Criterial Features and the CASP Model of SLA

1

• Criterial Features and the CASP Model of
  SLA
• John A. Hawkins
• Department of Linguistics, UC Davis

2

• From 2005-2011 I co-directed a research program
  on second language learning at Cambridge
  University (the English Profile Programme) with
  three components
• (a) Cambridge Learner Corpus CLC 40 million
  words of written English from learners around the
  world
• (b) Computational techniques CLC was first
  searchable lexically, with 76 error codes
  subsequently tagged for parts of speech and
  parsed using an automatic parser, RASP, Briscoe
  et al 2006
• (c) New research methodology designed to yield
  practical benefits for learning/teaching/assessmen
  t, and to make a theoretical contribution to SLA.

3

• The key theoretical and methodological
  innovations include
• (i) the concept of criterial features, as a means
  of distinguishing levels of proficiency in the
  learning of a second language
• (ii) the development of a general learning model,
  CASP (complex adaptive system principles of
  SLA) informed by the criterial features of the
  CLC and by other empirical studies in the
  literature.
• These two innovations, especially CASP, were
  developed on the basis of joint work with my
  principal collaborator, Luna Filipovic (then
  Cambridge, now University of East Anglia).
  Further assistance from members of the Cambridge
  team is recognized in the Acknowledgements at the
  end of this talk.

4

• Criterial features are properties of learners
  English that are distinctive and characteristic
  of L2 proficiency at the different levels. The
  CLC scripts have been graded by Cambridge
  examiners and assigned grades A-F at each of six
  levels of proficiency, following the Common
  European Framework of Reference (CEFR), see the
  Council of Europe 2001
• Levels C2 Mastery CPE
• C1 Effective Operational Proficiency CAE
• B2 Vantage FCE
• B1 Threshold PET
• A2 Waystage KET
• A1 Breakthrough
• When searching for criterial differences
  between levels we focussed on the scripts of
  students who had achieved passing grades of A-C
  at each level.

5

• The questions that motivated this research are
• 1) how much of the grammar and lexicon of
  English do learners actually know and/or
  produce at each of these CEFR levels?
• 2) what empirical patterns and principles are
  there in these developing second language stages
  of English? and
• 3) what are the practical benefits, for
  learning, teaching and assessment of gathering
  this information?

6

• Electronic corpora of learner English make it
  possible for us to answer these questions.
• The CLC is the biggest learner corpus of
  English or of any language. It gives us empirical
  evidence for developmental stages in the learning
  of new constructions, words and word meanings.
• It gives us quantitative data on learner errors
  in syntax, morpho-syntax and lexical choice.
• It was originally searchable only lexically,
  in conjunction with the error codes. Subsequently
  it has been tagged and parsed using the automatic
  parser, RASP.

7

• Sample Error Codes in the CLC
• RN Replace noun Have a good travel
  (journey)
• RV Replace verb I existed last weekend in
  London
• 
  (spent)
• MD Missing determiner I spoke to President
  (the)
• I have car
  (a)
• AGV Verb agreement error The three birds is
  singing
• 
  (are)
• IV Incorrect Verb Inflection I spended last
  week in London (spent)
• FJ Wrong Adjective Form The situation got
  worst (worse)
• UQ Unnecessary Quantifier A little bit
  quite common (quite common)
• DY Derivation of Adverb It happened
  fastly (fast)

8

• Briscoes RASP (Robust Accurate Statistical
  Parser)
• identifies parts of speech (PoS)
  probabilistically tagging
• generates a parse forest representation
  containing all possible subanalyses with
  associated probabilities
• weighted Grammatical Relations yielded by the
  n-best parses of the input.

9
(No Transcript)
10

• Criterial features can be found in all areas
  of English syntax, morphology, phonology, the
  lexicon, semantics, and discourse. They
  distinguish higher proficiency levels from lower
  levels in an efficient way.
• In this talk some of these features are
  illustrated, as is the theoretical learning model
  derived from them, CASP.

11

• An analogy
• Languages change over time, and when historians
  of English examine Old English, Middle English
  and Early Modern English, they focus on important
  differences between these stages, not on what
  stayed the same. Similarly in a learning context,
  we are interested in changes from one level to
  another.

12

• There are different types of criterial features.
  Here we focus on just two
• Positive Criterial Features
• These refer to positive, i.e. correct,
  linguistic properties of English that have been
  acquired at a certain L2 level and that generally
  persist at all higher levels. A property P (e.g.
  a new construction type) acquired at B2 may
  differentiate that level and higher levels from
  A1, A2, B1 and will be criterial for the
  former. Or P may be acquired at C2 and
  differentiate this level from all lower levels.

