SLA note

Ch2: History of the study of second language acquisition

• Contrastive analysis is a linguistic method that compares two

or more languages to identify similarities and differences .
• Late twentieth-century of research on the role of L1
1. The role of L1 in L2: through learners’ abstract grammatical
knowledge (p.34)
2. 1990s: Counterproposal to Full Transfer / Full Access
3. Minimal Trees Hypothesis (p.35)
4. L1/L2 similarity facilitates early learning
• Inherent capacities
1. Cartesian linguistics: speakers know more about language
than they could possibly have learned from the environment
(?) Does it mean that speakers can naturally know about the
language without being taught (p.36)
2. Interlanguage: a learner’s output as he or she attempted to
reproduce the L2 (try to establish an internal grammar of the
L2 and less influenced by L1)
3. 1980s: a model centering on the interpretation of discovered
systematicity > the hypothesis testing model that favored in
modern societies
4. Fundamental Difference Hypothesis: L2 learning is slow,
unpredictable and highly individually variable
5. Language processing or working memory
• The role of social context in L2 acquisition
1. Social interaction as the foundation of language acquisition >
maximize the capacity to acquire L2
2. Learning L2 > at base a cognitive phenomenon (Contrastive
Analysis, Full Transfer/Full Access) (p.42)

This chapter reviews the overall history of second language

acquisition, the development of different theories, and the influence
of social context SLA. When explaining some theories, the author
provides some empirical studies which help me better understand
the content. However, I am quite unsure whether I understand some
of the terms correctly. For example, the term “Cartesian linguistics”
that mentioned on p.36. Does it mean that speakers can naturally
know about the language without being taught?

Fail to learn L2 to the same extent as L1> no longer the problem

(since L2 speakers are much more than L1 > the standard probably
should be based on successful L2 speakers)

Language acquired through imitation> not so true

Motivation and instruction are not the issue in L1, also aptitude>
children will pick up L1 eventually

Audio-lingual method: children listen to the sentence pattern and

repeat

Contrastive analysis: Compare L1 and L2

Creativity of language: children create the sentence that they

haven’t learned or heard before (not imitation from their parents)

Poverty of stimulus (learnability)

Acquisition v. learning (implicit vs. explicit)

Ch3: Theoretical approaches

• Theory is hard to understand

1. SLA is complicated and multifaceted phenomenon
2. Different views of the nature of language can adopt different
theoretical approaches > social, individual, or cognitive
3. Three different theoretical family
A. The development of the linguistic system
B. Social factors in SLA
C. Psycholinguistic dimensions of SLA
• Theories
1. Purpose of SLA theories:
Explicitly explain which view of nature of language
Which aspects of SLA attempt to explain or model
EX: property vs. transition theory (model the nature of
language system vs. the changes in developing process)
Property theories: describe learners’ linguistic systems
Transition theories > to understand how learners develop
over time in the L2
2. SLA research agendas:
Formal: focus on language and limit about the processing of
learning
Cognitive: focus on learning
Social: socio-cognitive and social factors
A. To document and understand formal linguistic
development
B. How do learners develop their ability to access and use
the linguistic systems (capability) (emergentist
frameworks/sociocultural frameworks)
C. The role of individual differences and learning styles (Ex:
researchers explore the reason why some learners learn
faster; extrinsic variables: motivation and learning
context)
D. Learners’ age
E. The role of the input and interaction in SLA (Ex: Type of
input and interaction may facilitate)
F. The role of social and interactional context (Learners’
social status or language involved; communicative
needs in social context)
• Research findings: Developmental stages of L2 learners,
Linguistic systems, L1 transfer
• Main Theoretical families: Formal linguistic approaches
1. Similarities between L1 and L2 (*Universal Grammar)
 2. View of the nature of language
A. Competence vs. performance (mental representation vs.
realization of language)
B. Grammaticality judgement (GJ) test used to test native
language speakers, but the intuition could be unstable
and less reliable
3. View of the learning process
A. Formal approaches met some criticism
B. (1) largely focus on syntax (2) the UG approach can’t
through explain the nature of L2 linguistic system (3)
social and psychological factors also play some crucial
role in the learning process
4. View of the language learner
A. Question on P.58, (selective transfer of L1 properties)
What does “The UG approach enables prediction to be
made about transfer”? Does it mean that some specific
L1 enable better L2 transfer in terms of syntax part?

