Kamis, 20 September 2012

What is Discourse Analysis? By Harry Haiqal

What is Discourse Analysis?

By Harry Haiqal


The method of discourse analysis is complex and cannot be properly understood without extensive reading. The aim of this web page is to provide you with an outline of the approach so that if you haven't read much about it you can, among other things, decide whether you would like to learn more about the method or whether you would like to carry out research using this approach. An example is provided further down the page to illustrate a popular kind of discourse analysis, which is known as thematic analysis. It includes some examples of transcription symbols.


Discourse analysis is a qualitative method that has been adopted and developed by social constructionists. Although discourse analysis can and is used by a handful of cognitive psychologists, it is based on a view that is largely anti-scientific, though not anti-research. Social constructionism is not easy to define, but it is possible to outline some basic assumptions of the approach:
•  Psychologists cannot be objective when studying human behaviour. In the scientific approach there is the belief that knowledge can be gained by objectivity (observations made without bias or preconceptions, rather as though the investigator is an alien from another planet and has no preconceived notion of what is being observed). However, this belief has been disputed – people, including researchers, cannot be objective. A researcher is very likely to hold some position (expectation, bias, belief, or set of cultural values) when they are conducting their research. The result is that people can construct their own versions of reality and not necessarily objective versions either.
•  Reality is socially constructed. In the scientific approach it is assumed that it is possible to categorise reality, and that ideas or constructs that psychologists use, such as personality and intelligence, are naturally occurring things or categories. However, this ignores the fact that language shapes the categories and constructs we use. Since language is a social and cultural thing, our sense of reality is socially and culturally constructed.
•  People are the products of social interaction. In the scientific approach it is assumed that many of the constructs used are ‘inner essences'. That is to say that personality, anxiety, drives, and so on, exist somewhere within. However, it may be the case that many of these so-called essences are actually the products of social interaction.
In order to understand these assumptions, let's look at the example provided by Burr (1995) on the issue of personality.

The traditional view of personality

Personality consists of a number of traits such as generosity, shyness, charm, and so on. What makes people different is that they can be high on some traits and low on others. A further assumption is that, by and large, personality is stable over time – although a generous person may have one or two lapses, they are generous most of the time. Another assumption is that personality influences our behaviour – we ascribe the inner essence ‘generosity' to someone acting very generously. This view of personality seems just common sense and it seems to make sense in our everyday understanding of people.

The social constructionist critique of the traditional view of personality

Personality, it is argued, is a socially constructed concept and traits do not exist as inner essences at all. The way people are arises from their interactions with other people. When you think about the traits we use to describe people, virtually all of them involve actions that can only take place with reference to other people. For example, a shy person is only shy in the presence of others, a generous person can only be generous to other people, and so on. One could ask whether such personality traits would still exist in someone stranded on a desert island!
Social constructionists remind us that since personality CANNOT be observed directly its existence has to be inferred, and it is inferred from behaviour. However, someone's behaviour can be very different depending on the context or situation they are in. Furthermore, people can be both nice and nasty, that is, behave in opposite ways to the traits they are commonly described as having.

So, who am I?

By now you may be completely confused, as I was when I first encountered this viewpoint. If personality and inner essences do not exist then we must ask ourselves who we are and what makes us who we are? According to social constructionism each version of ‘you' is a product of your relationships with others. The word ‘identity' is used to refer to a person's purpose within a social relationship. In other words, we have different identities based on who we are with, where we are, the situation we our in, and so on. The creation and use of such identities can be understood by psychologists by trying to study the language that people use. Furthermore, by studying conversations and all forms of communication we can understand how people and society ‘construct' their own versions of reality.

Why discourse analysis?

Discourse analysis is a way of understanding social interactions. The researcher acknowledges their own bias and position on the issue, known as reflexivity. The aims of research vary: The aim of one investigator might be to understand power relationships in society in order to bring about change; another may be interested in appearance and how it can shape identify; and another investigator may be interested in an interaction or conversation simply for its own sake (in terms of not knowing what the study might uncover). The research begins with a research question (and not a hypothesis in the formal sense) that is aimed at a theoretical position. A conversation or piece of text is transcribed and then deconstructed. This involves attempting to identify features in the text, such as discourses. A discourse is a particular theme in the text, especially those that relate to identities, for example such as a statement that reiterates a view or claim that men find weddings dull, and so on. Topics that have been studied include men's friendships, family conversations of the royal family, an interview with Princess Diana, media constructions of racism, gender categories in discourse, lesbian motherhood, conversations about marriage, men's talk about fatherhood, and so on.
How to do a discourse analysis
The first point to note is that in order to do a discourse analysis you need to have read a handful yourself first. By reading published articles that use the method, you will have a better understanding of (1) how to do an analysis and (2) some of the theoretical orientations that you will need to know to do your own analysis. Having identified a theory and a chosen item (text or recorded conversation) to analyse, you need to transcribe it in one of the accepted/published ways. The transcript must always appear in the appendices. There are many different forms of discourse analysis, so here we will focus on thematic analysis as an example.
What is thematic analysis?
Thematic analysis is about trying to identify meaningful categories or themes in a body of data. By looking at the text, the researcher asks whether a number of recurring themes can be abstracted about what is being said. For example, on one level you might find an inconsistency, an attempt to assign blame, an attempt to cite others to support one's views, a regular interruption of other people, an attempt to make one's account of some event sound more authentic, and so on. On another level, you might idenitify a regulalry occurring attribution of blame or the repeated reference to some specific cause of an event. The reference might take slightly different forms but refers to the same cause. An example might be football fans blaming various aspects of a player's motivation for the failure of their team (e.g., "he gets so much money, doesn't need to try", "he looked as though he wasn't bothered", "he didn't want the ball", and so on).
In the results section of the report, the themes abstracted are collated and reported on. In doing so, it is usual to cite from the transcription examples of the points you are trying to make. A summary of the findings can be offered but also a critique of the author's own interpretations – this refers to the concept of 'reflexivity', that the author's is only one interpretation of the text.
Transcription Symbols
When transcribing text, a conventional system of symbols is used. A table of the symbols used in the transcription can often appear as an appendix, such as the following (some of which are taken from Potter and Wetherell, 1987):

Symbol

Meaning

Example

(.)
Short pause
Jane: I think that (.) it's possible
Interruption
Driver: No, I haven't um…
Police officer: Had a drink?
[
Words/phrases spoken at the same time
Caller: It makes me want to [swear
Radio host: [Thank you caller
[---]
Illegible
Teacher: Turn to page [---]
[?]
Uncertainty of the preceding word
Student: Where's Ingrid [Ingrid?]



For further reading on this method you could read Chapter 3 and Chapter 5 of Hayes (1997). Each chapter is a description of how a particular analysis was carried out. One is an analysis of conversations about the royal family and the other is the analysis of an interview with a student about social class.

Example report

The following is loosely based on Barker (2003), which is a discourse analytic study of conversations with ‘Goths and Pagans’ – youths who belong to specific subcultures. The paper has been rewritten as an example item of coursework (with the author’s permission). When you read the report you may notice several features that are very different from how a lab experiment is reported.
Firstly, there is no attempt to identify causes from an objective perspective – why people choose to wear Goth clothing, but rather the focus is on how Goths themselves perceive their own subculture, their identities within it, and their experiences of how non-Goths perceive them.
Secondly, the shape of the report is quite different – there are no graphs or tables, and no statistics to report. The main source of data is the transcriptions of the interviews and much of the text refers directly to quotes from the transcriptions. There are other differences, too, such as very little ‘theoretical integration’ in the discussion and little attempt to say how one could follow up the research.
Thirdly, there is some discussion of the reliability and validity of the method, but this is cannot carried out in the same way as would be done for a report on a lab experiment. Note the fact that a discourse analysis is ‘text intensive’, there being a limited space to cover other aspects. However, one way in which the student has saved words in the main body of the report is to number the quotes and recording them as an appendix. Then in the text, rather than citing from the transcript, the student just refers to ‘Quote 4 in Appendix B’ and so on.
If you have become more comfortable with the more traditional approaches in psychology, such as the lab experiment, then you may find the report difficult to read. I have to confess feeling slightly uneasy about recommending a discourse analysis for a beginner. However, there is certainly something to be said for this approach and if you do feel happy to use this method, then
go for it!
Barker, M. (2003). Satanic subcultures? A discourse analysis of the self-perceptions of young goths and pagans. In T. Waddell (Ed.) Cultural Expressions of Evil and Wickedness: Wrath, Sex, and Crime. Amsterdam: Rodopi.

