Makalah SLA oleh mahasiswa Universitas Wijaya Kusuma Semester 6 Kelas E Greoup C

The Language Environment

by group C class E

The language environment encompasses everything the language learner hears and sees in the new language. It may include a wide variety of situations. The quality of the language environment is of paramount importance to success in learning anew language. In this chapter we have gathered together all the available research that indicates which environmental factors influence a learner’s acquisition of a second language and under what conditions language learning is enhanced. Natural communication (in which people care about the ideas being discussed rather than whether they are being expressed correctly) also seems critical to developing speaking fluency.
Teaching a second language means creating for students apart or all of their new language environment. The entire responsibility for creating the language environment falls on the teacher who is teaching language that is not used in the community. In either case environmental features that accelerate language learning can easily be incorporated into curriculum objectives, teaching techniques, and materials to increase the effectiveness of the language classroom.

Macro-Environmental Factors

Researches have examined the effects of four macro environmental features on the rate and quality of language acquisition. (1) naturalness of the language heard (2) the learner’s role in communication (3) the availability of concrete referents to clarify meaning and (4) who the target language models are.

Naturalness

When the focus of the speaker is on the form of the language, the language environment is formal, when the focus is on the content of the communication, the language environmental is natural.
An ordinary conversation between two people is natural, and so are verbal exchanges at a store, a bank, or a party. The participants in these exchanges care about giving and receiving information or opinions, although they use language structures, they do so with virtually no conscious awareness of the structures used. On the other hand, an explanation of the rule for the formation of the past perfect subjunctive in Spanish is formal, as are descriptions of any aspect of a language or the many drills and exercises that require conscious linguistic knowledge or manipulation of linguistic items.
The distinction between natural and formal language is not new. It is usually made by language teachers who designate part of instructional time for formal activities ( e.g. audio lingual drills, structural explanations, translation, dictation, etc), and part for natural communication activities such as free conversation, non language games (e.g. indoor baseball), reading, or films.

Effects of Natural Exposure

A natural language environment appears to enhance the development of communication skills in a second language in both, foreign, and Host environments.
The beneficial effects of exposure natural communication in the target language have been demonstrated by three major empirical studies: two studies involved adults and one : two study involved children; all were acquiring a second language in foreign environment. Carroll's (1967} survey of college language majors was one of the first studies to demonstrate the superiority of a natural over a for­mal language environment for L acquisition Of course, one of the major distinguishing characteristics of an environment is the presence or absence of natural exposure oppor­tunities.
The researchers did not find a steady improvement in English proficiency-as the number of. years of EFL study increased. The authors concluded that,” A better overall predictor of English proficiency was whether or not the subjects had experience with it as a medium of instruction. Results from "immersion program" research also confirm the efficacy of the natural environment for language acquisition. Immer­sion programs were designed for students who speak a "majority language" (such as English in the United States) as (heir first lan­guage and who wish to learn the "minority language" ."Full immersion" refers to program that begin in the kindergarten and extend .into the upper grades. Full immersion programs .using French as the medium of instruc­tion have been in existence for at least the last decade for English-speaking children in Canada.

Limits of The Effects of Natural Exposure

Several factors can limit the beneficial effects of natural exposure : a lack of peers who speak the target language natively, incomprehensibility of the communication, and lack of a silent period when one can absorb the new language but need not produce it.

Formal Environments

A formal language environmental focuses on the conscious acquisition of rules and forms. Mechanical or manipulative practice in using or stating the rules may precede or follow the explanation, and when its goal is to help the student discover the form of the rule, it is called inductive. The important characteristic of manipulative or mechanical practice, however, is not that it is inductive or deductive, but that it is conscious exercise in grammatical form. Often, exercises may appear to be communicative, but in reality they are mechanical and focused on grammatical form. Next there is presentation of a bilingual list ( a list of words in one language with their translation in the other), in which new vocabulary.


Benefit of Formal Exposure

Firsts, speaker may modify their use of the new language through some of the low level rules they know. Another benefit of conscious linguistic knowledge is that it satisfies the curiosity that many adult learners have about language. There also language learners who apparently do not entirely trust their subconscious learning abilities and who feel more comfortable if they know the rules and structures consciously.


Limitation of Formal Exposure

Perhaps the greatest limitation of formal exposure to a language is the small rule that the conscious knowledge of rules seems to play in either the acquisition or the conversational use of the language.
Unfortunately, being able to recite rules does not guarantee a proficient use of the language. Despite painstaking efforts on the part of both teacher and students to consciously focus on the structures, rules, and vocabulary of the target language , a minimum ability to communicate through the language still eludes most students who study foreign languages using traditional , formal methods.

The Learners’s Role in Communication

We can distinguish three types communication in which learners participate :

One way
Restricted two-way, and
Full two-way

In one way communication, the learner listen to or reads the target language but does not respond. The communication is one-way towards the learner, not from the learner. In restricted two way communication, the learner respond orally to some one, but the learner does not use the target language. The response may be in the learner’s first language or some other non target language and may include a nonverbal response as nodding. In full two way communication, the learner speaks in the target language , acting as both recipient and sender of verbal messages.

Availability Of Concrete Referents

A language environment may provide this type of support when it include concrete referents-subjects and events that can be seen, heard, or felt while the language is being used. Experience second language teacher are , of course, already aware of the importance of providing contexts for the new language. They provide visual aids, motor activities and other “here and now”.

Target Language Model

There is fourth significance macro environmental factor : the source of the language the learners hear. There may be many speaker models available (anyone who speaks the target language is a potential model), but learners do not draw on them equally. Language learning research provides various example of apparent preferences for certain speaker models over others under certain circumstances, preferences which seem to have obvious effects on the quality of the learner’s speech. To date, evidence has been presented which demonstrates speaker model preference of three sorts :
Peers over teachers, peers over parents, and own ethnic group members over non members.

Peer versus Teacher

When both a teacher and peers speak the target language, learners have been observed to prefer the latter as models for themselves.


Peer versus Parents

In first language learning, it has been found that when the speech characteristics of peers and parents differ, the children will tend to acquire the speech characteristics of their peers.

Own social group versus Other social group

The difference in learner speech characteristics that result from model choice are due not to learning difficulties, but to preferred social group membership.

Micro Environmental Factors

While micro environmental factors are the broad overall characteristics of the language environment, micro environmental factors are characteristics of specific structures of the language the learner hears.
To date, three micro factors of the language environment has been investigated from the perspective of their effect on the quality or rate of language acquisition;
1. Salience, the ease with which a structure is seen or heard
2. Feedback, the listener's or reader's response to the 'earner's speech or writing
3. Frequency, the number of times the learner hears or sees a given structure

SALIENCE

Salience refers to the ease with which a structure is heard or seen. For example, most people can probably hear the English article the, which is a full syllable, more easily than the past tense -ed, which is simply a sound tacked on the last syllable of a verb, as in talked (pronounced taut).

Feedback
In language acquisition research, feedback generally refers to the listener’s or reader’s response given to the learner’s speech or writing. One type of feedback is correction, another is approval or “ positive feedback”. This type of response has been called “expansion” correction and expansion have received the most research attention.

Correction
Research has produced a rather discouraging view of the effect cor­rection has on learners' errors. Experienced language teachers have long known that correcting students' grammar or pronunciation can be Immensely frustrating.

Expansion
Expansion involves the systematic modeling of either the correct or more complete version of the child's utterance without calling the child's, attention to the activity. The effect of expansion on the development of child speech has been examined, so far, only in first language acquisition.

Frequency
In language acquisition the frequency of occurrence of a structure refers to the number of times a learner hears a given structure. Generally, it has been assumed that the more a learner hears a structure, the sooner it will be acquired. Finally, consider the well known fact that specific English grammatical items that contribute little or nothing to meaning, such as articles.

Some Effect of Very High Frequency
Such memorization may cause some patterns to excluded from normal analysis, delaying their, incorporation into the new language system. Thus, one effect of very frequently occurring forms is that at least some of them will somehow be represented in the child’s performance even if its structure is far beyond him or her.



Role of Micro Environmental Factors
A clear and important example of the specific type of interaction between the operation of internal factors, micro environmental factors and the acquisition of new knowledge is found in the series of investigation. Micro-environmental factors may affect second language learning only when learners have reached certain, points in their L development-such that they are "feady" to internalize a given structure. Once a learner is ready to learn a structure, the high salience or frequency of the structure may increase the probability that the learner will notice the structure and acquire it. Much more research is necessary before we can specify the conditions under which micro-environmental factors affect language acquisition.

SUMMARY
The language that learners hear and see around them is of paramount importance to the acquisition process. In this chapter, we have focused on aspects of the learner's language environment which research has shown are directly related to successful second language acquisition. We have also discussed aspect environmental which are only indirectly related to acquisition, although they have been commonly thought to have a more direct role.
Four broad overall features of the environment (macro-environmental features) appear to directly affect the rate and quality of second language acquisition:
1. Naturalness ofl the environment, or the degree to which the focus, of communication is on its content rather than on its linguistic form. Stud­ies show that students who are exposed to natural language, where the focus is on communication, perform better than these in a formal envi­ronment, where focus is on the conscious acquisition of linguistic rules or the manipulation of linguistic forms. Some exposure to formal envi­ronments may be beneficial, however, especially to adults. !t may satisfy their curiosity about (he new language as well as their need to be con­sciously aware of what they are learning. Formal exposure may also, for some, increase accuracy in a few simple structures of the new language while the subconscious system is being acquired.
2. The learner's role in communication. Communicative exchanges may be defined according to the manner m which-the learner participates in. them. In one-way communication, .the learner listens (or reads) but does not respond verbally. In restricted two-way communication, the learner listens and responds but the response is either non verbal or not in the target language. In full two-way communication, the learner responds in the target language. .
Studies conducted to date indicate that one-way and restricted two-way communication during the early part of second language acquisition have been found benefit learning significantly. Delaying oral practice or observing a “silent period” until learners are ready to speak in the new language are beneficial classroom practices. .
3. Availability of concrete referents—subjects and events that can be seen, heard, or felt while they are being talked about. Communication about the "here-and-now." ensures that the learner understands most of what is being said in the new language, and thereby becomes a critical aid to progress in acquiring new structures and vocabulary.
4. Target language models. The learner's choice of model significantly affects the quality of speech produced. Research studies indicate the following preferences: peers .over teachers, peers over parents, and members of one's own ethnic group over non-members.
















The second paper

The Universal Hypothesis

and Second Language Acquisition

by Group C Class E



Introduction

Number of possible determinants of second language acquisition SLA) have -now been considered—the learner's first language (LI), iput/interaction, and learner strategies. One possibility that has not so far been considered is that SLA is governed by properties of the two languages involved—the target and the native languages. The purpose of this discussion was provide the background to the study of interlanguages universals. The regularities of SLA re seen as the product of inductive procedures rather than of an independent language faculty. The purpose of this chapter is to explore what extent these regularities can be accounted for in terms of purely linguistic properties which influence how interlanguages can develop key concept in this chapter is that of linguistic universals. The study of linguistic universals has contributed to explanations of in two ways. First, it has been proposed that the linguistic properties of the target language vary in how difficult they are to acquire, according to whether they are universal or language-specific. That is, those properties of the target language which are common to many or all languages are easy to learn in comparison to those properties that are found in few languages, or only in the target language. This approach involves a consideration of just the target language. The second approach involves a comparison of the target and native languages. It has been suggested that the study of linguistic universals can help to overcome one of the major problems of the Contrastive Analysis hypothesis, namely that not all the linguistic differences between the native and target languages result in learning difficulty (see Chapter 2). Linguistic universals can be used to help predict which differences lead to difficulty and which ones do not. Thus, the study of linguistic universals has helped to revamp transfer theory.

Linguistic universals and L1 acquisition

The relationship between Universal Grammar and LI acquisition is, in fact, a necessary one, as Chomsky's primary justification for Universal Grammar that it provides the only way of accounting for how children are able to learn their mother tongue. It follows from this position that the earlier view of LI acquisition as a process of hypothesis testing (see Chapter 3) needs to be reconsidered. Cook (1985).discusses two interpretations of hypothesis testing. In the first, the child creates a hypothesis by means of inductive procedures and then amends this in the light of the feedback from the environment. Cook argues that this view of hypothesis testing is not tenable, because it would necessitate the child receiving negative as well as positive feedback, and this does not occur. The second interpretation is that the range of possible hypotheses is constrained by Universal Grammar. The child's task is to try out the options available to him and select the one that corresponds to the positive evidence provided by the environment.
Many of the claims made for language universals in LI acquisition will hold true across acquisition types. A useful starting point for considering the role of universals in SLA, therefore, is to list the various points that have been raised in this discussion of LI acquisition. These points are:
1 Grammar construction is constrained by the operation of Universal Grammar, which regulates the options the child has to choose from. That is, hypothesis formation is constrained by innate principles.
2 Regularities in the order of development can be explained only by considering both Universal Grammar and channel capacity. A distinction can be made between 'development' (actual progress) and 'acquisition' (the idealized learning that results from Universal Grammar).
3 Universal grammar may unfold as a maturational schedule, as suggested by Felix (1984), or it may be activated piecemeal in -• accordance with the data that the child perceives at different developmental .stages, as suggested by White (1981).
4 The child is likely to learn unmarked rules before marked rules; he constructs a core grammar before a peripheral grammar.
5 The child possesses a projective capacity. This enables one rule to trigger off other rules with which it is implicationally linked, and also enables rules to be acquired when no direct evidence for them has been supplied by the input.

Linguistic universal and SLA

The role of linguistic universals in SLA is more complicated than in LI acquisition. This is because SLA involves two languages—the target language and the learner's native language. Thus the L2 learner brings two types of linguistic knowledge to the task of SLA: his knowledge of linguistic universals, and the specific grammar of his LI. Furthermore, he must presumably 'know' which rules in his LI belong to the core and which to the periphery.

Linguistic universal in interlanguage development

The purpose of this section is to consider how and to what extent linguistic universals contribute to interlanguage development. It will begin by examining a number of theoretical questions, and then review a number of empirical studies.The first of the theoretical questions concerns the relationship between linguistic universals and channel capacity in SLA. It will be recalled that Chomsky argues that Universal Grammar interacts with other faculties responsible for channel capacity in LI acquisition. In SLA, however, it is not clear whether the learner is subject to the same maturational constraints as the child. All these studies show that language universals may influence how L2 grammars are formed. There is evidence to show that universals place constraints on interlanguage, that acquisition may follow the hierarchi­cal ordering of features, and that unmarked or less marked features are acquired before marked or more marked features. However, it would be premature to draw definite conclusions, both because of the paucity of available research and also because there are a number of theoretical problems (discussed in the final section of this chapter). In addition, it is probably too simplistic to expect a straightforward correlation between linguistic universals and SLA.

