Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Unconstrained Learning
Species Constraints
Timing Constraints Domain Constraints
Unconstrained Learning
Species Constraints
Timing Constraints Domain Constraints
Taste Aversion
Konrad Lorenz
Unconstrained Learning
Species Constraints
Timing Constraints Domain Constraints
Categorical Speech Perception
Noam Chomsky
John is easy to please.John is eager to please.
John is easy to please.John is eager to please.
It is easy to please John.*It is eager to please John.
(1) Who do you want to see?(2) Who do you want to feed the dog? (3) Who do you wanna see?(4) *Who do you wanna feed the dog?
(1) Who do you want to see?(2) Who do you want to feed the dog? (3) Who do you wanna see?(4) *Who do you wanna feed the dog?
(5)You want to see who?(6)You want who to feed the dog?
(1) Who do you want to see?(2) Who do you want to feed the dog? (3) Who do you wanna see?(4) *Who do you wanna feed the dog?
(5)You want to see who?(6)You want who to feed the dog?
(7)Whoi do you want to see ti?(8)Whoi do you want ti to feed the dog?
Unconstrained Learning
Species Constraints
Timing Constraints Domain Constraints
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Age of Acquisition
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Age of Acquisition
Figure 2.
Some theoretical predictions of the critical period hypothesis showing disruption at predicted end of thecritical period.
(a) (b)
Critical Period in Second Language Learning?
Figure 1.
Re-analysis of Johnson and Newport study showing discontinuity at age 20, and continued decline in adult subjects. Reported in Bialystok & Hakuta, 1994.
All Subjects
0 10 20 30 40Age of Arrival
0
100
200
300E
nglis
h P
rofic
ien c
y
r=-.87 r=-.49
Chinese Spanish
Figure 3.
Self-reported English proficiency for U.S. immigrants as a function of age of arrival. Data from 1990 Census. Analysis reported in Bialystok & Hakuta, 1999.
Figure 4.Comparison of performance on selected English grammatical structures in adult and child learners. Source: Bailey, Madden & Krashen, 1974, Language Learning.
Oral Proficiency
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7GRADE
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
Pro
p or t
ion
o f F
u ll S
cor e
10255070
Poverty Level
Figure 5.
English proficiency development in immigrant students from a Northern California school district, separated by poverty level in schools. This is a cross-sectional sample, but all subjects included in this analysis were enrolled in this school district since Kindergarten.
0 20 40 60 80
12
34
5
Figure 6.
Self-reported English proficiency for native Chinese immigrants as a function of age of arrival, separated by educational attainment. Data from 1990 Census. Analysis reported in Bialystok & Hakuta, 1999.
Age of Immigration
Eng
lish
Pro
ficie
ncy
Some College
HS GraduateSome HS<8 yrs school
<5 yrs school