Title: Self-identities of ‘Goths’ and ‘Pagans’: A discourse analysis of a youth subculture
Abstract
The self-identities of two youth subcultures, Goths and Pagans, are explored in this study using the method of discourse analysis. The purpose was to understand how these youths construct their self-identities within their subculture. Five Goths and four Pagans were interviewed by the researcher and the tape recordings were transcribed for the purposes of analysis. Several themes were identified in the analysis, such as the identities of ‘persecuted outsider’, ‘otherness’, and ‘being different is good’. Some contradictions were noted, such as ‘we are just ordinary people under attack’.

Introduction
The subculture known as Goth emerged in the 1980s with the music of post-punk UK bands, such as Siouxsie and the Banshees. Goth is associated with a particular style of dress, which generally involves wearing black clothing, silver jewellery, a pale complexion, and dyed hair. However, there is some variety in this style and Goths may be found wearing silver and have spiky hair. Paganism is often claimed to be an alternative form of belief to Christianity that has had a history of being suppressed and oppressed by Christians. However, many historians claim that Paganism only emerged quite recently – at the start of the twentieth century. Goths and Pagans are linked in many ways. Firstly, they are both outside mainstream culture. Secondly, both often wear jewellery that has Pagan symbols on it. Thirdly, both groups have been labelled by mainstream culture as satanic, evil, and dangerous.

Several recent crimes have been linked to Goths. One of these was the 1966 Florida‘vampire murders’ that was supposed to have been done by members of a ‘vampire cult’ (Whitworth, 1999). Another was the 1999 ‘trenchcoat killings’ in which two teenage boys shot and killed thirteen people at their Denver school. In the UK the London bomber David Copeland was recently ‘linked’ to the Goth culture (Smith, 1999). In Germany, two murderers were claimed to have been devil worshipers, being involved in a Gothic club, bloodsucking, and graveyard parties. Many of the articles rely on the construct that Goths and violence are linked in a taken-for-granted common sense way.

The main social psychological theory of how individuals in subcultures create identities is ‘social identity theory’ (Tajfel and Turner, 1979). This suggests that people organise their perceptions of themselves and others by a process of categorising others into groups, and then identifying with one group as opposed to another. Our sense of self-esteem is said to come from how we compare our group with that of others. People tend to exaggerate the similarities between members of their group and exaggerate the differences between members of their group and members of other groups. This approach has been criticised for its failure to focus on any groups other than ‘traditional’ groups (Wetherell, 1996). A related theory is that of Baumeister (1996) who has argued that when we are attacked by others we tend to fall back into relying on our group identity, seeing our group as good and innocent and the other group as sadistic and motiveless. A common theme of these theories is the notion of ‘us and them’ to describe experience. However, Widdicombe (1993) has argued that such research has ignored how members of subcultures understand the meaning and significance of their subculture, and that this can be addressed by using discourse analysis.

Discourse analysis examines how people use language to construct versions of their experiences, and is based on the assumption that people draw on cultural and linguistic resources in order to construct their talk in certain ways to have certain effects. The aim of this investigation is to seek to understand how the accounts of the identities of Goths and Pagans are constructed and what is gained from these constructions.

Method
Participants
9 students studying for their A-levels at a local college were recruited based on their clear physical identity as a Goth or Pagan. 7 were women and 2 were men, but this does not seem to reflect the male-female ratio of the subculture as a whole, which appears to be equally mixed. All interviewees were known to the researcher, but none were regarded as close friends.
Materials
The conversations were recorded using a mobile digital recorder and were later transcribed by playing the recordings on a computer system. The transcription code used was:

(.) - short pause between words
(…) - long pause between words
(12) - a 12 second pause between words
X - means that we could not understand what was said
So she said..
I never did… - two phrases, both underlined means that they were said at the same time
So I said… - bold text was said with an emphasis (i.e., said louder)
The interviewer’s speech begins with the letter I, and other letters are used to identify individual participants.
Procedure
Interviewees were interviewed in three different groups of two, and one group of three. The interviews lasted about one hour. The interviewer asked them questions about their background, how they defined themselves, how they came to become a Goth or Pagan, how they saw the history of their group, and how they felt other people perceived them. The recorded interviews were later transcribed and the full transcript can be found in Appendix A. Appendix B consists of a numbered list of quotations from the transcript that are sourced in the analysis.

Results
The analysis that was conducted revealed a number of themes. The most interesting to the researcher were the identities of ‘persecuted outsider’, ‘otherness’, and ‘being different is good’. Some contradictions were also noted, such as ‘we are just ordinary people under attack’.
Persecuted Outsider
All participants agreed that people from outside their subculture labelled them as evil or Satanic, using the words ‘Satanist’, ‘freaks’, or ‘witches’, when asked how they are perceived. Quote 1 in Appendix B shows two examples. It is interesting that both N and D use the same wording in their examples, ‘oo Satanism’. This is known as active voicing (Wooffitt, 1992) when reporting someone else’s speech within an account of what really happened. Utterances reported in this way may be used to imply that they were really said at the time (Hutchby and Wooffitt, 1998). Both D and N also use hypothetical illustration (Wooffitt, 1992). The situation ‘oo Satanism’ is not one single event and is used to imply that it has happened many times. This is supported by D’s remark ‘So it’s really common’.
By putting on a dumb or silly voice when imitating other people, it is obvious that they regard such views as ridiculous. D’s example is especially clear because she voices with bad English ‘you’s all Satanists’ implying her view that people with such prejudices are generally ‘pig ignorant’.
The experienced prejudice was also supported by some stories, such as that of G when someone was violent towards him (see Quote 2, Appendix B). Here G and C both construct themselves as reasonable people in unreasonable situations, using a format Wooffitt (1992) refers to as ‘I was just X … when Y’. They were just doing something normal when they were attacked by ‘drunks’. G also uses the word ‘random’ when describing receiving abuse ‘yelling random things’ and later with his claim of the unpredictability of whether one reacts or not to abuse. These emphasise the random, chaotic nature of the attacks they received. This fits with Baumeister’s (1996) myth of pure evil: the common way in which people construct themselves – we are good, innocent victims provoked by sadistic, chaotic attackers.
Otherness
Both groups said that they felt that ‘people’ or ‘they’ perceive them in a negative way. This suggests that they construct themselves as being ‘outside’ mainstream culture (see Quote 3, Appendix B). The construction here is of an identity of a group that defines themselves more favourably than the norm. In discussing the perception that they are linked to violence most made it clear that they are strongly opposed to doing harm (see Quote 4, Appendix B). Many cited this ‘harm none thing’ as a device to show that they could not be involved in evil in any way (see Quote 5, Appendix B). Here C uses stake inoculation (Potter, 1996); she initially expresses doubt about the truth of her claim (I don’t have much experience of this). Potter argues that such expressions of uncertainty allow speakers to establish that they have no stake in what they are saying. She combines this with expert knowledge to display that she actually does know about Satanism and can show that it differs from her own beliefs. She uses the externalising device ‘what I’ve read is …’ to construct her understanding of Satanism as factual (Edwards and Potter, 1992). When A talks about not being evil she uses the same devices (see Quote 6, Appendix B). Here A uses two three-part lists (Jefferson, 1991) to illustrate quite how different she is from the assumptions that are made about her by the ‘god squad’. Jefferson says that a three-part list is a culturally available resource for list construction which we often use in everyday conversation. Listing these behaviours together indicates a broader class of things that A does not do, backing up her contention that she is gentle and not evil.
The interviewees spent some time talking about the claim that their style of dress is merely to get attention. G and C both counter this notion by stating that they get more of a reaction from people they know when they wear non-Goth clothing (see Quote 7, Appendix B). So they do admit that they partly aim to get a reaction or at least enjoy getting a reaction from people by dressing as they do. Occasionally they suggested that they wear Goth clothes to divert attention away from other physical aspects of themselves, such as their height or weight.
Often the interviewees told the history of Paganism as the story of a group of persecuted outsiders. This is echoed by the stories they tell about their own persecution.
Reliability and Validity
The question of reliability in discourse analysis concerns whether different researchers would interpret the text in similar ways. According to Stratton (1997), there is no guarantee that such reliability is possible, given that researchers are likely to differ in their ‘motivational factors, expectations, familiarity, avoidance of discomfort’ (p.116). Therefore it has to be accepted that the interpretations of the data in this report are subjective and another researcher may interpret the data differently. In terms of validity, the method can be said to have greater ecological validity since it deals more with everyday experiences than those that are often studied in the laboratory.
Conclusions
The participants were aware of their role as ‘outsiders’. They spoke about prejudice from ‘people’ and ‘them’, suggesting that society perceives them negatively. They identified themselves in contrast to the ‘mainstream’ and the ‘norm’, generally constructing this as rule-governed, inflexible and intolerant, whilst their own group was free, open-minded, and accepting. They generally constructed their identities in contrast to ‘normal’ people of their age who followed fashion and trendy music. They have responded to accusations of ‘otherness’ and ‘difference’ by embracing these qualities as positive. The idea of otherness involved some interesting contradictions. When relating experiences of prejudice, the interviewees often used ‘normalising devices’, constructing themselves as ‘ordinary people’ under attack. At other points, however, they constructed the ‘norm’ as something they wished to avoid. Most people use contradicting rhetorical devices at different times, when we are trying to create specific effects (Potter, 1996). The discourse of being an ‘everyday person’ encourages other people to sympathise, whereas the discourse of being ‘different’ emphasises individuality and uniqueness. In terms of future research, it might be interesting to interview non-Goths and analyse their discourses in terms of their perceptions and how they construct the identities of youths in such a subculture.

