AN INTRODUCTION TO SLA - LARSEN FREEMAN, LONG

1) A. The place of second language in the world today

b. Why study second language acquisition?
c. Development of the field of study of second language acquisition
d. The scope of second language acquisition research
2) Research methodology
a. SLA deals with four aspects of research design: the methodology, the setting, the
instrumentation and measurement.
Many of its original research methodologies were borrowed from first language acquisition
research. Still others have come from education and related disciplines.
b. Qualitative versus quantitative methodologies
Qualitative methodology is an ethnographic study in which the researchers do not
set out
to test hypotheses, but rather to observe what is present with their focus, and
consequently the data, free to vary during the course of the observation. A quantitative
study is best typified by an experiment designed to test a hypothesis through the use of
objective instruments and appropriate statistical analyses.
Longitudinal and cross-sectional studies. A longitudinal approach (case study), is
observing the development of linguistic performance, usually the spontaneous speech of
one subject, when the speech data are collected at periodic intervals over a span of
time.
Naturalistic, ungeneralizable, process orientated. Indicated for qualitative methodology.
In a cross-sectional approach, the linguistic performance of a larger number of
subjects is studied, and the performance data are usually collected at only one session
(generally the task is provided, not spontaneous). Generalizable, goal- orientated,
controlled measurements. Appropiate for Quantitative.
Anyway, not only any approach can be used for any methodology, but It is also possible to
combine the appoachs.
Qualitative-Quantitative Continuum of Research Methodologies:
Qualitative Introspection - participant observation Non participant observation
Focused description Pre experimental Quasi experimental Experiment - Quantitative
b.1 Introspection: learners examine their own behaviour for insights into SLA with
guidance of the researcher. Downside: Its subjective and has to do with attitude,
motivation, self esteem and other non linguistic things. Good: provides good learning
techniques,
that
the
observation
alone
can
not
do.

b.2. Participant observation: researchers take part in the activities they are studying.
They do not approach the study with any specific hypotheses in mind. The period of
observation is usually long and the number of subjects studied is small.
b.3. Non participant observation. (The same but not participating). Both are very rich,
the observers attention is free, so theyre hypothesis-generating methods. Also provide
interesting psycholinguistic material. Downside: the observer's paradox (Labov 1969): the
mere presence of an Observer conditions the subjects. The scope of the study is actually
not that wide, since its also limited by the human condition. The double role of the observer
subject is restricting. They take to long.
b.4. Focused descriptive Studies: like the last, but the scope is restricted to a
particular set of variables, a particular system of language (e.g. morphology) or to explore a
particular issue. Observer collects data with an appropriate device, and mostly record and
mark questions (f.i., they want to know in which order something is learned on the
assumption -hypothesis- the most repeated morphemes are the first to be learned, etc).
Also to make correlations (motivation proficiency aso). Pro: focused: you will get a
desired result (good or bad), less time consuming. Con of being focused: cant stand for the
multiphenomenon of SLA per se, that is, can the results really be generalized to other
contexts? The result can only be as focused as the group observed. Use of instruments,
more objective and easy to compare.
The goal of this 4 methodologies is to reach a better understanding of SLA process.
The next ones are incrisingly like true experiments in the sense that they try to predict and
explain human behaviour.
b.5. Pre-experimental: Its called PRE, because its experimental, but it does not meet
the criteria (requisites). Experiments try to establish a relation between a treatment and a
consequence (eg, eradication of a mistake). It has two requisites: 1- a control group/ 2subjects must be randomly assigned to both groups. Nevertheless, it offers valuable
information on SLA, which can be later researched in a more precise manner. It can also
include a time variable (pre- and post-tests).
b.6. Quasi Experiment: It fulfills one of the two requirements: control groups.
b.7. Experiment: Meets both criteria, the information that provides its reliable and can be
easily generalized. But in order to be sure that what produces the change was the variable
introduced, subjects have to be taken away of theyre environment, which makes us doubt
if the findings can actually be extended afterwards into the real world (I suppose after the
findings, you can do a real world experiment). Also, these experiments usually are carried
in groups of SL learners (classrooms), for which they0re not actually random.
This paradigms (Qua/ Qua) are complementary and can be combined.
Didnt understand:
- Sandhi variation refers to phonological modifications such as contraction (e.g.
gonna-going to) assimilation (e.g. watca-mhat are you),
- If youre trying to prove some variable (zB, relation between a characteristic and the
learning of SLA), then it automatically becomes quasi experimental, since its not random
group?

Contrast group: Its suppose to be there so we can contrast the results before and
after right? So I need 2 samples, not just one.
2.3 Setting: Natural or classroom (or lab?).
- Classroom settings can have an influence and contaminate data, besides the objective.
On the other hand, instruction does not apparently suppress the natural process of SLA
(Felix).
- Different input.
- Sometimes groups present particular characteristics, that you have to sort out (are they
social or learning ch.?).
2.4 Instrumentation:
In theory, the qualitative methods would prefer spontaneous contribution, that is, no
instrumentation. And quantitative, the opposite. This is not so clear in the facts. The ideal
would be to have spontaneous speech, but having a researcher already causes it to be
more artificial. In any case, IF the possibility of having completely spontaneous data
existed, it would be useful only in certain cases, because the subject would not necessarily
use the object of investigation in their speech. If researcher is looking for a complex
structure, most SL learners would tend to avoid it, so it would be difficult to elicit data.
Obviously the idea is to elicit data as natural as possible, for which is important to provide a
good instrument, not revealing directly the object of your study. These are some eliciting
data procedures or data-gathering device (task or tests mostly):
(1) Reading aloud (looping for instance to check some phonetic acquisition)
(2) Structured exercises (subjects' performance with regard to specific morphemes or
syntactic patterns)- Fill in the blank, rewrite, multiple choice
(3) Completion task (of a sentence in ones own words).
(4) Elicited imitation. The learner has to repeat a certain structure, but it is long and
therefore he has to use his own grammar.
(5) Elicited translation (to or from SL)
(6) Guided composition (with verbal or visual stimulation)
(7) Question and answer. Questions designed to elicit particular structures under study.
(8) Reconstruction. Paraphrase or story retelling
(9) Communication games. For instance, pairing up a learner and a native speaker with
an excuse task, whatever game you create to force communication with the learner.
(10) Role play
(11) Oral interview
(12) Free composition: the least controlled of all, the researcher only intervenes once.
2.5. Variability problems. Although eliciting data procedures are necessary, you have to
keep in mind that the results vary from task to task (oral competition is not equal to written
competition aso). Other factors that can result in viability: time, verbal context, if the object
is the central part of the task or no2.6 Instrumentation: intuitional data elicitation = data on learners' competence, instead of
on their performance.
(1)Error recognition and correction
(2)Grammaticality judgements.
(3)Other judment tasks. For instance, rate deviant and well-formed
sentences in terms of their social acceptability, politeness, etc.

(4)Card sorting. (With a specific criteria).

2.7 Instrumentation: use of miniature languages. Tasks with a miniature language (created ad hoc
by the researcher or a fragment of an unknown language) can elicit both intuitional and performance
data.
2.8 Instrumentation: affective variables. Instrumentation can be intended to elicit not Only
linguistic data but other variables as well, like attitude or motivation.
(1) Questionnaires.
(2) Sociometry: Sometimes asking direct questions doesnt work (zB mit
Kindern), so you can study the group interaction: rate your partner as friendly
or not).
(3) Matched guise technique. VG! Recording the same guy reading in two
different language and then asking question to a group of subjects, who doesnt
know that its the same guy. So whatever they say about the reader, can be
referred to the language.
(4) Diary study. Lets you see the emocional variables that can help or hindern
the SLA.
(5) Focused introspection (Through the use of questionnaires and interviews).
As for eliciting data on language-learning strategies, Cohen and Hosenfeld
(1981) distinguish between think-aloud and self-observational techniques.
2.9 Instruments from other disciplines. Psychology tests (cognitive style, personality traits),
neurolingistics (brain processing).
2.10 Measuring learner performance:
- 1. Defining language proficiency. The most important used to be syntax, being morphology or
vocabulary peripherical (cfr. Chomsky). Also, that language proficiency should be divided in
Written spoken auditive and oral. Oiler (1976) challenged this view, said it was
unitary and it was related to IQ. He later changed his position, but Cummins
kept the concept of global proficiency and related it to cognitive and
academic performance = cognitive/academic language proficiency (CALP).
This concept is complemented by (BICS), which consist of accent, oral
fluency and sociolinguistic competence. Today it sometimes seems that
its more important the communicative competence (social) than the
linguistic. LF describes 5 areas of such communicative competence:
linguistic form, pragmatic/functional competence, propositional
content (meaning), interactional patterns (e.g.,conversational rules
governing how speakers procure and relinquish turns) and strategic
competence. Canale speaks about four components of communicative
competence: grammatical competence, sociolinguistic competence,
discourse competence and strategic competence. Bachman and Palmer
(1985) identified two superordinate types of competence (organizational
and pragmatic) and four subordinate types: grammatical, discourse,
illocutionary and sociolinguistic.
- 2. Defining an acquisition point. When can we talk about some variable being acquired? 1
definition: 'the first speech sample of three such that in all three the inflection is
supplied in at least 90 per cent of the contexts in which it is clearly required'.

Counterpoint: Sometimes we think a structure is acquired, but next time we

prove it, its a complete failure. Hakuta specifies this a little more: 'first of three
consecutive two-week samples in which the morpheme is supplied in over 90%
of obligatory contexts. Limitations: 1-obligatory context: plural form can be
obligatory, but how does it work with other variables, like modal verbs? Also,
working with obligatory contexts you cant see when its used improperly. 2- Its
interesting to see the uses of certain structure even though it is still not
acquired, understanding acquired being able to use it as correctly as a
native speaker. . Acquisition point therefore, compares the performance of SL
learner with that of the native speaker, it would be interesting to study the SLA
in itself.
- 3. Task versus test. Same happens while collecting data with instruments. Difference btw tasks
and tests: Test measure what the learner knows and does not know of the target
language. Tasks 'the rules he is using and the systems and categories he is
working with'
- 4. An index of development