ALL TERMS LING454

Ultimate attainment

 How far learners get along the acquisition continuum or how close they get to nativelikeness. 

Nativelikeness

Having a mental representation for another language that more or less matches that of adult native speakers (NSs) of that language. Knowing what is/isn’t possible in language.

• DOES NOT mean possessing the same communicative skills as adult NSs (speaking, reading, writing). Even NSs differ from each other on assessments of linguistic skills.

The Fundamental Difference Hypothesis

Robert Bley-Vroman.

• L1 acquisition: Input, domain-specific learning mechanisms, universal grammar.

• L2 acquisition: Input, general learning mechanisms, L1.

Claim of _ is based on four observations about L2A relative to L1A:

• More variable with things like outcomes.

• L2A seems to fossilize.

• Adult L2 representations are marked by indeterminate intuitions.

• Often involves explicit instruction and includes negative evidence (information about what is impossible in a language).

_ generates two predictions: 

• Adult L2A does not depend on the same mechanisms as L1A and results in a qualitatively different system. 

Two problems with _:

• Draws illogical arguments from general observations about differences between L1 and L2 acquisition. 

• Empirical data runs counter to _. 

Indeterminate intuitions

Relative strength of the unconscious knowledge people have about the language that they speak. Native speakers tend to have strong intuitions about what is grammatical and what isn’t.

Negative evidence

Information about what is not possible in a given language.

The Critical Period Hypothesis

 Eric Lenneberg

Claims that there is a biologically determined period of time during which language can be acquired. If initial exposure to language occurs after this window of sensitivity, native-like abilities may not be attainable. 

• Best available evidence comes from acquisition of signed language by deaf children born to hearing parents. 

Geometric features

Resembles stretched Zs when graphed.

Temporal features

Sensitivity to input declined throughout the time window.

Representational Deficit Hypotheses

 Predicts that if a learner’s L1 lacks certain functional features, learners will not be able to represent those features in their L2. Their mental representations can only contain abstract features that already exist in L1, supporting the idea that there is a critical period for the functional lexicon. 

• Adult learners have more problems with morphology than children do learning L1.

• Evidence does not support this, too much evidence that suggests L2 learner’s mental representations contains new features/operations that don’t exist in L1.

The Shallow Structure Hypothesis

Clahsen and Felser

A claim about what type of information (syntactical, lexical, pragmatic, etc.) the L2 parser takes advantage of during real-time comprehension of L2 input. 

• Claims L2 parsing (even with advance proficiency learners) relies more on non-syntactic information (lexical, pragmatic, discourse, context). 

• Learners do not rely on same syntactic information as native speakers do. 

Parser

Mechanism in the mind/brain that computes a syntactic structure for every sentence we hear or read as it unfolds in real time.

The Full Transfer/Full Access Hypothesis

Bonnie Schwartz and Rex Sprouse.

Nativelikeness is possible but not guaranteed and FT/FA applies only to aspects of language that are constrained by UG. Believes that there is evidence for L1 influence on mental L2 representation at early stages, learners can move away from L1 influence, and L2 representations show poverty of the stimulus effects similar to those found in L1 acquisition. 

• Full Transfer: Initial state of L2A is L1 mental representation of the formal components of a language and that L2 learners unconsciously assume the L2 contains all of the abstract features, principles, and so forth selected in L1A.

• Full Access: L2 learners have access to all aspects of UG available at the initial state of L1A (all abstract features and principles, including those not selected in L1A, are available and acquirable)

The Interface Hypothesis

Anotella Sorace, Proposes that properties of language governed by UG are ultimately acquirable and properties of language that lie at the interface between syntax and other domains (ex. Discourse) may cause long-term nonnativeness. 

• (First word): Refers to when two different parts of language must work together in sentence formation or comprehension.  

• Research on the acquisition of null-subject languages supports that L2 learners’ mental representations appear to be constrained by overt pronoun constraint (principle of UG) and learners do not have the same interpretive biases for null/overt subjects in globally ambiguous sentences. 

Domain-specific learning mechanisms

Learning mechanisms that are specifically designed to process and organize linguistic input independently of other kinds of stimuli. Central to generative linguistics. 

