Characteristics of Language
Languages are systematic:
- Recurrent elements
- Patterns of relationships
- Infinite # of sentences can be created
- Created - rules and principles - we're usually unconscious of these
Languages are symbolic:
- Connection between the symbol and the meaning is arbitrary
Languages are social:
- Express culture
- Adequate for communication
- Interaction is required for L1 acquisition
Levels of Language:
- Lexicon - vocabulary
- Phonology - sound systems
- Morphology - word structure
- Syntax - grammar
- Discourse:
- Continuous speech, whether spoken or written, longer than the sentence, e.g. paragraphs, conversations, texts
- Ways to connect sentences and organize info across sentence boundaries
- Structures for telling stories, engaging in conversation
- Scripts for interacting and for events
Contrastive Analysis (CA)
- Lado 1950s
- Based on Structural Linguistics and Behaviorism
- Structural Linguists
- Comparing L1 and L2 one level at a time:
- Phonology (how are they the same, how are they different)
- Morphology (compare word structure)
- Syntax (compare sentence structure)
- "Structure before meaning" -- need to understand the structure first in order to learn a language
- Behaviorist Psychology:
- SRR as habit formation
- SLA includes transfer
- Positive transfer
- Negative --interference--habits to be replaced by new habits
- Lado's (1957) Contrastive Analysis Hypotheses:
- L2 structures that are similar to L1 structures will be easier to learn
- L2 structures that are different from L1 will be harder to learn.
- Errors are the result of interference or negative transfer from L1.
- CA was used to predict errors and areas of difficulty
- Behaviorism 1940s-1960s
Teaching implications
- Practice and drill new structures
Imitate and repeat the same structures over and over
Need to replace L1 habits with L2 habits
- Focus teaching on "difficult" L2 structures-- those different from L1
- Predictions made by CA were shown to be unreliable:
- Many predicted errors did not occur
- Many errors could not be traced to interference or transfer from L1
- Much predicted positive transfer didn't happen
Error Analysis (EA)
- Replaced CA in 1970s
- EA didn’t predict errors based on comparisons of L1 and L2
- In EA, L2 learner errors were:
- Analyzed
- Classified
- Compared to children's L1 acquisition errors
1970s Changes in SLA Focus
- From structural descriptions of language -> underlying rules
- From behaviorism -> mentalism
- From external (language use, behaviorist idea) -> internal/innate (what goes on in mind, some kind of innate ability)
- From pedagogical focus -> more theoretical SLA research
Transformational-Generative Grammar
- Noam Chomsky
- A relatively small number of "rules" account for the basic sentence structures of a language
- A limited set of transformational rules allow modifications (transformations) of the sentences
- From these finite sets of rules and "transformations" an infinite number of sentences can be "generated"
Changing views of L1 Acquisition
- Not S-R-R but instead Inner forces interacting with the environment
- Child not a passive recipient of "stimuli" but instead seen as an active and creative participant in language acquisition
- Structures of child language production not just deficient versions of adult language but analyzed as grammar systems in their own right
CA -> EA -> Interlanguage Studies (page 40)
CA focused on contrasting L1 and L2 (inaccurately) predicting L2 errors
EA focused on analyzing L2 learner "errors" -- those features of L2 learner language (interlanguage) that were different form the target language
Interlanguage studies focused on the learner's interlanguage as a whole, studying the stages and changes that characterize learner language
Interlanguage (IL)
- Selinker (1972)
- Intermediate states of a learner's language
- Development of a learner's IL:
- A creative process
- Inner forces interacting with environment
- Influenced by L1 and by L2 input
- IL differs from both L1 and L2
- Interlanguage = learner language
- Systematic -- it makes sense, there are rules
- Rule governed
- Learners work through similar developmental stages, though at differing rates
- Variable
- Learners switch between a range of correct and incorrect forms over lengthy periods of time
- Context affects patterns of language use
- Dynamic
- Evolves over time
- Changes frequently, in a state of flux
- A succession of interim grammars
- A reduced system
- Form is less complex grammatical structures
- Reduced function: serves a smaller range of communicative needs (I can't do anything with interlanguage that I can do when I reach proficiency)
- Interlanguage and Success
- Relative success = the level of IL development reached before learning stops
- Beginning of IL -- when a learner first attempts to convey meaning in L2
- End of IL-- when development "permanently" stops
- Boundaries unclear
- Controversial Issues Re: IL
- Label of "fossilization"
- Goal of target language -- "native-like" production not always an appropriate or realistic goal
- Should "progress" be measured against native-speaker norms?
