4/21/2020

Overview
Behaviourism
– Mimicry And Memorization

Innatism
– Monitor Model

Cognitive Perspective
– Information Processing
– Usage-based Learning
– Competition Model
EXPLAINING L2 – Language And The Brain

LEARNING Interaction hypothesis

– Noticing hypothesis
– Input processing
– Processability theory
– The role of practice

Comprehensible output hypothesis

– Learning by talking
– Collaborative dialogue

SLA perspectives SLA timeline

6 7

The Behaviorist Perspective The Behaviorist Perspective

 Pavlov’s dog

 Language Acquisition = Habit formation

 SRR – Stimulus -> Response-> Reinforcement

 Nurture vs. Nature

 L1 acquisition:

 L2 Difference: Already formed L1 habits

 imitation -> practice -> feedback

1
 4/21/2020

The Behaviorist Perspective: L2 Learning Examples of Transfer

 ALM of L2 teaching (1940s-60s), especially in N. America.  Positive transfer
 E.g. Spanish speaker learning Italian
 Emphasis on Mimicry, Drills, Memorization  Spanish: Come bien el nino?
 Italian: Mangia bene il bambino?
 Inductive approach
 Negative transfer
 E.g.: Italian speaker learning English
 Linked with Contrastive Analysis.
 Italian: Mangia bene il bambino?
 English: *Eats well the baby?
 L1 habits will interfere with new ones for L2 learning.
 Positive transfer: similar structures facilitate learning.
 Negative transfer: “Interference” L1 habits will cause errors in the L2.

The Innatist Perspective

The Behaviorist Perspective: L2 Learning
Weaknesses/Limitations • Critique of Behaviorism:
Nature vs. Nurture
• Many learner errors are not predictable on the basis of L1.
• Learners of different L1 background make similar errors.
• Chomsky  L1 is based on child’s innate language-specific
module of the mind.
• L1 influence is not simply a matter of habits but a more complex process.
• L2 learners do not transfer all L1 features. • A child has innate knowledge of certain principles governing
all languages (Universal Grammar).

• Focus on competence not performance.

The Innatist Perspective

• No specific claims for L2 learning.

• Logical problem of SLA: How do learners produce more

than they were taught? (Cook, 2003)

• Lydia White: Is UG available for SLA?

• If available, how does it work?

• Same as for L1? Differently from L1?

• How do instruction and corrective feedback contribute to SLA?

2
 4/21/2020

Is UG available to L2 learners? Innatism: Krashen’s Monitor Model (1982)

• UG is available • UG is partially
• UG is NOT available
available
• Underdetermination • UG accounts for L1
acquisition but not L2 • Only L1 parameters
• L2 input is acquisition. that are also present
degenerate.
in the L2 will be
• UG is not available in acquired successfully.
• Negative evidence SLA after the critical
does not work in L2 period.
(White, 1989).

Krashen’s Monitor Model (1982)

1. Acquisition vs. Learning
Five hypotheses:
 Learning cannot turn into acquisition (non-interface position).
1. Acquisition vs. Learning
 Easiest language rules are not always the first to be acquired.
2. Monitor
 Unconscious vs. conscious learning
3. Natural Order

4. Comprehensible Input

5. Affective Filter

2. Monitor Hypothesis 3. Natural Order Hypothesis

 Learned rules  monitor/edit our productions  Acquisition follows a ‘natural order’.

 Monitoring takes place only when the speaker/writer has  Based on morpheme-order studies.
 plenty of time
 is concerned about producing correct language
 has learned the relevant rules

3
 4/21/2020

4. Comprehensible Input Hypothesis 4. Comprehensible Input Hypothesis

 Acquisition is based on access to containing (i+1).

 i = learner’s current level of proficiency

 +1 = linguistic content just beyond the learner’s current level

4. Comprehensible Input Hypothesis 5. Affective Filter Hypothesis

 Speaking:  Stress and negative affect interfere with acquisition.

 a result of acquisition, not its cause.

 cannot be taught directly, but
 “emerges” on its own, after building competence via
comprehensible input.

