Second Language Acquisition (SLA)

CHAPTER 1

COMPARISONS OF SOME TERMS IN SLA

In this chapter, we compare some terms commonly found in Second Language Acquisition, focusing on the comparisons between the term second language acquisition and first language acquisition as well as foreign language acquisition. We also describe how the term acquisition differs from the term learning.

Andy Lee, a fictional character, is a Korean-American who was born in the city of Los Angeles. His parents are both Korean who immigrated to the United States. One day, he joined a worldwide audition held by a Korean entertainment company, and was chosen to be one of those to be trained as a singer in Korea. During his training days, Andy learned from basic on how to communicate in Korean both spoken and written. Now, being known as a member of an idol group, he appears in TV stations and often makes people laugh as he slips his tongue between one Korean word and another Korean word.

The illustration about Andy gives us a chance to pops-up some questions about the languages he acquired. Does English become his first language since he was born in Los Angeles? Or, is it Korean language that becomes his first language since his parents are both Korean? If Korean language is not his first language, than does Korean language become Andy’s second or foreign language? Were Andy acquired or learned both the English and Korean Language? Let us find a glimpse of the answers for those questions by first comparing the terms first language acquisition and second language acquisition. Next, we compare the terms second language acquisition and foreign language acquisition. Last, we contrast the term acquire and learning.

First Language Acquisition vs. Second Language Acquisition

The native language that a child acquired is called first language (L1). It is also commonly called mother tongue. In contrast, Ellis (1986) describes second language (L2) as an additional language that a child learned after they have acquired their mother tongue. Gass (2000) uses another term to refer to second language as nonprimary. She also mentions that the broad term second language (L2) learning does not only refer to second language, but also to third or fourth language. According to Ellis (1986), there is a relation between L1 acquisition and L2 acquisition since the study of second language acquisition (SLA) began with the study of first language (L1) acquisition. SLA research has tended to follow the footsteps of L1 acquisition research, both in its methodology and in many of the issues that it has treated.

Second Language Acquisition vs. Foreign Language Acquisition

In regard to the current comparison, the term second language acquisition refers to learning a language in the environment where that language is spoken (such as Italian in Italy, English in the United States), whereas the term foreign language refers to learning a language in one’s “home” environment (such as English in Indonesia, Japanese in Australia). However, many linguists do not really differentiate the use of both terms. Ellis (1986) mentions that second language acquisition is not intended to contrast foreign language acquisition. SLA is used as a general term that embraces both untutored (or ‘naturalistic’) acquisition and tutored (or ‘classroom’) acquisition. Gass (2000) also argues that there is little evidence that the mental processes involved in learning a language beyond the native language differ as a function of whether the learning is in a second versus a foreign language environment. Yet, she also admits that there may be significance differences in terms of the context itself, and hence the materials available to learners.

Acquisition vs. Learning

Based on Krashen’s approach (in Gass, 2000), second language acquisition is contrasted with second language learning on the assumption that in learning an L2, learners develop two independent knowledge systems, one is referred to as acquisition and the other as learning. The term acquisition is used to refer to the unconscious picking up a second language through exposure, whereas the term learning is used to refer to the conscious study of a second language (i.e. knowing the rules, being aware of the rules, and being able to talk about the rules) (Ellis, 1986; Gass, 2000). However, many SLA researchers use the terms (acquisition and learning) interchangeably since many say that Krashen’s ideas on L2 learning are lacked of theoretical thoroughness.

To summarize, the term second language acquisition refers to the subconscious or conscious processes by which a language other than the mother tongue is learnt in a natural or tutored setting (Ellis, 1986). From the description, it implies that the study of second language acquisition does not really differentiate the use of the terms second language and foreign language acquisition as well as the use of the terms acquisition and learning.

CHAPTER 5

INDIVIDUAL LEARNER DIFFERENCES

In this chapter, we describe some differences between learners of a second language which make their ultimate attainments are different from one to another. The different attainments can be a result of the differences of the learners’ age, aptitude and motivation, as well as language learner strategies.

            It is a fact that one learner of a second language may reach a different level of ultimate attainment in language comparing to another learner of the same second language. A learner who starts to learn a second language at a later age than another learner is believed to be less successful at learning the second language. Different level of ultimate attainment can also occur in comparison between learners who learn a second language in order to reach high score in a language test with other learners who want to master the second language for communication purpose. Such differences in the attainment of learning a second language are the results of the differences of each learner of the second language.

Age

            O’Grady (1989) mentioned that it has long been claimed that the older the learner, the less successful he or she will be at learning a second language. The claim was strengthened by Gass (2000) who stated that one recognized fact about L2 learning is that it is rare to become completely proficient in more than one language when the learning of the L2 language begins as an adult. In line with the notion, O’Grady deemed that children learning second languages in natural environments learn more easily and more proficiently than do adults under similar circumstances.

            O’Grady (1989) and Gass (2000) proposed similar ideas on three basic considerations which are relevant to the idea of different ultimate attainments between children and adults in learning second languages. The first is biological consideration of which it deals with the loss of neural plasticity. O’Grady believed that a child’s brain is more “plastic” and, consequently, should be more receptive to certain aspects of language acquisition, especially in the area of pronunciation. Some researcher claim that a basic linguistic process, such as pronunciation, is dependent on early maturing neural circuits that control the brain and organs used for speech, while high-order language functions, such as the development of semantic relations, are more dependent on late maturing neural circuits.

Related to neural plasticity, Lenneberg (1967), in Gass (2000), suggested the critical period hypothesis. The hypothesis is related with the optimal age which determines the success of adult and children language learners. Gass (2000) argued that some parts of language, for example pronunciation, might have an optimal age as early as 6. Therefore, if the learning of pronunciation does not occur prior to that point, the ultimate attainment for L2 learning will be something less than native-like ability. Lenneberg (in Gass, 2000) was of the opinion that it is due to the termination of a state of organizational plasticity linked with lateralization of function. In other words, lack of language learning was directly related to brain functions due to the normal process of aging. This is in part why some researchers claim that after puberty, languages have to be learned through a conscious, labored effort, and that foreign accents cannot be overcome easily after this time (O’Grady, 1989).

            The second consideration is on cognitive maturity of adults. Gass (2000) mentioned that children, with small memory capacity, are able to process the input more efficiently. That is, they take in smaller bits of input and can more readily analyze those small amounts of information. Adults, on the other hand, take in greater bits of input and have the simultaneous problem of being confronted with the need to analyze large amounts of language, a process which is not successful given the burdensome task involved. Regarding the cognitive argument, O’Grady (1989) was of the opinion that the adult’s superiority in the domain of abstract thought should give adults the limit over children in L2 acquisition. This has implications for adolescents and adults who generally learn the second language in a formal setting where the emphasis is on the conscious learning of language structures and grammatical rules. However, dependence on conscious rule knowledge may also hinder the natural process of L2 acquisition.

            The third is about affective or emotional differences between children and adults which also have a crucial influence in second language learning (O’Grady, 1989).While adolescents are learning to think more abstractly, they are also experiencing the common adolescent feelings of self-consciousness and anxiety. Children are generally less self-conscious about imitating sounds than are adults, and this may positively affect their pronunciation. Normally, children do not have negative attitudes toward the second language culture, and they usually have a strong desire to be part of group or community, which improves their desire to learn the language.

            It is still debatable whether or not there is a critical age for learning a second language. Some findings stated that adult L2 learning is indeed constrained by age, whereas some others showed native-like attainment for learners who began learning an L2 after childhood. However, studies support the idea that the number of years of exposure to the second language and the starting age of the learner affect the ultimate level of success, especially regarding pronunciation (O’Grady, 1989).

Aptitude and Motivation

            In addition to age-related explanations on why learners of a second language have different level of ultimate attainments, individual features such as aptitude and motivation are also considered important in determining the differences. Many psychologists argue that individual personality is inseparably related to our cognitive or learning style (O’Grady, 1989). Regarding aptitude, it is assumed that some people have a special talent, a skill, or an aptitude for learning a second language whether a L2 learner is an adult or a child. Ellis (1986) proposed to contrast aptitude with intelligence. The latter refers to the general ability that governs how well we master a whole range of skills, linguistic and non-linguistic. Aptitude refers to the special ability involved in language learning. The effects of aptitude have been measured in terms of proficiency scores achieved by classroom learners. Ellis mentioned that a number of studies have reported that aptitude is a major factor determining the level of success of classroom language learning. However, such findings are still debatable mainly because the accuracy with which varying degrees of aptitude can be measured to account for the rate of development or eventual success or failure in L2 learning.

