UNIVERSITY OF KHARTOUM
FACULTY OF ARTS
ENGLISH DEPARTMENT
LANGUAGE ACQUISITION STRATEGIES:
With Specific Reference to English Language Acquisition by Sudanese
School Children
A Thesis
Submitted to the English Department in Fulfillment of the Requirements
for Ph.D. Degree in English Language
By
Safiya Yousof Ismail (B.A, M.A)
Supervised By
Prof. Muhammad Al-Busairi
2003
Dedication
To my parents,
To my family,
To those who helped
me a lot
I dedicate this
work.
Table of Contents
Contents
Table of Contents
Page
iii
List of Tables
viii
List of Figures
ix
List of Abbreviations
x
Acknowledgment
xi
Abstract (English Version)
xii
Abstract (Arabic Version)
xv
CHAPTER ONE: Introduction
1.1. Preview
1
1.2. Research Questions and Hypotheses
2
1.3. Limitation of the Study
4
1.4. Significance of the Study
6
1.5. Summary
10
CHAPTER TWO: Learning /Acquisition Theories
2.1. Introduction
12
2.2. Learning and Acquisition
13
2.3. Learning / Acquisition Theories
21
2.3.1.1 The Empiricist: “The Traditional Behaviorist”
21
2.3.1.2 Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis (CAH)
25
2.3.2. The Biological Foundation of Language Acquisition
32
2.3.2.1. The Innatists – The Neurologists
32
2.3.2.2. Universal Grammar (UG)
38
2.3.2.3. The Logical Problem of Second Language
Acquisition
2.3.3. The Psycholinguistic Theories
2.3.3.1. The Natural Order Hypothesis
39
45
45
A. The Holophrastic stage
47
B. The Telegraphic stage
47
2.3.3.2 The Monitor Hypothesis
51
2.3.3.3. The Affective- Filter Hypothesis
56
2.3.4. The Sociolinguistic Theories
67
2.3.4.1. The Interactionists
67
2.3.4.2. Discourse Theory
72
2.3.4.3. Accultration Theory
74
2.3.5. The Cognitive Theories
79
2.3.5.1. The Input Hypothesis
81
2.3.5.2. Creative Construction Theory
85
2.3.5.3. Cognitive and Perceptual Process in SLA
91
2.3.5.4. Language Acquisition and Cognitive Theory
2.4. Summary
96
98
CHAPTER THREE: Learning, Communication and
Production Strategies
3.1. Introduction
101
3.2. Learning Strategies
102
3.2.1. Definition and Identification
103
3.2.2. Learning Strategies Categorization
114
3.2.3. Interlanguage and Learning Strategies
124
3.2.3.1. The Learner’s Errors
124
3.2.3.2. Second Language Learning Strategies
129
3.3 Communication Strategies
134
3.3.1. Communication Strategies: Definition, Identification,
and Classification
13
3.3.2 Communication Strategies and Learning
Strategies
140
3.4. Second Language Production Strategies
143
3.5. Summary
147
CHAPTER FOUR: Methodology
4.1. Introduction
149
4.2. The Subjects
153
4.3. Measuring Instruments
154
4.3.1. Verbal-Self Report (or Think Aloud Technique )
155
4.3.2. Interview
156
4.3.3. Observation
157
4.3.4. Diaries
157
4.3.5. Error Analysis Technique
158
4.4. The Material
159
4.5. Pilot Study
160
4.6. Data Collection
161
4.6.1. Learning Strategies Data
161
4.6.2. Error Analysis Data
164
4.7. The Collected Data
165
4.8. Summary
167
CHAPTER FIVE: Analysis, Results and Discussion
5.1. Introduction
169
5.2. Analysis and Data Codification
170
5.2.1. The Proposed Scheme
171
5.2.2. Data Analysis and Codification
173
5.2.3. Independent Variables
182
5.3. Learning Strategies Used in Language Acquisition:
Results and Discussion
184
5.3.1. Learning Strategies Used in First Stages
in Language Acquisition
185
5.3.1. A. The Holophrastic stage
185
5.3.1. B. The Two-word Stage
187
5.3.1. C. The Telegraphic Stage
194
5.3.2. The Developmental Sequence of the Learner’s
Grammatical Construction
197
5.3.3. Learning Strategies and Negative Structure
Developmental Sequence
207
5.3.4. Strategies Used in Interrogative Form Acquisition
216
5.4. Conclusion
226
5.5. Summary
228
CHAPTER
SIX:
Recommendations
Conclusion,
Implication
and
6.1. Introduction
229
6.2. Conclusions
230
6.3. Implication and Recommendations
234
6.4. Proposals for Further Research
237
Bibliography
238
Appendices
List of Tables
Table (4-1): Profile of the Sample
154
Table (5-1): The Proposed Scheme for Classifying LS Used by
Subjects
170
Table (5-2): Codification of LS Used by Subjects
174
Table (5-3): Codification of LS Used by each Learner for each
Experiment
179
Table (5-4): Clusters of Subjects Using each LS
180
Table (5-5): Percentage of Frequency of each LS Used by Subjects
181
List of Figures
Figure (5-1): Flow Chart Showing the Steps of EA of the Informant
Interlanguage
177
Figure (5-2): Frequency of each LS Used by Subjects
182
List of Abbreviations
CA
Contrastive Analysis
CAH
Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis
CPH
Critical Period Hypothesis
CS
Communication Strategy
EA
Error Analysis
FL
Foreign Language
L1
First Language/ Native language
L2
Second Language
LA
Language Acquisition
LAD
Language Acquisition Device
LS
Learning Strategy
LSC
Language Specific Cognitive System
MT
Mother Tongue/Native Language
NL
Native Language
PS
Production Strategy
PSC
Problem Solving Cognitive System
SL
Second Language
SLA
Second Language Acquisition
TG
Transformational Grammar
TL
Target Language
UG
Universal Grammar
Acknowledgment
I would like to express my special thanks and gratitude to
Professor Muhammad Al-Busairi, my supervisor, who patiently
tolerated the pains of correction, discussion, and for his invaluable
advice and guidance.
I extend my thanks to AlRashaad Boys’ School, Banat Girls’
School, Comboni School, and SELTI, who welcomed me in their
schools and allowed me to attend lessons in their classes. Special
thanks are due to their staff members, who worked with me as
research assistants, and to their students.
My gratitude is extended to my colleagues, in Sudan and
Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, who allowed me to borrow freely their
books and references. My thanks to the British Council in
Khartoum and Jeddah for providing me with books and helping me
to get books from Great Britain.
My special love and gratitude are to my family who spent
days and nights beside me helping and encouraging.
My thanks are extended to every one who helped, advised,
and encouraged me.
Abstract
The aim of this study is to investigate the Learning Strategies (LS)
used by Sudanese English Foreign Language learners Basic School form
8. The
Sudanese English Language learners are taken in this study to
represent a sample of L2 learners. The surveyed LS in the present study
will be used in the comparison between learning strategies used by L2
learner and those learning strategies used by L1 learner. The objective of
this comparison is to prove the study hypothesis that L2 learner uses
nearly the same learning strategies used by L1 learner. At the same time,
the study seeks to prove that both L2 learner and L1 acquirers construct
hypotheses about the syntactic and grammatical rules of the language,
then overgeneralize these hypotheses and test them through language
use. This results in some “errors” and “goofs”. By analyzing these errors,
we can discover the learner’s hypotheses he/she constructs about the
language, the stage he/she is in his/her developmental language
acquisition process and the learning strategies he/she uses in this process.
The study examines whether a language learner, i.e. L1 and L2
learner, passes through the same natural sequence of acquisition in
language learning or not. It consists of six chapters.
Chapter One is an introduction where the problem of the study, its
limitation, its significance and objectives beside the procedure are stated
and discussed. The second and the third chapters are theoretical
background and literature review where Chapter Two discusses learning
and acquisition notions. It reviews some literature on L1 and L2
acquisition theories beside relevant hypotheses as CA and EA
hypotheses. Chapter Three is devoted for reviewing literature of the
notions as strategy, tactic, technique, communication strategies (CS),
production strategies (PS) with a specific interest in learning strategies
(LS) their identification and classifications.
Chapter Four deals with data collection; it describes the subject, the
instruments used, the procedure of the experiment and the collected data.
As for the fifth chapter, it is devoted to the data analysis, results and
discussion.
The final chapter deals with the main findings of the study and gives
the conclusion. It offers some implications and recommendations for
pedagogical purposes. It concludes with some proposals for further
research.
‫ﻣـﺴــــﺘـﺨــﻠــــﺺ‬
‫‪‬ﺪﻑ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﺪﺭﺍﺳﺔ ﺍﱄ ﻣﻌﺮﻓﺔ ﻭﺍﺳﺘﻜﺸﺎﻑ ﺍﻻﺳﺘﺮﺍﺗﻴﺠﻴﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﺘﻌﻠﻴﻤﻴﺔ ﺍﻟـﱵ‬
‫ﻳﺴﺘﺨﺪﻣﻬﺎ ﺍﻟﻄﻼﺏ ﺍﻟﺴﻮﺩﺍﻧﻴﻮﻥ ﰲ ﺩﺭﺍﺳﺔ ﺍﻟﻠﻐﺔ ﺍﻻﳒﻠﻴﺰﻳﺔ ﻛﻠﻐﺔ ﺃﺟﻨﺒﻴﺔ‪.‬ﰒ ﺍﺳﺘﺨﺪﺍﻡ‬
‫ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻻﺳﺘﺮﺍﺗﻴﺠﻴﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﱵ ﰎ ﺍﻟﺘﻌﺮﻑ ﻋﻠﻴﻬﺎ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻌﻴﻨـﺔ ﺍﳌﺨﺘـﺎﺭﺓ ﻣـﻦ ﺍﻟﻄـﻼﺏ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺴﻮﺩﺍﻧﲔ ﻛﻤﺠﻤﻮﻋﺔ ﲡﺮﻳﺒﻴﺔ ﻟﺪﺍﺭﺳﻲ ﺍﻟﻠﻐﺔ ﺍﻻﳒﻠﻴﺰﻳﺔ ﻛﻠﻐـﺔ ﺃﺟﻨﺒﻴـﺔ‪ ,‬ﻭﺫﻟـﻚ‬
‫ﻟﻠﻤﻘﺎﺭﻧﺔ ﺑﻴﻨﻬﺎ ﻭﺑﲔ ﺍﻻﺳﺘﺮﺍﺗﻴﺠﻴﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﺘﻌﻠﻴﻤﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ ﻳﺴـﺘﺨﺪﻣﻬﺎ ﻣﻜﺘﺴـﺐ ﺍﻟﻠﻐـﺔ‬
‫ﺍﻷﳒﻠﻴﺰﻳﺔ)ﺃﻯ ﺍﻟﻄﻔﻞ ﺍﻟﺬﻯ ﻳﻜﺘﺴﺒﻬﺎ ﻛﻠﻐﺔ ﺃﻡ(‪.‬‬
‫ﺍﳍﺪﻑ ﻣﻦ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﳌﻘﺎﺭﻧـﺔ ﺑـﲔ ﺍﺳـﺘﺮﺍﺗﻴﺠﻴﺎﺕ ﺍﻛﺘﺴـﺎﺏ ﺍﻟﻠﻐـﺔ ﺍﻷﻭﱃ‬
‫ﻭﺍﺳﺘﺮﺍﺗﻴﺠﻴﺎﺕ ﺗﻌﻠﻢ ﺍﻟﻠﻐﺔ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﻧﻴﺔ ﺃﻭ ﺍﻟﻠﻐﺔ ﺍﻷﺟﻨﺒﻴﺔ ﻫﻮ ﺍﺛﺒﺎﺕ ﺃﻭ ﻧﻔﻰ ﺍﻟﻔﺮﺿﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ‬
‫ﺗﻔﺘﺮﺽ ﺃ ﹼﻥ ﺍﻻﺳﺘﺮﺍﲡﻴﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺗﺴﺘﺨﺪﻡ ﰲ ﺍﻛﺘﺴـﺎﺏ ﺍﻟﻠﻐـﺔ ﺍﻷﻭﱄ ﻫـﻲ ﻧﻔـﺲ‬
‫ﺍﻻﺳﺘﺮﺗﻴﺠﻴﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺗﺴﺘﺨﺪﻡ ﰲ ﺗﻌﻠﻢ ﺍﻟﻠﻐﺔ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﻧﻴﺔ‪.‬‬
‫ﻭﲜﺎﻧﺐ ﺫﻟﻚ ﺍﻥ ﻛﻼ ﻣﻦ ﻣﻜﺘﺴﺐ ﺍﻟﻠﻐﺔ ﺍﻷﻡ ﻭﻣﺘﻌﻠﻢ ﺍﻟﻠﻐﺔ ﺍﻷﺟﻨﺒﻴﺔ ﻳﻜـﻮﻥ‬
‫ﻓﺮﺿﻴﺎﺕ ﻋﻦ ﻗﻮﺍﻧﲔ ﻭﻗﻮﺍﻋﺪ ﺍﻟﻠﻐﺔ ﺍﳌﺘﻌﻠﻤﺔ ﻭﻛﻞ ﻣﻨﻬﻤﺎ ﳜﺘﱪ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﻔﺮﺿﻴﺎﺕ ﻋـﻦ‬
‫ﻃﺮﻳﻖ ﺍﺳﺘﻌﻤﺎﻝ ﺍﻟﻠﻐﺔ ﳑﺎ ﻳﻨﺘﺞ ﻋﻦ ﺫﻟﻚ ﺑﻌﺾ ﺍﻷﺧﻄﺎﺀ ﺍﻟﻠﻐﻮﻳﺔ‪ .‬ﻭﺑﺪﺭﺍﺳـﺔ ﻭﲢﻠﻴـﻞ‬
‫ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻷﺧﻄﺎﺀ ﳝﻜﻦ ﺍﻟﺘﻌﺮﻑ ﻋﻠﻲ ﺍﻻﺳﺘﺮﺍﺗﻴﺠﻴﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺗﺴﺘﻌﻤﻞ ﰲ ﺗﻌﻠﻢ ﺍﻟﻠﻐﺔ )ﻟﻐـﺔ‬
‫ﺍﻷﻡ ﺃﻭ ﺍﻟﻠﻐﺔ ﺍﻷﺟﻨﺒﻴﺔ( ﻭ ﺍﻟﺘﻜﻬﻦ ﺑﺎﻟﻔﺮﺿﻴﺎﺕ ﻭﺍﻟﻘﻮﺍﻧﲔ ﺍﻟﱵ ﻛﻮ‪‬ﺎ ﻛﻞ ﺩﺍﺭﺱ ﻣﻨﻬﻤﺎ‬
‫ﺑﺎﻻﺿﺎﻓﺔ ﺍﱃ ﺍﻟﻘﺪﺭ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﺍﻛﺘﺴﺒﻪ ﻛﻞ ﻣﻨﻬﻤﺎ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻠﻐﺔ ﻭﺍﳌﺴﺘﻮﻱ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﺍﺭﺗﻘﻲ ﺍﻟﻴﻪ‪.‬‬
‫ﰲ ﻧﻔﺲ ﺍﻟﻮﻗﺖ ﺗﺒﺤﺚ ﺍﻟﺪﺭﺍﺳﺔ ﻋﻦ ﻣﺎ ﺍﺫﺍ ﻛﺎﻥ ﻛﻞ ﻣﻦ ﻣﻜﺘﺴﺐ ﺍﻟﻠﻐﺔ ﺍﻷﻡ‬
‫ﻭﺩﺍﺭﺱ ﺍﻟﻠﻐﺔ ﺍﻷﺟﻨﺒﻴﺔ ﳝﺮ ﺑﻨﻔﺲ ﺍﳋﻄﻮﺍﺕ ﰲ ﺍﻛﺘﺴﺎﺏ ﺍﻟﻠﻐﺔ ﻭﺍﻷﻃﻮﺍﺭ ﺍﻟﱵ ﳝﺮ ‪‬ـﺎ‬
‫ﺍﻵﺧﺮ‪.‬‬
‫ﻳﻨﺒﻐﻲ ﺍﻻﺷﺎﺭﺓ ﺍﱄ ﺃ ﹼﻥ ﺍﻟﻠﻐﺔ ﺍﻻﳒﻠﻴﺰﻳﺔ ﰱ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﺪﺭﺍﺳﺔ ﺃﺧﺬﺕ ﻛﻤﺜﺎﻝ ﻟﻠﻐﺔ‬
‫ﺍﳌﻜﺘﺴﺒﺔ ﻛﻠﻐﺔ ﺃﻡ ﻭﺍﳌﺘﻌﻠﻤﺔ ﻛﻠﻐﺔ ﺃﺟﻨﺒﻴﺔ‪.‬‬
‫ﺗﺘﻜﻮﻥ ﺍﻟﺪﺭﺍﺳﺔ ﻣﻦ ﺳﺘﺔ ﻓﺼﻮﻝ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻔﺼﻞ ﺍﻷﻭﻝ ﻋﺒﺎﺭﺓ ﻋﻦ ﻣﻘﺪﻣﺔ ﻟﻠﺪﺭﺍﺳﺔ ﺗﺴﺘﻌﺮﺽ ﺍﻃﺎﺭ ﺍﻟﺒﺤﺚ‪ ,‬ﺍﳌﺸـﻜﻠﺔ‬
‫ﺍﻟﱴ ﺗﺒﺤﺜﻬﺎ ﺍﻟﺪﺭﺍﺳﺔ‪ ,‬ﺃﳘﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺒﺤﺚ ﻭﳏﺪﺩﺍﺗﻪ ﻭﻣﻨﻬﺞ ﺍﻟﺒﺤﺚ‪.‬‬
‫ﺍﻟﻔﺼﻼﻥ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﱐ ﻭﺍﻟﺜﺎﻟﺚ ﻳﺴﺘﻌﺮﺿﺎﻥ ﻧﻈﺮﻳﺎﺕ ﺍﻛﺘﺴﺎﺏ ﺍﻟﻠﻐﺔ ﻭ ﺍﻟﺪﺭﺍﺳـﺎﺕ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺴﺎﺑﻘﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﺒﺤﻮﺙ ﰲ ﻧﻔﺲ ﳎﺎﻝ ﺍﻟﺪﺭﺍﺳﻪ ‪ ,‬ﻓﺎﻟﻔﺼﻞ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﱐ ﻳﻨﺎﻗﺶ ﻧﻈﺮﻳـﺎﺕ ﺗﻌﻠـﻢ‬
‫ﻭﺍﻛﺘﺴﺎﺏ ﺍﻟﻠﻐﺔ ﻭﺧﺎﺻﺔ ﺍﻟﻨﻈﺮﻳﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻌﻠﻤﻴﺔ ﰲ ﳎﺎﻝ ﺍﻛﺘﺴﺎﺏ ﺍﻟﻠﻐﺔ ﺍﻷﻡ ﻭﺗﻌﻠﻢ ﺍﻟﻠﻐﺔ‬
‫ﺍﻷﺟﻨﺒﻴﺔ ﲜﺎﻧﺐ ﻣﻨﺎﻗﺸﺔ ﻣﻔﺎﻫﻴﻢ ﻭ ﻧﻈﺮﻳﺎﺕ ﺫﺍﺕ ﺻﻠﺔ ﻣﺜﻞ ﻣﻔﻬﻮﻡ ﺗﻌﻠﻢ ﻭ ﺍﻛﺘﺴـﺎﺏ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻠﻐﺔ‪-‬ﻧﻈﺮﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﺤﻠﻴﻞ ﺍﳌﻘﺎﺭﻥ ﻟﻸﺧﻄﺎﺀ ﺍﻟﻠﻐﻮﻳﺔ‪.‬‬
‫ﺃﻣﺎ ﺍﻟﻔﺼﻞ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﻟﺚ ﻓﻘﺪ ﻛﺮﺱ ﻻﺳﺘﻌﺮﺍﺽ ﺁﺭﺍﺀ ﺍﻟﻌﻠﻤﺎﺀ ﻭﺗﻌﺮﻳﻔﺎ‪‬ﻢ ﳌﻔـﺎﻫﻴﻢ‬
‫ﻋﻠﻤﻴﺔ ﻣﺜﻞ ﺍﻻﺳﺘﺮﺍﺗﻴﺠﻴﺎﺕ ﻭﺍﻟﺘﻘﻨﻴﺎﺕ ﻭﺍﻟﺘﻜﺘﻴﻜﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﱵ ﻳﺴﺘﻌﻤﻠﻬﺎ ﻣﺘﻌﻠﻢ ﺍﻟﻠﻐـﺔ ‪ ،‬ﻭ‬
‫ﺍﺳﺘﺮﺍﺗﻴﺠﻴﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﺘﻮﺍﺻﻞ ﺍﻟﻠﻐﻮﻯ ﻣﻊ ﺗﺮﻛﻴﺰ ﺧﺎﺹ ﻋﻠﻲ ﺍﺳﺘﺮﺍﺗﻴﺠﻴﺎﺕ ﺗﻌﻠﻢ ﺍﻟﻠﻐﺔ‪.‬‬
‫ﺍﻟﻔﺼﻞ ﺍﻟﺮﺍﺑﻊ ﻭﺍﳋﺎﻣﺲ ﻓﻴﻤﺜﻼﻥ ﲡﺮﺑﺔ ﺍﻟﺪﺭﺍﺳﺔ ﺣﻴﺚ ﳜﺘﺺ ﺍﻟﻔﺼﻞ ﺍﻟﺮﺍﺑﻊ‬
‫ﰲ ﻭﺻﻒ ﻣﻨﻬﺞ ﺍﻟﺪﺭﺍﺳﺔ ﻭﻣﻮﺿﻮﻋﻬﺎ ﻭﺍﻷﺩﻭﺍﺕ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺍﺳﺘﺨﺪﻣﺖ ﻭﻋﻴﻨﺔ ﺍﻟﺒﺤـﺚ ‪،‬‬
‫ﲜﺎﻧﺐ ﺍﻟﻄﺮﻳﻘﺔ ﺍﻻﺟﺮﺍﺋﻴﺔ ﻟﻠﺘﺠﺮﺑﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﱵ ﺍﺳﺘﺨﺪﻣﺖ ﳉﻤﻊ ﺍﻟﺒﻴﺎﻧﺎﺕ ﻭﻭﺻﻒ ﺗﻠـﻚ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺒﻴﺎﻧﺎﺕ ‪ .‬ﺍﻟﻔﺼﻞ ﺍﳋﺎﻣﺲ ﺍﻫﺘﻢ ﺑﺘﺤﻠﻴﻞ ﺍﻟﺒﻴﺎﻧﺎﺕ ﻭﺍﻟﻨﺘﺎﺋﺞ ﻭﺍﻟﻨﻘﺎﺵ ﻻﺛﺒﺎﺕ ﻧﻈﺮﻳـﺔ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺒﺤﺚ‪.‬‬
‫ﻭﺃﺧﲑﺍ ﺍﻟﻔﺼﻞ ﺍﻟﺴﺎﺩﺱ ﻳﻌﺮﺽ ﺍﻟﻨﺘﺎﺋﺞ ﺍﻟﻨﻬﺎﺋﻴﺔ ﻟﻠﺪﺭﺍﺳﺔ ﻭﻳﻌﻄﻲ ﺍﳋﻼﺻـﺔ‬
‫ﻭﺍﻟﺘﻮﺻﻴﺎﺕ ﻋﻠﻲ ﺿﻮﺀ ﻣﺎ ﺗﻮﺻﻞ ﺍﻟﻴﻪ ﺍﻟﺒﺎﺣﺚ‪ .‬ﻛﻤﺎ ﻳﻘﺪﻡ ﺍﻗﺘﺮﺍﺣﺎﺕ ﻻﺟﺮﺍﺀ ﲝﻮﺙ‬
‫ﻼ‪.‬‬
‫ﰲ ﻧﻔﺲ ﳎﺎﻝ ﺍﻟﺪﺭﺍﺳﻪ ﻣﺴﺘﻘﺒ ﹰ‬
CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
1.1 Preview
Since I was a child I used to ask myself how it came that all
people agreed that words and languages mean what they mean, and
how it came that children grew up and spoke the same language of
their parents, communicating with others to express the “meaning”
they themselves got using the same “form” used by adults. I used to
ask myself “how languages are learned?” “What helps children to
learn their mother tongue (henceforth MT)?” These questions, beside
others, motivated me to do this study.
In this chapter, the research questions and hypotheses of the
study (1.2) in addition to the study limitation (1.3) are stated. The
significance and the objectives of the study (1.4) beside the
procedure (1.5) are discussed. It is necessary to mention here that I am
aware of the fact that English language is not a second language in
Sudan; it is a foreign language.
1.2 Research Questions and Hypotheses
The above mentioned meditations crystallized and formed these
research questions:
1- How are languages learned? What helps children to match
meaning to form and express themselves clearly so that they are
understood by those around them?
2- Do FL/SL learners perform the same processes and
mechanisms and use the same means and techniques to learn the
language?
These questions are not so easy to answer. Therefore, this
research addresses itself to the problem expressed by the abovementioned questions. Yet these questions developed in the following
hypotheses.
1- The second language learner acquires the target language
using the same techniques and learning strategies which are used by
the L1 learner.
2- Language learners construct hypotheses about the language
and est them via applying them to language use and language
production.
3- Both learners, L1 and L2 learners, pass in their route to
acquire the language, more or less, by the same developmental
sequence.
4- Both language learners make the same errors. These errors tell
us about the learner’s internal processing mechanism, the learning
strategies the language learner is applying, and the stage in the
sequence of the language acquisition the leaner is passing through.
Learners’ errors indicate what hypotheses the language learner has got
in his/her mind and tell us where the learner has arrived in his/her
internal or in-built syllabus sequence.
Thus, language learners’ errors are themselves learning
strategies to test the hypotheses the learner constructed about the
syntactic rules of the language. Learner’s errors help the learner’s
internal mechanism and his/her cognitive organizer in their function.
Then, the scope of this study is the learning strategies used by
both L1 and L2 learners to acquire the English language as L1 or L2.
These are reflected by the hypotheses the learner constructs about the
language, and by the natural acquisition sequence in acquiring the
morphological and the syntactic rules, in addition to negation and
interrogation acquisition
1.3 Limitation of the Study
I believe that the results of the study allow more questions to be
asked and evoke new techniques and methods to be used. However,
the researcher admits that this study has some limitations and
drawbacks.
1. This study is a pseudo-longitudinal one where the data dealt
with was collected in short sessions, about an hour for each subject.
The researcher used to visit the schools in intervals randomly for a
whole academic year. Data was collected either written or verbalized
by the subjects, or written down by the researcher and the research
assistant during observation sessions. It is true that language learning
and language acquisition is a complex psychological and cognitive
process, which requires a long time. Therefore, I do not claim that the
time I spent was enough for such a study.
2. Cognitive psychology tells us that some learning strategies are
‘declarative knowledge’ and can be observed while others are
‘procedural knowledge’ and occur ‘fleetingly’ and cannot be noticed.
To capture these ‘fleeting’ strategies, observation and ‘the think aloud
technique’ were used congruently to collect learning strategies beside
the interview.
Moreover, diaries were used to allow the subjects
enough time to consider the strategies they usually use. The subjects
were given a list to select the appropriate learning strategies they used
and to mention any other techniques/tactics they used to use. Beside
this, subjects wrote a text where Error Analysis technique was applied
to the learner’s production to collect the data. Still, I do not claim that
I have captured every learning strategy I was interested in, nor that
every subject verbalized or displayed clearly the strategies he/she
used. Also, learners differ in their choice of LS at different stages of
language acquisition. So, the data which was gathered and dealt with,
cannot be described as complete.
3. I planned to analyze the data by using advanced computer and
statistical methods; but owing to the limitation in financial resources, I
could not achieve exactly what I planned to do. Thus, the analysis and
the conclusion would have been better if I had used the above
mentioned methods.
1.4 Significance of the Study
The purpose, or the ‘raison d’etre’, of this study, which I have in
my mind, is the answer to the recurrent question: “how can I help in
improving the process of acquisition of English language in Sudan as
an English language teacher?” The study is an attempt to answer the
question “how languages are learned?” The findings might be used to
share in the process of improving our teaching methods and
facilitating the learning of English language in Sudan.
This study is based on the belief that teaching will be better and
fruitful if we could understand the learner and the psychological and
linguistic learning processes which operate in the learner’s mind.
Teachers are challenged to understand the language learner and to
accept his/her language or interlanguage. It is necessary to consider
the strategies that the learner uses to understand why learners learn the
language in the way they do. Teaching, as well as learning, cannot
take place without understanding the learner. The teacher has to accept
the way the learner learns the language and the language of the second
language learner as the mother accepts the children non-standard
speech for the sake of the learning process. Errors in second language
learner’s language help the learner to adjust his/her syntactic rules and
to organize the linguistic items he/she receives and acquires in his/her
creative process of language acquisition.
The teachers’ role in language acquisition is not only to decide
the content, the sequence of the syllabus, and the methodology to
manage the process of learning. Teachers should understand the
incremental nature of language acquisition. They have to attempt to
investigate the cognitive processes and learning strategies used by the
second language learner and participate in language acquisition. It is
naive to believe that teachers and methodologists can decide what to
be learned without regarding the language learner and the cognitive
language learning process. What is decided to do may not conform
with the learning process, the techniques and the tactics with which
the language learner is acquiring the language, and not even to the
item which the language learner is focusing on. For example, a learner
may be focusing on the tactics and the strategies by which he/she can
express the meaning he/she got, not bothering himself/ herself how
grammatical the sentence is. In this case, he/she is in need to be helped
in semantic, the vocabulary and the structure that can communicate
what he/she has to express. In this very moment, the teacher may be
engaged in focusing on grammatical correctness. Instances of this
discrepancy may lead the language learning process to an unsuccessful
result. To be helpful to the language learner and to contribute to the
language learning process, we have to understand how the language
learner handles the linguistic data available for him/her and how
he/she is managing the learning process. This can be done by
considering the learning strategies utilized by the language learner and
by understanding specific language acquisition processes as the
natural sequence of language acquisition, the hypotheses constructed
by the learner about the semantic and syntactic rules of the language.
This does not mean that this study is envisaged to provide
“solutions” or “specific methodology” for language teachers or has a
complete answer for the question: “how languages are learned”. It is an
attempt to understand the language acquisition process in L1 and L2, to
compare them to find out the shared features in both processes and the
learning strategies used. It is also an attempt to discover the linguistic
processes and the “in-built syllabus” or the sequence of the development
of the linguistic items acquisition, the hypotheses constructed by
language learners and above all the learning strategies.
The study was conducted as follows:
1. a) In the beginning, a review of relevant literature was
executed to establish the theoretical framework and to define specific
concepts such as learning, acquisition, strategy and classification of
the strategies. Then a brief account of theories of learning and
acquisition was given.
b) A second review of relevant literature was done to collect the
learning strategies used by children acquiring their MT, the
developmental route of acquisition taken by L1 learner, the natural
sequence of acquisition, and other relevant information.
2. The second part of the study is an empirical study for data
collection. The data was collected from a representative sample of
students learning English language as a target language in the Basic
Level School in Sudan (Omdurman city) chosen randomly. Subjects
were chosen from
two governmental schools of the Basic Level
(boys and girls), one private school, and an institute that is specialized
in teaching English language. All subjects were in the Basic Level
School.
The experiment procedure was as follows:
1. A story “the Clever Crow” depicted in series of pictures was
used to collect the LS used by the subjects. The “Clever Crow” story
is taken from J. A. Bright. 1954. “Junior English Composition and
Grammar. Pupils’ Book”. Longmans p135.
2. Observation was used.
3. Subjects were interviewed for retrospection.
III. A comparison between language learning strategies (LS)
used by first language learners and those used by second language
learners was executed to find out the differences and the similarities in
the process of language acquisition by both sets of learners.
In this study ‘language learner’ means both second language
learner and first language learner, unless it is stated other wise.
‘Second language’ means Second Language, Target Language, and
Foreign language (SL, TL, FL).
1.5 Summary
In this chapter, questions were posed, hypotheses stated, and the
limitation and the significance of the study have been shown. In
addition, the role of the teacher and syllabus designer was mentioned.
Second Language Acquisition (SLA) process was discussed together
with the language learner’s. The field of SLA is open for more
research in Sudan, and I hope that the study will shed some light into
the process of English language acquisition in Sudan.
In the next chapters, the theoretical framework for the study will
be presented and the relevant literature will be reviewed.
