Reading 1- Acquisition

developmental psycholinguistics: examines how speech emerges over time and how children
go about constructing the complex structures of their mother tongue

1. crying: precursor to speech and language

 autonomic: works as a reflex
 iconic: the hungrier the child is, the louder she will cry
 symbolic: purpose-driven (to get attention, etc.)
2. cooing: imitating the mother’s voice
3. babbling: bursting out in strings of consonant-vowel syllable clusters
 marginal babbling: a few, random consonants
 canonical babbling: uses syllables that approximate the caretaker’s language
 segmental phonemes: the individual consonants and vowels
 children learn the suprasegmental sounds of their mother tongue at this stage
(pitch, rhythm and stress)
4. first words (1-year-old)
 using idiomorphs: words children invent when they first catch on to the magical
notion that certain sounds have a unique reference (‘kaka’=milk)
 egocentric speech: children speak about what surrounds them and what they use,
they are the center of attention
5. the birth of grammar
 holophrastic stage: use of single words as sentences
 transformational generative grammar: studies sentences
 there are different stages of grammatical development
 2 years: 2 or more-word sentences
 chimps vs. 2 year-olds: children have a set of phrase structure rules
(grammatical rules that demonstrate that a series of words from a structures phrase
or clause and are not simply a list of unconnected items); chimps: talk like it’s a
grocery list, no finite rules to create infinite utterances

evidence for innateness: acquiring language is not only about the external factors and
environment (LAD, UG, The Language Instinct): creating non-existent phrases (‘yesbody’,
double-tensing, overgeneralization) tuning, creative construction

1
all children proceed systematically through the same learning stages for any particular
linguistic structure (Mean Length of Utterances: to measure the linguistic productivity of
children; the number of the stages is unknown)

Reading 2- Error, development

Errors

1. identifying errors
 error: gaps in knowledge, the learners doesn’t know what is correct (problem
of competence)
 mistake: occasional lapses in performance (a problem of performance)
2. describing, classification
 grammatical (verb) errors
 differing from target-language utterance (omission, misinformation,
misordering)
3. explaining errors
 making false, own rules, can be universal errors as well
 sources of errors: omission (-s), overgeneralization (not using irregulars),
transfer (L1 influence)
4. evaluation
 global errors: violate the overall structure of the sentence
 local errors: affect a single constituent in a sentence

Developmental patterns of L2 learners

1. silent period: preparation for production, not speaking just receiving

2. speaking: (1) formulaic chunks, (2) propositional simplification: omitting words
3. grammar
a. acquisition order (accuracy order: how accurately each feature is used by the
learner= acquisition order?)
b. sequence of acquisition (acquiring grammar structures is a process with
transitional constructions), a U-shaped course of development: initially
learners perform accurately, then worse, then again accurately
c. reconstructing: reorganization of rule, of existing knowledge; learners may
seem to regress even when they are advancing
 4. individual patterns
a. situational context: formal, informal
b. linguistic context: verb, adverb, action or state, etc.
c. psycholinguistic context: whether learners can plan their production
d. free variation: learners using 2 or more forms
e. fossilization: learners stop developing while still short of target-language
competence

Reading 3- Interlanguage

1950-60: Behaviorism: learning is habit formation; learners respond to stimuli (stimulus-

response connection) black box: cannot be observed

mentalist theories: (1) only human beings are capable of learning languages, (2) LAD, (3)
input triggers the operation of the LAD

interlanguage: a unique linguistic system, draws on the learner’s L1 but is different from L2;

 the mental grammar of the learner is influenced from the inside and from the outside
too;
 interlanguage continuum: the mental grammar changes constantly, becomes more
complex
 learning strategies: learners develop these to develop their interlanguages
 backsliding: the production of errors representing an early stage of development

A computational model of L2 acquisition:

input  [intake  L2 knowledge]  output

Reading 4- Discourse aspects of interlanguage

 discourse rules: eg. accepting compliments in the U.S. – you should degrade it and give
an explanation
 learning takes place as a result of a complex interaction between the environment and the
learner’s internal mechanisms (behaviorism +mental theories)
 Do native speakers change the way they speak when speaking to L2 learners? Yes.
o foreigner talk: the language that native speakers use when talking to non-native
speakers
  ungrammatical: lack of respect from the native speaker (omission)
 grammatical: it is the norm (slower pace, simplification, regular/basic
forms, lengthening of phrases to make it clear)
 negotiation of meaning: interactional modifications, a process that
speakers go through to reach a clear understanding of each other
o interaction hypothesis: Michael Long: input is most effective when it is
modified through the negotiation of meaning
o negative evidence: information concerning what is not possible in a language
o Vygotsky: zone of proximal development: children learn through
interpersonal activity (playing with adults), where they can practice concepts,
they would not do alone
o output: (1) to raise awareness to mistakes, (2) to try out learners’ hypotheses,
(3) talking about output

Reading 5- Psycholinguistics aspects of interlanguage

Psycholinguistics: the study of the mental structures and processes involved in the
acquisition and use of language

Transfer: negative/ positive influence of L1 on L2 learning

 avoidance of structures
 overuse of some forms

Consciousness

 L2 learners learn and acquire language at the same time

o intentionality: conscious effort to learn a language
o attention: always required in order to comprehend the input
o noticing: the process of attending consciously to linguistic features in the input
o implicit knowledge: not being aware of what the rules consist of

Processing operations

 operating principles: strategies that children use to extract and segment linguistic
information from the language they hear
 processing constraints: govern when it is possible for a learner to move from one stage to
another
 parallel distributed processing: the learner has the ability to perform a number of mental
tasks at the same time (form &meaning)

UG

 the input to which children are exposed is insufficient to enable them to discover the rules
of the language they are trying to learn
o positive evidence: info about what is grammatical
o negative evidence: what is ungrammatical in a language
 access to UG
o complete: there is no critical period, it is always accessible
o no access: not available for adult L2 learners
o partial access: have access to certain parts of UG
o dual access: adult learners make use of both UG and general learning strategies

Markedness: some structures are more natural or basic than other structures (unmarked:
common structures in the given language, lie inside UG)
Audio lecture 1- IDs in SLA

 different variables have different (levels of) impacts

 every human being is unique, we’re all different  how should we study IDs?
 categorial qualities are identifiable and they make classification of individuals possible
 we usually attribute a bigger impact to them than they really have

eg. language aptitude: specific learning ability that people possess to different degrees
concerning the ability to learn another language (L2)

 you either have it or not (has polarized nature, binary switch) this is not true, it
is more like a continuum (only a tiny proportion of language learners possess
extremely high/low aptitude; this is the same with intelligence)  most people are in
the middle, the difference is usually not that big

IDs in more detail

Age

 a questionable ID variable (others are genetically influenced; aptitude is more stable); age
never remains the same
 the Critical Period Hypothesis (Lenneberg, 1967): after the critical age you are unable to
develop essential language competences (it is likely to be around puberty, 13-14)  how
relevant is this for L2 acquisition?
o you are unable to reach native-like proficiency after the same critical age (BUT! a
‘native speaker’ is an elusive concept, they differ to a high extent; is it really the aim
of L2 learning?)
o native-likeness: being indistinguishable by native speakers
o what linguistic subsystems are reliable in this topic?
 speaking is the most problematic area: pronunciation (having a foreign accent
identifies learners as non-native speakers)
 BUT! several post-puberty non-native speakers have developed native-like
proficiency in pronunciation too
 HOW? target language environment (a lot of exposure), emotional attachment
(relatives, loved ones), high degree of motivation
 a gradual decline of ability (aging), no specific time given (like with the CPH)
o young ones are better learners and more successful in the long run, but elders learn
faster
 o older people are more exposed to negative psychological factors (inhibition), while
young learners are not that much affected (but, really?)
o cognitive reasons, LAD: functions less effectively with time
o input: young learners receive better input (no evidence for this)
o neurological reasons, lateralization: the functional specification of the brain
hemispheres; at a young age our brain is more plastic (BUT! it’s done by age 5, which
is too early to use this argument for L2 learning problems)
o children rely on memory (compatible with acquisition), while older people rely on
rules (compatible with learning) while learning

Language Aptitude

 it was believed to be the most important variable, responsible for the quarter of the
variants across learners
 from the 1930s-40s: aptitude=success, tests of aptitude became popular (practical devices
without theoretical backgrounds)
o models of language aptitude arose (were still not comprehensive enough)
 MLAT (Modern Language Aptitude Test): Caroll (base for the Hungarian
MENYÉT)
 phonetic coding ability
 grammatical sensitivity
 rote learning ability (memory)
 inductive language learning ability (deducing rules from language)
 PLAB (Pimsleur’s Language Aptitude Battery): was less popular because
of motivation is included in aptitude, not considered separately
 verbal intelligence
 motivation
 auditory ability (decoding only)
 how influential is it still?
o speed matters: people with high aptitude learn languages faster; BUT! it’s not
everything
 learners might enjoy the progress (instant success) and become motivated
 slow progress might hinder the progress
o it can still be overrun by other variables (eg. motivation)
Motivation

 clearly decisive, the key variable to success

 this is also a continuum and not a dichotomy
 Gardner & Lambert, Canadian researchers (English, French): an example for a dichotomy
o integrative motivation: you identify with the target language speakers (doesn’t
necessarily mean becoming part of it and losing the other community)
o instrumental motivation: emphasize the utilitarian purposes of language learning
(making money, language is a tool, an instrument)
 Later frameworks came up with…
o intrinsic motivation: comes from within the learner; selfless interest in the
language itself, enjoying the process of language learning without any specific
purpose (eg. it’s beautiful, sound poetic, etc.)
o extrinsic motivation: comes from outside the learners, might be positive (reward),
can be a threat (losing a job, 1990s in Hungary-foreign companies demanded
language knowledge from Hungarian workers)
o resultative motivation: reaching success can help moving forward in learning, not
necessarily that powerful, BUT! can also hinder it by thinking we have finished
and there’s nothing else to achieve
 the situated nature of motivation is of great significance: it is the concept of the context
of language learning
o contextual variables can determine motivation
 the classroom as context: a positive environment is key
 the dynamic nature of motivation: it is not stable, but highly dynamic, can change rapidly
o can be generated, squashed, maintained, developed, etc.
o Dörnyei & Ottó: process model of motivation (it is a spiral)
 pre-actional stage: created, generated
 actional stage: maintained, sustained, nurtured, fostered
 post-actional stage: retrospection, looking back, drawing conclusions,
preparing the next pre-actional stage
Attitude

 seems to be very sensitive to motivation, age (young age: parents’ attitude matter to the
target language; teenage years: peers are more influential-social dynamic), the learning
situation and context, to ethnicity (minority-majority conflict)

Personality

 self-esteem: how happy you are with yourself, can be specific, related to specific fields of
life (high: better learners, more successful, extremely high can be of bad influence as
well)
 extraversion: in face-to-face interaction they are more successful (not that big a
difference)
 introversion: people tend to be more successful in learning in general
 anxiety: not just bad influence, it’s more complex; there is an ideal level of anxiety (too
low, too high, ideal: beneficial, helps to produce the best possible result)
o facilitating: you pay more attention, you are more conscious, you do better
o debilitating: pulls you back, hinders you from performing at your best
o language anxiety: anxiety of language learning specifically, it has a negative
effect, the less the better
 risk taking ability: not worrying about making mistakes, communicating; too high: not
good enough, but still communicates  can lead to failure
 sensitivity to rejection
 tolerance of ambiguity
 cognitive style: preferred (probably operate outside your preferred way, but you are less
effective) and habitual (used to do it this way) ways of dealing with information
o mild/strong preference (etc. oral-visual, field dependent-independent learners)
o how much your preference is in line with the input you receive?
 hemisphere dominancy/lateralization: logical – imaginative, etc.; how is it catered for
the learning environment? the interconnection between the environment and this ID
 learning strategies: how they relate to cognitive style dimensions? how effectively do we
use the strategies for learning? you can use a variety of strategies, not only the same.
 memory

Willingness to Communicate, Sex, etc.

 we should never look at IDs in isolation, they operate together in a complex dynamic
 system
 the context has a very significant impact
2- Language Transfer

Historical Background

 Contrastive Analysis: comparing 2 languages can lead to predictions what will be

difficult/easy when learning them (facilitate or hinder the learning process)
o native language and target language similarities and differences

Definition

 language transfer: an important part of L2 learning

 it is not a consequence of habit formation (=habit formation is part of the learning
process), BUT! it is based on the fact that you have an L1 and then you start to learn
another language
 it is a natural phenomenon
 some people think it is only interference (eg. in the monitor theory it is considered to be a
negative influence)
o BUT! it can be positive too (eg. in the case of genetically related languages-
Danish and German/English similarities)
o the source language doesn’t necessarily come from the native language (can be an
L2 too)  source language is that you rely on when transfer happens (it is
neutral, does not specify which language is it)
 transfer is not a one-way street: it is not always the influence of source language patterns,
but the target language can influence the target language context too (using some concepts
in English among English majors, even if we talk in Hungarian)
o substratum transfer: transfer happens from source language to target language
o borrowing transfer: transfer happens from target language to source language

