Second Language Acquisition

Second Language Acquisition Semester 1, 2005

Week 2

The role of the native language

Three periods of SLA research

I. 1960’s Behaviourism & audiolingualism

Language as habit

Contrastive analysis

II. 1970’s Interlanguage

Language as cognitive system

Error analysis

III. 1980’s ~ SLA theory refinement

Multiple perspectives

Behaviourism

Learning is the result of developing associative links between a given stimulus and a given response.

Behaviour is described in terms of stimulus-response chains (=habits).

‘Anti-mentalist’: Observable behaviour is the only legitimate object of study. Contrasts with ‘cognitive’ approaches.

Suppose that Jack and Jill are walking down a lane. Jill is hungry. She sees an apple in a tree. She makes a sound with her larynx, tongue and lips. Jack vaults the fence, climbs the tree, takes the apple, brings it to Jill and places it in her hand.

Bloomfield, 1933, pp22-23

Contrastive analysis

“…is a way of comparing languages in order to determine potential errors for the ultimate purpose of isolating what needs to be learned and what does not need to be learned in a second language learning situation..” Gass & Selinker, p72

It was viewed as providing a scientific basis for L2 teaching materials.

Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis (CAH)

" The most efficient materials are those that are based upon a scientific description of the language to be learned, carefully compared with a parallel description of the native language of the learner. " Fries (1945)

"...those elements that are similar to his native language will be simple for him, and those elements that are different will be difficult." Lado (1957)

Contrastive Analysis Assumptions (1)

1. Language learning = habit formation

2. L1 is major source of error in L2 production/reception

3. Errors are accounted for by considering differences between L1 and L2

Contrastive Analysis Assumptions (2)

4. The greater the differences, the more errors will occur

5. Focus on dissimilarities in learning; similarities require little new learning

6. Difficulty and ease in predicted by differences and similarities between L1 and L2

Hierarchy of difficulty Lower number = more difficult

Category Example

1. Differentiation English L1, Italian L2:

to know versus sapere/conoscre

2. New category Japanese Ll, English L2: article system

3. Absent category English L2, Japanese Ll: article system

4. Coalescing Italian L1, English L2: the verb to know

5. Correspondence English L1, Italian L2: plurality

CAH: Two positions

A priori or strong view: comparison between languages will predict learning outcomes

A posterior or weak view: comparison between languages will help explain learning outcomes, especially errors.

Empirical problems with Strong CAH

Overpredicts: Predicts learner difficulties where none appear.

French object pronouns precede the verb: Je les vois "I them see."

English L1 learners of French will say:

*"Le chien a mange les" instead of "Le chien les a mange*

"Il veute les encore" instead of "Il les veut encore"" (Ervin-Tripp, 1974)

But, French L1 learners of English do not say"I them see." (Je les vois) instead of "I see them"

Why does it work one way but not the other?

Empirical problems with CAH

Underpredicts. Doesn’t predict many errors that do happen.

Across studies 0nly about 30% of errors have been attributed to L1. This ranges from 3% for child Spanish learners of English (Dulay & Burt, 1973) to 50% for adult Chinese ESL (Tran Chi Chau 1975)

Theoretical problems with CAH

Difference does not equal difficulty. The use of the product of a linguistic analysis to predict a psycholinguistic learning process.

Behaviourist approach to language learning: Language is not a set of habits but a structure defined by rules. The learner induces these rules from input. The rules go beyond the input, allowing the learner to create and comprehend novel utterances

'Strong' versus 'weak' versions of CAH

Prediction versus explanation

Error Analysis

A procedure for analysing second language data which begins with the errors that learners make and attempts to explain them. It uses the target language as the point of comparison.

‘Mistake’ versus ‘Error’

Mistake: Random performance slip caused by fatigue, excitement, etc. Readily self-corrected.

Error: Systematic deviation by learners who have not yet mastered the rules. More difficult to correct. Indication of learner’s attempt to figure out the L2 system

Steps in Error Analysis

1. Collect data

2. Identify errors

3. Classify errors

4. Quantify errors

5. Analyze source

6. Remediation

Types of errors: interlingual & intralingual

Interlingual – based on cross-linguistic comparisons

Intralingual – based on language being learned

Problems with Error Analysis

1. Focus on errors mean that researchers ignored what the learner did right

2. Empirically it was difficult to identify the source of many errors

3. Doesn't account for all the problems that learners have, e.g. Avoidance.

An error in error analysis (Schachter, 1974)

Number of relative clause errors

L1 group Number

Persian 43

Arabic 31

Chinese 9

Japanese 5

American 0

Relative clause production

L1 group Correct Error Total % Errors

Persian 131 43 174 25

Arabic 123 31 154 20

Chinese 67 9 76 12

Japanese 58 5 63 8

American 173 0 173 -

A developmental sequence for negation.

Stage Sample Utterance

1. External >> No this one/ No you playing here

2. Internal, pre-verbal >> Juana no / don’t have job.

3. Aux. + neg. >> I didn’t went to Costa Rica

4. Analysed don’t >> She doesn’t drink alcohol.

(Larsen-Freeman & Long, 1991, p94)

How learners go through the negation sequence can differ by L1. Spanish learners of English tend to stay in the #1 No + this one stage longer than e.g. Japanese learners, due in part to the No+sentence form in Spanish.

No voy

No I go

‘I don’t go’

End of Week 2 lecture slides.