slat2001_wk3_bb-2013

Upload: jstgivemesleep

Post on 14-Apr-2018

219 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

TRANSCRIPT

  • 7/27/2019 SLAT2001_wk3_BB-2013

    1/37

    SLAT2001Introduction to SL learning and

    teaching

    Week 3

    Contexts for Language Learning

  • 7/27/2019 SLAT2001_wk3_BB-2013

    2/37

    Outline of today

    FAQ for the 1st assignment

    Review last week (Ch. 1: childhood language

    acquisition)

    This weeks reading (Ch. 2: pp. 29-38)

    Contexts for language learning: Activity/discussion

    Behaviourism

    Innatist perspective (UG)

    Krashens monitor model

  • 7/27/2019 SLAT2001_wk3_BB-2013

    3/37

    Review

    Child first language acquisition process Similar processes across languages

    Morphemes, negations, and questions

    Follows cognitive development (e.g., time*yesterday+, object permanence *telephone calls+,conservation *bigger, more+)

    Three theories

    Behaviourist

    Innatist

    Interactionist

  • 7/27/2019 SLAT2001_wk3_BB-2013

    4/37

    Cognitive

    (innatist)

    Environment

    (behaviourist)Interactionist Theory

  • 7/27/2019 SLAT2001_wk3_BB-2013

    5/37

    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

  • 7/27/2019 SLAT2001_wk3_BB-2013

    6/37

    Contexts for language learning

    Four scenarios:

    Young child learning L1

    Child learning an L2 in day care or on playground

    Adolescent taking FL class

    Adult immigrant with limited education, a jobusing L2, and no opportunity to go to language

    classes

  • 7/27/2019 SLAT2001_wk3_BB-2013

    7/37

    Differences in Learning L1 & L2

    SLA/SLL theories need to account forlanguage acquisition/learning:

    by learners with a variety of characteristics

    and learning in a variety of contexts.

  • 7/27/2019 SLAT2001_wk3_BB-2013

    8/37

    Knowledge of another language

    All L2 and FL learners

    May increase metalinguistic awareness

    May cause interference

    Order of languages may be important

  • 7/27/2019 SLAT2001_wk3_BB-2013

    9/37

    Cognitive maturity, metalinguistic

    awareness, knowledge of world

    Allow discussionabout

    language World knowledge (and cognitive skills) can

    help learner to figure things out

    Cognitive skills and metalinguistic awarenessmay interfere with natural learning of

    language, however

  • 7/27/2019 SLAT2001_wk3_BB-2013

    10/37

    Anxiety

    Older learners want to be able to say exactlywhat they want

    They may be more self-conscious

    Younger learners more likely to give things ago regardless

  • 7/27/2019 SLAT2001_wk3_BB-2013

    11/37

    Freedom to be silent

    Younger learners more likely to have freedomto be silent initially and to be able to practice

    through songs and games

    Adults more likely to need to use the language

    straight away in the classroom or in-country

  • 7/27/2019 SLAT2001_wk3_BB-2013

    12/37

    Time and contact

    L2 classrooms tend to use more formal

    language and dont offer extensive contact

    with the language

    Authentic activities (e.g., disciplining, do this

    for homework) may actually be carried out in

    the L1 (in schools especially)

  • 7/27/2019 SLAT2001_wk3_BB-2013

    13/37

    Feedback

    Similar to L1 learning, outside classroom, errorsthat dont interfere with understanding (e.g.,pronunciation, grammar) are not usuallycorrected (impolite)

    Also inappropriate language is unlikely to bepointed out

    Errors that interfere with meaning (e.g., wrongword choice) may be corrected, however(albeit indirectly)

  • 7/27/2019 SLAT2001_wk3_BB-2013

    14/37

    Modified input

    Foreigner talk Slower or louder? Both?

    Teacher talk

  • 7/27/2019 SLAT2001_wk3_BB-2013

    15/37

    Theories of SLA

    Today:

    Behaviourism

    Innatist

    Next class:

    Cognitive/developmental perspectives

    Sociocultural theory

  • 7/27/2019 SLAT2001_wk3_BB-2013

    16/37

    Behaviourism

  • 7/27/2019 SLAT2001_wk3_BB-2013

    17/37

    Behaviorism

    Four characteristics of behaviorism:1) imitation, 2) practice, 3) reinforcement, and

    4) habit formation

    emphasizing mimicry and memorization(audiolingual teaching methods)

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NKV1CR-LxIY&feature=related

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NKV1CR-LxIY&feature=relatedhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NKV1CR-LxIY&feature=relatedhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NKV1CR-LxIY&feature=relatedhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NKV1CR-LxIY&feature=related
  • 7/27/2019 SLAT2001_wk3_BB-2013

    18/37

    Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis

    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 ContrastiveAnalysis 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.