CHAPTER TWO
LEARNING /ACQUISITION THEORIES
2.1 Introduction
In this chapter, previous works and studies by scholars in the
field of language learning and acquisition will be reviewed to form a
basic theoretical framework for the study. Theorists tried to
“crystallize” their ideas and thoughts in hypotheses and theories. The
researcher will discuss these ideas and theories beside related notions
such as learning and acquisition.
The chapter will discuss the viewpoints of different theories
concerning learning and acquisition process as the ‘empiricist’ theory
(i.e. the traditional Behaviorists theory). What the scholars
supporting the biological foundation of language acquisition theory
tell us, both the Innatists and the Neurologists will be examined. An
account of psycholinguistic theories in addition to what the
sociolinguistic theories believe about language learning and
acquisition and the argument of the cognitive theories will be
discussed here. Related notions such as Universal Grammar, the
logical problem, (CA and EA), creative construction, restructuring,
and others will be discussed.
2.2 Learning and Acquisition
Second language acquisition specialists (e.g. Wilkins 1974;
Krashen, 1981; Stevick, 1982; Krashen and Terrel, 1983; Littlewood,
1984; Ellis, 1985, 1989; Yule, 1985) argue that second language
(henceforth L2) learners have two distinctive ways for building their
L2 language competence: learning and acquisition. Learning is said
to be a conscious process in which the learner concentrates on the
form of the language, i.e. the structure; where acquisition is a process
similar to that process we use to acquire our native language.
Acquisition is said to be a subconscious activity, which enables us to
internalize the new language.
In acquisition process, attention is
paid to the message (i.e. the meaning of the utterance) rather than to
the form of the language and its rules as in the process of learning.
In the classroom, learning is frequently practised not
acquisition. Students usually concentrate on the form of the language
and the new structural items, analyze and practise them. Language
learning leads to the explicit knowledge about the forms of language
and it results in accuracy and the ability to verbalize this knowledge.
Acquisition helps to pick up the language and it results in
fluency. Formal and traditional methods of teaching do not help in
the process of acquisition as in learning. In learning language is used
for practice and correction of errors which helps with the
development of learned rules; but language in acquisition is available
for automatic production. In classroom, learning is emphasized more
than acquisition and students practise language (concentrating on the
form) and they are expected to produce correct forms of the
language, either functionally or structurally. This means that learners
should be conscious to the language they produce.
Students in
formal learning are usually checked and tested in their lexical and
grammatical knowledge and they have to study for exams. Krashen
(1981:182) explains the distinction between language acquisition and
learning. He states:
"Language acquisition is very similar to the
process children use in acquiring first and
second languages.
It requires meaningful
interactions in the target language-natural
communication–in
which
speakers
are
concerned not with the forms of their utterances
but with the messages they are conveying and
understanding…”
Thus, according to the acquisition/learning hypothesis, learning
cannot lead to acquisition or fluency. Krashen states that fluency in
L2 is due to " …what we have acquired, not what we have learned”
(ibid: 99).
In real life when people speak their native language (NL), they
rarely focus their attention on the form of the language.
They are
usually concerned with the meaning or with what the speaker wants
to say, his non-linguistic features, his gestures and his signs, which
help them to understand the message.
This is not the case in
learning where concentration is on the form. Holec (1987:146) points
out:
“Language
learning
refers
to
the
active
involvement of an individual in a variety of
activities the outcome of which is expected to be
the acquisition of the knowledge and know-how
which confer competence in the target language.
It is a process distinct from, though related to,
the process of acquisition”.
Rubin (1987:29) defines learning by saying that:
“By learning we mean the process by which
information is obtained, stored, retrieved, and
used”.
For Stevick (1982:21) acquisition is sometimes used to describe the
way a person uses to be able to control a language and learning as
instruction in the classroom. Holec (1987:145) argues that learning is
sometimes used to mean the “physical and mental activities” and the
“study tasks” the learner has to do to be “Competent” in the target
language. He adds that the term is used in other contexts to mean the
“process of integration of the language to acquisition”. It means that
the “process of integration of the language” to Holec is “acquisition”.
Holec continues to tell us that in some contexts it is used to mean
both the above-mentioned meanings.
This means that learning sometimes means acquisition of the
language, and sometimes studying the language both the physical
and mental activities. In fact, in real life they are closely related to
each other. Stevick (1982) points out that people believe “learning
and acquisition”, come after each other “with perhaps few years’
overlap”. He argues that the ability to acquire dies out at about the
age of puberty; and learning is attainable in the first years of
schooling as “the necessary ‘readiness’ developed”. He adds that
acquisition in adults is a different or a “third process”. For Stevick,
acquisition is natural as he believes that the acquirer of a language
finds the linguistic items, i.e. ‘the language’, “…in the full context of
some kind and genuine human communication. There is no special
presentation of a new item, no organized drilling and no testing in the
academic sense” (pp. 21-22). He thinks that there is even difference
between learning and acquisition in the final result and what a person
learns may be lost or forgotten “…after ‘or before!’ the next
text…while what a person acquires …is relatively permanent” (ibid).
Yule (1985) thinks that acquisition is the gradual development
of ability in a language while using language in an authentic
interaction. However, learning is a“…conscious process of
accumulating knowledge of the vocabulary and grammar of a
language” (ibid: 151).
McLaughlin (1987) argues that acquisition is a result of a
meaningful interaction in an authentic setting where speakers do not
focus on form but on the meaning, and no attention is paid to errors
and correction. This is not the case in learning in formal classes
where correction of errors besides formal rules and feedback are the
backbone of language classes (ibid: 20). On the other hand, Ritchie
(1978) uses acquisition and acquirer rather than learning and learner
to cover both processes. Duly and Burt (1982) use the two terms
acquisition and learning interchangeably and so does Ellis (1996: 6)
“… whether conscious or subconscious processes are involved”.
Hatch (1978: 433) says, “I don’t believe there is a real difference
between acquisition and learning…” Though Littlewood (1984: 3)
declares that although “…learning refers to a conscious process for
internalizing a second language, whereas acquisition refers to a
subconscious process…” Littlewood declares that he will not use this
differentiation in terms “systematically” (1984:3). As such, one may
see and believe in the difference between learning and acquisition
but he/she will also does the same as Littlewood does; not use them
systematically.
It is obvious that the traditional view or the Acquisition
/Learning Hypothesis proponents look at learning as the conscious
knowledge and internalization of the rules of the language and the
process of accumulating lexicon, which is always gained by formal
instruction using traditional methods of teaching. Thus, it is
unnatural and it does not lead to fluency in conversation nor does it
lead to acquisition of the language. On the other hand, acquisition is
a natural gradual development of ability in a language. The acquirer
picks up the language in a natural environment in authentic social
interactions, i.e. language is used in a natural environment in
communicative situations. Here language is acquired subconsciously
and spontaneously, and this leads to fluency in speech.
The argument means that conscious gains of knowledge cannot
be integrated in subconscious knowledge and development of the
language, i.e. what a learner learns in language through language
instruction will not help him/her to acquire language. In fact, this
may not be the case. Learning and acquisition are not mutually
exclusive processes, but they are potentially integrated parts of the
same process of acquiring TL. Many learners have the experience
where some elements of the language use are at first conscious then
after some time they become unconscious and they produce them
automatically owing to practice and frequent use.
Some writers and experts (e.g. Oxford 1990: 4) advocates that
both learning and acquisition are important for developing
communicative competence. They think using the term learningacquisition continuum is more accurate than using the dichotomy
learning/acquisition in speaking about development of language
abilities.
Largely, the two terms, learning and acquisition may be
referred to as two components of what may be taken as a single
process. In real life one “learns” a language to “acquire” it and it is
the desire to acquire the TL that leads the learner to engage
himself/herself in learning it being in a classroom, or ‘to pick it up’
in a social context through communicational situations.
In the present study, learning and acquisition are used
interchangeably. They are regarded here as a cognitive process, with
its neurological aspects, as groups of activities and tasks in which the
learner engages him/herself in a classroom or outside a classroom
being conscious or subconscious, the result of which is the building
of communicative competence.
‘Language learner’ or just the ‘learner’ is used here to mean ‘the
acquirer’ or ‘language learner’ or ‘language acquirer’. The learner is
seen, in this study, as active, motivated, self-directed and creative in
the process of building his/her language system and communicative
competence. Communicative competence here means the learner
language system which he/she uses effectively in his/her meaningful
communication (be verbal or written)
2.3 Learning/ Acquisition Theories
2.3.1.1 The Empiricists (The Traditional Behaviorist)
Before the 1960’s the domain of research on language and
language learning was dominated mainly by the “behaviorist”
approach. The well-recognized proponent of this approach is Skinner
whose book “Verbal Behavior, 1957” is the yardstick of this
approach. For the behaviorist the human being is an organism, who is
able to perform different forms of behaviors. The occurrence of these
behaviors in learning depends on three crucial elements: stimulus,
response, and reinforcement. The role of each element may be
explained.
Stimulus: elicit a specific behavior.
Response: a behavior triggered by a stimulus.
Reinforcement: varies according to the behavior being
appropriate or inappropriate which works to encourages the behavior
(positive reinforcement) or suppresses it (negative reinforcement).
Reinforcement is a very important element in learning as it
encourages the behavior to be repeated and to form a habit
eventually.
Thus, behaviorists believe that language learning is not a
mental phenomenon; it is a behavior. It is simply a matter of
imitation and habit formation drawing on stimulus –response chain.
The behaviorist believes that children in the process of learning their
mother tongue just imitate the sounds and patterns they hear around
them. They usually receive positive “reinforcement” which may be a
kiss, a form of praise or just successful communication for doing so
from people around them who may recognize some attempts as being
near to the adults’ models. Encouraged by their environment and in
order to receive more “rewards”, children tend to repeat the sounds
and patterns. They practise and condition or shape their verbal
behavior until they form “habits” of correct language use and their
verbal behavior coincide with the adults’ models. In this way, we say
with Littlewood (1984: 5), “…the child’s own utterances were not
seen as possessing a system in their own right”.
Irrespective of the type of the learning behavior described by
behaviorist theory proponents (Skinner 1957, Watson 1924) actually
happens or not, habit-formation theory has dominated discussion of
both first and second language acquisition up to 1960’s. Moreover, it
gave a general framework for second language acquisition as habitformation process. It also explained why the second language
acquirers make errors, and that is a result of the intrusion or
interference of L1 process into the process of second language
acquisition. Watson states (cited in Bright and Mc Gregor, 1970:
236).) that habits are automatic and they are performed
spontaneously without awareness. They are difficult to eradicate
unless environmental changes led to the extension of the stimulus
upon which they were built. This means to learn a new language the
learner has to (unlearn) the first language so as not to commit errors.
Behaviorists believe that old habits get in the way of learning new
ones and “…the grammatical apparatus programmed into the mind as
the first language interferes with the smooth acquisition of the
second” (Bright and Mc Gregor, 1970: 236). This viewpoint shows
how the notion of “interference” is central in the behaviorist account
of second language acquisition. Here the behaviorist theory goes
with the theory which tells us “interference was the result of what
was called proactive inhibition. This is concerned with the way in
which previous learning prevents or inhibits the learning of new
habits” (Ellis, 1996:22).
The Behaviorist learning theory states that transfer takes place
from the first to the second language. It will be “negative transfer if
there is proactive inhibition” and hence errors will result. It will be
‘positive transfer’ if the first and second language habits are similar,
or L1 habits help in the process of L2 acquisition and here errors will
not occur.
2.3.1.2 Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis
The above-discussed conviction leads us to realize how
Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis (CAH) is deeply rooted in the
behaviorist theory (as well as in the structuralist). Lado (1957) states
that the teacher who compares L2 with the learner’s NL can
recognize better the problems and difficulties which will face the
learner and can help him\her. Therefore, many comparisons of pairs
of languages were done by scholars and linguists to predict the areas
of learning difficulties that may face the learner besides several
theoretical contrastive studies. The result was an inventory of the
areas of difficulty which the learner would face. The aim of these
studies was to direct the teacher to focus on these areas to try to
overcome them. In fact, teachers were not pleased with these results
as their experience tells them more than that. Their real needs are to
know about methods and methodology (Corder, 1967; Ellis, 1996).
Some of the behaviorists suggest that there is a danger that
errors may become habits in their own right if they are not
eradicated. Brooks (1960) believes that an error is to be avoided as a
sin. There is consensus says Ellis (1996) that errors should be
avoided and they should never be committed. If they are committed,
they should be corrected on the spot by drilling, as they are signs of
“unlearnability” of the language.
Contrastive analysis hypothesis exists in strong and weak forms
says Wardhaugh (1970). The strong form believes, as mentioned
above, that the analysis and the comparisons done between the two
language
systems
(i.e.
NL
and
TL)
can
predict
errors.
Lee (1968:180) states “the prime cause, or even the sole cause, of
the difficulty and errors in foreign language learning is interference
coming from the learner’s native language”. However, recent studies
and research show that not all errors produced by the L2 learner can
be traced to L1 interference. Dulay et al (1984) argue that even the
errors which some researchers trace to L1 interference the case is not
true! It is a matter of examples of using specific L2 as
overgeneralization: “…these goofs look like they reflect…a specific
aspect of NL…. However, it is not unreasonable to hypothesize that
these are instances of overgeneralization… ” (Dulay et al, 1982:118).
The weak form of the hypothesis tries only to diagnosis or just
to be diagnosis. This means that contrastive analysis can only be
used
“to
identify
which
errors
are
the
result
of
interference…Contrastive analysis needs to work hand in hand with
an Error Analysis” (Ellis, 1996:24). This means, as the researcher
believes so, that C A admits that L1 is not the sole or even may not
be the cause of errors, which are committed by the L2 acquirer.
The contrastive analysis hypothesis was attacked by scholars,
and the nature of the relationship between “difficulty” and “error” is
questioned as well as the validity equating “difference” with
“difficulty”. Critics argue that “difficulty” is a psychological concept
while “difference” is a linguistic one. They say that learning
“difficulty” cannot be extrapolated for a linguistic difference
between two systems. They add that the assumption that “difficulty”
leads to “error” is not really a valid one. They argue that empirical
studies show that items predicted to be ‘difficult” by CA do not
always lead to “errors”. They add that a sentence contains several
“errors” might
cause the learner no “difficulty” (Corder, 1967;
Jackson and Whitman, 1971; Sridhar, 1980 ; Riley, 1981; Ellis,
1996). Hence, contrastive analysis hypothesis regards errors “sins” to
be “avoided”; nowadays “errors” are regarded as a positive aspect, as
evidence of how the learner is proceeding in his linguistic
development and of his continued hypothesis testing.
The behaviorist theory was strongly challenged by different
writers under the influence of cognitive psychology and Noam
Chomsky linguistic theories. Chomsky (1959) wrote a critique of
Skinner’s Verbal Behavior (1957). Now let us preview some points
of these arguments.
Chomsky (1959) argues that language is not just a verbal
behavior. It is a “complex system of rules” that underlies this overt
behavior. Mastering this system of rules provides a language acquirer
an ability to “create and understand an infinite number of sentences”
or utterances which he\she has never heard or said before. This
“creativity” could not be possible had the acquirer depended on
“repetition” and “imitation” of just bits of learnt behavior. This is
possible because he\she has internalized the complex underlying
system of rules, which Chomsky (1959) calls “competence”.
Chomsky’s competence or linguistic competence is represented in
the abstract knowledge of the rules of the language. He differentiates
between it and the overt behavior, which we can observe, and calls it
“performance”.
Thus, we believe that children acquire language by developing
their “competence” or by developing their knowledge of the abstract
rules of the language from what they hear in their environment,
which is but only bits of speech between people. This cannot be
explained in terms of stimulus-response chain, and “imitation” and
habit formation cannot provide the child the ability to extract this
abstract knowledge. This does not mean I deny the role played by
repetition and reinforcement in the language acquisition process, but
I believe as Chomsky says, this cannot give the entire explanation of
acquiring language. I believe that learning a language is a complex
task. Can it be explained how normally endowed children of
five years, or even less than that, have internalized all the
basic structures of language by habit-formation alone? It will
be even more difficult to answer when we consider the problem of
deep and surface structure of speech. Rules are often reflected
indirectly in the surface structure of the speech. Let us reflect on
these two well-known sentences whose surface structure look
identical (John is easy to please), (John is eager to please) (Chomsky
1959). Their deep structures are completely different. In the first
one, some one is pleasing John while in the second one it is “John”
who longs to do the pleasing action. Can children arrive to this pit of
knowledge just through habit-formation and stimulus-response rule?
“Imitation” and “reinforcement” are both ridiculed, as they are
not apt to capture the creative ability of the language acquirer in
constructing novel sentences. Once more studies show that L1
acquirers’ parents rarely correct errors or reward for correct
utterances. Parents just go for meaning. Brown and his colleagues
(1968) pointed that reinforcement seldom occurs. When it occurs, it
is usually to correct incorrect pronunciation or incorrect reporting of
facts. I believe that, as Chomsky (1959) and others argued, deduction
from studies of animal behavior in labs by Skinner (1957) and others
does not reflect the nature of language acquisition by human being in
natural conditions. Moreover, the concept of analogy, which Skinner
used to account for the language acquirer creativity in generating
sentences, was refused. The terms “stimulus” and “response” were
rejected as ridicules for when they are applied to language acquirer
one cannot tell what constitutes the “stimulus” for specific
“response” from a speaker. (Brown, 1973; Littelwood, 1974;
Fromkin et al, 1993; Lightbown et al, 1993; Ellis, 1996).
The question is that: should we discard behaviorist theory as not
totally applicable to language acquisition process? In fact, the
behaviorist view of how language is learnt has “an intuitive appeal”.
It can give us a “partial explanation” to how language is learnt
especially in the early stages in language learning. Let us meditate on
these bits of a child-spoken language.
Mother: Would you like some bread and peanut butter?
Katie: Some bread and peanut butter.
This example indicates imitation. Let us take anther example from
Lightbown (1993: 3) which shows practice or mastering a specific
form through practice.
Michel: I can handle it. Hannah can handle it. We can handle it.
This does not mean that all children imitate heavily, but it means that
to some extent, they do. They repeat new verbal behaviors that they
hear in their environment and practise them until they fit in their
language system. It is important to notice that in their imitation
children are highly selective. They choose what utterances or even
parts of utterances can be imitated and practised. It seems as if they
select to imitate and practise what fits with their ‘in built syllabus’ or
what they are learning at that moment. Children do not imitate every
utterance they hear in their environment. This goes very well with
the main tenets of the behaviorist theory of language acquisition but
it does not give a full account of how all aspects of the language are
learned. I would like to add that the above mentioned examples
reflect the incremental nature of language acquisition.
2.3.2
The
Biological
Foundation
of
Language
Acquisition
2.3.2.1 The Innatist - the Neurologists
It astonishes the ability of children to form complex rules and to
construct the grammar of the languages spoken around them in such
a short time. Moreover, children are observed to pass through similar
stages in different speaking communities in acquiring their MT. This
phenomenon makes many researchers hold the view that: children
seem to be equipped with special abilities or biological devices for
learning languages.
“Children learn language the way they learn to walk. Children
are not taught to walk but they do so nearly the same age” (Chomsky,
1965). This human capacity to learn language led to the innateness
hypothesis of child language acquisition. The hypothesis supposes
that the human species are genetically “pre-wired to acquire the
language, not only that but also the kind of language is determined”.
They believe that we are still far from understanding the nature of
our “pre-wiring” or the specific details of the language-learning
device with which the “human animal” seems to be born. (Chomsky,
1965).
Chomsky (1965: 58) explains this ability by saying, “It seems
plain that language acquisition is based on the child’s discovery of
what from a formal point of view is a deep abstract theory – a
generative grammar of his language”. Thus, as children learn to walk
without being taught to do so, children acquire their language.
Chomsky believes that the ability of children in extracting the
grammar of the language in such a striking uniformity from such a
“degenerate quality and narrowly limited extent of the available
data” is really a formidable phenomenon. He suspects that this
phenomenon leaves little hope to deny that the organism that
acquires such a complicated system, i.e. language, is not initially
uninformed to the general character of this system. This means that,
according to Chomsky, children’s minds are not just blank slates to
be filled by imitating the language they hear around them. He claims
that children are born with a special ability to discover the underlying
rules of language system for themselves. Chomsky used to refer to
this ability as being based on Language Acquisition Device (LAD).
This device is often described as an imaginary black box which is
embedded some where in the human brain. This black box which is
believed to embrace all and only the principles which are universal to
all human languages, prevents the child from going off on lots of
wrong trials in trying to discover the rules of the language
(Lightbown et al, 1993:8).
Bley-Vroman (1990:59-60) states that “we know that language
is a complex and abstract formal system. We know that children of
age two cannot in general deal with abstract formal system…. Since
young children can develop language, we can argue that a language
specific cognitive system (LSC) allows the child to come up with the
formal properties of language…” This argument indicates that BleyVroman shares the innatist point of view and he is one of the
proponents of the biological foundation of language acquisition.
However, he uses another terminology for LAD, “language specific
cognitive system” (LSC). Bley-Vroman claims that (LSC) enables
the child to “come up with the formal properties of language, even
though formal systems in general are beyond the child”. (Ibid: 60)
(Cf. Piaget’s hypothesis of stage of concrete operations).
This means that Bley -Vroman believes that language
acquisition is a cognitive process and the child is endowed with a
specific system, which deals with the process of language
acquisition.
Among some scholars, a consensus developed that the innate
system (LAD or LSC) that guides the child language acquisition
process does not continue infinitely and it does not operate to guide
the adult language learning, or in its weakly form, its work is partial
or imperfect in maturity. This belief forms the tenet of Lenneberg’s
“critical period hypothesis” (Lenneberg 1976: 175) (Felix, 1985;
Bley-Vroman, 1990).
A.
The neurologist Lenneberg (1967) emphasizes the
biological prerequisites of language. He noticed that children who
have never acquired language because of deafness or complete
isolation loose the ability to acquire language and they cannot return
to normal if this deprivation continues too long. He uses as evidence
studies of “aphasia” (i.e. Loss of language function because of brain
damage). He also believes that LAD, as other biological functions,
only works efficiently has it been stimulated at the optimal time. This
specific and limited period or (age of resonance) for language
acquisition is referred to as the “critical period” and hence come the
tenet of Lenneberg critical period hypothesis (CPH). (Cf. Genie and
victor cases). Lenneberg’s work provides the empirical support for
the built-in capacity for language acquisition.
Around puberty, man develops an ability, which is concerned
with dealing with abstract formal systems. Some scholars identify
this ability with the stage identified by Piaget in children as the
“stage of formal operations”. Piaget in his hypothesis believes that
children in this stage learn by hand- on- experience and through
manipulation of objects in the environment.
The above-mentioned ability Felix calls “the problem-solving
cognitive system” (PSC). Both (LSC) and (PSC) Bley-Vroman
claims work together and enable the adult to approach the language
data. This state, the adult having two systems, may set one of them to
compete with the other and this yields a state, which Bley- Vroman
calls “competing cognitive system”.
Thus, (LSC) for Bley- Vroman is what Chomsky gives the
term “language acquisition device” (LAD). For (LAD) to work,
Chomsky tells us that the child needs only to be put in access to
natural language. The language samples the child hears in his
environment serve as a “trigger to activate the device”. Once (LAD)
is put in work, the child is adept to discover the language structure
“by matching the innate knowledge of basic grammatical
relationships to the structures of the particular language”. This innate
knowledge of basic grammar Chomsky calls universal grammar
(UG). Chomsky puts it as follows:
Primary linguistic data
LAD
UG
This means that once LAD is triggered or activated and set to
work by the primary linguistic data input which the child gets from
his environment, it needs no help as everything is there; in the child’s
mind. Chomsky posits that in the children mind there is what he and
other scholars refer to as universal grammar (UG).
2.3.2.2 Universal Grammar (UG)
Chomsky and other theorists claim that the child, and even L2
learner, possesses an innate predetermined knowledge that he\she
brings to the process of language acquisition; this is what they refer
to as universal grammar (UG). UG is the term, which Chomsky and
his followers use these days. It might be that they avoid using the
term (LAD) or substituting (LAD) with the term UG. UG is said to
be an innate endowment. UG is the set of properties, the conditions,
and whatever that constitutes the initial state of the language learner.
Hence, it is the basis on which knowledge of the language develops.
UG is believed to comprise a set of principles, which are common to
all learners. As children are pre-equipped with the UG, they have
only to learn the ways in which their own language avails of these
principles. The principles are said to be constraints on the form that
grammars can take. Grammar is but some principles, associate (or
combine) parameters in which languages vary e.g. word order. The
child develops his\ her grammar by his\her exposure to language in
his\her environment. This input triggers the “setting of parameters”
which suits the language or the input, which the child receives.
(Chomsky,1981; Cook,1988; Schachter, 1996).
2.3.2.3 The Logical Problem of Second Language
Acquisition
By and large, UG is a linguistic theory, which consists of
relatively autonomous models each one is characterized by a small
number of nonviable universal principles of a quite abstract nature,
which accounts largely for the similarities across all languages.
However, the innate UG is an approach to a solution suggested
by the linguistic theorists, mainly by Chomsky and his followers, to
solve what is known as the logical problem of the language.
In his criticism for the behaviorist theory Chomsky mentioned
that behaviorist failed to identify this gap or what is known as (the
logical problem of language acquisition). “This Logical Problem
refers to the fact that children come to know more about the structure
of their language than they could reasonably be expected to learn on
the basis of the samples of language which they hear”.(Lightbown et
al, 1997:8)
Chomsky believes that children are exposed in their
environment to limited data, which is full of confusing information,
false starts, slips of the tongue, bits of utterances, incomplete
sentences…etc., which do not furnish the children with enough
information. Chomsky argues: “A consideration of the grammar that
is acquired, the degenerate quality and narrowly limited extent of the
available data, the striking uniformity of the resulting grammar, and
their independence of intelligence, motivation and emotional state,
over wide ranges of variation, leave little hope that much of the
structure of language can be learned by an organism initially
uninformed as to its general character”. (Chomsky, 1965:58)
I would like to ask how learners come to incorporate this
abstract knowledge, which consists of abstract and complex
properties given that they are only exposed to surface structure. The
gap between available experience and attained competence forms
what came to be known as the logical problem of language
acquisition. This problem is solved if one takes the position that this
abstract knowledge or principles are innate not learned. Thus, it is
assumed that children come into the world equipped with the
principles necessary for language learning. The raw data to which
they are exposed serve to establish the language specifics of given
abstract principles.
For second language learner, the situation is similar (in
accordance with this logical problem). It is clear that the evidence
learners have from the input is insufficient for the appropriate
determination of second language grammars. Yet there must be some
explanation of how second language learners do come up with
grammars that are more complex than the data they receive would
warrant. Here, researchers use the UG paradigm appealing to an
explanation similar to that, which has been proposed for child
language acquisition: second language learners have access to
universal principles. Some scholars suggest that they have this access
indirectly, through the fact of their NL, in much the same way as do
children foreign language learners. Thus, a theory of second
language acquisition is needed. I believe that this logical problem
theory must find out the interaction between the innate learning
principles and the input to explain how a learner can arrive at the
grammar of the TL. (Flynn, 1983; Liceras, 1983; Gass et al, 1990.)
I believe that adults learning L2 experience this logical
problem of acquisition also. Despite the fact that language consists of
abstract and complex properties some L2 learners come to
incorporate this abstract knowledge. The question is how they could
attain this despite of the limited quantity of language, or input they
receive. Bley-Vroman (1990) tells us that “The logical problem of
adult foreign language learning is the same as for childhood language
learning: explaining how acquisition takes place, given the limitation
of the data”. (ibid: 41)
However, Bley-Vroman refuses the assumption that adult
learners have access to UG as well as children. He is against the
belief that children and adult language learning is the same. This is
what he refers to as the “Fundamental Difference Hypothesis”.
Bley-Vroman suggests that this problem, the logical problem
of language acquisition, in adult’s case is solved by the adult who
posses other “knowledge and faculties, which are abstract in infants”.
(ibid: 50) This knowledge and faculties, which are possessed by
adults, substitute LAD or take the burden assumed by LAD. BleyVroman explains these
faculties by the fact that the adult already
has knowledge of at least one language. Besides this, he claims that
the adult possesses “a general abstract problem solving system”.
Other scholars claim that, and I believe this is a sound
explanation, the adult as the child, possesses UG capacity. This is
again, an appeal to the linguistic theory to solve this problem.
However, the problem solving capacity in adult may help language
acquisition process in adult in conscious studies as it does for
children as well.
In summary, I can say that, the innatists’ views of language
acquisition posit the following:
1. Language acquisition has a biological foundation i.e. the
child is naturally endowed to learn language and the child is
neurological capable of utilizing the sounds for language acquisition.
The children develop language acquisition just in the same way they
develop other biological functions.
2. Children develop language in similar ways and on similar
sequence not very different from the way children learn to walk.
3. Children have the ability to learn language and this ability is
based on LAD, which is embedded in the child’s mind, or the black
box. LAD is recently substituted by UG by Chomsky and his
followers. Sometimes LAD is given other terminology (e.g. LSC).
4. The child’s mind is “pre-wired” for language. For LAD to
work it is just activated or “triggered” by samples of language heard
by the children in their linguistic environment.
2.3.3 The Psycholinguistic Theories
2.3.3.1 The Natural Order Hypothesis
As it is mentioned above, the importance of the input to acquire
language becomes evident and hypotheses are provided based on this
belief. This input is given the term “motherese” or “caretaker talk”,
in the case of L1 acquirer and the “foreigner talk” or “teacher talk” in
the case of L2 learner. This input helps the learner to acquire the
language, which is said to be acquired in a natural order. This
assumption follows the belief that language acquisition has an
incremental nature. This is evident in the process of acquiring both
L1 and L2. First, the length of the utterances gradually increases in
both cases. Second, the knowledge of the grammatical system is built
in steps. This acquisition is achieved in natural order as researchers
call this process. (Krashen, 1987).The output of the language
acquirer (being the child’s L1 or the interlanguage of the L2 learner)
has specific characteristics. Krashen has pointed to this most exciting
discovery in language acquisition of grammatical structure. He states
that the acquisition of grammatical structures proceeds in a particular
order (Krashen 1987: 12). Since then various studies have been
directed in the area of language acquisition route of development.
As the learner increases his linguistic information, he\she moves
from stage to anther learning the language in specific order. Crystal
(1976), for example, gave an account of L1 acquisition in terms of
six stages. Since 1960’s up to the present, the majority of researches
in L1 acquisition identified a more or less fixed sequence of
development through which children pass on their way to
achieve an adult linguistic competence in their L1. (Brown et
al, 1968; Ravem, 1968, 1970; Price, 1968; Natalicio and Natalicio,
1971; Milon, 1972) These studies confirmed that there is a natural
order in the development of acquiring L1, which is passed on by all
children in their way for achieving their linguistic competence.
These stages in acquiring L1, which reflect and support this
hypothesis, are identified as:
A. Holophrastic sentence stage
This is “one word” or “one sentence” stage, where “holo”
means “complete” or “undivided”, and phrase means “phrase” or
“sentence”. At the age of sixteen month (or before the age of two
years), children learn that sounds are related to meanings, so they
produce their first “words’’.
According to the Natural Order, hypothesis children endeavor to
produce two-word utterances around the time they finish 24 month or
two years “e.g. mummy socks, more wet”. Bloom noted that twoword sentence such as “mummy socks” expresses a number of
different grammatical relations that may be later expressed by other
syntactic devices.
B. The telegraphic stage
In the following stage, the telegraphic stage, children utter
sentences, which are constructed from more than two words. In this
stage function words, “e.g. the, can, is, and so on…” are not yet
acquired. The sentence mainly carries the message. The content
words are only acquired in this stage e.g. “no sit there”, “cat stand up
table”. (Littlewood, 1984; Fromkin et al, 1993)
However children proceed in mastering the language then they
begin to acquire inflections e.g. want-wants and function words as
the articles “a” and “the” and so on. Children proceed gradually in
mastering the language according to specific order as studies
indicate.
As for L2 learner, Krashen states that they “tend to acquire
certain grammatical structures early and others later”. (1987: 12)
This means that acquisition of grammatical terms proceeds in a
particular order regardless of their order of presentation.
“Natural Order” was first used by Corder (1967) and a lot of
researches supported this hypothesis. Statistical research showed
important and clear congruent similarities among learners (but not
100%). Studies state, as instance, the progressive morpheme or
marker “ing” as in “I am reading” together with the plural
morpheme/s/ as in “hats” are examples of first structural items which
are acquired by English language learner as L2. The third singular
morpheme/s/as in “Hisham comes early” and the possessive/s/ as in
“Eman’s book” are
instances of structural items, which are to be acquired later by the
English language learners. It is funny that we think the third singular
morpheme is an easier grammatical structure so it is used to be
taught first in most language programs. This explains why we usually
have students committing errors with such a “simple pattern!” In fact
this morpheme (the third singular morpheme/s/) is one of the last
structures acquired by English language learners as scholars noted.
