linguistic factors presentation

UNIVERSIDAD PEDAGÓGICA EXPERIMENTAL LIBERTADORINSTITUTO PEDAGÓGICO DE CARACAS

Subdirección de Investigación y PostgradoSubprograma de Enseñanza del Inglés como Lengua Extranjera

Done by:

Alemán, PedroMariscal, Aurora

The most salient component in SLA

Second Language Acquisition

•The Language itself

Con

tras

t L

1 vs

. L2

Effe

ct

of

L1 o

n L2

Err

or a

naly

sis:

Inte

rlang

uage

(lear

ner

lang

uage

)

The

effe

ct o

n:

Effe

ct o

f cl

assr

oom

in

stru

ctio

n

Historical progression

• Acquisition of input

• Interaction • Feedback• Awareness• Error

treatment

Focus on form

The Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis

Two languages in contrast

Success in SLL

involves

master differences between L1 and L2


Errorsrepresent

negative transferfrom L1 to L2

The patterns that caused difficulty could be predicted and described.

(Lado, in Brown, 2007).



Model of prediction of Practor (1967)

Hierarchy of difficulty

• 6 categories of difficulty in ascending order• applicable to both grammatical and phonological features

of language.

0

1

2

3

45“Zero”´= one-to-one

correspondence and transfer

“Fifth” = the height of interference

Transfer• No difference or contrast is present between L1 and L2.• Positive transfer of a sound, structure or lexical item from

L1 to L2.

e.g. English & Spanish cardinal vowels



CoalescenceTwo items in L1 become coalesced (come together) into essentially one item in L2.

e.g. English 3rd-person possessives require gender distinction (his/her) and in Spanish they do not (su)

2 1


Underdifferentiation • An item in L1 is absent in L2. • The learner must avoid that item.

e.g. adjectives in Spanish require gender (alto/alta)


ReinterpretationAn item that exists in L1 is given a new shape or distribution.

e.g. new phonemes require new distribution of speech articulators -/r/, etc.


Overdifferentiation A new item entirely, bearing any similarity to L1 item, must be learned.

e.g. English speakers must learn the use of determiners in Spanish

man is mortal / El hombre es mortal.


Split• One item in L1 becomes two or

more in L2. • The learner has to make a new

distinction.

e.g. English speakers must learn the distinction between (ser) and (estar)

From Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis to

Cross-linguistic influence

From the CAH to CLI

change

in the language behavior

of a foreign

language student

can be equated

differences between L1 language structure

and culture

vs.

L2 language structure

and culture

From the CAH to CLI

Wardhaugh (in Brown, 2007)

Strong version of CAH

Weak version of CAH Linguistic difficulties

explained a posteriori instead of being predicted a prior

by utilizing and intuitively contrasting a general knowledge of L1 and L2

to understand the sources of errors

From the CAH to CLI

From the CAH to CLI

Today

Weak version = Cross-linguistic influence (CLI)

From the CAH to CLI

Prior experience has a significant role in any learning act

The influence of L1

as prior experience

must not be overlooked

Markedness and Universal Gramar

Eckman (in Brown, 2007)

Method for determining directionality of difficulty

Explains relative degrees of difficulty

by means of

principles of

Universal Grammar


Markedness Differential Hypothesis (Markedness Theory)


marked form

anunmarked

form

a

Members of a pair of related forms or structures

Contains at least one more feature


Eckman (in Brown, 2007)

Degrees of markedness = degrees of difficulty

More difficult

Less difficult

Marked items

Unmarkeditems

Learner Language

CAH ignored intralingual &

strategic effects of SLL

Creative construction

of a system

learners test

hypothesis

About L2

sources of knowledge

Learner Language

Learner Language

Terms

Interlanguage

Approximative system

Idiosyncratic dialect

Second language learners form their own self-contained linguistic systems

Interlanguage (Selinker, 1972) systematic knowledge of an L2 independent of learner’s L1 and the target language

L1

L2 I

Learner Language

Learner Language

Approximative system (Nemser, 1971) Interlanguage + a successive approximation to the target language

L1

L2

I

Learner Language

Idiosyncratic dialect (Corder, 1971) learner’s language is unique to a particular individual

Learner language (James, 1990; Lightbown & Spada, 1993)

Learner Language

to study the speech and writing of learners

Learner Language

Production data is observable • reflective of a learner's

underlying competence

Comprehension is not directly observable

Learner Language

The study of the errors of learners

errors

errors

Errors

mistakes

misjudgments Miscalculations

Erroneous assumptions

Learning or acquiring

information

Error Analysis

Error Analysis

Language acquisition

errors

feedback

Corder (1967)

Error Analysis

Learner’s errors

how language is learned or acquired

what strategies or procedures the

learner is employing

Mistakes and errors

Error Analysis

Mistake a performance error that is either a random guess or a “slip”.Native speakers make mistakes

Error a noticeable deviation from the adult grammar of a native speaker. Reflects learner’s competence

Error Analysis

learners do make errors

these errors can be analyzed

study of learners’ errors, called error analysis

Error Analysis

Examination of errors attributable to all possible sources

Examination of errors resulting from negative transfer of the L1

Differences between EA & CA

Error Analysis

Errors in Error Analysis

Shortcomings

overemphasis on production

data

too closely focused on

specific languages rather

than viewing universal aspects

too much attention to

learner’s errors.

Error Analysis

Identifying and Describing Errors

to understand

L1L2

because such systems cannot be directly observed

complicated

Error Analysis

analyzing

Production & Comprehension

data

Inferred

Linguistic systems of L1 and L2 must be….


Error Analysis1 Identification

of errors

2 Description of errors

3 Determination of the source of errors


Error Analysis

Corder (1971)

erroneous or idiosyncratic utterances in a SL

Provided a model

Identification of errors


Error Analysis

a. overt –erroneous utterances ungrammatically at the sentence level.

overt vs. covert errors.

e.g. Does John can sing?

b. covert –grammatically well-formed but not according to context of communication (discourse level).

Error Analysis


e.g. I’m fine, thank you.

Grammatically correct

What if it is a response to:“Who are you?”

Error Analysis

Generalized: addition, omission, substitutio

n and ordering

Levels of language: phonology or

orthography, lexicon, grammar and

discourse

Global (hinds communication) or

local (allows to make a guess)

Dimensions: domain

(from phoneme

to discourse)

and extend

(linguistic unit to be corrected)

Categories for description of errors

Error Analysis

Sources of Error

Why are certain errors made?

What cognitive strategies and styles or even personality variables underlie certain errors?

Error Analysis

Interlingual transfer from the native language (L1) to the L2

Interferenceby sheep

Intralingual transfer (within the target language itself)

Overgeneralization

e.g. “He goed”

Error Analysis

Error Analysis

Context of learninge.g. in a classroom context lead the

learner

to make faulty hypothesis

about the language

Error Analysis

Stages of Learner Language Development

Title in here

random errors, pre-systematic stage

emergent

truly systematic stage

stabilization stage; post systematic stage

Title in here

Title in here

1st stage

2nd stage

3rd stage

4th and final stage

Based on observations of what the learner does in terms of errors alone.

Corder (1973)

Progression of language learners 4 stages

Variation in Learner Language

Not all learner language is orderly and systematic


It has to be you It must be you


Gatbonton (1983) (in Brown, 2007)

“Gradual Diffusion”

incorrect forms coexist with correct forms

the incorrect forms are delete

First,

Then,

Second Language Learners

• Context• Style• Gender• Type of task

Variation’s sources



One of the current debates in SLA theory:

Can variability be systematically explained?


Learners can exhibit a tremendous degree of variation


Learners, like native speakers, have a number of different overlapping language systems

Ellis (1984)'Variable Competence Model' Of SLA


Elaine Tarone’s “Capability Continuum Paradigm”

Any linguistic system must be viewed as consisting of a continuum of styles

Vernacular style (more pidgin like)

Style 2 Style 3 Style 4 Style n

Careful style (more TL/NL like)

unattended speech data

attended speech data

various elicitation tasks: elicited imitation, sentence combining, etc.

grammatical intuition data

Linguistic context

Situational context

Contextual variability

Tarone (1988)


Categories of Variation

linguistic context

psychological processing

factors

social context

language function


Tarone (1988)

Fossilization or Stabilization

Process in which incorrect language becomes a habit and

Fossilization

cannot easily be corrected.

Normal and natural stage for many learners

Should not be seen as a terminal illness


Fossilization

Steady state in which there is no change occurring

Selinker (in Cui-lian, 2003) • temporary stage of “getting

stuck”• a natural stage in learning

process.

