Applying Language Science

8/14/2019 Applying Language Science

1/30

Applying Language Science

to Language Pedagogy


2/30


3/30

ApplyingLanguageScience

toLanguagePedagogy:ContributionsofLinguisticsandPsycholinguistics

toSecondLanguageTeaching

Edited by

Montserrat Sanz and Jos Manuel Igoa


4/30

ApplyingLanguageSciencetoLanguagePedagogy:ContributionsofLinguisticsandPsycholinguisticstoSecondLanguageTeaching,

EditedbyMontserratSanzandJosManuelIgoaThisbookfirstpublished2012

CambridgeScholarsPublishing

12 BackChapmanStreet,NewcastleuponTyne,NE62XX, UK

BritishLibraryCataloguinginPublicationDataAcataloguerecordforthisbookisavailablefromtheBritishLibrary

Copyright2012byMontserratSanzandJosManuelIgoaandcontributors

Allrightsforthis book reserved.Nopartofthis bookmaybereproduced, storedinaretrievalsystem, ortransmitted, inanyformorbyanymeans, electronic, mechanical,photocopying,

recordingorotherwise, withoutthepriorpermissionofthecopyright owner.

ISBN (10): 1-4438-3572-2, ISBN (13): 978-1-4438-3572-5


5/30

ToWilliamandElena,

fromwhomwestolemanyfamily moments

toproducethisbook


6/30


7/30

TABLEOFCONTENTS

ListofFiguresandTables.......................................................................... ix

Acknowledgements......................................................................................xi

ChapterOne................................................................................................ 1

SecondLanguageDevelopmentIsNotLinear

Montserrat SanzandJosManuelIgoa

PARTI:SYNTAXANDSYNTAXPROCESSING

ChapterTwo.............................................................................................. 19

SyntaxandSentenceProcessinginRelationtoLanguageTeachingMontserrat SanzandJosManuelIgoa

ChapterThree............................................................................................ 53

ParametricSyntax:AnOverviewLuisEguren

ChapterFour.............................................................................................. 89

LessonsfromPsycholinguisticsforSecondLanguageLearning

ThomasG.Bever

ChapterFive............................................................................................ 107

PsycholinguisticPerspectivesonSecondLanguageSpeechProduction

Noriko Hoshino,Judith F.KrollandPaola E.Dussias

PARTII:STRUCTUREANDPROCESSINGOFTHELEXICON

ChapterSix.............................................................................................. 131

LearningandProcessingWords

Montserrat SanzandJosManuelIgoa

ChapterSeven......................................................................................... 165

PropertiesandInternalStructureoftheLexicon:ApplyingtheGenerativeLexiconModeltoSpanishElenadeMiguel


8/30

viii Table of Contents

ChapterEight.......................................................................................... 201

L2VocabularyTeaching: DebunkingPervasiveMyths

NorikoIwasaki

ChapterNine........................................................................................... 221

TheDevelopmentofEmotionWordsinLightoftheSemanticsofScripts

GeorgyNuzhdin

PARTIII:CLASSROOMLEARNINGANDLINGUISTIC

LANDSCAPES

ChapterTen............................................................................................. 255SocioculturalandCommunicativeAspectsofLanguageDevelopment

andLanguageTeaching

MontserratSanz,Jos Manuel IgoaandArturoEscandn

ChapterEleven........................................................................................ 271

WhyLearnerswithan InformalOrientationbecomeAcademicFailures

andWhatCanBeDonetoReversetheirFate

ArturoEscandn

ChapterTwelve....................................................................................... 293

UsingLiteraryTextsForEFLInJapan:AComparativeAnalysis

ofTwoApproaches

LoriZenuk-NishideandDonnaTatsuki

ChapterThirteen..................................................................................... 321

LinguisticLandscapesandEnvironmentalPrintasaResource

forLanguageandLiteracyDevelopmentinMultilingualContexts

OlgaBever

ChapterFourteen..................................................................................... 343

Corollary

MontserratSanzandJosManuelIgoa

Contributors................................................................. ........................... 349

Index........................................................................................................ 351


9/30

LISTOFFIGURES

Chapter

Three:

Figure3-1:TheParameterHierarchy(fromBaker2003:352)

ChapterFive:

Figure5-1.Ablueprintofthespeaker(adaptedfromLevelt1989).

Figure5-2.Amodelofnonselectivelexicalactivation(adaptedfrom

PoulisseandBongaerts1994andHermans2000).

Figure5-3.Meanpercentofagreementerrorsasafunctionofnumber

mismatch,distributivity,andlanguagegroup.

ChapterSix:

Figure6-1.Canonicalmappingsfromconstantstostructuraloperators(LevinandRappaportHovav1996)

ChapterNine:

Figure9-1.Thefirst20mostfrequentemotional termsinSpanish (amountofoccurrencesper millionintheCorpusofRealAcademiaEspaola).

TheapproximateEnglishtranslationsaregiveninthefigure.

