CHAPTER 3 The Linguistics Of Second Language Acquisition
CHAPTER3The linguistics ofSecond LanguageAcquisitionCHAPTER PREVIEWKEY TERMSInterferenceInterlanguage(IL)Natural orderUniversalGrammar (UG)Language facultyPrinciplesParametersInitial stateFinal stateMarkednessGrammaticalizationIn this chapter we survey several approaches to the study ofSLA that have been heavily influenced by the field oflinguistics since the middle of the twentieth century. We beginwith a characterization of the nature of language, and with aconsideration of the knowledge and skills which people musthave in order to use any language fluently. We follow this witha survey of early linguistic approaches to SLA, beginning withContrastive Analysis and then several which take aninternal focus on learners’ creative construction oflanguage: Error Analysis, Interlanguage, Morpheme OrderStudies, and the Monitor Model. We bring the internal focusup to date with discussion of Universal Grammar (UG), andwhat constitutes the language faculty of the mind. Finally, tocomplete the chapter, we switch to approaches which involvean external focus on the functions of language that emergein the course of second language acquisition: SystemicLinguistics, Functional Typology, Function-to-FormMapping, and Information Organization.
32INTRODUCING SECOND LANGUAGE ACQUISITIONThe Nature of languageWhat is it that we learn when we learn a language? If we look up a definition of “language” in a dictionary, we will probably see reference to itsverbal features (oral and written), to its function in communication, andto its uniquely human character. Most linguists would agree that all naturally occurring languages also share the following characteristics: Languages are systematic. They consist of recurrent elements whichoccur in regular patterns of relationships. All languages have aninfinite number of possible sentences, and the vast majority of allsentences which are used have not been memorized. They are createdaccording to rules or principles which speakers are usuallyunconscious of using – or even of knowing – if they acquired thelanguage(s) as a young child. Although we use the same stock of wordsover and over, it is safe to assume that, for instance, most of theparticular combinations of words making up the sentences in a dailynewspaper have never been used before. How, then, do we understandthem? We can do so because we understand the principles by whichthe words are combined to express meaning. Even the sounds weproduce in speaking, and the orders in which they occur, aresystematically organized in ways that we are totally unaware of. Languages are symbolic. Sequences of sounds or letters do notinherently possess meaning. The meanings of symbols in a languagecome through the tacit agreement of a group of speakers. Forexample, there is no resemblance between the four-legged animal thateats hay and the spoken symbol [hors] or the written symbol horsewhich we use to represent it in English. English speakers agree thatthe hay-eating animal will be called a horse, Spanish speakers caballo,German Pferd, Chinese ma, and Turkish at. Languages are social. Each language reflects the social requirementsof the society that uses it, and there is no standard for judgingwhether one language is more effective for communication thananother, other than to estimate the success its users may have inachieving the social tasks that are demanded of them. Although thecapacity for first language acquisition is inherent in the neurologicalmakeup of every individual, no one can develop that potentialwithout interaction with others in the society he or she grows up in.We use language to communicate, to categorize and catalogue theobjects, events, and processes of human experience. We might welldefine language at least in part as “the expressive dimension ofculture.” It follows that people who function in more than onecultural context will communicate more effectively if they know morethan one language.Linguists traditionally divide a language into different levels fordescription and analysis, even though in actual use all levels must interact and function simultaneously. The human accomplishment of learning
