— Cl 76 Individual differences in second language learning ‘Masgoret, A.-M. and R. C. Gardner. 2003. ‘Attitudes, motivation, and second language learning: A meta-analysis of studies conducted by Gardner and associates’. Language Learning 53/1: 123-63. Norton, B. 2000. Identity and Language Learning: Gender, Ethnicity and Educational Change. London: Longman/Pearson Education. Oxford, R. 1990. Language Learning Strategies: What Every Teacher Should Know, New York: Newbury House. Robinson, P. (ed.). 2002. Individual Differences and Instructed Language Learning. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Singleton, D. and L. Ryan. 2004. Language Acquisition: The Age Factor 2nd edn. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Toohey, K. 2000. Learning English at School: Identity, Social Relations and Classroom Practice. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. LEARNER LANGUAGE In this chapter we focus on second language learners’ developing knowledge and use of their new language. We examine some of the errors that learners make and discuss what errors can tell us about their knowledge of the language and their ability to use that knowledge. We look at stages and sequences in the acquisition of some syntactic and morphological features in the second language. We also review some aspects of learners’ development ‘of vocabulary, pragmatics, and phonology. Studying the language of second language learners Knowing more about the development of learner language helps teachers to assess teaching procedures in the light of what they can reasonably expect to accomplish in the classroom. As we will see, some characteristics of learner language can be quite perplexing if one does not have an overall picture of the steps learners go through in acquiring features of the second language. In presenting some of the findings of second language research, we have included a number of examples of learner language as well as some additional samples to give you an opportunity to practise analysing learner language. Of course, teachers analyse learner language al the time. They try to determine whether students have learned what has been taught and how closely their language matches the target language. But progress cannot always be measured in these terms. Sometimes language acquisition is reflected in a decrease in the use of a correct form that was based on rote ‘memorization or chunk learning. New errors may be based on an emerging ability to extend a particular grammatical form beyond the specific items with which it was first learned. In this sense, an increase in error may be an indication of progress. For example, like first language learners, second language learners usually learn the irregular past tense forms of certain8 Learner language about English grammar than one who says ‘I bought a bus ticket’. The one ‘who says ‘buyed’ knows rule for forming the past tense and has applied ico an irregular verb. Without further information, we cannot conclude that the one who says ‘bought’ would use the regular past -ed marker where itis appropriate, but the learner who says ‘buyed’ has provided evidence of developing knowledge of a systematic aspect of English. Teachers and researchers cannot read learners’ minds, so they must infer what learners know by observing what they do. We observe their spontaneous language usc, but we also design procedures that help to reveal more about the knowledge underlying their observable use of language. Without these procedures, iis often difficult ro determine whether a particular behaviour is representative of something systematic in a learner's current language knowledge or simply an isolaced item, learned asa chunk. Like first language learners, second language learners do not learn language simply through imitation and practice. They produce sentences that are not ‘exactly like those chey have heard. These new sentences appear to be based ‘on internal cognitive processes and prior knowledge that interact with the Ianguage they hear around them. Both first and second language acquisition are best described as developing systems with their own evolving rules and patterns, not as imperfect versions of the target language. In Chapter 1 we saw that children's knowledge of the grammatical system is buile up in predictable sequences. For instance, grammatical morphemes such as the -ingof the present progressive or the -ed ofthe simple past are not acquired ac the same time, but in sequence. Furthermore, the acquisition of certain grammatical features is similar for children in different environ- ments. As children continue to hear and use their language, they are able to revise these systems so that they increasingly resemble the language spoken in their environment, Are there developmental sequences for second language acquisition? How does the prior knowledge of the first language affect the acquisition of the second (or third) language? How does instruc tion affect second language acquisition? Are there differences between learners whose only contact with the new language is in a language course and those who use the language in daily life? These are some of the questions researchers have sought to answer, and we will address them in this chapter as well as in Chapters 5 and 6. Contrastive analysis, error analysis, and interlanguage Until the late 1960s, people tended to see second language learners’ speech biinilly ax ddl" Wibortéct Védtiodl "OF the tandet Bnandes: Acchtding 10 alle Learner language the result of transfer from learners’ first language. As we saw in Chapter 2, however, notall errors made by second language learners can be explained in terms of first language transfer alone. A number of studies show thac many errors can be explained better in terms of learners’ developing knowledge of the structure of the target language rather than an attempt to transfer pat- terns of their first language. Furthermore, some of the errors are remarkably similar to those made by young frst language learners for example, the use of a regular -ed past tense ending on an irregular verb. A simplified version of the CAH would predice chat, where differences exist, crtors would be bi-directional, chat is, for example, French speakers learning English and English speakers learning French would make errors on parallel linguistic features. Helmut Zobl (1980) observed that this is not always the case. For example, in English, direct objects, whether nouns or pronouns, come after the verb (‘The dog eats the cookie. The dog eats it’). In French, direct objects that are nouns follow the verb (Le chien mange le biscuis— literally, ‘The dog eats the cookie’). However, direct object pronouns precede the verb (Le chien le mange—titerally, ‘The dog it eats). The CAH would predict that a native speaker of English might make the error of saying: Le chien mange le when learning French, and that a native speaker of French might say “The dog it ate’ when learning English. In fact, English speakers learning French are more likely to make the predicted error than French speakers learning English. This may be due to the fact that English speakers learning French hear many examples of sentences with subject-verb-object word order (for example,.Le chien mange le biscuit) and make the incorrect generalization—based on both the word order of their first language and evidence from the second language—thar all direct objects come after the verb, French-speaking learners of English, on the other hand, hearing and seeing no evidence that English direct object pronouns precede verbs, do not tend to use this pattern from their frst language. Eric Kellerman (1986) and others also observed that learners have intuitions about which language features they can transfer from thcir first language to the target language and which are less likely to be transferable, For example, ‘most learners believe that idiomatic or metaphorical expressions cannot simply be translated word for word, Asaresultof the finding that many aspects of learners’ language could not be explained by the CAH, a number of researchers began to rake a different approach to analysing learners’ errors. This approach, which developed during the 1970s, became known as ‘error analysis’ and involved detailed description and analysis of the kinds of errors sccond language learners ‘make. The goal of this research was to discover what learners really know Mi dss barentians. ie Pls: Cisbder saldl tis « Sevticitis rticte vaiblidhed in 1967, 79NNN En ee ere 80 Learner language something they have already heard; when they produce sentences that differ from the target language, we may assume that these sentences reflect the learners’ current understanding of the rules and patterns of that language. “Error analysis’ differed from contrastive analysis in thar it did not set out to predict errors. Rather, it sought to discover and describe different kinds of errors in an effort to understand how learners process second language data. Error analysis was based on the hypothesis that, like child language, second, language learner language is a system in its own right—one that is rule- governed and predictable. Lary Selinker (1972) gave the name INTERLANGUAGE to