Stabilization


Interactive feedback





focused on the role of extrinsic feedback


Vigil and Oller (in Brown, 2007)

the interactive feedback received by a learner has a controlling influence on fossilization

Model of Fossilization

Certain types of feedback prompt learners to modify their knowledge of the L2

While other types encouraged learners to oppose or resist change.





Positive (+) Negative (-)

Cognitive feedback

Promote fossilization

Modify linguistic knowledge

Affective feedback

Modify linguistic knowledge

Promote fossilization

• actual understanding• gives information about the use of the

language

• motivational support interlocutors provide each other with during an interaction

• emotional reactions as response to the interaction itself


'Cognitive' and 'Affective' feedback

'Cognitive‘ feedback

'Affective' feedback

Errors in the Classroom: A Brief History

Should errors be treated?

How should they be treated?

When?



MessageRed

Yellow

Green ()

()

(–)

Abort

ContinueContinue

Recycle

'Cognitive‘ feedback

'Affective' feedback

e. g. Does John can sing?

() I understand your message; it’s clear.

() I’m not sure if I correctly understand you or not.

(–) I don’t understand what you are saying; it’s not clear.

() I understand your message; it’s clear.

() I’m not sure if I correctly understand you or not.

(–) I don’t understand what you are saying; it’s not clear.

CognitiveCognitive

() Keep talking; I’m listening

() I’m not sure I want to continue this conversation.

(–) This conversation is over

() Keep talking; I’m listening

() I’m not sure I want to continue this conversation.

(–) This conversation is over

AffectiveAffective



Hendrickson (in Brown 2007)

Advices

Differentiate between global & local errors.


Global errors• hinder communication

• prevent the learner from comprehending some aspects of the message.

(Burt, 1975)


“They need to be treated”

• only affect a single element of a sentence

• do not prevent a message from being heard



Local errors

“They do not need to be corrected”


How to correct errors?

Overpoliteness of the real

world

Expectations: every error correctedLanguage classroom:

a happy optimum


How to correct errors?Bailey’s taxonomy for error treatment classification

7 basic options complemented by 7 possible features



Basic Options

1. To treat or to ignore2. To treat immediately or delay3. To transfer treatment (other learners) or not4. To transfer to another individual, subgroup or the whole

class5. To return , or not, to original error maker after treatment6. To allow other learners to initiate treatment7. To test for efficacy of the treatment

Bailey’s taxonomy for error treatment classification

Possible Features

1. Fact or error indicated2. Location indicated3. Opportunity for new attempt given4. Model provided5. Error type indicated6. Remedy indicated7. Improvement or praise indicated



Bailey’s taxonomy for error treatment classification

Form-Focused Instruction

Ellis (2001)

any planned or spontaneous instructional activity either implicitly or explicitly

language learners to pay attention to linguistic form

to induce

FFIall formal aspects of language

Grammar

Spelling

Pronunciation

Intonation

etc.



Explicit

Implicit

Metalinguistic explanations

Rules & exceptions

Grammatical or phonological categories

1. Incidental references to form

2. Students paying attention to specific linguistic features in input

3. Incorporation of forms into communicative tasks


“Planned”

“Spontaneous”

Specific classes focused on predefined grammar, pronunciation o vocabulary points

Spontaneous focus on form

reactive, teacher-initiated feedback

preemptive comments made in anticipation about students’ errors

from to


Categories of Error Treatment

• T reformulates or expand the ill-formationRecast

• T elicits the reformulationClarification request

• T provides comments related to the well-formedness

Metalinguistic feedback

• T prompts the learner to self-correctElicitation

• A clear indication of the errorExplicit correction

• T echoes the student’s error changing the intonationRepetition

Panova & Lyster (in Brown, 2007)


Responses to feedback

Uptake

Repair

Repetition

• Response that follows teacher’s feedback

• self-repair• Peer repair

• Repetition of the correct form

Any question?

Thank you!!!!!

References

Brown, H (2007) Principles of Language Learning and teaching, Fifth Edition. San Francisco State University: Longman.

Cui-lian, W. (2003). Fossilization or Stabilization. Retrieved on July 04, 2010 from http://www.modlinguistics.

com/PAPERS /2003/ Wang%20 Cuilian.htm

Lightbrown, P. & Spada, N. (2006) How Languages Are Learned. Lightbrown/Spada. Third Edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

linguistic factors presentation

Education

l2 page

learners page

universalofgrammar page

beoverlooked page

observable page

degrees of difficulty

l1 item

target languagel2i l1