How Languages are Learned 4thedition - Lightbown Spada

SAVE OFFLINE

-vlso published In

Oxford Handbooks for Language Teac h e rs Teaching American English Pro nu ncia rio n Peter Avery and Susan Ehrlich

The Oxfo rd ESOL H an d boo k Philida Schellekens

Des igning and 'Analyz ing Language T~srs Nathan T Carr

Exploring Learner Language Elaine Tarone and Bonnie Sunerzbin

ESOL: A Critical Gu ide Melan ie Cooke and[ames Simpson

Teach ing the Pronunciat io n afE ng lish as a Lingua Franca Robin Walka

Success in English Teaching Paul Davies and Eric Pearse

Doing Task-based Teac h ing Jane 'X'illis and D.we \'V'illi s

Doing Seco nd Lan g uage Research

[ames Dean Broum and Theodore S. F.vdgen From Exp eri en ce [0 Knowledge [uit.m Edge .tna )lIt ";'II'ron

Exp laining Eng lish G ramma r Ceo~fJ" rule

How Languages

are Learned

Fourth edition

Teac hing Bus.n ess English .\L lrk Ellts 'lJld Chn.rincfot-nron Intercultural Business Co rnrn u n icarion Robar Gibson

Patsy M Lightbown andN ina Spada

Teaching and Learning in the Lan guage Classroom

Tricia Hedge reach ing Second Langu;lge Reading Tbom Hudson Teachi ng English Overseas: An I nrroducr ion

Smldm La McKay Teac hi ng En glish as a n l rue rnarlo nal La n guage

:'

Sandra Let AfcK.IJ Comm u nic ario n in the Language Classroom

Tony Lynch Teac h ing Second L.Jr1guage Listening

Tof/.v (ync!; Teaching Youn g Langu.ige Learners A n n.lnUln,1 PItJt~r

OXFORD VN IV ERS I TY P R ESS

OXFORD U"'IVER.Sfn l'RES S

Great Clarendo n Str eet , Oxfo rd. OX2 6DP. United Kingdom Oxford Un ive rsity Press is a department of the Uni ve rsity of Oxford. It furthers the University's objective of exce llence in researc h. scholarship. and ed ucatio n by pub lish ing wo rldwide . Oxford is a regist e red tr ade ma rk o f Oxford Uni ve rs ity Press in the UKand in cert a in other countri es ~ Oxford University Pres s 2013 The mo ra l rig hts of th e author have been asserted Firs t publis hed in 2013

2017 2016 20 1 5 20 1 4 2013

10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 I All righ ts reserved. No part of this pu blicatio n may be re prod uced. stored in a re trieval sys te m . or tra ns rrurted . in any form or by an y means. without the prior pe rm issio n in wri ting of Oxfo rd Un ive rsity Press. o r as expressly permitted by law , by licence or under term s agr e ed with th e ap pro p riate re progr a ph ics rights o rgan iza tio n . Enquiries concerning re prod uct io n o utside the scope o f th e above should be sent to the ELI Rights Depart m e nt. Oxfo rd Un iver sity Press . at the add re ss above You m us t no t circu late this wo rk in an y other form and you m us t impose this same conditi on on any acquirer Links to thi rd party we bsite s are provide d by Oxfor d in good faith and fo r in formar ion on ly, Oxfo rd disclaims any respons ibility for th e materials con tained in any third party web site re fere nced in thi s wo r k Photocopying The Pu blisher grants permission for the photocopying of those pages ma rket! ' photocopi able ' acco rd ing to the fo Uo wing conditions . Ind ividual pur chasers ma y make copies for the ir own use or for use by classes that th ey teach. School purchasers m ay m ake copies for use by staff and stu den ts. but th is permission d oes no t exte nd to additiona l schoo ls or branches Under no circu mstan ces may an y pa rt:of th is book be pho tocopied fo r resale JSB ~ :

9780 19 454 106 8

Prin ted in China Th is boo k is printed on paper fro m certified and we ll-managed sou rces .

ACKNOWLEDG EM liNTS

TIlt' lJuthol''S una pubJisht!T ..rrc grateful to thost"who how: gtven p ernussion to reproduce tile follOWing exrrcrts ana adapranons of capynghr malCt?s in second wnguage learni ng

crirical pe riod may no t be based o n th e innate biolog ical struc t ures believed to co nt rib ute to first language acquisition o r seco nd language acquisition in early childhood. Rather, older learners may depend on more generallearn­ ing abilities-rhe same ones they might use to acquire other kinds of skills or information . It is argued that these general learning abilities are not as effective for lan guage learnin g as th e.m or e speci fic, inna te capacities that are available to the yo un g child. It is mo st often claimed that the critical period ends so mew here aro un d puberty, but so me researchers suggest it co uld be even earlier. Others find evidence that there m ay be multiple critical periods, related to different aspecrs of language learning. For example, the ability to acquire rhe pronunciation patterns of a new language may end earlier than the abiliry.ro acquire vocabulary. Of co urse, as we saw in C hap ter 2, ir is difficult to compare ch ild ren and ad ults as second language learners. In addition to possible biological di f­ feren ces suggested by the C ritical Period H ypothesis, the conditions for language learning are often very different. Youn ger learners in informallan­ guage learning enviro n m ents usually have m or e tim e to devo te to learning lang uage. They o fte n have more opportunities to hear-and use the lan guage in enviro n me nts where th ey do not experience stro ng pre ssure to speak fluently an d accu rat ely from the very beginnin g. Fu rthe rmo re, [heir ea rly im pe rfect effo rts are of[en prai sed, o r at least accepted. O lde r learn ers are mor e likely to find th emselves in situations char demand more co m plex language and [he exp ressio n of more co mp lica ted ideas . Adults are often embarrassed by thei r lack of mastery of the language and they may develop'a sense of inadequacy mer experiences offrusrration in trying to say exacrlywhac they mean. Such negative feelings may affect their motivation and willingness to place them­ selves in situations wh ere they will need to use the new language. - -r,

Research based o n the CPH in addition to personal experience or informal observation of adult learners' difficulties has led some educators and policy makers as well as many parents to conclude that second language instruction is most likely to succeed if it begins when learners 'are very young. However, some studies ofthe second language development ofolder and younger learn­ ers learning in similar circumstances have shown [ha$cHder learn ers are more efficient than younger learners. By using their meralinguistic knowledge , memory strategies, and problem-solving skills, they make the most ofsecond or foreign language instruction. In educational settings, learners who begin learning a second language at primary school level do nor always achieve grea ter proficiency in the long run than those who begin in adolescence. Furthermore, there are countless anecdotes about older learners (adolescents and adults) who achieve excellence in [he second lan guage. Does this mean that there is no critical period for second language acquisition?

93

94

Indiuidua! differences in second Language Learning

The criticalperiod: More than justpronunciation? Most studies of the relationship between age of acquisition and second lan guage development have concluded that older lear ners typically have a no ticeable 'fo reign accent' in the spoken language. But what abo ut other linguistic features? Is syntax (word order, overall sentence st ructure) as depend ent on age of acquisition as p ho nological develo pment? What about mo rphology? M ark Patkowski (1980) studied the relatio nship between age and the acquisition of fearures of a second language other than pronunciation. He hypothesized that, even if accent were ignored, only those who had begun learn ing th eir second language befo re the age of 15 could achieve full, na tive-like mastery of th at language. Parkowski srudied 67 highly educated im migran ts to the Un ited Sta tes. They had started to learn English at vario us ages, b ut all had lived in the United States for more th an five yea rs. H e compared them to 15 native-born Americans with a similarly high level of education, whose variety of English could be considered the second language speakers' target language. The main questio n in Parkowski's research was: 'W ill there be a diffe rence between learners who began to learn English before puberty and those who began learning English later?' However, he also compared learners o n th e basis of o ther characteristics and experiences that some people have sug­ gested might be as good as age in predicting or explaining a person's success in mastering a second language. For example, he looked at the total amount of time a speaker had been in the United Sta tes as well as the amount of formal ESL instruction each speaker had ha d. A lengthy interview with each person was tape-reco rded . Because Patkowski wanted to remove the possibility that the results would be affected by accent, he transcribed five-minute samples from the interviews and asked trained native-speaker judges to place each transcri pt on a scale from 0 (no knowl­ edge of English) to 5 (a level of Englis h expected from an educated native speaker). The findings were quite dramatic. The transcripts of all native speakers and 32 out of 33 second language speakers who had begun learning English before the age of 15 were rated 4 + or 5. The homogeneity o f the pre-puberty learners suggests that, for this gro up, success in learning a seco nd language was almos t inevitable. In contrast, 27 of the 32 post-puberty learners were rated between 3 and 4 , but a few learners were rated higher (4+ or 5) and one was rated at 2+ . The performance of this group looked like the SOrt of range one would expect if one were measuring success in learning almost any kind ofskill or kn owledge: some people did extremely well; some did poorly; most were in the middle.

Indiuidual differences in secondLanguage Learning When Patkowski examined the other factors thar m ight be thought to affect success in second language acquisition, the picture was much less clear. There was, naturally, some relationship between those factors and learning success, but it often rurn ed out that age was so closely related to the other factors that it was not really possible to separate the m completely. For example, length of residence in the United States so metimes seemed to be a fairly goo d predic­ tor, However, it was often th e case that those with longer residence had also arrived at an .earlier age. Sim ilar ly, amo unt of instru ctio n, when separated from age, did not pred ict success as well as age of immigration did. Thus, Patkowski found that for learners who acquire a second language primarily in the 'natural' environment, age of acquisition is an important factor in setting limits on the development of native-like mastery of a second language and tha t this limitation does not apply only to pro n unciation.

Intuitions ofgrammaticality Jacqueline johnson and Elissa Newport (I989) conducted a study of 46 C h inese and Korean speakers who had beg un to learn English at different ages. All were students o r faculty members at an American un iversity an d all had been in the United States for at least th ree years. The sru dy also included a comparison group o f 23 native speakers of English . The participants were asked to make grammaticali ry judgements of a large number of sentences that tested 12 rules of English morphology and syntax. They heard recorded sentences an d had to indicate whe ther each sentencdwas correct. Half of th e sentences were grammatical, half were not.

.>'

Johnson and Newport found that age of arrival in the United States was a significant predictor o f success on the test. Learners who began earliest achieved the highest scores on the judgement task. Those who began later were less likely to judge the sentences correctly arid their performance on the test varied more widely, .~

of

Robert DeKeyser (2000) carried our a rep lication th eJohnso n and Newport study, working with Hungarian immigrants to the United States. He also found a strong relations hip between age of immig~ation and performance on th e judgement task. In addition, he asked participants to take language aptirude tests and fou nd that, for participants who began learning English as adults, aptitude scores were correlated with success. However, there was no such correlation for those who learned English in childhood. These findings appear to confirm the hypothesis that ad ult learners may learn language in a way that is different from the way young children learn,

95

96

Indiuidua] differ ences in second language learning

Rate oflearning So me researc h suggests that olde r lear ners may have an ad vantage in term s of the rate of learning. They appear to lear n faster in th e early stages of seco nd lan guage devel opment. In 197 8, C atherine Sno w and Marian Hoefnagel­ H ohl e published a study on a group of English speakers who were learning Dutch as a seco nd language while living in the Netherlands. The lear ners included children as yo ung as three years o ld as well as older children. ado ­ lescents, and adults. On tests administered when learners had been in the COUntryfor less than a year. adolescents were by far the mos t successful learn ­ ers. They were ahead of everyone on nearly all of the tests, Furthermore, it was the ad ults, not the children. whose scores were second best . In ot her words, adolescents and adults learned faster than children in th e first few months of exposure to Dutch. By the end of the year, the children were catching up, or hac! surpassed. the adults on 'several measures. Nevertheless, the adolescents retai ned t he hig hes t levels of performance ove rall. The fact that the young ch ildren were catc h ing up, toge ther wi th evide nce fro m o ther stud ies, sugges ts [hat [hey wo uld pr ob ably su rpass the old er learners if they co nt inued to have adeq uate oppo rtunity to use th e language. However, thi s stu dy shows th at adults and adolescents can make co ns ide ra ble and rapid progress in their proficiency in a second language in cont exts where the y use the language in social, personal . professional , or academic interaction , One view of critical pe riod research that has had an important impact on th e way we look at studies of language acquisition has been exp ressed in the work o f Vivian Cook (200 8). H e makes a strong case for the inappropriate­ ness of using th e crit er ion of Tndisringuishable from a native speak er' as the basis for su ccess in seco nd language acquisition. Indeed, Cook argues that a second language speaker or bilingual person should not be compared to monolingual native speakers because the real goal is 'm ulrico rn petence' , that is. knowledge of m ultip le languages th at in form and enrich one another. Resear ch on the long-term outcomes of second language learni ng as well as the rate oflearning at different ages brin gs us to a ques tio n that is pro bab ly ofgrea test interest to most read ers of this book: What can we co nclude abour the role of age whe n learning takes place p rimarily in an ed ucational setting?

Age and second language instruction Many peopl e w ho have never heard of the critical p eriod h ypothesis believe th at , in school p rog ramm es for second or fo reign lan gu age teach in g, 'yo unger is bett er '. H owever. bo th expe rience an d research show th at sta rring early is no gua rantee ofsuccess and tha t olde r learners can attain high levels of profi ­ ciency in their seco nd lan gu age. In considering the best age at w hich to begin

Individual differences I

second language instruc tio n, it is essent ial to think carefully about the goa ls of an instructional programme and the co nt ext in which it occurs befor e we jum p to conclusions about the necessiry-or even the desirabiliry-of the earlies t poss ible start (Lighrbow n 2008a) .

As we have seen, there isstrong evidence that differences in learning outcomes are associated with age oflearning. We have also seen that, especially for older learners, reaching high levels of second language proficiency involves apti­ tude, motivation, and the appro pria te social conditions for learning. Thus , dec isio ns about the age at which instruction sho uld begin canno t be based solely on research on the critical period hypothesis, which focuses only on age and on the attainment of native-like proficiency. In educational settings. it is particularly important to assess th e goals and the resources avai lable for second lan guage development. In these sett ings, researc h has shown that older children and adolescents progress more rapidly than younger ch ildren particu larly in the early stages oflearning. The knowl­ edge and sk ills tha t o lde r learn ers are abl e to acqu ire in a relati vely sho rt pe riod of tim e wi ll satisfy th e needs of many learners whose goal is to use the lan guage for everyday com m u nication, to succeed on foreign language exam inatio ns. or to read texts for an academic course rather than to speak with na tive-like p ron unciation. When the o bjective of seco nd language learning is nati ve-like proficiency in the target language. it may indeed be desirable for the learner to be com­ ple tely surro unded by the lan guage as earl y as pos sib le. However, as we saw in Chapter 1, earl y intensive exposure to the second lan gu age may entai l the loss or incomplete development of th e child 's first language. When the goal is basic communicative ab iliry for all stu dent s in an ed ucational system. an d whe n ir is assumed that the ch ild's native language will continue to be an important part of the ir lives. it may be more efficient to begin second or foreign language teaching later. In mos t second- and fore ign -language classrooms. learn ers receive only a few hours of instruction per week. Those w ho start la ter (for example. at age 10 . 11, o r 12) often ca tch up with th ose who begin earl ier. I n Clare Burs rall's (19 75) lan dmark study, stu dents who had made progress in early -starr pro ­ gtammes, sometimes found themselves placed in secondary school classes with students who had had no previous ins tructio n. Teachers who had both the mo re advanced early -start stu dents and th e students who had had fewer total ho urs of instruction te nded to teach to a lower co mmo n de nominato r, and d ifferences between th e rwo groups of stude nts essentially disappeared . Th is situation is not at all u ncommon . Further mo re, in ma ny educatio nal settings, srarti ng ins truc tio n ear lier may no t actual ly entai l many m o re total ho urs of instructi on . For exam ple, in Quebec, resp ond ing to p ressure from parents, the age at whic h instruction in Eng lish as a second language began

98

Individ ual differences in second language /earning

was lowered in recent years fro m abour age 9 or 10 to age 6, but m e to tal n umber of hours of instruction was not increased. Ramer, me nwnbe r of minutes of instruction per week was spread over more years (Lightbown, 20 12). Thus, after years of classes, learners who have had an early start may feel frusrrared by the lack of progress, an d thei r motivation to continue may be d im inished . C learly th e age at which insrruction begins is not th e on ly varia ble that determi nes success in the second language classroom. For many years, it was difficult to compare early-start an d later-star t learners because of all the varia tions in their educational contexts. Since the 1990 s, many more studies have allowed us to investigate this question more effec­ tively. Some large-scale research pro jects have been particularly useful in separa tin g the effect of age and other faccors in school-based foreign lan­ guage learn ing. For example, in Spain, me Barcelona Age Faeror (BAP ) project st udied the effects of changing the age of beginning co teach English [Q Catalan/Spanish bilingual student s. When the starting age for teaching English was lowered , Carmen Munoz and her colleagues took advant age of me opportuni ty [Q compare me learning outcomes for stu den ts who had started learning at different ages. They were able to loo k ar students' progress after 100 , 4 16 , and 726 hours of ins truc­ tion . Th ose who had begun to learn later (aged 11, 14, or 18+) performed berrer o n nearly every meas ure than those who had begun earlier (aged 8). This was particularly true of m easures based on metalinguistic awareness or analytic ability. O n listening comprehension, younger sta rters showed some advantages . Munoz suggests mat th is may be based on yo unger learners' use of a m ore implicit approach co lear ning while older learners' advantages may reflect their ability to use more explicit approaches, based on their greater cog nitive maturity. She points out mat, in foreign language instruction, where tim e is usually lim ited , 'younger lear ners may not have enough time and exposure [Q benefit fully from me alleged advan tages ofi m plicit learning' (M unoz 2006: 33 ). . One of me advan tages of me BAF project is mat the researchers were able follow the same learners' language develop ment over several years. Th is enabled th em to examine whether the early lear ners would eventually surpass the older learn ers as has been observed in the 'natu ral' setting. This did not happen-although me you nger learners caught up, me older lear ners main­ tained their advantage over time. to

Decisions about when to starr second language ins truction in schools should be based on realistic goals an d on realistic estimates of how long it takes [Q achieve the m . O ne or two hours a week will not produce advanced second language speakers, no ma tter how yo ung the y were when they began . Older learn ers m ay be able [Q make berrer use of the lim ited time the y have for second language instr uction.

Individual differences in second language learn ing

Age is only one of m e characte ristics tha t det ermine m e way in which an indi vidual approach es second language learning and the event ual success of mat lear ning. The opportunities for learning (both inside and outside the classroom) , me motivation to learn, and individual differences in aptirude for language learning are also important factors m at affect both rate oflearn­ ing and eventual success in learning. It is important to remind ourselves mat some older learners do achieve me highest level of success and mat many more are able co use their languages in a vari ety of personal, social, an d work­ place activities. ACTIVITY

Reflect on individual differences and language learning success

Look back at the notes you made inTable 3. 1 about your language learning experience and that of your colleagues and friends. Which cases confirm your expectations about th e variables that are associated w ith success--or the lack of it- i n second language learning? 2 Which ones seem to challenge those ex pectations? 3 To what extent do you think t hat the contexts in which the learning took place are responsible for the outcomes? 4 To w hat extent do you t hink t he differe nces in o utco me are due to differences inherent in t he individuals? S Do you think t hat the individuals might have experienced different outcomes in different situations?

Summary In this chapter, we ha ve learned mat me results of research on indiv id ual differences are not always easy to interpret. Thi s is partly due [Q m e dif­ ficulty of defining an d measuring individual characteristics and to m e fact m at the characteristics are no t independent ofon e another. In addition, rela­ tionshi ps between individual characteris tics an d learning en viro nments are complex, and different learners will react differently to the same learning conditions . Indeed , me same learner will react differently co th e same co nd i­ tions at different times. Researchers are beginning [Q explore the nature of these complex interact ions , but it remains difficult to predicr how a par ticu ­ lar individ ual's characteristics will in fluen ce his or her success as a language learner. Nonetheless, in a classro om , me goal of the sensitive teacher is co create a learn ing environment w ith a wid e variety of instructio nal activities so that learners with different abilities an d learni ng p refere nces can be suc­ cessful in learning a second language .

99

100

Individual differences in second language learning

Indiuidua! differences in second l.mguuge learning

Robinson, P. (ed) . 2002 . Individual Differences and [nstructed Language Learning. Am sterdam: John Benjamins. The co n tribu to rs co this edited collection focus on interactions between individual learner characteristics and learning contexts. The chapters in the first sectio n focus o n theoretical wo rk related to ap titude, motiva­ tio n, anx iety, and emo tion . Eac h cha p ter in the seco nd sectio n descri bes research investigating how individual learner variables in teracr with a par­ ticular learning context to affect L2 learning. Thi s includes classroom an d laboratory stud ies examining learner varia b les in relation to different rypes of instruction and stu d ies of natural versus instructed L2 learning.

Questions for reflection Think of an exa m ple of a member of a majori ty group learning the language of a minority grou p and on e of a member o f a minority group learni ng a majority group's language . How might the power relationships betw ee n groups of speakers affect the attitudes of language learners? How might the status of the languages affect opportunities for learning? 2 As a second/foreign language teacher or learner, what are your views about teaching grammar? Do you have any specific preferences fo r how it should be taught or when! Do you know what your students' preferences might be for grammar teaching. If not. do you think it would be useful to find out! 3 Ifyou were teaching English as a foreign language in a country with limited opportunities for secondary and post-secondary education in English. what recommendations wou ld you make regarding the age at which English instruction would begin! What research would you draw on in supporting your recommendations?

Suggestions for further reading Dornyei, Z. 2005. The Psychologyo/the Langu age Learner: Individual Differences in Second Language Acquisition. Mahwah , NJ: Lawren ce Erlbaum and Associates.

Dornyei reviews decades of research on how individual differences affect seco nd language learning. The book covers personality variables, aptitude, motivation, learning sryles, learning strategies, and other individual char­ acteristics such as anxiety and willingness to communicate that may vary according to me learning environment. Both thorough and accessible, this review concludes by emphasizing the evidence mat individual differences are strongly affected by the situation in which learning takes place ramer than being 'context-independent and absolute.'

Munoz, C. (ed.). 2006. Age and the Rate 0/Foreign Language Learning. Cleve don: Multilingual Matters . The Barcelona Age Factor study is the basis of this edited volume. Ten chapters report on var ious aspects of students' learning of English, com ­ paring the outcomes for students whose foreign language instruction began at different ages. In addition ro me specific research reports on, for example. me students' oral fluency, vocabulary, and rate of/earning, there is an overview chapter in which Carmen Munoz. the projecr director and editor of the volume, discusses the project in terms of broader issues ofage and language lear n in g at school.

iI \

101

EXPLAINING SECOND

LANGUAGE LEARNING

Preview A general theory o f seco nd language acq uisition needs to account for lan ­ guage acq uisitio n by learners with a variety of characteristics in a variety of co ntexts . In th is chap ter we examine some of th e theories that have been offered ro account for second language developmental progress and final learning outcomes. We will loo k at how the behaviourisr and in natist expla­ nations for first language acquisition that we saw in Chapter 1 have been extended to account for second language acquisi tion. We will also look at some theories fro m cogniti ve psychology that have increasingly in formed second language research in recent years. These theories emphasize th e way th e mind perceives, retains, organizes, an d retrieves information. Finally, we will loo k at sociocultural theory, a perspective that places second language acquisition in a larger social context.

The behaviourist perspective As we saw in Chapter 1, behaviourist theory explained learning in terms of im itation, p ractice, reinforcement (o r feedback on su ccess). an d habi t for ma ­ tion . Much of the early research within behaviourisr theory was done with labo rato ry animals, b ut the learning process was hypothesized to be the same for humans.

Second language applications: Mimicry and memorization Behaviourism had a powerful influence on second and foreign language teach ing, especially in N orth America, from the 1940s to the 197 0s. Nelson Brooks (I 96 0) and Robert Lado (1964) were rwo p roponen ts of this per­ spective. Th eir infl uence was felt d irectly in the develop ment of widely used

104

E"pltlining second 141zgu age learnzng

aud iolingual teaching ma te rials and in teache r trainin g. C lassroom act ivities em p hasized mimicry and me mo rization, and students learned dialogues and sente nce pat tern s by heart . Beca use language develop ment was viewed as the formation of hab its, it was assumed that a person lear ni ng a seco nd lan guage would start off with the hab its formed in the first language and that these habits would interfere with th e new ones needed for the second language. Thus, behaviourism was often linked to the contrastive analysis hypothesis. However, as we saw in Chapter 2, researc hers found that many of the errors learners make are no t predictable on the basis of thei r first lan guage, nor do they always make the errors that would be predicted by a simple comparison of their first an d second languages. This discovery led to the reject io n ofbotli. the contrastive analysis hypoth esis and behaviourism , lead ing to a period during which both the role of the first language and the role of practice in learning a second language received lim ited attention in both research and pedagogy. In ChaprerZ , we saw ample evidence that second language lea rners draw o n ' whar th ey already know-including pr eviou sly learned lang uages: H owever, we also saw th at they are so me times relu ctant to transfer certain first lan guage pattern s, even w hen the translatio n equ ivalent wo uld be co rrect. And we saw tha t first language influ ence may become more app arent as mo re is learned abo ut the seco nd lan guage, leading learn ers to see simi larities that th ey had not perceived at an earlier stage. All thi s suggests tha r th e influence of th e learner's first language may not sim ply be a matter of habits, but a more subtle and complex process of iden tifying points of similarity, weighi ng the evidence in suPPOrt of some particular feature, and even reflecting (tho ugh not necessarily consciously) about w hether a cert ain feature seem s to ' belong' in the target lan guage.

By the 1970s, many resear chers were convinced that behaviourism and the COntrastive analysis hypothesis were inadequate explanations fo r second lan ­ guage acquisition . As we shal l see, however, as research o n second language acquisition has evo lved, the explanatio ns offered by behaviourism and the contrastive analysis hypothesis have been revisited and understood in terms of new learning theo ries.

The innatist perspective As we saw in Chapter 1, th e rejection of behaviourism as an explanation for first lang uage acquisitio n was partly triggered by C ho msky's critiq ue of it. Chomsky arg ued tha t innate knowledge of the principles of Universal Grammar per mits all ch ild ren to acq uire the lang uage of thei r enviro nme nt du ring a critical per iod of th eir develop ment. While C homsky di d no t make specific claims abou t the implications of his theory for second language learning, Lydia Wh ite (2003) and other lingu ists have arg ued th at Universal

Explaining second language learning

Gram ma r offers the best pe rspec tive from which to understa nd second lan ­ guage acquisition. O th ers. fo r exam ple Robert BIey-Vroman (1 990) and Jacquelyn Schachter ( 1990) have sugges ted th at, although UG may be an ap prop riate framework for understanding first language acqu isitio n, it does not o ffer a good explan atio n for th e acqu isitio n of a second language, espe­ cially by learners who have passed the critical peri od. In their view, this mean s that second lan guage acquisit ion has to be explained by some other theory, perh aps o ne of the more gen eral psych ological theories described below. Vivian Cook (2003) and others point o ut that there is still 'th e log ical problem' of second language acquisition. That is, we need an explanation for the fact that learners eventually know more about the language than they co uld reasonably have learned if the y had to depend entirely o n the input they are exp osed to . The implication is that knowledge ofUG must be avail­ ab le to seco nd lan guage lear ners as well as to first language lear ners. Some of the the ori sts wh o hold this view claim that the nature and availa bili ty of UG are the same in first and seco nd language acquisit ion . Others argue that UG may be present and availab le to seco nd lan gua ge learn ers, b ut th at its exac t na ture has been altere d by th e acq uisitio n of other lan guages. Research ers wo rking wirhi n the UG framework also d iffer in th eir hypo rh­ eses about how formal instr uctio n or the availabi lity of feedback will affect learn ers' knowledge of the seco nd language. Bonnie Schwartz (1993) , for exam ple, concludes that instruction and feedback ch ange on ly su perficial aspects of language performance and do not affect the underlying syste m ­ atic knowledge of the new lan guage. She argues that language acquisition is based on the availab ility of natural language in the learner's environment. Interaction with speakers of that language is sufficie nt to trigger the acquisi­ tion of the underlying structure of the language. Lydia White ( 199 1) and o th ers agree tha r acquisition of many grammatical features of the new lan ­ guage takes place naturally when learners are engaged in meaningful use o f the language. H owever, they also suggest that, because the nature of UG is altered by the acquisiti on of the first language, second language learn ers ma y som eti mes need explicit information abo ut what is not grammatical in the seco nd lan guage. Otherwise, they may assu me that some structures of th e first lang uage have equivalents in th e seco nd language when, in fact, the y do no r. In C ha p ter 2 , we saw a good example of th is in Whi te's study of the p lacement of Engl ish adverbs in sentences prod uced by Frenc h speakers. In Chap ter 6 (Stu d ies 18 and 33), we will see some research o n th e effect of instruction and feedback on suc h lan guage feat ures . Resear che rs who study seco nd langu age acquisition from a UG pers pective are usu ally interested in the lan guage co m pet en ce of advanced learners­ their kn ow ledge of com plex gra mmar-rathe r th an in the simple lan gu age of beg inning learn ers. They are interested in whe ther the competence that underlies the use of the second lan guage resem bles th e co mpetence underlying

105

106

Expla ining second language learning Explaining second language learning

the lan guage perfor mance o f native speakers. Thus, their investigations often invo lve grammaticality judgement or Other methods to probe what learners know about the language rath er than observations of nat ural language use.

Second language applications: K rashen's

'Monitor M odel'

...

Perhaps the best known model ofsecond language acquisition influen ced by Chomsky's th eo ry of first language acq uisition is Stephen Krashen's (1982) Monitor Model, first described in the early 197 0s, at a time when there was growi ng dissatisfaction with language teaching methods based o n behavio ur ­ ism, Krashe n desc ribed his model in terms of five hypotheses. In the acquisition/learning hy po thesis, Krashen suggests that we 'acq uire' lan ­ guage as we are exposed ro sam ples of language that we understand in much the sam e way that children pic k up the ir first lan guage-with no conscious attention ro lang uage form. We 'learn' on the other han d through co nscious attention to form an d rule learning. In Krashen's view, far mor e lan gu age is acquired than learned. N ext, according ro the monitor hypothesis, second language users draw on what they have acquired when they engage in spontaneous communica­ tion . Th ey may use rules and patterns that have been learned as an editor or 'monitor' , allowing them ro make mino r changes and polish what the acquired system has prod uced . Such m o niroring takes place only whe n the speake r/w riter has plen ty o f time, is concerned abo ut producing cor rect lan­ guage, and has learned the relevant ru les. Th e natural order hypo thesis was based on the find ing th at, as in first language acquisition, second lan guage acquisition unfolds in p redictable seq uences, as we saw in Chapter 2. The language rules that are easiest ro state (and thus ro learn ) are no t necessarily the first ro be acquired. Th e comprehensi ble input hypothesis is that acquisition occ ur s when one is exposed ro language that is co mprehensible and contains i + 1. Th e "i' rep ­ resents the level oflanguage already acquired, and the ' + I ' is a metaphor for language (words, grammatical form s, aspects of pron un ciation) that is JUSt a step beyond th at level. Krashen's affictive jilter hypothesis is proposed to account for the fact that some peo ple who are exposed to large quantities of co mprehensible in p ut do no t necessarily acquire lang uage success fully. Th e 'affective filter' is a meta­ phorical barrier that prevents learners fro m acquiring lan guage even when app ropriate inp u t is available. Affict refers ro feelings of anxiety or negative attitudes tha t, as we saw in C ha pter 3, may be associated with poor learn ­ ing out comes. A learner who is ten se, anxi o us, or bore d m ay jilter out input, m aking it unavailable for acquisitio n.

The Moniror Model been challe nge d by o ther researchers and theoris ts, some ofwho m have argued that it is not possi ble to test Krashen's hypo theses in empi rical research (Mclaughlin 1987) or th at he has drawn the wrong con clusions from resear ch (White 1987). Nevertheless, h is ideas about seco nd language develop ment were in flue neial d uring a period when second lan gu age teach ing was in transition from structu re-based approaches that emphasized lear ning rules or memorizing dialogues, ro approaches that emphasized using lan guage w ith a focus on meaning. Since then, as we will see in Chapter 6, co m m unicative language teaching, including immersion, con ­ tent-based, an d task-based lan guage teaching, has been widely implemented . Krashen's hypotheses, especially th e comprehe nsib le input hypothesis, have been a source ofideas for research in second language acquisition. Classroom research has confirmed that students can make agreatdeal ofprogress through expo sure to co mprehensible input without direct instruction. Studies have also shown, however, that students may reach a point from which they fail to mak e further progress on some featu res of the second language u nless they also have access ro gui d ed instruction. Some insigh ts from lear n ing theo ries developed in cog nitive psychology help ro exp lain why th is may be so.

ACT IVITY

Examine t he M o ni t o r M od el

A number of write rs have questio ne d the validity of Kra shen's Monitor Model, partly o n t he basis that it is difficult t o test the five hypotheses in e mp irical stu dies. Ne ve rthe less, Kras he n's views have re mained influen t ial in seco nd language tea ching. I C an yo u th ink of so me reasons wh y t his might be so !

107

108

Explaining second fangullge learning 2 Which of the hypotheses do you find intuitively convincing! 3 Wh ich ones leave you sceptical! Why!

The cognitive perspective Since jhe 1990s, research and th eories from cognmve psychology have become increasingly central to our understanding ofsecond language devel­ opmen t. Some of these the ories use the computer as a metaphor for the m ind, co m par ing lan guage acqu isitio n to th e capacities of co m pute rs for sto ring, integrating, and retrieving information. Some draw on neurobiology, seeking to relat e o bserved behaviour as dire ctl y as possible to brain acti vity.

As in first lan gua ge acq uis itio n, cogn itive and de velopmental psychologists argue that there is no need to hypothesize that humans have a language-spe ­ cific module in th e brain or that acquisition and learning are d istinct mental pro cesses. In their view, general theo ries of learning can account for the grad ual development of co m plex syntax an d for learners' inabili ty to sponta­ neo usly use everything they know abou t a language at a given tim e. As not ed above, some ling uists have also concluded that, wh ile the in narist perspective provides a plausib le exp lanation for first language acquisition, something else is requ ired for second language acqu isitio n, since it so often falls short of full success. Fro m the cog nirive psych ology persp ective, however, first and seco nd language acq uisitio n are seen as dr awing o n the sam e processes o f perceptio n, memo ry, catego rizatio n, and generalization. The difference lies in th e circ umstan ces oflearn ing as well as in what th e learners already know abo ut language and ho w that pri or knowledge shapes their perception of the new language.

InfOrmation processing Cogn itive psychologists working in an information-processing model o f human learning an d performance see seco nd lan gu age acquisition as th e build ing up of knowledge that can eventually be called on automatically for speaki ng and understanding. Robert DeKeyser (1998 ), Richard Schmidt CWO1) and others have suggested that learners must pay attention at first to any aspect of the language that they are trying to learn or produce. 'Pay atten­ tion' in this con text is accepted to mean 'using cognitive resources to process information' but there is a limi t to how much information a lear ner can pay att ent ion to. Thus, lear ners at the earliest stages will ten d to use most of their resources to understand th e main words in a message. In that situation, they may not notice the grammatical morphemes attached to some of the wo rds, especially those tha t do not su bstant ially affect meaning. Gradually, through expe rience and pr act ice, info rmatio n th at was new becomes easier to process, and learners become able to access it q u ickly and even automatically. This

Explaining second language learning

frees up cognitive process ing resou rces to notice othe r aspec ts of the langu age that, in turn, gradually become automatic. For proficient speakers, choosin g words, pronouncing them, and string­ ing them rogether with the appropriate grammatical markers is essent ially auto matic. Fu rthermore, much ofwhat the se speakers say is drawn from pre­ dic tab le patterns o flan guage that are at least partly formulaic, That is, fluent speakers do not create new sentences by choosingone word at a tim e but rath er by using strings o f words that typically occur together, This use of patterns applies not onl y to idiomatic expressio ns, but also to much co nve rsatio nal language and written language in a specific genre (Ellis, Simpson-Vlach, and Ma ynard 200 8) . Ano the r aspect ofauro rnaticity in lan gu age process ing is th e retr ieval ofword meanings. When proficient listeners hear a familiar word, even for a sp lit seco nd , they can no t help but understand it. Such auto matic responses do not use up the kind of resources needed for pr ocessing new informati on. Thus, p roficient langu age users can give their full attention ' to th e overall mea n ing ofa text or conversatio n. whereas less pro ficient learne rs use mo re of thei r attentio n on processing th e meaning of indi vid ual words and the relationsh ips between them. Th e lack of automatic access to meaning helps to expla in why second language reade rs need more time to understa nd a text, even if th ey event ually do fully co m p rehe nd it. Th e information p rocessin g model suggests that there is a limit to the amount o Hocused mental activity we ca n engage in at one time. Information pro cessing approach es to seco nd lan gu age acq uisitio n have been explo red by many researchers. Drawing on J. R. Anderson's (199 5) wor k, Robert D eKe yser (1 99 8, 200 1, 2007) and oth ers have investi gated seco nd language acquis ition as 'skill learning'. They suggest that most learn­ in g, including language learning, starts with declarative knowledge, th at is, kn owledge that we are aware of havin g, for example, a grammar rul e. Th e hypothesis is that, through pr acti ce, decl arati ve knowledge ma y become pro­ cedural knowledge, or th e ability to use th e kn owledg e. Wi th continued p ractice, the procedural kn owledge can become automatized and the learn er ma y for get havin g learned it first as declarative knowledge. Acco rding to this perspective, once ski lls become automatized , thinking abou t the declarative knowledge while trying to perform the ski ll acrually disrupts the smooth performance of it. Think, for example, of trying to drive a car o r skate whi le intentionally thinking abou t and preparing every move. With enough pra ctice, procedural knowledge eclip ses the declarative knowl­ edge, which, in time, may be forgotten. Fo r this reason , fluent speakers may no t even realize that the y once po ssessed the declarative knowledge that set the process in motion .