13

• Negative Criterial Features
• These are incorrect properties of English, or
  errors, that occur at a certain level or levels
  and with a characteristic frequency. Both the
  presence versus absence of the errors, and
  especially their frequency (the "error
  bandwidth"), can be criterial for the level(s).

14

• Examples of Positive Criterial Features
• (from Hawkins Filipovic 2012 and using data
  from the CLC)
• The A levels (A1 and A2)
• Simple intransitive clauses (NP-V) and the
  slightly more complex transitive (NP-V-NP)
  sentence types are present from the beginning
• He went. (NP-V) A1
• He loved her. (NP-V-NP) A1

15

• Modal auxiliary verbs like may, might, can and
  must appear first at A1 or A2, but only in some
  of their senses.
• Can is first attested in the PERMISSION sense at
  A1 and in the POSSIBILITY sense at A2
•  
• And if you want, you can bring pencils or pens.
  (PERMISSION) A1
• In this magazine you can see all the new C.D.s
  and all the dates of the concerts. (POSSIBILITY)
  A2

16

• Noun Phrase sequences of Pronoun plus Infinitive
  are found at A2
• something to eat A2
• nothing to do A2
• as are postnominal modifiers with participial
  ed
• beautiful paintings painted by famous
  Iranian painters A2

17

• Lexical verbs appearing at the A levels are
  typically among the most basic and frequent verbs
  of English they appear first in their most basic
  and frequent senses.
• Verbs attested at A1 include
• catch, eat, give, put, take and walk

18

• New lexical verbs appearing at A2 include
• break, cut, hit, push, stand, and fall
• again typically in their most basic and literal
  senses. For break this includes its primary
  physical sense
•  
• I broke a beautiful glass. A2
•  
• for cut it includes the following example in its
  primary sense
• First I cut the cake with my mother. A2

19

• The B Levels (B1 and B2)
• The new features at B1 involve more complex
• syntax, e.g. an Object Control structure such
  as
• I ordered him to gather my men to the hall
  B1
• him is both the object of ordered and the logical
  
• subject of gather here.
• This is a criterial construction for B1 and
  higher
• levels which distinguishes them from the A
  levels.

20

• Structures like the following with finite or
  non-finite subordinate clauses and movement of
  the WH-word (how, where, etc) to the front of its
  clause are also first attested at B1
• I dont know how I could have done it B1
• I did not know where to look for it B1

21

• And postnominal modifiers in participial ing
  become productive at B1
• I received your mail asking for the sales
  report B1

22

• Structures with a finite subordinate clause
  positioned to the right of predicates like is
  true and seems with a subject it are also
  criterial for B1 and higher levels
• Its true that I dont need a ring to make me
  remember you
• B1
•  i.e. so-called Extraposition structures

23

• A large number of new lexical verbs appear for
  the first time at B1 including
• divide, fit, grab, spill, stick and tear
• And the meanings of the verbs that appeared
  first at A1 and A2 begin to expand from their
  basic senses.

24

• break appears for the first time in the
  extended sense of INTERRUPT at B1
•  
• At last I managed to break the routine of the
  city B1

25

• Constructions that are criterial for B2 and
• higher levels include secondary predications
• go and paint the houses yellow and blue
  B2
•  
• with yellow and blue predicated of the direct
  object
• houses

26

• Extraposition structures with a non-finite
  subordinate clause positioned to the right of its
  predicate are B2
• It would be helpful to work in your group as
  well B2

27

• And so-called Pseudocleft structures with an
  initial what functioning as subject of its verb
• What fascinated me was that I was able to lie on
  the sea surface
• B2

28

• Subject-to-Subject Raising constructions
  appear first at B2 with most of the higher verbs
  and adjectives that trigger this rule, for
  example prove
•  
• The car has proved to be one of the most
  important inventions of our century
  B2
• Similar examples are found at B2 with other
  raising verbs and adjectives (The car happened to
  be , The car appeared to be , The car turned
  out to be , The car is likely to be , etc)

29

• New lexical verbs at B2 include
• acquire, capture, drag, rush, spread,swallow
• and new meanings and uses are attested for the
  verbs that appeared earlier.

30

• For break, first attested at A2, these include
  new collocations such as break a promise or break
  the law
•  
•   For cut, also an A2 verb, they include new
  meanings at B2 such as REDUCE in cut the cost

31

• The C Levels (C1 and C2)
• Subject-to-Object Raising constructions with
  the verb believe appear first at C1 and are
  criterial for the C levels
•  
• I believe her to be this countrys best
  representative C1
•  

32

• Passivized Subject-to-Object Raising
  constructions such as the following with assumed
  are also criterial for C1
• the low cost of membership and entry was assumed
  to be an advantage. C1

33

• Sequences of two prenominal s genitives are
  found at C1
• in the brides familys house C1
• Structurally
• in the brides familys house

34

• New lexical verbs appearing first at C1 include
• accumulate, boast, quote, reassure, shape and
  stain
• along with new meaning possibilities for the
  verbs already introduced. E.g. break appears
  first in the idiomatic sense of break the bank at
  C1.

