Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Psycholinguistics
D. Anderson
Introduction
Page 2
Cognitive differences
Adults have already learned a first language.
Adults have better-developed analytic abilities than children.
Adults have metalinguistic knowledge that children lack.
Affective differences
Adults are motivated to learn in a way that does not apply in the
case of children acquiring an L1.
Biological differences
Two versions of the critical period hypothesis are cited in the L2
literature:
o After a critical period, which ends at approximately 12 years of
age, we lose the biological attributes that allow a child to
effortlessly learn a first language.
o Only L1 acquisition is subject to a critical period; ones knowledge
of a first language serves as a sufficient biological basis for the
learning of subsequent languages.
D. Anderson
Page 3
Further comparisons:
L1 acquisition
L2 learning
Proceeds rapidly
Effortful
No negative evidence
Fozzilization of errors is
commonplace, as are errors involving
a transfer of features from the L1,
and the outcome of learning is not
the same across individuals.
3.
Analyzing L2 data
D. Anderson
Critical period
Ultimate attainment
Availability of principles of UG
Availability of parameter-resetting
Michaelmas Term 2007
Page 4
4.1
Victor was captured in 1800, after emerging from the woods in an area of
Southern France. He did not speak and showed no evidence of hearing.
He was judged to be about twelve years old and his appearance suggested
that he had been living in the wild for a prolonged period of time.
A physician, J. Itard, took over Victors education. Although he worked
with him intensively for six years, Victor remained mute for the rest of
his life. Nevertheless, he did learn to read and write during his time with
Dr. Itard.
D. Anderson
B.
Page 5
Genie
D. Anderson
4.2
Page 6
Ultimate attainment
These include:
White & Genesee (1996; discussed in Sorace 2003) - Tested a
group of near-native (mostly Francophone) speakers of English,
one third of whom had their first significant exposure to English
after the age of 12. No differences were found in the
performance of native and non-native speakers on tasks requiring
the comprehension and production of complex syntactic
structures (e.g. interpretation of wh-movement violations such as
*What did you hear the announcement that Ann had received?).
Reaction times were found to be shorter for native speakers,
however.
Birdsong and Molis (1989) Replication of Johnson and Newports
famous study, using the same materials and procedures.
Participants were 62 native speakers of Spanish. Found a strong
age effect for those 32 participants who had arrived in the U.S.
after the age of 17, rather than the random performance noted
in Johnson and Newport. Overall findings suggest that earlier is
better regardless of whether exposure takes place prior to or
after puberty. (See Birdsong 1999:1-21 for further discussion of
this and other relevant studies.)
It is important to note, however, that even White and Genesee advise
caution in interpreting their results as an invalidation of the CPH. This is
D. Anderson
Page 7
because there is no definitive evidence that learners can attain nativelike proficiency in all aspects of an L2, only that such proficiency has
been demonstrated in various isolated tasks. (See Birdsong ibid.)
5.0
Definition of a pidgin:
A reduced language that results from extended contact
between groups of people with no language in common; it
evolves when they need some means of verbal communication,
perhaps for trade, but no group learns the native language of
any other group for social reasons that may include lack of
trust or of close contact. (Holm 1988:4-5).
D. Anderson
Page 8
Nominals lack
gender/case marking.
Em i go long
market.
He/she/it is
going to market.
Lack of inflectional
morphology
I no tu had.
Sikspela/wanpela
man i kam.
Tok Pisin
A reduced lexicon,
requiring use of
circumlocutions.
hair
Tok Pisin
looklook
stare
Tok Pisin
Simplified
phonological
inventory
Tok Pisin
wanpela/wanfela
Tok Pisin
Yu wokim bret?
I am going to
work.
Krio
Invariable word
order, typically SVO;
uncomplicated clause
structure & syntax
Tok Pisin
D. Anderson
6.0
Page 9
No access to UG
D. Anderson
Page 10
Example of one such account: Finer & Broselow (1986) (discussed in Cook
1993:182-3): Korean learners of English adopt a distinctive value of the
parameter associated with reflexive binding, rather than either the L1 or
L2 value.
D. Anderson
Page 11
Reading recommendations
Saville-Troike, M. 2006. Introducing Second Language Acquisition. CUP.
(Chapters 1 and 4 in particular).
Cook, V. 1993. Linguistics and Second Language Acquisition. Macmillan.
Towell, R. and Hawkins, R. 1994. Approaches to Second Language
Acquisition. Multilingual Matters.
Ellis, R. 1991. Understanding Second Language Acquisition. 7th impr. OUP.
White, L. 2003. Second Language Acquisition and Universal Grammar.
CUP.
Birdsong, D. (ed.) 1999. Second Language Acquisition and the Critical
Period Hypothesis. Erlbaum. (Chapter 1 is especially recommended.)
Bley-Vroman, R. 1989. What is the logical problem of language
acquisition? In Gass, S. and Schacter, J. (eds.) Linguistic Perspectives on
Second Language Acquisition. CUP.
Sebba, M. 1997. Contact Languages: Pidgins and Creoles. Macmillan.
(Chapter 2, The character of pidgins)
Larsen-Freeman, D. and Long, M. 1991. An Introduction to Second
Language Acquisition Research. Longman. (UL only)
Hawkins, R. 2001. Second Language Syntax: A Generative Introduction.
Blackwell. (UL only)
More advanced
Sorace, A. 2003. Near-nativeness in C. Doughty and M. Long (eds): The
Handbook of Second Language Acquisition. Blackwell.
Ritchie, W. and Bhatia, T. (eds.) 1996. Handbook of Second Language
Acquisition. Academic Press. (The chapter written by K. Gregg, entitled
The logical and developmental problems of second language acquisition is
especially recommended, although it is quite advanced. Papers
contributed by L. White, S. Flynn and J. Schacter are also worthwhile.)
Herschensohn, J. 2000. The Second Time Around: Minimalism and L2
acquisition. J. Benjamins.
Nicol, J. 2001. One Mind, Two Languages: Bilingual Language Processing.
Blackwell.
D. Anderson
Page 12
Appendix I
Evaluate the following sentences produced by Schumanns (1978) subject
Alberto, according to the grammatical criteria for pidgins that is
provided on page 5 of the handout. To what extent do you think these
sentences support Schumanns contention that Alberto is a pidginised
speaker?
Declaratives
Its problem for me.
Is necessary.
Negatives
No pass.
No is mine.
No have pronunciation.
No like walk.
I no understand.
Interrogatives
What is surance?
This is apple?
D. Anderson