Report- COMOLA: a computer system for the analysis of interlanguage data

1994 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
pp. 49-83 ◽  
Author(s):  
Margriet Jagtman ◽  
Theo Bongaerts
Keyword(s):  
Second Language ◽  
Computer System ◽  
L2 Acquisition ◽  
Computational System ◽  
Recent Contribution ◽  
Language Research ◽  
Two Systems

In a recent contribution to Second Language Research, Pienemann (1992) described a computational system for the analysis of interlanguage data, termed COALA. In this report we will introduce another computer system for the analysis of L2 acquisition data, which has been developed independently. This system we have named COMOLA. This report contains: (1) a description of the COMOLA system, followed by an illustration of the type and scope of analyses yielded by COMOLA; (2) a brief description of COALA; and (3) a comparison of COMOLA and COALA pointing out the major differences between the two systems.

Insights into the neural mechanisms of becoming bilingual: A brief synthesis of second language research with artificial linguistic systems

2019 ◽  
Vol 23 (1) ◽  
pp. 87-91 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kara Morgan-Short
Keyword(s):  
Second Language ◽  
Test Tube ◽  
Neural Mechanisms ◽  
System Research ◽  
L2 Acquisition ◽  
Learning Mechanisms ◽  
Grammar Learning ◽  
Linguistic System ◽  
Language Research ◽  
Neural Processes

AbstractArtificial linguistic systems can offer researchers test tube-like models of second language (L2) acquisition through which specific questions can be examined under tightly controlled conditions. This paper examines what research with artificial linguistic systems has revealed about the neural mechanisms involved in L2 grammar learning. It first considers the validity of meaningful and non-meaningful artificial linguistic systems. Then it contextualizes and synthesizes neural artificial linguistic system research related to questions about age of exposure to the L2, type of exposure, and online L2 learning mechanisms. Overall, using artificial linguistic systems seems to be an effective and productive way of developing knowledge about L2 neural processes and correlates. With further validation, artificial linguistic system paradigms may prove an important tool more generally in understanding how individuals learn new linguistic systems as they become bilingual.

Innovations in second language research methods

2001 ◽  
Vol 21 ◽  
pp. 221-232 ◽  
Author(s):  
Susan M. Gass
Keyword(s):  
Second Language ◽  
Second Language Acquisition ◽  
Research Methods ◽  
Syntactic Structure ◽  
L2 Acquisition ◽  
Stimulated Recall ◽  
Language Research ◽  
Acceptability Judgments ◽  
L1 Acquisition

Acceptance of the claims made by researchers in any field depends in large part on the appropriateness of the methods used to gather data. In this chapter I focus on two approaches to research in second language acquisition: (a) various types of acceptability judgments or probes aimed at assessing acquisition of syntactic structure; and (b) various types of stimulated recall designed to gather learners' accounts of their own thought processes. Both methods attempt to overcome a principal problem in psycholinguistics: the desire to describe a learner's knowledge about a language based on the incomplete evidence stemming from learner production. Refinements in acceptability judgments have come from some newer multiple-choice or truth-value story tasks that allow researchers to determine the level of learner knowledge about particular syntactic structures (in the examples here, reflexives). Stimulated recall offers some additional perspectives, but its usefulness can be greatly affected by the temporal proximity of the recall to the original task; the amount of support provided to prompt the recall; and the nature and amount of training given to both interviewer and interviewee. While these newer research methods can improve the accuracy and variety of data available to SLA investigators, research methods drawn from L1 acquisition or L1 research cannot necessarily be assumed to be equally valid when used to examine L2 acquisition.

Grammatical theory and L2 acquisition: a brief overview

1986 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-15 ◽  
Author(s):  
William Rutherford
Keyword(s):  
Second Language ◽  
Language Acquisition ◽  
Universal Grammar ◽  
First Language ◽  
First Language Acquisition ◽  
Parameter Setting ◽  
L2 Acquisition ◽  
Theoretical Approaches ◽  
Language Research ◽  
The Relationship

This paper reviews studies reported in the literature over the last few years having to do with grammatical acquisition and particular theoretical approaches aimed at explaining this aspect of second language research. Various attempts to involve the parameter-setting model of Universal Grammar are contrasted with other approaches invoking the Greenbergian tradition of research on universals. The issues discussed include, amongst other things, the need to explain fossilization and the nature of the relationship between second and first language acquisition.

