Demonstratives reconsidered: Insights from experimental pragmatics and corpus-based studies

Language Learning Research at the Intersection of Experimental, Computational, and Corpus‐Based Approaches

Teaching and Learning Guide for: Pragmatics: From Theory to Experiment and Back Again

Introduction. The article evaluates contemporary research on psycholinguistics and neurolinguistics to find answers related to why child first language (L1) acquisition relies on different processing methods compared to adult second language (L2) acquisition, and why an L2 can be complex for adults to learn. This paper is basically a critical appraisal of language acquisition (LA) research proposing new venues to explore. Aims. The primary goals of this article are to emphasize the need for treating the brain as a testable scientific hypothesis, rather than merely a philosophical theory and to illustrate the need to integrate L2, brain, mind and the learner at every moment to account for LA. Method and Results. To achieve these intriguing goals, previous research on psycholinguistics and neurolinguistics is critically reviewed. The review has shown that that the brain in SLA research has been treated simply as a philosophical theory. This, in my view, has serious impacts on the progress and development of the field in two ways: It causes the research to be held back by assumptions that have hardened into dogmas and act against open-minded thinking. It leads researchers to depend solely on learners’ performances (the actual use of language) to describe and explain the nature of the linguistic systems that L2 learners develop (competence) and to explain how an L2 is acquired. However, we all know that performance is not on all occasions a perfect reflection of competence (cf. Chomsky, 1965, 1988) These two points emphasize the need for treating the brain as a testable scientific hypothesis rather than merely a philosophical theory and exemplify the necessity of continuously integrating second language (L2), brain, mind, and the learner at every moment to explain both why learning occurs and why it fails to occur. Conclusions. The paper offers a critical appraisal of previous research into psycholinguistics and neurolinguistics. It argues that the brain in second language acquisition (SLA/L2A) research has been treated merely as a philosophical theory for a long time, resulting in findings that lack actual neurolinguistic analysis. The paper suggests that theoretical explanations for why children acquire L1 faster and more easily than adults acquiring L2 align with recent testing of the brain, revealing differences in brain activity waves between early and middle childhood compared to adulthood. This indicates distinctions in language acquisition between children and adults in terms of brain wave activity, size of grey matter, and other factors.

Early work in relevance theory followed Grice’s approach in being based mainly on evidence from introspection. Ideas were developed and tested mainly by reference to the intuitions of researchers about examples, often invented for the purposes of the investigation, thought experiments, logical argument and conceptual analysis. Sometimes, choices between competing ideas were made based on theoretical simplicity. In the 1990s, there was a significant increase in work based on data from experiments, leading to the development of what is now referred to as the field of ‘experimental pragmatics’. Experimental work since then has included questionnaire-based work (which often focuses on the intuitions of participants), data from reading and response times, and, more recently, evidence from electroencephalography (EEG), functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) and the use of eye-tracking technology. Other ways of testing and developing ideas have included the use of data from corpora and other observational work, and applications of the theory in clinical work, developmental pragmatics, language acquisition, first and second language learning and teaching, and stylistics. Applications vary in the extent to which they restrict their focus to understanding phenomena in the light of the ideas being applied or aim also to test theoretical ideas. While current research uses a wider range of techniques, introspection and experimentation are still the most used methods.

Although the notion of procedural meaning is found in areas such as discourse markers, reference, tense, modality and intonation, until now there has been no single volume entirely devoted to it. Over 25 years, since the initial proposal by Blakemore, a number of refinements have been suggested, yet some criticisms have also been raised. The role and status of the conceptual / procedural distinction within a theory of human communication and the nature of procedural encoding were in need of reassessment in the light of current research in linguistic theory, cognitive science, experimental pragmatics and language acquisition. The papers collected here serve this general purpose from different standpoints. Some of them consider the topic from the angle of its theoretical foundations and put forth original proposals aimed at clarifying the most controversial issues. Others take a more data-driven orientation and offer novel analyses illustrating how encoded instructions work and how much can be gained from approaching certain linguistic phenomena in procedural terms. The contributions in this volume represent an inflection point in the delimitation and understanding of the notion of procedural meaning and open new paths for future research.

