Ling 502: Graduate Seminar/Talking Points Second Language Acquisition Research

CSUN Linguistics/Ling 502 Seminar in L2 acquisition/Fall 2015/galasso

Ling 502: Seminar in Second Language Acquisition Research

<>

Talking Points on Texts: Cook and VanPatten & Williams

California State University Northridge Linguistics

http://www.csun.edu/~galasso

Texts: (i)‘Second Language Learning and Teaching’ (Vivian Cook 2013).

(ii) ‘Theories in Second Language Acquisition’ (Edited by Bill VanPattern and Jessica Williams.

Routledge, 2nd edition).

One to two articles will be made available for open discussion corresponding to each lecture.

Each of the four lectures will come to incorporate the following segments:

(i) Introduction & Background Material

(ii) Theory: First Language (L1) Theory leading to L2 implications

(iii) L2 Research

(iv) Application: Methods of Teaching

Lecture 1: What is language? Why study first/second language acquisition? How do people learn

languages?

Lecture 2: Phonology

Lecture 3: Morpho-syntax

Lecture 4: Research into Teaching Applications

http://www.csun.edu/~galasso


1. Talking Points and Notes on Text ‘Second language Learning and Teaching’ (Cook, 2013).

Lecture 1 (Chapters 1-3): What is Language?

Lecture Topics include:

• How do we define language?

- What do we mean by saying that language is ‘structure dependent’?

- What might L2 differ in structure as compared to L1? (e.g., Shallow Processing)

- What is the course of L1 language development in children (as compared to L2)? For

instance, what can we claim about implicit vs explicit learning of language? (Latter,

this distinction will be part of Ullman’s Declarative vs Procedural model of L1 v L2

language learning).

• What is a Grammar: (what made-up part of the Chomskyan revolution?)

- What do Phrase Structure Rules give us? : [ D → N, DP]. [V →N, VP]. Etc.

- An Introduction to Principles and Parameters Theory

• Theory behind processing and storage of language. (See Ullman’s article. Discussion of the

‘Dual Mechanism Model’ (Pinker, Clahsen 1999 for review).

Chapter 1: Background to L2 Research

p. 2. Let’s take a look at the ‘common assumptions’.

What are the types of questions people ask about L2? (How do we define L2? (a language other than a

native first language—must L2 be a post critical period learning of language?)

• Is there a FDH (Bley Vroman) between the child and adult, or between a child who begins her

language learning with a clean slate (clean UG), or a child/adult who already has a full target

language (UG> L1)?

• Is there a CPH? (Lenneberg). What is behind the lack of success (Robert Lado, Krashen)

• Does the fact that the L2 speaker already has an L1 impact on L2 learning? (P & P Theory)

• Are there metalinguistic/cognitive problem-solving aspects to L2 learning? (Shallow

Processing)

• Does the already acquired L1 help or hinder the L2 learning process?


• What about the contrastive model: the fact that translation and/or interference shows up so

abundantly in the L2 research. What does this mean? (And there are many more questions).

p. 11. How do people learn language? What are the similarities and differences between L1 and L2?

L1 has well-known incremental stages of acquisition (e.g., Lexical v functional, non-move-based, etc).

L2 may or may not follow the same stages of acquisition: but we do find what we call shallow processing

or so-classed interlanguages on the way towards learning an L2. What does this suggest>

Question: SLA. The first step is to study ‘learning’ itself. How do people learn languages?

The acquisition of language, the knowledge of language is now defined as a state of mind of the speaker.

Language is a state of mind. And there could be different and several states of mind in a single individual

(e.g., a bilingual has two states of mind. An L1 speaker learning an L2 may have two states of mind

(multi-competence, Cook), but only one fully-fledged (target grammar) while the second state of mind

remains immature (leading to an interlanguage).

Likewise, children mature through several states of mind (approximate grammars G1…G2…) on their

way to their target grammar (Gt):

G1….G2….G3….Gt.

P. 14. ‘Me go no school’ (what does such an L2 utterance tell us about the ‘state of mind’ of the

speaker? Clearly, an L2 speaker never has heard such an utterance before from the input. So, what

exactly is going on here? What is the nature of so-called interlanguages of this type?

