Upload
others
View
11
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
title:CurrentTrendsinEuropeanSecondLanguageAcquisitionResearchMultilingualMatters(Series);51
author: Dechert,HansW.publisher: MultilingualMatters
isbn10|asin: 185359024Xprintisbn13: 9781853590245ebookisbn13: 9780585225845
language: English
subjectSecondlanguageacquisition--Congresses,Languageandlanguages--Studyandteaching--Europe--Congresses.
publicationdate: 1990lcc: P118.2.C871990ebddc: 428/.007
Secondlanguageacquisition--Congresses,
subject: Languageandlanguages--Studyandteaching--Europe--Congresses.
Pagei
CurrentTrendsinEuropeanSecondLanguageAcquisitionResearch
Pageii
MultilingualMatters
AgeinSecondLanguageAcquisitionBIRGITHARLEY
BilingualismandtheIndividualA.HOLMEN,E.HANSEN,J.GIMBELandJ.JøRGENSEN(eds)
BilingualisminSocietyandSchoolJ.JøRGENSEN,E.HANSEN,A.HOLMENandJ.GIMBEL(eds)
BilingualismandSpecialEducationJIMCUMMINS
Bilingualism:BasicPrinciplesHUGOBAETENSBEARDSMORE
Code-MixingandCodeChoiceJOHNGIBBONS
CulturalStudiesinForeignLanguageEducationMICHAELBYRAM
TheEducationofLinguisticandCulturalMinoritiesintheOECDCountries
STACYCHURCHILL
IntrospectioninSecondLanguageResearchC.FAERCHandG.KASPER(eds)
KeyIssuesinBilingualismandBilingualEducationCOLINBAKER
LanguageAcquisition:TheAgeFactorD.M.SINGLETON
LanguageinaBlackCommunityVIVEDWARDS
LanguageandEducationinMultilingualSettingsBERNARDSPOLSKY(ed.)
LearnerLanguageandLanguageLearningC.FAERCH,K.HAASTRUPandR.PHILLIPSON
MethodsinDialectologyALANR.THOMAS(ed.)
MinorityEducation:FromShametoStruggleT.SKUTNABB-KANGASandJ.CUMMINS(eds)
MinorityEducationandEthnicSurvivalMICHAELBYRAM
ModellingandAssessingSecondLanguageAcquisitionK.HYLTENSTAMandM.PIENEMANN(eds)
OralLanguageAcrosstheCurriculumDAVIDCORSON
RaisingChildrenBilingually:ThePre-SchoolYearsLENOREARNBERG
TheRoleoftheFirstLanguageinSecondLanguageLearningHÅKANRINGBOM
SchoolinginaPluralCanadaJOHNR.MALLEA
VariationinSecondLanguageAcquisitionSUSANGASS,CAROLYNMADDEN,DENNISPRESTONand
LARRYSELINKER(eds)
Pleasecontactusforthelatestbookinformation:MultilingualMatters,BankHouse,8aHillRoad,
Clevedon,AvonBS217HH,England.
Pageiii
MULTILINGUALMATTERS51SeriesEditor:DerrickSharp
CurrentTrendsinEuropeanSecondLanguageAcquisitionResearch
EditedbyHansW.Dechert
MULTILINGUALMATTERSLTDClevedonPhiladelphia
Pageiv
Disclaimer:Thisbookcontainscharacterswithdiacritics.WhenthecharacterscanberepresentedusingtheISO8859-1characterset(http://www.w3.org/TR/images/latin1.gif),netLibrarywillrepresentthemastheyappearintheoriginaltext,andmostcomputerswillbeabletoshowthefullcharacterscorrectly.Inordertokeepthetextsearchableandreadableonmostcomputers,characterswithdiacriticsthatarenotpartoftheISO8859-1listwillberepresentedwithouttheirdiacriticalmarks.
LibraryofCongressCataloging-in-PublicationDataCurrenttrendsinEuropeansecondlanguageacquisitionresearch/editedbyHansW.Dechert.p.cm.(Multilingualmatters:51)PapersoriginatingfromaworkshopheldJuly27-281985atGeorgetownUniversityinconjunctionwiththe1985LSA/TESOLSummerInstitute.Includesbibliographiesandindexes.1.SecondlanguageacquisitionCongresses.2.LanguageandlanguagesStudyandteachingEuropeCongresses.I.Dechert,HansW.(Hans-Wilhelm)II.LSA/TESOLInstitute(1985:GeorgetownUniversity)III.LinguisticSocietyofAmerica.IV.TeachersofEnglishtoSpeakersofOtherLanguages.V.Series:Multilingualmatters(Series):51.P118.2.C871989428'.007dc1988-25207
BritishLibraryCataloguinginPublicationDataCurrenttrendsinEuropeansecondlanguageacquisitionresearch(Multilingualmatters;51)1.Foreignlanguageskills.Acquisition.Research.
Research.I.Dechert,HansW.401'.9
ISBN1-85359-024XISBN1-85359-023-1Pbk
MultilingualMattersLtd
BankHouse,8aHillRoad&1900FrostRoad,Suite101Clevedon,AvonBS217HHBristol,PA19007EnglandU.S.A.
Copyright©1990HansW.Dechertandtheauthorsofindividualchapters
AllrightsreservedNopartofthisworkmaybereproducedinanyformorbyanymeanswithoutpermissioninwritingfromthepublisher.
IndexcompiledbyMegDavies(SocietyofIndexers)TypesetbyPhotoGraphics,Honiton,DevonPrintedandboundinGreatBritainbyWBCPrint,Bristol
Pagev
CONTENTS
Preface vii
Introduction 1
PartOne:TheoryandMethodologyinSecondLanguageAcquisitionResearch
1NounsandVerbsintheLearner'sLexiconRainerDietrich
13
2TypologicalMarkednessasaResearchToolintheStudyofSecondLanguageAcquisitionKennethHyltenstam
23
3ForeignLanguageAcquisitionandtheDevelopmentofAutomaticityJaakkoLehtonen
37
4CompetingPlansinSecondLanguageProcessingHansW.Dechert
51
PartTwo:Children'sFirstandSecondLanguageAcquisition
5EarlyBilingualReading:RetrospectsandProspectsRenzoTitone
67
6 83
TheRelationshipBetweenNativeandForeignLanguageLearningAbility:EducationalandLinguisticFactorsPeterSkehan
7InvestigationsintoClassroomDiscourseWernerHüllen
107
8TheLinguisticsofEnunciativeOperationsandSecondLanguageLearningDanielleBailly
119
PartThree:ReferenceinSecondLanguageAcquisition
9TheDevelopmentofMeansforTemporalityintheUnguidedAcquisitionofL2:Cross-linguisticPerspectivesColetteNoyau
143
Pagevi
10ReferenceandDiscourseStructureintheLearningofFrenchbyAdultMoroccansDanielVéronique
171
PartFour:Cross-LinguisticInteractioninSecondLanguageAcquisition
11EffectsofTransferinForeignLanguageLearningHåkanRingbom
205
12InputfromWithin:UtrechtResearchintoCross-linguisticInfluenceinFormalLanguageLearningEnvironmentsMichaelSharwoodSmith
219
13LanguageContactandCultureContact:TowardsanIntegrativeApproachinSecondLanguageAcquisitionResearchElsOksaar
230
BiographicalDataonContributors 245
ListofResearchProjects 251
Index 253
Pagevii
PREFACEThisvolumeistheresultofthecommoneffortsofmanymorepeopleinvolvedinSLAresearchthanthosewhosecontributionsitcollects.
InaletterofMay25th1984DeborahTannen,theDirectorofthe1985LSA/TESOLSummerInstituteaskedmewhetherI'dliketoorganise'somesortofasymposiumlinkinglinguisticstoteachingESL...'ontheoccasionofthe1985SummerInstitute.Myimmediateanswerwasthatthisseemedtobeachallengingsuggestion.YetIwascarefulenoughnottoagreeimmediatelyasIrealisedthatorganisingsuchaworkshopinayear'stimewouldcreatemanyproblemsamongwhichthetaskofraisingfundswasnottheeasiestone.DuringthefollowingmonthsIcontactedmanyindividualsaswellasinstitutionsandaskedthemfortheirassistance.Allinall,therewasanoverwhelminglypositivereactiontotheideaoftheGeorgetownWorkshopsothatIfinallycametotheconclusionthatImightaswellsay'yes'!InaletterofAugust22nd1984ProfessorTannenofficiallyinvitedmetoorganise'aspecialworkshoponthetopic"CurrentTrendsinEuropeanSecondLanguageAcquisitionResearch"totakeplaceJuly27thand28thinconjunctionwiththe1985InstituteoftheLinguisticSocietyofAmericaandtheTeachersofEnglishtoSpeakersofOtherLanguages,tobeheldjointlyonthecampusofGeorgetownUniversitythesummerof1985.'Shefurtherstatedinthesameletter'IbelievethereisagreatneedtobringtotheawarenessoftheAmericanandInternationallinguisticsandTESOLcommunities,theimportantworkbeingdonebyEuropeanresearchersinthisfield.'
'EuropeanSecondLanguageAcquisitionResearch',thesecondpartoftheWorkshop'stopicandthisvolume'stitleis,ofcourse,anoverextension.Iamfullyawareofit.ThereisnotsuchathingasaunifiedSLAresearchtraditioninEurope.Eveniftherewas,themany
constraintsimposedontheWorkshoppersonal,organisational,temporal,andlastbutnotleastfinancialones,onlypermittedmetoasksomescholarsfromsomecountriestopresentanddiscusssomeoftheirideas.AllofusattheWorkshoprealisedthatwecouldnotclaimtogivemorethanaglimpseintothe
Pageviii
enormousrichnessandvarietyinEuropeanSLAresearch.Actually,theexperiencethatthereexistssuchadiversifiedresearchtraditioninEuropeofwhichwewerejustapartisperhapsoneofthemostintriguingresultsofourmeeting.Allthisismeantwiththephrase'CurrentTrends',thefirstpartofthetopicoftheWorkshopandthetitleofthefollowingpages.Tobesure,becauseoftheorganisationalrestrictionsanddifficultiesalludedtoabovevariousEuropeanculturesandlanguages,andthusresearchtraditions,areoverrepresentedinthisvolume;othersareunderrepresented,ornotrepresentedatall.Thereis,forinstance,aseverelyfeltlackofcontributionsdealingwithEasternEuropeanresearch.Nevertheless,thedecisiontomeetatGeorgetownanddiscussourresearchactivitieswiththeparticipantsoftheSummerInstituteinspiteoftheselimitationshasprovedtobeanextremelyrewardingone.TomyknowledgeithasbeenthefirstWorkshopofthatsortandofthatsizeevertotakeplaceintheUnitedStates.
SomeofthearticlescollectedinthisvolumeareidenticaloralmostidenticalwiththepapersreadattheWorkshop.Mostofthem,however,representmodifiedversionswrittenafterwardsinlightofthediscussionsduringtheWorkshop.
Formecollecting,reading,andeditingthemhasbeenanexcitingexperience,firstlybecauseoftheremarkablevarietyofmethodologiesapproachingtheproblemofSLA,andsecondlybecauseoftheconceptualandculturaldifferencessurfacingthroughthem.Editingsuchacollectioninthecourseoftimehasprovedtobearathercomplicatedtask.Thisistosaythatmanyportionsofthisvolumehaveundergonevariousstagesofmodificationduringthelasttwoyears.IhavebeenfortunateenoughtohavehadmygraduatestudentassistantsSilkeBaier,BärbelTreichel,andBrigitteSchwarzpatientlyreadingandrereadingthevariousversionsduringthe'growth'ofthefinalmanuscript,thussharingwithmetheirknowledgeinAPA
standards.ThisprocedurecouldonlybepractisedwiththekindhelpofM.Burba,B.Carl-Mast,andC.Kuchta,thesecretariesintheDepartmentofEnglishandRomanceLanguagesandLiteraturesoftheUniversityofKassel.
Isurelyhopethatmyintentiontopreserveeachcontribution's'flair',itsparticularshadeofcultureandwealthofthoughthasbeenrealisedinspiteoftheneedtostandardiseit.WiththeexceptionofthetwonativespeakersofEnglishamongus,allarticleswerewrittenbylearnersofEnglishasasecondorforeignlanguage.IhopethatthemanylinguisticcompromisestobefoundonthefollowingpagesmaybeacceptablefornativeEnglishreaders.Unfortunatelythisprocedurehastakenlotsoftime.
Pageix
FirstofallIwouldliketothankallcontributorstothisvolumefortheirpatience.SecondlyIwishtothanktheofficialsofGeorgetownUniversityforgivingustheopportunitytomeetatthisinspiringcampusandparticipateinthevariousactivitiesofthe1985LSA/TESOLSummerInstitute.InthiscontextIamparticularlygratefultoDeborahTannenforsuggestingtheoriginalideaoftheWorkshop,andtohercolleaguesandthestaffintheDepartmentofLinguisticsofGeorgetownUniversitywhohaveallmadeourstayaverypleasantandsuccessfulone.Amongthem,HeidiByrnesdeservesaspecialwordofthanksforthenever-endingassistancesheofferedtousbeforeandduringtheWorkshop.JohnHammerfromtheLinguisticSocietyofAmericadidhisbesttoactivatehisconnectionsandovercomeourproblemsintheplanningandfinancingoftheWorkshop.
ThisWorkshopwouldnothavebeenpossiblewithoutthegrantsmadeavailabletotheparticipantsfromtheFederalRepublicofGermanybytheGermanResearchCouncil(DeutscheForschungsgemeinschaft),thefinancialgrantsprovidedtootherparticipantsbytheEuropeanCulturalFoundationinAmsterdam,andtheassistancegivenbyvariousnationalsponsorsandEuropeanuniversities.
IfinallywishtothankMultilingualMatters,ourpublisher,fortheclosecooperationandprofessionaldiligenceinbringingoutthisvolume.
HANSW.DECHERTKASSEL,MARCH1988
Page1
INTRODUCTIONItistheobjectofthisvolume,asithasbeenthegoaloftheGeorgetownWorkshop,tobringtotheawarenessofitsreadersexamplesoftheworkbeingdoneinEuropeanSLAresearch.
WhenIaddressedmycolleaguesinvariousEuropeanresearchgroupsandaskedthemtoparticipateintheWorkshopitwasmyprimaryintentionthattheymightrepresentalargevarietyofdifferent,evencontroversial,researchtraditions.Theywereaskedtoreportontheirongoingresearchwithoutbeinggivenanythematicconstraints.ThestructuringoftheWorkshopwasdoneaftertheindividualproposalsandabstractsofthepaperstobereadhadbeensubmitted.Eventuallynotallscholarswhohadexpressedtheirconsenttoparticipatewereabletodoso.Therewas,inotherwords,acertainlackofconsistencyinthefinalthematicstructureoftheWorkshopduetothesecancellations.ThisisreflectedinthestructureofthisvolumewhichfollowsexactlythesequenceofpresentationsattheWorkshop.Yetitseemstome,howeverfragmentaryitmayappear,thatafterallthisvolumedoesrepresentarichselectionoftopicsandmethodologieswhicharecharacteristicofcurrenttrendsinEuropeanSLAresearch.
ItwasmysecondintentiontointroduceouraudienceattheWorkshopaswellasthereadersofthisvolumetovariousestablishedSLAresearchprojects.Forthisreasontheparticipantswereaskedtoelaborateontheseprojectsintheirpresentations.Alistoftheseprojectswhicharereferredtoonthefollowingpagesisgivenintheindexsection.Itstandsforarichresearchtraditionwhich,tomyknowledge,hasnotbeendescribedindetail,norevenbeenfullyperceivedintheinternationalSLAliterature.
SLAmaycurrentlybesaidtobebynomeansadequatelyunderstood,
ordescribed,ormodelled,eitherinEuropeoranywhereelse.Afterdecadesofintensiveresearchwestilldonothavesatisfactoryanswerstomanyimportantquestions,evenelementaryones,suchastheroleofthefirstlanguageinSLA.SLAis,asthevariousimplicitorexplicitcontroversies
Page2
onthefollowingpagesdisclose,acontroversialissue.Thisisevenmoresowhenitcomestotheproblemtowhatendsandinwhatwaysecondlanguagesshouldbetaught.Is,forinstance,theanswertothatproblemreallyassimpleastheproponentsofacommunicationorientedapproachhavemadeusbelieveformanyyears?Orisitnotevidentthatmetalinguisticawarenessdevelopsparalleltolearners'linguisticprogress?WhythenshouldnotmetacognitionhaveanessentialfunctioninSLAaswell?
ThisvolumebringstogetherresearchfindingsinrestrictedareasofSLA.NoneofthefollowingarticleswouldclaimtocovermorethanasmallsegmentofinformationrelevanttotheoveralltopicSLA:theacquisitionofaparticularsecondlanguage;theacquisitionprocessofaparticularlearnerorgroupoflearners;theinteractionoftwoormoreparticularlanguages,similarordistant;theacquisitionwithinaparticularlinguisticandculturalenvironment;theacquisitionofparticularlinguisticphenomenaornon-verbalbehavioremes;theacquisitionataparticulardevelopmentalstageofthetotallearningprocess;theacquisitiononparticularlevelsofcognitionanddescription;theexemplificationofaparticularresearchapproachormethodology,andsoforth.ThetremendousvarietyofsuchindividualapproachesdiscussedonthefollowingpagessuggeststhatSLAisnot,andmustnotbeseenas,asimplehomogeneousprocesswhichmaybeeasilyassessedwithonemethodormodelledintermsofonetheory.
Tosumup,thearticlescollectedinthisvolumerepresenttheresearcheffortsofvariousEuropeanscholarsandgroupsofscholarswhohaveapproachedthecomplexphenomenonofacquiringdifferentsecondlanguagesfromdifferentperspectivesandatdifferentlevelsinthelightofdifferentparadigms.Itismyhopethatthearticleswillcontributetotheinternationaldiscussionacrosslanguages,researchtraditions,andculturalconstraints.ForcenturiesEuropehasbeenaplaceofcontinuouscontactandinteractionoflanguagesandcultures.
ItisanexcellentfieldforthestudyofSLA.
PartOne,TheoryandMethodologyinSecondLanguageAcquisitionResearch,comprisesfourcontributionsbytwoScandinavianandtwoGermanresearchers.Theyelaborateonthenotionsoflexicon(Dietrich),typologicalmarkedness(Hyltenstam),automaticity(Lehtonen),andcompetition(Dechert)asbasictheoreticalconceptsinthediscussionofL2production,andreactiontimedata.
RainerDietrichdiscussesinhisarticleNounsandVerbsintheLearner'sLexicontheorderofacquiringnounsandverbsinfirstandsecondlanguageacquisitionandraisestheissueofatheoreticalexplanationforsuchorderintermsofchildren'saswellasadults'cognitivedevelopment.ThedatacollectedwithintheframeworkoftheEuropeanScienceFoundationproject
Page3
comprisetheoralreproductionofafilmbythreeearlyadultlearnersofGerman,twoItaliansandaTurk.R.Dietrichpresentsthefirstresultsofhispilotanalysisofthesedata,theearlyindividualrepertoireofhisinformants,theproportionofdifferentcategories,andtheindividualrateofgrowthinthesubjects'lexicon.
TheseresultsdemonstratethatbeginningadultL2learners,likechildren,intheirreproductionofafilmpickupmorenominalreferentialitemsthanpredicativeones.TheuseofverbsincreasesinlaterstagesofL2acquisition.Thenoun-verbratioinearlyadults'narrativereproductionmaybeinterpretedasareflectionofmorefundamentalpropertiesofcomplexverbalbehaviour.
KennethHyltenstaminhisarticleTypologicalMarkednessasaResearchToolintheStudyofSecondLanguageAcquisitionbaseshisargumentsontheconceptoflinguisticmarkedness,whichhasbeenemployedinvariousSLAstudiesinordertoassesswhatL2featuresareacquiredatwhatstageofdevelopmentorwhatL2featuresareeasyordifficulttoacquire.K.Hyltenstamargues(a)thatthenotionoftypologicalmarkednessisvaluableinthehypothesisformationphaseofSLAresearch,(b)thatitcannotbeconsideredasatisfactoryexplanatoryconcept,and(c)that,however,SLAdatacontributetoageneraltheoryofmarkednessand,generallyspeaking,toatheoryoflanguage.HeexpandshistheoreticaldiscussionofmarkednessthroughempiricaldatatakenfromtwostudiesontheuseofdifferentaspectsofSwedish(a)inthetreatmentofpronominalcopiesinSwedishrelativeclausesbyadultlearnersofSwedishwithaFinnish,Greek,Persian,andSpanishL1-background,and(b)inthetreatmentofvoicinginstopsbychildandadultlearnersofSwedishwithFinnishastheirprimarylanguage.
JaakkoLehtonenproposesreactiontimemeasurementasavaluableempiricalresearchinstrumentinhisarticleForeignLanguage
AcquisitionandtheDevelopmentofAutomaticity.Hesetsoutwithadiscussionofthedevelopmentofsecondlanguageproceduralknowledgeinthelightoftwoexperiments(a)onewithFinnishuniversitystudentsattheUniversityofJyväskylälearningEnglish,orGerman,orSwedish,and(b)withGermanuniversitystudentsattheUniversityofKassellearningEnglish,orFrench,orSpanish.HefocuseshisanalysisofthedataonthedevelopmentanddegreeofautomaticityasfoundthroughthemeasurementofdifferencesintheReactionTime(RT)latenciesofhissubjects,testedinvariouslinguisticdecisiontasksontheacceptabilityofvisuallypresentedcorrect/incorrectL2sentences.
Page4
Automatisedsecondlanguageperceptionandproductionprocessesaretypicalofcompetentlinguisticbehaviour.AccordingtoAndersen,theremaybefivestagesinthedevelopmentofsuchautomaticity:unconsciousincompetence,consciousincompetence,consciouscompetence,unconsciouscompetence.Thisfourthstageseemstobethefinalgoaloftheidealsecondlanguagelearner,whereasthefifthstage,conscioussupercompetence,mightonlycharacterisepeakperformanceandknowledge.Decisiontimesarelikelytoindicatethedegreesofautomaticity;thefasterthereactiontime,thehigherthelevelofautomaticity.RT-measurementpromisestoprovideanextremelyvaluabletoolinSLAresearchmethodology.
HansDechertinhisarticleCompetingPlansinSecondLanguageProcessingpresentsfivecasesofblendingtobetakenasindicationsofanunderlyingcompetitionofplans.Competitionisheldtocharacterisethehumaninformationprocessingsystemingeneral.Secondlanguageprocessing,inotherwords,isseenasbeingdeterminedbygeneralsystemcharacteristicswhichmaybefoundinothertypesofsystemoutputaswell.Examplesofsuchsystemcharacteristicsarethehighflexibilityattheperipheryandapotentiallackofcentralcontrolundertaskstressconditions.InanintroductorypassagethefamouscaseofthecollisionoftwojetplanesontheIslandofTenerifein1977isinterpretedasastrikingbehaviouralexampleofthecompetitionofplansinthedecisionprocessesofoneofthepilots.ThefollowinglinguisticsamplesarealltakenfromtheKasselcorpusofsecondlanguageproductiondata.ThefirstonerevealsacaseofblendingofanadvancedlearnerofEnglishintheoralproductionofanL2frozenbinomial.ThesecondlinguisticexampleonthesentencelevelistakenfromanarrativeoralproductionofanativespeakerofEnglish.Blendsasindicationsofcompetitionarefoundintheoralproductionsofnativeandnon-nativespeakers.Thethirdsampleisacaseofwrittenproductionofan
advancedadultGermanlearnerofEnglishonthecollocationlevel.Blends,thus,arefoundinoralaswellaswrittenlanguageproductions.IntheconcludingportionanintentionalblendfoundinanarticlefromtheWallStreetJournalgivesanexampleofblendingforstylisticandargumentativereasons.Blendsoccurunintentionallyaswellasintentionally.Forapsycho-linguisticsoflanguageprocessingblendsgiveimmediateaccesstothemechanismsofinformationprocessingwhichisverylikelytobeaparallel,distributed,andcompetitivesystem.
TheSecondPart,Children'sFirstandSecondLanguageAcquisition,containsarticlesbyanEnglish,Italian,German,andFrenchauthor.Inallfourreportstheinformants'secondlanguageacquisitionisrelatedtotheirfirstlanguagedevelopment.Theyalldeal,onewayortheother,with
Page5
projectsontheteachingofsecondlanguagesintutoredpre-schoolandschoolcontexts.
PeterSkehan'scontributiontothetopicSLA,TheRelationshipBetweenNativeandForeignLanguageLearningAbility:EducationalandLinguisticFactors,standsinanempiricalresearchtraditionthathascalledparticularattentiontolanguagelearningabilityofthelearnerandtheindividualdifferencesorlearnertypeswhichareresponsibleforvariationinlanguageachievement.Hisownprojectwhichisafollow-upstudyofthewell-knownBristolLanguageProjectbyGordonWellsissituatedinthetraditionofforeignlanguageaptitudemeasuring.Itattemptstorelatethreesetsofvariables(a)themeasureoffirstlanguageacquisition,(b)themeasureofforeignlanguageacquisition,and(c)themeasureofforeignlanguageachievement.Eachofthesevariablesandtherespectivetestsaredescribedindetail.
SinceP.Skehan'sreportiscloselyrelatedwiththeBristolProject,anextensivereviewofthemethodology(thetestinstruments)anditsresultsfollows.Apreliminaryoutlineofthefirstresultsofhisownstudyconcerning(a)thefirstlanguage-foreignlanguageaptituderelationship,(b)theforeignlanguageaptitude-foreignlanguageachievementcorrelations,and(c)thefirstlanguagedevelopment-foreignlanguageachievementcorrelationsisthenpresented,summarisedanddiscussed.
Asfarasforeignlanguageachievementisconcerned,theseresultssuggestthatfirstlanguageindividualdifferencesareuncorrelatedwithvariationsinforeignlanguageperformance.Theotherstrikingresultofthestudyisthatlearningaforeignlanguageinschoolsettingsislikelytobesuccessfulwhenthestudentisabletocopewithliteracyandtomakesenseofthetypicalverbalclassroomactivities(questionanswering,drills,dialogues).
RenzoTitonetakesupaspecialcaseinSLAresearchthathasbeenanissueofdebateinEuropeformorethantwentyyears,EarlyBilingualReading:RetrospectsandProspects.Thequestionofthefeasibilityofteachingreadingintwolanguagessimultaneouslyatpre-schoolageandthestudyoffactorsunderlyingtheprocessesofearlybilingualreadinghasattractedtheparticularinterestofstudentsofchildbilingualismandSLA.Earlybilingualliteracymayhavepositiveeffectsupontheintellectualgrowthofchildren.
InretrospectTitonegivesanextensiveaccountoftheliteratureonearlybilingualreadingbeforeheoutlinesindetailTheEarlyBilingualReadingExperimentalProject,itsaims,itsmethodology,anditsevaluationinstruments.Thislarge-scaleprojectwiththeauthor'sstandardmaterials,
Page6
TheEarlyBilingualReadingKit,hasbeenunderwayforseveralyearsinbilingual/multilingual(French/Italian;German/Italian)partsofItaly,andintheBasquecountry(Basque/Castilian).
Fromamethodologicalpointofview,WernerHüllensuggests,InvestigationsIntoClassroomDiscourseprovidevalidaccesstothestudyofSLA,asclassroomdiscourseismorecontrolledandpatternedthannaturaldiscourseandmaybeeasilysegmentedintorelativelyunequivocalunits.Languagelearningintheclassroomisonlyaspecialcaseofcommunication.Itmust,however,belookedatinitsownright.Hüllen'sanalysesattempttoexplainclassroomperformancedataassymptomsofprocessesaimingatsuccessfulcommunication.
Inthesecondpartofhisarticle,Hüllendescribestheresultsofthreeexperimentswhichheandhisassociateshavepresented.Theobjectiveofthefirststudy,devotedtolearningsequencesforsyntacticandsemanticrules,wastheanalysisofclassroomdiscourseinwhichstudentswereaskedtorememberandrepeatpassagesfromatextbook.Theinvestigatorsthencomparedthemodeltextwiththelearners'utterances.Thedeviationswhichwerefoundwerecategorisedlikethis:(a)learnerspreferredsimplerstructures;(b)learnerspreferredsimplerwords;(c)learnerstendedtocutdownthemodeltextintominiaturetextswithoutusingproperconnectors.Thelearners'performancewasobviouslybasedonasemanticnucleus.Thesecondstudyonthespeechplanningofteachersinvestigatedtheuseofimpromptuelements(suchasyes,right,OK,ornon-verbalelementssuchassmiling)byteachersandstudents.Inthesequenceofteacher-studentdiscourseintheclassroom:elicitation-response-evaluation,thelastsub-unit,evaluation,whichalsoleadstothefollowingunit,provedtobeofparticularinterest.Impromptuelementsandtheintrusionofsourceelementsinthissub-unitindicatealackofcontrol.L1interferencedependsonthestrainofthemoment.
Thethirdstudyaimedattheidentificationandquantificationoftherhetoricaldistributionofspeechactsbetweenteacherandlearnerinclassroomdiscourse.Learners'speechisuniformcomparedwithteachers'speechandwiththeirowneverydaydiscourse.Itismainlyuptotheteachertoinstigateinitiative,elicitative,commenting,andevaluativespeechacts.
TypicaloftheformalapproachofteachingEnglishtoFrenchlearnersinaschoolsetting,whichDanielleBaillyreportsuponinhercontributionTheLinguisticsofEnunciativeOperationsandSecondLanguageLearningare(a)thegrammaticalprogressionand(b)anexplicitconceptualisationphase.Theybothaimatmakingthelearnerfullyawareofthefunctioningoflanguageoperationsoflocationanddetermination.Thisremarkably
Page7
unconventionalapproachisbasedontheTheoryofEnunciativeOperations(TEO)oftheFrenchlinguistAntoineCulioli.
D.BaillydevotesthefirstintroductorypartofherarticletothebasicassumptionsofTEO.Shethenreportsona15-year-longteachingexperimentbasedonTEO.ItsresultsindicatethatL2learninginformalsettingsdependsontwodeterminingfactors:tutoringstrategiesinspiredbyTEOlinguisticspositivelyinfluencelearnersacquiringtheirL2.Ametalinguisticapproachoflanguageteachingthatconcentratesongeneralisablelanguageoperations,andonthelearner'sinterlanguageasrelatedtotheseoperations,influencesinterlanguagedevelopmentitself.Ontheotherhand,itmustnotbeoverlookedthatgeneralcognitiveandlinguisticmechanismsmayinterferewiththispositiveinfluence.Inafollowingsectionofherarticletheauthorexemplifieshertheoreticalstatementswiththreeextractsfromclassroomdiscourse.TheseextractsaretoillustratethepotentialcognitiveactivitieswhichareinitiatedthroughaTEObasedteachingmethod.InconclusionD.Baillydevelopsafollow-upresearchdesignandanumberofhypothesestobetested.
PartThreeofthevolumetakesupanissuewhich,amongothers,hasbeenoneofthecentraltopicsintheEuropeanScienceFoundationProjectReferenceinSecondLanguageAcquisition.Theauthorshavebeenassociatedwiththisprojectforyears.C.NoyauhasbeenthecoordinatoroftheParisteam,andD.VéroniqueoftheAix-en-Provenceteam.
ColetteNoyau'sstudyTheDevelopmentofMeansforTemporalityintheUnguidedAcquisitionofL2:Cross-LinguisticPerspectivesdealswiththeearlyinformalacquisitionoflinguisticexpressionsoftemporalityinFrenchasfoundintheoralnarrativesandconversationsofthreeadultSpanish-speakingrefugees(aColombianmaleandtwoChileanfemaleinformants)inParis,coveringaperiodof18months.
TheresultsforthelanguagepairSpanishSL-FrenchTLarecomparedwitheachotherandwithothersimilarlanguagepairsfromthecorpusoftheESFprojectinordertoidentifyrecurrentstagesofdevelopmentamongtheinformantsacrossSLsandTLs.
Thestudyproposesathree-stageprocedure:(a)thedescriptionofindividuallearnerlanguagesystemsatdifferentstagesofacquisition,(b)thereconstructionofthepsycholinguisticprocessesresponsibleforthem,and(c)thetheoreticalexplanationoftheseprocessesunderstudy.Samplesoftheinformants'speechdataarepresented,analysed,anddiscussed.Thevariouslexico-syntacticandmorphologicalmeansfortemporalityaswellasthedevelopmentaltrendsinthelearnerdataareanalysed.Thesechaptersarefollowedbyadiscussionoftheinfluenceoftheconceptualstructure,oftheparticulardiscursiveneeds,andofthesourcelanguageontheorganisationofdiscourse.
Page8
Theresultsofthestudyarefinallysummarised:theproblemoftheearlyacquisitionofTLmeansthatconceptualdomain(suchastemporality)ismultiple.AdultlearnersmayrelyontheirknowledgeoftheworldandthusbeabletocommunicatewithalimitedTLrepertoire.Aconcept-orientedcross-linguisticapproachtothestudyofSLAenablesustounderstandatadeeperleveltheconceptualcategoriesresponsibleforcertainL2utterances.
TheaimofDanielVéronique'sarticleReferenceandDiscourseStructureintheLearningofFrenchbyAdultMoroccansistoinvestigatetheextenttowhichtheacquisitionandtheuseofL2expressionsofreferencetoperson,time,andspaceintheearlystageofdevelopmentofanArabicspeakingmaleadultlearningFrencharediscoursedependent,andconversely,howfarsuchreferentialactivitiescontributetohisdiscourseorganisation.D.Véronique'sdataconfirmhisassumptionthatreferentialvaluesforlexicalitemsarecontextuallyboundandareindependentofthetargetsystem'ssemanticandpragmaticvaluesofthedeterminersthatoccurinthelearnersystem.
TheauthorelaboratesthetheoreticalframeworkforhisstudyandreviewstherelevantliteratureontheacquisitionofreferenceanddiscoursestructureinFrenchingeneral.HethensummarisespreviousworkontheproblemoftheacquisitionofreferencebyMoroccans,inparticular,includingotherfindingsonthesubjectofthispresentarticle,oneoutoffourArabiclearnersofFrenchintheEuropeanScienceFoundationProject.TherearefeaturesofreferenceandofdiscourseorganisationthatremainstableacrossthethreeoralreproductionsofthesameCharlieChaplinfilmoverthewholeperiodoftwoyears.Thethreemostremarkablechangesacrossthesethreeversionsare(a)agradualdisappearanceofzeroanaphoraaspronominalmarkingonVPbecomesmoreconstant,(b)anextensionofthenon-personalpronominalparadigm,and(c)achangeinthe
organisationofthenarrativefrommonofunctionalmarkerstomoreplurifunctionalmarkers.Thereseemstobeonlyminorinteractionwiththesubject'sL1.Thereisconsiderableconvergencewithotherfindingsaboutthesamesubjectandothersubjectswithasimilarbackground.
ThefinalPart,Cross-linguisticInteractioninSecondLanguageAcquisition,addressesanoldquestioninSLAresearchwhichhasonlyrecentlyfoundnewinterest.Thethreearticles,basedonresearchdoneinFinland,TheNetherlands,andGermany,explorethemutualproceduraldependenceoflanguagesandculturesintheacquisitionofL2fromdifferentanglesandunderdifferentlabels(transfer:Ringbom;inputfrom
Page9
within:Sharwood-Smith;contact:Oksaar).Thecovertermcross-linguisticinteractionismeanttodenotethisnewresearchtrendinEurope.
HåkanRingbom,whoseworkduringthepasttenyearshastoalargeextentbeendevotedtothestudyofcross-linguisticinteractionbetweenFinnish,Swedish,andEnglishamongtheFinnish-andSwedish-speakingpopulationofFinlandacquiringEnglishattemptstodrawaninsightinthecomplexityoflinguisticinteraction.AfterashortdiscussionofthenotionoftransferinSLAresearchhereferstoarepresentativesetofdataconcerninglisteningandreadingcomprehension,spelling,andtheuseofarticlesandprepositionsofnativeandnon-nativelearnersofEnglishwithdifferentL1background.TheanalysisofthesedatarefutesthenaiveexpectationthatSwedish-speakingFinnswoulddobetterinanytestofEnglishthananequivalentgroupofFinnsspeakingFinnish,adistantlanguage.Infact,therearestrikingdifferencesinthelearners'trialtomakeuseoftheirprimarylinguisticknowledgewhencomprehendingorproducingL2utterances,orlearningisolateditemsversuscomplexrelationshipsbetweenitems,orbeingbeginningoradvancedlearners.
Whatthiscontributionmakesperfectlyclearisthattransferbetweenlanguagesinthelearnerdoestakeplace.However,onlyanintensivestudyofthevariouslevels,areasandmechanismsofthatinteractioninvariouslanguageswillpreventusfromprematureconclusionsaboutcross-linguisticinfluence,asasimplisticcontrastiveanalysismaysuggest.
MichaelSharwoodSmithinhispaperdescribesthetheoreticalandinstitutionalframeworkoftheSLAresearchbeingdoneintheDepartmentofEnglish,UniversityofUtrecht,TheNetherlands.Partofthisresearchisundertakentomeettheneedsoffacultyandstudentsthroughanassessmentofcross-linguisticinfluenceinthelightofthe
competence-controldistinction.
SharwoodSmithdiscussesthenotionsofcross-linguisticinfluenceaswellastransferandinterferencewhichhaveafundamentalroleintheproject.AlearnerwhohasL2competencewillusehisorherL1inordertocommunicateincasesofinsufficientcontroloverhisL2.Cross-linguisticinfluenceinthiscaseistheresultofacontrolstrategy.Cross-linguisticinfluenceatthecompetencelevel,onthecontrary,maybeseenasinput-from-within.Dataconcerning(a)theadverbialplacement,(b)sententialcomplementation,and(c)propositionstrandingofDutch,Finnish,French,German,Polish,andSpanishlearnersofEnglishillustratethislineofargumentation.
QuiteinaccordancewithH.Ringbom'sstatements,SharwoodSmithconcludeshispaperwiththeassertionthatcross-linguisticinteractionis
Page10
ahighlycomplexphenomenon.Whatisneeded,therefore,aremoreresearchandamorepowerfulexplanatorytheory.
TheconcludingcontributionofPartFour,LanguageContactandCultureContact:TowardsanIntegrativeApproachinSecondLanguageAcquisitionResearchbyElsOksaar,basedonhertwolong-termresearchprojectsattheUniversityofHamburg,seekstoexpandtheobjectofSLAresearch:sinceaparticularlanguageisembeddedinaparticularculture,anapproachthatintegrateslanguageandcultureaswellaslanguagecontactandlanguageacquisitionisnecessary.Languageis(a)accompaniedbyparalinguisticelementswhoserolediffersbetweendifferentculturalsystems.Languageis(b)connectedwithnon-verbalandextraverbalsignals.Anintegrativeapproachstartsfromtheprincipleofthepart-wholerelationshipinlanguageandculture.
Socioculturalbehaviourissystematisedintheculturememodel.Culturemesareenactedthroughbehavioremeswhichmaybeverbal,paralinguisticand/ornon-verbal,and/orextraverbal.Verbal,non-verbalandextraverbalbehavioremesvaryconsiderablyfromculturetoculture.Deviationsfromculturallydeterminednormsmayleadtomisunderstandingsinintra-andinterlinguisticcontactsituationsandcreatelinguisticandsituationalinterference.Onthebasisoftheexistingsituationalnormsaspeaker/hearerisexpectedtobehaveinacertainwayaccordingtothesocioculturalgroupheorshebelongsto.Secondlanguageacquisitionmustbeconsideredasanintegralpartofalargerentityaculture.WeneedanintegrativeapproachinSLAresearchthatinvestigateslinguisticandculturalphenomena,anapproachinwhichtheindividualisseenincontactwiththenewlanguageandthenewculture.
Page11
PART1THEORYANDMETHODOLOGYINSECONDLANGUAGEACQUISITIONRESEARCH
Page13
1NounsandVerbsintheLearner'sLexiconRainerDietrich
InhercontributiontoKuczaj'svolumeonLanguage,CognitionandCulture(1982)Gentnerpresentsacollectionofobservationsonchildlanguagedevelopmentwhich,apartfromalotofdifferencesindetail,haveonestructuralfeatureincommon:thatis,thatnounsarelearnedbeforeverbs.EvidenceisgivenforbothproductionandcomprehensionandforlanguagesasdifferentasTurkish,English,German,Japanese,MandarinChinese,andKaluli.Itis,ofcourse,clearthatnounandverbinthiscontextdonotrefertodistributionallydefinedsurfacecategories.Whatismeantbythemisthedichotomy'betweenobjectreferenceandpredication;whetherthepredicationisofstates,actions,relationshipsorattributesisasecondaryquestion.Thecorrespondingsyntacticcontrastisbetweenthecategoryofnounsandthecompositepredicatecategorycomposedofverbs,prepositions,adjectivesandadverbs'(Gentner,1982:302).
Onemayaskwhatthereasonsforthisare.Whydochildrenobviouslyprefernominaloververbalmaterialwhentheystarttolearnalanguage?Gentner'sexplanationgoesbacktothepsychologyofperceptionandherfundamentalreasoningisasfollows:asapartoftheperceptualworldobjectsarecomposedofperceptivebitswhicharemoresalient,moreconcrete,morestableand,whichisthemostrelevantfact,morecohesiveintermsofspatialpropertiesthanprocesses,propertiesandrelations.Asaconsequenceofthis,conceptsofobjectsaremorecohesive,too,thanthoseofpredicates,theperceptualelementsofwhichare'moresparselydistributedthroughtheperceptualfield'(Gentner,1982:324).
Thefactthattheconceptsofobjectshavetheseperception-basedpropertiesofsaliency,stability,andcohesivenessthenmakesiteasierforthechildtomatchthispartofhisorherknowledgewiththestreamoflinguisticinput.Andthereforenounsarelearnedbeforeverbs,althoughthelinguisticpropertiesofthematerialinvolved,suchasrelativefrequency,
Page14
morphologicalcomplexity,orwordorderphenomenawouldnotnecessarilycauseustoexpectit.Sofarthen,thereisunambiguous,universalandconvincingevidencethatintheveryearlystagesoflanguageacquisitionthechildmakesselectionsfromamongthelinguisticinputheorsheisexposedto,andfirstpicksupthenominal,referentialmaterialinsteadofverbs,adjectives,adverbs,andprepositions.Thereis,secondly,aperception-basedpsychologicaltheorytoaccountfortheseobservations,whichclaimsthatnounsareeasierforthechildtotakeinbecauseoftheperceptualconstancyofobjectsandthecorrespondingconceptsinthechild'smind.Althoughthistheorysoundsplausibleandreasonable,itisinfactnomorethanatheoreticalconsiderationandallowsforalternativehypothesesaswell,suchaslinguisticandsociolinguisticones.
Thesimultaneousdevelopmentofcognitiveandlinguisticcapacitieshasparticularrelevanceinthepsychologicaltheoryofnominaldominance.Acontroloftheinfluenceoftheperceptualandcognitivestructuresandprocesseswouldbepossibleifthereweresubjectsfacingthesamelanguageacquisitionproblemwithouttheadditionalcomplicationofcognitivedevelopment.Iftherewereanadultpersonwithcompletelydevelopedconceptualknowledgeoftheworld,andthatpersonhadtoacquireanewlanguagewithoutformalteachingbutjustlikeachildsimplybyexposuretothenaturallanguageenvironment,thatwouldmakeitpossibletocontroltheinfluenceofperceptionandcognitionversusalternativefactors.Andsuchasituationisgiveninmillionsofcasesinthesecondlanguageacquisitionofadultimmigrants.Whatthenwouldoneexpecttooccurinnaturalsecondlanguageacquisitionofadults?LetusfirstrecollectfromGentner'sargumentationthemainprocessesperformedbythechild'smindwhichseemtooversimplifythecase:
1.Perceptionoftherealworld,whichpresentstothechildanaturalpartitionfavouringthingsandobjectsoverprocesses,states,
properties,andrelations.
2.Theformationofconceptsalongthelinesoftheperceptualworld.
3.Thelinguisticcoding,thatis(a)breakingdownthestreamofutterancesand(b)bringingintocorrespondencewitheachotherconceptualandlinguisticelements.
Whatnow,whenanadultpersonfacesasecondlanguageandbeginstoacquirethatlanguageinanaturaluntutoredway,thatis,byusingitincommunicativeinteraction?Therearedifferencesinmanyifnotallparametersbetweenthechild'smentalandlinguisticabilitiesandthatofanadultlearneroflanguagetwo.
Theadultpersontobeginattheendhasbuiltuparichanddetailedlexiconaspartofhisorherfirstlanguage.
Page15
Heorshehasdevelopedasystemofconceptscontainingitemswhichrepresenttheworldofobjectsaswellasotheroneswhichrefertoprocesses,relations,andtheotherpredicativecategories.
Heorsheisfamiliarwiththefactthatthereareconcrete,salient,andspatiallyrelatedperceptivebitsintheworldwhichtogetherformanobject,andmoreabstractandsparselydistributedperceptivebitswhichindifferentwaysofconflationandcombinationconstituteaprocess,astate,orarelation.Inshort:heorsheistrainedtoperceivetheworldaroundhimorherintermsofhisorherconceptualknowledgewhichismoreorlessdeterminedbyhisorherlanguage.Howwouldoneexpect,then,theadultsecondlanguagelearnertoprocessthelexicalmaterialoftheforeignlanguage?Sincethereisnolongertheproblemofmakingsenseoftheperceptualworld,noneedforsimultaneousconceptformationalongwiththesemanticlearning,onewouldexpectthegrowthoftheL2-lexicontobedeterminedbythecommunicativeneedsofthelearner,thelinguisticparametersofL2,andthestructureofthelearner'sL1-background.IfallthisdeterminedthestrategyofacquiringthevocabularyofthesecondlanguageonewouldexpecttheL2-lexicontocomprisenounsaswellasverbs,auxiliaries,andprepositionsfromtheonset,and,forreasonsofinputfrequencyinGerman,thedefiniteandindefinitearticles.Andonewouldpredictcross-linguisticdifferences,whenpeoplewithdifferentL1-backgroundslearnthesameforeignlanguage.WhetherthisreasoningisadequateornotisoneofthetopicsoftheEuropeanresearchprojectonsecondlanguageacquisitionofadultimmigrantssponsoredbytheEuropeanScienceFoundationinStrasbourg.Beforewelookattheobservationsavailablesofar,somemorebackgroundinformationontheprojectasawholeshouldbepresentedforbetterunderstanding.
1
Asfarassecondlanguagestudiesareconcerned,thereareatleastfouraspectsofthisprojectwhich,toourknowledge,gobeyondpreviousrelatedresearch.Firstly,thenumberoflanguagesbothsourceandtargetwhicharesimultaneouslystudied;secondly,theattempttocarryoutacoordinatedlongitudinalstudy(overaperiodof21/2years)inthesedifferentlanguageenvironments;thirdly,therangeandtypeoflinguisticphenomenawhoseacquisitionisinvestigated;andfinally,theattempttorelatethesemultipleskillstoeachotherandtovariousnonlinguisticfactorswhichmaydeterminetheiracquisition.TheprojectisacomparativestudyinfiveEuropeancountries:France,Germany,GreatBritain,theNetherlands,andSwedenwiththecorrespondingtargetlanguagesFrench,German,English,Dutch,andSwedish.Sixsourcelanguagesaretakenintoaccount:Arabic,Finnish,Italian,Punjabi,Spanish,andTurkish.Theprojectwillrunoversixyearswithastaffofabout30researchers.
Page16
Theprojecthasthreeojectives:
1.Aninvestigationofthepsychologicalandsocialfactorsthatcanbeshowntodeterminethestructureandtempooflanguageacquisition.
2.Adescriptionofthestructuralandtemporalpropertiesofthelanguageacquisitionprocess,thatis,establishingwhatcommunicativedevicesareavailabletoadultsattheonsetofacquisition,whatdevicesspecifictothetargetlanguageareacquired,inwhatorder,andatwhatraterelativetoeachother.
3.Aninvestigationofadultimmigrants'useoftheTL,whichinvolvesadescriptionbothofaninformant'slanguagesystematagiventimeandofhowthissystemisputtouseineverydayinteraction.
Asmentionedabove,theTLsareFrench,German,English,Dutch,andSwedish.Theywerechosenbecausetheyarethemostimportantlanguagesforimmigrantworkers(rangingfromGermanwithabout5.5millionpotentiallearnerstoDutchwithmorethanhalfamillion).Foreachtargetlanguagetwosourcelanguageswereselected.Theselectionwasessentiallybasedontwocriteria.First,thoselanguageswiththelargestnumberofnativespeakers(inagiventargetcountry)shouldbegivenpriority.Second,itshouldbepossibletomakelinguisticallyinterestingcomparisons;thismeansthatpairedcomparisonsshouldbemadeoftheacquisitionofonetargetlanguagebyspeakersofsourcelanguageswithverydifferentstructuresandoftheacquisitionoftwoTLsbyspeakerswiththesameSL.Overaperiodof21/2years,datawerecollectedfrombothinitiallearnersandinsomecountriesfromresidentlearners.Obviously,thereisnoidealwaytoobtainallrelevantdata;so,awholerangeoftechniqueswasusedwhichmayberoughlysubdividedintotwogroups:weaklyprestructuredfreeconversationandstrongerprestructuredplannedencounterswithexperimentalelicitationofparticularsecondlanguageperformances.Whilstitistruethatlanguageacquisitionproceedson
manydifferentlevels,itisobviouslybeyondthescopeofthisprojectoranyprojecttostudyalllinguisticaspectsofalearner'sacquisitionandrelatethemtotheexplanatoryfactors.Fourbroadtopicsofinvestigationhavethereforebeenchosen:(a)understanding,misunderstanding,breakdownofcommunication,(b)thematicstructureofutterances,(c)referencetoperson,space,andtime,(d)processesinthedevelopinglexicon,
ThesearefirstresultsofapilotanalysisoftheearlyL2lexicalrepertoireofthreeinitiallearners.Thestudydrawsondatafromaretellingofthecontentofafilm.Theinformantsareshownashortfilmclip(21/2minutes).Itisanoldsilentfilmwhichshowsasequenceofmishapscentredaroundafarewellsceneatarailwaystation.Thepeopleinvolvedareayoungman(HaroldLloyd),hisfiancée,andherparents,awoman
Page17
withababyinawickerbasket,thestationmaster,andagroupoftravellers.Salientobjectsarethetraintheyoungmanwantstocatch;hissuitcase;thewickerbasketwiththebabyinit;andahorse-drawncarriage.Thereis,inaddition,aseriesofevents,movements,processes,andactionsperformedbyandhappeningtothevariouspersonsandobjectsrespectively.Thus,thefilmissuitedtoelicitingvariouskindsofreferences,attributes,andpredications.TheinformantseesthefilmthreetimesandthentellswhathappenedfirstinGermanandtheninhisorherfirstlanguage.Theexperimentwasrunthreetimesinintervalsofseventotenmonths.So,wehavethreecomparablesetsofdataoveraperiodofabouttwoyears.
Table1showssomeofthefirstresults:thesizeoftheindividuallexicalrepertoires(lemma);theproportionsofthedifferentcategories;andthedifferencesbetweenthefirstandsecondperformance(t1versust2),thatis,theindividualgrowthrateoftwoItalians(Angelina,Tino),aTurkishlearner(Ilhami)and,forreasonsofcomparison,ofaGermannativespeaker(Stefan).
Atafirstglancenoclear-cutdevelopmentorprofileisshownbythesefigures;neitheristhereanyobservablenominalorverbaldominanceintherepertoiresusedinthedifferentretellings.Therearedevelopmentalprocessescommontoallthelearners,andtherearedifferences.
Allthreeofthelearnersmadesomeprogressintermsoftheabsolutesizeoftherepertoireavailabletothematt1versust2.
TABLE1.SizeoflexiconsofsubjectsAngelina Tino Ilhami Stefant1 t2 t1 t2 t1 t2
Items 27 33 28 47 35 68 185%Nouns 40.7 45.5 28.6 23.4 34.3 23.5 25.1%Pronouns 11.1 9.1 7.1 10.6 5.7 4.4 10.6%Verbs 18.5 24.2 28.6 29.8 17.1 32.4 23.1%Adjectives 3.7 6.1 - 2.1 5.7 4.4 4
%Adverbs - - 17.6 12.8 14.3 19.1 20%Prepositions 14.8 9.1 7.1 6.4 5.7 5.9 11.3
Page18
Allthelearnershavecommandofitemsinallrelevantcategoriesfromtheonsetwithonlyoneexception;Angelinadoesnotuseadverbs,althoughtherewasastrongstimulusinthefilmasisconfirmedbyStefan'sreactiontoit.Whatabouttheverb-nounratio,then?
Table2showsthenumbersresultingfrombothperformances;avalueof1indicatesequalproportionsofverbsandnouns,avaluebelow1indicatesmorenounsthanverbs,avalueabove1moreverbsthannouns.Asthetableshows,theverb-nounratiooftheGermannativespeakeris0.98.Thelearnerinformants,however,seemtoexhibitdifferentindividualdevelopments.Angelina'srepertoireshowsastrongpreponderanceofnounswithaslightincreaseofverbs.Tinostartsatanalmosttarget-like-ratioof1,runningintoanoverproductionofverbsattimet2,whereasIlhami,afterastartwithanominallanguage,alsoseemstocounterbalancebyanincreaseinusingverbs.
TABLE2.Comparisonoftheverb-noun-ratiobetweent1andt2t1 t2
Angelina 0.45 0.53Tino 1 1.27Ilhami 0.5 1.39Stefan 0.98
Amoredetailedinvestigationoftheindividualdevelopments,andespeciallythedifferentgrowthratesofthethreesecondlanguagelearners,mightshedsomelightontheintricatesituation.Table3presentsamuchmoreregularpattern,indeed.
Threedifferentgrowthratespersubjectarecalculated:theoverallgrowthrateoftherepertoireasawholeand,besidesthis,theisolatedvaluesofthedevelopmentintheverbalandnominalcategories.As
caneasilybeseen,aclearanddistinctdevelopmentalpatternresultsfromthesevalues.Angelinawithanoverallgrowthrateof22.2%istheslowestlearner;theincreaseofTino'srepertoireamountsto67.8%,andIlhamiisbyfarthefastestlearner.Thenewwords,however,arenotequallydistributedovertheverbalandnominalcategories.Thenominalcategoryseemstobeindependentofthegeneraldevelopment;itsexpansionissteadyanduniformforallofthethreesubjects.Thedevelopmentoftheverbalrepertoire,however,iscompletelydifferent,butneverthelessregularaccordingtotheprinciple:thebetterthelearnerthehighertheincreaseoftheverballexicon.
Page19
TABLE3.GrowthratespersubjectItemsatt1
Itemsatt2
%growth %growthofN
%growthofV
Angelina 27 33 22.2 36.4 60Tino 28 47 67.8 37.5 75Ilhami 35 68 94.2 33.3 233.3
Anappropriateinterpretationofthesefindingshastotakeintoconsiderationthatthevaluesandratioslistedinthetablesabovearebasedonobservationsofadevelopingprocessfocusingonearlyphasesbutobviouslynotontheearliestonesinallcases.Sinceknowledgeoftheveryfirstphasescouldnotbeobtainedbydirectobservationitcanonlybeinferredfromtheevidenceavailablesofar.Andtheresultofatheoreticalbacktrackingisthefactthattheveryearlylexiconoftheadultlearner,likethatofthechild,isamainlynominalone.Themoreorlessrapiddevelopmentoftheverbalcategoryisasubsequentprocess.Theoverallpicture,then,isthesameasinfirstlanguageacquisition.Attheverybeginning,theadultlearner,likethechild,picksupmorereferentialitemsthanpredicativeones.Thecorrectnessofthesetheoreticalassumptionsisconfirmedbyadditionalanalysesofamuchbroaderdatabase,namelythatofthecross-sectionalstudyoftheformerHeidelbergProject.Asampleof3500utterancesfromconversationswith40ItalianandSpanishimmigrantworkerswasdividedintotwosubgroups:utterancescontainingaverb(V)andutteranceswithoutaverb.Meanlengthofutterances(MLU)wascalculatedforbothsubgroups.Figure1showstheresultingdistribution.
2MLUiswidelytakenasavalidmeasureofrelativelinguisticmaturityatleastasfarastheearlyphasesofacquisitionandlowrangeMLU-valuesareconcerned.OnthebasisoftheseexperiencesFigure1presentsadditionalconvincingevidencethatverbalelementsmostly
appearinlaterphasesoftheacquisitionprocessthannouns.
Wethenmightaskwhetheradultsproceedthesamewayforthesamereasonsaschildrenareknowntodo.TheanswerisYesandNo.
No,becauseadultsarenolongerstrugglingwithperceptualbitsofrelationsandprocessessparselyspreadoverthefieldofperception.Adultsarefamiliarwithperceptionsofrelations,processes,andstates.
No,becauseasopposedtochildrenadultshaveestablishedverbalconceptsagainstwhichtheycanmatchthestreamofL2-inputand,thus,pickupverbalmaterialaswellasreferentialexpressionsofthesecond
Page20
Figure1.Meanlengthofutterancesinacross-sectionalstudyoftheHeidelbergproject
languagetheyareexposedto.Why,then,doadults,likechildren,takethereferentialapproachtolanguage?ImagineyouwereaskedtotellastoryliketheplotoftheHaroldLloydfilmandyouhadthechoiceeithertodothejobwithoutusingasinglenounorwithoutaverb.Ifyoutryoutbothways,youwillrealisethatwithapurelynominalversionenoughofthenarrativeskeletonofthestorycanbebuiltup,enoughatleasttoguaranteeaminimumofcomprehension.
Aguy.HaroldLloyd.Station.Station.Girlfriend.HaroldLloyd.Mother.Girlfriend.Father.Girlfriend.Ablacklady.Station.Blacklady.Baby.Baby.Floor.Suitcase.HaroldLloyd.Stationofficer.Signal.Train....
Contrastedwiththis,apurelyverbaltextwouldbeforinstance:
Page21
Come.Hastoleave.Say'Goodbye.'Kiss.Come.Putdown.Take.Run....
Whycananarrationbeproducedwithnounsbutnotpurelywithverbs?Thereseemtoexistgeneralmacrostructuralrulesfordifferentkindsofcomplexverbalactionslikenarratives,orders,argumentation,andsoforth.Asfarasnarrativesareconcerned,someofthegeneralrequirementsmightbe:
Firstbuildupthestage,introducepersons,indicateplaceandtime.
Relatetheeventsoneaftertheotherinindicativemode.
Makeexplicitlyclearwhentheactorchanges.
...
Theseglobalpatternsaredifferentfordifferenttypesofcomplexactions.Astheexampleaboveshows,therearecomplexactionstheforegroundinformationofwhichcanbegivenbyaskeletonofnominalreferentialexpressions.Amongthesearenarratives,orders,andcommands.Thereare,ontheotherhand,patternsinwhichmoreverb-likeinformationisrequiredtoprocesstheforegroundinformation,forinstancethedescriptionoftherulesforplayingchess.Therelevantinformation,inthiscase,consistsofmovements,relations,informationastowhattodoundercertainconstellations.Thereferentialinformationismainlysuppliedbytheglobalpattern.
Consideringtheprocessesoflanguageacquisitionagain,thenoun-verbratioinearlyadultlearners'languagecouldbeareflectionofthesefundamentalstructuralpropertiesofcomplexverbalactions.Angelina,then,doesnotmanagemorethanthekernelinformationof
thenarration,whichisreferencetopersonsandobjects.Supplementaryinformationcaninmostcasesbeinferredfromtheglobalrulesofthatpatternandfromthesemanticsoftheparticularnouns.TinoandIlhami,themoreadvancedlearnerswithalargerlexiconandmoreverbalmaterial,candomorethanonlygivethepureskeletonofwhathashappened.Theyrefertobackgroundinformationandevenperformevaluations.
Besidesotherphenomena,thecategoricalfeaturesoflexicalrepertoiresinearlylanguageacquisitionstrengthentheassumptionsofglobalpatternsofcomplexverbalactions.Alearner,havingonlylimitedcommandofthe
Page22
language,automaticallyaimsfirsttodevelopthemostcrucialandimportantpartsofthelexicalmaterialofthenewlanguage.Andforthefirstverbalactivitiesofadultimmigrantsthesearethenouns.
NotestoChapter1
1.ForfulldescriptionoftheprojectcomparePerdue,C.,1984,SecondLanguageAcquisitionbyAdultImmigrants:AFieldManual.Rowley,MA:NewburyHouse.
2.Thesestatisticswereprogrammed,runandprintedbyWolframSteckner.
Reference
GENTNER,D.,1982,Whynounsarelearnedbeforeverbs:linguisticrelativityversusnaturalpartitioning.InS.A.Kuczaj(ed.),LanguageDevelopment:LanguageCognitionandCulture.Hillsdale,NJ:Erlbaum,301-34.
Page23
2TypologicalMarkednessasaResearchToolintheStudyofSecondLanguageAcquisitionKennethHyltenstam
Background
Researchintosecondlanguageacquisitionhasprovidedagrowingbodyofobservationsthatpointtoregularitiesindevelopmentalsequencing,inpatternsoftransfer,andinthecommunicativeuseofasecondlanguage.AnumberoffruitfulattemptshavebeenmadetorevealgeneralprinciplesthatwouldpredictstructuralregularitiesforvariousL1/L2combinationsindifferentsettings.Discoveringsuchprinciplesis,ofcourse,onecentralaimforatheoryofsecondlanguageacquisition.
Theapproachtakeninthestudiesthatwillbepresentedherehasitsbackgroundinadevelopmentinlinguisticresearchduringthelastfifteenyearsthatinvolvesanewcross-fertilisationofdifferentresearchbranchesthathadbeeninvestigatedmoreorlessinisolationfromeachotherforsometime.Therearenumerousexamplesofsuchcross-fertilisation,forexamplebetweensociolinguisticresearchandhistoricallinguistics(e.g.Weinreich,Labov,&Herzog,1968),betweenthesetwoareasandpidginandcreolestudies(Traugott,1977),betweenpidginandcreolestudiesandstudiesoflanguageacquisition,inparticularsecondlanguageacquisition(e.g.Schumann,1978),andsoforth.Notleastinterestingistherecentdrawingtogetheroftypologicalresearchontheonehandandformalsyntaxontheother(Hawkins,1983).
Thistendencytorelateresearchfromoneareaoflinguisticapplication
toanotherwasofcoursebroughtaboutbytheobservationthatextensivesimilaritiesinstructuralregularitiesseemedtoexistinthevariousbranches.
Page24
Thus,acentraltaskwastodescribethesesimilaritiesingreaterdetail.Themoregeneralandpervasivethesimilarities,themoreprobabletheexistenceofcommonunderlyingprinciples,centraltothetheoryoflanguage.
Asaframeworkinthissearchforsimilaritiesinlinguisticstructuring,thecross-linguisticperspectivehashelpedresearchersidentifywhatisgeneralandwhatisparticular,forexampleinfirst(Slobin,1982;Berman,1984)andsecondlanguageacquisition(e.g.Johansson,1973),bothfieldswherethecross-linguisticaspecthasplayedanimportantrole.Thisiswherelanguagetypologyandconceptsusedinthisfieldsuchaslanguageuniversalsandmarkednessarepotentiallyapplicable.Forexample,languagetypologyhelpsusposequestionsonpossibleinteractionsofL1andL2inagivenlearningsituationinthatthepropertiesofthetwolanguagescanbeframedinauniversalperspective.Questionssuchaswhatisuniquefortheparticularlanguages,howcorrespondingstructuresdifferinmarkedness,andsoforth,canbespecified.
AspecificimpetusforthestudiesIwillpresentherewasthefactthatthelanguagetypologyapproachhaddevelopedasaframeworkforsecondlanguageacquisitionresearchinSwedenasearlyasthe1970s.Forexample,phonologicalsecondlanguageacquisitionresearchwascarriedoutwithinatypologicalframeworkbyFaithAnnJohanssonintheearly1970s(Johansson,1973),andsyntacticandsemanticstudiesbyBjörnHammarbergandÅkeViberginthemiddleandlate1970s(see,forexample,Hammarberg&Viberg,1977;Viberg,1983).ThisresearchdevelopmentinSwedencan,amongotherreasons,beseenasaconsequenceofthepedagogicalneedsofalinguisticallyheavilyheterogeneousimmigrantpopulation.Amongapopulationoflessthan500,000persons(i.e.thenumberofforeigncitizensinSweden),some140languagesarerepresented.
Now,howcanthefieldoflanguagetypologymorepreciselybeusefulforresearchintosecondlanguageacquisition?Mostimportant,inmyview,istheroletheregularitiesfoundinlanguagetypologyplayasabasisforhypothesesinthedescriptivephaseofsecondlanguageacquisitiondata.Thetypologicalregularitiesgiveideasonwhattolookoutfor.Further,ataninitialexplanatorylevel,wecaninvestigatewhetherprinciplessuchasproposedhierarchiesandmarkednessconditionshaveanypredictivevalueforphenomenasuchasdevelopmentalsequencesandtransfer.
BeforeIgointothepresentationofthepresentstudies,Iwouldjustliketomention,inordertoavoidconfusion,thatthenotionsoflanguageuniversalsandmarkednesswillbeusedinastrictlytypologicalsensehere.Thesamenotionsarealsousedwithdifferentassumptionsinrecentderivativesofgenerativegrammar,aframeworkwhichisnowgaining
Page25
increasedapplicationinsecondlanguageacquisitionresearch(seee.g.White,1983;SharwoodSmith,1983;Mazurkewich,1985).
TheStudies
ThetwosecondlanguageacquisitionstudiesIwillpresenthereweredesignedtoassessstructuralareaswheretypologicalpatterningseemedtobereasonablyreliablydescribed.Oneconcernedthepatternofretention/deletionofpronominalcopiesinrelativeclauses,theotherthevoicedistinctioninstops.Bothareashadbeendiscussedearlierinsecondlanguageacquisitionresearch(seeSchachter,1974;Ioup&Kruse,1977;Gass,1979;Eckman,1977,forrelativeclauses,andEckman,1977,alsoforvoicinginstops).BothareashadalsobeenidentifiedasproblematicforsecondlanguagelearnersofSwedishwithcertainL1s.Thepresentationofthestudieswillnecessarilybebriefandinconclusivehere.Forfurtherdetailsconcerningthestudyofpronominalcopiesinrelativeclauses,seeHyltenstam(1984),andconcerningthestudyofthevoicedistinctioninstops,Hyltenstam&Magnusson(1983).
PronominalCopiesinRelativeClauses
Withregardtothephenomenonofpronominalcopiesinrelativeclauses,languagesdifferbothwithrespecttowhethertheyusethisstrategyornot,and,iftheydo,towhatextent.EnglishandSwedishareexamplesoflanguagesthatdonotusethisdevice,atleastnotinsimplerelativeclauses.Iftheydid,examplessuchasthefollowing,whichIhavetakenfromSchachter(1974),wouldhavebeengrammaticalundercoreferenceconditionsbetweenthepronounandtheheadnounoftherelativeclause.
Subject:theboythathecameDirectobject:theboythatJohnhithimIndirectobject:theboythatIsentalettertohim
Objectofpreposition:theboythatIsatnearhimPossessivenounphrase:theboythathisfatherdiedObjectofcomparison:theboythatJohnistallerthanhim
ThetypologicaldistributionoftheuseofpronominalcopieshasbeenfoundtoreflectthesocalledNPAccessibilityHierarchy(Keenan&Comrie,1977).Thisgeneralisationstatesthatthereisauniversalhierarchyofpositions,thatis,grammaticalfunctions,outofwhichanNPmaybe
Page26
relativised.Thishierarchyis,infact,reflectedintheorderinwhichtheexamplesabovearegiven.Wethushave
SU>DO>IO>OBL>GEN>OCOMP
(whereSU=subject,DO=directobject,IO=indirectobject,OBL=obliqueobject,inEnglishandSwedish,objectofpreposition,GEN=genitive,OCOMP=objectofcomparison).Thedistributionofpronominalcopiesisthusinaccordwiththishierarchy,asseeninTable1.
TALBE1.Typologicalpatternsforretention(+)ordeletion(-)ofpronominalcopiesinrelativeclausesSU DO IO OBL GEN OCOMP- - - - - - mostmarked- - - - - +- - - - + +- - - + + +- - + + + +- + + + + ++ + + + + + leastmarked
Typologicalmarkednessconditionscanbeformulatedbothforthegrammaticalfunctionsassuchandfortheuseofpronominalcopiesonthebasisofimplicationalstatements,whichcanbederivedfromthepatterninginthistable.Theimplicationalstatementsareasfollows:ifaparticulargrammaticalfunctioninthehierarchyisrelativisableinanygivenlanguage,thenallpositionshigherinthehierarchymustalsoberelativisableinthatlanguage.Parallelformulationscanbegivenforthedeletionofpronominalcopiesinrelativeclauses:ifapronominalcopyisdeletedinaparticularpositioninthehierarchy,itmustalsobedeletedinallpositionshigherinthehierarchy.Ifwedefinethetypologicallyimplyingtermasmoremarkedthantheimpliedterm,wegetthemarkednessconditionsas
statedinTable1.
Inthepresentstudy,thechoiceofL1'stoberepresentedamongthelearnerswasmadeonthegroundsthatbothmarkedandunmarkedlanguagesshouldbeincluded.Tofindappropriatelanguages,thedescriptionsgiveninKeenan&Comrie(1977)werefollowed.Thus,thedecisionwasmadetoincludeFinnish,Greek,Persian,andSpanish.ThepatternsofpronominalcopiesintheselanguagesandSwedish,accordingtoKeenanandComrie,arethoseseeninTable2.
Page27
TABLE2.Retention(+)anddeletion(-)ofpronominalcopiesinSwedish,Finnish,Spanish,Greek,andPersianrelativeclausesSU DO IO OBL GEN OCOMP- - - - - - Swedish- - - - - Finnish- - - - - Spanish- - +? +? + + Greek- (+) + + + + Persian
()=optional?=inconclusivedata
Thequestions,now,thatwereofparticularinteresttomewerethefollowing:
1.DolearnerswhoseL1containsmarkedformsproduceunmarkedstructuresevenwhentheyareacquiringalanguagewithsimilarlymarkedforms?
2.Istheuniversalhierarchyfordeletionofpronominalcopiesretainedinthelearners'interlanguage?If,forexample,alearnerinitiallyusespronominalcopiesandthenlearnstosuppressthem,aretheythenfirstsuppressedinthehigherpositionsinthehierarchy?
Thesubjectsinthisstudywere45adultlearnersofSwedish,12fromeachlanguagegroupexceptfortheFinnishgroupwheretherewereonly9.AllthesubjectsattendedSwedishlanguagecoursesandwereatafairlyadvancedlevel;atthetimeofinvestigationtheyhadreceived350-600hoursofinstruction.
Theelicitationmaterialconsistedofasetofeightpicturesforeachrelativisablefunction.Thesetfortheobjectfunctionexemplifiestheprocedure(cf.Appendix).Ineachsetthereweretwopicturesofwomen,twoofmen,twoofgirls,andtwoofboys,andforeachofthemtwopredicatescouldbeused.Theeightpictureswerenumbered
1-8,anditwasthesubject'stasktoorallyidentifythepersononeachnumberedpicture.Thequestionaskedwas'Whoisnumberx?'andtheanswerexpectedwouldbe'Themanwhosings',forexample.Withineachset,fiveresponseswereelicitedinarow,then,inalastcycle,onefurtherresponsewaselicitedfromeachoftheeightsetsofpictures.Therationalebehindthispictorialtask,ofcourse,wastohavethesubjectsunambiguouslyidentifyreferentsamongasetofminimallydifferingobjects,ataskwhichrathernaturallyelicitsrelativeclauses.
Page28
TheresultscanbeseenfromTable3-6,whereallresponsesofasubjectonaparticulargrammaticalfunctionhavebeencollapsed.Thisprocedurewasjustifiedsincetherewaslittlevariationwithinagivenrelativisedfunctionforallsubjects.Foradisplayoftherawdata,seeHyltenstam(1984:48f).
Table3.ImplicationalscaleshowingpronominalretentionforPersianlearnersofSwedish.ScalingaccordingtotheNPAccessibilityHierarchy.
