A Usage-Based Approach to (Instructed) Second Language Acquisition
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
A usage-based approach to (instructed) second language acquisition A usage-based approach to (instructed) second language acquisition Heike Behrens & Karin Madlener University of Basel Background While cognitive-linguistics (CL) and usage-based (UB) approaches have been quite successful in showing how first languages can be learnt from the input, it is currently less clear how such learning processes can be made use of in second language (L2) learning and instruction. This session brings together leading experts in the field who present corpus linguistic, experimental, or classroom-based studies on the issue of input and intake. UB approaches assume that all language knowledge „is ‘constructed’ on the basis of the input“ (Goldberg 2009: 93), that the major part of language learning takes thus place incidentally and implicitly during meaning-focused input processing. How can we provide learners with sufficient amounts of good, rich input and enhance their input processing strategies in light of their existing knowledge linguistic knowledge? What amount and what kind of input do learners need to successfully (re-)construct L2 patterns? Brian MacWhinney demonstrates how item-based learning processes work in L1 and L2 acquisition, but are mediated by transfer in L2. Nick Ellis and Myrna Cintrón-Valentín look at similar issues from the perspective of attentional (re-)tuning. This debate addresses the strength and the problems of existing L1 knowledge. Related L1 structures can provide L2 learners with a head start. But strongly entrenched first language processing routines can inhibit the processing of L2 cues such that input may fail to become intake even for highly frequent constructions (Ellis 2008). How do we identify and instrumentalize the positive effects of transfer, and find ways to direct learner’s selective attention in the classroom? A second set of studies addresses the relationship between quantity and quality of input: It may be that the input to which adult L2 learners are exposed to (in classrooms or in the wild) is fundamentally different – in both quantity and quality – from the L1 input which is typically available to young children. Comparing adult L1 and L2 speakers’ knowledge of English vocabulary, collocations, and grammar as well as their non-verbal abilities, Ewa Dabrowska shows that age effects should be reconsidered in terms of types of language experience and amount of exposure. Lourdes Ortega and Mariko Uno examine the input question via corpus-derived comparisons of representative exposure conditions for English simple past -ed in ambiance input to late-starting L2 users versus in parental input to (a) bilingual children and (b) monolingual children. Marjolijn Verspoor presents data from classroom studies that show that learners profit from imitation and repetition, which allows them to abstract the correct constructions, as compared to methods that stimulate production, where students may entrench non-target patterns. Contributors Dabrowska, Ewa. Northumbria University. Age effects reconsidered: Comparing native and non-native speakers' knowledge of grammar, vocabulary and collocations Ellis, Nick C. & Cintrón-Valentín, Myrna C. University of Michigan. Learned attention and transfer in SLA MacWhinney, Brian. Carnegie Mellon University. Item-based pattern learning: Does it work the same for L1 and L2 Ortega, Lourdes & Uno, Mariko. Georgetown University. Investigating exposure and duress in late bilingualism Verspoor, Marjolijn. University of Groningen. Implementing a dynamic usage based approach in the classroom References Ellis, Nick C. (2008). Usage-Based and Form-Focused Language Acquisition. The associative learning of constructions, learned attention, and the limited L2 endstate. In P. Robinson and N. C. Ellis (Eds.), Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics and Second Language Acquisition. New York/London: Routledge, 372-405. Goldberg, Adele E. (2009). The nature of generalization in language. Cognitive Linguistics, 20(1), 93- 127. A usage-based approach to (instructed) second language acquisition Age effects reconsidered: Comparing native and nonnative speakers' knowledge of grammar, vocabulary and collocations Ewa Dąbrowska Northumbria University Background This paper describes a study comparing the performance of native and non-native speakers of English on linguistic tasks tapping three aspects of linguistic knowledge: grammar, vocabulary, and collocations. Grammatical knowledge was assessed using a picture selection task developed by the author; it includes items testing a variety of structures, including noun phrases with postmodifying PPs, object clefts, object relatives, and quantifiers. Vocabulary knowledge