Specific Linguistic Subsystems

 Discourse Analysis
o one of the focal points is the study of politeness strategies (how this differs in
different languages)
 politeness (directness appropriate/required in requests in a given language,
eg. English-please/would you be so kind to…)
 we can find politeness in transfer as well (can be transferred from one
language to another, eg. you use the Russian way of asking, which can be
seen as less polite/more direct in English  the norms are different in
 languages, this has been observed and proven; vice-versa: super politeness
can also lead to misunderstanding or conflict)
 apologetic phrases: it is sometimes only used to show respect (Asian
countries)
 greetings: they differ in terms of formality and politeness; the issue of
cognates: Hello! (in English it is semi-formal, eg. in radio programs; but it
is highly informal in Hungarian)
 conversational styles: appropriateness related to formality
o coherence: a composite of logicality and relevance (they are not truly universal
concepts for all languages!)
 logicality: more or less universal in a linguistic sense
 relevance: something incoherent might be accepted in a language and
would be considered as truly incoherent in another (eg. Japanese discourse-
keep wondering off topic highly incoherent in English)
 Semantics
o Cognate vocabulary: two words coming from the same genetic origins (Haus-
house), morphologically similar and semantically identical  mean almost the
same in different languages
 false cognates: morphologically similar but semantically different words
(eg. embarrassed, embarrassing-embarrassado <Spanish: pregnant>)
 can be the source of miscommunication
 teachers usually call attention to false cognates (sympathetic-
szimpatikus)  but because of this, learners tend to mistrust
genuine cognates as well, thinking that they are also false
o Linguistic relativism: the language that we use has an impact on how we perceive
reality & language is a reflection of how you see the world (eg. interesting-
érdekes, not exactly the same, carries a different connotation in different settings)
 Syntax
o word order: languages of the world can be classified by this (S-V-O) or by the
rigidity (English is relatively rigid) and flexibility (Hungarian is highly flexible as
for grammatical accuracy, not the same with meaning!) of the WO
 this does not happen very frequently, because differences are usually
pointed out and learners pay more attention to WO
  if the 2 languages are very different, most frequently rigidity of the WO is
transferred
o relative clauses: differ in terms of their location (follow or precede the main
clause)
 right branching languages: the relative clause is to the right of the main
clause
 left branching languages: the relative clause is to the left of the main
clause
 Phonetics, phonology
o the most obvious indication of transfer is having a foreign accent
o transfer is not always from the native language (Hungarian student having a
Russian accent in English, because he learned Russian as an L2 first)
o the segmental dimension: refers to the specific sounds (no dark l in native
language-not using it), the most frequently discussed aspect of transfer
o the suprasegmental dimension: stress and tone, intonation (Hungarian: word
stress is on the first syllable-very telling for a foreign accent)
 Writing systems
o languages can be grouped by their writing systems as well
 alphabetic system: each symbol stands for a particular phoneme (Latin,
Cyrillic, Chinese script)
 syllabic system (syllabary): each symbol stands for a syllable
 idiographic system: each symbol stands for a morpheme (Chinese)

Non-structural Factors

 personality: some individuals are more likely to transfer than others (eg. risk-taking
abilities)
 aptitude for phonemic mimicry: aptitude for sounds that do not exist in the source
language (specifically about coding, not decoding)
 level of proficiency: the higher the proficiency is, the less likely it is for transfer to
happen (there is no linear relationship, but it is clearly a factor to be considered)
 literacy: the more literate the learners are (in their native language) the less likely they are
to be exposed to the hinderances of transfer
3- Theories of L2 Acquisition

Categorization of SLA Theories

 unidimensional (there is 1 specific dimension that is responsible for the whole process of
SLA)  this is a limited approach
o the major flaw is that it only focuses on one factor
o complex dynamic systems theory: systems are not stable
o made a great service for researchers, they identified the variables
 nativist theory: innate variable is responsible for success or failure
 environmentalist theory: the variables that are related to the environment
have the most important role
 interactionist (there is an interaction between the variables that are responsible for the
process of SLA) theories of SLA

Nativist Theories

 Chomsky’s UG: there is a unique, human specific ability to acquire language; universal
grammar exists in all languages; LAD: the ability that humans have to acquire a language
o teaching sign language to animals: language is not human specific?  findings are
not that reliable: they were too determined to find something, it was not language
they thought to the animals, but only signs
o the LAD is not part of the brain, cannot be physically identified and there is a
sharp decline after puberty in its working
o the poverty of the stimulus argument: the input is not as rich and complex as the
output of children who acquire the language (there must be a device, an ability) 
children produce things they did not hear, they produce ungrammatical
sentences/phrases  they build and construct rules, they produce language on their
own
o in SLA: the LAD is only available (in its full potential, 100%) for a limited time
 BUT! there are successful post-puberty learners as well  UG is not equally
applicable for SLA (it’s better to explain L1 acquisition)
 Krashen’s Monitor Theory: 5 specific hypotheses make up the theory; there is an innate
mechanism which is geared toward acquisition of language and there is a parallel
mechanism responsible for language learning
 o acquisition/learning hypothesis: they are different terms (L1 is acquired, L2 is
learnt); they are independent and separate ways of developing competence in
another language  a non-interface position (if something is acquired it stays that
way, cannot be conscious)
o natural order hypothesis: there is a predictable and fixed sequence for the
acquisition of L2 rules; this order cannot be changed (rules are timed, you can’t
meet them earlier)  textbooks try to follow this
o monitor hypothesis: you can monitor your performance, you self-correct and
identify mistakes, this is only possible if 3 conditions are met
 knowledge of the rule: a conscious understanding of the rules
 focus on form: not on function, content, message
 need to have the time: to monitor and self-correct
o input hypothesis: the best input is comprehensible input (that triggers the LAD
and is still comprehensible; a little bit beyond the current level of the learner: i+1)
o affective filter hypothesis: for learning to be successful there need to be a
guarantee that there is no affective obstacle in the way (nothing blocks the input)
emotional (being comfortable, intimidated, lack of motivation); the affective
filter can be up or down

criticism: (1) there is an interface between learning and acquisition; (2) much of what was
measured was accuracy, not acquisition, the studies focused exclusively in English; (3) how
can you measure it objectively? the rules were criticized too, we self-correct while using L1
too even if we don’t know the rules explicitly, you can correct even if you concentrate on
content, monitoring happens all the time, not just during a specific time, you always have the
time to monitor; (4) the notion of i+1 is problematic: how much +1 is? what does it stand for?;
(5) what exactly this filter is? how can you deal with it?

Environmentalist Theories

 The Acculturation Model (Schumann)/ The Pidginization Hypothesis

o pidginization: 2 languages (1 of them is more powerful) are in contact and in
order to communicate they create a simplified version of one of the languages; it is
only used for specific purposes (business, trading)  similar to L2 acquisition (the
need to communicate)
 o social distance: determines how successful L2 acquisition will be; necessitates the
host environment in which language learning takes place; there are 8 factors that
determine the success
 social dominance: (1) dominance [of target language]: in favor of
acquisition, (2) non-dominance: the 2 languages are equal, (3)
subordination
 pattern of integration: (1) assimilation: entirely giving up your cultural
identity [guarantees acquisition], (2) acculturation: preserving our own
identity but becoming a part of the target language culture as well, (3)
preservation/isolation: isolating ourselves from the target language
community
 enclosure: how much the L1 group is a close one; (1) high level: keeping
away from the target language culture [against the development of
competences]
 cohesiveness: high: L1 culture sticks together, respect the same norms
 size of the L1 group: a large group: not social outside the group; a small
group: forced to socialize in the L2 environment as well
 cultural congruence: high: more similarity across cultures lead to success
 attitude: attitude of the social environment
 the intended length of residence: long time: aim to be more successful,
higher levels of motivation
o culture shock
o language shock
o motivation
o empathy of the host environment

BUT! pidginization happens in groups, while L2 acquisition is about the individual;

pidginization: happens in a multicultural environment, L2 acquisition: can be a monolingual
individual too

Interactionist Theories

 Functional Typological Theory: a unified theory of language change

o syntacticization: a discourse driven language becomes a syntax driven language
 pragmatic mode: slower speech (absence of grammatical morphology,
shorter utterances)  focus is on the message
  syntactic mode: rapid speed of delivery (complex grammatical
morphology, longer utterances)
 ZISA Model: WO studies
o developmental dimension
o variational dimension  they were the first to associate variation with L2
performance

4- Regional and Social Varieties in Language

Sociolinguistics

 generally: sociology & linguistics; society interacts with language, etc.

 History
o Chomsky: the search for linguistics universals; they treated language as a system
that is independent from its users, an abstract and unique system; any variation is a
source of confusion and less importance  this is not a comprehensive approach
to language (performance is not in the focus of their analysis, it is a source of
variation)
 2 kinds of variations in sociolinguistics (sociolinguistics is the study of these linguistic
variations)
o synchronic: variation at a given point in time (regional varieties, social variation
within language, available now)
o diachronic: variation over time (it is all about language change, language is
dynamic, constantly changing)
 speakers develop different styles of language use
o relate to formality (informal, formal)
o age grading (as we grow older, we change the way we speak)
 the sociology of language: it is interested in society and therefore studies language
(macro end of the same continuum)  sociolinguistics: interested in language and studies
society (micro end of the continuum)
 collecting data: the observer’s paradox (William Labov): the fact that you observe it
changes language use (vernacular: the least monitored variety, the most intimate 
difficult to observe because of this); some solutions could be:
o participant observation: whatever you want to observe, you need to be a part of
o rapid and anonymous interviews: avoid telling that we observe something, just
simply asking questions (eg. the department store study)
 analyzing data
o a quantitative approach: statistical analysis (a massive amount of data,
questionnaires)
o a qualitative approach: ethnographic tradition (interpreting single events,
interviews)  cannot generalize from this kind of data, but it is in-depth
 we can increase/decrease the formality of the interviews (decreasing:
provoking/unexpected questions that make them emotionally involved-
asking a story or something; increasing: asking them to read out
something- more monitored form of language)
 observing natural discussions without provoking the situation

The Study of Regional and Social Varieties

 there are always varieties in any language, but any single language user has varieties too
(speech styles change because of the degree of formality)
 regional and social is not about individuals, but how language differs at the community
level (county, country)
o speech communities (2 definitions)
 (1) anyone who speaks the given language can be a member
 (2) a network of speakers who share attitudes to and knowledge of the
language they use (share the same repertoire)  this is more frequently
used
 functional repertoire: certain varieties used for different purposes
 spatial repertoire: people from different areas speak in a different
way

Regional Varieties

 synchronic and diachronic approaches are needed (both)

 dialect: a problematic term, has a negative undertone to it (not speaking standard),
because some varieties are less prestigious than others (patois: a speaker of a less
prestigious variety)  stigmatization
o term comes from ancient Greek: here different varieties were used for different
purposes (historians: ionic, lyric works: doric, tragedies: attic, the norm became
later: coiné)
o how do dialects react to languages? sometimes they are similar to another
language rather than the one they are a dialect of (a dialect is subordinated to a
language)
  mutual intelligibility: if you understand it, than it is a dialect of your
language, if you don’t than it is another language  this doesn’t work
(certain dialects are not that understandable and some different languages
understand each other: Czech and Slovak are very similar)  where can
we draw the line?
 eg. Serbo-Croatian: it can also be a political issue as well: “a language is a
dialect with an army and a navy” (Max Weinreich)
o Bell’s set of criteria of languages
 standardization: only languages will have a standard/codified variety (but
there are languages that have never been codified or doesn’t even have a
written form)
 vitality: the existence of a living community of speakers, there needs to be
a speech community using that language (modern languages – classical,
dead languages: Latin? maybe it only metamorphosed into Italian, French,
etc.)
 historicity: how speakers can find a sense of identity in their way of using
language (Scottish variety is a manifestation of their identity)
 autonomy: how much a language is supposed to be autonomous and
independent (people’s feelings)
 reduction: how a variety is subordinated to a language (not independent);
Scottish (subordinated to English)-English (independent)
 mixture: how members of the speech community feel about the purity of
the language (French-legislation prohibits using certain terms) 
preserving, avoiding mixture (borrowing words, the influence of other
languages)
 de facto norms: what is acceptable/standard/sub-standard?, uncodified
norms that the members of the speech community represent, proper usage
 the vernacular: the most intimate form of language use
 coiné: a form of speech that is shared by people from different vernaculars, the
shared/common variety, it is accessible for everyone, a generic term for every language
 a dialect continuum: there are usually gradual differences
 isogloss: a line you can draw on a map between two regions based on certain features that
are different  a dialect boundary: a set of isoglosses
 accent: simply a pronunciation feature of a dialect, easily identifiable
 how do regional varieties emerge? how do they differ?
o geography: physical distance, boundaries (American-British: ocean between them)
o politics: a political boundary or separation (East-West Germany before 1989)
o migration: American English is a product of migrating from Britain to America
o language contact: meeting speakers from other languages, they influence one
another (loanwords)

