Ellis, R and Shintani, N. (2014).Exploring language pedagogy through second language acquisition research.

New York: Routledge.

Graduate Student, Kwansei Gakuin University

KANAZAWA Yu (金澤佑)

yu-kanazawa@outlook.com

Chapter 1. Instructed second language acquisition (pp. 5-28).

JACET Study Group of ReadingVenue: Umeda Campus, Kwansei Gakuin UniversityApril 19, 2015. 1:40PM-.

SLA, a relatively new study field (about 1960s~)

• 1. Development of SLA

• 2. Key areas of research in SLA

• 3. Eleven general principles of instructed SLA

2

topics

• Behaviorist vs mentalist accounts of L2 learning

• Interlanguage theory

• Input and interaction

• The role of output

• The role of consciousness

• Explicit and implicit L2 knowledge

• Social perspectives on L2 acquisition

• Instruction and L2 acquisition

• Meaning-focused instruction (MFI)

• Form-focused instruction (FFI)

• Individual differences (IDs) in language learning

• Principles of instructed language learning

3

Behaviorist vs mentalist accounts of L2 learning

• Behaviorist theory

• Learning (∋L1 & L2 learning) = mechanical process of habit formation; accumulation of correct habits

• Method: conditioning (association of stimulus with response) by repetition and reinforcement

• Old habits (L1) work as impediments to the formation of new habits (L2)

• Error: negative influence of L1

• Mentalist account, a challenge to behaviorist accounts

• Chomsky (1959)

• L1 acquisition≠other kinds of learning

• Learning happened inside the learner’s head and was driven by an innate capacity for language (Language Acquisition Device)

• Verbal behavior merely as a ‘manifestation’ of internal process

• ‘Interlanguage’ (Selinker, 1972): innate language capacity are used to construct a L2 system

• Organic process of gradual stage-like approximation to the target language

• Error: learner’s ‘creative construction’ of the L24

Behaviorist vs mentalist accounts of L2 learning – cont.

• The nature of errors L2 learners produce

• Intralingual rather than interlingual; same tendency irrespective of L1 backgrounds

• E.g. omissions, additions, misinformations, and misorderings (Dulay et al., 1982)

• Accordance with developmental errors found in L1 acquisition

• Error as a part of the natural learning process, not as a evidence of non-learning

• 2 characteristics of L2 (grammatical) acquisition

• Early SLA research targeting naturalistic L2 learners (e.g. Hatch, 1978)

• Acquisition Order: ‘Built-in-syllabus’ irrespective of learners’ L1 or linguistic environment

• E.g. [plural-s] →[irregular past tense] → [past tense-ed, third person-s]

• Developmental Sequence: each features are acquired gradually (step by step)

• E.g. of negatives: [no + v.] → [unmarked auxiliary v + not] → [correctly marked auxiliary v + not]

• 3 other aspects revealed from research on naturalistic L2 learners

• 1.silent period → 2.speech by ‘formulaic chunks’ → 3.grammatical ‘bootstrapping’ 5

Prone to cause over-simplification

at first

Interlanguage theory

• ‘Interlanguage’

• Proposed by Selinker (1972)

• An internal system of rules that L2 learners construct, which is independent of both the learners’ L1 and the target language and which evolves gradually over time.

• Key premises of interlanguage theory proposed in the early research (table 1.1)

• Learners construct a system of abstract linguistic rules (i.e. interlanguage).

• Learner grammars are unstable, influenced by both internal and external process.

• Learner grammars are transitional and evolve over time (cf. interlanguage continuum).

• Learner grammars are variable; both ‘old’ and ‘new’ rules can be accessible.

• Interlanguage development reflects the operation of cognitive learning strategies.

• In using their interlanguage, learners may draw on communication strategies.

• Interlanguage systems may fossilize. (cf. counterargument by Larsen-Freeman and Cameron, 2006)

6

Input and interaction

• L2 learning governed by interlanguage → How about linguistic environment?

• The special kind of input the learners are exposed to (e.g. Hatch, 1983)

• ‘Foreigner talk’: special register used when native speakers talking to non-native speakers.

• E.g. speed, pausing, high-freq. vocab., no contractions, topics at the front of a sentence

• Simplified speech by NS can sometimes be ungrammatical, whose feature is the same to learners’ interlanguage (Not necessarily be ungrammatical, cf. ‘teacher talk’).

• Dynamism: the more proficient the learners, the fewer the modification.

