Course Form
I. Summary of Proposed Changes
Dept / Program
Linguistics Program
Course Title
Second Language Developement
Prefix and Course #
LING C 578
Short Title (max. 26 characters incl. spaces)
Second Language Development
Summarize the change(s) proposed
Adding a co-convened graduate level course
II. Endorsement/Approvals
Complete the form and obtain signatures before submitting to Faculty Senate Office
Please type / print name Signature
Date
Requestor:
Tully Thibeau
Phone/ email :
X2156/
Tully.thibeau@umontana.edu
Program Chair/Director:
Irene Appelbaum
Other affected programs
Dean:
Chris Comer
Are other departments/programs affected by this modification
Please obtain signature(s) from the
because of
Chair/Director of any such department/
(a) required courses incl. prerequisites or corequisites,
program (above) before submission
(b) perceived overlap in content areas
(c) cross-listing of coursework
III: To Add a New Course Syllabus and assessment information is required (paste syllabus into section
V or attach). Course should have internal coherence and clear focus.
Common Course Numbering Review (Department Chair Must Initial):
YES
NO
Does an equivalent course exist elsewhere in the MUS? Check all relevant disciplines if
course is interdisciplinary. (http://www.mus.edu/Qtools/CCN/ccn_default.asp)
X
If YES: Do the proposed abbreviation, number, title and credits align with existing course(s)? Please indicate
equivalent course/campus. 
If NO: Course may be unique, but is subject to common course review. Be sure to include learning outcomes
on syllabus or paste below. The course number may be changed at the system level.
Exact entry to appear in the next catalog (Specify course abbreviation, level, number, title, credits, repeatability
(if applicable), frequency of offering, prerequisites, and a brief description.) 
C 578 Second Languaage Development 3 cr. Offered spring. Prereq., LING 471 and 472
or consent of instructor. As in studies in Second Language (L2) Acquisition, an investigation
of the notion of Interlanguage, a language system intrinsically non-native yet (i) in a state of
development proceeding toward greater nativeness or (ii) in a state of inactivity stabilized
upon fixed non-nativeness. An analysis of L2 data gathered experimentally through design
and naturalistically through observation and an exploration of how natural and experimental
settings function with respect to the establishment of a theory of Interlanguage. Specifically,
an evaluation of concept-driven theoretical frameworks (generative universals) as compared
with data-driven frameworks (typological universals), each employing the idea of structure
understood as relatively unmarked (more natural) and marked (less natural). Co-convenes
with LING 478: graduate requirements; all the data-analysis problem-sets that are assigned
to undergraduates plus additional exercises that expand the typological method of analysis
introduced during the first quarter of the term through further analysis of extra data and
supplementary reading material not included in that identified for the co-convened course,
leading to a construal of how generative and typological linguistics explain L2 development.
Justification: How does the course fit with the existing curriculum? Why is it needed?
The Linguistics Program awards an MA degree but also serves a large undergraduate population
(Linguistics minor, Anthropology major with a Linguistics Option, English major with an English
Linguistics Option, English majors with an Option in Teaching ESL, students pursuing a Certificate of
Accomplishment in ESL, Department of Curriculum and Instruction majors with a minor teaching
field in ESL, teaching majors and minors in Spanish, French and German). To serve all groups
(graduate and undergraduate) we have employed a UG system for many of our courses. However,
within this system, our Linguistics MA students have struggled to satisfy the Board of Regents 50/50
rule that requires half of a graduate student’s courses to be 500-level and above. In the past we have
opened Independent Study sections and Special Topics sections for graduate students who would
attend the equivalent 400-level UG course but would complete additional graduate-level increments.
The addition of co-convening courses for the core Linguistics curriculum will provide more
transparency between the graduate and undergraduate curriculum while maintaining compliance with
graduate and undergraduate curriculum policies.
Are there curricular adjustments to accommodate teaching this course?
Typically offered in the spring term, graduate and undergraduate students enrolled in the course will
have had, pending adherence to prerequisites, a modicum of formal training in linguistics and therefore
ought to function as peers; consequently, the balance of instruction need not ncessarily tip toward
either one group or the other. Graduates will nearly immediately more extensively survey data related
to a topic introduced to the whole class and engage in supplementary reading material that speaks
directly to the extended data-sets but will not be included among the other reading materials assigned
for the course. During the first quarter of the semester, the instructor meets graduates individually or
as a group (depending on enrollment) and observes their progress in analysing data-sets and matching
their analyses to the coverage provided in the supplementary reading; graduates will present their work
to the undergraduates as a presentation portion of their mid-term exam. After midterm, they will lead
a discussion of a new data-set that is related to their presentation but involves two assignments to be
completed by the entire class before spring break. Once spring break has passed, graduates will turn
their attention to a new topic that they work on with the instructor outside of class using a variety of
data-sets covering several languages as well as extra reading materials not assigned to the rest class.
Complete for UG courses (UG courses should be assigned a 400 number).
Describe graduate increment - see procedure 301.30
http://umt.edu/facultysenate/committees/grad_council/procedures/default.aspx
Complete for Co-convented courses
Companion course number, title, and description (include syllabus of companion course in section V)
See procedure 301.20 http://umt.edu/facultysenate/committees/grad_council/procedures/default.aspx.
U 478 Second Language Development 3 cr. Offered spring. Prereq., LING 471 and 472
or consent of instructor. Like studies in Second Language (L2) Acquisition, this course
considers Interlanguage (i.e., a language system that develops non–natively) and includes
analysis of L2 data taken from naturalistic and experimental setting. Co-convened with LING
578.
New fees and changes to existing fees are only approved once each biennium by the
Board of Regents. The coordination of fee submission is administered by Administration
and Finance. Fees may be requested only for courses meeting specific conditions
according to Policy 940.12.1 http://mus.edu/borpol/bor900/940-12-1.pdf . Please indicate
whether this course will be considered for a fee.
If YES, what is the proposed amount of the fee?