Scalability93.1
Table4.ImplicationalscaleshowingpronominalretentionforGreeklearnersofSwedish.ScalingaccordingtotheNPAccessibilityHierarchy.
Scalability97.1(if0=-)or98.7(if0=+)
Page29
Table5.ImplicationalscaleshowingpronominalretentionforSpanishlearnersofSwedish.ScalingaccordingtotheNPAccessibility
Hierarchy.Scalability90.3
Table6.ImplicationalscaleshowingpronominalretentionforFinnishlearnersofSwedish.ScalingaccordingtotheNPAccessibilityHierarchy.Scalability85.2-92.6dependingonwhether0=+or-
Aswecansee,pronominalcopiesareusedinallgroupsoflearners,evenbythosewhodonothavethemintheirfirstlanguage.Thepatternseemstobedependentalsoonfirstlanguagestructure,however,astherearemorecopiesintheSwedishofthoselearnerswhoseL1usesthisstrategymorefrequently.Itis,forexamplenotprobablethatFinnishspeakerswouldusepronominalcopieshighinthehierarchyeveninearlierphasesofacquisition.Itis,however,
possiblethatthecorrectgeneralisationisthat
Page30
learnersusepronominalcopiesinhigherpositionsintheirinterlanguagethanintheirnativelanguages;note,forexample,theGreeklearnerswhodonotusepronominalcopiesinDOpositionintheirL1accordingtoournormdescriptionfromKeenanandComrie(1977),whereasintheinterlanguageofsomeoftheGreekspeakers,thisisafairlycommonsolution.TheSpanishgroupwouldseemtobeparticularlyinterestingforquestion1above,sinceinspiteofthefactthatSpanish,accordingtoourdescription,doesnotusepronominalcopies,suchadeviceisemployedtoaconsiderableextentintheirSwedishinterlanguage.AcloserlookatdescriptionsofSpanishreveals,however,thattheKeenanandComriedescriptionseemstoholdtrueforstandardvarietiesofSpanish,butthattherearecolloquialvarieties,especiallyincertainregionsoftheSpanishspeakingcommunity,wherepronominalcopiesareindeedemployed.Unfortunately,thestudyreportedheredidnotcheckforhowtheactuallearnersoftheinvestigationwouldexpresstherequiredutterancesintheirL1,butL1structuremaybepartoftheexplanationforthepatternintheSwedishinterlanguageoftheSpanishspeakinggroup.
TheresultoftheFinnishgroupisthusthemostcrucialevidenceinthisstudy,thatourquestion1canbegivenanaffirmativeanswer:althoughpronominalcopiesdonotoccurinFinnish,thelearners'L1,norinSwedish,theirL2,wefindasmallnumberofoccurrencesintheirinterlanguage.Thenumberofoccurrencesis,aswecansee,extremelysmallbutinthewidertheoreticalframeworkofthisinvestigation,themereexistenceofthecategoryisofsignificance.
Withregardtothesecondquestion,thatis,whetherthehierarchyisreflectedintheinterlanguagesofthelearners,aglanceatTables3-6givessomeindicationthattheremightbeafairlygoodmappinghere.
Deviationsfromtheimplicationalpatternsareindicatedbycircled
entries.Scalabilityfiguresshowthatthesubjectsadheretothetypologicallyvalidpatternstoahighdegree.Parenthetically,weactuallygetabetterfitforoursecondlanguageacquisitiondata,ifweinverttheorderbetweenOCOMPandGENontheonehandandbetweenIOandOBLontheotherinthehierarchy.
Interestingly,thesameresultforthepositionsOCOMPandGENwasobtainedinanacceptabilitystudyamongfirstlanguagelearners(Hawkins&Keenan,1974),suggestingthatapsychologicallyvalidhierarchymightbeslightlydifferentfromthetypologicalone(forfurtherdiscussionofthispoint,cf.Hyltenstam,1984).
Inareplicationofmy1984studywiththesameelicitationinstrument,Pavesi(1986)achievedparallelresultstothosethathavejustbeendescribed.
Page31
HersubjectswereadolescentandadultItalianlearnersofEnglishinbothformalandinformalsettings.BothlanguagesinvolvedinPavesi'sstudy,asL1andL2respectively,werelanguageswithmarkedformsintheareaofpronominalretention/deletion.Inspiteofthefactthatnoneofthelanguagesretainpronominalcopiesinrelativeclauses,theinterlanguageoftheselearnerscontainednumerousinstancesofsuchelements.Infact,thelearnersofthisstudyproducedmorerelativeclauseswiththanwithoutpronominalcopiesandadheredtothesameimplicationalpatternasthesubjectsofmyownstudy,thatis,totheaccessibilityhierarchy.Moreover,theinversionofOCOMPandGENandIOandOBLrespectivelygavehigherscalabilityfiguresalsointhisstudy.
TheresultsofthisreplicationprovidesevenstrongersupportforthecontentionthatevenincaseswherebothL1andL2containmarkedforms,thelearnercancomeupwiththetypologicallycorrespondingunmarkedform.Further,intheprocessofoppressingtheunmarkedforminfavourofthemarkedone,thelearneradherestopatternsthathavebeenidentifiedfornaturallanguagesonatypologicalbasis.Atpresent,however,thegeneralityoftheseresultsforotherstructuralareasremainstobeinvestigated.
TheVoiceDistinctioninStops
ThestudyoftheacquisitionofthevoicedistinctioninSwedishstopsinvolvedalsoacomparisonbetweenfirstandsecondlanguageacquisitiondata,buthere,wewillconsideronlytheL2data.Thestudywascarriedoutinco-operationwithEvaMagnusson,aphoneticianandspeechtherapistattheUniversityofLund.
Typologicalmarkednessconditionsforvoicinginstopscanbeformulatedattwolevels.Atamoregenerallevel,itiscommonlyacceptedsinceJakobson'sformulationin1941thatvoicedstopsimply
theirvoicelesscounterparts.Foraqualificationofthisstatement,seeHyltenstam&Magnusson(1983).Thismeansthatifalanguagehasvoicedstops,itnecessarilyalsohasvoicelessstops.Therefore,voicedstopsareconsideredmoremarkedthanvoicelessstops.Atamorespecificlevel,thereseemstobearegulardifferenceincontextualdistributionofthedistinctionaccordingtoDinnsen&Eckman(1975).Accordingtothisproposal,theexistenceofavoicedistinctioninwordfinalpositionimpliesthemaintenanceofthesamedistinctioninmedialposition,whichinturnimpliesthemaintenanceinwordinitialposition.WethushavethepatterngiveninTable7,whereexamplesoflanguageswiththedifferentdistributionsaregiven.(ThecaseofFinnishisnottotallyclear-cut,sincethislanguagehasamarginaldistinctionbetweentandd.Finnishdisnotgivenaphonemicstatusinalldescriptionsduetothefactthatitismarginalinthephonologicalsystem.
Page32
Itis,forexample,restrictedtomorphologicalcontextinthatitoccursonlyincertaininflectionalforms,andinmanyvarietiesofFinnish,itdoesnotoccuratall.)
TALBE7.TypologicalpatternsforvoicinginstopsInitial Medial Final+ + + e.g.Swedish mostmarked+ + - e.g.German+ - - e.g.Corsican- - - e.g.Finnish leastmarked
OnthebasisofthepatterninginTable7,itcanbestatedthatitismoremarkedtomaintainthevoicedistinctioninwordfinalpositionthaninmedialpositionwhereitinturnismoremarkedthanininitialposition.Itistheleastmarkedcasenottomaintainthedistinctionatall.
Now,oneofthequestionsaskedinthisstudywasthefollowing:
Intheacquisitionofthevoicedistinctioninstopsinasecondlanguagesetting,arethemarkednessconditionsasformulatedonthebasisoftypologicalfactsreflectedinthelearner'soutputduringtheperiodofacquisition,thatis,wouldthelearnerbemoreadvancedintheacquisitionofthevoicedistinctioninthelessmarkedcontexts?
ThesecondlanguagelearnersofthisstudywerechildandadultnativespeakersofFinnish.TheywerechosenforthestudyonthecriterionthattheyhadstillnotcompletelymasteredthevoicedistinctioninSwedish,butexhibitedvariableuseofvoicinginSwedishvoicedstops,indicatingthattheacquisitionalprocesshadstarted.Thereweretenadultsandsixchildren,4to6yearsofage.Thedatawereelicitedwiththehelpofpicturesillustratingwordswhichcontainvoicedandvoicelessstops,andeveryeffortwasmadetocoverallpossiblestructuralcontextsofthestops.Thedatawereanalysedauditorilyin
twosteps.Inthefirststepitwasdecidedwhetherthemanifestationfellwithinthenormallyacceptedvariationornotforvoicedstopsinthevariouscontexts.Inthesecondstep,anarrowtranscriptionofallmanifestationswasundertaken.Here,onlytheresultfromthefirstanalyticalstepwillbepresented.Foramoredetailedpresentationoftheresults,seeHyltenstam&Magnusson(1983:7-15).
TheresultsareshowninTable8.
Page33
TABLE8.Proportionsofacceptablyproducedvoicedstopsinwordinitial,-medial,and-finalposition
V_V V_V V_/b/ children 44 40 10
adults 68 38 33/d/ children 92 56 55
adults 89 87 86/g/ children 64 60 30
adults 59 56 45
Verybriefly,ascanbeseenintheTable,thevoicedstopsareproducedacceptablymoreoftenininitialpositionthaninmedialposition,wheretheyareinturnmoreacceptablethaninfinalposition.Thus,itseemsthatwecananswerourquestionforthisstudyintheaffirmative:aparalleldoesexistbetweenthetypologicaldataandoursecondlanguageacquisitiondatainthisphonologicalarea.
Conclusions
Eventhoughthesetwostudiesarefarfromconclusive,especiallyconsideringthesmallnumberofsubjectsinvolvedandthefactthattheyarecross-sectionalratherthanlongitudinal,theresultsdopointtotheusefulnessoftypologicaldataandnotionssuchasmarkednessforsecondlanguageacquisitionresearch.Asmentionedintheintroductorypartofthispaper,Ibelievetheusefulnessisparticularlysalientinthedescriptivephaseofresearch.Thus,Idonotseetypologicalmarkednessasanexplanatoryconceptforstructuralregularitiesinsecondlanguageacquisitiondata,whereIwouldratherlookforexplanationsataprocessinglevel.Inphonology,forexample,thephysiologicalconstraintsinproductionandperceptionprovideanobviousframeofexplanation.Asregardsthepragmaticandsemanticlevelsoflanguage,morecentralandcognitiveaspectsoflanguageprocessingmustbetakenintoconsideration.Phenomenasuchas
referenceanddeepcaserelations,whicharebothinvolvedinthedecipheringoftherelativisedfunctioninrelativeclauses,mightbedealtwithinthisway.Totaketheexampleofpronominalcopiesinrelativeclauses,oneexplanationthatsuggestsitselfforthefactthatpronominalcopiesareusedinsomerelativisedfunctionsbutnotinothers,andmoreextensivelybylanguagelearnersthanbynativespeakers,isthattheymakethereferentialconditions
Page34
oftherelativeclauseclearerandthesemanticrelationshipsbetweentheverbanditsargumentsmoretransparent.Inshort,thepronominalcopiesmakethedeeprelationsoftherelativeclauseshowupatthesurfacemoreclearly,andthisisanobviouswayofmakingiteasiertoprocess.Ifitisthecase,asseemsreasonable,thattheNPAccessibilityHierarchyhasapsychologicalvalidityinthesensethatrelativeclauseswithfunctionslowinthehierarchyaremoredifficulttoprocess,thentheuseofpronominalcopiescanbeseenasameanstoreducetheprocessingloadwhereitislargest.
Finally,asisobviousfromthediscussionofresultsinthisarticlelanguagetypologyseemstobeausefulbasisformakingpredictionsonsecondlanguageacquisitionpatterning,ifdueconsiderationisgiventohowthestructuresofthelanguagesinvolvedinthelearningsituation(L1andL2)patternwithinatypologicalframework.
Appendix
Page35
References
BERMAN,R.A.,1984,Crosslinguisticfirstlanguageperspectivesonsecondlanguageacquisitionresearch.InR.W.ANDERSEN(ed.),SecondLanguages:ACrosslinguisticPerspective.Rowley,MA:NewburyHouse,13-36.
DINNSEN,D.A.&ECKMAN,F.,1975,Afunctionalexplanationofsomephonologicaltypologies.InR.GROSSMAN,J.SAN&T.VANCE(eds),Functionalism.Chicago:ChicagoLinguisticSociety,126-139.
ECKMAN,F.,1977,Markednessandthecontrastiveanalysishypothesis.LanguageLearning27,315-330.
GASS,S.,1979,Languagetransferanduniversalgrammaticalrelations.LanguageLearning29,327-344.
HAMMARBERG,B.&VIBERG,Å.,1977,Theplace-holderconstraint,languagetypology,andtheteachingofSwedishtoimmigrants.StudiaLinguistica31,106-163.
HAWKINS,J.A.,1983,WordOrderUniversals.NewYork:AcademicPress.
HAWKINS,S.&KEENAN,E.L.,1974,Thepsychologicalvalidityoftheaccessibilityhierarchy.PaperpresentedattheSummerMeetingoftheLinguisticSocietyofAmerica.
HYLTENSTAM,K.,1984,Theuseoftypologicalmarkednessconditionsaspredictorsinsecondlanguageacquisition:Thecaseofpronominalcopiesinrelativeclauses.InR.W.ANDERSEN(ed),SecondLanguages:ACrosslinguisticPerspective.Rowley,MA:NewburyHouse,39-58.
HYLTENSTAM,K.&MAGNUSSON,E.,1983,Typologicalmarkedness,contextualvariation,andtheacquisitionofthevoicecontrastinstopsbyfirstandsecondlanguagelearnersofSwedish.InT.K.BHATIA&W.
RITCHIE(eds),Progressioninsecondlanguageacquisition(SpecialIssue),IndianJournalofAppliedLinguistics9,1-18.
IOUP,G.&KRUSE,A.,1977,Interferenceversusstructuralcomplexityinsecondlanguageacquisition:Languageuniversalsasabasisfornaturalsequencing.InH.D.BROWN,C.A.YORIO&R.H.CRYMES(eds),OnTESOL'77:TeachingandLearningEnglishasaSecondLanguage.Washington,DC:TESOL.
JAKOBSON,R.,1941,Kindersprache,AphasieundallgemeineLautgesetze.Uppsala:Almqvist&Wiksell.
JOHANSSON,F.A.,1973,ImmigrantSwedishPhonology:AStudyinMultipleContactAnalysis.Lund:CWKGleerup.
KEENAN,E.L.&COMRIE,B.,1977,Nounphraseaccessibilityanduniversalgrammar.LinguisticInquiry8,63-99.
MAZURKEWICH,I.,1985,Syntacticmarkednessandlanguageacquisition.StudiesinSecondLanguageAcquisition7,15-36.
PAVESI,M.,1986,Markedness,discoursalmodes,andrelativeclauseformationinaformalandaninformalcontext.StudiesinSecondLanguageAcquisition8,38-55.
SCHACHTER,J.,1974,Anerrorinerroranalysis.LanguageLearning24,145-151.
SCHUMANN,J.H.,1978,ThePidginizationProcess:AModelforSecondLanguageAcquisition.Rowley,MA:NewburyHouse.
SHARWOODSMITH,M.,1983,Crosslinguisticaspectsofsecondlanguageacquisition.AppliedLinguistics4,192-199.
SIOBIN,D.,1982,Universalandparticularintheacquisitionoflanguage.InL.R.
Page36
GLEITMAN&E.WANNER(eds),LanguageAcquisition:TheStateoftheArt.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,128-170.
TRAUGOTT,E.CLOSS,1977,Naturalsemantax:itsroleinthestudyofsecondlanguageacquisition.InS.P.CORDER&E.ROULET(eds),TheNotionsofSimplification,Interlanguages,andPidginsandtheirRelationtoSecondLanguagePedagogy.Neuchâtel:FacultédesLettres,132-162.
VIBERG,Å.,1983,Theverbsofperception:atypologicalstudy.InB.BUTTERWORTH,B.COMRIE&Ö.DAHL(eds),Explanationsforlanguageuniversals[specialissue].Linguistics21(1).Berlin:Mouton,123-162.
WEINREICH,U.,LABOV,V.&HERZOG,M.I.,1968,Empiricalfoundationsforatheoryoflanguagechange.InW.P.LEHMANN&Y.MALKIEL(eds),DirectionsforHistoricalLinguistics.Austin,TX:UniversityofTexasPress,95-188.
WHITE,L.,1983,Markednessandparametersetting:Someimplicationsforatheoryofadultsecondlanguagelearning.McGillWorkingPapersinLinguistics1,1-21.
Page37
3ForeignLanguageAcquisitionandtheDevelopmentofAutomaticityJaakkoLehtonen
Thebiasofthepresentpaperistodiscusssomeaspectsinthedevelopmentofforeignlanguage(FL)proceduralknowledgeintermsoftheresultsoftestswithFinnishstudentsofEnglish,German,andSwedishattheUniversityofJyväskyläandwithGermanstudentsofEnglish,French,andSpanishattheUniversityofKasselinWestGermany(fortheconceptofproceduralknowledgeinFLprocessing,seeDechert&Raupach,1985).Thefocusinthisdiscussionisontheassessmentofthedevelopmentandthedegreeofautomaticityonthebasisofthedifferencesinthereactiontime(RT)latenciesoftheinformantsinvariouslinguisticdecisiontasks.TheGermandatawerecollectedincooperationwiththeKAPPApsycholinguisticresearchgroupoftheUniversityofKassel.
Investigationintothecognitiveprocessesunderlyinglanguageperceptionandproductionistheultimatetaskofpsycholinguistics.TodayitisalsooneofthefocusesofresearchintheJyväskyläCross-LanguageProject,whichismorethantenyearsold.Inthecontrastiveframeworkthiskindofemphasismeansanalysingthelearner'slanguageprocessingmodesorstrategiesascomparedtotheprocessesinhisorhernativelanguagebehaviourandtotheprocessesofthenativespeakersofthetargetlanguage.ToquoteHansDechert(1983:122),'contrastivepsycholinguistics,lessinterestedintheproductsoffirstandsecondlanguagesthanContrastiveLinguisticsis,seekstoinvestigatetheunderlyingprocessesofperceptionandproduction.Whatweshouldbelookingat...isnotsomuchthedifferent
linguisticsystemsthelearnerisstrugglingagainst,buttheoneinformationprocessingsystemheorshehasandtheproceduresheorsheusestodealwithhisorherlinguisticin-andoutput.'
Page38
Intheperceptionandproductionofspeechtheprocessesoftheidentificationofvariouslinguisticstructuresandtheretrievalofwordsfrommemorymusttakeplaceinrealtime.Iftheprocessesaretooslow,thecommunicativeconsequencesarefatalbothtothespeakerandtothelistener.Asaspeaker,aslowprocessorbecomesdisfluent,andhisorherspeechischaracterisedbyfrequentandlonghesitationpausesandotherdisfluencies.Asalistener,heorshelosesthetrackeasilyandisunabletogeneraterelevantresponsesininteraction.Botharetypicalcharacteristicsofaforeignlanguagespeakerorlistener(seee.g.Lehtonen,1979).Inadditiontothemostobviousgeneralexplanationofthesephenomena,thatis,toolowalevelofallkindsofknowledgerelatingtotheforeignlanguage,therearetwofeaturesofhisorherproceduralknowledgeresultinginadelayintherateofprocessingwhichserveasapartialexplanationforthedisfluenciesofhisorherFLprocessing:(a)theFLspeakermaynothavedevelopedanetworkofsemantic,lexical,grammatical,textual,andpragmaticassociationswhichwouldfacilitatetheprocessingand/or(b)theprocesseshavenotbeenautomatisedandarethereforetime-consuming.Theyalsorequirealargeamountofsystemcapacity,anddistractthesystemfromenteringahigherlevelofprocessing.
Shiffrin&Dumais(1980)distinguishbetweentwoqualitativelydifferentformsofcognitiveprocessing:controlledandautomatic.Controlledprocessingrequiresattentionanddecreasesthesystemcapacitywhichisavailableforotherprocessing.Automaticprocessingdoesnotnecessarilydemandprocessingresources,whichmeansthatthereiscapacityinthesystemforhigher-levelprocessing.Everydayexamplesofautomatisedsequencesare,forinstance,drivingacar,playingthepiano,typing,andreadingaloud,whichallinvolveaspectsofrathercomplexbehaviour.
AccordingtoMcLaughlin,Rossman&McLeod(1983),thedistinctionbetweencontrolledandautomaticprocessesisrelatedto
thedegreetowhichtheskillsinquestionhavebeenroutinisedandestablishedinlongtermmemory:iftheskillsarewell-masteredandpermanent,informationprocessingcanbesaidtobeautomatic.Itisworthnoticinghavingtheforeignlanguagelearningsituationinmindthatretrainingtoadoptanewautomaticsequencecanbearduousandmoredifficultthantheinitiallearningprocess.Thissuggeststhatifthereisanyproceduraltransferfromthenativelanguageprocessingmodeduringtheprocessofforeignlanguageacquisition,aninhibitoryeffectcouldbeexpectedtotakeplaceinacquisitionasconcernsprocesseswhichareautomatisedinthemothertonguebutmustbemodifiedtofitthetargetlanguagesystem.
Page39
Thereareseveralinstrumentalmethodswhichcanbeappliedforthepurposesofpsycholinguisticexperimentation.Likewise,thepossibilitiesofcontrollingthetestingprocedureasawholeareunlimited.Thepresentarticleconcentratesontheapplicationofreactiontimemeasurementstotheanalysisofautomaticandcontrolledtransferinprocessingfromthenativelanguageandofthedevelopmentofautomaticityintheforeignlanguagespeaker'slanguageprocessingsystem.Thewaystherearetolearnaboutthehumaninformationprocessingsystemareratherrestricted:wecananalyseitsprintouts,thatis,spokenandwrittentexts,producedinvariouscontexts;wecantrytodiscoveritsweakpointsbylistingerrorsthatitmakes,orwecanfeedintothemachinevariousproblemswhicharesimpleenoughandseehowaccuratelyandhowfastitsucceedsinsolvingthem.Thisiswhatisattemptedwiththereactiontimeexperiments.
Itwillbehypothesisedforthepurposesofthepresentarticlethatreactiontimesreflectthedegreeofautomaticity:thefasterthereactionisthehigherthelevelofautomaticityindecisionmaking.ThiskindofinterpretationofRTdataimpliesthattherearetwomodesofretrieval,ortwoaccessmodestolinguisticknowledgeinthecentralnervoussystem:automaticandcontrolled.Sometasksconsumemorecognitiveresourcesandinvolveslowerprocessing;thesearecalledcontrolledprocesses.Automaticprocessesagainutilisearelativelypermanentsetofassociativeconnectionsandproceedatafasterrate.Bothcontrolledandautomaticprocessescaninprinciplebeeitherconsciousornot(McLaughlin,Rossman&McLeod,1983).Sincemostautomaticprocessesoccurwithgreatspeed,theyaremostlyhiddenandareunattainablebyconsciousperceptionandintrospection.McLaughlin,Rossman&McLeod(1983)emphasisetheconceptualdistinctionbetweenautomaticityandconsciousness:thedistinctionbetweenautomaticandcontrolledprocessingisnot
basedonconsciousandsubconsciousawarenessbut,instead,relatestothedegreetowhichtheskillsinquestionhavebeenroutinisedandestablishedinlongtermmemory.Thisalsoimpliesthataprocessrequirestrainingtobeautomatic.
Thepoorerperformanceofbilingualsintheirsecondlanguageis,accordingtoEdithMägiste(1984),duetotheirfailuretoachievethesamelevelofautomaticfamiliaritywithwordsofthesecondlanguageasmonolingualsubjectsachieve.Similarly,FavreauandSegalowitz(1983)concludeintheirstudyofbilingualCanadiansthatthelessskilledreadersshowedlessautomaticity(orinhibitionlessfacilitation)intheirsecondlanguagethanthemoreskilledreadersdidortheythemselvesdidintheirfirstlanguage.
Page40
TheExperiment
Thestartinghypothesisissimpleinthatreactionstofamiliarandautomatisedstructuresarefasterandmoreaccurate,whiledecisionsconcerningtheacceptabilityoflessfamiliarconstructsareslowerandlessaccurate.Thelinguistictasksinthepresentexperimentsincludecorrect/incorrectdecisionsofsentenceswhichdo,ordonot,containanapparentgrammaticalerror.Itwillbehypothesisedthatsuchacceptabilityteststouchupontheproductionmechanismintwoways:(a)ifthelistener/readeracceptsthepattern,itimpliesthatheorsheacceptsthesameconstructalsoinhisorherownspeech;and(b)afastrateofreactionindicatesahighdegreeofavailabilityofthedatafortheprocessingmechanismandahighlevelofautomaticityinthedecisionprocess(forfurtherdiscussion,seeLehtonen&Sajavaara,1985).
Itisknownfromexperiencethatthereactiontimetoasimpleyes/nostimulus(e.g.lighton/lightoff)isaboutonefifthofasecond.Thistimeincludestheidentificationofthestimulus,itscategoricalrecognition,theselectionandplanningoftheresponseandthemotoractivity.Ifthetaskismorecomplex,iftheinformanthastochoosebetweentwoormorealternatives,thereactiontimestendtogrowlonger.Insimpleword/nonworddecisiontasksandinlexicalnamingtasks,typicalreactiontimesofnativeinformantsvaryaround600milliseconds.Inacceptabilitytaskswithshortsentencesinaforeignlanguagethetimesneededforthedecisionmayvaryfromonesecondtoseveralseconds(Lehtonen&Sajavaara,1985).Theinterpretationofreactiontimestolinguisticstimuliisoftenproblematic,becausethereisnostraightforwardrelationshipbetweenreactiontimesandthecomplexityofthetaskintermsofthelinguisticcomplexityofthestimulus.Linguisticcomplexityorthecomplexityofthestimulusaccordingtoagivengrammaticaltheoryisnotnecessarilyisomorphic
withtheproceduralcomplexityofthetaskinquestion.TheinterpretationoftheresultsofcontrastiveorinterlanguageRT-testsissomewhateasier,becauseacomparisonoftheforeignlanguagespeaker'sandthenative'sreactionsassuchservesasdatafortheestablishmentofthedegreeofsimilaritybetweentheforeignlanguagespeaker'sandthenative'sprocesses.
Table1summarisessomeofthemostrecenttestscarriedoutbytheJyväiskyläCross-LanguageProject.Inthesetestsatotalnumberof91EnglishsentencesandavaryingnumberofcorrespondingFinnish,Swedish,andGermansentenceswerepresentedtachistoscopicallytoagroupof20FinnishuniversitystudentsofEnglishattheUniversityofJyväskylä,Finland.Inaddition,theEnglishandGermansentenceswerepresentedtoagroupofGermanstudentsofEnglishattheUniversityofKassel,FederalRepublic
Page41
ofGermany.Thetaskwastodecide,asfastaspossible,whetherthesentenceseenonthescreenwascorrectornot,orwhetherthetranslationofthesentencewhichwasseeninoneofthesubtestsonthescreenbelowtheEnglishsentencewascorrectornot.Theinformantsreactedbypushingoneoftwobuttonsbeforethem.InbothlanguagegroupshalfofthestudentshadcompletedtheirtermabroadorhadstayedforaperiodofsixmonthsormoreinanEnglish-speakingcountry.TenoftheFinnishstudentshadGerman,andfiveSwedishastheirminorsubject.MostoftheGermansubjectshadFrenchorSpanishastheirminorsubjectsatuniversity.
TABLE1.MeandecisiontimeswithspeakersofFinnish,German,andEnglishtovariousacceptabilitydecisiontasks
sentences translation1 2 3 4 5
speakersof English Finnish German Swedish E/Fi E/Ge E/SwFinnish(N=20)
2870 2426 3379 3082 3446 3962 3784
German(N=20) 2178 - 1785 - - 2306 -English(N=15) 1998 - - - - - -
Figuresincolumn1standforthereactiontimesofFinnish,GermanandEnglishinformantstoanacceptabilitydecisionofvisuallypresentedsentencesinEnglish(1),column2inFinnish,3inGermanand4inSwedish.Column5representsreactionsintasksinwhichthesubjectswereaskedtodecidewhetherthetranslationofanEnglishsentencewascorrectornot.Thedifferenceofthemeansbetweenthemothertonguereactionsandthetwoforeignlanguagedecisiontasksarestatisticallystronglysignificant,bothintheFinnishandintheGermangroup.Ineachsubtest,thestimuliwerepresentedinarandomisedorder.Variousdistractorsentenceswereusedtopreventconsciousmonitoringofanyfeaturesinthetestsentences.Thesyntacticandlexicalstructureofthesentenceswasassimpleas
possible.Sentencelengthvariedslightlybuteachsentencetookonlyonelineinthetachistoscopicprojection.ThelinguisticproblemsembeddedinthesentenceswereselectedfromtheerroranalysisdatacollectedbytheJyväskyläCross-LanguageProject.Accordingly,mostoftheerroneousstimuliweresimilartotypicalerrorsmadebyFinnishstudentsofEnglish,German,andSwedish.
Thetestpatternwasoriginallyconstructedfortheassessmentoftheinfluenceofthenativelanguageaswellasofanyotherforeignlanguage
Page42
ontheprocessingofagiventargetlanguage.ThehypothesiswasthatEnglish,whichisthefirstforeignlanguagetaughttothegreatmajorityofFinnishcomprehensiveschoolchildren,mightinterfereinthelearningofSwedish,Germanandotherforeignlanguages.
Afewwordsmaysufficetoillustratethisaspectinthedata:ingeneral,therewassomeevidenceinthedatawhichsuggeststheexistenceofsomeL3-transferinthedecisiontasks.Forinstance,inthetranslationtaskoneofthefastestreactionsbyFinnswasthedecisionontheGermantranslationofthesentenceHewasgivenabook=*ErwurdeeinBuchgegeben.
1ThemajorityoftheFinns(12outof20)acceptedthisincorrectGermansentence,whichwas,ofcourse,rejectedbythenativeGermans,thedecisiontimebeingthefastestofallEnglish-Germansentencepairs.AsimilarpieceofevidenceforL3-transferataratherautomatisedlevelofprocessingistheFinns'reactiontoa'falsefriend'inGermanandSwedishsentences:17outof20Finnishinformantsacceptedveryfast(theratewasthe7thoutof23sentences)theerroneousGermantranslationofTheyrushedtothestation=*SieraschtenzumBahnhof(proSieeiltenzumBahnhof).Similarly18outof20acceptedtheSwedishnonsense-translation*Lisarasadetillparken(Sw.rasa'torage')oftheEnglishsentenceLisarushedtotheparkwithanaverageRTof3630milliseconds.ItisinterestingtoseethatthegreatmajorityoftheFinnsalsoacceptedtheerroneouswords*raschenandrasainisolatedGermanandSwedishsentencesrespectivelywithacorrespondingspeedandunanimity:German*ErraschtezurBank16/20'right'in3060msec,andSwedish*HonrasadetillStockman17/20'right'in2780milliseconds.Itissomewhatconfusingthatatthesametimethesameinformantsapparentlyknewtherightword,whichisindicatedbythefactthat17/20ofthemalso
acceptedthecorrectSwedishsentencePellerusadeinihuset'Pellerushedintothehouse'veryfast(2675msec).Similarly,abouthalfoftheFinnishstudentsacceptedtheisolatederroneoussentence*IchwurdeeinBuchgegeben,althoughafteralongdecisiontime(3805msec)but10outof20alsoacceptedthecorrectsentenceMirwurdeeinAutogegeben'Iwasgivenacar'.
IneachgroupofTable1thetasksinaforeignlanguagerequiredmoretimethanthedecisionsinthemothertongue.ThisisinaccordancewithearlierfindingsfromseveraldifferenttasksinwhichtheRT'softheFinnishstudentsofEnglishandGermantothenativeandtargetlanguagestimuliwererecorded(seee.g.Lehtonen&Sajavaara,1985);inalltesttypesthestudents'reactionstoforeignlanguagestimulihadbeenslowerthanthoseofthenativespeakersandslowerthantheirreactionstostimuliintheirmothertongue.ThishasbeeninterpretedasanindicationofalackofautomaticityintheFLprocedures.
Page43
ThedifferencebetweenthemeanreactiontimesoftheFinnishgroupandtheGermangroupinTable1issurprisinglyhigh.TheGermansarefasterintheirmothertonguedecisions,butthedifferencebetweenthetwogroups'twoEnglishlanguagetasksisstillhigher.Severaltentativeexplanationsarepossible.Thephysicaltestenvironmentsweredifferent,butthisshouldhaveratherbenefitedtheFinnishgroup,whichwastestedinapropertestingstudio.Otherwisetheconditionswereidentical:similarinstructions,thesameexpositiontime(2sec),andthesamepicturesizeonthescreen.AmoreprobableexplanationfortheFinns'longerreactiontimescanbefoundinadifferentfocusofattentionamongtheFinnishandGermanFLstudents.TheFinnishstudentshadlearnedatschooltomonitortheformalcorrectnessoftheutterancesbothintheirmothertongueandinforeignlanguages.ThisfocusonerrorsandgrammaticalcorrectnessatthecostoffluencyofdeliveryandcommunicativeskillsmayhavebeenfurtherreinforcedbyFinnishuniversityeducation.TheGermanstudentsmayhavebeentaughtmoreinteractiveskillsandtheymayhavebeenencouragedtocommunicateeveniftheirutterancesarenotalwaysformallyperfect.ThishypothesisissupportedbythepreliminaryfindingsthattheGermansseemtomakemoreerrorsintheirreactionstotheunanimouslycorrectorfalsesentencesintheirnativelanguagethanFinnsdo.Butthereisonemoreexplanationwhichistheoreticallyobviousbuthardtoverify:thetypologicalinterrelationshipofthelanguages.GermansmaybefasterinEnglishbecauseofthestructuralsimilarityofthesetworelatedlanguages.TheFinns'reactionstotasksinanyGermaniclanguageareslowerbecausetheycannottransfertheproceduralschemataoftheirmothertonguetotheprocessingoflanguageswhicharetotallyunrelatedtotheirnativelanguage(cf.Ringbom,1979,1985).
Phenomenainforeign-languageprocessing,however,dependonseveralotherfactorsinadditiontothedifferencesandsimilarities
betweenthesourceandtargetlanguages.Theseare,amongotherthings,culturalpatterns,motivationalfactors,theamountoflanguagecontacts,andthemodeoflanguageexposition.Thelastfactor,thatis,whethertheknowledgeoftheforeignlanguagehasbeenacquiredprimarilyinnaturalisticinteractionwithnativespeakersinvarioussocialsituationsorwhethermostofithasbeenacquiredinformalclassroomsituations,appearstobeespeciallyimportantforthedevelopmentofnative-likeautomaticity.TheFinnishinformantshadbeentaughtEnglish(orGerman)forthemostpartthroughtraditionalteacher-centredmethods.BecauseFinlandisalmostentirelymonolingualandthereispracticallynoimmigrationfromothercountries,Finns,exceptthoselivinginthenarrowbilingualcoastalarea,hadonlybeenminimallyexposedtoreallifecommunicativeFLsituations.
Page44
Althoughthevariationinreactiontimesbetweenindividualshasnotyetbeenanalysedindetail,somepreliminaryremarksarepossiblehere.ThemeanreactiontimesofindividualinformantsofthetwolanguagegroupstoeachsubtestaregiveningraphicforminFigure1andFigure2.Ineachfigure,theinformantshavebeenarrangedintheorderoftherateofthereactionsinthenativetonguetasks.Therunningnumberofthosestudentswhohadcompletedtheirtermabroadisitalicised.PreliminaryinspectionofthereactiontimesseemstosuggestthatthestayofsixmonthsinanEnglishspeakingcountrydidnotspeedupthereactionratesineitherlanguagegroup.ThisfindingcontradictsearlierresultswhichshowedasignificantquickeningoftheFinns'reactionstoEnglishidiomsandcollocationsintheresidencegroup.ItisalsoworthnoticinginFigure1andFigure2thatFinnsandGermansseemtoexperiencethedifficultyofthetranslationtaskinadifferentway:thetranslationtaskrequiredmoretimethanindividualsentencesforallFinnsexceptno.12,butintheGermangrouptherearenineinformantswhoperformedthetranslationtaskfasterthantheEnglishsentencetask.
Automaticprocessinghasbeensaidtofreecognitivecapacityforhigherleveltaskssuchasintegrationofinformationandinferencing.Itispossibletohypothesisethatinthecaseofisolatedsentencesorsentencepairssuchasthoseincludedinthetestsreportedabove,automaticprocessingproceedsindependentlyatseverallevelssimultaneously.Oneoftheselevelscouldbeoneofacceptability,whichinvolvesdecisionsontheacceptabilityandnon-acceptabilityofutterances.Itcouldbepossibletohypothesisetheexistenceofanacceptability-detectionautomaton,whichautomaticallyweighsthe'familiarityvalue'oftheincomingsentenceinthecaseofthenatives'reactionstounambiguoussentences.Accordingtothishypothesisboththerejectionoferroneousstimuliandtheacceptanceofcorrectsentencesarefastandautomatic,ifthestimulusexceedsthe
thresholds.Butifthefamiliarity/unfamiliarityfallsbelowthethresholdvalue,orifthesentencedeviatesfromwhatisplausible,amonitoringorsearchingprocessistriggeredwhichresultsinlengthenedreactionsinthecaseofnativespeakers.Thishypothesisexplains,forinstance,thenativeGermans'andtheFinnishstudents'reactionstoGermansentencesinoneofourearliertests(Lehtonen&Sajavaara,1985).ThemajorityoftheFinnishstudentsacceptedveryfasttheerroneoussentence*HastduvielePhotosgenommenwhichwasconstruedonthebasisoftheFinnishcollocationottaavalokuvia'totakephotos',becauseofthetransferfromtheirmothertongue,whilethenativesneededalmostthesametimeastheFinnstorejectit.Apparentlythissentencedidnotexceedtherejectionthresholdbuttriggeredasearchforsuchcontextsinwhichthesentencecouldbepossible.
Page45
Thetheoryofgrammaticaldecision-makingcanbeintegratedintothegeneralmodelofsignaldetection,whichexplainstheslowerresponsesfoundinthetestsonthebasisoftheconceptofstimulusfamiliarity.Accordingtothisconcept,itemsthatfallbelowthethresholdofunfamiliarityorabovethethresholdoffamiliarityarerespondedtoveryquickly,becausetheyrequirenosearchofmemory.Butitemswhichfallbetweenthetwothresholdsarerespondedtoonlyafterarelativelytime-consumingmemorysearch(cf.Lachman&Butterfield,1979).Intestslikethosereportedabove,thesentenceswhichfallunanimouslybelowthelevelofacceptabilityorplausibility,andarethereforerejected,andthesentenceswhichcorrespondtothegeneralpatternsofexpectations,andareaccordinglyaccepted,elicitamarkedlyfasterreactioninthenativespeakersthanthosethatfallbetweentwothresholds(cf.Lehtonen&Sajavaara,1983).Theforeignlanguagestudents,ontheotherhand,becauseoftheirsmallamountofknowledgeinthenewlanguage,maynothavedevelopedsuchanetworkofassociationswhichwouldfunctionlikean'acceptabilityautomaton'.Consequently,theyneedmoretimefortheirdecision-making.
Thereareseveraldifferenttheorieswhichcouldbeadaptedtotheanalysisanddescriptionofautomaticityinthelanguageprocessingoftheforeignlanguagelearner.Logan(1985)presentsaviewofautomaticitywhichisdifferentfromthatoftherepresentativesoftheautomatic-controlleddichotomytheory.Hereferstoaninterestingaspectofautomaticity,skillandcontrol:normally,skilled,thatis,moreautomatised,performanceisbettercontrolledthanlessskilledperformance;skilledperformersareusuallyabletocontroltheirperformancebetterthanunskilledperformers,eventhoughtheirperformanceislikelytobemoreautomatic.Accordingly,hesuggeststhatthecontrastbetweenautomaticityandcontrolmaybeanartifact,andthatthegeneralbeliefthatautomaticityandcontrolareopposites
maybemistakenor,atleast,overstated.AccordingtoLogan,psychologistsoftencharacterisephenomenaasdichotomies.Inthisway,automaticityintheliteratureiscontrasted,ifnotwithcontrol,withsomebinaryoppositesuchasstrategicprocessingorconsciousprocessing.Loganalsocriticisesthestandardtheoryofautomaticity,whichdescribesautomatisationasareductionoftheresourcesneededtoperformatask.AccordingtoLogan,skilledperformerscarryouttheirtasksdifferentlyfrombeginners;thismeansthatautomatisationisratherashiftinthekindsofresourcesusedthanamerereductionoftheresources.
Itseemsobviousthatthedevelopmentofnative-likeautomaticityiscrucialintheprocessofforeignlanguageacquisition.Futureresearchquestionstobeansweredinclude,amongothers,thefollowing:whatistheroleofnativelanguageautomaticityintheprocessofFLacquisition?Is
Page46
TheFinnishinformants'reactiontimestovariouslinguisticdecisiontasks
Page47
TheGermaninformants'reactiontimestovariouslinguisticdecisiontasks
Page48
thereanytransferatthelevelofautomatisedprocesses,andhowdoeslanguageprocessingautomaticitydevelop?Whatistheroleofpracticeinproducingautomaticityisitpossibleonlybydoing,byexperiencingandexercising?And,lastbutnotleast,whatismeantbyautomaticityafterall?Yet,inMcLaughlin's(1983)words,anadequatetheoryofsecondlanguagelearningshouldincludenotonlyspecificationofhowautomaticandcontrolledprocessesarecoordinatedbutalsoanunderstandingoftheroleandfunctionofconsciousness.
GeneralDiscussion
Thereisnoreasontobelieveinanyuniversaltheoryofthedevelopmentofautomaticityinforeignlanguageacquisitionatthepresentstateofpsycholinguisticresearch,butthereisnoneedtofavourultimatepessimismeither.IthasbeensuggestedsomewherethatapsycholinguistislikeablindIndiantryingtodescribeanelephant.Atthepresentstateofourexperimentalknowledgeoflanguageprocessingourtheoriesandmodelsnecessarilycontainblackboxesorhypotheticalassumptionsaboutvariousstructuresandprocesses.Buttherearemorewindowsthanjustonethroughwhichonecantrytopeepintotheboxesandlearnabouttheirstructureandprospectivelineofaction.Oneoftheavailablewindowsisthemeasurementofthetimesneededinvariouslinguisticdecisiontasks,whichwasdiscussedabove.
Butevenifmanyoftheprocessesbeyondthedevelopmentofautomaticityareunknown,wecanagreewiththeclaimthatautomatisedprocesses(ascontrarytoconsciousplanning)aretypicalofcompetentlinguisticbehaviour.Andersen(1986)suggeststhatthepathtocommunicationcompetencecouldbedescribedasconsistingoffivelevels.Thelowestlevelisthatofunconsciousincompetence,wherecommunicatorsmakemistakesbutareunawareoftheirerrors.
Leveltwoisthatofconsciousincompetence,whichmeansunpleasantawarenessofthepoorqualityofone'sperformance(thisstageiscriticalbecauseconsciousnessofincompetencemayaddtoanxietyandactuallydecreasecompetence;cf.Lehtonen,Sajavaara,&Manninen,1985).Thethirdlevelisthatofconsciouscompetence,sincethecommunicatorthoughtfullyandanalyticallymodifieswhatheorsheisdoing.Thenextlevel,whichisthegoaloflanguagelearning,isthatofunconsciouscompetence:theskillsaresowellmasteredthatawarenesscanbedirectedtolistening,tocollectingfeedback,andtowardotherenvironmentalstimuli.Andersenfinallydescribesonemorelevelofcompetence,thatofconscioussupercompetence,whichisneededforpeakperformance.Itisworthnoticing
Page49
thatinthistheoryunconsciousnessappearsatboththelowestandthehighestlevelofcommunicativecompetence.Intheseterms,competencereferstoskillswhicharemasteredautomatically,savingresourcesforhigherlevelprocessing.
Boththelinguistandthelanguageteachersometimesunderestimatethecomplexityofthecontrolmechanismswhichunderliecompetentorsuccessfullanguagebehaviour:acompetentperformerhastocontrolhisorherpersonalgoals,heorshehastoorganisediverseperceptionsintoacoherentplanofaction,heorshehastoadapthisorherbehaviourtosituationalneeds,heorshehastopredictandexplaintheother'scommunicativebehaviour,heorshehastocontrolbothverbalandnonverbalcuesoftheother'sbehaviour,heorshehastocontroltheturn-takingprocedures,fillpauses,reacttointerruptionsand,atthesametime,seekappropriatewordsandutterancesinhisorhermemory,planhisorherownspeech,anddecodethatofhisorherinterlocutor.Andmostofthisissupposedtoproceedsubconsciouslyinanautomatisedmanner.Oneobviousproblemintheattemptstoassessthedegreeofautomaticityisthattheprocessesorprocedures(ormaybescriptsandschemata)whichautomatisearenotequaltotheentireperformancebutrepresentindividualaspectsorpartialsubroutines.Consequently,decisiontimescanberecordedwithaconclusionthatthefastertimeisaconsequenceofahigherlevelofautomaticity,butwedonotknowwhichoneoftheprocedureswasautomatisedandresultedinthefasterbehaviourandinwhichway.
NotestoChapter3
1.Ungrammaticalotherwiseerroneoussentencesaremarkedwithanasterisk
References
ANDERSEN,P.A.,1986,Consciousness,cognition,andcommunication.
WesternJournalofSpeechCommunication50(1),87-101.
DECHERT,H.W.,1983,Apleaforcontrastivepsycholinguistics.InK.SAIAVAARA(ed.),Cross-languageAnalysisandSecondLanguageAcquisition1,Jyvaskylä:UniversityofJyväskylä,115-123.
DECHERT,H.W.&RAUPACH,M.,1985,HypothesenzurZweitsprachenproduktion.InR.EPPENEDER(ed.),Lernersprache:ThesenzumErwerbeinerFremdsprache.München:GoetheInstitut,219-288.
FAVREAU,M.&SEGALOWITZ,N.S.,1983,Automaticanticontrolledprocessesinthefirst-andsecond-languagereadingoffluentbilinguals.MemoryandCognition11(6),563-574.
Page50
LACHMAN.R.&BUTTERFIELD,E.C.,1979,CognitivePsychologyandInformationProcessing:AnIntroduction.Hillsdale,NJ:Erlbaum.
LEHTONEN,J.,1979,SpeechrateandpausesintheEnglishofFinns,SwedishspeakingFinns,andSwedes.InR.PALMBERG(ed.),PerceptionandProductionofEnglish.PapersinInterlanguage.Abo:AboAkademi,35-51.
LEHTONEN,J.&SAJAVAARA,K.,1983,Acceptabilityandambiguityinnativeandsecondlanguagemessageprocessing.InH.RINGBOM(ed.),PsycholinguisticsandForeignLanguageLearning.PublicationsoftheResearchInstituteofAboAkademiFoundation.Abo:AboAkademi,101-125.
1985,PsycholinguisticTestingofTransferinForeign-languageSpeechProcessing(SeriesB.paperno.117).Trier:UniversityofTrier.
LEHTONEN,J.,SAJAVAARA,K.&MANNINEN,S.,1985,Communicationapprehensionandattitudestowardaforeignlanguage.ScandinavianWorkingPapersinBilingualism5,53-62.
LOGAN,G.D.,1985,Skillandautomaticity:Relations,implications,andfuturedirections.CanadianJournalofPsychology39(2),367-386.
MÄGISTE,E.,1984,Strooptaskanddichotictranslation:Thedevelopmentofinferencepatternsinbilinguals.JournalofExperimentalPsychology10(2),304-315.
MCLAUGHLIN,B.,ROSSMAN,T.&McLEOD,B.,1983.Secondlanguagelearning:Aninformation-processingperspective.LanguageLearning33(2),135-158.
RINGBOM,H.,1979,TheEnglishofFinns,Swedes,andSwedishFinns:Someconcludingremarks.InR.PALMBERG(ed.),PerceptionandProductionofEnglish:PapersonInterlanguage.Abo:AboAkademi,
77-85.
1985.TheinfluenceofSwedishontheEnglishofFinnishlearners.InH.RINGBOM(ed.),ForeignLanguageLearningandBilingualism.Abo:AboAkademi,39-71.
SAJAVAARA,K.&LEHTONEN,J.,1986,Themothertongueandtheforeignlanguageininteraction.InD.KASTOVSKY&A.SZWEDEK(eds),LinguisticsAcrossHistoricalandGeographicalBoundaries.InHonourofJacekFisiak:Vol.2.Descriptive,Contrastive,andAppliedLinguistics.Berlin:MoutondeGruyter.1443-1455.
SHIFFRIN,R.M.&DUMAIS,S.T.,1980,Thedevelopmentofautomatism.InJ.R.ANDERSON(ed.),CognitiveSkillsandtheirAcquisition.Hillsdale,NJ:Erlbaum,111-140.
Page51
4CompetingPlansinSecondLanguageProcessingHansW.Dechert
OnMarch27th1977,duetotheexplosionofaterrorist'sbombintheterminalatLasPalmasontheislandofGranCanaria,twoairplanes,amongothers,weredivertedtoLosRodeosAirportclosetoSantaCruzonthenearbyislandofTenerife.Theweatheronthisparticulardaywasfoggy.Runwayvisibilitywasworseningduringtheafternoon.Therewereothercircumstanceswhichcontributedtothedramaticcourseofevents
1:theinadequatetechnicalequipmentatLosRodeos(thecentrelightsontherunwaydidnotfunction,twooutofthethreeradiofrequenciesforthetransmissionofmessagesbetweenthetowerandthecockpitshadbeenoutoforderduringtheprecedingsixmonths,therewasnogroundradartotracetaxiingplanes);thenarrowwidthoftheslipways;theSpanishaccentofthetowerpersonnel;theheavycongestionoftheairfieldandasaconsequencethehightaskstressonthethreeairtrafficcontrollersinthetowerandonthecrews,especiallythepilotsandcopilots.At5:06p.m.,afterseveralhoursofrefuellingandwaiting,aBoeing747,flightnumberKLM4805,onacharterflightfromAmsterdamtoLasPalmas,with234passengersandacrewof14onboard,begantotaxialongtherunwayandtogainspeedinordertotakeoff,withouthavingreceivedfinaltakeoffclearancefromairtrafficcontrol.ItcollidedwithanotherBoeing747,flightnumberPanAm1736,onacharterflightfromLosAngelesandNewYorktoLasPalmas,taxiingdowntherunwayandwaitingforinformationfromthetower,carrying373passengersandacrewof16.AfterstrikingtheAmericanplane,KLM4805crashedtotheground
andexplodedimmediately.Notasinglepersonescaped.Fivehundredandseventy-sevenpassengersandcrewmemberswerekilledinthisfatalaccident,themostseriousonethathadhappenedinthehistoryofaviation.
Whatweretherealcausesofthisaccident?WhydidthecaptainofKLM4805takeoffwithoutbeinggivenfinaltakeoffclearance?BesidesthelistingofanumberofimmediateanswerstothesequestionstheAirLine
Page52
PilotsAssociationStudyGroupReportgaveparticularregardtothefactthatthecaptainofKLM4805wastheheadofhisairline'sFlightTrainingDepartmentandhadspentmostofhistimeduringtheprecedingsixyearsininstructingandtrainingpilotsaccordingtoahighlycondensedandstandardisedtrainingprogramme.Thereportdescribesthisfunctionasfollows:
Thetaskofatraininginstructoristocompressthemaximumamountoftrainingintotheavailablesimulatororairplanetime.Inordertoaccomplishthis,hemaydelete[italicsadded]normallyrealisticAirTrafficControlproceduresanddelays[italicsadded]whentrainingandcheckingacrew.TherearenoAirTrafficControlconstraintsinthesimulatorandonlyminimalconstraintstotheoperationofthetrainingaircraft.Inthesimulator,theinstructoractsasthecontroller[italicsadded],alwaysrespondingaffirmativelytothetraineepilot'srequestsforexpeditedhandlingduringemergencies.TheinstructorgenerallyissuesAirTrafficControlandtakeoffclearancetothecrewjustpriortothefinalitemsofpre-takeoffchecklist.Thereisneveraneedforthecrewtoholdthesimulatorinpositionawaitingtakeoffclearance.(Reason&Mycielska,1982:216.)
WhattheStudyGroupReportquiteobviouslysuggestsisthepossibilitythattheDutchcaptain'sattempttosolveanunusuallycomplicatedrealtaskwasseriouslyimpededbyhismanyyears'experienceasatraininginstructor.Theremayhavebeen,inotherwords,competition
(a)betweenthenatureandcomplexityoftherealtaskandthenatureandcomplexityofthesimulatedtasks;
(b)betweentheimmediateactiontobetakentosolvetherealtaskandthesimulatedactionspractisedinthesimulatedtasks;
(c)betweenanattitudethatanticipatesimmediateaffirmativeevidenceandresponseandanattitudethattakesintoconsiderationdisconfirmingevidenceandresponse;
(d)betweentherealroleofcaptainoftheairplaneandthesimulatedroleofcontrollerinthetrainingprogramme,thatis,betweenthestatusandauthorityattributedtotheroleofcaptainintherealtaskandthestatusandauthorityattributedtotheroleofcontrollerinthesimulatedtask;
(e)betweentherealroleofcaptainoftheairplaneandtherealroleofAirTrafficControl,thatis,betweenthestatusandauthorityattributedtotheroleofcaptainintherealtaskandthestatusand
Page53
authorityattributedtotheroleofAirTrafficControlintherealtask;
(f)betweenthesimulatedroleofcontrollerinthetrainingprogrammeandtherealroleofAirTrafficControl,thatis,betweenthestatusandauthorityattributedtotheroleofcontrollerinthesimulatedtaskandthestatusandauthorityattributedtotheroleofAirTrafficControlintherealtask.
Thiscompetitionmusthaveeventuallyendedupinablendinwhichacleardistinctionbetweenrolesandactionstobetakentosolvetherealtaskwereblurred:theAirTrafficControl'srealclearancewhichwasnotatallmeanttofunctionasthefinaltakeoffclearancealthoughthetermtakeoffwasmentionedandtheanticipatedfinaltakeoffclearancewhichwasnevergivenbyAirTrafficControlweremixedup.TheKLMcaptainactedasiffinaltakeoffclearancehadbeengiven.
Whathasthisgottodowiththetopicofthischapter'CompetingPlansinSecondLanguageProcessing'?
Anytheoryofhumanaction(andoflanguageprocessing)mustconsiderthatquitefrequentlyplansforactionandsequencesofplansforactionrunoutofcontrolandcombinetoformunintendedandunforeseenbehaviourandlanguage.Usuallywehardlynoticesuchblends.SometimestheyhavedisastrousconsequencesasinthecaseoftheTenerifecrash.
Blendsaretheresultofacompetitionoftwo(perhapsmore)planswhichcannotbesolvedwithinthesystem.Althoughsuchcompetitionmayleadtoerroneousbehaviourandlanguage,ourabilitytoplanandreasonintermsofmorethanonesolutiontothetaskweareconfrontedwithismostlikelytheverysourceofthedynamics,flexibility,andadaptabilityofthehumanactionsystem.ThisisthebasicideabehindBaar'scompetingplanshypothesis(1980a,1980b;cf.alsoDechert,1983c;Reason,1984).Thishypothesiscorresponds
withquiteadifferentlineofresearchconcerningtheintegrationofcompetinginformationintheproductionofnovelreconstructedmemories.Thephenomenonofcompromisememories,sofarmainlystudiedintherecollectionforcolours(Bornstein,1976;Hall&Loftus,1984;Loftus,1977),furtherexemplifiesanapparentlygeneraltendencyofthehumaninformationprocessingsystem:theintegrationofcompetingitemsofinformation.InLoftus'experimentsubjects,whohadbeenshownanumberofslideswithanautomobileaccidentinvolvingagreencar,andlater,onpurposegiventhewronginformationbluecar,selectedabluegreenhuewhichobviouslyrepresentedacompromise,orablendbetweenthetwocompetingitemsofinformation(Loftus,1977).
Page54
Sample1
ThefollowingtextwasproducedbyanadvancedGermanlearnerofEnglish.
2ItistakenfromalargecorpusoforalreproductionsofanAmericanIndiannarrative'TheLonesomeOpossum'(Levitas,Vivelo&Vivelo,1974:12).3
TEXT1Episodes3and4ofthenon-nativereproductionoftheOpossumstory
AFTERTHAT(0.18)um(3.74)SHE(0.29)TOOKHERBABY(0.24)/AND(0.51)uh(0.98)WENTALONGWITHTHEBABYTHROUGHTHEFOREST(0.44)//THERETHEYMET(1.02)um(2.01)AN(9.49)WOLF(1.33)/ohIforgotsomething/[chuckles]umBEFORE(0.46)THE(0.12)BABY(0.19)WAS(0.16)FEEDEDWITH(0.09)um(1.38)A(0.1)RATTLESNAKEINTHISHOUSE(0.5)/AND(0.12)THEOPOSSUMWAS(0.32)VERYANGRYABOUTTHAT(1.69)//ANDLATERON[chuckles](0.14)WHENTHEYWENTALONGINTHEFOREST(0.2)/umTHEOPOSSUMGAVEHERBABY(0.72)AFAWNTOEAT(0.98)//THIS(0.44)met(0.64)m(0.1)mjaMET(2.2)uhWASDISCOVEREDBYTHEWOLF(0.06)AND(0.1)THEWOLFWANTEDTOHAVESOMEOFTHEMEAT(0.52)//BUTTHEOPOSSUMSAID(0.22)THATTHEY(0.12)DON'THAVE(0.08)ANY(1.3)//
s(0.26)uhBUTBECAUSE(0.1)THEWOLFHAD(0.26)ABORROWwithit(0.18)WITHIT/uhTHEOPOSSUM(0.3)GOTAFRAID(0.23)/ANDTHEYWENTUP(0.16)ATREEWITHTHEBABY(0.09)//THERETHEBABYDIED(1.74)/
Line22isofparticularinterest.TheblendBORROWstandsfortheirreversiblebinomial
BOWANDARROWBO RROW
Page55
Noattemptismadetocorrecttheblendandwedonotevenknowifthesubjectwasawareofit.Itisafineexampleofcompetitiveplanning.
Thereis,firstofall,ahigherlevelprocessingproblemthestudentmustsolve:theestablishmentofcoherenceconcerningthegendertobeattributedtoWOLF.ThissubprocessisindicatedbytherepetitionofWITHIT.GenderattributionisaspecialproblemcharacteristicofGermanlearnersofEnglishsincethereisafixedsystemofgrammaticalgenderintheirL1ofwhichtheyknowthatitcannotbetransferredintoEnglishwheregenderattribution,especiallywithanimalsinnarratives,ismuchmoreopen.Thisproblemproducestaskstress.
ThebinomialBowandArrowisirreversibleinEnglishjustasistheGermanequivalentPfeilundBogen.
AsPeters(1983:57-59)hasshown,theacquisitionofthisbinomialbyAmericanchildrenisaverycomplicatedoneandtakesacomparativelylongtime.Binomialsingeneral,andfrozenbinomialsinparticular,representaspecialcaseofsyntagmaticformulaicunitsoflanguageprocessing.Theyarehighlyproceduralisedinprimaryspeechproduction.Fromacontrasrivepointofview,thereversaloforderacrosslanguagesisverylikelytocreateparticularprocessingproblems.
Ashasbeenwidelydiscussedintheliteratureonbinomials,itisnotonlythesemanticconstraints,butalsothesyllabicandrhythmicgestaltwhichdeterminetheirproductionandreceptionwithinandacrosslanguages,accordingtoarepresentationmodeloflanguageprocessing(Slowiaczek,1981).
Thebinomial
German PfeilundBogen
'××'××English BowandArrow>
Bo(r) row
ischaracterisedby
(a)thereversedorderofelements;
(b)thesamesyllabicandrhythmicgestaltofthewholeunitinGermanandEnglish:'××'××;
(c)thephonologicalandetymologicalsimilarityofoneelementinGermanandEnglish
German Bogen (bo: ) fromOHG 'bogo
English bow (bou) fromOE 'boga
Page56
(d)andthepossibilityofavowelblendbetweenGermanandEnglish
German o:
blend in'
English ou
(e)thephonologicalandetymologicaldissimilarityoftheotherelementinGermanandEnglish
German Pfeil
English arrow
(f)theexistenceofasemanticallytotallydissimilarbutrhythmicallyandphonologicallypartlysimilarwordinEnglishborrow,consistingof(i)afirstsyllablebo(r),bearingthemainstress,asintheequivalentsyllableofthesecondelementBogenintheGermanbinomial;(ii)avowelinthisfirstsyllableresultingfromavowelblend fromGermano:andEnglishou;and(iii)asecondsyllable-row,takenoverfromthesecondsyllableoftheequivalentEnglishwordarrow,thephonologicallyandetymologicallydissimilarsecondelementoftheEnglishbinomialwhosefirstsyllableisbearingthemainstress.
AllthesefactorsareresponsiblefortheinteractionofanL1andL2inducedplan,theircompetitionandfinalblending,inadditiontothetaskstressexertedbythepronominalisationproblem.Itisthiskindofindirectinteraction(interference)oflanguageswhichdeservesparticularattentioninL2processingresearch.
Sample2
Intheoralreproductionofacartoon'WishingWell',takenfromthe
elicitationmaterialGoldman-Eisler(1961:162-174)usedinherexperiments,oneofourexchangestudents,agirlfromEngland,producedthefollowingtext:
4
TEXT2NativereproductionoftheWishingWellstory
AMANANDAWOMANAREWALKINGUPTOAWISHINGWELL(1.0)//A::N(2.5)THEWOMANISSMILING(0.26)/BUTthey(1.64)THEMANISNOTSMILING(0.62)/PERHAPSHEKNOWSTHATTHEWOMANISGOINGTO:(1.80)um(0.36)ASKHERSOMEMONEYTOPUTINTHEWISHINGWELL(5.0)//THEWOMAN(0.62)HASGOTTHEtheyMONEY(0.76)/
Page57
ANDSHEISTHROWINGITINTOTHEWISHINGWELL(0.96)/THEMANDOESN'TLOOKVERYINTERESTED(3.18)//A::N(6.67)THEYARENOWWALKINGAWAYFROMTHEWELL(1.14)/THEWOMANISSMILING(2.86)/A::N(2.98)AGAINTHEMAN(1.98)ISN'TSMILING(12.18)/A:NDINTHISPICTURETHEMAN(0.46)ISNOTWEARINGABEARD(0.66)//SOTHEWOMAN(0.72)MUSTHAVEWISHED(1.36)a::nTHATHISBEARDWOULDDISAPPEAR(0.7)//THEMANDOESN'TLOOKVERYHAPPYABOUTTHIS//
5
ThepassageTHEWOMANISGOINGTOASKHERSOMEMONEYisofparticularinterestforus.Itisablendofthetwounderlyingsentences:
Thewomanisgoingtoask him(for)
somemoney
Thewomanisgoingtoask (for)her
money
THEWOMANISGOINGTOASK
HER SOMEMONEY
Whatsheintendstosayisperfectlyclear:
Heknowsthatthewomanisgoingtoaskhimforsomemoneytoputitinthewishingwell.
Thisideamaybedirectlyinferredfromthe'knowing'facial
expressionofthehusbandinthecartoon.That'swhyheisnotsmiling!Thereisnoindicationinthecartoon,however,thattheladymaynothavethemoneyshewantstoputinthewellandthatshemustaskhimforthatmoney.Sherathercarriesapursewithherwhichmakesclearthatitishermoneythatisbeingused.Thereis,inotherwords,everyjustificationforthedevelopmentofthesecondplan(andfinalstatement)inwhichhermoneyistalkedabout.Thefirstplanisthestudent'sinvention.Herknowledgeoftheworldwherewomenaskformoneyisaddedtothecartoonandtheman'ssmilingisperceivedandinterpretedaccordingtothemoney-claiming-wife-scriptshehasinhermind.Thereisacollisionofscriptswhichexplainstheblendinthisparticularportion,suchasthecomparativelylongpausesprecedingandfollowingthispassageareindicationsofthehightaskstress.
Blendsoccurinfirstandsecondlanguageprocessing.Theymustnotbetakenasaparticularindicationofalimitedlinguisticcompetence,butratherasaspeciallimitationorcharacteristic,ifyouwillofthehumaninformationprocessingsystemingeneral.
Page58
Sample3
Inahithertounpublishedpaper'CollocationalBlendsofAdvancedSecondLanguageLearners',
6P.Lennon,anEnglishcolleagueofmineintheKasselresearchgroup,andIhavebeendealingwiththecompetitionofplansinwrittenlanguage.Afterwehadcomeacrossanastonishinglylargenumberofcollocationalblendsinthefinalexaminationessaysoftwohighlycompetentstudents,thesametopicwasgiventosevenotheradvancedstudentsforexperimentalreasons:
Topic
1.TheBritishpolicehavebeenadvisedbyanOxfordUniversitystudygrouptobasetheamountoffinesformotoringoffencesonhowmuchtheoffenderearns,ratherthanhavingafixedfineforaparticularoffence.
2.Thisraisesthemoralissueofwhetherthepunishmentshouldfitthecrimeortheoffender.
3.Withreferencetomotoringoffencesinparticular,butalsotocrimeandpunishmentmoregenerally,discussthisissue.
4.WhatdoyouseeastheadvantagesanddisadvantagesoftheOxfordstudygroup'ssuggestionbothwithrespecttomotoringoffences,andintermsofitspossibleapplicationtootheroffences?
TaskAnalysis
Asonemayimagineandastheposthocanalysesinthestudydisclosed,thistopicandthewayitwasphrasedproducedmanyproblemsforallstudents:Aboveallthistopicisquitecomplex.Itmaybeanalysedasfollows:
Sentence1.Presentationofdiscussionmaterial:statementoftheOxfordUniversityStudyGroup'sadvicetotheBritishpolice.
Sentence2.Inferencebythequestionsetterpresentationofmorediscussionmaterial:moralissueofwhetherpunishmentingeneralshouldfitthecrimeortheoffender.
Sentence3.Formulationoftaskproperinstructiontothewritertodiscusstheissueofwhetherthepunishmentshouldfitthecrimeortheoffender,specificallywithreferencetomotoroffences;and,generally,withreferencetocrimeandpunishment.
Sentence4.Additionalinformationonhowtoapproachthetask:discussionoftheadvantagesanddisadvantagesofthestudygroup'sadvice,giveninthefirstsentence.
Page59
Blends
Letmediscussoneofthemanycollocationalblendswhichwerefoundinthedata:
'TomethereisadifferencewhethersomebodystealsapooroldladyDM50.-or...goestoabigstoreandtakesanythingwhichisworthDM50.-'
Thisstatementis,ofcourse,amixtureofthetwoEnglishexpressions
(Forme,...)thereisadifferencebetween+NPand+NP
asinthesentence
FormethereisadifferencebetweenthefinancialsituationofapooroldladyandØ(thefinancialsituationof)abigdepartmentstore.
and
(Tome,...)itmakesadifferencewhetherNP+VPorNP+VP
asinthesentence
TomeitmakesadifferencewhetherDM50.-arestolenfromapooroldladyoranobjectofthesamevalueisstolenfromabigdepartmentstore.
OutofthelargevarietyofequivalentGermancollocationalphrasestoexpressthesameideasomemaybeeasilyblendedaswell;forthisreason,wecannotsaywhethertheEnglishblendwasinfluencedbyaninteractionwiththesubject'sL1.
Itisimportanttonote,however,thatapurelyformalanalysisofthelinguisticstructureoftheEnglishblenddoesnotfullyrevealtheunderlyingcompetitionofplans.Thelargercontextualenvironmentmustbetakenintoconsideration.Thismaybedonebylookingatthefunctionoftheblendedstatementinquestionandbyexpandingit:
Statement
'Tomethereisadifferencewhethersomebodystealsapooroldlady
DM50.-or...goestoabigstoreandtakesanythingwhichisworthDM50.-'
Function
Quiteinaccordancewiththemessageofthetwoprecedingstatements:
Page60
(a)'Thenwehavetoseethattherearedifferentoffencesconcerningdanger'and
(b)'Thereisadifferencewhetherapersondrives100km/hthroughacityorsomebodyparkedhiscarwrong.'(which,ofcourse,isanotherblend).
Thisstatement,accordingtotheinstructiongiventothewriter,attemptstogiveanexampleforotherthanmotoringoffences,aftertheperspectivehasshiftedfromtheparticularcategoryofmotoringoffencestoamoregeneralnotionofoffences,exemplifiedbyrobbery.
Expansion
Whateveralegalsystemwhichdoesnotsufficientlydiscriminatebetweensingleindividualcasesmaydemand,Ithewriterofthisessaystronglyarguethattherearedifferencesastotheeffectsoffencesbringaboutforpotentialvictims.Oneandthesameoffence,suchasstealingDM50.-oranobjectofthesamevalue,committedtwicedoeshaveanentirelydifferenteffect.ThetheftofatinyinsignificantitemworthDM50.-fromadisplayoftensofthousandsofothersuchitemsinabigdepartmentstore('anything')isonlyaminorinsignificantdelictifoneconsiderstheactualdamagebeingdonetotheextremelywealthyownersorshareholderswhoarenotaffectedpersonallyanyhow,especiallyifoneisawarethattheftsarecoveredbyaninsurance.Forapooroldlady,quitecontrarytothat,thesuddenunexpectedlossofDM50.-mayhavedisastrousfinancialandpsychologicalconsequences.Anylegalsystemwhichtakesnonoticeofsuchdifferencesbetweendifferentvictimswithdifferentsocialstatus,income,andchanceofrecoveryisextremelyunjust.Itdoesmakeadifferencethattherearedifferences.
Itistheconceptualambiguityofthestatementandtheessay'scentralnotiondifference,whichisresponsibleforthecompetitionand
blendingofthetwocollocationalexpressions.
Collocationalblendsonthesentencelevelarebynomeansrestrictedtosecondlanguageproduction.'Overlappings'havebeenfoundintheproductionsofnativespeakersofEnglishaswellandhavebeendiscussedinthecompositionresearchliteraturejustrecently(Daiute,1984).
Conclusion
IntheJune21st1985editionofTheWallStreetJournalthereappearedanarticlewiththeheadline'JimmyReagan'.Thisarticlewasacriticalcomment
Page61
onPresidentReagan'spressconferenceonJune18th1985inwhichhegaveaverycarefulconsiderationofthestepstobetakentofreetheAmericanhostagesheldincustodybytheLebaneseAmal.
PresidentReagan'spressconferenceTuesdaymusthavemadeJimmyCarterfeelgood,butit'shardtofindanothersavinggrace.IfthepositionstakedoutbyMr.Reaganistobetakenatfacevalue,hehasjustissuedengravedinvitationstoterroriststhroughouttheworld.
Andattheendofthearticle'sfinalparagraph:
Ofcourse,theUScannot'pinpoint'thevillain.SounderthePresident'srhetoric,itcannotmovetoassertAmericaninterests.ThiswasPresidentCarter'slogicinIran.ItwasnotPresidentReagan'slogicinGrenada.Thepresidentwonthepublic'ssupportforactioninsteadofinaction;intheTWAcaseitseemsthereismuchsupportinthecountryfortakingactionratherthandoingnothing.WhetherthePresident'srhetoriconTuesdayistobetakenashisfinalwordofcourseremainstobeseen.
Theimpliedmeaningoftheblend'JimmyReagan'inthecontextofthedramaticeventsintheLebanonintheJuneof1985isperfectlycleartothereaderevenbeforehestartsreadingthetext:heisremindedofananalogybetweenPresidentCarter'shesitantbehaviourduringtheTehranhostagecrisisandPresidentReagan'ssupposedinactivityasseeminglyrevealedbythestatementsmadeduringthepressconference.ThecriticalimplicationsofthatanalogyareadditionallyenforcedbythefactthatRonaldReagan'scriticismofPresidentCarter'shandlingtheTehrancrisisduringhis1980electioncampaignconsiderablycontributedtohisvictory.'HiscampaigncontemptforCarter'sfailuretowinanearlyreleaseoftheUShostagesheldinIran(''Theyshouldn'thavebeentheresixdays,letalonesixmonths'')wasthrownbackathimatsuchmoments'(Time,July1st1985:15).Theblendofnamesin'JimmyReagan'isusedtocommentcriticallyonPresidentReagan'sstatementsduringthepressconferenceintermsofhisownsuccessfulcriticismofPresidentCarter
inananalogicalsituation,ortoputitinanothermoregeneralway,thisblendservesasarhetoricalmeansofanalogicalreasoning.