109

110

Explaining second language learning

Explain ing second Languagelearning

Sometimes changes in language beh avio ur do no t seem [Q be exp lainabl e in terms of a gradual build-up of fluency through practice. These changes have been descri bed in terms of restructuring (Mclaughlin 1990). They seem [Q be based on some qualitative change in the learner's knowledge . Restructu ring may account for what appear [Q be bursts of p rogress, when lear ne rs suddenly seem to 'pu t it all together', even though they have no t had any new instr uctio n or appare n tly relevan t exp osure to the language. It may also explain apparent backsliding, whe n a systematic aspect of a learner's lan­ guage incorpo rat es too much o r incorpor ates th e wro ng things. For example, as we saw in Chapter 2, when a learner finally masters the use of the regular -ed ending [Q show past tense, irregular verbs th at had previo usly been used correctly may be affected. Th us, after months o f saying 'I saw a film ', th e lear ner may say 'I seed' or even 'I sawed'. Such overgene ralizatio n erro rs are not based on practice of those specific items bu t rather on th eir integrati on int o a gene ral pattern. Another concept from psycho logy offers insig ht into how learners store and retrieve langu age. Acco rdi ng [Q tr an sfer-approp riat e processing (TAP ), information is best retrieved in situations that are similar to those in which it was acquired (Lightbown 2008b) . Th is is because when we learn something our me mories also reco rd aspects of th e co ntext in which it was learned and even the cognitive p rocesses invo lved in th e way we lear ned it, for exam ple, by read in g or heari ng it. To da te, mo st of the research on transfer-app rop ria te processing has been done in laborato ry experiments, for exam ple, co mparing the learn ing ofword lists under different co ndi tions. However, the hypothesis seems [Q offer a pla usible way of explaining a widely observed ph eno m enon in seco nd language lear ning: knowledge tha t is acquired mai nly in rul e learn ­ ing or drill activities may be easier [Q access on tests th at resemble the lear n ing activities than in communicative situ ations. On the Other hand, if learne rs' attention is drawn co grammatical forms during communicative activities in wh ich their cognitive resources are occupied with a focus on mean ing, the retrieval of those forms on a grammar test may be more d ifficult. In C hapter 6, a classroo m investigatio n of L2 lear ning influen ced by transfer­ appropriate pro cessing is described in Stu dy 40 .

Usage-based lea rning As seen in the discussion of first lang uage acquisition in C hapter 1, cognitive psycho logists, unlike innatists, see no need to hyp othesize the existence of a neurological mo dule ded icated exclusively to lan gu age acqu isition. They argue tha t what is innate is simply the ab ility to learn , rather than any specific lingu isti c p rincip les. Some usage- based theories also attri bute less impor­ tance to th e kind of de clarative kn owledg e th at ch aracter izes skill learn ing and trad itio nal str ucture- based app roaches to second lan gua ge ins tru ctio n. As Nic k Ellis (20 02) explains, th e em phasis is on th e freque ncy wit h whic h

learners enco unter specific linguistic features in the in put and the frequency with which lan gu age features occur together. According to th is view, learn­ ers develop a stronger an d stronger nerwork of associations or connections between these features as well as between lan guage features an d the contexts in wh ich th ey occ ur. Eventually, th e presence of one situational o r lingu istic featu re will activate the otherfs) in the learner's mind. For exam ple, learners migh t get su bject-verb agreeme nt co rrect, not because th ey know a rule but because they have heard examples such as 'I say' an d 'he says' so ofte n that each subj ect pronoun activates th e co rrect verb form . Con nections may be strong because the lang uage featu res have occurred together freq uen tly or th ey may be relatively weaker beca use th ere have been fewer opportunities to experi ence them to gether. Some of the evidence fo r usage- based views co mes from th e o bservation mentio ned above that much of the language we use in o rdinary co nversa tion or in particular genres is predictab le, and to a considerable exte nt based on formulaic un its o r ch unks. As sugges ted by N ick Ellis (200 3 , 2005) and ot hers , language is at least partly learned in uni ts larger than sing le words, and sentences or phrases are no t usually put toge ther one wo rd at a tim e. As no ted in Chapter 1, usage- based research has shown that a learn ing mec hanism , simulated by a computer program, can not on ly 'learn' from in put but can also generalize, even maki ng overgeneralization errors.

The competitio n mod el Elizabe th Bates and Brian MacWhin ney (198 1) described the 'co m pet ition m odel' as an explanation for both first and second language acquisition that takes into account no t on ly lan guage form but also lan guage me an ing an d language use. Through expos ure to th ou san ds of examples oflanguage asso­ ciated wi th particular mean ings, speakers of a particular language co me to understand how [Q use the 'cues' that signal specifi c functions . For example, the relationship between words in a sentence may be signalled by word order, grammatical markers, and the an im acy of the nouns in th e sentence. Mos t lan guages make use of multiple cues, but they di ffer in th e p rimacy of each. This becomes clear in a situa tion where the mean ing of a sentence is no t immediately obvio us. What hel ps yo u figu re out the mean ing? English uses word order as the most common indicator of the relationships between sentenc e componen ts. Most English sentences have the order Su bject-Verb­ Object (5VO) . That is, the typical English sentence ment io ns th e su bject first , the n the verb , then the object. Two - and th ree-year old English-speaking ch ildre n can usual ly use cues of

ani macy and their kn owledge of th e way th ings work in the wo rld to int er­

pret odd sent ences. Th us, if th ey hear a string of words such as 'Box push

boy' , the y will act it ou t by making a boy do ll push a tiny box , focusing o n

11 1

112

Explaining second Lmgu,tge learning

the fact that th e 'boy' is the natural agent ofaction in this situation. H owe ver, the SVO patrern is so stro ng in English that, by the time the y are four years old, ch ildre n heari ng th is sent ence will ignore the fact that boxes do n't nor­ mally move on their ow n , and carefully demo nstrate how th e box pus hes th e boy. For English speakers, wo rd order patterns are str onger than animacy cues at thi s pai n e. At this age, ch ild ren may attri bute t he SVO relation ship to sentences in th e passive voice. That is, 'Th e box was pushed by the boy' may be interpreted as 'Th e box pushed th e boy.' Only later do they learn to pay attention to the grammatical markers th at distinguish the active voice sentence from th e passive word order. In contrast , Spanish and Italian have more flexib le word order, and speak­ ers of these languages rely more on grammatical markers (fo r example, th e agreement of subj ect and ver b, the case marking of pronouns) o r o n th e an irnacv of nouns to understand how sen rene e elem ents are related. When English speakers are learn ing these languages, th ey may have difficulry sup­ pressing their tendency to rely on word order as the basis for interpret at ion . For examp le, an English speaki ng learn er of Italian may find it co nfusing to hear sent ences suc h as II giocattolo gUtlrda if bambino (the toy-is loo king at-the boy). An Italian speaker, accustomed to more flexib le wo rd order. focuses on the ani macy of t he rwo nouns and concludes tha t th e most rea­ sonab le interpreta tion is th at the boy is looking at the toy. Acco rd ing to th e co m petition model, seco nd language acq uisitio n requires that learners learn th e relar ive impo rtanc e o f the different cues app ropriate in the langu age th ey are learning (M acWhin ney 199 7).

ACTIVITY

Look at how different cues lead to sentence interpretation

Consider the following sente nces: I 2 3 4 S

The The The The The

boy eats the apple.

apple eats the boy.

dog sees the ball.

ball chases the dog.

ball is chased by the dog.

I Do they all follow the patterns of English grammar? 2 How can you tellwhich noun refers to the agent (the one who performs the actio n)? 3 In each se ntence, what cue tells yo u which noun is the agent? 4 Is there more than o ne cue? 5 How are sentences 4 and S above different from each other?

Explaining second language learning

6 Accord ing to the competition model. how might these sentences be interpreted by speakers of a language with a more flexible word order than English? Wh at wou ld those speakers focus on? The cog rnuve perspe ct ive e m phasizes the role of general h um an ab ili­ ties ro process and learn info rma tio n-c--i nc luding language-on th e basis of experience. In recent years , the term 'co gni tive lingui stic s' has eme rged an d highlights the view that language is but one of th e complex knowledge syste ms that humans acquire. Peter Rob inson and N ick Ellis (20 08) suggest tha t cognitive linguistics draws from an d builds on a number o f different app roaches that have in common th e hypothesis that language is learned th rou gh our perceptual an d cog n itive experiences and th at like all other aspects oflear ning, lan guage learning involves th e discovery, categorization, and determination of patterns through the use oflang uage.

La nguage and the brain Anot her area of work wit hi n but no t lim ited to the cog ni tive perspective is concerned wi th language lear ning and the b rain. Some of the questions investigated include whether first and second languages are acquired and represented in th e same areas of the brain and whe ther th e b rain processes seco nd lang uage input d ifferently fro m first language in pu t. For a long ti me the assumption was that lan guage fun cti ons were located in th e left hemisphere of the brain. Nonetheless, recent brain imaging stu d ies show activa tio n in different locati ons in both hemispheres of th e brain during lan ­ guage processing. This is rru e for bo th first and second languages. However, differences ha ve been observed . depending on th e learners' age and level of p roficiency. For example, when learners w ho acquire a seco nd lan gua ge later in life are given a granlmatical task ro co m p lete, th ey show ac tivatio n in th e same neural areas that are activated for L I processing but also .ac tivatio n in o the r areas of the brain. This is not the case with younger learners who show acti vation o nly in the areas for LI processing (Berett a 2011 ). Other stu d ies h ave measur ed the electrical activity in br ain waves ro exp lore differen ces in the processing oflanguage in p ut. Some of this research has shown that as an L2 learn er's pro ficiency increases, the brain act ivity looks more like that of first language processing. There is also evidence that semantic pro cesses are the first to loo k more like L 1 processin g patterns followed by syntactic p ro­ cesses as proficiency in th e L2 in creases (H ah ne 200 1). While it is fascinating to th ink about con nectio ns between seco nd langu age learnin g and the brain. it is important ro keep in mind that th is is a yo u ng di scip line. Furthermore, the limited research that has been conducted has pro d uced mixed find ings. Th erefore any impl icati ons o f lan gu age and br ain research for second language teaching are premature.

113

114

Explaining second language learning

Explaining second language learning

Second language applications: Interacting; noticing; processing, andpractising . A number of hypotheses, theories, and models for exp laining second lan­ guage acquisition have been inspired by me cognitive perspective.

The interaction hypothesis Evelyn Hatch (1978), Michael Long (1983, 1996 ) ,Teresa Pica (1994), Susan G ass (1997), and many othe rs have argued mar co nversa tional interaction is an essential, if nor sufficient, condition for second lan gu age acquisition. These researchers have studied me ways in whic h speakers modify th eir speech and their interaction parrern s in order to help learners participate in a conversation or u nd erstan d meaning in a new language. Long (1983) agreed with Krashen chat comprehensible inp ut is necessary for language acquisition. However, he focused On me question of how in put could be .made comprehensible. He argued mar modified interaction is the ne~s­ sary mechanism for making language comp rehensible. That is, what learners nee d is opportunities to interact with ocher speakers, working rogerher to reach mutual comprehension through negotiation for meaning. Through these interactions, interlocutors figure our what they need to do ro kee p the conversation go ing and make the input comprehensible to me less profi­ cient speaker. According to Long, m ere are no cases of beginner-level learners acquiring a second language fro m native-speaker talk mat has not been mod­ ified in some way. Modified interaction does not always involve linguistic simplification. It may also include elaboration, slower speech rare, gestu re, or me provision ofaddi ­ tional contextual cues . Some examples of conversational modificario ns are: 1 Comprehension checks---efforts by me native speaker to ensure mar the learner has understood (for example, 'Th e bus leaves at 6:30. Do you understand?') . 2 Clarification requests---efforts by the learner to get the native speaker to clarify someth ing mar has not been understood (for example, 'Could you repeat please?'). These requests from me learner lead to fu rth er modifica­ tions by me native speaker. 3 Self-repetition or paraphrase-rhe more proficient speaker repeats his or her sentence eit her partially or in its entirety (fo r example, 'She gOt lost o n her way home from school. She was walking home fro m school. She got lost. '). Long (1996) revised the interaction hypothesis, placi ng more emphasis on cognitive facto rs such as 'noticing and corrective feedback during inter­ act ion. When communication is d ifficul t, int erlocu to rs m ust 'nego tiate for meaning', and thls negotiation is seen as me opportunity for language

development. Related to this is Merrill Swain's (1985) comprehenSible output hypothesis. She argued chat when learners must produce language mat their interlocutor can understand, they are most likely to see me limits of their second lan guage abil ity and the need to find better ways to express their meaning. The demands of pro ducing comprehensible Output, she hy poth­ esized, 'push' learners ahead in their development.

The noticing hypothesis Richard Schmidt (1 990, 2001) proposed the noticing hypothesis, sug­ gesring that nothing is learned unless it has been 'noticed' . N otici ng does nor itself result in acquisition, but it is me essential starring point. From this perspective, co mprehensible inp ut does no t lead to growth in language knowledge unless the learner becomes aware ofa particula r lan guage feature. Schmidt's original proposal of me noticing hypothesis carne from his own experience as a learner of Portuguese. After mo n ths of taki ng classes, living in Brazil, and keeping a diary, he began to realize that certain features of lan guage that had been present in the enviro n ment for the whole tim e began to enter his own second language system only when he had noticed memo This was because they were brought to his attention in class or some other experience made them salient. Drawing on psychological lear ning theories, Schmidt hypothesized char second language learners could no r begin to acquire a language feature until they had become aware of it in the in put. Susan Gass (19 88) also described a learning process that begi ns when learn ­ ers noti ce something in me second lan guage that is different fro m what they expected or that fills a gap in their knowledge of m e lan guage. The q uestio n of whether lear ners must be aware that they are 'no ticing'

something in the input is me object of considerable debate . Accord ing to

info rmation processing rheories, anything that uses up our mental 'process­

ing space ' , even if we ilre not aware of it or attending to ir int enti o nally, can

contribute to learning. From a usage-based perspective, the likelihood of

acquisition is best predicted by the freq uency wit h which something is avail­

ab le for processing, not by the learner's awareness ofsomething in me input.

These q uestions about rhe im portance of awareness and attention con­

tinue to be the object of research. Several researchers have found ways to

track learners' attention as they engage in second lan guage interactio n. For

example, Alison Mackey, Susan Gass, and Kim McDonough (2000) had

learne rs watch and listen co them selves in Videotaped interactio ns and asked

questions leading them to explore what they were thinking as they partici­

pated in those interactions. Ro n Leow (1997) developed crossword p uzzles

chat learn ers had to solve wh ile rh inking alo ud , th us provid ing some insight

in to wha t they not iced about lan guage as they worked. Merrill Swai n an d

Sharon Lapkin (199 8) recorded learners in pair work an d kept trac k of me

115

116

Explaining second l mguage learning

language teatures the y mentioned. These research designs cannor tell us if learne rs no ticed rhings cheyd id nor m entio n . However. rhey do make it pos­ sib le to ide n tify so me th in gs char learners we re aware o f and to look at how th is awarenes s is related [Q measures of the ir language knowledge. The ext ent [Q whic h lea rn ers' no ricing o f lan guage featu res affects their seco nd language development wi ll come up ;1gain in our discussion of research on seco nd language acquisition in the classroom in C hapters 5 and 6 .

Input processing In his research wi rh American unive rsity students learn in g forei gn lan gu ages, Bill Van Parre n (2004) o bserved many cases of students m isinterpreting sen­ reaces. Fo r example, as predi cred by the co m pe tition m odel discussed earl ier in th is chapter. when English speakers heard sentences in Span ish, chey used wo rd o rde r to interpret the relarionships amo ng the no uns in the sentence. Th us. they interp reted ' La sigu« el seizor' as 'She (subjecr pronoun) follows the man'. The co rrec t inrerpretarion is 'Her (objec t p ro nou n) follows rhe man' (subject of the sentence). In orher words . the co rrect English trans latio n wo uld be 'Th e man follows her'. In order to u nd erstand that . stude n ts need ro learn that in Spanish , a pronoun o bjec t o ften precedes the verb and that, rather than rely o n th e word o rder alone, it is essential to pay attention to wh ether the form of the pronoun indicates a subject or an objec t. Van Parten argued that the problem arose in part from the fact that learn­ e rs have lim ired processing capacity an d ca n no r pay at te ntion [ 0 form and meaning ar the same ti me . Nor surprisingly. they ren d to g ive prio rity [Q meaning, ove rlooking some fearures of the lan guage form. Whe n the conrext in w h ich rhey hear a sentence hel ps rhem make se nse o f ir, thar is a goo d strategy for u nd ersran di ng th e gen e ral idea. bur ir may interfere w ith learners' progress in acqu irin g th e language. In C hap rer 6 we wi ll see ho w VanPatten developed ins tructio na l proced u res that require learners to focus o n the spe­ cific language fearures in order [Q interpret the meani ng , th us pushing them ro acquire those features.

Pro cessability theory jurgen Meisel. H arald C lahsen, and Manfred Pienemann (198 1) studied rhe acq uis itio n of G erm an by a group ofad ult mi gram wo rke rs who had littl e o r no seco nd lan gu age instruction . Th ey analysed large sam ples o f th eir speech and described th e details of developmenral seque nces in rhe ir pr oducti on of sim p le and co m plex sen te nces . Th ey co ncl ude d rhat the sequen ce ofdevelop­ me n t for fearu res of synra.x and morpho lo gy was affected by how easy th ese were to process. Ease o f processing was fo un d [Q dep end to a lar ge extent o n the positio n of th ose features in a senre nce . Features rhar typically occ ur red ar the beginning o r end of a senrence were easier ro process (and learn ) rhan those in che m iddle. All learners acq uired th e fea tu res in th e sa me seq ue nce .

b:plll1lmg second l wguage learning

even though they progressed at dirferent rates . Th e researchers also found thar some lan guage feat ures did nor seem to be affected by rhese co nstralnts an d could be learned and used by lea rn ers wh o were ar d ifferenr develo p men­ tal stages. These were referred to as variational features . Pienemann (1999, 2003) d evelo ped processabiliry th eory on rhe basis of research with learners of different languages in a variety of settings, both instructional and info rmal . One irn po rran r aspect of h is theory is th e inte­ gra tio n of de velo p me ntal seque nces with first lan guage infl ue nce . He argues that his theo ry explains why lea rn ers do no t simply transfer features from their first lang uage ar ear ly stages ofacquisirion. Insread, they have to develop a certain level of processing capacity in the seco nd language before they can use their knowledge of the features rhar already exist in their first language. We saw examples of this in the acquisition of negatives and questions in Chap rer 2.

The role of p ractice O ne co m po nenr o f language learn ing that has seen a renewal of interest with in th e cog nirive persp ecti ve is pract ice. As we saw in di scu ssion s of the be ha vio u risr perspecti ve, a n approach to learning that is based o n drill and m ar separates pr actice from meaningful lan guage use d oes not usu ally lead ro co m m u nicative competence. This does nor mean , however, that practice is nor an essenrial co mponenr oflanguage learning. Robert DeKeyser ( 1998) asserts that some classroom interpretations ofbehavio urism missed rhe po int rhar practice is o nly effec tive if one practises t he behaviour th a t one wishes to learn. As we w ill see in Chap ter G, the dr ills that characterized a udiolingual ins truction often failed to make rhe co nnec rion between th e lan guage par­ terns being d rilled and the meaning(s) associared wirh them . Researchers are now loo king m o re closely at how pr actice co nverts declarative knowledge to pro cedural knowledge and th e n to automat ic pe rfo rmance . No re that from the cognirive perspective, the practice needed for language develo pmenr is no t mechanical, and ir is nor limired to the production of language. Listening and reading are also affected by opportunities for prac­ rice. Lo ur des O rtega (2007) has pro posed three principles fo r practice in the foreign lan gu age classr oom rh ar she sees as compati ble w irh rhe researc h carried o ur from wh ar she calls rhe 'cog nltive-In te ractio n ist' pers pec tive:

1 Practice sho uld be inre racr ive. 2 Practice sho uld be m ean in gful. 3 The re sho uld be a focu s o n tas k-esse n rial fo rms. Elizabe rh G atbonto n and No r man Segalowirz ( 1988. 2005) have devel­ oped an app roach to lan gu age teac hi ng ca lled ACCESS (Auro rnatizario n in Com mu n ica tive Co n rexrs of Esse nrial Speech Seg ments) . Ir d raws on rhe cog nit ive persp ective and is based o n classr oo m activities w hic h, by rhei r

11­

118

Explaining second language learn ing

nature, require learners to use meaningful units of language repet itively in contexts where there are genuine exchanges of meaning. The goal is to provide opportunities for using these units wi th sufficient frequency that they will become automatic. Segalowitz (20 10) has emphasized the impor­ tance of increasing the amount of language that can be used automatically, th us freeing more cognitive resources for learning new thi ngs. Paul Nation (2007) has suggeste d tha t automaticity, which he, like Segalowitz, refers to as 'fluency ' may be the most neglected aspec t of language teachin g in contexts whe re instruction focuses primarily on meaning.

The sociocultural perspective As we saw in Chapter 1, Vygorsky's theory assumes that cognitive develop­ ment, including language development, arises as a result ofsocial interactions. Unlike the psychological theories that view th inki ng and speaking as related but independent processes, sociocultural th eory views speaking and th ink­ ing as tightly interwoven. Speaking (and writing) mediates thinking, which means tha t people can gain control over their mental processes as a conse­ quence of int ernalizi ng what others say to them and what they say to others. This internalizing is tho ught to occur when an individual interacts with an interlocutor within his or her zone of proximal development (ZPD)-that is, in a situation in which the learner can perform at a higher level because of the support (scaffolding) offered by an interlocutor.

In some ways, this approach may appear to restate some of th e hypotheses encountered elsewhere in thi s chapter. In fact , people sometimes wonder whether the ZPD is the same as Krashen's i + 1. William Dunn and James Lamolf (1998) addressed this question in a review art icle, argui ng tha t it is not possible to compare the rwo concepts because they depend on very different ideas abo ut how development occurs. The ZPD is a metaphorical location or 'site' in which learners co-construct knowledge in collaboration with an interlocutor. In Kras hen's i + 1, the input co mes fro m outside the learner and the emphasis is on the comprehensibiliry of input that includes lan guage structures that are JUSt beyond th e learner's current developmental level. The emphasis in ZPD is on development an d how learners co-con­ srruct knowledge based on their interaction with their interlocutor or in private speech. Vygotskyan theory has also been compared to the interaction h ypothesis because of the in rerlocutor's role in helping learners understand and be under­ stood . These rwo perspect ives d iffer primarily in the emphasis they place on the internal cogn itive processes. In the interact ion hypothesis, the emphasis is on the ind ivid ual cognitive processes in the mind of the learn er. Interacti on facilitates those cognit ive processes by givin g learners access to the in put the y need to activa te internal processes. In Vygotskyan theory, greater importance

Explain ing second language tearning

is attached to the conversations th ems elves, wi th learning occurring through the social interacti on . Soc ioc ul tu ral th eo ry holds that peopl e gain co n trol of and reorganize their cogni tive processes during mediation as knowledge is internalized during soc ial activity.

Second language applications: Learning by talking Extending Vygotskyan th eo ry to second language acquisition, Jim Lan to If (2000), Richard Do nato (1994) , and others are interested in showing how second lan guage learners acq uire lan guage when they collaborate and inter­ act with other speakers. Traditionally, the ZPD has been understood to involve an expert and a no vice . H owever, recent work has broadened the term to include novice -novice or learner-learner interactions. An example of this is in Communication task B in Chapter 5 (p. 137 ). In th at excerp t , the learners are struggli ng wit h French reflexive verbs as they try to co nstruct a storyline fro m pic tu res. The example is fro m the work o f Merrill Swain and Sharon Lapkin (200 2), wh o have investi gat ed sociocultural explanations for second language learning in C anad ian Fren ch immersion p rogrammes. Th eir work has its origins in Swain's comprehen sible o utput hypothesis and the notion that when learners have to produce language, they must pay mo re attention to how meaning is expre ssed through language than they ordi­ narily do for the comprehension of language. Swain (1985) first pro posed the comprehensible output hypothesis based on the observation th at French immersion studen ts we re considerably weaker in their spo ken and writte n production than in their reading and liste ning comprehensio n. She advo ­ cated more op portunities for learners to engage in verbal production (i.e, output ) in French immersion classroo m s. Since then, she and her colleagues have carri ed Out extensive research to investigate the effects of o utput on second lan guage learning.

Swain's early work on th e o ut put hypothesis was influenced by cognitive

theory, but more recent work has been motivated by sociocultural theo ry.

Using the term collaborative dialogue, Swain and Lapkin and their col­

leagues have carried out a series of studies to determine how second language

learners co-co nstru ct linguistic knowledge while engaging in production

tasks (i.e. speaking and writing) that sim ultaneo usly draw their attention to

form and meaning. As shown in Communication task B in Chapter 5, learn­

ers were testing hypotheses about the correct forms to use, discussing them

together and deciding wha t forms were bes t to exp ress their mea ning . Swain

(2000) considers collabo rative dialogues such as these as the co nt ext where

'language use and lan guage learning can co-occur. It is language use mediat­

ing language learning. It is cogn itive act ivity and it is social activity' (p. 97).

Therefore th e di fference berween the socio cultu ral perspective and that of

o ther researchers who also view interaction as important in seco nd lan guage

119

[ 20

Explaining second I.mguage learning

bp/dining second langudge learning acq uisiti on is that soc ioc ultu ral th eorists assum e (hat the cogni tive pr o­ cesses begin as an external socially mediated activity and eventually become internalized . O the r inreractionisr models assume that modified input and interaction provide lear ne rs w ith (he raw material tha t is interpreted and analysed through internal cognitive processes.

Summary In the end, what all theories oflanguage acquisition are intended to account for is the ability of human learners to acquire language within a variety of soci al and instructional environments. All of the theo ries discussed in this chapter and in C hap ter 1 use metaphors to represent something that cannot be ob served directly Linguists working from an in na tist perspect ive d raw m uch of their evidence from stu d ies of the complexities of profi cient speakers' knowledge o f lan ­ guage and from a nalysis of their ow n intuitions ab out la nguage. Cognitive and developmental psychol ogists a rgue th at it is not eno ug h to kn ow wha t the fina l sta te of knowledge is and that mo re a tte nt ion sho uld be paid to co r­ pu s-b ased studies of the input. as well as to th e developmental ste ps leadi ng up to the achieve ment of hi gh levels of p ro ficiency. Recent co gn itive perspe ctives ha ve o ften in volved com p u te r sim ula tio ns or co ntrolled laboratory experim en ts where peop le learn specific sets of care­ fully chosen linguistic features, often in an invented language. Many linguists argue that this does not entitle psychologists to gen erali ze to the cornplexities o f the linguistic knowledge that learn ers eventually have. Inr era crionists emphasize the role of negotiation for meani ng in conversa­ tional intera ctions . This perspective and the soc iocu ltu ral perspective provide insights into the ways in which learners can gain access to new k nowledge abo ut (he language when the y have suPPOrt from an interlocu to r. Some linguists challe nge the inrcracrionist position, argu ing that much of what learners need to know is not availab le in the in p ut, a nd so they puc gr eater em phasis o n in na te principles o f language th at learners can d raw on. Bot h lingu ists and psychologists draw som e of the ir evidence from ne uro­ logica l research. At present, most of the research o n language representation in the brain an d spec ific neurological activity during lan guage processing is inconclusive. However, advances in tec hnology are rapid ly increasin g oppor­ tunities to observe brain ac tivity mo re d irecdy. Suc h researc h will eventually co nt ribut e to reinterpretations of researc h that previously could examine o n ly the o bservable behaviour of learners speaking or performing other lan­ guage tasks . Educato rs w ho are hoping (hat language acquisition theories wi ll give them insight into lan guage teach ing practice are often fru strated by the lack of

agreeme n t amo ng (he 'experts'. The co m p lexit ies of seco nd lang uage acq uisi­ rion, like those of first language acq uisitio n, represent puzzles that scientists will continue ro wo rk on fo r a lo ng tim e. Research tha t has theory develo p­ ment as its goal has importan t lo ng-ter m significance for langu age teac hing and learning, but agreement o n a 'co m plete' th eory o f language acquisiti on is probably, at best , a long way o ff. Even if suc h agreeme nt we re reached, there would still be questions about how the theory sho uld be interpreted for language teaching practice, While some teachers watch th eo ry development with interest . the y must sti ll continue co teach and plan lessons and assess stu dents' performance in the absence of a comprehensive theo ry of second language learning. A growing body of applied research draws on a wide range ofthe o retical o rientatio ns, so me tim es explicicly stated, so m etim es merel y implied . This research ma y pr ovide information that is more helpful in guiding teachers' reflections abo ut pedagogy. In C hap ters 5 and 6 , we will examine language acquisition research th at has focu sed o n learn ing in the classroom .

Q ue st io n s for reflection Several theories for L2 learn ing have been proposed in this chapter . Is o ne

of them more consistent with your own understanding of how languages

are learn ed? Ifso. ho w have your ex periences as a teacher or learner

brought you co this view?

2 Schm idt 's noticing hypothesis-that all second language learni ng in adu lts

invo lves awa ren ess of what is be ing learned-is somewhat con troversial.

That is, it has bee n argued t hat it is also possible to learn incidentally,

withou t any awareness or even an inte ntion to learn. However, second

language lea rners certai nly do have 'aha ' moments when they sudde nly

unde rsta nd so mething abo ut how t he target language works. Do you have any exam ples of noticingfro m your own language learning ex periences. or from th os e of your st ude nt s? 3 From the perspective of the interaction hypothesis. mo dified interaction

is se en as an essential res o urce for second language learn ers.This is

distinguished from modi fied (o r simplified) input . Can you th ink of so me

exa mples of each?What are some of th e feat ures of mod ified interaction

t hat you think are especially helpful to learn ers ?Are th e re some featu res

that may not support learning ?Wh at are th e co ntexts in wh ich sec o nd

language learn ers are most likely to benefit from modified interaction? Do

you thin k that simplified input is (also) important?

[21

122

Explaining secondlanguage learning

Suggestions for further reading Dornyei, Z. 2009. The Psychology ofSecond LanguageAcquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press. This overview of the theories that have been proposed to explain second lan guage acq uisition is both comprehensive and easy to read. Dornyei pro­ vides detailed trea tment of the theories th at are discussed in this chapter, focusing pa rticularly on those arising from the research in cognitive psychology. In addition, the book introduces the work in neurobiology that provides a new level of explanation for language acquisition and use.

5

OBSERVING LEARNING AND TEACHING IN THE SECOND LANGUAGE CLASSROOM

Swain, M., P. Kinnear, and L. Steinman. 2010. Sociocultural Theoryand Second Language Education: An Introdu ction through Narratives. Bristol: Multilingual Matters . In this book the authors cover the key concepts of sociocultural th eo ry (for exam p le, mediation, zone of proximal development. private speech, collaborarive dialogue) through the use of narratives. The narratives come from the voices of language learn ers and teachers from different educa­ tional COntexts. The book is of particular interest to readers motivated to understand how sociocultural theory relates to the teaching and learning ofsecond languages. VanPatten, B. and]. Williams (eds.). 2007. Theories in Second Language Acquisition: An Introduction. Mahwah, N]: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. VanParten and Williams set out a list ofobservations that have arisen from research studies in second language acquisitio n. Then, well-known authors discuss how th e theo retical framework in which they have done their own research would explain these observations. For example, there are chapters on Universal Grammar. sociocultural theory, skill acquisition th eo ry, pro­ cessabiliry, and input processing. The chapters are brief (about 20 pages, including discussion questions and readi ngs) and written in a style that is accessible to those with limit ed background in resear ch and theory. The final chapter, by Lourdes Ortega, provides a concise overview ofthe d iffer­ ent theories and identifies some ongoing ch allenges for explaining second language acquisition.

Preview In this chapter we explore different ways in which researchers have observed and descri bed what goes on in second language classroo ms: Befo re we do th is, let us take a moment to reflect on the differences between classroom settings for language learning and other settings where people learn a new language without instruction. As we saw in th e activity in Chapter 2, learning a second language in a non­ instructional setting is differen r from learning in the classroom. Many believe that learning 'on the street' is more effective . This belief may be based on the fact th at mos t successful learners have had experience using the language outside the classroom. What is special about th is 'natural' language learn ing? Can we create the same environment in the classroom? Should we? Or are there essential contributions that only instruction and no t na tu ral exposure can provide?

Natural and instructional settings Natural acquisition contexts should be understood as those in which the lear ner is exposed to the language at work or in social interactio n or, if the learner is a ch ild , in a school situation where mos t of the other chil dren are native speakers of the targe t language and where the instruction is directed toward native speakers rather than toward learners of the language. In such a classroom, much of a child's learning take places in interaction with peers as well as through instruction from the teacher. In structure-based instructional environments , the language is taugh t to a group of second or foreign language learners. The focus is on the lan guage itself, rather than on the messages carried by th e language. The teacher's goal is to see to it that students learn the vocabulary and grammatical rules o f the target language. Some students in structure-based classes may have

124

Observing leaming and teaching in the second Lmguage classroom oppo rruru nes to co nti n ue learning th e target language o utside th e class­ room; for others, the classroom is me on ly contact with that language. In some cases, the learners' goal may be to pass an examination rather man to use the language for daily communicative interaction beyond the classroom.

Co m m un icative. content-based, and task-based instructional environmen ts also in volve learners wh ose goal is learning the language itself, but the sty le of instruction places the emphasis on interaction. co nversatio n, and language use, rather man on learning about the language. The topics mat are discussed in co m m un icative and task-based instructional environments are o fte n of general interest to me learner, for example, how to obtain a driver's license. In content-based language teaching (C BLT), the foc~ of a lesson is usually on the subject matter, such as history or marhemarics, which students are learning through me medium of the secon d language. In thes e classes, the focus may occasionally be on the language itself, but the emphasis is on using the language rathe r than talking about it. The language mat teachers use for teach ing is not selected so lely for the purpose of teaching a specific feature of the langu age, bu t also to make sure learn ers have the lan guage they need to interact in a variety of contexts. Students' success in these courses is often meas ured in terms of thei r ab ility to 'get th ings do ne' in the seco nd lan guage, rather than on their accuracy in using certain grammatical features.

In naturalacquisition settings When people learn languages at work. in social interactions, or on the play­ gro un d, their experiences are often quite differ ent from those of learners in classrooms. C o m p lete Table 5.1 on the nex t page. As you look at m e pattern of + and - signs you have placed in th e cha rt, you will probably find it matches the descr iption s below. Language is not presented step by st ep . Th e learner is exposed to a wid e variety ofvocabulary and str uctu res. • Learners' errors are rarely corrected. If th eir interlocutors can under­ stand what they are saying, they do not remark on the correctness of the learners' speech. They would probably feel it was rude to do so. • The learner is surrounded by the language for many hours each day. Sometimes the language is addressed to the learner; sometimes it is simply overheard. The learner usually encounters a number of different people who use the target language proficiently. • Learners observe or participate in many different types of language events: briefgreetings, co m mercial transactions, exchanges of informa­ tion, arguments, instruction at schoo l and in workplace interactions. o

Q

Observing learning and teaching in the second language classroom ACTIVITY

C o m pare learning contexts

The cha rt inTable 5.1 is similar to the one in Table 2.1 in Chapter 2.ln that chart, we compared the profi les of first and second language learn e r s. In this one, we compare natural and instructional contexts for second language learning.Think about the characteristics of the four contexts represented by each column, For each context, decide whether the characteristics on the left are present or absent. Mark a plus (+) in the table if the characteristic is typical of that context. Mark a minus (-) if it is something you usually do not find in that context.Write '?' if you are not sure . Note that the 'Co mmunicative instruction' column has been subdivided into teacher-student and student­ student interaction .What happens when learners talk to each other? Is that different from what happens in teacher-student interaction?

Characteristics

Natural acquisition

Structurebased instruction

Communicative instruction Teacherstudent

Learning one thing at a t ime Frequent feedback on errors Ample time for learni ng High ratio of native speakers to learners Variety of language and discourse types Pressure to speak Access to modified input Photoccpiable © Oxford Univers icy Press

Tab le 5. I Contexts (or language learning

Student­ student

125

126

Ob serving lea rning and teaching in the second language classroom

• Older children and adulrs may also enco unre r rhe wrirren language in the use of video and web -based materials . • Learners must often use their limited second language ability to respond to questions or to get information. In these situations, the emphasis is on getting meaning across clearly, and more proficient speakers tend to be tolerant of errors that do no t In terfere with meaning. • Modified in put is available in many o ne-to-one conversations. In sit u­ ations where many na tive speakers are involved in th e conversation, however, lear ners may have d ifficulty getting access to language the y can understand.

In structure-based instructional settings The events and act ivities that are typical of structure-based instruction differ from th ose encounrered in na tural acq uisi tion set tings. In grammar tran sla­ rio n approaches, there is considerable use of readi ng and writing, as learn ers translate text s from one language to an o th er, and grammar rul es are taugh t explicitly. In audio lingual ap proaches there is lit tle use o f translatio n, and learners are expected to learn mainly through repetition and habit formation, although they may be asked to figu re out the grammar rules for the senrences they have memorized . • Linguistic items are presented and practised in isola tion, one item at a time, in a sequence fro m what teachers or textbook wri ters bel ieve is 'sim ple' to that which is 'co mplex' . • Errors are frequently corrected. Accuracy tends to be given priority over meaningful interaction. • Learning is often limited to a few hours a week. • In situatio ns of foreign lan guage learning th e teac her is often the only native or proficient speak er the student comes in contact with. • Students experience a lim ited range of language discourse types . Th e most typical of these is the Initiation/Response/Evaluation (IRE) exchange where the reacher asks a question, a student answers, an d the teacher evaluates the response. The written language studen ts encoun­ ter is selec ted primarily to provide practice with specific grammatical feat ures rather than for irs content, • Students often feel pressure to speak or write the second language and to do so correctly from the very beginning. • Teachers may use the lear ners' native language to give instructions or for classroom management. When they use the target language, th ey tend to modify their language in order to ensure comprehension and compliance .

Observ ing learning and teaching in the second language classroom

_

f!1e;h- i~":!:1~f'< ~~'e-oJI The

a...x..1.'t1iJ ver-b,

""n.:c.."

"Dr-.~ t:4pPetVS after -t~e subjeL-t.., ..,...,st ~ove 'tP k~t:e

i'l c:na.-L

e'Sl;.

