3.UniversalGrammarinSecondLanguageAcquisition语言学流派.ppt
chomsky's universal grammar and second language learning
v. J. COOK
University of Essex
Having gone underground for a few years, once again Chomsky's ideas of language learning are being discussed.1 A recent book, The Language Lottery (Lightfoot 1982), readably outlines the theory; several collections report research into its implications (Tavakolian 1981; Goodluck and Solan 1978) and its theoretical aspects (Hornstein and Lightfoot 1981b; Baker and McCarthy 1981); most importantly a string of books by Chomsky himself has shown the development in his views of language acquisition (Chomsky 1976; Chomsky 1980; Chomsky 1981a). This paper tries to take stock of recent Chomskyan thinking in terms of second language (L2) learning. The first section outlines the theory itself, mostly drawing on Chomsky's own work; though parts may be familiar from earlier versions, such an overview is necessary in order to ensure coherence. The second section considers the implications for L2 learning, particularly important because they appear to contradict some of the cherished assumptions in the field; it should, however, be noted that Chomsky himself has not extended the theory to L2 learning, apart from occasional scattered allusions. While the first part attempts to present a consensus view of the LI theory, the second is much more an individual interpretation of the theory for L2 learning. 1. THE THEORY OF UNIVERSAL GRAMMAR AND LANGUAGE ACQUISITION A typical way in to the Chomskyan position is through a simple conundrum (Baker 1979): an adult native speaker of a language knows things he could not have learnt from the samples of speech he has heard; since this knowledge is not based on his experience of the world, it must come from some property inside his own mind. Take the following two sentences, 'Is the programme that is on television any good?' and *'Is the programme that on television is good?' A speaker of English immediately knows that the first sentence is possible and that the second is not; he knows in some sense that the 'is' that is shifted to the beginning of a sentence in a question comes out of the main clause, rather than the subordinate clause. But how could he have acquired this piece of knowledge about English? Some of the sentences he might have encountered during his life are 'The programme is good', "The programme that is on television is good', 'Is the programme good?', and so on. None of these shows the rule being broken; they give him information about what he can say, not about what he can't say. The rule can be demonstrated to exist only by concocting an ungrammatical sentence that would never occur in real life, *'Is the programme that on television is good?', or by giving a grammatical analysis. But these are the kinds of information that the child learning his first language precisely does not have available to him. If native speakers find the sentence ungrammatical, their judgement must be based on something other than their experience of the world; the remaining possibility is that it is derived from some property of the human mind that they all share. A second example from English is the well-known pair, 'John is eager to please'
新编语言学Ch7~12完美笔记
Linguistics 语言学Chapter 7 Discourse Analysis7.1 Discourse and Discourse Analysis1. Discourse: language above the sentence or above the clause.2. Discourse analysis 以前也叫text linguistics and discourse analysis3. Discourse analysis (discourse linguistic/discourse studies/text analysis/DA):the study of how sentences in spoken and written language form larger meaningful units such as paragraph, conversations and interviews.4. Primary task: explore the linguistic features which characterize discourses5. Goals: examine how the reader or user of a discourse recognizes that the words/phrases/sentences in a discourse must be co-interpreted----that parts of a discourse are dependent on others.6. One of the most important features of discourse is that they have cohesion.Definitions:1. Discourse (话语):a general term for examples of language use, i.e. language which has been produced as the result of an act of communication. It refers to the larger units of language such as paragraphs, conversations and interviews7.2 Information Structure7.2.1 Given and new information1. Given information (已知信息):the information that the addresser believes is known to the addressee (often coded in condensed form)2. New information (新信息):the information that the addresser believes it not known to the addressee7.2.2 Topic and comment1. The topic represents what the utterance is about; the comment is what is said aboutit2. Topics are less central to the grammar of English than to the grammar of certain languages.3. Marking the topic is considerably more important in certain other languages. Languages such as Japanese and Korean have function words whose sole purpose is to mark a noun phrase as the topic. In Chinese, no special function words attach to topic noun phrases, but they are marked by word order. In these three languages, noun phrases marked in one way or another as the topic occur very frequently. Thus, despite the difficulty in defining it, the notion of topic is important and needs to be distinguished from other categories of information structure.Definition:1. Topic (话题): the main center of attention in a sentence2. Comment (述题): what is said about it.7.2.3 Contrast1. In the following example, Mary could be marked contrastively if the sentence were part of a conversation about how the interlocutors dislike going to Maine during the winter.Mary likes going to Maine during the winter.2. In English contrastive noun phrase can be marked in various ways, the most common of which is by pronouncing the contrastive noun phrase with strong stress.7.3 Cohesion and Coherence7.3.1 Cohesion1. Cohesive devices include reference, substitution, ellipsis conjunction and lexical cohesionDefinition:1. Cohesion (衔接): the grammatical and/or lexical relationship between the different elements of a text. This may be the relationship between different sentences or between different parts of a sentence.e.g. You can lead a horse to water but you can’t make him drink.7.3.1.1 Reference1. Reference words: pronounces (e.g. it, they, he, she, them, etc.)demonstratives (this, that, these, those)the article the, and items like such as2. Reference consists of two types:(1) endophoric reference (endophora): where the interpretive source lies in theco-text①anaphoric reference (anaphora): where the referent lies in the prior text.②cataphoric reference (cataphora): where the referent lies in the text to come(2) exophoric reference (exophora): where the interpretive source lies in thecontext.E.g. (1) Respect a man, he will do the more (anaphoric)(2) When I met her, Mary looked ill. (cataphoric)(3) (Mary is standing there) I like her. (exophoric)7.3.1.2 SubstitutionDefinitionSubstitution (替代):The process or result of replacing one word by anther at a particular position in a structure7.3.1.3 EllipsisDefinitionEllipsis (省略)(substitution by zero):The leaving out of words or phrases from sentences where they are unnecessary because they have already been referred to or mentioned. For example, when the subject of the verb in two coordinate clauses is the same, it may be omitted in the second clause to avoid.7.3.1.5 Lexical cohension1. Example:(1) RepetitionThere was a cat on the table. The cat was smiling.(2) SynonymHe got a lot of presents from his friends and family. All the gifts were wrapped in colored paper.(3) SuperordinateYesterday, a pigeon carried the first message from Pinhurst to Silbury. The bird covered the distance in three minutes.7.3.2 Coherence1. Cohenrence: the relationships which link the meanings of utterances in a discoursee.g. A: Could you give me a lift home?B: Sorry, I’m visiting my sister.There is no grammatical or lexical link (meaning link).(是指没有意义上的连接，不包括词汇上的连接)7.4 Discourse Markers1. Discourse Markers (DM):expressions that are commonly used in the initial position of an utterance and are syntactically detachable from a sentence.7.5 Conversational AnalysisDefinition:Conversational Analysis (CA) (会话分析)The analysis of natural conversation in order to discover what the linguistic characteristics of conversation are and how conversation is used in ordinary life.7.5.1 Adjacency pairs1. Adjacency pairs (相邻语对): a set of two consecutive, ordered turns that “go together” in a conversation, such as question/answer sequences and greeting/greeting exchange.2. Properties of Adjacency pairs(1) Adjacency pairs consist of two utterances, a first part and a second part(2) The two parts are spoken by different speakers.(3) The first and second parts belong to specific types, for examples, question and answer, or greeting and greeting(4) The form and content of the second part depends on the type of the first part.(5) Given that a speaker has produced a first part, the second part is relevant and expectable as the next utterance.Definition:Insertion sequence (插入语列)It often happens that a question-answer (Q-A) sequence will be delayed while another question-answer sequence intervenes.( can be infinite，但人类记忆有限，所以不行)Form: Q1---Q2---A2---A17.5.2 Preference structure7.5.3 Presequences1. Presequences (前序列): the opening sequences that are used to set up some specificpotential actions2. Greetings: Some situations do not require a greeting, as with a stanger approaching in the street to ask for the time: “Excuse me, sir, do you know what time it is?”. The expression ”Excuse me,sir” serves as a presequence appropriate to the context.3. The following is a pre-invitationA: What are you doing this Sunday?B: Nothing special. Why?A: Why don’t you come out with us then?Here the pre-invitation is treated as transparent by B who suspects by “why” that something is forthcoming.4. The example below is a pre-request:A: Are you going out tomorrow?B: No, not really.A: Are you using your car then?B: No. Do you want to borrow it?A: Yes, if you’re not using it.7.6 Critical Discourse Analysis1. Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA):the analysis of language use directed at, and committed to, discovering its concealed ideological bias.Chapter 8 Sociolinguistics8.1 IntroductionDefinition:Sociolinguistics (社会语言学):the study of language and society: how social factors influence the structure and use of language8.2 Language Varieties8.2.1 Standard languageDefinition:Standard variety (Standard language/Standard dialects):the variety of a language which has the highest status in a community or nation, and which is usually based on the speech and writing of educated native speakers of the language8.2.2 Dialects1. Dialect: A variety of a language used recognizably in a specific region or by a specific social class2. Dialectology: the study of dialects3. Types: (1) Regional/geographical dialects.(2) Temporal dialects(3) Social dialects or sociolects①speech community: a group of people using a given language or dialect(4) Idiolects8.2.3 Registers1. Register is determined by 3 factors: field, mode, tenor of discourse(1) the field of discourse: refers to what is happening, including what is being talked about, e.g. the fields of linguistics, religion, and advertising(2) the mode of discourse: refers to the medium of language activity which determines the role played by the language in a situation. e.g. speech vs. writing (3) the tenor of discourse: refers to the relations among the participants in a language activity, especially the level of formality they adopt. e.g. colloquial or formal English 2. Example: a lecture on linguistcs in a school of foreign languages can be analyzed as follows:Field: linguistics Mode: oral (academic lecturing)Tenor: participants (teacher-students)Definition:Register (语域): a language variety associated with a particular situation of use8.2.4 Pidgins and creoles1. Creoles have large numbers of native speakers. A French-based creole is spoken by the majority of the population in Haiti, and English-based creoles are used in Jamaica and Sierra Leone.Definition:1. Pidgin (皮钦语): a variety of language that is not a native language of anyone, but is learned in contact situations2. Pidginization: the process by which a pidgin develops3. Creole (克里奥尔语): a language that begins as a pidgin and eventually becomes the first language of a speech community through its being learned by children4. Creolization: the process by which a pidgin becomes a creole8.2.5 Language planning1. Status planning: changes the function of a language or a variety of a language and the right of those who use it.2. Corpus planning: develop a variety of language or a language, usually to standardize it.Definition:Language planning (语言规划): planning, usually by a government or government agency, concerning choice of national or official language(s), ways of spreading the use of a language, spelling reforms, the addition of new words to be language and other language problems.8.3 Choosing a Code8.3.1 Diglossia1. Diglossia (双语): a situation that with a handful of languages, two very different varieties of the same language are used, side by side, for two different sets of functions8.3.2 Bilingualism and multilingualism1. Bilingualism: a situation where two languages are used by an individual or by a group of speakers, such as the inhabitants of a particular region or a nation Definition:1. Horizontal bilingualism (横向性双语现象):the situation of the languages spoken in a bilingual society have equal status in the official cultural, and family life of the society.2. Diagonal bilingualism (倾斜性双语现象)the use of three or more languages by an individual or by a group of speakers such as the inhabitants of a particular region or nation8.3.3 Code-switching1. Code-switching: bilinguals often switch between their two languages or language varieties in the middle of a conversation.8.4 Linguistic Taboos and Euphemisms1. Taboo word: a word that we are reluctant to useDefinition:1. Taboo: words or activities that are considered inappropriate for “polite society”2. Euphemism: a word or phrase that replaces a taboo word or is used to avoid reference to certain acts or subjects.8.5 Language and Gender1. Men and women speak differently; men and women are spoken about differently2. Language reflects sexism in society. Language itself is not sexist, but it can encode sexist attitudes.Chapter 9 Psycholinguistics9.1 Introduction1. Psycholinguistics: the study of the language-processing mechanismsDefinition:1. Psycholinguistics (心理语言学):the study of language and mind, the mental structures and processes which are involved in the acquisition comprehension and production of language,2. Developmental pscholinguistics (发展心理语言学)the examination of how infants and children acquire the ability to comprehend and speak their mother tongue9.2 Language Acquisition1. Children’s use of language is rule-governed. For example, children frequently say tooths and mouses instead of teeth and mice, and holded and finded, instead of held and found. These are examples of overgeneralization or overextensionDefinition:1. Language acquisition (语言习得):the learning and development of a person’s language.2. Overgeneralization (过度概括):children’s treatment of irregular verbs and nouns as if they were regular. This shows that the child has acquired the regular rules but has not yet learned that there are exceptions.3. Undergeneralization: a child uses a word in a more limited way than adults do. (e.g. refusing to call a taxi a car)4. Universal grammar (UG): the innateness or properties that pertain to the grammars of all human language.9.3 Language ProductionDefinition:Language production (语言产生): the process involved in creating and expressing meaning through language.9.3.1 Conceptualization1. Psycholinguists agree that some form of mentalese existMentalese: a representation system which is different from language.9.3.2 FormulationDefinition:1. Slips of the tongue (口误): mistakes in speech which provide psycholinguistic evidence for the way we formulate words and phrases2. Spoonerism (斯本内现象): a slip of the tongue in which the position of sounds, syllables, or words is reversed. For example: Le t’s have chish and fips instead of Let’s have fish and chips.9.3.3 Articulation9.3.4 Self-regulation9.4 Language Comprehension1. Language Comprehension: comprehension seems to be nothing more than recognition of a sequential string of linguistic symbols, although at a very rapid pace2. People do not process linguistic information in a neat, linear fashiond3. Listeners and readers use a great deal of information other than the actual language being produced to help them find the meaning of the linguistic symbols they hear or see9.4.1 Sound comprehension9.4.2 Word comprehension1. Bathtub effect: we knew the word, but could not access the whole word. For many time we could only get part of the words vaguely, such as the beginning or the ending of the words.Definition1. Parallel distributed processing (PDP) (平行分布处理):a model of cognition that attempts to account for complex behaviors such as the processing and production of speech by positing the existence of completely separate but concurrent and parallel cognitive systems operating at the same time.9.4.3 Sentence comprehension1. Garden path sentence (花园路径句): a sentence in which the comprehender assumes a particular meaning of a word or phrase but discovers later that the assumption was incorrect, forcing the comprehender to backtrack and reinterpret the sentenceFor example: The horse reaced past the barn fella.S?The horse raced past the barn fellb.SNPVP The horse raced past the barn fell9.4.4 Text comprehension9.5 Language and Thought9.5.1 Language determines thought1. Proposer: E. Sapir and B. Lee Whorf2. Theory: Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis or Whorfian HypothesisThe theory has two parts: the first is called linguistic determinism, which says that linguistic structure determines cognitive structure; the second part is called linguistic relativity, which says that the resulting cognitive systems are different in speakers of different languages.3. Evidence: Eskimo have separate words for different types of snow. A child who grows up speaking such a language will develop more cognitive categories for snow than will an English-speaking child. When the former looks out at a snowy environment, he will, in some sense, see it differently from a child who has but one word snow.4. Modern view: the Whorfian Hypothesis----language determines though----cannot be supported. However, it is equally clear that a weak version of the hypothesis----language influence thought----is reasonable and supportable9.5.2 Thought determines language1. Proposer: B. Berlin and P. Kay2. Evidence: The result of their experiment which was concerned with how speakers of different languages divide up the color spectrum showed that there appear to be some basic constraints that limit the way in which this aspect of our experience is coded in the language.Chapter 10 Cognitive Linguistics10.1 IntroductionDefinition:Cognitive linguistics (认知语言学): a new approach to the study of language and mind. According to this approach, language and language use are based on our bodily experience and the way we conceptualize it.10.2 Categorization and CategoriesCategorization: the mental process of classificationDefinition:Category: the products of categorization10.2.1 The classical theory1. Assumptions of the classical theory:(1) the first assumption: Categories are defined by a limited set of necessary and sufficient conditions/features. In other words, a thing can not both be and not be, it cannot both have a feature and not have it, it cannot both belong to a category and notbelong to it.E.g. in the BIRD category, if a creature has two wings , two legs, a beak, feathers and lays eggs, then it is a bird; on the other hand, if a creature has all these features, this is also sufficient for classifying it as a bird.(2) the second assumption: A feature is either in the definition of a category, or it is not; an entity has this feature, or it does notE.g. the BIRD category has the feature [+two legs], but[-four legs](3) the third assumption: Categories have clear boundariesE.g. BIRD and BEAST have clear boundaries(4) the fourth assumption: all members of a category have equal statusE.g. we cannot say that the sparrow is a better member than the ostrich in the BIRD category2. Problem: some members have fuzzy boundariesE.g: do ostriches and penguins belong to the BIRD category?10.2.2 The prototype thery.1. Prototypes (典型): what members of a particular community think of as the best example of a lexical category. E.g. for some English speakers “cabbage” (rather than, say, “carrot”) might be the prototypical vegitable2. Members of a category therefore differ in their prototypicality3. Proposer: E. Rosch4. Advantages: (1) It can explain how people deal with damaged examplesE.g. people would still categorize a one-winged robin who couldn’tfly as a bird, or a three-legged lion as a lion.(2) The prototype theory can work for actions as well as objectsE.g. people can judge that murder is a better example of killingthan execute or suicide(3) It is useful for explaining how people deal with atypical examplesof a categoryE.g. unbirdly birds such as penguins and pelicans can still beregarded as birds10.2.3 Levels of categorization1. Superordinate levels2. Basic-level categories* three respects: (1) Perception: overall perceived shape; single mental image; lastidentification(2) Communication: shortest, most commonly used andcontextually neutral words, first learned bychildren and first to enter the lexicon(3) Knowledge organization: most attributes of category membersare stored at this level.* Basic-level categories take primacy over categories at other levels. This is mostly because it is at this level that we perceive the evident differences between objectsand organisms of the world3. Subordinate levels10.3 Conceptual Metaphor and Metonymy10.3.1 Conceptual metaphor1. Example: LOVE IS A JOURNEYLook how far we’ve comeWe’ll just have to go our separate waysWe can’t turn back nowOur marriage is on the rocksWe’ve gotten off the trackThis relationship is founderingDefinition1. Metaphor: understanding one conceptual/cognitive domain in terms of anotherconceptual domain2. Source domain (始发域): the conceptual domain from which we draw metaphorical expressions to understand another conceptual domain3. Target domain (目标域): the conceptual domain that is understand this way Diagram: Conceptual Domain (A) Conceptual Domain (B)Target domain Source domainHe is a tiger10.3.2 Conceptual metonymy1. We have a general metonymic principle:THE BODILY SYMPTOMS OF AN EMOTION STAND FOR THE EMOTION E.g. drop in temperature for FEAR “I was chilled to the bone”erect posture for PRIDE “He swelled with pride”drooping posture for SADNESS “My heart sank”jumping up and down for JOY “He was jumping for joy2. The main difference between them is that metaphor involves a mapping across different conceptual or cognitive domains while metonymy is a mapping within one conceptual domain3. Metonymy is a cognitive process in which one cognitive category, the source, provides mental access to another cognitive category, the target, within the same10.4 IconicityDefinitionIconicity (象似性): a feature of language which means that the structure of language reflects in some way the structure of experience, that is, the structure of the word, including the perspective of imposed on the world by the speaker10.4.1 Iconicity of orderDefinitionIconicity of order: the similarity between temporal events and the linear arrangement of element in a linguistic constructione.g. I came, I saw, I conquered10.4.2 Iconicity of distance1. Iconicity of distance accounts for the fact that things which belong together conceptually tend to be put together linguistically, and things that do not belong together are put at a distance10.4.3 Iconicity of complexity1. the positive, comparative, and superlative degrees of adjective show a gradual increase in the number of phonemes, such as long, longer and longest in English2. Iconicity of complexity accounts for our tendency to associate more form with more meaning and, conversely, less form with less meaning10.5 Grammaticalization1. Grammaticalization: the process whereby an independent word is shifted to the status of a grammatical element2. Full words, with their own lexical content, thus become form words; and this categorical change tends to be accompanied by a reduction in phonological form anda “bleaching” of meaning3. Example: the transition of the lexical verb “go” into an auxiliary used to express the future tensea. Susan’s going to London next month.b. She’s going to London to work at our officec. Sh e’s going to work at our officed. You’re going to like here. You’re gonna like herf. You gonna like her. (non-standard)Chapter 11 Language Acquisition11.1 First Language Acquisition11.1.1 The behaviorist approach1. Best-known advocator: B.F.Skinner11.1.2 The innateness approach1. Under the influence of Noam Chomsky’s linguistic theories and cognitive psychology, the behaviorist hypothesis of first language acquisition has been challenged2. The innateness hypothesis says that the ability to acquire a human language is part of the biologically innate equipment of the human being, and that an infant is born with this ability just as it is born with two arms, two legs, and a beating heart. It also claims that this built-in ability is linked in some manner to physiological maturation, that it is strongest in the very small child, and that some degree of decay in its function begins around the time of puberty.11.1.3 Stages of acquiring the first language1. Pre-language stages (3~10m)2. The one-word or holophrastic stage (single-unit or single-form) (12~18m)3. The two-word stage (18~20m)4. Telegraphic speech (2~3y)(1) the child begins producing a large number of utterances which could be categorized as multiple-word utterances, but these utterances usually leave out certain word that adults omit in telegrams, such as articles, auxiliary, verbs and prepositions (2) e.g. Andrew want ball; cat drink, this shoe all wet11.2 Second Language Acquisition1. The differences between second language and foreign language(1) Second language plays an institutional and social role in the community, that is, it functions as a recognized way of communication among members who speak some other language as their mother tongueExamples: English as a second language is learned in the United States, the United Kingdom, and countries in Africa such as Zambia and Nigeria by those whose first language is not English.