BlendsinthesomewhatbroadersenseofacovertermwhichIhavebeenusingthroughoutthisarticleisapreferredpatternofrhetoricandofwordformationinEnglish.InanarticleinAmericanSpeech(1974)
Page62
M.Bryantlists306examplesfrommodernAmericanEnglish.Thereisalsoavastliteratureonthevarioussynchronicanddiachronicaspectsofblends.Sinceblends,asourexampleindicates,areeasilyformedandunderstood,theymayeasilyservetofillinasemanticslotforwhichtwoplanscompetewhosefinaldissolutionisintendedtobeachievedbythehearerorreader.Blendingoccursonvariouslinguisticlevels,theword,thephrase,andthesentencelevel,inspokenaswellasinwrittenlanguage,unintentionallyaswellasintentionallyforstylistic,rhetoricorevenadvertisingreasons.Blendsarebasedonaninherentanalogybetweentwosemanticdimensionswhichtheyconnect.Inlanguageproductiontheymaybesubsumedtowhatisgenerallyconsideredanerror.Forpsycholinguisticstheyprovideimmediateaccesstotheinnerworkingsofproduction,especiallywhentheygoalongwithotherindicationsofplanningandediting,suchastemporalvariables,andsoforth.
Insuchaperspectivetheyaretracesofthecontactandtheinteractionofvariouscultures,cognitivesystemsandlanguages.Suchacontactandinteractionwithinahearerorspeakerorwithinaspeechcommunitymaybejudgedasapotentialdangerforthesingularityandpurityofthedominantlanguageandculture.Itmayalsobeseen,viceversa,asapotentialsourceofenrichmentanddepth.Thesameistrueinparticularwiththephenomenonofcompetitionofplansandofblending.TherearenumerousexamplesofeitherwayofinterpretinglanguagecontactandinteractioninEurope.
NotestoChapter4
1.ThisaccountofthefatalcourseofeventsfollowscloselythedetailedrecordgiveninReason&Mycielska,1982:210-217.Theanalysisofthepossiblemaincausefortheseeventsdiffersconsiderablyfromtheonesuggestedbytheseauthors.
2.CompareDechert,1984:162-164.
3.ThisistheoriginaltextoftheIndiannarrativewhichwaspresentedtothesubjectbeforetheoralreproduction.Thetwoepisodesinquestionareitalicised:
Shecametoahouse.Somebodywasthereandsheaskediftheyhadseenanybodygoingby,carryingababy.Thepersoninthehousesaid'Yes.'Theopossumwentinthedirectiontheyindicatedandontheroadshemettwopeopleandaskedthemthesamequestion.Thenshehadbeentotwoplacesandmettwopeople,andsangher'lonesomesong'twice.Afterawhileshecametoanotherplace.Inthatplacethebabyhadbeenhidden.Therewerefourorfivehouses,someoccupiedandsomeempty.Theopossumaskedherquestionandsomebodypointedtoahousesaying.'Theygotthebabyinthere.'Shewentover,openedthedoorandfoundthebabyinside.Somebodyhadkilledarattlesnake,cookedit,andgivenittothebabytoeat.Themotherwasangryandtoldthemtotakeitaway.Shetookthebabyandstartedhome.Shekilledalittlefawn,atesomeofthemeat,andgavesometothebaby.Theystayedthereawhile.That
Page63
madethreetimesshesangthesong.Awolfcametothatplaceandsmelledthemeat.Theopossumliedandsaidshehadnomeat,butthewolfsmelledthemeat.Thewolfgotabowandarrow.Thentheopossumwasafraidshewouldbekilled.Shewentupabigtree,tookthebabywithherandstayedupinthetopofthetree.Thebabydiedupthereinthetree.Thatwasthefourthtimeshesangthesong.Theoldopossumcamedownandwalkedaway.Shefoundaskunkwhowasherfriendandwenthomewiththeskunk.Theylaydowntogetherandsang.Theysanganother'lonesomesong'andthentheybothdied.
4.Dechert,1983a:92;Keytosymbolsusedinthetranscriptions
(2.66) Pause(266/100sec.).
uh FilledPause.
THEWELL
CapitalLetters:IntendedIdealVersion.
the SmallLetters:FalseStart,ParentheticalRemarketc.
UnitBoundaryLines:
/ Rise-Fall..
IntonationContour+Pause:EpisodicUnit.
Fall-Rise
// FallingIntonationContour+Pause:Episode.
5.CompareDechert,1983b:36-40.
6.Thisarticle'Collocationalblendsofadvancedsecondlanguagelearners:Apreliminaryanalysis'istoappearin:WieslawOleksy(ed),ContrastivePragmatics.Amsterdam,TheNetherlands:JohnBenjamins.
References
BAARS,B.J.,1980a,Onelicitingpredictablespeecherrorsinthelaboratory.InV.A.FROMKIN(ed.),ErrorsinLinguisticPerformance:SlipsoftheTongue,Ear,Pen,andHand.NewYork:AcademicPress,307-318.
1980b,Thecompetingplanshypothesis:Anheuristicviewpointonthecausesoferrorsinspeech.InH.W.DECHERT&M.RAUPACH(eds),TemporalVariablesinSpeech:StudiesinHonourofFriedaGoldman-Eisler.JanuaLinguarumSeriesMaior86.TheHague:Mouton,39-49.
BORNSTEIN,M.H.,1976,Namecodesandcolormemory.AmericanJournalofPsychology89,269-279.
BRYANT,M.M.,1974,Blendsareincreasing.AmericanSpeech49,163-184.
DAIUTE,C.A.,1984,Performancelimitsonwriters.InR.BEACH&L.S.BRIDWELL(eds),NewDirectionsinCompositionResearch.NewYork:TheGuilfordPress,205-224.
DECHERT,H.W.,1983a,Firstandsecondlanguageprocessing:similaritiesanddifferences.RassegnaItalianadiLinguisticaApplicata15(2/3),77-93.
1983b,Somepsycholinguisticconsiderationstowardsatheoryofsecondlanguageprocessing.InH.RINGBOM(ed),PsycholinguisticsandForeignLanguageLearning:PapersfromaConferenceheldinStockholmandÅbo.Åbo,Finland:ÅboAkademi,30-46.
1983c,Thecompeting-planshypothesis(CPH)extendedtosecond-
languagespeechproduction.InR.DIPIETRO,W.FRAWLEY&A.WEDEL.(eds),TheFirst
Page64
DelawareSymposiumonLanguageStudies:SelectedPapers.Newark,DE:UniversityofDelawarePress,269-282.
1984,Individualvariationinlanguage.InH.W.DECHERT&M.RAUPACH
(eds).SecondLanguageProductions.Tübingen:Narr,156-185.
GOLDMAN-EISLER,F.,1961,Hesitationandinformationinspeech.InC.CHERRY(ed),InformationTheory.London:Butterworths,162-174.
HALL,D.F.&LOFTUS,E.F.,1984,Thefateofmemory:discoverableordoomed?InL.R.SQUIRE&N.BUTTERS(eds),NeuropsychologyofMemory.NewYork:TheGuilfordPress,25-32.
LEVITAS,G.,VIVELO,F.R.&VIVELO,J.J.(eds),1974,AmericanIndianProseandPoetry:WeWaitintheDarkness.NewYork:Putnam'sSonsandCapricornBooks.
LOFTUS,E.F.,1977,Shiftinghumancolormemory.MemoryandCognition5,696-699.
PETERS,A.M.,1983,TheUnitsofLanguageAcquisition.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.
REASON,J.,1984,Thepsychopathologyofeverydayslips:accidentshappenwhenhabitgoeshaywire.TheSciences24(5),45-49.
REASON,J.&MYCIELSKA,K.,1982,Absent-minded?ThePsychologyofMentalLapsesandEverydayErrors.EnglewoodCliffs,NJ:Prentice-Hall.
SLOWIACZEK,M.L.,1981,ProsodicUnitsasLanguageProcessingUnits.Unpublisheddoctoraldissertation,UniversityofMassachusetts.
Page65
PART2CHILDREN'SFIRSTANDSECONDLANGUAGEACQUISITION
Page67
5EarlyBilingualReading:RetrospectsandProspectsRenzoTitone
TheoreticalPerspectives:EarlyBilingualReading(EBR)andtheChild'sPsychologicalDevelopment
Bilingualreadingisrelatedontheonehandtointellectualgrowthandontheothertobasiceducation.Itisthereforenecessarytodefinesomebasicconceptsconnectedwiththethreeareasofprimaryconcern,namelythemutualrelationshipbetweenlanguageandintelligencefromadevelopmentalpointofview,theinterdependencebetweenbilingualismandreading,andtherelationshipbetweenbilingualreadingandbasiceducation.
EarlyBilingualismandIntelligence
Bilingualismisnotamonolithicstateofmindandbehaviourbutakindoflinguisticcompetencehavingvaryingdegrees.Usuallyonelanguageisdominant,atleastinoneareaorlevelofcommunication.Truebilingualism,orfullyfluent,orbalancedbilingualismimpliesafunctionallysufficientcommandoftwolanguagesystemswithregardtophonological,grammatical,lexical,andpragmaticabilities.Onlywithrespecttobalancedbilingualsisitpossibletoconsidertheeffectsofbilingualismoncognitivegrowth.
Contrarytoearlierindicationsmorerecentfindingsconfirmthatbilingualchildrenappeartohaveamentalflexibility,asuperiorityinconceptformation,andamorediversifiedsetofmentalabilities(Peal&Lambert,1962;Bain&Yu,1978;andotherresearchers).
Moreparticularlyithasbeenclaimedthat'metalinguisticawarenessis
theprimaryvariablemediatingthepositiveeffectsofbilingualismonacademicachievement.Theargument,insummaryform,isthatfullyfluentbilingualismresultsinincreasedmetacognitive/metalinguisticabilitieswhich,
Page68
inturn,facilitatereadingacquisitionwhich,inturn,leadstohigherlevelsofacademicachievement'(Tunmer&Myhill,1984:176).Metacognitiveabilitiesimplythehabitualcapacitytoreflectuponandmanipulatethoughtprocesses,whilemetalinguisticconsciousnessimpliestheabilitytoreflectuponandmanipulatelanguageconceptsandfunctions.Thesuggestionisthattheprocessofconceptuallyseparatingtwolanguagesintofunctionallyindependentsystemsresultsbothinanincreaseofmetacognitiveabilityandinthestrengtheningofmetalinguisticawareness.Insupportofthissuggestionareseveralrecentstudieswhichseemtoindicatethatbilingualsdo,infact,enjoysuperiormetalinguistic,aswellasmetacognitive,functioning(e.g.studiesbyBen-Zeev,1977;Ianco-Worrall,1972;Cummins,1978;Feldman&Shen,1971,quotedinTunmer&Myhill,1984:177).
EarlyBilingualismandReading
Thereissufficientevidencethatreadingacquisitiondependstoaverylargeextentonthedevelopmentofbothmetacognitiveandmetalinguisticabilities.Inotherterms,thedevelopmentofconsciouscontrolofperceptionandcognitionononehandandoftheformalaspectsoflanguageontheotherplayacentralroleinlearningtoread.Morespecifically,itcanbestatedthatefficientlearningtoreadrequiresgoodphonologicalawareness(recognitionanddistinctionofsoundsorphonemes),distinctwordawareness,sufficientformawareness(i.e.consciouscontrolofgrammaticalformsandfunctions),andpragmaticawareness(orabilitytouseandappropriatelyselectcommunicationrulesinpertinentsituations).
Furthermore,'theviewthatmetalinguisticawarenessisaprerequisiteskillisnotinconsistentwiththepossibilitythatreadinginstructionincreasesmetalinguisticawareness,whichwouldexplainthesharpincreasesinmetalinguisticabilitiesoftenobservedamongbeginning
readers'(Tunmer&Bowey,1984:167).
Ontheotherhand,itremainstruethatbalancedbilingualismenhances,inturn,metacognitiveandmetalinguisticdevelopmentinveryyoungchildren(4-8yearsofage).Theargumentthencouldbephrasedasfollows:bothbilingualismandreadingarestimulatedandfosteredbythegradualacquisitionofmetacognitiveandmetalinguisticabilities;whereasbilingualreadingisexpectedtoenhancebothlinguisticcompetenceandcognitivedevelopmenttoaveryhighdegreeandataveryprecociousagelevel.Agreatmanyfindingssupporttheconclusionthatlearningtoreadasearlyasfromtheageofthreeresultsingreaterintellectualflexibility,consciouscognitivecontrolandricherlinguisticcompetenceascomparedwithilliterate
Page69
peers(seeDoman,1975;Cohen,1977).Itisthereforesafetoinferthatearlybilingualreadingabilityshouldhaveastrongimpactuponthechild'scognitiveandlinguisticgrowth.
EarlyBilingualGrowth:AnObjectiveofBasicEducation
Itismoreandmorewidelygrantedtodaythatinterethniccommunicationandworld-mindednessarebasicneedsofthecosmopolitancitizenofthefuture.Adefenceofthisstatementwillseemsuperfluous.Theprogressofhumancivilisationdependsonproducingagenerationofpeace-makers,peace-lovers,andpeace-bearers.Itisalsounquestionablethatdemocracyisbuiltuponeducationforpersonalaswellasinternationalunderstandingandcooperation....Butitisessential,also,thatthe'NewMan'ofcivilisedsocietywillhavetobeacreativelearner,endowedwithanabilitytodecodeculturalandmoralmessagesfromalltheexperiencesofhumankind.Nowtheseaxiomsimplyarejectionofmonoculturalismandofitsalliedstate,monolingualism,takeninitsnarrowestsense.Theyalsodemandthatwetakeanewlookatbasiceducation.Education,understoodastheformationofthehumanpersonalityinitsfundamentaldimensions,willhavetostepbeyondthemereteachingofthe'threeR's';itwillhavetoreflectconcernforthesocialisationofthehumaninfant,andhisethicalorientationintheworldofvalues.Itwilldemandabasiccapacityforcommunicationandwillseektopromoteasensitivitytothediversityofculturesandlanguages....Ibelievethat...bilingualeducationmustseektoensurepersonalityformationandmentalhealth,broadmindednessinsolvinghumanproblems,flexibilityinstrengtheningintellectualpowers,andmeta-linguisticawareness.(Titone,1984:7-8)
Nowreadingisconsideredmostrightlytobecentralintheinstrumentalsystemleadingtogeneraleducation.Therefore,nodoubtbilingualreadingcanbecomethemainsourceforall-roundpersonalityformation,intellectually,emotionally,andsocially.
Amongotherauthors,itisencouragingtofindinDonaldson'sbook,Children'sMinds(1978),thesuggestionthatabetterintroductioninto
formalactivitiessuchasreadingwillaidthechildingraspingtheformalordisembeddedcharacterofthinkingwhichschoolingdemands.InDonaldson'sview,readinginparticularwillcontributetolanguageawareness.Muchmoresowithbilingualreading,which,ifcarriedoutsinceveryearlychildhood,willcertainlylaythefoundationofopen-mindededucationatanagewhenprejudicesarestillunknown.
Page70
Retrospects:CaseStudiesofEarlyBilingualReaders
TheodoreAndersson,inhiscaptivatingbookletThePreschoolYears(1981)onfamilyreadingintwolanguages,startsoffbyquotingBurtonWhitewhoexpressedwithemphasishisbelief'thattheeducationaldevelopmentsthattakeplaceintheyearorsothatbeginswhenachildisabouteightmonthsoldarethemostimportantandmostinneedofattentionofanythatoccurinhumanlife'(1975:129-130).ItisparticularlyuptothepointwhatBenjaminBloomreportsafterextensiveresearch,namelythat'putintermsofintelligencemeasuredatage17,fromconceptiontoage4theindividualdevelops50%ofhismatureintelligence....Thiswouldsuggesttheveryrapidgrowthofintelligenceintheearlyyearsandthepossiblegreatinfluenceoftheearlyenvironmentonthisdevelopment'(1964:68).Allthisamountstounderscoringtheuniqueimportanceofearlyreadingcarriedonwhilethechild'sbrainshowsahighdegreeofplasticityandundifferentiation.
TheCaseforEarlyReading
Themovementinfavourofearlylearningtoreadisbecomingimpressiveandcoveringmanydifferentcountries.ThestartingpointwassignalledbythemarvellousexperienceinitiatedbyGlennDomanwithhisbookHowtoTeachYourBabytoRead(1964),whichrecountedconvincingprinciplesandfascinatingcases.AccordingtoDoman:
1.Tinychildrenwanttolearntoread.
2.Tinychildrencanlearntoread.
3.Tinychildrenarelearningtoread.
4.Tinychildrenshouldlearntoread.(1964:9)
FactsprovingthetruthofDoman'sassumptionsarecountless.Domanacquiredvaluableexperiencewithearlyreaders,whichhesetforthpersuasivelyinhispopularbook,addressedtomothers.Inithedeclares:'Childrencanreadwordswhentheyareoneyearold,sentenceswhentheyaretwo,andwholebookswhentheyarethreeandtheyloveit'(1964:1).
FollowingDomanmanyeducatorssincetheearlysixtieshavetriedouthismethodorsimilaronesandhavereachedwonderfulresults.Andersson(1981)quotes23instancesofwhichatleastfivearenotmerecasestudiesbutexperimentalinvestigations.BesideDoman'sname,thenamesofSöderbergh,JaneTorrey,Goodman,Fries,Durkin,Terman,
Page71
Cohan,Fowler,Hughes,Lado,Callaway,Steinberg,Emery,Witte,Ledson,Smethurst,Perlish,TaftWatson,andsoforthhavebecomewidelyknownasmarkingsignificantmilestonesinthehistoryofthemovement.Casestudieshavemultiplied(Miño-Garcés,1981).Besidesthesecasesrelatedtohomeinfluence,someinvestigationscanbequoted,liketheoneconductedbytheDenverPublicSchools(1961-1962)andanotherreportedonbyHarveyNeilPerlish(1968)ontheeffectivenessoftelevisionreadingprogrammes,ortheCRAFTProject(Harris,Morrison,Serwer&Gold,1968)onacomparisonofacademicachievementofearlyreadersandnon-earlyreaders,orespeciallyDurkin'sfirststudy(1966)ontheachievementofearlyreadersfromfirstgradetotheendofgradesix.Hermainconclusionwasthat'overtheyears,theearlyreadersinthisresearchcontinuedtoshowhigherachievementinreadingthanthenon-early-readerswithwhomtheywerematched'(p.110).
Andersson'saccountsofearlyreadingarefarfromexhaustive.InEuropethemovementhasfoundfollowers.AratherdetailedaccountbySchmalohr(1973)reviewsseveralhomecasestudies(Kratzmeier,1967;Walter,1967)andalsoinstitutionalinvestigationscarriedoninkindergartens.OfparticularinterestistheexperimentorganisedbyLückert(1967,1968)withthecooperationof240familiesontwo-yearoldchildren.Specificstudies(bySchmalohr,1969;Schüttler-Janikulla,1969;Brem-Graeser,1969;Rüdiger,1970;Wilke-Denig,1972)aimedatexaminingyoungchildreninschoolsettingssoastoascertaintheeffectsofearlyreadingonintelligence,languagedevelopment,socio-emotionalgrowth,long-rangereadingability.Resultswerebyandlargepositive(seereviewsinSchmalohr,1971).
ButoneofthebestexperimentswascarriedoutbyRachelCoheninFrance(1977)andreportedoninherbookL'ApprentissagePrécocedelaLecture.Onehundredandsixty-onechildrenweretested;theiragesrangedbetween3;8and4;11.Theuseofamultipletestbattery
evidencedthatyoungchildrenofpre-schoolagecanlearntoread,andsecondlythatreadingcanhelpthemtodeveloptheirabilitytograspandformulatebasicconcepts.
Finally,itcanbeaddedthatsince1976theChairofEducationalPsycholinguistics(UniversityofRome,Italy),headedbyR.Titone,hasassignedfiveexperimentaldoctoraldissertations(partlypublished)dealingwithearlyreadingprojectscarriedoutindifferentkindergartensthroughoutItaly.Threeconclusionshavebeendrawnasaresultofsuchinvestigations:(a)childrencanlearntoreadfromtheageofthree;(b)theirintellectualimprovementcanbeseenasaresultofproperreadinginstruction(incomparisonwithcontrolgroupsofnon-readers);(c)readingcanbetaughtinkindergartensettingsbywell-trainedteachers(Annessi,1979).
Page72
TheCaseforEarlyReadinginTwoLanguagesorEarlyBilingualLiteracy(Ebl)
Whatkindofrelationshipcantherebebetweenpre-schoolreadingandthebilingualchild?Andersson,onopeningchapter3ofhisbook(1981:31),rightlycomments:
Ifamonolingualchildcangetaheadstartbylearningtoreadbeforegoingtoschool,whycan'tabilingualchildgetadoubleheadstartbylearningtoreadtwolanguagesbeforeenteringschool?Noonewoulddenytheeducationalimportanceofskillinreading;norwouldmanydenytheadvantageofaknowledgeoftwospokenlanguages.Thetheoreticaladvantageofknowinghowtoreadandwriteintwolanguageswouldseemtobeself-evident,andyetbiliteracyisrarelyemphasisedasanobjectiveinourschools.
Inordertoexaminemorecloselythepsychologicalaspectsandtheeducationaloutcomesofearlybilingualreading,Andersson(1981:32-45)presentsthreecasesofpre-schoolbiliteracy.
MarianaandElenaPasthavelearnttoreadinbothEnglishandSpanish,theformerbeginningatage1;5,thelatterataboutthesameage.WordgameswithwordcardswereusedfollowingapproximatelywhatDoman(1964)suggestsinhismethod.DuringherthirdandfourthmonthofreadingMarianawasalreadyskilledinreadingsentences,andshewasfrequentlyreadingindependently.Atage3;8shewasreadingEnglishattheleveloftheaveragefirstgraderinthesecondhalfoffirstgrade.ThesamewasrevealedwithregardtoSpanish.Atage4;11herenteringabilingualkindergartendidtherest.
RaquelandAurelioChristianalsolearnttoreadEnglishandSpanishveryearly.At18monthsRaquelhadalreadyaskedherparentsthenamesofthelettersastheyboughtheranalphabetbookinSpanish.Aureliotooknointerestinthealphabetuntilmuchlater,butabsorbedwordsbymereassociation.Neitherchildhadmuchinterestinreading
booksofanylengthuntilaboutfive.ReadingSpanishathometransferredtoreadingEnglishwhentheyenteredschool.Laterprogressingradeschoolwasexcellentforbothchildren.
YuhaandChinhaOkRoLeeareKorean/Englishbilingualsandbiliterates.SinceYuha'sdevelopmentinKoreanwasfarinadvanceofherdevelopmentinEnglish,herfatherdecided,inordertoprepareherforkindergarten,toinitiateherintoreadinginEnglish,herweakerlanguage.Yuhalikedtowatchtelevision,especially'SesameStreet',andlearntallof
Page73
thelettersoftheEnglishalphabet.Thenherparentstaughthertoreadsystematically.ShelearnthowtoreadfirstinEnglish,whilethelanguageofinstructionandexplanationwasKorean.Butlateron,inonemonth,thankstoaspecialprogramme,YuhalearnttoreadandwriteKoreanjustbeforeshebecameafirstgrader.Leeobservesthatattheendof1-monthinstructionYuha'sskillsinreadingandwritingtheKoreanlanguagewerebetterthanhercorrespondingEnglishskills.Biliteracyismorethanjustknowledgeoftwolanguages;itimpliesbehavingproperlyintwocultures.Infact,Leewritesabouthisdaughter:'ShespeaksandbehaveslikeanAmericanamongAmericans;shespeaksandbehaveslikeaKoreanamongKoreans.EarlybilingualreadingseemstohaveaidedherforherbilingualandbiculturaladjustmentintheUnitedStates'(Lee,1977:143-144).
Andersson(1981)submitsthefollowingcorrectconclusions:
Theexperienceofthechildreninthethreebilingualfamilies...suggeststhat,farfrombeingadoubleburden,learningtoreadintwolanguagesisadoublejoy,leadingtoapositiveself-image.Theterm'early'intheexpressions'earlyreading'or'earlyreader'isseentovaryallthewayfromagesixmonths,aswithKimioSteinberg,tonearlyfiveyears,asinthecaseofYuhaLee,suggestingthatthisconceptis,oratleastcanbe,quiteflexible.
Onenotessignificantuniformitiesamongtheparent-teachersinvolvedinthecasesIhavecited.Theyexertnopressureonthechild;rathertheytrytosensewhatwillinterestthechild.Theparent-teacher'staskseemstoconsistinreadingthechild'swishesandininventinggamestostimulatethisinterest.Successfulparentsseemtoincludetheiryoungchildintheirconversationsandactivities.Aboveall,earlyreadingappears,asinthecaseofYuhaLee,toberelatedtoestablishingasenseofpersonalandsocialvalues.Parentswhoread,study,anddiscussinterestingorimportantsubjectsinthepresenceoftheirchildrenandwhoanswertheirchildren'squestionscreateacloserelationshipwiththeirchildren,arelationshipwhicholderchildrenarequicktoadoptwiththeiryoungersiblings.(pp.
44-45)
ExperiencesandinvestigationsonearlybilingualreadingaretakingimpetusnowasisdocumentedbyresearchreportsandthelaunchingofthenewIPRA(InternationalPreschoolReadingAssociation)Newsletter.AmongmorerecentreportsitisworthconsideringwhatElsOksaar,UniversityofHamburg,hastriedtocheckwithherinvestigationonagroupofbilingualchildren(1984).Ofthe20bilingualchildren(frommiddleandworkingclasses)whogrewuphearingandspeakingGermanandSwedish,orGermanandEnglish,orSwedishandEstonian,13(65%)couldreadandwriteboth
Page74
languagesmoreorlessfluentlybytheageoffourtofiveyears.InthecontrolgroupofsixmonolingualGermanorSwedishspeakingchildren,four(67%)demonstratedthisability.
Sheaddsthatofthe13childreninherprojectwholearnttoreadtwolanguagesbeforetheywerefiveyearsold,10childrenwerenotexposedtoanyoneparticularmethod,butratherasortofmethodologicalpluralism,inwhichtheinteractionbetweenthechildandmotherorotherreferencepersonplayedadominantrole.Thechildrenwerereadaloudtoinbothlanguagesveryearly,followingthewellknownrule'onelanguageoneperson';theyknewmuchofthisbyheartand,finally,wantedtoreadthemselves.
Furthermore,shenotesthatinbilingualmarriagesthechildrenusuallylearntoreadfirstinthelanguageofthemother,orinthefamilylanguage.Thefactthatinlearningtoreadthesecondlanguage,theyhadnodifficulties,andprogressedevenmorequicklythaninthefirstlanguage,wouldseemtosupportthegenerallyacceptedstatementthatchildrenactuallyonlyhavetolearntoreadonce,andthatthisskillcanbetransferredfromonelanguagetoanother.
ThetransfereffectfromonelanguagetotheotherisalsoconfirmedbyHélèneBusinger(1984)whenshewritesaboutherbilingualchildthat'hisabilitytovisualiseandmemorisewordswastransferredtothesecondlanguageandhesucceededinreadingwith[her]ashortbookinEnglishentitled''TeddyBears1to10''.Sotheexperimenthashadaverypositiveeffectonhisbilingualism.Ithasalsoencouragedhimtobecomebiliterate'(p.8).
WithregardtomethoditisworthrecallingwhatNguyênNgocBich(1984)writesinconcludingherreportontheprogressinreadingofherVietnamese-speakingchild,VictorQuang.Bich(1984)remarksthat
Theelementofplayisanintegralpartofthelearningprocessofyoungchildren;oneneedstostartwithvocabularythatisnotonlysimplefromthelinguisticpointofviewbutalsoisimmediatelyrecognisedinthechild'senvironment;comprehensionandmiscueanalysisareallveryimportantpartsofteachingasonetriestostructurethechild'slearningenvironment.And,ofcourse,itisofprimaryimportancethatthechildbeallowedtotestandusehiscreativepowertodevelopnewsentencesandgainasenseofpower,ofownership.Thus,farfrombeingapassiveprocessofdecodingandunderstandingonlywhatisthere,thereadingprocessshouldbeseenandallowedtobethecreativeprocessithasalwaysbeen.(p.8)
Page75
Nowthequestionis:canbilingualreadingbetaughtinpre-elementaryschoolsbyteachers?Andwhynotuseearlybilingualreadinginstructionasameanstoaiddisadvantagedchildrenlikemigrants'children?Theanswertosuchquestionscanbegivenonlybyinstitutionalexperimentstobecarriedonwithlargersamplesofyoungsubjects.Itisthisperspectivethatwillnowbeillustrated.
Prospects:AResearchProjectonEarlyBilingualLiteracy
Iwilltrytosummarisethemainlinesofaresearchprojectdesignedbythewriteraimedatdevelopingtheexperimentalconditionsforteachingearlybilingualreadingininstitutionalsettings.Theessentialtraitsofthisprojecthavealreadybeenoutlinedinapreviousessay(Titone,1983).
TheEarlyBilingualReadingExperimentalProject
Steppingfrommereexperiencetoscientificexperimentationmeansdefiningmoreaccuratelyobjectives,materials,instruments,andevaluationmeasures.
Itisadvisable:(a)toclarifythebasicissuesconnectedwithearlybilingualreading(duringthepre-schoolyears),itspsycho-educationalaspects,itsadvantagesandpossibledrawbacks;(b)toprepareatransitionfrommereoccasionalexperienceinfamilycirclestotruescientificexperimentationinkindergartenand/ornurseryschools;(c)todesignandbuildappropriateteachingmaterialslinkedwithchildmotivationandlanguageabilities.
Thepresentauthorhasbuiltspecialmaterials(areadingkitandguidebookforparentsandteachers)forteachingplayfullytoreadintwolanguagessimultaneously(viz.Italian/English;Italian/French;Italian/German;Italian/Spanishisbeingprepared;Castilian-Spanish/Basqueisbeingtriedout).Adiscussionoftheexperimentalparadigmfollows.
AimsoftheResearch
Thisresearchintendstocheck:(a)thepossibilityandeffectivenessofsimultaneouslearningtoreadintwolanguagesfromtheageoffouryears(inanycasebeforesix);(b)thecorrelationbetweenearlyliteracyandbilingualdevelopment;(c)thecorrelationbetweenearlybiliteracyandcognitivedevelopment;(d)thecorrelationbetweenearlybilingualliteracyandtheovercomingofcognitiveandlinguisticdisadvantagesoflower-classorimmigrants'children.
Page76
ResearchMethodology
Theexperimentalcontroloftheabovevariablesshallconsistofthefollowingprocedures:
1.pre-testingverbalintelligenceandascertainingthenon-existenceofreadingabilityatthestart;
2.thesystematicuseofappropriatereadingmaterialspreparedbyR.Titone,namelythe'EarlyBilingualReadingKit'(Titone,1977):thematerialsshouldbeappliedforatleastoneschoolyear;
3.post-testingbilingualreadingcompetenceonthebasisoftheabovematerial.
Specialscoringscalesarebeingproducedinordertocompareindividualresults.Subjectswillbeassessedwithrespecttoage,sex,socio-economiclevel,learningmotivation,IQ,rateoforallanguagedevelopment.RawscoreswillbeprocessedbyTitone'sresearchteam.Teachingcanbecarriedonalsobyparentsifcompetent;butasarulekindergartenteacherswilldotheteachingundersupervision.
StandardmaterialsarepublishedbyA.ArmandoEditore(ViadellaGensola,60-61,00153Roma,Italy).Eachkitwillserveformorethanonechild(twoorthree,nomore).
EvaluationInstruments
Thefollowingdataandmeasureswillbecollected:
1.Intelligencepre-test:TheWechslerIntelligenceScaleforChildrenatpre-schoolageoranotherequivalentverbalintelligencetestcanbeused.Tobeadministeredbeforestartingtheexperiment.
2.Bilingualismpre-test:forcheckinglinguisticcompetenceinL1andL2onthebasisofvisualormotorstimuli(picturetest).Verbalresponsesintermsofshortnarrativeswillbeevaluatedasto:
(a)phonologicalcorrectness;
(b)grammaticalcorrectnessandcompleteness;
(c)lexicalrichness(quantityandappropriateuseofwords);
(d)verbalfluency.
Practically:Oneshouldcheckfor:
(a)numberofpronunciationerrorsonthetotalofwords;
(b)numberoferrorsonthetotalofsentences;
(c)numberofwordsandnumberoferrorsofmeaningonthetotalofwords;
Page77
(d)rhythm(fast,middle,slow)ofutterances.
3.Pre-readingtest:readingofone'sownfirstandlastnamesprintedontheblackboardoroncardboard(incapitalletters).
4.Readingpost-test:basedonthereadingmaterialofthelastbookletpresentedinthekit;checkspeed,correctness,comprehension(totalnumberoferrors).
5.Bilingualismpost-test:thesameinitialpicturetest;checknumberofwords,sentences,descriptivedetailsthroughcomparisonwithinitialresults(pre-test).
6.Intelligencepost-test:bymeansofthesameinitialtestinanalternativeform.
7.Questionnaire:tobesubmittedtobothparentsandteachers(seebelow).
QuestionnaireonEarlyBilingualReadingExperience
Thequestionnairecanbeadministeredorallyorinwriting.
1.Atwhatagedidyourchildbegintospeak?
2.Whendidheorshebegintofindamusementinscribbling?
3.Whendidheorsheshowinterestinwritingorinwrittenthings,like:neonsigns?advertisingintelevision?posters?comics?wordsconnectedwithpictures?...
(Pleaseindicateageingeneral,ifremembered,foreachtypeofobjects).
4.Atwhatagedidthefirstreadingtakeplace:inonelanguage?intheotherlanguage?
5.Whatdidheorshelearntoread:inonelanguage?intheother
language?
6.Didheorsheshowfastorslowprogress?
7.Howoftendoesheorsheshowthedesiretoread?duringtheday?(numberoftimes)duringtheweek?(numberoftimes)
8.Howlongdoeshisorherapplicationtoreadinglast?lessthan10minutes?morethan30minutes?...
9.Hasheorshebeenundergoinganebbandflowprocessinhisorherreadinginterests?Inwhatperiodofage(andforhowlong)didheorshekeephisorherreadinginterestalive?Inwhatperiodofage(andforhowlong)didheorsheneglectorrejectreading?...
10Whatishisorherpresentdegreeofinterestinreading?highmiddlelow...
11.Areyouinfavourof(oragainst)readingatpre-schoolage?Why?...
Page78
TeachingMethod
ThegeneralhintsgivenhererefertoTitone'sBilingualReadingMethodasmaterialisedinthereadingkitpublishedbyA.ArmandoinRome.However,keepingtheseindicationsinmind,othertypesofmaterialscanbedesigned,especiallyifthetwolanguagesdonotincludeItalian.Thepresenthintsconcernthegeneralteachingapproach,somebasicsuggestions,andtheuseofthematerial.
Onepreliminaryquestion:Isreadingintwolanguagesreallyeasy?Inordertoanswerthisquestionwemustfirstpointouttheactivitieswhichfacilitatethechild'slearningtoreadinasinglelanguage:
1.Searchandnaminggamesforobjects,animals,lovedpersons;gamesdealingwiththeinexhaustiblecuriositytowardsanenvironmentwheresurpriseiscontinuous,wheretheunknownisapotentialforpersonalconquest.
2.Globalattainmentofsomerealitiesandlatertentativeanalyses:inthekitchen,tools;inthegarden,plants;inthetrain,wheels;indolls,legs,arms,head;andsoforth.
Itisnodifferentinthehandlingofbilingualreading:somebasicactivitiescomeintoplayinenjoyablegameswhichsolicitspontaneouscuriositytowards:
(a)theoralandwrittenknowledgeofwordsorsoundshavingtodowithobjects,animals,peopleofparticularinterest;
(b)theglobalperceptionofeasysentencesdealingwiththechild'sexperience,thatis,welldefined,knownobjectsofcertaininterest:one'sownbody,atoy,familymembers...
Objectswhicharenotfamiliarorwordswhicharenotyetpossessedintheoralformshouldbeavoided,asshouldsingleletterstotallyisolatedfromthecontextofaphraseorsentence.Thespokenand
knownmustalwaysprecedethewritten.
Ourmethodimpliessomepreliminarysuggestionssuchasthefollowing:
1.Beginwithagameorpleasantconversation.
2.Focusuponawordorasentenceinoneofthetwolanguages,writingitonacardorindicatingitontheappropriatechartorinabooklet(seeTitone'smaterial);readitaloudandhavethechildrepeatit.
Inthefirstphaseoneshouldnotworryabouthavingthechilddistinguishbetweenthesingleletters.Thesewillbediscoveredspontaneouslybythechildandonecan,inanycase,pointthemoutlaterinthewrittenorspokenword.
Page79
3.Themainmethodofteachingachildalanguageisthroughplay.Everythingshouldappearlikeagameofdiscoveryandinventioninwhichwords,andlateronletters,servetoconstructsentences,asifitwereaquestionofplacingoneblockupontheother,brickuponbrick....Manyspontaneousgamescancomeaboutthroughthechild'sinitiative,othersmaybeinventedbytheeducator.
Thegamesmaybenumerousandvaried.Somemaybeofthefollowingtypes:matchingthecardswithwordsandthenlaterwithsentences;rapidreadingcontests;findingtherightcardasinagameofcards;actioncards,likeinMontessori's'commandgame';sentencestoconstructinthiscasecardswithwordsorsentencepiecesshouldbeused:thechildisaskedtoread,understand,linkupthesinglecardsinanorderinsuchawayastomakeupasentence;whenheorshehasfinished,heorshereadsthewholeconstructedsentencealoud.
ThematerialincludedintheboxpreparedbyR.Titone(1977)isdividedasfollows:
1.ThewordsmommyanddaddyontwoseparatecardswhichhavethewordwritteninL1ononeside,andthewordwritteninL2ontheoppositeside.
2.Twentywordsdealingwiththechildhim-orherself,eachonaseparatecard,inbothlanguages.
3.Basicvocabularyrelativetotheimmediateworldofthechild.
4.Essentialvocabularyfortheformationofsentences.
5.Vocabularytobeinsertedinstructuredsentences.
6.Fourbookletsforprogressivelydifficultreading,havingaseriesofpictures,eachofwhichiscoupledwithasentenceinbothlanguages.
7.Thealphabetinbothlanguages,withreferencestowordsof
immediateuse.
Thesubdivisionofthematerialcorrespondstoanexactgradingofdifficultytobemetwithbythechild.
Aseducators(parentsandteachers)havefoundout,thechilddoesnotfinditstrangethatobjectsandactionsarenotonlysaidintwodifferentlanguages,butarealsowrittenandreadintwodifferentlanguages.If,infact,heorshelivesinabilingualenvironmentheorshewillbereadynotonlyforhearingsounds,words,andsentencesintwolanguages,butalsoforseeingbooks,magazines,comicsandprintedmatterofallsortsintwolanguagesaswell.
Page80
Detailedinstructionsonhowtogoaboutineachphasearegivenintheguideaccompanyingthematerial(Titone,1977).Basicallytheinstructionalmethodisgroundedontheassumptionthatoptimallearningtakesplacewhenthereisharmonybetween:
Visualsensations(V)
Auditorysensations(A)
Tactilesensations(T).
TheVATlanguagelearningsystememphasisesthefundamentalaspectsandfactorsofaneasymeansoflearningbilingualreadingbasedontheuseof:
(a)thevisual(recognitionoftheformsofwords),
(b)theauditory(associationofsoundandwrittenword),
(c)thetactile(touchingthecardsonwhichthewordsarewritten)
asapatternofmeaningintegratedbythedirectandjoyfulexperienceofthechildinteractingwiththeadult.
Onestepatatime,onewordatatime,onesentenceatatime,onepageatatime!Thematerialisnevershownallatoncetothechild,norarethesuccessivepartsshownbeforetheprecedingstephasbeenconquered.
ConcludingRemarks
Whoarethetargetsofthisearlyreadingmethod?
Atthismomenttheuseofthe'EarlyBilingualReadingKit'byR.Titoneisrecommendedandbeingusedwithchildrenfromtheageoffourliving:
(a)inbilingualfamilies;
(b)inbilingualormultilingualareas(inItaly,especiallytheFrench-ItalianspeakingareaofValled'Aosta,theGerman-ItalianareaofAltoAdige/Bozen;intheBasqueCountry);
(c)inimmigrants'children'shomesorschools.
However,afewattemptsarebeingmadeinbilingualorinternationalkindergartens(Turin,Milan,Rome).Resultsarenotyetavailableduetotheshorttimeelapsedsincethebeginningoftheexperiment,althoughtheimpressionsgatheredfromparentsandeducatorsaresofarfavourable.
ItisnoteworthythatTitone'smethodandmaterialhasbeenadaptedtoanexperimentalprojectwhichisbeingcarriedonintheBasqueCountry
Page81
withBasque-Castilianbilingualchildren(ages4to6).Thecoordinator,Dr.AnttonKaiferArana,hastranslatedandadaptedthe'EarlyBilingualReadingKit'intoCastilianandEuskaraandisusingittoteachalargenumberofchildrenreadinginbothlanguagesatthesametime.TheprojectwillachievetheresultofstrengtheningcommandofL1,namelytheBasquelanguage,whichhaslostgroundinrecenttimes.Theprojectisstimulatingwidepopularinterest.
Nodoubtmanyproblemsarestillopentodiscussionandresearch.Butthewriterbelievesthatthereissufficientwarrantforpositiveconfirmationofthemainhypothesesoutlinedatthebeginningofthisarticle.Inparticular,itisbelievedthatgreatadvantageswillbeachievedonbehalfofthemaintenanceofbilingualcompetenceinimmigrantchildreninmanycountries.ThisexpectationseemstobefulfilledbyanattemptofapplyingthemethodtoItalianimmigrantchildreninsomeGerman-speakingareasofSwitzerlandasinCanada.Promisesaresubstantial.Thisopportunitycannotbemissed.
References
ANDERSSON,T.,1981,AGuidetoFamilyReadinginTwoLanguages.ThePreschoolYears.Rosslyn,VA:NationalClearinghouseforBilingualEducation.
ANNESSI,A.F.,1979,Laletturaprecoce,fattorepositivodellosviluppocognitivo.RassegnaItalianadiLinguisticaApplicata40(1-2),327-334.
BAIN,B.C.&YU,A.,1978,TowardanintegrationofPiagetandVygotsky:Across-culturalreplication(France,Germany,Canada)concerningcognitiveconsequencesofbilinguality.InM.PARADIS(ed.),AspectsofBilingualism.Colombia,SC:HornbeamPress.
BÍCH,NGUYÊNNGOC,1984,Learningtoreadinbilingualsetting,IPRA
Newsletter,Winter.
BLOOM,B.S.,1964,StabilityandChangeinHumanCharacteristics.NewYork,NY:JohnWiley&Sons.
BREM-GRAESER,L.,1969,BerichtüberdieErgebnissederFruhforderunginMünchnerKindergärten.SchuleundPsychologie16,334-345.
BUSINGER,1984,Acasestudyinearlyreading,IPRANewsletter,Summer'Fall.
COHEN,R.,1977,L'apprentissageprécocedelalecture.Paris:PressesUniversitairesdeFrance.
DOMAN,G.,1975,HowtoTeachyourBabytoRead.NewYork,NY:RandomHouse.
DONALDSON,M.,1978,Children'sMinds.Glasgow:Collins.
DURKIN,D.,1966,ChildrenwhoReadEarly:TwoLongitudinalStudies.NewYork,NY:TeachersCollegePress.
HARRIS,A.J.,MORRISON,C.,SERWER.B.L.&GOLD,L.,1968,AContinuationof
Page82
theCRAFTPROJECTComparingReadingApproacheswithDisadvantagedUrbanNegroChildreninPrimaryGrades.NewYork,NY:DivisionofTeachersEducators.
KRATZMEIER,N.,1967,Kleinkindlesen.SchuleundPsychologie,14,215-222.
LEE,O.R.,1977,EarlyBilingualReadingasanAidtoBilingualandBiculturalAdjustmentforaSecondGenerationKoreanChildintheU.S.Ph.D.dissertation.Washington,DC:GeorgetownUniversityPress.
LÜCKERT,H.R.,1967,LesenlernenimVorschulalteralsAktionderbasalenBildungsforderung.SchuleundPsychologie14,297-312.
1968,Lesen-einSpielmitBildernundWörtern.Ravensburg:Maier.
MIÃO-GARCÉS,F.,1981,EarlyReadingAcquisitionSixPsycholinguisticCaseStudies.Washington,DC:GeorgetownUniversityPress.
OKSAAR,E.,1984,BilingualReadingandWritingintheEarlyYears.PaperpresentedattheThirdInternationalCongressfortheStudyofChildLanguage,Austin,TX,July8-14.
PEAL,E.&LAMBERT,W.E.,1962,Therelationofbilingualismtointelligence.PsychologicalMonographsGeneralApplied76,wholeno546.
PERLISH,H.N.,1968,InW.SMETHURST,TeachingYoungChildrentoRead.NewYork,NY:McGrawHill.
RÜDIGER,D.,1970,AnsatzundersteBefundeeinerexperimentellenLängsschnittstudiezumLesenlernenimVorschulalter.SchuleundPsychologie17,72-96.
SCHMAIOHR,R.,1969,PsychologischeUntersuchungzumDuisburgerFrühleseversuch.SchuleundPsychologie16,145-159.
1971,PsychologiedesErstlese-undSchreibunterrichts.Munchen:Reinhardt.
SCHUTTLER-JANIKULLA,K.,1969,VorschulischesLesenlernenundintellektuelleLeistungssteigerung,SchuleundPsychologie16,169-179.
TITONE,R.,1977,AGuidetoBilingualReading.Rome:Armando.
1983,Earlybilingualreading:Fromexperiencetoexperiment.RassegnaItalianadiLinguisticaApplicata15,(1),79-83.
1984,Earlybilingualgrowth:Anobjectiveofbasiceducation.TheInternationalSchoolsJournal7,Spring,7-16.
TUNMER,WE.&BOWEY,J.A.,1984,Metalinguisticawarenessandreadingacquisition.InW.E.TUNMER,C.PRATT&M.L.HERRIMAN(eds),MetalinguisticAwarenessinChildren.Berlin:SpringerVerlag,144-168.
TUNMER,W.E.&MYHILL,M.E.,1984,Metalinguisticawarenessandbilingualism.InW.E.TUNMER,C.PRATT&M.L.HERRIMAN(eds).MetalinguisticAwarenessinChildren.Berlin:SpringerVerlag,169-187.
WALTER,K.H.,1967,SollenkleineKinderlesenlernen?KleineKinderlesen,schreiben,rechnen.Duisburg:Goldmann.
WHITE.B.,1981.InT.ANDERSSON,AGuidetoFamilyReadinginTwoLanguages.ThePreschoolYears.Rosslyn,VA:NationalClearinghouseforBilingualEducation.
WIIKE,J.&DENIG,F.,1971,VorschulerziehungundSteigerungderIntelligenzleistung,SchuleundPsychologie19,37-44.
Page83
6TheRelationshipBetweenNativeandForeignLanguageLearningAbility:EducationalandLinguisticFactorsPeterSkehan
GeneralRationale:ResearchintoLanguageLearningAbility
Mostresearchintoforeignlanguagelearninghasemphasisedinstructionalandmethodologicalfactors.Ingeneralthisresearch,interestingthoughitis,hasfailedtofindanyclearindicationsthatanyparticularmethodofforeignlanguageinstructionissuperiortoanyotherwhenglobalcomparisonsaremade.ThePennsylvaniaProject(Smith,1970),forexample,didnotfindanyclearadvantageforcognitive-codelearningoveraudiolingualmethods.Similarly,theYorkstudyontheeffectivenessofthelanguagelaboratory(Green,1975)didnotsuggestanycleardifferencebetweenchildrenwithaccesstoalaboratoryandthoselackingsuchexposure.Morerecently,Davies&Beretta(1985),havereportedresultssuggestingthataproceduralsyllabus,asimplementedthroughtheBangaloreProject,whileslightlysuperiortotraditionalmethods,isnotsuperiorinalldomainsoflanguagelearning.
Incontrast,analternativeresearchtradition,thatintocharacteristicsofthelanguagelearner,althoughperhapsgeneratingsmallerquantitiesofresearch,hasyieldedmorepromisingresultsintermsofbeingabletoaccountforlanguagelearningsuccess.Carroll(1965,1982),forexample,hasconsistentlyshownhowimportantforeignlanguageaptitudeisforpredictionsofclassroomforeignlanguagelearningsuccess,whileReyes(1983)hasalsoattestedtotheimportanceofaptitudeinaninformalsetting.Gardner(1986)hasresearchedinto
differencesinattitudeandmotivation,
Page84
anddemonstratedtheirimportanceforschool-basedlearning,revealinganaffectivedimensionforpredictionclearlydistinctfromthecognitiveabilitiesthatmakeupaptitude.Anotherareawhichhasreceivedattentioninthelastdecadeisthatoflearnerstrategies.Naiman,Fröhlich,Stern&Tedesco(1978)haveprovidedinterestingbiographicaldatawhichhelpstocharacterisehighlysuccessfullanguagelearners,whileWongFillmore(1976,1979)conductedalongitudinalstudyofasmallgroupofyoungSpanish-speakingchildrenlearningEnglishinthefirstyearsofschool.Sheproposesthatseveralcognitiveandsocialstrategiesaccountforthedegreeofsuccessthatthechildrenachieved.
Thesevariousstudieshavebeenverysuggestiveofthedimensionsofindividualdifferencesthatmayaccountforvariationinsecondandforeignlanguageachievement.Itistobehopedthatsuchresearchwillgrowinimportanceandthatweshallseefurtherstudieswhichperhapsinvestigatetheinterrelationshipsbetweenthesedifferentclassesofindividualdifferencevariables.EquallyinterestingwouldbestudiessimilartothatofWesche(1982)whoinvestigatedaptitudemethodologyinteractions,demonstratingthatstudentsidentifiedasbelongingtodifferent'learnertypes'didparticularlywellwhenpairedwithappropriatemethodologies,andparticularlypoorlywhentheyweremismatchedintermsofinstructionalconditions.Suchresultsare,ofcourse,verysignificantforthemethodologycomparisonswhichwerediscussedatthebeginningofthissectionsinceitmaywellhavebeenthatindividualdifferencesbetweensubjectsin(say)thePennsylvaniastudy,interactingwithmethodology,cancelledoutordisguisedactualtreatmenteffects.
Againstthisbackground,thepresentprojectissituatedinoneofthemaintraditionsofresearchintoindividualdifferences,thatofforeignlanguageaptitude.Itattemptstorelatethreesetsofvariables:
1.Measuresoffirstlanguageacquisition
2.Measuresofforeignlanguageacquisition
3.Measuresofforeignlanguageachievement.
Eachoftheseareaswillnowbedescribedinmoredetail.
IndividualDifferencesinFirstLanguageLearning
Mostfirstlanguageresearchhasemphasiseduniversalprocessesoflanguageacquisition.Investigatorshaveattemptedtouncovergeneralfeaturesoflanguageprocessinganddevelopmentalchange,suchasdevelopmentalorderofcertainmorphemes,ortheroleofmaternalspeechinlanguagedevelopment.However,therearesomeresearchstudieswhichemphasiseindividualdifferencesinfirstlanguageacquisitionandthevariation
Page85
thatexistsbetweenlearners,bothintermsofrateoflearningaswellasintermsofroute.TheclearestandmostcomprehensiveexampleofastudyofrateofdevelopmentformsapartoftheBristolLanguageProject(Wells1981,1985).TheBristolresearchhassoughttodeterminetheextentofthevariationinfirstlanguagedevelopmentonanumberofdifferentdimensions.Indicesofsyntactic,semanticandfunctionallanguagedevelopment,aswellastheacquisitionofpragmaticcompetencehavebeendeveloped.Inaddition,considerableinformationhasbeenassembled,fromtapetranscriptsaswellasinterviewdata,ontherelevantenvironmentalfactorswhichareassociatedwiththevariationintherateoffirstlanguagedevelopment.Theseindicesshowthatthereismassivevariationintherateatwhichfeaturesofone'sfirstlanguageareacquired.Attheageof42months,forexample,intermsofmeanMorphemeLengthofUtterance(MLU):
Wefindthatchildrenscoringashighastwostandarddeviations(+2SDs)abovethemeanhaveascorethatisgreaterthanthemeanofthesampleasawholeatthetimeofthelastobservationoftheolderchildren(18monthslater),whilethosescoringaslowastwoSDsbelowthemeanhaveascoreequivalenttothemeanobservedforthesampleasawholeasmuchas15monthsearlier.(Wells,1985:124)
Furthermore,thereisevidencetolinkrateoflanguagedevelopment,butnotcourseofdevelopment,withfeaturesofspeechaddressedtothechildren(Barnes,Gutfreund,Satterley&Wells,1983).Inparticular,theuseof'extending'responsesbymothers,ofdirectrequestsforcontrol,andofamountofadultspeechareassociatedwithamorerapidcourseofsubsequentdevelopment.
Severalinvestigatorshavealsotriedtouncoverdifferentroutesoflanguagedevelopment,andtolinkthesetodifferentstylesandstrategiesoflearning.Nelson(1973,1981),forexample,hasproposedareferential/expressivedichotomy,withchildrenintheformer
categorytendingtonameobjectsandacquiremoreextensivevocabulariesearlyinlifewhilethoseinthelattercategoryarelessnoun-dependentintheirearlyvocabularygrowth,andmoreconcernedwithexpressiveusesoflanguage.Bloom,Lightbown,&Hood(1975)havemadearelateddistinctionbetween'substantive'(nominal)childrenwhotendinearlylanguagedevelopmenttouseSVOsentenceconstructionsandmorenouns,and'relational'(pronominal)children,whorelymoreonpronominalforms,pivot-openconstructions,andimitations.Bloometal.(1975)proposetheseasalternativeroutestolaterlanguagedevelopment.Peters(1983)hasalsomadeasimilardistinctionbetweenaholistic/gestaltstyle,ontheonehand,andamoreanalyticalstyle,whileBretherton,McNew,Snyder&Bates(1983)suggestthat
Page86
varyingdegreesofanalyticityunderliethevariousdichotomiesproposedintheliterature.
IndividualDifferencesinForeignLanguageLearningAptitude
Therehavealsobeenstudiesofindividualdifferencesinforeignlanguageaptitude.Heretheunderlyingrationaleisthatthereisasetofabilitiesuniquelyrelatedtosuccessinforeignlanguagelearningwhichareseparatefromverbalintelligence,ontheonehand,andpreviousachievement,ontheother(Carroll,1965,1974).Itisproposedthattheseabilitiesconstitutegeneralcompetencesorlearningcapacitieswhichenablesomepeopletolearnlanguagesfasterthanothers.
Carroll(1965,1982)hasproposedthefollowingcomponentsforaptitude:
InductiveLanguageLearningAbility:'theabilitytoinferorinducetherulesgoverningasetoflanguagematerials,givensamplesoflanguagematerialsthatpermitsuchinferences.'
GrammaticalSensitivity:'theabilitytorecognisethegrammaticalfunctionsofwords(orotherlinguisticentities)insentencestructures.'
PhonemicCodingAbility:'anabilitytoidentifydistinctivesounds,toformassociationsbetweenthosesoundsandsymbolsrepresentingthem,andtoretaintheseassociations.'
RoteLearningAbilityforForeignLanguageMaterials:'theabilitytolearnassociationsbetweensoundsandmeaningsrapidlyandefficientlyandtoretaintheseassociations.'(Carroll,1982:105)
Carrollhasdevelopedatestbatterybasedonthesepostulatedcomponentsofaptitude(Carroll&Sapon,1957).Otherinvestigators,drawingonsimilaraptitudetheory,havealsoproducedalternativeaptitudebatteriesforusewithdifferentagegroupsorsituations(Pimsleur,1966;Green,1975;Davies,1971;Petersen&Al-Haik,
1976).Suchbatteriesusuallyproducemultiplecorrelationswithforeignlanguageachievementintherange0.40to0.75,dependingontheinstructionalconditions.Suchbatterieshavealsobeenusedtoassistincounsellingofstudents(Pimsleur,1968)aswellasthebasisforassigningstudentstomoresuitableteachingmethodologies(Wesche,1982).
Page87
IndividualDifferencesinForeignLanguageAchievement
Itiswidelyandreliablyestablishedthatthereareconsiderabledifferencesinforeignlanguageachievement.Thesearesometimesrelatedtodifferencesinforeignlanguageaptitude(Carroll,1982),sometimestoaffectivefactors(Gardner&Lambert,1972),sometimestolearnerstrategies(Naiman,Fröhlich,Stern&Tedesco,1978),sometimestoenvironmentalfactorssuchasopportunitiesforlanguageuseorinstructionalconditions(Long,1982),andsometimessimplytotime(Carroll,1975).Althoughthereiscontroversyastowhatismeasuredbylanguageproficiencytests,forexamplewhetherthereisaunitarylanguagecompetence(seee.g.Oller,1983)orwhetheraspectsofinteraction(Morrow,1979)andplanningofspeech(Brown&Yule,1984)areproperlyexaminedbyexistinglanguagetests,forpresentpurposesthecrucialfactoristhatthereisnodisagreementovertheextentoftheindividualdifferencesinforeignlanguageachievementandproficiency.Consequently,theonlyrequirementinthisareaisagoodrangeofteststoassessachievement.
TheBristolLanguageProject
Ithasonlybeenpossibletoinvestigatethethreebasicsetsofvariables(firstlanguagedevelopment,foreignlanguageaptitude,andforeignlanguageachievement)thankstotheexistenceoftheBristolLanguageProjectandthehelpandencouragementofProfessorGordonWells.ProfessorWellsgenerouslyagreedthatafollow-upstudyofthechildreninvolvedintheBristolstudycouldbeundertakenand,priortohisdeparturefromBristolfortheOntarioInstituteforStudiesinEducation,helpedtosetupthepresentresearch,
1fundedin1984-1985byagrantfromtheBritishEconomicandSocialResearchCouncil.
Inviewofthislongitudinalaspecttothecurrentresearch,adescriptionoftheBristolProjectisnownecessary.TheBristolProjecthasbeenstudyingatotalof125children,bornin1969-1970or1971-1972,byobtainingextensivetaperecordingsofthechildren'sspeechinnaturalsituations(Wells,1981,1985).Foreachofthe125childrenthereare10recordings,atthree-monthlyintervals,eachyieldingabout30minutesofconversationwithanaverageof150utterancesbythechildandaboutasmanybyspeakerstothechild.ThetaperecordingshavebeenanalysedwithintheframeworkofacomprehensivecodingschemedevelopedbytheBristolresearchteam(Wells,1972,1975).
Page88
Figure1.TheBristolcodingscheme.
Thecodingschemeprovidesforanalysisofthechildren'sutterancesintermsofinterpersonalpurpose,experientialcontent,appropriateness,andcontextofutteranceoccurrence.TherelationshipbetweenthesecodingdevicesisshowninFigure1(drawnfromWells,1972:20).Inaddition,utterancesarecodedforsyntacticstructureandwell-formedness.Thecodingschemeisclearlycomprehensive,andinfluencedstronglybycontemporarydevelopmentsinlinguistics,particularlythoseassociatedwithHalliday(1970)andFillmore(1968).
SubsequentphasesoftheBristolProjecthaveinvestigatedthetransitionofasub-groupofthetotalpopulationtoschool,andtothechangedlinguisticdemandsthatthisnewenvironmenthasmade,forexample,subsequentlanguagedevelopment,thebeginningofreading,therelationshipbetweenearlierinteractionpatternsinthehomeandsubsequentinteractionpatternsinschool.Infact,therehavebeentwofollow-upstudiesinvolving20and32children(total=52)fromtheoriginalsample,withthemostrecentdatacollectedbytheBristolteamthreeyearsago,when32oftheyoungerchildrenwereextensivelyassessedattheageof10+.
ThecurrentsituationisthatasofJanuary1985thetwoagegroupsofchildrenweretwelveandahalftothirteenandahalf,andfourteenandahalftofifteenandahalfyearsoldrespectively.Theyareallembarkedon
Page89
asecondaryschoolcareerandarestudyingorhavestudiedaforeignlanguageintypicalclassroomconditions.
Theexistenceofsuchextensivefirstlanguagedataonsuchalargegroupofchildren,togetherwiththepotentialforgatheringdataontheirforeignlanguageperformance,isunique.Nocomparablestudyexistsorhasexistedintheworld,anditrepresentsanopportunitytostudythedevelopmentoflanguageabilitythatisunlikelytoberepeatedforsomeconsiderabletime.
GeneralDescriptionandResearchDesign
Thefundamentalaimofthepresentresearchprojectistoexamineinter-relationshipsbetweenthreeareasoflanguagefirstlanguagedevelopment,foreignlanguageaptitude,andforeignlanguageachievement.Inparticular,theprojectultimatelyaimsto:(a)investigatewhethergreaterrateofprogressinfirstlanguagedevelopmentisassociatedwithhigherforeignlanguageaptitudeandalsohigherforeignlanguageachievement;(b)examinewhetherpatternsoffirstlanguagedevelopmentarerelatedtopatternsofforeignlanguageaptitude;(c)explorefirst,whetherforeignlanguageachievementisdependentoncapacitieswhichmaybearesidueoffirstlanguagelearningability,andwhetherforeignlanguageaptitudecanberegardedasanoperationalmeasureofthisresidualability,orsecond,whetherpossiblerelationshipsbetweenfirstlanguageacquisitionandforeignlanguageaptitudearemoreconnectedtofeaturesoftheenvironmentinwhichthefirstlanguagewaslearned.
Theindicesusedtomeasureperformanceineachofthethreekeyareaswillnowbedescribed.
IndicesofFirstLanguageDevelopment
TheseindiceswereproducedbytheBristolteam,andwerealready
availableoncomputerfiles.
2Themainindiceswhichwereusedwere:
1.Globalmeasuresofrateofdevelopment,forexample,MLU,BristolScaleLevel.3
2.Specificmeasuresofrateofdevelopment,forexample,rangeoflanguagefunctionsused;developmentofmodification;complexityofnounphrasesused.
3.Test-basedmeasuresofcomprehensionandvocabularysize.
4.Demographic/biographicalindicesoffamilycircumstances,for
Page90
example,classoffamilybackground,parentaloccupations,andsoforth.
5.Measuresofthequantityandtypeofspeechandliteracy-basedactivitiesthechildrenwereexposedto.
ThefirsttwosetsofmeasureswerederivedfromthespontaneouslanguagerecordedinthehomebytheBristolResearchteam.Thetwocohortsofchildrendifferedintermsofageatthetimeofdatacollection.Datawascollectedontheyoungercohortatthree-monthlyintervalsbetweentheagesof15and42months,andontheoldercohortbetween39monthsand60months.Inotherwords,therewasanoverlapbetweenthetwocohortsforthedatacollectionat39and42monthstoprovideabasisforcomparison.Forsomepurposesthesimilarityofthecohortsenablesthemtobemergedforothersitdoesnot,butinanycasethetotalagerangeof15to60monthsallowsafairlyextendedperspectiveonthecourseoflanguagedevelopment.
Thethirdsetofmeasureswasobtainedfromtestsgiventothechildrenataround39months(bothcohorts)and57and66months(oldercohortonly).Thedemographicmeasuresweredrawnfrominterviewandbackgrounddata,whilethefifthsetofmeasureswerebasedpartlyontape-recordedinformationandpartlyoninterviewdata.
IndicesofForeignLanguageAptitude
Becauseoftimeconstraintsintermsofhowmuchaccesswasthoughtfeasiblewiththechildren,asetofaptitudesub-testswasselectedwhichwouldbeeasytoobtainanduse,andalsoberelativelybrieftoadminister,thatis,couldbecompletedinatwo-hourtestingsession.Inaddition,thetestbatterysoassembledwasthought,inthetimeavailablefortesting,tosamplethesub-componentsofaptitudeascomprehensivelyaswaspossible.Thetestsused
4were:
AH2: averbalintelligencetest
EMLAT1: HiddenWords
EMLAT2: MatchingWords
YorkLanguageAptitudeTest
PLAB5: SoundDiscrimination
PLAB6: Sound-SymbolAssociation
TheAH2waschosenasa'marker'testforgeneralverbalintelligence.ThefirsttesttakenfromtheElementaryModernLanguageAptitudeTest,
Page91
HiddenWords,requiresthecandidatetouseamisspelledversionofawordasabasisforguessingwhattheoriginalwordwas.Itispostulatedthatthisisdoneonthebasisofnativelanguagevocabularyandalsophonemiccodingability.ThesecondEMLATtest,MatchingWords,requiresthecandidatetofindtheword(fromfivepossibilities)inasecondsentencewhichfulfilsthesamegrammaticalfunctionasaparticularwordinafirstsentence.ThetestattemptstomeasureCarroll'sgrammaticalsensitivityfactor(Carroll,1982).TheYorktestis'ofthepupil'sabilitytoproduceformsinanunknownlanguage(Swedish)ontheanalogyoftheformspresented'(Green,1975:72).Inotherwordsitisatestofinductivelanguagelearningability.FinallythetwoPimsleurtestsassessauditoryability,withPLAB5focusingonsounddiscriminationincontext,andPLAB6thecandidate'sabilitytorelatesoundtosymbol.
Itwasfeltthatthisbatteryoftestsprovidesmeasuresofverbalintelligence,grammaticalsensitivity,inductivelanguagelearningability,andauditoryability/phonemiccodingability.Assuchtheyprovideareasonablywidesamplingofthecomponentsofaptitude(Carroll,1965,1982;Skehan,1980a).Themajoromission(throughlackoftime)isanyconsiderationofmemoryability,theothermajorfactorthathasbeenshowntobeimportantinaptitude(Carroll,1982;Skehan;1980b,1982,1986).
IndicesofForeignLanguageAchievement
Aswiththelanguageaptitudemeasuresitwasnecessarytofindeasilyavailableassessmentinstruments.Afteranexaminationofarangeofpossiblemeasures,itwasdecidedtousetheNFER/APUtestsforbothFrenchandGerman.
5SeparatetestsareavailableforSpeaking,Listening.Writing,andReading.Thetestshavethetwinadvantagesthattheyhave
establishedhighreliabilities,havingbeensubjectedtoaconsiderableamountofitemanalysisandsoforthandthattheyweredesignedforasituationcomparabletotheonebeinginvestigated,thatis,useinawidevarietyofschoolswithawidevarietyofmethodologiesandtextbooks.Itwasfeltthatsuchabatteryoftestswouldbemostabletocopewiththeproblemofhownottodisadvantageanyparticularschoolbecauseofthemethodologyithadused.InadditionthereareseveralparallelversionsoftheNFERtests,thusallowingretestingtobedoneonastandardmeasuringbase.
TheNFER/APUtestsaredesignedforuseduringthesummertermofthesecondyearoflanguagestudy.Theycanbeadministeredlaterthanthisandstilldiscriminateeffectively,indeedtheyarequiterobustintermsofusabilityinthirdandfourthyearsoflanguageinstruction.However,they
Page92
cannotbeusedearlierthanthesummertermofthesecondyear.ForthisreasonthechildrenfromtheoldercohortwhoarestillstudyingFrenchweretestedduringthespringterm1985,whilethechildrenfromthesecondcohortstudyingFrenchhavebeentestedduringthesummerterm,buttheseresultshaveyettobeanalysed.
SummaryofPhaseOneResearchDesign
TheinvestigationisbasedonindicesalreadyavailablefromtheBristolLanguageProjectfor(1),andthecollectionoftestdatafor(2)and(3).Theaccumulationofsuchdataisintendedtoanswerquestionson:(a)therelationshipbetweenindividualdifferencesinfirstlanguagedevelopmentandforeignlanguageachievement,thatis,whetherfastdevelopersinthemothertonguelearnforeignlanguagesmorequickly:(b)theoriginofforeignlanguageaptitude,thatis,whethersuchaptitudecanberegardedastheresidueofafirstlanguagelearningability;(c)thesimilarityofthedimensionsoffirstlanguagedevelopment,ontheonehand,andforeignlanguageaptitudeandachievement,ontheother;(d)therelativecontributionsofenvironmentalinfluences,suchasclassoffamilybackgroundandthenatureofthelinguisticenvironmentofthechildtosubsequentlanguagedevelopment,versusindividualmakeupconcernedeitherwithrouteorrateofdevelopment.
Figure2.Theresearchdesign
Theresultswhichfollowarepreliminary,andwillbesupplementedinthefuturebytheaccumulationofmuchmoredata.However,theydoallowsomediscussionofeachoftheabovequestions.
Results
ThesituationatthetimeofwritingisthattheaptitudetestinghasbeencompletedforbothcohortsoftracedchildrenfromtheBristolProject.Theresultsusedforthefirstlanguageacquisitionforeignlanguageaptitude
Page93
correlationsarethereforebasedonNsof53and50respectively.Foreignlanguageachievementtestresults,althoughnowavailable,haveonlybeenanalysedfortheoldercohort.
6Indeed,becausetheolderchildrenareinthefourthyearofsecondaryschooling,bywhichtimeitispossibletostopstudyingaforeignlanguage,theirnumberisconsiderablyreduced(N=23).Theproblemsheredonotsimplyinvolvereducednumbers,however.Inaddition,onehastotakeaccountofsubjectselectioninthatthosewhocontinuetostudyFrenchmaydosoforavarietyofreasons.SomeschoolsmaynotallowFrenchtobedropped.OtherschoolsmayonlycontinuetoofferFrenchtothosewhoareatleastmoderatelysuccessfulatit.Alternatively,wherepupilchoiceisconcerned,thismayimplicatedifferentialvaluingofschoolsubjects,orperhapsparentalattitude.InallofthesecasesthereasonswhysomepupilspursuethestudyofFrenchmayalsoinfluencethepatternofrelationshipbetweentheindicesused.This,obviously,hasimplicationsforthegeneralisabilityoftheresults.Itwillbenecessary,therefore,towaitfortheachievementtestingwiththeyoungercohort,scheduledforthesummerterm,beforeanysatisfactoryconclusionscanbedrawn.However,forthemoment,theavailablecorrelationswillbereported,astheydoatleastprovidesomerelevantinformation,evenifitisincomplete.
FirstLanguage-foreignLanguageAptitudeRelationships
Table1summarisestherelationshipsfoundfortheoldercohort.Severalpointsneedtobemadeabouttheinformationinthistable.
