Frameworks for SLA
Interest in second language learning and use dates back many centuries (see e.g. McCarthy 2001), but it is only since the 1960s that scholars have formulated systematic theories and models to address the basic questions in the field of SLA which were listed in Chapter 1: (1) What exactly does the L2 learner know? (2) How does the learner acquire this knowledge? (3) Why are some learners more successful than others? As I noted earlier, different approaches to the study of SLA can be categorized as primarily based on linguistic, psychological, and social frameworks. Each of these perspectives will be the subject of a separate chapter, although we should keep in mind that there are extensive interrelationships among them.
Important theoretical frameworks that have influenced the SLA approaches which we will consider are listed in Table 2.3, arranged by the discipline with which they are primarily associated, and sequenced according to the decade(s) in which they achieved relevant academic prominence.
Prior to the 1960s, interest in L2 learning was tied almost exclusively to foreign language teaching concerns. The dominant linguistic model through the 1950s was Structuralism (e.g. Bloomfield 1933), which emphasized the description of different levels of production in speech: phono logy (sound systems), morphology (composition of words), syntax (grammatical relationships of words within sentences, such as ordering and agreement), semantics (meaning), and lexicon (vocabulary). The most influential cognitive model of learning that was applied to language acquisition at that time was Behaviorism (Skinner 1957), which stressed the notion of habit formation resulting from S-R-R: stimuli from the environment (such as linguistic input), responses to those stimuli, and reinforcement if the responses resulted in some desired outcome. Repeated S-R-R sequences are “learned” (i.e. strong stimulus-response pairings become “habits”). The intersection of these two models formed the disciplinary framework for the Audiolingual Method, an approach to language teaching which emphasized repetition and habit formation that was widely practiced in much of the world at least until the 1980s. Although it had not yet been applied to second language concerns, Vygotsky’s Sociocultural Theory (1962 in English translation) was also widely accepted as a learning theory by mid-century, emphasizing interaction with other people as critical to the learning process. This view is still influential in SLA approaches which are concerned with the role of input and interaction.
Linguistic
There have been two foci for the study of SLA from a linguistic perspective since 1960: internal and external. The internal focus has been based primarily on the work of Noam Chomsky and his followers. It sets the goal of study as accounting for speakers internalized, underlying knowledge of language (linguistic competence), rather than the description of surface forms as in earlier Structuralism. The external focus for the study of SLA has emphasized language use, including the functions of language which are realized in learners’ production at different stages of development.
Internal focus
The first linguistic framework with an internal focus is Transformational Generative Grammar (Chomsky 1957, 1965). The appearance of this work revolutionized linguistic theory and had a profound effect on the study of both first and second languages. Chomsky argued convincingly that the behaviorist theory of language acquisition is wrong because it cannot explain the creative aspects of our linguistic ability. He called attention to the “logical problem of language acquisition,” which we dis cussed earlier in this chapter, and claimed the necessity of assuming that children begin with an innate capacity which is biologically endowed. These views have dominated most linguistic perspectives on SLA to the present day.
This framework was followed by the Principles and Parameters Model and the Minimalist Program, also formulated by Chomsky. Specification of what constitutes “innate capacity” in language acquisition has been revised to include more abstract notions of general principles and constraints that are common to all human languages as part of Universal Grammar. The Minimalist Program adds distinctions between lexical and functional category development, as well as more emphasis on the acquisition of feature specification as a part of lexical knowledge.
Another development within this theoretical approach has focused on the linguistic interfaces between different modules of language such as lexicon and morphology, syntax and semantics, and semantics and pragmatics or discourse. Some interface phenomena are more problematic for L2 learners than others, and may account for developmental delays and interference between languages.
External focus
The most important linguistic frameworks contributing to an external focus on SLA are categorized within Functionalism, which dates back to the early twentieth century and has its roots in the Prague School of Eastern Europe. They differ from the Chomskyan frameworks in emphasizing the information content of utterances, and in considering language primarily as a system of communication. Some of them emphasize similarities and differences among the world’s languages and relate these to sequence and relative difficulty of learning; some emphasize acquisition as largely a proc ess of mapping relations between linguistic functions and forms, motivated by communicative need; and some emphasize the means learners have of structuring information in L2 production and how this relates to acquisition. Approaches based on functional frameworks have dominated European study of SLA and are widely followed elsewhere in the world.
Psychological
There have been three foci in the study of SLA from a psychological perspective: languages and the brain, learning processes, and learner differences.
Languages and the brain
The location and representation of language in the brain has been of interest to biologists and psychologists since the nineteenth century, and the expanding field of neurolinguistics was one of the first to influence cognitive perspectives on SLA when systematic study began in the 1960s. Lenneberg ( 1967 ) generated great interest when he argued that there is a critical period for language acquisition which has a neurological basis, and much age-related research on SLA is essentially grounded in this framework. As we will see in Chapter 4, exploratory procedures associated with brain surgery on multilingual patients, as well as the development of modern noninvasive imaging techniques, are dramatically increasing knowledge in this area.
Learning processes
The focus on learning processes has been heavily influenced by computer-based Information Processing (IP) models of learning, which were established in cognitive psychology by the 1960s. Explanations of SLA phenomena based on this framework involve assumptions that L2 is a highly complex skill, and that learning L2 is not essentially unlike learning other highly complex skills. Processing itself (of language or any other domain) is believed to cause learning. A number of approaches to SLA have been based on IP, including several that will be discussed in Chapter 4 . They have been especially productive in addressing the question of how learners acquire knowledge of L2, and in providing explanations for sequencing in language development. Processability is a more recently developed frame work which extends IP concepts of learning and applies them to teaching second languages.
Connectionism is another cognitive framework for the focus on learning processes, beginning in the 1980s and becoming increasingly influential. It differs from most other current frameworks for the study of SLA in not considering language learning to involve either innate knowledge or abstraction of rules and principles, but rather to result from increasing strength of associations (connections) between stimuli and responses. Because this framework considers frequency of input an important causative factor in learning, it is also providing a theoretical base for research on language teaching.
Psychological frameworks which focus primarily on learning processes have long recognized their complex nature, but twenty-first century theory and research on SLA has increased emphasis on the nature and effect of complex systems in their own right (see e.g. Larsen-Freeman and Cameron 2008). This includes attention to their dynamic and nonlinear character, their movement toward self-organization, and their interaction with other complex systems. Traditional definitions of causality are questioned, and context (as a complex system itself) has greater importance than in most prior work from a psychological perspective.
Learner differences
The focus on learner differences in SLA has been most concerned with the question of why some learners are more successful than others. It arises in part from the humanistic framework within psychology, which has a long history in that discipline, but has significantly influenced second language teaching and SLA research only since the 1970s (see Williams and Burden 1997). This framework calls for consideration of emotional involvement in learning, such as affective factors of attitude, motivation, and anxiety level. This focus also considers biological differences associated with age and sex, as well as some differences associated with aspects of processing.
Social
Some of the frameworks that I categorize within a social perspective can also be considered linguistic, since they relate to language form and function; some can also be considered cognitive, since they explore learning processes or attitude and motivation. We will review them in this section because (in addition to linguistic and cognitive factors) they all emphasize the importance of social context for language acquisition and use.
There are two foci for the study of SLA from this perspective: micro social and macrosocial.
Microsocial focus
The concerns within the microsocial focus relate to language acquisition and use in immediate social contexts of production, interpretation, and interaction. The frameworks provided by Variation Theory and Accommodation Theory include exploration of systematic differences in learner production which depend on contexts of use, and they consider why the targets of SLA may be different even within groups who are ostensibly learning the “same” language. Vygotsky’s Sociocultural Theory also contributes to this focus, viewing interaction as the essential genesis of language. The Interactionist framework which received a renewed surge of interest in the 1990s is tied directly to the Sociocultural Theory of the 1950s and before. Much of the revitalization of this approach is credited to enriched translation and interpretation of Vygotsky’s earlier work, and much to intensive research on the role of interaction in SLA within socio linguistic traditions.
Computers as tools for L2 teaching and learning date back more than fifty years, but the systematic study of their processes and outcomes in SLA are much more recent. The approach generally called Computer Mediated Communication (CMC) is of most interest for this social perspective on SLA because it emphasizes L2 production and interpretation within a virtual community, interaction among its participants, and often both formal and functional goals. The variety of L2 instructional programs now being implemented with computer mediation is yielding vastly divergent results. The answers to why this is so should enlighten both theory and practice. This framework provides a bridge to concerns which are macrosocial in nature, considering the community of interaction.
Macrosocial focus
The concerns of the macrosocial focus relate language acquisition and use to broader ecological contexts, including cultural, political, and educational settings. The Ethnography of Communication framework extends the notion of what is being acquired in SLA beyond linguistic and cultural factors to include social and cultural knowledge that is required for appropriate use, and leads us to consider second language learners as members of groups or communities with sociopolitical as well as linguistic bounds. The frameworks provided by Acculturation Theory and Social Psychology offer broader understandings of how such factors as identity, status, and values affect the outcomes of SLA.
We will consider the foci and frameworks since 1960 in the next three chapters (see Table 2.4). As we now start to explore each of these in more depth, we should remind ourselves that no one perspective or framework among those surveyed in this book has the “final answer” or is more privileged, and that all are needed to provide an adequate understanding of SLA.
الاكثر قراءة في Linguistics fields
اخر الاخبار
اخبار العتبة العباسية المقدسة