(2) Foreign language learning takes place in situations where the language plays no major role in the community and is primarily learned in the classroom.Examples: English learned in Japan and FranceDefinition:Second Language Acquisition (L2 acquisition/SLA) (第二语习得):the acquisition of another language or languages after first language acquisition is under way or completed11.2.1 Contrastive analysis1. Where two languages were similar, positive transfer would occur; where they were different, negative transfer, or interference, would result. That is:(1) The main difficulties in learning a new language are caused by interference from the first language(2) These difficulties can be predicted by contrastive analysis(3) Teaching materials can make use of contrastive analysis to reduce the effects ofmother tongue interference.Definition:Contrastive analysis (CA) (对比分析):systematically comparing the first language and the target language11.2.2 Error analysis1. Error analysis (EA) refers to the study and analysis of the errors made by second and foreign language learnersDefinition:1. Intralingual errors: result from faulty or partial learning of the target language, rather than from language transfer.e.g. “He is comes”→correct: He is coming or He comes2. Interlingual errors: caused by the learner’s native languagee.g. He comes from China, Beijing →correct: He comes from Beijing, China11.2.3 Interlanguage1. There is some in-between system while acquiring L2 which certainly contains aspects of both L1 and L2, but which is an inherently variable system with rules of its own. This system is called an interlanguage2. The process of fossilization in L2 pronunciation is one obvious cause of a foreign accentDefinitionFossilization (僵化现象): (in second or foreign language learning) a process which sometimes occurs in which incorrect linguistic features become a permanent part of the way a person speaks or writes the target language. Aspects of pronunciation, vocabulary usage, and grammar may become fixed or fossilized in second or foreign language learning.11.3 Individual Differences in Second Language Acquisition11.3.1 Language aptitude1. According to Carroll, the components of language aptitude are:(1) Phonemic coding ability (音位编码能力)(2) Grammatical sensitivity (语法的感性)(3) Inductive language learning ability (语言学习归纳能力)(4) Rote learning ability (机械学习能力)Definition:Language aptitude: the natural ability to learn a language, not including intelligence, motivation and interest, etc.11.3.2 Cognitive style: field dependence and field independence1. Field dependence: measured by asking learners to look at complex patterns and identify a number of simple geometric figures that are hidden within them(1) Characteristic:①they accept the L2 information exactly as it is presented to them by the teacher.②They do not try to analyze or think about it themselves③They are very reliant on what other people think of them and depend a great deal on positive feedback in their L2 learning④They tend to be seen as outgoing and interested in others and so would be expected to develop good interpersonal communication skills in the L22. Field independent:(1) Characteristic:①do not assume that the L2 information that they are given is necessarily correct②They tend to analyze it and think about it themselves to determine whether it is correct or not③They have a strong sense of personal identity④They often seem insensitive to and distant from other people.⑤They might, therefore, be expected to be less interested in developing communication skills in the L2(2) Examples:①they think about the input that they get.②In a formal learning context they are more likely to consciously think about and analyze the structure items that are presented to them, and consider how they fit into the grammar system as a whole③In a natural acquisition context they may more actively process the input they receive to build up hypotheses about how the language works.④They would develop a broader and deeper understanding of the structure of the language.Definition1. Cognitive style (认知风格): the particular way in which a learner tries to learn something. In second or foreign language learning, different learners may prefer different solutions to learning problems. For example, some people may want explanations for grammatical rules; others may not need any explanation2. Field dependence (场依存): a learning style in which a learner tends to look at the whole of a learning task which contains many items. The learner has difficulty in studying a particular item when it occurs within a field of other items.3. Field independence (场独立): a learning style in which a learner is able to identify or focus on particular items and is not distracted by other items in the back ground or context.11.3.3 Personality traits。
UniversalGrammarinSecondLanguageAcquisition
Universal Grammar in Second Language Acquisition:Can we have our cake and eat it too?Robert Bley-VromanUniversity of Hawai'i*****************[This is the paper as originally read at the 1998 Second Language Research Forum, University of Hawai'i. It is unedited and unrevised. ]Is the accessibilty question is the right question to ask. Here, my answer will be: No it isn't, but yes, it is.I believe that the term "accessibility" is something which originated in the 1986 work of mine and my coworkers Sascha Felix and Georgette Ioup. When I asked for money to pay for the data collection for that study, I recall stating in the application that we would do this study (and perhaps a one or two others like it), and we would then have the answer to the access question. Indeed, I recall that Robert King, who, as Dean of our college at the University of Texas, did grant the funds for our study, was particularly impressed that the answer to such an important question with such far-reaching implications could be obtained for just a few hundred dollars. He was, after all used to applications from other fields for studies which cost many thousands and which could give answers to only tiny pieces to big puzzles. Well, as you know, the "accessibility" question was not easy to answer. In a way, this is because it has not turned out to be the right question, for two main reasons. First, our conceptualization of language development itself and of UG has changed. Second, if the alternatives to UG are taken seriously, as they mustbe, not only for logical reasons but also because the general macroscopic character of the phenomenon makes them seem initially plausible (as we see in the quote in Chomsky's suggestion that learning a second language is like learning pole vaulting), then the possibilities begin to multiply and extend to many as yet poorly understood areas of human cognition. And here, too, changes in the conceptualization of language has affected the interpretation of the alternatives.First, the metaphor of "access" suggests that native language development is some sort of "figuring out" task: you are given data and have to "figure out" a grammar. UG is a source of information useful in this task. Indeed, if you have "access" to this crucial information, you will succeed in this task, but without it you cannot. Young children learning their native language have this "access," while adults learning a foreign language may or may not have access. So, learning the grammar is a task, and UG is a tool. A workman with good tools gets good results, one with bad tools gets bad results. We can look at the results and see whether the appropriate tools were used. This information-source conception of UG and the task conception of acquisition were quite pervasive in earlier linguistic theory. One sees it in statements of Chomsky and others.But, the task-and-tool metaphor is now felt to be simplistic or just wrong. Largely, this is because language development is being thought of in the same way as other developmental processes. We do not conceive of the infant as being confronted with the "task" of figuring out a way to recognize faces, or of figuring out how to walk. Language development, like development of facial recognition or bipedal gait is not something you DO, but something that happens to you. Again, refer to the Chomsky quote which Jürgen showed us yesterday. Development is unaccusative, not unergative. By the way, at this level, connectionists and generative linguists actually share a common view. So, the access question was hard to answer because it was based on the wrong conception of acquisition.The second reason why the "access" question was not easy to answer as formulated is thecomplexity of the other sources of "information" are available to adults.As an example of the complexity of alternatives: in my original FDH paper, I suggested that the L1 knowledge might play a part in two distinct ways: both through "expectations" about the L2 based on the observable superficial structural patterns in the L1, and also through the mental "representation of the L1 grammar" itself. This idea that the starting place for the L2 grammar might be the "mental representation of L1 grammar" is similar to current "full transfer" views within theories with hold "full access"-- though, of course, such full-access views do not have a place for expectations based on cognitive analysis superficial L1 structures. I further said that UG itself has two functions in the L1: first, as a means by which the grammar was constructed, and second, as a set of principles which "control its day-to-day operation" (as I put it in now-outdated language). I proposed that, within the framework of the FDH, principles of this latter type (or having this latter function) would indeed "be accessible to foreign language learning or even operate directly on the foreign language grammar".Also, ten years ago, I, like many others, considered that the mental representation of the grammar might possibly be "compiled out" or "proceduralized" into a set of rules of some sort, and the nature and degree of this compilation was itself unclear. Perhaps, we thought, L1 knowledge consisted, in part, of a set of objects like phrase structure rules, or even structure specific transformations, which might, in effect, form an L1 construction inventory which could be accessed in L2A, which would preserve, as a kind of palimpsest, a record of the moving hand of UG in its construction, thus giving a kind of a pale imitation of UG in SLA. Add to these complexities the availability of the poorly understood mechanisms like "analogy" which are thought to operate in general human cognition and even within language, if Chomsky's conjectures about the periphery are taken seriously.So, even at the time, though many interesting particular questions could be asked about UG in SLA (and UG in the representation of native language knowledge), the single big question "is there access to UG" was essentially unaswerable in that simple form.But, recently, as our concept of linguistic knowledge has moved toward minimalism, the original formulation of the alternatives itself seems to be incorrect, even taking into account its full original subtlety. The distinction between access to UG in the acquistion of a grammar vs. UG's ongoing use in regulating the grammar is now unclear. Even the distinction between constraints and learning procedures is becoming blurred. And, the idea that the mental representation of a grammar might (eventually) consist of a set of constructions (whether "compiled out" or not) is explicitly rejected by all researchers in the now-dominant linguistic research program. Thus, the question of whether a foreign language learner might come to a such a set of constructions (a perhaps an "incorrect" set) by some other route is very hard to pose coherently.Finally, notions like "impairment" and "partial access" have further blurred the issues, requiring even UG-based theories to have some alternative mechanisms of acquisition when the strong deductive mechanisms of UG fail.So, is UG access a good question now? Was it ever? No, definitely not. Too simplistic to do justice to the complexity of the issues and the alternatives. And now, anachronistic in its conception of language as well.And yet...One way to judge whether a question is the right one is to ask whether it makes coherent sense. That's what I've been asking so far. Another way is to ask whether asking the question is productive. { In linguistics, we used to ask about rule ordering on the assembly-line of transformations. That, we now see, is not the right question. It's not even a statable issue these days., Yet, it was the right question, and had it not been asked we would have been nowhere near as far as we are today. The present questions are also the wrong questions, but, we hope,also the right questions. }So has UG accessibility been the right question, in the sense of productivity and advancement of knowledge? Unquestionably yes. UG access has turned out to be a great question. It has led to a tremendous flood of research, we have knowledge of second language acquisition today which we could not dreamed of having ten years ago, and this is largely because we asked the access question. I will not review this body of impressive achievement. If you're in this audience, you know about it. And, it has had implications well beyond the narrow confines of the UG in-crowd.And, I think we should still be asking it, but instead of, or as well as keeping the big question in mind, we should concentrate on more manageable sub-issues which will eventually illuminate the big picture.To do this, let me put the Fundamental Difference Hypothesis in a positive way, saying what foreign language learning is rather than what it is not. First, foreign language learning is characterized by piecemeal, construction-by-construction or pattern-by-pattern acquisition rather than being based on UG-deductive processes. Second, it is based on the first language and on the second language input. Third, it also makes use of processes which are, in effect, outside the language module.From this perspective, what does one need to make the access question more precise?On the first point. Construction-by-construction learning. In the first instance we need theoretical work: a way to reconstruct the notion of construction within current theory. We need this even if foreign language learning _ever_ is inductive and construction-by-construction (for example in a theory in which an impairment in the central deductive system would make ordinary syntactic development impossible or a theory in which the inability to reset an incorrectly reset parameter might then cause the recruitment of such mechanisms). Defining construction in a the context of a linguistic theory in which the notion explicitly rejected is noteasy. But only if we have it does it make sense to entertain the idea of construction-by-construction acquisition while maintaining the idea that a foreign language is somehow language. Three approaches have suggested themselves: one is to assimilate the notion of construction to whatever device is necessary to describe truly "peripheral" structures ("Long live the king!"). Another is to somehow recruit the mechanisms which can learn prescriptive rules, as suggested by Beck. Yet another is to import wholesale an alternative grammatical theory, such as that of Construction Grammar and then conceive of a grammar as licensing a set of constructions rather than as licensing a set of derivations.Second, we need to continue to persue the question of clustering and deductive learning, that is, acquisition which is not construction-by-construction. Does it happen? Under what circumstances?Third, at least we who think construction-by-construction acquisition is the primary mode of L2 learning need to continue work in investigating particular structures. It makes perfect sense to ask: what about the constraints on the dative? What about the passive? What about pseudoclefts? What about multiple wh-questions? Of course, this type of research is already the focus of much that goes on, both within and outside the UG camp.Fourth. The position of the native language. This must remain a focus, obviously. And it will, since at least several hold that the representation of the L1 grammar is the starting point for SLA.Fifth, we should continue to ask about knowledge of subtle properties of the target language which are clearly underdetermined by the input can be attained by L2ers. This has resulted in some of the most fascinating research among all that inspired by the access question.Sixth, we need more work on the effect of explicit positive evidence and of explicit negative evidence. It is hard to overestimate the importance of the adverb studies of White and her colleagues, which have made ripples way outside our own little corner of the lake.The seventh point is closely related to the sixth. We must take much more seriously the consequences of the theses of modularity and of encapsulation. Bonnie Schwartz has urged this point often, but, alas, to little effect. The fact is that many obvious proposals for an account of foreign language learning, even those within a UG framework, propose things which in effect deny at least the strongest versions of modularity and encapsulation. What are the philosophical and empirical consequences of such moves? Here, we are also at the interface UG-inspired research and research on the more general cognitivist and "applied" side, where the much-debated learning-acquisition distinction and the increasing interest in attention, understanding, and the effect of instruction mirror questions of modularity and encapsulation.Finally, let me just make a plea to remember that any adequate theory of foreign language learning must take seriously the problem of variable outcome and frequent cases of what we informally call failure. This is at least part of the logical problem of foreign language learning.[handout]Why UG access is NOT the right question.•Task-and-tool view of language learning is wrong. Child language developmentunaccusative, not unergative. It happens to us, we do not do it.•Alternatives to UG must be taken seriously, but the alternatives are complex and poorly understood; and early statements of them are based on an outmoded conceptualization of language.Why UG access IS the right question.•It is immensely productive. By asking it and by keeping it always active, we have acoherent research paradigm which produces quantitites of important results, though it does not provide an answer to the question.Areas to investigate, keeping the Big Question in mind.1.Construction-by-construction acquisition needs a theoretical basis, situating it inLanguage.a. Peripheryb. Virusesc. The objects licensed.2. Deductive learning, clustering.3.Acquisition of particular constructions4.Position of native language, nature of transfer5.Manipulation of evidence including explicit instruction and negative evidence,investigation on input structure (including corpus analysis)6.Underdetermination7.Implications of modularity and encapsulation8.The macroscopic picture: variability and lack of "success"。
Second language acquisition
12Second language acquisitionLourdes OrtegaIntroductionThe fi eld of Second Language Acquisition (SLA) is a branch of applied linguistics that has a history extending over half a century. It investigates the human capacity to learn additional languages during late childhood, adolescence, or adulthood, once the fi rst language, in the case of monolinguals, or the fi rst languages, in the case of bilinguals and multilinguals, have been acquired. SLA researchers strive to shed light on four overarching questions:1 How do humans learn additional languages after they have learned their first?2 In what ways is the learning of an additional language different from the learning of languages for which exposure is available from birth, and in what ways might it be similar?3 What factors contribute to the variability observed in rates and outcomes of additional language learning?4 What does it take to attain advanced language and literacy competencies in a language that is learned later in life?SLA shares its interest in explaining human language development with two other fi elds, both of which study fi rst language acquisition from the womb to right before children enter school. These are Bilingual First Language Acquisition (BFLA), which examines language development among infants and children when they grow up surrounded by two or more languages from birth (De Houwer 2009), and First Language Acquisition (FLA), also known as Child Language Acquisition, which investigates how infants and children learn their fi rst language when they grow up surrounded by one language only (Clark 2003).The di ff erences in focus between these two fi elds and SLA are important. First, in the fi elds of bilingual and monolingual fi rst language acquisition, infants and toddlers are investigated at the critical point in life when they are discovering human language, as instantiated in the speci fi c language(s) that their carers happen to speak to them. By contrast, all participants in SLA studies will already be relatively mature users of at least one language, often more. Theirexisting language competencies will in fl uence their learning of the language that is being added to their repertoire. Second, at the point of fi rst language acquisition, infants and toddlers must 171develop socially and conceptually in tandem with developing linguistically. On the other hand, adults, adolescents, and even children as young as four or fi ve, can be expected to bring to the task already relatively sophisticated and increasingly fi ne-tuned social and conceptual structures. Finally, BFLA and FLA researchers typically assume naturalistic conditions of language learning, because infants and toddlers learn language by being surrounded by meaningful language use and in the absence of instruction. SLA researchers, on the otherhand, investigate language learning in any possible context, ranging from naturalistic acquisition within a non-instructional community (e.g. a neighbourhood, a church group, the workplace,or during regular schooling that happens to occur in a new language), to formal instruction of various kinds (e.g. tutorials or self-access; second, foreign, or heritage language classrooms; or classroom-engineered immersion settings), and often a combination of the two. This being so, instruction is an important area of study in SLA (see Larsen-Freeman, this volume).SLA theories in historical perspectiveScholars have written about how people learn second languages and how to best teach foreign languages since ancient times. When in the late 1960s SLA emerged as a formal research community, it did so shaped by these long-standing interests in language learning and teaching. Additional in fl uences came from more speci fi c developments in the fi eld of FLA, which atthe time had been transformed by a process of theoretical renewal in reaction against the prevailing behaviourist view of language acquisition and had begun to yield exciting empiricalfi ndings about how children who grow up monolingual learn their mother tongue (e.g. Brown 1973).The awakenings of SLA: interlanguageThe years 1967 and 1972 mark the publication of two seminal papers by Pit Corder andLarry Selinker that are often associated with the awakenings of the fi eld because of the importance of the arguments they put forth. At an empirical level, they called to questionthe dominant practice of contrastive analysis, which looked for acquisition answers in the exhaustive comparison of the linguistic inventories of the language pairs involved in the learning task, the fi rst language and the target language. Instead, Corder (1967) and Selinker (1972) argued researchers must turn for evidence to the actual language produced by learnersas they try to communicate in the target second language (L2). This meant examining the‘errors’ learners produce not as something to be pre-empted or remedied but as objects ofstudy that hold great value for understanding L2 acquisition. At the theoretical