The input hypothesis inverted: A comparison of the input given by children to their Hispanic immigrant mothers and by teachers to their Hispanic immigrant students.
Material type:
TextDescription: 209 pISBN: 0493201971Subject(s): Language, Linguistics | Education, Language and Literature | Sociology, Ethnic and Racial Studies | 0290 | 0279 | 0631Dissertation note: Thesis (Ph.D.)--Boston University, 2001. Summary: An important question in theoretical second language (L2) acquisition concerns input: is positive evidence (L2 utterances alone) sufficient for successful adult L2 acquisition? Chomskyan theory asserts that in L1 acquisition, positive evidence is sufficient: children cannot use negative evidence (corrections and explanations). Some L2 theorists have argued that positive evidence might be sufficient for L2 acquisition as well.Summary: This theoretical question has practical implications. Many U.S. immigrants learn English in untutored environments. According to previous research, these untutored learners often plateau at the level of a “simplified variety.” Yet no one has studied the linguistic input they receive, which might also be “simplified” and lacking negative evidence. Other immigrants do receive negative evidence from language teachers. Are differences in the kinds of input related with differences in success of acquisition? This study compares the input provided to immigrant adults by their English-speaking children with the input provided to immigrant adults by their teachers. It also compares output of both groups of adult learners.Summary: Ten Hispanic immigrants receiving no formal English instruction (mothers) were audiotaped interacting with their English-speaking children. Seven adult Hispanic immigrants receiving communicatively-oriented instruction in English (students) were also audiotaped. A total of 4,512 child and teacher input utterances and 4,148 adult learner output utterances were analyzed, with a special focus on verbs.Summary: In speaking, mothers produced more morphology than untutored learners reported in the literature, and more diversity of morphology and interrogative/negative sentences than students. However, students produced morphology and sentence structures correctly more frequently than mothers. In the input, mothers heard little diversity of morphology and sparse negative evidence during a daily conversation at dinner. In contrast, they heard wide diversity of morphology and more negative evidence during a school-related activity (homework conversation). Finally, students heard certain morphology (chosen depending on the lesson) frequently and constant negative evidence that might target verb forms during lessons focusing on verbs. These results indicate that instruction in the form of negative evidence might be crucial for adult L2 acquisition, particularly concerning correctness. However, children's rich input during homework conversations suggests a new way to improve L2 production of untutored learners who are parents.
Source: Dissertation Abstracts International, Volume: 62-04, Section: A, page: 1391.
Major Professor: Jean Berko Gleason.
Thesis (Ph.D.)--Boston University, 2001.
An important question in theoretical second language (L2) acquisition concerns input: is positive evidence (L2 utterances alone) sufficient for successful adult L2 acquisition? Chomskyan theory asserts that in L1 acquisition, positive evidence is sufficient: children cannot use negative evidence (corrections and explanations). Some L2 theorists have argued that positive evidence might be sufficient for L2 acquisition as well.
This theoretical question has practical implications. Many U.S. immigrants learn English in untutored environments. According to previous research, these untutored learners often plateau at the level of a “simplified variety.” Yet no one has studied the linguistic input they receive, which might also be “simplified” and lacking negative evidence. Other immigrants do receive negative evidence from language teachers. Are differences in the kinds of input related with differences in success of acquisition? This study compares the input provided to immigrant adults by their English-speaking children with the input provided to immigrant adults by their teachers. It also compares output of both groups of adult learners.
Ten Hispanic immigrants receiving no formal English instruction (mothers) were audiotaped interacting with their English-speaking children. Seven adult Hispanic immigrants receiving communicatively-oriented instruction in English (students) were also audiotaped. A total of 4,512 child and teacher input utterances and 4,148 adult learner output utterances were analyzed, with a special focus on verbs.
In speaking, mothers produced more morphology than untutored learners reported in the literature, and more diversity of morphology and interrogative/negative sentences than students. However, students produced morphology and sentence structures correctly more frequently than mothers. In the input, mothers heard little diversity of morphology and sparse negative evidence during a daily conversation at dinner. In contrast, they heard wide diversity of morphology and more negative evidence during a school-related activity (homework conversation). Finally, students heard certain morphology (chosen depending on the lesson) frequently and constant negative evidence that might target verb forms during lessons focusing on verbs. These results indicate that instruction in the form of negative evidence might be crucial for adult L2 acquisition, particularly concerning correctness. However, children's rich input during homework conversations suggests a new way to improve L2 production of untutored learners who are parents.
School code: 0017.
There are no comments on this title.