Morpheme Order Studies
- Roger Brown (1973) -- children's L1
- Dulay and Burt (1974) -- children's L2
- L1 and L2 morpheme acquisition order similar
- L2 morpheme acquisition by children from different L1s was virtually the same
- Creative Construction
- Dulay and Burt
- Internally driven acquisition processes
- Learners subconsciously create a mental grammar for interpreting and producing newly encountered L2 language
- Bailey et al, 1974
- Studied adult's L2 (ESL) acquisition of the same morphemes
- Studied 73 adult ESL learners from 12 different L1s
- Results were similar to study on children's ESL acquisition
- L2 Morpheme Studies
- Both child and adult ESL learners (from various L1s) acquire a number of grammatical morphemes
- In a set order
- In a variety of contexts:
- Formal classroom
- Naturalistic settings
- A mixture of formal and naturalistic
- Order of Acquisition of Negatives:
- Similar stages in
- English as L1
- English as L2
- German as L2
- Natural Order
- Important concept for SLA studies
- Suggests innate capacity may not be limited to early childhood
1970s L2 Development Studies
- L2 language development is:
- Systematic
- Largely independent of the learner's L1
- Similar in many ways to L1 acquisition
- Follows similar acquisition patterns across different L2s (though different patterns from those of L1 acquisition)
Krashen's Monitor Model
- Applies innatist (Chomskian) principle to L2 acquisition
- 5 Hypotheses (guesses)
- Acquisition-Learning Hypothesis
- Two ways of developing competence in L2:
- Language acquisition:
- The "natural" way to develop linguistic ability
- Subconscious
- Results in acquired linguistic competence-- a "feel" for correctness not awareness of rules
- Implicit knowledge
- Language learning:
- Knowing about language
- Formal knowledge of a language
- Conscious
- Explicit knowledge of rules (aware of them and able to talk about them)
- Monitor Hypothesis
- Conscious learning functions as a monitor, or an editor, to self-correct speech
- Our formal "learned" knowledge serves only to check and correct what we produce by the acquired system
- Criticism of Monitor Hypothesis
- Impossible to test or verify
- No way to know when a learner is consciously applying a rule or not or whether the rule is applied from the acquired system or the "learned" rules
- Natural Order Hypothesis
- Grammatical structures/rules are acquired in a predictable order
- Criticism:
- Too strong a statement
- Doesn't take into account
- Language transfer
- Individual variability
- Based almost exclusively on morpheme studies
- A weak version of the hypothesis is supported by EA and morpheme studies
- Input Hypothesis
- We acquire (not learn) language by understanding input that is a little beyond our current level of (acquired) competence
- Comprehensible input = language that is heard and understood
- I + 1
- I = the acquirer's current level of competence
- Stage I + 1 = the stage immediately following I along some natural order
- Acquirers progress (from a stage I to stage I + 1) by understanding input that includes a structure (+1) that is part of the next stage (I + 1)
- Criticism:
- Vague and imprecise:
- How to determine level I and I + 1
- Circular argument:
- Comprehensible input -> acquisition; Acquisition verifies that input was comprehensible (and I + 1)
- Impossible to test or verify
- Affective Filter Hypothesis
- Affective [emotional] factors, including motivation, self-confidence and anxiety, can positively or negatively affect second language acquisition
- Affective filter blocks acquisition
- Low affective filter
- More open to input
- Acquisition easier, quicker
- Right attitudes aid acquisition in 2 ways
- Confidence to interact with native speakers; acquirers seek out interaction, hence more input
- More receptive to input received
- Implications for classroom:
- Supply comprehensible input (I + 1)
- Create an atmosphere that promotes a low filter
- Criticism
- Vague
- Impossible to test or verify
- How does the affective filter work?