Figure9-2.Percentageofcorrectdefinitionstocentralemotionterms

givenbythefourgroupsofRussianparticipants.

Figure9-3.Percentageofcorrectdefinitionstoperipheralemotionterms

givenbythefourgroupsofRussianparticipants.Figure9-4.Frequencyofmentionsofemotionaltermsperstory.

Figure9-5.Vignettesofthesadness (toppanel)andanguish(bottom

panel)stories.

Figure9-6.Sizeoftheprimingeffectacrossfourprimingconditionsinthe

threegroupsofparticipants.

ChapterEleven:

Figure11-1.Realizationlabelling,AUsCommunicationcourse

Figure11-2.Realizationlabelling,BUsCommunicationcourse

ChapterTwelve:

Figure12-1.Literary TextAnalysisFramework (AdaptedbyTakeda,

Choi,MochizukiandWatanabe(2006)fromLittlejohn(l998))

ChapterThirteen:

Figure13-1.TrilingualdiagrambetweenRoman,CyrillicRussianand

CyrillicUkrainianscripts

Figure13-2.Bivalentmessages

Figure13-3.Bivalentmessage

Figure13-4.BivalentmessageFigure13-5.Bivalentmessage

Figure13-6.Bivalentmessage


10/30

x List of Figures and Tables

LISTOFTABLES

Chapter

Six:Table6-1:ExamplesofactiontypesinEnglishandSpanish(fromSanz

2000)

ChapterNine:

Table9-1.Somefiguresfromtheresponsesofthethreegroupsof

participants.

Table9-2.SameanddifferentresponsesgivenbyRussianandSpanish

participants

Table9-3.Categoriesofresponsesfromthetaxonomyofresponses.

Table9-4.Numberofusagesofcertainemotionaltermsacrossallthenarratives

Table9-5.Themostfrequentemotionalresponsesgivenbythefourgroupsofparticipantsintworepresentativestories.

Table9-6. Summaryofresultsofthethreegroupsofparticipantsinthe

lexicalprimingexperimentunderbothSOAconditions(SOA60/150

msec.).

ChapterEleven:

Table11-1.Orientationstopedagogicdiscourseandpracticeasafunction

ofpassiverealizationofweaklyframedcommunication,communicationandgrammardiscourses(AfterEscandn2010).

ChapterTwelve:

Table12-1.TheWhaleRiderVocabularyProfile(Percentagesin

parentheses)

ChapterThirteen:

Table13-1.Phoneme-graphemeUkranian-Russiancorrespondence


11/30

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Thisbook istheresultofaconferenceheld inSegovia (Spain) inMarchof 2010. The conference, entitledAdvances in theSciences ofLanguageandTheirApplicationtoSecondLanguageTeaching,tookplacethankstothecollaborationofmanypeopleandinstitutions,inparticulartheUniversidadAutnomadeMadrid, theUniversidadNacionaldeEducacin aDistancia(UNED)inSegovia, theSpanishMinistryofScienceandInnovation,andSegoviaMunicipalTourismBureau.Wewouldliketoexpressourdeepestgratitude toDr.AntonioLpezPelez,DirectorofUNEDSegovia,forhisenthusiasticsupport inmaking theconferenceareality.Also, this fruitfulscientificencounterwouldhavebeenimpossiblewithouttheprecioushelpofClaudiadeSantos,SegoviascouncillorofTourismandHistoricalHeritage,BelnPeaGonzlez,manageroftheMunicipalTourismBureau,andRaquelLucaAltance,ofthesamebureau.Wealsothanktheresearcherswhokindlytraveledfromall overtheworldtoparticipateintheconference,theaudience

whomadeitlivelyandinteresting,andthepeopleofSegovia,whoinmanywaysmadeourstaythereadelightfulandunforgettableexperience.

ThebookhasbeenformattedwithReadSmartbyLanguageTechnologies,Inc.This isaspecial formatting thatmakes textmore readable and leadsto a morepleasant experience for the reader (see Chapter 4 of thebookfor a detailed description). The founder of the company that createdtheprogram,Thomas G. Bever, who is alsoone ofour contributors, hasgenerouslyprovided with theopportunity tohave thisbookbe in itself a

practical application of research in the Language Sciences. We sincerelythankhimand thepeoplefromLanguage Technologies,Inc.whohave madethispossible,ChrisNicholasandKristenPruett,fortheirkindnessandhardwork.Wearesurethat thereaderswillbethankfulaswell.

And last,but not least, we wish to give our heartfelt thanks to CarolKoulikourdi,AmandaMillarandSoucinYip-Sou,fromCambridgeScholarsPublishing,foracceptingourproposaltopublishthisbookandforthehelpandguidancetheyhaveprovidedallalongtheprocess.


