belajar bahasa kedua

Trends in Second-Language-

Ac q u is itio nR e s e a r c h

K E N JI

H A K U T A

H E R L IN D A

C A N C IN O

H aruardU n iv e r s ity

R ecent concern w ith bilingual educationh a s led toa n increased interesti n under- standing the processo fs e c o n d -la n g u a g e a c q u is itio n . I n th is a r tic le K e n j i H a k u t a and Herlinda Cancino presentacritical, historical overview of research on second- la n g u a g e

a c q u is itio n .

I n

th is

a c c o u n t

th e

a u th o r s

o u tlin e

fo u r

a n a ly tic a l

u p -

p r o a c h e s -c o n tr a s tiv e ,

error, perform ance,a n dd i s c o u r s e . a n n l y s i s - t r a c e

th e shifts

am ong

these approaches, and

d e m o n s tr a te

th e a d v a n ta g e sa n d

d is a d v a n ta g e s

o f

each. They also show

h o w

t h e d ifle r e n t a p p r o a c h e s r e fle c t c h a n g in g

c o n c e p tio n s

of la n g u a g ea n d

the nature of learners. T h e authors give special em phasis to the

in flu e n c e

o f

first-language-acquisitionresearch on studies of

second-language ac-

q u is itio n ,a n d they speculate on future research trends.

L a n g u a g e p ro v id e s o n e of

th e m o st re a d ily

accessible w indow s into

th e

n a tu re

o f

th e

hum an

m in d . H o w

c h ild re n

a c q u ire th is c o m p le x sy stem

w ith

s u c h

a p

parent ease continues to fascinate the studento f hum an language. T h e last quarter o fa c e n tu ry in p a rtic u la r h a s w itn essed a q u a lita tiv e le a p in o u r k n o w le d g e of th e la n g u a g e -a c q u is itio n

p ro c e ss in y o u n g c h ild re n .I n recent years researchers have b e g u n e x te n d in g th e ir sc o p e of in q u iry in to th e p ro b le m of s e c o n d -la n g u a g e a c q u i- s itio n . T h e m o tiv a tio n u n d e rly in g th is n e w

e n d e a v o ri stw o -fo ld : firs t, it p ro v id e s an added perspectiveo n hum an language, and second, interest in second-language te a c h in g a n d b ilin g u a l e d u c a tio n h a s re s u lte d in a g re a te r n e e dt ou n d e rs ta n d th e m e c h a n is m s u n d e rly in g

s e c o n d -la n g u a g e a c q u is itio n . T h e

focus of

a n a ly s is h a s u n d e rg o n e d is tin c t s h ifts in p e rs p e c tiv e a s a f u n c tio n of o u r c h a n g in g c o n c e p tu a l- iz a tio n so f

w h a t la n g u a g e

i sa n d

also w hat

th e

le a rn e r

b rin g s

t o

th e

le a rn in g

s itu a tio n .

T o a n tic ip a te th e v a rio u s a p p ro a c h e st o b e re v ie w e d in th is p a p e r, le t u s e n te r-

W e w o u ld lik et o t,h a n k H e le n T a g e r F lu s b e r g , B e lla D e P a u la , S te v e n P in k e r , a n d E lle n W in n e r

fo rh e lp fu l c o n im e n tso n

this paper. W e especially

th a n k

Roger Brown

and Bruce Fraser for ex-

tensive w ritten

com m ents. P reparation

of this m anuscript was ;upported

i n

p a r tb y

Grant BNS

73-09150 from

th e N a tio n a l S c ie n c e F o u n d a tio n to D r.R oger B row n.

Haruard EducationalR e v ie w

V o l.4 7

N o.3

A ugust19Y 7

294

T rendsin Second Language

H A K U T AA N D C A N C IN O

tain som e ways in w hich

one m ight proceedi n

a n a ly z in g

the process of second-

language acquisition. A ssum e that we had in our possession a year-long record

o f all the conversationso f a second-language learner since initial exposure to th e tar- g e t l a n g u a g e , O n e w a y t o a n a l y z e t h e d a t a , if w e k n e w

the gram m ars of both

th e

n a tiv e a n d th e ta rg e t la n g u a g e s, w o u ld b e th ro u g h ac o n tr a s tiv e analysis of the tw o la n g u a g e s tru c tu re s . W h e r e th e tw o la n g u a g e s d iffe r w e w o u ld e x p e c t e rro rs , a n d o u r p re d ic tio n s c o u ld b e te s te d a g a in s t th e a c q u is itio n d a ta . A n o th e r w ayt op r@ ceed in the analysis w ould

