Lecture: Psycholinguistics Professor Dr. Neal R. Norrick _____________________________________

1. Psycholinguistics Universität des Saarlandes Dept. 4.3: English Linguistics SS 2009 Lecture: Psycholinguistics Professor Dr. Neal R. Norrick_____________________________________

2. 6. Second Language Acquisition 6.1 Contrastive Analysis  growing out of work by Fries (1945) and Weinreich (1953) most work on Second Language Acquisition in the 40's and 50's shared the assumptions of Contrastive Analysis (Lado 1957)

3. Contrastive Analysis based on transfer • from Native Language (NL) to Target Language (TL) • or First Language (L1) to Second Language(L2) • shared structures facilitate acquisition • distinct structures cause problems • positive transfer when L1 and L2 share structures • e.g. Det Adj N structure in NP in English • and German • the mean dog - der böse Hund

4. negative transferwhen L1 and L2 have different structures e.g. Adv V NP in German versus Adv NP V in English Morgen fahren wir nach hause Tomorrow we go home • so research in Second Language Acquisition tended to revolve around comparison of language pairs

5. Language Acquisition was seen as developing a set of habits to be practiced in accordance with Behaviorist Theory but researchers found errors not predictable by language differences, and the psycholinguistic process of language acquisition can't be described solely in terms of linguistic products

6. 6.2 Approximative Systems and Interlanguage In the 1960's, linguists rejected Behaviorism and became interested in mentalistic theories evidence was mounting for a third system between L1 and L2 Nemser (1971) recognized an approximative system for the learner with features of both L1 and L2

7. Selinker (1972) introduced the term Interlanguage for this individual language system Interlanguages are highly variable, due to: • limited cognitive attention, given so much to learn and remember simultaneously • learners lack of knowledge of rules • simultaneous pull from L1 and L2 • they represent transitional stages of development

8. but L2 tends to fossilize at some stage, due to: 1. Negative transfer from L1 e.g. putting temporal Adv before locative Adv They went last week to Berlin. 2. Overgeneralization of L2 rules e.g. extending progressive pattern to stative verbs I'm knowing him a long time

9. 3. Simplification of L2 rules e.g. failure to apply sequence of tenses (or back shift) I thought it is a joke • it's often difficult to tell what causes an error, since these three factors interact • the concern with rules and errors makes interlanguages spill over into error analysis research

10. 6.3 Error Analysis concern with interlanguage and errors it contains and their relation gave rise to research in Error Analysis 1. Researchers first look for idiosyncrasies in learner's production when a learner says: I want to know the English we must first determine the intention behind it: either correct expression of desire involving knowledge of English people or incorrect expression of desire involving the English Language

11. 2. Then they try to describe the structure in terms of the grammars of both L1 and L2 I want to know the English involves an overuse of the definite article from the point of view of English grammar; does it reflect the grammar of the learner's L1, where abstract nouns take definite articles?

12. 3. Finally, they seek to explain the structure as interference or the learner's hypothesis-testing if the learner uses this sort of construction systematically, it's part of an interlanguage; but it may be a single careless mistake or an attempt to test this particular structure as well this attempt at explanation can get muddled, due to the unclear distinction between competence and performance

13. Error Analysis ends up as a method of describing data, but not a psycholinguistic theory of language acquisition Error Analysis loses sight of the whole picture of developing competence in L2 by focusing on errors; • we could instead equate knowledge of L2 with fluency and understandability rather than lack of errors; • or we could instead focus on what learners do right and test to see if they do it right intuitively

14. 6.4 Innateness, Input, Natural Order of Acquisition in L2 The Innateness Debate from child language research carries over to research in second language acquisition Does the Language Acquisition Device (LAD) work for L2 as for L1? If the LAD is at work, there should be a Natural Order of Acquisition in L2 as in L1. Could L2 learners simply reset the parameters from L1?

15. Dulay & Burt (1973) posit natural order of acquisition in L2 parallel to what Brown (1973) found for L1 at least learners with the same L1 background go through the same stages in acquiring L2 1. plural -s on nouns: the books 2. progressive -ing on verbs: they driving 3. forms of main verb be: this is London, she was there

16. 4. forms of auxiliary be: she's driving 5. articles a and the: a cat, the dog 6. irregular past tenses: went, ate, came 7. 3rd person sing pres -s: she waits 8. possessive -s: Sally's truck

17. Dulay & Burt (1974) found even greater regularity of order if features were ordered into groups Group 1: progressive -ing, plural -s, copula be Group 2: auxiliary be, articles Group 3: irregular past Group 4: regular past, 3rd pers -s, possessive -s Dulay & Burt use cross-sectional testing, i.e. what percentage of which forms show up for a group of learners, while Brown used longitudinaltesting, i.e. at what stage do kids control (90% correct) certain forms

18. other problems with tests for order of acquisition in L2 • tests based purely on English: what about other languages with lots more inflection or no inflection? • tests failed to distinguish variants like a versus an, and degrees of irregularity e.g. in past tense told, bought, went • if no firm order of acquisition can be shown, then there's no reason to assume that acquisition of L2 and L1 are alike.

