First Steps in SLA: the basic issues Applied Linguistics 1a FLITE.

First Steps in SLA: First Steps in SLA: the basic issuesthe basic issues

Applied Linguistics 1aApplied Linguistics 1a

FLITEFLITE

BehaviourismBehaviourism

In the 60's the common In the 60's the common wisdom (in N. America in wisdom (in N. America in particular), was that language particular), was that language teaching to be teaching to be scientifically-scientifically-basedbased should follow the should follow the dominant principles of the day dominant principles of the day in psychologyin psychology

BehaviourismBehaviourism

In this view, language, like In this view, language, like any other kind of behaviour any other kind of behaviour was essentially was essentially a set of a set of habitshabits. .

What What wasn’twasn’t scientific? scientific?

Any appeal to ‘vague’, ‘metaphysical’ Any appeal to ‘vague’, ‘metaphysical’ ideas like:ideas like:

'knowledge' 'knowledge' ‘‘rules’rules’ ‘‘grammar in the head, mind’grammar in the head, mind’

These notions were ruled out of court These notions were ruled out of court as being as being fundamentally unscientificfundamentally unscientific. .

Why? Why?

What What wasn’twasn’t it? it?

..because you could not ..because you could not directly directly measure itmeasure it (weigh it, count it). (weigh it, count it).

You can’t demonstrate to You can’t demonstrate to other people that:other people that:

X has ‘34% or 34 grammes of X has ‘34% or 34 grammes of knowledge.knowledge.

You can’t point to an You can’t point to an ideaidea or or rulerule in in in someone’s headin someone’s head

Observable.. Quantifiable.. Measurable…

Grammars, ideasGrammars, ideas and and rulerules are abstractions s are abstractions and therefore not and therefore not directly observable (not directly observable (not audible or visible)audible or visible)

If you want to do If you want to do ‘science,’ you stay with ‘science,’ you stay with what you can directly what you can directly observe and quantify…observe and quantify…

(problem: OK, perhaps, for some areas of (problem: OK, perhaps, for some areas of science but what about theoretical physics!!!)science but what about theoretical physics!!!)

you you cancan measure observable measure observable behaviourbehaviour

You You cancan say that ‘on 34% of the say that ‘on 34% of the observed occasions’ a learner observed occasions’ a learner responded in an observable way responded in an observable way to an observable stimulus.to an observable stimulus.

It’s a ….. ..DOG!

Behaviourists stick to what is Behaviourists stick to what is observable and measurable.observable and measurable.

Habits are observable events Habits are observable events that happen frequently in an that happen frequently in an identifiable set of of identifiable set of of circumstances: obsrevable circumstances: obsrevable responses to a given observable responses to a given observable stimuli.stimuli.

interferenceinterference

If language was a set of habits, If language was a set of habits, then learning a new language then learning a new language was learning a was learning a newnew set of habits. set of habits.


Behaviourist psychology requires Behaviourist psychology requires us to see ‘Problem no 1’ as the us to see ‘Problem no 1’ as the interference of old habits given interference of old habits given we are trying to do the same we are trying to do the same thing with L1 as we are with L2 thing with L1 as we are with L2 (understand and produce (understand and produce utterances). utterances).


AnalogiesAnalogies: : A tennis player learning badminton. A tennis player learning badminton. A baseball player learning cricket, A baseball player learning cricket, A skater learning to ski.A skater learning to ski.


A tennis player will ‘transfer’ A tennis player will ‘transfer’ tennis habits into badminton.tennis habits into badminton.

Where tennis and badminton Where tennis and badminton require the require the samesame behaviour this behaviour this transfer will be ‘positive’transfer will be ‘positive’

Where tennis and badminton Where tennis and badminton require require differentdifferent behaviour this behaviour this transfer will be ‘negative’transfer will be ‘negative’

Interference = negative Interference = negative transfertransfer

Negative transfer is also called Negative transfer is also called interferenceinterference

Robert LadoRobert LadoThis allowed a scientifically This allowed a scientifically

based prediction. Robert Lado based prediction. Robert Lado claimed what was (later) claimed what was (later) dubbed:dubbed:

The The CONTRASTIVE ANALYSIS CONTRASTIVE ANALYSIS HYPOTHESISHYPOTHESIS

The CONTRASTIVE ANALYSIS The CONTRASTIVE ANALYSIS HYPOTHESISHYPOTHESIS

DIFFERENCESDIFFERENCES IN LINGUISTIC IN LINGUISTIC STRUCTURE WILL CAUSE LEARNING STRUCTURE WILL CAUSE LEARNING DIFFICULTYDIFFICULTY,, AND VICE VERSA. AND VICE VERSA.

..your L1 structural habits will ..your L1 structural habits will helphelp or or hinderhinder the development of your L2 the development of your L2 habits.habits.

22 scientific predictions scientific predictions

This hypothesis gives us two related This hypothesis gives us two related predictions: what were they?predictions: what were they?

22 scientific predictions scientific predictions

L1/L2 SIMILIARITIES WILL L1/L2 SIMILIARITIES WILL FACILITATEFACILITATE LEARNING. LEARNING.

L1/L2 DIFFERENCES WILL L1/L2 DIFFERENCES WILL INHIBITINHIBIT LEARNING.LEARNING.

AppliedApplied Science Science

COOPERATION BETWEEN LIKE-MINDED COOPERATION BETWEEN LIKE-MINDED PROFESSIONALS FROM DIFFERENT PROFESSIONALS FROM DIFFERENT AREAS WOULD LEAD TO:AREAS WOULD LEAD TO:

SCIENTIFICALLY-BASED LANGUAGESCIENTIFICALLY-BASED LANGUAGE

TEACHINGTEACHING. .

