I think the role of attention in learning language is quite obvious to influence whether the learner success to acquire the target language or fail to. That is, how learner attention may be manipulated for the purpose of enhancing it, and hence enhancing acquisition.
According to this research (Park & Han), there are two sources of attention. One is learner-external. The other is learner-internal. The attention is related to the salience. That is, the more salient the input is, the more attention it will garner, and hence more noticing. There are also two types of salience. One is external salience which is derived by a teacher or researcher. The other is internal salience that is born from the learner. Between two types of salience, internal salience is focused in this paper. Furthermore, L1 is regarded as a contribution factor to internal salience.
In this research, there are three research questions;
(1) What features of the L2 input do novice learners notice when exposed to the TL input for the very first time?
(2) What features of the L2 input do they notice after they have been taught some linguistic items of the TL?
(3) Do learners with different L1 backgrounds exhibit differential attentional behavior, and if so, to what extents is it related to their existing knowledge of the L2?
In this research, they found that L1 affects L2 input processing, particularly in the early stage of learning. There is an interaction between such influence and the typological distance between the L1 and the L2. In other words, if the L1 is typologically distant from the L2, the input- processing approach tends to be form-oriented. In contrast, if the L1 is typologically close to the L2 it tends to be meaning-oriented.
Reading this article, I suddenly remembered when I had roommates from Italy and Brazil. One day, one of my roommates, Lagia, from Italy, had argued with her boyfriend over the telephone in Italian. After she hung up the telephone, the other roommates, Marcella, from Brazil offered words of consolation. That time, I was very surprised at how Marcella understood what Lagia said. So, I asked Marcella whether she spoke Italian or not. She told me that Italian and Spanish are very similar. So, when she tried to listen to Italian carefully, she could understand what it meant.
Now, I understand why it was possible. That because, Italian and Spanish are typologically similar. It might be alike that Koreans can learn Japanese more easily than Chinese.
After I read this article, it is interested to me that learner’s current linguistic knowledge affect learning language.
2010년 5월 26일 수요일
2010년 5월 17일 월요일
The Comprehensible Output Hypothesis
What I learned last class ‘Krashen's Input Hypothesis’ is that output has no functions in acquiring the target language. However, Swain asserts that output does a lot of important functions in SLA.
In the 1980s, the word “output” was used to indicate the outcome, or product, of the language acquisition device. Output was synonymous with “what the learner/system has learned.” The output hypothesis claims that the act of producing language (speaking or writing) constitutes, under certain circumstances, part of the process of second language learning.
According to Swain, there are three functions of output. First, it is the noticing/triggering function. The claim is that while attempting to produce the target language, learners may notice that they do not know how to say or write precisely the meaning they wish to convey. Secondly, it is the hypothesis testing function. The claim is that output may sometimes be, from the learner’s perspective, a “trial run” reflecting their hypothesis of how to say or write their intent. If learners were not testing hypotheses, then changes in their output would not be expected following feedback. Furthermore, students were more likely to modify their output, and do so successfully, when they were pushed to do so. It is important for students to actually produce the targeted linguistic items correctly, supporting the notion that in these cases the learners were actively seeking feedback through hypothesis testing. Thirdly, it is the metalinguistic (reflective) function of output. The claim here is that using language to reflect on language produced by others or the self, mediates second language learning.
However, what we need do understand is that it does mean not comprehensible output is responsible for all or even most of our language competence, but under some conditions, output facilitates second language learning in ways that are different form, or enhance, those of input.
When I look back how I have learned English as a second language, I could acquire English through both sufficient comprehensible input and output with appropriate feedback from instructors. Therefore, now, it is hard for me to say whether I have learned English through only input or output. I think that it is not appropriate to consider that there is only one way to learn second language because I think there are various factors which influence for acquiring second language.
In the 1980s, the word “output” was used to indicate the outcome, or product, of the language acquisition device. Output was synonymous with “what the learner/system has learned.” The output hypothesis claims that the act of producing language (speaking or writing) constitutes, under certain circumstances, part of the process of second language learning.