Justification:
IV. To Delete or Change an Existing Course – check X all that apply
Deletion
Title
YES
NO
Course Number Change
Description Change
Change in Credits
From:
To:
From:
To:
Level U, UG, G
Co-convened
x From:
To:
UG 478
U478 & C578
Repeatability
Cross Listing (primary
program initiates form)
Prerequisites
1. Current course information at it appears in catalog
(http://www.umt.edu/catalog) 
Is there a fee associated with the course?
2. Full and exact entry (as proposed) 
UG 478 Second Language Development 3
cr. Offered spring. Prereq., LING 471 and
472 or consent of instructor. Like studies in
Second Language (L2) Acquisition, this
course considers Interlanguage (i.e., a
language system that develops non–natively)
and includes analysis of L2 data taken from
naturalistic and experimental setting.
C 578 Second Languaage Development
3 cr. Offered spring. Prereq., LING 471 and
472 or consent of instructor. As in studies in
Second Language (L2) Acquisition, an
investigation of the notion of Interlanguage, a
language system intrinsically non-native yet
(i) in a state of development proceeding
toward greater nativeness or (ii) in a state of
inactivity stabilized upon fixed nonnativeness. An analysis of L2 data gathered
experimentally through design and
naturalistically through observation and an
exploration of how natural and experimental
settings function with respect to the
establishment of a theory of Interlanguage.
Specifically, an evaluation of concept-driven
theoretical frameworks (generative
universals) as compared with data-driven
frameworks (typological universals), each
employing the idea of structure understood as
relatively unmarked (more natural) and
marked (less natural). Co-convenes with
LING 478: graduate requirements; all the
data-analysis problem-sets that are assigned
to undergraduates plus additional exercises
that expand the typological method of
analysis introduced during the first quarter of
the term through further analysis of extra
data and supplementary reading material not
included in that identified for the coconvened course, leading to a construal of
how generative and typological linguistics
explain L2 development.
3. If cross-listed course: secondary program & course
number
4. If co-convened course: companion course number, title, and description
(include syllabus of companion course in section V) See procedure 301.20
http://umt.edu/facultysenate/committees/grad_council/procedures/default.aspx.
U 478 Second Language Development 3 cr. Offered spring. Prereq., LING 471 and 472 or consent of
instructor. Like studies in Second Language (L2) Acquisition, this course considers Interlanguage
(i.e., a language system that develops non–natively) and includes analysis of L2 data taken from
naturalistic and experimental setting. Co-convened with LING 578.
5. Is this a course with MUS Common Course Numbering?
http://www.mus.edu/Qtools/CCN/ccn_default.asp
If yes, please explain below whether this change will eliminate the course’s common course status.
YES NO
X
6. Graduate increment if level of course is changed to UG.
Have you reviewed the graduate
Reference procedure 301.30:
increment guidelines? Please check (X)
space provided.
http://umt.edu/facultysenate/committees/
grad_council/procedures/default.aspx
(syllabus required in section V)
7. Other programs affected by the change
8. Justification for proposed change
V. Syllabus/Assessment Information (must include learning outcomes)
Required for new courses and course change from U to UG. Paste syllabus in field below or attach and send
digital copy with form.
Linguistics 578
Second Language Development
Spring 2011
MWF, 10:00 to 11:00, Social Sciences 252
Tully J. Thibeau
Office: Social Sciences 208 (Ext. 2156)
Office Hours: MWF 11:30 to 12:30
E-mail: tully.thibeau@umontana.edu
COURSE MATERIALS
textbooks
Mitchell, R., & Myles, F. (2004). Second Language Learning Theories, 2nd Edition. New York:
Hodder Arnold .
Towell, R., & Hawkins, R. (1994). Approaches to Second Language Acquisition. Bristol, PA:
Multilingual Matters.
supplemental readings
details announced on blackboard may be mentioned in class; e-mail accompanies announcements
COURSE DESCRIPTION
In the first half of the term, this course examines second language acquisition studies in breadth,
its origins in bilingual studies, its subsequent recognition by language-classroom methodologists, and its
coming of age (still in progress) as a discipline in the cognitive sciences (true to its roots). After midterm,
course content probes a specific theoretical framework for language development, an account based in
generative grammar. Generative grammar is a theory attempting to explain language knowledge (as
evidenced through our intuitions of well-/ill-formed phrases and clauses), not language use. At midterm,
we may examine at least one use-based account for how learners develop a second language. The
distinction between knowledge and use has pervaded linguistics since its inception as a modern science, and
second language acquisition studies have inherited it.
For linguists, language knowledge, or "competence" (coined in1965 by Chomsky, likely the 20th
century’s most influential linguist) is either distinctively central or highly controversial. Like de Saussure
(the founder of modern linguistics) 50 years before, Chomsky distinguished language as a system of
knowledge from language as a system of communication. Competence (like de Saussure's langue)
concerns mental symbols that are necessarily separable from spoken (and written) symbols that we use to
communicate. When communicating, we avail ourselves of "performance" skills that are, Chomsky
claims, distinct from our capability to know a language, or our native competence. But developing
knowledge of a language other than a native tongue cannot be easily explained in terms of competence;
thus, directing focus at language performance (de Saussure's parole) leads us to consider linguistic
knowledge as "communicative competence" (Hymes, 1972), a capability for using language appropriately
according to a situational context (settings, participants, relationships, topics, etc., normally understood
without very much regard for well-formedness in the language being learned, a more-or-less
communication-based theory).
As students in the course, you will survey to the extent possible leading yet diverse perspectives on
second language development, focusing your attention on how the empirical data (i.e., experimental and, to
a lesser degree, naturally occurring) reveal processes that are presumed to be involved in developing a
nonnative language. At midterm, groups will report to the class about some of these perspectives before
considering thoroughly the view that virtually equates
second language acquisition with first language acquisition (i.e., access to Universal Grammar).
GRADUATE ADDENDUM
One of the most persistent facets in the history of second language development studies concerns a single
phenomenon which has been defined in various ways, first as interlinguistic influencing by Edward Sapir
(1925) and then as interference by Uriel Weinreich (1953), each one an attempt at accounting for the
impact of one language (L1) on another (LA) and vice versa, a consequence of the type of language contact
ensuing in a given bilingual society and/or a bilingual individual.