The linguistics of Second Language Acquisitionlanguage(s) seems all the more remarkable when we consider even a simplified list of the areas of knowledge which every L1 or L2 learner mustacquire at these different levels: lexicon (vocabulary) word meaning pronunciation (and spelling for written languages) grammatical category (part of speech) possible occurrence in combination with other words and inidioms phonology (sound system) speech sounds that make a difference in meaning (phonemes) possible sequences of consonants and vowels (syllable structure) intonation patterns (stress, pitch, and duration), and perhaps tonein words rhythmic patterns (pauses and stops) morphology (word structure) parts of words that have meaning (morphemes) inflections that carry grammatical information (like number ortense) prefixes and suffixes that may be added to change the meaning ofwords or their grammatical category syntax (grammar) word order agreement between sentence elements (as number agreementbetween subject and verb) ways to form questions, to negate assertions, and to focus orstructure information within sentences discourse ways to connect sentences, and to organize information acrosssentence boundaries structures for telling stories, engaging in conversations, etc. scripts for interacting and for eventsAll of this knowledge about language is automatically available to children for their L1 and is somehow usually acquired with no consciouseffort. Completely comparable knowledge of L2 is seldom achieved, eventhough much time and effort may be expended on learning. Still, thewidespread occurrence in the world of high levels of multilingual competence attests to the potential power and effectiveness of mechanisms forSLA. Explaining what these mechanisms are has been a major objective inthe study of SLA from a variety of linguistic perspectives.Early approaches to SLAWe begin our survey of early approaches with Contrastive Analysis (CA),which predates the establishment in the 1960s of SLA as a field of systematic study. This is an important starting point because aspects of CA33
34INTRODUCING SECOND LANGUAGE ACQUISITIONprocedures are still incorporated in more recent approaches, and becauseCA introduced a continuing major theme of SLA research: the influenceof L1 on L2. The revolution in linguistic theory introduced by NoamChomsky (1957) redirected much of SLA study to an internal focus, whichis manifested in the other early (i.e. predating 1980) approaches includedin this section.Contrastive AnalysisContrastive Analysis (CA) is an approach to the study of SLA whichinvolves predicting and explaining learner problems based on acomparison of L1 and L2 to determine similarities and differences. It washeavily influenced by theories which were dominant in linguistics andpsychology within the USA through the 1940s and 1950s, Structuralismand Behaviorism. The goal of CA (as that of still earlier theories of L2learning) was primarily pedagogical in nature: to increase efficiency inL2 teaching and testing. Robert Lado states this clearly in hisintroduction to Linguistics Across Cultures (1957), a book which became aclassic guide to this approach:The plan of the book rests on the assumption that we can predict anddescribe the patterns that will cause difficulty in learning, and thosethat will not cause difficulty, by comparing systematically the languageand culture to be learned with the native language and culture of thestudent. In our view, the preparation of up-to-date pedagogical andexperimental materials must be based on this kind of comparison.(vii)Following notions in structuralist linguistics, the focus of CA is on thesurface forms of both L1 and L2 systems, and on describing and comparingRobert Lado (b. Tampa, Florida) 1915–1995LinguisticsRobert Lado’s pioneering work on contrastive analysis, LinguisticsAcross Cultures, was published in 1957. Lado was an exemplaryapplied linguist, seeking to discover the problems that foreignlanguage students would encounter in the learning process. Onthe faculty of Georgetown University from 1960–80, he was thefirst dean of the School of Languages and Linguistics there from1961 to 1973. Altogether, he wrote more than 100 articles and60 books on language and linguistics.Interesting note: Though born in the United States, Robert Lado was the son of Spanish immigrants and grewup in Spain. He returned to the United States as an adult to attend college, and studied with Charles Friesat the University of Michigan.
