2 Theoretical Approaches to L2
胡壮麟《语言学教程》第十一章Linguistics_and_foreign_language_teaching
2
1.1 Grammar
Do we teach grammar? How do we teach grammar?
As a compromise between the “purely formfocused approaches‖ and the ―purely meaningfocused‖ approaches, a recent movement called focus on form seems to take a more balanced view on the role of grammar in language learning.
15
Communicative competence
Dell Hymes
What a learners knows about how a language is used in particular situations for effective and appropriate communication. Includes knowledge of the grammar and vocabulary, knowledge of rules of speaking, knowledge of how to use and respond to different types of speech acts and social conventions, and knowledge of how to use language appropriately.
16
It is believed that language learning will successfully take place when language learners know how and when to use the language in various settings and when they have successfully cognized various forms of competence such as grammatical competence (lexis, morphology, syntax and phonology) and pragmatic competence (e.g., speech acts).
理解并评估Intercultural Competence(在不同文化中工作的能力)
UNDERSTANDING AND ASSESSING INTERCULTURAL COMPETENCE: A SUMMARY OF THEORY, RESEARCH, AND PRACTICE (TECHNICAL REPORT FOR THE FOREIGN LANGUAGEPROGRAM EVALUATION PROJECT)C ASTLE S INICROPE,J OHN N ORRIS,&Y UKIKO W ATANABEUniversity of Hawai‘i at MānoaINTRODUCTIONIn its broadest sense, intercultural competence can be defined following Fantini (2006) as “a complex of abilities needed to perform effectively and appropriately when interacting with others who are linguistically and culturally different from oneself” (p. 12, emphasis in original). Throughout the literature, researchers and theoreticians use a range of more or less related terms to discuss and describe intercultural competence, including intercultural communicative competence (ICC), transcultural communication, cross-cultural adaptation, and intercultural sensitivity, among others (Fantini, 2006). What all of these terms attempt to account for is the ability to step beyond one’s own culture and function with other individuals from linguistically and culturally diverse backgrounds. College foreign language and study abroad programs play a unique role in offering students the opportunity to develop their intercultural competencies. The acquisition of such competencies may be important not only for individual enrichment and communicative proficiency but also for providing future educators, professionals, and leaders with the capabilities necessary for promoting successful collaboration across cultures.In this report we summarize theory and research on intercultural competence, paying particular attention to existing approaches and tools for its assessment. We also review examples of the assessment of intercultural competence in the specific contexts of general education and college foreign language and study abroad programs. It is our hope that these resources will provide a useful basis to foreign language (and other) educators as they seek to understand and improve the intercultural competencies of their students.Second Language Studies, 26(1), Fall 2007, pp. 1-58.THEORETICAL FRAMEWORKS FOR INTERCULTURAL COMPETENCEBackgroundHistorically, a major focus on intercultural competence emerged out of research into the experiences of westerners working abroad (e.g., Peace Corp volunteers) in the 1950s, 1960s, and early 1970s. This early research was typically motivated by perceived cross-cultural communication problems that hampered collaboration between individuals from different backgrounds. In the late 1970s and 1980s, the contexts for intercultural competence research expanded to include study abroad, international business, cross-cultural training, expatriates living overseas, and immigrant acculturation. During these formative years, research on intercultural competence utilized assessments of individuals’ attitudes, personalities, values, and motives, usually through short self-reports, surveys, or open-ended interviews. The purpose and focus of ICC assessment using these tools centered around four main goals: “(1) to explain overseas failure, (2) to predict overseas success, (3) to develop personnel selection strategies, and (4) to design, implement and test sojourner training and preparation methodologies” (Ruben, 1989, p. 230).Today, intercultural competence research spans a wide spectrum, from international schools to medical training, from short study abroad programs to permanent residency in foreign cultures. The purposes of research also range widely, from the selection of appropriate participants for sending abroad to cross-cultural mediation to the determination of learning outcomes associated with a variety of educational experiences. As the focus and purpose of intercultural competence research has expanded, approaches to its description and assessment have evolved as well, from short attitude and personality surveys to more complex behavioral self-assessments, performance assessments, portfolio assessments, and others. At the same time, nearly twenty years after Ruben (1989) declared the “need for conceptual clarity” (p. 234), a multiplicity of frameworks and approaches to defining and assessing intercultural competence persists today. Thus, although the broad range of theories and models provides language educators with a variety of approaches to understanding and investigating intercultural competence, it also complexifies the task of communicating about related ideas in a systematic and consistently interpretable way.By way of example, Table 1 presents 19 terms that have been utilized as alternatives for discussing intercultural competence. Though often used interchangeably with the most frequentlabels of intercultural competence,intercultural communicative competence, intercultural sensitivity, and cross-cultural adaptation, each alternative also implies additional nuances that are often only implicitly addressed in research.Table 1Alternative Terms for Intercultural Communicative Competence (ICC) (Adapted from Fantini, 2006, Appendix D)transcultural communication international communication ethnorelativitycross-cultural communication intercultural interaction biculturalismcross-cultural awareness intercultural sensitivity multiculturalismglobal competitive intelligence intercultural cooperation pluralingualismglobal competence cultural sensitivity cross-cultural adaptation cultural competence effective inter-group communicationinternational competence communicative competenceHammer, Bennet, and Wiseman (2003) attempted to overcome some of the murkiness of ICC definitions by drawing a major distinction between intercultural sensitivity and intercultural competence. From their perspective, intercultural sensitivity is “the ability to discriminate and experience relevant cultural differences” whereas intercultural competence is “the ability to think and act in interculturally appropriate ways” (p. 422). Their distinction between knowing and doing in interculturally competent ways offers a fitting prelude to the themes that have emerged from most contemporary work on ICC. In the following sections, we introduce four major frameworks for conceptualizing intercultural competence. Additional theoretical frameworks for intercultural competence are described briefly as well, but the main focus in this report is on those approaches that have served as bases for assessments developed to gauge intercultural competence. Following the overview of theoretical frameworks, we then turn to their operationalization in research and assessment in Section 3.Ruben’s Behavioral Approach to Intercultural Communicative Competence One of the earliest comprehensive frameworks was Ruben’s behavioral approach to the conceptualization and measurement of intercultural communicative competence (Ruben, 1976; Ruben & Kealey, 1979). In contrast to the personality and attitudinal foci of previous approaches,Ruben advocated a behavioral approach to linking the gap between knowing and doing, that is, between what individuals know to be interculturally competent and what those individuals actually do in intercultural situations.It is not uncommon for an individual to be exceptionally well-versed on the theoriesof cross-cultural effectiveness, possess the best of motives, and be sincerelyconcerned about enacting his role