Professional Documents
Culture Documents
SCHOOL OF LANGUAGE
DIPLOMA IN TESOL
ET311: 2000
SESSION 3
The notion that language learning would involve the transfer of L1 habits led
Lado to posit the Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis:
EB: 23/10/01
1/11
DTESOL: 3
Those structures that are similar will be easy to learn because they will be
transferred and many function satisfactorily in the foreign language. Those
structures which are different will be difficult because when transferred they
will not function satisfactorily in the foreign language and will therefore have to
be changed. (Lado (1957) Linguistics across Cultures).
EB: 23/10/01
2/11
DTESOL: 3
Child
them
Adult
Child
Adult
Child
Adult
Child
[from Cazden, 1972: 92 cited in Gass & Selinker, 1994: SLA: an introductory course: 61]
Exercise2
We have already reviewed (in the handout for session 2) evidence that casts doubt
over the Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis. What was that evidence?
MENTALISM/INNATISM
INPUT/INTERACTION
3/11
DTESOL: 3
spite of intensive exposure and teaching from this time onwards, she failed to
develop language which would be recognised as normal and in particular,
syntactic problems were manifold.
However, given the results of the morpheme acquisition studies in the 1970s,
which showed that L2 learners of different first languages and of different ages
children and adults seemed to move through a similar, although by no means
identical, sequence of acquisition of English morphemes, Stephen Krashen
developed his Monitor Model or Input Hypothesis. [For more detail on the
morpheme studies, see Gass & Selinker, 1994: p. 83]. This claims that second
language acquisition, to all intents and purposes, involves the same process as first
language acquisition, based on a Language Acquisition Device.
Krashens Input Model: 5 Hypotheses
1)
Acquisition V. Learning
There are two entirely separate processes at work in building up knowledge of a
second language: acquisition (implicit, unconscious knowledge) and learning
(explicit, conscious knowledge, built up through rule-learning, drill and error
correction):
Language acquisition does not require extensive use of conscious
grammatical rules, and does not require tedious drill. It does not occur
overnight, however. Real language acquisition develops slowly, and
speaking skills emerge significantly later than listening skills even when
conditions are perfect.
"Language acquisition ... a process similar, if not identical, to the way
children develop ability in their first language. Language acquisition is a
subconscious process...We are not generally aware of the rules of the
languages we have acquired. Instead, we have a 'feel' for correctness.
Grammatical sentences "sound" right.
"Language learning refer(s) to conscious knowledge of a second
language, knowing the rules, being aware of them and being able to talk
about them..... knowing about a language .... grammar.... rules.....formal
knowledge"
(Krashen, 1982: 10)
2)
The Natural Order
The system of a second language, like that of a first, builds up in a predictable
natural order, which in principle cannot be influenced by formal teaching. This
is based on the morpheme studies, that is, research initially by Dulay & Burt
(1974), which found that the development of English grammatical morphemes (ing, plural s, copula be, auxiliary verbs, article, -ed, s on 3rd person singular
verb, possessive s) by children and adults from different language backgrounds
was a) similar and b) broadly paralleled that found for L1.
3)
Learning as a Monitor
Learned knowledge is only available as a Monitor, i.e. to help correct production.
It only works when there is time to think about rules, when the learners focus is
on form and when the rule is known.
EB: 23/10/01
4/11
DTESOL: 3
The best methods are therefore those that supply "comprehensible input"
in low anxiety situations, containing messages that students really want to
hear. ...These methods do not force early production in the L2 but allow
students to produce when they are "ready", recognising that improvement
comes from supplying communicative and comprehensible input, and not
from forcing and correcting production." (Krashen, 1982: 7)
TASK 3
EB: 23/10/01
5/11
DTESOL: 3
The instructor uses context and the items themselves to make the meanings
of the key words clear: hair, brown, long, short, etc. Then a student is
described: What is your name? (selecting a student). Class, look at Barbara.
She has long brown hair. Her hair is long and brown. Her hair is not short,
it is long. (Using mime, point and context to ensure comprehension). What
is the name of the student with long brown hair? (Barbara). Questions such
as What is the name of the womean with short blond hair? or What is the
name of the student sitting next to the man with short brown hair and
glasses? are very simple to understand by attending to key words, gestures
and context. And they require the students only to remember and produce
the name of a fellow student. In fact, in such activities the students may
only be consciously focused on remembering names, and often soon
forget they are understanding another language.