‘‘AppliedApplied Linguistics’ Linguistics’

THIS WAS THE BIRTH OF THIS WAS THE BIRTH OF 'APPLIED LINGUISTICS''APPLIED LINGUISTICS'

Three areasThree areas

Who were these like-minded Who were these like-minded professionals?professionals?

Answer:Answer:

Answer:Answer: THE THEORETICAL LINGUISTTHE THEORETICAL LINGUIST THE PSYCHOLOGISTTHE PSYCHOLOGIST THE APPLIED LINGUISTTHE APPLIED LINGUIST

THE THEORETICAL LINGUISTSTHE THEORETICAL LINGUISTS

WOULD PROVIDE SCIENTIFIC WOULD PROVIDE SCIENTIFIC ANALYSES OF LANGUAGE ANALYSES OF LANGUAGE STRUCTURE AND BY COMPARING STRUCTURE AND BY COMPARING AND CONTRASTING AND CONTRASTING ANYANY L1 AND L1 AND ANY ANY L2 WOULD PR0VIDE A LIST L2 WOULD PR0VIDE A LIST OF STRUCTURAL DIFFERENCES OF STRUCTURAL DIFFERENCES AND STRUCTURAL SIMILARITIESAND STRUCTURAL SIMILARITIES

THE PSYCHOLOGISTSTHE PSYCHOLOGISTS

PROVIDED THE PSYCHOLOGICAL PROVIDED THE PSYCHOLOGICAL LEARNING THEORY WHICH LEARNING THEORY WHICH INTERPRETED ALL THE INTERPRETED ALL THE STRUCTURAL DIFFERENCESSTRUCTURAL DIFFERENCES AS AS PREDICTING PREDICTING LEARNING LEARNING DIFFICULTYDIFFICULTY

THE APPLIED LINGUISTSTHE APPLIED LINGUISTS

COULD TAKE THIS INSIGHT AND COULD TAKE THIS INSIGHT AND CREATE TEACHING METHODS CREATE TEACHING METHODS AND TECHNIQUES THAT WOULD AND TECHNIQUES THAT WOULD MAKE TEACHING MUCH MORE MAKE TEACHING MUCH MORE EFFICIENT.EFFICIENT.

THE APPLIED LINGUIST’S THE APPLIED LINGUIST’S ADVICEADVICE

THIS COULD VARY FROM THIS COULD VARY FROM APPORTIONING MORE TIME FOR APPORTIONING MORE TIME FOR

TEACHING THE DIFFERENCESTEACHING THE DIFFERENCES AND AND LESS TIME FOR LESS TIME FOR TEACHING THE TEACHING THE SIMILARITIESSIMILARITIES, OR, MORE , OR, MORE RADICALLY….RADICALLY….

SIMPLY TEACHING THE SIMPLY TEACHING THE DIFFERENCESDIFFERENCES

Learning best ‘mindless’ and Learning best ‘mindless’ and unreflectingunreflecting

NOTE THAT 'TEACHING' WOULD BE NOTE THAT 'TEACHING' WOULD BE ESSENTIALLY ESSENTIALLY TRAINING/CONDITIONING THROUGH TRAINING/CONDITIONING THROUGH DRILLS AND ROTE MEMORISATION DRILLS AND ROTE MEMORISATION

NEW HABITS (AUTOMATISATION) NEW HABITS (AUTOMATISATION) COULD NOT BE ACQUIRED VIA COULD NOT BE ACQUIRED VIA REFLECTION OR APPEALS TO REFLECTION OR APPEALS TO UNDERSTANDING VIA EXPLANATION. UNDERSTANDING VIA EXPLANATION.

Learning best ‘mindless’ and Learning best ‘mindless’ and unreflectingunreflecting

YOU ARE FREE TO EXPLAIN YOU ARE FREE TO EXPLAIN THINGS BUT ONLY AFTER THEY THINGS BUT ONLY AFTER THEY HAVE ALREADY BEEN HAVE ALREADY BEEN AUTOMATISEDAUTOMATISED!!!!

THE PROFESSIONAL THE PROFESSIONAL TEACHERTEACHER

COULD THEN CARRY OUT THE COULD THEN CARRY OUT THE TRAINING PROGRAMMES TRAINING PROGRAMMES DESIGNED BY THE APPLIED DESIGNED BY THE APPLIED LINGUISTLINGUIST

WHAT CAUSED THIS IDEAL WHAT CAUSED THIS IDEAL CROSS-DISCIPLINARY SET-UP CROSS-DISCIPLINARY SET-UP

TO CRUMBLE? TO CRUMBLE?

THREE THINGSTHREE THINGSWHAT WERE THEY?WHAT WERE THEY?

1.1. PSYCHOLOGYPSYCHOLOGY CHANGED CHANGED

2.2. THEORETICAL LINGUISITICS THEORETICAL LINGUISITICS CHANGEDCHANGED

3.3. THE FINDINGS OF THE FINDINGS OF EMPIRICAL EMPIRICAL RESEARCHRESEARCH (with L2 learners) (with L2 learners)

1. 1. PSYCHOLOGY PSYCHOLOGY CHANGED. CHANGED.

BEHAVIOURISM SEEMED TOO LIMITED. AN BEHAVIOURISM SEEMED TOO LIMITED. AN INFORMATION-PROCESSINGINFORMATION-PROCESSING APROACH TO APROACH TO LEANING LED TO THE IDEA OF AN LEANING LED TO THE IDEA OF AN ORGANISING MIND..ORGANISING MIND..

THE MIND DOESNT COPY SLAVISHLY WHAT THE MIND DOESNT COPY SLAVISHLY WHAT IS OUTSIDE LIKE A CAMERA OR TAPE-IS OUTSIDE LIKE A CAMERA OR TAPE-RECORDER BUT RECORDER BUT FILTERS IT AND FILTERS IT AND REORGANISES ITREORGANISES IT USING SOME INTERNAL USING SOME INTERNAL PROGRAM (THE OBJECT OF OUR RESEARCH). PROGRAM (THE OBJECT OF OUR RESEARCH).