The linguistics of Second Language Acquisitionthe languages one level at a time – generally contrasting the phonology ofL1 and L2 first, then morphology, then syntax, with the lexicon receivingrelatively little attention, and discourse still less. A “bottom-up” priorityfor analysis (generally from smaller to larger units) is also expressed as apriority for language learning, of structures before meaning. CharlesFries, who was a leading figure in applying structural linguistics to L2teaching, makes this priority very clear: “In learning a new language, . . .the chief problem is not at first that of learning vocabulary items. It is,first, the mastery of the sound system. . . . It is, second, the mastery of thefeatures of arrangement that constitute the structure of the language”(Fries 1945:3).Following notions in behaviorist psychology, early proponents of CAassumed that language acquisition essentially involves habit formation in aprocess of Stimulus – Response – Reinforcement (S-R-R). Learners respondto the stimulus (linguistic input), and reinforcement strengthens (i.e.habituates) the response; they imitate and repeat the language that theyhear, and when they are reinforced for that response, learning occurs. Theimplication is that “practice makes perfect.”Another assumption of this theory is that there will be transfer inlearning: in the case of SLA, this means the transfer of elements acquired(or habituated) in L1 to the target L2. The transfer is called positive (orfacilitating) when the same structure is appropriate in both languages, asin the transfer of a Spanish plural morpheme -s on nouns to English (e.g.lenguajes to languages). The transfer is called negative (or interference)when the L1 structure is used inappropriately in the L2, as in the additional transfer of Spanish plural -s to a modifier in number agreementwith the noun: e.g. lenguajes modernas to Moderns Languages (a translationwhich was printed at the top of a letter that I received from SouthAmerica), or greens beans (for ‘green beans,’ which I saw posted as a vegetable option in a US cafeteria near the Mexican border).The process of CA involves describing L1 and L2 at each level, analyzingroughly comparable segments of the languages for elements which arelikely to cause problems for learners. This information provides a rationale for constructing language lessons that focus on structures which arepredicted to most need attention and practice, and for sequencing the L2structures in order of difficulty.To summarize Lado’s (1957) position: the easiest L2 structures (and presumably first acquired) are those which exist in L1 with the same form,meaning, and distribution and are thus available for positive transfer;any structure in L2 which has a form not occurring in L1 needs to belearned, but this is not likely to be very difficult if it has the same meaning and distribution as an “equivalent” in L1; among the most difficultare structures where there is partial overlap but not equivalence in form,meaning, and/or distribution, and these are most likely to cause interference. Lado gives examples in Spanish and English for some of the types ofcontrasts he describes, which I include in the accompanying box. I haveordered them from least to most probable difficulty for speakers of one ofthese languages learning the other.35
36INTRODUCING SECOND LANGUAGE ACQUISITIONTypes of InterferenceSame form and meaning, different distributionSpanish: la paloma blanca ‘the dove white’; las palomas blancas ‘the (pl)doves whites’English: the white dove; the white dovesThe form -s and the meaning “plural” are the same in bothlanguages, but the distribution of occurrence is different. Spanishattaches the -s to articles, modifiers, and nouns, but Englishattaches it only to nouns. This is the same contrast which wasillustrated in the earlier examples of Moderns Languages and greensbeans. (The difference in word order is a contrast in form at anotherlevel of analysis.)Same meaning, different formSpanish: iré ‘(I) will go’English: I will goThe meaning “future” is expressed by different grammaticalelements in the two languages. In Spanish it is conveyed by thefuture tense suffix -é added to the infinitive form of the verb ir ‘togo,’ while it is conveyed by the auxiliary verb will in English. (Thefirst person subject is another contrast in form, also conveyed by theSpanish suffix -é while the overt pronoun I is required in English.)Same meaning, different form and distributionSpanish: agua ‘water’English: waterThe English word water may occur as a noun in a glass of water, as averb in water the garden, and as a modifier noun in the compoundwater meter. The Spanish word agua may occur only as a noun unlessits form is changed: i.e. its distribution is more limited than that ofthe equivalent in English.Different form, partial overlap in meaningSpanish: pierna ‘leg of humans’; pata ‘leg of animals or furniture’;etapa ‘leg of a race or trip’English: legThe scope of meaning for the English word leg covers the scope ofthree different words in Spanish; no single equivalent term can beused in both languages.Similar form, different meaningSpanish: asistir ‘to attend’English: assistSimilar words like these are sometimes called “false friends,” andare predicted to cause great difficulty for speakers of one languagelearning the other. Since the words look and sound so much alike,L2 learners are likely to assume that they also share meaning.
