This document outlines a proposed research agenda for studying low-literate adult second language acquisition (SLA). It summarizes existing research showing that alphabetic literacy affects oral language processing. The agenda proposes studying (1) the metalinguistic awareness used by emergent readers in oral SLA, (2) the longitudinal development of low-literate learners' interlanguage, (3) the impact of corrective feedback on noticing different forms, and (4) how social context impacts cognitive processes in low-literate SLA. The goal is to better understand these learners and improve instructional practices.

1. A Research Agenda for
Low-Literate Adult SLA
Elaine Tarone
Center for Adv. Research on Language Acq. (CARLA)
University of Minnesota

2. Alphabetic literacy affects oral language
processing in non-literate adults
 Research on adult NL literacy in cognitive psych:
Literate and non-literate adults on L1 oral tasks:
SIGNIFICANTLY DIFFERENT on oral tasks focused on formal
segments of language: involving addition, deletion and
reversal of phonemes and syllables, or repetition of
pseudo-words
NO DIFFERENCE on rhyming, phonetic discrimination
(same/different) tasks, and meaning-focused oral tasks

3. L1 oral processing in non-literate
adults
 Fishing village in southern Portugal (Reis 97, Castro-
Caldas 98)
 Non-literacy common in a homogeneous community; not
viewed as a handicap
 Oldest daughter did child care, didn’t go to school
 Sisters led similar lives, whether literate or not
 Literate and non-literate groups tested on oral language
skills when in 50’s and 60’s

4. Phonological Awareness Tasks
Adrian et al, 1995
 Phoneme addition
 add /p/ to ‘arry’ and what do you get?
 add /s/ to ‘poke’
 Phoneme deletion
 take the /p/ off ‘pare’
 take the /s/ off ‘stan’ or ‘slide’
 Phoneme reversal
 what is /los/ backward? /sol/
 Syllable deletion
 if you take /ka/ off /kade/ what do you have? /de/
 Syllable reversal
 what is /kade/ backwards? /deka/

5. Awareness of Meaning vs. Form
 Word Repetition
 Repeat real words: ‘ballpark’
 Repeat pseudo-words: ‘dallkark’
 Phonological fluency
 list all the words you can think of that begin with /b/
 Semantic fluency
 list all the animals you can think of
Reis and Castro-Caldas
(1997)

6. Alphabetic Script
 Alphabetic script: ideally, one visual symbol
represents one phoneme (e.g. IPA)
 Characters: one visual symbol represents a word
or morpheme

7. Alphabetic script is unique
 Read et al (1986): Compared older adult Chinese readers
of character script vs. adults who could read alphabetic
script
 Oral phoneme deletion and addition task using Chinese
phonological sequences
 Those who could read alphabetic script (Pinyin) were
significantly better than those who could only read
characters
 Conclusion: ability to manipulate phonemes & other
linguistic units, orally & cognitively, results from
alphabetic literacy, not literacy in non-alphabetic scripts

8. Brain imaging shows:
 Grapheme-phoneme correspondence alters
the way humans process phonological
structure and verbal working memory
 Grapheme-phoneme correspondence alters
the structural and functional properties of
the human brain.
Petersson, Ingvar & Reis
(2009)

9. Consensus (Reis & Castro-Caldas 1997)
 Alphabetic literacy provides a cognitive tool enabling
adults to segment the stream of speech
 Associating a visual symbol with a phoneme allows
cognitive visualization of a speech segment, and that
visualization can be mentally manipulated & stored in
working memory
 Non-alphabetically literate adults primarily use
semantic processing of oral language: they focus on
meaning

10. Consensus (cont.):
 Non-literate adults have full competence in their
native language, but they prefer to listen for and
seek meaning in using language, and find it
challenging to focus solely on word length or the
phonemes in a non-word
 Literate adults do semantic processing and can also
do phonological processing: they can focus on
meaning but they can also process oral language in
terms of segmental form

11. What does SLA research tell us about
low-literate adult L2 learners?
 Very little in mainstream
journals, conferences, book
s
 The SLA of the emergent
reader is little known

12. The Goal of SLA Research
 Focus on the learner
 Oral learner language, as
used in communication
 Document development
of learner language over
time
 Describe & explain
cognitive processes

13. Current SLA theories state:
 L2 learners must notice and focus on forms 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?

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

15. 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.

16. Bigelow, delMas, Hansen & Tarone (2006)
 Replicated 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 literacy level and the ability to recall
oral recasts of these errors
 Let’s look at one individual to see what this
means

17. Abukar
 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

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

19. Form-Focused Corrective
Feedback (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)

20. What does Abukar notice?
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]…

21. Summing up: What aspect of the corrections does
Abukar notice & repeat?
 He most easily recalled:
 New vocabulary: ‘jar’
 Second position stress: daDAHdada
 He struggled (=required several turns) to recall:
 Difference in order of words between trigger and
recast: is he he is

22. 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?

23. Steps in an SLA research agenda
1. The metalinguistic awareness
emergent readers use in oral SLA
2. The longitudinal development of
low literate learners’
interlanguage, including the
linguistic forms they acquire
before, during and after becoming
literate
3. Impact of different forms of
corrective feedback on noticing of
different linguistic forms by
preliterate learners
4. Impact of social context on
cognitive processes in low literate
SLA

24. 1. Metalinguistic Awareness: Possible
Hypotheses
 Non-literate adult L2 learners will not be
metalinguistically aware of any linguistic forms in L2
input; all processing will be semantic.
 Non-literate adult L2 learners will be explicitly aware
of some linguistic forms but not others.
 Non-literate adult L2 learners will be explicitly aware of
linguistic forms, but those forms will not be phoneme or
word segments; they may be syllables, stress
patterns, or other linguistic forms.

25. 2. Longitudinal Variationist Case Studies:
Possible Hypotheses
 Interlanguage will develop systematically across
time and social context, in ways related to literacy
development, in unique patterns of emergence and
spread.
 Some linguistic forms may emerge early in casual
contexts, before literacy, and spread later to
classrooms.
 Other linguistic forms may be literacy
related, emerging later in classroom contexts, and
spread to casual contexts.

26. 3. Corrective Feedback: Possible
Hypotheses
 When corrective feedback is structured in terms of
phonemes, morphemes and words, only some linguistic
units will be noticed.
 More noticing will occur when teacher is:
 Structuring corrective feedback in terms of other
formal units (e.g. syllables, syllable stress
patterns, or intonation)
 Using symbols that are not script-based (e.g. colored
blocks like Cuisinaire rods)
 Framing corrective feedback in sociocultural terms

27. 4. Social Contexts of SLA: Possible
Hypotheses
Assuming that learners have different purposes for
using language in different social contexts (e.g.
formal vs. naturalistic – classrooms vs.
communities), and this affects their patterns of
interlanguage use and acquisition, we hypothesize
that:
 Language use skills revealed in out-of-school
cultural practices can be identified, and
 Those language use skills can be engaged in
classrooms to promote oral SLA and acquisition of
literacy.

28. Make learning mutual
Finally, in pursuing this agenda, we need to keep in
mind key ethical issues:
 Value and respect the multilingual learners we
study
 Try to give back at least as much as we take
 Work to discover the learners’ goals and
perspectives, and help them express their own
voices both in gathering and reporting findings

29. Thank you!
etarone@umn.edu