Linguistic universal and L1 transfer

Markedness theory provides a basis for solving some of the problems of the Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis (see Chapter 2). In particular it can help to explain why some differences between the native and the target language lead to learning difficulty, while other differences do not.Table 8.3 summarizes the various claims that are commonly made regarding the relationship between markedness theory and LI transfer (see Hyltenstam 1982b).6 The basic assumption is that unmarked settings of parameters will occur in interlanguage before marked settings, even if the L2 provides evidence of a marked setting (as in case 4). Thus it is predicted that no transfer will take place from native to target language when the LI has a marked setting (i.e. cases (3) and (4) in Table 8.3). The most obvious case of transfer is (2), where the native language shows an unmarked setting and the target language a marked one. It should be noted, however, that the presence of an unmarked setting in early interlanguage in such a case need not be the result of transfer, as the unmarked setting is predicted to occur in all four cases. In other words, the unmarked setting is the setting that might be expected to take place if the learner was following Universal Grammar.
Native language (L1) Target language (L2) Interlanguage
1.unmarked
2.unmarked
3.marked
4.marked

unmarked
marked
unmarked
marked

unmarked
unmarked
unmarked
unmarked

Table 8.3

Some problems with the universal hypothesis
So far ,however , the application of linguistic universals to SLA has been sparse. It is not possible, therefore, to take the Universal Hypothesis as proven. A number of arguments and some empirical evidence have been advanced in support of it. There are also a number of problems, to which I now turn.
1.Linguistic universals must be seen to have psycholinguistic validity if they are to be treated as a determinant of SLA. That is, it must be assumed that language universals are as they are because of the way the human mind works. It is this assumption that underlies Chomsky's concept of Universal Grammar as an innate faculty in the mind. The problem with an innateness explanation of linguistic universals is that it rules out alternative explanations which may be equally valid. In particular it rules out the kind of pragmatic explanation offered by Halliday (1978). Halliday sees linguistic universals as a manifestation of the types of use to which we put language, while language development (a term that Halliday, prefers to language acquisition) is the product of learning how to communi­cate in face-to-face interaction. In this view of linguistic universals, then, there is no need to treat them as innate. If anything is innate, it is the potential to communicate.
2. A problem related to (1) concerns the distinction between 'acquisition' and 'development'. There are two points to be made. First, it is not clear how the two can be separated, as there are no reliable means for deciding what aspects of language learning are constrained by the language faculty and what aspects are constrained by cognitive faculties. Second, there seems no obvious reason for preferring to look at 'acquisition' rather than 'development', at least as far as the developmental psycholinguist is concerned. If the aim is to describe and explain SLA, it is important to look at all the determinants in order to arrive at a comprehensive picture. To restrict investigation to linguistic universals will be equivalent to agreeing to provide only apart of the total picture.
3 Chomsky's theory of Universal Grammar relies on 'the poverty of the stimulus argument. To begin with, Chomsky argued that input was degenerate and therefore could not provide an adequate data basis for setting the parameters of a language. This claim has been shown to be empirically unfounded (see Chapter 6). More recently, therefore, Chomsky has argued that data-driven hypotheses cannot explain language acquisition, because of the absence of negative feedback. The learner would have no way of discovering that he had formed a wrong hypothesis. Thus, Chomsky argues that there must be constraints on what hypotheses can be formed, so as to prevent the learner forming hypotheses that would require negative feedback.
4 Kellerman (1984) refers to 'the cavalier attitude to markedness'. Various criteria have been used to explicate markedness—core vs. peripheral, typological frequency, complexity, simplicity, explicitness. It is perhaps not surprising that the same phenomena are classified as unmarked by one researcher and marked by another. For example White (1984) sees Pro-drop (a rule that specifies that the subject pronoun can be deleted from a sentence) as the marked form, while Hyams (1983) sees it as unmarked. There is also a danger of circularity: an unmarked parameter is one that is fixed early, while a parameter that is fixed early is unmarked. Until reliable and generally accepted means are found for establishing which of_ two or more \ forms are marked and unmarked or more or less marked, the whole \construct of markedness must be considered of doubtful value for empirical research.
5.The final problem is a methodological one. Chomsky is concerned with describing and explaining competence. SLA researchers are, more often than not, concerned with carrying out empirical research,which must necessarily involve them in examining performance.

These various criticisms do not invalidate the Universal Hypothesis. They suggest that at the moment its explanatory power may be limited, and they point to methodological difficulties in examining it empirically.

Summary and conclusion

The Universal Hypothesis states that there are linguistic universals which determine the course of SLA as follows:
1 Linguistic universals impose constraints on the form that interlanguages can take.
2 Learners find it easier to acquire patterns that conform to linguistic . universals than those that do not. The linguistic markedness of L2 rules explains the developmental route.
3 Where the LI manifests linguistic universals, it is likely to assist interlanguage development through transfer.
Linguistic universals have been investigated by the in-depth study of a single language. Those working in this tradition argue that there is a Universal Grammar that constrains the kind of hypotheses that the learner can form and that it is innate. An alternative approach to investigating linguistic universals is to study a large number of languages from different language families in order to discover typological universals.A number of possible explanations for universals are entertained by those working in this tradition, including pragmatic explanations.
In both LI and L2 acquisition the effect of linguistic "universals has been investigated primarily in terms of markedness theory. This states that some rules are unmarked or weakly marked and others marked or more strongly marked. Various criteria have been proposed for determining the markedness of a rule. Chomsky proposes' that an unmarked rule is one that requires no or minimal 'triggering' from the environment. A typological universal or a strong universal tendency can also be considered as unmarked. There is some evidence to suggest that language acquisition proceeds by mastering the easier unmarked properties before the more difficult marked ones. In SLA there is also some evidence to suggest that when the L2 rule is marked, the learner will turn to his LI, particularly if this has an equivalent unmarked rule. So far the evidence in support of the Universal Hypothesis is inconclusive. There are a number of theoretical and methodological problems. In particular, the Hypothesis tends to discount pragmatic explanations and ignores variability in interlanguage.

Makalah ESP oleh mahasiswa Universitas Muhammadiyah Gresik Semester 6 pagi Greoup 3 pagi

ESP PAPERS


LECTURER: AMRIN BATUBARA, M.A.


By group C morning class:
1. Dewi Aisyah (06.431.008)
2. Ridwab Priyanto (06.431.030)
3. Ahmad Akmal Rifqi (06.431.034)
4. Feni Hidayati (06.431.013)
5. Irma Dianita Sari (06.431.004)
6. Tri Handayani (06.431.037)
7. Indah Agustinah (06.431.024)
8. Eikzatus Syabachah (06.431.038)
9. Eva Rahayu (06.431.006)
10. Ria Rohmawati (06.431.014)
11. Iswatin Khasanah (06.431.010.)
12. Farida Fatmawati (06.431.046)
13. Nur Rahma Bayti (05.431.027)

Program Strata 1 (S1)
English Department
University of Muhammadiyah
April, 2009



Paper one

Fundamental Variables

The aim of this chapter is to set out the kind of basic information that should be available in the initial stages of course planning. This information relates both to the learner and to the context in which the teaching and learning take place. The relationship between these will be explored in more detail in analysis of learners’ needs, along with an examination of whether learner ‘need’ should (or can) take precedence over practical, situational ‘constraints’. Before doing this, however, we must enumerate and classify the key factors involved.

