1 / 121

The End State in L2A: Factors, Facts & Fallacies

The End State in L2A: Factors, Facts & Fallacies. Cognitive Science Seminar University of Texas 9 October 2009 David Birdsong Dept. of French & Italian birdsong@austin.utexas.edu [paper handout to accompany slides] [slides to be posted on blackboard]. L2A research Sample of journals.

hisano
Download Presentation

The End State in L2A: Factors, Facts & Fallacies

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. The End State in L2A: Factors, Facts & Fallacies Cognitive Science Seminar University of Texas 9 October 2009 David Birdsong Dept. of French & Italian birdsong@austin.utexas.edu [paper handout to accompany slides] [slides to be posted on blackboard]

  2. L2A research Sample of journals Cognition JML JCN Nature Neuroscience BBS Brain & Language Language Applied Psycholinguistics TICS Bilingualism: Language and Cognition Studies in Second Language Acquisition Second Language Research

  3. L2A research Programs/Labs McGill Georgetown Illinois MPI-Nijmegen Essex CNRS Paris Amsterdam Groningen Heidelberg

  4. L2A research Recent Ph.D’s at UT - F&I Robert Reichle (December 2008) “Syntactic focus structure processing: Behavioral and electrophysiological evidence from L1 and L2 French” Elenor Shoemaker (May 2009) “Acoustic cues to speech segmentation in spoken French: native and non-native strategies”

  5. Context: the ‘Deficit Model’ tradition Bley-Vroman (1989: 44): Insignificant incidence of nativelikeness in late L2A L2A: “ineluctable failure” fossilized non-nativeness => Fundamental Difference Hypothesis

  6. Context: the ‘Deficit Model’ tradition Johnson & Newport (1989: 255):for AoA > 15 “later AOA determines that one will not become native[like] or near-native[like] in a [2nd] language” <= maturationally-based CPH/L2A

  7. Context: the ‘Deficit Model’ tradition Long (1989: 280):“The ability to attain native- like phonological abilities [in an L2] is beyond anyone beginning later than age 12, no matter how motivated they might be or how much opportunity they might have. Native-like morphology and syntax only seem to be possible for those beginning before age 15.”<= Maturational constraints

  8. Context: the ‘Deficit Model’ tradition Hyltenstam & Abrahamsson (2003: 575):If we look at “overall L2 proficiency” we will find that “perfect proficiency” and “absolute nativelike command of an L2 may in fact never be possible for any [late L2] learner” <= Deficient language- learning mechanisms NB: B-V, J&N, Long, H&Acriterion = monolingual native NB: All approach deficit from end state (= ultimate attainment) perspective

  9. Context: the ‘Deficit Model’ tradition W/r/t L2 processing => representation by late learners Tsimpli & Dimitrakopoulou (2007: 217): Uninterpretable features (e.g. +/- case) “difficult to identify and analyse in the input” <= “persistent, maturationally-based L1 effects on adult L2 grammars” => role of detection in unlearnability of uF; cf.Lardiere (2009) NB:criterion = monolingual native; S’s not always at end state

  10. Context: the ‘Differences Model’ W/r/t L2 processing by late learners Clahsen & Felser (2006: 564): L2 processing nativelike in some areas of grammar; however even in high-proficient L2ers “differences persist in the domain of complex syntax” i.e, in “real-time computation of complex hierarchical representations” => consider explanations:deficient L2 grammar (representational deficit vis à vis native); L1 transfer; cognitive resource limitations; maturational constraints NB: C&F criterion = monolingual native; not all S’s at end state

  11. Context: the ‘Differences Model’ W/r/t L2 processing by late learners Cutler (2003, inter alia): In segmental, subsegmental and suprasegmental perception, L2ers listen through L1 ears; see also Peperkamp, Sebastian-Galles, Dupoux, etc.

