CLL lecture: The role of input in SLA

November 2004

Florencia Franceschina

Types of evidence

Positive evidenceDo you like pasta?

Types of evidence

Negative evidence– Direct

Explicit(correction, instruction)‘Like you pasta?’ is wrong.

Implicit (recasts)A: Do he likes pasta?B: Does he like pasta? I think so.

– IndirectAbsence of x

Type / amount of input

Delayed input Bilingual/multilingual input Modified input (motherese, foreign talk, etc.) Classroom/naturalistic input

How do learners make use of the L2 input?

For learners to be able to make use of the L2 input in learning they need to be able to parse it first. That is, they have to be able to assign a structure to the strings of speech they hear.

This happens at many levels:- phonological- syntactic- semanticetc.

Failure-driven learning

The assumption is that learners parse the (L2) input on the basis of their existing grammar. If this grammar is insufficient/inadequate for parsing some input, this motivates restructuring of the grammar in an attempt to accommodate to the available input. This process is what drives development according to researchers such as:

Berwick and Weinberg (1984) Carroll (2001) Gibson and Wexler (1994) Schwartz and Sprouse (1994, 1996) White (1987)

Theories of the role of input in SLA

Input Hypothesis (Krashen, 1982, 1985) ‘Less is more’ (Newport, 1990) Processability Theory (Pienemann, 1998) Input Processing (Van Patten and Cadierno,

1993) Autonomous Induction Theory (Carroll, 2001)

Morpheme studies

Brown (1973) deVilliers and deVilliers (1973) Burt and Dulay (1973) Bailey, Madden and Krashen (1974) Staubler (1984)

Exercise

PoS

Poverty of the stimulus

Plato’s problem

Underdetermination of knowledge by the input

(Orwell’s problem)

The L1 grammar as a filter

Brown (2000): L1 Chinese, L1 Japanese / L2 English can they learn to perceive the difference

between /p/ vs /f/, /f/ vs /v/ and /l/ vs /r/? findings: the features of the L1 determine what

is achievable; no signs of development in problematic areas

Phonetic feature contrasts

English contrasts

Japanese phonemes

Chinese phonemes

Contrastive feature

Contrastive in

Japanese

Contrastive in Chinese

Predictions for SLA of contrasts

/p/ vs /f/ /p/, /f/ /p/, /f/ continuant yes yes Jap: yes

Chi: yes

/f/ vs /v/ /f/ /f/ voice yes yes Jap: yes

Chi: yes

/l/ vs /r/ /r/ /l/ coronal no yes Jap: no

Chi: yes

Brown’s results

/p/ vs /f/ /f/ vs /v/ /l/ vs /r/

L1 Japanese

(n=15)

94% 99% 61%

L1 Chinese (n=15)

90% 96% 86%

English NS (n=10)

100% 98% 96%

The role of negative evidence

1. Short-lived effects of instruction

Trahey (1996), Trahey and White (1993), White (1990/1991), and White, Spada, Lightbown and Ranta (1991): - L1 French / L2 English- Can L1 French speakers learn that the following is ungrammatical? *Cats catch often mice.- different types of input: direct instruction, indirect instruction and input flood- findings: direct instruction was the most effective in the short term, but none of the three methods had any long-term effects (after 1-year)

2. L2 learners can override instruction

Bruhn-Garavito (1995):- L1 French, L1 English / L2 Spanish- study of the acquisition of pronoun reference in subjunctive clauses in L2 Spanish - teachers and textbooks usually teach learners about a rule about pronoun co-reference that applies to subjunctive clauses across the board- however, NSs do make a difference between different types of clauses- findings: L2 learners appear to behave like NSs, despite misleading instruction

Subjunctive rule (as taught to L2 learners):

The subject of an embedded subjunctive clause must have disjoint reference from the subject of the matrix clause:

[I] want [me/he/she] to go to the party.

However, there are some subjunctive clauses (namely those containing modal verbs or adjuncts) where this doesn’t hold:

[I] hope that [I/he/she] will be able to speak to John today.

[I] will call you when [I/he/she] arrive(s).

Subjunctives Subjunctive+modal

Subjunctive adjuncts

L2 learners (n=27)

50.75% 86% 87.4%

Spanish NS (n=12)

2.5% 85% 91.66%

Input vs intake

Corder (1967)

Krashen (1982, 1985)

and many others

Focus on form

A definition:

“treatment of form in the context of performing a communicative task”

(Ellis et al. 2002: 419)

Form, forms and meaning(Long, 1991)

Focus on forms = structuralist approach

Focus on meaning = non-interventionist approach

Focus on form = communicative approach with occasional shift of attention to form

Types of focus on form (Ellis et al., 2002: 429)

A. Reactive focus-on-form 1. Negotiation

a. Conversational

b. Didactic

2. Feedback

a. Implicit

b. Explicit

B. Pre-emptive focus-on-form 1. Student initiated

2. Teacher-initiated

The role of output

Swain’s (1985, 1993, 1995) Output Hypothesis proposes that output can be used to:

– test hypotheses about structures and meaning– get feedback for the verification of these hypotheses– develop automaticity– shift from meaning- to form-focused mode

Interaction Hypothesis(Long, 1996)

“negotiation for meaning, and especially negotiation work that triggers interactional adjustments by the NS or more competent interlocutor, facilitates acquisition because it connects the input, internal learner capacities, particularly selective attention, and output in productive ways” (pp. 451-452)

Reading

•Doughty, C. 2001: Cognitive underpinnings of focus on form. In Robinson, P. (ed.): Cognition and second language instruction. Cambridge: CUP. Pp. 206-257.

•White, L. 2003: Second language acquisition and Universal Grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. (Chapter 5)