Introducing SLA of phonology researchwa.amu.edu.pl/kdk/sites/default/files/Introducing SLA of...

Introducing SLA of phonology research: a historical perspective

SLA and contrastive linguistics

2007-11-09 Katarzyna Dziubalska-Kołaczyk 2

THE PAST: FOUNDATIONS

� The 20th century contrastive studies, known under the name of Contrastive Analysis, originated out of the need to improve the methods of language teaching and learning.


Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis

strong version (Lado 1957): possibility to predict all errors as a result of transfer from L1(NL) to L2(TL):

� similar elements were assumed to be easy

� different elements - to be difficult

weak version (Wardhaugh 1970): comparisonof L1 and L2 not enough to predict all errors; they can be explained after the fact


moderate views

� Gradually, more moderate views replaced the strong language acquisition hypothesis.

� Transfer lost its all-solving status and came to coexist with the dominant notion interlanguage (Selinker 1969, 1972), independent of NL and TL.


Interlanguage Hypothesis

extreme� Creative Construction

Hypothesis (Dulay and Burt 1974)

� the monitor model by Krashen (e.g. 1981): a distinction betweenacquisition and learning

moderate� Markedness Differential

Hypothesis (Eckman1977, 1981): difficult areas are those that aredifferent from L1 andrelatively more marked than L1


transfer acc. to Gass (1988:387)

The notion of language transfer involves the use of native language (or other language) information in the acquisition of a second (or additional) language. A broader definition of this sort allows for observed phenomena such as:

1. delayed rule restructuring2. transfer of typological organization3. different paths of acquisition4. avoidance5. overproduction of certain elements6. additional attention paid to the target language

resulting in more rapid learning7. differential effects of socially prestigious forms.


Weinreich (1953) Languages in Contact

� interference: “those instances of deviation from the norms of either language which occur in the speech of bilinguals as a result of their familiarity with more than one language”

� bilingualism: “the practice of alternately using two languages”

� later: only native-like use of both languages(e.g. Bloomfield) vs. any use of an L2 (e.g. Haugen)


Lado (1957) Linguistics Across Cultures

� CA - Contrastive Analysis

� transfer: “individuals tend to transfer the forms and the meanings, and the distribution of the forms and meanings of their native language and culture to the foreign languageand culture”

� differences between the two languages more important - they cause 'negative transfer‘; similarities - 'positive transfer'


behaviourist view of language learning

� Bloomfield (1933), Skinner (1957)

� grammatical structure as ”system of habits”(Lado 1957)

� habits acquired through exposure andpractice

� stimulus-response


mentalist view of language learning(Chomsky et al.)

� Chomsky (1959) – review of Skinner’s (1957) Verbal Behaviour

� the independent grammars assumption -children have a system of their own, they arenot defective speakers

� LAD Language Acquisition Device – childrenconstruct linguistic competence by ‘evaluationmeasure’ (‘hypothesis-testing’ in acquisitionresearch)


independent grammars in L2

� approximative system (Nemser 1971)� interlanguage (Selinker 1972)� phonology of interlanguage (Tarone 1978)� the methodology of Error Analysis (Corder 1971):� error (of competence) vs. mistake (of performance) � paradox in Selinker & Corder: the object of

description is learner’s knowledge of language(competence) whereas the research method is the analysis of his/her performance


important:

� multi-competence should be treated as a norm: it’s normal for the majority of people to use another language


SLA of speech

� Abramson & Lisker 1970: cross-lg differences in the discrimination ability of VOT (responsible for voicing & aspiration contrasts in initial stops), which agreed with Motor Theory (Liberman et al 1967): perception accomplished via production

� the categorical perception (CP) paradigm (tests of discrimination & identification of consonants to discover those lg-specific patterns)

� so, the opinion in the 1970s: discrimination of voicing & place contrasts in Cs in L2 determined by the phonemic significance of the stimuli in L1


SLA of speech cont.

� BUT 2 to 6-month-old infants COULD discriminate such contrasts independent of their exposure to the language in which they occurred

� THUS loss in discrimination ability (age; progress in L1)

� adults Japanese learners of English could produce /r/ & /l/, but not perceive the contrast: production preceded & exceeded perception in L2 learning

� training to improve perception was unsuccessful -support for the strong Critical Period Hypothesis(Lenneberg 1967): from 2 years to puberty

� the above conclusions were premature → detailedstudies demonstrated that…


perceptual difficulty in L2 is relative

� as to voicing, place, context, experience with L2, but also different acoustic cues used by L2 learners than by natives for the same contrasts (e.g. for /r-l/ contrast native speakers use F3, while Japanese learners use temporal differences and F2)

� native lg patterns of phonetic perception are formed in the first year of life (works by Werker et al., Polka)

� no consistent answer as to children b-n 2 & 13: whether they have any advantage over adolescents & adults in the perception of non-native contrasts (Flege et al. vs. Werker & others)


perception vs. production

� perception causal for production: e.g. Portuguese speakers assimilated Fr. /y/ to their /i/ category while English speakers - to their /u/ category

� however, prod & perc may proceed independently (in Japanese learners of English perc lagged behind prod)

� "earlier is better" to learn production; no convincing evidence for perc (comment: adults have heard incomparably more signals than children)


perceptual training of L2 contrasts

� in the 1980-90s it was demonstrated that short-term intensive training improves perc; voicing easier than place; but longer training even more

� importance of context, e.g. vd/vless <th> contrast trained in CV context improved Fr. speakers' perc of natural CV stimuli, but there was NO TRANSFER to VCV or VC contexts: "subjects learn to differentiate position-specific allophones of phonetic categories, rather than context-free phoneme categories"


THE PRESENT

� both children & adults have some percdifficulties; they are not due to a loss of sensory capabilities, but reflect perceptual attunement

� sensitive period > critical period� since non-native contrasts are not equally

difficult, contrastive analysis of phoneme inventories cannot accurately predict perceptual problems of L2 learners


THE PRESENT cont.

� selective perceptual patterns are modified in adults (& children) through immersion or conversational instruction; some percdifficulties may persist even after production mastered, so perc & prod may be uncorrelated in more experienced learners

� short-term training emphasizing equivalence classification transfers to novel talkers and stimuli, but whether it generalizes to all phonotactic contexts - has not been demonstrated


Extended References

� Cook, V. 1993. Linguistics and Second Language Acquisition. London: Macmillan.

� Dziubalska-Kołaczyk, Katarzyna. 2002. Conscious competence of performance as a key to teaching English. In Waniek-Klimczak, E. and Melia, P.J. (eds.) Accents and Speech in English. Frankfurt: Peter Lang. 97-106.

� Dziubalska-Kołaczyk, Katarzyna. 2003. How learners ‘repair’ second language phonology and whether they may become native speakers. In Waniek-Klimczak, Ewa and Włodzimierz Sobkowiak (eds.). Dydaktyka fonetyki języka obcego. Neofilologia, tom V. Płock: Zeszyty Naukowe PWSZ w Płocku.

� Dziubalska-Kołaczyk, Katarzyna. 2003. Speech is in the ear of the listener: Some remarks on the acquisition of second language sounds. In Hales, Kimberli and Angela Terveen (main editors), Aurélie Capron, Marion Correnoz and Théo Garneau, under the direction of Marie-Christine Garneau (eds.). Selected Papers from the Sixth College-wide Conference for Students in Languages, Linguistics and Literature 2002. Honolulu: College of Languages, Linguistics, and Literature. University of Hawai`i at Mānoa. 81-92.


Extended References cont.

� Eckman, Fred R. 1977. Markedness and the contrstive analysis hypothesis. Language Learning 27. 315-330.

� Eckman, Fred R. 1981. On predicting phonological difficulty in second language acquisition. SSLA 4. 18-30.

� Eckman, Fred R. 1991. The structural conformity hypothesis and the acquisition of consonant clusters in the interlanguage of ESL learners. . SSLA 13. 23-41.

� Eckman, Fred R. and Gregory K. Iverson. 1993. Sonority and markednessamong onset clusters in the interlanguage of ESL learners. Second Language Research 9,3. 234-252.

� Fisiak, J. (1993) Contrastive linguistics and foreign/second language acquisition. In Seeber, H.U. and W. Göbel (eds.) Anglistentag 1992 Stuttgart. Proceedings. vol.XIV. Max Niemeyer Verlag. 315-326.

� Flege, James Emil. 1995. Second language speech learning: Theory, findings, and problems. In Strange, W. (ed.). Speech Perception and Linguistic Experience: Theoretical and Methodological Issues. Timonium, MD: York Press.

� Flege, James Emil. 1999. The relation between L2 production and perception. ICPhS99, San Francisco. 1273- 1276.

� Jassem, Wiktor. 2003. Polish. JIPA 33, 1. 103-108. � Leather, J. and A.R. James. 1991. The acquisition of second language speech.

SSLA 13. 305-341.


Extended References cont.

� Major, Roy C. 2001. Foreign Accent: The Ontogeny and Philogeny of Second Language Acquisition. Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.

� Proceedings of the 14th 1999 and 15th 2003 ICPhS (on CDRoms).� Shockey, Linda. 2002. Sound Patterns of Spoken English. Oxford:

Blackwell.� Sobkowiak, W. 1996. English Phonetics for Poles. Poznań: Bene Nati.� Strange, Winifred. 1996. Phonetics of Second-Language Acquisition:

Past, Present, Future. 13th ICPhS, 4: 76-83.� Strange, Winifred. 1999. Levels of abstraction in characterizing cross-

language phonetic similarity. ICPhS99, San Francisco. 2513-2519.� Tarone, Elaine E. 1978. The phonology of interlanguage. In Richards,

J. (ed.). Understanding second and foreigh language learning. Rowley, MA: Newbury House. 15-33.

� Wardhaugh, Ronald. 1970. The contrastive analysis hypothesis. TESOL Quaterly 4. 123-130.

� Weinreich, Uriel. 1953. Languages in contact. The Hague: Mouton.

Date post:	06-Mar-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	tranthuan
View:	236 times
Download:	4 times

Introducing SLA of phonology researchwa.amu.edu.pl/kdk/sites/default/files/Introducing SLA of...

Documents