CLL Session 4:

L2 Development

LAEL, Lancaster University

Florencia Franceschina

What do we study when we study (L2)

development?
Developmental

sequences
Mechanisms that cause these sequences
(transition theories)

What are the sequences of L2

development?
NB: It is important to separate rate and route of
development when analysing developmental
data.
Example:
Morpheme order studies
(Dulay and Burt, 1973, 1974; Bailey, Madden
and Krashen, 1974)

Dulay and Burt (1974)

Example:
The acquisition of question formation
Pienemann, Johnston and Brindley (1988)
1. A dog?
2. The boys throw the shoes?
3. What the dog are playing?
Is the picture has two planets on top?
4. Where is the sun?
5. How do you say [proche]?
6. Its better, isnt it?
Why cant you go?
Can you tell me what the date is today?

Example:
The acquisition of negation
Schumann (1979)
1.

2.
3.

4.

No bicycle.
No have any sand.
I no like it.
He dont like it.
I dont can sing.
You can not go there.
He was not happy.
She dont like rice.
It doesnt work.
We didnt have supper.
I didnt went there.

L1 vs. L2 developmental sequences

There are some similarities and some
differences
Example:
Dulay, Burt and Krashen (1982),
Meisel, Clahsen and Pienemann (1981)

Dulay and Burt (1974)

Adult vs child L2 development

They are quite similar
Example:
Compare Dulay and Burt (1974) and Bailey
Madden and Krashen (1974)

*Dulay and Burt (1974)

** Bailey et al. (1974)

L1 effects on L2 development
On rate of development
Dulay and Burt (1974) on grammatical morphemes
Schumann (1982) on negation
Gilbert and Orlovic (1975) on articles
Keller-Cohen (1978) on yes/no questions

On route of development
Zobl (1982) on articles

Context of acquisition effects

on L2 development
Virtually

no effects in terms of route of

development
Dulay and Burt (1973)
Pienemann (1989)
Pica (1983)
Perkins and Larsen-Freeman (1975)

Some

effects of instruction on rate of

acquisition
Pienemann (1989)

Dulay and Burt (1973)

Methodological issues
How should one measure language
development?
- Emergence criterion
- Mastery (accuracy) criterion

Exercise: Testing proposed morpheme orders

Explaining developmental
sequences
According to Gregg (1996), developmental
sequences can be explained as:

Environmental
Reductive
Teleological
Psycholinguistic

Theories of L2 development
(a.k.a. transition theories)
1. General learning principles (non-modular)
2. Modular learning mechanisms

1. Non-modular theories
Based

on general learning principles

Example:

- hypothesis testing
- automaticity
- inferencing
etc.

LA=

acquisition of a complex cognitive skill

2. Modular theories
UG-based

Example:
Subset Principle
(Wexler and Manzini, 1987)

Other

Example:
Communicative Competence Theory (e.g.,
Canale and Swain, 1980; Bachman, 1990)

Subset Principle
(e.g., Wexler and Manzini, 1987)

[+pro drop]

[-pro drop]
Superset
Subset

Communicative language competence

(e.g., Canale and Swain, 1980; Bachman, 1990)

Language Competence
Organizational Competence
Grammatical Competence

Pragmatic Competence

Textual Competence

Vocabulary Morphology Syntax Phonology/Graph Cohesion

Illocutionary Competence

Sociolinguistic Competence

Rhetorical
Ideat.
Manip.
Heur. Imag.fucntions Sensitivity Sensitivity Sensitivity Cultural
organization functions functions functions
to
to register
to nat.
refs.
dialectal
and
variety
figs. of
speech

Components of Communicative Competence in Communicative Language Use

Language Competence
(Kowledge of the world)

Kowledge Structures
(Knowledge of language)

Strategic Competence
Psychophysiological Mechanisms
Contentext of Situation

Current issues in UG-based

theories of L2 development
The initial state debate:
Minimal Trees
(Vainikka and Young-Scholten, 1994, 1996, 1998)
vs
Full Transfer/Full Access
(Schwartz and Sprouse, 1994, 1996)

The endstate debate:

Missing Surface Inflection Hypothesis
(Prevost and White, 2000)
vs.
Failed Functional Features Hypothesis
(Hawkins and Chan, 1997)

Reading

Hawkins, R. 2001: Second Language Syntax. A

generative introduction. Oxford: Blackwell.
(Chapter 2)

References
Bachman, L. F. 1990: Fundamental considerations in language testing. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Bailey, N., C. Madden and S. Krashen 1974: Is there a 'natural sequence' in adult second
language learning? Language Learning 24: 235-243.
Canale, M. and M. Swain. 1980: Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to second
language teaching and testing. Applied Linguistics 1, 1: 1-47.
Dulay, H. and M. Burt. 1973: Should we teach children syntax? Language Learning 23, 245-258.
Dulay, H. and M. Burt 1974: Natural sequences in child second language acquisition. Language
Learning 24: 37-53.
Dulay, H., M. Burt and S. D. Krashen. 1982: Language two. New York: Oxford University Press.
Gregg, K. R. 1996: The logical and developmental problems of SLA, in W. C. Ritchie and T. K.
Bhatia, eds. The handbook of second language acquisition. San Diego: Academic Press. Pp.
49-81.
Hawkins, R. and C. Chan 1997: The partial availability of UG in second language acquisition: the
failed functional features hypothesis. Second Language Research 13, 3: 187-226.
Meisel, J. M., H. Clahsen and M. Pienemann. 1981: On determining developmental stages in
natural second language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 3, 2: 109-135.
Perkins, K. and D. Larsen-Freeman. 1975: The effect of formal language instruction on the order
of morpheme acquisition. Language Learning 25, 237-243.

Pica, T. 1983: Adult acquisition of English as a second language under different conditions
of exposure. Language Learning 33, 465-497.
Pienemann, M. 1989: Is language teachable? Applied Linguistics 10, 1: 52-79.
Pienemann, M., M. Johnston and G. Brindley. 1988: Constructing an acquisition-based
procedure for second language assessment. Studies in Second Language Acquisition
10, 2: 217-243.
Prvost, P. and L. White. 2000: Missing surface inflection or impairment in second language
acquisition? Evidence from tense and agreement. Second Language Research 16, 2:
103-133.
Schumann, J. H. 1979: The acquisition of English negation by speakers of Spanish: a
review of the literature, in R. W. Andersen, ed. The acquisition and use of Spanish and
English as first and second languages. Washington, DC: TESOL. Pp. 3-32.
Schwartz, B. D. and R. A. Sprouse. 1994: Word order and nominative Case in nonnative
language acquisition: a longitudinal study of (L1 Turkish) German interlanguage, in T.
Hoekstra and B. D. Schwartz, eds. Language acquisition studies in generative
grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Pp. 317-368.
Schwartz, B. D. and R. A. Sprouse. 1996: L2 cognitive states and the 'full transfer/full
access' model. Second Language Research 12, 1: 40-72.

Vainikka, A. and M. Young-Scholten. 1994: Direct access to X'-theory: evidence from

Korean and Turkish adults learning German., in T. Hoekstra and B. D. Schwartz, eds.
Language acquisition studies in generative grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Vainikka, A. and M. Young-Scholten. 1996: Gradual development of L2 phrase structure.
Second Language Research 12, 1: 7-39.
Vainikka, A. and M. Young-Scholten. 1998: Functional categories and related
mechanisms in child second language acquisition, in S. Flynn, G. Martohardjono and
W. O'neil, eds. The generative study of second language acquisition. Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum
Wexler, K. and M. R. Manzini. 1987: Parameters and learnability in binding theory, in T.
Roeper and E. Williams, eds. Parameter setting. Dordrecht: Reidel. Pp. 41-76.
Zobl, H. 1982: A direction for contrastive analysis: the comparative study of
developmental sequences. TESOL Quarterly 16, 2: 169-183.