The main theoretical families
- Classified in terms of their focus on the formal properties of learner language, o cognitive considerations or on the social and interactional contexts of sla
- These divisions somewhat artificial
- Each pursue its own specific agendas, with its own methodological apparatus.
3.3.1 Linguistic approaches
- Focus on
● the formal properties of language and how these shape the development of an L2
● Universal properties of human language
● Properties specific L1-L2 pairing
Domain of inquiry
- Focus: description and explanation of the formal system underlying learner production and comprehension.
- Theories of human language: broader scope → domain of inquiry is vast: chomsky: provide answers to three questions: knowledge of L, acquisition of L knowledge, and L knowledge put in use.
- First language acquisition: Chomsky → ease of children at acquiring → innate language faculty → this framework focus not in SLA, but still of relevance to the study of SLA.
- If UG can explain L1A it can explain also L2A bc of their similarities, but also it can explain their differences (with concepts like the critical period)
- Mostly theories concerned about morphosyntax (some with L2 phonology and L2 semantics)
- Recently: concerned about the interface bt the different subsystems of L
- Do not typically include theories of processing/learning → little to say about what triggers development in L1/L2 Acquisition
- On L1: all children need is L around for it to develop, the cognitive process is beyond their framework.
- P r o p e r t y t h e o r y
Views on the nature of language
- Modular: formal properties of L on a different part of brain, parts of L in turn being modular.
- Object of study → morphology and syntax (Se and internal structure)
- Criticism: too clinical → as a mental object rather than a social/psychological one, separating L knowledge from L use
- Dichotomy bt competence and performance is central → performance is the defective window onto competence (mental grammar)
● criticism (theory and method):
- the study of naturalistic performance is not seen as a suitable window into mental representation as it is affected by various non linguistic performance factors. Even more difficult when talking about L2 as it is less stable.
- Grammaticality judgement: l2 learners intuition are more unstable, less reliable. Therefore, data gathered this way is disputed. Also criticised for its unnaturalness. Often complemented by elicitation techniques, however the problem of drawing inferences about L2 learners mental representations remains.
|
|
|
- Not all formal are modular like UG → Systemic functional: L as a set of form-function mappings in which meaning is the driving force. → syntax not separate from semantics and pragmatics.
- Both in a formal sense, as the result of the individual mind shaping learner production.
Views of the learning process
- Approaches criticized for leaving untouched a number of areas central to the understanding of the second language process.
- First: Worried mosty about syntax and now later about phno, morpho and the lexicon
- Second: UG concerned about documenting/explaining nature of L2 system rather than on the learning process
- Social and psychological variables of the learning process are beyond their remit, therefore, ignored. (language teaching is embedded in social and psychological constraints so educationalist are left hanging)
- They view the learning process as the interaction between linguistic input and universal linguistic mechanisms operating within the mind of individuals. (thought that input triggers mechanisms but it is changing)
Views of the language learner
- Only interested in learner as the possessor of a mind which contains language.
- Assume that all humans are endowed with such mind, and variations are of little concern
- Focus is on what is universal within this mind
- NS of a given language thought to share the same mental grammar (relatively static)
- L2 learner on the other hand seen as non native with the objective of the native speaker norm.
- Criticized this idealized, static and normative view of L and LL for being based on a monolingual speaker and for assuming L2L have as target the NS norm.
Research agenda/findings
- Formal linguistics approaches have focused on the first part of the agenda previously mentioned the analysis of the linguistic system underlying learners L2 development, including the role of the L1 in this development
- Primarily focused on morphosyntax (and on phonology) until recently when interface bt subsystems have come to the fore
|
|
|
- Whereas functionalist approaches have concentrated on semantic/discourse/pragmatic concerns when investigating learner language and developmental stages.
(a) Developmental stages
- UG: like children acquiring their L1, second language learners’ hypotheses about the L2 are constrained by the restricted possibilities afforded by UG (lack of of inflection due to not yet having acquired the functional projection hosting tense features)
- Functionalist have modeled early L2 development in terms of three distinct universal stages
- What riggers development from one stage to another no ver researched.
(b) Interlanguage rules are unlike both the L1 and the target language
- The example of inflected verbs stage in many L2 learners does not reflect either the native grammar or the target grammar (both language inflect verbs)
(c) Selective transfer of L1 properties
- The UG approach, by comparing the formal properties of language cross linguistically, enables predictions to be made about transfer.
(d) Variable rate and outcome of SLA process
- This approach does not enlights about the variability in the rate nor in variable outcomes with learner with the same L1/L2
- It provides some testable hypotheses about why some grammatical properties might never become nativelike for L2 learner.
- E.g. grammatical gender not available past the critical period
Conclusion: contributions to theory building
● UG
- Hypotheses about the exact nature of the language system (l1 and l2)
- Interplay bt the first and second language in L2 learners
- The linguistic knowledge learner bring to the task of L2 acquisition
- Empirical studies → enhanced understanding of L2 morphosyntactic development + how different linguistic subsystems might interact
● Functional-pragmatic
- How learner convey meaning → Discourse organization in learner language
The domain of inquiry does not enable them to account for processing mechanisms nor social factors which are outside their remit.
Cognitive approaches
|
|
|
Acquisition of a second language as the acquisition of a complex skill.
We can understand the SLA process by investigating how the human brain processes and learn new info.
Focus on the learning dimension of SLA.
These approaches are classified as transition theories: how learners develop over time in the L2, rather than property theories: describe and explain learners’ linguistic system. But the boundary is not always clear.
Domain of inquiry
As in the case of formal linguistic approaches, they also focus on the individual and on what happens in the human mind. Cognitivists’ hypotheses originate from cognitive psychology and neurology, and from what we know about the acquisition of complex skills generally. SLA as one instantiation of learning, relying on the same mechanisms as other types of learning. Processing approaches is interested on how learners gradually expand their linguistic knowledge and learn to access it increasingly efficiently on online production. The primary focus on the individual mind of the learner, applies to a large extent to work on individual differences between learners, for example, their level of intelligence or working memory capacity; the way in which constructs such as anxiety or motivation might be socially and culturally shaped has also played some part in this subfield. Cognitive SLA theorists’ main focus: the development of processing skills in L2 learners and the way in which these contribute to learning, and the role of individual differences, as cognitive factors and (socio)-affective factors.
Дата добавления: 2019-09-13; просмотров: 175; Мы поможем в написании вашей работы! |
Мы поможем в написании ваших работ!