This article explores ways in which studies in second language acquisition (SLA) research can illuminate first language acquisition research. The discussion revolves around the issues of learner strategies, individual variation, the acquisition of late learned structures, bilingualism, the role of Universal Grammar (UG) and the fate of obsolete knowledge in acquisition. It is argued that second language research in these (and other) areas can provide fresh insights into familiar problems and raise issues not commonly given consideration in first language acquisition studies.

Since its emergence some 20 years ago, the field of second language acquisition research has focused on two areas: the nature of the language acquisition process and the factors which affect language learners. Initial research was essentially descriptive. More recently, researchers have been attempting to explain how acquisition occurs and how learner factors lead to differential success among learners. The focus has alternately broadened as researchers became more aware of the complexity of the issues and narrowed as greater depth of analysis was required. The paper suggests that the next phase of research will be characterized by a union of these two focal areas: learning and the learner. It also recommends that more research attention be given to tutored acquisition. One could argue that the launching of the TESOL Quarterly 25 years ago predated the emergence of second language acquisition (SLA) research as an identifiable field. Accordingly, my task should have been easier than that of my colleagues writing for these commemorative issues of the Quarterly. This was small comfort, however, when faced with the daunting challenge of doing justice to all that has transpired since the early 1970s.' What has occurred since then, of course, is a veritable explosion of research focusing first upon the acquisition/learning process and second upon the language learner.2 This review will be organized around these two foci and around two subthemes: the alternate broadening and 1 Certainly some important studies of language learning were conducted prior to this (see, for example, some of the early studies compiled in Hatch, 1978), but these did not constitute a field of investigation as was to emerge in the 1970s. 2 It is beyond the scope of this article to treat either of these comprehensively. Interested readers may wish to consult overviews by Ellis (1985), and Larsen-Freeman and Long (1991) for more detail. I have especially drawn upon the latter in writing this review. I will also be unable to deal with matters concerning research methodology in this article. Interested readers should see J. D. Brown (1988), Hatch and Lazaraton (1991), Kasper and Grotjahn (1991), and Seliger & Shohamy (1989).