According to Swain, there are three functions of output. First, it is the noticing/triggering function. The claim is that while attempting to produce the target language, learners may notice that they do not know how to say or write precisely the meaning they wish to convey. Secondly, it is the hypothesis testing function. The claim is that output may sometimes be, from the learner’s perspective, a “trial run” reflecting their hypothesis of how to say or write their intent. If learners were not testing hypotheses, then changes in their output would not be expected following feedback. Furthermore, students were more likely to modify their output, and do so successfully, when they were pushed to do so. It is important for students to actually produce the targeted linguistic items correctly, supporting the notion that in these cases the learners were actively seeking feedback through hypothesis testing. Thirdly, it is the metalinguistic (reflective) function of output. The claim here is that using language to reflect on language produced by others or the self, mediates second language learning.
However, what we need do understand is that it does mean not comprehensible output is responsible for all or even most of our language competence, but under some conditions, output facilitates second language learning in ways that are different form, or enhance, those of input.
When I look back how I have learned English as a second language, I could acquire English through both sufficient comprehensible input and output with appropriate feedback from instructors. Therefore, now, it is hard for me to say whether I have learned English through only input or output. I think that it is not appropriate to consider that there is only one way to learn second language because I think there are various factors which influence for acquiring second language.
2010년 5월 10일 월요일
Interlanguage Processing
Krashen tried to distinguish between acquisition and learning. According to Krashen, language acquisition is a subconscious process, while language learning is a conscious knowledge. It really makes sense. However, there is a controversial issue. In Krashen’s view, the acquired system is used to produce language while the learned system serves as an inspector of the acquired system. Furthermore, learned knowledge cannot lead to acquired knowledge. However, I am wondering how we can prove that there are separate systems between the acquisition and learning. When I first heard this distinguish, I agreed with that. However, I reminded that speaking is initiated through the acquired system. If Krashen’s view is true, how have learners like me ever produced L2 production?
Schmidt proposed the noticing hypothesis. Awareness through attention is necessary for noticing which in turn is essential for learning. For this hypothesis, there is the idea of noticing a gap. That is, a second language learner will begin to acquire the target like form if and only if it is present in comprehended input and ‘noticed’ in the normal sense of the word, that is consciously. However, noticing alone does not mean it is automatically acquired, but it is the essential starting point. But I am wondering whether a learner must consciously notice something.
Krashen introduces Monitor Model. The Monitor is an important term for understand Krashen’s view. The Monitor is also related to the distinction between acquisition and learning. The learned system has a special function to serve as a Monitor which alters the output of the acquired system. In other words, the Monitor is responsible for linking the acquired and learned systems in a situation of language use. The only function of the Monitor is editing utterance. For activating the monitor, there are three conditions that must be met; time, focus on form, know the rule. However, Krashen mentioned that these three conditions are necessary, but they are not necessarily sufficient. That is, the Monitor may not be activated even when all three conditions have been satisfied. But I’m wondering whether we have enough time to monitor during real conversation. And also, how do we prove where the rule used for utterance comes from.
Schmidt proposed the noticing hypothesis. Awareness through attention is necessary for noticing which in turn is essential for learning. For this hypothesis, there is the idea of noticing a gap. That is, a second language learner will begin to acquire the target like form if and only if it is present in comprehended input and ‘noticed’ in the normal sense of the word, that is consciously. However, noticing alone does not mean it is automatically acquired, but it is the essential starting point. But I am wondering whether a learner must consciously notice something.
Krashen introduces Monitor Model. The Monitor is an important term for understand Krashen’s view. The Monitor is also related to the distinction between acquisition and learning. The learned system has a special function to serve as a Monitor which alters the output of the acquired system. In other words, the Monitor is responsible for linking the acquired and learned systems in a situation of language use. The only function of the Monitor is editing utterance. For activating the monitor, there are three conditions that must be met; time, focus on form, know the rule. However, Krashen mentioned that these three conditions are necessary, but they are not necessarily sufficient. That is, the Monitor may not be activated even when all three conditions have been satisfied. But I’m wondering whether we have enough time to monitor during real conversation. And also, how do we prove where the rule used for utterance comes from.
2010년 5월 5일 수요일
Krashen's Hypothesis
What are the important factors to learn foreign language?
Many people think that learners can acquire language naturally when the learners are exposed to the target language environment as much as possible. Maybe, most parents who send their children to study abroad believe that. However, I am doubtful if the language environment is the only condition for leaning language.