Word count: 1, 982.

References
Baumeister, R. F. (1996). Evil: Inside Human Violenece and Cruelty. Freeman
Edwards, D. and Potter, J. (1992) Discursive Psychology. London: Sage.
Hutchby, I. and Wooffitt, R. (1998). Conversation Analysis. Cambrdige: Polity Press.
Jefferson, G. (1991). List construction as a task and a resource. In G. Psathas and R. Frankel (Eds.) Interactional Competence. Hilldale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Potter, J. (1996) Representing Reality: Discourse, Rhetoric and Social Construction. London: Sage.
Smith, A. (1999). Have you got what it takes? The Sunday Times, 9th May, Culture, p.12.
Tajfel and Turner (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In G.W.Autin and S. Worchel (Eds.) The Social Psychology of Intergroup Relations. Montery, California: Brooks/Cole.
Wetherell, M. (1996). Identities, Groups and Social Issues. Milton Keynes: OU Press.
Whitworth, D. (1999) Gloomy tribal craze that was born in Britain. The Times 22nd, April, p.5.
Widdicombe, S. (1993). Autibiography and change: Rhetoric and authenticity of Gothic style. In E. Burman and I. Parker (Eds.) Discourse Analytic Research: Repertiores and Readings of Texts in Action. London: Routledge.
Wooffitt, R. (1992). Telling Tales of the Unexpected. Hemel Hempstead: Harvester Wheatsheaf.
Appendix A
[full transcript would be inserted here].
Appendix B.
Quote 1.
N: the symbol of the pentagram (.) um (.) which people (.) when they see it they automatically think (.) ‘oo Satanism’ (…) coz a friend of mine went to get a tattoo (.) and he wanted a pentagram (.) and the guy said ‘oh you’re a Satanist are you’ (laughs).
D: always worn a pentagram ring (5) people have always looked at it and gone ‘oo oo Satanism’ [dumb voice] and (..) ‘you’s all Satanists’ (.) yeah I’ve often had to defend myself against allegations. So it’s really common.
Quote 2.
G: I mean when we were walking up [road name] there was about twenty (.) odd people who started yelling random things at us and one guy decided he was gonna come down and do something about it and he hit me around the head with a beer can
C: It was um (.) I think they were all drunk and we probably should’ve ignored them more than we did (.) it’s hard when people make sort of (.) stupid ignorant comments not to really
G: yeah I mean I’ve tried it both ways tried ignoring them and then you get something whack on your back
Quote 3.
G: I just don’t get on with townie normals because they have the view that you must dress like this you must wear named brands and you must like clubby music
S: I view people who dress in a conformist way as people who (.) don’t think for themselves people who (.) take the easy option and wear what they are told to wear
Quote 4.
C: we don’t try to (.) harm others (.) if you (.) if someone actually does like to start (.) doing curses or whatever that person (.) couln’t be classaed as a Pagan because they have the harm none thing
Quote 5.
C: I don’t really have much experience of this (.) but what I’ve read is um the idea is that Satan rebelled against god so (.) Satan was saying that I’m (.) I am you know (.) on my own I can you know do things for myself (.) I don’t need you and that’s what a lot of Satanists think
Quote 6.
A: I just say that I can’t be a Statnist I don’t believe in god (.) you can’t have one without the other (.) but they don’t seem to get it … I mean I am (.) like a (.) I’m basically quite a gentle person (.) I’m not actually that violent (.) I don’t steal I don’t do drugs (.) certainly don’t go robbing things and bashing
old ladies and taking herion.
Quote 7.
S: at school I always dressed differently and that always caused problems on non-uniform day everybody would sort of (.) stare at me (.) but I started to thrive on it (.) and play up to it and now I’ve just come to accept that they will stare and I should perhaps take it as a compliment although in the daytime I dress down because I still don’t want to get (.) stared at too much.

