Critical Perspectives on Interlanguage Pragmatic Development: an Agenda for Research
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Load more
Recommended publications
-
A Critical Review of the Interactionist Approach to Second Language Acquisition
Journal of Applied Linguistics and Language Research Volume 1, Issue 1, 2014, pp. 62-74 Available online at www.jallr.ir A Critical Review of the Interactionist Approach to Second Language Acquisition Saeid Najafi Sarem PhD Candidate of TEFL, English Department, Hamedan Branch, Islamic Azad University, Hamedan, Iran Yusef Shirzadi MA in TEFL, English Department, Hamedan Branch, Islamic Azad University, Hamedan, Iran Abstract The realm of language acquisition, either first or second language, has been under the influence of three major theories, namely Behaviorism, Innativism, and Interactionism. The key figures in these schools of thought are Skinner, Chomsky, and Vygotsky respectively. Each theory has contributed to the field by highlighting a specific aspect of the language acquisition process. Behaviorist theory has given the main role to the environment, introducing the concepts of imitation and habit-formation. On the other hand, the innativist theory has focused on the role of mind and cognitive processes in language learning. Taking advantage of both the behaviorist and innativist theories, in the 19th century, the interactinist approach emerged which concentrated on the role of social interaction in language learning. Based on this approach, learners should be exposed to comprehensible, negotiated, or modified input in their attempts to acquire a language. In the same line, the present article tries to provide a critical literature on the interactionist approach in second language learning. Therefore, this review first sheds light on the major theoretical points introduced by this theory; then it tries to discuss some of the main implications and applications of the social interactionist approach in the domain of second language learning. -
Manual for Language Test Development and Examining
Manual for Language Test Development and Examining For use with the CEFR Produced by ALTE on behalf of the Language Policy Division, Council of Europe © Council of Europe, April 2011 The opinions expressed in this work are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official policy of the Council of Europe. All correspondence concerning this publication or the reproduction or translation of all or part of the document should be addressed to the Director of Education and Languages of the Council of Europe (Language Policy Division) (F-67075 Strasbourg Cedex or [email protected]). The reproduction of extracts is authorised, except for commercial purposes, on condition that the source is quoted. Manual for Language Test Development and Examining For use with the CEFR Produced by ALTE on behalf of the Language Policy Division, Council of Europe Language Policy Division Council of Europe (Strasbourg) www.coe.int/lang Contents Foreword 5 3.4.2 Piloting, pretesting and trialling 30 Introduction 6 3.4.3 Review of items 31 1 Fundamental considerations 10 3.5 Constructing tests 32 1.1 How to define language proficiency 10 3.6 Key questions 32 1.1.1 Models of language use and competence 10 3.7 Further reading 33 1.1.2 The CEFR model of language use 10 4 Delivering tests 34 1.1.3 Operationalising the model 12 4.1 Aims of delivering tests 34 1.1.4 The Common Reference Levels of the CEFR 12 4.2 The process of delivering tests 34 1.2 Validity 14 4.2.1 Arranging venues 34 1.2.1 What is validity? 14 4.2.2 Registering test takers 35 1.2.2 Validity -
What Is the Relationship Between Language Production and Comprehension?
Journal of Memory and Language 89 (2016) 1–7 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Journal of Memory and Language journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jml Editorial Same, different, or closely related: What is the relationship between language production and comprehension? The historical tradition in psycholinguistics has largely became a hot issue through Lee’s (1950) discovery of the been to study either language production or comprehen- delayed auditory feedback (DAF) effect. When you hear your sion. Almost all of nineteenth century psycholinguistics, own speech delayed by some 150 ms, speech fluency dra- for instance, concerned the production of language, culmi- matically breaks down. Based on these observations, Lee nating in Wundt’s two-volume Die Sprache of 1900. This designed an engineering model of self-monitoring, which also held for research in language acquisition which, lar- required feedback to take place within the syllable being gely based on diary data, almost exclusively concerned spoken. the child’s production of speech until Eimas, Siqueland, Almost simultaneously, Broadbent (1952) demon- Jusczyk, and Vigorito (1971) introduced the experimental strated that participants were unable to understand a study of speech perception in infants. During the 1970s new question while answering a previous question. Atten- psycholinguistics became almost exclusively comprehen- tion can focus on one or the other task, but not on both sion research. Johnson-Laird opened his review of experi- simultaneously. This insight led to Broadbent’s famous fil- mental psycholinguistics in the 1974 Annual Review of ter model of selective attention. The issue kept returning in Psychology with the statement: ‘‘The fundamental problem psycholinguistics. -