 If enough input is given and is understood, grammar is

automatically provided.

Innatism: Krashen’s monitor model Innatism: Krashen’s monitor model

Classroom implications • Limitation: Not empirical- The hypotheses cannot be tested.

• Encourage acquisition not learning.

• Only acquired knowledge is readily available for natural, fluent communication.

• Strength: influence on communicative approaches (e.g.
content-based, immersion, and task-based instruction).
• No need to teach grammar explicitly.

• Ensure that learners receive comprehensible input.

• Classroom research considerable progress through
exposure to comprehensible input
BUT
at some stages explicit instruction will be needed.

4
 4/21/2020

The Cognitive Perspective The Cognitive Perspective

 Cognition: how humans acquire, process, store, retrieve info.

 Learning L1/L2 based on the same learning processes

 What’s different: the learning conditions and learners’ L1.

 Cognitive psychologists:
 no mental module devoted to L1/L2 acquisition.
 all learning is based on the same cognitive processes.

Cognitive Theories
The Cognitive Perspective Information Processing

 Information Processing

 Usage-Based Learning

 The Competition Model

Cognitive Theories Cognitive Theories

Information Processing Information Processing
 Language acquisition = building knowledge to be used automatically
for speaking & understanding (Segalowitz, 1992)

 Pay attention! New information must be noticed before it can be

learned.  Controlled Processing

 There is a limit to a learner’s attention.

 Experience & practice  new information is easier to process

 Automatic Processing

5
 4/21/2020

Cognitive Theories
Skill Learning
 Declarative  Procedural  Automatic

 Attention tests

Cognitive Theories
Skill Learning Skill Learning
 New information  first as Declarative Knowledge Procedural Knowledge
Declarative Knowledge
 The learner is aware of the information and can report noticing it.
 Knowing what  Knowing how
 Practice  declarative knowledge is proceduralized
 Applying the rules
 (may become Procedural Knowledge)  Knowing facts/rules

 Thinking about the Declarative Knowledge during the performance disrupts fluency.  Automatic
 Conscious

 Further practice  automatic access to the information  Performance of /θ/

 Knowledge of /θ/
 The learner may forget having learned it (DeKeyser, 2007).

 E.g. Driving, sports

Cognitive Theories
Restructuring (McLaughlin, 1990)
Restructuring, U-shaped Learning
 Not all knowledge follows the declarative-  E.g., Lightbown (1983): L1: French L2: English
procedural-automatic path.  The use of –ing form in English among learners (6th, 7th, 8th grade)

 Bursts of knowledge integration Stage 1 correct utterance Stage 3

He is taking a cake He is taking a cake

 Backsliding (U-shaped learning)

E.g. After saying ‘I saw/I went’, a learner may say ‘I

seed / goed / sawed’. Stage 2
*He take a cake (incorrect use of –ing)

6
 4/21/2020

Cognitive Theories Cognitive Theories

Transfer Appropriate Processing (Lightbown, 2008) Usage Based Learning / Connectionism
 When we learn something, we also internalize the learning  Learning  the creation of links (connections) between
conditions. bits of information

 We recall some knowledge more easily when the context/

processes are similar to those we originally learned it.

 E.g. Rule learning/Drill  easier to recall in tests

Cognitive Theories Cognitive Theories

Usage Based Learning / Connectionism Usage Based Learning

 Frequency predicts how easily information will be learned.

 No neurological module specifically designed for SLA.
 Neurological connections are made between language and a
 All learning is based on general learning processes. particular meaning/situation

 The more frequent, the stronger the connections

 Unlike skill
theorists, connectionists do not assume that new
knowledge must first be declarative.  Transfer from L1 to L2 occurs because strong associations already
established in L1 interfere with establishment of the L2 network.

Cognitive Theories Cognitive Theories

Usage Based Learning The Competition Model (Bates & MacWhinney, 1981)

 Similar to computer simulations  Explains both L1 & L2 learning

 Form–function mapping is basic for L1 acquisition.