level, the behaviourist view of language acquisition as mere habit formation was rejected and replacedby a novel conceptualization of acquisition as creative construction. For the fi rst time, learners were viewed as active and rational agents who engaged in the discovery of underlying L2 rules. They formed hypotheses about the language, tested them, and employed a number of cognitive and social strategies to regulate their learning. These developments made interlanguage investigations during the 1970s and 1980s increasingly more focused on cognitiveand psycholinguistic aspects of acquisition. Nevertheless, a few SLA researchers also working within the interlanguage tradition turned their attention to exploring the potential of quantitative sociolinguistic theories of variation for the study of L2 development (e.g. Tarone 1988).Once the foundations of interlanguage as a novel and distinct object of inquiry were laidout, there was a justi fi cation for the need for a fi eld that would investigate additional language Lourdes Ortega172development in its own right. After these beginnings, several broad phases can be distinguished in the history of SLA. The narrative depiction of orderly historical trends that followsbelow is only a convenient shorthand that undoubtedly obscures more complicated developments.From fi rst theories to the cognitive and linguistic emphases of the 1990sBy the early 1980s, the fi rst attempt at a formal theory of L2 acquisition was mustered in the United States by Stephen Krashen (1985). Known as the Monitor Model, this theory became (and has remained) popular with language teachers. In a nutshell, Krashen proposed that:(a) the core ingredient of additional language learning is meaningful, comprehensible input;(b) the processes of additional language acquisition are implicit and subconscious and any explicit and conscious processes that may be summoned in the classroom can only help careful monitored performance but will have little e ff ects on true language knowledge or on spontaneous performance; and (c) the main obstacles to additional language learning for adults stemfrom a ff ective inhibitions. Despite its popularity, already in the mid-1980s the Monitor Model was evaluated as being too metaphorical to lend itself to proper empirical investigation. The strongest critiques were levelled by SLA scholars who were well versed in skills acquisition theory from the fi eld of psychology (e.g. McLaughlin 1987), and also by scholars who had begun applying Universal Grammar theory from the fi eld of linguistics to the disciplinarySLA project (e.g. Gregg 1984). In both cases, the criticisms also served to carve intellectual spaces for these newer kinds of SLA theories.Thus, as the 1980s came to a close, the SLA research community had already developed several theoretically distinct proposals for explaining L2 acquisition. One view (Krashen 1985) was that L2 acquisition occurs within dimensions de fi ned largely by input and a ff ect and operating mostly at the unconscious level. Another position (McLaughlin 1987) held that learning an additional language is a complex, cognitive process similar to any other human learning (cooking, playing chess, riding a bike, thinking mathematically, knowing history); as such, it involves great amounts of experience aided by attention and memory and it must include the development of su ffi cient declarative knowledge about the language and su ffi cient deliberate practice to eventually support fully automatic use of language. A third view (White1989) was that the mental grammar of second language learners must be explained by the relative contributions of two forces that guide tacit language knowledge formation and thatare independent from other cognitive operations, and even relatively independent from surroundingambient experience, namely abstract knowledge of Universal Grammar (which thehuman species is endowed with at birth) and more speci fi c knowledge of a given fi rst language (which is imprinted in the mind of language users during the critical years of learning a fi rst language or languages).Particularly during the 1990s, these varied SLA research e ff orts were strengthened to thepoint of cohering into what looked like one of two dominant approaches. A cognitiveinteractionist prism (Larsen-Freeman and Long 1991) was strongly in fl uenced by Swiss psychologistJean Piaget and easily accommodated within it the interlanguage research traditionas well as the skills acquisition theory. It called for the examination of L2 acquisition as thesum contributions of learner-internal factors, such as attention and memory, and learnerexternal factors, such as the interactions o ff ered to learners in the target language and thequality of any formal instruction they might seek. By contrast, a formal linguistic SLA prism (Hawkins 2001; White 1989) was strongly in fl uenced by US linguist Noam Chomsky andfl ourished out of the strides made by this linguistic theory during the late 1980s. This research Second language acquisition173programme sought to tease out the degree to which Universal Grammar knowledge, knowledge stemming from the fi rst language, or a combination of the two, guided the constructionof mental L2 grammars. These two traditions have enjoyed continuity at both empirical and theoretical levels up to the present day, thus leading to considerable accumulation of disciplinary knowledge in the areas to which they have been applied.The fate of other foundational SLA work, by comparison, appeared less promising. SLA researchers’ interest in Krashen’s Monitor Model had quickly waned. Likewise, the quantitative sociolinguistic forays into SLA heralded by a few interlanguage researchers (e.g. Tarone1988) had seemingly remained of interest to only a minority in the fi eld. It would take a few more years for the fi eld to return to their important argument that language learning is fundamentally social.Theoretical expansions: socioculturalism and emergentismAlready in the mid-1990s, however, two new theoretical forces joined the fi eld and begannew SLA traditions that soon would grow enormously in vitality. One is the study ofL2 acquisition through the sociocultural theory of mind developed by Russian psychologistLev Vygotsky, a contemporary of Piaget, and led in SLA by James Lantolf (Lantolf1994). The other is the application of the usage-based, emergentist family of theories developed in cognitive science and initiated in SLA by Nick Ellis (1996) and Diane Larsen-Freeman (1997). The coexistence of the two better established approaches with the two youngbut bold newcomers created epistemological tension and led to the gradual articulation ofdi ff erences.On the one hand, the two psychologically oriented approaches, cognitive-interactionist and sociocultural, consider the learner’s mind and the surrounding environment as essential dimensions of inquiry, but they di ff er radically in their position as to how the two should be investigated. For the cognitive-interactionist approach (well synthesized by Larsen-Freemanand Long 1991), mind and environment are analytically separable, and the in fl uences stemming from one or the other should be isolated as learner-internal and learner-external factors,so that then their interactions can be investigated. This position is also known as interactionismin the fi rst language development literature (see Bohannon and Bonvillian 2009). Mechanisms that explain how the linguistic data available in the surrounding external environment are used for internally driven learning invoke cognitive constructs such as noticing, when new features of language become available, even if most fl eetingly, for conscious recognition. Environmental constructs of importance include negotiation for meaning, wheninterlocutors edit and reformulate their own and each other’s language as they strive to make themselves understood, and negative feedback, when interlocutors wittingly or unwittinglyo ff er potential evidence that a language choice may not be sanctioned by the speech community. By contrast, for the Vygotskian sociocultural approach (fi rst synthesized at book lengthby Lantolf and Thorne 2006), mind is irrevocably social, and therefore it can only be investigated holistically in the unfolding process of social action and interaction. The construction ofnew knowledge (including knowledge of an additional language) arises in the social plane and gradually becomes internalized psychologically by the individual. Mechanisms that explainhow new linguistic knowledge and capable behaviour come about invoke social processes such as mediation of activity by language through private speech (audible speech directed to the self), social speech (speech by more expert others with the aim to help regulate action by novices), and inner speech (inaudible speech directed to the self for self-regulation). Another important construct related to learning is the zone of proximal development. This refers to an Lourdes Ortega174emergent quality of collaborative social action by which knowledge that by itself would be above the current competencies of one or more of the participants becomes momentarily attainable through joint context-sensitive collaboration, thus potentially being available for individual, independent use at a later point.The formal linguistic approach and the emergentist approach to SLA, too, exhibit key differences amidst critically intersecting interests. Both are vested in explaining language developmentas part of cognitive science, but they clash in their incompatible assumptions aboutwhat human language is and about the relative contributions that nature and nurture make toits development. Formal linguistic SLA researchers (Wakabayashi, this volume) adhere to radical nativism, modularity, and rule-based representationism. That is, they believe languageis a biologically given faculty unique to the human species (nativism), operating independently from other cognitive faculties used to learn and process other kinds of knowledge (modularity), and encoded as a system of abstract rules of the sort that have been described in formal linguistic grammars (rule-based representationism). In sharp contrast, emergentist, usage-basedSLA researchers (Ellis, this volume) are empiricist, generalist, and associationist. In other words, they hold that language in each individual emerges out of massive amounts of experience with the linking of form and meaning through language use that is driven by the species’social need to communicate (empiricism), enabled by simple memory and attention processing mechanisms that are the same as employed for all other cognitive functions (generalism), and self-organized out of the human brain’s unique capacity to implicitly and mandatorily tally the statistical properties and contextual contingencies of the linguistic input they experience over a lifetime (associationism).SLA after the social turnThe tensions brie fl y outlined above were only the tip of the iceberg of a wider social turn (Block 2003) which continued to gain momentum in the late 1990s. Not only Vygotskian socioculturalists (e.g. Pavlenko and Lantolf 2000) but also many other scholars from the widerfi eld of applied linguistics criticized the SLA research community for investigating L2 acquisitionin a-social and decontextualized ways (e.g. Firth and Wagner 1997).The crisis fuelled by the social turn has left the fi eld richer in theories and approaches.Among the most important new contributors, we fi nd less cognitively and more socially minded approaches that have undertaken the task to re-specify in social terms all key elementsin the SLA equation. Thus, if Vygotskian SLA already beginning in the mid-1990s o ff ered are-speci fi cation of cognition as fundamentally social (Thorne and Tasker, this volume), since then other SLA theories have contributed formal ways of studying additional languagelearning as social in terms of grammar, oral interaction, learning, and sense of self. Speci fi cally, grammar and language are theorized as social in systemic functional linguistics forSLA (Young, this volume); oral interaction is rede fi ned as social in conversation analysis as well as in other discourse approaches to additional language learning (Hellermann 2008;Young 2009); learning itself is understood as social in language socialization (He, this volume); and sense of self is reconceptualized as irrevocably social in identity theory (Norton, this volume).Key themes in SLA researchMany themes have attracted attention in SLA, of which I have selected fi ve that I consider tobe fundamental areas of SLA inquiry.Second language acquisition175Age: what are the effects of an early or a late start?The question of age is perhaps the most investigated, debated, and misunderstood of all research areas in SLA, most likely because of its extraordinary theoretical and educational importance. No researcher denies that starting age greatly a ff ects the eventual success of additional language learning. Success, naturally, is in the eye of the beholder, and we must not forget to ask: Who is to judge success: the researcher, the teacher, one of many stakeholders in the life of the additional language user, or the user him- or herself? When success is strictly understood in linguistic terms as determined by researchers, then it is an empirically established fact that people who begin learning an additional language by naturalistic immersionvery early in life tend to attain high levels of linguistic competence, often (but not always) similar to others who begin learning the same language at birth. By comparison, people who begin learning an additional language later in life, and particularly any time after the end of adolescence, exhibit much greater variability in their levels of linguistic attainment. In addition, the majority (although not all) of late-starting language users will develop functionalabilities in the new language that are di ff erent from and seemingly less pro fi cient than the functional abilities of others who begin learning the same language at birth.What is hotly debated and remains without a de fi nitive research answer is what precisely explains the observed age e ff ects. Proponents of the critical period hypothesis (e.g. Abrahamsson and Hyltenstam 2009) believe that the explanation is biological, in that they posit a maturational, time-locked schedule after which it is no longer possible to learn a language in exactly the same ways and to exactly the same high degrees of competence as any individual does between birth and age three or four. Sceptics of the critical period hypothesis (e.g.Hakuta 2001), on the other hand, point at alternative, non-biological reasons for the attestedage e ff ects, all of which are related to the many di ff erences in experience (linguistic and nonlinguistic)between infants and adults. For one, it may be that a later start leads to di ff erentialresults because one or more other languages have been learned so well already (Flege 1999). This argument warrants careful consideration, given that late starters and early starters alikeare usually compared to people who grew up by birth with only one language and therefore exhibit monolingual competence. Yet, monolingual competence cannot be expected tobe identical to multilingual competence (Cook 2008). It may also be that the diverging linguistic competencies we observe at increasingly older starting ages are re fl ective of the varied social, educational, and emotional complications as well as the varied demands on time and pursuits that come with adult life, compared to the more uniform and restricted lives thatinfants and toddlers lead before they enter school.The age debate has been further complicated in recent years by research conducted in foreign language contexts, where the availability of input is severely limited (e.g. two or three hours a week of foreign language study, in many school systems). Under such conditions, and when results have been evaluated at the point of high school graduation, beginning a couple of years earlieror later during elementary or middle school made no sizable overall di ff erence (Muñoz 2008). As Muñoz notes, the empirical evidence accumulated from foreign language contexts suggeststhat age is confounded with another variable that must always be evaluated when interpreting critical period and age-related SLA studies: the quantity and quality of the ambient input. Crosslinguistic in fl uences stemming from already known languagesA second important theme in SLA research is how previously known languages, and particularly the mother tongue, in fl uence the process of learning an additional language. BothLourdes Ortega176strategically and unknowingly, learners rely on their fi rst language and on other languages they know in order to accomplish something that is as yet unknown to them in the second language. In their comprehensive appraisal of this domain, Jarvis and Pavlenko (2008) identifyseveral noteworthy insights from accumulated research. One is the realization that crosslinguistic phenomena can slow down the pace of learning in cases of language areas wherenegative transfer occurs, but also accelerate learning and facilitate development in many areas where positive transfer occurs (e.g. for language pairs that are typologically or genetically related and whose lexicons contain many helpful cognates, as in Spanish-English creatividad = creativity). Second, similarities in a given language pair can often lead to greater learningdif fi cultiesthan di ff erences do (e.g. in the case of false friends, as when assuming that the words actualmente in Spanish and actually in English mean the same thing). A third well-attestedfi nding is that crosslinguistic in fl uences are not linearly related to pro fi ciency; instead,di ff erentareas of the languages of the individual can result in interactions at some levels of pro fi ciency and not others.The in fl uence that the mother tongue has on the construction of the new grammar is alsoan important area of research for scholars who work with formal linguistic theories (Wakabayashi, this volume). However, their goals are di ff erent from those of most of the research surveyed by Jarvis and Pavlenko (2008). SLA formal linguistic researchers aim to tease out the di ff erences in the initial and end states of grammar knowledge that obtains when one language is learned by birth, on the one hand, and when a second language is added laterin life, on the other. A number of theoretical positions are considered empirically plausible, which are contained within two extremes. At the one extreme, full access to Universal Grammar is proposed and the in fl uence of the L1 is believed to be minimal. This position assumesthat fi rst and second language acquisition are fundamentally similar in nature. At the other extreme, no access to Universal Grammar is posited during L2 acquisition and the L1 isa ff orded a central position in the construction of the L2 grammar. That is, after learning thefi rst language from birth by recourse to Universal Grammar, any subsequent language learning is thought to be accomplished through the more detailed knowledge structures instantiatedby the particular fi rst-language grammar that is known already, and by resorting to processing mechanisms that are fundamentally di ff erent (Bley-Vroman 2009) from those employed by the infant learning a language or languages from birth to the pre-school years.Environment and cognition: what are their contributions to additional language learning?From the beginnings of the fi eld, much SLA research has focused on human interactionsand the discourse strategies in them that bring about potentially useful opportunities for learning. We know a great deal about how linguistically mature interlocutors can facilitate additional language learning by rewording their messages through simpli fi cations and elaborations,by asking for clari fi cations and expansions, and by using language that is appropriate, interesting, and yet slightly above the level of their interlocutors (Long 1996). From socioculturally oriented studies of the environment for SLA, we also know that many additional language learners are actively involved in their own learning processes, both regulating challenges and maximizing learning opportunities as they seek environmental encounters (Brouwer and Wagner 2004; Donato 1994; Kinginger 2004). Finally, we also know that interactionis not a panacea, and that learning opportunities may not be actualized at all when interlocutors are not invested in communicating with each other, when they are antagonisticor, even worse, prejudiced, or (ironically) when they are so emotionally and intellectually Second language acquisition177engaged in communication that their attention glosses over the formal details of what is newto them in the L2.Much SLA research since the mid-1990s has investigated issues related to memory, attention, and awareness and how they constrain what can be learned of the additional language, particularly through interaction and formal instruction. While it is clear that the more deliberate attention L2 users pay to new language, the more they learn (Schmidt 1995), it is alsoclear that much of a new language is learned via implicit attentional processes of extraction of meaning-form correspondences and their associated frequencies and distributions of occurrence (Ellis, this volume). More recently, SLA researchers have turned to the study of theproperties of the linguistic data a ff orded by the environment, often using tools from corpus analysis, and how these properties are processed for learning by the cognitive architecture. Progress in this area will no doubt accelerate in coming years under the impulse of usagebased, emergentist perspectives, since they place the lion’s share of acquisition with the statisticaland form-and-meaning properties of the input as these interact with the learner’s attentional capacities. There is already fi rm empirical support, for example, that language features that are highly frequent in the input are acquired earlier by L2 learners, provided that they are also phonologically salient and semantically prototypical (e.g. argument structure in Ellis and Ferreira-Junior 2009).Three approaches to explaining variability of L2 learning across individualsIt has always been noted that adolescents and adults who learn an additional language presenta daunting landscape of variability in terms of rates, processes, and outcomes by the time they (or the researchers who investigate them) can say they are ‘done’ with L2 learning. This issueof variability across individuals has been investigated from three perspectives.The perspective with the longest tradition is known as individual di ff erences research and draws on social psychological constructs and methods (see Dörnyei 2005). This research is quantitative and correlational, and it assumes multiple causal variables interacting and contributingtogether to explaining variation systematically. We know from SLA research onindividual di ff erences that people di ff er in how much of a gift they have for learning foreign languages and that this natural ability can be measured with precision via language aptitude tests. In general, we can expect aptitude scores and achievements scores (e.g. end-of-course grades, teacher evaluations, and even pro fi ciency scores) to pattern together by about 16 to 36 per cent overlap. Motivation is another source of individual di ff erence that has been investigated particularly energetically by SLA researchers over the years, and several theories haveshed light on di ff erent qualities of motivation that are important in sustaining and nourishing learning e ff orts, including integrative motivation, self-determined motivation, and motivation guided by the positive concept of an L2-speaking self (see Dörnyei 2005).A second perspective that can help explain individual variability is socio-dynamic and draws from complexity theory and dynamic systems theory, which are recent approaches within the emergentist family of SLA theories. As Larsen-Freeman and Cameron (2008) note, in thesocio-dynamic approach all research is made to be centrally and primarily about variability. Indeed, variability is thought to be an inherent property of the system under investigation and increased variability is interpreted as a precursor for some important change in the system as well. This novel perspective calls for the use of new analytical methods that are quantitative, as in the traditional perspective, but also innovatively di ff erent because they are stochastic and non-causal, that is, based on probabilistic estimations that include the possibility of random variations and fl uctuations tracked empirically over time (Larsen-Freeman and Cameron Lourdes Ortega1782008). The new variability-centred framework can be applied to any area of SLA, from。
3.Universal_Grammar_in_Second_Language_Acquisition语言学流派
2.3 Inaccessibility of UG to SLA
Inaccessibility hypothesis(完全不可及假说) denies all the influence of UG on SLA. It assumes that the parameters of UG have been set in the process of FLA. They can not be reset. The assignment of second language learner is finished by his psychological device and cognitive strategies. It means that only first language learner can use UG.
