catherine a. stafford key words
5. Prior Experience
5.4. conclusion for prior experience
Future research should concentrate on explaining the positive relationship that has been observed between bilingualism and the acquisition of an L3 through empirical exploration of the more specific factors implicated in the relationship. For example, research is needed on the effects of prior linguistic experience on the representation of new L3 knowledge (see Ullman, this vol-ume, chapter 5). Also, recent advances in the field of attention and awareness in cognitive psychology and SLA (see Leow and Bowles, this volume, chapter 6) distinguish between awareness at the level of noticing and awareness at the level of understanding. Research on bilingualism and metalinguistic aware-ness to date has focused exclusively on the latter. Studies such as Klein’s (1995), and even this chapter, suggest that it is heightened awareness at the level of noticing which gives experienced language learners the edge. Research on L3 acquisition to date has been very product oriented, so experimental studies that include qualitative data in their design (see Adams, Fujii, and Mackey, this volume, chapter 3) and that compare bilinguals and monolin-guals in their processing of input might contribute to an understanding of the ways in which the two groups differ in their processing strategies.
6.Summary
Empirical research since the 1970s has supported the claim that elements of L2 performance decline with increasing age. The question of whether this evidence supports the CPH in its original formulation, however, remains de-batable. This state of affairs is largely attributable to researchers’ different foci in their investigation of the CPH’s implications for L2 learning and to their varied interpretation of the data. In addition, research has identified a signifi-cant number of learners whose L2 acquisition began late but who nonetheless achieved nativelike L2 proficiency; thus the evidence from research in this area does not preclude successful L2 acquisition by all late learners.
Recent research on sex differences in language suggests that there may in-deed be an underlying difference in processing between males and females, pos-sibly modulated by hormones. Specifically, the declarative/procedural model claims that due to a verbal memory advantage, females tend to memorize previ-ously encountered complex forms (e.g., regular past tense forms) in the declara-tive system, while males tend to rule-compute them in the procedural system in real time. Recall that no difference is posited in processing of memorized forms, which are subserved by the declarative system in both sexes. This difference has not yet been widely tested, but preliminary evidence does support the notion.
Furthermore, these sex differences have important implications for how males and females learn and process an L2 and should be taken into consideration in the analyses of SLA research, especially from a processing perspective.
Memory has long been implicated as an integral part of language learning aptitude. Models of WM that have emerged since the 1970s and 1980s in-clude mechanisms and processes that are closely tied to language acquisition, and thus these models have provided a productive direction for research in both aptitude and language acquisition to take. Experimental studies have shown evidence of a relationship between WM capacity and several aspects of language learning, and the field is moving closer to theoretical consensus on the construct of WM. It is important for future research, however, to define the limits of the construct as well as the functions and subsystems that are im-plicated in WM. And as the theory evolves in this way, it must continue to in-form researchers as they seek to refine the instruments they use to evaluate WM in empirical research.
Just like typists, chess players, and computer programmers, experienced (bilingual) language learners appear to have an advantage when compared to novice (monolingual) learners. As with most complex phenomena, a number of factors need to be brought into the equation in order to be adequately ex-plained. Attitude, motivation, and degree of bilingualism are just a few of those factors. From an information-processing perspective, however, process-ing strategies, metalprocess-inguistic knowledge, and WM capacity are posited to
contribute to the superior performance of bilinguals over monolinguals when it comes to learning other languages.
7.Exercises
The exercises that follow are divided into two sections, the first of which focuses on data analysis, and the second of which will help you to practice the basic skill of critical reading. Both sections will require the application of concepts presented in this chapter as well as basic concepts of data analysis and research methodology. Thus, we suggest you revisit Chen (this volume, chapter 2) and Adams, Fujii, and Mackey (this volume, chapter 3).
7.1.data analysis
1. Imagine that you have conducted an experiment to investigate the effects of providing explicit feedback to learners as they complete a language task in which they are trying to induce rules of L2 morphosyntax. Unfortu-nately, you find no significant differences between the experimental and control groups, and a statistician suggests that differences did not show up because there was a lot of variation within the experimental group, that is, that the provision of feedback had a significant effect on some learners in that group, but no effect on other learners. Fortunately, though, you’ve ad-ministered a test of verbal WM to your participants. For what could you use the WM data? What would you hope to find?
