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.

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.

Do we have U.G. in our mind?

According to Chomsky, we all have universal grammar (U.G.). That is, all human beings are generally equipped with abilities that enable them to acquire language. Does U.G. really exist in our mind?

I’ve wondered how children acquire language so fast in spite of the lack of stimulus. A baby who does not say any words can suddenly utter very simple and basic words. In an instance, the baby begins to say his daily life with perfect sentences. How can we explain the developmental process of the language ability of children? Furthermore, how can we account that children can utter quite complex sentences in a relatively short space of time? The key point is that we have U.G. in our brain.

There is a marvelous case which is about Christopher, a linguistic savant. A linguistic savant is a kind of metal disorder that someone has very low non-verbal I.Q. but he can communicate in a number of languages. Also, the linguistic savant can read, write and hear on a number of languages even though he cannot utter fluently in those languages. There is a guy whose name Christopher, one of the unique linguistic savants. He could comprehend and distinguish more than 20 languages. Neil Smith, a researcher, tried to make an experiment to prove U.G. through his case. He made a language which was out of U.G. theories or rules, but the manipulated language was completely rational and logical. Many people who had an average or high verbal I.Q. could learn the manipulated language and even make a past tense or negative sentence. However, Christopher could not do that.

I think that this is an obvious evidence for U.G., Chomsky’s theory. Christopher could acquire those languages not because of high rational and logical intelligence but because of biological endowed innate system in his some part of brain.

L2 Learning Autobiography

How long have I studied English? I have almost learned English over twenty five years!! Twenty five years is way too long.

When I first encountered the English alphabet, I was five years old. My mother emphasized the importance of early English education. From memory, the first institution to learn English was like a kindergarten. I still remember that I sang in English with dance routine and how much I liked to do that. I am pretty sure that I did not know what the songs meant at that time. However, I was willing to participate in the activity.

After that time, as most students around my age, I started learning English as a regular curriculum when I attended a junior high school. Like anyone who was a student at that time, I focused on developing my English grammar and reading comprehension so I tried to memorize the certain grammar books and vocabulary and get the knack how to solve the problem. Even though I did well in English at school, I had no confidence of speaking in English.

When I turned twenty years old, I realized that studying English is not just focusing on grammar and reading comprehension but focusing on all four domains; speaking, writing, listening, and reading. At that time, I went to Canada to study on the advice of my parents. When I arrived, I did not know anybody in Canada. I cannot forget the first day I approached Canada. A beautiful blond who was affiliated to language institution came out to meet me at Toronto Pearson International Airport. For driving down to London where I planned to study, we barely talked to each other. My head was in a whirl. I felt pathetic. Although I had studied English over 10 years, I could not speak in English at all in front of a native speaker.

During first two months, I was very quiet. Looking back upon those days, I spoke less than 10 sentences in a day because I had pressure to utter grammatically correct sentences. Naturally, I nearly had no chance to get along with my homestay family. Over time, I lost my confidence. At that time, there was a teacher who gave me a chance to change my life. Her name is Cathy. In our Language school, her class was famous for tough assignments. I just remembered that I had really hard time; I had a listening and speaking test once a week, writing journals about TV program which I like and a reading comprehension test after reading articles about Canada, and so on. However, I am sure that I have improved English through her class. The most importantly, she gave me confidence.

Among various assignments, I have some memorable ones.
First, we had a class trip once a month. Because she was a huge sports fan, we went various stadiums; ice hockey, soccer, baseball and basketball and do on. Whenever we went to field trip, we had a mission. We had to give an interview to Canadian. And then, we had to present who was the interviewee in the next class. It helps me to be used to speak in English in front of other people.
Second, we needed to write journals about TV program that we liked to watch. At first, I was difficult to write something because I barely understand what was going on in the show. It was really stressful. Fortunately, in Canada, most channels’ schedules were filled with repeats. I realized the more I watched the reruns, the more I wrote something on my journal. Even though I returned my journal covered with red proofreading marks, I enjoyed writing in English.
Third, we had a listening and speaking test every week. Every time, she prepared 15 minutes of listening materials. After we listened to the record tape, she asked us some questions. At first, she hardly corrected what we spoke in English. She more focused on whether we understood the content rather than whether we uttered grammatically correct sentences. Some student complained that she was too slipshod. Later, we could know why she did that. It was a tactic to encourage us to speak in English. As time passed, she more put into our grammatical construction.

Thanks to teacher Cathy, I could entrance into a university in my eighth month in Canada. Of course, I had more difficult times at university. However, I could start my school life more delightfully and graduate without any problem. Even now, I have learned English. And I have a long way to go. However, based on Cathy’s teaching, I can know how to improve my English fluency.

Corder (1967)

According to Corder(1967), we need to regard errors conducted by the learner of a second language not as a subject removed but as information showing how much he or she knows. And also, Corder(1967) tries to distinguish between errors and mistakes.

Making mistakes like slips of the tongue are things of infrequent occurrence. And also, when the learner recognizes what is wrong, he or she can correct them. In contrast, errors seem to be systematic and repetitive form. And also, the learner cannot be aware of what he or she does wrong.

In conclusion, Corder(1967) argues that errors are best not regarded as the persistence of old habit, but rather as signs that the learner is interesting the systems of the new language.

After reading this article, I realized that we need to examine errors to understand leaning a foreign language. However, I wonder whether we can exactly explain why we make the specific error. For example, suppose that the learner say the following example;

* The book discovered on the desk.

It is certain that this sentence is wrong. To correct the sentence, we need to insert ‘be verb’ between the word ‘book’ and the word ‘discovered’. However, there are two possibilities to explain why the learner makes this kind of error. First, the learner might not be able to distinguish between the active and the passive. Secondly, the learner might not know differences between transitive verbs and intransitive verbs.

And also, is it possible to say that we know every language rule if we say correct sentence?

Therefore, to understand the learner of second language, I think that we need to know not only errors but also something else.