learners) developing second language knowledge. Analysis ofa learner’ interlanguage shows that it has some characteristics influenced by previously learned languages, some characteristics of the second language, and some character- istics, such as the omission of function words and grammatical morphemes, that seem to be general and to occur in all or most interlanguage systems. Interlanguages have been found to be systematic, but they ae also dynamic, continually evolving as learners receive more input and revise their hypo- theses about the second language. The path through language acquisition is not necessarily smooth and even. Learners have bursts of progress, then seem to reach a plateau for a while before something stimulates further progress. Selinker also coined the term FOSSILIZATION to refer to the fact that, some features in a learner's language may stop changing. This may be especially true for learners whose exposure to the second language does not include instruction ot the kind of feedback that would help them to recognize differences between their interlanguage and the target language, Analysing learner language ‘The following texts were written by two learners of English, one a French- speaking secondary school student, the other a Chinese-speaking adult learner. Both learners were describing a cartoon film entitled The Great Toy ‘Robbery (National Film Board of Canada). After viewing the film, they were asked to retell the story in writing, as if they were telling it co someone who had not seen the film. Read the texts and examine the errors made by each learner, Do they make the same kinds of errors? In what ways do the two interlanguages differ? Learner 1: French frst language, secondary school student During a sunny day, a cowboy go in the desert with his horse. he has a bighat. His horse eat flour. In the same time, Santa Clause go in a city to give some surprises. He has a red costume and a red packet of surprises. You have three robbers in the mountain who sees Santa Learner language Clause, not Santa Clause but his pocket of surprises. After they will go ina city and they go in a saloon. [..] (unpublished data from P. M. Lightbown and B, Barkman) Learner 2: Chinese first language, adult ‘This year Christmas comes soon! Santa Claus ride a one horse open sleigh to sent present for children. on the back of his body has big packet, it have a lor of toys. in the way he meet three robbers. They want ro take his big packet. Santa Claus no way and no body help, so only a way give them, chen three robbers ride their horse dashing through the town, There have saloon, they go to drink some beer and open the big packent. They plays toys in the Bar They meet a cow boy in the saloon. i (unpublished data provided by M. J. Marcens) Perhaps the most striking thing here is that many error types are common to Get bees Het sue Snel malice ted pitches aloe aake find in the writing of a young native speaker of English. Even though French uses grammatical morphemes to indicate person and number on verbs and Chinese docs not, both these learners make errors of subject-verb agree ‘ment, both leaving off the third person -s marker and overusing it when the subjects plural (a cowboy go’ and ‘three robbers in the mountain who sees’ by Learner 1 and ‘Santa Claus ride’ and ‘they plays’ by Learner 2). Such errors reflect learners’ understanding of the second language system itself rather than an attempt to transfer characteristics of their first language. Th are sometimes referred to as ‘developmental’ errors because they ate similar to those made by children acquiring English as their first language. Some- times these are errors of overgeneralization, thats, errors caused by trying to use a rule in a context where it does not belong, for example, the -s ending on the verb in ‘they plays’. Sometimes the errors are betcer described as SIMPLIFICATION, where elements of a sentence are left out or where all verbs have the same form regardless of person, number, of tense. One can also see, especially in Learner 2's text, the influence of classroom ‘experience. An example is the use of formulaic expressions such as ‘one horse ‘open sleigh’ which is taken verbatim from awell-known Christmas song that had been taught and sung in his ESL class. The vivid ‘dashing through the town’ probably comes from the same source. For chose who are familiar with the English spoken by native speakers of French, some of the errors (for example, preposition choice “in che same time’) made by the first learner will be seen as probably based on French, lathe: thutee Gablibias elit hac katt ci cee gs 8182 ae we Learner language packet’) as based on Chinese patterns. These are called transfer or ‘inter- fetence’ errors. What is most clear, however, is that it is often difficult ro determine the source of errors. Thus, while error analysis has the advantage of describing what learners actually do rather than what they might do, it does not always give us clear insights into why they do it. Furthermore, as Jacquelyn Schachter pointed out in a 1974 article, learners sometimes avoid using certain features of language that they perceive to be difficult for them. This avoidance may lead to the absence of certain errors, leaving the analyst ‘without information about the learners’ developing interlanguage. That is, the absence of particular errors is difficult co interpret. The phenomenon of ‘avoidance’ may itself be a part of the learner's systematic second language performance. Developmental sequences Second language leamers, like first language learners, pass through sequences of development: what is learned early by one is learned early by others. ‘Among first language learners, the existence of developmental sequences may not seem surprising because their language learning is partly tied ro their cognitive development and to their experiences in learning about relationships among people, events, and objects around them. But the cognitive development of adult or adolescent second language learners is much more stable, and their experiences with the language are likely to be guite different, not only from the experiences of a litle child, but also ifferent from each other. Furthermore, second language learners already know another language that has different patterns for creating sentences and sword forms. In light of this, itis more remarkable that we find develop- ‘mental sequences that are similar in the developing interlanguage of learners from different backgrounds and also similar to those observed in first language acquisition of the same language. Moreover, the fearures of the language that are heard most frequently are not always easiest to learn. For example, virtually every English sentence has one or more articles (a! or ‘the), but even advanced learners have difficulty using these forms correctly in all contexts. Finally, although the learners’ first language does have an. influence, many aspects of these developmental stages are similar among learners from many different frst language backgrounds. In Chapter 1 we saw some developmental sequences for English child language acquisition of grammatical morphemes, negation, and questions. Researchers in second language acquisition have also examined these FF Learner language Grammatical morphemes ‘Some studies have examined the development of grammatical morphemes by learners of English asa second language in a variety of environments, at different ages, and from different frst language backgrounds. In analysing each learner's speech, researchers identify the OBLIGATORY CONTEXTS for each morpheme, that is, the places in a sentence where the morpheme is necessary to make the sentence grammatically correct. For example, in the sentence "Yesterday I play baseball for two hours, the adverb ‘yesterday’ creates an obligatory context for a past tense, and ‘for two hours’ ells us that the required form is a simple past (played!) rather than a past progressive (‘was playing’). Similarly, ‘wo’ creates an obligatory context fora plural -son. ‘hours’. For the analysis, obligatory contexts for each grammatical mor- pheme are counted separately, that is, one count for simple past, one for plural, one for third person singular present tense, and so on. After counting the number of obligatory contexts, the researcher counts the correctly supplied morphemes. The next step is to divide the number of correctly supplied morphemes by the total number of obligatory contexts to answer the question ‘what is the percentage accuracy for cach morpheme?” An accuracy score is created for each morpheme, and these can then be ranked from highest o lowest, giving an accuRACY ORDER for the morphemes. The overall results of the studies suggested an order which, while not identical to the developmental sequence found for first language learners, was similar among second language learners from different first language backgrounds. For example, most studies showed a higher degree of accuracy for plural than for possessive, and for -ing than for regular past (-ed). Stephen Krashen summarized the order as shown in Figure 4.1. The diagram. should be interpreted as showing that learners will produce the morphemes in higher