Se ha denunciado esta presentación.
Utilizamos tu perfil de LinkedIn y tus datos de actividad para personalizar los anuncios y mostrarte publicidad más relevante. Puedes cambiar tus preferencias de publicidad en cualquier momento.

second language acquisition

91.968 visualizaciones

Publicado el


Publicado en: Educación

second language acquisition

  1. 1. Presented by Group 3
  2. 2. <ul><li>Nguyễn Văn Vui </li></ul><ul><li>Nguyễn Quốc Toàn </li></ul><ul><li>Trần Thị Hà </li></ul><ul><li>Nguyễn Thị Nhung </li></ul><ul><li>Hồ Thị Hoàng Ngân </li></ul><ul><li>Phan Thị Mỹ Hạnh </li></ul><ul><li>Nguyễn Thị Diệu Hiền </li></ul>
  3. 3. <ul><li>I. BUILDING A THEORY OF SLA </li></ul><ul><li>1. Domains and Generalizations </li></ul><ul><li>2. Hypothesis and Claims </li></ul><ul><li>3. Criteria for a Viable Theory </li></ul><ul><li>II. AN INNATIST MODEL: KRASHEN’S INPUT HYPOTHESIS </li></ul><ul><li>1. The Acquisition – Learning Hypothesis </li></ul><ul><li>2. The Monitor Hypothesis. </li></ul><ul><li>3. The Natural Order Hypothesis </li></ul><ul><li>4. The Input Hypothesis </li></ul><ul><li>5. The Affective Filter Hypothesis </li></ul>
  4. 4. <ul><li>III. COGNITIVE MODELS </li></ul><ul><li>1. Mc Laughlin’s Attention – Processing Model </li></ul><ul><li>2. Implicit and Explicit Models </li></ul><ul><li>A SOCIAL CONSTRUCTIVIST MODEL: LONG’S INTERACTION HYPOTHESIS </li></ul><ul><li>V. FROM THEORY TO PRACTICE </li></ul>
  5. 6. <ul><li>SLA , among other things, not unlike first language acquisition, is a subject of general human learning, involves cognitive variations, is closely related to one’s personality type, is interwoven with second culture learning , and involves interference, the creation of new linguistic systems , and the learning of discourse and communicative functions of language. </li></ul><ul><li>All of these categories and the many subcategories subsumed under them form the basis for structuring an intergrated theory of SLA </li></ul>
  6. 7. Second Language Acquisition Cognitive variations New linguistic system Second culture learning Communicative functions
  7. 8. <ul><li>Second language learning is a complex process . </li></ul><ul><li>Complexity means that there are so many separate but interrelated factors within one intricate entity that it is exceedingly difficult to bring order and simplicity to that “chaos” (Larsen- Freeman, 1997) </li></ul>
  8. 9. <ul><li>1. Domains and Generalizations </li></ul><ul><li>* Classification of learners variables (Yorio,1976) </li></ul><ul><li>Age </li></ul><ul><li>Cognition </li></ul><ul><li>Native Language </li></ul><ul><li>Input </li></ul><ul><li>Affective Domains </li></ul><ul><li>Educational Background </li></ul>
  9. 10. <ul><li>A theory of SLA includes an understanding, in general, of what language is, what learning is, and for classroom contexts, what teaching is. </li></ul><ul><li>Knowledge of children’s learning of their first language provides essential insight to an understanding of SLA. </li></ul><ul><li>A number of important differences between adult and child learning and between first and second language acquisition must be carefully accounted for. </li></ul>SET OF DOMAINS OF CONSIDERATION IN A THEORY OF SLA:
  10. 11. <ul><li>Second language learning is a part of and adheres to general principles of human learning and intelligence. </li></ul><ul><li>There is tremendous variation across learners in cognitive style and within a learner in strategy choice. </li></ul><ul><li>Personality, the way people view themselves and reveal themselves in communication, will affect both the quantity and quality of second language learning. </li></ul>
