《AGE AND THE LIMITS OF L2A - University of Texas at Austin：年龄和L2a -限制在奥斯汀的德克萨斯大学.ppt》由会员分享，可在线阅读，更多相关《AGE AND THE LIMITS OF L2A - University of Texas at Austin：年龄和L2a -限制在奥斯汀的德克萨斯大学.ppt（121页珍藏版）》请在三一文库上搜索。
1、1,The End State in L2A: Factors, Facts & Fallacies,Cognitive Science Seminar University of Texas 9 October 2009 David Birdsong Dept. of French & Italian birdsongaustin.utexas.edu paper handout to accompany slides slides to be posted on blackboard,2,L2A research Sample of journals,Cognition JML JCN N
2、ature Neuroscience BBS Brain & Language Language Applied Psycholinguistics TICS Bilingualism: Language and Cognition Studies in Second Language Acquisition Second Language Research,3,L2A research Programs/Labs,McGill Georgetown Illinois MPI-Nijmegen Essex CNRS Paris Amsterdam Groningen Heidelberg,4,
3、L2A research Recent Ph.Ds at UT - F&I,Robert Reichle (December 2008) “Syntactic focus structure processing: Behavioral and electrophysiological evidence from L1 and L2 French” Elenor Shoemaker (May 2009) “Acoustic cues to speech segmentation in spoken French: native and non-native strategies”,5,Cont
4、ext: the Deficit Model tradition,Bley-Vroman (1989: 44): Insignificant incidence of nativelikeness in late L2A L2A: “ineluctable failure” fossilized non-nativeness = Fundamental Difference Hypothesis,6,Context: the Deficit Model tradition,Johnson & Newport (1989: 255): for AoA 15 “later AOA determin
5、es that one will not become nativelike or near-nativelike in a 2nd language” = maturationally-based CPH/L2A,7,Context: the Deficit Model tradition,Long (1989: 280): “The ability to attain native- like phonological abilities in an L2 is beyond anyone beginning later than age 12, no matter how motivat
6、ed they might be or how much opportunity they might have. Native-like morphology and syntax only seem to be possible for those beginning before age 15.”= Maturational constraints,8,Context: the Deficit Model tradition,Hyltenstam & Abrahamsson (2003: 575): If we look at “overall L2 proficiency” we wi
7、ll find that “perfect proficiency” and “absolute nativelike command of an L2 may in fact never be possible for any late L2 learner” = Deficient language- learning mechanisms NB: B-V, J&N, Long, H&A criterion = monolingual native NB: All approach deficit from end state (= ultimate attainment) perspec
8、tive,9,Context: the Deficit Model tradition,W/r/t L2 processing = representation by late learners Tsimpli Ss not always at end state,10,Context: the Differences Model,W/r/t L2 processing by late learners Clahsen not all Ss at end state,11,Context: the Differences Model,W/r/t L2 processing by late le
9、arners Cutler (2003, inter alia): In segmental, subsegmental and suprasegmental perception, L2ers listen through L1 ears; see also Peperkamp, Sebastian-Galles, Dupoux, etc.,12,Context: Meisel (2009),Meisel (2009: 8) “Changes in the Language Making Capacity in the course of childhood development make
10、 it impossible for the L2 learner to acquire a complete native grammatical competence of the target language” Meisel (2009: 13) FDH “does not entail that L2 acquisition becomes totally or partially impossible. Rather, the claim is that L2 knowledge is of a different kind” = source of knowledge is di
11、fferent,13,Current aL2A work under DM,Methodologically: (Usually) studied: - L2 high-proficients Understudied: - L2 dominants (Often) not considered: - facilitating / inhibiting external factors - individual info processing differences - reciprocal L2 L1 influence - AoA as comparison condition or co
12、ntrol variable - assurance of L2A asymptote - incidence (#s) of nativelike processers = Incomplete empirical picture of nature + extent of native / L2 differences,14,Current aL2A work under DM,Programmatically: Data: - varied behavioral & brain-based studies - varied methods & tasks Domains: - range
13、 of processing and knowledge domains Focus: - non-nativelike processing at group level Orientation: - deterministic differences Goal: - theory of qualitative L1-L2 differences in knowledge / processing = Empirical gaps w/r/t upper limits of (late) L2A,15,Upper Limits Model,Complementing the DM persp
14、ective: Programmatically & methodologically Distinguish: - what adult L2ers do - what adult L2ers dont do - what adult L2ers can do - what adult L2ers cant do Populations: - L2 dominants (two types) - L1 attriters - (L2 high-proficients) - incentivized L2ers: functional need for L2 nativelikeness -
15、L2ers desiring socio-cultural integration, L2 identity,16,ULM,Programmatically: Integrate: - individual differences w/r/t internal factors e.g. WM components Rationale: - claims that only freakish aptitude = nativelikeness more later - WM correlates with level of ultimate attainment in some tasks In
16、tegrate: - facilitating / inhibiting external conditions Rationale: - in comparing L1A and L2A end state, level the playing field in terms of facilitating conditions more later - normal adult L2A conditions = abnormal for LA generally Integrate: - AoA / AoT as control, predictor variables Rationale:
17、 - we know the effects of age and +/- their sources more later - to see what can L2ers do in spite of age influences,17,ULM,Programmatically: Goals: - Establish end state processing profiles: - L2 dominants - defined by L2 vs L1 relative use - defined psycholinguistically (independent processing mea
18、sures) - late vs. early dominants - unstable dominants - Establish upper bounds of L2ers processing & knowledge: - vis vis natives - vis vis early bilinguals / early L2ers - in their own right (v. comparative fallacy) - keeping in mind L2L1 influence (L1 of a monolingual L1 of a bilingual) - Integra
19、te above into theory of L2 knowledge & processing at the limits,18,ULM,Perspectives: Analogy: Track team with ankle weights: What would happen if we took off the weights? Analogy: Ghetto vs. suburbs HS exit exam scores: We know that the achievements will differ, but the story shouldnt stop there.,19
20、,ULM,Perspectives: X freakish talent (WM capacity, LTM, musical ability) X freakish accomplishments (Hale, “Christopher”) normals working within their limits give acquisition the same chance it has in younger populations - one cant take away age effects - one can minimize L1 effects - one can provid
21、e benign external conditions and see what happens = relevance to claims, assumptions; CPH/L2A, FDH, access,20,UT Cog Sci Presentation,L2 end state attainment: Approach ultimate attainment neutrally: deficits & differences alongside upper limits FACTS about end-state attainment, as mediated by age of
22、 acquisition and age of testing FACTORS that constrain vs. enable L2 acquisition, and their nature FALLACIES w/r/t end state, e.g. CPH/L2A Q: Under DM: Evidence for maturation-based differences? Q: Under ULM: What can (late) L2-dominants do?,21,Distinctions: AoA AoT maturational state,AoA = Age of A
23、cquisition (Immersion, Onset) = macro-variable, encompassing inter alia: - degree of L1 entrenchment - L1 proficiency - state of system plasticity - state of cognitive development - degree of (neuro-)cognitive decline (adults) - suite of neurobiological variables AoA = proxy for initial state of L2A
24、 NB: AoA-related effects NB: “The age factor” = convenient but underspecific label,22,Distinctions: AoA AoT maturational state,AoT = Age at Testing = macro-variable, encompassing inter alia: degree of L1 entrenchment L1 proficiency L2 proficiency state of system plasticity state of cognitive develop
25、ment degree of (neuro-)cognitive decline see Supplements suite of neurobiological variables also: socio-psychological identification w/ L2 & L1 also: frequency of L2/L1 use AoT = proxy for current state of L2 knowledge and processing NB: AoT-related effects,23,AoT,Advanced AoT: - More profound impac
26、t in L2 processing than in L1 processing. L2 processing more vulnerable because: - greater reliance on fluid intelligence than in L1 use - less-routinized procedures than in L1 use Open question: - AoT (& AoA)-related effects = less severe among L2 dominants?,24,Distinctions: AoA AoT maturational st
27、ate,Maturational state: (vs. / vs. X) / degree of L1 entrenchment / L1 proficiency / L2 proficiency state of system plasticity state of cognitive development degree of (neuro-)cognitive decline suite of neurobiological variables X socio-psychological identification w/ L2 & L1 X frequency of L2/L1 us
28、e / experientially correlates with aging AoA & AoT biologically aging-related, pre-/post- maturation AoA & AoT X intrinsically unrelated to aging AoT only,25,Distinctions,Ultimate Attainment in L2 = end state (asymptotic) knowledge and processing only nativelikeness = any level at end state, up to &
29、 including nativelike,26,Distinctions,Nature, causes & domains of non-nativelike ultimate attainment (Hopp, 2007) Nature: REPRESENTATIONAL * COMPUTATIONAL / / | Cause: impairment * L1 impairment * inefficiency * L1 FT/FA / | | | Domain: module * interface parsing * info * inter- routes integration f
30、erence FFF uF DP lim cap CM SS MSI,27,Distinctions,Age, end state, upper limits: Computational (in)efficiency = default to lexis/plausibility in complex computations L1 influence developmental & at AoA / AoT as alternative to / complement to impairment Perceptual components of processing grammar det
31、ection of uF as precondition for interpretation (e.g. in French liaison) Nature: REPRESENTATIONAL * COMPUTATIONAL / / | Cause: impairment * L1 impairment * inefficiency * L1 FT/FA / | | | Domain: module * interface parsing * info * inter- routes integration ference FFF uF DP lim cap CM SS MSI,28,Dis
32、tinctions,Heuristics: Universal Learnability versus Selective Processability - Universal Learnability: anything can be learned by someone - Selective Processability: some things cant be processed by anyone,29,Distinctions,The AoA function, shapes: straight line stretched 7 inverted V stretched Z The
