from: Ligtoou, ( s Spada, WV. ood}. Hows apts ae Qarnedl. feck. Ou, see EXPLAINING SECOND LANGUAGE LEARNING ion ina larger social context. “The behaviourist perspective behaviourist theory explained laboratory animals, bu the earning process was hypothesized to be the same forhumans. Second language applications: Mimicry and memorization Behaviourism had a powerful influence on second and forcign language specially in North America, from the 1940s to the 1970s, Nelson 150) and Robert Lado (1964) were «wo proponents of this per- spective. Thee influence was fele directly in the development of widely used104 Explaining second language learning Baplaining second language learning in teacher training, Classroom acti emphasized mimicry and memorizati arned dialogues and language development was Grammar offers the best perspective from which to understand second lan- age formed in the first language and that chese ceded for the second language. contrastive analysis hypothesis. any of che errors language, nor do ed bya simple comparison “Thus, behavio However, as we saw in Chapter 2, learners make ate not predictable on they always make the erors that oft and second languages. Th rejection of both the contrastive analysis hypothesis and behavi leading to a period during which both the role of the first language and the role in learning a second language received limited attention in both research and pedagogy. In Chapter 2, we saw ample what they already know— including previous! language learners draw on me in first and second language acquisi ‘may be present and available to second languag nature has been altered by the acquisition of other languages 3¢ perceived at an earlier stage. All learner’ first language may nots and complex process of ide ‘cof some particular fea aspects of language performance and dé knowledge of the new language. She argues ‘of natural language in ss were convinced that behaviourism and the ns for second lan- fon second language as cvolved, the explanations offered by behaviourism and the ive analysis hypothesis have been revisited and understood in terms ion of many grammatical features of ly when learners are engaged in meaningful use of ey also suggest that, because the nature of UG is m ofthe first language, second language learners may information about what is not grammatical in the hey may assume that some s While Chomsky di theory for second ts have argued that Universal 105106 Explaining second language learning involve grammaticality judgement or other meth know about the language Second language applications: Krashen's ‘Monitor Model’ teaching methods based on behaviowr- terms of five hypotheses, may use rules and 1", allowing them tobe acquired. input hypothes «exposed to language that is comprehensible and contai resents the level of language already acq language (words, grammatical forms, aspects of pronunciation) that step beyond that level. learners from acquiring language even when lable, Affect refers to feelings of anxiety or negative ‘a we saw in Chapter 3, may be associated with poor learn- comes. A learner who is ious, or bored may filter out input, ‘making it unavailable for acquis Explaining second language learning 107 Pees ah er ofective Riser 7 ns from research (White second language development were influential d emphasized using language wi meaning Since he in Chapter 6, communicative language teaching, including imme ased, and task-based language teaching, has been widely implemented research has confirmed tha exposure to comprchei activity Examine the Monitor Model ‘Annumber of writers have questioned the validity of Krashen’s Monitor Model, partly on the basis that tis diffcul to test the five hypotheses in empirical ‘studies. Nevertheless, Krashen’s views have remained influential in second Tanguage teaching. 1 Can you think of some reasons why this might be so?108 Explaining second language learning Explaining second language learning 109 2 Which of che hypotheses do you find incithely convincing? 3 Which ones leave you sceptical! Why! ‘The cognitive perspective sco noiceatheraspectsofthe language up cognitive procesing esuce faa cur gchally become tc. choosing words, pronouncing Since the 1990s, research and theories from cognitive psychology have become increasingly central co our understanding of second language devel, use the compaterasa metaphor for the mind, 10 the capacities of computers for string, draw on neurobiology, seeking Maynard 2008) Another aspect of automat we and development: ed to hypothesize that humans view, gen can ace evelopment of complex syntax and for leacners ina nncously use everything they know a above, some linguists have also concluded th int for the language readers need more ime to understand a tex milly comprehend ie The info m are seen as drawing perception, memory, categorization, and gene in the circumstances of learning as about language and how thae prior kn new language. Information | processing Cognitive psychologists working in a human leaaing and pesoance sce econ building up of knowledge that can eventual forspeaking and understanding, Robe (2001) and others have suggested must pay ae ‘they ate trying