普遍语法
其他心理机制
直接可及
不可及
间接可及
第一语言
第二语言
3.The problem of the application of UG in SLA
The biggest problem of the application of UG in SLA is that Chomsky’s theory of UG was proposed in response to “the logical problem of FLA”. There are some significant differences between FLA and SLA. ⑴ The process of FLA is natural and unconscious, but that of SLA is conscious. ⑵ Cognitive ability of children is still in the immature stage while that of adult is already mature.
Ionin_SLAentry
SECOND LANGUAGE ACQUISITION (1,000 words)AUTHOR: Tania IoninThe term ‘second language acquisition’ refers to the acquisition of a new language by children and adults who already have full knowledge of their first language. It is thus distinct from childhood bilingualism, or simultaneous language acquisition, which refers to the child language acquisition of two languages simultaneously, with exposure to both languages beginning in infancy or soon after (Genesee 2000, Meisel 2001, 2004). Child second language acquisition, also known as sequential bilingualism, refers to the acquisition of a second language after age three of four, when much of the first language is already in place (Gass and Selinker 2001, Lakshmanan 1994, McLaughlin 1978). There is disagreement on exactly when child second language acquisition ends and adult second language acquisition begins (Gass and Selinker 2001), but age eight or nine is often taken as the upper boundary for true child second language acquisition (Bialystok and Miller 1999, Schwartz 2003).The input that child and adult learners receive in their second language takes many different forms; like child language acquisition, second language acquisition involves naturalistic exposure to the target language. However, the amount and type of input are different for second language learners immersed in the language on the one hand, and foreign language learners with classroom-only exposure to a foreign language on the other hand (R. Ellis 1989, Pica 1983). Furthermore, second language learners often receive negative evidence about the target language in the form of explicit and/or implicitinstruction (Bley-Vroman 1989, 1990, Doughty and Williams 1998; see White 1991 on positive vs. negative evidence in the classroom). There is a debate in the field of applied linguistics concerning the degree to which linguistic knowledge learned through explicit instruction can become internalized, implicit linguistic knowledge (N. Ellis 2005, R. Ellis 2002, Norris and Ortega 2000, Krashen 1981; see R. Ellis 2006 for an overview of the issues in grammar teaching). On the relationship between second language theory and second language instruction, see the papers in Eckman et al. (1995).In addition to the target language input, a potential source of knowledge for second language learners is their native language. Early morpheme-order studies (Bailey, Madden and Krashen 1974, Dulay and Burt 1974, Larsen-Freeman 1975) focused on developmental sequences across second language learners from different native language backgrounds, and found little effect of the native language (but see Larsen-Freeman and Long 1991). However, there is much evidence from other studies that second language learners are influenced by their native language in the acquisition of the target language, a process known as transfer (Dechert & Raupach 1989, Gass & Selinker 1992, Odlin 1989, among many others). Transfer has traditionally been divided into positive transfer or facilitation, which helps learners acquire properties of the target (second) language, and negative transfer or interference, which hinders learners in their course of acquisition (Odlin 1989). Generative approaches to second language acquisition look at transfer at the level of grammatical categories and features (Schwartz & Sprouse 1994, 1996, Schwartz 1998, Vainikka and Young-Scholten 1994, 1996; see White 2003 for an overview).The role that age plays in second language acquisition has received much attention in the literature. Early studies focused on how age affects ultimate attainment of the target language, and found that younger age of exposure to the target language is related to better performance on the target language phonology and syntax (Johnson and Newport 1989, 1991, Oyama 1978, Patkowski 1980; for critiques and replications of the Johnson and Newport 1989 study, see Bialystok and Miller 1999, Birdsong and Molis 2001, deKeyser 2000, among others). Following the proposal of Lenneberg (1967) that first language acquisition is subject to critical period effects, many researchers (Hyltenstam and Abrahamsson 2003, Long 1990, Patkowski 1980, Pulvermüller and Schumann 1994) have argued that age effects in second language acquisition are a result of biological maturation. At the same time, it has been argued that non-biological factors, such as the type and amount of target language input, and learners’ motivation and attitude, may account for, or at least contribute to, differences between child and adult second language learners (Flege, Frieda and Nozawa 1997, Klein 1995; for a variety of approaches to age effects, see the papers in Singleton and Lengyel 1995 and Birdsong 1999; see Birdsong 2004, 2006 for an overview). As pointed out by Long (1990) and Birdsong (2004), a biologically determined critical period should prevent native-like attainment in all learners past a certain age. While Coppieters (1987) found that even highly advanced adult second language learners in fact did not exhibit native-like attainment, much literature since then has pointed out the existence of adult second language learners who do perform near-natively on phonology (Bongaerts 1999) and syntax (Birdsong 1992,White and Genesee 1996). For a review of the recent literature on near-nativeness, see Bongaerts (2005), Sorace (2003).Within the field of generative approaches to second language acquisition, the critical period debate takes the form of a debate concerning whether innate mechanisms underlying language acquisition, in the form of Universal Grammar, are available to adult learners. In a highly influential proposal, Bley-Vroman (1989, 1990) argued that first language acquisition by children and second language acquisition by adults are fundamentally different processes. Bley-Vroman argued that while child language acquisition is guided by innate linguistic mechanisms, adult second language acquisition relies on problem-solving, instruction, and explicit strategies. Much work in the field of generative second language acquisition over the past twenty years has debated this view. Proponents of the deficit view argue that adult learners are impaired with regard to all or some aspects of language acquisition and/or constrained to those aspects of Universal Grammar instantiated in their native language (Hawkins and Chan 1997, Hawkins and Hattori 2006, Meisel 1997, Schachter 1990, Tsimpli and Dimitrakopoulou 2007). On the other side of the debate, proponents of the Full Access to Universal Grammar view argue that innate linguistic mechanisms remain active throughout adulthood, and that differences between children and adults stem from other sources (Epstein, Flynn and Martohardjono 1996, 1998, Schwartz and Sprouse 1994, 1996; see White 2003 for an overview). On the influential Full Transfer / Full Access model of second language acquisition (Schwartz and Sprouse 1994, 1996), second language learners transfer the grammatical characteristics of their native language to the second language, but are thenable to acquire new aspects of the target language through direct access to Universal Grammar.Evidence for Full Access views of second language acquisition comes from two different sources. The first source of evidence comes from developmental comparisons between child and adult second language learners, under a research program put forth by Schwartz (1992, 2003). On the assumption that innate linguistic knowledge is available to child second language learners, evidence of similar developmental sequences among children and adults (with the native language held constant) is used to argue that such knowledge is available to adult learners as well (Gilkerson 2006, Schwartz 2003, Unsworth 2005). The second source of evidence comes from studies of poverty-of-the-stimulus phenomena with adult second language learners: when adult learners are able to master aspects of the second language which are not instantiated in the native language, not obvious from the input, and not explicitly taught in the classroom, this provides evidence that innate linguistic knowledge is at work (Dekydtspotter, Sprouse and Anderson 1997, Dekydtspotter, Sprouse and Swanson 2001, Montrul and Slabakova 2003, Kanno 1998, among others). Much of this work has been done with phenomena at the syntax-semantics interface (see Slabakova 2006 for an overview). The syntax-pragmatics interface has also been examined in recent literature, both in second language acquisition (Sorace 2003, 2005) and childhood bilingualism (Serratrice, Sorace and Paoli 2004).Second language acquisition is a growing field, encompassing a variety of perspectives on how languages are learned (Doughty and Long 2003), including interlanguagepragmatics and approaches in applied linguistics, as well as generative approaches (White 2003), and, more recently, psycholinguistic perspectives and techniques (see Marinis 2003 for an overview). The study of second language acquisition is also closely related to the study of attrition and incomplete acquisition of the first language under the influence of a dominant second language (Montrul forthcoming, Polinsky 1997). Many of the same issues, including the role of transfer and the effects of age, are studied with regard to both second language acquisition and first language attrition.See also: Applied linguistics; child language acquisition; competence, communicative; competence, linguistic; competence, pragmatic; communication failure; cross-cultural pragmatics; development, pragmatic; intercultural communication; interlanguage pragmatics; psycholinguistics; semantics; semantics-pragmatics interface; sociolinguistics; specificity; syntax-pragmatics interface.Suggestions for further reading:Doughty, C. & Long, M. (eds.) (2003) The Handbook of Second Language Acquisition, Oxford: Blackwell.Gass, S. & Selinker, L. (2001) Second Language Acquisition: An Introductory Course, Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.White, L. (2003) Second Language Acquisition and Universal Grammar, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.BIBLIOGRAPHYBailey, N. Madden, C. & Krashen, S. (1974) ‘Is there a “natural sequence” in adult second language learning?’, Language Learning, 24: 235-243.Bialystok, E. & Miller, B. (1999) ‘The problem of age in second language acquisition: Influences from language, structure and task’, Bilingualism: Language andCognition, 2: 127-145.Birdsong, D. & Molis, M. (2001) ‘On the evidence for maturational constraints in second language acquisition’, Journal of Memory and Language, 44: 235-249. Birdsong, D. (1992) ‘Ultimate attainment in second language acquisition’, Language, 68: 706-755.Birdsong, D. (2004) ‘Second language acquisition and ultimate attainment’, in A. Davis & C. Elder (eds.), The Handbook of Applied Linguistics, Oxford: Blackwell, 82-105. Birdsong, D. (2006) ‘Age and second language acquisition and processing. A selective overview’, Language Learning, 56-9-49.Birdsong, D. (ed.) (1999) Second Language Acquisition and the Critical Period Hypothesis, Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Bley-Vroman, R. (1989) ‘What is the logical problem of foreign language learning?’, in S. Gass and J. Schachter (eds.), Linguistic perspectives on second languageacquisition. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Bley-Vroman, R. (1990) ‘The logical problem of foreign language learning’, Linguistic Analysis 20: 3-49.Bongaerts, T. (1999) ‘Ultimate attainment in L2 pronunciation: The case of veryadvanced late L2 learners’, in D. Birdsong (ed.), Second Language Acquisition and the Critical Period Hypothesis, Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 133-159. Bongaerts, T. (2005) ‘Introduction: ultimate attainment and the critical period hypothesis for second language acquisition’, International Review of Applied Linguistics inLanguage Teaching, 43: 259-267Coppieters, R. (1987) ‘Competence differences between native and near-native speakers’, Language, 63: 544-573.Dechert, H. & Raupach, M. (eds.) (1989) Transfer in Language Production, Norwood, NJ: Ablex.DeKeyser, R. (2000) ‘The robustness of critical period effects in second language acquisition’, Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 22: 499-533. Dekydtspotter, L., Sprouse, R.A. & Anderson, B. (1997) ‘The interpretive interface in L2 acquisition: the process-result distinction in English-French interlanguage grammars’, Language Acquisition, 6: 297-332.Dekydtspotter, L., Sprouse, R.A. & Swanson, K. (2001) ‘Reflexes of mental architecture in second-language acquisition: The interpretation of ‘combien’ extractions inEnglish-French interlanguage’, Language Acquisition, 9, 175-227.Doughty, C. & Long, M. (eds.) (2003) The Handbook of Second Language Acquisition, Oxford: Blackwell.Doughty, C. & Williams, J. (eds.) (1998) Focus on Form in Classroom Second Language Acquisition, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Dulay, H. & Burt, M. (1974) ‘Natural sequences in child second language acquisition’, Language Learning, 24: 37-53.Eckman, F., Highland, D., Lee, P., Milcham, J. & Rutkowski, R. (eds.) (1995) Second Language Acquisition Theory and Pedagogy, Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Ellis, N. (2005) ‘At the interface: How explicit knowledge affects implicit language learning’, Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27: 305-352.Ellis, R. (1989) ‘Are classroom and naturalistic acquisition the same?’, Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 11: 305-326.Ellis, R. (2002) ‘Does form-focused instruction affect the acquisition of implicit knowledge? A review of the research’, Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24: 223–236.Ellis, R. (2006) ‘Current issues in the teaching of grammar: an SLA perspective’, TESOL Quarterly, 40: 85-107.Epstein, S., Flynn, S. & Martohardjono, G. (1996) ‘Second language acquisition: Theoretical and experimental issues in contemporary research’, Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 19: 677-758.Epstein, S., Flynn, S. & Martohardjono, G. (1998) ‘The strong continuity hypothesis in adult L2 acquisition of functional categories’, in S. Flynn, G. Martohardjono & W.O’Neil (eds.), The Generative Study of Second Language Acquisition, Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 61-77.Flege, J., Frieda, A. & Nozawa, T. (1997) ‘Amount of native-language (L1) use affects the pronunciation of an L2’, Journal of Phonetics, 25: 169-186.Gass, S. & Selinker, L. (2001) Second Language Acquisition: An Introductory Course, Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Gass, S. & Selinker, L. (eds.) nguage Transfer in Language Learning.Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Genesee, F. (2000) ‘Introduction: syntactic aspects of bilingual acquisition’, Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 3: 167-172.Gilkerson, J. (2006) Acquiring English Particle Verbs: Age and Transfer Effects in Second Language Acquisition, Ph. Dissertation, University of California at LosAngeles.Hawkins, R. & Chan, C. (1997) ‘The partial availability of Universal Grammar in second language acquisition: the ‘failed functional features hypothesis’, Second Language Research, 13: 187-226.Hawkins, R. & Hattori, H. (2006) ‘Interpretation of English multiple wh-questions by Japanese speakers: a missing uninterpretable feature account’, Second LanguageResearch,22: 269-301.Hyltenstam, K. & Abrahamsson, N. (2003) ‘Maturational constraints in SLA’, in C.Doughty & M. Long (eds.), The Handbook of Second Language Acquisition, Oxford: Blackwell, 539-588.Johnson, J. & Newport, E. (1989) ‘Critical period effects in second language learning: the influence of maturational state on the acquisition of English as a second language’, Cognitive Psychology, 21: 60-99.Johnson, J. & Newport, E. (1991) ‘Critical period effects on universal properties of languages: the status of subjacency in the acquisition of a second language’,Cognition, 39: 215-258Kanno, K. (1998) ‘The stability of UG principles in second-language acquisition: evidence from Japanese’, Linguistics,36: 1125–1146.Klein, W. (1995) ‘Language acquisition at different ages’, in D. Magnusson (ed.), The Lifespan Development of Individuals; Behavioral, Neurobiological, and Psychosocial Perspectives: A Synthesis, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 244-264. Krashen, S. (1981) Second Language Acquisition and Second Language Learning, Oxford: Pergamon.Lakshmanan, U. (1994). ‘Child second language acquisition of syntax’, Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 17, 301-329.Larsen-Freeman, D. & Long, M. (1991) An Introduction to Second Language Acquisition Research,London: Longman.Larsen-Freeman, D. (1975) ‘The acquisition of grammatical morphemes by adult ESL students’, TESOL Quarterly, 9: 409-430.Lenneberg, E. (1967) Biological Foundations of Language,New York: Wiley & Sons. Long, M. (1990) ‘Maturational constraints on language development’, Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 12: 251-285.Long, M. (2007) Problems in SLA. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Marinis, T. (2003) ‘Psycholinguistic techniques in second language acquisition research’, Second Language Research, 19: 144-161.Meisel, J. (1997) ‘The acquisition of the syntax of negation in French and German, contrasting first and second language development’, Second Language Research, 13: 227-263.McLaughlin, B. (1978) Second-language acquisition in childhood. Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Meisel, J. (2001) ‘The simultaneous acquisition of two first languages: earlydifferentiation and subsequent development of grammars’, in J. Cenoz & F. Genesee (eds.), Trends in Bilingual Acquisition,Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 11-42. Meisel, J. (2004) ‘The bilingual child’, in T. Bhatia & W. Ritchie (eds.), The Handbook of Bilingualism, Oxford: Blackwell, 91-113.Montrul, S. (forthcoming) Incomplete Acquisition in Bilingualism. Re- examining the Age Factor, Amsterdam: John Benjamins. (Forthcoming 2008)Montrul, S. & Slabakova, R. (2003) ‘Competence similarities between native and near-native speakers: an investigation of the preterite/imperfect contrast in Spanish’,Studies in Second Language Acquisition,25: 351-98.Norris, J. & Ortega, L. (2000) ‘Effectiveness of L2 instruction: A research synthesis and quantitative meta-analysis’, Language Learning, 50: 417-528.Odlin, T. (1989) Language Transfer: Cross-Linguistic Influence in Language Learning, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Oyama, S. (1978) ‘The sensitive period and comprehension of speech’, Working Papers on Bilingualism, 16: 1-17.Patkowski, M. (1980) ‘The sensitive period for the acquisition of syntax in a second language’, Language Learning 30: 449-472.Pica, T. (1983) ‘Adult acquisition of English as a second language under different conditions of exposure’, Language Learning, 33: 465-497.Polinsky, M. (1997) ‘American Russian: Language loss meets language acquisition’, in W. Browne et al. (eds.), Proceedings of the Annual Workshop on Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics (the Cornell Meeting 1995), Ann Arbor: Michigan SlavicPublications, 370-407.Pulvermüller, F. & Schumann, J. (1994) ‘Neurobiological mechanisms of language acquisition’, Language Learning, 44: 681-734.Schachter, J. (1990) ‘On the issue of completeness in second language acquisition’, Second Language Research, 6: 93-124.Schwartz, B.D. & Sprouse, R.A. (1994) ‘Word order and nominative case in non-native language acquisition: A longitudinal study of (L1 Turkish) German interlanguage’, inT. Hoekstra & B.D. Schwartz (eds.), Language Acquisition Studies in GenerativeGrammar: Papers in Honor of Kenneth Wexler from the 1991 GLOW Workshops.Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 317-368.Schwartz, B.D. & Sprouse, R.A. (1996) ‘L2 cognitive states and the Full Transfer/Full Access model’, Second Language Research, 12: 40-72.Schwartz, B.D. (1992) ‘Testing between UG-based and problem-solving models of L2A: developmental sequence data’, Language Acquisition, 2: 1-19.Schwartz, B.D. (1998) ‘The second language instinct’, Lingua, 106: 133-160.Schwartz, B.D. (2003) ‘Child L2 acquisition: paving the way’. in B. Beachley, A. Brown & F. Conlin (eds.), Proceedings of the 27th Annual Boston University Conference onLanguage Development, Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press, 26-50.Serratrice, L., Sorace, A. & Paoli, S. (2004) ‘Crosslinguistic influence at the syntax-pragmatics interface: subjects and objects in English-Italian bilingual andmonolingual acquisition’, Bilingualism:Language and Cognition,7: 183-205. Singleton, D. & Lengyel, Z. (eds.) (1995) The Age Factor in Second Language Acquisition: A Critical Look at the Critical Period Hypothesis, Philadelphia:Multilingual Matters.Slabakova, R. (2006). ‘Is there a Critical Period for semantics?’, Second Language Research, 22, 1-37.Sorace, A. (2003) ‘Near-nativeness’, in C. Doughty & M. Long (eds.), Handbook of Second Language Acquisition, Oxford: Blackwell, 130-151.Sorace, A. (2005) ‘Syntactic optionality at interfaces’, in L. Cornips & K. Corrigan (eds.), Syntax and Variation: Reconciling the Biological and the Social, Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 46-111.Tsimpli, I. & Dimitrakopoulou, M. (2007) ‘The interpretability hypothesis: evidence from wh-interrogatives in second language acquisition’, Second Language Research, 23: 215-242.Unsworth, S. (2005) Child L2, Adult L2, Child L1: Differences and Similarities. A study on the Acquisition of Direct Object Scrambling in Dutch. PhD Dissertation, Utrecht University.Vainikka, A. & Young-Scholten, M. (1994) ‘Direct access to X’-Theory: Evidence from Korean and Turkish adults learning German’. on T. Hoekstra & B.D. Schwartz (eds.), Language Acquisition Studies in Generative Grammar: Papers in Honor of Kenneth Wexler from the 1991 GLOW Workshops,Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 265-316. Vainikka, A. & Young-Scholten, M. (1996) ‘Gradual development of L2 phrase structure’, Second Language Research, 12: 7-39.White, L. (1991) ‘Adverb placement in second language acquisition: Some effects of positive and negative evidence in the classroom’, Second Language Research, 7: 133-161.White, L. (2003) Second Language Acquisition and Universal Grammar, Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.White, L. & Genesee, F. (1996) ‘How native is near-native? The issue of ultimate attainment in second language acquisition’, Second Language Research, 12: 238-265.。