Issues in Applied Linguistics
UCLA Issues in Applied Linguistics Title The Practice of Theory in the Language Classroom Permalink https://escholarship.org/uc/item/2s36f41d Journal Issues in Applied Linguistics, 18(2) ISSN 1050-4273 Author Norton, Bonny Publication Date 2010 DOI 10.5070/L4182005336 Peer reviewed eScholarship.org Powered by the California Digital Library University of California The Practice of Theory in the Language Classroom Bonny Norton University of British Columbia In this article, the author makes the case that poststructuralist theories of language, identity, and investment can be highly relevant for the practical deci- sion-making of language teachers, administrators and policy makers. She draws on her research in the international community to argue that while markers of identity such as accent, race, and gender impact the relationship between teach- ers and students, what is of far greater importance are the teachers’ pedagogical practices. This research suggests that language teaching is most effective when the teacher recognizes the multiple identities of students, and develops peda- gogical practices that enhance students’ investment in the language practices of the classroom. The author concludes that administrators and policy makers need to be supportive of language teachers as they seek to be more effective in linguistically diverse classrooms. Introduction One of the icons of language teaching in Canada, Mary Ashworth, was often heard to comment, “There is nothing as practical as a good theory.” As the United States struggles to adjust to the challenges and possibilities of linguistic diversity in American classrooms, and how research should inform educational policy mak- ing, I wish to bring theory back into the debate. -
Assessing L2 Academic Speaking Ability: the Need for a Scenario-Based Assessment Approach
Teachers College, Columbia University Working Papers in Applied Linguistics & TESOL, Vol. 17, No. 2, pp. 36-40 The Forum Assessing L2 Academic Speaking Ability: The Need for a Scenario-based Assessment Approach Yuna Seong Teachers College, Columbia University In second language (L2) testing literature, from the skills-and-elements approach to the more recent models of communicative language ability, the conceptualization of L2 proficiency has evolved and broadened over the past few decades (Purpura, 2016). Consequently, the notion of L2 speaking ability has also gone through change, which has influenced L2 testers to constantly reevaluate what needs to be assessed and how L2 speaking assessment can adopt different designs and techniques accordingly. The earliest views on speaking ability date back to Lado (1961) and Carroll (1961), who took a skills-and-elements approach and defined language ability in terms of a set of separate language elements (e.g., pronunciation, grammatical structure, lexicon), which are integrated in the skills of reading, writing, listening, and speaking. According to their views, speaking ability could be assessed by test items or tasks that target and measure different language elements discretely to make inferences on one’s speaking ability. On the other hand, Clark (1975) and Jones (1985) put emphasis on communicative effectiveness and the role of performance. Clark (1975) defined speaking ability as one’s “ability to communicate accurately and effectively in real-life language-use contexts” (p. 23), and this approach encouraged the use of performance tasks that replicate real-life situations. However, the most dominant approach to viewing L2 speaking ability and its assessment has been influenced by the models of communicative competence (Canale, 1983; Canale & Swain, 1980) and communicative language ability (Bachman, 1990; Bachman & Palmer, 1996), which brought forth a multicomponential approach to understanding speaking ability in terms of various underlying and interrelated knowledge and competencies. -
Introduction to Applied Linguistics (3 Credit Hours) Spring 2015 Course
EDU 204A/B: Introduction to Applied Linguistics (3 Credit Hours) Spring 2015 Conceptual Framework: We believe that teachers are “Developers of Human Potential.” Like Martha Berry, we believe the role of excellent teachers is to help our candidates and the students they teach to reach their full potential by developing their head, heart and hands. Our philosophy and purposes are based on three dimensions to develop teachers and educational leaders who 1) Promote Reflection and Decision Making (head), 2) Facilitate Learning (hands), and (3) Enhance Self and Social Awareness (heart). Each of these dimensions is tied to one or more of the 10 program principals and is demonstrated by our candidates in the coursework, field and clinical experiences. Course Description: This course provides an introduction to the analysis and description of languages in general and English in particular. The major areas of linguistics (phonetics, phonology, morphology, syntax, semantics, and pragmatics) and English grammar in use are presented and discussed with an emphasis on applications, including first and second language acquisition. After an overview of the nature of language, we will study the sounds of language: how they are produced (phonetics), and how they are patterned into words (phonology). Next, we will look at different ways in which languages form words and sentences (morphology and syntax, respectively). Lastly, we will study how meaning is expressed in a language (semantics) and how context interacts with language (pragmatics). Student Learning Outcomes: 1. Appreciate the value and uniqueness in language (INTASC 4) 2. Identify patterns in the English language as a tool of analysis with which to examine language. -
