AGE AND THE LIMITS OF L2AUniversity of Texas at Austin：年龄和L2a 限制在奥斯汀的德克萨斯大学.ppt

1,The End State in L2A:Factors,Facts&Fallacies,Cognitive Science SeminarUniversity of Texas9 October 2009David BirdsongDept.of French&Italianbirdsongaustin.utexas.edupaper handout to accompany slidesslides to be posted on blackboard,2,L2A research Sample of journals,CognitionJMLJCNNature NeuroscienceBBSBrain&Language Language Applied PsycholinguisticsTICSBilingualism:Language and CognitionStudies in Second Language Acquisition Second Language Research,3,L2A research Programs/Labs,McGillGeorgetownIllinoisMPI-NijmegenEssexCNRS ParisAmsterdam GroningenHeidelberg,4,L2A research Recent Ph.Ds at UT-F&I,Robert Reichle(December 2008)“Syntactic focus structure processing:Behavioral and electrophysiological evidence from L1 and L2 French”Elenor Shoemaker(May 2009)“Acoustic cues to speech segmentation in spoken French:native and non-native strategies”,5,Context:the Deficit Model tradition,Bley-Vroman(1989:44):Insignificantincidence of nativelikeness in late L2AL2A:“ineluctable failure”fossilized non-nativeness=Fundamental Difference Hypothesis,6,Context:the Deficit Model tradition,Johnson&Newport(1989:255):for AoA 15“later AOA determines that one will not become nativelike or near-nativelike in a 2nd language”=maturationally-based CPH/L2A,7,Context:the Deficit Model tradition,Long(1989:280):“The ability to attain native-like phonological abilities in an L2 is beyond anyone beginning later than age 12,no matter how motivated they might be or how much opportunity they might have.Native-like morphology and syntax only seem to be possible for those beginning before age 15.”=Maturational constraints,8,Context:the Deficit Model tradition,Hyltenstam&Abrahamsson(2003:575):If we look at“overall L2 proficiency”we will find that“perfect proficiency”and“absolute nativelike command of an L2 may in fact never be possible for any late L2 learner”=Deficient language-learning mechanisms NB:B-V,J&N,Long,H&A criterion=monolingual nativeNB:All approach deficit from end state(=ultimate attainment)perspective,9,Context:the Deficit Model tradition,W/r/t L2 processing=representation by late learnersTsimpli Ss not always at end state,10,Context:the Differences Model,W/r/t L2 processing by late learners Clahsen not all Ss at end state,11,Context:the Differences Model,W/r/t L2 processing by late learners Cutler(2003,inter alia):In segmental,subsegmental and suprasegmental perception,L2ers listen through L1 ears;see also Peperkamp,Sebastian-Galles,Dupoux,etc.,12,Context:Meisel(2009),Meisel(2009:8)“Changes in the Language Making Capacity in the course of childhood development make it impossible for the L2 learner to acquire a complete native grammatical competence of the target language”Meisel(2009:13)FDH“does not entail that L2 acquisition becomes totally or partially impossible.Rather,the claim is that L2 knowledge is of a different kind”=source of knowledge is different,13,Current aL2A work under DM,Methodologically:(Usually)studied:-L2 high-proficientsUnderstudied:-L2 dominants(Often)not considered:-facilitating/inhibiting external factors-individual info processing differences-reciprocal L2 L1 influence-AoA as comparison condition or control variable-assurance of L2A asymptote-incidence(#s)of nativelike processers=Incomplete empirical picture of nature+extent of native/L2 differences,14,Current aL2A work under DM,Programmatically:Data:-varied behavioral&brain-based studies-varied methods&tasksDomains:-range of processing and knowledge domains Focus:-non-nativelike processing at group levelOrientation:-deterministic differencesGoal:-theory of qualitative L1-L2 differences in knowledge/processing=Empirical gaps w/r/t upper limits of(late)L2A,15,Upper Limits Model,Complementing the DM perspective:Programmatically&methodologically Distinguish:-what adult L2ers do-what adult L2ers dont do-what adult L2ers can do-what adult L2ers cant doPopulations:-L2 dominants(two types)-L1 attriters-(L2 high-proficients)-incentivized L2ers:functional need for L2 nativelikeness-L2ers desiring socio-cultural integration,L2 identity,16,ULM,Programmatically:Integrate:-individual differences w/r/t internal factors e.g.WM componentsRationale:-claims that only freakish aptitude=nativelikeness more later-WM correlates with level of ultimate attainment in some tasksIntegrate:-facilitating/inhibiting external conditionsRationale:-in comparing L1A and L2A end state,level the playing field in terms of facilitating conditions more later-normal adult L2A conditions=abnormal for LA generally Integrate:-AoA/AoT as control,predictor variablesRationale:-we know the effects of age and+/-their sources more later-to see what can L2ers do in spite of age influences,17,ULM,Programmatically:Goals:-Establish end state processing profiles:-L2 dominants-defined by L2 vs L1 relative use-defined psycholinguistically(independent processing measures)-late vs.early dominants-unstable dominants-Establish upper bounds of L2ers processing&knowledge:-vis