\)/~

(~~?-

~/I/(\\) II. (, I(

~

Research findings Many adulr learners, especially those with good metalinguistic knowledge of their own language, express a preference for structure-based approaches. Learners whose previous language learning experience was in grammar translation classes may also prefer such instruction. As we saw in Chapter 3, learners' beliefs about the kind of instruction that is best can influence their satisfaction and success. The grammar translation approach is useful for the study of grammar and vocabulary and can be valuable for understanding important cultural texts. The audiolingual approach with its emphasis on speaki ng and listening was used successfully with highly motivated adult learners in intensive training programmes for government personnel in the United States . However, there is little classroom research ro suPPOrt such approaches for students in ordinary school programmes that must serve the needs of students who bring different levels of motivation and aptitude co the classroom. In fact, it was the frequent failure of traditional grammar translation and audiolingual methods to produce fluency and accuracy in second language learners that led co the development of more communica­ tive approaches co teaching in the first place. Supporters of communicative language teaching have argued that language is not learned by the gradual accumulation of one grammatical feature after another. They suggest that errors are a natural and valuable part of the lan­ guage learn ing process. Furthermore, they believe that the motivation of learners is often stifled by an ins istence on correctness in the earliest stages

Some researchers and educators have reacted to the version of communica­ tive language teaching that advocates an exclusive focus on meaning. They argue that allowing learners too much 'freedo m' without correction and explicit instruction will lead co early fossilization of errors. Once again we hear the call for making sure that learners 'G et it right from the beginning'. Unfortunately, it is difficult co test whether an emphasis on form in the earl y stages of second language learning will, in the long run, lead co better results than those achieved when the emphasis is on meaning in the early stages. To test that hypothesis, it would be necessary to compare groups that are similar in all respects except for the rype of instruction they receive. However, it is not easy for researchers co find proper comparison groups. This is because there are many parts of the world where one finds predominantly structure­ based approaches co language teaching, and in the se settings there arc no (o r very few) classrooms wh ere the teaching places an emphasis o n.meani ng. O n th e o ther hand , with th e widespread ado ptio n of communicati ve lan gua ge teac hi ng in o the r parts of th e wo rld , it is difficult CO find classrooms th at are exclusively struc tu re-based . No ne theless, so m e findi ngs from second lan ­ guage classro om research do permit us co assess the effects of instructi on th at is strongly oriented co the 'G et it right from the beginning' approach . These include descriptive studies of the interlanguage development of second lan­ guage learners in audiolingual programmes (Study 14), and comparisons of the development ofsecond language proficiency between groups ofstudents receiving different combinations of form- and meaning-based instruction (Stu dy 15).

Study 14: Audiolingualpattern drill In the late 1970s , Patsy Lightbown ( 19 83a / b) car ried OUt a series of lon­ gitudinal and cross -sectional investigations into the effecr of audiolingual instruction on interlanguage development. The investigations focused on French-speaking learners aged 11-16 in Quebec, Canada. Students in these programmes typically participated in the rypes of rote repetitio n and pattern practice drill we saw in Examples 1 and 2. The learners' acquisition of certain English grammatical morphemes (for example, plural -r and the progressive-ing) was compared with the acquisition of grammatical morphemes observed in the interlanguage of uninstructed second language learners (see Chapter 2 , p. 46). The results showed differ­ ences between the developmental sequences we saw there and the relative accuracy with which these classroom learners produced them. These findings suggested that the rype of instruction students had experienced-isolated

15­

158

Second language learn ing in the classroom

Second language learn ing in the classroom

parrern practice drills-resulred in a developmental sequence that appeared co be different from that oflearners in more natural learning env ironm en ts.

interviewing a na tive speak er of French, reporting facts about oneself or one's recent activities, and describing ongoing acti vitie s in French.

For a time after their instruction had focused on it, learners reliably pro­ d uced a particular grammatical morpheme in irs obligacory contexts. For example, after weeks ofdrilling on present progressive, students usually sup­ plied both th e auxiliary be and the -ing ending (for example, 'He's playing ball'). However, they also produced one or more of me morphemes in places where they did not belong CHe's wan t a cookie') . The same forms were pro­ duced with considerably less accuracy in ob ligatory contexts when they were no lo nger being practised in class and when th e third person singular simple present -s was being drilled instead. At this point, many students appeared co revert co what looked like a developmentally earlier stage, using no tense marking at all (for example, 'He play ball') . These findings provided evi­ dence mat an almost exclusive focus on accuracy and practice of particular grammatical forms does not mean th at learners will be able to use the forms correctly outside the classroom drill setting, nor that they will continue to use them correctly once other forms are introduced. Not surprisingly, this instruction, mat depended o n repetition and drill of decontexrual ized sen­ tences, did not seem co favour the development of comprehension, fluency, or communicative abilities either,

At the end of me period of instruction, there were no significant differences between groups on the linguistic competence measures. However, th e com­ m unicative group scored significantly higher than me other twO gro ups on the four communicative tests developed for the study. Savig no n in terp reted these results as support for the argument mar second language programmes that focus only on accuracy and form do not give students sufficient oppor­ tunity to develop communication abilities in a second language. Even more important in the context of me 'G et it right from the beginning' approach was the evidence that opportunities for freer communication did not cause learners to do less well on measures of linguistic accuracy.

Study 15: Grammarplus communicativepractice In one of the earliest experimental studies of communicative language teach­ ing, Sandra Savignon (1972) studied me linguistic and communicative skills of 48 college students enrolled in French language courses at an American university. The students were divided into three groups: a 'communicative' group, a 'cu ltu re' group, and a control group. NI groups received about fo ur hours per week of audiolingual instruction where me focus was on me prac­ tice an d manipulation of grammatical forms. In addition, each group had a special. hour of different activities. The 'com m unica tive' group had one hour per week devo ted to communicative tasks in an effort to encourage practice in using French in meaningful, creative, and spontaneous ways. The 'culture' group had an hour devoted to activities, conducted in English, designed to 'foster an awareness of me Fre nch language and culture through films, music, and art' . The control group had an hour in the language laboratory doing grammar and pronunciation drills similar co those they did in their regular class periods. Tests . to measure learners' linguistic and communicative abili ties were administered before and after instruction. The rests of linguistic competence included a variety of grammar rests, teachers' eval uations of speaking skills , and course grades. The tests of communicative competence included meas ­ ures of fluency and of th e ability to understand and transmit information in a variety of tasks, which included: discussion with a native speaker of French,

Interpreting the research The studies reviewed above provide evidence to support me intuitions of teach ers and learners that instruction based on the ' G er it right from' me begin n in g' proposal has important limitations. Learners receiving audiolin­ gual or grammar-translation instruction are often un able to com m unicate their messages and intentions effectively in a second lang uage. Experience has also shown mat pr imarily or exclusively structure-based approaches to teaching do not guarantee that learners develop high levels of accuracy and linguistic knowledge. In fact, it is often very d ifficult to determine what stu­ dents know about me target language. The classroom emphasis on accuracy often leads learners to feel inhibited and reluctant CO take chances in using their knowledge for communication. The results from these studies provide evidence that lea rners benefit from opportunities for communicative practice in contexts where the emphasis is on understanding and expressing meaning.

It is important to em p hasize that in the Savignon study, all students contin­

ued to receive their regular, grammar-focused instruction. They differed only

in terms of me ptesence or absence ofan additional communicative practice

component. In other words, this study offers sup po rt for me argument that

meaning-based instruction is advantageous, not that for m-based instruction

is no t. The contributions of communicative practice and grammar-focused

instruction will be discussed in more detail in relation to the 'G et it right in

the end' proposal.

2 Just listen . . . and read 'JUSt listen . . . and read ' is based on the hypothesis that language acq uisition

takes place when learners are exposed co comprehensible input through lis­

tening and/or reading. As noted in Chapter 4, the individual whose name is

m ost closely associated with th is proposal is Stephen Krashen (1985, 1989).

This is a co ntroversial proposal because it suggests th at second language

159

160

Second language learning in the classroom

Second language lea rning in the classroom

learners do nor need to produce lan guage in order to learn it. except perhaps get other people to provide inp ut by speaking to th em . According to this view, it is eno ugh to hear (o r read) and underst and th e target language.

to

Read Example 3 to get a feel for how thi s the o ry o f classroom seco nd lan gu age learning can be implemented in a classroo m . Th is descri p tion shows that one way to obtain comprehensible input is to provide learners with listening an d reading co m prehe nsion activities w ith no (or very few) op po rt un ities to speak or int eract with th e teache r or other learne rs in th e classroom.

Example 3 It is time for English class at a pri m ary school in a French-speaki ng co m­ munity in New Brunsw ick. Canada . Th e classroom looks like a m in iatu re language lab, with about thirty small desks, on each of which there is a cas­ sette player and a set oflarge ear ph ones . Aro und the roo m, shelves and racks display scores of books. Each book is packaged with an audiocassette that contains a reco rd ing of its content . The materi als are no t str ictly graded, bu t some sets of books are very simple. and othe r sets are grouped so that they are gradually more challenging. There are pre-school child ren's books with a picture and a word or rwo on each page; illustrated stories with a few sen­ tences per page; picture dictionaries; ESL textbooks for child ren; illustrated science books about animals, weather, vehicles, etc . Students (aged 8-10) enter the classroom , select the material they want. and take it to their indi­ vidual works pace. They inse rt the cassette , put on th eir ear pho nes. an d open their books . They hear and read English for the next 3 0 mi n utes. For so me of the time th e teac he r walks aro und th e classroom, checking th at the machines are runn ing smoothly, bu t she d oes not interact with th e stu de nts co ncern­ ing wha t they are do ing. Some of the stude nts are liste n ing wi th closed eyes; others read actively, mouthing the wo rds silen tly as they follow each line with a finge r. The classroom is alm ost sile nt except for th e so und of tap es being inserted and rem oved o r chairs scraping as students go to the shelves to select new tapes and boo ks.

Research findings Research relevant to th e 'J USt listen . .. an d read' pro posal includes stu d ies of co mp rehensio n- based teach ing and extens ive reading (Day et al. 20 1 1). We will also look at some comprehension-based instruction in wh ich th e input is ma nip ulated in ways that are intended ro increase the likelih ood that stu­ dents will pay atte nti on to lan gu age for m as well as m eaning.

Study 16: Comprehension-based instruction for children Exam ple 3 was a description of a real pro gramme implem ented in experi­ me nt al classes in a Frenc h-speaki ng region in Canada . From th e beginn ing of the ir ESL instructi on at age eigh t, stu dents only listen ed and read during thei r daily 30- m in ute ESL period . Th ere was no oral practi ce o r interaction

in English at all. Teachers did not 'teach' but provided organizarional and technical sup po rt . Thus. lear ners received nat ive-speaker input from tapes and books but they had virtu ally no interactio n in English with the teach er or o th er learn ers. The y guessed at meaning by usin g the pictures o r by recogniz­ ing cognate wo rds char are similar in French and English. Occasionally they could refer to translation equivalents of a few wo rds, taped inside a book's ~kro~~

.

Patsy Light bown and her colleag ues inves tigated the second language devel­ opment of hundreds of chil dren in this comprehension-based programme an d compare d th eir lear ning with th at o f stu de nts in me regular ESL p ro­ gramme, which was mai nly an audiolingual ap proach. All m e stu de nts in both programmeS had classes tha t last ed 30 minutes per day. After rwo years, learners in the comprehensio n-based programme knew as much English as (an d in some cases mo re than) learners in the regular pr ogramm e. Th is was true not only for comprehension but also for speaking, even though the learners in rhe experimental programme had never practised spoken Englis h in their classes (Ligh rbown er al. 2002; Trofimovich et al. 2009). The students' Engli sh language abilities were reassessed three years later, when th ey were in Grade 8. Some students had co nt in ued in the comprehension­ o nly programme throughout that time. On comprehension measures and on some measures of oral production, they continued to perform as well as StU­ dents in the regular programme. On other meas ures, some gro ups ofstu de nts in the regular programme had made greate r p rogress, especial ly in wri ting . Those students were in classes where the regular programme included not on ly aud iolingual ins tructio n but also othe r speaking and writi ng co mpo ­ nents. teacher feed bac k, and classroom inte ractio n .

Study 17: Readingfor words Find ing reading material for p rim ary school students learning a seco nd lan­ guage is challenging. Find ing reading material for adults in early stages of second language acquisition is chal leng ing too, but graded readers specially des igned for ad ult ESL learn ers are increasingly availab le. Th ese sim plified literary classics, biogr aphies, romances, and thrillers offer int eresting and age-a ppro p riate content, whi le the vocab ulary and writi ng sryle rem ain sim ple. Marlise Ho rst (200 5) used sim plified read ers in a study of voca bulary development among ad ult immigrants who were enrolled in an ESL pro­ gram me in a co m m unity cent re in M ontreal, C anada. Th e 2 1 particip ants rep resen ted several langu age backgrounds and proficien cy levels. In ad di tion to th e activ ities of th eir regular ESL class, students chose simplified read ers tha t were made availab le in a class libr ary. Over a six-week period . students roo k books home and read [he m o n th eir ow n. H orst developed individualized voca bulary measures so mat lear ning co uld be assessed in terms o f the books eac h student actually read . She found that

161

162

Second language Learning in the classroom

Second language Learning in the classroom th ere was vocab ulary growth att rib utable ro reading, even over this short period, and that th e more students read, the more words th ey learned. She concluded that substantial vocabulary growth through reading is possible, but that students must read a great deal (mo re than JUSt o ne or rwo books per semester) to realize th ose benefits. As we saw in Chap ter 2, when we interact in ordinary conversations, we tend to use mainly the 1,000 or 2 ,000 mo st freq uent words. Th us, reading is a particularly valuable so urce of new vocabulary. St udent s who have reached an intermediate level of proficiency may have few opportunities to learn new words in everyday conversation. It is in reading a variety of texts that students are most likely to encounter new vocabulary. The benefit of simplified readers is that students encoun ter a reasonable number of new words. This inc reases the likelihood that they ean figure out th e meaning of new words (or perhaps be motivated to look th em up). If the new words occur often enough, students may remember them whe n they encounter th em in a new context.

th ey conti nued ro accep t senten ces that are gram ma tical in Frenc h bu t no t in English ('The ch ildren leave quickly schoo l') . The stu dents' inab ility to recog­ nize th at adverbs in this position are ungram m atical in English suggests that th e input flood could help them add something new to their interlan guage, bu t d id nor lead them to get rid o f an error based on their first language. As noted in Chapter 2, Lydia White (l99 1) argued tha t although exposure ro language in put provides lear ners with positive evidence (in for matio n abo ut what is grammatical in the second language) , it fails to give them negative evidence (info rm atio n about what is not grammatical). Positive evidence is not enough to permit learners to notice the absence in the target language of elements that are present in their interlanguage (and their first language). Thus, more explicit information abo ut what is not grammatical in the second language may be necessary for lear ners' continued develop ment. This is d is­ cussed in more detail in the sect ion ' G et it right in the end' .

Other research that explores the 'Just listen '. . . and read ' proposal includes stu dies in wh ich efforts have been made to draw seco nd langu age learn ers' attention ro language forms in th e in put, for exam ple, by providing high­ frequency exposure to specific language features through an in p ut flood, highlighting the fearures through enhanced input, and/or providing pro­ cessing instruction. All of these are described in more detail below but the emphasis in all cases is on getting learners ro notice language forms in the input, not on getting them to practi se producing the forms . The next th ree studies are examples of th is researc h.

M ichael Sharwood Smith (1993) coined the term ' in put enhancem ent' to refer to a variety of th ings that m ight draw learners' attention to featu res in the second language, thus increasing the chan ces th at they would be lea rn ed . In a study invol ving en hanced input, Joan na White (1998) exam ined th e acquisition of possessive determ iners (specifically 'his' and ' her'; see Chapter 2, p. 53) by French-speaking learners aged 11-12 in inte nsive ESL classes. Stu d en ts received approximately 10 hours ofexposure to hundreds of posses­ sive det erminers through a package of readi ng materials and comprehension activities provided over a two-week period. The major difference between this study and Trahey and White's in put flood is that typographical enhance­ ment was added. That is, every time a possessive determiner appeared in the texts, it was in bold type , underlined, italicized, or written in capital lett ers. The hypothesis was that th is would lead the learn ers to notice the possessive determiners as th ey read the texts.

Study 18: Inputflood Martha Trahey and Lydia White (1993) ca rried out a srudy with young Frenc h-speaking learners (aged 10-12) in intensive ESL classes in Q uebec such as those described in Chapter 5, Study 10. Th e goal of the research was to determine whether high -frequen cy exposure to a particular form in the instructional input would lead to better knowledge and use of that form by the students. The linguistic form investigated was adverb place me nt in English (see Chap ter 2, p. 58) . For approximately 10 hours over a two-week period, learners read a series ofshort texts in whi ch they were expose d to liter­ ally hundreds of instances ofadverbs in English sentences-so ma ny that the investigators referred to th is study as an ' in put flood'. There was no teaching of adverb placement, nor was an y error correction provided. Instead, stu­ dents simply read the passages and completed a variety of comprehension activities based on them. Alt ho ugh learners benefited from th is exposure to sente nces with adverbs in all the correct posi tions, their learning was incomplete. Th ey im p roved in their acceptance of sentences with word order th at is grammatical in En glish bur nor in French ('Th e children quickly leave school'). However,

Study 19: Enhanced input

White compared the performance of learners who had read th e typographi­ cally enhanced passages wit h tha t o flearners who read the sam e texts wi thou t enhancement. She found that both groups im proved in their kn owled ge and use of these forms and that there was little d ifference between them. In interpreting these find ings, White questions whether the en hancement was sufficien tly explicit to draw the learners' attention to possessive determin­ ers. That is, even tho ugh the forms were h ighligh red by th e use of bold type , capital letters, etc., students d id no t learn how to choose the possessive deter­ miner to match the gen der of the possessor. In subsequent research , White found that learn ers made more progress when they were given a sim ple rule and then wo rked together to find the correct possessive deter miners (Spada, Ligh rbown, and White 2005 ).

163

164

Second ltnguage learning in the classroom

Second ltnguage learn ing in th« classroom

o n the co m p rehe nsio n tasks than learners in the p roduct ion gro up. they also performed as well on production tasks.

/

Enhancing the input

Study 20: Processing instruction Bill Van f'arren (2 004) and his colleag ues have investigated the effects of pro­ cessing instruct io n, ano the r app roac h to co m prehensio n- based learning. In processing instruction, learne rs are p Ut in situa tio ns where they ca n nor co m­ p rehe nd a sen ren ee by depending so lely o n co n text . pri or kn owled ge, or other clues. Rather they m ust focu s on the language itself. In one ofthe first studies, ad ult learn ers ofSpanish as a foreign language received instruction on diffe r­ ent lingu istic forms , for example, object prono uns (VanPanen and Cadierno 1993) . As noted in Chapter 4, VanPatten found that English-speaking lear n­ ers ofSpa nis h tend ed to trea t the objec t pronouns, which p recede the verb in Spanish, as if they were subject pronouns. Thus, a sentence such as La sigue 1 senor (literally 'h er (object) follows the man (su bject)') was interpre ted as 'She follows th e man'. Two groups were co mpared in th e study, o ne receiving processing instruc­ tion, the other following a mo re traditional approach. The processing instruction gro up received exp licit exp lanatio ns abou t obj ect p ronouns and did some activities that drew the ir attentio n to the importan ce of noticin g that o bject p ron ou ns could occur before th e verb. Then, th ro ugh a varie ty of foc used liste ning an d reading exercises, learners had to pay atte n tion to h ow the target forms were used in o rde r to understand th e mean in g. For example, they heard or read La sigue el senor and had to choose whic h p icrure-a man follow ing a wo ma n or a wo m an following a m an-eorresponded to the sen­ tence. A seco nd gro up of lear ners also received explicit info rmation about the targe t forms but instead of focus ing on comp rehens ion pr acti ce through processing instruct ion , th ey engage d in p roduct ion practice, do in g exercises to practise the forms being taught. After the instruction. learners who had rece ived the comprehension-based processing instructio n no t o nly did better

Interp retin g the research Researc h on comprehension-based approaches to second lan guage acquisi­ tio n shows th at learners can make co nsiderable progress if they have sustained exposure to language they understand. The evide nce also suggestS, ho wever, tha t co m prehensio n- based activities may best be seen as an excellent way to beg in learning and as a supplement to other kinds of learning for more ad van ced learners. Comp rehension ofmeani ngful lan guage is the fou ndatio n oflanguage acqui­ sitio n. Active listening and readi ng for meaning are valuable components of classroom tea chers' pedagogical pra ctices. Nevertheless, considerable research and experience challenge the hypo th esis that comprehensible input is enough. Van f'atren's research showed that forc ing students to rely on spe ­ cific ling uis tic features in order to interpret meaning increased the chances tha t the y would be able to use th ese features in th eir own seco nd lan gua ge p roduc tio n. Anot her response to co mp rehension-based approaches is Merrill Swain" (198 5) com prehensib le OUtput hypothesis. She arg ues tha t it is whe n Stu­ dents have to p rod uce lang uage tha t th ey begin to see the lim itati on s of th ei r interlanguage (see C hap ter 4) . H owever, as we will see in the disc ussion of th e 'Let's talk' proposal , iflearners are in situation s where thei r teachers an d classmates unders tand them without difficulty, they may need additional help in overcoming those limitations.

3 Let's talk Advoca tes of the ' Let's talk' proposal em phasize th e im po rtance of access to both co m prehensible in put an d co nve rsat ional inte ractio ns with teac hers and othe r students. They arg ue th at when learners are given the opportunity to engage in interaction. they are compelled to negotiate for meaning, that is, to expres s and clarify the ir int enti o ns, tho ugh ts, opinions, erc., in a way that permits th em to arrive at m utual understan d ing. Th is is especi ally tru e w hen the learners are wo rki ng together to accom plis h a pa rtic ular goal, for exam ple in task-based lan guage teachi ng (T BLT). According to the interactio n hypothesis, negotiati o n leads learners to acqu ire the lan gu age for ms-the words and the grammatical str uc tu res-that carry th e mea ning they are attend ing to . This is th e theo retical view u nderlyin g the teacher- stu dent behav io ur in the transcrip t from Class room B and from the student-student interactio n in Co mmunicatio n task A in Chapte r 5.

165

166

Second language learn ing in the classroom

Negotiation for meaning is accomplished through a variety of modifications that naturally arise in interaction, such as requests for clarification or confir­ mation, repetition wit h a questioning intonation, etc. Look for negotiation for meani ng in the examples below and compare this with the ex~p les given for the 'Get it right from the beginning' proposal.

Example 4 (A group of 12 -year-old ESL students are discussi ng a questionnaire about petS with their teacher.) 5 T

5 T

And what is ~feed ' ?

Feed? To feed the dog?

Yes, but when I don't have a . . .

If you don't have a dog, you skip the question.

Example 5

(Studen~ from Classroom B, as they set tle in at the beginning of the day.)

T

H ow are you doing this morning?

s i I'm mad!

52 T 51

T

5I

Why?

Oh boy. Yeah, why?

Because this morning, my father say no have job this mo rning.

Your farher has no mo re job this m o rn ing? Or you have no job?

My father.

How different these examples are from the essentially meaningless interac­

tion often observed in classrooms where the em phasis is on 'getti ng it right

from th e beginning'. Such genuine exchanges of information must surely

enhance students' motivation to participate in language learning activities.

But do they, as advocates of this position claim, lead to successful language

acquisition? Note, for example, that, although the conversation proceeded in

a natural way, th e student in Example 4 ne ver did find out w hat 'feed ' meant.

Research findings

Most of the ear ly research that examined the 'Let's talk' proposal was descrip­

tive in nature, focusing on such issues as: How does negotiation in classrooms

differ from that observed in natural settings? How do teacher-centred and

student-centred classrooms differ in term~ of conversational in terac tio n ?

Do task types co ntribu te to different kinds of interactional modifications?

Several studies also examined relarionships between modifications in conver­

sational interaction and comprehensio n.

In th e m id - 1990s researchers began to d irectl y explore the effects of inte rac­

tion on second language production and development over time. Most of

Second language learning in the classroom

th ese studies have been car ried o ut in labo rat o ry settin gs and are m oti vated by Mi chael Long's ( 1996) updated versio n of the interaction hypothesis (see Chapter 4). Compared with the original version Stating th at conver­ sational interaction promotes second language develo pment (Long 1983) , the updated vers ion integrates learne r capacities that co ntribute [Q second language learning (for example, attention) and features of interactio n that are most likely to facili tate lear ni ng. C o rrective feed back has been identified as one feature that is believed to playa crucial role in helping learners [Q make connections between form and meaning. In fact, as we will see later in th is chap ter, research relevant [Q the updated interaction hypo thesis is more in line with the 'G et it right in the end' proposal.

Study 21: Learners talking to learners In one of the early descriptive studies on learner interaction, Michael Long and Patricia Porter (1985) examined the language produced by adult lear n­ ers performing a tas k in pairs. There were 18 participants: 12 no n- na tive speakers of English whose first language was Spanish, and six native English speakers. The non-native speakers were interm ed iate or advanced learn ers of English . Each individ ual lear ner participated in separate discussions with a speaker fro m each of the three levels. For example, an intermediate-level speaker had a conversation with another inter mediate-level speaker, another wi th an advanced-level speaker, and ano ther with a native speaker of English. Long and Porter compared the speech of native and non-native speakers in co n­ versatio ns, analysing the differences across p roficiency levels in conversatio n pairs . They found that learners talked more with other learners than they did with native speakers. Also, learners produced more talk wi th advanced-level learners than w ith intermediate-level partners, partly because th e conversa­ tions with advanced learners lasted lo nger. Long and Porter examined the number ofgr ammatical and vocabulary errors and false starts and found that learner speech showed no differences across contexts. That is, intermediate-level learn ers did not make any more errors with another intermediate-level speaker than they d id with an advanced or native speaker. This was an interesting result because it called into question the argument tha t learners need to be exposed to a native-speaking model (i.e, teacher) at all times to ensure that they produce fewer errors. Overall, Long and Porter concluded that although learners cannot always provide each other with the accurate grammatical input, they can offer each other genuine communicative practice th at includes negotiation for mea ning. Supporters of the 'Le t's talk' proposal atgue that it is precisely th is negotia­ tion for m ean ing that is essential for language acquisi tion.

167

168

Second language learn ing in tbe classroom

Study 22: Learner language andproficie1lCY level George Yule and Doris Macdonald ( [ 990) investigated whether the role that different proficiency-level learners play in a two-way communication task led to differences in their interactive behaviour. They set up a task that required rwo learners to communicate information about th e location ofdif­ ferent buildi ngs o n a ma p and th e ro ute to get th ere. One learner, referr ed to as the 'sender' , had a map with a delivery route on it , and this speaker's job was to describe the deli very route to the 'receiver ' so that he or she could draw the delivery route on a sim ilar map. The task was made mo re challenging by the fact tha t there were minor differences between the two maps. To determine whether there would be any difference in the interactions acco rding to th e relati ve proficiency of the 40 adult participants, differ­ ent type s of learners we re paired together. O ne group had high-proficiency learners in th e 'sender' role and low-proficiency learners in the 'receiver' role; the other gro up had low-proficiency 'senders' paired with high-profici en cy .receivers' . \X'hen low-proficiency learn ers were senders, interactions were co nsiderably longer and more varied than when high -p roficiency learners were the sen de rs. The explanatio n for th is was tha t high -proficiency senders tended to act as if the lower-level receiver had little contributio n to make in the co mpletio n of the task. As a result , th e lower -level receivers were almost forced to playa passive role and said very lirtle. When lower-level learners were the senders however, much more negotiation for meaning and a greater variety of inrerac­ do ns between the two speakers took place. Based on these findings , Yule and Macdonald suggest that teachers should sometimes place more advanced Stu­ dents in less dominant roles in paired activities with lower-level learners.

Study 23: The dynamics ofpair toork In a longitudinal study with adult ESL learners in an Australian university, N eo rny Storch (2 002) observed the patterns of int eraction between 10 pair s of students co m p letin g different rasks over one semester. Sh e identified four distinct parrerns of interaction: 'co llaborative' interactio n consisted of two learners fully engaged with each other's ideas; 'domi na nt- d o m inan t' inter­ action was characterized by an unwillingness on the part of either learner to engage and/or agree with the other's contributions; 'do m in ant- p assive' consisted of one lear ner who was authoritarian and another who was willing to yield to the other speaker; and 'expert-novice' interaction consisted of o ne learner who was stronger than the other bur actively encouraged and sup po rted the other in carrying our the task. To investigate whether the four type s of interaction led to differences in learning outcomes, Storch iden­ tified learn ing events that occurred during the interactions (fo r example, learning that the definite article is used with the names of some countries) . Then she looked at whether that lan gu age knowledge was maintained in

Second language learning in the classroom

a su bseq ue nt task. Sto rch fo und tha t learn ers who participated in the col­ laborative and expert-novice pair s maintained more of their L2 knowledge over time. Learners who participated in the dominant-dominant and domi­ nant-passive pairs maintained the least. Storch interp rets this as support for Vygo tsky's theory of cogni tive development (see Chapter 4) and the claim that when pai r work fu nctio ns collabo rat ively and learn ers are in an expert­ novice relationship, they can suc cessfully engage in the co-construction o f knowledge.

Study 24: Interaction and second language development Alison Mackey (1999) asked adult learners of ESL to engage in different co m m unicative tasks, for example, story completion and picture sequen cing with nat ive speake rs of En glish . The tasks were designed to provid e co n­ texts for learners to produce questions. Prior to participating in the tasks, the learners were assessed in terms of the stage the y had reached in learning que s­ tions, as described in Chapter 2. Th ey were then divided into five groups. The learners in G roup 1, referr ed to as' ' Inreracto rs.' ca rried o ut the tasks with native speakers, w ho modified their language as they sough t to clarify meani ng fo r the learne rs. Learne rs in Group 2 received th e same modified input as learn ers in Gro up [ but they were not as advanced in th eir acquisi­ tio n ofq ues tio n forms and th us were referred to as the ' Lnter act o r Unreadies .' Learn ers in Group 3 , th e 'O bservers.' were asked to listen to the learn er and the native speaker as they carried o u t th e task but they did not interact in an y way. Learners in Group 4, the 'Scripteds' carried out: the sam e tasks with the native sp eakers but th e nati ve speakers used lan guage th at had been sim p li­ fied and scripted in such a detailed manner that communication breakdowns

d id not occ u r and thus no negotiation for meaning took pla ce. There was also

a co ntrol gro up of learners wh o did not particip at e in an y of the tasks but

co mp leted all the rests. Both Inreract ors an d In reracror Un readies demonstrated more sustained

pr ogress in their quesrion formati on devel opment th an learn ers wh o did not

engage in interaction (i.e. Observers, Scripteds, and Control). Th e Observers

and the Scripteds were sim ilar to th e C ontrol group learners, wh o changed

very li trle . Mackey also notes that the significant increase in development for

the Inreractors was maintained on the delayed post-tests administered one

month after the treatment tasks. These results are interpreted as sup porr for

the hypothesis that negotiated int eraction leads to L2 development.

Study 25: Learner-learner interaction in a Thai classroom

In a study relevant to the updated version of the interaction hypothesis, Kim

McDonough (2 004) investigated the use of pair- and small-group activities

in English as a foreign language classes in Thailand. Students engaged in

interactional activities in which they discussed environmental problems in

thei r country. The topic was chosen as one that would generate contexts fo r

[69

170

Second la nguage Learning in the classroom

the use of conditional clauses such as 'If people didn't leave water running while brushing their teeth, they would save an estimated 5-10 gallons each time' (p, 213) . Learners were audio-recorded as they discussed the environ­ mental problems. . The recorded conversations were examined to see the extent to which stu­ dents used interactional features that are believed to facilitate second language learning, for example, negative feedback (i.e. clarification requests, explicit co rrection, and recasts) an d mo dified output (i.e. a learner's more accurate/ complex reformulation ofhis or her previous utterance). Learners were tested on their ability to produce conditional clauses in a pre -test, an immediate post-test, and a delayed post-test. McDonough found that lear ners who had used more negative feedback and modified Output in their interactions sign ificantly improved in the accu­ racy of their conditional clauses. Those who made less use of these feat ures did nor. McDonough also explored opinions about the usefulness of pair work and small-group activities, asking whether such act ivities contributed to learning. She found that the students did not perceive pair- and group­ activities as useful for learning English. This was true both for students who seemed to have made effective use of the interaction for learning and those who had nor. The fact that learners were sceptical of the benefits of group­ and pair-work activities suggestS a need to take account of learners' beliefs about learning (see Chapter 3) and to share with them our reasons for using these activi ties.

Interpreting the research Research based on the interaction hypo th esis has investigated facrors that contribute to the q uality and quantity of interactions between second language learners. It has provided some useful information for teach ing. Certainly, the studies by Long and Porter, Yule and Macdonald, and Storch contribute to a better understanding ofhow to organize group and pair work more effectively in the classroom. The Mackey and McDonough studies are two examples of research that have measured second language development in relation to different aspects of conversational interaction. Mackey's study used one-on-one pair-work activities between trained native speakers and non-native speakers focusing on a single grammatical feature in a laboratory context. Thus it is difficult to relate the findings to the kind of interactions that take place in classrooms. The McDonough study helps to fill this gap because it is a classroom study that also demonstrates the benefits of inrerac­ tion on second language learning over time. Recently, a num ber of labo rato ry studies have also examined the effects of different interactio nal featu res on speci fic aspects o f second language lear n­ ing over time. Several studies have shown that implicit corrective feedback

Second language Learning in th e classroom

(for example, recasts ) in pair-work situations is beneficial. A recent review of this research confirms that the positive effects for recasts are strongesr in the laboratory setting (M ackey and Goo 2007) . This may be because recasts are more salient in pair work, par ticularly if only one form is recast consistently (Nicholas, Lighrbown, and Spada 200 1). In McDonough's classroom study, recasts (and other forms of corrective feedback) were more likely to have been no ticed beca use the Thai learners were accustomed ro traditional grammar instruction and a focus on accuracy. This is not always the case, however. As we learned in Chapter 5, when the instructional focus is on expressing meaning through subject-matter instruc­ tion, the teachers' recasts may not be perceived by the learners as an attempt to correct their language form but rather as JUSt another way of saying the same thing. Later in this chapter we will look at classroom studies related to the 'G et it right in the end' posi tion that have investigated the effects of more explicit corrective fc;edback on second language learn ing. .

4 Get two for one In content-based language teaching, learners acq uire a second or foreign language as they study subject matter taught in that language. It is imple­ mented in a great variety of instructional settings, for example, immersion programmes and the content and language-integrated learning (C LIL) pro­ grammes in Europe described in Study 8 in Chapter 5. Other educational programmes such as the European Schools extend this further by offering instruction in two or more languages in addition ro students' home language. The expectation of this approach is that students can get 'two for one', learn­ ing the subject ma tter content and the language at the sam e time. In immersion and CLIL programmes, studen ts choose (or their parents choose for them) ro receive content-based instruction in a second language. In many educational situations, however, no other option is available. For example, in some countries, the only language ofschoo ling is the language of a previous colonial power. In others, educational ma terials are not available in all local languages, so one language is chosen as the language ofeducation. In count ries of immigration, students often have access to schooling o nly through the majority language. Other students may have access to bilingual education programmes that allow some use ofa language they already know, but the tran sitio n ro the majority language is usually made with in a year o r two.

Research findings In many contexts fo r content-based instruc tion, it is simply assumed that students will develop bo th th eir academic skills an d second language ability.

171

172

Second langu,tge learning in the classroom

Second Lmguage learning in the classroom

In recent years. researchers ha ve so ugh t critically.

to

exam ine this assum p tio n mo re

Study 26: French immersion programmes in Canada Research in Canadian French immersion programmes is often cited in suPPOrt of th e 'Ge t two for one' prop osal. M ost immersion pr ogrammes are offered in primary and seco ndary schools, but some universities also offer co nt ent -based instr uctio n th at expands opportunities for students to use their second language in cognitively challenging an d informative courses. What have the studies shown? In terms of popular ity and longevity, French im mersion has been a great success. Thousands of English-speaking Canadian families have chosen thi s option since its first implementation in the 1960 s (Lambert and Tucker 1972), both in areas where French is spoken in the wider community an d in those where French is rarely heard outside the classroom. Numerous stu d ies have show n that Fren ch immersion stu den ts develop fluen cy, high levels of listening com p rehe ns ion, and co nfide nce in usin g th eir seco nd langu age. Th ey also ma intain a level o f success in the ir academic sub jects that is com­ pa rable to th at of th eir peer s whose ed uca tio n has been in English (Genesee 1987). Over th e years, how ever, ed ucato rs and research ers bega n to exp ress co nce rn about students' failu re to achieve h igh levels of performan ce in so me aspec ts o f French grammar, even after several years a Hull-day expos ure to the second language in these programmes. So me researchers argue that the difficulty French immersion learners experi­ en ce in their L2 production shows that comprehensible input is not enough (H arley and Swa in 1984). They claim that the learners engage in roo little language production becau se the classes are largel y teacher-cen tr ed. Students are observed to speak relatively little and rarely req u ired to give extende d answers. This permits them to operate successfully with the ir incom plet e knowledge of th e language becau se they are rarely pushed to be more preci se or more accurate . \~en stu de nts do speak, com m un icatio n is usually sat ­ isfactory in spi te of nu mero us errors in their speec h becau se the learners' interlanguages are infl uenced by the same first langu age, the same learn ing env iro nm ent, and the same limi ted contact wit h the target language ours ide the classroom. Teachers also tend to understand students ' in rerlanguage, so there is rarely a need to negoriare for m eani ng. Such successful comm unica­ tion makes it diffic ult for an individ ual learner to work our how his or her use of the language d iffers from rhe target language. An other expla nation for students' lack of p rogress on ce rtain lan guage fea­ tures is their rarity in French im mersion instructio n. Fo r example, Merrill Swain ( 1988) observed that even history lesso ns. where past ten se verbs might be expected to occ ur, were often delive red in the ' histo rical present' (fa t example, 'Th e ships go down to the C aribbean ; th ey pick up sugar and

they take it back to Eng land . . . '). Roy Lyster ( 1994) foun d that th e use of the seco nd perso n prono un uous to pol itely address an individual was used so rarely in classes that even afte r years of immersion instr uction , stu dents did nor use it appropriately. Elaine Tarone and Merrill Swain (1995) no ted th at learners with only classroom exposure to the language did not have access to th e s pe ech styles that wo uld be ryp ical of int eraction am ong nati ve speake rs of the same age. Increasingly, it was suggested that subject matter instruction needed to be complem ented by instruction that focused o n language form, includ ing pragmatic features o f th e language. In so me experimen tal studies, learners did benefit from fo rm-focused instruction on particular language featu res (see th e ' G et it right in th e end' proposal).

