User:CRHeck/sandbox

References

Altarriba, Jeanette; Heredia, Roberto R., eds. (2008).An introduction to bilingualism : principles and practies. New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. ISBN 978-0-8058-5135-9.

Birdsong, David; ed. (1999). "Whys and why nots of the critical period hypothesis for second language acquisition." In Birdsong, David; ed. Second language acquisition and the critical period hypothesis. Mahwah (NJ): Lawrence Erlbaum. ISBN: 0-8058-3084-7.

Gass, S; Glew, M. (2008). “Second language acquisition and bilingualism.” In Altarriba, J.; Heredia, R. R.. In An introduction to bilingualism: Principles and processes. New York: Taylor & Francis Group. ISBN: 13:978-0-8058-5135-9.

Han, ZhaoHong; Tarone, Elaine; eds. (2014). Interlanguage: Forty years later. Philadelphia: John Benjamins. ISBN: 978-90-272-1320-4.

Han, ZhaoHong (2008). Understanding second language process. Clevedon (England): Multilingual Matters. ISBN: 978-1-84769-014-2.

Han, ZhaoHong (2004). Fossilization in adult second language acquisition (Online ed.). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. pp. 12–24. ISBN 1-85359-686-8.

Loewen, Shawn; Reinders, Hayo (2011). Key concepts in second language acquisition. Basingstoke (HA): Palgrave Macmillan. ISBN: 978-0-230-23018-7.

Paradis, Michel (2004). A neurolinguistic theory of bilingualism. Philadelphia: John Benjamins. ISBN: 90-272-4127-9. pp. 59-60.

White, Lydia (2015). “Linguistic theory, universal grammar, and second language acquisition.” In VanPatten, Bill; Williams, Jessica; eds. Theories in second language acquisition An introduction. New York: Routledge. ISBN: 978-0-415-82421-7.

Critical period hypothesis issues

Although the ideas put forth by Penfield and Lenneberg are practical, they are extremely oversimplified (CITE SINGLETON).

                       This sounds essay-like...

Critical period hypothesis - SLA - MOVED TO ARTICLE

Copied and pasted from page (Bold = new additions):

The theory has often been extended to a critical period for second-language acquisition (SLA), although this is much less widely accepted. Certainly, older learners of a second language rarely achieve the native-like fluency that younger learners display, despite often progressing faster than children in the initial stages. David Singleton^[11] states that in learning a second language, "younger = better in the long run," but points out that there are many exceptions, noting that five percent of adult bilinguals master a second language even though they begin learning it when they are well into adulthood—long after any critical period has presumably come to a close.

While the window for learning a second language never completely closes, certain linguistic aspects appear to be more affected by the age of the learner than others. For example, adult second-language learners nearly always retain an immediately identifiable foreign accent, including some who display perfect grammar (Oyama 1976). A possible explanation for why this foreign accent remains is that pronunciation, or phonology, is susceptible to the critical period (Cite Singleton). The pronunciation of speech sounds relies on neuromuscular function. Adults learning a new language are unlikely to attain a convincing native accent since they are past the prime age of learning new neuromuscular functions, and therefore pronunciations. Writers have suggested a younger critical age for learning phonology than for morphemes and syntax. Singleton (1995) reports that there is no critical period for learning vocabulary in a second language because vocabulary is learned consciously using declarative memory (Cite Singleton + Paradis). The attrition of procedural memory with age results in the increased use of declarative memory to learn new languages, which is an entirely different process from L1 learning (Cite Paradis). The plasticity of procedural memory is argued to decline after the age of 5. The attrition of procedural memory plasticity inhibits the ability of an L2-user to speak their second language automatically. It can still take conscious effort even if they are exposed to the second language as early as age 3. This effort is observed by measuring brain activity. L2-users that are exposed to their second language at an early age and are everyday users show lower levels of brain activity when using their L1 than when using their L2. This suggests that additional resources are recruited when speaking their L2 and it is therefore a more strenuous process.

The critical period hypothesis in SLA follows a "use it then lose it" approach, which dictates that as a person ages, excess neural circuitry used during L1 learning is essentially broken down (Cite Birdsong). If these neural structures remained intact they would cost unnecessary metabolic energy to maintain. The structures necessary for L1 use are kept. On the other hand, a second "use it or lose it" approach dictates that if an L2-user begins to learn at an early age and continues on through his life, then his language-learning circuitry should remain active. This approach is also called the "exercise hypothesis" (Cite Birdsong).

There is much debate over the timing of the critical period with respect to SLA, with estimates ranging between 2 and 13 years of age (Cite Loewen + Paradis). These estimates tend to vary depending on what component of the language learning process a researcher considers. For instance, if an SLA researcher is studying L2 phonological development, they will likely conclude that the critical period ends at around age 3. If another SLA researcher is studying L2 syntactical development, they may conclude that the critical period ends at a much later age. These differences in research focus are what create the CPH timing debate.

Some writers have argued that the critical period hypothesis does not apply to SLA, and that second-language proficiency is determined by the time and effort put into the learning process, and not the learner's age (Cite Loewen + Birdsong). Robertson (2002)]^[12] observed that factors other than age may be even more significant in successful second-language learning, such as personal motivation, anxiety, input and output skills, and the learning environment. A combination of these factors often leads to individual variation in second-language acquisition experiences.

On reviewing the published material, Bialystok and Hakuta (1994) conclude that second-language learning is not necessarily subject to biological critical periods, but "on average, there is a continuous decline in ability [to learn] with age."

