Between the input and the acquisition lies the shadow

2004 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
pp. 29-31
Author(s):  
MICHAEL HARRINGTON
Keyword(s):  
Language Acquisition ◽  
Language Processing ◽  
L2 Acquisition ◽  
Learning Mechanisms ◽  
Processing Theory ◽  
Theory Of Language ◽  
L1 And L2

Acquisition by Processing Theory (APT) is a unified account of language processing and learning that encompasses both L1 and L2 acquisition. Bold in aim and broad in scope, the proposal offers parsimony and comprehensiveness, both highly desirable in a theory of language acquisition. However, the sweep of the proposal is accompanied by an economy of description that makes it difficult to evaluate the validity of key learning claims, or even how literally they are to be interpreted. Two in particular deserve comment; the first concerns the learning mechanisms responsible for adding new L2 grammatical information, and the second the theoretical and empirical status of the activation concept used in the model.

Nature, Nurture, and Age in Language Acquisition

1994 ◽  
Vol 16 (3) ◽  
pp. 325-345 ◽  
Author(s):  
Henning Wode
Keyword(s):  
Second Language Acquisition ◽  
Language Acquisition ◽  
Language Processing ◽  
Universal Theory ◽  
L2 Acquisition ◽  
External Stimulation ◽  
Functional Potential ◽  
Ambient Language ◽  
Biological Substrate ◽  
Theory Of Language

The purpose of this paper is twofold: first, to draw attention to the research on speech perception and, second, to use the results for a reassessment of the contribution of innate capacities versus external stimulation in conjunction with age in first and second language acquisition. The theoretical framework is the universal theory of language acquisition. The focus is on the functional potential of the biological substrate rather than its anatomy.Neonates are innately capable of two major modes of auditory perception, namely, categorical and continuous perception. The interaction of these two modes allows infants to develop the perceptual categories of their ambient language(s). The continuous mode functions as a monitoring device in shaping the categories of the target(s). Various kinds of evidence are reviewed that suggest that these original sensory abilities remain unchanged throughout an individual's lifespan, but they become difficult to access during later stages of life, such as in adult L2 acquisition, because of the way perceptual-phonological information is stored in memory and/or activated in language processing. There are no biologically based restrictions as to the number of languages that can be learned, or the age ranges during which this can happen.

scholarly journals Comparing and explaining the trajectories of first and second language acquisition: in search of the right mix of psychological and linguistic factors

1998 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 29-30 ◽  
Author(s):  
GERARD KEMPEN
Keyword(s):  
Second Language ◽  
Second Language Acquisition ◽  
Language Acquisition ◽  
Language Processing ◽  
Universal Grammar ◽  
Emotional Reactions ◽  
Parameter Setting ◽  
Learning Mechanisms ◽  
L2 Learners ◽  
L1 And L2

When you compare the behavior of two different age groups which are trying to master the same sensori-motor or cognitive skill, you are likely to discover varying learning routes: different stages, different intervals between stages, or even different orderings of stages. Such heterogeneous learning trajectories may be caused by at least six different types of factors:(1) Initial state: the kinds and levels of skills the learners have available at the onset of the learning episode.(2) Learning mechanisms: rule-based, inductive, connectionist, parameter setting, and so on.(3) Input and feedback characteristics: learning stimuli, information about success and failure.(4) Information processing mechanisms: capacity limitations, attentional biases, response preferences.(5) Energetic variables: motivation, emotional reactions.(6) Final state: the fine-structure of kinds and levels of subskills at the end of the learning episode.This applies to language acquisition as well. First and second language learners probably differ on all six factors. Nevertheless, the debate between advocates and opponents of the Fundamental Difference Hypothesis concerning L1 and L2 acquisition have looked almost exclusively at the first two factors. Those who believe that L1 learners have access to Universal Grammar whereas L2 learners rely on language processing strategies, postulate different learning mechanisms (UG parameter setting in L1, more general inductive strategies in L2 learning). Pienemann opposes this view and, based on his Processability Theory, argues that L1 and L2 learners start out from different initial states: they come to the grammar learning task with different structural hypotheses (SOV versus SVO as basic word order of German).

scholarly journals A meta-analysis of task-based differences in bilingual L1 and L2 language networks

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lindy B Comstock ◽  
Bruce Oliver
Keyword(s):  
Language Proficiency ◽  
Language Processing ◽  
Functional Organization ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
L2 Acquisition ◽  
Linguistic Processing ◽  
Proficiency Level ◽  
Meta Analyses ◽  
L1 And L2 ◽  
Design Factors

The functional organization of first (L1) and second (L2) language processing in bilinguals remains a topic of great interest to the neurolinguistics community. Functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) studies report meaningful differences in the location and extent of hemodynamic changes between tasks performed in the L1 and L2, yet there is no consensus on whether these networks can be considered truly distinct. In part, this may be due to the multiplicity of task designs implemented in such studies, which complicates the interpretation of their findings. This paper compares the results of previous bilingual meta-analyses to a new ALE meta-analysis that categorizes neuroimaging studies by task design. Factors such as the age of L2 acquisition (AoA) and the L2 language proficiency level of participants are also considered. The findings support previous accounts of the effect of participant characteristics on linguistic processing, while at the same time revealing dissociable differences in fMRI activation for L1 and L2 networks within and across tasks that appear independent of these external factors.

