• Author / Uploaded
• Ruth CR

Citation preview

SECOND LANGUAGE ACQUISITION PAIR ASSIGNMENT

Students’ names: Castillo Rojas, Ruth Sara Suárez Lofredo, Jennifer

Group: GROUP FP_TEFL_2016-10

Date: Tuesday, 28th February 2017

Assignment – SLA

Table of Contents GENERAL INFORMATION.....................................3 Assignment................................................4 1. SWAIN’S POSITION.......................................5 2. KRASHEN’S POSITION....................................6 3. BOTH POSITIONS........................................7 References................................................10

2

Assignment – SLA

ASSIGNMENT SECOND LANGUAGE ACQUISITION

GENERAL INFORMATION This assignment consists of reflecting in pairs on the question below and has to fulfil the following conditions: -

Length: 5 pages (without including cover, index or appendices –if there are any-). Type of font: Arial or Times New Roman. Size: 11. Line height: 1.5. Alignment: Justified.

The assignment has to be done in this Word document and has to fulfil the rules of presentation and edition, as for quotes and bibliographical references which are detailed in the Study Guide. Also, it has to be submitted following the procedure specified in the “Subject Evaluation” document. Sending it to the tutor’s e-mail is not permitted. In addition to this, it is very important to read the assessment criteria, which can be found in the “Subject Evaluation” document.

3

Assignment – SLA

Assignment cdoAingrtSwa, ...producing the target language may be the trigger that forces the learner to pay attention to the means of expression needed in order to successfully convey his or her own intended meaning. (Swain 1985: 249) In Swain's view, learners need not only input, but output: they need to use language in order to learn it. Krashen, however, as recently as 2009, stated that: esRarch anglue produce

done

onrcFgi speakEnghli.(KomrT,209)

over

het

yb anglue

nusdetarig si

usdent

ot

aslt

ethr

what the

decas

we

hear

result speak

has

of English

and langue

wil

shown eadr. acquiston,

not

hat

improve

we

The not

abilty the

hetir

acquire to cause.

abilty

ot

“Isitpbolercnhwmygpositevahcnu dglesqitor‘an’,Swpu?Odtheovsirnwxmhfbteoyadprci?” dGuneisl:Toawrthq ymf,uilnedortavcspfquindlerogbythsui,jnmeolar twpxsnufiverot,adhywsmcunilo.YteharbKsndSwicuethobarfmkwSLAy,ndthuseoar gnlfied.

Important: you have to write your personal details and the subject name on the cover (see the next page). The assignment that does not fulfil these conditions will not be corrected. You have to include the assignment index below the cover. 1. SWAIN’S POSITION

4

Assignment – SLA

“...producing the target language may be the trigger that forces the learner to pay attention to the means of expression needed in order to successfully convey his or her own intended meaning” Merrill Swain

To start with, we need to be clear about Camille Swain’s output hypothesis. She supported her hypothesis following the theoretical framework she developed together with Michael Canale and presented it in their paper “Theoretical Bases of Communicative Approaches to Second Language Teaching and Testing” where they stated: In our view, an integrative theory of communicative competence may be regarded as one in which there is a synthesis of knowledge of basic grammatical principles, knowledge of how language is used in social contexts to perform communicative functions, and knowledge of how utterances and communicative functions can be combined according to the principles of discourse. (Canale & Swain, 1980, p. 20). So, in order to communicate, a SL learner should know formal linguistic aspects (grammatical competence) of L2, know how to use language appropriately in different situations and with different speakers (sociolinguistic competence), know how the parts of language are connected (discourse competence), and know how to be an effective communicator to achieve communicative goals (strategic competence). In Swain’s words, output pushed learners to process language more deeply – with more mental effort – than input (Lantolf, 2004, p. 98). She agreed on the importance of negotiation for it implied comprehensibility of message meaning (input) but she argued that there was no enough research that demonstrated this negotiation led to second language learning (Lantolf, 2004). From her point of view, SL learning occurred “through interaction because it allows learners to negotiate not only the message of the input, but, in doing so, to focus on its form as well.” (Lantolf, 2004). Some benefits of producing output for learners, according to Swain, are shown in the graphic below:

5

Assignment – SLA

Screenshot from Ling 6500 - SLA

2. KRASHEN’S POSITION

“Research done over the last three decades has shown that we acquire language by understanding what we hear and read. The ability to produce language is the result of language acquisition, not the cause. Forcing students to speak English will not improve their ability to speak English” Stephen Krashen

Krashen was clear that comprehensible input was key to SLA. He prepared a paper dedicated to comprehensible output (CO) where he presented his thoughts about it. In his words “comprehensible output was not responsible for all or even most of our language competence” (Krashen, 1998, p. 175). he believes that forcing or pushing students to talk allows discomfort among them; it is one of the most anxiety-provoking aspects of foreign language classes (Young, 1991). Contrary to Swain, Krashen posed some questions that made interaction look like a vague hypothesis: “Is interaction necessary or just helpful? Is it the only way to acquire language or one way to acquire language? Also, what occurs during interaction that causes language acquisition?” (Krashen, 1998). He supported the natural approach where language output is not forced, but allowed to emerge spontaneously after receiving comprehensible language input, and learners

6

Assignment – SLA

have the opportunity to use L2 or L1 to be clear about the input; besides, speech errors were not supposed to be corrected. In his book Principles and Practice in SLA (1982) he explained his input hypothesis mentioning that “we acquire spoken fluency not by practicing talking but by understanding input, by listening and reading. It is, in fact, theoretically possible to acquire language without ever talking” (Krashen, Principles and Practice in Second Language Acquisition, 1982). If a SL learner has a poor perfomance while talking, then his partner will modify his speech to be more understanable. The former’s poor perfomance will affect the quality of the input and “will most likely receive, in general, more modified input than a speaker who appears competent and fluent.” (Krashen, 1982).

3. BOTH POSITIONS One of the most debated issues in SLA research has been the way learners extend the scope of their language learning. Some theorists, led by Krashen, have claimed that language acquisition is merely achieved by processing comprehensible linguistic input, but most researchers have now recognized the essential role of learner output, both spoken and written, in the acquisition of a second language. Swain was the pioneer claimer of the output thesis. On the one hand, according to Krashen’s input hypothesis we acquire a second language “by understanding messages” while processing comprehensible input. This input is considered comprehensible if it is just “a little beyond the current level of the learner’s competence” and then “both comprehension and acquisition will occur” (Krashen1881, 1982, 1985). In fact, this idea supports the Creative Construction Theory, which connects with Chomsky’s ideas on first language learning. According to this theory, learners create internal representations or pictures of the target language which will develop into the full second language system. Acquisition takes place internally while learners read or listen and process input they overall understand, whereas speaking and writing, that is producing language, are not seen as a necessary step in the learning process, but rather an outcome of the language acquisition. Something that seems interesting and controversial in Krashen’s Monitor Model is the

7

Assignment – SLA

difference between “acquisition” and “learning”. He supports the idea of acquisition as the competence gained in the second language while participating in natural communication and focusing in meaning which would be like “picking up the language” in an informal setting. However, he thinks about learning as the conscious study and internalization of the formal characteristics of the language. By means of this distinction, he claims that learners are able to edit their own language performance by using their “learned” knowledge of the formal language rules. In this way, he seems to be supporting the view of language acquisition as a merely cognitive process. According to this idea, communicative competence is achieved by the learner’s internal analysis of the second language input while participating in “natural communication” rather than by negotiating meaning during social interaction or output feedback. On the other hand, Swain appears to reject Krashen’s thesis when she makes the role of “output” in SLA stand out. According to her thesis, it is by producing language that learners notice their mistakes or gaps in the second language, test their target language skills and receive feedback that will enable them to “reflect on the language they learn” and “internalize linguistic Knowledge” (Swain 1995). In other words, this theory states that it is by means of output that “learners encounter the gaps in their linguistic knowledge” and therefore “modify their output” in order to internalize new things about the language. First of all, we can affirm that Krashen’s monitor model acknowledges the need of “natural communication” in order for second language acquisition to occur. He believes that acquisition only happens when the learner is participating in “natural communication”. This statement clearly reconciles his cognitive model with other linguistic and sociolinguistic models, like Swain’s Output thesis, and other theories where interaction is the main cause of second language acquisition. For instance, we could see Krashen’s input and Swain’s output thesis brought into line in Long’s Cognitive-Interactionist theory of ISLA (2014). In fact, Long explains that it is by interacting with other speakers of the target language that the learner’s implicit learning takes place and this is also when he notices “the gaps between [his] own interlanguage systems and the target input” (Long 2014). Long’s implicit learning idea matches Krashen’s idea on how acquisition takes place. Both of them see acquisition happening by means of interaction or “natural communication” and input analysis. In this way, Swain’s theory also matches Krashen’s up since, according to her, it is by