Social Varieties

 exist in any society, social stratification of language, social groups

 social classes: (an extreme example is the cast system of India)
 religion: can also lead to the emergence of varieties; Northern Ireland: Catholics and
Protestants had conflictthis difference had linguistic manifestations too (Hungary:
keresztény-keresztyén)
 ethnicity: AAVE (African American Vernacular English)
 age: how young people use language as opposed to anybody else

 social dialectology: studies these combinations of social variations

o linguistic markers: elements associated with one particular social group

5- Bilingualism and Societal Multilingualism

Bilingualism

 2 definitions are used

o (1) native or native like competence in 2 languages
o (2) having some degree of competence in 2 languages (plurilingual: having
different levels of competence in multiple languages)
 there is always the indication of some level of competence, balanced bilingualism: a
strong and equally strong competence in all languages
 7 criteria to describe competence
o (1) identification of the languages involved: can be difficult (varieties, dialects)
o (2) identifying mechanisms: examination of the ways how individuals manage to
build competence in the languages in question (L1, L2, foreign languages)
o (3) time and age: the age of learning/acquiring the specific languages; +time spent
learning (at school, new place of residence)
 o (4) skills: competences differ in skills too (someone can be proficient in writing in
English, but less proficient in it in Spanish); can mean even a preference to one of
the languages because of the skills
o (5) use of internal functions: functions of language that are not accessible for the
outer world (eg. counting can be done on a number of languagescan be checked
for yourself, depends on the language of education; dreaming, praying are the
same issues; internal for the language learner)
o (6) external functions: accessible for the outer world, what the learner is capable
of doing, activities (CEFR: can do statements/ can read a newspaper in the target
language can be preferences here as well)
o (7) analysis of the domains: a cluster of 3 specific components (they form a
unique combination and lead to a specific language use; if you change one of the
aspects, a new domain emerges and might change language use as well); bilinguals
have preferred languages for different domains or domains can demand a specific
language use as well
 location (eg. home/ public placeanother language)
 role relationships (eg. family members)
 topics (eg. domestic issues)
 equal competence is very rare
 How bilingual competences are organized in the brain? (some findings: bilinguals from
infancy store pairs of words in the same parts of the brain, the 2 systems of meaning are
not separated; the 2 languages are interleaved in common structures but still separated?)
o compound bilingualism: learned one language through the other, in a parallel
manner (eg. parents speak different languages); there can be 2 different set of
vocabulary for the same concepts
o coordinate bilingualism: languages are learned in separate contexts, 2 different
systems of meaning are formed (eg. parents speak the same language, at school the
child learns a language- immigrants; home/heritage language & the need for
another language-education, work), eg. what is an evening meal? (supper, dinner,
tea?)
o sub-coordinate bilingualism: coordinate bilingualism, but one of the languages
are dominant
 Simultaneous and sequential bilingualism
o simultaneous: there is a time frame which is common to the acquisition of
languages
 o sequential: learn languages at different times
 Elective and circumstantial bilingualism
o elective: additive, you decide and select to learn another language; you extend
your competences
o circumstantial, subtractive: the reason is the product of the circumstances you
are in, you might use your competence in one of the languages owing to acquiring
another
 Code-switching: a change from one language into another; can happen even in a word, in
sentences, etc. (eg. food- haggis is haggis, you can’t translate it/ stew-pörkölt are not the
same)  can signal solidarity, identity, there are many reasons; if a large number of
people start it, it can turn into borrowings

Societal Multilingualism

 monolingual speech communities are rare (or countries)

 multilingual societies emerge- WHY?
o migration: can be voluntary (adventure, work) or involuntary (being chased
away); they bring along their language with them (esp. in the case of mass
migration)
o urbanization: moving from rural areas to cities, eg. in many parts of Africa
o conquest/colonialism: enhancement of urbanization, colonizers brought their own
language along (India-English is the official language and serves as a Lingua
Franca; North-Africa-French colonies)
o voluntary federation: different territories linked to different languages come
together (Switzerland, Belgium- federal states) can cause conflict
 Language contacts:
 language conflict: when languages come in contact, speakers come in contact too and
usually one language becomes dominant
o language maintenance: can be an issue, attempts to oppress speakers of the
minority language, speakers have to try to maintain their language
o language shift can occur: a community of speakers gradually give up their
original, native language and will speak the dominant language  typically
followed by, can lead to language death: the last remaining speaker of the
language physically dies
 language loyalty: how much you are ready to stand up to the pressure of
more powerful languages, preserving your native language (Europe)
  endangered languages: a language that is no longer passed on to the next
generation, it is likely to die (see: language death)  conscious resistance
can be successful (eg. isolation-the Amish, discriminated groups-native
Americans, the Navaho)
 languages can be revitalized after death: Irish Gaelic- an unsuccessful
attempt of revitalization (it has a unique status, still taught but not spoken;
it never died out); modern Hebrew- a successful revitalization attempt
(Israel after WW2)
 language shift can be reversed: Catalonia (they spoke Catalan, not
Spanish); Bask language (also in Spain); Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia (were
russified, but after regaining their freedom they started speaking their
native language)
 language rights: the right for a language to remain a living language (the diversity of
languages is not as vital as biodiversity) + human rights, rights of the speakers (schools to
use native/minority language in)
 the emergence of pidgins and creoles
o pidgins: the results of limited and unbalanced contact (isolated communities, eg.
slave-master communication); limited expressions
o creoles: second-generation pidgins, the next generation speaks pidgin as a native
language; they become more functional  language
 de-creolization: giving up speaking the creole
 diglossia: 2 distinct varieties of a language/languages are used for different functions in a
speech community (formal, informal communication) eg. German speakers in
Switzerland- high (formal, prestige, power) and low (informal, membership of an ethnic
group) varieties of German
 triglossic, poliglossic situations: 3 or more varieties

6- Linguistic Change

 Can we observe language change? No. Only the consequences, because it is a long and
gradual process
o you can observe variation (diachronic, synchronic): that is available at that point
of time; but you don’t know which is going to last
 internal changes: sound changes (there are structural, morphological, etc. changes as
well)
 o coalescence: the distinction between 2 sounds is lost over time (eg. meet-meat was
not always like this, they were different vowels)
o split: a distinction becomes apparent, a sound splits into 2 (eg. house- sz/noun,
z/verb)
 external language change
o borrowing: language changes by incorporating a term or structure from another
language; easy to distinguish (a foreign element)- WHY?
 cultural elements (tea-a particular plant, grown at a particular place;
kangaroo-native to Australia, job/Beruf)
 how they are received? speakers react differently to such borrowings:
preference, opposition
 the Tree model of language change
o an original language goes through some stages and then branches off into different
directions (Germanic German, English)
o built on the notion of internal language change, it is done between families and
relatives; because external changes cannot be depicted; there is a common origin
for languages
o you can only observe change once it has happened
 the Wave model of language change
o change is not about branches, but it depicts the process of change akin to throwing
a stone into a pond  waves are generated and go farther and farther; you can
throw several stones (they will interfere)  change is not unidimensional, it can
involve a number of potential sources
o as a language is alive, it will change and it can receive all sorts of influences, etc.
o change is genuinely observable, but it needs to be recognized as change (is
variation related to processes of change?)
 long-term, stable variations
 change
 change appears in the language of young speakers
o age grading: your language use changes while you age/grow up (does language
change or do I change?  hard to detect)- How to tell? -studies involve decades
  a panel study: you need a panel of participants that you observe at a given
point in time, then you wait 2-3 decades ad come back to observe the same
people again (problem of accessing the exact same people)
 a trend study: observe a representative/sample group of people (only age
matters, it doesn’t have to be the same people, but certainly 2-3 decades
older)
 Why exactly change happens? -reasons for internal language change
o a desire for solidarity: Martha’s Vineyard study (islanders and vacationists:
islanders desired to preserve their language features=best representations of their
language identity/community)
o the linguistic marketplace: there is a value/label attached to different types of
languages; certain varieties are considered to be more valuable than others (eg.
getting rid of accents to be closer to the standard)  the job market might require
sounding different (being cultivated, etc.)
o gender: women tend to be in the forefront of language change, men tend to prefer
varieties with less prestige
 Labov: change from below (unconscious), from above (conscious, towards
higher prestige forms)
 women seem to have less power, so they try to adjust?? (Margaret
Thatcher’s patterns of language use indicated power)
o synchronic and diachronic variation should not be seen as separated
 the past helps to explain the present, there is a dynamic relationship
 the theory of lexical diffusion: sound changes, vowel shifts; gradual change can be
depicted in 2 ways; can be linked to the wave model
o a timeframe: time & the proportion of words show change
o the number of speakers in whose language you can observe change
 the social network theory of language change: the networks that speakers form (stronger
and looser bonds with different networks)
o loose connections contribute more effectively to language change
 how people congregate among lifestyles: striving for social mobility and better results;
not in favor of doing better

7- Language and Culture

 the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis: the structure of the language you use determines how you
see the world around you (weaker version: language is influential, it makes you more
likely to interpret the world in a way, in a typical manner)
o eg. Eskimo-so many words for snow, Hopi-Indians- have an entirely different
system of language (no concept of time, count-non-count nouns)  some of their
claims are not true, cannot possibly be true (not that many words for snow, they
can express future, past, etc.)
o BUT! there is obviously a connection between language and culture (eg. no word
for ant, because they have so many different species; Bedouin Arabs- many words
for camels)
 many sets of vocabulary items that don’t exist in certain languages
(breakfast—a morning meal, breaking the fast—not the same in other
languages; an evening meal: dinner, supper, tea)
 grammar: English: the perfect aspect of time (I did it – I have done it)
o how influential are these differences between languages is another thing
 Hungarian-Finnish: similarities in language but differences in culture
(same language family); Hungarian-German: cultural similarities (history)
 language typology and culture don’t necessarily go together
o certain languages should not be able to develop certain notions (because they are
not native to that culture)  BUT! technological advances spread anyways
(language change)
 the study of kinship terminology: it is about terms different cultures have describing
relations (family type relationships) in other contexts  of great significance in all
societies
o complex tribal systems can be described by this
o formality aspects can be taken into account (Korean)
o can be remarkably simple (eg. Florida- a set of equivalence rules, ‘father’- can be
used for father and uncle too: equivalent relationship?)
o can be used outside of kinship relationships as well (father= God, priests- signals
the relationship between the participants, the priest is the father of the believers;
uncle= Uncle Sam-U.S., someone who is a part of the family, not a remote
political entity; brother/sister= church people, friend ‘bro’, brothers in arms, very
close relationship)  likening the relationship to that of family
o kinship terms change, languages change: simplified, disappeared
 the study of taxonomies: folk taxonomies: users of a language use a classification system
to describe their environment (based on cultural, rather than scientific manners) eg.
Philippines- diseases; Solomon Islands- a classification system for describing animals,
which is different than ours (birds and bats=they both fly=they are the same)  based on
ordinary people’s everyday experiences
 the study of color terminology: color terms can be different too (they are not totally
objective, however, they are in a physical sense), the color spectrum is a continuum=there
is a gradual change  it’s a matter of perspective (is it a social construct or is it
objective?)
o basic color term: exists in every language, main characteristics:
 (1) a basic color term needs to be a single word (light blue cannot be one,
but blue can be one word)
 (2) should not be a subdivision of a higher order term (scarlet is a kind of
red, so it cannot be a basic color term, since it is a kind of something)
 (3) usage: how a basic color term is of general use (blue-the sky, eyes,
object- acceptable, it is in general use; blonde-specifically in reference to
the color of hair, nothing else)
 (4) it should not be restricted to a group of users (color used only for
specific professions, all shades, not meaningful for anyone else)
o in any language there are at least 2 basic color terms (black and white: light and
darkness); we perceive the colors the same way, only the terms to describe them
will differ (eg. blue is a kind of black)
 3 color terms: black, white, red (the color of blood, the carrier of life)
 4-5 items: +yellow, green
 6-7 items: +blue and brown
 8- items: +grey, pink, orange, purple, etc.
o there is a striking difference between languages on this aspect (technological
development? -little=fewer color terms)
 the prototype theory: how we think about concepts (eg. fruit-apple); concepts are not
based on a collection of features but on a prototypical example of a concept (eg. biological
properties are not the first to come to our mind, but rather a prototypical example—differs
in cultures)
o art history: Adam & Eve ate the fruit from the tree—it is usually depicted as an
apple (although the Bible doesn’t say what the forbidden fruit looks like) 
artists’ culture defined what kind of fruit
 o an image comes to our minds (eg. breakfast); with more abstract terms the image is
less conventional/similar
o we think in terms of prototypical examples, especially when we can touch and see
them
 taboo terms and euphemisms
o taboo: terms that you don’t want to mention (religion, death); eg. ‘szarvas’: the
original term was a taboo (the miraculous stag found the homeland)  the one
with the horns became the new word, so that we could talk about the concept
o euphemisms: ways of avoiding using a taboo term (circumlocution); ‘die’: pass
away  less tragic
o words can be taboo in one language and acceptable in another
o political correctness: motivated by the intention of avoiding offending any
particular group of society (ethnicity, gender-sexism)
 ‘negro’: initially it did not have a pejorative connotation  now we don’t
use that term (African American is accepted); ‘black’ was for a long time
accepted  now it has a negative undertone
 is it an Orwellian change of language?  we need to be too careful; terms
lose their actual meaning?
 ‘fireman’: became firefighter to become gender neutral (same with police
officer)

8- Language and Gender

 2 dimensions:
o grammatical gender: languages differ whether they have grammatical gender or
not (Hungarian-English); those that have can be further divided into (1) meaning
related: a desk is an it, not a he or a she, exceptions but only sometime: countries,
sees (2) unrelated to meaning: Russian, French objects have masculine or
feminine pronouns  a function of tradition
o usage-related gender: how different genders use language; men and women don’t
speak the same way (usually a political issue, it is hard to approach it in an
objective, factual way)
 mid 1970s: Lakoff: Language and Woman’s Place (subjective,
anecdotal, biased, feminist account of language use)  BUT! initiated
research
  she argues that there are vocabulary related differences (females
feel insecure and therefore they use extreme terms, eg. lovely-
BUT! in England it is widely used; eg. fantastic- now it is generally
used)
 there are some communities where such differences exist (different
stock of vocabulary items reserved for males or females, eg. West-
Indies: almost a separate language for both genders- extreme,
historical roots)
 according to her, there are differences specific to pairs: ‘master’
(somebody in control) – ‘mistress’ (subordinated to somebody
else); ‘bachelor’ (independence) – ‘spinster’ (a person who nobody
wants); ‘gentleman’ – ‘lady’ (less social status)
 society has changed since then: in Western societies political correctness
generated new, more neutral terms (firefighter, police officer) – less
gender biased terms
 grammatical patterns: ‘Everybody should hand in their papers’ (earlier this
was ungrammatical)
 there are some languages that are considered sexist in this sense (considering both
aspects); even if it doesn’t have grammatical genders, you can use language in a sexist
way
 Lakoff’s work sparked a lot of research
o whether men and women develop different patterns of language use (there are such
patterns, but it is not proven to be gender-related)
o whether women focus on the affective aspect of language (IDs!)
o whether women express solidarity and men power (whether women are
stylistically more flexible)
o using colors: female speakers use much more elaborate color terms, men tend to
use a narrower range of color vocabulary
o who talks more? – depends on the setting the conversation takes place in
(interaction and context matter)
o if they are true, why do these linguistic differences occur?
 biological differences (brain capacity, physiological differences)  the
least acceptable argument
 social organization: a dominant or a lacking power position in society (a
male and a female register of language)  it is not about gender, but social
 position; women, when in a powerful position tend to use language as
males (Margaret Thatcher-PM of GB)
 sociolinguistic subcultures: societies have particular social roles for
women and men that they are more likely to fulfil (looking after children-
kindergarten-emotional intelligence; firefighters-a greater proportion of
men have the physical abilities to do this kind of job)