Eventually, as bilingualism became more prevalently construed as the non-native development of language
by adults, this phenomenon primarily involved native language transfer (Lado, 1959), understood to entail
the permanence of habits established in a language learner’s first language during the performance of tasks
requiring the use of that learner’s second language, a construal grounded in behaviorist psychological
theory and structuralist linguistic theory, both of which eventually succumb to the mentalism of a pervasive
Chomskyan generative theory of the 1950s.
Graduates in Linguistics 578 are treated to a series of data sets that are to one degree or another
reminiscent of the phenomenon in question. The language types in contact via development are subjectprominent languages, like English, and topic-prominent languages, like Chinese; plus, developmental data
exhibit not only phenomena related to cross-linguistic impact just described but also demonstrate stages of
variation of a learner’s grammar, or interlanguage, as the learner approaches the non-native language type.
Students will apply to methods of linguistic analysis, one related to sentence-formation (syntax) and
another related to text-formation (discourse), in order to try to determine the primary factor conditioning
the affect of (L1) on (LA) in early stages of development and subsequent changes transpiring during
intermediate stages (e.g., do conditions start discursive and grow syntactic?). Pertinent issues also
implicate word-order typology, so additional data sets provide information of cross-linguistic serializations
of subject-verb-object (or SVO), which may be conditions syntactically or discursively, as per additional
reading assignments included in the increment.
COURSE ASSIGNMENTS
To pass this course, you must complete all examinations (first-quarter, mid-term, and final); plus,
you must complete various problem sets available on blackboard (see Course Outline for dates).
Assignment Breakdown
Exams
First-Quarter 15% (available Wed. 26 Jan., due Wed. 23 Feb.)
Mid-term
25% (data set, article summary, and position paper)
Final
35% (in-class data sets; plus, take-home article summary,
position paper, short definitions)
Problem sets
One
5% (Problem 5.2, Oral Interview, with Four and Seven)
Two/Three
6% (Problem 4.1, Vowel Epenthesis/Problem 2.1,
Polysemous Words)
Four
4% (Problem 3.2, Negation, supplement for One)
Five
3% (Problem 3.8, Reflexives)
Six
3% (Problem 3.1, Question Formation)
Seven
4% (Problem 3.3, Adverb Placement, supplement for One)
COURSE DUE DATES
Assignments are due on the day listed in Course Outline (or announced in class/on blackboard). Late
assignments might not get assessed or returned, but those that do will receive partial credit. Any
assignment that is not turned in for a grade will receive a zero. Absences are not considered an excuse for
turning in a late assignment or for failing to turn in an assignment, unless of course the absence is related to
a major illness or major emergency.
A major illness or emergency is the only valid excuse, so I always require documentation
for these excuses (like a certification from a physician).
COURSE GRADES
I evaluate your final grade based on an assessment of all the examinations and the problem sets. The final
grade breakdown for the assignments equals 35% for the final, 25% for the midterm and 15% for the firstquarter exams; an additional 25% is awarded for problem-set assignments.
I assess final grades based on points awarded to assignments and exams described above, including
planned and impromptu in-class activities contributing to either. I gauge points earned in several ways,
according to a percentage (points earned divided by total points), a percentile (points earned measured on a
curve) and also a quartile (points earned distributed in quarters,
e.g., top 25%, etc.). The measures help assessment using traditional letter grades with +/-.
COURSE OUTLINE
The class schedule is subject to change according time constraints. You are responsible
for any schedule changes, even if you are absent for announcements.
Week One
M 24 Jan.
Intro – What is Second Language Development (SLD)? Approach it empirically:
elicit data, see what you find in them, and then go from there; but where to go?
*informal supplemental reading assignment in class today
{ Part One of Problem Set One introduced today}
W 26 Jan.
Return again to the data: which phenomena can we directly observe and describe?
supplemental reading
Ellis 1997, pp. 3-14, Chapter 1
Sharwood Smith, 1994, pp. 13-16, Chapter 1, Subsections 1.2.7-1.2.10
textbook
Mitchell & Myles 2004, pp. 15-20, Chapter 1, Sections 1.4.4-1.4.7
{In-class informal assignment as prep for Part One of Problem Set One}
F 28 Jan.
Describe data; then explain them: what is the difference and why is that significant?
supplemental reading
Sharwood Smith, 1994, pp. 15-16/7-11, Chapter 1, Subsection 1.2.9, 1.2.2-1.2.4
textbook
Mitchell & Myles 2004, pp. 20-23/10-13, Chapter 1, Subsections 1.4.8, 1.3.2-1.4.1
Towell & Hawkins 1994, pp. 7-16, Chapter 1
{In-class informal assignment as prep for Part One of Problem Set One}
Week Two
M 31 Jan.
Explain data: whence do the observable phenomena already described originate?
supplemental reading
Ellis 1997, pp. 31-35, Chapter 3
Sharwood Smith, 1994, pp. 17-19, Chapter 1, Subsection, 1.2.11-1.2.12
textbook
Mitchell & Myles 2004, pp. 20-23/10-13 Chapter 1, Subsections 1.4.2-1.4.3
Towell & Hawkins 1994, pp. 1-6, Introduction
{In-class informal assignment as prep for Part One of Problem Set One}
W 2 Feb.
Evaluate data: what results from comparing learner language and target language?
supplemental reading
Ellis 1997, pp. 51-54, Chapter 6
Ellis 1994, pp. 299-306, Chapter 8
textbook
Mitchell & Myles 2004, pp. 29-33 Chapter 2, Sections 2.1-2.2
Towell & Hawkins 1994, pp. 17-23, Chapter 2
F 4 Feb.
Errors: how do they relate to studies of SLD and what purpose should they serve?
supplemental reading
Lehiste 1988, pp. 2-8, Chapter 1
Cook 2001, pp. 46-50, Chapter 3
Ellis 1994, pp. 306-309, Chapter 8
textbook
Mitchell & Myles 2004, pp. 9-10 Chapter 1, Subsections 1.3.1
{Part One of Problem Set One due today}
Week Three
M 7 Feb.