Cognitive approaches: some internal mechanism (different from UG)

Children acquire language through association and if the pattern

appear many times and those memory sort together

Through input, and they do some statistics and eventually acquire

language (statistical mapping) *human brain is a computer >
analyze the pattern

1. Focus on the learning dimension of second language

acquisition
2. *Classified as transition theories > to understand how
learners develop over time in the L2
3. Hypotheses originate from cognitive psychology and
neurology
4. Focus on how learners gradually expand their linguistic
knowledge and learn to access it increasingly (?)
5. Work on individual differences: level of intelligence, working
 memory capacity, anxiety, motivation
6. Three main focuses:
A. The development of processing skills in L2 learners
B. How processing skills contribute to learning
C. The role of individual differences

View on the nature of language

1. Another form of information which is processed through

general cognitive mechanisms
2. L2 relies on general cognitive mechanisms
3. *Specificity and innateness of the language yet resolved
4. Processability theory
5. Two main groups of Cognitive theory
A. Processing approaches
B. Emergentist/constructionist approaches

View on the learning process

1. Information processing approaches investigate how

different memory stores
2. Long-Term-Memory (LTM) deal with new L2 information

View on the language learner

1. Seen learners’ mind as a processor, organizer, and storer of

information
2. Working memory capacity > filter new information
3. Focus on individual’s specific characteristics and how they
interact with the learning processes

Sociolinguistic/sociocultural approaches

1. Focus on social context where language learning take place

2. See language as a cultural product
3.
Ch4: Scope and research methodologies

Internal, psycholinguistic vs. external, sociolinguistic

(Natural feature of being human vs. the importance of external

social factors, *pedagogical factors)

This chapter discusses different methodology to conduct the

research in SLA, and the author specifies two different factors in the
introduction part: internal (psycholinguistic) and external
(sociolinguistic) factors. After reading the whole chapter, I can
deeply feel how difficult it is to design the methodology of the
research. Especially when the author talks about the past
methodology regarding learners’ grammatical judgement, they
orderly present the pros and cons of different instrument and some
suggestions. Considering the multifaceted and complicated process
of second language learning, both internal and external factors
should be taken into consideration in SLA research.