1. The Boundaries of information collection

Discuss of ‘variable’, i.e. of the multiplicity of factors influencing teaching and learning, is very common in educational planning, and useful lists of these factors may readily be found. It will be helpful to contextualize our own framework by making reference to one such list, draw up by Strevens (1979), which is both wide – ranging and representative.

Strevens’s paper is concerned with the teaching of English to non-native speakers of the language (ESL and EFL). He takes as his starting point the argument that the teacher needs to be highly adaptable as awareness of the breadth and complexity of pedagogical situations increases. He then categories the variables involved in course construction as follows.

a. Variable which are community-controlled

Including:
Cultural restrictions, for example on materials and teaching styles.
Organizational and physical limits and possibilities, for example class size, furniture, time factors, viabilities of book and equipment. (Some administrative variable, such as Ministry of Education control over finance and syllabus, could be added here.)
Teacher training standards.
Sociolinguistic attitudes and expectations, for example positive or negative attitudes to English, and the relationship with achievement.
Educational framework of TEFL, for example the age at which English learning begins and the role of English in the role of English in the educational system.

b. Variable which are teacher-controlled

Including:
Syllabus design, for example approaches, selection and organization of content, relationship to learner needs, view of language and learning.
Methodology, i.e. instructional techniques, for example balance of skills taught and organization of class.
Material evaluation and production.

c. Learner variable

Including: Reasons for Learning
Attitudes.
Expectation.
Age.
Proficiency.
Educational level.

It can readily be seen that Strevens is dealing here with all the steps in course construction, from initial information about resources and learner characteristics, through syllabus and materials design, to the management of classroom.

In this chapter it will be useful to make a distinction between variable types. We shall concern ourselves with initial or ‘advance’ factors, in other words, with those which should usually be available before pedagogical decisions (syllabus, materials, and methodology) need to be made. Mackay (1978b), in a short discussion of the phases of ESP curriculum development, makes a parallel distinction between the basic information – gathering phases and the production phases (as well as including an evaluation and revision phase). This initial information is of particular importance in the world of ESP.

An objection could be made, of course, that this two-way distinction is too simplistic. Although most situational factors, and indeed many of the characteristics of learners, are amenable to collection in advance, it can be argued that some variables are significant at a number of different stages, and so cannot neatly be packaged into either the ‘advance’ phase or the ‘production’ phase. For example, we may be given the information that a group of students falls into a particular age range: this will also affect the choice and sequencing of learning items. We may also be given timing requirement in advance which will have significance for the amount of material that can be covered. To pursue this further would go beyond the scope of this chapter, but it will be useful to bear it in mind later when course development is reviewed.

Three important qualifying remarks need to be made here. The first, which is fairly obvious from what has been said, is that our ‘advance’ variables are at a pre-language stage; the nature of linguistic data is a dependent decision, closely bound up with the production phase. It is increasingly unusual within ESP to find the analysis of a corpus of language the starting point for programmed planning, as we shall see in our discussion of approaches to ESP course design. The second is a convenience: the issue of learner ‘needs’ is such a complex one that it will be treated as if it were a single item for the moment and considered in more detail in the another chapter. Lastly, it is sometimes objected that the teacher has little if any control over the kind of factors that we are dealing with here. In ESP particular, this is becoming less the case, as we shall see in the ESP teacher chapter. Teachers are often in varying degrees administrators and decision-makes, not passive recipients of information, methods and materials, and even in those educational environments where there is a high degree of Imposed syllabus specification; the teacher’s active understanding of the multiple factors which affect the classroom should clearly be fostered. If the ‘typical’ ESP student is less of a captive audience than ‘traditional’ learner, then a more polymath teacher is also implied. The general point is well made by Strevens (1979): ‘Our profession become daily ... more complex, subtle, sophisticated. We as teacher must learn to adapt, chameleon like, to an ever greater array of variables, so that we can offer to our students not a single technique which may or may not be effective, but the best possible choice of teaching for the particular variables that operate in our own students’ individual circumstances.’ (p.11)

2. Selected case studies

It is time now to take a small but reasonably representative number of ESP teaching frameworks and enumerate some of the more significant ‘advance’ variables involved. Sometimes, of course, the information is given straight away, but on other occasions needs to be sought out: we are concerned with what is both explicit and implicit.

First of all, imagine yourself in this situation:

a) You have taught English for many years in the same university in Asia: you are a national of that country, and have the same mother-tongue as your students. You are required by the authorities to mount a new style course in ‘study skills’ for postgraduate students from a number of different disciplines.

Here is quick check-list of the advance information you would ideally like to have in order to plane the course more efficiently. It is not unlike a jigsaw puzzle: the more you know, the more clearly you are able to contextualize aims and objectives.

Check-list
Number of participants.
Number of weeks/months.
Number of hours per week.
Students’ culture and educational background(s).
Institution’s (or sponsor’s financial stipulations.
Student’s proficiency/ies in English.
Context of English course (for example whether prior or parallel to specialized study).
Institution’s resource (for example, people, equipment).
Age of learners.
Any given course requirements.
Any reasonable hypothesis based on past experience (for example, motivation likely).

In the interests of a standardized view point, bear this random check-list in mind as you envisage yourself in the following types of ESP employment. Ask yourself whether the check-list is potentially valid, and what is left out.

b) You are employed to teach EFL in the Language Center of a British university. You are approached by the Education Section of a foreign embassy in London and are requested to mount an English Language course for a small group of practicing scientists and technologist.

c) You teach in a private language school, and have been asked to take responsibility for a new course in ‘Business English’ being set up by the school.

d) You take up a new post as English Instructor in a Technological Institute, having previously worked in a traditional English department in the same country. You will be required to produce appropriate materials, and to liaise with similar institutes on a regular basis.

e) You have been appointed by the British Council to administer the setting up of a general ESP course in South East Asia that would be appropriate to a number of institutions of higher education. You will be based in one center, but will need to travel quite a lot.

f) A Japanese firm wants to send one of its top executives for intensive language tuition. You are Co-Director of Studies in a language school which has facilities for offering specialized courses for groups, as well as tuition on a one to one basis.

We have now covered enough to be able to make a basic observation before trying to categories some of the factors mentioned. The observation is simply this: if we go back to our check-list, and apply it to the rather disparate situations are effected by specific conditions only. Furthermore, it is arguable that most items are relevant across the whole spectrum.

3. Categories of Basic Data

The informal check-list proposed for some typical ESP teaching frameworks contains useful questions but was not really ordered in any principled way. We must now move one stage further, and attempt to group the information in some tidier and more useable forma. Later in this chapter we shall examine a second parameter pattern of responsibility-in relation to types of variable.

a. Data classification

A number of different procedure are possible for categorizing the initial information to be collected. The procedure chosen will depend on given priorities, the time available and the degree of familiarity with certain types of problems and teaching situations. For example, a simple but workable set of questions may give you all the information you need. However, there may be the time, interest and expertise on hand to devise a complex procedural ‘model’, a set of systematic and explicit rules to be worked through step by step, with some theoretical validity. The diversity of approaches is evident from the increasing number of reports in the literature of ESP, and some small flavour of this range is given later. However, to begin with, here is a convenient two-way division:

CONTEXT and LEARNER

The items on the check-list can be separated under these headings. With a number of others added for a more complete profile:

CONTEXT
LEARNER

‘Fixed’ (e.g. government) requirements
Time available hours per week, weeks/months
Institutional resources

For example space, technical, hardware, secretarial
The teacher availability, training, mother-tongue
Financial resources
Group size
‘Given’ course requirements
Setting native speaker, EFL/ESL overseas
Proficiency in English
Cultural background
Educational background
Age
Sex
Present post/status
Academic level
Mother-tongue
Needs
Aptitude
Motivation *
Attitudes

* This, of course, means making predictions rather than collecting ‘facts’. The feasibility of doing this will depend on the teacher’s experience with certain types of learners and prior knowledge of the teaching situation.

