SLA y La Vision de Vivian Cook

7/31/2019 SLA y La Vision de Vivian Cook

1/59

1

We will discuss the material below after your private and critical

studies and then we will compare it with:

a)German Methodologies (listed at the end of that paper at page 42)b)Your own experiencesc)Linguistic Theories of SLA (especially Chrashen [beginning at

page 7])

d)Complete your studies by reading the additional texts (beginning atpage 43)

Second Langu age Acqu isi t ion : Ear ly Deve lopm ent s

SLA Topics SLA Bib l iog raph y Vivian Cook

' FACTS' THAT SLA M ODELS NEED TO EXPLAI Na n a d u lt a m n e si a c w h o co u l d n o t l e arn n e w i n fo rm a t i o n

w as per f ec t ly ab le to learn a second lang uage, Fren ch ,

inc lud ing vocabu la ry

Eng l i sh p r imar y schoo l ch i l d ren w ho a re taugh t I ta l i an fo rone hou r a w eek lea rn t o read be t t e r i n Eng l i sh

peop le w ho speak a second language a re m ore c rea t i ve andf lex ib le at p r ob lem- so lv ing than m ono l ingua ls , e .g .Eins te in , Nabakov

t en days a f te r a road acc iden t , a b i l ingua l Mor occan cou ldspeak French bu t no t A rab ic; th e nex t day A rab ic bu t no t

French ; th e nex t day she w en t back to f l u en t F rench and

poo r A rab ic ; th ree m on t hs l a te r she cou ld speak bo t h

t he Vo ice Onset T im e (VOT) o f French peop le w ho speakEng l i sh i s d i f fe ren t i n French f rom th ose w ho don ' t

L2 lea rne rs rap id l y l earn t he app rop r ia t e p ronun c ia t i ons fo rt h e i r o w n g e n d er , f o r i n sta n c e t h a t m e n t e n d t op ro n o u n c e t h e - i n g e n d i n g o f t h e En g l i sh c o n t i n u o u s

fo rm go ing a s - i n b u t w o m e n t e n d t o u se - i n g .

a f te r see ing an Am er i can f l ag , Ch inese/ Eng l i sh b i l i ngua lsa re mor e l ike l y to say i n te rp r e t behav iou r o f f i sh as d r i ven

by in t e rna l fo rces; a f t e r a Ch inese d ragon as d r i ven by

ex te rn a l fo rces

Star te r Wh en you have to exp r ess an idea in you r L2 do you :

a ) t h i n k o f t h e w o r d f i r st i n y o u r L 1 a nd t h e n t u r n i t i n t o t h e L2 ?


2/59

2

b ) t h i n k o f t h e w o r d f i r st i n y o u r L 2 ?

c ) n e i t h e r?

Ear ly con cepts in Second Langu age Acqu is i t ion research1 9 5 0 s

in te r f e rence : We in r e i chc om p o u n d / co o rd i n a te b i l in g u a l is m : W e i n rei ch

Cont ras t iv e Ana lys is, t ran s fe r : Lado

hab i t - f o rm a t ion : Lado , B loomf ie ld e tc

p h ra se st r u c tu re g ra m m a r : B lo o m f i e l d e t c

1 9 6 0 s

independen t g ram m ars assum pt ion : schoo l o f Chom sky

Language Acqu is i t ion Dev ice: Chom sky 19 64

hypo t hes is - tes t i ng : Co rde r

1 9 7 0 s

in te r language : Nem ser , Sel i nke rEr r o r An a lys is : Cord er , 197 1

Wh a t i s w ro n g w i t h t h e f o ll o w i n g se n te n ce s f r o m stu d e n t s ' e ss ay s ? I f y o u w

th e i r t e ach e r , h o w w o u l d y o u co r re ct t h e m ?

Anyone doesn't need any deposit in my country to rent an apartment. (Koreanstudent)

I play squash so so and I wish in Sunday's morning arrange matches with a girlplays like me. (Italian)

Everytimes I concentrate to speak out, don't know why always had Chinese in mmind. (Chinese)

Raelly I am so happy. I wold like to give you my best congratulate. and I wold litoo to till you my real apologise, becuse my mother is very sik. (Arabic)

I please you very much you allow me to stay with you this Christmas. (Spanish) Weinr e i ch : Langu ages in Con t ac t i n te r fe rence : ' t h ose ins tances of dev ia t i on f rom th e no rm s of

e i the r l angu age w h ich occu r i n th e speech o f b i l i ngua ls as a

re su l t o f t h e i r f a m i l i ar i t y w i t h m o re t h a n o n e l an g u a g e'

(We in re i ch , 1953 ,1 )

t y pes o f b i l i ngua l i sm:

'book ' 'k n i g a ' 'book ' = ' k n i g a ' 'b o o k '

| | | |

/ bu k / / k n ig a/ / b u k / / k n iga/ / bu k /

|

/ k n iga/

coord ina t i ve compoun d subo rd ina t i v e

b i l i ngua l i sm b i l i ngua l i sm b i l i ngua l i sm


3/59

3

Lado: Cont rast ive Ana lys is

t rans fe r ; ' i nd i v i dua l s t end t o t r ans f e r t he f o rm s and

m ean ings , and t he d i s t r i bu t i on o f f o rm s and m ean ings o f

t he i r n a t i ve l anguage and cu l t u re t o t h e f o re i gn

l anguage and cu l t u re ' ( Lado , 1957 , p .2 ) l ea rn ing ; ' a sys tem o f hab i t s ' ( Lado , 1957 , p .57 ) based on ' l aw s

o f l anguage lea rn ing ' such as 'exe rc i se ' , ' f am i l i a r i t y o f

response ' , etc ( Lado , 1964 , p .45 ) .

Fi rs t l angu age acqu is i t i on i deas o f th e 1960 s

- t h e i n d e p e n d en t g ra m m a rs ass u m p t i o n

- The LAD ( Langu age Acqu is i t ion Dev ice) m ode l

p r i m a r y - - - > LA D - - - > g e ne r at i v e g r a m m a r

l i ngu is t i c da ta ( l i ngu is t i c compe t ence )

- hypo th esis - tes t i ng : 'To acqu i re langu age, a ch i ld m us t dev ise

a hypo th esis compa t ib le w i th p r esen ted da ta - he m us t select

f r o m th e s to re o f p o t e n t i a l g ram m a rs a sp e ci f i c o n e t h a t i s

app rop r ia te to the da ta ava il ab le to h im ' ( Chom sky , 1965 a ,

p .36 )

Approx im a t i ve system s , i n te r language and m u l t i - compe t ence

N em se r ( 1 9 7 1 ) ' app rox ima t i ve sys tem' : 'Learner speech a t a

g i ven t im e i s th e pa t te rn ed p roduc t o f a l i ngu is t i c sys tem , La

[ a p p ro x i m a t i v e l a n g u a ge ] , d i st i n c t f r o m Ls [ s ou rc e l an g u a g e]

a n d Lt [ t a rg e t l a n g u a g e] a n d i n t e rn a ll y s t r u c tu re d ' .

Se li n k e r ( 1 9 7 2 ) i n t e r l a n g u a g e : l anguage t rans fe r ,

ove rgene ra l i sa t i on o f L2 ru les , t r ans fer o f t r a in ing , st r a teg ies

o f L2 lea rn ing , comm un ica t ion s t ra t eg ies,

Co rd e r ( 1 9 7 1 ) Err o r Ana lys is : ( i ) recogn i t i on o f i d iosyncracy ,

( i i ) accoun t ing f o r t he l earne r ' s i d iosync ra t i c d ia lec t , ( i i i )

exp lana t ion .

Cook (1 991 ) m u l t i - c o m p e te n c e ' t h e c o m p o u n d s ta te o f a m i n d

w i t h t w o gr a m m a r s'

References

Much o f th i s i s covered in Chap te r 1 o f Cook ( 1993 ) .

Chom sky , N . ( 1965 ) , 'Fo rm a l d i scuss ion : t he deve lopm en t o f

g ram m ar i n ch i l d l anguage ' , i n Be l l ug i , U. , and B row n , R. (eds . ) ,

The Acqu is i t ion o f Langu age, I nd iana , Pu rd ue Un ive rsi t y

Cook , V .J. ( 1969 ) , 'The ana logy be t w een f i r s t and second

language learn in g ' , I RA L, 7 , 3 , 207 -2 16

Cook , V .J. (1 99 1) , ' Th e p o v er t y -o f - t h e - s t i m u l u s arg u m e n t a n d

m u l t i - c o m p e te n c e ' , Second Lan gu age Research, 7 , 2 , 103 -11 7 ,


4/59

4

Corde r , S.P. ( 1971 ) , ' I d iosyncra t i c e r ro rs and Er r o r Ana lysi s ' ,

I RA L, 9 , 2 , 147 - 159 . Rep r in t ed in Richards ( 1974 )

Cord er , S.P. (1 98 1) , Er r o r Ana lysi s and I n t e r language , O.U.P.

Lado , R. (1 957 ) , L ingu is t ics Across Cu l t u r es , Un ivers i t y o f

Mich igan Press, Ann Arb orLado , R. (1 964 ) , Language Teach in g : A Scien t i f i c Appr oach ,

McGraw -Hi l l

N em s er , W . ( 1 9 7 1 ) , 'Ap p ro x i m a t i v e sy s te m s o f f o re i g n

language lea rne rs ' , I n t e rna t iona l Rev iew o f App l i ed Lingu is t i c s ,

9 , 115 -12 3 . Rep r in t ed in Richa rds (1 974 ) .

Se l i nke r , L . ( 1972 ) , ' I n t e r language ' , I RA L, 1 0/ 3 .

