Behaviorism &

beyond

Consequence for language learning

… according to Monty Python [>]

Behaviorism

Essen April 28, 2009

Starting point: Anyone who has ever tried to learn a foreign language will know how difficult the task of language learning really is. Yet young children seem to master their first language (L1) with relative ease and speed. How do they achieve this? And how can this help us to learn and teach a foreign language (L2)? Question: How do you think children learn their first language?

Chomsky strongly criticized behaviorism on account of … … the rapidity of language acquisition of

children, including their quickly developing ability to form grammatical sentences, and the universally creative language use of competent native speakers

Observable features of language development:

It is very rapid. The amount of time required to acquire one's native language is quite short, very short compared to that needed to learn a second language successfully later on in life.

Observable features of language development:

It is very complete. All speakers develop full competence of their mother tongue, regardless of the quality of input. Differences in performance at a later stage in live are due to socialization

Observable features of language development:

It does not require instruction. Despite the fact that many non-linguists think that mothers are important for children to learn their native language, instructions by parents or care-takers are [in principle] unnecessary, …

Innatism visualized

Overextension and overgeneralization are common phenomena in language development.

>>> From “Fido” or “Snoopy” to dogs, cats, cows, …

Observable features of language development:

Observable features of language development:

Humans use language creatively. We constantly produce sentences which we have never heard before.

Consequence for language learning

As the Beatles said “We can work it out” [>] … and not this >>>

Chomsky’s alternative: Innatism

The acquisition and development of a language is a result of the unfolding of innate propensities triggered by the experiential input of the external environment.

Arguments that – from an inatist viewpoint – support the concept of a UG: · Pots (Poverty of the Stimulus) arguments · Language acquisition in all languages follows certain observable stages; · Language develops fairly quickly; · L1 acquisition is complete when considering the closed categories of language; · L1 acquisition seemingly does not require instruction, children work out grammar etc. on their own, as can be deducted from observable overextension & overgeneralization.

Innatism visualized

Definition of language: A language is considered to be a system of

communicating with other people using sounds, symbols and words in expressing a meaning, idea or thought.

1980’s Interactive views of language teaching

Communicative Language Teaching ◦ Learners learn a language through using it to

communicate ◦ Authentic and meaningful communication should be the

goal of classroom activities ◦ Fluency is an important dimension of communication ◦ Communication involves the integration of different

langauge skills ◦ Learning is a process of creative construction and

involves trial and error

Krashen's Five Hypotheses

The Acquisition/ Learning Hypothesis

'adults have two distinctive ways of developing competences in second languages .. acquisition, that is by using language for real communication ... learning .. "knowing about" language’

The Monitor Hypothesis 'conscious learning ... can

only be used as a Monitor or an editor'

= learned language functions as a monitor over acquired language

Krashen's Five Hypotheses

The Input Hypothesis 'humans acquire language

in only one way - by understanding messages or by receiving "comprehensible input"'

The Natural Order Hypothesis

'we acquire the rules of language in a predictable order'

Krashen's Five Hypotheses

The Affective Filter Hypothesis

'a mental block, caused by affective factors ... that prevents input from reaching the language acquisition device' (Krashen, 1985, p.100)