二语习得引论-读书笔记-chapter-1-2
一．概论Chapter 1. Introducing SLA1.Second language acquisition (SLA)2.Second language (L2)（也可能是第三四五外语） also commonly called a target language (TL)3.Basic questions:1). What exactly does the L2 learner come to know?2). How does the learner acquire this knowledge?3). Why are some learners more successful than others?4.linguistic; psychological; social.Only one (x) Combine (√)Chapter 2. Foundations of SLAⅠ. The world of second languages1.Multi-; bi-; mono- lingualism1)Multilingualism: the ability to use 2 or more languages.(bilingualism: 2 languages; multilingualism: >2)2)Monolingualism: the ability to use only one language.3)Multilingual competence (Vivian Cook, Multicompetence)Refers to: the compound state of a mind with 2 or more grammars.4)Monolingual competence (Vivian Cook, Monocompetence)Refers to: knowledge of only one language.2.People with multicompetence (a unique combination) ≠ 2 monolingualsWorld demographic shows:3.Acquisition4.The number of L1 and L2 speakers of different languages can only beestimated.1)Linguistic information is often not officially collected.2)Answers to questions seeking linguistic information may not bereliable.3) A lack of agreement on definition of terms and on criteria foridentification.Ⅱ. The nature of language learning1.L1 acquisition1). L1 acquisition was completed before you came to school and thedevelopment normally takes place without any conscious effort.2). Complex grammatical patterns continue to develop through the1) Refers to: Humans are born with an innate capacity to learnlanguage.2) Reasons:♦Children began to learn L1 at the same age and in much the same way.♦…master the basic phonological and grammatical operations in L1 at 5/ 6.♦…can understand and create novel utterances; and are not limited to repeating what they have heard; the utterances they produce are often systematically different from those of the adults around them.♦There is a cut-off age for L1 acquisition.♦L1 acquisition is not simply a facet of general intelligence.3)The natural ability, in terms of innate capacity, is that part oflanguage structure is genetically “given” to every human child.3. The role of social experience1) A necessary condition for acquisition: appropriate socialexperience (including L1 input and interaction) is2) Intentional L1 teaching to children is not necessary and may havelittle effect.3) Sources of L1 input and interaction vary for cultural and socialfactors.4) Children get adequate L1 input and interaction→sources has littleeffect on the rate and sequence of phonological and grammatical development.The regional and social varieties (sources) of the input→pronunciationⅢ. L1 vs. L2 learningⅣ. The logical problem of language learning1.Noam Chomsky:1)innate linguistic knowledge must underlie language acquisition2)Universal Grammar2.The theory of Universal Grammar:Reasons:1)Children’s knowledge of language > what could be learned from theinput.2)Constraints and principles cannot be learned.3)Universal patterns of development cannot be explained bylanguage-specific input.Children often say things that adults do not.♦Children use language in accordance with general universal rules of language though they have not developed the cognitive ability to understand these rules. Not learned from deduction or imitation.♦Patterns of children’s language development are not directly determined by the input they receive.。
二语习得 思考题答案
思考题Unit 11. What is applied linguistics?The term 'applied linguistics' refers to a broad range of activities which involve solving some language-related problem or addressing some language-related concern. The problems applied linguistics concerns itself which are likely to be:1) How can we teach languages better?2) How can we diagnose speech pathologies better?3) How can we improve the training of translators and interpreters?4) How can we write a valid language examination?5) How can we evaluate a school bilingual program?6) How can we determine the literacy levels of a whole population?8) How can we helpfully discuss the language of a text?9) What advice can we offer a Ministry of Education on a proposal to introduce a new medium of instruction?10) How can we compare the acquisition of a European and an Asian language?11) What advice should we give a defense lawyer on the authenticity of a police transcript of an interview with a suspect?2. What is the difference between linguistics and applied linguistics?1)Linguistics deals with theory2)Applied linguistics is simply not in the business of developing new theories. Its concern is with newdata.3)Both sides of the linguistics/applied linguistics relationship ought to be accountable to and in regulardialog with each other with regard to theories as well as practices.3. What are the domains of applied linguistics?Major branches of applied linguistics include bilingualism and multilingualism, computer-mediated communication (CMC), conversation analysis, language assessment, discourse analysis, sociolinguistics, second language acquisition, language planning and policies, pragmatics, forensic linguistics, and translation.4. What are the research methods in applied linguistics?Progress in understanding cognitive developmental change mechanisms requires methods that yield detailed data about particular changes. The microgenetic method is an approach that can yield such data. It involves (a) observations of individual children throughout the period of the change, (b) a high density of observations relative to the rate of change within that period, and (c) intensive trial-by-trial analyses intended to infer the processes that gave rise to the change. This approach can illuminate both qualitative and quantitative aspects of change, indicate the conditions under which changes occur, and yield otherwise unobtainable information about short-lived transition strategies. The cost in time and effort of such studies is often high, but the value of the information about change can more than justify the cost.5. What is the trend of the development of applied linguistics?Kaplan suggests that in the future "applied linguistics is likely to be marked by a more powerful version of descriptive linguistics as the central linguistic resource for research," and he refers particularly to the development of corpus linguistics in this respect. He mentions, too, the increasing importance of technology inmany branches of the field. Applied linguists will increasingly need to participate in interdisciplinary research projects, he believes.Unit 21. Is the relationship between linguistics and applied linguistics, hierarchy or partnership?Yes, because Applied linguistics can not only test the applicability and replicability of linguistics and its application, but also question and challenge them where they are found wanting. (p.4)Both sides of the linguistics/applied linguistics relationship ought to be accountable to and in regular dialogue with each other with regard to theories as well as practices.Accountability will center on set of responsibilities failing on the shoulders of linguistics and applied linguistics in turn.2. Should applied linguistics be theoretical? Why?Yes, I think so. Because ‘Being theoretical’ is a desirable thing. But theoretical stance is more useful as a motto than theoretical allegiance. Encountering problems and adopting a convincing stance towards them is what defines applied linguistics as a discipline.3. What is the disciplinary nature of applied linguistics?1) Applied linguistics has many of the markings of an academic discipline: professional journals, professional associations, international recognition for the field, funding resources for research projects, a large number of individuals who see themselves as applied linguists, trained professionals who are hired in academic institutions as applied linguists, students who want to become applied linguists, and a recognized means for training these students to become applied linguists.2) Applied linguistics recognizes that linguistics must be included as a core knowledge base in the work of applied linguistics, although the purpose of most applied linguists’ work is not simply to “apply”linguistics to achieve a solution.3) Applied linguistics is grounded in real-world, language-driven problems and issues (primarily by linkages to practical issues involving language use, language evaluation, language contact and multilingualism, language policies, and language learning and teaching). There is also, however, the recognition that these practically driven problems have extraordinary range, and this range tends to dilute any sense of common purpose or common professional identification among practitioners.4) Applied linguistics typically incorporates other disciplinary knowledge beyond linguistics in its efforts to address language-based problems. Applied linguists commonly draw upon and are often well trained in psychology, education, anthropology, political science, sociology, measurement, computer programming, literature, and/or economics.5) Applied linguistics is, of necessity, an interdisciplinary field, since few practical language issues can be addressed through the knowledge resources of any single discipline, including linguistics.6) Applied linguistics commonly includes a core set of issues and practices that is readily identified as work carried out by many applied linguists (e.g., language teaching, language teacher preparation, and language curriculum development).7) Applied linguistics generally incorporates or includes several further identifiable sub-fields of study: second language acquisition, forensic linguistics, language testing, corpus linguistics, lexicography and dictionary making, language translation, and second language writing research. Some members of these fields do not see themselves as applied linguistics, though their work clearly addresses practical language issues.8) Applied linguistics often defines itself broadly in order to include additional fields of language-relatedstudies (e.g., language pathology, natural language processing, first language literacy research, and first language composition studies). The large majority of members of these fields do not see themselves as applied linguistics, but the broad definition gives license for applied linguists to work with and borrow from these disciplines for their own goals.4. What is the successful way of applying linguistics?1)Identifying and defining problems.2)Contextualizing those problems with linguistic study and developing a theoretical stance.3)Harnessing appropriate resources for the exploration of possible solutions.4)Evaluating the proposed solutions5. How to be a good applied linguist?The good applied linguist not only starts from day-to-day practical problems and looks for solutions in description, models and theories of language, but also develops his or her own models and theoretical stance.Unit 31. Is it necessary to draw a division between a general, abstract view of human language and the study of the different, specific languages spoken by human beings? Why?A division between a general, abstract view of human language and the study of the different, specific languages spoken by human beings should not over stressed.2. Of what does the historical perspective on applied linguistics remind us?The historical perspective on applied linguistics reminds us that scholars of languages and language over the centuries have combined the study of individual languages with comparison across languages and with debates about language as a whole.3. What are the key points concerning the nature of human language?The professional community as a whole would agree on a number of key points concerning the nature of human language in general:1)All normal human acquire a first language with little or no formal tuition.2) Humans can learn one another’s language.3) All human languages have forms and meanings. Forms are reflected in syntax, vocabulary and phonology.4) All languages function are realized in substance, whether sound alone or sound and writing.5) All human languages function adequately in their social settings6) All languages function within social contexts.7) All languages reflect and are integrally bound up with some sort of psychological, social and cultural reality for their speakers.4. What should cross-linguistic comparison be seen as?Cross-linguistic comparison should not be seen as merely error or difficulty-driven, but problem-driven in the true sense.Problem includes: curiosity, enquiry, comparison, evolution and questioning, trouble-shooting errors, obstacles and difficulties and sorting out failure.5. What is the most significant influence that discourse analysis has on linguistic comparison?Discourse analysis has had a profound effect on how languages are compared.The most significant influence: providing a new set of parameters within which to carry out the comparisons, which are independent of the traditional levels of analysis such as sentence grammar and semantics.Unit 41. In what ways can language be viewed as abstract system?Abstract system, existing independently of its contexts of use, as associated with “mental constructs”.1) Innate capacity of acquiring human language. That all normal human beings acquire human language of some sort, whille other animal species do not.2) Universal features of languages.3) Native speakers can say of their own languages by intuition and retrospectiono4) Competence and performance, which are two characteristics of language proposed by Chomsky.2. In what ways can language be viewed as social phenomenon?The forms and meanings of languages have evolved in social contexts.Language itself contributes to construct social and cultural realities.Language is acquired in social contexts.Performance constitutes the most important evidence for how language works and what it is.Performance is best observed in real language phenomena such as written text.Linguistic evidence is external.“Meaning” is only an abstraction from the actual communicative achievements3. What is the role of sentence in grammar?The use of sentences as a theoretical and descriptive unit lie a number of basic assumptions. Sentences recur across many different models and in descriptions of many different languages:1) Sentences have meaning. They are often traditionally defined as ‘completed thoughts’ or units of meaning.2) Sentences express fundamental meanings found in all languages. In other words, sentence is the universal of human language.3) Sentences are formed in individual language according to rules.4) Sentences are formed from other, lower-level grammatical units.5) Sentences exist in both spoken and written language.4. What is item and paradigm approach?According to McCarthy, it is the way individual words( e.g. nouns, verbs), inflect or combine to create the paradigms of tenses, number, person, etc. The item and paradigm approach has a good deal of usefulness in modeling languages in relation to one another.But the weakness of the item and paradigm approach is that it does not always bring together into formal paradigms items that learners may have to make genuine choices from when constructing real texts.5. What is the place of lexis in different views of language?Lexis has been the poor relation of features and it has had something of a struggle to establish itself as an independent, yet systematic level of linguistic encoding. Vocabulary was usually seen to be a lower prioritythan the learning of structure.Unit 51. When did the term SLA first appear as a sub-discipline of applied linguistics ?The notion of ‘acquiring’ a second language through the mediation of an efficiently ordered methodology is not new. For centuries, language pedagogues have claimed to offer the most effective methods for acquiring foreign tongues. Parallel with the methodological debates, high-level theoretical concerns have emerged, such as the differences between first and second language acquisition, etc.2. What are the questions and issues addressing SLA?1) Is second language acquisition like or different from first language acquisition?2) Is conscious ‘learning’ the same as ‘acquisition’?3) Are there universal features of second language acquisition regard less of which L2 is being learned?4) What role do the first or other languages play in the ease or difficulty encountered when learning asecond language?5) What non-linguistic factors affect SLA?6) What is the difference between SLA in a naturalistic setting compared with a formal setting?7) Can learners’ language be described systematically at various stages of development or is learnerlanguage erratic and unsystematic?3. What is interlanguage?‘Interlanguage’, often abbreviated to IL, was introduced by Larry Selinker (1972) to refer to L2 learner’s independent language system. The theory claimed that learners construct a series of interlanguages (i.e. mental grammars that are drawn upon in producing and comprehending sentences in the L2) and that they revise these grammars in systematic and predictable ways as they pass along an interlanguage continuum.4. What is connectionism and connectionist approach?Connectionism is the general metaphorical construct in associative models. It is the idea that important information about language can be extracted from ‘ probabilistic patterns of grammatical and morphological regularities’. The mind makes connections among multiple nodes of processed information; the mor e connections, the stronger the trace in acquisition.While connectionist approaches do not only help to explain emergent approximations to target behavior.5. What is ‘zone of proximal development and its implication?The zone of proximal development defines functions that have not matured yet, but are in a process of maturing, that will mature tomorrow, that are currently in an embryonic state; these functions could be called the buds of development, the flowers of development, rather than the fruits of development, that is, what is only just maturing.Unit 61. What is the significance of understanding the differences between speech and writing?It is useful to better organize the skill-based language teacheing and offer a window into the immerse variety of discoure-types that exit in our complex societies.2. What is the difference between text and discourse?Texts are products of language use (e.g.. novel, article, etc). It attempts to account for how sentences are linked together using linguistic resources.Discourse is the process of meaning-creation and interaction, whether in writing or in speech. It concerns with the distribution of linguistic elements in extended texts, and links between the text and its context.3. What is discourses analysis?Discources analysis exmines patterns of language across texts and considers the relationship between langaueg and the social and cultural contexts in which it is used. Discourse analysis also considers the ways that the use of languaeg presents different views of the world and different understandings. It examines how the use of language is influenced by relationships between participants as well as the effects the use of languaeg has upon social identities and relations. It also considers how views of the world, and identities, are constructed through the use of discourse.4. What is conversation analysis?The study of talk in interaction. CA generally attempts to describe the orderliness, structure and sequential patterns of interaction, whether this is institutional (in the school, doctor's surgery, courts or elsewhere) or casual conversation.Conversation Analysis prefers to work with individual conversations analyzed in depth rather than multiple conversations analyzed more quantitatively.5. How can the speech genre be realized?Speech gener is a high-order feature of speech events (Hymes, 1972).Genre is something separate from the speech event itself. A genre may coincides with a speech event, but genres can also occur within speed events, and the same genre can show variation in different speech events.Some genre-type studies focus more on variability and mixing of activities. Duranti(1983) argues that the same genre can be realized in different ways according to the nature of the speech, even, depending on who the speakers are, what the purposes are, etc.Unit 71. What is the role of theory in SLA research?There are at least 40 theories of SLA.Two forms of theories:1. Set-of-laws form2. Causal-process formNativist theoryEnvironmentalist theoryInteractionist theoryTheory building is concerned with Explanation as well as Description.Two approaches to theory building:1.Theory-then-research2. Research-then-theoryStudy of SLA involves both approaches.Both have strengths and weaknesses.Different researchers may use different approaches.2. What is Acculturation Model? Any implications?The process of becoming adapted to a new culture.Acculturation/SLA is determined by the degree of social and psychological distance between the learner and the target language.Such distance influences SLA by determining the amount of contact with the target language and the degree to which the learner is open to that input which is available.3. What are the similarities and differences between Acculturation Model and Accommodation Model?Schumann’s Pidginization Hypothesis and Acculturation Model of Second Language Acquisition (1976) is a composite of eight major variables that, according to research, help to enforce, or altogether extinguish, the process of second language learning.Contrastingly, the Giles's Accommodation Theory of Second Language Acquisition (1991) is, as the term states, a theoretical framework that illustrates how individuals do not have a set and defined way of using a second language. Instead, individuals tend to switch, change, intone, and mold the language depending on who they are speaking with, what they are talking about, or also depending on the circumstances of the discourse.Now, if we semantically analyze the terms "acculturation" (assimilation) and "accommodation" (fitting the language "in") both terms would almost amount to the same thing, which is the acquisition of the target language.Some similarities include:Acculturation and Accommodation are complimentary processes and both aid in the SLA process.They are both related to how students learn languages.Both process take place simultaneously through social interaction.Both form what Piaget referred to as "equilibrium".In both processes there is a form of problem-solving taking place; in acculturation the ELL has to "beat the odds" of the social variables; in accommodation, the ELL has to decide how to use the target