This proves that acquisition of grammatical structures proceeds in an
order, which does not depend on the order of presentation.
The Natural Order hypothesis accounts for students’ mistakes
and errors: students make mistakes or (developmental errors) when
the structure used has not been completely acquired.
I think that this means that during the process of English
Language acquisition mistakes or developmental errors will always
be there especially with the late acquired structures. Research prove
that certain grammatical structures or function morphemes which
were identified by earlier studies to be acquired earliest in time by
second language learners of a TL were also the ones children often
tend to acquire first. (Brown, 1973; de Villier and de Villier, 1973;
Dulay and Burt, 1974b, 1975)
Dulay and Burt (1974b, 1975) declared that children who were
learning English as a second language manifested a “natural order”
for grammatical item acquisition in spite of their MT. Moreover, it is
reported that different classes of second language learners manifested
significant similarities (Dulay and Burt 1974, 1975; Klesser and Idar,
1977; Fabris, 1978; Makino, 1980). Fathman (1975) in her oral test
for production, the SLOPE test, in which she examined 20
grammatical items, confirmed the natural order hypothesis in second
language acquisition in children. Moreover, it is noted that second
language learners “make many similar errors”, which are described
as “developmental errors” in their courses of learning the TL (Milon,
1974; Wode, 1978; Dulay, Burt and Krashen, 1982).
Other studies, which confirmed reality of the natural order
hypothesis are works of Bailey, Madden, and Krashen (1974) and
reported its reality for adult second language learners and its
similarity to that found in children second language learners. This
was confirmed by Anderson (1976); Krashen, Houck, Giunchi, Bode,
Birnbaum, and Strei, (1977); Kayfetz- Fuller (1978). Some
differences in the natural order of acquisition in L1 from that in L2
are reported also but there are some similarities.
I confirm the reality of natural order hypothesis according to
what I have noticed during the course of teaching English language,
and owing to what I noticed
my children did when they were
acquiring their L1 (Arabic). I noticed that in my course of teaching
children English they committed similar mistakes, for instance, past
tense formation (e.g. write- writed*, eat-eated*…etc) and in the third
person singular morpheme /s/ as developmental errors. After some
time they acquire the correct forms and get rid of these and similar
mistakes.
2.3.3.2 The Monitor Hypothesis
The monitor hypothesis claims that acquisition and learning
work in very specific ways. Krashen (1987:15) claims, “normally
acquisition initiates our utterances in a second language and is
responsible for our fluency”. While he claims that “learning has got
only one function”, and this function is his role as a “monitor or
editor”. This means that the main role of learning is to “make
changes in the form of our utterances after it has been produced” by
the acquired system. This means that the learned system runs minor
changes and polishes what the acquired system has produced.
Krashen believes that this can be achieved before we produce
the utterances, spoken or written, or after that (i. e. self-correction).
Krashen claims that there are individual variations in monitor
use among learners; learners are of three types:
Monitor over-users: This group tends to verify every sentence
or utterance using their learned competence. This explains why they
speak hesitantly.
Monitor under-users: This group prefers not to use their learned
competence, they are talkative and they are not stopped by error
correction; they are the other extreme.
The optimal Monitor users: This group uses their learned
competence together with their acquired competence. Some of them
give the impression, in their writing and speaking, of being native as
they make few and occasional errors. (Krashen 1987).
Moreover Krashen has postulates three necessary conditions
for the monitor to work:
1. Sufficient time: Time is crucial to think about and use
conscious rules efficiently. In normal conversations, people do not
get enough time to think about and apply the language rules.
Normally, people who think and try to apply the rules speak
hesitantly.
2. Focus in form: Time by itself is not a sufficient condition
unless the speaker or the learner focus on the form and think about
correctness (Dulay and Burt, 1977). The learner should not only be
involved in what to say but also how to say it.
3. Knowing the rules: It is not enough for learners to get time
and to focus on the form. They should have a sound knowledge of
the rules of the language.
The weaknesses in this hypothesis are that: Knowing the rules is
very difficult to be met by the language learners. Linguists keep
telling us that the structure of language is formidably complex, and
what, so far, they have described constitutes only a part of the wellknown languages. Surely, language learners are only acquainted with
a minor part of the rules of the grammar. Once more, it is difficult to
indicate instances of monitor use. For example, in utterances
produced by a learner, it is difficult to detect which ones are
produced by the acquired system from those, which are the results of
the learned system (or the monitor.)
Krashen posits, “Learning can not turn into acquisition”. This
means what is produced quickly and spontaneously is what has been
acquired, and not learned. This definition is impossible to prove by
research.
However, Krashen’s monitor hypothesis gives us an example of
learning theory that treats learning process on both levels: the
process of learning and the conditions that are required for the
process. At the level of the process, he distinguishes between
learning and acquisition. Moreover, he claims that learning is
available only as a monitor.
This hypothesis is applicable, as I believe, to some extent in the
domain of L1 of acquisition as far as the monitor hypothesis means
self-correction. I have noticed that my little child “Enas” used to
laugh at herself when she utters erroneous structures, then she tends
to correct them. Moreover, learning is not practised only by adults
(or L2 learners), but it is also done by L1 learners. Let us examine
the following example:
(This transcript is taken while groups of children were playing
with an adult “Lois”. Source: Lightbown et al 1993 ).
Peter: (finding a car) Get more.
Lois: You’re gonna put more wheels in the dump truck?
Peter: Dump truck. Wheels. Dump truck.
Here “Peter” is in the process of learning the words he was
repeating. It is a formal study of the language and it is a conscious
process, he was practicing and memorizing these words and these are
the first primary strategies of the process of learning. We are told
that, and I am sure that children acquire languages. They also learn it
and they monitor their language product. They are not only interested
in ‘what’ to say but also ‘how’ to say it.
2.3.3.3 The Affective Filter Hypothesis
The concept of “Affective Filter” was first introduced by Dulay
and Burt (1977). The Affective Filter Hypothesis coincides with
previous writing and theoretical work done in the field of second
language acquisition. (See also Gardener R. and W. Lambert, 1959,
1972; Schumann, 1978)
The Affective Filter Hypothesis tries to capture the relationship
between the affective variable and language acquisition. It states that
understanding the language and (going for the meaning) is not
enough to acquire a language, the learner’s LAD should also be open
as not all “input” reaches it. Somewhere along the way the input
is filtered, and only part of it is acquired.
Krashen points that those affective factors such as motivation,
self-confidence and anxiety “…these attitudinal factors relate directly
to acquisition and not learning”. Krashen claims that research in last
decade identified a number of affective variables, which are related
to success in L2 acquisition. Examples of these affective variables
are as:
Motivation: Motivated learners do better in language acquisition
than less motivated ones.
Self-confidence: Self-confidence and good self-image help
learners who possess them to achieve better standard in L2
acquisition than others.
Anxiety: Low anxiety is found to have positive effect in
language acquisition.
Krashen posits that learners’ achievement in language
acquisition varies according to the position their “affective filter”
assumes: “…acquirers vary with respect to the strength or level of
their Affective Filters. Those whose attitudes are not optimal for
second language acquisition will not only tend to seek less input, but
they will also have a high or strong Affective Filter…” (Krashen,
1987:31). Learner with positive attitude towards second language,
i.e. having a low or weak Affective Filter to allow input in, will seek
more contact with it and its speaking group. They will be
‘open’ to it, and its input will strike ‘deeper’ (Stevick, 1976).
The filtering process happens in the Affective Filter which
resembles ‘a gate’ that ‘opens’ and ‘closes’ according to the
learner’s mode (i.e. being in pleasant learning conditions more
input will reach LAD, feeling tense or being in negative
conditions less input will reach LAD.)
The Affective Filter Theory posits that the effect of affective
factors is outside the language acquisition device area and they are
causative variables acting to either impede or facilitate second
language acquisition. This means that the Affective Filter Hypothesis
does not deal with the process of language acquisition but the
conditions, which help or impede it.
In addition to Krashen there are many other scholars and
thinkers who believe that the affective factors have a crucial role on
language acquisition especially on second language learners. In the
1970’s starting with the study of Gardner and Lambert (1972)
empirical studies show a significant correlation between language
acquisition proficiency and affective factors. However, the effect is
complex and is difficult to submit to measure but still the effect of
the affective factors is clear.
This consensus among researchers in the literature expresses
that second language acquisition seems to be much influenced by
infinite number of factors such as motivation, attitude, age,
socialization, verbal ability, self-confidence, anxiety, self-esteem,
learning environment, instruction, stage of development, pitch
discrimination, and so forth. These factors are given the term the
affective factors and empirical studies have been done to demonstrate
their crucial role in second language acquisition. An affective
hypothesis configuration is emerging from these studies.
Empirical research confirmed significant correlation between
language acquisition proficiency and the affective factors.
Nevertheless, the effect is complex and nebulous to submit to
measure but still it is clear and evident to be traced by
researchers. Research has examined some of these affective
factors which are assumed to contribute greatly to the language
learners’ differences in depth. Examples of these factors are
Motivation, attitude, intelligence (and cognitive style), age and
personality. Here I shall discuss some of these factors such as
intelligence, attitude and motivation, self-involvement, and age.
Pimsleur et al (1962) include in their study elements that are
considered factors in foreign Language learning such as intelligence,
verbal ability, pitch discrimination order of language study and
bilingualism, study habits, motivation and personality factors.
Pimsleur et al administrated studies, which conclude that intelligence
may not be a decisive factor in the beginning of language acquisition
but it may have effect on later stages. They state, “No clear
distinction has been made between general intelligence and verbal
ability”, but they found the correlation between these factors in some
times modest and vary according to other factors (e.g. the foreign
language in question and the development of the course). (Pimsleur
et al, 1962:162)
The effects of attitude and motivation as variables independent
from aptitude and intelligence have been studied by Gardner and
Lambert in their pioneering work (1959, 1972). They distinguished
two types of motivation:
Integrative motivation: The learner here has keen interest in the
language speaking community “to the point of eventually being
accepted as a member” of this community (Ibid. 1972:3).
Instrumental motivation: The learner here is interested in the
language as it acts as instrument to help him\her reach particular
goals (e.g. getting a job or going to study somewhere).
Following Grander and Lambert studies research used to focus
in these two types of motivation (e.g. Smythe et al, 1976; Clement,
Gardner and Smythe, 1977; Oller, Hudson and Liu, 1977; Strong,
1984). Studies show that learners who have higher integrative
orientation are found to be more likely to achieve greater proficiency
than those with instrumental motivation. Afterwards, these results
were contradicted by the pioneer researchers themselves, Gardener
and Lambert. This happened when they studied English Language
Learners in Philippines and they found that “when there is a vital
need to master a second Language, the instrumental approach is very
effective, perhaps more so than the integrative” (Grander and
Lambert, 1972:270). In their study of English Learners in India, they
also found that “proficiency in English was significantly related to
instrumental and not integrative motivation”. Littelwood comments
on these two last findings that English is studied in both two
countries (i.e.Philippines and India) as an international rather than it
being a reference to a community of English native speakers”. So
that it is not surprising if integrative attitudes are not as significant as
the learner’s instrumental reasons for wanting the language”
(1984:57).
Fly (1986) comments on the concepts, integrative and
instrumental motivation, as being valuable, but he believes that they
present several problems. First, it is not always possible to
differentiate between them. Second, it is not clear the integrative/
instrumental conceptualization embraces the various types of
learners’ motivation. However research states that motivation, being
instrumental or integrative, (Gardner and Lambert 1972) or global,
situational or task-oriented (Brown, 1981), or being a part of the act
of communication itself, is a crucial factor in language acquisition
and has effect.
B`egin (1971) when he was describing an experiment in
counseling learning gives examples of the value of self- involvement
in language learning. He states that “students who are placed in an
environmental, which allows them to interact freely help one another
develop a positive attitude toward learning and support each
emotionally”(ibid.: 18).
Age is another variable, which is examined in depth by scholars
in research unlike all other factors as it can be described reliably and
precisely in empirical investigation. It is wildly held that children
learn language more easily and more proficiently than adults do.
Lenneberg (1967) posits a neurological explanation telling us that
there is a ‘critical period’ or an optimum age, for learning language.
On the other hand, various reasons and evidences have been put
forward for suggestion that adults and adolescents are more likely to
benefit from formal instructions than children are. Therefore, age has
been one of the most controversial factors. In literature, we find a
plethora of reviews and research dealing with age (Hatch, 1983;
Stern. 1983; Dulay, Burt and Krashen, Ellis, 1988, 1996). Literature
suffers from lack of agreement in the conclusion by scholars. This
reflects the complexity of the age function.
Lenneberg (1967) demonstrates that it is easier for children to
acquire language before puberty. He found that surgeries undergone
to children in the left hemisphere result on no speech disorder to
them while with adult almost total language loss occurred.
Lenneberg states that after the age of about 12 the language learner
resorts to alternative strategies to learn the language. This is a result
of lateralization where language learning functions become
specialized in the left hemisphere and this has its negative impact on
the language acquisition device (LAD). This neurological
explanation is challenged by Genessee (1982) and Seliger (1982).
Now it is held that adults are neurologically adept to learn language
as children do.
Bailey et al (1974) used the same set of the grammatical
morphemes, which have been used by Dulay and Burt, in their study
to examine the sequence in which adults acquire these morphemes.
They found that adults took the same route and sequence that
children had taken in Dulay and Burt experiment. Fathman (1975) in
her study states that the order of acquisition of twenty grammatical
elements continued to be the same in her study sample of two
hundred children whose age ranged from 6-15 years. Differences in
age variable in longitudinal studies involving negative and
interrogative structure did not result in different order of
development. This is confirmed by Cazden et al (1975) who found
that, in his study, child, adolescent and adult learners has gone
through the same stages. This confirm the suppositions that learner
seem to process the linguistic elements regardless of the age factor.
Nevertheless, Snow and Hoefnagel Hohle (1978) research show that
learners who develop rapidly may be the adolescents.
However, research show that the longer the exposure to the
language the more proficient the learner becomes. This is clear in the
study held by Burstall (1975) where she states that “the achievement
of skill in a foreign language is primarily a function of the amount of
time spent studying that language…” (ibid: 1975: 17). Ekstrand
(1976) supported this view as he found that the length of residence of
immigrants learning Swedish in Sweden is correlated with free oral
production. This demonstrates that longer the exposure to the
language is better performance of the language is. Hatch (1983)
states that although the length of the exposure to the language may
lead to greater success nevertheless, this may be restricted to
communicative competence rather than to grammatical and
phonological accuracy. On the other hand, Oyama (1976) states that
the age at which Italian immigrants arrived to USA had been a strong
determinant of the level of pronunciation they achieved than the
length of the period they stayed.
Krashen, Long, and Scarcella (1982) states that adults advance
in the early stages of learning faster than children while older
children acquire the language faster than the younger ones. They also
state that learners who were exposed to the language earlier in their
age achieve better than those who begin as adults. Wagner-Gough
and Hatch (1976) predicted faster rate in language acquisition for
younger than for older learners.
We can conclude that age variable as these studies states, has no
effect on both the sequence of language acquisition and the rate of
development of this acquisition while the length of exposure to the
language has its effect on language acquisition.
It is claimed that the affective factor theory is consistent only
with the second language acquisition. We believe that children
“need” to express themselves. They have to “socialize” themselves
and they are motivated (both integrative and instrumental
motivation), to be members of their society (or family).
This
necessity motivates them to acquire language. Language is the factor
or the agent for achieving these ‘needs’ and ‘motivation’. We believe
that we have to account for these needs and motivation as affective
factors that motivate them to learn language. This leads us to say that
their “socioaffective filter” is always low and open; their “intake”
from the “input” in their linguistic environment is always high. Their
“intake” directly goes to their linguistic processing mechanism
because of conscious and unconscious motivation and needs,
attitudes and emotional state.
2.3.4 Sociolinguistic Theories
So far, we have discussed how Psycholinguistic Theories relate
language acquisition to specific language properties such as the
incremental development of language order, grammar and language
structures and so on. They discussed language acquisition taking
insights from language properties and its acquisition as basis for their
theories related to cognitive processes. Other scholars brought varied
social processes into their theory formulation, which related to
motivation for learning language (Gardener, 1979; Schumann, 1984;
Cummins, 1983). Others posit that language acquisition occurs
through social interaction.
2.3.4.1 The Interactionists
A new hypothesis about language acquisition development
claims that language acquisition occurs through social interaction, by
using the language in real life and authentic situations. It views the
language acquisition as a result of the interaction of the learner’s
internal mechanism, and mental abilities and his linguistic
environment. However, the input has given here a crucial role.
Chomsky argues that the input is just but a trigger to activate
LAD. He argues that the input is degenerate and cannot explain how
the
children
come
to
acquire
linguistic
competence.
The
interactionist viewpoint, which is recently developed, tells us that
language acquisition is acquired through interaction. (Brown
1968:287)
The interactionists suggest that children linguistic competence
develops through conversation and social interaction with those who
are around them. They focus on the role of the linguistic environment
in interaction with the child’s innate capacities in determining
learning development. They claim that, unlike the innatist the
language which is addressed to the child, i.e. the modified form of
language which is known as “motherese” or “care taker talk”, is the
crucial element in the learning acquisition process. (Brown, 1968,
1977; Ferguson, 1977; Wells, 1979; Lightbown, 1997)
However, the role of the input in language acquisition has been
looked upon from three different views. The behaviorist view
emphasizes the importance of the linguistic environment (i.e. the
input). The input comprises the language available to the learner in
the form of stimuli and it constitutes the feedback. The input form
and patterns constitute the models, which are internalized by the
learner imitating them. Once more, the linguistic environment
serves as feedback where feed back serves two purposes. It shows
when the language produced by the learner is correct and so it
reinforces it. Feedback also indicates and hence corrects it. The
provision of stimuli and feedback regulates the process of learning
the language and leads to the acquisition of the habits. Therefore, the
behaviorist has given the linguistic environment a crucial
determining role and the learner has been looked at as a “language
producing machine”.
As for the innatist the linguistic environment –the input- or the
exposure to language cannot account sufficiently for language
acquisition. Chomsky argues that the input serves just as a trigger to
activate LAD or the internal mechanism. Thus in the 1970’s this
view of learning development was challenged and empirical research
were set out to investigate the importance of the input “motherese or
caretaker talk” received by children and its characteristics (e.g. Snow
and Ferguson, 1977; Waterson and Snow, 1978).
The principal input and ineractional adjustment have been
identified in a number of studies (e.g. Ferguson and De Bose, 1976;
Hatch, Shapira, and Wagner- Gough, 1978; Arthur et al, 1980;
Hatch, 1980; Long, 1981).
1. Chomsky claims that motherese or caretaker talk, which is
received by children, is degenerate, in fact, the speech addressed to
children was found to be well formed.
2. Specific features of this speech helped developing children
linguistic competence. Snow (1977) tells us that motherese speech is
characterized by a number of formal adjustments. Instances of these
adjustments are: short utterances, the sentence used in this speech
gets a limited range of grammatical relations, nearly absence of
subordinate and co-ordinate structures, simple sentences, presence of
“tutorial questions” or questions that the mother knows their answer
and repetition besides redundancy. “Motherese or caretaker talk” is
also characterized by specific adjustment in pronunciation. Sachs
(1977) tells us that the mother tunes the pitch, the intonation and the
rhythm of her speech to suit the child’s perception. She does this,
Ferguson (1977) suggests, to help communication or it may be a
language teaching aid. He adds that it may be a means of
socialization. Moreover, it may be a way of facilitating the exchange
of meaning.
3. However it is recently hypothesized that input is important in
naturalistic linguistic development and the way learners take in
acquiring grammatical competence comes from the interactions they
take part in.
This means that during the linguistic interaction the language
acquirers understand the language and the meaning; they relate
‘form’ to ‘meaning’. Their grammatical competence develops during
this linguistic interaction as they get chances to test their
‘grammatical hypothesis’ they have constructed and they receive
feedback about their language acquisition development. Meaning
here is built while the speakers [i.e. learners] work together to
understand and to be understood. (Fillmore, 1976; Krashen, 1981.)
The interactionists emphasize both internal and external factors
in language acquisition.
2.3.4.2 Discourse Theory
Discourse theory is rooted in language use theory in which
communication is regarded as source of linguistic knowledge.
Halliday (1975) believes that language acquisition development
should be considered under the light of how the learner discovers
“the meaning potential of language” and that is through his
involvement in social interactions and authentic communication.
Cherry suggests, “Through communicating with other people,
children accomplish actions in the world and develop the rules of
language structure and use”. (1979:122)
For second language learner the same view is held and this is
what known as the Discourse Theory. Hatch (1978a, 1978b) states
the main principles of this theory. She posits that second language
acquisition takes a ‘natural’ route in the process of the development
of the syntax of the language. Native speakers ‘adjust their speech’
when they talk to non-native speakers in order to negotiate the
meaning. She believes that the learner acquires the grammar of the
language in the frequency order in which the grammatical elements
appear in the discourse in the communication. Learners acquire the
language in a holistic fashion then they analyze it; i.e. they acquire
language occurring as formulas then they analyze it into their
component parts. This is because they have to stay in the
conversation.
The discourse theory does not concern itself with strategies and
the process, which is mentioned here. It deals with the external
processes those take place in face-to-face interaction. Hatch mentions
nothing about the cognitive process that occurs in language
acquisition or how data are internalized and acquired. This does not
mean that she rejects these processes. Hatch states that “while social
interaction may give the learner the ‘best’ data to work with, the
brain in turn must work out a fitting and relevant model of that
input”. (1983a:186)
We notice that, as Larsen- Freeman (1983) has observed,
successful language acquisition can occur even in absence of the
negotiated input (e.g. in self-study). Nevertheless, it is true that in
society and the presence of culture language acquisition is more
feasible. This leads us to discuss Schumann’s Acculturation Theory.
2.3.4.3 Acculturation Theory
The term “acculturation” is explained by Brown as “the process
of becoming adapted to a new culture” (1980:129). This process
“acculturation” is vital in second language acquisition, as language is
always believed to be the observable expressions of culture. It is
important especially when the second language is acquired in its
setting where here language is seen to be strongly related to the way
in which the learner’s community “or the learner himself\herself”
regard to second language community “i.e. the social and the
psychological differences and distance”.
The tenet of this model is stated by Schumann (1978)
“…second language acquisition is just one aspect of acculturation
and the degree to which a learner acculturates to the target language
group will control the degree to which learner acquires the target
language”. (ibid: 34)
Acculturation, (here language acquisition), where language
learning is the main component of acculturation, is determined by the
degree of social and psychological distance between the TL learners
and its speaking community. Schumann believes that acculturation is
the “major causal variable in second language acquisition (ibid: 29).
He adds, “Second language acquisition is just one aspect of
acculturation” (ibid: 34).
The social distance is the outcome of a group of factors, which
have their impact on the learner as a member of a social group,
which interact with the target language speaking group.
Psychological distance is the resultant of a number of affective
variables that concerns the learner as an individual. Therefore, the
psychological factors are affective in nature. Examples of these
factors are:
Language shock: this factor is clear in the using of the language.
Culture shock: this shock is expressed in the disorientation
experienced by the learner, the stress, and the fear because of the
differences between the learner’s culture and the target language
community.
Other examples of affective factors are motivation, ego and so
forth.
Schumann (1978) lists the factors, which determine the
psychological and the social distance. He mentions that the social
factors control the learning situation as being ‘good’ or ‘bad’. He
gives examples of ‘good’ learning situations as the following:
1. When the second language speaking community and the learner
group regard themselves as socially equal.
2.
When the second language-speaking group and the learners’
group both desire that the learner group assimilates,
3. Both the second language-speaking group and the learner group
expect that both groups will share in the social facilities and there is
no enclosure.
4. When the learner group is small and not strongly cohesive,
5. When the cultures of both groups are congruent,
6. Both groups share positive attitude to each other, and
7. When the learner community is expected to stay in the area and
share living with the other group.
‘Bad’ learning situations will be realized if forms of the
opposite of the above-mentioned condition prevailed e.g., when one
of the mentioned conditions groups regards itself as a ‘superior’ or
‘subordinate’.
In ‘bad’ learning conditions the learner may fail to acquire the
language or the learners language may fossilizes in specific stage.
This may happen if the need for the TL is met “e.g. just for
communication”.
Schumann identified two types of acculturation:
In type one acculturation, the learner is socially integrated with
the target language group. As a result, he/she develops sufficient
contact with the target language speakers to enable him/her to
acquire the TL. In addition, he/she is psychologically; open to the TL
such as input to which he/she is exposed becomes intake. Type two
acculturation has all the characteristics of type one, but in this case
the learner regards the TL speakers as a reference group whose life
styles and values he/she consciously or unconsciously desires to
adapt”. This means that both types facilitate the TL acquisition.
Schumann adds that this “distinction is made to stress that social and
psychological contact with the TL group is the essential component
in acculturation…” (1978: 29).
This indicates that type one acculturation is weaker than type
two acculturation as long as it does initial adoption of the TL group
life style.
This means that the psychological factors have deep and strong
effects in the second language acquisition, and the social distance is
less effective than the psychological distance.
Schumann describes the learning process that takes place. He
posits that the early stages of the process are characterized by the
same features that are responsible for the formation of “pidgin
languages”. The learner fails to progress beyond the early stages of
the learning process when the psychological and\or the social
distances are vast and this state is what
he refers to as
“indigenization hypothesis”. He gives an example of a person in the
above-mentioned stage “an adult Spanish speaker who arrived in the
United States, Alberto”. Alberto suffered largely from the vast social
distance, so he failed to acquire English and to progress study far in
learning English. His language is a pidgin-like language.
This leads us to believe that “acculturation” has its strong
impact on the second language acquisition. If the second language
learner experiences a vast psychological and social distance, this
might result in hindering language acquisition. Besides that, if the
learner experiences the state, which Schumann refers to as
“pidginization” in his hypothesis, this might result in preventing
him/her acquiring native speaker’s accent.
2.3.5 The Cognitive Theories
In the 1970’s the cognitive psychologist, who were interested in
language acquisition, production and comprehension, found that the
innate language ability (or LAD), was not so much a capable
capacity to acquire language. They thought that general cognitive
and perceptual processes are basic here as in other fields of human
learning. They introduced their own models developed from their
research findings and tested them empirically. This caused a clear
change in the emphasis towards more cognitive aspect for learning.
A distinction was made between the input and the internal
process of language acquisition, and between the input and the
intake. They talk about “the mediating process between the input and
the learner’s internalized set of second language rules and strategies
for second language development”. (Chaudron, 1985: 1)This
distinction identifies the learner as an active agent in acquiring the
TL. This implies that acquisition involves procedures, processes, and
other psychological variables that make up the learner’s cognitive
apparatus.
As for psycholinguists, they relate language learning to specific
behaviors, which are affected by specific affective and social factors.
Psycholinguists go, in their attempt to understand language
acquisition, to analyze specific language properties such as
developmental language order, grammar, language structure, and
social and contextual influence in language use. Moreover, it is true
they go to distinguish between language learning and language
acquisition as two separate cognitive processes and structural actions.
They do not deny the interaction between language and linguistic
processes with cognition but they believe that each has a separate
identity that justifies their research in language and linguistic
processes independent from cognitive process.
Various social interactions and process affects have been
investigated by scholars in language acquisition (Cummins, 1986;
Gardner, 1979, Schumann, 1984; Wong Fillmore and Swain, 1984).
Different attempts have been made to construct a theory for
language acquisition. Krashen is one of these well-known scholars
who tried to capture the cognitive process of language acquisition
and to answer the fundamental question how languages are learned.
The input theory, in our view tried to some extent, from a cognitive
point of view, to provide explanations for the language acquisition
process in its specific way. Another one is the Creative Construction
Model. Anderson’s Cognitive Hypothesis is the best example, which
I can take as an example of the attempts to explain the cognitive
process of language acquisition taking insight from cognitive
psychology and treating language acquisition as acquisition of other
human knowledge.
2.3.5.1 The Input Hypothesis
The input hypothesis endeavors to answer a crucial and central
question in language acquisition that is how languages are acquired.
The answer, which the hypothesis tries to give, takes resort to
“meaning” not “form” and to “cognition” and “understanding”.
The input hypothesis looks on the process of learning a
language, i.e. “how do we move from sage i, where i represents
current competence, to i+1 the next level?” (Krashen, 1987:20-22).
Krashen points that learners acquire languages by understanding
messages and that is by focusing in meaning and not in the form
of language. He explains this by saying that we acquire the
language when we understand the structure which is just “a little
beyond” our competence.
This is what he describes as “comprehensible input”. He states,
“A necessary ‘but not sufficient’ condition to move from stage i to
stage i+1 is that the acquirer understand input that contains i+1”.
Thus he claims that language is acquired when it contains linguistic
items which are a “little beyond” the present linguistic competence
of the learner, i.e. the cognitive language construction of the learner.
He argues that besides our linguistic competence or the cognitive
construction of the linguistic knowledge the context, our knowledge
of the world, our extra-linguistic information are the factors that
enable us to comprehend the meaning of the structures addressed to
us. This means that the child understands the message or the meaning
in a structure containing linguistic items, which is just beyond his/her
present linguistic competence or his/her present cognitive
ability. This helps children in their developmental route of
language acquisition and hence helps them to build their both
linguistic and communicative competence.
Before the advent of the input hypothesis it was believed that in
second language acquisition we first acquire grammatical structures,
drill them, then fluency will be acquired. Input hypothesis here
postulates that we acquire a language by understanding it, i.e. we go
for meaning first then we acquire the target language.
(MacNamara, 1972.). In other words, we cognitively establish our
schema of language knowledge or linguistic knowledge then we
proceed in our language acquisition.
Krashen believes that there is a period, which elapses from
input to production or output of the TL, which he calls it the silent
period. Learners need this period before producing any original
sentence to internalize the rules of the language (as language is rulegoverned system).
Krashen describes the input as fine tuned input and roughly
tuned input. (Krashen, 1980, 1981) The fine tuned input is the input,
which is “precisely adjusted to the level…” of the learner, while the
rough tuned input is just approximately adjusted, it “casts as a net” of
structures, which are beyond the learner’s level, i.e. it contains ‘i+1’
linguistic items. It helps communication and it follows ‘here- andnow’ principle.
The input hypothesis argues that ‘fluency can not be taught
directly, it ‘emerges’ over time. In our opinion this happens when
language learners’ cognitive structures are mature enough to produce
language then they ‘break through’ their ‘silent period’ and produce
language to communicate with others.
We take Krashen’s “input theory” as an introduction for
“Cognitive Psychology” as it attempts to explain language
acquisition by taking resort, to some extent, to Cognition.
2.3.5.2 Creative Construction Theory
In the 1970’s some researchers rejected the idea of the
contrastive analysis theory (CAT). Contrastive Analysis Theory
believes that differences between the first language and the second
language cause the main difficulties in second language learning.
Hence, these researchers rejected the ‘interference’ and the transfer
hypotheses. They tried to demonstrate that learning second language
process is as same ‘lawful’ as the first language process and it has its
own creative process. Dulay and Burt who are the main protagonists
of this theory, among others, try to show that the steps and sequences
in second language learning are “universal and have the same
regularities” that can be found in first language acquisition. (Stern,
1994)
The Creative Construction Hypothesis believes that the learner
constructs second language system creatively independent of first
language and any other external factors. The Creative Construction
Hypothesis led to a great deal of thought and wide discussion.
Research began to focus on basic issues as whether second language
learning like first language learning; are there ‘innate mechanisms’
(Dulay and Burt, 1977: 97) which function in second language
learning in the same way as in first language learning? Research
questions are also raised whether second language universal process
is ‘independent of the language of origin, and what the ‘lawful
sequences of language learning are.’
Corder (1967) suggests a ‘built-in’ syllabus and an active
cognitive processor for the second language learning.
This
viewpoint supports the proponents of this theory viewpoint and goes
in the same orientation. Lightbown (1997) tells us that the creative
construction model believes that “learners are thought to ‘construct’
internal representation of the language being learned”. She adds that
this “internal representation” can be thought of as ‘mental pictures’
of the target language, which function to develop in predictable
stages towards the full second language system. Ellis (1988) believes
that the hypothesis “emphasizes the learner-internal factors which
contribute to learning…and the process of acquisition is the result of
innate
mechanisms…which
operate
independently
of
input
factors”.(p.21).