(Note As far as the learner is concerned, there are several useful lists of individual differences, for example Altman (1980), in the context of individualizing foreign language instruction; S.McDonough (1981), in a psychological context; and Wilkins (1972), in a directly pedagogical context.)

It must again be stressed that no claim is being made in this chapter that one set of ‘facts’ should be collected before another. Having said this, however, it is held here that there is a productive relation both between and within categories, and they are not to be seen as necessarily in the discussion of the analysis of needs in the next chapter

Two of the simple ESP situations examined under the headings suggested above could yield the following profiles.

Situation (a)

Context
‘Fixed’ requirements none except as detailed below.
Time available there hours per week over two semesters.
Institutional resources two classroom; cassette recorders; no language laboratories.
Teachers trained; non native speakers.
Financial resources limited.
Group size 500.
‘Given’ course requirements study skills.
Setting EFL (e.g.Asia).
Learner
Proficiency varied.
Cultural background homogeneous
Educational background academic.
Age 21-30
Sex both
Present position postgraduate students.
Aptitude varied.
Motivation initially low. Mainly because further language study has up until
Attitudes predominantly negative. now been felt to be irrelevant

Situation (b)

Context
‘Fixed’ requirements as detailed below.
Time available twenty-five hours per week for four weeks.
Institutional resources full range of radio and visual facilities.
Teachers trained; native speakers.
Financial resources fairly limited.
Group size ten to fourteen.
‘Given’ course requirements spoken English to have special emphasis.
Setting native speakers environment.

Learner
Proficiency varied.
Cultural background China.
Educational background university graduate.
Age 30-45
Sex male.
Present position engineers.
Aptitude probably varied.
Motivation probably high (because the opportunity for overseas study is very limited).
Attitudes largely unknown.

What we have, then, in terms of data required, are variations in emphasis, where the relative significance of factors might vary according to context. What we do not seem to have are totally different information and questions.

Here is an example of a more complex approach to the question of data collection. The approach in question is set out in An Analytic Approach to Language Program Design (Bechman and Strick, 1981)and show the issue of variable in ESP course design can be developed, given time and inclination. The purpose of the paper is to point up directions for research, and to construct a theoretical model, in the authors’ words, ‘by which the language program designer can directly related learning objectives to resource need in a way which will enable him to determine what objectives are reasonable, given certain resources, or what resources are required by a given objectiveset.’(p.46)

We are presented with a set of ‘operating’ procedures for mapping variable onto each other. For example, resources factors are grouped under the three main headings of Physical (P), Human (H), and Cost (C), and are then incorporated into an initial equation which defines the ‘Implement ability Function’: I=P+H+C. This is simply to say that a range of variables under these broad headings must be taken into account when deciding what kind of program can realistically be run. Each of the main factors is then further specified, for example ‘Physical factors’ include Space (S), Materials (M1), Method (M2), Equipment (E), Laboratory (L), and Time (T), and are hen yet again further divided into onto-factors. For instance, ‘Space’ includes classroom space and study space; ‘Equipment’ clearly implies audio-visual aids, furniture, office equipment and so on ‘Human factors are likewise broken down and refined, and consist, among factors, or teachers, learners, and administrators.

After factors have been identified, they are then weighted in relation to each other, using sets of questions. The following comment is made on weighting: ‘This process will necessarily be subjective, but should reflect the judgment of both designer and the client as they in collaborate in assessing and resource and weighting will also reflect a particular program perspective, whether in be that of the ‘ideal’ program, the desired program, or the minimum acceptable program. Whatever perspective is adopted, either explicitly, is should be followed in weighting every factor.’(Bachman and Strick, in Mackay and Palmer, 1981 p.52) So, for example, the Physical factors might appear as follows in a given situation.
P= 5S+8M1+10M2+1E+3L+8T
Which is an algebraic way of saying that Method is most important for the particular program in question, followed by Time and Materials, then Space then Laboratories, then Equipment, in that order.

The authors claim that the model can be used both to plan new programmers and to re-design existing ones with a great deal of precision, and they conclude with a case study based on the development of a course in ESL at a Middle-Eastern technological university.

There is no space here to go into the model in more detail. The important point is that is has the potential to be applied across a whole range of situations.

b. Patterns of responsibility

Before we try to summaries some of the trends discernible in ESP as far as initial factors are concerned, we must look at the issue of responsibility for decision-making, and reflect a little on how it relates to these to these factors. In a context as diverse and international as that of ESP, there can be no definite rules whereby one person or institution cab be said to be responsible for a fixed set of factors. Just as there are shifting patterns of emphasis in our list of variables when applied to concrete situations, so we are bound to find a parallel diversification in charting ‘who’ is answerable for ‘what’. However, it is possible to find a pattern.

If we glance back at the sample ESP situations earlier in this chapter and ask ourselves ‘Who takes the decisions?’, we come up with list like the following:

1. Learner
2. Course Designer/(often) Teacher
3. Sponsoring BodiesGovernment of Government Agency
4. Business Organization
5. Intermediary (between Institution and Sponsor)
6. Teaching Institution

The kinds of influence that the decision-makers are called upon to exert vary from one stage of course design to the next. The Strevens tabulation is the example, indicates teacher influence as operating first at the stage of syllabus and materials design. In the context of initial variable, insofar as they are not completely fixed, it is possible to show that every decision-maker potentially has some say, depending on the specific situation under consideration.

One example will suffice to illustrate this point. Situation (c) in the list of different type of ESP hypothesized a typical course required of a language school. The column on the left in the following diagram shows decision-makers, the column on the right some of the context-related variables, and the arrows indicate possible patterns of influence:

Learner
Financial resources
Designer/Teacher
Time availability
Sponsoring Body
Teacher training possibilities
Intermediary
Space availability
Institution
Resource availability

Auxiliary help

Even in contexts where the classroom teacher’s influence is only marginal at this stage, (s) he is much more likely to understand his/her own role fully if it is realized that such patterns are operating.

A similar cross-referencing between decision-makers and decision areas has been carried out by Jones and Mountford (1979). They make the following point, which quoting here, concerning ‘the complexity of the interaction between decision makers in decision areas. It asserts that each decision area is an arena in which all participants can bid for control. Bids can of course be negative: students can change programs through apathy or indiscipline, clients through ignoring requests for resources.’ (p.136)

4. Summary of Major trends

This should not be seen as an attempt to force great diversity into streamlined statements with neat labels: no one writer can have such a global overview. However, it is possible to distinguish certain configurations of variable in ESP programmes which for quite practical and contextual-indeed international-reasons, tend to occur more frequently than others.