accordingly, yet be unable to demonstrate thoseunderstandings in his own behavior. (Ruben & Kealey, 1979, pp. 19-20)For these reasons, Ruben (1976) argued that to understand and assess individuals’ behaviors, it would be necessary to employ “measures of competency that reflect an individual’s ability to display concepts in his behavior rather than intentions, understandings, knowledges, attitudes, or desires” (p. 337). Ruben theorized that observing individuals in situations similar to those for which they are being trained or selected would provide information for predicting their performances in similar future situations.Based on findings in the literature and his own work, Ruben (1976) identified seven dimensions of intercultural competence:1.Display of respect describes an individual’s ability to “express respect and positiveregard” for other individuals.2.Interaction posture refers to an individual’s ability to “respond to others in a descriptive,nonevaluative, and nonjudgmental way.”3.Orientation to knowledge describes an individual’s ability to “recognize the extent towhich knowledge is individual in nature.” In other words, orientation to knowledgedescribes an individual’s ability to recognize and acknowledge that people explain theworld around them in different ways with differing views of what is “right” and “true.”4.Empathy is an individual’s ability to “put [himself] in another’s shoes.”5.Self-oriented role behavior expresses an individual’s ability to “be flexible and tofunction in [initiating and harmonizing] roles.” In this context, initiating refers torequesting information and clarification and evaluating ideas for problem solving.Harmonizing, on the other hand, refers to regulating the group status quo throughmediation.6.Interaction management is an individual’s ability to take turns in discussion and initiateand terminate interaction based on a reasonably accurate assessment of the needs anddesires of others.stly, tolerance for ambiguity describes an individual’s ability to “react to new andambiguous situations with little visible discomfort”. (Ruben, 1976, pp. 339-341) For assessment purposes, Ruben operationalized the seven dimensions with observational procedures and rating scales. These were subsequently employed and further developed by additional researchers (see Section 3.1). Ruben’s call for a behavioral model and the assessment of behavioral outcomes, that is, describing an individual’s competence based on observed actions, can also be regarded as a precursor to performance assessments of ICC (see Section 3.2). In sum, from Ruben’s (1976) perspective, ICC consists of the “ability to function in a manner that is perceived to be relatively consistent with the needs, capacities, goals, and expectations of the individuals in one’s environment while satisfying one’s own needs, capacities, goals, and expectations” (p. 336), an ability that is best assessed by observing an individual’s actions rather than reading an individual’s self-reports.European Multidimensional Models of Intercultural Competence: Byram and Risager Based on their experiences in the European context, Byram (1997) and Risager (2007) have also theorized multidimensional models of intercultural competence. In Teaching and assessing intercultural communicative competence, Byram (1997) proposed a five-factor model of intercultural competence comprising the following:1.The attitude factor refers to the ability to relativize one’s self and value others, andincludes “curiosity and openness, readiness to suspend disbelief about other cultures and belief about one’s own” (p. 91).2.Knowledge of one’s self and others means knowledge of the rules for individual andsocial interaction and consists of knowing social groups and their practices, both in one’s one culture and in the other culture.3.The first skill set, the skills of interpreting and relating, describes an individual’s abilityto interpret, explain, and relate events and documents from another culture to one’s ownculture.4.The second skill set, the skills of discovery and interaction, allows the individual toacquire “new knowledge of culture and cultural practices,” including the ability to useexisting knowledge, attitudes, and skills in cross-cultural interactions (ibid, p. 98).5.The last factor, critical cultural awareness, describes the ability to use perspectives,practices, and products in one’s own culture and in other cultures to make evaluations.Byram further clarified that the interaction factor (skills of discovery and interacting) includes a range of communication forms, including verbal and non-verbal modes and the development of linguistic, sociolinguistic, and discourse competencies.Building on Byram’s theoretical foundation, Risager (2007) proposed an expanded conceptualization of intercultural competence. She argued that a model for intercultural competence must include the broad resources an individual possesses as well as the narrow competences that can be assessed. Risager claimed her model to be broader in scope; however, it is noteworthy that the 10 elements she outlined are largely manifested in linguistic developments and proficiencies:1.Linguistic (languastructural) competencenguacultural competences and resources: semantics and pragmaticsnguacultural competences and resources: poeticsnguacultural competences and resources: linguistic identity5.Translation and interpretation6.Interpreting texts (discourses)e of ethnographic methods8.Transnational cooperation9.Knowledge of language as critical language awareness, also as a world citizen10.Knowledge of culture and society and critical cultural awareness, also as a world citizen.(Risager, 2007, p. 227)Extending ideas from these foundations, Byram and other European researchers (Kühlmann, Müller-Jacquier and Budin) have collaborated to combine existing theories of intercultural competence as the basis for developing their own assessment tool. Named INCA (intercultural competence assessment), the research project has adopted a multidimensional framework. Their overall model consists of two sets of dimensions, one for the assessor and one for the examinee, with three skill levels for each dimension: basic, intermediate, and full. From the assessor’s pointof view, intercultural competence consists of 6 different dimensions, as defined by the INCA assessor’s manual:1.Tolerance for ambiguity is “the ability to accept lack of clarity and ambiguity and to beable to deal with it constructively” (ibid, p. 5).2.Behavioural flexibility is “the ability to adapt one’s own behaviour to differentrequirements and situations” (ibid, p. 5).municative awareness is “the ability […] to establish relationships between linguisticexpressions and cultural contents, to identify, and consciously work with, variouscommunicative conventions of foreign partners, and to modify correspondingly one’sown linguistics forms of expression” (ibid, p. 6).4.Knowledge discovery is “the ability to acquire new knowledge of a culture and culturalpractices and the ability to act using that knowledge, those attitudes and those skills under the constraints of real-time communication and interaction” (ibid, p.6).5.Respect for otherness is “the readiness to suspend disbelief about other cultures andbelief about one’s own” (ibid, p. 6).6.Empathy is “the ability to intuitively understand what other people think and how theyfeel in concrete situations” (ibid, p. 7).From the examinee’s point of view, intercultural competence consists of three dimensions, ina simplified version of the assessor’s model:1.Openness is the ability to “be open to the other and to situations in which something isdone differently” (respect for others + tolerance of ambiguity) (ibid, p. 11).2.Knowledge is the characteristic of “not only want[ing] to know the ‘hard facts’ about asituation or about a certain culture, but also [..] want[ing] to know something about thefeelings of the other person” (knowledge discovery + empathy) (ibid, p. 11).3.Adaptability describes the ability to “adapt [one’s] behaviour and [one’s] style ofcommunication” (behavioural flexibility + communicative awareness) (ibid, p. 11).Given the assessment orientation of this ICC framework, the different dimensions have not only been explained theoretically, as above, but have also been given concrete descriptions for each skill level. For example, Table 2 provides descriptions for