Study 2 7: Late immersion under stress in Hong Kong

In the 1960s the educational system in Hong Kong moved from one in

whi ch students studied eith er exclusively in English or in Canto nese to one

in which rhe majority of students stud ied in Cantonese in primary scho o l

. (G rades 1-6) an d in Eng lish at seco ndary school (G rades 7- 13). These late Eng lish im mersion p rogram mes were pop ular wit h C hinese parents who wa nte d their ch ildren to succeed p ro fession ally and academically in the inte rnational co mmunity. They were also seen as be ing consis tent with the Ho ng Kong govern ment 's goa l of maintai ni ng a hig h level of Chinese­ English bilingualism. In review ing some o f the resear ch o n teaching and learn in g beh aviours in

lat e English immersion classes in H ong Kong seco ndary sch ool s, Keith

Johnson (1997) raised co nce rns abo ut the ability o f the edu catio nal system

to meet the demands for such programmes. He noted that students lacked

the English proficien cy needed to follow the secon da ry level cu rriculum suc­

cessfully. He also observed teach ers' difficul ties in effecti vely deli vering th e

co n tent beca use of limitations in their own En glish profi ciency. He argued

th at several pedagogic behaviours consrlbured to th e inability o f learners to

make adeq uate linguistic pro gress in thes e En glish immersion programmes.

One of them was teach er talk that con sisted o f English, Chinese, and 'Mix'

(a combination o f English and C h inese) .

Observational classroom studies revealed that Chinese and MLx pred omi­

nat ed in th e speech of teachers and that students interacted with the teacher

and with each other in English only in min imal ways . Many students came

to the first year of secondary school withour any lite racy skills in Englis h.

To compensate for th is, teachers employed a variety of st rategies to help

stu dent s co m p rehend texts . They red uced the vocabulary load . sim plified

the grammar, encouraged the use of bilingual dictionaries , and provided

stu d en ts wit h su pplementary no res and charts in Chinese to assist their com­

prehension. Johnson observed tha t, while 'the texts are no t translated, they

are essentially pr e-tau gh t so that by the time students come to read the texts

173

174

Second kmguage learn ing in the classroom

for themselves the more able students at least are sufficien tly familiar with the content to be able ro deal with them' ( p.I 77) . Although these strategies helped students un derstand the content, they may not have helped them learn ro use th e syntactic and discourse structures in the second language to establish form-meaning relationshi ps. Therefor e it is no t surprising that th e st andards of reading in English at age 15 were repo rted to 'be significan tly lower than those for C hinese. At the sam e time, howeve r, the ed uca tio nal o ut comes for Hong Kon g student s in content su bjects contin ued to be high, com parable to , and in so me areas superior to , achievements in other devel ­ oped countries. In addition, th e levels of Chinese Ll reading proficiency remained high. In spi te of p ro fession al development efforts ro help teachers achieve the d ual goals of language and content instruction , Phil ip H oare an d Stella Kong (2008) find that many teachers in th e H ong Kong immersion p rogrammes conti nue to have difficulty implementing immersion pedagogy. They attrib­ ute this in part ro the pressure teachers feel in a sociery.where performance on examinations is paramount. To ensure that their students do well on the content exams, teachers o ften feel that they must teach in Chinese or in a simplified English that does not give st udents access ro the lang uage th at is appropriate fo r high-level academic work.

Study 2 8: Dual immersion In recent years, legislation has lim ited the availability of bilingual education for most minoriry language st ude nts in th e Un ited States. In most states, English language learners' education must take place entirely in English , or with on ly minimal suPPOrt for learning through their first lan guage. As we saw in Chapter I, the result ofthis ap proach is often su bt ractive bilingualism. Children grad ually lose their first lan guage or fail ro develop it for academic purposes. In addition, they often fall behind in their academic work because they do not yet have the English language skills needed for dealing with th e grade-level subject matter. Some jurisdictions allow 'dual immersio n' as an exception to the Strict enforcement ofins truction thro ugh English on ly. In dual immersion, minor­ iry language studen ts learn English in classro oms whe re English-speaking children also learn the minoriry language students' home lan guage. Patsy Lighrbown (2007) observed classroom interaction and learning outcomes in a school where an equ al number of native English- and native Spanish­ speaki ng students shared the classrooms. Starting in kindergarten, half th eir instruction was delivered in English by an English native speaker and half in Spanish by a na tive speaker of that lang uage. Teachers coo rdinated closely to ensure tha t the su bject rna rre r inst ructio n in th e two languages was co m­ plement ar y rath er than red und anr. Stude nts' performance on a variery of meas ures administered through Grade 3 showed that the programme was

Second language learn ing in the classroom

be neficial for their d evelop ment of En glish lan guage skills, and Spani sh ­ speaking students made especially rapid p rog ress in readi ng. O f particul ar importance was the fact that studen ts also continued ro develop their Spanish language skills in ways that were not available ro students whose instruction was either in English only or in transitional bilingual classes where there was very lit tle suPPOrt fo r their home language. In other d ual immersio n programmes, the number of students an d the amount o f time are distri bu ted differe n tly, often with more time devoted to the teaching and lear ning of English, but sometimes with an early emphasis on the m inority language th at resembles the Canadian French immersion programmes, that is, where the English-speaking students receive nearly all th eir early instruction in their second language. Th is ap proach is preferred in settings where it is not possible ro have a substantial number of students from the minoriry language. Indeed, a number of different models of d ual imm ersio n have been developed, but they all are based on the p rinciple that the co n tin ued develop ment ofa ch ild 's home language is a strong foundation on which ro bu ild second language abil it ies (H oward er al. 2007). In recent years, several research reviews ha ve exam ined th e evidence fo r di fferent app roaches to educating English language lear ners in the United States (August and Shanahan 2008; Genesee er al. 2006). The researc h con­ firms better outcomes, in bo th En glish language learning and subject ma tter knowledge, for minority lan guage stu d en ts in programmes that support the students' home lan guages than fo r those in English only o r 'early exit' bilin­ gual program mes where they receive only to ken opportunities ro co ntinue learning through their home language. Kathryn Lindholm-Leary (200 1) also found benefits for the majori ty language studen ts in dual immersio n programmes, where they share the challenges and achievemen ts of second language learn ing with mi noriry lan guage students. She suggests that this app roach 'has th e potential to eradicate the negative status of bilingualism in the U S' (p.1).

Study 29: Inuit children in content-basedprogrammes In an aboriginal com m un iry in Q uebec, Canada, N ina Spada and Patsy Lightbown (2002) observed the teaching and learning of school su bjects and language with Inui t ch ildren. The children had been educate d in their first language, Inukritut, from kindergarten ro Grade 2 (aged 5-7). Then, except for occasional lessons in Inuit culture, their education was in one of Canada's official langu ages, Fren ch or Eng lish . Nearly all students had so me d ifficulry coping with sub ject matter instruction in thei r second language. In a case study o f one Frenc h secondary-level class, the y observed instr uc­

tional activi ties, analysed instr uctional materials, and assessed stu dent s'

ab iliry ro un derstand and to pro d uce wri tten French. In the observation

data from a social studies lesso n, it was evident that the teacher had to work

17 5

176

Second language learnmg in the classroom

Second language Learning in the classroom

very hard co help st ude nt s understand a text o n beluga whales. H e did this in many ways-by paraphrasing, repeating, sim plifying, checking for com­ prehension, gestures, etc . Despite his efforts it was clea r that most students understood very little of the te-xt. In their French language classes, these same st uden ts also lacked the terminology they needed co talk about grammatical gende r in relati on to adje cti ve agreement. \'V'hen the students' performance on a wide range of measures was examined to assess their knowledge of French (fo r example, vocabulary recognition , reading comprehension, writing) . it was evident that the students did not have the French language skills they needed to cope with the demands of typical secondary-level instruction. Furthermore. even though many of the stude nts were able to speak French informally outside class, their oral abili­ ties we re limited when th ey had to di scu ss more co m plex academic subject matter. As we saw in Chapter 1. teachers are sometimes misled by students' ab ility to use th e language in informal settings, concluding that their aca ­ demic difficulties co uld not be due co lan gu age problem s.

or

The stu de nts' lack age-a p prop riate acad em ic Frenc h is a serio us p roblem. Solving it wi ll involve complex educat ional. social . an d cultu ral quest ions. One pedagogical element that mi ght co nt rib u te to a so lu tion is a bett er balance be tween lang uage and sub ject matter instr uc tio n. focu sin g o n th e language that the students need to suc cee d in schoo l. An other possibiliry is that furthe r development of the learners' L 1 literacy would better prepare them for seco nd lan guage and subject matter learning. There is another good reason to support students' development of Inuktirur. There are increasing co ncern s that Inuktirut will be lost as future generations shift to English or French as their preferred language. An educational system that encourages the de velopment of both firSt and seco nd languages may ensure the su rvival this heritage language (Taylo r. Caron, and McAlpine 2000).

or

Interpreting the research Cont ent-based language teaching has many advantages. In general . it in creases the amount of time for learners co be exposed to the new language. It creates a genuine need to communicate. motivating students to acquire language in order to understand the content. For older students , there is the advantage content that is cog nitively challenging and interesting in a way that is often missing in foreign language instruction, especially where lessons are designed around particular grammatical forms.

or

N everth eless. there are also some problems with content-based instruction. Our research with Inuit children adds further evidence co Jim C ummins' ( 19 84) claim that students need 5-7 years before their ability co use the la nguage for cognitively challenging academic material has reached an age­ appropriate level. For students From disadvantaged minority groups, this

delay in co mi ng co g rips with sc hooling can have lasti ng effects, as we saw in su btractive bilingualism in C hapter I . Majority language th e discussion students in immersion programmes-in Canada and in Hong Kong-seem to do well in learning subject matter, an d it is also no teworthy that they recei ve a substantial amount of subject matter instruction through their first language over the full co urse of their acade m ic careers. Similarly. dual immersion programmes allow students from each language group to con­ tinue development of the home language and to co ntin ue learning subject matter content in that language. However. although students in content­ based language instruction are able to communicate with so me fluen cy in th e seco nd language. they often fall short of the high levels of linguiscic accuracy that their years of schooling in the language might predict.

or

In recent years, propo ne nts of co nren t-based in srructi on have stressed the need co recall that content-based language teaching is still language teaching. For exam ple. jana Echevarria. Mary Ellen Vogt, and Deborah Short (2004) have done research and developed teacher education pro grammes th at sh ow the effect iveness of lesso ns t har have bo t h corue n r o bjectives an d lan guage objectives.

5 Teach what is teachable Manfred Pienemann ( 1988) and his co lleagues have tried to explain why it often seems that some things can be taught successfull y whereas other th ings . eve n after extensive or intensive teaching. seem to remain unacquired. Their research provides evidence that some linguistic str uct u res, for exam ple, basic word order in sentences (bo th sim ple and complex) develop along a predict­ able developmental path . These are labelled developmental features. The developmental stages of English questions that we saw in C hapter 2 are based on this research. According to Pienernann (1988) an y attempt to teach a Stage 4 word-order pattern to learners at Stage 1 will not work because learn­ ers have to pass through Stage 2 and ger to Stage 3 before they are read y to acquire what is at Stage 4. As we saw in 'G et it right from the beginning', students may produce certain struc tures after they have been taught them in class, but cease to use them later because they are not fully integrated into their interlanguage systems . The underlying cause of the stages has no t been fully explained, but processabiliry theory (see Chapter 4) suggests that they may be based at least in part on learners' developing ability to notice and remember elements in the st ream of speech they hear. Resear chers supporting this view also cla im that certain other aspects of

lan guage -for example, individual vocabulary items-can be taught at any

time. Learners' acquisition of these variational features appears to depend on

facto rs su ch as m otivation . th e learners' sense o f identity. language aptitude ,

177

178

Second language learning in the classroom

and th e quality of insrrucrion, including how learners' identi ties and culrures are acknowledged in the classroom. In Example 6 below, we see a teacher trying to help students with the word order of questio ns. The st udents seem to know what the teacher means, but th e level oflanguage the teacher is offering them is beyond their current stage of develop men t. Students are asking Stage 3 q uestio ns, whic h th e teach er recasts as Stage 5 questions . Th e students react by simply answering th e ques­ tion or acce pting th e teacher's fo rm ulati on.

Example 6 Students in an intensive ESL class (l 1-12-year-old French speakers) inter­ viewing a stude nt who had been in the same class in a previous year (see Classroom B in C hapter 5). s I Mylene, where you pur your 'Kid of the Week' pos ter?

Where did you put your poster when you go t it?

52 In m y room.

T

Second language learning in the classroom

Example 8

(Interviewing each other abo ut house pr eferen ces)

5

T 5I T

53 T 54

Beatrice, where you pur your 'Kid of the Week' poster?

Where did yo u pu t your poster?

M y poster was on my wall and it fell down.

In Example 7, the student is using the 'fron ting' strategy that is typical of

Stage 3 q uestions. The teacher's corrective feedback leads the stu dent (0

imitate a Stage 4 question.

Example 7

(Th e same gro up of studen ts engaged in ' Famo us person' interviews.)

5I T

5I 52

Is your mother play piano? 'Is your mother play piano? ' OK. Well, can you say 'Is yo ur mother 'play piano?' or 'Is yo ur mother a p iano player?'

' Is your mo th er a piano player?'

N o.

In Example 8, the teac her draws the student's attention to th e error and also provides the correct Stage 4 question. This time, however, the feedback is no t followed by an imitation or a refo rmulatio n of the question, bur simply by an answer.

Is yo ur favourite house is a split-level? Yes. You're saying 'is' twO times dear. 'Is your favo urite house a spl it-le vel?' A sp lit-level. O K.

In Example 9 the student asks a Stage 3 question, and th e teacher provides a

Stage 4 correction that the student imitates. The interaction suggestS that the

student is almost ready to begin producing Stage 4 q uestions. Note, however,

that the student does not imitate the possessive 's, som eth in g tha t French.

speakers find very d ifficul t.

Example 9

(' Hide an d seek' game)

5

(Two minu tes later)

I

52

T

5

Do the boy is beside the teacher desk? Is th e boy beside the teacher's desk? Is th e boy beside the teacher desk?

Research findings The 'Teach what is teachable' view suggesrs that while variational features of the language can be taught successfully at various points in the learners' development, develo pmental features are best taught acco rdi ng to the learners ' internal sche d ule. Fu rthermore, although learners may be able (0 produce more advanced forms on tests or in very restricted pedagogical exercises, instruction cannot change the 'natural' developmental course. The recommendation is to assess th e learners' developmental level and teach what would naturally come next. Let us examine some srudies th at have tested th is hypothesis.

Study 30: Ready to learn M anfred Pienemann (1988 ) investigated whe ther instruction permitted learners to 'skip' a stage in th e natu ral sequence of de velo pment. Two groups of Australian un iversity students of German who were at Stage 2 in their acquisitio n of German word order were taught the rules associa ted with Stage 3 and Stage 4 respectively. The instr uction took place over twO weeks and during this tim e learners were provided wi th expli cit grammatical rules and exercises for Stage 3 an d 4 constructions. Th e learners who received ins truc tion on Stage 3 ru les moved easily into thi s stage from Stage 2. However, those lear ners who received instruction on Stage 4 rules either con­ tinued (0 use Stage 2 rules or moved only into Stage 3 . That is, they were no t able (0 'skip' a stage in the develo pmental sequence. Pienemann in terp rets his results as suPPOrt for the hyp o th esis that for some lin gu istic st ructu res, learners can not be tau ght w ha t they are not developmentally ready (0 learn .

179

180

Second language learning In the classroom

Study 31: Readies, un readies, and recasts

Aliso n Mac key and Je nefer Philp (1998) in vestigat ed whethe r ad ult ESL

learne rs who were at different stages in th eir acq uisitio n o f qu esti ons co uld

advance in their production of th ese forms if they received implicit nega­

tive feedback (i.e. recasts) in co nversational interaction. As described in

Chapter 5, recasts are paraphrases of a learner's incorrect urrerance tha t

invo lve repl acing one or mo re of me incorrect components w ith a cor rect

form wh ile mai ntaining a foc us o n meaning. Th e researchers were interested

in discovering w he the r ad ult lear ners who received modified interaction with

recasts we re ab le co advan ce in th eir production of q uestion forms more than

learne rs who received m odi fied inte ractio n without recasts. Furt hermo re,

they wan ted CO explo re whether learners wh o we re at more ad vanced stages

of q uestion development ('readies') would benefit more from interaction

with recasts than lear ners at less advanced stages of question dev elopment

('unr ead ies'). The results revealed mat me ' readies' in the interaction plus

recasts group improved mo re tha n me ' read ies' in th e interaction without

recasts group. However. the 'un read ies' who were exposed co recasts did not

sho w more rapid improvement than those who were not exposed co recasts.

Study 32: Developmental stage andfirst language influence

N ina Spada and Patsy Lighcbown ( 1999) have also in vestigated the acqu i­

sitio n of questions in relation to learners' developmental ' read iness'.

French-speaking st udents (aged 11-12) in int ensive ESL classes received

high-frequency exposure to q uestion forms that were one or rwo stages

beyo nd thei r develop mental level. Learners who were judged on oral pre­

tests (Q be at Stage 2 or 3 were given h igh freque ncy exposure co Stage 4 an d

5 questio ns in th e inst ruc tio nal in put.

The materials that contained the more advanced question forms were

designed (Q engage th e learn ers mainly in com prehension practice. There was

no student producti on an d th us no co rrective feed back, nor was th ere any

exp licit instruction o n q uestion format ion. The researchers wanted co know

whethe r Stage 3 learn ers (i.e, those co nside red co be developmentally ' ready ')

would be nefi t mo re from the hig h-frequency exposure (Q Stage 4 and 5 q ues­

tio ns than the Stage 2 learn ers, who we re not yet devel opmentally ' ready'.

Learners' perform an ce on an oral pOSt-test measure indicated no advantage for

me Stage 3 lear ners. In fact, the re was little progress for eith er group. H owever,

on a task m at requi red learn ers co judge th e grammaricaliry of written qu es­

tio ns there was evidence th at all stu de nts had som e kn owledge o f Stage 4 and

5 ques tions. A mo re de tailed exam ina tion of the learn ers' perfor mance on th is

task showed tha t stude nts tended to acce pt Stage 4 an d 5 q uestions whe n the

subject o f the sente nce was a pron oun (for exam ple, 'Are you a good student?' o r

'When are you going to eat breakfast?') . \'7hen the subject of the sentence was

a noun , however, there was a ten den cy for students co reject high er stage qu es­

tio ns (for exam ple, 'Are the students watchi ng TV?' or 'What is yo ur brother

Second language learning in th e classroom

181

doing?'). This parrern in the students' performance ap pe-ars to be related to a quest io n rule in their hrst lan guage that we saw in Chap ter 2. That is, in French, questio ns with no un s in su bject position are not inverted (for exam ple, "Peut­ Jean uenir chez moi? ='Can John come co my house?'). In French qu estions wi th pronoun subjects, however, inversion is permitted (fo r example, Peut-il uenir chez moi? = 'Can he come to my house?') . These results in dicate mat instruction timed co match lear ners' develop­ me ntal 'readi ness' may move the m into mo re advanced stages, bur their performance may still be affected by other factors. In this study first language influen ce seems co be respo nsible for th e learners' inability co generalize their knowledge of inve.rsion to all questions.

Interpreting the research The resul ts of these studies sugges t that targeting instructional or interac­ tio nal in pu t to lear ners wh en they are deve lopmen tally ready to progress further in the second language can be . beneficial. H oweve r, other factor s such as rype of inpur andfirst language influence can interact with learners' develo pment al readiness in co m plex ways. If we compare the rypes o f instrue­ rional/ in teracrio nal in pu t acro ss the three studies , Pienemann provided th e most exp licit instruction to learners who were both ' ready' and 'u nready' . The results showed tha t learners who were 'ready' moved into the next stage of develo pment, whereas learners who were not ' ready' did not. The results of th e Mackey and Philp study also offer some sup port for m e teachabiliry hypothesis but reveal th at developmental readiness is not the only predictor of success. Th e fact th at m e 'readies' be nefited mo re from recasts tha n the 'un read ies' sugges ts th at the rype of instru ctio nal/ interactio nal in put is also im poreant. The Spada and Ligh tbown study shows how me learn ers' first lan ­ guage may interact with developmental read iness in Contributing to learni ng outcomes. Furthermore, in th at stu dy there was no explicit instructio n on questions. Learners we re sim p ly exposed to a high freque ncy of correctly formed h igh er-stage questions in the in put. Thus, th ey received increased 'exp os ure' bu t no ' instr uction' , and, in the en d, they did not show as much developme ntal change as learners wh o received foc used instruc tion . So me research ap pears to offer co unter-evide nce to the claim tha t it is ben­ eficial to teach what is d evelopmentally nex t. Th is includes several s tudies that have used m e accessibili ty hierarchy (see C hap te r 2) to descri be seco nd lan guage learn ers' pr ogress in th eir acqu isition o f relative clauses. Resul ts of these stu dies suggest that wh en low-level learners (fo r exam ple, th ose who use relat ive cla uses only in subject positi on ) are ta ugh r relative clauses th at are several stages beyond the ir curre nt level, th ey not o nly learn wha t is taugh t, they also acquire the relative cla use posi tion(s) berween me one tau gh t and the o ne(s) they alread y kn ew. In so me ins tances th ey even learn how to use relative clauses beyo nd the level they were tau ght (Am mar an d Lighr bown 200 5; Eckman, Bell. and N elso n 1988; Ham ilton 1994) .

182

Second Language learning in the classroom

At first glance, thi s research seems ro con tradict Pien ernan n's claim th at learners should be taught what is 'next'. However, it is also possible that the de velopmental parhs of differenr linguist ic features are based on diffe r­ en t sorts of processing ab ilities. For example. Carherine Doughty (1 99 1) suggested that once learners have learned ro use relative clauses in one po si­ tio n (usually rhe subject posi tion), rhere is no constraint on their abili ty ro learn rhe ot hers. What aU rhe Studies of relative clause teaching and learning have in common is that learners acquire th e relative clauses in an order very similar to rhe accessibili ty hierarchy. That is, whe ther or not they learn what is taught, th ey make progress by lear n ing subject, rhen direct object, then indirect object, and so on. Th e 'Teach what is teachable' position is of great porenrial interest ro syl­ lab us p lan n ers as well as teachers. However, it must be emphasized that a description of a learner's develop m en tal path is not in itsel f a tem plate for a syllabus. Th ere are n umerous practical reaso ns for th is, not least rhe fact th at o nly a small n umber of language features hav e been described in term s of a developmen tal seq uence. While Pienernann's wo rk o n processability rheory (see Chapter 4) provides insights into the pri nciples that ma y make so m e features more difficult than others, those pri nciples are not easily tran slated into instructional sequences.

Second Language learn ing in the classroom

Advocates of this p ro posal also agree wirh advocates of the 'Teach wha t is teachable' view that so me rhings can no t be taught if rhe teach ing fails to take the student's readiness (stage of development) in to account. This pro­ posal differs from rhe 'Teach what is teachable' proposal, ho wever, in th at it em phasizes rhe idea that some aspects of language must be taught and may need ':0 be taught qu ite explicitly, There are a number of siruatio ns in wh ich guidance- form-focused ins truction or corrective feedback-is expected to be especially important. For example, when lear ners in a class share the same first language, the y will make errors that are partly rhe result of transfer from thar shared Ianguage. Because rhe errors are not likely ro lead to any kind of communication breakdown, it will be virt ually impossib le for learners to discover the er rors on their own . Examples 10 , II , and 12 are taken from a classroom where a group o f 12-y ear­ old French speakers are .Iearning Engl ish . In Example 10, they are engaged in an activity where the words in senrences are reo rdered ro form new sen ­ tences. Th e following sentence has been placed o n the board : 'So metim es my mother makes good cakes '.

Example 10 T

As Patsy Lighrbown ( 1998 ) has suggested, the 'Teach what is teachable'

5I

researc h is irnporranr primarily for helping teachers understand why Stu­ de nts don't always learn wha t they are taugh t- at least not immediately. The research also shows tha t instruction on language th at is 'too ad vanced' ma y still be helpful by providing learners with samples oflanguage that they will be able ro inco rporate into their inrerlanguage when the time is right. H owever, many other factors need ro be taken into consideration in choosing language feat ures ro focus on. We will return ro rhis point after we discuss rhe final proposal for language teaching, 'Get it right in rhe end .'

T

6 Get it right in the end Proponents of rhe 'G et it righ t in rhe end' proposal recognize an important role for form-focused instruction, bur rhey do no t assume that everyth ing has to be ta ught. Like advocates of rhe 'Let's talk', 'Two for one', and rh e 'JUSt listen ... and read ' positions, the y h ave co ncl ude d tha t ma ny lang uag e fea­ rures-from pro n un ciation ro vocabulary and grammar-will be acquired narurally if learners have adequate exposure ro rhe language and a motivation to learn. Thus, while they view co m p rehensio n-based, conrenr-based , task ­ based, or other types of essentially meaning -focused instructio n as crucial for language learn ing, they hypothesize th at learners will do better if they also have access ro some form- focus ed ins tructio n. They argue that learners will benefit in terms ofb orh efficien cy of rhei r learni ng an d rhe level of p ro­ ficien cy rhey will eventually reach.

52 T 53 T

53 T 54

Anorher p lace ro put our adv erb ? After makes? After makes. Before good? My mother make s sometimes good cakes. No . No , we can't do th at . It sounds yucky. Yucky! Disgusting. Horrible. Right? Horrible!

This is hardly a typ ical grammar lesson! "An d yet the students' at ten tion is being drawn to an error that virtually all of them make in English. Proponents of 'Get it righ t in rhe end' argue that what learners focus on can eventually lead to changes in the ir interlanguage systems, not JUSt ro an appearance of change. However, rhe supporters o f this p roposal do not claim that focusing on particular language points will prevent learners from maki ng errors or that they will begin using a fo rm as soon as it is taught. Rather, they sugges t that th e focused instruction will allow learners to notice the target fearu res in subsequent input and interaction. Form -focused instruction as it is understood in th is position does not always involve rnecaiinguisric explana tions, nor are learners expected to be able to exp lain wh y so me thing is righ t or wrong. They claim simply that rhe learners need to no tice how rhei r language use differs from that of a more proficient speaker. As we will see in the examples below, teachers who work in rhis

183

184

St?condLanguage learning in the classroom

Second Language learn ing In the classroom

Research findings A grea t deal of research has examined issues relat ed to this pro posal. This includes bo th descriptive and expe rime ntal studies .

approach loo k for the right moment to crea te increased awareness on the parr of the learner-ideally, at a time whe n the learner is m otivat ed to say somethi ng an d wan ts to say it as d earl y and correctly as possi ble.

Study 33: Form -focus experiments in in tensive ESL

Examp le 11

Since the 1980s. researchers have investigated the effects of form-focused instructio n and corrective feedback on the developing English of French­ speakin g Students participati ng in intens ive ESL classes in Quebec. Fo r five months in eithe r G rade 5 or Grade 6, st udents (aged 10-12) spent mos t of every schoo l day learning Englis h th rough a variety of communicative inter­ active activ ities .

(The students are practising ~ollowing instructions; one student instructs, . the others colour.) 51

T 52

T 51

Make her shoes brown .

Now, he r shoes. Are those Mom's shoes or Dad's shoes?

M om's.

Mo m's. H ow do you kn ow it's Morn's?

Because it's he r shoes ,

In descrip tive studies invo lv ing almost 1,000 students in 33 classes, Patsy Lighcbown and Nina Spada 0990 , 1994) observed that teachers rarel y focused on language form. The emphasis of the teaching was o n act ivities that focu sed o n meaning rather than form, opportunities for spontaneous interactio n, a nd the provision o f rich an d varie d co mp rehens ible input. In the se classes , learners developed good listening co m p rehe nsio n and co m m u­ nicative co nfide nce in En glish . H owever. th ey co nt inued to have probl em s with linguistic accuracy and complexity.

As we saw in Chapter 4, Fren ch-s peaking learn ers of English ha ve di fficu lty with 'his' and 'h er' beca use French possessives use the gram matical gt nder of t he objec t possessed rather th an th e na tural ge nde r o f the possessor in select­ ing the appropriate possessive form. The teacher is aware of th is and-b riefly, without interrupting the activity-helps the learners no tice the correct form .

Example 12 lTh e stu dents are playing 'h ide and seek ' with a doll in a doll 's house, as king questions until they find ou t where 'G eo rge' is hiding. Although a model tor correct q uestions has been written o n the board, th e game becomes quite lively a nd stu de nts spo ntaneously ask q uestio ns that reflect the ir inrerlan­ guage srage .) s I Is Geo rge is in the living room? You said 'is' two ti mes, dear. Listen to you-you said 'Is George is in?' Look o n the board. 'Is George in the ' and then yo u say th e nam e of the ro o m. 51 Is G eor ge in th e living roo m?

T Yeah.

SI I w in!

T

Note tha t th e teach er's brief interventio n does not distrac t the student fro m his pleasure in th e game, demonst rating th at foc us o n form does not have to interfere wi th genu ine inte ractio n . Proponents o f 'G et it right in the en d' argue that it is so meti mes necessary to draw learners' attentio n to th eir errors and to focu s o n certai n linguistic (voca bulary or g ram mar) poin ts. H owever, it is d iffere nt from th e 'Get it right fro m the begi nning' prop osal in acknowledg ing that it is appropriat e for learners to engage in mean ingful lan guage use fro m the very beginn ing of thei r expos ure to the seco nd language. Th ey assum e th at m uc h o f lan gu age acq uisition will develop naturally our of suc h lan gu age use, with o ut formal ins tr uc tio n th at focuses on the language itself.

I I

In expe riment al stu d ies w ith a smaller number o f classes, th e effect s of form­ focu sed instructio n and corrective feedback were exam ined with respect to adverb placeme nt and question formation . In the first study, Lydia \'V'hite selec ted adve rb placeme nt for in vestigatio n because of the diffe rences between English and French that have already been discussed (see Chapter 2 and Study 17 in 'Just listen . . . and read') . The hypothes is was that learn ers wo uld pe rsist in usin g adverb placeme nt rules co nsiste nt with Frenc h (th eir first lan guage) if they were no t exp licitly told how rules for adverb place­ ment differ in English and French. Questio ns we re selec ted fo r th e second study beca use th ey h ave been extensively inves tigated in the literat ure and co nsiderable co mparison data were availa ble, particularly with regard to dev elo pmental stages (see C h apte r 2) . Bot h experimental and comparison grou ps were tested before and afte r the pe riod of special inst ructio n. Throughout th e per iod of th e expe rime nts, all st ude nts co nt in ued to parricip are in th e regul ar co m m u nica tive acti vities that w ere typical of their in structi on . Th e researchers gave each teac he r a set of pedagogical macerials to be used for th e special fo rm -focused instruct io n . The experime ntal groups received app roximately eigh t ho urs of instructio n on adverbs or q uesti ons ove r a two-week period . This include d so me exp licit teachi ng of th e rul es associa ted wi th each str ucture as well as co rrective feed­ bac k d ur ing the practice activ ities . Learners who received explicit instruction on adverb placeme nt dramatical ly o utpe rforme d the learner s who did not. This was foun d o n all the pos t-tests

185

186

Second language learning in the classroom

(im m edi ately following ins tru ctio n and six weeks later). In me follow-up tests a year later, however, me gains made by m e learners who had rece ived

me adverb instructio n had disappeared and their perfo rmance on this Struc­ tu re was like mat of un in structed learn ers (White 199 1). In th e question study me instr uct ed gro up also mad e signiflcan dy greater gains than m e uninstructed gro up on th e written tasks im mediately follow ­ in g instr uctio n. Fur thermore, they maintained their level of kn owled ge on later testi ng (six weeks and six months after instruction). Th e instruction also contrib uted to improvement in or al performance that was sustained over time (White, Spada, Ligh rbown , and Ranta 199 1). Th e difference in long- ter m efiecrs of the two studies m ay be d ue to a differ­ ence in the availability of me target forms in me classroom input to which learners were exposed. Analysis of classroom language showed mat adverbs were extremely rare in classroo m spee ch, giving learne rs little opportuni ty to mai ntain their: newly-acquired knowledg e th ro ugh continued expo sure and use. In contrast, mere w.e re hu ndreds of op porrunlries to hear and use ques tio ns every day in m e classroo m . Once lear ners ha d been given some foc used instruction , it seems they were able to continue to advance in their knowledge and use of questions (Spada and Llghrbown 1993 ). In several of the studies carried out in intensive ESL p rogramm es, there is evidence of me strong influence of me learner's first language on their second language dev elopment. In Stu dy 32 , we described the ten den cy of intensive ESL learners to reject in versio n in qu estions when the su bject is a no un but to accept inversion wh en the subject is a pronoun, consistent with th eir first lan ­ guage. The influence of the learners' first lan guage in thei r acquisitio n of the possessive determ in ers ' his' and 'her' was obse rved wi th this group oflearners (see Chapter 2 an d Study 18). This led to me ques tion of whether form­ focu sed instructi on mat includes expli cit contrastive information about how the first and second language diffe r wo uld help in th eir developme nt ofques­ tion formation and possessive determ ine rs. In a study to expl ore th is, learners who received instruction on possessive de termi ners improved mo re in their knowledge and use of this fea tu re than did learners who received instruction on question forms . This finding appeared to be related to differences between the fo rm- mean ing connections of these two features. That is, a misused pos­ sessive determiner ('He's going ho me with her mother') is more likely to lead to a co mmunication breakdown than an ill-forme d question (for example, 'Where he 's going?') . Res ults like th ese po in t to the importance of cons ide r­ ing how instruction ma y affect language features in different ways (Spad a, Lighrbown, and White 2005 ; White 2008). As we saw in th e disc ussion of the ' G et two for one' proposal, there is

growin g evide nce that learners in COntent-based programmes such as French immersio n ne ed m ore opp ortu niti es to focus on form an d receive corrective

Second language Learning in the classroom

feed back . A n um ber of studies have exp lo red the quest ion of how this can best be accomplished .

Study 34: Focusing on gender in French immersion Birgit Harley (1998) exam ined the effects of instruction with young children in French immersio n programmes. Six classes of Grade 2 children (7-8 years old) were given focused instruction on a language feature chat is kn own to be a persistent problem for French immersion studenrs-i-grammarical gen der. For 20 minutes a day over a five-week period these children carried our many activities based on children's games (for example, 'I spy ') m at were modified to draw their attention to gender distinctions and which required them to choose between femin ine and masculi ne ar ticles (une or un, la o r Ie) . Srudenrs were also taught how certain noun endings provide clues about gender (for example, -ette in la bicyclette for feminine, and -eau in le bateau for masculine). The students were pr e-tested on th eir knowledge of gram matical gender via listening and speaking tests before th e ins truction began and the same rests were administered im m ediately after instr uction and then again five months later. Learners w ho received instruction were much better at recognizing an d producing accurate gen der distinctions for familiar nouns than those who did no r receive instruction. However, the instruction did not enable learn ers to generalize their learning co new nouns . Harley's interpretation of th is is th at coo much new vocabulary was introduced in the lat er teaching acti vities and this meant chat teach ers spent more tim e teach ing the meaning ofwords than the noun en dings and their relationship co gender. Therefore, 'th e in put on noun endings was simply no t available in su fficient quantity and intensity for th e majority o f students to establish me predictive relevan ce of the noun en dings in questio n' (p. 169).

Study 35: Focusing on sociolinguisticfonns in French immersion Roy Lyster (994) exam in ed me effects of form-focused instruction on th e knowledge and use of sociolinguistic style variations in three classes of Grade 8 French immersion stu den ts (about 13 years old ). One of the mai n features examined in his study was me d istinctio n between the use of second person pronouns tu and V0 11S. In addressing an individual, tu is used co indicate infor­ mality and familiarity while uous is used as a marker of respectful po liteness , or social distance between speakers. Prior co instruction, immediately after, and again one month later, the learners were tested on their ability co produce and recognize these forms (in addition co ochers) in appropriate con texts. The instruction cook place for abo ut 12 hours over a five-week period . During th is time, students in rhe experimental classes were given explicit instruction and engaged in guided p ractice activities chat included role-plays in a variety of form al an d informal co ntexts and corrective feedback fro m teachers and peers . Students in the two comparis on classes co ntin ued with their regu lar instruction witho ut any focused teac hing or guided practice

187

188

Second language learning in the classroom

Second language learning in the classroom

in using soci olin gui sticalJ y appropriate forms. On the immediate post -test , learners in the experimental classes performed significantly better than lear n­ ers in the comparison classes on both written and oral production tasks and the multiple-choice test, and these benefits were maintained when learners were tested a month later.

expe rime nt al group received the ins tr uction bu t no co rrec tive feed back, and th e co m p ar ison group received neither instruction nor corrective feedback. All groups continued their regular French immersion p rogram me of con­ tent-based instruction chrougho ut the srudy and they were all tested before the instructional treatment, immediately after, and again three monchs later.

Study 36: Focusing on verbfonns in content-based science classrooms

O n the post-tests all three experimental groups (i.e. chose who received instruction) were significanrly more accurate chan the comparison group in assigning grammatical gender. In addition, the instr uctio n + prompts gro up did sign ifican rly better than the instruction + recasts group on the written measures. However, there were no significant differences between the three experimental groups in terms of/earners' performance on the oral tasks. Lyster interprets th is finding as a task effect. That is', because of the time-co nsumi ng nature of oral tasks, o n ly a randomly selected su b-sam p le of students participated in chis part of the Study. These students met with the researcher in three intensive on e-on-one sessions. In order to ensure the accuracy of the d ata , the researcher en couraged students co speak as clearl y as possi ble because previou s research had shown th at learners so metimes used a 'hybrid ar ticle' tha t cou ld be inter pret ed as eit he r masculin e or fem inine. Th is em phasis o n th e clear articulation of articles provided all learne rs with individ ualize d arte n tion o n the target featu re an d th us may be th e reaso n why all three gro ups perfo rmed simi larly on th e oral measure.