Rep r in t ed in Richards ( 1974 )

We i n re i ch , U . ( 1 9 5 3 ) , Languages in Cont ac t , The Hagu e,

M o u to n

Act i v i t i es

Mot i va t i ons fo r SLA research

A. To inves t ig a te L2 learn ing i t se l f

B . To im prove langu age teach ing

C. To con t r i bu t e to l i ngu is t i c s and t he l i ngu is t i c

th eo ry o f acqu isi t i on

D. To con t r ibu t e to genera l i ssues in psycho logy

Under w h ich mo t i va t i on head ing w ou ld you p lace each o f

th ese quo ta t i ons?

1 . ' The u l t im a te goa l o f second language acqu is i t i onresea rch i s the deve lopmen t o f a t heo ry o f second

langu age acqu is i t ion . ' Kev in Gregg in S. Gass & J .

Schach t e r ( eds. ) , L ingu is t ic Perspec t ives on Second

Language Acqu is i t ion , CUP

2 . ' . . . scien t i f i c p rog ress is ach ieved as w e com e to

i l l u m i n a te p ro g re s si v el y o u r k n o w l ed g e b y t a k i n gd i f fe ren t pe rspect i ves and by u t i l i si ng d i ve rse me t hods

o f r esea rch . Good t heo r ies f i t t he da ta w e l l , a re

consis ten t w i th r e lated fo rm u la t i ons , a re clear i n th e i r

p red ic t i ons and a r e heu r i s t i ca l l y r i ch . Perhaps m os t

im por t an t , they a re capab le o f d i scon f i rm a t ion . '

McLaugh l i n , B . ( 1987 ) , Theor ies o f Second-Langu age

Learn ing , Edw ard A rn o ld , London p .18

3 . ' i n th i s book , th e po ten t ia l re la t i onsh ip be tw een

l i ngu is t i c un ive r sals and second language acqu is i t i on w i l lbe exp lo red . i n pa r t i cu la r , w e sha l l be conce rned w i th a

p r inc ip les and pa r ame t e rs app roach t o Un ive rsa l


5/59

5

Gram m ar ( UG) , as rea l i sed in Gove rnm en t and B ind ing

( GB) ( Chom sky , 1981 a ) . Th is theo ry assum es th a t

p r inc ip les and pa ram e te rs o f UG const i t u t e an inna t e l y

g i ven body o f know ledge w h ich cons t ra ins f i r s t l anguage

( Li ) a cq u i si t i o n .' W h i t e , L. ( 1 9 8 9 ) , Un ive rsa l Gram m ar

and Second Langu age Acqu is i t ion , John Ben jam ins p .x i

4 . ' The goal o f th i s book then i s ce r t a in l y no t t o p roposea n ew m e th o d b u t r a th e r t o e x p l o re t h e r eq u i r e m e n t s f o r

a gene ra l th eo ry o f second language learn in g by

exam in ing th e cond i t i ons unde r w h ich l anguages a re

learn t , and to cons ider t he re levance o f such a t heo ry f o r

l anguage teach ing ' . Spo lsky , B. (1 989 ) , Cond i t ions fo r

Second Language Learn in g , OUP p.2

5 . ' Th i s book i s abou t a m a jo r f i ve -yea r research p ro j ectconduc ted du r ing t he 1980s in th e Modern LanguageCen t r e a t t he On ta r io i ns t i t u t e fo r S tud ies in Educa t ion .

The pu rpose o f the p ro j ect , en t i t l ed the Deve lopm en t o f

B i l ingua l P ro f i c iency ( DBP) , has been t o exam ine a

num ber o f educa t iona l l y re levan t i s sues concern in g th e

language deve lopm en t o f schoo l -age ch i l d ren w ho a re

learn in g a second lang uage ' Har ley , B . , Al len , P .,

Cum m ins , J. & Sw a in , M. , ( eds. ) ( 1990) , Th e

Deve lopm ent o f Second Language Pro f ic iency , CUP

6 . ' I h a v e b e en i n t e re ste d f o r a l o n g t i m e n o w i n h o w a nunde rs tand in g o f second language acqu isi t i on can

con t r i bu te t o l anguage pedagogy ' El l i s, R. (1 990) ,

I ns t ru c ted Second Language Acqu isi t i on , B lackw e l l , p . v i i

7 . ' B il i n g u al i sm i s f or m e t h e f u n d a m e n ta l p ro b l em o fl i ngu is t i c s. ' R. Jakobson ( 1953 ) , 'Resu l t s o f th e

con fe rence o f an t h ropo log is ts and l i ngu is ts ' , I JA L

Supp lemen t , M em o i r 8 , 1 9 -2 2

W h e r e d o t h e y co m e f r o m ? A pe r so n w h o d o es n o t d is t in g u i sh / k i : n / a n d / k i n /

A pe rson w ho says Yeste rd ay cam e he

A p er s on w h o w r i t e s bepent ( d e p e n d ) , descr ide ( d e s c r i b e ) ,

cabab le

Wr i t t en sam p le o f adu l t L2 l ea rne r o f Eng l i sh I f e r om I sr a el . I e m e m e r id w o m a n I g o t o n e ch e il d 5

y e re s o u d I n o v m y e g h i t i t n a v e r y g o o d w e l iv e i n

eg land abou t t ou ye rs I l i ve i n Stand fo r d H i l l London

N 1 6 . Th e n e m e o f m y d o u th e r i s Ru th I l o v e t h e r v e r y

m a ch I g o u t i s is t e r i n I s rae l a n d al m y f a m i l i I b e in t h e

h a r m y e n i t u o u s w u n d e r f e nt l a st w i k w e w e n t t u p a r i s.


6/59

6

Som e de f in i t i onssecond lang uage:

A l anguage acqu i red by a pe rson in add i t i on t o h i s

m ot her t ongu e , UNESCO

L2 user :

Any pe rson w ho uses ano the r l anguage than t he i r f i r s t

( L1 ) , tha t i s to say , the one th ey learn t f i r s t as a ch i l d .

na t i ve speake r

'a mon o l ingua l pe rson w ho s t i l l speaks th e l anguage they

lea rn t i n ch i l dhood ' (Cook 1999 )

The f i r s t l anguage a hum an be ing lea rns to speak i s h i s

na t i ve l anguage ; he is a na t i ve speake r o f t h i s l anguage

( B loom f ie ld , 1933 , p .43 )

'a na t i ve speake r o f a l anguage i s someone w ho speaks

th a t l anguage as th e i r f i r s t l anguage ra the r th an hav ing

learn t i t as a fo r e ign lang uage ' COBUI LD Eng l ishD ict i ona r y , 1995

Char ac te r is t i cs o f na t ive speakers : ( i ) sub conscious

k n o w l ed g e o f r u l e s, ( i i ) i n t u i t i v e g ra s p o f m e an i n g s, ( i i i )

a b i li t y t o c o m m u n i ca te w i t h i n s o ci a l se t t i n g s , ( i v ) r a n g e

o f l anguage sk i l l s , ( v ) c reat i v i t y o f l anguage use. (S te rn ,

1 9 8 3 ) .

b i l ingua l ism

- ' t he p rac t i ce o f al te rn a te l y us ing tw o languages'

( We in r e i ch , 1953 , p .1 )

- ' n a t i v e - li k e c on t r o l o f t w o l a n g u a g es ' ( B lo o m f i e l d ,1 9 3 3 , 5 5 )

- ' t he po in t w he re a speake r can f i r s t p r oduce comp le te

m e an i n g fu l u t t e ra n c es i n t h e o th e r l a n g u ag e ' ( H au g e n ,

1953 , p .7 )

- ' Fro m w h a te v er a n g l e w e l o ok a t i t , b i l i n g u a li sm i s a

re la t i ve concep t ' ( Ho f fm an , 1991 , p .31 )

- 'B i l i ngua l i sm i s no t a phenom enon o f l anguage ; i t i s a

cha racte r i s t i c o f i t s use' ( Mackey , 1970 )

- 'Paradox ica l as i t m ay seem , Second Langu age

Acqu is i t i on resea rche rs seem to have neg lected th e fac tth a t t he goa l o f SLA i s b i li ngua l i sm ' ( Sr idha r and Sr idha r ,

1 9 8 6 )

- 'A l l t oo o f ten im pos ing Bloom f ie ld ' s c r i te r i a on

b i l i ngua ls has led to t he i r s t i gm a t i sa t i on as being

somehow de f i cien t i n th e i r l anguage capaci t i es .' ( Appe l

& Muysken , 1987 , p .3 )

- B i li n g u a li sm i s t h e r e gu l a r u s e o f tw o ( o r m o re )

languages, and b i l i ngua ls a re those peop le w ho need and

u s e ( tw o o r m o re ) l a n g u ag e s i n t h e i r e v e ry d a y l iv e s'

( Gros jean , 1992 , p .51 )


7/59

7

Krashen 's Com pr ehens ion Hypo t hes is Mode l o f

L2 learn ingSLA Topics SLA Bib l iog rap hy Vivian Cook

K r ash e n ' s o w n w e bsi t e : h t t p : / / w w w .sd k r a sh e n .co m / m a in .p h p 3

Krashen 's Fi ve Hy po t heses

Then a tu ra l o rd e r

hypo thes is

'we acquire the rules of language in a predictable order'

TheAcqu is i t ion /

Learn ing

Hypo thes is

'adults have two distinctive ways of developing competences insecond languages .. acquisition, that is by using language for real

communication ... learning .. "knowing about" language' (Krashen &Terrell 1983)

TheM o n i t o r Hypo thes is

'conscious learning ... can only be used as a Monitor or an editor'(Krashen & Terrell 1983)

The I n p u t

Hypo thes is 'humans acquire language in only one way - by understandingmessages or by receiving "comprehensible input"'

TheAf fec t iv e Fi l t e r

Hypo thes is

'a mental block, caused by affective factors ... that prevents inputfrom reaching the language acquisition device' (Krashen, 1985,p.100)

Acqu is i t i on Learn ing

implicit, subconscious explicit, conscious

informal situations formal situations

uses grammatical 'feel' uses grammatical rules

depends on attitude depends on aptitude

stable order of acquisitionsimple to complex order oflearning

Combined model of acquisition and production


8/59

8

Ev idence f o r t h e I npu t Hypo t hes i s (chiefly Krashen 1985a)

i) people speak to children acquiring their first language in special waysii) people speak to L2 learners in special ways

iii) L2 learners often go through an initial Silent Periodiv)

the comparative success of younger and older learners reflectsprovision of comprehensible input

v) the more comprehensible input the greater the L2 proficiencyvi) lack of comprehensible input delays language acquisition

vii)teaching methods work according to the extent that they usecomprehensible input

viii)immersion teaching is successful because it provides comprehensibleinput

ix)bilingual programs succeed to the extent they provide

comprehensible inputAcadem ic react ion s to K rashen

Ellis (1990, p.57): 'the lucidity, simplicity, and explanatory power ofKrashen's theory'.

