Input, Interaction and Second Language Acquisition
In its most developed form the input hypothesis claims that exposure to comprehensible input is both necessary and sufficient for SLL to take the place. The hypothesis states that:
Humans acquire language in only one way – by understanding messages, or by receiving “comprehensible input”… We move from i, our current level, to i+1, the next level along the natural order, by understanding input containing i+1 (krashen, 1985, p.2)
According to this Hypothesis then, how exactly does acquisition take place?
At one point Krashen proposed three stages in turning into intake:
A) Understanding a second languagei+1 for (i.e. Linking it to a meaning).
B) Noticing a gap between the second language i+1 form and the interlanguage rule wich the learner currently controls.
C) The reappearance of the i+1 form with minimal frequency.
Long’s interaction hypothesis
Long conducted a study of 16 Native speaker – Native speaker and 16 Native speaker – Non Native speaker pairs, carrying out the same set of face to face oral tasks.
He showed that there was a little linguistic difference between both talks as shown on measure of grammatical complexity.
The Native speaker – Non Native speaker were much more likely to make use of conversational tactics such as repetitions, confirmation checks, comprehension checks or clarification request.
As in child directed speech, native speakers apparently resort to these tactics in order to solve communications problems when talking with less fluent non native speaker, and not with any conscious motive to teach grammar.
However, such collaborative efforts should be very useful for language learning.
Tracking pairs of native and non-native speakers in various combinations , undertaking a variety of semi-controlled conversational tasks. They have also demonstrated that negotiation of meaning occurs between non native speaker.
Output in second language acquisition.
Swain proposes three further functions for learner output:
The ‘noticing/triggering’ function, or what might be referred to as the consciousness-raising role.
The hypothesis-testing function.
The metalinguistic function, or what might be referred to as its ‘reflective role.’
Swain’s Output Hypothesis, in 1985, argued ‘learners need the opportunity for meaningful use of their linguistic resources to achieve full grammatical competence, and that production may encourage learners to move from semantic (top-down) to syntactic (bottom-up) processing, forcing learners to pay attention to the means of expression’
- Reflective role of output
- Metalinguistic talk
R. Ellis (1999) and de la Fuente (2002)‘the contribution of learner output to second language vocabulary acquisition’
The aim of the studies is to ‘push’ students to produce second language output.
Nobuyoshi and Ellis (1993) output in the development of English past tense.
Learner: last week a man painting, painting ‘beware of the dog’
Teacher: sorry?
Learner: last week a man painted, painted, painted on the wall ‘beware of the dog’
Izumi and Bigelow (2000)… Explored the potential of pushed output to promote English second language students’ learning of the counterfactual conditional in English...(e.g. If Ann had travelled to Spain in 1992, she would have seen the Olympics).
Experimental group: in an easy writing task and a text reconstruction task.
Control groups: the same textual inputs, but did other activities based on them (answered comprehension questions).
Corrective Feedback
Error correction has always been a very controversial topic, and perhaps a thorny issue as there is very little agreement as to how to correct somebody who has made an error and whether this correction will be effective or not.
Error correction can easily be described on a continuum ranging from the idea that it can be harmful and ineffective to being very essential and beneficial for some grammatical structures.
According to recent studies, it has been proved that error correction is effective, necessary and essential but the obstacle which prevents error correction from being totally effective lies in teachers' inconsistency and unsystematic ways of dealing with errors.
Corrective feedback has been widely defined as:
".. .The teacher's response to a student error"
Positive feedback
Positive feedback plays a role in language learning and it refers to those elements and type of evidence given to learners which tell them what is possible in the TL, as opposed to negative feedback which is related to the type of information given to learners that tell them what is not possible in the TL, being the former more descriptive; whereas the latter is more prescriptive as it tells the learner what s/he is not allowed to say because the target language structure does not allow it.