each level of the first dimension, tolerance for ambiguity.Table 2Skill Levels for Tolerance for Ambiguity DimensionBasic Intermediate FullDeals with ambiguity on a one-off basis, respondingto items as they arise. May be overwhelmed by ambiguous situations which imply high involvement.Has begun to acquire arepertoire of approaches tocope with ambiguities in low-involvement situations.Begins to accept ambiguity asa challenge.Is constantly aware of thepossibility of ambiguity.When it occurs, he/shetolerates and manages it.Beyond the INCA project, the multidimensional approach and the dimensions Risager and Byram ascribe to intercultural competence can be seen in both commercial assessment tools (Cross-Cultural Adaptability Index) and non-commercial assessment practices (Intercultural Sensitivity Index in Olson and Kroeger, 2001, and Assessment of Intercultural Competence in Fantini, 2006). Key to these European-oriented frameworks, and distinct from Ruben’s early work, is the emphasis on acquisition of proficiency in the host culture—moving well beyond the ability to interact respectfully, non-judgmentally, and effectively with the host culture.Bennett’s Developmental Model of Intercultural Sensitivity (DMIS)In the North American context, a different model of intercultural competence has been widely discussed, researched, and explored in recent years: Bennett’s Developmental Model of Intercultural Sensitivity (DMIS) (Bennett, 1993; Hammer et al., 2003; Paige, Jacobs-Cassuto, Yershova, & DeJaeghere, 2003). On the basis of research in the 1970’s and 1980’s, Bennett developed a dynamic model to explain how individuals respond to cultural differences and how their responses evolve over time.The Developmental Model of Intercultural Sensitivity (DMIS) consists of six stages grouped into three ethno centric stages (the individual’s culture is the central worldview) and three ethno relative stages (the individual’s culture is one of many equally valid worldviews), as follows:1.In the first ethnocentric stage, denial, the individual denies the difference or existence ofother cultures by erecting psychological or physical barriers in the forms of isolation and separation from other cultures.2.In the second ethnocentric stage, defense, the individual reacts against the threat of othercultures by denigrating the other cultures (negative stereotyping) and promoting thesuperiority of one’s own culture. In some cases, the individual undergoes a reversal phase, during which the worldview shifts from one’s own culture to the other culture, and theown culture is subject to disparagement.3.Finally, in the third ethnocentric stage, minimization, the individual acknowledgescultural differences on the surface but considers all cultures as fundamentally similar.The three ethnorelative stages of development lead to the acquisition of a more complex worldview in which cultures are understood relative to each other and actions are understood as culturally situated.1.(4) During the acceptance phase, the individual accepts and respects cultural differenceswith regard to behavior and values.2.(5) In the second ethnorelative stage, adaptation, the individual develops the ability toshift his frame of reference to other culturally diverse worldviews through empathy andpluralism.3.(6) In the last stage, integration, the individual expands and incorporates otherworldviews into his own worldview.Together, these six stages comprise a continuum from least culturally competent to most culturally competent, and they illustrate a dynamic way of modeling the development of intercultural competence.In the past ten years, Bennett’s Developmental Model of Intercultural Sensitivity has served as the basis for several assessment tools addressing intercultural sensitivity and cross-cultural competence, both commercially available (Bennett, 1993) and locally developed (Olson & Kroeger, 2001). Although Bennett does not explicitly describe the role of communication in the development of intercultural sensitivity, he references communication as a developmental strategy, particularly in the ethnorelative stages:Participants moving out of acceptance are eager to apply their knowledge of culturaldifferences to actual face-to-face communication. Thus, now is the time to provideopportunities for interaction. These activities might include dyads with other-culturepartners, facilitated multicultural group discussions, or outside assignments involvinginterviewing of people from other cultures… communication practice could refer tohomestays or developing friendships in the other culture. (Bennett, 1993, pp. 58-59)A Culture-Generic Approach to Intercultural CompetenceThe most recent developments in intercultural competence theory have emerged in the research of Arasaratnam and Doerfel (2005). In their work, Arasaratnam and Doerfel call for a new, culture-wide model of intercultural communication competence. Previous models, they argue, have often been subjective and limited by the cultures of the individuals involved in their conceptualization and assessment. Instead of imposing factors and dimensions in a top-down fashion, Arasaratnam and Doerfel have adopted a bottom-up approach, in which themes and dimensions come to light in interviews. To identify these themes, they conducted a semantic network analysis of interview transcripts with 37 interculturally competent participants. Participants were affiliated with a large university and included U.S. students (N = 12) and international students from 14 different countries (N = 25). U.S. students were selected based on their involvement in international student organizations, study abroad programs, and international friendship/host programs. During the interview, participants responded to the following prompts:Q1: How would you define intercultural communication?Q2: Can you identify some qualities or aspects of people who are competent in intercultural communication?Q3: Can you identify some specific individuals whom you think are particularly competent in intercultural communication and say why you perceive them as such?Q4: What are aspects of good communication in your culture/opinion?Q5: What are aspects of bad communication in your culture/opinion?Semantic analyses of participants’ answers revealed four to five dominant clusters of words for each question. For example, definitions of intercultural communication (Q1) included: (a) able, cross, language, talking, verbal, cultural,and religious;(b) backgrounds, countries, across, message, ideas, understand, and coming; (c) beliefs, group, information, exchange, individuals, communicating, outside, and town; and (d) communicate, cultures, different, people, ethnic, two, differences, and trying. Based on semantic analyses for all five questions, Arasaratnam and Doerfel identified 10 unique dimensions of intercultural communicative competence: heterogeneity, transmission, other-centered, observant, motivation, sensitivity, respect, relational, investment, and appropriateness. Although this approach has not led to the development of widely practiced assessment methods, it promises a culture-generic, bottom-up approach toeliciting definitions and dimensions of intercultural competence that may be used in future assessment tools.Other Theoretical Approaches to Intercultural CompetenceIn addition to the theoretical approaches described above, at least three other models have been conceptualized and investigated: anxiety/uncertainty management (Gudykunst, 1993, 1998); an integrative system’s theory (Kim, 1993); and identity negotiation (Ting-Toomey, 1993).In anxiety/uncertainty management (AUM), Gudykunst (1993, 1998) argues that individuals experience both anxiety and uncertainty when interacting with foreign cultures. In order to adapt, individuals must develop the ability to manage their anxiety through mindfulness. For Gudykunst, mindfulness includes identifying and focusing on the sources of anxiety, which may include concept of self, reaction to host culture, situations, and connections with the host culture. In Kim’s integrative model (1993), cross-cultural adaptation is seen as an interactive and integrative process, in which the individual is dynamic, “never a finished product but, instead… in the business of growing and maturing” (p. 173). Her model comprises six different dimensions including communication competence, social