Language Learning / Acquisition

ICELT
Leticia Adelina Ruiz Guerrero, MA in ELT

Language Learning / Acquisition

Topics
Myths and Facts, what do you believe? Learning a first language Approaches to first language acquisition Approaches to second language acquisition

Task 1 : Language learning

How are languages learned?

Read the task sheet carefully.

Indicate how strongly you agree with these opinions. Compare your ideas with some of your classmates. Save your answers for the end of the session.

Task 2: Which one comes first?

Auxiliary be

Third person singular Simple present

Regular past form

Articles the and a

Possessive s Present progressive

copula

Plural -s

Irregular past forms

Learning a first language

High degree of similarity in early language of children all over the world. By the end of 1st year babies show understanding of quite a few frequently repeated words. At 1 year most babies have begun to produce a small number of recognizable words.

Learning a first language

By age 2 most children produce at least 50 different words. Begin to combine words into simple sentences (e.g. mommy juice) referred to as telegraphic, leaving out function words and grammatical morphemes. By age 3 - most children can ask questions, give commands, report real events and create stories with correct grammatical morphemes.

Learning a first language

By age 4 children have mastered

basic structures of languages which

have been spoken to them in their

early years.

The wug test Jean Berko Gleason (1989):

Here is a wug. Now there are two or them. There are two _________. Here is a man who knows how to bod. Yesterday he did the same thing. Yesterday he ___________. Children demonstrate that they actually know the rules for the formation of plurals and simple past.

Developmental sequences
There are predictable patterns in the
emergence Roger and development (1973) of many that features of the language. Research by Brown shows grammatical morphemes are acquired by children in a similar sequence:

 Present progressive ing (mommy running) Plural s (two books) Irregular past forms (baby went) Possessive s (daddys hat) Copula (Annie is a nice girl) Articles the and a Regular past ed (she walked) Third person singular simple present s (she runs) Auxiliary be (he is coming)

Task 3: discuss
Find a partner. Discuss the following:

Join another team and share your findings?

What are the implications for our teaching practice of our knowledge of the Developmental Sequence Theory? What can we modify in our teaching to accomodate this?

First language
L1

Explaining First Language Learning Behaviourism: say what I say

Innatism: Its all in your mind The interactionist position: A

little help from my friends

(Lightbown and Spada, 1999)

Behaviourism
Psychological theory of learning (1940s and 1950s) Sees language learning as the result of:
Imitation Practice Feedback on success Habit formation

Innatism
Linguist Noam Chomskys proposal (1959) Language acquisition device (LAD) Universal Grammar (UG) Critical Period Hypothesis (CPH) by biologist Eric Lenneberg: LAD works only when it is stimulated at the right time.

The interactionist position

Language develops as a result of the interaction between the child and the environment. Modified language made to suit the capability of the learner is a crucial element in the language acquisition process (child directed speech). Psychologists Piaget (1969) and Vigotsky (1978), both claimed the importance of social interaction in the development of language.

Task 4: what do you think?

What makes more sense to you?
One of them? A few of them? A combination of them?

Can you explain to yourself why? How do think these theories apply to Second Language Acquisition?

Second Language
L2

SECOND LANGUAGE ACQUISITION (SLA)

Influence from theories of first language acquisition.
Behaviourism (1960s) Innatism: Krashens Monitor Model (1982) Interactionist position: Interaction Hypothesis (Long 1983)

Cognitive views: Information Processing (Schmidt 1990, Ellis 1993)

Behaviourism
Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis (CAH)
It predicts that where there are similarities between the first language and the target language, the learner will acquire target-language structures with ease; where there are differences, the learner will have difficulty.

Krashens Monitor Model

Innatist view. Based on 5 hypotheses:
The acquisition-learning hypothesis The natural order hypothesis The monitor hypothesis The input hypothesis The affective filter hypothesis

The acquisiton learning hypothesis

Acquisition
We acquire language as we are exposed to it, like children picking up their L1, with no conscious attention to language form. Only acquired language is available for natural, fluent communication. We learn through a conscious process of study and attention to language form and rules. Learning cannot become Acquisition.

Learning

The monitor hypothesis

What is acquired is responsible for fluency and intuitive judgements about correctness. What is Learned is responsible for editing and monitoring. Learners use their monitor capacity to check for accuracy not for fluency, they need sufficient time and they would need to know the actual rules.

The natural order hypothesis

Just like in First language acquisition, learners of a Second language seem to acquire certain features in a predictable order. The rules which are easiest to state are not necessarily the first to be acquired. Understanding and using are two different things.

The input hypothesis

Acquisition can occur only when exposed to comprehensible input. If the input contains both forms and structures just beyond the learners level then both comprehension and acquisition will take place.
This is called: i + 1

The affective filter hypothesis

Imaginary barrier (formed by motives, needs, attitudes, and emotional states) that may prevent or aid the acquisition process. When the filter is up it blocks acquisition: learner under stress, selfconscious, or unmotivated. When the filter is down it helps acquisition: relaxed and motivated learner.

Interaction Hypothesis
SLA takes place through interaction. Agrees with Krashen that comprehensible input is necessary for SLA, but asks how input is made comprehensible:
Modified interaction= necessary mechanism (Child-directed speech) Modified interaction:
Comprehension checks Clarification requests Self-repetition or paraphrasing

Information processing
Second language acquisition is formed by a build up of knowledge that can eventually be called on automatically for speaking and understanding.
The learner has to pay attention: noticing. Then gradually, through experience and practice, the learner becomes able to use the knowledge, without even being aware of it, quickly and automatically. The Learner also needs to work on restructuring: changes in skills and knowledge by interaction with previous and/or the acquisition of new knowledge.

Implicit vs. Explicit knowledge

Implicit knowledge intuitive
Formulaic (unanalyzed units) Rule-based (internalized structures)

Explicit knowledge Conscious representation, analyzed knowledge. Input samples of L2 learner is exposed to. Noticing Consciously recognizing a linguistic feature in input of L2. Intake What learner attends to in L2 input. Noticing the gap learners make cognitive comparison between input and their output/knowledge = restructuring of their knowledge.

What impact is this knowledge of Language Acquisition theories going to have in your teaching?
Write it down for yourself

Bibliography
Brown, D.H. (1980) Principles of Language Learning and Teaching. New Jersey, Prentice Hall. Ellis, R. (1996) Understanding Second Language Acquisition. Oxford, Oxford University Press. Larsen-Freeman, D. (2003) Techniques and Principles in Language Teaching. Oxford, Oxford University Press Lightbown, P.M. and Spada, N. (1999) How Languages are learned. Oxford: Oxford University Press Mitchell, R. and Myers, F. (1998) Second Language Learning Theories. London, Arnold. Nunan, D. (1998) Language Teaching Methodology. Hemel Hempstead, Prentice Hall. Richards, J.C. and Rodgers, T.S. (2001) Approaches and Methods in Language Teaching. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. Williams, M. and Burden, R. (1997) Psychology for Language Teachers. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.