IN CORDER'S TERMS 'INPUT' ISIN CORDER'S TERMS 'INPUT' IS DIFFERENT DIFFERENT FROM 'INTAKE'FROM 'INTAKE'

2. 2. THEORETICAL THEORETICAL LINGUISITICS CHANGED: LINGUISITICS CHANGED:

CHOMSKY SHOWED THAT L1 CHOMSKY SHOWED THAT L1 COULD NEVER BE ACQUIRED VIA COULD NEVER BE ACQUIRED VIA CONDITIONING. CONDITIONING.

CHILDREN CHILDREN CREATECREATE GRAMMAR OF GRAMMAR OF L1 FROM L1 FROM

..RATHER ..RATHER CHAOTIC AND OFTEN CHAOTIC AND OFTEN MISLEADING INPUTMISLEADING INPUT WITHOUT WITHOUT THE NEED FOR CORRECTIONTHE NEED FOR CORRECTION. .

2. 2. THEORETICAL THEORETICAL LINGUISITICS CHANGED: LINGUISITICS CHANGED:

'KNOWLEDGE' was BACK IN 'KNOWLEDGE' was BACK IN FASHION.FASHION.

Abstract notions could be Abstract notions could be INDIRECTLY measured.INDIRECTLY measured.

You could infer what was ‘in the You could infer what was ‘in the head’ (mind) from what you could head’ (mind) from what you could observe and quatify.observe and quatify.

OBSERVABLE INPUT OBSERVABLE OUTPUT

YOU CAN INFER THE UNOBERVABLE (WHAT HAS BEEN LEARNED) BY COMPARING OBERVABLE INPUT AND OBERVABLE OUTPUT

Non observable mind

3. EMPIRICAL RESEARCH 3. EMPIRICAL RESEARCH CHALLENGED PREDICTIONS OF CHALLENGED PREDICTIONS OF

BEHAVIOURISMBEHAVIOURISM

How?How?

3. EMPIRICAL RESEARCH 3. EMPIRICAL RESEARCH CHALLENGED PREDICTIUONS OF CHALLENGED PREDICTIUONS OF

BEHAVIOURISMBEHAVIOURISM ERROR ANALYSES SHOWED THAT ERROR ANALYSES SHOWED THAT

MANY ERRORS COULD NOT BE MANY ERRORS COULD NOT BE ASCRIBED TO L1 INTERFERENCE ASCRIBED TO L1 INTERFERENCE

THIS ALSO SUGGESTED L2 LEARNERS, THIS ALSO SUGGESTED L2 LEARNERS, LIKE L1 LEARNERS, DEVELOPED LIKE L1 LEARNERS, DEVELOPED HABITUAL BEHAVIOUR THAT THEY HABITUAL BEHAVIOUR THAT THEY COULD NOT POSSIBLY HAVE LEARNED COULD NOT POSSIBLY HAVE LEARNED FROM THE 'INPUT'.FROM THE 'INPUT'.

NO ONE SAYS ‘NO ONE SAYS ‘RUNNED’ RUNNED’ TO THEMTO THEM!!

SLA BORNSLA BORNCHILD LANGUAGE RESEARCH CHILD LANGUAGE RESEARCH

PROMPTED NEW WAYS OF PROMPTED NEW WAYS OF LOOKING AT L2 BEHAVIOUR. LOOKING AT L2 BEHAVIOUR.

S.L.A. WAS BORN (IN 1967)….S.L.A. WAS BORN (IN 1967)….……WITH THE GOAL OF WITH THE GOAL OF

UNDERSTANDINGUNDERSTANDING MUCH MORE MUCH MORE ABOUT WHAT WAS COMPLEX ABOUT WHAT WAS COMPLEX AND NOT DIRECTLY AND NOT DIRECTLY OBSERVABLE.OBSERVABLE.

PIONEERSPIONEERS

PIT CORDER PIT CORDER LARRY SELINKERLARRY SELINKERMARINA BURT & HEIDI DULAYMARINA BURT & HEIDI DULAYSTEPHEN KRASHENSTEPHEN KRASHEN

PIT CORDERPIT CORDER

(PROF OF APPLIED LINGUISTICS AT (PROF OF APPLIED LINGUISTICS AT EDINBURGH UNIVERSITY) THE EDINBURGH UNIVERSITY) THE SIGNIFICANCE OF LEARNER'S SIGNIFICANCE OF LEARNER'S ERRORS 1968 CONCPTS SUCH AS:ERRORS 1968 CONCPTS SUCH AS:

THE INBUILT SYLLABUS: L2 LEARNERS MAY THE INBUILT SYLLABUS: L2 LEARNERS MAY BE LIKE L1 LEARNERS AND HAVE TO BE LIKE L1 LEARNERS AND HAVE TO FOLLOW A FOLLOW A INTERNALLYINTERNALLY PREORDAINED PREORDAINED LEARNING SEQUENCE THEREFORE…LEARNING SEQUENCE THEREFORE…

YYYYYY


INPUTINPUT VERSUS VERSUS INTAKEINTAKE WHAT LEARNER IS EXPOSED TO IS NOT WHAT LEARNER IS EXPOSED TO IS NOT

THE SAME AS WHAT LEARNER’S MIND THE SAME AS WHAT LEARNER’S MIND ‘TAKES IN’. ‘TAKES IN’.

XXXXXXYYYYYYZZZ > YYYZZZ > YYY

XXXYYYZZZXXXYYYZZZ INPUT INTAKE?

L E A R N E R

WHAT IS SELECTED FROM

THE INPUT?