- Influence of Krashen's Monitor Model on Research and Teaching
- Acquisition-Learning Hypothesis
- Emphasis on importance of meaningful communication in L2 in the classroom
- Natural Order Hypothesis:
- Has influenced teachers and curriculum writers to adapt the order of presentation of new grammar points to the "natural order" of acquisition when feasible
- Input hypothesis:
- Has stimluated continuing research on input and interaction
- Has led teachers to consider whether they are presenting material that is too simple (just I, no + 1) or too overwhelming (I + 2,3,4…)
- Has led some teachers to allow their students a "silent period" before expecting them to speak in L2
- Affective Filter Hypothesis
- Raised awareness of the influence -- positive and negative -- of affective factors on L2 learning
- Influenced teachers in trying to make the atmosphere in their classrooms non-threatening and affirming
Widespread Consensus going into the 1980s
Re: What the L2 learner comes to know IL is:
- Rule governed
- Dynamic
- Differs significantly from both L1 and L2
- Final state of L2 differs from native speaker's language system
Re: How the learner acquires knowledge
- SLA involves creative mental processes
- Development of both L1 and L2 follow predictable sequences, suggesting that L1 and L2 acquisition processes are similar in significant ways
Re: Why some L2 learners are more successful than others
- Relates primarily to the age of the learner
The 1980s: Chomsky's Universal Grammar
- Continued emphasis on:
- Linguistic competence-- speaker-hearers underlying knowledge of language
- Poverty-of-the-stimulus argument-- knowledge is beyond what input provides
- Humans have innate knowledge of what all languages have in common, i.e. UG
- LAD + UG (Principles and Parameters) + Input = LA
- Children are born:
- With a hard-wired Language Acquisition Device (LAD) in their brains
- With the major principles of language in place (UG)
- But with parameters to set, based on the input they receive in their particular language
- Language input is not sufficient to account for language acquisition (Poverty of the Stimulus)
- Principles and Parameters
- Universal principles:
- The core grammar of all human languages
- An innate faculty that specifies the limits of language
- Invariable
- Parameters
- Language-specific grammar variations
- Variable but limited
- Limited parameters:
- Example:
- Head-initial or Head-final
- English has a head-initial parameter setting
- John kicked the ball
- Verb "kicked" comes at the head of the verb phrase
- Japanese has a head-final parameter setting
- John ball kicked (lit. translation)
- From Transformational Grammar to Principles and Parameters
- TG-LA involves a language-specific set of rules based on input and guided by UG
- P&P-LA involves extremely general principles of UG and options (parameters) to be selected
- Vocabulary important -- provides data for parameter setting and interpretation of meaning
- UG in L1 Acquisition
- Initial state: UG and innate learning principles in the language faculty of the brain
- What is acquired: info from input (esp. vocab) that the learner matches with UG options (parameters)
- Final state: adult grammar/ "stable state"
- How L1 acquisition occurs:
- "natural," "instinctive," internal"
- UG and SLA
- Initial state:
- Knowledge of L1
- Same parameter settings -> positive transfer
- Different parameter settings -> negative transfer
- Access to UG?
- 4 options:
- Full access
- Partial access
- Indirect access through L1 knowledge
- No access
- L2 Interlanguage in UG Theory
- Intermediate states of L2 development
- If access to UG, then IL involves parameter resetting
- Chomsky's Minimalist Program (1990s)
- Core of human language: the lexicon (the word store) made up of lexical categories (content words) and functional categories
- Language faculty consists of:
- A computational module
- Invariable
- Specifying universal abstract principles of language
- A lexicon
- Variable across languages
- LA involves learning the lexicon
- Errors Analysis (EA)
- Corder (1967) "The significance of learners' errors"
- Positive view of learner errors
Corder's view of Errors:
- Sources of insight into the learning process
- Evidence of a learner's language system at any point in language development
- Evidence of learner strategies and hypothesis testing
- Windows into learner's minds
Error Analysis:
- Collecting a data sample
- Identifying errors
- Language which deviates from target L2
- Look for "systematic errors" -- due to lack of L2 knowledge
- Exclude "mistakes" (p. 39)
- Describe and classify errors
- Language level-- phonological, morphological, syntactical, etc
- General linguistic category -- passive, negative…
- More specific linguistic forms-- articles, prepositions, verb forms
- Explain errors
- Interlingual-- negative transfer/ interference from L1
- Intralingual -- developmental, e.g. overgeneralization
- Evaluate errors -- how serious (if it affects the understanding)
- Ambiguity in classification
- Can't always distinguish transfer from developmental errors
- Lack of positive data -- focus only on errors, not what a learner has acquired
- Possibility of avoidance of difficult structures
Constructionism
- Approach to SLA within Chomsky's Minimalist Program
- IL development = progressive mastery of L2 vocabulary and related morphological features
- Lexical acquisition provides info for parameter resetting
Evidence for at least some access to UG in SLA
- IL doesn't violate the constraints of UG -- doesn't create grammar that is incompatible with UG principles
- IL can't be accounted for by only L1 transfer and L2 input
Final State in SLA in UG Theory