33、 AoA function, timing of deflection: coinciding with known maturational epochs coinciding with ages unrelated to maturation The AoA function, steepness = # of nativelike-ers,30,Slope predicts incidence of nativelikeness: shallow slope = high rate of nativelikeness,31,Slope predicts incidence of nati
34、velikeness: steep slope = low rate of nativelikeness,32,FACTS of Biological Aging & their relationship to L2 processing by late L2ers,33,Age and Processing Supplement I Park et al. (2001),34,Age and Processing Supplement I break-out Park (2000),35,Cognitive Aging Effects,Effects in language processi
35、ng: processing speed working memory capacity lexical retrieval linear over AoT/AoA, starting at 20 years of age prior to AoT/AoA: increase then decline (inverted “V”) plateau then decline (stretched “7”) linkage of processing behaviors to biological aging (Bckman & Farde, 2005) = L2 processing const
36、raints on input processing at AoA/AoT output performance decrements at AoT depressed levels of processing at L2 end state,36,Constraining FACTORS,1-Neuro-biology/anatomy/chemistry/cognition: post-puberty, with increasing age (AoA & AoT): use it then lose it (Pinker, 1994) pathological increases in c
37、ortisol levels declines in neurotransmitter levels: ACH dopamine, etc. Supplement II declining regional brain volumes (Raz, 2005) Supplement III,37,Biological Aging Effects,Declines in neurotransmitter levels: ACH, dopamine, etc. Supplement II Neurotransmitter declines in L2 processing: variety of c
38、ognitive functions underlying L2 processing - working memory capacity & executive function - attention & inhibitory processes (L1 suppression) - coordination/proceduralization in syntax linear over AoT/AoA, starting at 20 years of age prior to AoT/AoA: increase, then decline (inverted “V”) plateau,
39、then decline (stretched “7”),38,Biological Aging Effects,Declines in regional brain volume Supplement III Effects in L2 processing: variety of cognitive functions underlying L2 processing - executive function - LTM - coordination/proceduralization in syntax linear over AoT/AoA, starting at 20 years
40、of age prior to AoT/AoA: increase then decline (inverted “V”) possible plateau (stretched “7”) not reliable linkage of behavior to biological sources -effects more associated w/neurochemistry than w/structure -uncertain timing of decrease thresholds = associated cognitive decrements,39,Constraining
41、FACTORS,2-Cognitive development: Adult working memory bandwidth lets in too much linguistic information to process at once = incomplete processing of, e.g., sequences of morphemes: “less is more” (Newport, various),40,Constraining FACTORS,2-Cognitive development: post-concrete operations Analytic/me
42、talinguistic/explicit input & learning Literacy = L2 vis vis L1 learning & processing: ? effortful ? inefficient different cognitive, neural resources,41,Constraining FACTORS,3-L1 entrenchment: L1 representations are increasingly defined with use = developing representations/categories assimilate to
43、 old (Flege, various) competition between old and developing representations (MacWhinney, various) Hebbian learning inhibits related new learning (Elman, various),42,Facilitating FACTORS,Enabling via 1- Subtraction of constraint minimize L1 influence via L1 attrition or L2 dominance More to come,43,
44、Facilitating FACTORS,Enabling via 2- Offsetting the effects of limiting factors training on L2 perception training on L2 pronunciation,44,Facilitating FACTORS,Enabling via: 3-Individual variation aptitude components (phonological) working memory health / genetic / lifestyle hypertension: inverted “U
45、” function ACH, testosterone, estrogen, dopamine, cortisol early passing for L2 use / practice / rehearsal / education,45,Facilitating FACTORS,NB: Some factors trump others e.g., neurobiology = irrelevant if low desire for attainment; v. passing for a native ID with L2 culture & speakers,46,Facilita
46、ting FACTORS,NB: Distinguish necessary from sufficient conditions: A given factor may be necessary but not sufficient for nativelike attainment,47,FACTS of Upper Limits: can do,Uncontroversially a given late (AoA 12) L2 learner can: perform like monolinguals across multiple complex behavioral measur
47、es of grammatical knowledge & lexical knowledge & global pronunciation can: perform like monolinguals on a range of brain-based measures of L2 processing e.g., ERP components, regional brain activity more to come,48,FACTS of Upper Limits: cannot do,Uncontroversially late learner GROUPS cannot: perfo
48、rm like monolinguals on challenging online and offline tasks/structures/items; various processing tasks involving parsing, suprasegmental perception, etc.,49,FACTS of Upper Limits: cannot do?,Controversially a given late L2 learner cannot: perform like monolinguals on certain on-line processing tasks involving sentence parsing, suprasegmental perception, etc. (quantitative & qualitative differences),50,Aside: AoA gradient and rate of nativelikeness,51,Slope