            Beside aptitude, learner motivation and needs have always had a central place in theories of L2 acquisition. In L2 acquisition, motivation is described as the need or desire the learner feels to learn the second language (O’Grady, 1989). There are two kinds of motivation with respect to how they affect language acquisition. The first is integrative motivation which is defined as a desire to achieve proficiency in a new language in order to participate in the life of the community that speaks the language (O’Grady, 1989). Someone motivated in this sense shows a sincere and personal interest in the people and the culture represented by the group. The second is instrumental motivation which is identified as the desire to achieve proficiency in a new language for utilitarian reasons, such as getting a job or promotion (O’Grady, 1989). Thus, it reflects the practical value and advantages of learning a new language.

O’Grady (1989) stated that both types of motivation may influence the rate and quality of L2 acquisition. Learners who are interested in the social and cultural customs of native speakers of the language they are learning are likely to be successful (Ellis, 1986). Similarly, when learners have a strong instrumental need to learn a L2 (e.g. in order to study through the medium of the L2), they will probably succeed. On the other hand, learners with little interest in the way of life of native speakers of the L2 with low instrumental motivation can be expected to learn slowly and to stop learning some way short of native speaker competence. O’Grady provided an example on the effect of integrative and instrumental motivations to a learning situation by illustrating on how English-speaking civil servants working in New York City might be motivated to improve their Spanish proficiency by the prospect of a salary increase. In addition, working in a predominantly Spanish-speaking community, they might be motivated by the desire to understand better the people they serve.

Learners’ motivationis closely related with their attitudes toward the learning of the second language. Someresearchers claim that integrative and instrumental motivations reflect the basic attitude of the language learner toward learning languages and toward the second language culture (O’Grady, 1989). Negative attitudes, such as disliking the second language culture, may lead to decreased motivation and in all likelihood failure to attain proficiency. O’Grady stated that in a L2 learning situation, projecting a positive attitude is also a necessary ingredient for keeping communication lines open, which I turn inevitably leads to the acquisition of better communication skills.

Language Learner Strategies

            Learners need to scrutinize the input they receive and relate it to their existing knowledge (Ellis, 1986). Each learner uses different strategies to master the complexities of a new grammatical system based on the available knowledge. O’Grady (1989) defined the term strategies as the mental processes involved (1) in forming and testing hypotheses about linguistic input, and (2) in using linguistic knowledge in communicative situations. Tarone (1980), in Ellis (1986), distinguished three sets of learner strategies, they are: learning strategies, production strategies, and communication strategies.

            Learning strategies are the ways in which language learners process language input and develop linguistic knowledge (O’Grady, 1989). These processes may be subconscious(unplanned) and psycholinguistic, as well as conscious (deliberate) and behavioural. An example of subconscious learning strategies is on inferencing or overgeneralization.Inferencing is a subconscious process since learners do not aware that they are processing the input they obtain during reading by depending on their available linguistic knowledge.Overgeneralization is also evidenced that the L2 learner is unwittingly relying on prior knowledge and extending it to create new language forms as shown by children when learning to form the past tense, such as when the past tense of go is produced as goed.Besides being subconscious, the learning strategies can also be conscious (deliberate) and behavioural, for example, memorization or repetition with the purpose of remembering. The memorization or repetition of certain language patterns is often encouraged in L2 classrooms as a teaching technique.

            The second learner strategy is production strategies. Production strategies are employed by L2 learners when attempting to use their learned linguistic knowledge in communication (O’Grady, 1989). The learners attempt to use the L2 knowledge they have already acquired efficiently, clearly, and with minimum effort. O’Grady mentioned that production strategies may include the preplanning or rehearsing utterances as well as the correction of utterances. Preplanning in production involves choosing the components of the utterance (nouns, verbs, adjectives and adverbs, etc.) with a communicative adjective in mind. Correcting or monitoring strategies are a part of the rehearsing aspect of production. Learners use a monitoring strategy when they correct what they want to say just before they say it or immediately afterwards.

            The last is communication strategies, of which like production strategies, serve communicative needs. However, they differ in that they are used when L2 learners lack the appropriate linguistic to say what they want to say. Hence, communication strategies consist of learners’ attempts to communicate meanings for which they lack the requisite linguistic knowledge (Ellis, 1986). Learners, particularly in natural settings, constantly need to express ideas which are beyond their linguistic resources. O’Grady (1989) gave an example of a L2 learner who may want to say The teacher made the child go home, but he or she does not know the causative form make, and therefore uses his or her available knowledge to say She asked the child to go home. In many cases, the result might be a slight modification of the original intent of the message, but the central idea is conveyed. O’Grady mentioned that communication strategies include many sub-strategies, including paraphrasing, substituting one word for another (such as animal for giraffe), borrowing from the native language (transfer), or avoiding certain structures altogether by changing the topic of conversation. Such strategies are employed to keep a conversation going.

CHAPTER 7

THEORIES OF SLA

In this chapter, we describe three major theories of second language acquisition. They are the behaviorist, innatist, and interactionist theories which are bloomed during the past recent decades. A specific discussion will be given to Chomsky’s Universal Grammar and Krashen’s five hypotheses, which are essential in the innatist theory.

            Over the last decades, the theories of learning have developed significantly. The different views of psychologists in seeing how someone learns, especially learns a language, contribute to the vast growing theories of learning a language. In the middle of the 20^th century, learning theory was dominated by the behavioral perspective which was led by the work of B. F. Skinner. The focus of the behavioral perspective is on the learner’s external environment, which is deemed to serve as the stimulus to the learner’s process of learning.

In 1960s, the behaviorist view on learning was facing challenges from those who proposed the innatist theories, one of which is a well-known linguist, Noam Chomsky. Chomsky believed that language acquisition can only be described by the means of biological language acquisition device (LAD) or system. Chomsky’s idea on how a learner learns a language was developed further by Krashen through his five hypotheses. Krashen’s five hypotheses highlight the learning processes occurred from the initiate until the ultimate processes.

In the last 20 decades, the growth of the theories of learning a language was marked by challenges to the innatist views as the interactionist perspective came into surface. According to the interactionist perspective, the caregiver plays a critical role in adjusting the language input to facilitate the innate capacities for language acquisition. Thus, the interactionist perspective takes both nature and nurture into account in the process of language acquisition.

Behaviorist Theory

            The first tradition, behaviorism, dominated the field of SLA until the end of the 1960s and found its most visible application in contrastive analysis and the audio-lingual method (Johnson, 2004). Behaviorism views human mind as tabula rasa; that is, the human mind, at birth, is a “blank tablet” where experiences are written, and that it is only the environment that shapes the human mind (Almqvist, 2012). Environment, then, plays an important role in learning and development, whereas the learners are viewed as passively adapting to the environment (Xiangui, 2005).

In the behavioristic tradition, the learner’s mental processes were disregarded because they were not accessible to external observation (Johnson, 2004). That is, they were viewed as too subjective, too “hidden”, for observation, measurement, and verification. Under this old and by now disregarded paradigm, the mental processes that could not be externally evaluated were exempt from scientific investigations. The possibility of their existence was minimized.

Behaviorism emphasizes stimulus, response, and reinforcement as the basic elements of learning, including the learning of language. Johnson (2004) mentioned that in behaviorism, learning was regarded as a habit formation, the process of making a link between stimuli and responses. This link, viewed as being influential for learning, had to be reinforced, observed, corrected, and practiced. Almqvist (2012) stated that in behaviorism, first the child sees an object (i.e. stimulus). Then, the adult says a word describing the object and the child imitates it (i.e. response). Finally, the adult praises the child for using the word or words, and the child wants to describe it again (i.e. reinforcement). For example, to learn the word ball, the child would first associate the word ball with the familiar spherical object, the stimulus. Next the child would produce the word by imitation, at which time an adult would praise the child for saying ball, thereby reinforcing the child’s correct verbal response.