• Interaction facilitates the process of interlanguage development (e.g. Long, 1981)

• NS make ‘interactional modification’ more often than ‘input modification’

• Interactional modification: communication strategies (e.g. asking questions to start conversation)

• Input modification: ‘negotiation of meaning’ (‘trigger’ → ‘indicator’ → ‘response’)

• Two hypotheses spawned from the research.

• Input Hypothesis (Krashen, 1985) – ‘comprehensible input,’ ‘affective filter’

• Interaction Hypothesis (Long, 1983; 1996) – negotiation (inc. feedback and modified output)7

1980s

The role of output

• Output Hypothesis (Swain, 1985)

• ‘comprehensible output’ leads to high levels of grammatical accuracy in immersion programs.

• Three functions of output (Swain , 1995)

• Consciousness-raising (noticing the gaps in a learner’s interlanguage)

• Testing hypotheses about the L2

• Developing metalinguistic understanding of L2 rules (= languaging, talking about language)

• Note. Implicit (not explicit) learning of grammar was investigated.

8

The role of consciousness

• Input Hypothesis (no role) ⇔ Int. Hyothesis and Output Hypothesis (some role)

• Schmidt (1990, 2001)’s Noticing Hypothesis

• Conscious attention matters (both in intentional and incidental learning).

• Noticing* specific forms in the input is essential for learning to occur.

• Noticing the gap* between the interlanguage and the target language facilitates learning.

• Some features are more likely to be noticed than others.

• lexis and word order > morphological features (e.g. third person-s)

• Conditions in which noticing is promoted

• ‘negotiation of meaning’ when linguistic form was incorrect (Long, 1996)

• Processing Instruction (VanPatten, 1996) – conscious attention to the grammatical markers

• Controversies

• “more noticing, more learning” rather than “no noticing, no learning (Schmidt, 2001)”

9

Explicit and implicit L2 knowledge• Consciousness also leads to formation of explicit L2 knowledge* (Schmidt, 1993)

• Explicit knowledge vs implicit knowledge (Table 1.2, p. 13)

• Controversies

• Conceptualization of implicit knowledge (symbol of rules or network of procedures?)

• Critical period (exists, does not exist, or rather is it sensitive period?)

• Relationship between explicit and implicit knowledge

• The non-interface position (e.g. Krashen, 1981; Paradis, 1994; 2009) E.g. Distinct cerebral substrates

• The strong interface position (e.g. DeKeyser, 1998)

• Practicing proceduralizes declarative knowledge (cf. automatization).

• The weak interface position (e.g. R. Ellis, 1994; N. Ellis, 2005)

• [ver. 1] Proceduralization occurs only when it meets developmental readiness.

• [ver. 2] Indirect contribution via ‘noticing*’ and ‘noticing-the-gap*’

• [ver. 3] Output of explicit knowledge → ‘auto-input’ to implicit learning mechanism10

Social perspectives on L2 acquisition

• Sociocultural SLA (Firth & Wagner, 2007; cf. cognitive SLA)

• Schumann’s (1978) Acculturation Theory

• Less social distance, less chance for fossilization (⇔pidginization) and faster to learn.

• Problem: deterministic theory in which personal factors are not acknowledged

• Norton’s (2000) Social Identity Theory

• Good relationship between power, identity, and language learning

• → Identity as a legitimate speaker of the L2 (right to speak) promotes L2 learning.

• Social identity is multiple, contradictory and dynamic.

• Sociointeractional SLA – how actual interactions ‘shape’ L2 learning

• Lev Vygotsky’s Sociocultural Theory (SCT)

• ‘Zone of proximal development (ZPD)’ can arise w/, w/o experts (e.g. languaging by Swain, 2006)

• ‘Scaffolding’ by interlocutors mediates L2 learning (Lantolf, 2000)

• The need for integrating both qualitative and quantitative methods11

Instruction and L2 acquisition

• Two-fold purpose of the research on SLA and pedagogy

• To test the claims of specific theoretical positions (pedagogy→research)

• To contribute to better, research-based pedagogy (research→pedagogy)

• Dichotomy of instruction

• Non-interventionist instruction (i.e. Meaning-focused instruction; MFI)

• Primary focus on meaning rather than form (Ellis, 2003)

• Setting conditions for natural acquisition

• Comprehensible input (e.g. Natural Method; Krashen and Terrell, 1983); CBI/CLIL; immersion; Task-based teaching (utilizing both input-based task and production-based task)

• Interventionist instruction (i.e. Form-focused instruction; FFI)

• Primary focus on forms

• Explicit instruction combined with input-based or production-based practice

12

Meaning-focused instruction (MFI)

• Assumption: Development of true L2 competence (i.e. implicit knowledge) is best catered for through the incidental (not intentional) learning in communicative contexts.