It will be convenient to use the two broad groupings already adopted: Learners and Contexts. The third group, Patterns of Responsibility, has been dealt with sufficiently. The obvious but important observation to be made is that Learners and Contexts are independent, and certain types of learner are much more likely to be found in certain types of setting.

a. Learners

The question of ways in which learners ‘typically’ react to or process the contents of teaching programmers is one which can only be considered after we have discussed methodology and materials. We must remember that we are concerned here with selected advance variables, as listed on pages 2 & 3, not yet with ‘needs’.

The majority of learners who are studying English purely for its own sake but in order to use it for a special purpose are adults, from ‘young adult’ onwards, since it is only by that age that they have developed a specialize or job/preference.

As far as this job/preference is concerned, we can observe rather superficially that learners are likely to be either in some sense ‘in training’, or have completed their training to a professional level. The ‘in training’, or have completed their training to a professional level. The ‘in-training’ learners are found in both academic and job setting. The former may be undergraduate or postgraduate, with a distinct but by no means exclusive tendency to be studying in an area of science or technology or, to a somewhat lesser extent, in the social sciences. It is true to say that UK-based course for academics tend to deal rather less with undergraduates than do similar courses overseas. Learners overseas are frequently engaged in an aspect of technical training (for example, laboratory technicians, oil-ring personnel, industrial machine operators). Professional, or ‘post-training’, learners are very diverse in terms of the field in which they work, though typical groupings would include business/management personnel and medical practitioners of various kinds, as well as the kinds of technical job categories mentioned above. Thus, in term of the stages in course planning, we are intentionally at a relatively ‘surface’ level of observable data. Many published textbooks appear to equate ESP simply with a particular subject are and should be regarded with caution for this reason.

Cultural background is obviously related to the learner’s mother tongue and to his/her educational background, and is somewhat controversial, since it can all too readily lead to sweeping generalizations about educational expectations and patterns of learning. Nevertheless, as long as the observer proceeds with caution, it is clear that small-scale, sensitive studies can be carried out. The British Council publication Study modes and Academic Development of Overseas Students (1980), which contains papers given at a SELMOUS Conference in 1979, is a case in point. (SELMOUS is an organization of teachers of English to overseas students in higher education in Britain.)

It is difficult to discuss learners’ mother tongues out of context. Obviously, very large-scale statistical studies of learners’ native languages are an extremely difficult and speculative undertaking, particularly in an area as wide-ranging as ESP, and the value of such studies-were it indeed possible to carry them out-is therefore doubtful. We might reasonably suppose that a large number of learners will be drawn from so-called developing countries, where a rapid increasing in technological know-how is required. On a smaller scale, there have been a number of ‘counts’, usually context-bound, which can help throw useful and more realistic light on limited areas. (One such study is reported by Jordan (1977), where the number of post graduates following English courses in selected British universities was plotted.)

Learner proficiency is an advance variable, but also has considerable impact later on, at the stage of design and implementation. It has been isolated here primarily because; along with ‘ESP’ subject area’. It tends to take pride of place with textbook writers when they state the level at which their material is pitched. It is true to say that most instruction is designed for the ‘typical learner’, with some knowledge of his/her subject and a loosely ‘intermediate’ proficiency in English gained most often through a traditional syllabus in a fairly standard educational setting. Particularly with the advent of more ‘communicative’-style materials, the advanced learner became the focus of attention, on the assumption that structural fluency would readily lend itslf to re-orientation of teaching content. At the other end of the scale, practitioners are beginning to look more closely at the implications for pedagogy with ‘the beginner’ as the datum level. Beyond these levels, of course is, is the very common situation in ESP of the mixed proficiency group, for example in study skills courses in Britain. Quite often, in countries where some form of English language teaching is a requirement and teaching operations are on a large scale, placement according to level is a possibility. However, in situations with learners of mixed proficiency and varying specializes, solutions are less easily found. We shall take up the whole question again much later, when discussing how typical ESP groups can be ‘structured’ in the classroom itself.

The final factor for consideration here is motivation. Strictly, of course, it is not a simple advance variable at all, but is included here because practitioners tend to assume that ESP is likely to go hand in hand with certain patterns of motivation, and there is obviously a danger that some such assumptions may be unwarranted. Note that we are here dealing with the early stage of ‘motivation to engage in a programme per se’. Comments on different types of material and modes of study, for example, will need to be made at later stages in this paper.

Teachers could be forgiven for supposing that ‘ESP learners’, i.e. those who require some aspect of English language knowledge or proficiency to further their jobs or careers, are positively oriented to their language programme and clear about their own aims in engaging in it. For a great number of learners this state of affairs must be true, though Sinclair’s (1981) comment that this kind of motivation ‘is more of a general prompter than something which carries the student forward day by day’ (p. 148) serves as a cautionary reminder. A more accurate picture is a spectrum, ranging from very high operational motivation (which could be motivation to learn English as such, or to improve job prospects via English) to acceptance, but with rather less enthusiasm; through to strong resistance to learning English at all. It is difficult to categories whole groups of learners in this way, but we might observe that some tertiary level students, who have come to Britain to study their own specialism, actively resents studying overseas object to English as an examination requirement. The manager on a ‘crash course’, on the other hand, may view every new learning step as immediately useful to him in his aim of opening up new markets.

With all these ‘learner variables’, we can as yet only see the tip of the iceberg, and the intention of this chapter has been to do no more than that. We shall later be able to pick them up again at different stages in programme planning, and where relevant, show what effect they have.

b. Context

Here again, it is necessary to be selective. We could, of course, simply divide contexts into ‘wealthy’, ‘intermediate’ and ‘poor’, and list typical combinations of factors for each. However, a few separate variables will be taken in sequence. It will, anyway, be obvious to most readers where the relevant variables fit on the wealth to poverty scale!

c. Setting

Setting here refers to the institutional environments in which language learning is to take place, whether in an English-speaking environment or overseas where English is a second or foreign language. Such environments might be broken down as follows:

1. Specific language learning environment
Academic-based language centers
Language schools
Language training centers
2. Separate but ‘on site’
Some academic courses
Firm with language provision
3. Integral on-site learning

It should immediately be obvious that different types of learner enumerated under the heading of ‘Present post/status’ are likely to be found in certain types of setting. Academic training is largely self-evident. Language training for highly specific jobs might well be found in the actual work environment, with the trainee both language and trade ‘on site’.

d. Time

It is a little strange to find time treated both explicitly and implicitly as a common denominator in ESP programmes by a number of writer. Although it can hardly be given the status of a major defining feature, there is a grain of truth in the contention that it-or, more precisely, its relative scarcity-may have some significance.

The predominant view of ‘time’, as a major variable in ESP contexts is bound up with the nation of short, intensive course, where time is at a premium, and where programmes must optimally be tailored to fit into a limited number of months or weeks. We might think, for instance of the busy executive who hopes to attain a set of well-defined linguistic skills in a short space of time; or of the beginning postgraduate who can only spare the four to eight weeks of an intensive pre-sessional course before embarking on his chosen scheme of study; or of the newly-arrived non-native speaker factory worker whose firm is prepared to allow a short initial period of language training. The list is endless, and organization of the language item, job or study skills topic and settings, and all the paraphernalia of course design, will have to be adjusted to suit the time factor.

We must also glace at ‘time’ from a slightly perspective. It is often the case that learners have only limited time to spare, that they can spare it over a longer period, i.e. they are available to attend some kind of instruction over a period of a year, maybe even longer, but attendance is limited to, say, two four hours a week. In many countries, this is frequently the situation in universities and colleges, where there is sometimes a graded language requirement for most years of study. We are, incidentally, ignoring for present purpose the type of course which is both intensive and of relatively long duration, because although decisions as to course structure and methodology will have to be equally principled, time is not a major restrictive factor.

