Grammar-Translation Method
-The Prussian Method
-The effect of the influence of Latin on:
-On the way vernacular language were supposed to be taught
-The goals for which Latin was taught, i.e.literacy and understanding of the classics
-An educated person should be able to read and understand the classics
-Such a person should recite the rules of grammar and proverbs
-The key to learning a foreign language was the knowledge of its grammar in the form of memorized rules learned by heart, accompanied by declensions and conjugations
-The knowledge of grammar provided mental gymnastics for the intellect
-Rules, i.e. explanations about were presented first and then examples followed (deductive presentation)
-The main form of activity in class was translation from the target language to the native language and vice versa
-The unit of the material for translation as well as for the whole method was the sentence, translation as performad both orally and in writing
-Some proverbs were learned by heart
-The learner’s native language had an important role to play, it was used as a medium of instruction
-The teaching material contained classical texts which were to be read and subjected to grammatical analysis
-Reading was emphasized but it was not contemporary nor communicatively useful
-Vocabulary items were presented in the form of bilingual lists to be memorized.
-Verbatim word-for-word learning had an important role to play in this method
The Reform Movement
-Modern languages English, German and French entered school curricula in the 18th century
-They were taught in the Grammar-Translation Method which caused dissatisfaction with the results
-the primacy of spoken language and oral-based methodology
-learners should first hear the language before they see its written form
-the importance of phonetics and phonology
-(International Phonetic Association was founded in 1886)
-the use of the target language for instruction (translation should be avoided)
-teaching vocabulary in the context
-inductive grammar teaching (from examples to a rule) rules after practice of grammar points in context
The Direct Method
-The Direct Method originated in a desire to do something that the schools of the time were not doing, to teach foreign languages as practical skills for everydaypurposes of social behaviour
-‘Direct’ comes from the absence of any mediating role of grammar, translation or dictionary
-The emphasis in this method was on speaking and listening.
-Correct pronunciation was of primary importance
-The forms of actvity were oral, especially dialogues and question-and-answer exchanges
-New material was first introduced orally
-Vocabulary was chosen on the basis of its practicality and its meaning was demonstrated directly, with the use of objects, pictures and gestures
-Grammar of the target language was taught inductively in a variety of oral activities
Never translate – demonstrate
Never explain – act
Never make a speech – ask questions
Never imitate – correct
Never speak in single words – use sentences
Never speak too much – make students speak
Never use the book – use your lesson plan
Never jum around – follow your plan
Never go too fast – keep the pace of the student
Never speak too slowly – speak normally
Never speak too quickly – speak naturally
Never speak too loudly – speak naturally
Never be impatient – take it easy
Markedness
-In Markedness Differential Hypothesis, markedness is defined in the following terms:
- ‘A phenomenon or structure X in some language is relatively more marked than some other phenomenon or structure Y if cross-linguistically the presence of X in a language implies the presence of Y, but the presence of Y does not imply the presence of X’ (Eckman, 1985:290).
Markedness and l1 transfer
-Markedness theory can help explain why some differences between the native and the target language lead to learning difficulty, while other differences do not.
-The basic assumption is that unmarked settings of parameters will occur in interlanguage before marked settings, even if the L2 provides evidence of a marked setting (as in case 4).
-Thus it is predicted that no transfer will take place from native to target language when L1 has a marked setting (cases (3) and (4)).
-The most obvious case of transfer is (2), where the native language shows an unmarked setting and the target language a marked one.
Universal Grammar and Typology
-L1 unmarked forms are transferred into interlanguage.
-L1 marked forms are not transferred into interlanguage.
-Both the Typological approach and the Universal Grammar approach have generated useful predictions about the course of interlanguage and the influence of the first language.
-Language acquisition proceeds by mastering easier unmarked properties before the more difficult marked ones. There seem to be exceptions, however, in the early stages of acquisition and where both first-language and target-language constructions are marked.
The Acculturation Model
-Acculturation is defined by Schumann as ‘the process of becoming adapted to a new culture’.
-is seen as an important aspect of SLA, because language is one of the most observable expressions of culture
-and because in second language settings the acquisition of a new language is seen as tied to the way in which the learner’s community and the target language community view each other.
-The central premise of the Acculturation Model is:
-... second language acquisition is just one aspect of acculturation and the degree to which a learner acculturates to the target language group will control the degree to which he acquires the second language. (Schumann, 1978:34).
-Schumann, J. 1978. ‘The acculturation model for second language acquisition’ in R. Gingras, ed. Second Language Acquisition and Foreign Language Teaching. Arlington, VA.: Center for Applied Linguistics.
Social and psychological distance
-Acculturation, and hence SLA, is determined by the degree of social and psychological distance between the learner and the target language culture.
