Principles of Language Learning and Teaching (Longman) – Chapter 10: Theories of second language acquisition

8/18/2019 Principles of Language Learning and Teaching (Longman) – Chapter 10: Theories of second language acquisition

1/15


2/15

272 CN \PTEI? 10 Theories o Second Language Acquisi on

the

remaining

unanswercd qucstions, for many of the

questions

poscd in

the last, say, five

decades,

have been effectiveiy answere - - ' J ' ' º - = · • • ' ) ' ' - - - - /

l J

say that second language learning is a complex process is obviously

trite. The

pages of this

book

alone

bear testimony to that co1nplexity.

But

con1plexity means that there are

so many

separate

hut

interrelated

factors

within

one

intricate

entity that it is

exceedingly

difficult

to bríng

order and

simplicity to that "chaos" (Larsen-Free1nan 1997). We n1ust nevertheless

pursue the task

of

theory

building

(Long

1990a;

Spolsky

1988).

Consider,

for

a

few n1on1ents,

sorne

of the domains and generalizations that

describe

the skeletal structure

of

a theory.

Domains

and

Gcncrallzations

First, take a look

at

a ta..xono1ny that was

proposed

severa decades ago

(Yorio 1976),

rcpresented

in Figure

10.1.This

list

of factors

begins to give

you an idea

of

the man

y

different don1ains of

ínquiry

that

must

be

included

in a theory

of

SLA.

Certain factors subsumed in the chapter topics

of

this book are also a

set

of

dorr1Jins

of

con::;idcration in a theory

of

SLA:

1. A

theory

of SlA includes an understanding, in general, of what lan

guage

i:;,

\Vhat learning is,

and

for classroom contexts, what teaching

is.

2. Knowledge

of

children's learning

of

their first

language

provídes

e ~ : ; e n t i a l

insights

to an

understanJJge Contac

f


3/15

o

/,¡1 rr 1

O 7heories of Second

l

angu,igc Acr¡uisiffi n

6.

Personality, the way

people

vie\.v then1selves

and

reYeal then1-

selves in

con1munication,

will affect

both

the

quantity and

quality

of second language learning.

7. Learning a seconU culture is often intricately intert\vined wirh

learning a second anguage.

8. The linguistic contrasts between

the

native and target language

fonn one source of difficulty in

learning

a

second 1.1.nguage.

But

the

creative

process

of

fonning

an interlanguage system involves

the

learner in utilizing 1nany tJcilitative sources and resources.

Inevitable aspects of this

process

are errors, fron1 \\"hich learners

antcry of the target lan

guage.

8. ()ne cannot

achieve n:tti\·elike

(or

near-nativelike)

con1mand

of a

~ e o n d language in one hour a day.

9.

The learner's

task is enonnous

because

L1nguage is enonnously

co1nplex.

10. A

learner's abiliry to understan(j language

in

a meaningful con

te.x:t

exceeds his

or her

ahility to comprchend ·decontextualized

language an


4/15

276 CHMTER 10 11woáe> of Second Lrnguage Acqui dion

(Lightbo\vn 1985) list, for example, sten1s from stu


5/15

178

º ' J : 'f ºi ¡00\ '' '- °n .,e _)ob' \S Jo

CV'\é'--'-

+v•= ' f ' ~

) . \::o.eec\ ~ \ s

n:>.+\.oer

· ~ " " '

en

~ " " ' - " ' \ e d \ ; : i e

CHA/>TER 10

Theories

oi

econd Lan,i;uag¡' Ac ¡uisirion

c ~ ~ e i e \ y

r . i

= \ .

language. Thc

first is ··acquisition,'.' a

s u b c o n ~ c i us

and\intuitive ~ r o c e s s

of

constructing

the systen1 of a language,

not unlike

the

process used by

a

child to ' 'pickup" a

language.'fhe

secones.

Psychologists

are still in wide disagreement

in

their

definitions of

"the notoriously slip·

pery

notion"

(Ocllin 1986:

138)

of

consciousne._s_ lVIcLanghlin (1990a:

627)

commented:

1\-Iy

own

bias ... is to avoid use of the tern1s conscious and uncon

scious in secon


6/15

280

Cl-IAPTEH

10

Theories of Second

Language

Ac4uísit on

and if

conscious knowledge is capable

of

becorning

uncon

scious-and this

secn1s to

be

a

r c a s o n ~ t b l c a:-.suinption-then

there

is

no

rca;;on TI'hatever

to acccpt Krashen s

claini,

in thc

abscnce

of eviUcncc.

And there is

an

absence

of

evidence.

Second

language learning

clearly is a process

in which varying degrees

of learning and

of

acquisition

can

both be

beneficia},

depending upon rhe

learner's own styles and

strategics_

Swain (1998),

Doughty

and

Willían1s

(1998), Buczowska and Webt (1991),

Doughty (1991),

Ellis

(1990b),

Lightbown

and

Spada 1990,

and

Long

(1983,

1988)

have

ali

shown, in

a

nun1ber

of

empirical

research

studics, that

Krasben's "zero

option" (vhon1 the

"silent period" 1night last forever.