Why should child L1 speakers drop ‘do’ in one type of utterance, but then consistently provide it in

another (clearlt, this ‘do’ deletion doesn’t speak to a phonological deficient. What is the nature of such

deletion, theoretically?)(for example):

(i) Mommy, what __ you want? (what do you want?)

(ii) Mommy, me do it. or, What __ you do?

Ullman (Chapter 8, VanPattern text) advances a model (declarative vs procedure) which may peg a

lexical v. functional mapping to such deletion.

So, such systematic morpho-syntactic errors are a state of the speaker’s mind.

Chapter 2: Learning and teaching different types of grammar: What is Grammar?

p. 21 Structural Grammar.

How is language structure dependent (cite ben’s paper http://www.csun.edu/~galasso/ForBen.pdf ).

http://www.csun.edu/~galasso/ForBen.pdf


Substitution test (‘yesterday, I saw a pink and yellow elephant’ ex.) Language is computational, formal,

and rule-based:

Computational/ rule-based is Developmental as in Merge (sage-1) over Move (stage-2)

Tree structure and phases: ‘fascinating’ vs ‘celebrating’ typologies. (An account of merge over move):

We consider Move as being recursive in nature, essentially defined as any instance of

productivity [+Productive] and [-Frequency-sensitive]: e.g., affix lowering of aspect {ing} in a

progressive grammar (as shown in (i) below). We consider the likes of Merge (a non-Move

application) to be essentially non-recursive [-Productive] and [+ Frequency-sensitive] (as shown

in (ii) below):

‘Mary is [[celebra]ting] her birthday’ ‘This is a [fascinating] class’

‘Verbal-ing’ (Inflectional/Move) ‘Adjectival-ing’ (Derivational/Merge)

(i) AspP (ii) AdjP

Asp VP Adj N

V DP

ing [fascinating] class

[[celebrat]ing] her birthday

These same structures as a dichotomy can be formulated as [+/- Frequency driven], [+/- Rule-based].

Chapter 3 Vocabulary Learning -Frequency-driven operations

Vocabulary: rule-based (non-frequency sensitive)/Functional categories v. substantive (frequency

sensitive)/Lexical categories. Priming-effects. How phonology primes lexical retrieval. The most

frequent word in the English usage is the word ‘the’, yet it is word late acquired (for child language) and

most prone to deletion (fo rL2). What is behind the nature of this: most frequent yet most unstable?

Hence, associative models and frequency based models have no account here. We must turn to lexical v

functional distinctions and lexical storage distributions in the brain: a language-to-brain corollary.

e.g., How do you do? Ex. Showing deletion of first ‘do’ having no N400 effect while deletion of second

‘do’ does. (Storage and retrieval of lexical v functional words as shown via fMRI, ERP brain imaging

studies, etc.).

p. 50. Grammatical properties: lexical and morpho-syntactic features and Lexical idiosyncrasies.


p. 52. Lexical word storage between types of words and between L1 vs L2.

Are meanings universal? What of argument structure?

p. 57-59. . Are thematic-theta markings universal across languages? Is there a common semantic

universal?

Strategies of word learning: (mnemonic devices, collocations and associations). Top-down vs. bottom -

up word learning. Vocabulary and teaching

Lecture 2: (Chapter 4): Phonology

Lecture Topics include:

• How do we represent sound?

-IPA revisited. (A brief overview of the International Phonetic Alphabet).

-Phonemic Representations: speech sounds perceived as a ‘ Bundle of Features’ .

Phonemic categories and phonemic boundaries.

- Potential L1 transfer of such bundle of features (e.g., Spanish, Japanese).

- Syllabic perception. Notions of ‘L1 Repair’ (found in L2): (L1 transfer of e.g, syllabic

languages (Hawaiian, Japanese) vs phonemic languages (English)..

• What are some strategies for dealing with L1 transfer/interference?

-Teaching pronunciation

Chapter 4: Phonology

• Revisiting IPA, the phoneme, and bundle of features.

• L1 phonological development: phonemic/syllabic awareness and development. Phonological

processing.

p. 69. Phonemes as bundles of distinctive features: How speech is a state of the speaker’s mind related

to these bundles of features.

p. 71. Phoneme leaning for L2:

• L1 phonological ‘Transfer and Repair’: e.g., German devoicing of final consonant ( /bIg/ =>

/bIk/ (big). Hawaiian syllabic constraints: /skul/ (CCVC) => /kulə/ (CVCV). Spanish /ɛspa/ (VCCV)

for English /spa/ (CCV), etc.


