GRS LX 700

Language Acquisition
and
Linguistic Theory
Week 13.
Models, input, intake, attrition

The Monitor Hypothesis

A linguistic expression originates in the

system of acquired knowledge, but prior
to output a Monitor checks it against
consciously known rules and may modify
the expression before it is uttered.
Learned
competence
(theMonitor)
Acquired
competence

output

What makes input into intake?

Apperception: Recognizing the gap between what L2er

knows and what there is to know.
Comprehensibility: Either the semantic meaning is
determinable or the relevant structural aspects are
determinable.
Attention: Selecting aspects of the knowledge to be
learned (from among many other possible things) for
processing.
Output: Forcing a structural hypothesis, elsewhere used
to shape input into a form useful for intake.

Input apperception

Some input is apperceived, some isnt.

That which isnt is thought of as blocked by
various filters:
Time pressure
Frequency non-extremes
Affective (status, motivation, attitude, )
Prior knowledge (grounding, analyzability)
Salience (drawing attention)

Apperception
comprehension

Modification of speech to learner

(foreigner talk)
Redundancy
Negotiation for meaning

(often, meaning is a precursor to being able to

assign a syntactic representation).

Note: Much of the following discussion is

probably more about learning than
acquisition. Cf. L2A of C++.

Foreigner talk

Like the better-known phenomenon of

baby talk, it also turns out that people
conversing with others whom they
perceive to be non-native speakers (NNSs)
will often use a form of foreigner talk
modified language forms presumably
intended to simplify the utterance.

Foreigner talk

Slower, clearer articulation

Higher frequency vocabulary, fewer idioms
Providing more definitions
Less elliptical
More gestures
Short, simple sentences
Moving topics to the front of the sentence,
new information to the end of the sentence
More repetition, restatements.
Recasting NNSs incorrect statements

Foreigner talk

The ways in which this happens varies a

lotwhere it happens at all, there are
many different ways that sentences are
simplified.
The adjustments often happen in the face
of an evident lack of comprehension.

Foreigner talk

NNS: How have increasing food costs

changed your eating habits?
NS: Well, I dont know that its changed
them. I try to adjust.
NNS: Pardon me?
NS: I dont think its changed my eating
habits.

Foreigner talk

NNS: How have increasing food costs

changed your eating habits?
NS: Oh, rising costs weve cut back on
the more expensive things. Gone to
cheaper foods.
NNS: Pardon me?
NS: Weve gone to cheaper foods.

Foreigner talk

The simplification sometimes even sacrifices

grammaticality, which is probably of dubious value both
for comprehension and learning.

Basil: Its not fire; its only bell.

NNS has an object from a grab-bag, NS is trying to guess

its identity.

NS: Ok, little guy! Yeah, yours! Okay! Yours is it for eat?
NNS: Eat. No.

Foreigner talk

A: Yesterday my country change, ah, President.

NS: Oh yeah? Now, is the new one a good one?
A: Um?
NS: Is a good President? Do you like him? No?
NS: Does she speak English?
C: No.
NS: Nothing?
C: No.
NS: She doesnt talk? Always quiet? No talk?

Comprehension

In general, this appears to be in service of

comprehensiondone in order to make
linguistically less sophisticated
interlocutors able to understand.
Once there is understanding, we also are
ready for there to be intake of the input as
well.

Backchannel cues

L2ers often foil this process by providing

backchannel cues which indicate to the
NS that communication is proceeding,
comprehension has been achieved. Smile
and nod.

Id like to buy a TV.

NNS is trying to buy a TV, but accidentally called a

repair shop.

Ah Sony please.
We dont work on Sonys.
Or Sylvania.
Sylvania?
Uh huh.
Oh, Sylvania, OK. Thats American made.
OK.

Id like to buy a TV.

All right. Portables have to be brought in.

Hm hm.
And theres no way I can tell you how much itll cost
until he looks at it.
Hm hm.
And its a $12.50 deposit.
OK.
And if he can fix it that applies to labor and if he cant he
keeps the $12.50 for his time and effort.
Hm hm.

Id like to buy a TV.

How old of a TV is it? Do you know off hand?

19 inch.
How old of a TV is it? Is it a very old one or only
a couple years old?
Oh, so so.
The only thing you can do is bring it in and let
him look at it and go from there.
New television please.

Comprehension vs. output

Comprehension can come in various ways, some of which

have nothing to do with the structure.

With some knowledge of the situation, and assuming speaker will

make sense, be relevant, provide given and new information
appropriately, be cooperative, the listener can come quite close to
understanding the meaning without having any kind of syntactic
analysis for it.