Catherine Doughry and Elizabeth Varela ( 1998) carried OUt a study with a group ofESL learners in their science classes. One class ofmiddle-school stu­ den ts (11-14 years old) from a variety offirst language backgrounds received corrective feedback on past tense and conditional verb forms in English. For several weeks, while studenrs were engaged in oral and written work related co a series of science reports, me teacher provided corrective feed­ back on th eir errors in past tense and conditional forms-both explicitly and im plicirly. Students' abiliry CO use chese forms was assessed before and after the experimental period and again rwo months later. Their performance was co m pared co that of a gro up o f Stu dents who were in another scie nce class doing [he sam e scie nce repo rts but w ho did not receive co rrective feedback on the verb forms . Studen ts who received the co rrective feed back mad e mo re prog ress in using past an d co ndi tio nal forms th an the co m par ison gro up both im me diat ely aft er the period of focused feedback and two monrhs later. Their progress was assessed in terms o f both increased accuracy and the presence of inter­ language forms chat showed students were doing more than repeating forms th ey had heard.

Study 37: Recasts andprompts in French immersion classrooms In C hapter 5, we saw som e o f Roy Lyster's descriptive research on the dif­ ferent types of co rrective feedback provided by teachers in Canadian French immersion programmes and learners' immediate responses (uptake) co mat feedback. More recently, Lyster (2 004) explo red the effecrs ofform-focused instruction and feedback rype on second language learning in an experimen­ tal study with Grade 5 srudenrs in French immersion classes. There were three experimental groups and a comparison group. The experimenral groups received approximately nine hours of explici t instruction over a five-week period, d uring which their attention was drawn to grammatical gender and the fact that word endings can give a clue co grammatical gender in French (see Study 34). Students in rwo of me experimental groups also received cor­ rective feedbac k in the form ofeither recasts or prompts when they produced erro rs in grammatical gender. These feedback types differ in that recasts provide learners wi th the correct model , whereas promprs signal the need for a correcrion and requi re the student co produce the target form through clarification requests, elicitation. and metalinguisric clues (see Chapter 5 for definitions and examples of these different types of feedback). The chird

Study 38: Focus on form through collaborative dialogue Motivated by sociocultural theory and the idea chat language learning occurs in dialogue, Merrill Swain and Sharon Lapkin (2002) observed the language development of two Grade 7 French immersion students as the y wrote a Story collaboratively. Later, in a 'no ticing' activity; the students compared wh at they had written with a reformulated version of the Sto ry. Th e students also took part in a stimulated recal l of their noticing activity. Swain and Lapkin wanted to find out what students noticed about differences berween thei r original versio n and the reformulated one and whecher they made revisions to their original stories based on their collaborative talk about the reformulated version , The talk that learners produced in all phases of the researc h was recorded, transcribed and coded for language-related episodes (LREs) , 'any part of the dialogue where learners talk about the lang uage they produced, and reflect on their language use' (p. 292). An excerpt of the learners' collaborative talk from this study is presented in Chapter 5, Communication Task B. The LREs were coded in terms of whether they focused on lexical, grammatical, or dis­ course features . The researchers used the original story that the rwo learners created together as a pre -test and the stories chat each learner constructed as a post-tese. Both learners were much mo re accurate on the POSt-test version of the Story. The researchers conclude that the multiple opportunities for

189

190

Second language learning in the classroom

learners to engage in collaborative talk on the language features in question led them to a greater understanding of their correct use.

Study 39: Focus on form in task-based instruction In a descri ptive study investigating the importance of th e teacher's role in task- based instruction, Virginia Sarnuda (2001) explored ways of guiding ad ult E5L lear ners' attention to form-meaning relationships by focusing on expressions of possibility and probability (fo r example, 'migh t', 'could', 'it's possible'). In a task design that took learners through a 'meaning to form to meaning progression', learners were first asked to work in groups to speculate on the identity ofan unknown person (for example, age, gender, occupation) by looking at a set ofobje cts thought to have come from that person's pocket. In carrying out th is task, learners were observed to produce expressions of p robability and possibility such as 'It's possible that he smokes' and 'maybe it's a girl' , but few instances of modal auxiliaries (for example , 'must', 'may') were used . In the second phase of the task, the students were asked to come together as a who le group to tell each o ther what they had decided. During this phase, the teacher acted as a co-communicator and maintained the focus on meaning but gtadually shifted to form by using the language that the lear ners had produced on their ow n and ptoviding them with alternative ways ofexpress­ ing uncertainty. Initially, this was done implicidy. For example if a lear ner said something like 'We th ink uh 50 per cent he smokes', the teacher said 'So you're not certain that he smokes?' After each group had presented, the teacher provided a more explicit focus. She drew the learners' attention to other ways of expressing possibility an d probability by overtly talking about language form as shown in the excerp t below (p. 13 1). ST T

Businessman Businessman ninety? OK So you're 90 per cent certain he's a businessman, right? Here's another way to say this. You think it's 90 per cem certain. so you chink he must be a businessman. He must be a businessman (writes it on the board) . So this (points to 'must be' on board) is showing how certain how sure you are. Not 100 per cent, bu t almost 100 per cent. 90 per cent.

In the final stage of the task, the students prepared and presented a posrer based on their conclusions about the identity of the unknown person to the whole class. During this time, the teacher responded to the content and not the form of (heir work. When the researcher examined the differences between expressions of probability and possibility that the students used in the firSt stage of this task and compared it with the final stage , there was evi­ dence of improvement in that many more instances of modal auxil iaries were present in the learners' speech.

Second language learn ing in the classroom

Study 40: The timing ofform-focused instruction Nina Spada and her research team carried out a study to exam ine whether there may be a better time in the instructional sequence to draw learners' attention to form (Spada et al. 2012). Two classes of intermediate-level adult ESL learners were provided with 12 hours of instruction that differed in terms of whether attention to form was em bedd ed in communicative activities or separated from communicative prac tice. They are referred to as integrated and isolated form-focused instruction. The target feature was the passive construction and learners were tested on their knowledge of it before instruction, immediately after instruction. and again three weeks later. A second question motivating the research was whether the rwo types of instruction might lead to different kinds of L2 knowledge. This question was informed by transfer-appropriate processing theory and the idea that we are more likely to remember something we have learned if the cogni­ tive processes that are activated during the learning process are the same as those activated during retrieval (see Chapter 4): Thus , the researchers were interested in whether learners who obtained their knowledge of the passive while participating in com m un icative interactio n (i.e. integrared FFI) were better at retrieving that knowledge on an oral communication task than the learners who received isolated FFI. Similarly, they wanted to explore whether learners who obtained thei r knowledge of the passive structure in grammar activities that were separated fro m communicative practice (i.e. isolate d FFI) were better at retr ieving their knowledge on a written grammar test than the learn ers who received integrated FFI. Learners in both the integrated and isolated FFI classes improved signifi­ cantly on both language measures over time. The find ings also revealed some support for TAP in that learners who received integrated FFI outper formed the isolated FFI learners on the oral communication task and the learn ­ ers who received isolated FFI outperformed the integrated learners on the written grammar resr. The overall results of this study point to the complementarity of the two types of ins truction, likely due to the fact that they both provide a focus on form and meaning, albeit at different times. ACTIVITY

Match pedagogical activities with teaching proposals

Below are brief descriptions of 12 pedagogical activities. Match each activity with the teaching proposal it represents and explain how you reached that conclusion. For example, an activity such as 'Fill in the blanks with the correct form of the verb' represents the 'Get it right from the beginning' proposal because such grammatical exercises are typical of the grammar translation approach with its emphasis on rule learning and accuracy. Keep in mind

191

192

Second language Learn ing in th e classroom

tha t in some cases. an activity is compatible with more than one teaching prop o sal.For exa mple, if the se ntences in the 'Fill in the blanks' activity came from an earlier draft of a letter w ritten for a co mmunicative activity.it might be co nsist ent with the 'Get it right in the end ' proposal because it int egra tes attention to language form in a meaning-based activity. I Role-playa conversation between a travel agent and a tourist.

2 Memorize a dialogue abo ut buying airline tickets.

3 Underline the past tense ver bs while rea ding a sto ry.

4 Arrange illustrations in the co rrect sequence after listening to a st o r y.

S W ork with a partner to write a story based on a cartoon strip.

6 Rearrange a set of scrambled words to form correct questions.

7 Deba te or discuss a topic that was featured in a newspape r ar ticle.

S Watch an episode of Sesame Street.

9 Demonstrate and describe the steps in a science experiment.

10 Interview a mystery guest and try

to

discover his or he r occupation.

II Playa game of 'Simo n Says'.

12 Work in small groups to choose the ideal candidate for a job.

Interpreting the research

The overall results of the studies described above provide support for me

hypothesis mat form-focused instruction and co rrective feedback can help

learners improve the ir knowledge and use of particular grammadcal features.

There is also co m pellin g evidence that more explicit attention to form is par­

ticularly usefu l within communicative and content-based second and foreign

language programmes. This has been confirmed in reviews and meta-analy­

ses of many studies that ha ve investigated the contribution of form-focused

instruction to U learning (N o rris and Ortega 2000; Spada 2011 ). Some

results also show, however, that the effects of instruction are not always

long-lasting. This may be related to whether there is continued exposure to

a linguis tic feature in the regular classroom input after the experimental treat­

merit ends .

We have also seen that form-focused instruction may be more effective with

some language features than with others. For example, the successful lea rn ­

ing of the tul uous distinction in Lyster's (1994 ) study could be d ue to the

fact th at learning tu and uous is essentially a matter of learni ng rwo im po r­

tant vocabulary items and thus may have been less d ifficul t to learn th an

syntactic features that affect meaning in less obvious ways. In the intensive

ESL research, learn ers may have been more successful after instruction on

Second language Learning in the classroom

possessive determi ne rs than q uestio ns becau se the re is a stro nge r fo rm­ meaning connection with possessive determiners man with questions. Other language featu res for which form-focused instruction may playa crucial role are those mat are influenced by the learn ers' first language, particularly wh en there are misleading similarities between L1 and U. Th e difficulty may be inc reased in second language classrooms w here learn ers share me same first language and reinforce each other's first language-based errors. Finally: the rules associated with some language features are more complex than others. For example, the article system in English is both complex and abst ract and notoriously difficult to teach and learn. Thus, learners may be better off learning abo u t articles via exposure in the input. On the o th er hand a simple 'rule of thumb' suc h as 'put an -$ at the end of a noun to make it plural' may be a better target fo r instruction. In a recent meta-analysis of th e effecss of type of in struction on 'co m plex' and 'sim ple' language features, however, Spada and Tom ita (20 10) report that explicit instruction promoted learningJo r both types o flang uage features. Research o n integrated and iso lat ed FFI is a rern inde r that the tim in g o f

fo rm- focuse d instructi on may also make a di fferen ce in L2 1earning. Sa rnu da's

stu dy w ith adult ESL learners is a good exam ple of integ rated FFI, illust rat­

ing how teac he rs can effec tively di rect students' attention to form w ith in

task-bas ed in struction. The finding th at iso lated and integrated FF I lead to

different kinds ofL2 knowledge is intrigu ing and resonates with th e experi­

ence of many teachers . That is, reachers of second/foreign languages know

that explicit rule -based grammar teaching without co m m un icative practice

is likely to lead to a fairly good knowledge of the rules of grammar but nor

th e ability to use the rules in meaningful and spontaneous language produc­

tion. These differences in L2 kn owledge have been vario usly referred to as

d eclarative versus procedural and learning ve rsus acquisition , as discussed

in Chapter 4, or as explicit versus im plicit kn owledge. Expli cit knowledge is

typ ical ly des cribed as co nscio us and analysed, whereas im plicit knowledge is

co nsidered to be lnruitive and unanalysed.

Some theo rists and researchers claim rha t L2 instruction can lead to exp licit

knowledge only. Furthermore, they argue tha t the results from meta-analyses

show ing positive effects for L2 instructio n are due to the fact that the rests used

to assess learn e rs' progress in me majority of studies have measured expl icit

knowledge using, for example, disc rete-poim grammar tests. Fo rt unat ely,

recent research has included a grea ter variety o f language measures to rap

in to learn ers' intuitive L2 knowledge such as oral communication tasks and

time-p ressured tasks that require learners to retrieve thei r knowledge quickly

without having tim e to 'th ink abou t it'. Nonetheless, we won't have a clear

answer to th e question ofwhat type ofknowledge resul ts from L2 instruction

193

194

Second language lea rn ing in the classroom

until valid and reliable tests of both im plicit and explicit knowledge are used in a larger num be r of studies (Ellis er al. 20 09). Similar issues have been raised about research on corrective feedb ack but the central focus of th is wo rk has been on investigating whe the r certain types of cor rective feedb ack are mo re effective than oth ers. The results fro m Lyster's stu dy in French im me rsion pro grammes suggests that learners benefit more from feedback th at pushes th em to self-correct (i.e. p ro m pts ) th an from feed­ bac k th at p rovides the correct form (Le. recasts). Research in o ther conte xts, however, has p roduced diffe rent results . Fo r example, the majo rity ofla bora­ tory st udi es of co rrective feed back report benefits for recasts over o the r types o f corrective feed back includi ng prompts (Mackey and Goo 20 07). Th ese conflict ing find ings are likely related to differen ces in context-the labora­ to ry is a mote controlled environment than the classroo m , whe re there are competing dem ands on lear ners' attention. As a resul t, learners may notice certain types of feedback in th e one-on-one laborato ry int eractions more than they do in the classroo m in communicative or COntent-based classes, where the primary focus is on mean ing. As d iscussed in Chapter 5, the specifi c pedagog ical activity in which correc­ tive feed back is provided also plays an im po rtan t role in terms o f whe ther learn ers recognize it as corrective feedback. Th e tim ing o f corrective feed back may also be impo rtan t in L2 learning. To date little research has explore d whether it is pre ferable, fo r example, to provide feed back during or afrer com m un icative pr act ice. O ne study of this issue was carried OUt by James Hunter (20 12). He investigated the effectiveness of feed back that the teac her provided after stu dent s ha d par ticipated in st udent-led conversations. His findings show that such an ap p roach can result in a h igher proportion of repa ir than feedback provi ded in whole-class teacher-led activities.

Recently there have been a number of meta-analyses of studies investigat­ ing the effectiven ess of L2 corrective feedb ack o n L2 oral prod uction. The results are m ixed , wi th some reporting benefits for recasts over other types of feed bac k (Li 2010) and others reporring advantages for p rompts over recasts (Lyster and Saito 20 10). Until there is greater con sens us o n the co nt rib utions of different types of corrective feedback on L2 [ear n ing, a prudent approach would be to provide learners with a var iety of d ifferent types of corrective feed back and to keep in mi nd the co unterbalanc e hypothesis presente d in Chapter 5, whic h suggests that more explicit corrective feedback may be effective in contexts where th e learners' attention is focused on m ean ing / content while imp licit feed back may be sufficient to at tract learners' atten­ tion in contexts where the focus of ins truction is typically o n language fo rm .

1

Second language learning in the classroom

Assessing the proposals Although there is still much work to do , it seem s evident that proposals rep­ resenting an almost exclusive focus on form or those representing an almost exclusive focus on meaning alone can not be recommended. Approaches that provid e atten tion to form wi thi n communicative and con tent -based int erac ­ tio n receive the most support from classroo m research. We kn ow that some exceptionally gifi:ed learne rs will succeed in second lang uage learn ing regardless of the teaching meth od . In the schools of the world, grammar translation is no dou bt the most widely applied method an d mo st of us have met individuals whose advanced p roficiency in a fore ign language develo ped Out o f th eir experience in such classes. Simila rly, audio­ lingual instruction has produced highly p roficient second language speakers. However , we also know-from personal experience and research findings­ that th ese methods leave many learners frustrated an d unable to participate in ordi nary con versations, even mer years o f classes. G rammar tra nslation and audiolingual approaches will continue to be used, but th e evide nce sug­ gests that 'Get it righ t from the beginning' does no t correspo nd to th e way the majority of successful second language learners have acq uired their pro ­ ficiency. On the other hand, in throwing out co ntrast ive analysis , feedback on error, and rnetalinguistic exp lanations and gu idance, the 'comm unicative revoluti on' may have gone toO far. There is increasing evide nce that learners continue to have difficulty with basic structures of the language in programmes that offer littl e or no fo rm ­ focused inst ru ctio n. This calls into question extre m e versions of the 'Just liste n . .. and read ' and ' Get two fo r o ne' pro posals. While there is good evidence that lear ners make considerable progress in both com prehen­ sion and production in comprehensio n-based programmes, we do not find suPPOrt for the hypothesis that lan gu age acquisition wi ll take care of itself if second language learners sim ply focus on meaning in comprehensi ble in put. Comprehension-based ap proaches are most successfu l wh en they include guided attention to language features as a co mpo nent of instructio n. Th e 'Le t's talk' proposal raises sim ila r co ncerns. Opportunities for learners to engage in conversati onal interactions in group and paired activ ities can lead to increased comm unicative competence an d the ability to manage conversa­ tio ns in a second lan guage. However, the research also shows that learners m ay make slow prog ress on acquiring more accurate and sophi sti cated language if there is no focus on form. This is espe cially tru e in classes where students' shared langua ge an d learning backgrounds allow the m to communicate successfully in sp ite of their errors. Because 'Let's talk' em phasizes mean ing an d attem pt s to simulate 'natu ral' comm un icati o n in co nversational inter­ action, the students' focus is naturally on what they say, not how to say it. Fu rt he rmore, when feed back on error takes th e form o f recasts , lear ners may

195

1

196

Second language learning in the classroom

Second language learning in the classroom

interpret it as a co nt in uatio n o f the conversati on ramer than focus on form. Th us, programmes based on the 'Le t's talk' approach are incomplete on their own, and learners' gains in confidence and conversational skills may not be marched by their development of more accurate and complex language. Id s important to emphasize that the evidence to su ppo rt a role for for m­ focused instruction and corrective feedback does not suggest a return to the ' G et it right from the beginning' approach. Research has shown that learn­ ers do benefit considerably from communicative interaction and instructi o n that is meaning-based. The results of research in French immersion , other co nt ent- based language teac hing, and communicative ESL are strong indicators that learners develop higher levels of fluency through pr imarily meaning-based instruction than through rigidl y grammar-based instructi o n. Th e problem is that certain aspectS oflinguistic knowledge and performance are not fully developed in such programmes. Research investigating the 'Teach what is teachab le' proposal is no t yet at a poi nt where it is possible ro say to teach ers: 'H ere is a list oflin gui stic features and the o rde r in wh ich th ey will be acq ui red . You shou ld teach them in th is order'. Th e number of featu res that researche rs have in vestig at ed in experi­ me ntal studies wi thi n th is framewo rk is far to o sm all. O n the othe r hand, the re has been no stro ng evid ence tha t teaching acco rd ing to th e develop ­ mental sequences is necessary or even desirable or that it will improve the long-term results in lan guage learning. What is mos t valuable about this pro­ posal is that it serves to help teachers set realistic expectations about th e ways in which learners' interlanguage may change in response to instruction . The im p lica tions of 'Teach what is teachable' may be seen primarily in me fact th at genuine progress in second language development must be measured in ways that include, but are not limited to , increased accuracy in language production . According to th e 'G et it right in tire end' proposal, classroom activities sho uld be built primarily on creating opportunities for students to exp ress and understand meaningful language. However, this proposal is based on the hypothesis that form-focused instruction and corrective feedback are also essent ial for learners' continued growth and development. The challenge is to find m e balance between meaning-based and form-focused activities. The righr balanc e is likely to be different acco rdi ng to th e ch aract er istics of me learners. The learn ers' age , rnetaling uisric sophistication, prior ed ucational experiences , rnoriva tion , and goals, as well as the similarity of the target lan ­ guage co a language already known need to be taken into account when decisions are made about the amount and type of form focus to offer. Class room data from a n umber of studies offer support fo r the view that form-foc used instruc tion and cor rec t ive feedback provided within me co nt ext o f comm uni ca tive and content-base d programmes are more effective

in promo ting second lan gu age learn ing tha n programmes that are lim ited to a virtu ally exclusive emphasis on comprehension , Huen cy, or accuracy alone. Thus, we would argue mat second lang uage teachers can (and should) provide guided , form-foc used instruction an d corrective feedback in certain circu m stances. For example, teachers sh o uld not hesitate to correct persistent erro rs th at learners seem not to notice wi tho ut focused arren tion. Teach ers sho uld also be especially aware of errors mat m e majority of learners in a class are making when they share me same first language background . They should not hesitate to provide co ntr astive information about how a partic­ ular structure in a learner's first language differs from me target language. Teachers might also try to become more aware oflanguage features that are JUS t beginning to emerge in the seco nd language development of their Stu­ dents and provide so me guided instruction in me use of th ese forms . It can also be useful to encourage learners to take part in the process by creating activities that draw their attention to th e forms they use in communicarive activities, by developing contexts in which th ey can provide each other with feedbac k, and by encou raging th em to ask quesrions about langu age. De cisio ns about wh en and how to provide form focus must take in to account d ifferences in learner characte ristics, of co urse . Q u ite d ifferent approaches would be appropriate for, say, trai ned lingu ists learn ing a fo urth o r fifth language, yo ung ch ild ren beginnin g their schooling in a seco nd langu age enviro n ment , both yo un ger and olde r irnrnigrants w ho cannot read and w rire th eir own language, and adolescents stu dy ing a foreign language for a few hours a week at schoo l.

Summary M any teache rs are aware of the need to balance form focus and m eaning

focus , and they may feel that recommendations based on research simply

co nfirm th eir current classroom practice. Although this ma y be true to so me

extent , it is hardly the case that all teachers hav e a clear sense of how best to

acco m plish their goal. It is not always easy to step back from familiar prac­

tices and say, 'I wonder if this is really th e most effective way to go abo u t

th is?' Furthermo re, it can be difficult to try OUt classroom practices that go

against the prevailing trends in their educational contexts. Many teachers still

work in enviro nments where mere is an emphasis on accuracy that virtually

excludes spo ntaneous language use in the classroom. At me same rime, the

introd uction of communicarive language teaching methods has sometimes

resulted in a co m plete rejection of attention to form and error-correction in

second lan guage teaching. But it is not necessary to choose between form­

based and meaning-based instruction. Rather, the challenge is co find the

best balance between these two orientatio ns.

19~

198

Second language Learning in the classroom Classroom-based research on second language learning and teaching has given us parcial answers co many questions. Through continuing research and experience, resear chers and teachers will fill in more details, always rec ­ ognizin g m at no Single answe r wi ll be adequate for all lear n ing environmen ts. Among the questions we will continue to ask are these: • How can classroom instructio n provide the righ t balan ce of meaning­ based and form- focused instruction? • Which features of lan guage w ill respond best co for m-focused instruc­ tion, and which will be acquired without explicit focus if/earners have adequate access co m e language? • Which learners will respo nd we ll co rne ral in gui sric informatio n an d which w ill require so m e other way of focusi ng attentio n on language form? • When is it best co draw learners' attention co fo rm-before, aft er, or during communicative practice? " How should corrective feedback on lan guage form be offered? e When sho uld lear ners be allowed [Q focus their attention on th e content of thei r utt eran ces?

1

Second language Learning in the classroom

Suggestions for further reading Ellis, R. 2012 . Language Teaching Research and Language Pedagogy. Malden , MA: Wiley-Blackwell. In thi s volume, Ellis focuses on research tha t is designed specifically co inves tigate the role of teach ing in sec o nd language learning. He review s bo th the m ethods an d m e find ings from a vast n umber of studies . Ellis app roaches the task from his d ual perspectives as a resear cher and as edi tor of me journal Language Teaching Research, which publishes me wo rk of scholars an d educators who are investigating language teaching around the world. Throughout the book, links are made be tween me research and its implications for language pedagogy.

Continued classroom-centred researc h, including me action research by teachers in their ow n classro o ms , will provide further insights into th ese and o ther important issues in second langua ge teaching and lear ning.

Hedge, T. 2000 . Teaching and Learning in the Language Classroom. Oxford : Oxford Universiry Press. Th is is a useful reference book fo r the classroom teacher. It covers a wide ran ge of topics releva nt to the 'teach in g an d learn ing of second/foreign lan guages. It is divided into fo ur sections: a framework fo r teaching and learning, teaching the language system, de veloping the language skills, planning, and assessing learning. Eac h chapter moves from th eo retical to p ractical co nsideratio ns an d there is extensive use of tasks , activi ties, an d teach ing materials to motivate reade rs co reflect o n th e ideas p resented in relation to their own practice.

Que sti ons for reflection

Lyster, R. 2007. Learning and Teaching Language through Content: A Counterbalanced Approach. Amsterd am: John Benjamins.

I Keeping in mind that individual lea rner differe nces play an important role in seco nd language learn ing, do you t hink a particu lar learn er pr ofile might be more compatible with on e of the teaching proposals than anothe r ? 2 If you were go ing to experiment with a new app roac h to teac hing in your classroom. wh ich of th e six pr o posals des cribed in this chapt e r woul d yo u choose?Why? 3 This chapte r co ncludes with the sugges tion that 'Get it right in the e nd' is the best ap pro ach. Is t his con sist ent wit h your own views ?Why/w hy not?

This bo ok provides a comprehensive description and analysis oflanguage teaching and lear n ing in co ntent- based classrooms. With a pr imary bur no t exclusive focus on research in French immersion programmes in C anad a, Roy Lyster synthesizes decades of empirical work m at has sought solutions co the challenges of teaching language and content simultane­ ously. The au thor's experience as both teacher and researcher is evident in the useful connections m ad e be tween theory and practice. Nation, I. S. P. and]. M a calist er. 20 10. Language Cu rriculu m Design. N ew York: Routledge. Paul Nation has proposed four 'strands' mat are seen as essential-and of equal importance-in a language teaching programme. The four strands are: m eaning-focused input, m ea n in g-focused o utput, lan guage-focused learning, an d fluency development. Together they tep resent a balanced app roa ch ro language teach ing mat is compatible with research o n class­ room learning. O rigin ally base d on Nation's research in vocabulary learning, me four strands may also be see n as the elements ofa lesson , a syl­ labus, o r even a curriculu m. N atio n (20 07 ) introduces m e ideas, an d th is book elaborates on the fu ll range of issues related [Q cur ric ul um desi gn.

199

POPULAR IDEAS ABOUT

LANGUAGE LEARNING REVISITED '

Preview In thi s chapte r, we ret urn to th e 18 statements tha t yo u respo nded to in the Introduction and summarize some of the related researc h and theory that we have discussed in thi s book, shari ng so me of our ow n views about these popular opinions.

ACTIVITY

Review your opinions

In the Introduction. we asked you to indicate how strongly you agreed with some popular ideas about language learning.Before you continue reading this chapter.go back and comp lete the questionnaire again.Compare the responses you gave then and thos e you would give now. Have your views about second language acquisition been changed or confirmed by what you've read in the preceding chapters?

Reflecting on the popular ideas: Learning from research 1 Languages are learned mainly through imitation It is difficult to find support for the argument that lan guages are learned mainly through imi tation, because nrst and second language learners produce many novel sentences that th ey could no t hav e heard before. These sentences are based on thei r developi ng under stan ding of how the language system works. This is evident in ch ild ren's sentences such as 'I'm hiccing up and I can't stop', and 'It was upside down bur I turned it upside right' , and with second language learners who say 'Th e cowboy tided into town', or 'Th e ma n th at I spo ke to him is angry'. These exam p les and many others provide evi­ dence that language learners do more than internalize a large list of imitated

202

Popular ideas about language !earning revisited

and memorized sentences. They also identify patterns in the language and extend them to new co ntexts. If we use a narr ow definit ion of imi ta tion (the im mediate repetition of all or part ofan o th er speaker's utterance) we find that so me ch ild ren im ita te a grea t deal as they acquire their first language. Even these childre n, however, do not im itate everything th ey hear. Instead, they selectively imi tate certain wo rds or structures tha t they are in th e p rocess of lear ning. Fu rtherm ore, child ren who do little overt imitation lear n language as quickly and as well as tho se who imi tate more. Thus, this type of imitation may be an individual learning strategy but it is not a universal ch arac teris tic oflanguage learners. Some secon d language learne rs also find it useful ro imitate sam ples of th e new language. Classroom researchers have observe d students who repeat what they hear others say, and some advan ced lear ners who are determined to improve their p ronu nciation find it helpful to spend time carefully listening to and imi­ tating language in a language labo ratory or tu torial. However, for beg inni ng learners, the imitation and rote memorizatio n tha t characterizes audiolingual approaches to language teaching is not effective iflearners do not also use the sentences and p hrases they are prac ticing in meaningful interaction. Learners need ro do more than recite bits ofaccurate language in d rills and dialogues. Nevertheless, recent findings from corpus linguistics have p rovided a new appreciation for form ulaic lan guage use. We know from the d iscussion of usage-based theories d iscussed in C hap ter 4 that a great deal of na tural Ian­ guage use is p redictable on the basis of the frequency with whic h wo rds o r phrases occur rogerher, Learners create strong associations between lan guage features that tend to occ ur together. Thus, lang uage is parrly learn ed in chunks larger than single words. However, this internalization of the input does no t depend on the learner's imitation of all or part of another person's utt erance in a rote-repetition fashion. It is the co m bined exposure ro language fearures in the inp ut and their use in meaningful exchanges th at leads to learning.

Pop ular ideas about language learning revisited

spee ch . Thus, th ey may co rrect an incorrect wo rd choic e, an incorrect state­ ment of the facts, or a rude remark, but the y do no t often react ro errors th at do not interfere with communication. What this tells us is that child ren cannot depend on consistent corrective feedback in order to learn the basic structure (th e word order, the grammatical morphemes, the intonation pat­ terns) of th eir language . Fortunately, they ap pear to be ab le to acqui re th e ad ult fo rm o f the lan guage with little or no explicit feedback. The case fo r second language learners is more complex. On the one han d , both children and adults can acquire a great deal of lang uage without any formal instr uction or feedback on error. On the other hand, the evidence suggests that, wi th o ut corrective feedback an d gu idan ce, secon d lang uage learners m ay persist in using cer tain ungrammatical for ms for years.

3 Highly intelligent people ar e good language learners Th e kind of intelligence that is measured by IQ tests is often a good pred ictor ofsuccess in classrooms where the emp hasis is o n learning abou t th e language (fo r example. grammar ru les). Peop le who do well o n IQ tests ma y do well o n other kinds of tests as well. However, in narurallanguage learning settings an d in classrooms where interactive language use is emphasized, research has shown that lear ners with a wide variety of intelle ctual ab ilities can be successful language learn ers. This is especially true if the emphasis is on oral co mmunication skills rather than meralinguistlc knowledge . Most important , it m ust be recalled that language learning involves a great ma ny different skills and ab ilities that are no t m easured by IQ tests. Stu dents sho uld not be excluded from opportunities to lear n another language on the gro unds tha t the y do not have the academic ab ility to succeed . In man y educational contexts, students from immigran t or mino rity groups have no cho ice ab out learning a second lan guage. What is essential is to find ways to engage the different abilities th at students bring to the learn ing enviro nment.

2 Parents usually correct young children w hen they m ake gram.matical errors

4 The best predictor ofsuccess in secon d language acquisition is motivation

There is considerable variation in the extent to which parents correct thei r children's speech . The variation is based partly on the ch ildren's age and partly on th e paren ts' social, ling uistic, and educational background. When chil dre n are very young, pare nts rarely comment on grammatical errors, although they may correct lapses in poli teness or the choice of a word that doesn't make sense. As child ren reach school age, parents may co rrect the kinds of non-standard speech that they hope their children will OUtgrow, fo r exam ple, 'M e and Fred are go ing outside now'.

Everyone agrees th at learn ers who Want to learn ten d to d o better than those who don't. But we must not interpret this too rigidly. Sometimes, even highly moti vated learn ers encounter grea t challenges in language lear ning. We kn ow, for example, tha t lear ners who begin lear ni ng a second language as ad ults rarely achieve th e fluency and accuracy that childre n do in first lan guage acq uisition . Th is sho uld not be taken as evidence that ad ult second lan guage learners are not motiva ted to learn . It may be a reflectio n o f chan ges that come with age or of other ind iv id ual d ifferen ces such as language lear ning ap tit ud e, how the instr uction inte racts with ind ivid ual learn ers' styles an d pre ferences for learnin g, how m uch tim e the learner can devo te to learn ing

Extensive observatio ns of parents and ch ildren show that, as a rule, pare nts tend to focus on meaning rather than form when they correct chil dren's

203

204

Papular ideas ab out language learning revisited

the new language, and what o ppo rt uni ties the learner has to use th e language outside the classroom. Teachers have no influence over learners' intrinsic motivation for learning a seco nd language. Students come [0 classrooms from different backgrounds a nd life experiences, all of which ha ve contributed [0 their motivation [0 learn and their arrirudes toward the target language and thecomrnuniry with which it is associated. The principal way that teachers can influence learners' motivation is by making the classroom a supportive environment in which stu de nts are stimulated, engaged in activities that are appropriate [0 their age , interests, and cultural backgrounds, and, most importantly, where students can experience success. This in turn can contribute [0 positive motivation . leading to still greater success. .

5 The earlier a second language is introduced in school programmes, the gre~ter the likelihood of success in learning The decision ab out w he n to introduce seco nd o r fore ign la ng uag e in st ru cti on mus t dep e nd o n th e o b ject ives of th e lan gu age program me in th e parti cu lar soc ial co ntex t of th e school, W he n the o bjective is nat ive-lik e pe rfor man ce in the second lan gu age, th en it may be des ira ble to begin expos ure ro the language as early as possible. as long as lear ners have exte nsive exposure to a nd opportunities to use th e second lan guage in a var iety of contexts . The research evid en ce is fairly strong th at those who begin second language learn­ ing at an early age a re most likely to eventually be indistinguishable from na tive speakers .

Papular ideas about language learning revisited

first lan guage . o r th ey live in jurisdi cti ons whe re legislation has mandat ed a

single language of education tor all children, regardless of their background.

For the se children, it is crucial [0 have sensitive educators wh o respect the

children's difficulty, who encourage parents to maintain the home language,

an d w ho un derstan d that second language learning takes time and effo rt .

Fo r foreign lan guage instruction or for second language instruction where

th e level of proficiency that is targeted is not native-like performance by all

students, the situation is quite different. When the goal of the educational

p ro gram m e is basic co m m un ica tive skill for all students, and where there is a

strong commitment [0 maintaining and developing the child's first language,

it can be more efficient to begin second language teaching later. Older chil­

dren (fo r example, 10-year-olds) are able [0 catch up quickly with those who

began earlier (fo r example, at 6-7 years old) in programmes offering only a

few hours a week ofinstruction . This is especially true if the for eign language

course include s a period of more intensive exposure to the new language.

A.ll scho o l p rog rammes sho uld be base d o n realistic esti mates of how lon g

it takes to lea rn a seco nd lan gu age. O ne o r two hou rs a week-even for

seve n o r eigh t years-will not produce adv anced seco nd lan gua ge speakers.

Th is 'drip-feed' approach ofte n leads to fru stratio n, as learn ers feel that th ey

have bee n studying 'for years' withou t maki ng m uc h progress. Sad ly, th ey are

ofte n righc about thi s.

6 Most of the mistakes that second language learners make are due to interference from their first language

However, even in cases where native-like proficiency is targeted, it is impor­ tant to recognize certain disadvantages of an early star t for seco nd language learning. \Vhen an earl y star t means that children have little opporruniry to contin ue to develop their first language, the resulting subtractive bilingual­ ism may ha ve lasting negative consequences .

First, we should recognize that knowledge ofone or more languages can con­ tribute positively to many aspects of second or to reign language learning. If the languages are relatively close co usins (for example, English and German, Span ish and French), there is much that learners already ' kn ow'- includ ing -t he alphabet, cognate words. as well as some basic principles of syntax,

For ch ild ren from minori ry-Ianguage backgrounds, programmes promoting the development of the first language both at home and at school may be more important for long-term success in the second language than an early stare in the seco nd language itself. Research shows that a good foundation in th e child's first language, including the development of literacy. is a sound base to build on. Children who can begin their schooling in a language they already know will have more self-confidence, will be able [0 learn more effec­ tively in the early school years, and will not lose valuable time in a period of limbo during which the y struggle JUSt to understand what is happening in the classroom .

On the other hand , the transfer of panerns from the native language is one

of the major sources of errors in learner language. When errors are caused by

learners' perception of some partial similariry between the first and second

languages, they may be difficult to overcome, especially when learners are

frequently in contact with other learners who make the same errors .

For many children, there is no opportunity to have their early schooling in their first language . They are members of smal l minoriry groups where it is not practical for schools to offer them an educational p rogramme in thei r

Aspects of the second language that are different from the first language will not neces sarily be acquired later or with more difficulry than th ose aspects that are sim ilar. Second language learning is not simply a process of putting seco nd- language words into first-language sentences. In fact, learners may not always be able to take advantage of similarities unless they are pointed o u r to rh ern , Learners can be overl y discriminating, failing to take advantage ofsim ilarities because they assume, sometimes incorrectly, that the languages must be different.

205

206

Popula r ideas about langu ag( l(arning reuisite.

Popular ideas about language learning revisited

However, me first language is nor me only influence on second language learning. Learners fro m different backgrounds often make me same ki nds of errors, an d some of thes e errors are remarkably similar to those made by first lan guage lear ners. In such cases, second-language erro rs are evidence of me learners' efforrs to discover m e structu re of the targe t language itself rather man attem pts to tran sfer patterns from fheir firsr lan guage.

understand and to make themselves und erstood if th ey also have an under­ standing ofso me of the pragmatic feature s ofthe new language. For exam ple, it is useful for them to focu s their attention on suc h things as how speakers show respect. apologize, or make requests . Th e cul tural d ifferences in these types of interactions so metimes lead to comm unication breakdown or mis­ understan d ings, even when the words and the sentence structu res are correct.

7 The best w ay to learn new vocabulary is through reading

10 Teachers should p resen t grammati cal rules one at a ti me, and learners sho uld practise each one before go ing on to another

This statement is true but it does not tell me whole Story. Children expand their vocab ulary dramatically during their school years, and reading is me major source o f th is growth . Second language learners can also increase their vocab ulary knowledge th ro ugh reading, bur few seco nd language learners will read th e amount of target langu age text m ar a ch ild reads in m e co urse of more m an a d ecad e of schooling. Researc h evidence suggesrs tha t second language learners benefit from oppor­ tunities to read material that is interesting and important to them. However, thos e who also receive guidance from instr uc tio n and develop goo d strate­ gies for lear n ing and remembering words will be nefit more m an those who simply focus on getting the m ain ideas fro m a text. What is per ha ps most striki ng in me research is the evide nce m at in order to successfully guess me m eani ngs of new words in a text , a reade r usuall y needs to know more than 90 per cent of me words in mat text.