to lear ot produce. Pay: rule, Th become pro- cedural knowledge, or the al knowledge. With continued procedural knowledge can become automated and theleame may forget having learned it ist as declarative knowledge. aleamer can pay ad co use most of theit hae rsourees to undertand the main words ina menage he grammatical morphemes atached to especially those that do aot substa iceand practice, information that was new bec and learners become able to acces cedutal k With enough practice, pro mnovedge the process teExplaining second language learning ‘Sometimes changes in language behaviour do ns in terms of a gradual have been des ‘eventhough they have not had exposure tothe language apparencbacklding when asstemati pet of elena uage incorporates too mus as we saw in Chapter 2, -ed ending to show ps gular ver correctly may be affected. Thus, a may say ‘Iseed’ or even 'I sawed’ Such over rot based on practice of those specific iter into.a general pattern, acept from psychology offer insight into how learn language. According to transfer wing CAD), sfer-appropriate processing (TAD) fournation is best retrieved in ituations that sresiilarco thoes eva because when we learn someti record aspects ofthe context in which it was learned and laboratory experim ists under diferent ed mainly in on tess that resemble the Janguage acquisition in Chapter 1, cognitive seen needa hypothesie the erence dedicated exel tan i i rte less ind of declarative knowledge that characterizes nal structure-based approaches co sec Explaining second language learning the input and che frequency rs develop a stronger and s crween these features as well as beoween language features anc the presence of one situational feature For example, © ight get subject-verb agreement correct, not because they know a rule but © fecause they have heard examples such as Tsay’ and he says’ so often chat each subject pronoun activates the correct verb form, che language features have occurred -weaker because there have been Some of the evidence for mentioned above that much genres is :mulaic units o¢ chun aggesced by Nick guage isacleas partly Jearned in units larger than single words, and sentences or phrases are not usually put together one word ata time. As noted in Chapter 1, usage-based research has shown that a learning mechanism, simulated by a computer nnotonly ‘lesen from input bucean also generalize, even making ns may be strong bec or they may be relat fever oppor P usage-based views comes fy 1c language we use in ordi The competition model and Brian MacWhinney (1981) described the ‘competition for both first and second language acquisition that only language form but also language n ‘examples of language asso- language come £0 the relationship berween words in a sentence may order, grammatical markers, and the animacy of the now sages make use of multiple cues, but they di ‘each. This becomes clear in a situation where the meaning of a sentence is ‘mediately obvious. What helps you figure out the meaning? English word order as the most comm« 3s becween tence components. Most English sentences havethe order Subject—Verb— Object (SVO). Thac is, the eypical English sentence mentions the subject first, then the verb, then the object. ‘Two- and three-year old Eng!112 Explaining second language earning ese sentences be {6 According to the competition model how might the interpreted by speakers ofa language witha more flexible word order than English? What would those speakers focus on? are stronger than ‘bute the SVO relationship the pasive voice. That is, “The box was pushed by the boy” may be interpreted as "The box pushed the boy.” Only later do they learn ro pay acento Bush the active voice sentence from the age is buc one of the complex knowledge Robinsoi Feaian may fi has Ul giocattolo guard il bambino at—the boy). An focuses on the animacy of the two no sonable incerpretation is tha the boy is loo competition model, second language acq the relative importance of the different eu languages are acquired and represented in the same areas of the brain and whether the brain processes ACTIVITY Look at how different cues lead to sentence interpretation Consider the following sentences: 1 The boy eats the apple, 2 The apple eats the boy 3. The dog sees the bal. 4 The ball chases the dog, 5. The ballis chased by the dog. ch has shown that asan learners proficiency increases, the brain activity looks more like that of language processing, The 1 processing patterns he L2 increases (Fah fi the first to look more ‘one who performs 3 Ineach sentence, what cue tells you which noun is the agent? 