Interlanguage - MOVED TO ARTICLE

@Beccabouma: Can you see this? I'm unsure how to create a shared sandbox so I thought this might work. This is the space I've started in my sandbox for interlanguage stuff. We could also collaborate on other things here. CRHeck (talk) 01:16, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

I can see it! Good thinking. Thanks Carly. 23.17.136.108 (talk) 15:40, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Copied and pasted from Interlanguage#Other factors (Bold = new additions):

Suggested new title for this section: Stages of Development

Individuals learning a second language may not always hear spoken L2 words as separate units (CITE GASS). Some words might blend together and become a single unit in the learner's L2 system. The blended words are called "prefabricated patterns" or "chunks." These chunks are often not immediately obvious to the learner or anyone that listens to them speak, but may be noticed as the learner's L2 system becomes more developed and they use the chunk in a context where it does not apply. For example, if an English learner hears sentences beginning with "do you," they may associate it with being an indicator of a question but not as two separate words. To them, the word is "doyou." They may happen to say "What do you doing?" instead of "What are you doing?" Eventually the learner will learn to break the chunk up in to its component words and use them correctly.

When learners experience significant restructuring in their L2 systems, they sometimes show a U-shaped learning pattern. For instance, Lightbown (1983) showed that a group of English language learners moved, over time, from accurate usage of the “-ing” present progressive morpheme, to incorrectly omitting it, and finally, back to correct usage. Occasionally the period of incorrect usage is seen as a learning regression (CITE GASS). However, it is likely that the initial correct usage of the morpheme was accidental. It can be theorized that the learner first acquired the “-ing” form as a "chunk" from a whole word, second, lost control of this form as their knowledge system was disrupted by expanding understandings of the tense and aspect systems of English, and third, returned to correct usage upon gaining greater control of these linguistic characteristics and forms. These data provide evidence that learners were initially producing output based on rote memory of individual words containing the present progressive "-ing" morpheme. However, in the second stage their systems contained the rule that they should use the bare infinitive form to express present action, without a separate rule for the use of “-ing.” Finally, they learned the rule for appropriate use of "ing" . The "chunking" method enables a learner to practice speaking their L2 before they correctly break the chunk up in to its component parts. According to Interlanguage theory, this seeming progression and regression of language learning is an important and positive manifestation of the learner's internal understanding of the grammar of the target language.

Copied and pasted from Interlanguage#Linguistic universals (Bold = new additions):

Research on universal grammar (UG) has had a significant effect on SLA theory. In particular, scholarship in the interlanguage tradition has sought to show that learner languages conform to UG at all stages of development (CITE VANPATTEN). A number of studies have supported this claim, although the evolving state of UG theory makes any firm conclusions difficult.^{[citation needed]}

Interlanguage UG differs from native UG in that interlanguage UGs greatly vary in mental representations from one L2-user to another (CITE VANPATTEN). This variability arises from differing relative influences on the interlanguage UG, such as existing L1 knowledge and UG constraints. An example of a UG constraint is an "island constraint," where the wh-phrase in a question has a finite number of possible positions. Island constraints are based on the concept that there are certain syntactical domains within a sentence that act as phrase boundaries. It is theorized that the same constraints that act on a native UG are also often present in an interlanguage UG.

SLA - Linguistic factors - Universal grammar - MOVED TO ARTICLE

What there is on UG:

The theory of universal grammar was proposed by Noam Chomsky in the 1950s, and has enjoyed considerable popularity in the field of linguistics. It focuses on describing the linguistic competence of an individual, as opposed to mechanisms of learning. It consists of a set of principles, which are universal and constant, and a set of parameters, which can be set differently for different languages. The "universals" in universal grammar differ from typological universals in that they are a mental construct derived by researchers, whereas typological universals are readily verifiable by data from world languages. It is widely accepted among researchers in the universal grammar framework that all first-language learners have access to universal grammar; this is not the case for second-language learners, however, and much research in the context of second-language acquisition has focused on what level of access learners may have.

What I would like to add:

Universal grammar can account for some of the observations made in SLA research. For example, L2-users often display knowledge about their L2 that they have not been exposed to (CITE WHITE). L2-users will often be aware of ambiguous or ungrammatical L2 units that they have not learned from any external source, nor from their pre-existing L1 knowledge. This unsourced knowledge suggests the existence of a universal grammar.

Multi-competence (New Section): Research - MOVED TO ARTICLE

At the time the term "multi-competence" was coined, SLA research often relied on comparing an L2-user to native speakers of the L2 using methods of error analysis (CITE HAN). The "errors" are usually defined by deviations from language norms and/or grammar rules. L2-users can also be measured based on how well they imitate typical native speakers.

SLA research has suggested a bidirectional influence exists between a bilingual's L1 and L2. The foundational linguistic skills acquired during L1 learning are also utilized during L2 learning, meaning pre-existing L1 knowledge has an impact on incoming L2 knowledge. Going in the other direction, an L2-user's interlanguage can also influence their L1 knowledge, a process known as "reverse transfer" (CITE HAN). Reverse transfer can result in an L2-user making mistakes when communicating in their L1. However, these effects are not always impeding; L2-users often experience improved L1 reading and writing skills, as well as increased creativity.

A new supported theory posits that an L2-user has a single lexicon, enabling parallel access to words in both their L1 and L2 (CITE HAN). When an L2-user is asked to name (or pronounce) words from their L1, units in the presented words that are also found in the user's L2 can be distractors and therefore increase reaction time and/or error rate. If there were separate lexicons for each language, then an L2-user should not become distracted by L2 word units when accessing their L1 knowledge. Research conducted on this concept has also found that L2-users often have different voice-onset time (VOT)s than the average speaker of either their L1 or L2.