LEARNERS SYSTEMATIC BEHAVIOUR MAY LEARNERS SYSTEMATIC BEHAVIOUR MAY BE TAKEN TO BE SOME KIND OF BE TAKEN TO BE SOME KIND OF 'TRANSITIONAL' SYSTEM. 'TRANSITIONAL' SYSTEM.

(SYSTEMATIC) (SYSTEMATIC) ERRORSERRORS ARE SIGNIFICANT ARE SIGNIFICANT WHILE WHILE MISTAKESMISTAKES (SLIPS,.UNSYSTEMATIC (SLIPS,.UNSYSTEMATIC BEHAVIOUR) ARE NOT BEHAVIOUR) ARE NOT

LARRY SELINKERLARRY SELINKER

INTERLANGUAGE 1972INTERLANGUAGE 1972PROPOSED WE CALLED SYSTEMATIC PROPOSED WE CALLED SYSTEMATIC

BEHAVIOUR 'INTERLANGUAGE' BEHAVIOUR 'INTERLANGUAGE' (INTERIM/INTERMEDIATE BETWEEN (INTERIM/INTERMEDIATE BETWEEN L1 AND L2 LANGUAGE)L1 AND L2 LANGUAGE)

SET OUT SOME SPECIFIC IDEAS SET OUT SOME SPECIFIC IDEAS ABOUT WHAT LAY BEHIND ABOUT WHAT LAY BEHIND INTERLANGUAGE INTERLANGUAGE


AN L2 LEARNER’S MIND THAT WAS AN L2 LEARNER’S MIND THAT WAS NOT THE SAME AS THE ONE THAT NOT THE SAME AS THE ONE THAT LEARNED L1. LEARNED L1.

AND WHAT, FOR SELINDKER, WAS THE AND WHAT, FOR SELINDKER, WAS THE EVIDENCE FOR THIS? EVIDENCE FOR THIS?

ANSWERANSWER

ONLY 5% GAIN ANYTHING LIKE NATIVE ONLY 5% GAIN ANYTHING LIKE NATIVE LIKE ABILTY IN L2. LIKE ABILTY IN L2.

THE END OF LENNEBERG'S CRITICAL THE END OF LENNEBERG'S CRITICAL PERIOD FOR L1 ACQUISITION PERIOD FOR L1 ACQUISITION ALSO ALSO SIGNALS THE PERIOD FOR ANY OTHER SIGNALS THE PERIOD FOR ANY OTHER LANGUAGE.LANGUAGE.

AFTER THIS THE MIND IS NO LONGER AFTER THIS THE MIND IS NO LONGER THE SAME!THE SAME!

HE THOUGHT THAT:HE THOUGHT THAT: THE END OF LENNEBERG'S CRITICAL PERIOD THE END OF LENNEBERG'S CRITICAL PERIOD

FOR L1 ACQUISITION FOR L1 ACQUISITION ALSO SIGNALLED THE ALSO SIGNALLED THE PERIOD FOR ANY OTHER LANGUAGE.PERIOD FOR ANY OTHER LANGUAGE.

AFTER THIS, THE MIND IS NO LONGER THE AFTER THIS, THE MIND IS NO LONGER THE SAME MIND!SAME MIND!

THIS WARRANTS A NEW AND DIFFERENT THIS WARRANTS A NEW AND DIFFERENT THEORY FOR POST-PUBERTY SECOND THEORY FOR POST-PUBERTY SECOND LANGUAGE LEARNINGLANGUAGE LEARNING

THIS WAS THE BASIS OF HIS (IL) THIS WAS THE BASIS OF HIS (IL) INTERLANGUAGE APPROACH.INTERLANGUAGE APPROACH.



IL PROCESSES:IL PROCESSES: FOSSILISATIONFOSSILISATION. DESPITED REPEATED . DESPITED REPEATED

EXPOSURE AND PRACTICE SOME OR ALL EXPOSURE AND PRACTICE SOME OR ALL OF THE SYSTEM REMAINS IL. MORE INPUT OF THE SYSTEM REMAINS IL. MORE INPUT NO LONGER LEADS TO INTAKE!NO LONGER LEADS TO INTAKE!

LANGUAGE TRANSFERLANGUAGE TRANSFER: SOME IL RULES : SOME IL RULES ARE ONES THAT DERIVE FROM L1ARE ONES THAT DERIVE FROM L1

OVERGENERALISATIONOVERGENERALISATION: SOME IL RULES : SOME IL RULES ARE REGULARISATIONS OF RULES ARE REGULARISATIONS OF RULES DERIVED FROM L2DERIVED FROM L2


WHAT SHOULD RESEARCHERS DO WHAT SHOULD RESEARCHERS DO NOW?NOW?

INVESTIGATE INTERLANGUAGE IN INVESTIGATE INTERLANGUAGE IN DIFFERENT L1/L2 SITUATIONS. LEARN DIFFERENT L1/L2 SITUATIONS. LEARN MORE ABOUT FOSSILISATION.MORE ABOUT FOSSILISATION.

INVESTIGATE LEARNER'S STRATEGIESINVESTIGATE LEARNER'S STRATEGIES IMPLICATION: APPLICATION TO IMPLICATION: APPLICATION TO

TEACHING SHOULD BE PUT OFF TILL TEACHING SHOULD BE PUT OFF TILL WE KNOW MORE ABOUT ILWE KNOW MORE ABOUT IL

AFTER 1972, WHAT HAPPENED AFTER 1972, WHAT HAPPENED THEN?THEN?

'NEW KIDS ON THE 'NEW KIDS ON THE BLOCK' BLOCK'

WHO WERE THEY?WHO WERE THEY?