Language Policy and Language Planning

 language in social life= how language is used as an access to power (how to exercise the
power); issues of language choice
 language policy and language planning: often used synonymously
o language planning: there is a deliberate planning process done by a power center
o language policy: more open to interpretation (influenced by parties, affected
people)  a more neutral term
 3 distinct fields:
o status planning: deciding what status a language is supposed to have in a context
 official language: can be withdrawn // banned languages (by law)
 Norway: no official language, 2 languages are spoken- a diaglossic
example; high and regional varieties  now they have 2 official
languages;
 Belgium: 2 official languages: Flemish-a variety of Dutch and
French;
 Spain: Catalan and Bask are officially accepted now
 Soviet Union: russification, the local languages did remain, but they
were of secondary status
 language policy decision are political ones (not linguists decide these)
 states are not the only ones to do status planning
 church- Latin as the language of masses  reformation: making the
Bible accessible for everyone speaking any language
 Swahili in Africa: Swahili seem to be a neutral solution to become a
lingua franca (without the baggage of dominance and the colonial
past)
o corpus planning: planning the body (structure) of the language; an attempt to fix
a problem; standardization
 Hungary: movement to change the language, because it was not capable of
expressing different concepts
 Turkey: after WW1, 1920s, Kemal’s major modernization, changed the
Arabic script to Latin
 it also occasionally had political intentions (the Romanian language was
reshaped to demonstrate Roman origin)
 the creation of new vocabulary
 taking an old word and giving it a new meaning (mouse-animal,
now it’s also the tool for the computer)
 coinage: word-creation (eg. touchpad)
 borrowing: from other languages
 orthography can play a key role (the written form of language)- Turkish
reform: to bring them closer to the West by adapting Latin script;
Yugoslavia- Latin and Cyrillic script: East and West
 corpus planning decisions, 2 key concepts
 normativism: there is only one correct version of using language,
anything other is a deviation from the norm  prescriptivism
follows this (language use has to be prescribed)
 language acquisition planning/education policy: what is taught or
not taught, what languages are acceptable through the education
system (Hungarian: Russian was mandatory)
o language diffusion policy: spreading a particular language
in a particular region
 planned
 internal: all citizens are required to have
competence in a language (France-Briton,
Oxitan; Soviet Union-Russian is still spread)
 external: spreading the language outside the
country (colonies, Hungary-Russian)
linguistic imperialism: still in the making,
language is an instrument of modern-day
colonialism (papers); linguicism: linguistic
racism, a language is superior to another
  unplanned: no deliberate attempt to do so, brought
along by doing business or trading, missionaries

Psycholinguistic and sociolinguistic aspects of SLA

Definitions, names

2020.02.07.: no lesson

2020.02.14.: Introduction + Overview on the history of linguistic data analysis:

Complex and dynamic systems approach, Behaviorism (Pavlov, Skinner), contrastive analysis,
language transfer, error analysis: interlingual, intralingual errors, hypothesis testing,
overgeneralization, error, mistake, slip, interlanguage (Selinker), developmental sequence,
fossilization, avoidance strategy, performance analysis, discourse analysis

2020.02.21.: no lesson -> 2 audio lectures promised

2020.02.28.: Linguistic environment in SLA, related concepts:

Foreigner talk, discourse strategies, coinage, transfer, deviant input, interlanguage,
fossilization, Shuman’s acculturation model: isolation, assimilation, acculturation; common
acquisition orders, overinversion, perceived transferability, Chomsky’s structural description,
CALP, BICS; Canale’s and Swain’s model; Diane Larsen-Freeman’s model; Bachman’s models;
CEFR model

2020.03.06.: no lesson -> 3 audio lectures promised

Audio lecture 1: Individual learner differences and its impact on L2 acquisition:

Normal distribution, critical period hypothesis (Lenneberg), linguistic subsystems, memory-
based and rule-based system, MLAT (Carroll’s model), PLAB (Pimsleur); Garner, Lambert
(motivation research in Canada): integrative vs. instrumental motivation; extrinsic vs. intrinsic
motivation, resultative motivation, situated nature of motivation, dynamic nature of
motivation, process model of motivation (Dörnyei, Ottó), facilitating and debilitating anxiety,
language anxiety, cognitive style

Audio lecture 2: Language transfer

Language transfer, Krashen’s theories; substratum transfer, borrowing transfer, structural
factors, linguistic subsystems, apologetic phrases, cognates, false cognates (faux-amis),
linguistic relativism, basic word order, right/left-branching languages, segmental/super-
segmental dimensions, non-structural factors, aptitude for phonetic mimicry

Audio lecture 3: Theories of SLA

Overview of SLA theories:
Unidimensional:
- Nativist: Chomsky’s universal grammar theory: universal grammar, language
acquisition device, poverty of the stimulus argument, Krashen’s monitor model:
 acquisition/learning hypothesis, natural order hypothesis, monitor hypothesis, input
hypothesis, affective filter hypothesis.
- Environmentalist: Shuman’s acculturation model: pidginization, social dominance:
dominance, non-dominance, subordination; assimilation, acculturation, preservation;
enclosure, cohesiveness, cultural congruence; psychological distance factors: culture
shock, language shock

Interactionist: Givon’s functional typological theory: syntacticization; ZISA-model

Audio lecture 4: Regional and social varieties of language

Sociolinguistics, Chomskian approach, ‘ideal speaker’, synchronic variation, diachronic
variation, formality, age grading, jargon, the observer’s paradox (Labov), vernacular,
participant observation, rapid and anonymous interviews, sociological and ethnographic
tradition, speech community, dialect, patois, Weinreich (quote), Bell’s language criteria:
standardization, vitality, historicity, reduction, mixture, de facto norms, Koine, dialect
continuum, isogloss, dialect boundary, accent, social varieties, social dialectology, linguistic
markers

Audio lecture 5: Bilingualism and societal multilingualism

Bilingualism, plurilingual, balanced bilingualism, compound/coordinate bilingualism/sub-
coordinate bilingualism; simultaneous/sequential bilingualism; elective or
additive/circumstantial or subtractive bilingualism; internal, external functions, domain, code-
switching, societal multilingualism; language conflict, language maintenance, language shift,
language death, language loyalty, endangered language, isolation, revitalization, language
rights, pidgins, creoles, diglossia

Audio lecture 6: Linguistic change

Internal language change: coalescence, split, coinage; external language change: borrowing;
tree and wave model, age grading, panel and trend study, Labov (Martha’s Vineyard); linguistic
marketplace, theory of lexical diffusion, social network theory of language change

Audio lecture 7: Language and culture

Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, Pinker, kinship terminology, official or folk taxonomies, prototype
theory (Rosch); basic color terms, taboo, euphemism, political correctness

Audio lecture 8: Language and gender + language policy and language planning
Lakoff, gender-neutral terms, language policy/language planning; status planning, corpus
planning: normativism, prescriptivism; language education policy/acquisition planning:
planned (internal, external), unplanned; linguistic imperialism (Phillipson);
linguicism/linguistic racism

2020.02.14.

Introduction
Psycholinguistic and sociolinguistic aspects of SLA: these aspects are interrelated.

Theoretical framework: complex and dynamic systems approach. Meaning of its parts:
 - System: no phenomenon is isolated; all are embedded into a system. The system’s parts
are influenced by each other. Example: a human’s psychological being is a system. One
phenomenon, e.g. a stomachache can be caused by more things, for instance by anxiety
– but to state this, the whole system of the individual should be looked at.
- Dynamics: systems are never stable, they always change. The psycholinguistic aspects
of SLA are affected by many variables like motivation or social identity.

Within Krashen’s monitor hypothesis, his acquisition-learning hypothesis states that

acquisition is spontaneous and not conscious, while learning is conscious; the two are
unrelated, there is no interphase position between them. This theory was proven not to be true.

Overview on the history of linguistic data analysis

1. Behaviorism (notable names: Pavlov, Skinner): it was the earliest systematic description.
Linguistic data were collected in connection with language learning and acquisition. A
central question was how to build competence; for this a model for learning and acquisition
was set up (the two concepts were not yet distinguished back then). The model stated that
learning can be described by factors in a sequential order:

stimulus -> response -> reinforcement -> habit formation

Example: throw away a stick -> your dog brings it back -> gets food -> dog learns to fetch the

stick even if there is no food given.

Behaviorism stated that as by training animals, the pattern is the same with humans when they
learn, also in language learning.

Problems with the approach:

- It states that new habits replace older ones – this would mean that we get rid of the old
language? This may happen to a certain extent (ex-patriots having foreign accent in
their native language) but these processes are more complicated.
- Another implication is that the learner is irrelevant to the process of learning, so any
learner could be taught anything easily? In language learning it is not that simple;
although it is possible to tell how easy L2 acquisition would be based on the L1. If the L1
is similar to the L2, acquisition is easier.

Conclusion: behaviorism is accurate in describing some elements of learning. But its

misconceptions made researchers think about the role of the languages the learner knows, and
this led to the emergence of the next approach.

2. Contrastive analysis: systematic comparison of languages the learner knows + the target
language. CA assumes that similar features between languages would be easy to learn (e.g.
similar words), differences would cause difficulty (e.g. th sound for Hungarians).
CA studied language transfer: crosslinguistic influence between 2 or more languages; can be
negative or positive.
Ways of transfer: source languages patterns are used in the target language or the other way
around: foreign words in the native language.

Problems:
 - In experiments learners often did not produce expected errors (an assumption could be
that for Hungarians the feature of English that it is not agglutinating would mean a
problem but it does not).
- Learners produced unexpected errors that were not explicable with the help of CA.

Conclusion: contrastive analysis is relevant because it can explain some errors but cannot
predict them. The problems of CA were identified by the following approach.

3. Error analysis: systematic study of errors. The term interlingual error was coined by
EA (errors resulting from differences between languages).
Classification of errors: interlingual (between languages) and intralingual (within a
language).
The basis of EA is based on Chomsky’s understanding of language, that language learning is
rule formation (not habit). When learning a language we form rules based on our observations
and we test/apply the rule (hypothesis testing). Example: a child when acquiring English as
L1 observes that –d has to be added when referring to the past, so applies the rule even when
irregular forms should be used (overgeneralization), so such words as “goed”, “comed” or
“wented” are created.

Hypothesis testing is applicable in L2 acquisition as well – this means figuring out rules for
yourself and testing them. Example: one creates the hypothesis that in present tense there is no
ending for verbs and makes the error of not adding –s in 3 rd person singular because it does not
fit into the pattern.

Error analysis states that errors are natural parts of language acquisition/learning and cannot
be avoided.

Error: competence feature, it means not knowing what the rule is or having a false hypothesis.

Mistake: performance feature, this means you know the rule but fail to apply it; there is a
chance for self-correction after making a mistake.

Slip: performance feature, similar to mistake; it is likely to be self-corrected immediately.

Concept of interlanguage (Selinker, 1970s): it is a continuum stretching between L1 and L2,

approximating L2. It has a dual nature:

- Restructuring the continuum (what L1 has)

- Recreating the continuum (starting without hypotheses)

The concept is not accurate because the interlanguage is not stretching.

Developmental sequence: one goes along the same road when developing structures in
languages.

Problem of defining L2: is it native-like proficiency? On the one hand, it is almost impossible to
reach; and it is an idealization and hard to define as apart from the standard there are
substandard language varieties, and everyone has a personal, unique way of using a language
(idiolect).
Interlanguage: our own idiolect; a series of constantly changing, overlapping mental
grammars. Mental grammar: our current set of hypotheses about how the target language
works. While learning, some rules and hypotheses are changed. (More complex explanation in the following
lecture.)

Interlanguage development can stop -> fossilization (“turning into stone”): in SLA it can
happen, which can stop certain dimensions of interlanguage development like pronunciation.

Avoidance strategy: avoiding certain L2 structures or vocabulary items to prevent errors, it

leads to the underproduction of these structures but to the overproduction of alternative ones.
But in fact these are not errors, so error analysis is not enough to identify such strategies.

4. Performance analysis: analyzes total linguistic performance. This way over- and
underproduction can be identified but the context is not taken into consideration.
5. Discourse analysis: it is the most complete approach because all the linguistic
performance and the context are taken into consideration.

2020.02.28.

The linguistic environment in SLA, related concepts (input,

interlanguage, fossilization, communicative competence)

Phenomena in the linguistic environment in which SLA takes place:

Foreigner talk: the adjustment of speech to less proficient speakers. This is how
natives talk to foreigners (concept is from natives’ perspective). It also happens in non-native –
non-native discourse if one is more proficient.

Foreigner talk is often ungrammatical – a parallel can be drawn with caretaker speech, that is
ungrammatical too, but it provides a model to follow, whereas foreign talk is ungrammatical
because the message has to be made comprehensible.

Why does ungrammaticality happen? (From the more proficient person’s perspective)
1. Perception of low proficiency: the less proficient person may not understand the
correct form, so it is “dumbed down”: “go railway station” instead of “go to the railway
station”.
2. Higher social status: two cultures and languages come in contact. Social differences
might lead to the more proficient person emphasizing his/her status. In history, master-
slave discourse is an example for this phenomenon.
3. Prior foreigner talk experience: knowing how little foreigners know.
4. Spontaneity: no particular reason for foreigner talk (or other unidentified variables?).