The importance of Grice’s theory of conversation and in particular his account of conversational implicature (Grice in Studies in the way of words. Harvard University Press, Harvard, pp. 22–40, 1975; 1978) in the development and current concerns of pragmatics is almost impossible to exaggerate. Whether or not they agree with the details or even the broader framework of Grice’s theory, pragmaticists generally acknowledge the significance of his attempt to give a formalised account of the differences between what our words literally mean and what we intend to communicate in using them. But Grice himself was a philosopher, not a linguist; his work was deeply rooted in the philosophical preoccupations of the mid twentieth century, and he never used the word ‘pragmatic’ in his writings as it is used in present day linguistics. This chapter will address the contrast between Grice’s philosophical motivations in developing his account of conversational implicature, and the linguistic framework in which it has subsequently generally been discussed. It will do so by considering the philosophical context in which Grice was working and some of the specific philosophical problems to which he applied his notion of conversational implicature. It will begin with a review of the dichotomy in twentieth century analytic philosophy that can be summarised as a distinction between ‘ideal language’ and ‘ordinary language’ philosophy, and will discuss Grice’s work as an attempt to demonstrate some fundamental misconceptions in both positions. In doing so, it will compare Grice’s work on conversational implicature with the near contemporary work by Austin on speech acts (Austin in How to do things with words. Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1962a; Sense and sensibilia. Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1962b). Austin’s work shares a number of apparent similarities with Grice’s, but reveals some significant philosophical differences, particularly with regard to the nature of ‘literal meaning’ and the role of theorising. This chapter will then offer an exegesis of Grice’s conception of conversational implicature, including the distinction which seemed necessary to him between ‘generalised’ and ‘particularised’ conversational implicatures, and some of the properties that he identified as characteristic of conversational implicatures. Following this exegesis, this chapter will consider some of the applications and extensions of the concept of conversational implicature suggested by Grice and, in some cases, developed further by his later commentators. Grice found his concept to be fruitful in addressing a range of established philosophical problems, including the viability of his own earlier work on ‘non-natural meaning’ (Grice in Studies in the way of words. Harvard University Press, Harvard, pp. 213–223, 1957), the contrasting claims of realism and skepticism (Grice in Studies in the way of words. Harvard University Press, Harvard, pp. 147–153, c. 1946–1950; pp. 154–170, c. 1953–1958; pp. 224–247, 1961), apparent differences between logic and natural language (Grice in Studies in the way of words. Harvard University Press, Harvard, pp. 3–21, 1967a; pp. 58–85, 1967b) and the debate over Russell’s logical account of definite descriptions (Grice in Studies in the way of words. Harvard University Press, Harvard, pp. 269–282, 1981). Grice introduced the technical term ‘implicature’ into his philosophy of language. It has subsequently become part of the defining terminology of present day pragmatics and is a central concept both for those working in a broadly neo-Gricean framework (Horn in A natural history of negation. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1989; Pragmatics. Palgrave, Basingstoke, pp. 158–183, 2007; Levinson in Presumptive meanings: The theory of generalized conversational implicature. M.I.T. Press, Cambridge, 2000) and for those working in relevance theory (Sperber and Wilson in Relevance. Blackwell, Oxford, 1995; Carston in Thoughts and utterances. Blackwell, Oxford, 2002). Recent interest in pragmatics has focussed on the division that Grice drew between ‘what is said’ and ‘what is implicated’, and on the viability of that distinction. This has been a focus of study in both theoretical pragmatics (Borg in Minimal semantics. Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2004; Recanati in Literal meaning. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2004; Cappelen and Lepore in Insensitive semantics: a defense of semantic minimalism and speech act pluralism. Blackwell, Oxford, 2005) and experimental pragmatics (Gibbs, Brain and Language 68: 466–485, 1999; Glucksberg in Experimental pragmatics. Palgrave, Basingstoke, pp. 72–93, 2004; Breheny et al., Cognition 100: 434–463, 2006). This chapter will conclude with an assessment of the significance of Grice’s delineation of ‘what is said’ as a defining opposite of ‘what is implicated’. For Grice himself, although it was central to his original philosophical motivations, this remained one of the most troublesome and least successful aspects of his philosophy of language. For pragmaticists it has proved one of the most enduring, challenging and intriguing topics of debate.KeywordsNatural LanguageDefinite DescriptionOrdinary LanguageConversational ImplicatureLiteral MeaningThese keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

The Role of Consciousness in Second Language Acquisition Edina Torlakovi! (edina_@scs.carleton.ca) Institute of Interdisciplinary Studies; Cognitive Science, Carleton University 2214 Dunton Tower, 1125 Colonel By Drive Ottawa, ON K1S 5B6 Andrew Brook (abrook@ccs.carleton.ca) Institute of Interdisciplinary Studies; Cognitive Science, Carleton University 2216 Dunton Tower, 1125 Colonel By Drive Ottawa, ON K1S 5B6 Abstract In this paper we argue that in order to resolve the controversy in Second Language Acquisition research concerning whether or not direct instruction is needed for second language acquisition, we need to use a broader sense of ‘consciousness’ than is used by second language researchers. Block's classification of consciousness into Access and Phenomenal consciousness seems promising. We associate Phenomenal consciousness with explicit knowledge and suggest that explicit instruction is useful. It enhances linguistic competence. Introduction This paper addresses a question that is of great importance for Second Language Acquisition (SLA) research. The question is 'what should the role of consciousness in second language (L2) acquisition be?' It is important to answer this question in order to resolve one of the biggest debates in the field of SLA, namely whether or not direct instruction is necessary or even valuable in L2 acquisition. SLA researchers interested in consciousness should start by considering what others have to say about it. This is necessary to develop a comprehensive picture of consciousness. The debate in SLA needs to be informed by an adequate notion of what consciousness is. Only in this way can we reach an adequate view about its role. One place to start is to consider what is said about consciousness in philosophy. We will start by comparing the different definitions of consciousness used by SLA researchers and by philosophers. Next we will introduce the controversy over whether L2 learners need to be conscious of grammar rules to learn the target language. Then we will examine Block’s well-known distinction between access (A) consciousness and phenomenal (P) consciousness and where language, or more specifically second language, fits into this categorization. With this, we might be one step closer to understanding the role of consciousness in L2 learning/acquisition. Issues and Positions Definition(s) of Consciousness How do SLA theorists and philosophers think about consciousness? As it turns out, quite differently. Let us look at some of the similarities and differences. When SLA theorists talk about consciousness, they use the term in a quite narrow sense. Schmidt (1995), for example, points out that there are three different senses of the term 'consciousness' as it is used in SLA theory: levels of perception, noticing, and understanding. By contrast, philosophers have a broader understanding of the term. According to Clark (2001), the possibilities include wakefulness, self-awareness, availability for verbal report, availability for control of intentional action, and qualia. To determine if all these terms are discussing the same, complex entity, they need to be further defined. If one desires to apply concepts of one discipline to another (philosophy to SLA in this case), this is something that we need to know. According to Schmidt, ‘levels of perception’ could be defined as levels of a process of obtaining and perhaps processing information. Schmidt defines ‘noticing’ as rehearsal in short-term memory, while by ‘understanding’ he refers to rule understanding, i.e., grasping the meanings of rules and becoming thoroughly familiar with them. Definitions of the terms from Clark's list of possibilities might go as follows: wakefulness is defined as a state in which we are sensitive to our surroundings and in which we can process incoming information and respond to it appropriately. Self-awareness he defines as a capacity to represent ourselves and to be conscious of ourselves 'as distinct agents'. Availability for verbal report is the capacity to access our own inner states and to describe them using natural language, while qualia concerns how things feel to us. From the above, one can conclude that SLA theorists take consciousness to be something narrower than philosophers