B. F. Skinner, in Almqvist (2012), examined how behavior is shaped when punishment and praise are used in relation of a child’s behavior. These studies were based on experiments with rats and pigeons. Skinner believed that punishing consequences would lead to less repetition of the undesired behavior. Skinner’s behavioristic views are known as radical behaviorism. This is relevant to language learning because a child’s language learning is in need of the caretaker’s positive or negative reinforcement. In other words, language is learned by hearing a phrase and repeating it. The conclusion is that if the child is not praised or rewarded, the utterance will not be repeated.

Xiangui (2005) mentioned that behaviorism is usually connected to Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis (CAH). According to behaviorism, in contrast to a first language learner, the second language learner already has a set of habits. The L1 habits are namely assumed to be so well established and so appealing to use so that they constantly get in the way of the L2 habit formation process. Lado (1957), in Xiangui (2005), assumed that the transferred L1 habits either facilitate or inhibit the process of L2 habit formation. Where there are similarities between the L1 and the L2 the student will acquire easily, but where there are differences the students will find difficulties. As a consequence, a detailed comparison (i.e. contrastive analysis) of the native and the target language would suffice to reveal areas of differences and similarities. These in turns would allow predicting where the errors would and would not occur.

In behavioristic theory, spoken language is more important than written language (Almqvist, 2012). Behaviorists believe that spoken language is primary since we learn to speak before we learn how to read and write. Thus, it leads to the implementation of audio-lingual method and the practice of oral skills in a controlled environment. Based on it, language skills are taught in the order of listening, speaking, reading and writing (Dolati, 2012). In classrooms, the instructional approach emphasizes the formation of habits through modeling, imitation, repetition and pattern drills, and mistakes are to be avoided and immediately corrected.

Though some features of language, such as pronunciations and collocations, may be successfully acquired through repetition and memorization, the audio-lingual method has come under severe criticism as being overly mechanical and theoretically unjustified (Xiangui, 2005). The behaviorist theory was also being criticized for not being able to explain some points in language learning. Its concept of imitation and reinforcement could not account for typical child utterances like “Him don’t say it right,” which were clearly not imitations of adult speech. Moreover, behaviorists could not explain how any novel utterance was produced, even those that were grammatically correct. In addition, child language researchers noticed that parents typically reinforce their children for the meaning of their utterances, not for grammatical correctness. These and other concerns were pointed boldly by Noam Chomsky in a heated debate with behaviorist B. F. Skinner, attacking the behaviorist theory to be inadequate for explaining the development of a child language development. The challenge on behaviorism caused innatist perspective to emerge.

Innatist Theory

            The unexplainable issues by the behaviorist theory attract researchers to perform further studies language learning, including on second language acquisition. Noam Chomsky made revolutionary views through his studies on syntax, and was able to give strong arguments against the behaviorist theory. Chomsky’s findings set the basis for the expansion of the innatist theory. Lightbown and Spada, in Almqvist (2012), referred innatism as a theory that human beings are born with mental structures that are designed specifically for the acquisition of language.

Chomsky’s Theory of Universal Grammar (UG)

            Noam Chomsky (1957), in Dolati (2012), asserted that language is too complex and language learning occurs too rapidly to be explained through imitation. Moreover, children learn more about the structure of their language than they could reasonably be expected to learn on the basis of the samples of language which they hear. Parental correction of children’s errors is also inconsistent or even non-existent. As a result, Chomsky appeared with a convincing argument for the existence of an innate domain-specific language faculty, which he called the Language Acquisition Device (LAD) (Johnson, 2004). The LAD includes Universal Grammar (UG), which is crucial for the child’s ability to acquire his or her native language. UG will allow the child to select out the many grammatical rules of the language they hear spoken around them, as they gradually construct the grammar of their mother tongue. Gass (2000) mentioned that the theory underlying UG assumes that language consists of a set of abstract principles that characterize core grammars of all natural languages. The necessity of positing UG comes from the fact that all children have to learn a complex set of abstractions as they acquire their native language. There must be something in addition to the language input to which children are exposed in order for them to learn the target language with relative ease and speed. UG is postulated as a means to specify the limits of a possible language. The task for learning is greatly reduced if one is equipped with an innate mechanism that constraints possible grammar formation.

From the innatist perspective, children construct grammar through a process of hypothesis testing. For example, a child may hypothesize the rule that all plural nouns end with an affix -s. Thus when they come to a word such as child, they form the plural as childs, or when they come to the word man, they say mans for the plural. Gradually, they will revise their hypothesis to accommodate exceptions to the plural rule. Thus children create sentences by using rules rather than by merely repeating messages they have heard, as assumed by behaviorists. This application of rules accounts for the generative nature of language. With a limited set of rules, people can generate an unlimited number of novel utterances. Children acquire the rules, according to Chomsky, with little help from their parents or caregivers.

Environment                                       LAD

 

Input                                       Universal Grammar                             Grammatical Competence

(triggering effect)

Fig.1 Chomsky’s Model of First Language Acquisition

However, Chomsky acknowledges that there is more to language than grammatical competence (Johnson, 2004). The native speaker also possesses pragmatic competence, which places language in the institutional setting of its use, relating intentions and purposes to the linguistic means at hand. Chomsky’s recognition on pragmatic competence is not in line with his theory on the operation of UG, which is exclusively limited to the child’s acquisition of grammatical competence. Johnson argued that Chomsky’s theory does not attempt to explain the child’s ability to use this grammatical knowledge in real-life situations. That is, it does not deal with pragmatic competence, primarily because pragmatic competence contains variability and also is more concerned with knowledge of conditions and manner of appropriate use, in conformity with various purposes than with the knowledge of form and meaning.

In second language acquisition, Gass (2000) stated that the UG position is not a uniform one. White (1996), in Gass (2000), pointed out that there are four current positions with regard to UG. One position maintains that the initial stage of L2 is actually the final stage of L1; that is, UG has atrophied and is, therefore, no longer available for building L2 knowledge. White argued that the input feeds directly into the L2 system, which initially is essentially the L1 system. A second position also assumes that the starting point for L2 acquisition is the final state of L1, but unlike the previous position, assumes the availability of UG. Here, the learner is assumed to use the L1 grammar as the basis, but to have full access to UG when the L1 is deemed insufficient for the learning task at hand. This differs from the first position in that the L2 input feeds into both the initial state system (=L1) and UG.

A third position maintains that the initial state of L2 is the same as the initial state for L1; that is, UG. Here, the input is mediated through UG and not through the L1, as in the previous two positions. Thus, UG serves as a filter through which the L2 input passes. The fourth position is the compromise position. The L2 initial state is affected by both UG and the L1. Certain aspects of the initial state are based on UG and other aspects from the L1. All in all, these theoretical positions argue for innate language-learning mechanism as the starting point for learning.

Krashen’s Five Hypotheses

            Chomsky’s work on Universal Grammar (UG) and Language Acquisition Device (LAD) was developed further by Stephen D. Krashen through his five hypotheses, commonly known as Krashen’s Input or Monitor Hypothesis. The impact of Krashen’s input hypothesis on the field of second language acquisition and teaching has been profound (Johnson, 2004). His hypothesis has been to a large extent responsible for the introduction of two of the most controversial issues in SLA theory and practice. These two issues are connected with the roles of input and grammar instruction in second language acquisition.

1.      The Acquisition vs. Learning Hypothesis

            The first hypothesis claims that second language acquisition can be developed in two ways, by means of two independent processes (Johnson, 2004). The first is acquisition, which refers to subconscious processes that result in acquired knowledge, and the second is learning, which refers to conscious processes that result in explicit knowledge about the grammatical properties of a second language. The acquisition system naturally occurs when a person receives plenty of comprehensible input, has a low affective filter, and the focus of the language lesson is on communication and meaningful use of the language (Escamilla & Grassi, 2000). If these criteria are met, the language enters the learner’s LAD and is acquired into the mind - a totally unconscious process. The advantage to acquiring a language is that the language becomes part of the linguistic system of the learner and can be automatically used in conversations and communication with the target culture group.

The learning system, as mentioned by Escamilla and Grassi (2000), is activated when the learner is conscious of the language and is focused on the form and rules of the language. Learning a language encourages the student to focus on editing and planning the language rather than communicating with the language. Learning occurs most often in a grammar-based, drill and practice type instructional setting. Although learning is an important aspect of second language acquisition, Krashen believes that in order to fully use language in a communicative setting, the second language learner must first acquire the language before learning is introduced. Learning too early in the process will interrupt the acquisition process and produce learners that focus on form and editing and are stilted in their ability to communicate fluently.