Acquisition Theory and Experimental Design

1991 ◽  
Vol 13 (1) ◽  
pp. 73-76 ◽  
Author(s):  
Maria-Luise Beck ◽  
Lynn Eubank
Keyword(s):  
Second Language ◽  
Experimental Design ◽  
Error Correction ◽  
Negative Feedback ◽  
Experimental Results ◽  
Negative Evidence ◽  
L2 Acquisition ◽  
Recent Contribution ◽  
Garden Path ◽  
Comparison Model

In their recent contribution on the Garden Path Technique, Tomasello and Herron (1989) suggested that the experimental results they obtained on this means of providing negative feedback lend support to a “cognitive comparison model” of second language (L2) acquisition, and they further hypothesize that it may be useful in eliminating other L2 overgeneralizations. The results Tomasello and Herron (henceforth TH) present are clearly interesting, for they appear to show that negative evidence—here, a special type of error correction—may be crucial in L2 learning. As promising as the TH results may be, however, there is reason to believe that they also should be viewed with caution. In the following, we provide some of the reasons why caution should be taken.

Transfer and unlearning of topic prominence by Chinese learners of English

2021 ◽  
Vol 0 (0) ◽  
Author(s):  
Hui Chang ◽  
Lilong Xu
Keyword(s):  
Second Language ◽  
Universal Grammar ◽  
L2 Acquisition ◽  
L1 Transfer ◽  
Chinese Speakers ◽  
English Only ◽  
Cognitive States ◽  
Chinese Learners ◽  
Topic Constructions ◽  
Chinese Learners Of English

Abstract Chinese allows both gapped and gapless topic constructions without their usage being restricted to specific contexts, while English only allows gapped topic constructions which are used in certain contexts. In other words, Chinese uses ‘topic prominence’, whereas English does not. The contrast between English and Chinese topic constructions poses a learnability problem for Chinese learners of English. This paper uses an empirical study investigating first language (L1) transfer in the case of Chinese learners of English and the extent to which they are able to unlearn topic prominence as they progress in second language (L2) English. Results of an acceptability judgment test indicate that Chinese learners of English initially transfer Chinese topic prominence into their English, then gradually unlearn Chinese topic prominence as their English proficiency improves, and finally unlearn Chinese topic prominence successfully. The results support the Full Transfer Theory (Schwartz, Bonnie & Rex Sprouse. 1996. L2 cognitive states and the Full Transfer/Full Access model. Second Language Research 12. 40–72) and the Variational Learning Model (Yang, Charles. 2004. Universal Grammar, statistics or both? Trends in Cognitive Sciences 8. 451–456), but contradict the proposal that the topic prominence can never be transferred but may be unlearned from the beginning in Chinese speakers’ acquisition of English (Zheng, Chao. 2001. Nominal Constructions Beyond IP and Their Initial Restructuring in L2 Acquisition. Guangzhou: Guangdong University of Foreign Studies Ph.D. dissertation). In addition, the type of topic constructions that is used and whether or not a comma is added after the topic have an effect on learners’ transfer and unlearning of topic prominence. It is proposed that the specification of Agr(eement) and T(ense) as well as the presence of expletive subjects in English input can trigger the unlearning of topic prominence for Chinese learners of English.

