SLA – 3SLA – 3Information ProcessingInformation Processing

Helena I. R. AgustienHelena I. R. Agustienhagustien@yahoo.comhagustien@yahoo.com

From UG to Information ProcessingFrom UG to Information Processing

Because studies examining the L2 learner’s access to UG Because studies examining the L2 learner’s access to UG are controversial and inconclusive, some researchers are controversial and inconclusive, some researchers openly deny that L2 learners have access to UG.openly deny that L2 learners have access to UG.Bley-Froman (1989, 43) does not believe that L2 learners Bley-Froman (1989, 43) does not believe that L2 learners have access to UG. Adults’ SLA lacks “general guaranteed have access to UG. Adults’ SLA lacks “general guaranteed success”success”L2 acquisition is guided by “general human cognitive L2 acquisition is guided by “general human cognitive learning capacities rather than by the same domain-specific learning capacities rather than by the same domain-specific module which guarantees child’s success in first language module which guarantees child’s success in first language acquisition (1989,44). acquisition (1989,44).

Bley-FromanBley-FromanAdults set up different goals as to their desired level Adults set up different goals as to their desired level of L2 mastery. Children do not experience this of L2 mastery. Children do not experience this flexibility because their goals are under control of flexibility because their goals are under control of language faculty that unfolds along a genetically language faculty that unfolds along a genetically programmed sequence.programmed sequence.Adults may reach a certain plateau that cannot be Adults may reach a certain plateau that cannot be surpassed no matter how hard they try – surpassed no matter how hard they try – fossilization. They never exhibit the same level of fossilization. They never exhibit the same level of intuition as to the grammaticality of sentences that intuition as to the grammaticality of sentences that NSs do.NSs do.

Bley-Froman’s Bley-Froman’s Fundamental Difference HypothesisFundamental Difference Hypothesis

BF describes that the differences between child and BF describes that the differences between child and adult LA are different internally, linguistically and adult LA are different internally, linguistically and qualitatively.qualitatively.

1.1. InternalInternal: It is caused by differences in the internal : It is caused by differences in the internal cognitive state of adult [and] children, not by some cognitive state of adult [and] children, not by some external factor or factors (insufficient input, for external factor or factors (insufficient input, for example)example)

2.2. LinguisticLinguistic: It is caused by a change in : It is caused by a change in the lg faculty specifically, not by some the lg faculty specifically, not by some general change in learning ability.general change in learning ability.

Bley-Froman’s Bley-Froman’s Fundamental Difference HypothesisFundamental Difference Hypothesis

3. 3. Qualitative, not quantitativeQualitative, not quantitative: The difference is not : The difference is not merely quantitative; the domain-specific acquisition merely quantitative; the domain-specific acquisition system is not just attenuated. It is unavailable. system is not just attenuated. It is unavailable. Period.Period.

These differences are illustrated as follows:These differences are illustrated as follows:

Bley-Froman’s (1989,51)Bley-Froman’s (1989,51)Fundamental Difference HypothesisFundamental Difference Hypothesis

Child LanguageChild Language

developmentdevelopment

A.A. Universal GrammarUniversal Grammar

B.B. Domain-specific Domain-specific learning procedures.learning procedures.

Adult Foreign Adult Foreign

language learninglanguage learning

A.A. Native language Native language knowledgeknowledge

B.B. General problem General problem solving systemssolving systems

Bley-Froman’s hypothesisBley-Froman’s hypothesis

BF’s hypothesis is supported by Clahsen and BF’s hypothesis is supported by Clahsen and Muysken (1986) in their study on the acquisition of Muysken (1986) in their study on the acquisition of German.German.Children start with SOV construction in subordinate Children start with SOV construction in subordinate clauses and gradually move to SVO in independent clauses and gradually move to SVO in independent clausesclausesAdult learners of German start with SVO in Adult learners of German start with SVO in independent and subordinate clauses, then independent and subordinate clauses, then gradually move to SOV in subordinate gradually move to SOV in subordinate

clauses.clauses.