BURT, DULAY AND KRASHENBURT, DULAY AND KRASHEN

HEIDI DULAYHEIDI DULAYMARINA BURTMARINA BURT..AND THEN ..AND THEN STEPHEN KRASHEN.STEPHEN KRASHEN.CULMINATING IN THEIR JOINT BOOK: CULMINATING IN THEIR JOINT BOOK:

LANGUAGE TWOLANGUAGE TWO. 1982.. 1982.

BURT, DULAYBURT, DULAY

THEIR FOCUS WAS ON WHAT CORDER HAD THEIR FOCUS WAS ON WHAT CORDER HAD CALLED THE BUILT-IN SYLLABUS.CALLED THE BUILT-IN SYLLABUS.

THEY TOOK THE RADICAL LINE THAT, THEY TOOK THE RADICAL LINE THAT, DESPITE APPEARANCES, L2 ACQUISITION DESPITE APPEARANCES, L2 ACQUISITION WAS DRIVEN BY THE WAS DRIVEN BY THE SAME PROCESSES AS SAME PROCESSES AS L1L1 ACQUISITION. ACQUISITION.

IN OTHER WORDS THEY DENIED THE IN OTHER WORDS THEY DENIED THE VALIDITY OF THE CRITICAL PERIOD FOR L2 VALIDITY OF THE CRITICAL PERIOD FOR L2 AND HENCE ALSO THE BASIS FOR AND HENCE ALSO THE BASIS FOR SELINKER'S THEORY..SELINKER'S THEORY..


THEIR EVIDENCE WAS DRAWN FROM THEIR EVIDENCE WAS DRAWN FROM IMMIGRANTS IN CALIFORNIA IMMIGRANTS IN CALIFORNIA (SPANISH AND CHINESE SPEAKING)(SPANISH AND CHINESE SPEAKING)

THEY WERE INTERESTED WHETHER THEY WERE INTERESTED WHETHER THE SEQUENCE OF LEARNING THE SEQUENCE OF LEARNING ENGLISH REVEALED BY L1 STUDIES ENGLISH REVEALED BY L1 STUDIES COULD BE REPLICATED WITH L2 COULD BE REPLICATED WITH L2 LEARNERS LEARNERS IRRESPECTIVE OF THEIR IRRESPECTIVE OF THEIR L1 BACKGROUND!L1 BACKGROUND!


SHORTCUT: ORDER OF DIFFICULTY SHORTCUT: ORDER OF DIFFICULTY PREDICTS ORDER OF ACTUAL PREDICTS ORDER OF ACTUAL ACQUISITION.ACQUISITION.

RATHER THAN PAINSTAKINGLY FOLLOW RATHER THAN PAINSTAKINGLY FOLLOW THROUGH INDIVIDUAL LEARNERS OVER THROUGH INDIVIDUAL LEARNERS OVER A PERIOD OF TIME THEY OPTED FOR A A PERIOD OF TIME THEY OPTED FOR A CROSS-SECTIONALCROSS-SECTIONAL APPROACH: APPROACH:

YOU TAKE A GROUPS OF LEARNERS AT YOU TAKE A GROUPS OF LEARNERS AT ONE TIME AND LOOK AT THE ONE TIME AND LOOK AT THE PERCENTAGE OF ERRORSPERCENTAGE OF ERRORS WITH WITH SPECIALLY SELECTED STRUCTURESSPECIALLY SELECTED STRUCTURES . .


THE REASONING WAS THAT THE ORDER THE REASONING WAS THAT THE ORDER OF ERROR-CAUSING STRUCTURES OF ERROR-CAUSING STRUCTURES SHOULD PREDICT THE ORDER IN WHICH SHOULD PREDICT THE ORDER IN WHICH THOSE STRUCTURES WOULD, OVER TIME, THOSE STRUCTURES WOULD, OVER TIME, BE ACQUIRED SO THAT THE ONE THAT BE ACQUIRED SO THAT THE ONE THAT CAUSED THE LEAST ERRORS , WOULD CAUSED THE LEAST ERRORS , WOULD BE FULLY ACQUIRED FIRST..AND S ON. BE FULLY ACQUIRED FIRST..AND S ON. SOME RESEARCH INTO SOME RESEARCH INTO

L1 ACQUISITION SUGGESTED THAT THIS L1 ACQUISITION SUGGESTED THAT THIS WAS A SAFE ASSUMPTION.WAS A SAFE ASSUMPTION.


HOW DID THEY DECIDE THAT STRUCTURE HOW DID THEY DECIDE THAT STRUCTURE WAS ACQUIRED? WAS ACQUIRED?

ANSWER: THEY OPTED FOR FIGURE LIKE ANSWER: THEY OPTED FOR FIGURE LIKE 90% CORRECT IN CONTEXTS WHERE THAT 90% CORRECT IN CONTEXTS WHERE THAT FORM WOULD BE EXPECTED IN NATIVE FORM WOULD BE EXPECTED IN NATIVE SPEECH. AS SOON AS ONLY 10% OF THOSE SPEECH. AS SOON AS ONLY 10% OF THOSE CONTEXTS SHOWED ERRORS, LEARNERS CONTEXTS SHOWED ERRORS, LEARNERS WERE DEEMED TO BE NATIVE-LIKE WERE DEEMED TO BE NATIVE-LIKE

IT IS ASSUMED THAT EVEN NATIVES DO NOT IT IS ASSUMED THAT EVEN NATIVES DO NOT SCORE 100% ALL THE TIME!SCORE 100% ALL THE TIME!


WHICH STRUCTURES DID THEY WHICH STRUCTURES DID THEY SELECT?SELECT?

