plik


ÿþACADEMIC YEAR 2013-2014 YEAR ONE: INTRODUCTION TO LANGUAGE LEARNING AND TEACHING #6: STEPHEN KRASHEN S SECOND LANGUAGE ACQUISITION THEORY (extracted in part from: Majer, J. 2010.  Second language acquisition and foreign language learning . In Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk, B. (Ed.), New Ways to Language. Aódz: Aódz University Press. 352-375). 0. The emergence of The Monitor Model In the late 1970s and early 1980s, the eminent American psycholinguist Stephen D. Krashen elaborated on the IL theory and came to the conclusion that fossilization indicates the halting of acquisition, but not learning. Krashen (1985: 43) believes that there are a few possible causes of fossilization: ·ð insufficient quantity and quality of linguistic data (e.g. input filled with routines and prefabricated patterns, a limited range of vocabulary and little new syntax); ·ð a high affective filter and the output filter (i.e. even if real acquisition has occurred, affective factors may have prevented the learner from performing his/her competence); ·ð the acquisition of deviant forms (or the effect of exposure to IL talk input  the speech of L2 acquirers directed at other L2 acquirers). The above observations form part of Krashen s (1977, 1982, 1985) more general approach to SLA theory which he publicized widely as the MONITOR MODEL, later also called the DUAL COMPETENCE MODEL. The theory was made up of five main hypotheses about second-language acquisition. These are summarized below. 1. The Acquisition-Learning Hypothesis The ACQUISITION-LEARNING HYPOTHESIS states that  adults have two distinct and independent ways of developing competence in a second language (Krashen 1982: 10): acquisition, which is subconscious and which is to be identified with LAD, and learning, which is conscious and which is how most people access a foreign language in schools. The remaining fundamental differences can be summarised thus: ACQUISITION vs. LEARNING àð similar to child first-language acquisition àð formal knowledge of language àð 'picking up' a language àð 'knowing about' a language àð implicit knowledge of grammar àð explicit knowledge of grammar àð formal teaching does not help àð formal teaching helps In the light of the above, learning is a conscious process for developing ability in language. It does not involve the use of the LAD, but uses other faculties of mind to produce language-like behaviour (Krashen 1985: 102). The hypothesis under consideration claims that  no change is posited in the LAD at puberty or at any other age, nor does the LAD degenerate. It also allows the possibility that  perfect post puberty second-language acquirers may exist  it predicts that such individuals will have had plenty of exposure to comprehensible input, and will have very low affective filters (Krashen 1985: 13). 1 2. The Input Hypothesis According to the INPUT HYPOTHESIS, L2 learners are able to understand language containing unacquired grammar with the help of context, which includes extralinguistic information, knowledge of the world, and previously acquired linguistic competence. In more technical terms, Krashen claims that learners acquire language by processing COMPREHENSIBLE INPUT that is a little bit beyond their current level. His i + 1 formula is to be interpreted like this: the  i is the acquirer s current competence, or the last rule acquired along the natural order, and the  i + 1 means the next rule the acquirer is  due to acquire or is eligible to acquire along the natural order (Krashen 1985: 101). Thus, listening and reading comprehension are of primary importance in the language programme, whereas the ability to speak or write fluently in L2 is supposed to emerge in its own time. By and large, L2 competence develops via output practice in communicative situations (Brown 2007). Krashen emphasizes the role of modified registers in providing comprehensible input. A teacher may try to fine tune the message so that the student gets exactly i + 1 comprehensible input, but that may not be as useful as rough tuned comprehensible input, where the speaker concentrates on communicating by getting the message understood. This is what happens in caregiver talk and foreigner talk. 3. The Natural Order Hypothesis The NATURAL ORDER HYPOTHESIS states that learners acquire the rules of L2 in a predictable order. The sequence does not appear to be determined solely by formal simplicity; neither is it dependent of the order in which rules are taught. Krashen (1985: 1) claims that, like in L1 acquisition, there is a natural order in the acquisition of grammatical structures in L2. The average order of grammatical morphemes is as follows: PROGRESSIVE (-ing) PLURAL (-s) COPULA (to be) AUXILIARY (PROGRESSIVE be) ARTICLE (a, the) IRREGULAR PAST (e.g. went) REGULAR PAST (-ed) 3rd PERSON SINGULAR (-s) VERB POSSESSIVE (-s) Krashen believes that this order is derived from an analysis of empirical studies of second language acquisition and is the same for people from different language backgrounds. 