Evaluating error in data: to what degree is it learned, acquired and/or developed?
supplemental reading
Odlin 1989, pp. 112-117, 120-124, Chapter 7, Section 7.1 to 7.3, and pp. 77-80,
Chapter 5, Section 5.2
Ellis 1994, pp. 315-317, Chapter 8
textbook
Towell & Hawkins 1994, pp. 18-23 Chapter 2
{Problem Set Two and Three introduced today}
W 9 Feb.
Error analysis: how are errors explained if they originate in neither the NL nor TL?
supplemental reading
McLaughlin 1987, pp. 59-66, Chapter 3
Ellis 1997, pp. 15-20, Chapter 2
Ellis 1994, pp. 299-306, Chapter 3
textbook reading
Mitchell & Myles, pp. 37-39, Chapter 2, Section 2.3.2
Towell & Hawkins, pp. 23-25, Chapter 2
F 11 Feb.
Children's errors: what is to be made of them when they appear the IL of adults?
supplemental reading
McLaughlin 1987, pp. 66-67, Chapter 3
Ellis 1994, pp. 90-96, Chapter 3
Cook 2001, pp. 25-29, Chapter 2, Section 2.2, pp. 190-192, Chapter 8, Section 8.3
textbook reading
Mitchell & Myles, pp. 39-44, Chapter 2, Section 2.3.3
Towell & Hawkins, pp. 25-28, Chapter 2
Week Four
M 14 Feb.
Returning once more to data: what do grammatical morphemes reveal about SLD?
supplemental reading
McLaughlin 1987, pp. 19-20, 30-35, Chapter 2
Ellis 1997, pp. 20-25, Chapter 2
textbook reading
Mitchell & Myles, pp. 44-49, Chapter 2, Section 2.3.4
{Part Two of Problem Set One introduced today}
W 16 Feb.
The minimalist claim: is adult and child language development identical or similar?
supplemental reading
McLaughlin 1987, pp. 20-24, Chapter 2
Ellis 1994, pp. 309-315, Chapter 3
textbook reading
Towell & Hawkins, pp. 28-32, Chapter 2
F 18 Feb.
Evaluating a claim: if we hypothesize all swans are white, then how do we know?
supplemental reading
McLaughlin 1987, pp. 24-30, Chapter 2
Cook 1993, pp. 63-65, Chapter 3, Section 3.3
{Problem Set Two and Three due in class today}
Week Five
M 21 Feb.
PRESIDENTS' DAY HOLIDAY: NO CLASS MEETING
W 23 Feb.
Exposure to experience: how does input work and how does it differ from intake?
supplemental reading
Cook 1993, pp. 55-63, Chapter 3, Section 3.2
Ellis 1997, pp. 43-50, Chapter 5
textbook reading
Mitchell & Myles, pp. 164-166, Chapter 6, Section 6.3
{Problem Set Four introduced today}
F 25 Feb.
Degenerate input: to what degree is L2 speech limited by scarce exposure to TL?
supplemental reading
Cook 1993, pp. 69-75, Chapter 4, Section 4.1
McLaughlin 1987, pp. 109-114, Chapter 5
textbook reading
Mitchell & Myles, p. 49, Chapter 2, Subsection 2.3.5; pp. 224-227, Chapter 8,
Subsections 8.2.1 to 8.2.2
Towell & Hawkins, pp. 33, 37-39, Chapter 2
{Part Two of Problem Set One due & Part Three introduced in class today}
Week Six
M 28 Feb
Variable output: to what degree is L2 speech distinguished by inconsistent forms?
supplemental reading
Cook 1993, pp. 83, 86-89, Chapter 4, Section 4.1
textbook reading
Mitchell & Myles, pp. pp. 227-229, Chapter 8, Subsection 8.2.3
Towell & Hawkins, pp. 34-37, Chapter 2
W 2 Mar.
Free variation: what regulates choice of form if two of them serve one function?
supplemental reading
Cook 1993, pp. 82-86, Chapter 4, Section 4.3
textbook reading
Mitchell & Myles, pp. pp. 229-233, Chapter 8, Subsection 8.2.4
F 4 Mar
Interlanguage: what does L2 learners' speech reveal about their L2 development?
supplemental reading
Ellis 1994, pp. 134-151, Chapter 4
textbook reading
Towell & Hawkins, pp. 39-43, Chapter 2
Week Seven
M 7 Mar.
Read T&H, Chapter 10, (pp. 154-159, Variability is a Pervasive Phenomenon):
On explaining an interlanguage (IL) system that permits variable speech while
also managing demonstrably consistent sets of developmental patterns
{Problem Set Four & Part Three of Problem Set One due in class today}
W 9 Mar.
Read Ellis Chapter 4 (pp. 130-133, on reserve in electronic and traditional formats);
read M&M, Chapter 4, subsection 4.2.2.1; and read T&H Chapter 10 (pp. 162-171,
Psychological Mechanisms): On the variability of learner language as determined
by on-line cognitive processes operating in real-time
{Part Four of Problem Set One introduced today}
F 11 Mar.
Read M&M, Chapter 4, Section 4.1 and subsection 4.2.2. (not 4.2.2.3 to 4.2.2.5);
read T&H, Chapter 4 (pp. 45-50, Cognitive Approaches, Pienemann's and Wolfe
Quintero's account): On implementing on-line cognitive processes used to account
for variability to explain systematic development (and thus minimize modularity)
{In-class informal assignment as prep for Part Three of Problem Set One and
Midterm}
Week Eight
M 14 Mar.
Read M&M, Chapter 4, section 4.4; read T&H, Chapter 4 (pp. 50-54, Evaluation
of Cognitive Approaches to SLA): On the issue of language comprehension as
information processing and its (lack of) reliance of grammatical knowledge
W 16 Mar.
Read T&H, Chapter 10 (pp. 159-162, Three explanations for variability) and
Chapter 12 (pp. 201-209, Development of Language Processing and "Act star");
also read M&M, Chapter 4, subsection 4.2.1.2: On general psychological constructs
that manage L2 development without making reference to a linguistic system
F 18 Mar.
