Marta Mara Prez Arrebola

Eugenio Di Lorenzo
Mara Martos Alcaraz
Paula Elisabet Daz Romero

SLA AT INTERFACES
WHY DO WE STUDY ACQUISITION AT THE INTERFACES?
This study about the interfaces promises to inform questions of general
interest to linguistics. Moreover, it helps us to shed light on output
performance and competence at various levels of development.
HOWEVER, WHAT DOES INTERFACE MEAN?
The interfaces refer to syntactic structures that are sensitive to conditions of
varying nature. The meaning of them denotes the fact that these conditions
have to be satisfied in order to the structure to be grammatical.
However, the original Interface Hypothesis (IH) suggested a distinction
between structures that involve an interface with other cognitive domains
and structures that do not.
EXPLICIT VS IMPLICIT KNOWLEDGE?
1. EXPLICIT implies:

conscious information, that is, information we are aware of;

information we can control;

information we keep in the working memory at a specific moment
and is processed there;

information readily available for conscious use;

information on which we can apply reasoning;

information subject to variability, some kind of uncertainty or

possible inaccuracy and therefore potentially fallible;
access to this kind of information takes some time (since it
requires deductive processes, reasoning and the like);
explicit knowledge can be verbalized (this is obviously related to
awareness and control);
explicit information can be learned at any moment or age,
depending on the individual capacity.

2. IMPLICIT, on the other hand, implies the opposite:

unconscious information, or information we are not aware of
(Schmidt, 1990);

information we do not consciously control;

information automatically accessible once specific stimuli are

triggered. The process initiated is headed to automatically achieve a
predefined goal (Anderson, 2005; Hulstjin, 2005; Schmidt, 1993a,
1993b; Ullman, 2004);

information is not readily available for conscious use;

information is not subject to reasoning;

information is fully structured and systematic; it should have no flaws,

since it is not subject to variability or uncertainty in the execution;

access to this kind of information is quick and automatic;

implicit knowledge cannot be verbalized, since it is not dependent on

consciousness (Paradis, 2009);

Implicit information can be learned at early age, and its learn ability
decreases with age.
Those features can be taken as identifiers for the characterization of each
type of knowledge.

EXPLICIT VS IMPLICIT LANGUAGE LEARNING.

The interface issue in SLA refers to the way researchers describe how
implicit and explicit knowledge can interface or interact with each other in
order for the learner to achieve linguistic competence. Linguistic
competence is usually associated to the fluent use of the language in
communication. This modality of linguistic knowledge is said to have been
acquired. The kind of linguistic knowledge resulting from instructed second
language teaching is said to have been learnt.
THREE INTERFACE POSITIONS

NON-INTERFACE POSITION

The main exponent of this position is S. Krashen. He states that explicit

knowledge does not mix or interact with implicit knowledge in any way.
This proposed inability for explicit knowledge to become implicit as
implications for the classroom.
Non-interface position teaches explicit grammar rules results only in explicit
knowledge that is primarily good for enabling learners to apply the rules in
situations that allow considerable time to monitor their production, then
there is little point in teaching these rules, if the desired goal of instruction
is the ability to communicate freely in the L2. Instead, proponents of the
non-interface position argue that rich and plentiful input that engages
learners in communication is the optimal pedagogical choice for the L2
classroom.

WEAK INTERFACE

The main exponent of this position is R. Dekeyser. Additionally, from his

point of view, the weak interface proposes that explicit knowledge is also
helpful for monitoring L2 production and increasing the likelihood that
learners will notice the explicit taught forms in the input.
However, Ellis (2007) sais that: It argues that although the two types of
knowledge are still distinct, there is a relationship between the two types of
knowledge and they work together during L2 production.

STRONG INTERFACE

The main exponent of the third position is Anderson. Strong interface

position is based on the assumption that explicit knowledge can and does
become implicit.
The main theoretical support for the Strong Interface Hypothesis comes
from Skill Acquistion Theory, which describes the process of declarative
knowledge becoming proceduralized (Dekeyser 2007).
In conclusion of this part, we should to highlight that, neurolinguistics
(Hazeltine, 2002; Ingram 2007; Paradis 2004, 2009; Ullman, 2004) tends to
consolidate the belief that implicit and explicit knowledge are located in
different brain areas, but they apparently share some neural channels and
may interact with each other in a kind of 'balancing' action (Ullman, 2004). If
this is so, cognitive science supports the interface position.
BOTTLENECK HYPOTHESIS
In recent years, second language researchers have been interested in
examining and explaining what is difficult and what is easy to acquire in a
second language (L2). For this reason, we are going to analyse the
BOTTLENECK HYPOTHESIS. We distinguish between Slabakova and
Dekeysers opinions about this hypothesis:

WHAT IS EASY AND WHAT IS HARD TO LEARN IN A FOREIGN

LANGUAGE?

In her research, Slabakova presents a compelling argument explaining that

what challenges learners most is functional morphology (these parts of
words which denote tense, person, aspect etc.). She argues that once
functional morphology is mastered, it is easy to acquire other
aspects of language, such as syntactic structures or semantic notions.
Hence, functional morphology constitutes a bottleneck of sorts in the
process of second language acquisition.
The point we are trying to make is that Slabakova may well be right in
identifying functional morphology as the bottleneck of second language
acquisition. However, the cognitive challenges associated with mastering
functional morphology do not necessarily promote it to the status of a
3

learning priority. Learning priorities can only be determined on the basis

of the learners specific needs, and this is a domain which UG is decidedly
unsuited to inform.
On the other hand, DeKeyser (2005) has argued that a number of linguistic
elements are hard or impossible to learn through mere exposure in the
sense of communicating in the target language, because these elements
have low frequency or otherwise lack salience, especially where formmeaning mapping is concerned.
He recommends that learners should systematically practice grammar in the
classroom so that they can create explicit knowledge and skills in the L2.
The generative framework of SLA takes a somewhat different slant to the
same issue: it identifies the harder and easier to acquire properties based
on their inherent characteristics as defined by linguistic theory.
CHARACTERISTICS
Inflectional morphology reflects syntactic and semantic differences
between languages
The learner must go through the inflectional morphology in order to
acquire syntax and meaning in the L2
So, morphology is the bottleneck of acquisition
We suggested that the various features might be acquired at different times.
It is also possible that learners acquire the syntactic meanings encoded in a
piece of inflectional morphology before they realize that the same
morphology is obligatory to produce in that language. Thus Spanish learners
do not produce correctly Spanish syntax. This is a plan about our research:

How do foreigners acquire Spanish syntax?

Subjects: we would take some Spanish speakers from
different countries for our research, to analyse better our
examples about Spanish syntax, For example we would ask
to:

- L1 French: n=...
- L1 German: n=
- L1 English: n=
- L1 Spanish: n=

L2: Spanish; Level: C1

After our selection, we would send a formulation with the next

sentences. Our Spanish speakers should choose an option in each example.
We would examine both the syntactic order of a sentence both the
correct use of pronouns and the subject.

Anoche hubo mucho ruido en la

calle. Qu pas? ... Una mujer
grit

(SV) To examine the correct

syntactic order of a sentence.

Anoche hubo mucho ruido en la

calle. Quin grit? Grit una
mujer

(VS) To examine the different

possible order.

Todo el mundo dice que l ha

aprobado el examen. Quin ha
aprobado el examen?

Now, we are going to analyse the

subject in both sentences.

Todo el mundo dice que ha

aprobado el examen. Quin ha
aprobado el examen?

And to examine the correct use

of pronoun in this sentence.

Juan piensa que l se lo merece

todo. Quin se merece todo?

With these sentences, we analyse

the use of pronoun again.

l piensa que Juan se lo merece

todo. Quin se lo merece todo?

Who? Juan? Or other person?

Who is? Juan or other person?

In conclusion, native speakers are able to make this contrast. Learners must
have the knowledge of the relevant grammatical property, even though they
are not conscious of it (unconscious knowledge).
The goal of second language pedagogy is to help learners to perfectly
reproduce linguistic structures in the target language. The structure of
sentences (syntax), the sound of sentences (phonetics/ phonology) and the
meaning of sentences (semantics) are components of this unconscious
system. Some properties that pertain to syntax, semantics and pragmatics
are universal, i.e., the same for all languages; some other properties,
however, mostly relating to functional morphology, are language specific
and are described as subject to parametric variation.

REFERENCES

Montrul, S. (2010) Multiple interfaces and incomplete acquisition,

121, 591 604
5

Rothman, J. & Slabakova, R. (2011) The Mind-Context Divide: On

acquisition at the linguistic interfaces Lingua 121 (4): 568-576

Slabakova, R. (2006). Is there a critical period for the acquisition of

semantics? Second Language Research 22(3): 302-338.

Slabakova, R. (2008). Meaning in the Second Language, Berlin:

Mouton de Gruyter.

Slabakova, R. (2009). Features or Parameters: which one makes

SLA easier, and more interesting to study? in Second Language
Research, 25, 2, 313-324.

Slabakova, R. & Ivanov, I. (2010). A more careful look at the

syntax-discourse interface. Lingua article. Available online 11 June
2010

Sorace, A. (2011) Pinning down the concept of interface in

Bilingualism in Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism 1, 1, 1-33.

Slabakova, R. (2013) The Bottleneck of Second Language

Acquisition in Contemporary Approaches to Second Language
Acquisition, pp. 5-28