THEY CHOSE STRUCTURES THAT HAD THEY CHOSE STRUCTURES THAT HAD ALREADY BEEN INVESTIGATED IN ALREADY BEEN INVESTIGATED IN CHILD LANGUAGE, I.E., CHILD LANGUAGE, I.E., GRAMMATICAL MORPHEMESGRAMMATICAL MORPHEMES THAT THAT YOU COULD GUARANTEE WOULD YOU COULD GUARANTEE WOULD TURN UP VERY FREQUENTLY IN TURN UP VERY FREQUENTLY IN SPONTANEOUS EVERYDAY SPEECHSPONTANEOUS EVERYDAY SPEECH (THE, A(N), ‘(THE, A(N), ‘S’S’ PLURAL, 3RD PERSON PLURAL, 3RD PERSON ‘‘S’S’, IRREGULAR PAST TENSE, ETC), IRREGULAR PAST TENSE, ETC)


WHAT DID THEY FIND?WHAT DID THEY FIND?


THEY FOUND AN INTERESTING THEY FOUND AN INTERESTING SIMILARITY BETWEEN THE L1 AND L2 SIMILARITY BETWEEN THE L1 AND L2 ENGLISH ORDERSENGLISH ORDERS

NOT IDENTICAL BUT SIMILAR. NOT IDENTICAL BUT SIMILAR.

MORE TO THE POINT, ALL LEARNERS MORE TO THE POINT, ALL LEARNERS SHOWED THE SAME ORDER OF SHOWED THE SAME ORDER OF DIFFICULTY AND WERE THUS DIFFICULTY AND WERE THUS ASSUMED ALSO TO BE ACQUIRING ASSUMED ALSO TO BE ACQUIRING THINGS IN THE SAME ORDERTHINGS IN THE SAME ORDER

BURT, DULAYBURT, DULAY 'INTERFERENCE' OR 'DEVELOPMENTAL‘ 'INTERFERENCE' OR 'DEVELOPMENTAL‘

ERRORS?ERRORS?

THEY ASSOCIATED TRANSFER THEY ASSOCIATED TRANSFER EXPLANATIONS WITH (DESPISED) EXPLANATIONS WITH (DESPISED) BEHAVIOURISM SO..BEHAVIOURISM SO..

WHAT WAS DULAY AND BURT'S WHAT WAS DULAY AND BURT'S REACTION TO 'ERRORS' THAN LOOKED REACTION TO 'ERRORS' THAN LOOKED AS THOUGH THEY WERE CAUSED BY L1 AS THOUGH THEY WERE CAUSED BY L1 INTERFERENCE? EXAMPLE INTERFERENCE? EXAMPLE 'I NO CAN 'I NO CAN COMECOME' (FROM SPANISH' (FROM SPANISH

BURT, DULAYBURT, DULAY THEY SAID 2 THINGS:THEY SAID 2 THINGS:

1.1. ERRORS CAN OFTEN LOOK LIKE L1-BASED ERRORS CAN OFTEN LOOK LIKE L1-BASED BUT TURN OUT TO BE EQUALLY BUT TURN OUT TO BE EQUALLY EXPLAINABLE AS 'DEVELOPMENTAL' EXPLAINABLE AS 'DEVELOPMENTAL' BECAUSE BECAUSE CHILDREN LEARNING L1 CHILDREN LEARNING L1 ENGLISH PRODUCE THE SAME ENGLISH PRODUCE THE SAME CONSTRUCTIONCONSTRUCTION

2.2. THE SAME MORPHEME ORDER REVEALED THE SAME MORPHEME ORDER REVEALED BY OUR EXPERIMENTS WITH LEARNERS BY OUR EXPERIMENTS WITH LEARNERS WITH DIFFERENT BACKGROUNDSWITH DIFFERENT BACKGROUNDS SUGGEST THAT WE LOOK FIRST FOR SUGGEST THAT WE LOOK FIRST FOR DEVELOPMENTALDEVELOPMENTAL EXPLANATIONS.EXPLANATIONS.


THEIR CONCLUSION: THEIR CONCLUSION: GRAMMATICAL GRAMMATICAL

INTERFERENCE WAS INTERFERENCE WAS MUCH MUCH LESS IMPORTANT THAN LESS IMPORTANT THAN PREVIOUSLY THOUGHTPREVIOUSLY THOUGHT!!

KRASHENKRASHEN

WHAT HAPPENED NEXT?WHAT HAPPENED NEXT?

ENTER ENTER STEPHEN STEPHEN KRASHENKRASHEN..

KRASHENKRASHEN

KRASHEN WAS INTERESTED IN COMPARING KRASHEN WAS INTERESTED IN COMPARING IMMIGRANTS WHO WERE PICKING UP IMMIGRANTS WHO WERE PICKING UP ENGLISH IN THE STREET AND THOSE WHO ENGLISH IN THE STREET AND THOSE WHO WERE ALSO UNDERGOING FORMAL WERE ALSO UNDERGOING FORMAL INSTRUCTION AS WELL.INSTRUCTION AS WELL.

DID INSTRUCTION BRING ANY DID INSTRUCTION BRING ANY ADVANTAGE?ADVANTAGE?

HE TESTED BOTH TYPES OF LEARNER HE TESTED BOTH TYPES OF LEARNER WITH DIFFERENT KINDS OF TASK.WITH DIFFERENT KINDS OF TASK.

KRASHENKRASHEN WHAT DID HE FIND?WHAT DID HE FIND? ON SPONTANEOUS TASKS, LIKE PICTURE ON SPONTANEOUS TASKS, LIKE PICTURE

DESCRIPTION, LEARNERS FROM BOTH DESCRIPTION, LEARNERS FROM BOTH GROUPS PRODUCED THE SAME KIND OF GROUPS PRODUCED THE SAME KIND OF RESULT ALREADY SEEN IN THE BURT AND RESULT ALREADY SEEN IN THE BURT AND DULAY STUDIES. DULAY STUDIES.