  11. 12. <ul><li>Learning a second culture is often intricately intertwined with learning a second language. </li></ul><ul><li>The linguistics contrast between the native and target language form one source of difficulty in learning a second language. But the creative process of forming an interlanguage system involves the learners in utilizing many facilitative sources and resources. Inevitable aspects of this process are errors, from which learners and teachers can gain further insight. </li></ul>
  12. 13. <ul><li>Learning a second culture is often intricately intertwined with learning a second language. </li></ul><ul><li>The linguistics contrast between the native and target language form one source of difficulty in learning a second language. But the creative process of forming an interlanguage system involves the learners in utilizing many facilitative sources and resources. Inevitable aspects of this process are errors, from which learners and teachers can gain further insight. </li></ul>
  13. 14. <ul><li>Communicative competence, with all of its sub- categories, is the ultimate goal of learners as they deal with function, discourse, register, and nonverbal aspects of human interaction and linguistic negotiation. </li></ul>
  14. 15. <ul><li>2. Hypotheses and Claims </li></ul><ul><li>A theory of SLA is really an interrelated set of hypotheses and/or claims about how people become proficient in a second language. </li></ul>
  15. 16. <ul><li>In summary of research findings on SLA, Lightbown made of following claims: </li></ul><ul><li>(1) Adult and adolescents can “acquire” a second language. </li></ul><ul><li>(2) The learners creates a systematic INTERLANGUAG as (those of) the child learning the same language as the first language, as well as others that appear to be based on the learner’s own native language. </li></ul><ul><li>(3) There are predictable sequences in acquisition so that certain structures have to be acquired before others can be integrated. </li></ul>
  16. 17. <ul><li>(4) Practice does not make perfect </li></ul><ul><li>(5) Knowing a language rule does not mean one will be able to use it in communicative interaction. </li></ul><ul><li>(6) Isolated explicit error correction is usually ineffective in changing language behavior. </li></ul><ul><li>(7) For most adult learners, acquisition stops –fossilizes- before the learner has achieved nativelike mastery of the target language. </li></ul>
  17. 18. <ul><li>(8) One cannot achieved nativelike (or near - nativelike) command of a second language in one hour a day. </li></ul><ul><li>(9) The learner’s task is enormous because language is enormously complex. </li></ul><ul><li>(10) A learner’s ability to understand language in a meaningful context exceeds his or her ability to comprehend decontextualized language and to produce language of comparable complexity and accuracy. </li></ul>
  18. 19. <ul><li>Here are some other “popular”ideas: </li></ul><ul><li>(1) Languages are learned mainly through imitation. </li></ul><ul><li>(2) Parents usually correct young children when they make errors </li></ul><ul><li>(3) People with high IQs are good language learners </li></ul><ul><li>(4) The earlier a second language is introduced in school programs, the greater the likelihood of success in learning. </li></ul><ul><li>(5) Most of the mistakes that second language learners make are due to interference from their first language </li></ul>
  19. 20. <ul><li>(6) Learners’ errors should be corrected as soon as they are made in order to prevent the formation of bad habits </li></ul>All such claims are the beginnings of theory building. As we carefully examine each claim, add others to it, and then refine them into set of tenable hypotheses, we begin to build a theory.