4 Is there mare than one cue? 5, How are sentences 4 and 5 above different from each other?114 Explaining second language earning Explaining second language learning 15 Second language applications: Interacting, noticing, processing, and practising ‘The noticing hypothesis Richard Schmide (1990, 2001) proposed che noticing hypothesis, sug ing r ient, condition for second language ac These researchers have studied the ways in which speakers modify theit speech and thei der to help learners p: ina new language. Long language comprehensible. Tha teract with other speake: comprehension through negotiation for meaning. Through these interactions, interlocutor figure out what they need to do to keep the conversation going and make the input comprehensible co the less profi- cientspeaker. According 10 Long, thereare no cases of beginner-level acquiring second language from native-speaker talk that has notb ified in some way. is own second language syst rvas because they were brought to his gap in their knowledge ofthe language. ners must be aware thar they are ‘noticing’ is the object of considerable debate. According 1 Comprehension cbecks—elforts by the native speaker to ensure that learn 2 Carifieation requess—efforts by the learner to get the native speaker co clarify something that is abour the impe tinue to be the object of research. Several researchers have found ways to got lose aay home from school. She was walking home from school. SheExplaining second language learning Input processing Inhis research with American unive Bill VanPatten (2004) observed many eases of ude tences. Forexample, as predicted by chapter, when Engl word order often precedes «essential to pay acention 0 indicates subjecc or an object. rather than rely on the word order alonc, ‘whether the form of the pron ciffe language features in order to interpre to acquire those feanures, ce. Features that typical at the beginning or end ofa sentence were easiex to process those inthe middle. All lea Epla different rates. The researchers also f to be affected by these constraints who were at differentdevelopmen- ing second language learning 17 Pienemann (1999, 2003) developed processability theory on the basi research with leamers of different languages Chapter 2. ‘The role of practice One component of ions of behaviourism missed the point e behaviour that or ice. Lourdes Ortega the foreign language118 Explaining second language learning sggested that auto “fluency’ may be the most neglect where inst ‘The sociocultural perspective in Chaprer 1, Vygotsky's theory assumes thac cog: ofsaci form ata higher level because of locutor In some ways this approach may apes restate some ofthe hypotheses cople sometimes wonder Keashen’ i +/, the input com: learner and the emphasis ison the comprehensibility 0 re just beyond the learner's current developmental level. The emphasis in struct knowledge based on their intera private speech. Explaining second language learning language learners acqui 1 collaborate and incer- act with other speakers. Trac hhas been understood to involve an expert and a novice. However, recent work has broadened the r-learner ini reflexive verbsas they ty t co rom the work of M and Sharon Lapkin (2002), who have investigated socio for sccond language learning in Canadian F to determine how second language engaging in prod ddeaw their atten task B in Chapters, 10 use, discussing them together and deciding what forms were best co express theit meaning. Swain nsiders co dialogues snguage use and language lesming can co-oce language learning, [eis cog becween the socioci 19120 Explaining second language learning na variety of rents, All ofthe theories discussed j chapter and in Chapter] use metaphors co be observed direc age, Cognitive h co know what ld be pai to the developmental steps leading fement of high levels of proficiency. Hate perspectives have ptt and so they put greaer mers can draw on and psychologists draw some oftheir evidence fi logical escarch. At present, most af the research o the brain and specific neurological a onclusive. However, Explaining second language learning perts. The complexities of second agicementamong the represent puzzles ion, like those o rm significance for language teaching, * theory of language at uch agreement were reached, be interpre rene as its goal and learning, but agreement on a ‘comy is probably, at best, a long way off. Even i 'be questions about how the theory shou provide information th about pedagogy. [n Chapte research that has focused on Questions for reflection 1 Several theories or L2 learning have been proposed inthis chapter: fs one cof them more consistent with your ewn understanding of how languages are learned! iso, how have your experiences asa teacher or learner broughe you to this view! 2. Schmid's noticing hypothesis—thatall second language learning in adults involves awareness of what is being learned—is somewhat coneroversal. “That's, thas been argued that tis also possible to learn incidental, without any awareness or even an intention to learn. However, second Ianguage learners certainly do have ‘aha! moments when they suddenly Understand something about how the target language works. Do you have any examples of nticing from your own language learning experiences, or from those of your students? 3 From the perspective of the interaction hypothesis, modified interaction seen as an essential resource for second language learners. guished from modified (or simplified) input.Can you think of some examples of each? What are some of the features of modified interaction helpful to learners? re there some features in which second ed interaction? Do thac you think are espet thac may not suppert learning? What are the cont from 1