Contradicting FindingsContradicting Findings

Flynn (1987) claims that adult L2 learners have full Flynn (1987) claims that adult L2 learners have full access to UG.access to UG.White (1989) believes that L2 learners only have White (1989) believes that L2 learners only have access to the parameters that have been activated access to the parameters that have been activated in the in their first native languagein the in their first native languageFelix (1985) agrees that L2 learners have access to Felix (1985) agrees that L2 learners have access to UG and a general problem-solving module. The two UG and a general problem-solving module. The two mechanisms compete with each other and a mechanisms compete with each other and a general problem-solving module always wins.general problem-solving module always wins.

Direct AccessDirect Access

UGUG

Partial AccessPartial Access

UGUG

No access to UGNo access to UG

General Cognitive MechanismGeneral Cognitive Mechanism

L2 Grammar

L2 Grammar

L2 Grammar

L1 Grammar

Recall Krashen’s hypothesesRecall Krashen’s hypothesesDespite its theoretical shortcomings, Krashen’s Despite its theoretical shortcomings, Krashen’s input hypothesis has been very popular and his input hypothesis has been very popular and his input hypothesis is responsible for input hypothesis is responsible for

1.1. Initiating the debate regarding the role of input – Initiating the debate regarding the role of input – one way versus two-way interaction – in SLA;one way versus two-way interaction – in SLA;

2.2. Triggering the research on the role of grammar Triggering the research on the role of grammar instruction in SLA;instruction in SLA;

Recall Krashen’s hypothesesRecall Krashen’s hypotheses3. identifying the processes that are responsible for 3. identifying the processes that are responsible for

the conversion of input into output; andthe conversion of input into output; and4. perhaps unintentionally, examining the relation 4. perhaps unintentionally, examining the relation

between comprehensible input and mental between comprehensible input and mental processes (the learner’s external and internal processes (the learner’s external and internal process).process).

Merill Swain (1985, 1993, 1995)Merill Swain (1985, 1993, 1995)

Disagrees with Krashen in that both input and Disagrees with Krashen in that both input and output are required for SLA. (Krashen’s position: output are required for SLA. (Krashen’s position: output simply represents the result of acquired output simply represents the result of acquired competence – serves no useful roles in SLA)competence – serves no useful roles in SLA)The production of comprehensible output forces the The production of comprehensible output forces the learner to notice the gap between “what they learner to notice the gap between “what they wantwant to say and what they to say and what they cancan say.” say.”It helps the learner to consciously recognise that It helps the learner to consciously recognise that there is a gap and this may prompt a desire to work there is a gap and this may prompt a desire to work on improving the quality of the acquired on improving the quality of the acquired competence.competence.

Merill Swain (1985, 1993, 1995)Merill Swain (1985, 1993, 1995)

Comprehensible output plays a crucial role in Comprehensible output plays a crucial role in changing the quality (that is, restructuring, changing the quality (that is, restructuring, McLaughlin 1990) the learner’s interlanguage.McLaughlin 1990) the learner’s interlanguage.The “pushed out” input is necessary for the learner The “pushed out” input is necessary for the learner to engaged in syntactic processing that contributes to engaged in syntactic processing that contributes to achieve higher grammatical accuracy.to achieve higher grammatical accuracy.Swain identifies 3 functions of comprehensible Swain identifies 3 functions of comprehensible output which she hypothesizes relate to “accuracy output which she hypothesizes relate to “accuracy rather than fluency”rather than fluency”

Swain’s three functionsSwain’s three functions

The “noticing/triggering function or consciousness- The “noticing/triggering function or consciousness- raising roleraising roleThe hypothesis-testing functionThe hypothesis-testing functionThe metalinguistic function – reflecting roleThe metalinguistic function – reflecting role

Call for Cognitive ApproachCall for Cognitive Approach

Mainstream researchers disagree to the Mainstream researchers disagree to the applicability and appropriateness of Chomsky’s applicability and appropriateness of Chomsky’s linguistic theory for SLA, but they do not advocate linguistic theory for SLA, but they do not advocate the replacement of it with a more “environmentally” the replacement of it with a more “environmentally” friendly or more socially oriented one.friendly or more socially oriented one.They call for its replacement with another They call for its replacement with another cognitively oriented theory – claiming that the focus cognitively oriented theory – claiming that the focus of SLA should be on describing and explaining of SLA should be on describing and explaining mental processes responsible for SLA.mental processes responsible for SLA.

