Presentation.docx

CHAPTER 4 The psychology of Second Language Acquisition Part1: KEY TERMS Lateralization Critical Period Hypothesis Information Processing (IP) Controlled processing Automatic processing Restructuring Input Output U-shaped development Assumption: Particular locations in the brain may be specialized f...

CHAPTER 4 The psychology of Second Language Acquisition Part1: KEY TERMS Lateralization Critical Period Hypothesis Information Processing (IP) Controlled processing Automatic processing Restructuring Input Output U-shaped development Assumption: Particular locations in the brain may be specialized for language functions Paul Broca observed that an area in the left frontal lobe (Broca’s area) appeared to be responsible for the ability to speak and noted that an injury to the left side of the brain was much more likely to result in language loss than was an injury to the right side. Wernicke (1874) further identified a nearby area which is adjacent to the part of the cortex that processes audio input (auditory cortex) (Wernicke’s area) as also being central to language processing. for the vast majority of individuals, language is represented primarily in the left half (or hemisphere) of the brain within an area (including both Broca’s area and Wernicke’s area) around the Sylvian fissure (a cleavage that separates lobes in the brain). Some exceptions have been found, but Subsequent research has shown that many more areas of the brain are involved in language activity than was thought earlier: Communicative functions each hemisphere of the brain is primarily specialized in language activity is not localized, but core linguistic processes are typically housed in the left hemisphere. The typical distribution of primary functions is probably due to the left hemisphere’s being computationally more powerful than the right and therefore better suited for processing the highly complex elements of language. Such specialization of the two halves of the brain is known as lateralization Lenneberg (Critical Period Hypothesis) proposed that children had only a limited number of years during which they could acquire their L1 flawlessly even if they suffered brain damage to the language areas; brain plasticity in childhood would allow other areas of the brain to take over the language functions of the damaged areas, but beyond a certain age, normal language would not be possible. brain plasticity is the ability of the brain to modify its connections or re-wire itself. As the brain matures, it has less plasticity: i.e., one area of the brain becomes less able to assume the functions of another in the event it is damaged. The initial questions on how the brain might be organized for multiple languages arose from observing differing patterns for the recovery of languages following brain damage in multilinguals. Most individuals lose or recover multiple languages equally, but some recover one before the other, and some never recover use of one (either L1 or L2). These findings suggest that two or more languages may be represented in somewhat different locations in the brain and/or have different networks of activation. In spite of many years of research, some questions remain unanswered or answers remain controversial. In part this is because study has generally involved limited numbers of subjects and there is considerable individual variation in how the brain is “wired”; Still, there are a number of findings using brain-imaging technology which shed increasing light on the representation and organization of multiple languages in the brain. In what follows, We are going to review Specific questions which have been explored along with a brief summary of results from some of the research conducted on them. 1. How independent are the languages of multilingual speakers? There is no single answer to this question, both because there appears to be considerable individual variation among speakers, and because there are very complex factors which must be taken into account. It seems reasonable to conclude, however, that multiple language systems are neither completely separate nor completely fused. Researchers suggested a three-way possibility for how languages relate in an individual’s mind, which are called coordinate, compound, and subordinate bilingualism. Coordinate refers to parallel linguistic systems, independent of one another; An extreme case of coordinate bilingualism would be the rare individual who has learned two or more languages in different contexts and is not able (even with conscious effort) to translate between them. compound to a fused or unified system; More common would be compound bilingualism, believed by many to characterize simultaneous bilingualism in early childhood (before the age of three years), and subordinate to one linguistic system accessed through another. and subordinate bilingualism, believed to result from learning L2 through the medium of L1 (as in grammar-translation approaches to foreign language instruction). 2. How are multiple language structures organized in relation to one another in the brain? Are both languages stored in the same areas? Again, there is considerable variation among speakers. For at least some multilinguals, it appears that L1 and L2 are stored in somewhat different areas of the brain, but both are predominantly in (probably overlapping) areas of the left hemisphere. However, the right hemisphere might be more involved in L2 than in L1. 