1key terms in second language acquisition.docx

1key terms in second language acquisition.docx

《1key terms in second language acquisition.docx》由会员分享，可在线阅读，更多相关《1key terms in second language acquisition.docx（51页珍藏版）》请在冰豆网上搜索。

1keytermsinsecondlanguageacquisition

KeyTermsinSecondLanguageAcquisition

Introduction

Whatissecondlanguageacquisition?

Secondlanguageacquisition（SLA）isaresearchfieldthatfocusesonlearnersandlearningratherthanteachersandteaching.Intheirbest-sellingtext,GassandSelinker（2008,p.1）defineSLAas“thestudyofhowlearnerscreateanewlanguagesystem.”Asaresearchfield,theyaddthatSLAisthestudyofwhatislearnedofasecondlanguageandwhatisnotlearned.

AnexaminationofanyotherintroductoryoroverviewtextswouldrevealsimilardefinitionsanddiscussionsofthescopeofSLAresearch（e.g.,Doughty&Long,2003;Ellis,1994;Lightbown&Spada,2006;VanPatten,2003;White,2003）.Moreover,suchdefinitionswouldincludeaconcernforbothprocessesandproductsinvolvedinhowlanguagesarelearned,asthefieldisinformedbyavarietyofdisciplinessuchaslinguistics,psychology,andeducation.ThesedifferentinfluencesaremosteasilyseenintheeditedvolumebyVanPattenandWilliams（2007）ontheoriesinSLA.ThemainstreamtheoriesrepresentedinthatvolumereflectthemultifacetednatureofSLAaswellasthevariousparentdisciplinesthathavecometoinformresearchonlanguagelearning.

Somemakethedistinctionbetweenforeignlanguagelearningandsecondlanguageacquisition.Theformerisusedtorefertolanguagelearningincontextsinwhichthelanguageisnotnormallyspokenoutsidetheclassroom,suchaslearningFrenchinNewcastle,UnitedKingdomorGreekinOmaha,NebraskaintheUnitedStates.SLAisusedbysometorefertothosecontextsinwhichthelanguageisusedoutsidetheclassroom,asinthecaseoflearningEnglishintheUnitedStatesorlearningSpanishinSpain.Whilesuchdistinctionsareusefulfromasociologicalperspective,theyhavelittlelinguisticorpsychologicalvalidity.Ashasbeenarguedrepeatedlyintheliterature,peopleandthemechanismstheypossessforlanguagelearningdonotchangefromcontexttocontext.Themind/brainstillhastodowhatithastodowhetherinstructioninlanguageispresentornot,andwhetherthereispresenceorabsenceofopportunitiestointeractwithspeakersofthelanguage.Tobesure,contextimpactsrateandultimateproficiency,butcontextdoesnotimpacttheunderlyingprocessesinvolvedinlearninganotherlanguage.Thus,itiscommoninSLAtoplaceallcontextsoflearningundertheumbrellatermsecondlanguageacquisition.

LookingatthevariousdefinitionsofSLAwhatemergesisaconcernaboutlearnersandlearning.ThefieldofSLAaddressesthefundamentalquestionsofhowlearnerscometointernalizethelinguisticsystemofanotherlanguageandhowtheymakeuseofthatlinguisticsystemduringcomprehensionandspeechproduction.Although,wecandrawsomepedagogicalimplicationsfromtheoriesandresearchinSLA,themainobjectiveofSLAresearchislearningandnotteaching,althoughwewilltouchupontherelationshipbetweenSLAandlanguageteachinglaterinthisintroduction.

AbriefhistoryofSLA

ContemporaryresearchinSLAhasitsrootsintwoseminalpublications.ThefirstisS.PitCorder’s1967essay“TheSignificanceofLearners’Errors.”Concernedlargelywithteaching,Cordernotedthatadvancesinlanguageinstructionwouldnotoccuruntilweunderstoodwhatlanguagelearnersbringtothetaskofacquisition.InfluencedbyL1research—whichhadrepudiatedanykindofstrictbehavioristaccountofchildlanguageacquisition—Cordersuggestedthatlikechildren,perhapsL2learnerscameequippedwithsomethinginternal,somethingthatguidedandconstrainedtheiracquisitionoftheformalpropertiesoflanguage.Hecalledthissomething“theinternalsyllabus”notingthatitdidnotnecessarilymatchthesyllabusthatinstructionattemptedtoimposeuponlearners.Corderalsomadeadistinctionbetweeninputandintake,defininginputasthelanguageavailablefromtheenvironment,butintakeasthatlanguagethatactuallymakesitswayintothelearner’sdevelopingcompetence.Thisdistinctionisonestillheldtodayinthefield.

Asecondseminalpublicationwasthe1972publicationofLarrySelinker’s“Interlanguage.”Inthisarticle,SelinkerarguedthatL2learnerspossessedaninternallinguisticsystemworthyofstudyinitsownright,alanguagesystemthathadtobetakenonitsowntermsandnotassomecorruptedversionoftheL2.Hecalledthissysteman“interlanguage”becausethesystemwasneithertheL1northeL2,butsomethingin-betweenthatthelearnerwasbuildingfromenvironmentaldata.SelinkeralsopositedanumberofconstructsstillcentraltodayinL2research,notablyL1transferandfossilization—eachofwhichisdescribedelsewhereinthisbook.

Thus,thesetwocriticalthinkerslaidthefoundationuponwhichthenextdecadesofworkonSLAwasforged.

The1970s

The1970swasmarkedlargelybydescriptivestudiesthatsoughttorefutebehaviorismandtoapplythebasicideasofCorderandSelinker.Duringthistimeframewesawtheemergenceofresearchonacquisitionorders（thefamous“morphemestudies”）thatreplicatedboththemethodologyandthefindingsofL1acquisitionresearchintheL2context.Wealsosawtheemergenceofresearchontransitionalstagesofcompetence,whichagainreplicatedimportantfindingsfromL1research.ThepicturethatbegantotakeshapewasthatindeedL2learnerspossessedbuilt-insyllabithatdirectedtheircourseofdevelopmentjustasCorderhadpreviouslysuggested.Thistimeperiodalsogavebirthtoerroranalysis,thecarefulexaminationoflearneroutputwithparticularattentionto“errors”（deviationsfromL2normativelanguage）.FromerroranalysisscholarsbegantominimalizeL1influenceonSLA;thatis,researchersrevealedthatL1transferwasnotaswidespreadasoncethought.Tobesure,thisperiodwasheavilymarkedbyresearchonEnglishasasecondlanguage,especiallybynonclassroomlearners,leavingsomeprofessionalsinotherlanguagestodismissthefindingsasinapplicabletoclassroomlearnersandtolearnersofotherlanguages.However,researchinthe1980sand1990swouldsubsequentlydemonstratethatthegeneraltenetsofSLAwereapplicabletoalllanguagesinallcontexts.

The1980s

Bytheearly1980s,Krashen’sideasonacquisition（seeMonitorTheoryandacquisitionversuslearning,andInputHypothesis,forexample）weremainstream.Hehadpositedthatlearnersacquirelanguagethroughinteractionwithlanguage,mostnotablythroughcomprehensionoftheinputtheyareexposedto.Whilefundamentallytrue,Krashen’sideasleftagoodamountofacquisitionunexplainedandthe1980soverallismarkedbyacriticalreviewofhisideasandthequestformoreexplanatorymodelsaboutthespecificsofacquisition.Forexample,ifL1influenceislimited,whywasitlimited?

Iflearnershadabuilt-insyllabus,whatwasthisbuilt-insyllabusandwherediditcomefrom?

Andifalllearnersneededwasexposuretoinput,whyweresomanyL2learnersnon-native-likeaftersomanyyearsofinteractionwiththelanguage?

Itisinthistimeframe,then,thatweseetheapplicationoftheoriesfromotherdomains.Forexample,LydiaWhiteledthechargetouselinguistictheorytodescribelearnercompetenceandtospeculatewhythatcompetencelookedthewayitdid.ManfredPienemannbegantoexploretheuseofLexicalFunctionalGrammarandspeechprocessingmodelstoexplainthedevelopmentalnatureoflearneroutput.Wealsoseethebeginningsoftheapplicationofcognitivetheoryandotherpsychologicalapproaches（e.g.,connectionism）toSLA,applicationsthatwouldnotreachanyrealimpactuntilthe1990s.ThepointhereisthatSLAresearchersbeganlookingseriouslyatthenatureoftheoriesandwhattheoriesneededtodoinordertoexplainSLA.

The1990s

The1990switnessedabourgeoningofcompetingtheoreticalideasandapproachesregardingSLA,withanadditionalplethoraofisolatedhypothesesthattookholdinthegeneralliterature（e.g.,noticing,theOutputHypothesis,theInteractionHypothesis—allofwhichhadrootsinthe1980s）.Nonetheless,twomajorapproachesdominatedthefield:

theapplicationoflinguistictheoryandtheapplicationofcertainpsychologicalapproaches,namely,skilltheoryandthemodernversionofassociationism（seeconnectionism）.Thelinguistictheoreticalapproachcontinuedtobeconcernedwithanadequatedescriptionofinterlanguageaswellasitsexplanation.Thatis,scholarsinthiscampfocusedonthenatureofthelearner’sinternalmentalrepresentationandwhatconstrainedit.Acentraltenetofthisapproachisthatlanguageisspecial.Byspecialthesescholarsmeantthatlanguageisuniquelyhuman,isencapsulatedinitsownmoduleinthemind/brain,andcomesequippedfrombirthwithasetoflanguage-specificconstraintscalledUniversalGrammar.Thus,acquisitionwasaparticularkindofexperienceforhumansthatinvolvedtheinteractionofUniversalGrammarwithdatafromtheoutsideworld.

Scholarsinthepsychologicalcamptendedtoeschewanylinguisticdescriptionofaninterlanguageandindeedsomewentsofarastosaythattherewasnomentalrepresentationatall.Interestedlargelyinbehavior,thiscampdidnotconcernitselfwithunderlyingknowledgepersebutmorewithwhatlearnersdidwithlanguage.Becausetheysawlanguageasjustanotherinstanceofhumanbehavior,thebeliefwasthattheoriesofbehaviorshouldbesufficienttoaccountforSLAandthustherewasnoneedtoposituniquefacultiesofthemindthatdealtexclusivelywithlanguage.Assuch,therewasnothingspecialaboutlanguage—andifindeedthelearnerhadanymentalrepresentationthatcouldbecalledlanguage,itwasanartefac