2. You have piloted an L1 WM listening span task that you created. Partici-pants listened to sets of 2 to 5 sentences presented on audiotape with an 8-second pause between sentences. As they listened to each sentence, par-ticipants judged whether or not the sentences made sense and recorded their answers on an answer sheet. After presentation of each set of sen-tences, participants were required to recall aloud the sentence-final words that they could remember from that set. You find that the majority of par-ticipants perform at ceiling and conclude that you need to design a more discriminating task. What might you change about the test to better dis-criminate among participants?
3. The scatterplots shown in Figures 4.2 and 4.3 represent results of corre-lational analyses of fictitious data on the relationship between participants’
AoA to an L2 speech community and their performance in the L2. Inter-pret each scatterplot and explain what the data might contribute to argu-ments of either support or refutation of the CPH.
4. Sex differences for language are controversial even in L1 research. Data from brain-damaged patients were briefly mentioned in this chapter as supporting the declarative/procedural model’s proposed sex differences in L1. If brain-damaged patients were tested on regular and irregular verb
production, what kind of data would the model predict for (you may need to answer separately for each sex):
a. Men and women with damage to frontal and basal ganglia regions (i.e., the procedural system).
b. Men and women with damage to temporal and parietal regions (i.e., the declarative system).
5. Briefly explain what type of study you might design to test whether the proposed sex differences in processing are found in L2.
figure 4.2 L2 Performance by Age of Arrival–Scenario 1
figure 4.3 L2 Performance by Age of Arrival–Scenario 2
6. If the validity of these sex differences, now somewhat tentative in nature, becomes accepted in the field, what applications to pedagogy would you suggest for the L2 classroom? Defend your proposal.
7. Bilinguals as a group show an advantage in L3 acquisition over monolin-guals. However, among bilinguals, which ones seem to have a knack for languages? To identify key factors predicting success in L3 acquisition among bilinguals, the data below from a sample of Catalan-Spanish bilin-guals were analyzed.
a. Look at the tables at the end of the exercise. The factors are listed in the left column. Can you explain what they are in your own words?
b. Read the following research questions (RQs) first and write directional hypotheses based on your intuitions and this chapter’s content.
RQ 1. Which factors best predict grammar test scores?
RQ 2. Does age of L2 acquisition onset affect the acquisition of L3 grammar?
RQ 3. Does order of acquisition of the L1 and L2 affect the acquisition of L3 grammar?
RQ 4. Does the degree of balance of Catalan and Spanish skills affect the acquisition of L3 grammar?
c. Look at the summary of the analyses in Table 4.1. Answer the RQs based on the data. Pay attention to the asterisks.
d. Now look at the summary of the analyses in Table 4.2. What are the dif-ferences between the two tables? Hints: (a) look at the number of vari-ables in the columns, (b) pay attention to new asterisks, (c) look at the two different r2s. What do they mean? Answer the RQs based on the data.
e. Based on these results, can you confirm your hypotheses? reject them?
table 4.1
Multiple Regression of All Variables on English Grammar Scores
Variable Parameter Estimate T r2
Sex .929 .925
Motivation .452 3.726**
Exposure .005 2.733*
SES .339 .756
L3 Attitudes .099 1.335
IQ ⫺.370 ⫺.897
Cat/Span Use .218 2.823*
Order of Acquisition .811 .806
L2 Onset .072 ⫺.388
Balance: Literacy Skills 1.338 1.691
Balance: Oral Skills ⫺.471 ⫺.576 .36
*p⬍. 05. **p ⬍. 01.
f. Write a 250-word paragraph summarizing the study as if it were an abstract.
7.2.guided critique
The following exercise will help you practice the basic skill of critical read-ing. As mentioned above, we suggest you revisit Chen (this volume, chapter 2) and Adams, Fujii, and Mackey (this volume, chapter 3) on research methodol-ogy as needed and that you provide the information below. It is a good idea to complete forms like this one for every primary source you read in preparation for a research paper or an exam. The article we have chosen is the following:
Wagner, D. A., Spratt, J. E., and Ezzaki, A. (1989). Does learning to read in a second language always put the child at a disadvantage? Some counter evidence from Morocco. Applied Psycholinguistics, 10, 31–48.
Read the article, note down the information, and then compare it with your classmates’ results. Sort out any differences you might have. Usually readers differ in their interpretations and conclusions, but answers to points 1 through 7 should be pretty much the same.
1. Author(s), title, journal, volume number, pages. We recommend you list the reference according to the Publication Manual of the American Psycho-logical Association, so that you familiarize yourself with its style. Most SLA journals follow the APA guidelines for publication.
2. Overall motivation for the study (indicate page number)
3. Hypotheses (or research questions). How many are there? State them in a list with their corresponding supporting literature. This is especially important when the hypothesis is directional (the author states something will hap-pen). Summarize the statements and references (name, year).
table 4.2
Multiple Regression of English Grammar Scores with Motivation and Exposure Factored Out
Variable Parameter Estimate T r2
Sex .345 .316
SES .405 .821
L3 Attitudes .250 3.32**
IQ ⫺.272 ⫺.591
Cat/Span Use .194 2.330*
Order of Acquisition .751 .678
L2 Onset .071 .356
Balance: Literacy Skills 1.800 2.082*
Balance: Oral Skills .035 .039 .20
*p⬍ .05. **p ⬍ .01.
4. Methodology
a. Design: Is the study experimental? quasi-experimental? Is it a case study? cross-sectional? longitudinal? a combination?
b. Target form, languages involved
c. Participants: total N. List all relevant, specific characteristics (level, L1, naturalistic-classroom learners). Initial sample, final sample. Any expla-nations for attrition?
d. Groups? N per group?
e. Instruments
f. Dependent variables g. Independent variables 5. Results
a. If ANOVA or t-test:
i. Main factors
ii. Significant correlations iii. Post-hocs
b. If correlation or regression: predicting factors
c. Revisit the hypotheses and list them again. Next to each, specify whether it was accepted or rejected.
6. Discussion
a. If any of the hypotheses were rejected, what is the explanation provided by the authors?
b. What are their supporting references? Specify name, year, and provide a brief statement.
7. Conclusions: Summarize each of the authors’ conclusions.
8. Your conclusions. For each of the conclusions in (7) above, specify:
a. Observations: Do you agree with the authors?
b. Criticisms: Are any important references missing? Did the authors place more weight on certain studies than others?
c. Are there any problems with the analysis or methodology (sampling, for example)?
d. Can their results be interpreted in a different way?
9. Overall statement, interesting points Further Reading
Bhatia, T. K., & Ritchie, W. (Eds.). (2004). The handbook of bilingualism. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
Birdsong, D. (1999). Second language acquisition and the critical period hypothesis.
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Dörnyei, Z., & Skehan, P. (2003). Individual differences in second language learning.
In C. J. Doughty & M. H. Long (Eds.), The handbook of second language acquisition.
Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
Miyake, A., & Shah, P. (Eds.). (1999). Models of working memory: Mechanisms of active maintenance and executive control. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Robinson, P. (Ed.). (2002). Individual differences and instructed language learning.
Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Notes
1. For classic and recent treatments of IDs in the second language acquisition (SLA) literature, readers are referred to the following volumes: Doughty and Long (2003), R. Ellis (1994), Larsen-Freeman and Long (1991), Robinson (2001).
2. In this chapter, we will refer to sex rather than gender because we will be con-cerned with biological rather than social differences. Nonetheless, we recognize that there may indeed be other social factors that correlate with sex and that influence SLA (e.g., motivation).
3. This is not to say, however, that the two constructs are necessarily isomorphic.
Many scholars believe that working memory encompasses more than aptitude (for a number of models of working memory, see Miyake and Shah, 1999). Likewise, most scholars will argue that language aptitude goes beyond working memory (see, for ex-ample, Dörnyei and Skehan, 2003).
4. For a review of diverse lines of motivation research, see Dörnyei (1998). Also see Dörnyei and Schmidt (2001) for a collection of motivation studies.
5. See, for example, D’Esposito et al. (1995), D’Esposito, Aguirre, Zarahn, Bal-lard, and Shin (1998), and Owen (1997).
References
Adams, A. M., & Willis, C. (2001). Language processing and working memory: A de-velopmental perspective. In J. Andrade (Ed.), Working memory in perspective (pp.
79–100). Hove, UK: Taylor & Francis.
Altman, H. (1980). Foreign language teaching: Focus on the learner. In H. Altman &
J. Vaughan (Eds.), Foreign language teaching: Meeting individual needs (pp. 30–45).
Oxford, UK: Pergamon.
Atkinson, R. C., & Shiffrin, R. M. (1968). Human memory: A proposed system and its control processes. In K. W. Spence & J. T. Spence (Eds.), The psychology of learn-ing and motivation: Advances in research and theory (Vol. 2, pp. 89–195). New York:
Academic Press.
Bacon, S. (1992). The relationship between gender, comprehension, processing strate-gies, and cognitive and affective response in second-language listening. The Modern Language Journal, 76, 160–178.
Bacon, S., & Finnemann, M. (1992). Sex differences in self-reported beliefs about foreign-language learning and authentic oral and written input. Journal of Applied Linguistics, 42(4), 471–495.
Baddeley, A. D. (1986). Working memory. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Baddeley, A. D. (2000). The episodic buffer: A new component of working memory?
Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 4, 417–423.
Baddeley, A. D. (2003). Working memory and language: An overview. Journal of Communication Disorders, 36, 189–208.
Baddeley, A. D., & Hitch, G. J. (1974). Working memory. In G. A. Bower (Ed.), Re-cent advances in learning and motivation (pp. 47–90). New York: Academic Press.
Baddeley, A. D., & Logie, R. H. (1999). Working memory: The multiple-component model. In A. Miyake & P. Shah (Eds.), Models of working memory: Mechanisms of active maintenance and executive control (pp. 28–61). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Barnard, P. J. (1999). Interacting cognitive subsystems: Modeling working memory phenomena within a multiprocessor architecture. In A. Miyake & P. Shah (Eds.), Models of working memory: Mechanisms of active maintenance and executive control (pp. 298–339). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Ben-Zeev, S. (1977). Mechanisms by which childhood bilingualism affects understand-ing of language and cognitive structures. In P. A. Hornby (Ed.), Bilunderstand-ingualism: Psycho-logical, social, and educational implications (pp. 29–55). New York: Academic Press.
Bever, T. G. (1992). The logical and extrinsic sources of modularity. In M. Gunnar &
M. Maratsos (Eds.), Modularity and constraints in language and cognition (pp. 179–
212). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Bialystok, E. (1986). Factors in the growth of linguistic awareness. Child Development, 57, 498–510.
Bialystok, E. (1987). Words as things: Development of word concept by bilingual children. Studies in Second Language Learning, 9, 133–140.
Bialystok, E. (1991). Language processing in bilingual children. Cambridge, UK: Cam-bridge University Press.
Bialystok, E. (2001). Bilingualism in development: Language, literacy and cognition.
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Bialystok, E., & Hakuta, K. (1999). Confounded age: Linguistic and cognitive factors in age differences for second language acquisition. In D. Birdsong (Ed.), Second lan-guage acquisition and the critical period hypothesis (p. 161–181). Mahwah, NJ: Law-rence Erlbaum.
Birdsong, D. (1992). Ultimate attainment in second language acquisition. Language, 68, 706–755.
Birdsong, D. (Ed.). (1999). Second language acquisition and the critical period hypothe-sis. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Birdsong, D., & Molis, M. (2001). On the evidence for maturational constraints in second language acquisition. Journal of Memory and Language, 44, 1–15.
Bongaerts, T., Planken, B., & Schils, E. (1995). Can late starters attain a native ac-cent in a foreign language? A test of the critical period hypothesis. In D. Singleton
& Z. Lengyel (Eds.), The age factor in second language acquisition (pp. 30–50).
Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Bornstein, M. H. (1989). Sensitive periods in development: Structural characteristics and causal interpretations. Psychological Bulletin, 105, 179–197.
Boyle, J. (1987). Sex differences in listening vocabulary. Language Learning, 37, 273–
284.
Burstall, C. (1975). Factors affecting foreign-language learning: A consideration of some relevant research findings. Language Teaching and Linguistics Abstracts, 8, 105–125.