2 4. The Monitor Hypothesis The MONITOR HYPOTHESIS claims that conscious learning has a limited function in adult L2 performance: it can only be used as a monitor or editor. In other words, its role is to make repairs on the output of the acquired system. On the other hand, fluency in L2 comes from what has been acquired or  picked up in natural communicative situations. Formal knowledge of L2 comes from rules which have been learned in the formal conditions of the classroom, i.e. involving textbooks, teachers, testing and correction. For the monitor to be used successfully, three conditions must apply; the performer has to: ·ð have enough time (however, is this possible in normal conversation?) ·ð be focused on the form (and he must want to produce correct sentences) ·ð know the rule (but is it possible to know all the rules?) While focusing on form may result in somewhat more grammatical accuracy, it does take more time. In a study using adult subjects, it was reported that focusing on form took about 30 per cent longer and resulted in about 14 per cent less information transmitted. This may seriously disrupt communication in conversational situations (Krashen 1985: 2). 5. The Affective Filter Hypothesis According to the AFFECTIVE FILTER HYPOTHESIS, there are many attitudinal factors that may act as a mental block and prevent an acquirer from  taking up comprehensible input. In technical terms, this means a lot of the input being filtered out, so that it never becomes INTAKE  the linguistic data actually available for further processing and acquisition. The filter may be  high due to factors such as anxiety, stress, low self-esteem, low self-confidence, or lack of motivation. For example, the filter is typically  up when the acquirer is  on the defensive , or when he/she considers the language class to be a place where his/her weaknesses will be revealed (Krashen 1985: 3). It is the task of the teacher to try and make the atmosphere conducive to acquisition. According to Krashen (1985: 3),  the acquirer needs to be 'open' to the input. The affective filter is a mental block that prevents acquirers from fully utilizing the comprehensible input they receive for language acquisition. When it is 'up', the acquirer may understand what he hears and reads, but the input will not reach the LAD . What the last of Krashen s hypotheses has achieved was to draw researchers and educators attention to the role of socio-affective factors in the process of SLA and FLL. 6. Krashen s formula (Ellis 1997) INPUT FILTER INTAKE LAD / UG ACQUIRED COMPETENCE MONITOR OUTPUT ("the black box") ________________________________________________________________________________________________ REFERENCES AND SUGGESTIONS FOR FURTHER STUDY Brown, H. D. 2007. Principles of Language Learning and Teaching, Fifth Edition. White Plains, NY: Pearson Education. Ellis, R. 1997. Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Gass, S. M. & Selinker, L. 2008. Second Language Acquisition. An Introductory Course. Third Edition. New York: Routledge. Krashen, S. D. 1977.  The Monitor Model for adult second language performance . In Burt, M., Dulay, H. & Finocchiaro, M. (Eds.), Viewpoints on English as a Second Language. New York: Regents. 152-161. Krashen, S. D. 1982. Principles and Practice in Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Pergamon. Krashen, S. D. 1985. The Input Hypothesis. Issues and Implications. London: Longman. Saville-Troike, M. 2006. Introducing Second Language Acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 3

Wyszukiwarka

Podobne podstrony:
Year One SLA #8 Aptitude and Intelligence
Year One SLA #13 The End
Year One SLA #4 The Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis
Year One SLA #10 Motivation and Other Socioaffective Factors
Year One SLA #11 Teaching and Learning L2 Subsystems
Year One SLA
Year One SLA #2 The Stages of First Language Acquisition
Year One SLA #7 The Age Factor in SLA
Year One SLA #3 Comparing & Contrasting Naturalistic and Instructed SLA
Year One SLA #1 Theories of First Language Acquisition
Year One SLA #5 Error Analysis and the Interlanguage Hypothesis
Year II SLA #8 Krashen s SLA Theory
Year II SLA #10 The Age Factor in SLA
Year II SLA #9 Bilingualism and Multilingualism
Year II SLA #14 Memory
Year II SLA #4 Comparing & Contrasting Naturalistic and Instructed SLA
Year II SLA #12 Aptitude
Year II SLA #1 Course Overview
Year II SLA #13 Intelligence

więcej podobnych podstron