General learning mechanisms

Only available to adult language learners. Cognitive mechanisms that allow us to acquire new skills and new knowledge. Not specific to any one domain, skill, or knowledge area. 

Robert Bley Vroman

(SCHOLAR) Fundamental Difference Hypothesis. Argued that L2 acquisition looks a lot more like general skill acquisition than it does like chilled L1 acquisition. Suggests that the domain-specific language-learning mechanisms available to children are no longer available to adults (instead relying on general learning mechanisms)

Harold Clahsen and Claudia Felser

(SCHOLAR) Shallow Structure Hypothesis. Proposed that even highly proficient L2 speakers do not rely on the same syntactic information to parse sentences in the L2 that native speakers of the language do.

Bonnie Schwartz and Rex Sprouse

(SCHOLAR) Full Transfer/Full Access Hypothesis. Propose that initial state of L2A is the L1. L2 learners will initially use their mental representation for their L1 to process L2 input and develop a linguistic system.

Anotella Sorace

The Interface Hypothesis, based on non-native speakers’ knowledge and use of null and overt pronouns in a null-subject language.

False

T OR F: Most learners become nativelike, not only some.

True

T OR F: Many L2 learners do not become nativelike because of the quantity and quality of input. 

• Aspects of L2 that are not governed by UG (vocabulary, morphology, and discourse structure) will be acquired late (or not at all).

Explicit knowledge

Knowledge of language that is conscious and articulated by a person.

• Ex. English nouns begin that begin with vowels take an instead of a”.

• Learners might pick up rules from textbooks, teacher explanations, the internet, etc.

Implicit knowledge

Knowledge of language that exists outside of one’s conscious awareness whose contents cannot be articulated by a person.

• Ex. You know you can put re- ahead of verbs to imply that something is done again. Why do you know you can’t repet the dog?

Planned discourse

Speech is not spontaneous and conversational but rather prepared before it is produced, such as the discourse found in a formal speech, readings, literature, or so on. Often what learners are exposed to in the classroom. 

The teachability hypothesis

Manfred Pienemann

Instruction is only beneficial if it targets the next stage in a developmental sequence. Beyond one stage, the effect is null or possibly detrimental.

Effects of Instruction

• Ordered development: Instruction does not override ordered development. Classroom learners traverse the same morpheme orders and developmental sequences as do non-classroom learners. Instruction does not enable learners to skip stages or alter orders/sequences.

  • Instruction could have detrimental effects especially if learners are not developmentally ready to learn what the instruction attempts to teach. 

• Rate of development: Several studies concluded that while ordered development could not be changed, acquisition proceeded faster under instruction, leading Michael Long to claim instruction affects rate of development.

  • Bill VanPatten claimed otherwise, arguing that factors other than instruction on formal properties may explain observed effects (ex. Differences in quantity/quality of input + motivation to learn).

  • No strong case can be made, classroom learners may be faster for reasons unrelated to instruction on formal properties of language. 

Ultimate attainment: Classroom learners get more elaborate input because of focus on degrees of literacy. Pavesi found that the differences in ultimate attainment for her two groups of learners comes down to quality and possible quantity of input. It is ultimately unclear and seemingly impossible to conduct this form of research.

Self-paced reading

Individual sentences are read one word or phrase at a time. Software that controls stimulus presentation records how long a reader spends reading each segment of the sentence. Technique can measure sensitivity to grammaticality by comparing reading timestamps on segments of grammatical and ungrammatical sentences. 

• Often included things that are not grammatically correct, finding that readers spent more time reading things with errors.

• Used to measure implicit knowledge.

Short term vs. longer-term studies

There are many more studies on the short-term effects of L2 instruction than on long-term. Not a lot of long-term studies on ultimate attainment, would be extremely difficult to conduct this research because of intervening variables (things the researcher cannot control).

Maria Pavesi

(SCHOLAR) Discovered that classroom learners than non-classroom learners of ESL produced more types of relative clauses because of exposure to more elaborate input. 