• Immersion programs - Developing L2 proficiency by teaching normal school subjects

through the medium of the L2

• Outcome (Swain & Lapkin, 1982; Genesee, 1984): normal standard of L1 proficiency, same or better level of academic development, less rigid ethnolinguistic stereotypes, communication skill, confidence in using L2 while lower levels of linguistic competence such as grammatical proficiency and sociolinguistical appropriateness

• Task-based language teaching (TBLT; Ellis, 2003; Samuda & Bygate, 2008)

• Holistic, learner-driven, and communication-based learning

• ‘Focus on form’ also embedded in the communicative interaction (Long, 1991)

• FonF facilitates (or can even be regarded necessary in) grammatical learning (Loewen, 2005)

13

Form-focused instruction (FFI)

• 1960s: methodology oriented study (e.g. GTM, cognitive-codemethod, ALM)

• 1970s~: research on instructed learners vs untutored learners

• Instructed learners achieved higher level in grammatical accuracy (Long 1983; Pica, 1983).

• Instruction per se will not suffice; it has to correspond with Acquisition Order and Developmental Stage (readiness/teachability of learning; Pinemann, 1989).

• Input-based instruction (e.g. VanPatten, 1996)

• using structured input to direct learners’ attention to key grammatical markers

• Production-based instruction (e.g. Harley, 1989; Day & Shapson, 1991)

• Form-focused output & form-function mapping enhance grammatical accuracy in production.

• Corrective feedback of target forms

• Both tutors’ correction and prompted self-correction are effective.

• Explicit FFI vs implicit FFI (the former found more effective in Norris & Ortega, 2000)14

Form-focused instruction (FFI) – cont.

• Difficulty to determine “the most effective FFI method.”

• Factor1: It depends on the target linguistic feature.

• E.g. explicit instruction for simple grammatical structures, implicit instruction for complex ones? (problems: no clear definition of complexity [De Graaf & Housen, 2009] and failure in empirical probe [Spada & Tomita, 2010])

• Factor2: It depends on the instructional context.

• E.g. Promps (tutors’ correction) were more effective than recasts (self-correction) in French immersion context (Lyster, 2004) while vice versa in Japanese immersion in the US (Lyster & Mori, 2006)

• Factor3: It depends on the individual learner.

• With all diversity in conclusions caused by non-uniformity of instruction and measurement employed in different research, it is hard to formulate generalizable conclusions.

• Yet it is indubitable that FFI DOES benefit learning.15

Individual differences (IDs) in language learning

• E.g. language aptitude, learning style, personality, motivation, language anxiety

• Research on IDs predates research on universalistic aspects of L2 acquisition.

• E.g. language aptitude (Carroll in 1950s)

• Initial aim: to distinguish potentially-successful learners and potentially-unsuccessful learners

• E.g. Modern Language Aptitude Battery (Carroll and Sapon, 1959)

• 1970s~: to identify characteristics of successful learners to provide guidance to other learners

• Two most influential factors to learning outcomes: lg. aptitude and motivation

• Motivation, a growing field of study (e.g. Dörnyei, MacIntyre, & Henry, 2015)

• A factor which is mutable, situated and dynamic.

• Instrumental and integrative motivation (Gardner & Lambert, 1972)

• They function independently, those with both traits being the most successful.

16

Individual differences (IDs) in language learning - cont.

• ID research not contributing to explaining mechanism of SLA? - Yes, they do.

• Lg. aptitude and lg. anxiety influence the extent to which learners benefit from instruction.

• Analytic learners benefit more from deductive (explicit)-type instruction than inductive (implicit)-type instruction (Erlam, 2005; the opposite finding from DeKeyser, 2000)

• Intrinsically motivated learners process input in a more elaborated, deeper manner (Manolopoulo-Sergi, 2004; Takahashi, 2005).

• Learning strategies (e.g. Oxford, 1990; 2011)

• techniques that learners consciously employ when engaged in intentional language learning

• E.g. grouping, practicing, setting goals/objectives, taking risks, & asking for clarification

• Research methodology adopted so far: questionnaires, diaries, and interviews

• Researched issues: relationship between employed strategies and learning achievements; strategies used by the successful language learners

• Promising topic, applicable to training students, but mixed results have been produced.