 Chunk learning
 Learners use language ‘cues’ that signal specific
 e.g. people usually say ‘Hello’ when they answer the phone
 e.g. Subject-Verb Agreement functions (e.g. word order; animacy).
 noticing that ‘say’  I /we/you/they
‘says’  he/she/it

7
 4/21/2020

Cognitive Theories Cognitive Theories

The Competition Model The Competition Model
 E.g. ‘Il giocattolo guarda il bambino.’

 Kutuyu itti çocuk.  (The toy – is looking at – the child.)

 2- or 3-year-old children  Animacy, World Knowledge

 4-year-old children  Word order

 ‘The box was pushed by the boy.’  English speakers word order; Italian speakers  animacy

Language and the Brain (Neurolinguistics)

The Cognitive Perspective
 Are L1 and L2 represented in the same parts of the brain?
 General ability to process and learn information

 Experience-based learning

 Language -> one of the complex knowledge systems to acquire.

Language and the Brain (Neurolinguistics) Language and the Brain (Neurolinguistics)

 Classical
assumption Language functions are located in the left
hemisphere.

 New Research  activation in both areas of the brain while

language is processed.

 Differences in the brain activation of L1 and L2 learners.

 Nativelike brain activation in proficient L2 users.

8
 4/21/2020

Interaction hypothesis Interaction hypothesis

 How does input become comprehensible? (Long, 1983, 1986)  How does input become comprehensible? (Long, 1983, 1986)

 Input: what is available to the learner

 Intake: what is actually internalised.

 Modified interaction: Elaboration, Slower speech rate, Gestures, Extra cues

Interaction hypothesis Interaction hypothesis

Foreigner talk (Long, 1986) Conversational Modifications

 Comprehension checks: 'The bus leaves at 6:30. Do you understand?‘

 Clarification requests: 'Could you repeat please?'

 Self-repetition or paraphrase:

'She got lost on her way home from school. She was walking home from

school. She got lost.‘

Interaction hypothesis

• confirmation check
clarification request
comprehension check

9
 4/21/2020

Interaction hypothesis
 Revised version of the Interaction Hypothesis

 Negotiation for meaning – Interlocutors should try to reach mutual

comprehension

 More emphasis on corrective feedback and noticing

 Negotiation Tasks:

 Problem-solving, Information-gap, Jigsaw

Interaction hypothesis Interaction perspective

•Indirect correction Comprehensible Output Hypothesis (Swain, 1985)
• NSS: I can’t assist class. (Meaning ‘I can’t attend class.’)
• NS: You can’t what? (Meaning ‘You’ve got the wrong word. Try again.’)  Input is not enough.

•Rising intonation questions (“echo” questions)

• a. NNS: John goed to town yesterday.
• NS: John goed to town? (Meaning ‘The word goed is wrong.’)
• b. NNS: This book is hard.
• NS: This book is hard. (Meaning ‘You’re right. It is.’)

•Paraphrase of an NNS utterance

• NNS: John goed to town yesterday.
• NS (correcting): Yes, John went shopping.

Interaction perspective Cognitive Perspectives to L2 Learning:

Comprehensible Output Hypothesis (Swain, 1985)
Noticing Hypothesis
 The need for producing comprehensible output pushes learners to better
communication.  Nothing is learned unless it is noticed.
 (Schmidt, 1990, 2001)
 Meaningful production practice helps learners by:
 Importance of awareness and
 Enhancing fluency and automaticity
 attention in L2 learning
 Noticing gaps in their own knowledge