Developmental dynamics in L1 and L2 acquisition: Processability Theory and generative entrenchment

1998 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-20 ◽  
Author(s):  
MANFRED PIENEMANN
Keyword(s):  
Second Language ◽  
Second Language Acquisition ◽  
Language Processing ◽  
Universal Grammar ◽  
Mathematical Concept ◽  
Structural Features ◽  
L2 Acquisition ◽  
Generative Entrenchment ◽  
Processability Theory ◽  
L1 And L2

This paper has two major objectives: (1) to summarise Processability Theory, a processing-oriented approach to explaining language development and (2) to utilise this theory in the comparison of development in LI and L2 acquisition. Proponents of the Fundamental Difference Hypothesis (between L1 and L2) assume that L1 development can be explained with reference to Universal Grammar (UG) which, in their view, is inaccessible to L2 learners. Instead, they claim that a second language develops on the basis of language processing strategies.I will show that the fundamentally different developmental paths inherent in first and second language acquisition can both be explained on the basis of the same language processing mechanics (as specified in Processability Theory). I will demonstrate that the developmental differences between L1 and L2 are caused by the qualitatively different early structural hypotheses which propagate through the acquisition process. The concept of “propagation of structural features” will be viewed as “generative entrenchment,” a logical-mathematical concept, which has proved to be highly productive in examining other kinds of developmental processes.

scholarly journals PREDICTION AND ERROR-BASED LEARNING IN L2 PROCESSING AND ACQUISITION

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-26
Author(s):  
Giulia Bovolenta ◽  
Emma Marsden
Keyword(s):  
Language Acquisition ◽  
Computational Modeling ◽  
Language Learning ◽  
Empirical Evidence ◽  
Language Processing ◽  
Prediction Error ◽  
Predictive Processing ◽  
L2 Processing ◽  
L1 And L2

Abstract There is currently much interest in the role of prediction in language processing, both in L1 and L2. For language acquisition researchers, this has prompted debate on the role that predictive processing may play in both L1 and L2 language learning, if any. In this conceptual review, we explore the role of prediction and prediction error as a potential learning aid. We examine different proposed prediction mechanisms and the empirical evidence for them, alongside the factors constraining prediction for both L1 and L2 speakers. We then review the evidence on the role of prediction in learning languages. We report computational modeling that underpins a number of proposals on the role of prediction in L1 and L2 learning, then lay out the empirical evidence supporting the predictions made by modeling, from research into priming and adaptation. Finally, we point out the limitations of these mechanisms in both L1 and L2 speakers.

First- and Second-Language Acquisition and CILC

2020 ◽  
pp. 214-240
Author(s):  
Eva Duran Eppler ◽  
Gabriel Ozón
Keyword(s):  
Second Language ◽  
Second Language Acquisition ◽  
Language Acquisition ◽  
Language Contact ◽  
Language Change ◽  
L2 Acquisition ◽  
Language Variation And Change ◽  
Language Data ◽  
L1 And L2

This chapter explores the contested role of L1 and L2 acquisition in contact-induced linguistic change (CILC). We first identify three factors underlying these controversies (field of research; theoretical approach; and methodological limitations/advances), before discussing two elements language change and language acquisition have in common (i.e., isolated individuals cannot accomplish either, and both have to be studied through natural language data, with its attendant high degree of variation). We go on to define key terms and concepts for the role of L1 and L2 acquisition in contact-induced language change, including first and second language acquisition (L1A and L2A), bilingual first language acquisition, language variation and change, language contact and contact-induced language change. In the main section we discuss the role of L1A and L2A in CILC, and examine different language-acquisition scenarios, in particular their potential for leading to CILC. We use these different language-acquisition types as testing grounds for the motivations behind (i.e., causes for, and triggers of) language change, and arrive at tentative conclusions about which of these language-acquisition scenarios is more likely to play a role in CILC, and why.

scholarly journals REFLECTIONS ON FREQUENCY EFFECTS IN LANGUAGE PROCESSING

2002 ◽  
Vol 24 (2) ◽  
pp. 297-339 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nick C. Ellis
Keyword(s):  
Language Acquisition ◽  
Language Processing ◽  
Fundamental Difference ◽  
Theory Testing ◽  
Communicative Interaction ◽  
Learning Mechanisms ◽  
Frequency Effects ◽  
Developmental Readiness ◽  
History Of ◽  
Blind Faith

