INTRODUCTION
1. Why do people learn languages?
¨ Reasons for learning languages
Þ Target language community
Þ ESP.
Þ School Curriculum
Þ Culture
Þ Advancement
Þ Miscellaneous
¨ Success in language learning
¨ Motivation
Þ Extrinsic motivation
Þ Intrinsic Motivation :
Þ Factors affecting intrinsic motivation:
à Physical condition
à Method
à The teacher
à Success
¨ Motivational Differences
Þ Children
Þ Adolescents
Þ Adult beginners
Þ Adult intermediate students
Þ Adult advanced students
2. What a native speaker knows about his L1
¨ Sounds
¨ Stress
¨ Intonation
¨ Grammar
¨ Appropriateness
¨ Communicative Competence:
(a) Linguistic competence
(b) Sociolinguistic competence
(c) Discourse competence
(d) Strategic competence
(e) (Feasibility: whether something is possible in the language or not)
(f) (Occurrence : how common / often something is said in the language)
¨ Appropriacy:
(a) Setting
(b) Participants
(c) Purpose
(d) Channel
(e) Topic
¨ Situation and Context
¨ Interaction with context
¨ Language Skills
¨ Receptive : Listening and Reading
¨ Productive: Speaking and Writing
1. What a language student should learn
¨ Type of syllabus
¨ Needs
¨ Situation
¨ Students
¨ Types of language
¨ Functions
¨ Functions and structures
¨ Communicative Efficiency
¨ Students at different levels
¨ Grammar
¨ Situation and context
¨ Pronunciation and accent
¨ Skills
¨ Language varieties
2. Theoretical concept of Language Learning /Acquisition
- Language is.............
· a system of arbitrary, vocal symbols which permit all people in a given culture, or other people who have learned the system of that culture, to communicate or to interact (Finocchiaro 1964:8)
· a system of communication by sound, operating through the organs of speech and hearing, among members of a given community, and using vocal symbols possessing arbitrary conventional meanings. (Pei 1966:141)
· any set or system of linguistic symbols as used in a more or less uniform fashion by a number of people who are thus enable to communicate intelligibly with one another (Random House Dictionary of the English Language 1966:806)
· a system of arbitrary vocal symbols used for communication. (Wardhaugh 1972:3)
· a systematic means of communicating ideas or feelings by the use of conventionalized signs, sounds, gestures, or marks having understood meanings (Webster’s New International Dictionary of the English Language 1934:1390)
· etc................
A consolidation of the definitions of language yields the following composite definition.
Þ Language is systematic - possibly a generative - system.
Þ Language is a set of arbitrary symbols.
Þ Those symbols are primarily vocal, but may also be visual.
Þ The symbols have conventionalized meanings to which they refer.
Þ Language is used for communication.
Þ Language operates in a speech community or culture.
Þ Language is essentially human, although possibly not limited to humans.
Þ Language is acquired by all people in much the same way - language and language learning both have universal characteristics.
Learning is.........
à acquisition or “getting”
à retention of information or skill.
à retention implies storage systems, memory, cognitive organization.
à involves active, conscious focus on and acting upon events outside or inside the organism.
à relatively permanent, but subject to forgetting.
à involves some form of practice, perhaps reinforced practice.
à a change in behaviour.
Teaching cannot be defined apart from learning. Nathan Gage (1964:269) noted that “to satisfy the practical demands of education, theories of learning must be stood on their head’ so as to yield theories of teaching.
Teaching can be defined as the activities which are intended to bring about language learning. Language teaching is more widely interpreted than ‘instructing a langusge class. Formal instruction or methods of training are included; but so is individualized instruction, self-study, computer-assisted instruction, and the use of media, such as radio or television. Likewise :
à the supoorting activities, such as the preparation of teaching materials, as well as making the necessary administrative provision inside or outside an educational system - they all fall under the concept of teaching.
Since language teaching is defined as ‘activities intended to bring about language learning’, a theory of language teaching always implies concepts of language learning.
A good language teaching theory which would meet the conditions and needs of learners in the best possible ways.
¨ Teaching is guiding and facilitating learning, enabling the learner to learn, setting the conditions for learning. B.F. Skinner: is...... you look at learning as a process of operant conditioning through a carefully paced program of reinforcement, you will teach accordingly.
Jerome Bruner (1966:40-41) noted that a theory of instruction should specify the following features:
¨ The experiences which most effectively implant in the individual a predisposition toward learning
¨ The ways in which a body of knowledge should be structured so that it can be most readily grasped by the learner
¨ The most effective sequences in which to present the materials to be learned
¨ The nature and pacing of rewards and punishments in the process of learning and teaching
THEORIES OF LANGUAGE LEARNING
Behaviourism :
Ivan Pavlov (1894-1936) Russian Physiologist :
1. Classical Conditioning : Stimulus -- Response
Food (unconditioned Stimulus)
Bell (Conditioned Stimulus)
Saliva ( Conditioned Response)
Stimulus -Response Learning
2. Operant Conditioning Psychologist B.F. Skinner (1957) Verbal Behaviour
Stimulus, Response, Reinforcement
Behaviourist theory of language learning: LANGUAGE IS A FORM OF VERBAL
BEHAVIOUR
Language can be learned through habit formation : The association of a particular response with particular stimulus constituted a habit, and it was this type of regular behaviour that psychologists such as Watson (1924) or Skinner (1957) set out to investigate. They wanted to know how habits were established.