  20. 21. <ul><li>Freeman(1997) suggested several lessons from chaos theory that help us to design a theory of SLA. Below are her comments: </li></ul><ul><li>Freeman’s comments: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Beware of false dichotomies. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Beware of linear, causal approaches to theorizing </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Beware of overgeneralization </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Beware of reductionist thinking </li></ul></ul>
  21. 22. <ul><li>Michael Long offered 8 criteria for a comprehensive theory of SLA: </li></ul><ul><li>1. Account for universals </li></ul><ul><li>2. Account for environmental factors </li></ul><ul><li>3. Account for variability in age, acquisition rate, and proficiency level </li></ul><ul><li>4. Explain both cognitive and affective factors </li></ul>
  22. 23. <ul><li>5. Account for form- focused learning, not just subconscious acquisition. </li></ul><ul><li>6. Account for variables besides exposure and input </li></ul><ul><li>7. Account for cognitive/ innate factors which explain interlanguage systematicity. </li></ul><ul><li>8. Recognize that acquisition is not a steady accumulation of generalizations . </li></ul>
  23. 24. <ul><li>The Acquisition – Learning Hypothesis </li></ul><ul><li>The Monitor Hypothesis </li></ul><ul><li>The Natural Order Hypothesis </li></ul><ul><li>The Input Hypothesis </li></ul><ul><li>The Affective Filter Hypothesis </li></ul>
  24. 25. <ul><li>The Acquisition – Learning Hypothesis </li></ul><ul><li>- Adult second language learners have two means for internalizing the target language </li></ul><ul><li> The first is “acquisition”, a subconscious and intuitive process of constructing the system of a language, not unlike the process used by a child to “pick up’’ a language. </li></ul><ul><li> The second means is a conscious “learning” process in which learners attend to form, figure out rules, and are generally aware of their own process. </li></ul>
  25. 26. <ul><li>The Acquisition – Learning Hypothesis </li></ul><ul><li>“ Fluency in second language performance is due to what we have acquired, not what we have learned.” </li></ul><ul><li>Our conscious learning processes and our subconscious acquisition processes are mutually exclusive: learning cannot “become” acquisition. </li></ul>
  26. 27. <ul><li>2. The Monitor Hypothesis </li></ul><ul><li>The “monitor” is involved in learning, not in acquisition. </li></ul><ul><li>It is a device for “watchdogging” one’s output, for editing and making alterations or corrections as they are consciously perceived . </li></ul>
  27. 28. <ul><li>3. The Natural Order Hypothesis </li></ul><ul><li>We acquire language rules in a predictable or “natural” order. (Following the earlier morpheme order studies of Dulay and Burt and others.) </li></ul>
  28. 29. <ul><li>4. The Input Hypothesis </li></ul><ul><li>An important condition for language to occur is that the acquirer understand (via hearing or reading) input language that contains structure “a bit beyond” his or her current level of competence. </li></ul><ul><li>Example : If an acquirer is at stage of level i, the input he or she understands should contain i+1. </li></ul>
  29. 30. <ul><li>4. The Input Hypothesis </li></ul><ul><li>- Speaking not be taught directly or very early in the language classroom. </li></ul>
  30. 31. <ul><li>5. The Affective Filter Hypothesis </li></ul><ul><li>- The best acquisition will occur in environments where anxiety is low and defensiveness absent, or in contexts where “affective filter” is low. </li></ul>
  31. 32. <ul><li>1. Mc Laughlin, a psychologist, commented: </li></ul><ul><li>“… the terms conscious and unconscious in second language theory are too laden with surplus meaning and too difficult to define empirically to be useful theoretically . Hence, my critique of Krashen’s distinction between learning and acquisition – a distinction that assumes that it is possible to differentiate what is conscious from what is unconscious . ” </li></ul>