Minggu, 24 Juni 2012

SEVEN THEORIES OF SLA

SEVEN THEORIES OF SLA:
1.The Acculturation Model
Brown (1980) defined 'as the process of becoming adapted to a new culture'. In addition, an elaborated version of Schumann's model--the Nativization Model-- is discussed, with reference to Andersen (1980;1981;1983b) “... second language acquisition is just one aspect of acculturation and the degree to which a learner acculturates to the terget language group will control the degree to which he acquires the second language.(Schumann 1978:34)
Acculturation, and hence SLA determined by the degree of social and psycological distance between the learner and the language culture. Schumann (1978b) lists the various factors that determined them. The social variables govern whether the learning is 'good' or 'bad' . The psycological factors are effective in nature. They include 1) language shock 2) culture shock 3) motivation and 4) ego boudaries.
The Nativization Model
Andersen builds on Schumann's acculturation model, in particular by providing a cognitive dimension which Schumann does not consider. He, to a much greater extent, is concerned with learning processes. Andersen sees two general forces; nativization and denativization. Nativization consists of assimilation while denativization involves accomodation.
Evaluation; The acculturation and nativist models focus on the power mechanisms of SLA. They provide explanations of why L2 learners, unlike first language learners, often fail to achieve a native-like competence. The acculturation and nativization Models address naturalistic SLA, where the L2 learners has contact with the target language community.
2.Accomodation Theory
Giles concerns to investigate how intergroup uses language reflect basic social and psycological attitudes in inter etnic communication. Giles agrees with Gardner(1979) that motivation is the primary determinant of L2 proviciency. This is governed by a number of key variables: 1) Identification of the individual learner with his ethnic in group. 2) Inter – ethnic comparison. 3) perception of ethno-linguistic vitality. 4) Perception of in group boundaries. 5) Identification with other ingroup social categories. Accomodation theory also accounts for learner's variable linguistic output. Giles et al.(1977) writes ...people are continually modifyng their speech with others so as to reduce or accentuate the linguistic(and hence) social differences between them depending on their perception of the interactive situation.
Evaluation; This theory does not explain assembly mechanisms nor account for the developmental sequence. The strenght of accomodation theory is that it encompasses language acquisition and language use within a single framework. This theory provides an explanation of language-learner language variability.
3.Discourse Theory
Halliday(1975) shows that the development of the formal linguistic devices for realizing basic language function grows out of the interpersonal uses to which language is put. As Cherry (1979: 122) puts it: Through communicating with other people, children accomplish actions in the world and develop the rules of language structure and use. This view of how the development takes place is called discourse theory. The main principles by Hatch(1978c;1978d)
are: 1) SLA follow a 'natural' route in syntatical development. 2) Native speaker adjust their speech in order to negotiate meaning with non-native speakers. 3) The conversational strategies used to negotiate meaning, and the resulting adjusted input, influence the rate and route of SLA in a number of ways, namely: a) the learner learns the grammar of the L2 in the same order as the frequency order of the various features in the input. b) the learner acquire commonly occuring formulas and then later analyses these into their component parts; c) learner is helped to construct sentences vertically; vertical structures are the percursors of horizontal structues. 4) Thus, the'natural' route is the result of learning how to hold conversations.
Evaluation; the basic question that second language acquisition research addresses is: how can we describe the process of second language acquisition. (Hatch 1980:177—my italic). He tries to provide an answer to his question by qualitative analyses of face-to-face interaction involving L2 learners. Hatch herself notes: We have not been able (nor have we tried) to show how, or if, making messages simpler or more transparent promotes language learning (1980 :181). Hatch is too aware of the huge leap that is made from 'low infernce descriptions' to 'high -inference explanation'. The discourse theory does not address the nature of the learner strategies responsible for SLA.
4.The monitor Model
The theory is seriuosly flawed in a number of respects, in particular in its treatment of language-learner variability. The model consists of five hypothesis; 1) the acquisition learning hypothesis. 2) the natural order hypothesis. 3) the monitor hypothesis. Krashen argues that monitoring has an extremely limited function in language performance, even where adult are concerned. He gives three conditions for its use; a) there must be sufficient time. b) the focus must be on form and not meaning and. c) the user must know the rule. 4) the input hypothesis, input that comprehensible to the learner will automatically be at the right level. 5) the affective filter hypothesis. It deals with how affective factors relate to SLA, and covers the ground of the Acculturation model. Causative variables taken into account in the Monitor Model. Krashen also discusses a number of other factors; a) aptitude. b) role of the first language c) routines and patterns. d) individual differences and e) age.
Evaluation; Three central issues for detailed consideration are the 'acquisition-learning' distinction, it has been called 'theological', it has been formulated in order to specific goal, namely that succesful SLA is the result of 'acquisition' (James 1980). the monitor, the only evidence for monitoring lies in the language user's own account of trying to apply explicit rules ( e.g Cohen and Robbins 1976) and Krashen's treatment of variability , Variability the monitor model is a'dual competence' theory of SLA. It proposes that the learner's knowledge of the L2, which is reflected in variable performance, is best characterized in terms of two separate competence, which Krashen labels'acquisition' and 'learning' .
5.The Variable Competence Model
The model is based on two distinctions—one of which refers to the process of language use and the product. The process of language use is to be understood in terms of the distnction between linguistic knowledge and the ability to make use of this knowledge. Widowson (1984) refers to a knowledge of rules as a competence and to a knowledge of the procedures involved in using rules to construct discourse as capacity. It follows from this view of the process of language use that the product, different types of discourse is the result of either or both of the variable competence and variable application of procedures for actualizing knowledge in discourse. Procedures for actualizing knowledge are of two types, which Ellis(1984a) refers to as primary and secondary processes each set of processes refered as dicourse and cognitive processes respectively. Discourse process: simplify the semantic structures of a masages by omitting meaning element that are communicatively redundant or that can be realized by a non verbal devices (e.g mime). Cognitive process: a). Construct an underlying conceptual structures of a massage b). Compare this structure with the frame of reference share with and interlecutor c). Eliminate redundant element and element for which know lexical item is available. To summarize this model, proposes: 1). There is a single knowdlege store containing variable interlanguage rules according how automatic and how analyzed the rules are. 2). The learner possesses a capacity for language uses which consist of primary and secondary discourse and cognitive processes. 3). L2 performance is variable as a result of whether primary processes employing unanalized L2 Rules are utilized in unplanned discourse or secondary process employing analized L2 rules are utilized in planed discourse. 4). Development occurs as a result of acquisition of new L2 rules through participation in various types of discourse and activation of L2 rules which initialy exist in either non automatic unanalized form or in an analized form so they can be used in unplaned dicourse.
Evaluation.: The variable competence model of SLA attemps to account for the availability of languages learners and the external and internal processes responsible for SLA.
6.The universal hypothesis
The universal hypothesis provides an interesting account of how the languages properties of the target language and the learner's first language may influence the course development. The value the universal hypothesis for SLA teory is twofold :1. it a focuses attention on the natural of the taget laguages it self. Wode's (980 b: 136/7) claims the linguistic devices used in a given languages are the major variable determining linguistic sequences 2. it provides a subtle and pesuasive reconsederation of transfer as an important factor in SLA.
7.A neurofucntional theory
Lamendella (1979:5/6) defines, A neurofucntional perspective on language attempts to characterize the neurolinguistic information processing systems responsible for the development and use of language. Hacth (1983a: 213) puts it, 'there is no single “black box” for language in the brain'. Therefore, it is better to speak of'the relative contribution of some areas more than others under certain condition'(Selinger 1982:309). Neurofucntional accounts of SLA have considered the contribution of The left hemisphere and The right hemisphere of the brain. Right hemisphere functioning is generally asscociated with holistic processing, it has been suggested (e.g by Obler 1981; Krashen 1981a) that the right hemisphere is responsible for the storing and processing of formulaic speech. The right hemisphere may also involved in pattern practice in classroom SLA. Selinger (1982) suggest that it may act as an initial staging mechanism for handling patterns which can then be re-examined later in left hemisphere functioning. Left hemisphere functioning, in general the left hemisphere is asscociated with the creative language use, including syntatic and semantic processing and the motor operations involved in speaking and writing. Walsh and Diller (1981) distinguish two board types of functioning, lower order functioning and higher order functioning.
Lamendella's Neurofucntional theory
Lamendella distnguishes two basic of types of language acquisition: (1) Primary language acquisition and (2) Secondary language acquisition. (1) is found I the child 's acquisition of one or more languages from 2 to 5 years. (2) is subdivided into a) foreign language learning b) second language acquisition. Lamendella pinpoints two systems as particularly important for language functioning; (1) The communication hierarchy: this has responsibility for language and other form of interpersonal communication. (2) The cognitive hierarchy: this control a variety of cognitive information processing activities that are also part of language use. Foreign language acquisition is marked by the use of the input and also affect the operation of learner strategies. Input comprises the inherent properties of the target language system and the formally and interactionally adjusted features found in foreigner and teacher talk

Minggu, 17 Juni 2012

THE ROLE OF FORMAL INSTRUCTION IN SECOND LANGUAGE ACQUISITION

THE ROLE OF FORMAL INSTRUCTION IN SECOND LANGUAGE ACQUISITION

THE ROLE OF FORMAL INSTRUCTION IN SECOND LANGUAGE ACQUISITION




Introduction


This chapter looks at second language acquisition in a classroom setting. It considers whether instruction makes a difference to SLA. This is an important issue, because it addresses the question of the role played by environmental factors in SLA. It is also an important educational issue, as language pedagogy has traditionally operated on the assumption that grammar can be taught.

Two board types of SLA can be identified according to the acquisition setting;

  1. Naturalistic SLA.
  2. Classroom SLA.

It was pointed out that classroom discourse can be distorted, in comparisons to naturally occurring discourse. An important question therefore is in what ways this distortion, which is largely brought about by the attempt to instruct rather than to converse, affects the route and rate of SLA in the classroom. By considering how formal instruction affects SLA it is possible to address the wider issue of the role environmental factors.

In many instructional methods an assumption is made that focusing on linguistic form aids the acquisition or grammatical knowledge or to put it another way, that raising the learner’s consciousness about the nature of target language rules helps the learner to internalize them.

