Recent Perspectives in SLA - Second Language Acquisition

Second Language Acquisition

2.3 Recent Perspectives in SLA

From the 1980s on, many new approaches to SLA emerged due to new insights from the areas of neuropsychology, cognitive sciences, and sociocultural frameworks (Mitchell and Myles (1998)). Based on these new influences in SLA research, the main theories developed in recent years can be classified into the three groups ofcognitive,functional andsocioculturaltheories, as discussed in the following subsections. The work discussed in this thesis mostly follows the functional approach, discussed in subsection 2.3.2.

2.3.1 Cognitivist Approach

The cognitivist approach to SLA suggests that learning a foreign language is a learning process as any other, a mostly cognitive activity, although there are various ways in which a human brain can approach the task (Mitchell and Myles (1998)). O’Malley and Chamot (1990), p. 217, summarized how language learning can be considered from a cognitivist’s point of view in four points:

1. Learning is an active and dynamic process in which individuals make use of a variety of information and strategic modes of processing

2. Language is a complex cognitive skill that has properties in common with other complex skills in terms of how information is stored and learned 3. Learning a language entails a stage-wise progression from initial awareness

and active manipulation of information and learning processes to full auto-maticity in language use

4. Learning strategies parallel theoretically derived cognitive processes and have the potential to influence learning outcomes in a positive manner

On this basis, the following subsections discuss some of the models that emerged under the cognitivist school, such as the Interaction Hypothesis and the Noticing Hy-pothesis.

2.3.1.1 Interaction Hypothesis

The Interaction Hypothesis is an offspring of Krashen’s Input Hypothesis (c.f. subsec-tion 2.2.5) that was then further elaborated by Long in the 1980s. The theory is based on the two concepts of input and interaction: according to Long (1983), p. 127, input is defined as “the linguistic forms (morphemes, words, utterances) — the streams of speech in the air — directed at the non-native speaker,” and concerning interaction, Long (1983), p. 127, explains that the “analysis of interaction means describing the functions of those forms in (conversational) discourse.” Or in other words “inputrefers to the linguistic forms used; byinteractionis meant the functions served by those forms, such as expansion, repetition, and clarification.” (Long (1981), p. 259)

This approach suggests that the language acquisition process is favored if the in-put that is given by native speakers (NS) to non-native speakers (NNS) is modified, by means of comprehension checks (e.g.“Do you understand?”), clarification requests (e.g.“Could you repeat please?”), or self-repetition and paraphrase (e.g.“She got lost on her way home from school. She was walking home from school. She got lost.”) (Lightbown and Spada (2006)) These modifications can take place on various levels, such as in phonology (e.g. slow and loud talk or clear articulation), lexis, and syntax.

During NS-NNS interaction, the conversational topics are often kept simple and con-versations tend to be rather brief. The frequent use of an interrogative communication style is also a characteristic of NS-NNS interaction, as well as the NS trying to avoid conversational trouble or flow breakdowns. Repetitions of the NNS utterance by the NS and restatements (using varied lexis or syntax) are also frequent (Long (1981)).

In a more recent publication, Long added the importance of corrective feedback in conversational interactions to his theory along with the necessity of negotiation for meaning, as expressed in his reformulated hypothesis below (Long (1996), p. 451-452):

Negotiation for meaning, and especially negotiation work that triggersinteractional

adjustments by the NS or more competent interlocutor, facilitates acquisition be-cause it connects input, internal learner capacities, particularly selective attention, and output in productive ways.

The notion of attention in second language acquisition introduced in Long’s reformu-lated Interaction Hypothesis was further developed in the Noticing Hypothesis,

dis-cussed in the following subsection.

Similarly to what we stated for Krashen’s Input Hypothesis (subsection 2.2.5), the point that interested us most for CALL-SLT was the adequate level of difficulty of the L2 input. In our case this input was provided in the form of video prompts recorded by native L2 speakers, as discussed in Chapter 4, subsection 4.5.2.3. Most dialogues used an interrogative communication style and also included clarification requests, in case a student’s response was not correctly recognized. Corrective feedback is another compo-nent of the Interaction Hypothesis that has influenced the characteristics of CALL-SLT.

Based on Long’s findings, we added a feedback module that gives the students immedi-ate feedback on their performance after every interaction with the system. As discussed in Chapter 4, section 4.6, CALL-SLT applied various degrees of corrective feedback, ranging from simple color-coded feedback up to more elaborate feedback, indicating the erroneous part of the L2 utterance. Another way in which we have incorporated the corrective feedback component in CALL-SLT is the help function (c.f. Chapter 4, section 4.4). This function helps students find their errors by providing correct exam-ples recorded by L2 native speakers.

2.3.1.2 Noticing Hypothesis

The Noticing Hypothesis was introduced by Schmidt (Schmidt (1990)) and hypothe-sized that nothing is learned unless it is actively noticed by the language learner, or in other words that “input does not become intake for language learning unless it is noticed, that is, consciously registered” (Schmidt (2010), p. 722). The most important factor in this model is the notion of awareness and attention in the language learning process since “adults do seem to have lost the still mysterious ability of children to acquire the grammatical forms of language while apparently not paying attention to them.” (Schmidt (1983), p. 172)

Schmidt distinguishes between noticing and understanding, where noticing is “a technical term limited to the conscious registration of attended specific instances of language” and understanding is “a higher level of awareness that includes generaliza-tions across instances.” (Schmidt (2010), p. 725) He further proposes that noticing is a necessary element in the acquisition process, while understanding has a facilitative

role but is not required for SLA (Schmidt (2010)).

A slightly modified version of the Noticing Hypothesis was developed by Robinson and Gass, adding to Schmidt’s model the concept of apperceived input (Gass (1988)) ordetection(Robinson (1995); Robinson (1996)). Apperceived input – a stage usually described as taking place before the process of noticing – is explained as “[...] the process of understanding by which newly observed qualities of an object are related to past experiences. [...] Apperception is an internal cognitive act, identifying a linguistic form as being related to some prior knowledge” (Gass and Selinker (2008), p. 482). It is the first of five stages involved in any conversation, where (1) apperceived input is followed by (2) comprehended input, (3) intake and (4) integration, before (5) output follows as the last stage (Gass and Selinker (2008)).

The main criticism of the Noticing Hypothesis concerns the impossibility of tracking everything that the learners notice. Even if techniques such as recording or videotap-ing L2 production – to make learners aware of their productive skills and help them improve and correct themselves – can help understand the noticed elements (Mackey et al. (2000)), researchers and teachers remain dependent on students’ subjective re-ports. In the evaluation of our CALL-SLT dialogue game, discussed in Chapters 6 and 7, we aimed to capture the learned – or actively noticed – elements by means of objective and subjective measures. One objective measure was a placement test that was administered pre- and post-experimentally, while qualitative feedback provided by participating students concerning their perception of improvements in their L2 compe-tences served as a subjective measure.

2.3.2 Functional Approach

Representatives of the functional (or pragmatic) approach argue that “language devel-opment is driven by pragmatic communicative needs,” (Mitchell and Myles (1998), p.

154) and therefore researchers in SLA need to take into consideration the functions that the learners want to perform. In other words, SLA researchers need to focus on how learners try to express meaning through the use of specific forms in order to achieve their communicative goals. Nichols and Bates & MacWhinney each give a definition of

the key factors of the functional approach to SLA: “Functionalists maintain that the communicative situation motivates, constrains, or otherwise determines grammatical structure” (Nichols (1984), p. 97) and “the forms of natural languages are created, governed, constrained, acquired and used in the service of communicative functions.”

(Bates and MacWhinney (1982), p. 192)

The functional approach to language acquisition is mainly based on Giv´on’s theory, who defined grammar as follows (Giv´on (1993), p. 1):

Perhaps the best way of saying what grammar is from a functional perspective is to say first what grammar is not. Grammar is not a rigid set of rules that must be followed in order to produce grammatical sentences. Rather, grammar is a set of strategies that one employs in order to produce coherent communication.

Nothing in this formulation should be taken as a denial of the existence of rules of grammar. Rather, it simply suggests that rules of grammar – taken as a whole – are not arbitrary; they are not just for the heck of it. The production of rule-governed grammatical sentences is the means by which one produces coherent communication.

This insight set the basis for a handful of communicative approaches to SLA, such as the Discourse Hypothesis, which investigates function while considering language in context (i.e. discourse), focusing on the discourse structure in which utterances appear.

In a well-formed discourse (a coherent flow of information), it is distinguished between foreground and background information, where foreground information represents any new information and background information is supporting information, already known at the time of appearance (Gass and Selinker (2008)). An example are the two sentences Peter went to school. He left in the morning. In the second sentence, he represents background information and the fact that Peter left in the morning represents new or foreground information. Another explanation of this concept is given by Hopper and Thompson (1980), p. 280:

That part of a discourse which does not immediately and crucially contribute to the speaker’s goal, but which merely assists, amplifies, or comments on it, is referred to as background. By contrast, the material which supplies the main points of the discourse is known as foreground.

Another tendency within the functional approach to SLA is the Concept-Oriented Approach, which identifies the central issue as the “need to express a given concept”

and thus the “need to map certain functions (i.e. concepts) that the learner wants to express to the form that she or he needs to express it with.” (Gass and Selinker (2008), p. 212)

As discussed in this subsection, the functional approach mainly focuses on the im-portance of the communicative and conversational competences, since pragmatic com-municative needs are argued to be the main driver to learn an L2. Our research was strongly based on this assumption and developed a computer assisted dialogue game, with which conversations with L2 native speakers could be imitated and trained. In the CALL-SLT dialogue scenarios, the pragmatic communicative need is represented by the component that students need to achieve their goal of being understood by the (L2 native speaking) cartoon characters in the video prompts. We also took into account the findings of the discourse hypothesis by putting our main focus on students’ conver-sational skills. We did this by providing interactive dialogue scenarios that represented meaningful and real-life communication settings. The pedagogical value of our lesson designs is discussed in more detail in Chapter 5.

2.3.3 Sociocultural Approach

A final approach to SLA – the social perspective – focuses on the interactional (or social) part of language learning, as defined by Gass and Selinker (2008), p. 521:

A theory [...] that considers knowledge/learning arises from a social context. Learn-ing, being socially mediated, comes from face-to-face interaction. Knowledge is internalized from learners jointly constructing knowledge in dyadic interactions.

The sociocultural approach to SLA was mainly characterized by the Russian psy-chologist Vygotsky who introduced the idea of cognitive development arising as a result of social interaction, where speaking and thinking are tightly connected (Lightbown and Spada (2006)). Vygotsky’s theory is based on the four concepts of mediation, regula-tion, internalizaregula-tion, and the Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD).

Mediation describes general human activity that is mediated by symbolic artifacts or tools, which mediate the relationship between humans and the social world around them. Similarly, mediation describes language as a tool that mediates thought and allows humans to go beyond their immediate environment and think and talk about things which are outside of their physical and temporal proximity (Gass and Selinker (2008)).

Regulation is a form of mediation, controlling human behavior (on a mental, phys-ical, or social level). It is usually divided into a continuum of three succeeding sub-categories as defined by Lantolf and Thorne (2007):

1. Object-regulation: the use of objects as a way to support thinking or to regulate mental activity; usually applied in child learning

2. Other-regulation: instead of objects, learning is regulated by others, including explicit and implicit mediation

3. Self-regulation: activities can be accomplished with minimal or no external sup-port

The last phase – self-regulation – is closely linked to the third concept of sociocultural learning, which is internalization. Winegar (1997), p. 31, defines internalization as “a negotiated process that reorganizes the relationship of the individual to her or his social environment and generally carries it into future performance.” Or as Vygotsky stated (Vygotsky (1987), p. 163): “Every psychological function appears twice, first between people on the interpsychological plane and then within the individual on the intrapsy-chological plane.” A common practice of internalization is imitation, also known as private speech in sociocultural theory (e.g. Ohta (2001); Lantolf and Y´a˜nez (2003)).

Private speech is “utterances spoken not for social communication, but for individual cognitive or regulatory purposes.” (Herschensohn and Young-Scholten (2013), p. 727)

The fourth concept is the theory of theZone of Proximal Development, defined by Vygotsky (Vygotsky (1978), p. 86) as:

The distance between the actual development level as determined by independent problem solving and the level of potential development as determined through problem solving under adult guidance or in collaboration with more capable peers.

This concept is in some ways similar to the i+1 of Krashen’s Input Hypothesis. How-ever, the difference is that the ZPD is a metaphorical place where knowledge is co-constructed based on the interaction with an interlocutor, whereas the input in Krashen’s hypothesis comes from the outside and focuses more on the structural elements of lan-guage (Lightbown and Spada (2006)).

As far as our research is concerned, we mainly considered the social (or interactional) part of language learning by providing exercises that used language in meaningful in-teractions. By means of our multimedia system prompts (c.f. Chapter 4, section 4.5), learners were provided with a real-life setting that imitated the social component of language in a virtual environment.

2.4 Motivation

One specific aspect of SLA that applies to all of the theories addressed in earlier sections, is motivation. Motivation provides the basis for this research’s hypothesis concerning the influence of customized CALL on a learner’s motivation. Next to discussing the importance of motivation in learning an L2, a relatively recent approach to increasing motivation, which is gamification, will be introduced. This section addresses the fol-lowing two questions: 1) How can a student’s motivation to learn an L2 be explained, and 2) How can this motivation be generated or increased.

D¨ornyei (2005) divides SLA motivation research into three epochs, similar to SLA research: The first phase is defined as the social psychological period, which started in 1959 and lasted until 1990. In the 1990s, a cognitive-situated period of research emerged, before theprocess-oriented periodwas established in the 21^st century. In the subsequent subsections, the characteristics of these three periods are discussed.

2.4.1 Social Psychological Period

The social psychological epoch was characterized by Gardner’s motivation theory and the notion of integrative motivation (Gardner and Lambert (1959)). Gardner and

Lambert state that a learner’s sense of identification with a target language culture and its people significantly influences their motivation and hence also their learning success. Integrative motivation comprises the three dimensions of integrativeness, at-titudes towards the learning situation, and motivation, where (according to Masogret and Gardner (2003), p.172 - 173) integrativeness is defined as “an openness to iden-tify [. . . ] with another language community”; attitudes toward the learning situation refers to “the individual’s reaction to anything associated with the immediate context in which the language is taught,” and motivation refers to “goal-directed behavior”

such as having goals, desires and aspirations, and being persistent and attentive to the task at hand. More concretely, Gardner (2010) measured motivation (as part of the Attitude/Motivation Test Battery(AMTB)) on the basis of three components: 1) moti-vational intensity, 2) desire to learn the language, and 3) attitudes toward learning the language. Next to the motivation component, Gardner added the notion oforientation that can also have an influence on motivation. In contrast to motivation, orienta-tions are “the overall aim, purpose, direction, and/or goal of the activity,” (Gardner (2010), p. 16) where it is distinguished between integrative and instrumental orienta-tions. While integrative orientations reflect a learner’sdesireto become part of the L2 community, instrumental orientations imply “practical benefits for the individual.”

Gardner’s study was based on the assumption that students are motivated to learn a second language if they want to belong to the L2 community, if they have a positive attitude towards everything that the L2 implies, such as its culture and people, and if they are ambitious about reaching their goal of mastering the L2. Furthermore, he assumed that students’ motivation is higher if their main orientation is of an integrative nature, implying that the learners’ desire to integrate into the L2 community drives their motivation.

Based on these characteristics, Gardner’s motivation theory was criticized for its lack of universality. Since the theory was largely influenced by the researcher’s bilingual Canadian environment, where the integrative orientation and motivation was naturally given, motivation in monolingual countries was not demonstrated, where the integra-tive motivation to be part of the L2 community would most likely be lower.

Clément’s theory of linguistic self-confidence introduced another trend in socio-psychological SLA motivation research (e.g. Clément et al. (1977)). This theory sug-gests that learners who feel confident about the L2 are more motivated than learners who are less self-confident. Dörnyei (2005), p. 73, defines L2 self-confidence as “the belief that a person has the ability to produce results, accomplish goals, or perform tasks competently.” In contrast to Gardner’s integrative motivation theory, Clément’s notion of self-confidence is more easily portable to different SLA scenarios, as L2 input concerning both language and culture can – next to communication with native L2 speakers – also happen through various media channels (Dörnyei (2005)).

2.4.2 Cognitive Situated Period

In the 1990s, the cognitive-situated theory to SLA motivation replaced the previously predominant social psychological school. Three representative theories of this approach include theself-determination theory, theattribution theory, and task-motivation.

The self-determination theory emphasized the influence of extrinsic and intrinsic motives to learn an L2, where intrinsic is defined as a student’s joy in learning a language and extrinsic refers to external pressure that is put on a student to achieve his or her aim, as a reward or punishment (Deci and Ryan (1985)). Intrinsic motivation typically covers three levels, according to Noels et al. (2003), p. 38: 1) “the motivation for doing an activity for the feeling associated with exploring new ideas and developing knowl-edge” (intrinsic motivation knowledge), 2) “sensations related to attempting to master a task or achieve a goal” (intrinsic motivation accomplishment), and 3) “sensations stimulated by performing a task” (intrinsic motivation stimulation). Those notions of intrinsic motivation can be compared to Gardner’s integrative orientation, as discussed in the previous subsection and are assumed to be natural motivation enhancers. The main point of the self-determination theory concerns the level of self-determination in extrinsic motivation. Noels et al. (2003) distinguish betweenexternal regulation (deter-mined by external sources),introjected regulation(“reasons that pertain to performing

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 55-76)