Lightbown (1984, p.246): a combination of 'a linguistic theory (throughits "natural order" hypothesis), social psychological theory (through its"affective filter" hypothesis), psychological learning theory (through itsacquisition-learning hypothesis), discourse analysis and sociolinguistictheory (through both the comprehensible input hypothesis and the

"monitor" hypothesis)'.Mitchell & Myles (1998, p.126): 'The concepts of 'understanding' and'noticing a gap' are not clearly operationalised, or consistentlyproposed; it is not clear how the learner's present state of knowledge('i') is to be characterised, or indeed whether the 'i+1' formulation isintended to apply to all aspects of language, from lexis to phonologyand syntax.'

Gregg (1984, p.94): 'each of Krashen's hypotheses is marked byserious flaws: undefinable or ill-defined terms, unmotivated constructs,

lack of empirical content and thus of falsifiability, lack of explanatorypower'


9/59

9

McLaughlin (1987, p.56): 'Krashen's theory fails at every juncture ...Krashen has not defined his terms with enough precision, the empiricalbasis of the theory is weak, and the theory is not clear in itspredictions)

Ellis (1985, p.266): the Monitor Model 'poses serious theoreticalproblems regarding the validity of the 'acquisition-learning' distinction,the operation of Monitoring, and the explanation of variability inlanguage-learner language'

The Natu ra l Appro ach (Krashen & Terrell, 1983; Terrell et al,1997)

Genera l p rem ises

1.The goal is 'the ability to communicate with native speakers of thetarget language'

2. Comprehension precedes production the Silent Period3. Production 'emerges'4. Acquisition activities are central, though some Monitoring may be

useful for some people sometimes

5. Lower the Affective Filter: they won't learn if their affectivebarrier is too high

(6. Speech emerges in stages. Terrell et al 1997)(7. Group work encourages speech. Terrell et al 1997)(8. Speech emergence is characterized by grammatical errors. Terrell etal 1997)

Techn iques ( all acquisition activities)

a ) A f fec t i ve -Hum an ist i c act i v i t i es

dialogues short and useful - 'open' dialogues interviews pairwork on personal information personal charts and tables preference ranking opinion polls on favourite activities etc revealing information about yourself e.g. what I had for breakfast activating the imagination e.g. give Napoleon advice about his

Russian campaign

b ) P rob lem -so lv ing ac t i v i t i es

task and series e.g. components of an activity such as washingthe car

charts, graphs, maps e.g. busfares, finding the way


10/59

10

developing speech for particular occasions e.g. What do you sayif

advertisements

c) Games, e.g. What is strange about a bird swimming?'d ) Con t en t ac t i v i t i es , e.g. academic subject matter such as maths

SOME ANTI -KRASHEN OPI NI ONS FROM CALI FORNI A,t a k e n f r o m KrashenBurn ( see end )

Alice Callaghan (Episcopal priest), ...a parasite on the backs of poorLatino children.

Isaac Cubillos, editor of Latino Beat ...more than 2.5-million kids

statewide have not made it as a result of bilingual education. What anatrocious situation, and Krashen helped create this."

Isaac Cubillos, editor of Latino Beat, I discovered that Dr. Krashen hasdone no research. It is purely a theory. There is no test data, there areno schools where it's been proved, and it's based on thin air.

Christine Rossell "Krashen denied having ever criticized that study. Hewill say anything to win over a room."

David Tokofsky, "This is how every administrator in the state gotpromoted from assistant principal to principal, or from teacher to

bilingual coordinator, or from regional supe to district supe: By chantingthe Mantra of 'Rama, Rama, Krashen, Krashen, Rama, Rama.'

one stunned non-educator in the audience: "An impromptu receivingline formed of teachers lining up for a chance to touch their guru, theirPied Piper. It was eery. It was the Church of Krashen."

Krashen's own website: http://www.sdkrashen.com/main.php3

Ref erences (& see w eb l i nks be low )

Barasch, R.M. & Vaughan-James, C. (eds) (1994), Beyond the MonitorModel, Heinle & Heinle

Gregg, K. (1984), 'Krashen's Monitor and Occam's Razor', AppliedLinguistics, 5 (2), 79-100

Krashen, S. (1979), 'The Monitor Model for second languageacquisition,' in R. Gingras (ed.) Second Language Acquisition andForeign Language Teaching, CAL

Krashen, S. (1981), Second Language Acquisition and Second LanguageLearning,Pergamon Dow n loadab le f rom http://www.sdkrashen.com/SL_Acquisition_and_Learning/index.html


11/59

11

Krashen, S. (1982), Principles and Practice in Second LanguageAcquisition, Pergamon

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

Krashen, S. (1985), Language Acquisition and Language Educat ion,Alemany Press

Krashen, S. (1993), The Power of Reading, Libraries Unlimited Inc,Englewood Colorado

Krashen, S. & Biber, D. (1988), On Course: Bilingual EducationsSuccess in Califormia, California Association for Bilingual Education,Sacramento

Krashen, S. & Terrell, T.D. (1983), The Natu ral Approach, Pergamon

McLaughlin, B. (1987), Theories of Second-Language Learning, EdwardArnold, London

Exerc i ses/ da t a

Acqu is i t ion versus Learn ing Exerc ise

Ask your partner

1. to describe an L2 (or L1) rule they learntconsciously2. to say how they used it to start with

3. to say the extent to which they use it now

4. to evaluate how useful they found it

5. to say what they can do in an L2 they did not learn but acquired6 to remember how they acquired this

7. to say how important they found it

Do y ou agree with acquisition versus learning?

Rate t hese teach ing act i v i t i es on a scale f rom 1 -10 as invo lv ing

compr ehensib le i npu t :

- repetition of sentences in a dialogue- reading a story aloud followed by questions- students exchanging their views about their favourite music- students listening to grammatical explanation- studying a poem together- learning lists of vocabulary with their translation- listening to how an activity should be done and then carrying it out- acting out going by train

An I ta l i an be ing in t e rv iew ed by an Eng l i sh speake r ( ESF p ro j ect )

( s li g h t l y t i d i ed )


12/59

12

Is Andrea using acquired or learnt knowledge? How can you tell?

I: Had you seen this film before?

Andrea: No never.

I: Have you seen other Charlie Chaplin?

Andrea: Ya [long pause] mm [long pause] its okay.I: I think so.

Andrea: [laughs] after - Charlie Chaplin er take the coon [/?] cuneos [=T wedge] the piece

of wood er.

I: mhm.

Andrea: er under the boat. And the boat go into the sea I don't know.

I: Mhm mhm.

Andrea: Er he has finished - the < > [laughs] the work.

I: Ya.

Andrea: Your your job. Ya?

I: mhm.

Andrea: He working only for I don't know for ten minutes [laughs] and er and he go gooutside er this er er cantieres [=T shipyard] ?

I: outside the?

Andrea: cantieres [=T shipyard].

I: canteen?

Andrea: building construction.

I: mhm.

Andrea: of the the boat.

I: outside the docks you mean.

Andrea: the docks.

ya.

Krashen has been politically active on issues ofbilingual education. For his own views seehttp://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/JWCRA

WFORD/Krashen3.htm,andhttp://www.usc.edu/dept/education/CMMR/text/Krashen_WholeLang.htmlFor a fierce anti-Krashen view seeKrashenBurnhttp://www.angelfire.com/az/english4thechildren/krashen.html,some quotes given above. For a journalists account see:http://www.cspc.org/het/prop227.htm.To catch up, simply try typing Krashen on Google.com and stand backthree paces before the screen explodes.

L2 Sequ ences o f Acqu is i t ion



13/59

13

Thr ee ques t ions abou t sequences 1 What is the actual sequence?2 Is it like L1 sequence?3 Why does it occur?

The Gram m at i ca l Morph em e Stu d ies

Co m m o n L2 o rd e r o f d i f f i cu l t y f o r g ra m m a t i ca l m o rp h e m e s

(Dulay and Burt)1 plural -s Books2 progressive -ing John going3 copula be John ishere4 auxiliary be John isgoing5 articles the/a Thebooks6 irregular past tense John went7 third person -s John likesbooks

8 possessive s Johnsbook

Key resea rch sum m ary

Du lay , H .C. , & Bur t , M.K. ( 197 3) , Shou ld w e teach ch i ld r en

syn tax? , Language Learn in g , 2 3 / 2 , 2 4 5 - 25 8

Data t ype: sentences elicited via the BSM (Bilingual Syntax Measure) -cartoon descriptionL2 learners: 151 Spanish-speaking children aged 6-8 learning English in the USA

Method of analysis:i) establishing percentage supplied in obligatory contexts for 8 grammatical morphemes

ii) ordering these from most to leastResults:

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

p l .