Thanks to my parents, I had stayed in Canada for 5 years. However, I do not think that my English is better than those who have studied English only in Korea. In retrospect, my personality was the most chief obstacle to leaning foreign languages. I hated that someone pointed out what I was wrong about. Moreover, I really hated that I made same mistakes over and over again in front of other people. Therefore, I tried to avoid using English if possible.
According to Affective Filter Hypothesis by Krashen, a number of 'affective variables' play a facilitative, but non-causal, role in second language acquisition. These variables include: motivation, self-confidence and anxiety. Krashen claims that learners with high motivation, self-confidence, a good self-image, and a low level of anxiety are better equipped for success in second language acquisition. Low motivation, low self-esteem, and debilitating anxiety can combine to 'raise' the affective filter and form a 'mental block' that prevents comprehensible input from being used for acquisition. In other words, when the filter is 'up' it impedes language acquisition. On the other hand, positive affect is necessary, but not sufficient on its own, for acquisition to take place.
Many people think that learners can acquire language naturally when the learners are exposed to the target language environment as much as possible. Maybe, most parents who send their children to study abroad believe that. However, I am doubtful if the language environment is the only condition for leaning language.
Thanks to my parents, I had stayed in Canada for 5 years. However, I do not think that my English is better than those who have studied English only in Korea. In retrospect, my personality was the most chief obstacle to leaning foreign languages. I hated that someone pointed out what I was wrong about. Moreover, I really hated that I made same mistakes over and over again in front of other people. Therefore, I tried to avoid using English if possible.
According to Affective Filter Hypothesis by Krashen, a number of 'affective variables' play a facilitative, but non-causal, role in second language acquisition. These variables include: motivation, self-confidence and anxiety. Krashen claims that learners with high motivation, self-confidence, a good self-image, and a low level of anxiety are better equipped for success in second language acquisition. Low motivation, low self-esteem, and debilitating anxiety can combine to 'raise' the affective filter and form a 'mental block' that prevents comprehensible input from being used for acquisition. In other words, when the filter is 'up' it impedes language acquisition. On the other hand, positive affect is necessary, but not sufficient on its own, for acquisition to take place.
2010년 4월 21일 수요일
Schmidt and Frota, 1986
In this time, I just read the article brifely, so, I am not sure what I undersatand is right or not.
Among various contents, the word 'noticing' captured me.
The noticing Hypothesis is the claim that second language learners must consciously notice the grammatical form of their input in order to acquire grammar. That is, the hypothesis is a claim about how input becomes intake – that part of the input that is used for acquisition. It claims that conscious awareness of grammar plays an important role in the process.
Noticing the gap is learners’ awareness of a mismatch between the input and their current interlanguage. The conscious awareness of the gap is a requirement. And then, arguments that learners must compare input to their interlanguage grammar are not arguments for noticing.
Among various contents, the word 'noticing' captured me.
The noticing Hypothesis is the claim that second language learners must consciously notice the grammatical form of their input in order to acquire grammar. That is, the hypothesis is a claim about how input becomes intake – that part of the input that is used for acquisition. It claims that conscious awareness of grammar plays an important role in the process.
Noticing the gap is learners’ awareness of a mismatch between the input and their current interlanguage. The conscious awareness of the gap is a requirement. And then, arguments that learners must compare input to their interlanguage grammar are not arguments for noticing.
2010년 4월 14일 수요일
Should we consider variation in interlanguage performance in second language acquisition?
According to Tarone and Liu, there are two points of views about interlanguage variation. One prefers to study language as idealized form and excludes the study of variation. The other studies language forms in relation to their use in context, including the study of variation. However, Tarone and Liu focus on the latter. Variationists, like Tarone and Liu, focus upon external interactions and L2 learner performance in a variety of social contests. For them, interlanguage variation across those contexts is importantly related to change in learner’s Interlanguage knowledge over time. So, according to their perspectives, variation is a source of information about the way in which interaction in different social contexts can influence both interlanguage use and overall interlanguage development.