language.However, some possible points to consider when it comes to stating main differences include: Acculturation is a model of social and cognitive language learning, while Accommodation is a theory of language learning adaptation.Acculturation contends that the language can be acquired if the majority of the eight possible variables are effectively infused. Accommodation entails that language is already nearly mastered enough to add variations to it.Acculturation presents a number of SLA scenarios to consider when researching about ELLs. Accommodation is a scaffolding system of learning used by ELLs where they add on information as they go along the learning process.4. What is the Monitor Model?The Monitor is the device that learners use to edit their language performance.It utilizes ‘learnt’knowledge by acting upon and modifying utterances generated from ‘acquired’knowledge.Three conditions for its use:1. there must be sufficient time2. focus must be on the form3. must know the rule5. What is Universal Hypothesis?The universal hypothesis states that language acquisition is governed by the way in which natural language are organized. That is, certain universal linguistic properties influence the order in which the rules of a specific language are acquired. According to the universal hypothesis, then, it is linguistic rather than general cognitive factors that determine acquisition.Unit 81. What are external factors in SLA?Social factors: social demand and language policy2. Give examples to indicate social factors’ influence on SLA.1) Females are more successful in L2 learning in classroom settings.2) Females benefit from more and better input as a result of their superior listening comprehension skills.3) Middle class children achieve higher lever of L2 proficiency than lower class & working class children.4) Females have more positive attitudes to learning an L2 than males.5) Women nearly always outstrip males in the standardness of their speech and use of prestige forms, and yet they also tend to be in the forefront of linguistic change.3. Why are women more capable to succeed in language acquisition?1) Women nearly always outstrip males in the standardness of their speech and use of prestige forms, and yet they also tend to be in the forefront of linguistic change.2) Women might be better at L2 learning than men; they are likely to be more open to new linguistic forms in the L2 input and they will be more likely to rid themselves of interlanguage forms that deviate from target-language norms.3) Females have more positive attitudes to learning an L2 than males.4) Women tackle the task of learning an L2 different from men. Men use the opportunities to interact to produce more output. Whereas women use it to obtain more input. Bacon (1992) found that men reported using translation strategies more than women, while the women reported monitoring their comprehension more.5) Females are more successful in L2 learning in classroom settings.6) Females benefit from more and better input as a result of their superior listening comprehension skills.4. What is the role of explicit teaching?Explicit instruction must usually take place in the learner's first language, many have argued that it simply starves learners of input and opportunities for practice. Research on this at different levels of language has produced quite different results.5. What advantages do children have in acquiring second language?Chambers and Trudgill (1980) suggests that younger speakers are subject to social pressures from their peer group, while middle-aged speakers have less cohesive social networks and are more influenced by mainstream societal values. In older, retired people, social pressures lessen and social networks again become narrow.Unit 91. What are internal factors in SLA?1) Motivatio n:InstrumentalIntegrative2) Age3) Learning strategya. CognitiveRepetitionTranslationNote-takingb. MetacognitiveOrganizingSelf-monitoringSelf-evaluation4) Personality5) Attitude2. What is language transfer in SLA?Transfer is the influence resulting from the similarities and differences between the target language and any other language that has been previously (and perhaps imperfectly) acquired. (Odlin 1989:27)3. What are the six general constraints on L1 transfer?1) Language level2) Sociolinguistic factors3) Markedness4) Language distance and psychotypology5) Developmental factors4. What is interlanguage theory?In 1972, Selinker introduced the concept of interlanguage, which built upon Pit Corder's previous work on the nature of language learners' errors.5. What is universal grammar?Linguist Noam Chomsky made the argument that the human brain contains a limited set of rules for organizing language. In turn, there is an assumption that all languages have a common structural basis. This set of rules is known as universal grammar.Unit 101. What is interlanguage?‘Interlanguage’, often abbreviated to IL, was introduced by Larry Selinker (1972) to refer to L2 learner’s independent language system. The theory claimed that learners construct a series of interlanguages (i.e. mental grammars that are drawn upon in producing and comprehending sentences in the L2) and that they revise these grammars in systematic and predictable ways as they pass along an interlanguage continuum.2. What are the characteristics of interlanguage?Dynamic, permeable and systematic.3. What is the relationship between interlanguage and errors?In 1972, Selinker introduced the concept of interlanguage, which built upon Pit Corder's previous work on the nature of language learners' errors.Interlanguage is characterized by errors which are thought to be a learning strategy.4. What is the development of interlanguage?The starting point of interlanguage is the learner’s L1. The L2 learner builds up his interl anguage by gradually replacing his L1 with L2 features. But this does not necessarily mean that the learner has to forget his L1 in order to learn L2. Cognitive theories believe that human brain process information in the same way a computer works.Within the cognitive capacity, a new language can be built systematically in our brain without exclusively conflicting with other already existed language. Interlanguage develops in its own way towards target language.5. What is fossilization?Fossilization has been used to label the process by which non-target forms become fixed in IL.Fossilizable linguistic phenomena are linguistic items, rules and subsystems which speakers of a particular NL will tend to keep in their IL relative to a particular TL, no matter what the age of the learner or amount of explanation and instruction he receives in the TL. (Selinker 1772: p.215)Unit 111. What is Universal Grammar?Linguist Noam Chomsky made the argument that the human brain contains a limited set of rules for organizing language. In turn, there is an assumption that all languages have a common structural basis. This set of rules is known as universal grammar.2. What does poverty of the stimulus suggest?As they considered issues of the Argument from poverty of the stimulus is to arise from the constructivist approach to linguistic theory. The contrasting school of thought is known as functionalism.3. How does Minimalist Theory shed light on UG in SLA?Minimalist Theory proposes that languages are based on simple principles that interact to form often intricate structures. The Language faculty is not redundant and can still be the basis for grammatical mapping integration of UG principles in the grammar of the specific target language.4. What is learnability?Learnability refers to the ability to acquire one state of knowledge to another from language input.. 5Which branch does learnability theory belong to?Learnability is a constraint on Universal Grammar.Unit 121. What is corpus?A corpus is a collection of written or spoken texts (Oxford). It is a large collection of written or spoken。
二语习得第一,二章笔记
Chapter 1. Introducing Second Language AcquisitionI. What id SLA?1. The definition of SLASLA, that is Second Language Acquisition. It refers both to the study of individual and groups who are learning a language subsequent to learning their first one as young children, and to the process of learning that language. The additional language is called a second language or target language.2.The scope of SLAIt includes informal L2 learning and formal L2 learning.Informal L2 learning take place in naturalistic context, formal L2 learning takes place in classrooms.3.Three basic questionsIn trying to understand the process of second language acquisition, we are seeking to answer three basic questions:(1)What exactly does the L2 learner come to know?(2)How does the learner acquire this knowledge?(3)Why are some learners more successful than others?There are probably no answers that all second language researches would agree on completely. This is because SLA is highly complex in nature, and in part because scholars studying SLA come from academic disciplines which differ greatly in theory and research methods.II. What is a second Language?A second language is typically an official or societally dominant language needed for education, employment, and other basic purposes.A foreign language is one not widely used in the learners' immediate social context which might be used for further travel or other cross-cultural communication situations, or studied as a curricular requirement or elective in school, but with no immediate or necessary practical application.A library language is one which functions primarily as a tool for further learning through reading, especially when books or journals in a desired field of study are not commonly published in the learners' native tongue.An auxiliary language is one which learners need to know for some official functions in their immediate political setting, or will need for purposes of wider communication, although their first language serves most other needs in their lives.III. What is a first language?Acquisition of more than one language during early childhood is called simultaneous multilingualism.Sequential multilingualism: learning additional languages after L1.IV. Diversity in learning and learnersWhat is learned in acquiring a second language, as well as how it islearned is often influenced by whether the situation involves informal exposure to speakers of other languages, immersion in a setting where one needs a new language to meet basic needs, or formal instruction in school, and these learning conditions are often profoundly influenced by powerful social, cultural, and economic factors affecting the status of both languages and learners.Chapter 2 Foundations of Second Language AcquisitionI. The world of second languageNot only is bilingualism worldwide, it is a phenomenon that has existed since the beginning of language in human history. It is probably true that no language group has ever existed in isolation from other language groups. There are many more bilingual or multilingual individuals in the world than there are monolingual.Multilingualism refers to the ability to use two or more languages.Monolingualism refers to the ability to use only one.Those who grow up in a multilingual environment acquire multilingual competence in the natural course of using two or more languages from childhood with the people around them, and tend to regard it as perfectly normal to do so. Adding second languages at an older age often takes considerable effort, however, and thus requires motivation. This motivation may arise from a variety of conditions, including the following:(1)invasion or conquest of one's country by speakers of another language;(2)A need or desire to contact speakers of other languages in economic or other specific domains;(3)Immigration to a country where use of a language other than one's another language;(4)Adoption of religious beliefs and practices which involve use of another language.(5)A need or desire to pursue educational experience s where access requires proficiency in another language;(6)A desire for occupational or social advancement which is furthered by knowledge of another language;(7)An interest in knowing more about peoples of other cultures and having access to their technologies or literatures.II. Reasons for uncertainty in reporting language data include some which have social and political significance, and some which merely reflect imprecise or ambiguous terminology, for example:1.Linguistic information is often not officially collected2.Answers to questions seeking linguistic information may not be reliable3.There is lack of agreement on definition of terms and on criteria for identificationIII. The nature of language learningBy the age of six months an infant has produced all of the vowel sounds and most of the consonant sounds of any language in the world.On average children have mastered most of the distinctive sounds of their first language before they are three years old, and an awareness of basic discourse patterns such as conversational turn-taking appear at aneven earlier age. Children control most of the basic L1 grammatical patterns before they are five or six, although complex grammatical patterns continue to develop through the school years.The understanding of how children accomplish the early mastery of L1has changed radically in the past fifty years or so. (1). It was suggested that first language acquisition is in larger part the result of children's natural desire to please their doting parents. (2). Others argued that children's language acquisition is purposive, that they develop language because of their urge to communicate their wants and needs to the people who take care of them. (3). The most widely held view by the middle of the twentieth century was that children learn language by imitation .IV. The role of natural abilityHumans are born with a natural ability or innate capacity to learn language. In viewing the natural ability to acquire language in terms of innate capacity, we are saying that part of language structure is genetically "given" to every human child. If a child had to consciously learn the set of abstract principles that indicate which sequences of words are possible sentences in their language as opposed to those that are not, only the smartest would learn to talk, and it would take them many more years than it actually does.V. The role of social experienceEven if the universal properties of language are preprogrammed inchildren, they must learn all of those features which distinguish their L1 from all other possible human languages. Appropriate social experience , including L1 input and interaction, is thus a necessary condition for acquisition.Sources of L1 input and interaction vary depending on cultural and social factors. Mother's talk is often assumed to be the most important source of early language input to children. The relative importance of input from other young children also varies in different cultures, as does the importance of social institutions such as nursery schools.When young children's social experience includes people around them using two or more languages, they have the same innate capacity to learn both or all of them.VI. L1 versus L2 learningThis brief comparison of L1 and L2 learning is divided into three phases. The first is the initial state, which many linguists ans psychologists believe includes the underlying knowledge about language structures and principles that is in learner's heads at the very start of L1or L2 acquisition. The second phase, the intermediate states, covers all stages of basic language development. The third phase is the final state, which is the outcome of L1and L2 learning.(1). Initial stateSome linguists and psychologists believe that the genetic predispositionwhich children have from birth to learn language remains with them throughout life, and that differences in the final outcomes of L1and L2 learning are attributable to other factors. Others believe that some aspects of the innate capacity which children have for L1 remain in force for acquisition of subsequent languages, but that some aspects of this natural ability are lost with advancing age.There is complete agreement , however, that since L2 acquisition follows L1 acquisition , a major component of the initial state for L2 learning must be prior knowledge of L1.(2).Intermediate statesThere is similarity in that the development of both L1and L2 is largely systematic, including predictable sequencing of many phenomena within each and some similarity of sequencing across languages, and in the fact that L1and L2 learners both play a creative role in their own language development and do not mimic what they have heard or been taught. ·processes·necessary conditions·facilitating conditions(3)final stateThe final state is the outcome of L1or L2 learning . The final state of L1development is native linguistic competence. While vocabulary learning and cultivation of specialized registers may continue intoadulthood,the basic phonological and grammatical systems of whatever languages children hear around them re essentially established by the age of about five or six years , along with vocabulary knowledge and interaction skills that are adequate for fulfilling communicative functions. VII. The logical problem of language learningThe "problem" as it has been formulated by linguists relates most importantly to syntactic phenomena. As noted in the preceding section, most linguists ans psychologist assume this achievement must be attributed to innate and spontaneous language-learning construct and/or process. The notion that innate linguistic knowledge must underline language acquisition. This view has been supported by arguments such as the following:1.Children's knowledge of language goes beyond what could be learned from the input they receiveThis is essentially the poverty -of- the- stimulus argument. According to this argument, children often hear incomplete or ungrammatical utterances along with grammatical input,and yet they are somehow able to filter the language they hear so that the ungrammatical input is not incorporated into their L1 system.2.Constrains and principles cannot be learnedConstrains ans principles cannot be learned in part because children acquire a first language at an age when such abstractions are beyond theircomprehension; Constrains ans principles are thus outside the realm of learning processes which are related to general intelligence.3.Universal patterns of development cannot be explained by language-specific inputThe extent of this similarity suggests that language universals are not only constructs derived from sophisticated theories and analyses by linguists, but also innate representations in every young child's mind. The logical problem of language learningFirst of all, children often say things that adults do not.Next, children use language in accordance with general universal rules of language even though they have not yet developed the cognitive ability necessary to understand these rules.Finally, patterns of children's language development are not directly determined by the input they receive.VIII. Frameworks for SLAFrameworks for study of SLATimeline linguistic psychological social195os and before structuralism behaviorism sociocultural theory 1960s TGG neurolinguistics information processing ethnography of communication variation theory1970s functionalism humanistic models acculturation theroy1980s principles and parameters model connectionism social psychology1990s minimalist program processabilityThis view is still influential in SLA approaches which are concerned with the role of input and interaction.1.linguisticThere have been two foci for the study fo SLA from a linguistic perspective since 1960:internal and external. The internal focus has been based primarily on the work of Noam Chomsky and his followers. It sets the goal of study as accounting for speakers' internalized, underlying knowledge of language rather than the description of surface forms as in earlier Structuralism. The external focus for the study of SLA has emphasized language use, including the functions of language which are realized in learners' production at different stages of development.2.PsychologicalThere have been three foci in the study of SLA from a psychological perspective: languages and the brain, learning processes and learner differences.Language and the brainThe location and representation of language in the brain has been of interest to biologists and psychologists since the nineteenth century. And the expanding field of Neurolinguistics was one of the first to influencecognitive perspectives on SLA when systematic study began in th e1960s.Learning processesThe focus on learning processes has been heavily influenced by computer-based Information Processing(IP) models of learning, which were established in cognitive psychology by the 1960s. Explanations of SLA phenomena based on this framework involve assumptions that L2 is a highly complex skill, and that learning L2 is not essentially unlike learning other highly complex skills.Learner differencesThe focus on learner differences in SLA has been most concerned with the question of why some learners are more successful than others. This framework calls for consideration of emotional involvement in learning, such as affective factors of attitude, motivation, and anxiety level.SocialThere are two foci for the study of SLA from this perspective:micro-social and macro-social.Micro-social focusThe concerns within the micro-social focus relate to language acquisition and use in immediate social contexts of production, interpretation and interaction.Macro-social focusThe concerns fo the macro-social focus relate language acquisition and use to broader ecological contexts, including cultural, political and educational settings.。
the second language acqusition第二语言习得复习资料
1.Definition of Second language acquisition:It refers to a systematic study of how one person acquires a second language subsequent to his native language.Acquisition习得: 无意识地学会Learning学习：通过系统学习语法规律等学会2.Interlanguage 中介语Selinker (1972) coined the term “interlanguage” to refer to the systematic knowledge of an L2 which is independent of both these learners’ L1 and the target language. The term has come to be used with different but related meanings: (1) to refer to the series of interlocking systems which characterize acquisition. (2) to refer to the system that is observed at a single stage of development. (“interlanguage”), and (3) to refer to particular L1/L2 combination (for example,L1 French/ L2 English v. L1 Japanese/L2 English). Other terms that refer to the same basic idea are “approximative system” and “transitional competence”.定义：中介语：中介语理论假设第二语言学习者有一个自行创造的独特的语言系统，介乎学习者的母语和目的语之间，并随学习的进展逐渐向目的语靠拢。
universal grammar .
other creature apart from human beings possesses a language organ.