First,structuralindicesoffirstlanguagedevelopmenttendtoenterintohighercorrelationwithsubsequentaptitudethandothemoresemantic/pragmaticindices.MLUs42;rangeofadjectivesand
determiners;rangeofnominalphrasecomplexity,forexample,allhavesignificantpatternsofcorrelationwithlanguageanalyticaspectsoflanguageaptitude.TheBristolScalealsohassignificantcorrelations,perhapsreflectingthefactthatitisthemorestructuralaspectsofthescalewhicharedifferentiatingbetweenthechildrenattheagelevelsconcerned.However,therangeofsyntacticcomplexitymeasure,andMLUs57enterintoveryfewsignificantcorrelations.ThelattermeasurewasnotexpectedtocontinuetodifferentiatebytheBristolteamasasourceofimportantvariationsinceitissimplybasedonlengthofutterance,anincreasinglyunreliableindicatorofsyntacticcomplexity.Thepoorperformanceoftherangeofsyntacticcomplexitymeasureis,however,moredifficulttounderstand,anditspoorshowingwillhavetoawaitfutureexplanation.Oneshouldalsonotewiththemorestructuralpredictorsthattheyshowalowerlevelofrelationship,ingeneral,
Page94
TABLE1.Firstlanguage-foreignlanguageaptitudecorrelationsAH2 EMLAT
1EMLAT2
YORK PLAB5
PLAB6
Familybackground 0.59** 0.37** 0.55** 0.56** 0.19 0.33**Parentalinterestinlateracy 0.37** 0.34** 0.46** 0.36** 0.20 0.16Otchildreadto 0.55** 0.31* 0.46** 0.51** 0.20 0.16Totalparentaleducation 0.48** 0.29* 0.48** 0.41** 0.08 0.29*MLUs42mths. 0.31* 0.32* 0.52** 0.35** 0.12 0.39**Comprehension39mths. 0.30* 0.34** 0.45** 0.34** 0.28* 0.48**EPTV(Vocab.Test)39mths. 0.54** 0.45** 0.48** 0.50** 0.32* 0.28*Rangeoflanguagefunctions 0.00 0.05 0.09 -0.04 0.09 0.06Rangeofsentencemeanings 0.35** 0.30* 0.29* 0.09 0.19 0.04Rangeofadjectivesanddeterminers 0.43** 0.30* 0.44** 0.25* 0.00 0.31*Rangeofmodality,aspect+timemarkers
0.17 0.21 0.40** 0.24* 0.16 0.27*
MLUs57mths. 0.23 0.30* 0.15 0.05 -0.14 -0.03Comprehension57mths. 0.36** 0.23 0.51** 0.43** 0.27* 0.27*EPVT(Vocabulary)test)66mths. 0.33** 0.36** 0.21 0.37** 0.11 0.18Rangeofsyntacticcomplexity 0.15 0.2 0.28* 0.04 0.23 0.20Rangeofnominalphrasecomplexity 0.36** 0.39** 0.43** 0.26* 0.19 0.31*BristolScale42mths. 0.3* 0.26* 0.34** 0.29* 0.16 0.42**BristolScale57mths. 0.33** 0.31* 0.38** 0.17 0.48** 0.11N=53: SignificanceLevels 0.05=0.24
0.01=0.33
withthemoreauditoryaptitudetests,particularlythosefromPimsleur'sLAB.
Second,therearesignificant,andsometimessizeablecorrelationsbetweenthecomprehension
7/vocabularyindicesoffirstlanguagedevelopmentandsomeoftheforeignlanguageaptitudeindices.Thisappliesparticularlytothevocabularymeasure,andparticularlyattheearliertestingat39months.
Page95
Third,andundoubtedlyrelatedtothepreviouspoint,thebiographical/demographicvariablesenterintoconsistentlysignificantcorrelations.ThisappliesmostclearlytotheIQscorebutisclearalsofortheEMLAT2andYorktests,suggestingthatitis,onceagain,goingtobedifficulttodisentangleenvironmentalfromotherinfluences,andprobablydifferentenvironmentalinfluencesfromoneanother.
Fourth,andfinally,themoreauditory-basedaptitudetestsaretheleastwellpredictedfromthefirstlanguagedevelopmentalindices.Althoughthereareexceptionstothis,forexample,BristolScale42mthsandPLAB6:0.42,andBristolScale57mthsandPLAB5:0.48,themediancorrelationsforthedifferentaptitudemeasuresarerevealing.Theyare,indescendingorder:EMLAT2,0.43:AH2,0.35:YorkTest,0.34:EMLAT1,0.31:PLAB6,0.27:PLABS,0.19.Interestingly,mostofthehighercorrelationswiththeauditoryaptitudetestsareproducedbycomprehension/vocabularyindicesoffirstlanguagedevelopment,suggestingperhapsadistinctdimensionforthedevelopmentofbothfirstlanguageskillsaswellasforeignlanguageaptitude.
ForeignLanguageAptitude-foreignLanguageAchievement
Table2showstherelevantcorrelations.Thesecorrelationsaretheleastinnovativeofthepresentstudy,duplicatingmuchpreviouswork.Evensoitcanbesaidthatthecorrelationsareunusuallyanduniformlyhighlyrelativetoothercomparableresearch(Carroll&Sapon,1957;Davies,1971;Green,1975).Thisisprobablyfortworeasons.First,theNFERtestsareprobablymorereliableandvalidthanmostachievement/proficiencyteststhatareusedinstudiesofthissort.Second,thesamplingproceduresused
TABLE2.Languageaptitude-foreignlanguageachievementcorrelationsAH2 EMLAT
1EMLAT2
YORK PLAB5
PLAB6
Listening 0.55 0.49 0.66 0.68 0.07 0.49Speaking 0.59 0.55 0.66 0.68 0.10 0.33
Speaking 0.59 0.55 0.66 0.68 0.10 0.33Reading 0.58 0.73 0.67 0.65 0.16 0.50Writing 0.68 0.64 0.69 0.74 0.17 0.48
N=23:SignificanceLevels .05=.41.01=.53
Page96
bytheBristolLanguageProjectdeliberatelyproducedawiderangeofchildrenintermsoffamilybackground(althoughthenon-randomnatureofthedrop-outrateforthechildrenstillstudyingFrenchmayhavecounteractedthistosomedegree).Boththesereasonseffectivetestsaswellasheterogeneityofsamplingtendtoprovidethecircumstancesforhighcorrelationstoemerge.ThattheydidsointhepresentcaseindicatesthatwehavefertilegroundonwhichtoinvestigatetheotherrelationshipsinvolvedinthetriangleofvariablesshowninFigure1.
FirstLanguageDevelopment-foreignLanguageAchievement
Table3showstherelevantcorrelations.Quiteclearly,thesecorrelationsaregenerallylowerthanthoseshownintheothertables.Thestructuralfirstlanguageindicesconsistentlyfailtoreachstatisticalsignificance,withmostcorrelationsbelow0.20.Interestingly,itisoneofthemoresemanticfirstlanguagemeasureswhichleadstohighercorrelations,rangeofmodality,aspect,andtimemarkers,yetdespiteconsistency(0.36/0.24/0.39/0.26),noneofthecorrelationsachievessignificance.
Thebiographical/demographicvariables,thatis,familybackground,parentalliteracy,amountthechildisreadto,parentaleducation,frequentlyenterintohigherrelationships.Familybackground,forexample,generatescorrelationsinexcessof0.40.However,thehighestrelationshipsshowninthetableare,quiteclearly,thosebetweenthecomprehension/vocabularymeasurestakenrelativelyearlyinlife(39-66months)andforeignlanguageachievementatagefourteen.Comprehension39monthsleadstocorrelationsinthehigh0.40s,asdoesComprehension57months,whileEPVT66(VocabularyTest)leadstocorrelationsthataverageinthemid0.50s,astonishinglyhighvalueswhenoneconsidersthetimeintervalsinvolved.
SummaryofResults
First,itshouldberepeatedthatthesearepreliminaryresults,andthatthemainseriesofcomparisons,involvingtheyoungercohort,willonlybepossibleasresultsbecomeavailablefromthesummerterm'stestingprogramme.However,theseresultsarewhatareavailableatthetimeofwriting.Intermsofthebasicsetsofrelationshipthatwereinvestigated,onecansaybroadlyspeaking,that:(a)firstlanguagedevelopmentandforeignlanguageaptitudearesignificantlyrelatedatamoderatelevel;(b)foreignlanguageaptitudeandforeignlanguagesuccessarestronglyrelated;(c)first
Page97
TABLE3.Firstlanguage-foreignlanguageachievementcorrelationsListening Speaking Reading Writing
Familybackground 0.43* 0.57* 0.47* 0.47*Parentalinterestinliteracy 0.23 0.35 0.38 0.24Qtchildreadto 0.19 0.37 0.18 0.21Totalparentaleducation 0.24 0.43* 0.34 0.32MLUs42mths 0.19 0.20 0.18 0.13Comprehension39mths 0.57** 0.45* 0.48* 0.42*EPTV(Vocab.Test)39mths 0.29 0.21 0.33 0.31Rangeoflanguagefunctions -0.25 -0.17 -0.14 -0.20Rangeofsentencemeanings -0.09 -0.22 -0.10 -0.20Rangeofadjectivesanddeterminers -0.07 -0.22 -0.11 -0.08Rangeofmodality,aspect+timemarkers 0.36 0.24 0.39 0.26MLUs57mths -0.17 -0.13 -0.02 -0.08Comprehension57mths 0.49* 0.49* 0.55** 0.46*EPVT(Vocabularytest)66mths 0.67** 0.48* 0.57** 0.52*Rangeofsyntacticcomplexity 0.00 0.04 0.04 -0.05Rangeofnominalphrasecomplexity 0.16 0.22 0.25 0.21BristolScale42mths 0.04 0.02 0.03 0.05BristolScale57mths 0.00 0.10 0.05 0.06N=23: SignificanceLevels0.05=0.41
0.01=0.53
languagedevelopmentandforeignlanguagesuccessdonotseemtohaveadirectrelationshiptooneanother;(d)familybackgroundindicesarerelatedtolanguageaptitudemeasuresatamoderatelevel,andtoachievementmeasuresataweak-to-moderatelevel;(e)comprehensionandvocabularyindicesobtainedearlyinlifearerelatedtosubsequentaptitudeandachievementatamoderate/moderate-to-stronglevel.
8
Page98
Inaddition,itisclearthatthedifferentsetsofvariableshavedifferentnumbersofdimensions.Theforeignlanguageachievementmeasureslookuni-dimensional,withalowestintercorrelationof0.86(betweenlisteningandwritingtheothercorrelationsareshowninthegrandcorrelationmatrixgiveninAppendixB).Foreignlanguageaptitude,however,lookstohavetwodimensions,involvinggrammaticalabilityandauditoryability.(Theresultsoffactoranalyseswhicharesoontobeconductedmayresultinadifferentstructureappearingmoresatisfactory.)However,themostcomplexareaseemstobethatoffirstlanguagedevelopment.Therearethemorestructuralindices,suchasrangeofsyntacticcomplexityandrangeofnominalgroupcomplexity;comprehension/vocabularyindices;linguisticenvironmentindices;andbiographical/familybackgroundindices.ThedifferentgroupsofpredictorsofFLachievemententerintodifferentlevelsofrelationship.Inaddition,itislikelythattheyinteractwithoneanotherincomplexways.Certainlythecomplexityofthepatternsofrelationshipwillbeamajorfocusintheproposeddevelopmentofthepresentstudy,asitinvestigatesindividualindicesfurther,andexaminespotentialinteractionsbetweenthem.
Discussion
Severalissuesareworthdiscussinginrelationtotheseresults.Firstofall,thereisthequestionoftheoriginoflanguageaptitude.Theresultsindicaterelationshipsbetweenaptitudeandfirstlanguageindicesbasedonspontaneousdatathataresignificantbutmoderate.Incontrast,aptitudeentersintostrongerrelationshipswithbothbiographical/backgroundvariablesaswellaswiththetest-basedcomprehensionandvocabularyindices.Toacertainextent,therefore,theseresultsmaybetakenasevidencethatmoreanalyticcomponentsofaptitude(i.e.thosemeasuredbytheEMLAT2andYorktests)arearesidualabilityofindividualdifferencesinfirstlanguagelearning
ability.TheMLUs-EMLAT2correlationof0.52,forexample,theRangeofAdjectivesandDeterminersEMLAT2valueof0.44,andtheRangeofNounPhraseComplexityEMLAT2figureof0.43allsuggestthatcertainfeaturesofearlysyntaxandcomplexityoflanguageusearerelatedtocomponentsofaptitude.Furtherworkwillattemptafiner-grainedanalysisofthesefirstlanguagedevelopmentalindicestotrytoisolatewhichofthemrelatetosubsequentaptitude.Perhapssuchanalysiswillbeabletouncoverreasonswhysomeofthefirstlanguagevariablesdonotenterintoclearrelationshipswithaptitude,since,ithastobeadmitted,theresultsobtainedarehardlyuniform.
Evenmoreimportant,theaptitudemeasuresenterintoevenhigherrelationshipswiththebackgroundandtest-basedindices.Infact,thetest-
Page99
basedindicesandthebackgroundindicesthemselvesoftencorrelatequitehighlyattheageof39months(severalcorrelationsabove0.50:seeAppendixB),althoughthelevelofrelationshipwiththelatertestmeasuresaredistinctlylower.Inanycase,thereisthepossibilitythatthebackgroundindicesandthetest-basedmeasuresrelatetosomesimilarunderlyingdimension.Furtherworkwillberequiredonthisissue.However,mostcruciallyhere,thelinguisticdevelopmentalindicesdonotcorrelateveryhighlywiththebackground/testmeasures,suggestingthatthelinguisticindicesandbackground/testindicesprovideindependentsourcesofpredictionforsubsequentlanguageaptitude.Furtherregressionanalyseswillclarifythisissue.Forthepresent,theevidencesuggeststhataptitudetestscoresarepartlyassociatedwithearlylinguisticdevelopmentandpartlywithbackground.
ThesecondpartofthetriangleofrelationshipsfromFigure2thatwillbecommentedonhereisthatbetweentheearlymeasuresandforeignlanguageachievement.Thefirstlanguageindicesenterintonegligiblerelationships,whilethefamilybackgroundandtest-basedmeasuresenterintomuchhigherrelationships,ofteninexcessof0.50,andinonecase(EPVT66monthsListening)ashighas0.67(althoughherethesmallsamplesizecounselscautionininterpretation).
Onthefaceofittheseresultsaredepressingintermsoftheoriginalhypothesessincetheysuggestthatfirstlanguageindividualdifferencesareuncorrelatedwithvariationinforeignlanguageperformance.Thepointneedstobemade,however,thatthedependentvariablethatisbeingused(test-basedforeignlanguageperformance)mightnotbetheidealvariabletoexamineinordertoinvestigatetheoriginalhypothesis.Itmaywellbethattheissuehereisthenatureofconventionalsecondaryschoolbasedlanguageinstruction,suchthatthetypeoftuitionprovidedmaynotbeespeciallycommunicative,ordrawuponstudents'oralabilities,but
insteademphasisea'cover-the-textbook'approach.
InfactitisusefultobroadenthediscussionatthispointandconsidersomeotherdatafromtheBristolLanguageProject.Subsequentphasesofthestudy(seeWells,1985)havefollowedsub-setsofthechildrenastheyenteredtheschoolsystem,andtrackedtheirprogressuptoageof10+.Theresultsfromthisphaseofthestudy(Wells,Homewood,&Offord,1983;Wells,Barnes,&Wells,1985)suggestthatalthoughduringthe5-10agerangetherearewideindividualdifferencesinorallanguageability,thesedifferencesdonotcorrelatewithexaminationperformanceorwithliteracy-linkedskills.Ratherthechild'spreparednessforliteracyonentrytoschoolisthemostsignificantpredictorofhowwellthechildwilldoinconventionalschoolassessment.Itseemsasthoughthecapacitytohandlethesymbolic,
Page100
decontextualisedaspectsoflanguagehave,atleastpartially,adifferentsetofdeterminantstothoseinvolvedinorallanguageperformance(Wells,1985;Tizard&Hughes,1984).Somechildren,andthereisasocialclasslinkagehere,seembetterabletohandlethissideoflanguageusethanothers.This,ofcourse,ishighlysignificantsinceitisliteracy-linked,examination-orientedaspectsofperformancethatleadtoeducationalsuccess,andthefactthataparticularlearnermayhaveveryeffectiveorallanguageskillsmaycountforrelativelylittleifthesearenotmatchedbysimilarabilitiestodealwithcontext-disembeddedlanguage(Donaldson,1978).
Theparadoxofthisanalysisisthatitisbeingappliedtoforeignlanguagelearning.Itmightbethoughtthatwhiletheaboveanalysismightapplytoothercurriculumsubjects,itwouldbeirrelevanttothestudyofaforeignlanguage,whereitmightbethoughtthattheemphasisonskilledperformance,creativelanguageuse,andtheneedtolearnlanguagebyusinglanguagewouldproduceadifferentsetofconditionstothatwhichoperateselsewhere.Theresultsavailablehereare,however,moreconsistentwiththeviewthatlearningaforeignlanguageatschoolisjustlikelearninganyothersubject.Theresultssuggestthataconsiderableproportionofthesuccessinlanguagestudyrelatestotheabilitytocopewithliteracy,andtotheabilitytomakesenseofthedecontextualisedritualofdisplayquestions,patterndrills,andunbelievabledialoguescharacteristicofmanyclassrooms.Thesuccessfulstudentisabletocopewiththesecharacteristics,andonehopes,whenthesituationisappropriate,totranscendthem.Itwouldbenicetothinkthatthemovetowardsmorecommunicativelanguageteachingwillreducetherelianceonskilleddecontextualisersandinsteadallowlearners'oralabilitiestobeexploitedandbuiltuponmoreeffectively.
NotestoChapter6
1.Thisarticle,naturally,reflectsthestateoftheartatthetimeoftheGeorgetownWorkshop.
2.TheauthorisgratefultoSallyBarnes,SchoolofEducation,UniversityofBristol,formakingthisinformationavailable.
3.PleaseseeAppendixAformoredetaileddescriptionsoftheseindices.
4.TheauthorwouldliketoexpresshisgratitudetoMaryGutfreund,LucileDucroquet,BrianRichards,andZuzannaCrouchfortheirextensiveworkincarryingouttheactualtestingprogrammefortheaptitudeaswellastheachievementdata.
5.ThanksareduetoPeterDicksonoftheNFERForeignLanguagesSectionforhishelpinarrangingfortheuseofthesetests,togetherwithinstructionintheiradministration.
6.Forthisreason,thatisconsistencyofcomparison,thedatareportedinthefollowingtablesisfortheoldercohortthroughout.
Page101
7.However,itmustbesaidthatthecomprehensionmeasuremaynothavebeensatisfactorilyadministered.Wells(1985:39)expressescautionwithrespecttoitsvalidity,sointerpretationsofcorrelationsbetweenthecomprehensionscoreandotherindiceswillhavetobedonecircumspectly.
8.SeeAppendixAformoredetaileddescriptionsoftheindices.
AppendixA
ExtendedDescriptionsofVariablesUsed
Familybackground:Thefamilybackgroundscalerangesinvaluefrom6to18.Scoresarebasedonthemother'sandfather'soccupations(asbasedontheRegistrarGeneral'sscale)andonmother'sandfather'seducation,basedonatwo-pointscaledevelopedbytheBristolteam.TheformulausedisF.Occup.+M.Occup.+2(F.Educ.+M.Educ.).FurtherdetailsareprovidedinWells(1985:21-22).
Parentalinterestinliteracy:Duringtheinterviewconductedwitheachfamily,parentswereaskedabouttheirownreadinghabits.Ascalewasderivedbasedonthenumberofbooksownedbytheparentsandalsotheamountthateachparenthadreadduringthepreviousyear.Thereweresubstantialdifferencesbetweenthefamiliesonthisvariable.
Quantitychildwasreadto:Againfromthefamilyinterview,dataweregatheredontheamountthatmothersreadtotheirchildren.Asix-stepscalewasderivedfromthesedata.
Totalparentaleducation:Fortheparentaleducationscales,finerdiscriminationswereusedthanwiththefamilybackgroundmeasure.Anindexwasdevelopedforeachparentreflectingintermediatestagesofeducation,suchasstraightforwardschool-leavingatvariousages
withoutanyqualifications;CSEversus'O'versus'A'level;vocationaltraining;professionalqualifications;tertiaryeducation.
MLUs42and57months:ThisindexisbasedonpreviousworkofBrown(1973),whoproposedthatthebestsinglemeasureofdevelopmentinfirstlanguageisthemeanlengthofutteranceinmorphemes.Brownsuggestedthatincreasinglengthisanindexofdevelopingcontrolofthelanguagesystemwhenonegivescreditforgreatermorphemiccomplexity.TheBristolteamusedavariantofBrown'soriginalmeasureinthattheyeliminatedfromcalculationsutteranceswhichwereclassifiedasunstructured.Inparticular,theydidnotincludeinthecorpusforscoringMLUs(wheres=structured)utteranceswhichwereonewordpositiveornegativeidiomaticresponses,forexample,yes,no;idiomaticresponsesofgreaterlength,forexample,comeon,pushoff;textualquotation,suchasnurseryrhymesorpartsofadvertisementjingles;routinefunctionalformulae,forexample,hello,please;andexclamations.
Comprehension39and57months:Thistestcontained63itemscoveringawiderangeofsentencetypes,andinvolvedthechildinthe'acting-out'technique.Itemswereadministeredonascaleofincreasingdifficulty.However,itmustbe
Page102
mentionedthatWells(1985:39)saysofthistest:'Unfortunatelytheeffectivenessofthecomprehensiontestasameasureofreceptivelanguagedevelopmentwasseriouslycompromisedbyasystematicfailuretoobservetheinstructionsontheselectionsofitemstobeadministeredoneachoccasion'.Thetestscoresareincludedinthepresentstudybecausetheyenterintointerestingrelationshipswiththeaptitudeandachievementtests.Theircompleteinterpretation,however,willhavetobepostponeduntilfurtherinformationisavailableontheexactconditionsoftheiradministration.
EPVT(Englishpicturevocabularytest)39and66months:Thisisatestoflisteningcomprehensionofindividualvocabularyitems.
Rangeoflanguagefunctions:Thisisacumulativescorewhichcountsthenumberofdifferentfunctionsofinterpersonalpurposeusedbythechild.ItisalsoreferredtoinWells(1985)aspragmaticrange.
Rangeofsentencemeanings:Thismeasureisanindicationoftherangeofrelationshipsbetweenparticipantsencodedintheutterancesused.ItderivesfromscalesdescribedmorefullyintheManualfortheCodingofChildSpeechdevelopedbytheBristolteamandreflectssemanticmeaningssuchasbenefactiverelationship,agentchangeofstageandsoforth.
Rangeofadjectivesanddeterminers:Thisindexprovidesameasureofamountofnounphrasemodificationthatisused.
Rangeofmodality,aspect,andtimemarkers:Thisindexreflectsthechild'suseofmodificationsofthepropositionasawholewhichgobeyondthenuclearmeaningoftheclause.Theindexthereforeisameasureofthechild'sattemptstoindicatetheprobabilityofoccurrenceoftheeventinquestion;thetemporalstatusoftheeventinquestion;andlocationintimeoftheeventinquestion.Furtherdetailsrelevanttothisindexaretobefoundonpp.77-78ofWells(1985).
Rangeofsyntacticcomplexity:Thisisanindicationofthemeannumberofclauseconstituentsperutterance,targetingon34structuralelements.Additionalcreditisgiveninthisscoreforeveryclauseafterthefirst.
Rangeofnominalphrasecomplexity:Thisisanindicationoftherangeofpossibleelementsinnounphrasesandisbasedontheuseofprepositions,modifiers,differenttypesofheadword,andsimpleandcomplexqualifiers.
AppendixBGrandcorrelationmatrix
FaroBkg
ParLit
QtRd.
ParEd.
MLU42
Corn39
EPV39
FunSonmea
AdjDet
RngMod
FamilyBackgr.
- 66 54 92 23 54 58 02 30 22 34
Par.Inter.Lit. - 56 58 07 22 31 -06 26 22 34QtChld.readto
- 37 09 04 35 -07 18 04 13
TotalPar.Educ
- 27 52 51 01 27 16 36
MLUs42 - 30 24 39 16 29 38Comprehen.39
- 58 17 35 30 40
EPVT(Vocab)39
- 17 35 32 50
RangeFunctions
- 19 06 09
RangeSent.Mean.
- 42 48
RangeAdj.Deter.
- 30
RangeModal.Etc.
-
MLUs57Comprehen.57EPVT(Vocab)66
AppendixBContinuedSynCorn
NomCom
BSc42
BSc57
AH2EML1
EML2
YrkPLB5
FamilyBack. 13 33 14 25 59 37 55 56 19Par.Inter.Lit. 11 28 03 04 37 34 46 36 20QtChld.readto 09 38 -02 16 55 31 46 51 20Tot.Par.Educ 11 28 10 26 48 29 48 41 08MLUs42 42 34 45 59 31 32 52 35 12Comprehen.39 30 33 42 32 30 34 45 34 28EPVT(Vocab)39 27 31 33 30 54 45 48 50 32RangeFunctions 26 -03 45 18 00 05 09 -04 09RangeSent.Mean. 47 36 16 20 35 30 29 09 19RangeAdj.Deter. 47 59 15 46 43 30 44 25 00RangeModal.etc 50 28 13 22 17 21 40 24 16MLUs57 25 41 02 09 23 30 15 05 -14Comprehen.57 55 54 32 55 36 23 51 43 27EPVT66 16 07 11 03 33 36 21 37 11RangeSyn.Compx. - 47 43 55 15 20 28 04 23RangeNom.Compx.
- 31 49 36 39 43 26 19
BristolScale42 - 54 32 26 34 29 16BristolScale57 - 33 31 38 17 48AH2 - 58 74 72 32EMLAT1 - 55 36 27EMLAT2 - 62 25York - 27PLAB5 -PLAB6ListeningSpeakingReadingWriting
Page105
References
BARNES,S.B.,GUTFREUND,M.,SATTERLY,D.J.&WELLS,C.G.,1983,Characteristicsofadultspeechwhichpredictchildren'slanguagedevelopment.JournalofChildLanguage10,65-84.
BERETTA,A.&DAVIES,A.,1985,EvaluationoftheBangaloreProject.EnglishLanguageTeachingJournal39(2),121-127.
BLOOM,L.,LIGHTBOWN,P.&HOOD,L.,1975,Structureandvariationinchildlanguage,MonographsoftheSocietyforResearchinChildDevelopment40(SerialNo.160).
BRETHERTON,I.,McNEW,S.,SNYDER,L.&BATES,E.,1983,Individualdifferencesat20months:analyticandholisticstrategiesinlanguageacquisition.JournalofChildLanguage10,293-320.
BROWN,R.,1973,AFirstLanguage:TheEarlyStages.London:AllenandUnwin.
BROWN,G.&YULE,G.,1984,TeachingtheSpokenLanguage.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.
CARROLL,J.B.,1965,Thepredictionofsuccessinintensiveforeignlanguagetraining.InR.GLASER(ed.),Training,Research,andEducation.NewYork:Wiley,87-136.
1974,Theaptitude-achievementdistinction:thecaseofforeignlanguageaptitudeandproficiency.InD.R.GREEN(ed.).TheAptitude-AchievementDistinction.Monterey,CA:McGrawHill,289-303.
1975,TheTeachingofFrenchasaForeignLanguageinEightCountries.Stockholm:AlmquistandWiksell.
1982,Twenty-fiveyearsofresearchonforeignlanguageaptitude.InK.C.DILLER(ed),IndividualDifferencesandUniversalsinLanguageLearningAptitude.Rowley,MA:NewburyHouse,83-118.
CARROLL,J.B.&SAPON,S.M.,1957,ModernLanguageAptitudeTest.NewYork:PsychologicalCorporation.
DAVIES,A.,1971,LanguageaptitudeinthefirstyearoftheU.K.secondaryschool.RELCJournal,June1971,4-19.
DONALDSON,M.,1978,Children'sMinds.London:Penguin.
FILLMORE,C.J.,1968,Thecaseforcase.InE.BACH&R.T.HARMS(eds),UniversalsinLinguisticTheory.NewYork:Holt.Rinehart,andWinston.
FILLMORE,L.W.,1976,Thesecondtimearound:cognitiveandsocialstrategiesinsecondlanguageacquisition.Doctoraldissertation,StanfordUniversity.(Publishedin1979,AnnArbor,MI:UniversityMicrofilms.)
1979,Individualdifferencesinsecondlanguageacquisition.InC.J.FILLMORE,W.S.Y.WANG&D.KEMPLER(eds),IndividualDifferencesinLanguageAbilityandLanguageBehavior.NewYork:AcademicPress.
GARDNER,R.C.,1986,SocialPsychologyandSecondLanguageLearning:TheRoleofAttitudesandMotivation.London:EdwardArnold.
GARDNER,R.C.&LAMBERT,W.E.,1972,AttitudesandMotivationinSecondLanguageLearning.Rowley,MA:NewburyHouse.
GREEN,P.S.,1975,TheLanguageLaboratoryinSchool:TheYorkStudy.Edinburgh:OliverandBoyd.
HALLIDAY,M.A.K.,1970,Languagestructureandlanguagefunction.InJ.LYONS(ed),NewHorizonsinLinguistics.Harmondsworth:Penguin,140-165.
LONG,M.H.,1982,Doessecondlanguageinstructionmakeadifference?Areviewofresearch.TESOLQuarterly17(3),359-382.
MORROW,K.,1979,Communicativelanguagetesting:Revolutionorevolution?
Page106
InC.J.BRUMFIT,&K.JOHNSON(eds),TheCommunicativeApproachtoLanguageTeaching.Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress,143-157.
NAIMAN,N.,FRÖHLICH,M.,STERN,H.H.&TEDESCOA.,1978,TheGoodLanguageLearner.Toronto:OntarioInstituteforStudiesinEducation.
NELSON,K.,1973,Structureandstrategyinlearningtotalk.MonographsoftheSocietyforResearchinChildDevelopment38,(1-2).
1981,Individualdifferencesinlanguagedevelopment:implicationsfordevelopmentandlanguage.DevelopmentalPsychology17,170-187.
OLLER,J.W.(ed),1983,IssuesinLanguageTestingResearch.Rowley,MA:NewburyHouse.
PETERS,A.,1983,TheUnitsofLanguageAcquisition.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.
PETERSEN,C.R.&AL-HAID,A.,1976,ThedevelopmentoftheDefenseLanguageBattery(DLAB).EducationalandPsychologicalMeasurement36,369-380.
PIMSLEUR,P.,1966,ThePimsleurLanguageAptitudeBattery.NewYork:HarcourtBraceJovanovich.
1968,Languageaptitudetesting.InA.DAVIES(ed.),LanguageTestingSymposium:APsycholinguisticApproach.Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress,98-106.
REVES,P.,1983,WhatMakesaGoodLanguageLearner?Unpublisheddoctoraldissertation.HebrewUniversityofJerusalem.
SKEHAN,P.,1980a,Memory,languageaptitude,andsecondlanguageperformance.Polyglot2(3),53-70.
1980b,Languageaptitude:areview.EnglishLanguageResearchJournal1,85-101.
1982,Memoryandmotivationinlanguageaptitudetesting.Unpublisheddoctoraldissertation,UniversityofLondon.
1986,Clusteranalysisandtheidentificationoflearnertypes.InV.J.COOK(ed),ExperimentalApproachestoSecondLanguageLearning.Oxford:Pergamon,81-94.
SMITH,P.D.,1970,AComparisonoftheCognitiveandAudiolingualApproachestoForeignLanguageInstruction.Philadelphia:CentreforCurriculumDevelopment.
TIZARD,B.&HUGHES,M.,1984,YoungChildrenLearning.London:Fontana
WELLS,C.G.,1975,CodingManualfortheDescriptionofChildSpeechinConversationalContext(rev.ed.),UniversityofBristol,SchoolofEducation.
1981,LearningThroughInteraction.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.
1985,LanguageDevelopmentinthePre-schoolYears.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.
WELLS,C.G.,BARNES,S.B.&WELLS,J.,1985,LinguisticInfluencesonEducationalAttainment.FinalreporttotheDepartmentofEducationandScience,HomeandSchoolInfluencesonEducationalAttainmentProject.UniversityofBristol:DepartmentofEducationandScience,ElizabethHouse,YorkRoad,London.
WELLS,C.G.,HOMEWOOD,J.&OFFORD,D.,1983,HomeandSchoolInfluencesonEducationalAttainment.FinalReporttotheSpencerFoundation.UniversityofBristol.
WESCHE,M.B.,1982,Languageaptitudemeasuresinstreaming,
matchingstudentswithmethods,anddiagnosesoflearningproblems.InK.C.DILLER(ed.).IndividualDifferencesandUniversalsinLanguageLearningAptitude.Rowley,MA:NewburyHouse,119-154.
Page107
7InvestigationsintoClassroomDiscourseWERNERHÜLLEN
Thisarticleconsistsoftwoparts.ThefirstcontainssomegeneralassumptionsthatunderlieinvestigationsintoclassroomdiscoursethatsomecollaboratorsandIhavecarriedout.Asthepaper'slengthisratherlimited,suchassumptionscanonlybegivenasbarestatementswithoutdoingmuchinducingorproving.
Further,inthisfirstpart,anattemptwillbemadeatexplainingwhysuchinvestigationsintoclassroomdiscoursemayevenbesuperiortothemethodsofnaturallanguageacquisitionanalysisoutsidetheclassroom.Inthissectionasomewhatcriticalattitudetowardssomeofthecontemporaryundertakingsinthisfieldwillbecomevisible.Again,owingtothelimitationsoflength,noexamplescanbegiven.
Thesecondpartofthepaperconsistsofreportsaboutthreeprojectsthatrestontheassumptionsandfollowtheintentionsjustdescribed.
Ishallcontinuallydifferentiatebetweenacquisition,whichissupposedtobenatural,andlearning,whichissupposedtobeformalorartificial.Iwanttostressthatthisisonlyaconvenientsimplificationofterminologyforacomplexmatter.Itdoesnotmeanthatinmyopinionthereissomethinglikepureacquisitionorpurelearningastwoindependenttypesofinteriorisingalanguage.Onthecontrary,Ibelievethatweneverdotheonewithouttheother,thoughoneofthetwowaysisalwayspredominantincertainsituations.
Threestatementscanbemadeuponthenatureofteachingandlearning(Hüllen,1983):
1.Thereisaconnectionbetweenteachingandlearning;teachingtriggersoffthelearningprocessthoughwedonotknowinwhichdirectionandtowhatextent.Allexperiencepointstothefactthattheteachingconceptandthelearningresultareonlypartlyidentical.
Page108
2Learningisdependentonteaching(thisisaconsequenceofthefirststatement),butteachingisitselfalsodependentonlearning.Teachingmethodologymustbegearedtothemechanismoflearninginordertobeeffective.
3Thereisundoubtedlyamentalforcefortheprocessingoflanguagedatainman(thisisagainaconsequenceofthesecondstatement),butwedonotknowmuchaboutitsautonomywithreferencetootherfacultiesofthehumanmindandwithreferencetoenvironmentalfactors.Allexperiencepointstothefactthattherearevariouswaystolearnalanguageaccordingtovaryingcircumstancesbutthatsuchvariouswayshaveimportantelementsincommon.Themechanismoflearningmentionedaboveshowsitselfratherasanamoeba:itisundoubtedlythere,butitsshapevariesconstantlyanditis,thus,difficulttograsp.
Fortheanalysisofforeignlanguagelearningintheclassroomtheseexperiencesexcludetwologicallypossibleviewpoints:thattheteachercanjustdowhatheorshewantsintheclassroombecausethelearnerwillfollowhimorheranyway,andthattheteachercandonothingintheclassroombesidesprovidinginputbecausethelearnerwillnotfollowhimorheranyway.Neithertheteachernorthelearnerareautonomousinwhattheydowhenteachingandlearningisgoingon.Actually,nolearnerhaspresumablythoughtheorsheisautonomousand,whatismoreimportant,nointelligentteacherhasdonesoeither.Scholarswhothinktheymustarguewithteachersaboutthisengagethemselvesinanissueofonlyrhetoricalvalue.Thewholebusinessofforeignlanguageteachingmethodologyonlymakessenseifweassumethatlearningalanguageisaprocesswhichcanbeinfluenced,butnotadlibitum,anditisexactlythelimitedopennessoflearningtoteachwhichhastobeexplored(Felix,1982;Hüllen,1984).
Onewayofdoingthisisbyinvestigatingdiscourseintheclassroomwiththehelpofdiscourseanalysis(Sinclair&Coulthard,1975;Stubbs,1976).Thismeansusingadescriptivemodelwhichwasoriginallysetuptodescribecommunicationbycompetentspeakersratherthanbyteachersandlearners(Lörscher,1983).However,theboundariesbetweencommunicationandlanguagelearningareverydifficulttodraw.Anysortoflearningisconnectedwithfindingnewandappropriateexpressionsformeanings.Iflanguagecompetenceisourabilitytoproduceandtounderstandutteranceswhichwehaveneverproducedorheardbefore,competenceisindeedalsoourfacultytolearnalanguage.
Foreignlanguagelearningthenis,atleastonanabstractlevel,aspecialandparticularlydramaticcaseofwhatwealwaysdowhenwe
Page109
combinemeaningswiththemeanstoexpresstheminparticularcircumstances.(Itgoeswithoutsayingthatthereisalsoaconventionalisedformoflinguisticperformancewherenolearninginthesensementionedaboveisinvolved.)Thisstateofaffairsallowsustoapproachforeignlanguagelearningintheclassroomasaspecialkindofcommunication(Hüllen,1976;Hüllen&Jung.1979).
Duringthelasttwodecadesmuchprogresshasbeenmadeintheinvestigationofso-callednaturallanguageacquisitionofthefirstandofanyfurtherlanguage.Theresultsoftheseinvestigations(Dechert&Raupach,1980;Felix,1982;Nicholas&Meisel,1983;Wode,1981),thoughsometimescontradictoryandthusnotgenerallyaccepted,cannotandneednotbereportedhere.Ithasbecomecustomary(atleastintheFederalRepublicofGermany)totransferfindingsaboutnaturallanguageacquisitiontoforeignlanguagelearningandtolookatthelatterasaspecialcaseoftheformer(Klein,1984).Themaintopicofinvestigationinthiscontextisthatafixedsequentialorderoflearning(e.g.morphologicalitems)saidtobecharacteristicoflanguageacquisition,isalsosupposedtoshowupinforeignlanguagelearningorwoulddosoiftheteachingwasbetter.
Theattempttoanalyseforeignlanguagelearningintheclassroomwiththehelpofinsightsintolanguageacquisitionisalegitimateoneaslongasweareawareofthefactthatthereareelementsinthelearningsituationwhichnevershowupintheacquisitionsituationandwhich,thus,cannotbeadequatelyanalysedinthisway.Wecannotregardthecontextofclassroomlearningassomedebasedformofthecontextoflanguageacquisitionbutmustlookatitinitsownright.Forthatmatter,thesameholdstrueifwegointheoppositedirection,thatis,ifwetrytoelucidatelanguageacquisitionfromourinsightsintolanguagelearning.Thereisnoinherentreasonwhywehavetolookintolanguageacquisitionfirstand/orintolanguagelearningsecond.Whatwedointhisrespectisnotamatteroftruth,butofusefulness
fortheanalysis.
Themethodcurrentlywidelyacceptedforlanguageacquisitionresearchisanalysingproductsofperformanceandexplainingthemassymptomsofprocessesinthemind.Assuch,processesofahigherintellectualorder,towhichlanguageperformancealwaysbelongs,areinevitablygoal-oriented;suchagoalmustindeedbeobservedasabasisofourdataanalysis.Itiscommunicationwhichwouldbecalled'successful'byanativespeakerinagivensituation.Ouranalysis,then,triestoexplainproductsofperformanceassymptomsofprocesseswhichstriveatestablishingsuccessfulcommunication(Edmondson&House,1981;Kasper,1981).
Page110
Thisprocedurewhichowesalottogestaltpsychologywithoutadmittingit,leavessomedoubtastoitsreliance.First,itisessentiallyobserver-orientedandnotacquirer-oriented.Itreconstructsaprocessinthemindfromdatabygivingthemsenseaccordingtotheexperienceoftheobserver.Althoughtheobservermaybeveryparticularintryingtofindthespeaker'scommunicationgoal,itisnotatallclearwhetherheorsheactuallysucceeds.Theanalystmayverywellestablishhisorherownconceptionofsenseinthedatawhichdeviatesfromthespeaker's.Second,thisprocedurelacksameasurementforgeneralisation.Itisnotclearwhetheranutteranceistobelookeduponassignificantornot.Thereasonforthisisthatweusuallyworkwithdecontextualisedutteranceswhichdonotallowanyconclusionontheirpositionwithinthemomentarystateofcompetenceoftheacquirer.Third,thereisnounanimitywithinlanguageacquisitionresearchontheunitofinvestigation.Isitaword,asyntagma,anutteranceoranadjacencypair?Asmostdataareelicitedindialogue,thequestionofthedegreetowhichutterancesofacquirersarepredeterminedbytheelicitationsoftheresearchersarises.
Thesethreepointsofcriticismshowthatwehavenotasmuchcontroloverthemethodofouranalyticalworkandtheextenttowhichourmethoditselfdeterminesourfindingsaswewish.Classroomdiscourse,however,putsusinatleastaslightlybetterposition.Itismorecontrolledandpatternedthanotherdiscourseandcanbebrokendownintorelativelyclearunitsofcommunication.Thethreeproblematicalareascanbemoreeasily(though,ofcourse,nottotally)overcomepreciselybecauseoftheseformalqualities.Whenanalysingclassroomdiscourse,theanalystisequallydistantfromlearnerandteacher,thatis,fromthetwopartnersincommunication,andcanobservetheinterdependenceoftheirutterances.Asaunitofinvestigationtheexchangebetweenthetwooffersitselfquite
naturally.Ameasurementforgeneralisationcanbefoundwithinthefairlynarrowlimitsofclassroomcommunication,sinceagoalofcommunicativeactscan,asarule,beclearlyderivedfromthequestionsoftheelicitativeactsoftheteacher.
Thus,therearegoodmethodologicalreasonsforanalysingclassroomdiscourseastheoutwardappearanceofforeignlanguagelearninginitsownright,orevenfortryingtoelucidatenaturallanguageacquisitionfromit.Ofcourse,wemustkeepinmindthatwhatmakesclassroomdiscourseopentoanalysisisessentiallyanalienationfromnaturalundirectedformsofcommunication(Edmondson&House,1981),sothattherewillbealwaysthetaskofdeterminingthedifferencesbetweentheoneandtheother.Discourseanalysisgivesusthetoolstodothis.
Page111
Thethreeprojectsnowtobedescribedanalysedetailsofthelearner-teachercommunication,buttheydoitwithinthegeneralframeworkdescribedabove.Theyarethusmeanttoprovideafewmosaicstoneswhich,supplementedwithmanyothers,eventuallymayyieldapicture.
Project1(Hüllen&Löscher,1979)
Astretchofclassroomdiscoursewasanalysedinwhichtheteacher,withthehelpofquestions,triedtomaketheclassrepeatatextfromtheirbookintheparticularwayinwhichtheyrememberedit.Theobjectiveoftheinvestigationwastocomparehowfarlearnerutterancesdeviatedfromthemodeltext,whichmeansthatutteranceswhichwereidenticalwiththemodeltextcouldbeignored.TheanalyticaltoolwasanadaptationofSinclairandCoulthard'sdiscoursemodel.Fivehundredandeighty-twoutterances(acts)oflearnerswhowereintheirsecondandthirdyearofEnglishwereanalysed.
Threemainfactsbecamevisible:
1.Learnerspreferredsimplerstructurestothemodeltext,mostofallinpredicates,butalsoinnounphrasesandprepositionalphrases.Theywoulduseforexample,
-predicateswithoutmodalsinsteadofpredicateswithmodals;
-nounphraseswithoutpossessivepronounsinsteadofwithpossessivepronouns;
-directspeechinsteadofreportedspeech.Learnersalsopreferredthepresenttothepasttense.
2.Learnerspreferredsemanticallysimplerwordsthanthemodeltext.Theywouldforexample,exchange
-be+complementforaverblexeme;
-not+adjectiveforan(opposite)adjectivelexeme;
-lexemeswithgeneralmeaningforlexemeswithspecificmeaning.
3.Learnerstendedtocutthecohesivemodeltextintoslicesofindependentminiaturetextswithoutsentenceconnectors.Anexceptiontothiswassimplytheinsertionofand,whichappearedmorefrequentlythaninthemodeltextitself.(ExamplesaregivenintheAppendix.)
Allthreestrategiescanbeseenasheadinginthesamedirection.Theyproduceatextwhichconsistsofaseriesofbare,unmodifiedassertions.Or,toputitnegatively,theyproduceatextwithoutmodalandotherwisemodifyingelementsandwithoutexplicitlinksbetweensentences(apartfromand).
Page112
Keepinginmindthelimitationsofthedata,wecanhypothesisethatlearnershadasortofsemanticnucleusintheirperformance,consistingof,forexample,thesimpleverbphraseasapredicateinthepresenttense,whichtheyfellbackonintheirownutterances.Thisnucleuscouldbeenrichedbymorecomplexstructureslikethepasttenseandmodals.Thus,present,past,modals+present/pastobviouslymarkasequenceoflearningfromtheeasytothemoredifficultwhichthelearnersrunthroughintheoppositedirectionwhentheyfindthatsomecommunicativetaskistoodemandingforthem.
Othersyntacticnucleiarearticle+nounwhichcanbeenrichedbydemonstrativeandpossessivepronounsandadditionallybyadjectives.Prepositionalphrasestogetherwiththeenvelopingsentenceareobviouslyfelttobemorecomplexthantwoindependentsentences,becausetheyarere-wordedinthisway.Semantically,wecanhypothesisethattheunitofperformanceforverbsis,ofcourse,thelexeme,butthattheanalyticparaphrasebe+adjectiveisjustasfrequentandthusasfundamentalasthesimpleverblexemeandisindeedinmanycasesevenpreferred.Insentencestructure,embeddingscomeafterparatacticindependentsentences.
Thisprojectis,ofcourse,onlyoflimitedvalidity.Itshouldbeduplicatedinordertogaingeneralisabilityanditwillhavetobeextendedtomanykindsoftextsifeventuallyasequenceoflearningwithintheverbandthenounphraseistobeestablished.Criteriaotherthansyntacticandsemanticcomplexitywillhavetobeobserved,likecontrastiveness.Inthecasedescribeditwasobservedthatthechoiceoflexemes,forexample,wasadditionallyguidedbycontrastiveinfluences,butitdidnotbecomeclearwhichwasstronger,contrastiveinfluenceorthequestforsimplicity.Insyntacticstructuresnocontrastivedeviationswerefound.
Project2(Hüllen,1982)
Astretchofclassroomdiscoursewasanalysedwithreferencetoimpromptuelementsusedinitbyteachersandbylearners(Enkvist,1982).Suchelementsaremarkedbyspontaneityenactedinrealtime.Itmay,therefore,bedoubtfulwhethertheyoccuratallinclassroomdiscourse,whoseoutstandingfeatureisformalisationandpredeterminedpattern.
Initsmosttypicalform,discourseinaforeignlanguageclassconsistsofanelicitationutteredbytheteacherandaresponseutteredbyapupilwhichisfollowedbyanotherevaluativeutterancebytheteacher(Lörscher,1983).Asarule,learnersinaclassknowthekindofresponsetheyare
Page113
expectedtogive(though,ofcourse,theysometimesdonotknowtheresponseitself).Teacherselicittheirlearners'responsesnormallyinafairlycalculatedandtextdependentway.Sothereseemstobenothingimpromptuhere.Butthefollow-uputterances,whichexpresstheteacher'sevaluationofthelearner'sperformance,aredifferent.Theyconsistofwordslikeyes,right,no,okay,wrong,well,ah,mhmand/ornon-verbalsignslikeshakingornoddingone'shead,smiling.brow-beatingetc.Inonestretchof150actsthereoccurred43suchevaluatives,sometimeschainedtogether(yes,right,okay).
Thefollow-upsastheconcludingthirdpartofteacher-learnerexchangesareveryimpromptuandtheyarealsoheavilydominatedbythesourcelanguage,whichinthiscasewasGerman.Yes/ja,right/richtig,wrong/falsch,no/nein,perhaps/vielleichtoccurparticularlyoftenwithyesholdingtheabsoluterecord.ThisinterferencefromGermanalsoaccountsforthetotalabsenceofexpressionslikefine,Isee,well-done,goodgirl.orothers.SometimeseventeacherswhousuallymakeapointofconductingtheentireconversationinEnglishwillfallbackonGermaninterjectionslikeja,ach,aha.Needlesstosay,theaccompanyingnon-verbalsignsareallGerman.
Asthesequenceelicitation/response/evaluativeisthenormalexchangeunitinclassroomdiscourse,itslastmember,theevaluative,gainsparticularimportance.Itisthesub-unitofdiscoursewhichleadstothenextexchangeunit.Itisthepointinclassroomdiscoursewhereastepforwardismadeandwhich,therefore,callsforthespecialattentionofteacherandlearneralike.Thereisoftenaglidebetweenthisfollow-upandthenextelicitationwhichmayberealisedasaplanningpause(emptyorfilled),andcontainsmorefalsestarts,repetitionsandinterjectionsthanisusual.Mostfrequentisagainyes.(ExamplesaregivenintheAppendix.)
Follow-uputterancestogetherwiththeseglidesserveatleastfourfunctions:
1.Theyareplanningspansfortheteacher,whomustthinkofwhattodonext.
2.Theyarelubricantsinthediscourse,avoidingembarrassinggapsofsilence.
3.Theygivereinforcingorcorrectinginformationtothelearner.
4.Theymanipulatethelearner'sattention.
Thefrequencyandobviousfunctionalloadofsuchelementsinthelanguageofteachershasitsobviouscounterpartintheconspicuousabsenceoftheminthelanguageoflearners.Thoughthereareoccasionalhesitationphenomenaandfalsestarts,theyoccurmuchlessfrequently.Theproblemishowtoaccountforthisstateofaffairs.
Page114
Impromptuelementsobviouslysignalplanningphaseswhichprecedetherealisationofspeech.Inthesesub-unitstheteacherisbusyreinforcingthelearnerandplanningthenextexchangeatthesametime;therefore,thisisthemomentwhenhisorherlinguisticegoisreallyatwork,somuchsothatitdoesnotcontrolitselfbututtersuncontrolledandstructurallyloosepiecesoflanguage.Thisalsoexplainswhythesourcelanguageintrudesmorethanitusuallydoesatsuchmoments.Thestressoftheplanningtaskaccountsforthefactthatthespeakerisdominatedbyutteranceswhichheorsheknowsfromhisorhermothertongue.
Theabsenceofsuchimpromptuelementsinthelanguageoflearnerssignalsthattheydonotgothroughrealplanningphasesatall,butthattheelicitationoftheteachertriggersaperformativeactbygoingbacktosomeperformanceproductstoredinthemind.Whatlearnersproduceinsuchmomentsisnotcreativelyplannedspeechbutrememberedorcodedspeech.
Theseobservationscanleadtoatleasttwoquiteimportantconsequences:
1.Ifthecreativeplanningofone'sownspeechissupposedtobeanimportantactinlanguagelearning,becauseitobviouslyisanimportantactintheperformanceofnativespeakers,thelearnersshouldhaveachanceofgoingthroughit.Makingittooeasyforlearnersmaybekeepingthemfromanimportantexercise(Hüllen,1983).
2.Mothertongueinterferenceisnotsomuchduetothesimilaritiesofthesystems,butdependsonthestrainofthemoment,onthemental'depth'inwhichthespeechactiscreatedbythespeaker.Absenceofsuchinterference,therefore,canindeedmeanthatsomebodyisabletoplanhisorherutterancesintheforeignlanguagethathisorhercompetenceindeedequalsthatofanativespeaker.Itcan,however,
alsomeanthataspeakerdoesnotplanhisorherutterancesatallbutjustverbalisespremeditatedtexts.
Project3(Hüllen&Lorscher
*,1979;Lörscher,1983)
Thedescriptionofclassroomdiscourseallowsustoidentifycertaintypesofactsandtofindoutwhichquantitativeshareeachofthemoccupiesinthewholediscourse.Suchactsareforexample,
-phaticwithvariousfunctionslikeplanningphasesorback-channelcomments;
Page115
-topicreferringtothesubject/topicunderdiscussion;
-linguisticreferringtothelanguageitself,thatis,itsmeaningoritsformalandpragmaticcorrectness;
-organisingwiththefunctionsofopeningandclosingdiscourseandofallocatingturns;
-correcting(withobviousfunctions);
-commentingwhichoftenoverlapswithcorrectingacts;
-evaluatingwiththefourfunctionsmentionedabove;
-repeatingwhichseemstobeparticularlyclassroomspecific;
-asidewithnorelationtotheclassroomdiscourse.
Thedistributionofsuchactsinclassroomdiscourseisofcourseveryuneven.Tobeginwith,75%ofallutterancescomefromtheteacher;onlytheremaining25%fromthelearners.Learnersutterveryfewphaticandlinguisticactsthesearealmostentirelytheteacher'sandnoorganisingactsatall.Topicalactscomprisethebulkofwhatthelearnerssay.Accordingtothiswayofgrouping,thelearners'speechintheclassroomisuniformwhencomparedtotheteacher'sspeech,butalsowhencomparedtoeverydaydiscourse.Furthermore,teachersinstigateinitiativeandelicitativeactsaswellascommentingandevaluativeones,thatisfollow-ups,whereaslearnersarelimitedtoresponsiveandreactiveacts.
Suchfindingsshould,ofcourse,notbeusedforcriticisingteachersandtheirroleinclass.Theyshouldbetakenasaninsightintothediversityofspeechactsincommunicationforwhichlearnersmustbeprepared.Withtheexceptionperhapsofrepeatingacts,alltheothersalsooccurineverydaydialogueandmustbemasteredeventuallybyourlearners,althoughindifferentwordingandrhetoricalpatterns,
sincepartnersincommunicationdonotconfronteachotherinteacherandlearnerroles.Fromthisquantifyinganalysis,thealienatingcharacterofclassroomdiscoursecanindeedbemadeclear;somethingwhichmustsomehowbeovercomebyteachingmethodology.
Thethreeprojectsdescribedenterthewideareaofinvestigationsintoclassroomdiscourseatquitedifferentpoints.Thefirstisdevotedtolearningsequencesforsyntacticandsemanticrules,thesecondtoteacherspeechplanningunderthespecialaspectofcontrastiveness,thethirdtotherhetoricaldistributionofspeechactsbetweenteacherandlearners.Allthreeprojectsarcofapreliminarycharacterandbegformuchmoreintensiveresearch.
Thereareofcourseothertopicstobeobserved,forexample,communicationstrategiesinaforeignlanguage,forwhichnopilotstudycouldbegiven(Faerch&Kasper,1983).Alltheseinvestigationstreatthelearningprocessessentiallyasaprocessofcommunication.Learningis
Page116
indeedcommunicatingunderspecialcircumstancesandwithspecialaims.Theoutwardappearanceofcommunication,however,isdiscourse.
Appendix
Project1
1. begintolaugh®laugh
couldnotbelieve®didnotbelieve
2.1hecame®hewasat
thebedmeasured®thebedwas...long
2.2mad®notquiteright
straight®notcrooked
2.3ask®say
crash®flyagainst
walked®went
3. S(whenhewaslisteningtosomemusic)®Heheardmusic+S
Project2
T: YourhomeworkfortodaywastofindoutalltheidiomsorexpressionsthathavetodowithsportandfindanequivalentinplainEnglish.Canwegothroughthisnow.(5sec)
Yes.Angela
L: Ithinkthefirstidiomfromsportis'sittinginthesame
boat'andinmodernEnglishIwouldsay,eh,'weareallinthesamesituation.
T: Right.
Weareallinthesamesituation.
Good.
T: Doesanybodyrememberthetitleofthestory?
Bert.
L: Herbert,thehumanradio.
T: Yes,okay.
Now,whowasHerbert?
Doyourememberanythingabouthim?
Yes,pleaseGuido.
L: Herbertwasaboy...
T: mhm
L: inEngland...
T: mhm
Page117
L:andhehave,haveagoodmother.
T:Stop,stop,therewasamistake.
L:hasagoodmother.
T:Aha,willyoupleaserepeatthesentence.
L:Hehasagoodmother.
T:Aha,butyousaid,hewasinEngland.Soyoumustusethepasttenseinthesecondpartofyoursentenceaswell.
L:Hewasagoodboyand...
T:Let'sseeifwecanrememberthethingsthatMaryputonthesandcastlestomakethemlooknice.
Whatwerethey?Thethingssheputonthesandcastles...
Yes,Judy.
L:Itwasamushle.
T:What?Isthatright?
Eh,Steven.
L:shell.
T:Ashell,that'stheEnglishword,isn'tit?
Shell,that'sright.Okay.
Isaidthethingssheputso...
[NVnomination]
L:shells.
T:Theywereshells.
Okay.
Therightsentence,listen.
ThethingsMaryputonhersandcastleswereshells.
ThethingsMaryputonhersandcastleswereshells.
Everyone.
Project3
Teacher % Learner %
phatic 55 8.97 3 1.97
topic 7 1.14 5 3.29
linguistic 119 19.41 70 46.05
aside 12 1.96 9 5.92
organising 195 31.81 28 18.42
correcting 6 0.98 27 17.76
commenting 47 7.67 19 12.50
evaluative 80 13.05 0 0
repeating 58 9.46 19 12.50
Page118
References
DECHERT,H.W.&RAUPACH,M.(eds),1980,TowardsaCrosslinguisticAssessmentofSpeechProduction.Frankfurt:Lang.
EDMONDSON,W.&HOUSE,J.,1981,Let'sTalkandTalkAboutIt.Munchen:Urban&Schwarzenberg.
ENKVIST,N.E.(ed),1982,ImpromptuSpeech:ASymposium.Åbo:ÅboAkademi.
FAERCH,C.&KASPER,G.,1983,StrategiesinInterlanguageCommunication.London:Longman.
FELIX,S.W.,1982,PsycholinguistischeAspektedesZweitsprachenerwerbs.Tübingen:Narr.
HÜLLEN,W.,1976,FremdsprachendidaktikundlinguistischePragmatik.DieNeuerenSprachen75,217-229.
1982,Observationsrelatedtoimpromptuelementsinclassroomdiscourseandtothefunctionofsuchelementsforforeignlanguageteachingandlearning.InN.E.ENKVIST(ed),ImpromptuSpeech:ASymposium.Åbo:Åbo:Akademi,207-219.
1983,Onsomedidacticconsequencesfrominsightsintothemechanismoflanguageacquisitionandlanguagelearning.InS.W.FELIX&H.WODE(eds),LanguageDevelopmentattheCrossroads.Tübingen:Narr,145-150.
1984,StreitbareAnmerkungenzuS.W.Felix'PsycholinguistischeAspektedesZweitsprachenerwerbs',StudiumLinguistik15,102-109.
HÜLLEN,W.&JUNG,L.,1979,SprachstrukturundSpracherwerb.Düsseldorf:BagelundFranke.
HÜLLEN,W.&LORSCHER,W.,1979,Lehrbuch,Lernerund
Unterrichtsdiskurs.Unterrichtswissenschaft4,313-326.
KASPER,G.,1981,PragmatischeAspekteinderInterimsprache.Tubingen:Narr.
KLEIN,W.,1984,Zweitsprachenerwerb.EineEinfuhrung.Konigstein/Ts.:Athenäum.
LÖRSCHER,W.,1983,LinguistischeBeschreibungundAnalysevonFremdsprachenunterrichtalsDiskurs.Tübingen:Narr.
NICHOLAS,H.&MEISEL.,J.,1983,Secondlanguageacquisition:Thestateoftheart.InS.W.FELIX&H.WODE(eds),LanguageDevelopmentattheCrossroads.Tübingen:Narr.
SINCLAIR,J.McH.&COULTHARD,M.,1975,TowardsanAnalysisofDiscourse:TheEnglishUsedbyTeachersandPupils.London:OxfordUniversityPress.
STUBBS,M.,1976,Language,SchoolsandClassrooms.London:Methuen.
WODE,H.,1981,LearningaSecondLanguage:Vol.I.AnIntegratedViewofLanguageAcquisition.Tübingen:Narr.
Page119
8TheLinguisticsofEnunciativeOperationsandSecondLanguageLearningDanielleBailly
Introduction
Itisourbasicassumptionthatthetheoryofenunciativeoperations(TEO),developedbyAntoineCulioli,representsapowerfulmodelforthestructuringofL2inputandthepresentationofmetalinguisticexplanationsinL1aboutL2tostudentsintutoredsecondlanguageacquisition.ThepreciseframeworkwithinwhichwehaveworkedistheteachingofEnglishasaforeignlanguagetoFrench11-year-oldlearners.
1Theefficiencyoftheoreticallinguisticsinthiscontextappearstobethreefold:
1.Itseemstoprovidecoherentcriteriafortheselectionanddelimitationofsampleswhichareconsideredtobefundamentalandthussuitableforteachingmaterial.IfL1andL2maybeassumedastwospecificmodesorsetsoftraceswhichhumansubjectsusetoexpressgeneralisablelanguageoperations,linguisticsmayprovidethetheoreticalframeworktodescribesourceandtargetlanguages,asbeingidenticalindepthanddifferentonthesurface.Weexpectthisprocedureoftheselectionoflinguisticessentialscommontobothtobeanencouragingwayforthemodellingofasystemofrepresentationsthatactuallymapssubjects'realspeakingactivities.
2.Linguisticsenablesthedidacticiantotransposehisorher
theoreticalknowledgeintoready-for-usepedagogicalmaterialwithoutdisregardingthespecificlinguisticstatusofsuchatransposition.Whereas,forinstance,naturalcommunicationisconstrainedbygenuinespatio-temporal,modal,referential/textualphenomena,thatistosay,arealhere-and-nowdiscourseanchoringforagivensetofcommunicationpartners,oraretraceablenarrativestatusfora
Page120
giventext,L2comprehension/productionintheclassroomisdifferentfromthis,remainscommunicativelynon-functionalandsimulative.Thisbiasesanycommunicationintheclassroom,andverbalinteractioninparticular,andentailsparticularmodalshiftsanddeterminativeblurrings.Itisthetaskofthelinguisttoanalysethem.
3.Finally,linguisticshelpsthedidacticiantotakeintoaccounttwokindsofcomplementaryrequirementsofthematerialaswellasofthestrategies:first,theclassicalL1-L2interference,asforinstance,inthecaseoftheaspectualsystemforaFrenchmanlearningEnglishasaforeignlanguageandsecond,thedevelopmentalandconceptualdifficultiesinherentintheapprehensionofcertainlinguisticnotions,asinthecaseoftermslikecomparison,generic,hypothesis,andsoforth.
Sincetheraisingoflearners'consciousnessoflinguisticfunctioningisassumedtofacilitatetheirL2-acquisitiontogetherwithintensivepractice,ofcourseitistheappliedlinguist'stasktomaterialisealternativechoicesinconcreteexperiments.Letusconcentrateontwopedagogicaldeviceswhicharetypicalforourapproach:
(a)concerningthearrangementandpresentationofteachingmaterial:awellstructuredgrammaticalprogression,and
(b)concerningthesequencesofteaching:aconceptualisationphase,conceivedofasastrategicelementintheteachingprocess.
Grammaticalprogressionlinkseachuniquemicro-systeminthesequenceofthetotalcourse(forinstance,thetenses,thedeterminers,andsoon)totheothermicro-systemsbothinacommunicativelyplausibleandlinguisticallycoherentway.Theconceptualisationphasecoversaveryshortperiodoftime,infactabouttwentyminutesaweekinatotaloffourhours'teaching.ItincludesindividualandcollectivereflectionontheL2intheL1.Thisphasewebelievetobe
originalinourconcept.Itdiffersfromthetraditionalgrammarlessonaswellasfromthecommunicativeapproach,currentlypractisedinlanguageteaching.Itaimsatmakinglearnersawareoflanguageoperationssuchaslocation,determination,quantification.Themetalinguisticexplanationsgiventothemfocusonthecognitiveandculturalsymbolisationthroughlanguage(s).LearnersarethuslednotonlytofollowtheorganisationofL2normsassuchandasdistinctivefromtheirL1,butalsotoexpresstheirowninterlanguageactivities.TheytesttheirindividualhypothesesonL2functioning;theyevaluatethedegreeofaccuracyoftheirownandothers'productions.Suchmetalinguisticreasoningdependsonaneffortofjustificationandasearchforstructuralaswellascommunicativecoherencecriteria.
Page121
Asfortheteacher,thisapproachrequirestheuseofasuitablemetalanguage;heorshewillclassifyandlabeltextunitsandtextarrangementsandspecifytheminrelationtotheclassesofextralinguisticsituationstheycorrespondwith.Itisthelearner'staskthentointernalisesuchconceptsastime-tenserelationshipmodality,voice,determination,deixisandanaphoryaslinkedtotopologicalabstractlocationselaboratedfromagivendiscourseorigin.ThusthelearneristrainednotonlytoidentifyandcombineelementsofsurfaceL2semiosis,buttorecognisetheinvisiblelanguageinvariantsthatliebehindthem.Incourseoftimeheorshemustincreasinglybecomeawareofsuchspeaker-addresseetypesofrelationshipsandbeabletodefinesuchthoughtexperiencesbehindtheexperimentalspeechsituations.Andbehindthelexicaldiversityheorsheislikelytobeconfrontedwith,asinglemeaningvalueinagivencontextandenvironmentwillbeevident,evenifthemarker(s)usedarepotentiallypolysemic.Technically,themetalinguisticdevicesappliedintheclassroomincludedenominations,manipulations,comparisons,representations,simulationsinvolvingL2.Assuch,thesedevicesareclassical,buttheircontentismadeasrigorous,linguisticallyspeaking,aspossible.Suchaconceptionoflinguisticspreventsusfromseparatingsyntaxandsemantics,formalgrammarorrulesandthepragmaticcommunicativefunctiontheyhave.InproceedingtowardnearnativeL2competence,learnersaremeantto'decentre'
2themselvesinagraduallyincreasingmetalinguisticawareness,withouteverbeingabletobeexpertsinlinguistics.Theteacher,asfarashisorherpartisconcerned,shouldstrivetobeafullycompetentlinguist,ifnotaninventor.
Forthesecondlanguageacquisition(SLA)researcheritisextremelyvaluabletobecomeawareofmetalinguisticandepilinguisticdata,3
especiallyelicitedduringthemaieuticdialoguewhichwecallconceptualisationphase.Theyprovidedeepinsightintotheclassificatoryandargumentativeactivitiesofsecondlanguagelearnersandcontributetremendouslytoabetterunderstandingofthesalientorvulnerableaspectsofsecondlanguageacquisition.Suchakindofresearchisnecessarilymultidisciplinaryandcomplex.Variousmethodologiesmustindeedcombineinsuchimplicatedexperiments,theobjectunderstudyitselfbeingheterogeneousandvariable.Therefore,weasSLAresearchersmustborrowourtoolsnotonlyfromtheoreticallinguisticsbutalsofrompsycholinguistics,psychology,sociolinguistics,institutionalanalysis,4theeducationalsciences,andsoon.Inlanguagepedagogywemayevenhavetocreatemorethanwecanborrow.
Weshallnowexaminemorecloselythelinguisticsofenunciativeoperations.5
Page122
Thetheoryofenunciativeoperations(TEO)isbothaformaltheoryandadescriptivetheoryofthesingularityofspeechofthehumansubjectasavariablespeaker.Formalstandsforametalinguisticsystemofrepresentationaccordingtowhichnumeroussetsofvariableoccurrencesoftextsmaybeanalysed,inordertoextractafewhypothesisedabstractinvariantsfromthem.Conversely,itservestopredictandaccountforsurfaceformsandvaluesabovethesedeepinvariants.Differentlevelsofunitsandrelationsarethushypotheticallyrevealedandreconstructed.
Atthemostfundamentallevelofgenerallanguageactivity,thelinguistfindsasetofprimitivenotions.Theyconveysemanticandlogicalvalue;theyareorderedinpresyntacticrelationsaccordingtoreferentialpropertiessuchasdegreeofanimacy,intentionality,agentiveness,modesofunfoldingofevents,kindsofintrinsicdeterminationandrelatedness,andsoon.Onthisbasis,predicativerelations,linkedtosyntacticstructuresareproduced/recognisedbyspeakingsubjectsandreconstructedbythelinguist.Theserelationsaredependentontheruleswhichspecifyagivenlanguage,includingthemorpho-syntacticandlexicalcompatibilityrequirements.Thelinguistlastlydistinguishestheenunciativerelationswhichaccountforthespeaker'sownlocationandviewpointonreality:hisorherpersonalandinterpersonaljudgementsandadjustments,andsoforth.
Thismethodoflinguistictheorisingmaybeillustratedbythefollowingnotation
Itmeansthat,foragivenspeaker
1.whoischaracterisedbyhisorheremunciativecoordinates(whichareexpressedwiththeroundedletters)
(a) .symbolisinghisorherenunciativesituation,
(b) symbolisingoneormoreactants(speaker(s)/hearer(s))inthediscourse,and
(c) :symbolisinganenunciativespace/timeanchoringfortheutterance;
2.thereisanutterance,symbolisedbythecompleteformula,whichisthetraceoflocationoperations,performedbyalocationoperatorÎandthelocationofapredicativecontent<arb>,wherebyastandsfortheprimitivesourceelements,bforthetargetelements,andrfortherelator.Thispredicativelocationismodalisedandthematisedenunciativelybythespeaker'srelatingofhisorherenunciativecoordinatesto
(a)whatheorsheperceivesasthethemeSoftheutteranceand
Page123
(b)thatwhichcontributestoitslocationT.
Thatistosay,theoveralltextualcontentorganisestheelements<arb>,S,andT,startingfromandaccordingtotheoriginalanchorageimposedbytheextralinguisticelements , , ,andÎ.If,forinstance,aspeakeridentifiesapredicativecontentwithhisorherownsituationsothatthetimeofspeakingcoincideswiththepresenttimeanddeicticreferenceintheutterance,thenthepresentprogressivewillexpressthespeaker'sproximitytothemessagecontent:
(1)Look!Johniseatinganapple[now].
Thisproximityappearsintheco-referencewiththeaddressee'Look!',aswell.InthisexampleV+-inginthepresenttenseconveysa /Trelationshipofthetype:Tidenticalwith ,orTÎ ,or:samevalueformessageasspeaker'ssituationisidenticalorassociatedwithpredication<arb>.Inthissameexampletherelationship /Sisofthekinddifferentfrom,as'John'referstoathirdperson,whoistalkedabout,andthespeakerbeingthefirstpersontalkingtoanaddressee,thesecondperson(SÏ ).
Letusnowtakeanexampleofadifferenttype:
(2)Menaremortal.
Inthisgenericutterancenoapparentorspecifiedspeakertakeschargeofthecontent;theepsilonlocationisoftheabsenceofrelationtypebetweenspeakerandpredicativereference<formen,tobemortal>.Inturn,both /Sand relationshipsareofthesameimpersonalandgeneraltype,thespeakerdeliberatelychoosingtoappearuninvolved.
Thecommunicativeaspectofthetheory,howeverformalitmaybe,canbeseenfromthissimplifiedexample.Itdoesindeedgiveaprecisedescriptionofthevariablelanguageactivityofhumanbeings(andnotanidealisationofanabstractspeaker/hearer).Itrather
attemptstospecifytheuniqueconditionsofproduction/comprehensionforeachanalysedutterance.Thisimpliestheconsiderationofitsspace/timeandnotionaldiscourseuniverse,beitpragmaticallyrealorfictitious.Thismayconcernsimpledeixis,theinclusionofextralinguisticostensiveororientationalfoundationsofspeech,ormorecomplexconstructionswhichdisclosethespeaker'sparaphrasticmodulationsonagivenmatrix,dependingontheirenunciativeviewpoint.
Wemay,forexample,comparethefollowingtwosentences:
(3)(a)Athiefstolethreepaintingsfromthemuseum.
(b)Threepaintingswerestolenfromamuseum(byathief).
Page124
Fromasemanticperspectivethesetwosentencesareequivalent.Fromanenunciativeperspectivetheyarenot.Normallyonewouldratherbeinclinedtochoosethesecondversioninordertofocusontheobject(Threepaintings...).
Thetheorymustaccountforrhetorical,stylistic,orargumentativevariation,notonlysyntacticallythroughactiveversuspassiveconstructions,butalsobyestablishingalinkbetweensomespeakerperspectiveandsomeequivalentlinguisticdevice.Intheprecedingexample(3)(b)communicativeemphasisandsymbolicfocusthusconvergetowardaninanimategoal(thepaintings),whichbecomesthesurfacegrammaticalsubject.Morpho-syntacticchoicesbetweentwostructures,thesecond,apassivestructure,beingderivedfromthefirstone,anactivestructure,aresymbolicforsubjective,orforsociallycoded,speakingperspectives.
