From Models to Methods:
Linking L1 and L2 Theory to
Web-Based Learning
Brian MacWhinney
Psychology, Modern Languages, and LTI
Carnegie Mellon University
http://talkbank.org/slrf.ppt
1
Outline
1. L1 & L2: Similar or Different?
2. Why is L2 attainment so variable?
• L1 learning is pretty variable too
3. The Competition Model Approach
•
•
•
risk factors, protective factors
competition, maps, connections, transfer,
participation
explicit / implicit learning interplay
4. Tests in the Field
Unified Model
2
CPH  FDH
•
The Critical Period Hypothesis (CPH)
•
•
•
•
central evidence for UG
evident to the "person in the street"
but it has many evidential problems.
The Fundamental Difference Hypothesis (FDH) is
more interesting
•
•
•
•
•
Bley-Vroman: UG is dead
Clahsen & Felser’s shallow structure hypothesis (SSH)
Kuhl’s Perceptual Magnet
Paradis/Ullman declarative/procedural
Brain changes (Neville, Friederici)
Unified Model
3
FDH  FSH
•
•
•
•
•
The Fundamental Similarity Hypothesis (FSH)
L1 and L2 use the same cognitive and social
resources and processes
The target is the same
Competition is still the fundamental organizing
principle
What differs is the constellation of the resources
Unified Model
4
Competition
•
Competition is fundamental:
•
•
•
•
•
Darwin, Edelman, Chicago Economics
Minsky, Eagleman – Society of Mind
PDP
Competition Model, Sociolinguistics
Competition
• brain areas are multifunctional
• multiple pathways lead to processing
• horse races
• indeterminacy
• variability
• indeterminacy
Unified Model
5
The Classic Model circa 1987
•
•
•
•
Form-function mapping
Competition
Cue validity, reliability from corpora
Cue strength measures in experiments
Unified Model
6
Functions compete for forms
Forms compete for functions
Unified Model
7
Thanks to ...
Patricia Brooks
Michèle Kail
Jared Leinbach
Stan Smith
Janet McDonald
Yvan Rose
Ping Li
Melita Kovacevic
Gordana Dobravac
Johannes Wagner
Julia Evans
Yoshinori Sasaki
Yanhui Zhang
Nora Presson
Angel Chan
Csaba Pléh
NIH
Elizabeth Bates
Angel Chan
Beverly Wulfeck
Christophe Parisse
Dan Slobin
Hasan Taman
Hong Li
Igor Farkas
Joseph Stemberger
Klaus Köpcke
Jeffrey Sokolov
Natasha Tokowicz
Richard Wong
Xiaowei Zhao
Yanping Dong
Yun Zhao
Zhou Jing
NSF
Unified Model
Antonella Devescovi
Vera Kempe
Colleen Davy
Roman Taraban
Elena Pizzuto
Phillip Pavlik
Arturo Hernandez
Sanako Mitsugi
Maryellen MacDonald
Kerry Kilborn
Ovid Tzeng
Reinhold Kliegl
Yuki Yoshimura
Anat Prior
Laura Morett
MacArthur Foundation
8
Findings
•78
Competition Model studies in 18 languages
(http://psyling.psy.cmu.edu/papers)
•In adults, cue strength is determined by cue
reliability
•Children begin with prototypes and availability,
but shift to reliability
•Online processing focuses on single strong cues
with later integration
•Perspective taking impacts processing (mental
models)
Unified Model
9
Extensions
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
1989: Added cue cost
1987-2012: Online measures
1995: Focus on dynamics of L2 learning
2000: Links to neural processing
2005: DevLex II
2007: Extensions to fluency
2010: Stress on early prototypes – Leipzig
2010: Risks-protections model
Unified Model
10
The Unified Competition Model
Risk Factors Basis
ProtectiveFactors
Basis
Entrenchment
Cortical Maps Resonance
Hippocampus
Misconnection
White Matter
Proceduralization
Thalamus, BG
Parasitism
Transfer
Internalization +
Inner Speech
Isolation
Social
Stratification
Participation
Group
Inclusion
Unified Model
11
Component Theories
Competition
interactive activation, Bayes
Maps
