Transcript Lecture: Psycholinguistics Professor Dr. Neal R. Norrick

Lecture: Psycholinguistics
Professor Dr. Neal R. Norrick
_____________________________________
Psycholinguistics
Universität des Saarlandes
Dept. 4.3: English Linguistics
SS 2009
6. Second Language Acquisition
6.1 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 by
language differences, and the psycholinguistic
process of language acquisition can't be described
solely 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 Interlanguage
for 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 right
and 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 books
2. progressive -ing on verbs: they driving
3. forms of main verb be:
this is London,
she was there
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
forms of auxiliary be:
articles a and the:
irregular past tenses:
3rd person sing pres -s:
possessive -s:
she's driving
a cat, the dog
went, ate, came
she waits
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 be
Group 2: auxiliary be, articles
Group 3: irregular past
Group 4: regular past, 3rd pers -s, possessive -s
Dulay & Burt use cross-sectional testing, i.e. what
percentage 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 a
problem:
• 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 vary
incrementally
Note: Krashen sometimes speaks of an output
filter blocking performance of acquired
rules 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 know
patterns 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