Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Whether to Teach and How to Teach Complex Linguistic Structures in a Second Language

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Universal Grammar and the Second Language Classroom

Part of the book series: Educational Linguistics ((EDUL,volume 16))

Abstract

This chapter discusses the idea that universal semantic and pragmatic meaning need not be taught in language classrooms because they would come for free once the learner has acquired the lexical items capturing these meanings. At the same time, more complex structures involving a combination of several grammatical meanings should be practiced in the classroom. We will take the example of two existing studies investigating the acquisition of a relatively complex but universal meaning, that of scalar implicatures (e.g., Some elephants have trunks). The studies examine knowledge of this construction in simple as well as in more complex sentences. We will argue that since the meaning is universal, it does not need to be taught in language classrooms for the basic knowledge of this construction to become part of interlanguage grammar. However, we will show that the correct interpretation of this construction depends on processing resources, for native speakers and second language speakers alike. It is for this reason that we suggest that the construction has to be practiced in classrooms, and in the second part of the chapter, we suggest some ideas that can be used as the basis for tasks that could ensure second language learners are aware and can process this linguistic construction.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    A universal meaning is one expressed in all natural languages. A grammatical, or functional, meaning can be captured by functional morphemes (e.g., plural -s, past tense -ed) or through word order (SVO, OSV, etc.). Lexical meaning is the idiosyncratic meaning of each word, pointing to its denotation in the outside world. Both lexical and grammatical meanings can be universal. It is our contention here that all grammatical meanings are truly universal in the sense that they have to be expressed in every language, in one way or another.

  2. 2.

    When we talk about “processing capacity/resources,” we implicate the ability of a speaker to maintain a certain linguistic structure in short-term memory and consider all factors relevant to its interpretation, until the final computation of the meaning is accomplished. Structures that rely on the extralinguistic context in order to be interpreted correctly, as well as long or grammatically complex structures, are considered computationally more complex than those that are shorter, simpler, and do not rely on context.

  3. 3.

    If adult L2 learners are better at pragmatic interpretation than young children (see Section 10.4), there is an apparent contradiction between these results and the child acquisition findings. It is possible that different parts of the processing routines present different problems to children and adults. Reinhart (2006) argues that scalar implicatures are difficult for children because they involve comparing two alternative derivations (what she calls “reference set computation”), and that may not be so difficult for adults. More research is needed addressing this issue.

  4. 4.

    We are very grateful to Robert DeKeyser for discussing this issue with us.

  5. 5.

    Note that (as Street and Dąbrowska 2010 point out) such processing need not be incompatible with a generative approach to language acquisition.

References

  • Alegría de la Colina, Ana, and María del Pilar García Mayo. 2009. Oral interaction in task-based EFL learning: The use of the L1 as a cognitive tool. International Review of Applied Linguistics 47(1): 325–346.