• From (i) transfer/Repair to (ii) Approximate of L2 phonology.

• Building L2 phonological strategies (discussion). [Box 4.2] L1 transfer examples.

p. 72 ‘VOT’ (Voice Onset Time) ‘Learning below the phoneme level’ (e.g., Research into the ‘native

language magnet theory’: A Selection of readings from Patricia Kuhl).

• /p/ vs. /b/ (VOT between Spanish and English). E.g., paula vs baula ex. in Spanish L2 speakers

of English. (Also Arabic: police /polis/ = /bolis/)

• Place of articulation Repair: /v/ →/b/ (Spanish)

/ð/ → /d/

/ð/→/z/ (French)

/θ/ → /s/

Aspiration /ph/ vs /p/ (Korean ex, of grass/fire)/

(English aspiration is not phonemic: English doesn’t make min pairs out of Aspiration).

Question: Regarding phonology: Are there two separate systems or one? Is age a factor in storage and

processing of L2 phonological system?

p. 73 Learning Syllable Structure: L1 and L2 similarities.

P. 77 Universal Processes: Are there Universal or Optimal constraints on L2 phonological learning? For

example, is CVC universally easier than CCVC, etc.? Are consonant clusters universally reduced as part of

a default optimality grammar in L2 speech? It seems likely. Perhaps German final consonant devoicing is

a kind of default.

p. 80 Teaching Pronunciation. Ad hoc incidental training may not be enough! Phonology should be

overtly taught as separate component, apart from incidental speech—e.g., awareness of bundles of

features, VOT , syllabic considerations, etc.

p. 81 Explicit use of IPA (script). Recall, phonology is a state of the speaker’s mind (Hence, mere

imitation doesn’t go far enough—e.g., victor => bictor /v, b/ for some Spanish L2 speakers of English.

(Skip Chapter 5)


Lecture 3 (Chapters 6, 12): Morphosyntax, UG and the Principles & Parameters Theory.

Lecture Topics Include:

• UG-based Theories of L2 (Krashen)

• L1 Transfer and Cognitive Problem-solving effect s on L2 learning (Shallow Processing, etc.).

• L2 Learning Approaches

Chapter 6: Communication Strategies (pace Krashen)

p. 114 Cognitive problem solving strategies.

• UG Indirect Access Model: leading to (i) L1 transfer, (ii) problem solving effects.

(e.g., The Less is More Hypothesis in learning L2: (Elman, Newport)).

• The Sheltered Initiated Language Learning Approach (SILLy: Sev Ber-Lev, San Diego State Univ.

personal communication):

Move from 1 item, to three items, to a selection of rehearsed Verbs associated with Noun: a bottom-up

scaffolding of scheme-based language production from least productive to most productive, for

example:

e.g., I want

like to ___(verb)___ (+ N) (working within a set list of vocab)

need

Meta-cognitive approach:

Portfolio method: Vocab warm-up on a specific topic>class discussion>writing essay (with

revisions: usually lab work)>presentation of essay in class (with critique from two class members on

phonology, accent and grammar)>mini lesson plans drawn from errors as cited in writing/speaking, etc.

(I have created a database of L2 grammatical errors from an ESL class using this approach).

Chapter 12: General Models of L2 Learning

p. 214 Universal Grammar (UG).

Class Lectures on:

•General Intro of P&P Theory

• A selection of parameters: Pro-drop, Bare Verb Stem, INFLection, Movement, Head Direction


• Notions of L1 parameter Transfer/Interference (See example below taken from Johnson &

Newport. Discussion found on page 148.

p. 148 Johnson and Newport (1989)

Late L2 learners have more trouble with functional categories (cf. Sally Experiment, Galasso).

Examples of L1 transfer: French Clitics, Je’taime (SOV) = Je aime tu (SVO) (Head initial parameter).

Japanese lacks DP (drop of number: two book, etc.)


Further Reading based on Lydia White (VanPatten/Williams Text).

• UG Models: Direct UG Access (Krashen) vs. Indirect UG access (Anti-Krashen) and other

competing models for L2 learning.

• A look into L1 and L2 processing distinctions.