Read T&H, Chapter 5 (pp. 57-60, UG Approach to SLA, Goals & Assumptions);
read M&M, Chapter 3, sections 3.1 and 3.2: On accounting for observed phenomena
by adopting a model of L1 acquisition known as Principles and Parameters (P&P)
Midterm Due in class Friday. 18 March
Week Nine
M 21 Mar. Read T&H, Chapter 5 (pp. 61-68, P&P, Phrase Structure and L1 acquistion); read
M&M, Chapter 3, sections 3.3 and 3.4: On understanding modularity and the role
that language input plays in the development of the child's linguistic system(s)
{Part Four of Problem Set One due in class today}
W 23 Mar.
Read T&H, Chapter 5 (pp. 68-72, Phrase Structure and L2 acquistion); read
M&M, Chapter 3, subsections 3.5.1 and 3.5.3.1: On P&P's (im)probable role in SLA
{Problem Set Five introduced today}
F 25 Mar.
Read T&H, Chapter 6 (pp. 74-87, Parameter Setting, Transferring an L1 Setting):
On language knowledge and variation in languages (esp. between two languages)
as explained by a UG framework (also an account for negative transfer)
Week Ten
SPRING BREAK HOLIDAY
M 28 F 1 Apr.
Week Eleven
M 4 Apr.
Read T&H, Chapter 6 (pp. 87-102, Two Kinds of Parameter Settings in an L1);
On the impact of exclusive and inclusive parameter settings in a native language
on the development of a nonnative IL system, two learnability theories referred to
as markedness and the subset principle
W 6 Apr.
Read T&H, Chapter 6 (pp. 103-108, Transferring/Resetting L1 Parameters); read
M&M, Chapter 3, subsections 3.5.3.2 and 3.5.3.3: On assessing learning principles
(i.e., the impact of the input on the developing system) within a UG framework
F 8 Apr.
Read Ellis, Chapter 9 (pp. 350-355, on blackboard under supplementary reading);
read M&M, Chapter 3, subsections 3.5.4 and 3.5.4.1; and read T&H, Chapter 7
(pp. 110-113, Parameters and Fossilized ILs): On interpreting "incompleteness"
as learners' incapability of (i) accessing UG or (ii) resetting L1 parameters to L2
{Problem Set Five due in class today}
Week Twelve
M 11 Apr.
Read M&M, Chapter 3, subsection 3.5.4.3; read T&H (pp. 114-120, Pro-Drop);
interpreting incompleteness as a seeming parameter resetting that is in actuality
the learner fitting L2 input to L1 parameter settings
{Problem Set Six introduced today}
W 13 Apr.
Read M&M, Chapter 3, subsection 3.5.4.2; read T&H (pp. 120-128, V0 Movement
in French and English): On reinterpreting incompleteness as a gradual resetting of
parameters based on the naturalistic input accessed by a learner's linguistic module,
and preparation for problem-set Seven (due in two weeks)
F 15 Apr.
Read T&H, Chapter 8, (pp. 129-132, Logical and Developmental Problems); read
M&M, Chapter 4, subsections 4.2.2.3 to 4.2.2.5: On a parameter resetting model
that accounts for systematic developmental stages in L2 development
Week Thirteen
M 18 Apr.
Read T&H, Chapter 8, (pp. 132-141, Logical & Developmental Problems in SLA):
On sorting through issues pertaining to cognitive models of stagiated development
and their linguistic counterparts
{Problem Set Seven introduced today}
W 20 Apr.
Read M&M, Chapter 3, section 3.6; read T&H, Chapter 9: On periods of transition
between systematic stages of IL development and the need for a cognitive model
to account for such stagiation (i.e., how does the IL system pass from stage to stage)
{Problem Set Six due in class today}
F 22 Apr.
Reread M&M, Chapter 4, subsection 4.2.1.2; read T&H, Chapter 12, (pp. 209-213,
Production Memory and Tuning): On the ACT* model of language processing
and its function in L2 speech production/comprehension to explain development
{Part Five of Problem Set One introduced today}
Week Fourteen
M 25 Apr.
Read M&M, Chapter 4, subsection 4.2.1.4; read T&H, Chapter 12 (pp. 213-218,
Processing Different Kinds of Knowledge and Evaluation): Arriving at a model
that resolves competence (mental representation) and performance (mental process)
W 27 Apr.
Read M&M, Chapter 4, subsection 4.2.1.3; read T&H (pp. 218-225, Application
and Summary): On specifying one of the original Interlanguage concepts,
Selinker's strategies
F 29 Apr.
Read T&H, Chapter 11 (pp. 174-183, Hypothesis Creation and Explicit Instruction):
On using classroom instruction in order to facilitate L2 speech and development
Week Fifteen
M 2 May
Read Ellis, Chapter 14 (pp. 617-627, 636-647, 657-660, on reserve in electronic
and traditional formats): On whether traditional methods of grammar instruction
lack durability, alternatives espousing cognitively-based grammar teaching, and
the 'necessity for instruction' (examined in White 1991)
W 4 May
Reread Ellis, Chapter 14 (pp. 617-627, 636-647, 657-660, on reserve in electronic
and traditional formats): On White & Trahey 1993, the reading for the take-home
final exam (due at the beginning of the in-class final exam period, Dec. 16th)
F 6 May
FINAL PREVIEW
{Problem Set Seven & Part Five of Problem Set One due in class today}
Week Sixteen
X
Final Exam Period, from 0:00 to 0:00, xday morning
• take-home portion of the due at the very beginning of today's meeting
• first hour, both undergraduates and graduates working on a problem set
• second hour, only graduate students working on a different problem set
Linguistics 478
Second Language Development
Spring 2011
MWF, 10:00 to 11:00, Social Sciences 252
Tully J. Thibeau
Office: Social Sciences 208 (Ext. 2156)
Office Hours: MWF 11:30 to 12:30
E-mail: tully.thibeau@umontana.edu
COURSE MATERIALS
textbooks
Mitchell, R., & Myles, F. (2004). Second Language Learning Theories, 2nd Edition. New York:
Hodder Arnold .