vis natives-vis vis early bilinguals/early L2ers-in their own right(parative fallacy)-keeping in mind L2L1 influence(L1 of a monolingual L1 of a bilingual)-Integrate above into theory of L2 knowledge&processing at the limits,18,ULM,Perspectives:Analogy:Track team with ankle weights:What would happen if we took off the weights?Analogy:Ghetto vs.suburbs HS exit exam scores:We know that the achievements will differ,but the story shouldnt stop there.,19,ULM,Perspectives:X freakish talent(WM capacity,LTM,musical ability)X freakish accomplishments(Hale,“Christopher”)normals working within their limits give acquisition the same chance it has in younger populations-one cant take away age effects-one can minimize L1 effects-one can provide benign external conditionsand see what happens=relevance to claims,assumptions;CPH/L2A,FDH,access,20,UT Cog Sci Presentation,L2 end state attainment:Approach ultimate attainment neutrally:deficits&differences alongside upper limitsFACTS about end-state attainment,as mediated by age of acquisition and age of testingFACTORS that constrain vs.enable L2 acquisition,and their natureFALLACIES w/r/t end state,e.g.CPH/L2AQ:Under DM:Evidence for maturation-based differences?Q:Under ULM:What can(late)L2-dominants do?,21,Distinctions:AoA AoT maturational state,AoA=Age of Acquisition(Immersion,Onset)=macro-variable,encompassing inter alia:-degree of L1 entrenchment-L1 proficiency-state of system plasticity-state of cognitive development-degree of(neuro-)cognitive decline(adults)-suite of neurobiological variablesAoA=proxy for initial state of L2ANB:AoA-related effectsNB:“The age factor”=convenient but underspecific label,22,Distinctions:AoA AoT maturational state,AoT=Age at Testing=macro-variable,encompassing inter alia:degree of L1 entrenchmentL1 proficiency L2 proficiencystate of system plasticitystate of cognitive developmentdegree of(neuro-)cognitive decline see Supplementssuite of neurobiological variablesalso:socio-psychological identification w/L2&L1also:frequency of L2/L1 useAoT=proxy for current state of L2 knowledge and processing NB:AoT-related effects,23,AoT,Advanced AoT:-More profound impact in L2 processing than in L1 processing.L2 processing more vulnerable because:-greater reliance on fluid intelligence than in L1 use-less-routinized procedures than in L1 useOpen question:-AoT(&AoA)-related effects=less severe among L2 dominants?,24,Distinctions:AoA AoT maturational state,Maturational state:(vs./vs.X)/degree of L1 entrenchment/L1 proficiency/L2 proficiency state of system plasticity state of cognitive development degree of(neuro-)cognitive decline suite of neurobiological variablesX socio-psychological identification w/L2&L1X frequency of L2/L1 use/experientially correlates with aging AoA&AoT biologically aging-related,pre-/post-maturation AoA&AoTX intrinsically unrelated to aging AoT only,25,Distinctions,Ultimate Attainment in L2=end state(asymptotic)knowledge and processing only nativelikeness=any level at end state,up to&including nativelike,26,Distinctions,Nature,causes&domains of non-nativelike ultimate attainment(Hopp,2007)Nature:REPRESENTATIONAL*COMPUTATIONAL/|Cause:impairment*L1 impairment*inefficiency*L1 FT/FA/|Domain:module*interfaceparsing*info*inter-routes integration ference FFFuF DP lim cap CM SSMSI,27,Distinctions,Age,end state,upper limits:Computational(in)efficiency=default to lexis/plausibility in complex computationsL1 influence developmental&at AoA/AoT as alternative to/complement to impairmentPerceptual components of processing grammar detection of uF as precondition for interpretation(e.g.in French liaison)Nature:REPRESENTATIONAL*COMPUTATIONAL/|Cause:impairment*L1 impairment*inefficiency*L1 FT/FA/|Domain:module*interface parsing*info*inter-routes integration ference FFF uF DP lim cap CM SSMSI,28,Distinctions,Heuristics:Universal Learnability versus Selective Processability-Universal Learnability:anything can be learned by someone-Selective Processability:some things cant be processed by anyone,29,Distinctions,The AoA function,shapes:straight line stretched 7inverted Vstretched ZThe AoA function,timing of deflection:coinciding with known maturational epochscoinciding with ages unrelated to maturationThe AoA function,steepness=#of nativelike-ers,30,Slope predicts incidence of nativelikeness:shallow slope=high rate of nativelikeness,31,Slope predicts incidence of nativelikeness:steep slope=low rate of nativelikeness,32,FACTS of Biological Aging&their relationship to L2 processingby late L2ers,33,Age and ProcessingSupplement I Park et al.