Long (1997)Long (1997)(In response to Firth and Wagner criticism)(In response to Firth and Wagner criticism)

SLA theory and research is primarily focused on:SLA theory and research is primarily focused on:1.1. The understanding of mental processesThe understanding of mental processes2.2. The acquisition of linguistic knowledgeThe acquisition of linguistic knowledge3.3. The investigation of cognitive variables within a The investigation of cognitive variables within a

well-established experimental type of research well-established experimental type of research designdesign

Long’s Interaction Hypothesis (IH)Long’s Interaction Hypothesis (IH)

Michael Long (1983a, 1983b) expanded on Michael Long (1983a, 1983b) expanded on Krashen’s CI by introducing conversational Krashen’s CI by introducing conversational adjustment.adjustment.Knowledge of grammatical rules develops from Knowledge of grammatical rules develops from conversational interaction, not from grammatical conversational interaction, not from grammatical rules that are acquired independent of rules that are acquired independent of conversational interactionconversational interaction

Long’s Definition of IHLong’s Definition of IH

““It is proposed that environmental contributions to It is proposed that environmental contributions to acquisition are mediated by selective attention and the acquisition are mediated by selective attention and the learner’s developing L2 processing capacity, and that learner’s developing L2 processing capacity, and that these resources are brought together most usefully, these resources are brought together most usefully, although not exclusively, during although not exclusively, during negotiation of meaning.negotiation of meaning. Negative feedback obtained during negotiation work or Negative feedback obtained during negotiation work or elsewhere may be facilitative of L2 development, at least elsewhere may be facilitative of L2 development, at least for vocabulary, morphology, and language-specific for vocabulary, morphology, and language-specific syntax, and essential for learning certain specifiable L1-syntax, and essential for learning certain specifiable L1-L2 contrasts” (Long 1996, 414)L2 contrasts” (Long 1996, 414)

Studies on Interactional HypothesisStudies on Interactional Hypothesis

Some studies on Some studies on recastrecast (“utterances that rephrase a (“utterances that rephrase a child’s utterance by chnaging one or more sentence child’s utterance by chnaging one or more sentence components (subject, verb or object) while still components (subject, verb or object) while still referring to its central meaning” – Long 1996,434)referring to its central meaning” – Long 1996,434)Recast allow the learner to compare his or her Recast allow the learner to compare his or her ungrammatical utterances with the grammatical ungrammatical utterances with the grammatical utterances offered by others.utterances offered by others.Hopefully, the learner can notice the gap between Hopefully, the learner can notice the gap between input and his or her interlanguage.input and his or her interlanguage.

Studies on recastStudies on recast

Long, Inagaki, Ortega (1998) – inconclusiveLong, Inagaki, Ortega (1998) – inconclusiveMackay and Philp (1998) – participants did dot modify their Mackay and Philp (1998) – participants did dot modify their output in response to the recast. Inconclusive.output in response to the recast. Inconclusive.Mackay (1999) – inconclusiveMackay (1999) – inconclusiveMackay, Gas and McDonough (2000)- learner’s perception Mackay, Gas and McDonough (2000)- learner’s perception regarding morphosyntactic feedback suggest that most of regarding morphosyntactic feedback suggest that most of the ESL participants perceived it as semantic feedback. the ESL participants perceived it as semantic feedback. Thus recasts do not contribute to focusing the learner’s Thus recasts do not contribute to focusing the learner’s attention on linguistic forms. Instead, recast assists the attention on linguistic forms. Instead, recast assists the learner comprehension of lexis, semantic meaning. learner comprehension of lexis, semantic meaning.