8 It is essential for learners to be ab le to pronounce all the individual sounds in the second language Research o n pronunciation has shown tha t second language speakers' ab ility to m ake themselves understood depends more on their ab ility to rep roduce the phrasing and stress patterns-the 'melody' of the language-than on their ability to ar ticulate each individual sound. Ano ther important em p ha­ sis in current research is the undeniable fact that most languages o f m e wo rld are spoken in many diffe rent varieties. Thus, it no longer seems appropriate to insist that learners be tau gh t only one language variety or that only native speakers of a particular variety are the best teac hers. Rather, learners need to learn to understand and pro du ce language varieties that will permit them to engage in communicative inceraction with th e interlocutors they are most likely to encounter.

Second lan guage learn ing is not simply linear in irs development. Learners may use a par ticular form accu rately at Stage x (suggesting mat they have lear ned that fo rm), fail to produce the fo rm (o r make errors whe n they attempt it) at Stage y, and produce it accurately again at Srage z. The decline in accuracy at stage y may show that learners are incorporating new informa­ tio n about the language into their incerlanguage. We saw, for example, how learn ers may ask co rrect fo rm ulaic questions such as 'Wh ar's that? ' or 'How do you say proche in English? ' an d th en produce questions like 'What you're doing wit h that?' at a larer rime . Language development is no r just adding one ru le afte r ano ther, Rather. ir involves processes of incegrating new lan ­ guage for ms an d patterns inco an existing inrerlanguage , readjusting and resrructuring u nt il all the pieces fir, Some structure-based approaches to teaching are based on the false assump­ tio n that seco nd language development is an accumulation o f ru les. This can be seen in the organization of textbooks that introduce a parti cular language feature in the first unit and reinforce it in several subsequent units , and then move on th e nex t featu re, with only rare opportunities for lear ners to p ractise the ones previously raught. This isolated presenta rion an d pr actice of on e structure at a time does not provide learn ers with an opportunity to discover how different language features compare and contrast in normal language use. It is also likely mat, without opporrunities to continue hearin g, seeing, and using them , the language features learned in the firsc unit will have been forgotten long befo re the lase.

11 Teachers should teach simple language structures before complex ones

9 Once learners know 1,000 words and th e basic struct ure ofa second language, they can easily participate in conversations with native speakers

Research has shown mat no ma tter how language is prese nced to learn ers, certain structures are acquired before others. Th is suggesrs that it is nei ther necessary nor desirable to restrict learners' exposure to structures ma t are per ­ ceived in linguistic terms to be 'sim ple'- particularly when this invo lves the isolated presentation, ordering, and p ractice o f''simple' to 'complex' features .

It is true th at most conversational language involves only a relatively limited nu mber of wo rds and sentence typ es. H owever, learners will find it easier to

At the same tim e, there is no do u b t mar second lang uage learners benefit from th e effo rts of na tive speakers an d fluent bilinguals to modify the ir speech

207

208

Popular ideas about la ngu age learn ing revisited

help them understand. Th e language used in modified interaction may contain a variety of lin gu isric structures, some 'sim p le' and some 'com plex'. However, it also includes a range ofadjustments that enable second language learners to engage in interactions with native and more advanced speakers of the second language more easily-mo re repetition. slower rate o f delivery, paraphrasing, etc . [Q

Teachers must also be aware, however, that some linguistic forms are so rare in classroom language that learners have little opportunity [Q hea r, use, and learn them if th e teacher does no t make a point of providing them. These are not necessarily difficult o r complex forms . As we saw in Chapter 6 . some 'sim ple' language forms turn our to be extremely rare in classroom language. even in content-based instr uctio n.

12 Learners' errors should be corrected as soon as they are made in order to prevent the formation of bad habits Errors are a natural part o fl anguage learnin g. Thi s is true of the development of a chi ld's first langu age as well as of seco nd langua ge learn in g by ch ild ren and ad ults . Errors reflect the parterns of learners' develo pi ng interlan gu age systems- showing ga ps in their knowledge, overgeneralizario n of a second lang uag e rul e, o r an inap p ro p riate tra nsfer of a first lan gu age pattern to the second language. Teachers have a responsibility to help learn ers do their best , and this includes th e provision o f explicit, form-focused instruction and feedback on error. When errors are persistent, especially wh en they are shared by almost all stu­ dents in a class, it is important to bring the problem to their attention . This does nor mean that learn ers should be expe cted to adop t the correct form or pattern immediately or consistently. If the error reflects a developmental stage, the instruction or feedback may be useful only when the learn er is ready for it. It rnay be nece ssary to repeat feedback on the same error many times . Of cour se, excessive feedback on error can have a negative effect on motiva­ tion; teachers need to be sensi tive to their students' reactions to correction . The amount and type of co rrec tion that is offered will also vary according to the specific char acteristics of the students , as well as thei r relationship wi th the teacher and with each other. Children and adults wi th little ed ucation in their first language will not benefi t greatly from sophisticated metalin­ guis tic explanations , but university students w ho are advanced learners of the lan guage may find such explanations of great value. Immediate reaction to erro rs in an oral communicatio n setting may embarrass some students and discourage them from speaking wh ile others welcome such correction as exactly what is needed ro help them notice a persistent error at JUSt the moment when it occu rs.

Popula r ideas about language {earning revisited

13 Teachers should use materials that expose students only to language structures they have already been ta ught Such a p roced ure can provide comprehensible inp ut of course, bur-given a meaningful context -learners can comprehend the general meaning of oral or written texts that contain vocabulary and structures they ha ve not 'mas­ tered'. Thus, restricting classroom second language materials to those th at contain little or nothing that is new may have several negative consequences. There will undoubtedly be a loss of motivation if students are nor sufficiently challe nged. Students also need to develop str ategies for dealing with 'real ' o r 'auth entic' material if they are eventually going to be prepared for lan guage use outside the classroom. They do this first with the teacher's guidance and then independently. Restric ting students to ste p-by-ste p exposu re to the lan­ guage extends their dependen cy. When a particular language feature is introduced for the first time, or wh en the teacher feels there is a need for correction of a persistent problem , it is ap p ro p riare to use narrow-focu s mat erials th at isolate o ne element in a co nt ext w he re othe r th in gs seem easy. But it wo uld be a disservice to stu ­ de nt s [Q use such mater ials exclu sively or even predo m inantl y. \'{'e shou ld reme m be r tha r learners who successfully acq uire a seco nd langu age outs ide classrooms certainly are exposed to a grea t variety of forms and structu res they have not mastered .

14 When learners are allowed to interact freely (for example, in group or pair activities) , they copy each other's mistakes Th e language that learners hear and read serves as input to their language developm ent . Th e cog nitive processes that allow th em to learn from input are not 'sh ut down' wh en they are interacting with other learners. Thus, when learners interact with each other. they ma y provide some incorrect input. Fur the rmo re, wh en learners come from the same first language background and are at roughly the same level of pr oficiency, the y are likely to understand each other very well , eliminating the need for negotiation for meaning that might lead th em to replace their inrerlanguage pattern s with more target­ like ones . Nevertheless, the benefits of pair and group work far outweigh the disadvantages, especially if the tasks are properly designed. If the activities are well designed and learn ers are appropriately matched, pair and group work provides far more practice in speaking and participating in conversations than a teacher-centred class ever could. Somewhat surp ris­ ingly, resear ch has s how n that learners do not produce any more errors in their speech when talking to learn ers at similar levels of proficiency than th ey do when speaking to learners at mo re advanced levels or [Q native speakers. The resea rch also shows, however, that learners at similar levels cannot o rd i­ narily provide each other with information that would help to correct those

209

210

Popula r ideas about language lea rning revisited

errors. No neth eless, tasks can be devised in such a way mar learners working together can discover nor only how to express or interpret meaning bur also how to discover the correct panerns in me seco nd language. In order for this to happen, che casks m ust be carefully planned ro give lear ners access ro m e new language they need. Group and pair work is a valuable addition co the variety o f activities that encourage and pro mote secon d lan guage development. Used in combina­ tion w ith individual work and reacher-centred activities, it plays an essential role in language teach ing and learning .

Popular ideas about language learning revisited

recasts are perc eived as corrective feedback, even though learners may not always know exactly which language features the feedback is focused on. However, in co ntent-based instruction (fo r example, immersion classes) and in communicative instruction with younger learners, recasts often appear to be misinterpreted. Learners seem ro hear them as confirmation of meaning rather than as correction o fform. In these situations, recasts have been found to be more effective if the teacher has a method ofsign alling to me stu dent­ rone ofvoice, gesture, or facial exp ression-mat says to me student, 'I think I understand what you are saying, and I'm showing you how you can say it better'.

15 Students learn what they are taught Teachers know from experience ma r students don't lear n everything they are taugh t! Forrunately, learners also learn a great deal that no one ever reaches them. They are able ro use the ir own internal learn ing abilities to discover many of the parrerns and assoclations th at underlie the language they are learning. In this sense, studen ts learn much more man they are explicitly raughr . Some reaching methods rypically give learners the opportunity to learn only a' restricted n umber ofwords and senrence rypes. Even when the language reach­ ing method provides much richer lan guage in pur, me fact that someth ing is taught or made available in the in put does no t mean learners will acquire it right away. For example, some aspects of me second language emerge and evolve according ro developmental sequences , and learners may be more likely to lear n certain lan guage fearures when they are developmentally ready. Thus, arremprs ro teach aspeCts of language that are roo far away from the learner's current stage of development can be frustrating. Other language features , for example, vocabulary, can be taught ar any rime, as long as the learners are in ter­ ested in the opportunity ro learn and the teaching methods are app ropriate co the learn er's age, interests , needs , experiences, and learning styles.

16 Teachers should respond to students' errors by correctly rephrasing what they have said rather than by explicitly pointing out the error Th is kind of feedback, referred to as ' recasts' has been fou nd to be by far the most common rype offeedback in second language classrooms. This has been shown to be true for learners ar different ages and in different instructional senings- from au diolingual to communicative and co n ten r- based instruc­ tion. A recast has -the advantage o f not imerrupdng the flow of in teraction . It is seen as Indirect and police, a way ofgivin g students the information th ey need without em ba rrassing them. Resear ch in classes with a general focus on grammar an d accurate language use shows that learners are responsive to th is kin d of feedback. Resear ch in which learn ers interact individually with interlocuto rs has also shown tha t

17 Students can learn both language and academic content (for example, science and history) simultaneously in classes where the subject matter is taught in their second language The advantages of conren t-based instruction are num erous. Motivation is increased when the material that is used for language teachi ng has an inher­ ent value to th e students: it creates a genuine, immediate need to learn the language . Content-based instruction is also often associa ted with the oppor­ tunity to spend more time in contact with che language, without losing out on instruction in other subject matter. In addition, the range of vocabulary and language fearures mar students encounrer in learning academic subjects is more varied than that which is typically available in second and foreign lan guage classes. Research has confirmed m at studen ts in content-based and im mersion classes develop com p rehensio n skills, vocabulary, and general communica­ tive competence in me new language. Teachers and researchers have also found, however, that rhe ability to understand me content and to functio n in classroom interaction does nor ensure mat students w ill continue to improve in certain aspects of their second language, especially in areas of accuracy on lan guage fearu res mar do not usually interfere with meaning. Th us, for example, srudents can spen d years in Frenc h im mersion without achiev­ ing accuracy in marking nouns for gender or verbs for tense. Experimenral studies in which an element of form-focused instruction was added to the content-base d instruction have shown mat, with guidance, students can improve in these areas as well. Born students and teac hers need to keep in mind mat co nrent-based instruction is also language teac hing.

18 Classrooms are good places to learn about language but not for learning how to use language Some structure-based approaches ro lan guage teach ing have ten de d to treat lang uage as a set o f grammar rules or as separate bits ofinformarion m ar need to be learn ed before learners can use m e language as a comm u nicative too l. Other approaches such as communicative language teac hing, co nt en t-based,

2 11

212

Popular ideas about language Learning reuisited

and task-based instruction start from the principle that we learn language by using it to achieve a goal. for example, understanding a story, making a medical appointment, writing a science report, or joining the fun on the playground. With this in min d . classroom activities are designed to prepare students to continue learning outside the classroom. by giving them experi­ ence in language UJeS that are like those they will encounter there. As we saw in Chapter 6, some theorists argue that second language instruction can only lead to knowledge about language (explicit knowledge) and question whether instruction can lead to the ability to use the language spontaneously and fluently (implicit knowledge) in a wide range ofcommunicative COntexts. Contemporary approaches to L2 instruction target the development of both types of L2 ability by ensuring that students use the language in meaningfi.i.l interaction inside the classroom and that they learn effective strategies for using the language outside the classroom when they have opportunities to do so. ACTIVITY

Support your opinion

Choose two or three of the 'popular ideas ' that you find especially important. For each of these. identify and discuss how one or more of the research studies you have read about in this book has strengthened your agreement! disagreement with the statement or has led you to change your views.

Conclusion Knowing more about second language acquisition research will not tell you what to do in your classroom tomorrow morning. We hope, however, that this book has provided you with information that encourages you to reflect on your experience in teaching. We hope, in addition, that this reflection will co nt ribute to a better understanding ofyour responsibilities as a teacher and your students' abilities and responsibilities as language learners .

.As we have seen, language learning is affected by many factors. Among these are the personal characteristics and experiences of the learner. the social and cultural environment both inside and outside the classroom. the structure of the native and target languages, opportunities for interaction wi th speakers of the target language, and access to corrective feedback and form-focused instruction. It is clear that teachers do not have control over all these factors, Nevertheless. a better understanding of them will permit teachers and learn­ ers to make the most of the time they spend together in the rwin processes of teaching and learning a second language.

GLOSSARY

The glossary contains items that have a special or technical meaning in second language acquisition research and second language teaching. The definitions are intended to reflect the terms as we use them in this book. accessibility 'hierarchy: A ranking of relative clauses developed by Keenan and Comrie (1977). Differem languages use relative clauses to modify nouns in different grammatical roles . According to the accessibility hierarchy. for example, most languages allow relative clauses for sentence subjects, while fewer languages allow them for the object of comparison. accuracy order: The relative accuracy of grammatical form s in learner lan gu age. For exam ple, learners are oft en mor e accurat e in usin g plur al -J than in usin g possessive So me researc he rs have inferred that an accuracy orde r is eq uivalent to a developmental seq ue nce .

s.

action research: Research carried out by teach ers. o ften in their own classroo ms or in collaboration with other teachers. The research goals and questions are local and specific to their own teaching environment. active lisreningi A teaching technique in which students not only listen but also show their comprehension by thei r responses. additive bilingualism: Learning a second language without losing the first. American Sign Language (ASL): Th e gestural language used by many North Americans who are deaf or who interact with others who are deaf. It is a true language, with complex rules of structure and a rich vocabulary, all expressed through motions of the hands and body. audiolingual approach: An approach to second or foreign language teaching that is based on the behaviourist theory of learning and on structural linguistics, especially the contrastive analysis hypothesis. This instructional approach emphasizes the formation ofhabits through the repeti tion, practice, and memorization ofsentence patterns in isolation from each other and from COntexts of meaningful use. auditory discrimination: The ability to distinguish language sounds, for example minimal pairs suc h as ship! sheep. behaviourism: A psychological theory that all learning, whether verbal or non-verbal, takes place through the establishment of habits. According w this view, when learners imitate and repeat the language they hear in their

1

214

Glossary

Glossary

surrounding environment and are positively reinforced for doing so, habit formation (or learning) occurs.

in situations. The term has sometimes been interpreted as the abili ty to convey messages in spire of a lack of grammatical accuracy.

bilingual education:· Schooling in which students receive instruction in two (or more) languages, usually the ir home lan guage and a second language.

communicative language teaching (CLT): CLT is based on the premise that successful language learning involves not only a knowledge of the structures and forms of a language, but also the functions and purposes tha t a language serves in different communicative settings. This approach to teaching emphasizes the communication of meaning in interaction rather than the prac tice and manipulation of grammatical forms in isolatio n.

bilingualism: The ability to use more than one language. The word itself does not specify the degree of proficiency in either language. brain imaging: A variety of techniques that allow researchers to observe and track activity in the brain. child-d.iceeted speech: The language that caretakers address to children. In some cases, this language is Simpler than char which is addressed to ad ults. In some cultures, it is also slower, higher pitched, more repetitive, and includes a large number of questions. chunk: A unit oflanguage chat is often perceived or used as a single'unir. Chunks include formulaic expressions such as Thank you or What's that? but also bits of language tha t frequently occur together, for example, ice cream cone or significant difference. classroom observation scheme: A tool (often in the form of a grid) that consists ofa set of predetermined categories used to record and describe teaching and learning behaviours. cognate: A word in o ne language that comes from the same origin as a word in another language and has the same meaning, for example, 'nation' in English and nation in French or uaca and uache (cow) in Spanish and French. The term false cognate is used to refer to words that may come from the same origin but have evolved to have different meanings, for example, librairie (bookstore) in French does not have the same meaning as library in English. cognitive: Relating to how the human mind receives, processes, stores, and retrieves information. The focus is on internal learn ing mechanisms that are believed to be used for learning in general, not JUSt language learning alone. cognitive maturity: The ability to engage in problem-solving, deduction, and complex memory tasks. collaborative dialogue: A conversation between learners in which they wo rk together to solve a problem, for example, reconstructing a story they have heard. While the focus is on the task, learners may also focus on the elements oflanguage that rhey need to complere the rask. communicative competence: The ability to use language in a variety of settings, taking into account relationships between speakers and differences

competence: Linguist Noam Chomsky used this term to refer to knowledge oflanguage. This is contrasted with performance, which is the way a person actually uses language- whether for speaking, listening, reading, or writing. Because we cannot observe competence directly, we have to infer its nature from performance. comprehensible input: A term introduced by Stephen Krashen to refer to language that a learner can understand. It may be comprehensible in part because ofgestures, contextual information, or prior knowledge/experience. comprehensible output hypothesis: The hypothesis that successful second language acquisition depends on learners producing language (oral or written). Swain (1985) proposed this hypothesis in response to Krashen's ( 1985) comprehensible input hypothesis. comprehension-based instruction: A general term to describe a variety of second language programmes in which the focus of instr uction is on comprehension rather than production. connectionism: A theory of knowledge (including language) as a complex system of units that become interconnected in the mind as they are encountered together. The more often units are heard or seen together, the more likely it is that the presence of one will lead to the activation of the other. content and language-integrated learning (CLIL): An approach to content-based language teach ing that has been developed primarily in secondary schools in Europe. content-based language teaching (CBLT): Second language instruction in which lessons are organized around subject matter rather than language points. For example, in immersion p rogrammes, students study science , history, mathematics, etc. in their second language. contrastive analysis hypothesis (CAH): The expectation that lear ners will

have less difficulty acquiring target language patterns that are similar to

those of the first language than th ose that are differe nt.

control group: In experimental studies , a group of/earners th at differs fro m the experimental group on ly in terms of the single variable that the

215

216

Glossary

Glossary

researcher is investigating. Performance of me control gro up is used to show that the variable in question is the best (o r only) explanation for changes in the experimental group. Also so meti m es referred to as 'comparison group' .

developmental features: Th ose aspects o f a language which , acco rding ro Pienemann and his colleagues, develop in a particular sequence, regardless of input variation , learner motivation , or instructional intervention .

corpus (plural: co rpo ra): A principled collection of oral or w rit ten language samples mat can usually be accessed and explored with computer­ based tools. Some of me rno sr fam o us corpora contain millions of wo rds from, for exam ple, newspapers. Samples of the language produced by learners have also been collected for second language acquisition research.

developmental sequence: The order in which cert ain fearures of a lan guage (fo r example, negation) are acquired in language learning. Also called developmental stages o r order o f acquisition.

corpus linguistics: An approach to the srudy oflanguage that is based on the analysis of language corpora. See corpus . corrective feedback: An indication to a learner m at his or her use of th e tar get language is in correct. co r rela ti o n s A sta tistical procedure that compares the relative frequen cy o r size of different variables in order to determine whether there is a relatio nsh ip between them .

counterbalance hyp o thesis: Th e hypothesis that lea rn er s' attention wi ll be drawn to classro om even ts tha t are d ifferent from those they are accustomed to . critical period hypothesis (CPH) : The p ro posal th at th ere is a limited pe riod during w hic h language acq u isition can oc cur. cross-linguistic influence: The effect on kn owledge of o ne language by the kn owl edge o f ano th er. This term is pr eferred over previous terms suc h as interference to indicate mat knowledge of one language can be beneficial to learning another. The term also reflects the fact mat me influence can go fro m a known language to th e o ne being learned bu t also from the new language to one already known . cross-sectional study: A study in which parti cipan ts at di fferent ages and/or stages of development are studied . This co n trasts wi th longirudinal studies, declarative knowledge: Informati on th at we h ave and kn ow we hav e. An exam p le would be a rule such as 'th e verb must agre e with me subject ro form a correct sentence'. In some skill learning theories, it has been hypothesized that all learning begins with declarative knowledge. This contrasts with procedural knowledge. descriptive study: Research mat does not involveany manipulation, cha nge, o r intervention in me phenomenon being stud ied . The researcher's goal is ro observe and record what is happening. This co nt rasts with experimental sru d y.

display question: A question to which the asker already knows me an swe r. Teachers often ask these questions (fo r example, What colou r is your shirt?) to get the learner to display his or her knowledge of the language. enhanced input: Input mat is altered in an effort to make some language featu res more salient to learners. It can be more or less explicit, ranging fro m explicit rneralinguistic co m m ents to ty pograph ical enh anc eme nt (bold type or underlining) or exaggerated stress in speaking. ethnography: D escriptive research in which the ob server seeks to understan d a group or co m m u nity fro m wi thi n its own perspect ive. The research requi res extensive per iods of observatio n as well as co nsu ltation with group m em bers to validate the observer's desc riptions . exp e rimental study: Research des igned to test a hypo thes is abo ut the im pact of one o r mo re spec ific var iables o n ano the r var iab le. A stric tly expe rime nt al scudywo uld have 'experim ental' and 'co ntro l' gro ups th at di ffer from each o the r only in th e pres ence or absence of th e variable(s) of inte rest. In ed ucatio nal research, it is often difficult to create all of me co ndi tio ns m at permit a study to be termed as a 'gen uine' expe rime nt al study. In this book, me term is used in a non-technical sense to refer to research in which an anempt has been made to investigate a sin gle varia ble in an educational setting. field independent/field dependent: This distinction has been used to des cribe people who differ in their tenden cy to see th e for est o r th e trees. That is, so me people (calle d field independent) are very quick to pick o ur the hidden figure s in a complicated drawing. Others (called field dependent) are more inclined to see the whole drawing and have difficulty separating it in to parts. first language (Ll , mother tongue, native language): The language first learned. Many children learn more man one language from birth and may be said to have more than one 'first' language. foreigner talk: The modified or simplified language that some native

speak ers address to seco nd language learners. A special category of foreigner

talk is teacher talk .

foreign language learning: This refers to the learning of a language, usually in a classroom setting, in a context where the target language is not

2 17

218

Glossary widely used in the community (for example, lear ning French in China). This is sometimes contrasted with 'second language learning', where the language being learned is used in the community (for example, learning Italian in Florence). form-focused instruction: Instruction that draws attention to the forms and structures of the lan guage within the context of communicative interaction. This may be done by giving metalinguistic information, simply highligh ting the form in question, or by providing corrective feedback. formulaic: Expressions or phrases that are often perceived and learned as unanalysed wholes . For example, a child or second language learner may first hear 'What's that?' as a single uni t oflanguage rather than as three units. fossilization: This term is used to describe a persistent lack of change in interlanguage patterns, even after extended exposure to or instruction in the target language. function words: Words that are used mainly as linking or supporting words for nouns, verbs, adj ectives, and adverbs. For example, prepositions ('to' , 'for', 'by') and articles ('a', 'the') are two types of function words. They have litt le or no meaning when they occur alone, bu t they have an important effect on the meanings of the words they accompany.

Glossary immersion programme: An ed uca tio nal programme in which a second language is taught via co nte nt- based instruction. That is, students stu dy subjects such as mathematics and social stu dies in their second language. Typicall y, students in imm ersio n programmes shar e the same first lan guage and teachers adjust their instructional language and materials to meet the needs of second language learners. information processing: A psychological theory based on the idea that learners' cog nitive resources are limited and they can't pay attention to everything at the sam e time. But with repeated experience and practice, things which at first required attention become auto matic, leaving more atte ntion available fo r focus on something else. innatist: In language acquisition research, this is the theoretical perspective based on the hypothesis that human beings are born with mental structures that are designed specifically for the acquisition oflanguage. input: The language that th e learne r is exposed to.(either written or spoken) in the environment: input flood: A technique for pro viding a large number of examples of a particular language feature in the input to learners. It has been used in research projects to explo re q uest ions related to whether comprehensible input is sufficient for lan guage acquisition.

generalization: Extending a pattern learned in one context to another one. See also overgeneralization.

instrumental motivation: Motivation that is essentially prac tical, such as the need to learn the language in order to get a better job.

genuine question: A question to which the asker does not know the answer in advance (for example, What didyou do fast weekend?). Also called 'referential' or 'informatio n' questions. Cont rasts with display question .

integrative motivation: Motivation for second language learning that is based on a desire to know more about the cul ture and co mm unity of the target language group and even a desire to be more like members of that group.

grammar translation: An approach to second language teaching char acterized 9Ythe explicit teaching of grammar rules and the use of translation exercises. grammatical morphemes: Morphemes are the smallest units oflanguage that carry meaning. A simple word is a morpheme (for example, 'book'), but when we talk about 'gram matical morphemes' we are usually referring to smaller units that are added to words to alter their meaning (for example, the -s in 'books' indicates plural) or function words (fo r example, the) which are ordinarily attached to another word. grammaticality judgement: A test or task in which participants are asked to make a decision about whether a sentence is grammatically correct or not. hypothesis (plural: hypo theses): A sta teme nt of a possible fact tha t can be tested th rough research . Most empirical research starts from one or mo re hypotheses and involves the design of a stu dy that can either show support for the hypo thesis or disprove it.

intensive ESL: In thi s book, 'i n tensive' ESL is used to refer to an instructional approach in Quebec where lO-12-year-old French-speaking students learn English as a second language. Most Quebec Students in this age group have onl y an hour or two ofESL instruction each week. 'Intensive ESr.: classes provide much more time. Most of the classes observed in intensive ESL research set aside one five-month block of time in one school year and devot e full days to ESL instruction during th at period. The pedagogical approach observed in these classes is p redominan tly communicative language teaching. In contras t to immersion programmes, intensive ESL classes do no t usually include content-based langu age teaching. interaction hypothesis: The hypothesis that language acquisitio n is based

both on learners' innate abilities an d on opportunities to engage in

conversations, often those in which other speakers modify their speech and

2 19

220

Glossary

Glossary their interaction parcerns {Q match the learners' com m u n ication requirements. The innate abilities are not seen as being specific to language or language acquisition.

morpheme: See gram ma tical morphem es.

interlanguage: A learner's developing second language knowledge. It may have characteristics of the learner's first language, characteristics of the seco nd language, and some characteristics that seem ro be very general and tend ro occur in all or most interlanguage systems. Inrerlanguages are systematic, but they are also dynamic. They change as learners receive more input and revise their hypotheses about the second language.

native speaker: A person who has learned a language from an early age and who is deemed ro be fully proficient in that lan guage. Na tive speake rs differ in terms ofvocabulary and stylistic aspects oflanguage use, but they tend ro agree on the basic grammar of the language. The notion 'native speaker' must always be undersrood within a specific geographic region or socioeco no mic group because there is wide variation among 'native . speakers' of most languages.

interlocutor: A participan t in a conversation. language acquisition/language learning: In this book, these two terms are most often used interchangeably. However, for some researchers, most notably Stephen Krashen acquisition represents 'unconscious' internalization oflanguagt knowledgt, which takes place when attention is focused on meaning rather than language form, and IMming is described as a 'conscious' process th at occ u rs wh en th e learner's objective is {Q learn abou t the langu age itself rathe r tha n ro un de rsta nd messages co nveyed thro ug h the language.' langu ag e-related episodes (LREs): Parts of co nve rsatio nal interactions in wh ich lang uage learners talk abo ut the lan gu age forms th ey are usin g and engage in self- and peer -correction . longitudinal study: A study in which the sam e learners are studied over a period of time. This contrasts with a cross-sectional study. meaning-based instruction: See communicative language teach ing. meta-analysis (plural: meta-analyses): A statistical procedure that allows researchers ro combine the findings from a large number of quantitative studies in order ro assess the overal l parcerns of findings on a similar ropic . metalinguistic awareness: The ability {Q trea t language as an object, for exam ple, being able to define a word, or {Q say what sounds make up that word . mitigation: In pragmatics, a phrase or tone of voice used so ften the possible negative impact of what is said.

{Q

reduce or

modified input: Adapted speech that adults use to address children and nati ve speakers use ro address language learners so that they will be able ro understand. Examples of modified input include shorter, simpler sentences, and basic vocabulary. modified interaction: Adapted conversation patterns that proficient speakers use in addressing language learners so that the learner will be able {Q understand. Examples of interactional modifications include co mprehensio n checks, clarification requests, and self-repetitions.

native-like: The ability to comprehend and produce a second language at a level of performance that is indistinguishable from that of a native speaker.

natural order: See developmental sequence. negotiation of form: An interaction in which language learners work toward the correct form in a context where meaning is undersrood. If a teacher is involved in the interaction, he or she seeks ro guide students {Q Rnd the right form inst ead o f pro viding it for them. negotiati o n fo r meaning: Int eractio n betwee n spea kers who make adj ustments {Q th eir speec h and use other tech niques ro repair a breakdown in co mm unication. See also mo dified interaction. noticing hypothesis: Th e hypo thes is, pr op osed by Rich ard Schmi dt. th at language learners learn only that which th ey have first 'no ticed' or become aware of in the input. obligatory contexts: Places in a senten ce where a particular grammatical form is required if the sentence is to be correct. For example, in the sentence ' Last week, my brother rent a car', the speaker has created an obligatory COntext for the past tense by the use of 'Last week', but has not used the required form of the verb in that context. order of acquisition: See developmental seq ue nce. overgeneralization: This rype of error is th e result of trying to use a rule or patt ern in a context where it doe s not belong, for exam ple. putting a regular -ed ending on an irregular verb , as in 'buyed ' instead of ,bought' . pattern practice drill: A teaching technique in which learners are asked to practise sentences chosen to represent particular linguistic forms. Typical of the audiolingual approach. performance: The way we use language in listening, speaking, reading, writing. Performance is usually contrasted with co m petence, which is the knowledge that underlies our ability to use language. Performance is subject ro variations due to inattention or fatigue whereas competence, at [east for the mature native speaker, is more stable.

221

222

Glossary

Glossary

phonemic: Small differences in language sounds that can change meaning within a particular language. For exam ple, the consonants p and b are phonemic in English, but not in Arabic.

scaffolding: Th e language th at an interlocu to r uses co suppo rt the communicative success of another speaker. It ma y includ e the provision o f missing vocabulary or the expansion o f the speak er's incomplete sentence.

pragmatics: Aspects oflanguage use that go beyond vocabulary and grammar to includ e rules of how to use lan guage appropriately in different contexts and with different speake rs. It also includes an understanding of the implied as well as th e explici t meaning oflanguage.

second language (L2): In this boo k, the term refers to any language other than th e first language learned. Th us, it may actually refer to th e third or fourth language.

private speech: Th e language we use when we are talki ng to ou rselves, no t expecting anyone to hear or respond. procedural knowledge: Knowledge that underlies fluent or automatic performance. It is contrasted with d eclarative kn owledge. processahility theory: M anfred Pienernann's theory oflearners' developing ability to process linguistic elements in different sent ence posi tions. processing instruction: An approach to instruction in which learners are given explicit in formation abo ut the language feature co be learned and th eir pr actice activities involve the co mprehension (no t production) of sentences or texts that cannot be understood without a focus on th e language itself. The app roach was developed by Bill VanPatten. qualitative research: An approach tha t uses detailed descriptions of the phenomena being studied rather than counting or measuring the exact amount of some specific variable or variables. Q ualitative research requires extensive o bservatio n and ins ightful interpretation. quantitative research: An approach that requ ires precise counts or numeric measurements of variables. In a quantitative study, both the variable that is believed to affect learning and the learning itself are measured or 'q uan tified' . Quantitative research requires careful selection of the measurem ents that will be used to repre sent the variables being studied. rate oflearning: The speed with which learners progress in th eir language development. recast: To repea t a learner's incorrect utte rance , makin g ch anges th at convert it to a correct phrase or sentence. ' Recast' is also used as a noun, that is, a recast is the interlocutor's modified!corre cted form of the learner's utterance. register: A style or way of using language that is typ ical o f or approp riate for a particular setti ng. For example, speaki ng and writing usually require d ifferent registers; the register used in wri tin g a research report is differe nt fro m tha t used in writing a letter co a friend . restructuring: Cognitive activity that is seen as causing changes in the way information is organized in the brai n, even though no new inform atio n has bee n learned.

segmental: The individual sounds of a language. Contrasted wi th 'sup rasegrnen rals', which are patte rn s of intonation. significant difference: Th..is is a tech nical term that refers co differences between groups which, according co a variety ofstatisti cal tests, are unlikely to have happened by chance. Such diffe ren ces can be sm all or large. Their 'significan ce' is due co th e consistency of the di fferences as well as their size. simplification: Leaving out elements of a sentence, for example, using the same form of a verb regardless of person, number, tense ('I go today. H e go yesterd ay') . sociocultural theory: An explana tion for knowledge and learn ing th at is based on the assumption th at all learning is first social then individ ual. Learning is viewed as a process that is socially mediated, th at is, it is depen dent on dialogue in face-co-face interaction . The claim is that during communication, learners join tly construct kn owledge which is intern alized by the individual. standard variety: The variety o f a given lan gu age that is typically used in formal writing and formal public speaking (including broadcasting) . Th e standard variety ofwidely spoken languages may be different in d ifferent places. For example, American English, British English, Can ad ian English , an d Indian English each has its own standard variety, as well as numerous eth nic, regional, and socioeco nom ic varieties . structural grading: A technique for organizing or sequencing material in a textbook or lessons . The basis for the organization is a gradual increase in co mplexity of grammatical features. subtractive bilingualism: Partially or complete ly losing the first language as a second lan gu age is acquired . suprasegmentals: The sounds of a language that involve the melody an d rhythm of the language (e.g, stress an d intonation), rath er than the pronunciation ofindividual sounds. target language: The lan guage being learned, whether it is the first language or a second (or th ird o r fourth) language. task-based language teaching (TBLT): Instr uct ion in which classroom activities are 'tasks' sim ilar to th ose lear ners mi gh t engage in outside the

223

224

GIoJSary

Glossary second or foreign language classroom. Tasks may be complex, for example, creating a school newspaper. or more limited, for example, making a phone call to reserve a train ticker. teacher talk: See modified input and foreigner talk. transfer: The influence ora learner's first language knowledge in the second language. Also called 'interference' . The term 'cross-linguistic influence' is now preferred by many researchers. It better reflects the complex ways in which knowledge of the first language may affecr learners' knowledge and use of another. transfer-appropriate processing (TAP): Cognitive psychologists have observed that when we learn something new, we also internalize some aspecrs of the circumstances and thinking processes that were present when we learned it. The TAP hypothesis is that knowledge is easier to retrieve ifwe are returned to or can recreate those circumstances and thinking processes. universal grammar (VG): Innate linguistic knowledge which, it is hy po thesized, consists of a set of principles common co all languages. Thi s ter m is associated with C homsky's theory o f language acq uisitio n. uptake: This term is sometimes used in a general sense to refer to what a learner notices and /or retain s in second language input or instruction. Lyster and Ranta's ( 1997) definition refers co a learner's observable imm ed iate response to corrective feedback on his/her utterances . variable: An element or characteristic that can be measured or defined. Variables can differ in different groups or change over time within a group or individual. Some examples ofvariables that are commonly examined in language acquisition research include the amount of time a person has been learning the language, scores on aptitude rests, and performance on measures oflanguage knowledge. variational features: In contrast to the developmental features in the framework developed by Pienemann and his colleagues, variational features (for example, vocabulary, some grammatical morphemes) can be learned at any point in the learner's development. variety: A way of speaking and using language that is typical of a particular regional, socioeconomic, or ethnic group. The term 'dialect' is sometimes used. Some language varieties are st igmatized as 'uneducated' but each language variety has its own rules and patterns that are as complex and systematic as those of the so-ca lled 'standard ' language. Among the most studied non-standard varieties of English are British Cockney and African­ American Vernacular English . wiUingness to communicate (wrC): The predisposition oflearners toward or away from communicating in a second/foreign language. Several

facto rs co nt ribute to mo rivarionai.

wrc including social, individ ual, situatio nal, and

working memory (WNf) : The cognitive 'space' in which we actively process new information or information that is currencly in focus. Also called 'short-term memory' . zone of proximal development (ZPD): The metaphorical 'place' in which a learner is capable of a higher level of performance because there is suPPOrt from interaction with an interlocutor. In Vygotsky's theory, learning takes place through and during interaction in the learner's ZPD.

225

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Th is list b rings togeth er all the wo rks cited in th e text as well as th ose that have been suggested for further read ing.

Altenberg, E. P. 2005 . 'The judgment, perception , and production of consonant clusters in a second language.' International Review 0/.Applied Linguistics 43/ 1: 53-80. Ammar,A. and P. M. Light bown. 2005 . 'Teach ing marked linguistic strucru res-s-rnore about the acquisition of relative cla uses by Arab lear ners of English' in A. Housen and M . Pierrard (eds.): Investigations in Instru cted Second Language A cquisition. Amsterdam: Mouto n de Gruyte r. pp . 167- 98. Anderson, J. R. 1995. Learning and Memory: An Integrated Approach. New York: W iley. August, D. and T. Shanahan (eds.) . 2008 . Developing Reading and Writing in Second-Language Learn ers. N ew York: Rou tled ge.

Bardovi-Harlig, K. 1999 . 'Exp [0 ri ng the i nte rlan guage 0 f interlanguage pragmatics: A research agenda for acquisitional pragmatics.' Language Learn ing49/4: 677- 7 13. Bardovi-Harlig, K. 2000. TenseandAspect in Second Language Acquisition : Form, Meaning, and Use. O xfo rd : Blackwell.