Two important characteristic of habits : (1) they were observable, (2) They were automatic (they were performed spontaneously without awareness and were difficult to eradicate unless environmental changes led to the extinction of the stimuli upon they were built.
A habit was formed when a particular stimulus became regularly linked with a particular response. (Watson)
In the neo-behaviourism of Skinner, he emphasized the consequences of the response. He argued that it was the behaviour that followed a response which reinforced it and thus helped to strengthen the association. The learning of a habit, then, could occur through imitation (i.e. the learner copies the stimulus behaviour sufficiently often for it to become automatic) or through reinforcement (i.e. the response of the learner is rewarded or punished depending on whether it is appropriate or otherwise, until only appropriate responses are given.
Theories of habit formation could be applied to language learning. In L1 acquisition the children were said to master their mother tongue by imitating utterances produced by adults and having their efforts at using language either rewarded or corrected. In this way children were supposed to build up a knowledge of the patterns or habits that constituted the language they were trying to learn. Is was also believed that SLA could proceed in a similar way. Imitation and reinforcement were the means by which the learner identified the stimulus-response associations that constituted the habits of the L2. Language learning, first and second was most successful when the task was broken down into a number of stimulus-response links, which could be systematically practised and mastered one at a time.
ERRORS
According to behaviourist learning theory, old habits get in the way of learning new habits. Where SLA is concerned, therefore, ‘the grammatical apparatus programmed into the mind as the first language interference with the smooth acquisition of the second’ (Bright and McGregor :1970)
Interference was the result of what was called proactive inhibition. This is concerned with the way in which previous learning prevents or inhibits the learning of new habits.
Behaviourist learning theory predicts that transfer will take place from the first to the second language. Transfer will be negative when there is proactive inhibition. In this case error will result. Transfer will be positive when the first and second language habits are the same. In this case no errors will occur. Thus differences between the first and second language create learning difficulty which results errors, while the similarities between the first and the second language facilitate rapid and easy learning.
CONTRASTIVE ANALYSIS
They were the means that they were used to predict potential errors. It was rooted in the practical need to teach a L2 in the most efficient way possible. Lado (1957) makes clear : ‘The teacher who has made a comparison of the foreign language with the native language of the students will know better what the real problems are and can provide for teaching them’. Contrastive Analysis had both a psychological aspect and a linguistic aspect. The psychological aspect was based on behaviourist learning theory, and the linguistic aspect, in the first place at least, on the structurelist linguistics.
The psychological rationale takes the form of the CA Hypothesis. This exists in a strong and a weak form (Wardhaugh: 1970). The strong form claims that all L2 errors can be predicted by identifying the differences between the target language and the learner’s first language. As Lee (1968:180) notes, it stipulates that ‘the prime cause, or even the sole cause, of difficulty and error in foreign language learning is interference coming from the learner’s native language.’
The weak form claims only to be diagnostic. a contrastive analysis can be used to identify which errors are the result of interference. Thus, according to the weak hypothesis, contrastive analysis needs to work hand in hand with Error Analysis. Implicit in the weak hypothesis is the assumption that not all errors are result of interference.
Most of the CA studies carried out based on the surface structure characteristics. The procedure followed was (1) description; i.e. a formal description of the two languages is made; (2) selection; i.e. certain items, which may be entire subsystems such as the auxiliary system or areas known through error analysis to present difficulty, are selected for comparison; (3) comparison; i.e. the identification of areas of difference and similarity; and (4) prediction; i.e. identifying which areas are likely to cause errors).
Here are some of the possibilities that a comparison (CA) might reveal:
1. No difference between a feature of L1 and L2.
2. “Convergent phenomena’; i.e. two items in L1 become coalesced into one in the L2. For example, the German ‘kennen’ and wissen’ coalesce into ‘know’ in English.
3. ‘Divergent phenomena’ ; i.e. one item in the L1 becomes two items in the TL. Where Bahasa Indonesia is L1 the word ‘dia’ diverges into ‘she’ and ‘he’ in English (TL).
4. An item in the L1 is absent in the TL.
5. An item in the L1 has a different distribution from the equivalent item in the TL. The sound /ng/ in Bahasa Indonesia could occur initially, but in English it only occurs medially and finally.
6. No similarity between L1 features and TL features.
A multi-factor approach
There are some studies conducted to result the challenge of the role played by the L1 in SLA especially on the basis that an error was either the result of interference or of some other factors such as developmental processing. It is clear that any particular error may be the result of one factor on one occasion and another factor on another. There is not logical or psycholinguistic reason why a given error should have a single, invariable cause.