  12. Context: Meisel (2009) Meisel (2009: 8)“Changes in the L[anguage] M[aking] C[apacity] in the course of childhood development make it impossible for the L2 learner to acquire a complete native grammatical competence of the target language” Meisel (2009: 13) FDH “does not entail that L2 acquisition becomes totally or partially impossible. Rather, the claim is that L2 knowledge is of a different kind” <= source of knowledge is different

  13. Current aL2A work under ‘DM’ Methodologically: (Usually) studied: - L2 high-proficients Understudied: - L2 dominants (Often) not considered: - facilitating / inhibiting external factors - individual info processing differences - reciprocal L2 <-> L1 influence - AoA as comparison condition or control variable - assurance of L2A asymptote - incidence (#’s) of nativelike processers => Incomplete empirical picture of nature + extent of native / L2 differences

  14. Current aL2A work under ‘DM’ Programmatically: Data: - varied behavioral & brain-based studies - varied methods & tasks Domains: - range of processing and knowledge domains Focus: - non-nativelike processing at group level Orientation: - deterministic differences Goal: - theory of qualitative L1-L2 differences in knowledge / processing => Empirical gaps w/r/t upper limits of (late) L2A

  15. ‘Upper Limits Model’ Complementing the DM perspective: Programmatically & methodologically Distinguish: - what adult L2ers do - what adult L2ers don’t do - what adult L2ers can do - what adult L2ers can’t do Populations: - L2 dominants (two types) - L1 attriters - (L2 high-proficients) - incentivized L2ers: functional need for L2 nativelikeness - L2ers desiring socio-cultural integration, L2 identity

  16. ‘ULM’ Programmatically: Integrate: - individual differences w/r/t internal factors e.g. WM components Rationale: - claims that only freakish aptitude => nativelikeness [more later] - WM correlates with level of ultimate attainment in some tasks Integrate: - facilitating / inhibiting external conditions Rationale: - in comparing L1A and L2A end state, level the playing field in terms of facilitating conditions [more later] - ‘normal’ adult L2A conditions = abnormal for LA generally Integrate: - AoA / AoT as control, predictor variables Rationale: - we know the effects of age and +/- their sources [more later] - to see what can L2ers do in spite of age influences

  17. ‘ULM’ Programmatically: Goals: - Establish end state processing profiles: - L2 dominants - defined by L2 vs L1 relative use - defined psycholinguistically (independent processing measures) - late vs. early dominants - unstable dominants - Establish upper bounds of L2ers’ processing & knowledge: - vis à vis natives - vis à vis early bilinguals / early L2ers - in their own right (v. comparative fallacy) - keeping in mind L2<->L1 influence (L1 of a monolingual ≠ L1 of a bilingual) - Integrate above into theory of L2 knowledge & processing at the limits

  18. ‘ULM’ Perspectives: Analogy: Track team with ankle weights: What would happen if we took off the weights? Analogy: Ghetto vs. suburbs HS exit exam scores: We know that the achievements will differ, but the story shouldn’t stop there.

  19. ‘ULM’ Perspectives: X freakish talent (WM capacity, LTM, musical ability) X freakish accomplishments (Hale, “Christopher”) √ normals working within their limits √ give acquisition the same chance it has in younger populations… - one can’t take away age effects - one can minimize L1 effects - one can provide benign external conditions …and see what happens => relevance to claims, assumptions; CPH/L2A, FDH, ‘access’

  20. UT Cog Sci Presentation L2 end state attainment: Approach ultimate attainment neutrally: deficits & differences alongside upper limits FACTS about end-state attainment, as mediated by age of acquisition and age of testing FACTORS that constrain vs. enable L2 acquisition, and their nature FALLACIES w/r/t end state, e.g. CPH/L2A Q: Under DM: Evidence for maturation-based differences? Q: Under ULM: What can (late) L2-dominants do?

