This is a response I wrote for a language teacher group on FaceBook, in response to a question regarding linguistic knowledge versus general knowledge:
VanPatten has said on his show that he sees language to be made from a universal grammar and a general learning architecture. That general learning architecture is not referring to the explicit memorization of rules that we need for learning physics, history, etc. It's largely the associative processes that cognitive scientists study, whereby exposure to many things (e.g. Birds, furniture, plants) develop categories in our minds simply through exposure many times, and through the similarity and frequency of features (wings, legs, eyes, color) across the many examples we see in our experience. If I ask any person "can a bird have six legs", they won't use any memorized rules, nor will they need any strenuous thinking to answer. It is unlikely anyone ever told them how many legs a bird is supposed to have. But it's just as easy to judge as it is to judge an ungrammatical sentence. This is the area that researchers in Cognitive Grammar and Usage-based Linguistics explore, which VanPatten mentions on his show.
0 Comments
In recent years, a lot of great reports about student language success have trickled in from teachers on the iFLT/NTPRS/CI Teaching Facebook feed. Many teachers upload student writing samples, videos of students speaking, and report on great things like students coming back from summer break still able to do most of what they could before they left, months before.
As we talk about more research to be done, one might fear that without a tight and well-planned research design, all of this evidence is useless for research. But this should not be the case. One thing we can do is simply to organize these samples into collections of pilot data. In my experience submitting presentations to graduate student conferences, I state up front that I'll be presenting "pilot data" as part of an "initial study design". This kind of hedging informs audiences of the incompleteness of the study before they attend my talk. I've usually found that as long as I state that there is much more work to be done, audiences often raise their hands not to poke more holes in my study, but instead to ask guiding and helpful questions. Research is an ongoing process, and it requires a community of interested people to push it forward. For now, I believe we need lots of evidence of students returning from summer break, still able to read and speak, as evidence of acquisition and learning for long term memory, etc. The more files of this sort we have (video of students reading, reading quiz answers with descriptions of the testing conditions, videos of students spontaneously speaking, maybe describing a picture), the more clearly we can write up IRB applications and consent forms, and cite prior research literature to better design the next studies based on that pilot data. In sum, don't be afraid to collect data just because you don't yet have a tight research design. Pilot data is the normal first step in research. |
Reed Riggs (Author)I hold a Ph.D. from the University of Hawai‘i. My research looks at entrenchment, frequency effects, and salience along with interactional behaviors from Usage-based Linguistics (UBL) and Conversation Analytic (CA) perspectives. Archives
June 2023
Categories |