12/30


13/30

CHAPTERONE

SECONDLANGUAGEDEVELOPMENTISNOTLINEAR

MONTSERRATSANZANDJOSMANUELIGOA

1.1 Introduction

Language teachers would find it difficult to fulfill their obligationsmerrily if they did notbelieve thatstudents learn what they are taught.It is therefore understandable that, in spite of evidence that teachingand learning are two different things, teachers and educational systemshold on to this ideal and expect an almost linearprogression in thestudents. Thirdyearstudentsofalanguage, ifstudiousandmotivated, are

supposed toperformbetter than secondyear students, and so on. Theyare also expected to have learned the basics of grammar that werecoveredinthebeginningstages. However, as anylanguageteacherknows,students in their intermediate-advanced stages do not necessarily showsuchproficiency, at least with regard tosomeconstructions andcertaintasks.

To give an example, we have explored in detail the apparent stageofstagnation that weobserve in third-year Japaneseuniversity studentsmajoring inSpanish (Sanz andFukushima2003; Sanz, Civit, Rodrguez,

Fukushima, Nishikawa and Miyamoto 2005; Sanz, Civit and Rodrguez2005; Sanz and Civit 2007; Sanz, Rodrguez andRamrez 2007). Itwasclear tousbyobservingspontaneousproduction (writtenandoral tasks)that third-year students performance was atbest the same as or evenworse than that of their second-yearpeers. Thephenomenon couldbedue to a simple overload of material and to an increase in the taskdemands that third-year students areexpected to satisfy. In fact, that iswhatmostpeopleofferedtousasanexplanation.Nevertheless, wewantedtoexplorewhether theseemingregressionwasasystematicprocess thatcouldbe explained

on some theoreticalbasis. To that end, we applied


14/30

2 Chapter One

several tasks and techniques to gather data. We reasoned that, if theexplanation rested on a simple saturation of information and demands,

theerrorsshouldbemostlyrandomandwouldprobablydifferdependingonthetask. Onthecontrary, whatwefoundwasthaterrorsareconsistentandsystematicthroughoutsubjectsandtasks. Forinstance, studentsintheirsecondyearperformprettyaccurately intheiruseofthecopulasserandestar. However,bytheirfifthsemester(thirdyear), theaspectualuseofestar(Maraestcansada, Mary istired) virtually disappearsfromtheirwrittenandoralproduction, whetherspontaneousorelicited. Itispreciselyatthattimethattheystartusingtheimperfectpasttense.1Thesystemofaspectiswhatseemstobeatstakeinthisstageoflearning. Wehypothesizedthat

studentsreorganizetheirinternalsystemwhennewconstructionsbearingthesamefeaturesappearintheinput. Thecopulaestarisincorporatedfirst,andwhen theimperfectandotherrelatedaspectualstructures2come intothepicture, the learnermustaccommodate them intoacoherentsystem,which maybe the cause of the temporal regression stage. Even if thisinterpretationofthedataisnotaccepted, thefactisthatthelearningprocessdoesnotappearascleanasitshould ifwhatiscovered inthebeginningstageshadbeeninternalizedandremainedstable.

This is only one of many examples of lack of success at fullling

teachers and learners expectations. Years ofstudy are not aguaranteethat mistakes will notbe made on verb inflection, agreement features,useofarticles, particles, prepositions, andsoon. Unfortunately, practicedoesnotmakeperfect inallcases: fossilization ofgrammatical featuresseems tobe an almost unavoidablephenomenon in theprocess ofacquiring a second language (see Han and Odlin 2006, for referencesand a collection ofpapers on fossilization). Furthermore, students whoachievefluencybylivingabroadoftentimesshow stagnation ofstructuralaspectsorlackofacquisitionofnewgrammaticalknowledge(Nishikawa

2008; Wright 2010, 2012). At the same time, it is clear thatprogress

1Althoughthiscoincideswithaclear avoidanceofthepast(theytendtostop usingthepastandproducesentences inthepresentorwithoutconjugation), when theyuse thepast, theyarebetter than second-year students atusing both past formsinSpanish,theimperfectiveandthepreterite.2 For instance, the use of aspectual se (Se le cay, He dropped something,

Selocomitodo,Heateeverythingup), alsoshowsadeclineinaccuracyinthird-

yearstudentsproduction.


15/30

3Second Language Development Is Not Linear

in the mastery of the language is notproportional to the length of thestay: aperson who, after studying the language formally, stays in a

target language country for one year, does not necessarily speak twiceas well as one who has only spent six months, for instance. Likewise,long-termforeignresidentsperformanceoften leaves alottobedesired.In sum, the truth is that, although mostpeople communicateprettywell after a few years of learning a language seriously, the linguisticcode is rarely completely broken. Most learners second languagediscourse betrays their being foreigners through small grammaticalmistakesthatpersistthroughouttheyears.

On abrighter side, students do seem to acquireproperties that are

not in the input in an obvious way or that have notbeen explicitlytaught (Nick Ellis 1994; DeKeyser 2003; Cook 2008, among others),and at times they show spurts of learning that appear toplace themsuddenly ata much moreadvancedstage thanbefore. Thesephenomenareveal the existence of mentalprocesses internal to students that occurinaparallelbutindependentfashiontotheeffortsofteachers.