- s - i n g

cop .

b e

au x

b e t h e/ a

i r r e g .

past

3 p .

- s

poss.

- s

Claims: there does seem to be a common order of acquisition forcertain structures in L2 acquisition (Dulay and Burt, 1973, p.256).

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

L2:Dulay &

Bur t1 9 74 a t he/ a - i n g

p lu ra l

- s

reg .

past

i r r e g .

past

poss.

s

3 r d

p . s

L1:Br ow n

1 9 73

- i n g p l u ra l

s

i r r e g .

pas t the /

a

poss.

s

reg .

past

3 r d

p .

s


14/59

14

Com par i son o f L1 and L2 sequences fo r 7 g ram m at i cal

m o r p h e m e s

Oth e r r e fe rences

Dulay, H.C., Burt, M. & Krashen, S. (1982), Language Two, Newbury

House, Rowley, Mass.Lightbown, P.M. (1987), Classroom language as acquisition to secondlanguage acquisition, in C.W. Pfaff (ed.), First and Second LanguageAcquisition Processes, Newbury House

Lee, D.J. (1981), Interpretation of morpheme rank ordering in L2research, in P. Dale & D. Ingram (eds.)

Perkins, K., & Larson-Freeman, D. (1975), The effect of formallanguage instruction on the order of morpheme acquisition, LanguageLearning, 25

Porter, J.H. (1977), A cross-sectional study of morpheme acquisitionin first language acquisition, Language Learning, 27, 1, 47-61

The Pro cessab i l i t y Model

Movement

Peter is happy Peter will like who? Peter broke the window

Is Peter happy Who will Peter like? The window was broken by Peter

'Facts' about German

1) Declarative main clause order Subject Verb Object (SVO),"Ich liebedich" (I love you).

2) Non-inflected verb forms such as participles must occur at the endof main clauses as in "Ich habe dich geliebt" Subject Auxiliary ObjectVerb (SAuxOV) (I have you loved).

3) The Verb comes second in main clauses after adverbs, questionwords, or topicalised NPs, "Immer liebe ich dich" Adverb Verb SubjectObject (AdvVSO) (Always love I you).

4) Subordinate clauses usually have SOV order rather than SVO as in"Ich sagte dass ich dich liebte" Subject Verb [Complementiser SubjectObject Verb] (I said that I you loved).

Stages o f L2 acqu is i t i on o f Germ an

Stage 1 Formulas and one word sentences. Either one word utterancesor set formulas; "kinder" (children) or "madchen" (girl).


15/59

15

Stage 2 Canon ica l Ord er (alias "stage X"). SVO canonical order forGerman, seen in "Die Kinder essen pfel" Subject Verb Object (Thechildren eat apple).

Stage 3 Adve rb p r eposing (stage X+1). Preposing of adverbs

without inversion of subject and verb; "Da kinder spielen" AdverbSubject Verb (There children play). Movement preposes the Adverb;Adverb preposing: Subject Verb Adverb Adverb Subject Verb"Ich gehe jetzt nach Hause" *"Jetzt ich gehe nach Hause".

Stage 4 Verb Separa t ion (stage X+2). Verb is moved to the end ofthe sentence when it is non-inflected, i.e. preceded by an auxiliary:"Ich habe ein Haus gebaut" (I have a house built) rather than *"Ichhabe gebaut ein Haus" (I have built a house).:Verb separation(of non-inflected forms)Subject Auxiliary Verb Object Subject Auxiliary Object VerbCorrect Subject Aux Object Verb, "Alle kinder muss die pause machen"(All children must a break have).

Stage 5 I n v e rsi o n (stage X+3). Inversion of Subject and Verbfollowing Adverbs etc, yielding "Dann hat sie wieder die knochgebringt" Adverb Aux Subject Adverb Object Verb (Then has she againthe bone brought).inversion(after certain items) X Subject Verb Object X Verb SubjectObject

Stage 6 Verb F ina l (stage X+4). The Verb moves to Final position insubordinate clauses, "Wenn ich nach House gehe, kaufe ich diesetabac" (When I home go ...). Hence the rule applies to sentences aftersubordinating conjunctions such as "dass", to indirect speech clauses,and to relative clauses. :Verb Final(in embedded clauses): ...[complementiser Subject VerbObject] ...[complementiser Subject Object Verb]

Germ an Eng l ish g enera l spec i f i c

exam ples exam ples p r ocess ing p r ocesses

Stage ( Me isel , Clahsen (P ienem ann & p r in c ip les ( P ienem ann &

Pienemann ,198 1 ) Johns ton ,1987 ) ( Clahsen ,1984 )Johns ton ,1987 )

1 Single words Single words(0) formulas formulas

2 SVO SVO Canonical(X) "no" +SVO orderstrategy

3 Adverb Adverb-fronting Initialisation/ distinguishing

(X+1) -Preposing Topicalisation finalisationbeginnings and(Adv SVO) initial "do" strategyendings ofinitial wh-words strings


16/59

16

Yes/No Questions

4 Verb Aux "-ing" recognising a(X+2) -Separation preposition- category withinstranding the string

5 Inversion Wh Inversion recognising(X+3) (Adv V S O ) 3rd person "-s" differentdative "to" categories inthe string

6 Verb Final embedded clauses Subordinatebreaking(X+4) ( S O V ) reflexives clause strategyelements withindative movement a string intosubstrings

Janni Benito Maria Franco Angelina LolitaStage 4 Verb Separation 1. 0.82 0.93 0.58 0.71 0.57Stage 5 Inversion 1. 0.91 0.85 0.29 0 -Stage 6 Verb Final 1. 0.56 0 - 0 -Stages in L2 acqu isi t i on o f Ge rm an : resu l t s fo r s i x L2 lea rne rs

o f Ge rm an (adapted from Meisel et al, 1981)

Janni Benito Maria Franco Angelina LolitaAux V Part 1. 0.71 1. 0.58 0.7 0.5Embedded Topicalisation 1. 0 1. - - -Adverb with Inversion 1. 1. 0.7 0.18 0 -Deta i ls o f L2 acqu is i t ion o f Germ an (adapted from Meisel et al,1981)

Deve lopmen t

N6 Benito Janni

5 Franco Maria4 Lolita Angelina321a b c ... xVar ia t i on

The tw o d im ens ions in the Mu l t i d im ens iona l Model

process ing p rocedures s t r u c tu ra l o u t c om e

5 Sub.-clause procedure main and sub clause inter


17/59

17

4 S-procedure inter-phrasal info. exchange

3 Phrasal procedure phrasal info. exchange

2 Category procedure lexical morphemes

1 Word/lemma access words

The H ie ra rchy in t he P rocessab i l it y Mode l

The Pro cessab i l i t y Model

Genera l c la ims : the prediction of structures that can be processed atdifferent levelsSLA research qu es t ions : does L2 acquisition follow the predictedroute?SLA research t echn iques : collection and study of corpora

Spec imen research : Pienemann 1998 on German and JapaneseOth e r L2 sp in -o f f s : teachability hypothesisL inks : LFG allegedly ('unification' grammars)

References

Clahsen, H, Meisel, J.M., & Pienemann, M. (1983) , Deutsch alsZweit sprache: Der Sprachenerwerb auslandischer Arbeit er, GunterNarr Tubingen

Meisel, J.M., Clahsen, H., & Pienemann, M. (1981), 'On determiningdevelopmental stages in natural second language acquisition', SSLA,

3, 2, 109-135Pienemann, M. (1998), Language Processing and Second-LanguageDevelopment: Processability Theory, Amsterdam, John Benjamins

Pienemann, M., & Johnston, M., (1987), 'Factors influencing thedevelopment of language proficiency', in D. Nunan (ed.), ApplyingSecond Language Research, NCRC, Adelaide, Australia

Pienemann, M. & A. Mackey. 1993. An empirical study of childrensESL development and Rapid Profile. In P. McKay (ed.), ESLdevelopment. Language and lit eracy inSchools, Vol. 2.Commonwealth of Australia and National Languages and LiteracyInstitute of Australia, 115-259.

Comparison GM PM

1 W ha t i s the ac tua l sequence? Y Y

2 I s i t l i ke L1 sequence? Y N

3 W hy does i t occu r? N Y

A c t i v i t y


18/59

18

Here are two essays written by teenage children learningEnglish as an L2 in England. Try scoring them according to theMultidimensional Model. Which stage is each one of them at?(Ignore spelling mistakes)

A. B ir t hday Robbe ry one day there was party a Birthday Party.

It was Mr and Mrs Smiths Sons Birthday he was twelve

They invited all the friends fo their son and their parnets. By the way the boy who's

Birthday was his name was Keith.

two of his best freind were there too named peter and jhon.

They were really not his Bestfriends they were sons of big whealthy Robbers they were

planing to Robb Mrs Smiths richess.

As Peter asked Keith for a drink. While John went upstairs to Mrs Smith's room and got

the necholes out of the sofe and came downstairs and sat by Keith as he sat some nose

noise came out of his cloths and Keith said that in your pocket.John said oh nothing.

Keith said I want to see the object in your pocket and when he got the necholes out and

both started to run John and Peter.

And some other boys court them.