3 The framework of Principle and Parameter Theory
* It is not necessary to show that a universal occurs in dozens of
languages.
“I have not hesitated to propose a general principle of linguistic structure on the basis of observations of a single language”(Chomsky, 1980)
行业PPT模板：/hangye/ PPT素材下载：/sucai/ PPT图表下载：/tubiao/ PPT教程： /powerpoint/ Excel教程：/excel/ PPT课件下载：/kejian/ 试卷下载：/shiti/ PPT论坛：
Two levels: level one
Competence & performance Competence: the ideal user’s knowledge of the rules of his language (语言能力) Performance: the actual use of language in concrete situations（语 言运用）
In the 1970s:
Extended standard Theory
二语习得引论读书笔记chapter
二语习得引论读书笔记c h a p t e r文件管理序列号：[K8UY-K9IO69-O6M243-OL889-F88688]一．概论Chapter 1. Introducing SLA1.Second language acquisition (SLA)2.Second language (L2)（也可能是第三四五外语）also commonly called a target language (TL)Refers to: any language that is the aim or goal of learning.3.Basic questions:1). What exactly does the L2 learner come to know2). How does the learner acquire this knowledge3). Why are some learners more successful than othersDifferent answers from different fields4.3 main perspectives:linguistic; psychological; social.Only one (x) Combine (√)Chapter 2. Foundations of SLAⅠ. The world of second languages1.Multi-; bi-; mono- lingualism1)Multilingualism: the ability to use 2 or more languages.(bilingualism: 2 languages; multilingualism: >2)2)Monolingualism: the ability to use only one language.3)Multilingual competence (Vivian Cook, Multicompetence)Refers to: the compound state of a mind with 2 or more grammars.4)Monolingual competence (Vivian Cook, Monocompetence)Refers to: knowledge of only one language.2.People with multicompetence (a unique combination) ≠ 2monolingualsWorld demographic shows:3.Acquisition4.The number of L1 and L2 speakers of different languages canonly be estimated.1)Linguistic information is often not officially collected.2)Answers to questions seeking linguistic information maynot be reliable.3)A lack of agreement on definition of terms and on criteriafor identification.Ⅱ. The nature of language learning1.L1 acquisition1). L1 acquisition was completed before you came to schooland the development normally takes place without anyconscious effort.2). Complex grammatical patterns continue to develop throughthe school years.< < 3 years old Master an awareness of basic discourse patterns< 3 years old Master most of the distinctive sounds of L1< 5 or 6 years old Control most of the basic L1 grammatical patterns2. The role of natural ability1) Refers to: Humans are born with an innate capacity tolearn language.2) Reasons:Children began to learn L1 at the same age and in much thesame way.…master the basic phonological and grammatical operations in L1 at 5/ 6.…can understand and create novel utterances; and are not limited to repeating what they have heard; the utterances they produce are often systematically different fromthose of the adults around them.There is a cut-off age for L1 acquisition.L1 acquisition is not simply a facet of generalintelligence.3)The natural ability, in terms of innate capacity, is thatpart of language structure is genetically “given”to every human child.3. The role of social experience1) A necessary condition for acquisition: appropriate socialexperience (including L1 input and interaction) is2) Intentional L1 teaching to children is not necessary andmay have little effect.3) Sources of L1 input and interaction vary for cultural andsocial factors.4) Children get adequate L1 input and interaction→sourceshas little effect on the rate and sequence of phonological and grammatical development.The regional and social varieties (sources) of the input→pronunciationⅢ. L1 vs. L2 learning1.L1 and L2 development:Final state NativeMultilingual competencecompetence2.Understanding the statesⅣ. The logical problem of language learning1.Noam Chomsky:1)innate linguistic knowledge must underlie languageacquisition2)Universal Grammar2.The theory of Universal Grammar:Reasons:1)Children’s knowledge of language > what could be learnedfrom the input.2)Constraints and principles cannot be learned.3)Universal patterns of development cannot be explained bylanguage-specific input.Children often say things that adults do not.Children use language in accordance with generaluniversal rules of language though they have notdeveloped the cognitive ability to understand theserules. Not learned from deduction or imitation.Patterns of children’s language development are notdirectly determined by the input they receive.Ⅴ. Frame works for SLA。
二语习得Second Language Acquisition
L2 Input
noticed input
comprehended input
intake
implicit knowledge
L2 output
Second Language Acquisition
Noticing In order for some feature of language to be acquired, it is not enough for the learner to be exposed to it through comprehensible input. The learner must actually notice what it is in that input that makes the meaning. This idea has raised a considerable amount of interest in the context of instructed second language learning.
Second Language Acquisition
The relationship between explicit and implicit knowledge, then, continues to be a key issue. One possibility, is that explicit knowledge functions as a facilitator, helping learners to notice features in the input which they would otherwise miss and also to compare what they notice with what they produce. In a sense, explicit knowledge may contribute to ‘intake enhancement’, but it will only be one of several factors that does this.
读书笔记(RodEllisSecondLanguageAcquisition)
/s/blog_4b92bfc0010006f2.html（Oct. 22, 2007）读书笔记—Second Language Acquisition（Rod Ellis, 上海外语教育出版社）2006-12-03 20:15:41这本书用简洁的语言概述了第二语言习得的研究状况，通俗易懂，对于刚入门的读者来说会有很大帮助。
我认为该书在编排上最大的优点是在书的末尾有与正文有关的一些小案例，可以帮助读者更好的理解和掌握作者在书中讲到的理论。
在读完这本书后，我自己感觉收获颇丰。
——Second Language Acquisition（Rod Ellis, 上海外语教育出版社）1. What’s ‘Second Language Acquisition’?1) Introduction: describing and explaining L2 acquisitionL2 is fairly a recent phenomenon, belonging to the second half of the twentieth century. ‘L2 acquisition’ can be defined as the way in which people learn a language other than their mother tongue ,inside or outside of a classroom, and Second Language Acquisition (SLA) as the study of this.2) What are the goals of SLA?In general, SLA has not focused on the communicative aspects of language development but on the formal features of language that linguists have traditionally concentrated on. One of the goals of SLA description of L2 acquisition. Another is explanation : identifying the external and internal factors that account for why learners acquire an L2 in the way they to . One of the external factors is the social milieu in which learning takes place. Another external factor is the input that learners receive, that is , the samples of language to which a learner exposed. The internal factors are as follows: (1) Learners possess cognitive mechanisms which enable them to extract information about the L2 from the input ;(2)L2 learners bring an enormous amount of knowledge to task of learning an L2；（3）L2 learners possess general knowledge about the world which they can draw on to help them understand L2 input; (4) L2 learners possess communication strategies that can help them take effective use of their L2 knowledge.The goals of SLA , then , are to describe how L2 acquisition proceeds and to explain this process and why some learners seem to be better at is than others.2. The nature of learner language1) The main way of investigating L2 acquisitionThe main way of investigating L2 acquisition is by collecting and describing samples of learner language . The description may focus on the kinds of errors learners make and how these errors change over time, or it may identify developmental patterns by describing the stages in the acquisition of particular grammatical features such as past tense, or it may examine the variability found in learner language.2) Errors and error analysis(1) The first step in analyzing learner errors is to identify them. It is difficult to identify errors because of two reasons: firstly, it is often difficult to identifythe exact errors that learners make. secondly, it’s hard to distinguish errors and mistakes.(2) The second step is describing errors. Once all the errors have been identified , they can be described and classified into types. There are several ways of doing this . One way is to classify general ways in which the learners utterances differ from the reconstructed target-language utterance. Such ways include ‘omission’, ‘misinformation’ and ‘disordering’.(3) Explaining errors: the identification and description of errors are preliminaries to the much more interesting task of trying to explain why they occur.(4) Error evaluation3) Development patterns(1) The early stages of L2 acquisition : in the circumstances which L2 learners learna language as a natural, untutored process, they undergo a silent period. When learners do begin to speak in the L2 their speech is likely to manifest two particular characteristics. One is the kind of formulaic chunks. The second characteristic of early speech is propositional simplification.(2) The order of acquisition: accuracy order and the order of acquisition(3) Sequence of acquisition4) Variability in learner languageLearner’s language is systematic, but it is also variable. These two characteristics are not contradicted because it is possible that variability is also systematic.(1) It appears that learners vary in their use of the L2 according to linguistic context.(2) Learners also vary the linguistic forms they use in accordance with the situational context.(3) Another important factor that accounts for the systematic nature of variability is the psycholinguistic context.But it would seem that at least some variability is ‘free’. Learners do sometimes use two or more forms in free variation.3. Interlanguage1) Behaviorist learning theory2) A mentalist of language learningIn the 1960 and 1970 , a mentalist theory first language (L1) acquisition emerged. According to this theory:(1) Only human beings are capable of learning language.(2) The human mind is equipped with a faculty for learning language, referred to as a Language Acquisition Device. This is separate from the faculties responsible for other kinds of cognitive activity ( for example, logical reasoning).(3) This faculty is the primary determinant of language acquisition(4) Input is needed, but only to ‘trigger’ the operation of the language acquisition device.The conception of interlanguage drew directly on these mentalist views of L1 acquisition.3) What’s ‘interlanguage’?The term ‘interlanguage’ was coined by the American linguist, Larry Selinker, in recognition of the fact that L2 learners construct a linguistic system that draws, in part, on the learner’s L1 but it also different from it and also from the target language. A learner’s interlanguage is, therefore, a unique linguistic system. The concept of interlanguage involves the following premises about L2 acquisition: (1) The learner constructs a system of abstract linguistic rules which underlies comprehension and production of the L2. This system of rules is viewed as a ‘mental grammar’ and is referred to as an ‘interlanguage’.(2) The learner’s grammar is permeable.(3) The learner’s grammar is transitional.(4) Some researchers have claimed that the systems learners construct contain variable rules.(5) Learners employ various learning strategies to develop their interlanguages.(6) The learner’s grammar is likely to fossilize.4)A computational model of L2 acquisitionInput →intake→L2 knowledge →output4.Social aspects of interlanguageThree rather different approaches to incorporating a social angle on the study of L2 acquisition can be identified. The first views interlanguage as consisting of different ‘styles’ which learners call upon under different conditions of language use. The second concerns how social factors determine the input that learners use to construct their interlanguage. The third considers how the social identities that learners negotiate in their interactions with native speakers shape their opportunities to speak and, thereby , to learn an L2.1) Interlanguage as a stylistic continuumDrawing on work on variability in learner language, Elaine Tarone has proposed that interlanguage involves a stylistic continuum.Another theory that also draws on the idea of stylistic variation but which is more obviously social is Howard Gile’s accommodation theory.2) The acculturation model of L2 acquisitionA similar perspective on the role of social factors in L2 acquisition can be found in John Schumann’s acculturation model.3) Social identity and investment in L2 learningThe notions of ‘subject to’ and ‘subject of’ are central to Bonny Peirce’s view of the relationship between social context and L2 acquisition.5 Discourse aspects of interlanguageThe study of learner discourse in SLA has been informed by two rather different goals. On the one hand there have been attempts to discover how L2 learners acquire the ‘rules’ of discourse that inform native-speaker language use. On the other hand, a number of researchers have sought to show how interaction shapes interlanguage development.1) Acquiring discourse rules2) The role of input and interaction in L2 acquisition(1) According to Stephen Krashen’s input hypothesis, L2 acquisition takes place when a learner understands input that contains grammatical forms that are at ‘i+1’. According to Krashen , L2 acquisition depends on comprehension input.Michael Long’s interaction hypothesis also emphasizes the importance of comprehensible input but claims that it is most effective when it is modified through the negotiation of meaning.(2) Another perspective on the relationship between discourse and L2 acquisition is provided by Evelyn Hatch. Hatch emphasizes the collaborative endeavors of the learners and their interlocutors in constructing discourse and suggests that syntactic structures can grow out of the process of building discourse.(3) Other SLA theorists have drawn on the theories of L.S. Vygotsky, a Russian psychologist , to explain how interaction serves as the bedrock of acquisition.3) The role of output in L2 acquisitionKrashen argues that ‘Speaking is the result of acquisition not it’s cause’. In contrast, Merrill Swain has argued that comprehensible output also plays a part in L2 acquisition.6 Psycholinguistic aspects of interlanguage1) L1 transferIt is clear that the transfer is governed by learners perceptions about what is transferable and by their stage of development.2) The role of consciousness in L2 acquisitionStephen Krashen has argued the need to distinguish ‘acquired’L2 knowledge and ‘learned’ Ls knowledge . He claims that the former is developed subconsciously through comprehending input while communicating, while the latter is developed consciously through deliberate study of the L2.Richard Schmidt has pointed out that the term ‘consciousness’ is often used very loosely in SLA and argues that there is a need to standardize the concepts that underlie its use.Schmidt argues that no matter whether learning is intentional or incidental, it involves conscious attention to features in the input.3) Processing operations(1) Operating principlesThe study of the L1 acquisition of many different languages has led to the identification of a number of general strategies which children use to extract and segment linguistic information from the language they hear. Dan Slobin has referred to these strategies as operation principles. Roger Anderson describes a number of operating principles for L2acquisition, and he claims that his principles are ‘macro principles’.4) Processing constraints5) Communicative strategies6) Two types of computational modelOne type involves the idea of ‘serial processing’. The alternative type of apparatus involves the idea of parallel distributed processing.7. Linguistic aspects of interlanguage1) Typological universals: relative clausesA good example of how linguistic enquiry can shed light on interlanguage development can be found in the study of relative clauses.2) Universal GrammarChomsky argues that language is governed by a set of highly abstract principles that provides parameters which are given particular settings in different languages.3)learnabilityChomsky has claimed that children learning their L1 must rely on innate knowledge of language because otherwise the task facing them is an impossible one.4) The critical period hypothesisThe critical period hypothesis states that there is a period during which language acquisition is easy and complete and beyond which it is difficult and typically incomplete.5) Access to UGWe will briefly examine a number of theoretical positions.a) Complete access: An assumption is that full target-language competence is possible and that there is no such thing as a critical period.b) No access : The argument here is that UG is not available to adult L2 learners.c) Partial access: Another theoretical possibility is that learners have access to part of UG but not others.d) Dual accessAccording to this position, adult L2 learners make use of both UG and general learning strategies.6) Markedness7) Cognitive versus linguistic explanations8. Individual differences in L2 acquisition1) Language aptitudeEarly work by John Carroll led to the identification of a number of components of language aptitude. These are:(1) Phonemic coding ability.(2) Grammatical sensitivity.(3) Inductive language learning ability.(4) Rote learning ability.2) MotivationVarious kinds of motivation have been identified: instrumental, integrative, resultative and intrinsic.3) Learning strategiesDifferent kinds of learning strategies have been identified.Cognitive strategies are those that are involved in the analysis, synthesis, or transformation of learning materials.Metacognitive strategies are those involved in planning, monitoring, and evaluating learning.Social/ affective strategies concern the ways in which learners choose to interact with other speakers.9.Instruction and L2 acquisitionSome researchers have studied what impact teaching has on L2 learning. In this chapter we will consider three branches of this research. The first concerns whether teaching learners grammar has any effect on their interlanguage development. The second draws on the research into individual learner differences. The third branch looks at strategy training.1) Form-focused instruction2) Does form-focused instruction work?3) What kind of form-focused instruction works best?Given that instruction can work, it becomes important to discover whether some kinds of instruction work better than others. To illustrate this we will consider a number of options in form-focused instruction. The first concerns the distinction between input-based and production-based practice.The second issue concerns conscious-raising.4) Learner-Instruction matchingA distinct possibility is that the same instructional option is not equally for all L2 learners.5) Strategy strainingMost of the research on strategy training has focused on vocabulary learning.。
Second Language Acquisition
Second Language Acquisition /SLA第二语言习得（简称二语习得），通常指母语习得之后的任何其他语言学习。
人们从社会、心理、语言学等角度去研究它。
第二语言习得研究作为一个独立学科，大概形成于二十世纪60年代末70年代初，已有35年的历史。
它对学习者的第二语言特征及其发展变化、学习者学习第二外语时所具有的共同特征和个别差异进行描写，并分析影响二语习得的内外部因素。
与其他社会科学相比，二语习得研究是个新领域，大都借用母语研究、教育学研究或其他相关学科的方法。
概括地说，这一领域的研究是为了系统地探讨二语习得的本质和习得的过程，其主要目标是：描述学习者如何获得第二语言以及解释为什么学习者能够获得第二语言。
到目前为止，二语习得的研究范围远比20世纪七八十年代广，涉及语言学、心理学、心理语言学、语用学，社会语言学等众多方面。
应用语言学的一个重要分支学科，主要研究人们学习第二语言的过程和结果，其目的是对语言学习者的语言能力和交际能力进行客观描述和科学解释。
早期的第二语言习得理论是教学法的附庸，为服务提高教学质量而存在，1967年Larry Selinker在《语言迁移》这本专著第一次提出中介语理论，第二语言习得理论从此有了自己的研究领域而开始成为一门独立的学科。
现时的第二语言习得研究涉及三大领域，即中介语研究，学习者内部因素研究和学习者外部因素研究。
1994年美国费城Temple大学教育学院二语英语教学教授Rod Ellis撰写巨著《第二语言习得研究》，成为该领域的经典教科书。
该书共分七个部分。
第一部分勾画了整本书的概念框架。
第二部分总结了有关学习者语言本质的主要理论，包括学习者错误，发展模式，语言变项和语用特征。
第三部分从外部因素解释第二语言的习得，主要阐述社会因素和输入/交互的作用。
第四部分从内部因素解释第二语言的习得，包括语言迁移、认知论解释和语言普遍性。
第五部分将讨论的重点从学习转移到学习者，论述了第二语言习得的个体差异和学习策略。
SLA_Lecture 05
Language transfer It is now recognized that all learner fall back on their mother tongues, particularly in the early stages of acquisition. ---Thank you! ---It’s my duty Overgeneralization At the phonetic level: sit down At the grammatical level: She am a student At the lexical level: small cow for (calf, maverick, etc.) At the discourse level: the use of o.k.