2.      The Natural Order Hypothesis

            Krashen’s second hypothesis, the natural order hypothesis, states that SLA proceeds according to a well-defined order (Johnson, 2004). That is, the second language is acquired in a prearranged way. It unfolds along a natural and predictable path of development that cannot be altered. For example, students learning English, regardless of their cultural and linguistic background, will acquire the plural –s (girls) before the third person singular –s (likes) (Escamilla & Grassi, 2000). The natural order of acquisition is not affected by instructional sequences. Krashen suggests that providing students with meaningful comprehensible input that contains grammar, but focuses on communication, will enable students to naturally acquire the necessary grammar.

            There are several predictable stages of acquisition undergone by second language learner of which those stages are similar to the stages experienced by children acquiring their native languages.

Stage 1. Pre-production

During this stage, the second language student actively listens to the language input (Escamilla & Grassi, 2000). Much like a one year old baby, the student is developing comprehension in the second language. At this level, students’ reading and oral production will be marked with a transfer of their first language pronunciation. For example, the letters of the alphabet represent different sounds in different languages. Korean English-language learners will mix the phoneme /l/ and /r/ during reading aloud and speaking since they do not differentiate these phonemes in their native language. However, gradually the students will acquire the sounds of the English alphabet and slowly change their pronunciation. It is common that a stage 1 student will be unable to correctly produce verbs in the past or future tenses and will rely on the present tense for communication. A stage 1 student will also have great difficulty writing in the target language.

Stage 2. Early Production

At this level, students began producing utterances of one word (Escamilla & Grassi, 2000). Students will repeat words they have often heard and that are comprehensible. It is not uncommon for students at this stage to produce memorized phrases such as “My name is…”; My address is…”; “Sit down!”;  and “Leave me alone.” However, the use of a memorized phrase does not indicate that the student is capable of manipulating and forming original sentences in the target language. At stage 2, students will still have the transfer of native language pronunciation similar to stage 1. Toward the end of stage 2, students will begin to incorporate different verb forms into speech but will over-generalize the grammar rules. For example, once a student attributes affix –ed with forming the past tense, he/she will use –ed to form all past tense, both regular and irregular forms. Such overgeneralizations actually indicate that the student is progressing quite well in the target language. Given time and adequate comprehensible input, the student will eventually differentiate between the regular past tense and the irregular and correctly apply the grammar rules.

Stage 3. Speech Emergence

            During this stage, students begin to construct simple sentences until they acquire enough language to produce increasingly complex phrases (Escamilla & Grassi, 2000). The transfer of first language pronunciation will begin to subside although accent will continue to be an issue, especially for older learners. Students at this stage begin to use differing verb forms (past, present, future) and can engage in more lengthy conversations. However, teachers should expect a multitude of grammar rule overgeneralizations. The overgeneralizations indicate great progress on the part of the second language student. The student requires more time and more comprehensible input to sort out the grammar rules and begin to utilize them correctly.

Stage 4. Intermediate Fluency

            The student can now manipulate the language to create original sentences and engage in more complex conversations (Escamilla & Grassi, 2000). The student should have a good grasp on different verb forms (past, present, future, etc.) although grammatical mistakes are still quite common. The student is ready to acquire advanced writing skills and perfect his/her oral and reading skills.

3.      The Monitor Hypothesis

            The monitor hypothesis accounts for the existence and the operation of learned knowledge (Johnson, 2004). Krashen (1985), in Johnson (2004), writes: “Our ability to produce utterances in another language comes from our acquired competence, from our subconscious knowledge. Learning, conscious knowledge, serves only as an editor, or Monitor. We appeal to learning to make corrections, to change the output of the acquired system before we speak or write (or sometimes after we speak or write, as in self-correction).” Krashen (1981) mentioned three conditions on the use of the Monitor. The first condition is that in order to successfully monitor, the performer must have time. In normal conversation, both in speaking and in listening, performers do not generally have time to think about and apply conscious grammatical rules, and we see little or no effect on the Monitor in these situations. This condition, however, is necessary but not sufficient. There is, thus, a second condition of which the performer must be "focused on form", or correctness. An important third condition for successful Monitor use is that the performer needs to know the rule; that is, he or she needs to have a correct mental representation of the rule to apply it correctly.

4.      The Input Hypothesis

            The fourth hypothesis, the input hypothesis, claims that humans acquire language in only one way; that is, by understanding messages, or by receiving “comprehensible input” (Johnson, 2004). Comprehensible input is operationalized as i + 1, where i represents the learner’s current level of language competence and 1 the next level of competence in the natural order of development. Note that Krashen’s input hypothesis refers to acquisition, not learning. Krashen claims that if there is enough comprehensible input, the necessary grammar is automatically provided. There is no need to teach grammar deliberately because it can be acquired subconsciously with the assistance of the internal language processor (i.e. Chomsky’s LAD). Krashen believes that the operation of Chomsky’s UG extends beyond the L1. He disagrees with the researchers who undermine its value for second language acquisition. Krashen argues that although we may see individual variation “on the surface”, such as different sources of comprehensible input, different strategies for obtaining input, different messages, and of course different languages, and this variation may be of practical concern. But deep down, the “mental organ” for language produces one basic product, a human language, in one fundamental way.

5.      The Affective Filter Hypothesis

            The last hypothesis, the affective filter hypothesis, claims that although comprehensible input is the necessary condition for, indeed the cause of, moving along the natural order of development, there is another factor that affects SLA, which is the affective filter (Johnson, 2004). According to Krashen, in Johnson (2004), this affective filter is “a mental block that prevents acquirers from fully utilizing the comprehensible input they receive for language acquisition”. When the affective filter is “up”, the input, although understood, will not reach the LAD. This mental block is associated with the following factors: anxiety, lack of confidence, and lack of motivation. When the affective filter is “down”, the input will be delivered to the LAD, and second language acquisition will take place subconsciously.

Affective Filter

 

Input                      ----------            LAD                                 L2 Acquisition

Fig 2. The Role of the Affective Filter in Krashen’s Model of SLA

Interactionist Theory

            The innatist perspective is also not far from criticisms. Gardner (1995) describes that the Chomskyan view is “too dismissive of the ways that mothers and others who bring up children help infants to acquire language.” He argues that, “while the principles of grammar may indeed be acquired with little help from parents or other caretakers, adults are needed to help children build a rich vocabulary, master the rules of discourse, and distinguish between culturally acceptable and unacceptable forms of expression.” This interest in the role of people in the social environment provides the focus of the interactionist perspective.

            According to the interactionist position, caregivers play a critical role in adjusting language to facilitate the use of innate capacities for language acquisition. This is in sharp contrast to the innatist view that adapting language has little effect on a child’s acquisition process. The interactionist view thus takes into consideration the importance of both nature and nurture in the language acquisition process.

            In first language acquisition, children’s language develops over time, not within a single interaction. As children develop language, they must construct the meanings of thousands of words. Interactions with children do not necessarily lead to immediate understanding. Basic understandings must be developed and refined over time, often through misunderstandings. Children are constantly constructing meaning as they interact with people and the world around them, and through these interactions, they gradually sort out the nuances and construct the multiple meanings of words and phrases. The interactionist perspective acknowledges the important roles of both the child and the social environment in the language acquisition process.

            In second language acquisition, the idea of the innatist perspective that comprehensible input is necessary for second language acquisition also forms a basic principle of the interactionist position. However, interactionists view the communicative give and take of natural conversations between native and non-native speakers as the crucial element of the language acquisition process (Long & Porter, 1985). Their focus is on the ways in which native speakers modify their speech to try to make themselves understood by English-learning conversational partners. Interactionists are also interested in how non-native speakers use their growing knowledge of the new language to get their ideas across and to achieve their communicative goals. This trial-and-error process of give-and-take in communication as people try to understand and be understood is referred to as the negotiation of meaning. As meaning is negotiated, non-native speakers are actually able to apply some control over the communication process during conversations, thus causing their partners to provide input that is more comprehensible. They do this by asking for repetitions, indicating they don’t understand, or responding in a way that shows they did not understand. The listener’s natural response is then to paraphrase or perhaps use some other cue to convey meaning, such as gesturing, drawing, or modified speech (sometimes referred to as “foreigner talk,” which is somewhat equivalent to caregiver speech in first language acquisition).