Krashen, S. & Terrell, T. (1983) The Natural Approach: 76).
Exercise 1
The following is an extract from The Natural Approach, where Stephen Krashen
and Tracy Terrell present teaching ideas based on Krashens model. Explain how
the activity described, illustrates a practical realisation of Krashens theoretical
model.
Exercise 2
Can you think of any objections to Krashens hypothesis that acquisition and
learning are entirely separate and that learning never turns into acquisition? Do
you believe that you only use what you have learned consciously to monitor your
production? Further, do you believe that it is enough to understand input in
order to acquire new language?
Exercise 3
Read through the following extracts from an American (L1 English) learner, who
was developing Portuguese during a 5 month stay in Rio de Janeiro. In what way
could the extracts be seen as a challenge to Krashens model of language learning?
EB: 23/10/01
6/11
DTESOL: 3
Youve lost that lovin feeling, now its gone (reflexive) gone, gone.
Journal entry, week 22
Ive just said to N o que que voc quer, but quickly {kekseker}.
Previously I would have just said que. N didnt blink, so I guess I got it
right, except now I wonder if it should have been quiser. I cant believe
that what I notice isnt crucial for what I do.
Extracts from Schmidt, R. & Frota, S.M. (1986) Developing basic conversational
ability in a second language: a case study of an adult learner of Portuguese in Day,
R. (ed.) Talking to Learn. Rowley, Mass: Newbury House.
Exercise 4
7/11
DTESOL: 3
After many years of French immersion schooling (10 years) during which time
most of their classes were in French (history, geography, mathematics etc. so
they must have had lots of comprehensible input!), Canadian anglophone learners
were tested on their communicative competence in French in three different areas:
Grammar (oral interview, multiple choice, written letter and narrative)
Discourse (film retelling, multiple choice, written letter and narrative)
Sociolinguistic competence (cued oral production on requests, suggestions,
complaints; multiple choice, written note)
Their results were compared with those of their native francophone peers. The
research (Swain, 1985) found
similar levels of discourse competence and sociolinguistic competence and
certainly levels of comprehension were similar, but grammatical accuracy was
significantly different in particular in the areas of syntax, use of prepositions
and verb morphology.
Exercise 5
EB: 23/10/01
8/11
DTESOL: 3
9/11
DTESOL: 3
Trim, J.L.M., 1978; Coste, D., 1976; Wilkins, D. 1976). Much of this work drew
on the thinking of British functional linguists (Firth, C. 1929; Austin, J.L. 1962;
Halliday, M.A.K., McIntosh, A. & Strevens, P. 1964; Halliday, 1973).
1970s - present day: the Communicative Approach
The Council of Europe revolution of syllabus design led to further reflection not
just on what should be learned in language, but how it should be learned. If
British/European applied linguists had provided analyses of language as
communication, so North American applied linguists, such as Krashen, Dulay &
Burt etc. started to look again at how second languages were learned.
These researchers took their cue from Chomskys idea that first language
acquisition was driven at least partially by an innate pre-programmed
Language Acquisition Device (or Universal Grammar) and subsequent research
by Roger Brown that children - far from merely imitating adults around them frequently appeared to 'create' their grammar (e.g. children's use of holded*,
flied*, buyed* etc.) They rejected the dominant behaviourist analysis of second
language learning and claimed that second language learning developed along
similar lines to first language learning through meaningful communication. This
gave further impetus to the Communicative Approach to language teaching.
KRASHENS INPUT HYPOTHESIS AND NATURAL APPROACH (KRASHEN & TERRELL, 1983)
10/11
DTESOL: 3
further acquisition.
Critics of Krashen argue that learning can influence acquisition and that
explicit or form-focused learning is valuable for noticing (Gregg,
McLaughlin, 1987; Sharwood-Smith, Gass & Selinker, Schmidt, Robinson,
1996, Spada, 1997).
The inductive approach owes much to ideas about the importance of the individual
learner constructing his/her understanding through engaging in various kinds
of learning task. In language learning, then, group/pair work is important not
simply to give learners opportunities to practise the target language, but also so
that they have opportunities to construct their knowledge with peers, rather
than simply being filled by the knowledge provided by the teacher.
EB: 23/10/01
11/11
DTESOL: 3