Hatch (1983) concludes his study that in the case of phonology and morphology both naturalness factors and L1 interference are at work, often in such a way that errors are doubly determined. In the case of the higher levels of language -syntax and discourse-naturalness factors may predominate.
In terms of factors involved in SLA there are three sets mentioned:
1. Universal factors, i.e. factors relating to the universal way in which natural languages are organized.
2. specific factors about the learner’s L1;
3. Specific factors about L2.
A multi-factor approach requires identifying the relationships that exists between these three sets of factors in the acquisition of various L2 items.
L1 interference as a learner strategy
Corder (1978) outlines one way in which ‘interference’ can be recast as a learner ‘strategy’. He suggests that the learner’s L1 may facilitate the developmental process of learning a L2, by helping him to progress more rapidly along the universal route when the L1 is similar to the L2. ’Interference’ errors result not from negative transfer but from ‘borrowing’ That is when learners experience difficulty in communicating an idea because they lack the necessary target language resources, they will resort to their L1 to make up the insufficiency. This explain why the L1 is relied on more at the beginning of the learning process than later- the learner has greater insufficiency of target language resources to surmount. A similar suggestion is made by Krashen (1981) that the learners can use the L1 to initiate utterances when they do not have sufficient acquired knowledge of the target language for this purpose.
Mentalist account of Fist language Acquisition
Chomsky’s (1959) attack on Skinner’s theory of language learning led to reassertion of mentalist views of first language acquisition (FLA) in place of the empiricist approach of behaviourists. Chomsky stressed the active contribution of the child and minimized the importance of imitation and reinforcement. He claimed that the child’s knowledge of his mother tongue was derived from a Universal Grammar which specified the essential form that any natural language could take. As McNeil (1970) put it :
The facts of language acquisition could not be as they are unless the concept of a sentence is available to children at the start of their learning. The concept of a sentence is the main guiding principle in a child’s attempt to organize and interpret the linguistic evidence that fluent speakers make available to him.
The Universal Grammar, then, existed as a set of innate linguistic principles which comprised the ‘initial state’ and which controlled the form which the sentences of any given language could take. Also part of the Universal Grammar was a set of discovery procedures for relating the universal principles to the data provided by exposure to a natural language. This view of FLA was represented in the form of a model (e.g. Chomsky 1966):
primary linguistic data AD GFor the ‘Acquisition Device” (AD), which contained the ‘Universal Grammar’ to work, the learner required access to ‘primary linguistic data’ (i.e. input). However, this served only as a trigger for activating the device. It did not shape the process of acquisition, which was solely the task of the acquisition device. For Chomsky the task of the linguists (psychologist) was to specify the properties of the AD that were responsible for the grammar (G) of a particular language.
According to Chomsky (1959): Language is not a form of behaviour, as mentioned by Behaviourists, on the contrary it is an intricate rule-based system and a large part of language acquisition is the learning of this system. There are a finite number of grammatical rules in the system and with a knowledge of these an infinite number of sentences can be performed in the language. It is competence a child gradually acquires, and it is this language competence that allows the child to be creative as a language user.
In summary, therefore the mentalist views of L1 acquisition posited the following:
1. Language is a human-specific faculty.
2. Language exists as an independent faculty in the human mind i.e. although it is part of the learner’s total cognitive apparatus. it is separate from the general cognitive mechanisms responsible for intellectual development.
3. The primary determinant of L1 acquisition is the child’s ‘acquisition device’, which is genetically endowed and provides the child with a set of principles about grammar.
4. The ‘acquisition device’ atrophies with age.
5. The process of acquisition consists of hypothesis-testing, by which means the grammar of the learner’s mother tongue is related to the principles of the ‘universal grammar’.
According to mentalist accounts of L1 acquisition, language acquisition is a universal process. The term process is used with two related meanings. It refers both to the sequence of development and to the factors that determine how acquisition takes place.
The natural sequence also suggests that there must be underlying mechanisms which are common to all learners and which are responsible for the route taken. There is, however, somewhat less agreement about precisely what these mechanisms consists of. The mentalist claim that the processes are internal and operate largely independently of environmental influences is not longer entirely defensible, as we shall see.
Interlanguage
The term interlanguage was first used by Selinker (1972). Various alternative terms have been used by different researchers to refer to the same phenomenon; Nemser (1971) refers to approximative systems, and Corder (1971) to idiosyncratic dialects and transitional competence. These terms reflected two related but different concepts. Fist, interlanguage refers to the structured system which the learner constructs at any given stage in his development (i.e. an interlanguage). Second, the term refers to the series of interlocking systems which form what Corder (1967) called the learner’s ‘built-in syllabus’ (i.e. the interlanguage continuum)
The assumptions underlying interlanguage theory were stated clearly by Nemser (1971). They were: (1) at any given time the approximative system is distinct from L1 and L2; (2) the approximative systems form an evolving series; and (3) that in a given contact situation, the approximative systems of learners at the same stage of proficiency roughly coincide.