Bardovi-Harlig, K. and B. S. Hartford. 1993 . 'Learn ing the ru les of academic talk: A longitudinal study of pragmatic development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 15/3 : 279-304. Barlow, M. 2005. 'Computer-based analyses oflearner lang uage' in R. Ellis and G . Barkhuizen (eds.). Analysing Learner Language. O xford : O xford University Press. pp . 335-57. Bates, E. A. an d B. MacWhinney. 1981. 'Second-language acquisition from a fu nctio nalist per spective: Pragmatic, semantic, and perceptual strategies ' in H. W initz (ed.): Native Language and Foreign Language Acquisition. Annals o/ the New York Academy of Science. N ew York: N ew York Academy o f Science, Vol. 379: 190- 2 14. Bennet, G. R. 20 10. Using Corpora in the Language Learning Classroom: Corpus Linguisticsfor Teachers. Ann Arbor, MI: U nive rsity of Mi chigan Press.

228

Bibliography

Bibliography Beretta, A. 20 11. 'Th e language learning brain' in M . Long and

Celce-Murcia, M., D. M., Brinton, and J. M. Goodwin. 1996 . Teaching

C. Doughty (eds.): The Handbook o/Language Teaching, Oxford: Wiley­ Blackwell. pp . 65-80 ,

Pronun ciation: A Reference[or Teachers 0/English to Speakers 0/Other Languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Berko Gleason,]. 'The child's learning of English morphology.' m"rd 14,

150-77.

Chomsky, N. 1959. ' Review of"Verbal Behavior" by B. F. Skinner.' Language35 /1: 26-58.

Berko Gleason,]. and N. Bernstein-Ratner (eds .). 2009. The Development ofLanguage 7 th edn. New York: Allyn and Bacon.

Clement, R., S. C. Baker, and P. D. MacIntyre. 2003. ' W illingness to communicate in a second language: The effects of context, norms, and vitality.' Journal o/Language and Social Psychology 22/2 : 190-209.

Bialystok, E. 2001. Bilingualism in Development: Language, Literacy, and

Cogn ition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

BialystokE. 2009. 'Effects of bilingualism on cognitive and linguistic pe rformance across th e lifespan' in 1. Gogolin and U. Neumann (eds. ): Streitfal! Zioeisprachigkeit--« The Bilingualism Controversy. Wiesbaden, G ermany: VS Verlag fur Sozialwissenschaft:en. pp. 53-68. Bley-Vroman, R. 1990 . 'Th e logical problem offoreign language learning.' linguistic Analysis 2011- 2: 3-47.

Blo o m , L. 1991 . Language Development from Two to Three. Cambridge:

Camb ridge Univers ity Press.

Bloom, L. and M. Lahey. 1978. Language Development and Languag«

Di sorders. N ew York: John Wiley. Bongaerts, T. 1999 . ' U ltim ate attainment in L2 pronunciation: The case of very advanced late L2learners' in D. Birdsong (ed .): Second Language A cquisition and the Critical Period Hypothesis. Mahwah , NJ : Lawrence Erlbaum and Associates . pp . 133-59.

Collier, V. P. 1989. ' H ow long? A synthesis of research on academic achievement in a second language.' TESOL Quarterly 23/3: 509-31 . Collins Cobuild Concordance and Collocation Sampler http://www.collins.co. uk! corpusICorpus.Search.aspx Collins, L. 20 02. 'The roles ofLl influence and lexical aspect in the acquisition of temporal morphology.' Languag« Learn ing 52 /1: 43 - 94. C o ll in s, L. and J. White. 20 11. 'An int ensive look at in rensiry an d language learn ing.' TESOL Quarterly45/ 1: 106-33. Co llins, L., R. H. Halter, P. M. Lightbown, and N . Sp ad a. 1999. 'T ime and the distribution of tim e in L2 instructi on .' TES OL Quarterly 33/4: 655 -80 . Conboy, B. D. and P. K. Kuhl. 2011 . ' Im pact of second-language experience in infancy: brain measures of first- and second-language speech perception.' Developmental Science, 14/2: 24 2-48 .

Brooks, N. 1960 . Languag« and Language Learning. New York: Harcourt Brace .

Cook, V. 200 3. 'The poverty-of-the-stimulus argum ent and structu re­ dependency in L2 users of English .' International Review 0/ Applied Linguistics 41/3: 201 -21.

Brown, R. 1973 . A First Language: The Early Stages. C amb ridge, MA:

Harvard University Press.

Cook, V. 2008. Second Language Learn ing an d Language Teaching 4 th edn . London: Hodder Education.

Burns, A. 20 10 . Doing Action Research in English Language Teaching: A

Guide [or Practitioners. New York: Routledge.

Corder, S. P. 196 7. 'Th e significance of learners' errors.' Intern ation al Review o/Applied Linguistics 5/ 2-3 : 161-69 .

Burstall, C. 1975 . ' French in the primary school: The British experiment:

Canadian Modern Languag« Reoieio 31/5: 388--402 .

Crago, M . 1992. 'Co m m u nica tive interaction and second language acquisition: An Inuit example.' TESOL Quarterly 26/3 : 487-505 .

Carroll, J. 1991. 'Cognitive abilities in foreign language aptitude: Then and now' in T. Parry and C. Stansfield (eds.) : Language Aptitude Reconsidered. Englewood Cliffs, NJ : Prentice hall.

Cummins, J. 1984. Bilingualism and Special Education: Issues in Assessment and Pedagogy. Clevedon: M ultilingual Matters.

Carroll, J. and S. Sapon. 1959 . The Modern LanguagesAptitude Test. San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corporation .

Cummins, J. 2000. Language, Power and Pedagogy: Bilingual Children in the Crossfire. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Curtiss, S. J97 7. Genie: A Psycbolinguistic Study ofa Modern-Day Wild Child. New York: Academic Press.

229

230

Bibliography

Dalton-Puffer, C . 2006. 'Q uestio ns in CLIL classrooms: Strategic questioning [Q encourage speaking' in A. Martinez-Flor and E. Uso (eds.): New Perspectiveson Teaching the Language ProcessingSkills. Ams terdam: Mo uto n de Gruyrer, pp. 187-213. Day, R,J. Bassett, B. Bowler, S. Parminter, N . Bullard, N. Prentice, M. Furr, M. Mahmood, D. Stewart, an d T. Robb. 20 11. Bringi ng Extensive Read ing into the Classroom. O xford : Oxford Un iversity Press. DeKeyser, R M. 1998 . ' Beyo nd focus on form: Cognitive perspectives on learning and practicing second language grammar' in C. ]. Doughty and ]. W illiams (eds.): Focus on Form in Classroom Second Language Acquisition. Camb ridge: Cam bridge U niversity Press. pp. 42-63. DeKeyser, R. M . 2000. 'The robustness of critical period effects in secon d lan guage acquisitio n.' Studies in Second Language Acquisition 22/4 : 493-5 33. DeKeyser, R M. 2001 . 'Aurornariciry and au tomatization' in P. Rob inson (ed.): Cogn ition and Second Language Instruction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 12 5- 5 1. DeKeyse r, R M . 2007. 'Introducti on: Situ ating the concep t of prac tice' in R. DeKeyser (ed.): Practice in a Second Language: Perspectives from Applied Lingu isticsand Cogn iti ve Psychology. Camb ridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 1-18. de Villiers, J . G. and P. A. de Villiers. 1973. 'A cross-sectio nal study of the acqu isition of grammatical mo rphemes.' Journal 0/Psycholinguistic Research 2/3: 267-78. Derwing, T. M. and M.J. Munro. 20 09. 'Purring accent in its place: Rethi nking o bstacles to communicat ion.' Language Teaching42/4: 476-90 . Derwing, T. M. and M . Rossit er. 2003. 'The effects of pronunciation instruction on th e accu racy, fluency, and complexity ofL2 accented speech .' Applied Language Learning 13/ 1: 1- 17. Donato, R 1994 . 'Collective scaffold ing in second language learn ing' in ] . Lantolf and G . Appel (eds.): Vygotskian Approaches to Second Language Research. Norwood, N] : Ablex. pp. 33-56. Dornyei , Z. 200 1a. Motivational Strategies in the Language Classroom. C ambridge: Cambridge U niversity Press. Dornyei, Z. 2001 b. Teaching and Researching Motivation. H arlow: Longman. Dornyei, Z. 2005. The Psychology ofrhe Language Learner: Indi vidual Differences in Second LanguageAcquisition. Mahwah, N]: Lawrenc e Erlbaum and Associates.

Bibliography

Dornyei, Z. 2009 . The PsychologyofSecond Language Acquisition. Oxford : Oxford Un iversity Press. D ornyei, Z. and P. Sk eh an . 2003. 'Individ ual differences in second lan guage learn ing' in C. ] . Doughty an d M . H. Long (eds.): The Handbook ofSecond Language A cquisition. Oxford: Blackwell. pp. 589 -630. Doughty, C. 199 1. 'Second language instructio n does mak e a difference: Evide nce fro m an em pirical study ofS L relativizarion.' Studies in Second Language Acquisition 13/4: 43 1-69. D oughty, C. and E. Varela. 1998. 'Communicative focus on form' in C. Dough ry and] . Will iams (eds.): Focus on Form in Classroom SLA . Cambridge: C ambridge University Press. pp. 114-38. Duff, P. 1995. 'An ethnography of comm unica tion in immers ion classrooms in Hungary.' TESOL Quarterly 29 /3: 505-37 . Dunn, W. E. and ]. P. Lantolf. 1998. 'Vygo rsky's Zone of Proximal Developmen t and Krashen's i+1: Incom m ensur able const ructs; . incom mens urable theo ries.' Language Learning 48/3 : 4 11-42. Echevarria, J ., M. Vogt, and D. J . Short. 2004. Making Content Comprehensiblefor English Language Learners: The SlOP Model. Bosron : Pearson . Eckman, E, L. BeU, and D. Nelson. 1988. ' O n the generalizatio n of relative clause instruction in the acquisi tion of English as a second lan guage.' Applied Linguistics 9/ 1: 1-20. Ellis, N . C. 200 1. 'Memory for langu age' in P. Robinson (ed.): Cognition and Second La nguage Instruction. C am bridge: Camb ridge U niversity Press. pp.33-68. EUis, N. C. 2002. ' Freq uency effects in language acq uisitio n: A review with impli cations for theories of implicit and explicit lang uage acquisition.' Studies in Second Language Acquisition 24/2: 143-188. Ellis, N . C . 2003. ' Co nstr uctio ns, chu n king, and connectionism: The emergence of second language structure' in C.]. Do ughty and M . H . Long (eds.): The Handbook ofSecond Language Acquisition. O xford: Blackwell. p p. 63-103. Ellis , N. C. 2005 . 'At the int erface: Dynam ic interactions of explicit and im plicit language knowledge.' Studies in Second Language Acquisition 27/2: 305-52. Ell is, N. C. 2009. ' O ptimizing the input : Freq uency and samp ling in usage-based and fo rm-focus ed learn ing' in C.] . Dou ghty and M. H . Long (eds.) : The Handbook o/Language Teaching. Malden, MA: W iley-Blackwell. pp. 139-1 58 .

23 1

232

Bibliography

Bibliography

Ellis, N. c., R Simpson-Vlach, and C. Maynard. 2008 . ' Form ulaic language in native and seco nd language speakers: Psycholinguisrics, corpus linguistics, and TESOL.' TESOL Quarterly 42/3 : 37 5-96 .

Gatbonton, E., P.Trofimovich, and M. Magid. 2005. ' Learn ers' ethnic group affiliation and L2 pronunciation accuracy: A sociolinguistic investigation.' TESOL Qua rterly 39 /3 : 4 89- 5 11.

Ellis, R 2012. Langu age 'Teaching Research and Langllage Pedagogy. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.

Genesee, E 1976 . 'Th e role of intelligence in second language learning.' Language Learni ng 26/ 2: 267-80.

Ellis, R. and G. Barkhuizen, 200 5. Analysing Learner Language. Oxford: Oxford Uni versity Press.

Genesee, F. 1987 . Learning through Two Languages. New York: Newbury House.

Ellis, R, S. Loewen, C. Elder, R. Edam,]. Philp, and H . Reinders. 2009. Implicit and Exp licit Knowledge in Second Language Learning: Testingand Teaching. Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.

Genesee, E , K. Lindholm-Leary, vv. M . Saunders, and D. Christian (eds.). 2006. Educating English Language Learners:A Synthesis ofResearch Evidence. Camb ridge: Cambridge University Press.

Erard, M. 201 2. Babel No More: The Searchfor the World's Most Extraordi nary Language Learn ers. New York: Free Press.

Goldschneider, J. M. and R M . DeKeyser. 200 1. 'Ex plaining th e narural order ofL2 morpheme acq uisition in English: A meta-analysis of multiple determinants.' Language Learning 51/ 1: 1-50.

Erlam, R 2005. ' Language aptitude and its relationship to instructional effectiveness in second language acquisition.' Language Teaching Research . 9/2: 147-1 71. Ganschow, L. and R. L. Sparks . 200 1. 'Learn ing difficulties and foreign lang uage learning: A review of research and inst ruction .' Language Teaching 34 / 2:79- 98. Gardner, D. 2004 . 'Vocabulary input thro ugh extensive reading: A comparison of words found in children's narrative and exposito ry reading materials .' Applied Lingu istics 25/1: 1-37. Gardner, H . 1993. Multiple Intelligences: The Theory in Practice. New York: Basic Books. Gardner, R. C. and vv. E. Lambert. 1972. Attitudes and Motivation in Second Langllage Learning. Rowley, MA: Newbury House. Gass, S. M. 1982. 'Fro m theory to practice' in M . Hin es and

\Y/. Rutherford (eds.): On TESOL '8 1. Washington, D C: T ESOL.

pp .129-139.

Gass, S. M. 1988. ' Inrcgrarlng research areas: A framework for second

language studies. ' Applied Linguistics 9/2: 198-2 17.

Gass, S. M . 199 7. Input, Interaction, and the Second Language Learner.

Mahwah, N] : Lawrence Erlbaum and Associa tes.

Garbo nt on, E. and N. Segalowitt. 1988. 'Creative automatization:

Princ iples for promoting fluency within a communicative framework .'

TESOL Quarterly 22/3: 47 3- 92 . Gatbonton, E. and N. Segalowitz, 200 5. 'Rethinking communicative language teaching: A focus on access to fluency.' Canadian Modern Language Review 61/3 : 325-53.

Greer, D . L. 2000. 'The eyes of hiro: A Japanese cultura l mo nito r of behavior in th e com municative lan guage classroom. ' JALTJournal 22/ l: 183-95 . G uillo tea ux , M. J. and Z. Dornyei. 2008 . ' Mo tivating language learn ers: A classroo m-o riented investi gati on of th e effects o r"mo tivatio nal st rategies o n student motivation.' TESO L Quarterly 42 /1 : 55-77 . Guiora, A., B. Beit-Hallahami, R Brannon, C. Dull, and T. Scovel. 1972 . 'Th e effects ofexperimentally induced changes in ego states on p ro nunciation abiliry in a seco nd language: An exploratory stu dy.' Comp rehensive Psychiatry 13/5: 421-8. Hahn, L. D . 2004 . 'Primary stress and inrelligibiliry: Research ro motivate the teaching ofsuprasegmenrals .' TESOL Quarterly 38/2 : 20 1-23 . Hahne, A. 2.00 1. ' What's different in seco nd-language processing? Evidence from event-related brain porenrials.' Journal ofPsycholinguistic Research30/3: 251 -66 . H amil to n, R. 1994 . ' Is irn plicar io nal generalization unidirectional and maximal? Evidence from relativizarion instructio n in a second languagc.' Language Learning 44/ 1: 123-57. H arley, B. 1998. 'The role of focus-on -form tasks in promoting child L2 acq uisition' in C. Doughty and ]. W illiams (eds.): Focuson Form in Classroom Second Language Acq uisition . Camb ridge: Cambridge Univers ity Press. pp. 156-74 . Harley, B. and M. Swain. 1984. 'Th e inrerlanguage of immersion students and irs implications for second language teaching' in A. Davies, C. C riper, and A. Howatt (eds.): Interlangl/age. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. pp . 291 -3 11.

23.3

234

Bibliography

Hatch, E. 1978. 'D isco urse analysis and second language acquisition' in E. Hatch (ed .): Second Language Acquisition: A Book ofReadings. Rowley, MA: Newbu ry. pp . 401-35. Heath, S. B. 1983. ways with WO rds'. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hedge, T. 2000. Teaching and Learning in the Language Classroom . O xford: O xford U niversiry Press. Hoare, P. and S. Kong. 2008. ' La te immersion in Hong Kong: Still stressed

but making progress?' in T. W Fort une and D . J. Tedick (eds.): Pathways to

Multilingualism: Em erging Perspectives on Immersion Education. Cleve don:

Multilingual Maners. pp . 242-66.

BibLiography

Kasper, G. and K. R. Rose. 2002. ' Pragmat ic Development in a Second Language.' Language Learning 52/Supplement 1. Keenan, E. and B. Comrie. 1977. 'Noun phrase accessibiliry and Un iversal Grammar.' Li ngu isti c Inquiry 8/1: 63-99. Kellennan, E. 1986. 'An eye for an eye: Crosslinguistic cons trai nts o n th e develo pment of me L2 lexicon' in E. Kellerman and M. Sharwood Sm ith (eds.): Crosslinguistic Influence in Second Language Acquisition. New York: Pergamon. pp. 35-48. Klein, w: and C. Perdue. 1993. Utteran ce Stru cture. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. http://www.mpLnllworldlcgllapp/esf/es[html

Horst, M. 2005 . 'Learning L2 vocabulary through extensive reading:

A measurement study.' Canadian Modern Language Review 6 1/3: 355-82.

Kojic-Sabo, I. and P. M . Lightbown. 1999. 'Stu dents' ap proaches to vocabulary learn ing and their relationship to success.' Modern Language journal 83/2: 176-92 .

Horwitz, E. K. , M. B. Horwitz, andJ. Cope. 1986 . 'Foreign language classroom anx iety,' Modern Language journal 7 0/ 2: 125-32 .

Krashen, S. 1982. Principles and Practice in Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Pergamon.

Howard, E. R., J. Sugarman, D. Christian, K. Lindholm-Leary, and D. Ro gers. 200 7. Guiding Principles for Dual Language Education 2nd edn. Washington, DC: Cent er fo r Applied Linguistics. hcc p:llwww.cal.org/rwi/ guid ingprinciples.h tm

Krashen, S. 1985 . The Input Hypothesis: Issues and Implications. London: Longman.

Hu, M. and I. S. P. Nati o n. 2000. 'U nkn own vocabulary density and reading comprehension.' Reading in a Foreign Language 13/ 1: 403-30 . Hulstijn,J. and B. Laufer. 2001. 'So me empirical evidence for the involvement load hypothesis in vocabulary acq uisition.' Language Learning 5 1/3 : 539-58 . Hunter, J. 20 12. 'Small talk : developing fluency, accuracy, and com plexity in speaking.' ELTjournal 661 1: 30-41. Itard, J .-M .-G . 1962. The Wild Boy ofAveyron (L'enfant sauvage). New York: Meredith. Jarvis, S. and A. Pavleoko. 2008. Crosslinguistic Influence in Language and Cognition. New York: Ro utledge. Johnson, J. and E. Newpo rt. 1989 . 'Critical period effects in second language learning: The in fluence of maturational state on the acquisition of Englis h as a Seco nd Language.' Cognitive Psychology 21 11: 60-99. Johnson, R. K. 1997. 'Th e Hong Kong education system: Late immersion under stress' in R. K. Johnson an d M . Swain (eds.): Immersion Education: International Perspectives. C amb rid ge: Cambridge Universiry Press. pp . 171 -89.

Krashen, S. 1989 . 'We acquire vocabulary an d spelling by readi ng: Additio nal evidence for the inpu t hypothesis.' Modern Language journal 7 3/4 : 440-64. Lado, R. 1964. Language Teaching: A Scientific Approach. New York: McGraw-Hill. Lambert, w: E. 1987 . 'Th e effects of bilingual and bicu ltu ral experiences on children's attitudes and social perspectives' in P. Homel, M. Pali], an d D . Aaronson (eds.): Childhood Bilingualism: Aspects ofLinguistic, Cognitive, and Social Development. Mahwah, NJ : Lawrence Erlbaum an d Associates . pp .197-221. Lambert, w: E. and G. R. Tucker. 1972. Bilingual Education ofChildren: The St. Lam bert Experiment. Rowley, MA: Newbury. Lantolf, J . P. (ed.), 2000. Sociocultural Theory and Second Language Learning. Oxford: Oxford Universiry Press. Lapkin, S., D. Hart, and B. Harley. 1998 . 'Case study of co m pact Core French models: Attitudes and achievement' in S. Lapkin (ed .): French Second Language Education in Canada: Empirical Studies . Toronto, Canada : Universiry ofToromo Press. pp. 3-30 . Leow, R. P. 199 7 . 'Attention, awareness, and foreign language beha vior.' Language Learning 47/ 3: 46 7-505 .

23 5

236

Bibliography

Li, S. 20 10. 'Th e effecti veness of co rrect ive feedback in SL\: A meta­ analysis.' Language Learning 60 /2 : 309-365.

Lieven , E. and M. Tomasello. 2008 . 'C hildr en's first lan gu age from a usage perspective' in P. Ro binson an d N . C. Ellis (eds .): Handbook of Cogn iti ue Linguisti cs and Second Language Acquisition. New York: Roucledge. pp ..168-96. Lightbown, P. M. 1983a. 'Acquiring English L2 in Quebec classrooms' 'in S. Felix and H. Wode (eds.): Language Development at the Crossroads. T iibingen : Gunter Nar r, pp . 15 1- 7 5. Ligh t bown, P. M. 1983b. 'Exploring relarionships between developmental and insrru ctio nal sequences in L2 acquisition' in H. W. Seliger and M . H . Long (eds.) : Classroom-Orienud Research in Second Language Acquisition. Row ley, MA : Newbury House. pp. 21 7-45 . Ughtbown, P. M . 1998. 'The importance of riming in focus on form ' in C. D oughcyandJ. \Xfilliams (eds.): Focus on Form in Classroom Second La nguage Acquisition. Cam bridge: Ca m b ridge Un iversity Press, pp. I77-%. Ligh t bown, P. M. 2007. 'Fair tra de: Two-wa y bilin gual ed uca rio n.' Estudios de Lingidstica Inglesa Aplicada 7: 9-34. Ligbtbown, P. M . 2008a. 'Easy as pie? Children learning languages.'

Concord ia WO rking Papers in Applied L inguistics 1:1- 25.

hrrp :/ /doe. concordia. cal copal/ index.p hp/cop al/volumes.hrml

Lightbown, P. M. 2008b. 'Transfer approp riare processing as a model fo r

classroom seco nd language acquisition' in Z. Han (00.) : Understanding

Second La nguage Process. C levedon , UK: Mulrilingual Maners. pp . 27-44.

Light bown, P. M. 2012 . 'Intensive L2 inst ruction in Canada: Why nor

immersion?' in C. Munoz (ed .): Intensive Exposure Experiences in Second

Language Learning. Bristo l, UK: Mulrilingual Matters. pp. 25-44.

Light bown, P. M. and N . Spad a. 1990. ' Focus on form and corrective

feedback in cornmunicative lan gu age reach ing: Effects o n seco nd language

learning.' Studies in Second Language Acquisition 12/ 4: 429-48.

Ligh t bown, P. M. and N. Spada. 1994. 'An innovative program for

p rimary ESL in Quebec: TESOL Quarterly 28/3: 563-79.

Ligh t bown, P. M ., R. Halter,]. L. White, and M. H o rst. 2002.

'Com p rehensio n-based learn ing: The limits of "do it yourself".' Canadian

Modem Language Rev iew 58/3: 42 7-64.

Lindholm-Leary, K. 2001. D ual Language Education. Clevedon, UK:

Mulrilingual Maners.

Bibliograph}

Loewen, S . and]. Philp. 200 6. 'Re casts in th e ad ult Eng lish Ll class: characteristics, explicitness, and effectiveness. ' Modern Language[o urna 90/4: 536-56. Loewen, S., S. Li, F. Fei, A. Thompson, K. Nakatsukasa, S. Ahn, and X. Chen. 2009. 'Second language learners' beliefs about grammar instructio n and error co rrectio n .' Modern Langu ageJo u m al 93/ 1: 91 - 104 . Long, M . H . 1983. 'N ative speaker/non-native speaker conversation and the negotiation of comprehensible input.' Applied L inguistics 4/2: 126-41. Long, M . 1996 . 'The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition' in W. Rit chie and T. Bhatia (eds .): Handbook ofSecond Language Acquisition. New York: Academic Press. pp . 413-68 . Long, M . H. and P. Porter. 1985 . 'Group work, interlanguage talk , and seco nd language acquisition .' TESOL Quarterly 19/2: 20 7-28. Long, M. and C. Sa to. 1983. 'C lassroo m foreigner talk discourse: Forms an d fun cti on s of teachers' q uestions' in H. W. Seliger and' M . H . Lon g (eds.) : Classroom -Oriented Research in Second Language Acquisition. Rowley, J'v1A: Newbury House. pp. 268-85 . Long, ] ., C. Brock, G. Crookes, C. Deicke, L. Po tt er, and S. Zhang. 1985. 'The effect of reach ers' qu est ioning partern s and wai t tim e on pu pil parti cipation in public h igh school classes in H awaii for stu den ts of limited English proficiency.' TESOL Quamrly 19/3 : 605-07. Lyster, R. 199 4. 'Th e effect of functional-analytic reaching on aspects of French immers ion students' sociolinguistic co mpetence.' Applied Linguistics 15/ 3: 263-87. Lyster, R. 199 8. ' Recasts, repetition and ambiguity in L2 classroom discourse.' Studies in Second La nguage Acquisition 20 /1 : 51-81 . Lyster, R. 2004. ' D ifferential effects of prompts and recasts in form ­ focused instruction.' Studies in Second Language A cquisition 26/3: 399-432. Lyster, R. 2007. Learning and Teaching Language through Content: A Counterbalanced Approach. Amsterdam: John Benjarnins. Lyster, R. an d H . M ori. 2006. ' Interactional feedback and ins tructional cou nterbalance.' Studies in Second Language Acquisition 28/2: 269-300. Lyst er, R. and L. Ranta. 1997. 'C orrect ive feedback and learner uprake: Negotiation of form in communicative classrooms.' Studies in Second LanguageAcquisition 19/ 1: 37-61. Lyst er, R. an d K. Saito. 2010. 'O ral feedback in classroom SLA:

A m eta-analysis.' Studies in Second Language A cquisition 32/2: 265 - 302.

237

238

Bibliography

Macintyre, P. 1995. ' How does anxiety affect second language learning? A reply to Sparks and Ganschow. ' Modern Language journal 791 1: 90-9. Mackey, A. 1999. 'Input, interaction and second language development: An empirical study ofquestion formation in ESL.' Studies in Second Language Acquisition 21 14: 557-87. Mackey, A. and]. Goo. 2007. ' Int eraction research in SLA: A meta­ analysis and research syn thesis .' in A. Mackey (ed.): Con versational Interaction in Second Language Acquisition: A Series of Empirical Studies. Oxford: Oxford Universiry Press. pp. 40 7-452.

Bibliography S. D oval-Suarez (eds .): The Dyn amics ofLanguage Use: Functional and Dyn amic Perspectives. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. http ://www.lognostics.co.ukltools/ pp . 269-83.

Meisel,]. M. 1987. 'Reference to past events and actions in the development of natural second language acquisition' in C. Pfaff (ed.): Firstand Second Language A cquisition Processes. Cam bridge, IvfA: Newbury House. Meisel, J. M., H . Clahsen, and M. Pienemann. 1981. 'O n determining develo pment al stages in natural second language acq uisitio n.' Studies in Second Language Acquisition 3 /2 : 109- 3 5.

Mackey, A. and]. Philp. 1998. 'C onversatio nal interaction and second language development: Recasts, responses and red herrings.' Modern Language journal 82 /3: 338-56.

Mwioz, C. 2006. 'Th e effects of age on foreign language learni ng: The BAF project' in C. M unoz (ed. ): Age and the Rate ofForeign Language Learning. Clevedon , UK: Multilingual Matters. pp. 1-40.

Mackey, A., S. M. Gass, and K. McDonough. 2000. 'How do learners per ceive interactional feed back?' Studies in Second Language Acquisition 22/4: 47 1-497.

Munro, M. J. and T. M. Derwing. 2011. 'Th e fou ndations of accent and intelligibiliry in pron unciation research.' ~anguage uaching44 /3: 3 16-27.

MacWhinney, B. 1997. 'Seco nd lang uage acq uisition and the competition mode l' in A. M . B. de G root and J. F. Kroll (eds.): Tutorials in Bilingualism: Psycbolinguistic Perspectives. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum and Associates. pp . 113-44. MacWhinney, B. 2000. The CHILDES Project: TOols for Analyzing Talk (2 volu mes) . Mahwah , NJ : Lawrence Erlba um and Associates. http:/ /childes.psy. cmu.edu/ Masgoret, A. M. and R C. Gardner. 2003. 'Atti tudes, motivation, and second language learning: A me ta-analysis ofstudies conducted by Gardner and associates.' Language Learning 53/1 : 123- 63 .

Nagy, W. E., p"A. Herman, and R.Anderson. 1985. 'Learning words from context.' Reading Research Quarterly 20/2: 233-5 3. Nation, I. S. P. 2001. Learning Vocabulary in Another Language. Cambridge: C am bridge Universiry Press. Nation, I. S. P. 2007. 'The four strands.' Innovation in Language Learning and uaching I l l : 1-12. Nation, 1. S. P. and]. Macalister. 2010. Language Curri culum Design. New York: Routledge. Netten,]. and C. Germain (eds.). 2004. 'Int ensive French in Ca nada .' Canadian Modern Language Review 60 /3 : pp . 249-435 .

McCormick, D. E. and R. Donato. 2000. 'Teacher questions as scaffolded assistance in an ESL classroom' in J. K. Hall and L. Verplaetse (eds.): Second and Foreign Language Learning through Classroom Interaction. Mahwah. NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum and Associates. pp. 183-201 .

Newpo rt, E. 1990. 'Maturational constraints on language learning.' Cognitive Science 14/1 : 11-28.

McDonough, K. 2004. ' Lear ner-learner interaction during pair and small group activities in a Thai EFL context.' System 32: 207-24.

No rris, ] . M. and L. O rtega. 2000. 'Effectiveness ofL2 instruction:

A research synthesis and quantitative meta-an alysis.' Language Learning

50 /3: 417-528 .

McLaughlin, B. 1987 . Theories ofSecond Language Learning. London: Edward Arnold .

Nicholas, H., P. M. Lightbown, and N . Spada. 2001 . ' Recasts as feedback to language learners.' Language Learning 51/4: 719-58.

McLaughlin, B. 190/0. 'Restructuri ng.' Applied Linguistics I II 1: 113-28.

Norton Peirce, B. 1995. 'Social identity, invest ment, and language learn ing. TESOL Quarterly 29 11: 9-31 .

Meara, P. M. 1980. 'Vocabulary acquisition: A neglected aspect oflanguage lear ning.' Language Teaching and Linguistics Abstracts 13: 221-46.

Norton, B. and K. Toohey. 200 1. 'C han ging perspe ctives on good language learners.' TESOL Quarterly 35/2: 307-22.

Meara, P. M. 2005. 'D esigning vocabulary rests for Englis h, Spanish and other languages' in C. Buder, M . dos Angeles Cornez-Gonzales, and

C. Madden, D . Preston, and L. Selinker (eds.): Variation in Second

Ohler, L. 1989. 'Exceptional secon d lan guage lear ners' in S. Gass,

239

240

Bibliography Language A cquisition, Vol. II: Psycbolinguistic Issues. C levedo n: Multilingual Marrers . pp. 141-59.

O dlin, T. 2003. 'Cross-Iingulsric influence' in C. J. Doughry and M. H. Long (eds.) : TheH andbook ofSecond Language Acquisition. Oxford: Blackwell. pp. 436-86. Ohta, A. 2000. ' Rethinking recasts: A learner-centered examination of corrective feedback in the Japanese classroom' in J. K. Hall and L. Verplaetse (eds.) : Second and Foreign Language Learning ,hrough Classroom Interaction. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum and Associates. pp .47-71. Oliver, R. and A. Mackey. 2003 . ' In teractio nal context and feedback in child ESL classrooms.' Modern LanguageJournal 87/4: 519-33. Ortega , L. 2007. 'Meaningful L2 practice in foreign lang uage classrooms: A cognitive-Interacrionist SLA perspective' in R. DeKeyser (ed.): Practice in a Second Language: Perspectives from Applied Linguistics and -Cognitive Psychology. C ambridge: Cam bridge Uni.versity Press. pp . 180-207 .

Bibliography

Pienemann, M. 2003 . ' Lan guage processing capacity' in C. J. Doughty and M. H. Long (eds .): The Handbook ofSecond Language Acquisition. Oxfo rd: Blackwell. pp . 679-714 . Pien em ann, M., M . Jo hnston , and G. Brindley. 1988. 'Constructing an acquisition-based procedure for second language assessment.' Studies in Second Language Acquisition 10/2: 21 7-4,.3 . Pimsleur, P. 1966. The Pimsleur Language Aptitude Battery. New York: Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovic. .

Piper, T. 2006. Language and Learning: The Home and School Years 4th edn,

U ppet Saddle River, NJ: Merrill/Prentice-Hall.

Piske, T. 2007. ' Im plications ofJames E. Flege's research for the foreign

language classroom' in O . Bohn and M . Munro (eds.): Language Experience

in Second Language Speech Learning. Amsterdam: John Benjarnins.

pp.301-314 .

P iske, T., I. R. A; MacKay, and J. E. Flege. 2001 . :Factors affectin g degr ee

of foreign accent in an L2: A review.' [ournal ofPhonetics 29 /3 : 191 -215 .

Paradis, J., F. Genesee, and M. B. Crago. 201 1. D ual La nguage Development and Disorders:A Handbook on Bilingualism and Second Langu age Learn i ng 2nd edn. Baltim ore: Paul H . Brookes.

Ranta, L. 2002. 'The role of learn ers' language an alytic ab iliry in the

co mm unicative classroom' in P Robinson (ed .): Individual D ifferencesand

Instructed Language Learning. Amsterdam: John Benjarnins. pp . 159-80.

Patkowski, M. 1980 . 'The sensitive period for the acqu isition of syntax in a second language.' Language Learning 30/2: 449-72.

Reid ,]. (ed.). 1995. Learning Styles in the ESUEFL Classroom. New York:

Hei nle and Heinle.

Pearson, B. Z. 2008. Raising a Bilingual Child: A Step-by-Step GuidefOr Parents. New York: Living Language (Random H ouse). Piaget, J. 1951. Play Dreams, and Imitation in Childhood. New York: Norton. (Originally published as La fOrma tion du symbole chez len[ant. Neucharel: Delchaux er Niestle.) Pica, T. 1983. 'M ethods of morpheme q uantification: Their effecr on the interpretation ofsecond language data.' Studies in Second Language Acquisition 6/ 1: 69 - 78 . P ica, T. 1994. ' Research o n negotiation : What does it reveal abo ut second language acquis itio n? Conditions, processes, and outcomes' Language Learning44/3: 493-527. P ien em ann, M. 1988. ' De term in ing the influ ence of instruction on L2 speec h processing.' AlIA Review 5/ 1: 40-72. Pi en em ann, M. 1999. Language Processing and Second Language Development: Processability Theory. Amsterdam: Joh n Benjamins.

Richards,J. 1974. 'A non-contrastive approach to error analysis' in

J. Richards (ed.) . Error analysis. Londo n: Longman. pp. 172-88. Ringbom, H . 1986. ' C rosslingu istic influence and the foreign language learning process' in E. Kellerman and M. Sharwood Smith (eds.): Crosslinguistic Influence in Second Language Acquisition. New York:

.

Pergamo n Press. pp . 150-72. Rob in so n , P. (ed.). 2002. Individual Differences and Instructed Language

Learning. Ams terdam: John Benjamins.

Robinson, P. and N. C. Ellis. 2008. 'Conclusio n: Cognitive linguis tics,

seco nd language acq uisition, and L2 instruction-issues fo r research'

in P Robinson and N. C. Ellis (eds.): H and book of Cognitive Lingu istics

and Second Language Acquisition . New York: Routledge. pp. 489-545.

Roy, D. 20 09. 'New horizon s in the stu dy of child language acquisitio n.' INTERSPEECH-2009, Brighton , UK.

Sachs, J., B. Bard, an d M. Johnson. 1981. 'Language learn ing with

restric ted inp ut: Case studies of two hearing children of deaf parent s.'

Applied Psycholinguistics 21 1: 33-54.

24 1

242

Bibliography

Bibliography

Samuda, V. 2001 . 'G uiding relationships between form and meaning during task performance: The role of the teacher' in M. Bygate, P. Skehan, and M . Swain (eds.): Researching Pedagogic Tasks: Second Language Learning, Teaching, and Testing. London: Longman. pp . 119-40.

Sharwood Smith, M. 1993 . ' Inp ut enhancement in instructed SLA:

Theoretical bases.' Studies in Second Language Acquisition 15/2: 165-79.

Schieffelin, B. 1990 . The Give and lake o/Everyday Life: Language Socialization o/Kaluli Children . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Sinclair,]. M. (ed.). 2004. How to Use Corpora in Language Teaching.

Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.

Sheen, Y. 2006. 'Corrective feedback and learner uptake in communicative

classrooms across instructional settings.' Second Language Teaching Research

Savignon, S. 1972. Communicative Comp etence: An Experiment in Foreign­ 8/3 : 263-300 .

language Teaching. Philadelphia, PA: Center for Curriculum Development. Sheen, Y. 2010. ' D ifferent ial effects o f oral and written corrective feedback

Schachter, J. 1974. 'An error in error analysis.' Language Learning in the ESL classroom.' Language Teaching Research 32 /2: 203-34.

24/2: 205-14. Simpson, R. C, S. L. Briggs,]. Ovens, an d]. M. Swales. 1999 . The

Schachter,]. 1990. 'On rhe issue of completeness in second language Michigan CorpusofA cadem ic Spoken English (MICASE). Ann Arbor, MI:

acquisition.' Second Language Research 6/1: 93-124. The Regents of the University of Michigan. http://micase.e1icorpora.info.