boxes with higher accuracy than those in lower boxes, bue thac ‘within boxes, there is no clear pattern of difference. ‘The similarity among learners suggests that the accuracy order cannot be described or explained in terms of transfer from the learners first language, and some researchers saw this as strong evidence against the CAH. However, a thorough review of all the ‘morpheme acquisition’ studics shows that the learners’ frst language does have an influence on acquisition sequences. For example, learners whose first language has a possessive form that resembles the English § (such as German and Danish) seem to acquire the English possessive earlier than those whose first language has a very different way of forming the possessive (such as French or Spanish). And even though ‘article’ appears early in the sequence, learners from many language backgrounds and Japanese) continue to struggle with this 83SN eee reese oe este ee 84 Learner language ing (progressive) plural copula (to be’) 1 auxiliary (progressive asin ‘He is going’) article L___] inregular past 1 regular past-ed third person singular -s possessive 's Figure 4.1. Krashen’s (1977) summary ofsecond language grammatical morpheme acquisition sequence language sample that is analysed contains only che ‘easier’ obligatory contexts, the learner may have a misleadingly high accuracy score. Another reason why something as difficult as English articles appears to be acquired. carly is thatthe order in the diagram is based on the analysis of correct use i obligatory contexts only. It does not take into account uses of grammatical ‘morphemes in places where they do norbelong, for example, when a learner says, “The France is in Europe’. These issues have led researchers to question. the adequacy of obligatory context analyses as the sole basis for under- standing developmental sequences. ‘The morpheme acquisition literature raises other issues, not least of them, the question of why there should be an order of acquisition for these language features. Some of the similarities observed in different studies seemed to be due to the use of particular tasks for collecting the daca, and researchers found that different tasks tended to yield different results. Nevertheless, a number of studies have revealed ilarities that cannot be explained by che data collection procedures alone. As with first language See hanltreuatche at kaetrot aindl wanele alnipletexataneuon artis Learner language Salicnce (how casy it is to notice the morpheme), linguistic complexity (for example, how many elements you have to keep track of), semantic trans- parency (how clear the meaning is), similarity toa frst language form, and frequency in the inpucall seem to play arole. Negation ‘The acquisition of negative sentences by second language learners follows a path chat looks nearly identical to the stages we saw in Chapter 1 for first language acquisition. However, sccond language learners from different first language backgrounds behave somewhat differently within those stages. This was illustrared in John Schumann's (1979) research with Spanish speakers learning English and Henning Wode's (1978) work on German speakers learning English. Stage 1 ‘The negative element (usually ‘no’ or ‘not’ is typically placed before the verb or the clement being negated. Often, it occurs as the first word in the sentence because the subject is not there. No bicycle. Ino like it. Not my frend. ‘No’ is preferred by most learners inthis early stage, perhaps because its the negative form that is easiest to hear and recognize in the speech they are exposed co, Italian- and Spanish-speaking learners may prefer ‘no’ because it corresponds to the negative form in Italian and Spanish (No tienen muchos libros). They may continue to use Stage | negation longer than other learners because of the similarity to a pattern from their first language. Even when they produce negative sentences at more advanced stages, they may also use Stage 1 negatives in longer sentences or when they are under pressure. Thus, similarity o the firs language may slow down a learner's progress through a particular developmental stage. Stage 2 At this stage, ‘no’ and ‘not’ may alternate with ‘don't’. However, ‘don't’ is not marked for person, number, oF tense and it may even be used before modals like ‘can’ and ‘should’. He dont like it.I dont can sing, Stage 3 Learners begin to place the negative element afier auxiliary verbs like ‘are’, ‘ig, and ‘can’. Butat this stage, the ‘dont’ form is still not fully analysed: ‘You can not go there, He was not happy. She dont like rice. 8586 Learner language ‘They come not {to} home. (Sie kommen nicht nach Hause) Stage 4 In this stage, ‘do’ is marked for tense, person, and number, and most interlanguage sentences appear co be just like those of che target language: I doesnrt work. We didn't have supper. However, some learners continue to mark tense, person, and number on both the auxiliary and the verb: Ididntt went there. Questions In the 1980s, Manfred Pienemann and his colleagues undertook studies that related the second language acquisition of German and English, Pienemann, Johnston, and Brindley (1988) described a sequence in the acquisition of questions by learners of English from a variety of first language backgrounds. An adapted version of the sequence is shown in Stages 1-6 below. The examples come from French speakers who were playing a game in which they had to ask questions in order to find ou which picture the other player was holding. As we saw for negation, the overall sequence is similar to the one observed in first language acquisition. And again, there are some differences thatare attributable to first language influence. Seage 1 Single words, formulae, or sentence fragments, Dog? Four children? Stage 2 Declarative word order, no inversion, no fronting, Ie’sa monster in the right comer? The boys throw the shoes? Declarative order with rising intonation is common in yes/no questions in informal spoken French. French speakers may hypothesize that in English, asin French, inversion is optional. Stage 3 Fronting: do-fronting: wé-fronting, no inversion; other fronting. Do you havea shoes on your picture? ‘Where the children are playing? ean Fe ORE LEE ete Learner language French has an invariant form ‘est-ce que’ that can be placed before a declarative sentence to make a question, for example, Jean aime le cinéma becomes En-ce gue Jean aime le cinem—'ts ic that] John likes movies? French speakers may think that ‘do’ or ‘does’ is such an invariant form and continue to produce Stage 3 questions for some time. Stage 4 Inversion in wh + copula; ‘yes/no’ questions with other auxiliaries. ‘Where is the sun? Istherea fish in the water? “At Stage 4, German speakers may infer thac if English uses subject-auxiliary inversion, it may also permit inversion with full verbs, as German does, leading them to produce questions such as ‘Like you baseball?’ —Magse dss baseball? Stage 5 Inversion in wh- questions with both an auxiliary anda main verb. How do you say proche? ‘What's the boy doing? French-speaking learners may have difficulty using Stage 5 questions in which the subjectisa noun rather than a pronoun. They may say (and accept as grammatical) ‘Why do you like chocolate? but not ‘Why do children like chocolate” In this, they are drawing on French, where it is often ungram- matical to use inversion with a noun subject (*Pourguoi aiment les enfant le chocolat. Stage 6 Complex questions. question tag: Ies better, isnt ie? negative question: Why can't you go? embedded question: Can you tell me what the date is today? Pienemann’ developmental sequence for questions has been the basis for a number of studies, some of which will be discussed in Chapter 6. Alison Mackey and her colleagues have done a number of these studies, and she provided the data in Table 4.1. These examples come from three adult Japanese learners of English as a second language who were interacting with a native speaker in a ‘spor the differences’ task. In this task, learners have similar but not identical pictures and they have to ask questions until they work out how the picture they can see is different from the one their interlocutor has. Note that progress to a higher stage does not always mean breing renmcreriarencae arte eae Phy 87Learner language Using the information about the developmental sequence for questions in the stages above, circle the stage of second language question development that best ‘corresponds to each question. Hint: Read al of each learner's questions before you begin. Learner I Stage I Whereishegoingandwhatishesaying? | 2 3 4 «5 6 2 Isthe room his room? 123 4 5 6 3 Ishe taking out his skate board? 123 4 5 6 4. Whatishe thinking? 12 aSinanldh SPH 6 5 Thegirl, what do you, what does she do, ‘what is she doing? 123 4 5 6 Learner 2 6 Are they buying some things? Wee apenas Sh eee! 7 Is they bought present? (Meme nscea ar Bee & Is they/re retirement people? siecle) 45, MB Aeel 9 Is this perfume or ... don't know. Vee Zinn 35 4 ace ey 10 Anditis necktie? lpehtsnb3 sei tiaiS some Learner 3 IL Arethereany shuttle? Spaceshuttle? 1 2 3 4 5 6 12. Inside, is there any gir? (ich p2 ifr Sree 4 et Dge6 13 Youdon'tsee? W arg2rca Sel pAble- 5216: 14 Whatare,whatthe peoplewearing? 