second language acquisition(cph)

7/28/2019 Second Language Acquisition(CPH)

1/42

The Definition of Language

A language is considered to be a system of

communicating with other people using sounds,

symbols and words in expressing a meaning,

idea or thought. This language can be used in

many forms, primarily through oral and

written communications as well as using

expressions through body language.


2/42

Communication of thoughts and feelings

through a system of arbitrary signals, such as

voice, sounds, gestures, or written symbols.

Such a system, including its rules for

combining its components such as words.


3/42

Such a system as used by a nation, people, or

other distinct community, often contrasted

with dialect.

Body language; kinesics

Verbal communication


4/42

The Definition of Critical Period

It is a term used in biology to refer to a limited

phase in the development of an organism

during which a particular activity or

competency must be acquired if it is to be

incorporated into the behavior of that

organism.


5/42

Strong version

It may imply that even if language acquisition

begins within the critical period it does not

continue beyond the end of that period.


6/42

weak version

The earlier language learning begins after the

onset of the critical period the more efficient

it will be, and that beyond a certain point

language learning potential declines markedly

even if it does not disappear entirely.


7/42

Critical Period Hypothesis (CPH)

Lenneberg (1967) interprets critical period isto be seen as beginning around this age oftwo years: Language cannot begin to develop

until a certain level of physical maturation andgrowth has been attained. Between the agesof two and three years language emerges byan interaction of maturation and self-

programmed learning (p.158).


8/42

Current evidence suggests that there is no

stage in the infants development when

language is not in the process of being

acquired.


9/42

The general notion that caregiver-child shared

activity prepares the ground for and is

continuous with the development of linguistic

interaction incontrovertible.

The shared activity commences as soon as the

child emerges from the womb.


10/42

The end of the critical period

The age most posited as the upper limit of the

critical period is the early teens, the stage at

which childhood is ending and adolescence,

with the onset of puberty, beginning.


11/42

Taking the examples ofGenies case and a

wild boy of Victors case.

Genie was physically punished by the father if

she made any sounds. According to the

mother, the father and older brother never

spoke to Genie although they barked at her

like dogs. The mother was forbidden to


12/42

spend more than a few minutes with Genie

during feeding. (Fromkin et al. 1974).

Nevertheless, her phonological development

approximated to that of normal children. As

far as syntax is concerned, Genie learned to

combine words in three-and four-word strings

and to produce negative sentences.


13/42

Broadly, her progress in the acquisition of

language though slower than is usual,

parallelled that of normal English-speaking

children. She can actually understand and

produce speech, whereas Victors

communication through language was all but

confined to the written medium.


14/42

Genies language development has been

interpreted as evidence both for and against

the critical period hypothesis.

Genie represents a case of first-language

acquisition after the critical age of puberty.


15/42

To be sure, her development is laborious and

incomplete, but the similarities between it

and normal acquisition outweigh the

differences.

Penfield & Roberts (1959) report that children

are normally able to re-learn language when

injury or disease damages speech areas in thedominant


16/42

Hemisphere, whereas speech recovery inadults is much more problematic, and thatwhereas in young children the speech

mechanism is frequently transferred withcomplete success from the injured dominanthemisphere to the healthy minor hemisphere,such transfers do not seem to occur in the

case of adults.


17/42

Lennebergs conclusion is that the relevant

neurological development must be completed

by around age five.

Vocabulary development continues in a

natural, almost unnoticed fashion as long as

one lives and is interested in new things.


18/42

The evidence most frequently cited in support

of the claim that a critical period oflanguage

readiness begins around age two, which

comes from the language development of

deaf children, is susceptible to an alternative

interpretation.


19/42

Other evidence strongly indicates that

language acquisition is a continuous process

which begins at birth.

First language acquisition continues well into

adulthood and even, at least in some of its

aspects, into middle and old age.


20/42

With regard to the weaker version of the

critical period hypothesis, i.e. the notion that

language learning capacity peaks early in

childhood and thereafter declines.


21/42

Krashens Five Hypotheses

1. The Acquisition-learning Hypothesis

2. The Monitor Hypothesis

3. The Natural Order Hypothesis

4. The Input Hypothesis

5. The Affective Filter Hypothesis


22/42

1. The Acquisition Learning Hypothesis applicable to the process of:

Internalizing new L2 knowledge

(acquisition vs. learning)

Storing such knowledge

(acquired knowledge for automatic processing andlearnt knowledge for controlled processing)

Using in actual performance

(acquired knowledge as the major source of initiating

both the comprehension and production of utterances)

*learnt knowledge for use only by the Monitor


23/42

The Acquisition-learning Hypothesis:

*Acquisition is a subconscious process

identical in all important ways to the process

children utilize, in acquiring their first

language.


