English 507
Writing in a Second Language
Session Six Notes
Goals/Objectives:
1) To begin to understand the nature of Innatist Theories of Second Language Acquisition and their implications for second
language writers
2) To begin to understand the nature of Cognitivist Theories of Second Language Acquisition and their implications for
second language writers
3) To begin to understand the nature of Social/Constructivist Theories of Second Language Acquisition and their
implications for second language writers
Questions/Main Ideas
(Please write these down as
you think of them)
Notes:
SLA Theories
Second Language Acquisition theories generally fall into three categories:
Innatist Models
Cognitive Models
Social-Constructivist Models
SLA Theories – Innatist/ Nativist Models
Purport to explain acquisition by positing an innate biological endowment that makes learning
possible
This is known as the Language Acquisition Device (LAD)
Innatist Models
Chomsky’s Universal Grammar
Chomsky posits innate knowledge of substantive universals such as syntactic categories
(subject, object, noun, verb) and distinctive phonological features, and of formal universals
(abstract principles governing possible rules and parameters of human languages)
Innatist Models
The main argument is referred to as the “logical problem” of language acquisition:
Without some such endowment (first or second) language learning would be impossible because
the input data are insufficiently “rich” to allow acquisition
Much less to occur so uniformly and so quickly in about five years for child language
Innatist Models
According to the Chomskyan perspective, the input is deficient, or “poor”, in two ways:
First, it is claimed to be degenerate in the sense that it is marred by performance features
Examples include: false starts, slips, fragments, and ungrammaticality
Innatist Models
Therefore, so the argument goes, it is an inadequate base for language learning
Second, and more serious, the input is “degenerate” in various ways
Most importantly, it does not contain “negative evidence”:
Innatist Models
Information from which the learner could work out what is not possible in a given language
Overt negative evidence is unavailable because caregivers react to the truth value, not the form,
of children’s utterances and rarely correct ungrammatical speech
Innatist Models
Covert negative evidence is also unavailable, since, even if they hear ungrammatical sentences,
they have no way to know which ones are acceptable and which ones unacceptable
Hence, the grammars that learners in fact evolve are said to be “underdetermined” by the input
Called “poverty of the stimulus”
Innatist Models
UG assumes that language consists of a set of principles (abstract rules) that characterize core
grammars of all natural languages
However, in addition to principles that are invariable across natural languages, are parameters
that vary across languages
Innatist Models
Cook helps explain: Overall there is a principle that drivers have to keep consistently to one side
of the road, which is taken for granted by all drivers in all countries. Exceptions to this principle,
such as people driving down motorways on the wrong side, rate stories in the media or car
chases in action movies. The principle does not, however, say which side of the road people
should drive on (the parameter)
Innatist Models
A parameter of driving allows the side to be the left side in England and Japan, and the right side
in the USA and France
The parameter has two values or “settings” – left and right
Once a country has opted for one side or the other, it sticks to its choice
Innatist Models
So, a universal principle and a variable parameter together sum up the essence of driving
The principle states the universal requirement on driving: You must choose one side of the road
or the other
The parameter specifies the variation between countries
Innatist Models
How does it work in language learning?
If children have to learn a complex set of abstractions, there must be something other than the
language input to which they are exposed that enables them to learn language with relative ease
and speed
UG is postulated as an innate language facility that limits the extent to which languages can
vary
Innatist Models
That is, it specifies the limits of a possible language
The mental task for learning is therefore greatly reduced if one is equipped with an innate
mechanism that constrains possible grammar formation
Question?
If we take the Chomskyan perspective to be true, what are the implications for teaching ESL writing?
Of the “poverty of the stimulus”?
Of the limitations on language?