  32. 33. <ul><li>2. A second criticism of Krashen’s views arose out of the claim that there is no interface – no overlap – between acquisition and learning . </li></ul><ul><li>As Gregg(1984:82) pointed out: “Krashen plays fast and loose with his definitions. … If unconscious knowledge is capable of being brought to consciousness and if conscious knowledge is capable of becoming unconscious – and this seems to be a reasonable assumption – then there is no reason whatever to accept Krashen’s claim, in the absence of evidence. And there is an absence of evidence. ” </li></ul>
  33. 34. <ul><li>3. “Comprehensible input is the only causative variable in second language acquisition.” </li></ul><ul><li>In other words, success in a foreign language can be attributed to input alone. </li></ul><ul><li>- It is important to distinguish between input and intake . </li></ul><ul><li>- Krashen(1983) did suggest that input gets converted to intake through a learner’s process of liking forms to meaning and noticing “gaps” between the learner’s current internalized rule system and the new input. </li></ul>
  34. 35. <ul><li>- Mitchell & Myles (1998) have noted that processes “are not clearly operationalized or consistently proposed.” </li></ul>
  35. 36. <ul><li>- Seliger (1983) offered a much broader conceptualization of the role of input that gives learners more credit (and blame) for eventual success: High Input Generators (HIGs) and Low Input Generators (LIGs) </li></ul>
  36. 37. <ul><li>Krashen (1997) staunchly maintained that in the language classroom “output is too scare to make any important impact on language development.” </li></ul><ul><li>- Swain & Lapkin (1995) offered convincing evidence that their Output Hypothesis was at least as significant as input . </li></ul>
  37. 38. <ul><li>- De Bot (1996) argued that “output serves an important role in second languages acquisition … because it generates highly specific input the cognitive system needs to build up a coherent set of knowledge.” </li></ul>
  38. 39. III. Cognitive models McLaughlin’s attention-processing model Implicit and explicit models
  39. 40. <ul><li>Processing mechanisms: controlled and automatic </li></ul><ul><li>Categories of attention: focal and peripheral </li></ul><ul><li>to form 4 cells </li></ul>1. McLaughlin’s attention-processing model
  40. 41. Attention to formal properties of language Information processing Controlled Automatic Focal Peripheral ( cell A) Performance based on formal rule learning (cell C) performance based on implicit learning or analogic learning ( cell B) Performance in a test situation (Cell D) performance in communication situations
  41. 42. <ul><li> “ capacity limited and temporary” </li></ul><ul><li> as typical of anyone learning a brand new skill in which only a very few elements of the skill can be retained </li></ul><ul><li> “ relatively permanent” </li></ul><ul><li> Processing in a more accomplished skill- The “ hard drive” of your brain can manage hundreds and thousands of bits of information simultaneously. </li></ul><ul><li>a process of restructing </li></ul>Controlled and automatic processes Controlled processes Automatic processes
  42. 43. <ul><li>Both two processes can occur with either focal or peripheral attention to the behavior in question. </li></ul><ul><li>Many controlled processes are focal , some are peripheral . (child first language learning or the learning of skills without any instructions). </li></ul><ul><li>Many automatic processes are peripheral , some are f ocal . (in the case of an accomplished pianist performing in a concert or an experienced driver paying particular attention to the road on a foggy night) </li></ul>
  43. 44. <ul><li>Every act of performing something, focal and peripheral attention actually occur simultaneously </li></ul><ul><li>e.g . A very young child says to a parent “ Nobody don’t like me” </li></ul><ul><li>Focal attention : conveying emotion, mental anguish or loneliness </li></ul><ul><li>Peripheral attention : words and morphemes underlie the central meaning </li></ul>
