Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Learning
Contexts for Language Learning
Behaviorism
Innatism
Cognitive/developmental perspective
Information Processing
Connectionism
The Competition Model
1/43
Contexts for Language Learning
2/43
Differences in Learning L1 & L2
L1 L2
Learner Characteristics
Child Child Adolescent Adult
(informal) (formal) (informal)
1. Knowledge of another - ? + +
language
- - + +
2. Cognitive maturity
- ? + +
3. Metalinguistic awareness
- - + +
4. World Knowledge
- - + +
5. Anxiety about speaking
3/47
Differences in Learning L1 & L2
Learning Conditions L1 L2
Child Child Adolescent Adult
(informal) (formal) (informal)
6. Freedom to be silent
+ + - -
7. Ample time & contact
+ + - ?
8. Corrective feedback:
(grammar and - - + -
pronunciation) + + + +
9. Corrective feedback:
(meaning, word choice, + + + +
politeness) Child-directed Foreigner talk or
speech Teacher talk
10. Modified input
4/47
Differences in Learning L1 & L2
Summary:
5/43
Behaviorism
6/43
Behaviorism / CAH
7/43
Behaviorism / CAH
8/43
Behaviorism / Summary
9/43
Innatism
10/43
Innatism:
Universal Grammar
UG and SLA
1. Chomsky has not made specific claims about the implications
of his theory for second language learning.
2. Linguists working within the innatist theory have argued that
UG offers the best perspective to understand SLA. UG can
explain why L2 learners eventually know more about the
language than they could reasonably have learned (i.e. UG
can explain L2 learners’ creativity and generalization ability).
3. Other linguists argue that UG is not a good explanation for
SLA, especially by learners who have passed the critical
period (i.e. CPH does not work in SLA).
(* Note: See Chapter 3: Age of acquisition and CPH)
11/43
Innatism:
Universal Grammar
How UG works in SLA:
Two different views -
1. The nature and availability of UG are the same in L1
and L2 acquisition.
Adult L2 learners, like children, neither need nor
benefit from error correction and metalinguistic
information. These things change only the superficial
appearance of language performance and do not
affect the underlying competence of the new language
(e.g., Krashen’s “monitor model”).
12/43
Innatism:
Universal Grammar
13/43
Innatism:
Competence vs. Performance
Competence:
It refers to the knowledge which underlies our ability to
use language.
Performance:
It refers to the way a person actually uses language in
listening, speaking, reading, and writing. Performance is
subject to variations due to inattention, anxiety, or fatigue
whereas competence (at least for the mature native
speaker) is more stable.
14/43
Innatism:
Competence vs. Performance
SLA researchers from the UG perspective (innatism)
are more interested in the language competence (i.e.,
knowledge of complex syntax) of advanced learners
rather than in the simple language of early stage
learners.
15/43
Innatism:
Krashen’s “monitor model” (1982)
16/43
Innatism:
Krashen’s “monitor model”
The acquisition-learning hypothesis
Acquisition: we acquire L2 knowledge as we are exposed to
samples of the L2 which we understand with no conscious
attention to language form. It is a subconscious and intuitive
process.
Learning: we learn the L2 via a conscious process of study
and attention to form and rule learning.
Krashen argues that “acquisition” is a more important
process of constructing the system of a language than
“learning” because fluency in L2 performance is due to what
we have acquired, not what we have learned.
17/43
Innatism:
Krashen’s “monitor model”
The monitor hypothesis
The acquired system acts to initiate the speaker’s
utterances and is responsible for spontaneous language
use, whereas the learned system acts as a “monitor”,
making minor changes and polishing what the acquired
system has produced.
Such monitoring takes place only when the speaker/writer
has plenty of time, is concerned about producing correct
language, and has learned the relevant rules.
18/43
Innatism:
Krashen’s “monitor model”
The natural order hypothesis
L2 learners acquire the features of the TL in
predictable sequences.
The language features that are easiest to state (and
thus to ‘learn’) are not necessarily the first to be
acquired.
e.g. the rule for adding an –s to third person
singular verbs in the present tense
19/43
Innatism:
Krashen’s “monitor model”
The input hypothesis
Acquisition occurs when one is exposed to language
that is comprehensible and that contains “i +1”.
If the input contains forms and structures just beyond
the learner’s current level of competence in the
language (“i +1”), then both comprehension and
acquisition will occur.
20/43
Innatism:
Krashen’s “monitor model”
The affective filter hypothesis
“Affect” refers to feelings, motives, needs, attitudes,
and emotional states.