Krashen

s

innatist model of SL\ has ha


7/15

CHAl'TfR 7 Theories of Second Languag(o Acquisition

dren's

"knack"

for picking up" a language, \Vhich, in everyday rern1s,

appears to refer to what

we

thini}

of

as

subconscious.

But there are tv.'o

problems

with such

an appeal: (a)

a:s both Mclaughlin

(1990a)

and Schmidt

(1990)

agreed, consciousness

is a tr_icky

term,

and

(1))

younger

(child l a n ~

guage acquisition) is not necessarily better (Scovel 1999).

"


8/15

284

o-rAPTE:R 7

O Theories

oí

Second Language cquisitioo

e n f ~ l d i n g

the chikL Ali of

these

perceptions, from

highly

focal to very

penpheral,

are

. Yithin

the w reness

of the chiltl. McLau ghlin ( l

990a)

noted

that

the

htcrature

in experin1ental psychology indicates

that

therc is

no long-term

learning

(

of

new material) without

awareness, an

observation

well

~ o c t . t m e n t e . d by Loew ( 1997) and Sclunidt

(1990)

for

second

Ianguage

learn1ng

particular.

A cognitive perspective

of SLA

entirely obvia es the

neecl to distinguish con:,t.:ious

and subconscious processing.

How


9/15

n-1,\P U? 1

O Theories

o{

St•conrl Langu 1gc cr¡uisition

synonyn1ous terms

unanalyzed

an


10/15

28°

o

U-IAPTER O Iheories of Second LanµuJge Acquisiti on

l e r n e r ~ i n t e r n l

processing (such as thosc

previously

discus.sed) as well as

thc socially constructed


11/15


12/15

292

CH PTFR

10

Theories

of

Second Lcmgua¡;e cquisition

thc metaphorical envelope

in the

vignctte at

the end of

this chapter.)

t

would appear that as

long

as one recognizes thc Hnütations of metaphors,

then they

have

the po,ver

to

n1aintain the vibrancr of

theory.

3 Trust to

so1ne extent) your inluition.

Teachers

p,enerally \Vant to "kno\v" that a

method

ís "right,"

that

it \Vill

>\·od;:

successfully. We want finely tuned progra1ns

that

n1ap

the path,vays to

suc

cessful learning. In other

words,

we

tend to

be born

doubters.

But

the

believing

gan1e

provides us

\Vith a

contrasting principie. intuition.

Psychologícal

research on

cognitivc srylcs has

sho,vn us that people tend

to

favor

either an

intuitivc

approach or an analytical

approach

to

a

probletn.

Ewing (1977: 69) noted

that

a.nalytical

or

"systen1atic··

thinkers

"generJ.lly

excel

in problen1s th:it call for

planning

a¡u.1

organization,

as

\-vhen one set of nu111bers n1usr be worked out

before

another can be ana

lyzed."

()n

the other hand,

he

vvent on,"intuitive thinh.ers

are

likely

to excel

if

the problem

is elusive

an


13/15

rNAl TU< 10

heories

o/ Seconrl L1ngu,1ge cquisitíon

confidence in

our

ability to

forn1

hunches that will prohably be right We

teachers are

hutnan.

\\'e are

not

fai -safe, prepr(Jgran1111cd

robots. \?e there-

fore

need to

beco111e ..;villing risk-takers.

Out on a limb:

The Ecology

of

Language Acquisition

This fina

end-of-chapter vfgnette

is not directed, in the usual

fashion, toward classroom methodology. Rather, it ls simply the

product of sorne

of

my

right-brain

musings as I have struggled

o_ver

the years with

the

complexities

of

the kínds

of

models

of

SLA that

have been descr bed in

this

chapter. Such models, in

their

graphic

or

flow chart forrn (Bíalystok's model in Figure

10.2 on

page

285,

for example),

always appear to be so

n1echanical.

Son1e of them

more c osely resemb e

the

wiring diagrams pasted on the back

of

electric stoves

than what

I ike

to

imagíne the human brain

must

''look" like. Or certainly

than the

way

our organíc

world operates

So, heeding my sometimes rebel ious spirit, I was moved one

day in a SLA class I was

teaching

to create a

different "p¡cture"

of

language acquisition: one

that

responded not

so

much to rules of

log,c,

mathematics,

and physics, as

to

botany

and ecology. The

ger

mination (pun

intended)

of my picture was the metaphor once used

by Derek Bickerton in a ecture at the University of Hawali

about

hls

contention that

human

beings are

"bloprogrammed"

far language

(see Bickerton's

[1981]

The Roots of Language , perhaps

not

unlike

the bioprogram

of

a

flower

seed, whose genet c makeup predis

poses

it to

de iver, in successive stages, roots, stem, branches,

eaves, and flowers.

In

a

burst of

wild artistic energy, I went out on

a limb

to

extend

the

flower-seed

metaphor to

language acquisltion.

My picture

of

the

"ecology" of language

acquisltion is in Flgure

10.3.

At the risk

of

overstating

what

may already

be

obvíous, I wil

nevertheless

lndulge

in a fevv comments. The rain clouds of input

stimu ate seeds of predisposition (lnnate, genetically transmitted

processes).

But

the

potency

of that input is dependent on

the

appropriate styles and strategies that a person puts into action

(here

represented as so ). Upan

the

germinat.ion

of

language

abili

ties (notice not ali the seeds of predisposition are effectively acti

vated), networks

of

competence (which, like underground roots,

cannot

be

observed from above the ground) build and grow

stronger

as

the organism actively engages in comprehenslon and

production

of

anguage. The resulting root system (inferred compe

tence) is what we

commonly

call intake. Notice

that

several factors

distinguish Input from

intake. Through the

use of further strategies

and affective abilities, coupled with

the

feedback we rece ve from

others (note the tree trunk), we

ultimate y

develop full-floweríng

communicative abilities. The fruit of our performance (ar output) is of

.

...

...

c..

~

o

))

.

X

• •

t:

:.::: o

u u

-

Ji•S

•

\

t:

o •

.1 E

, "

o

"- 'l:

•

.

>¡:)i?qpai"l::f

JO

>¡Un.J.L

-

s:¡.uapnis ..1a4 .JO

s 1 ~ . . 1 a : ¡ : 2 w

...

~ : .

· ~ ~

. . .

..

o

o

"

g

"

'

i

•

-

t:

o.

o o.

o E

o o

u

'·

'

i

.

g

ª

'

j

¡;

295107


14/15

296 CYAPrER

1O Theories of Second Lantju.1ge Acquisition

course conditioned by the climate of innumerable contextual variables.

At any point the horticulturist (teacher) can irrigate to create

better input,

apply

fertilizers for

richer

soil, encourage the use of

effective

strategies and

affective enhancers,

and, in

the green

houses

of our

classrooms,

control

the contextua climate for optima1

growth

No, this is

not

the kind

of extended metaphor

that one can

"prove"

or verify through

empirlcal

research. But,

est

you

scoff at

such outlandish

depictions, think

about

how

many

factors

in SLA

theory are conceptua ized and described metapi1crical y:

language

acquisition

device/ pívot and open

words,

Piaget's equifibration/ éog-

nitive pruning Ausubel's subsun1ptíon transfer socíal distance

global and focal errors monitoring affective fi/ter/ automatic and

control ed processing. If a metaphor

er1ab .es

us to describe a phe

nomenon clearly and to apply it wisely, then we Can surely entertain

i t -as long as we understand

that

these word-pictures are usual y

subject to certa n

breakdowns

when logical y extended too far. (Far

comments

about metaphor in SLA theory,

see Lanto f 1996)

So, whi e

you rriight

exercise a

little caution

in

drawing

a tight

analogy

betvveen Earth's

botanica cycles and

language learning, you

mlght

just ai ovv

yourself to think of

second

language learners

as

budding

flovvers-as plants needing

your

nurture and

care. When

the

sc\entlfic flow charts and technica

termino ogy of current

second

language

research

become excruciatingly

painful

to understand,

try

creating your own

metaphors, perhaps · Play

the

believing game,

and

enjoy it.

TOPICS AND QUESTIONS FOR

STlJDY AND DISCUSSlON

[Note: (I) Individual wor:k:; (G) group or

pair

work; (C) \vhole-cla.ss discus

siori.]

1.

(G)

In the first part

of this chapter on pages

274 and 275.

Lightbown's

(1985) ten

generaliLJ.tions about

SLA are listed.

In

pairs or sn1al\

groups

if nuinbers

pernlit)

assign one generalization

to

each

pair/group

with

the task of

(a)

exphlining the generalization fi.1rther,

(b)

offcring any

caveats

or it depends

t a t ~ m e n t s

about

it,

and

(e)

citing

an example or

two of

the gcnc.raiiZJ.tion

in the language

clas..'irv01n.

2.

(C;)

Like\vise

(sce

item 1 above), look at the six 1nyths (page 275).

In

sn1aU groups, figure out (a) why it is a n1yth, (b) cave.ns or comments

that

qllaW'y the statement,and (e) son1e exa1nples orcounter-examples

in the language cl:is:;room.

3.

(I) RevieV\' thc

n1ajur

tenets

of

the

three

schools

of

thonght

outlined

in

Chapter 1

and

reft-rred. to throughout

the

book: structuralism-behav-

H ~ P T E R 1 Theories

oi

Second Lan¡;uage /\cquisiti un 297

iorisn.:1, rationalisn1-cognitivisn1. constn1cti vism. Do KrJshen's Input

.tlypothesis

a 11


15/15

Documents

Principles of Language Learning and Teaching (Longman) – Chapter 10: Theories of second language acquisition