In the case of deductive methods this is self-evidently the case. But it is also true in ‘habbit methods’ methods such as audio-legal lingualism , as the purpose of the practice provided is to focus on specific linguistic forms, which the learner is encouraged to induced and of which ultimately he will form a more or less, conscious mental representation.

Another assumption of formal instruction is that the order in which grammatical features are taught will govern the order in which they are learnt. Language syllabuses are organized in such a way as to facilitate the correlation between the teaching order and the learning order.

The investigation of the role of formal instruction can be undertaken in two ways. First, an answer to the question ‘Does formal instruction aid SLA?’ can be sought. Secondly, the question ‘What kinds of formal instruction facilitate SLA the most?’ can be tackled. In the first question there is an assumption that all types of formal instructions share certain basic premises and that it is, therefore possible to talk generically of ‘ Formal instruction’. In the second question there is an assumption that formal instruction in general is facilitative and that the important issue is what is distinguishes the more successful from the least successful types.

What the different instructional methods had in common was a focus on form, manifested, for instance, in the provision of feedback by the teacher for correcting formal errors.

This chapter has four sections. The first examines its effect on the route of SLA. The secondly examine its effect on the rate/success of SLA. In the third section, explanations of the result reported in the first two sections will be reviewed. Finally, the conclusion briefly considers the implications for both SLA theory and language pedagogy.


The effects of formal instruction on the route of SLA

The route of SLA was considered in term of general sequence of development and the order in which specific grammatical features were acquired. The evidence for the reported universality of the sequence and the minor differences in the order come from (1) morpheme studied (2) longitudinal studies. These studies how ever were of either pure naturalistic SLA or mixed SLA. The morpheme and longitudinal studies will again be considerers separately.

Morpheme studies of classroom SLA

The morpheme studies can be divided into two groups. In the first group are five studies that investigated second language learners. In the other group are four studies investigated foreign language learners

Perkins and Larsen freeman (1975) investigated the morpheme; they used two tasks to collect data;

  1. A translation test.
  2. A description task based on a non-dialogue film.

On (1) the morpheme orders before and after instruction differed significantly, but on (2) there was no significant difference. In other words, the teaching and learning orders were different. Taken together, these studies suggest but do not prove that formal instruction does not alter the order of acquisition of grammatical morphemes when the learners is engaged in language use and is focused on meaning.


This general conclusion holds true irrespective of whether the learners are children or adults and most interestingly, irrespective of whether the learners are in foreign or second language environments. Formal instruction appears, then to have only a negligible effect on the morpheme order manifest in spontaneous language use. However, morpheme orders measure accuracy rather than acquisition. In order to obtain a more reliable picture of the effects of instruction on L2 development, it is necessary to turn to the longitudinal studies of translation structures.

Longitudinal studies of classroom CLA

Curiously the case-study approach, so central to the methodological baggage of first and second language acquisition researchers has not typically, been thought sensible for learners in class. There are very few longitudinal studies of classroom SLA. The three that will be discussed here are Felix (1981), Ellis (1984a) and Schumann (1978b). The available longitudinal evidence, therefore is even slighter that provided by the morpheme studies. The general teaching method was a traditional audio-lingual one, the grammatical structures that Felix report on are negation, interrogation, sentence types, and pronoun. For each structure, parallels were found between tutored and naturalistic SLA. In a classroom where the instruction is very formal, learners are constantly being forced to produce structures they are not ready for. Felix suggests that they solve the problem that this poses for them in one of two ways. Either they select random from the structures in their repertoire, irrespective of syntactic or semantic appropriateness, or they follow the same rules that characterize the early stages of naturalistic language acquisition.

Ellis examined negatives, interrogatives, and a number of verb phrase morpheme. All of these structures were formally taught at one time. When the communicative speech produced by the learners in the classroom was analysed, it was shown to display a pattern of development more or less identical to that observed in naturalistic SLA.

In Schumann’s study a deliberate attempt was made to teach an adult L2 learner how to negate. This took place in the context of a longitudinal study of what was otherwise naturalistic SLA. Prior to the instructional experiment the learner’s negative utterances were collected, Schumann concluded that the instruction influenced the learner’s production only in test-like situations, while normal communication remained unaffected.


Taking these studies together, the following can be hypothesized:

  1. Instruction does not circumvent the processes responsible for the sequence of development evident in transitional structures such as negatives an interrogative in naturalistic SLA.
  2. When classroom learners are required to produce structures beyond their competence, idiosyncratic forms are likely to result.
  3. The distorted input may prolong certain stages of development and slow down the emergence of some grammatical features.
  4. Classroom learners are able to make use of knowledge acquired through formal instruction when they are focused on form.
Summary

Morpheme studies and longitudinal studies of SLA together indicate that although formal instruction may develop L2 knowledge, this knowledge manifests itself in language use only where the learner is attending to form. It does not, therefore, except in relatively minor ways, affect the natural route of SLA which is evident in communicative speech. To use the distinction between sequence and order of development, we can say that the overall sequence of development is not affected by formal instruction, while order of development is hardly disturbed either. Formal instruction influences knowledge only at the careful end of the interlanguage stylistic continuum, not the vernacular end. These conclusions, however, are necessarily tentative, as there have been few studies of classroom SLA, particularly longitudinal.

This section has examined three theoretical positions which provide explanations of why formal instruction does not affect the natural sequence of SLA but does facilitate more rapid development. The non interface position proposed by Krashen claims that ‘acquisition’ and ‘learning are separate. Because ‘acquisition’ is responsible for the natural sequence, the ‘learning’ that results from formal instruction cannot influence it. However, classroom provides opportunities for comperhesinble input will accelerate ‘acquisition’.

The interface position also posits two types of L2 knowledge, but Argus that they are related so that ‘learning’ (or explicit knowledge) can become ‘acquisition’ (or implicit knowledge) when it is sufficiently practised. A weaker version of this position, however, states that ‘learning’ does not so much turn into ‘acquisition’ as facilitate it, when the learner is ‘ready’. The variability position differs from the other two positions in that it recognizes a variety of different ‘styles’, each calling on knowledge types that vary in terms of analicity and automaticity. Different task require the utilization of different kinds of knowledge. Formal instruction contributes directly or indirectly to there internalization of these different knowledge types and in so doing enables the classroom learner to perform a wider range of linguistic tasks than the naturalistic learner.

All there positions provide arguments to account for the result of the empirical research into the effect of formal instruction. These have been considered in some detail. At the moment there is insufficient evidence to make a clear choice between them. It is not likely that such evidence will be forthcoming until there are more qualitative studies of the classroom discourse that result from formal instruction and of the linguistic development that such discourse induces.


Conclusion: some implications

This chapter began by asserting that the investigation of the role played by instruction in SLA was of significant for both SLA theory and language pedagogy. In this conclusion I shall briefly consider some of the implications.

In order investigate the role of instruction in SLA, it is necessary to separate out the effects that formal instruction has on the route of SLA and on the rate/ successes of SLA. Where the route is concerned, formal instruction appears to have no major effect. The overall sequence of development associated with natural communicative language use does not change, while only a few minor and temporary differences in the acquisition of specific grammatical features have been observed. Thus classroom SLA appears to involve the same processing strategies as naturalistic SLA. Where the rate/ successes is concerned, instruction is facilitative, although only in terms of relative utility, not in terms of absolute effects. These results must be treated tentatively, as there has been little empirical research.
There different positions have been advanced to explain classroom SLA. The non interface position, associated with Krashen (1982), distinguishes ‘acquired’ and ‘learnt’ knowledge and argues that they are separate. This position offers a convincing explanation a why formal instruction fails to influence the natural route of SLA, as this is a reflection of ‘acquisition’. The explanation it gives for why formal instruction aids the rate/ successes of SLA is less clear. The interface position, associated with Stevick (1980) and Sharwood-Smith (1981) among others, claim that ’learnt’ or explicit knowledge can turn into ‘acquired’ or implicit knowledge if there is enough practice. This position offers an explanation for the rate/ successes finding, but it less convincing about the route finding. The variability position, associated with Tarone (1983) and Bialystok (1982), sees acquisition and language use closely linked, such that different types of knowledge arise from and are required for the performance of different language tasks.