The “affective filter” is an imaginary/metaphorical
barrier that prevents learners from acquiring language
from the available input.
Depending on the learner’s state of mind, the filter
limits what is noticed and what is acquired. A learner
who is tense, anxious, or bored may “filter out” input,
making it unavailable for acquisition.
21/43
Innatism:
Krashen’s “monitor model”
Summary
Krashen’s “monitor model” (i.e., acquisition vs. learning,
monitor, natural order, comprehensible input, and
affective filter) has been very influential in supporting
communicative language teaching (CLT), which focuses
on using language for meaningful interaction and for
accomplishing tasks, rather than on learning rules.
Krashen’s hypotheses are intuitively appealing, but
those hypotheses are hard to be tested by empirical
evidence.
22/43
Information processing
23/43
Information processing
1. Attention-processing
2. Skill learning
3. Restructuring
24/43
Information processing
Attention-processing:
This model suggests that learners have to pay attention at first to any
aspect of the language that they are trying to understand or produce.
It also suggests there is a limit to how much information a learner can
pay attention to or engage in at one time.
Gradually, through experience and practice, information that was new
becomes easier to process, and learners become able to access it
quickly and even automatically.
This can explain why L2 readers need more time to understand a text,
even if they eventually do fully comprehend it.
25/43
Information processing
Skill Learning:
Some researchers regard SLA as ‘skill learning’. They suggest that
most learning, including language learning, starts with declarative
knowledge (knowledge that).
Through practice, declarative knowledge may become procedural
knowledge (knowledge how).
Once skills become procedualized and automatized, thinking about
the declarative knowledge while trying to perform the skill disrupts
the smooth performance of it.
In SLA, the path from declarative to procedural knowledge is often
like classroom learning where rule learning is followed by practice.
26/43
Information processing
Restructuring:
Sometimes changes in language behavior do not seem to
be explainable in terms of a gradual build-up of fluency
through practice.
Restructuring may account for what appear to be sudden
bursts of progress and apparent backsliding.
It may result from the interaction of knowledge we already
have and the acquisition of new knowledge (without
extensive practice).
e.g. “I saw” → “I seed” or “I sawed” –
overapplying the general rule.
27/43
Information processing
Transfer appropriate processing:
This hypothesizes that Information is best retrieved in
situations that are similar to those in which it was acquired.
This is because when we learn something our memories also
record something about the context and the way in which it
was learned.
This can explain why knowledge that is acquired mainly in
rule learning or drill activities may be easier to access on tests
that resemble the learning activities than in communicative
situation.
On the other hand, if learners’ cognitive resources are
occupied with a focus on meaning in communicative activities,
they may find grammar tests very difficult.
28/43
Connectionism (I)
29/43
Connectionism (II)
30/43
Connectionism (III)
31/43
The Competition Model
The competition model is closely related to the connectionist
perspective. It is based on the hypothesis that language acquisition
occurs without the necessity of a learner's focused attention or the
need for any innate capacity specifically for language.
This model takes into account not only language form but also
language meaning and language use.
Through exposure to thousands of examples of language associated
with particular meanings, learners come to understand how to use the
‘cues’ with which a language signals specific function.
Most languages make use of multiple cues, but they differ in the
primacy of each. Therefore, SLA requires that learners learn the
relative importance of the different cues appropriate in the language
they are learning.
32/43
L2 Applications
Input processing
Processability theory
33/43
The Interaction Hypothesis
Therefore,
35/43
The Interaction Hypothesis
36/43
The Interaction Hypothesis
37/43
The Noticing Hypothesis
38/43
Input Processing
39/43
Processability Theory
41/43
The Sociocultural Perspective
The difference between Vygotsky’s socialcultural
theory and the interaction hypothesis:
Vygotsky Interaction hypothesis
- Language acquisition takes - Interaction needs to be modified
place in the interactions of and through negotiation for
learner and interlocutor. meaning.
- Greater importance is attached - Emphasis is on the individual
to the conversations, with cognitive processes in the mind
learning occurring through the of the learner.
social interaction.
42/43
Summary
There is no agreement on a “complete” theory of second
language acquisition yet.
Each theoretical framework has a different focus and its
limitations.
1. Behaviorism: emphasizing stimuli and responses, but ignoring
the mental processes that are involved in learning.
2. Innatism: innate LAD, based on intuitions
3. Information processing and connectionism: involving
controlled laboratory experiments where human learning is
similar to computer processing.
4. Interactionist position: modification of interaction promotes
language acquisition and development.
43/43