            In addition to the importance placed on social interaction, some researchers have looked more closely at output, or the speech produced by English language learners, as an important variable in the overall language acquisition process (Swain, 1985). We have seen that the language learners’ output can serve to bring out modification of input from conversational partners to make it more comprehensible.

  CHAPTER 8

TEACHING METHODOLOGIES

In this chapter, we describe some teaching methodologies as a result of the influence of theoretical trends in linguistics, psychology, and sociology. They are the grammar translation method, the direct method, the audiolingual method, cognitive code learning, and the communicative language teaching. In addition, we also describe briefly the difference between the terms approach, method, and technique before describing the methods.

            Those who are involved in language teaching are continuously in a search for “methods” that would successfully teach students a second or foreign language in the classroom. Over decades, one method always comes up to replace the former method which was believed to be less effective than the latter. However, before going further with the historical development of methods in language teaching, we need to try to understand what it means by “method”.

            Decades ago Edward Anthony (1963), in Brown (2001), gave a definition of his concept of “method” which was the second of three hierarchical elements, namely approach, method, and technique. According to Anthony, an approach was a set of assumptions dealing with the nature of language, learning, and teaching. Method was described as an overall plan for systematic presentation of language based upon a selected approach. Techniques were the specific activities manifested in the classroom that were consistent with a method and therefore were in harmony with an approach as well. For example, at the approach level a teacher may affirm the ultimate importance of learning in a relaxed state of mental awareness just above the verge of consciousness. The method that follows might be suggestopedia, a method that capitalized on relaxed states of mind for maximum preservation of material, in which music was central to this method. Thus, the technique could include playing baroque music while reading a passage in the foreign language, getting students to sit in the yoga position while listening to a list of words, or having learners adopt a new name in the classroom and role-play that new person.

            A couple of decades later, Richards and Rodgers (1982, 1986), in Brown (2001), renamed Anthony’s approach, method, and technique respectivelyapproach, design, and procedure, with a superordinate term to describe this three-step process, now called “method”. According to Richards and Rodgers, a method was an umbrella term for the specification and interrelation of theory and practice. An approach defines assumptions, beliefs, and theories about the nature of language and language learning. Designs specify the relationship of those theories to classroom materials and activities. Procedures are the techniques and practices that are derived from one’s approach and design. Related to the change of the terminology, Brown (2001) noticed that it is interesting that the terminology of the pedagogical literature in the field appears to be more in line with Anthony’s original terms, but with some important additions and refinements.

The Grammar Translation Method

            O’Grady (1989) described that the most traditional method for L2 teaching is the grammar translation method, which has its roots in the way in which Latin and Greek have been taught for centuries. Previously, Latin has been taught by means of what have been called the Classical Method, of which it focuses on grammatical rules, memorization of vocabulary, translations of text, and doing written exercises (Brown, 2001). Brown mentioned that the Classical Method was adopted as the chief means for teaching foreign languages since little thought was given at the time to teaching someone how to speak the language; after all languages were not being taught primarily to learn oral communication, but to learn for the sake of being “scholarly” or, in some instances, for gaining a reading proficiency in a foreign language.

            The Classical Method came to be known as the grammar translation method in the nineteenth century. In line with the label of the method, it focuses on the grammatical rules which serve as the basis for translating from the second to the native language. Prator and Celce-Murcia (1979), in Brown (2001), listed the major characteristics of the grammar translation method:

1.      Classes are taught in the mother tongue, with little active use of the target language.

2.      Much vocabulary is taught in the form of lists of isolated words.

3.      Long, elaborate explanations of the details of grammar are given.

4.      Grammar provides the rules for putting words together, and instruction often focuses on the form and inflection of words.

5.      Reading of difficult classical texts is begun early.

6.      Little attention is paid to the content of texts, which are treated as exercises in grammatical analysis.

7.      Often the only drills are exercises in translating disconnected sentences from the target language into the mother tongue.

8.      Little or no attention is given to pronunciation.

Since being able to translate is used to test the acquired knowledge, especially on the grammatical rules, O’Grady (1989) argued that consequently the role of L1 is quite prominent in the grammar translation method.

            Today, the grammar translation method is still popular in many education systems and makes up some part of many L2 curricula (O’Grady, 1989). For Brown (2001), it is ironic that this method has until very recently been so unshakable among many competing models, while it does effectively nothing to enhance a student’s communicative ability in the language. However, one can understand why the method remains so popular. It requires few specialized skills on the part of teachers. Tests of grammar rules and of translations are easy to construct and can be objectively scored. Many standardized tests of foreign languages still do not attempt to engage into communicative abilities, so students have little motivation to go beyond grammar analogies, translations, and repetitive exercises. And it is sometimes successful in leading a student toward a reading knowledge of a second language.

The Direct Method

            The direct method was flourished in the 1900s as an alternative to grammar translation (O’Grady, 1989). The basic premise of the direct method was that second language learning should be more like first language learning – lots of oral interaction, spontaneous use of the language, no translation between first and second languages, and little or no analysis of grammatical rules (Brown, 2001). Therefore, if possible, the teacher should try to create a natural learning environment within the classroom which emphasizes on communicating.

            Richards and Rodgers (1986), in Brown (2001), summarized the principles of the direct method:

1.      Classroom instruction was conducted exclusively in the target language.

2.      Only everyday vocabulary and sentences were taught.

3.      Oral communication skills were built up in a carefully traded progression organized in question-and-answer exchanges between teachers and students in small, intensive classes.

4.      Grammar was taught inductively.

5.      New teaching points were taught through modeling and practice.

6.      Concrete vocabulary was taught through demonstration, objects, and pictures; abstract vocabulary was taught by association of ideas.

7.      Both speech and listening were taught.

8.      Correct pronunciation and grammar were emphasized.

            The direct method was most widely accepted in private language schools where students were highly motivated and where native-speaking teachers could be employed (Brown, 2001). However, Brown argued that any method, not only the direct method, can succeed when clients are willing to pay high prices for small classes, individual attention, and intensive study. Therefore, due to its exclusivity, the direct method did not take well in public education, where the constraints of budget, classroom size, time, and teacher background made such a method difficult to use. Moreover, the direct method was criticized for its weak theoretical foundations. Adults do not in fact learn like children, and they express the need for explicit instruction in grammar and other aspects of the second language.

            As a result, by the end of the first quarter of the twentieth century, the use of the direct method had declined both in the Europe and in the US (Brown, 2001). Most language curricula returned to the Grammar Translation Method or to a “reading approach” that emphasized reading skills in foreign languages. However, it is interesting that by the middle of the twentieth century, the direct method was revived and redirected into what was probably the most noticeable of all language teaching “revolution” in the modern era, the Audiolingual Method.

The Audiolingual  Method (behaviorist theory)

            Prior to the era of World War II, the teachers in the US thought that it was impractical to teach oral skills and that reading should become the focus. Hence, the schools in the 1930s and 1940s discarded the direct method and turned once again into the Grammar Translation Method, which center is at reading. However, when the US was plunged into the worldwide conflict, heightening the need for Americans to become orally proficient in the languages of their allies and enemies, a new method was needed. Itwas the US military which provided the impetus with funding for special, intensive language courses that focused on oral skills (Brown, 2001). These courses came to be known as the “Army Method”. The “Army Method” was later popularly known as the Audiolingual Method (ALM) in the 1950s as the educational institutions adopt the new method in all its variations and adaptations.

            The ALM in some sense represents a return to the direct method, as its method is to develop nativelike speaking ability in its learners (O’Grady, 1989). Translation and reference to L1 are not permitted. Underlying this approach, however, is the notion that L2 learning should be regarded as a mechanistic process of habit formation. The habit formation process was advocated by behavioristic psychologists as a model of learning, of which it perfectly married with the mimicry drills and pattern practices of audiolingual method. Thus, the ALM was firmly grounded in psychological theory. In linguistic theory, the ALM was also firmly grounded since structural linguists in the 1940s and 1950s were engaged in what they claimed was a “scientific descriptive analysis” of various languages and teaching methodologists saw a direct application of such analysis to teaching linguistic patterns.

            Prator and Celce-Murcia (1979), in Brown (2001), described the characteristics of the ALM which can be summed up in the following:

1.      New material is presented in dialogue form.

2.      There is dependence on mimicry, memorization of set phrases, and overlearning.

3.      Structures are sequenced by means of contrastive analysis and taught one at a time.

4.      Structural patterns are taught using repetitive drills.

5.      There is little or no grammatical explanation. Grammar is taught by inductive analogy rather than by deductive explanation.

