A Research Agenda for LESLLA/A Second Language Acquisition

Martha BigelowElaine Tarone

University of Minnesota

An Ecology of SLA Research

LESLLA’s Research Agendas UnderwaySLA RESEARCH

Obstacles on highway L2 Craats (2007)

The impact of alphabetic print literacy level on oral second language acquisition

Tarone, Bigelow, Hansen (2007)

A LESLLA Corpus: L1 obstacles in the learning of L2 morphosyntax

Craats (2011)

Non-literate immigrants—A new group of adults in Finland

Tammelin-Laine (2011)

LESLLA’s Research Agendas UnderwayWORKING MEMORY RESEARCH

Memory, second language reading, and lexicon: A comparison between successful and less successful adults and children

Kurvers, Craats (2007)

Some notes on working memory in college-educated and low educated learners of English as a second language in the United States

Juffs, Rodrigues (2008)

LESLLA’s Research Agendas UnderwayORAL SKILLS/SPEAKING RESEARCH

Teaching, learning, and speaking: observation and assessing oral language production of the non-literate adult learner in the second language classroom

Strube (2007)

Telling pictures stories: Relevance and coherence in texts of the non-literate L2 learners

Strube, Craats, Hout (2010)

What do teachers do? A look at the oral skills practices in the LESLLA classroom

Strube (2009)

LESLLA’s Research Agendas UnderwayWORD KNOWLEDGE RESEARCH

Literacy and word boundaries Kurvers, Hout, Vallen (2007)

Word concept of illiterates and low-literates: World apart?

Onderdelinden, Craats, Kurvers (2009)

Discovering features of language: Metalinguistic awareness of adult illiterates

Kurvers, Vallen, Hout (2006)

Development of word recognition skills of adult L2 beginning readers

Kurvers (2007)

LESLLA’s Research Agendas UnderwayLITERACY RESEARCH

Predictors of success in adult L2 literacy acquisition

Kurvers, Stockmann, Craats (2010)

Instruction, language and literacy: What works study for adult ESL literacy students

Condelli, Spruck Wrigley (2006)

Evaluation of literacy instruction on low-literate adult ESL learners: A study in progress

Condelli, Cronen (2009)

LESLLA’s Research Agendas Underway

LITERACY RESEARCH Growing roots and wings: A case study on English literacy in Namibia

Beckman, Kurvers (2009)

Emergent writing of LESLLA learners

Kurvers, Ketelaars (2011)

A reading components assessment of English language literacy learners in U.S. prisons

Muth (2007)

LESLLA’s Research Agendas UnderwayLITERACY RESEARCH

Non-literate L2 adults’ small steps in mastering the constellation of skills required for reading

Young-Scholten, Naeb(2010)

First-time L2 learners: Is there A critical period?

Young-Scholten, Strom (2006)

Pace and progress in adult literacy: Word and grapheme recognition by new readers in Timor-Leste

Boon (2011)

Learning to read in Portuguese in East Timor: Strategies of adult literacy learners

Boon, Kurvers (2008)

The Goal of SLA Research

• Describe & explain cognitive processes

• Document development of L2 interlanguage over time

• Focus on the learner• Oral interlanguage, as

used in communication

What does SLA research tell us about LESLLA/A learners?

• Very little in mainstream journals, conferences, books

• The SLA of the emergent reader is little known

Omission of LESLLA/A Risky

• For SLA Theory• For Pedagogy

Female

Male

Literate

Illiterate

UNESCO DATA

793.1 Million Illiterate Adults Worldwide

64% Women

Basic Literacy Classes in the U.S. (‘08-’09)

Female 111,552Male 73,437

Female

Male

National Reporting Service Data

Illiteracy and Multilingualism

• Burkina Faso– 21% literate– 68 languages

• Afghanistan– 28% literacy– 49 languages

(CIA Factsheet Ethnologue.com)

Transnationalism and Migration

SLA Research Basics

• Fundamental assumptions and relevant findings of SLA research

• Why these assumptions and findings do not fit low literate L2 learners

Fundamental Assumptions in SLA

• 1968 – S.P. Corder: L2 learner has innate cognitive implicit ‘built-in syllabus’ independent of teacher’s syllabus & of L1.

