Difference between revisions of "Presson and MacWhinney - Second Language Grammar"

From LearnLab
Jump to: navigation, search
(Abstract)
(Background & Significance)
Line 5: Line 5:
  
 
==Background & Significance==
 
==Background & Significance==
Adult second language learners often fail to acquire enough fluency in the new language to support smooth communicative interactions. Often, learners perform correctly immediately after teaching, but then fail to perform correctly on retesting.  In such cases, we can say that second language learning is insufficiently robust. Adult second language learning, unlike first language acquisition, must deal with learning barriers produced by L1 (first language) entrenchment, transfer, and social disincentives. In order to overcome these barriers, adult learners can rely on specialized reconfigurations of learning methods used by children learning their first languageThese supports include: (1) graduated interval recall, (2) resonant co-training, and (3) explicit cue focusingPresence of only one or two of these supports will lead to good learning, but the best and most robust learning occurs when all three are operative. This means that the overall hypothesis cannot be evaluated by a single definitive experimentInstead, a series of experiments must be run to evaluate various configurations of the componentsAlso, it is possible that the effects of these methods may vary across linguistic levels (phonology, orthography, reading, lexicon, syntax, pragmatics, fluency). However, evidence for the effects of any combination of these supports in achieving any level of robustness on any given level would still provide important clues regarding ways to enhance the overall robustness of second language learning.  This information could also be useful in understanding robustness in other domains.
+
The central controversy in the study of second language acquisition is the status of the Critical Period Hypothesis. As formulated first by Penfield & Roberts (Penfield & Roberts, 1959) and then later by Lenneberg (1967), this hypothesis holds that, after some critical age, second languages (L2s) cannot be learned to full native-speaker competence. This critical period has been variously linked to age 2 for lexical learning (Weber-Fox & Neville, 1996) and perception (Kuhl, Conboy, Padden, Nelson, & Pruitt, 2005), age 6 for phonology (Flege, Yeni-Komshian, & Liu, 1999), age 13 for syntax (Johnson & Newport, 1989), or late adulthood for fossilization (MacWhinney, 2005). However, recent research (Hakuta, Bialystok, & Wiley, 2003; Wiley, Bialystok, & Hakuta, 2005) has cast doubt on many of these claims (MacWhinney, in press).   
 +
 
 +
Despite these recent challenges, educators, academics, and the general public continue to believe in the reality of some Critical PeriodWhat makes the notion of a Critical Period so compelling is that fact that adult second language learners often report problems acquiring a native accent in L2 and in using their L2 fluently. The approach to this issue that we have taken is to elaborate an extended version of the Competition Model (MacWhinney, in press) that accounts for age-related effects in second language learning through the mechanisms of entrenchment, transfer, and incomplete resonance. This new Unified Model makes strong predictions about the ways in which age-related effects can be overcome through effective teachingIn particular, the model holds that the problems that adults have in second language learning arise from the entrenched nature of the first language (L1), inadequate exposure to L2, and inappropriate teaching of L2To correct these problems, teaching of adult learners needs to utilize these three methods:
 +
1. Graduated interval recall,
 +
2. Resonant cotraining, and
 +
3. Cue focusing.
 +
The claim is that L2 instruction that incorporates these three methods will lead to marked improvements in fluency and robustness of learning.
  
 
==Glossary==
 
==Glossary==

Revision as of 15:08, 4 December 2009

Project Name

Summary Table

Abstract

Adult second language learners often fail to acquire enough fluency in the new language to support smooth communicative interactions. The studies described here explore the hypothesis that robustness can be markedly improved through basic skill training based on three related pedagogical methods: graduated interval recall, resonant co-training, and cue focusing. This prediction will be tested in the context of in vivo and laboratory studies of online learning of Spanish and Chinese.

Background & Significance

The central controversy in the study of second language acquisition is the status of the Critical Period Hypothesis. As formulated first by Penfield & Roberts (Penfield & Roberts, 1959) and then later by Lenneberg (1967), this hypothesis holds that, after some critical age, second languages (L2s) cannot be learned to full native-speaker competence. This critical period has been variously linked to age 2 for lexical learning (Weber-Fox & Neville, 1996) and perception (Kuhl, Conboy, Padden, Nelson, & Pruitt, 2005), age 6 for phonology (Flege, Yeni-Komshian, & Liu, 1999), age 13 for syntax (Johnson & Newport, 1989), or late adulthood for fossilization (MacWhinney, 2005). However, recent research (Hakuta, Bialystok, & Wiley, 2003; Wiley, Bialystok, & Hakuta, 2005) has cast doubt on many of these claims (MacWhinney, in press).

Despite these recent challenges, educators, academics, and the general public continue to believe in the reality of some Critical Period. What makes the notion of a Critical Period so compelling is that fact that adult second language learners often report problems acquiring a native accent in L2 and in using their L2 fluently. The approach to this issue that we have taken is to elaborate an extended version of the Competition Model (MacWhinney, in press) that accounts for age-related effects in second language learning through the mechanisms of entrenchment, transfer, and incomplete resonance. This new Unified Model makes strong predictions about the ways in which age-related effects can be overcome through effective teaching. In particular, the model holds that the problems that adults have in second language learning arise from the entrenched nature of the first language (L1), inadequate exposure to L2, and inappropriate teaching of L2. To correct these problems, teaching of adult learners needs to utilize these three methods: 1. Graduated interval recall, 2. Resonant cotraining, and 3. Cue focusing. The claim is that L2 instruction that incorporates these three methods will lead to marked improvements in fluency and robustness of learning.

Glossary

graduated interval recall

This method, suggested by Ebbinghaus, and documented by Pimsleur (1967) involves the repeated presentation of new items (words, sounds, constructions, knowledge components) across gradually increasing intervals in training.

resonant cotraining

explicit cue focusing

entrenchment

transfer

social disincentives

Research questions

Adult second language learning, unlike first language acquisition, must deal with learning barriers produced by L1 (first language) entrenchment, transfer, and social disincentives. In order to overcome these barriers, adult learners can rely on specialized reconfigurations of learning methods used by children learning their first language. These supports include: (1) graduated interval recall, (2) resonant co-training, and (3) explicit cue focusing. Presence of only one or two of these supports will lead to good learning, but the best and most robust learning occurs when all three are operative. This means that the overall hypothesis cannot be evaluated by a single definitive experiment. Instead, a series of experiments must be run to evaluate various configurations of the components. Also, it is possible that the effects of these methods may vary across linguistic levels (phonology, orthography, reading, lexicon, syntax, pragmatics, fluency). However, evidence for the effects of any combination of these supports in achieving any level of robustness on any given level would still provide important clues regarding ways to enhance the overall robustness of second language learning. This information could also be useful in understanding robustness in other domains.

Study One

Hypothesis

Independent Variables

Dependent Variables

Results

Explanation

Study Two

Hypothesis

Independent Variables

Dependent Variables

Results

Explanation

Further Information

Connections to Other Studies

Annotated Bibliography

References

Future Plans