Theories of Second Language Learning PDF

Theories of Second Language Learning Introduction L2 acquisition can be defined as the way in which people learn a language other than their mother tongue inside or outside of a classroom and SECOND LANGUAGE AQUSATION (SLA) as the study of this. An L2may be learned simultaneously or successively wit...

Theories of Second Language Learning Introduction L2 acquisition can be defined as the way in which people learn a language other than their mother tongue inside or outside of a classroom and SECOND LANGUAGE AQUSATION (SLA) as the study of this. An L2may be learned simultaneously or successively with the first language (L1) in the latter case L2 may be learned at various ages (childhood, adolescence, or adulthood). It may also be learned in either an L1or L2enviroment.in the former case, it is usually learned through instruction, while in the letter case ,L2is usually learned through verbal contact with native speaker in a natural environment. The above mentioned distinction between L2 learning in an L1 environment (i.e. through verbal contact with native speakers in a natural environment) led some researchers (such as Krashen, 1981) to distinguish between “acquisition ‘and ‘learning; the former (acquisition) refer to the subconscious process of ‘picking up ‘a language through exposure (i.e. no formal classroom setting) and the latter( learning ) to conscious process of studying it (i.e. formal classroom setting). Second language acquisition (SLA) is a complex process, involving many interrelated factors. Many studies have been carried out to determine the characteristics of SLA and the effect of various factors on the process of SLA. A great deal of speculative thinking about SLA has also been published. Transfer and Habits –formation Leading linguists and psychologists, such as Bloomfield (1933), Skinner (1957), and many others, held that SLA is a process of imitation and reinforcement. That is, learners attempt to copy what they hear, and by regular practice they establish a set of acceptable habits in the new language. This view is based on the behaviorist learning theory that all learning is habit formation, a mechanical not a mental process. Lado (1957) maintained that acquisition of L2 was essentially a task of overcoming the L1 habits and learning in their place the habits of the L2. Only those elements of the L2 which differed from L1 were considered important for learning. However, it was assumed that L2 learners transfer elements or rules from their L1 to the L2. This transfer is positive when it facilitates learning and has a positive influence on the command of a skill or part of the L2 due to the similarity between the two languages. Transfer could also be considered negative when it impedes learning or has a negative influence on the command of a skill due to the differences between the two languages. The learner’s problem was summed up by Lado in 1957 in a well-known statement: “those elements that are similar to the native language will be simple for him, and those elements that are different will be difficult.” for an Arabic speaker learning English, an example of negative transfer would be the appearance of the pronoun them in the relative clause of the sentence: *These are the photos which I took them. The error in this example is a type of interference or negative transfer from Arabic. The L1 habits hinder the learner in learning the forms of the L2. Differences between systems of L1 and L2 were thought to be the main LECTURE NOTES/Engl4130_Dr. Atiqua Bano 1 source of difficulty for L2 learners and therefore the phonology and grammatical structures of the two languages were to be compared to predict areas of difficulty. This became formally known as Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis CAH). Areas of similarity, according to the CA hypothesis are predictable and would facilitate the acquisition process. Conversely, areas of difference are predictable and would impede the acquisition process. This information was supposed to be useful in planning the language- teaching materials which stress the oral practice of the L2 sentence patterns. The main aim of the behaviorist teaching methods is to form new, correct linguistic habits through intensive practice and to overcome interference errors. Transfer, Overgeneralization and Simplification The learner does not only transfer rules and expressions from L1 to L2 but also within the L2 itself, as with children in L1 acquisition, an L2 learner transfers a rule that has been learned to items and context which are covered by another rule. This kind of transfer is better known as generalization. When generalization results in an error or errors, this becomes an instance of overgeneralization. In the early stages of acquisition, children as well as L2 learners tend, for example, to overgeneralize the regular rules of grammar to irregular nouns and verbs. A learner of English who has learnt the rule of marking regular plural with the s form as in boys and books is likely to produce over generalized forms such as childs and