Examples of L1 Transfer: p. 148 Johnson and Newport (1989)




(See Galasso: Working Papers on Second Language Acquisition):

http://www.csun.edu/~galasso/WorkingPaperonSecondLanguage.pdf

https://www.academia.edu/775454/Interference_in_Second_Language_Acquisition_A_Review_of_the_

Fundamental_Difference_Hypothesis

Lecture 4: (Chapters 7-11): Research into Teaching Applications.

Lecture Topics Include:

• Speaker and Parsing Theories.

• Word segmentation and ‘Bootstrapping’ Theories.

• What gets deleted in L2? The Sally Experiment revisited.

• Recap on Krashen’s Theory.

• The Fundamental Difference Hypothesis and the Critical Period Hypothesis.

• Classroom Methods.

http://www.csun.edu/~galasso/WorkingPaperonSecondLanguage.pdf

https://www.academia.edu/775454/Interference_in_Second_Language_Acquisition_A_Review_of_the_Fundamental_Difference_Hypothesis

https://www.academia.edu/775454/Interference_in_Second_Language_Acquisition_A_Review_of_the_Fundamental_Difference_Hypothesis


Chapter 7: Listening/Reading

• Reading: Understanding ‘top-down’ (scheme theory), scripts and discourse.

Use of ‘top-down’ reading to learn new vocabulary (collocation and connotation). (eg., use a new word,

create association, provide sentence structure around the word, create context).

• Listening: Do L2 speakers/listeners translate back to their L1?

p.125-126 Parsing via syntax rules (language as creative—e.g., the novel/nonce sentence: ‘yesterday, I

saw a pink and yellow elephant rolling-skating down Mulholland drive’). How do we parse a sentence we

have never heard before? So, listeners ‘hear’ syntax, not just words.

• Word Segmentation (phonological/prosodic bootstrapping, stress)

(e.g., the# teacher #sits) How do we segment from the ambient speech stream?

p. 126 Phrase Structure Rules: (Sally Experiment: what gets missed out where in L2? A Lexical vs

Functional distinction).(Note that functional elements get mostly deleted in phonology, not in writing, as

based on the Sally Experiment).

Listening Skills: top down. Try to listen for context first and reconstruct meaning of words top-down.

Learn vocabulary from ‘broad to narrow’ understanding..

• Krahsen’s Approach: Listening-based Models .

P. 131 Total Physical Response Methods.

P. 132. Weakness with Krashen’s model. (Class discussion).

Chapter 8. (Much material on Krashen’s Natural Approach to L2)

Full Class Discussion on Krashen (pros and cons).

p. 140 Motivations, Attitudes and Aptitudes behind L2 learning: The Bell-Shape Curve of L2 learning.

The right-wall for L1 acquisition.

Krashen’s Hypotheses: <Learning doesn’t transfer to acquisition>.

Differences between L1 and L2 (A Fundamental Difference Hypothesis, e.g., Bley-Vroman 1989).


P. 147 The Critical Period Hypothesis (Less is More Hypothesis (Elman, Newport))





Question: Why is declarative different from procedural? : as Krashen suggests: it’s easy enough to state

a rule declaratively : e.g., [N+ s= plural], yet still the plural functional {s} goes missing (cf. sally Exp, etc.).

Even when the same rule [N+ s= pl] applies to both languages (L1 and L2) (as in Spanish plural). What is

the nature of such L2 errors if not L1 transfer based?

Chapter 9-11: Classroom Methods

General Class Discussion of types of classroom methods: pros and cons.

Directions towards research in Second Language: the brain to language corollary. How brain imaging

might be the next frontier in language research. Where do we go from here?


2. Talking Points and Summary of Notes of Text: ‘Theories in Second Language Acquisition’

(VanPatten, Williams (eds) 2015).

Talking Points Correspond to:

o Lecture 1: What is Language? (Cook, Chapters 1-3)

o Lecture 3: Morpho-syntax. (Cook, Chapters 2, 3, 6, 12)

Chapter 2: Early Theories (VanPatten/Williams)

• Imitation (strong behaviorism/Skinner) x => x

• analogy (weak behaviorism) : [x [yx]] + [w [xyz]] : ([b[ug]] >[b[ugs]] , [w[ug]] >[w[ugs]] )

• Computational (Chomsky) : [xy[z]] > wx[z]] e.g., N+ s = plural without sensitivity to frequency,

hence rule-based computational theories are : [-Frequency] [+ productive].