This position deals comfortably with the route finding (which occurs in a particular kind performance) and can explain the rate/ success finding if it is assumed that the learner who has access to a variety of different knowledge types will outperform one who is more reliant on a single kind of knowledge. However, it is premature to choose from among these positions.

The study of the role of instruction in SLA has implications for both SLA theory and language pedagogy. In the case of the former, is stresses in importance of act knowledge the structural properties of SLA which are relatively immune to environmental differences. Where language pedagogy is concerned, it sheds light on the code-communications dilemma, although once again it would be premature to come to any firm conclusions about the effectiveness of formal grammar teaching.


Second language acquisition theory


Studying the role of instruction can throw on the contribution of environmental factors in SLA. The classroom environment provides a different kind of input from a natural setting. If environmental factors are important of SLA, it might be predicted that (1) The acquisitional route in the two setting will be different, and (2) the rate/ success of SLA in the two setting will also differ. The research reviewed in the earlier sections shows that (1) does not arise, while (2) may. The failure of the classroom setting to influence the route of SLA can be explained in two ways. First, it might be taken to show the real determinants of SLA are learner-internal rather than environmental factors. That is, despite differences in input, the L2 learner will follow the same developmental path, because, although there are differences in the types of input to be found in each setting, there are also similarities.

The natural sequence is the product of one type language use-spontaneous communication-which, although restricted in classroom context, does take place. The first explanation follows a native’s interpretation. What is the quite clear, whatever interpretation is adopted, is that SLA possesses certain structural properties which are immune to environmental differences in learnt in classroom and natural setting. The effect of environmental factors appears to be restricted largely to how quickly and how much of the L2 the learner acquires.

Language pedagogy

Looking at instruction from the view point of the learner rather than the teacher is salutary. It puts into perspective the widely held view that if instruction is based on a sound syllabus and employs motivating techniques, acquisition will result. Unless account is taken of the structural properties of SLA, success is by no means certain.

Teacher ought not to feel obligated to ensure that his teaching also follows it, as it is far more important that the teacher works from a syllabus which he finds logically acceptable. Brumfit argues that language teaching will be most successful when it follows as well-worked out plan which directs and organizes what the teacher does. The second reason for reticence is that, although there is a fair degree of agreement among SLA researches concerning what happens in SLA.

There is a far less agreement about why it happens in the why it does. This has been evident in the different positions adopted to explain the result of research into the effects of formal instruction. Briefly outline what attitude to the code-communication dilemma is held by protagonists of each of the three positions considered in the previous section

  1. The non-interface position.

Krashen (1982) pays close attention to the role of grammar teaching in classroom SLA. He sees two uses for it. First, it enables the monitor to function by providing for ‘learning’. However, monitor use is restricted to occasions when the learner has time to access his ‘learnt’ knowledge, and is also restricted by the fact that only a small sub-section of total rules of a L2 are ‘learnable’. The second use of grammar teaching is to satisfy learners’ curiosity about the nature of the L2 grammatical system ‘grammar appreciation’. The use of conscious grammar is limited, therefore, that the role of teaching is to afford opportunities for communications, rather than to draw attention to the L2 code.

Krashen (1981b) lists the defining characteristic of what he considers an effective pedagogical programme;

  1. The classroom input must be comprehensible.
  2. The programme must consist of ‘communicative activities’, as only these will ensure that he input is interesting and relevant.
  3. There should be no attempt to follow a grammatically sequenced programme.
  4. The input must be of sufficient quantity (hence importance of extensive reading).

  1. The interface position

Where the non-interface position emphasizes the importance of communication and minimizes the importance of the code, the interface position asserts the contribution of the code. Sharewoos-Smith (1981) sees grammar teaching as a short cut to communicative ability. That is, the adult learner who has his attention drawn to features of the code can practise these, both in and out of the classroom, until he can use them subconsciously in fluent communicative speech. Consciousness-raising, therefore, does not require that the learner is able to verbalize the rules he has learnt. For Sharwood-Smith, then, the important issue is not whether the code should be taught, but in what way it should be taught.


  1. The variability position

The variability position stresses importance of matching the learning process with the type of instruction. Instruction must consider the specific goals of the learner and attempt to provide the appropriate form of knowledge to achieve those goals. The ‘goals’ refer to the type of language use that the learner needs (or wants) to engage in. if the goal is to participate in natural conversation, the learner will need to develop his vernacular style by acquiring L2 knowledge that is automatic but unanalysed.

This can be achieved directly by means of instruction that emphasizes communication in the classroom. It may also be achieved indirectly by teaching that focuses on the code, if there are also sufficient practice opportunities to trigger the passage of knowledge from the careful to the vernacular style.

Chomsky's Theory in SLA

  Chomsky’s UG. How can it be exploited in SLA research?


Universal grammar can be simply defined as a set of universal innate principles of grammar shared by all languages.That a child will not be able to learn its mother tongue without a set of innate principles ,because the linguistic data it is exposed to are too poor is the central point of the UG.The theory given by the American linguist Chomsky, attempts to explain language acquisition in general, not describe specific languages.The key features of the UG are given below. 

UG consists of different kinds of universals.Chomsky identifies two types:substantive and formal.Substantive universals consist of fixed features such as the distinctive phonetic features of which sounds are made or syntactic categories such as noun,verb,and object.Formal universals are more abstract.They are statements about what grammatical rules are possible in languages.

Formal and substantive universals are constrains and therefore delimit the options by setting parameters which must then be fixed according to the particular input data that the child obtains. 

So,the principles and parameters which can be defined as a framework in human brain make UG possible. UG holds  a set of principles and parameters arranged into modules such as Binding Theory and it is a computation system that ranges from the component of  Phonological Form to the component of Logical Form ,that is ,from ’sound’ to ’meaning’.

The rules the child learns can be unmarked or marked.The universals that the child learns form the core grammar and the distinctive features are termed as peripheral.

To sum up, there are some innate universal principles without which a child cannot master his mother tongue.But the input data are also a must as the input triggers the LAD.
Effects of UG parameters on L2A

There are certain principles of UG that vary from language to language. The variation is built into UG in the form of parameters with different settings. Parameter settings between the L1 and the L2 may be both identical and different. If identical, L2 learners need not result it: but if different they have to reset it. Again when a particular parameter is not available in the L1, the learners have to activate it newly in their L2. Thus on these issues the UG hypothesis makes a number of important observations that best explain L2A. For instance, as White(1989) points out, though UG is available in L2A, it cannot necessarily interact immediately with the L2 input. The initial hypothesis that works in the mind of the learners is that L1 parameter value applies to it. As a result L2 learners initially use L1 parameter value to organize the L2 data that causes transfer effects in the interlanguae. However, finally L2 learners become able to reset the parameter setting appropriate to the L2. Towell and Hawkins(1994) also express the same view. According to them this transfer of L1 parameter setting can have two effects. If the setting in the L2 happens to be the same as the setting in the L1, then the learner should get grammatical properties of the L2 which are dependent on that parameter setting right from the very beginning of acquisition. Where the settings differ between the L1 and the L2 the learner would initially be expected to get wrong grammatical properties in the L2 dependent on that parameter setting.

Some of the empirical studies done on the use of parameter setting also show positive evidence for the UG hypothesis. White refers to three pro-drop parameter studies, one carried out by herself and the other two by Phinncy(1987) and Hilles(1986) each of which clearly suggests that Spanish learners of English become finally able to avoid omission of subject-nouns and free subject-verb inversion in English, though at the initial stage L1 interference occurs. Towell and Hawkins (1994) mention the study by Hulk (1991) that investigated the acquisition of French word order by a group of Dutch speaking subjects. Hulk’s finding also reveal that in spite of the presence of L1 value at early stages, Dutch learners gradually become able to reset the parameter setting and acquire French word order. Another grammatically judgment task by White 1988cited in White1989, p.113) on Subjacency violation suggests that native speakers of French are able to recognize “S” as a bounding node for Subjacency in English, though in French “S” is not a bounding node.