(2001),34,Age and ProcessingSupplement I break-outPark(2000),35,Cognitive Aging Effects,Effects in language processing:processing speed working memory capacity lexical retrieval linear over AoT/AoA,starting at 20 years of age prior to AoT/AoA:increase then decline(inverted“V”)plateau then decline(stretched“7”)linkage of processing behaviors to biological aging(Bckman&Farde,2005)=L2 processingconstraints on input processing at AoA/AoToutput performance decrements at AoTdepressed levels of processing at L2 end state,36,Constraining FACTORS,1-Neuro-biology/anatomy/chemistry/cognition:post-puberty,with increasing age(AoA&AoT):use it then lose it(Pinker,1994)pathological increases in cortisol levels declines in neurotransmitter levels:ACHdopamine,etc.Supplement II declining regional brain volumes(Raz,2005)Supplement III,37,Biological Aging Effects,Declines in neurotransmitter levels:ACH,dopamine,etc.Supplement IINeurotransmitter declines in L2 processing:variety of cognitive functions underlying L2 processing-working memory capacity&executive function-attention&inhibitory processes(L1 suppression)-coordination/proceduralization in syntax linear over AoT/AoA,starting at 20 years of age prior to AoT/AoA:increase,then decline(inverted“V”)plateau,then decline(stretched“7”),38,Biological Aging Effects,Declines in regional brain volume Supplement IIIEffects in L2 processing:variety of cognitive functions underlying L2 processing-executive function-LTM-coordination/proceduralization in syntax linear over AoT/AoA,starting at 20 years of age prior to AoT/AoA:increase then decline(inverted“V”)possible plateau(stretched“7”)not reliable linkage of behavior to biological sources-effects more associated w/neurochemistry than w/structure-uncertain timing of decrease thresholds=associated cognitive decrements,39,Constraining FACTORS,2-Cognitive development:Adult working memory bandwidth lets in too much linguistic information to process at once=incomplete processing of,e.g.,sequences of morphemes:“less is more”(Newport,various),40,Constraining FACTORS,2-Cognitive development:post-concrete operations Analytic/metalinguistic/explicit input&learning Literacy=L2 vis vis L1 learning&processing:?effortful?inefficient different cognitive,neural resources,41,Constraining FACTORS,3-L1 entrenchment:L1 representations are increasingly defined with use=developing representations/categories assimilate to old(Flege,various)competition between old and developing representations(MacWhinney,various)Hebbian learning inhibits related new learning(Elman,various),42,Facilitating FACTORS,Enabling via 1-Subtraction of constraint minimize L1 influence via L1 attrition or L2 dominance More to come,43,Facilitating FACTORS,Enabling via 2-Offsetting the effects of limiting factors training on L2 perception training on L2 pronunciation,44,Facilitating FACTORS,Enabling via:3-Individual variation aptitude components(phonological)working memory health/genetic/lifestyle hypertension:inverted“U”function ACH,testosterone,estrogen,dopamine,cortisol early passing for L2 use/practice/rehearsal/education,45,Facilitating FACTORS,NB:Some factors trump others e.g.,neurobiology=irrelevant if low desire for attainment;v.passing for a native ID with L2 culture&speakers,46,Facilitating FACTORS,NB:Distinguish necessary from sufficient conditions:A given factor may be necessary but not sufficient for nativelike attainment,47,FACTS of Upper Limits:can do,Uncontroversially a given late(AoA 12)L2 learner can:perform like monolinguals across multiple complex behavioral measures of grammatical knowledge&lexical knowledge&global pronunciationcan:perform like monolinguals on a range of brain-based measures of L2 processing e.g.,ERP components,regional brain activity more to come,48,FACTS of Upper Limits:cannot do,Uncontroversially late learner GROUPS cannot:perform like monolinguals on challenging online and offline tasks/structures/items;various processing tasks involving parsing,suprasegmental perception,etc.,49,FACTS of Upper Limits:cannot do?,Controversially a given late L2 learner cannot:perform like monolingualson certain on-line processing tasks involving sentence parsing,suprasegmental perception,etc.(quantitative&qualitative differences),50,Aside:AoA gradient and rate of nativelikeness,51,Slope predicts incidence of nativelikeness:shallow slope=high rate,52,Slope predicts incidence of nativelikeness:steep slope=low rate,53,FACTORS underlying FACTS,FACTORS that modulate observed slopes(FACTS):Frequency of L2 use Degree of L1 entrenchment Degree of L1 vs.L2 dominance Neuro-biological/cognitive/anatomical/chemical state Identification with TLers Motivation to learn/pass for native TLer FL/L2 learning aptitude,e.g.,pitch perception,auditory discrimination Sub-domain of language e.g.,pronunciation.vs.agreement General cognitive abilities/aptitudes,e.g.,phonological working memory Felicitous feature-wise L1-L2 pairing Easy vs.hard tasks(e.g.,off-line vs.on-line),54,FACTORS underlying FACTS,Posited FACTORS/mechanisms underlying FACTS of age effects in L2 processing=consistent with common sense and empirical research Each is plausibly at work in some fashion in L2AContribution of each may vary over time course of L2 learning and useContribution of each may differ from individual to individualIn the aggregate,some account for more variance than others,55,FACTORS,FACTS,FALLACIES,Posited FACTORS/mechanisms underlying FACTS of age effects in L2 p