P. 23. The challenge of first and second language acquisition research

How to explain/account for certain types of errors and why don’t speakers assume the

possibility of other types of errors. In other words, what kind of a theory allows for errors

and at the same time constrains other types of errors. There are no ‘wild grammars’.

Krashen’s Theory: pros and cons.

Chapter 3. Linguistic Theory, Universal Grammar and Second Language (White)

p. 35 Island Constraints:

a. *What does John wonder [who bought t]?

b. What does John think [t that Mary bought t]?

(a) is an island: ‘what’ can’t move out of such embedded clauses since ‘who’ is already occupying its

potential landing slot.

[who [+ island]], [that [-island]]

p. 36 Interlanguage Competence

possible knowledge__UG Indirect Access via L1. (Bley-Vroman)


Cases where L1 and L2 differ

p. 42-4. See L1 transfer/interference Hypotheses.

L2 learners accept violations of island constraints (Johnson, Newport 1991, Schachter 1990).

See also ‘Shallow Structure Hypothesis’ (Clahsen, Felser 2006). (Examples of shallow processing include

wh/aux+ sentential structures: [when did [you saw the film]] (showing a kind of surface/shallow

‘bricolage’ double tense structure without movement)? ‘What did’ is a kind of island phrase that sits on

top of main clause (without internal movement operation).

Table 3.2 L2 speakers are unable to make full use of syntax and so depend on semantics /lexical

cues to parse L2—e.g., passives in young children also rely on semantics over syntax—

E.g., Mary was kissed by John. Who is doing the kissing? Young children respond ‘Mary’

E.g., The ball was kicked by Fred. Who kicked the ball? They will respond ‘Fred’ based on

semantics (but not syntax).

It’s hypothesized that young children lack ‘movement’ (and deafault to active canonical SVO

word order).

Also Grodzinsky shows Broca impairment: (where there are two different men):

a. Show me the man who [ t chased the lion] (able to process subject of embedded clause)

b. Show me the man who [the lion chased t] (unable to process object of embed clause).

Broca’s impairment seems to affect movement.

c. The boyi [who [ti_ pushed the girl]] is tall. (= above chance reading/ canonical SVO):

a. ‘The boy pushed the girl’

d. The boyi [who [the girl pushed ti_]] is tall. (= only chance reading/non-canonical OSV):

a. ‘The girl pushed the boy’

Broca patients prefer reading/interpretations of canonical SVO over OSV: ‘the man chased

the lion’ over ‘the lion chases the man’.

Example of ‘Shallow Processing’ (Clahsen/Felser) could be represented as below:

[What did [the man said]] as a flat structure, hence non-movement based shallow

processing. The full structure with movement would show:

[what did [ the man ddiidd say wwhhaatt]


p. 46 Shallow Processing—L2 speakers don’t parse intermediate gaps, but rather rely on flat structures

without movement early on in their L2 parsing.

p. 47 Inflectional Morphology (Derivational vs. Inflectional—matters of syntax).

L2 speakers seem to have difficulty of INFLectional morphology over derivational morphology.

But Why? Discussion (e.g., the UCLA experiments).

(Sorace et al.) L2 speakers of Pro-drop languages over use overt subjects. This is an example of

parameters L1 interference (English to Spanish). (See p. 42 for L1 transfer).

The claim that UG Theory/Rules are not subject to ‘Frequency Effects’

(Where frequency is said to distorts declarative knowledge, not procedural. See Ullman Chapter 8).

p. 47 Parasitic Gaps:

a. * By mistake, I filed the papers without correcting__

b. *Did you file the papers without correcting?

Both a and b need direct object of ‘correct’ (e.g., ‘them’)

c. Which papers did you file without correcting___?

(Example c is fine as an example of wh-move, not a parasitic gap).

This is the kind of evidence arguing for UG since such (declarative) knowledge (of wh-movement

over other types of movement, e.g., PP-fronting) is not available in the input.

