1 / 27

CLL 2. L2 development

CLL 2. L2 development. 2005 LAEL, Lancaster University Florencia Franceschina. What do we study when we study (L2) development? Developmental sequences Mechanisms that cause these sequences ( transition theories). What are the sequences of L2 development?.

starbuck
Download Presentation

CLL 2. L2 development

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. CLL2. L2 development 2005 LAEL, Lancaster University Florencia Franceschina

  2. What do we study when we study (L2) development? • Developmental sequences • Mechanisms that cause these sequences(transition theories)

  3. What are the sequences of L2 development? It is important to separate rate and route of development when analysing developmental data. Example: Morpheme order studies (Dulay and Burt, 1973, 1974; Bailey, Madden and Krashen, 1974)

  4. Dulay and Burt (1974)

  5. Example:The acquisition of question formationPienemann, Johnston and Brindley (1988) 1. A dog?2. The boys throw the shoes?3. What the dog are playing? Is the picture has two planets on top?4. Where is the sun?5. How do you say [proche]?6. It’s better, isn’t it? Why can’t you go? Can you tell me what the date is today?

  6. Example:The acquisition of negation Schumann (1979) • No bicycle.No have any sand.I no like it. • He don’t like it.I don’t can sing. • You can not go there.He was not happy.She don’t like rice. • It doesn’t work.We didn’t have supper.I didn’t went there.

  7. L1 vs. L2 developmental sequences There are some similarities and some differencesExample:Dulay, Burt and Krashen (1982), Meisel, Clahsen and Pienemann (1981)

  8. Dulay and Burt (1974)

  9. Adult vs child L2 development They are quite similar, although some differences have been found in rate and route of development of different age groupsExample: Compare Dulay and Burt (1974) and Bailey Madden and Krashen (1974)

  10. *Dulay and Burt (1974) ** Bailey et al. (1974)

  11. L1 effects on L2 development • On rate of developmentDulay and Burt (1974) on grammatical morphemesSchumann (1982) on negationGilbert and Orlovic (1975) on articlesKeller-Cohen (1978) on yes/no questions • On route of developmentZobl (1982) on articles

  12. Context of acquisition effects on L2 development • Virtually no effects in terms of route of developmentDulay and Burt (1973) Pienemann (1989)Pica (1983) Perkins and Larsen-Freeman (1975) • Some effects of instruction on rate of acquisitionPienemann (1989)

  13. Dulay and Burt (1973)

  14. Methodological issues How should one measure language development? - Emergence criterion- Mastery (accuracy) criterion

  15. Explaining developmental sequences According to Gregg (1996), developmental sequences can be explained as: • Environmental • Reductive • Teleological • Psycholinguistic

  16. Theories of L2 development (a.k.a. transition theories) 1. General learning principles (non-modular) 2. Modular learning mechanisms

  17. 1. Non-modular theories • Based on general learning principles • Example:- hypothesis testing- automaticity- inferencingetc. • LA= acquisition of a complex cognitive skill

  18. 2. Modular theories • UG-basedExample:Subset Principle(Wexler and Manzini, 1987) • OtherExample:Communicative Competence Theory (e.g., Canale and Swain, 1980; Bachman, 1990)

  19. Subset Principle(e.g., Wexler and Manzini, 1987)

  20. Communicative language competence(e.g., Canale and Swain, 1980;Bachman, 1990)

  21. Current issues in UG-based theories of L2 development The initial state debate: Minimal Trees (Vainikka and Young-Scholten, 1994, 1996, 1998) vs Full Transfer/Full Access (Schwartz and Sprouse, 1994, 1996)

  22. The endstate debate: Missing Surface Inflection Hypothesis (Prevost and White, 2000) vs. Failed Functional Features Hypothesis (Hawkins and Chan, 1997)

  23. Reading Hawkins, R. 2001: Second Language Syntax. A generative introduction. Oxford: Blackwell. (Chapter 2)

  24. References Bachman, L. F. 1990: Fundamental considerations in language testing. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Bailey, N., C. Madden and S. Krashen 1974: Is there a 'natural sequence' in adult second language learning? Language Learning 24: 235-243. Canale, M. and M. Swain. 1980: Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to second language teaching and testing. Applied Linguistics 1, 1:1-47. Dulay, H. and M. Burt. 1973: Should we teach children syntax? Language Learning 23, 245-258. Dulay, H. and M. Burt 1974: Natural sequences in child second language acquisition. Language Learning 24: 37-53. Dulay, H., M. Burt and S. D. Krashen. 1982: Language two. New York: Oxford University Press. Gregg, K. R. 1996: The logical and developmental problems of SLA, in W. C. Ritchie and T. K. Bhatia, eds. The handbook of second language acquisition. San Diego: Academic Press. Pp. 49-81. Hawkins, R. and C. Chan 1997: The partial availability of UG in second language acquisition: the ‘failed functional features hypothesis’. Second Language Research 13, 3: 187-226. Meisel, J. M., H. Clahsen and M. Pienemann. 1981: On determining developmental stages in natural second language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 3, 2:109-135. Perkins, K. and D. Larsen-Freeman. 1975: The effect of formal language instruction on the order of morpheme acquisition. Language Learning 25, 237-243.

  25. Pica, T. 1983: Adult acquisition of English as a second language under different conditions of exposure. Language Learning 33, 465-497. Pienemann, M. 1989: Is language teachable? Applied Linguistics 10, 1:52-79. Pienemann, M., M. Johnston and G. Brindley. 1988: Constructing an acquisition-based procedure for second language assessment. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 10, 2: 217-243. Prévost, P. and L. White. 2000: Missing surface inflection or impairment in second language acquisition? Evidence from tense and agreement. Second Language Research 16, 2: 103-133. Schumann, J. H. 1979: The acquisition of English negation by speakers of Spanish: a review of the literature, in R. W. Andersen, ed. The acquisition and use of Spanish and English as first and second languages. Washington, DC: TESOL. Pp. 3-32. Schwartz, B. D. and R. A. Sprouse. 1994: Word order and nominative Case in nonnative language acquisition: a longitudinal study of (L1 Turkish) German interlanguage, in T. Hoekstra and B. D. Schwartz, eds. Language acquisition studies in generative grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Pp. 317-368. Schwartz, B. D. and R. A. Sprouse. 1996: L2 cognitive states and the 'full transfer/full access' model. Second Language Research 12, 1: 40-72.

  26. Vainikka, A. and M. Young-Scholten. 1994: Direct access to X'-theory: evidence from Korean and Turkish adults learning German., in T. Hoekstra and B. D. Schwartz, eds. Language acquisition studies in generative grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Vainikka, A. and M. Young-Scholten. 1996: Gradual development of L2 phrase structure. Second Language Research 12, 1: 7-39. Vainikka, A. and M. Young-Scholten. 1998: Functional categories and related mechanisms in child second language acquisition, in S. Flynn, G. Martohardjono and W. O'neil, eds. The generative study of second language acquisition. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Wexler, K. and M. R. Manzini. 1987: Parameters and learnability in binding theory, in T. Roeper and E. Williams, eds. Parameter setting. Dordrecht: Reidel. Pp. 41-76. Zobl, H. 1982: A direction for contrastive analysis: the comparative study of developmental sequences. TESOL Quarterly 16, 2: 169-183.

More Related