  21. Distinctions: AoA ≠ AoT ≠ maturational state AoA = Age of Acquisition (Immersion, Onset) = macro-variable, encompassing inter alia: - degree of L1 entrenchment - L1 proficiency - state of system plasticity - state of cognitive development - degree of (neuro-)cognitive decline (adults) - suite of neurobiological variables AoA = proxy for initial state of L2A NB: AoA-related effects NB: “The age factor” = convenient but underspecific label

  22. Distinctions: AoA ≠ AoT ≠ maturational state AoT = Age at Testing = macro-variable, encompassing inter alia: degree of L1 entrenchment L1 proficiency L2 proficiency state of system plasticity state of cognitive development degree of (neuro-)cognitive decline [see Supplements] suite of neurobiological variables also: socio-psychological identification w/ L2 & L1 also: frequency of L2/L1 use AoT = proxy for current state of L2 knowledge and processing NB: AoT-related effects

  23. AoT Advanced AoT: - More profound impact in L2 processing than in L1 processing.L2 processing more vulnerable because: - greater reliance on fluid intelligence than in L1 use - less-routinized procedures than in L1 use Open question: - AoT (& AoA)-related effects = less severe among L2 dominants?

  24. Distinctions: AoA ≠ AoT ≠ maturational state Maturational state: > (vs. // vs. X) // degree of L1 entrenchment // L1 proficiency // L2 proficiency > state of system plasticity > state of cognitive development > degree of (neuro-)cognitive decline > suite of neurobiological variables X socio-psychological identification w/ L2 & L1 X frequency of L2/L1 use // experientiallycorrelates with aging AoA & AoT > biologicallyaging-related, pre-/post- ‘maturation’ AoA & AoT X intrinsically unrelatedto aging AoT only

  25. Distinctions Ultimate Attainment in L2 = end state (asymptotic) knowledge and processing ≠ only nativelikeness =any level at end state, up to & including nativelike

  26. Distinctions Nature, causes & domains of non-nativelike ultimate attainment (Hopp, 2007) Nature: REPRESENTATIONAL * COMPUTATIONAL / \ / | \ Cause: impairment * L1 impairment * inefficiency * L1 [FT/FA] / \ | | | Domain: module * interface parsing * info * inter- routes integration ference [FFF] [uF] [DP] [lim cap] [CM] [SS] [MSI]

  27. Distinctions Age, end state, upper limits: Computational (in)efficiency • => default to lexis/plausibility in complex computations L1 influence • developmental & at AoA / AoT • as alternative to / complement to impairment Perceptual components of processing <-> grammar • detection of uF •as precondition for interpretation (e.g. in French liaison) Nature: REPRESENTATIONAL * COMPUTATIONAL / \ / | \ Cause: impairment * L1 impairment * inefficiency * L1 [FT/FA] / \ | | | Domain: module * interface parsing * info * inter- routes integration ference [FFF] [uF] [DP] [lim cap] [CM] [SS] [MSI]

  28. Distinctions Heuristics: Universal Learnability versus Selective Processability - Universal Learnability: anythingcan be learned by someone - Selective Processability: some thingscan’t be processed by anyone

  29. Distinctions The AoA function, shapes: straight line stretched ‘7’ inverted ‘V’ stretched ‘Z’ The AoA function, timing of deflection: coinciding with known maturational epochs coinciding with ages unrelated to maturation The AoA function, steepness => # of nativelike-ers

  30. Range of Scores of Native Controls AoA 20 Years Slope predicts incidence of nativelikeness: shallow slope => high rate of nativelikeness

  31. Range of Scores of Native Controls AoA 20 Years Slope predicts incidence of nativelikeness: steep slope => low rate of nativelikeness

  32. FACTS of Biological Aging& their relationship to L2 processingby late L2ers

  33. Age and ProcessingSupplement I Park et al. (2001)

  34. Age and ProcessingSupplement I break-outPark (2000)

  35. Cognitive Aging Effects Effects in language processing: • processing speed • working memory capacity • lexical retrieval • linear over AoT/AoA, starting at 20 years of age • prior to AoT/AoA: increase then decline (inverted “V”) plateau then decline (stretched “7”) • linkage of processing behaviors to biological aging (Bäckman & Farde, 2005) => L2 processing constraints on input processing at AoA/AoT output performance decrements at AoT depressed levels of processing at L2 end state