6.      Vocabulary is strictly limited and learned in context.

7.      There is much use of tapes, language labs, and visual aids.

8.      Great importance is attached to pronunciation.

9.      Very little use of the mother tongue by teachers is permitted.

10.  Successful responses are immediately reinforced.

11.  There is a great effort to get students to produce error-free utterances.

12.  There is a tendency to manipulate language and disregard content.

In classrooms and language laboratories, these characteristics are carried out by conditioning the students to respond correctly to the stimuli. Since followers of this method assume that language is a set of conditioned habits, students are not granted time to think about their responses but are required to respond immediately to a model utterance. Language learning is not viewed as a creative, cognitive process but as mechanical mimicry (O’Grady, 1989).

            The ALM enjoyed many years of popularity, and even to this day, adaptations of the ALM are found in contemporary methodologies (Brown, 2001). The ALM was firmly rooted in respectable theoretical perspectives of the time. However, the popularity was not to last forever. It was discovered that language was not really acquired through a process of habit formation and overlearning, that errors were not necessarily to be avoided at all costs, and that structural linguistics did not tell us everything about language that we needed to know. In the end, the ALM fell short, as all methods do.

Cognitive Code Learning (innatist theory)

            The age of audiolingualism, with its emphasis on surface forms and on the repetition practice of scientifically produced patterns, began to diminish when the Chomskyan revolution in linguistics turned linguists and language teachers toward the “deep structure” of language (Brown, 2001). Arguing that children subconsciously acquire a system of rules, proponents of a cognitive code learning methodology began to introduce more deductive rule learning into language classes. In a combination of Audiolingual and Grammar Translation techniques, classes retained the drilling typical of ALM but added healthy doses of rule explanations and reliance on grammatical sequencing of material.

            Cognitive code learning was not so much a method as it was an approach that emphasized a conscious awareness of rules and their applications to second language learning (Brown, 2001). It was a reaction to the strictly behavioristic practices of the ALM, and ironically, a return to some of the practices of Grammar Translation. As teachers and material developers saw that continuous parroting of potentially repetition material was not creating communicatively proficient learners, a new twist was needed, and cognitive code learning appeared to provide just such a twist. Unfortunately, the innovation was short-lived, for as surely as repetitive drilling bored students, blatant cognitive attention to the rules, patterns, complexities, and exceptions of language overburdened the mental reserves of language students. As a result, cognitive code learning was disregarded as teachers and researchers searched for another method with some spice and verve.

Communicative Language Teaching (interactionist theory)

            During the past decade, the development of communicative language teaching (CLT), an approach that seeks to produce communicatively competent language learners, has been indicated as the future direction for future L2 researchers and teachers (O’Grady, 1989). Communicative language teaching developed in the late 1980s and 1990s as there were development of approaches that highlighted the fundamentally communicative properties of language, and classrooms were increasingly characterized by authenticity, real-world simulation and meaningful tasks. The notions behind the communicative competence are to replace the underpinnings of audiolingualism and grammar translation.

            It is difficult to offer a definition of CLT (Brown, 2001). It is a unified but broadly based, theoretically well informed set of beliefs about the nature of language and of language learning and teaching. Brown offers the following six interconnected characteristics as a description of CLT:

1.      Classroom goals are focused on all of the components (grammatical, discourse, functional, sociolinguistic and strategic) of communicative competence. Goals therefore must interlink the organizational aspects of language with the pragmatic.

2.      Language techniques are designed to engage learners in the pragmatic, authentic, functional use of language for meaningful purposes. Organizational language forms are not the central focus, but rather aspects of language that enable the learner to accomplish those purposes.

3.      Fluency and accuracy are seen as complementary principles underlying communicative techniques. At times fluency may have to take on more importance than accuracy in order to keep learners meaningfully engaged in language use.

4.      Students in a communicative class ultimately have to use the language, productively and receptively, in unrehearsed contexts outside the classroom. Classroom tasks must therefore equip students with the skills necessary for communication in those contexts.

5.      Students are given opportunities to focus on their own learning process through an understanding of their own styles of learning and through the development of appropriate strategies for autonomous learning.

6.      The role of the teacher is that of facilitator and guide, not an all-knowing bestower of knowledge. Students are therefore encouraged to construct meaning through genuine linguistic interaction with others.

            These six characteristics underscore some major departures from earlier approaches. In CLT less attention was paid considerably to the discussion of grammatical rules since it attempts to build fluency. However, it is important to note that fluency should never be encouraged at the expense clear, unambiguous, direct communication. In CLT students are encouraged to deal with unrehearsed situations under the guidance, but not control, of the teacher. CLT also recognizes the importance of learners’ developing a strategic approach to acquisition and the teacher’s facilitative role, as a slow recognition on the importance of learner initiative in the classroom.

            There are some terms of concepts which are closely allied with CLT:

1.      Learner-Centered Instruction

2.      Cooperative and Collaborative Learning

3.      Interactive Learning

4.      Whole Language Education

5.      Content-Based Instruction

6.      Task-Based Instruction

These terms are sometimes regarded to be overlapping and confusing. Nonetheless, these terms evolve around the activeness of leaners and the teaching of language as a whole in which the function of the teacher is as the facilitator during the teaching and learning process.

            By means of CLT, teachers are probing the nature of social, cultural, and pragmatic features of language beyond grammatical and discourse elements in communication. Real-life communication learning, positioning learners as partners for teachers, and occupying classrooms with practices which seek to draw on whatever intrinsically sparks learners to reach their fullest potential are things which characterized CLT from the prior methods and approaches. Therefore, today CLT is a currently recognized approach that is a generally accepted norm in the field (Brown, 2001).

CHAPTER 6

FACTORS INFLUENCING SLA

In this chapter, we describe some other factors which influence the learning of a second language between one learner and another learner besides learners’ age, aptitude and motivation, as well as strategies. The factors are on contextual variation, social and cultural factors, as well as learners’ cognitive style

            The different levels of ultimate attainment between one second language learner and another are also influenced by some other factors besides each learner’s age, aptitude and motivation, as well as the strategies employed in learning the L2.The differences on language-learner language, which ultimately affected the attainment of the learners’ language, are influenced contextually by the situational and linguistic contexts. Besides the contextual variation, the different ultimate attainment among learners can also due to the social and cultural beliefs of each learner and due to the different cognitive style each learner employed in perceiving and processing the inputs.

Contextual Variation

            Ellis (1986) believed that language-learner language contains errors. That is, some of the utterances produced by learners are not well formed according to the rules of the adult grammar. Errors are an important source of information about SLA, because they indicate that learners construct their own rules on the basis of input data, and that in some instances at least these rules differ from those of the target language. The existence of errors in language-learner language, however, is only of interest if they can be shown to be systematic – that is, that their occurrence is in some way regular. However, one of the major problems of investigating SLA is that learner errors are not systematic in any simple way. It is rare that a learner produces the same error in all contexts of use. It is much more likely that a learner produces an error in some contexts but not in others. Therefore, it can be said that various kinds of errors, which made language-learner language variable, can occur in a variety of contexts.

            There are two types of contextual variation (Ellis, 1986). The first is that language-learner language varies according to the situational context. That is, learners use their knowledge of the L2 differently in different situations. For example, when learners are under pressure to communicate instantly, they will not have time to maximize their existing knowledge and are likely to produce errors that would not occur in situations when they have the opportunity to monitor their output more carefully. Language-learner language also varies according to the linguistic context. That is, learners produce errors in one type of sentence but not in another. For example, errors in third person singular of the English Present Simple Tense may not occur in sentences consisting of a single clause (e.g. ‘He buys her a bunch of flowers’), but may occur regularly in the second clause of complex sentences (e.g. ‘He visits her every day and buy her a bunch of flowers’).

            Although it is acceptable that errors are variable, it does not mean that the errors can be in some way regular and therefore rule-based (Ellis, 1986). If it is accepted that learners perform differently in different situations, but that it is possible to predict how they will behave in specific situations, then the systematicity of their behavior can be captured by means of variable rules, that is, ‘if…then’ rules. The rules state that if x conditions apply, then y language forms will occur. Although ‘if…then’ rules are complex, they are necessary if the true systematicity of language-learner language is to be understood.