Proves for this hypothesis are taken from learners’ errors in
their various stages of their course in learning second language
besides the order which is taken by learners in acquiring certain
structures. This hypothesis claims that language acquisition takes
place ‘internally’ as learners read or hear the target language. The
internal processing strategies work on the intake independently and
without the learner producing the language. The model posits that
“identical sequences” are found in both processes of learning first
and second language, and second language acquisition is seen, as a
‘natural’ process not influenced by linguistic environment.
The Creative Construction Hypothesis supports the opposite
viewpoint of the well-known “Restructuring Hypothesis” which
posits that second language learner “develops his second language by
a process of restructuring his first language”. (Stern, 1994:397).
Creative Construction Hypothesis tells us that “the second language
growth is independent of a particular first language and develops
rather in the manner in which a child ‘creates’ his first
language”.(ibid: p. 397)
This means that this hypothesis posits that learning second
language process is the same process as that of learning first
language, as well as it has the same sequence of the creative
cognitive operations. This leads us to say that strategies, which are
used in learning both languages, are virtually the same, and this is the
area of our present study.
This is why, to prove this hypothesis, researchers study the
linguistic “output” or the learners’ “interlanguage” to infer from that
the characteristics of the linguistic product in a specific period. The
result, which is arrived to, is also consolidated by comparisons with
the studies of first language acquisition regularities. Both adults and
children second language learners were subjected to observation
during their course of learning both first and second language. The
results of these studies are opposing and inconsistent. Hatch (1978b)
gives a summary of what research arrived to.
Hatch asks if there is a sequence in second language learning “is
it the same regardless of learner’s native language?”(ibid: 35). In the
researches she examined, Hatch found that the answer is not clear.
For example, she found different opinions regarding ‘transfer’ and
‘interference’ from the native language. She also investigated
whether the sequence is the same for the adult and the child learners.
She found that ‘systematicity’ and ‘variability’ are observed in both
child and adult learners (ibid: 61).
Hatch looked whether the sequence in second language
acquisition is the same as that which is described for first language
acquisition. She found that no clear answer in the research emerged.
Another question, which Hatch raised, is that: if there is a
‘sequence’ and if this ‘sequence’ is similar for all learners how it can
be explained. Researches gave no exact explanations. Some of the
explanations, which are proposed, are personal factors, interactions
with others, instruction, and the likes are decisive factors (Hatch,
1978b).
In our viewpoint, this demonstrates that researchers, being
proponent of Creative Construction Hypothesis or Restructuring
Model, have to do more to find convincing proofs to consolidate
their stance.
Thus, this takes us to conclude that research has not yet arrived
to decisive proofs for this theory. However, in research the
advocators of Creative Construction Hypothesis take resort to the
inherent principles of second language development and compare
that with first language acquisition to find parallelism between the
two learning processes. Moreover, this theory tries to give
‘interaligual’ evidence. This is why it is regarded as an ‘interaligual’
hypothesis. This, while we find the advocates of the Restriction
Theory provide proofs to show that the native language of the learner
forms the basis for the second language proficiency, and in this sense
it is a ‘crossligual’ theory of second language learning. Corder gives
an
‘interaligual’
continuum,
an
‘intermediate
between
the
restructuring and reconstructing hypotheses” (1978:90).
However, we believe that the Creative Construction Theory,
which is proposed by Dulay and Burt (1977), is more comprehensive
model, as that proposed by Krashen (1981) the Monitor Model, than
others. They both account for the input and the learner’s internal
factors besides the relationship between the learner’s internal factors
and the learner’s output unlike other theories. For instance,
Schumann (1978), Brown (1980) acculturation theory just accounts
for the external initiating factors while the “interlanguage” theory
(Corder, 1967; Selinker, 1972) is primarily concerned with the
internal factors and the processing mechanisms that lead to specific
output. The Creative Construction Hypothesis as it accounts for the
naturalistic development of second language acquisition has its
strong impact on second language acquisition research.
2.3.5.3 Cognitive and Perceptual Processes in Second
Language Acquisition
A basic principle in language acquisition is that acquisition
happens through the process in which learners try to find out how the
language works and when learners begin to construct and test
hypotheses about the language and its rules.
Cognitive and perceptual processes are basic in language
acquisition as in other fields of human knowledge. To explain the
importance
of
the
above-mentioned
processes,
cognitive
psychologists introduce their own models drown from their research
findings and tested empirically. This gave rise to a clear change in
the focus of language acquisition studies and research towards more
cognitive aspects.
The psychological studies of language acquisition avail of the
findings of the Swiss psychologist Jean Piaget and his colleagues on
the stages of the cognitive development from infancy to maturity
(Rivers, 1980; Hudelson, 1991), i.e. the mechanism for perception
and learning, which may be independent of linguistic knowledge per
se. Thus, the ‘intake’ process is seen as a complex task of
information processing, which includes the perception of ‘input’, the
recording and encoding of semantic information into long-term
memory, and the integration and incorporation of linguistic
information into the learner’s developing grammar (Chaudron,
1985).
Piaget and his colleagues have shown that young learners in
early stages of learning are normally in a stage named ‘the concrete
operational stage of cognitive development’. “This means that they
learn through hand-on experiences and through manipulation of
objects in the environment. Children in primary, or elementary,
schools settings generally learn by doing” (Piaget, 1976).
In present, knowledge of cognitive factors and learning theory
in general has increased greatly. For instance
our
knowledge
about memory “sensory-motor, perspective, symbolic, long-tem,
short-term, retention” and how retention is based on depth of
processing increased greatly (McLaughlin et al, 1983; Hahn, 1989).
In language acquisition, as in all other learning and acquisition fields,
the transfer of information to long-term memory is regulated by
controlled processes. Complex skills are learned or become
automatic only after earlier use of controlled processes that require
time and varying degrees of attention and awareness (McLaughlin et
al, 1983).
Nowadays language acquisition theorists are urged to
incorporate a degree of neurobiological reality into their study of the
language acquisition process. This will help to give a shared base for
“evaluating
and
integrating”
different
language
acquisition
“perspectives” (Jacobs and Schumann, 1992).
Thus, Cognitive psychology is one of the attempts to understand
the interaction between language and cognition, which is not yet well
understood. Theorists try to make use of the available findings of
research and theory that have already come out in cognitive
psychology. The process of language acquisition is used to be
discussed in cognitive psychology as having parallels with complex
cognitive skills. Thus, the aspects of language acquisition that are
used to be discussed are those that related to memory representation
and to the process of acquiring complex cognitive skills. This helps
to discuss and understand, through the perspective of cognitive
psychology,
specific
language
comprehension
and
language
production processes. Cognitive psychology addressed itself to
elements that linguistic theories did not conceive, such as leaning
strategies or the “behaviors and thoughts that a learner engages in
during learning that are intended to influence the learner’s encoding
process” (Weinstein and Mayer, 1986:315).
Nevertheless, theory development in language acquisition,
which is interested in the cognitive process, is limited despite of the
increasing interest in the relationship between language and
cognition (McLaughlin et al, 1983; Spolsky, 1985 Nagle and
Sanders, 1986), and the multiplied interest in the role of learning
strategies in language acquisition (e.g. Bialystok, 1978; Bialystok
and Killerman, 1986). The recent interest in language acquisition in
cognitive psychology, which has emerged, is based on information
processing theory and the studies on the role of cognitive process in
language acquisition.
The cognitive theory investigates the role of learning strategies
in language acquisition within a framework to explain how new
information is acquired and how information is stored in the
memory. The cognitive theory claims that information is stored in
two distinct ways:
a.
information is either stored in short-term memory, which
is active working memory that keeps the limited amount of
information for specific period of time, or
b.
it is stored in long-term memory. The long-term memory
is the sustained storage of information where information can be
represented as isolated elements or as interconnected networks
(Lachman, Lachman and Butterfield, 1979; Shuell, 1986; Weinstein
and Mayer, 1986).
However, sometimes the term working memory is used for
describing short-term memory to describe the active use of cognitive
procedures with the information being used (Anderson, 1985).
2.3.5.4 Language Acquisition and Cognitive Theory
This account of language acquisition is based mainly on
Anderson’s cognitive theory of language acquisition (1985).
According to cognitive theory new information ‘hence
language’ is acquired in four successive steps. These steps are
selection, acquisition, construction, and integration (Weinstein and
Mayer, 1986). In these four steps of information encoding process,
the learner is actively engaged in the following activities:
Selection: In this step, the learner concentrates on specific point
of interest in information then he/she transfers this information to the
working memory.
Acquisition: In the case of language acquisition, the learner
changes the information from working memory into long-term
memory, to be kept there permanently.
Construction: here the learner creates connections between
ideas, which are in the working memory. The information in longterm memory provides related ideas or ‘schemata’ into which new
ideas
and
information
can
be
organized.
This
facilitates
understanding and retention of information.
Integration: the learner looks for prior knowledge in long -term
memory then sends it to the working memory.
In the steps of selection and acquisition, how much to learn is
decided there; where in construction and integration what the newly
learned information is and how it is organized is decided.
This framework, which incorporates two stages of short-term
memory and long-term memory besides the four cognitive processes
described above, was not meant primarily to describe language
acquisition. It has been used to problem solving, vocabulary learning,
reading comprehension, and acquisition of factual knowledge.
However, various attempts have emerged beyond this
framework with the formulation in cognitive theory of mechanisms
for representing complex cognitive skills, and language acquisition is
a complex cognitive skill.
Theorists claim that there are varieties of means to show the
competence that underlies performance of complex cognitive skills
such as language acquisition , including rational task analysis (Gagne
and Paradise 1961), interrelated procedural network (Brown and
Burton 1978) and production system (Anderson 1980, 1983, 1985).
2.4 Summary
Some of the main theories and the ideas of some theorists about
learning and acquisition of the language, L1 or L2, is discussed in
this chapter in addition to some notions and concepts as learning and
acquisition (2.2).
Learning process notion for some scholars is believed to be a
conscious process, which is practised in classroom and in this
process students are usually checked and tested. They believe that
learning cannot lead to acquisition of language or to fluency.
Acquisition on the other hand, for others as Stevick (1982) is the way
a person uses to be able to control a language and it is believed that
what a person acquires is relatively permanent.
The Behaviorists (2.3.1) beliefs in learning and acquisition are
discussed. They argue that language learning is not a mental
phenomenon it is just a behavior. CA theory which is associated
with this theory is touched.
The Biological Foundation theory (2.3.2) is discussed. It
believes that children seem to be equipped with special abilities or
biological devices for learning the language. The Innatists tell us
“children learn language the way they learn to walk”. Chomsky and
others claim that children, and even L2 learner, possess an innate
predetermined knowledge and this knowledge is referred to as
“LAD” and afterwards “UG”. The Neurologist point of view and the
“Critical Period” beside “age of resonance” are touched.
On the other hand, the Psycholinguists theories (2.3.3.) claims
that language is acquired in a natural order(The Natural Order
Hypothesis, 2331) and language acquisition has an incremental
order. The Affective Filter Hypothesis (2.3.3.3) believes that there
are specific affective factors that may speed or impede the
acquisition process as age, anxiety, integrative motivation, selfinvolvement, exposure to the language, etc is examined.
Sociolinguist theories (2.3.4) proponents beliefs are reviewed.
The Interactionists (2.3.4.1) believe that “language acquisition is
acquired
through
interaction”
as
Brown
(1968:287)
tells
us.Ddiscourse theory (2.3.4.2) which is rooted in language use
believes that language is acquired through communication. The
Acculturationists (2.3.4.3) believe that “acculturation” in language
acquisition is vital especially in L2 acquisition as language is
believed to be the observable expression of culture as Brown
(1980:129) states.
As for cognitive theories (2.3.5), this chapter discussed the input
hypothesis and the Creative Construction theory as an introduction
for cognitive explanation for language acquisition. Cognitive and
Perceptual process in SLA as well as other issues were discussed
CHAPTER THREE
Learning, Communication and Production
Strategies
3.1 Introduction
The interest in the special tactics and techniques or strategies
which help the L2 learner in the process of learning the language, has
emerged as an outcome of the studies that tried to identify the
characteristics of the “good language learner”. Since then many
studies and researches tried to “capture”, identify, and classify this
“elusive” concept. In this chapter definition and identification of
learning strategies notion (3.2.1.) according to different theorists’
viewpoint beside learning strategies categorization (3.2.2.) will be
reviewed. The relation between learning strategies and interlanguage
(3.2.3.) will be touched. This relationship demands discussion of
learners’ errors (3.2.3.1.) and L2 learning strategies (3.2.3.2.). The
concept of Communication Strategies (CS) (3.3.1.) and their relation
with learning strategies (3.3.2.) will be discussed as well as L2
production strategies (3.4.) will be reviewed.
3.2 Learning Strategies
The literature on learning strategies in L2 acquisition emerged
from a concern for identifying the characteristics of “effective
learners”. This idea that special learner techniques or strategies may
assist second language acquisition is actually quite new, having
emerged in the research literature just over 25 years ago.
Research efforts concentrating on the “good language learner”
had identified strategies reported by students or observed in language
learning situations that appear to contribute to learning (Rubin, 1975;
Naiman et al, 1978). These efforts demonstrated that students do
apply learning strategies while they are learning a second language
and that these strategies can be described and classified. The
suggestion that the “good language learner” might be doing
something special or different that we could all learn from was
introduced at about the same time in works by Rubin (1975) and by
Stern (1975). This idea contrasts with the idea that some people just
have an “ear” for language or the idea that some individuals have an
“inherent” ability for language learning. This early work anticipated
what cognitive psychologists were realizing independently, that
competent individuals are effective, because of special ways of
processing information. There was also the suggestion that these
strategies are not chiefly a possession of highly efficient individuals,
but could be learned by others who had not discovered them on their
own. However, in the literature, we find that three kinds of strategies
that contribute directly or indirectly to the learning process have been
identified: learning strategies, communication strategies and social
strategies. Some theorists add ‘production strategies’. Some research
labels social strategies as social/affective strategies.
3.2.1 Definition and Identification
Learning strategies are “elusive and hard to define” says Stern
(1978). Researchers felt learning strategies are “too subjective and
could not be investigated ‘scientifically”. If we trace the word
strategy etymologically, we shall find that the word strategy comes
from the ancient Greek term ‘Strategia’ that means “generalship or
the art of war” which entails “the optimal management” of given
resources. A related word is ‘tactics’ which are “tools to achieve the
success of strategies”. These two terms are frequently used
‘interchangeably’ (Oxford: 1990). But Oxford believes that strategies
in learning are “…specific action taken by the learner to make
learning easier, more enjoyable, more self- directed, more effective,
and more transferable to new situation” (Ibid. :8).The strategy
concept now is used widely and recognized throughout education
taking the term learning strategies. Many researchers tried to capture
the meaning of the notion learning strategies and to give it a
definition.
Some scholars tell us that learning strategies are ‘operations’
employed by the learner to enhance the acquisition, storage, retrieval,
and use of information (Rigney, 1978; Dansereau, 1985). Again,
Oxford (1990) states that learning strategies are ‘steps’ taken by
students to help them in learning. She adds that learning strategies
are “tools for active, self-directed involvement, which are essential
for developing communicative competence”.
Now we have
descriptions for learning strategies as ‘operations’, ‘action’, ‘steps’
and ‘tools’ for others they are ‘skill’. Learning strategies nature is
said to be a ‘problem solving nature’. This means that learners use
them to ‘solve problems’ or to ‘accomplish a task’ or to achieve a
specific goal. As an example ‘memorization’ strategy is used to
remember a word, ‘guessing’ as a strategy in the learning process is
used when a meaning of a word or an utterance is to be known or
understood.
The importance of learning strategies is that learning strategies
“…enable students to take command over their learning and to apply
procedures that will assist them in retaining and using important
language skills productive use” (Chamot and O’Malley, 1984:1).
Learning strategies are mental or behavior activity related to some
specific stage in the overall process of language acquisition or
language use. Wenden and Rubin (1987: 39) use the strategy term
“to refer to the mental operations that learners choose to utilized in
accomplishing learning tasks”.
Weinstein and Mayer (1986: 315) view learning strategies as
“have learning facilitation as a goal and are intentional on the part of
the learner. The goal of strategies use is to affect the learner’s
motivational or affective state, or the way in which the learner
selects, acquires, organizes, or integrates new knowledge”. This is a
broad description of learning strategies which can embrace other
various learning activities as learning strategies. Some researchers
keep the strategy concept to mean specific types of behavior, for
example ‘viewing language as a system’, ‘monitoring L2
performance’, while they refer to other processes as ‘classifying the
verbs into groups that are conjugates similarly’ as “techniques”
(Naiman et al, 1978). They are “tactics” in Sliger’s (1983) terms.
This reflects that researchers do not make clear distinction between
these terms, strategy, tactic, or technique.
The basis of ‘consciousness’ is controversy. Some researchers
believe that what starts out as a conscious ‘tactic’ may end as a
subconscious ‘strategy’. Seliger uses the term ‘strategy’ to refer to
both conscious and subconscious activities. This leads to thinking
about learning
automaticity and learning strategies as procedural
knowledge in cognitive psychology.
On the other hand, we find Stern agrees with O’Malley et al
(1985) as they view the function of learning strategies as they are
“used by good language learners to assist them in gaining command
over required skills and are positively associated with language
acquisition” (ibid: :21-22). But Carver (1984: 127) believes that
some learning strategies may have “potential for greater pay off than
others”.
Cognitive psychology views learning strategies as cognitive
process. Anderson (1983) in his cognitive theory does not
discriminate learning strategies from other cognitive processes. This
may be because Anderson in his theory is more interested in tracing
and description of “storage and retrieval of information” and not in
the process of learning and the means that enhance learning and help
in making it more effective. In Anderson’s theory, learning strategies
can be depicted as a group of productions that are assembled, refined
and adjusted until they become “procedural knowledge”.
It is discussed that the learner has two types of L2 knowledge:
the declarative and procedural knowledge (Faerch and Kasper, 1983;
Anderson, 1983; O’Malley and Chamot, 1990; Ellis, 1996). They
argue that declarative knowledge is “knowing that” or knowing the
rules of the language and memorizing language chunks, as ‘gestalt’
rather than the elements that constitute it. Procedural knowledge is
“knowing how”. This comprises the strategies and procedures used
by the learner to acquire L2 and to use it in communicative
situations.
For Weinstein and Mayer (1986) learning strategies are used by
the learner to facilitate language acquisition and the learner uses
them intentionally. They are used to “affect the learner’s
motivational or affective state or the way in which the learner selects,
acquire, organizes or integrates new knowledge (ibid: 315).
Some strategies occur overtly (e.g. repetition of a word or an
expression to acquire it) and are relatively easy to observe while
others occur covertly (such as guessing the meaning of a word) and
need introspective techniques to study them.
Alternative terms are used for learning strategies including
tactics, techniques, potentially conscious plans, and consciously
employed operations learning skills, functional skills, cognitive
abilities, processing strategies, problem-solving procedures and basic
skills. They are also given the terms: ‘thinking skills’, ‘thinking
frames’, ‘reasoning skills’, ‘basic reasoning skills’, and ‘learning-tolearn skills’. Most of these terms concentrate on the ‘cognitive
aspect’ of learning strategies and pay little attention to the ‘emotional
and social aspects’.
The term learning strategies, which is widely used now, is not
used in the same way by all researchers. Stern (1994) suggests that
the term strategy should be kept for “general tendencies or overall
characteristics of the approach employed by the language learner”
and he asks to use the term “learning techniques” to denote
“particular forms of observable learning behavior more or less
consciously employed by the learner”. He gives examples of these
“consciously employed behavior” by the learner as the “…study
habits or detailed procedures in dealing with specific aspects of
language learning, such as looking up words in a dictionary…”
So, in the literature we find that the nature of learning strategies
has been referred to as ‘techniques’, ‘tactics’, ‘potentially conscious
plans’, ‘consciously employed operations’, ‘learning skills’, ‘basic
skills’,
‘functional
skills’,
‘language
processing
strategies’,
‘cognitive abilities’, ‘problem solving procedures’, etc. These
multiple identifications show how the term has an elusive nature and
how difficult it is to capture its nature in a single phrase. In their
discussion of five different views in strategies we find Naiman,
Frohlich, Stern, and Todesco (1978) admitted that ‘a consensus on a
definition of the term is lacking’. Eight years later, Bialystock (1983:
100) stated nearly the same acknowledgement that ‘there is a little
consensus in the literature concerning either the definition or the
identification of language learning strategies’.
Rubin (1981) singles out there are three kinds of strategies,
which have been recognized to contribute directly or indirectly to
language learning. These are LS, CS, and social strategies. LS are
those that help the learner in construction and development of the
language system and his linguistic competence. Thus, learning
strategies affect the learning process directly. Recently, researchers
identified two major kinds of learning strategies: metacognitive and
cognitive strategies. Although it is difficult to differentiate these two
types of strategies, Brown and Palinscar (1982) and O’Malley et al
(1983, 1985) attempted to do so. In the latter’s view learning
strategies can be differentiated by the level of processing. They
believe that metacognitive strategies are higher in order and they are
executive skills while cognitive strategies are the steps or operations
used in learning or problem solving.
It is useful to mention that two types of learning strategies
identified in literature. These are language learning strategies and
skill learning strategies. Tarone defines language-learning strategies
as concerned with attempts the learner does to master new linguistic
of sociolinguistic information about the target language. Skill
learning strategies are identified as concerned with the learner
attempts to become skilled listener, speaker, reader, or writer.
Thus, we find that learning strategies are:
- Operations (Rigney, 1978; Dansereau, 1985)
- They have got a problem orientation or problem solving
nature,
- They are tools that “enable students to take command over
their learning…’ and “…to apply procedures…” (Chamot et
O’Malley 1984)
- They are “tools for self- directed involvement (Oxford,
1990:1; Rubin, 1975; 120),
- “an acquired skill” (Chamot et O’Malley, 1984).
- Some researchers use the word “behavior” so they are “…the
special thoughts or behavior that individual use…” (O’Mally
et al, 1990:1).
- Naiman et al (1978) view them as “techniques”.
- Seliger (1983) gives them the term “tactics”.
- They are “…steps’ taken by students...’ (Oxford, 1990:1).
- Anderson (1983) in his cognitive theory believes that they
can be presented as ‘complex skill’ and a ‘set of productions’
which can be ‘compiled’.
Then they are:
- ‘Procedural knowledge’ in cognitive psychology, and they
are
- ‘Intentional’ and there is no consensus whether they are
applied ‘consciously’ or ‘unconsciously’ (Weinstein and
Mayer, 1986; O’Malley et al, 1990).
- Some learning strategies occur overtly while others occur
only covertly.
- Some learning strategies are ‘mental processes’ and they
cannot be described as they occur covertly while others can be
described as mental processes that occur overtly (O’Malley et
al, 1990: 88).
- There is a pertinent question: are they language-learning
strategies or are they language learner strategies?
They are of different types:
- There are production strategies, communication strategies
and learning strategies. The first two are considered strategies
of language use, which contribute in its turn to language
learning (Tarone, 1980).
- Recently, major kinds of learning strategies have been
identified: cognitive, metacognitive; and affective/social
strategies (Brown and Palinscar, 1982; O’Malley et al, 1983,
1990; Rubin, 1987; Oxford, 1990).
- Some of them directly affect the learning process while
others contribute indirectly to it (Rubin, 1981).
- For Naiman et al (1978) they are of five broad categories,
while others consider them of two categories only.
This shows that literature abounds with definitions of
strategies and this tells us two things: First, it tells us about the
nature of learning strategies. It is not easy to define, and identify
them. Second, each researcher, or group of researchers, has looked
at and pursued learning strategies from a different angle according
to his/her concerns. Some looked at them from cognitive, others
from affective or social dimensions. The result of this we fined a
plethora of attempts in the literature concerning either the
definitions or identification of strategies.
3.2.2 Learning Strategies Categorization
The present state, which prevails in literature among researchers
concerning identifying and definition of strategies, has its impact on
classifying learning strategies. The result is that various taxonomies
are proposed.
As it is mentioned before learning strategies in second language
acquisition literature is an outcome of a concern for identifying the
characteristics of effective learner. Rubin (1975) and Stern (1975)
suggested at the same time that “good language learner” might be
doing something special or different that we could all learn from.
These early studies state that competent learners are effective
because of special ways of processing information, which, they apply
when learning a second language. Naiman et al (1978) and Rubin
(1975) have identified strategies reported by students or observed in
language learning situations that appear to contribute to learning.
Rubin (1981) proposed a classification scheme, which embraces
learning strategies under two primary groups and a number of
subgroups. Another classification scheme is given by Naiman et al
(1978). It consists of five broad categories of language strategies and
a number of secondary categories. Stern (1975) has proposed a
classification on which Naiman et al (1978) has based their
classification scheme besides interviewing some good language
learners. In 1985, O’Malley et al introduced their classification
following Wenden (1983). Most recently, Oxford (1985) has
introduced an extensive list of strategies collected and compiled from
various studies that identified learning strategies. In this section, the
four major taxonomies, which are proposed, by Naiman et al (1978),
Rubin (1981), O’Malley et al (1985) and Oxford (1990) will be
considered.
Rubin’s taxonomy is the largest known one. She has drawn her
category from arduous extensive data collection in different settings
and learning situations. These settings and situations consist of:
1. About fifty hours of classroom observation,
2. observation of a small group of learners working together on
a specific learning task, (it was a strip story),
3. analysis of self-reports and diaries from a few number of
learners who were asked to record what they did to learn a second
language, and
4. analysis of daily journal entries produced by two learners
who were given strategy examples and asked to report on
strategies.
As it is mentioned above Rubin’s taxonomy is the largest of all.
It consists of two groups or primary categories:
The first primary category consists of six secondary strategies
or macro-strategies that directly contribute and affect the learning
process. These macro-strategies are:
1. Clarification/verification,
2. Monitoring,
3. Memorization,
4. Guessing/inductive inferencing,
5. Deductive reasoning, and
6. Practice.
Each one of these secondary categories or macro-strategy
consists of subdivision or micro-strategies
The second primary category consists of two secondary or
macro-strategies, which contribute indirectly to the learning process.
They are used to oversee, regulate or self-direct language learning.
These macro-strategies are:
1. Creating opportunity to practise,
2. Use of production tricks.
These strategies comprise sub-divisions or micro-strategies.
It worthwhile to mention that Rubin’s taxonomy (and its
modified versions) for learning strategies contains some production
and
communication
strategies
such
as
paraphrasing
and
circumlocution. In literature, these strategies help the learning
process, as it is believed that the learning tasks can be achieved while
producing the target language in natural communication settings. The
metacognitive strategies Rubin identified resemble reflections on the
process of learning or manipulating learning opportunities.
As it is mentioned above another classification scheme is
proposed by Naiman et al (1978). Their list consists of five broad
categories of learning strategies and a number of secondary
categories or techniques. Naiman et al (1978) differentiate between
strategies and techniques for second language learning. Techniques
differ from strategies as they focus on particular aspects of language
learning. Examples given for techniques are as follows: For sound
acquisition the technique which is used is “repeating aloud after the
teacher”, and the technique for vocabulary study is “learning words
that are associated”…etc.
Naiman’s group scheme differs from Rubin’s in that it focuses
on personality traits, cognitive styles and strategies that are crucial
for successful language learning. They based their scheme on Stern’s
(1975) list of ten strategies necessary for attaining second language
linguistic competence and on the comments and views of thirty-four
good language learners who they interviewed. Naiman’s group
classification list consists of five general strategies and related
techniques. According to the list good language learners:
1. Involve themselves actively in language learning process
and seek preferred learning environment and exploit them,
2. Possess and develop an awareness of language as a system,
3. Realize and develop an awareness of language as a means
of communication and interaction,
4. Mange the affective demands of L2 and cope with them,
and
5. Extend and revise L2 system by inferencing and monitoring
their L2 performance.
These broad five categories of strategies are associated with a
number of secondary strategies or techniques
Among the several techniques Naiman et al (1978) identified
most of them are associated with vocabulary learning and they are
usually exploited by L2 learners. This may be because the good
learners they have interviewed (as most L2 learners) were not able to
identify other techniques they use to learn other language tasks or it
may be they have a few strategies means to do so.
It is clear that Rubin’s and Naiman et al (1978) classification
schemes are different. Naiman et al (1978) explored Rubin’s
suggestion that good language learner has something to teach us and
they administrated retrospective interviews with thirty-four L2
learners who were considered proficient in their approach in learning
L2. Naiman’s group list of learning strategies contains less mental
processes than in Rubin’s list; it looks as if it were reflection on
successful
learning.
In
Rubin’s
categories,
she
included
circumlocution and paraphrasing as learning strategies that are
regarded in literature as communication strategies.
O’Malley et al. (1985), following Brown and Palincsar (1982)
and Brown (1983), provided the first obvious contrast between
cognitive and metacognitive strategies (Rubin et al, 1987).
Metacognitive strategies involve thinking about the learning process,
regulating processes as planning, monitoring, and evaluating the
learning process by the L2 learner besides comprehension or
production. Cognitive strategies directly contribute to the learner
learning tasks and lead to manipulation of learning materials
(O'Malley et al., 1990)
O’Malley’s group (1990) tells us that learning strategies “can be
described within the framework of Anderson’s cognitive theory
(op.cit: 42). O’Malley’s group scheme classifies learning strategies
in three categories “depending on the level or type of processing
involved” (O’Malley et al., 1985). These three categories are:
1. Metacognitive strategies: which O'Malley et al (1990) regard
them as higher order executive skills (op.cit: 44). This category
includes four types of strategies. These are selective attention,
planning, monitoring, and evaluation.
2. Cognitive strategies: strategies in this group work directly on
the intaken information manipulating it in specific ways to help
learning.
Following Weinstein and Mayer (1986) and cognitive
psychology O'Malley et al arrange the strategies of this category into
eight strategies: they are rehearsal, organization, inferencing,
summarizing, deducing, imagery, transfer, and elaboration.
3. Social affective strategies: strategies of this category include
a wide group that includes interaction with others or ideational
control over owns affect. This category includes cooperation
questioning for clarification ‘cf. Rubin’, and self-talk.
We observe that Rubin’s classification for learning strategies in
which she deals with cognitive strategies involves steps that directly
affect manipulation of the language learning process. She focuses on
cognitive procedures and steps. O'Malley’s group classification on the
other hand is concerned with vocabulary mastering.
Rebecca L. Oxford (1985, 1990) classification is an attempt to
build on earlier ones (cf. Works by Stern, 1975; Naiman et al, 1978;
Dansereau, 1978, 1985; Rubin, 1981; O'Malley et al, 1987). Oxford
draws two broad parallel categories using similar terms used by Rubin
(1981) for her strategy typology; primary strategies and supporting
strategies, but Oxford specific strategies and definitions are different.
Oxford in her classification scheme of strategies avoids using the term
“taxonomy” as she believes that the term taxonomy “implies a clear
set of hierarchical relationships”. She states, “None of the strategies
classification systems currently available should be called taxonomy,
despite the earlier usage of the term” (Oxford, 1990: 239).
Oxford classification scheme of learning strategies divides the
strategies into two main classes: direct and indirect. She divides each
class into three groups to give six groups:
Class I. Direct strategies ‘or primary strategies consist of
1. Memory,
2. Cognitive, and
3. Compensation strategies.
Class II. Indirect strategies ‘or supporting strategies’ contains
1. Metacognitive,
2. Affective, and
3. Social strategies
These six subdivisions support each other and each strategy
group is apt to connect with and help other group of strategies. She
uses the analogy of the performer and the director in a stage play. The
first major class, the direct strategies, whose role is to deal with the
new language, is like the performer. They are responsible for dealing
with the language itself in different tasks and situations. Their role is
to “remember and retrieve” new information, understand and produce
the language, and understand and use the language despite the
“shortage of linguistic resources”. The indirect strategies, the second
major class, are likened to the stage director. Their role is general
management of the learning process of the new language. This group
of strategies, works to coordinate the learning process, regulates the
learner’s emotions, and facilitates the process of learning with others.
Each one of the six above-mentioned strategies is subdivided to a host
of strategies.
We believe that Oxford learning strategies scheme, which is a
result of arduous work, virtually compiles all the strategies that have
been identified and known in research and literature. She classifies
and arranges the strategies into groups, which amount to sixty-four
examples of strategies.
Nevertheless, we notice the absence of the effect of the cognitive
psychology in Oxford’s work and in her discussions.
3.2.3 Interlanguage and Learning Strategies
3.2.3.1 The Learner’s Errors
The Behaviorist theory of language acquisition states that
language acquisition is just but habit formation. The habit is
established on the association principle, i.e. the habit of producing
the event ‘the language’ is established on the basis of the frequency
and the continuity of the occurrence of stimulus –response chain. The
old habit, the first language here, usually hinders ‘or may facilitates’
the formation of a new habit, i.e. the acquisition of second language.
Thus the Behaviorist view the learners’ errors are a result of the
‘interference’ of the first language. In the 1945 Charles Fries states
that “the most effective materials are those that are based upon a
scientific description of the language to be learned, carefully
compared with a parallel description of a native language of the
learner”(ibid: 9). This shows Fries’ dogma of the foreign language
interference in the process of the Language Acquisition. At the same
time it establishes the tenets and the basis of the Contrastive Analysis
Hypothesis which calls for comparisons between first and second
languages to predict the areas of difficulty for second language
learner and which results in errors.
Lado (1957) states that, ‘the individuals tend to transfer the
forms and meanings and the distribution of forms and meanings of
their native language and culture to the foreign language and culture,
both productively when attempting to speak the language…and
respectively when attempting to grasp and understand the language
language…as practised by native…’ (ibid:2). He adds “…in the
comparison between native and foreign language lies the key to ease
or difficulty in foreign language learning”.(Ibid: 1). This gives the
main doctrines of Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis (CAH) and
summarizes its principles. This means that the process of L2
acquisition is guided by the specific form of the L1 system.
The
Contrastive
Analysis
Hypothesis,
and
hence
the
Interference Hypothesis, dominated research in second language
acquisition for a period. Then a strong revolution opposing
Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis swept the area of second language
acquisition studies and research. In the 60’s a great interest in second
language acquisition emerged. Studies by several scholars questioned
the transfer theory. Slamecka (1968) questioned the ‘free-recall list’
and he claims that it does not facilitate language learning. Ceraso
(1968) reported different findings to what is predicted by the notion
of extinction of specific A-B association. Corder (1967) rejected the
Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis and the transfer theory. He states
that second language learner is “a generator of generalizations” about
the target language. Corder claims that second language learner
constructs hypothesis about second language asking him/herself
whether “…the system of the new language the same or different
from the language…” he/she knows. Then the learner tries to find the
nature of the new system (Corder, 1967).
Thus, the second language learner’s errors come to be regarded
as a phenomenon to be studied in its own. It is found that, through
the analysis of the second language learner’s errors, errors are
manifestations of the steps and the stages of the second language
learning process. They are strategies in themselves. They constitute
the hypotheses testing strategies. Second language learners after
constructing hypotheses about second language system they tend to
test these hypotheses by producing the target language following
what learning rules they have internalized and constructed about L2
system. This strategy serves as a test for their newly formed
hypotheses and helps them to adjust their hypotheses. Corder (1967)
puts it as “…they provide … evidence of how language is learned or
acquired, what strategies or procedures the learner is employing in
his discovery of the language. (1967 reprinted in 1984:25).
Thus, a large corpus of study of second language learners’
output came out and with them emerged several types of learning
strategies. Hence, a theory which claims that L1 acquisition =L2
acquisition has come forth. It claims that the process of the
acquisition of both languages, L1 and L2, is the same and the
learning strategies, which are used in both L1 and L2, are identical
besides there is a universal sequence or in-built syllabus as Corder
(1967) name it, in both L1, L2 learning processes.
Here the new hypothesis, Error Analysis Hypothesis, comes to
prevail in various second language acquisition studies. Error
Analysis Hypothesis (EAH) emphasizes the importance of language
learner’s errors as they provide information about the process of
language acquisition and the interlanguage (IL) continuum besides
the strategies the language learner uses. Thus, errors are claimed to
be important (George, 1972) as they are developmental. They reveal
both the sequence and state of L2 acquisition (Dulay and Burt 1973,
1974).
The enthusiasm for Error Analysis Theory grew in the 1970’s.
Corder (1967, 1971, and 1974) helped to give guidance and
directionality for this new interest. In the psycholinguistic analytical
study of the corpus of errors produced by language learners, a
number of second language learner’s strategies have been identified.
3.2.3.2 Second Language Learning Strategies
Let us now review some second language strategies identified
by some authors.
Richards (1974) identified a number of strategies as:
- Overgeneralization: Richards tells us that overgeneralization
is a device, which is used by the learner when the items bear no
distinctive feature to the learner. For instance the past tense marker (ed) bears no meaning in the context in the presence of Lexis as
“yesterday, last year, etc”.
- Ignorance of rule restrictions:
This happens when the
learner extends the use of the rule where in the TL does not apply (e.g.
the man who I saw him). Richards states that analogy may be
responsible for such phenomenon: He showed me the book. He
explained me the book.
- Incomplete application of rules: This is clear in the attempts
of the learner to communicate by using relatively simple rules and
avoid or fail to learn and use the more complex types of structures.
For instance, a statement may be used as a question.
- False concepts hypothesized: This results from faulty
understanding for TL rules. For instance, the ignorance in identifying
the general marker of the present tense as in ‘he is reads English very
well’, or ‘was’ to be regarded as a marker of the past tense, so a
sentence as ‘one day it was happened.’
George (1972) identified ‘omitting elements’ by the learner as
a result of the redundancy of L2 and his sense of its less importance in
language communication.
Selinker 1(972) identified the following strategies:
1. Reduction of the Target language to a simpler system: This is
manifested when the learner adopts the assumption that all the verbs
in the Target Language are either transitive or intransitive. As a
result, the learner may produce structures as:
I am feeling thirsty. Or
Don’t wary, I’m hearing him.
2. Misunderstanding or false realization of specific category or
‘aspect’ of a tense. The example given is “the realization of the
‘aspect’ in its progressive form on the surface is always with ‘ing’
marking” (Selinker, 1972; Jain, 1969).
3. Avoidance of grammatical formatives such as articles, plural
form, and past tense form (Selinker, 1972; Coulter, 1968). Examples
for this phenomenon as follows:
- Avoidance of articles
It was
nice, nice talier, big one. (Coulter, 1968:22)
-Avoidance of plural forms:
I have many hundred carpenter
 (ibid: 29)
-Avoidance of past tense:
I was in Frankfurt when I fill application (ibid: 36).
Selinker believes that these strategies may be a result of
simplification, which he calls in turn a “strategy”. Coulter (1968)
suggests that these strategies may be a result of the learner’s attempt
not to think about grammatical process while expressing meaning in
English (ibid: 40).
4. Copy the Cue Strategy
Selinker (1972) claims that not all second language-learning
strategies are conscious. There is a “subconscious strategies of
second language learning called ‘cue-copying’” (op. cit. 40). This
strategy is identified by Corthers and Suppes (1967:211). Copy the
cue strategy is identified in the learners’ morphological concepts
production. It may be a result of what is called ‘probability
matching’. “Where the chance that the learner will select an
alternative morphological ending related to the cue noun is not
random” (Selinker, 1972).
5. There is a fifth phenomenon, which Selinker mentioned as a
process and not a strategy and it is a controversial item, which is
Overgeneralization. Selinker gives examples for Overgeneralization
of Target language rules as follows:
- Extension of the use of the “-ed” morpheme to instances where
it should be absent, e.g.: *what did he intended to say (ibid: 39).
- Overgeneralization of the use of some verbs e.g. “drive” is
used for all vehicles. The example given is as follows:
After thinking little I decided to start on the bicycle as slowly as I
could, as it was not possible to drive fast.
- More examples are given as overgeneralization of “rule of
contraction” as in:
Max is happier than Sam’s these days. (For more information
please see Jain, 1969; Selinker, 1972).
Jain (1969) has identified:
- Reduction of speech to a simpler system. She states, “both the
native child and the second language learner have a ‘telegraphic’
stage” (Jain, 1984).
- Generalization: This leads to:
- overapplication of generalization. Jain gives examples of this
strategy when the learner believes that English nouns are either
countable or uncountable. The learner constructs the hypothesis that
countable nouns are used in both the singular and the plural. The
singular form is preceded by the indefinite article “a” and the plural
is marked by the plural morpheme “s”. Nevertheless, there are nouns
not marked by the plural form nor are they marked by “a”. This is
why the application of this strategy leads to the production of such
forms:
He is a man of his words.
She is always finding faults with me.
Dulay and Burt (1984) believe that the L2 learners organize
their L2 acquisition without involving any transfer “either positive
or negative” or comparisons with their native language but they
rely on their “dealing with L2 syntax as a system”.
This
hypothesis goes with the theoretical assumption that L2 acquisition
= L1 acquisition hypothesis, (and this hypothesis is the framework
of our study). This forms their creative construction hypothesis.
They proposed specific strategies, which they believe that second
language learners use in their L2 acquisition.
3.3 Communication Strategies
3.3.1 Communication Strategies: Definition, Identification and
Classification.
It is well known that the first scholar who used the term
communication strategies is Selinker (1972). Selinker used
communication strategies in a broad sense when he was discussing
learner’s interlanguage and the process of second language learning.
Selinker suggests specific “process central to second language
learning; first, language transfer, second, transfer of training; third,
strategies of second language learning; fourth, strategies of second
language communication; and fifth, overgeneralization of TL
linguistic material”. (ibid: 35)
Corder (1982) attempted to define communication strategies in
a less general fashion. He defines communication strategies as “they
are ‘systematic’ techniques employed by speaker to express his
meaning when faced with some difficulty” (Corder, 1982:103). The
learner uses communication strategies when there is a lack of balance
between means and ends (Corder, 1978)
Therefore, communication strategies are systematic and they are
techniques which learners take resort to when they are faced by
difficulties. Corder tells us that the ‘difficulties’ occur when the
learner’s linguistic competence is not developed enough to furnish
the speaker with suitable linguistic elements to get his/her message
across to his/her interlocutor and in the same time the speaker does
not want to abandon the conversation without achieving his/her
communication goal. Here the learner utilizes communication
strategies and whatever information he/she gets from second
language to express his/her intended meaning.
Faerch and Kasper (1983) provide a more worked definition.
They posit that communication strategies are “systematic attempts by
the learner to express or decode meaning in the target language, in
situation where the appropriate systematic target language rules have
not been formed (ibid: 5).
Therefore, communication strategies as Corder says are
systematic but for Faerch and Kasper they are attempts from the
learner. Faerch and Kasper agree with others that the learner uses
these attempts to express meaning using second language when the
systematic rules of this second language has not yet been well
developed to enable the learner to use it proficiently. Moreover, this
definition introduces the communication strategies main component
or nature as having a problem- solving orientation. This is once more
clear in Tarone’s (1977) words, as she believes that communication
strategies are “…used by individual to overcome the crises which
occur when language structures are inadequate to convey the
individual’s thoughts” (ibid: 195).
Nevertheless, communication strategies are conscious plans
taken by the learners to solve problems that impede their achieving a
communicative goal. So communication strategies are “…potentially
conscious plans for solving what to an individual presents itself as a
problem in reaching a particular communicative goal”. (Faerch and
Kasper, 1983:36).
Ellis (1996) agrees with Littlewood (1984) and others that
communication strategies have two key concepts. These concepts
come out in most discussions in literature and that “they are
conscious” and “they are problem oriented” (Littlewood, 1984:180).
If a problem is faced “while the learner is already engaged in
speaking, he must try to find an alternative way of getting the
meaning across” (Littlewood, 1984:84). This way, which the learner
has to get the meaning across, is communication strategies.
To sum up the key concepts identified by the researchers, we
find that communication strategies are first used by Selinker (1972)
as a central process for second language acquisition. They are
systematic techniques or attempts utilized by the learner to solve the
problem of his/her shortage in second language system; or as Corder
(1978) puts it when there is “a lack of balance between means and
ends”. Therefore, they are problem oriented and they are conscious
plans to overcome crisis. Besides this, there is the strategic
competence, which is described by authors as the ability to convey
one’s meaning or message successfully across to particular listeners.
Communication strategies are analyzed to specific types and
this does not come under the scope of this study. We will just give
examples of communication strategies to help us to distinguish them
from learning strategies, which is one of the main concerns of this
study. We find that most of the taxonomy of communication
strategies in literature is mainly based on that one provided by
Tarone (1977) or adopted from it (e.g. Bialystok, 1983; Paribakht,
1985; Faerch and Kasper, 1983).
Tarone
(1977)
suggests
three
main
categories
for
communication strategies: paraphrase, transfer, and avoidance. Each
category is classified into subdivisions and examples are given.
I -Paraphrase: Tarone identified in this group:
a- Approximation: This state is evident when the learner uses a
linguistic item, which he/she knows, and shares semantic features
with the ‘missed’ linguistic one.
b- Word coinage: the learner “invent” a new word in order to
express a desired meaning.
c- Circumlocution: the learner uses description of the
characteristics or elements of the object or action in order to
communicate the meaning to his/her listener instead of using a
linguistic item from second language according to linguistic gap.
2. transfer: this is subdivided into:
a- translation: the learner translates a word in the same
language “e.g. for invite he uses ask to come”.
b- Language switch: the learner uses his/her native language,
which results in inappropriate speech.
c- Appeal for assistance: the learner asks for the appropriate
words or structures in the second language; (e.g. what is it called?)
d- Mime: the interlocutor uses paralinguistic strategies as
gesture or clapping to express admiring …etc.
3. Avoidance: this category is subdivided into:
a-Topic avoidance: where the learner avoid talking about
topics where his vocabulary cannot help him/her to communicate the
desired messages and meaning.
b- Message abandonment: where the learner stops talking
after he/she begins talking and stops in the mid of the utterance
because of his/her lack for structure and vocabulary to express the
meaning.
There are also other types of communication strategies, (e.g.
overgeneralization and prefabricated patterns, vowel insertion…etc).
To conclude, there are various categorizations for communication
strategies. It is important and relevant to our study to emphasize the
importance of the communication strategies in learning and language
acquisition as they assist learners to expand their linguistic resources.
3.3.2 Communication Strategies and Learning Strategies
The main contribution of communication strategies is to enable
the learner to remain in the conversation and get opportunities to
participate and to communicate his/her desired meaning and
message. Littlewood (1984) does not believe that communication
strategies can produce learning but they help interaction and enable
conversation to continue; but Corder (1983) believes that successful
usage of communication strategies may help language learning.
From our viewpoint communication strategies help language
production in language use. As language is also learned through
using it, communication strategies help the process of language
acquisition.
In literature we find that some authors differentiate between
learning strategies, communication strategies, and production
strategies (e.g. Tarone, 1981; Faerch and Chasper, 1983; O’Malley et
al, 1985). It is important to remember that any attempt to distinguish
between these strategies is necessarily in its early stages or infancy
and any existing attempts is only a proposal to be tested through
research. For instance, Corder (1978) in his attempt relates
communication strategies to ‘output’ while he relates learning
strategies to ‘input’. According to O’Malley et al (1985:144),
learning strategies are responsible for “language acquisition while
production and communication strategies refer to language use”.
Tarone (1980:419) considers that production strategies and
communication strategies are both ‘strategies of language use’. She
believes that a production strategy is “an attempt to use one’s
linguistic system efficiently and clearly, with a minimum of efforts”.
She gives examples as simplification, rehearsal, and discourse
planning.
On the other hand, communication strategies consist of attempts
to deal with problems of communication that arise during the course
of interaction. As for language learning strategies, they are seen as an
attempt to develop linguistic and sociolinguistic competence in the
target language.
Tarone gives examples of learning strategies as memorization,
initiation of conversation with native speakers, and inferencing.
Wenden (1991:18) believes that learning strategies are mental
steps or operations that learners use to learn a new language and to
regulate their efforts to do so. This reflects that the attempts to
establish a framework for the differentiation between the three types
of strategies consist of controversial ideas and absence of exact
criteria. To take an example of this Rubin (1975) relying on her
experience as a language teacher states that language learners use
devices ‘strategies’ such as circumlocution, paraphrase, and direct
translation to acquire and expand their knowledge of language. Other
scholars regard these strategies either as communication strategies
(Tarone, 1980), or as resource expansion strategies (Corder1983) or
achievement strategies (Faerch and Kasper 1980).
We believe that to solve this problem, to distinguish between
these groups of strategies, is to adopt as criteria the intention of the
language learner whether he/she uses a strategy ‘or a group of
strategies’ to learn the language, to produce it, or to communicate in
a conversation. The problem is that, as Tarone noticed, it is not often
easy to predict the learner’s intention and to tell whether the strategy
use is motivated by a desire from the learner to learn or a desire to
communicate. Moreover, if the strategy use is first motivated by a
desire to communicate, will it not be possible for the learner to
acquire language through this communication?
3.4 Second Language Production Strategies
Dulay and Burt proposed second language production strategies
1. A. Rule’s utility for rich expression with a minimum of
grammatical redundancy:
For instance word order: As word order enables the second
language learners to express the “semantic relations” they use it as a
production strategy as in the following instances:
- Agent – action – object.
- Genitive.
- Possessive as in “Daddy dog” for “Daddy’s dog”. Learners
just string the words in their order.
- Locative “stock chair” for “stocks are on the chair”
- Negation “I not eat” for “I don’t want to eat”
Second language learners use word order to produce not only
simple sentence as those, which are produced by first language
acquirers but also to produce long, and embedded structures. This
happens when second language learners have not yet mastered
acquiring the functors within clauses, for instance: “we say he bring
it to school”.
B: Using a minimal number of cues to signal the speaker’s
semantic intention:
Another example of second language learners’ production
strategy, which comes under removing redundancy, is a “rule of
using a minimal number of cues to signal the speaker’s semantic
intention”.
- An instance of this is the case when the learner uses his/her
intonation alone to signal questions. When learners use whquestions and before mastering that, they use this device without
the additional obligatory aux-subject inversion.
- Congruence of tense: If–then clauses are an example. The
congruence of the present tense in ‘if’ clause should be followed by
future in the ‘then’ clause. This is usually omitted.
The use of this rule also results in missing functors and
missing transformations.
2. The pervasiveness of syntactic generalization:
The example Dulay and Burt give is the principle of
transformation cycle. This principle means that many grammatical
rules can be applied to many clauses in a complex sentence as well as
it can be applied to a simple sentence. Examples of this are:
- Number agreement,
- Agent deletion,
- Reflexive,
- (There) insertion
For some types of sentences, this principle is not closely
followed. It is said:
“I asked him when he would come”.
Such sentences may be produced as a result of this:
“I asked him when would he come”.
This is a result of the close application of pervasive principle
where it is obligatory not to do that or to violate the principle.
3. Frequency of a lexical item in the learner’s speech that entails
a specific syntactic structure:
An example of this is the verb “want”. This verb needs an
infinitive complement. If the learner uses a lexical item frequently
and the example here the lexical “want”, the learner will continue to
use the same syntactic structure for other lexical items, which may be
from a different category, thus require a different structure. Another
example is the use of the verb "have" in questions where verb-subject
inversion in “yes/no” questions is obligatory. What happens is that
this rule is violated as a strategy of production.
It is clear that the above-mentioned strategies by the theorists
(Jain, 1969; George, 1972; Selinker, 1972; Richards, 1974; Dulay
and Burt, 1984) resemble linguistic rules, which the learner adjusts in
the route of his language acquisition development. They reflect that
L2 learners have a specific sort of innate cognitive organization,
which leads their rate and rout of language acquisition development.
This development is independent per se from the learners’ native
language system. We noticed that these strategies, as Dulay and Burt
mention, are also used by L1 learners.
3.5 Summary
In this chapter, which deals with the crucial notion for this study
the learning strategies the definition and identification of this
concept as crystallized in some researches were discussed. Learning
strategy for Rigney (1978) and Dansereau (1985) are “operations”
while for others they are tools that “enable students to take
command over their learning…” (Chamot et O’Malley 1984). Not
only that but learning strategies are “tools for self-directed
involvement” (Oxford, 1990:1; Rubin, 1975:120). Others believe
that learning strategies is “skill”, “behavior”, “tactics” and
“techniques”. Other theorists mentioned more than that as it is
reviewed in this chapter.
The relation between IL and LS was examined here. The
learner’s errors beside L2 learning strategies were discussed.
Communication
strategies
definition,
identification
and
classification were touched beside the relation between learning
strategies and communication strategies. L2 production strategies
(PS) were reviewed in this chapter.
CHAPTER FOUR
METHODOLOGY
4.1 Introduction
This chapter is devoted mainly to the description of the data
collection procedure. It describes the objectives, the theoretical
assumptions and the study hypotheses. The description of the
subjects (4.2.) is followed by the description of the instruments
(4.3).The instruments used in this quasi-experiment to collect as rich
data as possible are ‘verbal self-report’ or ‘think-aloud technique’
(4.3.1), interview (4.3.2), observation (4.3.3), and diaries (4.3.4). EA
technique (4.3.5) is used to analyze the inter-language of the subjects
to collect the LS used by the students and the grammatical
generalizations applied by them. The description of the material
(4.4.) used in the experiments beside the pilot study (4.5.) and other
topics are discussed in this chapter. Then the collected data (4.7.) is
described.
The present study aims at identifying the LS used by L2 learner
to compare them with those used by L1 learner to prove (or refute)
the study hypothesis. Thus, we performed experiments to elicit
information about the learning strategies, which are used with
specific language tasks in the SL by various learners operating under
different types of conditions. This will help us to:
(1) identify the learning strategies which are used in learning
English language by Sudanese learners in the
Basic Education
Level. Enlightenment may be taken from other learners of English
language in Sudan.
(2) specify the learning strategies which are used in L1
acquisition as described by researchers, and
(3)
compare the learning strategies which are used in the
process of L2 acquisition in the experiment of the present study with
those used in the process of L1 acquisition identified in the literature.
This will help us to find the similarities and differences in the
learning strategies which are used in L2 acquisition and L1
acquisition as well.
Thus, the study is a selective survey of the learning strategies used by
L1 acquirers and L2 learners. The researcher’s assumptions may be
expressed as follows:
1- Language learning is an ‘active’ and ‘creative’ process.
2- A Language acquirer possesses an innate mental ability
which enables him/ her to learn a language using specific tools and
techniques (i.e. learning strategies).
3- The L2 acquirer first goes for meaning of the linguistic
element(s) then he /she acquires the form.
4- The L2 learner first learns or identifies universals or base
structures in the TL then he/she acquires TL specific order. This
process is similar to that used by L1 acquirer.
5. By analyzing the language learner’s “errors” or “goofs”, we
can discover what learning strategies are being used and what
hypotheses are constructed about the language in question.
As such, it may be hypothesized that L2 learner nearly uses the
same learning strategies used by L1 acquirer in the process of L2
learning. That is, LS used in L2 learning = LS used in L1 acquisition.
This hypothesis can be expressed as follows:
1. The L2 learner makes hypotheses and checks them through language
use all the time during his/ her developmental route to manipulate the
TL. This process is evident in the “errors” or “goofs” shown in his/ her
language production. This process is similar to what L1 acquirer does.
2. The sequence of learning and the developmental route taken by L2
learner in language learning is more or less the same natural
sequence and developmental route taken by L1 acquirer.
This natural sequence of acquisition is evident in:
A. development in semantic and syntactic acquisition,
B. morpheme acquisition,
C. acquisition of grammatical constructions, and
D. negation and interrogation acquisition.
3. This development in language acquisition leads the L2
learner to commit errors and “goofs” which are similar to those
committed by L1 acquirer. These “errors” or “goofs” which are
systematically ‘committed’ by a second language acquirer are healthy
indicators of his/her progress in the successive stages in language
acquisition.
4. The learning strategies a L2 learner uses in language production are
almost similar to those used by L1 acquirer (e.g. use of word order as a
syntactic rule, simplification, overgeneralization, lack of tensing,
omission of specific markers, the route he/ she takes to acquire whquestions, etc).
4.2 Subjects
160 subjects randomly chosen from Sudanese learners of
English as a FL, drawn from grade 8 basic level pupils, constituted the
sample of the study. All the subjects were under the puberty age. The
sample consisted of:
A. 40 boys and 40 girls from government Basic Education schools.
B. 40 boys and 40 girls from Private schools.
It is clear that, according to sex, the subjects fall into two groups: 80
males and 80 females. They also fall into two groups, once more,
according to types of schools: 80 subjects from government schools,
and 80 subjects from private schools. They were chosen from two types
of
Table 4.1: Profile of the Sample
Type of school
Boys
Girls
Government
40
40
40
40
80
80
Schools
Private Schools
Total
schools to minimize the effect of intervening factors (e.g. differences in
teaching methods, teaching situations, and other social factors.) Table
4.1 shows the distribution of subjects according to sex and type of
school.
Grand Total
160
4.3 Measuring Instruments
Since we intended to get a broad survey of the strategies the
subjects used, we used a multiple data collection technique. This
also helped us to avoid bias.
Instruments used were:
4.3.1 Verbal Self-Report:
This technique may also be called ‘Think-Aloud Technique’.
Here, we used simultaneous introspection or concurrent performance
of the task and reporting on the strategies used, i.e. collection of the
data while the task is being done. The advantage of this technique
helps the informant to identify and report on the strategies which
occur only “fleetingly in short-term memory”.
Subjects had training in ‘think-aloud technique’ as it is strongly
recommended (Ericsson and Simon, 1987; O’Malley et al, 1990).
This helps the respondent to know what to report, how often, and
how much, although he/she would be distracted by being observed
and asked to talk while he/she is performing the language-task. A
short warm up session was first given to the subjects in Arabic (L1)
then we switched to English (TL). The warm up session prior to
think-aloud data collection session consisted of a problem to be
solved by the respondents while they were asked to report on what
they were thinking of. To avoid bias and insure understanding
instructions (as ‘keep thinking’) and questions (as ‘what are you
thinking about?’) plus their reporting on the strategies they use were
given and taken in Arabic (L1).
4.3.2 Interviews
A
structured
interview
was
prepared
and
used.
The
questionnaire (Appendix 2) was divided into five parts. Each part
was concerned with the learning strategies used in acquiring a
specific aspect of the language ‘e.g. syntax, semantics, morphology,
phonology’. A schedule of expected learning strategies as a trigger
for retrospection was used. Examples of the expected learning
strategies in the schedule are as ‘repeating the word(s)?, the
structure?’ ‘Memorizing it while it was said by others?’ ‘Conjuring
visual picture or sounds (i.e. using mnemonics)?’ ‘Practising the
words (the structure) while others using the language?’ ‘Using
something to help you remember it, something like a sound, a figure
‘i.e. using mnemonic?’ ‘Just concentrating on specific parts?’, etc.
4.3.3 Observation
As some strategies can easily be traced as they occur overtly,
we used observation. We used introspection and retrospection with
‘think-aloud technique’ and interviews to collect data about the use
of learning strategies which occur only covertly as the subject was
expected to provide us a description of them. The same schedule for
expected learning strategies was used here (see Appendix 2).
4.3.4 Diaries
Beside these techniques, the informants wrote diaries in Arabic
(L1). The problem was that diaries contained more information than
what we needed, and sometimes types of information not sought for
analysis for learning strategies. Rubin (1981) reported that to avoid
this problem she gave her subjects directions for completing the
diaries. Beside an outline for writing the diaries, directions were
given to the subjects for completing their diaries, as what to write,
and how to write it, so as to get as much as possible relevant
information for learning strategies analysis. Diaries helped the
researcher, to some extent, by giving us better records of the
subject’s delayed retrospection in learning strategies he/she used and
of his/her daily impressions about Second language learning during
the period of the study.
4.3.5 Error Analysis
Studies, which use the output of the learner, i.e. his /her
Interlanguage , are of two types. The studies, which concentrate on
the erroneous product of the learner, are known as Error Analysis.
The other type which studies the whole learner’s output, i.e. the
output produced by the learner during the session of the experiment,
is known as ‘Text Analysis’ or ‘Mental Lexicon’ study.
To get more and rich information on the subject’s learning
strategies used we used Error Analysis technique. The problem is
that many errors were multiply interpretable. This is why we
compared our interpretation for reliability and concurrent validity.
We compared our separate interpretations. When we got more than
one interpretation or analysis for an “error”, we went back to the raw
data and discussed it to resolve inconsistencies.
4.4 The Material
The material used with the above-mentioned tools to elicit the
data from the subjects consisted of:
1. A series of pictures depicting the story of “the Clever Crow”
(source: see page 10) were given to the subjects to help them to
recount the story in the first session (Appendix 1).
2. At the beginning of each session, some vocabulary and structures,
which suit each exercise, were given. Some expressions were
explained before reporting. These expressions were as follows:
a. “The Clever Crow” exercise:
Once there was -
Clever Crow - thirst - small jar -
stones - rising - was thinking-
threw
The tenses used were both past simple and past progressive.
b. Description of the way from home to a specific destination
(free sessions exercise):
The bus goes along - (name) street – sometimes – turns left - turns
right – bus stop – get down – get into – at last - reaches the (market,
school, city centre…etc.) .
The subjects were asked to use the present simple tense in reporting.
3. In the third exercise, which is used in free sessions and data
were collected as samples of naturalistic material, learners were
given the topic “the Best Way to Learn English language” as a
trigger.
4. Beside the above-mentioned material, a list of a selected
number of learning strategies was given to the subjects (Appendix 3).
This list of learning strategies was discussed with the subjects and
the research assistant. This list was used in experiments where the
learner reported on the learning strategies he/she used in the
experiment or during observation and interview sessions beside a
sheet for elicitating the subject’s answers (Appendix 4).
4.5 Pilot Study
Before the administration of the experiment, a pilot study was
executed. Ten students, 5 boys and 5 girls who did not share in the
main experiment did the exercises. The objectives were to examine
the validity and the reliability of the tasks and to see that the
experiment would run smoothly with the subjects. The following
modifications were done in the light of the result of the pilot study:
1. The pictures, which tell the story of “the Clever Crow”, were
enlarged and more of them were photocopied to be distributed
among the subjects.
2. The writing session time changed to be open, but not more than 60
minutes.
Each group was tested in their school. The class teacher as a research
assistant helped the researcher.
4.6 Data Collection
4.6.1 Learning Strategies Data
In ‘Verbal Self-Report, (or ‘Think-Aloud Technique’), the
subjects were asked to perform the exercise while they reported on
how they acquired the structure and lexical items and what learning
strategies they were using. The informants were asked to keep
talking, in Arabic or English, telling whatever crossed their minds
while they were learning the structures and lexical items. Time for
each informant was not limited. Learners’ reports were recorded
using a tape recorder and some were written to be analyzed
afterwards. A research assistant, who was the class teacher, helped in
performing the exercises. Each session continued for about two
hours.
Close attention was paid to find out the learning strategies that
were used by a learner in:
a) understanding the meaning (e.g. by guessing, or deducting
the meaning using the pictures, asking class-mate, etc),
b) memorizing the sentences word order, and
c) acquiring sounds and word- structures.
Examples of the difficulties, which we met, were that some
informants repeated what other subjects said before them. This might
be they thought that was what we expected them to do. Other
informants told us that they did not know how they acquired it.
Immediately after performing the exercise, subjects were interviewed
each one at a time. The questions were asked in Arabic to get better
understanding and to avoid bias and paradox (Appendix 2):
1. Questions in group A were asked to elicit the learning
strategies used by the learner to remember the structure of the words
and to put the words in a string (or a sentence).
2. Group B questions were intended to elicit the strategies that a
student used to get the meaning of a specific linguistic element (e.g.
How did you get the meaning of these words? Did you guess the
meaning?)
3. Group C questions were intended to identify the learning
strategies a student used to acquire morphemes and inflections.
4. Group D questions were meant to elicit the strategies that a
student used in knowing and learning the pronunciation of the word
(e.g. In pronouncing the word ‘crow’, how did you learn to say it?
Did you relate the new sound to a specific known one?)
5. Questions in group E were intended to identify the
hypotheses and the grammatical rules a student constructs.
We used observation with ‘think-aloud technique’ simultaneously,
while subjects were performing the language tasks. We wrote down
what the informants performed while doing the language exercises.
We could not use a video recording because of shortage in resources.
So observations were written down concurrently with their
occurrence. The learning strategies list (Table 5.1.) was used.
Subjects’ diaries were collected to be analyzed.
4.6.2 Error Analysis Data
Before the process of data collection, subjects were told that
they were the representatives of the students in their level who were
learning English language as a foreign language. The result of what
they were doing would be of great importance for teaching English
language in Sudan. This motivated the students to respond to the
questions and to write their answers. Then, the pictures of “the
Clever Crow” story were distributed. The story was told first in L1 to
ensure in depth its understanding. Subjects listened carefully to the
story and their understanding of the story was checked by asking
some questions. The story was about a clever crow, which was
thirsty. It found some water in a jar but the water was so little that the
thirsty crow cannot reach it to drink. The clever crow threw some
stones in the jar so the water rose up and it could drink
At the beginning of the session, relevant structures and
vocabulary items were written on the board and explained. Subjects
were given time to study them. Close attention was paid so as no one
can copy them. Before the subjects began writing the text, these
structures and vocabulary items were removed from the blackboard.