communication, environment, predisposition, and intercultural transformation. Individuals who experience cross-cultural adaptation undergo phases of acculturation (acquiring elements of the host culture) and deculturation (unlearning elements of the old culture) in a cyclic pattern of stress-adaptation. Lastly, Ting-Toomey’s negotiation model (1993) includes three components that contribute to adaptation when individuals are faced with foreign or unfamiliar settings: cognitive, affective, and behavioral factors. These components “contribute to effective identity negotiation and outcome attainment processes” (p. 106) and enable individuals to interact with strangers. Although these models for intercultural competence have been theorized, none (to our knowledge) has led to the development of assessments for estimating levels or degrees of intercultural competence. Nevertheless, they do offer further insights into the factors that may be related to learners’ development of ICC.In sum, the difficult-to-pin-point nature of intercultural competence has led to a range of definitions, theories, and models that have served as the basis for different approaches to its assessment. Some models stress the communicative nature of intercultural competence, whileothers emphasize an individual’s adaptation and development when confronted with a new culture, and still others focus on empathic and tolerant reactions to other cultures. Ultimately, these models seek to explain the types of skills and abilities individuals need to function in culturally diverse settings and the processes they undergo in developing the needed skills and abilities for being interculturally competent. How such skills and abilities might best be observed and understood is the focus of the next section.ASSESSING INTERCULTURAL COMPETENCEIn recent years, intercultural competence and intercultural sensitivity research has flourished in a variety of contexts: doctors in sensitivity training programs, expatriates living abroad, students in international schools, and students in study abroad programs. This section summarizes major assessment approaches that have been utilized in the study of intercultural competence.Studies Using Indirect Assessment Tools for Intercultural CompetenceBefore 1996, a handful of researchers developed their own scales for survey research, such as the Behavioral Assessment Scale for Intercultural Competence (BASIC) (Koester & Olebe, 1988; Ruben & Kealey, 1979) and the Intercultural Sensitivity Inventory (ISCI) (Bhawuk & Brislin, 1992). The ISCI utilized responses on a self-report instrument to assess individuals’ abilities to interact and modify their behavior in cross-cultural situations. By contrast, the BASIC instrument was used by observers to assess individuals’ cross-cultural communication competence based on their actions. More recently, two commercial procedures/scales have dominated the research landscape: the Intercultural Development Inventory (IDI) and the Cross-Cultural Cultural Adaptability Inventory (CCAI). However, recent years have also seen the sustained use of non-commercial and locally developed assessment practices including the Intercultural Sensitivity Index (ISI) (Olson & Kroeger, 2001) and the Assessment of Intercultural Competence (AIC) (Fantini, 2000; 2006). Furthermore, innovative researchers sometimes have developed their own assessment scales in combination with commercially available scales or as replacements for commercial assessment tools like the IDI and the CCAI. In the following。
二语习得SecondLanguageAcquisition资料讲解
eg. watashiwa Nihonjin desu
第二语言习得的调查以参数的重新设定为主。例如说日语的人学英语就得重新设 定’中心参数’,使之从‘中心词为后’,调整至’中心词为先’。 79xx
Second Language Acquisition
UG principle The principle of structure-dependency（结构依存关系）which states
Second Language Acquisition
Implicit learning is coming to learn the underlying structure of a complex stimulus environment by a process which takes place naturally, simply and without conscious operations. Explicit learning is a more conscious operation where the individual makes and tests hypotheses.
SLA_week 1
SL vs FL
The broad sense of SL
Any language learned after the learning of L1. It can be one’s first, second, third, fourth or … non-native language. Its acquisition can occur in a classroom situation, as well as in more “natural” exposure situations.
4)Naturalistic vs. classroom teaching
Naturalistic vs. instructed second language acquisition
SLA takes place in two kinds of settings. Natural settings vs. classroom settings The learner focuses on communication in naturalistic second language acquisition and thus learns incidentally, whereas in instructed second language acquisition the learner typically focuses on some aspect of the language system (Klein :1986) conscious vs. subconscious Spontaneous vs. guided
Week 1 Introducing Second Language Acquisition
Chomsky
AbstractIn language acquisition studies, the names Jean Piaget and Noam Chomsky are not uncommon. They were known because they were the founders of language acquisition theories, which act as guidance for researchers to study language and language acquisition. Although these two theorists were the main contributors in the study of language, they had a different and contradictory viewpoint. Piaget emphasized on the role of cognitive development factors in language acquisition, whereas, Chomsky focused on the role of genetic endowment factors. This paper discusses thedifferences in Piaget‟s and Chomsky‟s approaches to language acquisition in an attempt to present a new perspective showing that each has a place. A special focus is given to their differences in opinions and approaches towards the study of syntax and semantics, which are the two important components of a language.IntroductionHow children acquire language is one of the key mysteries facing scientific enquiry into humans. One of the reasons the topic excites so much interest is that many regard language as a defining characteristic of our species – a capacity that distinguishes us sharply from other creatures, and gives us enormous evolutionary advantages (Durkin, 1995). Thus, there are several theoretical approaches to the explanation of language acquisition, and this paper shall consider only two of them. This paper compares the Piagetian and Chomskian views on language acquisition and attempts to present a new perspective to indicate that each has a place. Recently, a similar attempt has been made by Rowe (1997) who tried to explain the differences between the two theories based on the process of language acquisition. However, this paper discusses their differences in the study of syntax and semantics, which are the two importantcomponents of a language.One of the earlier theories on language acquisition was proposed by Noam Chomsky, a biological theorist. Chomsky once said, “As far as we know, possession of human language is associated with a specific type of mental organization, not simply a higher degree of intelligence” (1972, p.70). Based on this quotation, it is clear that Chomsky did not consider the development of human language as a part of their cognitive (or intellectual) development. However, he claimed that human linguistic capacities are a highly specialized part of human genetic inheritance, largely separate from other human faculties and more plausibly viewed as a kind of innate knowledge that grows independently in human mind (Gardner, 1980). This is a hotly debated issue that draws people‟s attention, especially Jean Piaget. Piaget disagreed with Chomsky‟s argument because he claimed that human linguistic capacities could be considered as a product of general “constructed” intellectual development (Gardner,1980). Due to these competing views, a debate between Piaget and Chomsky was held in 1975. In this paper, the two main areas of disagreement - syntax and semantics - between Piaget‟s and Chomsky‟s accounts of the acquisit ion of language will be discussed. It is hoped that the discussion may help to resolve the above issue. Before turning to this discussion, an overview of each approach is presented.A Brief Overview Of Piaget‟s And Chomsky‟s TheoriesIn the study of how language is acquired, Piaget, who was a cognitive developmentalist, discussed his theory in terms of the links between cognitive development and the development of various aspects of language (Piaget, 1980). Piaget believed that language has a complex