• 1972 – Selinker: interlanguage rules used implicitly to generate utterances

• 1980’s – Krashen: implicit L2 knowledge (acquired) is different from explicit L2 knowledge (learned)

• Difference explicit and implicit L2 knowledge

Explicit L2 Knowledge vs.Implicit L2 Knowledge

Explicit knowledge = derives from skills learned in formal classroom settings: grammatical syllabi, memorization of rules and vocabulary, analyzing syntax, mechanically sequencing linguistic units to construct sentences

Implicit knowledge = unconscious ‘built in syllabus’, organic growth of grammar through use in meaning-focused interaction

Independence of Explicit & Implicit Language Knowledge

• Teaching past counterfactual rule, e.g. ‘I wish I had known,’ ESL teacher says:

‘I wish I would have known’

• Implicit knowledge without explicit awareness

• Explicit knowledge without implicit ability to use the language

Metalinguistic Cognitive Processes in SLA Theory (Educated L2 Learners)

• Mainstream theories assume that L2 learners must be explicitly aware of linguistic units like phonemes, morphemes, words to acquire L2s

• They must explicitly notice differences between the order of such units in the input and in their own speech (= notice the gap)

• Consider research on corrective feedback

Corrective feedback

• Learner: *What she is doing? (error)

• Teacher: What is she doing? (recast)

• Learner: What is she doing? (uptake)

Scaffolding = Interaction of Explicit & Implicit Knowledge

• Assumes: proficiency grows through use in interaction with support of explicit corrective feedback

• Focus on Form, ZPD: require explicit awareness of linguistic units in the midst of meaning-focused interaction

Research with Preliterate Learners• Increasingly suggests that adults who aren’t

alphabetically literate do not have same kind of awareness of linguistic units like phonemes, morphemes, words

– Scholes (1993): preliterate adults view segmenting speech into words as ‘meaningless’

– Olson (2002) & Ong (2002): awareness of ‘words’ and phonological awareness result from alphabetic literacy

Selected LESLLA Findings:– Kurvers, Hout & Vallen (2006, 2007):

alphabetic literacy --> awareness of the word and the phoneme as units

• Non alphabetically literate adults viewed language as means of communication, but not a string of linguistic units

– Onderlinden et al. (2009): degree of alphabetic literacy correlates with degree of ability to identify word boundaries

– Young-Scholten & Strom (2006): phonemic awareness only after learning to read; notions of syllable, onset, rhyme developed independently

Deficit or Difference?• Is lack of phonological awareness a deficit?• Bassetti (2005): different writing systems teach

you to segment oral language in distinctive ways; not a deficit but definitely a difference

• English writing represents words and Chinese writing represents monosyllabic morphemes

• Literate English CFL learners segmented oral Chinese into “words” according to spacing conventions of the English writing system, different from segmentation conventions of literate Chinese, based on “hanzi”

Linguistic Units Used by Pre-literate Learners to Process L2 Input

• So into what kind of units do pre-literate adults and adolescents – who are not aware of words and phonemes – segment their oral L2 input?

• Recall Young-Scholten & Strom (2006): they are aware of syllables and rhyme.

Abukar

• 15 years old, in 9th grade• Began formal schooling in US 4.5 years earlier

(after 4 yrs in refugee camp)• Scores show relatively low literacy level but

developing oral proficiency:– English literacy: 6 out of 9 possible– Somali literacy: 4 out of 9– SPEAK: 50 out of 60 possible– Question stage: 5 out of 6 possible

Abukar’s Common Errors with Questions

Abukar: … what, what he is looking?

Abukar: Why he is mad?

Abukar: … why he come this room?

Abukar’s Common Errors with Questions

Abukar: … what, what he is looking?

Abukar: Why he is mad?

Abukar: … why he come this room?

Form-Focused Recasts(1 on 1, not classroom)

1 Abukar: What he sit on, what he SIT on, or whatever?2 MB: What is he sitting on?3 Abukar: Mhm.4 MB: What is he sitting on? Again. Repeat.5 Abukar: What he sitting on?6 MB: What IS he sitting on?7 Abukar: Oh. What he sitting on?8 MB: What IS he sitting on?

9 Abukar: What IS he sitting on? (from Tarone & Bigelow 2007)

Focus on Second Syllable STRESS

01 Abukar: Why he is mad? Why [he], he is mad?02 MB: [yeah]03 MB: Why IS he mad?04 Abukar: Why HE is mad? Why05 MB: Why IS he mad?06 Abukar: Why IS he mad? Why is, [is he]…

Focus on Vocabulary in Recast

01 Abukar: OK (pause) what is barrel, what is, what is the 02 thing in it? What is there? Is it, is there pennies in it?03 MB: Yeah. Um, again. Are pennies in the jar?04 Abukar: Is, are the penny in the jar?05 MB: Yes. And, um, 06 Abukar: (whispers) jar07 MB: you know she’s a waitress, so she gets tips,08 Abukar: O K09 MB: at the diner, 10 Abukar: mhm11 MB: and every day she puts her tips in a jar12 Abukar: oh. (pause) (xxx xxx)13 MB: Here’s the jar.14 Abukar: A jar?15 Abukar: (20 turns later) Is this jar have, this jar, is this jar full of money?

