- Date de réalisation : 19 Juin 2017
- Durée du programme : 51 min
- Classification Dewey : Bilinguisme, Enseignement, étude, recherche et sujets connexes relatifs au langage et aux langues
- Auteur(s) : MEISEL Jürgen
- producteur : Université Toulouse-Jean Jaurès-campus Mirail
- Réalisateur(s) : SARAZIN Claire
- Editeur : SCPAM / Université Toulouse-Jean Jaurès-campus Mirail
- Langue : Anglais
- Mots-clés : apprentissage des langues, bilinguisme, langue maternelle et langue seconde (enseignement des langues)
- Conditions d’utilisation / Copyright : Tous droits réservés aux auteurs et à l'Université Toulouse Jean Jaurès.
Dans la même collectionMonolingual and multilingual learners of French. What are the effects of language background on ... Attrition and (incomplete) acquisition of Italian answering strategies / Irene Caloi Do temporarily induced code-switching modes alternate executive performance in late sequential ... Processing variability in L2 learning: insights from articulatory training / Natalia Kartushina, ... Age-related effects on language control and executive control: a behavioral-electrophysiological ... Language, Development and the Bilingual Brain / Arturo E. Hernandez
On Qualitative Differences between Types of Language Acquisition / Jürgen Meisel
On Qualitative Differences between Types of Language Acquisition / Jürgen Meisel, in colloque "Bilingualism vs. monolingualism: a new perspective on limitations to L2 acquisition" organisé par le laboratoire Octogone-Lordat (Université Toulouse 2) sous la responsabilité de Barbara Köpke (UT2J), Holger Hopp (Technische Universität Braunschweig), Tanja Kupisch (Universität Konstanz), Université Toulouse Jean Jaurès, 19-20 juin 2017.
The thematic focus of this workshop lies in the question
whether there exist qualitative differences between L2 and L1 acquisition. This
has been a core issue in acquisition studies ever since L2 researchers turned
their attention to mental activities of learners, 50 years ago. The
epistemological rationale motivating this research agenda is the expectation of
gaining insights into the nature of the human language faculty. Comparisons of
acquisition types, e.g. monolingual (L1) and bilingual (2L1) first and child
(cL2) and adult (L2) second language acquisition, can reveal parallels and
differences in their speech that should enable us to identify factors causing
such differences to appear. In other words, we might discover the possibilities
and limits of the language making capacity.
However, few of the insights achieved by past research on simultaneous and successive bilingualism are commonly valued as such, although the claim that acquisition types differ in numerous ways is not contested. Yet the consensus ends here. What counts as ‘qualitative’ difference is a controversial issue, not to mention the problem of determining causal factors. I therefore propose to state explicitly the criteria defining qualitative differences and discuss them in some detail, for in distinguishing acquisition types we can only refer to these.
It would be naïve and probably not even desirable to aim at a broad consensus on all issues involved. But if we succeed in identifying empirical findings that do constitute differences distinguishing acquisition types, a more solidly fact-based discussion will be feasible. As a first step, I argue that not every example of variable use qualifies as a criterion to distinguish acquisition types; past research has not duly considered variability of use within and across individuals and learner types, including L1. Secondly, I emphasize an apparently self-evident point that tends to be overlooked: quantitative differences are not qualitative ones. Thirdly, it must be stated explicitly whether observed differences reflect different kinds of linguistic knowledge, acquisition principles, or processing mechanisms. Fourthly, contrasting ‘languages’ as a whole does not yield useful results; we need to know whether attested differences emerge in the lexicon or in the various components of grammar. Finally, I examine what the identified qualitative differences reveal about the relevance of possible causal factors.