B. My sel f I am a gril girl and my name is Joan and I am 11 yea old and I go to Camford School. and

I live on 224 Camford Road and I have one Brother and one brother and Brother name is

Fred an brother [teacher's interpretation: sister] is name is Jane and my Brothe and I hope

two two I like ta da vaeg to redy and raetga. [teacher's interpretation: to do washing, to

reading and writing]

Ev idence fo r Mu l t i - com pe tence


m u l t i - c o m p e te n c e : k n o w l e dg e o f tw o o r m o re l an g u a g es in t h e s am e m i n d

To use two languages familiarly and without contaminating one by the other, is very difficult; and to use more than two is

hardly to be hoped. The prizes which some have received for their multiplicity of languages may be sufficient to excite industry,

but can hardly generate confidence. Samuel Johnson 1761draft book section on multi-competence and UG

I . Ev idence fo r m u l t i - compe t ence as a d i st i nc t s ta t e o f m ind

1. L2 users differ from monolinguals in knowledge of the L1[e.g. VOT, word associations]

2. advanced L2 users differ from monolinguals in knowledge of theL2 [e.g. ultimate attainment, RTs, STM]

3. people who know an L2 have a different metalinguistic

awareness from people who know only an L1[e.g. detection of anomalous sentences, arbitrariness of sign, etc]


19/59

19

4. L2 users have different cognitive processes from monolinguals[e.g. cognitive flexibility]

I I . Ev i d e n ce f o r w h o l i st i c m u l t i - c om p e te n ce

1. the L1 and L2 share the same mental lexicon

2. L2 users codeswitch readily from L1 to L23. L2 processing cannot be cut off from L1

4. both languages are stored in roughly the same areas of thebrain

a) hemispheric lateralisation

b) same sites

5. the level of L2 proficiency in academic circumstances is relatedto the level of L1 proficiency

Note the two lists above come from Cook (1992) and need up-

dating and qualification in various waysLanguage Teach ing and Mu l t i - com pe tence

ove ra l l : goal is multi-competence in its own rightlanguage is knowledge

sy l labus : defined in multi-competence termsemphasis on the lexicongrading of functional categories etc

m e th o d s : data provisionparameter setting

t echn iques : do not ignore L1 present invisibly in the situation

constantlyMul t i - com pe tence Cook re fe rences

Cook, V.J.(1991). The poverty-of-the-stimulus argument andmulti-competence. Second Language Research, 7, 2, 103-117

Cook, V.J.(1992). 'Evidence for multi-competence', LanguageLearning, 42, 4, 557-591

Cook, V.J.'The metaphor of access to Universal Grammar', in N.Ellis (ed.), Implicit Learning and Language, Academic Press, 1994,477-502

Cook, V.J. Multi-competence and effects of age, in Singleton, D. &Lengyel, Z. (eds.), The Age Factor in Second Language Acquisition.Multilingual Matters, 1995, 51-66

Cook, V.J. (1995). Multi-competence and the learning of manylanguages. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 8, 2, 93-98

Cook, V.J. (1996), Competence and multi-competence in G.Brown, K. Malmkjaer, & J. Williams (eds.), Performance andCompetence in Second Language Acquisit ion, CUP, 57-69

Cook, V.J. (1997), The consequences of bilingualism for cognitiveprocessing, in A. de Groot and J.F. Kroll (eds.), Tutorials inBilingualism : Psycholinguistic Perspect ives, Lawrence Erlbaum


20/59

20

Cook, V.J. (1999), Going beyond the native speaker in languageteaching, TESOL Quart erly , 33, 2, 185-209

Cook, V.J. (2001), 'Using the L1 in the classroom' CMLR, 57, 3,402-423, 2001

Cook, V.J. (ed.) (2002), Portraits of the L2 user, Clevedon:Multilingual Matters

Cook, V.J. (ed.) (2003), Effects of the Second Language on theFirst, C

Viv ian Cook : B i l ing ua l Cogn i t ion

and Lang u age Teach ing handout for a talk 2004

Argument

1) There are some cognitive differences between speakers of different languages

2) L2 users might

use L1 concepts shift to L2 concepts have integrated concepts 'in between' L1 and L2 have new concepts not in L1 or L2

3) what does research say?

4) implications for language teaching

Definitions

L2 user: a person who uses an L2 for any purpose (as opposed to an L2 learner)

native speaker: typically a monolingual person who still speaks the language they learnt in

childhood

multi-competence: knowledge of two or more languages in one mind

The NIVEA experiment (replication of Imai & Gentner 1997 with L2 users),Bassetti, B.,

Cook, V., Kasai, C., Sasaki, M., Takahashi, J. & Tokumura, Y. (EUROSLA, Basel, 2002)

Hypotheses:

the number of shape-based categorisations will increase according to experience ofEnglish;


21/59

21

the preference for shape and material-based categorisations of Japanese speakers ofEnglish will differ from monolingual speakers of both languages.

Type of Object Name Objects

Complex object Ejulem Ceramic juicer, wooden juicer, ceramic pieces

Simple object Nehia Cork pyramid, plastic pyramid, cork pieces

Substance Onlar Reverse C Nivea, reverse C hair-gell, blob of Nivea

Preference for shape versus material by long-stay group (more than 3 years in England:

N=18) and short-stay group (less than 3 years: N=18)

Main results

The group with more than 3 years of stay showed significantly more shape preferencesthan the group with less than 3 years.

L2 users with less than 3 years of stay were significantly different from Americanmonolinguals, L2 users with more than 3 years of stay were not

Other Cognitive Differences of L2 Users

L2 users:

think more flexibly have increased language awareness learn to read more rapidly in their L1 have better communication skills in their L1

External versus internal goals

external: the students' use of language outside the class-room

internal: the students' mental development as individuals

Some Internal Language Teaching Goals


22/59

22

general educational values self-development cognitive training way in to the first language development of understanding of language itself understanding of foreign cultures

Methodological Approaches to L2

learning researchSLA Topics SLA Bib l iog rap hy Vivian Cook

Overa l l p rob lem: re la t i onsh ip to ' t im e '

i) longitudinalii) cross-sectional

iii) experimental time

General methodstheobservationalmethod- language elicitation and analysis e.g. Hatch

thedifference method - measurement of learner or situational variables and

correlation with proficiency or something else

themanipulative method - treat one group, not the other, measure effects of treatment

Types of evidence

i) introspection: thinking aloud, self-observation, grammaticalityjudgements

ii) natural data; e.g. Faerch, etc

iii) controlled data

Ethical constraints on experimenters

Designing an L2 research project('problem decomposition')1. Is speech more important than writing?

2. Is speech more important than writing in L2 learning?

3. Is speech more important than writing in the L2 learning of

vocabulary?4. Is speech more important than writing in the L2 learning of English

vocabulary by French adult learners?

5. Is speech more important than writing in the L2 learning of English

vocabulary by French adult learners being taught in technical schools

in France?

6. Is a group of French adult learners of English in technical schools in

France which is taught orally better at learning vocabulary than an

otherwise identical group that is taught through writing?

7. Are the scores on the EPVT of a group of French adult learners of

English in technical schools in France who are taught orally better than

an otherwise identical group that are taught through writing?8. Are the scores on the EPVT of a group of French adult learners of

English in technical schools in France who are taught orally


23/59

23

significantly better than an otherwise identical group that are taught

through writing?

Amplification of this sequence will be found in Chapter 1 of V.J. Cook (ed.),

Experimental Approaches to L2 Acquisition, Pergamon, 1986.

Paper on native speaker bias in SLA methods (VC)

Ayoun's paper on using web-forms as a research tool

elicited observational grammaticality experiments

Types of data imitation data judgementsgrammatical morphemes

communication strategies

learning strategies

temporal variables

pro-dropacculturation

variation

the Competition model

head-direction

motivation

L inks to SLA m e thods / ques t iona i res e tc

Mean Length of Utterance

Cook's Consonant Test

Motivation test

L2 Learn ing St ra t eg ies

SLA Topics SLA Bib l iog raph y Vivian Cook Vocabulary learning strategies

Learn in g st r a teg ies ques t ionn a i re

When you are learning another language in the classroom, what special things do you do or

what tricks do you use for:* learning grammar

* getting meanings from contexts* using the language socially outside the classroom* using the language for work, obtaining information, etc

Bia l ys tok


24/59

24

The Good Languag e Learner ( GLL) St ra t eg ies (Naiman, Frohlich, &

Stern)

1. find a learning style that suits you

2. involve yourself in the language learning process

3.develop an awareness of language both as system and ascommunication

4. pay constant attention to expanding your language

5. develop the L2 as a separate system

6. take into account the demands that L2 learning imposes

Research summary:O'Malley, J.M., Chamot, A.U., Stewner-Manzanares, G.,

Kupper, L., & Russo, R.P. (1985), 'Learning strategies used by beginning

and intermediate ESL students', Language Learning, 35, 21-46Aim:to discover learning strategies used by L2 learners inside and outside the classroom

Learners:70 Spanish-speaking high school ESL students and 20 ESL teachers

Data type:interviews with students and teachers, and classroom observation

Method of analysis:interviews scored by 4 raters for strategies

Results:established a range of 26 learning strategies in 3 broad categories of metacognitive(69.9%), cognitive (30%), and social\affective (0.1%)

B eg i n n e rs I n t e rm e d ia te

Me tacogn i t i ve : 112 80Cogn i t i ve : 297 149Tota l : 409 229Com par ison o f learn ing s t r a teg ies fo r ESL beg inn er and

i n te rm e d i a te s(adapted from O'Malley, Chamot, Stewner-Manzanares,Kupper, & Russo, 1985, p.37)

O'Ma l ley & Cham ot m ax im a l l i st o f s t ra teg ies , starting fromO'Malley, Chamot, Stewner-Manzanares, Kupper, & Rocco, 1985.