• Also lacking perspective: what role strategies play in INCIDENTAL learning? 17

Principles of instructed language learning• Principle 1: Instruction needs to ensure that learners develop both a rich repertoire of

formulaic expressions and a rule-based competence• Principle 2: Instruction needs to ensure that learners focus on meaning• Principle 3: Instruction needs to ensure that learners also focus on form• Principle 4: Instruction needs to be predominantly directed at developing implicit knowledge of

the L2 while not neglecting explicit knowledge.• Principle 5: Instruction needs to take into account the order and sequence of acquisition• Principle 6: Successful instructed language learning requires extensive L2 input• Principle 7: Successful instructed language learning also requires opportunities for output• Principle 8: The opportunity to interact in the L2 is central to developing L2 proficiency• Principle 9: Instruction needs to take account of individual differences in learners• Principle 10: Instruction needs to take account of the fact that there is a subjective aspect to

learning a new language• Principle 11: In assessing learners’ L2 proficiency it is important to examine free as well as

controlled production

18

Principles 1-3• Principle 1: Instruction needs to ensure that learners develop both a rich

repertoire of formulaic expressions and a rule-based competence• Procedure: to incorporate development of both formulaic expressions and rule-based

knowledge (MWUs are more important in the early stages of language learning.)

• Principle 2: Instruction needs to ensure that learners focus on meaning• Focus: implicit knowledge of language

• Procedures: immersion, CBL/CLIL, TBL and many others

• Principle 3: Instruction needs to ensure that learners also focus on form• Procedures

• Explicit instruction of grammar

• Consciousness-raising tasks to help learners discover grammatical rules

• Input/production-based practice activities

• Focus on form

• Intensive(pre-selected)/extensive(feedback-based) attention on forms19

Principles 4-6

• Principle 4: Instruction needs to be predominantly directed at developing implicit knowledge of the L2 while not neglecting explicit knowledge.

• Procedure: communicative activities to develop implicit knowledge (top priority) in which instruction of explicit knowledge is also incorporated

• Principle 5: Instruction needs to take into account the order and sequence of acquisition

• Procedures: Krashenian zero grammar approach / developmental syllabus / explicit teaching

• Principle 6: Successful instructed language learning requires extensive L2 input

• Background: Much L2 learning is incidental rather than intentional

• Procedures:

• Maximizing use of the L2 inside the classroom (L2 as the medium as well as the object)

• Creating opportunities for learners to receive input outside the classroom (e.g. extensive reading)

20

Principles 7-8• Principle 7: Successful instructed language learning also requires opportunities for

output

• Procedure: Incorporating output tasks (e.g. pushed output; Swain, 1985) which are not just controlled practice exercises but rather authentic interactions

• Principle 8: The opportunity to interact in the L2 is central to developing L2 proficiency

• Significance: interaction not just enables (a) automatizing existing linguistic resources but also (b) facilitates creating new resources (Hatch, 1978)

• Procedures

• Johnson (1995):

• Creating contexts of language use in the classroom

• Introducing tasks to express learners’ own personal meanings

• Facilitating learners to challenge language activities which are beyond their current proficiency level

• Offering a full range of contexts, catering for a ‘full performance’ in the L2

• another idea: to introduce small group works

21

Principles 9-11• Principle 9: Instruction needs to take account of individual differences in

learners• Procedures:

• adopting a flexible teaching method; using learner-training materials (e.g. Ellis & Sinclair, 1989); doing strategy training; assisting learners to achieve self-regulation; fostering intrinsic motivation

• Principle 10*: Instruction needs to take account of the fact that there is a subjective aspect to learning a new language• Rationale (by Kramsch, 2009): L2 learning must enable learners to develop their subjective

selves by taking on new identities and even a new personality by constructing ‘perceptions, attitudes, beliefs, aspirations, values’ (=symbolic competence)

• Emotional identification with the language (organic education for the whole person)

• Procedure: e.g. introducing literature and creative writing

• Principle 11: In assessing learners’ L2 proficiency it is important to examine free as well as controlled production• Procedures: metalinguistic judgement; selected response; constructed responses

22

Ellis, R and Shintani, N. (2014).Exploring language pedagogy through second language acquisition research.

New York: Routledge.

Graduate Student, Kwansei Gakuin University

KANAZAWA Yu (金澤佑)

yu-kanazawa@outlook.com

Chapter 1. Instructed second language acquisition (pp. 5-28).

JACET Study Group of ReadingVenue: Umeda Campus, Kwansei Gakuin UniversityApril 19, 2015. 1:40PM-.