Language attrition implications for second/foreign language acquisition
The inquiry provides an overview of the central issues that arise in the consideration of second/foreign language attrition. The seminal articles included provide an insightful view of what constitutes the phenomenon in question. The research on non native language attrition is still weak (K. Bardovi Harlig/ D. Stringer 2010) and requires more attention not only on the part of linguists studying the problem but language teachers as well. Non native linguistic knowledge is not given once and for all and as such cannot be taken for granted. It requires maintenance, effort, and diligence. Learners may begin to attrite long before they fully acquire the language they study. Consequently, teachers have to be aware of the means to prevent language decline. Languages are intuitively associated with the processes of acquisition, learning, speech production or linguistic use. In other words, we associate languages with a gain. Therefore, it seems less intuitive to think of them in terms of breakdown, loss or attrition. However, language attrition is very much a linguistic reality. Overall, the term refers to longstanding loss rather than temporary losses of linguistic material (Brown 1994) and is triggered by "disuse, lack of input or reduced input" (K. Bardovi Harlig/ D. Stringer 2010:34) More specifically, it covers a range of possibilities where language is lost by communities or individual speakers in both neurologically pathological (i.e. patients with language impairments due to a stroke or trauma to the brain) and non pathological populations (i.e. language users or learners) Furthermore, the problem of language attrition in healthy individuals, is at least three fold as it concerns: 1. first generation immigrant population L1 (first language) loss in L2 (second language) environment; 2. second generation speakers (also known as "heritage speakers" or "incomplete learners" loss of the heritage language; 3. (advanced) learners of second or foreign languages (FL) learned at school loss of L2/FL in L1 environment which is the scope of the present inquiry. In the domain of non native language acquisition a further division is made between L2 attrition (the context of immersed learning) and FL attrition (the context of instructed learning) They differ in terms of the quality and amount of input, exposure to and the use of non native language as well as involvement of memory (M.S. Schmid/ T.H. Mehotcheva 2012) The literature recognizes a variety of reasons Malgorzata SZUPICA PYRZANOWSKA 110 Lingwistyka Stosowana/ Applied Linguistics/ Angewandte Linguistik: www.ls.uw.edu.pl contributing to the attrition of second/foreign language skills. The most common causes include the strength and quality of learning at the initial stages of the process, motivational factors triggering acquisition, and the way the acquired language is actually used (B. Weltens/ A.D. Cohen 1989; R.D. Lambert/ B.F. Freed 1982) Likewise, J. Holmes (2008) argues that language erosion is characterized by shrinking phonetic inventories, simpler phonetic rules, lack of grammatical flexibility, and smaller lexical repertoires (p.59) M.S. Schmid (2002) emphasizes a dual nature of attrition and identifies it as both a process and phenomenon. The first perspective assumes a non pathological decline in a language learned before (B. Kopke/ M.S. Schmid 2004:5) In the case of the non pathological language loss we consider the loss of linguistic material a L1 speaker or late L2/FL learner previously possessed. In other words, we acknowledge the absence of linguistic knowledge that was once present and tangible, and could no longer compete with the other, more frequently used linguistic system. Attrition, as understood here, is not neurologically conditioned and relates to a gradual change in one's linguistic behavior triggered by a lack of contact with a community in which the language is spoken natively. The severed or less frequent contact with the community results in a loss of language fluency and its proficient use. This is fuel for the argument that in order to be maintained, languages have to be constantly supplied with linguistic material. Otherwise they erode. The question remains, however, whether attrition is driven by insufficient input maintenance or linguistic competition. In the context of language loss, linguistic knowledge naturally divides itself into the phase leading up to the loss (a pre attrition stage) and the part where attrition is full fledged (an attrited stage) It is stipulated that the phenomenon of attrition is a by product of the difference between the two aforementioned stages involved in the process of loss. We can draw a direct comparison between language acquisition and attrition in a sense that the complexity of language loss is compatible to that of language acquisition. For instance, the population of language attriters is as heterogeneous as the population of language