Schleppegrell, M. 2004. The Language o/Schooling. Mahwah, N]: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Schmidt, R. 1990. 'The role of consciousness in second language learning.' Applied Lingu istics 11/1: 17-46. Schmidt, R. 2001. Attention' in P. Robinson (ed.): Cognition and Second Language Instruction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 3-32. Schulz, R. A. 2001. ' C ultural differences in student and teacher perception s conceming'rhe role of grammar teaching and cor rective feedback: USA-Colombia.' Modern LanguageJournal 85/2 : 244-58 . Schumann,]. 1979 . 'Th e acquisition of Engli sh negation by speakers of Span ish: a review of the liter ature ' in R. W Andersen (ed.) : TheAcquisition and Use ofSpanish and English as First and Second Languages. Washington, DC:TESOL. Schwartz, B. 1993. 'O n explicit and negative data effecting and affecting competence and linguistic behav ior.' Studies in Second Language Acquisition 15/2: 147-163.

. Skehan, P. 1989 . Individual Differences in Second Language Learning. London: Edward Arno ld. Skinner, B. F. 1957 . Verbal Behavior. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts. Slobin, D. I. 1973. 'C ognitive prerequisites for the development of

grammar' in C. A. Ferguson and D. 1. Siobin (eds.): Studies of Child

Language Development. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.

pp . 175-208.

Siobin, D. I. 1985-1997. The Crosslinguistic Study 0/Language . Vols 1-5 .

Mahwah, N]: Lawrence Erlbaum and Associates.

Smith, N. and I. M. Tsimpli. 1995. The Mind ofa Savant: Language

Learning and Modularity. Oxford: Blackwell.

Snow, C 1995. 'Issues in the study of input: Fine- tuning, universality,

individual and developmental differences, and necessary causes' in

P. Fletcher and B. MacWhinney (eds.): The Handbook ofChild Language .

Oxford: Blackwell. pp. 180-93.

Segalowitt, N. 2010. Cognitive Bases o/Second Language Fluency. New York: Routledge.

Snow, C and M. Hoefnagel-Hohle, 1978. 'The critical period for

lan guage acquisition: Evidence from second language learning.'

Child Development 4914: 1114-28.

Seidlhofer, B. 2011. Understanding English as a Lingua Franca. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Spada, N. 20 11. ' Beyond form-focused instruction: Reflections on past,

present and fut ure research.' Language Teaching 44/2: 225-36.

Selinker, L. 1972. 'Inr erlan guage.' International Review 0/Applied Linguistics 10/2 : 209-31 .

Spada, N. and M. Frohlich. 1995. The Communicative Orientation

0/Language Teaching Observation Scheme: Coding Conventions and

Applications. Sydney: Macmillan .

Setter,]. and].]enkins. 2005. 'Pronunciation.' Language Teaching 38/1: 1-17.

Spada, N. and P. M. Lightbown. 1993. 'Instruction and the development

of questions in L2 classroo ms.' Studies in Second Language Acquisition

15/2: 205-24.

243

244

BibLiography

Bibliography

Spada, N. and P. M. Lightbown. 1999. ' Insrructio n , L1 influence and developmental readiness in second language acquisition.' Modern Language JournaL8311: 1-22.

Swain, M. and S. Lapkin. 1998. ' Int eractio n and seco nd language lear ning: Two ado lescent Fre nch immersion stude nts working toge ther.' Modern Language[ournal 82/3: 33 8-56.

Spad a, N. and P. M . Light bown. 2002. 'L 1 and L2 in the education of Inuit children in northern Quebec: Abilities and perceptions.' Language and Education 16/3 : 212-40.

Swain, M . an d S. Lapkin. 2002. 'Talking it through: Two French immersion learners' respo nse to reformulation.' Internationaljournal of Edu cational Research 3 7/3-4: 285-304.

Sp ada, N . and Y. Tomita. 2010. ' Interact io ns between type of instruction and type oflanguage feature: A me ta-analysis .' Language Learning 60/2: 1-46.

Swain, M., P. Kinnear, and L Ste inman. 2010 . Sociocultural Theory and Second Language Education: An Introduction through Narratives. Bristo l: Multilingual Maners .

Sp ada, N., P. M. Lightbown, and ]. L Whit e. 2005 . 'The importance oHorm/mean ing mappings in explici t form -focussed instruction' in A. Housen and M. Pierrard (eds .): Investigations in Instructed Second Language Acquisition. Amsterdam: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 199-234.

Taro ne, E. and M. Sw ain. 1995 . 'A sociolinguistic perspective on seco nd-language use in immersion classrooms.' Modern Language [ournal 79/2: 166-178.

Spada, N . and M . Santos Lima. 2010. ' EFL and ESi. teacher and learner views about integrated and isolated form-focused instructi on.' Proceedings of th e IX Inrern ati o nal Conference o f the Brazilian Assoc iatio n of C ana d ian Stud ies: Po rro Alegre, Brazil. Spad a , N., K. Barkaoui, C. Peters, M. So, and A. Valeo. 2009. .De veloping a questionnaire to m easure learners' preferen ces for isolated and integrated form-focused instruction.' System, 37/ 1: 7 0- 8 1. Spada, N., L. Jessop, W; Suzuki, Y. Tomita, and A. Vale o . 2009. The Conrributions of Isolated an d Inregrated Fo rm-Focused Instruction on Different Aspects of L2 Knowledge and Use. Paper p resented at the American Association for App lied Linguistics: Denver, CO. Spielmann, G. and M. J . Radnofsky. 2001 . ' Lear ning language under tension: New directions from a qual itative study.' Modern Language journal 85/2 : 259-78 .

Tarone, E. and B. Swierzbin. 2009 . Exploring Learner Language. Oxfo rd: Oxfo rd University Press. Taylor, D ., M. Caron, and L. McAlpine. 2000. 'Patterns o f perceived lang uage abili ty and use in Arctic Q ue bec.' Bilingual Education and BilinguaLism 3/4: 28 3-96. Tomita, Y. 20 11. The Role of Form-Foc used Instruction : Learn er Investment in L2 C o mm un ication. Unpubl ished thesis . University of Toronto. h ttps:!!rspace.library.utoronw.caJbitstream/1807/29892/ 1/ Tornira, Yasuyo_20 1106_PhD_thesis.pdf Toohey, K. 2000. Learning EngLish at School: Identity. Social Relations and Classroom Practice. C levedon: Multilingual Maners .

Trahey, M . and L White. 1993. ' Positive evidence and preemption in the second lang uage classroom.' Studies in Second Language Acquisition 15/2: 18 1-204.

Storc h, N. 2001 . ' Patterns of interaction in ESL pair work.' Language Learning 52/1: 119-58.

Tro6m ov ich, P. 2005. 'Spoken-wo rd process ing in native and second lang uages: An investigatio n o f auditory word priming.' Applied PsychoLinguistics 26/4: 479-504.

Swain, M. 1985. 'Comm unicative competence : Some roles o f comprehens ible input and comprehensib le o ut put in its develo pm ent ' in S. Gass an d C. Madde n (eds.): Input in Second Language Acquisition. Rowley, MA: N ewb ury H o use. pp. 235 -53 .

Tr ofim ovich , P., P. M. Lightbown, R. H. Halter, an d H. Song. 2009. 'Co m prehension- based practi ce: The develop m ent o f L2 pro n unciation in a listen ing and read ing p rogram .' Studies in Second Language Acquisition 31/4: 609-39.

Swain, M. 1988. 'M anipulating and complementing content teaching to maximize second language learning. ' TESL Cana da journal Gt s: 68-83.

VanPatten, B. 2004 . ' Inp ut pr ocessing in SLA' in B. Van Patte n (ed .): Processing Instruction: Theory, Research, and Commentary. Mahwah, N] : Lawrence Erlba um and Associa tes. pp. 5-3 1.

Swain, M. 2000. 'The ou tput hypo th esis and beyond: Me diating acquisit io n th rou gh collabo rat ive d ialogue' in] . P. Lanro lf{ed. ): Sociocultural Theory and Second Language Learning. Oxford: Oxfo rd University Press. pp . 94-114.

VanPatten , B. and T. Cadiemo. 1993. ' Explici t instructio n and input processing .' Studies in Second Language A cquisition 15/2: 225-41 .

145

246

Bibliography

VanPatten, B. and]. Williams (eds.). 200 7 . Theories in Second Language Acquisition: An Introduction. Mahwah. NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum and Associates. Vygotsky, L. S. 1978 . Mind in Society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Wajnryb, R 1992 . Classroom Observation Tasks: A Resource Bookfor Language Teachers and Trainers. Ca m bridge: Camb ridge University Press. Walker, R 20 10. Teaching the Pronunciation 0/English as a Lingua Franca. O~ford: Oxford University Press. Watson-Gegeo , K. A. 1992 . 'Thick explana tion in the ethnograph ic study of child socialization: A longitudinal study of the p roblem of school ing for Kwara'ae (Solomon Islands) child ren' in W A. Corsaro and P. J. M iller (eds .): Interpretive Approaches to Children's Socializa tion. Special issue ofNeu: D irectionsfor Child Development 58: 5 1-66. Werker,]. E, w: M . Weikum, and K. A. Yoshi da. 2006. 'Bilingual speech processing in infants and adu lts' in P. McCardle and E. Hoff (eds.): Childhood Bilingualism: Researchon Infancy through School Age. C levedon: Mu ltilingual Matters. pp.1 -18. Wesche, M . B. 198 1. 'Language aptitude measure s in scream ing, matchin g stu dents with metho ds, and diagnosis oflearni ng pro blems' in K. Diller (ed. ): Individual Differences and Universals in Language Learning Aptitude. Rowley, MA: Newbury H ouse. pp. 119-39. White, J. 1998. 'Getting the learners' attention: A typographical input enhancement stu dy' in C. Dou gh ty and J. Williams (eds.): Focus on Form in Classroom SLA . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp . 85- 113. White,]. 2008. 'Speeding up acquisition of his/her. Explicit Ll/L2 contrasts help' in J . Philp , R. Oliver, and A. Mackey (eds.): Second Language Acquisition and the Younger Learner: Child's Play? Amsterdam : John Benjamins. pp. 193- 22 8. White, J. and P. M. Lightbown. 1984 . 'Asking and answering in ESL classes.' Canadian Modern Language Review 40/2: 228-44. White, L. 1987. 'Againsr comprehensible input: the inp u t hypothesis an d the development ofL2 competence.' Applied L ingu istics 8: 95-11 0. White L. 1989. Universal Grammar and Second Language Acquisition. Amsterdam: Joh n Benjamins. White, L 1991. 'Adverb placeme nt in second language acquisition: Some effects of positive and nega tive evidence in the classroom .' Second Language Research 7/2: 133-61.

Bibliography

White, L. 2003 . Second Language Acquisition and Universal Grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. White, L., N . Spada, P. M. Lightbown, and L. Ranta. 1991. 'In put enhancement and syntactic accu racy in L2 acquis ition.' Applied Li ngu istics 12/4: 416-32. Wode, H. 1978 . 'D evelopment al sequences in naturalistic L2 acquisition' in E. M. H atch (ed.): Second Language Acquisition: A Book o/Readings. Rowley, MA: Newbury House. pp . 10 1-1 7. Wode, H. 1981. ' Language acqui sitional universals: A unified view of language acqu isition' in H . Winirz (ed.): Native Language and Foreign Langu age Acquisition. N ew York: Annals 0/the New YorkAcademy ofSciences 379. pp. 218-34. Wong Fillmore, L. 1979 . 'Individ ual differences in second language acquisition' in C. J. Fillmo re, W -S. Y. Wang , and D . Kemp ler (eds.): Individual Differences in Language Ability and Language Behavior.' New York: Acade mic P ress, pp. 203 -28. . Wong Fillmore, L. 2000. 'Loss of family languages: Should educarors be concerned ?' Theory into Practice 39/4: 203 -10. Yule, G. and D . Macdonald. 1990. 'Resolving referential conflicts in L2 interaction: The effect of pr oficiency and interactive role.' Language Learning 40/4: 539-56. Zimmerman, C. B. 2009. WOrdKnowledge: A Voca bula ry Teacher's Ha ndbook. Oxford: Oxfo rd University Press. Zobl, H. 1980. 'The formal and development al selectivity of Ll influence on L2 acquisition.' Language Learning 30 / 1: 43-5 7. Zobl, H. 1984. 'Th e wave mo del of linguistic change and interlanguage systems .' Studies in Second Language A cquisition 6/2: 160-85.

247

INDEX

Glossary entries are shown by

's' after the

page number.

accent, in second lan guage 69-70, 7 [, 90. 94

ACCESS (A uto matization in Communicative Contexts of Essential Speech Seg me nts ) II7 accessibility hierarchy 54-5, 181, 213g

accuracy o rder 46--8, 113g

acquisition/learning hypothesis [06, 193, 113g

actio n research IH. 2-13g

active listen ing 16 5, 213g

activi ties

analyse learn er langua ge .B - 4

analyse learners' questions 51-2­

co m pare learning co ntexts [24-5

exam ine the M oni tor M odel 107

exp lo re co ntexts tor seco nd lan guage

learn ing 35

loo k at how different cues lead to sentence

incerpretarion [[2

look for and compare negotiation for

meaning [66

match pedagogical activi ties with teaching

p roposals 191- 2­ opinions on statements about language

learnlng 3-4

reflect o n individ ual differences an d

language learnin g success 99

reflect on language learnlng exp erience

75-7

review you r op inions 2-0[

supporr yo ur o pinion 2!I-ll

reache r-srudenr interaction transcripts

130-1

try o ur the 'wu g' test 8-9

additive bilingualism 33, 213g

ado lescen r learners 85. 93-6 S~~ also pub erty

adult-child interaction 26-7

adve rb placem en t 58-9, 163. 185

affect 10 6

affective filter hypothesis 10 6

age

ad ult learners 93, 96 .156

chi ld lan guage acq uisition 5-34

an d instruction in seco nd lan guages 96-9

and in rer pretario n of recasts 144

of learner 9:1.-6

alcohol. effect on pronunciation 85

American Sign Language (ASL) :1.3. :1.13g

anxiety 85, 86. 100, 101, 106

aptitude, lan guage learning 78. 80-3

aspect (of verbs) )5-6

arre ntio n

attentional resou rces 108-9

noticing hypothesis II5. 177 . 183-4,

189, lUg

arrirudes, lear n ers' 87-8 .

audi o lingual approach 68. [0 4, 154-9 ,

195. 113g aud ito ry discrirnination 6, 213g

auditory learners 83

authe n tic materials 20 9

auro ma ticiry 108-9

avoi da nce (o f diffi cult featu res) 45, 58

Barcelona Age Faeror proj ect 98

behaviour ism 113g U~ also audiolingual

approach

in first language acquis ition 14-19

in second language learn ing 57. I03-oj.

bel iefs of learners 90-1. 170

BleS (basic in te rpersonal communication

ski lls) 31-1

bili ngual ed ucation programmes t71, lqg

bilingualism 114g

childhood bilingualism 30-3

child lan guage acquisition

code switching 31

dual immersion [/4-5

'bo rrowed ' wo rds 63

brain fu nctioning and language II3 imagi ng II3. :1.4g CALP (cog niti ve academic language

pr oficiency) JI-1

care take r talk se« child-directed speech;

modified input

characteristics of learn ers see lear ner

characteristics

chi ld- d irect ed spee ch 16-7, 2I4g

chi ld language acq uisitio n 5-34

Child Lan guage Data Exchange System

(C H IL DES) :1.6

250

Index children

first language 5-34

second language 92-9

cho ice motivation 87- 8

chunks 10 . 1II. 102. 1I4g IU alto formulaic

lan gu age

clar ification req uests 114, 140. 188

classroom s classroom instr uction and indi vid ual d ifferences 92-6

classroom lear nin g 39

classroo m observation schemes [29-49 ,

com p rehe nsion-based instruction 159- [65. 215g com prehens io n checks 1I4 co nditional mood 170, [88 connectionism 28-9. 215g content-based language reachi ng (CBLD 215g IU also immersion programmes co nt ent an d langua ge-int egrated lea rnin g (CLIL) 147, 171, 215g

focus o n usage [2+ [27-9. 2II- 12

'get twO for one' 171-7

and increasing th e tim e available for

2I4g

language study [48

and learning pragmatics 67-8

learning verb fo rms in science class 188

methods of reachin g and lear ni ng [53-99

and pragm atics 67

motivation in th e classroom 88-9

an d recasts (nor notici ng) [41

closed ques tions [47

Contrastive An alysis Hypothesis (CAH) co-construction [19

41-5, 47, 57, 68. 104 , 215g

code switchi ng 31

con trol groups 157, 2[5g

cognates 63, u 4g

cor p us linguistics 72, 202, 216g

cognitive devel opment, an d [he

corr ective feedb ack 216g IU also recasts

ln reractionist pers pectiv e 2.4-5

clarificatio n requests 140

co gn itive linguistics 28-9 , 110-11, 1I3-[8

contex tual im po rtan ce 143

cog ni tive maturity 37-8 , 214g

effect on oral prod ucti o n 194

cog n itive psychology 108-[8

elicitation 141

co llaboration

error co rrectio n in communicative

collabo rative dialogues II9 . 189, 214g instructional settings 127-8

collabo rative interaction 168

exp licit correction 140, 208, 2Io-II

I U also learner- learner interac tio ns;

an d first language acq uisitio n 202-3

pai r work

and 'get it righ r in th e en d' 182-95

com m unicative confidence 86

an d the innatist pe rspective 105

CLIL (content and language-integrated

and the interaction hypothesis 167

lear ning) 147, [7[. 215g

lear ner bel iefs abou t 91

CLT (com m unicative lan guage teaching) 215g

metalinguistic feed back 140-[, 143-4, 183- 4

and apti rude restin g 80

nega tive feedback in learner- learner

compared [0 structure-based instruction

in teractions [70 , [71

156-7

pos itive reinforcement 14

and phonology 68

repetitio n 14!

and pragmatics 67

self-correctio n vs other correctio n 194

teacher-student interaction uanscripts

stu dying corrective feed back in the

132- 3

classroom 139-45

use of d isplay q uestio ns 145--6

tim ing of co rrective feed back 194

Communicative Orientation of Language

Uptake 139. 141. 142 , 188, 224g

Teaching (C O LD 129

wri tten corrective feedback 144 - 5

com perence. lingu istic vs co mmunicative

co rrelation 77-8, 216g [58-9. 215g

counterbalance hypo th esis 1+3, 1I6 g com pe ti tio n model Ill- 13

C rit ical Period H ypothesis (C PH ) 22-4. co m prehensible inp ut 106, 165-71

92- 6, 216g

and authenti c materials 209. 215g

cross-cul tu ral research . into first language

'just liste n . .. and read ' 159-65

acq uisition 26-9

an d m odified interactio n II4

cross-lingu istic infl uen ce 59-60. 216g I U and th e Mo nitor M odel 106-7

also Con trastive Analysis H ypoth esis co m pr ehensible outpur hypothesis II4, 1I9. (CAH) 165. 215g bi-directional 59-60

Index an d develo pme n tal stages 180

diffe rent first lan guages affectin g

develo pm ent of negation, possessives.

questions, 'referen ce to pas t', relati ve

clauses 48-56

firSt language transfer causing 'errors' 42,

44-;. 47, 163. 181. 186 , 20 5- 6

an d proc essing capab ility II6 •

and pro nun ciatio n 69

cross-sect io nal stu d ies 8, 66 , 'l16g deaf ch ildren

and th e Cri tical Period Hypothesis 23

and innatlsrn'zr

and the need for interaction 27- 8

deaf parents 23. 27

declarative know ledge 109, [17. 193, 1I6g

deductive instruction 82

delayed lan guage develop rnenc. zo-jo

descriptive stu d ies 14 3, 116g

developmental seq uences 217g

accessibil ity hierarchy 54-5. 2t3g

cross-lan guage sim ilar ities 45

de velo pmental erro rs 44

devel o pmental fea tures 177. 217g

di fferent acco rd ing to ins tr uct io n type

157- 8

diso rders an d dela ys 29-30

first language acquisition generally 6-12

first lan guage infl uence o n seco nd

lan guage 57, [80--[

grammatical mo rphemes 7-9, 46-8. [57-8

movement through (seco nd language

de velopment) 56-7

negation 10, 48-9

possessive det erminers 52- 3

pragmatics 66-7

pronunciation 69

q uestion formation [0-[2

of relative clauses 54-5

secon d language acquis ition generally 45-57

and 'teach what is teach able' 177-82, [96

dialects I U varieties of languages disorders and delays

in first lan guage acq uisition 29-30

in learning second languages 82

disp lay questions [30, 145-9, 21n d rills

audiolingu al pattern drills 157- 8

an d behaviourist approaches II7

d rill-like dis play quesri ons 146

pa tte rn practice dr ills [57- 8

'd rip feed' approach to instr uctio n [48 , 10 5

du al im m ersio n 174- 5

early start for lan guage learning 93. 96-9 ,

20 4- 5

EFL vs ESL CO ntexts 91, [50

elicitation I4! . 188

em bedded figur es test 83

Engl ish as a ling ua fran ca (ELF ) 71

enh an ced input / in put enhancemen t 162- 3.

217g env ironment. language 1(( also classroo ms; in put amount of expos ure (tim e) im po rtant 38. 69, !l8, [48-9

and th e behaviourist perspective 14-19

and the innatist perspective 20

an d the in reractio nisr pe rspe ctive 24-5

natural acq uisitio n setti ngs [25-6

errors J(( alto cor rective feedback absen ce o f erro rs may be due to avoidance, nor proficiency 45. 58

can be a sign of progress 4[ , 56, IIO

erro r anal ysis approach 42- 3

erro rs ma de by second lan gua ge learners

similar to chi ld err ors 42

teacher feedback on [30

eth n ic group affiliation 70, 71, 89-90

eth nography [49-51. 217g

executive mo tiva tio n 87-8

experim ent al studies [53-4, 217g

exp licit knowledge 193. 212

extroversion 84--6

false cog nates 63

feedback lee co rrective feedback

feleles rso

field in dependent/field dependent learning

styles 83. 2[7g first language (Lr , mother to ngu e. native ,language) 217g

acquis itio n o f, gene rally 5- 34

im po rtance of cont in ued dev elopment of

L1 in im m igran r situatio ns 32-3 , 97,

174, 175, 176. 20 4

infl uenced by second language (cross ­

linguis tic influe nce) 59--60

infl uence o n second language lear n ing

57- 60 I(e cross- linguistic influence

fluency as aurornaticity II8 learn ing befo re accu racy in com m unicative ap proaches 157

m istaken int erprerarion of 32 focus on fo rm IU fo rm -focus ed instructio n focus on m eaning I U alto comm un ica tive lan gu age teaching (C LD ; co n ten t­

based lan guage teaching (C BLT )

25 1

and the beh aviouri st perspective [8-1 9

and the competition model 111

'get it right in th e end' 182-95

and lack of accuracy 195

negotiation for meaning 14, 128, 130,

165--6. :l.2lg and pronunciation 70

foreigner calk 39. 217g

Foreign Language Oassroom Anxiety Scale 35

foreign language learning 217g

form-focused instruction 213g U:~ also

corrective feedback

beneficial in content-based instruction 173

and 'get it right in the end' 182-95

useful in some circumsrances 196-7

formulaic language 218g IU also chunks

at early stages of learning 56

and information-processing model 109

much language learned as III

in seco nd language errors +1­ and wh- questions I~

fossilization 43. t 57. 218g

front ing, qu estion formation u , 49-51, 17S

func rion wo rds 7. 43, 218g

gende r, grammatical 29. 52-3, 187

'Genie' 22- 3

generalisatio n 42. 4+ 218g

genu ine questions 130, 1+5-9 , 218g

gestural (sign) language 23

'get it right fro m the beginning' 154-9.

166.195

'get it right in the end' 182-95

'get twO for one' 171- 7

gram mar

in babies' first utterances 7

grammatical gender 29, 52- 3. 187

gram m aticality judgements 95. w 6. 218g

grammatical morphemes. child

acquisition of 7-9, 218g

grammatical morphemes. second

language acquisition of 46-8

learner beliefs about grammar instruction 9t

obligatory contexts 46-8, 158, l21g

grammar trans lation methods 80, 126,

154-9. 195, 218g

grammaticality judgement 95. 106. 218g

group work 170. 209 U:~ also pair work

habits 14, 104

human in p ut , need for 6. 28

ident ity 70. 89-90

imitation

and first language acquisition 15-t9

and the behaviourisr perspective 14-1 9

and second languages 41. 201-2

immersion p rograsnmes 79-80, 128. 142. II!,

172-5. t87-9 , 219g

immigrants

im po rtance of contin ued development of

LI 32-3 . 97. 1/4 , t75. 176 , 204

second language acquisition 79 . 89-90.

94,95. 171

implicit knowledge 193 •

individual differences 75- I0 1

inductive instruction 81-2

information-processing model 108-10 , 119g

information questions (gen uine questions)

t30 • 145-9

inhi bitio n 84-5

Initiation/Response/Evaluation (IRE)

exchan ges 126

innatisr perspeccive on child language

acquisition 20-4,.104- 7. 219g

input l l9g I~~ also comprehensible input;

modified input flood 162-3. 219g amo unt o f expos ure (time) im po rtan t 38, 69 , 128, t48- 9

enhanced in purli n pu t enhancement 162- 3

freque ncy of encounte rs with new

ma terial is im po rtant 62

in the in n arisr perspective on ch ild

language acquisition 21

in put flood 162-3. 219g

input hypothesis 106

input processing n6

the ' log ical problem' o f seco nd language

acqu isition 1°5

struct ured input 81- 2

instruction (teach ing)

age and second langu age instruction 96-9

amount and distribution of time available

1.j.8

'd rip feed' vs int ensive [48, 205

explicit instruction and pragmatics 67-8

explicit instruction and pronunciation

70-1

explicit instruction an d vocabulary

learning 64

and the innatist perspective 105

instructed vs uninstructed learners 46-7

instructio nal programmes and aptitude

p rofiles 8t

instructional settings 124-9 I~< also

classrooms

teachabiliry hypothesis 177-82

instrumental motivation 87. 219g

integrated form-focused insrructio n 191

int egrative motivation 87. 2t9g

inrelligence 7 9-80, 203

inte lligibility. as goal of pronun ciatio n 7t intensive ESl 148. 162. 219g intensive vs 'dr ip feed' instruction models 148, 2°5 interacrio n

collabo rative d ialogues II9. 189

co nversational interaction 14, 165- 71

importance of interaction in first language

acquisition 27-8

interaction hypothesis 1I4. 1I8. 165. 167,

[69-70. 119g

int eractionist/ developmental perspective,

child language acquisition 24- 5

lack of in ' just listen ... and read'

approaches 159--65

lear ner-learner interactions 1I9, 128,

135-9. 169-70. 209

modified interaction iU modified input

need to rake social setting in to account

when researching 79

inte rfere nce u< c ross-linguistic influence

inrerlanguage 220g

ge nera lly 43

and 'get it righ t from the beginning' 157-8

in terlan gu age pragm atics 65-6

Interlocu to rs iU interaction

' int ern atio nal adoprees' 24

international vocabulary 63

investm ent (of learner in learn ing) 89-90

IQ (int elligence quotient) 78-80 . l 0 3

isolated form-focused instruction 191

'j USt listen ... and read' 159--65

kinaesthetic learners 83

language acqui sition order see developmental

seq uences language disorders and dela ys 29-30 language distance 69 I U also cross-linguistic influence

language learning aptitude 80-3

language-related ep isodes (LREs) 189, H Og

' language socialization' 27

lea rner characteristics

generally 37-8

age 92--6

a~itudes and motivation 70 , 87-9

and classroom instruction 92

identity and group affiliation 70 . 89-90

Intelligence 79-80

lan guage learning aptitude 80-3

learner beliefs 90-t. 170

learning styles 83-4

perso nality 84-6

readiness to learn 180-1

researc h methods 75- 7

learn er-Iearne r interactions 119, 128, 135-9.

167-7° .209

learning condi tio ns 38-4 0

lear ning vs acquisition 106, 193

'let's talk' 165- 71

lingua franca , English as I!

longitudinal studies 7-8. 9. 66. 89, 98, 149.

nog meaning. focus on I~~ focus on meaning memory and the information processin g m odel 1°9-10

memorization 103-4

retrieving new words 70

working memory capaci ty 80-1

meta-anal ysis 193, !log meralinguistic awareness n og

and bilingualism 31

rnetalinguisric feedback 140-1, 143, 183-4

and older learners 38

in pre-sc hoo lers 13

mimicry 103-4 se« also i rn i rario n

mi tigation 66, 6 7. l 20g

Modern Language Ap titud e Test (MLo\T)

8o modi fied input H Og

benefits o f 207-8

chi ld-directed speech 26-7

in communicative langu age teaching

(C l T) 127-8

in co nte nt-based language teaching

(C fsl T) 173-4. 176

enh ance d input 162- 3. 2l7g

foreign er talk 39. 2l7g

in learner-learner interaction s t70

modified interaction II4, zzog IU also corrective feedback; modified input

in natural acquisition sett ings 1].6

and comprehensible input II4

teacher talk 39

modified interaction II5, nog I« also co rrective feedback; modified input

modified outpUt 1I5. 119.165

Monitor Model (i +1) 106-7. 118

morphemes, grammatical 7-9, 46-8 , nlg

rnorher tongue see first language

motivatio n

difficulties in research ing 78

and excessive co rrectio n 208

motivation retrospection 87-8

not always a predicto r of success 203-4

teachers' motivational practices 88-9

,IS variab le in second language learning

87-8

254

Index Motivation Orientation of Language Teaching (M O Ln 88 rnulticornperence (as better goal th an native abiliry) 96 multip le int elligences 80 native lan guage see first lang uage native-like ability 68, 71, 96, azrg nat ive speak er 3, 24, 4-2 , 5r; 67 , 69 , 7r, 94, 96, 97, 114 , 126, 145, 22lg natural acq uisition setti ngs 123- 9 narural order hypothesis 106, 221g IU also developm ental seq uences negatio n ' chi ld acq uisitio n of 9-10 secon d lan guag e learning 48-9 nega tive feedback I U clar ificati o n req uests; correcti ve feedb ack nego riatio n for rnean ing. tra , 128, 130, 165-{). 221g nego tiation of fo rm 139 , zz rg II!I! also form-focused ins tr uctio n neurologi cal resear ch I13 no ticing hyp othesis II5, 177 . r83-4, 189, 2llg object pr onou ns 164 o bligatory con texts 46-8, 158. az rg obs ervatio n ethno graphy r49-51 ob servatio n schemes 129-48 op en q uesrio ns 147 or der of acquisition ul g I I!I! developmen tal seq uences cvergene ralizar io n errors 221g an d the behavio ur ist perspect ive 18- 19 in first language acq uis irio n 12 and the info rma t io n processing model 110 in pronunciation 68-9 in second language lear ning gene rally 44 pair wo rk 168-9 , 170 . 209 paraphras ing 1I4 . 147 II!I! also recasts parent-child interacti on 26-7 pasl tense 55-{). 173 patt ern p ractice drills 157-8. 22rg patt erns in lan guage. lear nin g 18 pee r group, lear n ing fro m I19 II!I! also lear ner-lear ner im eracrions perceptio n of so un ds 69 , 70 perceptually-b ased lear ning sryles 83 perfo rm an ce 12, 45, 71. 79. 85. 94 , 96, 107 , 117, 186, u lg personal characterist ics of lear ners II!I! lear ner characteristics perso nal ity 84-6 pho nemi c d isti nctio ns 222g infants' ab ility 6 seco nd language learners 69

Index phonology 68- 71, 206 po lyglor savam 83 pos itive reinforcement 14 possessive de terminers 46-8. 52-3 . 163 power relatio nships 70. 89 practi ce an d the behaviourls t perspect ive 14- 19 and cogni tive perspectives II7 pragma rics 222g im portance of learning 207 imerlanguage p ragmarics 65- 6 po lite prono uns 173. 187 registers (differem lan g uag e fo r d ifferem situati o ns) 14. 173, r87. 222g an d seco nd lan gu age lear ning 65-8 pre-school years. an d lan gu age acq uisirion 12-13 pri vat e speech II8. 142. 222g procedural knowled ge 109. 117. 193, 222g processabiliry theory 1I6-17. 177, 182, 222g p rocessing capac ity II6 processing instr uc tion 16 2, 164-5. 122g profi cien cy an d bil ingual ism 31- 2 diffic ulties in resear ch ing 78-9 learner language an d proficiency level r67-8 pro m pts clar ificatio n requests I14. 140, 188 elicita tion 141. 188 enco uragi ng self-co rrection 188-9. 194 p ron un cia tion 68-71

psych o logical theories II!/! behaviourism:

info rmario n proc essing mod el pu be rty 94-5 q uest io ns child acquisirio n of ro-ta, 19 display q uestions r30 seco nd lan guage lear nin g 49-5r. 180 teacher q uestioning in th e classroo m 145-9 rate oflearnin g 96 , 97 . 222g readi ness ro learn [8c>-1 reading effect of literacy o n firsr language deve lopmen t 13 'just listen" . an d read' 159-65 and practice II7 p ro blems in lear ning to read 29-30 read ing as a sourc e of voca bulary growth 63-.f, 206 readi ng m aterial fo r learn ers 161-2 recasts 2Ug comparison o f feedback th at co rrects vs p ro m p ts 194 in co nten t-base d classroo ms 139-45

in immersion classrooms 188- 9 in learner-learn er inreractions 170 , 171 learners may not notice r95 mos t common kind of feed back 21C>-1I for 'readi es' and 'un read ies' 180 stress (p rosodic) r44 refere nc e ro past 55-6

referen tial questions (gen uin e q uestio ns) 130,

145-9 reflexive pronouns 2C>-1 registers (di fferem lan guage to r differen r situations) 14, 173, 187. 222g rela tive cla uses 54-5, 181-2 repe ti tion 141 I I!I! also imi ta tio n; prompts req uests . as p ragm atic feature 66 research m ethods acti on resear ch r54. 213g (classroo m) o bservatio n sche m es 129-49 co rrelation 78 corpus Iingu isrics 72, 202, 216g cross-secrional stud ies 86. 216g descriptive stud ies 143, 216g difficulry in findi ng co m parison groups 157

ethnography 149-51

experime ntal stud ies r53-4

lon gitu d inal st udies 86

observa rio n schemes 129-49 q ualita tive researc h 86. 129. 149, 154. 222g q uan ti tative resear ch 86. 129, 153. 222g researcher paradox (researcher affecti ng th e st udy ) 189 researchi ng teache r- st ude nt int eractions 129-35 sam pling issues 72 for st udy ing learner characte ristics 77-8 rest rucruring 1°9-10. 222g routines (form ulai c lan guage) II!/! fo rm ulaic langu age scaffolding 25, u 8, 146-7, 223g seco nd lan gua ge 159, 223g school years , an d first lan guage acq uisitio n 13- 14 segrne n tals 68. 70. 123g self-co rrec tion vs o ther cor rect ion 194 self-re pe ti tio n U4 sensitive pe riod (Critical Period H ypothesis) 22-4,9 2- 6 seq uential bilingual s 30 sho rr-re rrn memory 8C>-1 sign lan guage 23 Sign ifican t di fference [59, 189 , 223g silence. use of in classroom I.p . 149 sim pli fica tio n 44 . 114, 223g

simplified readers [61 sim ultaneous bilinguals 30 social int eractio n and th e interactionist perspective 24- 5 soc ializa tio n, lan guage 149-50 soc ioc ultural th eo ry U8-19, 146, 169. 223g socio linguisrics pre-schoo lers lear n ing social forms of language /2- 13 socio lin guistic fo rms 18i - 8 sociopo litical change r5C>-1 speech an d langu age diso rders 29-30 stages II!/! deve lop mental seq uences Standard var iery r4. 223g stim ulat ed recalls 189 str ess (an xiety) 85, 106 stress (prosodic) im portance in making yo urself unde rstood 206

as part of ph on o logy 68. 69 , 70 , 7t

in recasts 144

str uctural gradi ng 223g srudenr-srude nc in teractio ns II!/! learn er­ learn er in teractions su b mersi o n m ethods 32 su btra ctive bili ngu alism 32-3. t74, 177 . 223g sup rasegm enrals 68. 70 . 223g large t lan guage 223g task-based langu age teaching (TBLn 67. 165, 190, u3g teach ers ro le in mo tivation 204 teacher-lear ner in teractio ns 129-35. [45 teacher questio ning in th e classroom 45-9 teachers' mo tivati on al practices 88-9 teach er talk 39. 224g teach in g, classroo m I I!I! audio lin gual app roach ; co mmun icative language teaching (CLn ; co ntent -based lan gu age teach ing (CBLn ; focus on meaning; form -focused instruction; grammar translati on me thods; task­ based language teachin g (TB Ln 'teach w hat is teach able' 177-82. 210 technology co m puter -base d tools fo r sam pling 72 in put for ch ild lang uage acq uisitio n needs to be h umans not electronic 6, 28 'teleg raph ic' sen te nces, ba bies' 6-7 timing amount of exposure (tim e) in new language impo rtant 38, 69, u S, 148- 9

255

256

Index of beginning instruction in second language 93, 9~, 204-5 of corrective feedback [94 of form-focused instruction [9[ transfer 224g see cross-linguistic influence transfer-appropriate processing (TAP) 110, • 191, 2~ rwo for one 171-7 typographical enhancements of input [63 UG (U niversal Grammar) 20, 104-5 , 224g uptake [39. 141. 42, 188, 224g usage-based learn ing 1I0-I1 usage-based perspectives on child lan guage acquisition 28-9 variab les, personal 224g f~~ learner characteristics variational features 116, 177--9, 224g varieties oflanguages 14, 31, 71. 206 . 224g 'Victor' 22 visual learner s 83 vocabulary amou nt needed for conversation 6[, 162,206 can be taught any time 178 first language development of 14 growth through reading 162 learning straregies 64­ second language learning 60-4 wait time 147 wh-words to-l2, +9-51 willingness co communicare (\vro 86, 224g word identification 61-2 retrieval of word meanings 109 word order adve rb placement 58-9 basic word orde r and predictable development paths 177. 178, 179 word order and meaning 111-12 working memory capaciry 80-1, 225g 'wug rest' 8-9 younger the benet (for starting second language instruction) 93, 96-9,20+-5 zone of proximal development (Z PD) 25, 118, 225g