  • 7/27/2019 SLAT2001_wk3_BB-2013

    19/37

    Behaviorism / CAH

    Criticisms about the CAH:

    Though a learners 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; badderthan)

    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; propositions)

  • 7/27/2019 SLAT2001_wk3_BB-2013

    20/37

    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 behaviorismand the CAH were inadequate explanations for SLA.

  • 7/27/2019 SLAT2001_wk3_BB-2013

    21/37

    Innatism

    Universal Grammar (UG) in relation to second

    language development

    Competence vs. Performance

    Krashensmonitor model

  • 7/27/2019 SLAT2001_wk3_BB-2013

    22/37

    Innatism: (UG)

    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 benefitfrom 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

  • 7/27/2019 SLAT2001_wk3_BB-2013

    23/37

    Innatism: (UG)

    2. UG may be present and available to L2 learners, but its exactnature has been altered by the prior acquisition of the firstlanguage.

    L2 learners need to be given some explicit information about

    what is notgrammatical in the L2. Otherwise, they may assume

    that some structures of the L1 have equivalents in the L2 when,

    in fact, they do not.

  • 7/27/2019 SLAT2001_wk3_BB-2013

    24/37

    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.

  • 7/27/2019 SLAT2001_wk3_BB-2013

    25/37

    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

  • 7/27/2019 SLAT2001_wk3_BB-2013

    26/37

    Universal Grammar Researchers are divided on the

    applicability of UG to second languageacquisition:

    Some think that the UG provides an

    adequate explanation only for first

    language acquisition.

  • 7/27/2019 SLAT2001_wk3_BB-2013

    27/37

    UG provides

    the bestexplanationfor secondlanguage

    acquisition

    UG is equallyavailable (the

    same) tosecond

    languagelearners as itwas for first

    languagelearners

    Instruction andcorrective

    feedback changeonly superficialappearance of

    language

    Focus on Naturalacquisition

    UG has beenaltered; it is notthe same after

    acquiring L1

    Learners may needsome explicit

    information andinstruction

  • 7/27/2019 SLAT2001_wk3_BB-2013

    28/37

    Monitor Model

    Stephen Krashen

    Model of second

    language acquisition

    Influenced by

    Chomskys theory of

    first language

    acquisition

  • 7/27/2019 SLAT2001_wk3_BB-2013

    29/37

    KrashensMonitor Model

    Influenced by Chomskys UG theory

    Early 70s: growing dissatisfaction with

    behaviourism Very influential in the movement away from

    memorisation towards focus on use and

    meaning

    Communicative Language Teaching (CLT),

    Immersion, ContentBased Instruction

    Acquisition does occur without explicit

    instruction but tends to plateau

  • 7/27/2019 SLAT2001_wk3_BB-2013

    30/37

    Innatism:Krashensmonitor model (1982)

    The acquisition-learning hypothesis

    The monitor hypothesis

    The natural order hypothesis

    The input hypothesis

    The affective filter hypothesis

  • 7/27/2019 SLAT2001_wk3_BB-2013

    31/37

    Innatism:Krashensmonitor 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.

  • 7/27/2019 SLAT2001_wk3_BB-2013

    32/37

    Innatism:Krashensmonitor model

    The monitor hypothesis The acquired systemacts to initiate the speakers utterances

    and is responsible for spontaneous language use, whereas the

    learned systemacts 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.

  • 7/27/2019 SLAT2001_wk3_BB-2013

    33/37

    Innatism:Krashensmonitor 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 ans to third person

    singular verbs in the present tense

  • 7/27/2019 SLAT2001_wk3_BB-2013

    34/37

    Innatism:Krashensmonitor model

    The input hypothesis

    Acquisition occurs by exposing learners

    (acquirers?) to a level of language slightly moreadvanced than their current level

    i + 1

    comprehensible input Inductive versus deductive teaching

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4K11o19YNvk

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4K11o19YNvkhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4K11o19YNvk
  • 7/27/2019 SLAT2001_wk3_BB-2013

    35/37

    Innatism:Krashensmonitor 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 learners 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.

  • 7/27/2019 SLAT2001_wk3_BB-2013

    36/37

    Monitor Model

  • 7/27/2019 SLAT2001_wk3_BB-2013

    37/37

    Summary

    Contexts for language learning include the

    environment and individual differences

    Behaviourism: audiolingualism & the Contrastive

    Analysis Hypothesis Innatist perspective (UG)

    Krashens monitor model: comprehensible input