    Google Scholar 

  • Azkarai Garai, Agurtzane, and María del Pilar García Mayo. 2013. Does gender influence task performance in EFL? Interactive tasks and language related episodes. In Language learners’ discourse across L2 instructional settings, ed. Eva Alcón Soler and María Pilar Safont Jordá, 249–278. Amsterdam: Rodopi.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bailey, Nathalie, Carolyn Madden, and Stephen D. Krashen. 1974. Is there a “natural sequence” in adult second language learning? Language Learning 24: 235–243.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bardovi-Harlig, Kathleen, and Zoltan Dörnyei. 1998. Do language learners recognize pragmatic violations? Pragmatic vs. grammatical awareness in instructed L2 learning. TESOL Quarterly 32: 233–259.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bardovi-Harlig, Kathleen, and Beverly Hartford. 1996. Input in an institutional setting. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 17: 171–188.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Basterrechea, María, and María del Pilar García Mayo. 2013. Language-related episodes (LREs) in collaborative tasks by CLIL and EFL learners: Effects of oral interaction on written production. In Interaction in diverse educational settings, ed. Kim McDonough and Alison Mackey, 25–44. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bouffard, Laurie Annie, and Mela Sarkar. 2008. Training 8-year old French immersion students metalinguistic analysis. An innovation in form-focused pedagogy. Language Awareness 17: 3–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bouton, Lawrence F. 1988. A cross-cultural study of ability to interpret implicatures in English. World Englishes 7: 183–196.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bouton, Lawrence F. 1994. Can NNS skill in interpreting implicature in American English be improved through explicit instruction? A pilot study. In Pragmatics and language learning monograph series, vol. 3, ed. Lawrence F. Bouton, 88–109. Urbana: DEIL, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cameron, Lynne. 2001. Teaching languages to young learners. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Chierchia, Gennaro, Stephen Crain, Maria Teresa Guasti, Andrea Gualmini, and Luisa Meroni. 2001. The acquisition of disjunction: Evidence for a grammatical view of scalar implicatures. In Proceedings of the 25th Boston University conference on language development, ed. Anna H.-J. Do, Laura Dominguez, and Aimee Johansen, 157–168. Somerville: Cascadilla Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clahsen, Harald, and Claudia Felser. 2006. Grammatical processing in language learners. Applied PsychoLinguistics 27: 3–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Collins, Laura, Pavel Trofimovich, Joanna White, Walcir Cardoso, and Marlise Horst. 2009. Some input on the easy/difficult grammar question. The Modern Language Journal 93: 336–353.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crain, Stephen, and Rosalind Thornton. 1998. Acquisition of syntax and semantics. In The handbook of psychology, ed. Mattew J. Traxler and Morton Ann Gernsbacher, 1073–1110. Amsterdam: Elsevier.

    Google Scholar 

  • DeKeyser, Robert. 2005. What makes second-language grammar difficult? A review of issues. Language Learning 55 (Supplement 1): 1–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DeKeyser, Robert. 2007a. Practice in a second language. Perspectives from applied linguistics and cognitive psychology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • DeKeyser, Robert. 2007b. Introduction: Situating the concept of practice. In Practice in a second language. Perspectives from applied linguistics and cognitive psychology, ed. Robert DeKeyser, 11–18. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • DeKeyser, Robert. 2007c. Conclusion: The future of practice. In Practice in a second language. Perspectives from applied linguistics and cognitive psychology, ed. Robert DeKeyser, 287–304. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • DeKeyser, Robert. 2010. Practice for second language learning: Don’t throw out the baby with the bathwater. International Journal of English Studies 10: 155–165.

    Google Scholar 

  • Doughty, Catherine, and Jessica Williams. 1998. Focus on form in second language acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dulay, Heidi C., and Marine K. Burt. 1973. Should we teach children syntax? Language Learning 23: 245–258.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dulay, Heidi C., and Marina K. Burt. 1974. Natural sequences in child second language acquisition. Language Learning 24: 37–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ellis, Rod. 2006. Modelling learning difficulty and second language proficiency: The differential contributions of implicit and explicit knowledge. Applied Linguistics 27(3): 431–463.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ferreira, Fernanda. 2003. The misinterpretation of noncanonical sentences. Cognitive Psychology 47: 164–203.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ferreira, Fernanda, Vittoria Ferraro, and Karl G.D. Bailey. 2002. Good enough representations in language comprehension. Current Directions in Psychological Science 11: 11–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fortune (with Mandy R. Menke), Tara Williams. 2010. Struggling learners and language immersion education: Research-based, practitioner-informed responses to educators’ top questions. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Center for Advanced Research on Language Acquisition.