Towell, R., & Hawkins, R. (1994). Approaches to Second Language Acquisition. Bristol, PA:
Multilingual Matters.
supplemental readings
details announced on blackboard may be mentioned in class; e-mail accompanies announcements
COURSE DESCRIPTION
In the first half of the term, this course examines second language acquisition studies in breadth,
its origins in bilingual studies, its subsequent recognition by language-classroom methodologists, and its
coming of age (still in progress) as a discipline in the cognitive sciences (true to its roots). After midterm,
course content probes a specific theoretical framework for language development, an account based in
generative grammar. Generative grammar is a theory attempting to explain language knowledge (as
evidenced through our intuitions of well-/ill-formed phrases and clauses), not language use. At midterm,
we may examine at least one use-based account for how learners develop a second language. The
distinction between knowledge and use has pervaded linguistics since its inception as a modern science, and
second language acquisition studies have inherited it.
For linguists, language knowledge, or "competence" (coined in1965 by Chomsky, likely the 20th
century’s most influential linguist) is either distinctively central or highly controversial. Like de Saussure
(the founder of modern linguistics) 50 years before, Chomsky distinguished language as a system of
knowledge from language as a system of communication. Competence (like de Saussure's langue)
concerns mental symbols that are necessarily separable from spoken (and written) symbols that we use to
communicate. When communicating, we avail ourselves of "performance" skills that are, Chomsky
claims, distinct from our capability to know a language, or our native competence. But developing
knowledge of a language other than a native tongue cannot be easily explained in terms of competence;
thus, directing focus at language performance (de Saussure's parole) leads us to consider linguistic
knowledge as "communicative competence" (Hymes, 1972), a capability for using language appropriately
according to a situational context (settings, participants, relationships, topics, etc., normally understood
without very much regard for well-formedness in the language being learned, a more-or-less
communication-based theory).
As students in the course, you will survey to the extent possible leading yet diverse perspectives on
second language development, focusing your attention on how the empirical data (i.e., experimental and, to
a lesser degree, naturally occurring) reveal processes that are presumed to be involved in developing a
nonnative language. At midterm, groups will report to the class about some of these perspectives before
considering thoroughly the view that virtually equates
second language acquisition with first language acquisition (i.e., access to Universal Grammar).
COURSE ASSIGNMENTS
To pass this course, you must complete all examinations (first-quarter, mid-term, and final); plus,
you must complete various problem sets available on blackboard (see Course Outline for dates).
Assignment Breakdown
Exams
First-Quarter 15%
Mid-term
25%
Final
35%
Problem sets
One
Two/Three
Four
Five
Six
Seven
5%
6%
4%
3%
3%
4%
(available Wed. 26 Jan., due Wed. 23 Feb.)
(data set, article summary, and position paper)
(in-class data sets; plus, take-home article summary,
position paper, short definitions)
(Problem 5.2, Oral Interview, with Four and Seven)
(Problem 4.1, Vowel Epenthesis/Problem 2.1,
Polysemous Words)
(Problem 3.2, Negation, supplement for One)
(Problem 3.8, Reflexives)
(Problem 3.1, Question Formation)
(Problem 3.3, Adverb Placement, supplement for One)
COURSE DUE DATES
Assignments are due on the day listed in Course Outline (or announced in class/on blackboard). Late
assignments might not get assessed or returned, but those that do will receive partial credit. Any
assignment that is not turned in for a grade will receive a zero. Absences are not considered an excuse for
turning in a late assignment or for failing to turn in an assignment, unless of course the absence is related to
a major illness or major emergency.
A major illness or emergency is the only valid excuse, so I always require documentation
for these excuses (like a certification from a physician).
COURSE GRADES
I evaluate your final grade based on an assessment of all the examinations and the problem sets. The final
grade breakdown for the assignments equals 35% for the final, 25% for the midterm and 15% for the firstquarter exams; an additional 25% is awarded for problem-set assignments.
I assess final grades based on points awarded to assignments and exams described above, including
planned and impromptu in-class activities contributing to either. I gauge points earned in several ways,
according to a percentage (points earned divided by total points), a percentile (points earned measured on a
curve) and also a quartile (points earned distributed in quarters,
e.g., top 25%, etc.). The measures help assessment using traditional letter grades with +/-.
COURSE OUTLINE
The class schedule is subject to change according time constraints. You are responsible
for any schedule changes, even if you are absent for announcements.
Week One
M 24 Jan.
Intro – What is Second Language Development (SLD)? Approach it empirically:
elicit data, see what you find in them, and then go from there; but where to go?
*informal supplemental reading assignment in class today
{ Part One of Problem Set One introduced today}
W 26 Jan.
Return again to the data: which phenomena can we directly observe and describe?
supplemental reading
Ellis 1997, pp. 3-14, Chapter 1
Sharwood Smith, 1994, pp. 13-16, Chapter 1, Subsections 1.2.7-1.2.10
textbook
Mitchell & Myles 2004, pp. 15-20, Chapter 1, Sections 1.4.4-1.4.7
{In-class informal assignment as prep for Part One of Problem Set One}
F 28 Jan.
Describe data; then explain them: what is the difference and why is that significant?
supplemental reading
Sharwood Smith, 1994, pp. 15-16/7-11, Chapter 1, Subsection 1.2.9, 1.2.2-1.2.4
textbook
Mitchell & Myles 2004, pp. 20-23/10-13, Chapter 1, Subsections 1.4.8, 1.3.2-1.4.1
Towell & Hawkins 1994, pp. 7-16, Chapter 1
{In-class informal assignment as prep for Part One of Problem Set One}
Week Two
M 31 Jan.
Explain data: whence do the observable phenomena already described originate?
supplemental reading
Ellis 1997, pp. 31-35, Chapter 3
Sharwood Smith, 1994, pp. 17-19, Chapter 1, Subsection, 1.2.11-1.2.12
textbook
Mitchell & Myles 2004, pp. 20-23/10-13 Chapter 1, Subsections 1.4.2-1.4.3
Towell & Hawkins 1994, pp. 1-6, Introduction
{In-class informal assignment as prep for Part One of Problem Set One}
W 2 Feb.
Evaluate data: what results from comparing learner language and target language?
supplemental reading
Ellis 1997, pp. 51-54, Chapter 6
Ellis 1994, pp. 299-306, Chapter 8
textbook
Mitchell & Myles 2004, pp. 29-33 Chapter 2, Sections 2.1-2.2
Towell & Hawkins 1994, pp. 17-23, Chapter 2
F 4 Feb.