was assessed using a modified version of Nation and Beglar's (2007) Vocabulary Size Test, and knowledge of collocations was assessed using the “Words that go together” test (Dąbrowska 2014). Participants were also given three non-linguistic tasks: a nonverbal IQ test (Shipley's Block Design, Shipley et al. 2009), a language aptitude test (the Language Analysis test from the Pimsleur Language Aptitude Battery, Pimsleur et al. 2004), and a task assessing print exposure (Author Recognition Test, Acheson et al. 2008). The participants were 40 adult L2 learners of English from a variety of linguistic backgrounds and a control group of 80 adult native speakers whose educational and SES backgrounds approximate the demographics of UK population. The non-native speakers were all relatively late learners (mean age of first exposure: 16, range: 10-30; mean age of arrival in the UK: 24, range: 14- 33). All used English at work/study at least 30% of the time; the majority also used it in private life at least 30% of the time. As expected, the native speakers performed better than the non-natives on all three language tasks. However, for the grammar task, the difference was quite small and not statistically significant. In contrast, there were large group differences on the vocabulary and especially on the collocations task. These results are inconsistent with theories that assume a critical period for grammar, but can be explained by appealing to the amount and type of language experience that the speakers had, and hence support usage-based theories. Performance on the collocation task depends primarily on the amount of exposure: the only way to learn that one inflicts punishment (rather than applying, delivering, performing or providing it) is by encountering this particular combination of words in text. This is confirmed by the fact test scores are correlated with age for native speakers, length of residence in the UK for non-native speakers and reading in English in both groups. Since native speakers have had considerably more experience with English than the L2 learners, it in not surprising that they perform much better on the collocations test. To a large extent, this is also true of vocabulary, although other factors – in particular, transfer from the L1 in the case of the L2 learners – also play a role. Knowledge of basic grammatical constructions, on the other hand, is more systematic, and hence can be acquired relatively quickly given the right input. Thus, the L2 speakers' relatively good performance on the grammar task can be attributed to the fact that they had received explicit training in grammar. The second major finding was that native and non-native speakers showed a similar pattern of relationships between the linguistic and nonlinguistic tasks. In both groups, performance on the grammar test was most strongly associated with language aptitude and nonverbal IQ, while vocabulary and collocations depended mostly on print exposure and, to a lesser degree, on language aptitude. This suggests that L1 and L2 learning rely on similar mental mechanisms, and raises a number of new questions about the nature of these mechanisms. References Acheson, D.J., Wells, J.B., and Macdonald, M.C. (2008). New and updated tests of print exposure and reading abilities in college students. Behavior Research Methods 40, 278-289. Dąbrowska, E. (2014). Words that go together: Measuring individual differences in native speakers' knowledge of collocations. The Mental Lexicon 9, 401-418. Nation, P., and Beglar, D. (2007). A vocabulary size test. The Language Teacher 31, 9-13. Pimsleur, P., Reed, D.J., and Stansfield, C.W. (2004). Pimsleur Language Aptitude Battery: Manual 2004 Edition. Bethesda, MD: Second Language Testing, Inc. Shipley, W.C., Gruber, C.P., Martin, T.A., and Klein, A.M. (2009). Shipley-2 Manual. Los Angeles: Western Psychological Services. A usage-based approach to (instructed) second language acquisition Learned attention and transfer in SLA Nick C. Ellis and Myrna C. Cintrón-Valentín University of Michigan Background Associative learning theory documents a range of effects of transfer and inhibition that shift learners’ attention to input as a result of prior experience. One is blocking whereby associating a particular stimulus A with a particular outcome X makes it more difficult to learn that cue B (subsequently paired with the same outcome) is also a good predictor. There are many situations in SLA where lexical and morphological constructions redundantly cue the same outcome and where blocking is expected to apply. This paper will review a range of studies which investigate blocking in SLA as a function of L1 experience and of L2 instructional regime. Recent studies show the mechanisms by which Focus on Form methods can retune attention to otherwise blocked cues. Ellis & Sagarra (2011)