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 20th 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.
