Ellis, R. (2015). The Study of Second Language Acquisition.

London: Oxford
University Press.

CHAPTER 3: DEVELOPMENTAL PATTERNS: ORDER & SEQUENCE IN SLA

Introduction

“[…] researchers have recognized the need to consider the entirety of learner
language in order to uncover the systems of rules or interlanguages that learners
construct at different stages of development. Central to this enterprise is the
description of how learner language develops over time” (p. 73).

“[…] L2 acquisition proceeds in a regular, systematic fashion […] existence of

regular developmental patters in [SLA]”.

Order -> “Do learners acquire some target-language (TL) features before others?”
“One feature, say plural –s in English, is acquires before another”

Sequence -> “How do learners acquire a particular TL linguistic feature?”

“We need to investigate some specific feature (such as negation) in detail and,
preferably, over time, in order to show how learners gradually arrive at the TL.
Showing that learners pass through stages on route to the TL rule provides
evidence for a sequence of acquisition”.

“Developmental pattern will be used as a cover term for the general regularities
evident in language acquisition. As such, it subsumes the ideas of order and
sequence”.

Methods for investigating developmental patterns

Different ways in which researchers can set about trying to identify developmental
patters:
- Error analysis -> examining “whether learners’ errors change over time”
- Acquisition as first occurrence -> examining “samples of learner language
collected over a period of time in order to identify when specific linguistic
features emerge” (applies for L1 but, for the L2, emergence is considered as
the criterion of acquisition)

- Obligatory occasion analysis (Brown, 1973) -> “First, samples of naturally

occurring learner language are collected. Second, obligatory occasions for
the use of specific TL features are identified in the data. In the course of
using the L2, learners produce utterances which create obligatory occasions
for the use of specific TL features, although they may not always supply the
features in question. […] Third, the percentage of accurate use of the
feature is then calculated by establishing whether the feature in question
has been supplied in all the contexts in which it is required. A criterion level
of accuracy can then be determined in order to provide an operational
 definition of whether a feature has been ‘acquired’. […] it takes no account
of when a learner uses a feature in a context for which it is not obligatory in
the TL. […] Clearly, acquisition of a feature such as past tense requires
mastering not only when to use it but also when not to use it” (pp. 74-75).

- Target-like use analysis (Pica, 1983) -> “takes account of over-uses as well
as misuses as substantial differences in estimates of learners’ abilities
which arise depending on the context of use” (p. 75).

Comparative fallacy (Bley-Vroman, 1983) -> danger of ignoring “the fact that
learners create their own unique rule systems in the process of learning an L2.
Target-language-based analyses cannot be used to describe these systems as
they only provide information about the extent to which the learner’s language
approximates to the TL”.

- Frequency analysis (Cazden et. al., 1975) -> “One way of overcoming this
objection […] is to catalogue the various linguistic devices that learners use
to express a particular grammatical structure and then to calculate the
frequency with which each device is used at different points in the learners’
development. [This method] is able to show the ‘vertical variation’ in
learners’ development (i.e. how different devices become prominent at
different stages) and serves as one of the best ways of examining
developmental sequences”.

- Implicational scaling (Decamp, 1971) -> “This technique was first used in
Creole studies […]. It seeks to exploit the inter-learner variability that exists
in a corpus of learner language in order to establish which features different
learners have acquired and whether the features can be arranged into a
hierarchy according to whether the acquisition of one feature implies the
acquisition of one or more other features for each learner” (p. 76).

“The existence of developmental patterns can be investigated in different areas of

language: linguistic (phonological, lexical, and grammatical), semantic, and
functional”.

Developmental patterns in L1 acquisition

“First, it has provided L2 researchers with useful methodological procedures for

investigating developmental patterns in learner language. Second, L1 acquisition
orders and sequences provide a baseline for considering L2 acquisition orders and
sequences”.

SHARP tradition in L1 acquisition research (Atkinson, 1986) –> empirical study of

L1 acquisition
FLAT (Atkinson, early 1980s) -> First Language Acquisition Theories, which
“eschews empirical enquiry and instead seeks to examine L1 acquisition from the
point of view of learnability theory and Universal Grammar” (p. 77).

“[…] children appear to follow a fairly well-defined pattern of development. This

pattern is evident in the way in which all linguistic systems are acquired. Children
typically begin with one-word utterances which function as holophrases (i.e.
express whole prepositions). They gradually extend the length of their utterances,
passing through stages when the bulk of their speech consists of first two-word,
then three- and four-word utterances. At the same time, they systematically acquire
the various syntactical and morphological rules of the language. The result is that
remarkable regularities are evident in both the overall pattern of development and
in the acquisition of specific linguistics systems […]. These regularities are often
described with reference to mean length of utterance as a general measure of
development”

U-shaped pattern of development (Brown, 1973; Villiers & de Villiers, 1973) -> “The
acquisition of past tense forms involves an initial stage in which there is little or no
use followed by sporadic use of some irregular forms, then use of the regular –ed
form including overgeneralization to irregular verbs, and finally target-like use of
regular and irregular forms” (p. 78).

“These regularities in grammatical development are the product of the acquisition

task which the child faces” (p. 79).

“[…] the two tasks of mapping and communicating go hand in hand. This claim is
supported by the fact that regularities are also evident in the way in which the
different pragmatic and textual functions of the TL are mastered. […] A full account
of the developmental path, therefore, must describe how children master the
formal, functional, and semantic properties of language. […] It is important to
recognize, however, that although certain stages of acquisition can be identified,
development is, in fact, continuous. Children do not usually jump from one stage to
the next but rather progress gradually with the result that ‘new’ and ‘old’ patterns of
language use exist side by side at any one point in time”.

Inter-learner variability -> “Some children learn their L1 with great rapidity while
others do so much more slowly. […] It is for this reason that it is not possible to
describe the sequence of development in terms of age”.

“[…] although many children use an analytical strategy and show evidence of the
developmental progression described above, other children use a gestalt strategy,
typically remaining silent for a longer period before producing full sentences when
they start talking. All children make use of unanalyzed units (formulas) but some
seem to rely on them much more extensively than others. There is considerable
body of research into L1 acquisition that has sought to identify the factors
responsible for inter-learner variation (sex, intelligence, personality and learning
style, social background, and experience of linguistic interaction”.
“The key debate in the 1960s and 1970s revolved around the rival claims of
behaviorist and mentalist models of acquisition. According to the former, children
acquired their L1 by trying to imitate utterances produced by their parents and by
receiving negative or positive reinforcement of their attempts to do so. Language
acquisition, therefore, was considered to be environmentally determined. Such a
model does not accord with the empirical facts, however. […] A mentalist model
(Chomsky, 1980) makes the following claims: Language is a human-specific and
independent faculty […] the language acquisition device is genetically endowed
and provides the child with a general set of principles about language […] Input
data are required to trigger the process of discovering the rules of the TL” (p. 81).

Cognitive processing model (Sinclair-de-Zwart, 1973) -> “Proponents of such

model agree with the mentalists that children must make use of innate knowledge,
but disagree about its nature. Whereas mentalists consider that it takes the form of
a specific language faculty, cognitive psychologists argue that it consists of a
general learning mechanism responsible for all forms of cognitive development, not
just in language. They point to the non-linguistic origins of language acquisition
(sensory motor stage that precedes the onset of speech in children) and to the
concurrent development of linguistic and cognitive knowledge” (p. 82).