8

Assignment – SLA

means of

interaction that the learner notices his mistakes or gaps and learns from

them. On top of that, Swain’s output thesis implies the analysis of both “input” and “output” to enhance second language acquisition, since the learner encounters his knowledge gaps while producing the language and receiving feedback on it, that is new “input”. It is by comparing this new input or feedback to his own output and interlanguage that he acquires the second language. All in all, these two theories align in Long’s Interaction Hypothesis where he claims that “interaction provides a platform where input, feedback, negotiation and output can work seamlessly with one another” (Long 1996). On the other hand, we can also conclude that both the input and output hypothesis align with interactionists. According to them, the acquisition of the language is the result of the interaction between the linguistic environment and the learner’s mental process. They claim an interesting theory where both Krashen and Swain encounter each other: the quality of input affects and is also affected by the learner’s internal mechanisms. The learner’s output is not the only important data but rather the discourse built and negotiated by both the learner and the caretaker. Out of this interaction, second language acquisition will take place. Moreover, interactionists also support the need of a modified or comprehensible input for actual learning to occur. Finally, if the discourse is jointly constructed by the two speakers, the learner and the interlocutor, through interaction, then input is both the cause and result of this interaction. This is, we think, where both input and output overlap, since output is also both cause and result of the interaction. In fact, to this extent both Krashen’s and Swain’s theories reconcile and even overlap. All things considered, we can acknowledge that both seemingly opposite views are almost embedded in each other and it is possible to bring them into line.

9

Assignment – SLA

References Canale, M., & Swain, M. (1980). Theoretical Bases of Communicative Approaches to Second Language Acquisition Teaching and Testing. Ontario: The Ontario Institute for Studies in Education. Haimei, S. (n.d.). Instructed SLA and Task based Language Teaching (Vol. 15). Columbia University Working Papers in TESOL and Applied Linguistics. Krashen, S. (1982). Principles and Practice in Second Language Acquisition. Retrieved on 25 February, 2017, from Stephen Krashen: http://www.sdkrashen.com/content/books/principles_and_practice.pdf Krashen, S. (1998). Stephen D Krashen. Retrieved on 23 February, 2017, from Comprehensible Output: www.sdkrashen.com/content/articles/comprehensible_output.pdf Lantolf, J. (2004). Sociocultural Theory and Second Language Learning. In M. Swain, & J. Lantolf (Ed.), The output hypothesis and beyond (Third ed.). Oxford University Press. Ling 6500. (n.d.). Second Language Acqusition: Theory & Practice. Retrieved on 25 February, 2017, from https://www.google.com.pe/url? sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwj4h pTE8qzSAhUKiZAKHYN1AWoQFggYMAA&url=https%3A%2F %2Fusu.instructure.com%2Fcourses%2F352557%2Ffiles %2F56004453%2Fdownload%3Fverifier %3DnkrnnNkOmXJSLbiBORUsuNKleyC2 Mehmoush, M., & Sayadian, S. (n.d.). International Journal of Language Learning and Applied Linguistics World. Young, D. J. (1991). Creating a Low Anxiety Classroom Environment. The Modern Language Journal, 426-439. Retrieved from https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/5e68/e797873c0cf922b6e18208da1877ea89a3 b8.pdf

10