mouses. The use of breaked instead of broke and eated instead of ate are examples of overgeneralization errors. Such errors occur in L1 and L2 learning. The learner uses these strategies to work out the regular features of L2. In addition to transfer and overgeneralization errors, learners also make errors of omission, for example, they leave out the articles a and the or the s of plural nouns. Some learners almost always use the same verb form (e.g. simple present or continuous) regardless of person, number or tense. These errors of omission are better described as simplification. Transfer, generalization and simplification are of course, fundamental learning strategies in all domains, not only in language. An L2 learner approaches the learning task with these and other active strategies which help him/her to construct the rules which underlie the second language. This is the creative construction hypothesis. Errors arising from transfer are described as interlingual (between languages), those arising from overgeneralization are intralingual (within the same language). Intralingual (overgeneralization) errors are far more frequent than interlingual (transfer) errors among L2 learners, irrespective of their L1. Many of the errors L2 learners make are universal: all learners, no matter whether they are learning naturally or in a classroom, and irrespective of their L1, make transfer, overgeneralization, and simplification errors. Errors are the product of the learners attempting to work out the regular features of the L2and apply these regularities in what he/she says. Like the child in L1 acquisition, the L2 learner could be viewed as actively constructing rules from the language data encountered and gradually adapting these rules in the direction of the L2 system. Errors are therefore viewed, not as LECTURE NOTES/Engl4130_Dr. Atiqua Bano 2 signs of learning failure, but as a natural part of the learning process. They are necessary, inevitable and systematic stages in the language learning process. L2 learning is clearly not different from L 1 acquisition in its trial- and- error nature. Second Language Acquisition as Creative Construction Although Chomsky does not discuss the implication of his mentalist view for SLA, others have proposed an approach which is, in some respect, like Chomsky’s idea on L1 acquisition. This approach is sometimes called the creative construction hypothesis. Based on this hypothesis, a learner “constructs” a series of internal representations of the L2 system. This occurs because of natural processing strategies, such as transfer, generalization, etc. an exposure to the L2 in communication situations provided that the right kind of exposure takes place, the learner’s internal representations develop gradually, in predictable stages, in the direction in the L2 system. This hypothesis owes a lot to, and the order or sequence in which certain structure similar ones proposed for L1 acquisition. Most of the evidence for this hypothesis has come from the analysis of learners’ errors at various points in their SLA, and the order or sequence in which certain structures are acquired. What is unique about this hypothesis is its claim that internal processing strategies operate on input from the language environment and are not directly dependent on the learners’ attempts themselves to produce the language. In other words, input which is available in the environment will make internal processing strategies operate, but not the learner himself or his attempts to produce the language. That is, the learner need not actually speak or write, to acquire language. Acquisition takes place internally as learners hear and read samples of the language that they understand. The speech and writing (i.e. the actual performance which the learner eventually produces is seen as an outcome of the learning process rather than as the cause of learning, or even as a necessary step in learning. However, learners’ utterances still play an important indirect role, since they enable learners to take part in communication situations and thus to gain, more input. The Input Hypothesis Model An Innatist theory of second language acquisition which has had a very great influence on second language teaching practice is the one proposed by Stephen Krashen in (1982). Five hypotheses constitute what Krashen originally called the “Monitor Model”. He claims that research findings from several different domains are consistent with these hypotheses: 1. The acquisition learning hypothesis 2. The monitor hypothesis 3. The natural order hypothesis 4. The input hypothesis 5. The affective filter hypothesis 1. The Acquisition- Learning Hypothesis LECTURE NOTES/Engl4130_Dr. Atiqua Bano 3  According to Krashen, there are two ways for adult second language learners to develop knowledge of a second language: “acquisition” and “learning”. In his view, we acquire as we are exposed to samples of the second language which we understand. This happens in much the same way that children pick up their first language- with no conscious attention to language form. we learn, on the other hand, via a conscious process of study and attention to form and rule learning. For Krashen, acquisition is by far the more important process. He asserts that only acquired language is readily available for natural fluent communication. Further, he asserts that learning cannot turn into acquisition. He cites as evidence for this that many speakers are quite fluent without ever having learned rules, while other speakers may “know” rules pure fail to apply them when they are focusing their attention on what they want today more than how to say it. 2. The Monitor Hypothesis Krashen argues that the acquired system acts to initiate the speaker’s utterance and is responsible for fluency and intuitive judgment about correctness. The learned system, on the other hand, acts only as an editor or “monitor”, making minor changes and polishing what the acquired system has produced. Moreover, Krashen has specified that learners use the monitor only when they focus more on being “correct” than on what they have to say, when they have sufficient time to search their memory for the relevant rules, and when they know those rules! Thus, writing may be more conductive than speaking to monitor use, because it usually allows more time for attention to form. He maintains that since knowing the rules only helps the speaker to supplement what has been acquired, the focus of language teaching should be on creating conditions for acquisition rather than learning. It is very difficult to show evidence of monitor use. In any given utterance, it is impossible to determine what has been produced by the acquired system and what the result of monitor use is. Krashen’s claims that language which is produced quickly and apparently spontaneously must have been acquired rather than learned leaves us with a somewhat circular definition. 3. The natural order hypothesis Krashen based this hypothesis on mere observation that, like first language learners, second language learners seem to acquire the features of the target language in predictable sequences. Contrary to intuition, the rules which are easier to state (and thus to “learn”) are not necessarily the first to be acquired. For example, the rule for adding an s to third person singular verbs in the present tense is easy to state, but even some advanced second language speakers fail to apply it in rapid conversation. Further, Krashen observes that the natural order is independent of the order in which rules have been learnt in language classes. Most of Krashen’s original evidence for this hypothesis came from “morpheme studies”, in which learners’ speech was examined for the accuracy of certain grammatical morphemes. While LECTURE NOTES/Engl4130_Dr. Atiqua Bano 4 there is many criticism of the morpheme studies, subsequent research has confirmed that learners pass through sequences or stages in development. 4. The input hypothesis Krashen asserts that one acquires language in only one way – by exposure to comprehensible input. If the input contains form and structures just beyond the learners’ current level of competence in the language (what Krashen calls; i+ 1), then both comprehension and acquisition will occur. Krashen cites many varied lines of evidence for this hypothesis, most of which appeal to intuition, but which have not been substantiated by empirical studies. In recent years, he has emphasized the value of undirected pleasure reading as a source of comprehensible input. While he acknowledges that some people who are exposed to extensive comprehensible input do not achieve high level of proficiency in the second language, he retains his conviction that input is the source of acquisition. He points to be the affective filter hypothesis to explain lack of success when comprehensible input is available. 5. The Affective Filter Hypothesis The affective filter is an imaginary barrier which prevents learners from acquiring language from the available input. ‘Affect’ refers to such things as motives, needs, attitudes and emotional states. A learner who is tense, angry, anxious, or bored may filter out input, making it unavailable for acquisition. Thus, depending on the learner’s state of mind or disposition, the filter limits what is noticed and what is acquired. The filter will be up (blocking input) when the learner is stressed, self-conscious, or unmotivated; it will be down when the learner is relaxed and motivated. What makes this hypothesis attractive to practitioners is that it appears to have immediate implications for classroom practice. Teachers can understand why some learners, given the same opportunity to learn, may be successful while others are not. It also appeals intuitively to those have tried unsuccessfully to learn a language in conditions where they felt stressed or uncomfortable. One problem with this hypothesis, however, is that it is difficult to be sure that affective factors cause the differences in language acquisition. It seems likely that success in acquisition may contribute to more motivation or, in Krashen’s terms, to ‘a lowered affective filter’. LECTURE NOTES/Engl4130_Dr. Atiqua Bano 5