Week2 paper

Foley & Flynn (2013) The role of the native language

From Contrastive Analysis to Creative Construction

• L1 transfer/interference: use of the L1 leading to “correct”/
“incorrect” usage in L2
• Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis:
1. identify and learn differences between the L1 and the L2
2. L1/L2 similarities > facilitate acquisition; L1/L2 differences >
longer to learn
3. 1950-1960s: studies examined specific errors that L2
speakers made
 *Chomsky influence language acquisition > language is best
viewed as a system of the mind (innate capacities) (later on
came up with UG)
4. 1960-1970s: Focus on L2 speakers’ errors (*interlanguage)
5. Dulay and Burt (1974):
A. L2 errors reflect L1/L2 differences
B. L2 errors reflect the development of a system
(Innate universal mechanisms guide the Creative
Construction of the new L2 system)
C. Empirical study: overall basic similarities of L2 errors for
two L1 speaker groups (L1 Spanish/Chinese speakers
with L2 English)
D. Bilingual Syntax Measure: difficulty in the use of
functional morphemes (?) in the L2 English
production (different L1s)
6. 1970s: some studies use Bilingual Syntax Measure and
suggest that L1 don’t play a defining role in determining L2
development (inflectional morphology (?)
Types of developmental influence
• Late 1970s: seek to understand how and when learners use
their native language and the explanations for the
phenomenon
• Frequency of use:
1. Forms might be avoided or overproduced (ex: relative
clause production (Schachter, 1974) > avoidance result
from L1/L2 difference
2. Less complex structures are more likely to transfer
3. Learners with different might have different paths in
acquisition of functional morphology
Conditions under which the L1 might influence the L2
1. 1970-1980s: to understand what conditions L1
knowledge transfers to the L2
 2. Andersen (1983): conditions that are related to L2 input
and the form that is the target to transfer
3. *Definite article omission
4. Dulay and Burt (1974): errors is a necessary part of
development (L1 reinforces an L2 error > Neg-Negative)
Views on the initial state
• 1980s: Debate over the possible role of UG in SLA
1. Researchers approach the influence of L1 at an abstract
level
2. Both universal principle and L1 knowledge have
influence on SLA
• 1990s: investigate the influence of UG Principles and
Parameter on L2 development and interlanguage
1. Full Access Model (FAM): view UG as the initial state of
SLA (similarities between the course of L1/L2
acquisition)
2. Minimal Trees hypothesis: only lexical categories are
available from L1
3. No direct access to UG in adult L2 acquisition
4. Basic Variety: to hold across different combinations of L1
and L2 (an initial interlanguage)
5. F

L1 L2 all depends on UG to acquire, then why does learners

have some trouble in understanding some of the lexicon?

The influence of L1 in L2 might depend on the similarities or

differences of L1 and L2; more importantly, L1 plays
different roles in different dimensions of languages. For
example, in the lexicon, the translation of some vocabulary
may hinder the concept to L1 Chinese/L2 English speakers.
However, according to the Minimal Trees Hypothesis, they
 reckon that lexical categories can be acquired through UG,
is this a contradictory point of view? Since L1 and L2 can be
acquired through internal mechanisms from the view of a
formal linguistic approach, it should be accepted that L1 and
L2 lexicon can be acquired without interface.

Gass, S. & Selinker, L. (2001) The role of the native

language: an historical overview

Psychological background
• Notion of “transfer” comes from behaviorist theory
(Behaviorism)
• Transfer: psychological process, prior learning is carried over
into a new learning situation
• Positive transfer (facilitation) vs. negative transfer
(interference) > whether transfer results in correct or
incorrect utterance
• Interference: retroactive inhibition vs. proactive inhibition
(p.68)
Linguistic background
• Bloomfield (1933): language is speech rather than writing
(Normal children learn to speak before to writ; all societies
have oral language)
• Practical events + Speech events + Hearer’s response
• Speech is the practical reaction/response to some stimulus
• Inherited trait > imitate > (stimulus) > new habit > further
habits > perfect response by repetition (by children’s
parents)
• *Stimulus-response connection
Ex: the child sees the object (stimulus) > utter the word doll
(response)
Hear the word (stimulus) > get the doll (response)
 When the stimulus-response connection build, the habit
establishes > learning
• Lado: major impetus was pedagogical > before deciding
how to teach second language, the teachers should figure
out what specific problem the learners will face when they
try to learn L2.
• 1950-1960s: learning language is a habit, and learning L2 is
a new set of habits > L1 is major cause for the success of
learning L2 > emerge Contrastive Analysis
• North America tradition: language teaching and learning
(pedagogical)
• Europe’s goal: to gain a greater understanding of language
(to understand the nature of language) more related to
linguistics (a kind of subfield of linguistics)
Contrastive analysis hypothesis
• Comparing languages to determine potential errors and
decide what to learn or not to learn in SLA
• Structure-by-structure comparison for the purpose of
discovering similarities and differences > to predict either
easy or difficult area for learners
• Similar structures: easy to learn; different structures:
difficult to learn
• A priori vs. a posteriori view (strong vs. weak) (predictive vs.
explanatory)
• Difficulty can’t be equated with errors.
Error analysis
• Error: learners attempt to figure out some system
• Mistake: slips of the tongue (one-time-only events) vs. error:
systematic, repeatedly occur and is not recognized by the
learners
• Errors are from a teacher’s or researcher’s perspective, not
from learners’
This chapter discusses two different analyses and explores the role
of native language in learning a second language. Based on my
experience, I think both Contrastive Analysis and Error Analysis are
helpful for learners in different dimensions of language. For
example, when we learn English vowels and consonants, some
specific pronunciations are difficult for learners since those sounds
don’t exist in Mandarin, and CAH could be used to predict those
difficulties for learners. As for Error Analysis, I remembered an
English Conversation courses back in my college, most of my
classmates and I often said: “Although… but”, or “Because… so” in
the class, and our professor took an effective remediation by asking
us to write an apology letter if we can’t recognize the errors.

Week 4 note

Interlinguistic Variation and Similarity in Second Language Speech

Act Behavior

It’s quite interesting to observe how Chinese learners of English

respond to compliments and how the cultural values influence
language in L1. It is also not surprising that ESL learners in America
acquire more native-like competence than EFL learners in Taiwan
since they are immersed in an environment with enriched exposure.
What has caught my attention is that both ESL learners in America
and EFL learners in Taiwan account for a similar percentage
regarding implementing nonacceptance and acceptance strategies
(15% and 16%). ESL learners in America are still influenced by
Chinese culture and try to be polite, so some of them will choose the
combination strategies of nonacceptance and acceptance. From the
result, we can observe that social factors also play an important role
in languages and it is important to teach language learners how to
respond appropriately to avoid cultural misunderstandings and
conflicts.

In addition, I wonder whether EFL learners in Taiwan choose not to

respond to the compliment related to the L2 cultures influence.
Since I try to imagine the situation when I receive the compliment, I
guess I will take nonacceptance strategies. I can’t figure out why
most of them choose not to respond.

This study mainly discusses semantic relatedness and test L1

lemma hypothesis, and test result also shows that L1 could
influence how we understand and capture the meanings of the
target words. Especially on p.619, the author mention that “once L1
semantic information has entered L2 lexical entries and occupied
the lemma space, it is very hard for new meanings to get in.” It
reminds of my previous learning experience when my high school
teacher encourages me to look up for English translation to the
meaning of the target words rather than merely memorizing the
Chinese translation.

If it is hard L2 learners to map the new semantic information once

L1 translation enter L2 lexical entries, I wonder is there any other
methods for beginners to use the vocabulary correctly in non-target
language country?

This study reminds me of my previous experiences learning

collocations. I remember that most of the time, my high school
teacher wouldn’t explicitly explain collocations; instead, she usually
emphasized incongruent collocations repeatedly so that I could
memorize them deeply, even till now. For example, we should say
“perform the surgery” instead of “do the surgery.” Just as what the
author suggested in the study, one should recognize being
instructed and being largely exposed so that we process it into long-
term memory. Unlike vocabulary, I think collocation is one of the
hardest parts for language learners.

測試受試者可以不要透過 L1 translation to relate to L2 meaning

L2 lemma contains L1 lemma mediation

Filler: unrelated pair and distract the participants to know the

purpose of this study

Exclude the reaction time of wrong answer (when calculating the

reaction time of online test)

Eliminate incorrect answers of reaction time

Presentation should mention null hypothesis, and independent

variable

By participants, by item

在 3X2 的 factor analysis 如果只有一組有 main effect 然後要找出那一組可以做 post-hoc 找出

來

The continuum in multi-competence on p.9 discusses the degree of

integration, and the author mentions that most people would be in
the state of interconnection. I wonder whether this continuum model
related to the proficiency of languages? Also, if a person can fluently
speak like a native but poor in writing and reading, is this situation
can reckon as a state of almost integration (even though integration
is an ideal situation)?
From the perspectives of multi-competence, native-like accent
seems to be less important; however, I think many Taiwanese still
feel embarrassed about having accents. I wonder whether this
situation is related or our education style instead of merely being
related to as a L2 learner, since most students are not encouraged
to speak aloud and we have implanted a thought that Western
education is superior than us.