structure, which emerges as a result of continuing interaction between children‟s current level of cognitive functioning and their current linguistic and non-linguistic environment (Bohannon, 1993). This interactive approach is known as Piagetian Constructivism (Piattelli-Palmarini, 1980). On the other hand, Chomsky, who was a nativist and also a psycholinguist, disagreed with Piaget‟s account because he viewed cognition and language as relatively separate but related abilities (Gardner, 1980). Chomsky commented that the general mechanisms of cognitive development could not account for the abstract, complex, and language-specific structures of language. Moreover, he stated that the linguistic environment was also unable to account for the structures that appear in children‟s language. He claimed that the environment played at most as triggering role, and shaping mechanism in the maturation of language (Gardner, 1980). Therefore, he concluded that “language or at least aspects of linguistic rules and structure mu st be innate” (Bohannon, 1993, p.262). This nativist approach is called ChomskianInnatism (Piattelli-Palmarini, 1980).The Differences Between Piaget‟s And Chomsky‟s Accounts On SyntaxThe first clear-cut difference between Piaget‟s and Chomsky‟s acco unts can be seen in the acquisition of syntax, a central component of language. Syntax refers to the form, or structure, of a language - “the rules that specify how words are combined to form meaningful sentences” (Shaffer, 1993, p.363). Chomsky‟s approach has put emphasis on a set of grammatical rules that would generate syntactic descriptions for all of the permissible and non permissible sentences in any given language (Gardner, 1980). Chomsky argued that an adequate grammar must be generative or creative in order to account for the myriad of sentences that speakers can produce and understand. He also believed that a true grammar should describe the speaker‟s knowledge of all permissible utterances (competence) rather than just the utterances typically produced(performance) (Bohannon, 1993). Hence, he introduced a self-devised grammar known as Transformational Generative Grammar, or TGG (Chomsky, 1965).Chomsky (1986) believed that TGG is the main constituent knowledge of language. TGG is defined as “an explicit description of the internalized rules of a language as they must have been mastered by an idealized speaker-hearer” (Sinclair-de-Zwart, 1969a, p.365). There are two major points in Chomsky‟s model of generative grammar. First, he asserted that there was an innate language acquisition device (LAD), which provides the basis for human linguistic competence. Chomsky proposed that the nature of LAD was like an innate “black box” which was capable of receiving linguistic input (the sentences of the language in which the child was growing up) and, from these, deriving universal grammatical rules (Garton, 1992). Once these universal grammatical rules are derived, LAD functions to yield a particular language through interaction with presented experience, that is, it helps to convert experience into a system of knowledge attained: knowledge of one (native language) or another (Chomsky, 1986). Second, he posited that each sentence had a surface structure (i.e., the actual arrangement of words that we hear or see), and a deep structure (i.e., the idea underlying the sentence) (Bohannon, 1993).Piaget agreed with Chomsky‟s theory that a true grammar aims at a system of rules rather than at a system of elements, such as, noun phrase and verb phrase (Sinclair-de-Zwart, 1969). However, Piaget claimed that a grammar was formed from the child‟s interactional experiences with the environment. This involves the processes of assimilation (integration of information into existing scheme) and accommodation (creation of new scheme or modification of existing scheme) which underlie all cognitive growth (Piaget, 1959). Piaget (1971, p.75) also claimed that “the syntax and semantics of a language yield a set of rules to which any individual speaking that language must submit, not only when he wants to express his thought to others, but even when he expresses it internally”. This clearly means that children do not go around emitting bursts of increasingly intricate syntax just for the fun of exercising their language faculty, but they have meanings to convey and negotiate. Children‟s meanings must be related to their conceptual understanding, and this conceptual understanding is a reflection of their cognitive (and intellectual) development (Durkin, 1995).Overall, in terms of s yntax, Chomsky‟s arguments that language is an innate and species-specific faculty stand up quite outstandingly (Durkin, 1995). Chomsky‟s approach also holds that all languages share the same rules at the level of deep structure, suggesting that grammatical relations in the deep structure are linguistically universals. In contrast, Piagetian view partly supports Chomsky‟s account: Piaget agreed that language is a species-specific behavior on the extent that it depends on the intellectual character of humans. The higher the degree of children‟s intellectual character, the higher the degree of their language proficiency that is reflected in their linguistic skills.The Differences Between Piaget‟s And Chomsky‟s Account On SemanticsThe second area of disagreement between Piaget and Chomsky is in semantics. Semantic refers to “the expressed meaning of words and sentences” (Shaffer, 1993, p.363). Clearly, children must recognize that words convey meaning - that words refer to particular objects, actions, and relations - before they will comprehend the speech of others and be understood when they speak. Chomsky postulated that the semantic component determines the semantic interpretation of a sentence - it relates a structure generated by the syntactic component to a certain semantic representation (Chomsky, 1965). He claimed that this semantic component is inter-related to the phonological component (which determines the phonetic form of a sentence generated by the syntactic rules) of a grammar. Both the semantic and phonological components are therefore purely interpretive. Each utilizes information provided by the syntactive concerning formatives, their inherent properties, and their interrelations in a given sentence. Consequently, the syntactic component of a grammar must specify, for each sentence, a deep structure that determines its semantic interpretation and a surface structure that determines its phonetic interpretation (Chomsky 1965).Unlike Chomsky, Piaget considered the role played by the semantic component of a language as the most important. The Piagetian approach stresses the concept of cognitive determinism, that is, “the developmental order of language encoding of semantics relationships reflects the order of cognitive structures” (Owens, 1988, p.47). Piaget believed that as children‟s cognitive capacities progress, so does their semantic understanding of the world (Piaget, 1959). This claim is supported by the Piagetian studies, which demonstrates that the semantic concepts that children express are present in their thoughts and actions (Owen, 1988). For example, children demonstrate a concept of object permanence, or of the existence of an object that cannot be seen, before they express relationships such as appearance, disappearance, and nonexi stence in their speech. Another example comes from Piaget‟s conservation tasks in which the children show their understanding of the meaning of the terms like …more than‟, less than‟, and …as much as‟ through their performance in the tasks (Durkin, 1995). In sum, according to Piaget, children did not learn language and then use it to express cognition-environment relationships; rather, they learned entity relationships and expressed that knowledge in the language they learned subsequently (Owen, 1988).Chomsky, on the other hand, agreed that children did all sorts of other things and developed all sorts of other abilities that were synchronous with or immediately preceding the appearance of language, but this did not prove that language, in any way, depended on them (Chomsky, 1980). He further argued that blind children or even paraplegics show no significant impairment in their linguistic performance. Itseems that Chomsky‟s argument bears some truth in it because recent studies have shown that positive correlations