语言学习与语言教学原则第十一章.ppt

1、Chapter 11 Theories of Second Language Acquisition,-Zhang Li,09级外国语言学及应用语言学研, Introduction Taxonomies, Hypotheses, and Model Some Current Theories and Models The believing and doubting games From Theory to Practice Intuition: The Search for relevance Out on a Limb: The Ecology of Language Acquisitio

2、n,Contents,I. Introduction,Q1. What is second language acquisition? Q2. Is there such a unified theory?,Second Language Acquisition is a subset of general human learning and involves cognitive variations. It is closely related to ones personhood and is interwoven with second culture learning.,No.,Li

3、ghtbown (1985),Yorio (1976),A,B,taxonomy,11 statements,Evaluation,However vague and general they are, they constitute a framework for a theory of SLA.,10 statements,Evaluation,Lightbowns list of generalization is interesting and has some applications to classroom practices. but the list ,like the 11

4、 previous items, is obviously incomplete.,II. Taxonomies, Hypotheses, and Models,III.,Krashens Input Hypothesis,Mclaughlins Attention-Processing Model,Bialystoks Analysis/Automaticity Model,Variability Models,some current theories and models,Introduce about Krashens Input Hypothesis,Different names

5、Monitor Model Acquisition-Learning Hypothesis Input Hypothesis .,Krashens Theory,Evidence for the Input Hypothesis,Contrasts,According to Krashen(1982), our conscious learning processes and our subconscious acquisition processes are mutually exclusive: learning cannot “become” acquisition. This clai

6、m of “ no interface” between acquisition and learning is used to strengthen the argument for recommending large doses of acquisition activity in the classroom, with only a very minor role assigned to the Monitor.,Combined Model of Acquisition and Production,A major offshoot of the Monitor Model clai

7、ms that condition for language acquisition to occur is that the acquirer understand input language that contains structure a bit beyond his or her current level of competence”,The Input Hypothesis (i+1),For example, if a learner is at a stage i, then acquisition takes place when he/she is exposed to

8、 Comprehensible Input that belongs to level i + 1.,Disputation,Finally, it is important to note that the notion of i+1 is nothing new.,A third difficulty of krashens in Input Hypothesis is found in his explicit claim that “comprehensible input is the only causative variable in SLA.”,A Second critici

9、sm of krashens view arose out of the claim that there is no interfaceno overlapbetween acquisition and learning.,First, Barry Mclaughlin sharply criticized krashens rather fuzzy distinction between subconscious (acquisition) and conscious (learning) processes.,Mclaughlins Attention-Processing Model,

10、Controlled processes are capacity limited and temporary.,Automatic processes are relatively permanent .,while most controlled processes are focal, some ,like child first language learning or the learning of skills without any instruction, can be peripheral. similarly, most automatic processes are pe

11、ripheral, but some can be focal.,Q. How does Mclaughlins model apply to practical aspects of learning a second language?,Language Exposure,Other Knowledge,Explicit Linguistic knowledge,Implicit Linguistic knowledge,Input,Knowledge,Output,Type I,Type II,R,Inferencing,Monitoring,Inferencing,Inferencin

12、g,Functional Practicing,Formal Practicing,Formal Practicing,Process Strategies,In the explicit category are the facts that a person knows about language and the ability to articulate those facts in some way.,Implicit knowledge is information that is automatically and spontaneously used in language t

13、asks.,processes are universal while strategies are optional and vary across individuals, as we have already defined earlier.,“R” is the response that a person makes to another person upon receiving some sort of linguistic message.,Type I responses are spontaneous,Type II responses are time-delayed.,

14、Bialystok modified her framework for conceptualizing SLA. The modification consisted of hypothesizing a two-dimensional framework in which analysis and automaticity can interact, but her use of the latter term differs from Mclaughlins. In her first factor-analysis-mental representations can be eithe

15、r unanalyzed or analyzed. On the other hand, learners are overtly aware of the structure of analyzed knowledge.,The distinction between automatic and non-automatic processing refers to the relative access the learner has to the knowledge irrespectively of its degree if analysis. Knowledge that can b

16、e retrieved easily and quickly is automatic. Knowledge that takes time and effort to retrieve is non-automatic.,Criticism,Bialystoks model was recently criticized for models beyond their limits, “thus giving the explanations a forced air.”,Variability Models,One of the most interesting current debat

17、es in SLA theory centers on the extent to which the variability manifested in the inter-language competence of learners can be systematically explained. The essence of the problem is that learners can and do exhibit a tremendous degree of variation in the way they speak (and write) second languages.

18、,Researchers about Interlanguage Variation,Elaine Tarones (1988) Capability continuum paradigm,Rod Elliss (1986) variable competence model,Kevin Greg (1990),He granted that non-systematic free variation and individual variation do exist but chose to focus her research on contextual variability.,He d

19、rew a more “internal” picture if the learner in his variable competence model. Ellis hypothesized a storehouse of “variable inter-language rules” depending on how automatic and how analyzed the rules are. He drew a sharp distinction between planned and unplanned discourse in order to examine variati

20、on.,He quarreled with both Tarones and Elliss rejection of Chomskys “homogeneous competence paradigm,IV. The Believing and Doubting Games,“doubting game” “believing game” He is careful to conclude his essay with a note on the interdependence of the believing game and the doubting game,He concludes t

21、hat he can make a word mean something if he chooses to.,Peter Elbow (1973),Humpty,He contended that we need to turn such conceptions upside-down, to look at the other end of the continuum and recognize the importance of what he called the “believing game”.,Most scholarly traditions are too myopicall

22、y involved in what he called the “doubting game” of truth seeking.,Dilemma in SLQ Research,Ochsner (1979),Schumann (1982),V. From Theory to Practice,As we look back over the last 100 years if language teaching there are some revolutions apparent in that history . Q. How might those approaches be des

23、cribed?,First, they are cautiously eclectic. Second, our current approaches do not look to the traditional disciplines-linguistics, psychology, education-for direct applications, but rather for insights into language ,human behavior, and pedagogy that undergird language teaching practices. Third, cu

24、rrent theories-in practice are characterized by a substantial body of research on SLA from which we can derive enlightened approaches to teaching. Fourth, language learning and teaching are recognized as personal encounters. Finally, our stockpile of research and practice has clearly demonstrated ho

25、w crucial it is to focus on communication in the classroom.,Have we “arrived”? Surely not.,As you develop an enlightened approach to the language classroom , there are some important warning signals to attend to Mark Clarke cautioned teachers to be aware of the various “ bandwagons ” that travel thr

26、ough our language teaching profession: the “latest word”, the trendy, the fashionable methods, materials, and techniques with their carnival appeal.,1. Extremist and; authoritarian in nature 2. Dramatic and appealing; 3. Sometimes stimulate you rethink your current stance.,VI. Intuition: The Search for Relevance,The reach for the relevance of theory has taken teachers on many varied and circuitous paths .,One principle that can help you t