Summing up: What aspect of the recasts does Abukar notice & repeat?

• He most easily recalls:– New vocabulary: ‘jar’– Second position stress: daDAHdada

• He struggles (=requires several turns) to recall:– Difference in order of words between trigger and

recast: is he he is• Yet he’s communicating well in English L2

Implications & Questions

• SLA theory says that L2 learners must ‘notice the gap’ between linguistic forms in interlanguage, and those in the input

• Abukar may be noticing the gap in terms of his awareness of units like syllable and syllable stress, rather than in terms of units like ‘words’ and ‘word order’

We wonder…

Do all L2 forms have to be explicitly noticed to be acquired?

Can LESLLA/A learners acquire some L2 forms implicitly, without explicit analysis? OR,

Do these learners structure their explicit working memory for language in some way that researchers don’t see?

Can we capitalize on what preliterate learners do notice in oral input to improve their acquisition of L2 linguistic units and their syntactic relationships?

Strands of a SLA research agenda

1. The metalinguistic awareness emergent readers use in oral SLA

2. The longitudinal development of LESLLA/A learners’ interlanguage, including the linguistic forms they acquire before, during and after becoming literate

3. Impact of different forms of corrective feedback on noticing of different linguistic forms by preliterate learners

4. Impact of social context on cognitive processes in LESLLA/A SLA

5. Researcher access, ethical and political issues with LESLLA/A populations

1. Metalinguistic Awareness: Possible Hypotheses

• The pre-literate L2 learner is not metalinguistically aware of any linguistic forms in L2 input; all processing is semantic.

• The pre-literate L2 learner has metalinguistic awareness of forms in oral L2 input, but this awareness is not framed in terms of phonemes, words, morphemes.– It may be framed in terms of other formal units like syllables, syllable

stress pattern (or rhythm), or rhyme (or vowel similarity).– It may be framed in terms of more global units and organizations which

may be detectable in memorization and recitation of long oral narratives, or the Koran

• The pre-literate L2 learner acquires some L2 linguistic forms without metalinguistic awareness, but other L2 linguistic forms require metalinguistic processing.– Some can be acquired with semantic processing only.– Some require metalinguistic awareness.

2. Longitudinal Case Studies: Possible Hypotheses

• Interlanguage develops systematically across time and social context for pre-literate learners, but not in the same way as for literate learners.– Longitudinal case studies with data from a range of contexts (Liu,

Nicholas)– High quality ethnography, access– Look at data with fresh eyes

• In some social contexts, some linguistic forms are acquired earlier, and spread later to other social contexts. Other linguistic forms are acquired late, beginning in different social contexts. Longitudinal case studies patterned on Liu (1991) can document the variable acquisition patterns of preliterate adult L2 learners, as well as the social factors (interlocutor, contextual cues, language use patterns) that influence this variation

3. Corrective Feedback: Possible Hypotheses

• Pre-literate L2 learners notice some linguistic units and not others when corrective feedback is structured in terms of phonemes, morphemes and words.

• Pre-literate L2 learners notice more, or different linguistic units, when corrective feedback is structured in terms of other formal units (e.g. syllables, syllable stress patterns, or intonation).

• Pre-literate L2 learners produce more uptake when corrective feedback represents units like words with symbols that are not script-based (e.g. colored blocks like Cuisinnaire rods).

• Pre-literate L2 learners produce more uptake when corrective feedback is framed in sociocultural terms (e.g. speak with the “voice” of Mrs. Y)

4. Social Contexts of SLA: Possible Hypotheses

• Pre-literate L2 learners engage in different patterns of participation in different social contexts (e.g. formal vs. naturalistic – classrooms vs. communities), and this affects their patterns of interlanguage use and acquisition. A variationist study can identify influential social variables and related variability in interlanguage, and awareness of these will better inform teacher decisions.

• Pre-literate L2 learners bring unstudied assets to the process of oral SLA that derive from cultural practices such as recitation of long oral narratives, improvisation of oral poetry, or memorization and recitation of the Koran. An ethnographic case study can identify those assets and cultural practices, and the variable linguistic features of IL that benefit from exercise of those assets.

Needed: More Research in Intact Classroom Contexts

5. Access, Ethics, and Politics

• Access• Intercultural

competence• Cultural outsiders• Positionality• Representation• Giving back