The concept of ‘hypothesis-testing’ was used to explain how the L2 learner progressed along the interlanguage continuum, in much the same way as it was used to explain L1 acquisition. Corder (1967) suggested that both L1 and L2 learners make errors in order to test out certain hypotheses about the nature of the language they are learning. The making of errors as a strategy, evidence of learner-internal processing. This view was in opposition to the view of the SLA presented in the Contrastive Analysis.
Selinker (1972) suggested that there were five principal processes operated in interlanguage : (1) language transfer; (2) overgeneralization of target language rules; (3) transfer of training, i.e. rules enters the learner’s system as a result of instruction; (4) strategies of L2 learning; i.e. an identifiable approach by the learner to the material to be learned; (5) strategies of L2 communication, i.e. an identifiable approach by the learner to communication with native speakers. Interference, then, was seen as one of several processes responsible for interlanguage. The five processes together constitute the ways in which the learner tries to internalize the L2 system.
Selinker also noted that many L2 learners fail to reach target language competence. That is, they do not reach the end of the interlanguage continuum. They stop learning when their interlanguage contains at least some rules different from those of the target language system. He referred to this as fossilization. Fossilization occurs in most language learners and can not be remedied by further instruction. Selinker and Lamendella (1978) argued that the causes of fossilization are both internal and external. It can occur both because the learner believes that he does not need to develop his interlanguage any further in order to communicate effectively whatever he wants to, or it can occur because changes in the neural structure of his brain as a result of age restrict the operation of the hypothesis-testing mechanisms. On the contrary the language learners who successfully achieve native-speaker proficiency in the Target Language do so because they continue to make use of the ‘acquisition device’, or, as Lennerberg suggested it as latent language structure. Thus the successful adult L2 learners is able to transform the universal grammar into the structure of the grammar or the target language. This takes place by reactivating the ‘latent language structure’. However, relatively few adult L2 learners reach native-speaker competence. The vast majority fossilize some way sort. and they fall back on a more general cognitive mechanism, which he labelled as latent psychological structure. SLA can proceed in two different ways. It can utilize the same mechanisms, which are presumably responsible for other types of learning apart from language. The term that became popular to describe the mechanisms responsible for the second type of learning was cognitive organizer. The process of SLA that resulted from its operation was called Creative construction.
Error Analysis
Prior to the early 1970s Error Analysis consisted of little more than impressionistic collection of common errors and their linguistic classification. The goals of traditional Error Analysis were pedagogic - errors provided information which could be used to sequence items for teaching or to devise remedial lessons. The absence of any theoretical framework for explaining the role played by errors in the process of SLA led to no serious attempt to define ‘error’ or to account for it in psychological terms.
The procedure for Error Analysis spelled out by Corder (1974) involved:
1. A corpus of language is selected. This involves deciding on the size of sample, the medium to sampled, and the homogeneity of the sample (with regard to the learner’s ages, L1 background, stage of development, etc.).
2. The errors in the corpus are identified. The need to distinguish ‘lapses’, i.e. deviant sentences that are the result of processing limitations rather than lack of competence, from ‘errors’, i.e. deviant sentences that are the result of lack of competence. Sentences can be ‘overtly idiosyncratic’, i.e. they ill formed in terms of target language rules; and ‘ covertly idiosyncratic’, i.e. sentences that are superficially well formed by when their context of use is examined are clearly ungrammatical.
3. The errors are classified. This involves assigning a grammatical description to each error.
4. The errors are explained. In this stage of the procedure an attempt is made to identify the psycholinguistic cause of the errors.
5. The errors are evaluated. This stage involves assessing the seriousness of each error in order to take principled teaching decisions. Error evaluation is necessary only if the purpose of the error Analysis is pedagogic. It is redundant of the EA is carried out in order to research SLA.
Error Analysis provides two kinds of information about interlanguage. The first, concerns the linguistic type of errors produced by L2 learners. The second type of information concerns the psycholinguistic type of errors produced by L2 learners. Although there considerable problems about coding errors in terms of categories such as ‘developmental’ or ‘interference’, a study of errors reveals conclusively that there is no single or prime cause of errors and provides clues about the kinds of strategies learners employ to simplify the task of learning a L2. Richards (1974) identifies various strategies associated with developmental or, as he calls them, ‘intralingual’ errors. Overgeneralization is a device used when the items do not carry any obvious contrast for the learner. For example, the past tense marker,’-ed’, often carries no meaning in context, since pastness can be indicated lexically by ‘yesterday’. Ignorance of Rule Restrictions occurs when rules are extended to contexts where in the target language usage they do not apply. This can result from analogical extension or the rote learning of rules. Incomplete Application of Rules involves a failure to learn the more complex types of structure because the learner finds he can achieve effective communication by using relatively simple rules. False Concept Hypothesized refers to errors derived from faulty understanding of target language distinctions; i.e. ‘is’ may be treated as a general marker of the present tense as in ‘He is peaks French’. Error Analysis can be used to investigate the various processes that contribute to interlanguage development.