The crosslinguistic phenomenon of faux amis has been extensively studied in different fields of language research, such as translation (Granger and Swallow 1988, Venuti 2002, Malkiel 2006, Ruiz Mezcua 2008), lexicography (Hill 1982, Cuenca Villarejo 1987, Prado 2001, Postigo Pinazo, 2007), and second language acquisition research (Lengeling 1995, Frutos Martinez 2001, Wagner 2004, Chacon Beltran 2006). Faux amis (Koessler and Derocquigny 1928), also referred to as “false friends” (Zethsen 2004, Chacon Beltran 2006) or “deceptive cognates” (Lado 1957, Batchelor and Offord 2000) are words which share similar forms in two or more languages but have different meanings and/or uses in each language (e.g. English carpet ‘rug’ versus Spanish carpeta ‘folder’; English fabric ‘cloth’ versus French fabrique ‘factory’; German Gift ‘poison’ versus English gift ‘present’). Despite the wide range of surveys, there is a conspicuous scarcity of studies which apply a corpus-based methodology to the investigation of these words; and none of the existing corpus-based studies explore the presence of English false friends in spoken learner language (Granger 1996, Palacios Martinez and Alonso 2005). The present study aims at filling this void by examining 100 high-frequency English false friends in the spoken and written performance of Spanish learners of English through an analysis of two learner corpora, namely the International Corpus of Learner English (ICLE) and the Louvain International Database of Spoken English Interlanguage (LINDSEI). The data obtained from these corpora allow us to draw conclusions about the learners’ active use of these lexical items in speech and writing. A total amount of 1403 sample sentences have been closely examined. My analysis reveals that EFL learners make more errors with false friends in their written than in their spoken production and it also shows that certain English false friends are especially difficult for learners (e.g. actually, pretend, argument). Thus, the findings of this study certainly shed some light on students’ problems in this lexical area which should be addressed in an EFL context.1

Corpus-based studies have become increasingly common in linguistic typology over recent years, amounting to the emergence of a new field that we call corpus-based typology. The core idea of corpus-based typology is to take languages as populations of utterances and to systematically investigate text production across languages in this sense. From a usage-based perspective, investigations of variation and preferences of use are at the core of understanding the distribution of conventionalized structures and their diachronic development across languages. Specific findings of corpus-based typological studies pertain to universals of text production, for example, in prosodic partitioning; to cognitive biases constraining diverse patterns of use, for example, in constituent order; and to correlations of diverse patterns of use with language-specific structures and conventions. We also consider remaining challenges for corpus-based typology, in particular the development of crosslinguistically more representative corpora that include spoken (or signed) texts, and its vast potential in the future.

