Vulnerability and Tolernce in Adult SLAWord下载.docx

Vulnerability and Tolernce in Adult SLAWord下载.docx

《Vulnerability and Tolernce in Adult SLAWord下载.docx》由会员分享，可在线阅读，更多相关《Vulnerability and Tolernce in Adult SLAWord下载.docx（10页珍藏版）》请在冰豆网上搜索。

BlaisePascalInstituut>

GirardStudiekring>

COV&

R2007 

>

AbstractsPapers 

ChristinaBiava

VulnerabilityandToleranceinAdultSecondLanguageAcquisition 

Email-Profile-Subtheme#4-Abstract

PAPER

Firstlanguageacquisition（FLA）beginsearlyinlifeastheinfantisexposedtoaparticularlanguage（orlanguages,insomecases）inaclose,supportivesocialenvironment.Althoughtheexactnatureofitisnotunderstoodtotallyyet,sinceChomskymanylinguistics（althoughnotall）believethereisaLAD:

aLanguageAcquisitionDevice,whichisasetofneurologicalstructuresdedicatedtolanguageacquisitionthatshapethepathofacquisitioninallnormalchildren,regardlessoftheL1,evensignlanguagesforthedeaf.Hence,regardlessofanydifferencesininfantsthatmightbeinborn,suchasintelligenceorshyness,languageacquisitionwilltakeplaceinmoreorlessthesameorderandinthesamefashion.EventhoseoutsidetheChomskyannetwork—linguistsaswellascognitivepsychologists—agreethatthereisaninnatepredilectionofsomesortforlanguageinthehumanspecies.

AGirardianperspectiveissupportedbycurrentviewsofFLA,aswellasbylanguageoriginsresearch.Somecognitivetheories,suchasthoseputforthbyMerlinDonaldandchildlanguageresearchersMarilynVihmanandRoryDePaolis,seealargeroleformimesisinbothlanguageevolutionandFLA.Regardingthelatter,theinfantfrom0-6monthsisinapre-mimeticstate,thefirstpartofwhichinvolves“stimulus-boundreflexiveresponses”inwhichtheinfant,becauseofa“precocious”senseofself,comestobeabletomatchfaceswithvoices,“arguablyrootedinaformofemotionalandvocal‘contagion’withsubcorticalneurologicalsupport”stimulatedbyinfant-motherinteraction.Thesecondhalfofthispre-mimeticphaseiswhatVihmanandDePaoliscall“magneticsocialinteraction,”wheretheinfantisfascinatedbythemother’s（orothercaregiver’s）face,eventuallyinternalizingit,“whichsubsequentlyallowstheintensedyadicinteractionsto‘cooloff’asthechilddirectsattentiontootherobjectsandevents.”Afterthistherefollows“canonical”babblingofuniversalsoundsandprosodicfeatures（intonation,etc）,eventuallytobefollowedbythebeginningofamimetic-basedresponse,thebabblingofsoundspresentintheL1intheenvironment.Eventuallythisisfollowedbyamatchingbetweenthebabbledsyllablesandthecognitiveabilitytorefertosomethingintheenvironment—perhapsmomordad—withthefirstword,aroundtheendofthefirstyear（VihmanandDePaolis133-34）.Luckilyforthechild,aswellasfortheparentsandforthespeciesasawhole,littles/hedoeswillgetinthewayofFLA.

Unfortunately,secondlanguageacquisition（SLA）foradultsdoesnotproceedthissmoothly,foramultitudeofreasons.Ofcourse,theadultL2learnercomestothelearningsituationfullyformed,thusquitedifferentthanthenewborninfant.Overthepast30orsoyears,SLAresearchershaveinvestigatedanumberofareas--fromthedifferencesbetweenthelanguagesthemselves,totheroleofthelearningsituation,tolearningstrategies,todifferencesamonglearnersthemselves—totrytounderstandthedifferentlevelsinultimateproficiencythatlearnersreachinasecondlanguage（L2）.Thispaperwillfocusononeparticularaspectofthelearner’spersonality,whatiscalledhis/herambiguitytolerance（AT）.

First,thoughaGirardiananalysisofSLAisinorder.AccordingtoMimeticTheory,desireinhumanscomesaboutnotonitsownbutonlyindirectly,fromtheindividual’smimeticattractionofanotherperson’s,themodel’s,desireforsomeobject,thussettingupatriangulardesirethatunderliespeople’srelationshipstootherpeopleandtoobjects.Infact,theobjectitselfdeclinesinimportanceandtheindividualisleftwithdesirefortheotherperson,themediator,whoeventuallyisseenasarivaltotheindividual’sacquisitionoftheobjectandtodesireingeneral.

Multiplythisscenarioahundredfoldandyougetasmall,pre-humansocietyinwhichthisacquisitivemimesiswillgetoutofhandandinevitablyleadtoamimeticmeltdown.Girardpositsthescapegoatmechanismtoexplainhowearlyhominidgroupscouldsurvivetheoverheatingofviolentmimesis,thusleadingtothehiddenfoundationofhumanculture:

conflictinsocietyisdeflectedfromaviolentfree-for-alltoviolenceagainstasingle,marginalindividualwhoseresultingdeathproducesthecalmthatengendersculturalgrowth,atleastforawhile.Theresultingenactmentofthedeathled,overgreatquantitiesoftime,tothebeginningoflanguage,ritual,myth,andthesacred.