Cognitive Code : Learners as thinking beings
Whereas the behaviourist theory of learning portrayed the learner as a passive receiver of information, the cognitive view takes the learner to be an active processor of information. (see Ausubel et al., 1978). Learning and using a rule require learners to think, that is to apply their mental powers in order to distil a workable generative rule from the mass of data presented, and then to analyze the situations where the application of the rule would be useful or appropriate. Learning, then, is a process in which the learner actively tries to make sense of data, and learning can be said to have taken place when the learner has managed to impose some sort of meaningful interpretation or pattern on the data. This may sound complex, but in simple terms what it means is that we learn by thinking about and trying to make sense of what we see, feel and hear.
The basic teaching technique associated with a cognitive theory of language learning is the problem-solving task. In ESP such exercises have often been modelled on activities associated with the learners’ subject specialism.
The cognitive code view of learning seems to answer many of the theoritical and practical problems raised by behaviourism. It treats the learners as thinking beings and puts them firmly at the centr of the learning process, by stressing that learning will only take place when the matter to be learnt is meaningful to the learners. But in itself a cognitive view is not sufficient.
The Affective Factor : Learners as emotional beings
People think, but they also have feelings. It is one of the paradoxes of human nature that, although we are all aware of our feelings and their effects on our actions. we invariably seek answers to our problems in rational terms. It is as if we beleived that human beings always act in a logical and sensible manner. This attitude affects the way we see learners - more like machines to be programmed (‘I have taught them past tense. They must know it.’) than people with likes and dislikes, fears, weaknessesand prejudices. But learners are people. Even ESP learners are people. They may be learning about machines and systems, but they still learn as human beings. Learning, particularly the learning of a language, is an emotional experience, and the feelings that the learning process evokes will have a crucial bearing on the success or failure of the learning.
The importance of the emotional factor is easily seen if we consider the relationship between the cognitive and the affective aspects of the learner. The cognitive theory tells us that learners will learn when they actively think about what they are learning. But this cognitive factor presupposes the affective factor of motivation. Before the learners can actively think about something, they must want to think about it. The emotional reaction to the learning experience is the essential foundation for the initiation of the cognitive process. How the learning is perceived by the learner will affect what learning, if any, will take place.
The relationship between the cognitive and emotional aspects of learning is, therefore, one of vital importance to the success or otherwise of a language learning experience. This bring us to a matter which has been one of the most important elements in the development of ESP - motivation.
1. Theories of SLA: The role of theory in SLA: Hakuta (1981:1) sees the main goal of SLA research as follows: “The game of language acquisition research can be described as the search for an appropriate level description for the learner’s system of rules. In other words, the main goal of a theory of SLA is description - the characterisation of the nature of the linguistic categories which constitute the learner’s interlanguage at any point in development. Others have tried to discover why the learner develops the particular linguistic categories that he does. There seven theories of SLA:
Þ The Acculturation Model : Acculturation is defined by Brown (1980) as ‘the process of becoming adapted to a new culture.’ It is seen as an important aspect of SLA, because language is one of the most observable expressions of culture and because in L2 / FL settings the acquisition of a new language is seen as tied to the way in which the learner’s community and the target language community view each other. The central premise of the Acculturation Model is : .....second language acquisition is just one aspect of acculturation and the target to which a learner acculturates to the target language group will control the degree to which he acquires the second language. (Schumann:1978). Nativization Model: Andersen sees SLA as the result of two general forces, which he labels Nativization and denativization. Nativization consists of assimilation; the learner makes the input conform to his own internalized view of what constitutes the L2 system. In terms of the typology of learner strategies described, the learner simplifies the learning task by building hypotheses based on knowledge he already possesses (i.e. knowledge of the first language; knowledge of the world). Denativization involves accommodation; the learner adjusts his internalized system to make it fit the input. The learner makes use of interfacing strategies which enable him to remodel his interlanguage system in accordance with the ‘external norm.’ (the linguistic features represented in the input language).
Þ Accommodation Theory. It derives from the research of Giles and his associates into the intergroup uses of language in multilingual communities such as Britain. His primary concern is to investigate how intergroup uses of language reflect basic social and psychological attitudes in interethnic communication. He has also considered SLA from an intergroup stance and it is the resulting view of SLA which has become known as Accommodation Theory. In addition to determining the overall level of proficiency achieved in SLA, Accommodation Theory also accounts for the learner’s variable linguistic output. Giles et al. (1977) write:
...people are continually modifying their speech with others so as to reduce or accentuate the linguistic social differences between them depending on their perceptions of the interactive situation.
