General Linguistics

1-2023
Today’s Lesson

Contents Reading
• Second Language Acquisition • Yule’s Second Language
• Contrastive Analysis Acquisition/Learning chapter
• Error Analysis (on Canvas)
• Interlanguage
• Fossilization

• Morpheme Order Studies

• Monitor Model
Second Language
Acquisition
In trying to understand the process of SLA, linguists
seek to answer the following questions:

 What exactly does the L2 learner come to

know?
 How does the learner acquire this knowledge?
 Why are some learners more successful than
others?
First vs Second Language
Development

• Three phases
1. Initial state
2. Intermediate
state
3. Final state
From Saville-Troike, M.
(2006)
Initial State

• The initial state of L1 learning is composed

solely of an innate capacity for language
acquisition which may or may not continue to
be available for L2 or may be available only in
some limited ways.

• The innate capacity is not certain for older L2

learners at the initial state.
• However, they have resources of L1
competence, world knowledge, and established
skills for interaction (i.e., they know how to
request, command, etc.).
• These can be both an asset and an impediment.
Intermediate States

• Both L1 and L2 learners go through

intermediate states as they progress from their
initial to their final state linguistic systems.
• There is similarity in that the development of
both L1 and L2 is largely systematic, including
predictable sequencing of many phenomena
within each and some similarity of sequencing
across languages, and in the fact that L1 and
L2 learners both play a creative role in their
own language development and do not merely
mimic what they have heard or been taught.
Processes

• L1 child grammar is closely correlated with cognitive

maturation. As children mature, so do their
language abilities.
• In contrast, prior to the development of learner
language (or interlanguage), L2 learners have
already reached a level of maturity where they can
understand and produce complex utterances in their
L1.
• This gives way to the process of transfer of prior
knowledge from L1 to L2, which is one of the
processes that is involved in interlanguage
development.
Transfer

Two major types:

• Positive transfer, when an L1 structure or
rule is used in an L2 utterance, and that use
is appropriate or “correct” in the L2.
• E.g., the use of cognates.
• Negative transfer (or interference), when
an L1 structure or rule is used in an L2
utterance, and that use is inappropriate and
considered an “error.”
• E.g., the use of false cognates
Necessary Conditions

• For L1 or L2 learning to take place,

language input is absolutely necessary.
• Children additionally require direct,
reciprocal interaction with other people for
L1 learning to occur. They cannot learn L1
exclusively from such experiences as
listening to radio or watching television.
Necessary Conditions

• For L1 or L2 learning to take place,

language input is absolutely necessary.
• L2 Learners: face-to-face social
interaction facilitates SLA, but it is not a
necessary condition. It is possible for some
individuals to reach a fairly high level of
proficiency in L2 even if they have input
only from radio, television, or written text.
Facilitating Conditions

• L1 learning by children occurs without

instruction and their rate of development is
not significantly influenced by correction or
motivation.
Facilitating Conditions

• Level of development in L2 learning can be

facilitated or inhibited by many social and
individual factors, such as:
• Feedback, including correction of L2
learners’ errors
• Aptitude, including memory capacity and
analytic ability
• Motivation, or need and desire to learn
• Instruction, or explicit teaching in school
settings
Final State

• The final state is the outcome of L1 or

L2 learning.
• The final state of L1 development is
native linguistic competence.
• The final state of L2 development can
never be totally native linguistic
competence, and the level of
proficiency which learners reach is
highly variable.
Final State

• Some learners reach at least “near-native” or

“native-like” competence in L2 along with
native competence in L1, but many cease at
some point to make further progress toward
the learning target in response to L2 input,
resulting in a final state which still includes
instances of L1 interference or creative
structures different from any that would be
produced by a native speaker of the L2 (a
“frozen” state of progress known as
fossilization in SLA).
Early •
•
Contrastive Analysis
Error Analysis

approaches to •
•
Interlanguage
Morpheme Order
Studies

SLA • Monitor Model

Contrastive Analysis (CA)

• Robert Lado (Linguistics Across Cultures, 1957): applied linguist who

wanted to discover the problems that foreign language students would
encounter in the learning process.
• The goal of CA was primarily pedagogical in nature: to increase efficiency
in L2 teaching and testing.
• It involves predicting and explaining learner problems based on a
comparison of L1 and L2 to determine similarities and differences.
• This information provides a rationale for constructing language lessons
that focus on structures which are predicted to most need attention and
practise, and for sequencing the L2 structures in order of difficulty.
Contrastive Analysis (CA)

• The focus of CA is on surface forms of L1 and L2 system, describing and

comparing the languages one level at a time.
• Usually, contrasting phonology first, then morphology and syntax. Lexicon and discourse
received little attention.

• CA theory assumes there will be transfer of elements acquired in L1 to

the target L2.
• This transfer can be positive (or facilitating) when the structure is
appropriate in both languages or negative (interference) when the L1
structure is used inappropriately in the L2.
• In Lado’s view, the easiest structures to learn would be those which exist
in L1 with the same form, meaning and distribution.
Examples of transfer (Spanish to
English)

Positive (or facilitating) Negative (interference)

• Cognates: • /ʌ/ and /æ/ → /a/

• telephone → teléfono • Subject omission:
• Shared phonemes in the same • It is raining → Is raining
phonological contexts • False cognates:
• → /e/ , /m/, etc. • actually → actualmente
• Same grammatical structures: • I’m 30 years old → I have 30
• Present continuous: S+ be + ing years
Error Analysis (EA)

• It is the first approach to the study of SLA which

includes an internal focus on learners’ creative ability
to construct language.
• It is based on the description and analysis of actual
learner errors in L2, rather than on idealized linguistic
structures attributed to native speakers of L1 and L2
(as in CA).
Error Analysis (EA)