Social and Cultural Factors

            The society and the cultural belief surrounding L2 learners also play an important role in determining the learners’ success in acquiring the L2. Social interactions which are shaped by stereotypes (a fixed idea or image that many people have of a particular type of person or thing, but which is often not true in reality), prejudices (an unreasonable dislike of or preference for a person, group, custom, etc), especially when it is based on their race, religion, sex, etc, as well as status and power differences, affiliate with the learners’ age, may affect how proficient a learner is since it is agreed that interactions are a source for learners to obtain input and a way for them to practice producing utterances. In addition, learners’ beliefs on their own culture and the L2 culture also define the learners’ attitudes in learning the L2.

            To illustrate how a learner’s age interact with his/her social and cultural beliefs in defining his/her achievement in the learning of the L2, an example on Montha, a university student who came to the United States from Cambodia at age 12, is given. Montha was the eldest of six children. She had been educated in Cambodia and was literate in Khmer when she arrived, but her education took place entirely in English after she moved to the United States. The family spoke Khmer at home but nowhere else did she use or hear her home language. Montha remembers how difficult it was to fit in at school, where she knew neither the language nor the customs of her schoolmates. She felt frightened and isolated, because there were no other Cambodians in her school. To worsen the situation, at age 12 she was self-conscious and concerned about being different. Nonetheless, she gradually found her way into school social groups and began to acquire English.

Reflecting back, Montha feels that her younger siblings had more chances to interact with fluent English speakers than she did. For one thing, as the eldest daughter, Montha was expected to help her mother daily with household chores, whereas her sisters were permitted to play with other children in the neighborhood. In addition, as an adolescent, she was not permitted to date or to go out with friends in cars, an accepted activity of many U.S. teenagers but unacceptable in Cambodian culture. For these activities, she had to wait until she had graduated from high school and no longer lived with her parents.

From the example, it can be seen how age interacted with social and cultural factors to constrain Montha’s social language learning opportunities. First of all, she entered the U.S. social scene at an age when cultural expectations of teenagers differed considerably between her home culture and that of the larger society. Remaining at home to help her mother, she was restricted from certain aspects of social participation that might have helped her learn English. In contrast, her siblings were young enough to be permitted to play with Englishspeaking neighborhood children, and this type of play was acceptable to Montha’s parents. In other words, Montha’s siblings, by virtue of their age, were permitted a broader range of age appropriate social activity acceptable to both Cambodian and U.S. parents, and this, very likely, facilitated language acquisition.

Cognitive Style

            O’Grady (1989) defined that the term cognitive style refers to the way in which we are predisposed to process information in our environment. Regardless the kinds of subject we are learning, we need to perceive and develop concepts, to organize them, to store them in memory, and to be able to recall them. The manner and speed with which we do all of these things is believed to depend on our particular cognitive or learning style.

            Currently, L2 researchers are examining several cognitive styles in order to determine their relationship to the way in which we learn languages. The styles that have received the most attention in recent research are field independence and field dependence. It is assumed that an individual will have a tendency to be either predominantly field independent or field dependent to varying degrees along a continuum.

            A person who tends to be field independent is characterized as a highly rational, analytic personality. A field independent cognitive style enables a person to separate the components of a whole picture or idea to focus on one component without being distracted by the neighboring components. Such a person could probably study for a biology exam in a noisy college cafeteria. On the other hand, the field dependent person relies on the whole picture or total field to the point where the separate components of the picture are not easily perceived. Instead, this person perceives the picture as a total experience or a unified whole.

            It has been hypothesized that the more successful language learners are the ones who can focus on the language stimuli relevant to the language learning task at hand and disregard the inappropriate ones. This implies that field independent types would make better L2 learners than field dependent types. However, field dependence is associated with empathy and openness, qualities that characterize people who would be highly motivated to communicate and to integrate into the L2 community.

            Recent studies indicate that both styles may be equally important for L2 learning depending on the L2 learning context. Field independent people are supposedly more successful in the traditional classroom setting where the focus is usually on analytical oral and written activities. In contrast, field dependent people are expected to do well in a natural setting where communication is the focus.

            Concerning the result of the studies, O’Grady (1989) mentioned that we must keep in mind that tests which label students as one type or another ignore the possibility that an individual may approach different task in different ways. For example, solving a mathematical problem as opposed to learning new L2 vocabulary will require people to adapt their cognitive styles. It is a misconception to think that field independence or field dependence is constant within one person. Instead, most people have general preferences one way or another, and when given certain contexts, they will rely on the most appropriate style for the problem at hand, as well as the most effective strategy.

BAB 6
FAKTOR YANG MEMPENGARUHI SLA

Dalam bab ini, kami akan menjelaskan beberapa faktor lain yang mempengaruhi pembelajaran bahasa kedua antara satu pelajar dan pelajar lain selain usia peserta didik, bakat dan motivasi, serta strategi. Faktor-faktor yang pada variasi kontekstual, faktor-faktor sosial dan budaya, serta gaya kognitif peserta didik '

Berbagai tingkat pencapaian tertinggi antara satu pembelajar bahasa kedua dan lainnya juga dipengaruhi oleh beberapa faktor lain selain masing-masing pelajar usia, bakat dan motivasi, serta strategi yang digunakan dalam belajar perbedaan L2.The bahasa bahasa-pelajar, yang pada akhirnya mempengaruhi pencapaian bahasa peserta didik, dipengaruhi kontekstual oleh konteks situasional dan linguistik. Selain variasi kontekstual, pencapaian utama yang berbeda antara peserta didik bisa juga karena kepercayaan sosial dan budaya dari masing-masing peserta didik dan karena gaya kognitif yang berbeda setiap pelajar yang digunakan dalam memahami dan memproses masukan.

Kontekstual Variasi
Ellis (1986) percaya bahwa bahasa bahasa-learner mengandung kesalahan. Artinya, beberapa ujaran yang dihasilkan oleh peserta didik tidak terbentuk dengan baik sesuai dengan aturan tata bahasa orang dewasa. Kesalahan merupakan sumber penting informasi tentang SLA, karena mereka menunjukkan bahwa peserta didik membangun aturan sendiri berdasarkan input data, dan dalam beberapa hal setidaknya aturan ini berbeda dari bahasa target. Adanya kesalahan dalam bahasa bahasa-pelajar, bagaimanapun, adalah hanya kepentingan jika mereka dapat terbukti sistematis - yaitu, bahwa kejadian mereka dalam beberapa cara biasa. Namun, salah satu masalah utama menyelidiki SLA adalah bahwa kesalahan pembelajar tidak sistematis dalam cara yang sederhana. Sangat jarang bahwa seorang pelajar menghasilkan kesalahan yang sama dalam semua konteks penggunaan. Hal ini jauh lebih mungkin bahwa seorang pelajar menghasilkan kesalahan dalam beberapa konteks, tetapi tidak pada orang lain. Oleh karena itu, dapat dikatakan bahwa berbagai macam kesalahan, yang membuat variabel bahasa bahasa pembelajar, dapat terjadi dalam berbagai konteks.
Ada dua jenis variasi kontekstual (Ellis, 1986). Yang pertama adalah bahwa bahasa bahasa-pelajar bervariasi sesuai dengan konteks situasional. Artinya, peserta didik menggunakan pengetahuan mereka tentang L2 berbeda dalam situasi yang berbeda. Sebagai contoh, ketika peserta didik berada di bawah tekanan untuk berkomunikasi langsung, mereka tidak akan punya waktu untuk memaksimalkan pengetahuan yang ada dan cenderung menghasilkan kesalahan yang tidak akan terjadi dalam situasi ketika mereka memiliki kesempatan untuk memantau output mereka lebih hati-hati. Bahasa Bahasa-pelajar juga bervariasi sesuai dengan konteks linguistik. Artinya, peserta didik menghasilkan kesalahan dalam satu jenis kalimat, tetapi tidak di negara lain. Misalnya, kesalahan dalam orang ketiga tunggal dari Inggris Simple Present Tense tidak mungkin terjadi dalam kalimat yang terdiri dari klausa tunggal (misalnya "Dia membeli seikat bunga '), tetapi mungkin terjadi secara teratur dalam klausul kedua kalimat kompleks (misalnya "Dia mengunjungi setiap hari dan membelikan seikat bunga ').
Meskipun diterima bahwa kesalahan adalah variabel, itu tidak berarti bahwa kesalahan dapat dalam beberapa cara yang teratur dan karena itu aturan-berbasis (Ellis, 1986). Jika diterima bahwa peserta didik melakukan berbeda dalam situasi yang berbeda, tetapi bahwa adalah mungkin untuk memprediksi bagaimana mereka akan berperilaku dalam situasi tertentu, maka systematicity perilaku mereka dapat ditangkap dengan cara aturan variabel, yaitu, 'jika ... maka' aturan. Aturan menyatakan bahwa jika kondisi x berlaku, maka bentuk-bentuk bahasa y akan terjadi. Meskipun 'jika ... maka' aturan yang kompleks, mereka diperlukan jika systematicity sejati bahasa bahasa-pelajar harus dipahami.