6
Thesamekindofsymbolicperspectivemaybeseenonaradicallydifferentsemiosis,inthecoreoftheTEOtreatmentofasemanticitemsuchasthelexemeby,forinstance.Inthiscasewearedealingwithonemarkeronly,butahighlypolysemicone.Thequestioniswhatkindofrelationshipmayconnectthevariousshadesofitsmeaning,hownativespeakersproduceandperceivethemintheirspeechcommunity,andhowtheyareindividuallycapableofdifferentiatingandinterpretingeachparticularmeaningvalue,howeverspecificandsingularitmaybeinlightofthecontextinwhichitoccurs.By,forinstance,asweknow,canconveymanydifferentmeanings,suchasagent,means,ormanner.Itmayalsomeanduring(Hetravelledbynight.)orfororwith(It'sallrightbyhim.).Allthesedifferentshadesofmeaningmaybederivedfromoneelementarycomponentwhosesignificanceisdisclosedinsentencessuchas
(4)(a)Thehousewaslocateddownbytheriverside.
inwhichthephrase'downbytheriverside'meansnextto(equivalenttotheGermanbei).Thisformalandsemanticnuclearunitbasicallymeansnear,adjacentto,accompanyingtheneighbouringelementwithadominatedstatusrelatedtothatelement.Etymologywillconfirmthisinterpretation.Fromthisprimitiveaccompaniment-operationwemay,forinstance,deriveanagent-complement-value,forintheagent-action-goalrelationinapassivesentencewiththeconcludingformulabyx,theagentcomplementistogetherwiththeaffectedgoalanddominatedbyit,asforexamplein
(4)(b)Thehousewasdecoratedbythechildren.
Actually,wethusfindacomparablekindoflocationoperationin4(a)aswellasin4(b),althoughthemeaningfulconstructin4(b)whereitis
Page125
symbolicallymetaphorisedfrom4(a)ismoreelaborated.Inbothcasesnon-salientelements
(4)(a)...theriverside.
and
(4)(b)...thechildren.
arereferredtoothercognitivelymoresalientelements
(4)(a)Thehousewaslocated
and
(4)(b)Thehousewasdecorated...
Similarly,thesentence
(5)Itisallrightbyhim
expressestopologicalapproximationwiththederivedmeaningeffectofrelatednessorconcernment.'Him'actsbothasaborderandasalocatedorcomparativeelement.'Itisallright'actsasalocatororreferentialpointsinceitistheelementthatisstatedandqualified.
Apsycholinguisticcorroborationofthelocator/locatedelementordominant/dominateddissymmetryintheaccompanimentoperationmaybe,forinstance,foundinthephrases
(6)(a)adoorwithalock
or
(b)anapartmentwithakitchen
ascontrastedwith
*alockwithadoor
or
*akitchenwithanapartment.
Whatisenunciativeintheseexamplesisnotaspeaker'schoicebetweentwoformal,structuralarrangementstowhichheorsheattributessymbolicvalue,butaspeaker'ssymbolicactivitywiththehelpofaformalsign,namelythemarkersbyorwith,whichcorrespondtoanaccompanimentoperationandproducemetaphoricallyaseriesofcontext-sensitivemeanings.
Syntacticandmorpho-semanticmodulationsrepresentanintermediatekindofprocedure.Letus,forinstance,considerthetwofollowingsentences:
Page126
(7)(a)I'vebeenwriting(andwriting)allmorning.
(b)I'vewrittenalotoflettersthismorning.
Thetenseinbothsentencesisthesame(presentperfect),but7(a)iscontinuousand7(b)isnot(whichis,bytheway,ratherdifficultforaFrenchlearnerofEnglish).Theonlyotherdifferencesare:in7(a),absenceofanobject,emphasisontheprocess,theuseofatemporalquantifierexpressedthrougha'scanning'operation:all;in7(b)presenceofaquantifiedobject,theestablishmentofdeicticandpunctualtemporalreference:this.Inaway,thespeakerhashadanenunciativechoicebetweentwowaysofreferringtothesame'objective'temporalreality;however,theemphasisonaverylongprocessin7(a)orthe'finalassessment'ofasituationin7(b)isdifferent.Thespeaker'sperspectivecanbeanalysedthroughatopologicalapproachofaspect:in7(a)the'open'continuousaspectV+ingaccountsforthespeaker'smodalimplicationtowardtheeventrelated,stillinexistenceatthetimeofspeaking;in7(b),the'closed'non-continuousaspectsignalsthespeaker'smutative-resultativerupturebetweenpastandpresent.Butinbothcases,thespeakerhasusedtheformalcategoryofaspect(continuityorrupture),togetherwithamorpho-syntacticdevice(atense),evaluativesemantemes(all,alotof),andintonationpatternstoconstructsymbolicallyhisorherfeelings.Howeverdiversetheconstructionsmaybe,thetheorymodelsabstractdistances,orchanges,ordeformations,andspecifiestheminrelationshipwithastartingpoint:thespeaker'senunciativecoordinates,or,morebroadly,ahumanbeing'slocativeevaluation(quantification/qualificationdeterminativecriteria)oftheelementsoftheworldheorshechoosestoreferto.
Thistypeofpsychogeneticinterpretationoflinguisticmarkersmayberelevantforthestudyofchildspeechdevelopment.Ifoneconsiderslanguagetracesascompoundsoffundamentalvalues,itis
enlighteningtoknow,forinstance,thataneight-year-oldchildwasfoundtoinventthedeconstructedandlogicallysimplerphrase:justeque(justthat)toexpresssauf(except)whichhewasnotabletomasteryet(cf.Franckel,1984.personalcommunication).
Inthissamelineofthought,pragmaticscanbetreatedasasymbolicalnetworkofconstructedmeanings,ahyper-syntax,sotospeak.Indeed,relationshipsbetweenhumanbeingscanbeformalisedandassumedtocorrespondtoasetoflanguagerules.Forinstance,thepsychologicalandsocialextralinguisticdominancerelationshipsbetweenpeoplecanbelinguisticallyexpressedthroughthemodalitysystem(deontic/request,desiderative/will,andsoon).Notonlyspeakingsituations,butpartsofhumaninteractionandofthestatusoftheobjectsoftheworldcanfindtheirsemiotic,transferredechowithinlanguage.
Page127
InconclusionofthisverysuperficialsurveyofTEO,consideredasbothaformalandcommunicativetheory,twoaspectswhicharegenerallyantithetic,letusthenoutlineoneofitsmainepistemologicalcharacteristics.Althoughconceivedasamultilevelsetofheterogeneousoperations,partlysemantic,morpho-andphono-syntactic,butalsocognitive,semiotic,sociocultural,andsoon,thistheoryhypothesisesoperationsaslinkedtoeachotherthroughanendogenouscomplexification.Thisrevealsapost-Piagetianconstructivistpsycholinguisticapproachtolinguisticcausality:thatis,aprecisecognitiveconceptionofsymbolicactivitydisplayedthroughlanguage.Fromdeeppreconstructstofirstoccurrencesofnotionaldomainsandmoreelaboratedconstructionsinsurfacestructures,asortofhistoryofutterancescanthenbetracedbackbythelinguist,whichiscomposedofacontinuousseriesofarticulateddeterminativeandlocativeacts.Thiswholeprocessfromemergencetorealisationthusappearstobelogicallyunified,thetheoryitselfbeingahighlymetalinguisticreflectionofspeakers'languageproductionasasophisticatedbutnaturalbehaviour.
7Whtwehavebeenlookingforandbelievetohavefoundinthetheoryofenunciativeoperationsisnotonlyapowerfulexplanationoftherealityoflanguageandofinterlanguagephenomena,butalsoatheoreticalapproachthatiscompatiblewithwhatisknownoflearners'wayofreasoningandproblem-solvingstrategiesingeneral.
Experiment8
Methodology
WehaveobservedsomeofthelinguisticandcognitivestrategiesemployedbyFrenchlearnersacquiringEnglish,withinthetheoreticalframeworkofTEO.ThedidacticsettingwasanEnglishclassof
twelveandthirteenyearoldchildreninaParisiansuburb.Itwasobservedandtape-recordedforanentireyear.TheclassroomteacherhadbeentrainedinTEOandknewhowtoadaptittothepedagogicalsituation.Asstatedabove,theteachingmaterialincludedgrammaticalprogressionandconceptualisationphases.Therecordingsprovideddatawhichweanalysedfromdifferentpointsofview.
DescriptionofData
Thetaperecordingsprovideddatathatwereclassifiedaccordingtodifferentkindsofepilinguistic(spontaneous,intuitional,andsemi-conscious)
Page128
andmetalinguistic(conscious,formallyverbalised,andcontrolled)processesrelatedtoL2learningactivity.Particularlyinvestigatedweretheinteractionsbetweenmetalinguisticinputfromtheteacherandthelearners'treatmentofsuchinput.Teacherinputandlearneroutputwereclassifiedunderthreespecificlabels:objects,categories,andnotions.Wealsoclassifiedtheprocesseswhichwereresponsibleforthesedataaseithercognitiveorsemiotic.Theformerconcernedvariousmentalactivitiesfromeffectuation(realisation)andrepresentationtootheractivitiesinitiatingsystemsofclassificationandargumentation.Thelatterinvolvedverbal,semiverbal,andnonverbalprocesses.
WhatwecalledobjectsweretheL2elementsprovidedbytheteacheraswellasthelearners'interlanguage.ByexposingthelearnerstoL2sequences,theteacheraimsatleavingtheirsemispontaneousorganisingcapacityfreetointerpretsuchmaterial:thatis,heorsheattemptstoenablethemtoidentifyunitsandcombinetheminstructures,andrecognisetheirstabilityinspiteoftheirdiverselexicalandsituational'clothing'.Thelearners'interlanguageconstitutesasomewhatindirecttraceoftheirgradualdiscovery.
WhatwecalledcategorieswaslinkedtosetsofexplanatoryconceptsaboutthefunctioningofL2whicharebasictotheteacher'sandlearners'formulations.TheseconceptswerediscussedinL1.Whateverthesemioticmediummaybe,definitionalormetaphoricalwords,comments,paraphrases,figures,diagrams,theanalyticalmaterialpresentedtothelearnershelpsthemtointernalisethelinguisticstatus(thefunctionandreferentialvalue)ofagivenL2surfaceunitortextualarrangement.Thisreferstothefieldofvalidityofmorpho-syntacticrules(paradigmaticandsyntagmaticclassesandrelations)aswellaslexicalcompatibilitywithsuchrules.Butitalsoreferstothecommunicationalanddiscursivemotivationforeachgrammaticaltransformation.Essentiallyitinvolvespredicative
relations.Itmayeitherimplyworkingontraditionalpartsofspeechoronlinguisticparadigmsproper(flexions,cases,prepositionalphrases,syntagmaticcontrasts,etc.).
Togiveanexample:whenexplainingthecategoricalphenomenonofaspect,theteachermakesthelearnerawareofthedifferentwaysaspeakermayperceiveand/orexpresstheprocessorstateofaneventasittakesplace(beginning,duration,end,repetition,punctualoccurrence,andsoon),inrelationtothedifferentmarkers,sometimesmorpho-syntactic,sometimeslexical,sometimesbothatthesametime.
Whatwecallednotionsalsoconcernedmetalinguisticexplanatorymaterial.Thismaterialdealswiththegeneralreferentialoperationsaspeaker
Page129
constructstoapprehendreality:itmaybeasdiverseaspropersemanticconcepts,orenunciativecharacteristics,oreventextualorganisationinrelationtotheextralinguisticdatawhichitmapsforinstance,conceptsofobligation,ofcertainty,ornumber,ordegreeofspecification,ortemporalrelation,oranaphora,andsoon.Inallthesecasesitistheteacher'saimtoenablethelearnerstobecomeconsciousofthesenotionsandverbalisethemclearly.Suchanalyticaltoolsastheelementsofenunciativecoordinates(speaker,utterance,deixis,factualorcounter-factualjudgementorprojection,occurrence(s),location,etc.)must,onewayoranother,bemastered.Thepedagogicalworkonthesenotionsimpliesmoreargumentativethanclassificatoryprocedures:itinvolvesmorehypothetico-deductiveandinductivereasoningthanmeremechanicallisting.
Theinternalisationofthethreekindsofphenomenaobjects,categories,notionsimpliescognitiveactivitiesrelatedtoeffectuationandrepresentation.Effectuation,asforexampletheproductionofL2,comprisesrole-playing,reading,writing,problem-solving,andsequencemanipulationsandmobilisessensory-motor,graphic,gestual,imaginativeactsofallkinds.Representation,likenaming,autonomouslymanipulatinglanguage,symbolisingphenomena,andsoon,mobilisesmoreabstractbehaviourbothofdifferentiationandgeneralisation.Cognitivelytheseactivitiesconcernreasoningprocesses,andsemioticallytheyconcerntheconcretecodingusedtoconveysuchmentalcontents.
Results
OurresultsseemtoindicatethattutoredlearningofL2dependsontwoapparentlycontradictorybutpossiblyequallypowerfuldeterminingfactors:ontheonehand,itappearsthattutoringstrategiesinspiredbyTEOlinguisticsdecisivelyandpositivelyinfluencethewaylearnersacquireasecondlanguage.Inotherwords,a
metalinguisticapproachofsecondlanguageteaching,whichexplicitlydealswithgeneralisablelanguageoperationsandwiththeinterlanguageasrelatedtothemappearstoinfluencethesubstanceofinterlanguageactivityitself:rhythmofevolution,permanence,anddegreeofmasteryofL2acquisition.Ontheotherhand,atthesametimegeneralcognitive,andevenlinguistic,mechanismsdointerferewiththisinfluence.
Asfarascognitivemechanismsareconcerned,ourstudy,likemanyothers,confirmsthepermanentinfluenceofsuchphenomenaassimplification,regularisation,andanalogy.Theypersistentlyprevailovertheteacher'smethodologicalendeavourswhetheritisplaindrillsorscientific
Page130
explanation.Theteacherhastoresignhimorherselftolearners'irrationalassociations,erroneoushypotheses,segmentingmistakes,polyvalentinterpretations,avoidancestrategies,andthelike.
Astolinguisticmechanisms,whatourinvestigationspecificallyemphasisesisthedifficultyencounteredbysecondlanguagelearnersinacquiringthevalueofL2markersthatrefertoindetermination.Thereareparticularlearningobstaclesinherenttoeverythingthatimpliesaconceptualdistanceorestrangementfromthelearner/speaker,eitherinreferenceorinenunciativelocationandevaluation:anythingthatisperceivedasdistal,multiple,uncountable,iterative,interrogative,indifferent,negativewilltendtobeuninterestingandmatterless.Inshort,whateverconveysanotionofvagueness,whateverisoppositeto'whatisclose,whatisgood,whatisme'(cf.Tanz,1980)inlinguistictermsoraswemightsay:whateverimpliesablurringinthedistinctnessoftopologicalborders,eitherintheapprehensionofoccurrenceslinkedtonotionaldomains,orintheenunciativelocationactivities,inhibitslearning.Suchdifficultiesarestronglylinkedtoproblemsofcommunicative,thatisaffective,attitudinal,orevensocio-culturalmotivation.When,forinstance,role-playinginL2simulationsarepractisedintheclassroom,theobserverfrequentlyrealiseshowlearnerscanlosemotivationwhensuchactivitiesaresituatedoutsiderealspaceandrealtime.Motivationandlearningefficiencygrow,inversely,wheneverdeicticallyproximal/osten-sive,concrete,speaker-associatedL2contentsareinvolved.Evenwhentheclassdealswithfictionalmaterial(sketches,cartoons,narrations),onenoticesthestrongimpactontheacquisitionofeasilyevocativethemes.Theseobservationscorroboratewiththeprincipleofcognitivepsychology,thatthe'figurativeunderliestheoperative'.
Theselectionoflinguisticfeaturesthatcorrespondtosuchmotivation,namelyL2itemsillustratingthe'hereandnow'aspectswithregardto
agentivity,place,experience,personalidentificationandsoonisessentialfortheteachingofL2,atleastinthebeginningstagesoflearning.
Lastly,ourstudytendstodemonstratethat,onaverygeneralandsystemiclevelofanalysis,afour-poleinteractivenetworkrelatestheauto-andhetero-referencesofbothteacherandlearners,intheorganisationandregulationofsecondlanguageacquisition.Thesefourspheresenclosethepedagogicactantsinspecificinterpretativemicro-universeswhicharefarfromalwayscoinciding.Thereremaindifferencesinmetalanguage,insensitivitytoproblems,inrelevantsaliences,inbackground.Ontheirarticulation,though,dependsthesuccessorfailureoflearning.
Thisdoesnotrenderthetheoreticalquestionoftherelativeamountofinvarianceandvariationinlearning,whichiscrucialinSLAresearch,
Page131
morepredictableinrespecttoagiveninputandtogivendataprocessingcausalitiesanddeterminisms.Theanalysisiscomplicatedbythefactthatthesystemicnetwork,whichgovernseachtypeofactorintervention,seemstoproduceeachtimeauniquecombinationofinterpretablelanguageeventsintheclassroom.Andyet,itwouldbeessentialforSLAresearchtoprovidetheanswerstosuchquestions,ifitistocontributesignificantlytotheimprovementoflearning.'Everything-works-as-if'and'black-box'modelsarenotsatisfactoryinthisrespect.
SamplesfromData
9
Learnermotivationduetoexplicitgrammaticalconceptualisationhasbeenoneofthetopicsofparticularinterestinourstudy.Outofthe50classroomepisodesselectedforanalysisinourstudyten,almostallofthemhaveinonewayoranothershownlearners'enthusiasmandactiveefforttounderstandandapplytheiracquiredknowledge.Thismotivationbecameapparentinmanyways,suchaspositiveanswerstoobserver'squestions,exuberantjoyintheclassroom,remarkstotheeffectthattimewaspassingveryquickly,inoneword:pleasure.Thelearners'reactionswereunanimous.Wheneverweobservedsuchclasses,wewerestruckbythestudents'affectireaswellasintellectualinvolvement.Thiswasconfirmedintheobservationsofotherresearchersbetween1969and1985.
Thesubjectivereasonsforsuchsuccessareeasytofind:throughouttheprocessofmakingthelearnerawareoflinguisticphenomena,theteacherappealstohisorherpersonallanguageexperienceinL1andmakesuseofthisinL2.Forinstance,whenateacherasksanadolescentlearnersuchquestionsas:'Whatdoescertaintymeantoyou?Howdoyouanalyseitscomponentssource,circumstances,
object,andsoon?',orwhenheorsheasksan11-year-oldlearnerwhatthedifferenceisbetweenthedeterminersin:'Bringachair!'and'Holdthechair!',theteachergiveseverypossiblecluetohelpthelearnertomasterthenon-arbitrarinessofeachspecificmarkerinthelinguisticmicro-system.Thisisnolongerformalgrammar,butlivingpsycholinguisticsinaction.Itonlyremainstobeverbalised,inthelearners'ownwordsfirst,andtheninamorestandardisedform.Rulesareonlyoneway,amongmany,toformulatemajorlanguagefunctions.Thiswaychildrenfeelfreetopooltheirindividualideasonthenotionsandmarkervaluesunderstudy,expressthemintuitivelyfirst,andthenmetalinguistically.
Page132
Extract1
Topic:Tense/aspectlocationthepreterite.
Subjects:11-year-olds,firstyearofEnglishasaforeignlanguage.
Thepointsummedupbytheteacheristhedoubleaspectualvalue
10ofthepreterite,eitherreferringtoonceortoseveraltimesforthesame-edmarker.
Shewritesthefollowingtwosentencesontheblackboard:
'Lastnight,Iwatchedtelevision.'
'Lastsummer,Iwatchedtelevisioneverynight.'
Thensheaskswhatdifferencethelearnerscanperceive:
Learner1:'Bothareended.'
Learner2:'Bothsaywhathappened,butnothowlongitwentonfor.'
Learner3:'Inone,ithappenedonce;intheother,ithappenedseveraltimesandlongago.'
Teacher:'HowamIgoingtorepresentthesecondcase?'
Learner3:(comestotheblackboardanddraws):
Hesays:'Ineedthree.'
Theteacherwritesontheblackboard:
(a)'I'mwatchingT.V.'
(b)'IwatchT.V.everynight.'
(c)'Yesterday,IwatchedT.V.'
(d)'Lastsummer,IwatchedT.V.everynight.'
Sheasks:'Whatdoyounotice?'
L1:'There'swatcheverywhere.'
L2:'Something'schanging.'
L3:'(b)ispastandfutureaswell.'
L4:'(c)ispast.'
Teacher:'Onceorseveraltimes?'
L5:'Several.'(Theothersyellindignantlyatthemistake.)
Teacher:'Isthereadifferencebetween(c)and(d)?'
Page133
L1:'Inthepast,it'salwaysthesame,butinthepresentitisn't.'
L3:'Ohyeah,it'sfunny!'
Teacher:'What'smostcertain?'(silence)
'What'sleastcertain?'
L2:'Preterite.'
Teacher:'Mostcertain?'
L4:'Realpresent.'
Teacher:'Why?'
L5:'It'shappeningjustnow.'
Teacher:'Andwhyispreteritelesscertain?'
L1:'Becauseyoucan'tseeagain.'
L3:'Theonlythingyoucandoisremember.'
Extract2
Topic:Modalschangeoftense.
Shewritesthefollowingtwosentencesontheblackboard:
'Janeisababynow,shecan'twalk.'
'Butin1990,she'llbeableto.'
Teacher:'Haveweseensomethinglikethatalready?'
L1:'Yes,withmust.'
L2:'Yes,withmust,too,yougottoputanotherstuff.'
Teacher:'Andinthepreterite?'
L3:'Also.'
Teacher:'Whydidwehavetochangetheauxiliary,whenwechangedtenses?'
L4:'Inthefuture,you'renotsureit'sgonnahappen,soyougottosayit!'
Teacher:'Andinthepast?'
L5:'Well,thistimeyou'resure.'
L1:'Ohreally?Youhadtodosomething,butnobody'ssureyoudidit!'
L2:'Yes,Iwassure;butmaybeyoudidn'tknow!'
L5:'Anyway,inthepast,it'salwaysflabby.'
L4:'Yes,mentally,intellectually(!!!)'
Teacher:'So,here,withcan?Whathappens?'
L3:'Well,youdothesame,butnotwiththesamestuff;orifyoudon'twanttodonothing,youjustdonothing.'
Extract3
Topic:Noundeterminers.
Page134
Teacher:'Somechocolate,whatkindofquantityisit?'
L1:'Youdon'tknow.'
Teacher:'SupposeIwanttobemoreprecise:WhatwouldIhavetosay?'
L2:'Twocups.'
L3:'Or:Youjustkeepaneyeonit!'
Teacher:'WhydoIhavetouseameasureorweightunitifIwanttobemoreprecise?Woulditbethesamewithawordlikeorange?'
L4:'Whataboutmilkorsugar?'
L5:'Wellyouknow,inEnglandthey'vegotpowderedsugar,soyougotnoproblem!Butwehavelumps,one,two,three.'
Teacher:'Let'scomebacktochocolate:Canyousayonechocolate?'
L3:'Well,I'minapub,Idon'taskforchocolate,Isay:Givemewhitewine!'
L2:'Chocolate,yougotbarsorlittlesquares'.
Teacher:'Tellmethedifferencebetween:''givemesomechocolatepowder''and:"givemesomeapples".'
L1:'Well,yougottheplural.'
L2:'Samething,butyoucouldcounttheapples,evenifyoudon'twantto:thechocolatepowder,evenifyouwantedto,youcouldn't.'
ThesethreeepisodesillustratewhyTEOisspecificallysuitedtoelicitlearners'cognitiveactivity.TEOaimsatmakinglanguageoperationsasapparentaspossible,sothatteachersmayexplainandlearnersmayunderstandthem,eveninaverysimplifiedandapproximateway.SincethisunderstandinghasbeenfoundtofacilitateL2acquisition,
allconditionsaremettohavelearners'cognitiveactivitysurface,andthereforemakeitaccessibletoSLAresearch.
Theseexamplesdemonstratethatlearnersmaybebroughttodiscriminatebetweentheformalvaluesinlexicalormorpho-syntacticitems.
Extract1
InExtract1,the-edverbendingmustbeunderstoodaspotentiallybivalent,thatis,punctualoriterative.Lexicalphraseslikelastnight,everynight,lastsummeraretobeunderstood,respectively,aspunctualoriterative/durative.Besides,thepersonandtensemarkingdependsonthemodalforcethespeakergrantstotheprocessofreference,accordingtohisorherinvolvementintheevokedtime-tenserelationship.Inotherwords,thesemanticandgrammaticalcontext-sensitivenessmustbeanalysed.Everybitofformalinformationmustbegivenastatus,adenomination,avalidapplication,andsoon.
Page135
Extract2
InExtract2,everysurfacemarkerchangemustbeunderstoodtocorrespondwithreferentialvaluechange;here,itdoesnotonlymeanachangeoftime/tenselocation,butaninsightintothespeakers'perspectiveoneventswhentheychangemodals:thediscussionaboutdegreesofcertaintyshowstherelativeenunciativefreedomofchoiceleftopentothespeakers.Thisfreedomdelightslearners.
Extract3
Extract3revealsthatthereferencecuts,accordingtolanguages,isanobjectofwonderforchildren.AculturaldifferencesuchastheshapeofsugarinFranceandinEngland,forinstance,entailsalinguisticchangeofnoundeterminersaccordingtothenounclassification(uncountableorcountable)characteristicforeachlanguage.
Theseexamplesmaynotbeearth-shakingintermsoflinguisticscience,butintheclassroomdynamic,theywillarousethechildren'slivelyinterestandconcernforlanguageanalysis.Suchapositiveattitudetowardsanalyticreasoningwillhavetheeffectthattheybothassimilatewhattheylearnmorequickly,andrememberitbetter.
Discussion
ConfirmationofHypotheses
Thereisnodoubtthatappealingtotheintelligibilityofthoughtexperiencescontributestomakingthelearnerunderstandthatlanguagesareparaphrasesofoneanotherinrespectoflanguageinvariants.Heorshethereforeshiftsmoreeasilyfromonetotheother.Theautonomylearnersacquirehelpsthemcontroltheirpre-andpost-errorcorrectingsystems,andtoevolvemorerapidlyfromonestageofinterlanguagetothenextone;theyrealisethattheyareprogressing,andfeelthattheireffortshavebeenrewarded.Thisdoes
notmean,though,thatthisapproach,intheend,willnecessarilybemorepowerfulthannaturalsecondlanguageacquisition.
11
PrinciplesforFurtherResearch
Thefirststageofourexperiment(1969-1984)hasledustodefineamorecontrolledarrayofresearchquestions.Itisnecessarytoraise,test,andvalidateclearerpreliminaryhypotheseswhicharelikelyto
Page136
constitutetheoutlineofaSLAmodel.First,itseemstousnecessaryto'learnthelesson'fromthepreviousCharlirelleteachingexperimentanddrawthepsycholinguisticconclusionsforafuturedesign.Fromthispointofview,theobservationofadidacticsettingwithintheschoolsystemappearsnottobethebest.Thereareindeedtoomanydiversevariablesthatbiasthecausesandeffectstheresearcherislookingforinthedata.Thesevariablesaresocio-institutional,pragmatic,andaffective.Thismeansthatnostableresultscanbepredicted.Weareallfamiliarwiththevulnerableanddominatedstatusofalearnerandthepressuresheorsheissubmittedto:artificialcommunication(inemergency),evaluationbias(markingandselection),sometimesfearandinhibition.Allthesephenomenainterferewithapurelycognitiveanalysis.Thesefactorsmaybe,ifnoteliminated,atleastdiminished,inadifferentkindofdidacticsetting:atutorialone,forinstance.Amoresuppleorganisationmightallowtheresearchertoexaminetheacquisitionofsinglelinguisticconcepts.Thisleadsustoprotocol-research.
12Suchatypeofresearchimpliestheconstruction,application,andevaluationofnewteachingmaterialundercontrolledconditions.
ThesubjectswillbeasmallgroupofFrenchadults,completebeginnersofE.F.L.Adults,indeed,aresupposedtohaveafullmasteryofformalcognitiveoperations.13Learners,teacher/observer,14pragmaticparametersofthedidacticsituation(space,time,objects,simulatedactionsandL2productionandsoon)willbespecifiedandcorrelatedineverypossibleway.Eachchangeinthesituationwillitselfbegivenastatus,aswellasthelinguisticeffectobservedintheverbalandnonverbaldata.Forabettermetalinguisticanalysisofthewholecorpusthelearners'conflictsofchoices,strategies,hypotheses,andproblem-solvingprocedures,mustbe
tracedback.Thelearnersmustbemadecapableofidentifyingthesalientcluesofthesituationaldynamic,sothattheymayregulatetheirbehaviouraccordingly.Theymustbeconsciousoftheiractivities.Theymustworkouttheirownrepresentations.Theymustanticipateandgeneralisetheirstrategies.
Theteachermustanticipatewhatpartofthelinguisticsystemneedstobeexplained.Rule-coordinationmustbeinsured,inrelationwiththegradualaddingofnewcomplexities.Learners'errors,whattheyfeeltobeallowedorforbiddenorwhattheyareunsureof,willbeobserved.Criteriafor'incorrectness'willbespecified.Differenttypesoflearners,theexplainersandtheproducers,willbesortedout.Methodological(probabilisticandnotlinear)precautionshavetobefollowedindata-processing.15
Page137
Thelinguistichypothesesweshalltestwillberoughlythefollowing:
Hypothesis1:therearelanguageinvariants,partlylinkedtolanguageacquisitioninvariantsthroughtopologicaldeformabilitylaws;unstablesystemsarethereforerelatedtostableonesthroughmodulation,dependingonthesituationalandcontextualconstraintsofthelearningsituation.
Hypothesis2:thecomplementarycomponentsoflanguageacquisitioninvariantsarerelatedtogeneralcognitiveacquisitioninvariants.Evenintensivemetalinguistictrainingcannotinfluencethem.
Hypothesis3:inspiteofthis,thedevelopmentofmetalinguisticawarenesschannelsinterlanguageinpredictablestagesandprovides'short-cuts'foracquisition.
Hypothesis4:thedidacticsituationbiasesthelawsoflinguisticdeterminationinaspecificway.
Hypothesis5:consequently,interlanguagetopologicalconstructionsdisplaycorrespondingshiftsinspeechlocations('anchorings'andsaliences),comparedtonaturalcommunication.
Hypothesis6:verbalandnon-verbalobservablesarethetracesofalltheseoperations,butarenotinabi-univocalrelationshipwiththem.
Thestudywillbelongitudinal,eitherconcerningthesubjects'personalevolutionortheinput-outputcollectivedynamic.
Conclusion
TEOappearstousasapromisingtheorybothforlanguagedidacticsandforpsycholinguisticSLAresearch.Fewstudieshaveasyetbeenconductedinthisfield,butwethink,iftheyaredonesystematically,theyarelikelytoofferabetterunderstandingofinvariance/variationinteraction,notonlyinlanguagelearning,butindiscursiveactivityin
general.
16
NotestoChapter8
1.WorkdonebytheCharlirelleresearchgroup,anacronymforDepartmentofResearchinLanguageLearning,InstitutCharlesV,UniversitéParisVII.
2.WeusethiswordinaPiagetiansense:acquirealargerandmoreabstractivecapacitytorelativisespeechphenomenabymovingawayfromone'sown'hereandnow'situation.
Page138
3.'Epilinguistic'referstothesubconscious,naturalreflectionaspeakermayapplytolanguage(fromA.Culioli).
4.Thatis,interpretingclassroomactivityaccordingtothebehaviourandrolewhicheachsocialagentteacher,learnersassumesintheschoolsetting.
5.Asmentionedbefore,thetheoryofenunciativeoperationswasdevelopedbyAntoineCulioli.
6.ItsoundsindeedmorenaturalifonesaysJohneatsanapple,than*anappleeatsJohn,butafantasticstylemightofcourseinversetheseproperties:language,asweknow,isspontaneouslyspeaker-associatedandsymbolical.Fromsuchcriteria,asurfacesentencelikethatcarsellswellmightseemcontradictory:unintentionalreferenceforcarastransitivelyincompatiblewithintentionalverbtosell,andwithabsenceofobject.Buttheanomalyisonlyapparent,sincetheunspecifiedagentindirectlyappearsthroughtheobligatorymodifier(well),andsincethedeterminedstatusofcar(cf.,that)enablesittobethematised.The<arb>structureisdeeplyinstantiated,thoughnotinaSVOsurfaceway:Somebodysellsthatcarwell.
7.IfwehadtocompareCulioli'smodelwith,forinstance,Halliday's,perhapswecouldverybrieflysaythatthedifferencesareimportant,althoughsomeresemblancesdoappear:Culioliisnotastructuralist,whereasHallidayseemstohaveremainedone,hisformalisationaimsbeingcompatiblewithlogicandpsychology,whereasHallidayappearstobemoreofaspeechactspragmatician.Lastly,Culiolishowsadialecticpreoccupationwithaccountingforthedynamicsoflanguageelaboration,whereasHallidayratherseemstobeinclinedtogiveasystemic,methodologicallystratified,descriptionoflanguageproductsandfeatures.Inaword,perhaps:taxonomicinterpretation(Halliday)versuscalculativemodel(Culioli).
8.Comparealso'BehindtheWords,'EquipeCharlirelle(1975&1976).
9.ComparealsoElémentsdeDidactiquedesLangues,Bailly(1984).
10.Thisisanexampleforatopicthatwaschosenatthisearlystageofteaching.
11.Inthisrespect,weagreewithKrashen'sdistinctionbetweenacquisitionandlearning,butwedonotthinktheyshouldbeseparated(notevenmethodologically),astheyarehighlyinteractivementaloperations.Theformalmonitor,ifpsycholinguisticallyconceived,mustfollowtheschemesofnaturalmentaloperations,whiledevelopingawarenessandcontrol,withoutchangingtheirnature.
ThemonitorwillthenpermitthecomparisonofL2withL1andwithinterlanguage,asbeing,allthreeofthemandeachoneinitsownway,submittedtotheorganisationoflanguageinvariants.Rule-obediencethereforerathercomestoequatethelearner'smetalinguisticassentwiththecoherenceandnecessityofsuchrules,andhisorherconsequentapplicationoftheminL2production.
12.Thismethodologicalapproachhasbeenappliedinalaterphaseoftheproject.
13.InthePiagetiansenseoftheword.
14.Alinguistwhowastrainedincognitivescienceaswell.
15.AccordingtomodelsdevelopedinArtificialIntelligenceandCognitiveScience.
16.IwishtoexpressmysincerethankstoMrsMargaretBordezandMrsWendyHalffforreadingovermyEnglishandsuggestingimprovementsinstyle.
Page139
Bibliography
BAILLY,D.,1984,ElémentsdeDidactiquedesLangues.Paris:LesLanguesModernes.
BERTHOUD,A.C.,1982,ActivitéMétalinguistiqueetAcquisitiond'uneLangueSeconde.Bern:PeterLang.
BESSE,H.&PORQUIER,R.,1984,GrammairesetDidactiquedesLangues.Paris:CrédifHatier.
BOUSCAREN,J.,BYRAMJEE,B.,CHUQUET,J.,COTTIER,E.,DEMAIZIÈRE,F.,FILHOL-DUCHET,B.,HERLIN,O.&MAYER,A.,1984&1985,CahiersdeGrammaireAnglaise.Paris:Ophrys.
EQUIPECHARLIRELLE,1975&1976,BehindtheWords,6e&5e(Méthoded'enseignementdel'anglais),OCDL-HatierdistribuéparM.D.I.,ParcdesArpents,B.P.69-78630OrgevalCedex.
CAIN,A.,1980,ThéorieLinguistiqueetApprentissagedel'Anglais.Unpublisheddoctoraldissertation,UniversitéParisVII,Paris.
CULIOLI,A.,1965-1984,Articles,cours,séminaires,disponiblesauDépartementdeRecherchesLinguistiques,(D.R.L.)UniversitéParisVII,Paris.
CULIOLI,A.&DESCLES,J.P.,1982,SystémedeReprésentationsLinguistiquesetMétalinguistiques.Paris:LaboratoiredeLinguistiqueFormelle.
FRANCKEL,J.J.&FISHER,S.(eds),1983,Linguistique,Énonciation,AspectetDétermination.Paris:Editionsdel'EcoledesHautesEtudesenSciencesSociales.
GAUTHIER,A.,1982,OpérationsÉnonciativesetApprentissaged'uneLangueÉtrangèreenMilieuScolaire.75013Paris:LesLanguesModernes.
GROUSSIER,M.L.&CHANTEFORT,P.,1976,GrammaireAnglaiseetThèmesConstruits.Paris:Hachette.
GUILLEMIN,J.,1982,LaTraduction,SyntaxeComparéeduFrançaisetdel'Anglais.Paris:Ophrys.
TANZ,C.,1980,StudiesintheAcquisitionofDeicticTerms.Cambridge,MA:HarvardUniversityPress.
TRÉVISE,A.,1980,Elémentsd'Analysedel'ActivitéLangagièredesÉtudiantsFrancophonesApprenantl'AnglaisenMilieuInstitutionnel.Unpublisheddoctoraldissertation.UniversitéParisVII.Paris.
Page141
PART3REFERENCEINSECONDLANGUAGEACQUISITION
Page143
9TheDevelopmentofMeansforTemporalityintheUnguidedAcquisitionofL2:Cross-LinguisticPerspectivesColetteNoyau
Introduction
ThisarticledealswiththeacquisitionoftemporalityinFrenchbyadultSpanish-speakingimmigrants.TheEuropeanresearchprojectonSecondLanguageAcquisitionbyAdultImmigrantsorganisedbytheEuropeanScienceFoundation(E.S.F.,Strasbourg,France)andcoordinatedbytheMax-Planck-InstituteforPsycholinguistics(Nijmegcn,TheNetherlands)bearsontheacquisitionoffivetargetlanguages(TL)byspeakersofsixsourcelanguages(SL).ThelongitudinalstudyofthedevelopmentofL2overthefirstthreeyearsofstayinthehostcountryisbasedonmonthlyrecordingswitheachinformant,withthesamedatacollectionproceduresandagendaforallSL-TLpairs(seePerdue,1982).Aftercompletionofthedatacollectionphase,thecross-linguisticanalysesareunderway,followingthepreliminaryanalysesofdatafromoneSL-TLpairwhichhavebeenconductedduringdatacollection.
Themainapproachintheanalysisisaconceptualone(seeStutterheim&Klein,1986.henceforthS&K).Thequestionis:howdoesanadultacquiringasecondlanguagethroughhisorhercommunicativeneedsinaTLenvironmentconstructthemeansforreferringtoagivenconceptualdomaininL2inourcase,temporalityadjustthemtohisorherconcreteneedsforcommunicating,andprogressivelyexpandthemtowardstheTL?
Page144
TheoverallorganisationofresearchallowsustolookforrecurrentdevelopmentalstepsamonginformantsacrossSLsandTLs.Itisthushopedtocometoaclearerpictureofthegeneralstructureofsecondlanguageacquisition(developmentalsequencesanddynamicsofacquisition),aswellasofsomeofthefactorsatplay(cognitivefactors,propensityfactorslinkedtolearners'needs,attitudesandmotivations,exposuretoTL).
ThepresentarticledealsmainlywiththedevelopmentoftemporalityinFrenchbythreeLatin-AmericanrefugeesamongtheSpanish-speakinginformantsoftheParisteamwithintheEuropeanproject.
1TheresultsobtainedforthelanguagepairSpanishSL/FrenchTLwillthenbeconfrontedwithresultsfromsimilarstudiesforotherlanguagepairs,inordertochecktheimpactoftheproximityoflanguages(andtherepresentationofthisproximitybythelearners)ontheacquisitionprocess.
MethodologicalIssues
TheknowledgeofL2byalearnerisnotdirectlyobservable,buthastobeaccessedthroughtheusesofL2,thatismainlythroughthediscursiveactivityofthelearneringivencommunicativesituations.Inadditiontothelearner'sproduction,complementarydatamaybefoundinpunctualcluesfromhisorhercomprehensionactivity(whereitfails:whenmisunderstandingorincomprehensionarise,cf.Trévise&Hérédia,1984),andfromhisorherspontaneousmetalinguisticactivity(hesitations,reformulations,metalinguisticverbalisations,cf.Noyau,1984,alsoGiacobbe&Cammarota,1986).
TheindividualL2systemofalearneratagivenmoment,or'learnerlanguage',isunstablebydefinition,giventhetensionsthatpushittoevolvetowardstheTL(thelinguisticenvironment,theneedsto
communicate,andthepropensitytolearn:seePerdue,1982).Thelearnerlanguageisalsopermeabletothelinguisticvarietiesitcomesincontactwith(seethediscussionofthisfeatureoflearnerlanguagesbyFrauenfelder,Noyau,Perdue,&Porquier,1980,whichwerefertoforthiswholetheoreticalframework),butithassystematicity,andcanthereforebedescribedlinguistically.
Forstudyingtheacquisitionprocessofasecondlanguage,wehavetoproceedatdifferentlevels:
1.Describeindividualsystems(learnerlanguages),whicharetobeconsideredasunknownlanguagesofwhichthelearneristheunique
Page145
speaker,atdifferentmomentsoftheacquisition.
2.Reconstructthepsycholinguisticprocessesunderlyingtheobservableoutcomeofthelinguisticactivity.
3.Seekexplanationsoftheprocessesunderstudy.
Todoso,thelinguisthastopartfromhisorherglobalunderstandingofthediscursiveproductionsofthelearner.Thisenableshimorhertoreconstructthemeaningoftheseproductions,anactivitywhichisdistinguishedfromtheunderstandingofthelearner'sdiscourseinasituationbythenativehearer.Forthelinguist,fromtheglobalinterpretationoftheproductionsintheirsituationalcontext,thetaskistolookforregularrelationsbetweenlinguisticmarkersandsemanticvalueswhichneednotbeparalleltothoseencodedbyeithertheSLortheTL(Trévise&Porquier,1986,addressthisissueonexamplesofL2analysisfromdifferentlinguisticdomains).
Thisleadstothesearchforananalysisframeworkwhichwouldnotbelinkedtooneparticularlanguage,thusimposingthefilterofagivensetofcategoriesonthedata.AconceptualapproachofL2acquisitionprovidessuchaframework.
Thefirststepconsistsofalanguage-independentanalysisoftheconceptualdomain,whichgivesarepresentationoftheconceptualcategoriesthatmaybeencodedbyaspeakerinlanguage.Thesecondstepistolookatthewayinwhichagivenlanguagealearnerlanguage,hisorherSL,theTLencodessomeoftheseconceptualcategories,andatthedevicesusedforit.
OnemayhypothesisethatthepathofdevelopmentinL2ispartlydependentontheconceptualknowledgewhichtheadultspeakeralreadyhas.Asaconsequence,explanationsofthelinguisticacquisitionwillberelatedinsomewaytotheconceptuallevel.
Amessageintentionhastoberepresentedintermsofalanguage-independentconceptualisation(Pottier,1974).Asregardstemporality,thestudiesavailablebylogicians/linguisticssinceReichenbachbringtotheforethemaincomponentsofthisconceptualareawhicharelikelytobeencodedlinguisticallybyspeakersintheirlanguageinonewayoranother:
1.Externaltemporalfeaturesoftheevents.Thelocationofeventsonatimeaxis,whichwecanrefertowiththelabeltemporallocation:thislocationisachievedinrelationwithazeropoint(anorigo)ontheaxis,whichcanbegivenindifferentways:
=thelocationisachievedbyanorientedtemporalscale
Page146
giveninthecultureofagroup,likeacalendar(calendarictemporallocation);
=thelocationisestablishedinrelationtothemomentofspeech,whichdeterminesabeforeandanafterintheflowoftime,andgivestheframetothe(linguistic)deictictemporallocation;
=thelocationisachievedinrelationtoanothereventorprocesswhichisalreadylocatedintime:inthiscase,wecanspeakabouttemporalrelation.
Inallcases,therelationsimplyconceptualcategorieslikeorderandinclusion(hencethenotionsofafter,before,simultaneous,[totallyorpartially]includedin,forexample).
2.Internaltemporalpropertiesofevents,whichmaybeeitherobjectiveproperties(durativepunctualiterative...events,cf.Aktionsartatthelinguisticlevel)orfromthepointofviewoftheobserver(eventsseenascompletedornotongoinghabitual,etc.,cf.aspectinsomelanguages).
Althoughthenaturallogicofhumanbeingsmaynotbeusingallthe(combinationsof)categoriesofformallogic,everylinguisticutteranceofaspeakerimpliessomeoftheabovementionedtemporaldimensionsandhastolocateaneventintimeinrelationtosomereferencepointortootherevents,ortospecifysomeoftheirtemporalcharacteristics.Wemayassumethateverylanguageisabletoencodeallpossibletemporalnotions,beitobligatorilyoroptionally,givingthemamoreorless'central'place,directlyorindirectly,andataloworhighcost.Thismayimplyinprincipleallthestructurallevelsofthelanguage.
AttheearlystagesofacquisitionofanL2,alearnerstilllacksthemasteryoftheobligatorymarkersoftheTL(forexample,morphologicalmarkersappearratherlateinL2acquisition).Heorshe
willthenleavemanymoreaspectstoimplicitorindirectmarkingthanisthecaseintheTLorthanheorshedoesinhisorherSL.Hencethecrucialimportanceoflookingatthediscursiveactivityofthelearnerinconcretecommunicativetasks,inwhichtheroleofthecontextandofthesituationareclear.
DataBase
Asfortemporality,itisimportanttodistinguishbetweenparticulartasksinthedatabase.Forexample,afilmretellingtaskrequirestheexpressionofsequencesofeventswithtemporalrelationsbetweenthem.Butnoeventneedbesituatedinrelationtothespeechtimeandtherecount
Page147
oftheeventsmaybesituatedinafictitiouspastspaceaswellasinafictitiouspresent(atemporal)space.OthertasksusedintheEuropeanProject,likeroutedirectionsorstageinstructions,maybelocatedinafuturespace,ortreatedaspureinjunctivesbythespeaker.Butwegettherichestpictureoftemporalityinfreeconversation,wheretheinformantmayrelatethingswhichhappenedtohimorherrecentlyoratamoreremotetime,maytalkaboutintentionsandprojectsinthefuture,oraboutpresentsituations.Andinconversationthepersonalnarrativesarethemosttemporallystructureddiscursivesamples.Thereforepersonalnarrativesconstitutethemaindatabaseforouranalysisoftemporality.
Forthepresentstudy,datafromthefirst18monthsofindividualmonthlyrecordingswiththreeofthelongitudinalinformantsoftheLatinAmericangroupacquiringFrenchwereanalysed:
AL,Colombianmaleinformant,firstrecordingafterelevenmonthsinFrance;
BE,Chileanfemaleinformant,firstrecordingafterfourmonthsinFrance;
GR,Chileanfemaleinformant,firstrecordingafterthreemonthsinFrance.
Foreachone,theearliestsampleofnarrativefromafteroneyearofacquisitionapproximately(henceforthT1)iscontrastedwithasecondnarrativefromaboutoneyearlater(T2).However,theinventoriesoflinguisticdevicesavailabletoaninformantatagiventimebearonthewholeindividualrecordingwhichthenarrativeisextractedfrom(60to90min.).
2
LinguisticMeansforReferringtoTimeinFrenchL2andTheirDevelopment
TemporalityinDiscourse
Narrativesarehighlystructureddiscursiveobjects.Manystudiesonnarrativityhavedescribedthedifferentcomponentsofthisdiscoursegenre(seeLabov,1972;Kintsch&vanDijk,1975;Adam,1978;amongothers).Asregardsthetemporaldimensioninnarratives,theorientationestablishesthereferencetopersons,places,timelocation,circumstances.Thedevelopmentbringssequencesofeventswhichmaybeorganisedintosub-sequencesorepisodes.Thoseeventswhichconstitutetheplot,orstory-line,arelinkedin
Page148
differentwaystosecondaryinformation(thebackground).Finally,wemayfindanevaluation,whichoftenclosesthenarrativeassuch.
Aninterestingandveryfrequentsub-caseisthe'dialoguenarrative',inwhichthesequenceofreportedeventsisasequenceofspeechacts.ThisisnotapeculiarityofL1orL2learners'discourse,asisshownforexamplebythestudiesofTannen(1983,forthcoming)on'constructeddialogue'inconversationalandliterarynarrative.
Thesequencesofnarratedeventsneednotbestructuredinalinearway.Agiveneventmaybesub-dividedintosub-eventslateronindiscourse,oraseriesofsmallerscaleeventsmaybeclusteredintoone.Thesearedecisionsofthespeaker,whomaychoosetosegmentortocondenseinvariousdegreesthecontentsheorsherefersto(seeBowerman,1984,forthisphenomenoninchildren'snarratives).
AnadultL2learnermasterstheseskillsintheSL,andneednotacquirethemanymore.Heorshealsoknowshowtorelyonknowledgeheorshesupposestosharewiththehearer,forleavingpartoftheinformationtoconveytoindirectorevenimplicitmention.
InformantBEwasrecordedfromfourmonthsafterherarrival,atatimewhensheknewvirtuallynoFrench.Herearlynarrativepassagesaremerequestion-answersequencesinwhichallthetemporalinformationisgivenintheinterviewer'sturns.Thefirstnarrativeassuch,whichshetakestheinitiativeof,isfoundafter13monthsofstay,andcontainsstillmanySLsequences,non-verbalpredicates,andprosodicstructuringofdiscourse.
BE+13Narrative1:Dangerofdrowning(1stversion)
3
1.eh[3e]hm+quandehpetit+
'hmIhm+whenhmlittle'
2.lametcommeça(gestedepeur)+'thesealikethat'(gestureoffright)
3.maismoilamer+'butmethesea'
4.maiscómosellamales[ßag-a]cómose[di]++[me](geste)'buthowdoyoucallthe(waves)howdoyousay++me(gesture)'<aht'entraînait?...lamert'emportait?>'ohwasdraggingyou...theseawascarryingyouaway?'
Page149
ouioui'yesyes'<etalors?>'andthen?'
5.ymoimeafirmédeunpieddeungarçon...'andIIclingtoafootofaboy'
6.yél[sortise]...'andhegetout()'
7.etmaman+'[aparti]toutsuite!''andmum+gorightaway'(6-7=hetookmeoutandmum(said):'wemustleaverightaway')<ohlalalala+tuaseupeurhein>'oh+youwerescared,weren'tyou?'oui!'yes'
8.maman[nepade]lamerjamaisjamaiseh'mumnotoftheseaneverneverhm'
9.'[sorti(r)]toutsuiteici'...'getoutrightawayhere'(8-9=mumsaid'I(don'twant/don'tgoto)thebeachnevernever,getoutofhereimmediately)<ettoutlemondeavu?>'andeverybodysaw?'si'yes'
10.etmoiàcôté[3ue](x)laérue
'andmebesideplay()thestreet'
11.yaprèscommeça'andafterlikethat(gestureoffright)'(10-11=andthenIplayedinthenextstreetandIwasscared)
Althoughthelinguisticmeansproperareveryscarce,wealreadyfinddifferentiateddiscoursefunctionswhichbuildafullnarrative:backgroundinformation,explicitlyconnectedevents,sequencesofreportedspeech,andaclosing(resultativesituation).ButtheinformantreliesheavilyonthecooperationoftheTLspeaker.FourteenmonthslatershetellsanotherTLinterviewerthesamestory:
Page150
BE+27Narrative2:Dangerofdrowning(2ndversion)
...[paske3e]peuràlamer'...becauseI'mscaredatthesea'<ahbon+pourquoi?>'isit?whyso?'
1.ouais[paske+kwand30ete]petit'yeahbecausewhenIwasachild'
2.[3e]unaccidentdanslamerhmm'Ihaveanaccidentinthesea'
3.ouais[paskese]trèsfortlamerenauChili'yeahbecauseit'sverystrongtheseainChile'
4.yyo[3e]peur'andmeI'mscared'
5.[paske]lamer[meameatumb]/'becausetheseahasfall-me'elcomment[seapel]la/*nosécómo[sapelel]/'thehowiscalledtheIdon'tknowhowitiscalled'cuando[ko'mensa]à[sortir]'whenitstartscomingout'(=thewaves!)
6.y[meatumbe]'andithasfall-me'
7.yaprès[3eswe]danslamer'andafterwardsIaminthesea'
8.yporça[ke3e]peuràlamer'andforitthatI'mscaredatthesea'
9.et[solamã]àcôté
'andonlyaside'
Thelearnerhaspracticallynomoreverblessutterances,andusesmorediversifiedconnectors,includingconnectorslike'porçaque'and[paske](=because)forrelatinganeventtoapreviousonewithanadditionalcausallink.
InformantGRproducedonlyveryshortnarrativesequencesinthefirstsixmonthsofrecordings,likethefollowing:
GR+61stnarrativesample
1.yo[arriße]àôC[ke]unfoyerdetránsito'Iarrive(d)inCwhichisatransitoryrefugeecamp'
2.etahehah[reste]*comosedice'[du]mesenC'andremain(ed)howdoyousaytwomonthsinC'
Page151
3.ydeahi[sorti]hF'andfromtheregotoF'(anotherrefugeecamp)
Thefirstlongnarrativeisintroducedthroughherinitiative,asanillustrationtoageneralquestionoftheintervieweraboutracialdiscrimination:
GR+16Narrativeonracialism
1.<ettupensesquelesFrançaisontlamêmeattitudepourlesChiliensetpourlesAfricainsparexemple?>'andyouthinkthatFrenchpeoplehavethesameattitudetowardsChileanandAfricanpeopleforexample?'non'no'non?tuasremarquédesdifferences?'no?didyounoticeanydifferences?'oui[paske]'yesbecause'unfois[ regard/ ale]por[ levestimãn]'onceIlook/Igoforgettingtheclothes'porroesenfantsetpormoi'formychildrenandforme'
2.et[se]un/unmadame[kedi]'andthere-isaladywhosay'
3.''vous[reste]icivousvous[pase]madame''-'youstayhereyoucomehereMrs'
4.y[3e/3earriße]ehàdixheures'andIarriveat10'
5a.etlemonsieur[se]/-comment[se]?[nosepa]comment
[sedi]'andthemanit-is/howisit?Idon'tknowhowtosay'
5b.[seleprimjer]personne[kese-ave]unrendez-vous-pourlui(...)'it-isthefirstpersonwh-there-isanappointmentforhim'
6.[il(=elle)di]'he(=she)say'
7.nonvous[reste]ici'noyoustayhere'
8.et[se]la/ladame[kekepase]'andit-istheladywh-come'
Page152
<etladamec'étaittoi?>'andyouwerethelady?'
9."oui"-yo[di]'yes-Isay'
10."non[se]Monsieur"-'no-it-isthisman'
11."non"[medi]'nosaytome'
12."[elreste]ici"'hestayhere'<etlemonsieurc'étaitqui?>'andwhowastheman?'
13.[se]unnoir[se]unAfricain'it-isablackit-isanAfrican'<ettupensesquec'étaitàcausedeça?>'andyouthinkthatitwasbecauseofthat?'
14.oui[paskese/sevjolent]la/ladameaveclemonsieur'yesbecauseit-isviolenttheladywiththeman'
15.et[ penskesepor/porle]couleur'andIthinkthatit-isbecauseofthecolour'<tupensesoui?>'doyouthinkso?'
16.ouiet[ ledi]'yesandIsaytoher'
17.'non[ ne ]pasde[vestimãn]merci''noIdon'tbuy(=take)clothesthankyou'
18.et[ parti]àmamaisontrèsfurioso(laughs)
'andIgohomeveryangry'
-15-
background 1 5 14 -13-
reportedspeech 3 7-8 10 12 17
plot
backmove 4
chronological 2 6 9 11 16 18
Thetemporalsequence
4isstraightforward,withtheexceptionof4,whichgoesbacktoatimebeforethestartingpointofherstory.Shelackstherightlinguisticdevicesforit,expressesherfeelinguncomfortable,andfinallyfindsasolutionwithanumeral.Shestilllacksdirectdevicesfor'movingback'intime.
Page153
LetusseeanotherexampletheverysimplealthoughlivelynarrativeofGRatT2,madeofalinearsequenceoffivenarrativepropositions,closedbyanevaluation(10:ohlala!).
GR+27Narrative2
1.ypor[paje]lemétroleticketdemétro[jenepaje]pas[paske]\'andforpayinginthemetrothemetroticketIdon'tpaybecause'<tupassesendessous>'yougothroughunderthe...'
2.oui...l'autrejour..uninspecteur[medi]'yestheotherdayaninspectortellme'
3.'votreticket''yourticket'
4.'ah'[ledi]'ahsaytohim'
5."no[ nea]pasdeargent'noIhavenomoney'
6."[ swi]en[ ]"(=chômage)'Iamunemployed'
7.[ lemostre]macartede[ ]'Ishowhimmyunemploymentcard'
8."ah"[medi]'ahtellme'
9."ça[fe]rien"'noproblem'
10."ohlàlà"(laughs)
background =1= 10
reportedspeech »3 =5-6= 9
plot 2 4 7 8
Let'slooknowatAL'sfirstnarrativesample(hisfirstrecording,AL+11),wherehetellshowhewenttoregisterattheunemploymentoffice:
AL+11Narrative1:Registeringforunemployment
5
<vousneparliezpasfrançaismaisvousvousêtesquandmêmeinscritauchômage?>
Page154
'youdidnotspeakFrenchbutyetyouregisteredforunemployment?'oui[jemeskri]alchômage'yesIregisterforunemployment'<alorscommentças'estpassé?>'sowhathappened?'
1.eh+*un*amidemonfrè(re)+[medike]'hm+afriendofmybrother+tellmethat'
2.el[parla]'hespeak'
3.elamiel[parla]français+'thefriendhe[speak]French'
4.yél[medike]'andhetellmethat'
5.parainscription[ilja]elchômage+'forregistertherebetheunemployment'
6.et[a]unmonsieur'and(be,have,to)aman'
7.[keparla]espagnolitalienfrançaisbeaucoupdelangues'whospeakSpanishItalianFrenchmanylanguages'
8.yé1[medike]'andhetellmethat'
9.pasproblema../'noproblem'
10.yyo[swiale]aveclui'andIgowithhim'
11.y'si[sere]possible'andifbepossible
12.[kejemeskri]''thatIregister'
13.[paske]elseñorB+'becausemisterB'
14.él[sapel]B+él[me]/'hebecalledB+heme'
15.[jeparle]aveclui'Ispeakwithhim'
16.[lesplike]elproblemademoiydemafamilia*...'explaintohimtheproblemofmeandofmyfamily'
17.yélme/él[ekrileformular]*ytodo'andheme/hewritetheformandeverything'
18.y*pasproblema+'andnoproblem'
Page155
19.aprèseh+[ ]unrendez-vousconunamademoiselle'afterhm+I(have)anappointmentwithamiss'
20.yyo[nepußeparle]bien+'andIcannotspeakwell'
21.[paskeledike]'becausetell(him,her)that'
22.[jeneparla]français'InotspeakFrench'
23.yaprèselle[parleke]'andaftershespeakthat'
24.[jensepakrir]...'Icannotwrite'
25.*yo*[solaman/ solaman]decireh[dir]'Ionly/Ilearnonlysayhmsay'
26.'[jeneparloe
]pasfrançais[jeneparloe]pasfrançais''InotspeakFrenchInotspeakFrench'
27.*yentoncesy+y[lekomprende]'andthenand+andunderstand(him,her,it)'
summary 0
background -3- -6-7- -14-
reportedspeech -2- -5- -9- »11-12 -26- -22- -24-
plot:
backmove 13-15-16 25 21
chronological 1 4 8 10×17 18 19 20 23 27
O=A+B+C
EpisodeA=1(2-3)-,4(5)
EpisodeB=-(3-7-,-13-14-:15-,16-8(9)-,10-,(»11-12)-,17-,18
EpisodeC=25(26)-,19-,21(22)-,20--,23(24)-,27
ALisafasterlearner.Fromthefigureabove4itappearsthatafter11monthsofstayheisabletoproduceaverycomplexnarrative:itisintroducedbyasummary,thetemporallyorderedeventsofthestorylinearelinkedtobackgroundinformationandgroupedintothreeepisodes,antithechronologicalorderisinterruptedbybackmoves.Allthisisachievedwithrestrictedlinguisticmeans(seesection'Lexico-syntacticmeansfortemporality'below)withoutconsistentmorphologicalvariation
Page156
ontheverb,andwithonlyafewconnectorsandlexicalexpressions.
AtT2(22monthsofstay),thelinguisticrepertoireofALhasnotchangeddrastically(apartfromanobviousincreaseinlexicon).Thecomplexityofthenarrativecapacitystillfindsitslimitswheremorphologicaldistinctionswouldbeneededfortimelocation,asinthefollowingmisunderstandingontime:
<etturetournerasàlapréfecturepourlelogement?>'andwillyougobacktothepréfectureforthelodging?'
1.oui[ /japre+jale]autrefois'yesI(after)Igoothertime'
2.[paske]toujours[ija]logement+aussidelamairie'becausealwaystherebelodging+alsofromthetownhall'<hm+tuyesalléoutuiras?>'hm+haveyoubeenorwillyougothere?'
3.non+[joire]/'no+Igo/'
4.non[ ]déjà[ ale]là-bas/oui?+'no+IalreadyIgothereyes?'
5.après[ ale]autrefois(laughs)+[ ire]autrefois'afterIgoothertime+Igoothertime<hm+donctuneI'ASpasfait?outul'asfait?>'hm+soyouhaven'tdoneit?orhaveyoudoneit?'
6.non+déjà[ lafe]oui?+'no+alreadyIdoityes?'
7.APRES[ lafere]autrefois+oui?'afterIdoitothertimeyes?'
8.chaque[vente]jourschaquemois[ alepaske...]'everytwentydayseverymonthIgobecause...'
9.[paskeilfo]toujoursnon?+'becauseonemustalwaysno?'
10.[paske]lapersonne[kilvwa]...'becausethepersonwhheorshesee'
11.[ilvakrwaje]'hewillbelieve'
12.[ke... ]besoindel'appartament'non?'thatIneedthefiatno?'
(10-12=becauseifthepersonseesmeheorshewillbeconvincedthatIneedtheflat)
Page157
TheTLinterlocutorispuzzledbythecontradictionintermsoftheTLbetweenmarkerswhichpointtothepast:[ale],autrefois,andherquestionaboutfutureperspectives.IntermsofAL'sinterlanguage,[ale]stilldoesnotbeartemporalinformation,'autrefois'isanSLderivedadverbialforrepetition(cf.Span.otravez=anothertime).Forsolvingtheproblemhetriesoutwithamarkedformforexpressingfuture:[ire](cf.Span.iré=Iwillgo),[fere].Thefinalsolution,whichbreaksthemisunderstanding,istheuseofquantitativeinformation(seeline8).
5
Forcomparingthelearners'L2knowledgebetweenspeakersoratayear'sdistance(T1-T2),thedegreeofcomplexityofproducednarrativesdoesnotappeartobeareliableindexofdevelopmentinitself,itdependsalsoverymuchontheintrinsiccomplexityoftheeventstoreferto,onthediscursivestyleoftheindividualspeakers,andontheopportunitiesofagivenconversationforelicitingnarratives.ButallthesestoriesremindusthatanadultlearnerputstouseafullydevelopedspeakercompetenceinL2acquisition.
Forestablishingthecomparisons,wehavetorelatethestructureofthenarrativesobtainedwiththelinguisticmeans,lexico-syntacticaswellasmorphological,availabletothelearneratthesameacquisitionphase.
Lexico-syntacticMeansforTemporality
Inthissectionwegiveashortaccountofthelexico-syntacticmeans(adverbialsandadverbialclauses)forexpressingtimelocationandrelationsandtheirevolutionbetweenT1andT2forallthreeinformants(fordetailedanalysesseeNoyau,1986;seealsoonGR,Trévise,1984;andonBE,Vasseur,1985).
Theslowestinformant,BE,reliedalongtimeonthecooperationofthenative,whichsheknewhowtoelicit(seethetwonarrativesamplesabove!),andonSLorSL-derivedexpressions.Thisisthereasonwhywefindafewinstancesoftemporalclauseswithcuando[kwan(d)]quandmuchbeforeshewouldbeabletouseverbalclausesconsistently.After13monthsofstay,shehadstillonlyafewcalendaricexpressionswithoutPreporwithSLen,whichwemayassignapunctual(locationbydistancefromareferencepoint)oradurativevalueaccordingtosharedknowledgeorplausibility,amarkerofconsecution:après,andnoproperdeicticexpression(fornow,yesterday,etc.).After27monthsofstay,shehadacquireddeicticexpressionslike[mannõ](=now),aujourd'hui(=today),andusedadiversifiedinventoryofcalendaric
Page158
expressions:predominantlyNPs,andPrepPswithaprès,jusqu'à(=after,until),aswellasformulaslike[(s)afe],[ilja](=ago).Sheshowedacleargeneralisationofdeicticexpressionstoanaphoricvalues:cesoir(®intheevening),maintenant(®then),andhadacquirednoproperanaphoricexpression.
AsforGR,atT1sheuseddeicticadverbialslike[ajerswa](=yesterdayevening),variouslexicalexpressionswithdurative,punctualoriterativevalues,andhadalreadyfrequenttemporalsubordinationswithquand.After25monthsinFrance,shehaddiversifiedherinventoryoflexicalexpressions,allowingmorequantitativeprecisionfordistanceandfrequence.
ForAL,wecouldnotobservetheinitialsteps,asafter11monthshehadalreadyreachedastateofdevelopmentwhichwasbroadlycomparabletoBE'sorGR'sstateatT2.Thedevelopmentinthesecondyearofstaybroughtmorediversifiedlexicalexpressions,butabovealltheirsyntacticcomplexification:
ladernièrefois[kejovjen]ici
(=lasttimeIcomehere)
vous[veneelkel]jourquejele[marke]unrendez-vous
(=youcomebackthatdaywh-Iwritedownanappointmentforyou)
Forallofthem,wenoticethelateappearance(ifatall)ofanaphorics,andthetendencytoresorttosomeconnectorswhicharerecognisedandmemorisedduetotheircloseresemblancetoSL(Prepsaswellassubordinators),fromearlystageson.
MorphologicalMeansforTemporality
ForBE,thefirststageshowsfewverballexemesatall,orsheresortedtoSLverbs.Then,atT1ofthisstudy,sheacquiredverbsasmere
lexicalunitswithauniqueform.AtT2,theverbstendtoappearundermorethanoneform(shortform:V-Ølongform:V-eifortheregularverbs),butwithoutanytemporaldistribution.Towardstheendofthedatacollectionperiod(29monthsofstay),shewouldusesomepreverbalmorphs,precursorsofAux([a]V,[e]V,[swi]V),innon-actualcontexts(completedeventsandalsoforprospectiveevents),butwithatendencytoovergeneralisethemtoactualeventsalso.Shehadnotyetreachedadevelopmentalstateinwhichmorphologycansupporttense.
Page159
GR'smorphologicaldevelopmentfollowssimilarlines,withthevariationV-Ø/V-[e]showingovergeneralisationofthelastformtonon-pasteventsinsubordinateclauseswhereasthefirstoneisnotfoundanylongerforpasteventsatT2.
AL'sfirststepsindiscoveringverbalmorphologycouldnotbeobserved,butalthoughhislexiconcontainedanimportantnumberofverballexemesfromT1on,theseappearedofteninauniqueform,orshowedovergeneralisationofV-[e]untillate.After44monthsofstay(endofthestudy),somepreverbalmorphswereusedandV-Ø/V-[e/i]orAux+Vwerecontrastedintemporallycontrastedcontexts(actual/completed)foralimitednumberofverbs.Tensedistinctionswerejustabouttosettle.
EvolutionaryTrends
ThemainevolutionarytrendsforSpanish-speakinglearnersofFrench,onthebasisofthesecasestudiesandofobservationsfromotherinformants,arethefollowing(formoredetailsseeNoyau,1986).Asregardsindirectmeans:
heavyrelianceonpragmaticinferencesbaseduponworldknowledgeorsharedinformation,andoncontext,particularlyonaspectualpropertiesoftheverballexemesorthereportedsituations,aboveallinthefirststages;
useofdiscursiveconfigurationswhichsupportanimplicittemporalstructuringofevents(likethe'naturalorder',theuseofreportedspeech,andthefrequentcontrasts,whichappeartobeafavouritefigureoftherhetoricsoflearnerlanguages).Thisimposesquiteaburdenonthehearerforthereconstructionofthetemporalinformation;
specialisationfortemporalindicationsoflinguisticmeansfromotherareas,asspatialexpressions,andcausalconnectorsformovingback
intime.
Asforthelinguisticmeans:
initialrelianceonlexicalexpressions(withidiosyncraticsyntacticinsertion:PrepØ,thenPrepsinfluencedbySLuse),whichdiversifybothsyntacticallyandintheirprecisesemanticfunctions,mostlywithaquantifier/numeral+acalendarunit;
predominanceofdeicticexpressions,whichtendtobeovergeneralisedtoanaphoricuses;
progressivesyntacticcomplexificationofadverbials,andratherearlytemporalsubordination;
Page160
lateappearanceofverbalmorphology,whichdiversifiesandprogressivelyfindsadistributionwhichcontradictslessoftentheTL,withoutbeingabletobeartensecategoriesinaconsistentwayuntiltheendofthelongitudinalstudy(aboutfouryearsofstay)(seeNoyau,1986).
Cross-linguisticPerspectivesontheAcquisitionofMeansforTemporalityinL2
6
AcentralquestioninthedevelopmentoftemporalityinL2isthefollowing:Whydosomefeaturesappearbeforeothersinthelearners'systems?Somepotentialexplanatoryfactorscometomind:
(a)theconceptualstructureassuch;
(b)thediscursiveneedsofthespeaker;
(c)theSLwaysofencodingtheconceptualstructure;
(d)theintrinsicrelativedifficultyofacquisitionofthelinguisticmeansinTL.
Cross-linguisticstudiesareanecessarysteptoabetterunderstandingoftheacquisitionprocess,becausetheyarelikelytoprovideevidenceoftherelativeweightofsuchfactorsintheconstructionofthelearnerlanguage.IntheresultsavailablesofarfromanalysesoftemporalityinL2learnervarietiesbothwithintheE.S.F.projectonsecondlanguageacquisitionbyadultimmigrantsandonotherdata,somestrongconvergencesappear,andsomedifferenceswhichcanleadtopreliminaryhypothesesonthefactorsatplay.
Amongtheconvergentfeaturesarethefollowing:
earlyuseoflexicaldevicesfortemporallocationandrelations;
lateacquisitionofmorphologicalcategories,whichdevelopongivenfavourableverballexemesfirst.(Conceptualfactorssuchastheinherentsemanticpropertiesoftheverbsarelikelytobestudiedataglobalcross-linguisticlevelwhileotherslikefrequencyofgivenformsininput,relativedegreeofmorphologicalcomplexity,saliency,transparency,havetobeenvisagedacrossSLsforagivenTL);
initialrelianceonthesequentialorderingofeventsindiscoursefortemporalrelation,andmoregenerallyonsomediscourseorganisationprinciples;
massiveuseofquotedspeech,whichpermitstofallbacktoa(derived)deicticanchoring.
Page161
DifferencesacrossSL/TLpairs(asfarasthecurrentstateofthestudiesallowstogeneralise)arethefollowing:
early/lateappearanceofPrepPandofsubordinationintheadverbialmeans;
earlier/latermorphologicalmarkingoftense;
predominanceornotofaspectualcategoriesovertemporalcategories,whichallowslearnervarietiestodifferentiatemorphologicallyforegroundandbackgroundevents(forexampleforPunjabilearnersopposedtoItalianlearnersofEnglish,cf.Bhardwaj,1986a,b).
Manyoftheconvergentfeaturesmightbeexplainedfromacognitivepointofviewintermsoftheconceptualstructureoftemporality,orintermsofthediscursiveneedslinkedtothisconceptualstructure,morelikelythanintermsoflinguisticuniversals.Butsomeofthecross-linguisticdifferencesmayalsobelinkedtotheconceptuallevel,intermsofthemoreorlesscentralplaceofagivencategorywhichisencodedinaTLinthelinguisticsystemsofdifferentSLs.OtherdifferencesmaybeexplainedintermsoftheintrinsicrelativedegreeofdifficultyofacquisitionofthelinguisticdevicesacrossTLs(here,additionalevidencemightbedrawnfromparallelcross-linguisticdifferencesintheacquisitionoftheselanguagesasL1s).
Letuslookateachofthesepotentialfactorsmoreprecisely.
