Name the Researchers Flashcards
Affective Filter Hypothesis
Krashen, 1982
Backsliding/U-Shaped Curve
Sharwood Smith & Kellerman, 1989
Comprehensible Input
Krashen, 1982
Connectionism
N.C. Ellis, 2003
Contrastive Analysis
Fries, 1945
Critical Period Hypothesis
Lenneberg, 1967
Error Analysis
Corder, 1967
Information Processing
- McLaughlin, 1987, 1990
- Anderson, 1983, 1985 (ACT)
Interaction Hypothesis
Long, 1985, 1996
Interlanguage
Selinker, 1972
Language Acquisition Device
- Chomsky, 1965
- Krashen, 1982
Language Transfer
Gass & Selinker, 2001
Learner differences are categorized by Cognitive Factors and Affective Factors
Gardner & MacIntyre, 1992, 1993
Monitor Model
Krashen, 1982
Motivation is the desire to achieve a goal with devotion of effort and satisfaction in activities that help attain the goal.
Gardner & MacIntyre, 1993
Noticing Hypothesis
Schmidt, 1990, 2001
Pushed Output Hypothesis
Swain, 1985, 1995
This study found that recasts were not as effective as explicit metalinguistic feedback in long-term learning.
Ellis, Loewen & Erlam, 2006
Universal Grammar and Language Universals
Chomsky, 1965
Fossilization
Selinker (1972)
This study examined whether output and visual input enhancement, in isolation or combination, promoted noticing and learning of an L2 grammatical form (English relative clauses). Findings support Interaction and Output Hypotheses over Noticing.
Findings:
- The groups that received visually enhanced texts took a greater number of noted of the RC words, indicating a positive role played by visual input enhancement on noticing.
- However, results showed that visual input enhancement failed to show any measurable effect on learning.
- In learning English relativization, those engaged in the output-input treatment outperformed those exposed to the same input for the sole purpose of comprehension.
Izumi (2002)
This study compared the effect of pre-modified input and interactional modification on comprehension. The researchers found that:
- the quality of the interactional modifications differed from the pre-modified input: Greater total input, greater redundancy and greater complexity.
- Students who received interactional modifications significantly out-performed (and demonstrated greater comprehension) than the students receiving premodified input.
Pica, Young and Doughty (1987)
This study examined the relationship between different types of conversational interaction and SLA in learning question formation.
Findings:
- Only the groups that actively participated in the interaction showed clear evidence of development. They increased significantly in terms of developmental stage and produced significantly more higher level structures.
Mackey (1999)
This study found that recasts were the most frequent and least effective form of feedback. Most effective were elicitation and metalinguistic feedback which involved negotiation of meaning and pushed output.
Lyster and Ranta (1997)
This study of English/Japanese bilingual friends in conversation found that linguistic errors were usually not treated as interactional trouble unless one speaker invited repair or when understanding was compromised. This resulted in a negotiation of novice and expert roles between speakers (even between L1 speakers when looking for a word).
Hosada (2006)
This study examined whether negotiated help provided within the learner’s zone of proximal development is more effective than help randomly provided. The qualitative component of the data analysis showed that collaborative feedback was more effective than random help. The quantitative analysis showed that the ZPD student gave correct responses approxiamately twice as often as the random student.
Nassaji and Swain (2000)
Defines integrative motivation as the desire to learn language to be a part of another culture. Defines instrumental motivation as the desire to learn language to complete a goal. She mentions studies that claim that a mixture of both types will help students be successful. She also cites a study (Snow, Padilla, and Campbell, 1988) that claims that it is not the type of motivation that predicts student success, it is the intensity of motivation.
McGroarty (1996)
A case study with Canadian French/English speakers in which people were asked to rate speakers of French and English (bilinguals) on Likert scales of semantic antonyms about honesty, intelligence, kindness, ect. The study found that the participants rated the speakers differently in some categories based on the language the speaker spoke, even though the participant heard the same speaker (a bilingual). This difference was attributed to language attitude. It showed that the participants “downgraded” certain language use in terms of intelligence or achievement, but rated most speakers similarly in categories like kindness and honesty. McGroarty takes this as a proof that the standard form is not “better” (p. 6-7).
Lambert & Tucker, 1972
McGroarty (1996)
They argue that not enough connection is made between research and pedagogy when it comes to sociolinguistics and education/educational linguistics. The field should be “transdisciplinary” (i.e. draw from anthropology, psychology, sociology, etc.) since the issue goes beyond the scope of any one field. As a result the field is becoming more transdisciplinary over time.
Hornberger & Hult (2006)
Teachers need to investigate differences between home and school language use as the difference can often be the source of classroom language problems. Teachers use and control language in the classroom, such as with the IRE (initiation, response, evaluation) style. They discuss the debate between additive and subtractive learning (tying in with need to support additive bilingualism in the classroom, originally discussed by Lambert, 1972), as well as restricted vs. elaborated codes. Cummins’ (1978) Interdependence Hypothesis (that L1 and L2 development are interlinked) is also mentioned.