Markedness

The concept of markedness is one more important issue to be discussed here. Researchers have used this as a source of explanation and prediction in L2A. According to Ellis markedness theory can help to explain why some differences between the native and the target language lead to learning difficulty, while other differences do not.” Markedness refers to those aspects of a language that are unnatural and complex. If a parameter has more than one value, one of them is said to be more natural than the other. So, the natural one is unmarked and the other is marked. According to UG, “unmarked aspects of grammar are those that are directly related to Universal Grammar and form the “core”: marked aspects are less directly related to Universal Grammar and form the “peripheral grammar”. Therefore, from markedness study one prediction can logically be deducted that L2 learners will find unmarked aspects of the L2 much easier to learn than marked ones, because unmarked aspects are directly related to UG. Moreover, since unmarked aspects are easier to learn, if can also be assumed that unmarked settings will occur in interlanguage before marked settings. Furthermore, the masrkedess concept offers a good explanation of L1 interference in the L2 grammars. The concept suggests that L2 learners will always tend to transfer unmarked values of the L1 to their interlanguage. The study by Mazurkewich 1984 shows that French learners of English find unmarked “pied-piping” sentences like

3.a To whom did John give the book     
 easier than marked “preposition-stranding” sentences like
3.a Who did John give the book to

Thus markedness study demonstrates further evidence that UG is effective and plays a vital role in explaining L2A.

3. Counter Arguments

So far an attempt has been made to consider the evidence that has led some of the researchers to assume that UG plays a crucial role in L2A. But there are many researchers who hold contrary views. According to them UG is not accessible to L2 learners, and hence cannot play any role in L2A. They also differ with some of the basic assumptions made by the UG based researchers. Besides, a number of empirical studies also strengthen their position against the UG hypothesis some of which are mentioned below.

Larsen-Freeman and Long claim that the input is not degenerate because “both caretaker speech and language addressed to non-native speakers have been found to be well-formed.” As cited in Melaughlin, Schachter has pointed out that “phenomena such as confirmation checks, clarification requests, and failures to understand quality as negative input.” Thus the poverty of the stimulus argument has been under attack. The argument of Structure-dependence is also refuted by Parker 1989(mentioned in Larsn-Freeman and Long 1991). Parker argues that the rule of structure-dependence can be gathered from the input, it does not require any innate knowledge. She also raises questions about Subjaccency effects. She illustrates that Subjaccency effects “can be accounted for without recourse to innate linguistic knowledge: through the assumption in a theory of learning of a preference for continuity.” In another grammatically judgment task by Schatcher as White reports Korean and Indonesian learners failed to reject Subjaccency violations. The theory of markedness also causes much debate. Various definitions have been used. As a result, same aspects are classified as unmarked by one researcher and marked by another. It is not true either that L2 learners always acquire or transfer unmarked form. In a related study, White 1983 finds that sometimes learners carry over marked constructions from the L1 to the L2.

Conclusion

As mentioned, it is clear that no uniform view can be established about the role of UG in L2A. There are both arguments and counter-arguments on the issue. Empirical studies have done so far also reveal mixed findings. But the research in the domain is still in its initial stage and has been restricted to a very limited area. Until the research is carried out in other untrodden area of L2A no final judgment on the issue is possible. However, on the basis of findings revealed so far against and for the hypothesis, it becomes evident that researchers tend to use UG as a source of hypothesis about L2A. In this case at least, it is to be admitted that UG can be used very effectively. It helps in a great deal to explain many of the problems of L2A that could otherwise have been left unresolved. It helps to make some important predictions particularly about interlanguage and transfer effects of the L.1.Therefore, it can be affirmed that Universal Grammar plays a crucial role in second language acquisition and more research on the issue might explore new dimensions.

Minggu, 08 April 2012

Interlanguage

INTERLANGUAGE AND THE ‘NATURAL’ ROUTE OF DEVELOPMENT

INTRODUCTION
The goal of this chapter to examine the claims that second language (L 2) learners acquire knowledge of a L2 in a fixed order (in stark contrast to behaviorist accounts of SLA).This emphasized the importance of environmental factors and first language (L1) interference.
To begin this chapter will briefly consider:
1. The background theory and research in L1 acquisition
2. The notion of interlanguage, a discussion of the L2 = L1 hypothesis
3. The caveats regarding the centrality of learner – internal process in accounts of SLA
MENTALIST ACCOUNT OF FIRST ALNGUAGE ACQUISITON
This sketch will consist of a composite picture drawn from the work of a number of psycholinguistics and linguistics.
Chomsky’s (1959) attack on skinner’s theory of language learning led to a reassertion of mentalist views of FLA. In place of the empiricist approach of behaviorist Chomsky’s stressed the active contribution of the child and minimized the importance of imitation and reinforcement. He claimed that the child’s knowledge of his mother tongue was derived from a universal grammar which specified the essential from that any natural language could take.
Lennerberg (1967) emphasized the biological prerequisites of language. Only homo sapiens was capable of learning language. Lennerberg argued that the child’s brain was specially adapted to the process of language acquisition, nut that this innate propensity was lost as maturation took place. Lennerberg argued that there was an age of resonance during which language acquisition took place as a generic heritage.
In summary, therefore mentalist views of L1 acquisition posited the following:
1. Language is a human-specific faculty
2. Language exists as an independent faculty in the human mind i.e. although it is part of the learner total cognitive apparatus; it is separate from the general cognitive mechanisms responsible for intellectual development.
3. The primary determinant of L1 acquisition is the child 'acquisition device', which is genetically endowed and provides the child with a set of principles about grammar.
4. The acquisition device atrophies with age.
5. The process of acquisition consists of hypothesis-testing, by which means the grammar of the learner’s mother tongue is related to the principles of the universal grammar.