Van PattenVan Patten(Cognitive Psychology)(Cognitive Psychology)

Learners cannot attend to form and function at the Learners cannot attend to form and function at the same time (a notion that Long’s IH seems to reject)same time (a notion that Long’s IH seems to reject)““We will draw upon various constructs from We will draw upon various constructs from cognitive psychology, most notably attention, and cognitive psychology, most notably attention, and argue that second language learners are argue that second language learners are limited limited capacity processorcapacity processor. As such, they can only attend . As such, they can only attend to so much linguistic data at a time in the input to so much linguistic data at a time in the input during during on-line on-line comprehension.” (1996,14)comprehension.” (1996,14)The metaphors are characteristic of the information The metaphors are characteristic of the information processing paradigm.processing paradigm.

Van Patten’s 3 principles (1996)Van Patten’s 3 principles (1996)

P1: Learners process input for meaning before they P1: Learners process input for meaning before they process it for from.process it for from.a.a. Learners process the content words in the input Learners process the content words in the input

before anything else.before anything else.b.b. Learners prefer processing lexical items to Learners prefer processing lexical items to

grammatical items (e.g. morphological markings) for grammatical items (e.g. morphological markings) for semantic information.semantic information.

c.c. Learners prefer processing ‘more meaningful” Learners prefer processing ‘more meaningful” morphology before “less” or “nonmeaningful” morphology before “less” or “nonmeaningful” morphology”morphology”

Van Patten’s 3 principles (1996)Van Patten’s 3 principles (1996)

2. For learners to process form that is not 2. For learners to process form that is not meaningful, they must be able to process meaningful, they must be able to process informational or communicative content at no informational or communicative content at no (or little) cost to attention (1996, 14-15)(or little) cost to attention (1996, 14-15)

3. Learners possess a default strategy that 3. Learners possess a default strategy that assigns the role of agent to the first noun assigns the role of agent to the first noun (phrase) they encounter in a sentence.”We call (phrase) they encounter in a sentence.”We call this first noun strategy.”this first noun strategy.”

a.a. The first noun strategy can be overidden by The first noun strategy can be overidden by lexical semantics and even probabilitieslexical semantics and even probabilities

Van Patten’s 3 principles (1996)Van Patten’s 3 principles (1996)

b. Learners will adopt other processing strategies for b. Learners will adopt other processing strategies for grammatical role assignment only after their grammatical role assignment only after their developing system has incorporated other cues developing system has incorporated other cues (e.g., case making, acoustic stress). (1996,32)(e.g., case making, acoustic stress). (1996,32)

Lexical Vs Grammatical MeaningsLexical Vs Grammatical Meanings

Schmidt : “you can’t learn a foreign language (or Schmidt : “you can’t learn a foreign language (or anything else, for that matter) through subliminal anything else, for that matter) through subliminal perception” (1990,142).perception” (1990,142).Tomlin and Villa: During attentional processing, one Tomlin and Villa: During attentional processing, one process is of extreme importance for potential process is of extreme importance for potential language acquisition – language acquisition – detectiondetection – which they – which they define as “the process that selects, or engages, a define as “the process that selects, or engages, a particular and specific bit of information” particular and specific bit of information” (1994,192).(1994,192).

Lexical Vs Grammatical MeaningsLexical Vs Grammatical Meanings

Van Patten: ”When all else is equal, form and Van Patten: ”When all else is equal, form and meaning compete for detection – with meaning meaning compete for detection – with meaning generally winning out.” (1996,18)generally winning out.” (1996,18)Not everything in the input can be attended to and Not everything in the input can be attended to and thus potentially detected.thus potentially detected.Mangubhai (1991): L2 learners acquire content Mangubhai (1991): L2 learners acquire content words first before they are able to put these words words first before they are able to put these words together.together.