Institutional and financial resources
Let us take the separate but related questions of budgetary provision and institutional resources together. On the whole this is not the kind of information that is difficult to come by in advance, even if teachers are unable to have much influence. Most pactitioners, for example, have some familiarity at least by hearsay of the kind of ‘prestige’ programme (for example the British Council’s programme at the King Abdul Aziz University in Jeddah or some in company language training) where a full range of resources is available: audio equipment, video recorders, closed circuit television and so on. At the other and of the scale it is not difficult to imagine cases where there are not enough resources to meet even modest demand. A rather harassing pedagogical situation occurred when some kind of group work was felt to be methodologically appropriate and teacher and learners were in the right place at the right time. However, the crucial role descriptions did not turn up because the photocopier broke down as a result of a power cut. The group’s makeshift arrangements came to nothing because the classroom was plunged into total darkness. This ridiculous (but true) incident is not trivial, because such variables have far-reaching pedagogical implications. Most teachers work somewhere in the middle of the scale, with adequate resources which work most of the time, and are unlikely to be called upon to operate at the extremes of their ingenuity.

Enough general points have been made about ‘contexts’. One other ‘resource’, the teacher, has chapter “The ESP teacher” to itself.

5. Relationship between variables

The intention of this chapter has simply been to engage, in an operation at the surface, to attempt to set up a taxonomy which might be useful for checking off the presence or absence of certain factors such questions as the weighting of variable and their possible ordering in a hierarchy of importance went into further detail.

However useful such an exercise is in practical terms, it could be objected that the taxonomy gives little more than a number of static reference points. This is a fair objection, particularly if teaching and learning are seen as an integrated and dynamic process. Such a point of view should give rise to two main types of inter-relation in course planning. On the one hand, it should operate on the ‘macro’ level of the whole programme. On the other hand, it should also operate on the ‘micro’ level of individual stages in course planning, and thus on the analysis of variables in this chapter. (The evaluation of teaching materials will be another example used). We have already stated or implied patterns of interaction between such variables as:

with time available

with institutional resources
Learners’ ages
with setting

with ‘given’ requirements

with numbers

with motivation

And so on. The permutations are infinite, and the balances are often delicate.

A curriculum specialist (Coombs, 1971), writing on education in relation to the notion of systems analysis, criticizes the view of education which deals with items like parts of a laundry list, and writes instead ‘An educational system, as a system, obviously differs greatly from the human body-or from a department store-in what it does, how it does it, and the reasons why. Yet in common with all other productive undertakings, it has a set of inputs, which are subject to a process, designed to attain certain outputs, which are organic whole. And if one is to assess the health of an educational system in order to improve its performance and to plan its future intelligently, the relationship between its critical components must be examined in a unified vision,’ (p.129)

Our initial variable will appear in different will appear in different contexts at different stages. The next chapter turns to the ‘ideal’ learner, and the analysis of his/her needs.


REFERENCES

Altman, H.B (1980) ‘ Foreign Language Teaching: focus on the learner’ In Altman and James (eds.) (q.v) pp. 1-16
Altman, H.B. and James, C.V. (eds.) (1980) Foreign Language Teaching: meeting individual needs Pergamon
Bachman, L.F. and Strick, G.J. (1981) ‘An analytic approach to language program design.’ In Mackay and Palmer (eds.) (q.v.) pp. 45-63
Coombs, P. (1971) ‘Systems analysis: a framework for diagnosis and strategy’ In Hooper, R. (ed.) The Curriculum: Context, Design and Development Oliver and Boyd, in association with the open University Press 1971
Jones, K. and Mountford, A. (1979) ‘Some dimensions in the design of service English programmes’ In Ziahosseiny and Mountford (eds.) (q.v.) pp. 132-175
Jordan, R.R. (1977) ‘Identification of Problem and needs: a student profile’ In Cowie and Heaton (eds.) (q.v.) pp.12-20
Jordan, R.R. (1980) Academic Writing Course Collins ELT.
Mackay, R. (1978b) ‘Practical curriculum development and evaluation in E.S.P./E.S.T.’ In English for Science and Technology Newletter. Oregon State University, November 1978
McDonough, S.H. (1981) Psychology in Foreign Language Teaching Allen and Unwin
McDonough, S.H. (1984) ESP in Perspective A Practical Guide (eds.) (q.v.) pp.14-28
Palmer, J.D. (1981) ‘Discourse Analysis’ In Mackay and Palmer (eds.) (q.v.) pp. 74-91
Sinclair’s, J.M. (1981) ‘Report of Working Party C: a comparison of the various methodologies and materials involved in the teaching of English as a Foreign Language, Modern Languages, and the mother tongue, and an examination of their relevance to each other’. In Davidson (eds.) (q.v.) pp. 142-158
Streves, P. (1979) ‘Differences in teaching for different circumstances, or the teacher as chameleon’ In Yorio, C.A., Perkins, K. and Schachter, J. On T.E.S.O.L.’79: The Learner in Focus Teacher of English to Speakers of other Language, Washington D.C. 1979, pp. 2-11
Study Modes and Academic Development of Overseas Students 1980
Wilkins, D.A. (1972) Linguistics in Language teaching Edward Arnold


Questions:

1. What are fundamental variables?
2. How many kinds of classifications of the key factors involved in fundamental variables?
Please mention!


Key Answers:

Fundamental Variables are:
¡ Set out the kind of basic information that should be available in the initial stages of course planning.
¡ This information relates both to the learner and to the context in which the teaching and learning take place.
¡ The relationship between these will be explored in more detail in analysis of learners’ needs, along with an examination of whether learner ‘need’ should (or can) take precedence over practical, situational ‘constraints’.

The classify the key factors involved of fundamental variables consist of 5 kind, there are:
1. The Boundaries of information collection
2. Selected case studies
3. Categories of Basic Data
4. Summary of Major trends
5. Relationship between variables

Paper

SECOND LANGUAGE ACQUISITION:

Interlanguage and The ‘Natural’ Route of Development

by : Group A Class E
Alim ( 05.62. )
Priawan R ( 04.62.0066 )
Titin I ( 04.62.0079 )
Erna S ( 04.62.0036 )
Novita ( 03.62.0000 )


Introduction

Language acquisition, the process of learning a native or a second language. Second language learners (L2) acquire a knowledge of a language of a second language in a fixed order as a result of a predisposition to process language data in highly specific ways. These claims stand in stark contrast to behaviourist accounts of second language acquisition (SLA), which emphasized the importance of environmental factors and first language (L1) interference. Where language acquisition was concerned, the key concept in the revised thinking about the process of learning was that of interlanguage. This was used to refer to the systematic knowledge of language which is independent of both the learners L1 and the L2 system he is trying to learn. Interlanguage was the theoretical construct which underlay the attempts of SLA is to identify the stages of development through which L2 learners pass on their way to L2 proficiency.
Language acquisition followed a ‘universal’ route that was largely uninfluenced by such factors as the age of the learner, the context in which learning took place, or the learner’s L1 background. According to this view of language acquisition, the controlling factor was the faculty for language that all human beings possess and which was also responsible for L1 acquisition. Inevitably the question arose as to what extent the order of development in language acquisition paralleled that in L1 acquisition. The validity of the L2 similar to L1 hypothesis has been a recurrent issue in language acquisition. However, although learner internal factors are powerful determinants of language acquisition, the conviction that they are capable of accounting for the entire process, which in some circles at least has been suggested, is not warranted.
To begin with, this paper will briefly consider the background theory in first language acquisition. It will then examine the notion of interlanguage, before reviewing in some detail the research upon which claims about a natural route of development have rested. Finally, a number of caveats regarding the centrality of learner internal processes in accounts of language acquisition will considered.