1 2 3 4 5 6 15. And they are carrying pink box? UhaoPab Bi" deatrSans8: Answer key Leamer |: Questions |, 4, and 5 are Stage 5 questions. Question Sis interesting because it shows the speaker self-correcting, suggesting that Stage 5s stil a level ‘thatrequires some greater effort. Questions 2 and 3 are Stage 4 questions. ‘Leamer 2: Questions 6 and 9 could be Stage 4 questions. However, the fact that ‘questions 7 and are Stage 3 questions suggests that this speaker has not actually progressed from ‘renting’ to ‘inversion, particularly since question IO isa Stage 2 question. Leamer 3: Questions 11 and IZare Stage 4 questions. Questions 13 and I5 are ‘Stage 2 questions. Question 14 shows the speaker apparently on the verge of ‘Stage 5 question, then retreating to a Stage 3 question. Table 4.1 Questions by Japanese-speaking learners of English Possessive determiners ‘Adevelopmental sequence for the English possessive forms ‘his’ and ‘her’ has Learner language natural gender of the possessor. In French and Spanish (and many other languages), che correct form of the possessive determiner matches the grammatical gender of the object or person that is possessed. This can be illustrated with the following translation equivalents for French and English: Sa mire = his mother or her mother Son chien = his dog or her dog Ses enfants his children or her children Note that when the object possessed is a body part, French often uses 2 definite article rather than a possessive determiner. Al sest cass le bras—He broke the [his] arm. Joanna White (1998) studied the acquisition of possessive determiners by French-speaking students, adapting a developmental sequence that was first proposed by Helmut Zobl (1984). White found a total of eight steps in the sequence, but they can be grouped into four main stages. The examples shown in Stages 1-4 below come from French-speaking students learning English, describing cartoon drawings of family events and interactions. Stage 1: Pre-emergence No use of ‘his’ and ‘her’. Definite article or ‘your’ used for all persons, genders, and numbers. ‘The litele boy play with the bicycle. He have band-aid on the arm, the le, the stomach. This boy cry in the arm of your mother. There is one gia tal with your dad. Stage 2: Emergence Emergence of ‘his’ andJor ‘her’, with a strong preference to use only one of the forms. ‘The mother is dressing her litle boy, and she put her clothes, her pant, her coat, and then she finish. ‘The girl making hisself beautiful. She puc the make-up on his hand, on his head, and his father is surprise. Stage 3: Post-emergence Differentiated use of ‘his’ and ‘her’ bur not when the object possessed has natural gender. ‘The git fell on her bicycle. She look his father and cry. ‘The dad put her little girl on his shoulder, and after, on Stage 4 Flere Eee tine col hab? asad “dune” tes all corpteete Includes parurel ender and. ack, 89= 90 Learner language Learner language ‘The lite girl with her dad play together. And the dad take his gir! on Despite the similarity of the general pattern that has been found, several his shoulder and he hurt his back. types of first language influence have been observed in the acquisition of relative clauses. First, it has been observed that for learners whose first language does not have a particular clause type (for example, object of comparison), itis more difficule to learn to use that type in English. Second, where learners have a first language with a substantially different way of forming relative clauses (for example, Japanese and Chinese, where the relative clause precedes the noun it modifies), they may avoid using relative clauses even when their interlanguage is fairly advanced. Third, first Relative clauses language influence is seen in the errors learners make. For example, Arabic speakers often produce both the relative marker and the pronoun it replaces (for example, ‘The man who I saw him was very angry’), as they would in Arabic. English speakers learning French, or other languages that use grammatical gender as the basis for choosing possessive determiners, also have to learn a new way of determining the gender of the possessive determiner. Learning, the grammatical gender of each and every noun further adds to the challenge. Second language learners first acquire relative clauses that refer to nouns in the subject and direct object positions, and only later (and in some cases, never) learn to use them to modify nouns in other sentence roles (for cxample, indirect object and object of preposition). A summary of the observed pattern of acquisition for relative clauses is shown in Table 4.2. Ir is Reference to past referred to as the ‘accessibility hierarchy’, and i reflects the apparent ease F : i gates i ‘A number of researchers, including Jirgen Meisel (1987), have observed the Se eee Tiare ana taht ene tel ee een developing ability co use language to locate events in time. The research has a 5 Shown chat learners from diferent fist language backgrounds and aequiring oe. Retaive a vatiery of second languages, acquire the language for referring to past Subject ‘The giel who was sick went home. events in a similar pattern. Direct objec. -Thesoey that Tread wo long, Like young children, learners with limited language may simply refer to events in the order in which they occurred or mention a time or place to Indirect object The man who[m] Susan gave the present to was hag oe ae show that the event occurred in the past. Object of preposition _| I found the book that John was talking about. ‘My son come. He work in restaurant. Possessive Tknow the woman whose father is visiting be head ta bed hp Object of comparison | ‘The person that Susan is aller than is Mary. Later learners start to attach a grammatical morpheme marking the verb for Table 4.2 Accessibilty hierarchy for relative clauses in English (adapted from past, although it may not be the one that the target language uses for chat Doughty 1991) —e like the study of, i rae Me working long time. Now stop. Unlike the study of grammatical morphemes, negation, and questions, ti Heed ati lean rsleae neni ese oe aig ast tense forms of irregular verbs may be used before the regular past is used Rather, it came from patterns found in studies of a large number of reliably. languages by Edward Keenan and Bernard Comrie (1977). They found thae those languages which included the structures atthe bottom of thelist in Table 4.2 would also have those at the top, but the opposite was not necessarily true. Subsequently, Susan Gass (1982) and others found that if a second language earnet could use one ofthe structures atthe bottom of the liste or she would probably be able ro use any that precede it. On the other My sister catched a big fish. hand, a learner who could produce sentences with relative clauses in the She has lived here since fiftcen years. ‘We went to school every day. We spoke Spanish. ‘Afier they begin marking past vense on regular verbs, learners may over- generalize the regular ed ending or the use of the wrong past tense form, for example, the present perfect rather than the simple past. ofee 92 Learner language Kathleen Bardovi-Harlig (2000) and others have found that learners are more likely to mark past tense on some verbs than on others. For example, learners are more likely to mark past tense in sentences such as ‘I broke the vase’ and ‘My sister fixed it with glue’ than in sentences such as ‘She seemed happy last wel? or “My father swam in that lake’. These differences appear to be due to the ‘lexical aspect’, that is, the kinds of meanings expressed by the different verbs. Learners seem to find it easier to mark past tense on verbs thac refer to something whose end point can easily be determined. These are referred to as ‘accomplishments’ and ‘achievements’ (‘I ran three miles. My brother sook an aspirin and went to bed’). For ‘activities’ that may continue for some period (‘I swam all afternoon’) or ‘states’ that may be perceived as constants (‘He seemed happy to sit by the lake), learners use simple past markers less frequently. First language can have an influence here too. Laura Collins (2002) investigated the different English verb forms used by French speakers. The past tense that is most commonly used in spoken French and thats usually a translation of a simple past form in English is a form that resembles the present perfect in English, Thus, the equivalent of Yesterday he ate an apple is Hier il a mangé une pomme—Iiterally, ‘Yesterday he has eaten an apple. “Teachers often comment on French speakers’ tendency to overuse the present perfect. In Collins’ study, learncrs completed passages by filling in blanks with the appropriate form of a verb. In places where English speakers would have used the simple past, French speakers did sometimes use the perfect (either present perfect or past perfect) forms. Furthermore, they used them more frequently than a comparison group of Japanese speakers. However, the French speakers were more likely to use perfect forms for achievement and accomplishment verbs than for the states and activities. Collins observes, “The [first language] influence does not appear