25/59

25

advance organisers: planning the learning activityin advance - "You review before you go into class".directed attention: deciding to concentrate ongeneral aspects of a learning task.selective at tent ion: deciding to pay attention to

specific parts of the language input or the situationthat will help learning.self-management: trying to arrange the appropriateconditions for learning - "I sit in the front of theclass so I can see the teacher".advance preparation: planning the linguisticcomponents for a forthcoming language taskself-monitoring: checking one's performance as onespeaks - "Sometimes I cut short a word because Irealize I've said it wrong".

delayed production: deliberately postponingspeaking so that one may learn by listening "I talkwhen I have to, but I keep it short and hope I'll beunderstood".

A. Metacogn i t i ve

s t ra teg ies :'higher orderexecutive skillsthat may entail

planning for,monitoring, orevaluating thesuccess of alearning activity'(O'Malley &Chamot, 1990,44)

self-evaluation: checking how well one is doingagainst one's own standardsself-reinforcement: giving oneself rewards forsuccessrepetition: imitating other people's speech overtlyor silently.

resourcing: making use of language materials suchas dictionaries.directed physical response; responding physically'as with directives'.translation: 'using the first language as a basis forunderstanding and/or producing the L2'grouping: organising learning on the basis of'common attributes'.note-taking: writing down the gist etc of texts.deduction: conscious application of rules to

processing the L2.recombination: putting together smaller meaningfulelements into new wholes.imagery: visualising information for memorystorage - "Pretend you are doing somethingindicated in the sentences to make up about thenew word".

B. Cogn i t i ve

s t ra teg ies

auditory representation: keeping a sound or soundsequence in the mind - "When you are trying tolearn how to say something, speak it in your mindfirst".


26/59

26

key word: using key word memory techniques,such as identifying an L2 word with an L1 word thatit sounds like.contextualisation: 'placing a word or phrase in ameaningful language sequence'.elaboration: 'relating new information to otherconcepts in memory'.transfer: using previous knowledge to helplanguage learning - "If they're talking aboutsomething I have already learnt (in Spanish), all Ihave to do is remember the information and try toput it into English"inferencing: guessing meanings by using availableinformation - "I think of the whole meaning of thesentence, and then I can get the meaning of the

new word".question for clarification: asking a teacher or nativefor explanation, help, etc.

C: Social

Med ia t i on

s t ra teg ies :

cooperation: working with fellow-students onlanguage

A bbrev i at ed A dap t ed St r a t egy I nven t o r y f o r Language

Lea rn i ng ( SI LL) f o r L2 s t uden t s o f Eng l i sh ( Ox f o r d 19 90 )

Describe each of these statements on a scale going from 1. 'Never true ofme', 2. 'Usually not true of me', 3. 'Somewhat true of me', 4. 'Usuallytrue of me', 5. 'Always true of me'.

A. Remem bering m ore effectively

(9 items) I think of relationship between what Ialready know and new things I learn inEnglish.

B. Using all your m ental

processes (14 items) I say or write new English wordsseveral times.

C. Compensating for missing

knowledge (6 items) To understand unfamiliar Englishwords, I make guesses.

D. Organising and evaluating

your knowledge (8 it ems) I try to find as many ways as I can touse my English.

E. Managing your emot ions (6

items) I try to relax whenever I feel afraid ofusing English.

F. Learning wit h others ( 6 item s) If I do not understand something inEnglish, I ask the other person to slowdown or say it again.

Reading

Bialystok, E. (1990), Comm unication Strategies, Blackwell, Oxford


27/59

27

Dodson, C.J. (1986), 'Language-learning strategies of monolinguals andbilinguals', in Oksaar, E. (ed.), Sociocultural Perspectives ofMultilingualism and Language Acqusition. Tubingen: Narr

Ellis, G. & Sinclair, B. (1989), Learning to Learn English, CUP

Green, J. & Oxford, R. (1995), 'A closer look at learning strategies, L2proficiency and gender', TESOL Quart erly , 29, 2 261-297

McDonough, S. (1995), Strategy and Skill in Learning a ForeignLanguage, Arnold

Naiman, N., Frohlich, M., Stern, H.H. & Todesco, A. (1978) , The GoodLanguage Learner, Toronto, OISE

O'Malley, J.M. & Chamot, A.U. (1990), Learning Strategies in SecondLanguage Acquisition, CUP

O'Malley, J.M., Chamot, A.U., Stewner-Manzanares, G., Kupper, L. &Russo, R.P. (1985), 'Learning strategies used by beginning andintermediate ESL students', Language Learning , 35, 21-46

Oxford, R.L. (1990), Language Learning Strategies, Newbury House

Vocabu la ry learn ing s t ra teg ies

O'Malley & Chamot (1990) drop delayed production, self-reinforcement,

directed physical response; rename the advance preparationstrategyas 'functional planning'; reclassfify question for clarification is undersocial mediation; and add the following cognitive strategies:summarising: making a summary of new information received,rehearsal: going over the language of a task in advance; and thesocial/affective strategy: self-talk: boosting one's confidence to do atask more successfully. And another metacognitive strategy: problemidentification: identifying important points of a learning task.

Important metacognitive strategies averaged across both groups were:selective att ention(19.8%), self-management (20.8%), and advancepreparation(22.9%). The important cognitive strategies were repetition(14.8%), note-taking(14.1%), question for clarification(12.8%),imagery(9.4%), and translation(8.5%). Comparing the two levels,beginners scored over intermediates in number of strategies reported,409 compared with 229. Beginners used more translation(9.8% vs.6.0%), more imagery(10.4% vs 7.4%), and more elaboration(3% vs1.3%), but less contextualisation(2.4% vs 7.4%).

Vocabu la r y Learn in g St ra t eg ies


28/59

28


Get in pairs where one person in each pair knows a different languageLook at the illustrations and decide how to teach the vocabulary to your partnerYou have 5 minutes to teach them the vocabulary

Now write down 3 strategies you used to learn the new vocabulary1 .

2 .

3 .

If you are stuck for a language the vocabulary in German is: (a) dasRadio, (b) die Pfeife, (c) der Regenschirm, (d) das Feurzeug, (e) dieVase, (f) der Hund, (g) die Blume, (h) der Wagen, (i) das Bett, (j) dieKatze, (k) der Fernsehapparat. this is x = das ist x; whats that? = wasist das?

Vocabu la ry s t ra t eg ies

1 linking L2 sounds to sounds of the L1 word

2 looking at the meaning of part of the word

3 noting the structure of part

4 putting the word in a topic group

5 visualising the word in isolation

6 linking the word to a situation7 creating a mental image of the word

8 associating a physical sensation with the word

9 associating the word with a keyword

Using t h e L1 in t he Classroom


29/59

29

SLA Topics SLA Bib l iog rap hy Vivian Cook

Def in i t i ons

m u l t i - c o m p e te n c e means knowledge of two or morelanguages in one mind

com pound b i l i ngua ls link the two languages in their mindscoo rd ina te b i l i ngua ls keep the languages apart

rec ip roca l language

teach ing

is a teaching method in which pairs ofstudents alternately teach each othertheir languages

The t r ad i t i ona l p r i nc ip le: minimise using the L1 in theclassroom

Howatt (1984, p.289), the monolingual principle, the uniquecontribution of the twentieth century to classroom language

teaching, remains the bedrock notion from which the othersultimately derive.

Max im : discourage the use of the L1 in the classroom.strongest: ban the L1 from the classroom.

weakest: minimise the L1 in the classroom.

The Academic Just i f i ca t ion s

a. L1 acquisit ion; children in the L1 can't fall back onanother language

b. Compartmentalisation; the L1 and L2 should be keptseparate at all times

Teachin g Reasons (mostly unstated): maximise quantity of L2 use L2 for real-life functionsBut the classroom is L2 use, not imitation L1

Methods tha t de l i bera te l y i nvo lve t he L1 (A) alternating language methodsReciprocal language teachingTandem,Two-Way immersion: Alternating Days etc(B) methods that actively create links between L1 and L2i) the New Concurrent Methodii) Community Language Learning (CLL)iii) the Bilingual Methodiv) bilingual presentation methods

Way s o f Us ing th e L1 in t he c lassroom

Fac to r s in us ing L1 : efficiency, learning, naturalness,

external relevanceA . Teacher conv ey ing m ean ing - teacher using L1 for conveying meaning of words or


30/59

30

sentences- teacher using L1 as a meta-language for explaininggrammarB . Teacher o rg an is ing t he c lass- teacher using L1 for managing the classroom

- teacher using L1 for giving instructions for teachingactivities- L1 used for testingC. Stu den ts u s ing L1 w i th in th e c lass- students using L1 as part of main learning activity- students using L1 incidentally within classroom activitiesHowatt (1984, p.289): if there is another language teachingrevolution round the corner, it will have to assemble aconvincing set of arguments to support some alternative(bilingual)?) principle of equal power

Dodson 's B i l i ngua l Me th od : a teaching method that usesthe student's first language to establish the meanings of thesecond language.