The continuum in multi-competence on p.9 discusses the degree of integration,

and the author mentions that most people would be in the state of
interconnection. I wonder whether this continuum model is related to language
proficiency of languages. Also, if a person can fluently speak like a native but is
poor in writing and reading, can this situation be a state of almost integration
(even though integration is an ideal situation)?
From the perspective of multi-competence, a native-like accent seems less
important; however, I think many Taiwanese still feel embarrassed about having
accents. I wonder whether this situation is related to our education style instead
of merely being related to us as L2 learners, since most students are not
encouraged to speak aloud and we have implanted a thought that Western
education is superior to ours.

This chapter discusses how L2 may influence learners’ L1, thought,

and cognition from multi-competence perspective. The perspective
of multi-competence change how we see L2 learners, instead of
being imperfect native speakers, multi-competence reckon that L2
learners have their own unique status; thus, I think is the reasons
why it would be challenging to design research method. The
standard is not about being native-like, it is the comparison between
L2 learners.

Also, the discussion about whether native or non-native speaker

would be the best teacher of the second language has caught my
attention. It is common to observe that there are both native and
non-native teachers at school or cram school. From my own
experience, I think the question is not to discuss who would the best
for teaching L2, it’s more about which language aspects would be
more suitable for either native or non-native English teacher to
teach. I remember that most of my English learning experience,
native English teacher teach pronunciation, lexicon, or discourse
and non-native English teacher would teach grammar. I think
grammar might be difficult for L2 learners to understand, and it
would be more suitable for non-native English teacher to teach, and
they might be more aware of the difficulties for L2 learners.

This chapter discusses how L2 may influence learners’ L1, thought, and
cognition from a multi-competence perspective. The perspective of multi-
competence changes how we see L2 learners. Instead of being imperfect native
speakers, multi-competence L2 learners have their unique status; thus, I think
this is the reason why it would be challenging to design a research method. The
standard is not about being native-like; it is the comparison between L2
learners.
Also, the discussion about whether native or non-native speakers would be the
best teachers of the second language has caught my attention. It is common to
observe that there are both native and non-native teachers at school or cram
school. From my own experience, I think the question is not to discuss who
would be the best for teaching L2; it’s more about which language aspects
would be more suitable for either native or non-native English teachers to teach.
I remember that in most of my English learning experience, native English
teachers taught pronunciation, lexicon, or discourse, and non-native English
teachers would teach grammar. I think grammar might be difficult for L2
learners to understand, and it would be more suitable for non-native English
teachers to teach, and they might be more aware of the difficulties for L2
learners.

From this study, we can observe the bidirectional influence on L1

and L2. I think the study result are highly result from the way we
learn English, just as the author mention that we are taught the use
of formulas for specific situation, so that’s why the participants in
this study use conventional indirect strategies in the most
situations. Thus, it reminds me of the previous paper discussing
whether native or non-native English teacher would be the best.
Perhaps speech act behavior should be best taught by native
English teacher so that we could have more appropriate response in
social contexts.

From this study, we can observe the bidirectional influence on L1 and L2. I
think the study results are highly influenced by the way we learn English. just
as the author mentioned, we are taught the use of formulas for specific
situations, so that’s why the participants in this study use conventional
indirect strategies in most situations. Thus, it reminds me of the previous
paper discussing whether native or non-native English teachers would be
the best. Perhaps speech act behavior should be best taught by native
English teachers so that we could have more appropriate responses in social
contexts.

Interlanguage: refer to L2 knowledge

Multi-competence: more like a compound state of L1 and L2

knowledge

Multicompetence and language teaching (2016)

Overall, this chapter provides more detailed information about

practical methods for L2 teaching, such as LAF, adopting a
multilingual stance, and not emphasizing accuracy in the class.
These are all helpful for learners to rethink the purpose of learning
language and useful for language teachers to rethink the pedagogy
in the classroom, especially LAF. I believe LAF can indeed provide
learners with a different perspective to reconnect with learning L2.

On the other hand, the distinction proposed by Byram (2008)

has caught my attention. He stated that language learning involves
the development of proficiency, while language education involves
social and political purposes. It reminds me of the discussion of
neoliberalism in the discourse analysis class last semester.
Undoubtedly, education is often related to political purposes, and
ideologies are usually implicitly transmitted from textbooks and may
lead to stereotypes of a certain culture. Thus, language teachers
should consider that and have the students cultivate cultural
awareness.

Linguistic relativity in L2 acquisition

As the author conclude in the final session, bilinguals enrich,

rather than constrain, our minds. It reminds me of the previous
experience of explaining Chinese grammar of “了”, which is probably
one of the most difficult grammar for learners. Someone once asked
to distinguish the differences between three different sentences: “我學
了一個字”, “我學一個字了”, “我學了一個字了”. I was so confused about these
sentences in the beginning, but I could probably tell that the first
one might be the past tense (it turns out to be wrong). The
explanation to the sentences: 1) it means that one finishes the
action, but it doesn’t imply the tense and it could be used in the
past, present, or future 2) it means that ones’ state has changed, or
has no meaning 3) it means one’s action has completed and the
status has also changed (similar to perfect tense). Although I didn’t
figure it out in the beginning, I guess it would be more difficult for
me to understand if I were monolingual Chinese speaker. Thus, I can
feel that languages can sometime be used to explain and to enrich
our mind.

Effect of exposure

In this study, there is total 136 sentences for participants to read, I

wonder whether the total number of questions would be too large
that might cause participants’ fatigue effect. I am also curious about
why the researchers include 60 distracter sentences, why it can’t be
equal to the number of filler sentences?

Input, Interaction, and Output in SLA

Hypothesis: an idea that needs to be tested about a single

phenomenon

Model: a description of processes or a set of processes of

phenomenon

Theory: a set of statements about natural phenomena that explains

why these phenomena occur the way they do

Interaction approach: notice, working memory, and attention

• Input

Modified input: modifying input makes the language more

comprehensible > simplification and elaboration

Output: 1. push learners to push their knowledge from

comprehension to syntactic language use 2. To promote
automaticity

I wonder whether participants’ proficiency level would also influence

the extent of improvement through interaction. In this study, all the
participants are at the intermediate level, but I am curious if
advanced learners can benefit more from learner-learner interaction
since they might be more sensitive to other kinds of errors rather
than noticing past tense errors solely. Also, the age range of
participants is 21-62, isn’t this range too large?

On p.193, the author mentioned that “while output that is pure

practice may be important for automatization, it is less valuable for
language development.” I wonder whether it is trying to highlight
the lack of negotiation of meaning. Perhaps when learners inactively
receive the practices without asking about the purposes (a kind of
rote learning?), then it might lead to invalid output and may be less
valuable for language development.

When I read this article describing language aptitude, I kept thinking of "語感”, and
wondered whether this is a kind of language aptitude, or it just a kind of implicit
knowledge. The author also mentions that language aptitude develops before the
critical period; thus, whether language aptitude could be nurtured through earlier
exposure, or language aptitude is just a kind of naturally born talent.

It's quite surprising to me when I read the article indicating that print exposure to L1
would influence L2 proficiency. However, in the current era, most children may read
the materials online, the E-book may become the trend among the people. Thus, I
wonder whether this kind of electronic exposure could still help develop L2 literacy
and influence their L2 proficiency.