ExamplesExamples

Morpheme ‘ed’ in the past tense encodes Morpheme ‘ed’ in the past tense encodes semantic meaning. However, this can be semantic meaning. However, this can be conveyed by lexical item rather than by conveyed by lexical item rather than by syntactic features (syntactic features (yesterday, agoyesterday, ago etc.) etc.)Morpheme that is phonologically salient, e.g. Morpheme that is phonologically salient, e.g. “ing” in English, is more audible than ”ed”. “ing” in English, is more audible than ”ed”. “ing” carries a relative greater communicative “ing” carries a relative greater communicative value and will be noticed prior to other value and will be noticed prior to other grammatical items with less communicative grammatical items with less communicative value.value.

Three Sets of processes in SLA and useThree Sets of processes in SLA and use

I II IIII II III

Input Intake Developing System OutputInput Intake Developing System Output

Input processing Accommodation AccessInput processing Accommodation Access

andand RestructuringRestructuring

Van Pattern & Cadierno 1993,227)Van Pattern & Cadierno 1993,227)

They criticize traditional approaches to teaching They criticize traditional approaches to teaching grammar that followed a flawed pattern: introduction grammar that followed a flawed pattern: introduction to linguistic problem, practice exercises, and to linguistic problem, practice exercises, and production. These approaches focus on the production. These approaches focus on the processes that convert the developing system into processes that convert the developing system into output while ignoring the processes that precede output while ignoring the processes that precede the output stage (the processes that convert input the output stage (the processes that convert input into intake).into intake).

Van Pattern & Cadierno 1993,227)Van Pattern & Cadierno 1993,227)

The processes that convert input into The processes that convert input into intake are called intake are called structured inputstructured input activities. activities.

Van Patten provides some guidelines for Van Patten provides some guidelines for developing structured input activities that developing structured input activities that help the learner to detect a connection help the learner to detect a connection between form and meaning in the provided between form and meaning in the provided input as follows:input as follows:

Van Patten and Language TeachingVan Patten and Language Teaching(1996, 67-69)(1996, 67-69)

1.1. Teach only one thing at a time.Teach only one thing at a time.2.2. Keep meaning in focus.Keep meaning in focus.3.3. Learners must do something with the input.Learners must do something with the input.4.4. Use both oral and written input.Use both oral and written input.5.5. Move from sentence to connected discourse.Move from sentence to connected discourse.6.6. Keep the psycholinguistic processing strategies in Keep the psycholinguistic processing strategies in

mind.mind.

Van Patten and Language TeachingVan Patten and Language Teaching(1996, 67-69)(1996, 67-69)

According to the guidelines the developer According to the guidelines the developer of the structured input activities need to of the structured input activities need to ensure that the learner is given a chance ensure that the learner is given a chance to attend to meaning oriented input.to attend to meaning oriented input.

Activities should be confined to sentence-Activities should be confined to sentence-level input rather that connected level input rather that connected discourse, which should be reserved for discourse, which should be reserved for further teachingfurther teaching

Doughty (1991) Doughty (1991) Long and Robinson (1998)Long and Robinson (1998)

Their studies indicate that meaning and Their studies indicate that meaning and form are not mutually exclusive.form are not mutually exclusive.

VP’s, Doughty, M. Long’s and P. VP’s, Doughty, M. Long’s and P. Robinson’s studies are categorized as Robinson’s studies are categorized as focus-on-form framework.focus-on-form framework.

At issue is whether learners are able to At issue is whether learners are able to attend to form and meaning attend to form and meaning simultaneously or not.simultaneously or not.