Accommodation theory provides an explanation of language-learner language variability. Variable language use is the result of conflicting socio-psychological attitudes in different situations. Variability of use is related to acquisition, in the sense that the same set of factors is responsible for both.
Þ Discourse Theory. It follows from a theory of language use, in which communication treated as the matrix of linguistic knowledge ( as proposed, for instance, in Hyme’s description of communicative competence), that language development should be considered in terms of how the learner discovers the meaning potential of language by participating in communication. Halliday (1975) shows that the function grows out of the interpersonal uses to which language is put. Because the structure of the language is itself a reflection of the functions it serves, it can be learnt through learning to communicate. This theory proposed by Hatch (1978)
Þ The Monitor Model. It consists of five central hypotheses. In addition, it makes reference to a number of other factors which influence SLA and which relate to the central hypotheses. The five hypotheses are:
à The acquisition- learning hypothesis. Acquisition occurs subconsciously as a result of participating in natural communication where the focus is on meaning. ‘Learning’ occurs as a result of conscious study of the formal properties of the language. In storage, ‘acquired’ knowledge is located in the left hemisphere of the brain in the language areas; it is available for automatic processing. ‘Learnt’ knowledge is meta linguistic in nature. It is stored in the left hemisphere, but not necessarily in the language areas; it is available only for controlled processing. Thus they are stored separately. In performance, ‘acquired ‘ knowledge serves as the major source for imitating both the comprehension and production of utterances. ‘Learnt’ knowledge is available for use only by the Monitor.
à The Natural Order hypothesis. It affirms that grammatical structures are ‘acquired’ in a predictable order. Thus when the learner is engaged in natural communication tasks, he will manifest the standard order. But when he is engaged in tasks that require or permit the use of metalinguistic knowledge, a different order will emerge.
à The Monitor hypothesis. The monitor is the device that learners use to edit their language performance. It utilises ‘learnt’ knowledge by acting upon and modifying utterances generated from ‘acquired’ knowledge.
à The Input hypothesis . It states that ‘acquisition’ takes place as a result of the learner having understood input that is a little beyond the current level of his competence (i.e the I + 1 level). Input that is comprehensible to the learner will automatically be at the right level.
à The Affective filter hypothesis. This deals with how affective factors relate to SLA, and covers the ground of the acculturation Model. The filter controls how much input the learner comes into contact with, and how much input is converted into intake. It is ‘affective’ because the factors which determine its strength have to do with the learner’s motivation, self-confidence, or anxiety state.
Þ The Variable Competence Model.
The Model is based on two distinctions - one of which refers to the process of language use, and the other to the product. The theory also proposes to account for SLA within a framework of language use. In other words, it claims that the way a language is learnt is a reflection of the way it is used. The product of language use comprises a continuum of discourse types ranged from entirely unplanned to entirely planned. Unplanned discourse is often associated with spontaneous communication, e.g. everyday conversation or brainstorming in writing. Planned discourse is discourse that is though out prior to expression. It requires conscious thought and the opportunity to work out content and expression. The process of language use is to be understood in terms of the distinction between linguistic knowledge (rules) and the ability to make use of this knowledge (procedures). Widdowson (1984) refers to Competence and Capacity.
Þ The Universal Hypothesis
This Hypothesis states that there are linguistic universal which determine the course of SLA as follows:
1. Linguistic universal impose constraints on the form that interlanguages can take.
2. Learners find it easier to acquire patterns that conform to linguistic universals than those that do not.
3. Where the L1 manifests linguistics universals, it is likely to assist interlanguage development through
transfer.
Þ A neurofunctional theory
A neurofunctional perspective on language attempts to characterize the neurolinguistic information processing systems responsible for the development and use of language. The basic premise is that there is a connection between language function and the neural anatomy. Neurofunctional accounts of SLA have considered the contribution of two areas of brain: (1) the right hemisphere and (2) the areas of the left hemisphere which clinical studies have shown to be closely associated with the comprehension and production of language. Neurofunctional accounts have also tended to focus on specific aspects of SLA: (1) age difference, (2) formulaic speech, (3) fossilization, and (4) pattern practice in classroom SLA.
1. The Framework for Investigating SLA reconsidered.
There were a number of components of SLA considered. These were (1) situational factors, (2) the linguistic input, (3) learner differences, (4) learner processes, and (5) linguistic output. The interrelationship between these components. Situational factors influence input (e.g. input in a classroom setting is likely to differ from that in a natural setting) and also the use of learner processes (e.g. communication strategies). Learner differences on such variables as motivation and personality help to determine the quantity and quality of their input and also affect the operation of learner strategies (e.g. the use of metalingual strategies). Input comprises (1) the inherent properties of the target language system, and (2) the formula and interactionally adjusted features found in foreigner and teacher talk. Input constitutes the data upon which the learner strategies work, but also the input is itself in part determined by the learner’s use of communication strategies. Thus the relationship between input and the learner processes is an interactive one. The learner’s strategies (composed of learning, production, and communication strategies) produced a variable L2 output. This in turn is part of the input. Thus the framework is cyclical.
