Four hypotheses were then tested, regarding correlation between degree of input generation on the one hand and achievement and performance on the other. It was found that: (1) high input generators (HIGs) performed better than low input generator (LIGs) on a course final examination, (2) a Language Contact Profile revealed that HIGs had the greater amount of contact with English speakers, (3) HIGs did not perform significantly better on a cloze test than LIGs, and (4) results of the Group Embedded Figures Test partially supported the notion that LIGs are characterized by greater field dependence than HIGs. These results suggest a pedagogically useful division of language learners into those who take an active and those who take a passive approach to their learning task. (JB)
Second language acquisition & a lx
Second Language Acquisition & ALxTwo sisters at School
Attitudes• Feelings – affective conditions• Loneliness – trying to understand• Nazma does not interact (Lge) Mrs. Raja
Education • What is Education? – Share knowledge • Children learning • Parents support »Provoking Tradition Legislation Policy
Characteristics• Language use – socialization – cultural experiences• Learning at home – School level – Role of their grand mother – Tv’s role Qur’anic-Qur’an Urdu (official lge in Pakistan) Literacy practices
Language acquisition We are designed to walk… That we are taught to walk is impossible. And pretty much the same is true of language. Nobody is taught language. In fact you can’t prevent the child from learning it. Noam Chomsky, The Human
• Language is extremely complex• Children before 5 already know the complex system that make up the grammar of a language: – Syntactic – Phonological – Morphological – Semantic and pragmatic rules of grammar• Children acquire a system of rules that enables them to construct and understand sentences, most of them have never produced or heard before.• Children are creative in the use of language• Nobody teach grammatical rules to the children
Critical period hypothesis • Brown (2007) defines CPH as . . . “a biological timetable during which, both first & second language is more successfully accomplished”. • Ellis (1997) defines CPH as . . . a period during which “target-language competence in an L2 can only be achieved if learning commences before a certain age is reached. (e.g. the onset of puberty)”
Am I past it? • If established theory states that L2 language acquisition is not achievable beyond puberty, what’s the point in trying? • If L2 is not achievable beyond puberty, how was I able to learn my second language at the age of 34? • Does Ellis’ (1997) definition hold the key, that competence in L2 is what theorists are really arguing?
Conclusions• Age is a factor to consider in second language acquisition.• Age should not be a deterrent to learning a second language.• Grammar, and its mastery, is possible in all languages and at all ages, but is more easily mastered during childhood.• Accent is the most prominent determiner of age of L2 acquisition
Social pychologicalperspective on second language acquisition
An innatist model:Krashen’s input hypothesis 1. The Acquisition – Learning Hypothesis - Adult second language learners have two means for internalizing the target language The first is “acquisition”, a subconscious and intuitive process of constructing the system of a language, not unlike the process used by a child to “pick up’’ a language. The second means is a conscious “learning” process in which learners attend to form, figure out rules, and are generally aware of their own process.
- “Fluency in second language performance is due to what we have acquired, not what we have learned.”- Our conscious learning processes and our subconscious acquisition processes are mutually exclusive: learning cannot “become” acquisition.
The Affective Filter Hypothesis- The best acquisition will occur in environments where anxiety is low and defensiveness absent, or in contexts where “affective filter” is low.
A SOCIAL CONSTRUCTIVIST MODEL:LONG’S INTERACTION HYPOTHESIS Two preceding theories The cognitive Krashen’s Input model of Hypothesis Second Language Acquisition Focus to a considerable extent of the learners
A social constructivist model: Long’sinteraction hypothesis
A social constructivist model:Long’s interaction hypothesis
Theories and Models of SLA INNATIST COGNITIVE CONSTRUCTIVIST (Krashen) (McLauglin/Bialystok) (Long)•Subconcious acquisition •Interaction •Controlled/ automaticsuperior to “learning” & hypothesis processing (McL)“mornitoring” •Intake through •Focal/pheripheral•Comprehensible input social interaction attention (McL)(i+1) •Output hypothesis •Restructuring (McL)•Low affective filter (Swain) •Implicit vs. explicit (B)•Natural order of •HIGs (Seliger)acquisition •Unanalyzed vs. analyzed •Authenticity knowledge(B)•“zero option” for •Task-basedgrammar instruction •Form-focused instruction instruction