In conclusion, learning a language, although idealized as a steadyprogress from a null state of knowledge to a certain level of mastery,is not a linearprocess, in contrast to teaching, whichproceeds in a

straightforward fashion: learning involves mentalprocesses that are notcurrently reflected in teaching approaches. Overlooking this fact makesuspuzzled or annoyed when a student in the advanced stages makesmistakes instructures that arecovered inclass in thebeginningcourses.A good way to explore and understand the non-linearity of theprocessis by turning to the Sciences of Language for deep insights aboutnaturallanguagegrammarsandaboutthehumanmind.

Most debates in teacher training courses concern teaching methods.For decades, the virtues or shortcomings of traditional vs. direct/

audiolingual vs. communicative methods have dominated discussionsin the field. Ironically, even though it is claimed that modern methodsshift attention from the teacher to the student, these debates concernteaching and therefore are about the teacher. They are about how tomaximize class time so that students attention remains alive, hopefullyleading to more learning. What seems tobe missing in most of them,however, isaserious reference to thementalprocesses thatoccurduringlanguagecomprehensionandproductionin thelearners.

There is an extensive literature on L2 acquisition andprocessing

phenomenathathasledtoimportantinsightsandtoavarietyofmodels,


16/30

4 Chapter One

someinspiredinlinguisticsandsomeinpsycholinguisticfacts, toexplainthe acquisitionprocess (see Gass and Selinker 2001, and Saville-Troike

2006, for a review of these models; VanPatten and Williams 2007,for interesting discussions on how much each of them explains abouttheprocess; Johnson 2004, for an overview of thephilosophiesbehindmodels of second language acquisition; and VanPatten 2003, for anexcellent explanation of how to implementpsycholinguistic researchin language teaching and how to understand the SLAprocess as adynamic one, consistent with what we argue for in thisbook). Manylanguage teachersarefamiliarwith thesemodels, whichareattempts tolink theory andpractice. However, the reality is that textbooks and

pedagogical approaches do not usually incorporate these theoriesdirectly. Furthermore, languageteachersingeneralarelessfamiliarwithlinguistic andpsycholinguistic discoveries that are not directly relatedtoL2acquisitionbut that couldbeofhelp inunderstanding theprocessandindesigningbettermaterialsandapproaches. Insum, morethanhalfacenturyoftheoreticallinguisticsandpsycholinguisticsstudiesthathavegivenusanunderstandingofsomeofthefeaturesofhumanlanguagesandthewaytheyareprocessed, seemstohavehadlittlebearingonlanguageteachingapproachesordebates.

Tonameonlyoneproblem, debatesaboutifandhow toteachgrammarusually leave the term grammar undened and ignore what linguistsknow about the grammar of human languages. Most methods, if theyinclude grammar, adhere to two trends: a) a descriptive style that referstothefinalformandmeaningofthesentencebutignorestherealnatureofthe syntax/semantics interface; andb) a choice of structuresbased onfunctionalist criteria. This betrays other misconceptions pervasive inlanguage teaching: 1) that thegrammar ofa language iswhat isvisiblein theutterances of that language; and2) thatcarefullygradedexposure

to descriptive explanations about the form and function of utterancesresults in usable (i.e., functional) knowledge of the rules that underliethesentencesofthetargetlanguage.

Furthermore, most teachers endorse a method or anotherbased ontheir intuitions. If theclassroom is the realm of the teacher, it is naturaltobeconstantlysearching foractivities thatcatch thestudents attentionandmake theclass timeenjoyable. It isalsoeasy tofall intoan illusionofprogress: our students seem to advance wellbecause they appear tofollow, and interact with, teachers in classes conducted in the L2. It is

common tooverlook thatbetween the teacher and the students aclass


17/30


dialect iscreated. Languageteachersareused tofilling inthediscourseofthestudents. Weforget thatasuccessfulcommunicative lessoncanbe

successfulformanyreasons, andnotnecessarilybecauseof theaccuracyand richness of students production. The unconditional nature of theteacher, who understands the students discourse in spite of structuralmistakes, is quite moving and works to keep the class going, but doesnot resemble theperception of the learner that society holds: mistakesby second language learners tend tobe forgivenbynative speakers andevenfoundcharmingup toapoint,butfossilizationofcertaingrammaticalfeaturesafterawhileisperceivedbyeveryoneasafailureonthepartofthestudent.