Discourse features of foreigner talk: interactional patterns are different from normal
discourse.
How does the more proficient person participate?
- High frequency of questions, mainly for comprehension check.
- Topics: easily accessible, palpable, concrete content.
- Phonology: slow rate, stressing, wide pitch range.
- Morphology, syntax: shorter, simplified sentence structure, more questions.
 - Semantics: no idiomatic language.

How does the less proficient person participate? -> Applying discourse strategies:
- Paraphrasing: approximating the phrase he/she wants to communicate.
- Circumscribing the phrase.
- Coinage: creating a new word.
- Transfer: using a term or grammatical pattern from another language, can be positive
or negative (errors).
- Avoidance: avoid communicating what someone cannot communicate – different from
the other strategies, here the aim is not to communicate. In many cases, message
abandonment happens (which almost never happens in native-native discourses).

Deviant input: non-standard, non-mainstream forms. It is debated what can be considered

deviant because some not accepted form might be normal in other language varieties (e.g.
double negative in other sociolects).
Impact of deviant input: likely to generate certain types of errors in non-native speakers.

Frequency of input: the more input we get the better because it influences language
development and accuracy (presuming the input is accurate).
Theory behind this assumption: Krashen’s theory -> in his monitor theory there are 5
hypotheses, one being the input (i+1) hypothesis: we need comprehensible input for language
development and it should be i+1, slightly beyond our current level.

Related concepts:

Interlanguage: a continuum-like intermediary system between L1 and L2, a set of constantly

developing, overlapping mental grammars (our own idiolect). It is based on the process of
complexification: rules and hypotheses in our mind (mental grammars) are constantly coming
more in line with the actual rules; we are restructuring, recreating hypotheses in our mind. Part
of these is rooted in previously acquired languages, part is new. Interlanguage is a dynamic
system, except when it comes to a halt -> fossilization.

Why does fossilization happen?

Internal factors:

1. Age: there is no critical age for SLA but beyond an age it is getting increasingly difficult
(e.g. to approximate the phonological patterns of a foreign language), there is a tendency
for problems in SLA. But other variables like motivation can compensate for age.
2. Lack of desire to acculturate: Shuman’s acculturation model presumes that a big
social distance between the non-native person and natives has a negative impact on
second language development.
Patterns of integration: isolation (no integration), assimilation (integration and giving up on the
original language), acculturation (holding the own language and being culturally compatible
with the target language).
If the learner’s situation is close to isolation, fossilization is likely to happen. This model is only
applicable in SLA context (in a target language-speaking environment), and not in FLL.

External factors:

3. Communicative pressure: learners might be pressured to communicate beyond their

current level, for which they are not yet ready. This leads to fossilization.
4. Lack of input: if there is a lack in input, there is no reason or need for interlanguage
development.
5. Feedback: 2 ways:
- Negative feedback can crush motivation.
- Too much positive feedback can lead to fossilization too because it indicates that there is
no need to develop. The constant tolerance of errors can have similar effect.

Interlanguage characteristics:

Variability:

1. Free variability: fluctuation of performance (learner sometimes gets something right,

then wrong). Reason: it is a signal of developing hypotheses – learners are trying them
out and observe the feedback. This process is not always conscious.
2. Systematic variability: most frequent. There are systematic patterns of interlanguage
performance, which are predictable.
3. Amount of attention paid to language production: it does not mean how much
you are monitoring yourself but rather a sociolinguistic phenomenon. In interlanguage
production there is a continuum of speech styles ranging from being carefully monitored
(where much is at stake, like a formal speech) to the vernacular (which is not monitored;
like talking to friends and family). This attention-giving is not a competence issue but
function-related: how much you care about what you say, how formal you want to be.

Common acquisition orders: studies have shown that there is a common, fixed order of
morpheme acquisition in SLA, the stages of acquiring syntactic categories or structures are the
same even if learners’ L1s are different. For this reason these series of developmental sequences
are predictable for all learners.

Examples:
Acquiring interrogatives:
1. Rising intonation is learned.
2. Use of wh- questions without inversion: “Where you live?”
3. Overinversion: “Does she know who am I?”
4. Differentiation – rules are embedded accurately.

Negation:
1. External negation: using no + adding words.
2. Internal negation
3. Preverbal negation
4. Use of auxiliaries (can’t)
5. Analyzed auxiliary with negatives
Transfer: it can facilitate interlanguage development or can have a negative impact on it.
Perceived transferability: you may decide on what to transfer from the languages you
already know (not always conscious).

Models on communicative competence:

1. Chomsky’s structural description of language. His model presents the mechanics
of language but misses out on the interpersonal dimension/communicative function.

The following models made a distinction between linguistic and communicative competence.
These are also called CALP (cognitive academic language proficiency) and BICS (basic
interpersonal communicative skills) in other models.

2. Canale’s and Swain’s model: the novelty of this model was that communicate
competence was used as an umbrella term for the factors in the model.
Components of communicative competence:
1. Grammatical competence (same as linguistic competence initially)
2. Discourse competence (using the language)
3. Sociolinguistic competence (appropriateness from a sociocultural perspective)
4. Strategic competence: the ability to use communicative strategies effectively, to get the
message across even if lacking linguistic means (e.g. not knowing a word). These strategies can
be e.g. trying to mime, transfer things from L1, or asking someone to help (the latter is not
useful from a language learning perspective).

3. Diane Larsen-Freeman’s model:

Components of communicative competence:

1. Linguistic form
2. Pragmatic/functional competence
3. Propositional content (the actual message, meaning)
4. Interactional patterns (conversational rules)
5. Strategic competence.

4. Bachman’s models on language competence and communicative competence.

Pictures -> Reading 7B

5. CEFR model (Common European Framework of References): the most recent model.

Components of communicative competence:

1. General competences: e.g. skills, existential competence, the ability to learn in general.
2. Communicative language competences: linguistic competences (lexical, semantic...);
sociolinguistic competence (politeness, register); pragmatic competence (discourse, functional
and design competence).

Audio lecture 1: Individual learner differences and its impact on L2 acquisition

Individual differences have a significant impact on the process and product on SLA.
Fundamental issues related to individual differences:

How can we identify these variables? -> There are many variables, from physical characteristics
down to psychological variables; every human is unique -> so are there categories, if everyone is
unique? Even identical twins are different. -> Yes, specific individual differences make it
possible to categorize individuals.

How to interpret individual differences within variables? -> Language aptitude (learning ability
to learn another language) – misconception of having it or not (binary switch), but it is wrong.
All difference variables (e.g. intelligence, language aptitude etc.) are continua, not like
categories. Most individuals do not have extreme qualities on these continua – normal
distribution: when taking an attribute, there are few people with very high or very low attribute.

Significant individual variables:

1. Age: Often questionable, because it does not have the stability unlike other variables
(which depend on hereditary aspects or environment). But it is an individual attribute.

Critical period hypothesis (Lenneberg, 1967): if you do not acquire L1 until the onset of a
particular critical age (puberty), after that you are unable to develop a competence in L1.

How relevant is critical period hypothesis to L2? -> General assumption: you will not be able to
reach native-like proficiency in L2 after puberty, so the non-native speaker having a
performance indistinguishable from natives.

Problem of the term native-like proficiency: native speakers differ very much; is it an
appropriate point of reference? And language learners never reach and may not even want to
reach it.

Linguistic subsystems (reading, writing, listening, speaking) -> a lot of post-puberty L2

learners can develop native-like receptive skills and writing skills; but speaking (within that
pronunciation) is problematic, still distinguishable. So in pronunciation the critical period
hypothesis is relevant but there are a few exceptions too. Why are they capable of achieving
native-like proficiency? -> Other variables override, compensate for age effects: Living in the
target language environment, being surrounded by people to whom they are emotionally
attached, exposure to language, extreme motivation.

According to research age effects are real, it is harder to reach native-like proficiency but there
is no sharp drop, rather a gradual decline in the numbers. So are young learners better
learners? -> Proverb “younger is better, older is faster”: young learners tend to be successful on
the long run, but older learners learn faster.

Reasons:
1. Social-psychological factors, like inhibitions may affect adults more
2. Cognitive differences: cognitive operations, specifically abstract thinking hinders the
language acquisition device because it takes away resources, his leads to less success.
3. Input: young learners may receive better input.
4. Neurological reasons – lateralization (process, functional specification of the
hemispheres, ends at age 5), the young brain is more plastic, so more able to learn a
second language? -> No, age 5 is not a critical age.
5. Relying on different systems: memory-based (more compatible with acquisition,
children think that way) vs. rule-based (more compatible with learning, typical for
 adults). -> True, but young learners are slightly more likely to be more successful in the
long run.

2. Language aptitude: it was believed to be the most important variable for a long time.
It has 25% contribution to SLA.

Assumption: a high degree of aptitude leads to success, low to failure?

1930s-1940s: beginnings, models and tests of language aptitude. Prognosis tests (aptitude tests)
had no theoretical background, they were simply practical, to identify potentially successful
learners. MLAT (Modern Language Aptitude Test): popular even in the present. Carroll’s
model is the background for it. Categories:
1. Phonetic decoding ability
2. Grammatical sensibility
3. Rote learning ability
4. Inductive language learning ability: deducing rules.

The MLAT has become the model for further tests (e.g. MENYÉT in Hungarian)

PLAB: Pimsleur’s Language Aptitude Battery:

1. Verbal intelligence (knowledge of words, ability to reason about verbal material)
2. Motivation
3. Auditory ability

Difference from MLAT: motivation – most controversial element, it is not related to language
aptitude. PLAB is less popular.

Common in MLAT, PLAB: no relation to communication skills.

How important is language aptitude? -> Common belief of binary switch. In fact, people with a
higher degree of aptitude are likelier to be successful because they are faster, so the rate of
learning is influenced by aptitude (not the outcome). But speed is not always significant,
children learn slower, so in their case aptitude is less relevant. Fast learning, the experience of
success may give motivation, slow learners may give up.

3. Motivation: the most decisive individual difference variable, key to success.

Motivation research in L2 began in Canada (it has English and French parts) by Garner,
Lambert about learners in immersion programs.

Dichotomies of motivation types: integrative vs. instrumental motivation.

- Integrative motivation: wanting to be part of the target language community -> false
approach. Meaning: identifying with target language speakers, culture; positive
approach, but not wanting to become part of it and lose your own identity.
- Instrumental: utilitarian purposes – learning to achieve another goal (making more
money), language just a tool, instrument.
But sometimes the difference is not clear-cut. Motivation is like a continuum between these
factors.
Later framework: intrinsic vs. extrinsic motivation.
- Intrinsic: coming from within the learner, selfless interest in the language, enjoyment
of language learning for its sake, pleasure
- Extrinsic motivation: from outside the learner, external motive, it can be positive:
reward, or threat: losing a job.

Resultative motivation: gained from success: achieving success propels you forward <-> but
success may not be a powerful motivator: the message of success can be that you have reached
the goal, so why carry on with learning?

Situated nature of motivation: the context in which learning takes place influences
motivation. Contextual variables influence motivation greatly (e.g. classroom environment).

Dynamic nature of motivation: motivation is not stable, can change rapidly. It can be
generated, maintained.

Dörnyei, István Ottó: process model of motivation: pre-actional (created, generated),

actional (maintained), post-actional stages (motivational retrospection, looking back, preparing
to the next pre-actional stage) –> It is a cyclical process, but rather spiral-like (going around
but one stage up). It links to the dynamic nature of motivation.

4. Attitudes as variable:
Related to age: at a young age parents’ attitudes influence learners’ behavior. Teenagers: peer
attitudes are more important, social dynamic.
Independent of age: the learning situation and teachers affect attitudes; ethnicity (e.g. when a
minority is forced to learn the majority’s language, they will have a negative attitude).

5. Personality: traits showing some correlation with success in L2:

- Self-esteem – being happy with yourself and confident, but can be specific, e.g. self-
esteem related to language learning.
- Extroversion-introversion: in L2 learning introverts tend to be slightly more
successful but extroverts are more successful in face-to-face interactions. But differences
are not that big.
- Anxiety:
Facilitating anxiety: makes you pay more attention, do better.
Debilitating anxiety: detrimental, pulls you back, hinders from good performance. The ideal
level of anxiety helps in producing the best possible result.
Language anxiety: anxiety related to language learning, it has no ideal level, because it only has
a negative effect.
- Risk-taking ability: who take higher risks do not worry about making mistakes and
communicating (could have negative impact too).
- Sensitivity, tolerance etc.

6. Cognitive style: preferred and habitual ways of accessing, processing, retaining and
recalling information. The preference can be strong or mild.

Preferred means we can also operate outside of it.

Habitual: we are used to do it that way (genetic, environmental influence).

Dimensions, e.g. field-dependence vs. field-independence may have a role; or being an

oral/visual learner, or being reflective/impulsive.

Effect of cognitive styles:

What does it depend on?
- How strong is your preference?
- How much is your preference in line with the received input? -> environment (e.g. if a
visual learner receives rather oral input, it is not advantageous)

The combination of preference and environment.

7. Hemisphere specialization: left hemisphere-dominant people: usually better at

logical, analytic thinking; right: matching patterns, creativity. But dominance is
individually different.
8. Learning strategies: could relate to cognitive style dimensions, so the effectiveness
how they are used contributes to success. Who use more strategies is more successful.
9. Memory
10. Willingness to communicate
11. Sex differences: females tend to be more successful in SLA, maybe because of their
social constructs.
12. Prior experiences
13. L1 literacy and so on.

These factors are interrelated; they should never be looked at in isolation -> complex
dynamic system.

Audio lecture 2: Language transfer

Language transfer: negative influence resulting from similarities between the native
language and previously acquired languages. Has a significant role in L2 development.