The class teacher read the story since his voice was familiar to the
subjects and because it allowed ample time for the researcher to
observe the subjects. While the teacher was reading the story, the
subjects used to look at the pictures as well as when they were
recounting the story both verbally and written.
4.7 The Collected Data
The collected data was of two types:
1. Data concerning the learning strategies which is twofold:
A. The learning strategies used and mentioned by the subjects
during the sessions of verbal self-reports and the interview and those
mentioned by the subjects in their diaries.
B. The learning strategies collected by the researcher during
observation sessions.
C. The learning strategies collected by applying EA technique.
2. The elicited material or the texts on which we performed EA
were of two types:
a. Written material:
The written material was the text about “the Clever Crow”
written by the subjects.
b- Naturalistic material:
In free conversation sessions with the subjects, we recorded the
verbalized products of the learners in the “Description of the Way
from Home” to specific destination, e.g. the school.
We first
discussed the topic in L1, then in TL. Beside that, the oral attempts
from the subjects to tell the story of the “Clever Crow” and in the
discussion of “The best way to learn English language” were
recorded. “Errors” were collected to detect the learning strategies
used. The collected data were about 280 utterances either written by
the subjects or collected by the researcher during the free sessions for
collecting naturalistic material.
The data, which we collected, seemed at first partly disjointed
and partly disorganized and the observation was only possible of
learners who spoke clearly. Thus, we could get nothing from learners
who kept quiet most of the time. Sometimes we asked the learner
what he/she was doing to test the validity of our interpretation of a
movement as a strategy (e.g. we used to interpret moving the
learner’s lips as repetition strategy while it might have been
practising strategy).Observing strategies is not an easy task as some
strategies are obvious (overt) while others are (covert).
The use of the observation technique concurrently with ‘thinkaloud’ tool or ‘self- verbal report’ helped us a lot to check whether
the strategy we guessed was correct or not and in testing the
reliability of both techniques. We tried to give more time, i.e. to
devote more sessions, but we felt that more time in the classroom
would not help. Therefore, we used to interview the learners about
the means and the strategies they used, specially those covert
learning behaviors and strategies which occur only fleetingly or
automated as procedural knowledge.
4.8 Summary
In this chapter, the aims of the study were stated plus the
researcher’s assumptions and the reach hypothesis. Subjects and the
profile of the sample were discussed.
The study was administered using the following tools:
‘Think Aloud’ technique, retrospection and introspection methods to
elicit the learning strategies used by the second language learner in
learning language. This is plus the interview, the observation, which
were executed concurrently with ‘think-aloud technique’. In addition,
informants wrote diaries. Moreover, the material used in the study,
the procedure of data collection and the collected material were
described.
In the next chapter, the collected data will be analyzed to
identify the learning strategies used in production. Then, a comparison
of the surveyed learning strategies to those registered in the literature as
learning strategies used by first language acquirer will be run.
CHAPTER FIVE
Analysis, Results, and Discussion
5.1 Introduction
This chapter deals with the analysis of the data collected from
the experiments. The results will be discussed with the view to prove
(or refute) the hypotheses of the present study as well as answering
the research questions.
In the analysis of the data (sec.5.2), the proposed scheme for
analyzing the data (5.2.1) as well as the steps followed in analyzing
the students IL using EA technique (5.2.2) will be discussed. Steps
taken for data codification (5.2.3) will be reviewed. The results will
be discussed (sec.5.3) in steps to examine the LS used by learners,
L1 and L2 learners, during the early stages in acquiring the first
semantic and syntactic rules (5.3.1). LS used in the acquisition of
grammatical constructions (5.3.2) and those used in the acquisition of
negation (5.3.3) and interrogation (5.3.4) structures will be reviewed.
Finally, the conclusion arrived will be given beside the summary.
5.2 Analysis and Data Codification
The first task we did was that we tried to group the data we had
got in a meaningful and readable way to interpret it. Then the data
was classified into categories according to the scheme of the learning
strategies constructed and prepared before hand (Table 5.1). Later,
this helped greatly in analyzing the data statistically.
Overgeneralization
Avoidance
Word order
Missing plural marker
Missing possessive marker
Missing determiner
Lack of congruency
Lack of tensing
Monitoring
Clarification
Guessing
Practice
Memorization
Repetition
Simplification
Table (5.1): The Proposed Scheme for Classifying LS Used by Subjects
5.2.1 The Proposed Scheme
Our proposed scheme categories (Table 5.1) were as follows:
The first three general strategies were Repetition, Memorization, and
Practice. It was noticed that when the learner was first introduced to a
new linguistic element he/she used to repeat it. Then he/she used to try
to memorize and practice the linguistic item. Guessing, inductive
inference, clarification (or asking questions), and monitoring (or selfcorrection) followed the above-mentioned strategies.
In
our
learning
strategy
scheme,
simplification
and
overgeneralization came at last. These phenomena, or strategies, are
claimed by some researchers to be processes and not strategies.
However, we agree with Dulay and Burt (1974) who regard them as
tactics or strategies. As for word order, which appears in many
researches as a separate phenomenon, we consider it a manifestation
of the
simplification process. This is why we put it under
simplification macro-category as a micro-strategy. Moreover, we put
under simplification macro-strategy other micro-strategies since we
believe that they are themselves, means or tactics to make language
learning simpler and manageable. These micro-strategies are lack of
tensing, lack of agreement, missing determiners, missing possessive
markers, missing plural markers, word order, and avoidance. The
study is interested in sequence of acquisition as in developmental
sequence in morpho-syntactic domain, negation and wh-questions
acquisition, as well as making and testing hypothesis about the
language.
The study is mainly interested in cognitive learning strategies
that contribute directly to the language learning process more than
meta-cognitive, communication, and affective/social strategies.
These latter strategies facilitate the learning process. Moreover, the
distinction between cognitive and meta-cognitive strategies has been
described as difficult as it is “…difficult to circumscribe (the
difference) with precise boundaries” (Brown et. al., 1983). O’Malley
also states that he also has “…difficulty with this distinction. It is not
without problem” (1990:144). Moreover, as the formulation of
specific types of production strategies has barely begun, as Dulay
and Burt (1972:119) say, “we are not differentiating learning
strategies from production strategies”. All the data was classified
under the above-mentioned categories.
5.2.2 Data Analysis and Codification
After we constructed the
scheme mentioned above, we
analyzed the data we had collected. The collected data were of two
types:
a. Learning strategies either verbalized by the subjects or
collected by the researcher. These data were tabulated and codified.
b. Written material or the learners’ verbalized production. These
data were analyzed applying Error Analysis technique to find the
learning strategies used in the learners’ production (written or
verbalized). Then the learning strategies were tabulated and coded
according to the scheme mentioned above (Table 5.2). We repeated
the same work after three days to test our results for reliability. We
needed sometimes to go back to the raw data to resolve some
conflicting points. Sometimes we repeated the interview for a subject
or asked him / her about specific point(s) in his / her diary or use the
talk-aloud technique to assure the validity of both the test and the
Simplification
(7)
Overgener
alization
(8)
Repetition
(1)
Memorizat
ion (2)
Practice
(3)
Guessing
(4)
Clarificatio
(5)
Monitoring
(6)
answers.
Avoidance (g)
Word order (f)
Missing plural marker (e)
Missing possessive marker
(d)
Missing determiner (c)
Lack of congruency (b)
Lack of tensing (a)
Table (5.2): codification of LS used by subjects
The steps followed in analyzing the collected data to discover
the learning strategies used by applying EA technique to achieve the
study objectives were as follows:
1. The written scripts were carefully read and examined to see
whether they were grammatically well constructed.
2. The “erroneous” structures were collected from the body of
the material we had according to the context.
3. Next, we tried to find a plausible interpretation to the
“erroneous” structures and utterances in the light of the context i.e. a
reconstructed sentence. This gave us what Corder calls “a translation
equivalent of the sentence” which gives the same meaning of the
original or “Interlanguage” sentence. This resulted in having two
sentences:
a. the sentence of the Interlanguage of the learner,
b. the equivalent translation of the learner’s sentence.
This constituted the data upon which our description and
analysis was based.
4. The learners’ errors were underlined but when there was an
item omitted, it was underlined in the reconstructed sentence, which
comes after the “erroneous” one.
5. Then a comparison between the reconstructed sentence “or
the equivalent translation of the learner’s sentence”, and the learner’s
sentence “the learner’s Interlanguage sentence” according to the
language rules was done.
6. The cause of the error was explained. The learning strategies, the
hypotheses and the generalizations used by the student were
deducted and identified.
Steps 2, 3 and 4 are linguistic while steps 5 and 6, the analysis
and description of the learner’s sentence, are psycholinguistic as they
attempt to explain why the learner’s Interlanguage is as it is, (taking
resort to cognitive factors). In these steps, we tried to elucidate the
nature of the error, i.e. what and how the learner learns the target
language and more precisely what learning strategies the learner used
in learning the target language. Then we deducted the learner’s
hypotheses about the language.
When we attempted to interpret the learners’ interlanguage we
found some utterances, which we could not understand either
because of their construction, or in spite of their well formation, they
were not relevant to the context. Figure (5.1.) shows the steps and the
procedure of the analysis of the data which we have adapted.
Figure (5.1.): Flowchart showing the steps of EA of the
informant’s IL. (Original)
7. Examples were given serial numbers to facilitate discussion.
8. When commenting on the learning strategies some of the
“erroneous” sentences in the corpus were cited as examples.
9. The collected learning strategies in the above- mentioned
procedure beside the LS mentioned by the subjects and those
identified by the researcher, were tabulated (Table 5.3.)
Steps followed for the tabulation of the completely collected
data were:
1. First, each informant was given a code number.
2. Then tables were prepared to show the actual strategies used
by each informant in each technique.
3. We summarized the result in one table showing the strategies
used by all informants using codes. A strategy was assigned (1) if it
was used by an informant and (0) if the informant did not use it
(Table 5.3.) This gave us binary data.
Subjects
Serial No.
Subj. Ls
code code
1
2
3
4
5
6
8
Exp.
code
1
…
a
b
c
7
d
e
f
g
1
1
1
1
1
0
0
1
1
1
0
1
1
0
0
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
1
1
1
1
0
1
1
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
1
0
1
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
…
2
3
4
5
1
2
n
3
4
5
1
n
2
3
4
5
Table (5.3): Codification of LS Used by Each
Learner for each Experiment
4. A later stage of the analysis was that we counted the number
of informants who used each strategy, (Table 5.4), for further work.
Ls code
1
2
3
4
5
6
8
a
b
c
7
d
e
f
g
School
code
1
2
3
4
A
20
20
18
15
17
14
17
17
15
17
14
19
1
18
B
20
20
19
18
19
15
16
12
11
15
13
18
20
19
A
20
20
20
18
14
13
17
18
17
18
15
19
18
17
B
20
20
19
17
16
14
15
14
16
17
13
18
19
18
A
20
20
19
17
17
11
13
17
18
17
14
18
19
18
B
20
20
20
18
17
13
12
15
17
14
13
18
17
19
A
20
20
19
17
16
16
13
14
13
15
14
18
18
17
B
20
20
19
16
17
17
12
13
12
13
12
20
18
18
No. of
subjects
used each
LS
160 160 153 136 143 113 115 120 119 126 108 148 148 143
Table (5.4): Clusters of Subjects Using each LS
5. Then we constructed a table synthesizing all the results in a
comparative fashion (Table 5.5.) This table shows the number of
informants who used each strategy and the order of the strategy
compared to the other strategies.
Percentage of frequency was
counted and results were tabulated (Figure 5.2). Results and
discussion will be the subject of the following part.
To reiterate, we have to state that this study is not an exhaustive
account of learning strategies of second language learners
represented by the informants. It is just meant to answer our research
questions.
Ls
code
1
2
3
4
5
6
8
a
b
c
7
d
e
f
g
Total
no. of
subjects
160
160
153
136
143
113
115
120
119
126
108
148
148
143
%
100
100
95.6
85
89.4
70.6
71.8
75
74.3
78.8
67.5
92.5
92.5
89.4
Order
1
1
2
5
4
10
9
7
8
6
11
3
3
Table (5.5): Percentage of Frequency of each LS Used by Subjects
Chart showing percentage of frequency of each LS used by the subjects
No. of subjects who used each LS
160
140
120
100
Ls code
80
60
Total no. of subjects
40
%
Order
20
0
LS code
Ls code
Figure (5.2): Percentage of Frequency of each LS Used
by the Subjects
5.2.3 Independent Variables
4
Let us now examine the impact of some independent variables
on the study.
a) Age Differences: Older informants reported the use of more
learning strategies than younger informants did. They even reported
the use of strategies, which they were not asked about such as
organizing one’s work. This may be because, taking resort to the
cognitive explanation based on the formal operations hypothesis of
Piagetion origin, the adult cognitive superiority creates an ability that
helps the adult to work with the abstract nature of language.
Alternatively, however, this may be because the adult is better in
what Krashen calls “conscious learning” knowledge about language
(1977).
b) Attitude: Informants from a non-governmental institute have
better responses and understanding of the tasks than other informants
have. On the other hand, this may be because of their attitude
towards the process of language learning. Thus, the “raison d’etre”
for them in the institute is acquiring English language. Therefore,
they got strong positive attitude. Bialystok and Frohlich (1978)
reported that Krashen “… suggests that …attitude has its greatest
effect on acquisition…” (1978:329) and hence on the awareness of
the language learning process.
c) Difference in Sex: There has been no significant difference
noticed in reporting learning strategies between males and females
except that females reported using more mnemonic “i.e. using
conjured pictures or imagined actions” in memorization strategy.
5.3
Learning
Strategies
Used
in
Language
Acquisition: Results and Discussion
Having stated the research questions, our hypothesis and the
methodology used in collecting and analyzing the data for this study,
we will proceed to discuss the results in relation to research questions
and hypothesis.
We all, as second language learners, did not get up one day
and found ourselves mastering the grammatical rules and the
semantic and syntactic features of the language. We all, being
children or adults, passed through a sequence of stages to learn the
TL using specific techniques and devices. What are these stages of
language acquisition and what are these devices?
5.3.1 Learning Strategies Used in the First Stages of
Language Acquisition
A) The Holophrastic Stage
After one year or more, children begin to repeat a string of
“sounds” to “mean” the same thing. Children have learned that
“sounds” are related to “meanings” hence, they begin to produce
their first “words”. These words stand for sentences where “one word
= one sentence”. These one-word sentences are called holophrastic
sentences (holo: complete or undivided; phrase: phrase or sentence.).
The stage in which children produce “one-word sentences” is known
as holophrastic stage. L1 learners pass through the same stage using
the same learning strategies, which will be discussed below.
Here are some examples of the first utterances we received from
subjects in the first sessions as a response to the questions addressed
to them:
What is the crow doing?
“Water”
(1)
(The crow is drinking water).
Other answers we received for other questions from the subjects
were:
“Crow jar”
(2)
(The crow is standing on the jar.)
“Bus”
(I take the bus to school.)
(3)
Instances for such utterances produced by the L2 (or FL) learner
resemble utterances produced by children learning their mother
tongue. A language learner (L2 learner and the child who is learning
his mother tongue) seems to begin to learn that specific meaning can
be expressed by using specific sounds. Thus, L1 and
L2 learners
begin to communicate and express the meaning by using the
language or just the
one –word – sentence which is the main
characteristic of the holophrastic stage.
A child less than two years old says to his mother:
Up. “Get me up”, or:
Up. “Get up”.
This utterance is similar to the subject’s utterance:
“Water”.
(1)
(The crow is drinking water.)
“Bus”.
(3)
(I take the bus to school.)
At this stage, both the second language learner and the first
language learner, use only one word to express concepts or to
communicate meanings that will later be expressed by complex
phrases or sentences. These are not mistakes. These are what Dulay
et al (1982: 121) define as “developmental constructions”, or in
Selinker’s (1972) terms “the learner’s interlanguage”. It indicates
that the learner is in his/her way to develop his/her language system.
The learner is using simplification strategy. The learner is reducing
the language to a very simple system and his/her focus is now on
joining meaning to words and practice using the language. Both L1
and L2 learners use repetition, memorization, and practice learning
strategies, as they used to repeat what they heard, in addition to
simplification, Word order and other strategies.
B) The Two-Word Stage
After staying for some weeks with subjects, they began to
produce utterances as:
“Crow water”; or
(4)
“Crow drink water”
(5)
(The crow is drinking water.)
They replied to the teacher’s question:
What is the crow doing?
“Crow doing? Crow stand. (Then after a pause) jar”. (6)
(“The crow is standing on the jar.)
Or:
“Crow doing? Crow water”.
(7)
(The crow is drinking water.)
“Crow stones jar”.
(The crow is throwing stones in the jar).
(8)
When we asked the learner the question “what is the best way
to learn English language?” The learner replied:
“Learn English? Learn English read”.
(9)
“The best way to learn English is to read”
Compare these utterances with those of a child who is acquiring
his mother tongue:
“Dirty sock”.
“Katherine sock”.
“Mommy chair”.
Consider these examples:
(1) Mother (to her child): Does the tiger want to go to sleep?
Child: Tiger want to go to sleep.
(2) Michel (a child who is speaking with an adult): I can handle it.
Hannah can handle it. We can handle it.
(3) Peter is playing with a dump truck.
Lois: You are gonna put more wheels in the dump truck?
Peter: Dump truck... Wheels. Dump truck.
(Source: Lightbown et al, 1997).
Both language learners use repetition, practice, in addition to
memorization strategies. The use of practice strategy is evident in the
above example where Peter kept repeating “dump truck”. Then Peter
added to the phrase the word “wheels”. It is clear that he is not only
repeating the utterance but he is also practicing producing the
language by using practice strategy beside repetition strategy.
At first, the utterances both language learners produce appear to
be strings of two words of the earlier holophrastic utterances with a
pause between them and each word has its single-pitch contour. Then
the learner begins to produce two-word sentences with clear syntactic
and semantic relations. It does not take long time when the intonation
contour of the two-word sentence spreads over the whole utterance.
During this stage, as the case in the first stage – the holophrastic
stage, there is no syntactic or morphological markers, that is to say
there is no inflection for number, person, or tense. The use of
pronouns is rare. The language is reduced to a very simple system
that enables the learner to communicate with those around him/her.
Simplification strategy (lack of tensing, missing of plural marker,
omission of functor, word order, etc) besides other strategies as
repetition, memorization, practice and organization are mainly used
in this stage. L2 learner and the child usually tend to use simple
present tense, expressing “here and now” needs. This can be viewed
as use of avoidance strategy because they avoid using other tenses.
One can argue that the above-mentioned examples from both
learners are examples of imitation, which supports the behaviorist
theory of language acquisition. In fact they are especially the
following examples which one of the informants in a free session
produced. We used to sit and chat with the subjects freely in English
to collect learner’s naturalistic language. The informant’s utterances
were “Crow doing. (10) Crow standing. (11) Crow drinking. (12)” It
seems as if it were a substitution drill. Nevertheless, such instance of
imitation are examples of practice and memorization showing how
the learner is busy working in acquiring the system namely in the
part he/she is focusing on. The learner is not just imitating and
repeating the language but he/she is practicing creatively.
Bloom (1970) noted in utterances which consist of noun +noun
as “mommy sock” or “Ma’moon book (13)” (in our data), that twowords sentence can express a number of different grammatical
relations which can be later expressed by other syntactic devices. By
observing the situations in which the two- words sentence was said,
the utterance can be used to show:
1- Agent-Object Relation:
“Mommy sock” may mean that the mother is putting socks on the
child. “Ma’moon book (13)” (in our data) may mean that ‘Ma’moon
is reading a book’.
2- Possessive Relation:
when the child is pointing to “Mommy’s sock” or when one of the
subjects was pointing to “Sarah’s book (14)”.
3- Subject -locative Relation as in:
-“sweater chair” to mean the sweater is on the chair.
-“crow jar. (15)” to express that the crow is standing on the jar.
-“Book table (16)” expresses that the book is on the table.
-“Friend bus (17)” to mean I met a friend in the bus.
4- Conjunction: e.g. “cup glass”
can mean “cup and glass” as well
as “crow jar (15)” can mean “the crow and the jar”.
5- Description: as Bloom (1970) indicates that “party hat” can mean a
party hat as well as when a subject says “school bus (18)” means the
school bus.
It is obvious that the language learner, L1 or L2 learner reduces
the language to a simpler system. Take these examples:
The child (to his mother): I’m hungry.
Mother: We have to wait until the food is defrosted.
Child: Till it is defrosted! But I like it frossed.
In the present study, I met similar instances in the exercise I gave
to the subjects to see how they react in forming morphological
hypotheses. The original sentence was:
Maysoon is happy. She has sweets. Huda is unhappy. She has
none.
The received sentences were as follows:
Maysoon is happy. She has sweets. Huda is “not happy
(19)”,”imhappy (20)” “unhappy” (21), etc. She has none.
To make the opposite of the word (happy) subjects added (not),
(im), (un, etc) to (happy) because they were using the
Overgeneralization
strategy.
This
example
indicates
the
morphological hypothesis the learner constructed
Pleased: not pleased; so
Happy: not happy
The above examples indicate that the language learner (L1 and
TL learner) is in the process of learning the morphological rules of
word formation and he/she generalizes the use of the rule they
arrived to construct and hypothesized. He/she had experienced and
inducted the rule from other examples.
This proves that the language learner (L1 and L2 learner) is
actively organizing the specific language speech he/she hears and
makes generalizations about its structure. This supports the hypothesis I
adopt that the second language learner actively organizes the second
language speech he/she receives and makes generalizations and
hypotheses about its grammar and structures in the same way children
learning their MT do, and hence he/she is using the same learning
strategies in the process of acquiring the system of the language.
c) The Telegraphic Stage
After several visits, it was noticed that subjects’ utterances
gradually expanded in length expressing the main message. The
utterance may be composed of three, four, five words or more. These
words were put in a string in a way a telegraph was written. Only the
(content) words were used while the (function) words as in, the, can,
and, is, etc were missing. Examples:
“Jar no water”.
(22)
“Crow no find water”.
(23)
“Crow drink water”
(24)
“What crow do?”
(25)
“I go school bus”.
(26)
These utterances are similar to the utterances of L1 learner.
Examples:
“Cat stand up table”.
“No eat apple”.
“No the sun shining”.
“Cathy want that”
“What that?”
In this stage, simplification strategy is the main learning
strategy used by L2 and L1 learners. Simplification indicates the
tendency of the learner to avoid grammatical formatives such as
articles, plural form, tense forms, etc. So the learner produces
utterances in which, marked-unmarked distinction of the target
language are removed, inflected forms are replaced by uninflected
ones, questions, grammatical structures are simplified and replaced
by inappropriate question form as:
What crow do? (25) (L2 learner)
What that? (L1 learner)
There is no aux- noun phrase inversion as well as there is no tensing.
Utterances as “crow no find water (23)”( L2 learner) “no eat apple”
(L1 learner) are good instances of simplification. Simplification
strategy is represented here in lack of tensing in addition to the
wrong placement of the negation pronoun no. Simplification, in
addition to overgeneralization, is the main learning strategy that
makes language easier to learn and use (compare motherese talk
when the mother communicates with her children).
Moreover, learners of both languages, L1 and L2, use wordorder learning strategy. It is the way the words in an utterance are put
in a string. Word order is another form of simplification which helps
the learner to focus on communicating the meaning he/she got
without taking much care of the grammatical forms of the language.
They just put words in a string using word order strategy. This is
sufficient for the learner to communicate with the society and to
master specific portion of the grammar of the language. I believe that
language acquisition is grammar construction.
The L2 learner and children acquiring their MT are able to
construct and acquire the complex syntactic rules of the language,
because their process of acquisition is semantically based. The learner’s
first utterances are devoted mainly to express semantic roles using
“here and now” language. The language learner acquires the semantic
at the same time he/she acquires the syntax of the language or the
syntactic categories. Gleitmn, the psycholinguist, believes that the
syntax helps the child acquire the meaning. The child will recognize the
word (blicking) as to be a verb if the speaker used the word while the
action is being performed while the child will understand the word
(blick) to be a noun if it follows in an utterance “a” or “the ” (a blick) or
(the blick). Therefore, the role of word order for both language learners
is obvious in language acquisition both semantically and syntactically.
Language learners do not just string words randomly.
5.3.2 The Developmental Sequence of the Learner’s
Grammatical Construction
Both language learners continue to produce sentences that more
and more approximate the adult native speaker grammar. Grammatical
function words, the inflectional and derivational morphemes of the
language begin to appear gradually in their sentences. The learner
begins to (figure out) the complex grammatical rules of the language
and begins to build and test hypotheses about the system. This is
because the language learner is an active, self-determining individual
who processes the information he/she receives in very complex ways.
He/she does not (take) what is given to him/her or taught but he/she
decides himself/herself what his/her intake to be following an “internal”
or “in-built syllabus”. Not all what is heard or taught is acquired.
Consider this conversation:
Child: Want other one spoon, Daddy.
Father: You want “the other spoon”.
Child: Yes, I want other one spoon, please, Daddy.
Father: Can you say “the other spoon?"
Child: other … one … spoon.
Father: Say “other”
Child: other
Father: spoon.
Child: spoon.
Father: other spoon.
Child: other … spoon... Now give me other one spoon.
Compare the above conversation with the following one that
took place in the classroom with one of the subjects in the present
study:
Teacher: What is the crow doing?
Student: Crow throw stone jar.
(27)
Teacher: Say: The crow is throwing stones in the jar.
Student: The crow is throw stone jar.
(28)
After several trials and repetition of the sentence:
Teacher: Now say the crow is throwing stones in the jar
Student: Crow throwing stone jar.
(29)
However correction is made to make the learner say the
“correct” grammatical form of the language, this would not happen
unless it goes with his/her “internal syllabus” and the natural
sequence of acquisition process. The language learner follows a
specific developmental sequence in his/her language acquisition
process independent of any other factors. It is believed that the
language learner is “endowed” with an “internal syllabus” or “a
built-in syllabus” for learning the language. This internal syllabus
“determines” largely the path of the learners’ language acquisition,
which they usually follow. Some researchers believe that this internal
syllabus may indicate that there may be “a psychological natural
path” for the language acquirers to take as they master the language.
This is supported by the fact that learners make similar kind of
mistakes and errors independent of the type and nature of teaching,
and they follow, more-or-less, similar sequence in language
acquisition using learning strategies.
Both L1 and L2 learners perform the learning process using
simplification and overgeneralization techniques to construct the
rules, which underlie the language in a creative fashion, and this is
what is known as the “Creative Construction hypothesis”.
Dulay and Burt study (1973) indicates that L2 learners acquire
morphology in “similar natural order” but this order is different from
that of children acquiring English as their mother tongue. They
attribute this to the difference in cognitive maturation. Moreover,
Dulay and Burt, (1974) found in their study that the sequence of the
acquisition of the grammatical morphemes is not only natural but
also universal. More studies, as Bailey et al (1974), Krashen et al
(1978), Diane Larsen-Freeman (1975) and others, proved that neither
mother tongue nor age had a significant effect on the sequence of
acquisition of the target language grammatical morphemes.
In the present study, I met incidents that support the study
hypothesis that there are important similarities between first
language learner and second language learner in the developmental
process of language acquisition. (Examples cited below p.240.)
Krashen (1982) observed that the sequence of the grammatical
morphemes in L2 acquisition occurred in a hierarchy fashion.
Krashen states that
Group I:
- Present progressive: “ing” as in crow drinking.
- Plural “s” as in Inas’s books.
- Copula “to be” e.g. this is a crow.
Group II:
- Auxiliary “to be” as in the crow is drinking water.
- Articles “the” and “a” –a bus, the book.
Group III:
- Irregular past forms, e.g. She went.
Group IV:
- Regular past “–ed” e.g. Hisham climbed the wall.
- Third- person- singular “s” as in the crow drinks.
- Possessive “s” e.g. Mammon’s book.
This means that morphemes in the first group are acquired
before those in the second group, and those in the second group are
acquired before the ones in the third group and so on. In the present
study, I noticed that there is a variation in this sequence of
acquisition. For example I noticed that some subjects did not apply
the plural morpheme “s”, (group I), although they used to use the
articles “a, the”, (group II), successfully.
It is obvious that
organization strategy is well used here.
On the other hand, Brown (1973) points that the 14 morphemes
whose sequence of acquisition, by three children acquiring their MT,
he studied, was remarkably similar for the three children. He said
that the deviation from the “average” order by individual children
was insignificant. Brown believes that first language learner acquires
the morphemes gradually. Hence, Krashen’s (1982) and Brown’s
(1973) views, plus our observations support the study hypothesis
Research in L1 or L2 acquisition, prove that both learners take
a specific route in acquiring the grammatical morphemes. It is
obvious that simplification, word order, and organization strategies
beside others are well exploited here by both L1 and L2 learners. In
addition, studies as Bailey et al (1974) proved that neither mother
tongue nor age had significant effect on the sequence of acquisition
of the target language grammatical morphemes.
I believe that this sequence is in itself a learning strategy and a
form of simplification for the acquisition process. Besides it shows
that both learners got an internal processing mechanism and an
internal or in-built syllabus according to which language acquisition
process is executed. For instance, I noticed that subjects frequently
hear sentences containing one of the articles (a, an, the) but learners
do not acquire them and use them from the start. The process of
language acquisition does not depend on linguistic items being
frequently heard or on their being easier than other features of the
language. In fact, it is something else more than that. By analyzing
the learner’s product, we can construct hypotheses about the learning
strategies the learner uses to form syntactic and grammatical rules
about the language based on his internal processing mechanism and
his/her use of the language. The learner actively constructs the
system of the language he/she is acquiring, his/her linguistic
competence is usually in a dynamic state continually evolving and
the learner is busy constructing and revising his/her hypotheses about
the language. While the language learner is performing this and
developing his /her linguistic competence and use language, he/she
produces deviant utterances. Learner’s (Ll or FL learner) errors are in
themselves learning strategies by which the learner tests his/her
hypotheses he/she has constructed about the language. Learners’
errors are a manifestation of monitoring, clarification, and inference
strategies. Therefore, the learners’ error at the product level helps to
predict the learning strategies used at the process level. Learner’s
errors are analyzed to discover the cognitive and metacognitive
tactics and methods or learning strategies that the learner uses to
acquire and produce the language.
An L2 learner who produces sentences as:
1- I saw crow. (30) L2 learner uses word order strategy.
2-
The
crow
is
feeling
thirsty
(31).
The
learner
uses
overgeneralization strategy. He/she overgeneralized a grammatical
rule where it is inapplicable.
3- Bus go along street (32). The learner uses simplification, lack of
tensing.
4- Crow was standing on jar when he drink water (33). Here the
learner uses simplification strategy, lack of congruence.
5- Many girl and boy enter the bus (34). This is an instance of use of
omission of plural marker, simplification strategy.
The learner here is doing well in his/her language acquisition
process and is developing well. The above examples indicate that the
l2 learner has constructed his/her “own hypotheses and syntactical
and grammatical rules” of the language. The examples tell us that
the L2 learner is on the same standpoint as the native child who
produces sentences using the same above-mentioned learning
strategies. Compare the following sentences produced by a native
child with the above-mentioned examples:
1- Andrew want that. Here L1 learner uses word order strategy.
2- My teacher holded the baby rabbit. This is an example of using
overgeneralization strategy.
3- Cathy build house. This is Simplification strategy use, lack of
tensing.
4- Her curl my hair. This is an example of simplification strategy
use, lack of congruence.
5- Give me two cup, Mommy. simplification strategy is used here,
omission of plural marker.
The speech, which is produced by the L2 learner and the native
child, is a direct reflection and is a result of the rules he/she has
internalized about the language, as it is a reflection of his/her
underlying linguistic competence and the learning strategies he/she
uses. Both learners handle the language with active learning
strategies. Learning strategies help the learner to turn the
complicated phenomenon of learning the language to a simpler one
and enable him/her to construct rules that underlie the language
system in a creative way. Overgeneralization technique helps the
learner to organize the facts he/she acquires about the language.
Sometimes it happens that, because of superficial similarities in
the syntactical and grammatical rules, overgeneralization be
misleading and inapplicable. In sentence in which overgeneralization
is used we find that the learner produces a deviant sentence
according to his/her experience with another structure in the target
language. Here the deviant sentence is created in place of two other
correct sentences. For example the deviant sentence:
The crow is drinks water (35)
is in place of the two sentences:
The crow is drinking water.
The crow drinks water.
5.3.3 Learning Strategies and the Negative Structure
Developmental Sequence
I believe that language acquisition stems from semantic basis.
