CAS LX 400 Behaviorism

Second Language Acquisition ¥ In the 1950’s and 1960’s, the techniques of language teaching were based on a behaviorist view of language. ¥ Language under this view is essentially a system of habits; learning proceeds by producing a Week 2. Recent history response to a stimulus and receiving either of L2A research positive or negative reinforcement (e.g., positive if your intended meaning was understood). If you receive enough positive reinforcement for a certain response it will become a habit.

Behaviorism Contrastive Analysis

¥ If this is the way language works, it should be clear ¥ If language is a set of habits and if L1 habits that to teach language should involve a lot of pattern can interfere with TL habits, then the proper repetitions, to instill proper habits in the learner (akin focus of teaching should be on where the L1 to learning skills, such as driving a car). and TL differ, since these are going to be the places which cause the most trouble for ¥ For second language learning, there is also the matter learners. This is often referred to as the of interfering habits from the L1; certain things habits would need to be “unlearned” in the context of Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis. the TL.

Contrastive Analysis *Behaviorism

¥ Takes language to be a set of habits and learning to be ¥ The problem was, as famously observed by Chomsky the establishment of new habits. in his review of Skinner’s Verbal Behavior, language ¥ Locates the major source of errors in the first language isn’t a collection of reinforced habits. (habits). ¥ We should be able to account for errors by considering ¥ Children learning an L1 do not simply reproduce what differences between L1 and TL. they’ve heard; they very often use language creatively, ¥ Predicts greater differences lead to more errors. producing things they’ve never heard before, understanding things they’ve never heard before. They ¥ Differences must be taught, similarities will be implicitly transferred from the L1. show evidence of internalized rules by producing forms like *He goed. ¥ Difficulty/ease of learning a particular TL is determined by the differences between L1 and TL.

1 *Behaviorism *Contrastive Analysis

¥ The rules are very abstract and complex, ¥ Second language learners do a lot of the same and they are underdetermined by the data things (e.g., over-regularization of forms like He children hear—yet speakers growing up in comed). the same speech community end up with a ¥ Many errors that second language learners make highly uniform set of internalized rules. cannot be traced to influence of their L1. ¥ “Transfer of habits” doesn’t seem to be consistent ¥ Children don’t make the mistakes for which across languages. Zobl (1980) showed that French they could receive negative reinforcement learners of English failed to show evidence of a in the first place. predicted error, but English learners of French did.

*Contrastive Analysis *Contrastive Analysis

¥ Zobl (1980): In French, object pronouns generally ¥ Contrastive Analysis certainly doesn’t predict come before the verb: Je les vois ‘I see them (lit. I subjective (psycholinguistic?) difficulty; a second them see)’. In English object pronouns come after language learner may very easily produce an erroneous the verb: I see them. form, or struggle and produce a correct form. ¥ French learners of English never produced *I them see. ¥ It is actually not at all straightforward to enumerate the ¥ English learners of French did produce things like “differences” between languages (hence, it is hard to *Je vois elle (‘I see her’ cf. Je la vois). predict where problems would arise, under the Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis).

Error Analysis Error Analysis

¥ One of the next steps was to look seriously ¥ The idea is that errors could come either from at the kind of errors learners were making. some kind of interference from the learner’s native ¥ Since Contrastive Analysis turned out not to language, or simply from an incompletely be a productive pedagogical tool, the idea developed knowledge of the target language. behind Error Analysis was to look at errors that the students are making to determine ¥ It was hoped that by analyzing the source of the the “source” of the error. errors, we could learn more about the ¥ Error ≠ mistake contributions of interference and development.

2 Error Analysis Interlanguage

¥ One of the conclusions reached in error analysis ¥ If the learner has an internal grammar (not studies was that the majority of errors did not the grammatical system of the target come from interference caused by the learner’s native language, but were rather “interlanguage- language, but a system “on the way” to the internal” errors. TL), then we can view it as developing, and we can ask the question of whether it shows ¥ Error analysis can be considered a step along the stages of development. way to the hypothesis that learners have an interlanguage—a grammatical system that is nevertheless not target-like.

Stages of acquisition Stages of acquisition ¥ In the 70’s, it was determined that children learning ¥ Also, kids learning English seem to go through their L1 go through strikingly uniform stages, consistent stages as well. Brown (1973) found that kids regardless of the language that they are learning. learn morphological inflections in a consistent order: Ages vary by individual but not very much. Ð Present progressive (-ing) Ð Babbling (6 months) Ð Prepositions (in, on) Ð Intonation patterns (8 months) Ð Plural (-s) Ð One-word utterances (12 months) Ð Past irregular Ð Two-word utterances (18 months) Ð Possessive (’s) Ð Word inflections (36 months) Ð Articles (a, the) Ð Questions, negatives (39 months) Ð Past regular (-ed) Ð Complex constructions (5 years) Ð 3rd singular regular (-s) Ð Mature speech (10 years) Ð 3rd singular irregular

Does L2A progress in uniform Does L2A progress in uniform stages as well? stages as well? ¥ They devised an ¥ One of the first investigations of this looked at 60 Case Word Order acquisition children whose L1 was Spanish and 55 whose L1 hierarchy which was Chinese, all learning English as an L2 (Dulay holds of the two Sg copula (is) Sg aux (is) and Burt 1974). L1s when learning Pl aux (are) Progressive (-ing) English as an L2. ¥ They found that that the Chinese and Spanish ¥ This strongly Past irregular Cond’l aux (would) groups showed a similar order of acquisition of suggests that this is Possessive (’s) Long plural (-es) not a process of 3sg (-s) morphemes, basically the same as the order Brown unlearning “L1 found for L1A of English. habits”, since L1 Perfect aux (have) Past part. (-en) doesn’t matter.