The procedure for analyzing learner errors includes the following steps
(Ellis 1994):
1. Collection of a sample of learner language
2. Identification of errors: determination of elements that deviate
from the target L2 in some way.
3. Description of errors: errors are classified according to language
level (whether an error is phonological, morphological, syntactic,
etc.), general linguistic category (e.g., auxiliary system, passive
sentences, negative constructions), or more specific linguistic
elements (e.g., articles, prepositions, verb forms).
Error Analysis (EA)

• Explanation of errors: Accounting for why an error

was made is the most important step in trying to
understand the processes of SLA.
• Most likely causes: inter- or intralingual factors.
• Evaluation of errors: This step involves analysis of
what effect the error has on whoever is being
addressed: e.g. how “serious” it is, or to what extent it
affects intelligibility, or social acceptability.
Criticism of EA

• Ambiguity in classification: It is difficult to say, for instance, if a

Chinese L1 speaker who omits number and tense inflections in English L2
is doing so because of L1 influence (Chinese is not an inflectional
language) or because of a universal developmental process (also present
in L1 acquisition) which results in simplified or “telegraphic” utterances.
• Lack of positive data: Focus on errors alone does not necessarily
provide information on what the L2 learner has acquired; further, correct
uses may be overlooked.
• Potential for avoidance: Absence of errors may result from learners’
avoidance of difficult structures, and this will not be revealed by EA.
Interlanguage

• Larry Selinker (1972) introduced the term Interlanguage (IL)

to refer to the intermediate states (or grammars) of a
learner’s language as it moves towards the target L2.
• IL is a creative process, driven by inner forces in interaction
with environmental factors, and influenced both by L1 and
by input from the target language.
• However, IL is a third language system which differs from L1
and L2 in the course of its development.
Interlanguage: characteristics

• Systematic: At any particular point or stage of development,

the IL is governed by rules which constitute the learner’s
internal grammar.
• These rules are discoverable by analysing the language that is used
by the learner at that time – what he or she can produce and
interpret correctly as well as errors that are made.
• Dynamic: The system of rules which learners have in their
minds changes frequently or is in a state of flux, resulting in a
succession of interim grammars.
Interlanguage: characteristics

• Variable: Although the IL is systematic, differences in

contact result in different patterns of language use.
• Reduced system, both in form and function:
• Reduced form → less complex grammatical structures.
• Reduced function → smaller range of communicative needs
typically served by an IL.
Fossilization

• The cessation of IL development before reaching

target language norms.
• This phenomenon relates to age of learning, with
older L2 learners more likely to fossilize than younger
ones, but also to factors of social identity and
communicative need.
Criticism to IL

• The concept of ‘fossilisation’ can be controversial:

• Should individuals be considered fossilised in L2 development because
they retain a foreign accent, for instance, in spite of productive fluency
in other aspects of the TL?
• There is also the issue of what the concept of ‘target language’
entails as the goal of SLA.
• ‘Native-like’ production is neither intended nor desired by many
speakers, and assuming that it is or should be the ultimate goal
for all L2 learners may be considered somewhat imperialistic.
Morpheme Order Studies

• Is there a natural order (or universal sequence) in the

grammatical development of L2 learners?
• Influence from Brown’s study (1973) in L1 acquisition:
• He tracked the order in which three children mastered the production of a
set of grammatical morphemes in English
• Dulay and Burt (1974) in L2 acquisition:
• Spanish and Chinese children show strikingly similar acquisition orders.
• The learner’s L1 does not seem to affect the order of SLA
development.
Monitor Model

• Proposed by Stephen Krashen (1978), it explicitly and essentially

adopts the notion of a language acquisition device (or LAD),
which is the metaphor Chomsky used for children’s innate knowledge
of language.
• Krashen’s approach is a collection of five hypotheses which constitute
major claims and assumptions about how the L2 code is acquired.
• However, this model has frequently been criticized by researchers because
many of its constructs and the claimed distinction between learning and
acquisition are vague and imprecise, and because several of its claims are
impossible to verify.
Monitor Model’s 5 hypotheses

1. Acquisition-Learning Hypothesis: acquisition is unconscious (native language), while

learning is conscious (second language).
2. Monitor Hypothesis: What is ‘learned’ is only available as a monitor, to edit or
change what has already been produced.
3. Natural Order Hypothesis: We acquire the rules of language in a predictable order.
4. Input Hypothesis: Language acquisition takes place because there is
comprehensible input (i+1). Input that is a ‘little beyond’ the current understanding.
5. Affective Filter Hypothesis: Input cannot be processed if the affective filter is ‘up’
(e.g., if conscious learning is taking place and/or individuals are inhibited).
 • Get reading from
Canvas

Reading Activity
• In groups, read the
document and
answer the
questions on the
next slide
 Answer the following questions
1. Which of these students are studying English in an EFL setting: Chinese students in Beijing or English
students in Paris or Japanese students in London?

2. Why do we say that mathematics is learned, not acquired?

3. What are four typical barriers to acquiring an L2 as an adult compared to L1 acquisition as a child?

4. What aspect of language learning do you think "the Joseph Conrad phenomenon” refers to?

5. What are two affective factors that can create a barrier in classroom language learning?

6. What is one personality trait that is a positive factor in language learning?

7. Which approach to language teaching is characterized by oral drills?

8. What is the difference between positive and negative transfer?

9. What happens when an interlanguage fossilizes?

10. What is the difference between the two types of motivation to learn another language?

11. What kind of input is necessary for acquisition?

12. What are the three components of communicative competence?