2 theoretical approaches to l2

Contexts for Language Learning A child or adult learning a second language is different from a child acquiring a first language in terms of both 1 learner characteristics and 2 learni

Explaining Second Language

 The Competition Model

 The Sociocultural Perspective

Contexts for Language Learning

 A child or adult learning a second language

is different from a child acquiring a first

language in terms of both

1) learner characteristics

and

2) learning conditions

Differences in Learning L1 & L2

Adolescent (formal)

Adult (informal )

Differences in Learning L1 & L2

Adult (informal )

Child-directed speech

Foreigner talk or Teacher talk

-Differences in Learning L1 & L2

 Summary:

SLA (Second Language Acquisition) theories

need to account for language acquisition by

learners with a variety of characteristics and

learning in a variety of contexts

 Four characteristics of behaviorism:

1) imitation, 2) practice, 3) reinforcement, and

4) habit formation

 Brooks (1960) & Lado (1964):

- emphasizing mimicry and memorization

( audiolingual teaching methods)

Behaviorism / CAH

 A person learning an L2 starts off with the habits

formed in the L1 and these habits would interfere

with the new ones needed for the L2.

 Behaviorism was often linked to the Contrastive

Analysis Hypothesis ( CAH ):

It predicts that where there are similarities between

the L1 and the target language, the learner will

acquire target-language structures with ease ; where

there are differences , the learner will have difficulty

Behaviorism / CAH

 Criticisms about the CAH :

Though a learner’s L1 influences the acquisition of an L2, researchers have found that L2 learners do not make all the errors predicted by the CAH

1. Many of their errors are not predictable on the basis of

their L1 (e.g ‘putted’; ‘cooker’ meaning a person who cooks; ‘badder than’)

2. Some errors are similar across learners from a variety of

L1 backgrounds (e.g he/she; “th” sound; the use of the past tense; the relative clauses)

Behaviorism / Summary

 The L1 influence may not simply be a matter of the transfer

of habits , but a more subtle and complex process of

- identifying points of similarity ,

- weighing the evidence in support of some particular

feature , and

- reflecting (though not necessarily consciously) about

whether a certain feature seems to ‘belong’ in the L2

 By the 1970s, many researchers were convinced that

behaviorism and the CAH were inadequate explanations for SLA.

 Universal Grammar (UG) in relation to

second language development

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)

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 ”).

Innatism:

Universal Grammar

 How UG works in SLA:

Two different views

-2. UG may be present and available to L2 learners, but its

exact nature has been altered by the prior acquisition of

the first language

L2 learners need to be given some explicit information

about what is not grammatical in the L2 Otherwise, they may assume that some structures of the L1 have

equivalents in the L2 when, in fact, they do not.

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.

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

 Their investigations often involve comparing the

judgments of grammaticality made by L2 and L1

learners, rather than observations of actual language performance (i.e., use of language)

Innatism:

 The acquisition-learning hypothesis

 The monitor hypothesis

 The natural order hypothesis

 The input hypothesis

 The affective filter hypothesis

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

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

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

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

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.

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.

Information processing

 Cognitive psychologists working in this model

 compare language acquisition to the capacities of

computers for storing, integrating, and retrieving

information

 do not think that humans have a language-specific module

(i.e LAD) in the brain

 do not assume that ‘acquisition’ and ‘learning’ are distinct

mental processes

 see L2 acquisition as the building up of knowledge that can eventually be called on automatically for speaking and

understanding (i.e., general theories of learning can

account for SLA)

Information 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

Information processing

 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

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

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

Connectionism (I)

 Connectionists attribute greater importance to the role of the

environment than to any specific innate knowledge

 They argue that what is innate is simply the ability to learn, not any specifically linguistic principles

 They emphasize the frequency with which learners encounter

specific linguistic features in the input and the frequency with which features occur together

Connectionism (II)

 Connectionists suggest that learners gradually build up their

knowledge of language through exposure to the thousand of

 Eventually, learners develop stronger mental ‘connections’

between the elements they have learned; thus, the presence of one situational or linguistic element will activate the other(s) in the learner’s mind

 Evidence comes from the observation that much of the language

we use in ordinary conversation is predictable or formulaic

Language is often learned in chunks larger than single words

Connectionism (III)

 Findings of connectionist Research :

 Research has shown that a learning mechanism, simulated

by a computer program, can not only “learn” what it hears

but can also “generalize”, even to the point of making

overgeneralization errors

 These studies have dealt almost exclusively with the

acquisition of vocabulary and grammatical morphemes, that

is, aspects of the language which innatists will grant may be acquired largely through memorization and simple

generalization How this model can lead to knowledge of

complex syntactic structure is still under investigation

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

 Through exposure to thousands of examples of language associated with particular meanings, learners come to understand how to use the

 Most languages make use of multiple cues, but they differ in the

primacy of each Therefore, SLA requires that learners learn the

they are learning

L2 Applications

The Interaction Hypothesis

 SLA takes place through conversational interaction.

 Long (1983) argued that modified interaction is the

necessary mechanism for making language

The Interaction Hypothesis

 Long’s original formulation (1983) of the Interaction

The Interaction Hypothesis

 Modified interaction involves linguistic simplifications and conversational modifications.

 Examples of conversational modifications:

elaboration, slower speech rate, gesture, additional contextual cues, comprehension checks, clarification requests, and self-repetition or paraphrase.

 Research has demonstrated that conversational

adjustments can aid comprehension in the L2.

The Interaction Hypothesis

 Long’s revised version (1996) of the Interaction

Hypothesis :

- more emphasis is placed on the importance of

corrective feedback during interaction

- “ negotiating for meaning ” is seen as the opportunity for language development

 “ Comprehensible output hypothesis ” (Swain, 1985)

The demands of producing comprehensible output

“push” learners ahead in their development.

The Noticing Hypothesis

 Noticing Hypothesis (Schmidt, 1990, 2001)

- Nothing is learned unless it has been noticed

- Noticing does not itself result in acquisition, but it is the essential starting point

- L2 learners could not begin to acquire a language

feature until they had become aware of it in the input

 Whether learners must be aware that they are “ noticing ” something in the input in order to acquire linguistic

feature is considered debatable

Input Processing

 Input processing (VanPatten, 2004)

- Learners have limited processing capacity and cannot

pay attention to form and meaning at the same time.

- They tend to give priority to meaning When the

context in which they hear a sentence helps them

make sense of it, they do not notice details of the

language form

Processability Theory

 Processability theory (Pienemann, 1999, 2003)

- The research showed that the sequence of development

for features of syntax and morphology was affected by

how easy these were to process

- It integrates developmental sequences with L1 influence

- Learners do not simply transfer features from their L1

at early stages of acquisition.

- They have to develop a certain level of processing

capacity in the L2 before they can use their knowledge

of the features that already exist in their L1.

The Sociocultural Perspective

 Vygotsky’s sociocultural theory

 Language development takes place in the social

interactions between individuals

 Speaking (and writing) mediate thinking

 Zone of proximal development (ZPD): when there is

support from interaction with an interlocutor, the learner is capable of performing at a higher level

 L2 learners advance to higher levels of linguistic

knowledge when they collaborate and interact with

speakers of the L2 who are more knowledgeable than they are