Errors: how do they relate to studies of SLD and what purpose should they serve?
supplemental reading
Lehiste 1988, pp. 2-8, Chapter 1
Cook 2001, pp. 46-50, Chapter 3
Ellis 1994, pp. 306-309, Chapter 8
textbook
Mitchell & Myles 2004, pp. 9-10 Chapter 1, Subsections 1.3.1
{Part One of Problem Set One due today}
Week Three
M 7 Feb.
Evaluating error in data: to what degree is it learned, acquired and/or developed?
supplemental reading
Odlin 1989, pp. 112-117, 120-124, Chapter 7, Section 7.1 to 7.3, and pp. 77-80,
Chapter 5, Section 5.2
Ellis 1994, pp. 315-317, Chapter 8
textbook
Towell & Hawkins 1994, pp. 18-23 Chapter 2
{Problem Set Two and Three introduced today}
W 9 Feb.
Error analysis: how are errors explained if they originate in neither the NL nor TL?
supplemental reading
McLaughlin 1987, pp. 59-66, Chapter 3
Ellis 1997, pp. 15-20, Chapter 2
Ellis 1994, pp. 299-306, Chapter 3
textbook reading
Mitchell & Myles, pp. 37-39, Chapter 2, Section 2.3.2
Towell & Hawkins, pp. 23-25, Chapter 2
F 11 Feb.
Children's errors: what is to be made of them when they appear the IL of adults?
supplemental reading
McLaughlin 1987, pp. 66-67, Chapter 3
Ellis 1994, pp. 90-96, Chapter 3
Cook 2001, pp. 25-29, Chapter 2, Section 2.2, pp. 190-192, Chapter 8, Section 8.3
textbook reading
Mitchell & Myles, pp. 39-44, Chapter 2, Section 2.3.3
Towell & Hawkins, pp. 25-28, Chapter 2
Week Four
M 14 Feb.
Returning once more to data: what do grammatical morphemes reveal about SLD?
supplemental reading
McLaughlin 1987, pp. 19-20, 30-35, Chapter 2
Ellis 1997, pp. 20-25, Chapter 2
textbook reading
Mitchell & Myles, pp. 44-49, Chapter 2, Section 2.3.4
{Part Two of Problem Set One introduced today}
W 16 Feb.
The minimalist claim: is adult and child language development identical or similar?
supplemental reading
McLaughlin 1987, pp. 20-24, Chapter 2
Ellis 1994, pp. 309-315, Chapter 3
textbook reading
Towell & Hawkins, pp. 28-32, Chapter 2
F 18 Feb.
Evaluating a claim: if we hypothesize all swans are white, then how do we know?
supplemental reading
McLaughlin 1987, pp. 24-30, Chapter 2
Cook 1993, pp. 63-65, Chapter 3, Section 3.3
{Problem Set Two and Three due in class today}
Week Five
M 21 Feb.
PRESIDENTS' DAY HOLIDAY: NO CLASS MEETING
W 23 Feb.
Exposure to experience: how does input work and how does it differ from intake?
supplemental reading
Cook 1993, pp. 55-63, Chapter 3, Section 3.2
Ellis 1997, pp. 43-50, Chapter 5
textbook reading
Mitchell & Myles, pp. 164-166, Chapter 6, Section 6.3
{Problem Set Four introduced today}
F 25 Feb.
Degenerate input: to what degree is L2 speech limited by scarce exposure to TL?
supplemental reading
Cook 1993, pp. 69-75, Chapter 4, Section 4.1
McLaughlin 1987, pp. 109-114, Chapter 5
textbook reading
Mitchell & Myles, p. 49, Chapter 2, Subsection 2.3.5; pp. 224-227, Chapter 8,
Subsections 8.2.1 to 8.2.2
Towell & Hawkins, pp. 33, 37-39, Chapter 2
{Part Two of Problem Set One due & Part Three introduced in class today}
Week Six
M 28 Feb
Variable output: to what degree is L2 speech distinguished by inconsistent forms?
supplemental reading
Cook 1993, pp. 83, 86-89, Chapter 4, Section 4.1
textbook reading
Mitchell & Myles, pp. pp. 227-229, Chapter 8, Subsection 8.2.3
Towell & Hawkins, pp. 34-37, Chapter 2
W 2 Mar.
Free variation: what regulates choice of form if two of them serve one function?
supplemental reading
Cook 1993, pp. 82-86, Chapter 4, Section 4.3
textbook reading
Mitchell & Myles, pp. pp. 229-233, Chapter 8, Subsection 8.2.4
F 4 Mar
Interlanguage: what does L2 learners' speech reveal about their L2 development?
supplemental reading
Ellis 1994, pp. 134-151, Chapter 4
textbook reading
Towell & Hawkins, pp. 39-43, Chapter 2
Week Seven
M 7 Mar.
Read T&H, Chapter 10, (pp. 154-159, Variability is a Pervasive Phenomenon):
On explaining an interlanguage (IL) system that permits variable speech while
also managing demonstrably consistent sets of developmental patterns
{Problem Set Four & Part Three of Problem Set One due in class today}
W 9 Mar.
Read Ellis Chapter 4 (pp. 130-133, on reserve in electronic and traditional formats);
read M&M, Chapter 4, subsection 4.2.2.1; and read T&H Chapter 10 (pp. 162-171,
Psychological Mechanisms): On the variability of learner language as determined
by on-line cognitive processes operating in real-time
{Part Four of Problem Set One introduced today}
F 11 Mar.
Read M&M, Chapter 4, Section 4.1 and subsection 4.2.2. (not 4.2.2.3 to 4.2.2.5);
read T&H, Chapter 4 (pp. 45-50, Cognitive Approaches, Pienemann's and Wolfe
Quintero's account): On implementing on-line cognitive processes used to account
for variability to explain systematic development (and thus minimize modularity)
{In-class informal assignment as prep for Part Three of Problem Set One and
Midterm}
Week Eight
M 14 Mar.