- Why some learners are more successful:
- Varying degrees of access to UG
- Different relationships between L1s and L2s-> different transfer or interference
- Quality of L2 input
- Learner perception of mismatches between L1 parameter settings and L2 input
- Different degrees of lexical acquisition
Total Physical Response
- Approach
- Uses the senses --> stimulus-response
- Language is a natural process and human brain has a bio-program for learning language
- Built around coordination of speech and action
- Alleviates stress in classroom setting
- Grammar based view of language
- Verb is key
- Design
- Begins with oral proficiency
- Goal: teach basics that a native speaker could understand
- Grammar is taught inductively
- Learner = performer and listener
- Teacher = modeler and facilitator who provides opportunity for learning
- Allows mistakes at beginning
- Initiator of TPR: ASHER
Silent Way
- Approach
- Caleb Gattegno
- Child state of mind when learning
- Lots of input from teacher
- Silence aids in concentration
- Throughout process learner learns to correct themselves
- Inductive process of learning
- Vocabulary is important
- How language is said is vital
- Teacher isn't really the model of language -- more of a guide
- Design
- Goal is near-native fluency
- Much learning revolves around visual elements (color charts, rods, etc)
- Independent learning for the most part
- Student explores and makes generalizations
- Lessons are built grammatically based on what is previously taught
Suggestopedia
- Approach
- Lozanov -- used yoga
- Music and musical rhythm is central to learning
- Memorize vocab pairs L1-L2
- Learn best when info is from authoritative source
- Child to parent = student to teacher
- Environment is as important as instruction
- Rhythm and intonation is part of instruction
- Design
- Organized plan
- Activities: imitation, Q & A, role play
- Absorb material in a pseudo-passive state
- Goal: conversational proficiency
- Problems
- Teacher is absolute authority -- weird and scary
- Students aren't supposed to understand things but let it roll over and through them
Community Language Approach
- Approach
- Charles Curran
- Modeled after counseling techniques
- Focused on "how" the person learns
- Interaction is key
- Humanistic perspective
- SARD = Security, Attention/Agression, Retention/Reflection, Discrimination
- Design
- Progression is topic-based
- Class decides what's going to be studied
- Teacher functions like a counselor
- Learning is a community
- The role of the students is being community members
Whole Language
- Approach
- Teaches language as a whole
- Emphasis on authenticity
- Interactional perspective
- Humanistic and constructivist Background
- Language is thinking. New language = new way of thinking
- Connects to real life experience
- Oral language communication
- Emphasis on using literature and process writing
- Cooperative learning
- Concern for student's attitude
- Design
- No curriculum, focus on learners' needs
- Taught to apply outside of class
- Teacher is facilitator
- Learner is evaluator and completely self directed
Multiple Intelligences
- Approach
- Gardner (cognitive science)
- 8 total; all of them are used collectively
- More than just linguistics
- Armstrong applied it
- Design
- Four stages:
- Awaken the intelligence
- Amplify the intelligence
- Teach with/for the intelligence
- Transfer of the intelligence
- Based on multi-sensory activities
- Teach the student to better their own learning experience
- Environment should be one that encourages the development of the whole person
Neurolinguistic Programming
- Approach
- Grinder and Bandler -- developed this as a form of therapy, not for SLA
- Study of the brain and communication -- more about beliefs about how the brain functions
- "program" people to learn the language
- Language reflects and shapes our experiences
- Humanistic philosophy
- Design
- Four principles:
- Thinking about the outcome and what you want
- Having good communication with others
- Using your sense to decipher between feeling vs. real
- Being flexible so that others understand
- Modeling is essential
- How you think directs how you learn
Lexical Approach
- Approach
- Memorize patterns
- Language built on words and words only
- Language input is an effective approach to learning languages
- Set word combos that are reused
- Memorized commonly used phrases and expressions
- Design
- Lexical rather than grammatical
- Instruction based on data analysis
- A lot of technology
- Major source of input is teacher talk
- Learner makes generalizations after analyzing data provided
- Teacher's role: create an environment where learners can learn effectively and manage their own learning
- Corpus = body of lexical items
Competency-Based Language Teaching
- Approach
- Focus on the output of language
- Language is seen as a medium through interaction
- Social context
- Based on functional and interactional
- Teaches what one needs to know for certain situations
- Design
- Teaches real world content
- Focus on the use of the language rather than knowledge of grammar
- What is to be learned is very specific and useful
- Standards-based
Quiz:
Who is TPR? ASHER
Silent Way? GOTTAGNA
Community-Language Learning? CURRAN
Suggestopedia? LOZANOV
Multiple-Intelligences? GARDNER
SLA chapter 3 thru p. 52
-- Key terms
-- Self-study questions
-- CA, EA, Interlanguage -- what they're about
-- Morpheme order -- L1 and L2 -- general understandings (people acquire the order in similar ways across different languages)
-- Krahen's 5 hypotheses
-- Chomsky's TG, UG, P&P
-- (Matching, multiple choice)
-- Approaches 5-13
Distinctives of each approach
Matching or multiple choice