3. Does the organization of the brain for L2 in relation to L1 differ with age of acquisition, how it is learned, or level of proficiency? The answer is probably “yes” to all three AoA: Research reported more right-hemisphere involvement for individuals who acquire L2 between ages nine and twelve than for those who acquire L2 before age four. How it is learned: The variation in right hemisphere involvement may be due to the lack of a single route to L2 knowledge: second languages may be learnt by many means rather than the single means found in L1 acquisition and, consequently, may have a greater apparent hemispheric spread level of proficiency: Because they have more experience with interpreting and producing two languages, perhaps “early bilinguals intensify or accelerate the automatization of language processes 4. Do two or more languages show the same sort of loss or disruption after brain damage? When there is differential impairment or recovery, which language recovers first? early hypothesis was that in cases of such brain damage, the last-learned language would be the first lost, the next-to-the-last learned the second to be lost, and so forth, with L1 the last to remain; recovery was speculated to be L1 first. significant factor in initial recovery is which language was most used in the years prior to the incident which caused the damage, whether this is L1 or L2. shows that not only can different languages be affected differentially by brain damage, but different abilities in the same language may be differentially impaired: e.g., syntax versus vocabulary, production versus comprehension, or oral versus written modality. These observations have possible implications for claims that different elements of language are located in separate parts of the brain. Part2: Learning processes Information Processing (IP) Approaches based on IP are concerned with the mental processes involved in language learning and use. Information Processing has three stages, as shown in Table 4.2 on page 79 (adapted from Skehan 1998). Input for SLA is whatever sample of L2 that learners are exposed to, but it is not available for processing unless learners actually notice it: i.e., pay attention to it. Then it can become intake. It is at this point of perception of input where priorities are largely determined, and where attentional resources are channelled. Output for SLA is the language that learners produce, in speech/sign or in writing. Restructuring: L2 development cannot be characterized as a seamless continuum along which new forms are added to old, but as a partially discontinuous plane along which there is regular systemic reorganization and reformulation. A related type of evidence is found in U-shaped development: i.e., learners’ use of an initially correct form such as plural feet in English, followed by incorrect foots, eventually again appearing as feet. In this case, feet is first learned as an unanalyzed word, without recognition that it is a combination of foot plus plural. The later production of foots is evidence of systemic restructuring that takes place when the regular plural -s is added to the learner’s grammar. Feet reappears when the learner begins to acquire exceptions to the plural inflection rule. Researchers need to control variables in order to predict outcomes in different learning circumstances. Differences in learners In Chapter 3, we considered the basic question of why some L2 learners are more successful than others from a linguistic perspective Here we address this question from a psychological perspective, focusing on differences among learners themselves. The differences we explore here are age, sex, aptitude, motivation, cognitive style, personality, and learning strategies. Age Some of the advantages which have been reported for both younger and older learners are listed in Table 4.3. (88) children have only a limited number of years during which normal acquisition is possible. Beyond that, physiological changes cause the brain to lose its plasticity, or capacity to assume the new functions that learning language demands. While “brain plasticity” is listed as a younger learner advantage in Table 4.3, older learners are advantaged by greater learning capacity, including better memory for vocabulary. Greater analytic ability might also be an advantage for older learners, at least in the short run, since they are able to understand and apply explicit grammatical rules. one reason younger learners develop more native-like grammatical intuitions is that they are in a non- analytic processing mode. This calls for another qualification: younger learners are probably more successful in informal and naturalistic L2 learning contexts, and older learners in formal instructional settings. Other advantages that younger learners may have are being less inhibited than older learners, and having weaker feelings of identity with people (other than close family or caregivers) who speak the same native language. Children are also more likely to receive simplified language input from others, which might facilitate their learning Other advantages that older learners may have include higher