CLL lecture: L2 development 2 November 2004 Florencia Franceschina.

CLL lecture: L2 development

2 November 2004

Florencia Franceschina

What do we study when we study (L2) development?

Developmental sequences Mechanisms that cause these sequences

(transition theories)

What are the sequences of L2 development?

NB: It is important to separate rate and route of development when analysing developmental data.

Example: Morpheme order studies

(Dulay and Burt, 1973, 1974; Bailey, Madden and Krashen, 1974)

Dulay and Burt (1974)

Example:The acquisition of question formation Pienemann, Johnston and Brindley (1988)

1. A dog?2. The boys throw the shoes?3. What the dog are playing? Is the picture has two planets on top?4. Where is the sun?5. How do you say [proche]?6. It’s better, isn’t it? Why can’t you go? Can you tell me what the date is today?

Example:The acquisition of negation

Schumann (1979)

1. No bicycle.No have any sand.I no like it.

2. He don’t like it.I don’t can sing.

3. You can not go there.He was not happy.She don’t like rice.

4. It doesn’t work.We didn’t have supper.I didn’t went there.

L1 vs. L2 developmental sequences

There are some similarities and some differences

Example:Dulay, Burt and Krashen (1982), Meisel, Clahsen and Pienemann (1981)

Dulay and Burt (1974)

Adult vs child L2 development

They are quite similar, although some differences have been found in rate and route of development of different age groups

Example: Compare Dulay and Burt (1974) and Bailey Madden and Krashen (1974)

*Dulay and Burt (1974)

** Bailey et al. (1974)

L1 effects on L2 development

On rate of developmentDulay and Burt (1974) on grammatical morphemesSchumann (1982) on negationGilbert and Orlovic (1975) on articles

Keller-Cohen (1978) on yes/no questions

On route of developmentZobl (1982) on articles

Context of acquisition effects on L2 development

Virtually no effects in terms of route of developmentDulay and Burt (1973) Pienemann (1989)Pica (1983) Perkins and Larsen-Freeman (1975)

Some effects of instruction on rate of acquisitionPienemann (1989)

Dulay and Burt (1973)

Methodological issues

How should one measure language development?

- Emergence criterion

- Mastery (accuracy) criterion

Explaining developmental sequences

According to Gregg (1996), developmental sequences can be explained as:

– Environmental– Reductive– Teleological– Psycholinguistic

Theories of L2 development

(a.k.a. transition theories)

1. General learning principles (non-modular)

2. Modular learning mechanisms

1. Non-modular theories

Based on general learning principles

Example:- hypothesis testing- automaticity- inferencingetc.

LA= acquisition of a complex cognitive skill

2. Modular theories

UG-basedExample:Subset Principle(Wexler and Manzini, 1987)

OtherExample:Communicative Competence Theory (e.g., Canale and Swain, 1980; Bachman, 1990)

Subset Principle(e.g., Wexler and Manzini, 1987)

[-pro drop]

[+pro drop]

Superset

Subset

Communicative language competence(e.g., Canale and Swain, 1980; Bachman, 1990)

Language Competence

Organizational Competence

Pragmatic Competence

Grammatical Competence

Textual Competence Illocutionary Competence Sociolinguistic Competence

Vocabulary Morphology Syntax Phonology/Graph Cohesion Rhetorical organization

Ideat. functions

Manip. functions

Heur. functions

Imag.fucntions Sensitivity to

dialectal variety

Sensitivity to register

Sensitivity to nat.

Cultural refs. and

figs. of speech

C o m p o ne n ts o f C o m m u n ica tive C o m p e ten ce in C o m m u n ica tive La n g ua g e U se

L a ng u ag e C om pe ten ce(K o w le d ge o f th e w o rld )

K o w led g e S tru ctu res(K no w led ge o f la ng u ag e)

S tra te g ic C o m p e te n ce

C o nte n te xt o f S itu a tion

P sych op h ys io lo g ica l M e cha n ism s

Current issues in UG-based theories of L2 development

The initial state debate:

Minimal Trees (Vainikka and Young-Scholten, 1994, 1996, 1998)

vs

Full Transfer/Full Access (Schwartz and Sprouse, 1994, 1996)

The endstate debate:

Missing Surface Inflection Hypothesis

(Prevost and White, 2000)

vs.

