Multilingualism and Multiple Scope as a
Trigger to improving EFL Phonological
Acquisition
Yvon ROLLAND
University Professor
Second Language Acquisition Research
CCLC EA4078
University of Reunion
Introduction
• Learning and Acquisition (Krashen, 1988/Cohen, 1998)
• Multilingualism (Kramsch, 2008)
• Phonetics and Phonology (Roach, 2000)
Our analysis will be threefold:
*Multilingual competence and multiple scope
*Obstacles on multilingual learning
*Suggestions with the aim of improving multilingual learning and EFL
phonological acquisition
Multiple scope and multilingualism as a means
of improving EFL phonological acquisition
•
•
Psychological, linguistic and learning paradigms
Phonetics and phonology deep in the center of learners’personalities
(Krashen, 1988)
• Primary and secondary learners are multilingual subjects
• Languages should not be learned separately (CEFRL/CECRL)
• Development of the multilingual competence based on dynamic models
(Moore, 2006)
• Dynamic itinerary based on direct cognitive and indirect metacognitive
strategies, including social and affective strategies (Chamot, 1987 & Oxford,
1990)
• Dynamic multilingual phonological processing at two levels (Randall, 2007):
A psychological cognitive level in terms of linguistic, learning, humanizing
symbolic paradigms
The implementation metacognitive level in terms of neuroscientific paradigms
A psychological cognitive level in terms of linguistic, learning,
humanizing symbolic paradigms
*Linguistic paradigms:
• Phonological structuralism & behaviorist conditioning
•
•
•
IPA Audio-oral methodology = minimal pairs : « not-not-hot » nɒt/nɒt/hɒt/
Discrimination exercises=tongue twisters « Hungry Hippos Hate Horribly Hot Hamburgers »
Associative process=Flashcards « oh!=no! » /əʊ/ /nəʊ/
A psychological cognitive level in terms of linguistic, learning, humanizing
symbolic paradigms
*Linguistic paradigms:
• Phonological structuralism & behaviorist conditioning
•
•
•
IPA Audio-oral methodology = minimal pairs : « not-not-hot » nɒt/nɒt/hɒt/
Discrimination exercises=tongue twisters « Hungry Hippos Hate Horribly Hot
Hamburgers »
Associative process=Flashcards « boat=no! » /bəʊt/ /nəʊ/
• Contrastive analysis (Randall, 2007)
A psychological cognitive level in terms of linguistic, learning, humanizing
symbolic paradigms
*Linguistic paradigms:
• Phonological structuralism & behaviorist conditioning
•
•
•
IPA Audio-oral methodology = minimal pairs : « not-not-hot » nɒt/nɒt/hɒt/
Discrimination exercises=tongue twisters « Hungry Hippos Hate Horribly Hot Hamburgers »
Associative process=Flashcards « boat=no! » /bəʊt/ /nəʊ/
• Contrastive analysis (Randall, 2007)
• Generative phonology & nativism/innate universals (Chomsky’s LAD)
A psychological cognitive level in terms of linguistic, learning, humanizing
symbolic paradigms
*Linguistic paradigms:
• Phonological structuralism & behaviorist conditioning
•
•
•
IPA Audio-oral methodology = minimal pairs : « not-not-hot » nɒt/nɒt/hɒt/
Discrimination exercises=tongue twisters « Hungry Hippos Hate Horribly Hot Hamburgers »
Associative process=Flashcards « boat=no! » /bəʊt/ /nəʊ/
• Contrastive analysis (Randall, 2007)
• Generative phonology & nativism/innate universals (Chomsky’s LAD)
• Sociolinguistics & pragmatic linguistics
•
•
Speech Act Theory
Varieties: « tomato » /təˈmɑ:təʊ/ /təˈmeɪtəʊ/
• Théorie de l’Énonciation / Speech analysis – marks / (Culioli, 1982)
•
PRL = comparative analysis favouring multilingualism « name » « zoreil » « réveil »
• Dynamic Model of Multilingualism (Herdina & Jessner, 2006)
A psychological cognitive level in terms of linguistic, learning, humanizing
symbolic paradigms
•
•
•
•
Linguistic paradigms
Learning paradigms :
Interactionnism (frequency, comprehension & collaboration)
Environmentalism (Andersen, 1983) & the Acculturation Model (Brown,
1980)
A psychological cognitive level in terms of linguistic, learning, humanizing
symbolic paradigms
•
Linguistic paradigms:
• Learning paradigms :
•
•
Interactionnism (frequency, comprehension & collaboration)
Environmentalism (Andersen, 1983) & the Acculturation Model (Brown, 1980)
• Humanizing paradigms
•
•
•
Socioconstructivism & social interaction (Vygotsky, 1962)
Innate cultural psychology (Bruner, 1983) teacher guiding pupils
Social learning theory (2007) group learning
The implementation metacognitive level in neuroscientific terms
• The connectionist approach / parallel processing units
• Liberman (1967) speech motor perception theory :
perception favouring production = echoic memory / working memory
(Randall, 2007)
The implementation metacognitive level in neuroscientific terms
