October 17, 2006
Not strictly social... two essays on linguistics
Interactional Model of L2 Acquisition
With age, many of our skills to learn develop - learning maths, learning history, critical thinking, singing. Why not language? Several authors (Johnson and Newport 1991; Birdsong and Molis 2001; Chomsky, 1968; Lenneberg 1967) that ascribe to the view that the language learning faculty is a part of the brain separate to others hold that this faculty deteriorates over time and that language is no longer attainable to adult-like proficiency primarily because of this deterioration. Lenneberg (1967) showed that whilst young children engaged their entire mind in the language learning process, lateralisation into one hemisphere occurred by the onset of puberty. Krashen (1973) shows evidence that lateralization occurs by the age of 5. Yet, there is clear evidence to show that younger learners of language acquire language much faster and are more able to acquire native-like proficiency (Schwartz 1992, 1999; Johnson and Newport 1991; Birdsong and Molis 2001; Huang and Hatch 1978; Butterworth and Hatch 1978).
Ellis (1994:248-9) outlines the features of 'caretaker talk', or what Thiessen (2005) calls Infant Directed Speech - slower speech and clearer and simpler linguistic forms, such as content words, and gestures. Also, there are many interactional cues that concentrate purely on the momentary context, confirmation and repetition. Thus, in this view, learning is aided by communication and interaction, and relies on the input, as opposed to an innate faculty, for attainment of language.
...read more
Communicative Competency or Miss-set Parameters?
Data showing differences between child language and adult language, errors made by children and universal features of child language spawn heated debate between the supporters of Universal Grammar (UG) and Usage- or Experience- Based (EB) Theories. Discussion around UG and of EB, as well as the reformulation of what it is that both theories demand in terms of explanation from the other is familiar territory in the current literature.
Consistently, claims are made by one camp or the other of new data that cannot be explained in terms of the other theory. In this paper, I will examine language data that one researcher, Stephen Crain, suggests is inexplicable by means other than postulating the UG hypothesis. He suggests this because, as he puts it "...experience-based approaches to language acquisition contend that child language matches the input, with non-adult forms being simply less articulated versions of forms produced by adults. (2006:1)"
...read more
fon @ Tuesday, October 17, 2006 link to post * *