35

• New features appearing at C2 include less common
  Subject-to-Object Raising constructions with
  higher predicates such as presume, declare and
  remember
•  
• He presumed work to be the way to live
  C2

36

• New lexical verbs at C2 include
• stagger, sway, limp, saunter, raid,squander
• New meanings for break at C2 include original
  figurative senses such as the attested break the
  wall that surrounds him.

37

• Negative Criterial Features
• One major distinguishing feature of the C levels
  can be seen in the low frequencies for negative
  features or error types such as those
  illustrated above.
• There are significant improvements in ALL of the
  syntactic and morpho-syntactic error types at the
  C levels.

38

• By contrast, at the B levels improvements are
  relatively modest, and for many error types the
  scores actually get worse, especially at B2,
  before they get better again at C1.

39

• The error codes involve morpho-syntactic errors
  of inflection, derivation and grammatical form,
  syntactic errors of omission, positioning and
  co-occurrence, and errors of appropriate lexical
  choice. It is clear that learners at the C levels
  are increasingly mastering these rules of
  English, whereas B-level learners are not (see
  Hawkins Filipovic 2012 for details).

40

• We must now ask WHY do we see these patterns in
  the data and why do we see the criterial features
  changing the way they do at the different levels?
  In particular, WHAT is it about the features of
  the higher proficiency levels that makes them
  late acquired rather than early?

41

• It cannot simply be that learners are imitating
  the words and constructions they are explicitly
  taught in their textbooks.
• First, because there are many different
  textbooks and teaching methods around the world.
  
• But secondly because learners learn more than
  they are explicitly taught, from their reading
  materials, papers, magazines, movies, TV,
  conversations, etc.
• I.e. second language learning shares many
  similarities with first language learning, but
  not all obviously.

42

• For example, more frequently occurring words and
  constructions are learned before less frequent
  ones,
• and simpler words, constructions and meanings
  are learned before more complex ones,
• in both first and second language acquisition.

43

• E.g. learning English nouns and verbs with high
  frequencies of use is easier than learning those
  with lower frequencies, because they are
  encountered more frequently (greater exposure)
• frequent lexical items are overrepresented at
  first in L2 English, moving gradually to L1
  English norms (see Hawkins Buttery 2009,
  Hawkins Filipovic 2012)

44

• The constructions of English that are learned
  earliest are those that occur most frequently in
  the input, as reflected in e.g. the British
  National Corpus. This could be established by
  comparing the CLC with the British National
  Corpus (BNC), see Williams (2007).

45

• The new constructions that are criterial for A2,
  B1 and B2, in Williams (2007) data, appear to be
  learned in direct proportion to their frequency
  in the input, as reflected in the BNC. The more
  exposure, the earlier the acquisition and the
  easier the learning.
• This is shown in Tables 1, 2 and 3. Table 1 lists
  the new construction types found, for example, at
  B1. Tables 2 and 3 give the frequency
  correlations between the CLC and the BNC for the
  different levels.

46

• Table 1 New B1 Verb Co-occurrence Frames
• NP-V-NP-NP She asked him his name
• NP-V-VPinfin (Wh-move) He explained how to do
  it
• NP-V-NP-V(ing) (Obj Control) I caught him
  stealing
• NP-V-NP-PP (Pto) (Subtype Dative Movement) He
  gave a big kiss to his mother
• NP-V-NP-(to be)-NP (Subj to Obj Raising) I found
  him (to be) a good doctor
• NP-V-NP-Vpastpart (Vpassive) (Obj Control) He
  wanted the children found
• NP-V-P-Ving-NP (Ving) (Subj Control) They
  failed in attempting the climb
• NP-V-Part-NP-PP I separated out the
  three boys from the crowd
• NP-V-NP-Part-PP I separated the three boys out
  from the crowd
• NP-V-S (Wh-move) He asked how she did it
• NP-V-PP-S They admitted to the authorities
  that they had entered illegally
• NP-V-Part She gave up
• NP-V-S (whether Wh-move) He asked whether
  he should come
• NP-V-P-S (whether Wh-move) He thought about
  whether he wanted to go

47

• Table 2 Frequencies for Verb Co-occurrence
  Frames in English Corpora (including BNC)
• Average Token Frequencies in the BNC for the new
  Verb Co-occurrence Frames appearing at the
  learner levels
• A2 B1 B2/C1/C2
• 1,041,634 38,174 27,615

48

• Table 3 Frequency Ranking
• Average Frequency Ranking in the BNC for the new
  Verb Co-occurrence Frames appearing at the
  learner levels
• A2 B1 B2/C1/C2
• 8.2 38.6 55.6