Case morphology and word order in second language Turkish: Evidence from Greek learners

2011 ◽  
Vol 27 (2) ◽  
pp. 173-204 ◽  
Author(s):  
Despina Papadopoulou ◽  
Spyridoula Varlokosta ◽  
Vassilios Spyropoulos ◽  
Hasan Kaili ◽  
Sophia Prokou ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Second Language ◽  
Word Order ◽  
Second Language Learners ◽  
First Language ◽  
Matching Task ◽  
L2 Acquisition ◽  
Case Morphology ◽  
L2 Development ◽  
Order Constraints ◽  
On Line

The optional use of morphology attested in second language learners has been attributed either to a representational deficit or to a ‘surface’ problem with respect to the realization of inflectional affixes. In this article we contribute to this issue by providing empirical data from the early interlanguage of Greek learners of Turkish. Three experiments have been conducted, a cloze task, a sentence picture matching task and an on-line grammaticality judgement task, in order to investigate case morphology and its interaction with word order constraints. The findings of all three experiments point towards a variable use of case morphology, which is also observed in previous studies of Turkish as a second language (L2). Moreover, they show clearly that the learners face difficulties with non-canonical word orders as well as with the interaction of word order constraints and Case. On the other hand, the learners performed well on verbal inflections. On the basis of these findings, we argue that the developmental patterns in the early stages of L2 acquisition cannot be attributed to a global lack of functional categories but rather to more localized difficulties, which seem to be related to (a) whether the features in the L2 are grammaticalized in the first language and (b) the way these features are encoded in the morphosyntax of the first language. Moreover, we claim that processing factors and the specific properties of the morphological paradigms affect L2 development.

Introspection in Second Language Research

1989 ◽  
Vol 73 (1) ◽  
pp. 77
Author(s):  
Mary-Ann Reiss ◽  
Claus Faerch ◽  
Gabriele Kasper
Keyword(s):  
Second Language ◽  
Language Research

Pragmatic transfer

1992 ◽  
Vol 8 (3) ◽  
pp. 203-231 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gabriele Kasper
Keyword(s):  
Second Language ◽  
Native Speakers ◽  
Interlanguage Pragmatics ◽  
Structural Factors ◽  
Pragmatic Transfer ◽  
Language Research ◽  
Linguistic Action ◽  
Core Areas ◽  
Basic Distinction ◽  
Pragmatic Knowledge

Throughout the short life of interlanguage pragmatics as a subdiscipline of second language research, it has been a virtually uncontested assumption that non-native speakers' comprehension and production of linguistic action is considerably influenced by their L1 pragmatic knowledge. The literature strongly supports this hypothesis. However, whereas there has been a lively controversy about the role of transfer in the traditional core areas of second language research (syntax, morphology, semantics), there has been little theoretical and methodological debate about transfer in interlanguage pragmatics. As a contribution to such a debate, this article seeks to clarify the concept of pragmatic transfer, proposing as a basic distinction Leech/Thomas' dichotomy of sociopragmatics versus pragmalinguistics and presenting evidence for transfer at both levels. Evidence for purported pragmatic universals in speech act realization and for positive and negative pragmatic transfer is discussed. Further issues to be addressed include the conditions for pragmatic transfer (transferability), the interaction of transfer with non-structural factors (proficiency, length of residence, context of acquisition), and the effect of transfer on communicative outcomes. The article concludes by briefly considering some problems of research method in studies of pragmatic transfer.

SECOND LANGUAGE SYNTAX: A GENERATIVE INTRODUCTION. Roger Hawkins. Oxford: Blackwell, 2001. Pp. xviii + 386. $41.95 paper.

2002 ◽  
Vol 24 (3) ◽  
pp. 493-494
Author(s):  
Silvina Montrul
Keyword(s):  
Second Language ◽  
Universal Grammar ◽  
L2 Acquisition ◽  
Specific System ◽  
Modulated Structure ◽  
Present Evidence ◽  
Introductory Textbook ◽  
Syntactic Knowledge ◽  
Structure Building ◽  
L2 Development

This book is intended as an introduction both to the principles and parameters framework (Chomsky, 1981) and to the second language (L2) acquisition of syntactic representations. Hawkins's basic aim is to present evidence for the view that L2 learners progressively build subconscious mental grammars (i.e., a syntactic system) guided by Universal Grammar—an innate, language-specific system. However, this volume is not just an introductory textbook presenting and summarizing the work of other researchers in this particular field. Indeed, the book has another major aim: Within the context of the most current debates on the L2 acquisition of syntactic knowledge, Hawkins introduces his own theory of L2 development, which he terms Modulated Structure Building.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document