SLA Flashcards
Affective Filter hypothesis
(Krashen, 1982) How receptive to comprehensible input a learner is going to be.
Attrition
The loss of all or part of a first or second language either by an individual or a community. Several Competing L2 Attrition Hypotheses -Order of Acquisition: last thing learned, first thing lost -Frequency of Use: things learned best are retained most -Age and pre-proficiency levels: the amount of L2 loss is mediated by age and proficiency at the time attrition begins
Backsliding/U-Shaped Curve
Sharwood Smith & Kellerman (1989)
A correct form appears at an early stage of development, is replaced by incorrect form at intermediate stage, and reappears with mastery at a later stage of development.
Comprehensible Input
Krashen (1982)
Learners will acquire language when the input contains language structures that are slightly beyond their current level. (i +1)
Input: the language (spoken or written) that learners are exposed to.
Connectionism
N.C. Ellis (2003)
Instead of formulation of “linguistic rules.” language learning leads to the formation of neural pathways in the brain–Neural Networks–nodes and pathways are strengthened through activation.
Contrastive Analysis
A structure-by-structure comparison of the L1 and L2 used to determine and anticipate potential errors.
- intended to predict aspects of L2 that will either be easy or diffiicult to learn
- assumes the primary source of L2 errors is the L1
- assumes that the greater the difference between L1 and L2, the more errors that will occur
research showed that contrastive analysis does not predict nor account for all learner errors
Corrective Feedback
Responses to language learner’s errors that are intended to facilitate lanugage development
- error correction
- negative feedback
Critical Period Hypothesis
Lenneberg (1967)
There is a specific and limited time frame during the first few years of life in which an individual, if presented with adequate language stimuli, can acquire a first language.
Error Analysis
Corder (1967)
the systematic investigation of L2 learners’ errors
Focus on Form and Focus on FormS
Focus on Form
Keeping the main focus on task, content or communication while explicitly teaching a linguistic form (grammar, morphology, phonology).
Focus on FormS
- Traditional teaching of linguistic forms in isolation
- Limited to the teaching of forms
Fossilization
Selinker (1972) Term used to characterize cases of ‘permanent lack of mastery of a target langauge (TL) despite continuous exposure to the TL input, adequate motivation to improve, and sufficient opportunity to practice’ (Han, 2004)
quoted from Ortega; Understanding SLA.
- Individual Differences Learner Differences
Even if following a common developmental route, learners differ greatly in degree of success. (Gardner and MacIntyre, 1992, 1993):
- Cognitive Factors (language aptitude and language learning strategies)
- Affective Factors (attitudes, motivation, anxiety and willingness to communicate)
Information Processing
(McLaughlin, 1987) Skill building model Computer as metaphor: controlled versus automatic processing - Using new and unfamiliar forms requires greater attentional resources -Familiar forms are automatic; attentional resources are available for learning
Interaction Hypothesis
(Long, 1985, 1996) 1. Opportunities for negotiation of meaning 2. Modified interaction -> increased comprehensibility 3. Opportunity for output 4. Elicits negative feedback to draw learner’s attention to mismatches between their own output and target language forms
Interlanguage
Selinker (1972)
the language produced by learners
- a system in its own right, obeying it own rules
- a dynamic system, evolving over time
Language Acquisition Device
(Chomsky, 1965) the “little black box” in the brain that processes language
Language Transfer
“the psychological process whereby prior learning is carried over into a new learning situation” (Gass & Selinker, 2001,p. 66)
Monitor Model
(Krashen
Motivation
(Gardner and MacIntyre, 1993) the desire to achieve a goal with devotion of effort and satisfaction in activities that help attain the goal
Noticing Hypothesis
(Schmidt, 1990) Nothing is learned unless it ihas been noticed. Noticing is the essential starting point of acquisition.
Pushed Output Hypothesis
(Swain, 1985, 1995) “the activity of producing the target language may push learners to become aware of gaps and problems in theur current second language system. . .and provides them with opportunities to experiment with new structures and forms” (quoting Mitchell & Myles, 2004)
Recast
a form of implicit feedback in which the teacher restates the student’s utterance with corrected grammar Ellis, Loewen & Erlam (2006) found that recasts were not as effective as explicit metalinguistic feedback in long-term learning
The Cause of Learner Error
”Learners’ second-langauge utternaces may be deviant by comparison with target langauge norms, but they are by no means lacking in system. Errors and mistakes are patterned, and although some regular errors are caused by the influence of the first language, this is by no means true of all of them. Instead, there is a good deal of evidence that learners work their way through a number of developmental stages, from apparently primitive and deviant versions of the second language, to progressively more elaborate and target-like versions. Just like fully proficient users of a langauge, their language productins can be described by a set of underlying rules; these interim rules have thier own integrity and are not just inadequately applied versions of the target langauge rules.” (M & M, 1998, p. 16)
The systematicity in the langauge produced by second-langauge learners is of course paralled in the early stages through which first langauge learners also pass in a highly regular manner.