Leap and Mesthrie
(2000)
Argue that code switching is part of bilingual competence, an “everyday interaction” natural to bilinguals. Bilingual competence should be respected as a type of communicative competence; teachers should allow bilingual peer groups in class to allow use of this resource; bilinguals and monolinguals do not differ in what they do with language, just how they do it; code switching similar to monolinguals’ switching between register and varieties
Gumperz & Cook-
Gumperz (2005)
Linguists viewed “competence” as knowledge of a language and “performance” as encoding and decoding of a language, but Hymes against this artificial separation; children gain knowledge of appropriateness through social experience - linguists’ focus on performance neglects social aspect; old grammaticality vs. acceptability dichotomy changed to possibility/feasibility/appropriateness/performance model; Hult ties in with Canale & Swain (1980) breakdown into: Linguistic, Sociolinguistic, Discourse, and Strategic competencies
Hymes (1972)
“Presentation rituals” used to show others how we feel about them; Face saving techniques differ across cultures; Positive face = desire for others to want what you want, Negative face = desire to have others not interfere with your wants; Contextualization cues (originally coined by Gumperz, 1982) smooth when shared between speakers, are often unconscious, connected to background experience/knowledge, and can be source of misunderstanding when not the same between speakers from different speech communities
Schiffrin (1996 in McKay
& Hornberger)
3 possible sources of misunderstanding: 1. linguistic differences, 2. Sociolinguistic transfer, 3. differences in interactional styles; continued miscommunication between groups can have a gate-keeping effect - lead to inequality and injustice; teachers cannot teach sociolinguistic rules directly - should help students foster strategic competence to help with reflection on miscommunication and repair misunderstandings when they occur in conversation
Chick (1996 in McKay &
Hornberger)
English is the most diffuse language throughout the world; 3 circles: 1. Inner circle (native English speaking countries like Britian, US), 2. Outer circle (mostly former colonies such as India, Pakistan); Expanding circles (countries like China where English is a prominently taught foreign language); most speakers of English in the world are using an interlanguage variety, so native speakers need to give up “ownership” of English and respect those interlanguages as being systematic and not deficient; English is a powerful “medium of multiculturalism”
Kachru & Nelson (1996
in McKay & Hornberger)
Ferguson (1959) concept of diglossia discussed: high status vs. low status languages within a multicultural country, languages are “functionally separated”; “speech communities” share rules for language conduct and interpretation; separate domains often exist (e.g. intimate, formal, intergroup) for different languages and varieties; code switching and code mixing are natural and not random, functionally motivated; teachers need to revise their own attitudes about multilinguals’ language use in the classroom
Sridhar (1996 in McKay
& Hornberger)
3 types of language planning: 1. corpus planning (changes to the body of a language), 2. status planning (can give official recognition, change context language is used in), 3. language acquisition planning (how language is taught, therefore affects number of speakers of a language); 3 goals of language policy: 1. language shift, 2. language maintenance, 3. language enrichment; political and economic goals also factor in; discusses recommendations for additive bilingualism (e.g. encourage L1 use in school, L1 groupings, L1 tutors, cultural artifacts around school); discussed Ruiz’s (1984) Orientations toward Language Planning: 1. Language as a problem, 2. Language as a right, 3. Language as a resource
Wiley (1996 in McKay &
Hornberger)
English is not static - differences based on background, age, ethnicity; “Sociolinguistic markers” (originally Labov, 70’s) indicate regional and social varieties; “dialect areas” - where regional dialects occur, share common features; social varieties (e.g. AAVE) are often more stigmatized than regional varieties; “accent” only refers to pronunciation, not syntax
Rickford (1996 in McKay
& Hornberger)
white American English vernaculars (WAEV) often not considered “creoles”, less stigmatized than AAVE; “language contact” influences development of varieties; “founder populations” and segregation influence language evolution
Mufwene (2001) - “The
Ecology of Language
Evolution”
“Gullah” is an African-American creole variety, some white teachers needed translators until they could accommodate; pidgins and creoles not usually valued in schools; children create creoles from the pidgins of their parents, make more systematic; teachers need to understand linguistic backgrounds of their students in order to make curricula that are useful to them
Nichols (1996 in McKay
& Hornberger)
Ethnographic microanalysis - also known as “microethnography”, look at language use in real time, in daily situations; “micropolitics” often affect these interactions; listening influences speakers - we create environments for speakers when we listen; cultural differences can be seen as Boundary or Border: Border = politicized, expected that large gulf exists between people from different cultures, Boundary = differences not politicized, expected eventual understanding despite cultural differences; need to find “co-membership” between teacher and students when cultural differences exist - look for shared aspects of social identity, relevant commonalities
Erickson (1996 in McKay
& Hornberger)