between cognitive and linguistic achievements are often taken as reflections of causal relationships. Yet, correlation does not always infer causation (Bohannon, 1993).ConclusionIn conclusion, it is hypothesized that the above discussion may help to resolve the issue on language acquisition, which has been debated since early 1970s. It could be argued that why Chomsky considered language and cognition (including intellectual character of the mind) as separate entities is because his approach to language acquisition is heavily based on the acquisition of syntax. There is substantial evidence that shows the syntactic component of a language is innate and species-specific but not its semantic counterpart (Curtiss, 1977, 1981, as cited in Bohan non, 1993). However, Piaget‟s approach seems to provide strong arguments in relation to semantics. Therefore, it is undeniable that Piaget viewed language and cognition as interrelated because he believed that the attainment of meanings relies heavily on t he continuous interaction between children‟s hereditary structure and their environment. This provides some evidence that each theory has a place in language acquisition. Could it be that in reality the two approaches are not contradictory, as claimed by most people, but parallel in explanations since both try to explain the same thing but based on totally different grounds? This is yet another issue that needs to be resolved in the future.。
theoretical动词
theoretical动词Theoretical verbs refer to actions or states that can be described using theoretical concepts and ideas. They are often used in academic, scientific, or philosophical discussions to explore hypothetical or abstract scenarios. These verbs help us to discuss theoretical possibilities, analyze potential outcomes, and develop new ideas.1. Analyze: To examine something in detail to better understand its components, structure, or meaning. Theoretical analysis involves breaking down a concept or phenomenon into its constituent parts to gain insights into how it works or relates to other theoretical frameworks.Example: The researchers analyzed the data to identify patterns and trends that could support their theoretical framework.2. Speculate: To contemplate or consider a hypothetical situationor outcome without having complete or concrete evidence. Speculative thinking allows us to explore different possibilities and generate new ideas.Example: The philosopher speculated on the existence of parallel universes and their potential impact on our understanding of reality.3. Postulate: To propose an idea or theory based on assumptions or limited evidence. Postulating helps in formulating new hypotheses or theories that can be further investigated and tested.Example: The scientists postulated the existence of dark matter toexplain the observed gravitational effects in the universe.4. Hypothesize: To suggest a tentative explanation or theory based on limited evidence, which can be tested through further research or experimentation. Hypothesizing helps in formulating more specific research questions and designing appropriate experiments or studies.Example: The sociologist hypothesized that income inequality contributes to higher crime rates in urban areas.5. Conceptualize: To form a mental concept or framework that represents an idea or phenomenon. Conceptualization is crucial for developing theoretical models or frameworks that can help in understanding and explaining complex systems or processes.Example: The psychologist conceptualized the mind as consisting of conscious and unconscious elements, which interact and influence behavior.6. Validate: To confirm or support the accuracy or validity of a theory, hypothesis, or concept. Validation involves testing theoretical claims against empirical evidence to assess their reliability and applicability.Example: The researchers conducted experiments to validate the mathematical model proposed by the physicist.7. Synthesize: To combine different elements or ideas into a coherent whole. Synthesizing theoretical perspectives or conceptsallows for the creation of new frameworks or insights that can enhance our understanding of a particular subject.Example: The literature review synthesized various theoretical approaches to investigate the relationship between technology use and mental health.8. Articulate: To express or explain concepts, ideas, or theoretical perspectives in a clear and coherent manner. Articulating theoretical frameworks helps in communicating complex ideas effectively and facilitating further discussions or debates.Example: The philosopher articulated the principles of utilitarianism and its ethical implications.9. Predict: To make an educated guess or projection about a future event or outcome based on existing theoretical knowledge or data. Predicting allows us to anticipate potential consequences or trends. Example: The economist predicted that changes in fiscal policy would lead to an increase in economic growth.10. Critique: To evaluate or analyze the strengths and weaknesses of a theory, argument, or concept. Critiquing theoretical perspectives contributes to the ongoing refinement and development of knowledge in various fields.Example: The literary critic critiqued the narrative structure of the novel, highlighting its strengths and pointing out its inconsistencies.These theoretical verbs play a critical role in academic discourse by enabling researchers, scholars, and philosophers to engage in intellectual exploration, knowledge generation, and theoretical advancements.。
CH4
Informational medium
–
Proximal (near) stimulus
•
–
Perceptual object
•
?
Can you provide an example of perceptual processing of a particular object? Identify distal object, informational medium, proximal stimulus and perceptual object.
– Proximity
• We tend to perceive objects that are close to each other as forming a group
– Similarity
• We tend to perceive objects that are similar to each other as forming a group
Perception
Chapter 4
Outline
1. From Sensation to Representation
1. 2. 3. 4. Basic Concepts Perceptual Constancies Depth Perception Gestalt Approaches to Form Perception
英语教学实践的理论流派(3篇)
第1篇Introduction:English language teaching (ELT) has evolved significantly over the years, with various theoretical perspectives shaping the approaches and methodologies used in classrooms. This essay aims to explore some of the major theoretical frameworks that have influenced ELT practice,including behaviorism, cognitivism, constructivism, and humanism. Eachof these theories offers unique insights into how language is acquired and how teaching can be most effective.1. Behaviorism:Behaviorism is one of the earliest and most influential theoretical perspectives in ELT. Based on the work of B.F. Skinner, behaviorismposits that language learning is a process of habit formation, where learners acquire language through repeated exposure and reinforcement.Key principles of behaviorism in ELT:- Positive reinforcement: Teachers should praise and reward learners for correct language use to encourage repetition and mastery.- Error correction: Correcting errors immediately helps learners avoid negative reinforcement and reinforces correct language use.- Drill and repetition: Repetition of exercises and patterns helps learners internalize language structures and vocabulary.- Task-based learning: Engaging learners in communicative tasks helps them practice and reinforce language skills in real-life contexts.2. Cognitivism:Cognitivism emerged as a reaction to the limitations of behaviorism, focusing on the mental processes involved in language acquisition. This theory emphasizes the role of memory, attention, and problem-solving in language learning.Key principles of cognitivism in ELT:- Cognitive development: Learners' cognitive abilities develop at different rates, so teachers should adapt their teaching methods accordingly.- Scaffolding: Teachers provide support and guidance to help learners achieve their learning goals, gradually reducing support as learners become more proficient.- Metacognition: Encouraging learners to reflect on their own learning processes helps them develop strategies for self-regulation and problem-solving.