3 Does L2A progress in uniform Does L2A progress in uniform stages as well? stages as well? ¥ Because this was child L2A, there is a ¥ Several studies were done, all with strengths chance that whatever drove L1A is driving and shortcomings, but the bottom line their L2A—so, in a way, it isn’t that seems to be that there is a largely L1- surprising that they acquire English in the invariant order of acquisition of these same way that a kid learning English as a morphemes in L2A, L1 would. ¥ This effect seems to appear across test types ¥ We cannot generalize this result to adult (indicating that it isn’t an artifact of the test L2A, it had to be tested. itself).

Does L2A progress in uniform L2 seems to progress in a stages as well? systematic order ¥ There are lots of questions to consider with respect ¥ The bottom line (sort of “averaging over” to this: the studies) seems to be second language ¥ What should count as “acquisition”? Using it whenever it is required? Using it at all? Using it acquisition does progress in a largely L1- only when it is required? invariant, systematic order, similar to but ¥ What is the source of this order? Frequency in the not completely identical to the orders input data? Perceptual salience? The internal observed in L1A. structure of the language faculty? ¥ How generalizable are the results of these 11 morphemes to language acquisition as a whole?

The Acquisition-Learning Hypothesis Krashen’s “Monitor Model” ¥ Acquisition and Learning are different. ¥ An early and influential model of second ¥ Acquisition refers to the (subconscious) internalizing language acquisition was the “Monitor of implicit rules, the result of meaningful naturalistic Model”, based on five basic hypotheses: interaction using the language. ¥ Learning refers to the conscious process that results in Ð The Acquisition-Learning Hypothesis knowing about the language, e.g., the result of Ð The Monitor Hypothesis classroom experience with explicit rules. Ð The Natural Order Hypothesis ¥ That is, you can learn without acquiring (or acquire Ð The Input Hypothesis without learning). Ð The Affective Filter Hypothesis ¥ Krashen hypothesizes that learned and acquired rules are stored differently; one cannot eventually be converted into the other; they are simply different.

4 The Natural Order Hypothesis The Monitor Hypothesis

¥ Acquisition proceeds in a “natural order” ¥ A linguistic expression originates in the (i.e. the order of morpheme acquisition system of acquired knowledge, but prior to discussed earlier). output a “Monitor” checks it against consciously known rules and may modify the expression before it is uttered. ¥ This says nothing about learning, only Learned acquisition. competence (the Monitor)

Acquired competence output

The Monitor Hypothesis The Monitor Hypothesis

¥ For the Monitor to work, you need to ¥ The Monitor would probably be the place Ð Be able to focus on the form (time, attention) where things like “don’t split infinitives” Ð Know the rule and “don’t end a sentence with a preposition” ¥ So, under pressure (e.g., time pressure), the live as well. Monitor may not be operating…

Learned Learned competence competence (the Monitor) (the Monitor)

Acquired Acquired competence output competence output

The Input Hypothesis The Input Hypothesis

¥ The Input Hypothesis draws on the Natural ¥ Krashen’s view on acquisition: Speaking does not Order Hypothesis; the idea is that there is a cause acquisition, it is the result of acquisition, natural order of acquisition, but in order to having built competence on the basis of advance from one step to the next, a learner comprehensible input. needs to get comprehensible input, input ¥ If input is at the right level and comes in sufficient quantity, the necessary grammar is automatically which provides evidence for the stage one acquired. level past the learners’ current level. The ¥ The language teacher’s main role, then, is to idea is that only this level of input is useful provide adequate amounts of comprehensible for the advancement of acquisition. input for the language learners.

5 The Affective Filter Hypothesis The overall model

¥ Another aspect of the need for ¥ Although Krashen’s “Monitor Model” comprehensible input is that it must be “let suffers from a lack of specific testable in” by the learner. Various “affective” details, it has had a significant impact on factors like motivation, anxiety, can “block” L2A research, and has an intuitive appeal. input and keep it from effectively producing acquisition.

Some critiques on record re: the Some critiques on record re: the Monitor Model Monitor Model ¥ Are acquired and learned rules really stored so ¥ G&S also observe (attributing the objection to Gregg) separately that they cannot interact? Gass & Selinker’s that in Krashen’s model, the Monitor only affects textbook points out that “it is counterintuitive to output (speech, writing), but anecdotal evidence for hypothesize that nothing learned in a formal situation use of formally learned rules in decoding heard can be a candidate for [fluent, unconscious speech]”. utterances is easy to come by. ¥ But this doesn’t seem to be a very persuasive ¥ Perhaps this is true of Krashen’s particular statement, objection—First, counterintuitiveness is not an but there seems to be no need to toss out all aspects of argument. Second, even if formal, learned rules are his hypotheses based on an oversight of this sort—it stored completely separately, nothing prevents the use seems easily repairable by extending the model to of these rules in production from providing input to the allow learned competence to also monitor input and acquisition system, providing an indirect “conversion” provide input to the acquired competence. of knowledge.

Some critiques on record re: the Monitor Model ¥ Most of the objections to the Monitor Model focus on the impreciseness of the hypotheses; although Krashen may not have treated them this way, they clearly must be used only as a starting point, a way to think about the process of L2A. Further research in this direction needs to be focused on trying to refine the existing “hypotheses” to yield testable (falsifiable) hypotheses with a higher degree of specificity.

6