Misconceptions:
- Transfer is a consequence of habit formation (behavioristic idea of learning) – habit
formation is an element of learning but transfer is not based on it.
- Language transfer is interference: in Krashen’s monitor theory transfer is referred to as
native language interference, problems with it: 1. Transfer can be positive (e.g.
genetically related languages); 2. Source language is not only the native language.
- Transfer is one-way street relying only on source language patterns in the target
language – substratum transfer. No, it works vice versa too – borrowing transfer
(e.g. talking about this course in Hungarian, using English terminology).

Historical background of language transfer research:

Contrastive analysis: comparing two languages, identifying similarities, differences ->
predicting what will be easy and difficult for the acquisition process. Problems: learners not
producing expected errors, vice versa.
Structural factors: transfer exists in all linguistic subsystems (phonetics, morphology,
syntax etc.)
1. Discourse (discourse analysis studies it)
- Politeness; it is often there in transfer. Directness of requests is different in languages
(cultural norms, expectations): English: “please open the window” is polite; “would you
be so kind...” is very polite. Such aspects of politeness can be transferred, e.g. using the
same polite structure in Russian: it would be problematic, misunderstandable,
superpolite (no need to be that indirect in a Russian request, “Open the window” is not
impolite, unlike in English).
- Apologetic phrases: East Asian cultures have many, they do not express genuine
apologies, but they are parts of natural discourse to show respect. English: apologizing
only when we have done something wrong. So e.g. a Japanese may sound ridiculous or
superpolite if apologizes in English.
- Greetings: cognates in more languages may not be the same, e.g. hello in English
(informal and semi-formal settings, e.g. greeting radio listeners) and Hungarian (very
informal, e.g. friends, family).
- Conversational style: degree of formality, what is appropriate – there are formality
markers.
- Coherence: composite of logicality and relevance – they are not universal concepts ->
relevance is perceived differently in languages, e.g. in Japanese narratives narrators
wander off from the topic, bring loosely connected elements, in English it seems
incoherent. Transfer of different norms of coherence.
2. Semantics:
- Cognates (cognate vocabulary): vocabulary items stemming from a common root,
meaning the same (Eng. house, Germ. Haus). Cognates are useful in L2 acquisition ->
positive transfer. But false cognates/faux-amis exist too: morphologically similar,
semantically different: English embarrassed vs. Spanish embarazada: pregnant;
sympathetic vs. szimpatikus. In language learning teachers often call attention to false
friends to prevent negative transfer. But: learners, who have been warned, tend to
mistrust genuine cognates as well.
- Linguistic relativism: the language we use has an impact on how we perceive reality;
reflects on how we see the world. Sociolinguistic loading may be different in languages:
interesting translated to érdekes, but in informal context: connotation with the speaker
not particularly liking it but wants to be polite. It may lead to misunderstandings.
3. Syntax:
- Word order: basic word order patterns – subject-verb-object (SVO, VSO... languages).
Rigidity of the basic word order: little (English)/flexible (Hungarian) opportunity to
change the pattern. If there is a difference in the basic word order between the source
and the target language, transfer may happen. But learners are mostly made conscious
of it during L2 learning. When the source l has a flexible word order, learners tend to
keep to the rigidity of L2. But vice versa: the rigidity gets transferred to L2, learners stick
to that pattern.
- Relative clauses: defining/non-defining. Location can precede/follow the main
clause: right (relative clause on the right of the main clause)/left-branching languages.
+, - transfer can happen.
4. Phonetics, phonology:
The most ominous, clear indication of transfer is having a foreign accent. 1990s: retraining of
Hungarian Russian teachers to English teachers -> Russian accent in English.
- Segmental: not using the dark l, th sound
- Super-segmental dimension: stress, intonation (sentence level) patterns are transferred,
e.g. in Hungarian every first syllable is stressed, transferred to English -> Hungarian
accent.
5. Writing systems:

Language groups:
- Alphabetic systems – each symbol stands for a particular phoneme (within: Latin,
Cyrillic script, modern Korean).
- Syllabic writing systems.
- Idiographic: each symbol stands for a morpheme (Chinese).

Between different writing systems there is no transfer.

Non-structural factors: not associated with linguistic subsystems but effectively influencing
transfer phenomena.
1. Personality: some individuals are more likely to transfer (e.g. higher risk-taking
ability).
2. Aptitude for phonetic mimicry: ability to mimic sounds that do not exist in the
source language. MLAT -> phonetic coding ability.
3. Level of proficiency: high – transfer less frequent. There is no direct relation.
4. L1 literacy: the more literate learners are in L1, the less likely they are to transfer
(oversimplification).

Audio lecture 3: Theories of SLA

Overview of SLA theories:

Unidimensional:
- Nativist: Chomsky’s universal grammar theory, Krashen’s monitor model
- Environmentalist: John Shuman’s acculturation model (pidginization)

Interactionist: Givon’s functional typological theory, ZISA-model

Categorization of SLA theories: unidimensional (one factor, variable determines

success) and interactionist theories (variety of variables, combined effect). Unidimensional
ones are limited in their approach because they focus on just one factor so they are not correct,
but they were the ones which served the base of interactionist theories, they are still important.
Complex dynamic systems approach seems to be legitimate.

Unidimensional theories: nativist (innate variable is responsible for failure/success) and

environmental (environment determines them).

Unidimensional – nativist theories:

1. Chomsky’s universal grammar theory (comes from first language acquisition
research): there is a unique human ability to acquire language, universal grammar in all
languages; language acquisition device is what only humans have.
Research: primates, dolphins can be taught language (sign language) – this research is not
reliable. What these animals communicated cannot be linked to real language.
LAD is ability, not a device or a particular part of the brain. After puberty there is a sharp
decline in LAD (critical period).

Why was it presumed that humans need special ability? -> The input that children receive is not
sufficient, or complex enough to produce output that they do, input does not justify/warrant
children producing language (children produce such things they have never heard, they
construct rules based on the input, produce language on their own), so there needs to be some
ability – poverty of the stimulus argument.

How compatible are these ideas with SLA? -> Problems with applying universal grammar ideas
in SLA context: critical period hypothesis <-> successful adult L2 learners.

2. Krashen’s monitor model (improved into a theory with 5 hypotheses):

1. Acquisition/learning hypothesis: there is an innate mechanism for language acquisition; and

a parallel mechanism responsible for language learning; acquisition and learning are totally
independent and separate processes and ways to develop L2 competence, non-interphase
position. Other studies argue for the existence for the interphase.

2. Natural order hypothesis: there is a predictable, fixed sequence for the acquisition of L2 rules
(morpheme acquisition order studies: L2 learners pass through the same stages of language
development regardless of native language). The order cannot be changed, has to be followed ->
inspiring lots of textbooks.

3. Monitor hypothesis: if you have learned the knowledge in another language, you have the
opportunity to monitor and self-correct your own performance. But it is only possible if 3
conditions are met: knowledge (conscious understanding) of the rule; consciously focusing on
form, not content; there needs to be time to monitor and self-correct yourself.

4. Input hypothesis: the most useful input that truly needs to L2 development is
comprehensible input, which triggers the LAD, and it is still comprehensible but a bit beyond
the learner’s current level: i+1.

5. Affective filter hypothesis: there cannot be obstacle in L2 acquisition/learning; nothing can

block the useful input. Emotional ground, if the affective filter is up (not letting anything
through), no development is possible, e.g. not feeling comfortable, motivated.

Criticism of Krashen’s theories:

1. Acquisition-learning hypothesis – there is actually an interphase.

2. Natural order hypothesis: the morpheme acquisition studies measured accuracy, so they
identified accuracy orders (not acquisition orders) were identified; and the focus was only on
English.

3. Monitor hypothesis: how to measure objectively monitoring? Knowing the rule is necessary?
-> Natives should be unable to monitor themselves based on the theory (subconscious
knowledge). Only when focusing on form? -> No, also when meaning is observed. Having time?
-> Actually it is always happening regardless of time.
4. Input hypothesis: problem of i+1: +1 is not specified, what kind of input is challenging but
still understandable? In practice it is problematic.

5. Affective filter hypothesis: what is the filter made up of, how does it function, how does it go
up/down? The theory does not specify that.

Unidimensional – environmentalist theories:

John Shuman’s acculturation model, pidginization hypothesis.

Pidginization: process of languages coming in an imbalanced contact (e.g. more powerful

social group), pidgin languages are born for mutual communication, very simplified language
version is born (e.g. for trading). SLA as a process is like two languages coming into contact, if
SLA is not successful; learners are stuck on pidginization level. Shuman’s model was created for
SLA, its main idea was that social distance determines the success of SLA, social variables are
related to the L2 environment.

There are 8 factors that determine the success of SLA.

1. Social dominance: 3 potential levels:

- Dominance (target language is dominant, acquisition of L2)
- Non-dominance (languages equal partners)
- Subordination (L2 is subordinated)

2. Pattern of integration: 3 scenarios:

- Assimilation (entirely giving up linguistic and cultural identity)
- Acculturation (ideal according to Shuman: preserve your identity but become an organic part
of the target language culture, and develop a high L2 competence)
- Preservation (isolating yourself from L2 community)

3. Enclosure: how much is the L1 group closed, exclusive to L2 speakers? High level: socializing
with each other in the L1 group only, with the target language community not.

4. Cohesiveness of the L1 group: if high, they stick together, e.g. Chinese in the US.

5. Size of the L1 group: a large group, likely that you do not socialize outside the group.

6. Cultural congruence: cultural distance between the cultures associated with L1, L2. Greater
congruence: positive to L2 acquisition.

7. Attitudes of the social environment.

8. Intended length of residence: how long you want to stay in the L2 environment, if long: likely
to develop high competence.

Psychological distance factors: culture shock (not being prepared for cultural differences),
language shock, motivation, ego permeability/empathy in the host environment.

Pidginization happens on group level; L2 acquisition may happen with an individual too.
Interactionist theories:

Givon’s functional typological theory (based on syntactic analysis): theory of language

change. Starting point is a discourse-driven language/pragmatic mode (just focusing on the
message), which over time becomes syntax-driven: syntacticization -> e.g. subject-predicate
sequence of utterances, rapid speed of delivery, complex grammatical morphology, longer
utterances, and appropriateness.

ZISA-model (Gruppe zum Erwerb des Deutschen als Zweitsprache von Muttersprachlern
romanischer Sprachen): based on the word order studies of guest workers from Italy and Spain
in Germany. Developmental dimension (5 stages of development) and variational dimension,
these two are interacting. Novelty of the model: variational aspects of L2 acquisition.

Audio lecture 4: Regional and social varieties of language

Brief overview on sociolinguistics: cross-section of sociology and linguistics, social aspects of

language are studied, e.g. social phenomena in language.

Beginning: Chomskian approach treated language as a system, which is independent of the

users, any variation is considered to be confusion, phrase of the ‘ideal speaker’ – not a
comprehensive approach to language, performance or language variation not important, or
variation.

Sociolinguistics:

Synchronic variation: variation at a given point in time: regional, social varieties.

Diachronic variation: variation over time, language change.

Language is a dynamic system. Speakers of languages develop different styles in formality:

formal/informal. Age grading: style changes as the person grows older. Jargon: language
variety used by a section of the society.

Sociolinguistics vs. sociology: Sociolinguistics: study of society to learn about language

(micro-end), sociology: study of language to learn about society (macro-end of the continuum).

How does sociolinguistics work? -> Observation on how people use the language. The
observer’s paradox (William Labov): if you intend to learn about language use, you observe
the people, but the fact that they are observed, changes their language use – especially in case of
the vernacular: the least monitored language (used in the family or with closest friends).

Partial solutions for the observer’s paradox:

- Participant observation: observing yourself (e.g. how you use vernacular with
friends). Often it is not a solution.
- Rapid and anonymous interviews: addressing, asking people, they respond
immediately, without you telling them that you are observing their language use.

Data analysis in sociolinguistics: 2 approaches:

- Sociological tradition – quantitative approach, statistical, systematical analysis
of a massive data amount; done through questionnaire studies, e.g. a question could be:
In ... situation, what would be your answer?
 - Ethnographic tradition: interview of an individual, qualitative understanding of
the language use to elicit examples of speech; degree of formality is different.
What could increase formality: e.g. to ask them to read out a text -> it is the most monitored
form of language use.

Less formal: when something unexpected happens during the interview or the researcher
deliberately provokes the interviewee to do less formal things, e.g. to remember a particular
situation or asks a personal question -> less attention to language is paid.

The ethnographic tradition is more specific and insightful. Observations of people are possible
too but the observer’s paradox is present, it is less useful in some cases.

Study of regional and social varieties of the language:

Any single language user uses more varieties, e.g. depending on the formality of speech styles.
Question of sociolinguistics: how does language vary on the level of speech communities?
(Families, county, country)

Speech communities:
- Liberal definition: anyone is a speech community member who speaks the language at
any level (less frequent);
- A network of speakers who share the same attitudes to and knowledge about language,
and share the same repertoire of language. -> According to it, users of British, American
and Scottish English or those who use the Received Pronunciation are distinct
communities. There is functional and spatial variation is language.

Study of regional varieties: linked to historical linguistics, both synchronic and diachronic
variation is looked at. Dialect: regional variety. Problem: dialect often has negative undertone
because it is different from standard. Some are less prestigious, stigmatized -> the patois
(social baggage of varieties) is different, e.g. in GB people make money by teaching others to get
rid of their regional variety.

Dialect: Greek term, Ancient Greek had many varieties, such as Ionic, Doric, Attic for different
purposes, Ionic was used by Greek historians; Doric in choral and lyric works; Greek tragedies
were written in Attic. Koine (Athenian) became standard later, it was the lingua franca all
across the Mediterranean, the New Testament was also written in Koine Greek.