- Language acquisition: Learners construct their own understanding of language through interaction and exposure to linguistic input.3. Constructivism:Constructivism posits that knowledge is constructed through the interaction between the learner and the environment. This theory emphasizes the importance of learner autonomy and the role of social interaction in language acquisition.Key principles of constructivism in ELT:- Learner-centered approach: Teachers should facilitate learning by creating opportunities for learners to explore, inquire, and construct meaning.- Authentic tasks: Real-world tasks that require problem-solving and critical thinking help learners apply their language skills in meaningful contexts.- Collaborative learning: Working in groups allows learners to share ideas, challenge each other, and construct knowledge together.- Reflective practice: Encouraging learners to reflect on their learning experiences helps them develop metacognitive skills and become more independent learners.4. Humanism:Humanism focuses on the emotional and social aspects of language learning, emphasizing the importance of motivation, self-esteem, and personal growth. This theory emerged as a response to the perceived lack of consideration for the learner's emotional well-being in other theories.Key principles of humanism in ELT:- Learner autonomy: Encouraging learners to take responsibility fortheir learning and make choices about their learning goals.- Positive classroom atmosphere: Creating a supportive and inclusive environment where learners feel safe to express themselves and make mistakes.- Self-concept development: Helping learners develop a positive self-image and a sense of accomplishment through successful language learning experiences.- Teacher-student relationship: Building strong relationships between teachers and learners fosters trust, respect, and mutual support.Conclusion:Theoretical perspectives in ELT provide frameworks for understanding how language is acquired and how teaching can be optimized for learner success. By incorporating elements from behaviorism, cognitivism, constructivism, and humanism, teachers can create diverse and engaging learning experiences that cater to the individual needs of their students. Understanding these theories allows educators to make informed decisions about their teaching methods and strategies, ultimatelyleading to more effective language learning outcomes.第2篇IntroductionEnglish language teaching (ELT) has evolved significantly over the years, with various theoretical approaches shaping the field. These approaches provide frameworks for teachers to design and implement effectiveteaching strategies that cater to the diverse needs of learners. This paper aims to explore some of the prominent theoretical approaches to English language teaching practice, including the Audio-Lingual Method, the Communicative Approach, the Task-Based Language Teaching (TBLT) approach, and the Sociocultural Theory.1. The Audio-Lingual MethodThe Audio-Lingual Method, also known as the Army Method, emerged in the 1950s and 1960s, primarily as a response to the need for language learning during World War II. This approach focuses on the systematic teaching of vocabulary and grammar through controlled drills and repetition. The key principles of the Audio-Lingual Method include:- The primacy of listening and speaking skills: The method emphasizes the importance of developing listening and speaking abilities before focusing on reading and writing skills.- The use of memorization and repetition: Teachers use drills and repetition to help learners memorize new vocabulary and grammar structures.- The structural approach: The method focuses on the systematic teaching of grammatical structures and their corresponding vocabulary.- The focus on the target language: Teachers strive to minimize the use of the learners' first language (L1) during the lesson, encouraging them to think and communicate in the target language (L2).2. The Communicative ApproachThe Communicative Approach, which gained prominence in the 1970s, emphasizes the importance of communication in language learning. This approach focuses on enabling learners to use the language effectivelyfor real-life communication. Key principles of the Communicative Approach include:- The focus on communicative competence: The method aims to develop learners' ability to use the language for real-life communication, including speaking, listening, reading, and writing.- The use of authentic materials: Teachers use authentic materials, such as newspapers, magazines, and videos, to provide learners with exposure to the target language in real-life contexts.- The importance of task-based activities: The Communicative Approach encourages the use of task-based activities that allow learners to practice the language in meaningful and contextually relevant situations.- The role of learner autonomy: The method promotes learner autonomy by empowering learners to take responsibility for their language learning.3. The Task-Based Language Teaching (TBLT) ApproachThe TBLT approach, which developed from the Communicative Approach, focuses on the use of tasks as the central focus of language teaching. This approach posits that language learning is most effective when learners engage in authentic tasks that require them to use the language in real-life contexts. Key principles of the TBLT approach include:- The use of tasks: Teachers design tasks that require learners to perform a range of language functions, such as information-gap tasks, problem-solving tasks, and role-play tasks.- The focus on meaning: The TBLT approach emphasizes the importance of meaning in language learning, as learners engage in tasks that require them to convey and understand meaning.- The role of interaction: Interaction among learners is crucial in the TBLT approach, as it allows them to practice the language in a social context.- The assessment of task performance: Teachers assess learners' performance on tasks to gauge their language proficiency and provide feedback for improvement.4. The Sociocultural TheoryThe Sociocultural Theory, developed by Lev Vygotsky, emphasizes the role of social interaction and cultural context in language learning. This approach suggests that language learning is an interactive andcollaborative process that occurs within a socio-cultural framework. Key principles of the Sociocultural Theory include:- The zone of proximal development (ZPD): Vygotsky proposed the ZPD, which refers to the range of tasks that a learner can perform with assistance from a more skilled partner or through guidance from a teacher.- The importance of social interaction: The theory highlights the roleof social interaction in language learning, as learners acquire language through interactions with more skilled individuals.- The role of cultural tools: Vygotsky emphasized the importance of cultural tools, such as language, as means of mediating thought andsocial interaction.- The role of the teacher: The teacher plays a crucial role in the Sociocultural Theory, as they facilitate learning and support learners' development within their ZPD.ConclusionIn conclusion, the theoretical approaches to English language teaching practice provide diverse frameworks for teachers to design and implement effective teaching strategies. The Audio-Lingual Method, the Communicative Approach, the Task-Based Language Teaching approach, and the Sociocultural Theory all offer valuable insights into how language can be learned and taught. By understanding and incorporating these approaches into their teaching practice, educators can create engaging and meaningful learning experiences for their students.第3篇English language teaching (ELT) has evolved significantly over the years, with various theoretical perspectives shaping the way educators approach the teaching and learning of English. These perspectives provide frameworks for understanding language acquisition, classroom dynamics, and the overall goals of ELT. This paper will explore some of the majortheoretical perspectives in English language teaching practices, including behaviorism, cognitivism, constructivism, and humanism.1. BehaviorismBehaviorism, as a theoretical perspective, originated in the early 20th century and focuses on observable behavior and learning as a result of reinforcement. In the context of ELT, behaviorism suggests that language learning can be achieved through systematic instruction, practice, and reinforcement of correct language use.Key principles of behaviorism in ELT include:- The use of rote memorization and repetition to reinforce language patterns.