-Social distance is the result of a number of factors which affect the learner as a member of a social group in contact with the target language group.
-Psychological distance is the result of various affective factors which concern the learner as an individual. The social factors are primary. The psychological factors come into play in cases where the social distance is indeterminant (i.e. where social factors constitute neither a clearly positive nor a clearly negative influence on acculturation).
Social distance
-An example of a ‘good’ learning situation is when:
-the target language and L2 groups view each other as socially equal;
-the target language and L2 groups are both desirous that the L2 group will assimilate;
-both the target language and L2 groups expect the L2 group to share social facilities with the target language group (i.e. there is low enclosure);
-the L2 group is small and not very cohesive;
-the L2 group’s culture is congruent with that of the target language group;
-both groups have positive attitudes to each other;
-the L2 group envisages staying in the target language area for an extended period.
Psychological distance
-The psychological factors are affective in nature:
-language shock (i.e. the learner experiences doubt and possible confusion when using the L2);
-culture shock (i.e. the learner experiences disorientation, stress, fear, etc. as a result of differences between his or her own culture and that of the target language community);
-motivation;
-ego boundaries.
Pidginization Hypothesis
-When social and/or psychological distances are great, the learner fails to progress beyond the early stages, with the result that his language is pidginized. Schumann refers to this account of SLA as the pidgnization hypothesis.
-Forms observed in pidgins:
-‘no+V’ negatives,
-uninverted interrogatives,
-the absence of possessive and plural inflections,
-and restricted verb morphology.
-Schumann suggests ‘pidginisation may characterise all early second language acquisition and ... under conditions of social and psychological distance it persists (1978a:110). When pidginisation persists the learner fossilises.
-That is, he no longer revises his interlanguage system in the direction of the target language. Thus early fossilisation and pidginisation are identical processes. Thus continued pidginisation is the result of social and psychological distance.
-The degree of acculturation leads to pidgin-like language in two ways:
-it controls the level of input that the learner receives;
-it reflects the function which the learner wishes to use the L2 for
Functions of language
-Schumann distinguishes three broad functions of language:
-the communicative function, which concerns the transmission of purely referential, denotative information;
-the integrative function, which involves the use of language to mark the speaker as a member of a particular social group;
-the expressive function, which consists of the use of language to display linguistic virtuosity (e.g. in literary uses).
The Nativisation Model
-Andersen sees SLA as the result of two general forces which he labels nativisation and denativisation.
-Nativisation consists of assimilation; the learner makes the input conform to his own internalised view of what constitutes the L2 system.
-The learner simplifies the learning task by building hypotheses based on the knowledge he already possesses (e.g. knowledge of his first language).He attends to an ‘internal norm’.
-Nativisation is apparent in pidginisation and the early stages of both first and second language acquisition.
-Denativisation involves accommodation (in the Piagetian sense); the learner adjusts his internalised system to make it fit the input.
-The learner makes use of inferencing strategies which enable him to remodel his interlanguage system in accordance with the ‘external norm’ (i.e. the linguistic features represented in the input language).
-Denativisation is apparent in depidginisation (i.e. the elaboration of a pidgin language which occurs through the gradual incorporation of forms from an external language source) and also later first and second language acquisition.
Nativisation:
-Growth independent of the external norm (Assimilation)
-Restricted access to input
-Pidginisation
-Creation of a unique first/ second language acquisition
Denativisation:
-Growth towards an external norm (Accommodation)
-Adequate access to input
-Depidginisation
-First/ second language as increasing approximation towards external ‘target’ norm
Accommodation Theory
-Giles’s primary concern is to investigate how intergroup uses of language reflect basic social and psychological attitudes in interethnic communication.
-the relationship that holds between the learner’s social group (termed the ‘ingroup’) and the target language community (termed the ‘outgroup’).
-However, whereas Schumann explains these relationships in terms of variables that create actual social distance, Giles does so in terms of perceived social distance
-Whereas for Schumann social and psychological distance are static (or at least change only slowly over time),
-for Giles intergroup relationships are dynamic and fluctuate in accordance with the shifting views of identity held by each group.
-Giles agrees with Gardner (1979) that motivation is the primary determinant of L2 proficiency
-He considers the level of motivation to be a reflex of how individual learners define themselves in ethnic terms. This is governed by a number of key variables:
-Identification of the individual learner with his ethnic group: the extent to which the learner sees himself as a member of a specific ingroup, separate from his outgroup;
-Inter-ethnic comparison: whether the learner makes favourable or unfavourable comparisons between his own ingroup and the outgroup; this will be influenced by the learner’s awareness of ‘cognitive alternatives’ regarding the status of his own group’s position, for instance when he perceives the intergroup situation as unfair;
-Perception of ethno-linguistic vitality: whether the learner sees his ingroup as holding a low or high status and as sharing or excluded from institutional power;
-Perception of ingroup boundaries: whether the learner sees his ingroup as culturally and linguistically separate from the outgroup (= hard boundaries) or as culturally and linguistically related (= soft boundaries);
-Identification with other ingroup social categories: whether the learner identifies with few or several other ingroup social categories (e.g. occupational, religious, gender) and as a consequence whether he holds adequate or inadequate status within his ingroup.