learners. Some language users may attrite sooner than others. What contributes to the lack of homogeneity is a myriad of extra linguistic (i.e. gender, education, age, personality) language related (i.e. attitude towards languages, motivation to learn, B. Kopke/ M.S. Schmid 2004) as well as subjective and emotional factors (M.S. Schmid 2002) responsible for language loss. The list is by no means exhaustive as some of the reasons are not easily predictable. There is no consensus as to the exact nature of language loss. The field of L1 attrition is prolific. Numerous theoretical approaches tackled the issue of language attrition (K. Bardovi Harlig/ D. Stringer 2010) We begin with the first language perspective which is a natural prerequisite to understanding foreign or second language attrition. Chronologically, the regression hypothesis (R. Jakobson 1941) is one of the earliest theoretical accounts of language attrition. Under this view, the order of language acquisition is opposite to the order of language loss. Those aspects of language which are acquired early are the most resistant while those acquired late are the most susceptible to language loss. However, it is argued that there is hardly any empirical evidence supporting this hypothesis in the L1 studies. The next approach, the threshold hypothesis, is not only conceptually close to its predecessor but also takes it one step further. It states that not what is acquired first but what is acquired best is the least prone to loss. To put it differLanguage attrition 111 Lingwistyka Stosowana/ Applied Linguistics/ Angewandte Linguistik: www.ls.uw.edu.pl ently, the sequence of acquisition is not as essential here as the notion of quality or frequency of exposure (P. Jordens, K. de Bot, C. Van Os/ J. Schumans 1986) The threshold hypothesis comes in different forms; all but one go beyond the scope of the present inquiry the critical threshold hypothesis. Proponents of this view identify a diagnostic level in the process of language acquisition. Those learners who cross the threshold and achieve the required level of competence are said to have permanent knowledge of that language. As a result, the frequency of reinforcement strengthens abstract, underlying representations making them less prone, if not immune, to loss (U. Neisser 1984) To test it, H. Bahrick (1984) examined Spanish learned in school and observed that certain aspects (i.e. lexical) of the non native knowledge stabilized and were preserved for 25 years. Practically no linguistic material was lost during the time between 5 and 25 years post training. The results obtained in the study indicated that the linguistic knowledge was retained despite the lack of accessing and rehearsing it during this time. A different approach is represented by the interference hypothesis stating that attrition is triggered by the newly acquired language which does not only compete with the native one but gradually comes to dominate it. In the same vein, H. Seliger/ R. Vago (1991) proposed that due to an insufficient L1 input a learner begins to unconsciously parse L2 input and replaces complex L1 rules with much simpler L2 rules only when they share the same semantic function. E.P. Altenberg (1991) put this hypothesis to test and examined L1 German learners of English. She found that German plural allomorphs rather than gender assignment were more likely to attrite. Gender was less affected because English does not mark this category and could not have been the source of influence. The overall underlying assumption is compatible with a version of the interference hypothesis stating that attrition is not only triggered by L1 transfer but also stems from similarity between the L1 and the L2 which impedes the process of acquisition (C.T. Best 1995; J.E. Flege 1995) The next account of attrition, the markedness hypothesis also known as the parameter hypothesis, posits that unlike successful acquisition, which is argued to involve the setting of appropriate values to language specific parameters, language attrition is said to involve the unmarking of parameters and assignment of default values (M.S. Schmid 2002; K. Bardovi Harlig/ D. Stringer 2010) The unmarking is driven and strengthened by a permanent lack of input. Although theoretically plausible, the hypothesis has not been supported by compelling evidence. Lastly, the discussion would be incomplete without the dormant language hypothesis, which tries to address the question whether language loss is an accessing or representational phenomenon. One can probe deeper into the issue and ask: provided that it is feasible to identify the exact end of attrition, does it imply a complete loss of linguistic material or rather its retention and storage but in a residual form? Numerous studies investigating L1 attrition point to rapid declines in performance and competence across different languages (i.e. D. Kaufman/ M. Aronoff (1991) reported on lexical and morphological loss in Hebrew, E. Nicoladis/ H. G