The learner in his own way, in order to communicate the meaning
he/she gets, tries to learn the function of the language. The language
learner tries to develop his/her language to express negation,
rejection, interrogation…etc very early.
The child tries to use the negative without much trouble and
complications. Simplification strategy here is frequently used to
make the syntactic rules easy and manageable to acquire. Here the
learner frees him/herself from the syntactic rules burden and
simplifies the rules to acquire them bit by bit. When we analyze the
“transitional construction” of the language learner, we can deduct the
learning strategies in constructing it. Dulay et al (1982:121) define
the “transitional construction” of the learner as “the language forms
learners use while they are still learning the grammar of the
language”.
Learners usually do not progress from zero knowledge to
perfect mastering of the syntactic rules. There is a series of
developmental stages on their way. This is typical for all
grammatical structures and most clearly in the acquisition of
negation, interrogation and relative clauses or embedded sentence.
This gives the best evidence of the learning strategies used in
language acquisition.
Now let us analyze the stages a child learning his MT passes
through before he/she learns the syntactic and grammatical rules to
express the variety of negative function. Children form rules and
construct the grammar using mainly learning strategies to form
hypothesis and “use” errors to test them. The development of
negative outlined below to analyze the learning strategies used by
each language learner (L1 and L2 learner) is mainly based on the
data drawn from the data of the present study and the data adapted
from research done in first language acquisition by Klima & Bellugi
(1966), Bloom & Lahey (1978), and Wode (1980).
At first, the child constructs the negative sentence simply by
tagging (no) at the beginning or at the end of a word or a phrase. This
gives “external negation” e.g.
No go.
No cookie.
No singing song.
No comb hair.
No you playing here.
Some children may use “any” as in:
Any bath.
(These examples and the following ones are taken from the
above mentioned references in addition to Fromkin et al, 1993 and
Ellis, 1996.)
In the second stage “internal negation” develops. The negative
particle is moved inside the utterance. Children produce negative in
more complex sentences but it is not the way negative sentences are
constructed in English. Children did not hear such sentences.
Simplification strategy besides overgeneralization strategy is clearly
used in the acquisition of the syntactic rules. The language is turned
here to a simpler system and addition of the negation particle is
overgeneralized. Children may use variably other forms than “no” as
“not” and “don’t”. Yet, they do not vary these forms for different
persons and tenses. At this stage “don’t” is a whole unit and cannot
be analyzed to “do” and “not”, e.g.:
He no bite you
I can’t do it.
He don’t want you.
That no fish school.
Then children pass from simple utterances to ones that are more
complex one in the third stage. The child begins to produce correct
forms of the modal verbs beside the verbs “do” “be” that suit person,
number and tense e.g.:
You didn’t have supper.
She doesn’t want it.
A child, studied by Carol Lord indicated the difference between
affirmative and negative sentence by pitch. The negative sentences
were produced with a higher pitch. When she began to add the
negative morpheme, the pitch remained high but when she acquired
the negative syntactic marker, her intonation became normal. Here
the use of different intonation is used as a tactic. It is used as a
production strategy, which helps in organizing the linguistic
information and aids language acquisition as a learning strategy. I
noticed that this device is also used by some of our subjects.
Negative acquisition in L2 shows very similar profile to that
reported by studies done by different researchers. I found that the
acquisition of negation in L2 takes regular change similar to that
observed in children learning their mother tongue. Moreover, the L2
learner uses the same learning strategies used by L1 learner mainly
simplification and overgeneralization in addition to others as
repetition, practice, memorization, self-monitoring, self-correction
and clarification.
The outline of negation development below is drawn from the
data of the present study and from my experience in teaching English
in addition to taking insights from the studies done by previous
researchers (Ravem, 1968; Milon, 1974; Cazden et al, 1975; Wode,
1976 and 1980; Adams, 1978; Butterworth and Hatch, 1978;
Schumann, 1979).
I noticed that subjects began acquiring negation by using
external negation. They used to place the negative particle “no” or
“not” before the verb of the declarative utterance e.g.
No crow drink.
(36)
No water in jar.
No bus go on foot.
(37)
(38)
The strategies used here are mainly simplification and
overgeneralization. The negative element is simply tagged in the
beginning of the nucleus or the verb. Some times “not” is used.
Not go school bus.
(39)
I not like it.
(40)
Crow not drink water.
(41)
Subjects who studied the language for a longer time began to
develop internal negation marking the appearance of the second
stage. The negative particle is moved to the inside of the sentence.
“No” and “not” are alternated with “don’t” which is used as a whole
unit and not analyzed into “do” and “not”. In this stage, “don’t” is
not marked for person, number or tense and it is some times used
before modals as “can”.
Me don’t like reading.
(42)
Mariana not coming to day.
(43)
I not can swim.
(44)
I don’t go bus.
(45)
Crow don’t can drink water.
(46)
Simplification
and
overgeneralization
strategies
besides
repetition, practice and self-correction are heavily drawn on in this
stage. It is clear here the learner turned the language to a simpler
system and is overgeneralizing the grammatical and syntactic rule
Some of the learners began to develop their hypotheses and to
attach the negative particle to auxiliary verbs as “are” “is” in addition
to modals as “can”. This indicated the third stage. However, the form
“can’t” and “don’t” are not analyzed to “can” and “not” or “do” and
“not”. Moreover, they are not inflected for person, number and
tense.
I won’t go.
(47)
He can’t eat nothing.
(48)
Crow can’t drink water.
(49)
Mariana don’t go home.
(50)
I don’t read books.
(51)
Some studies (Wode, 1976; Felix, 1981; and Ellis, 1982) do not
differentiate between stages three and four. They just mention them
as one stage. I believe that they are different stages as the data I had
and the language of the learner was different and indicated that the
learner was developing in the process of language acquisition and
his/her hypotheses about the syntactic rules were developing.
I noticed that some informants in advanced classes used to
construct negation utterances very well. This indicated the fourth
stag and that the correct negation hypothesis is well constructed and
the syntactic rules are acquired.
It should be mentioned that these stages are not separated
discretely one from another but they overlap in the developmental
continuum and the correct form emerges slowly. “Do” performs its
full function and is marked for tense, person, and number. As
simplification and overgeneralization strategies are mainly used here,
the tense may be marked on both the auxiliary and the main verb e.g.
Crow did not found water.
(52)
He does not reads English books.
(53)
Yousra did not wrote the paper.
(54)
It is evident that there is a number of common features, which
are shared in the language of L1 and L2 learners telling that similar
strategies are being applied. In the first stage of the developmental
route of acquiring the negative form in L2, simply the negative
element is inserted before the verb. Moreover, the use of “don’t"
without being inflected for person or tense is a common feature. In
L2 learner sentences, as in no water in jar, the negative particle is
placed outside the sentence which is similar to the sentences of L1
learner initial stage in acquiring to form negation. It seems that, in
addition to the creative and productive processes, the main strategies
that underlie the negation acquisition process, as well as the
interrogative one that I am going to examine, are simplification and
overgeneralization. This does not mean we overlook the role of other
learning strategies and processes.
5.3.4 Strategies Used in Interrogative Form Acquisition
Besides the consistency in the way the children acquire negation
researchers observed similar sequences in the way children learn to
form questions in English (see Bloom and Lahey, 1978)
Children use sequence and organization strategy in acquiring
wh- words. Studies tell us that “what” is the first wh-question word
produced by the child acquiring his mother tongue while “where”
and “who” follow it. Around the end of the second year, “why”
becomes the favorite question word for the child and finally “how”
and “when” emerge.
Studies tell us that the first stage in interrogative form
acquisition is an early non-communicative stage, or a silent period in
acquiring the language, during which a child repeats a question
addressed to him/her. Then the earliest questions emerge as single
words or simple two-or-three-words utterances using question
intonation, a rise in the pitch at the end of the utterance.
Cookie?
Sit chair?
Mommy book?
It is clear that word order strategy is used here. The child keeps
his/her declarative word order and just adds a rising intonation. The
use of repetition, memorization, and practice strategies is common in
this stage. A characteristic of this stage is that children produce
correct questions because of repeating adult questions and learn them
as “formulaic chunks”.
Where is Daddy?
What’s that?
Question’s form of this stage is characterized by being either a
single word or a “formula”.
In the second stage, the sentence is developed and is a little bit
longer. With yes/no question children use the same declarative word
order besides the rising intonation. This represents the main
characteristic of this stage. At the same time, children continue to use
word order, repetition, practice, and simplification beside other
strategies. Repetition of the question is an instance of using
clarification and self-monitoring besides memorization technique.
As for wh-question, children simply tag the question-word at
the beginning of the utterance.
You like this?
I have some?
Using memorization and repetition strategies is clear as children
continue to produce the correct “chunk-learned” forms.
What’s that?
The question structure begins gradually to emerge in the third
stage. It is noticed that questions in this stage are generally formed
by putting a verb at the initial position of the sentence and this tells
about overgeneralization strategy.
Can I go?
Do I can have a cookie?
Furthermore, we can notice that the declarative word order is
still used specially in wh-questions, which indicates the use of word
order strategy.
Why you don’t have one?
It seems that the child at this stage formed a hypothesis that is to
form a question an element, which communicates the meaning of
interrogation, should be placed or appear at the beginning of the
utterance. However, children are not yet aware of the grammatical
transformations (TG) accompanying that. Here simplification
strategy is used and there is no trace of any change in the word order
of the sentence itself. In this stage, the “fronting” stage, children
simply put a question marker, an auxiliary or a wh-pronoun, at the
beginning of the sentence and they change nothing in the order of the
elements of the sentence.
A new stage is marked as stage four as children question form
in this stage approximates the adult’s form of question. They begin to
master the use of inversion. Furthermore, they add “do” in structures
in which no auxiliary is required in their declarative form. This stage
is characterized by inversion in yes/no questions.
Do you like ice cream?
It seems that in this stage children can use either inversion or
wh-question word as a result of turning the language to a simpler
system and the use of word order device. In yes/no questions
children use inversion but not in wh-questions.
Can he eat the cookie?
Where I can draw them?
However, some wh-questions, especially those acquired as
formulaic expression as a result of using memorization and imitation
technique, usually got inversion but not with all auxiliary verbs.
What’s that?
Where is the big one?
At last, in stage five, children achieve successfully the
combination of both operations: the inversion and the use of whquestion word.
Why can he go out?
Anyhow, achieving more operations than that is not so easy for
children as well as for L2 learner as we will see later. To negate a
question as well as to invert is not a possible task for children to
achieve in this stage.
Why I can’t go out?
Why he can’t play with it?
Eventually, children achieve successfully all the desired
operations and gradually produce correct question forms. The main
obstacle is that when wh-words appear in embedded questions or
subordinate clauses. As children use overgeneralization strategy, in
addition to simplification and word order strategies, they just
overgeneralize here the inverted form and construct structures as:
I don’t know why can’t he go out.
It worth mentioning that children, as well as L2 learner,
develop from one stage to the following smoothly and sometimes
these stages overlap each other.
As for L2 learners, I observed similar sequences in the
development of question structure amongst the subjects as it is stated
in the literature. It is found that L2 learners learn to form questions in
a sequence of development that is similar in most aspects to that of
acquiring to form questions in first language. An interesting point is
that it is found that learners whose first language subject-auxiliary
inversion is obligatory for forming a question they still begin
forming questions by using declarative word order then go to the
“fronting stage” exactly as children learning their mother tongue. I
think this is the result of using the same technique and tactics
1. At the beginning of the study, the researcher observed that
the students passed through a “non-communicative”stage. During
this stage, subjects ask no spontaneous questions and do not
communicate in English with the teacher or any other one. Subjects
just used to repeat the questions, which the teacher, or someone else,
asked him/her. We marked this as the first stage corresponding to the
first stage of L1 learner.
It is obvious, as students used to repeat questions, the main
learning strategies used in this stage in acquiring and developing
questions forms were repetition, practice, and memorization. In
addition to this, self-monitoring and clarification techniques were
used, as the learner tended to test weather the form of the question
he/she repeated was exactly that he/she had been asked.
2. I observed that some students began to form questions
without disturbing the basic sentence structure. I noticed that no
transformation was done. The learner used in his/her first productive
questions intonation to mark the interrogative form. Using rising
intonation to mark yes/no question form is a strategy in itself besides
using word order technique without making inversion.
Crow threw stones jar?
(55)
Go to school?
(56)
Learn English?
(57)
I writing on black board?
(58)
We marked this as the second stage in interrogative acquisition
for L2 learner.
This device, using rising intonation and keeping the declarative
sentence form in developing question form in this stage, was also
observed in studies to be used by native children. This means that L2
learners engage the same LS, which are used by L1 learners in the
development of the interrogative form.
As for Wh-questions, the learner tended to memorize and learn
them as “ready-made” chunks.
Where did the crow put the stones?
(59)
How can I learn English?
(60)
The telegraphic form was used here and simplification strategy
is widely used. In this stage, there is no inflection i.e. there is lack of
tensing, omission of determiner, omission of functor…etc.
Overgeneralization strategy is frequently employed.
3. Students in advanced classes used Wh-question pronouns
productively but still combined with the declarative form marking a
new stage. The question pronoun is just put at the beginning of the
sentence without doing any transformation. The auxiliary verb is
usually omitted “simplification - omission of functor strategy”.
What crow doing?
(61)
How come to school?
(62)
4. In the utterances, of some students in advanced classes, I
observed some transformation in yes/no question. I noticed that
inversion of “be” occurs more frequent than with “do”. I noticed that
subjects used “can” as well as “do” in this stage
Is the crow throw stones in jar?
(63)
Can crow drink water?
(64)
Do you read English books?
(65)
I regarded this as the fourth stage in interrogative acquisition. The
use of overgeneralization technique is evident and the grammatical
hypothesis, which was generalized, is evident. The
student’s
hypothesis is that: keep the sentence structure as it was, just insert an
interrogative element as is, do, and can. The use of simplification
strategy is there in omission of the functor-no progressive morpheme
–ing in the first example. It does not need mentioning that L1
acquirers also use these tactics and technique.
5. Finally, in utterances of subjects of higher classes inversion
was frequently done in both yes/no questions and wh-questions.
Subjects developed an ability to form productive questions using
appropriate forms of “do”.
Where did you go?
(66)
How did the crow get the water?
(67)
There were some instances where the tense was marked twice
as:
What did the crow threw in the jar?
(68)
Where did the bus went?
(69)
I rarely used embedded question but when I used them
intentionally, I noticed that subjects tended to run subject-verb
inversion.
I told you how is crow getting water.
(70)
I said how can I go to school.
(71)
I don’t know where is she live.
(72)
Simplification strategy use, lead gradually the students to develop
the question form. Many subjects used it as a native adult does.
I noticed that some students used to move from one stage to the
following one but then they go back to the previous stage. First time,
I thought that was “regression”; but afterwards I understood that
these are stages overlapping and the learner is just using hypothesis
testing strategy as well as self-monitoring strategy.
5.4 Conclusions
The discussion can be concluded by stating the following
research results.
1. In the developmental route in L2 acquisition, L2 learner uses
the same learning strategies used by L1 learner, namely repetition,
practice, memorization, guessing or inferencing, clarification or
asking questions, and self-correction or monitoring beside others.
Simplification and overgeneralization in addition to word order play
a crucial role in LA for learners, L1 and L2 learners.
2. There are a number of common features shared by L2 learner
and L1 learner in the process of language acquisition. For instance, it
is clear that in learning to form questions there is a number of
sequence in developing interrogative form, which is taken by both L2
and L1 learners. This is because both language learners pass through
specific developmental route in acquiring the language and pass
through the same natural sequence of language acquisition.
3. Both language learners build hypotheses about the language
and they test these hypotheses through language use. This results in
“errors” or “goofs”. These “errors” tell us what learning strategies
are used and what are hypothesis are constructed and generalized.
Moreover, these errors tell us where and how to help the learner.
5.5 Summary
This chapter has been devoted to the analysis of the data, the
results, and the discussions in the light of the research hypothesis. In
the analysis section, the preparation of the data, the proposed scheme
for classifying the data and the analysis procedure were discussed.
Then the learning strategies used by both language learners were
examined. First, the learning strategies used by L1 learner were
reviewed. Then the learning strategies used by L2 learner were
investigated. Other shared phenomenon between L2 and L1 learners
were
detected
as
hypothesis
construction
and
the
natural
developmental sequence in language acquisition. Finally, a
comparison was done to find out the differences and the similarities
in the language acquisition processes achieved by L2 and L1 learner
especially in the area of learning strategy. The chapter concluded by
stating the main results reached in the study.
The next chapter is mainly devoted to the main findings, the
implication of the study, the recommendations, and suggestions for
further research.
CHAPTER SIX
Conclusion, Implication and
Recommendation
6.1 Introduction
In this chapter I shall attempt to summarize the major findings
concerning the study hypothesis and questions in addition to making
some generalization based on the result and the findings of the study.
Moreover, I will try to provide insights about how the conclusions
reached to in this study can be availed of in pedagogical application
and
research
areas.
I
mean
how
teachers,
researchers,
methodologists, and syllabus designers beside others can make use of
the outcome and the result of this study. In addition, I shall give
some recommendations concerning further research in the field of
SLA.
I have to repeat that this study is not an exhaustive account of
learning strategies used in second language acquisition. It is just a
selection of some learning strategies (mentioned before) used by the
second language learner represented by the sample of subjects in the
present study to answer the present research questions.
6.2 Conclusions
The conclusions reached to in this study are that:
1. The learner, L1 or L2 learner, achieves the process of
language acquisition by using specific techniques or devices he/she
got namely learning strategies, hypothesis formation, and hypothesis
testing.
2. LS, which are used by L2 learner, are the same LS used by
L1 learner
3.
Learning
strategies,
especially
simplification
and
overgeneralization, help learners, L2 and L1 learner, to handle the
language and turn the complicated phenomenon of language
acquisition to a simpler one. They enable the learner to construct
rules that underlie the language system in a creative way.
4. Overgeneralization strategy helps the learner to organize the
facts he\she acquires about the language and to make generalizations.
Sometimes this strategy leads to some learner’s errors because of
false conceptualization.
5. The most exploited learning strategies by language learner
are simplification in its different forms and overgeneralization of the
rules beside other learning strategies.
6. Organization learning strategy, which is not included in our
learning strategies scheme, proved to be a crucial and central
learning strategy.
7. Second language acquisition can be looked upon as a process
in which the learner gradually develops establishing his/her language
system.
8. Language acquisition is a creative construction process of the
internal representation of the language system. This “creative
construction process” occurs because of the use of learning strategies
in addition to constructing and testing hypothesis when the learner is
exposed sufficiently to the language.
9. Language acquisition is grammar construction, and grammar
acquisition is semantically based. Thus, language acquisition is
mainly semantically based.
10. The language learner develops his/her language system
through successive stages in his/her developmental route.
11.
These developmental stages are arranged in a natural
sequence, which is regarded to be universal and similar for most
language learners.
12. The natural sequence in language acquisition is observed in
acquiring syntactic rules, construction of sentences, and especially in
acquisition of morphemes, acquiring negation and interrogation.
13. Both L2 and L1 learners construct hypotheses and make
generalizations about the language and its syntactic rules. Language
learners test these hypotheses through language use which sometimes
results in “erroneous” utterances production..
14. Learner’s errors are not sins or signs of failure. They are the
best evidence that the learner is doing well in his/her developmental
route in language acquisition; actively organizing the specific
language speech he/she hears and generalizing” about its structure.
15. Learners from different language backgrounds make the
same errors when learning a particular L2. These errors tell us about
the characteristics of the learning process and furnish us with insights
about how the learner is proceeding in his/her developmental
cognitive and linguistic process of acquiring the language.
16. By analyzing the learner’s error at the product level, we can
construct hypotheses about the learning strategies the learner used at
the process level.
17.
Moreover, learner’s errors reveal the hypotheses the
learner constructs as morphological or grammatical rules about the
language on the basis of his/her internal processing mechanism and
his/her use of the language.
18. The language learner, (first language learner or second
language learner), is an active self- determining individual who
processes information he/she receives about the language in a very
complex way.
19. Language acquisition is not only a process of teaching;
language is learned and acquired. Teaching the language is a process
to help the learner in his cognitive language acquisition process and
the teacher is an assistant.
20. The learner’s errors can be corrected only if:
a. The language learner is in the appropriate stage of the natural
language acquisition sequence that coincides with the correct form;
i.e. the input suits the language learner built – in syllabus.
b. The learner is motivated and determining; in addition he/she
is ready psychologically and cognitively to avail him/herself of that
piece of input.
21. The important similarities between L1 and L2 learners in the
developmental process of language acquisition and the sequence of
acquisition support the study hypothesis
that the second language
learner actively organizes the second language speech he/she
receives and makes generalizations about its grammar and structures
in the same way children learning their MT do. Hence, they are using
the same learning strategies in the process of acquiring the system of
the language.
6.3 Implications and Recommendations
The above findings imply that in the pedagogical field, teachers,
syllabus designers, and methodologists besides researchers and
others can observe that:
1. As language acquisition is rooted in semantic basis learner’s
errors correction is better to be based on the same basis: semantic.
This enables the learner to avail him/herself from that input.
2. This can be achieved through giving ample authentic and
naturalistic input. Care should be taken to express clearly and simply
“what happens who does it, where, when, and how”.
3. Using suitable methods such as deductive methods that uses
cognitive code, or inductive methods, which applies audiolingualism
approach.
Moreover,
introducing
instructions
based
on
notional/functional input and semantico-gramatical categories may
help to motivate the L2 learner and helps him/her in “skill getting”
and “skill using” phenomena. The learner who is motivated and
wants to know does better than that who does not.
4. The motivated learner uses more learning strategies in the
process of English language than that who is not motivated. So,
using simple language structures besides creating an environment in
the classroom, to contextualize the situation, may develop positive
motivation in the student and facilitate the language acquisition
process.
5. This does not mean that to constrict the learner exposure to
specific linguistic structures thinking that they are simple. What is
regarded as simple may be difficult for the learner .This suggests that
the teacher or the syllabus designer …etc begins with easier and
simpler linguistic items. Then its complexity should be increased to
suit the learner’s natural sequence of language acquisition in his/her
developmental stage. Students are able, using their internal learning
mechanism, to learn and discover complex rules that underlie the
language they are learning. Students usually learn more than what
they are taught.
6. This leads us to say that teachers and syllabus designers
should have in their mind the developmental stages and the natural
sequence of acquisition.
7. Continuous revision of the syntactic and grammatical rules
helps the learner to construct correct hypothesis. It helps the student
to use overgeneralization strategy correctly and efficiently with
fewer errors.
8. In the process of learner’s errors correction it is advisable to
use narrow focused material isolating the element of correction in a
context where other elements are easy and simple. Using simple
language in correction is just what mothers do and this is more
fruitful,
9.
Group-work and pair-work interactions motivate the
learners. Bad or less achieving students may copy the learning
strategies used by good language learner. Nevertheless, attention
should be paid as some students tend to learn other’s mistakes if they
are left without enough supervision.
6.4 Proposals for Further Research
The study of SLA is still in its infancy and it is a rich field for
future research. There are many questions which need to be
answered.
Examples of pertinent questions which need answers
are:
1. Can learning strategies be taught and how can this be done?
2. How can less achievement students be motivated to use more
learning strategies?
3. What is the role of environment and the culture in using
learning strategies?
Bibliography
Adams, M. 1978. Methodology for Examining Second
Language Acquisition in E. Hatch (ed.) (1978):
Second
Language
Acquisition.
Rowley,
Mass.:
Newbury House.
Asher and G.Garcia. 1969. “The Optimal Age to Learn a
Foreign Language”. Modern Language Journal 38:
334-41.
Allwright,
R.
1977.
“Motivations-The
Teacher’s
Responsibility”. English Language Teaching Journal
31/4.
Andersen, R. 1978. “An Implicational Model for Second
Language Research”. Language Learning, 28: 22182.
_________ (ed.). 1981 New Dimensions in Second Language
Acquisition
House.
Research.
Rowley,
Mass.:
Newbury
_________ (ed.). 1984. “The One to One Principle of
Interlanguage
Construction”.
Language
Learning.
34: 77-95.
Andersen, J. R. 1980.
Cognitive Psychology and its
Implication. San Francisco: Freeman.
_________
1983.
“The
Architecture
of
Cognition”.
Cognitive Science Series, Vol. 5. Cambridge, Mass.:
Harvard University Press.
Andersen, J. R. 1985.
Cognitive psychology and its
implication. 2nd ed. New York: Freeman
Arthur, B, Weiner, Muhammad, Culver, J, Young, L. and
Thomas,
D.
1980.
“The
Register
Impersonal
Discourse to Foreigners; Verbal Adjustments to
Accent”
in
Larsen-Freeman,
D.
(ed.)
Discourse
Analysis in Second Language Research. Pp 111-24.
Newbury House, Rowley, Mass.
Bailey, N., C. Madden, and S. Krashen. 1974. “Is There “A
Natural
Sequence”
in
Adult
Second
Language
Learning? Language Learning 24:235-44.
Bialystok, E. 1978. “A Theoretical Model of Second
Language Learning”. Language Learning, 28: 69-83.
__________ 1979. “An Analytical View of Second Language
Competence: A Model and Some Evidence”. The
Modern Language Journal
, LXIII: 257- 62.
__________. 1983. “Some Factors in the Selection and
Implementation of Communication Strategies” in C.
Faerch
and
God.
Kasper
(eds.),
Strategies
in
Interlanguage Communication. London : Longman.
Bialystok, E.1984. “Strategies in Interlanguage Learning
and Performance” in Davies A., C. Criper, and A. P.
R. Hawatt, (eds.). Interlanguage: Proceeding of the
Seminar
in
Honour
of
Pit
Corder.
Edinburgh:
1986.
“Language
Edinburgh University Press.
Bialystok,
E
and
Killerman,
E.
Strategies in the Classroom”. Paper presented at the
RELC Conference, Singapore, April 1986.
Bley-Vroman, R. 1990. “The Logical Problem of Foreign
Language Learning”. Linguistic Analysis 20: 3-14
Bloom, L. M. 1970. Language Development: Form and
Function in Emerging Grammars. Cambridge, Mass:
MIT Press.
Bloom, L. and M. Lahey. 1978. Language Development
and Language Disorders. New York: John Wiley and
Sons.
Bright, J. and G. Mc Gregor. 1970. Teaching English as a
Second Language: Theory and Techniques for the
Secondary Stage. London: Longman.
Brooks, N. 1960. Language and Language Learning. New
York: Harcourt Brace and World
Brown, A. L. and Palinscar, A. S. 1982. “Inducing
Strategic Learning from Texts by Means of Informed
Self-control
Training”.
Topics
in
Learning
and
Learning Disabilities, 2: 1-17. Special Issue on
Metacognition and Learning Disabilities.
Brown, A. L, Bransford, J. D. ,Ferrara R. and Campione,
J.
C.
1983.
“Learning,
Remembering,
and
Understanding” in J. H. Flavell and E. M. Markham
(eds.), Carmichael’s Manual of Child Psychology, Vol.
1. New York: Wiley.
Brown,
H.
D.
Characteristics
1977.
of
“Cognitive
Good
Language
and
Affective
Learners”
in
Henning, C.(ed.) Proceedings of the Los Angeles
Second
Language
Research
Forum.
Pp
349-54.
Department of English, University of California at
Los Angeles
__________ 1980. “The Optimal Distance Model of Second
Language Acquisition”.
TESOL Quarterly 14: 157-
64.
__________. 1981. “Affective Factors in Second Language
Learning” in J. Alatis, H. Altman, and P. Alatis (eds.)
The Second Language Classroom: Directions for the
1980s. New York: Oxford University Press.
Brown, R. 1968. “The Development of WH questions in
Child Speech”. Journal of Verbal Learning and
Verbal Behaviour 7: 279-90.
Bialystok, E. 1973a. A First Language: The Early Stages.
Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.
________
1973b.
The
Development
of
Language
in
Children.
________. 1977. “Introduction” in Snow and Ferguson
(eds)
Brown, R., Cazden,C. and Bellugi, U. 1968. “The Child’s
Grammar from I-III” in J. P. Hill (ed.) Minneapolis
Symposium on Child Psychology. Minneapolis.
Brown, Gillian. 1996. ”Language Learning Competence
and Performance” in G. Brown, K. Malmkjser, and J.
Williams (eds.): Performance and Competence in
Second
Language
Acquisition.
Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Brown, J. and Burton, R. 1978. “Diagnostic Models for
Procedural Bugs in Basic Mathematical Skills”.
Cognitive Science
2: 317-29.
Burstall, C. 1975. “Factors Affecting Foreign-Language: A
Consideration of Some Recent Research Findings”.
Language Teaching and Linguistics: Abstracts 8: 5125.
Burt, d. and H. Dulay. 1980. “On Acquisition Orders” in
S.
Felix
(ed.):
Second
Language
Development.
Tubingen: Gunther Narr.
Butterworth, B. 1980. “Introduction: A Brief Review of
Methods of Studding Language Production” in B.
Butterworth (ed.): Language Production. Vol. 1. New
York: Academic Press.
Butterworth, B., God and E. Hatch. 1978. “A SpanishSpeaking
Syntax”
Adolescent’s
in
E.
Hatch
Acquisition
(ed.):
of
Second
English
Language
Acquisition. Rowley, Mass.: Newbury House.
Cazden, C. 1968. “The Acquisition of Noun and Verb
Inflections”. Child Development 39: 433-48.
__________ . 1972. Child Language and Education. New
York, Holt Rinehart & Winston.
Cazden, C. H. Cancino, E. Rosansky, and J. Schumann.
1975. “Second Language Acquisition Sequences in
Children, Adolescents and Adults”. Final Report, US
Department of Health, Education, and Welfare.
Ceraso, J. 1968. “Specific Interference in Retroactive
Inhibition” American Journal of Psychology 58:6577.
Chamot, A. U. and O’Malley, J. m. 1984. “Using Learning
Strategies to Develop Skills in English as a Second
Language”.
FOCUS
Septemper
1984,
Clearinghouse for Bilingual Education, p. 1.
National
Chaudron,
C.
1985.
“Research
on
Metalinguistic
Judgments: a Review of Theory, Methods and
Results”. Language Learning, 33: 343- 78.
Cherry, L. 1979. “A Social Linguistic Approach to
Language Development and its Implications for
Education”
in
O.
Jarnica
and
M.
King
(eds.)
Language, Children, and Society. Oxford: Pergamon.
Chomsky, N.1959. “Review of Verbal Behavior”. Language
35.
___________.1964. “A Review of B.F. Skiner’s “Verbal
Behavior”
in
J.Katz
and
J.
Fodor
(eds.):
The
Structure of Language. Englewood Cliffs N.J. pp 54778.
___________.
1965.
Aspects
of
Theory
of
Syntax.
Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
_____________ . 1968. Language and Mind. New York.
______________
.1981.
“Principles
and
Parameters
in
Syntactic Theory” in N. Hornstein and D. Lightfoot
(eds.):
Explanation
Problem
Longman.
of
in
Language
Linguistics:
The
Acquisition.
Logical
London:
Cohen, A. 1984. “Studying Second Language Learning
Strategies: How Do We Get the Information?”
Applied Linguistics, 5/1:101-112.
Cohen, A. D. and E. Aphek . 1980. “Retention of Second
Language Vocabulary Over Time: Investigation the
Role of Mnemonic Associations”. System, 8:221235.
Cohen, A. D. and C. Hosenfeld .1981. “Some Uses of
Mentalistic Data in Second Language Research”.
Language Learning, 31/2: 285-313.
Cook, V. 1988. “Universal Grammar and Second Language
Learning”. Applied Linguistics 6/1: 2-18.
__________. 1996. “Competence and Multi-competence” in
G. Brown, K. Malmkjser, and J. Williams (eds.):
Performance and Competence in Second Language
Acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Corder, S. P.1967. “The Significance of Learners’ Errors”
International Review of Applied Linguistics V: 16159
_________.
1971.
“Idiosyncratic
Dialects
and
Error
Analysis”. IRAL 9/2: 147-160. Also in International
Review of Applied Linguistics 1971. IX: 149 –59.
Corder, S. P. 1974 “.Error Analysis” in J. Allen and S.
Corder (eds.): The Edinburgh Course in Applied
Linguistics. Vol. 3. Oxford University Press.
__________.
1976.
“The
study
of
Interlanguage”
in
Proceedings of the Fourth International Congress in
Applied Linguistics. Munich: Hochschulverlag. Also
in Corder 1981
_________ . 1981. Error Analysis and Interlanguage.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
__________. 1984. “The Significance of Learner’s Errors”
in Jack c. Richard (ed.): Error Analysis. Perspectives
on Second Language Acquisition. Longman. Pp 1930.