L1 INFLUENCE DID NOT SEEM TO AFFECT L1 INFLUENCE DID NOT SEEM TO AFFECT THE DIFFICULTY ORDERS IN THE DATA. THE THE DIFFICULTY ORDERS IN THE DATA. THE FORMALLY INSTRUCTED LEARNERS ONL FORMALLY INSTRUCTED LEARNERS ONL PRODUCED DIFFERENT RESULTS ON THE PRODUCED DIFFERENT RESULTS ON THE TASKS THAT GAVE THEM TIME TO REFLECT TASKS THAT GAVE THEM TIME TO REFLECT AMD SELF-CORRECT AMD SELF-CORRECT

KRASHEN: LEARNING AND KRASHEN: LEARNING AND ACQUISITIONACQUISITION

THIS FINDING LAID THE BASIS FOR THIS FINDING LAID THE BASIS FOR KRASHEN'S NOW FAMOUS SHARP KRASHEN'S NOW FAMOUS SHARP DISTINCTION BETWEEN:DISTINCTION BETWEEN:

ACQUISITIONACQUISITION (SUBCONSCIOUS LEARNING) (SUBCONSCIOUS LEARNING) ANDAND

(CONSCIOUS) (CONSCIOUS) 'LEARNING''LEARNING'. .

EACH PRODUCED EACH PRODUCED AN ENIRELY AN ENIRELY DIFFERENT KIND OF KNOWLEDGEDIFFERENT KIND OF KNOWLEDGE OF THE L2. OF THE L2.

KRASHEN’S ‘ ACQUISITIONKRASHEN’S ‘ ACQUISITION

A NATURAL PROCESS THAT A NATURAL PROCESS THAT CAUSED GRAMMARS TO GROW IN CAUSED GRAMMARS TO GROW IN THE SAME WAY AS THEY DID THE SAME WAY AS THEY DID WITH CHILDREN ACQUIRING WITH CHILDREN ACQUIRING THEIR L1THEIR L1. .

KRASHEN’S ‘LEARNING’KRASHEN’S ‘LEARNING’

A MORE ARTIFICIAL, TECHNICAL KIND A MORE ARTIFICIAL, TECHNICAL KIND OF LEARNING WHICH COULD ONLY BE OF LEARNING WHICH COULD ONLY BE USEDUSED IN LIMITED WAYS IN LIMITED WAYS AND WHICH AND WHICH HAS ABSOLUTELY NO EFFECT ON THE HAS ABSOLUTELY NO EFFECT ON THE NATURAL COURSE OF DEVELOPMENT! NATURAL COURSE OF DEVELOPMENT!


THE EFFECTS OF CONSCIOUS LEARNING THE EFFECTS OF CONSCIOUS LEARNING WOULD NEVER BE REFLECTED IN THE WOULD NEVER BE REFLECTED IN THE LEARNER'S SPONTANEOUS BEHAVIOUR.LEARNER'S SPONTANEOUS BEHAVIOUR.

AT BEST, INSTRUCTED LEARNERS CAN AT BEST, INSTRUCTED LEARNERS CAN FAKEFAKE A HIGHER LEVEL OF PROFICIENCY A HIGHER LEVEL OF PROFICIENCY BY USING LEARNED KNOWLEDGE TO… BY USING LEARNED KNOWLEDGE TO…

CONSCIOUSLY CONSCIOUSLY MONITORMONITOR THEIR THEIR PERFORMANCE AND CORRECT THEIR PERFORMANCE AND CORRECT THEIR OUTPUT. OUTPUT.


THE DOWNSIDE IS,TO DO THIS YOU THE DOWNSIDE IS,TO DO THIS YOU NEED NEED

TIMETIMEA A FOCUS ON THE FORMFOCUS ON THE FORM OF WHAT OF WHAT

YOU ARE SAYING (NOT JUST THE YOU ARE SAYING (NOT JUST THE MEANING) AND MEANING) AND

AN AN EASY RULEEASY RULE TO APPLY! YOU HAVE TO APPLY! YOU HAVE ALSO GOT TO WANT TO DO IT!ALSO GOT TO WANT TO DO IT!

''COMPREHENSIBLE INPUT'COMPREHENSIBLE INPUT'

KRASHEN,DULAY AND BURT TEAMED UP KRASHEN,DULAY AND BURT TEAMED UP TO PROMOTE THEIR APPROACH AND THEIR TO PROMOTE THEIR APPROACH AND THEIR ADVICE TO TEACHERS WAS:ADVICE TO TEACHERS WAS:

DON'T WASTE VALUABLE TIME EXPLAINING DON'T WASTE VALUABLE TIME EXPLAINING AND PRACTISING CONSCIOUSLY THE AND PRACTISING CONSCIOUSLY THE RULES OF THE L2 GRAMMAR. RULES OF THE L2 GRAMMAR.

PROVIDE THE LEARNER WITH …PROVIDE THE LEARNER WITH …

''COMPREHENSIBLE INPUT'COMPREHENSIBLE INPUT'

QUESTION TO DB&K:'QUESTION TO DB&K:'

MIGHT NOT THE MORPHEME ORDER MIGHT NOT THE MORPHEME ORDER SUGGEST AN ORDER OF SUGGEST AN ORDER OF INSTRUCTION? FOR EXAMPLE LEAVE INSTRUCTION? FOR EXAMPLE LEAVE THE THIRD PERSON SINGULAR TO THE THIRD PERSON SINGULAR TO LATER ON IN THE COURSE BECUASE LATER ON IN THE COURSE BECUASE IT IS TYPICALLY ACQUIRED LAST? IT IS TYPICALLY ACQUIRED LAST?

WOULDN’T THAT BE TEACHING IN A WOULDN’T THAT BE TEACHING IN A WAY THAT WAY THAT RESPECTS THE NATURAL RESPECTS THE NATURAL ORDER OF DEVELOPMENTORDER OF DEVELOPMENT??