• The connectionist approach / parallel processing units
Liberman (1967) speech motor perception theory :
perception favouring production = echoic memory / working memory
(Randall, 2007)
• Neuroconstructivism / innate and constructivist complementary principles
Karmiloff-Smith & Gombert (1990) the metaphonological development
The implementation metacognitive level in neuroscientific terms
•
The connectionist approach / parallel processing units
Liberman (1967) speech motor perception theory :
Perception favouring production = echoic memory / working memory
(Randall, 2007)
• Neuroconstructivism / innate and constructivist complementary principles
Karmiloff-Smith & Gombert (1990) the metaphonological development
• Somatic theories of the self / body & mind
Damasio (1994), Kramsch (2008), Goleman (1997)
Rational cognition related to emotional intelligence, limbic affective brain
Multisensory approach Auditory suplemented by visual & kinaesthetic
emotional channels
Pedagogical consequences
Obstacles to multilingual learning
• Scientific obstacles
The age factor & the phonological sieve (Troubetskoy, 1986)
• Educational obstacles
Negative social representations
L1 not taken into account
Unsatisfactory continuum between primary and secondary tuition
Cartesian rational culture
• Teaching obstacles
Form basics neglected or excessive form work killing communication
Research Methodology
• Experimental research / qualitative , descriptive and
inductive approach ( Seliger & Shohamy, 1990-Maxwell,
1999)
• 4 Master 2 trainees (MEEF PE & anglais )
• Survey (4 primary classes - cycle 3, 4 secondary classes palier 1 collège)
1. Quel âge as tu ?
2. Quelle langue parles tu à la maison ? coche la bonne réponse
le créole
le français
les deux
3. As tu de bons résultats en français ? répond par oui ou par non
4. Combien de temps as tu appris l’anglais ?
5. As tu de bons résultats en anglais ? répond par oui ou par non
Research Methodology
• Questionnaire (PEL-CARAP/FRPA) to 50 pupils
Questionnaire Apprenants plurilingues d’anglais (Portfolio A1-CARAP Savoirs et savoir
faire)
Je le fais
Oui Non
Je me demande si le créole et le
français me servent à apprendre l’anglais
Je me demande si l’anglais ressemble à ce
que je connais
Je note les ressemblances et les différences
Je mélange parfois les langues
Je sais
Les langues sont plus ou moins différentes
Je sais reconnaître et reproduire les sons en anglais
Je sais reconnaître les syllabes accentuées en anglais
Je sais quand la voix monte ou descend
Oui Non
Research Methodology
• Introductory Test (Introduce yourself in 30 seconds) : A1 Level
(Harris/Tagliante, 2005)
Pronunciation / Rhythm criteria
A1 Oral production « I can introduce myself »
Intelligibility degree (Harris/Tagliante, 2005)
A=Perfectly intelligible
B=Intelligible
C=Fairly intelligible
D=Unintelligible
Practical answers to build up a better mulitlingual phonological acquisition
We should
• Start learning as early as kindergarten
• Know the learners’mother tongues
• Integrate multilingualism with the FRPA(CARAP) and ELP(PEL)
• Set up interaction, visual & kinaesthetic multisensory steps
• Work on tongue twisters, games, chants, poetry & storytelling
• Set up regular multilingual comparative phonological activities
Practical answers to build up a better mulitlingual phonological acquisition
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
In our sample groups, we actually
Favoured listening, reproducing, interacting, & singing
Worked on tongue twisters, phonological games & chants
Took the mother tongue into account
Integrated multisensory steps
Look & listen, listen & mime, listen & feel, listen & show, listen & click,
listen & do, mime & say, click & say, feel & say
Favoured affective emotional fun
Therefore favoured motivational strategies & memory
Set up a metaphonological process from intuition to awareness
Practical answers to build up a better mulitlingual phonological acquisition
Same questionnaire given to the same pupils
Answer results were inverted showing that a majority were now aware of
the multilingual phonological dimension.
Same A1 oral production test based on the same criteria (« Introduce your
best friend » )
Again the results were inverted, a majority was now intelligible (129 out of
150)
Conclusion
• Our hypotheses & qualitative experiments were not invalidated
• We must integrate cognitive, metacognitive, social & affective strategies
in teaching
• We must defeat negative social representations
• There should be a balance between the psychological cognitive level & the
implementation neuroscientific one
• We must not forget that there is reason in emotion