Saturday, 14 May
15:25 - 16:40
Guest Speaker Session 1
John Matthews and Cynthia Brown (Shizuoka University)
 |
How filtered input obscures Full Access in L2 phonological acquisition
An important distinction can be made between the input to which learners are exposed and that portion of the input, called “intake,” to which a developing grammar has access. In this talk, we will demonstrate how the phonological component of a speaker’s grammar plays an active role in the processing of speech, causing non-native segments and consonantal sequences to be perceived in terms of native language representations, resulting in a disparity between the L2 input and the intake available to the learner. This interference from the L1 phonology essentially filters the input, removing the trigger necessary for successful L2 phonological acquisition. We examine segmental misperceptions, in which the intake constitutes a reduced component of the L2 input, as well as a psychoacoustic phenomenon known as a perceptual illusion effect, in which the intake actually exceeds the input. Given these input-intake disparities, we argue that acquisition failure in these cases cannot be taken to indicate lack of access to UG; indeed, when the necessary trigger is part of the learner’s intake, successful acquisition occurs. |
Sunday, 15 May
13:25 - 14:40
Guest Speaker Session 2
Bonnie D. Schwartz (University of Hawai'i at Manoa) |
What's left in early L2 architecture
The focus of this talk is the characterization of the left-edge of the clause in (very) early stages of Interlanguage (IL).? Crosslinguistic acquisition research over the years has shown us that early IL utterances??just like early L1 utterances??typically do not include things like questions with wh-fronting (2a) or with subject-auxiliary inversion (2a, 2b), (non-subject-initial) verb second (3), and embedded clauses (4a, 4b).

These sentence types are precisely those that unambiguously implicate the left-periphery of the clause, i.e. the C-domain in (1).? It's perhaps not surprising, then, that their absence in early IL is commonly taken as arguing for the early absence of the structure needed to represent them.
Contrary to explicit L2 proposals that embrace this idea (e.g. Vainikka & Young-Scholten 1994; Klein & Perdue 1997; Hawkins 2001; Bhatt & Hancin-Bhatt 2002; Hakansson, Pienemann & Sayehli 2002), here I will argue that the structure generally associated with left-periphery phenomena of the type in (2)-(4) is indeed present in (very) early IL.? A range of early IL data (with a variety of source- and target-language pairings) which necessarily invoke C-domain syntax will be presented, during the course of which its immediate source and, time permitting, knowledge vs. processing effects will be addressed.
References
Bhatt, R. & B. Hancin-Bhatt. 2002. Structural Minimality, CP and the initial state in second language acquisition. Second Language Research18: 348-92.
Hakansson, G., M. Pienemann & S. Sayehli. 2002. Transfer and typological proximity in the context of second language processing. Second Language Research 18: 250-73.
Hawkins, R. 2001. Second Language Syntax. Oxford: Blackwell.
Klein, W. & C. Perdue. 1997. The Basic Variety (or: Couldn't natural languages be much simpler?). Second Language Research 13: 301-47.
Vainikka, A. & M. Young-Scholten. 1994. Direct access to X'-theory: Evidence from Korean and Turkish adults learning German. In T. Hoekstra & B.D. Schwartz, eds., Language Acquisition Studies in Generative Grammar: Papers in Honor of Kenneth Wexler from the 1991 GLOW Workshops. Amsterdam: Benjamins. pp. 265-316. |