Jordan Northcott 1

APLNG 491
MIDTERM
PART ONE: question 1
Most of the research we have examined so far, including scholarship on language development
and on the age factor, assumes that the proper standard for evaluating learner language is the
usage of Native Speakers. Is this a reasonable assumption, especially in the case of English (as a
Lingua Franca) but also for other languages that you have learned or taught? Discuss the
disadvantages and the potential advantages of this assumption.

A common thought in Second Language Acquisition is that the proper way to evaluate a

language learner is in comparison to a native speaker. Benchmarks for the L2 in acquisition and

competence are readily juxtaposed with that of an L1 (Ortega, 2009, p. 26). So as an L2 learner

progresses, they should progress as an L1 learner did. This also goes hand in hand with the idea

that the biological window for second language acquisition would not be impacted until a later

age, from 6 (for phonology) to past puberty and up to 15 (for morphosyntax)(Ortega, 2009, p.

25-26). But more research was done, and although not conclusive, it seemed that the biological

window was much younger than previously thought. Children, even at age 4, who were not

exposed to their L2 from birth struggled to “keep up” with this “native-like” proficiency (Ortega,

2009, p. 25). Thus trying to track the L2 as if it was their L1, is not always the best idea,

especially if the child's L1 is also not taken into consideration.

This idea also perpetuates the notion that the end goal for language learners is a

“native-like” fluency and appearance and that ultimate attainment is not achieved until it matches

a native speaker baseline (Ortega, 2009, p. 19). However, that is not always the case nor is it a

helpful way to look at language learning, to quote Vivian Cook, “apples do not make very good

pears” (Ortega, 2009, p. 26). Plus it does not talk about the question, of how native is native-like.

In English, when thinking of “native”, it needs to specify which dialect is being learnt. For

example, in another class, a story was told about an incoming first-year student at an American

university, whose L1 was English, but was placed into an ESL class. That was because the
Jordan Northcott 2
APLNG 491
variation they spoke was the Indian dialect of English. So although their L1 was English, making

them a native speaker, they were not seen as having achieved “native-like” fluency in the United

States. Minor things like pronunciation, spelling and perhaps slight variation in grammar were

enough for them to be placed into a class, they did not need. A reason why using native as a

standard is not always good or reliable.

More disadvantages of using native speakers as a baseline for L2 acquisition often do not

take into account other factors. Such as the learners' L1 and its relation to the L2, or in this case

English. If the L1 is something like Russian, the progression of the L2 may take longer due to

general language differences. The different writing system being one of the biggest. Another

issue is that the age at which English is learned will impact the outcome, as previously

mentioned, those who start learning before puberty “will develop levels of morphosyntactic and

phonological competence that are very close to those of native speakers of that language”

(Ortega, 2009, p. 28). But for this to occur, there has to be specific environments and effort in

place by the learner, if not it does not mean this will happen.

There are still advantages to this comparison, however. For example, the goal of an

English learner could be to aspire to have a native-like proficiency. Julie, a participant in a study

done about the limits of ultimate attainment, was often able to pass as a native speaker of Arabic

(Ortega, 2009, p. 14). But, she was an exceptional case, especially since she learned the language

naturalistically (Ortega, 2009, p. 14). Then this comparison would be a good thing and a nice

reference point for that learner, like Julie. I can also understand this sentiment based on my own

language experiences, for the few that I have learned an aspiration was always to “pass” as a

native. I did not want to stand out and draw attention to myself, especially since I was learning

the language while in the country that spoke it (Bosnian and German). To pass was something
Jordan Northcott 3
APLNG 491
that felt necessary to me, however, this was very situational. The desire to sound native in

Spanish was more for the sake of feeling accomplished in the language than want to not stick

out. Another advantage to using native-like as a standard is that specifically comparing

monolingual native speakers with L2 speakers can show the similarities and differences between

the second language that is not present in monolingual speakers (Ortega, 2009, p. 26).

Research is still done on using native-like as a standard for language evaluation and

whether or not it is wise to do so. The opinions seem divided, with reasons as given above, some

researchers write the merit of both arguments. Although inconclusive, it is clear that this

comparison should be situational and depend on the context you are learning or teaching in. It is

wise to remember that not all students will want to pass as a native, just like how some students

will want to pass as a native. It all depends, but there are studies that show benefits and

disadvantages to either side.