19. Even if LAD makes input unimportant in L1 acquisition, the status of input in L2 a remains a problem: • What kind of input should learners receive? • Does correcting errors help?

20. 6.5 Krashen's Input Hypothesis and the Monitor Model Language Acquisition versus Language Learning  subconscious acquisition like children's L1 acquisition • not affected by correction • not based on formally learned rules

21. but conscious learning in L2 context changes things • input is filtered and output is monitored • conscious learning results in knowing about  learning rules only acts as Monitor

23. natural order of acquisition in L2 just as in L1 • not based on linguistic complexity • but Monitor disturbs the natural order affective filterbased on types of motivation • integrative lowers filter • instrumentalcan raise filter • empathy for L2 group lowers filter

24. Monitor has itssource in Piaget's Formal Operations Stage • consciously formulates and edits output • disturbs the natural order of acquisition Monitor use conditions • time • focus on form (not involved in message) • must know the rule

25. the monitor is not limited to conscious rules, but conscious learning is limited to the monitor Krashen uses Monitor to describe individual differences  overusers, underusers, optimal users

26. Organizer innate language acquisition faculty (like Chomsky's LAD) gradually organizes input (without conscious attention) reflected in: • errors • transitional constructions • natural order of acquisition

27. Input input understood in context is the primary factor in L2 acquisition caretaker speech is ideal intake: • here & now: immediate environment • syntactically simple • communication for action in context

28. Input Hypothesis We acquire i + 1, the next rule along the natural order, by understanding messages containing i + 1. (a necessary but not sufficient condition for acquisition) i = current level in phonology, morphology, syntax, lexis

29. learner controls get in constructions like I get mail/you got mail, and learner can form passives with be like he was stopped by a cop i + 1 = constructions just beyond current level, e.g. combining the two hears passive constructions with get like we got stopped by a cop

30. Factors • delaying speaking L2 helps • comprehension precedes production in L2 acquisition 3. comprehension in interaction provides best intake 4. best input contains structures one step beyond current knowledge, i.e. i + 1

31. critique of Krashen: 1. McLaughlin (1978) denies clear distinction between consciously learned rules of L2 and unconsciously acquired feel for L2 Krashen's appeal to introspection is unacceptable • focus on quality of input loses sight of processing • input ignores functioning of Organizer • offers no insight into relation between L1 and L2 • offers no account of bilingual competence

32. 3. comprehensible input as structures one step beyond current knowledge not operationalizable • we can't completely characterize either i or i + 1 • this suggests that we learn L2 one rule at a time rather than combinations of syntax, lexis, phonology

33. 4. The Monitor functions in a more-or-less fashion, not like an on-off switch  if filters work differentially in input phase, they should apply differentially in output phase, allowing Monitor use to vary incrementally Note: Krashen sometimes speaks of an output filter blocking performance of acquired rules to account for fossilization in L2 acquisition

34. 5. Krashen's system is circular, components are incestuously related • if the natural order of acquisition holds, then the Monitor was not working • if the natural order is disturbed, then the Monitor was working but no independent evidence of Monitor etc

35. 6.6 Formulaic speech Formulaic speech also violates normal acquisition order  but formulas play a special role in L2 acquisition because they represent structures beyond current competence

36. routineslike be careful, let's play and you know patternslike that's ___ and Do you want____? affect L2 acquisition positively • perhaps because they facilitate interaction • perhaps because they develop into syntax

37. Formulaic speech remains unanalyzed initially routines & formulas learned top-down versus bottom-up may reflect different overall style of acquisition but in later acquisition, formulas and idioms create extra problems, because they require memorization item by item

38. 7. Bilingualism individual bilingualismversus societal bilingualism Compare: bilingualism versus diglossia (Ferguson) balanced versus unbalanced bilingualism

39. dominant, usually first, native language versus weaker, second or foreign language (second or foreign language for special purpose)

40. 7.1 Becoming bilingual • childhood acquisition (during critical period) • later acquisition (after critical period) • as second language in second language culture • as foreign language in first language culture

41. 7.2 Advantages and disadvantages of bilingualism obviously bilingualism is socially advantageous nobody questions the value of adults learning foreign language, though kids learn languages more easily but psychologists question effects of childhood acquisition of bilingualism

42. some tests show that acquiring two languages • slows progress in both • slows intellectual development generally • test group: lower class immigrant children where the home language enjoyed no prestige

43. other tests show that acquiring two languages • has no effect on progress in either • can improve linguistic creativity • correlates with higher intelligence •  test group: upper middle class children • self-selected for exposure to a • second language