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).

Parameters or cues?

2004 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
pp. 35-36 ◽  
Author(s):  
BRIAN MACWHINNEY
Keyword(s):  
Second Language ◽  
Second Language Acquisition ◽  
Language Acquisition ◽  
Hebbian Learning ◽  
Universal Grammar ◽  
Back Propagation ◽  
Parameter Setting ◽  
Functional Categories ◽  
The Core ◽  
Over Time

Truscott and Sharwood Smith (henceforth T&SS) attempt to show how second language acquisition can occur without any learning. In their APT model, change depends only on the tuning of innate principles through the normal course of processing of L2. There are some features of their model that I find attractive. Specifically, their acceptance of the concepts of competition and activation strength brings them in line with standard processing accounts like the Competition Model (Bates and MacWhinney, 1982; MacWhinney, 1987, in press). At the same time, their reliance on parameters as the core constructs guiding learning leaves this model squarely within the framework of Chomsky's theory of Principles and Parameters (P&P). As such, it stipulates that the specific functional categories of Universal Grammar serve as the fundamental guide to both first and second language acquisition. Like other accounts in the P&P framework, this model attempts to view second language acquisition as involving no real learning beyond the deductive process of parameter-setting based on the detection of certain triggers. The specific innovation of the APT model is that changes in activation strength during processing function as the trigger to the setting of parameters. Unlike other P&P models, APT does not set parameters in an absolute fashion, allowing their activation weight to change by the processing of new input over time. The use of the concept of activation in APT is far more restricted than its use in connectionist models that allow for Hebbian learning, self-organizing features maps, or back-propagation.

Universal Grammar in the classroom: the effects of formal instruction on second language acquisition

1991 ◽  
Vol 7 (2) ◽  
pp. 162-180 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sascha W. Felix ◽  
Wilfried Weigl
Keyword(s):  
High School ◽  
Second Language ◽  
High School Students ◽  
Second Language Acquisition ◽  
Language Acquisition ◽  
Universal Grammar ◽  
Learning Situation ◽  
School Students ◽  
Formal Instruction ◽  
L2 Learners

One of the dominating issues in recent second language acquisition research has been the question of whether or not L2 learners have access to principles of Universal Grammar. It seems that currently there is fairly strong evidence both for and against UG-access by L2 learners. Consequently, the question arises what kinds of factors may potentially further or block UG-access and whether such factors can be related to certain properties of the learning environment. In this paper we wish to approach this question by looking at a somewhat extreme learning situation, namely the acquisition (or maybe non-acquisition) of English as a second language by 77 German high school students who learned and were exposed to English exclusively during classroom hours. These students were tested for their ability to correctly judge grammaticality contrasts in English that are standardly attributed to UG principles. The results suggest that - even under a most liberal interpretation - these students did not show any evidence of having UG-access. Rather, they utilized a number of strategies that (a) tied them very tightly to properties of German and (b) prevented them from making any generalizations that went beyond what had been explicitly taught in the classroom.

The value of clitics in non-native Spanish

1985 ◽  
Vol 1 (2) ◽  
pp. 151-168 ◽  
Author(s):  
Juana M. Liceras
Keyword(s):  
Second Language ◽  
Second Language Acquisition ◽  
Language Acquisition ◽  
Linguistic Theory ◽  
English Speakers ◽  
Parameter Setting ◽  
Conflicting Evidence ◽  
L2 Learners ◽  
French And English

One of the tasks of second language acquisition research is to determine the ‘linguistic’ nature of interlanguage systems. To achieve this goal it is mandatory to formulate the properties of learners' grammars in terms of the theoretical constructs proposed by linguistic theory. I have proposed elsewhere (Liceras, 1985) that, permeability, one of those properties, is related to parameter setting. In this paper, it is hypothesized that the location of a given process in the different components of the grammar may also be relevant in the determination of permeability. In the light of conflicting evidence provided by the Spanish interlanguage of French and English speakers with respect to the value of clitics in the non-native grammar, it is suggested that, due to the nature of ‘intake’, L2 learners of Spanish may locate clitics in the lexicon (as affix-like elements) or postlexically (as words in the syntax) rather than giving them a unidimensional value. I have also suggested that non-native clitics may not share all the properties that are assigned to Modern Spanish clitic pronouns.

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.

The state of emergentism in second language acquisition

2003 ◽  
Vol 19 (2) ◽  
pp. 95-128 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kevin R. Gregg
Keyword(s):  
Second Language ◽  
Second Language Acquisition ◽  
Language Acquisition ◽  
Universal Grammar ◽  
A Priori ◽  
The State ◽  
Learning Mechanisms ◽  
Language Competence ◽  
Domain Specific ◽  
The Mind

‘Emergentism’ is the name that has recently been given to a general approach to cognition that stresses the interaction between organism and environment and that denies the existence of pre-determined, domain-specific faculties or capacities. Emergentism thus offers itself as an alternative to modular, ‘special nativist’ theories of the mind, such as theories of Universal Grammar (UG). In language acquisition, emergentists claim that simple learning mechanisms, of the kind attested elsewhere in cognition, are sufficient to bring about the emergence of complex language representations. In this article, I consider, and reject, several a priori arguments often raised against ‘special nativism’. I then look at some of the arguments and evidence for an emergentist account of second language acquisition (SLA), and show that emergentists have so far failed to take into account, let alone defeat, standard Poverty of the Stimulus arguments for ‘special nativism’, and have equally failed to show how language competence could ‘emerge’.