Manfred Pienemann

 (SCHOLAR) Teachability hypothesis. Studied two children learning German word order at different stages of acquisition, found that they could not skip stages in the developmental sequence and that they could only benefit from instruction if it was on something related to the next stage of development. If it was “too advanced”, it either had no effect or even detrimental effect. 

Michael Long

 (SCHOLAR) Claimed that instruction affects rate of development.

Bill Vanpatten

(SCHOLAR) Argued that factors other than instruction on formal properties may explain observed effects (ex. Differences in quantity/quality of input + motivation to learn). Also studied self-paced reading and “long-er studies” about if instruction shows up at a later date.

Jason Rothman

(SCHOLAR) Conducted a study in which non-classroom learners outperformed classroom learners on tests of preterite and imperfect verb forms in Spanish.

True

T OR F? We cannot rely on research to tell us instruction does make a difference.

False

 T OR F? There is a clear overwhelming bias towards implicit knowledge and not explicit knowledge.

True

T OR F? No systematic analysis of treatments has been conducted on the research regarding the effects of instruction.

Pedagogical/textbook grammar

Rules of thumb that help learners bootstrap into language. (Ex. “To make a noun plural in English, add —s).

Prescriptive grammar

 Used to instruct native speakers in the proper use of grammar, especially in formal settings where they might be judged for “bad grammar”. (Ex. “Don’t use contractions, spell out the words.”)

Explicit teaching

Overt teaching of rules by teachers, textbooks, etc.

Explicit learning/processing

Presumed to result from engaging in practice during which learners’ overt attention is on rules. 

• Largely excluded from learning formal elements of language but

•  might aid learning of meaning. 

Acquisition-learning hypothesis

Stephen Krashen

• Learning: intentional focus on learning of rules via explanation and practice, results in explicit language, 

• Acquisition: Happens as a by-product of processing communicative input, resulting in implicit knowledge.

No Interface position

Stephen Krashen

Explicit knowledge does not become implicit knowledge. Both are distinct and do not interact.

Weak Interface position

 Rod Ellis

Position that explicit knowledge can somehow influence the development of implicit knowledge. No good evidence of this position because the research is biased towards testing explicit knowledge and lacks answers to critical questions.

Skill Acquisition Theory

 Robert DeKeyser

Explains how humans learn to perform behaviors (ex. Dancing, driving). When the theory is applied to L2A, linguistic skills are treated like any other kind of skill. There is a relationship between automatized and procedural knowledge but skill theorists do not claim that declarative knowledge turns into procedural knowledge. More a theory of behavior than knowledge. 

Declarative knowledge

“Knowledge that”, Knowledge that can be verbalized and explained and usually involves facts and details. 

Procedural knowledge

“Knowledge how”, Ability to execute a task without explicitly thinking about it even if the person has not developed automatized knowledge.

Automatized knowledge

Knowledge that can be used in relevant contexts accurately and efficiently without conscious awareness with doing so.

The Noticing Hypothesis

Richard Schmidt

States that learners have to notice (become aware of) formal features in input in order for these forms to become intake and subsequently be acquired. Limited to detectable and observable surface features of language, not complete syntax or what is hidden/impossible in a language. 

• Research has not made a clear link between noticing and acquisition.

•  Does not mean conscious awareness becomes intake. Instead, learners are more likely to make use of data if they are aware of the rules

Stephen Krashen

(SCHOLAR) Acquisition-Learning hypothesis, no interface position.

Robert DeKeyser

(SCHOLAR) Skill acquisition theory, claims that people acquire language like any other skill using declarative, procedural, and automized knowledge

Richard Schmidt

(SCHOLAR) Noticing Hypothesis, learners have to be aware of formal features in input in order for forms to be acquired. 

False

T OR F? Scholars largely believe that explicit knowledge turns into implicit knowledge.

True

T OR F? Social factors likely do not play important roles in explicit learning. 

True

T OR F? To create a mental representation of a language, learners have to process data from the environment. In language acquisition, the data isn’t rules but streams of speech (spoken/signed).

Individual Differences

To create a mental representation of a language, learners have to process data from the environment. In LA, the data isn’t rules but streams of speech (spoken/signed).