However, learner langauge (or interlangauge) is not only characterized by systematicity. Learner langauge systems are presumably unstable and in course of change; certainly, they are also characterized by high degrees of variabiltiy(Towell and Hawkins, 1994). Most obviously, learners’ utterances seem to vary from moment to moment, inthe types of ‘errors’ that are made, and leraners seem liable to switch between a range of correct and incorrect froms over lengthy periods of time.
Restructuring, a step within McLaughlin’s(1996) infromation processing model may explain learner error. Automatization (McLaughlin 1987, 1990; McLaughlin and Heredia 1996) is based on the work of psychologists such as Shiffrin and Schneiderr (1977) who claim that the way in which we process infromation may be either controlled or automatic, and that learning involves a shift from controlled towards automatic processing. Applied to SLL the model works as follows:
Learners first resort to controlled processing in teh second langauge. This controlled processing involves the temporary activation of a selection of infromation nodes in the memory, in a new configuration. Such processing requires a lot of attentional control on the part of the subject, and is constrained by the limitiations of the short term memory.
Through repeated activation, sequences first produced by controlled processing become automatic. Automatized sequences first produced by controlled processing become automatic. Automatized sequences are stored as units in the long-term memory, which by means that they can be made available very rapidly whenever the situation requires it.
Learning in this view is seen as teh movement from controlled to automatic processing via practice (repeated activation). When this shift occurs, controlled processes are freed to deal with higher levels of processing.
This continuing movement from controlled to automatic processing results in a constant restructuring of the linguistic system of teh second language learner. This phenomenon may account for some of teh variability characteristic of learner language. Restructuring destabilizes some structures in the interlangauge, which seemd to have been previously aquired, and hence leads to the temporary reapperance of second langauge errors.
The relationship between learning processes and langauge teaching
Enrichment of the linguistic environment especially in naturalistic settings, but also in the communicative classroom, comes to learners in the midst of oral interaction with one or more interlocutors. In the early 1980’s Michael Long established the Interactin Hypothesis (Long 1996). The hypothesis extended Krashen’s proposal by connecting it in novel ways with studies in discourse analysis that had entered the field via the work of SLA founder Evelyn Hatch (1978) and work done on caretaker speech and foreigner talk in neighboring disciplines. At the time, Long agreed with Krashen that learning happens through comprehension, and that the more one comprehends, the more one learns. However, he departed from the strong input orientation of the times by focusing on interaction and proposing that the best kind of comprehensible input learners can hope to obtain is imput ath has been ineractionally modified, or that has been adjusted after recieving some signal that the interlocutor needs some hlep in order to fully understand the message.
Interactional modifications are initiated by moves undertaken by either interlocutor in reaction to (real or percieved) comprehension problems, as they strive to make meaning more comprehensible for each other, that is, to negotiate for meaning. Typically, negotiation episodes begin with clarification requests if non-understanding is serious (eg whaddya mean? uh? pardon me?), confrimation checks when the interlocutor is somewhat unsure she has understood the message correctly (eg you mean X? X and Y, right?) and comprehension checks if one interlocutor suspects the other speaker may not have understood what she said (eg you know what I mean? do you want me to repeat?). Following signals of a need to negotiate something, the other interlocutor may confirm understanding or admit non-understanding, seek help, repeat her words exactly or try to phrase the message differently. Often this two-way process makes both interlocutors modify their utterances in ways that not only increase the comprehensiblity of teh message but also aument the salience of certain L2 forms and make them available to the learner for learning.
Sociocultural Theory and Conversational Analysis attribute interaction to L2 learning. Conversational Analysis grew out of ethnomethodological thinking of Erving Goffman and Harold Garfinkel, two sociologists during the 1950’s and 60’s. Goffman focused on the self, symbolic interaction and life as a theater, whereas Garfinkel emphasized practical activity, interactionally created sequentiality and the local production of social organization. In the 1960’s Garfinkel coined the term ethnomethodology to refer to his approach to the study of social order. CA grew out of this thinking. The CA school of thought was joined by Harvey Sacks, Emanuel Schegloff and Gail Jefferson.
Quoted and paraphrased from Ortega; Understanding Second Langauge Acquisition