Read M&M, Chapter 4, section 4.4; read T&H, Chapter 4 (pp. 50-54, Evaluation
of Cognitive Approaches to SLA): On the issue of language comprehension as
information processing and its (lack of) reliance of grammatical knowledge
W 16 Mar.
Read T&H, Chapter 10 (pp. 159-162, Three explanations for variability) and
Chapter 12 (pp. 201-209, Development of Language Processing and "Act star");
also read M&M, Chapter 4, subsection 4.2.1.2: On general psychological constructs
that manage L2 development without making reference to a linguistic system
F 18 Mar.
Read T&H, Chapter 5 (pp. 57-60, UG Approach to SLA, Goals & Assumptions);
read M&M, Chapter 3, sections 3.1 and 3.2: On accounting for observed phenomena
by adopting a model of L1 acquisition known as Principles and Parameters (P&P)
Midterm Due in class Friday. 18 March
Week Nine
M 21 Mar. Read T&H, Chapter 5 (pp. 61-68, P&P, Phrase Structure and L1 acquistion); read
M&M, Chapter 3, sections 3.3 and 3.4: On understanding modularity and the role
that language input plays in the development of the child's linguistic system(s)
{Part Four of Problem Set One due in class today}
W 23 Mar.
Read T&H, Chapter 5 (pp. 68-72, Phrase Structure and L2 acquistion); read
M&M, Chapter 3, subsections 3.5.1 and 3.5.3.1: On P&P's (im)probable role in SLA
{Problem Set Five introduced today}
F 25 Mar.
Read T&H, Chapter 6 (pp. 74-87, Parameter Setting, Transferring an L1 Setting):
On language knowledge and variation in languages (esp. between two languages)
as explained by a UG framework (also an account for negative transfer)
Week Ten
SPRING BREAK HOLIDAY
M 28 F 1 Apr.
Week Eleven
M 4 Apr.
Read T&H, Chapter 6 (pp. 87-102, Two Kinds of Parameter Settings in an L1);
On the impact of exclusive and inclusive parameter settings in a native language
on the development of a nonnative IL system, two learnability theories referred to
as markedness and the subset principle
W 6 Apr.
Read T&H, Chapter 6 (pp. 103-108, Transferring/Resetting L1 Parameters); read
M&M, Chapter 3, subsections 3.5.3.2 and 3.5.3.3: On assessing learning principles
(i.e., the impact of the input on the developing system) within a UG framework
F 8 Apr.
Read Ellis, Chapter 9 (pp. 350-355, on blackboard under supplementary reading);
read M&M, Chapter 3, subsections 3.5.4 and 3.5.4.1; and read T&H, Chapter 7
(pp. 110-113, Parameters and Fossilized ILs): On interpreting "incompleteness"
as learners' incapability of (i) accessing UG or (ii) resetting L1 parameters to L2
{Problem Set Five due in class today}
Week Twelve
M 11 Apr.
Read M&M, Chapter 3, subsection 3.5.4.3; read T&H (pp. 114-120, Pro-Drop);
interpreting incompleteness as a seeming parameter resetting that is in actuality
the learner fitting L2 input to L1 parameter settings
{Problem Set Six introduced today}
W 13 Apr.
Read M&M, Chapter 3, subsection 3.5.4.2; read T&H (pp. 120-128, V0 Movement
in French and English): On reinterpreting incompleteness as a gradual resetting of
parameters based on the naturalistic input accessed by a learner's linguistic module,
and preparation for problem-set Seven (due in two weeks)
F 15 Apr.
Read T&H, Chapter 8, (pp. 129-132, Logical and Developmental Problems); read
M&M, Chapter 4, subsections 4.2.2.3 to 4.2.2.5: On a parameter resetting model
that accounts for systematic developmental stages in L2 development
Week Thirteen
M 18 Apr.
Read T&H, Chapter 8, (pp. 132-141, Logical & Developmental Problems in SLA):
On sorting through issues pertaining to cognitive models of stagiated development
and their linguistic counterparts
{Problem Set Seven introduced today}
W 20 Apr.
Read M&M, Chapter 3, section 3.6; read T&H, Chapter 9: On periods of transition
between systematic stages of IL development and the need for a cognitive model
to account for such stagiation (i.e., how does the IL system pass from stage to stage)
{Problem Set Six due in class today}
F 22 Apr.
Reread M&M, Chapter 4, subsection 4.2.1.2; read T&H, Chapter 12, (pp. 209-213,
Production Memory and Tuning): On the ACT* model of language processing
and its function in L2 speech production/comprehension to explain development
{Part Five of Problem Set One introduced today}
Week Fourteen
M 25 Apr.
Read M&M, Chapter 4, subsection 4.2.1.4; read T&H, Chapter 12 (pp. 213-218,
Processing Different Kinds of Knowledge and Evaluation): Arriving at a model
that resolves competence (mental representation) and performance (mental process)
W 27 Apr.
Read M&M, Chapter 4, subsection 4.2.1.3; read T&H (pp. 218-225, Application
and Summary): On specifying one of the original Interlanguage concepts,
Selinker's strategies
F 29 Apr.
Read T&H, Chapter 11 (pp. 174-183, Hypothesis Creation and Explicit Instruction):
On using classroom instruction in order to facilitate L2 speech and development
Week Fifteen
M 2 May
Read Ellis, Chapter 14 (pp. 617-627, 636-647, 657-660, on reserve in electronic
and traditional formats): On whether traditional methods of grammar instruction
lack durability, alternatives espousing cognitively-based grammar teaching, and
the 'necessity for instruction' (examined in White 1991)
W 4 May
Reread Ellis, Chapter 14 (pp. 617-627, 636-647, 657-660, on reserve in electronic
and traditional formats): On White & Trahey 1993, the reading for the take-home
final exam (due at the beginning of the in-class final exam period, Dec. 16th)
F 6 May
{Problem Set Seven & Part Five of Problem Set One due in class today}
Week Sixteen
X
Final Exam Period, from 0:00 to 0:00, xday morning
• take-home portion of the due at the very beginning of today's meeting
• first hour, both undergraduates and graduates working on a problem set
• second hour, only graduate students working on a different problem set