Gass and Selinker (2001)Gass and Selinker (2001)

Gass (1988, 1997) identified 5 major stages Gass (1988, 1997) identified 5 major stages involved in the conversion of input to output. They involved in the conversion of input to output. They are: “apperceived input, comprehended input, are: “apperceived input, comprehended input, intake, integration, and output” (Gass and Selinker intake, integration, and output” (Gass and Selinker 2001,400).2001,400).Factors that make aspects of language noticed by Factors that make aspects of language noticed by learners include: frequency, affect, prior knowledge, learners include: frequency, affect, prior knowledge, and attentionand attention

GassGass

Gass’ Gass’ comprehension comprehension is defined more in terms of is defined more in terms of the word’s dictionary meaning than in terms of the word’s dictionary meaning than in terms of mental processes (Johnson 2004,80).mental processes (Johnson 2004,80).Gass:”the most common way of getting at a Gass:”the most common way of getting at a syntactic analysis is by first having an syntactic analysis is by first having an understanding of the meaning. However, one can understanding of the meaning. However, one can also imagine having an understanding of the syntax also imagine having an understanding of the syntax yet not being able to arrive at a meaning. This yet not being able to arrive at a meaning. This would be so in the case of idioms, for example, or a would be so in the case of idioms, for example, or a proverb.” (ibid)proverb.” (ibid)

Johnson (2004)Johnson (2004)There seems to be some confusion as to semantic meaning There seems to be some confusion as to semantic meaning and pragmatic meaning.and pragmatic meaning.In semantics, the minimal unit of analysis is a sentence. In semantics, the minimal unit of analysis is a sentence. The same pertain to syntax. In pragmatics, however, the The same pertain to syntax. In pragmatics, however, the unit of analysis is an utterance. unit of analysis is an utterance. Pragmatic meaning goes beyond sentence-level semantic Pragmatic meaning goes beyond sentence-level semantic meaning and is dependent on a variety of contextual and meaning and is dependent on a variety of contextual and textual features.textual features.Gass’ use of the two terms interchangeably is Gass’ use of the two terms interchangeably is inappropriate and confusing.inappropriate and confusing.

Gass and Selinker (2001,410)Gass and Selinker (2001,410)Acknowledge the effects of different factors on Acknowledge the effects of different factors on output and claim that “different grammatical output and claim that “different grammatical information may be used in different genres”information may be used in different genres”Johnson (2004,83): Although Gass’ model focuses Johnson (2004,83): Although Gass’ model focuses on linguistic competence, it also claims to account on linguistic competence, it also claims to account for the use of knowledge in real-life-situations – in for the use of knowledge in real-life-situations – in which speech genres vary – without identifying which speech genres vary – without identifying processes that pertain to linguistic performance.processes that pertain to linguistic performance.

ConclusionConclusionAll these models focus on the learner’s cognitive All these models focus on the learner’s cognitive process.process.The process of analysing the incoming information The process of analysing the incoming information is viewed as being mechanistic, predictable, stable, is viewed as being mechanistic, predictable, stable, and universal.and universal.The outside reality, or social contexts, is The outside reality, or social contexts, is acknowledged indirectly, abstractly and acknowledged indirectly, abstractly and superficially.superficially.

ConclusionConclusion

Any human interaction is viewed as a “conversation Any human interaction is viewed as a “conversation for the sake of that conversation” that does not for the sake of that conversation” that does not contribute to the acquisition of linguistic forms.contribute to the acquisition of linguistic forms.Interaction is not viewed as a social issue, for which Interaction is not viewed as a social issue, for which the individual is solely responsible.the individual is solely responsible.It is viewed primarily in terms of the interaction It is viewed primarily in terms of the interaction among different components of the model in the among different components of the model in the individual’s mind.individual’s mind.

Johnson (2004)Johnson (2004)

Finds the position held by Long and his followers Finds the position held by Long and his followers dangerous because it hinders progress in SLA.dangerous because it hinders progress in SLA.Believes that cognitive approach and social Believes that cognitive approach and social approach can be reconciled and united under the approach can be reconciled and united under the framework which is based on Vygotsky’s socio-framework which is based on Vygotsky’s socio-cultural theory.cultural theory.A dialogically based model of SLA is introduced.A dialogically based model of SLA is introduced.