Language aptitude

Carroll and Sapon

Learner’s ability to acquire an L2 (supposedly an innate and fixed factor).

Phonetic coding ability

Ability to identify individual sounds and to form associations between sounds and symbols.

Grammatical Sensitivity

Ability to identify the syntactic function of words or phrases in sentences. 

Inductive learning ability

Ability to generalize to a rule based on a set of language data.

Rote learning ability

Ability to learn arbitrary associations between sounds and meanings. 

Modern Language Aptitude Test

Carroll and Sapon

Tests aptitude. Correlates with learner’s performance on tests of explicit knowledge. Impacts explicit learning but explicit learning has no impact on the development of implicit knowledge, which is the goal of L2A.

Number Learning

Tests auditory and memory abilities associated with sound-meaning relationships. The user learns names of numbers in a new language and is told to write down the names they are given for different numbers

• Ex. “Ba is one”, “Tu is twenty” -> “tu-ba is twenty one”.

•  Phonetic coding ability.

Phonetic Script

• Tests ability to learn a system for writing English sounds phonetically. The user is given sets of phonetic sounds that are relatively similar. The speaker will pronounce one syllable from a set and the user will circle one.

  • Ex. “Bot” “but” “bok” “buk”. 

  • Phonetic coding ability 

Spelling Cues

• Requires the ability to associate sounds with symbols and depends somewhat on knowledge of English vocab. Each question has a group of words with the top being spelled not in the usual way. The user is to select one of the five that corresponds most closely in meaning to the disguised word.

  • Ex. Grbj -> waste.

  • Phonetic coding ability

• One word in the key sentence will be underlined and printed in capital letters. The User is to select which word in the second sentence plays the same role in that sentence as the underlined word in the key sentence.

• Ex. JOHN took a long walk in the woods.

• Children in blue jeans were singing and dancing in the park..

Paired Associates

Focuses on rote memory aspect of learning foreign language. The user is tasked with memorizing a list of Maya-English vocabulary. User is given 40 seconds to memorize vocabulary before answering questions about the words. 

Working memory

Amount of information a person can store and manipulate at a given time. Influencers how much input. a learner can process and may affect the rate of acquisition. Results of research on the effects of working memory in L2A are mixed. 

Phonological short-term memory

Refers to a person’s capacity for recalling verbal information for short periods of time. Predicts learning L2 vocabulary and morphosyntax. 

• The relationship between working memory and acquisition and processing of syntactic knowledge is less clear. Research uses reading span task. 

Motivation

Gardner and Lambert

Affective factor that captures how oriented learners are to long-term goals. More likely a personality trait than a cognitive factor. Determines whether learners will seek out opportunities to learn and use the L2 (and may affect how far they get). 

Integrative motivation: Desire to learn a language based on an interest or affinity for aspects of the target language culture(s)

Instrumental motivation

Desire to learn a language because it will be useful, usually for a professional or educational reason.

Self-concept

Key factor in a larger constellation of factors that influence how far learners get in L2A.

Ideal L2 self

A component of the L2 motivational self-system that includes how learners see themselves as users of the L2, using hopes and desires for who they want to be as a user of the L2.

Ought-to L2 self

A component of the L2 motivational self-system that includes how learners see themselves using the L2 in the future, including attributes one believes one ought to possess to meet expectations and to avoid possible negative outcomes.

John Carroll and Stanley Sapon

(SCHOLAR)  MLAT testing, set out to identify the abilities that make an individual a great language learner and then developed the first aptitude test. 

Robert Gardener and Wallace Lambert

Linguistic motivation, hypothesized that learners’ social contexts and goals for language learning would influence individual outcomes.

True

T OR F? In adulthood, native speakers of same language or dialect may differ in their vocabulary knowledge but won’t differ in their knowledge of other areas like syntax and semantics. 

True

T OR F? L2A is like L1A: Both rely on CEI, have ordered development, effect of L1 is constrained, largely impervious to outside manipulation, not the result of output, and involve implicit learning processes.

False

T OR F? Social factors do not impact learners’ willingness to seek out level-appropriate input.