Within the positive feedback we can find several types of correction when it comes to oral mistakes, as follow:
1. Drawing a time line on the board. This shows students the relationship between the use of time and tense.
2. Finger correction. This shows students where they have made a mistake.
3. Gestures and/or facial expressions are useful when we do not want to interrupt students too much, but still want to show them that they have made a slip.
4. Ignoring mistakes. In fluency activities we often ignore all the mistakes while the activity is in progress, as the important thing is communication and not accuracy. This is vitally important, especially with weak or shy students, otherwise they will not want to participate in class anymore, because they will be afraid of making mistakes.
Negative feedback
Tells students what they are not allowed to say in the TL.
This reaction to error making can be implicit or explicit on the part of the language instructor:
The way the language teacher corrects the mistake can be very explicit by telling the student that the sentence s/he has produced is wrong because of this and that reason.
But it can also be an implicit way of correcting the mistake by repeating the ill-formed utterance, by using clarification requests, such as Pardon? Sorry? Or recasts (reproductions).
Acquisition takes place through exposure. Krashen also proposes that comprehensible input helps acquisition to take place.
2. Which conversational tactics are used in a Native Speaker – Non Native speaker talks?
The Native Speaker-Non Native Speaker was much more likely to make use conversational tactics such as repetitions, confirmation checks, comprehension checks or clarification request.
3. Why is output important in second language acquisition?
Swain proposes three further functions for learner output:
1. The ‘noticing/triggering’ function, or what might be referred to as the consciousness-raising role.
2. The hypothesis-testing function.
3. The metalinguistic function, or what might be referred to as its ‘reflective role.’
4. Why is the reflective role of output important?
The reflective role of output is important because the speaker realizes about the mistakes and corrects himself.
Match the teacher’s behavior with the proper correction technique:
A: Ignore the mistake.
B: Use finger correction.
C: Draw a time line on the board.
1. ___A___You are working with a class of ten-year-old who are doing a fluency activity. One of the learners is talking to the class about her pet. She says: ‘My rabbit eat lettuce.’ You let her continue talking.
2.___C___ You are doing a controlled practice activity. One of the learners says: ‘I have been working last week.’ You show her a diagram.
3.___B___ You are focusing on spoken language and the use of contractions. A learner says: ‘I’m going swimming tomorrow.’ You want to show him where the mistake is. You use your hand.
Second Language Acquisition. Theory Chapter 2 by Stephen Krashen.
There are five key hypotheses about second language acquisition:
1. THE ACQUISITION-LEARNING DISCTINCTION
Adults have two different ways to develop compentence in a language: language acquisition and language learning.
Language acquisition is a subconscious process not unlike the way a child learns language. Language acquirers are not consciously aware of the grammatical rules of the language, but rather develop a "feel" for correctness. "In non-technical language, acquisition is 'picking-up' a language."
Language learning, on the other hand, refers to the "concious knowledge of a second language, knowing the rules, being aware of them, and being able to talk about them." Thus language learning can be compared to learning about a language.
The acquistion-learning disctinction hypothesis claims that adults do not lose the ability to acquire languages the way that children do. Just as research shows that error correction has little effect on children learning a first language, so too error correction has little affect on language acquisition.
2. THE NATURAL ORDER HYPOTHESIS
The natural order hypothesis states that "the acquisition of grammatical structures proceeds in a predictable order." For a given language, some grammatical structures tend to be acquired early, others late, regardless of the first language of a speaker. However, as will be discussed later on in the book, this does not mean that grammar should be taught in this natural order of acquisition.
3. THE MONITOR HYPOTHESIS
The language that one has subconsciously acquired "initiates our utterances in a second language and is responsible for our fluency," whereas the language that we have consciously learned acts as an editor in situations where the learner has enough time to edit, is focused on form, and knows the rule, such as on a grammar test in a language classroom or when carefully writing a composition. This conscious editor is called the Monitor.
Different individuals use their monitors in different ways, with different degrees of success. Monitor Over-users try to always use their Monitor, and end up "so concerned with correctness that they cannot speak with any real fluency." Monitor Under-users either have not consciously learned or choose to not use their conscious knowledge of the language. Although error correction by others has little influence on them, they can often correct themelves based on a "feel" for correctness.
Teachers should aim to produce Optimal Monitor users, who "use the Monitor when it is appropriate and when it does not interfere with communication." They do not use their conscious knowledge of grammar in normal conversation, but will use it in writing and planned speech. "Optimal Monitor users can therefore use their learned competence as a supplement to their acquired competence."
4. THE INPUT HYPOTHESIS
The input hypothesis answers the question of how a language acquirer develops comptency over time. It states that a language acquirer who is at "level i" must receive comprehensible input that is at "level i+1." "We acquire, in other words, only when we understand language that contains structure that is 'a little beyond' where we are now." This understanding is possible due to using the context of the language we are hearing or reading and our knowledge of the world.
However, instead of aiming to receive input that is exactly at our i+1 level, or instead of having a teacher aim to teach us grammatical structure that is at our i+1 level, we should instead just focus on communication that is understandable. If we do this, and if we get enough of that kind of input, then we will in effect be receiving and thus acquiring out i+1. "Prduction ability emerges. It is not taught directly."
Evidences for the input hypothesis can be found in the effectiveness of caretaker speech from an adult to a child, of teacher-talk from a teacher to a language student, and of foreigner-talk from a sympathetic conversation partner to a language learner/acquirer.
One result of this hypothesis is that language students should be given a initial "silent period" where they are building up acquired competence in a language before they begin to produce it.
Whenever language acquirers try to produce language beyond what they have acquired, they tend to use the rules they have already acquired from their first language, thus allowing them to communicate but not really progress in the second language.
5. THE AFFECTIVE FILTER HYPOTHESIS
Motivation, self-confidence, and anxiety all affect language acquisition, in effect raising or lowering the "stickiness" or "penetration" of any comprehensible input that is received.
These five hypotheses of second language acquisition can be summarized: "1. Acquisition is more important than learning. 2. In order to acquire, two conditions are necessaary. The first is comprehensible (or even better, comprehended) input containing i+1, structures a bit beyond the acquier's current level, and second, a low or weak affective filter to allow the input 'in'."
In view of these findings, question is raised: does classroom language teaching help? Classroom teaching helps when it provides the necessary comprehensible input to those students who are not at a level yet which allows them to receive comprehensible input from "the real world" or who do not have access to "real world" language speakers. It can also help when it provides students communication tools to make better use of the outside world, and it can provide beneficial conscious learning for optimal Monitor users.
Various research studies have been done comparing the amount of language competance and the amount of exposure to the language either in classroom-years or length of residence, the age of the language acquirer, and the acculturation of the language acquirer. The results of these studies are consistent with the above acquisition hypotheses: the more comprehensible input one receives in low-stress situations, the more language competance that one will have.
The first step in investigating age and acquisition might be to dispel some myths about the relationship between first and second language acquisition.
H. H. Stern summarized some common arguments that cropped to recommend a second language teaching method or procedure on the basis of first language acquisition:
1. REPETITION: In language teaching, we must practice and practice, again and again. Just watch a small child learning his mother tongue. He repeats things over and over again. During the language learning stage' he practices all the time. This is what we must also do when we learn a foreign language.
2. IMITATION: Language learning is mainly a matter of imitation. You must be a mimic. Just like a small child. He imitates everything.
3. NATURAL ORDER: First, we practice the separate sounds, then words, then sentences. That is the natural order and is therefore right for learning a foreign language.
4. SPEECH DEVELOPMENT: Watch a small child's speech development. First he listens, and then he speaks. Understanding always precedes speaking. Therefore, this must be the right order of presenting the skills in a foreign language.
5. NATURAL ORDER: A small child listens and speaks and no one would dream of making him read or write. Reading and writing are advanced stages of language development. The natural order for first and second language learning is listening, speaking, reading, and then writing.
6. TRANSLATION: You did not have to translate when you were small. If you were able to learn your own language without translation, you should be able to learn a foreign language in the same way.
7. GRAMMAR: A small child simply uses language. He does not learn formal grammar. You don't tell him about verbs and nouns. Yet he learns the language perfectly. It is equally unnecessary to use grammatical conceptualization in teaching a foreign language.
These statements imply two things:
They represent the views of those who felt that "the first language learner was looked upon as the foreign language teacher's dream: a student who mysteriously laps up his vocabulary, whose pronunciation, in spite of occasional lapses, is impeccable, while morphology and syntax, instead of being a constant headache, come to him like a dream" (Stern, 1970, cited in Brown, 2000, p.50).
They also tend to represent the views of those who were dominated by a behaviorist theory of language in which the first language acquisition process was viewed as consisting of rote practice, habit formation, shaping, over learning, reinforcement, conditioning, association, stimulus and response, and who therefore assumed that the second language learning process involves the same constructs.
This shows us that we need to enrich our understanding of the second language learning process itself.
Ausubel outlined a number of problems with the then- popular Audiolingual Method. He issued the following warnings and statements:
The rote learning practice of audiolingual drills lacked the meaningfulness necessary for successful first and second language acquisition.
Adults learning a foreign language could, with their full cognitive capacities, benefit from deductive presentations of grammar.
The native language of the learner is not just an interfering factor- it can facilitate learning a second language.
The written form of the language could be beneficial.
Students could be overwhelmed by language spoken at its “natural speed”, and they, like children, could benefit from more deliberative speech from the teacher.
TYPES OF COMPARISON AND CONTRAST
The comparison of first and second language acquisition can easily be oversimplified. At the very least, one needs to approach the comparison by first considering the differences between children and adults:
It is, in one sense, illogical to compare the first language acquisition of a child with the second language acquisition of an adult.
It is much more logical to compare first and second language learning in children or to compare second language learning in children and adults.
Nevertheless, Child 1st language acquisition and adult 2nd language acquisition are common and important categories of acquisition to compare.
THE CRITICAL PERIOD HYPOTHESIS
Critical period: a biologically determined period of line when language can be acquired more easily and beyond which time language is increasingly difficult to acquire.
Eric Lenneberg (1967) argued that the LAD, like other biological functions, works successfully only when it is stimulated at the right time – a time which is referred to as the critical period‟
This notion that there is a specific and limited time period for language acquisition is referred to as the critical period hypothesis (CPH).
There are two versions of the CPH:
The strong version suggests that children must acquire their first language by puberty or they will never be able to learn from subsequent exposure.
The weak version is that language learning will be more difficult and incomplete after puberty.
The Critical Period Hypothesis (CPH) claims that there is such a biological timetable.
Initially the notion of a critical period was connected only to first language acquisition.
This must be viewed in the light of what it really means to be successful in learning a second language.
NEUROLOGICAL CONSIDERATIONS
How might neurological development affect second language success?
Does the maturation of the brain at some stage spell the doom of language acquisition ability?
To examine these issues, we will look at:
-Neurological considerations
- Phonological considerations
-Cognitive considerations
-Affective considerations
-Linguistic considerations
Hemispheric Lateralization
Left hemisphere seems to control intellectual, logical, and analytic functions including language functions, while right hemisphere controls functions related to emotional and social needs.
Then when does this lateralization take place, and how does that lateralization process affect language acquisition?
Some scholars contended the lateralization is completed about at the age of puberty, and some said it’s about five.
Thomas Scovel applied this lateralization concept to the second language acquisition.
Biological Timetables
Thomas Scovel cited evidence for a sociobiological critical period in various species of mammals and birds.
He concluded that human beings’ native accents may be a genetic left-over just like animals’.
Walsh and Diller concluded that different aspects of a second language are learned optimally at different ages: Lower-order processes are dependent on early maturing and less adaptive macroneural circuits, while higher-order language functions are more dependent on late mature neural circuits.
However, those were mainly about the acquisition of an authentic “accent.”
Right-Hemispheric Participation
Another branch of neurolinguistic research focused on the role of the right hemisphere in the acquisition of a second language.
Olber noted that in second language learning, there is significant right hemisphere participation especially at early stages.
Genesee concluded that there may be greater right hemisphere involvement in language processing in bilinguals who acquire their second language late relative to their first language and in bilinguals
Second language learners, particularly adult learners, might benefit from more encouragement of right brain activity in the classroom context.
Anthropological Evidence
Jane Hill cited anthropological research on non-Western societies that yielded evidence that adults can acquire second languages perfectly.
Sorenson studied the Tukano culture of South America and reported that during adolescence, individuals actively and almost suddenly began to speak two or three other languages to which they had been exposed at some point.
Hill suggested that we have to explore the influence of social and cultural roles.
THE SIGNIFICANCE OF ACCENT
Although there are some exceptions, most of the evidence indicates that persons beyond the age of puberty do not acquire authentic pronunciation of the second language.
There had been some studies to contradict Scovel’s strong CPH such as Gerald Newfeld’s, Moyer and Bongaerts, Planket, and Schils.
However, these studies at the end have left the strong CPH unchallenged.
We are left with powerful evidence of a critical period for accent, but for accent only! Great accent only doesn’t mean that the learner is a successful second language learner.
Even though poor at accent, one can have fluent control of a second language.
Instead of focusing only on the accent, studies on the effect of input, on lexical acquisition, on UG, and on discourse acquisition are very important research fields on age and acquisition.
COGNITIVE CONSIDERATIONS
Jean Piaget outlined the course of intellectual development in a child through various stages:
• Sensorimotor stage (birth to two)
• Preoperational stage (ages two to seven)
• Operational stage (ages seven to sixteen)
• Concrete operational stage (ages seven to eleven)
• Formal operational stage (ages eleven to sixteen)
A critical stage concerning SL acquisition is at puberty (age eleven in his model).
At eleven, a person becomes capable of abstraction, of formal thinking which transcends concrete experience and direct perception.
According to this model, one can expect that adults could profit from certain grammatical explanations and deductive thinking.
But children do learn SL well without this benefit. How? Young children are generally not “aware” that they are learning, while adults are too consciously aware of it. Does this make learning SL difficult? There were evidences of successful adult SL learners.
So, if mature cognition is a liability to successful SL acquisition, clearly some intervening variables allow some persons to be very successful SL learners after puberty.
There are many areas to consider when studying the cognitive differences between child and adult language acquisition.
One is lateralization hypothesis, another is the Piagetian notion of equilibration, which is related to the concept of equilibrium, the other is the distinction that Ausebel made between rote and meaningful learning.
Caracteristics of the Sensorimotor Stage:
The first stage of Piaget’s theory lasts from birth to approximately age two and is centered on the infant trying to make sense of the world.
During the sensorimotor stage, an infant’s knowledge of the world is limited to their sensory perceptions and motor activities.
Behaviors are limited to simple motor responses caused by sensory stimuli.
Children utilize skills and abilities they were born with, such as looking, sucking, grasping, and listening, to learn more about the environment.
Characteristics of the Preoperational Stage:
The preoperational stage occurs between ages two and six.
Language development is one of the hallmarks of this period.
Piaget noted that children in this stage do not yet understand concrete logic, cannot mentally manipulate information, and are unable to take the point of view of other people, which he termed egocentrism.
Characteristics of Concrete Operations:
The concrete operational stage begins around age seven and continues until approximately age eleven.
During this time, children gain a better understanding of mental operations.
Children begin thinking logically about concrete events, but have difficulty understanding abstract or hypothetical concepts.
Characteristics of the Formal Operational Stage:
The formal operational stage begins at approximately age twelve to and lasts into adulthood.
During this time, people develop the ability to think about abstract concepts.
Skills such as logical thought, deductive reasoning, and systematic planning also emerge during this stage.
AFFECTIVE CONSIDERATIONS
The affective domain includes many factors.
A case in point is the role of egocentricity. Very young children highly egocentric. In preadolescence children develop an acute consciousness of themselves as separate and identifiable entities but ones which need protecting. They therefore develop inhibitions about this self-identity.
For any monolingual person, the language ego involves the interaction of the native language and ego development.
Guiora suggested that the language ego may account for the difficulties that adults have in learning a SL. A new language does not pose a threat or inhibition to the ego of a child.
Younger children are less frightened because they are less aware of language forms, and the possibility of making mistakes in those forms does not concern them greatly. But mature adults manifest a number of inhibitions.
Among other affective factors is ego identification. The role of attitudes is another important factor. Younger children are more likely to succeed in learning other languages because they don’t have negative attitudes toward races or cultures yet.
Finally, children are under high peer pressure. They want to be like the rest of the kids. It can lead them to learn the second language.
The child’s ego is dynamic and growing and flexible through the age of puberty.
Mature adults manifest a number of inhibitions.
B. Attitudes
Very young children are not developed enough cognitively enough to possess attitudes.
C. Peer pressure
Adults tend to tolerate linguistic differences more than children.
LINGUISTIC CONSIDERATIONS
Bilingualism
Children learning two languages simultaneously acquire them by the use of similar strategies.
They are learning two first languages.
Researches show a considerable cognitive benefit of early childhood bilingualism, supporting that bilingual children are more facile at concept formation and have a greater mental flexibility.
Interference Between First and Second Languages
The linguistic and cognitive processes of second language learning in young children are in general similar to first language processes.
Similar strategies and linguistic features are present in both first and second language learning in children.
Interference Between First and Second Languages
Interference in Adults
Adults appear to operate from the solid foundation of the first language and thus manifest more interference.
But adults, too, manifest errors not unlike some of the errors children make.
The first language, however, may be more readily used to bridge gaps that the adult learner cannot fill by generalization within the SL.
In this case the first language can be a facilitating factor, and not just an interfering factor.
Order of Acquisition
Researchers claimed that transfer of L1 syntactic patterns rarely occurs in child second language acquisition.
Children learning a SL use a creative construction process, just as they do in their first language.
Data about the acquisition order of eleven English morphemes in children learning English as a SL supported this claim.
“The younger, the better” is a myth that has been fueled by media hype and, sometimes, “junk science.”
There appear to be some potential advantages to an early age for SLA, but there is absolutely no evidence that an adult cannot overcome all of those disadvantages save one, accent, and the latter is hardly the quintessential criterion for effective interpersonal communication.
ISSUES IN FIRST LANGUAGE ACQUISITION REVISITED
Competence and Performance
It is as difficult to get at linguistic competence in a second language as it is in a first.
Therefore, teachers need to be cautiously attentive to the discrepancy between performance on a given day or in a given context and competence in a SL in general.
Comprehension and Production
Teaching involves attending to both comprehension and production and the full consideration of the gaps and differences between the two.
Nature or Nurture?
Adults and children alike appear to have the capacity to acquire a SL at any age; though accent is a different matter.
If an adult does not acquire a SL successfully, it is probably because of intervening cognitive or affective variables.
Defining those intervening variables appears to be more relevant than probing the properties of innateness.
Universals
Some researchers strongly claim the existence of Universal Grammar.
But there’re also partial- or no-access claim. So keeping an open mind as teachers and an inquisitive spirit as researchers is required.
Systematicity and Variability
SLA, both child and adult, is characterized by both systematicity and variability.
Language and Thought
Language helps to shape thinking and vice versa.
The second language teacher needs to be acutely aware of cultural thought patterns as well.
Imitation
Meaningful contexts, rather than surface structure, for language learning are necessary.
Practice
Contextualized, appropriate, meaningful communication is the best possible practice.
Input
Teachers should be deliberate and meaningful in their communications with students.
That input should foster meaningful communicative use of the lg in appropriate contexts.
Discourse
Research on the acquisition of discourse is very important.