Butler, Y. G. (2000). The age effect in second language acquisition: Is it too late to acquire native-level competence in a second language after the age of seven? In Y. Oshima-Takane, Y. Shirai, & H. Sirai (Eds.), Studies in Language Sciences 1 (pp.
159–169). Tokyo: Japanese Society for Language Sciences.
Carroll, J. B., & Sapon, S. M. (1959). Modern Language Aptitude Test. New York: Psy-chological Corporation.
Cenoz, J., Hufeisen, B., & Jessner, U. (Eds.). (2001). Cross-linguistic influence in third language acquisition: Psycholinguistic perspectives. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Cenoz, J., & Valencia, J. F. (1994). Additive trilingualism: Evidence from the Basque Country. Applied Psycholinguistics, 15, 195–207.
Collentine, J. (2004). The effects of learning contexts on morphosyntactic and lexical development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 26, 227–248.
Colombo, J. (1982). The critical period concept: Research, methodology, and theo-retical issues. Psychological Bulletin, 91, 260–275.
Cowan, N. (1999). An embedded-processes model of working memory. In A. Miyake
& P. Shah (Eds.), Models of working memory: Mechanisms of active maintenance and executive control (pp. 62–101). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Cummins, J. (1976). The influence of bilingualism on cognitive growth: A synthesis of research findings and explanatory hypothesis. Working Papers on Bilingualism, 9, 1–43.
Cummins, J. (1981). The role of primary language development in promoting educa-tional success for language minority students. In Schooling and language minority stu-dents: A theoretical framework, California State Department of Education (pp. 3–49).
Los Angeles: Evaluation, Dissemination, and Assessment Center, California State University.
Daneman, M., & Carpenter, P. (1980). Individual differences in working memory and reading. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 19, 450–466.
DeKeyser, R. (2000). The robustness of critical period effects in second language ac-quisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 22, 499–533.
D’Esposito, M., Aguirre, G. K., Zarahn, E., Ballard, D., & Shin, R. K. (1998). Func-tional MRI studies of spatial and non-spatial working memory. Cognitive Brain Re-search, 7, 1–13.
D’Esposito, M., Detre, J. A., Alsop, D. C., Shin, R. K., Atlas, S., & Grossman, M.
(1995). The neural basis of the central executive system of working memory. Na-ture, 378, 279–281.
Díaz-Campos, M. (2004). Context of learning in the acquisition of Spanish second language phonology. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 26(2), 249–273.
Dörnyei, Z. (1998). Motivation in foreign and second language learning. Language Teaching, 31, 117–135.
Dörnyei, Z., & Schmidt, R. (Eds.). (2001). Motivation and second language acquisi-tion. Honolulu, HI: University of Hawai’i at Manoa, Second Language Teaching and Curriculum Center.
Dörnyei, Z., & Skehan, P. (2003). Individual differences in second language learning.
In C. J. Doughty & M. H. Long (Eds.), The handbook of second language acquisition.
Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
Doughty, C. J., & Long, M. H. (Eds.). (2003). The handbook of second language acqui-sition. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
Ehrman, M., & Oxford, R. (1989). Effects of sex differences, career choice, and psy-chological type on adult language learning strategies. The Modern Language Journal, 73(1), 1–13.
Ellis, N. C. (2001). Memory for language. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 33–68). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Ellis, N. C., & Schmidt, R. (1997). Morphology and longer distance dependencies:
Laboratory research illuminating the A in SLA. Studies in Second Language Acquisi-tion, 19, 145–171.
Ellis, N. C., & Sinclair, S. G. (1996). Working memory in the acquisition of vocabu-lary and syntax: Putting language in good order. The Quarterly Journal of Experi-mental Psychology, 49A, 234–250.
Ellis, R. (1994). The study of second language acquisition. Oxford, UK: Oxford Univer-sity Press.
Elman, J. L., Bates, E. A., Johnson, M. H., Karmiloff-Smith, A., Parisi, D., &
Plunkett, K. (1996). Rethinking innateness: A connectionist perspective on develop-ment. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Plunkett, K. (1996). Rethinking innateness: A connectionist perspective on develop-ment. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.