Thisbook and the conference that originated it (Advances in theSciences of Language and their Application to Second LanguageTeaching, held in Segovia, Spain, in March of 2010), grew out of theconviction that the true concern of the teacher should not onlybe theclassroom,butalsoandforemostthestudents mind.Needlesstosay,theapproachthatteachersadopt, theinteractionsthattheycreateinclass,theorganizationofthematerialfactorsthatwillbediscussedinPart IIIofthisbookarealltheteachersresponsibilityandaffectthedegreeofsuccessofthestudents. However, learningalsoinvolvesmentalprocesses

thatmay followadifferentcourse from thatof the instructionprovidedtothelearner. Peopleseemtoundergostagesofstagnation andregressionaswell asstagesofgreatprogress, suggestingthatlearningisaffectedbymanyfactors. What theteacherteachesisonlyoneofthem.

Theguidingideaofthisbook isthatstudyingwhatisknown todateabout humanlanguagesandthemindisanecessarypartoftheeducationof language teachers. Furthermore, the future of successful languageteaching lies in the realization that learning isnotonly asocialactivitythat depends on the relationshipbetween teacher and student, although

this aspectoflanguagepedagogyisessential. Learningisamentalprocessthat canbe described and understood, and therefore manipulated, byteachers to thebenefit of the learner. Linguistics goes beyond thevisible and explains the features that underlie human languages.Psycholinguistics unveils theprocesses thatoccur whilehumansprocesslanguages and explores which ones are language dependent and whichones are universal. Thepowerful combination of these sciences shouldallowustodeviseamethodofteachingsecondlanguagesthatmaximizeseffort and time. Thisbook introduces some of thediscoveries of these

disciplinesinaneasyandpedagogicalway, inordertoencouragelanguage


18/30

6 Chapter One

teacherstobecomeresearchersandtranscendthevisible. Wedonotboastofofferingacomprehensivevieworhavinganswers toallproblems that

teachers face. Our modest objective is topoint at a fewplaces wherereflectionandresearch isneeded inorder tostartapplying theadvancesofthelanguagesciencestotheclassroom.

1.2 Some L2 Development Issues

In Relation To The Language Sciences

In what sense is the study of language a science? Traditionally,language studies werepart of the Humanities. Grammars ofparticular

languages havebeen described for two millennia. Sentence form, wordmorphology,phonemicdistinctions, languagegenealogiesanddiachronicchangeswerethefocusofstudy. ThisandtherelationoflanguageswiththeirliteraturesandcultureconstitutethePhilologicalStudies. Fromthemid20th centuryon, however, thefocusshifted: therealization thatlanguageacquisitionfollows roughlythesamestepsindependentlyofthelanguagetobe learned and that it happens in spite ofbiased and incompleteexperience with the structures of the language led researchers likeChomskytoadoptamentalistapproachtothestudyoflanguage.

From thisperspective, language is seen as a faculty of the mind-brainor, asChomskylikes tosay, amentalorgan orcognitivesystemthatisinstantiated inthebrainofeveryspeakeranddesigned toperformcomputationsthatrelatesoundtomeaning(Chomsky1986, 1998, 2006).Thiscomputationalsystem followsasetofbasiccombinatorialoperationsthat are thought tobe universal (i.e., the same across languages) andinterfaceswithothercognitivesystems: that inchargeofsoundstructureandpronunciation (theperceptual-articulatory apparatus), and a secondone involved in inferential and reasoning activities (the conceptual-

intentional system). From this division of labor among the threemajorcognitive systemsinvolvedinlanguage, averysimpleandelegantdesignof language emerges in which grammar, the computational apparatusthat combines words and features into well-formed structures, assumesacentralrole. From thisstandpoint, themajoraims of linguisticsare toexplain how this computational system is developed in the individual,especially with regard to the first language, and how it isput to useinunderstandingandspeakingalanguageunderreal-timeconstraints.

As a consequence of this biocognitive shift in the focus of

linguistics, long standingproblems that have captured the interest of


19/30


researchers in the study of second language acquisition andprocessinghavebeguntobeseeninadifferentlight, andalsoahostofnewproblems

have emerged. We willbriefly enumerate some of the most significantonesinthissection.

Firstandforemost, advances in theacquisitionofasecondlanguageare now conceptualized in terms of the evolution of the learnersgrammatical knowledge in the form of an interlanguage (IL),aconstruct intended tocharacterize thedynamicalcognitive state of theL2learners grammaratparticularstagesofthelearningprocess(Selinker1972). A number of interesting issues in L2 research stem from thestudyofIL. First, itprovidestheopportunitytotellapartthoseelements

of the learners competencies in L2 that originate in the grammar ofL1fromthosethatreflectgeneral design propertiesofthelanguagefacultythat are not language-dependent. Also, asymmetries that are usuallyfound between comprehension andproduction skills in L2 learners,withproduction laggingbehind in most cases, maybe understood indifferent ways within this framework: either as a result of an unequaldevelopment of, or access to, particular components of the IL acrossdifferent linguistic tasks, or as a consequence of the dissimilar degreeoftheautomaticityofL2skillsatspecificprocessinglevels(e.g., speech

perception, sentenceparsing, lexical access in auditory comprehension,grammatical encoding in sentenceproduction, lexical search in wordproduction, andsoon). Averyimportantissue inthisregard istheneedto monitor and train the allocation of attention and memory resourcesduringlearnersperformanceoflanguagetasks.

