(B)

Anderson’s Nativization Model: Anderson’s Nativization Model

is actually built on Schumann’s Acculturation Model but is different
from it in its addition of a cognitive dimension to the earlier
Acculturation model. Schumann is concerned only with the input and the
function the learner wants to use the L2 for. On the other hand,
Anderson is more interested in the learner’s internal processing
mechanisms. Analogous to the Piagetian processes of ‘assimilation’ and
‘accommodation’, Anderson distinguishes between ‘Nativization’ and
‘Denativization’ process underlying the SLL. Nativization involves
assimilation. The learner makes the input conform to his own
internalized view of what constitutes the L2 system.
Creolization, pidginizatian and the creation of a unique interlanguage in first and second
languages acquisition in early stages of acquisition share one attribute- the creation of a linguistic
system which is at least partly autonomous from the input used for building that system. The
system can then be considered ‘native’ to the individual in that it is the individuals’ mental
capacity to construct such a linguistic system that makes it possible for a new ‘native’ language
to rise. (Anderson, R., 1983: 11)

Thus, the learner simplifies his learning task by forming

hypotheses based on the knowledge he already poses, that is, based on
innate knowledge, knowledge of his first language or knowledge of the
world. Therefore, he uses an ‘internal norm’. Nativization is clearly seen
in pidginization and also in the early stages of both LiA and SLL 15
Denativitization involves accommodation to the external system.
During denativization the learner adjusts his internal system to come
closer and match the input. He makes use of inferencing strategies to
remodel his interlanguage system in accordance with the ‘external
norm’. When circumstances cause the learner to reconstruct his
interlanguage to conform more closely to that of input, he must, in effect
dismantle parts of his ‘native’ system (the system that he constructed
previously or that he is in the process of constructing) ... Thus,
decreolization, depidginization and later stages of first and second
language acquisition constitute types of Denativization” (Anderson, R.,
1983:12) Anderson uses the processes of nativization and denativization
to deal with the various directions taken by the language learner in the
learning - process. In the nativization process, language acquisition takes
place relatively independent of the ‘external norm’ and is perhaps more
constituent with the natural acquisition processes and with the
constraints on perception and production. In the denativization process,
the pressures to conform to the TL cause the learner to override the
natural acquisition process and hence, involves growth towards ‘external
norm’. Though Anderson feels that nativization comes about because of
relatively restricted access to TL input, he is not concerned as Schumann
is, with defining the factors that lead to the restricted access. However,
in Anderson, R. (1981), he agrees that a combination of ‘negative’ social
and psychological factors leads to restricted access, and with time and
increased exposure to input, the learner’s interlanguage begins to
approximate the structure of input.