Child Second Language Acquisition of Syntax

1995 ◽  
Vol 17 (3) ◽  
pp. 301-329 ◽  
Author(s):  
Usha Lakshmanan
Keyword(s):  
Second Language ◽  
Second Language Acquisition ◽  
Language Acquisition ◽  
Universal Grammar ◽  
Linguistic Theory ◽  
Direct Access ◽  
L2 Acquisition ◽  
Syntactic Theory ◽  
L2 Learners

Recent advances in linguistic theory within the principles and parameters framework have exerted considerable influence on the field of second language acquisition. SLA researchers working within this framework of syntactic theory have investigated the extent to which developing second language grammars are constrained by principles of Universal Grammar (UG). Much of the UG-based SLA research in the 1980s focused on adult L2 acquisition, but the role of UG principles in child L2 acquisition remained largely unexplored. More recently, however, this state of affairs has begun to change as SLA researchers are becoming more and more interested in child second language syntactic development. In this paper, I review recent and current developments in UG-based child SLA research, and I argue that child SLA has a valuable role to play in enabling us to arrive at a better understanding of the role of biological factors in language acquisition and in strengthening the links between SLA and linguistic theory. Specifically, I discuss the findings of child SLA studies with respect to the following issues: the role of UG parameters in child SLA, the status of functional categories and their projections in child SLA, and the nature of the evidence available to and used by child L2 learners. The overall picture emerging from these studies suggests that child L2 developing grammars are indeed constrained by Universal Grammar. While it is not fully clear at the present time whether the child L2 learners& knowledge is a result of direct access to UG or indirect access to UG (i.e., through the mediation of the L1), the evidence indicates that L1 transfer (at least in certain syntactic domains) cannot be entirely ruled out.

scholarly journals Bilingual language acquisition by Korean schoolchildren in New York City

1999 ◽  
Vol 2 (2) ◽  
pp. 147-167 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sarah J. Shin ◽  
Lesley Milroy
Keyword(s):  
New York ◽  
Second Language ◽  
Second Language Acquisition ◽  
Language Acquisition ◽  
First Language ◽  
L2 Learners ◽  
Korean And English ◽  
Plural Marking ◽  
American Children ◽  
L1 And L2

This paper examines the bilingual language development of young Korean–American children with respect to their acquisition of English grammatical morphemes and the different plural marking systems of Korean and English. We address two specific issues: (1) “do L1 and L2 learners acquire the grammatical features of a given language in the same sequence?” and (2) “do L2 learners of different L1 backgrounds learn the grammatical features of a given second language in the same sequence?” Comparison of our results with those of other morpheme acquisition studies suggests that L1 and L2 learners of English do not acquire English grammatical features in the same sequence. Furthermore, there is evidence that first language influences the course of second language acquisition. Results of an experimental study of plural marking suggest that the bilingual children in most, but not all, respects follow similar, but delayed patterns of first language acquisition of Korean and successive acquisition of English.

Intake: On Models and Methods for Discovering Learners' Processing of Input

1985 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-14 ◽  
Author(s):  
Craig Chaudron
Keyword(s):  
Second Language ◽  
Second Language Acquisition ◽  
Language Acquisition ◽  
Language Processing ◽  
Theoretical Models ◽  
Experimental Methods ◽  
Target Language ◽  
Acquisition Process ◽  
Intake Process ◽  
L1 And L2

Models of the second language acquisition process have not specifically elaborated on the nature of the learner's perception and processing of target language input, a process known as intake. They have typically failed to specify the mechanisms or variables involved in the intake process or to distinguish between the stages of processing input from perception, to comprehension, to assimilation into an interlanguage grammar. Research and theoretical models from L1 psycholinguistic literature have been neglected. Recent L1 and L2 research on language processing are compared, and experimental methods for eliciting data to confirm them are discussed.

Taal(on)Bewustzijn en Tweede-Taalverwerving

2002 ◽  
Vol 68 ◽  
pp. 27-37
Author(s):  
Ineke van de Craats
Keyword(s):  
Second Language ◽  
Second Language Acquisition ◽  
Language Acquisition ◽  
Mother Tongue ◽  
Direct Access ◽  
Language Awareness ◽  
Input Enhancement ◽  
Formal Instruction ◽  
L2 Learners ◽  
L1 And L2

In this paper, the question is raised as to what extent language awareness can contribute to second-language acquisition. It is argued here that adults (without skills in any other language than their mother tongue) acquiring a second language undergo a process of increasing language awareness when they learn a second language without any formal instruction. Confronted with an unknown language the code of which they have to crack without any help, these learners seem to become aware of the features of their own language before they focus on the structure of the new language. There is no direct access to this process of language awareness, but I believe that double constructions and self-corrections produced by these learners provide evidence that they become aware of differences between L1 and L2. Finally, it is suggested that noticing and input enhancement, even some explicit contrastive information on L1-L2 differences (which spontaneous learners try out to find for themselves) might benefit L2 learners who are unaware of the fact that they still use an L1 grammatical system.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document