Innatist Models
Krashen’s Monitor Model/Monitor Theory
One of the best known and most influential Innatist theories in SLA (through the 1970s and
1980s) is Krashen’s Monitor Model
Innatist Models
In its earliest incarnation, it was an attempt to reconcile two phenomena:
First, a generalization from morpheme studies that there existed a statistically significant
association between the orders of appearance of certain English grammatical morphemes,
accurately supplied in obligatory contexts, in the speech and writing of SL learners of different
ages, L1 backgrounds, and conditions
Innatist Models
Second, disturbances were observed in this “natural order” on certain performance tasks,
specifically the reading and writing tasks, as compared to three other listening and speaking
tasks
Krashen explained this difference by claiming that two separate knowledge systems underlay SL
performance
Innatist Models
The first, and most important, the acquired system, was the product of application by learners
of the same (unspecified) language learning abilities children use for first language acquisition
Consisted of subconscious knowledge of the SL grammar, like the subconscious knowledge
NSs have of their first language
Innatist Models
The second, (and less important to Krashen), the learned system, was the product of formal
instruction (typically classroom language teaching) and comprised conscious knowledge of
“easy” SL grammar rules, like subject-verb agreement
Innatist Models
According to Krashen, the acquired system was typically the only knowledge source speakers
could use in real-time communication, when they were attending to meaning, not to form
The learned system was only accessible when three conditions were met:
Innatist Models
1. There was sufficient time (the task was unspeeded)
2. The learner was focused on form (like during a discrete point grammar test)
3. When the learner knows the rule
Innatist Models
The Natural Order was the surface manifestation of the acquired system
Disturbances were caused by the intrusion of the learned system on performance tasks that
encouraged its use (like writing or reading)
Led to five major claims over a period of time (not all are as equally important):
Innatist Models
1] The Acquisition-Learning Hypothesis:
States that there are two independent ways of learning a SL: acquisition and learning
Acquisition is subconscious (covert)
Learning is conscious (overt)
Innatist Models
2] The Natural Order Hypothesis:
Says that SL rules are acquired in a predictable order, one apparently not determined solely by
linguistic complexity, and certainly not in the order in which the items appear in teaching
syllabuses
IOW, acquisition orders do not reflect instructional sequences
Innatist Models
3] The Monitor Hypothesis:
Encapsulates a relationship between the acquired system and the learned system
The acquired system is the utterance initiator, with the learned system acting in a planning,
editing, and correcting function when the three conditions are met
Innatist Models
4] The Input Hypothesis: attempts to explain how a learner acquires a SL (Krashen calls it the
central claim of Monitor Theory)
It maintains that a SL is acquired through processing comprehensible input, that is language
that is heard or read and understood
Language that is not understood does not help; if it is too advanced, it is just noise in the system
Innatist Models
If the input is too simple (that is, already learned), it won’t help either
Processing along the “natural order” is achieved when a learner at some stage, “i”, of
interlanguage development receives comprehensible input that contains structures (lexis, sounds,
morphology, syntax, etc.) one step beyond the current stage, or structures at “i + 1”
Innatist Models
The unknown structure is understood (the necessary precursor for acquisition) through the help
of linguistic and extra-linguistic context, knowledge of the world, previously acquired linguistic
knowledge, and in a classroom, by means of pictures, translation, and explanation
Innatist Models
5] The Affective Filter Hypothesis: various affective (emotional) factors, (motivation, selfefficacy, anxiety) play a facilitative, but non-causal role in SLA
Lack of motivation, high anxiety, etc., can combine to “raise the filter” to form a “mental
block” which prevents CI from reaching the LAD and thereby being used for acquisition
Innatist Models
A negative affective disposition (a filter that is “up”) constitutes a constraint on the successful
workings of CI
IOW, a positive affect is necessary, but not sufficient, for SLA
To Krashen, comprehensible input is the essential ingredient for second-language acquisition
Innatist Models
Question?
If we take Krashen’s perspective as being true, what are the implications for teaching second language writing?
Of the learning vs. acquisition dichotomy?
Of the input hypothesis?
Of the affective filter?
Cognitive Models
The Perceptual Saliency Approach:
Dan Slobin argues that the similarity in linguistic development across children and across
language is due to the fact that human beings are programmed to perceive and organize
information in certain ways
Cognitive Models
IOW, it is perceptual saliency which drives the learning process, rather than an innate
language-specific module
Something is salient if it is striking or conspicuous.