Also
in
International
Review
of
Applied
Linguistics. 1967. V: 16 – 9.
Coulter, K. 1968. “Linguistic Error –Analysis of the
Spoken
English
of
Two
Native
Russians”.
Unpublished M.A. Thesis, University of Washington.
Cumminus. J. and Swain, M. 1986. Bilingualism in
Education. Longman.
Dahl, O.
1979. “Typology of Sentence Negation”.
Linguistics 17: 79-106.
Dansereau, D. F. Long, G. L. McDonald, B. A. Atkinson,
Ellis, A. M. Collins, K., Williams, S. and Evans S. H.
1975. “Learning Strategy Research” in J. Segal, S.
Chipman, and R. Glaser (eds.) Thinking and Learning
Skills: Relating Learning to Basic Research, Vol. 1
Hillsdale , N. J. Erlbaum.
Dato, D. 1970. “American children’s Acquisition of
Spanish Syntax in the Madrid Environment: a
Preliminary Edition”. Final Report, Project No.
3036, Contract No. O. E. C. 2-7-002 637, USHEW.
Davies, A., C. Criper, and A. P. R. Howatt, (eds.) 1984.
Interlanguage:
Honour
of
Proceedings
Pit
Corder.
of
the
Edinburgh:
Seminar
in
Edinburgh
University Press.
De Villiers, J. G. and P.A. de Villiers. 1973. “A Crosssectional Study of the Acquisition of Grammatical
Morphemes
in
Child
Speech”.
Journal
of
Psycholinguistic Research, 2/3: 267-78.
De Villiers, J. G. and P.A. de Villiers. 1978. Language
Acquisition. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University
Press.
Dulay H. C. and M. k. Burt. 1972. “Goofing, an Indicator
of
Children’s
Second
Language
Strategies”.
Language Learning 22: 234-52.
Dulay H. C. and M. k. Burt. 1973. “Should We Teach
Children Syntax?” Language Learning 23: 245-58.
___________________. 1974a. “Errors and Strategies in Child
Second Language Acquisition”. TESOL Quarterly,
8:129-36.
__________________. 1974b. “Natural Sequence in Child
Second Language Acquisition”. Language Learning.
24: 37- 53.
_________________. 1975. “Creative construction in Second
Language Learning” in M. Burt, H. Dulay (eds.): New
Directions in Second Language Learning, Teaching,
and Bilingual Education. Washington. D. C.: TESOL.
___________________. 1977. “Remarks on Creativity in
Language Acquisition” in M. Burt, H. Dulay, and M.
Finocchiaro (eds.): Viewpoints on English as a
Second Language. New York: Regents.
_________________.
1984.
“You
Can’t
Learn
Without
Goofing” in Jack c. Richard (ed.): Error Analysis.
Perspectives
on
Second
Language
Acquisition.
Longman. Pp 95 -123.
Dulay H. C., M. k. Burt, and S. Krashen. 1982. Language
Two. New York: Oxford University Press.
Ehrman, Madeline, and Oxford, Rebecca. 1990. “Adult
Language Learning Styles and Strategies in an
Intensive
Training
Setting”.
Modern
Language
Journal 73: 311.
Ekstrand, L. H. 1975. “Age and Length of Residence as
Variables Related to the Adjustment of Migrant
Children
,
with
Special
Reference
to
Second
Language Learning” in J. Nickel (ed.) Proceedings
of the fourth International Congress of Applied
Linguistics, 3: 179-97. Hochschulverlag, Stuttgart.
Ellis, R. 1982. “Discourse Processes in Classroom Second
Language Development” . Ph.D. thesis, University of
London.
_______.
1985.
Understanding
Second
Language
Acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
_______. 1987. Second Language Acquisition in context.
Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, N.J.
Ellis,
Rod.
1988.
Classroom
Second
Language
Development. Prentice Hall Europe.
________.
1989.
“Are
classroom
and
Naturalistic
Acquisition the Same? A Study of the Classroom
Acquisition of German Word Order Rules”. Studies
in Second Language Acquisition 11
Ellis,
R.
1996.
Understanding
Second
Language
Acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ericsson K. and H.A. Simon. 1987. “Verbal Reports on
Thinking”. In C. Faerch and G. Kasper (eds.),
Introspection in Second Language Research, pp. 2453. Clevedo: Philadelphia.
Ervin – Tripp, S.1974. “Is
Second Language Learning
Like the First?” TESOL Quarterly 8: 111-27.
Faerch,
C.
1984.
“Strategies
of
Production
and
Reception” in A. Davies, C. Criper, and A. P. R.
Howatt, (eds.).: Interlanguage: Proceedings of the
Seminar
in
Honour
of
Pit
Corder.
Edinburgh:
Edinburgh University Press.
Faerch, C. and G. Kasper. 1980. “Processes in Foreign
Language
Learning
and
Communication”.
Interlanguage Studies Bulletin, 5/1:47-118.
_______________. (eds.). 1983a. Strategies in Interlanguage
Communication. London: Longman.
_______________.
1983b.
component
“Procedural
of
Foreign
knowledge
Language
as
a
learner’s
Communicative Competence” in H. Boete and W.
Herrlitz
(eds.):
kommunikation
in
(Sprach-)
Unterricht. Utrecht.
Fathman, A. 1975. “The Relationship between Age and
Second
Language
Productive
Ability”.
Language
Learning 25: 245 – 53.
Felix, S. 1978. “Some Differences between First and
Second Language Acquisition” in N. Waterson and C.
Snow (eds.): The Development of Communication.
New York: John Wiley and Sons.
_______. 1980. Second Language Development. Tubingen:
Gunter Narr.
________. 1981. “The Effect of Formal Instruction on
Second Language Acquisition”. Language Learning
31: 87-112.
________. 1985. “More Evidence on Competing Cognitive
Systems”. Second Language Research 1: 47-72.
Ferguson, C. 1977. “Baby Talk as a Simplified Register”
in C. Snow and C. Ferguson (eds.): Talking to
Children. Cambridge University Press
Fillmore, W. 1980. “Cultural Perspectives on Second
Language Learning”. TESL Reporter 14: 23 – 31.
Flynn, K. 1983. “The Acquisition of Form and Function
in
Interlanguage:
A
Preliminary
Study”.
Paper
presented at the Second Language Research Forum,
University of Southern California.
Freed, B. 1980. “Talking to Foreigners Versus Talking to
children: Similarities and Differences” in Scarcella
and Krashen (eds.): Research in Second Language
Acquisition. Rowley, Mass.: Newbury House.
Fries, C. 1952. The Structure of English: An introduction
to the Construction of English Sentences. New York:
Harcourt Brace.
Fromkin,
Victoria
and
Robert
Rodman.
1993.
An
Introduction to Language. United States of America.
Pp 393 –467.
Gagne, R. 1965. The
Conditions of Learning . Holt,
Rinehart and Winston, New York
Gagne, R., and Paradise, N. E. 1961. “Abilities and
Learning
Sets
in
Knowledge
Acquisition”.
Psychological Monographs: General and Applied 75:
Whole No.518
Gardner,
R.
1979.
“Social
Psychological
aspects
of
Second Language Acquisition” in H. Giles and R. St
Clair (eds.) Language and Social Psychology .Pp 193220. Basil Blackwell.
Gardner,
R.
Variables
and
in
W.
Lambert.
Second
1959.
“Motivational
Language
Acquisition”.
Canadian Journal of Psychology 13: 266-72.
________________________. 1972. Attitudes and Motivation
in
Second
Language
Learning.
Rowley,
Mass.:
Newbury House
Gardner, R., P. Smythe, and G. Brunet. 1977. “Intensive
Second
Language
Study:
Effects
on
Attitudes,
Motivation and French Achievement.” Language
Learning 27: 243-62.
Gass,
S.
1979.
“Language
Transfer
and
Universal
Grammatical Relations”. Language Learning, 29:
327-344.
Gass,
S.
and
J.
Schachter
(eds.)
1990.
Linguistic
Perspective on Second Language Acquisition.
New
York: Cambridge University Press
Genesee, F. 1982. “Experimental Neuropsychological
Research on Second Language Processing”. TESOL
Quarterly 16/3: 315-24.
George,
H.
V.
1972.
Common
Errors
in
Language
Learning. Rowley, Mass.
Hahn,
Cora.
1989.
“Dealing
with
Variables
Language Class-room”. Forum xxvii/4: 9-10
in
the
Hakuta,
K.
1974.
Development
Japanese
of
girl
Language”.
“A
Preliminary
Grammatical
Learning
Report
of
Morphemes
English
as
a
the
in
a
Second
Working Papers on Bilingualism 3: 18 –
43.
Hansen, J. and C. Stansfield. 1981. “The Relationship of
Field dependent – independent Cognitive Styles to
Foreign Language Achievement”. Language Learning
31: 349 – 67.
Harmer,
Jeremy.
1990.
The
Practice
Of
English
Language Teaching. UK: Longman Group.
Hatch, E. 1974. “Second Language Learning-universals”.
Working Papers on Bilingualism 3: 1-18.
__________.1976. “Optimal Age or Optimal Learners?”
Work Papers in TESL 11: 45-56.
__________.1978a. “Second Language Acquisition” in E.
Hatch (ed.): Second Language Acquisition: A Book of
Readings. Rowley, Mass.: Newbury House.
_________.1978b.
“Discourse
Analysis
and
Second
Language Acquisition” in E. Hatch (ed.): Second
Language Acquisition: A Book of Readings. Rowley,
Mass.: Newbury House. P.401-35.
Hatch, E. 1978c. “Acquisition of Syntax in Second
Language”
in
J.
Richards
(ed.):
Understanding
Second and Foreign Language Learning . Rowley,
Mass.: Newbury House.
________ 1980. “Second Language Acquisition – Avoiding
the
Question”
in
Felix
(ed.)
Second
Language
Development. Tubingen: Gunther Narr.
__________1983. Psycholinguistics: A Second
Language
Perspective. Newbury House, Rowley, Mass.
Holec, H. 1987. Learner autonomy
Hosenfeld,
C.
Discovering
1976.
or
“Learning
Students’
about
Strategies”.
Learning:
Foreign
Language Annals, 9:117-129.
Jackson, K. and
Whitenam. 1971. “Evaluation of the
Predictive Power of Contrastive Analysis of Japanese
and English”. Final Report; Contract No. CEC-0-705046 (-823), US Office of Health, Education and
Welfare.
Jacobs,B., and Schumann, J.1992. “Language Acquisition
and the Neuro-sciences: Towards a More Integrative
Perspective”. Applied Linguistics, 23: 282-301.
Jain, Mahavir. 1969. “Error Analysis of an Indian English
Corpus”.
Unpublished
Paper,
University
of
Edinburgh.
Jain, M.P. 1984. “Error Analysis: Source, Cause and
Significance”
Analysis.
in
Jack
Perspectives
c.
on
Richard
Second
(ed.):
Error
Language
Acquisition. Longman. Pp 189- 215.
Klima, E. and Bellugi, V. 1966. “Syntactic regularities in
the speech of children”, in Lyons, J and Wales, R.
(eds.): Psycholinguistic Papers. Edinburgh University
Press.
Krashen, S. 1977. “The Monitor Model for Adult Second
Language Performance” in M.Burt, H. Dulay and M.
Finnochiario (eds.) Viewpoints on English as a
Second Language. Regents
_________. 1980. “The Input Hypothesis” in J. Alatis (ed.)
Current Issues in Bilingual Education. Georgetown.
_________. 1981. Second Language Acquisition and Second
Language Learning. Pergamon Press. Oxford.
__________.
1982.
Differences
“Accounting
in
Second
for
Child
Language
–
Adult
Rate
and
Attainment” in S. Krashen, R. Scarcella, and M.
Long
(eds.) Child –adult Differences in Second
Language Acquisition. Pp 202-26. Newbury House,
Mass.
Krashen, S. 1987. Principles and Practice in Second
Language
Acquisition.
UK:
Prentice-Hall
International.
Krashen, S., N. Houck, P. Giunchi, R. Birnbaum, J.
Butler,
G.
Strei.
1977.
“Difficulty
Order
for
Grammatical Morphemes for Adult Second Language
Performance Using Free Speech”. TESOL Quarterly
11: 338-41.
Krashen,
S.,
J.
Robertson.1978.
Butler,
“Two
R.
Birnbaum,
Studies
in
and
J.
Language
Acquisition and Language Learning”. ITL: Review of
Applied Linguistics 39-40: 73-92.
Krashen, S., M. Long, R. Scarcella. 1979. “Age, Rate, and
Eventual
Attainment
in
Second
Language
Acquisition”. TESOL Quarterly 13: 573-82.
Krashen, S. and T.Terell. 1983. The Natural Approach.
Pergamon
Labov, W. 1970. “The Study of Language in its Social
Context”. Studium Generale. 23, 30-87.
Lachman, R,
Lachman, J., and Butterfield, E. C. 1979.
Cognitive psychology and information processing .
Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum.
Lado, R. 1957. Linguistics across cultures. An Arbor:
University of Michigan Press.
_______. 1964. Language Teaching.
Larsen-Freeman,
D.
1975.
McGraw Hill.
“The
Acquisition
of
Grammatical Morphemes by Adult ESL Students”.
TESOL Quarterly 9: 409-30.
______________. 1976. “An Explanation for the Morpheme
Accuracy Order of Learners of English as a Second
Language”. Language Learning, 26/1:125-35.
_____________. 1983. “The Importance of Input in Second
Language
Acquisition”
in
R.
Andersen
(ed.)
Pidginization
and
Creolization
as
Language
Acquisition. P 87-93. .Newbury House, Rowley, Mass
Larsen-Freeman, D., and Michael H. Long 1991 .An
Introduction
To
Second
Language
Acquisition
Research. UK: Longman Group
Lee, W. 1968. “Thoughts on Contrastive Linguistics on
the Context of Language Teaching” in J. Alatis (ed.)
Contrastive
Linguistics
Implications.
and
Washington,
its
Pedagogical
D.C.:
Georgetown
University.
Lennberg, E. 1967. Biological Foundations of Language.
New York: John Wiley.
Liceras,
J.
1983.
Determination
“The
of
Role
Learners’
of
Intake
in
Competence”.
presented at the Tenth University
the
Paper
of Michigan
Conference on Applied Linguistics
Lessard
–
Clouston,
Strategies:
An
Michael.”Language
Overview
for
[email protected].
University (Nishinomiya, Japan)
L2
Kuansei
Learning
Teachers”.
Gakuin
Lightbown,
Patsy.
M.
and
Nina
Spada.
1997.
How
Languages are Learned. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Littlewood,
William
Language
T.
1984.
Learning.
Foreign
Cambridge:
and
Second
Cambridge
University Press
Long, M. 1981. “Input, Interaction and Second Language
Acquisition” in H. Winitz (ed) Native Language and
Foreign Language Acquisition. P 259-78. Annals of
the New York Academy of Sciences 379.
Lyons, John. 1996. “On Competence and Performance
Related Notions” in G. Brown, K. Malmkjser, and J.
Williams (eds.): Performance and Competence in
Second
Language
Acquisition.
Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
McLaughlin, B. 1987. Theories of Second Language
Learning. London: Edward Arnold.
Mac Namara, J. 1972. “The Cognitive Basis of Language
Learning in Infants”. Psychological Review 19: 1-13.
Makino,
T.
1980.
Morphemes
by
“Acquisition
Japanese
Order
of
English
Secondary
School
Students”.
Journal
of
Hokkaido
University
of
Education 30: 101-48.
Meara, P. 1984. “The study of lexis in Interlanguage” in
Allan Davies, C. Cripper and A.P.R Howat (eds.):
Interlanguage
pp225-236.
Edinburgh University
Press.
_________. 1996. “The Dimensions of Lexical Competence”
in G. Brown, K. Malmkjser, and J. Williams (eds.):
Performance and Competence in Second Language
Acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Miller,
George
(ed.)
1974.
“Psychology
and
Communication”. Voice of America - Forum Series.
Milon, J. 1972. “A Japanese Child Learns English”. Paper
presented at TESOL Convention, March 1972.
________.. 1974. “The Development of Negation in English
by a Second Language Learner”.
TESOL Quarterly
8:137-43
Nagle, S. and Sanders, S.L. 1986. Comprehension Theory
and Second Language pedagogy. TESOL Quarterly
20: 9-26
Naiman, N., M. Frohlich, H. Stern, and A. Todesco. 1978.
“The
Good
Language
Learner”
Research
in
Education No. 7 Toronto: Ontario Institute for
Studies in Education.
Natalicio,
D.
S.
Comparative
and
Study
Natalicio,
of
English
L.F.S.
1971.
“A
Pluralization
by
Native and Non-native English Speakers”. Child
Development, 42:1302-6
Nemser, W. (1971) “Approximative Systems of Foreign
Language Learners”. IRAL, 9/2: 115-123.
O’Malley, et al. 1983 “A Study of Learning Strategies for
Acquiring Skills in Speaking and Understanding
English as a Second Language : Uses of Learning
Strategies
for
Different
Language
Activities
by
Students at Different Language Proficiency Levels”.
Rosslyn, Va: InterAmerica Research Associates.
___________. 1985. Learning Strategies Used by Beginning
and
Intermediate
ESL
Students”.
Language
Learning, 35/1:21-46.
O’Malley, J. Chamot, A., and Walker, C.
Applications
of
Cognitive
Theory
1987. Some
to
Second
Language Acquisition”. Studies in Second Language
Acquisition 9: 287-306.
O’Malley, J. Michael and Anna Uhl. Chamot. 1990.
Learning strategies In Second Language Acquisition.
Cambridge University Press.
Oller, J., A.Hudson, and P. Liu. 1977. “Attitudes and
Attained Proficiency in ESL: A Sociolinguistic Study
of Native Speakers of Chinese in the United States”.
Language Learning 27: 1-27.
Oxford, R. 1985 .A New Taxonomy for Second Language
Learning
Strategies.
Washington,
D.C.:
ERIC
Clearinghouse on Language and Linguistics.
__________ 1990. Language Learning Strategies: What
Every Teacher Should Know. USA: Newbury House.
Oyama, S. 1976. “A Sensitive Period in the Acquisition of
Non-native
Phonological
System”.
Journal
of
Psycholinguistic Research 5:261-85.
Piaget, J. 1976. The Grasp of Consciousness: Action and
Concept in the Young Child. Cambridge, Mass.:
Harvard University Press
Pienemann,
M.
1985.
“Learnability
and
Syllabus
Construction” in K. Hyltenstam and M. Pienmann
(eds.): Modeling and Assessing Second Language
Acquisition. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters,
P.23-75.
Pimsleur, P. and T. Quinn (eds). 1971 .The psychology of
Second Language Learning . Cambridge University
Press.
Pinter, Annamaria. “Strategy Use by Young Learners”.
elsbj @snow.csv.warwick.sc.uk.
Price, E. 1968. “Early Bilingualism” in C. J. Dodson, E.
Price and L. T. Williams, Towards Bilingualism.
Cardiff.
Ravem, Roar. 1968. “Language Acquisition in a Second
Language Environment”. International Review of
Applied Linguistics 6: 165-85 .Also in Jack c.
Richard
(ed.):
Error
Analysis.
Perspectives
on
Second Language Acquisition. Longman. Pp 124133
___________. 1984. The Development of Wh-questions in
First and Second Language Learners” in
Jack c.
Richard
(ed.):
Error
Analysis.
Perspectives
on
Second Language Acquisition. Longman. pp 134155.
Richards J. 1971. “Error Analysis and Second Language
Strategies”. Language Sciences, 17: 12-22.
___________. 1974. “A Non-Contrastive Approach to Error
Analysis”. in Jack c. Richard (ed.): Error Analysis.
Perspectives
on
Second
Language
Acquisition.
Longman. Pp 172- 88.
Richards J. 1984. “Social Factors, Interlanguage and
Language Learning” in Jack c. Richard (ed.): Error
Analysis.
Perspectives
on
Second
Language
Acquisition. Longman. Pp 64- 91.
Richard J. and T. Rodgers. 1986. Approaches and
Methods
in
Language
Teaching.
Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Richard J. and Gloria P. Sampson. 1984. “The Study of
Learner English” in Jack c. Richard (ed.): Error
Analysis.
Perspectives
on
Acquisition. Longman. pp 3 – 18.
Second
Language
Rigney, J. W. 1978. “Learning Strategies: A Theoretical
Perspective”
in
H.
F.
O’Neil
(ed.),
Learning
Strategies. New York: Academic Press.
Ritchie, W. 1978. Second Language Acquisition Research:
Issues and Implications. Academic Press new York.
Rivers, W. 1980. “Foreign Language Acquisition : Where
the Real Problems Lie”. Applied Linguistics 1/1:4859.
Rubin, J. 1975. “What the ‘Good Language Learner’ Can
Teach Us” TESOL Quarterly 9:1
Rubin, J. 1981. “A Study of Cognitive Processes in
Second Language Learning”.
Applied Linguistics,
2/2: 117-131.
Sachs, J. 1977. “The Adaptive Significance of Linguistic
Input to Prelinguistic Infants” in Snow and Ferguson
(eds.) Talking to Children. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Schachter, J. 1996. “Second Language Acquisition and
its Relationship to Universal Grammar”. Applied
Linguistics. 9:219-35.
Schachter, J., Tyson, A and Diffley, F. 1976. “Learner
Intuitions of Grammaticality”. Language Learning
26:67-76.
Schumann, J.
1978. “The Acculturation Model for
Second Language Acquisition” in R. Gingras (ed.)
:Second Language Acquisition and Foreign Language
Teaching.
Arlington,
VA.:
Centre
of
Applied
Linguistics.
_________ . 1979. “The Acquisition of English Negation by
Speakers of Spanish: a Review of the Literature” in
R. Andersen (ed.) The Acquisition and use of Spanish
and English as First and Second Languages. TESOL,
Washington, D.C. P3-32
____________. 1980. “The Acquisition of English Relative
Clauses by Second Language Learners” in Scarcella
and Krashen, S. (eds.): Research in Second Language
Acquisition. Newbury House.
Schumann, J. 1984. “Acculturation Model: the Evidence”
in
Current
Approaches
to
Second
Language
Acquisition. Symposium conducted at the University
of Wisconsin-Milwaukee.
Seliger, H. and Long, M. (eds) 1983. Classroom-oriented
Research in Second Language Acquisition. Newbury
House, Rowley, Mass.
Selinker, L. 1972. “Interlanguage”. International Review
of Applied Linguistics 10: 209-31.
Shuell, T. J. 1986. “Cognitive Conceptions of Learning”.
Review of Educational Research 56: 411-36.
Skehan, P. 1985. “Where Does Language Aptitude Come
From?” Paper presented at the BAAL 1985 Seminar,
University of Edinburgh.
Slamecka, N. J. 1968. “An Examination of Trace Storage
in Free Recall”. Journal of Experimental Psychology,
76: 504-13.
Snow C. and C. Ferguson (eds.). 1977. “Talking to
Children:
Language
Input
and
Acquisition”.
Cambridge University Press
Snow, C. and M. Hoefnagel-Hohle. 1978. “The Critical Age
for Language Acquisition: Evidence from Second
Language Learning”. Child Development 49: 111428.
Spada, N. and P. M. Lightbown. 1993. “Instructions and
the Development of Question in l2 Classrooms”.
Studies in Second Language, 15/2.
Spolsky, B. 1985. “Formulating a Theory of Second
Language Learning ” Studies in Second Language
Acquisition 7: 269-88.
Sridhar, J. 1980. “Contrastive Analysis, Error Analysis,
and Interlanguage” in K.Croft, (ed.) Reading on ESL
for
Teachers
and
Teacher
Trainees.
Winthrop
Publishers, inc., Cambridge, Mass.
Stern, H. H. 1969. “Foreign Language Learning and the
New View of First Language Acquisition”. Child
Study, 30/4: 25-36.
_________. 1975. “What Can We Learn from the Good
Language
Learner?”
Canadian
Modern
Language
Review, 31: 304-318.
_________. 1983. Fundamental Concepts of Language
Teaching. Oxford University Press.
_________.
1994.
Fundamental
concepts
of
teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Language
Stevick, E. W. 1976. Memory, Meaning and Method:
Some
Psychological
Perspectives
on
Language
Learning. Newbury House, Rowley, Mass.
____________. 1982. Teaching and Learning Languages.
Cambridge University Press.
Strong, M. 1984. “Integrative Motivation: Cause or
Result of Successful Second Language Acquisition?”
Language Learning 34 (3): 1-14.
Taylor, B. P. 1975. “Adult Language Learning Strategies
and
their
Pedagogical
Implications”.
TESOL
Quarterly, 9: 391-399.
Tarone, E. 1980. “Communicative Strategies, Foreigner
Talk,
and
Repair
in
Interlanguage”.
Language
Learning, 30: 417-43.
Wagner-Gough, J. and Hatch, E. 1975. “The Importance
of Input Data in Second Language Acquisition
Studies”. Language Learning 25: 297-308.
Wardhaugh,
R.
1970.
“The
Contrastive
Analysis
Hypothesis”. TESOL Quarterly 4: 123-30.
Waterson, N. and Snow, C. (eds.) 1978. “The development
of communication”. Wiley, New York.
Weinstein, C., Underwood, F. Wicker, and W. Cubberly.
1979. “Cognitive Learning Strategies: Verbal and
Imaginable
elaboration”.
In
H.
O’Neil
and
C.
Spielberger (eds.): Cognitive and Affective Learning
Strategies”, pp. 352-373. Academic Press.
Weinstein, C. E. and Mayer, R. E. 1986. “The Teaching of
Learning
Strategies”.
In
M.
C.
Wittrock
(ed.)
Handbook of Research on Teaching. Pp315-27. 3rd
ed. New York: Macmillan.
Wells, G. 1979. “Adjustment in Adult-child Conversation:
Some Effects of Interaction” in Giles, H., Robinson,
W.
and
P.
Smith
(eds.)
Language
:
Social
Psychological Perspectives. Oxford: Pergamon Press
Wenden, A. 1983. “Literature review : the process of
intervention”. Language Learning 33: 103-21.
__________. 1986. “What Do Second-Language Learners
Know about their Learning: A Second Look at
Retrospective Accounts”. Applied Linguistics, 7/2:
187-200.
Wenden, Anita, and Joan Rubin. 1987. Learner Strategies
in
Language
Learning.
UK:
Prentice-Hall
International.
White, L. 1989. Universal Grammar and Second Language
Acquisition.
Amsterdam/Philadelphia,
Pa.:
John
Benjamins.
Widdowson, H.1977. “The Significance of Simplification”.
Studies in Second Language Acquisition. 1: 11-20.
Wode, H. 1976. “Developmental Sequence in Naturalistic
L2 Acquisition” Working Papers on Bilingualism 11:
1-31.
________. 1978. “Developmental Sequence in Naturalistic
L2 Acquisition” in E. Hatch (ed.) Second Language
Acquisition. Newbury House, Rowley, Mass.
_________.
1980
.Learning
a
Second
Language:
An
Integrated View of Language Acquisition . Tubingen
Gunter Narr.
Yule, George and Elaine Tarone. 1997. “Investigating
Communication Strategies in L2 Reference: Pros
and Cons” in Kasper, Gabriele and Eric Kellerman
1997
(eds.):
Communication
Strategies:
Psycholinguistic and Sociolinguistic Perspectives:
Longman.
Appendix (1)
The Clever Crow
Appendix (2)
Questionnaire (for interviewing the subjects)
Section One
1. Subject’s Name:
Code:
2. Sex:
Male
Female
3. Age
8-10 years
11-13 years
above 13 years
Section Two
There is a number of tactics and strategies, which some students use in
Learning English Language. There is no right or wrong answer since many
students use different ways and strategies in Learning English Language.
Please tell us what ways and strategies you use in Learning English.
A. Syntax
How do you learn new structures?
In the exercise of the “Clever Crow”, there are different structures. Some of
them were new for you.
How did you learn them?
How, do you think words are ordered in structures?
How do you learn that?
You tried to memorize that by imagining pictures? Or by remembering
sounds?
Do you practice using the structure…etc.? (Please see the following page for
the selected Learning strategies.)
B. Semantics
In the previous exercise as “The Clever Crow” and “The Description of the
way from your house to the school”, did you find any new words? How did
you get the meaning of these words?
Did you guess the meaning?
Did you ask the teacher or your mates? (See LS List).
C. Word Formation
Do you remember the exercise where you practiced the sentence as:
This ruler is regular but that one is irregular. How did you learn “regular and
irregular”? Did you try to memorize that by joining specific sounds? Did you
say it first incorrect then you correct yourself? (Please, see the LS description
sheet).
D. Phonology
In the exercise when you said pairs of words as: “coat-goat”, “lamp- lump”
how did you differentiate between these sounds? How did you learn the
difference between them?
Did you repeat the sounds?
Did you relate the new sound to specific sound? Or you just practiced the
sound?
E. Word Order and Syntactic Hypotheses
How do you think the sentences in English are built?
If you want to tell us e.g. that you read this book yesterday, how do you order
these words?
What are the ways you use in constructing a sentence?
Appendix (3) Observation Schedule
LS
Appearance of the LS
Moving of lips – uttering the word
1
Repetition
“writing”
Moving the lips- looking
2
Practice
thinkfully - constructing sentenceusing the word in other context.
3
4
5
6
7
Memorization
Looking thinkfully
Guessing/inductive interfacing
Looking thinkfully
Clarification/ asking questions
Asking questions
Monitoring/ self-correction
Self- correction
Simplification:
Constructing a sentence lacking
a. lack of tensing
tensing
b. lack of congruent
I take bus to school
c. missing determiner
This is the Sara book
d. missing possessive
marker
Subject tries to construct the
e. missing pleural marker
sentence according to word order
f. word order
8
Overgeneralization
Generalizing some rules as (e.g.
for past tens): go-goed
Eat-eated
**Original
Appendix (4) Tabulating subject’s’ answers sheet
LS
observed
or Surly Sometimes I am I
questioned about in I use I use it
not
rarely
the interview
it
sure use it
1
Repetition
I have
never
use it
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Practice
Memorization (using
mnemonic
e.g.
pictures,
sounds,
images, etc.)
Guessing/inductive
interfacing
Clarification/ asking
questions
Monitoring/
selfcorrection
Simplification:
a. lack of tensing
b. lack of
congruent
c. missing
determiner
d. missing
possessive marker
e. missing pleural
marker
f. word order
Overgeneralization
Any other technique?
**Original
Appendix (5)
Examples of the Informants’ Interlanguage
1. Water.
2. Crow jar
3. Bus
4. Crow water.
5. Crow drink water.
6. Crow doing? Crow stand. (Then after a pause) jar. The crow is
standing on the jar.
7. Crow doing? Crow water.
8. Crow stones jar.
9. Learn English? Learn English read.
10. Crow doing?
11. Crow standing.
12. Crow drinking.
13. Ma’moon book.
14. Sarah book .
15. crow jar.
16. Book table.
17. Friend bus.
18. school bus.
19 Maysoon is happy. She has sweets. Huda is not happy. She has none.
20. Maysoon is happy. She has sweets. Huda is imhappy She has none.
21. Maysoon is happy. She has sweets. Huda is unhappy. She has none.
22. Jar no water.
23 Crow no find water.
24. Crow drink water
25. What crow do?
26. I go school bus.
27. Crow throw stone jar.
28. The crow is throw stone jar.
29. Crow throwing stone jar.
30. I saw crow.
31. The crow is feeling thirsty
32. Bus go along street
33. Crow was standing on jar when he drink water .
34. Many girl and boy enter the bus.
35. The crow is drinks water. is in place of the two sentences:
36. No crow drink.
37. No water in jar.
38. No bus go on foot.
39. Not go school bus.
40. I not like it.
41. Crow not drink water.
42. Me don’t like reading.
43. Mariana not coming to day.
44. I not can swim.
45. I don’t go bus.
46. Crow don’t can drink water.
47. I won’t go.
48. He can’t eat nothing.
49. Crow can’t drink water.
50. Mariana don’t go home.
51. I don’t read books.
52. Crow did not found water.
53. He does not reads English books.
54. Yousra did not wrote the paper.
55. Crow threw stones jar?
56. Go to school?
57. Learn English?
58. I writing on black board?
59. Where did the crow put the stones?
60. How can I learn English?
61. What crow doing?
62. How come to school?
63. Is the crow throw stones in jar?
64. Can crow drink water?
65. Do you read English books?
66. Where did you go?
67. How did the crow get the water?
68. What did the crow threw in the jar?
69. Where did the bus went?
70. I told you how is crow getting water.
71. I said how can I go to school.
72. I don’t know where is she live.