In this article, Liu conducted a very interesting study. It was a 26-month longitudinal study of a Chinese boy named Bob. Liu observed Bob’s speaking in English with his pre-school peers and supervisory staff, his teachers in his primary school classroom, primary school peers, and the researchers. There are interesting results. Even though Bob had the same knowledge system of English at disposal, Bob’s use of his interlanguage varies in its general shape as he moves from one situation to another.. More specifically, in interaction with the teachers, Bob only used very simple English. In interacting with peers, he made more extensive use of his knowledge by producing more complex English. In interaction with the researcher, he made still more extensive use of the knowledge to the extent of attempting syntactic structures. In other words, Bob’s use of his interlanguage knowledge is affected by the different interactional contexts. So, he is performing his competence differently in these different interactional contexts.
And then, why Bob’s competence develops differentially depending on the different interactions? Lie suggested that the different interactions in which Bob engaged had an impact on his interlanguage development, not only in terms of the rate of that development, but also on the route of his interlanguage development. That is, different interactional contexts support different rates of development of particular interlanguage features. And also, external social demands can be so strong that they can cause an alternation in internal psychologically motivated sequences of acquisition.
Before reading this article, I had only believed innate forces in language acquisition. However, it was very narrow point of view. There are obviously not only internal innate forces but also contextual forces in second language acquisition. Therefore, now I understand that it is very important what circumstance the child learns his or her SLA.
In this article, Liu conducted a very interesting study. It was a 26-month longitudinal study of a Chinese boy named Bob. Liu observed Bob’s speaking in English with his pre-school peers and supervisory staff, his teachers in his primary school classroom, primary school peers, and the researchers. There are interesting results. Even though Bob had the same knowledge system of English at disposal, Bob’s use of his interlanguage varies in its general shape as he moves from one situation to another.. More specifically, in interaction with the teachers, Bob only used very simple English. In interacting with peers, he made more extensive use of his knowledge by producing more complex English. In interaction with the researcher, he made still more extensive use of the knowledge to the extent of attempting syntactic structures. In other words, Bob’s use of his interlanguage knowledge is affected by the different interactional contexts. So, he is performing his competence differently in these different interactional contexts.
And then, why Bob’s competence develops differentially depending on the different interactions? Lie suggested that the different interactions in which Bob engaged had an impact on his interlanguage development, not only in terms of the rate of that development, but also on the route of his interlanguage development. That is, different interactional contexts support different rates of development of particular interlanguage features. And also, external social demands can be so strong that they can cause an alternation in internal psychologically motivated sequences of acquisition.
Before reading this article, I had only believed innate forces in language acquisition. However, it was very narrow point of view. There are obviously not only internal innate forces but also contextual forces in second language acquisition. Therefore, now I understand that it is very important what circumstance the child learns his or her SLA.
2010년 4월 7일 수요일
The Critical Period Hypothesis
An interesting example of the 'Critical Period Hypothesis" is the case of Genie, also known as "The Wild Child." A thirteen years old victim of lifelong child abuse. Genie was discovered in 4th November in 1970 when her mother entered a social service office to apply for finaicial aid. The child drew attention because she was underized for her age and did not speak. In her case, we could question that a nurturing environment could somehow make up for a totla lack of language past the age 12. Genie was not able to acquire language completly although the degree to which she acquired language is disputed. I wonder why she did not acquire language perfectly. Is it because of the critical period or her retared birth? In this point, I would look over the DeKeyser's study(2000) about the critical period hypothesis.
DeKeyser replicated Johnson and Newport’s study in 1989. However, he did not conduct exactly the same way that Johnson and Newport did. He tried to accept the criticism about Johnson and Newport’s research. So, he supplemented the method. First, he picked up all participants who lived in US at least 10 years. Second, to avoid fatigue of participants, the test was shortened and the break time was given. Third, he tried to distinguish between the age of arrival and the age of test taking. More importantly, in study of DeKeyser, there was aptitude test to explain why there was the partial overlap of the native and nonnative distribution.
At first, looking at the method in Dekeyser, there were 57 native speakers of Hungarian. He had a reason why he picked up Hungarians for his study. Because Hungarian is a non-Indo-European language, he could eliminate variability due to the L1. For age of arrival, there are 42 participants who were older than 16 years old and 15 participants who younger than 16 years old. For this study, there were 3 instruments. First, to know language and educational background, age of arrival in North America and age of at the time of the test, all participants filled out the questionnaire. Second, there was the grammaticality judgment test based on the tape recording and correct-incorrect pair. Finally, the aptitude test was administered consisting of multiple-choice answers.