Other examples of how input/frequency is unconnected to output—a further question of UG:

Note how the most frequent word a child hears is the word ‘the’ and yet it is the last of a

category (the determiner category) acquired. If determiners are not available in L1, this poses

problems for L2. A famous example is what appears to happen with L1 Japanese when trying to

learn English as an L2.

p. 49 Language Acquisition only via ‘implicit mechanism’, not via ‘explicit rules’. (See Krashen for

discussion).

But this claim may be too strong. It rather seems, in theory, some explicit learning must take place for

L2 acquisition since UG may be only ‘indirectly’ accessed for L2 learning. (See White 1991).

Discussion of UG direct vs Indirect Access models for L2 learning (Krashen vs. anti-Krashen

positions).


Chapter 5 Usage-based Approach (vs. UG).

p. 75. Cognitive problem solving skills as mechanism for L2 learing.

See Indirect UG access model.

Constructions: e.g., SVO:

[Aux+not], [what+Aux] as frames…

Pairing form to meaning.

a. The form ‘ing’ has different ‘form to meaning’—e.g.,

Celebrating vs fascinating types (See Class discussion on ‘fascinating vs celebrating’

typologies/processing/storage):

[fascinating] vs. [[celebrat]ing]

p. 76 Exemplar-based learning (as implicit learning)

Arguments for and against simple/frequency-based learning mechanism.

Problems with Frequency-based/Exemplar learning:

o L2 produces sentence errors which go beyond examples and frequency (e.g., lack of

usage of ‘the’ and other examples of L1 transfer or developmental errors which don’t

necessarily match L2 frequency.

o (See class discussion of the ’Sally Experiment’ as an instance of development errors of L2

learning and not necessarily L1 transfer—e.g., the deletion of the plural {s} by L2 Spanish

learners of English whereby Spanish L2 has the same rule for plural: N+s = pl).

o Constructs such as [N+s= pl] may be stored and represented in multiple/various levels of

abstraction—e.g., as formulaic chunks or undecomposed frames, etc. How such

constructs are stored may affect how they are represented in the brain/mind and thus

available for different types of error productions.

o Language is a ‘large warehouse’ of either stored or productive constructions.

p. 79 Associative Learning: Behavorism

Formulaic usage (non-creative) Slot & Frame pattern recognition.

o U-shape Learning (P. 87).

o Proto-type effects/over-regularization.


Chapter 7 Input Processing (IP)

General Readings-Lexical vs. Functional Distinctions

p. 115 ‘Lexical categories come first’ (Discussion of Lexical vs. Functional categories).

Aux ‘do’ deletion vs. main verb ‘do’ in child stage-1 syntax

a. What __you want mommy? (functional deletion)

b. Why __ __man do that?

(omission of aux ‘do’ and determiner ‘the’ but main verb ‘do’ is attested)

p. 116 If markers (INFL markers) are redundant they may not get processed (since they may have no

semantic content to begin with).

L2 speakers (like young children) will not focus (no form to function) on past tense {ed}, but rather may

notice only the lexical word ‘yesterday’ for past tense, being that the inflectional {ed} past tense

marker is redundant.

e.g., ‘yesterday, I visit_ the park’

{ed} is redundant in such an utterance. Number [+/-Pl] likewise may show similar effects where the

determiner may show number with the plural INFL marker on the noun being redundant—e.g., I have

four book_. The most pervasive instance of such redundancy comes on subject verb agreement (where

the subject is 3P/Singular/present tense and where the redundant {s} appears on the verb. Such

redundancy may be prone to a form to function noticing deficit.

See Lexical Preference Principle.

p. 119 SVO vs SOV word order for Spanish. The [+/-Head Initial] parameter. (Principle and Parameters

Theory).

e.g., ‘Yo te mo (a ti)’

(I you-love (you))

Is the emphatic double object ‘te, a ti’ perceived as a redult on interference or transfer so that the

word order mapping fits the SVO dominant word order (also found in English)? Discussion: L1 Transfer.

p. 124 IP (Input Processing) is interested in ‘initial data gathering’: What is the underlying mechanism

behind data gathering? What is the internal intervening process?


Chapter 8: Declarative-Procedural Model (DP Model, Ullman)

See also DMM (Pinker, Clahsen—class lectures and discussion)

Pp 135-139 Two memory systems (A Dual Mechanism Model (DMM))

The Dual Mechanism Model (discussion)

Is the DMM based on a +/- frequency sensitivity? How do ‘rules’ derive?