Figure : 1 A framework for examining the components of SLA
 | ||||||
 | ||||||
| ||||||
 | ||||||
 | ||||||
 | ||||||
2. Cognitive Variations in Language Learning
Second Language Learning involves complex cognitive processes that consist of many types of learning, and every individual utilizes a variety of strategies and styles in order to master the language.
Types of Learning: Types of learning vary according to the context and subject matter to be learned, but a complex task such as language learning involves every one of Gagne’s types of learning - from simple signal learning to problem solving. Gagne (1985) identified eight types of learning:
1. Signal learning. Learning by making a general diffuse response to a signal.
2. Stimulus-response learning. The learner acquires a precise response to a discriminated stimulus. What is learned is a connection or sometimes called an instrumental response.
3. Chaining. What is acquired is a chain of two or more stimulus-response connections.
4. Verbal association. It is the learning of chains that are verbal. However, the presence of language in the human being makes this a special type because internal links may be selected from the individual’s previously learned repertoire of language.
5. Multiple descrimination. The individual learns to make a number of different identifying responses to many different stimuli, which may resemble each other in physical appearance to a greater or lesser degree.
6. Concept learning. The learner acquires the ability to make a common response to a class of stimuli even though the individual members of that class may differ widely from each other.
7. Principle Learning. A principle is a chain of two or more concepts. It functions to organize behaviour and experience.
8. Problem solving. Problem solving is a kind of learning that requires the internal events usually referred to as “thinking”. Previously acquired concepts and principles are combined in a conscious focus on an unresolved or ambiguous set of events.
STRATEGIES OF LEARNING
In language learning we can distinguish two basic categories of strategies: learning strategies and communication strategies. A learning strategy is a method of perceiving and storing particular items for later recall. A communication strategy is a method of achieving communication, of encoding or expressing meaning in a language. In the literature on language learning strategies, four terms have commonly been singled out for explication: transfer, interference, generalization, and simplification.
Transfer and Interference. Transfer is a general term describing the carryover of previous performance or knowledge to subsequent learning. Positive transfer occurs when the prior knowledge benefits the learning task ; Negative transfer occurs when the previous performance disrupts the performance on a second task. The later can be referred to as interference, in that previously learned material interferes with subsequent material - a previous item is incorrectly transferred or incorrectly associated with an item to be learned.
Generalization and Simplification. Generalization is crucially important and pervading strategy in human learning. To generalize means to infer or derive a law, rule, or conclusion, usually from the observation of particular instances. Inductive and Deductive reasoning are two polar aspects of the generalization process.
Simplification is a term that has also been used as synonymous with generalization. The process of “uncomplicating,” of reducing events to a common denominator, to as few parts or features as possible. But it can be contrasted with complexification: the act of discovering many varied parts of a whole, or even parts that do not fit into a whole.
Reflective: (perlunya mengambil berbagai pertimbangan yang matang, sebelum mengambil keputusan)
Impulsive: (cepat mengambil keputusan bahkan sering dengan hanya menebak, tanpa banyak pertimbangan)
Communication strategy:
Field - dependent: the tendency to be dependent on the total field such as that the parts embedded within the field are not easily perceived, though that total field is perceived more clearly as a unified whole. (personal orientation, holistic, Dependent from others, socially sensitive: greater skill in interpersonal/ social relationships)
Field - independent: your ability to perceive a particular, relevant item or factor in a “field” of distracting items. (Impersonal orientation, Analytic, independent, not so socially aware)
Tolerance and Intolerance of ambiguity:
3. PERSONALITY AND LANGUAGE LEARNING:
Personality factors to influence in language learning :
Þ Affective domain (It refers to emotion or feeling) : receiving, responding, valuing, organization, value system.
Þ Egocentric Factors :
à self-esteem (the evaluation which the individual makes and customarily maintains with regard to himself; it expresses an attitude of approval or disapproval........);
à inhibition(
Þ Transactional factors:
à Empathy: the process of “putting yourself into someone else’s shoe,” of reaching beyond the self and understanding and feeling what another person is understanding or feeling. Transaction is the process of reaching out beyond the self to others.
à Extroversion
à Introversion
à Aggression
Þ Motivation
à Basic Needs and Derives
à Instrumental and Integrative Motivation
1. SOCIOCULTURAL VARIABLES
Culture is a way of life. Culture is the context within which we exist, think, feel, and relate to others. It is a glue that binds a group of people together.
Culture might be defined as the ideas, customs, skills, arts, and tools which characterize a given group of people in a given period of time. But culture is more than the sum of its parts. “It’s a system of an integrated partterns, most of which remain below the threshold of consciousness, yet all of which govern human behaviour just as surely as the manipulated strings of puppet control its motions” (Condon:1973)
It is important that culture, as an ingrained set of behaviours and modes of perception, becomes highly important in the learning of second language. A language is a part of a culture and a culture is a part of a language; the two are intricately interwoven such that one cannot separate the two without losing the significance of either language or culture.