The expression of temporal relations, notably through tense and aspect, is central in all processes of communication, but commonly perceived and described as a major hurdle for non-native speakers. While this topic has already received considerable attention in the SLA literature, it features less prominently in recent corpus-based studies of learner language. This volume intends to close this gap. It shows which additional insights into the area of tense and aspect in learner language can be gained using corpus data, addressing the following questions: In which ways do corpus-based studies complement work based on other methods?; How can a corpus-based approach inform theories on the acquisition of tense and aspect specifically, and of language acquisition in general?; Are results language-specific or can universal principles be established?; How pervasive are effects of mode/register within learner corpus data?; What role does native and non-native input play?; Which methodological challenges come to the fore when using corpus data instead of elicited data?; How can the notion of “target(-like)” performance be operationalized for corpus material?; Which implications do the findings from the learner corpora have for the teaching and learning of the target language? Originally published as special issue of International Journal of Learner Corpus Research 4:2 (2018)

This paper analyses actual errors coming from a Chinese learner of English as her second language. To compare with other errors in English learning, grammatical errors are more serious than others because of misunderstanding. Error analysis would be reveal the developmental features of Chinese students using article in written passages and how this affects students learning a foreign language. The purpose of this assignment is to improve the quality of error feedback to language learners, in order to help us make sense of the nature of SLA. There are six parts: (1) Background (2) Methods (3) Data analysis (4) Results (5) Discussion (6) Conduction. First language acquisition effects the study of second language. In early 1973, Oller and Richards revealed the influence of first language acquisition research on second language acquisition (SLA) research can be used in the error analysis approach. After two years, Schumann and Stenson (1975) noted similarities between the types of errors reported in the first language acquisition literature and the errors made by SLA. On the basis of this similarity, researchers speculated that the processes of first and second language acquisition are essentially the same (Corder 1967; Dulay & Burt, 1972; Richards, 1973). In order to have a deeper understanding of the grammatical morpheme underlying SLA, such as article, it is essential to analyze actual errors of articles among language learners. Interlanguage (IL) can be defined as the language system of L2 learners during the process of learning or acquiring the target language which is independent of both the target language and the learner's L2 (Lightbown & Spada, 2006). The term introduced by Selinker (1972) to refer to the systematic knowledge of an L2. It. For example, translating Chinese into English can hardly be direct, thus it needs assistance from medium language. In addition, he also emphasized the notion that learners language is systematic by suggesting the term to refer to the learner's developing L2 system. People learn foreign language would be supported by fossilization and backsliding following with age increased. IL variation can be defined as the tendency for an L2 learner's utterances, or language production such as in the form of speaking and writing, to vary systematically in the accuracy of not only linguistic forms, but also pragmatic discourse, sociolinguistic and strategic forms as situations change, e.g. specific features of situational context and task . Ellis (1994, p. 89) Most Chinese learner study English grammar rules based on Chinese grammar rules in context where there are not applicable, because Chinese grammar does not have distinguished to express specified or unspecified things. That is why Chinese learners are preferred to learn article based on grammar instruction rather than dynamic learning article. They just fix grammar rules in the book and learn English rules in a Chinese way because instruction was based on Chinese English fashion. This assignment discusses the actual errors of article in language learning and identifies what sociolinguistic variables are problematic for Chinese learners and how those variables affect the types of articles to SL in their learning, such as omission, wrong match and so on. Generally, errors are divided into two categories: interlingual and intralingual errors (Phakiti, 2009). For example, interlingual errors can be traced back to the native language of learner, such as a Chinese student wants to express plural noun. In Chinese grammar, it changes figures when describing more than one item. Intralingual errors arise from the target language and can be found among children learning it as their first language. The examples show one Chinese learner and a native English speaker use article in his or her daily life (Jxenglishnet, 2009):