  44. 45. Practical applications of McLaughlin’s attention- processing model CONTROLLED : new skill, capacity limited AUTOMATIC : Well trained, practiced skill capacity is relatively unlimited FOCAL intentional attention PERIPHERAL A. Grammatical explanation of a specific point - Word definition - Copy a written model - The first stages of “ memorizing” a dialog - Prefabricated patterns - Various discrete-point exercises B. “Keeping an eye out” for something - Advanced L2 learner focuses on modals, clause formation, ect. - Monitoring oneself while talking or writing - Scanning - Editing, peer-editing C . Simple greetings - The later stages of “memorizing” a dialog - TPR/ Natural Approach - New L2 learner successfully completes a brief conversa`tion D. Open-ended group work - Rapid reading, skimming - Free writes - Normal conversational exchanges of some length
  45. 46. <ul><li>Child second language learning may consist of peripheral ( cells C and D) attention to language forms. </li></ul><ul><li>Most adult second language learning of language forms in the classroom involves a movement from cell A through a combination of C and B, to D </li></ul><ul><li>(Dekeyser 1997) </li></ul><ul><li>Peripheral, automatic attention- processing of the bits and pieces of language is a mainly communicative goal for language learners </li></ul>
  46. 47. IMPLICIT AND EXPLICIT MODELS Implicit knowledge is information that is automatically and spontaneously used in language tasks Explicit models are the facts that a person knows about language and the ability to articulate those facts in some way. e.g. children implicitly learn phonological, syntactic, semantic and pragmatic rules for language, but do not have access to an explanation, explicitly of those rules
  47. 48. <ul><li>IMPLICIT AND EXPLICIT MODELS </li></ul><ul><li> Implicit processes enable a learner to perform language but not necessarily to cite rules governing the performance </li></ul><ul><li> Bialystok later (1982) equated implicit and explicit with the synonymous terms unanalyzed and analyzed knowledge . </li></ul>
  48. 49. <ul><li> “ Unanalyzed knowledge is the general form in which we know most things without being aware of the structure of that knowledge”; on the other hand, learners are overtly aware of the structure of analyzed knowledge. </li></ul><ul><li> These same models feature a distinction between automatic and non- automatic processing, building on McLaughlin’s conception of automaticity. Automaticity refers to the learner’s relative access to the knowledge. Knowledge that can be retrieved easily and quickly is automatic. Knowledge that takes time and effort to retrieve is non- automatic. </li></ul>
  49. 50. Two preceding theories Krashen’s Input Hypothesis The cognitive model of Second Language Acquisition Focus to a considerable extent of the learners IV. A SOCIAL CONSTRUCTIVIST MODEL: LONG’S INTERACTION HYPOTHESIS
  50. 51. The Social constructivist perspectives emphasize the dynamic nature of the interplay between learners, their peers and their teachers and others with whom they interact The interaction between learners and others is the focus of observation and explanation IV. A SOCIAL CONSTRUCTIVIST MODEL: LONG’S INTERACTION HYPOTHESIS
  51. 52. <ul><li>Michael Long (1985-1996) takes up where in a sense Krashen left off. He posits in what has come to be called the interaction hypothesis , that comprehensive input is the result of modified interaction . </li></ul>IV. A SOCIAL CONSTRUCTIVIST MODEL: LONG’S INTERACTION HYPOTHESIS
  52. 53. <ul><li>Learners learn new forms in a language through the negotiation around meaning that occurs when they engage in communication and communicative learning activities. </li></ul>
  53. 54. Modified Interaction * Interact between native speakers *Interact between native speakers with Second Language learners For example: Babies imitate their parents:” The cat fat” Parents might correct: No we don’t say that. We say:”The fat cat” Or parents may modify their speech to children “Mommy go bye bye now” IV. A SOCIAL CONSTRUCTIVIST MODEL: LONG’S INTERACTION HYPOTHESIS
  54. 55. <ul><li>But the native speakers often slow down speech to second Language learners (modifications also include comprehension checks) . </li></ul>Ex: “Go down to the subway – do you know the word Subway ?” and they explain the word “Subway” means. Or “I went to a new Year’s Eve party, you know, the night before the first day of a new year. IV. A SOCIAL CONSTRUCTIVIST MODEL: LONG’S INTERACTION HYPOTHESIS