4.2.1 Three important characteristics of interlanguage (Ellis, 1994) Systematic variability Presence of common accuracy orders and developmental sequences First language influence
4.1 Universal grammar (UG) 4.1.1 What is universal grammar 4.1.2 The role of UG in second language acquisition 4.1.3 Problems with universal grammar in second language acquisition research 4.2 Interlanguage Theory 4.2.1 Three important characteristics of interlanguage 4.2.2 Six principal features 4.2.3 Stages of interlanguage development 4.2.4 Sources of interlanguage errors
SecondLanguageAcquisition
SecondLanguageAcquisitionSecond Language Acquisition An Introductory Course Second EditionSusan M. GassMichigan State UniversityLarry SelinkerBirkbeck College, University of London1. INTRODUCTION2. LOOKING ATINTERLANGUAGEDATA3．THE ROLE OF THENATIVE LANGUAGE: ANHISTORICAL OVERVIEW1.1 The study of SecondLanguage Acquisition2.1 Data Analysis3.1 An Historical Perspective1.2 Definitions2.1.1 Data Set I: Plurals3.1.1 Psychological Background1.3 The Nature of Language2.1.2. Data Set II: Verb +-ing Markers3.1.2 Linguistic Background1.3.1. Sound Systems2.1.3. Data Set III:Prepositions3.2 Contrastive AnalysisHypothesis1.3.2. Syntax 2.2 What Data AnalysisDoes Not Reveal3.3 Error Analysis1.3.3 Morphology andLexicon2.3 Data Collection3.4 Conclusion1.3.4. Semantics2.4 Data Elicitation Points for Discussion1.3.5. Pragmatics2.4.1Standardized Language Tests1.4. The Nature of Nonnative Speaker Knowledge2.4.2 Tests FromPsychology6. SLA AND LINGUISTICS1.5.Conclusion2.5 Replication 6.1 Language UniversalsPoints for Discussion 2.6 Issues in Data Analysis 6.2 Typological Universals2.7 What Is Acquisition?6.2.1 Test Case I: The Accessibility Hierarchy4. CHILD LANGUAGEACQUISITION: FIRST AND SECOND 2.8 Conclusion6.2.2 Test Case II: TheAcquisition of Questions4.1 Child First Language Acquisition Points for Discussion6.2.3 Test Case III: Voiced /Voiceless Consonants4.1.1 Babbling 6.2.4 Typological Universals: Conclusions4.1.2 Words5. RECENTPERSPECTIVES ONTHE ROLE OFPREVIOUSLY KNOWNLANGUAGES6.3 Tense and Aspect4.1.3 Sounds and Pronunciation5.1 Morpheme OrderStudies6.3.1 The Aspect Hypothesis4.1.4 Syntax5.2 Revised Perspectives onthe Role of NativeLanguage6.3.2 The DiscourseHypothesis4.1.5 Morphology5.2.1 Avoidance6.4 Phonology4.2 Theories of Learning5.2.2 Differential LearningRates6.5 Conclusion4.3 Child SecondLanguage Acquisition5.2.3 Different Paths Points for Discussion 4.4 Child SecondLanguage MorphemeOrder Studies5.2.4 Overproduction4.5 Conclusion5.2.5 Predictability /Selectivity9 INTERLANGUAGE INCONTEXTPoints for Discussion 5.3 Interlanguage Transfer9.1 Variation5.4 Conclusion9.2 Systematic Variation 7. UNIVERSALGRAMMARPoints for Discussion9.2.1 Linguistic Context7.1 Universal Grammar 9.2.2 Social Context Relating to the Native Language7.1.1 Initial State 8. LOOKING ATINTERLANGUAGEPROCESSES9.2.3 Social Context Relatingto Interlocutor, Task Type, andConversational Topic7.1.2 UG Principles8.1 The Competition Model9.3 Communication Strategies7.1.3 UG Parameters8.2 The Monitor Model9.4 Interlangauge Pragmatics7.1.4 Falsification: GG and Typological Universal 8.2.1 TheAcquisition-LearningHypothesis9.5 Conclusion: SLA and OtherDisciplines7.2 Transfer: The UG Perspective 8.2.2 The Natural OrderHypothesisPoints for Discussion7.2.1 Levels of Representation 8.2.3 The Monitor Hypothesis7.2.2 Clustering8.2.4 The Input Hypothesis 12 NONLANGUAGE INFLUENCES7.2.3 Learn ability 8.2.5 The Affective FilterHypothesis12.1 Research Tradition7.3 Minimalist Program 8.3 Critiques of the MonitorModel12.1.1 Linguistics7.4 Conclusion 8.3.1 TheAcquisition-LearningHypothesis12.1.2 PsychologyPoints for Discussion 8.3.2 The Natural OrderHypothesis12.1.3 Psycholinguistics 8.3.3 The MonitorHypothesis12.2 Social Distance10 INPUT,INTERACTION, ANDOUTPUT8.3.4 The Input Hypothesis12.3 Age Differences10.1 Input 8.3.5 The Affective FilterHypothesis12.4 Aptitude10.2 Comprehension 8.4 Alternative Modes ofKnowledge Representation12.5 Motivation10.3 Interaction 8.4.1 The Nature ofKnowledge12.5.1 Motivation Over theLong Term and the Short Term10.4 Output 8.4.2 The Nature ofLearning12.5.2 Motivations as aFunction of Success10.4.1 Hypothesis Testing 8.4.3 Automaticity andRestructuring12.6 Anxiety10.4.2 Feedback8.5 Connectionism12.7 Locus of Control 10.4.3 Automaticity8.6 Conclusion12.8 Personality Factors 10.4.4 Meaning-based toGrammatically Based Processing Points for Discussion12.8.1 Extroversion andIntroversion10.5 The Role of Input 12.8.2 Risk Takingand Interaction in Language Learning10.5.1 Attention 11 INSTRUCTEDSECOND LANGUAGELEARNING12.8.3 Field Independence10.5.2 Contrast Theory11.1 Classroom Language12.9 Learning Strategies 10.6 Limitations of Input11.2 Input Processing12.10 Conclusion10.7 Conclusion 11.3 Teachability /LearnabilityPoints for DiscussionPoints for Discussion11.4 Focus on Form11.4.1 Timing REFERENCES 13 THE LEXICON11.4.2 Forms to Focus On GLOSSARY13.1 The Significance of the Lexicon 11.5 Uniqueness ofInstructionAUTHOR INDEX13.2 Lexical Knowledge11.6 Conclusion SUBJECT INDEX 13.3 Lexical Information Points for Discussion13.3.1 Word Associations13.3 2 Incidental Vocabulary 14 AN INTEGRATED VIEW OF SECOND LANGUAGE ACQUISITION13.3.3 Incremental Vocabulary Learning 14.1 An Integration of Subareas13.3.4 MemoryMetaphors14.1.1 Apperceived Input 13.4 Lexical Skills14.1.2 Comprehended Input 13.4.1 Production14.1.3 Intake13.4.2 Perception14.1.4 Integration13.4.3 Word Formation14.1.5 Output13.4.4 WordCombinations,Collocations, andPhraseology14.2 Conclusion13.5 Conclusion Points for Discussion Points for Discussion。
英语语言学名词解释补充
Chapter 11 : Second Language Acquisition1. second language acquisition:It refers to the systematic study of how one person acquires a second language subsequent to his native language.2. target language: The language to be acquired by the second language learner.3. second language:A second language is a language which is not a native language in a country but which is widely used as a medium of communication and which is usually used alongside another language or languages.4. foreign language:A foreign language is a language which is taught asa school subject but which is not used as a medium of instruction in schools nor as a language of communication within a country.5. interlanguage: A type of language produced by second and foreign language learners, who are in the process of learning a language, and this type of language usually contains wrong expressions.6. fossilization: In second or foreign language learning, there is a process which sometimes occurs in which incorrect linguistic features become a permanent part of the way a person speaks or writes a language.7. contrastive analysis: a method of analyzing languages for instructional purposes whereby a native language and target language are compared with a view to establishing points of difference likely to cause difficulties for learners.8. contrastive analysis hypothesis: A hypothesis in second language acquisition. It predicts that where there are similarities between the first and second languages, the learner will acquire second language structure with ease, where there are differences, the learner will have difficulty.9. positive transfer:It refers to the transfer that occur when both the native language and the target language have the same form, thus making learning easier. (06F)10. negative transfer:the mistaken transfer of features of one’s native language into a second language.11. error analysis: the study and analysis of errors made by second and foreign language learners in order to identify causes of errors or common difficulties in language learning.12. interlingual error:errors, which mainly result from cross-linguistic interference at different levels such as phonological, lexical, grammatical etc.13. intralingual error:Errors, which mainly result from faulty or partial learning of the target language, independent of the native language. The typical examples are overgeneralization and cross-association.14. overgeneralization:The use of previously available strategies in new situations, in which they are unacceptable.15. cross-association: some words are similar in meaning as well as spelling and pronunciation. This internal interference is called cross-association.16. error: the production of incorrect forms in speech or writing by a non-native speaker of a second language, due to his incomplete knowledge of the rules of that target language.17. mistake:mistakes, defined as either intentionally or unintentionally deviant forms and self-corrigible, suggest failure in performance.18. input: language which a learner hears or receives and from which he or she can learn.19. intake: the input which is actually helpful for the learner.20. Input Hypothesis:A hypothesis proposed by Krashen , which states that in second language learning, it’s necessary for the learner to understand input language which contains linguistic items that are slightly beyond the learner’s present linguistic competence. Eventually the ability to produce language is said to emerge naturally without being taught directly.21. acquisition: Acquisition is a process similar to the way children acquire their first language. It is a subconscious process without minute learning of grammatical rules. Learners are hardly aware of their learning but they are using language to communicate. It is also called implicit learning, informal learning or natural learning.22. learning: learning is a conscious learning of second languageknowledge by learning the rules and talking about the rules.23. comprehensible input:Input language which contains linguistic itemsthat are slightly beyond the learner’s present linguistic competence.(06F)24. language aptitude: the natural ability to learn a language, notincluding intelligence, motivation, interest, etc.25. motivation:motivation is defined as the learner’s attitudes andaffective state or learning drive.26. instrumental motivation: the motivation that people learn a foreignlanguage for instrumental goals such as passing exams, or furthering acareer etc. (06C)27. integrative motivation:the drive that people learn a foreign languagebecause of the wish to identify with the target culture. (06C/ 05)28. resultative motivation: the drive that learners learn a secondlanguage for external purposes. (06F)29. intrinsic motivation: the drive that learners learn the secondlanguage for enjoyment or pleasure from learning.30. learning strategies:learning strategies are learners’ consciousgoal-oriented and problem-solving based efforts to achieve learningefficiency.31. cognitive strategies: strategies involved in analyzing, synthesis,and internalizing what has been learned. (07C/ 06F)32. metacognitive strategies:the techniques in planning, monitoring andev aluating one’s learning.33. affect/ social strategies: the strategies dealing with the wayslearners interact or communicate with other speakers, native ornon-native.Chapter 12 : Language And Brain1. neurolinguistics: It is the study of relationship between brain andlanguage. It includes research into how the structure of the braininfluences language learning, how and in which parts of the brain language is stored, and how damage to the brain affects the ability to use language.2. psycholinguistics: the study of language processing. It is concerned with the processes of language acqisition, comprehension and production.3. brain lateralization: The localization of cognitive and perceptive functions in a particular hemisphere of the brain.4. dichotic listening:A technique in which stimuli either linguistic or non-linguistic are presented through headphones to the left and right ear to determine the lateralization of cognitive function.5. right ear advantage: The phenomenon that the right ear shows an advantage for the perception of linguistic signals id known as the right ear advantage.6. split brain studies: The experiments that investigate the effects of surgically severing the corpus callosum on cognition are called as split brain studies.7. aphasia: It refers to a number of acquired language disorders due to the cerebral lesions caused by a tumor, an accident and so on.8. non-fluent aphasia:Damage to parts of the brain in front of the central sulcus is called non-fluent aphasia.9. fluent aphasia: Damage to parts of the left cortex behind the central sulcus results in a type of aphasia called fluent aphasia.10. Acquired dyslexia: Damage in and around the angular gyrus of the parietal lobe often causes the impairment of reading and writing ability, which is referred to as acquired dyslexia.11. phonological dyslexia:it is a type of acquired dyslexia in which the patient seems to have lost the ability to use spelling-to-sound rules.12. surface dyslexia: it is a type of acquired dyslexia in which the patient seems unable to recognize words as whole but must process all words through a set of spelling-to-sound rules.13. spoonerism:a slip of tongue in which the position of sounds, syllables, or words is reversed, for example, Let’s have chish and fips instend of Let’s have fish and chips.14. priming: the process that before the participants make a decision whether the string of letters is a word or not, they are presented with an activated word.15. frequency effect: Subjects take less time to make judgement on frequently used words than to judge less commonly used words . This phenomenon is called frequency effect.16. lexical decision: an experiment that let participants judge whethera string of letter is a word or not at a certain time.17. the priming experiment:An experiment that let subjects judge whethera string of letters is a word or not after showed with a stimulus word, called prime.18. priming effect:Since the mental representation is activated through the prime, when the target is presented, response time is shorter that it otherwise would have been. This is called the priming effect. (06F)19. bottom-up processing: an approach that makes use principally of information which is already present in the data.20. top-down processing:an approach that makes use of previous knowledge and experience of the readers in analyzing and processing information which is received.21. garden path sentences: a sentence in which the comprehender assumesa particular meaning of a word or phrase but discovers later that the assumption was incorrect, forcing the comprehender to backtrack and reinterpret the sentence.22. slip of the tongue:mistakes in speech which provide psycholinguistic evidence for the way we formulate words and phrases.。
- 1、下载文档前请自行甄别文档内容的完整性，平台不提供额外的编辑、内容补充、找答案等附加服务。
- 2、"仅部分预览"的文档,不可在线预览部分如存在完整性等问题,可反馈申请退款(可完整预览的文档不适用该条件!)。
- 3、如文档侵犯您的权益，请联系客服反馈,我们会尽快为您处理(人工客服工作时间：9:00-18:30)。
1.2.2 Parameters Parameters reflect the differences between different languages.
PG=α · UG
PG: particular grammar α: parameters eg. Pro-drop parameter(代词脱落参数)
1.2 Principle-Parameter model of UG
The basic concept of UG are principles(原则)and parameters(参数) . They reveal the commonalities and differences between natural languages respectively.
Universal Grammar in Second Language Acquisition
1. Introduction Contents
1.1 Definition of Universal Grammar 1.2 Principle-Parameter model of Universal Grammar
4. Conclusion
UG was proposed in response to “the logical problem of FLA” and there are kinds of problem in its application in SLA, but it does have influence on SLA to some extent. The efficiency as well as the state of FLA are much more better than those of SLA. All the differences between FLA and SLA lead to the different influences of UG on FLA and SLA. i.e. UG works in FLA directly, but it works in SLA through first language. So , most people agree with the indirect accessibility hypothesis.
consists of two kinds of parameter settings(参 数设定). One is pro-drop(可代词脱落) and another one is non-pro-drop(非代词脱落).
Whether to allow pro-drop or null subject (零主 语)is a sign of language difference. English is a nonpro-drop language while Chinese is a pro-drop language.
It is raining.
下雨了。
From this example, we can see that pro-drop parameter marks a difference between English and Chinese.
2. The accessibility of UG to SLA
2.3 Inaccessibility of UG to SLA
Inaccessibility hypothesis(完全不可及假说) denies all the influence of UG on SLA. It assumes that the parameters of UG have been set in the process of FLA. They can not be reset. The assignment of second language learner is finished by his psychological device and cognitive strategies. It means that only first language learner can use UG.
普遍语法
其他心理机制
直接可及
不可及
间接可及
第一语言
第二语言
3.The problem of the application of UG in SLA
The biggest problem of the application of UG in SLA is that Chomsky’s theory of UG was proposed in response to “the logical problem of FLA”. There are some significant differences between FLA and SLA. ⑴ The process of FLA is natural and unconscious, but that of SLA is conscious. ⑵ Cognitive ability of children is still in the immature stage while that of adult is already mature.
1.2.1 Principles(原则)
Principles refer to the abstractly grammatical property(抽象语法属性)which can be applied to all human language. A certain language may not have some principles. But there is no language can violate these principle.
2.1. Indirect accessibility of UG to SLA
Indirect accessibility hypothesis(间接可及假说) assumes that UG works in SLA through the grammar of mother tongue. When the parameter setting of second language is different from that of first language, the second learner can not use the parameter which has been lost in UG. They can only reset the parameter of mother tongue grammar
3. The problem of the application of UG in SLA 4. Conclusion
1. Introduction
1.1 Definition of Universal Grammar
Chomsky thought that Universal Grammar (UG) is a special device of human brain which can help people learn language quickly. It is an unconscious and potential knowledge which exists in human brain without learning and determines the existing appearance of human language. Just because of this special device, the most stupid person can talk whil speak.
2.2 Direct accessibility of UG to SLA
Direct accessibility hypothesis(直接可及假说) assumes that process of FLA and that of SLA is totally the same. People learn both first language and second language by setting parameters to UG. So if UG can be used in FLA, it must can be applied in SLA. Second language learner makes full use of UG including the part which is not reflected in his mother tongue. The learner’s grammar of second language is determined by UG completely.
⑶ The environment of FLA and that of SLA are different.
⑷The input modes are different. Children get first language input through spoken language. Adults get second language input through spoken language, written language as well as notation.
⑸In the process of FLA, there is no interference from other language. But in the process of SLA, learner uses mother tongue constantly. Mother tongue and second language will interact each other somehow.
2. The accessibility of Universal Grammar to Second Language Acquisition