Natural or Artificial: Is the Route of L2 Development Teachable

James. P. Lantolf, Penn State University

Zhang Xian, Rice University

Outline of Presentation

Background Statement of Problem Theoretical Framework

Design Results Discussion

Second Language Acquisition

Cognitive SLA

Cognitive-interactionist: understand the interaction of learner-internal and leaner-external variables

Purpose: find universal patterns of L2 learning so that L2 can be explained as a general phenomenon (Ortega, 2009)

Piagetian developmental psychology

Progressivism a consequence of solution to Cartesian Dualism (mind & world are different substance and world is subordinate to mind)

Basic Tenet: to educate children effectively it is vital to attend to children’s nature, and particularly to their modes of learning and stages of development, and to accommodate educational practice to what we can discover about these.

Herbert Spencer--The daily activities of the classroom are subject to the same laws that shaped the stars above and the earth below

Change is from simple to complex

Roots of Cognitive SLA: Progressivism I

Spencer’s Argument In everyday life children learn effortlessly: educators

should observe this process and find ways to replicate it in “sensible teaching”

Education must conform to natural process of mental evolution Learning was a property of the mind, and the mind is a

biological organ on the model of the body: “the mind like the body has a predetermined course of evolution” and as it grows it needs food – aliment of the mind is knowledge

Roots of Cognitive SLA: Progressivism II

Dewey: replicate in school natural learning observed in children’s play in households, streets, and fields. Paradigm form of human learning evident in the way children effortlessly learn language and other knowledge of the world in informal settings Therefore—assume that learning in school must conform to this early effortless learning.

 

John Dewey Proponent of Progressivism

Jean Piaget: Proponent of Progressivism

Piaget Basic learning comprised of “what the child learns by himself, what no one can teach him and what he must discover alone” Researchers: Describe underlying psychological process of

cognitive development Stages determine what knowledge the developing

individual can understand Educational prescriptions and programs that cohere with

such theories are called “developmentally appropriate” Teachers: effective only if they understand the nature of

developmental processes and recognize that teaching must be “subordinate to spontaneous psychological development”

Model of Brain/Culture Relationship in General Psychology and SLA

Nature (Brain/Mind)

Culture

Thought

Ratner (2012). Macro-Cultural Psychology: A Political Philosophy of Mind. Oxford University Press

Culture Not new factor/variable to be correlated with psychology Not psychology as conventionally construed and then

add culture as conventionally construed Reconceptualize psychology as a cultural phenomenon, a

cultural specimen, a part of human civilization.

Vygotsky’s Cultural Psychology

Culture creates special forms of behavior It modifies the activity of mental functions It constructs new superstructures in the developing

system of human behavior

Social Origin of Cognition

Every higher mental function was external because it was social before it became an internal, strictly mental function, it was formerly a social relation of two people. The means of acting on oneself is initially a means of acting on others or a means of action of others on the individual.

Vygotsky: natural and cultural component to psychological development Separate natural and cultural was a mistake Fundamental nature of human development

shaped by culture in conjunction with biological endowment.

Vygotsky

Modeling Vygotsky’s Theory of Cultural Development

NatureBody-Brain

Society(Culture)

Human Psyche (higher functions)

Transforming Force (signification)

Thinking-Acting

Developmental Education

Education: grounded in explicit mediation is ‘artificial development’ of the individual Influences processes of development restructures all functions of behavior in a most essential

manner (Vygotsky 1997)

Obuchenie (teaching-learning) leads [not follows] development Key: Scientific (systematically organized)

concepts

Systemic Theoretical Instruction (STI) Concept-based Instruction (CBI)

systematically explaining the concept materializing the concept verbalizing the concept communicative activities internalization

Gal’perin’s STI

Systemic Theoretical Instruction (STI) materialize the concept

Schema for Complete Orienting Basis of Action (SCOBA )

Material Activity

verbalizing the concept Communicative Thinking

I-You

Dialogic ThinkingI-Me

Instruction: Gal’perin’s STI

CommunicativeActivities

Internalization

Processability Theory

Processability Theory  (PT, Pienemann, 1998) is a theory of second language development.

