Acquisition of English as a Foreign Language - Unit 6, Diapositivas de Idioma Inglés

¡Descarga Acquisition of English as a Foreign Language - Unit 6 y más Diapositivas en PDF de Idioma Inglés solo en Docsity! UNIT 6: Input, Output and Interaction Input, output and Interaction (outline) 1. Input • Input hypothesis • Foreigner talk 2. Output 3. Interaction a) Interactionist Hypothesis b) Socio-cultural approaches c) Systemic-functional approaches 2. The Monitor Hypothesis: conscious learning… can only be used as a Monitor, or an editor (Krashen and Terrell 1983, p.30). 3.The Natural Order Hypothesis: “we acquire the rules of language in a predictable order” (1985, p.1). 4.The Affective Filter Hypothesis: “a mental block, caused by affective factors … that prevents input from reaching the language acquisition device” (1985, p.100). KRASHEN: THE INPUT HYPOTHESIS Krashen’s Comprehensible input and SLA Krashen’s input hypothesis: -Learners progress by understanding input that contains structures a bit beyond their level of competence. -Comprehensible input is not sufficient. Learners also need to be affectively disposed to let the input in. -Input becomes comprehensible as a result of simplification. INPUT IN SLA Questions posed by researchers in relation to the speech addressed to NNs by NSs I.1. modifications to language (Is there a special register?) I.2. conversational interactional patterns I.3. effect that this register might have on acquisition Shift in linguistic research from phonological, morphosyntactic and lexical features to a more "ecological perspective", including discourse features, pragmatics and genres (Krashen, Long, Hatch, etc...). Thus, socially constructed L2 knowledge is a necessary condition for interlanguage development. Lexical Foreigner Talk • Restricted vocabulary size (focus on more frequently occurring items) • Fewer pronouns • Repetition of words (lower type/token ratio) • Use of paraphrases (“something that you use for…”) Pronunciation in Foreigner Talk • Slowing down speech • Separate syllable articulation • Fewer reduced vowels • Heavier stress • Exaggerated intonation FT (Kleifgen, 1986) ____ Mommy look at your work? _____you have Indians in Korea? Would you give us ____ pencil? See, Siti’s made _____mouth real scary Baby sitter take__ care of baby Input frequency and SLA • Long and others (Seliger, Wong-Fillmore, ...) studied the connection between input frequency and SLA. • Little evidence to claim that input frequency affects L2 acquisition but also little evidence to refute it. • Safest conclusion: input frequency is one of the factors, in combination with other factors such as L1 transfer, communicative need, etc… 2) Learner output Swain's (1996) comprehensible output hypothesis: -Learners need the opportunity for meaningful use of their linguistic resources to achieve full grammatical competence. -Effects: FLUENCY: more practice ACCURACY: -Noticing/triggering function -Hypothesis-testing function -Metalinguistic function 3. Interaction 3.a.The interactionist hypothesis (Long) -Negotiation in interaction affects production (Gass and Varonis, 1994). -Negative/Corrective feedback in interaction facilitates acquisition (Long, 1996). Attention -New structures arise when the learners are allowed to initiate a topic and when the teacher helps the learners by supplying chunks of language (Ellis, 1985). -But learners can exploit discourse strategies to compensate for morphological features not acquired (Klein, 1981; Meisel, 1987). 3.b. Interaction in socio-cultural theory -Lantolf (based on Vygotsky): second language learners advance when they interact with more knowledgable speakers. -Vigotsky’s notion of ZPD (through scaffolding). -Learning to interact verbally learners may internalize “horizontal” syntactic knowledge from the “vertical discourse constructions” they build with their more proficient interlocutors. -Difference with the interactionist hypothesis: learning is co-constructed between learner and interlocutor (it is not just input modification that provides the learner with the raw material he/she needs to process internally and invisibly). -Interpersonal +intrapersonal interaction (for example, private speech). T: mm (.) ok (.) and (.) can you compare urban life in the Middle Ages with your present (.) um (.) life? S: uff (.) technologies T: technologies S: technologies (.) we have a lot of technologies that is the life so much better than in the Middle Ages (.) mobile phone (.) computer (.) television (.) cars, T: mm (.) but are these things- very important (.) for you (.) I mean- S: (for me yes) T: aren’t there other things? and things- S: for me yes. T: ok (.) why? S: for cars (.) cars are so important because you can translate from one place to another and in the Middle Ages if you live in one place you have to stay in this place and you are not- you have to be there (.) and now (.) in the present life you (.) for example if you live in Fuenlabrada you want to live to Griñón you go and you don’t get but you have other type- type of (0.2) things that you can do it. T: of course (.) yes (.) so you’re free to do- you have freedom (.) no? S: yes (.) and they no 3.c. INTERACTION IN SFL (communicative functions) -Functional development (Llinares, 2006) which leads to “horizontal constructions”: TCH: Yeah? Which beach do you go to for your summer holiday? S: In Barcelona TCH: To Barcelona? Wauu, I love Barcelona (P1). I’ve got a very good friend there (P2). I love it (P1). Have you got a house in Barcelona? S: Yeah TCH: Lovely. I’m gonna come and visit you up there (P4) S: And I have two dog there (P2)