b e to c a ta lo g u e a ll th e s y s te m a tic d e v ia tio n -th e

e r -

ro rs -in

the learner’s speech from

th e ta rg e t-la n g u a g e n o rm . T h e s e d e v ia tio n s ,o r e rro rs , c o u ld b e c la ssifie d i n t o w h a te v e r c a te g o rie s o u r th e o ry m ig h t d ic ta te .I f w e w an t m o re specific in fo rm atio n

th a n

th a t p ro v id e d

by error data, we could

e x -

a m in e perform anceo n p a rtic u la r lin g u is tic s tru c tu re s

(such as negatives and in- terrogatives) and lookfo r both the distributional characteristics of errors and cor- rect usage of those structures. O r, w e could look not just at linguistic structure but a td i s c o u r s estru c tu re

as w e ll.F o r e x a m p le , w e c o u ld

a s k

h o w

lin g u is tic fo rm s

m ig h t b e d e riv e d fro m

the w ay in w hich they are used in conversation.

O ver

th e

p a s t

th irty

y e a rs

second-language-acquisitionre s e a rc h

h a s

p a s s e d

th ro u g h

th e fo u r p h a se s o u tlin e d

a b o v e : contrastive analysis, error analysis, per-

form ancea n a ly s is ,a n d discourse analysis.

(F o ra re v ie w

of e a rlie r s tu d ie si n th is

area see M cL auglilin, 1977.) In

this article, we sum m arize

and critically review eacho f these research traditions.I n addition, we discuss reasons for the transition fro m o n e fo rmo fa n a ly sist o th e n e x t, p a rtic u la rly th a t d u et o th e in flu e n c e o 5 firs t- la n g u a g e -a c q u is itio n re s e a rc h .

C o n tr a stiv e A n a ly sis

F ro m

the early

1940s to the

1 9 6 0 s, te a c h e rso f fo re ig n la n g u a g e s w e re o p tim is tic

th a t th e p ro b le m s of la n g u a g e te a c h in g c o u ld

be approached

scien tifically , w ith

the use

o f

m e th o d s d e riv e d

fro m

structural linguistics. Essentially, the goal of

s tr u c tu r a l lin g u is tic s w a st o

c h a ra c te riz e

the syntactic structure

o f

sentences in

term s

o f

th e ir

g ra m m a tic a l

c a te g o rie s

a n d

s u rfa c e

arrangem ents.

F rie s (1 9 4 5 /

1 9 7 2 ) w a s e x p tic it a b o u t th e im p lic a tio n so fth is a p p ro a c h

fo r fo re ig n

la n g u a g e

te a c h in g . H e c la im e d

th a t “ th e m ost effective m aterials are those th at are based

u p o n a scientific descriptiono f

th e la n g u a g e

t o be learned, carefully com pared

w ith a p a ra lle l d e s c rip tio no fth e n a tiv e la n g u a g e of th e le a rn e r”

(p . 9 ).

C laim s like Fries’s w ere reinforced

by inform al observationso f learners’ syste-

m atic errors, w hich seem ed to reflect the structureo f

t h e i r n a t i v e l a n g u a g e . ,4 1 6 th o u g h m a n yo fth e e rro rs w e re p h o n o lo g ic a l in n a tu re , a s illu s tra te d b y th e n a tiv e speaker of Japanese

w ho

c o n s is te n tly

f a i l st o

d is tin g u is h

b e tw e e n

/r /

a n d

/ l / ,

others clearly

o rig in a te d

at the

s y n ta c tic a n d

m o rp h o lo g ic a l

le v e ls . C o n s id e r

a

native speaker of Spanish w ho says “Is the houseo f my m other.”

T he Spanish

e q u iv a le n t w o u ld b e“E s la casa dem i m adre.”