ANSWER: ANSWER: NO! YOU MISSED NO! YOU MISSED THE POINT COMPLETELY!THE POINT COMPLETELY!

THE IDEA IS THAT THE IDEA IS THAT

YOU DON'T TEACH GRAMMAR AT YOU DON'T TEACH GRAMMAR AT ALL!ALL!

BY EXPOSING THE LEARNERS TO BY EXPOSING THE LEARNERS TO LANGUAGE IN WAYS IN WHICH THEY LANGUAGE IN WAYS IN WHICH THEY CAN CLEARLY UNDERSTAND WHAT CAN CLEARLY UNDERSTAND WHAT IS BEING SAID, YOU WILL BE IS BEING SAID, YOU WILL BE INEVITABLY PROVIDING EACH INEVITABLY PROVIDING EACH LEARNER WITH SO-CALLED INPUT+1LEARNER WITH SO-CALLED INPUT+1

SO WHAT IS SO WHAT IS ''ii +1' +1'

ANSWER: THE NEXT MORPHEME ANSWER: THE NEXT MORPHEME IN THE FIXED LIST!IN THE FIXED LIST!

''ii +1' +1' IS EXAMPLES (IN THE NATURAL IS EXAMPLES (IN THE NATURAL L2 INPUT, I.E., WHAT YOU ARE EXPOSED TO) L2 INPUT, I.E., WHAT YOU ARE EXPOSED TO) OF OF THE NEXT MORPHEME TO BE ACQUIREDTHE NEXT MORPHEME TO BE ACQUIRED

''ii +1' +1' IN THE EXAMPLE BELOW IS IN THE EXAMPLE BELOW IS 55 1 plural “-s” “Book1 plural “-s” “Bookss””

2 progressive “-ing” “John go2 progressive “-ing” “John go inging””3 copula “be” “John 3 copula “be” “John isis here” here”4 auxiliary “be” “John 4 auxiliary “be” “John is is going”going”

55 articles “the/a” “articles “the/a” “TheThe books” books”6 irregular past tense “John 6 irregular past tense “John wentwent””7 third person “-s” “John like7 third person “-s” “John likess books” books”8 possessive “’s” “John8 possessive “’s” “John ’s’s book” book”

ALREADY ACQUIRED

NEXT ONE ON THE LIST!

THE PARTICULAR FORM IN QUESTION THE PARTICULAR FORM IN QUESTION MAY BE DIFFERENT FOR DIFFERENT MAY BE DIFFERENT FOR DIFFERENT LEARNERS EVEN THOUGH THEY MAY LEARNERS EVEN THOUGH THEY MAY BE IN THE SAME GROUP AND BE IN THE SAME GROUP AND THEREFORE THEREFORE MORE OR LESS MORE OR LESS AT THE AT THE STAGE OF DEVELOPMENT STAGE OF DEVELOPMENT

OK, SO I JUST EXPOSE THE LEARNERS OK, SO I JUST EXPOSE THE LEARNERS TO THE 'INPUT', MAKE SURE THEY TO THE 'INPUT', MAKE SURE THEY UNDERSTAND AND WAIT FOR THEM UNDERSTAND AND WAIT FOR THEM TO ACQUIRE THE L2 NATURALLY?TO ACQUIRE THE L2 NATURALLY?

DON’T ‘TEACH’DON’T ‘TEACH’

YES, THAT'S RIGHT. YES, THAT'S RIGHT.

… …AND KEEP THEM AND KEEP THEM MOTIVATEDMOTIVATED BECAUSE INHIBITED,UNMOTIVATED BECAUSE INHIBITED,UNMOTIVATED LEARNERS WHO ARE AFRAID OF LEARNERS WHO ARE AFRAID OF MAKING MISTAKES MAY WELL BE MAKING MISTAKES MAY WELL BE LESS OPEN TO THE INPUTLESS OPEN TO THE INPUT AND WILL AND WILL PROGRESS MORE SLOWLY.PROGRESS MORE SLOWLY.

DON’T ‘TEACH’DON’T ‘TEACH’

TEACHING IMPLICATIONSTEACHING IMPLICATIONS

SELINKERSELINKER MADE NO CONCRETE MADE NO CONCRETE SUGGESTIONS FOR TEACHING OTHER SUGGESTIONS FOR TEACHING OTHER THAN TO RESPECT THE LEARNER’S THAN TO RESPECT THE LEARNER’S SYSTEM AS A SYSTEM IN IT’S OWN RIGHTSYSTEM AS A SYSTEM IN IT’S OWN RIGHT

CORDERCORDER AND THEN AND THEN DULAY,BURT & DULAY,BURT & KRASHENKRASHEN SUGGESTED LEARNERS’ SUGGESTED LEARNERS’ DEVELOP IN THEIR OWN PRE-ORDAINED DEVELOP IN THEIR OWN PRE-ORDAINED WAY AND HE TEACHER HAD LITTLE WAY AND HE TEACHER HAD LITTLE INFLUENCE ON THE ORDER OF LEARNINGINFLUENCE ON THE ORDER OF LEARNING

DB&K SAID ‘JUST PROVIDE DB&K SAID ‘JUST PROVIDE COMPREHENSIBLE INPUT AND COMPREHENSIBLE INPUT AND DEVELOPMENT WILL ‘TAKE CARE OF DEVELOPMENT WILL ‘TAKE CARE OF ITSELF’!ITSELF’!

TO BE ELABORATEDTO BE ELABORATED

BY YOU!!!BY YOU!!!

The End (for The End (for now..)now..)

First Steps in SLA: the basic issues Applied Linguistics 1a FLITE.

Documents

Transcript of First Steps in SLA: the basic issues Applied Linguistics 1a FLITE.