The non- systematic variability
-Native-speaker language use is also characterised by non-systematic variability. This is of two types: performance variability is not part of the user’s competence; it occurs when the language user is unable to perform his competence.
-It is not difficult to find examples of free variation, although the examples are likely to be idiosyncratic. For example, I sometimes say [ofn] and sometimes [oftn]. Or I have used ‘variation’ and ‘variability’ interchangeably. I alternate between ‘that’ and ‘who’ as subject relative clauses in non-restrictive relative clauses.
-Ellis’s Variable Competence Model
-Ellis has argued that in addition to systematic variability, there is non-systematic variability in interlanguage. In the early stages of second-language acquisition new forms are used that have not yet been integrated into the learner’s form-function variation. This process Ellis saw to involve non-systematic variability in the interlanguage. Systematic variability occurs only when the new forms have been accommodated by restructuring of the existing form-function system to one that more closely approximates that of the target language.
-Ellis gave the example of a learner who used two different negative rules (no+verb and don’t+verb) to perform the same illocutionary meaning in the same situational context, in the same linguistic context, and in the same discourse context. Nor was there evidence for any difference in the amount of attention paid to the form of the utterance. Ellis argued that the two forms were in free variation and that such variability in use is non-systematic until reorganisation phase begins when the forms are distinguished in terms of situational, linguistic, and discourse use.
-Ellis (1986) drew a more “internal” picture of the learner in his variable competence model. Ellis hypothesised a storehouse of “variable interlanguage rules” depending on how automatic and how analysed the rules are. He drew a sharp distinction between planned and unplanned discourse. In order to examine variation. The former implies less automaticity, and therefore requires the learner to call upon a certain category of interlanguage rules, while the latter, more automatic production, predisposes the learner to dip into another set of interlanguage rules.
-Ellis, R. 1986. Understanding Second language Acquisition. Oxford: OUP.
Capability continuum
-Tarone (1983) represents the effects of situational context as a continuum of interlanguage styles. At one end of the continuum is the vernacular style which is called upon when the learner is not attending to his speech.. This is the style which is both most natural and most systematic.
-At the other end of the continuum is the careful style, which is most clearly evident in tasks that require the learner to make a grammatical judgement (e.g. to say whether a sentence is correct or incorrect). The careful style is called upon when the learner is attending closely to his speech.
-Thus the stylistic continuum is the product of differing degrees of attention reflected in a variety of performance tasks. Tarone views the stylistic continuum as competence, not performance.
Linguistic and situational context
-The effects of the linguistic and situational context interact to influence jointly the learner’s use of interlanguage forms.
-The linguistic contexts are seen as a continuum ranging from ‘simple’ (e.g. single clause utterances for the third person singular ‘-s’) to ‘complex’ (e.g. subordinate clauses for the third person singular ‘-s’),
-The situational contexts are also viewed as a continuum from careful to vernacular.
Stages of interlanguage
-a stage of random errors, a stage that Corder called “presystematic”, in which the learner is only vaguely aware that there is some systematic order to a particular class of items; examples:
-John cans sing.
-John can to sing.
-John can singing.
-(experimentation and inaccurate guessing)
-the second emergent stage of interlanguage finds the learner growing in consistency in linguistic production. The learner has begun to discern a system and to internalise certain rules.
L: I go New York.
NS: You’re going to New York? L: [doesn’t understand] What?
NS: You will go to New York?
L: Yes.
NS: When?
L: 1972
NS: Oh, you went to New York in 1972.
L: Yes, I go 1972.
-The third stage is truly a systematic stage in which the learner is now able to manifest more consistency in producing the second language. The most salient difference between the second and the third stage is the ability of learners to correct their errors when they are pointed out.
L: Many fish are in the lake. These fish are serving in the restaurants near the lake.
NS: [laughing] The fish are serving?
L: [laughing] Oh, no, the fish are served in the restaurants.
-A final stage, which Brown calls the stabilisation stage in the development of interlanguage systems Corder (1973) called a “postsystematic” stage. Here the learner has relatively few errors and has mastered the system to the point that fluency and intended meanings are not problematic. This fourth stage is characterised by the learner’s ability to self-correct.