The goal of DeKeyser’s study is to assess the effect of verbal ability. In other words, he would like to find the effect of foreign language learning aptitude on ultimate attainment. In order to reveal more findings, studying the effects of age and verbal aptitude, and their interaction, should be better than studying them separately.
In this research, there were three hypotheses. First, the hypothesis of a strong negative correlation between age acquisition and score on the grammaticality judgment test was confirmed. Second, he predicted that no adult acquirers would score within the range of child acquirers unless they had high verbal aptitude. And this hypothesis was also supported. The third hypothesis that different structures showed different degrees of correlation with age of arrival was proved through this study.
Rendering the Dekeyser’s research, it provided an explanation for why certain learners and certain structures appear to be exceptions to the critical period effect. Through this study, we could find that adults with high verbal ability can reach near native speakers by using explicit learning mechanism and it proved evidence for Fundamental Difference Hypothesis. And regardless of verbal ability or age effect, certain structures can be learned explicitly by all learners. It also answered the question about the role of language-learning aptitude in naturalistic acquisition by showing that aptitude is a predictor of ultimate attainment in L2. The most important finding is that there really is a critical period for language acquisition. It is not just sensitive or optimal period for learning language. He suggested that the Critical Period Hypothesis only applies to implicit learning of abstract structures. That is, all findings of this study imply that explicit learning processes are a necessary condition for achieving a high level of competence in a nonnative language after childhood.
Reading this article, I wonder what is the best way to teach foreign language for adult learner. And also, I wonder whether it is worth or not to place a high value on early-childhood Englich Education.
DeKeyser replicated Johnson and Newport’s study in 1989. However, he did not conduct exactly the same way that Johnson and Newport did. He tried to accept the criticism about Johnson and Newport’s research. So, he supplemented the method. First, he picked up all participants who lived in US at least 10 years. Second, to avoid fatigue of participants, the test was shortened and the break time was given. Third, he tried to distinguish between the age of arrival and the age of test taking. More importantly, in study of DeKeyser, there was aptitude test to explain why there was the partial overlap of the native and nonnative distribution.
At first, looking at the method in Dekeyser, there were 57 native speakers of Hungarian. He had a reason why he picked up Hungarians for his study. Because Hungarian is a non-Indo-European language, he could eliminate variability due to the L1. For age of arrival, there are 42 participants who were older than 16 years old and 15 participants who younger than 16 years old. For this study, there were 3 instruments. First, to know language and educational background, age of arrival in North America and age of at the time of the test, all participants filled out the questionnaire. Second, there was the grammaticality judgment test based on the tape recording and correct-incorrect pair. Finally, the aptitude test was administered consisting of multiple-choice answers.
The goal of DeKeyser’s study is to assess the effect of verbal ability. In other words, he would like to find the effect of foreign language learning aptitude on ultimate attainment. In order to reveal more findings, studying the effects of age and verbal aptitude, and their interaction, should be better than studying them separately.
In this research, there were three hypotheses. First, the hypothesis of a strong negative correlation between age acquisition and score on the grammaticality judgment test was confirmed. Second, he predicted that no adult acquirers would score within the range of child acquirers unless they had high verbal aptitude. And this hypothesis was also supported. The third hypothesis that different structures showed different degrees of correlation with age of arrival was proved through this study.
Rendering the Dekeyser’s research, it provided an explanation for why certain learners and certain structures appear to be exceptions to the critical period effect. Through this study, we could find that adults with high verbal ability can reach near native speakers by using explicit learning mechanism and it proved evidence for Fundamental Difference Hypothesis. And regardless of verbal ability or age effect, certain structures can be learned explicitly by all learners. It also answered the question about the role of language-learning aptitude in naturalistic acquisition by showing that aptitude is a predictor of ultimate attainment in L2. The most important finding is that there really is a critical period for language acquisition. It is not just sensitive or optimal period for learning language. He suggested that the Critical Period Hypothesis only applies to implicit learning of abstract structures. That is, all findings of this study imply that explicit learning processes are a necessary condition for achieving a high level of competence in a nonnative language after childhood.
Reading this article, I wonder what is the best way to teach foreign language for adult learner. And also, I wonder whether it is worth or not to place a high value on early-childhood Englich Education.
피드 구독하기:
글 (Atom)
