Are we teaching languages communicatively?

By -
Are We Teaching Languages Communicatively?

teaching languages communicatively에 대한 이미지 검색결과

At the CUNY Graduate Center, Bill Van Patten (2004) introduced the Fundamental Similarity Hypothesis (FSH), which claims that all languages are fundamentally similar. Van Patten’s main argument is that language acquisition is input-dependent, and that it is a matter of mental representation/computation.

In contrast, Interlanguage (IL) grammar is constrained by Universal Grammar (UG). Van Patten contends that Interlanguage Grammar is seemingly impervious to explicit instruction and correction. Second language acquisition is unsuccessful if the input is inaccessible or restricted. However, language acquisition is successful if the input is massive and is available through multiple modalities, not just Primary Linguistic Data (PLD) provided by adults in spoken form.

According to Van Patten, communicatively contextualized examples (spoken & Written) and structured input can produce changes in the learner’s output and may help her reformulate erroneous structures.

It is believed that a college educated individual possesses at least 80,000 academic words in her active vocabulary. The more the vocabulary growth, the more the internal grammar is affected.

Second Language Acquisition VS. First Language Acquisition
Van Patten states that competence is underdetermined by input, and that UG constrains and permits movement. UG’s rejection rate is higher when the parameters are violated strongly. By the same token, the rejection rate is much lower when the violations are weak. This happens because certain structures are permissible in some languages.

Poverty of Stimulus:
Principles and parameters are not instantiated in the same way in the learner’s L1 grammar. Explicit instruction is severely limited and does not facilitate successful acquisition of the language being taught and learned. Grammar instruction, in this sense, is extremely useless.

Van Patten referred to Sharwood-Smith who suggests that input be enhanced and the learners’ consciousness be raised to enable her to detect and reformulate errors (Input Enhancement in Instructed SLA). Ellis (1994) states that instruction may have a facilitative effect if grammar is contextualized and the focus is on negotiating meaning. Second language learners, especially adults, may be impervious to corrective feedback, a term coined by Michael Long, who points out that error correction is not a correct term since learners do not know they are making errors in their speech and written work in the first place. These learners may filter out corrective feedback because they do not perceive it as the teacher’s attempt to indicate an error. Another reason why explicit corrective feedback may not be effective is that the learner is negotiating meaning with the instructor who might be obsessed with correcting errors.

In closing, Van Patten states that while first language acquisition and second language acquisition are different on the surface, they are similar at the core. Thus, the Fundamental Similarity Hypothesis. He concludes by suggesting that languages be taught communicatively.







Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Schumann’s Acculturation Model

By -
Image
Schumann's Acculturation Model Consider how these social and psychological factors affect the extent of the learner’s capacity to learn his or her second language (L2).   Schumann asserts that the more distance created between the L2 learner and his or her target language (TL) culture by such factors, the less contact s/he will have with the TL culture and thus the lower will his or her expected L2 proficiency be. Furthermore, he considers the social factors to be the prime influences; the psychological factors come into play and become the deciding factors only in situations where the combined social factors create neither positive nor negative circumstances for the learner.   Which outcomes of each of these factors make for a bad learning situation and which ones for a good learning situation? Consider as many as apply to your group’s learner testimonial. Social Distance Factors Social dominance : Is the learner’s native group dominant to, equal to, or subor...
Keep reading

English Pronunciation for Turkish Speakers

By -
Image
Areas of Difficulty for Turkish Speakers Consonants: I.    /t/ & /d/: When Turkish speakers of English pronounce these alveolar consonants, they touch the back of their upper teeth with the tip of their tongue. Instead, try to form a constriction by touching your alveolar ridge (the area behind your upper teeth) with the tip of your tongue. Pronounce these sounds in different phonological environments such as word-initial, medial, and final position and in consonant clusters. tiresome      little      brat       staple    burst     crest                  totalitarianism automatic    trickster            cattle     dental    tirade    tardy     training technique    tangle...
Keep reading

Knowing a Word

By -
Image
Knowing a Word   Fluent native speakers intuitively know how to use a lexical item in the appropriate context. They can even determine meaning of an unfamiliar word when it is written or spoken. However, second language learners may not understand what constitutes knowledge of vocabulary. This post delineates the various strands of vocabulary non-native speakers need to acquire to become highly proficient in writing and speaking in their second language.  1. Word meaning:  Knowing a word entails understanding it when it is written and/or spoken by      others in formal contexts. Native speakers do this readily without asking for clarification, but      second language learners need to acquire this tacit knowledge of vocabulary.  2. Recall: A fluent speaker of a language can recall a word when it is needed in writing or in speech.     S/he can incorporate the needed word while speaking without looking it up...
Keep reading