If learning the structure of the target language is

considered to be the ultimate goal, this kind of
comprehension may be unhelpful.

Comprehension vs. output

No such crutches are available for

production, however. If youre going to say
something in the target language, youll
need to choose a syntax.
Output viewed this way could be a way of
creating grammatical knowledge (not just
using pre-existing knowledge)forcing an
analysis where there was not one before.

Output and negative evidence

Of course, output will give the L2er

practice, allow for the automation of
certain things allowing attention to shift
elsewhere.
Additionally, output provides an
opportunity for negative evidence,
correction from the outside.

Negotiating for meaning

Very often a NS-NNS (or NNS-NNS)

conversation will involve a fair amount of
negotiating for meaningwhere
understanding has not happened, the
conversation takes a detour to repair the
problem.

Negotiating for meaning

(S) Had to declaredeclare?her ingress.

(J) English?
No. English no (laugh) ingress, her ingress.
Ingless?
Ingress. Yes. I N G R E S S more or less.
Ingless.
Yes. If for example, if you, when you work you had an
ingress, you know?
Uh huh an ingless?
Yes..

Negotiating for meaning

Uh huh OK
Yes, if for example, your homna, husband works, when
finish, when end the month his job, his boss paymm
him something.
Aaaah.
And your family have some ingress.
Yes, ah, ok ok.
More or less ok? And in this institution take care of all
ingress of the company and review the accounts.
Ok I got, I see.
Ok. My father work there, but now he is old.

Pre-empting negotiation

In the category of foreigner talk we might also

include these
Lots of comprehension/confirmation checks and
clarification requests:

I was born in Nagasaki. Do you know Nagasaki?

And your family have some ingressmore or less ok?
(When can you go to visit me?) Visit?
(research). Research, I dont know the meaning.

Questions often come with suggested responses

When do you take the break? At ten-thirty?

Healthy miscommunication

A failure to communicate can serve to focus attention

on areas where the NNSs grammar is non-native-like,
prompting negotiation for meaning and providing
possible intake data.
Michael Longs Interaction Hypothesis is that this
kind of negotiation for meaning and resulting attention
is necessary for advancement toward the grammar of
the target grammarin part because it connects input,
existing knowledge, selective attention, and output in
productively trying to solve a current language
deficiency.

Still, feedback isnt everything

Ideally, a learner produces an

ungrammatical sentences, gets negative
feedback indicating that there is a problem
(those involved in the conversation
negotiate for meaning), focusing attention
on the problem area, and the learner takes
input bearing on this as intake,
incorporating it into his/her grammar.

Still, feedback isnt everything

Problem is, such evidence is not very

consistentit might be helpful when it
happens, but its hard to be sure when it is
happening.
First: Not all incorrect forms get corrected
(e.g., if the hearer understood).
Second: Errors leading to
misunderstanding might not be revealed
until quite a bit later, if at all

Still, feedback isnt everything

NS: When I get to Paris, Im going to sleep for

one whole day. Im so tired.
NNS: What?
NS: Im going to sleep for one whole day.
NNS: One hour a day?
NS: Yes.
NNS: Why?
NS: Because Im so tired.
enduring silence

Still, feedback isnt everything

Moreover, how is this useful feedback?

NS: Did you fly to Singapore yesterday?

NNS: Did I flied here yesterday?
NS: Pardon?
NNS: Did I flied here yesterday?

How does this help fix the problem?

Still, feedback isnt everything

Sometimes it works

NNS: There is a library.

NS: A what?
NNS: A place where you put books.
NS: A bookshelf?

NNS: He pass his house

NS: Sorry?
NNS: He passed, he passed, ah, his sign.

Still, feedback isnt everything

Feedback (negative evidence) is just too

inconsistent to be reliableto really be the
whole story about how people learn a
second language.
Interaction does seem to help, though, for
whatever reason

Mackey 1999

Looked at question formation in ESL speakers.

Tasks (designed to spark questions)

Story completion

Picture sequencing

Discovering the order of a picture story

Picture differences

Working out a story by asking questions

Identifying the differences between similar pictures

Picture drawing

Describing or drawing a picture.

Mackey 1999: Procedure

Test /
Wk Day treatment
1
1
Pretest
1
2
Treat 1
1

Treat 2

Treat 3

1
2

5
5

Posttest 1
Posttest 1

Activity
Pic diff
Story compl, Pic seq, Pic
draw
Story compl, Pic seq, Pic
draw
Story compl, Pic seq, Pic
draw
Pic diff
Pic diff

Posttest 1

Pic diff

Examples
3
1 each

1 each
1 each
3
3

Measure of development using

question formation

2: SVO?

