@article{SennemavandeVijverCarrolletal.2005, author = {Sennema, Anke and van de Vijver, Ruben and Carroll, Susanne E. and Zimmer-Stahl, Anne}, title = {Focus accent, word lenght and position as cues to L1 and L2 word recognition}, isbn = {3-937786-01-5}, year = {2005}, language = {en} } @article{Carroll2005, author = {Carroll, Susanne E.}, title = {Input and SLA : Adults' sensitivity to different sorts of cues to French gender}, issn = {0023-8333}, year = {2005}, abstract = {All second language (L2) learning theories presuppose that learners learn the target language from the speech signal (or written material, when learners are reading), so an understanding of learners' ability to detect and represent novel patterns in linguistic stimuli will constitute a major building block in an adequate theory of second language acquisition (SLA) input. Pattern detection, a mainstay of current connectionist modeling of language learning, presupposes a sensitivity to particular properties of the signal. Learning abstract grammatical knowledge from the signal presupposes, as well, the capacity to map phonetic properties of the signal onto properties of another type (segments and syllables, morpheme categories, and so on). Thus, even seemingly "simple" grammatical phenomena may embody complex structural knowledge and be instantiated by a plethora of diverse cues. Moreover, cues have no a priori status; a phenomenon of a given sort takes on a value as a cue when acquisition of the grammatical system reveals it to be useful. My study deals with initial sensitivity to cues to gender attribution in French. Andersen (1984) asked: "What's gender good for anyway?" One answer comes from a number of studies, done mostly in the last 20 years, of gender processing by both monolingual and bilingual speakers (among many others, Bates, Devescovi, Hernandez, \& Pizzamiglio, 1996; Bates \& Liu, 1997; Friederici \& Jacobsen, 1990; Grosjean, Dommergues, Cornu, Guillemon, \& Besson, 1994; Guillemon \& Grosjean, 2001; Taft \& Meunier, 1998). These studies provide evidence that in monolinguals and early (but not late) L2 learners, prenominal morphosyntactic exponents of gender prime noun activation and speed up noun recognition. Over the same period, a growing number of studies detailing the course of L2 gender acquisition for a variety of different target languages and learner types (e.g., Bartning, 2000; Chini, 1995; Dewaele \& Veronique, 2000; Granfeldt, 2003; Hawkins \& Franceschina, 2004) have provided support for the hypothesis that developmental paths differ for early and later learners of gender. Yet despite its obvious importance to SLA theorizing, few studies have dealt directly with adult learners' ability to detect and analyze potential cues to gender at the initial stage of exposure to the L2 (and this despite considerable discussion in recent years of the nature of the "initial state" of L2 learning). The study reported on in this article, which was actually conducted in the late 1980s, was an attempt to shed some light on what the beginning learner can do with the gender attribution problem. This study was, at that time, and is even now, an anomaly; most research dealing with "input" provided descriptions of what people say to learners, not what learners can perceive and represent. Indeed, most studies that shed light on the initial analytical capacities of absolute beginners were concerned with "perceptual" learning, that is, with the acquisition of phonetic or phonological distinctions (e.g., Broselow, Hurtig, \& Ringen's [19871 study of tone learning or various studies on the perception of the /r/ vs. /l/ phonemes in American English by Ja}, language = {en} } @article{Carroll2004, author = {Carroll, Susanne E.}, title = {Segmentation : Learning how to 'hear words' in the L2 speech stream}, issn = {0079-1636}, year = {2004}, abstract = {We 'hear words' when we can segment prosodic units from the speech stream and activate associated lexical entries. Segmentation is sometimes regarded in SLA as a perceptual problem, not a grammatical one. I argue here that this view is wrong: segmenting formatives results when we construct prosodic units on the basis of phonetic cues to their edges. The learner's first task is to acquire the relevant cues to these edges. The problem of segmentation is discussed within the framework provided by the Autonomous Induction Theory}, language = {en} } @article{Carroll1998, author = {Carroll, Susanne}, title = {The language acquisition device and linguistic competence : what's in, what's not}, series = {Interaction and linguistic structures}, volume = {4}, journal = {Interaction and linguistic structures}, publisher = {Inst. f{\"u}r Germanistik}, address = {Potsdam}, pages = {48 S.}, year = {1998}, language = {en} } @article{Carroll1995, author = {Carroll, Susanne}, title = {The Hidden Danger in Computer Modelling : remarks on sokolik \& smith's connectionist learning model of french gender}, year = {1995}, language = {en} } @article{Carroll1995, author = {Carroll, Susanne}, title = {The Irrelevance of feedback to language learning}, year = {1995}, language = {en} } @article{Carroll1997, author = {Carroll, Susanne}, title = {Le point de d{\´e}part : la notion d'input dans une th{\´e}orie de l'acquisition d'une langue seconde}, year = {1997}, language = {fr} } @article{Carroll1996, author = {Carroll, Susanne}, title = {Parameter-setting in SLA : explanas and explanandum}, year = {1996}, language = {en} } @article{Carroll1998, author = {Carroll, Susanne}, title = {On processability theory and second language acquisition}, year = {1998}, language = {en} } @article{CarrollRoberge1998, author = {Carroll, Susanne and Roberge, Yves}, title = {On the acquisition of morphosyntactic systems}, year = {1998}, language = {en} } @article{Carroll2006, author = {Carroll, Susanne E.}, title = {Shallow processing : a consequence of bilingualism or second language learning?}, issn = {0142-7164}, doi = {10.1017/S0142716406060061}, year = {2006}, language = {en} } @book{Carroll2000, author = {Carroll, Susanne}, title = {Input and evidence : the raw material of second language acquisition}, series = {Language acquisition and language disorders}, volume = {25}, journal = {Language acquisition and language disorders}, publisher = {J. Benjamins}, address = {Amsterdam, Philadelphia}, isbn = {1-588-11011-7}, pages = {478 S.}, year = {2000}, language = {en} } @article{Carroll2000, author = {Carroll, Susanne}, title = {Language contact from a developmental perspective}, isbn = {3-8253-0925-8}, year = {2000}, language = {en} } @article{Carroll1999, author = {Carroll, Susanne}, title = {Putting "input" in its proper place}, year = {1999}, language = {en} } @article{Carroll1999, author = {Carroll, Susanne}, title = {Adults' sensitivity to different sorts of input}, year = {1999}, language = {en} } @article{SennemavandeVijverCarrolletal.2005, author = {Sennema, Anke and van de Vijver, Ruben and Carroll, Susanne E. and Zimmer-Stahl, Anne}, title = {Focus accent, word length and position as cues to L1 and L2 word recognition}, series = {Interdisciplinary studies on information structure : ISIS ; working papers of the SFB 632}, journal = {Interdisciplinary studies on information structure : ISIS ; working papers of the SFB 632}, number = {3}, issn = {1866-4725}, url = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus-8769}, pages = {183 -- 198}, year = {2005}, abstract = {The present study examines native and nonnative perceptual processing of semantic information conveyed by prosodic prominence. Five groups of German learners of English each listened to one of 5 experimental conditions. Three conditions differed in place of focus accent in the sentence and two conditions were with spliced stimuli. The experiment condition was presented first in the learners' L1 (German) and then in a similar set in the L2 (English). The effect of the accent condition and of the length and position of the target in the sentence was evaluated in a probe recognition task. In both the L1 and L2 tasks there was no significant effect in any of the five focus conditions. Target position and target word length had an effect in the L1 task. Word length did not affect accuracy rates in the L2 task. For probe recognition in the L2, word length and the position of the target interacted with the focus condition.}, language = {en} }