisition What about complex questions? Possibility 2: move the is that is the main verb of the sentence (a structural rule) The girl who is in the room is laughing  Is the girl who is in the room _ laughing? RIGHT! => Children know it!
  • 57.
    Motivating UG: L1acquisition UG is motivated by learnability arguments: – The primary linguistic data (the input that the child is exposed to) underdetermine unconscious knowledge of language (the grammar that the child acquires) – Given the under-determination, it would be impossible to account for L1 acquirers’ achievement without postulating genetically built-in universal linguistic principles. => UG (Chomsky 1965).
  • 58.
    Universal Grammar –Principles: invariantproperties of language –Parameters: principles with a set of built-in options (values, settings)
  • 59.
    Motivating UG: L2acquisition In L2 acquisition, learners are faced, at least potentially, with a similar task to that of L1 acquirer. – There are abstract, complex, and subtle properties of grammar that are underdetermined by the L2 input and by L1 grammar.
  • 60.
    Motivating UG: L2acquisition If it turns out that L2 learners acquire abstract properties that could not have been induced from the input (or their L1), it can strongly indicate that UG constrains L2 interlanguage grammars systematically.
  • 61.
    Motivating UG: L2acquisition L2-study: knowledge of complex question formation (Otsu and Naoi 1986) – Subjects: 11 adolescent L1-Japanese L2-English learners – Japanese doesn’t front anything in questions – The L2-learners were taught how to form simple questions (Is the girl in the room?) but not how to form complex questions
  • 62.
    Motivating UG: L2acquisition Results: – 7 out of 11 L2-learners correctly applied the structural rule: • Is the girl who is the room ___ laughing? – Only 1 L2-learner incorrectly applied the linear order rule: • Is the girl who _ in the room is laughing? L2-study knowledge of complex question formation (Otsu and Naoi 1986)
  • 63.
    UG-Access and L2Acquisition The phenomenon underdetermined by the L2 input. – It cannot be acquired by observation of the L2 input, including statistical inference, analogy, or instruction. The phenomenon underdetermined by the L1 grammar as well. – Transfer of surface properties is ruled out as an explanation of knowledge that L2 learners attain. (White 2003:23)
  • 64.
    Motivating UG: L2acquisition If it turns out that the L2 learner acquires abstract properties that could not have been induced from the input, it can strongly indicate that UG constrains L2 interlanguage grammars. => Systematic L2 errors are predicted by linguistic theory about UG!
  • 65.
    For example … –Reflexive binding (Finer and Broselow 1986; Finer 1991; Thomas 1991) – Verb-adverb placement (Eubank et al. 1997; Ionin and Wexler 2002) – Case-checking and Word order (Schwartz and Sprouse 1994) – Metrical parameters associated with stress assignment (Dresher and Kaye, 1990), Archibald (1992, 1993), Pater (1993) – Minimal Sonority Distance parameter (Broselow and Finer 1991).
  • 66.
    UG and ArticleSemantics in L2-English My experimental studies on L2 acquisition of English articles by L1- Korean learners and L1-Russian speakers
  • 67.
    UG and ArticleSemantics in L2-English – Korean and Russian lack articles
  • 68.
    UG and ArticleSemantics in L2-English – Korean and Russian lack articles => no obvious L1 transfer.
  • 69.
    UG and ArticleSemantics in L2-English – Korean and Russian lack articles => no obvious L1 transfer. – The usage of English articles is a subtle and complex phenomenon
  • 70.
    UG and ArticleSemantics in L2-English – Korean and Russian lack articles => no obvious L1 transfer. – The usage of English articles is a subtle and complex phenomenon, so that there is no obvious L2 input or formal instruction on articles.
  • 71.
    UG and ArticleSemantics in L2-English – Korean and Russian lack articles => no obvious L1 transfer. – The usage of English articles is a subtle and complex phenomenon, so that there is no obvious L2 input or formal instruction on articles. • Note. even if L1 has an article, L2-acquisition of articles is not a straightforward matter (e.g. L1- Spanish: Murphy 1997, for an overview)
  • 72.
    Background: Article Misusein L2-English L2-English learners make errors when using English articles: 1) Article omission 2) Article substitution, specifically… Overuse of the in the context “a” is correct Overuse of a in the context “the” is correct [Huebner 1983; Master 1987; Parrish 1987; Thomas 1989; Young 1996, Murphy 1997, Robertson 2000, Leung 2001, Ionin, Ko, Wexler 2003, to appear, Ionin 2003, Ko, Ionin, Wexler 2004, a.o.]
  • 73.
    Examples: Article Misusein L2-English  Production data from L1-Korean speakers: – “When he gave me the bible, he attached the memo which was written about the his love about me.” – “The most valuable object that I have received is the ball and the signature of the famous baseball player is signed on it” (Ionin 2003, Ionin, Ko, & Wexler 2003)
  • 74.
    Examples: Article Misusein L2-English  Production data from L1-Russian speakers: – “When I was living in Ulan-Ude yet unmarried my friends presented me the small seamese kitten.” – “I lost the health tooth, and I have realized after some time how it was valuable for me. It happened unexpectedly – I bit off the solid sweet and that’s all: my nice – facial! – tooth was fractured.” (Ionin 2003, Ionin, Ko, & Wexler 2003)
  • 75.
    Understanding Article Misuse Consensus: L2-English learners make errors when using English articles.  But, there has been no consensus for what causes L2-English errors (Thomas 1989).
  • 76.
    Understanding Article Misuse Consensus: L2-English learners make errors when using English articles.  But, there has been no consensus for what causes L2-English errors (Thomas 1989).  Insight: L2 learners may be sensitive to the fine-grained semantics of articles in English, guided by UG. – Linguistic perspectives are much needed in studying L2-English articles!
  • 77.
    Studies on ArticleSemantics Articles cross-linguistically can encode the discourse-related distinctions of definiteness and specificity, where specificity is viewed as speaker intent to refer (cf. Fodor and Sag 1982). – See Fodor and Sag 1982, Abusch 1994, Reinhart 1997, Winter 1997, Kratzer 1998, among others, for discussion of specific indefinites.
  • 78.
    Specific Indefinites andNon-specific Indefinites 1) A man just proposed to me in the orangery (though I’m much too embarrassed to tell you who it was). (Fodor & Sag 1982, ex. (7)) 2) A man is in the women’s bathroom (but I haven’t dared to go in there to see who it is). (Fodor & Sag 1982, ex. (8))
  • 79.
    Specific Indefinites andNon-specific Indefinites  Specific indefinite “a” 1) A man just proposed to me in the orangery (though I’m much too embarrassed to tell you who it was). (Fodor & Sag 1982, ex. (7))  Non-specific indefinite “a” 2) A man is in the women’s bathroom (but I haven’t dared to go in there to see who it is). (Fodor & Sag 1982, ex. (8))
  • 80.
    Specific Indefinites andNon-specific Indefinites  Specific “this” in English - John has {a, this} weird purple telephone. - John has {a, #this} telephone, so you can reach me there. (Maclaran 1982: 88, ex. (85))
  • 81.
    Definiteness and specificity: (fora singular DP) If a DP of the form [D NP] is [+definite], the speaker and the hearer presuppose the existence of a unique individual in the set denoted by the NP. (for formal definitions, see Heim 1991). => the in English If an DP is the form [D NP] is [+specific], the speaker intends to refer to a unique individual in the set denoted by the NP, and considers this individual to possess some noteworthy property (cf. Fodor and Sag 1982; for formal definition, see Ionin 2003). => no morphological marking in English, but le in Samoan.
  • 82.
    Hypothesis L2-learners are sensitiveto the fine-grained semantic notion of specificity and definiteness available in UG.
  • 83.
    Hypothesis L2-learners are sensitiveto the fine-grained semantic notion of specificity and definiteness available in UG. Specific “a” => “the”
  • 84.
    Prediction: Systematic Errors Specificindefinite => 1) William: I am here for a week. I am visiting (a, the, --) friend from college – his name is Sam Bolton, and he lives in Cambridge now. Non-specific indefinite => 2) Professor Clark: What is Professor Peterson doing? Secretary: She is meeting with (a, the, --) student, but I don’t know who it is.
  • 85.
    Prediction: Systematic Errors Specificindefinite => “the” overuse 1) William: I am here for a week. I am visiting (a, the, --) friend from college – his name is Sam Bolton, and he lives in Cambridge now. Non-specific indefinite => 2) Professor Clark: What is Professor Peterson doing? Secretary: She is meeting with (a, the, --) student, but I don’t know who it is.
  • 86.
    Prediction: Systematic Errors Specificindefinite => “the” overuse 1) William: I am here for a week. I am visiting (a, the, --) friend from college – his name is Sam Bolton, and he lives in Cambridge now. Non-specific indefinite => correct “a” use 2) Professor Clark: What is Professor Peterson doing? Secretary: She is meeting with (a, the, --) student, but I don’t know who it is.
  • 87.
    Results: article useacross contexts (N=39) L1-Korean learners overuse the with specific indefinites (22%) significantly more than with non-specific indefinites (4%) [p<.001]. Ionin, Ko & Wexler (to appear)
  • 88.
    Results: article useacross contexts (N=39) Both L1-Korean and L1-Russian learners of English overuse “the” with specific “a” more than with non- specific “a”. Ionin, Ko & Wexler (to appear)
  • 89.
    Discussion: New finding TheL2-learners’ errors in article usage are not random, but systematic. They occur primarily in specific indefinite “a” contexts (22%), but not in non-specific indefinite “a” contexts (4%).
  • 90.
    Discussion: Implication L2-English learnershave access to universal semantic distinction “specificity” that is not encoded by the morphology of articles by either their L1 or their L2.
  • 91.
    Discussion L2-English learners haveaccess to universal semantic distinction “specificity” that is not encoded by the morphology of articles by either their L1 or their L2. <= no obvious L1-transfer account..
  • 92.
    Discussion L2-English learners haveaccess to universal semantic distinction “specificity” that is not encoded by the morphology of articles by either their L1 or their L2. <= no obvious L1-transfer account.. <= no obvious account based on simple analogy or L2 input/instruction …
  • 93.
    Discussion: implication The L2-learners’errors in article usage are not random, but occur primarily in specific indefinite “a” contexts. => expected from the semantic theory about English articles in UG.
  • 94.
    Discussion: Implication Abstract andsubtle (but systematic) errors such as article choice in L2 acquisition is explained by linguistic theory about the semantics of articles in UG.
  • 95.
  • 96.
    Methodology data collection methods: –advantages & disadvantages of each – the choice of the method depends on the experimental question and hypothesis types of studies: – longitudinal vs. cross-sectional – naturalistic vs. experimental
  • 97.
    Data Collection Methods spontaneousspeech collection & transcription standardized language tests (e.g., TOEFL) tests from psychology (questionnaires) elicitation tests – elicited imitation (repeating complex sentences) – elicited production (e.g., filling in the blank with the right word) – language games (e.g., giving directions)
  • 98.
    Data Collection Methods comprehensiontasks – act-out tasks – picture-matching intuitional data – grammaticality judgments – preference / acceptability judgments – truth-value judgments – online sentence-matching
  • 99.
    Keep in mind… Replication:a good empirical study should be replicable! It should be possible to obtain similar results with the same experimental design and an equivalent group of participants.
  • 100.
    Activity I Adverb-verb order InEnglish, an adverb cannot intervene between a verb and its object: – Mary is quietly eating soup. – *Mary is eating quietly soup. In some languages (e.g.,. French), the reverse order is correct. How would you determine whether L2- English learners are aware of adverb-verb order in English?
  • 101.
    Activity II The sentenceEvery cat climbed up a tall tree in my back yard has two potential interpretations: a) Every cat climbed up a different tall tree in my back yard. b) Every cat climbed one particular tall tree in my back yard. However, this sentence does not have the reading, in which every modifies tall tree rather than cat: c) Every tall tree in my back yard was climbed on by a cat. How might you determine that L2-English learners allow interpretations (a) and (b) for this sentence, and disallow interpretation (c)?
  • 102.
    Activity III The articlesthe and a have quite distinct meanings, as illustrated below: a) I saw a movie yesterday. The movie was interesting. b) I have five cats and two dogs. If I had to part with one of my pets, I would give away a cat. c) I have five cats and one dog. If I had to part with one of my pets, I would give away the dog. How might you test L2-English learners’ understanding of the meaning of the vs. a?
  • 103.
    Take home message L2-interlanguagegrammars L1-influence may explain some (but not all) L2- interlanguage grammars. UG and linguistic theory provide a useful insight for studying L2-interlanguage grammars related to subtle and complex phenomena (e.g. article choice): from neither L1 nor L2, but another natural language, sanctioned by UG! Methodological issues
  • 104.
  • 105.
    L1 and L2acquisition: Differences Knowledge of a language: L2-learners already have a language in place. Age: L2-learners are older than L1-learners Ultimate attainment: In the absence of impairment or deprivation, all children succeed in acquiring their L1. But many L2-learners fail to acquire their L2 fully. Explicit instruction: Children aren’t taught their first language. But many L2-learners do receive explicit instruction in the L2.
  • 106.
    Age effect Are childrenbetter than adults at learning a second language?
  • 107.
    Age effect Age effectsin phonology: – later age of arrival to an English-speaking country  greater foreign accent in English – Flege, Munro, and MacKay (1995): • Subjects: 240 L1-Italian L2-English learners • 15 years residence in Canada • Accents judged by native English speakers
  • 108.
    Age effect Age effectsin syntax: – later age of arrival to an English-speaking country  lower self-reported English proficiency – later age of arrival to an English-speaking country  on average, lower performance on tests of English grammar e.g. Performance on tests of English by L1-Korean and L1-Chinese L2-Engish learners. Data from Johnson and Newport (1989), reproduced in Birdsong and Molis (2001).
  • 109.
    Age effect Possible explanations? –Only child L2-learners have access to Universal Grammar – Adults are more influenced by L1-transfer – Children are more motivated than adults to learn a new language – Children receive more input in the second language than adults do