References

Cook, V.J. (2001), 'Using the first language in the classroom',CMLR, 57, 3, 402-423

Dodson, C.J. (1967), Language Teaching and t he BilingualMethod, London: Pitman

Hawkins, E. (1987), Modern Languages in the Curriculum,second edition, CUP

Howatt, A. (1984), AHistory of English Language Teaching,Oxford:OUP

Jacobson, R. & Faltis, C. (Eds.) (1990), Language DistributionI ssues in Bilingual Schooling, Clevedon: Multilingual Matters

Macaro, E. (1997), Target Language, Collaborative Learningand Autonomy, Clevedon: Multilingual Matters

Mitchell, R. (1988), Communicative Language Teaching in

Practice, London: CILTStern, H.H. (1992), I ssues and Options in Language Teaching,Oxford: OUP

Basin g Teach i ng on

t he L2 User

Vivian Cook Spe l l ing da t aW r i t i n g H o m e

SLA Hom e

Draft of chapter in Cook 2002 Portraits of the L2 user

This paper argues that the starting-point for language teaching should be the recognition

that the second language user is a particular kind of person in their own right with their


31/59

31

own knowledge of the first language (L1) and the second language (L2), rather than a

monolingual with an added L2. An L2 user is a person who uses another language for any

purpose at whatever level (Cook, 2002a). They might be writers like Nabokov or Conrad

creating novels, ethnic minority children acting as translators for their parents in medical

consultations, tourists travelling on holiday, journalists plying their trade, businessmen

doing deals on the internet, tennis-players giving television interviews. Some L2 usersacquired their second language through practical living, others after long study in the

classroom; some need it for survival in everyday existence, others for amusement, pleasure

or education. In short L2 users are as diverse as the rest of humanity. Their needs and uses

of language are as wide as monolinguals, if not wider.

The L2 user concept and multi-competence

The L2 user concept is based on the multi-competence view of second language

acquisition, which has been developed as an overall approach to L2 learning since Cook

(1991). Multi-competence means the knowledge of two or more languages in one mind.

The term thus encompasses the concept of interlanguage, which has been used only for theL2 component, and the L1 component. It treats the mind of the L2 user as a whole rather

than as having separate L1 and interlanguage components. It argues that studying second

language acquisition means accepting this totality, not just the interlanguage component.

The main question for multi-competence research is how the two languages relate in the

same mind. At some level, the two languages must obviously co-exist. The question is at

which level they separate or, indeed, if they separate at all. One interpretation sees this as

an 'integration continuum' (Cook, 2002a), going from total separation between the

languages at one end to total integration at the other. This continuum may represent a

person's development over time or it might be that particular individuals may have more or

less integration depending on how long they have been learning a second language or it

might depend on other individual factors. The continuum could also apply differently to

various aspects of language within the same person's competence: pronunciation and

vocabulary might be more likely to be integrated, grammar less likely. The position on the

continuum may also vary for the individual from moment to moment according to

Grosjean's concept of language mode, the integration of the two languages depending on

the extent to which the speaker perceives they are in monolingual mode (using one

language, whether L1 or L2) or bilingual mode (using both languages together) (Grosjean,

2001).

The term 'L2 user' is then crucial to the overall approach. Chomsky (e.g. 1986) insists that

linguistics has to account for the linguistic knowledge of the adult native speaker; only

after this has been described can linguistics go on to see how language is acquired and

explain what knowledge of language is. The study of the first language starts from the

mature L1 user not from children: the account of language acquisition depends on first

describing the linguistic competence of the native speaker what it is that is acquired.

Similarly second language acquisition (SLA) research is about the minds of people who

have successfully reached a usable level of the second language, not just about how they

learnt it. Some L2 users may also be L2 learners who are still acquiring language: an

immigrant using the second language in the street becomes a student learning the language

when they step through the classroom door. But we are no more justified in saying that an

L2 user is a perpetual L2 learner than we are in saying an adult native speaker is an eternal

L1 learner. When SLA research talks about everything to do with the L2 as 'acquisition' or

talks about people who speak second languages as 'L2 learners' (or even the regrettable

term 'L2er'), it implies that no person using a second language succeeds in getting to a state


32/59

32

of using the language properly. A person of fifty who has used a language all their lives is

not called an L1 learner; why should their use of a second language for, say, thirty years

still be deemed learning? The only people who escape the label of 'L2 learner' are balanced

bilinguals, equally native-like in both languages, like a double monolingual rather than an

L2 user.

The native speaker concept in second language acquisition and language teaching

A crucial relationship that has been changed in the multi-competence perspective is then

that between the native speaker and the person acquiring or using a second language. L2

research from the 60s onwards made use of the interlanguage concept to describe the

independent language of the L2 learner. The aim was to describe learners in their own

right, to look at their grammar, their phonology and their vocabulary as things of their

own. Yet the research methods employed consistently involved measuring the L2 learner

against the native speaker, whether in terms of Error Analysis (errors being things natives

wouldn't say), obligatory occurrences (contexts where natives have to have particular

forms), or grammaticality judgements (sentences natives reject). The model against whichthe learner was measured was how a native speaker performed.

This led to a pervasive air of failure and gloom: the interesting thing about people

acquiring second languages was why they were so bad at it, few if any achieving the levels

in a second language any monolingual can attain in the first language. To take some

representative quotations, which could be repeated from virtually every general book about

second language acquisition, failure to acquire the target language grammar is typical

(Birdsong, 1992, p.706), children generally achieve full competence (in any language they

are exposed to) whereas adults usually fail to become native speakers (Felix, 1987,

p.140), and Unfortunately, language mastery is not often the outcome of SLA (Larsen-

Freeman & Long, 1991, p.153). No criterion is proposed for L2 success other than being

like a native speaker. Success means getting as close as possible to this target.

Is the native speaker target in fact attainable? A few people have been found who can pass

for native speakers.. But their numbers are so small that they are as relevant to SLA

research as Michael Schumacher's driving skills at racing a Formula 1 car are to my daily

drive to work. The reasonable definition of a native speaker is a person speaking the

language they learnt first in childhood. By this definition it is impossible for any L2 learner

ever to become a native speaker without going back in time to their childhood; nothing

learnt in later life could qualify you as a native speaker.

Using the native speaker target commits one to comparing the two groups of native

speakers and L2 users as if one were intrinsically trying to become the other. Thecomparison is loaded because one group is defined in terms of the other. This does not

occur in other areas of language study, following Labov's powerful arguments for

linguistic differences between groups rather than deficits (Labov, 1969). Thus it is no

longer felt to be proper for linguists to talk about the language of Black citizens of the

USA as deficient with regard to that of whites, about the language of working-class

children as deficient compared to that of middle-class children, or the language of women

as a deficient version of men's language, though all of these were claimed at one time or

another, and many are still held by non-linguists. Does measuring L2 users against L1

native speakers amount to falling into the same trap? Second language acquisition might

be a unique case where we are justified in seeing one group of human beings in terms of

another: while linguists don't treat women as failed men, SLA researchers may legitimately

treat L2 users as failed native speakers. The reasons why L2 users should be treated as

different rather than deficient will be elaborated below. L2 users have the right to speak


33/59

33

English as L2 users rather than as imitation native speakers, are exemplified by the French

wine-grower who said 'I speak English very badly but my French accent is perfect'. L2

users should be judged by what they are, L2 users, not what they can never be by

definition, native speakers.

The nature of the L2 user

If L2 users are indeed unique users of language in their own right, not imitations of native

speakers, what are their characteristics?

1) the L2 user's knowledge of the second language is typically not identical to that of

a native speaker. Controversy has raged over whether a small proportion of native

speakers can use language identically to monolingual native speakers. Some point to

'balanced' bilinguals whose second language still differs from native speakers in

grammaticality judgment tests (Coppetiers, 1987), others to a small group of L2 students

who cannot be distinguished from monolingual native speakers (Bongaerts et al, 1997). As

we saw above, the fact that a few untypical people are able to run a hundred metres in less

than ten seconds does not tell us much about the normal running abilities of the humanrace.

The knowledge of the second language of the vast majority of learners is different from

that of native speakers. Much effort in SLA research has been devoted to seeing why this

is so, whether through Error Analysis, access to Universal Grammar or L1 interference.

Given that multi-competence means having two languages present in the same mind, it is

hardly surprising that the knowledge of the second language is not like that of a

monolingual. The L2 learner has had the first language always present while acquiring the

language; the L2 user still has it somewhere in their mind whichever language they happen

to be functioning in. The interlanguage component of multi-competence forms part of a

system with another language and so is bound to be different from the L1 grammar of amonolingual who has only ever had one language.

But difference is not deficit. The language of L2 users may be a perfectly normal language

system of its own type; why should the more complex state of the mind with two

languages be measured against the comparatively simple single language system of a

monolingual? If the target is not to imitate the native speaker, the question of whether the

eventual state of language knowledge should be like that of a native speaker is a side issue,

no more relevant than discussing how many men can pass for women even if both topics

provide stimulating discussion and amazing anecdotes.

As always with matters of language, the neutral linguists' view may differ from that of theman in the street. For instance, despite years of linguists asserting that all dialects of

English are equal, they are still not perceived as such by many employers, parents and

teachers. Because of the traditional power of the native speaker, there are sociolinguistic

arguments about native speakers' expectations that non-native speakers should be like

natives. These have to be borne in mind in that students have to fit in with a society in

which native-speakerness is still highly-valued and so they may be disadvantaged by being

taught that it is not a useful goal, however true this may be in a linguistic sense. Even here

though, with languages like English, perhaps the majority of use takes place between non-

native speakers with different L1s who do not necessarily have the same expectations as

monolingual natives.

So in principle the proper goal for an L2 user is using the second language like an L2 user,

not like an L1 user, with the exception, say, of those who want to be spies. This is easier


34/59

34

said than done since there are no descriptions of what successful L2 use might be. Perdue

(2002) describes the basic grammar that all L2 learners seem to acquire in the early stages,

regardless of which L1 or L2 is involved. Jenkins (2000) has shown what a syllabus would

look like that was based on the comprehensibility of English among L2 students. It may be

that there is not a single successful end-point to L2 acquisition as there is for L1 learning

and so many models of successful use are needed. Hence, for the time being, the nativespeaker model will have to do as a rough and ready approximation until there are the

descriptions of L2 user grammar, L2 user frequency and L2 user phonology to put in its

place. But this does not alter the fact that, apart from the sociological whims of the native

speakers themselves and of those dominated by the monolingualist perspective, there is no

good reason why the language of an L2 user should approximate that of a native speaker,

Students should not be penalised for deviations from native speaker norms if they are

functioning perfectly adequately in the second language, say by code-switching.