    Google Scholar 

  • García Mayo, María del Pilar. 2002a. The effectiveness of two form-focused tasks in advanced EFL pedagogy. International Journal of Applied Linguistics 12: 156–175.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • García Mayo, María del Pilar. 2002b. Interaction in advanced EFL pedagogy: A comparison of form-focused activities. International Journal of Educational Research 37: 323–341.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goldschneider, Jennifer M., and Robert DeKeyser. 2001. Explaining the “natural order of L2 ­morpheme acquisition” in English: A meta-analysis of multiple determinants. Language Learning 51: 1–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grice, Paul. 1969. Utterer’s meaning and intention. Philosophical Review 78: 147–177.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grice, Paul. 1989. Studies in the way of words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Guasti, Maria Teresa, Gennaro Chierchia, Stephen Crain, Francesca Foppolo, Andrea Gualmini, and Luisa Merori. 2005. Why children and adults sometimes (but not always) compute implicatures. Language & Cognitive Processes 20(5): 667–696.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gillingham, Gwendolyn. 2007. Not every implicature is computed by default. Investigations into the effect of linguistic context on the rate of computation of scalar implicature. Unpublished honours thesis. McGill University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harley, Brigitte, and Merrill Swain. 1984. The interlanguage of immersion students and its implications for second language teaching. In Interlanguage, ed. Alan Davies, Clive Criper, and Anthony P.R. Howatt, 291–311. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Horn, Laurence R. 1972. On the semantic properties of the logical operators in English. Doctoral dissertation. UCLA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kroll, Judith F., and J.A. Linck. 2007. Representation and skill in second language learners and proficient bilinguals. In Grammatical gender in the bilingual lexicon: A psycholinguistic approach, ed. Ivan Kecskes and Liliana Albertazzi, 237–269. Dordrecht: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jackendoff, Ray. 2002. Foundations of language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Liebermann, Mordecai. 2008. An indirect look at second language acquisition of scalar implicatures. Manuscript. McGill University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lieberman, Mordecai. 2009. Interpretation at the semantics/pragmatics interface: Scalar implicatures in L2 acquisition. Paper presented at The Mind/Context Divide conference, University of Iowa, Iowa City, May.

    Google Scholar 

  • Long, Michael H. 1996. The role of linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In The handbook of second language acquisition, ed. William C. Ritchie and Tek K. Bathia, 413–468. San Diego: Academic.

    Google Scholar 

  • López, Luis. 2009. A derivational syntax for information structure. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Muñoz, Carmen. 2007. Age-related differences and second language learning practice. In Practice in a second language. Perspectives from applied linguistics and cognitive psychology, ed. Robert DeKeyser, 229–255. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Musolino, Julien, and Jeffrey Lidz. 2006. Why children aren’t universally successful with quantification. Linguistics 44: 817–852.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nassaji, Hossein, and Sandra Fotos. 2011. Teaching grammar in second language classroom. Integrating form-focused instruction in communicative context. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nassaji, Hossein, and Daphnée Simard. 2010. Current developments in form-focused interaction and L2 acquisition. The Canadian Modern Language Review/La revue cannadienne des langues vivantes 66: 773–778.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Noveck, Ira. 2001. When children are more logical than adults: Experimental investigations of scalar implicatures. Cognition 86: 253–282.

    Google Scholar 

  • Noveck, Ira, and Anne Reboul. 2008. Experimental Pragmatics: A Gricean turn in the study of language. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 12(11): 425–431.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pakulak, Eric, and Helen J. Neville. 2009. Proficiency differences in syntactic processing of monolingual native speakers indexed by event-related potentials. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 22(12): 2728–2744.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Papafragou, Anna, and Julien Musolino. 2003. Scalar implicatures: Experiments at the semantics-­pragmatics interface. Cognition 86: 253–282.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reinhart, Tania. 2006. Interface strategies. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Röver, Carsten. 2005. Testing EFL pragmatics. Frankfurt: Gunter Narr.

    Google Scholar 

  • Segalowitz, Norman. 2010. Cognitive bases of second language fluency. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shak, Juliana, and Sheena Gardner. 2008. Young learner perspectives on four focus-on-form tasks. Language Teaching Research 12: 387–408.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Siegal, Michael, Laura Iozzi, and Luca Surian. 2009. Bilingualism and conversational understanding in young children. Cognition 110: 115–122.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simard, Daphnée, and Gladys Jean. 2011. An exploration of L2 teachers’ use of pedagogical interventions devised to draw L2 learners’ attention to form. Language Learning 61: 759–785.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Slabakova, Roumyana. 2008. Meaning in the second language. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Slabakova, Roumyana. 2010. Scalar implicatures in second language acquisition. Lingua 120: 2444–2462.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Slabakova, Roumyana. 2013. What is easy and what is hard in second language acquisition: A generative perspective. In Contemporary approaches to second language acquisition, ed. María del Pilar García Mayo, M. Junkal Gutierrez-Mangado, and María Martínez Adrián, 5–28. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spada, Nina. 2011. Beyond form-focused instruction. Reflections on past, present and future research. Language Teaching 44: 225–236.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sperber, Daniel, and Deirdre Wilson. 1986/1995. Relevance: Communication and cognition. Oxford: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Storch, Neomy. 2002. Patterns of interaction in ESL pair work. Language Learning 52(1): 119–158.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Street, James A., and Ewa Dąbrowska. 2010. More individual differences in language attainment: How much do adult native speakers of English know about passives and quantifiers? Lingua 120: 2080–2094.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Swain, Merrill. 1985. Communicative competence: Some rules of comprehensible input and comprehensible output in its development. In Input in second language acquisition, ed. Susan Gass and Carolyn Madden, 235–253. Rowley: Newbury House.

