Historic Perspectives in SLA - Second Language Acquisition

Second Language Acquisition

2.2 Historic Perspectives in SLA

2.2.1 Behaviorism

In the United States of America, the predominant learning theory of the 1950s was Skin-ner’s school of behaviorism, which was based on the notions of the stimulus-response theory and classical conditioning. The behaviorist approach to language acquisition is described in Herschensohn and Young-Scholten (2013), p. 705, as follows:

A school of psychology that flourished in the United States in the early twentieth century. Behaviorists (e.g. Skinner) stressed the study of observable behavior to

the exclusion of concepts of mind, emotion or consciousness. Extended to the study of language, behaviorists aimed to account for the acquisition of language as the outcome of conditioning shaped by external stimuli.

Behaviorism has its roots in the theory of stimulus and response, which is based on the three laws of effect, readiness, and exercise (Thorndike (1913)). The central idea of behaviorism is that human behavior (response) is reinforced in connection to a given stimulus if the outcome is positive or successful. One of the best known experiments in the field of stimulus-response was conducted by Pavlov in the early 20^th century to demonstrate the connection between stimulus and response or the so-calledconditioned reflex (Pavlov (1927)). In Pavlov’s experiment a dog was presented food as a consecu-tive consequence to the ring of a bell. The procedure was repeated a number of times until the dog’s salivation to the ring of the bell (stimulus) in anticipation of the food (response) was produced even without any food being presented to the dog.

Decades later, B. F. Skinner introduced and elaborated the idea of conditioning in the field of language acquisition (e.g. Skinner (1957)). Skinner observed that children form habits of correct language use, by imitating the language as is used in their environment, and by adapting sounds and patterns (Lightbown and Spada (2006)).

Bloomfield’s work on the behaviorist view of language acquisition describes language as a succession of three steps: (1) a practical event, (2) a speech event, and (3) a reaction or response from the hearer. An example of these steps is given in Bloomfield (1933), p. 22-23:

Suppose that Jack and Jill are walking down a lane. Jill is hungry. She sees an apple in a tree. She makes a sound with her larynx, tongue and lips. Jack vaults the fence, climbs the tree, takes the apple, brings it to Jill and places it in her hand. Jill eats the apple.

The practical event is Jill being hungry (stimulus), which is followed by Jill’s speech act (“a sound with her larynx, tongue and lips”) (response / stimulus), and finally Jack’s response of fetching her an apple (response). On the one hand, Jill’s speech act is a response to the stimulus of being hungry, and on the other hand Jack’s reaction (which could also be of a linguistic nature, such as the response “Do you want me to fetch

you an apple?”) is a response to the stimulus of Jill’s speech act, demonstrating two stimulus-response pairs evoking a speech act.

As discussed in Gass and Selinker (2008), in the first language acquisition scenario, the stimulus is often an object presented to a child accompanied by the correct denom-ination, such as giving an infant a doll and saying “doll”. The child will soon start to imitate the sound of doll (in an imperfect way, such as “da”). If the stimulus is given repeatedly, the child will start to form a habit by uttering the response “da” and later

“doll”, and hence associating the stimulus-response set.

When Bloomfield’s theory of language learning was adapted to SLA in the 1960s, it resulted in putting an emphasis on mimicry and memorization exercises that imitated the first language acquisition process (Lightbown and Spada (2006)). During that same period, the behaviorist idea of transfer became important. The behaviorist approach suggests that learners try to transfer the linguistic structures that they already know from their mother tongue to the L2. An example given in Gass and Selinker (2008) suggests that an L1 Italian-speaker is expected to translate the Italian question“Mangia bene il bambino?” with “Eats well the baby?” (direct transfer from the L1 equivalent) rather than producing the correct English translation, “Does the baby eat well?” This direct transfer from L1 to L2 is parallel to behavior patterns that are shaped by previous knowledge and experiences; therefore, the known language structures or habits of the L1 are directly transferred to the L2 (Postman (1971)).

The idea of transfer can be categorized as positive transfer (or facilitation) and negative transfer (or interference). The above-cited example of the direct transfer of Italian to its English equivalent is an example of a negative transfer (interference), where the transfer of the Italian “Mangia bene il bambino?” to the English “Eats well the baby?” is obstructive. A positive transfer (facilitation) would be if an Italian-speaker were to learn Spanish and would similarly transfer the Italian “Mangia bene il bambino?” to the Spanish “¿Come bien el ni˜no?”, where the same word order is used in questions (Gass and Selinker (2008)). In SLA, the prevailing type of negative transfer is proactive inhibitionwhich occurs when a learner applies previously learned patterns of the L2 to a new situation in which they are not compatible. In a foreword to Lado (1957), p. vii, Fries states:

Learning a second language [...] constitutes a very different task from learning the first language. The basic problems arise not out of any essential difficulty in the features of the new language themselves but primarily out of the special “set”

created by the first language habits.

Fries’ statement, as well as the idea of negative transfer, indicate that the behaviorist school perceives the L1 as an obstacle to learning an L2 if the linguistic structures are not identical; suggesting that successful language acquisition of L2 requires new habits to be developed.

The two findings of the behaviorist approach to SLA that are most important for the study at hand are the positive effect of mimicry and the negative influence of direct (negative) transfer from the L1 to the L2. As we will see in Chapter 4, both find-ings were considered in the development and customization of our CALL-SLT dialogue game. With a spoken help option, we gave students the possibility to imitate native L2 speech and, by using an L1-independent form for prompting the students, we tried to avoid a possible negative effect that could occur if students translated word-for-word to the L2.

2.2.2 Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis

As a logical next step in the development of SLA theories, the Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis (CAH) established the rules for comparing a set of habits of the L1 to another set in the L2 (Gass and Selinker (2008)). Herschensohn and Young-Scholten (2013), p. 708-709, define CAH as follows:

The view that second language acquisition begins with a learner’s assumption that properties of the L1 hold for the L2. Where the L1 and the target language are similar, acquisition is predicted to be facilitated, and where they are different, acquisition is predicted to be more difficult.

The CAH approach emphasizes the learners’ L1, suggesting that learners presuppose that not only the structural properties, but also properties of the sound system, lexicon, and orthographic and cultural conventions hold for the L2. Fries and Lado argue that

if there are important differences between the learners’ L1 and L2, learners have to be taught to abandon the presupposition of L1/L2 identity (Herschensohn and Young-Scholten (2013)). Their approach to SLA focuses on the similarities and differences in the two languages to teach the L2 more effectively (Lado (1957), p. 59):

Those structures that are similar will be easy to learn because they will be trans-ferred and may function satisfactorily in the foreign language. Those structures that are different will be difficult because when transferred they will not function satisfactorily in the foreign language and will therefore have to be changed.

Since both Lado and Fries came from a background of structural linguistics, they de-scribed languages in a structural way when comparing them and finding the similarities and differences between them. They identified four steps to facilitate a comparison be-tween L1 and L2 (Lado (1957)): (1) comparison of the forms of pairs of words, (2) comparison of meaning, (3) comparison of distribution, and (4) comparison of conno-tations. Mitchell and Myles (1998) illustrate the challenge that lies in the difference of habits in the learner’s L1 and L2: According to the contrastive school, it will be much easier for an anglophone person to learn the German equivalent “Ich bin zw¨olf Jahre alt” to the English sentence “I am twelve years old” than the French equivalent “J’ai douze ans”, since the English grammatical sentence structure can be adopted one-to-one in German. In order to develop the same habits for French, it would be necessary to practice the structure many times by imitating and repeating it. As a result of this idea, CAH emphasizesdrilling exercisesto practice the differences between the L1 and L2. This concept of drilling exercises has also influenced some CALL-SLT courses (e.g. Jolidon (2013)) that put a special emphasis on training aspects of the L2 that are particularly difficult for a given L1 by means of drilling exercises.

However, the strong focus on the differences and hence on the difficulties of the L2 (e.g. Fries (1945)) also lead to criticism. An examination of the produced errors revealed that not all errors could be logically explained by the habits being transferred from the L1 to the L2. For example*He comed yesterdayinstead ofHe came yesterdayseems to represent a previously learned pattern of the L2 being incorrectly applied by the learner and not a habit of the L1 being projected (Gass and Selinker (2008)). Additionally, not all predicted errors actually occurred across various L1/L2 pairs. In the 1960s,

the generative school furthermore argued that language does not solely consist of a memorizable set of patterns, but more importantly of a creative component that is based on an innate language faculty (Herschensohn and Young-Scholten (2013)).

This criticism suggests more factors involved in SLA than a simple transfer from L1 to L2. A theory that reacted to this criticism is Chomsky’s Universal Grammar, which moved away from the idea of L1-L2 transfer and introduced the idea of an innate language faculty that naturally allows every human being to construct (L2) language.

The following subsection will discuss this theory in depth.

2.2.3 Universal Grammar

A new approach to language learning was introduced by Chomsky in the 1960s with his influential publications on generative linguistics focusing on the rule-governed and creative nature of human language (Mitchell and Myles (1998)). Herschensohn and Young-Scholten (2013), p. 734, define Chomsky’s Universal Grammar theory (UG) as follows:

Universal Grammar is a theory of the necessary formal constraints on all human grammars, imposed in advance of experience by the structure of an innate human language faculty. Universal Grammar provides learners of every language with an abstract basis for the construction of a natural language grammar. The observ-able language-particular properties shape the expression of UG within any specific language.

Or in Chomsky’s own words (Chomsky (1995), p. 167):

The theory of a particular language is itsgrammar. The theory of language and the expressions they generate isUniversal Grammar (UG); UG is a theory of the initial state S_oof the relevant component of the language faculty.

The main idea of UG is that a child’s innate linguistic properties are applied if input alone fails to learn the complexities of “adult” grammar (Gass and Selinker (2008)).

This trend evolved as a direct reaction to Skinner’s behaviorist view of language ac-quisition. Chomsky’s criticism of Skinner’s approach was openly visible in his review (Chomsky (1959)) of Skinner’s publication Verbal Behavior (Skinner (1957)), where

one of Chomsky’s main points of criticism concerned the lack of consideration of the creativity of natural language. He argued that children learn underlying rules to a given language rather than strings of words as proposed by Skinner and can hence create their “own” language out of a constrained set of principles and parameters. As an indicator for such an underlying framework of linguistic rules he named children’s use of standard forms in cases of irregular grammar, as can be seen in sentences such as

“*I fed the fishes” (instead of “I fed the fish”) or “*the radio breaked” (instead of “the radio broke”), which cannot be explained with the behaviorist input theory (Mitchell and Myles (1998)).

The three questions setting the basis for the theory of Universal Grammar were addressed by Chomsky (1986) as follows.

1. What constitutes knowledge of language?

Chomsky suggests that every individual has the same universal set of principles and parameters that shape the human language and that make it possible to detect similarities between different languages. According to UG, the principles apply to all natural languages, whereas the parameters have some open values that can vary between languages.

2. How is knowledge of language acquired?

According to Chomsky, every child has an innate language faculty that helps them learn their native language without too much difficulty. This means that children construct a mental picture of the structure and shape of language (ab-stract representation), based on the fragmentary input that they get, and they, therefore, have clear expectations towards language and the acquisition process.

3. How is knowledge of language put to use?

Chomsky’s Universal Grammar approach provides an abstract representation of language that all humans possess innately. It is all aboutknowledgeorcompetence and not aboutperformance that only comes into play when underlying cognitive language representation is applied in real-life scenarios. Conversely, competence is only one aspect of performance, since sociolinguistic and psycholinguistic com-ponents also influence performance.

Chomsky’s Universal Grammar theory was mainly concerned with the abstract de-scription and explanation of human language in general, as well as with the acquisition process of the native language in children. However, UG is also applicable to SLA, as the language acquisition process of a second language mostly consists of the same concepts and underlying processes as first language acquisition. With regard to SLA, there are two competing visions on whether UG is available in the L2 or not, namely theFundamental Difference Hypothesisand theAccess to UG Hypothesis.

The Fundamental Difference Hypothesis argues that L1 or child language learning cannot be compared to L2 or adult language learning, since they differ in too many aspects. Gass and Selinker (2008) identify the four main differences which make it difficult to adapt UG to SLA according to the Fundamental Difference Hypothesis: (1) compared to L1 learners, L2 learners rarely attain “complete” knowledge of the L2;

(2) L2 learners already dispose of a full linguistic system in their respective L1; (3) in first language acquisition, no language is harder to learn than any other, which is not true for SLA where the perception of L2 difficulty is closely linked to the learner’s L1; (4) motivation and attitude play an important role in SLA, whereas no role is attributed to those phenomena in first language acquisition. Based on these findings, the Fundamental Difference Hypothesis acts on the assumption that L2 learners use a

“pseudo UG”, which is based on the learners’ mother tongue.

The Access to UG Hypothesis, on the other hand, argues that “UG is constant (that is, unchanged as a result of L1 acquisition); UG is distinct from the learner’s L1 grammar; UG constrains the L2 learner’s interlanguage grammars” (White (2003), p.

60). This approach hence suggests that the same principles can be applied one-to-one to SLA as they are applied to first language acquisition by the UG theory.

Another way to adapt the Universal Grammar theory to SLA is to distinguish betweenno,full,indirectand partial access to UG (Mitchell and Myles (1998)).

The no access to UG hypothesis presumes that once the “critical period” for lan-guage acquisition – which is argued to be in early child years – has passed, an adult no longer has access to UG (Bley-Vroman (1983)). Johnson and Newport (1989) conducted a study to undermine this hypothesis: They analyzed the native-likeness of immigrants in relation to age and found that children who immigrated before the age of seven had

a native-like proficiency of the L2, whereas the proficiency declined proportionally with higher age.

The full access to UG hypothesis, on the other hand, argues that there is no such thing as a critical period in the availability of UG (Mitchell and Myles (1998)). After conducting various studies and examining the acquisition of principles and parameters in the L2, Flynn (1996), p. 150-151, concluded:

It appears that L2 learners do construct grammars of the new TLs [Target Lan-guages] under the constraints imposed by UG; those principles of UG carefully investigated thus far indicate that those not instantiated or applying vacuously in the L1 but operative in the L2, are in fact acquirable by the L2 learner. We are thus forced to the conclusion that UG constrains L2 acquisition; the essential language faculty involved in L1 acquisition is also involved in adult L2 acquisition.

The two hypotheses described above illustrate the two extreme views of UG avail-ability in SLA. The indirect and partial access hypotheses represent more moderate positions. Indirect access can be compared to the Fundamental Difference Hypothesis discussed above, as the claim is that learners only have access to UG through their L1. Bley-Vroman (1983) claims that for child language development, the main source is Universal Grammar, and a second source is domain-specific learning procedures.

Second language learning, on the other hand, uses native language knowledge as the primary source and a general problem-solving system as a secondary source to acquire skills in the L2. Schachter (1996) adds the concept of the critical period to the indirect access hypothesis, stating that child L2 learners have access to the UG as they do for first language acquisition, but only during a so-called “Window of Opportunity,” and that this direct access is no longer available to adult learners of an L2. Schwartz and Sprouse (1994) proposed another interpretation of indirect access, suggesting that L2 learners transfer their parameter-settings from the L1 in a first stage and then revise their hypotheses if they do not conform to the L2 (Mitchell and Myles (1998)).

The partial access hypothesis represents the position that only some parameter-settings are available to second language learners, based on the findings that L2 learn-ers (1) do not produce “wild” grammars and that (2) they produce grammars which do not necessarily resemble L1 or L2 grammars (Mitchell and Myles (1998)).

As discussed above, the availability of UG in SLA is a controversial topic. However, Universal Grammar is still one of the major influences for SLA today and sets the basis for many recent trends in SLA research, as we will see in subsequent sections.

As far as our research is concerned we mainly tried to foster UG’s finding concerning the creativity of natural languages. In our CALL-SLT courses we used L1-independent prompts in order to allow students to create their own L2 utterances which they could build out of the set of principles and parameters that they had learned for the L2. We will discuss the CALL-SLT prompt design in more detail in Chapter 4, section 4.5.

2.2.4 Error Analysis

During the early 1970s, research was mainly based on the importance of the L1 in second language acquisition and the new insights brought forward by Chomsky. An-other trend – represented by the approach of Error Analysis – was to move away from the importance of a learner’s native language in SLA and towards a focus of the L2 itself.

Error Analysis is an approach focusing on the linguistic analysis of learners’ errors, similar to the Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis, discussed in subsection 2.2.2. However, instead of comparing the errors made in the L2 against the structures of the learner’s L1, Error Analysis focuses on a monolingual analysis against the L2. Simultaneously with the emergence of Error Analysis, the role of errors shifted: errors were no longer considered as something that must be eradicated, but as an important insight in the learner’s knowledge of the L2, and hence evidence for a rule-governed system that the

Dans le document The Potential of Interactive Speech-Enabled CALL in the Swiss Education System: A Large-Scale Experiment on the Basis of English CALL-SLT (Page 43-55)