Something is salient if it is noticeably important.
Cognitive Models
Perceptual saliency has then been used to look at SLA in terms of Learnability/Teachability
This notion implies that structures only become ‘learnable’ when the previous steps on this
inquisitional path have been acquired
Cognitive Models
IOW, learners cannot acquire a complex structure straight away, but have to follow the
developmental route associated with this structure
Question?
What are the implications of this perspective on ESL writing?
Cognitive Models
McLaughlin’s Information Processing Model:
1. Humans are viewed as autonomous and active
2. The mind is a general-purpose, symbol-processing system
3. Complex behavior is composed of simpler processes
Cognitive Models
4. Processes take time
5. The mind is a limited-capacity processor
To learn a second language is to learn a skill, because various aspects of the task must be
practiced and integrated into fluent performance
This requires the automatization of component sub-skills
Cognitive Models
The way in which we process information may be either controlled or automatic
Language learning involves a shift from controlled towards automatic processing
Learners first resort to controlled processing in the L2
This involves the temporary activation of a selection of information nodes in the memory
Cognitive Models
Such processing requires a lot of attentional control on the part of the subject, and is constrained
by the limitations of Short Term Memory (STM)
Through repeated activation, sequences first produced by controlled processing become
automatic
Cognitive Models
Automatized sequences are stored as units in the Long Term Memory (LTM), which means
that they can be made available very rapidly whenever the situation requires it, with minimal
attentional control on the part of the subject
As a result, automatic processes can work in parallel, activating clusters of complex cognitive
skills simultaneously
Cognitive Models
Learning in this view is seen as the movement from controlled to automatic processing via
repeated activation (practice)
When this shift occurs, controlled processes are freed to deal with higher levels of processing
(that is, to the integration of still more complex skill clusters), which explains the incremental
nature of learning
Cognitive Models
It is necessary for simple sub-skills and routines to become automatic before more complex ones
can be tackled
Question?
If we take this perspective to be true, what are the implications?
Cognitive Models
Anderson’s ACT Model (Adaptive Control of Thought) 1983; 1985
It enables declarative knowledge (knowledge that¸ not unlike controlled processes) to become
procedural knowledge (knowledge how, not unlike automatic knowledge)
Cognitive Models
One of the major differences is that Anderson posits three kinds of memory:
1) a working memory (short-term memory)
and two kinds of long term memory
2) a declarative LTM and
3) a procedural LTM
There is a difference in knowing that and knowing how
Cognitive Models
Anderson states that the move from declarative to procedural knowledge takes place in three
stages:
1) The cognitive stage: a description of the skill is learned (STM)
2) The associative stage: a method for performing the skill is worked out (DLTM)
3) The autonomous stage: the skill becomes more and more rapid and automatic (PLTM)
Social Constructivist/ Interactionist Models
Long’s Interaction Hypothesis:
For his doctoral research, Long conducted a study of sixteen NS-NS and sixteen NS-NNS pairs
Subjects carried out the same set of face-to-face oral tasks (informal conversation, giving
instructions for games, playing the games, etc.)
Interactionist Models
He showed that there was little linguistic difference between the talk produced by NS-NS and
NS-NNS pairs, as shown on several measures of grammatical complexity
However, there were significant differences between the two sets of conversations, when these
were analyzed from the point of view of conversational management and language functions
performed
Interactionist Models
Specifically, in order to solve ongoing communication difficulties, the NS-NNS pairs were much
more likely to make use of conversational tactics
Repetition
Comprehension checks
Clarification requests
Interactionist Models
NS apparently resorting to these tactics in order to solve communication problems, not with
any conscious motive to teach grammar
The prime trigger for adjustment is the perception that the interlocutor is experiencing
comprehension problems
Interactionist Models
Essentially an extension of Krashen’s hypothesis
They work to ensure that the learner is receiving i + 1, rather that i + 3 or i + 0
Question?
What are the implications for L2 writing of this perspective?
Summary/Minute Paper: