Types of L2 morphosyntactic knowledge that can and cannot be observed in learner corpora Ken Urano, Hokkai-Gakuen University, Sapporo email: [email protected]2015 Joint International Methodology Research Colloquium KATE Corpus SIG & LET Kansai Methodology SIG @ National Institute for International Education May 16, 2015 http://www.urano-ken.com/
36
Embed
Types of L2 morphosyntactic knowledge that can and cannot be observed in learner corpora
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
Types of L2 morphosyntactic knowledge that can and cannot be observed
in learner corpora
Ken Urano, Hokkai-Gakuen University, Sapporo email: [email protected]
2015 Joint International Methodology Research Colloquium KATE Corpus SIG & LET Kansai Methodology SIG @ National Institute for International Education
• SLA is the scholarly field of inquiry that investigates the human capacity to learn languages other than the first, during late childhood, adolescence or adulthood, and once their first language or languages have been acquired.
(Ortega, 2009, pp. 1–2)
About me
• Goal and scope of SLA research
• (SLA) seeks to understand universal, individual and social forces that influence what gets acquired, how fast, and how well, by different people under different learning circumstances.
(Ortega, 2009, p. 10)
Goal & scope
what gets acquired
What Acquired
what gets
pragmatics
semantics
syntax
morphology
phonology
phonetics
What
What Acquired
what gets
Acquired
• Two types of L2 knowledge
• explicit vs. implicit (e.g., Ellis et al., 2009)
• declarative vs. procedural (e.g., Dekeyser, 2007)
• learned vs. acquired (e.g., Krashen, 1981)
Two types of L2 knowledge
Two types of L2 knowledge
• Explicit knowledge is “the conscious awareness of what a language or language in general consists of and/or of the roles that it plays in human life” (Ellis, 2004, p. 229).
• Implicit knowledge is intuitive and procedural, variable but systematic, usually accessed by means of automatic processing and during fluent performance, and not verbalizable. (Gutiérrez, 2013, p. 424)
Two types of L2 knowledge
• Theories of L2 acquisition… seek to explain how learners develop implicit knowledge, not explicit knowledge…. L2 acquisition, then, is equated with the development of implicit knowledge. (Ellis, 2006, pp. 434–435)
Learner corpora
• Learner corpora can be defined as systematic computerized collection of texts produced by learners (Nesselhauf, 2005, p. 40).
Learner corpora
• The International Corpus of Learner English (ICLE) [W]
• The Japanese EFL Learner (JEFLL) Corpus [W]
• The International Corpus Network of Asian Learners of English (ICNALE) [W/S]
• The Louvain International Database of Spoken English Interlanguage (LINDSEI) [S]
• The NICT Japanese Learner English (JLE) Corpus [S]
Notes. W: Written, S: SpokenThis is not to be meant as an exhaustive list.
• For the purposes of fundamental SLA research, oral data is an important window into learners’ underlying mental grammars, and may be relatively freer of metalinguistic interference than written data, which is complicated by additional layers of learnt knowledge and monitoring processes. (Myles, 2005, p. 375)
Written & spoken corpora
• Most of the corpus-based SLA studies have used written corpora.
• L2 written corpora… are much more readily available than oral ones. (Myles, 2005, p. 375)
Written & spoken corpora
• Most of the studies using corpora… remain rather descriptive, documenting differences between learner and native language rather than attempting to explain them, and the developmental dimension is almost totally lacking. Corpus-based L2 studies are also often not sufficiently informed by SLA theory…. (Myles, 2005, p. 380)
Written & spoken corpora
Learner corpora and SLA research
Learner corpora and SLA research
• In SLA research, learner corpora [LC] can be useful in some areas, but not in some other areas.
• DeKeyser, R. M. (Ed.). (2007). Practice in a second language: Perspective from applied linguistics and cognitive psychology. New York: Cambridge University Press.
• Ellis, R. (2004). The definition and measurement of explicit knowledge. Language Learning, 54, 227–275. • Ellis, R. (2006). Modelling learning difficulty and second language proficiency: The differential
contributions of implicit and explicit knowledge. Applied Linguistics 27, 431–463. • Ellis, R., Loewen, S., Elder, C., Erlam, R., Philp, J., & Reinders, H. (2009). Implicit and explicit knowledge in
second language learning, testing and teaching. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. • Gutiérrez, X. (2013). The construct validity of grammaticality judgment tests as measures of implicit and
explicit knowledge. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 35, 423–449. • Ionin, T., & Wexler, K. (2002). Why is ‘is’ easier than ‘–s’? Acquisition of tense/agreement morphology by
child second language learners of English. Second Language Research, 10, 95–136. • Jiang, N. (2004). Morphological insensitivity in second language processing. Applied Psycholinguistics, 25,
603–634. • Lardiere, D. (1998). Dissociating syntax from morphology in a divergent L2 end-state grammar. Second
Language Research, 14, 359–375. • Krashen, S. D. (1981). Second language acquisition and second language learning. Oxford: Pergamon.
References (2)
• Murakami, A. (2013). Cross-linguistic influence on the accuracy order of L2 English grammatical morphemes. In S. Granger, S. Gaëtanelle, & F. Meunier (Eds.), Twenty years of learner corpus research: Looking back, moving ahead: Corpora and language in use—Proceedings 1 (pp. 325–334). Louvain-la-Neuve: Presses universitaires de Louvain.
• Myles, F. (2005). Interlanguage corpora and second language acquisition research. Second Language Research, 21, 373–391.
• Nesselhauf, N. (2005). Collocations in a learner corpus. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. • Ortega, L. (2009). Understanding second language acquisition. London: Hodder Education. • Shibuya, M., & Wakabayashi, S. (2008). Why are L2 learners not always sensitive to subject–verb
agreement? EuroSLA Yearbook, 8, 235–258. • Wakabayashi, S. (1997). The acquisition of functional categories by learners of English. Ph.D. Dissertation,
University of Cambridge. • Wakabayashi, S., Fukuda, K., Bannai, M., & Asaoka, S. (2007). Japanese speakers’ sensitivity to third
person singular -s in English: Arguments based on ERP data. Second Language, 6, 19–46. • Wakabayashi, S., Fukushima, R., Maemura, S. (2006). Santangen no -s no ayamari no genin: Syugo to
doosi no kyori to sosei no syurui [Causes of errors of 3rd person singular –s: Distance between the subject and the verb, and the kind of features]”. Kagaku-kenkyu-hi hookokusho 15520364 [Kakenhi technical report 15520364], 15–44.
• Wakabayashi, S., & Yamazaki, T. (2006). Santangen no –s no ayamari ni mirareru toogokoozoo to senteki kyori no eikyo [Effects of the syntactic distance and of the linear distance in errors of 3rd person singular –s]. Kagaku-kenkyu-hi hookokusho 15520364 [Kakenhi technical report 15520364], 45–64.