to override the effect of lexical aspect; rather it occurs within it’ (p. 85). Movement through developmental sequences ‘We have seen in this section that, as in first language acquisition, there are systematic and predictable developmental sequences in second language acquisition. However, it is important to emphasize that developmental stages are not like closed rooms. Learners do not leave one behind when they enter another. In examining a language sample from an individual learner, cone should not expect to find behaviours from only one stage. On the contrary, at a given point in time, learners may use sentences typical of several different stages. It is perhaps better to think of a stage as being characterized by the emergence and increasing frequency of new forms erie ele iat tint ln tiene a el ol Learner language or complexity in a communicative interaction can cause the learner to ‘slip back? to an earlier stage. Note that progress to a higher stage does not always ‘mean that learners produce fewer errors. For example, a learner may produce correct questions at Stage 1 or Stage 3, but those correct forms are not based con underlying knowledge of subjece-verb inversion. Correct questions at Stage 1 are chunks, not sentences that have been constructed from the words that make them up. At Stage 2, learners have advanced, in the sense that they are forming original questions, but the word order of those questions is the same as that of declarative sentences. At Stage 3, questions are formed by placing a question form (most often a wb- word or a form of the verb ‘do’) at the beginning of a sentence with declarative word order. ‘Another important observation about developmental sequences is the way they interact with first language influence. Learners do not appear to assume that they can simply transfer the structures of their first language into the second. However, as Henning Wode (1978) and Helmut Zobl (1980) observed, when they reach a developmental point at which they encountera ‘crucial similarity’ between their first language and their interlanguage pattern, they may have difficulty moving beyond thar stage or they may generalize their first language pattern and end up making errors that speakers of other languages are less likely to make. More about first language influence Researchers rejected the interpretation of contrastive analysis that made ‘transfer’ ot ‘interference’ the explanation forall ofa learner's difficulties with the target language. This was due in part to the fact that contrastive analysis ‘was closely associated with behaviourist views of language acquisition. In rejecting behaviourism, some researchers also discarded contrastive analysis as a source of valuable information about learners’ language. Researchers at the European Science Foundation carried out a study that created some valuable opportunities to examine the influence of the first language. Adult language learners, most of whom had little or no formal second language instruction, were followed as they learned particular European languages. For each target language, groups of learners from two differene first language backgrounds were compared. Also, for each group of learners, their progress towards cwo target structures was studied. As Wolfgang Klein and Clive Perdue (1993) report, there were substantial similarities in the interlanguage patterns of the learners, in spite of the great variety in the first and second language combinations. The similarities were greatest in the earliest stages of second language acquisition. 93; earner language they try to discover the complexities of the new language they are leacning, We have scen some ways in which the first language interacts with developmental sequences. When learners reach a certain stage and perceive a similarity to their first language, they may linger longer at that stage (for example, the extended use of preverbal ‘no’ by Spanish speakers) or add a substage (for example, the German speaker's inversion of subject and lexical verbs in questions) to the sequence which, overall, is very similar across learners, regardless of their first language. They may learn a second language rule but restrict its application (for example, the French speakers rejection of subject-auxiliary inversion with noun subjects). ‘The fitst language may influence learners’ interlanguage in other ways as well. The phenomenon of ‘avoidance’ that Jacquelyn Schachter (1974) described appeared to be caused at least in part by learners’ perception thata feature in the target language was so distant and different from their fist language that they preferred noc to try it. Other researchers have also found evidence of lamers’ sensitivity to degrees of distance or difference and a reluctance to attempt a transfer over too great a distance. In one very revealing study, Hakan Ringbom (1986) found that the “imterference’ errors made in English by both Finnish-Swedish and Swedish- Finnish bilinguals were most often traceable to Swedish, not Finnish. The fact that Swedish and English are closely related languages that actually do shate many characteristics seems to have led learners to take a chance that a word or a sentence structure that worked in Swedish would have an English equivalent. Finnish, on the other hand, belongs to a completely different Janguage family, and learners used Finnish as a source of possible transfer fat less often, whether their own first language was Swedish or Finnish, ‘The risk-taking associated with this perception of similarity has its limits, however. As we noted earlier, learners seem to know that idiomatic or metaphorical uses of words are often unique to particular language. Eric Kellerman (1986) found that Dutch learners of English were often reluctant to accept certain idiomatic expressions or unusual uses of words such as ‘The wave broke on the shore’ but accepted ‘He broke the cup’ even though both are straightforward translations of sentences with the Dutch verb breken. Another way in which learners’ first language can affect second language acquisition is in making it difficult for them to notice that something they are saying is not a feature of the language as it is used by more proficient speakers, Lydia White (1991) gave the example of adverb placement in French and English. Both languages allow adverbs in several positions in simple sentences. However, as the examples in Table 4.3 show, there are some differences. English, but not French, allows SAVO order; French, but not Learner language S=Subjece _V=Verb _ Q=Objece As Adverb ‘ASVO Ofien, Mary drinks tea. Souvent, Marie boit du thé. SVOA. Mary drinks tea often. “Marie boitdu thé souvent. SAVO Mary often drinks te. * Mate souvent boit du thé SVAO * Mary drinks often tea. Marie boic souvent du thé. Note:The asterisk) means that the sentence i not grammatical Table 4.3. Adverb placement in French and English Ie seems fairly easy for French-speaking learners of English to add SAVO 0 their repertoire and for English-speaking learners of French to add SVAO, but both groups have difficulry getting rd of a form similar toa form in theit first language that does not occur in the target language. English-speaking learners of French accept SAVO as grammatical, and French-speaking learn- ‘ers of English accept SVAO. As White points ous, itis difficult to notice that something is not present in the input, especially when its translation equivalent sounds perfectly all right and communication is not disrupted. ‘There are patterns in the development of syntax and morphology that are similar among learners from different language backgrounds. Evidence for these developmental patterns first came from studies of learners whose primary learning environment was outside the classroom. For example, Jiirgen Meisel, Harald Clahsen, and Manfted Pienemann (1981) identified developmental sequences in the acquisition of German by speakers of several Romance languages who had litle or no instruction. Subsequent research has shown that learners who receive instruction exhibic similar develop- mental sequences and error patterns. In the interlanguage of English- speakers whose only exposure to German was in university classes in ‘Australia, Pienemann (1988) found patterns that were similar to those of the uuninseructed learners. In Chapter 6, we will discuss other studies that have investigated the influence of instruction on developmental sequences, ‘ase erie aoa ar elas baer wr is ese alana tal ee 95aoe = Learner language previously learned languages), cognitive processes, and the samples of the target language that leamers encounter in the input. As Terence Odlin’s (1989, 2003) extensive reviews show, the complexity of this relationship has inspired scotes of investigations. Many questions remain to be answered, So far this chapter has focused on the acquisition of morphology and syntax in the second language. We now turn to the learning of other important components of COMMUNICATIVE COMPETENCE: vocabulary, pragmatics, and pronunciation. Vocabulary In 1980, Paul Meara characterized vocabulary learning as a ‘neglected aspect of language learning’. Researchers in the 1970s and early 1980s were drawn to syntax and morphology because