InSLA（hereassumingthelearnersareinsomewaywantingtolearnthelanguage,whetherintheclassroomorinanaturalisticsetting）,theindividualdesirestobelikethemodel,anativespeakeroftheL2.Thecultureandthelanguageofthemodelinsomewayattractthelearner,eitherbecauseoftheirstatusorbecauseoftheirusefulnessinachievingsomegoal.TheobjectistheL2itself,perhapstheC2（secondculture）aswell.Sincethemodelhasmuchbetterknowledgeofboth,s/hewillbeamodelthatthelearner,inmostcases,can’tpossiblymatch,yetonethatwillbeconstantlyheldupasthemodel/goal,thuscreatingperhapsevenmorethanyourusualamountoffrustration.Intheprocess,thelearner,todifferentdegrees,willbeexpectedto“giveup”his/herformerself,oratleasttoallowittobetransformedbythenewknowledge.Inotherwords,thelearner’sformeridentitywillbethescapegoat.Weseeextremecasesofthisinmostsituationsofimmigrantswhoareexpectedtoassimilatetothenewcultureinmanyways—food,dress,behavior,values,andevenreligion,perhaps;

languageseemstobethemostsymbolicoftheoldselfandisoftendemandedtobesacrificedaspartoftheimmigrant’sassimilation/acculturationexperience.Andifnotfortheimmigranthim/herself,thenforthenextgeneration,whoispressuredtogiveuptheirparents’culturalidentitiesandwaysinordertosucceedinthenewenvironment.Infact,inSLA,suchlearningofanL2attheexpenseoftheL1iscalled“subtractivebilingualism,”asopposedto“additivebilingualism”inwhichtheL1isallowed,orevenencouraged,toremain（Lambert）.

ThisleadsustotheissueoftheprocessofSLAitself.IncontrasttoFLA,thefinalproductinSLAisnotuniform;

rather,thedistributionfollowsthebell-shapedcurve,withsomelearnersbecomingquitefluent—evennative-like—andsomenotprogressingatall,butmostsomewherein-betweentheextremes.Asmentionedabove,oneoftheareasofresearchoverthepast30yearshasbeenintocharacteristicsoftheindividualinordertoexplainthedifferencesinfinalproficiency.Someoftheseincludesomewhatmutableaspectsofthelearner,likelearningstrategiesandcommunicationstrategiesand,ofcourse,motivation.Moregermainetothispaperarethesomewhatmorepermanentaspectsofthelearner’spersonality,whichIwouldliketofocusonmore.

AffectivevariablesarefelttobeimportantinSLA.Inthe1970sGuiorapositedtheideaofthelanguageegotorefertotheideathatformanypeople,theirsenseofthemselvesisboundupintheirnativelanguage.Inhiswell-knownInputorMonitorModel,StephenKrashenincludesasoneofits5partsthenotionofanaffectivefilter.Accordingtoboththelanguageegoandtheaffectivefilterconcepts,thelearnerissuggestedtohavepsychologicalandemotionalpredispositionsthatcanhelporhinderlanguageacquisition.A“permeable“languageegoanda“low”affectivefilterarepositedasallowingL2data,or“input,”tobetakeninbythelearner,thusleadingtomoresuccessfulSLA.Incontrast,a“high”affectivefilterwouldcharacterizealearnerwitha“impermeable”languageego—onewhowasthreatenedbytheacquisitionprocess.

Fielddependence/independenceareusuallyconsideredmorecognitivetraitsofthelearnerandaredefinedastheabilitytofocusonthewhole（FD）oronthepartsofthewhole（FI）.StudieshavetendedtofindFIlinkedwithmoresuccessfulSLA,especiallywhenthelanguageproficiencymeasureisofmorespecificfeaturesoflanguage,suchasgrammar.ChapelleandRoberts,forinstance,foundasignificantcorrelationbetweenhighscoresonameasureofFIandtheirlanguagevariouslanguageproficiencyscoresandevenfoundFIscorestobestrongerpredictorsoflanguagemeasuresthananythingelse,includingmotivation.

Thelearner’sintroversionorextroversion,alongwithinhibitionandrisk-taking,havealsobeenexaminedintheresearchliterature.Ingeneral,theextrovertedlearner（definedassomeonewhoisenergizedbyinteractingwithothers）isusuallymoreofarisk-taker;

bothcharacteristicsarebelievedtocausethelearnertoseekoutnativespeakers,thusacquiringmoreinput.Onmeasuresofconversationalabilityespecially,theextroverthasbeenfoundtohavegreaterfluencyandproficiency.Introversionandinhibitionarelessconducivetoaspectsoforalfluency,andevenofoverallcompetence,butarebelievedtobehelpfulinaspectsofthelanguagethatcallformorespecificaccuracy,likegrammar,writing,anddictations.

ApopularmeasureofpersonalityistheMyers-BriggsTypeIndicator（MBTI）.BasedonCarlJung’spsychologicaltypetheory,theMBTIcategorizespeopleinto16categories,basedontheircombinationof4personalityvariables:

extroversionvs.introversion,sensingvs.intuition,thinkingvs.feeling,perceivingvs.judging.TheMBTIisfelttoholdforlearnersacrossculturalandlinguisticbackgrounds（Kirby&

Barger,ctdinSharp）,andhasbeenu