This response addresses the following points raised in the commentaries: (a) complementary learning mechanisms, the distinction between explicit and implicit memory, and the neuroscience of “noticing”; (b) what must and what need not be noticed for learning; (c) when frequency fails to drive learning, which addresses factors such as failing to notice cues, perseveration, transfer from L1, developmental readiness, thinking too hard, pedagogical input, and practicing; (d) attention and form-focused instruction; (e) conscious and unconscious knowledge of frequency; (f) sequences of acquisition—from formula, through low-scope pattern, to construction; (g) the Fundamental Difference hypothesis; (h) the blind faith of categorical grammar; (i) Labovian variationist perspectives; (j) parsimony and theory testing; (k) universals and predispositions; and (l) wanna-contractions. It concludes by emphasizing that language acquisition is a process of dynamic emergence and that learners' language is a product of their history of usage in communicative interaction.

scholarly journals A cross-language study of the speech sounds in Yorùbá and Malay: Implications for Second Language Acquisition

2013 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Boluwaji Oshodi
Keyword(s):  
Second Language Acquisition ◽  
Language Acquisition ◽  
Native Speakers ◽  
L2 Acquisition ◽  
Sound System ◽  
Austronesian Language ◽  
Correct Pronunciation ◽  
Cross Language ◽  
L1 And L2 ◽  
Source Of Error

Acquiring a language begins with the knowledge of its sounds system which falls under the branch of linguistics known as phonetics. The knowledge of the sound system becomes very important to prospective learners particularly L2 learners whose L1 exhibits different sounds and features from the target L2 because this knowledge is vital in order to internalise the correct pronunciation of words. This study examined and contrasted the sound systems of Yorùbá a Niger-Congo language spoken in Nigeria to that of Malay (Peninsular variety), an Austronesian language spoken in Malaysia with emphasis on the areas of differences. The data for this study were collected from ten participants; five native female Malay speakers who are married to Yorùbá native speakers but live in Malaysia and five Yorùbá native speakers who reside in Nigeria. The findings revealed that speakers from both sides have difficulties with sounds and features in the L2 which are not attested in their L1 and they tended to substitute them for similar ones in their L1 through transfer. This confirms the fact that asymmetry between the sound systems of L1 and L2 is a major source of error in L2 acquisition.

First language acquisition... second language acquisition: ‘What’s Hecuba to him or he to Hecuba?’

2001 ◽  
Vol 17 (4) ◽  
pp. 329-344
Author(s):  
Susan Foster-Cohen
Keyword(s):  
Second Language ◽  
Second Language Acquisition ◽  
Language Acquisition ◽  
Research Question ◽  
First Language ◽  
Language Learner ◽  
First Language Acquisition ◽  
L2 Acquisition ◽  
L1 Acquisition ◽  
L1 And L2

Second language (L2) research appeals to first language acquisition research frequently and standardly. It is important, however, to take stock from time to time of the uses that second language acquisition (SLA) makes of its sister field. Whether we use first language (L1) research to generate or bolster the importance of a particular research question, to argue for a fundamental similarity or a fundamental difference between the two sorts of acquisition, or to offer guidance in the formulation of research paradigms, it is important that we do so with our critical eyes open.This article examines the possible and specific relationships between L1 acquisition and SLA, with the aim of showing that a number of assumptions warrant closer inspection. It begins by examining the expressions ‘first language acquisition’ and ‘second language acquisition’, suggesting that the syntactic and lexical parallelism between the two masks important issues internal to the fields involved. It then explores problems in distinguishing L1 from L2 acquisition from three different perspectives: individual language learner histories, the data, and the mechanisms proposed to account for the two types of acquisition. Finally, it takes a brief look at the sociology of L1 and L2 studies, and suggests that second language study has yet to assume fully its rightful place in the academy.

A focus on processing

1998 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 36-38 ◽  
Author(s):  
MANFRED PIENEMANN
Keyword(s):  
Language Processing ◽  
Developmental Trajectories ◽  
L2 Acquisition ◽  
Diverse Range ◽  
Developmental Dynamics ◽  
L1 And L2 ◽  
Processing Factors

Given that my paper touched upon many aspects of L1 an L2 acquisition, it is not surprising that the commentaries have raised a diverse range of issues. Nevertheless, one should not lose sight of the fact that the paper has a tightly defined focus, namely to delineate the influence of language processing factors and developmental dynamics on developmental trajectories in L1 and L2 acquisition, and this is done in a very explicit manner. As Carroll rightly puts it in her commentary, this “[e]xplicitness allows us to formulate questions which could otherwise not be asked.”

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document