of the way error patterns and developmental sequences of these features might reveal something about universals in languages and language acquisition. How different things are now! Just as Meara was commencing on the state of neglect, an explosion of research on vocabulary learning was beginning, and the acquisition of vocabulary has become one of the most active areas in second language acquisition research. For most people, the importance of vocabulary seems very clear. As it has often been remarked, we can communicate by using words that are not placed in the proper order, pronounced perfectly, or marked with the proper ‘grammatical morphemes, but communication often breaks down if we do not use the correct word. Although circumlocution and gestures can some- times compensate, the importance of vocabulary can hardly be over estimated. The challenge of acquiring a large enough vocabulary for successful ‘communication in a variety of settings has been the focus of much recent research, Every language has an astonishingly large number of words. English, which has built its vocabulary from a great variety of source languages, is variously estimated to have anywhere from 100,000 to one million words, depending in part on how words ate counted. For example, some would treat ‘teach, teacher, teaching, and taught’ as separate words while others would count all of them as part of a single root word from which all the others are derived. ‘An educated adult speaker of English is believed to know at least 20,000 words, Fortunately, most everyday conversation requires a far smaller number, something more like 2,000 words. Similarly, although Chinese and Learner language ‘Do You eee igh FRENCH? eg Se WELL, peeish “ok w Tae words YET. if characters. Even so, acquiring a basic vocabulary is a significant accom- plishmene fora second language learner. ‘As we saw in Chapter 1, children learn thousands of words in their first Janguage with little observable effort. The task of learning a large vocabulary is quite different for second language learners. For one thing, they are likely to be exposed to far smaller samples of the language to be learned. The contexts in which second language learners encounter new vocabulary may not be as helpful as those in which children learn the fitst one ot two thousand words of their first language. If they are alder children or adults, the words they are exposed to may also be more difficult, referring 10 ‘meanings that are not easily guessed from context. It is estimated that, in order to guess the meaning of a word even in a helpful context, one needs to now nearly all the other words in the text—a rare event for second language leatners at most stages of acquisition. Although the two or three thousand most frequent words in English make up as much as 80-90 per cent of most non-technical texts, less frequent words are crucial to the meaning of many things we hear and read. For example, the meaning of a newspaper article about a court case may be lost without the knowledge of words such as ‘tescimony,, ‘alleged’, or ‘accomplice’, ‘The first step in knowing a word may simply be to recognize that it is a word. Paul Meara and his colleagues (2005b) developed tests that took advantage of this face: Seccis of thine tame tile the form of deacle scad Tats, onlfi Oy 98 Learner language English words but are not. The number of real words that the learner identifies is adjusted for guessing by a factor that cakes account of the number of non-words that are also chosen, Such a simple procedure is more effective than it might sound. A carefully constructed list can be used to estimate the vocabulary size of even advanced learners. For example, if shown the following lst: frolip, laggy, scrule, and albeit’, a proficientspeaker of English would know that only one of these words isa real English word, albeit a rare and somewhat odd one. On the other hand, even proficient speakers might recognize none of the following items: ‘gonion, micelle, lairage, throstle’. Even our computer's spellchecker rejected three out of four, bucall are real English words, Among the factors that make new vocabulary more easily learnable by second language learners isthe frequency with which the word isseen, heard, and understood. Paul Nation (2001) reviews a number of studies suggesting that learner needs to have many meaningful encounters with a new word before it becomes firmly established in memory. The estimates range as high as sixteen times in some studies. Even more encounters may be needed before a learner can retrieve the word in fluent speech or automatically understand the meaning of che word when it occurs in a new context. The ability to understand the meaning of most words without focused attention is essential for fluent reading as well a for fluent speaking. Frequency is nor the only factor that determines how easily words are learned, however. Look-at che words in List 1 and List 2. Which one would you expect beginning second language learners to recognize and understand? List List2 List 3 Friend Hamburger Government More Coke Responsibility ‘Town ‘Teshire Dictionary Book: Walkman Elementary Hunt Taxi Remarkable Sing Pizza Description Box Hore! Expression Smile Dollar International Eye Internet Preparation Night Disco Activity Learner language All of the words in List 1 look easy because they are simple one-syllable words that refer to easily illustrated actions or objects. They ate also quite common words in English, appearing among the 1,000 most frequent words. And yet, they are not likely 1obe known to studentswho have not had previous instruction in English or exposure to the language outside of school. Furthermore, there is nothing in the written form or the pronunciation of the words that gives a clue to their meaning, Ifscudents are to learn chem, they must see or hear the words and connect them to meaning ‘many times before they are well established. On the other hand, some students who have never studied English might already know words in List 2, because they are part of an international vocabulary. With increasing internationalization of communications, many languages have ‘borrowed’ and adapted words from other languages. Students throughout the world may be surprised to learn how many words they already know in the language they are trying to learn The words in List 3 look difficult. They are rather long, not easily illustrated, and most are fairly infrequent in the language. And yet, many students would cither ‘know’ them on sight or learn them after a single exposure. These words havea clear resemblance to their translation equivalent in other languages—not just romance languages with shared Latin origins. Words that look similar and have the same meaning in two languages are called ‘coGNarEs. ‘Thus, when students are learning a new language, frequency is not the only thing that makes words more accessible, The presence of cognates and borrowed words can also be exploited for vocabulary development. On the other hand, students may have particular difficulty with words that look similar in the two languages but have different meanings. They may come from different origins or they may have evolved differently from the same origin, For example, the English verb ‘demand’ has a different meaning from its French cousin demander, which means ‘request’ or ‘ask a question’, ‘even though they developed from the same Latin verb. Teachers should not assume that students will always recognize borrowed words or cognate words in their second language, Some cognates are identical in form and meaning, while others may require some knowledge of how spelling patterns are related in the ewo languages (for example, ‘water’ and Wasserin English and German). Even with different spellings, words are likely to be easicr to recognize in their writen form than they are in the spoken language. Learners may need guidance in recognizing them, as illustrated in the following question, asked by an eight-year-old in a Quebec Bolg cere eet By SERGEY OA Age yee Queb100 We | se & wen, oF | | | | | | Learner language speakers may realize that they know both speciality items in a Japanese restaurant that calls itself ‘Sushi and Bisusteki.” Some second language theorists have argued that second language learners, like children learning their first language, can learn a great deal of vocabulary with little intentional effort. Stephen Krashen (1985, 1989) has asserted that the best source of vocabulary growth is reading for pleasure. There is no doubt that reading is an important potential source of vocabulary development for second language learners as ic is for first language learners. However, there are some problems with the notion that vocabulary growth through reading requires litle effort. Bhatia Laufer (1992) and others have shown that ic is difficule to infer the meaning and learn new words from reading unless one already knows 95 per cent or more of the words in a text. Inaddition, as we have seen, learners usually need to encounter a word many times in order to learn it well enough to recognize it in new contexts or produce it in their own speaking and writing. As we saw in Chapter 1, Dee Gardner (2004) has shown how rare certain types of words are in narratives. ‘Thus, students who read mainly fiction may have little chance of learning. ‘words that are essential for their academic pursuits. Research on vocabulary learning through reading without focused instruction confirms that some language, including vocabulary, can be learned without explicit inscruction (Gee Chapter 6). On the other hand, Jan Hulstijn and Bhatia Laufer (2001) provide evidence that vocabulary development is more successful when learners are fully engaged in activities that require them to attend carefully to the new words and even to use them in productive tasks. Izabella Kojic-Sabo ind Patsy Lightbown (1999) found that effore and the use of good learning crategies, such as keeping a notebook, looking words up in a dictionary, and ‘reviewing what has been learned were associated with berter vocabulary development. 