slat2001_wk3_bb-2013

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


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


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


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


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

slat2001_wk3_bb-2013

Documents