In addition, a crucial reason for the language teacher to assess thestate of the students IL at different stages of development is to findout the real impact of consciously represented knowledge about the L2grammar (the so-called metalinguistic abilities) in the shape of their

IL, and thebenefits and limitations of using these abilities in orderto modify it (Bialystok 2004). What is at issue here is whether, or towhat extent, consciousknowledgeabout theL2grammarcanbe turnedinto effective procedures for language learning and processing. Inthis regard, it is of utmost importance to ascertain what explicitknowledgeaboutthegrammarofL2shouldbetaughtandwhenitshould

be imparted. Aswe commentelsewhere in thisbook (seechapter two),we tend to teach grammar through rules of thumb, which more oftenthan not are simplications of the reality underlying the constructions.

Buteven if it could begranted that thegrammatical rules orprinciples


20/30

8 Chapter One

that are given to students are truly encoded in their knowledge of theL2 (of which there is abundant evidence to the contrary), it is very

unlikelythattheycouldbestraightforwardlyincorporatedinto theirILandsmoothlyandautomaticallyappliedintheirperformancebysheerpractice.In this sense, it is important to consider the conception of grammar asa technical system of knowledge that functions in L2 developmentsimilarlytohowscientificconcepts workinotherdisciplines, asasemioticmediation tool that shapes the mental growth of the learner. Chapterstenandelevenwilldelveintheseissues.

Anotherpoint of concern for L2 language researchers is the stateof activation of the L1 grammar and vocabulary in different tasks

performed inL2 atdifferentmoments duringL2processing. It iswidelyknown in the literature on languageprocessing inbilinguals thateven incommunicative situations involving only one languagewhat is usuallyreferred to as the monolingual mode in bilingualsthe bilingualsunattended language (be itL1 orL2) remains active andmayeventuallyinterfere (but also help, in some instances) in the subjectsperformance(Grosjean 1982, 2001; see also chapter five). Thiseffect hasbeen foundto occur even in highlyproficientbilinguals. It is important tobear inmind that, contrary to theusualexpectation, the interferenceshowsup in

both directionsbetween languages (i.e., also from L2 to L1), and maycomeaboutatdifferentlevelsorwithindifferentcomponentsoflanguage(pronunciation, vocabulary, lexicon, syntax) (Gass and Selinker 2001).Oneobvious implication of thisphenomenon forL2 teaching is that theteachershouldnotbetoocondentthatonlytheL2isengagedwhenusingan L2 monolingual speech mode in the language classroom. This alsostresses theneed toseriouslyconsiderwhetherthesameteachingmethodcanbe applied with the same results to speakers of different L1s, giventhattheL1isalwaysactiveandeachparticularL1departsfromthetarget

languageindifferentways.Anold andalsopracticalproblem inL2 research and teaching is thequestionofhowshould individualdifferencesbeaccounted for in theoryandhandledinpractice (Segalowitz1997). Forpracticalreasons, languagestudents are commonly classified in proficiency levels according toa number of measures. Over and above the adequacy of such measures,what matters for ourpresentpurposes is to determine whether there aresignificant commonalities across language learners at different stages interms of learning strategies, processing routines and general patterns of

IL competence, individual differences notwithstanding. Most importantly,


21/30


the concern is to find out what are the relevant dimensions of variationacrossindividualslearningaforeignlanguage thatwillenableresearchers

inL2todrawmeaningfulgeneralizations. Wearepersuadedthatlinguisticandpsycholinguistic theories and empirical studies willprovide morehelpful insights and reliableconclusions in this regard thancommonsenseintuitionsandassumptionsaboutthesematters.

We will now turn our attention to a couple of issues thatbear amore theoretical avor, but which are nonetheless important for theexplanation of language learning and thepractice of language teaching.The first issue is concerned with the comparison of monolinguals andbilinguals (which includesforeign language learnersatvariouslevelsof

proficiency) intermsoftheneurocognitivearchitecture that theypossesssubserving language processing in either language. By neurocognitivearchitecture wemean thesetofcognitiveresourcesandprocesses, andthe arrangement of theseprocesses in language comprehension andproductiontasks, aswellastheneuralsubstratesinwhichthesetaskstakeplace (Brown and Hagoort 2000). The assumption shared by mostresearchersisthat thebasicdesignofpsycholinguisticprocessesdevotedtounderstanding andproducing speech is the same in monolinguals andbilinguals, which means that thebasic comprehension operations of

speechperception, word recognition, sentenceparsing and syntax-to-semantics mapping on theonehand, andgrammaticalencoding, lexicalselection andphonological encoding inproduction on the other, aresimilarlyarrangedandinterrelatedinbothcases.