 Moving from semantic to syntactic processing,

 Testing L2 hypotheses, allowing for monitoring and revision

10

Cognitive Perspectives to L2 Learning:
Noticing Hypothesis
 Contributors to the degree of noticing or awareness:
 Frequency of encounter with items
 Perceptual saliency of items
 Instructional strategies that can structure learner attention
 Individuals’ processing ability (aptitude)
 Readiness to notice particular items (related to complexity)
 Task demands (the nature of activity)
Cognitive Perspectives to L2 Learning:
 Input Processing
 Learners will process content words before anything else.
 Learners will process words before grammatical suffixes
 yesterday before –ed
 the pronoun he before 3rd person sing. –s. e.g. He works here
 L2 acquisition is overcoming these strategies and encouraging new
ones.
Cognitive Perspectives to L2 Learning:
The role of practice
 ALM  often poor connections between form & meaning.
 Cognitive perspective
 Practice is not mechanical
 Practice is not restricted to production
 Practice should be interactive, meaningful,
and focus on task-essential forms. (Ortega, 2007)
 Automaticity should be the goal.
 Freeing up cognitive resources for learning new info (Segalowitz, 2010)
4/21/2020
Cognitive Perspectives to L2 Learning:
Input processing
 'La sigue el señor.’
 Misinterpretation of sentences
 Limited processing capacity (VanPatten, 2004)
 Difficulty in focusing on form and meaning at the same time.
 Learners give the priority to Meaning rather than Form/Grammar.
Cognitive Perspectives: L2 Learning
Processability theory (Pienemann, 1999, 2003)
 German L2 acquisition by adult migrants
– Sentence Position  Ease of Processing
Features at the sentence beginning are easier to learn.
– Developmental sequences in syntax and morphology are affected by how
easy they are to process.
– Variational features
– Need for a certain level of processing capacity before L1 transfer occurs
The SocioCultural Perspective
 Language learning: a process of group socialization
 Language is a tool for teaching group values, and beliefs.
 Cognitive development arises as a result of social interaction.
 Learning occurs through interaction.
 Speaking (and writing) mediates thinking.
11
 4/21/2020

The SocioCultural Perspective The SocioCultural Perspective

 Four important notions: Mediation

 We use language as a tool to organize and alter our mental world.

 Mediation

 Regulation  We use language to interact with one another.

 Scaffolding

 Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD)

Vygotsky

80

The SocioCultural Perspective The SocioCultural Perspective

Regulation Scaffolding
 The child or unskilled individual learns tasks and activities under the
 Language allows us to regulate our environment. guidance of more skilled individuals (e.g., parents, teachers, etc).

 Self-regulation: indicates an autonomous mature person, who  The learners are brought into a shared consciousness through
needs no help in solving a problem. collaborative talk, until they take over new knowledge/skills.

 Other regulation: indicates a person who needs help in solving

problems.

The SocioCultural Perspective

The SocioCultural Perspective  Scaffolding:

 Scaffolding:

 Creating interest in the task

 Simplifying the task
 Maintaining pursuit of the goal
 Marking critical features and discrepancies between what has been
produced and the ideal solution
 Controlling frustration during problem solving
 Demonstrating an idealized version of the act performed.

12
 4/21/2020

The SocioCultural Perspective

 Scaffolding: The SocioCultural Perspective
 Zone of Proximal Development
(ZPD)- Vygotsky

 the domain of knowledge or skill

where the learner is not yet
capable of independent
functioning

 but can achieve the desired

outcome given relevant
scaffolded help.

The SocioCultural Perspective

 Difference between ZPD and i+1

 ZPD emphasis on development

how learners co-construct knowledge based on the
interlocutor or in private speech

 i+1  input from outside the learner

The SocioCultural Perspective The SocioCultural Perspective & SLA

Sociocultural vs. Interactionist Perspective
 Sociocultural  Cognitive processes begin as external socially
mediated activity
 Interactionists individual cognitive processes
Modified input & interaction provide material to be interpreted
Learning by talking
 ZPD  novice-expert conversation
 What about ‘novice–novice’ or ‘learner-learner’ interaction’
Collaborative Dialog (Swain & Lapkin, 2002):
 Learners co-construct knowledge while engaged in dialogue
 Focus on form and meaning at the same time.
 Cognitive + Social

13
 4/21/2020

WHICH THEORY????

 Innatists  Complex language knowledge References

 Linguistic intutitions
 Lightbown, P. M., & Spada, N. (2013). How languages are
learned. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
 Cognitivists  Computer simulations
 Laboratory experiments
 Saville-Troike, M. (2006). Introducing second language
acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
 Interactionists  Negation for meaning

 Neurolinguists Brain imaging

14