3: Fronting Wh/Do

Have you drawn the cat?

5: Do/Aux-second (wh-front, inversion)

What the cat doing in your picture?

4: Inversion (auxiliaries not do)

Your cat is black?

Why have you left home?

6: Uninverted in embedded clauses

Can you tell me where the cat is?

Mackey 1999: subject groups

Interactors

Interactor unreadies

Watch interactionally modified input, answer

comprehension questions afterwards.

Scripteds

Natural interaction, but low development measure

Observers

Natural interaction

Premodified (scripted) input, leaving very little room

for communication breakdown.

Controls

Mackey 1999

Scripted (premodified) group

NS: and now under it draw a pear. A pear is a fruit. It is
like an apple. The color is green. Draw the pear under
the book. Can you draw it?
NNS: Ok ok I got it. Look like apple (draws)
NS: Good. Now on the right of the pear draw an
umbrella.

Mackey 1999

Interactor groups
NS: Underneath it is a pear, its green
NNS: What is it a bear?
NS: A pear, pears are fruit, its a fruit, juicy like an apple
NNS: Ok pear, fruit like Japanese fruit nashi very
delicious. You saw this in Japan? Have you eat one?
NS: Yeah I did but a nashi is round yeah? Pears are
round on the bottom, narrow on top. Have you eaten one
here in Australia?
NNS: Yes thank you. I had a pear in my lunch (time)
notjuicy? (draws) Like this?

Mackey 1999

Looking at whether different groups

moved up a developmental stage.

Must produce at least 2 higher-level questions

in 2 of the 3 post-tests to have moved up a
stage

Private ESL school in Australia, about 6

months in residence overall.
27 classified as lower-intermediate, 7
classified as beginners (the interactor
unreadies), average 1.7 mo. in residence.

Mackey 1999: % people moved

up a stage
100

86

90
80
70

% of participants
who increased

71
57

60
50
40
30

16

20

14

10
0

Interactor (5/7)

Control (1/7)

Interactor
Unready (6/7)

S cripted (1/6)

Observer (4/7)

Interactors significantly more

likely to move up
50

% who increased

45
40
35

33

30
25

17

20
15
10
5
0

Interactors (both types)

Non-interactors (control, scripted, observer)

Mackey 1999: Increase in stage

4 & 5 questions in posttests
8
7
6
5
4

Interactor
Control
Observers
Scripted
Unreadies

3
2
1
0
T1

T2

T3

Mackey 1999

Mackey claims that her study shows that

the interactors have a significant
advantage over the non-interactors, based
on the previous graph (production of
high-stage questions).
Yetshould advancing stage be the real
goal? In that, the observers also benefited.

Mackey 1999

Delayed benefit
Interestingly in the latest posttest (2 weeks
after the treatment), the numbers of highstage questions had continued to grow.
Suggests perhaps that this had focused
attention on areas that needed work, but
the grammatical changes were not
implemented immediately.

Input, interaction UG?

UG hasnt played a very big role in the

discussion of the importance of
interaction, converting input into intake,
negotiating for meaning. How can we
connect them?

Parameters, triggers

Recall that one of the crucial features of

parameters is that (ideally) each parameter
setting has a cluster of effects.

Its not just that the verb appears before

adverbsit is that the verb moves into the tense
position, which means it appears before
adverbs and before negation. Coming before
adverbs and coming before negation are a
cluster of properties tied to the single verbraising parameter.

Parameters, triggers

In order to set a parameter in the way which

matches the setting reflected by the language in
the environment, the learner needs to look for
consequences of a particular setting.

Designated bits of data which can serve as

unambiguous indicators of one parameter
setting over another are sometimes called
triggers.

Parameters, triggers

So, for example, the L1ers task is to examine the

input for instances of these triggers and use
them to set the parameter to the correct value.

Some of the consequences of any given

parameter setting might be fairly obscure, not
likely to show up in frequent (or easily analyzed)
ambient speech data accessible to the kid. This
might make it hard to set ones parametersbut
for the clustering property.

Parameters, triggers

Indications that the verb moves:

Indications that the verb doesnt move:

Do-support (The verb does not usually move)

Indications that null subjects are allowed:

Seeing verbs before negation

Seeing verbs before adverbs

Null subjects are observed.

Postverbal subjects are allowed.