levels of pragmatic skills and knowledge of L1, which may transfer positively to L2 use; more real-world knowledge enables older learners to perform tasks of much greater complexity, even when their linguistic resources are still limited. Sex There do appear to be some sex differences in language acquisition and processing women out- perform men in some tests of verbal fluency females seem to be better at memorizing complex forms, while males appear to be better at computing compositional rules Other differences may be related to hormonal variables: higher androgen level correlates with better automatized skills, and high estrogen with better semantic/interpretive skills higher levels of articulatory and motor ability have been associated in women with higher levels of estrogen during the menstrual cycle. Aptitude The assumption that there is a talent which is specific to language learning. The following four components underlying this talent and constitute the bases for most aptitude tests: Phonemic coding ability is the capacity to process auditory input into segments which can be stored and retrieved. Inductive language-learning ability accounts for further processing of the segmented auditory input by the brain to infer structure, identify patterns, make generalizations grammatical sensitivity accounts for further processing of the segmented auditory input by the brain to recognize the grammatical function of elements, and formulate rules. Associative memory capacity is importantly concerned with how linguistic items are stored, and with how they are recalled and used in output. Associative memory capacity determines appropriate selection from among the L2 elements that are stored, and ultimately determines speaker fluency. Motivation It is variously defined, but it is usually conceived as a construct which includes at least the following components Significant goal or need Desire to attain the goal Perception that learning L2 is relevant to fulfilling the goal or meeting the need Belief in the likely success or failure of learning L2 Value of potential outcomes/rewards The most widely recognized types of motivation are integrative and instrumental. Integrative motivation is based on interest in learning L2 because of a desire to learn about or associate with the people who use it Instrumental motivation involves perception of purely practical value in learning the L2, such as increasing occupational or business opportunities, enhancing prestige and power, accessing scientific and technical information, or just passing a course in school. Cognitive style Cognitive style refers to individuals’ preferred way of processing: i.e., of perceiving, conceptualizing, organizing, and recalling information. Categories of cognitive style are commonly identified as pairs of traits on opposite ends of a continuum; individual learners are rarely thought to be at one extreme or the other but are located somewhere along the continuum between the poles. Some of the traits which have been explored are listed in Table 4.4. (p. 93) Another partially related dimension is preference for deductive or inductive processing. Deductive (or “top-down”) processing begins with a prediction or rule and then applies it to interpret particular instances of input. Inductive (or “bottom-up”) processing begins with examining input to discover some pattern and then formulates a generalization or rule that accounts for it, and that may then in turn be applied deductively. Personality Speculation and research in SLA has included the following factors, also often characterized as endpoints on continua, as shown in Table 4.5. (p.95) Anxiety has received the most attention in SLA research, along with lack of anxiety as an important component of self-confidence. Anxiety correlates negatively with measures of L2 proficiency including grades awarded in foreign language classes, meaning that higher anxiety tends to go with lower levels of success in L2 learning. In addition to self-confidence, lower anxiety may be manifested by more risk-taking or more adventuresome behaviours. Learning strategies learning strategies: i.e. the behaviors and techniques they adopt in their efforts to learn a second language. A typology of language-learning strategies which is widely used in SLA (p. 97) Metacognitive strategies are those which attempt to regulate language learning by planning and monitoring; cognitive strategies make use of direct analysis or synthesis of linguistic material; social/affective strategies involve interaction with others. Metacognitive: e.g. previewing a concept or principle in anticipation of a learning activity; deciding in advance to attend to specific aspects of input; rehearsing linguistic components which will be required for an upcoming language task; self-monitoring of progress and knowledge states. Cognitive: e.g. repeating after a language model; translating from L1; remembering a new word in L2 by relating it to one that sounds the same in L1, or by creating vivid images; guessing meanings of new material through inferencing. Social/affective: e.g. seeking opportunities to interact with native speakers; working cooperatively with peers to obtain feedback or pool information; asking questions to obtain clarification; requesting repetition, explanation, or examples.