Call for Proposals: Language Testing Special Issue 2021
February 28, 2019 Call for Proposals: Language Testing Special Issue 2021 The editors of Language Testing invite proposals from prospective guest editors for the 2021 special issue of the journal. Each year Language Testing devotes a special issue to papers focused on an area of current importance in the field. Guest editors are responsible for overseeing the solicitation, review, editing, and selection of articles for their special issue. Upcoming and past special issue topics have included the following: 2020: Repeated Test Taking and Longitudinal Test Score Analysis, edited by Anthony Green and Alistair Van Moere 2018: Interactional Competence, edited by India Plough, Jayanti Banerjee and Noriko Iwashita 2017: Corpus Linguistics and Language Testing, edited by Sara Cushing 2016: Exploring the Limits of Authenticity in LSP testing: The Case of a Specific-Purpose Language Tests for Health Professionals, edited by Cathie Elder 2015: The Future of Diagnostic Language Assessment, edited by Yon Won Lee 2014: Assessing Oral and Written L2 Performance: Raters’ Decisions, Rating Procedures and Rating Scales, edited by Folkert Kuiken and Ineke Vedder 2013: Language Assessment Literacy, edited by Ofra Inbar-Lourie 2011: Standards-Based Assessment in the United States, edited by Craig Deville and Micheline Chalhoub-Deville 2010: Automated Scoring and Feedback Systems for Language Assessment and Learning, edited by Xiaoming Xi The Language Testing editors will be happy to consider proposals on any coherent theme pertaining to language testing and -
British Council, London (England). English Language *Communicative Competence
DOCUMENT RESUME ED 258 440 FL 014 475 AUTHOR Alderson, J. Charles, 54.; Hughes, Arthur, Ed. TITLE Issues in Language Testing. ELT Documents 111. INSTITUTION British Council, London (England). English Language and Literature Div. REPORT NO ISBN-0-901618-51-9 PUB DATE 81 NOTE 211p, PUB TYPE Collected Works - General (020)-- Reports - Descriptive (141) EDRS PRICE MF01/PC09 Plus Postage. DESCRIPTORS *Communicative Competence (Languages); Conference Proceedings; *English (Second Language); *English for Special Purposes; *Language Proficiency; *Language Tests; Second Language Instruction; Test Validity ABSTRACT A symposium focusing on problems in the assessment of foreign or second language learning brought seven applied linguists together to discuss three areas of debate: communicative language testing, testing of English for specific purposes, and general language proficiency assessment. In each of these areas, the participants reviewed selected papers on the topic, reacted to them on paper, and discussed them as a group. The collected papers, reactions, and discussion reports on communicative language testing include the following: "Communicative Language Testing: Revolution or Evolution" (Keith Morrow) ancl responses by Cyril J. Weir, Alan Moller, and J. Charles Alderson. The next section, 9n testing of English for specific purposes, includes: "Specifications for an English Language Testing Service" (Brendan J. Carroll) and responses by Caroline M. Clapham, Clive Criper, and Ian Seaton. The final section, on general language proficiency, includes: "Basic Concerns /Al Test Validation" (Adrian S. Palmer and Lyle F. Bachman) and "Why Are We Interested in General Language Proficiency'?" (Helmut J. Vollmer), reactions of Arthur Hughes and Alan Davies, and the `subsequent response of Helmut J. Vollmer. -
John Rogers Searle and His Contribution to Speech Act Theory
JOHN ROGERS SEARLE AND HIS CONTRIBUTION TO SPEECH ACT THEORY RANSHING PRATAP RAMDAS Ph. D. Research Scholar Department of English Dr. B.A. M.U. Aurangabad (MS) INDIA Pragmatics is the branch of linguistics which studies the meaning communicated through language. Pragmatics studies the process by which native users of a language use native language. Pragmatics studies the meaning in the context sentence is made. Pragmatics is the newer area of language study in linguists. The important development in the pragmatics is the origin of speech act theory. J. L. Austin is the originator of the Speech act theory. According to J. L. Austin all utterances are some type of speech act. People not only produce utterances to convey their feelings but also perform actions in between their speech. Even a simple utterance such as ‘Violets are blue’ might be regarded as a special type of act namely the act of making a statement. This overall approach to language study is known as ‘speech act theory’. INTRODUCTION John Rogers Searle He is born on 31 July 1932. He is an American Philosopher. He is widely noted for his contribution to the philosophy of language, philosophy of mind, social philosophy. Searle began his early college education at the University of Wisconsin- Madison. He received all his university degrees, B.A., M.A., and D. Phil from Oxford University. He held first position in a faculty. He has five honorary doctorate degrees from four different countries and is an honorary visiting professor. In 2000, he received the Jean Nicod Prize, in 2004 the National Humanities Medal and in 2006, the Mind and Brain Prize. -
BRIGHTEN: an Exploration of Where the Linguists Are Working Dr. Anna Marie Trester Career Linguist