  55. 56. <ul><li>In Long’s view: </li></ul><ul><li>Interaction and Input are two major players in the process of acquisition. </li></ul><ul><li>Conversation and other interactive communication are the basic for the linguistic rules. </li></ul>Further, Long’s hypothesis center us on the language classroom that : not only as a place where learners of varying abilities and styles and background mingle but also as a place where the contexts for interaction are carefully designed IV. A SOCIAL CONSTRUCTIVIST MODEL: LONG’S INTERACTION HYPOTHESIS
  56. 57. INNATIST COGNITIVE CONSTRUCTIVIST (Krashen) (McLauglin/Bialystok) (Long) <ul><li>Subconcious acquisition superior to “learning” & “mornitoring” </li></ul><ul><li>Comprehensible input (i+1) </li></ul><ul><li>Low affective filter </li></ul><ul><li>Natural order of acquisition </li></ul><ul><li>“ zero option” for grammar instruction </li></ul><ul><li>Controlled/ automatic processing (McL) </li></ul><ul><li>Focal/pheripheral attention (McL) </li></ul><ul><li>Restructuring (McL) </li></ul><ul><li>Implicit vs. explicit (B) </li></ul><ul><li>Unanalyzed vs. analyzed knowledge(B) </li></ul><ul><li>Form-focused instruction </li></ul><ul><li>Interaction hypothesis </li></ul><ul><li>Intake through social interaction </li></ul><ul><li>Output hypothesis (Swain) </li></ul><ul><li>HIGs (Seliger) </li></ul><ul><li>Authenticity </li></ul><ul><li>Task-based instruction </li></ul>
  57. 58. <ul><li>Theories are constructed by professors and researchers who hypothesize, describe, measure and conclude things about learners and learning and the teachers. </li></ul>
  58. 59. Who are practitioners?
  59. 60. <ul><li>Practitioners are thought of as teachers who are out there in classroom everyday stimulating, encouraging, observing and assessing real-live learners . </li></ul>
  60. 61. The custom of leaving theory to researchers and practice to teachers has become dysfunctional (Clarke) A practitioner/teacher is made to feel that he or she is the recipient of a researcher/theorist’s findings and prognostications, with little to offer in return.
  61. 62. <ul><li>Researcher give many skills to teacher in: program developing, textbook writing, observing, measuring variables of acquisition applying technology to teaching. </li></ul>
  62. 63. When are you doing some theory building?
  63. 64. Relevance of age factors Strategic competence Cognitive style variations Intercutural communication Theory building
  65. 66. <ul><li>Similarities and differences of statements or claims </li></ul><ul><li>of Lightbown, Lassen Freeman and Yorio in a theory </li></ul><ul><li>of SLA? </li></ul><ul><li>Similarity: into consideration in a theory of SLA </li></ul><ul><li>Differences: </li></ul><ul><li>Yorio: domains of consideration (9 statements) </li></ul><ul><li>Lightbown: </li></ul>
  66. 67. <ul><li>2. What are Krashen’s 5 input hypotheses? </li></ul><ul><li>They are </li></ul><ul><li>The Acquisition – Learning Hypothesis </li></ul><ul><li>The Monitor Hypothesis </li></ul><ul><li>The Natural Order Hypothesis </li></ul><ul><li>The Input Hypothesis </li></ul><ul><li>The Affective Filter Hypothesis </li></ul><ul><li>3. If an acquirer is at stage of level i, the input he or she </li></ul><ul><li>understands should contain i+1. Why? </li></ul><ul><li>The language that learners are exposed to should be just far </li></ul><ul><li>enough beyond their current competence that they can </li></ul><ul><li>understand most of it but still be challenged to make progress. </li></ul><ul><li>The corollary to this is that input should neither be so far </li></ul><ul><li>beyond their reach that they are overwhelmed (this might be, </li></ul><ul><li>say, i + 2), nor so close to their current stage that they are not </li></ul><ul><li>challenged at all (i + 0) </li></ul>
  67. 68. <ul><li>4. What is the interaction hypothesis of Michael Long? </li></ul><ul><li>Learners learn new forms in a language through </li></ul><ul><li>the negotiation around meaning that occurs when they engage in </li></ul><ul><li>communication and communicative learning activities. </li></ul><ul><li>5. What are cognitive models? </li></ul><ul><li>They are </li></ul><ul><li>- McLaughlin’s attention-processing model </li></ul><ul><li>- Implicit and explicit models </li></ul>