1

Li2 Language VariationLi2 Language Variation

Second language acquisition

TodayToday’’s topicss topics

Relevance of SLA to psycholinguisticsFLA vs. SLA– What is the initial state?

InterlanguageFactors affecting success of acquisition– Transfer and interference– Age and the critical period– Etc.

Cool SLA effects

2

Why is SLA relevant to psycholinguistics?Why is SLA relevant to psycholinguistics?

Reveal aspects of the learning process in controlled ways not possible with kids– Underdetermination– Overdetermination (interference)– General hypothesis building (e.g. with NDEB)

Reveal properties of UG

How do FLA and SLA differ?How do FLA and SLA differ?

Initial state (S0)– FLA: UG– SLA: L1 ± {UG, functional categories}

Full Transfer/Full Access (Schwartz and Sprouse 1996)– S0 = L1

Minimal Trees (Vainikka and Young-Scholten 1994)– lack of functional categories– transfer of L1 lexical categories

3

Interlanguage (IL)Interlanguage (IL)

The grammar that the L2 learner builds while trying to acquire the L2.Sources of IL features:– Native Language (NL, L1)– Target Language (TL, L2)– Default settings for human language (UG)

Most famous case: Hungarian and Spanish devoicing

– Incorrect ideas about how TL works– Misanalysis (hypercorrection, overgeneralization, etc.)

Factors affecting success of acquisitionFactors affecting success of acquisition

4

SLA scenariosSLA scenarios

L1:L2 relationship (Odlin 1989, Gass and Selinker 1992)– Cf. Spanish:Italian vs. English:Chinese

Motivation (Dornyei and Schmidt 2001)– high school Spanish class– Spanish-speaking significant other– immigrant

Age (Singleton and Lengyel 1995, Birdsong 1999)– Is social and individual identity formed yet?– Past critical age?– Also exposed as child? (heritage speaker)

Linguistic aptitude (Sawyer and Ranta 2001)

Dutch perception of Spanish vowelsDutch perception of Spanish vowels((Escudero & Escudero & Boersma Boersma 2002)2002)

stim :

/i/

/e/

BEGresp :

i

e

INTresp :

i

e

ADVresp :

i

e

BILresp :

i

e

SPAresp :

i

e

L2Spanish

L1Dutch

/i//e/

/i//I//ε/

5

Interference and transferInterference and transfer

What is transfer?

“[transfer is evidenced as] 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”

Weinreich (1953: 1)

6

Phonological transferPhonological transfer

What is this speaker’s L1?

“… it is confirmed by studies that smoking can cause the addictive and dependence, both on psychology and physic.[…] The earlier a people begin to smoke or the more cigaretters he smoked, the more dangerous he will have on his health.”

Source: S02FLPEDU01WT, HKC

a. Spanishb. Chinesec. German

7

The L1 grammar can act as a filterThe L1 grammar can act as a filter

Brown 2000:L1 Chinese, L1 Japanese / L2 Englishcan they learn to perceive the difference between /p/ vs /f/, /f/ vs /v/ and /l/ vs /r/?findings: – the features of the L1 determine what is achievable– no signs of development in problematic areas

Phonetic feature contrastsPhonetic feature contrasts

Jap: noChi: yes

yesnocoronal/l//r//l/ vs /r/

Jap: yesChi: yes

yesyesvoice/f//f//f/ vs /v/

Jap: yesChi: yes

yesyescontinuant/p/, /f//p/, /f//p/ vs /f/

Predictions for SLA of contrasts

Contrastive in Chinese

Contrastive in Japanese

Contrastive feature

Chinese phonemes

Japanese phonemes

English contrasts

8

BrownBrown’’s resultss results

96%98%100%English NS (n=10)

86%96%90%L1 Chinese (n=15)

61%99%94%L1 Japanese

(n=15)

/l/ vs /r//f/ vs /v//p/ vs /f/

How to combat this?How to combat this?

Studies have found that extensive training can improve the l/r problem if:– the dimensions of language contrasts are

exaggerated– examples from multiple talkers are used– NB these are the same as with infant-directed speech

Feedback and reinforcement are less necessary than appropriate listening experience.

9

AgeAge

Snow andSnow and HoefnagelHoefnagel--Hohle Hohle 19781978

L1 English / L2 DutchImmersionTasks: Pronunciation, auditory discrimination,

morphology, sentence repetition, sentence translation, sentence judgement, story comprehension, Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test

Findings:After 3 months’ residence: adults and adolescents outperformed children on testsAfter 10 months’ residence: the children caught up

10

Johnson and Newport (1989)

L1 Chinese, L1 Korean / L2 English46 participantsAoA: between 3-39Minimum residence in the US: 5 yearsTask: GJT testing a range of grammatical

properties

Johnson and Newport 1989Johnson and Newport 1989

11

Johnson and Newport 1989Johnson and Newport 1989

Long exposure does not Long exposure does not guaranteeguarantee successsuccess

Coppieters 198721 L2 French near-nativesLength of residence in France: – 5.5-37 years

task: intuitions about grammarnone of them was within the NS range

12

Conclusions about age and SLAConclusions about age and SLA

Older is better in the short termYounger is better in the long termEven very extensive exposure does not guarantee native-like attainment

Some cool SLA effectsSome cool SLA effects

13

AvoidanceAvoidance

Celce-Murcia 1977– child learning English and French simultaneously

avoided words containing fricatives in one language by using the word from the other language, e.g. couteau for knife

speakers sometimes avoid complex L2 configurations even if their L1 has them– Laufer and Eliasson 37, Jordens 1977, Kellerman

1977, 1978, 1986

NonderivedNonderived Environment BlockingEnvironment Blocking

A Korean example (Eckman and Iverson)– Korean NL: /s/ → [š] / _ i– English TL: /s, š/ contrast / _ i– Stage I: No Contrast (L1 rule transferred to IL)

sea, she → [ši], messing, meshing → [mεšiŋ]– Stage II: Partial Contrast (L1 rule restricted to DE)

sea → [si], she → [ši], messing, meshing → [mεšiŋ]– Stage III: Contrast (L1 rule suppressed)

sea → [si], she → [ši], messing → [mεsiŋ], meshing →[mεšiŋ]

14

Opacity in SLPOpacity in SLP

Counterfeeding chain shift substitution– Cho and Lee 2001, Idsardi 2002 on opacity in

Korean acq of Englishsin → sjin + thin → sin

– Same phenomenon appears in FLA

ConclusionsConclusions

15

ReferencesReferencesBialystok, E. 1997: The structure of age: in search of barriers to SLA. Second Language Research 13.2:116-137.Bialystok, E. and K. Hakuta. 1994: In other words: the science and psychology of second language acquisition. New York: Basic Books.Birdsong, D. (ed.) 1999: Second Language Acquisition and the Critical Period Hypothesis. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Carroll, S. E. 2001: Input and evidence. The raw material of SLA. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Coppieters, R. 1987: Competence differences between native and near-native speakers. Language 63, 544-573.Curtiss, S. 1977: Genie: a psycholinguistic study of a modern-day "wild child". New York: Academic Press.Dornyei, Z. and R. Schmidt. 2001: Motivation and second language acquisition. Manoa: University of Hawai'i at Manoa.Dulay, H. and M. Burt. 1974: Natural sequences in child second language acquisition. Language Learning 24, 37-53.Franceschina, F. 2001: Where lies the difference between native and non-native grammars? Evidence from the L2A of Spanish, in S. Foster-Cohen and A. Nizegorodcew, eds.

EUROSLA Yearbook 1. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Pp. 143-158.Garcia Lecumberri, M. L. and F. Gallardo. 2003: English FL sounds in school learners of different ages, in M. D. P. Garcia Mayo and M. L. Garcia Lecumberri, eds. Age and the

acquisition of English as a foreign language. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Pp. 115-135.Garcia Mayo, M. D. P. and M. L. Garcia Lecumberri. (eds.) 2003: Age and the acquisition of English as a foreign language. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Gass, S. M. 1997: Input, interaction and the second language learner. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Gass, S. M. and L. Selinker. (eds.) 1992: Language transfer in language learning. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Hyltenstam, K. 1992: Non-native features of near-native speakers. On the ultimate attainment of childhood L2 learners, in R. J. Harris, ed. Cognitive processing in bilinguals.

Amsterdam: Elsevier. Pp. 351-368.Johnson, J. and E. Newport. 1989: Critical period effects in second language learning: the influence of maturational state on the acquisition of English as a second language.

Cognitive Psychology 21, 60-99.Lasagabaster, D. and A. Doiz. 2003: Maturational constraints on foreign language written production, in M. D. P. Garcia Mayo and M. L. Garcia Lecumberri, eds. Age and the

acquisition of English as a foreign language. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Pp. 136-160.Lenneberg, E. H. 1967: Biological foundations of language. New York: John Wiley.Mayberry, R. I. 1993: First language acquisition after childhood differs from second language acquisition: the case of ASL. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research 36, 1258-

1270.Myles, F., R. Mitchell and P. J. Hooper. 1999: Interrogative chunks in French L2: a basis for creative construction? Studies in Second Language Acquisition 21, 49-80.Norris, J. and L. Ortega. 2000: Effectiveness of L2 instruction: a research synthesis and quantitative meta-analysis. Language Learning 50, 417-528.Odlin, T. 1989: Language transfer: cross-linguistic influence in language learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Oyama, S. 1976: A sensitive period for the acquisition of a non-native phonological system. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 5, 3: 261-283.Oyama, S. 1978: The sensitive period and comprehension of speech. Working Papers on Bilingualism 16, 1-17.Patkowski, M. 1980: The sensitive period for the acquisition of syntax in a second language. Language Learning 30, 449-472.Pienemann, M. 1998a: Language processing and L2 development. Processability theory. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Pienemann, M. 1998b: Developmental dynamics in L1 and L2 acquisition: Processability Theory and generative entrenchment. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 1, 1-20.Sawyer, M. and L. Ranta. 2001: Aptitude, individual differences and instructional design, in P. Robinson, ed. Cognition and second language instruction. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press. Pp. 319-353.Singleton, D. 1995: Introduction: a critical look at the Critical Period Hypothesis in SLA research. In D. Singleton and Z. Lengyel (eds.): The age factor in second language

acquisition. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Pp. 1-29.Singleton, D. M. and Z. Lengyel. (eds.) 1995: The age factor in second language acquisition. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Snow, C. E. and M. Hoefnagel-Hoehle. 1978: The critical period for language acquisition: evidence from second language learning. Child Development 49, 1114-1128.