The Brain to Language Corollary:

a. Procedural aligns with Boca (Frontal Lobe)

b. Declarative aligns with Temporal Lobe.

FOXP2 Gene implications . FOXP2 may be implicated in (Human specific) Procedural/Rule-based

processing. Such processing declines steadily after childhood.

P. 139 Thesis: Critical Period Hypothesis discussion.

p. 139 Race Models (regular vs irregular)

e.g., *’I weared my watch’ (incorrect over-regular wins race) vs. ‘I wore my watch’ (irregular).

Regular vs Irregulars: How do these two systems of knowledge fit into the DMM/DP model?

What is the brain-to-language corollary?

Ho w does Race Model’ block competing structures?

p. 140 Content vs. Functional Words—

(See also INFLectional vs. Derivational Morphologies)

Complex forms and grammar should depend more on ‘declarative memory’ in L2 than in L1.

A Theory emergences:

a. L1: is rule-based/procedural

b. L2: Rules become more declarative.

Discussion on Krashen’s Hypothesis: ‘Learning can’t turn into acquisition’. Just becomes an L2 student

explicitly knows a rule, e.g., N+ s = Plural, this doesn’t not necessarily turn into procedural/spontaneous

knowledge of the implicit kind (See Sally Experiment/Galasso, class lectures).

Fundamental Difference Hypothesis (Bley-Vroman) between L1 and L2 based on acquisition

versus learning.

p. 142 Declarative memory/processing improves into adolescence while procedural declines.

More evidence for a Critical Period Hypothesis.

Attention to Form in L2 may lead more to Declarative processing, while attention to Function

may lead to Procedural processing.


Implications to Methods.

p. 143 Declarative = lexical storage, idioms and irregulars for both L1 and L2.

For L1 (child language) procedural takes hold—i.e., the automatization og grammar.

p. 146 Alzheimer’s vs Parkinson’s Disease.

p. 147 N400, P00 (LAN) Brain-Event-Related Potentials(ERPs) and brain imaging for language.

p. 149 Discussion of Fundamental Difference Hypothesis (FDH) (Bley Vroman)

p. 150 Clahsen ‘Shallow Processing Model’

Chapter 9 Processability Theory

p. 160 L2 follows L1 development/stages—e.g., four stages of L1 ‘wh-questions’.

Clahsen’s Shallow Processing may have the L2 speaker trapped in stage-2 (of four staged progress). E.g.,

[what did [he said]] showing no internal move, but rather a somewhat flat structure.

p. 160 Developmental Trajectory

p. 162 Mismatch in agreement

e.g., ‘Little Peter go_ home’

DP and VP (TP) not fully developed for matching agreement. Two phrases must be built-up together, so

two things simultaneously (and not just stacking one plus one). In fact verbal agreement is delayed over

nominal agreement since VP/TP is interphrasal, while nominal may not be (DP being intraphrasal, at

least theoretically):

[TP {s} [ VP speak-s]] (two phrase) vs [DP [D [Pl]{s}] [N book-s]] (one phrase)

p. 163-165 Processing Hierarchy

a. Within Sentence : ‘He talks’

b. Within Phrase : ‘Two kids’

c. Category: INFL, Derivational, Functional, Lexical : consider the bound morpheme {ing}:

a. INFL : [AspP {ing} [VP [V talk]ing]]]

b. Deriv : [DP [D the] [ N talking]]

p. 163 a. Past Tense {ed} => category-level

b. Plural {s} => phrase-level

c. #P/Sg/Present {s} => sentence-level

(Note: derivational would precede INFlectional in term s of bottom-up hierarchy).

p. 171 L2 initial dependency on formulaic structures—a progression of :

a. ‘flat ‘structure’, (shallow processing/Clahsen) to…

b. ‘full complex structures’


*Skip Chapters 10-12.

Chapter 13: General Reading.

Articles:

Clahsen, H. Shallow Processing.

http://www.uni-potsdam.de/fileadmin/projects/prim/papers/tics-clahsenfelser.pdf

http://www.uni-potsdam.de/fileadmin/projects/prim/papers/tics-clahsenfelser.pdf

Ling 502: Graduate Seminar/Talking Points Second Language Acquisition Research

Documents

Transcript of Ling 502: Graduate Seminar/Talking Points Second Language Acquisition Research