49

• These kinds of data enable us to set up the
  following principle of second language learning
  (for which there are also well-attested parallels
  in first language learning, see e.g. Tomasello
  2003, Diessel 2004, MacWhinney 2005)

50

• (1) Maximize Frequently Occurring Properties
  (MaF)
• Properties of the L2 are learned in proportion
  to their frequency of occurrence (as measured,
  for example, in the BNC) more frequent exposure
  of a property to the learner facilitates its
  learning and reduces learning effort.
• I.e. more frequent properties will result in
  earlier L2 acquisition, more of the relevant
  properties learned, and fewer errors, in general.
  Infrequency makes learning more effortful, with
  precise predictions depending on other factors.

51

• Highly correlated with frequency is another
  principle of second language learning (shared
  with first language learning) that involves the
  relative simplicity or complexity of structures
  and meanings. The criterial grammatical features
  of earlier levels are, in general, simpler than
  those of later levels.

52

• In phonology also simpler consonants and
  consonantal distinctions are acquired earlier
  than more complex ones (see e.g. Eckman 1984).
• Simpler and more basic meanings for verbs are
  acquired earlier than more complex and derived
  extensions in meaning, figurative uses, etc.

53

• The verb break in its basic physical sense at A2
• break in the sense of INTERRUPT (break the
  routine) B1
• break an agreement, promise, etc. B2
• break the bank (idiomatic) C1
• break the wall that surrounds him (original
  figurative) C2

54

• (2) Maximize Structurally and Semantically
  Simple Properties (MaS)
• Properties of the L2 are learned in proportion
  to their structural and semantic simplicity
  simplicity means there are fewer properties to be
  learned and less learning effort is required.
• I.e. simpler properties will result in earlier
  L2 acquisition, more of the relevant properties
  learned, and fewer errors. Complexity makes
  learning more effortful, in general, since there
  are more properties to be learned, with precise
  predictions depending on other factors.

55

• In second language learning we also see
  transfer effects from the first language,
  either positive (when the transfer results in a
  correct L2 property) or negative (when it results
  in an error).
• This is one thing that differentiates second
  from first language acquisition.

56

• E.g. speakers of languages with definite and
  indefinite articles find it easier to acquire the
  article system of English than do speakers of
  languages without articles (see Hawkins Buttery
  2009, 2010)

57

• Errors involving missing definite and
  indefinite articles in the L2 English of the CLC
  are consistently low when the L1s also have
  articles.
• Recall MD I spoke to President (the)
• I have car (a)

58

• Table 4 (next slide) shows missing determiner
  error rates for the and a at all proficiency
  levels for French, German and Spanish as first
  languages. All three languages have an article
  system. (Data from Hawkins Buttery 2009)
• The figures indicate the percentage of errors
  with respect to the total number of correct uses.
  For instance a percentage of 10.0 would
  indicate that a determiner was omitted 1 in every
  10 times that it should have appeared.
• We see generally low error rates for these
  languages, without significant deviation between
  levels.

59

• Table 4 Missing Determiner Error Rates for L1s
  with Articles
• Missing the
• A2 B1 B2 C1
  C2
• French 4.76 4.67 5.01 3.11
  2.13
• German 0.00 2.56 4.11 3.11
  1.60
• Spanish 3.37 3.62 4.76 3.22 2.21
• Missing a
• A2 B1 B2 C1 C2
• French 6.60 4.79 6.56 4.76 3.41
• German 0.89 2.90 3.83 3.62 2.02
• Spanish 4.52 4.28 7.91 5.16
  3.58

60

• Table 5 (next slide) shows missing determiner
  error rates for the and a at all levels for
  Turkish, Japanese, Korean, Russian and Chinese as
  first languages. These languages do not have an
  article system.
• There is a general linear improvement, i.e. a
  decline, in error rates across the levels with
  increasing proficiency (shown from left to
  right).
• Chinese shows an interesting inverted U-shaped
  progression, especially in the case of missing
  a.