Culture stereotype :
à Attitude
Learning Second Culture
à Acculturation
à Culture Shock
à Social Distance
1. INDIVIDUAL LEARNER DIFFERENCES AND SLA
Aspects of SLA influenced by individual learner factors:
à Differences in age, learning style, aptitude, motivation, and personality result in differences in the route along which learners pass in SLA.
à These factors only influence only the rate and ultimate success of SLA.
Identification of Learner factors:
à Personal Factors : (1) group dynamic (being in a competition), (2) attitudes to the teacher and the course materials, and (3) individual learning techniques.
à General factors: (1) Age, (2) Intelligence, aptitude, (3) Cognitive style, (4) Attitude and motivation, and (5) personality (extroversion / introversion; social skills, inhibition)
The role of learner factors in SLA:
 |
Summary : A View of Language Learning
A conception of language learning is an essential component of a language teaching theory. Language teachers are in a good position to observe patterns of language learning and to appreciate intuitively the characteristics of poor and good learners and to surmise why some students progress and others run into difficulties. empirical research and theorizing have helped us to develop concepts about language learning and to recognize possible relationships between learning outcomes, the learning process, learner characteristics, the condition of learning, and the social and linguistic context in which learning occurs.
Our knowledge about language is still very incomplete. A better understanding is likely to result from continued investigations combining various approaches: inferences from linguistic product, i.e.,interlanguage analysis; behavioural observations of learners; subjective reports of learners’ experiences; and psycholinguistic experimentation.
In the meantime, in spite of the incompleteness of our knowledge, certain questions have become clearer and directions for interpreting the language learning process begin to emerge. First of all, language learning is a developmental process which cannot be fully controlled by feeding the learner with slow incremental steps. A useful assumption supported by some research is that in successful learners the different components of proficiency, formal and semantic knowledge, communicative capacity and creativity, develop concurrently. The stages in the developmental process are as yet not fully understood. It is not clear why there should be a fossilization of error patterns. Is the learning process at later and more advanced levels of proficiency different from earlier and more elementary levels? Is the concept of a turning point or threshold level viable? Can it be said that after the click of the turning point, or once over the threshold, the second language forms a more serviceable and efficient configuration? Is the learner after reaching the turning point more emancipated and less dependent on the help of a native speaker or teacher?
Besides questions about the nature and stages of language development, the language learning process presents three main problems which we labelled as (1) the L1-L2 connection, (2) the explicit-implicit option, and (3) the code-communication dilemma. We have argued that these are three issues with which all language learners and language teachers must come to terns. In doing so the learning process is best understood as threshold involving the learner (a) intellectually/cognitively, (b) socially, and (c) affectively.
From all there considerations and from our review of the learning research we can derive four basic sets of strategies which we hypothesize good learners are likely to employ while less efficient learners employ them only weakly, fail to maintain them concurrently, or fail to develop them altogether.
1. Good learning involves first of all an active planning strategy. In view of sheer magnitude of the language learning task the good language learner will select goals and sub-goals, recognize stages and developmental sequences, and actively participate in the learning process.
2. The good language learner employs, secondly, an ‘academic (explicit) learning strategy. Language learning is, to some extent, a perceptual and cognitive task, and good learners are prepared to study and practice. That is, they face up to the language as the formal system with rules and regular relationships between language forms and meanings. They pay attention to these features and, either independently or by comparison with the first language, develop the second language as a consciously perceived system which they constantly revised it in order to progress towards an improved second language command. They learn to exclude the first language as knowledge and as a skill to be acquired. Those features that language aptitude research has identified undoubtedly come into play in the application of this strategy.
3. Good language learners are likely to employ a social learning strategy. The recognize the inevitably dependent status in early learning and accept the infantilization and satelization involved. As they progress, they strive towards emancipation and desatellization. Good learners seek communicative contact with target language users and the target language community either in person or vicariously through writings, media, role-playing, or immersion. In spite of their limitations, good learners will tend to develop and use ‘communication strategies’, i.e., techniques of coping with difficulties in communicating in an imperfectly known second language. Good learners become actively involved as participants in authentic language use. neither aptitude nor proficiency tests appear as yet to have tapped the features underlying these social skills that also contribute to the development of proficiency.
4. Finally good language learners use an affective strategy. That is, they cope effectively with the emotional and motivational problems of language learning. Classroom learning as well as immersion in the target language environment each entail specific affective problems which have been characterized as language sock and stress, and as culture shock and stress. In spite of these difficulties, good language learners approach the task in a positive frame of mind, develop the necessary energy to overcome frustration, and persist in their efforts. They cultivate positive attitudes towards the self as language learner, towards language and language learning in general, and towards the target language and its society and culture. It stands to reason that certain personality characteristics and attitudes can predispose learners towards the use of appropriate affective strategies.