entrenchment, SOM
Connectivity
imaging, topological encoding
Transfer
markedness, explicit feedback
Chunking
fluency, proceduralization, IBPs
Resonance
PDP, hippocampus, scheduling
Internalization
inner speech, embodied cognition
Participation
codes, groups, stratification
12
Risks
•
•
•
First we will examine the risks that L2
learners face and their basis
Then we will examine the protective factors
and their basis
Finally, we will consider how we increase
the strength of the protective factors
Unified Model
13
Risk #1: Map Entrenchment
•
•
Maps are in areas of CORTEX
Maps self-organize (SOM)
Unified Model
14
Maps (Subsystems)
Subsystem
Area
Audition
STG, IPG
Processes
Theory
Extracting
phonemes
BA44, motor cortex Targets, timing
Statistical learning
Lexicon
STG
RH coding
Phonology to
meaning
DevLex
Syntax
BA45,47
Slots, sequences
Item-based patterns
Mental Models
BA47, DLPFC,
MTG
Deixis, Perspective Perspective, Roles
Participation
Social system
Topics, turn-taking Conversation
Analysis
Articulation
Resonance, gating
23
DevLex - Ping Li
24
Entrenchment
50, 100, 250, and 500 words
Unified Model
17
L2 part-of-speech mismatches
•
•
•
L1 Navajo will have classifiers, discontinuous
aspect-verb, impersonal verb-adjectives, nouns
decomposed into spatial relations
Navajos learning German must deal with
prepositions, phrasal verbs, gender, case, etc.
In general L1 and L2 will not be an exact
match
18
Risk #2: Misconnection
Organizing Connectivity is the
Brain's Basic Challenge
19
Detail from
•
•
•
•
DTI (Schneider, MGH)
MEG underconnectivity in autism (Just,
Ghuman)
Cortico-cortical evoked potentials (CCEP) Bookheimer, Matsumoto, others
Gamma band coherence analysis
Unified Model
20
Ten Major Fiber Pathways in the
Human Brain - Schneider
Unified Model
21
Connections are White Matter
•
Rewiring local areas is easier than rewiring
distant connections
• Work on children with focal lesions, palsy
• Connections emerge during embryogenesis
•
•
A third of the brain is connections
Interaction of hemispheres is also based on
connections across the corpus callosum
Unified Model
22
Connections between Maps
Somatotopic, tonotopic, retinotopic, locotopic
organization works to guide connections.
Receiving area must understand map of
sending area.
Some areas, like the thalamus, only need to
relate priorities between areas.
Communication also involves temporal
synchronization.
10
Wernicke-Geschwind
Connection Model
24
65
Hickok-Poeppel
Speech Processing Model
25
Competition Model
•
Production
•
•
•
•
•
DLPFC mental models activate PT constructions
PT constructions (IBPs) gate STG lexicon
Lexicon also receives input from mental models
STG lexicon gates BA44 and motor output
Comprehension
• Auditory input activates STG lexical competition
• BA45 pattern competition gated by STG input
• Mental models take input from lexicon, syntax,
and conversation model
26
Roles in Mental Models
Mental
Model Roles
action
recur
object
Item-based
patterns
want
more
X=milk
Temporal DevLex Maps
Unified Model
27
Frontal Models – Koechlin
Unified Model
28
Integrated processing
•
•
Production and comprehension use same
maps and connections, but in different
configurations (Kempen)
Emphasis on gating and connections, rather
than movement of information
29
Risks
•
•
•
•
•
#1-Entrenchment and #2-Misconnection
L1 maps "know" what to connect to.
In L2, maps will not align completely,
otherwise L2 learning would just be
vocabulary extension.
Major long-distance connections cannot
regrow.
Connections can become tangled during
embryogenesis.
30
Risk #3: Parasitism and Transfer
“turtle”
translation route
“tortuga”
direct route
Unified Model
31
Entrenchment and bilingualism
Simultaneous Bilingualism
LX
LY
balanced
Successive Bilingualism
L1
L2
dominates
Unified Model
32
The Problem
•
•
•
Again: If L1/L2 areas were isomorphic, L2
learning would be nothing but new
vocabulary learning
Also, fluency would not be impaired,
because the connections would be smooth
But languages mismatch radically, so
parasitism leads to both negative transfer
and lessened fluency
Unified Model
33
Principles of Transfer
•
Competition Model claims:
• Everything that can transfer will.
• Transfer follows markedness
• Transfer is strongest when mismatch cannot be
detected
•
Semantics and perspective transfer well (except when
there are wide cultural differences as in Pirahã, Japanese).
•
Phonology transfers, but not so cleanly and there must be
rearranging and readjustment.
•
Morphosyntax and IBP cannot easily transfer.
•
Unmarked FBP transfers: S + V
• Marked FBP goes back to IBP: Adv + V + S
Unified Model
34
L1 supports L2
Tokowicz & MacWhinney 2005
Su abuela cocina/*cocinando muy bien.
Her aunt cooks/*cooking very well.
Unified Model
35
Tolentino & Tokowicz 2011
•
•
•
•
•
Parallel structures show parallel ERPs
Different structures show different ERPs
Late AoA subjects show more attention
SSH (Clahsen) not supported, learners start
to approach native speaker ERP profiles
N400 to P600 to ELAN shifts
Unified Model
36
Interim Summary
•
•
•
Maps, Connections, and Parasitism pose
Risks to L2 learners
Without reorganization, L2 will suffer from
disfluency and negative transfer
But there are Protective Factors that can
trigger successful reorganization
• resonance (cortical reorganization)
• proceduralization (connection reorganization)
37
Protection #1: Resonance
Interactive Activation and Gangs
Units that fire together, wire together
3
38
Hippocampal Support
Wittenburg et al. 2002
39
Scheduling:
Graduated interval recall
•Pimsleur
67
Unified Model
40
Varying Consolidation
Timescales
•
•
•
•
•
Gaskell, Davis – overnight consolidation
Avi Karni has shown that decline in implicit
learning in adulthood is erased by naps
Rats show retrograde amnesia for days
HM and others showed retrograde amnesia
for weeks, even years (Squire TV study)
So, the hippocampus may be continually
involved in consolidation
Unified Model
41
Resonant Methods
• Semantic field elaboration: textbook units
• Morphological analysis, etymology
• Mnemonics, keywords
• Multiple representations: phonological and
orthographic, subtitles
• Phonological recoding (script dependent)
• Radical learning in CJK scripts
• Staying in L2 (Internalization)
42
Protection #2: Chunking
•
•
•
•
Lexical chunks short-circuit problems with
IFG – STG connectivity and mapping
Phrases: por lo mucho que _, it reminds
one of __
Idioms, frozen forms
Compounds, poems, rhymes
• Donau_dampf_schiff_fahrt_gesellschafts_haup
t_stellvertretender_kapitän
• Rockabye baby on the tree top ...
Unified Model
43
Protection #3: Proceduralization
Time
Routing
Operation
1
Routing
Operation
2
Region 1
Region 2
Region 3
A representation
The same
representation
A transformed
representation
The transformed
representation
Unified Model
44
With practice
Time
New
routing
Operation
Region 1
Region 2
Region 3
A representation
A representation that
has been processed
Unified Model
45
Proceduralization
Unified Model
46
Acquiring Fluency
•
•
Disfluency: Omissions, errors, substitutions
stuttering
Increasing fluency by
• cutting out stages
• creating a single chain
•
•
•
•
Item-based patterns (IBPs) as the backbone
Getting timing right within IBP chain
Synchronizing with other processes
General age-related declines impact
proceduralization more than resonance
Unified Model
47
Protection #4: Internalization
•
•
•
•
We build up mental models through
perspective-taking.
Comprehensible input -- L2 speaker can
construct a coherent mental model.
The Communicative Approach can promote
internalization
Internalization produces whole-brain
resonance
Unified Model
48
Risk #4: Isolation
•
•
•
•
•
•
Insufficient comprehensible input and
output
Peer-group exclusion
Immigrant group insulation
Role entrenchment
Ascendance of international English
Work commitment
Unified Model
49
Protection #5: Participation
• Identity Theory:
• identifying with the L2 culture
• identifying with particular L2 members
• Extroversion/Introversion
• Group alignment: Danish handball team,
church membership
• Immigrant sweet spot of 8-13 Cathy
Caldwell-Harris
37
Unified Model
50
Similar or Different?
•
Critical Period Hypotheses
• Procedural Deficit Hypothesis
• Shallow Structure Hypothesis
• UG is dead
•
Unified Model
• Both L1 and L2 use the same resources
• What differs is the configurations of risk factors and
protective factors
• Successful L2 learning is based on optimizing
protective factors
51
How to maximize protection
•
•
Teachers can provide motivation,
organization, and conversation
But classrooms cannot provide
•
•
•
•
•
Scheduled practice
Consistent feedback
Rich student model
Immediate link to outside world
Modern computer systems can
52
Language Partner
Unified Model
53
PSLC Basic Skills Studies
•Phil
Pavlik: Chinese vocabulary optimization
•Yuki Yoshimura: Fluency testing
•Colleen Davy: Fluency training
•Nora Presson: French gender cues
•Nora Presson: Spanish conjugation
•Yanhui Zhang: Pinyin dictation tutor
•Helen Yun Zhao: English article tutor
•Like Li: character tutor
•Dan Walter: German case/gender cues
Unified Model
54
Chinese Resonance
Unified Model
55
Yoshimura - Fluency
Error Analysis by type
complexity = complex
1
Number of errors in production
omis s ion
0.8
retrace
0.6
grammatic al
e rror
0.4
s ubs titution
0.2
addition
0
4
6
8
10
Sentence Length
56
Unified Model
57
58
Davy - Spanish Fluency
Unified Model
59
But it is best to listen first –
Potovsky (1974)
Unified Model
60
Yun Zhao - English Articles
Unified Model
61
Cue Contrast
•Alice is only interested
•cue: 0-noncountable
in 0 wealth.
•Alice
is only interested in the wealth of her
parents.
•cue: the-noncountable+PP
62
Zhao - Greatest gains for explicit
feedback
with transparent cues
63
Explicit–Implicit Contrast
•
•
•
•
Classic implicit learning literature was
about lack of awareness
L2 learners are very much aware
So, there is no really implicit learning, only
relative degrees of explicitness
This issue can be rephrased in terms of
proceduralization
64
In Progress
•
•
•
•
VILLA individual differences diagnosis
system
DOVE subtitled video system
Google Maps Tours
Working with Luis van Ahn's DuoLingo
• German, English, Spanish
• 250,000 users
• Best retention when formal rule diagnosis is
given
65
http://talkbank.org/pslc
•
•
•
•
•
•
VILLA
Pinyin Tutor
Chinese / Spanish Vocab Tutor
Chinese Character Tutor
Article Tutor
DOVE captioned video
66
From Theory To Practice
•
•
•
•
•
Tutors must integrate with classroom
practice
Instructors must find them valuable
Students must find them valuable
Data must allow us to further test the theory
Work with Pinyin Tutor, Spanish Tutor, and
DuoLingo show how we can collect huge
amounts of relevant data
67
Summary
•
•
•
Linguistic theory maps well to the brain
Competition is central
The theory must also explain
• maps, connectivity, fluency/chunking
• resonance, internalization, participation
•
The model should be able to help us
understand various forms of language
disorder, as well as barriers to second
language learning
68