The linguistics of Second Language AcquisitionWhile CA highlighted potential learning problems, behaviorist learning theory attributed variable success by L2 learners in part to thenature of the relationship between L1 and L2 (and thus to the potentialfor negative versus positive transfer), but most importantly to circumstances of learning which promote poor versus good habit formation.Fries related L2 accuracy in English to the priorities he set for learning:“one can achieve mere fluency in a foreign language too soon . . . Suchstudents, with fluency in vocabulary but with no basic control of eitherthe sound system or the structure, are almost without exception hopeless so far as ever achieving a satisfactory control of English is concerned” (1945:3).The CA approach of the 1940s to 1960s was not adequate for the studyof SLA in part because the behaviorist learning theory to which it is tiedcannot explain the logical problem of language learning that wasaddressed in Chapter 2 (how learners know more than they have heard orhave been taught). Another problem was that CA analyses were not alwaysvalidated by evidence from actual learner errors. Many of the L2 problemswhich CA predicts do not emerge; CA does not account for many learnererrors; and much predicted positive transfer does not materialize. A majorlimitation in application to teaching has been that instructional materials produced according to this approach are language-specific and unsuitable for use with speakers of different native languages. Still, CA stimulated the preparation of hundreds of comparative grammars (includingmany unpublished masters theses and doctoral dissertations at universities around the world), and its analytic procedures have been usefullyapplied to descriptive studies and to translation, including computertranslation. Further, there has been a more recent revival and revision ofCA procedures, including contrasts of languages at more abstract levels,and extension of the scope of analysis to domains of cross-cultural communication and rhetoric.Error AnalysisError Analysis (EA) is the first approach to the study of SLA whichincludes an internal focus on learners’ creative ability to construct language. It is based on the description and analysis of actual learner errorsin L2, rather than on idealized linguistic structures attributed to nativespeakers of L1 and L2 (as in CA). EA largely augmented or replaced CA bythe early 1970s because of the following developments: Predictions made by CA did not always materialize in actual learnererrors, as noted above. More importantly, perhaps, many real learnererrors could not be attributed to transfer from L1 to L2. As linguistic theory changed, the exclusive focus on surface-levelforms and patterns by structural linguists shifted to concern forunderlying rules. The behaviorist assumption that habit formation accounts forlanguage acquisition was seriously questioned by many linguists andpsychologists. There was a shift to Mentalism in explanations of37
38INTRODUCING SECOND LANGUAGE ACQUISITIONlanguage acquisition, with emphasis on the innate capacity of thelanguage learner rather than on external influences. The study of SLA was no longer motivated as strongly by teachingconcerns as it had been for CA. L2 learning came to be thought of asindependent of L2 teaching to some extent, and researchers beganto separate issues in SLA from pedagogical concerns. Learningprocesses became an important focus for study in their ownright.The shift in primary focus from surface forms and patterns to underlying rules, and the parallel shift in efforts to explain acquisition fromBehaviorism to Mentalism, are attributable in large part to the revolutionin linguistics which resulted from Noam Chomsky’s introduction ofTransformational-Generative (TG) Grammar (1957, 1965). Chomskyclaimed that languages have only a relatively small number of essentialrules which account for their basic sentence structures, plus a limited setof transformational rules which allow these basic sentences to be modified (by deletions, additions, substitutions, and changes in word order).The finite number of basic rules and transformations in any languageaccounts for an infinite number of possible grammatical utterances. (Notethat these “rules” merely describe what native speakers say, not whatsomeone thinks they