Faktor Sosial dan Budaya
Masyarakat dan keyakinan budaya sekitarnya pelajar L2 juga memainkan peran penting dalam menentukan keberhasilan peserta didik dalam memperoleh L2. Interaksi sosial yang dibentuk oleh stereotip, prasangka, serta status dan kekuasaan perbedaan, afiliasi dengan usia peserta didik, dapat mempengaruhi bagaimana mahir peserta didik adalah karena disepakati bahwa interaksi merupakan sumber bagi peserta didik untuk memperoleh masukan dan cara untuk mereka untuk berlatih memproduksi ujaran. Selain itu, peserta didik keyakinan pada budaya mereka sendiri dan budaya L2 juga menentukan peserta didik 'sikap dalam belajar L2.
Untuk menggambarkan bagaimana usia pembelajar berinteraksi dengan / keyakinannya sosial dan budaya dalam mendefinisikan / nya prestasinya dalam belajar L2, contoh pada Montha, seorang mahasiswa yang datang ke Amerika Serikat dari Kamboja pada usia 12, diberikan . Montha adalah sulung dari enam bersaudara. Dia telah dididik di Kamboja dan melek di Khmer ketika ia tiba, tapi pendidikannya berlangsung sepenuhnya dalam bahasa Inggris setelah dia pindah ke Amerika Serikat. Keluarga berbicara Khmer di rumah, tetapi di tempat lain dia menggunakan atau mendengar bahasa rumahnya. Montha ingat bagaimana sulitnya untuk cocok di sekolah, di mana dia tahu tidak bahasa maupun adat istiadat sekolahnya. Dia merasa takut dan terisolasi, karena tidak ada orang Kamboja lainnya di sekolahnya. Untuk memperburuk situasi, pada usia 12 ia sadar diri dan khawatir tentang menjadi berbeda. Meskipun demikian, ia secara bertahap menemukan jalan ke dalam kelompok-kelompok sosial sekolah dan mulai memperoleh bahasa Inggris.
Merefleksikan kembali, Montha merasa bahwa adik-adiknya memiliki lebih banyak kesempatan untuk berinteraksi dengan fasih berbahasa Inggris daripada dia. Untuk satu hal, sebagai putri sulung, Montha diharapkan untuk membantu ibunya dengan pekerjaan rumah tangga sehari-hari, sedangkan adik-adiknya diizinkan untuk bermain dengan anak-anak lain di lingkungan. Selain itu, sebagai seorang remaja, dia tidak diizinkan untuk tanggal atau untuk pergi keluar dengan teman-teman di mobil, kegiatan yang diterima dari banyak remaja AS tapi tidak dapat diterima dalam budaya Kamboja. Untuk kegiatan ini, ia harus menunggu sampai ia lulus dari sekolah tinggi dan tidak lagi tinggal bersama orang tuanya.
Dari contoh tersebut, dapat dilihat bagaimana usia berinteraksi dengan faktor-faktor sosial dan budaya untuk membatasi kesempatan belajar bahasa sosial Montha itu. Pertama-tama, ia memasuki adegan sosial AS pada usia ketika harapan budaya remaja berbeda jauh antara budaya rumahnya dan masyarakat yang lebih luas. Sisa di rumah untuk membantu ibunya, dia dibatasi dari aspek-aspek tertentu dari partisipasi sosial yang mungkin telah membantu dia belajar bahasa Inggris. Sebaliknya, kedua kakaknya yang cukup muda untuk diizinkan untuk bermain dengan anak-anak englishspeaking lingkungan, dan jenis ini bermain diterima kepada orang tua Montha itu. Dengan kata lain, saudara Montha itu, berdasarkan usia mereka, diizinkan lebih luas dari usia kegiatan sosial yang tepat diterima oleh kedua orang tua Kamboja dan AS, dan ini, sangat mungkin, penguasaan bahasa difasilitasi.

Gaya kognitif
O'Grady (1989) mendefinisikan bahwa istilah gaya kognitif mengacu pada cara di mana kita cenderung untuk memproses informasi dalam lingkungan kita. Apapun jenis subjek kita belajar, kita perlu memahami dan mengembangkan konsep, untuk mengatur mereka, menyimpannya dalam memori, dan untuk dapat mengingat mereka. Cara dan kecepatan yang kita lakukan semua hal ini diyakini tergantung pada gaya kognitif atau pembelajaran tertentu kami.
Saat ini, peneliti L2 yang meneliti beberapa gaya kognitif untuk menentukan hubungan mereka dengan cara di mana kita belajar bahasa. Gaya yang telah menerima perhatian yang besar dalam penelitian baru-baru ini adalah kemerdekaan lapangan dan ketergantungan lapangan. Hal ini diasumsikan bahwa seorang individu akan memiliki kecenderungan untuk menjadi baik terutama bidang independen atau lapangan tergantung untuk berbagai derajat sepanjang kontinum.
Seseorang yang cenderung bidang independen ditandai sebagai sangat rasional, kepribadian analitik. Sebuah gaya kognitif bidang independen memungkinkan seseorang untuk memisahkan komponen-komponen gambar keseluruhan atau ide untuk fokus pada satu komponen tanpa terganggu oleh komponen tetangga. Orang seperti itu mungkin bisa belajar untuk ujian biologi di kantin kampus berisik. Di sisi lain, bidang orang tergantung bergantung pada seluruh gambar atau total lapangan ke titik di mana komponen-komponen yang terpisah dari gambar tidak mudah dirasakan. Sebaliknya, orang ini memandang gambar sebagai pengalaman total atau suatu kesatuan yang utuh.
Telah dihipotesiskan bahwa pembelajar bahasa yang lebih sukses adalah orang-orang yang bisa fokus pada rangsangan bahasa yang relevan dengan tugas pembelajaran bahasa di tangan dan mengabaikan yang tidak pantas. Ini berarti bahwa bidang jenis independen akan membuat peserta didik L2 lebih baik dari bidang jenis tergantung. Namun, ketergantungan lapangan dikaitkan dengan empati dan keterbukaan, kualitas yang menjadi ciri orang-orang yang akan menjadi sangat termotivasi untuk berkomunikasi dan berintegrasi ke dalam masyarakat L2.
Studi terbaru menunjukkan bahwa kedua gaya mungkin sama penting bagi L2 pembelajaran tergantung pada konteks pembelajaran L2. Lapangan orang-orang independen yang seharusnya lebih berhasil dalam pengaturan ruang kelas tradisional di mana fokusnya biasanya pada kegiatan lisan dan tertulis analitis. Sebaliknya, masyarakat yang bergantung pada lapangan diharapkan untuk melakukannya dengan baik dalam pengaturan alam di mana komunikasi adalah fokus.
Mengenai hasil penelitian, O'Grady (1989) menyebutkan bahwa kita harus diingat bahwa tes yang label mahasiswa sebagai salah satu jenis atau yang lain mengabaikan kemungkinan bahwa seseorang dapat melakukan tugas yang berbeda dengan cara yang berbeda. Misalnya, memecahkan masalah matematika yang bertentangan dengan belajar L2 kosakata baru akan membutuhkan orang untuk beradaptasi gaya kognitif mereka. Ini adalah kesalahpahaman untuk berpikir bahwa kemerdekaan lapangan atau bidang ketergantungan konstan dalam satu orang. Sebaliknya, kebanyakan orang memiliki preferensi umum satu atau lain cara, dan ketika diberi konteks tertentu, mereka akan bergantung pada gaya yang paling tepat untuk masalah yang dihadapi, serta strategi yang paling efektif.

Categories: ABDUL HAMID ALY, ENGLISH