However, as we mentionedpreviously, there surely are differencesintermsoftheallocationofattentionandmemoryresources, andthusinthedegreeofrelativeautomaticityof theseprocesses. Thesedifferencesalso showup in therelative involvementofneuralstructures frombothcerebralhemispheres in linguistic tasks. Amuchdebated subject in this

connection is the hypothesis that the right (non-dominant) hemisphereis more involved in linguistic tasksperformed ina second language inbilinguals, when compared to monolinguals in their native tongue,especially if they are late learners, not highlyproficient in the secondlanguage or tested at early stages of L2 acquisition (Paradis 2004).Theinvolvementoftherighthemispherealsoappears tobegreater inpeoplelearninginnaturalasopposedtoformalorinstructionalsettings.

Strange as it may seem, the role of languageprocessing in secondlanguage learning hasbeen largely neglected in the studies of second

language acquisition. In some of the chapters of this book, we have


22/30

10 Chapter One

attemptedtoamendthistrendbyunderscoringtheimportanceofprocessingissues inachieving abetterunderstanding ofhow anon-native language

isacquired.The second issue we want to addressbuilds on these observations

concerninglanguageprocessing. Atthesametime, itwillhelpunderstandthe rationale underlying the division of this book into its three majorsections. One of thebedrocks ofmodern thinking in Psycholinguistics isthedistinctionbetween thelexiconandthegrammar, conceivedbothasamajordividebetween twocomponents ofour linguisticcompetence (i.e.,the lexiconbeing the repository of representations about our conceptualknowledge and the syntax being the set of rules andprocedures for

combining those representations to form complex symbolsbearing truth-conditional content), and as two distinct kinds ofprocesses in language

performance. Even though in linguistic theory theboundaries betweenthe lexicon andgrammar havebecome moreandmoreblurry in the lastdecades (seechaptersix), thepoint is that thedifferencebetween lexicalandgrammatical(orsyntactic) knowledgeandprocessingliesnotonly inthekindsofinformationcontained in these twocomponentsof language,butmostprincipally inthekindsofoperations thatareperformed ineachcomponent and thepsychological reality that maybe ascribed to them.

Inotherwords, theliteratureonprocessinghaskeptthesetwocomponentsoflanguageseparate, sincetheymayinvolvedifferentprocessingsystems.Thus, it has been claimed that the lexicon works under associativeoperations that retrieve symbols from memory, while syntax followscombinatorialoperations thatput together thesesymbols inorder tobuildcomplexstructures. Weadhere to thatdivision in thisbook forclarity ofexposition.

Thereisamplepsychologicalevidenceofthisseparationofassociativevs. combinatorialprocessesbothwithinandoutsidethedomainoflanguage.

Infact, each of theseprocessesforms thebasis of twodifferentmemorysystemswithseparate andpartiallyoverlappingneural structures(Ullman2004). The declarative system is responsible for explicit associativelearningofvarioustypes, andrestsinneuralcircuitslocatedinthesuperiortemporal lobe (including Wernickes area in the left hemisphere) andextendingsubcorticallytothemedialtemporallobe(hippocampus). Itsmajorfunction is the storage of information about facts and events, includingword-meaningpairings. Theprocedural system, in turn, is engaged inimplicit learning of motor and cognitive skills involving sequences (as

in phonology and syntax in the language domain), and lies in neural


23/30


pathways connecting the subcortical structures of thebasal ganglia withareasoftheleftinferiorfrontallobe(Brocasarea), theleftsuperiortemporal

lobe (where it overlaps with the declarative memory circuit), andpartsof theparietal lobe and the cerebellum. This system is also involved inthe selection and mapping of information of various kinds in workingmemory.

Amostoutstandingfactaboutthesetwomemorysystemswithregardtolanguageacquisition is thateachonefollowsadifferentdevelopmentaltiming: thedeclarativesystemshowsanearlyandratherabruptonsetandasteadyevolution in life, whichconcurswith thefact thatword learningbegins relativelysoon inontogeneticdevelopment andprogressessteadily

throughadulthood, whiletheproceduralsystem ischaracterizedbyalaterand more gradual development, being restricted to a relatively narrowtime-window. This accounts for the well-known evidence of a slowerpace of development of syntactic abilities in first language acquisitionand a reduced capability of developingphonological and (to a lesserextent) syntactic skills when learning asecond language beyond asensitiveperiod in childhood (Harley and Wang 1997). These differingdevelopmental patterns may also account for the tendency observed insomelatesecondlanguagelearners tousemoredeclarative-likestrategies

inperforming grammatical tasks, whereby they resort to the retrieval ofready-made linguistic units from memory (i.e., overlearned expressionscomposedbylargechunksofunanalyzedmaterial), insteadofconstructingcomplexlinguisticexpressionsonlinebymeansofcombinatorialprocesses,as more skilled learners and native speakers regularly do (Robinson andEllis2008).

