Kook-Hee Gil

Universal grammar and the second language classroom

Acknowledgements .- 1. Introduction: Generative second language acquisition and language pedagogy by Melinda Whong, Kook-Hee Gil and Heather Marsden .- Part I: GenSLA Applied to the Classroom . 2. What research can tell us about teaching: The case of pronouns and clitics by Joyce Bruhn de Garavito .- 3. L2 Acquisition of null subjects in Japanese: A new generative perspective and its pedagogical implications byMika Kizu .- 4. Verb movement in generative SLA and the teaching of word order patterns by Tom Rankin .- 5. Modifying the teaching of modifiers: A lesson from Universal Grammar by David Stringer .- 6. The syntax-discourse interface and the interface between generative theory and pedagogical approaches to SLA by Elena Valenzuela and Bede McCormack .- Part II: GenSLA and Classroom Research . 7. Alternations and argument structure in second language English: Knowledge of two types of intransitive verbs by Makiko Hirakawa .- 8. Quantifiers: form and meaning in second language development by Kook-Hee Gil, Heather Marsden, and Melinda Whong .- 9. Explicit article instruction in definiteness, specificity, genericity and perception by Neal Snape and Noriaki Yusa .- Part III: GenSLA, the Language Classroom, and Beyond .- 10. Whether to teach and how to teach complex linguistic structures in a second language by Roumyana Slabakova and Maria del Pilar Garcia Mayo .- 11. Great expectations in phonology: Second language acquisition research and its relation to the teaching of older and younger learners by Martha Young-Scholten .- 12. Applied Generative SLA: The need for an agenda and a methodology by Melinda Whong .- Subject index

Beyond paradigm: The ‘what’ and the ‘how’ of classroom research

This article reviews studies in second language classroom research from a cross-theoretic perspective, arguing that the classroom holds the potential for bringing together researchers from opposing theoretical orientations. It shows how generative and general cognitive approaches share a view of language that implicates both implicit and explicit knowledge, and that holds a bias towards implicit knowledge. Arguing that it is implicit knowledge that should be the object of research, it proposes that classroom research would benefit from incorporating insights from a generative understanding of language. Specifically, there is a need for a more nuanced view of the complexity of language in terms of linguistic domain, and the interaction between those domains. Generative second language acquisition research that shows developmental differences in terms of both linguistic domain and interface is reviewed. The core argument is a call for more attention to the ‘what’ of language development in classroom research and, by implication, teaching practice. As such, the language classroom is seen to offer potential for research that goes beyond paradigm to address both the ‘what’ and the ‘how’ of language development.

Introduction: Generative Second Language Acquisition and Language Pedagogy

For the uninitiated, it might seem quite obvious that research in second language acquisition is of relevance to the profession of language teaching. Yet in reality this relationship is not very clear, especially in terms of more formal approaches to second language acquisition and Chomskyan generative second language acquisition (henceforth GenSLA), in particular. From the point of view of language pedagogy, the question of what role theory should play in practice is one of continuous debate. This is not a trivial question; researchers need to isolate variables in order to investigate phenomena. In doing so, the complexity of reality is immediately compromised. Teachers, by contrast, must contend with reality in all of its complexity whether an explanation exists or not. Nevertheless, assuming that being able to explain phenomena means having a better understanding, we take the view that the more classroom instruction is underpinned by an understanding of theoretical principles, the more effective it will be. Accepting, then, that there is a role for theory, there is the added question of which theories. As noted some time ago by Stern (1983), the practice of language teaching implicates assumptions from a number of areas of inquiry ranging from language to learning, to education and to society. Clearly, even if we limit ourselves to language and learning, this still leaves us with a broad arena of research as the range of subfields within these two subjects is as diverse as it is wide.

The meaning of negation in the second language classroom: Evidence from ‘any’:

This article brings together an experimental study involving L2 knowledge of negation in English and an analysis of how English language textbooks treat negation, in order to consider whether textbook explanations of negation could better exploit linguistic insights into negation. We focus on the English negative polarity item any, whose distribution is contingent on negation, whether through the explicit negator not or through lexical semantic negators (e.g. hardly). Our experiment compares Chinese-speaking learners with existing data from Arabic-speaking learners, finding lower accuracy on any with lexical semantic negators in both groups. Our textbook analysis reveals an approach to negation that is limited to form, focusing on the explicit negator not without explicit treatment of other types of negation. We propose that emphasizing the meaning of negation, with explicit treatment of the full range of negative forms could facilitate more complete acquisition across a range of grammatical properties where negation plays a role.

Quantifiers: Form and Meaning in Second Language Development

Research into the second language acquisition of quantifiers (every, any, some, etc.) sheds light on the L2 development of form and meaning in an area of language that is not usually a key focus of the language classroom. This chapter begins with an overview of some existing studies of L2 acquisition of quantifiers, the majority of which investigate phenomena that are not only absent from classroom instruction but are also not directly deducible from the input: “poverty of the stimulus” phenomena. The findings show that subtle properties of quantifiers are difficult to acquire—particularly if they involve the syntax-pragmatics interface—but they often emerge in advanced learners, even without teaching or direct evidence in the input. The chapter then explores how language teaching might accelerate acquisition of such late-emerging aspects of the L2. We report the findings of a pilot study (Gil K-H, Marsden H, Whong M. Can explicit grammar instruction serve as evidence for L2 grammar restructuring? In: Stavrakaki S, Konstantinopoulou P, Lalioti M (eds) Proceedings of GALA 2011. Cambridge Scholars Publishing, Cambridge, to appear) on the effect of providing focus on form instruction about the English quantifier any. Though inconclusive, the findings raise new research questions that are of interest to both generative L2 acquisition researchers and classroom researchers. We conclude that collaborative research will enrich both fields.

What's in the Textbook and What's in the Mind: Polarity Item "Any" in Learner English.

This paper presents an experimental study of the rarely explored question of how input through instruction interacts with L2 acquisition at the level of modular linguistic knowledge. The investigation focuses on L2 knowledge of the English polarity item any, whose properties are only partially covered by typical language-teaching materials. We investigate Najdi-Saudi Arabic-speaking learners’ knowledge of the distribution of any in contexts that are taught, contexts that are not taught but may be observable in the input, and contexts that are neither taught nor observable. We further test whether conscious awareness of instructed rules about any correlates with performance. Our findings suggest a role for instruction and for internal, UG-constrained acquisition, and that these two paths interact. We explore our findings in terms of Sharwood Smith and Truscott’s (2014a, 2014b) framework of modular online growth and use of language, in which cognitive development is driven by processing.