2 Qe Even with instruction and good strategies, che task is daunting. What does it totes ‘mean to know a word? Grasp che general meaning in a familiar context? Provide a definition ora translation equivalent? Identify its component parts cor etymology? Use the word co complete a sentence or to create a new sentence? Use it metaphorically? Understand a joke that uses homonyms (words that sound alike but mean different things, such as ‘cents, sense’, ‘scents)? Second language learners whose goal is to use the language for academic purposes must learn to do al these things. Pragmatics Pragmatics is the study of how language is used in context to express such Learner language morphology of the target language, they can still encounter difficulty in using language. They also need to acquire skills for interpreting requests, responding politely to compliments or apologies, recognizing humour, and managing conversations. They need to learn to recognize the many mean- ings that the same sentence can have in different situations. Think of the ‘many ways one might interpret an apparently simple question such as ‘Is that your dog” It might precede an expression of admiration for an attractive pet. Temight be an urgent request to get the dog out of the speaker's lower bed. Similarly, che same basic meaning is altered when it is expressed in different ways. For example, we would probably assume that the relationship between speaker and listener is very different if we hear ‘Give me the book’ or ‘I wonder if youd mind lecting me have that book when you've finished with ie. The study of how second language learners develop the ability to express their intentions and meanings through different speech acts (for example, requesting, refusing, apologizing, etc.) is referred to as interlanguage prag- matics (Bardovi-Harlig 1999). For a long time, most of the research in this area focused on learners’ use of pragmatic features. For example, studies were done to describe the ways in which learners expressed speech acts such as inviting and apologizing in relation to differences in their proficiency level or their first language background. Other studies have examined learners’ abilty to perecive and comprehend pragmatic features in the second lan- nt ee ee ee 101102 Learner language Since the early 1990s more research has directly investigated the acquisition of second language pragmatic ability. This includes longitudinal and cross- sectional studies describing the acquisition of several different speech acts. ‘One that has been che focus of considerable attention is ‘requesting’. Requests are an interesting pragmatic feacure to examine because there are identifiable ways in which requests are made in different languages as well as differences in how they arc expressed across languages and culeures. Ina review of longitudinal and cross-sectional studies on the acquisition of requests in English, Gabriele Kasper and Kenneth Rose (2002) outline a series of five stages of development. Stage 1 consists of minimal language that is often incomplete and highly context-dependent. Stage 2 includes primarily memorized routines and frequent use of imperatives. Stage 3 is marked by less use of formulas, more productive speech and some MITIGATION of requests. Stage 4 involves more complex language and increased use of mitigation, especially supportive statements. Stage 5 is marked by more refinement of the force of requests. The five stages, their characteristics and examples are given below. Stage 1: Pre-basic Highly context-dependent, no syntax, no relational goals. Meno blue. Sir. Stage 2: Formulaic Reliance on unanalysed formulas and imperatives. Let's play the game. ‘Let's eat breakfast. Dor'tlook. Stage 3: Unpacking Formulas incorporated into productive language use, shift to conventional indirectness. ‘Can you pass the pencil please? Can you do another one for me? Stage 4: Pragmatic expansion é a pe Addition of new forms to repertoire, increased use of mitigation, more complex syntax. Could I have another chocolate because my children—I have five children. Can I see it so I can copy it? Learner language Stage 5: Fine tuning Fine tuning of requestive force to participants, goals, and contexts. You could put some blue tack down there. Is there any more white? Learning how to make and reject suggestions has also been extensively investigated. Kathleen Bardovi-Harlig and Beverly Hareford (1993) investi- gated rejections and suggestions with native and non-native speakers of English in academic advising sessions at an American university. They observed differences between the way in which native and non-native speakers communicated with their professors as they discussed their course selections. These differences contributed to their greater or lesser success in negotiating their academic plans. For example, the non-native speakers tended to take on a passive role and did not initiate suggestions compared ‘with che native speakers who initiated a great deal. There was also a tendency ‘on the part of the non-native speakers to reject suggestions made by the advisor in ways that the advisors might find rude or inappropriate. For cxample, they would reject an advisor’ suggestion to take a particular course by saying ‘I think I am not interested in that course’, instead of saying ‘My seitgle sls yh Ghat dnioes on" ciate cis daa couren weld better meet my needs, which was more typical of native-speaker rejection responses. The non-native speakers were also much less adept than the native speakers at using mitigacion—language that can be used to soften a rejection or gently make a suggestion. For example, native speakers were observed t0 say ‘I think T would like to take this course’, whereas the non-native speakers said ‘Twill ake that course’. Over a period of four and @ half months, the researchers observed progress in some aspects of the non-native speakers’ pragmatic abilicy. For example, they took a more active role in the advising interactions. They provided reasons for rejecting suggestions that the advisors were likely to perceive as more credible or acceptable. Even so, they continued to experience difficulty in mitigating cheir suggestions and rejections, Fora long time, it was assumed that second language classrooms could not provide appropriate input for learning how to realize many speech acts. This was particularly the case with structure-based approaches to teaching and in particular, in teacher-fronted classrooms where the dominant interaction pattern was teacher initiation-learner response—teacher feedback’. In com- ‘municative, content-based, and task-based approaches to second language instruction, there are more opportunities not only for a greater variety of input but also for learners to engage in different roles and participant organization structures (for example, pair and group work). This enables Oe ee 103104 Learner language demonstrated that pragmatic features can be successfully learned in classroom settings and that explicit rather than implici instruction is most effective (Kasper and Rose 2002). This is particularly good news for foreign language learners who do not have extensive exposure to conversational interaction outside the classroom. Thus, the question is no longer whether second language pragmatics should be taught but rather how it can be best integrated into classroom instruction, Phonology Grammar has been the focus for second language teachers and researchers for a long time. As we saw, vocabulary and pragmatics have also received ‘more attention in recent years. However, we know less about pronunciation and how icis learned and taught. Pronunciation was a central component in language teaching during the audiolingual era. Several techniques for teaching pronunciation were developed at that time and most of chem focused on getting learners to perceive and to produce distinctions between single sounds (i. SEGMENTALS) in minimal pair drills (for example, ‘ship’ and ‘sheep’. When audiolingualism and behaviourism fell into disfavour and were replaced by other views of learning, the teaching of pronunciation was minimized if not totally discarded. Evidence for the critical period hypothesis suggested chat native-like pronunciation was an unrealistic goal for second language learners, particularly older learners (see Chapter 3). It was