Learner Strategies
This paper considers the internal processes which account for how the learner handles
input data and how the learner utilizes L2 resources in the production of messages in the L2. It
looks at the internal mechanism, or the ‘Black box’.
A learner strategy is a complete account of SLA involves both showing how the input is shaped
to make it learnable (an inter-organism perspective), and how the learner works on the input to
turn it into intake (an intra-organism perspective). Learner strategies are all approaches and
techniques that the learner employs to learn L2.
The learner has two types of L2 knowledge: Declarative and Procedural.
Declarative knowledge: is ‘knowing that’ it consists of internalized L2 rules and memorized
chunks of language.
Procedural knowledge: is ‘knowing how’ it consists of the strategies and procedures employed
by the learner to process L2 data for acquisition and for use.
When we talk about acquiring L2, we normally mean declarative knowledge, as the learner is
considered to have access already to a set of procedures for learning the L2.
Procedural knowledge can be subdivided initially into social and cognitive components.
(1) The social component: comprises the behavioural strategies used by the learner to
manage interactional opportunities (i.e. the use of L2 in face-to-face contact or in contact
with L2 text).
Fillmore (1979) describes a number of general social strategies used by five Spanishspeaking children. To begin with:
A- The children adopted the strategy of joining a group and acting as if they
understood what was going on, even if they did not.
B- They sought to give the impression that they could speak the language by utilizing
a few carefully chosen words.
C- They also relied on their friends to help them out when they were in
communicative difficulty.
1
(2) The cognitive component of procedural knowledge comprises the various mental
processes involved in internalizing and automatizing new L2 knowledge in conjunction
with other knowledge sources to communicate in the L2.
On the other hand, learning processes account for how learner accumulates new L2 rules
and automatizes existing ones by attending to input and by simplifying through the use of
existing knowledge.
The processes involved in using L2 knowledge consist of production and reception
strategies and also communication strategies:
(1) Production Strategies are defined by Tarone (1981) as attempts to use existing L2
knowledge efficiently and clearly with a minimum effort.
(2) Reception strategies occur when the speaker is not able to communicate his original
communicative goal in the way he planned to, and so he is forced to reduce the goal or
to locate alternative means to express it.
(3) Communicative strategies are the result of an initial failure to implement a production
plan.
Q// How we depend on communicative strategies?
1- Language use is characterized by both production and reception strategies, which
operate when the learner utilizes available resources easily and subconsciously.
2- It is also characterized by communication strategies, which operate when the learner
needs to compensate for inadequate means and which, as result, are likely to involve
greater effort and to be closer to consciousness.
A framework of the different learner strategies is provided in figure (1) below. It should be
recognized that these strategies are not special to the learner. Native speakers must be
considered to use the same strategy types.
2
Declarative knowledge (i.e. L2
rules and chunks of speech)
L2 knowledge
Social Processes/strategies
(i.e. devices for managing interaction in L2)
Procedural
knowledge
For learning L2 (i.e. devices
for internalizing or automatizing
L2 knowledge.)
Cognitive
strategies/
processes
Production/reception processes
and strategies (i.e. devices for using
existing resources automatically)
For using L2
Communication strategies
(i.e. devices for compensating for
inadequate resources)
3
In particular, researchers do not use terms like; ‘process’, ‘strategy’, or ‘principle’
consistently. Sometimes, they use them as synonyms for general for general mental
operations, but sometimes they use them to differentiate operations involved in language
processing.
Faerch and Kasper (1980), for instance, make a clear distinction between ‘strategy’ and
‘process’. They define ‘strategy’ as plans for controlling the order in which a sequence of
operations is to be performed. And ‘process’ as the operations involved either in the
development of a plan (the planning process) or in the realization of a plan (the realization
of process).
goal
Planning process
plan
plan
realization process
action
action
Learning Strategies:
Strategies varied as: memorization, overgeneralization, inferencing and prefabricated
patterns have all been treated under the general heading of ‘learning strategies’.
The basis of the framework is the distinction between two types of linguistic product:
Formulaic speech and Creative speech. These are defined below.
1- Formulaic speech
It consists of expressions which are learned as unanalysable wholes and employed on
particular occasion. Lyon (1968, p177) states that it can be observed in the speech of native
speakers as well as learners.
4
Krashen and Scarcella (1978) distinguish between routine (to refer to whole utterances
learnt as memorized chunks) and patterns (to refer to utterances that are only partially
unanalysed and have one or more open slots) e.g. “Can I have----?”
Ellis (1984) also suggests that formulaic speech can consist of entire scripts, such as
greeting sequences, which the learner can memorize because they are more or less fixed and
predictable. Formulaic speech has been observed to be very common in SLA, partially in
the stages of development. The typical chunks are:
1: I don’t know.
2: Can I have -----?
3: I wanna ------4: How do you do?
5: I can’t speak English.
Ellis (1984) notes that there are three classroom learners rapidly developed a number of
formulas to meet the basic communicative needs in an ESL classroom where English
functioned as the medium of communication. It has been suggested by Krashen and
Scarcella (1978) that the learners develop formulas as a response to communicative
pressure.
Krashen (1982) argues that formulaic speech occurs when the learner is forced to speak
before he is ready. Left to his own devices, he will engage in a “silent period” while he
builds up sufficient L2 rules to speak creatively.
The important point is that formulaic
speech is closely tied to the performance of specific meanings, and that it is common in
early SLA because it reduces the learning burden while maximizing communicative ability.
-What are the learning strategies involved in acquiring formulaic speech?
It is very unlikely that these are the same as those involved in the acquisition of rules
responsible for creative speech. One suggestion is that formulaic speech may involve the
right hemisphere of the brain rather than the left hemisphere, which is responsible for the
creative language function in most people. The right hemisphere is generally considered to
involve holistic processing (Seliger 1982).
5
That is:
1- The learner subjugates the individual parts that make up an entity to the whole.
2- The learner perceives the whole patterns as a gestalt rather than the elements that
constitute it.
3- In the case of formulaic speech, the learner may operate a strategy of pattern
memorization. He attends to the input and, using mechanisms located in the right
hemisphere, identifies a number of commonly occurring whole utterances in terms of
the contexts in which they are used. He is aided by the facts that:
(a) The patterns are highly frequent, and
(b) Each person is linked to communicative function which the learner is motivated to
perform.
1- The strategy of pattern memorization: is a psycholinguistic strategy. It occurs without
the learner needing to activate it consciously and it has no overt manifestation.
2- The strategy of pattern imitation: is the behavioural equivalent of pattern
memorization. It is behavioural strategy because it is usually consciously activated and
because it can be observed when it takes place. It is common in classrooms where the
audiolingual techniques of pattern practice are used.
1- Pattern of imitation involves the deliberate and methodical copying of
whole utterances or parts of utterances used in the speech of an
interlocutor.
2- It occurs in SLA when the learner imitates the previous utterance of a
native speaker.
3- It also involves the right hemisphere abilities.
It has been suggested in both first and second language acquisition research that formulaic
speech serves as the bases for creative speech. That is, the learner comes to realize that
utterances initially understood and used as wholes consist of discrete constitutes which can be
combined with other constitutes in a variety of rule-bound ways.
6
Clark (1974) illustrates how in the first acquisition, new structures can result from the
juxtaposition of two routines or from the embedding of one within another.
Seliger (1982) proposes that patterns initially learnt through right hemisphere abilities are
brought to the attention of left hemisphere abilities, which work on them in order to analyse
out their parts. Ellis (1984) shows how the “I don’t know” formula is built on, by combining it
with other formulas:
e.g. “That one I don’t know”
Fillmore (1979) states that the learner gradually notices variation in the formulaic structures
according to the situation and also detects similarities in the part of different formulas. Thus
earlier utterances, learnt and used as formulas, are often more grammatical in appearance than
later utterances, which are constructed from rules. To account for this process, a strategy of
pattern analysis can be posited.
3- Strategy of pattern analysis: This works by comparing formulas and looking for
similarities and differences. It ascribes to the learner something of the skills of a linguist
seeking to identify the constituent structure of utterances.
There is not total agreement about pattern analysis, Krashen and Scarcella, (1978), argue that
formulaic speech, and rule-created speech are unrelated. They claim that the learner does not
unpackage the linguistic information contained in the formulas, but internalized L2 rules by
attending to the input in accordance with the ‘natural’ sequence of development. They see the
process of ‘creative construction’ of L2 rules as entirely separate.
Formulaic speech is an important factor in SLA, but is probably only a major factor in the early
SLA. The strategies of pattern memorization, pattern imitation and (more controversially)
pattern analysis are to be seen as major learning strategies in comparison with those
contributing directly to the creative rule system.
7
2- Creative speech
Creative speech is the product of L2 rules. These are ‘creative’ in the Chomskian sense that
they permit the L2 learner to produce entirely novel sentences.
Faerch and Kasper (1980) distinguish strategies involved in:
1- establishing interlanguage rules, and
2- strategies involved in automatizing interlanguage knowledge.
In establishing interlanguage rules, they distinguish two basic and related processes:
1- Hypothesis formation
2- Hypothesis testing
1- Hypothesis
formation:
Faerch and Kasper (1983) suggest that hypotheses about
interlanguage rules are formed in three ways:
1- By using prior linguistic knowledge (i.e. first language knowledge, existing L2
knowledge, or knowledge of other language)
2- By inducing new rules from the input data.
3- By a combination of (1) and (2).
There are two general strategies, each with a number of more specific strategies associated with
them. The two general strategies are: Simplification and inferencing.
1- Simplification: consists of attempts by the learner to control the range of hypotheses he
attempts to build at any single stage in his development by restricting hypothesis formation
to those hypotheses which are relatively easy to form and will facilitate communication.
Simplification strategies are:
1- Transfer: involves the use of the learner’s L1 as a basis for forming hypotheses about
the L2.
8
2- Overgeneralization: involves the use of existing L2 knowledge by extending it to new
interlanguage forms.
Both strategies can be seen as manifestation of the same basic strategy of relying on prior
knowledge to facilitate new learning.
The use of a strategy, whatever its type, is governed by such factors:
1- Stage of development.
2- The linguistic properties of the L2.
3- The learning context.
Not all researchers agree that simplification is a learning strategy, Faerch and Kasper (1980)
argue that strategies such as simplifying, regularizing, overgeneralization, and redundancy
reducing are, in fact, strategies of non-learning, as they prevent formation of correct
hypotheses.
Learning does not only involve the formation of correct hypotheses which are systematically
amended until the final correct hypothesis is arrived at.
Another objection to the notion of simplification is that it does not make sense to refer to the
learner as simplifying what he does not possess.
Corder (1981) has argued that SLA should be viewed as a process of ‘complexification’. This
confuses product and process again. While Corder is right to claim that the learner cannot
simplify L2 rules he has not acquired, it is perfectly feasible to argue that he simplifies the
burden of learning by restricting hypothesis formation depending on attending to input.
Even if we accept that the product cannot be simplified, it is still viable to argue that the process
is simplified. This is the position adopted by Meisel (1983).
He uses the term ‘elaborative simplification’ to refer to the learner process of adjusting what
has been acquired to what has been acquired before, by forming approximations of the rule
represented in the input.
9
Simplification is sometimes listed as a production strategy rather than a learning strategy
(Tarone,1981). That is the learner is attributed with L2 rules but is unable to utilize them
because of language processing difficulties. He therefore simplifies them (e.g. by using some
but omitting others). Meisel refers to this as ‘restrictive simplification’. Simplification is
clearly an important aspect of production.
Q/ Is simplification a positive or negative?
A/ simplification plays a positive role in that it delimits the proportion of hypotheses
which are formed by attending to input (the information that the learner has acquired,
through inferencing) at any time.
Q/ Simplification is both learning strategy and production strategy. How?
The types of ‘Simplification’ which are referred by Meisel (1983) are:
1- Elaborative simplification: refers to the learner’s process of adjusting what has been
acquired before, by forming approximations of the rule represented in the input. This
contrasts with Corder’s objection of simplification when he viewed it as
“complexification’.
2- Restrictive simplification: is referred as so by Meisel when Tarone (1981) states that
simplification as sometimes listed as production strategy rather than learning strategy.
This means that the learner is attributed with L2 rules but is unable to utilize them
because of language processing difficulties. He therefore simplifies them (e.g. but using
some but omitting others).
2-Inferencing: is the means by which the learner forms hypotheses by attending to input.
That is, in cases where the appropriate L2 rules cannot be successfully derived by means of
transfer or overgeneralization of existing interlanguage knowledge the learner will need to
induce the rule from the input. For example a Spanish learner of English will not succeed in
10
acquiring the rule for negative sentences on the basis of simplification. A transfer strategy
might lead to the ‘no + V’ rule (e.g. No like bear). Such a rule might also be derived by
overgeneralization (i.e. ‘no’ is overgeneralized as the negator of verbs as well as nouns). But
in order to arrive at the correct rule for generating sentences like:
“I don’t like beer”.
The Spanish learner will need to attend to L2 input and to form the appropriate hypothesis.
Carton (1971), for instance, discusses inferencing in terms of three types of cues:
1- Intralingual (i.e. cues derived from the morphological and syntactic regularity of the
L2)
2- Interlingual (i.e. cues derived from loans between languages where similar forms are
hypothesized)
3- Extralingual or contextual (i.e. cues based on regularities in the objective world which
make predictions possible).
Bialystok (1983) also identifies three types of inferencing, but they are not the same as
Carton’s:
1- Inferencing from implicit knowledge (i.e. making explicit L2 knowledge that is only
intuitive to begin with)
2- Inferencing from other knowledge (i.e. using knowledge of other languages, in particular
L1, and/or knowledge of the world)
3- Inferencing from context
In both Carton’s and Bialystok’s frameworks, inferencing is treated as a general process that
incorporates both inferencing and simplification.
(1)
Intralingual inferencing: involves a process similar to that of pattern analysis of
formulaic speech. The difference being that in this case is the learner operates on
external L2 data rather than internal L2 data. The use of the strategy may be governed
by innate linguistic or cognitive predisposition to attend to specific feature of the
input. If they are linguistic, they will resemble the ‘universal grammar’ which
11
Chomsky believes the first language learner is endowed with. If they are cognitive,
they will involve the use of general perceptual strategies such as those listed by Slobin
as ‘operating principles’.
(2)
Exralingual inferencing: is one of the most powerful devices available to the learner
for building hypotheses from external input. It consists of paying attention to features
of the physical environment and using these to make L2 input comprehensible. By
observing the non-linguistic correlates of utterances, the learner can convert input
that is beyond his competence into intake. Extralingual inferencing serves as the
principal means that the beginner uses to formulate hypotheses from the external
input.
2-Hypothesis testing
It was pointed out that learners may make errors in order to test out hypotheses about the L2
rule system. Once the learner has developed a hypothesis, he can test it out in a variety of ways.
Faerch and Kasper (1983) list these ways:
1- Receptively (i.e. the learner attends to L2 input and compares his hypotheses with the
data provided-by means of intake analysis.
2- Productively (i.e. the learner produces L2 utterances containing rules representing the
hypotheses he has formed and assesses correctness in terms of feedback received)
3- Metalingually (i.e. the learner consults a native speaker, teacher, grammar or dictionary
to establish the validity of a hypothesis).
4- Interactionally (i.e. the learner elicits a repair from his interlocutor.)
There have been several criticisms of the hypothesis testing view of SLA. Most of these have
to do with the role of feedback. It has been observed that the provision of negative feedback
(i.e. corrections) does not appear to lead to more accurate performance, as least not
immediately.
Even when the negative feedback is provided in the course of ordinary conversation (e.g. in
the form of expansions and paraphrases serving as checks and requests for clarification), there
12
is still no evidence to suggest that the learner amends his hypothesis immediately. The
‘falsification idea’ is not feasible.
The hypothesis testing model is still viable. These criticisms relate to how hypotheses are
rejected. The important process may be hypothesis confirmation. The learner often builds two
or more hypotheses relating to the form of a single rule. The role of feedback may be to enable
him to decide which hypothesis to accept finally.
Automatization Processes
The variability of interlanguage phenomena is also a reflection of rules which have been
differentially automatized. Faerch and Kasper (1983) distinguish types of practice:
1- Formal practice, and
2- Functional practice. Depending on whether the focus is on formal features of the L2
or communicative endeavours.
Automatization involves both:
1- The practising of L2 rules which enter interlanguage at the formal end of stylistic
continuum.
2- The practising of rules which are already in use in the ‘vernacular’.
SUMMARY
The processes and strategies responsible for creative speech are summarized in table (1).
They are typically subconscious and conscious procedures:
1- Subconscious procedures (i.e. they are spontaneously activated by the learner while he
is focused on some communicative purpose)
2- Conscious (i.e. they are deliberately activated by the learner with the intention of
increasing his L2 knowledge)
Some procedures, metalingual hypothesis testing and formal practice, are invariably
conscious.
13
Process
Strategy
Simplification
(1) Overgeneralization
Hypothesis formation
(2) Transfer
Inferencing
(1) Intralingual (via intake analysis)
(2) Extralingual
Receptive (via intake analysis)
Hypothesis testing
Productive
Metalingual
Interactional
Automatization
Formal practice
Functional practice
Table (1) The processes and strategies responsible for creative speech
14