Lecture: Psycholinguistics Professor Dr' Neal R' Norrick _____________________________________

1
Lecture Psycholinguistics Professor Dr. Neal R.
Norrick_____________________________________

• Psycholinguistics

• Universität des Saarlandes
• Dept. 4.3 English Linguistics
• SS 2009

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 transfer when 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 longitudinal testing,
  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

22
(No Transcript)
23

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

24

• Monitor has its source 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

• routines like be careful, let's play and you know
• patterns like 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 bilingualism versus 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