61

• Table 5 Missing Determiner Error Rates for L1s
  without Articles
• Missing the
• A2 B1 B2 C1 C2
• Turkish 22.06 20.75 21.32 14.44 7.56
• Japanese 27.66 25.91 18.72 13.80 9.32
• Korean 22.58 23.83 18.13
  17.48 10.38
• Russian 14.63 22.73 18.45 14.62 9.57
• Chinese 12.41 9.15 9.62 12.91 4.78
  

62

• Table 5 continued
• Missing a
• A2 B1 B2 C1 C2
• Turkish 24.29 27.63 32.48 23.89 11.86
• Japanese 35.09 34.80 24.26 27.41 15.56
• Korean 35.29 42.33 30.65 32.56 22.23
• Russian 21.71 30.17 26.37 20.82 12.69
• Chinese 4.09 9.20 20.69 26.78 9.79

63

• One of the learning principles proposed in
  Hawkins Filipovic (2012) to account for these
  data is Maximize Positive Transfer

64

• (3) Maximize Positive Transfer (MaPT)
• Properties of the L1 which are also present in
  the
• L2 are learned more easily and with less
  learning
• effort, and are readily transferred, on
  account of
• pre-existing knowledge in L1.
• Shared L1/L2 properties should result, in
  general, in earlier L2 acquisition, in more of
  the relevant properties being learned, and in
  fewer errors, unless these shared properties
  involve e.g. high complexity and are impacted by
  other factors. Dissimilar L1/L2 properties will
  be harder to learn by virtue of the additional
  learning that is required, again in general.

65

• More generally, Filipovic Hawkins (2013)
  provide a multi-factor model of learning,
  supported and informed by data in the CLC, and
  comprising a set of interacting principles such
  as those illustrated.

66

• The model is a type of complex adaptive system
  (see Gell-Mann 1992) and is called the CASP
  model, short for complex adaptive system
  principles of SLA.

67

• The principles interact, sometimes reinforcing
  each other (e.g. early acquired frequent items
  are also often simple), sometimes competing to
  produce variable outputs and alternative
  interlanguages.
• Some of the principles are more general, others
  more specific. Two of the more general
  principles are
• (A) Minimize Learning Effort and (B) Minimize
  Processing Effort.

68

• (A) Minimize Learning Effort (MiL)
• Learners of a second language (L2) prefer to
  minimize learning effort when they learn the
  grammatical and lexical properties of the L2.
•  
• Learning effort is minimized when shared
  properties of the L1 can be transferred directly
  into the L2 (MaPT), when properties of the L2 are
  frequently occurring in the L2 input (MaF), when
  structural and semantic properties of the L2 are
  simple rather than complex (MaS), and when there
  are fewer linguistic items to be learned in a
  given grammatical or lexical domain.

69

• (B) Minimize Processing Effort (MiP)
• Learners of a second language (L2) prefer to
  minimize processing effort when they use the
  grammatical and lexical properties of the L2,
  just as native speakers do.
•  
• E.g. even when more complex properties have been
  learned at an acquisition stage, L2 learners will
  still prefer to use simpler properties, just like
  native speakers do.
•  

70

• Principles (A) and (B) are principles of least
  effort. If these were the only principles
  determining learning and production our learner
  corpora would reveal increasingly minimal
  outputs.
• Clearly, they do not. MLUs (i.e. mean length of
  utterance figures) increase at each higher
  proficiency level (cf. Hawkins Filipovic
  2012ch.2.2) as greater use is made of less
  frequent and more complex structures and
  meanings
• A2 7.9
• B1 10.8
• B2 14.2
• C1 17.3
• C2 19.0

71

• The reason is that learners are trying to
  increase their expressive power in the L2, and to
  behave like native speakers, which means learning
  and using the mix of infrequent and frequent, and
  complex and simple, linguistic items, just like
  native speakers do.

72

• (C) Maximize Expressive Power (MaE)
• Learners of a second language (L2) prefer to
  maximize their expressive power, i.e. to
  formulate in the L2 whatever thoughts they would
  wish to express in the L1, and to perform the
  same language functions as L1 users.
• Successive stages of acquisition reveal more
  native-like L2 outputs with increasingly complex
  and less frequent structures for the expression
  of increasingly complex thoughts, in partial
  opposition to principles (A) MiL and (B) MiP.

73

• (D) Maximize Communicative Efficiency (MaC)
• Learners of a second language (L2) prefer to
  maximize their communicative efficiency in
  relation to the hearer and his/her mental model.
• Communication is efficient when the message (M)
  intended by the speaker (S) is calibrated to the
  hearer's (H) mental model in such a way as to
  achieve accurate comprehension of M with rapid
  speed.
• This requires sometimes more, sometimes less,
  processing effort, in partial opposition to
  principle (B) MiP.
• Principle (D) can help us explain some
  interesting differences between positive and
  negative transfers, i.e. transfers from the L1
  that are correct rather than error-ful.

74

• The three more specific principles introduced
  earlier follow from these more general
  principles
• (1) Maximize Frequently Occurring Properties
  (MaF)
• Properties of the L2 are learned in proportion
  to their frequency of occurrence more frequent
  exposure of a property to the learner facilitates
  its learning and reduces learning effort.
• (2) Maximize Structurally and Semantically Simple
  Properties (MaS)
• Properties of the L2 are learned in proportion
  to their structural and semantic simplicity
  simplicity means there are fewer properties to be
  learned and less learning effort is required.
• (3) Maximize Positive Transfer (MaPT)
• Properties of the L1 which are also present in
  the L2 are learned
• more easily and with less learning effort, and
  are readily transferred,
• on account of pre-existing knowledge in L1.