At any stage of development, L2 learners can produce and comprehend only those second language linguistic forms that the current state of the language processor  can handle (Pienemann, 2007, p.137).  

L2 learners follow a relatively rigid path when acquiring certain grammatical structures: some grammatical structures are not “learnable” or “processable” until the previous steps along the learning path have been acquired. (Pienemann, 1998)

PT: Universal Sequencing

Pienemann’s (1987) Avowel of Piaget

The approach we have taken in the Predictive Framework of SLA and in the Teachability Hypothesis was inspired by our admiration for Jean Piaget’s work on cognitive development. We adopted one concept in particular form Piaget’s word, namely the implicational nature of processing prerequisites for the operations possible at the different stages of acquisition (Piaget, 1950).

The testing ground

Piaget Vygotsky

Describe psychological process

Development Predetermined SequentialProgressive

Teaching is subordinate to development

Create psychological process

Development Not predetermined ComplexNon-linear

Teaching promotes [artificial] development

Le a rn e r s f o l l o w i n t e rn a l p ro c e s s i n g p ro c e d u re

G o v e rn e d b y p ro c e s s i n g c o n s t r a i n t s f ro m S i m p l e t o C o m p l ex

E x a m p l e : M o v e c o n s t i t u e n t s f ro m e n d t o b e g i n n i n g o f u t t e r a n c e s i m p l e r t h a n m o v i n g c o n s t i t u e n t s f ro m i n t e rn a l t o ex t e rn a l p o s i t i o n o r f ro m ex t e rn a l t o i n t e rn a l p o s i t i o n

Ad v e r b s i n E n g l i s h :

I b o u g h t a b o o k y e s t e rd a y > Ye s t e rd a y a b o u g h t a b o o k

H e l e f t t h e ro o m q u i e t l y > H e q u i e t l y l e f t t h e ro o m

L a n g u a g e Fe a t u re s S u b j e c t t o P ro c e s s i n g C o n s t r a i n t s

Q u e s t i o n s i n E n g l i s h

N e g a t i o n i n G e rm a n

To p i c a l i z a t i o n Wo rd O rd e r i n C h i n e s e

L a n g u a g e Fe a t u re s N O T S u b j e c t t o P ro c e s s i n g C o n s t r a i n t s

P l u r a l M a r k i n g i n E n g l i s h

C a s e M a r k i n g i n G e rm a n

Overview of Processability Theory

Processable Criterion

Three to five sentences with the target structure produced in spontaneous speech production task (Pienemann, 1998)

Teachability Hypothesis: Corollary to PT

1. Predetermined Stages Cannot be Skipped under Instruct ion

2. Eff ect ive Instruct ion at X + 1 X + 2 not eff ect ive

But see studies by Boni l la (2012) and Far ley & McCol lam (2004)

3. Instruct ion even at X + 1 does not guarantee progress through the process ing h ierarchy

Topicalization Hypothesis in Chinese

Stage 2 (SVO): S(X)(X)VO: TOP = SUBJ: TOPsubj V(O)

 e.g. Jim ate an apple.

TOP=SUBJ V OBJ

Stage 3 (Adv+ SVO): TOP = ADJ: TOPadj SV(O)

e.g. Yesterday Jim ate an apple.

TOP=ADV SUBJ V OBJ

Stage 4 (OSV): TOP = OBJ: TOPobj SV

e.g. An apple, Jim ate.

TOP=OBJ SUBJ V

(Gao, 2005; Wang, 2011; Zhang, 2001, 2007)

Structure T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7 T8 T9

4 Top=obj OSV --- --- --- --- --- + + + +

3 top=adj. adj. SVO + + + + + + + +

2 top=subj. SVO + + + + + + + + +

Y. Zhang (2007)

Purpose of X. Zhang (2014) study

Evaluate the claim of the Teachability Hypothesis

Explore the relationship between development and instruction

Evaluate two developmental theories: Piagetian theory & Vygotskian theory

Research Question & Method

Can instruction alter the developmental trajectory pre-defined by Processability Theory?

Method: Teach Stage 4 sentence structure to Stage 2 learners using principles of Developmental Education as realized in STI

Participants

Six beginning L2 Chinese learners with English as L1

Assessment Instruments

Grammaticality judgment task (Time Constrained)

Elicited imitation task Q&A Cartoon description

Letter Number Sequencing Working Memory Flanker Task Cognitive Control

Spontaneous Speech Production (SSP)

Instructional Procedure

Pretest Q: SVO only ？ {Stage 1} Day 1

Instruction 1 [OSV] {Stage 4} Day 2

Post-test 1 Q: OSV without ADJ+SVO? Day 9

Instruction 2 [Adj.+SVO, OSV] {Stages 3&4} Day 9

Post-test 2 Q: OSV and ADJ+SVO? Day 16

Instruction 3 [Adj.+SVO, OSV] Day 16

Delayed post-test Q: OSV and ADJ+SVO? Day 37

He ate rice

他 吃了 饭

In Chinese, if we want to emphasize what has been eaten, you can also do this:

He ate rice

他 在家 饭

at 2

2点

at home

吃了

In Chinese, we can put almost everything (except the verb) at the beginning of a sentence.

We can put time at topWe can put place at top

29. Materialization of Grammar in Support of WM

TopSubject adv(time) adv(place) verb object

Manipulate Silent Way Rods

Communicative activities

Making up sentences Gap filling Q&A Translation Cartoon Description Free talk

T1: Pretest (Day 1)

T2: Post test 1 (Day 9)

T3: Post test 2 (Day 16)

T4: Delayed post-test (Day 37 )

Results

Grammar Structure Pre-test (T1)

post-test 1 (T2)

post-test 2 (T3)

delayed post-test (T4)

Elicitedimitation

4 Top=obj OSV 0 4 6 11

3 top=adj. ADJ +SVO 0 0 9 7

2 top=subj. SVO 40 37 50 42

       Q&A 4 Top=obj OSV 0 6 7 5

3 top=adj. ADJ +SVO 0 0 4 2

2 top=subj. SVO 21 17 11 19

       Cartoon Descrip.

4 Top=obj OSV 0 15 5 4

3 top=adj. ADJ +SVO 0 0 4 3

2 top=subj. SVO 11 13 17 6

       SUM 4 Top=obj OSV 0 25 18 20

3 top=adj. ADJ +SVO 0 0 17 122 top=subj. SVO 72 67 78 67

Topic Hypoth

StructurePre-test (T1)

post-test 1 (T2)

post-test 2 (T3)

delayed post-test (T4)

4 Top=obj OSV --- + + +3 top=adj.

ADJ SVO --- --- + +

2 top=subj. SVO + + + +

Structure T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7 T8 T9

4 Top=obj OSV --- --- --- --- --- + + + +

3 top=adj. ADJ+ SO + + + + + + + +

2 top=subj. SVO + + + + + + + + +

Our results

Previous studies

Results

Participants were able to process and produce Stage 4 topicalization without Stage 3 topicalization

The Teachability Hypothesis

Discussion

Is L2 development universal and predetermined? No.

What is the role of teaching? Properly organized Instruction shapes L2 development

in a fundamental way.

While many studies support the prediction of PT/TH, why does this study challenge the prediction of TH ?

Mediation

The appropriate type of mediation that satisfies learners’ need (WM, cognitive control).

High quality instruction can provide appropriate mediational tools

Practice

Declarative/Procedural Memory

Paradis (2009) Procedural Memory begins to decline at approximately age 7

Declarative Memory strengthens as we age (up to about middle age)

PM is responsible for L1 grammar acquisition

DM is responsible for L1 lexical acquisition

Disagreement between Paradis and Ullman

Collocational Knowledge of Lexis

No neural connection between PM and DM

L2 classroom learning governed by DM Accelerated Access

More research needed on this hypothesis

References

Lantolf, J. P. & Poehner, M. E. (2014). Sociocultural theory and the pedagogical imperative in L2 Education: Vygotskian Praxis and the Research/Practice Divide. New York: Routledge.

Zhang, X. & J. P. Lantolf (forthcoming). Natural or artificial: Is the route of second language development teachable? Language Learning.

The End

Thank you Comments are welcome