    Google Scholar 

  • Swain, Merrill, and Sharon Lapkin. 1982. Evaluating bilingual education. A Canadian case study. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

    Google Scholar 

  • Swain, Merrill, Lindsay Brooks, and Agustina Tocalli-Beller. 2002. Peer-dialogue as a means of second language learning. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 22: 171–185.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Taguchi, Naoko. 2008. Cognition, language contact, and the development of pragmatic comprehension in a study-abroad context. Language Learning 58: 33–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Takimoto, Masahiro. 2006. The effectiveness of explicit feedback on the development of pragmatic proficiency. Language Teaching Research 10: 393–417.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Townsend, David J., and Thomas G. Bever. 2001. Sentence comprehension: The integration of habits and rules. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tragant, Elsa, and Mia Victori. 2006. Reported strategy use and age. In Age and rate of foreign language learning, ed. Carmen Muñoz, 208–236. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

    Google Scholar 

  • VanPatten, Bill. 1990. Attending to form and content in the input. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 12: 287–301.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • VanPatten, Bill (ed.). 2004. Processing instruction. Theory, research and commentary. Mahwah: LEA.

    Google Scholar 

  • VanPatten, Bill. 2012. Input processing. In The Routledge handbook of second language acquisition, ed. Susan Gass and Alison Mackey, 268–281. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vygotsky, Lev. 1978. Mind in society. The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The research discussed in this chapter was presented at the AAAL conference in Chicago in March 2011. We are grateful to the organizers of the colloquium “Half a century on: What relevance does generative SLA have for language teaching?” and to the editors of this ­volume for their careful editing. The research published in Slabakova (2010) was conducted with the financial and logistical support of the Obermann Center for Interdisciplinary Studies at the University of Iowa, which we acknowledge with gratitude. The first author is grateful to all the participants in the experiment, as well as the following research assistants: Kum Young Lee, Min-A Park, and Jae-Eun Kim. The second author wishes to acknowledge funding from the following research grants: FF12009-10264 and CSD2007-00012 (Spanish Ministry of Education), IT-311-10 (Basque Government), and UFI11/06 (University of the Basque Country).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Linguistics, University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA, USA

    Roumyana Slabakova

  2. IKERBASQUE Basque Foundation for Science, Bilbao, Spain

    Roumyana Slabakova

  3. Department of English Studies, University of the Basque Country (UPV/EHU), Vitoria-Gasteiz, Spain

    María del Pilar García Mayo

Authors
  1. Roumyana Slabakova
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. María del Pilar García Mayo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Roumyana Slabakova .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. , Dept. of Linguistics & Phonetics, University of Leeds, Woodhouse Lane, Leeds, LS2 9JT, United Kingdom

    Melinda Whong

  2. , School of English Lit, Lang & Ling, University of Sheffield, Jessop West, 1 Upper Hanover St.,, Sheffield, S3 7RA, United Kingdom

    Kook-Hee Gil

  3. , Dept. of Lang & Ling Science, University of York, Heslington, York, YO10 5DD, United Kingdom

    Heather Marsden

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2013 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Slabakova, R., del Pilar García Mayo, M. (2013). Whether to Teach and How to Teach Complex Linguistic Structures in a Second Language. In: Whong, M., Gil, KH., Marsden, H. (eds) Universal Grammar and the Second Language Classroom. Educational Linguistics, vol 16. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-6362-3_10

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation