SLA – A brief overview

SLA – a brief overview

Research on how languages are learned from the 1940s onwards

Recognised as a discipline in its own right in the 1970s

Heavily influenced by research on first language acquisition

SLA – a brief overview

Three major theoretical positions:

Behaviourist position “Say what I say” Innatist/mentalist position “It’s all in your mind” Interactionist position “What do you mean?”

The behaviourist position: “Say what I say“

Burrhus Frederic Skinner (1957) Verbal Behaviour

Speech as observable behaviour LA1 = acquisition of a set of behaviours in a

process of imitation and habit formation Stimulus response reinforcement

The behaviourist position: “Say what I say“

LA2 = process of overcoming habits of the SL in order to acquire new habits of the TL.

Pedagogical implications: imitation, dialogue memorisation and pattern drill

Errors = first language habits interfering with the acquisition of second language habits

Contrastive analysis (CA)

Contrastive Analysis (CA)

Robert Lado

Hypothesis: Where there are similarities between the two languages, the learner will acquire the target language structures with ease; where there are differences, the learner will have difficulty.

positive and negative transfer

But: over- / underprediction of errors!

Challenging the behaviourist position

Behaviourist view accounts for some of the regular and routine aspects of language learning; however, it cannot explain more complex grammatical structures and creative word-formation processes.

The innatist/mentalist position: “It‘s all in your mind.”

1959: Noam Chomsky’s review of Skinner’s Verbal Behaviour.

Innate abilities; biologically programmed for language

Talking is like walking

The innatist/mentalist position: “It‘s all in your mind.”

Language Acquisition Device / Universal Grammar contains all and only the principles universal to all human languages.

Samples of the language serve as a trigger to activate the LAD / UG

Child then matches innate knowledge to the structures of the particular language in the environment acquisition

The innatist/mentalist position: “It‘s all in your mind.”

Eric Lenneberg: Critical Period Hypothesis

LAD works successfully only if stimulated at the right time.

The innatist/mentalist position: “It‘s all in your mind.”

Influence on SLA creative construction theory

Creative Construction Theory

Stephen Krashen Learners ‘construct’ internal representations of

the language being learned. 2 separate mental processes: conscious

learning and subconscious acquisition Input hypothesis (i+1)

Creative Construction Theory Pedagogical implications:

...supply comprehensible input in low anxiety situations, containing messages that students really want to hear. ... do not force early production in the second language, but allow students to produce when they are 'ready', recognizing that improvement comes from supplying communicative and comprehensible input, and not from forcing and correcting production. (Krashen)

Formal grammar instruction of limited utility as it fuels conscious learning rather than subconscious acquisition.

Challenging mentalist and creative construction theories

They do not explain how children and LA2 learners figure out how to interact with other speakers and how to use language appropriately in certain situations.

Chomsky and Krashen claim that all you need is input to start the LAD or creative construction, but not any input works.

What is needed is interaction with speakers of the language which is being acquired.

Interactionist position “What do you mean?”

Michael Long Language develops as a result of the complex

interplay between the uniquely human characteristics of the child and the environment in which the child develops.

Crucial element is the conversational give-and-take between children and adults.

Motherese / Caretaker talk

Interactionist position “What do you mean?”

In LA2 the crucial element is the modification of the native speaker’s utterances, which is negotiated in the interaction.

Examples: comprehension checks, clarification requests, self-repetition or paraphrase

Interactionist position “What do you mean?”

Collaborative discourse

The formation of linguistic hypotheses springs from conversational interaction, insofar as learners build their utterances on those of native speakers.

= scaffolding

Interactionist position “What do you mean?”

Pedagogical implication:

Give learners opportunities to negotiate meaning.

The study of learner language

Error analysis Interlanguage Developmental sequences Communication strategies (CS)

The study of learner language

Error analysis Representative: Stephen Corder Mistakes vs errors Errors as signs of learners’ hypothesis testing

normal & healthy part of learning process Error classification: interlingual and intralingual

errors

The study of learner language

Interlanguage Larry Selinker = system which has some characteristics of TL,

some characteristics of SL and some general characteristics independent of TL and SL.

Continually evolves as learners receive more input and revise their hypotheses about the target language.

Fossilisation

The study of learner language

Developmental sequences:

Manfred Pienemann Sequences or stages in the development of

particular structures, e.g. grammatical morphemes or negation

Sequences similar across learners from different backgrounds (and similar to sequences in LA1)

The study of learner language

Developmental sequence: grammatical morphemes:

1) present participle –ing; plural –s

2) definite and indefinite articles

3) irregular past tense

4) regular past tense –ed; 3rd pers sg –s; possessive –s

Due to speech processing constraints: acquisition depends

on complexity – complexity determined by demands on

short term memory

Research on classroom interaction

Teacher – learner:

teacher questions/instructions, learner responses, teacher feedback; turn-allocation behaviour

Learner – learner:

communication strategies and the relation between task types, learner interaction and opportunities for negotiation of meaning

Research on classroom interaction

General development:Shift from teacher fronted, traditional language

instruction to communicative, task-based

language teaching.

Research on classroom interaction

Traditional instruction Communicative language teaching

Errors frequently corrected Limited amount of error correction and meaning emphasised over form.Negotiation of meaning: the teachers and students work to understand what the other speakers are saying.

Limited range of discourse types (typically just question-answer-feedback)

A variety of discourse types is introduced through stories, role playing and the use of “real life” materials.

Research on classroom interactionTraditional instruction Communicative

language teaching

Input is simplified by structural grading, i.e. linguistic items are presented and practised in isolation in a sequence of simple to complex (pattern drill exercises).

Input is made comprehensible by the use of contextual cues, props, and gestures.

Great pressure to speak or write correctly from the very beginning.

Little pressure to perform at high levels of accuracy.

Display questions: questioner knows the answers.

Genuine questions: questioner does not know the answer.

Current trends in SLA and language teaching

Awareness of complexity of LA2: social and interpersonal as well as psychological dimensions to acquisition

Input and output both important. Acquisition is an organic rather than linear

process; learners do not learn one thing perfectly at a time but numerous things simultaneously; rate and speed dependent on complex interplay of factors such as speech-processing constraints and pedagogical intervention.

Current trends in SLA and language teaching

Communicative language teaching plus guided, form-based instruction and correction in specific circumstances.

Recomended reading

Lightbown, Patsy M.; and Nina Spada. 1999. How languages are learned, 2nd edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Bibliography