How do dialects relate to languages? -> Sometimes dialects are more similar to other languages
than to the language they are considered to be parts of. Difference between language and
dialect: dialect is subordinated to language; difference is intelligibility (problematic
understanding), certain regional varieties make it impossible to native speakers to understand
each other. Czech and Slovak are different languages, still can understand each other, or
Norwegians and Swedish. -> Where to draw the line if 2 languages are mutually
understandable, aren’t they dialects? It is a sensitive topic, e.g. in ex-Yugoslavian countries,
Serbo-Croatian was spoken everywhere, but now there are many independent states, they claim
they speak Croatian/Serbian/Bosnian etc. They are considered independent languages because
the countries are independent. “A language is a dialect with an army and a navy” (Max
Weinreich). So language is no different than dialect, just it belongs to an independent country.
-> Often not linguistic but political matter.

But despite that criteria were made for the description of languages. Bell’s criteria:
1. Standardization – only languages have standard, codified varieties – associated with the
status, what is not standardized is only a dialect. Problem: some languages not even having
written forms (South American native groups); but in Europe it can be a relevant criterion.

2. Vitality: existence of a living community, a speech community uses this language – relevant
in case of modern languages. There are dead languages: Sanskrit, Latin (although modern Latin
is used: Italian, Spanish, Portuguese etc., so Latin did not die just metamorphosed, it all began
with regional varieties, which developed into languages).

3. Historicity: how speakers find a sense of identity in the way of using language. Not true:
with some regional varieties people associate themselves as well, for example Scottish identity.

4. Autonomy: no objective measure.

5. Reduction: concept of how a variety is subordinated to a language; Scottish is a variety

because it is subordinated to English, while English is independent. Languages emerge out of
varieties.

6. Mixture: how members feel about the purity of the language, is mixing with other languages
accepted? Different attitudes and sensitivity: in France there is legislation that forbids using
foreign terms in French (legal backing to protect the purity of the language). German: no such
legislation, tendency of German words being replaced by English terms.

7. De facto norms: perceived norms of proper usage, what is standard? -> In a language there
is a general sense of uncodified norms in the community, it changes over time.

Vernacular: primary medium of communication of people in close ties. Koine: (as a generic
term) form of speech shared by people of different vernaculars, commonly accessible language
form, shared variety.

Dialects:
No sharp difference in space but gradual difference –> dialect continuum.

When a particular feature can be identified as different between dialects (e.g. one vowel sound
is different) -> isogloss: the line you can draw on a map where different features exist.

Collecting, combining all isoglosses, identifying areas where sets of features are different:
dialect boundary between 2 regional varieties.

Accent: not the same as dialect, just a pronunciation feature of a dialect.

How exactly do regional varieties emerge?

- Geographical boundaries: e.g. mountain range or a boundary dividing parts of the
community (e.g. British and American English were far away, so they developed
separately)
- Political boundaries: East and West Germany; there are features of East German which
do not stem from geographical differences but from political separation.
- Migration: e.g. into the US.
- Language contact: coming into contact with speakers of other languages, influence on
one another: loan words becoming part of a regional variety.
Social varieties: social stratification of language. Causes:
- Social class: lower, middle, upper. Cast system in India: the pariah (the untouchables)
speaks a very distinct, incomprehensible variety.
- Religion: e.g. Northern Ireland there were conflicts between Catholics and Protestants,
there were linguistic manifestations of differences; or Hungarian: the term Christian
was translated in two ways: keresztény (Catholic), keresztyén (Protestant).
- Ethnicity: ethnic groups develop their own varieties: AAVE (African American
vernacular English).
- Age also causes social variation.

These factors interact with each other, complex interrelationship, studied by social
dialectology, it identifies linguistic markers: features associated with characteristics of a
specific group.

Audio lecture 5: Bilingualism and societal multilingualism

Cross-section of psycho- and sociolinguistic topics.

Bilingualism: two interpretations.

1. (More popular): native, native-like competence in two languages, attached to contexts
where people acquire 2 languages simultaneously.
2. Having some degree of competence in 2 languages (plurilingual: differing degree of
competence in more than 2 languages, used by the Council of Europe predominantly).

Balanced bilingualism: equally strong competence in both languages, rare because the high
competence may be in different fields.

Criteria to describe the competence of bi-/plurilinguals:

1. Identification of the involved languages: what languages do they speak; the

complication of distinguishing varieties and languages arises here.

2. Examination of the mechanisms, processes how they were acquired=whether the

languages in question are native, second or foreign languages (mechanisms/processes: L1
acquisition, SLA, FLL).

3. Age of learning/acquiring; time spent using the languages (more significant): 2 bilingual
types:

- Compound bilinguals: who learn/acquire one language through the other at the same time;
there is a single system of meaning, e.g. where parents speak 2 different languages, 2 sets of
vocabularies referring to the same concepts are developed.

- Coordinate bilingualism: separate contexts for language acquisition, 2 systems of meaning

are formed: e.g. parents speak the same language but at school a different language is used, in
immigrant families it is typical -> different concepts will develop. FLL can be considered as
coordinate bilingualism: we learn the L2 in the different context, e.g. evening meal in HU, and
English: more types: tea, supper, dinner; different understanding of these terms if you learn
this language).

- Sometimes a 3rd type is mentioned: sub-coordinate bilingualism: more like coordinate but
one language is clearly dominant.
Pairs of words are stored in the same brain part in case of compound bilinguals (in common
brain structures but separated), in all other cases in different parts.

4. Skills: level of competence is not the same in all skills, e.g. receptive skills are more
developed, even in the native language writing may not be that proficient. Depending on the
skill there may be a preference for a language.

5. Use of internal functions: term: functions of language not accessible to the external
world. Choice of language for an internal function, preference is related to the context; e.g. an
internal function is counting in doing a math problem, and what language one uses, no one can
access that. Dreaming, praying (not aloud) are internal functions too.

6. External functions: activities; visible, accessible aspects of language use. CEFR

descriptors: can-do statements (e.g. can read a newspaper in the target language) are such
external functions. There may be preferences, e.g. to do a presentation in one language.

7. Analysis of the domains:

Domain=cluster of 3 specific components: location, role relationships, topic. These form a
unique combination, these are associated with use language e.g. home (location), family (role
relationship) members, domestic issues (topic) -> language of the home is used; but if one
aspect is changed, a new domain emerges, and potentially leads to language change; e.g. the
same situation but in a public place: may choose another language.

Bilinguals have a preferred language for certain domains. There may be domain-related rules of
language choice, conventional role, e.g. in the university lecture hall discussing things in
English because it is required – domain-related rule; in other situations personal preferences
are more important. Variety of performance features; equal ability in all languages is extremely
rare.

Other classifications of bilingualism, based on time frame:

- Simultaneous: time frame is common for the acquisition of the languages, e.g. when
the parents are speaking 2 different languages.
- Sequential: one after the other

- Elective or additive: you select to learn a language and add it to your competence.
- Circumstantial or subtractive: the reason you are learning is because of the
circumstances, you lose some of your L1 competence in expanse of L2.

Code-switching: change from one language to another, can happen between/within

sentences, even in a word (add a suffix in another language).
Reasons: emphasis, competence, or not having one word in a language (e.g. food, Scottish
haggis), signal of solidarity or identity.
Borrowing can result from code-switching if a large number of people start code-switching in
case of a term.

Societal multilingualism: societies being multilingual. Monolingual speech communities are

very rare. There are even fewer monolingual countries.
Reasons/explanations for the existence of multilingual speech communities:
1. Migration (voluntary or involuntary), mass migration: bringing the language, culture with
them.

2. Urbanization: e.g. Africa in rural areas many different cultures live.

3. Conquests, colonization: language, culture are transferred, e.g. India, English continues
to be an official language and as a lingua franca after it is no longer a colony, or North Africa:
French.

4. Voluntary federation: territories decide to form a state – multilingual entity is formed

(Switzerland, Belgium).

Most common scenario when languages come into contact: language conflict, one language
will be dominant; issues occur like language maintenance (wish to keep your language if you
are oppressed); language shift (a community of speakers gradually give up their original
native language and speak the dominant language, cease to be a language community). The end
result of language shift is language death (last remaining speaker of a language dies, e.g. in
cases of Native American languages) emerge. Language loyalty: how much you are ready to
stand up to the pressure of the dominant language and preserve yours. Endangered
language: there are some remaining older native speakers but the language is no longer passed
on to the next generation.

Conscious resistance to languages becoming endangered or oppression, can be successful, like

isolation (e.g. Amish, Hassidic Jews in USA, Navajo natives), and retain their original
language.

Language death does not necessarily mean the disappearance of the language, revitalization
can happen:

Irish Gaelic – revitalization is partly true only: it is an official language in Ireland, there are
bilingual signs, Irish Gaelic is taught in schools but in reality most Irish are native speakers of
English; although there has been no language death, in the west coast it has always been
present.

Modern Hebrew: successful revitalization of Hebrew with the formation of Israel as a medium;
Hebrew is used everyday communication, Ivrit/Modern Hebrew has become the native
language of many Israelis.

Language shift can be reversed, e.g. in Spain, Cataluña: Catalan is spoken in, around
Barcelona. With Basque the situation is similar. Baltic States were against russification in Soviet
times.

Language is an element of ethnic identity, issues related to it are related to emotions, identity,
political will.

Language rights: 2 interpretations:

1. Survival of the language, right to remain a living language, like biodiversity (although the
disappearance of a language does not have as drastic effects as if a species dies out).
2. Language rights of the speakers, to use a language, have access to education in that language,
can express their culture.

Pidgins and creoles:

Pidgins: contact languages with limited use, resulting from an imbalanced contact, e.g.
master-slave discourse, or trade language, in closed communities pidgins remained despite that
the imbalanced context was gone.

Creoles: pidgin speakers pass down the language on the following generations, it becomes the
native language for them, and is capable to express more functions, from that point on the
language is a creole. When the creole is introduced to the source language again, decreolization
can happen. The creole is kept, but only in the highest social position.

Functional allocation in the community: diglossia – 2 distinct varieties or languages for

specific purposes are used, e.g. Nigeria: English for formal things; South America: Spanish as
official; or Switzerland: High and Low German. Greece: 2 official varieties of Modern Greek.
The high language is associated with authority and prestige; the low with membership of an
ethnic group.

Tendency towards in-between varieties, triglossic/poliglossic situations are created.

Audio lecture 6: Linguistic change

Can change be observed? Traditional answer: no, only the consequences and results can be
identified, because change is a long process. It comes from the idea that we can observe
variation (not change), and we cannot make a difference between language change and
variation.

Types of linguistic change:

Internal language change:

Sound changes:
- Coalescence: distinction between 2 sounds is lost over time: meat/meet used to be
different.
- Split: a previously not existing change emerges: house (pronounced as haus as noun or
hauz as a verb), it has not always existed.

Morphology/syntax changes

Coinage of new words

External language change: some external source exerts influence on mechanisms, e.g.
borrowing – a term or structure from another language is incorporated into the language.
Code switching of bilinguals can lead to borrowing, after some time borrowings become
indistinguishable from the language into which they were imported.

Why would a language borrow something?

- There are new cultural phenomena or creatures for which there are no terms in another
language, e.g. tea, kangaroo.
 - Cultural influence; or the lingua franca nature of English encourages speakers of other
language to use English words (it is a hypothesis), example: the tendency in German to
use English words instead of German words (Job vs. Beruf).

How are borrowings received? Not all members would have the same response: they welcome
them or view borrowings as intruders to get rid of. Whether borrowings survive depends on the
attitude of the speech communities.

Models of language change:

Tree model (traditional): it presents languages and language changes like a family tree: the
original language goes through stages, splits, branching off in different directions; the varieties
of each language can be represented on the tree, the proto-language can be traced back. Internal
language change is its theoretical framework.

Wave model: it supposes that change does not happen by branching off but like throwing
stones into a pond – they generate waves, which are like sets of concentric circles, the closer
waves are bigger, to the outside they get smaller. Each stone produce circles, the waves
interfere, a unique wave pattern is formed. So change is not unidirectional, there are more
potential sources acting together, and result in a unique outcome. Water is constantly in motion
– in line with the dynamic nature of language, we cannot foresee all movements in the future.
We are able to observe the changes based on the waves – it needs to be recognized as process
leading to change. The long-term and stable variation of language is reflected in the wave
model; progressive and linear change. Regional and social variation of language tends to be
stable.

How does language change appear?

Change typically appears in the speech of young speakers, but the challenge in studying their
language use is the issue of age grading: when we grow older, we change our language (it is
not language that changes but we), although some elements may remain.

How to make sure that it is a marker of genuine language change and not just an indication of
young people’s language? -> Panel and trend study; both involve decades.

Panel study: a panel of participants is observed at a given point of time, researchers record
their language use; then come back after 2-3 decades, observe them again, detect their changes.
For such an experiment a fairly large cohort is needed, and it is difficult that we would have
access to all of them later on too.

Trend study: a representative sample of language users are studied, 20-30 years later
researchers look for a representative sample again (not the exact same people). Risk: a slightly
different group is observed later.

Why does language change happen?

There could be further reasons for internal change, like desire for solidarity: Labov’s
observations in 1960s: Martha’s Vineyard (USA island on the East Coast), with 5-6 thousand
people; in the summer masses go there for holiday; natives indicated in their language use
during the summer that they were natives, to represent their local identity, retaining a
particular accent, after some time even summer people started to use this accent as a sign of
solidarity with the islanders.
Linguistic marketplace: the base is that certain value, labels are attached to different types
of language use; certain varieties, such as standard varieties are considered to be more valuable.
People may want to pay money, e.g. in Britain, to get rid of their regional accent. The linguistic
marketplace has a connection to the job market -> people want to sound educated, cultivated.

Gender dimension to language change (simplified approach): women tend to show preference
for higher prestige forms, lead the way to language change; they tend to follow language norms
more.

There are two processes: to move toward the norm (change from the unconscious to the
conscious), or away from the norm (to the unconscious).

Synchronic and diachronic linguistic variations are interrelated, past and present can be
explained with each other.

Theory of lexical diffusion: it is used to explain sound changes like vowel shifts. When
change happens, it spreads gradually.

