二语习得Krashen’s Hypothesis.ppt

krashens hypothesis,some researchers rejects the idea that learning cannot help the learner towards fluency. they dont believe that language learning and language acquisition can be clearly separated. they have different ideas about the acquisition-learning distinction.,krashens hypothesis,krashens claim that monitor use is directly linked to learned language, and that the monitor can only be used in very reduced circumstances is questionable. we have already seen in an earlier lecture that the learning/acquisition distinction is problematic.,krashens hypothesis,however, even if we do accept that material that is formally learned is different from material that is informally acquired, and if we do accept that the former is only used for monitoring, it does appear possible that the role of formal learning is greater than krashen says it is, and that monitoring may be an important learning strategy, which is used consciously by good language learners.,krashens hypothesis,reiss, comparing 18 a grade students of french/german with 18 c & d grade students, through a questionnaire, found that monitoring and attention to form were the two most common strategies. attending to meaning was less important. he also found that many successful learners were silent speakers - they practiced silently while listening to others. the main finding from such studies is that good learners tend to pay attention to both meaning (as krashen suggests they should) and to form (which krashen does not recommend). indeed, abraham and vann, (1987) found that :,krashens hypothesis,-the least successful learner in their study paid only attention to meaning, - whereas their most successful learner paid attention to both.,krashens hypothesis,thus, rubin, in a first study carried out in 1975, using video recordings of classroom behaviour, identified the following strategies - good students paid attention to form - they monitored their own and others speech - they were prepared to guess - they attempted to communicate, to get their message across - they were willing to appear foolish - they looked for practice - initiating conversations - they attended to meaning - by attending to context,krashens hypothesis,语言输入是第二语言习得研究中的一个关键领域。克拉申的“输入”说片面地夸大了语言习得机制和语言输入的作用。语言输入不会自动地转化为语言输出，实践中难以准确地把握可理解性输入的尺度和量度。语言输入固然重要，语言输出亦不可忽视。外语教学中应注意两者并举。,vii. krashens hypothesis an overview: theory and natural approach,an overview: theory and natural,1. acquisition and learning 2. how acquisition takes place? 3. the natural approach and language acquisition (four principles) 4. suggested topics,1.acquisition and learning,acquiring a language is “picking up” a language, that is developing ability in a language by using it in natural, communicative situations. children acquire their first language, and most probably, second language as well.,acquisition and learning,language learning is “knowing the rules”, having a conscious knowledge about grammar. in the classroom, teacher teaches students the rules of english such as: present tense, future tense, continuous tense, infinitives, gerund, participles subjective+verb+objective,2.how acquisition takes place,acquisition can take place only when people understand messages in the target language. incomprehensible input does not seem to help language acquisition. we acquire when we focus on what is being said, rather than how it is said. we acquire when language is used for communicating real ideas. (tea, toilet, fly in the room),how acquisition takes place,comprehensible input is necessary for acquisition, but not enough. the acquirer has to be “open” to the input in order to fully utilize it for acquisition. low affective filter, some degree of acquirer self-confidence are important.,how acquisition takes place,spoken fluency in second languages can not be taught. actually the ability to speak fluently and easily in a second language emerges by itself, after a sufficient amount of competence has been acquired through input. do you agree with the above opinion?,3.the natural approach and language acquisition,1. the first principle of the natural approach is that comprehension precedes production (listening and reading preceding speaking and writing) 2.the second principle of the natural approach is that production is allowed to emerge in stages. eg. nonverbal communication; single word; combinations of two or three words; phrases; sentences; more complex discourse,the natural approach and language acquisition,3. the third principle of the natural approach is that the course syllabus consists of communicative goals. the focus of each classroom activity is organized by topic, not grammatical structure. the grammar will be effectively acquired if goals are communicative.,the natural approach and language acquisition,4. the fourth principle is that the activities done in the classroom aimed at acquisition must foster a lowering of the affective filter of the students. the topics should be interesting and relevant to the students and encourage them to express their ideas, opinions, desires, emotions and feelings. the environment should be low anxiety level, good rapport with the teacher, friendly relationship with other students. such an atmosphere is not a luxury but a necessity.,the natural approach and language acquisition,the natural approach is designed to do just two things: 1. supplying good comprehensible input 2. lowering the affective filter,4. suggested discussion topics:,1. what did you do to enjoy your summer break? 2. do you like to surf bbs? what kind of “tiezi” do you like to read? 3. your opinion of “furong sister”. 4. which football team do you worship? why? who is your idol? 5. do you like to watch “chaonv” program? your opinion about the program.,1. the acquisition-learning hypothesis,there are two distinct ways of developing language competence. acquisition: natural；implicit；subconscious in both process and results; real communication (not conscious teaching or learning; “feel” for correctness) eg: grammar questions for foreign teachers,the acquisition-learning hypothesis,learning： conscious；explicit; formal knowledge; knowing about language; talk about language rules,the acquisition-learning hypothesis,adults process both acquisition and learning. teaching has different effects on acquisition and learning. teaching is directed at learning not acquisition. it is possible to encourage acquisition effectively in classroom.,the acquisition-learning hypothesis,some linguists have found that parents actually correct only a small portion of the childs language, for example: occasional pronunciation problems, certain verbs, and dirty words! they conclude from their research that parents attend far more to the truth value of what the child is saying rather than to the form. eg: her curl my hair; walt disney comes on television on tuesdays.,the acquisition-learning distinction,acquisition learning similar to child first formal knowledge language acquisition of language “picking up” a language “knowing about a language subconscious conscious implicit knowledge explicit knowledge formal teaching doesnt formal teaching help helps,the acquisition-learning distinction,questions: do you think we should combine teaching with acquisition? why? 1. im ringing about the flat advertised in todays star. _ ? a. is it still empty b. is it still free c. is it still available,the acquisition-learning distinction,2. ken: more tea? martin: _ . a. i have enough, thank you. b. i am fine. 3. cindy: john, where are the cookies? dont tell me you ate them all! john: yes, i did. _ . a. i couldnt bear it b. i couldnt help it c. they were good to eat,2. the natural order hypothesis,grammatical structures are acquired in a predictable order. similarities across acquirers certain structures are early others are late. general circumstance structures are acquired in groups.,the natural order hypothesis,best studied part-english morphology natural order exists for children acquiring english as their first language. early : progressive marker ing/plural marker late: third person singular/possessive marker the late might come a full year after the early ones.,the natural order hypothesis,it has been confirmed for a variety of structures in child first language acquisition. browns experiment jill and peter de villiers confirm browns conclusion. durlay and burt reports,the natural order hypothesis,bailey, madden and krashen s experiments of adults this serves as an evidence for both the natural order hypothesis and the acquisition-learning hypothesis.,average order of acquisition of grammatical morphemes for english as a second language (children and adults),the natural order hypothesis,this order happens on real communication but might not happened in grammar tests. we have limited our discussion on the concrete examples of grammatical morphemes. there has been other domains of grammar.,3. the monitor hypothesis this hypothesis states that the ability to produce utterances in a second language comes from the acquired competence, from the subconscious knowledge. on the other hand, learning which is a conscious knowledge serves only as an monitor. the learned knowledge helps us to make corrections or change the output of the acquired system.,in other words, when we produce utterances in a second language, the utterance is “initiated” by the acquired system, and our conscious learning only comes into play later, and monitor the speech production before or after actual output (self-repair). are you aware of the time when you use monitor? (third person singular, past tense, he, she),for example, learners who use their acquired knowledge to say “he is going” can check against their learnt knowledge whether “he” is the appropriate pronoun, whether the present continuous is the appropriate tense, whether “is” should agree with “he”, and so on. (monitoring uses learnt knowledge as a quality check on speech originating from acquired knowledge.),learned competence (the monitor) acquired output competence,the monitor hypotheses also leads to another hypothesisour fluency in production comes from what we have “picked up”, what we have acquired, in natural communicative situations. our “formal knowledge” of a second language, the rules we learnt in class and from texts, is not responsible for fluency, but only has the function of checking and making repairs on the output of the acquired system.,though learning has the monitor function, the monitor use itself is very limited. there are three conditions that must be met to access the learned system. the performer has to have enough time to think consciously about the rules they learned. the performance has to be thinking about correctness, or be focused on form (e.g. “fill-in-the-blank” tasks which encourage monitoring). the performer has to know the rule.,evidence for the monitor hypothesis,the monitor does a better job with some parts of grammar than with others. specifically it seems to do better with rules that can be characterized as “simple”. simple rules do not require elaborate or complex movements of permutation. eg. the third person singular, plus s to the end of certain verbs. difficult rules in this sense include the english wh- question, which involves moving the questioned word to the front of the sentence, a subject-auxiliary inversion, and, with sentences having only main verbs, the insertion of do.,the interpretation of this result in terms of this theory is that when we focus students on communication, they are not usually able to make extensive use of their conscious knowledge of grammar, the monitor, and their error patterns primarily reflect the operation of the acquired system.,there is individual variation among language learners with regard to monitor use. there appears to be basically three types of adult second language acquirers: monitor over-users who monitor all the time. monitor under-users who do not seem to use the monitor to any extent, even when conditions encourage it. the optimal monitor users who use the monitor when it is appropriate, when it does not get in the way of communication.,the optimal users can use their learned competence as a supplement to their acquired competence. they are the ideal type of monitor users who put conscious grammar in its proper place, who use what they have learned to facilitate communication. our recommendation is that students bring in the conscious grammar only in situations where it will not interfere with communication. overappeal to complex rules in conversation, for example, will result in a hesitant, overcareful style that is difficult to listen, and may also encourage “planning while the other person is talking,” which endangers the success of the entire interaction. question: are you a monitor over user, under user or optimal user? what are the characters of these users?,question: are you a monitor over user, under user or optimal user? what are the characters of these users?,when to use monitor?,beginners of any age have very little use for monitoring: indeed, too much use of grammar in early acquisition stages is often detrimental since the speaker may spend do much time processing rules and forms that he misses the message being conveyed, thereby hindering the acquisition process.,when to use monitor?,on the other hand, intermediates and advanced students of a second language, those who can communicate fairly well and who normally understand most of what is said to them, might well profit by concentrating on learning aspects of morphology and syntax that are normally very late acquired, thereby giving their speech a more polished sound, the their written output a more correct form.,4. the input hypothesis,outline,introduction main points of input hypothesis evidences of input hypothesis aspects of second language acquisition related to the input hypothesis conclusion,introduction,input hypothesis finely-tuned input speaker natural order 1 2 3 i i+1 96 97 - the finely tuned input : the input that aims specifically at one structure at a time acquirer: ing, plural, article, article stage i stage i+1,input need not be finely tuned, but roughly tuned,roughly-tuned input speaker natural order 1 2 3 i i+1 96 97 - the roughly tuned input: the result of a speaker using a language so that the acquirer understands what is said,this hypothesis states that” humans acquire language in only one way by understanding messages or by receiving comprehensible input.”(krashen) it also states that we acquire (not learn) language by understanding input that is a little beyond our current level of (acquired) competence. question: how do we acquire language?,1. input hypothesis relates to acquisition, not to learning,2. we acquire by understanding language a bit beyond our current level of competence with the help of context and extra-linguistic information.,new concept: comprehensible input stage i: acquirers current level stage i+1:the level that the acquirer will get to the next stage along some natural order gap between i and i+1: bridged by information drawn from situation and from acquirers experience “we also use context, our knowledge of world, our extra-linguistic competence to help us understand.” (krashen),3. spoken fluency emerges gradually and is not taught directly,listening comprehension and reading are of the primary importance in the language program and the ability to speak fluently will come on its own with time. it is not taught directly, but emerges after the acquirer has built up competence through comprehending input. (we need sufficient comprehensible input),4. when caretakers talk to acquirers so that the acquirers understand the message, input automatically contains i+1, the grammatical structures that the acquirer is ready to acquire. eg. if it rains tomorrow, we will stay at home.,evidence of input hypothesis,evidence 1: caretaker (mothers, fathers, etc.) speech the caretaker needs to make herself understood by the baby for communication, not in order to teach language. caretaker speech is structurally simpler than the language that adults use with each other. caretaker speech tends to get more complex as the child grows in linguistic maturity. eg.,evidence of input hypothesis,caretaker speech is about “here and now.” that means adults do not discuss tomorrows party or what is happening in the neighbor with the young children. as the children become stronger in their competence, the input becomes more displaced in time and space.,evidence of input hypothesis,the caretaker speech fits the input hypothesis: caretakers teach language by changing their language to children so that they will be understood. in doing so, they provide input that is understandable and covers the childs next linguistic stage.,evidence of input hypothesis,eg. a. in our schools this is reflected by the vanishing hickory stick and the emerging psychiatrist. in our schools this is reflected by the disappearing of strict education and the appearing of the person who deals with students mental problem.,evidence of input hypothesis,b. the teacher, for his part, frequently reduced to trying to explain the inexplicable, may take refuge in quoting proverbs to his colleagues such as the teacher who is often forced to try to explain the inexplicable, may try to avoid the awkward situation by quoting proverbs such as,evidence of input hypothesis,evidence 2: foreigner talk when caretakers talk to acquirers so that the acquirers understand the message, input automatically contains i+1, the grammatical structures that the acquirer is ready to acquire. the modifications native speakers make when talking t