should say.) “Knowing” a language was seen as a matter of knowing these rules rather than memorizing surface structures.Since speakers of a language can understand and produce millions of sentences they have never heard before, they cannot merely be imitatingwhat they have heard others say, but must be applying these underlyingrules to create novel constructions. Language thus came to be understoodas rule-governed behavior.Under this influence from linguistics and related developments in psychology, the study of first language acquisition adopted notions thatinner forces (interacting with the environment) drive learning, and thatthe child is an active and creative participant in the process rather than apassive recipient of language “stimuli.” Structures of child language production began to be described and analyzed as grammatical systems intheir own right rather than in terms of how they are “deficient” in comparison to adult norms (Miller 1964; McNeil 1966). Similar notions beganto be applied to the study of second language learning at about the sametime, in part to address the issue of how L1 and L2 acquisition processesmight be the same or different.The most influential publication launching Error Analysis as anapproach in SLA was S. Pit Corder’s (1967) article on “The significance oflearners’ errors,” which calls on applied linguists to focus on L2 learners’errors not as “bad habits” to be eradicated, but a
up to date with discussion of Universal Grammar (UG), and what constitutes the language faculty of the mind. Finally, to complete the chapter, we switch to approaches which involve an external focus on the functions of language that emerge in the course of second language acquisition: Sy
May 02, 2018 · D. Program Evaluation ͟The organization has provided a description of the framework for how each program will be evaluated. The framework should include all the elements below: ͟The evaluation methods are cost-effective for the organization ͟Quantitative and qualitative data is being collected (at Basics tier, data collection must have begun)
Silat is a combative art of self-defense and survival rooted from Matay archipelago. It was traced at thé early of Langkasuka Kingdom (2nd century CE) till thé reign of Melaka (Malaysia) Sultanate era (13th century). Silat has now evolved to become part of social culture and tradition with thé appearance of a fine physical and spiritual .
On an exceptional basis, Member States may request UNESCO to provide thé candidates with access to thé platform so they can complète thé form by themselves. Thèse requests must be addressed to esd rize unesco. or by 15 A ril 2021 UNESCO will provide thé nomineewith accessto thé platform via their émail address.
̶The leading indicator of employee engagement is based on the quality of the relationship between employee and supervisor Empower your managers! ̶Help them understand the impact on the organization ̶Share important changes, plan options, tasks, and deadlines ̶Provide key messages and talking points ̶Prepare them to answer employee questions
Dr. Sunita Bharatwal** Dr. Pawan Garga*** Abstract Customer satisfaction is derived from thè functionalities and values, a product or Service can provide. The current study aims to segregate thè dimensions of ordine Service quality and gather insights on its impact on web shopping. The trends of purchases have
Chính Văn.- Còn đức Thế tôn thì tuệ giác cực kỳ trong sạch 8: hiện hành bất nhị 9, đạt đến vô tướng 10, đứng vào chỗ đứng của các đức Thế tôn 11, thể hiện tính bình đẳng của các Ngài, đến chỗ không còn chướng ngại 12, giáo pháp không thể khuynh đảo, tâm thức không bị cản trở, cái được
Part One: Heir of Ash Chapter 1 Chapter 2 Chapter 3 Chapter 4 Chapter 5 Chapter 6 Chapter 7 Chapter 8 Chapter 9 Chapter 10 Chapter 11 Chapter 12 Chapter 13 Chapter 14 Chapter 15 Chapter 16 Chapter 17 Chapter 18 Chapter 19 Chapter 20 Chapter 21 Chapter 22 Chapter 23 Chapter 24 Chapter 25 Chapter 26 Chapter 27 Chapter 28 Chapter 29 Chapter 30 .
TO KILL A MOCKINGBIRD. Contents Dedication Epigraph Part One Chapter 1 Chapter 2 Chapter 3 Chapter 4 Chapter 5 Chapter 6 Chapter 7 Chapter 8 Chapter 9 Chapter 10 Chapter 11 Part Two Chapter 12 Chapter 13 Chapter 14 Chapter 15 Chapter 16 Chapter 17 Chapter 18. Chapter 19 Chapter 20 Chapter 21 Chapter 22 Chapter 23 Chapter 24 Chapter 25 Chapter 26