argued, therefore, that instructional time would be better spent on teaching features that learners might learn more easily, most specifically grammar, When communicative language teaching was first introduced in the late 1970s, little attention was given to the teaching of pronunciation. ‘When it was included, the emphasis was on thythm, stress, and intonation (ie. supRASEGMENTALS), areas Considered more likely to affect communi- cation (Celce-Murcia, Brinton, and Goodwin 1996). ‘Although research on the teaching and learning of pronunciation is not as extensive as that in other language domains, there is theoretical and empirical work to help us understand the processes involved in phonological development in a second language and the factors that contribute to it. Contrastive analysis has helped to explain some aspects of first language influence on second language learners’ phonological development. We can all think of examples of these from our own experiences or those of our students. Japanese and Korean learners of English often have problems hearing and producing and r because these sounds are not distinct in their language. Spanish speakers will often say ‘I e-speak e-Spanish’ because SCR ie Sh atte lene a Re Rte ee Learner language word because French usually stresses the last syllable. Few languages have the zh sounds that are frequent in English. Learners may substitute similar sounds from their first language (for example, t or a, s or 2). Sometimes, however, learners overcompensate for sounds that they know are difficult. ‘Thus, learners may pronounce a ¢h asin shin) wherea rbelongs. Such errors are similar to the overgeneralization errors that we saw for grammatical morphemes. That is, if they replace earlier ‘correct’ pronunciation of or d sounds, they may represent progress in learners’ ability to notice and produce the #hsound. The relationship between perception and production of sounds is complex. Evelyn Altenberg (2005) developed a series of tasks to explore Spanish speakers’ perceptions and production of English consonant clusters at the beginning of a word. In one task, they had co say whether certain invented words were possible ‘new English words’. The learners were quite good at recognizing what English words are supposed to sound like. They accepted pseudowords like ‘spus’ and rejected those like ‘zban’, even though both swords would be unacceprable as ‘new Spanish words. She found that they could usually write (from dictation) pseudowords with initial dusters such as spand sm, However, in their own production, these same learners might still insere a vowel at the beginning of words such as spoon’ and ‘smile’ Ieis widely believed chat che degree of difference between the learner's native language and the target language can lead to greater difficulty. The evidence supporting the hypothesis comes partly from the observation that i takes learners longer to reach a high level of fluency in a particular second or foreign language ifthac language is substantially differenc from the languages they already know. For example, a Chinese-speaker faces a greater challenge in learning English than does a speaker of German or Dutch. Language distance affects pronunciation as well as other language systems. Theo Bongaerts (1999) collected speech samples from many highly proficient speakers who had learned Dutch in their adulthood and who came from a wide variety of first language backgrounds. When native speakers of Durch ‘were asked to judge these speech samples, only those learners who spoke a language that was closely related to Dutch (for example, English or German) ‘were judged to have native-like accents. None of the speakers whose first languages were more distant from Dutch (for example, Vietnamese) were judged to have native-like pronunciation, ‘There has been litte research to document the developmental sequences of individual sounds in second language phonological acquisition, Further- more, while there is evidence for similarity in the acquisition of some features of stress and rhythm, itis also clear that the learners first language It Ra Oe ea RS le ee ee ee 105Learner language have been identified as influential contributors to pronunciation. Thorsten Piske, Ian MacKay, and James Flege (2001) have reported that longer periods of exposure to the second language can lead to improved pronunciation. They also found that adults who continue to make greater use of their first language may have stronger accents in the second language. As noted in Chapter 3, learners’ ethnic affiliation and sense of their identity arealso related to some of the choices they make about how they produce the sounds and rhythms of second language. Few studies have investigated the effectiveness of pronunciation instruction, but the results of recent studies suggest that it can make a difference, particularly if che instruction focuses on suprasegmental rather than segmental aspects of pronunciation (Hahn 2004). Tracey Derwing and her colleagues (1998, 2003) carried out a series of studies on how intelligible learners were judged to be. They found that learners who received pronun- ciation lessons emphasizing stress and rhythm were judged to be easier to understand than learners who received lessons focused on individual sounds. Even though the learners who received instruction on individual sounds ‘were more accurate in their use of those sounds, this did not seem to increase listeners’ perception of the intelligibility of their speech to others. Findings like these support the current emphasis on suprasegmentals in pronun- ciation classes One of the controversial issues in pronunciation research is whether intelligibility rather than native-like ability is the standard that learners should strive toward. Studies of relationships between English native speakers’ perceptions of foreign accent, their perceptions of comprehensi- bility and their actual ability to understand non-native utterances show clear relationships among all three. However, ics also evident, as Murray Munro and Tracey Derwing (1995) suggest, that the presence of a strong foreign accent does not necessarily result in reduced intelligibility or compre- hensibility. Of course, evidence like this does not change the fact that foreign. accents sometimes cause listeners to respond negatively to second lan, speakers. Jennifer Jenkins (2000, 2004) and Barbara Seidlhofer (2004) are among the many who argue for the acceptance of language varieties other than those spoken in the language’ ‘country of origin’. People increasingly interact with speakers who have learned a different variety of the same language. Even so, in some situations, accent still serves asa marker of group membership and is used as the basis for discrimination. Many second language learners, particularly those who have achieved a high level of knowledge and performance in other aspects of the target language, may be motivated to approximate a particular target language accent in their pronunciation. Others view this as irrelevant to their goals and objectives as. Learner language Rescarch related to the teaching and learning of pronunciation is gaining more attention. What is clear, however, is that decontextualized pronunciation instruction is not enough and that a combination of truction, exposure, experience, and motivation is required. Furthermore, as we learned in Chapter 3, achieving native or near-native pronunciation ability is an accomplishment not experienced by most second language learners. In Chapter 6 we will focus on the second language acquisition of learners in classroom settings. First, however, we will look at the classroom itself. In Chapter 5, we will explore the many ways in which researchers have sought to understand the classroom environment for second language acquisition, Sources and suggestions for further reading ‘Avery; P. and S. Ehrlich, 1992. Teaching American English Promunciation, Oxford: Oxford University Press Bardovi-Harlig, K. 2000. Tense and Aspect in Second Language Acquistion: Form, Meaning, and Use. Oxford: Blackwell. Celce-Murcia, M., D. M. Brinton, and J. M. Goodwin. 1996, Teaching pronunciation: A Reference for Teachers of English to Speakers of Other ‘Languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Dalton, C. and B. Seidlhofer. 1994. Pronunciation, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Gass, 8. and L, Selinker. 2001. Second Language Acquisition: An Intro- ductory Course 2nd edn. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum and Associates Hinkel, E. 2002. Second Language Writer’ Text: Linguistic and Rhetorical Features, Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum and Associates. Jenkins, J. 2004, ‘Research in teaching pronunciation and intonation’. ‘Annual Review of Applied Linguisties24: 109-25. Kasper, G. and K. R. Rose. 2002. ‘Pragmatic Development in a Second Language.’ Language Learning 52/Supplement 1. Nation, 1.$.P. 2001. Learning Vocabulary in Another Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press Odlin, T, 2003. ‘Cross-linguistic influence’ in C. J. Doughty and M. H. Long (eds): The Handbook of Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Blackwell. pp. 436-86. 107