Indications that null subjects are not allowed:

Expletive subjects are observed (its raining).

Parameters, triggers

If triggers are what setting parameters is all about, then

the interaction stuff is probably about making the triggers
more salient.

Unfortunately, it is difficult to interpret existing input

enhancement type studies in these terms because they
measured different thingswe dont know what triggers
were present, what effect making triggers (vs. nontriggers?) salient had.

Parameters, triggers

If language acquisition (first or second)

were just about finding triggers to set the
parameters, why is it so hard then? Why is
negotiation, etc. important (to L2A
anyway)? This suggests that the triggers
are in the incomprehensible input, that
needs to be elaborated on in order to be
used as intake (and thus to set the
parameter).

Ungrammatical FT

Incidentally, the parameters approach makes

ungrammatical foreigner talk even more
problematic.

Consider: In foreigner talk

The pronoun it is pervasively omitted.

Auxiliary do is regularly omitted.
Subjects are left out.

What if those were triggers?

Modularity (Schwartz 1999)

Fodor (1983) proposed that the mind comes in

modules:

Domain specificity
Information encapsulation
Mandatory operation
Speed
Limited accessibility to consciousness
Shallow outputs
Regularity of development
Fixed neural architecture
Characteristic patterns of breakdown

Modularity

Vision is always good to compare to

language; it has a similar level of
complexity, and it has many properties
that linguists often attribute to language.
There could be a language module, since
there is fairly uncontroversially a vision
module.

Vision

Optical illusions you cant help but see

them.

Vision

Optical illusions you cant help but see them.

(movies by Yaer Weiss & Edward Adelson)

Modularity

The points about these visual illusions are:

The processing involved in vision is quite
complex.
It is also completely unconscious.
Learning that the lines are the same length or
that the checkers are the same color doesnt
help.
Language knowledge of the sort were
interested in may well have these same
properties; Krashens learned/acquired
distinction might be right.

A
model
of L2A?

Linguistic
input

Apperceived
input

Perhaps
comically
complex,
but to
some
extent
justified.

LAD

Prior linguistic knowledge

Comprehended
input
Intake

Linguistic
input

Frequency, prior knowledge,

affect, attention, processing

Storage

Hypothesis testing against

current grammar

Ignorage

Grammar
modification

Grammar
strengthening

UG

Integration

Discourse
planning

Cultural
knowledge

Utterance planning

Learned

Interlanguage
grammar
Acquired

Mode (oral/written),
situation, personality,
monitoring, processing

L1

Linguistic
output

Integrated
model?

This is the part

considered to
represent L1A.
PLD is processed by
the LAD, filtered by
UG, and implemented
as acquired (UGcompliant, parametric)
knowledge.

PLD
LAD

UG
L1
acquired

Integrated
model?

PLD
LAD

If something suffers
from passing the
critical period, it
would probably be the
LAD, cutting off this
avenue of acquisition.

UG
L1
acquired

PLD affective
etc.

apperceived priorlinguistic
knowledge
?
comprehensibleinput

Integrated
model?

To the extent that you can

still get acquired
knowledge in the IL, it has
to be in an appropriate
form, filtered by UG.
First filtered by attention,
etc., and prior knowledge.

UG
IL
acquired

L1

PLD affective
etc.

apperceived priorlinguistic
knowledge
?
comprehensibleinput

Integrated
model?

The L1 plays an important

role in defining the
acquired knowledge in the
IL grammar; perhaps the
starting point, perhaps the
ending point too.

UG
IL
acquired

L1

PLD affective
etc.

Integrated
model?

The learning part

of L2A follows a
general learning
pattern: hypothesis
testing, affecting
the stored
knowledge.

apperceived priorlinguistic
knowledge
comprehendedinput
hypothesistesting

intake

integration

storage

modification/strengthening

IL

learned

Discourse
planning

Cultural
knowledge

Integrated
model?

Creating output is fairly

complex.
Discourse planning
concerns intent
Cultural knowledge
concerns norms in
expressing this intent.
Utterance planning sets
up the structure.

IL

learned
acquired

Utterance
planning
Mode,situation,
personality,monitoring,
processing

linguisticoutput

Discourse
planning

Cultural
knowledge

Integrated
model?

Utterance structure is
driven by the acquired
knowledge.
Filters on the planned
utterance involve the
monitor and other
output-relevant factors.

IL

learned
acquired

Utterance
planning
Mode,situation,
personality,monitoring,
processing

linguisticoutput

Integrated
model?