TheInfluenceoftheConceptualStructureItselfonthePathofDevelopment
Astheconceptualknowledgeofthespeakersservesasaframeworkinproducingandunderstandingdiscourse,predictionslikethefollowingonecanbeformulated:TheappearanceofagivenL2-formforproductioninthelearner'slanguagedependson'thedegreetowhichthegiventemporalcategorycanbeconveyedimplicitly'(Stutterheim
&Klein,1986).Letustakesomeexamples:
Example1:Forestablishingareferencepointintime,explicitmeansaregenerallyrequiredthiscanonlybeleftimplicitwhenthetemporalreferenceisalreadygivenbytheinterlocutor,inhisorherquestionforexample;hencetheearlyuseofadverbialsandgenerallylexicalmeans.Thistemporalinformationisusuallygivenatthebeginningofthesentence,resultinginapattern:
temporallocation-event.
quandpetit-lamercommeça(BE+13)
enelmoisdeavril-melapel]portéléphone(BE+15)
Page162
Example2:Forexpressingtherelativeorderofasequenceofevents,iftheeventsareexpressedinanorderwhichisparalleltotheorderinwhichtheyfolloweachotherintime,noexplicitmeansarerequired.Butifforsomereason,theorderofmentiondiffersfromtheorderofsuccessionintime,ithastobemadeexplicit.Thisisdoneeitherbyrelocatingtheeventsintime,orbyexpressingthetemporalrelationsometimesbyboth,inmanydiscursivecontrasts.
Example3:Thespeakerhastoconveythedifferenceoffunctionbetweenforegroundevents,whichformthetemporalstory-line(eachonefunctionsasreferencetimeforthefollowingutterance),andbackgroundones,whichgiveaframetotheeventsofthestory-line.Iftheverbsinvolvedhavesomeinherenttemporalcharacteristics(e.g.punctualontheonehand,durativeontheotherhand),therelationbetweenforegroundandbackgroundiseasyforthehearertoreconstruct,asarelationframe-embeddedevent.
Example: quand[iliabite]là-basmongarçon
(=when(we)livetheremyson
[illkase]unbras
hebreakanarm)
Butifbothverbsare,say,punctual,anexplicitmarkingoftheirrelationsisrequired,forexampleintheformofanaspectualmarkingofcompletion.Itisinsuchcasesthatthefirstusesofge-VarefoundinGerman.InFrench,wethenfindoccurrencesofsemi-Auxlike[fini]+V,[komens(e)]+V.Theneedformakingclearthisconceptualrelationgivesanaccountoftheobserveddevelopmentofaspectualdistinctionsbeforepurelytemporaldistinctionsinlearnersystemsofmanylanguagepairs(Houdaifa,1983,Arabic/French;Schlyter,1984,
Swedish/French;Kumpf,1984,Japanese/English;Andersen,1984,English/Spanish;Stutterheim,1984,Turkish/German).
TheinfluenceoftheconceptualstructureinvolvedleadstosimilaritiesinthedevelopmentofL2acrosslanguagepairs,whichneednotbetiedtolinguisticuniversals.Wemayalsoconsiderifthesimilaritiesintheearlierconstructionofaspectualcategorieswithrespecttotemporalonesinchildren'sacquisitionofL1maybelinkedtotheconceptualstructurealthoughasregardstheacquisitionofL1,thetaskofthechildisbothaconceptualaswellaslinguisticone,whichleadsustobecarefulininferringsimilarprocessesfromL1/L2acquisitionalsimilarities.
Page163
TheInfluenceoftheDiscursiveNeeds
Atanystageofacquisition,thelearnerhastocopewiththetaskofreportingtemporallycomplexclustersofevents.Heorshemayrefrainfromdoingsoinsomecasesbytopicavoidanceorbysimplificationofthecontents,feelingthathisorhercapacityinL2won'tdo.Heorshemayrelyonthehelpofthenativeandonthescaffoldingofferedbytheinterlocutor(seeBE'snarrative1above),whichprovidesatthesametimegoodinputfortheacquisitiontocontinue.Butinthatcase,thelearnermaychooseimplicitlytolettheelementsprovidedbytheinterlocutorformpartofthejointlyconstructeddiscourse,likeinBE'sfirstandsecondcyclesofdata,ormaytakethemovertohisorherownproduction,repeatingoradaptingtheminhisorherownutterance,likeBEstartsdoinginthethirdcycleofdata(cf.Vasseur,1985).Heorshemayfinallytaketheriskofexpressingthecomplexrealitiesheorshehasinmindwithhisorherlimitedlinguisticmeans(likeALdoesrightfromthebeginningofthedatacollectionperiod,seehisnarrative1above).
Attheinitialacquisitionstages,whenthegrammaticaldevicesarestillpoor,thelearnermustrelyheavilyonthelexicon,forlocatingeventsintime,andonsomeunriskydiscourseorganisationprinciplesforconveyingthetemporalrelations,likethechronologicalorderprinciple.Thisresultsinaveryfrequentthree-partdiscursivestructurewhichisfoundindatafromalltheexistingstudiesontemporalityinL2:
RT-El,E2,E3,...En-Clsg
initialreferencetime-sequenceofevents-closing
Thefirstelementofthestructuregivesthereferencetimeofthefirsteventinthefollowingsequence:
before
enkeer,engang,unfois(=once)
l'autrejour(=theotherday)
enveckasen(=oneweeklater)
enChili(=inChile)
ichkleinekinder(=Ismallchild)
[ ]quandpetit(=Iwhenyoung)
moiquand[illvjen]ici(=Iwhenhe-comehere)
Thesecondpartofthistypicalstructureconsistsofasequenceofevents.(EltoEn)eitherjuxtaposed,orlinkedtogetherby'and','et',y,...orby'after','unddann','(en)dan','ochsen'.yaprès',....
Page164
Thereferencetimeofthefirsteventisusuallygivenbytheinitialsegment,butthetemporallocationofanEi+1istoreconstructasconsecutivetothelocationofEi,whenamarkerofconsecutionisgiven,oraseithersimultaneousorconsecutiveinthecaseofmerejuxtapositionorcoordination.
Thethirdelementofthediscursivestructuremaybe
(a)aconclusivemarker:
et[se]fini
et[se]tout
(b)anevaluation:
ypasproblème
ahlala!
(c)asummary.
Obviously,allonewantstotellcannotfitinsuchasimplestructure,andthespeaker(orthehearer)facesthelimitationsofitwhenacomment,orbackmovetoananteriorperiodoftime,comesup(seetheunderstandingprobleminAL'sextractfromanarrativeonhousingproceedingsatT2).
Variousstudieshavefoundadifferentialmorphologicaltreatmentofforegroundeventsinoppositiontotherestofthetext(Kumpf,1984;Schlyter,1984,forexample),butwithapparentlyoppositesolutions.Kumpf'sJapaneselearnerofEnglishseemstousethebaseformforallforegoundevents,markingpast(ormorepreciselycompletiveness)inthebackgroundonly,whereasSchlyter'sSwedishunguidedlearnersofFrenchseemtouseAux-Vformsforpunctualeventswhichmovetheplotforward,foractionsofhumanbeings,androotV-formsforstatesandbackgroundactionslinkedbyacausalsubordinator.Here
again,differentidiosyncraticformalsolutionspointatageneralprocessinthelearnersatafunctionallevel.
TheInfluenceoftheSL
TheroleofSLintheacquisitionofL2canbeseenattwodifferentlevelsatleast.Intheearlystagesofacquisition,SLprovidesthelearnerwithaninitialhypothesissetasfor(a)whichconceptualcategoriesarecentralinthelanguage,thatis,arelikelytoberepresentedingrammar,andasfor(b)whichtypesofstructuraldevicesarelikelytobearthisconceptualinformation.
Obviouslytheseinitialhypothesesaremodifiedsoonasacquisitionproceedsandtheyareconfirmed,orreplaced,orabandonedbythe
Page165
learner.IntheE.S.F.project,themost'exotic'SLsasregardstemporalcategoriesareTurkishandPunjabi.
ForTurkishlearnersofGerman,previouscross-sectionalstudies(Aksu,Dittmar,Klein,&Stutterheim,1982;Stutterheim,1984)haveshownthattheytendtospecialiselexicalmeansforobligatorygrammaticisedconceptualcategoriesoftheirSL,astheoppositionsbetween
witnessedpast/non-witnessedpast(markedbylearnerswith'vielleicht'(perhaps);
nearpast/remotepast,markedwith'vorher'/'ganzvorher'respectively.
Butthisdoesnotimplythat'additional'(fromtheviewpointofTL)categoriestakenfromanSLarelikelytobiasstronglythepathofacquisitionofL2.Theyonlygiveaspecialvaluetogivenlexicalunits,whichtendtoappearoverfrequently.'Missing'grammaticisedcategoriesintheSLoughttohaveadeeperinfluenceonthecourseofL2acquisition.
Punjabi(seeSimonot,1983;Bhardwaj,1983,1986a,b)isatense-freelanguage.Theverbformscategoriseaspectualdistinctionslikecompleted/incompleted,ongoing,habitualorpotential,andarelationalcategoryas'completedbeforeanotherevent',butnodeictictemporalcategoryatall.PunjabilearnersofEnglishtendtoconstructL2verbalsystemsinwhichthebaseformisopposedtothe-ingform:
baseformcompletedprocesses+definitefuture
-ingformongoingoruncompletedprocesses+ordinaryfuture
(Forfuture,theoppositionisamodalone.)
ThelocationofeventsintimeislefttolexicaImeansandtodiscourse
principles,inallthePunjabidataofEnglishstudiedsofar.ThetaskofconstructingdeictictensecategoriesappearsinfacttobeverydifficultforPunjabilearners,whointhelightoftheirSL,havenoreasontobesensitivetothisaspectofthevaluesofEnglishverbalmorphology.ItwillbecrucialtolookatfurtherdevelopmentalstagesfromPunjabis,andtocomparetheirdevelopmentwiththeItalianlearnersofEnglish,whohavedeictictensecategoriesintheirSL,andseemtoconstructabasictenseoppositionpast/non-past(seeBhardwaj,1986a,b).
LetuslookatthelinguisticsideofthepotentialinfluenceofSLontheacquisitionoftemporalityinL2,thatis,thetypesofstructuraldevicesforconveyingtheconceptualinformationthatmaybeinferredfromtheSL.
Page166
ItalianandSpanish-speakinglearnerstendtomakeearlyuseoftemporalPrepPandoftemporalsubordination:
wann...,wenn...inGermanL2
cuando,[kwan],quand...inFrenchL2
whereasTurkishlearnersdonot.HereisanexampleofaminimalnarrativebyaTurkishlearnerofGerman(Stutterheim,1984):
meinmannunfall-krankenhauszweimonat(myhusbandaccident-hospitaltwomonths)
ComparethiswiththenarrativeofBEabove,ataveryundevelopedacquisitionalstage.
ForFrenchL2,onemightarguetheproximityoflanguagesandtheformalsimilarityofcertainPrepsandconjunctions.ForGermanL2,thisargumentdoesnotapply.OnehypothesiscouldbethatItalianandSpanish-speakinglearnershavegivenexpectationsasregardsthestructuraldeviceswhicharelikelytobearthetemporalinformationinthesentence,basedonstructuralpropertiesoftheirSL.Hereagain,Spanish-speakinglearnersofSwedishontheonehand,whoseemtoacquireearlyPrepsandsubordinators,andArabic-speakinglearnersofFrenchontheotherhand,whodonot,shouldprovideadditionalevidence.
TheRelativeIntrinsicDifficultyofAcquisitionofGivenLinguisticMeansintheTLs
LetuslookattheoralmorphologyofFrenchverbs.The[-elendingislikelytocorrespondto:
regularinfinitive
regularpastparticiple
imperfect(the3rdpssg+3rdpl)forallverbs
present(2ndpl+politenessform)foralmostallverbs
[e]aspreverbalAuxmaycorrespondto:
'avoir'1stpssgpresent
'être'2ndand3rdpssgpresent
andforalearnerwithanSLphonologylikeSpanish,whodoesnotdistinguishbetween/oe
*/ande,aquantityofpreverbalmorphemes:
pronouns:'je'1stsgsubject,
theclitics'me,''te,''le,''les'asobjectordative
Page167
thereflexive'se'
thenegation'ne'
may(ormaynot)beblendedwithAux[e].Generallyspeaking,themainpossiblemarkersforpastareallbutsalientforthelearners.Onlyafewmarkersaresalientandunambiguous:
theAux[a],[ave],[swi],[sõ]
(forformingpassécomposé)
endingslike[-ra],[-rõ](forfuture).
ThewholeverbalmorphologyofFrenchcanbesaidtobeopaquetothelearners.Asaconsequencelearnerproductions,eveniftheydonotraiseunderstandingproblemsatthelevelofcommunication,arefarfromeasyfortheresearchertointerpret.
Comparatively,inGermanmorphologytheregularmarkersforpreterite[-te()]andforpastparticiple[ge-]aswellastheAuxforms'hab(e),''hat','bin,''sind,'...haveahighsaliency.ThismayhelptounderstandwhyintheFrenchdatabase,positivemorphologicalmarkersfortenseappearsolate(seesection'MorphologicalMeansforTemporality'above),whereastheTurkishandItalianlearnersofGermanconstructanoppositionbaseform/ge-formrelativelysoon(cf.Stutterheim,1984andAksu,Dittmar,Klein&Stutterheim,1982).
ConcludingRemarks
Fromtheanalysisofthesefirstlongitudinalsamplesofdatafromtwoyearsofearlyacquisition,itappearsthattheproblemofthelearnerinacquiringdevicesforaconceptualdomainliketemporalityismultiple.
Heorshecanrelyonanimportantbodyofknowledgedrawnfromtheexperienceofbeinganadultspeakerofafullydevelopedlanguage,
andonallhisorhercapacitytograsptheworldandinferbroaderprinciplesfromlimitedevidence.Heorshemaymakethemostoutofalimitedrepertoireoflinguisticmeansforcommunication,withhisorherabilitytocombinelinguisticandnon-linguisticinformationforgivingtheinterlocutorenoughcuesforreconstructingthemessageintention.Theseresourcesallowhimorhertocommunicatewhileheorsheislearning.
Butmeanwhile,heorshehastoanalyseandidentifythepeculiarsetsofchoicesoftheTLinstructuringtheperceptionoftheworld,and
Page168
therehisorhercompetenceasanativespeakerofanotherlanguagehelpsandcreatesproblemsatthesametime.
Beyondtheconstructionofgrammarbythelearner,aconcept-orientedapproachinthestudyofsecondlanguageacquisitionwillallowabetterunderstandingatadeeperlevel,ofhowandwhysomecategoriestendtobeconstructedmoreorlesseasilyintheinterlanguage.Across-linguisticapproachinthisperspectivewillgiveaccesstotheinfluenceonthisprocessoftheconceptualcategorieswhichareprivilegedintheSLorTL,andallowustoweightherelativeimportanceofthedifferentlevelsoforganisationoflanguageintheacquisitionprocess.
NotestoChapter9
1.ThedatawhichareusedinthisstudyhavebeencollectedandtranscribedbyallthemembersoftheParisteamoftheE.S.F.Project.Thankstoallofthemalsoforthediscussionoftheseanalyses.
2.
Informant'smonthsofstayat T1 and atT2
AL 11 22
BE 13 27
GR 16 24
Whenwerefertosamplesofdata,thenotationisthefollowing:NN+18=theinitialsoftheinformant'spseudonym+lengthofstayinmonths.
3.Thetranscriptionconventionsarethefollowing:
porque SLsegment
[paske] segmentinphonetictranscription
+,++,+++ short,medium,longpause
nnnn/ self-interruption
| risingintonation
IInnnnII sequencewithahightoneofvoice.
Thenumbersareusedtoidentifythenarrativesegments.TheformulasanddiagramswiththeseRomannumbersrepresentthetemporalorganisationofthenarratives.
4.Thediagramsaremeanttorepresenttherelationbetweenthenarrativesampleand(a)thechronologyofevents,alongatimeaxis;(b)thediscursivelevels.Afewadditionalsymbolsare;
--+-->thetimeaxis,withtheutterancetimeasorigo
-2- durativesituation
»5 prospectiveevent
Page169
5.Thesetwonarratives,aswellasGR'sNarrative2,havebeenanalysedinsomedetailinNoyau,1984,andinamoreexhaustivewayinNoyau.1986.SeealsoforGR,Trévise,1984;forBE,Vasseur,1985.
6.ThissectionowesmuchtoStutterheim&Klein,1986.
References
ADAM,J.-M.,1978,Lacohésiondessequencesdepropositionsdanslamacrostructurenarrative.LangueFrançaise38,101-117.
AKSU,A.,DITTMAR,N.,KLEIN,W.&STUTTERHEIM,C.VON,1982,OntheAcquisitionofTemporalityinGermanbyAdultMigrantWorkers.PaperdeliveredattheSecondEuropean-North-AmericanWorkshoponSecondLanguageAcquisition,Göhrde,F.R.G.
ANDERSEN,R.,1984,TheDevelopmentofVerbalMorphologyintheSpanishofEnglishSpeakers.Workingpaper,WorkshoponTemporality,Max-PlanckInstitutfürPsycholinguistik,Nijmegen.
BHARDWAJ,M.,1983,January,AspectualandTemporalReferenceinthePunjabiVerbSystemandtheInfluenceofthisSystemontheNaturalAcquisitionofEnglishasaSecondLanguage.PaperdeliveredattheSSRCWorkshop,Southall.
1986a,AnAnalysisofTemporalityinInterlanguageNarratives.ESFProjectpaper.
1986b,ReferencetoTimebyTwoMoreAcquirersofEnglish.ESFProjectpaper.
BOWERMAN,M.,1984,EventSegmentation.+EventSegmentation,Continued:MoreonEventCondensation.Workingpapers,WorkshoponTemporality,Max-PlanckInstitutfürPsycholinguistik,Nijmegen.
FRAUENFELDER,U.,NOYAU,C.,PERDUE,C.&PORQUIER,R.,1980,Connaissance
enlangueétrangère.Langages57,43-60.
GIACOBBE,J.&CAMMAROTA,M.A.,1986,Learner'shypothesesfortheacquisitionoflexis.StudiesinSecondLanguageAcquisition8(3).327-342.
HOUDAÏFA,T.,1983,Laréférencepersonnelleettemporelledanslerécitd'unapprenantenmilieunaturel.Acquisitiondufrançaispardestravailleursmarocains.PapiersdeTravail1,125-140.
KINTSCH,W.&VANDIJK,T.,1975,Commentonserappelleetrésumedeshistoires.Langages40,98-116.
KUMPF,L.,1984,Temporalsystemsanduniversalityininterlanguage:Acasestudy.InF.R.ECKMAN,L.H.BELL&D.NELSON(eds),UniversalsofSecondLanguageAcquisition.Rowley,MA:NewburyHouse,132-143.
LABOV,W.,1972,LanguageintheInnerCity:StudyintheBlackEnglishVernacular.Philadelphia:UniversityofPennsylvaniaPress.
NOYAU,C.,1984,thedevelopmentofmeansfortemporalityinFrenchbyadultSpanish-speakers:linguisticdevicesandcommunicativecapacities.InG.EXTRA&M.MITTNER(eds),StudiesinSecondLanguageAcquisitionbyAdultImmigrants.TilburgStudiesinLanguageandLiterature6.Tilburg,TheNetherlands:TilburgUniversity,113-137.
1986,L'AcquisitionduFrançaisdansleMilieuSocialpardesAdultesHispanophones:LaTemporalité.Unpublisheddoctoraldissertation,SorbonneUniversity,Paris.
Page170
PERDUE,C.(ed),1982,SecondLanguageAcquisitionbyAdultImmigrants.AFieldManual.Strasbourg:EuropeanScienceFoundation.
POTTIER,B.,1974,LinguistiqueGénérale,ThéorieetDescription.Paris:Klincksieck.
SCHLYTER,S.,1984,L'AcquisitiondesFormesetdesFonctionsVerbalesFrançaisespardesApprenantsSuédois.PaperdeliveredattheNinthCongressofScandinavianRomanists,Helsinki.
SIMONOT,M.,1983,January,'LongTimeGo':NarrativeTechniquesofaSecondLanguageSpeaker.PaperdeliveredattheSSRCWorkshop,Southall.
STUTTERHEIM,C.VON,1984,DerAusdruckderTemporalitätinderZweitsprache:EineUntersuchungzumErwerbdesDeutschendurchturkischeGastarbeiter.Reviseddoctoraldissertation,FreieUniversitätBerlin.Berlin:WalterdeGruyter.
SIUTTERHEIM,C.VON&KLEIN,W.,1986,Aconcept-orientedapproachtosecondlanguagestudies.InC.W.PFAFF(ed.),FirstandSecondLanguageAcquisitionProcesses.Rowley,MA:NewburyHouse.
TANNEN,D.,1983,'Itakeouttherockdok!':howGreekwomentellaboutbeingmolested(andcreateinvolvement).AnthropologicalLinguistics25(3),359-374.
(forthcoming).IntroducingconstructeddialogueinGreekandAmericanconversationalandliterarynarrative.InF.COULMAS(ed.),ReportedSpeechAcrossLanguages.
TRÉVISE,A.,1984,SomeRemarksontheExpressionofTemporalityintheSpeechofaSpanish-speakingAdultAcquiringFrenchinaNaturalSetting.Workingpaper,WorkshoponTemporality,Max-PlanckInstitutfürPsycholinguistik,Nijmegen.
TRÉVLSE,A.&HÉRÉDIA,C.DE,1984,Lesmalentendus:Effetdeloupesurcertainsphénomènesd'acquisitiond'unelangueétrangère.InC.NOYAU
&R.PORQUIER(eds),CommuniquerdanslaLanguedel'Autre.Paris:PressesUniversitairesdeVincennes.
TRÉVISE,A.&PORQUIER,R.,1986,Secondlanguageacquisitionbyadultimmigrants:Exemplifiedmethodology.StudiesinSecondLanguageAcquisition8(3),265-275.
VASSEUR,M.T.,1985,BE:ALongitudinalStudyofTemporalityinaSpanish-speakingLearner'sPersonalNarratives.ESFProjectpaper.
Page171
10ReferenceandDiscourseStructureintheLearningofFrenchByAdultMoroccansDanielVeronique
Introduction
Theaimofthispaper
1istoexploretherelationshipthatexistsbetweenreferenceanddiscourseorganisationintheearlystagesoftheacquisitionofasecondlanguageinanaturalisticsettingbyadultlearners.IfwehypothesisethatinhisorherfirstattemptsatproductioninL2,thelearnercanonlyrelyonthefollowingresources:
(a)knowledgeoflanguageproductionactivitiesandcommunicativeinteractioninL1;
(b)useofnon-verbalsignals(betheysourceculturespecificornot);
(c)knowledgeofsomegeneralprinciplesfororganisingtheinformationtodeliver;
(d)lexicalitemsinL2,
itfollowsthatgivinginformationaboutobjects,theirstateandchangeofstate,aboutdegreeofacquaintancewithapersonorobject,andaboutthespatio-temporalcorrelatesofactionsandprocesses(i.e.thebasicsofproductiveactivities)isoneofthemostinfluentialfactorsintheshapingofutterancesanddiscourseinL2.
Inthispaper,Iwouldliketoinvestigatetheextenttowhichthe
acquisitionanduseoftheL2pronominalsystemandofreferentialexpressionsinthetargetlanguage,ofspatialandtemporalmarkingarediscoursedependent.ItismycontentionthattheBickertonianspecific/nonspecificorstate/nonstatedichotomiesinlanguageacquisitionandlanguageevolution
Page172
donotapplytoL2learning.Ishallsupporttheviewthatinthedataavailableatleast,referentialvaluesforlexicalitemsarecontextuallyboundandareindependentoftheTLsemanticandpragmaticvaluesofthedeterminersthathappentooccurinthelearnersystem.IamawarethatitcanberetortedinanswertothecriticismlevelledatBickerton's(1981)dichotomiesthatadultscannotbeexpectedtoactivatetheirinnatebioprograminsecondlanguagelearning.ThisisnoargumentformesinceIbelievethatwecansatisfactorilyexplainlanguageacquisitionwithoutrecoursetosuchaconstruct.
Iwouldthusliketoassesshowfardiscourseconstraintssuchasthoseinvolvedinthetaskofstory-retellingaffectthemarkingofreferentialactivities.Ifurtherwishtoevaluatetheshareofmeansotherthanthosetiedtoreference,suchaswordorderorconnectorsforexample,tothestructuringofdiscourseactivitiesinaparticulartask.
Thefirstsectionofthisarticle'ReferenceandDiscourseStructure'developsthetheoreticalframeworkofthestudyandreviewssomeoftherelevantliteratureontheacquisitionofreferenceanddiscoursestructureinFrenchasasecondlanguage.Inthesecondsection,'AcquisitionofReferenceinFrenchbyAdultMoroccans'IsummarisepreviousworkontheacquisitionofreferencebyMoroccanadultsincludingfindingsonAbdelmalek'sinterlanguage(IL),oneinformantforthisstudy.Inthethirdandfourthsections'TheInformant'and'TheCharlieChaplinExperiment'Iintroducetheinformantandthedesignoftheexperiment.Thefindingsofthestudyarepresentedanddiscussedinthefinalsections'Findings'and'Discussion'.
ReferenceandDiscourseStructure
Referentialactivitycanbeapproachedfromtwodifferentperspectives:asacomponentofwhatGivón(1984)callspropositionalsemantics,thatis,attheclauselevelorinrelationshiptocohesion
(Halliday&Hasan,1976)ordiscoursepragmatics(Givón,1984).Obviouslinksexistbetweenthefunctionsofreferentialexpressionswithinthepropositionanditspragmaticrolesinrelationtotheprecedingandsubsequentutterances.Whenmentioningthesetwolevelsoffunction,itshouldbeborneinmindthatreferenceisbutoneofthelinguisticdomainsthathelpfosterthediscoursefabric.Predicationisanotheroneoftheselinguisticrealmsthatcontributestronglytodiscourseorganisation.
Halliday&Hasan(1976)verycarefullydistinguishbetweendiscoursestructureandwhattheycallcohesion.Accordingtothem,discoursestructure
Page173
referstosometypeofstructurelargerthanasentencesuchasaparagraphforexample,whereascohesionisasemanticandpragmaticentity.Iusethetermdiscourseinaverybroadsensetorefertothewayinwhichsentencesareboundandrelatedtogethertoformlargerentitiestheprototypeofwhichisthenarrative(Labov,1972).Discoursestructurethenisnotastaticdevicesituatedatarankabovethesentence,butacovertermtodesignatethesetofmeansandthepragmaticeffectstheyproducewhichenablethespeakerandthehearer,eachwithinhisownperspective,todistinguishforinstancebetweenbackgroundandforegroundinformation,orevaluationandsummarywithinanarrative.
Inthisarticle,Ihavesingledoutreferentialactivityasoneofthemajorsetsofmeansbywhichdiscoursecomesintobeing.Doubtlessly,manyothermeanscontributetodiscoursefabric.Itismycontentionthattheoriginofsyntaxmustbesoughtindiscourse.Inthatrespect,IshareGivón'sview(1979)thatthedistinctionbetweendiscoursestructureandsentencestructureis,insomesense,anarbitraryone.However,Imustadmitthatlinguisticresearchhasveryclearlydemonstratedthatconstraintsinterveneattheclauselevelsuchas,forinstance,thosethattieclassesofNPstogivenclassesofverbswhich,althoughtheymightoriginateindiscourse,donotaffectthediscourselevelperse.Ontheotherhand,theexistenceofspecificpatternsofdiscourseorganisationwhicharenotstrictlydependentontheclauselevel,suchasthoseanalysedbyDeulofeu(1980)forspokenvernacularFrench,canbedemonstratedaswell.
ReferenceandDiscourseStructureinL2Acquisition
Thetheme-themedistinctionanditsapplicationtotheanalysisofdataproducedbylearnersintheirfirststagesofL2acquisitionhasbeendiscussedrecentlyinvariousarticlesbyDittmar(1984),Schumann(1983).andTrévise(1986).Ihavesingledoutfordiscussionthe
importantcross-linguisticanalysisbyKlein&Perdue(1986)whichdealspartlywithdatafromaFrenchL2learner.IshallalsosummariseenpassantworkdonebyGiacomi(1986)andDeulofeu(1986)onMoroccanArabiclearnersofFrench.
Klein&Perdue(1986)attempttounderstandhowalearnerwhodoesnotpossess'thenormalsyntacticdevices'availabletoanativespeaker,organiseshisorherutterances.TheylistaseriesofprinciplesoflinearisationoflexicalitemswhichcouldbeappliedbyalearnerlackingsyntacticmeanseitherbecauseofL1influence,ofthelearner'smetalinguisticawarenessofL2,ofhisorherattempttofacilitatehisorherinterlocutor'sunderstanding,orbecausetheprincipleisdeemeduniversal.Oneobjectiontothisapproachcanberaised:whatishypothesisedbytheauthorstobethespecialcaseof
Page174
theL2learnercouldbethecaseofthenativespeaker,aswell.Thenativespeakercanuseanarrayofbothsyntacticandthematicmeanstoorganisehisorherutteranceswithoutdoingitbydefault,sotosay.
Analysesofthe'CharlieChaplin'retellingbyItalianslearningGermanandEnglish,andbyaSpanishspeakerlearningFrenchrevealthefollowing.InthecaseofVito,theItalianlearningGerman,thearrangementproblemsencounteredinhisILaresolvedaccordingtothefollowingdistinctions:
1.PresentationalshaveafinalNP,othersaninitialNP.
2.WhentwoNPsarepresent,theagentoccupiesfirstposition.
Althoughothercomplicatingfactorsdooccasionallyintervene,Vito'sutterancesseemtofollowtheseconstraints.TheycanalsobefoundinRudolfo'sretelling.Itseems,however,thathemakesextensiveuseofanassociativecontextualisation.Besides,rulesofreferencedonotoperateincasesofsubordination,anddifferentintonationcontoursareusedtomarkintroductionsandconclusionstoepisodes.
Ramon'sretelling,theonlycaseofalearnerofFrenchasL2,isthemostintricateone.TheassessmentofthemaintypeofutterancesusedbyRamondisclosesthatinthesequencesØ-VandNominativeclitic-V,Øandnominativecliticarecomplementarilydistributed.Thismaybeexplainedeitherasmaintenanceorchangeoffunctionoftheprecedingreferent.IntheformercaseØisused,exceptwhenthespanofreferenceisabovetwoutterances,andinthelattercasecliticsareused.Re-introductionofanentityisdonethroughalexicalN.
AccordingtoKleinandPerdue(1986),themaintenanceofreferencebypronounsorØ,ortheirre-introductionseemtobedeterminedbyepisodeboundarieswhichRamonhasdevisedforhimself,independentofthematerialpresentedtohim.ThiswouldexplainthefrequencyofoccurrenceofN-VandN-clitic-Vpatterns.
ThefindingsofKleinandPerdueconcerningtheuseofNPsinrelationtoVformsconfirmpreviousworkbyGivón.TheyarealsoquiteinaccordancewithwhatwasfoundinAbdelmalek'sretellings,asweshalldiscusslater.TheycorrespondwithTrévise's(1986)findingsontheuseof[se]inGloria'sdata,aSpanishlearnerofFrench.
InordertofullyappreciateourfindingsintheAbdelmalekstudy,itisnecessarytocontrastitwithpreviousworkontheacquisitionofutterancepatternsbyMoroccanArabicspeakers.
Deulofeu(1983)identifiesthreemaintopic/commentpatternsinthefirsttwoencountersofAbderrahim,anotherMoroccaninformant:
Page175
(a)withoutany'constructional'element,forexample,monsieurJosémonsieurTayebdirecteur(misterJosémisterTayebdirector)
(b)withan'elementary'verbforexample,lamusique[se]bien(musicit'sgood)
(c)with'full'verbsforexample,lefacteur[ ]enveloppeparlemonsieurparlamaison(thepostman[Igive]envelopebythemanbythehouse)
Deulofeuarguesthatinallthesecasesthefirsttermisatopicbecause:
(a)itisnotcompulsory;
(b)itisneverindefinite;
(c)itcouldnotbe'translated'byanagentorasubjectinthetargetlanguage(TL).
Deulofeu(1986)assumesthatduringL2acquisitionbothgrammaticalanddiscursivestructuresarelearnedinparallel.HebelievesthatalthoughthesyntacticorganisationofILdoesnotdiffermuchfromthatoftheTLfromaqualitativepointofview,itsinterpretationbyaTLspeakermightprovetobedifficult.DeulofeushowsthatoneMoroccaninformant,Abdelmalek,isabletouseallthediscursivedevicesavailabletoanativespeakertostructuretheinformationhewantstoconvey.Despitethis'knowledge'however,misunderstandingcropsupinthelearner'sinteractionwithaTLinvestigatorbecauseofthemannerinwhichheusesthediscursivedevices,amannerpartiallyifnottotallydifferentfromthatofaTLspeaker.Itisthecommunicativestyleswhichseemtodiffer.
Giacomi(1986)studiesthestructuringofutterancesthroughtheinterplayofquestionsandanswersinthefirst,fifth,andninthencounterswithAbdelmalek.Hedrawsupalistofthelexicalmeansusedbytheinformantinhisinteractionwiththeinvestigator:repetitionofalexicalitemgivenbytheinvestigatorone-wordanswers.HealsomentionsanotherdevicefrequentlyusedforthestructuringofutterancesbyAbdelmalek:propositionalaccumulation.InhisanalysisofdatacomparabletoDeulofeu(1986).Giacomi(1986)comestoslightlydifferentconclusions.AlthoughheagreeswithDeulofeuthatthereisnogreatdifferencebetweenanarrativetoldbyaTLspeakerandtoldbyalearner,hedrawsattentiontothespecificuseofparceque,après,andyenabyAbdelmalek.Thosemarkers
Page176
seemtobeusedeithertointroducebackground(yena)orforegrounditems(parceque,après).Wewillcomebacktothispointlater.
Finally,Houdaïfa(1986)inhisanalysisofdatafromthefirstcycleofinvestigationwithAbderrahimgivessomeinformationonthewayhisutterancesarestructured.Henotesthatalthoughthestatusofpredicatecanbeassignedtoagivenlexicaliteminagivenutterance,nosatisfactorycriteriaareavailabletodistinguishbetweennounsandverbsinAbderrahim'sutterances.Houdaïfastressesthefrequencyofzeroanaphorainsubjectpositioninvariousdiscourse(suchasmentionofthetopicinapreviousclause)andsyntacticcontexts(withinterrogativesornegation,forinstance).Hefinallymentionstheuseofawordorderpatternbasedonthethematic-rhematicdichotomyandthefrequentuseofthematicmarkersc'estandilya.Houdaïfaarguesthataparallelmustbedrawnbetweenthedevelopmentofpronominalreferenceandthegrowingsyntacticstructuringoftheinformant'sutterances.
AcquisitionofReferenceinFrenchbyAdultMoroccans
ThereferentialactivitiesofAbdelmalek,oneMoroccaninformant,canbestbestudiedifseenwithinthegeneralframeworkoftheacquisitionofmeanstorefertopeople,space,andtimeasusedbyMoroccanadults.Suchastudyofthedevelopmentoflinguisticmeanstorefertoselforothersandtospatio-temporalcorrelatesofeventsandprocessesacrossindividuallearnersshowsmanycommonalities.
NominalReference
Coupler(1983)presentsastudyoftheacquisitionofpronominalreference.ItisbasedonextractsfromthefirstsixencounterswithZahra,afemalesubjectwho,atthetimethedatacollectionstarted,hadbeeninFranceforapproximatelyoneyear.Coupiernotesthattheinformant'sutterancestendtobeorganisedaccordingtoatheme-
rhemedivision.ShefurthernotesthatinZahra'sinterlanguagemorphologyisofnohelpindecidingtowhichsyntacticclassagivenlexicalitembelongs.Shedrawsattentiontotheplurifunctionalityofmorpheme-likeelementslike[e]or[li]andtheirvariants.Coupier'sstudyiscentredonsuchmorpheme-likeitemsimmediatelyprecedingtherheme-predicateinZahra'sutterances.Duringthethreefirstencounters,self-referenceismainlyexpressedthroughthefollowing:
Page177
Jeormoije,whicharetheusualTLformsinsubjectorthematicposition,areusedveryinfrequentlyintheexamineddata,buttendtobecomeimportantbytheendoftheobservationperiod.IncontextswhereTLwould
Coupier'sstudyofZahraconfirmsapreviousstudybyVéronique(1983)onpronominalreferenceinAbdelmalek'sIL.ItseemsthatduringthefirststepsinL2,themaininformationastowhetherreferenceistoselfornot,liesintheuseornon-useofmoi,giventhatzeroanaphoraisafrequentfeature,governedbythematiccontinuity(seealsoHoudaïfa,1986;andDeulofeu,1986).Assoonasthedistinctionbetweenfullandcliticpronounsaswellasapossibledistinctionbetweenthemeandgrammaticalsubjectseemtobemastered,pronominalreferenceintheILtendstobecomesimilartothatoftheTL.
Houdaïfa(1986)describespronominalreferenceinAbderrahim'sIL.Forself-reference,jeandmoijeareused,butalsoilasisthecasewithZahra.Forreferencetotheaddressee,tuisusedasintheTL.Torefertosomeotherperson,je+predicateoril+predicateareused.Thus,theacquisitionofpronominalreferencebyAbderrahimseemstoproceedalongsimilarlinesaswithZahraandAbdelmalek.AcliticformfromTL(eitherje[TL+speakerpronoun]oril[TL-speaker-addresseepronoun])isappendedtothepredicateandthisunanalysed(?)blockisusedassuch.Specificreferencetoselforothersismadethroughtheuseoffullpronounsorthroughthecontext.Itshouldbe
addedthatzeroanaphoraaswellaspresentativeandexistentialreferenceareusedwhenthetopicisclearlyintheforeground.
Véronique(1984)givessupporttothistrendbypullingtogetherdatafromZahra(seeCoupier,1983),Rquia(firstthreeinterviews),Abdelmalek(firsteightinterviews)andAbdessamad(firstinterview).Itwouldevenbepossibletogroupinformantsonanacquisitionalscaleindicatingwhether:
(a)theyaddamorpheme-likeunanalysedformtothepredicatebeit[li],[le],[i]oreven[ ]ornot;
(b)theyrefertoselfpreferentiallybymeansof(moi)+jeorthrough
Page178
(c)theyuse[jãna]/[ja]or[se]extensivelytoavoidreferencetoselfthroughpronominalforms;
(d)referencetoselforothersisestablishedmainlythroughthelinguisticcontextratherthanbyexplicitpronominalmarking.
Véronique(1985a)analyses(seeTable1)themannerinwhichAbdelmalekandAbdessamadrefertopersonsandobjectsbylookingatthetypesofNPsandpronoun-likeformstheyuseduringthefirsttenencountersofthedatacollectioncycle.Concerningtheacquisitionanduseoflexicalreferentialexpressionsthemainfindingsare:
1.Inthefirststages,thelexicalitemsareacquiredandusedassuchwithoutanyattentionbeingpaidtowhethertheitemisprecededbyadeterminerornot,ortothesemanticandpragmaticvalueofthegivendeterminer.
2.LexicalNPsderivetheirreferentialvaluemainlythroughthelinguisticcontext.Thisexplainswhyzerodeterminersareemployedinamannersimilartozeroanaphora.
3.Half-waythroughtheperiodofobservation.Abdelmalekacquiresthedefinite/indefinitedistinction.Hestartsusingreferentialexpressionsoftheformindefinitedeterminer+Nountointroducenewreferentsanddefinitedeterminer+Nountorefertoknownitems.Thedefinite/indefinitedistinctionhasbeenmasteredbyAbdessamadalreadyattheoutsetofthedatacollectioncycle.
4.Nodemonstrativearticleisusedbyeitherinformantduringthephaseofobservation.Thisimpliesthatsequencesofdefinitedeterminer+NounorevenØ+NounmustbeendowedwithspecificdeicticforceinIL.
SpatialReference
Houdaïfa(1986)includesastudyofthesyntaxandsemanticsoftheverbsofmovement,ofdirection,andofpositionindatafromthefirsttenencounterswithAbderrahim.Thefollowingverbsareanalysed:partir,arriver,sortir,venir,rester,aller,marcher.Apartfromadetailedspecificationofthesyntacticdistributionofeachverb,Houdaïfa(1986)providesthefollowinginformationaboutspatialreferenceinAbderrahim'sIL:
(a)Themainspatialprepositionsusedinconjunctionwiththe
TABLE1.pronominalreference(referencetoself).Zahra Abdelmalek Rquia
ArrivalinFrance
1981 09.1981 1981
Periodofdatacollection
6monthlyencountersbetween18.11.82and23.07.83(248days)
7monthlyencountersbetween13.11.82and25.06.83(218days)
4monthlyencountersbetween18.11.82and05.03.83(114days)
Forms formulaicuseofje+[kõprã]+[se]moi+Pred.*
formulaicuseof[ nepa][ krwa](moi)+Pred.(moi)+(li)+Pred.
moi+Pred.(moi)je+Pred.(Self-correctionsofmoi+il+Pred.intomoi+je+Pred.canbeobserved.)
Beginningwiththethirdencounter(after111days)theTL-likeform(moi)+je+Pred.canalsobeobserved.
Beginningwiththefourthencounter(after109days)theTL-likeform(moi)+je+Prod.canalsobeobserved.
*Predicate
Page180
movementverbsareà,avec,par,andàcôté.ItshouldbenotedthatmostspatialexpressionshavetheformV+prep.+NinAbderrahim'sIL;
(b)partirisusedbyAbderrahimwhereverallerwouldbeusedinTL;
(c)somespatialprepositionsareovergeneralisedduringspecificencounters,forinstance,parinthefirstthreeinterviewsoravecinthefifth.
Véronique(1985b)describestheacquisitionofthelinguisticmeansofspatialreferencebyAbdelmalekandAbdessamad.Thisstudyisbasedonconversationsandspecifictasksrecordedduringthefirstcycleofdatacollection.Itsmainfindingsare:
1.Despitesomemarkeddifferencesintheconstructionofspatialexpressions,AbdelmalekandAbdessamadsharethesameverbsofmovement:entrer,rentrer,partir,monter,aller,venir,descendre,sortir,marcher,tomber,passer,rester,tourner.ThislistisdifferentfromtheonegivenaboveforAbderrahim.
2.Thetwoinformantsdivergeinthemannertheybuildtheirreferentialexpressions.Fromthestart,AbdessamadlikeAbderrahimusesV+preposition+N,theprepositionbeinginmostcasesà,whereasAbdelmalekstartsoutwithV+Ø+NtoendupwithV+à+Nattheendofourobservationperiod.
3.Thespatialexpressionsmusteredbytheinformantsvaryduetothepragmaticconstraintsimposeduponthembytheelicitationsituation.Thus,itwasobservedthatonlyasubsetoftheverbsavailabletoAbdelmalekandAbdessamadwasusedbythemintherecordedconversationsandnarratives.
4.Thistaskvariationcanbefurtherexplainedbythetypeofschematisation(Talmy,1983)theinformantneedstoexpressin
variousdiscoursecontexts.Insomeofthedataelicitationtechniques,bothinteractantscanseethereferentsandsharethesituationwherevariousspatialexpressionsmustbeproducedbytheinformant.Inothercases,inadifferentsetting,theinformantmustreconstructaspatialdomainknowntobothpartners.Inothercasesstill,theinformantmustdescribemovementsandspatialsettingstotheinvestigator,ofwhichthelatterisunaware.Thatisthecasewhennarrativesinvolvingspatialreferenceareproducedbyaninformant.
Houdaïfa&Véronique(1984)extendtheanalysisofVéronique(1985b)totwootherinformants,ZahraandAbderrahim.Onlythemainresultswillbesummarisedhere.
Page181
IntheAsh-TrayExperimentdatathefollowingisobserved(seePerdue,1982)forthefourinformants:
1.Thecanonicalformofreferentialexpressionsinthattaskis
whereVisacausativemovementverblikeposer(toplace);thereferentisusuallyspecifiedlexicallyexceptwhenitisreplacedbyzeroanaphorabecauserulesoftopiccontinuityapplyandtherelatumisoftenspecifiedbyadeicticratherthanbyanoun.
2.Thereisanimportantvariationacrossinformantsinthewayreferentialexpressionsarebuilt.AbdelmalekandAbdessamadhaveamoreimportantlexisforVthanZahraorAbderrahim.
3.Itemscommontoallinformantsincludecausativeverbs[uvrir]and[ferme]andspatialprepositionsdansandpour.
4.Twomainspatialschematisationsareexpressedinthistask:movementtowardsagoalandinclusionofoneobjectinanother.Thelatterisexpressedmainlythroughtheuseofdansandnotbymeansofacausativeofmovementsuchasmettre.
Dataonroutedescriptionsyieldthefollowingcommoncharacteristics:
(a)Theorderofdescriptionfollowsthespatio-temporalconfigurationtobedescribed;
(b)thedescriptionisorderedasifthenarratorproceededmentallyfromonesalientreferencepointtoanother;
(c)thementionofagivenreferencepointinthespatialdescriptionallowsfordigressionsandcomments;
(d)movementfromonereferencepointtoanotherisexpressedmainlythroughverbs.
RoutedescriptionsinL1andL2haveonefeatureincommon:theinformantseemstojourneyacrossamentalmapasheorshetalksabouttheroute.DifferencesbetweenthetwosetsofdataderivefromthefactthattheinformantshavealargerstockofspatialexpressionsinL1thanL2.Besidesthereferencepointsmentionedinbothnarrativesdifferbecauseofculturalbackground.ThusinL1,placesknowntoNorthAfricanmigrantworkersarementioned,whereasinL2Frenchculturebasedreferencepointsarechosen.
Houdaïfa&Véronique's(1984)studyconfirmsoneimportantfeaturenoticedpreviously:thevarioustypesofspatialexpressionsproducedin
Page182
varioussettingsdiffernotsomuchintheverbsasintheprepositionsandadverbsused.
TemporalReference
Houdaïfa(1983a,b)dealswithtemporalreferenceinthedataoftwoinformants,AbdelmalekandAbdessamad.DespitethefactthatafairamountofverbalmorphologyisobservedinILdataentrerforinstanceisfoundunderthefollowingforms:[eantre],[ãtre].[syiãtre]itdoesnotseemtofulfilspecifictemporaloraspectualfunctions.However,HoudaïfanotesthatinAbdelmalek'sdataatleast,thedistributionofverbalformsseemstobedeterminedbytheexistenceofvariousdimensionsinAbdelmalek'snarrative.Thestorylineismarkedbya+VformswhereasVstemsandV+eformsareusedinthebackground.InAbdessamad'sdata,localconstraintsgovernthedistributionofverbalforms.Thus,iftwoverbalformsoccurinsuccession,thesecondverbhasaV+eform.MorphologybeingrarelyusedinILtoexpresstemporality,temporalreferenceisexpressedthroughthefollowingdevices:
(a)strictobservanceofthechronologicalsequenceofeventstoberecountedandoftheirspatialsettingshence,theimportanceofdates;
(b)useofconnectorssuchasalors,aprèswhichallowacontrastbetweenwhathappensbeforeandafterthereferencepoint;
(c)useof'situants'suchasbierandaujourd'huiwhichmarkthepointofdeparturefromthesequenceofevents;
(d)recoursetoaspectualoperatorssuchasparfois,jamaisandchaquefois.
Summary
AmongthemoststrikingfeaturesobservedintheacquisitionofreferencebytheMoroccaninformants,thefollowingshouldbe
stressedbecauseoftheirrelevance:
(a)theapparentlynon-functionaluseofthedefinitearticleintheconstructionofnominalexpressions;
(b)theprogressivecliticisationofthesegmentappendedtothepredicate;
(c)theacquisitionoflocativeprepositionsinadeterminedorder:ï>à>dans>pour;
(d)theapparentlynon-functionalmotivationofverbalmorphologyinIL.
Page183
Anotherimportanthintprovidedbythepreliminaryanalysesisthecloselinksthatmayexistbetweentheuseofnewlexicalitems,theactivityofreferringtopersons,objectsorspaceandthestructuringofutterancesintermsofthetheme-rhemedichotomy.Ineffect,suchdiscourseconstraintsastopiccontinuity,referentialcontinuity,ortopicswitchapplywithreferencetopersonsandspaceaswellaswiththestructuringofutterances.ItwouldseemthatanimplicationalrelationshipholdsbetweenthemasteryoftheTLpronominalsystem,andmorepreciselyofthecliticversusfullpronoundichotomy(whereitexists),andthemarkingofobligatorysubject.
TheInformant
Abdelmalek,themaininformantforthisstudy,isoneofthefourlongitudinalinformantswehaveworkedwithduringthepastthreeyearsintheEuropeanScienceFoundation(ESF)researchprojectonsecondlanguageacquisition(Perdue,1982).Atthetimedatacollectionstarted,hewastwentyandhadbeenlivinginFranceillegallyforapproximatelytwelvemonths(hewasgrantedamnestyin1981).HisfirstlanguageisMoroccanArabicandheknowssomeSpanishfromlivinginNorthernMoroccoandfromhavingspentsomethreeyearsinSpain.AbdelmalekattendedprimaryschoolinMoroccobutdroppedoutaftertwoyears.
SincethattimehedidnotreceiveanytypeofinstructionexceptforaonehourlanguagecourseheattendedinFranceduringhisfirstyearofstayorso.AfterhismigrationtoFrance,AbdelmalekhasworkedasafishermanonaboatownedbyabossofItalianorigin,thenasaclothessellerinamarketwhosecurrentcustomersarespeakersofArabic.AbdelmalekprovedverycooperativeduringthecourseofourfieldworkandthoughtthatparticipationinthestudywouldhelphimimprovehismasteryofFrench.Heisaverygoodstorytellerasallthedatacollectedfromhimhasproved.
AtthetimewhenthefirstCharlieChaplinExperimentwassubmittedtoAbdelmalek,hisILhadthefollowingcharacteristicsinthedomainofreferencetopersonsandobjects:
(a)relianceoncontextforthereferentialvaluesoflexicalNPs;
(b)fullpronounsfillingthethematicslotwhile'thewouldbecliticparadigmseemedtobereducedatonestagetooneitemlialternatingwithØ;
(c)rarityofprepositions,beittomarksemanticlinksbetweenNPsorforanyotherpurpose.
Page184
ThisstudycanbeviewedasafurtherexplorationofthepropertiesofAbdelmalek'sILinthereferentialanddiscoursedomains.
TheCharlieChaplinExperiment
InthistaskdevisedbytheHeidelbergESFteam,extractsof'ModernTimes'havebeenorganisedintwoepisodes.Theresearcherandtheinformantwatchepisodeonetogether,thentheresearcherleavestheroomandtheinformantwatchesepisodetwobyhimself.Theresearcherreturnsandtheinformantmustretelltheendofthefilm.Hereisasummaryofthecontentsofthe'ModernTimes'extractsusedinthisexperiment.ThisresuméisborrowedfromKlein&Perdue(1985):
Episode1Subtitle:America1930Poverty,Hunger,Unemployment
Charliegetsintoademonstrationagainstunemployment,istakenfortheleaderandputintoprison.Atdinneroneofhisfellow-prisonershidesheroininthesalt-cellar,andCharliehelpshimselfbymistake.Withthedrughegainsaheroicalforce:hefoilsanattempttoescapeandfreesthedirectorwho,ingratitude,releaseshimwithaletterofrecommendationforajob.Charliedoesn'tfeeltooenthusiasticaboutthisbecauseinprisonheisbetteroff,hefeels,thanatliberty.Parallelwiththisweseeasecondstory:ayounggirl(whosefatherisawidower,unemployedandwithoutthemeanstofeedhisthreechildren)stealsfoodforherfamily.Herfatherisshotinademonstration,andthechildrenhavetogotoanorphanage.Thegirlmanagestoescapeatthelastmoment.
Episode2Subtitle:DeterminedtoReturntoPrison
Charliefindsworkinashipyard.Clumsilyhecausesthelaunchingofashipthatwasnotfinished.Heisimmediatelyfiredandisallthemoredeterminedtogobacktoprison.Thegirlroamsthroughthe
streetshungrily,andstealsaloafofbread.WhenshetriestoescapesherunsintoCharlieandbothfalltotheground.Awoman,whowatchedthetheft,callsthebaker.Thepolicemancomestoarrestthegirl.Charlietriestoclaimresponsibilityforthetheftbutitdoesn'twork.Thegirlismarchedofftoprison.
Charlietriesagaintogettoprison.Hegoestoarestaurant,eatsasmuchashecan,callsapolicemanfromthestreetandtellshimthathehasnomoneytopaythebill.Heisarrested.
Page185
Inthepolice-carheagainmeetsthegirlwhostolethebread.Inanaccidenttheyareboththrownout.Thegirlsuggeststhatheescapewithher,andhedoes.Inthegardenofamiddle-classhousetheyrestforawhile,andwatchthecouplewholivetheresayatendergood-byetoeachotherinfrontoftheirhouse.Middle-classconjugalbliss.Charlieandthegirldreamofanexistencelikethat.AfewdayslaterthegirlhasasurpriseforCharlie,havingfoundsuchahouseforbothofthem.Ofcourse,itisaruinedcabininamiserablecondition,sothataseriesofhilariousaccidentshappenwhentheyfirstcometoseeit.Buttheywon'tletthisdisturbtheirhappiness.Inthelastpictureweseethemwalkingonalongroadthatdisappearsintothehorizon.
Thistaskisofspecialinterestforthestudyofreferenceanddiscoursestructure:
1.Ononehand,bothinteractants,speakerandhearer,haveasharedknowledgeofsomecharactersandsomeeventsinthefilm.Thiscommonknowledgefacilitatesthetaskofprocessingthenarration.
2.Ontheotherhand,theinformantwithhislimitedlinguisticresourcesmustintroduceinformationinthecaseofsomeothercharactersandsomeothereventsinthefilmwhicharenewtothehearer.
Inthisexperiment,hemustrefertoatleasttendifferentcharacters,fourdifferentobjectsandsixdifferentplaces.Someoftheseareknowntospeakerandhearerwhereasothersareunknowntothehearer.AmongtheknownfiguresareCharlieChaplin,ayounggirl,thedirectoroftheprison,andsoforth.Thebakerandthewomanwitnesstothetheft,however,mustbeintroducedbythespeaker.Amongtheunknownobjects,therearealoafofbread,awoodblockandfurnitureinthehouse.Whereastheshipyardandtheprisonhavebeenseenbyspeakerandhearer,subsequentplacessuchastherestaurant,thepolice-car,orthecabinmustbeaddedbythespeaker.
Inexaminingthethreeretellingsof'ModernTimes'byAbdelmalekwhichhavebeencollectedataninemonths'interval,
2Ishallbeaddressingthefollowingissue:whataretheelementswhichstructureAbdelmalek'snarrativesandwhatisthecontributionofreferentialactivitiestothisstructuringofthenarrative?Toachievethispurpose,theanalysiswillbearonthefollowingpoints:
(a)theformsusedinthefirstandsubsequentmentionofthecharacters;
(b)themeansusedtoavoidreferringtopersonsorevents;
(c)thesignallingofsubeventsofthetwomainepisodesandtheuse
Page186
ofsuchmarkersasjãna(thereis),voilà(thereis/itis)oraprès(afterwards);
(d)wordorderinrelationtospecificverbs.
ThefindingswillbecomparedtothoseofGiacomi(1986)andGiacomi&Vion(1986)bearingonthesameinformantandtothoseofKlein&Perdue(1985).
Findings
3
'ModernTimes'Cycle1
Inthisfirstretellingwhichisapproximately357wordslong,Abdelmalekchosetostarthisrecountingatthepointwheretheinvestigatorlefttheroom.Inthesubsequentexperiments,heretoldthewholestoryfromtheverybeginning.
ParticipationandStateofAffairs(FirstandSubsequentMention)
Characterscanbementionedthroughoneofthesepossibilities:useofpropernounsanduseoflexicalitems.Tothesetwoclassespronounsintheirdeicticfunctionsmustbeaddedaswellasanaphora(includingcataphora),beitthroughapronounorzero.Onceacharacterhasbeenestablishedinthefore,itisnecessarytomaintaincontinuityofreferenceunlessaswitchofreferenceoccurs.Thisshouldtheninturnbesignalled(seeLyons,1977;Givón,1983).
UseofNPs:ItshouldfirstofallbementionedthatintermsofthemorphologyofNPsandpronounsforthatmatter,nodistinctionofgenderismarkedandthesameholdstruefornumber.Inversion1and24ofthisfirstretellingof'ModernTimes',themainfemalecharacterisintroducedasle/lafemmewhichcouldbe+Presupposedand±
SpecificinBickerton'sterminology.CharlieChaplinisintroducedbypropername.Thesecondfemalecharacterisintroducedinversion1as
[li]femme[kegardeilavole]unrestaurant5
(thewomanwhowitnessedhestolealoafofbread)andas
[li]femme[salegardeilavole]
(thewomanthatshewitnessedhestole)
inversion2.Inbothcasestheclauseappendedtothelexicalitemfemmebestowsa+Specificfeaturetothereferentialexpression.Secondary
Page187
characterssuchasthepolicemanorthebakerarementionedwithlexicalNPsoftheformle+Nwhichcouldhavespecificorgenericmeaningaccordingtocontext.Othercharacterssuchastheforemanorthefellowprisonerarejustnotmentioned.
SubsequentmentionofCharlieiseitherthroughtheuseofapropername(20tokensinall)orthroughthe'allpurpose'pronounil/li.Thetwofemalecharactersaresubsequentlyreferredtoaslafemme.Linguisticcontextandsharedknowledgeenablethehearertounderstandwhoisbeingreferredto.Thepolicemanisdesignatedbylapolicewhichisambiguousinsofarasthisexpressionhasgeneric(referringtothepoliceforce)aswellasspecificmeaning(viz.apoliceman).Inonecaseanumeralisused
[jana]unpolice
(thereisonepolice(man))
andinanothercaseanapproximationofpoliceman[pulisi]isresortedto.AnexaminationofthestructureoftheNPsrevealsthatle/li/la+Nisoverwhelminglyused.Ofthe21differentlexicalitemsoccurringinthetext,19combinewithle...toyield55tokensofthatstructure(seeTable2).Ofthetwolexicalitemswhichdonotcombinewithle,jardinhasaparticularstatusbecauseitalwaysseemstobeprecededbyunintheinformant'sretellingsof'ModernTimes'.Onecaseofclearalternationintheuseofunandlewiththesamelexicalitemhasbeennoticed:thefirstmentionoftheloafofbreadisunrestaurantandinsubsequentoccurrences,thesequenceisle+N.ThusitwouldseemthatatthisstageinhislearningofFrench,Abdelmalek'sFrenchreflectstwotypesofreferentialassumptions:
1.Asubsetoflexicalitemsassociatesbetterwithgivendeterminersdespitethelinguisticcontext.
2.Thedistinctionbetweenunandle+Nisusefulifonewantsto
markanitemofinformationasnewandthenreferbacktoitasgiven.
TABLE2.ModernTimescycle1:Thenominalphrase.
Ø+N beaucoupde+N
Tokens.55 3 2 1
Page188
ItmusthoweverbementionedthattheoverwhelmingnumberofpseudodefiniteNPsinthisandthesubsequentretellingsof'ModernTimes'neednotindicateaspecifictraitofAbdelmalek'sIL:instandardFrenchdiscourseorinspokenFrench,definitearticle+NisprobablythemostfrequentformofNP(Deulofeu,personalcommunication).Ineffect,itwouldseemthatthegreatnumberofle/li/la+NinthedataobtainedfromAbdelmalekcouldbeaccountedforbyoneorseveralofthesefactors:
(a)amarkednessfactor,le+Nbeinglessmarkedthanun+Norce+N;
(b)ataskdependentfactor,thatis,innarrativesmostentitiesareusuallyreferredtobyle+Nsegments,atleastinspokenFrench(Deulofeu,personalcommunication);
(c)asyntacticfactor,un+Nismuchlessfrequentinthepreverbalslotthanle+N;ineffectallcasesofun+Narepostverbal(Deulofeu,personalcommunication);
(d)alexicalfactor,objectsthatpertaintothepersonalsphereorrefertosuchpropertiesasprofessionandsoforth,tendtobeassociatedinFrenchwithle+N(Deulofeu,Houdaïfa,personalcommunication).
OnelastwordaboutreferentialNPsinretellingcycle1:therelianceonsemanticequivalenceasdefinedbythelinguisticcontext.Thus,inonecasepatronisusedinsteadofboulangerandinanothercase,aspecifictermrestaurantisusedinsteadofthecovertermpain.
UseofPronouns:The'allpurpose'cliticil/liisusedtosupplementtermswhichcanbeinsertedinthesubject/topicslot.Thusthegendermarkingisneutralisedandoccasionallythenumbermarking,too.However,ashasbeenmentionedbefore,themaincharactersarereferredtobymeansoflexicalitemsorzeroanaphoraafterfirstmention.Hereissuchanexample:
il[eveni]lapoliceØ[letrape]lafemme
(itcamethepoliceØittookholdofthewoman)
Forreferencetopersonsorobjectsthatcouldoccupyobjectposition,Abdelmalekusesapostposedpronounwhoseformisdifferentfromil/li,forexample,[itrape]le(itseizedit).
TworemarkablefeaturesinAbdelmalek'suseofpronounsforreferenceare(althoughtheirfunctionalstatusdiffers):
(a)Topicswitchwithoutanycorollarypronominalswitch.Thesameli/ilusedfortheyoungwomanisappliedtotheelderoneinthe
Page189
followingutterancewithoutanyparticularindicationthattherehasbeenaswitchofreference;
(b)recoursetoadiscursivedevicebasedontheuseoffullpronounsandofidentificationalse.
Suchtopicswitchwithoutacorollarychangeinpronounsleadstoopacityasinthefollowingpassage:
[ilaparti]laboulanger[ilavole]unrestaurant
[ilavole]commelefemme[salegardeilavole]
il[madi]lepatronlafemme[ilavole]lerestaurant
(hewenttothebakerhestolealoafofbreadhestoleasthewomanthats/hewaslookinghestoles/hetoldmethebossthewomans/hehasstolentheloafofbread)
Thecontrastingdevicethroughwhichapositivevalueisattributedtothetopicisrepresentedbyafullpronounandanegativevalue:[se]+negativemodality.Thisisanefficientprocedure,usedinthethreeretellingswehaveanalysed.Hereisoneinstanceofthisdevice:
[se]paslefemmeil[madi]moi[levole]lerestaurant
(itisnotthewomanhetoldmeIhestoletherestaurant)
TheSignallingofSubevents.
Thenarrativeprogressesveryclearlythroughtheuseofaprès(afterwards)whichmarksboththematicandtemporalsuccessivity.[Se](itis)and[jãna](thereis)areusedforcommentsandbackgroundinformation.SuchadiscourseorganisationhasalsobeendescribedforthefirstnarrativecollectedfromAbdelmalek,somethreemonthsbeforethefirst'ModernTimes'experiment(Giacomi,1986).Withintherealmofbackgroundinformation,[se]and[jãna]playdifferentroles(seeTrévise,1986).[Se]isusedforidentificationanddirect
deicticfunctions(thisiswhyitisusedinthecontrastiverhetoricaldevicedescribedabove),whereas[jãna]markstheexistenceofthesubsequentterm,statesthat
Table3.ModernTimescycle1:Discoursemarkers.
après [jana] [se] voilà bon alorsTokens: 13 4 6 Ø Ø 1
Page190
thespeaker'possesses'agivenobject,whichistotherightof[jãna],andframestemporalinformation.Itshouldbenotedthat[se]freelycombineswiththenegation(outofsixtokensfivearecombinedwithpas);thisislessfrequentwith[jãna](onecaseofcombinationwiththatmarkeroutoffivetokens).
Deulofeu(1986)hasobservedveryconvincinglythatinthisretellingandthesubsequentoneofcycle2aprèsactsasanepisodemarkerwhichconstrainsthemarkingofthetheme:wheneverinthenewepisodemarkedbyaprèsanewthemeisintroduceditmustbeexplicitlyindicatedbytheuseofalexicalitem.Otherwise,itisimpliedthatthemaincharacteroftheplotCharlieisreferredto.Inthiscasepronominalreferencethroughilorzeroanaphorasuffice.ItisalsoattheseboundariesthatbreachesinthecanonicalVXwordorderforverbsofemergencecanbeobserved.
Itshouldbenotedthatwheneverinteractionissupposedtotakeplacebetweentwocharacters,reportedspeechisintroducedbythemarker[madi];[ilmadi]and[madi/lafemme]arethetwomainsequencesthatservetointroducethewordsassignedtothecharactersofthissilentmovie.
VerbsandWordOrder
Inversion2oftheretelling,thereare74utterancescomprisingV.
6Only13instancesofVXorderhavebeencounted.Theverbsinvolvedare[trape],[ ],[mõte],[tõbe],[parti],[veni],and[madi].Theyaremainlyverbsofmovementandaverbofsaying.Thecaseof[veni]isquitestriking;outofeighttokenssixfollowtheVXpattern.ManyfactorsexplainthisparticularVXorderwhilethegeneraltrendistousecanonicalXVwordorder.Forexample,inthesourcelanguagethedominantpatternisVX.Fortypologicalanddiachronicreasons(seeGivón,1984).itseemsthatverbsofappearance,of
emergenceandofgraspingtendtofollowaVXpattern.ThistrendisalsoillustratedintheTL.AtleastthosetwofactorsseemtoaccountforthewordorderVX.
'ModernTimes'Cycle2
Thissecondretellingis640wordslong.ThistimeAbdelmaleknarratesthewholefilmshowntohim.
CharactersandStateofAffairs(FirstandSubsequentMention)UseofNPs:
Page191
TABLE4.ModernTimescycle2:Thenominalphrase.
Ø+N beaucoupde+N [de]+N numeral+N
74 9 9 4 6 1
Asintheretellingoftheprecedingcycle,mostNPsareprecededbyle/la/li.Thisconfirmsatrendsignalledinapreviousstudy(Véronique,1985a)andalreadyobservedinthe'ModernTimes'datafromthefirstcycle.However,manymorelexicalitemsoccurwithcontrastingdeterminersthanintheprevioustask.Besidesunbateau~lebateau,wefindsuchothercontrastingpairsasledrap~desdraps,tintableauØ[piti]tableaubeaucoupdestableaux.Itisobviousthatinthesecases,atleast,thedistinctionbetweenthesequencesofdeterminers+Nounsisfunctionallymotivated.Thelexemejardin,however,stillassociatesonlywithun.Thus,Abdelmalek'sILinthedomainoftheuseofNPsillustratestwodivergingtendencies:
(a)generalisationoftheplurifunctionalmarkerle/la/liinthisparticularlinguistictask.Otherdataconfirmthistendency(Karmiloff-Smith,1979);
(b)expressionofreferentialvaluesthroughthechoiceoftherelevantdeterminersinsteadofpuredependenceonthecontext.
Despitethisdevelopmentinthelinguisticmeansforexpressingreferentialvalues,therulesgoverningtopiccontinuitystillapplytothedataanalysed.Thus,inthefollowingutterance,oncereferencetoCharlieisestablishedheisnotmentionedforawhile:
CharlieChaplin[eveni]Ø[uvre]laporte
avecuntableau[imõt]Ø[tõbe]aveclatête
voilàil[prepar]les[ ]+aprèsØ[uvr]
laporteet/etØ[ ]avec
(CharlieChaplincameØopensthedoorwithaboardheclimbsØfallswiththeheadO.K.hepreparesthefoodthenØopensthedoorandlandØplungewith)
Oncethereisaswitchofreferenceasinthefollowingexample,thentherelevanttopicismentioned:
Page192
avecleCharlieChapline(Topic1)[ ]seul[ ]aveclarueseul[jãna]descamionseuh[jãna]desdrapeauxpour[li]voiturevoilàØ[letrape]+++[se]pasvraiçacommeledrap(Topic2)[letõbe]leChaplin(Topic1)[iprã]le+[fo]lecamion(Topic3)voilaØ
(withtheCharlieChaplin[Topic1]hewalksbyhimselfhewalkswiththestreetalonetherearelorriesthereareflagsforthecarO.K.Øhetakes+++that'snottrueliketheflag[Topic2]it/hefallstheChaplin[Topic1]hetakesit+mustthelorry[Topic3]O.K.itfalls)
(ReferencethroughvoilàandfullNPsforeachtopicswitch.)
UseofPronouns:Inretellingcycle2,themoststrikingdevelopmentoccursnotinthesphereofpersonalpronouns,althoughheusestu(you)whichremindsoneofli,forexample,voilà[eparti]avecpetitefilledéjàtu[vole](sogonewithsmallgirlalreadyyousteal),meaningshesteals.RealprogressisfoundintherealmofwhatFrenchgrammarsusuallycallindefinitepronouns.[Swila](thisone),adeicticpronounknowntoAbdelmalekquiteearlyduringthefirstcycleofdatacollection(Abdelmalekusedça,a'wouldbe'demonstrativepronouninthefirstencounters),isusedthreetimesincontrasttol'autre(theotherone)(8tokens)andquelqu'un(someone)(2tokens).Thus,besidesthepersonalpronounparadigmcompletedbyafulluseofmoi-jewhichhasbeenacquiredduringthefirstcycleofdatacollection(Véronique,1983),Abdelmalekhenceforthhasrecoursetoadistaldeicticpronounl'autreandaproximalpronoun[swila].
Althoughcasesofzeroanaphoracanstillbeobserved,itmustbenoticedthatmostcasesoftopicmaintenanceortopicswitchareclearlymarkedatleastbyaclitic.
Thecontrastivediscursivedevice[se]pasX;moiX(itisnotX;meX)isagainusedinretellingcycle2.
AvoidanceofReference
Inretellingcycle1,ilmadi/iladi(hetoldme/hetold)wasusedintwoinstancesforintroducingquotedspeech.Thesamecanbeobservedinretellingcycle2.ThroughtheuseofthisformulaicexpressionAbdelmalekisabletoavertreferencetosuchsecondarycharactersastheforemanorthedirectoroftheprisonbyquotingspeechattributedtothemwithoutexplicitlynamingthem.
Page193
TheSignallingofEpisodes
Asinretellingcycle1,episodesseemtobemainlysignalledthroughtheuseofaprès(afterwards).Butthisisalsooneofthefunctionsofthepolyfunctionalvoila(so,thus).Besides,verbsofemergencedohelptoindicatechangeofepisode.Theruleswhichgoverntopicswitchandtopicmaintenanceinthevicinityofaprès(seeDeulofeu,1986)observedinretellingcycle1alsoholdforthisnarrative.
TABLE5.ModernTimescycle2:Discoursemarkers.après [jãna] [se] voilà bon alors15 21 25 44 1 2
DiscourseMarkers
Themajorchangeinnarrativestyleisthemassiveuseofvoilà.Whereasinretellingcycle1,therewasaveryclear-cutdistinctionbetweenforegroundandbackgroundmarkers,voilàisusedonbothdimensions.Intheforeground,itisusedincontrastwithaprès(afterwards)forclose-upsasitwere,forexample,
après[ireste]leprison[parte]il[ ]savec:le/cuisinevoilà[ ]
(thenhestayedinprisonwentheeatswiththekitchenhereheate)
Inthebackground,itismainlyusedinintroducingquotedspeechinconjunctionwith[ilmadi].Besides,voilàhasaphaticenunciativefunctioninreportedspeech.Theepisodemarkingandthephaticfunctionsofvoilàareillustratedinthefollowingexample:
voilà[i/trap]laclé[uvr]laporte++
voilà[vje
*]lapolicevoilatoibiengentil
(sohesnatchesthekeyopensthedoor++herecomesthepolicesoyouareverynice)
VerbsandWordOrder
Outofapproximately132tokensofverbs,121areinanXVframehowever,someverbshavezeroanaphoraand11inaVXframe.Venir(tocome)accountsforsevencases,butnotalltokensofvenirareVX.
Page194
ThereareatleastthreecasesofvenirwhichareclearlyXV.Thischangeinwordorderseemstobelinkedtoepisodeboundary.
'ModernTimes'Cycle3
Thethirdretellingisapproximately780words.Asinretellingcycle2,theinformantchosetorecounttheexcerptshehadwatchedintoto.
FirstandSubsequentMentionofCharacters
UseofNPs:NPstructureismorecomplexinthisretelling;inatleasttwocasesthiscanbetracedbacktoL1influence,forexample,tonpèredeelle(yourfatherofshe,meaningherfather).Le+Nis,however,predominantlyused.Un+Nisalwaysusedtorefertoobjects,nevertorefertopersons.Thisisconstantthroughoutthethreeretellings.Still,theuseofun+Nforunknownitemsandofle+Ntorefertothemoncetheyhavebeenmentionedcontinues.