T h e E n g lis h u tte ra n c e

c o n ta in s

tw o errors, w hose sources can be clearly traced

b a c k

to S p a n is h . S p a n is h

a llo w s

subject pronounst ob e d e le te d . W h e n

this rule is transferred

to E n g lis h , “ T h i s is” or “It is” sim ply becom es “Is.” A lso, S panish uses th e possessed-possessororder; thus w e have “the house of m y m other” (“la casa de m i m adre”).I tappeared, then,

2 9 5

th a t th e fo re ig n -la n g u a g e le a rn e r’s d iffic u ltie s c o u ld

b e p re d ic te d

fro m

the differ-

ences in

the structures of the

tw ola n g u a g e s . C o n tra s tiv e

analysis was the label

g iv e n to th is c o m p a ra tiv e a p p ro a c h .

P rin c ip le s su c h a s im ita tio n , p o sitiv e a n d n e g a tiv e tra n s fe r, re in fo rc e m e n t, a n d

h a b it s tre n g th w e re b o rro w e d fro m

the academ ic psychology of learning and in-

corporated into the contrastive analysis view

o f s e c o n d -la n g u a g e a c q u is itio n . P re -

s u p p o s in g

th a t

la n g u a g e

developm ent consisted

o f

th e

a c q u is itio n

of

a

s e to f

habits, errors in the second language w ere seen as the result of the first-language

h a b its in te rfe rin g

w ith the acquisition

o f the habitso f the second. In classroom

practice the principles of habit form ation and interference led to the use of pattern

d rills i n th e a u d io -lin g u a l m e th o d

o f second-language learning. O n

the basis of c o n tra s tiv e a n a ly s is , d iffic u lt p a tte rn s w e re p re d ic te d a n d c o n s e q u e n tly e m p h a s iz e d i n

the drills. For

the interested

r e a d e r

th e

a s s u m p tio n s u n d e rly in g

th e

a u d io -

lin g u a l m e th o d a r e c a re fu lly e x a m in e d

a n d e v a lu a te d

in an

im p o rta n t b o o k

b y

R iv e rs (1 9 6 4 ).

T h e c o m p a ris o n of th e s tru c tu re s of la n g u a g e s c o n tin u e st ob e

a respectable

a c tiv ity w ith in c o n tra s tiv e lin g u is tic s

(A la tis , 1 9 6 8 ) a n d h a s c o m e to b e c o n d u c te d w ith in th e fram ew ork of tran sfo rm atio n al generative g ram m ar. Its statu s as a psy- c h o lo g ic a l a p p r o a c h

to th e in v e s tig a tio n

of

th e

second-language-acquisitionp ro -

cess, how ever, fell in to disrepute for several reasons. O n e ’reason w as th e u n fo rtu n - a t e a s s o c ia tio n o f c o n tra s tiv e a n a ly s is w ith th e b e h a v io ris t v ie w of la n g u a g e a c q u i- s itio n , a n

account whose theoretical adequacy

cam e

t o

b e s e rio u s ly q u e s tio n e d ,

m ost n o ta b lyb y C h o m sk y

(1 9 5 9 ). I n o u r v ie w

a m ore devastating reason w as that contrastive analysis fared quite poorly once researchers, insteado fre ly in g o n a n - e c d o ta l im p re s s io n s fro m

the classroom , began collecting data in m ore system atic

w ays

(O lle r&Richards, 1973).From

these data, analyses of learners’ errors soon

show ed

that a large proportion were not predictable

o n

the basis of contrastive

analysis. In fact,m any of these errors, such as rule sim plification

(as in “M om m y

e a t ta p io c a ” ) a n d o v e r-g e n e ra liz a tio n

(as in “ H e w rited m e a letter”) e x h ib ite d a s trik in g re s e m b la n c et oth o se m a d eb y c h ild re n a c q u irin g a first la n g u a g e . M o re - over, learners d id not in fact m ake all the errors predicted by contrastive analysis (N ic k e l, 1 9 7 1 ; S to c k w e ll, B o w e n ,&M artin, 1965). W hen

the inadequacy

of con-

trastive analysis as a predictive m odel becam e apparent, W ardhaugh

(1970) drew

th e

u s e fu l d is tin c tio n

b e tw e e n

stro n g

and weak versionso f

the approach. T he strong version claim ed to predict errors, w hile the w eak version sim p lya c c o u n te d for errors that occurred. C ontrastive analysis survives onlyi n its w eak form

w ith

a n o b v io u s s h o rtc o m in g : it g iv e s a n in c o m p le te re p re s e n ta tio n of th e s e c o n d -la n - guage-acquisition process since it can account only for som e, not all, of th e errors. R ecently it has been incorporated into the m ore general approacho f error analysis (Schum ann