Changes within a time frame: (time and proportion of changing words), 1. For a given time you
will be able to track vowel change just in a small number of items; 2. Then in a short time span
there is an explosion: a high proportion of words show change, 3. Then the rate gets slower.

Other interpretation of the same phenomenon: the number of speakers in whose language you
can observe changes: 1. Up to a particular proportion there is a minor influence, 2. When
reaching a critical mass, the proportion of words showing change skyrockets, 3. When it reaches
a high number, growth slows down.

Social network theory of language change: there are networks that speakers form
(stronger, looser bonds), and language change spreads more effectively in loose networks.

Observation: language change may be in relation with lifestyle and ideologies; two groups:
those who are striving for better educational results; others not -> it resulted in different
language use (so not based on social class but lifestyle trajectory).

Audio lecture 7: Language and culture

Interrelationship, how they affect each other.

Sapir-Whorf hypothesis:
- Strong version: the structure of the language you use determines how you see the world
around you.
- Weak version: language is influential in predisposing its speakers to accept a world view;
so you are likely to interpret the world in a certain way.

Whorf’s examples:
- Eskimos have lots of words for snow, because it is such an important aspect of their
culture.
- Hopi Indians: special linguistic structures: no concept of time, strange system of count
and non-count nouns.

Criticism of the hypothesis (Pinker): the Hopi claim was based on just one interview, so the
claims may not be true. In reality, Hopi language does not have a significantly different time
concept from European languages. Eskimo and the many words for snow: there are no more
words than in English.

But language and culture are connected, and linguistic patterns related to culture do exist.
Vocabulary: for instance, a Native American tribe has lots of words for ants, but they have no
collective term (ant) because ants are so different for them, and so important in their culture
that they do not want to make a generalizing term. Bedouin Arabs have many words for
different types of camels.

Not only vocabulary items can be an example but tense too: English – aspects (simple,
continuous): the difference between did and have done can be understood for non-native
English speakers but cannot be translated.

Cultural patterns, unique cultural concepts related to culture: breakfast as a concept of a

morning meal, reason: breaking the fast – eat for the first time for a long time of not eating.
Evening meal: dinner, supper, tea – conceptually different, not easily explicable or translatable.

When looking at the relationship of culture and language, genetically related languages do not
always have the same cultural patterns, e.g. Hungarian and Finnish are linguistically related,
but their cultural patterns are very different. Hungarian and German: many cultural
similarities, cultural concepts are mostly common, despite that the languages are not related.

Doubt of the hypothesis: based on it, certain languages should not be able to develop some
notions, but it is not true; e.g. technological advances are accepted by all cultures.

Conclusion: the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis has some relevance but we should not accept its
deterministic approach.

Study of kinship terminology: what words do cultures have to describe family relationships
and how are they used in other contexts? Similarity across cultures: there are sophisticated,
unique terms to describe family relationships, and complex tribal systems are reflected in
kinship terminology.

- Korean: formality aspects appear in terminology (word sister is different in formal and
informal setting).
- Equivalence rules: in the Semino tribe the same term (father) is used for the father and
the father’s brother -> indication: it reflects that the relationship to your father is
equivalent to your uncle.
- Kinship terminology can be used outside kinship relationships: English father can be
used to refer to God, or to priests (reflection on relationship). Uncle: in American, Uncle
Sam=USA as a state, as a “family member”; reflects on someone who is a part of the
family. Brother, sister: used within the church to the community members; brother as
reference to friends. Kinship terms may change, or be simplified: Hungarian: ipa, napa
disappear.

Study of taxonomies (classification systems): official or folk taxonomies. It means to

use a system based on cultural patterns to describe the environment, this way cultural needs
and assumptions can be identified. Example for folk taxonomies:
- A Philippine tribe has a classification system of diseases based on what the symptoms or
consequences are like (so not the official way or names are used).
- Solomon Island: unique classification system for animal descriptions, e.g. birds and bats
are in the same category (because they fly).
Study of color terminology: color terminologies of languages reflect cultural perspectives,
even gender. Colors are subjective in cultures (color spectrum is an objective continuum, but
there is a gradual change, it is a matter of perspective where a color changes), there are basic
color terms, the number of which is different in languages.

4 characteristics of basic color terms:

1. They need to be a single word (so no combination like light blue)
2. Should not be a subdivision of a higher term, e.g. scarlet is a shade/kind of red.
3. Usage: it can be used about anything; blue is OK for anything (eye, sky...), but blonde only
refers to hair color.
4. It should not be restricted to a group of users, e.g. some are only used by those whose job is
related to colors, so they are hardly comprehensible to other people.

How many basic color terms are there in a language? -> At least 2 (black and white because of
the general experience of light and darkness). When 3: red is the next one (because of blood,
significant cultural value, like carrier of life), 4-5: yellow, green, then blue and brown. Why is
there such a striking difference? -> Technological development may influence basic color terms.

Culture-related associations in language: How do we think about concepts? For instance,

what comes to our mind when we think about fruits? -> Most would think about the same fruits
that are organic parts of our culture. -> Prototype theory (Eleanor Rosch): concepts are not
based on the collection of features but on the prototypical example of it. Most people think
about the apple when they think about fruit; connection to the Bible, (forbidden fruit), the Bible
does not actually say that it is the apple, but painters and others thought of an apple when
representing the forbidden fruit because in culture apple is a significant part. Or: breakfast –
most people think of own preferences or culture. Friendship: our associations are determined
by personal experiences, not cultural patterns.

Taboo: not mentioning things: culturally taboo concepts like death, bodily functions, religious
concepts; or in ancient Hungarian: szarvas (stag), the one with the horns. It was not the original
term for stag, but that was taboo because the miraculous stag was so significant in ancient
Hungarian culture. Some taboo terms are similar to non-taboo terms in other languages, can
lead to strange situations.

Euphemism is a way of avoiding having to use a taboo term: using a circumlocution to be

acceptable, less striking, more tactful, e.g. death replaced by passing away.

Political correctness: a movement emerged to avoid offence to politically sensitive,

vulnerable groups of language users of language. Result: new euphemisms, e.g. instead of Negro
(originally no pejorative connotation) and Black (it also gained negative connotation): African
American, African.

Backlash, criticism on political correctness: is it an Orwellian change of language (1984)? ->

Language is being simplified to get rid of functions, political correctness makes it impossible to
name things; circumscribing makes words lose their meaning. Due to political correctness,
gender-neutral expressions were used: fireman was changed to firefighter, or policeman ->
police officer.
 Audio lecture 8: Language and gender + language policy and language planning

Language and gender

Two issues: grammatical gender + usage-related aspect (how do the genders use
language).

Grouping of languages according to grammatical gender:

- Meaning-related grammatical gender: English (boy is he; girl is she; desk is it. There are
a few exceptions: countries or the sea referred to as she, but it is rather the function of
users).
- Grammatical gender is unrelated to meaning: Russian, French, and German: some
objects have a masculine or feminine article, without anything being
masculine/feminine about them.
- No grammatical gender: Hungarian

Usage-related issues: speech differences between males and females. Particular terms are
more common with one gender.

Robin Lakoff: Language and woman’s place (1975) book brought the topic of gender
speech differences into the limelight. The critics said it is a rather subjective, biased feminist
account of language use. But it was very significant, and sparked lots of studies. It is a politically
loaded issue – equality, gender issues are debated. Lakoff’s hypotheses:

- Vocabulary-related differences between the genders, certain terms (lovely, fantastic,

adorable) are more used by females, reasons: females feel insecure and want to use
more extreme terms. But Lakoff wrote about American English, and in Br. E. lovely is
very commonly used; and the hypotheses are highly questionable. In some communities
such differences do exist, e.g. Native Americans, where some vocabulary items are
reserved to males/females, pronunciation is different, in a tribe there are basically two
different languages (historical roots).
- Lakoff: there are gender-based differences in word pairs, to which different contexts are
associated, and they have different undertones -> master-mistress: master rules over
others, mistress is subordinated to someone else – she is referred to as somebody’s
mistress. Bachelor indicates independence; spinster is someone who nobody wants. But
in the word pair gentleman and lady there is no subordination implied.
Reason: different social positions of men and women.

Tendency since 1975: Western societies have changed a lot, because of political correctness they
have moved away from many such word pairs, and from gender biased distinctions, toward
gender-neutral terms (fireman -> firefighter). Although some terms are descriptive and not
biased such as policeman, policewoman, they are no longer used. It has not only happened with
vocabulary but with grammatical patterns: Everybody should hand in their papers would
earlier have been seen as a grammatical problem because of their; but the singular pronoun is
problematic too: his/her? To traditional grammar rules their would not be acceptable but
because of gender issues it is.

Common questions about gender and language:

Some languages are sexist because of grammatical genders? -> No, only users can be.

Do men and women develop different language use patterns? -> Yes.

But is it based on gender? According to studies, women tend to focus more on affective factors
of language (emotions). Women use more language to express solidarity, men to indicate
power, competition. Of course there are exceptions. Women are stylistically more flexible.

Do women use more color vocabulary? -> Yes, studies indicate that females tend to use more
elaborate color terms, men use a narrower range of color vocabulary.

Do women talk more? Actually it depends on the setting of conversations. In mixed groups
(males, females) men talk more; but in same-sex groups both genders speak equally much.

If differences can be detected based on gender, what is the cause? -> 3 approaches,
explanations.

1. Biological differences (it is nowadays the least accepted, has been discarded): brain
differences, physiological differences. There are differences, but do not cause differences in
language use.

2. Social organization: not gender but position determines language use; the difference
between being in a dominant position, or lacking power (so not on gender). Males are dominant
so they use a different register. When females are in power positions, their language use
changes; Margaret Thatcher’s language use resembled that of male usage.

3. Linguistic differences are associated with social roles (subcultures) that males and females
take; so social roles are played by men/women have a role; e.g. looking after small children, like
kindergarten is the role of females, language is the reflection of their role. Or: firefighter – there
are more male firefighters because of physical ability (and interest). No relation to rights,
power, just to roles.

Language policy and language planning

Language as a means to access power: to engineer language to exercise power in a language.

Issues of language choice.

Terminology:

Language policy (more open term)/language planning: first term from the 1950s-1960s,
but it was found to be politically incorrect; it implies a deliberate planning process. They mean
modifying language form or use.

Language policy is conducted in 3 fields: status planning, corpus planning, language

education policy/acquisition planning.

1. Status planning: legislation decides what status a language is supposed to have in a

given context, e.g. official language, restricting or banning languages. These are political
decisions, not linguistic.
Examples:
 - Norway: it gained independence in 19th century and it was always a diglossic country, 2
official languages are spoken: Bokmål (stems from Danish, spoken by highly educated
people, preferred by most people), Nynorsk (variety of the local people, less prestigious).
- Belgium: 2 official languages: Flemish (Dutch variety) and French, they are regionally
different.
- Spain: Spanish, Catalan, Basque
- Soviet Union: empire-like union, policy of russification: Russian was mandatory, local
languages were of secondary status (e.g. negative influence on the Baltic States). After its
collapse Russian was outlawed in the Baltic countries.

Churches can have a role in status planning: before the Reformation, the Catholic Church’s
official language was Latin, even used in masses, before Reformation the Bible was not available
in local languages, Reformation made it possible.

Sometimes more countries decide on common language policy: Swahili in Africa: after the
colonizers left these countries, it was a policy issue what language to use, the countries were not
happy with the colonizers’ language; there was a need for a unique African lingua franca ->
Swahili was chosen, it was a neutral language, previously spoken just by a few people. It
provided the use of a language without the baggage of colonial past, and dominance issues.

2. Corpus planning: planning, modifying the body/structure of language. Maybe to fix

problems, like modernization, standardization. It is a rather linguistic matter but has
political intentions behind it.
- Hungary, late 18th c.-early 19th c.: changing the language because it was not capable of
expressing many concepts.
- Turkey, 1920s-1930s: Pasha Kemal conducted language modernization, changing the
script from Arabic to Latin; intention: to bring Turkey closer to the West.
- Romanian has been reshaped, importing Latin origin words to emphasize the link of
Romanians to Latin culture.
- Former Yugoslavia: Croatia uses Latin script (emphasis on being more Western), Serbia:
Cyrillic (Eastern identity).

Vocabulary change:
1. Taking old words and giving them new meaning, e.g. mouse: originally the animal.
2. Coinage: word created for a particular purpose, e.g. touchpad.
3. Borrowing: import from other languages.

Normativism: saying that there is only one correct way of using the language, other forms are
seen as deviations.

Prescriptivism: particular standards of language use are to be described; standard should be

used in particular situations.

3. Language education policy/acquisition planning: control of what languages are

taught in the education system. Example: Russian as the number one mandatory foreign
language in Socialist times. With the regime change it disappeared.

Language diffusion policy: spreading a language in a region:

- Planned (within that internal or external):

Internal: all citizens in a country must have language competence, e.g. it is emphasized in
newly independent states, or in old countries too. In France minor languages like Breton,
Occitan are not taught in schools, because of the intention that French should be spoken by
everyone, not because of wanting to oppress those languages. In the USSR it was a requirement
to know Russian.
External: spreading the language outside the country: e.g. colonization, or Russian being
taught in Hungary.
- Unplanned: no deliberate attempt to spread the language, e.g. by business: sailors in
the Middle Ages brought along their languages to distant corners of the world; so even
in such territories those languages are spoken which were not colonies of that country.

Linguistic imperialism (Robert Phillipson): behind institutions like the British Council, or
the Goethe Institut, which are involved in external language diffusion, there is a hidden agenda
– they not only spreading information about language and culture but language is used as a
means of modern day colonialism, they influence countries through the language -> conspiracy
theory? Probably not. These institutions do not operate just out of humanitarian reasons.

Linguicism/linguistic racism: claiming that a particular language is superior to others.