SLA Theoretical Approaches Flashcards
SLA Theoretical Approaches
- Contrastive Analysis
- Error Analysis
- UG (linguistic) Approach
- Monitor Model
Error Analysis (def)
Learner’s errors are significiant since they provide evidence of how lang is learned/acquired, what strategies or procedures the learner is employing in the doscovery of the lang
Interlanguage (Error Analysis)
- Approximative system, idiosyncratic dialect
- Learner’s developing second language knowledge
Stages of errors (Error Analysis)
- Random errors (presystematic) = experimentation and innacurate guessing
- Emergent stage = growing consistency
- Systematic stage - ability to correct errors when pointed out
- Stabilization stage = relatively few errors, ability to self-correct
Basic steps in Error Analysis
- Collection of learner language sample
- Identification of errors
- Descr of errors
- Explanation of errors
- Error effects/evaluation
Psycholinguistic sources of errors
Intralingual evergeneralizations
Interlingual
Indeterminate
Drawbacks to Error Analysis
- Overstressing of production data
- Failure to provide complete picture of learner language
- Cross-sectional studies give static view of SLA
- Ignores avoidance
- Focus on specific languages
Contributions of Error Analysis
- First serious attempt to investigate learner language to discover how learners acquire L2
- Supported claims of creativity
- Made errors respectable
- Notion of interlanguage
Three views of Linguistic Approach
- The nature & availability of UG same in L1 and L2 acqu
- UG may be present & available to L2 learners, but its exact nature has been altered by the prior acquisition of the L1
- No access to UG
UG critique
- Few clear, unambiguous predictions (lack of clearcut evidence, tendency for ‘post-hoc’ explanations and comple modifications to theory)
- Theory in constant evolution
- Agenda set by theorists, not L2 researchers
- Social and psychological factors outside area of interest
Monitor Model hypotheses
- Acquisition-Learning Hypothesis
- Monitor Hypothesis
- Natural Order Hypothesis
- Comprehensible Input Hypothesis
- Affective Filter Hypothesis
Acquisition-Learning Hyp ways to dev L2 competence
- Acquisition (subconscious)
- Learning (conscious)
Systems in Acquisition-Learning Hypothesis
Acquired system: initiates speaker’s utterances and responsible for spontaneous language use
Learned system: acts as monitor = minor changes and polishing what accquired system produced
Acqu and learning ALH
Acquisition: L2 knowledge acqu when exposed to L2 which we understand w/ no conscious attention to language form
Learning: conscious process of study and attention to form and rule learning
‘Non-interface’ position ALH
learning cannot become acquisition
Critique ALH
No clearly defined distinction betw learn and acqu, untestable
Contribution ALH
related to distinction explicit vs implicit processes/ learning
Monitor Hypothesis
Learning has one function: as a Monitor or editor
Monitor acts as editor:
- consciously controlled
- makes changes in utterance form
Conditions for use:
- time
- focus on form
- know the rule
Critique Monitor Model
- no real evidence
impossible to determine whether rules are conscious or not, untestable - unproven assumptions
Natural Order Hypothesis
- Rules of language acquired in predictable order
- evidence from morpheme acqu studies
Critique Natural Order Hypothesis
- Problems w/ morpheme acq evidence
- Cross-sectional studies, not longitudinal
- Role of L1 not insignificant
Comprehensible Input Hypothesis
- i + 1 (input slightly beyond present level)
- Speaking = result of acquisition, not cause
- if enough input is understood, necessary grammar automatically provided
Critique Comprehensible Input Hypothesis
- Circular: acq occurs if enough comprehensible input provided, and input assumed as having been provided if acq occurs
- Not testable or falsifiable (how to determine 1 + i?)
- Elimination of incorrect forms?
- Output ignored
Affective Filter Hypothesis (def and critique)
- Affective factors, potential barrier to acquisition
- Critique: predicts same result for indifferent and highly motivate learners
- poorly explained, untestable
Sociocultural Perspective
- Vytgotsky
- Lang dev takes place in social interactions betw individuals
- Speaking (& writing) mediates thinking
Zone of proximal dev
Sociocultural Perspective
- diff betwe what a learner can do with and without help
- L2 learners advance to higher levels when they collaborate and interact with more advanced L2 speakers
(Krashen’s Natural Approach) - Interaction = essential, not helpful
- Scaffolding: role of T & others in supporting learner’s dev and providing support structures to get to next stage
Socio perspective Critique
- De-emphasis on lang structures
- Lack of empirical support for claims
Info Processing Approach
- Humans are viewed as autonomous and active
- Mind is a general -purpose-symbol-processing system
- Complex behaviour is composed of simpler processes
- Component processes can be isolated & studied independently of other processes
- Processes take time; therefore, predictions about reaction time can be made
- The mind is a limited-capacity processor
Mental processes occur in real time
- SLA process affected in important ways:
- attention, memory, & processing limitations
Skill Acq Theory (Info processing approach)
- DeKeyser
- SLA wiewed as series of sequenced stages leading to highly skilled behavior
- Declarative knowledge to procedural, practice leading to automatization
-Controlled processing (takes time + requires attention)
Automatic processing (requires less mental space and attentional effort, practice leads to automatized processing)
Critique Info processing approach
- Emphasis on perf, cognitive variabes, little focus on competence, underlying rules (UG)
- Socio-psychological variables de-emphasized
Processing-related issues
Interaction hypothesis
Comprehensible output
Noticing hypothesis
Input hypothesis
Input Processing
Focus on form
Interaction hypothesis
- Long
- SLA takes place through conversational modified interaction is a necessary mechanism for making language comprehensible
- Interactional modification makes input comprehensible
- Comprehensible input promotes acquisition
- Therefore, interactional modif promotes acq
Reformulation of Interaction Hypothesis
Taking into account:
- output
- role of selective attention and learner’s processing constraints
- Corrective feedback during interaction
Feedback
Interaction Hyp (Long)
2 types:
- positive evidence (input models of what is gram and acceptable in TL)
- negative evidence: direct or indirect info about what is unacceptable
– Explicit (gram expl/overt error correction)
– Implicit (failure to understand, reformulating, etc)
Comprehensible output hypothesis
- Swain
- Originally influenced by info-processing, cognitivist view
-Role of output:
Enhances fluency: more automaticity w/ practice
Noticing Hypothesis
- Schmidt
- Nothing is learned unless it has been noticed
- L2 learners don’t begin to acq a lang feature until they become aware in it in the input
Implications for learners (Schmidt)
-Pay attention to input
-Pay particular attention to whatever aspects of input you need to learn
-Look for clues
- If you cannot find gen principle, concentrate on noticing how particular instances are used in specific contexts
Input processing
Learners have limited processing capacity and cannot pay attention to form and meaning at the same time
Input processing principles
- Primacy of Content words principle
– learners process content words before anything else
Instructional issues
- Processing Instruction
– Learners are ptu in situation where must rely on language form to understand
– Explicit instruction about how target forms are used to understand meaning
Processing Instruction Main features
- Explicit info about target structure
- Explicit info about processing strats
- Structured input activities
Focus on Form
Simultaneous attention to both meaning and how that meaning is encoded in a communicative context
Focus on form (trad classroom)
metalinguistic explanations, grammar-based classrooms
General consensus on role of instruction
Instrcution cannot alter dev routes
Instruction can speed up some aspects of acq (not necessary but can be beneficial)
Research needed