The 1960s was also a period of intensive empirical research into L1 acquisition. Empirical research and theoretical developments in syntax longitudinal two major aspects: Many of the children early utterances were unique. Development was continuous and incremental, but could be characterized as a series of stages.
1. The length of children utterances gradually increases – Mean Length of Utterance
2. Knowledge of the grammatical system is built up in steps.
According to mentalist accounts of L1 acquisition, language acquisition is a universal process.
The term 'process' is used with two related meanings.
1. The stages of development that characterize the route the child follows (descriptive term)
2. How the child constructs internal rules and how he adjusts them from stage to stage. (Explanatory term)
INTERLANGUAGE
The term interlanguage was as first used by Selinker (1972) Nemser (1971): approximative systems Corder (1971): idiosyncratic dialects / transitional competence.
Interlanguage refers to the structured system which the learner constructs at any given stage in his development (i.e. interlanguage)second refers to series of interlocking systems(interlanguage continuum)
The assumptions underlying interlanguage theory (Nemser 1971)
1. At any given time the approximate system is distinct from the L1 and L2
2. At approximate systems form an evolving series?
3. The approximative systems of learners at the same stage of proficiency roughly coincide.
The concept of hypothesis-testing was used to explain how the L2 learner progressed along the interlanguage continuum. Corder (1967)
The notion of L1 interference was not rejected entirely. Selinker (1972) five principal processes operated in interlanguage
1. Language transfer
2. over generalization of target language rules
3. Transfer of training
4. Strategies of L2 learning
5. Strategies of L2 communication
Fossilization (Selinker): L2 learners stop learning when their interlanguage contains at least some rules different from those of the target language system. Fossilized structures can be realized as errors or as correct target language forms. Fossilized structures may not be persistent. The causes of fossilization are both internal and external. (Selinker and Lamendella)
The emphasis on hypothesis-testing and internal processes is direct borrowings from L1 acquisition theory. However mentalist theorizing cannot be easily carried over into SLA research.
Question for SLA: How did adults succeed in learning a L2 at all if recourse to the acquisition device responsible for L1 acquisition was not possible?
According to Slinker, SLA can proceed in two ways.
1. It can utilize the same mechanisms as L1 acquisition.
2. It can make use of alternative mechanisms.
Slinnker set out to address this issue. He suggested that those adult who successfully achieve native speaker proficiency in the TL do so because they continue to make use of the ‘acquisition device:
1. Lenneberg : latent language structure
2. Selinker: latent psychological structure
3. Dulay and Burt 1977: cognitive organizer creative construction
Selinker: three principal features of interlanguage focus:
1. Language-learner language is permeable
2. Language-learner language is dynamic
3. Language-learner language is systematic
“Interlanguage theory was based on behavioral events”.
ERROR ANALYSIS
Sridhar (1981) points out that error analysis have a long tradition prior to the early 1970s. The procedure for Error Analysis is spelled out in Corder (1974)
1. A corpus of language is selected.
2. The errors in the corpus are identified.
Corner (1971)points out the need of distinguish “Lapses”(i.e. deviant sentences that are the result of processing limitations rather than lack of competence) from Errors (i.e. deviant sentences that are the result of lack competence) he also points out that sentences can be “Overtly idiosyncratic” and “Covertly idiosyncratic”.
1. The errors are classified.
2. The errors are explained.
3. The errors are evaluated.
Error Analysis provides two kinds of information about interlanguage.
1. The linguistic type of errors produced by L2 learners
2. The psycholinguistic type of errors produced by L2 learners
The most significant contribution of Error Analysis lies in its success in elevating the status of errors from undesirability to that of a guide to the inner workings of the language learning process.
EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE FOR THE INTERLANGUAGE HYPOTHESIS
Empirical research was required to decide on the nature of the interlanguage continuum. Was the continuum to be conceived as stretching from learner’s mother tongue to the target language? Corner (1978a) refers to this view of the continuum as a restructuring continuum and recreation continuum.
CROSS-SECTIONAL RESEARCH
The morpheme studies were carried out to investigate the order of acquisition of a range of grammatical functions in the speech of L2 learners.
These studies were conducted according to a fixed procedure. Data were elicited from a sample of L2 learners. The produced an accuracy order (acquisition order).The acquisition order for various grammatical functions is more or less same. The only time that a different order occurs is when the elicitation instrument required the subjects to focus specifically on the form rather than the meaning of their utterances. Krashen (1977: 148)
The standard order that was reported was different from the order of morpheme acquisition reported for L1 acquisition.
LONGITUDINAL STUDIES
Longitudinal studies have tried to account for the gradual growth of competence in terms of the strategies used by a learner at different development points. The longitudinal studies discussed here are those that focus on the acquisition of particular grammatical subsystems–negatives, interrogatives, and relative clauses. It is from these studies that the strongest evidence for natural route of development comes.
Longitudinal studies of SLA provide data from different points of time and therefore enable a reliable profile of the SLA of individual learners to be constructed. The disadvantage lies in the difficulty of making generalizations based on the profiles of one or two learners.
A COMPOSITE LONGITUDINAL PICTURE
Ellis (1984) attempts to summarize the developmental progression which has been observed in longitudinal studies:
1. Characteristic by a standard word order, irrespective of weather or not this word order of the target language structure.
2. Developments of the learner expand his propositions to include all the most of the constituents required. And also begin to vary the word order of utterances in accordance with the word order pattern of the target language.
3. Grammatical morphemes begin to use systematically and meaningfully.
4. Consists of the acquisition of complex sentence structures such as embedded Wh-clauses and relative clauses modifying the subject of sentences.
SUMMARY
Interpreting the Empirical Evidence
L2 learners follow a standard sequence but vary in the order in which specific features are acquired.
The L2=L1 hypothesis
The L2=L1 acquisition hypothesis has not been proven in its strong form, although similar processes appear to operate in both types of acquisition. In SLA both the L1 and also maturational factors play a part.
Casden (1972) summary of the order of development for interrogatives in L1 acquisition is strikingly similar to that in SLA . here the main stages Casden identifies:
1. One word utterance used as questions.
2. Intonation question appear on a regular basis and there are some Wh-question learn as ready make chunks
3. Intonation question become more complicated , and productive Wh-question without inversion occurs
4. Inversion involving auxiliary e occur in yes/no question, but not in Wh-question.
5. Inversion occurs in Wh-question
6. Embedded Wh-question develop.
Sloben (1973) suggested that the way children process language in L1 acquisition can be explained in term of series of operating principles:
1. Pay intention to the ends of words.
2. The phonological of words can be systematically modified.
3. Pay intention to the order of words and morphemes.
4. Avoid interruption and rearrangement of linguistic units.
5. Underlying semantic should be marked overly and clearly
6. Avoid exceptions
7. The use of grammatical markers should make semantic sense.

SOME OUTSTANDING ISSUES
Methodological problems
The empirical research of the 1970s was three types:
1. Error analysis
2. Cross sectional studies (e.g. morphemes studies)
3. Longitudinal case studies.
The focus of grammar
The major theories issues concern
1. The starting point of the interlangugae continuum
2. The extend to which an adequate explanation of SLA requires a consideration of factor external to the learner as well as internal factors
3. The problems posed for interlanguage theory and the natural sequence by variability inherent in language learner language.
Origins of interlanguage
Corder (1981) considers to possibilities of starting points:
1. The learner starts from scratch in the same way as an infant acquiring his mother tongue
2. The learner starts from “some basic simple grammar”
Corder (1981: 150) suggests that language learners regress to an earlier stage in their own linguistic development before starting the process of elaboration. Ellis (1982a) argue that there is no need to posit that the learner remembers early acquisition stages.
Neglect of external factors
Mentalist accounts of language acquisition originated in the rejection of behaviorist explanations of how language was learnt.
The problem of variability
One of the principles of interlanguage theory is that language learner language systematic. Interlanguage theory does not cope easily with learner variability it struggles to explain why or when variability takes place. The natural route of development also ignores another type of variability, that which derives from individual differences.
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS:
1. What is Chomsky’s argue in Skinner theory?
He stressed the active contribution of the child and minimized the importance of imitation and reinforcement. He claimed that the child’s knowledge of his mother tongue was derived from a universal grammar which specified the essential from that any natural language could take.
2. What is principal views Chomsky’s and Lennerbeg theory about FLA?
Chomsky’s Lennerbeg
The child’s knowledge of his mother tongue was derived from a universal grammar Emphasized The Biological Prerequisites Of Language
3. According to mentalist account of L1 acquisition, language acquisition is a universal process. What does the process means?
The term 'process' is used with two related meanings.
1. The stages of development that characterize the route the child follows (descriptive term)
2. How the child constructs internal rules and how he adjusts them from stage to stage. (Explanatory term)
4. What is interlanguage?
Interlanguage refers to the structured system which the learner constructs at any given stage in his development (i.e. interlanguage) second refers to series of interlocking systems(interlanguage continuum)
5. According to Selinker there are five principal process operated in interlanguage, mentions its?
Five principal:
1. Language transfer
2. over generalization of target language rules
3. Transfer of training
4. Strategies of L2 learning
5. Strategies of L2 communication
6. What are differences among language learner, language is permeable, dynamic and systematic?
Permeable Dynamic Systematic
The rules that constitute the learner’s knowledge at any one stage are not fixed, but are open to amendment The L2 learner’s interlanguage is constantly Despite the variability of interlanguage, it is possible to detect the rule based nature of the learner’s use of the L2.
7. What is Lapses and errors?
Lapses Errors
Deviant sentences that are the result of processing limitations rather than lack of competence deviant sentences that are the result of lack competence
8. What is longitudinal studies focus?
Longitudinal focus on the acquisition of particular grammatical subsystems negatives, interrogatives, and relative clauses.
9. What is Ellis summarize developmental progression which has been observed in longitudinal studies:
1. Characteristic by a standard word order, irrespective of weather or not this word order of the target language structure.
2. Developments of the learner expand his propositions to include all the most of the constituents required. And also begin to vary the word order of utterances in accordance with the word order pattern of the target language.
3. Grammatical morphemes begin to use systematically and meaningfully.
4. Consists of the acquisition of complex sentence structures such as embedded Wh-clauses and relative clauses modifying the subject of sentences.
10. What are the most important effects of mentalist interpretation of SLA?
Reassessment of errors, and serve as evidence of the learners active contribution to acquisition.