Does practice help

convert learned
knowledge into acquired
knowledge?
Perhaps, if the output can
count as comprehensible
input

UG
IL

learned
acquired

linguisticoutput

Prisms and vision

The visual system can adjust itself (after the

critical period), even if it does seem for the most
part hardwired.
Fitting someone with prisms that change the
angle of incoming visual stimuli causes initial
visual confusion, but they get used to it and
soon dont even notice anything unusual.
Perhaps the phenomenon of L1 attrition is
something like this

and language attrition

It is a very common phenomenon that,

having learned an L2 and having become
quite proficient, one will still forget how
to use it after a period of non-use.
While very common, its not very
surprisingits like calculus. If L2 is a
skill like calculus, wed expect this.

L1 attrition

Much more surprising is the fact that sometimes

under the influence of a dominant L2, skill in the L1
seems to go.

Consider the UG/parameter model; a kids LAD

faced with PLD, automatically sets the parameters
in his/her head to match those exhibited by the
linguistic input. L1 is effortless, fast, uniformly
successful biologically driven, not learning in the
normal sense of learning a skill.
So how could it suffer attrition? What are you left
with?

UG in L2A

Weve looked at the questions concerning

whether when learning a second language, one
can adapt the parameter settings in the new
knowledge to the target settings (where they
differ from the L1 settings), but this is even more
dramaticit would seem to actually be altering
the L1 settings.
It behooves us to look carefullier at this; do
attrited speakers seem to have changed
parameter settings?

English Hebrew kid in Israel

He doesnt know to who it belongs.

Hes thinking about with what they can play.

(cf. He doesnt know who it belongs to.)

(cf. Hes thinking about what they can play with.)

Hebrew doesnt allow preposition strandingthe

constraint against prepositions stranding seems to
have been back copied

Hebrew English

Ma at midaberet al?
The reverse situation is reported to hold as
well; here, a Hebrew sentence
(ungrammatical to monolinguals)
involving preposition stranding.

Italian English

Italian is a null subject language that allows

the subject to be dropped in most cases where in
English wed use a pronoun

(Possible to use a pronoun in Italian, but it conveys

something pragmatic: contrastive focus or change in
topic)

English is a non-null-subject language that

does not allow the subject to be dropped out,
pronouns are required (even sometimes
meaningless like it or there). Not required that
a pronoun signal a change in topic.

Italian, null subjects

Q: Perch Maria uscite?

Why did M leave?
A1: Lei ha deciso di fare una passeggiata.
A2: Ha deciso di fare une passenggiata.
She decided to take a walk.
Monolingual Italian speaker would say A2,
but English-immersed native Italian
speaker will optionally produce (and
accept) A1. (Sorace 2000)

Greek too (null subjects)

Q: Jati vjike i Maria?

Why did Maria go out?
A1: Afti apofasise na pai mia volta.
A2: Apofasise na pai mia volta.
She decided to take a walk

Reverse errors unattested

Q: Perch Maria uscite?

Why did Maria leave?
A: *Perch venuto a prederla.
Because (Gianni) came to pick her up.
That is, they dont forget how to use null
subjects so much as they broaden the
contexts in which they can use overt
pronouns.

Postverbal subjects

Q: Chi ha starnutito? Who sneezed?

A1: Gianni ha starnutito.
A2: Ha starnutito Gianni.
Native speakers would say A2 because of
the narrow focus; attrited speakers will
produce/allow A1 as well.

L1 attrition

It seems that the acceptability of overt pronouns

(in the L1 attriters) broadens compared to
their L1, the acceptability of null pronouns
becomes more restricted.
Pronouns in a null subject language are marked
they are restricted to particular discourse
contexts ([+topic shift], according to Sorace).
What seems to happen is that the pronouns
revert to the unmarked case ([topic shift] like in
English).

L1 attrition

Same goes for postverbal subjectsit is a

marked option for languages, and the L1
seems to be retreating to the unmarked.
Like with pronouns, it seems to be not a
question of grammaticality but a question
of felicity.

L1 attrition

Certain areas of the L1 grammar are more

susceptible to this kind of attrition then others.
Sorace notes that the observed cases of attrition
of this sort seem to be the ones involved with
discourse and pragmatics, not with fundamental
grammatical settings. (The attrited Italian is still
a null-subject language, for examplenull
subjects are still possible and used only in places
where null subjects should be allowed).

L1 attrition

So, were left with a not-entirelyinconsistent view of the world.

Parameter settings in L1 appear to be safe,
but the discourse-pragmatic constraints
seem to be somehow susceptible to high
exposure to conflicting constraints in other
languages.