Development of learner language

(Ch. 6)

Understanding SLALourdes Ortega (2009)

www.routledge.com/cw/ortegaPublished by Routledge © 2009 Mark Sawyer

Two approaches to the study of learner language:General Cognitive & Formal Linguistic (6.1)

Interlanguage (IL)(Selinker, 1972)

language system that learner constructs at each point in development

Formal approach Tenets: (specific) nativism, modularity Emphasis: competence (representation)

Cognitive approach Emphasis: development, performance

Interlanguage: More than the sum of target input & L1 (6.2)

IL representations…

1. different from L2 input

2. different from L1 representations

3. similar to children’s developing L1

Cognitivist explanations for the development of learner language (6.3)

Operating Principles (Slobin, 1973) e.g. pay attention to ends of words

Input processing theory (VanPatten, 2002) e.g. process content words first

Usage-based emergentist theories Grammar is inductive, experience-driven Input salience & frequency explain dev. Variability has crucial role Multiple interacting forces must be explained

Formula-based learning:The stuff of acquisition (6.4) Formulas

“How do you do dese?” Low-scope patterns

“How do you do dese in English?” Construction or schemata “How do you make the flower?” “How does this color is?” Frequency, distribution, context implicitly

encoded from input (Nick Ellis, 2008)

4 interlanguage processes (6.5)

Simplification e.g. one form/one meaning

Overgeneralization Esp. morphology, e.g. –ing, –ed

Restructuring e.g. soshitara, kamoshirenai

U-shaped behavior e.g. breken/break (intermediates worst)

Interlanguage processes at work: Ge’s DA (6.6)

Use of definite article (da) (Huebner, 1983) Initially, underuse was often accurate Later, pervasive overgeneralization (flooding) Finally, restructuring toward L2 target Good example of U-shaped behavior Also, variability within systematicity

Accuracy: Non-linear development Rate: uneven pace

Development as variability-in-systematicity: The case of Jorge’s negation (6.7)

Age 12 Colombian immigrant to Boston: Stages 1 & 2 fast (1 to 2 months each) Stages 3 & 4 slower (6 months)

At first restricted contexts, gradually spreading 1: No saw him 2: I don’t saw him 3: I will don’t see you tomorrow 4: I didn’t went to Costa Rica (Stauble,1978)

Interlanguage before Grammaticalization: The basic variety of naturalistic learners (6.8)

Basic variety (Purdue, 1982, & Klein) A few phrasal, semantic, pragmatic constructs No grammaticalization (morphology, subordination)

Communicative pressure needed to move beyond (only 66% of learners)

Discovered in 2.5-year ESF study of 40 European immigrants: 5 L1s, 5 L2s

Patterned attainment of morphological accuracy: The case of L2 morphemes (6.9)

“Morpheme studies”: early compelling evidence for IL developmental stages

Apply to many L1s,young/old, instructed/naturalistic, oral/writing,

Qualifications may not apply to real-time production does not imply linear progression to target order sometimes varies

More on the development of L2 morphology: Concept-driven emergence of tense & aspect (6.10)

3 Stage-wise strategies for time reference (1) pragmatic > (2) lexical > (3) morphological

Basic form/meaning pairings earlier: pres prog > simple past > pres perf > past perf

Morphology first used with matching verbs:

Aspect Hypothesis (Andersen & Shirai) e.g. “Durative” –ing with activities (walk)

Development of syntax: Markedness & the acquisition of L2 relativization (6.11)

Noun Phrase Accessibility Hierarchy (NPAH)

(Keenan & Comrie, 1977) 6 types of relative clauses (RCs):

Subject, DO, IO, PrepO, Gen, CompO

S most accessible, common, unmarked S first learned in L2 (not only English) NPAH most robust of non-UG principles

A last example of systematicity: Cumulative sequences of word order (6.12)

5 stages based on 2 strategies (COS,IFS) Emergence in use by L2 German immigrants:

Meisel, Clahsen, Pienemann’s ZISA Project Clahsen later pursued in L1 Pienemann pursued in L2 as Processibility

theory

Fossilization, or when L2 development comes to a stop (but does it?) (6.13)

e.g. Schumann’s Alberto, Lardiere’s Patty, Han’s Geng & Fong

Problems with concept

1. Very hard to conclusively demonstrate2. Hard to verify optimal learning conditions

3. No consensus on cause(s) 2 meanings: premature vs inevitable

What is the value of grammar instruction? The question of the interface (6.14)

No interface: Krashen, some UG modularists (e.g. Schwartz)

Strong interface: skill learning theorists, emergentists (e.g. N. Ellis, Robinson)

Weak interface: interactionists (e.g. Long)

Instruction works (Norris & Ortega, 2000)

Instruction, development, & learner readiness (6.15) Teachability requires learner readiness ()

Word order stages most inviolable () Relative clauses may benefit from

instruction skipping stages () Grammatical morphemes unconstrained

Advantage of grammar instruction: Accuracy & rate of learning (6.16)

Instructed learners consistently faster & more accurate than uninstructed ones

Syntax word order, relative clauses

Morphology –ed

The future of interlanguage? (6.17) Teleological view of IL as development

toward a NL target is problematic monolingual NS as yardstick of success

(Sridhar, Seidlhofer, Cook, Klein) metaphor of developmental ladder, rather

than dynamic self-organizing system (Larsen-Freeman)