75

• Lets now consider a fourth specific principle,
  involving negative transfers from the L1. CASP
  can explain some interesting puzzles here in the
  SLA literature
• (4) Permit Negative Transfer (PNT)
• Properties of the L1 which are not present in the
  L2 can be transferred, resulting in errors, as
  learners strive to achieve an expressive power
  and communicative efficiency in L2 comparable to
  that in their L1 (see principles C and D), while
  minimizing learning effort (principle A) and/or
  processing effort (principle B).
• I.e. when grammatical and lexical properties are
  shared, transfers from L1 into L2 result in
  positive or correct properties in the L2. When
  properties are not shared, and the transfer still
  takes place, this results in negative or
  incorrect properties in the L2.

76

• One major difference between positive and
  negative transfers is that there are severe
  limitations on expressive power and on
  communicative efficiency that can be conveyed by
  linguistic properties when they are not part of
  the L2 and are not used by its native speakers.
• When native speakers communicate with L2 learners
  they tolerate and compensate for departures from
  the native language conventions. But when
  learners depart too radically from these
  conventions, they are not understood by native
  speakers.
• Learners accordingly acquire a sensitivity to the
  native speakers ability to compensate for these
  violations in conventions of grammar and use.
• This, we believe, plays a major role in
  determining whether and when negative transfer
  can occur and when errors will be found, see
  principle (5)

77

• (5) Communicative Blocking of Negative Transfer
  (CBN)
• The transfer of negative properties from L1
  to L2 is
• filtered in proportion to communicative
  efficiency
• (principle D) the more an L1 property
  impedes efficient
• communication in L2, the less negative
  transfer there is.

78

• In phonology substitution of L1 consonants like
  t or s or f for L2 ? in English thin
  minimizes learning and processing effort for
  learners whose L1s do not have this consonant,
  and these substitutions generally succede
  communicatively (Lado 1957).
• In syntax Spanish Pro-Drop (e.g. is a beautiful
  country for it is a beautiful country) is often
  transferred into early L2 English to express the
  proposition in question and the removal of the
  subject it does not impede communicative success.
  This structure is simpler than its English
  counterpart with an overt subject, and transfer
  is not blocked, as predicted by our principle (3)
  MaS.
• Similarly, many article omission errors do not
  diminish expressive power and communicative
  success, and at the same time they minimize
  learning and processing effort through the
  transfer of L1 structures, see above.

79

• By contrast, Chinese prenominal relative clauses
  do not result in errors whereby the English man
  whom the woman loves is changed into its Chinese
  prenominal counterpart the woman loves whom man
• This Chinese structure is complex and
  typologically marked cross-linguistically
  (Hawkins 2004, Eckman 2011), and if Chinese
  learners used it in L2 English, they wouldnt be
  understood.
• More generally, many structures and meanings will
  often not transfer from L1 to an L2 even when
  they are shared, and will be blocked by
  principles (2) MaF, (3) MaS and (5) CBN.
• I.e. our interacting CASP learning principles
  make predictions for when an L1 feature will
  transfer, and when it will not.

80

• Consider the basic word orders of English and
  Japanese. These languages have mirror-image
  patterns, head-initial versus head-final, that
  are both frequent and productive across
  languages
• went to the cinema versus the
  cinema to went,
• (Greenberg 1966 Dryer 1992 Hawkins 1983,
  1994, 2004)

81

• Head-final Japanese orders are not transferred
  into L2 English by Japanese learners, just as
  head-final Chinese noun phrases are not
  transferred into L2 English. Why not?
• Because that would result in extreme
  communicative inefficiency speakers using
  Japanese or Chinese word orders in English L2
  would simply not be understood! By contrast,
  head-initial word order variants of Spanish that
  lack precise counterparts in English (e.g., I
  read yesterday the book) are negatively
  transferred into L2 English, and they they do not
  impact efficient communication.

82

• We predict that because Japanese is a head-final
  language, the contrast with the mirror-image word
  order patterns of English is considerable and
  transferring head-final patterns into a
  head-initial language like English, and vice
  versa, would significantly impair communication.
  This is why it is imperative for Japanese
  learners of English, and English learners of
  Japanese, to acquire correct basic word orders in
  their L2s early.
• But speakers of L1 languages with flexible SVO
  like Spanish do not have the same incentive,
  because even when they transfer incorrect orders
  from their L1 into a fundamentally similar
  head-initial English L2, communication is not
  significantly impaired. The CLC error data for
  Japanese and Spanish learners reflect this
  difference perfectly word order errors are rare
  or non-occurring for the former, but common for
  the latter.

