From Models to Methods: Linking L1 and L2 Theory to Web-Based Learning

1. From Models to Methods: Linking L1 and L2 Theory to Web-Based Learning • Brian MacWhinney • Psychology, Modern Languages, and LTI • Carnegie Mellon University • http://talkbank.org/slrf.ppt

2. Outline • L1 & L2: Similar or Different? • Why is L2 attainment so variable? • L1 learning is pretty variable too • The Competition Model Approach • risk factors, protective factors • competition, maps, connections, transfer, participation • explicit / implicit learning interplay • Tests in the Field Unified Model

3. CPH à FDH • The Critical Period Hypothesis (CPH) • central evidence for UG • evident to the "person in the street" • but it has many evidential problems. • The Fundamental Difference Hypothesis (FDH) is more interesting • Bley-Vroman: UG is dead • Clahsen & Felser’s shallow structure hypothesis (SSH) • Kuhl’s Perceptual Magnet • Paradis/Ullman declarative/procedural • Brain changes (Neville, Friederici) Unified Model

4. FDH à FSH • The Fundamental Similarity Hypothesis (FSH) • L1 and L2 use the same cognitive and social resources and processes • The target is the same • Competition is still the fundamental organizing principle • What differs is the constellation of the resources Unified Model

5. Competition • Competition is fundamental: • Darwin, Edelman, Chicago Economics • Minsky, Eagleman – Society of Mind • PDP • Competition Model, Sociolinguistics • Competition • brain areas are multifunctional • multiple pathways lead to processing • horse races • indeterminacy • variability • indeterminacy Unified Model

6. The Classic Model circa 1987 • Form-function mapping • Competition • Cue validity, reliability from corpora • Cue strength measures in experiments Unified Model

7. Functions compete for formsForms compete for functions Unified Model

8. Thanks to ... Unified Model

9. Findings • 78 Competition Model studies in 18 languages (http://psyling.psy.cmu.edu/papers) • In adults, cue strength is determined by cue reliability • Children begin with prototypes and availability, but shift to reliability • Online processing focuses on single strong cues with later integration • Perspective taking impacts processing (mental models) Unified Model

10. Extensions • 1989: Added cue cost • 1987-2012: Online measures • 1995: Focus on dynamics of L2 learning • 2000: Links to neural processing • 2005: DevLex II • 2007: Extensions to fluency • 2010: Stress on early prototypes – Leipzig • 2010: Risks-protections model Unified Model

11. The Unified Competition Model Unified Model

12. Component Theories

13. Risks • First we will examine the risks that L2 learners face and their basis • Then we will examine the protective factors and their basis • Finally, we will consider how we increase the strength of the protective factors Unified Model

14. Risk #1: Map Entrenchment • Maps are in areas of CORTEX • Maps self-organize (SOM) Unified Model

15. Maps (Subsystems) 23

16. DevLex - Ping Li 24

17. Entrenchment 50, 100, 250, and 500 words Unified Model

18. L2 part-of-speech mismatches • L1 Navajo will have classifiers, discontinuous aspect-verb, impersonal verb-adjectives, nouns decomposed into spatial relations • Navajos learning German must deal with prepositions, phrasal verbs, gender, case, etc. • In general L1 and L2 will not be an exact match

19. Risk #2: Misconnection Organizing Connectivity is the Brain's Basic Challenge 19

20. Detail from • DTI (Schneider, MGH) • MEG underconnectivity in autism (Just, Ghuman) • Cortico-cortical evoked potentials (CCEP) - Bookheimer, Matsumoto, others • Gamma band coherence analysis Unified Model

21. Ten Major Fiber Pathways in the Human Brain - Schneider Unified Model

22. Connections are White Matter • Rewiring local areas is easier than rewiring distant connections • Work on children with focal lesions, palsy • Connections emerge during embryogenesis • A third of the brain is connections • Interaction of hemispheres is also based on connections across the corpus callosum Unified Model

23. Connections between Maps • Somatotopic, tonotopic, retinotopic, locotopic organization works to guide connections. • Receiving area must understand map of sending area. • Some areas, like the thalamus, only need to relate priorities between areas. • Communication also involves temporal synchronization. 10

24. Wernicke-Geschwind Connection Model 65

25. Hickok-Poeppel Speech Processing Model

26. Competition Model • Production • DLPFC mental models activate PT constructions • PT constructions (IBPs) gate STG lexicon • Lexicon also receives input from mental models • STG lexicon gates BA44 and motor output • Comprehension • Auditory input activates STG lexical competition • BA45 pattern competition gated by STG input • Mental models take input from lexicon, syntax, and conversation model

27. Temporal DevLex Maps Item-based patterns Mental Model Roles object recur action X=milk more want Roles in Mental Models 36 Unified Model

28. Frontal Models – Koechlin Unified Model

29. Integrated processing • Production and comprehension use same maps and connections, but in different configurations (Kempen) • Emphasis on gating and connections, rather than movement of information

30. Risks • #1-Entrenchment and #2-Misconnection • L1 maps "know" what to connect to. • In L2, maps will not align completely, otherwise L2 learning would just be vocabulary extension. • Major long-distance connections cannot regrow. • Connections can become tangled during embryogenesis.

31. Risk #3: Parasitism and Transfer translation route “turtle” “tortuga” direct route Unified Model

32. Entrenchment and bilingualism Simultaneous Bilingualism LX LY balanced Successive Bilingualism L1 L2 dominates Unified Model

33. The Problem • Again: If L1/L2 areas were isomorphic, L2 learning would be nothing but new vocabulary learning • Also, fluency would not be impaired, because the connections would be smooth • But languages mismatch radically, so parasitism leads to both negative transfer and lessened fluency Unified Model

34. Principles of Transfer • Competition Model claims: • Everything that can transfer will. • Transfer follows markedness • Transfer is strongest when mismatch cannot be detected • Semantics and perspective transfer well (except when there are wide cultural differences as in Pirahã, Japanese). • Phonology transfers, but not so cleanly and there must be rearranging and readjustment. • Morphosyntax and IBP cannot easily transfer. • Unmarked FBP transfers: S + V • Marked FBP goes back to IBP: Adv + V + S Unified Model

35. L1 supports L2Tokowicz & MacWhinney 2005 Su abuela cocina/*cocinando muy bien. Her aunt cooks/*cooking very well. Unified Model

36. Tolentino & Tokowicz 2011 • Parallel structures show parallel ERPs • Different structures show different ERPs • Late AoA subjects show more attention • SSH (Clahsen) not supported, learners start to approach native speaker ERP profiles • N400 to P600 to ELAN shifts Unified Model

37. Interim Summary • Maps, Connections, and Parasitism pose Risks to L2 learners • Without reorganization, L2 will suffer from disfluency and negative transfer • But there are Protective Factors that can trigger successful reorganization • resonance (cortical reorganization) • proceduralization (connection reorganization)

38. Protection #1: Resonance Interactive Activation and Gangs Units that fire together, wire together 3

39. Hippocampal Support Wittenburg et al. 2002

40. Scheduling:Graduated interval recall • Pimsleur 67 Unified Model

41. Varying Consolidation Timescales • Gaskell, Davis – overnight consolidation • Avi Karni has shown that decline in implicit learning in adulthood is erased by naps • Rats show retrograde amnesia for days • HM and others showed retrograde amnesia for weeks, even years (Squire TV study) • So, the hippocampus may be continually involved in consolidation Unified Model

42. Resonant Methods • Semantic field elaboration: textbook units • Morphological analysis, etymology • Mnemonics, keywords • Multiple representations: phonological and orthographic, subtitles • Phonological recoding (script dependent) • Radical learning in CJK scripts • Staying in L2 (Internalization)

43. Protection #2: Chunking • Lexical chunks short-circuit problems with IFG – STG connectivity and mapping • Phrases: por lo mucho que _, it reminds one of __ • Idioms, frozen forms • Compounds, poems, rhymes • Donau_dampf_schiff_fahrt_gesellschafts_haupt_stellvertretender_kapitän • Rockabye baby on the tree top ... Unified Model

44. The transformed representation The same representation A transformed representation A representation Protection #3: Proceduralization Region 1 Region 2 Region 3 Time Routing Operation 1 Routing Operation 2 Unified Model

45. A representation that has been processed A representation With practice Region 1 Region 2 Region 3 Time New routing Operation Unified Model

46. Proceduralization Unified Model

47. Acquiring Fluency • Disfluency: Omissions, errors, substitutions stuttering • Increasing fluency by • cutting out stages • creating a single chain • Item-based patterns (IBPs) as the backbone • Getting timing right within IBP chain • Synchronizing with other processes • General age-related declines impact proceduralization more than resonance Unified Model

48. Protection #4: Internalization • We build up mental models through perspective-taking. • Comprehensible input -- L2 speaker can construct a coherent mental model. • The Communicative Approach can promote internalization • Internalization produces whole-brain resonance Unified Model

49. Risk #4: Isolation • Insufficient comprehensible input and output • Peer-group exclusion • Immigrant group insulation • Role entrenchment • Ascendance of international English • Work commitment Unified Model

50. Protection #5: Participation • Identity Theory: • identifying with the L2 culture • identifying with particular L2 members • Extroversion/Introversion • Group alignment: Danish handball team, church membership • Immigrant sweet spot of 8-13 Cathy Caldwell-Harris 37 Unified Model