- Direct instruction, where teachers explicitly teach language rules and structures.- Positive reinforcement to encourage correct language use and discourage errors.- Clear, concise, and well-structured lesson plans that facilitate repetition and practice.Advocates of behaviorism argue that this approach provides a clear structure for language learning and helps students acquire basic language skills. However, critics point out that behaviorism may not fully account for the complexities of language acquisition and the importance of individual differences.2. CognitivismCognitivism emerged in the mid-20th century and emphasizes the role of mental processes in learning. In ELT, cognitivism suggests that language learning is an active cognitive process involving the construction of mental representations of language.Key principles of cognitivism in ELT include:- The use of meaningful context to facilitate comprehension andretention of new language.- The integration of language learning with other cognitive processes, such as memory and problem-solving.- The importance of individual differences in learning styles and cognitive abilities.- The development of higher-order thinking skills, such as critical thinking and metacognition.Cognitivism has influenced various ELT methodologies, such as task-based language teaching (TBLT) and communicative language teaching (CLT), which emphasize the importance of meaningful language use and the active involvement of students in the learning process.3. ConstructivismConstructivism, a theory rooted in the work of Jean Piaget, posits that learning is an active process in which learners construct knowledge through their interactions with the environment. In ELT, constructivism emphasizes the role of learners in shaping their own learning experiences.Key principles of constructivism in ELT include:- The provision of opportunities for students to explore and discover language through authentic tasks and activities.- The importance of student autonomy and the development of self-regulated learning strategies.- The integration of technology and multimedia resources to facilitate collaborative learning and knowledge construction.- The recognition of the diverse cultural backgrounds and experiences of learners, which can influence their language learning.Constructivist approaches to ELT, such as project-based learning and collaborative learning, have gained popularity as they encouragestudents to actively engage with the language and develop a deeper understanding of its use in different contexts.4. HumanismHumanism, inspired by the work of Carl Rogers and Abraham Maslow, emphasizes the importance of the individual learner and the development of their personal growth and self-esteem. In ELT, humanism focuses on creating a supportive and nurturing learning environment that promotes positive attitudes towards language learning.Key principles of humanism in ELT include:- The development of positive learner attitudes and motivation through encouragement and support.- The importance of emotional and social factors in language learning, such as empathy, respect, and cultural sensitivity.- The provision of opportunities for learners to express themselves and share their experiences.- The recognition of the importance of learner autonomy and the development of life-long learning skills.Humanistic approaches to ELT, such as learner-centered approaches and communicative language teaching, aim to create a classroom atmosphere that values the individual learner and fosters a sense of belonging and community.ConclusionThe theoretical perspectives discussed in this paper provide valuable insights into the complexities of English language teaching practices. While each perspective offers unique insights into language acquisition and learning, educators often find that combining elements from different theories can lead to more effective and engaging language learning experiences. By understanding the principles of behaviorism, cognitivism, constructivism, and humanism, educators can tailor theirteaching methods to meet the diverse needs of their learners and create a more inclusive and supportive learning environment.。
- 1、下载文档前请自行甄别文档内容的完整性，平台不提供额外的编辑、内容补充、找答案等附加服务。
- 2、"仅部分预览"的文档,不可在线预览部分如存在完整性等问题,可反馈申请退款(可完整预览的文档不适用该条件!)。
- 3、如文档侵犯您的权益，请联系客服反馈,我们会尽快为您处理(人工客服工作时间：9:00-18:30)。
Fall 2003
1/38
Differences in Learning L1 & L2
A child or adult learning a second language
is different from a child acquiring a first language in terms of both
2015-1-28
Spring 2010
Fall 2003
8/38
a strong and a weak form of CA
Lado and his followers even provided the
degree of differences between two languages. There existed a strong and a weak form of Contrastive Analysis (Wardhaugh 1970). The strong form claims that all L2 errors can be predicated by identifying the differences between the target language and the learner‟s L1. The weak form of the hypothesis claims to be diagnostic. (To check where could be erroneous).
2015-1-28
Spring 2010
Fall 2003
15/38
Innatism: Competence vs. Performance 语言能力对语言运用
Competence语言能力:
It refers to the knowledge which underlies our ability to use language.
-
-
+
+
3/38
Fall 2Leabharlann 03Differences in Learning L1 & L2
Learning Conditions
6. Freedom to be silent
7. Ample time & contact 8. Corrective feedback: (form) grammar and pronunciation 9. Corrective feedback: (meaning) word choice 10. Modified input
need to account for language acquisition by
learners with a variety of characteristics and
learning in a variety of contexts.
2015-1-28
Spring 2010
Fall 2003
2015-1-28 Spring 2010
Fall 2003
14/38
Innatism
Competence vs. Performance Universal Grammar (UG) in relation to
second language development
Krashen‟s “monitor model”
2015-1-28
Spring 2010
Fall 2003
12/38
Behaviorism
Criticisms about the CAH:
Though a learner‟s L1 influences the acquisition of an L2,
1.
2.
3.
Not all errors predicted by the CAH are actually made. Many of the errors which learners make are not predictable on the basis of the CAH. Some errors are similar across learners from a variety of L1 backgrounds.
1) imitation, 2) practice, 3) reinforcement, and
4) habit information
Lado (1964):
A person learning an L2 starts off with the habits formed in the L1 and these habits interfere with the new ones needed for the L2.
2015-1-28
Spring 2010
Fall 2003
6/38
American Structurism and Behaviorism
Dominant theories in linguistics and psychology
within the USA throughout the 1940s and 1950s. It‟s psychological base is behaviorism and linguistic base is structuralism. The goal of CA: to discover the problems that foreign language students would encounter in the learning process. And to increase the efficiency in L2 teaching and testing.
L1
child child
L2
adolescent (formal)
adult
-
? ? ? ?
+ + + +
+ + + +
3. Metalinguistic awareness
4. Knowledge of the world 5. Nervousness about speaking
2015-1-28 Spring 2010
Spring 2010
2015-1-28
Fall 2003
13/38
Behaviorism
Summary:
The L1 influence may not simply be a matter of the transfer of habits, but a more subtle and complex process of identifying points of similarity, weighing the evidence in support of some particular feature, and even reflecting about whether a certain feature seems to „belong‟ in the structure of the L2.
Theoretical Approaches to Second Language Learning
Differences in Learning L1 & L2 Behaviorism
Innatism
Information Processing
Connectionism
The Interactionist Position
2015-1-28
Spring 2010
Fall 2003
11/38
More Definition of CA
CA: is an approach to the study of SLA which
involve predicting and explaining learner problems based on a comparison of L1 and L2 to determine similarities and differences. It was heavily influenced by theories which is dominant in linguistics and psychology within the USA throughout the 1940s and 1950s.
2015-1-28 Spring 2010
Fall 2003
10/38
Behaviorism
Behaviorism was often linked to the
Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis (CAH):
It predicts that where there are similarities between the L1 and the target language, the learner will acquire target-language structures with ease; where there are differences, the learner will have difficulty.
5/38
Behaviorism
Skinner: language behavior is the production of correct responses to stimuli through reinforcement. Four characteristics of behaviorism:
2015-1-28 Spring 2010