83

• (6) Order of Second Language Acquisition (OSLA)
• The order of acquisition for properties of the L2
  is in accordance with general principles (A)-(D),
  and with the more specific principles and
  patterns that are supported empirically. These
  principles can be incorporated within a
  multi-factor model of SLA, the CASP model, and
  used to define possible versus impossible, and
  likely versus unlikely, interlanguage stages
  proceeding from a given L1 to a given L2.
• These principles operate collectively to make
  constrained predictions for the acquisition of
  properties of L2 English and of other languages,
  and for their relative sequencing. Their
  interaction is complex, because there are several
  such principles, which sometimes compete and
  sometimes cooperate, because they are gradient,
  and because they have different relative
  strengths.

84

• Some Practical Applications of this Research
• Once criterial features of the different
  proficiency levels and the interacting principles
  of the CASP model have been defined, they can be
  put to use for learning, teaching and assessment
  purposes.

85

• For Learning and Teaching
• NB! Our criterial features are taken only from
  candidates who scored passing grades at each
  level.
• Hence learners who are studying for the relevant
  level can now be told explicitly what their
  successful peers have mastered, and teachers can
  incorporate these features in their teaching.
  Grammatical and lexical properties of English,
  and teaching materials and methods built around
  them, can be calibrated to the criterial features
  of each level, making learning more efficient.

86

• Learners striving for B1 can be introduced to
  Object Control structures that are first attested
  at B1 like
• I ordered him to gather my men to the hall
  B1
• and to subordinate clauses with WH-movement
• I dont know how I could have done it B1
• I did not know where to look for it B1

87

• They can be introduced to the lexical verbs that
  successful candidates in B1 exams know, e.g.
• divide, fit, grab, spill, stick, tear
• and to the expanding meanings of verbs learned
  earlier
• e.g. break appears for the first time in the
  extended sense of INTERRUPT at B1
•  
• At last I managed to break the routine of the
  city B1

88

• Similarly for the other levels and their
  features.
• More generally, grammar and vocabulary can be
  introduced in a sequence that reflects their
  frequency in the input and their inherent
  simplicity/complexity, as revealed both through
  the CLC and through native speaking corpora like
  the BNC.

89

• For Assessment
• This research provides content that can help to
  validate the scores that examiners of English
  have provided independently.
• The assignment of a level and a grade to a
  sample of learner English currently relies on
  judgments that examiners make based on their
  experience and training. Examiners have learned
  to assign scores with good inter-examiner
  agreement, but there is still a certain amount of
  intuition that they bring to the task. Examiners
  are implicitly rather than explicitly aware of
  what to look for in many cases.

90

• An individual script, let us abbreviate it as
  S, by a candidate taking an exam at level X can
  be searched for the presence versus absence of
  criterial features derived ultimately from all
  passing scripts at X, and from those at the
  immediately lower level X-1 or at the immediately
  higher level X1.

91

• Script S may contain several constructions and
  lexical items that are features of B2 and higher
  levels. This establishes that S is at least B2.
  The script might contain no uniquely C-level
  features, however. These levels are eliminated,
  therefore, and B2 is supported. S may even
  contain a unique B2 feature. This all supports
  B2.

92

• Criterial features can also be used in the
  preparation of diagnostic grammar tests that
  assign students to their appropriate levels of
  instruction based on their command of English
  grammar.

93

• L1-specific ELT materials can be written for
  different groups of learners.
• For learners whose first languages have no
  definite and indefinite articles, English
  language materials can encourage explicit and
  implicit learning in this area.

94

• The learning stages, transfer effects and error
  types characteristic of Spanish learners of
  English can be reflected in textbooks and
  teaching materials designed specifically for
  them.
• Similarly for Chinese learners, and Japanese
  learners, and Russians, etc.

95

• Theoretical interest of this work
• The criterial features we are extracting from
  the corpus are of direct benefit for
  theoreticians studying language acquisition. They
  provide a new set of empirical patterns that can
  inform predictive and multi-factor theories of
  learning such as CASP and they enable us to test
  and refine principles of frequency, complexity
  and transfer, as illustrated in this talk.
• (see Hawkins Filipovic 2012 and Filipovic
  Hawkins 2013 for further details)

96

• References
• Briscoe, E., J. Carroll and R. Watson (2006) The
  second release of the RASP system. In
  Proceedings of the COLING/ACL 2006 Interactive
  Presentation Sessions, Sydney, Australia.
• Council of Europe (2001) Common European
  Framework of Reference for Languages Learning,
  teaching, assessment. CUP, Cambridge.
• Diessel, H. (2004) The Acquisition of Complex
  Sentences. CUP, Cambridge.
• Dryer, M.S. (1992) The Greenbergian word order
  correlations, Language 68 805-55.
• Eckman, F.R. (1984) Universals, typologies, and
  interlanguage. InW.E. Rutherford, ed., Language
  Universals and Second Language Acquisition, John
  Benjamins, Amsterdam, 79-105.
• Eckman, F.R. (2011) Linguistic typology and
  second language acquisition. In J.J. Song, ed.,
  The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Typology, OUP
  Oxford, 618-633.
• Filipovic, L J.A. Hawkins (2013) Multiple
  factors in second language
• acquisition The CASP model, Linguistics
  51(1)145-176.
• Gell-Mann, M. (1992) Complexity and complex
  adaptive systems. In J.A. Hawkins M.
  Gell-Mann, eds., The Evolution of Human
  Languages, Addison-Wesley, Redwood City, CA.
• Greenberg, J.H. (1963) Some universals of
  grammar with particular reference to the order of
  meaningful elements, in J.H. Greenberg (ed.)
  Universals of Language, MIT Press, Cambridge,
  Mass.., 73-113.

97

• Hawkins, J.A. (1983) Word Order Universals.
  Academic Press, New York.
• Hawkins, J.A. (1994) A Performance Theory of
  Order and Constituency. CUP, Cambridge.
• Hawkins, J.A. (2004) Efficiency and Complexity in
  Grammars. OUP, Oxford.
• Hawkins, J.A. P. Buttery (2009) Using learner
  language from corpora to profile levels of
  proficiency Insights from the English Profile
  Programme. In L. Taylor C.J. Weir, eds.,
  Language Testing Matters, Proceedings of the 3rd
  ALTE Conference 2008, CUP, Cambridge, 158-175.
• Hawkins, J.A. P. Buttery (2010) Criterial
  features in learner corpora Theory and
  illustrations, English Profile Journal 1.
• Hawkins, J.A. L. Filipovic (2012) Criterial
  Features in L2 English Specifying the Reference
  Levels of the Common European Framework. CUP,
  Cambridge.
• Lado, Robert 1957. Linguistics across cultures
  Applied linguistics for
• language teachers. Ann Arbor, MI University
  of Michigan.
• MacWhinney, B. (2005) A unified model of
  language acquisition. In J.F. Kroll A.M.B. de
  Groot, eds., Handbook of Bilingualism
  Psycholinguistic Approaches, OUP, Oxford.
• Tomasello, M. (2003) Constructing a Language A
  Usage-based Theory of Language Acquisition,
  Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mass.
• Williams, C.A.M. (2007) A preliminary study into
  verbal subcategorisation frame usage in the CLC,
  MS, RCEAL, University of Cambridge.

98

• Acknowledgments
• The findings reported here are based on joint
  work with Luna Filipovic (Cambridge Linguistics
  Department, now University of East Anglia), see
  Hawkins Filipovic 2012 and Filipovic Hawkins
  2013. The assistance of many other researchers
  and collaborators was vital. Special thanks to
• Ted Briscoe of the Cambridge Computer Lab and
  his colleagues for use of the RASP parser
• Paula Buttery of DTAL, Cambridge (see Hawkins
  Buttery 2009, 2010)
• Dora Alexopoulou of the Education First Research
  Unit, DTAL, for advice and input
• Andrew Caines of DTAL, Cambridge, for help
  with numerous syntactic searches
• Annette Capel of CUP for help with the wordlist
  searches
• Kristen Kennedy of UC Davis for help with MLU
  calculations
• Mike Milanovic Nick Saville of Cambridge ESOL
  for theoretical and practical guidance and
  financial support (see below)
• Mike McCarthy of CUP and Penn State U for advice
  and input
• Roger Hawkey and Angeliki Salamoura of Cambridge
  ESOL for advice and English Profile Programme
  co-ordination
• Lu Gram of the Computer Lab for help with error
  calculations and other searches
• Caroline Williams of RCEAL, Cambridge for verb
  subcategorization data
• and to
• CUPs computational linguists who prepared "The
  ltSgt CompleatCompletelt/Sgt Learner Corpus
  Document" 2006, from which the error codes and
  examples sentences are taken.

99

• Financial Support
• The work reported here was made possible by
  generous financial support from Cambridge
  Assessment and from Cambridge University Press,
  within the context of the Cambridge English
  Profile Programme, and by research funds and a
  seed grant for international outreach from the
  University of California, Davis. This support is
  gratefully acknowledged.

100

• Links to Learner Corpora for English and Other
  Languages
• The EF (Education First) Cambridge Open Language
  Database for English (30 million words)
• http//corpus.mml.cam.ac.uk/efcamdat/
• Sylviane Grangers summary of learner corpora for
  English and other languages worldwide
• https//www.uclouvain.be/en-cecl-lcworld.html