Failed Functional Features Hypothesis

(Hawkins and Chan, 1997)

Reading

Hawkins, R. 2001: Second Language Syntax. A generative introduction. Oxford: Blackwell. (Chapter 2)

References

Bachman, L. F. 1990: Fundamental considerations in language testing. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Bailey, N., C. Madden and S. Krashen 1974: Is there a 'natural sequence' in adult second language learning? Language Learning 24: 235-243.

Canale, M. and M. Swain. 1980: Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to second language teaching and testing. Applied Linguistics 1, 1: 1-47.

Dulay, H. and M. Burt. 1973: Should we teach children syntax? Language Learning 23, 245-258. Dulay, H. and M. Burt 1974: Natural sequences in child second language acquisition. Language

Learning 24: 37-53.Dulay, H., M. Burt and S. D. Krashen. 1982: Language two. New York: Oxford University Press.Gregg, K. R. 1996: The logical and developmental problems of SLA, in W. C. Ritchie and T. K.

Bhatia, eds. The handbook of second language acquisition. San Diego: Academic Press. Pp. 49-81.

Hawkins, R. and C. Chan 1997: The partial availability of UG in second language acquisition: the ‘failed functional features hypothesis’. Second Language Research 13, 3: 187-226.

Meisel, J. M., H. Clahsen and M. Pienemann. 1981: On determining developmental stages in natural second language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 3, 2: 109-135.

Perkins, K. and D. Larsen-Freeman. 1975: The effect of formal language instruction on the order of morpheme acquisition. Language Learning 25, 237-243.

Pica, T. 1983: Adult acquisition of English as a second language under different conditions of exposure. Language Learning 33, 465-497.

Pienemann, M. 1989: Is language teachable? Applied Linguistics 10, 1: 52-79.Pienemann, M., M. Johnston and G. Brindley. 1988: Constructing an acquisition-based

procedure for second language assessment. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 10, 2: 217-243.

Prévost, P. and L. White. 2000: Missing surface inflection or impairment in second language acquisition? Evidence from tense and agreement. Second Language Research 16, 2: 103-133.

Schumann, J. H. 1979: The acquisition of English negation by speakers of Spanish: a review of the literature, in R. W. Andersen, ed. The acquisition and use of Spanish and English as first and second languages. Washington, DC: TESOL. Pp. 3-32.

Schwartz, B. D. and R. A. Sprouse. 1994: Word order and nominative Case in nonnative language acquisition: a longitudinal study of (L1 Turkish) German interlanguage, in T. Hoekstra and B. D. Schwartz, eds. Language acquisition studies in generative grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Pp. 317-368.

Schwartz, B. D. and R. A. Sprouse. 1996: L2 cognitive states and the 'full transfer/full access' model. Second Language Research 12, 1: 40-72.

Vainikka, A. and M. Young-Scholten. 1994: Direct access to X'-theory: evidence from Korean and Turkish adults learning German., in T. Hoekstra and B. D. Schwartz, eds. Language acquisition studies in generative grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Vainikka, A. and M. Young-Scholten. 1996: Gradual development of L2 phrase structure. Second Language Research 12, 1: 7-39.

Vainikka, A. and M. Young-Scholten. 1998: Functional categories and related mechanisms in child second language acquisition, in S. Flynn, G. Martohardjono and W. O'neil, eds. The generative study of second language acquisition. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum

Wexler, K. and M. R. Manzini. 1987: Parameters and learnability in binding theory, in T. Roeper and E. Williams, eds. Parameter setting. Dordrecht: Reidel. Pp. 41-76.

Zobl, H. 1982: A direction for contrastive analysis: the comparative study of developmental sequences. TESOL Quarterly 16, 2: 169-183.