PART TWO: situation C

During your first year as a professional language educator, you taught EFL 101 at Enormous
Suburban High School In Whatever Country You Like, using a task-based approach that stresses
interaction in meaningful contexts as well as a mix of designs for learning opportunities. Your
students read stories, did role plays, sang songs and cooked; one group even made their own
movie in English about the American Revolution. You gave lessons about grammar, vocabulary,
and pragmatics, but you always tried to embed these in interesting content. At the end of the year
you were overcome with joy at your students' success-- all of them had acquired some ability to
use English. What is even better, most of them claimed that, thanks to you, they love English, find
it interesting and relevant, and plan to continue in their study. Now it is the beginning of your
second year. About two weeks into the semester, you are approached in the faculty lounge by Mr.
Hubert Hainsworthy, the ESL 102 teacher who is about to retire after 40 years of teaching.
(Everyone assumes that Mr. Hainsworthy is the best EFL teacher in the district, because he is a
native speaker.) "I just don't understand what is wrong with students these days. And what on
earth did you do all year in EFL 101?" he asks (in front of all the other teachers). "Your students
hardly know any English at all! Why, just this morning I tried to do the simplest grammar drill
and it was a total disaster! And when I asked them to explain the difference between definite and
indefinite articles there was not a single student who knew what to say. They do not know their
modal verbs from a hole in the ground!" You calmly reply:
Jordan Northcott 4
APLNG 491
Mr. Hainsworthy,

I understand outright it may seem shocking that my students could not tell you what an

indefinite or definite article was. However, have you not heard or seen them use those articles?

Either in discussions, sentences, classwork or other means. Is it not more important that they can

use them, over being able to tell you exactly what an indefinite and definite article is? Because

realistically there are a lot of parts of the English language that native speakers use, every day,

without recognizing their formal names. Most native speakers use modal verbs all the time, but I

bet if you took a poll of native speakers in this school not even half could tell what that was.

Interaction, like the ones we have done in class with plays, cooking and reading stories

has been proven by researchers as a helpful method. In fact, the Interaction Hypothesis by

Michael Long proposes “that the best kind of comprehensible input learners can hope to obtain is

input that has been interactionally modified” (Ortega, 2009, p. 61). With interaction, as found in

a communicative classroom, one of the styles that I use also gives way to a more personalized

input. The feedback from this interaction also varies more than your preferred “right or wrong”

answers. I strive to make the meaning more comprehensible for my students, using methods like

recasts, repetition and clarification requests (Ortega, 2009, p. 61). This allows students to

understand their errors in ways outside of right or wrong and gives them the opportunity to

self-correct.

This is essentially an immersion school for these students, English is their L2. Plus a

study was done by Merill Swain that showed the linguistic capabilities of French L2 students in

an immersion school, in English-speaking Ontario compared to children of the same age whose

L1 is French (Ortega, 2009, p. 62). Her findings revealed that those L2 French speakers, had

optimal development in their “discourse competence”, but were lacking in their “grammatical
Jordan Northcott 5
APLNG 491
competence [and] … in sociolinguistic competence for aspects that demanded grammatical

means for their realizations” (Ortega, 2009, p. 62). But that is why as part of the student's

curriculum grammar, vocabulary and pragmatics are a key focus. However, I find it best for

students to be able to do that with a task-based method, instead of grammar-translation. In a

meta-analysis, by Keck et al. in 2006, they combined and looked at 14 task-based interaction

studies (Ortega, 2009, p. 66). Keck founds that when researchers used the targeted forms and

vocabulary essential to complete the task, the effect lasted and grew stronger over time(Ortega,

2009, p. 66). These studies are why this is the chosen method for my classroom, research has

proven it works.

The ability to use the language and formulate different understandings is so important and

according to Lourdes Ortega (2009), older children can have an advantage in learning “if they

are tested through tasks that demand cognitive maturity and involve metalinguistic skills”(p. 28).

This is exactly what they did, a group of students even made a movie, in English about the

American Revolution. Something that certainly requires cognitive maturity and comprehension

of the English language. So yes, grammar is wildly important, but as Schmidt concluded after his

1983 study on the Japanese artist Wes, “grammar acquisition cannot be successful without

applying ‘interest’, ‘attention’ and ‘hard work’ to the task of cracking the language

code”(Ortega, 2009, p. 58). Those three things Schmidt lists, are things we built in my class, my

students left me with genuine love and interest in English, and with that, their next step is

towards that “grammar acquisition”. Hopefully, your class will help them achieve because

they’ve already succeeded in finding intrinsic motivation in my classroom.

Sincerely,

Jordan Northcott
Jordan Northcott 6
APLNG 491
Works Cited

Ortega, L. (2009). Understanding second language acquisition. London: Hodder Education.