BRIGHTEN: An exploration of where the linguists are working Dr. Anna Marie Trester Career Linguist Thinking about careers can tend to be quite linear. Such thinking would lead one to conclude that if one studied linguistics, one ought to be doing something recognizeably “linguistic” as part of one’s subsequent professional expression of that training. I tend to approach the question instead in terms of the kinds of challenges a linguist might be drawn to and then ask: which of her linguistic skills and training does she bring to this work? Often, these are the things that make her uniquely successful! In some fields, linguistic training is known and recognized as valuable. However, in most cases we linguists will need to more actively cultivate opportunities for using our skills. But in just about any work that we do, we will likely find ways to express things like cross-cultural awareness, our ability to abstract away from understanding and misunderstanding, and to apply an empirical orientation to understanding human behavior. Thus, one of my answers to “what can you do with a degree in linguistics?” is BRIGHTEN! This works to gently encourage optimism and serve as a command to gloomy would-be nay-sayers who only want to focus only on the challenges, difficulties, and anxieties of the job search process “hey, the future is BRIGHT!” but the acronym also serves as a handy “world of work” educational tool. BRIGHTEN stands for: Business, Research, Innovation/Industry, Government, Healthcare, Technology, Education/Entrepreneurship, and Non-Profits. These are some of the areas in which the linguists I know have found meaningful professional expression of their skills and training. -
Classroom Discourse Analysis in EFL Elementary Lessons
International Journal of Languages, Literature and Linguistics, Vol. 1, No. 1, March 2015 Classroom Discourse Analysis in EFL Elementary Lessons Dorota Domalewska communication. Language thus activated and internalized Abstract—The present study is an attempt to confront the becomes part of the students’ cognitive resources [2]. problem of many Thai students’ failure to communicate fluently Learning needs to be meaningful as it allows “new pieces of and accurately in English. For this reason the study investigates information [to be] attached to existing knowledge so that a the patterns of teacher-student interaction in beginner EFL (English as a Foreign Language) lessons in a Thai elementary new, meaningful whole, like the completed puzzle, is formed” school. The analysis of classroom discourse shows that one-way [3]. Learning needs to be based on the processes of communication prevails in the lessons with the teachers leading assimilation, accommodation, developing meaningful teacher-fronted discussion and students listening and then either cognitive sets (i.e. forming logical connection and repeating after the teacher or responding briefly. If the students organization in the material), and using advanced organizers are engaged in a discussion, they are asked mainly comprehension, assent or educational (grammar and vocabulary) (i.e. general concepts that help the learner to organize and questions. Furthermore, an examination of the teachers’ and understand new material). Meaningful learning allows the students’ verbal behaviors shows frequent code-switching information to be retained for a longer period of time; the practices. information may be retrieved faster; furthermore, the student’s cognitive structure is developed. Index Terms—Classroom discourse analysis, code switching, Teachers tend to limit speaking opportunities for their elementary education, English as a foreign language. -
Introduction to the Encyclopedia of Applied Linguistics CAROL A
Introduction to The Encyclopedia of Applied Linguistics CAROL A. CHAPELLE The Encyclopedia of Applied Linguistics is a reference work encompassing the range of research on language-related problems that arise in the real-world contexts where languages are learned and used. Because of the wide range of issues that applied linguists work on, a precise defi nition of the fi eld is diffi cult to articulate. In his 2007 Introduction to Applied Linguistics, Davies points out that one might be tempted to conclude that “because language is everywhere, applied linguistics is the science of everything,” but such a conclusion would be neither correct nor useful (Davies, 2007, p. 2). If applied linguistics is not the science of everything, how is it defi ned? Simpson, the editor of The Routledge Handbook of Applied Linguistics, defi nes applied linguistics as “the academic fi eld which connects knowledge about language to decision- making in the real world . In this sense applied linguistics mediates between theory and practice” (Simpson, 2011, p. 1). In The Oxford Handbook of Applied Linguistics, in place of a defi nition, Kaplan indicates that “Applied linguistics is a diffi cult notion to defi ne.” He goes on to say that the Handbook does not “provide a defi nitive defi nition of the fi eld,” and then explains the historical origin of the fi eld through the efforts of language teachers wanting to distance themselves from their colleagues teaching literature (Kaplan, 2010, p. vi). These two very recent books provide a wealth of examples of work in applied linguistics, which help to demonstrate the diffi culty the editors faced in constructing a usefully precise and inclusively accurate defi nition of the fi eld.