1 / 18

CLL Session 2: Theoretical issues in SLA research

CLL Session 2: Theoretical issues in SLA research. LAEL, Lancaster University Florencia Franceschina. Learnability. How is it possible for humans (but not animals or machines) to learn to understand and produce sentences of the language(s) they are exposed to?. Approaches to learnability.

trynt
Download Presentation

CLL Session 2: Theoretical issues in SLA research

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. CLL Session 2: Theoretical issues in SLA research LAEL, Lancaster University Florencia Franceschina

  2. Learnability How is it possible for humans (but not animals or machines) to learn to understand and produce sentences of the language(s) they are exposed to?

  3. Approaches to learnability • Interactionist/sociocultural modelse.g., Schumann’s (1978) Acculturation/Pidginization Hypothesis • Cognitive modelse.g., Bates and MacWhinney’s (1985, 1989) Competition Model • UG-based modelse.g.,White (1989, 2003), Flynn et al. (1998), Schwartz (1998), Archibald (2000), Herschensson (2000), Balcom (2001), Hawkins (2001)

  4. Evidence for UG in FLA FLA is: • Quick • Effortless • Uniform across stages of acquisition • Robust in terms of noisy/variable input • It shows equipotentiality across learners

  5. Evidence for UG in FLA Poverty of the Stimulus (PoS): our linguistic knowledge is underdetermined by the input Example 1: Structure Dependence Principle Example 2: OPC

  6. Structure Dependence Principle • This is my cat Is this my cat? • Paws has drunk his milk Has Paws drunk his milk? • My cat is the best Cat my is the best?

  7. Overt Pronoun Constraint (1) John believes [that he is intelligent] English  Japanese (2) John believes [that _ is intelligent]  English Japanese Montalbetti (1984) Kanno (1997)

  8. Overt Pronoun Constraint Japanese (1) Johni believes [that hei/j is intelligent] (2) Johni believes [that _i/j is intelligent] (3) Everyonei believes [that theyj are intelligent]  OPC (4) Everyonei believes [that _i/j are intelligent]

  9. UG, principles and parameters “The aspects of I-language which are common to all of us are known as UG, and the theory of UG will state the commonalities that hold across all possible languages (often called principles of UG) and in what ways individual I-languages may diverge from these commonalities (known as parameters of variation of UG or just parameters).” Adger (2003: 16)

  10. Evidence for UG in SLA? Target-like outcomes are the norm in FLA Vs. Non-target-like outcomes are typical in SLA

  11. Accounts of divergent outcomes Account 1: No access to UG Clahsen and Muysken (1986) Schachter (1988) Fundamental Difference Hypothesis (Bley-Vroman, 1990)

  12. Accounts of divergent outcomes Account 2: Full access to UG Flynn (1987) Epstein, Flynn and Martohardjono (1996) Scharwtz and Sprouse (1996)

  13. Accounts of divergent outcomes Account 3: Partial access to UG Smith and Tsimpli (1995)

  14. Accounts of divergent outcomes More recent proposals: Account 2’: Missing Surface Inflection Hypothesis (MSIH, Prevost and White, 2001) Account 3’: Failed Functional Features Hypothesis (FFFH, Hawkins and Chan, 1997)

  15. A case study: Patty (Lardiere, 1998a, b) • Which of the two recent accounts is supported by the data? • What other information about Patty’s L2 knowledge would be useful to help us reach a definite conclusion?

  16. The initial state Account 1: Full Transfer/Full Access (FT/FA, Schwartz and Sprouse, 1994, 1996) Account 2: Minimal Trees (Vainikka and Young-Scholten, 1994, 1996)

  17. From theory to data Exercise

  18. Reading • Mitchell, R. and F. Myles 1998: Second language learning theories. London: Arnold. • Hawkins, R. 2001: Second language syntax. A generative introduction. Oxford: Blackwell. (Chapter 8) • White, L. 2003:Second language acquisition and Universal Grammar. (2nd edition) Cambridge: CUP. (Chapter 2)

More Related