TABLE6.ModernTimescycle3:Thenominalphrase.
Ø+N beaucoupde+N [de]+N numeral+Nl'autre+N
poss.+N
75 6 3 Ø 6 2 1 1
Onecaseofregressioninthelexiconcanbeobserved.Inthefirstnarrative,thetwofemalecharactersarereferredtoaslefemmeandlefemme+'wh'-phrase.Inretellingcycle2,theyarelexicallycontrastedaslafemmeandladame.Innarrative3,Abdelmalekreferstoleelleasthemainfemalecharacterandl'autreasthesecondone.
Bythesametoken,itshouldbenotedthatCharlieChaplin,themaincharacter'spropername,ismentionedonlyninetimeswhereasintheprecedingretellings,ittotalledtwentytokens.Thisdrasticreductionistiedtogreatersyntactisation.
UseofPronouns:Nocaseofzeroanaphoraisobserved.Thisimplies
thattheinformantmasterstheTL'scliticsystem.IfinthecaseoftopiccontinuitythereisaclitictraceinVP,themorphologyofVproperisdeviant.Inretellingcycle3,practicallyalltokensofVareprecededbyanovergeneralisedelementmwhichprobablycomesfromTLme(me,myself)inreflexiveverbs.
Page195
Inthisretelling,l'autreandquelqu'unareusedasinnarrative2.Hereisonecaseofcontrastmarkedbypronominalswitchquelqu'un~lui:
il.[maparti]laprison++[jãna]quelqu'un
il[mafe]desdroguesparexemple...il[mareste][ ]+luiil[pãs]desel...
(hegoesmyselftheprison++thereissomeonehehastakenmyselfdrugsforexample...hestaysmyselfeathimhethinksofsalt)
Itshouldbenotedthateveninthethirdcyclecasesofavoidanceofpronominalreferencethroughtheuseof[se]canbeobserved,forexample:
[ilmadi]voilabon[se]gentil
(hetoldmesowellitisnice)
AvoidanceofReference
Casesofnon-mentionofsecondaryfiguresthroughtheuseofformulaicexpressions[ilmadi]canbeobservedasinthepreviousnarrative.
DiscourseMarkers
AstheinformantmastersmoreoftheTL,theorganisationofhisnarrativestendstobecomemoreintricatewiththeuseofplurifunctionalitemssuchasvoilôor,inthisversion,bon.Thisnewessentiallyphaticelementtakesoversomeofthefunctionsofvoilà,thatis,itservestomarkepisodeboundaries,itappearsincollocationwith[madi]andhasaconclusivevalue.However,bonisneverusedtointroduceacharacteraswasthecasewithvoilà.Attimes,bothmarkersco-occur.
TABLE7.ModernTimescycle3:Discoursemarkers.après [jana] [se] voila bon alors
6 4 19 13 28 Ø
VerbsandWordOrder
Asinthetwopreviousretellings,thedominantwordorderisXV.Approximately139tokenshavebeencounted;13tokensofVXprovided
Page196
mainlybyverbsofmotionsuchasvenir(tocome)(fourcasesoutofsix),arriver(toarrive),sortir(todepartetc.)andsoforth,verbsofgraspsuchas[trape](toseize,tograsp)andofsayingsuchas[madi],havebeencounted.
Summary
ThefollowingfeaturesofreferenceandofdiscourseorganisationhaveremainedconstantacrossthethreeretellingsdespitethetimefactorandthestructuralreorganisationofAbdelmalek'sIL:
(a)theoverwhelmingpredominanceofle+Nforreferentiallexicalexpressionswhenreferringtopersons,whetheralreadymentionedornot;
(b)theuseof[se]toidentifycharactersandthe[se]pasmoi...discursivedevice([se]bearingmorefrequentlyanegativemodality);
(c)theuseof[jana]toexpresspossessionandexistence,andtointroducespatialandtemporalreference;
(d)thenon-signallingofgivenepisodesorgivencharactersthroughtheuseofquotedspeechandof[iladi/ilmadi];
(e)theuseofaprèsasepisodeboundarymarker.
Thethreemostremarkablechangesacrossthethreeversionsof'ModernTimes'are:
(a)agradualdisappearanceofzeroanaphoraaspronominalmarkingonVPbecomesmoreconstant;
(b)anextensionofthenon-personalpronominalparadigmwiththeuseofproximal[swila],distall'autre,anddefinitequelqu'un;
(c)achangeintheorganisationofthenarrativefrommonofunctionalmarkerssuchas[jana]andaprèstomoreplurifunctionalitemssuch
asvoilôandbon.
Discussion
Iwouldfinallyliketo
(a)discussthepossibleinfluenceofL1bytakingaquickglanceattheL1'ModernTimes'version;
7
(b)comparethefindingsofthisarticlewithotherfindingsaboutAbdelmalek'sIL;
Page197
(c)commentuponsimilaritieswiththefindingsofKlein&Perdue(1985);
(d)speculateaboutpossibleexplanationsforthemodificationsindiscoursestructurethathavebeenobservedespeciallyvis-à-visreferentialactivity.
L1influence:IfIapplythesamegridofanalysistotheArabicdataobtainedfromAbdelmalek,thefollowingfeaturescanbeobserved:
1.Forthemaincharacters,CharlieChaplinisalwaysreferredtoashe,whereasalexicaloppositionlbent(thegirl)~lamra(thewoman)makesitpossibletodistinguishcharacters.
2.Amongsecondarycharacters,thefatherismentionedthroughlexicalitem,whereasthedirectoroftheprisonisnotandtheforemanisdesignatedbylaxor(theotherone).
3.Obviously,thefullsystemofL1determinersisusedtomarkgivenandnewitems,theuseofdemonstrativearticle+Nmustparticularlybestressed.
4.ObjectsthatarealwaysindefiniteintheILversionaredefiniteintheArabicversionifneedsbe;thisisthecaseoftheborroweditem[ ](thegarden).
5.Avoidanceofnaminginthecaseoftheprisondirectorisespeciallypractisedthroughgalu(hesaid).
6.Themaindiscoursemarkersusedare (and)andmaelli(when).
7.Obviously,alltheverbsoccurringintheArabicversionof'ModernTimes'areVX,exceptfortwounclearcases.
FromthisquickglancethroughtheL1dataitisquiteclear,however,thattheinfluenceofL1intheshapingoftheretellingcannotreallybeevoked.Theonlypossibleinfluencecouldbetheuseofformulaic
[ilmadi]whichplaysthesameroleasgalu.
Abdelmalek'sIL:WhenthefindingsofthisstudyarecomparedtootherstudiesonAbdelmalek'sIL(seeGiacomi,1986;Giacomi&Vion,1986)aremarkablemeasureofconvergencecanbeobserved.Inthefirstretellingof'ModernTimes',Abdelmalekuses[jãna],seandaprèsinexactlythesamewayasintheearlynarrativesofthefirstcycleofdatacollection(forinstancenarrative1.1intheGiacomicorpus).Theoverwhelminguseofvoilainthesecondretellingof'ModernTimes'ispreciselycomparabletowhatGiacomiandVionobserveinnarrative2.1.
ComparisonwithKlein&Perdue(1985):ManyofthefindingsofthatpaperapplytothedatafromAbdelmalek.Thus,therulesfor
Page198
TABLE8.Discoursemarkersinotherlinguistictasks(fromGiacomi&Vion,1986).interview 11 21 17 14linguistictask narrative narrative roleplay conversation'voilà' 0 158 7 2'il[madi]' 0 69 4 14'moije[di]' 0 33 0 1
maintenanceandshiftofreferencedescribedbytheseauthorsareonaparwithwhatwasfoundinAbdelmalek'sretellings.Thedifferenceincopingwiththeagent/topicslotandwiththeobjectslotwasalsoobserved.Theuseof[se]foridentificationalpurposewasalsonotedinAbdelmalek'sdata.
OnemajorpointofdifferenceliesinthesensitivityofepisodeboundariesinAbdelmalek'sdataascomparedtotherulesapplyingtodatafromRamòn.ThemarkingofepisodesbyAbdelmalekresultsfromvariousfactorsincludingtheuseofaprès,bonorvoila,andwordorder.However,nootherconstraintsseemtoapplybesidestherulethatatanepisodeboundarytheunmarkedcaseisreferencetothemaincharacter,Charlie,andthatinothercaseslexicalspecificationisexpected.Subordination,forinstance,doesnotseemtoexertanyparticularinfluenceonmaintenanceorswitchofreference.
Causalfactors:L1influencecannotbyitselfexplainthestructuringofthethreenarrativesanalysed.Stillitcould,however,explaintheextensiveuseof[ilmadi].Besidestaskdependentfactorssuchasacquaintancewiththeinvestigatorandmainlytherequirementsimposedontheinformant'sdiscourse,twootherfactorscanbethoughtof.CertainfeaturesofAbdelmalek'sILcouldbeexplainedbytypologicaltrends.SuchseemstobethecaseoftheVXorderwithelementaryverbs([jana/se]),verbsofmotion,ofemergenceandofgrasp.However,inthisparticularcaseL1verbsofthiscategory
followthesamepattern.
Besidestypology,anothermajorfactoristhedynamicsoflanguageacquisitionitself.Itseemsquiteclearthatafull-fledgedpronominalsystemaffectsreferencemaintenanceandreferenceshiftbypreventingambiguity.Itisalsoclearthattheacquisitionofamarkerthattakesoverpartofthefunctionsfulfilledbyanotherform,affectsthewholefabricofdiscourse.
Page199
Conclusion
Istartedoffwiththeaimoftestinghowfartheacquisitionofreferencetoperson,butalsototimeandspace,wasdiscoursedependent,andconverselyhowfarreferentialactivitiescontributedtotheshapingofdiscourse.Itseemstomethattherelationshipbetweendiscoursestructureandthementionofcharactersandobjectshasbeenestablished.However,ithasalsobeenestablishedthatothermeanssuchastheuseofspecificdiscoursemarkersorofwordordercontributetothemarkingofdiscourse.Onestrikingfeatureonthatcountistheevolutionfromtheuseofrathermonofunctionalmarkerssuchasaprèstomorepolyfunctionalitemssuchasbonandvoilà.ItisasifmasteryofTLmorphologyledtogreaterfreedominthechoiceofwordswhichrelateeventsandactions.
NotestoChapter10
1.IwishtothankAbdelmalekforhiscooperationandDiegoRuizforhishelpatvariousstagesofthisarticle.ThedatahavebeencollectedbyEt-TayebHoudaïfaandDanielVéronique,transcribedbyTayebHoudaïfaandcheckedbyDanielVéronique.IextendmythankstoHoudaïfa.Allerrorsare,ofcourse,ofmyresponsibility.
2.Thecycle1experimenttookplaceon02.04.83,thecycle2experimentwason29.02.84andthelastexperimentwasperformedon20.04.85.
3.IwouldliketothankJoséDeulofeuandTayebHoudaïfaforthestimulatingdiscussionoftheretellingsofAbdelmalek.Someoftheirideasarerepresentedinthissection.
4.Fortechnicalreasons,theinformanthadtobeinterruptedinhisretelling(version1).Whentheinterviewresumed,theinformantspontaneouslystartedanewfromthebeginningofhisretelling
(version2).Countshavebeenmadeonlyonversion2butdatafrombothtextsareusedforlinguisticanalysis.
5.Forthesakeofsimplicity,thedatahasbeentranscribedwithminimalphoneticsophistication.
6.Awordofcautionisinorderhere.Obviously,itisnotclearinAbdelmalek'sILwhetherallpredicatesareverbs,whetherheusesarealpronominalsystem,andwhethertheNPsheuseshavethesameformasthosefoundinTL(letalonethesamerangeofreferentialvalues).Allthoselabelsareusedhereforthesakeofconvenience.
7.TranscribedandglossedbyEt-TayebHoudaïfa.
References
BICKERTON,D.,1981,RootsofLanguage.AnnArbor,MI:KaromaPress.
COUPLER,C.,1983,AcquisitiondelaRéférencePersonnelleenFrançaisparune
Page200
JeuneFemmeMarocaine.DEAthesis,Aix-en-Provence:UniversitédeProvence.
DEULOFEU,J.,1980,Organisationdiscursiveetconstructionsgrammaticalesdanslesénoncésdefrançaisparléenrelationavecleproblèmedelavariationensyntaxe.Communicationau15èmeCongrèsInternationaldePhilologieetdeLinguistiqueRomanes,PalmadeMajorque.
1983,Premieresremarquessurlaconstitutiondelagrammairedansl'interlangued'uninformateur.AcquisitionduFrançaispardesTravailleursMarocains.PapiersdeTravail1,64-79.
1986,Surquelquesprocédésdehierarchisationdel'informationdanslesrécitsd'apprenantsmarocainsenmilieunaturel:Pouruneconceptionsoupledesrapportsentrephénomènesdemicro-etdemacro-thématisation.InA.Giacomi,&D.Véronique(eds),Acquisitiond'uneLangueÉtrangère:PerspectivesetRecherches.Aix-en-Provence:PublicationsUniversitédeProvence,263-284.
DITTMAR,N.,1984,SemanticfeaturesofpidginizedlearnervarietiesofGerman.InR.W.ANDERSEN(ed.),SecondLanguages:ACross-linguisticPerspective.Rowley,MA:NewburyHouse,243-270.
GIACOMI,A.,1986,Processusdestructurationdel'énoncéenacquisitionetinteractions.InA.GIACOMI&D.VÉRONIQUE(eds),Acquisitiond'uneLangueÉtrangère:PerspectivesetRecherches.Aix-en-Provence:Publicationsdel'UniversitédeProvence,287-303.
GIACOMI,A.&VION,R.,1986,Metadiscursiveprocessesintheacquisitionofasecondlanguage.StudiesinSecondLanguageAcquisition8,355-368.
GIVÒN,T.,1979,OnUnderstandingGrammar.NewYork,NY:AcademicPress.
1983,Topiccontinuityindiscourse:Thefunctionaldomainofswitchreference.InJ.HAIMAN&P.MUNRO(eds),SwitchReference:TypologicalStudiesinLanguage.Amsterdam:JohnBenjamins.
1984,Syntax:AFunctional-typologicalIntroduction.Amsterdam:JohnBenjamins.
HALLIDAY,M.A.K.&HASAN,R.,1976,CohesioninEnglish.London:Longman.
HOUDAÏFA,T.,1983a,L'organisationdelaréférencetemporelledansuneinterlangue.AcquisitionduFrançaispardesTravailleursMarocains.PapiersdeTravail1,95-114.
1983b,Laréférencetemporelleetpersonnelledanslerécitd'unapprenantenmilieunaturel.AcquisitionduFrançaispardesTravailleursMarocains.PapiersdeTravail1,141-154.
1986,Quelquesaspectsdelagrammairedesverbeset,enparticulier,desverbesdemouvementdansl'interlangued'unmigrant.InA.GIACOMI&D.VÉRONIQUE(eds),Acquisitiond'uneLangueEtrangère:PerspectivesetRecherches.Aix-en-Provence:Publicationsdel'UniversitédeProvence,447-473.
HOUDAÏFA,T.&VÉRONIQUE,D.,1984,LaréférencespatialedanslefrançaisparlépardesmarocainsàMarseille.InG.EXTRA&M.MITTNER
(eds),StudiesinSecondLanguageAcquisitionbyAdultImmigrants.Tilburg:TilburgUniversity,211-261.
KARMILOFF-SMITH,A.,1979,AFunctionalApproachtoChildLanguage.AStudyofDeterminersandReference.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.
KLEIN,W.&PERDUE,C.,1985,Thelearner'sproblemofarrangingwords.Nijmegen:ESFWorkingPaper.
Page201
1986,Commentrésoudreunetâcheverbalecomplexeavecpeudemoyenslinguistiques?InA.GIACOMI&D.VÉRONIQUE(eds),Acquisitionsd'uneLangueÉtrangère:PerspectivesetRecherches.Aix-en-Provence:Publicationsdel'UniversitédeProvence,305-330.
LABOV,W.,1972,LanguageintheInnerCity:StudyinBlackEnglishVernacular.Philadelphia:UniversityofPennsylvaniaPress.
LYONS,J.,1977,Semantics(Vols.1-2).Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.
PERDUE,C.(ed.),1982,SecondLanguageAcquisitionbyAdultImmigrants:AFieldManual.Strasbourg:EuropeanScienceFoundation.
SCHUMANN,J.H.,1983,UtterancestructureinBasilangspeech.InG.G.GILBERT(ed.),PidginandCreolelanguages:EssaysinMemoryofJohnE.Reinecke.AnnArbor,MI:Karoma.
TALMY,L.,1983,Howlanguagestructuresspace.InH.PICK&L.ACREDOLO(eds),SpatialOrientation:Theory,ResearchandApplication.NewYork:PlenumPress,225-282.
TRÉVISE,A.,1986,Topicalisation,isittransferable?InE.KELLERMAN&M.SHARWOODSMITH(eds),CrosslinguisticInfluenceinSecondLanguageAcquisition.London:PergamonPress,186-206.
VÉRONIQUE,D.,1983,Observationspréliminairessurlidansl'interlangued'Abdelmalek.AcquisitionduFrançaispardesTravailleursMarocains.PapiersdeTravail1,155-180.
1984,Apprentissagenatureletapprentissageguidé.LeFrançaisdansleMonde185,45-52.
1985a,Dequelquesaspectsdel'apprentissagedelaréférencenominaleenfrançais.AcquisitionduFrançaispardesTravailleurs
Marocains.PapiersdeTravail2,97-133.
1985b,Acquisitiondelaréférencespatialeenfrançaispardesadultesmarocains:observationsàpartird'uneenquêtelongitudinale.AcquisitionduFrançaispardesTravailleursMarocains.PapiersdeTravail,2,135-167.
Page203
PART4CROSS-LINGUISTICINTERACTIONINSECONDLANGUAGEACQUISITION
Page205
11EffectsofTransferinForeignLanguageLearningHakanRingbom
TodayitisgenerallyacknowledgedthatlanguagetransferisanimportantsubjectofstudywhichplaysasubtleandpervasivepartinL2-learning.Transfercan,rathergenerally,bedescribedasthewaysinwhichknowledgeofthemothertongue(andotherlanguages)influencesthelearningofanotherlanguage.Itpresupposessomecross-linguisticsimilaritythattheL2-learnerhasperceived.WhentheL2-learnertriestofacilitatehislearningtaskbymakinguseofwhateverpriorknowledgeheorshehas,heorshewillalsorelyontheknowledgethatoriginatesinhisorherL1,providedthatheorshecanperceivethisL1-knowledgeofsomeotherlanguageasaworkablereferenceframe.
Ifwe,then,acceptthattransferexists,wehavetoinvestigatehowandwhenandwhylearnerstransferwhat,andhowmuch.WeshouldalsorememberthathypothesesabouttheL2canbeformednotonlyonthebasisofL1-knowledgeorL2-knowledgeseparately,butalsoasaresultofinteractionbetweenL1-andL2-knowledge.
Adistinctionoftenmade,particularlyintransferstudiessome10to15yearsago,wasthatbetweenpositiveandnegativetransfer.PositivetransfermeansthattheL1hasafacilitatingeffectonlanguagelearningwhereasnegativetransfer,orinterference,causesthelearnertomakeerrors.Inrecentyears,however,manyscholars(e.g.Gass&Selinker,1983;Faerch&Kasper,inpress;Sajavaara&Lehtonen,1988)havedisapprovedofthisdistinction.Theydosoprimarilybecausethetwodistincttypesoftransferapplyonlyattheproductlevel,whereasthedistinctionisnotseenasrelevanttowhatthese
scholarsareprimarilyconcernedwithintheirresearch,thatis,theunderlyingprocessesinthelearner.
Page206
However,itdoesnotseemtobenecessarytodoawaywiththedistinctionaltogether,aslongaswecanmakeitquiteclearthatwearehereindeeddiscussingonanotherplane,theproductlevel,nottheprocesslevel.Forpracticalandtheoreticalpurposes,thequestionwhetherandtowhatextentthemothertonguehasafacilitatingoraninhibitingeffectonL2-learningisbynomeansatrivialone.Sofar,thediscussionoftransferhasbeenmuchcolouredbythefactthatithasalmostwithoutexceptionoccurredinthecontextoferroranalysisandwhatcanbeseenastangibleevidenceoftransferhasalmostinvariablybeennegativetransfer.Itisarelativelystraightforwardtasktocomparedifferencesofthelearner'sendproduct,hisinterlanguage,withtheL2-normandonthebasisofthesedifferencesconcludethattransferisverynearlysynonymouswithnegativetransfer.Itismuchmorecomplicatedtospecifywhereorhowthelearner'sL1hasfacilitatedhisL2-comprehensionor-production.ThereareveryfewinvestigationsanalysinghowthelearnercanprofitablymakeuseofhisautomatisedL1-knowledgebyextendingit,andperhapsmodifyingitintheprocess,toL2-learning(see,however,Faerch,Haastrup,&Phillipson,1984).
Onlyinvocabularylearninghasthefacilitatingeffectofcognatesbeenstudiedinanydetail(cf.e.g.Hammer,1978),butwestilllackcomparativestudieswhichwouldalsoconsiderotherlinguisticareasthanlexis,withtheaimofplacingcognatesinamoregeneralperspectiveoflanguagetransfer.Tostudytransferweshould,withArdandHomburgintherecentcomprehensiveanthologybyGassandSelinkeronLanguageTransfer(1983),emphasisetheimportanceofcomparingdatafromspeakersofdifferentlanguagegroups.ArdandHomburgcompareSpanish-speakingandArabic-speakingsubjectswhotooktheMichiganTestofEnglishLanguageProficiency.Theproblemwithstudyingsuchdifferentimmigrantgroupsinordertolearnsomethingabouttransferis,however,thatitisimpossibletosay
towhatextentthedifferencesbetweentheSpanishandtheArabicspeakersmightbeduetoinevitableculturalandeducationaldifferencesofageneralnatureratherthantothelinguisticdifferencesbetweenthegroups.
OnecountrywherethesituationisuniquelyfavourableforinvestigationoftransferisFinland.Finlandisabilingualcountrywithtwoofficiallanguages,FinnishandSwedish.Finnishisspokenby93%ofthepopulation,whereasSwedishisspokenbyalittleover6%.TheSwedish-speakingpopulationisconcentratedtothecoastalareasinthesouthandwestofthecountry.ThegreatmajorityoftheSwedish-speakingFinnsregardthemselvesnotasSwedeslivinginFinland,butprimarilyasFinns,merelywithamothertonguedifferentfromthatofthemajorityofthepopulation.Formorethan
Page207
40yearstherehasbeennolanguageconflictbetweenthesegroups,whichdonotdiffermuchfromeachotherasfarascultureandeducationareconcerned.Thus,althoughtherearegreatdifferencesbetweentheFinnishandtheSwedishlanguages,itispossibletoregardFinlandasabilingual,butalmostuniculturalcountry,oratleastasuniculturalasitispossibletofindanywhereinthebilingualcountriesintheworld.
Ifwestarttostudyhowthesetwolanguagegroupslearnathirdlanguage,English,wecanexpecttofindsomeinterestingdifferenceswhichcanbereferredbacktothetotallydifferentmothertonguesofthetwogroups,whereastheculturalandeducationaldifferencesarenegligible.SinceSwedishiscloselyrelatedtoEnglish,butFinnishistotallyunrelatedtotheGermaniclanguages,thesedifferencescanbeseenastypifyingthedifferencesbetweenlearninganL2relatedtoL1andanL2unrelatedtothemothertongue.
Toanon-Scandinavianaudience,however,itneedstobeespeciallyemphasisedthatthecontextoflearningEnglishinFinlandisverymuchthatofaforeignlanguagelearningsituation,wheretheteacherandtheclassroomareveryimportant,whereasthereislittlechanceforthestudentstopractisetheirEnglishbytalkingtonativeEnglishspeakers.MostAmericanstudies,ontheotherhand,dealwithimmigrantsorstudentslearningEnglishinanaturalsettingwheretheyaresurroundedbythetargetlanguage.Theroleoftransferishardlythesameinthesetwolearningsituations.ThoughnotmuchisknownwithcertaintyaboutthedifferentextentofL1-influenceonthesetwodifferentsituations,itisneverthelessmostplausiblethatthereismoretransferinclassroomlearningsituationsthaninthesituationsofunguidedsecondlanguageacquisition(cf.Meisel,1983;Tarone,1979).
SinceSwedishandEnglisharecloselyrelated,alargenumberof
Swedishwordsaresimilar,near-identicalorevenidenticaltoEnglishwordsinform,andwithmeaningsthatareoftenclosetoEnglishwords,thoughbynomeansalwaysidentical.Finnish,ontheotherhand,belongsnottotheIndo-EuropeanbuttotheFinno-Ugrianfamilyoflanguages.Itisanagglutinativelanguage,whichmakesespeciallygreatuseofendingstoindicatelinguisticfunctions.SomelinguisticcategorieswhicharcbasictotheGermaniclanguages,aboveallarticlesandprepositions,arenotfoundinFinnish.
ThewordstressinFinnishisalwaysonthefirstsyllable,withoutexception.Inlexis,too,resemblancestotheGermaniclanguagesareextremelyfewandinsignificant,sinceFinnishhastraditionallytakenaveryrestrictiveattitudetoloanwords.
Page208
AresearchprojecthasbeengoingonforsomeyearsattheDepartmentofEnglishattheSwedishuniversityofÅboAkademiinFinland.Ingeneralterms,itsstartinghypothesisisthatSwedish-speakingFinns,orSwedes,asIshallcalltheminthefollowing,woulddobetterinanytestofEnglishthananequivalentgroupofFinns.ItcanbeexpectedthattheadvantageoftheSwedeswholearnarelatedlanguage,comparedwiththeFinnswholearnanunrelatedlanguage,willappearatalllevelsandstagesoflearning.Withoneminorexception,thatofEnglishspelling,thishypothesishasalsobeenborneoutinallexperiments.
Analysisoftheresults,however,showsthatthedifferencesbetweenFinnsandSwedesmakethemselvesfeltdifferentlyindifferenttypesoftests.InthisarticleIcandealwithonlysomeoftheseanalyses,andformoredetailedstudiesIrefertothepapersontheprojectlistedinaseparatebibliography(cf.pp.218),and,especially,tomybookontheroleoftheL1inforeignlanguagelearning(Ringbom,1987).
Table1showsthemeanfiguresforthelisteningandreadingcomprehensiontestsofamultiplechoicetypeintheNationalMatriculationExamination,whereEnglishisacompulsorysubject.
Table1revealsthatthecandidatesfromtheSwedishschoolsinFinlandattainconsistentlyhighermarksthanthecandidatesfromtheFinnishschools,
TABLE1.ResultsintheNationalMatriculationExaminationinEnglishinFinland(meanscoresofcandidates)
ListeningComprehension(max.30p.)
ReadingComprehension(max.30p.)
Year Finnishschool
Swedishschool
Finnishschool
Swedishschool
1974 19.7 22.4 24.1 25.71975 21.6 24.8 22.8 24.71976 18.5 22.4 18.6 22.0
1977 18.5 23.2 23.4 25.31978 22.1 25.2 22.9 25.21979 23.3 26.4 19.4 21.61980 20.9 25.0 18.4 19.91981 22.5 25.4 22.1 25.01982 21.2 24.6 23.6 26.41983 22.8 26.1 23.3 25.41984 25.6 28.3 22.3 24.41985 19.6 23.0 20.5 23.4Numberofcandidates:Approximately12×25,000Fi.=300,000
12×1,500Sw.=18,000
Page209
andfurthershowsthateachyearthedifferenceisgreaterforthelisteningcomprehensionexam(exceptfor1981,whenthedifferenceisthesameforbothlisteningcomprehensionandreadingcomprehension).
TestsofpartialdictationgiventoFinnishandSwedishgroupsoflearnersshowthesametrend.ListeningcomprehensionappearstobeaskillwhereFinns,comparedwithSwedes,haveespeciallygreatproblems,eventhoughsometestsofvocabularyknowledge,grammarortranslationgiventothesamepopulationshaverevealedrelativelyinsignificantdifferences.
AtestgiventotheapplicantsforuniversityentranceshowedthattherewaspracticallynodifferencebetweentheFinnsandtheSwedesinanEnglishsoundrecognitiontest,whereasapartialdictationtest,wherethecandidateshadtoprovideacoherentversionofatext,gavesignificantlybetterresultsfortheSwedes.Thetimepressurepresentinanysituationinvolvingcomprehensionofacoherenttextwasobviouslyrelevant,andadetailedanalysisoftheindividualwordsinthedictationshowedthatthegreatestdifferencesbetweentheFinnsandtheSwedesinerrorfrequencyoccurrednotinlow-frequencywords,butinwordsliketo,in,had,of,the,andhimoccurringincontextsnextto'difficult'wordsorphrasesthatposedproblemstobothgroups.Togiveanexample,inthegivencontext'itwouldbemadeuptohiminotherways'88.5%oftheSwedesbutonly35%oftheFinnsincludedtheprepositiontointheirrenderings.
TheonlyaspectoftheEnglishlanguagewhereFinnsregularlydoatleastaswellas,andusuallybetterthanSwedes,isspelling.FinnishlearnersofEnglishmakerelativelyfewspellingerrors,ifwehereexcludetheirmarkedproblemsofdistinguishingbetweenvoicedandunvoicedstopswhich,infact,isanindicationofperceptiondifficulties,notofspellingdifficulties.TheFinns'goodspelling
abilitymayalsobethoughttoindicatetheothersideofthecoin,asitwere,oftheirproblemsincopingwiththetimepressureofalisteningsituation.AsforeignlanguagelearnersinaFinnishcontexttheynormallymeetwithwrittenformsofEnglishwordsmoreoftenthanthespokenforms,andevenatafairlyadvancedstageoflearning,somelearnersmayhavestoredthewordsintheirgraphemic,notphonologicalform.ThussomeFinnishlearnersmaystoretheword/p:s/intheform/p rse/,sincethatishowanequivalentFinnishwordwouldhavebeenstoredifitexisted.Attheearlieststagesofaforeignlanguagelearningsituationthisisnotanunnaturalthingtodo,butFinnsmaywellgoonwiththiswayofstoringwordslongerthantheSwedesdo,partlybecauseofthecloserelationbetweenspellingandpronunciationthatexistsintheFinnishlanguage.
Page210
IfsuchamethodofstoringgivesFinnishlearnersagoodabilitytospellwords,itisahighlyuneconomicalprocessinalisteningsituation.TheFinnishlearneristhenlandedwiththeextrataskofdrawinganequivalencebetweentheactualheardformandthewrittenformstoredinthemind.Underthetimepressureofalisteningsituationitwilloftentaketoolongtoactivatetheword,andthisfrequentlyresultsinfaultycomprehensionorstaccatospeechwithawkwardpauses.
Asfarasproductionoflexicaltermsisconcerned,cross-linguisticsimilaritywithoutidentitymay,ofcourse,oftenleadtoerrors,butasfarascomprehensionisconcerned,itdoesnotnormallytakeverylongtoacquireavagueorpartialunderstandingofsimpletextswritteninalanguagecloselyrelatedtoone'sL1.Animportantcharacteristicofreceptiveskillsis,infact,thatthecommunicationaspectsareinfocus:thelistener/readernormallyconcentratesonunderstandingthemessagewithoutpayingmuchattentiontoitsstructuraldetails.Syntaxislessimportantforcomprehensionthanproduction(cf.Ulijn&Kempen,1976:495)andacceptabilityandgrammaticalityareconceptsofmuchlessimportancetothelistening/readingprocessthantospeakingorwriting.Thus,avagueknowledgeofL2-lexis,whichisprimarilytheresultofinferencingonthebasisofarelatedL1(cf.Haastrup,1984),maytaketheSwedishlearnerofEnglishquitefar.AfterhavingmasteredarudimentaryknowledgeofEnglishgrammar,hecancombinethisknowledgewithrelevantL1-knowledgetogetaworkablebasisforfiguringouttheapproximategeneralmeaningofanEnglishtext.Forproduction,thisworkstoamuchmorelimitedextent:thelearnerwillhereneedamuchmoreextensiveandamuchmoreaccurateskillinordertoproducealanguagecreatively.Butevenforproductiveskills,thefactthatthelearnerofarelatedL2hasbeenabletoattainareceptiveknowledgeinquiteashorttimeputshiminanadvantageousposition,
comparedwiththelearnerofanunrelatedlanguage.Thisisbecausewecanassumethatthereisconsiderableinteractionbetweenreceptiveandproductiveskillsinthelearningprocess,andifthelearnercananchorhislearninginsomekindofpreviousL2-knowledge,ratherthanhavingtostartfromscratch,hislearning,especiallyoflexis,willbemuchfacilitated.
However,eventoattainanelementaryreceptiveskill,thelearnermusthaveanideaofhowthebasiclinguisticcategoriesinthetargetlanguagefunction.ThisisnotnecessarilytheresultofL2-teaching,orevenofconsciousL2-learning;inthelearningofacloselyrelatedL2,thelearner'sL1hasalreadyprovidedhimwithaconsiderablepartofthisessentialknowledgeautomatisedinhismind.IfwecompareFinnishlearnersofEnglishwithSwedishlearners,thecategoriesofarticlesandprepositionsareofspecialinterest,sinceSwedishbasicallyusesthesamesystemwith
Page211
thesewordclassesasEnglish,whereasthesegrammaticalcategoriesdonotexistinFinnish.InFinnish,case-endingsand,forarticles,wordordermayexpressthefunctionsexpressedbyarticlesandprepositionsinGermaniclanguages,butsimpleone-to-oneequivalencesareheremuchhardertoestablishbetweenFinnishandEnglishthanbetweenSwedishandEnglish.
AlthoughtheEnglisharticlesandprepositionscausedifficultiestoalllearnersofEnglish,asfarastheproductiveskillsgo,theFinnishbeginninglearnerfacesespeciallygreatproblemsevenforcomprehension,sincehecannotdirectlyrelateprepositionsandarticlestothelinguisticrealityheisfamiliarwith.Hehastolearntheveryprinciplesofhowthesecategoriesfunction,somethingtheSwedishlearnerhadautomatisedbeforeheevenstartedtolearnEnglish.
Earlierworkonerroranalysishas,asexpected,revealedthattheuseofarticlesisanespeciallyproblematicareaforbothFinnsandothergroupsoflearnerswhoseL1doesnothavethearticlesystem(Duskova
*,1969,forCzechlearners;Oller&Redding,1971;andforFinnishlearners,Herranen,1978;Sajavaara,1981,1983;Granfors&Palmberg,1976;Ringbom,1978a;cf.alsoKellerman,1984).TheresearchonFinnishlearnersshowsthatmostoftheirerrors,especiallyatearlyandintermediatestagesoflearning,consistofomittingthearticles,aboveallthedefinitearticle,wheretheyshouldhavebeenincluded.Atearlystagesoflearning,andevenafterthat,aFinnishlearnermayunconsciouslyperceivearticlesandprepositionsasredundant(cf.George,1972),inthesamewayasanativeAmericanorSwedestartingtolearnFinnishoftenperceivesmostofthefifteenFinnishcaseendingsofthenounasredundantandfrequentlyomitsthem.
Ifomissionofthesecategoriesofhigh-frequencywordsareespeciallycharacteristicofFinnishlearnersofEnglish,afrequencycountmayalsobeexpectedtorevealthis.WecanalsoexpectcleardifferencesbetweenadvancedandlessadvancedFinnishlearnersandbetweennativeandnon-nativespeakers.Theresultsofsuchacountofhigh-frequencywordsinlearnerlanguageisreportedinRingbom(1985c).Thecorpusanalysedconsistedof300EnglishessayswrittenintheNationalMatriculationExamination.OnehundredandfiftyofthesewerefromFinnish-languageschoolsand150fromSwedish-languageschools.Onthebasisoftheirmarksawardedbytheexaminers,theseessaysweredividedintothreecategories:good,intermediate,andpoor.Thefrequenciesofthesesixgroupsofnon-nativeessayswerecomparedwiththreegroupsofnativespeakers.ThefirstwastheBrownCorpus,SectionA,PressReportage,asreportedinZettersten'sword-frequencylist(1978).ThesecondgroupwhichfromamaturationalpointofviewismostcomparabletothelearnersinFinland
Page212
consistedof50Americanfirst-yearundergraduatesatPurdueUniversity,Indiana,andthethirdof50essayswrittenby15-year-oldpupilsatHookergateComprehensiveSchoolinRowlandsGill,NorthernEngland.
ThemainhypothesistobetestedwasthatcomparedwiththeothergroupsthepoorFinnishessaysandtosomeextentalsotheintermediateFinnishessayswouldshowlowerfrequenciesofEnglisharticlesandofthoseprepositionsforwhichsimpleone-to-onecorrespondencestoFinnishareparticularlydifficulttoestablish,especiallyof,on,andby.ThefrequenciesofsuchcommonEnglishprepositionswhereone-to-onecorrespondencescanbefoundtoworkinthegreatmajorityofcases,thatisinandwith,wereexpectedtoshowverylittlevariationinallninegroups.ThegoodSwedishessayswere,ontheotherhand,expectedtoshowall-roundfrequenciesverysimilartothoseoftheAmericanstudents.
Itwillnotbepossibleformetocommentonthedetailsofthisfrequencycount,butitsmainpointshavebeenbroughtintothestaplediagram(Figure1).Thisstaplediagramshowsthatthehypotheseshavebeenverified.ThefigureshowingthefrequenciesofthepoorFinnsisconsiderablydifferentfromtheotherfigures,whereasthefigureforthegoodFinnsresemblesthatofboththegoodSwedesandtheAmericanstudentsquiteclosely.Thediagramalsorevealssomeotherinterestingpoints.Thus,forinstance,thelowfrequenciesofofandbyinthepoorFinns,thepoorSwedesandtheEnglishschool-childrennodoubtindicateaveryinfrequentuseofpassivesandtheof-genitive.ButthemainresultofthiswordfrequencystudysupplementsearliererroranalysesinthatitshowsthatlessadvancedlearnerstendtoavoidusingsuchlinguisticfeaturesasareabsentintheL1,andthereforeeasilyperceivedasredundantorperhapsmerely'difficult'.
ItisobviousthattheL1ofthelearnersisamostimportantvariableaccountingforthedifferencebetweenhigh-frequencywordsinthelessadvancedlearners.Itisalsoobviousthatthisvariableinteractswithothervariables,forinstancewithwhatmightbecalledlinguisticsophistication,sincetherearealsoconsiderablefrequencyvariationsbetweenthethreenative-speakergroups.
CanthelowfrequencyofarticlesandprepositionsinthelessadvancedFinnishlearnersthenbetakenasanexampleoftransfer?AsIseeit,theanswermustbenohere,sincenothinghasbeendirectlytransferredfromtheL1andaccordingtomydefinitiontransferisbasedonperceivedsimilarity.Itisrathertheresultoflackoftransfer,orperhapspreferablycovertcross-linguisticinfluence,becausewhatliesbehindtheFinnishavoidanceofarticlesandprepositionsis,infact,theabsenceofareferenceframeintheL1.Atearlystagesoflearning,inparticular.transferoccurs
Page213
Figure1Wordfrequencystudy
Page214
Page215
Page216
intheSwedishlearnerratherthantheFinnishlearner,sincetransfercannottakeplacewithoutthelearnerassumingsomebasiccross-linguisticsimilarity.Wedonotestablishnegativerelationsuntilwearesurethatapositiverelationdoesnotexist(cf.Noordman-Vonk,1979).Psychologically,similaritiesareperceivedbeforedifferences,andinthewordsofCarlJames(1980:169),'itisonlyagainstabackgroundofsamenessthatdifferencesaresignificant'.
Whenonelearnsarelatedlanguage,itiseasytoperceiveanumberofcross-linguisticsimilarities,particularlyindevelopingone'sreceptiveknowledge.Inalllearning,thelearnertriestosimplifyhistaskbymakingasmuchuseofpreviousknowledgeaspossible,andarelatedL1ishereofprimaryimportance.AsCorder(1979)putsit,tolearnarelatedlanguageisataskofadifferentmagnitudethanlearninganunrelatedlanguage:thereissimplysomuchmoretolearninanunrelatedlanguage.
Thisbringsustothecontrastiveanalysishypothesis,whichwasseverelycriticisedinAmericainthelate1960sand1970s.WhenLadoandhisfollowersstatedthatcross-linguisticdifferencesbetweenL1andL2inevitablyleadtolearningdifficultiestheycanbecriticisedbecausetheyfocusedondifferenceswhentheyreallyshouldhavefocusedonsimilarities.Thecontrastiveanalysishypothesismight,however,bereinstatedintheformthatabsenceofperceivedsimilarities,forinstancebetweentotallyunrelatedlanguages,produceslearningconditionswheretransferdoesnoteasilydevelopandlearningisthereforedelayedattheimportantinitialstages.Forthebeginninglearnertheeaseofachievingabasicreceptivecompetencelargelydependsonhownaturallyroughandsimplifiedequivalencescanbeperceivedbetweenindividualmorphological,lexical,andphrasalitems.Theprincipleofmakingasmuchuseofpreviousknowledgeaspossibleworksdifferentlyoncomprehensionthanonproductionandalsodifferentlyonthelearningofindividual
itemsversusthelearningoftheunderlyingsystemofrelationsbetweentheseitems.Here,however,thegreaterimportanceofcomprehensioncomparedwithproductionmustbestressed,comingasitdoesatanearlierstageoflearning.ThebasicfacilitatingeffectofL1-transferisnolongerobviouswhenthelearnerstartslearningmorecomplexrelationshipsthanthesimplifiedone-to-one-equivalencesbetweenL1andL2thatheorsheestablishedatthebeginningofhisorherlearningandsoonhastomodify.Agoodknowledgeofsuchcomplexrelationshipsisobviouslyneededbothforapreciseunderstandingandfortheabilitytocreateintelligibleutterancesoneself.However,wemayassumethatitwillbeeasiertoconvertwhatoneisalreadyabletounderstandintouseforproductionthantostarttoacquiretherulesofproductionfromscratch.
Page217
References
ARD,J.&HOMBURG,T.,1983,Verificationoflanguagetransfer.InS.GASS&L.SELINKER(eds),LanguageTransferinLanguageLearning.Rowley,MA:NewburyHouse,157-176.
CORDER,S.P.,1979,Languagedistanceandthemagnitudeofthelanguagelearningtask.StudiesinSecondLanguageAcquisition2(1),27-36.
DUSKOVA,L.,1969,Onsourcesoferrorsinforeignlanguagelearning.IRAL7(1).11-36.
FAERCH,C.,HAASTRUP,K.&PHILLIPSON,R.,1984,LearnerLanguageandLanguageLearning.Clevedon:MultilingualMatters.
FAERCH,C.&KASPER,G.(inpress).Perspectivesonlanguagetransfer.AppliedLinguistics.
GASS,S.&SELINKER,L.(eds),1983,IntroductiontoLanguageTransferinLanguageLearning.Rowley,MA:NewburyHouse.
GEORGE,H.V.,1972,CommonErrorsinLanguageLearning:InsightsfromEnglish.Rowley,MA:NewburyHouse.
GRANFORS,T.&PALMBERG,R.,1976,ErrorsmadebyFinnsandSwedish-speakingFinnslearningEnglishatacommercialcollegelevel.InH.RINGBOM&R.PALMBERG(eds),ErrorsMadebyFinnsandSwedish-speakingFinnsintheLearningofEnglish.AFTIL5.Åbo:ÅboAkademi.
HAASTRUP,K.,1984,LexicalInferencing.PaperreadattheSeventhAILACongress,Brussels.
HAMMER,P.,1978,TheUtilityofCognatesinSecondLanguageAcquisition.PaperreadattheFifthAILACongress,Montreal.
HERRANEN,T.,1978,ErrorsmadebyFinnishuniversitystudentsintheuseoftheEnglisharticlesystem.InK.SAJAVAARA,J.LEHTONEN&R.MARKKANEN(eds),JyväskyläContrastiveStudies6.FurtherContrastivePapers.Jyväskylä:UniversityofJyväskylä,74-95.
JAMES,C.,1980,ContrastiveAnalysis.London:Longman.
KELLERMAN,E.,1984,TheempiricalevidencefortheinfluenceoftheL1ininterlanguage.InA.DAVIES,C.CRIPER&A.P.R.HOWATT(eds).Interlanguage.Edinburgh:EdinburghUniversityPress,98-122.
MEISEL,J.M.,1983,Transferasasecond-languagestrategy.LanguageandCommunication3(1),11-46.
NOORDMAN-VONK,W.,1979,RetrievalfromSemanticMemory.Berlin:Springer.
OLLER,J.W.JR.&REDDING,E.,1971,Articleusageandotherlanguageskills.LanguageLearning21(1),85-95.
RINGBOM,H.,1978a,WhatdifferencesaretherebetweenFinnsandSwedish-speakingFinnslearningEnglish?PapersandStudiesinContrastiveLinguistics7,133-145.
1985a,TransferinrelationtosomeothervariablesinL2-learning.InH.RINGBOM(ed),ForeignLanguageLearningandBilingualism.PublicationsoftheResearchInstituteoftheÅboAkademiFoundation,105,9-21.Åbo:ÅboAkademi.
1987,TheRoleoftheFirstLanguageinForeignLanguageLearning.Clevedon:MultilingualMatters.
SAJAVAARA,K.,1981,TheNatureofFirstLanguageTransfer:EnglishasL2inaForeignLanguageSetting.PaperpresentedattheFirstEuropean-NorthAmericanWorkshoponCross-LinguisticSecondLanguageAcquisitionResearch,LakeArrowhead,CA.
1983,ThearticleerrorsofFinnishlearnersofEnglish.InC.C.ELERT
&
Page218
A.SEPPÄNEN(eds),Finnish-EnglishLanguageContact:PapersfromaWorkshop.UmeåPapersinEnglish4.Umeå:UniversityofUmeå,72-87.
SAJAVAARA,K.&LEHTONEN,J.,1988,Aspectsoftransferinforeignlanguagelearners'reactiontoacceptability.InH.W.DECHERT&M.RAUPACH(eds).TransferinLanguageProduction.Norwood,NJ:Ablex.
TARONE,E.,1979,Interlanguageaschameleon.LanguageLearning29,181-191.
ULIJN,J.M.&KEMPEN,G.A.M.,1976,Theroleofthefirstlanguageinsecondlanguagereadingcomprehension:someexperimentalevidence.InG.NICKEL(ed.),ProceedingsoftheFourthInternationalCongressofAppliedLinguistics:Vol.1.Stuttgart:Hochschulverlag,495-507.
ZETTERSTEN,A.,1978,AWord-frequencyListbasedonAmericanEnglishPressReportage.Copenhagen:AkademiskFörlag.
TheÅboAkademiProject:SeparateBibliography
RINGBOM,H.,1978b,Theinfluenceofthemothertongueonthetranslationoflexicalitems.InterlanguageStudiesBulletin-Utrecht3(1),80-101.
1982,Theinfluenceofotherlanguagesonthevocabularyofforeignlanguagelearners.InG.NICKEL&D.MEHLS(eds),ErrorAnalysis,ContrastiveLinguisticsandSecondLanguageLearning.PapersfromtheSixthCongressofAppliedLinguistics,Lund1981[SpecialIssue].Iral85-96.
1983a,Borrowingandlexicaltransfer.AppliedLinguistics4(3),207-212.
1983b,Onthedistinctionsofitemlearningversussystemlearning
andreceptivecompetenceversusproductivecompetenceinrelationtotheroleofL1inforeignlanguagelearning.InH.RINGBOM(ed.),PsycholinguisticsandForeignLanguageLearning.PapersfromaConferenceheldinStockholmandÅbo,October25-26,1982.PublicationsoftheResearchInstituteoftheÅboAkademiFoundation86,163-173.Åbo:ÅboAkademi.
1985b,TheinfluenceoftheSwedishontheEnglishofFinnishlearners.ForeignLanguageLearningandBilingualism.PublicationsoftheResearchInstituteoftheÅboAkademiFoundation105,39-71.Åbo:ÅboAkademi.
1985c,WordfrequenciesinFinnishandFinland-Swedishlearnerlanguage.ForeignLanguageLearningandBilingualism.PublicationsoftheResearchInstituteoftheÅboAkademiFoundation105,23-37.Åbo:ÅboAkademi.
1986,Crosslinguisticinfluenceandtheforeignlanguagelearningprocess.InE.KELLERMAN&M.SHARWOODSMITH(eds),CrosslinguisticInfluenceinSecondLanguageAcquisition.Oxford:PergamonPress,150-162.
Page219
12InputfromWithin:UtrechtResearchintoCross-linguisticInfluenceinFormalLanguageLearningEnvironmentsMichaelSharwoodSmith
Introduction
ThispaperwilldiscussvariousaspectsofresearchintotheacquisitionofEnglishasaforeignlanguagewhichhasbeencarriedoutattheUniversityofUtrechtwheretheunderlyingaimhasbeen,inequalmeasurethegatheringofdatafromlearnersatDutchschoolsanduniversitiesandthedevelopmentofarichertheoreticalframeworkforfurtherinvestigation.
Overthelasttenyears,thedepartmentofEnglishhasbeendevelopingaprogrammeoftrainingandresearchintosecondlanguageacquisitionspeciallyadaptedtomeettheneedsoffacultyandstudents.Partofthishasinvolvedthecreationofacorpus,orrathercorpora,formoreorlessdescriptivepurposes,andpartofithasbeentheexplorationoflinksbetweensecondlanguageacquisitionandothertheoreticaldisciplinesinordertoimprovethetheoreticalunderpinnings.Theaimofthispaper,then,istogivesomeideaoftheworkthathasbeendonesofar.Inviewofspacelimitations,therewillbetwoareasoffocus,namelysyntaxandwhatwecallcross-linguisticinfluence.Thismeans,forexample,thatworkonlexicalandphonologicalaspectswillbeignoredandlikewisethestudiesonattitudesandmotivationwillnotbetouchedon:cross-linguisticinfluence(CLI)confinesthediscussiontohowlanguagesystemsinteractwithinthelearner.
First,abriefmentionwillbemadeofthewayresearchiscarriedout
atthedepartmentofEnglishatUtrecht.Thenthetheoreticalworkwillbe
Page220
discussedandthiswillbefollowedbyillustrationfromprojectscarriedoutwithinthelastfewyears.
TheUtrechtProgramme
TheEnglishDepartmentisresponsiblefortrainingsomefivehundredstudentsatonetimeinEnglishlanguageandliterature:Englishisthemediumofinstruction.Thelanguagesidecoverstheoreticallinguistics,secondlanguageacquisitionstudiesandinstructioninEnglish.Secondlanguageacquisitionisnowanofficiallineofstudyasdistinctfromlinguisticsandpracticallanguagetraining.Italsomeansthat,althoughstudentsmaydotheirfinalthesis(afterfouryears)onan'appliedtopic',thatis,onehavingtodowiththepedagogicalsideofsecondlanguageresearch,theobligatoryprogrammeinsecondlanguageacquisitionis'non-applied',thatistosay,itfocusesonthetheoreticalaspectsaloneandthelinkswithothertheoreticaldisciplines.Atypicalstudentgraduatinginsecondlanguageacquisitionwilldoobligatorycoursesinlinguisticsandsecondlanguageacquisitionandasetofoptionalappliedandnon-appliedcoursesinvolvingtermpaperssomeofwhichmaybepublishedinworkingpaperform.Heorshewillthengraduatebywritingamaster'sthesis(doktoraalscriptie).Somethesesmaybelinkedwithafacultyresearchprogramme:thisisencouragedbutnotrequiredofstudents.
Oneofthewaysstudentsmaydoresearchisbyinvestigatingthedevelopmentoffellowstudentsinloweryears:inthiswaydataarecollectedwhichareofuseasexperimentalandtheoreticaltrainingbutwhichmayalsoservetheappliedpurposesofthelanguageinstructionprogramme.Theothersideofthecoinisthewayinwhichthelanguageinstructionprogrammeisorganisedtofacilitatesecondlanguageresearch.Forexample,studentsarerequiredtodoacertainlimitednumberoftestscarriedoutforresearchpurposesaspartof
theirnormallanguagetraining.Also,thethree-yearwritingprogrammeisstructuredinsuchawaythatastudentundergoinginstructionactuallycollectsdatafortheresearchprogramme.Asfarasthestudentisconcerned,thesedataarenotcollectedprimarilyforresearchpurposesbutfirstandforemostasameansofpromotinginstructionalfeedback.Whatstudentsactuallydoisextracterrorsplussurroundingexplanatorycontextfromtheirwrittencompositionsandentertheseontospeciallydesignedsheets.Inthisway,duringthecoursetheyeacheffectivelycreateanindividualisedcorpusoftheirownerrors.ThiscorpusisthenusedforthepurposeofimprovingtheirEnglishandtakestheplaceofgeneralisedcommentariesabouttheerrorsthatthatstudent'sparticulargrouphasmade
Page221
onagivenwrittenassignment.WhenthatparticularcourseiscompletedthecorpusisabsorbedintothelargercorpusofwrittenEnglishmuchofwhichhasbeencomputerised.Thislargercorpusisthenusedbystaffandstudentsdoingresearchintosecondlanguageacquisition.Oraldataarealsocollectedfromthevariousinterviewandroleplayteststhatstudentshavetoundergoandthesearealsousedforresearchpurposes.However,itshouldbesaidthat,despitetheavailabilityofsuchcorpusmaterial,areasonablenumberofstudentsprefertodotheirworkoutsidetheDepartmentandoverahundredDutchsecondaryschoolshavebeenvisitedbystudentsforthepurposesofinvestigationintovariousaspectsoftheacquisitionofEnglishinformalcontexts.
InadditiontothelocallyconstructedcorporaandtheeasyaccesstoDutchsecondaryschools,thereareotheradvantagesenjoyedbytheDepartmentincludingcloselinkswithotherdepartmentsintheNetherlands(inparticularinNijmegen)andabroad,forexampleinPoland,Finland,andtheFederalRepublicofGermany.Thisallowsforacertainmeasureofcooperationwhereby,forinstance,elicitationtestsconstructedinoneplacemaybecarriedoutinanother.Also,theInterlanguageStudiesBulletinhasbeeneditedherefromitsinceptionasisitssuccessor,SecondLanguageResearch.Furthermore,UtrechtisthevenuefortheLARS
1seriesofsymposia,whichbringsstaffandstudentsintodirectcontactwithactiveresearchersfromabroadandthishasallcontributedtothedevelopmentofafavourableenvironmentforresearch.
TheTheoreticalFramework
Overthelastthreeorfouryears,ageneralframeworkhasbeen
developedwherebylinksbetweensecondlanguageresearchandtheoreticallinguisticshavebeenexploited.Akeyaspectofthisisthecleardistinctionmadebetweenacquisitioninthesenseofdevelopmentofknowledgeovertimeandthoseprocesseswhichhavetodowiththeaccessingandintegrationofknowledgeduringperformanceatagivenmomentintime.OneimportantstimulusforthisexplicitdistinctionhasbeenthegeneraldissatisfactionwiththenotionofacquisitionasusedbyresearcherssuchasKrashen(seeDulay,Burt,&Krashen,1982)wherethedistinctionisnotpaidmuchmorethanlipservice.ConsiderationoftheworkintheoreticallinguisticsfollowingChomsky,wherecompetenceisdistinctfromperformancemechanisms,aswellasconsiderationofthetheoreticallineofresearchdevelopedbyEllenBialystokwhereshehasmadequalitativedistinctionswithinthegeneralnotionsofproficiency(seeforexampleBialystok,1981)hasledtothe
Page222
adoptionofthecompetence/controlmodelofacquisition.Thisframeworkcombinedtheknowledge/controldistinctionofBialystok's(seeBialystok&SharwoodSmith,1985)andthecompetence/performancedistinctionfamiliarfromgenerativegrammar.Wefindthereworkingofknowledgeandcontrolintoaformthatiscompatiblewithaparticularschooloftheoreticallinguisticresearchafruitfulbasisforrefiningquiteanumberofwell-wornconceptssuchasacquisitionandtransfer.Thismaybeeffectedinsuchawayastodrawontheprecisetoolsdevelopedovertheyearsbylinguistsinthatparticulartradition.Italsohastheeffectoffacilitatingmuchmorelinguisticallysophisticatedaccountsofthestructuresinvestigatedaswillbeillustratedinamoment.Moregenerally,qualitativedistinctionswithinsuchgeneralconceptsasacquisitionallowforthecreationofspecificmeasurementtechniquessothatcertainelicitationdevicescanfocusontheintuitionsandassumptionsagivenlearnerhasaboutthetargetlanguage;whileotherscantesttothelimitthecontrolwhichthatlearnerhasoverthat(interlanguage)knowledgebothinreceptionandproduction,thatis,byincreasingtaskstress.Clearlythereareanumberofobjectionsthatonemighthavetoanyparticularsetoftheoreticalassumptionsandclaimsbutitseemsthat,atapracticallevel,researchcanproceedmuchmoresystematicallyandfruitfullyifmoretimeistakenfromdatagatheringanddevotedinsteadtoenrichingthetheoreticalbasesothat'facts'gleanedfromcorporacanbeincorporatedintoareasonedaccountofprocessesthataregoingon.Ifthatparticulartheoreticalbasecaninterfacewithasubstantialandcoherentbodyofresearchfromarelateddisciplinethenithasaheadstartontheoreticalbasesthataredevelopedinrelativeisolationfromotherdisciplines.TheChomskyanframeworkdoesallowsuchaninterfaceandthisiswhywefinditattractive.
Toturnnowspecificallytothenotionofcross-linguisticinfluence
(CLI),whichembodiesvarious,frequentlylooselyemployedconceptssuchastransferandinterference(seeKellerman&SharwoodSmith,1988),severaldistinctionscannowbemadewithinthecompetence/controlmodel.Forexample,wemayaskourselvestowhatdegreeapparentinterferencefromL1onL2(orviceversaincasesoflanguageattrition)maybeattributedtoagenuinedivergenceofthelearnercompetencefromnative-speakernormsratherthantoimmaturecontrolovercompetence.
Crudelyput,isitthecasethatthelearner'knowsitbutcan'tshowit'orisitthecasethatthelearnersimplydoesnot'knowit'(knowledgeherebeingusedinthemorecommonlyemployedsenseofnativespeakerortargetcompetence)?Wherethelanguagelearnerdoeshavetherelevanttypeofcompetencebutstillhasinsufficientcontroloverit,itisthenhypothesisedthatheorsherecruitsnativelanguage(orother)competencetoachievewhatevercommunicativegoalheorshehadinmind.CLIhere
Page223
wouldbetheresultofacontrolstrategy.Ontheotherhand,learnersinthismodelmayactuallyconstructmentalrepresentationsofthetargetlanguage(thatis,interimorinterlanguagecompetence)onthebasisoftheirownnativelanguagesystem.Inthiscase,wewouldtalkofCLIatthelevelofcompetence,andwewouldexpectthatelicitationdevicesdesignedtotapintuitionsandassumptionswouldbearthisout.CLIatthecompetencelevelmaybeseenasinputfromwithinsincethedevelopingL2grammarisconstructedonthebasisofaninteractionbetweeninputandinbuiltacquisitionalmechanismsthatweallpossess.Thesemechanismsfeednotonlyoninformationfromoutside,thatis,exposuretoprimarylanguagedata,butalsooninformationfromwhatthelearneralreadypossesses,forexample,L1competence.ThisreflectsanenduringadherencetoacognitiveviewoflanguagetransfercharacteristicsofEuropeanthinkingespecially.Morespecifically,thegenerative(Chomskyan)dimensionofthenotionofcompetenceusedhereallowsamoresubtleanalysisofhowalearnermightexploitfamiliarlinguisticknowledgeinbuildinguptargetlanguageknowledge.Forexample,thesurfacestructureofaDutchdeclarativemainclausemaybeSVO(Subject-Verb-Object)asisthesurfacestructureofanequivalentEnglishclause.Theproductionof(andacceptanceof)SVOorderbythelearnerinthisinstancemaysuggestconformitytoEnglishnativespeakernorms.However,ifweacceptthatDutchmainclauseorderisactuallyderivedfromadifferentunderlyingorderSOVasisacceptedbymostgenerativelinguists,whereasEnglishsurfaceSVOorderconformstotheunderlyingorder,thenwecannotassumethattheDutchlearner'sperformanceisaguaranteeofattainmentofnativespeakernormcompetence(seevanBerkel,1987,forinvestigationsintowordorderacquisition).Theadoptionofthecompetence/controlmodelthereforerequiresamoresensitiveexaminationofthelearner'scurrentstatetoestablishwithanydegreeofcertaintywhetherheorshehasproperlyresetwhatinChomskyantermscouldbecalledthewordorder
parameterforEnglishasunderlyingSVO.Thusitisthatapparent(superficial)conformitywiththenativespeakernormsaswellasexplicitdeviancefromthenormscanbothberelevanttothestudyofCLIatthelevelofcompetence.
Somepeoplemightobjecttothecompetence/controldistinctionbysayingthatitisaminoroneandsuggestingthatwhatis'knownbutnotfullycontrolled'issimplyaprecursorofwhatisknownandcontrolled.Theimplicationisthenthatlookingatspontaneous(well-controlled)behaviourissufficient.ThisobjectiontolookingatcontrolseparatelycanbecounteredbypointingtothephenomenonofU-shapedbehaviour(seeKellerman,1985;Kellerman&SharwoodSmith,1988,forfullerdiscussion).Here,formsmayappearinearlylearnerperformanceandthengivewaytonon-
Page224
nativeformsatalaterdate.Hencetheappropriateandapparentlyfacileuseoftargetformsisnoguaranteethatacquisitionhascometoahalt:futuredevelopmentmightbringaboutdivergencefromthetargetinperformance.U-shapedbehaviourshowsthatformsmaybeonlysuperficiallytarget-likeandhaveunderlyingthemananalysisthatisdifferentfromthatofanativespeakerusingthesameforms.Also,lookingonlyatwell-controlledstructuresmightobscurecertainacquisitionalprocessesthatremainatthelevelofcompetenceandneverreallycometolightinthelearner'sspontaneouslanguagebehaviour.Inthiswaywewouldmissoutonvaluableinformationaboutthechangingassumptionsandintuitionslearnershaveaboutthetargetsystem.
SomeUtrechtStudies
AdverbialPlacement
Since1977therehavebeenanumberofstudiesonadverbialplacementrangingfromminorpilotstudiestoafairlylargescaleprojectinvolvingresearchintotheacquisitionofthisparticularaspectofEnglishbyFinnish,Polish,French,German,aswellasDutchlearners.Theaimofthislastproject(seeBourgonje,Groot,&SharwoodSmith,1985)wastotestforcommon'universal'patternsofdevelopmentintheadverbialplacementoflearnersofEnglishcomingfromstrikinglydifferentlanguagebackgrounds.ThestimulusforthiswastheworkdonebyresearchersfollowingtheDulay,Burr,andKrashenapproachwhichhadfocusedmostlyifnotexclusivelyonfairlylow-levelmorphologicalphenomena(followingworkinchildlanguagebyRogerBrown,andothers),onbeginnersandonlearnersacquiringthelanguageinanEnglish-speakingenvironment.Theideawasthatadverbialplacementwassuchan'unruly'area(cf.Jackendoff,1972)thatevenlearnersinaformalenvironmentreceivingtraditionalinstructionintheformofrulesandother
metalinguisticdeviceswouldhaveinthiscasetorelymainlyuponexposuretothetargetlanguagefortheirintuitionsaboutadverbs,andinparticularaboutthenormal,canonicalpositionsinEnglish.Thismightmanifestitself,itwashypothesised,intheformofsomecommonpatternsofdevelopment.However,researchfindingsusingacceptabilityjudgementtasksandtasksinvolvingactualpositioningofgivenadverbsinvariouscontextsshowedthatlearnersdidseemtorecruitnativelanguageknowledgeevenataveryadvancedlevel.Forexample,Finnishlearnerstendedtopreferpost-verbpositionswherePolishlearnerspreferredpre-verbpositions.Thisagreedwithnativespeakerinformantinformationabouttheequivalent(canonical)placementbehaviourintheirownlanguages.Thisallowedusto
Page225
concludethatwherePoles(forexample)correctlyplacedaparticularadverbinapreverbalpositionitmightstillberegarded(potentiallyatleast)asreflectinginterlanguagecompetenceandnotasanindicationofafullattainmentofnativespeakernorms.Italsoallowedustoconcludethat,althoughtherewassomeevidenceforahierarchyofdifficultyforgiventypesofplacement,foralllearners,thatis,irrespectiveoflanguagebackground,therewerequitestrikingdifferencesintheinterlanguageofthevariouslanguagegroups.
Notalllanguage-specifictrendscouldbeeasilyexplained.OfparticularinterestwasatendencyshownintheDutchandGermandatatoplaceadverbsbeforetheauxiliaryasin'*Ialwaysmustseehim',atendencythatwasalsonoticedintheUtrechtcorpusoflearnerEnglish.ThistendencytoplaceadverbsinwhatinEnglishiseitheramarkedoranunacceptablepositionsuggestsCLIsinceitwasparticularlynoticeableintheDutchandGermanlearners,andDutchandGermanaretypologicallyrelatedlanguages.ThecuriousthingwasthatequivalentsentencesintheL1(inbothcases)werealsounacceptablesothatdirect'transfer'couldberuledout.Sometentativeexplanationshavebeenputforward(seeSharwoodSmith,1985),forexample:
1.Thattheauxiliary/mainverbdistinctionbeinglessclear-cutinDutchandGermanencouragedasimplepre-'verb'placementstrategywithnodistinctionmadeforthetypeofverbinvolved.
2.ThatbroadtypologicalprocessesareatworkwherebyEnglishisbeingtreatedasanSVOlanguage,likeDutchandGerman.
Infact,EnglishusedtobeSOVandSvenJacobsonhasshownhow,asEnglishmovedfromSOVtoSVO,thecanonicalpositionofthepreverbaladverbmovedfrompre-auxiliarypositiontopre-mainverb(post-auxiliary)position(seeJacobson,1981).Thismorecomplexexplanationwouldencouragetheviewthatdeviantadverbial
placementmightbeanepiphenomenon,thatis,anindicationofsomemorebasicdistinctionbetweenthecurrentlearnergrammarandthatofanativespeakerofthetargetlanguage.Onlyareasonablysophisticatedexaminationofthetheoreticallinguisticimplicationsofthis(forexample,implicationsconcerningadjacentwordsandabstractcaseassignment)wouldallowlighttobeshedonthisparticularparadoxicalexampleofCLI.Whatisquiteevidentatanyrateisthatadverbialplacementisanareaoffossilisationataveryadvancedstageofacquisition.ItisalsoanareawhichishighlysensitivetolanguageattritionasanotherprojectcarriedoutatUtrechthasshown(seeGalbraith,1982;VanVlerken,1980;SharwoodSmith,1983).BritishandAmericanchildrenlivingintheNetherlandsshowadestabilisationofnativespeakernormsafteraperiodoftwoyearsandthisinacountrywhereEnglishisaprestige
Page226
foreignlanguageusedbythepopulationeitherreceptivelyorproductivelytoamuchgreaterdegreethanischaracteristicofaforeignasopposedtosecondlanguage.Clearly,thisareaofgrammarmeritsagreatdealoffurtherinvestigation.
SententialComplementation
Therehavealsobeenanumberofpilotstudiesintosententialcomplementationwhichhaveshownsimilarkindsoftrendsasweremanifestintheadverbialprojects,namelyevidenceofconformitytocommonpatternsofdevelopmentreportedinotherareasbutalsointerestinglanguage-specifictrendssuggestingCLI.TheoriginalimpetustothisresearchwasJanetAnderson'sworkonSpanishacquirersofEnglish(Anderson,1978)inwhichsheclaimedtohavediscoveredahierarchyofdifficultywhichsuggestedauniversalpatternratherthanonedictatedbythestructureofSpanish.Forexample,therewasanoveralltendencytoprefertheto-infinitiveoverotherconstructionssuchasgerundorthat-clauses.Shehadnooverarchingexplanationforherfindingsexceptthespeculationthatstructuralcomplexitymayhavesomethingtodowithitsincelearnersseemtoprefertheshortsimplestructurestothemorecomplexone(shebasedheranalysisofcomplexityonLakoff,1968).Studiesby,forexample,Bakker(1983),Polomska(1982)andVanVugt&VanHelmond(1984)showedthatDutchlearnersalsohaveanoverallpreferencefortheto-infinitivebutthatAnderson'seconomyprincipledidnotseemtoworkastheshortgerundprovedtypicallytobeacquiredlate,asopposedtothelongerthat-construction.SinceDutchhastheequivalentofthelatterbutnottheformer,itwouldseemthatCLIisthemostlikelyexplanationhere.Thisarea,likeadverbialsalsoprovestobepartiallyinaccessibletomanyadvancedlearnersandmanytendtooverextendtheuseoftheto-infinitivemorethanotherconstructionsbeyondthelimitsimposedbythetargetnorms.VanVugt&VanHelmond(1984)usingacompetence/control-based
designfortheirstudy(likeBakker,1983)foundthatthirdyearstudentsattheDepartment(thatis,aftertwoorthreeyearsofinstructionandintensiveexposuretowrittenandspokenEnglish)showednorealadvanceoverfirstyearstudentsintheircontrolofsententialcomplementation.Therewas,however,someadvanceintheAcceptabilityJudgementTest,whichwasdesignedtotapcompetencemoredirectly.Inotherwords,withinthetheoreticalframeworksketchedabove,someacquisitionhadtakenplaceatthelevelofcompetencebutwasnotevidentattheleveloffluentcontrol.
Page227
PrepositionStranding
ThemostrecentprojectstartedatUtrechtinvolvesadirectapplicationofChomsky'sgovernment-bindingtheorytotheacquisitionofthephenomenonknownaspreposition-stranding,thatistosay,thefailuretomoveaprepositionwithitscomplementNPtoinitialpositioninquestionandrelativeconstructions.LinguistsgenerallyarguethatifalanguageisprepositionalitismorelikelynottorequirethatprepositionsshouldbemovedwiththeNP.Thiswouldmake,forexample,asentencelike'OnwhatamIsitting?'more'normal',thatis,unmarked,thanwhatisactuallymorecommonwithinEnglishitself,'WhatamIsittingon?'.Infact,anormalprepositionallanguagewouldruleoutthesecondversion.InChomsky'stermsthishastobetranslatedintolearnabilitytermsinthefollowingway:childrenexposedtodatafromalanguagecontainingprepositionswillassumethat,unlessthereisviolationofthisassumptioninthedata(andtheyperceiveit),prepositionsshouldmoveandnotbeleftstrandedattheendofthesentence/clause.Inotherwords,whenlearninglanguageslikeFrenchandPolish,wherestrandingisruledout,theywillnotneedtohavepositiveconfirmationthatthisiswhattheyshoulddo.Ignoringthewaythisinbuiltpreferenceisexplainedinthetheory(intermsofprinciplesofgrammarlikesubjacencyandtheemptycategoryprinciple,cf.VanBuren&SharwoodSmith,1985),itisinterestingtospeculatewhetherthisnotionofmarkednesshasanyeffectontherateandorderofacquisition.Isiteasier,forexample,forSpanishlearnersofEnglishtoacquirethemarkedstructureorisitmoredifficult?AndwhathappenswithEnglishlearnersofSpanish?Therehavebeenclaimsintheliteratureoneitherside.Mazurkewich(1984)maintainsthatmarkednessequalsacquisitionaldifficultywhereasWhite(1983)claimsthattheL1willdictatethepreference,thatis,shefavoursaCLI-basedapproach.TheDutch-Englishcaseisinterestingbecausebothareinsomesensemarkedlanguages.Both
strandprepositionsbutwhereasEnglishstrandsmoregenerally,DutchonlystrandswheretherelevantNPisanR-pronoun(cf.VanRiemsdijk,1978)forexample,waar,daar,er.WilltheinitialassumptionoftheDutchlearnerofEnglishbeinfluencedbymarkednessconsiderationsinthatheorshewillstartbyrefusingtostrand;orwillthatlearnerimpose(marked)DutchstructureonEnglishandaccordinglystrandselectively,identifyingsomeequivalentofR-pronounsinEnglish,thatis,what...on(waar....op):orthirdly,willthelearnertreatEnglishasalesscomplicatedlanguageandreadilystrand'promiscuously'sotospeakandthuschanceonsomethinglikethetargetnormsatanearlystageofdevelopment?Theseandmanyotherquestionsspringfromaconsiderationofthelinguisticandlearnabilityissuesas
Page228
appliedtosecondlanguagelearningandtheprojectisintooearlyastateitselftoprovideanythingmorethanintriguingpuzzles.Butfindingstodatecertainlysuggest,atleastinsomelearners,anattempttoimposeDutchstructureonEnglish.Sincetheprocessesdictatingstrandingarefairlysubtlewemaysuspectthatformalinstructioncanhavelittletodowiththeirbehaviourandthat,again,mainlysubconsciousandtheoreticallyinterestingprocessesareatwork(forfurtherdiscussionseeVanBuren&SharwoodSmith,1985).