It is important tobear in mind that the division of linguistic laborbetween the retrieval of lexical forms or meanings from memory andtheconstruction ofphrases, clauses andsentencesbymeans ofsyntactic

processes does not correspond neatly to the distinction between thelexicon and syntax as traditionally described in linguistics textbooks.In the chapters included inparts I and II of this book, the reader willoften find that lexical representation andprocessing on many occasionsinvolve combinatorial operations, and conversely, that syntactic encodingoperations also include the retrieval ofphrasal templates directly frommemory. Thisonlyatteststothefactthat theboundariesbetweenlanguagecomponentsasseenfrom theoutsidedonotnecessarilycorrespondtotheinner, non-visible arrangement of these components in the mind-brain

oflanguageusers.


24/30

12 Chapter One

Asacorollary, it is nowadaysunquestioned that thegoal of languageteaching is achieving communicative mastery and grammatical accuracy

in theperformance of learners. To this, we would like to add twoimportant objectives: shortening the length of theprocess and lesseningthehardship of learning a language. In the immediate future, mostworldcitizens will need to master several languages throughout their liveswhilepursuing other professionalcareers. Theywill nothave the time orresources to undertake long learningprocesses that more often than notlead tounsatisfyingresults. Luckily, themindandthestructureofnaturallanguageshavebeenandcontinuetobeexploredfromascientificpointofview, andhence it ispossible todraw onsuchknowledge toaccomplish

efficiency. Sofar, most teachingmethodshavebeenshaped according totheir objectives: accuracy indirect and audiolingualmethods (leading torepetitionofdecontextualizedcorrectexamples), fluencyandcommunicativecompetence in communicative approaches (leading to engaging activitiesinwhichtheL2isusedasatool). Fromnowon, differentperspectivescanbeapplied. Eventhoughdebatescontinueinallaspectsofhumanlanguageresearch, defining the features of language, describing theL1 andL2 atan abstract level, understandingprocessing mechanisms, and identifying

personal traitsarenowavailable tous toareasonabledegreeofpractical

application. Inthisbookwesuggestafewplaceswherecarefulstudyandmore empirical research could lead to abetter use of the teachers andthestudents effortsandtime.

1.3 StructureOfTheBook

Thebook is divided into threeparts, each of which starts with achapterbytheeditorsexplainingthemajorthemesatissueanddescribing

briefly the chaptersby contributors. Contributors have made an effort to

linktheirdata tosecondlanguageteaching,butit ismostly intheeditorschapters that this isdone explicitly. Parts I and IIdeal with learning asa mental process in which non-visibleparts of grammarplay a role.Theypresent issues in linguistic andpsycholinguistic research that areof relevance to L2 teaching. Part I, inparticular, deals with syntax andsentence processing, and consists of four chapters. Chapter two bythe editors gives some examples that serve to introduce the other threechapters in thispart of thebook, all of which lead the reader to therealizationthatsomeimportantaspectsoflanguagesarenotalwaysvisible

inconstructions. It is important tonote thatsentencesanddiscourses are


25/30


thefinalproductofthecombinationofseveralfactors, featuresandmentalmechanismsthatliebehind.

Part II of thebookpresents issues related to the linguistics andpsycholinguisticsofthelexicalcomponent. Afterthechapterbytheeditors,three chapters discuss theoretical and practical issues concerning thestructureandtheacquisitionofvocabulary. AsinpartI, thegoalistogetthe reader to realize that lexical items are in themselves complexpiecesofsyntacticknowledgeandthatmuchmorethanbasicmeaningsmustbeacquiredby language students if they want to avoidpersistent syntactic

problems.

Finally, Part III, also consisting of four chapters, deals with the

institutional and social aspects of learning a second language. Thisparttries tounite thecontentsofPartsIandII, devoted toreviewingrelevantfactsabout thementalprocessesrelated tolanguage, withactualteachingin aclassroom. This is carried outby discussingSocio Cultural Theory,analyzing the Communicative Language Teaching approach and bypointing out the new multilingual character of the world cities, whichhas changed the reality of what is usually termed foreign languagelearning.

Our overall objective is to spark the curiosity of language teachers

towardsfieldsthatcannotcontinuetobeignoredwhenteachinglanguages.While we cannot claim to have solutions for the current challengesthat concern and often overwhelm teachers, we would like to start afruitful dialogue with our readers about the important aspects of humanlanguages and the human mind that might lead to better teaching

practicesinthefuture.

References

Bialystok, Ellen. 2004. Bilingualism in development: Language, literacyandcognition. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversityPress.

Brown, ColinM. andPeterHagoort. 2000. Theneurocognitionoflanguage.Oxford: OxfordUniversityPress.

Chomsky,Noam. 1986.Knowledgeoflanguage.NewYork: Praeger.. 1998. On language: Chomskys classic works, Language and

responsibilityandReflectionsonlanguage inonevolume.NewYork:NewPress.

. 2006. Language andmind. 3rd ed. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity

Press.


26/30


27/30


28/30


29/30

PARTI:

SYNTAXANDSYNTAXPROCESSING


30/30

Applying Language Science

Documents