2) the L2 user has other uses for language than the monolingual. At one level there are

uses of language which involve both languages more or less simultaneously such as

translation and code-switching. Some see these as extensions to the monolingual's abilityto paraphrase and change style (Paradis, 1997); others see the monolingual uses as limited

versions of the full range available to L2 users (Cook, 2002a). But L2 users employ a

wider range of language functions than a monolingual for the needs of their lives. An L2

user can be seen in terms ofmtissage 'the mixing of two ethnic groups, forming a thirdethnicity' (Canada Tree, 1996).

At another level, everything the speaker does is informed by the second language,

whichever language they are using. Few L2 users can so compartmentalise their languages

that they effectively switch one language off and function solely through the other. Their

everyday use of language is subtly altered by their knowledge of other languages.

Furthermore the L2 user never gets to function in exactly the same situation as the L1 user;

the very presence of an L2 user changes the perceptions of the participants. The language

used by the L2 user may for example be more polite than that of natives, for instance

'Thank you very much indeed' rather than 'Thanks' (Cook, 1985) but this usage may mirror

the native speaker's expectations: we don't expect L2 users to speak like us and regard

near-nativenesss as suspicious, even spy-like. Native speakers do not talk in the same way

to non-natives as they do to natives, partly in terms of syntax, partly in terms of how

information is presented, so the extra formality of 'Thank you very much indeed' may be a

correct response by the L2 user to the native speaker. Practical everyday situations such as

shopping and going to the doctors are different when an L2 user is involved. So the typical

dialogues in these situations depicted in language teaching coursebooks are misleadingwhen they involve only natives and native-to-native speech. For the majority of learners

non-native speech to non-native-speakers may be far more relevant and valuable.

3) the L2 user's knowledge of their first language is in some respects not the same as

that of a monolingual. A recent volume (Cook, 2003) described a variety of effects of the

second language on the first. The speaker's knowledge of their first language is

undoubtedly influenced by the other languages they learn, whether in terms of:

syntax: Japanese speakers of English are more prone to prefer plural subjects in Japanesesentences than Japanese who don't know English (Cook et al, 2003).

the lexicon: experienced Russian speakers of Hebrew use a less rich vocabulary in

Russian than comparative newcomers (Laufer, 2003).stylistic complexity: Hungarian children who have learnt English use stylistically morecomplex writing in the first language (Kecskes & Papp, 2000).


35/59

35

pragmatics: Russian learners of English begin to rely on expressing emotions as statesrather than as process (Pavlenko, 2003).

phonology: French users of English pronounce the /t/sound in French with a longer VOTthan monolinguals (Flege, 1987).

It seems clear that the language processing of people who know another language is nolonger the same as monolinguals, even in their first language, though the differences may

be small and need complex techniques to establish. The relationship between the two

languages in the mind of the L2 user goes in both directions, not just one.

4) L2 users have different minds from monolinguals. The effects of the more complex

system of multi-competence extend outside the area of language. Research over the past

forty years has confirmed the effects of the L2 on the minds of the users, heralded by such

traditional goals of language teaching as brain training. Children who have learnt a second

language:

have a sharper view of language if they speak a second language (Bialystok, 2001).

learn to read more quickly in their first language (Yelland et al, 1993). have better 'conceptual development', 'creativity' and 'analogical reasoning' (Diaz, 1985).

Current research is exploring whether certain basic concepts are modified in those who

know a second language. Athanasopoulos (2001) found Greek speakers who knew English

had a different perception of the two Greek words covered by English blue, namely (ghalazio, light blue) and (ble, dark blue), than monolingual Greekspeakers. Bassetti et al (2002) found that Japanese people who had had longer exposure to

English chose shape rather than substance more often in a categorisation experiment than

those with less exposure. Some concepts in the L2 user's mind may then be influenced by

those of the second language; others may perhaps take forms that are the same neither as

the first language or the second. This does of course assume that people who speak

different languages think to some extent in different ways, a revival of the idea of

linguistics relativity that has been gaining ground in recent years (Levinson, 1996).

To sum up, L2 users have different language abilities and knowledge and different ways of

thinking from monolingual native speakers. Rather than encouraging the students to

approximate the native speaker as much as possible, teaching should in principle try to

make them independent L2 users who can function across two languages, with mental

abilities that the monolingual native speaker cannot emulate. The only caveat is that, given

the bias in monolingual speakers toward the native speaker norm, some concession may

have to be made for those students who want to take part integratively in native speaker

communities rather than communicate with other non-native speakers, obviously less

relevant for those learning an international language used across the globe such as English

as opposed to a language spoken in a limited geographical area such as Japanese.

Implications for language teaching

1) the language user and the native speaker

An implicit goal of language teaching has often been to get as close to the native speaker

as possible, recognising the native speaker as having the only acceptable form of the

language. If the arguments above are accepted and the sociolinguistic power of the native

speaker can be set aside, a more achievable goal is to make students into successful L2

users. The native speaker target has been more a matter of exerting the power of the nativespeaker than a recognition of what students actually need or can achieve.


36/59

36

One perennial justification is that the students themselves want to be like native speakers.

As Grosjean (1989) points out, L2 users are part of the same social climate as

monolinguals and have come to accept that native speakers rule the roost. I couldnt count

how many times a perfectly fluent L2 user has apologised to me for their level of English;

yet they were doing something I could not possibly do in their language: why wasn't I the

one who was apologising for being a monolingual? Because, as a native speaker, I had theinherent power over others trying to claim membership of my group, even in a situation

when multiple languages were in use. People who have spent their language learning lives

trying to speak as much like native speakers as possible become upset when they are told

such a target is meaningless: they want to hear praise that they could almost be mistaken

for natives.

What is required is a proper description of L2 users to form the basis for teaching. Here

comes the major problem for designing the language syllabus: the goals that can be defined

in L2 user terms no longer constitute a single putatively unified target like the native

speaker. What makes a successful level of L2 use for a particular individual or a particular

country may not apply to others. An immigrant who wants to practice medicine in anEnglish-speaking country needs very different L2 use from say a medical researcher who

wants access to the medical literature and the web through English. A child in Shanghai

who may never encounter a live native speaker of English needs different L2 use from a

Chinese child in Vancouver. This is the dilemma that confronted ESP: as soon as you start

looking at individual needs for a second language, you need to think of specialised goals.

Obviously many situations do generalise for large numbers of L2 users: travelling in

English in non-English-speaking countries may be useful for large numbers of users who

will seldom if ever converse with native speakers. The description of such contact

situations may be a valuable part of the syllabus, rather than the typical native-to-native or

native-to-non-native ones usually found in textbooks. Jenkins' (2000) account of thephonological needs of multilingual students in classrooms for talking to each other is an

interesting example of this approach, though it does not reach outside the classroom

environment. Eventually there may be descriptions of the language of successful L2 users

on which to base our teaching. Meanwhile, because of their long tradition and their

availability, descriptions of the native speaker such as grammar-books or corpora of native

speaker texts may be what we have to fall back on out of necessity. But this is a temporary

expedient; what is needed is proper descriptions of successful L2 users which can show

their unique characteristics of grammar, vocabulary and pronunciation, rather than

relegating them to deviation from the language of the native speaker

2) external and internal goals of language teaching

It is convenient to divide the goals of language teaching into external goals relating to thestudents' present or future use of the second language outside the classroom and internalgoals relating to the students mental development as individuals (Cook, to appear).

Getting rid of the native speaker target changes the external goals of language teaching.

The students' goal is to be able to use both the L2 and the L1 in the appropriate situations

and for the appropriate uses. It is not necessarily to be like a native speaker or to mingle

with native speakers, even if this may be an appropriate goal for some people. One of the

unfortunate side effects of the communicative revolution in language teaching was its

almost behaviourist emphasis on external goals than on the internal development of the

learners' minds. Hence for many years textbooks and syllabuses were concerned with how

students should use the language in conversation and how they could convey ideas to other

people (Wilkins, 1976) not with internal goals


37/59

37

Yet a traditional benefit of language teaching was the internal goal of improving the

students' mind within a humanist education. As we saw earlier, there are indeed cognitive

changes in L2 users' minds compared to monolinguals, mostly to their benefit. At the level

of national curricula, the UK Modern Language Curriculum (DfEE, 1999) expects pupils

to 'understand and appreciate different countries', to 'learn about the basic structures of

language' and how it 'can be manipulated'. The curriculum for Israel (1998) divideslanguage teaching into domains: the domain ofappreciation of literature and culture'addresses the importance of fostering understanding and developing sensitivity to people

of various cultural backgrounds' and the domain oflanguage helps 'pupils develop theirlanguage use as well as gain further insight into the nature of their mother tongue'. At the

level of the students themselves, Coleman (1996) found that popular reasons for learning a

modern language among UK university students were 'because I like the language' and 'to

have a better understanding of the way of life in the country or countries where it is

spoken' internal goals.

So the consequence of an L2 user approach for the goals of language teaching means on

the one hand basing the target on the external needs of L2 users not native speakers, on theother focussing on desirable internal changes in the student's mind. L2 users can add the

ability to use a second language to their existing abilities so that they can behave as no

monolingual can do. They change the contents and processes of their minds in a way no

monolingual can match. Education has as always to balance the external value of a subject

on the curriculum for the future social and career needs of the students against the internal

value of the changing ways in which th

Documents

SLA y La Vision de Vivian Cook