-
Session 3
The
Psychology of SLA
（
2
）
3. Differences in learners
3.1
Age
?
The central
issue is: Are children better learners of
language?
It
is
important
to
keep
evaluation
criteria
(grammaticality,
fluency,
functional
competence)
clearly in mind while judging
conflicting claims. See Table 4.3 for a comparison
between younger
and older learners
(Savaille-Troike, p.82).
4.3 Age differences in SLA
Younger advantage
Older advantage
Learning
capacity
Analytical ability
Pragmatic skills
Greater
knowledge of L1
Real-world knowledge
Brain plasticity
Not analytical
Fewer inhibitions (usually)
Weaker group identity
Simplified input more likely
In
terms
of
learning
speed,
adults
are
able
to
achieve
criterion
scores
on
most
tests.
L2
learning more rapidly
than children at least during the early stages of
acquisition.
?
The Critical
Period Hypothesis (CPH)
Supporting
evidence:
Genie,
an
abused
girl
who
was
isolated
from
all
language
input
and
interaction until 13.
Intensive remediation
doesn
?
t lead to L1
competence comparable to early L1
acquirer, supporting CPH in a weak form
(p.83).
Some influential studies:
1)
Johnson
&
Newport?s
(1989,
1991)
studies:
learners?
syntactic
knowledge
was
linearly
related
to
age
of
arrival
only
up
to
puberty,
no
correlation
for
the
postpubescent
learners
(See
Appendix A).
2)
Co
ppieters?
(1987)
study:
NS
and
NNS
may
have
strikingly
different
intuitions
about
sentences, though they
produce essentially the same structures in use
3)
Birdsong?s (1992) study: UG provides
n
o basis for predicting on which
structures NNSs
were like native
speakers and on which they were not.
4) Bialystok's (1997)
studies: maturational factors are not a
determining factor in the success
or
nonsuccess of L2 learning. But cross-linguistic
differences between L1 and L2 are a significant
factor.
Having
noticed
differences,
children
tend
to
create
new
categories
while
adults
tend
to
extend existing categories.
Seliger (1978) and Long (1990) argue
that there are multiple periods which place
constraints
on
different
aspects
of
language:
e.g.
different
periods
relate
to
the
acquisition
of
phonology
versus the
acquisition of syntax.
Newport
(1990)
suggests
that
one
reason
younger
learners
develop
more
native
–
like
grammatical
intuitions
is
that
they
are
in
a
non-analytic
processing
mode.
Younger
learners
are
probably more successful in informal
and naturalistic L2 learning contexts, and older
learners in
formal instructional
settings.
?
A
consensus: older learners cannot reasonably hope
to achieve a L2 native accent.
?
The reasons why
children are more successful L2 learners than
adults: social psychological
factors,
cognitive factors, neurological factors, and
input.
?
Birsong's summary of the possible
explanations for adults' failure to become fluent
in the L2.
(a) Loss of (access to) the
language learning faculty, (b) Loss of neural
plasticity in the brain,
(c)
Maladaptive
gain
of
processing
capacity,
(d)
Use
it
or
lose
it,
(e)
Learning
inhibits
learning.
3.2. Aptitude
(see Skehan 1989)
?
Standard
four
components:
(a)
Phonemic
Coding
Ability,
(b)Grammatical
Sensitivity,
(c)
Inductive Language
Learning Ability, (d) Memory and Learning
?
Modern Language
Aptitude Test (MLAT) by Carroll and Sapon (1959)
with 5 subtests: (1)
number
learning,
(2)
phonetic
script,
(3)
spelling
clues,
(4)
words
in
sentences,
(5)
paired
associates.
?
Findings
from
the
British
studies:
A
correlation
has
been
found
between
L2
aptitude
and
social class and parental education
which are factors unrelated to inherent
capabilities
?
Skehan: aptitude is at least as
important, and usually more important, than any
other variable
investigated.
3.3. Motivation
?
Motivation
determines the level of effort which learners
expend at various stages in their L2
development, a key to ultimate level of
proficiency.
?
Components of motivation:
Significant goal or need
Desire to attain the goal
Perception that learning L2 is relevant
to fulfilling the goal or meeting the need
Belief in the likely success or failure
of learning L2
Value of potential
outcomes/rewards
?
Early work on motivation by Gardner and
Lambert: Motivation involves 4 components: goal,
effort,
desire,
attitudes.
A
distinction
is
made
between
instrumental
and
integrative
motivation.
?
Long-term
and
short-term
effect:
it
is
difficult
for
attitudes
to
affect
behaviors
that
have
become
habitual.
?
Motivation and success: a
“
chicken-and-
egg
”
matter.
Effect of success on
motivation: motivational arousal is greatest for
tasks that are assumed to
be of
moderate difficulty.
arousal
difficulty
3.4 Cognitive style
?
Cognitive
style
refers
to
individuals
?
preferred
way
of
processing:
i.e.
of
perceiving,
conceptualizing,
organizing,
and
recalling
information.
Categories
of
cognitive
style
are
commonly identified as pairs of traits
on opposite ends of a continuum.
Table 4.4
Field-dependent
Field-independent
Global
Particular
Holistic
Analytic
Deductive
Inductive
Focus on meaning
Focus on form
?
Field
independence
(FI)
vs.
field
dependence
(FD):
They
are
measured
by
the
Embedded
Figures Test, which requires subjects
to find a simple shape within a figure apart from
the
ground (or field) within which it
is embedded. Individuals who have difficulty with
this test
are judged to be relatively
FD; individuals who have no difficulty with this
test are judged
relatively FI.
FD:
global,
holistic
in
processing
information,
more
successful
via
highly
contextualized
interactive communicative experience;
FI: particularistic,
analytic, profiting from decontexutalized analytic
approaches and formal
instruction.
?
Deductive
vs.
inductive
processing:
Deductive
(top-down)
processing
begins
with
a
prediction
or
rule
and
then
applies
it
to
interpret
particular
instances
of
input.
Inductive
(bottom-up)
processing
begins
with
examining
input
to
discover
some
patterns
and
then
formulates a
generalization of rule that accounts for it and
that may then in turn be applied
deductively.
?
Learning styles (see Reid 1987):
visual, auditory, kinesthetic (movement-oriented),
or tactile
(touch-oriented)
?
Extension
vs.
creation:
extending
existing
categories
to
include
new
instances
from
L2,
creating new categories
(e.g. learning phonological structure)
?
Criticisms:
1)
The
embedded
figure
test
is
not
applicable
to
language
acquisition
and
therefore
not
relevant.
2)
a
single
cognitive
trait
is
often
correlated
with
a
single
language
proficiency
measure
without
taking
other
influencing
factors
and
complexities
of
performance
into
account;
3)
lack
of
consideration
given
to
differences
in
cultural
background, prior
educational
experiences,
possibilities
of
change
over
time,
and
stages
of
language learning.