  36. Constraining FACTORS 1-Neuro-biology/anatomy/chemistry/cognition: post-puberty, with increasing age (AoA & AoT): • ‘use it then lose it’ (Pinker, 1994) • pathological increases in cortisol levels • declines in neurotransmitter levels: ACH dopamine, etc. Supplement II •declining regional brain volumes (Raz, 2005) Supplement III

  37. Biological Aging Effects Declines in neurotransmitter levels: ACH, dopamine, etc. Supplement II Neurotransmitter declines in L2 processing: • variety of cognitive functions underlying L2 processing - working memory capacity & executive function - attention & inhibitory processes (L1 suppression) - coordination/proceduralization in syntax • linear over AoT/AoA, starting at 20 years of age • prior to AoT/AoA: increase, then decline (inverted “V”) plateau, then decline (stretched “7”)

  38. Biological Aging Effects Declines in regional brain volume Supplement III Effects in L2 processing: • variety of cognitive functions underlying L2 processing - executive function - LTM - coordination/proceduralization in syntax • linear over AoT/AoA, starting at 20 years of age • prior to AoT/AoA: increase then decline (inverted “V”) possible plateau (stretched “7”) • not reliable linkage of behavior to biological sources -effects more associated w/neurochemistry than w/structure -uncertain timing of decrease thresholds => associated cognitive decrements

  39. Constraining FACTORS 2-Cognitive development: • Adult working memory bandwidth lets in too much linguistic information to process at once => incomplete processing of, e.g., sequences of morphemes: “less is more” (Newport, various)

  40. Constraining FACTORS 2-Cognitive development: post-concrete operations • Analytic/metalinguistic/explicit input & learning • Literacy => L2 vis à vis L1 learning & processing: ? effortful ? inefficient √ different [cognitive, neural] resources

  41. Constraining FACTORS 3-L1 entrenchment: L1 representations are increasingly defined with use => • developing representations/categories assimilate to old (Flege, various) • competition between old and developing representations (MacWhinney, various) • [Hebbian] learning inhibits related new learning (Elman, various)

  42. Facilitating FACTORS Enabling via 1- Subtraction of constraint • minimize L1 influence via L1 attrition or L2 dominance [More to come]

  43. Facilitating FACTORS Enabling via 2- Offsetting the effects of limiting factors • training on L2 perception • training on L2 pronunciation

  44. Facilitating FACTORS Enabling via: 3-Individual variation • aptitude components (phonological) working memory • health / genetic / lifestyle hypertension: inverted “U” function ACH, testosterone, estrogen, dopamine, cortisol [early & late] • attitude & affect motivation; L2 ‘identity’; ‘passing for’ • L2 use / practice / rehearsal / education

  45. Facilitating FACTORS NB: Some factors trump others e.g., neurobiology = irrelevant if low desire for attainment; v. • passing for a native • ID with L2 culture & speakers

  46. Facilitating FACTORS NB: Distinguish necessary from sufficient conditions: A given factor may be necessary but not sufficient for nativelike attainment

  47. FACTS of Upper Limits: can do Uncontroversially a given late (AoA > 12) L2 learner can: perform like monolinguals across multiple complex behavioral measures of grammatical knowledge & lexical knowledge & global pronunciation can: perform like monolinguals on a range of brain-based measures of L2 processing e.g., ERP components, regional brain activity [more to come]

  48. FACTS of Upper Limits: cannot do Uncontroversially late learner GROUPS cannot: perform like monolinguals on ‘challenging’ online and offline tasks/structures/items; various processing tasks involving parsing, suprasegmental perception, etc.

  49. FACTS of Upper Limits: cannot do? Controversiallya given late L2 learner cannot: perform like monolinguals on certain on-line processing tasks involving sentence parsing, suprasegmental perception, etc. (quantitative & qualitative differences)

  50. Aside: AoA gradient and rate of nativelikeness

More Related