24/42

*Learning is a conscious process that results in

knowing about language (1985).

Acquisition comes about through meaningful

interaction in a natural communication setting.


25/42

The Monitor Hypothesis

The Monitor Hypothesis states that Learning

has only one function, and that is as a Monitor

or editor and that learning comes into play

only to make changes in the form of ourutterance.


26/42

Krashens position is that conscious

knowledge of rules does not help acquisition,

but only enables the learner to polish up

what has been acquired throughcommunication.


27/42

3. The Monitor Hypothesis the device thatlearners use to edit their language performance

Utilizes learnt knowledge by acting upon andmodifying utterances generated from acquiredknowledge either before or after the utterance, albeitoptional.

Has limited function in language performance even

with adultsConditions for its use: sufficient time; form-focused;

users knowledge of the rule

*Editing (by feel) can take place using acquired

competence (but not developed).


28/42

three conditions for monitor use

(1) Time: In order to think about and use

conscious rules effectively, a second language

performer needs to have sufficient time.


29/42

(2) Focus on form: To use monitor effectively,

time is not enough. The performer must also

be focused on form, or thinking about

correctness.


30/42

(3) Know the rule: We can be sure that our

students are exposed only to a small part of

the total grammar of the language, and we

know that even the best students do not learnevery rule they are exposed to (Krashen, 1982,

p.6).


31/42

Three types of Monitor users

Over-users: These are people who attempt to

monitor all the time, performers who are

constantly checking their output with their

conscious knowledge of the second language.


32/42

Under-users: These are performers who have

not learned, or if they have learned, prefer not

to use their conscious knowledge, even when

conditions allow it. Under-users are typicallyuninfluenced by error correction, can self-

correct only by using a feel for correctness.


33/42

The optimal users: Performers who use the

monitor when it is appropriate and when it

does not interfere with communication. Many

optimal users will not use grammar inordinary conversation, where it might

interfere.(1982, p.19-20)


34/42

3. The Natural Order Hypothesis

The hypothesis states that we acquire the

rules of language in a predictable order, some

rules tending to come early and others late

(Krashen, 1985, p.1).


35/42

2. The Natural Order Hypothesis - learners mayfollow a more or less invariant order in the acquisition of

formal grammatical features

Affirms that grammatical structures are acquired in a

predictable order.

When the learner is engaged in natural communicationtasks, he will manifest the standard order.

But when the task requires or permits the use of

metalinguistic knowledge, a different order will

emerge.


36/42

4. The Input Hypothesis

This hypothesis states that humans acquire

language in only one wayby understanding

messages, or by receiving comprehensible

input We move from i, our current level, toi+1, the next level along the natural order, by

understanding input containing i+1 (Krashen,

1985, p. 2).


37/42

4. Input Hypothesis acquisition takes place as aresult of the learner having understood input that is a

little beyond the current level of his competence

(i.e. the i+ 1 level )

Input that is comprehensible to the learner will

automatically be at the right level.


38/42

5. The Affective Filter Hypothesis

According to this hypothesis, comprehensible

input may not be utilized by second-language

acquirers if there is a mental block that

prevents from them fully profiting from it.


39/42

The affective filter acts as a barrier to

acquisition: If the filter is down, the input

reaches the LAD and becomes acquired

competence; if the filter is up, the input is

blocked and does not reach the LAD.

The filter is that part of the internal processing

system that subconsciously incoming language

based on what psychologists call affect: the

learners motives, needs, attitudes, and

emotional states.


40/42

It determines which language models thelearner will select.

It determines which part of the language will

be attended to first. It determines when the language acquisition

efforts should cease.

It determines how fast a learner can acquire alanguage.


41/42

5. The Affective Filter Hypothesis - how affectivefactors relate to SLA and the ground of the Acculturation

Model

As proposed by Dulay and Burt (1977), the filter

controls how much input the learner comes into

contact with, and how much input is converted into

intake.

Its affective as its strength is determined based on:

motivation

self-confidenceanxiety state


42/42

Universal Grammar (UG)

The Chomskyan generative grammar approachassumes that the first-language learner comes to

the acquisition task with innate, specifically

linguistic, knowledge, or Universal Grammar.

The claim is that certain principles of the human

mind are, to a degree, biologically determined

and specialized for language learning.

second language acquisition(cph)

Documents