478 LANGUAGE, VOLUME 76, NUMBER 2 (2000) Second language acquisition and the critical period hypothesis. Ed. by David Birdsong. (Second language acquisition research: Theoretical and methodological issues 3.) Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 1999. Pp. x, 191. The third in a series on theoretical and methodological issues in second language acquisition (SLA) research, this volume was inspired by the 1996 Association Internationale de Linguistique Appliquée symposium, 'New perspectives on the critical period for SLA'. The editor notes in his introductory chapter (1-18) that several versions of the critical period hypothesis (CPH) are represented in the book, allowing a broad perspective on the issue. In the six chapters that follow, international contributors to the volume are evenly divided in the discussion for and against critical periods in SLA. Diversifying the volume are the range of disciplines that take up the issue and the variety of evidence put forth, including but not limited to morphological, syntactic, and phonological data. The three chapters following the introduction present data from SLA studies that support the CPH. Starting from a neurophysiological approach, Christine M. Weber-Fox and Helen T. Neville (23-36) present the hypothesis that cerebral subsystems for semantics and grammar are differentially affected by critical periods (CPs). The authors' incorporation of both behavioral and electrophysiological research methods provides compelling evidence for this hypothesis . Tames R. Hurford and Simon Kirby (39-62) describe simulations that suggest that evolutionary processes contribute to a CP and discuss the implications for SLA briefly. Lynn Eubank and Kevin R. Gregg (65-93) bring a thorough linguistic theory analysis of the CPH to the volume. Asserting that CPHs in adult SLA demand refinement, the authors demonstrate ways that this refinement can come from linguistic theory. Also discussed in this chapter are fundamental distinctions of critical and/or sensitive periods and the role of physiological evidence for CPs in SLA. Three remaining chapters provide counter explanations that also fit the facts of SLA. James E. Flege (101-27) examines the discontinuity predicted by CPH vs. linear function in second language pronunciation and age of arrival. One view offered is that second language phonological production is limited by accuracy in first language perception. Theo Bongaerts (133-55) reports on three studies that he and his colleagues performed which attempted to address the concern that ultimate attainment studies focus on advanced learners. This chapter suggests that motivation , access, and training in perception and production may contribute to high levels of phonological attainment. The identification of native-like late learners of English and French from Dutch-speaking backgrounds supports this suggestion. In the final chapter (161-78), Ellen Bialystok and Kenji Hakuta challenge the assumption of causality between age and level of attainment. They explore results that fail to support the CPH in both the linguistic and cognitive evidence, concluding that there is reason to accept a null hypothesis contradicting the CPH. The 'younger equals better' hypothesis for SLA remains under advisement. In this regard the virtue of the contributions presented here is that they offer a broad scope for future research. Researchers, graduate students, and teachers will find this volume a useful equilibration of the issues. [Daniel O. Jackson , University of Pennsylvania.] The virtues of language: History in language , linguistics and texts. Ed. by Dieter Stein and Rosanna Sornicola. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 1998. Pp. viii, 232. This collection of thirteen essays is dedicated to the memory of Thomas Frank (1925-1990), who held the Chair ofthe History ofEnglish at the University of Naples from 1982 until his death. The first essay, E. F. Konrad Koerner's revised obituary article (originally published in Historiographia Ling üistica 17.421-26 [1990]), summarizes the honorée's many accomplishments over a long and distinguished career (3-10). It contains his bibliography from 1953-1996, which includes a number of studies in the history of linguistics such as a monograph on Bishop Tohn Wilkins's (1714-1792) Essay towards a real character and a philosophical language of 1668 (Guida: Naples, 1979). Rosanna Sornicola's "Thomas Frank in the Neapolitan environment' (11-14) is a historical survey of Frank's career in Naples—from his days as a teaching assistant in English atthe Neapolitan Istituto Universitario...

Research and theory in second language acquisition has provided new insights in the way humans acquire languages. In this paper, the main focus is the review of three key questions raised in the field of second language acquisition research. These three questions concern the role and nature of input, the role and nature of explicit vs. implicit knowledge and the role and nature of formal language instruction in second language development. Possible intersections between these research findings and existing evidence from neurolinguistic research will be highlighted. Overall implications for research from both fields of enquiries for language acquisition theory, methodology and language pedagogy will be outlined.