Conclusion
Toconclude,therehavebeenthreemaingeneraltruthsthathavebecomecleartousinUtrechtasaresultofourinvestigationssofar.Thefirstisthatcross-linguisticinfluenceisahighlycomplexphenomenonandnotatallaspresentedinsimpleaccountsofinterferenceortransferfamiliarfromworkintheseventies.Second,arichertheoreticalbasisforexaminingCLI(amongstotheraspectsofacquisition)isnotaluxurybutanabsolutenecessity,andthirdly,thattheenrichmentmustcertainlyinvolvethemoredirectapplicationoftheworkcarriedoutrecentlyintheareaoftheoreticallinguistics.Intheprocessofdiscoveringorconfirmingthesetruths,wehave,likeourcolleaguesinsomeoftheotherEuropeancentres,gatheredsomeinterestingdataontheacquisitionofEnglishbyadvancedlearners.Wehavealsoseenhowalanguagedepartmentcanfunctiontoservetheendsofresearchsothateducationalconcernsarenotneglected.Atthesametime,wehavealsocometothecertainknowledgethatifsecondlanguagestudiesareevergoingtoproperlyserveappliedends,theywillneedtodevelopseparatelyandnotberequiredateverysteptojustifythemselvesinpracticalterms.
NotetoChapter12
1.LanguageAcquisitionResearchSymposium(intheUniversityof
Utrecht)
References
ANDERSON,J.,1978.Orderofdifficultyinadultsecondlanguageacquisition.InW.C.RITCHIE(ed.).SecondLanguageAcquisitionResearchIssuesandImplications.NewYork:AcademicPress.91-108.
BAKKER.C.,1983.TheEconomyPrincipleintheProductionofSententialVerb
Page229
Complements.Unpublishedmaster'sdissertation,UniversityofUtrecht.
BIALYSTOK,E.,1981,Theroleoflinguisticknowledgeinsecondlanguageuse.StudiesinSecondLanguageAcquisition4,31-45.
BIALYSTOK,E.&SHARWOODSMITH,M.,1985,Interlanguageisnotastateofmind:anevaluationoftheconstructforsecondlanguageacquisition.AppliedLinguistics6(2),101-117.
BOURGONJE,B.,GROOT,P.&SHARWOODSMITH,M.,1985,TheacquisitionofadverbialplacementinEnglishasaforeignlanguage:acrosslinguisticstudy.InterlanguageStudiesBulletin8(2),93-103.
DULAY,H.,BURT,M.&KRASHEN,S.,1982,LanguageTwo.Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress.
GALBRAITH,N.,1982,AStudyofLanguageTransferinLanguageLoss.Unpublishedmaster'sdissertation,UniversityofUtrecht.
JACKENDOFF,R.,1972,SemanticInterpretationinGenerativeGrammar.Cambridge.MA:MITPress.
JACOBSON,S.,1981,PreverbalAdverbsandAuxiliaries.Stockholm:Almquist&Wiksell.
KELLERMANE.1985,TheempiricalevidencefortheexistenceofL1ininterlanguage.InA.DAVIES,C.CRIPER&A.HOWATT(eds).Interlanguage.Edinburgh:EdinburghUniversityPress,98-129.
KELLERMAN,E.&SHARWOODSMITH,M.,1988,Theinterpretationofsecondlanguageoutput.InH.W.DECHERT&M.RAUPACH(eds),TransferinLanguageProduction.Norwood,NJ:Ablex,217-235.
LAKOFF,R.,1968,AbstractSyntaxandLatinComplementation.Cambridge,MA:MITPress.
MAZURKEWICH,I.,1984,Theacquisitionofdativealternationbysecondlanguagelearnersandlinguistictheory.LanguageLearning34,91-109.
POLOMSKA,M.,1982.PreferenceandDevianceintheChoiceofSententialComplementsbyDutchSpeakersofEnglish.M.A.WorkingPaper.UniversityofUtrecht.
SHARWOODSMITH,M.,1983,Onfirstlanguagelossinthesecondlanguageacquirer:problemsoftransfer.InS.GASS&L.SELINKER(eds),LanguageTransferinLanguageLearning.Rowley,MA:NewburyHouse,222-231.
1985,Frominputtointake:Onargumentationinsecondlanguageacquisition.InS.GASS&C.MADDEN(eds),InputinSecondLanguageAcquisition.Rowley.MA:NewburyHouse,394-403.
VANBUREN,P.&SHARWOODSMITH,M.,1985,Theacquisitionofpreposition-strandingbysecondlanguagelearnersandparametricvariation.SecondLanguageResearch1(1),18-46.
VANRIEMSDIJK,H.1978,ACaseStudyinSyntacticMarkedness.Lisse:PeterdeRidderPress.
VANVIERKENM.,1980,AdverbialPlacementinEnglish:aStudyofFirstLanguageLoss.Unpublishedmaster'sdissertation,UniversityofUtrecht.
VANVUGT,M.&VANHELMOND,K.,1984,AnInvestigationintotheProductionofSententialVerbComplementsbyAdvancedLearnersofEnglishinanEFLSituation.UnpublishedM.A.WorkingPaper,UniversityofUtrecht.
WHITFL.,1983,Markednessandparametersetting:SomeimplicationsforatheoryofadultsecondlanguageacquisitionMcGillJournalofLinguistics11,1-21.
Page230
13LanguageContactandCultureContact:TowardsanIntegrativeApproachinSecondLanguageAcquisitionResearchElsOksaar
Introduction
Thedevelopmentofsecondlanguageacquisition(SLA)researchinthelastdecadeshasledtoachangeofparadigm.WhereasinthepasttheresearchinterestinSEAwasmorefocusedonthelanguageitselfandontheteacher,therehasbeenashiftofattentiontoamorelearner-centredview.Thisresultsinanincreasingconcerninthelearner'sinterlanguageandinhiscommunicativecompetence.
Howthesecondlanguageisacquiredisthesubjectofanumberofhypotheses:theContrastiveHypothesis,theIdentityHypothesis,theInputHypothesis,thePidginisationHypothesis,andsoforth.
However,untestedhypothesesarenotinfrequentlyraisedtothelevelofafactas,forexample,Krashen'sMonitorModel(seeBausch&Kasper,1979;vanElsetal.,1984;Lightbown,1985).Thisisamethodologicalerrorthathandicapsbothresearchandpractice.
Ontheotherhanditshouldnotbeforgottenthatgalvanisationoftheresearchsceneisusefulasitmaystipulateadiscussiononsecondlanguageacquisitioninwhichnotthemodelbutthehumanbeingiscentral.Anindividual-centredapproachtolanguageacquisitionandlanguageteachingisindeeddifficult,butitismorerealisticthanatheoreticalmodelapproach(Oksaar,1984;Hüllen,1984).
Page231
Aninterestingparallelcanbefoundinthedevelopmentofcontactlinguistics,anotunimportantfieldinsecondlanguageresearch.Wefindinrecentdecadesaseriesofimportantrecognitionsandattemptsattypologisations.However,constructionofmodels,whichisrelevantfortheoreticalaswellasforappliedlinguistics,doesnotshowthesameprogressindiscovery.Moreattentionispaidtothetransferoflinguisticformsandmeaningsthantoothercommunicativeconstituentsmodifyingorreplacingthem.Theimportantissueofthetransferofsocioculturalnormsandpatternsofinteraction,too,belongstoanareawhichisstillinitsinfancy,thoughthenecessityofincludingtheseaspectshasalreadybeenstressedintheseventies(Oksaar,1975b).
Theaimofthisarticleistowidenthecommunication-orientedperspectivetoSLAresearchthroughtheintegrativeapproachofverbalandotherelementsofwhichalearnerhastohavecommandwheninteractinginSL.ThisbringsustotheculturemetheoryandthecentralroleofcultureroesandbehavioremesinSLAresearch,whichwearegoingtodiscussonthebackgroundofinteractionalcompetenceandtwonewcongruences:pragmaticandsemiotic.
TheempiricalfoundationofmyanalysisderivesfromourHamburglongtermproject:theBilingualLanguageBehaviourProject(twelveyears)inAustralia,USA,Canada,andSweden,completedin1980andthecurrent,ten-yearMultilingualLanguageAcquisitionProject,involvingchildrengrowingupwithtwo,threeorfourlanguages.
Thefollowingfactsshouldbeemphasisedaspremisesforouranalysis.Languageuseinface-to-faceinteractiontakesplaceintheecologicalnearmilieuofpeople,inwhichnotonlylinguistic,butalsoculturallyconditionedbehaviouralrulesarevalid,whichcallforthandregulatesituationallyconditionedbehaviouralpatternsbothforthelearnerandfortheteacher.Traditionallinguisticmodelsandanalysis
instrumentsarenotsufficienttodescribeaperson'scodeswitching,situationalinterference,hisviolationsofpragmaticandsemioticcongruence,ortounderstandtheirfunctionsandsignalvalues.
Aslanguageispartofacultureandatthesametimeamediumtodescribeculture,therearelanguageaswellasculturecontacts.Butthemediumofthesecontactsistheactingindividual,whonotonlytakespartinlanguagesandcultures,butisalsocreativeinbothofthem.Whichfactorsinfluencehisorherinteractionalcompetence?Howdocommunicativemisunderstandingsarise?
Page232
TheProblemofIntegration
Anintegrativeapproachtolanguagecontacthastopayattentiontothefactthatlanguageasameansofexpressionandcommunicationismorecomplexinitsspokenthanitswrittenform,becauseitinvolvesandisconnectedwithmoreinformationcarriersthantheverbalones.
First:spokenlanguageisneverexistentwithoutparalinguisticelements.Theirrole,however,incolouringthemessageincertainwaysisoftendifferentlyconditionedbydifferentculturalsystems(Hayes,1972).
Second:spokenlanguageisconnectedwithnonverbalandextraverbalsignals.Hayes(1972:145)turnsourattentiontothefact:'Ifthesesignals,differentlyconditionedbyeveryculturalsystem,withdifferenteffectsonthelinguisticsystem,arenotproperlyreceivedandsent,communicationisimpeded'.
Thenecessityofanintegrativeapproachisobviouswhenweareinterestedinlanguageuse.Anintegrativeapproachstartsfromtheprincipleofthepart-wholerelationshipinlanguageandcultureanddoesnotisolatetheverbalmeansofexpressionfromothersemioticonessuchasparalinguistic,nonverbalandextraverbalmeansofcommunication.Itsbasicunitisthecommunicativeact(Oksaar,1975a),inwhichtheinteractionalcompetenceofaspeaker/hearerisrealised.Thecommunicativeact,whichisthewholeframeofactioninwhichthespeechactivitytakesplace,includesinteractionswithallcommunicativeelements.Thecommunicativeactisembeddedinsituationsandcreatessituationsitself,changestheoriginalonesandsoforth.Amongthemostimportantelementsofcommunicativeactsare:
1.Partner/audience.(Here,ofcourse,distinctionsmustbemadeaccordingtotheageandothersocialvariablesofthepartner)
2.Theme/themes.
3.Verbalelements.
4.Paralinguisticelements:intonation,stress,andvoiceinflection.
5.Nonverbal(kinesic)elements:gaze,gesture,andotherbodylanguagesigns.
6.Extraverbalelements:proxemicelements,temporalsignals.
7.Thetotalityofemotionalandaffectiveelementsofbehaviour.
Astononverbalelements,thoughtheirmeaningmustbeviewedcontextually,theydohavestereotypedaspects,forexample,hand-wave,bow,headshake,nodinvariousculturecontexts.Malinowski(1935:26)pointstotheintegralroleofgestureinspeechas'quiteimportantforourunderstandingofanutteranceastheoneortwosignificantmovementsorindicationswhichactuallyreplaceanutteredword'.
Page233
ContrarytothespeechactofAustinandSearle,thecommunicativeacthastheadvantageofretainingbothsenderandreceiverrelatednessincommunicationandthecommunicativeelements.Thespeechacttheoryistooone-sidedlysender-related,theverbalunitsdominateandothercomponentsofthecommunicativeacthavenotbeentakenintoconsideration.
Whatweactuallyobserveinface-to-faceinteractionareelementsofthecommunicativeactthatbelongtotheinteractionalcompetenceofaperson.Theparameterinteractionalcompetence(Oksaar,1977)canbedefinedastheabilityofaperson,ininteractionalsituations,toperformandinterpretverbal,paralinguistic,nonverbalandextraverbalcommunicativeactions,accordingtothesocioculturalandsociopsychologicalrulesofthegroup.IthasbeennecessarytodifferentiatetheconceptofcommunicativecompetenceofHymes(1967),inordertogetaparameterforface-to-faceinteractiononly.
1Interactionalcompetence,thus,ispartofthecommunicativecompetence.Itstressesthefactthatcommunicativeabilitiescanbedividednotonlyintoverbal,nonverbalandextraverbalcomponents,butalsointoactionalandnonactional,asonecanalsocommunicatebysilence.Thisparameterismoredifferentiatedthanotherconceptswhichfollowedlater,forexampleSchmidt&Richards'(1980)pragmaticcompetence,usedasasynonymforcommunicativecompetenceinHymes'ssense.ThetermpragmaticcompetenceisalsousedbyThomas(1983:92)for'theabilitytouselanguageeffectivelyinordertoachieveaspecificpurposeandtounderstandlanguageincontext'.Theconceptsocialcompetence(Bell,1976),too,isnotconcreteenough.Itreferstoacompetencehousingsocialfunctionsoflinguisticforms.AlsothedescriptivemodelofcommunicativecompetencebyCanale&Swain(1980)isnotsufficienttocovertheinteractionalcomponentsofthecommunicativeact.
Gumperz(1984:280)suggestsredefiningthenotionofcommunicativecompetenceas:'Theknowledgeofdiscourseprocessingconventionsandrelatedcommunicativenormsthatparticipantsmustcontrolasapreconditiontobeingabletoenlistandsustainconversationalco-operation'.However,neitherhenortheotherauthorsmentionedrefertotheconceptofthemoreconcreteinteractionalcompetence,which,togetherwiththecommunicativeact,enablesustoanalyseinteractioninawidersemioticcontextandmorerealisticallythanthemodelsofcommunicativecompetencereferredto.Itnotonlycombinesverbalelementswithkinesicandothercommunicativecomponentsbutalsomakesitpossibletofocusonthereasonswhichfavourinteractionalunderstandingorcausemisunderstandings.Thefocusisonthecomponentsofthecommunicativeact.Inthissocioculturalbehaviourpatternsinrespecttoanotherpersonarerealised.Theyformacentralareaintheinteractionalcompetence,becausetheymaysendinformationbeforetheverbalchannelisactivatedortogetherwithit.
Page234
TheCulturemeModel
Socioculturalbehaviourpatternscanbesystematisedbytheculturememodel(Oksaar,1979,1983).Itsunitsaretheculturemes:thatpeoplegreeteachother,thatsomebodyaddressesaperson,thankshimorher,asksforsomething,choosesappropriatetopics,andsoforth,accordingtosituationaldemands.Culturemesarerealisedthroughbehavioremes,whichmaybeverbal,paralinguisticand/ornonverbal,and/orextraverbal.
2Thismeansthatinagivensocietywecanempiricallydeterminecertainofthebehaviourpatternsofourfellowsandthewaythesepatternsconveymessages.However,therearedifferencesintherealisationoftheculturemesalreadyinonelanguagecommunity,whichaffectsthecontactsituationevenmore.
LetusconsidertherealisationofthepolitenessculturemegreetinginGermanandsomeotherlanguages.Whatbehavioremesareimportant?
VerbalBehavioremes
AshasbeenshowninOksaar(1953),thechoiceoftheverbalbehavioremedependsontimeandsocialvariables.
1.Timevariables:Therearetwotypesoftimetoconsider:timeaspartofthedayandtimeaspartofthecontactperiod.IntheinitialphaseofcontactgutenTag(goodday)isused,or,correspondingtothetimeofdaygutenMorgen(goodmorning)orgutenAbend(goodevening).ThereisnoequivalentfortheEnglishgoodafternoon.GuteNacht(goodnight),however,isusedonlyintheconcludingphaseofthecontact,aswellasaufWiedersehen(hopingtoseeyouagain).Theexpressionsoftheinitialphase,then,aremoretime-boundthanphase-
bound.Thatmeansthattheirusageallowsdeviationsfromtheruleoffixedposition;however,theyarenotgenerallycommonasgreetingsforleave-taking.InEnglishonehastoobserveotheraspectsofthecontact.Raith(1985:174)pointsoutthat'inEnglishonedistinguisheswhetheracontacttakesplaceforthefirsttimeornot(''Howdoyoudo?''vs."Howareyou?");inEnglishonedifferentiatesbetweenashorterandlongerseparation("Bye,bye"vs."goodbye")'.
2.Socialvariables:age,gender,socialrelationship,status,androle.Dependingonthedegreeofformality,thereisinGermanascalefrominformalTag,orhallobetweenfriendstothemoreformalgutenTag,FrauMüllerandstillmoreformalgutenTag,FrauProfessororFrauProfessor+name.Thatthemoreformal
Page235
behavioremeisfilledalsobythetitleandnamebearswitnesstothesensibilitytosocialrelations.InEnglish,theaddresseeofthegreetingisalsoverbalisedbysocialstatusandname:goodmorning,MrsSmith,inFrench,byherstatusonly:bonjour,Madame,inSwedishwithoutanysocialsignals:goddag.InHungarianthesituationismorecomplicated.Balazs(1985:171)pointstothefactthatdespitealleffortsatdemocratisation'Hungarianmenstillgreetwomenwithkezétcsókolom[...(I)kiss(your)hand],whilecsókolomrepresentsashorterandmoreintimateform.Arespectedhousewifewouldstillconsiderasimplejónopot[...goodday]asaninsult...sincetodayonlycleaningwomenorsimilarpersonsaregreetedthisway.Theexpandedformjónapotkivánok[...Iwishyouagoodday],especiallywhentheappropriateformofaddressisadded,soundsmuchbetter,orstillfairlyreserved'.
Differentsocialrelationshipscanbemarkedbyvariousbehavioremesinthesamegreetingsituation.TheageoftheactorplaysanimportantroleintheexamplethatBalazs(1985)givesfortheHungarianbehavioremes:
Itcanhappen...thatanelderlymanencountersseveralpeopleonthestairsatthesametime.Tothewifeofhisneighbourhesayskezétcsókolom[...(I)kiss(your)hand],totheconcièrgejonapot(kivánok),[...goodday],tohisneighbourszervuszorszevaszandtothesonofhisneighbourszia.
SzervuszisthesimplifiedformoftheLatingreetingformulaservushumillimus(yourhumble/devotedservant)andisused'onlybyequalswhousetheT-formorbyolderpersonswhengreetingyoungerones'(p.171).
ParalinguisticBehavioremes
InBritishEnglishgoodday,goodmorning,goodafternoon,goodeveningareoftenusedwithafallingintonationwhenmeeting
somebody,andwitharaisingintonationasfarewellgreeting.InGerman,too,paralinguisticfactorsmaysignalthebeginningortheendofcontact;however,asarule,afallingintonationsignalsfarewell.RaisingintonationingutenTagusuallysignalsmorethanjustfulfilmentofapolitenessnormawishtostartaconversation,positivefeelings,andsoforth.
Page236
NonverbalBehavioremes
InGerman,interactionalcompetenceincludes,withrespecttononverbalbehaviour,theobservanceofvariablesofactions:handshake,bow,nod,hat-tipping,andsoforth.Shouldeverygreetingbeaccompaniedbyahandshake,ornot?Ifthepartnerisnotinahurry,ahandshakeisanexpectedpartoftheactofgreeting.InEnglishcultureandinSwedenahandshakeisobligatoryonlywhenmeetingforthefirsttime.InEasternandArabiccountries,embracingandkissesoncheeksarecustomary,inSouth-EastAsiavarioustypesofbowing.AccordingtoDodd(1982:219)Americans,whensayinghello,use'agreetinggesturesuchasthepalm...extendedoutwardwiththefingerspointingupward,inthemannerofwaving,movingthepalmfromsidetoside'.And:'astheysaygoodbye,NorthAmericansplacethepalmoftherighthanddown,extendthefingers,andmovethefingersupanddown.InIndia,WestAfrica,andCentralAmericasuchagesturewouldimplybeckoning,asifyouwerecallingacaboraskingsomeonetomovetowardyou'.
ExtraverbalBehavioremes
InGerman,interactionalcompetenceincludeswithrespecttoextraverbalbehaviour,observanceofvariablesintimeandspace,aswellassocialvariables,theircombinationsandactions.
1.Thecombinationoftimeandsocialvariablesintheinitialphasedemandsananswertothequestion:Whoshouldgreetfirst?Theyoungerpersonortheolderone?Themanorthewoman?Inthehierarchy,thelowerorthemoreelevated?WhereasinGermanyandinSwedentheyoungerandthelowerinhierarchyissupposedtogreetfirst,thisruleisbrokenincaseofgender:themanhastogreetfirst,theplacehavingnosignificance.InEngland,however,thecasemaybethatthewomangreetsamanfirst,whenmeetinghiminthestreetandinpublicplaces:theplaceisanimportantfactor.
2.Thecombinationoftimeandspacevariablesincludewhomustalwaysgreetfirst,whenandwhere.InGermany,oneissupposedtogreetwhenenteringaroom,evenadoctor'swaitingroom;thelatterwouldnotbedoneinSweden.
Page237
SituationalInterference
Alreadyonthebasisoftheseconsiderationsitisobviousthatdeviationsfrombehavioremesconditionedbythesituationcanleadtomisunderstandingsinintra-aswellasinterlinguisticcontactsituations.ThesecanbeduetotheinfluencefromL1andC1.Thenotionofinterferencehasbeenusedfordeviationsfromthenormsofonelanguageconcerningverbalmeansthroughtheinfluenceofanother.However,itcannotcountfordeviationscausedbytheinfluenceofthepragmaticnormsofthesituation.WhenaSwedeinGermanyisusingGermanDuaddressingsomebodywhenthepolitenesspronounSieisprescribedbythepragmaticnorms,itisnotsimplyadeviationfromthelinguisticnormsofL2,butfromthesocioculturalnormsofC2,causedbyC1,theSwedishnorms.Ithas,therefore,beennecessarytodifferentiatetheconceptofinterferenceanddistinguishbetweenlinguisticandsituationalinterferences(Oksaar,1975b).
Situationalinterferencesaredeviationsfromthepragmaticconventionsofthesituationsinwhichthecommunicativeacttakesplace,arisingthroughtheinfluenceofthebehaviourpatternsofanothergrouporcommunityincorrespondingsituations.Therearedifferentsituationalnormsonwhichspeakers/listenersbasetheirexpectationsofhowothersshouldbehave.Situationalinterferencescoverproductionandinterpretationofmessages.
Inusingtheculturememodelwithitsvariouskindsofbehavioremes,weareabletoanalysesituationalinterferencesonaratherconcretelevel.Bydoingso,wemayexplainculturallypatternedbehaviourinaconsiderablywiderareathanhasbeendone,becausebehavioremesmaybefoundinanychannelandnotonlyintheverbalone.
SomeExamples
InthefollowingIshalldiscussanumberofculturemes,the
behavioremesofwhichmayeasilyleadtosituationalinterferences,becausetherearegreatdifferencesinvariouscultures.Languagelearnershavetolearnwhatsignalstolookfor,contactlinguistsmayshowwhichcommunicativeresultssituationalinterferencesmayleadto.Thus,thequestionisnotonlywhy,fromthepointofthenativespeaker,anon-appropriatecommunicativeacttakesplace,butalsowhateffectitcanhaveontheactandontherelationbetweentheinteractants.
Weshallfirstlookattheculturalsignalswhichmaybeimportantbeforetheverbalandkinesicmessagesaresent.
Page238
Thereis,first,thequestionoftheamountofcodedinformation,accordingtovarioussituations.Hall(1977:91-92)speaksofhigh-context(HC)messagesandlow-context(LC)onesseeingthefirstatoneendandtheotherattheotherendofthecontinuum:'Ahigh-contextcommunicationormessageisoneinwhichmostoftheinformationiseitherinthephysicalcontextorinternalisedintheperson,whileverylittleisinthecoded,explicit,transmittedpartofthemessage'.ForHallalow-contextcommunicationisjusttheopposite:'Themassoftheinformationisvestedintheexplicitcode'(pp.105-106).ItistruethatnocultureistotallyHCorLC,butwhiletheChinese,Japanese,peopleoftheMiddleEast,theFrench,Spanish,andItaliansbelongtothehighcontextpeople,AmericansandEuropeansliketheGermans,Swiss,andScandinaviansbelongtothelowcontextgroup(Hall&Hall,1983).Ofcourse,therearegreatindividualdifferencesineverycultureconcerningthecontext,butasarule,theremaybeconflicts,whenhighcontextpeoplemeetwithlowcontextpeople.'Highcontextpeopleareapttobecomeimpatientandirritatedwhenlowcontextpeoplegivetheminformationtheydon'tneed'(Hall&Hall,1983:28).Ontheotherside,theyassumethatthelistenerknowswhattheirrealmatterisinacommunicativeact,andthereforetheyveryoftenonlygivehints.
IfonelooksatthebehavioremesthroughanextendedversionoftheclassicformulaofLasswell,asking:whosignals/interpretswhat,how,when,where,why,andwithwhateffect,onefindsagreatvarietyofpossibilitiesalsointheareaofonecommonlanguage.
Beforeonestartsspeaking,thepartnermayhaveexpectationsaboutthestructureoftheconversation.Theirexistencebecomesevidentwhentheyarenotfulfilled,asthefollowingAmerican-Frenchcontactsituationillustrates.TheformerSecretaryofStateHenryKissingerwritesabouthismeetingwithdeGaulle:'AttheendofthedinnerattheElisée...anaidetoldmethattheGeneralwishedtoseeme.
WithouttheslightestattempttosmalltalkdeGaullegreetedmewiththequery:"Whydon'tyougetoutofVietnam?"'(1979:109-110).Kissingermusthaveawaitedsmalltalk,whichwouldhavebeenthecaseinacorrespondingsituationintheUSA.Hemusthavehadalotofnonverbalandextraverbalsignalsthatmadehimconclude:'TheGeneralconsideredPresidentialAssistantsasfunctionarieswhoseviewsshouldbesolicitedonlytoenabletheprincipalstoestablishsometechnicalpoint;hedidnottreatthemasautonomousentities'(p.109).
Thehandlingoftimeandtheattitudestowardstimeareimportantextralinguisticfactorsininteractionalcompetence.Letuslookatthenormsofpunctuality.InSweden,absolutepunctualityisexpected,in
Page239
privateaswellasinofficialcircumstances;itisinmanysituationsevenwelcomeifonecomesafewminutesbeforethetime.InGermany,whenoneisinvitedtodinnerat7p.m.,thenormsofpolitenessdonotdemandabsolutepunctuality;however,asiscustomaryinothercircumstances,forexampleatuniversities,theacademicquarter(arrivingaquarterpastthehour)isexpected.InLatinAmerica,whatiscalledpunctualityinmanysituationsimpliesamuchlaterarrivalthaneventhatexpectedinGermany.Differencesinthisareacaninfluenceacommunicativeactbeforeitreallystarts.
Thecommunicationprocessitselfcanbeinfluencedbydifferencesusingthetimeincommon.Here,threefactorsareimportant:toknowthetimewhentotalk,howmuchtotalk,andhowmuchtimetoallottopauses.Therearegreatindividualandculturaldifferences.ThesedifferencescanbenoticedalreadyinEurope,betweenScandinaviansandGermans,forinstance.Scandinavians,especiallyFinns,makelongerpausesthanGermansanddonotverbaliseeverythingatonceduringcommunication.LikeTurksandJapanese,theyareawareofthefactthatthelistenerknowsthattheirsilenceisactive,athinkingsilence.Germans,however,havemanymoresignals,includingverbalones,whilelistening.ThiscanbeirritatingforaFinnorSwede.Germans,ontheotherhand,characterisethemasslowandnoteasytotalkto.Asamatteroffact,Scandinaviansarenotboundtosmalltalk.ThismaycomplicatetheirconversationespeciallywithAmericansforwhomsmalltalkhasanimportantfunctioninacommunicativeact.
AninstructiveapproachtosystematisethetimefactorhasbeenmadebyHall(1959)andHall&Hall(1983).Theydifferentiatebetweenmonochronicandpolychronictime.'Monochronictime(M-time)meansdoingonethingatime.Polychronictime(P-time)meansdoingmanythingsatonce'(1983:22).Itisevidentthattheremustbegreatdifferencesinthedegreeofthesesystems.M-timepeoplehavetimescheduled,theyhavetolearntoconcentrateononethingatatime.In
P-timeculturemanythingsareoccurringsimultaneously,'appointmentsareapttomeanverylittleandmaybeshiftedaroundatthelastminute....Sincepromptnessmeanslittletothepolychronicperson,theirfailuretobepunctualcanbestressfulforsomeonefromamonochronicculture.Andifthepolychronicpersondoesnottelephonetoexplainhistardiness,monochronicpeoplemaytakeoffence'(1983:23).
Tosumupsofar:basedonwhichsocioculturalgroupthespeaker/hearerbelongsto,therearedifferentsituationalnorms,onwhichhebaseshisexpectationsofhowtheothershouldbehave,ofwhatisexpectedofhimandofhowhehimselfshouldbehave.Weshallnowconsidera
Page240
fewcasesofsituationalinterferencefromtheverbalandnonverbalarea.
Verbalarea.InEstonian,Finnish,andSwedish,onefindstheculturemecompliment,justasinallotherEuropeanlanguagesandinAmericanEnglish.Itisrealisedinapproximatelythesamesortofsituations.Complimentsareusedinthephaticfunction.Fromthepointofviewofthespeakertheyhavesocialvalueestablishingapositiverelationtothehearer.Theyserveasacontactanddialogueinitiationstrategy.However,thereactiontoacomplimentisconnectedtovariousbehaviourpatterns.Inthethreelanguagecommunitiesmentionedabovecomplimentsshouldbeeitherdeclined,oratleastverymuchweakened.Foranobject,thisisaccomplishedbypresentingtheage,price,ororiginoftheobjectinsuchawaythatthecomplimentappearsnottobejustified.
IfMrsXistoldthatshehasabeautifuldresson,shecanrespondinthreepossiblewaystoexpressthatthisisnotso:usuallybyemphasising,(a)itsage(Ohno,it'sjustanoldthing!),(b)itslowprice(Ohno,itwasverycheap!),or(c)itsoriginoflowprestige(Ohno,it'sjustsomethingIpickedupinasaleorOhno,it'sjustsomethingImademyself!).However,accordingtothenormsinEnglishspeakingcountries,itisexpectedthatthereceiverinsuchasituationthanksthespeakerforthecompliment.AsituationalinterferenceariseswhenmultilingualEstonians,FinnsorSwedesintheircorrespondingnativelanguagethanksomeoneforacompliment.Theseinterferencesmay,however,alsobecomepartsofnewconventions.ItcanbetracedtotheAnglo-Saxoninfluence,whenaGermanthankssomeone,inGerman,foracompliment.Duringthisprocessofchangeinsuchbehaviourpatterns,misunderstandingsmayoccur.
Theresultofacommunicativemisunderstandingorconflictisnot
alwaysimmediatelyevident.If,inasituationwheretheverbalrealisationoftheculturemethankingisobligatory,apersondoesnotbehaveaccordingtothisnorm,thefollowingconsequencesmustbeexpected:hisbehaviourwillbeinterpretedasasignofimpolitenessorarroganceorindifference,andthiscanhaveconsequencesforthecommunicationwhichfollows.Grammaticalcorrectnessneednotcorrelatewithcommunicativecorrectnessandadequacy.
Choiceoftopicandmannerofrepresentationcanalsobementionedinthiscontext.InEurope,ifastrangeraskspersonalquestions,suchas:'Areyoumarried?','Howoldareyou?','Howmuchdoyouearn?',or,referringtoanobject:'Howmuchdiditcost?',heviolatesmanynormsofthecommunicativeact,whereasinmanyAsiancountriesthesequestions
Page241
areacceptable.Theparalinguisticrepertoireofrepresentationisalsosubjecttovariousnorms:aninterferencearises,forexample,whenaJapaneseinGermanygivessomeoneasadmessagewithasmile.
Here,thereisaninterestingcorrelationbetweenknowledgeofalanguageandoftheculture,fromthestandpointofthereceiver.Themorecompetentaspeakerisinalanguage,thebetterthehearerexpectshisculturalcompetencetobe.Consequently,lackofcontrolofculturemerealisationinalinguisticallycompetentspeakerwillnotbeexcusedeasily.
Nonverbalarea.InGermandankecanbeinterpretedasyesaswellasno,thanks,accordingtothesituation.IfaGreekmeansnoandemphasiseswhatheissayingbyrepeatedlymovinghisheadupanddown,thiskinememayleadtoamisunderstanding,sinceitcanbeinterpretedasnodding,anexpressionofagreement,andthereforeasyes.Hereweseesituationalinterferencefromanonverbalpartofthebehavioreme,whichmeansnoforaGreek.
Inasituationinwhichavisitorisofferedsomething,forexampleapieceofcake,EstonianandHungarianculturemesprescribethat,insteadofacceptingatonce,thevisitordeclines.Theofferisexpectedtoberepeatedatleastonce.Germannorms,ontheotherhand,prescribeapromptdecision.Adeviationfromthispromptdecision,causedbyinterferencefromEstonianorHungarianbehavioremes,canhaveunfavourableresults.
Wecannowestablishaperson-centredbehaviouralmodelofface-to-faceinteraction.Thismodelrepresentsacomplexinteractiveprocess.Itis,firstofall,anonverbalprocessinwhichthehearerreceivessignalsfromthespeakerthroughvariouschannels,suchasthevisualorauditive,beforeheorsheisevenspokento.Thespeaker'swayoflooking,hisorherfacialexpression,gestures,andclothing,forinstance,areallfactorswhichinfluencethehearer'sattitude.Thispre-
phaseformspartoftheinterpretationstructurewhichmay,however,changeinthecourseoftheactualconversation.
Duringsuchaconversationotherfactorsmayadditionallyinfluencethehearer.Deviationsfromthenormsofprosody,suchaspitchorvolume,mayalreadyleaveanimpressiononthehearerthatthespeakerisimpolite,rude,orwily,orisaccusinghimofsomething.Theother'stoneofvoiceisgenerallyinterpretedaccordingtoone'sownnorms,evenifoneispatientwithpossiblelinguisticinterferenceofforeigners.Inthismanner,prejudicesmaybedeepenedandstereotypesintensified.Themeta-levelofcontactshouldbeexploredmorecarefully;however,thispresupposesrecognitionoftheproblem.
Page242
Theinteractionoftheelementsofacommunicativeactcanberepresentedbyacongruencemodel.Understandingandmisunderstandingdependonatleastfourcongruences.Apartfromtheusualcongruences,semanticandgrammaticalcongruence,wemustdealwithpragmaticandsemioticcongruence.Iconsiderpragmaticcongruencetobeagreementbetweenthecontentsoftheverbal,paralinguistic,andnonverbalinformationcarriers.Semioticcongruencepointstoagreementofbehaviourpatternsintime,space,andaction.Theentirecommunicativeactmustcorrespondtothenormsofthesituation.
Conclusion
Inlearninganewlanguageyoulearnmoreaboutyourmothertongue,too.Throughstudyingforeignculturesoneunderstandsone'sown.Alanguagemustbeconsideredandtaughtaspartofalargerentityaculture.Iwouldliketoclosethisarticlewiththefollowingstatement:theself-evidentorobviousprovestobemuchlesssoifoneproceedsfromtheindividualandnotfromthelanguage,becauseeachlearnerbringshisowncreativecharacteristicstothelearningandinteractingprocess.Weneedahumanlinguisticapproachforlinguisticandculture-contactinvestigationsandforeffectiveSLAresearch.
NotestoChapter13
1.FordiscussionseeElsOksaar(1977:138-141).
2.AdifferentuseofculturemeandbehavioremeisfoundinPike(1967).
References
BALAZS,J.,1985,DisturbancesandmisunderstandingintheuseofaddressformsinHungarian.InR.J.BRUNT&W.ENNINGER(eds),InterdisciplinaryPerspectivesatCross-culturalCommunication.
Aachen:Rader,163-172.
BAUSCH,K.-R.&KASPER,G.,1979,DerZweitsprachenerwerb:MöglichkeitenundGrenzender'groben'Hypothesen.LinguistischeBerichte64,3-35.
BELL,R.T.,1976,Sociolinguistics.London:Batsford.
BRUNT,R.J.&ENNINGER,W.(eds),1985,InterdisciplinaryPerspectivesatCross-culturalCommunication.Aachen:Rader.
CANALE,M.&SWAIN,M.,1980,Theoreticalbasesofcommunicativeapproachestosecondlanguageteachingandtesting.AppliedLinguistics1,1-47.
DODD,C.H.,1982,DynamicsofInterculturalCommunication.Dubuque,IA:WilliamC.Brown.
Page243
GUMPERZ,J.J.,1984,Communicativecompetencerevisited.InD.SCHIFFRIN(ed.),Meaning,FormandUseofContext:LinguisticApplications.Washington,DC:GeorgetownUniversityPress,278-302.
HALL,E.T.,1959,TheSilentLanguage.GardenCity,NY:AnchorPress.
1977,BeyondCulture.GardenCity,NY:AnchorPress.
HALL,E.T.&HALL,M.REED,1983,HiddenDifferences.Hamburg:Stern.
HAYES,A.S.,1972,Paralinguisticsandkinesics:Pedagogicalperspectives.InT.A.SEBOEK,A.S.HAYES&M.C.BATESON(eds).ApproachestoSemiotics.TheHague:Mouton,145-172.
HÜLLEN,W.,1984,Textandtense.LAUT-paper:PedagogicalEnglishGrammar14(SeriesB100/14).Trier:UniversityofTrier,LinguisticAgency.
HYMES,D.,1967,Modelsoftheinteractionoflanguageandsocialsetting.JournalofSocialIssues23(2),8-28.
KISSINGER,H.,1979,WhiteHouseYears.Boston:Little,Brown&Company.
LIGHTBOWN,P.M.,1985,Greatexpectations:Second-languageacquisitionresearchandclassroomteaching.AppliedLinguistics6,173-189.
MALINOWSKI,B.,1935,CoralGardensandTheirMagic.London:Allen&Unwin.
OKSAAR,E.,1975a,SpracherwerbundKindersprache:PädolinguistischePerspektiven.ZeitschriftfürPädagogik21,719-743.
1975b,AsociolinguisticanalysisofbilingualbehaviourinSweden.InK.-H.DAHLSTEDT(ed.),TheNordicLanguagesandModernLinguistics2.Stockholm:Almqvist&Wiksell,609-620.
1977,SpracherwerbimVorschulalter:EinfuhrungindiePädolinguistik.Stuttgart:Kohlhammer.
1979,ZurAnalysederkommunikativenAkte.WirkendesWort29,391-404.
1983,Multilingualismandmulticulturalismfromthelinguist'spointofview.InT.HUSÉN&S.OPPER(eds),MulticulturalandMultilingualEducationinImmigrantCountries.Oxford:PergamonPress,17-36.
1984,Spracherwerb-Sprachkontakt-SprachkonfliktimLichteindividuumzentrierterForschung.InE.OKSAAR(ed.),Spracherwerb-Sprachkontakt-Sprachkonflikt.NewYork:DeGruyter,243-266.
PIKE,K.L.,1967,LanguageinRelationtoaUnifiedTheoryoftheStructureofHumanBehaviour.TheHague:Mouton.
RAITH,J.,1985,Intercultural(mis-,non-)understanding,ethnographyofcommunication,languageteaching.InR.J.BRUNT&W.ENNINGER
(eds),InterdisciplinaryPerspectivesatCross-culturalCommunication.Aachen:Rader,173-188.
SCHMIDT,R.E.&RICHARDS,J.C.,1980,Speechactsandsecondlanguagelearning.AppliedLinguistics1,129-157.
THOMAS,J.,1983,Cross-culturalpragmaticfailure.AppliedLinguistics4,91-112.
VANELS,T.,BONGAERTS,T.,EXTRA,G.,VANOS,C.&JANSSEN-VANDIETEN,A.M.(eds),1984,AppliedLinguisticsandtheLearningandTeachingofForeignLanguages.London:EdwardArnold.
Page245
BIOGRAPHICALDATAONCONTRIBUTORSDanielleBaillycurrentlyisProfessorofLinguisticsandAppliedLinguisticsattheDepartmentofLinguistics,UniversityofLilleIII,France.ShereceivedherPhDfromtheUniversitéSorbonneinParis.From1959to1968D.BaillyworkedasProfesseuragrégéed'enseignementsecondaireinToulouseandParis,France.Between1966and1968shewasAssistantProfessorattheSorbonneandfrom1968to1985MaîtreAssistantattheUniversityofParisVII.In1985sheacceptedtocalltotheUniversityofLille,France,ProfessorBaillyduringhercareerhasbeenassociatedwiththreenationalSLAresearchgroups,theCommissionNationaled'ÉtablissementdesProgrammesd'EnseignementdesLanguesPourleSecondaire(=NationalCommissiononLanguageAcquisitioninSecondarySchools),theCommissiondesGrandesEcoles,GroupeLanguesVivantes,andtheGroupedeRecherchesenPsycholinguistique,UniversitéParis(=thePsycholinguisticResearchGroupintheUniversityofParisVII).
HansW.DecherthasbeenProfessorintheDepartmentofEnglishandRomanceLanguagesandLiteraturesintheUniversityofKassel,FederalRepublicofGermanysince1972.In1954hereceivedhisPhDfromtheJohann-Wolfgang-Goethe-UniversityinFrankfurt.HetaughtatRutgersUniversity,USAandtheJustus-Liebig-UniversityinGiessen.HewasChairmanofhisDepartmentintheacademicyear1978/79.ProfessorDechertwasinchargeofthefollowinginternationalsymposiaatKassel:KasselWorkshopontheTheoryofSecond-LanguageAcquisition(1976),PausologicalImplicationsofSpeechProduction(1978),PsycholinguisticModelsofProduction(1980),TransferinProduction:APsycholinguisticApproach(1982)andTheSecondInternationalCongressofAppliedPsycholinguistics
(1987).AtpresentH.DechertisaVice-PresidentoftheInternationalSocietyofAppliedPsycholinguistics.Hehasfocusedhisresearchontemporalvariablesinspeechandthepsycholinguisticsofsecondlanguagespeech
Page246
productionofadvancedspeakersofEnglishandGermanwithintheKasselPsycho-andPragmalinguisticResearchGroup(KAPPA).
RainerDietrichisProfessorintheDepartmentofGermanasaForeignLanguageintheRuprecht-Karls-UniversityHeidelberg,FederalRepublicofGermany.AsagraduatestudentheattendedtheUniversityofHeidelbergandtheUniversityofSaarbrücken,whereheobtainedhisPhDwithathesisoncomputationallinguistics.In1974hereceivedthevenialegendiforGermanicandAppliedLinguisticsintheUniversityofHeidelberg(Habilitation).From1979to1981hewaschairmanoftheDepartmentofModernLanguagesinHeidelberg,between1983and1985Vice-PresidentoftheUniversity.ProfessorDietrichisontheeditorialboardofthejournalLinguistischeBerichte.HeisespeciallyknownforhiscontributionstotheEuropeanScienceFoundationprojecton'SecondLanguageAcquisitionofAdultImmigrants'.Hewasthechiefco-ordinatoroftheGermanteaminthisproject.
WernerHüllen,atpresentProfessorofLinguisticsintheDepartmentofLiteratureandLinguisticsattheUniversityofEssen,FederalRepublicofGermany,receivedhisPhDintheUniversityofColognein1951.In1952/53hewasgivenaone-yearappointmentaslecturerattheUniversityofBirmingham,England.In1963heacceptedthepositionofProfessorofDidacticsofEnglishLanguageandLiteratureinthePädagogischeHochschuleRheinland(=Teachers'TrainingCollegeRheinland),whichlaterbecamepartoftheUniversityofDüsseldorf.From1973to1977hewasProfessorofAppliedLinguistics/EnglishandDidacticsoftheEnglishLanguageattheUniversityofTrier.In1977hewasgivenacallasProfessorofEnglishPhilology/LinguisticsandTheoryofModernLanguageTeachingintheUniversityofEssen.Intheacademicyears1970-72and1980-81W.HüllenactedasChairmanofhisDepartment.Duringthesummerterm1985helecturedattheUniversityofVienna,
Austria,asaVisitingProfessor.Inthelate70sandearly80shewascloselyassociatedwithanationwideresearchprojectontheacquisitionandteachingofforeignlanguages,initiatedandsponsoredbytheGermanResearchCouncil(DeutscheForschungsgemeinschaft).ProfessorHüllenhaseditedvariousreadersandpublishednumerousarticlesindictionariesandprofessionaljournals.
KennethHyltenstamisAssociateProfessorintheDepartmentofResearchonBilingualism,InstituteofLinguistics,UniversityofStockholm,Sweden.AsagraduatestudentheattendedtheUniversityofLund,Sweden,andtheUniversityofEdinburgh,Scotland.HereceivedhisPhDfromtheUniversityofLundwithadissertationon'ProgressinimmigrantSwedish
Page247
syntax:avariabilityanalysis'(1978).From1978to1981K.HyltenstamwasAssistantProfessorofLinguisticsatLund.ProfessorHyltenstamactedasPresidentofASLA,theSwedishAssociationofAppliedLinguisticsfrom1979to1983.HehasbeentheeditorofthejournalScandinavianWorkingPapersonBilingualismsince1982andhaspublishedvariousarticlesincongressvolumesandseveralpapersinthejournal,LanguageLearning,amongothers.Atpresent,ProfessorHyltenstamworksonalargerprojectintheareaofbilingualismindementia.
JaakkoLehtonenisProfessorofAppliedLinguisticsandSpeechattheUniversityofJyväskylä,Finland.HehadhisgraduatetrainingintheUniversityofJyväskyläandtheUniversityofHelsinki,andreceivedhisPhDfromtheUniversityofJyväskyläin1970.From1972to1984hewasAssociateProfessorofPhoneticsattheUniversityofJyväskylä.ThereafterhewasappointedHeadofhisDepartment.From1975to1981healsotaughtasaDocentofPhoneticsattheUniversityofTurku,Finland,andasaDocentofAppliedLinguisticsandPhoneticsattheUniversityofTampere,Finland.Inco-operationwithK.SajavaarahehasbeenengagedintheJyväskyläCross-LanguageResearchProjectsince1975.BothofthemarethecoeditorsoftheJyväskyläCross-LanguageStudies.
ColetteNoyauatpresentisaMaitredeconférences(=AssociateProfessor)attheInstitutd'ÉtudesHispaniques(=InstituteforSpanishStudies)oftheUniversityofParisVIII,France.DuringhergraduatestudiessheattendedtheUniversitéSorbonne,Paris,andreceivedherPhDfromtheUniversitéParisIV.From1966-1969sheparticipatedinaresearchprojectoftheBureaupourl'EnseignementdelaLangueetdelaCivilisationFrançaiseàl'Étranger(=OfficefortheTeachingofFrenchasaSecondLanguage)intheInstitutPédagogiqueNational,theFrenchNationalEducationalInstituteinParis.
ElsOksaar,ProfessorofGeneralandComparativeLinguisticsattheUniversityofHamburg,FederalRepublicofGermany,receivedherPhDfromtheUniversityofStockholmin1953aftergraduatestudiesinStockholm,BonnandHamburg.From1958to1967shewasAssociateProfessorintheGermanicDepartmentoftheUniversityofStockholm,afterhavingreceivedthevenialegendiin1958(Habilitation).SheworkedasavisitingscholarattheUniversityofHamburgaswellasattheAustralianNationalUniversityatCanberra.Since1967E.OksaarhasbeenfullProfessorandDirectoroftheInstituteofGeneralandComparativeLinguisticsattheUniversityofHamburgandHeadoftheResearchCenterforLanguageContactandMultilingualism.In1979shewasResearchFellowoftheJapanSocietyfor
Page248
thePromotionofScienceinTokyo.In1987shewasappointedmemberoftheWissenschaftsratoftheFederalRepublicofGermany.Duringtheacademicyear1987/88shewasaFellowattheInstituteforAdvancedStudyBerlin(WissenschaftskollegzuBerlin).Since1979shehasbeenamemberoftheFinnishAcademyofSciences.In1986shewasawardedanhonoraryPhDdegreebytheUniversityofHelsinki,andin1987bytheUniversityofLinköping,Sweden.ProfessorOksaarhasbeenactiveinvariousnationalandinternationalprofessionalorganisations.ShewasafoundingmemberoftheInternationalAssociationfortheStudyofChildLanguageandheldtheofficeofPresidentbetween1975and1978.SheisnowamemberoftheExecutiveCommittee.Between1982and1985shewasaVice-PresidentoftheInternationalSocietyofAppliedPsycholinguistics.From1975shehasservedasthePresidentoftheAILACommissiononChildLanguage.ProfessorOksaariscoeditorofthejournalsZeitschriftfürgermanistischeLinguistik,FirstLanguage,IndianJournalofLinguistics,andSemantischeHefte.ShehasalsobeenamemberofthereadingcommissionoftheJournalofChildLanguage.From1967to1979ProfessorOksaarwasinchargeof'TheBilingualLanguageBehaviorProject',assessingthelanguagedevelopmentofEstoniansinSweden,Australia,USA,andCanada,andofGermansinSwedenandAustralia.SheistheDirectorofthe'HamburgLanguageAcquisitionProject'andthecomparativeresearchproject'IdentityandLanguage'.
HåkanRingbomisAssociateProfessorintheDepartmentofEnglishatÅboAkademi,theSwedishlanguageuniversityofFinland,Turku(Åbo).HereceivedhisPhDfromÅboAkademiwithadissertationonOldandMiddleEnglishpoetryin1968.In1973hepublishedamonographonthestyleofGeorgeOrwell'sessays.H.Ringbom'smainconcerninappliedlinguisticsandcontrastivepsycholinguisticsinrecentyearshasincreasinglyfocusedontheroleofL1inSLA.For
aboutadecadehehasledaresearchproject,supportedbytheAcademyofFinland,onthedifferencebetweenFinns(thespeakersofanon-Indo-EuropeanFinno-Ugrianlanguage)andSwedish-speakingFinns(aGermaniclanguage)acquiringEnglish(anotherGermaniclanguage).Theresultsofthislong-termstudyprojecthavebeenpublishedinthevolumeTheRoleoftheFirstLanguageinForeignLanguageLearning(Clevedon:MultilingualMatters,1987).
MichaelSharwoodSmithiscurrentlyAssociateProfessorintheDepartmentofEnglish,UniversityofUtrecht,TheNetherlands.AftergraduatingatSt.AndrewsheworkedintheBritishCentreinSwedenand,aftergraduatestudiesattheUniversityofEdinburgh,attheDepartmentofEnglish,AdamMickiewiczUniversity,Poznan
*,Poland,fromwhichhereceivedhisPhD.
Page249
HehasparticipatedintheDutchprojecton'DevelopmentalProcessesinForeignLanguageAcquisition'intheLanguageAnalysisandLanguageEducationProgrammeandsupervisedtheDutchPureResearchFoundationprojecton'AdverbialPlacementinEnglishasaForeignLanguage'.HeistheorganiseroftheLARS(LanguageAcquisitionResearchSymposia)atUtrecht.ProfessorSharwoodSmithisco-editorofthejournalSecondLanguageResearch,thesuccessortotheInterlanguageStudiesBulletin.Hispublicationsincludevarioustheoreticalstudiesofsecondlanguageacquisition
PeterSkehanhasbeenaLecturerinEducation,withspecialreferencetoEnglishforspeakersofotherlanguages,attheInstituteofEducation,LondonUniversity,DepartmentofEnglishforSpeakersofOtherLanguages(ESOL)since1982.AsagraduatestudentheattendedtheUniversityofWesternOntario,London,Ontario,Canada,wherehereceivedanMAdegreeinPsychology,andtheUniversityofParisIII,whichhefinishedwithaMaitriseinEFL.HereceivedhisPhDfromLondonUniversity,BirkbeckCollegein1982withadissertationwiththetitleMemoryandMotivationinLanguageAptitudeTesting.From1977to1982heworkedintheEnglishDepartment,BirminghamUniversity,England.Dr.SkehanisDirectorofthe'FirstandForeignLanguageLearningAbilityComparison'researchprojectwhichhasbeenfollowingupthechildrenfromthefamousGordonWells'BristolLanguageStudynowthattheyarelearningforeignlanguagesinschools.TogetherwithP.Meara,P.Skehanisgeneraleditoroftheseries'SecondLanguageAcquisition'publishedbyEdwardArnold,London.Hisresearchhasmainlydealtwithlanguageaptitudetesting.
RenzoTitoneisProfessorofEducationalPsycholinguisticsandHeadoftheDepartmentofDevelopmentalPsychologyattheUniversityofRome'LaSapienza',Italy.HereceivedhisgraduatetraininginPsychologyattheSalesianUniversityofRome,Italy,andFordham
University,NewYork,USA.In1947hereceivedhisPhDfromtheSalesianUniversityofRome.From1947to1950hetaughtatNewtonCollege,USA,from1954to1969attheSalesianUniversityinRome,from1961to1969atGeorgetownUniversity,Washington,DC,USAandfrom1971to1972attheUniversitiesofCataniaandVenice,Italy.From1960to1966hewasHeadoftheDepartmentofDidacticsattheSalesianUniversity,in1972HeadoftheDepartmentofLanguageDidacticsattheUniversityofVenice,andsince1985hehasbeenHeadoftheDepartmentofDevelopmentalPsychologyattheUniversityofRome.ProfessorTitoneistheDirectorofthe'EarlyBilingualLiteracyProject',the'ResearchonMetalinguisticDevelopmentProject',andthe'InterculturalandInteruniversityProgramme'oftheUniversityofRome.HeisalsothefirstPresidentofTESOLItaly,the
Page250
PresidentoftheInternationalSocietyofAppliedPsycholinguistics,theFounderandDirectoroftheItalianCentreforAppliedLinguisticsandthePresidentoftheScientificCommitteefortheco-ordinationoftheFLESProjectoftheItalianMinistryofEducation.ProfessorTitoneisthefounderandEditor-in-chiefofthejournalsStudiesofEducationalPsychology,andRassegnaItalianadiLinguisticaApplicata(=ItalianReviewofAppliedLinguistics).Heistheauthorof77booksand350articles(writteninortranslatedintoItalian,English,French,Portuguese,Serbo-Croatian,andRussian)innumerousnationalandinternationaljournals.
DanielVéroniqueatpresentisAssistantProfessorattheDepartmentofGeneralandAppliedLinguistics,UniversitédeProvence,Aix-en-Provence,France.Heattendedthesameuniversityduringhisgraduatestudies,beforehereceivedhisPhDwithadissertationon'Analysecontrastive,analysed'erreurs,uneapplicationdelalinguistiqueàladidactiquedeslanguesII'(=Contrastiveanderroranalysis:Linguisticsappliedtothedidacticsofsecondlanguageacquisition)in1983.From1975to1986Dr.VéroniqueworkedasanassistantintheGeneralandAppliedLinguisticsDepartmentofhisuniversity.HeistheAix-en-Provenceco-ordinatoroftheGroupedeRecherchesurl'AcquisitiondesLangues(GRAL)(=SLAResearchGroup)andhasbeenassociatedwiththeESF(EuropeanScienceFoundation)researchprojectinmigrantworkers'SLA.HeisalsoamemberoftheInstitutd'EtudesCreoles(=InstituteofCreoleStudiesoftheUniversityofProvence).InadditiontohisvariousstudiesinSLAofadultimmigrantsinEurope,mainlyfromNorthAfrica,hisresearchhasespeciallyfocusedonpidginisationandcreolisation.HehasalsostudiedthesemanticsandsyntaxofMauritiancreole.
Page251
LISTOFRESEARCHPROJECTSÅboAkademiProject,pp.9,205-218.
BangaloreProject,p.83.
BilingualLanguageBehaviourProject,pp.10,230-242.
BristolLanguageProject,pp.5,83,85,87-104.
Charlirelle(DepartmentofResearchinLanguageLearning,lnstitutCharlesV,UniversityofParisVII)ResearchProject,pp.6f,119-138.
CRAFTProject,p.71.
EarlyBilingualReadingProject,pp.5f,75-81.
EssenClassroomDiscourseProjects,pp.6,111-117.
ESF(EuropeanScienceFoundation)Project,pp.2,7f,13-22,143-170,171-199.
HeidelbergResearchProject,pp.19f.
JyväskyläCross-LanguageProject,pp.37-50.
KAPPA(KasselPsycho-andPragmalinguistic)ResearchProject,pp.3f,40f,54-63.
MultilingualLanguageAcquisitionProject,pp.10,230-242.
PennsylvaniaForeignLanguageProject,pp.83f.
UtrechtESLProject,pp.19f,219-229.
YorkProject,p.83.
Page253
INDEXNote:L1=firstlanguage;L2=secondlanguage;TEO=Theoryofenunciativeoperation.Figuresinitalicsrefertotablesanddiagrams.
A
Ability,languagelearning5,83-105
components86,91,98
origin98
variationsin84-7,92
Acceptabilitytasks40-1,41,44-5,224,226
AccessibilityHierarchy25-31,34
Accumulation,propositional175
Achievement,variations87
Acquisition
definition221-2
learner-centredapproach230-1
natural43,108-9
Act,communicative232-3,237-42
Act,phatic114-15,117
Adults
acquisitionofthenouns,verbs3,14-15,17-22
classroomacquisitionofL227-33,136-7
naturalacquisitionofL28,15-18,143,148-60,171-99
Adverbs
avoidance18
placement224-6
intemporalreference159,161
Affect,influenceonL2achievement87
AirLinePilotsAssociationStudyGroupReport52-3
Analysis,language,inclassroom131-5
Anaphora8
adultL2learners158,176-7,181,186,188,190,192,196
Andersen,P.A.4,48
Anderson,Janet226
Andersson,Theodore70-1,72-3
Arana,AnttonKaifer81
Ard,J.&Homburg,T.206
Articles,inL2acquisition211-12
Aspect,development159,161,162
Attrition,language225-6
Austin,J.L.233
Automaticity,development3-4,37-49
Awareness,metalinguistic2,67-8,69,121,131,137,173
B
Bears,B.J.53
Bailly,Danielle6-7,119-39
Bakker,C.226
Balazs,J.235
BangaloreProject83
Behaviour,U-shaped223-4
Behaviouremes10,231,234,237-8
extraverbal236
nonverbal236,241
paralinguistic235
verbal234-5,240-1
Bell,R.T.233
Bialystok,Ellen221-2
Bich,NguyênNgoc74-5
Bickerton,D.171-2,186
BilingualBehaviourProject231
Bilingualism,early
andintelligence67-8
andreading68-9,75
argumentsfor70-5
andbasiceducation69-70
Page254
Biliteracy,seereading,bilingual
Binomials,acquisition55-6
Blending,ofcompetingplans4,52-62
Bloom,Benjamin70
Bloom,L.,Lightbown,P.&Hood,L.85
Bretherton,I.,McNew,S.,Snyder,L.&Bates,E.85-6
BristolLanguageProject5,85,87-100
aptitudeandachievement95-6
L1-L2achievement96,97
L1-L2aptitude93-5,96
researchdesign89-92
Brown,R.101,224
Bryant,M.61-2
Businger,Hélène74
C
Canale,M.&Swain,M.233
Carroll,J.B.83,86,91
Carter,Jimmy60-1
Cataphora,adultL2learners186
CharlieChaplinexperiment174,184-6,186-92,193-5
Charlirelleresearchgroup136,138n.
Child
cognitivedevelopment2,13-14,19-20
andearlyreading5,68-71,75
L2acquisition32-3
speechdevelopment13,126
Chomsky,N.221-3,227
Class,social,andlanguageachievement100,
seealsoenvironment
Classroom,transferin207
Cliticisation177,182-3,188,192,194
Cohen,Rachel71
Cohesion172-3
Communication,styles175
Communicationorientedapproach2
Competence
communicative233,242
conscious/unconscious4,48-9
andcontrol9,45,49,221-6
interactional223,225,231,232-3,236,238-9
andperformance221-2
pragmatic233,242
social233
Competition
-ininformationprocessing4
-intaskplanning52-3
Complementation,sentential226
Complexity
structural6,40,111-12,226
syntactic93,94,98,102,111-12,157-9
Compliment240
Comprehension
effectsoftransfer208,209-11,216
measurement94,94,95,96-8,97,101,102n.
Conceptacquisition
andbilingualism67
andearlyreading71
andSLAresearch145
andtemporality161-2,168
Conceptualisation,inL2acquisition6,120-1,127,131
Congruence
pragmatic231,242
semiotic231,242
Connectors,useof6,111,150,158-9,172,182
Consciousness,inL2acquisition39,48
Constructivistapproach127
Contactlinguistics231
Context,inreference8,183,187-8
Continuity,thematic177
Contrastiveanalysishypothesis9,37,216,230
Control
andautomaticity45
strategies9,49
Corder,S.P.216
Coupier,C.176-7
Culioli,Antoine7,119,138n.
Culture,contact10,230-42
Culturemetheory231,234-6,237
Culturemes10,231,234,240-1
D
Data
collection37,40-1,87-8,90,146-7,220-1
elicitationtechniques16-17,27,
Page255
30,32,56,180,221,222-3
Davies,A.&Beretta;A.83
Dechert,Hans4,37,51-64
Decisiontasks37,40-8,41,44,46-7
Decision-making,grammatical44-5
Definitearticle,inreference182
Determination6,133-4,135,178,187,191,197
Deulofeu,J.173,174-5,188,190
Dictation,partial,effectsoftransfer209
Dietrich,Rainer2-3,1,13-22
Dinnsen,D.A.&Eckman,F.31
Directspeech,usebylearners111
Discourse
classroom6,107-17
markers193,194,195,197,197,198
structure8,171,172-6,185
Discourseanalysis108,110
Dittmar,N.173
Dodd,C.H.236
Doman,Glenn70,72
Donaldson,M.68
Dulay,H.,Burr,M.&Krashen,S.224
Durkin,D.71
Dutch,asL1225-8
E
EarlyBilingualReadingExperimentalProject5-6
Effectuation128-9
Elicitationtests221,222-3
Elicitation-response-evaluation6,112-15
Embedding,usebylearners112
English
asL1234-5
asL231,40-8,54-5,59-60,119,127-35,165,207-12,219-28
advancedlearners4,54-5,58
Enunciativeoperation,theoryof(TEO)7,119,121-37
datasamples131-5
experiment127-31
researchtopics135-7
Environment,inlanguageacquisition85,87,92,94,95,96-9,97,100-1
Episodes,signalling190,193,195,196,198
Erroranalysis206,211,212
EuropeanScienceFoundationProject2-3,7-8,15-16,143-68,183
Exposure,L243-4,224
F
Favreau,M.&Segalowitz,N.S.39
Fillmore,CJ.88
Fillmore,L.W84
Finnish
asL126,27,29,29-30,32-3,42-4,206-16,213
phonology31-2
Flexibility,andbilingualism67
Fossilisation225
French
discoursestructure8,172,176-83
asL2143-4,147-60,166-7,174,183-8
Function,linguistic119-20,131,172
Functions,grammatical25-8
G
Gardner,R.C.83-4
Gass,S.&Selinker,L.206
Gender,attribution55
Gentner,D.13-14
German
asL137,42-4,54-5,225,234-6
asL240-2,44,165-7,174
Gesture232
Giacomi,A.173,175,186
Giacomi,A.&Vion,R.186,197
Givòn,T.172-4
Glide,teacheruseof113
Goal,communicative109-10
Goldman-Eisler,F56
Grammar
acquisition175
progression120,127
sensitivityto86,91
Greek,asL126,27,28,30
Green,P.S.91
Greeting,ascultureme234-6
Gumperz,J.J.233
H
Hall,E.T.238,239
Hall,E.T.&Hall,M.Reed238,239
Halliday,M.A.K.88,138n.
Halliday,MA.K.&Hasan,R172-3
Page256
Hammarberg,Bjorn24
Hayes,A.S.232
Houdaïfa,T.176-80,182,188
Houdaïfa,T.&Véronique,D.180-2
Hüllen,W.&Lörscher,W.111-12,114-16
Hüllen,Werner6,107-18
Hyltenstam,Kenneth3,23-36
Hyltenstam,Kenneth&Magnusson,Eva31,32
Hymes,D.233
I
Identityhypothesis230
Immigrants
andearlybilingualreading75,80-1
languageacquisition15-16,143-4
Incompetence,conscious/unconscious4,48
Indeterminationmarkers130
Inputhypothesis230
Interaction
competence,seecompetence,interactional
cross-linguistic9-10,24,219,222-8
Interference
L16,54-6,113-14,120,194,222,228
L242
situational10,237-42
Interlanguage7,157,168,206,230
morphology176-7,182
syntax175
inTEO120,127-9,135,137
useofpronominalcopies27,30-1
InterlanguageStudiesBulletin221
Intonation235
Italian,asL1166-7,174
J
Jacobson,Sven225
Jakobson,R.31
James,Carl216
Johansson,FaithAnn24
JyväskylaCross-LanguageProject37,40-8
K
Keenan,E.L.&Comrie,B.26,30
Kissinger,Henry238
Klein,W.&Perdue,C.173,174,184-6,196,198
Knowledge,procedural37-8,221-2
Krashen,S.D.138n.,221,230
Kuczaj,S.A.13
Kumpf,L.164
L
L1
-andL2achievement8,96,97,97-100,157,164-5,167-8,196-8,223
-andL2aptitude93-5,94,96,98-9
-variationsinacquisition84-6,92,109
seealsotransfer
L2
acquisition,cross-linguisticdifferences161
aptitudeandachievement95,95-6,98
classroommethods108-17,119-35
learning
andL1acquisition109
observability144-5
variationsinacquisition5,84,86-7,92,130-1,137
Laboratory,language83
Lado,R.216
Language,spoken232
LanguageAcquisitionResearchSymposia221
Languagecontact10,230-42
integrativeapproach10,232-3
Learnability227
Learnertypes5,84
Lee,O.R.73
Lehtonen,Jaakko3,37-49
Lennon,P.58
Lexicon
acquisition2-3,13-22,156
-individualrepertoires17,17-18,18,19
Literacy,andschoolsuccess99-100
Loanwords5,207
Location6,121-5
temporal,seetemporality
Loftus,E.F.53
Logan,G.D.45
Lörscher,W.114-16
Lückert,H.R.71
Page257
M
McLaughlin,B.48
McLaughlin,B.,Rossman,T.&McLeod,B.38,39
Mägiste,Edith39
Magnusson,Eva31
Malinowski,B.232
Markedness,linguistic3,23-34,188,227
Markers
adultacquisition8,146,157,167,171,175-6,185,188-91
discourse193,194,195,197,197,198
studentacquisition131,133,135
Materials,teaching
forearlybilingualreading75-6,78-80
grammaticalprogressionin119,120,127
Mazurkewich,I.227
Memories,compromise53
Messages,high/low-context238
Metacognition2
MichiganTestofEnglishLanguageProficiency206
Misunderstanding,cultural10,231,233,238-41
MonitorModel230
Moroccan,asL1172,174-6,183-4
Morphemes,developmentalorder84
Morphology,acquisition158-9,160-1,166-7,176,182,194,199
Motivation,inL2learning83-4,130-1
MultilingualLanguageAcquisitionProject231
N
Naiman,N.,Frohlich,M.,Todesco,A.&Stern,H.H.84
Narrative
dialogue148
asdiscourse173
temporalityin147-57
useofnouns20-1
Needs,discursive163-4
Nelson,K.85
Nouns,orderofacquisition2-3,13-14,17-22,18
Noyau,Colette7,143-70
O
Oksaar,Els10,73-4,230-43
Overlap,L160
P
Parents,roleinearlybilingualreading72-3
Pause,planning113-14
Pavesi,M.30-1
PennsylvaniaProject83,84
Perception
L24
andlanguageacquisition13-14,19,37-8
andreadingacquisition68
Performance
classroom6
andcompetence221-2
Perlish,HarveyNeil71
Persian,asL126,27,28
Peters,A.M.55,85
Phonology
earlyawareness68
inL2acquisition33
Pidginisationhypothesis230
Pike,K.L.242n.
Plan,competition4,51-63
Planning,inclassroomdiscourse6,113-14
Polomska,M.226
Pragmatics126
Predication128,172,176
inchildlanguagedevelopment13
Preposition-stranding227-8
Prepositions
effectsoftransfer211-12
locative182,183
Presentationals174
Processing,representationmodel55
Processing,cognitive
L138,84
L24,37-8,109-10,145
automatic/controlled38-9,40-5,48-9
Production
effectsoftransfer210-11,216
oral4,40,54-7,99-100
written4,58
Pronominalcopies25-31,26,27,33-4
Pronominals,inL2acquisition8,171,174,176-8,179,183,186-8,
Page258
188-9,190,192,194-5
Pronunciation,effectsoftransfer209
Protocolresearch136
Proximity,language144,166
Punctuality,attitudestowards238-9
Punjabi,asL1165
R
Raith,J.235
Reactiontime3-4,37-8,39,40-1,48-9
Reading,bilingual5-6,67-81
argumentsfor5,70-5
evaluation76-7
researchproject75-81
Reagan,Ronald60-1
Reason,J.&Mycielska,K.52,62n.
Reference
acquisition33
adult19-21,176,183-4,186-96
anddiscourseorganisation8,171-83
avoidance185,192,195
anddiscourseorganisation,inL2acquisition173-6
nominal176-8
spatial178-82,195
switch191-2,198
temporal182,196
Relation,temporal146,160,162-3
Relations,deepcase33-4
Relativeclauses,pronominalcopies25-31,33-4
Representation128-9,136
andsituationalinterference241
Researchmethodology109-10
Reyes,P.83
Ringbom,Håkan9,205-18
Role-playing130
S
Schachter,J.25
Schlyter,S.164
Schmalohr,R.71
Schmidt,R.E.&Richard,J.C.233
Schumann,J.H.173
Searle,J.R.233
SecondLanguageAcquisitionbyAdultImmigrants143
SecondLanguageResearch221
Self-reference176-8,179
Semantics,propositional172
Semiotics120-1,125,126-7,128-9
Sentence
complementation226
structure173
SharwoodSmith,Michael9-10,219-29
Shiffrin,R.M.&Dumais,S.T.38
Signals
detection45
non-verbal10,113,232,237-9,241
Sinclair,J.McH.&Coulthard,M.111
Skehan,Peter5,83-106
SLA,ascontroversial1-2
Smalltalk,attitudestowards238-9
Socialrelationship,asbehaviourvariable234-5,236
Space,asbehaviourvariable236
Spanish
-asL126,27,29,29,30,143-4,148-59,166,226-7
-asL2227
Speech,maternal,andL1acquisition84,85
Speechacttheory233
Speechacts,classroomdistribution6,114-15,117
Spelling,effectoftransfer209-10
Spontaneity,inclassroomdiscourse6,112-14,128
Stops,voicedistinction31-3,32,33,209
Strategies,learner84,85,87,111-12,127-35,136
Stress,Finnish207
Structures,languages,cross-linguisticperspective24,25-7,33
Stutterheim,C.von&Klein,W.161,169n.
Supercompetence,conscious4,48-9
Swedish
asL1206-16,214
asL23,25-33,166
Syntax,anddiscourse173
T
Tannen,Deborahvii,ix,148
Taskstress51,55-7,222
Teachingmethods
communication-based100,120