Mentalist Accounts of First language acquisition

Chomsky’s ( 1959 ) attack on Skinner’s theory of language learning led to reassertion of mentalist views of first language acquisition in place of the empiricist approach of behaviourists. He stressed the active contribution of the child and minimized the importance of imitation and reinforcement. He claim that the child’s knowledge of his mother tongue was derived from a Universal Grammar which specified the essential form that any natural language could take. As McNeill ( 1970: 2 ) put it:
The facts of language acquisition could not be as they are unless the concept of a sentence is available to children at the start of their learning. The concept of a sentence is the main guiding principle in a child’s attempt to organize and interpret the linguistic evidence that fluent speakers make available to him.


Lenneberg (1967) emphasized the biological prerequisites of language. Only homo sapiens was capable of learning language. Thus, whereas even severely retarded human beings were able to develop the rudiments of language, even the most socially and intellectually advanced of the primates, chimpanzees, were incapable of mastering the creativity of language. Lenneberg argued that the child’s brain was specially adapted to the process of language acquisition, but that this innate propensity was lost as maturation took place. His work provided empirical and theoretical support for the concept of a built in capacity for language as part of every human being’s biological endowment.
One further feature of mentalist accounts of language acquisition mentioning, the child built up his knowledge of his mother tongue by means of hypothesis testing.

In summary, therefore, mentalist views of L1 acquisition posited the following:
Language is a human specific faculty.
Language exists as an independent faculty in the human mind. For instance although it is part of the learner’s total cognitive apparatus, it is separate from the general cognitive mechanisms responsible for intellectual development.
The primary determinant of L1 acquisition is the child’s acquisition device, which is genetically endowed and provides the child with a set of principles about grammar.
The ‘acquisition device’ atrophies with age.
The process of acquisition consist of hypothesis-testing, by which means the grammar of the learner’s mother tongue is related to the principles of the ‘universal grammar’.

The incremental nature of L1 acquisition is evident in two ways. First, the length of children’s utterances gradually increases. Initially the utterances consist of one word. Later two words, then three and four word utterances follow. Second, knowledge of the grammatical system is built up in steps. Tense or the auxiliary ‘do’ are not acquired at the same time, but in sequence. Similarly, complex grammatical system such as negatives or interrogatives are learnt slowly in piecemeal fashion and involve rules quite unlike those in the target language.
According to mentalist accounts of L1 acquisition, language acquisition is a universal process. The term process, which is common in acquisitional studies, is used with two related meanings. It refers both to the sequence of development and to the factors that determine how acquisition takes place. The mentalist claim that the processes are internal and operate largely independently of environmental influences is no longer entirely defensible, as we shall see. First, however, it is necessary to consider the impact that mentalist theories and empirical research had on accounts of language acquisition.

Interlanguage

The concept of interlanguage to its background in mentalist views on language acquisition and then to show how early interlanguage theory provided an impetus for empirical research into both the nature of L2 errors and the sequence of development in language acquisition. The term interlanguage was first used by Selinker (1972). Various alternative terms have been used by different researchers to refer to the same phenomenon; Nemser (1971) refers to approximative systems, and Corder (1971) to idiosyncratic dialects and transitional competence.
The assumptions underlying interlanguage theory were stated clearly by Nemser (1971). They were: (1) at any given time the approximative system is distinct from the L1 and L2; (2) the approximative system form an envolving series; and (3) that in a given contact situation, the approximative systems of learners at the same stage of proficiency roughly coincide. Meanwhile, Corder (1967) made this comparison explicit by proposing that at least some of the strategies used by the L2 learner were the same as those by which L1 acquisition takes place. In particular, he suggested that both L1 and L2 learners make errors in order to test out certain hypothesis about the nature of the language they are learning. He saw the making of errors as a strategy, evidence of learner internal processing. This view of the language acquisition presented in the contrastive analysis hypothesis. Hypothesis testing was a mentalist notion and had no place in behaviourist accounts of learning.
Selinker (1972) suggested that five principal processes operated in interlanguage these were:
(1).language transfer (this was listed first, perhaps in deference to the contemporary importance attached to L1 interface);(2)overgeneralization of target language rules;(3)transfer of training(i.e. a rule enters the learner’s system as a result of instruction ); (4) strategis of L2 learning (I.e.’an identifiable approach by the learner to the material be learned(1972:37),and (5)strategies of L2 communication (i.e.’an identifiable approached by the learner to communicanition with native speakers’(1972:37)
The five processes together constitute the ways in which the learner tries to reduce the learning burden to manageable proportions and, as such, it has been suggested by Widdowson (1975b) that they can be subsumed under the general process of ‘simplification’. Learners have limited processing space and, therefore, cannot cope with the total complexity of a language system, so they limit the number of hypotheses they test at any one point in time.
Selinker also noted that many L2 learners (perhaps as many as 95 percent) fail to reach target language competence. That is, they do not reach the end of interlanguage continuum. They stop learning when their interlanguage contains at least some rules different from those of the target language system. He referred to this as fossilization. It occurs in most language learners and cannot be remedied by further instruction. Fossilized structures can be realized as errors or as correct target language forms. If, when fossilization occurs, the learner has reached a stage of development in which feature x in his interlanguage has assumed the same form will occur. If, however, the learner has reached a stage in which feature y still does not have the same form as the target language, the fossilization will manifest itself as error. On occasions, the learner may succeed in producing the correct target language form, but when the learner is focused on meaning especially if the subject matter is difficult he will ‘backslide’ towards his true interlanguage norm. Selinker and Lamendella (1978a) argue that the causes of fossilization are both internal and external. It can occur both because the learner believes that he does not need to develop his interlanguage any further in order to communicate effectively whatever he wants to, or it can occur because changes in the neural structure of his brain as a result of age restrict the operation of the hypothesis testing mechanisms. In one respect, however, mentalist theorizing cannot be easily carried over into language acquisition research. According to Chomsky and others, the true determinant of L1 acquisition was the child’s ‘acquisition device’, but this changed with age such that automatic, genetically-endowed language acquisition was not possible after puberty.
Selinker’s 1972 paper was seminal. It provided the theoretical framework for interpreting language acquisition as a mentalistic process and for the empirical investigation of language learner language. Subsequent discussions of interlanguage focused on its three principal features, all of which were raised by Selinker in one way or another. The following are the essential characteristics of language learner;
Language-learner language is permeable
In the sense that rules that constitute the learner’s knowledge at any one stage are not fixed, but are open to amendment.

Language-learner language is dynamic

The L2 learner’s interlanguage is constantly changing. However, he does not jump from one stage to the next, but rather slowly revises the interim system to accommodate new hypotheses about the target language system. This takes place by the introduction of a new rule, first in one context and then in another, and so on. A new rule spreads in the sense that its coverage gradually extends over a range of linguistic contexts.


Despite the variability of interlanguage, it is possible to detect the rule based nature of the learner’s use of the L2. For the L2 learner, however, the true norms are contained in the interlanguage system he has constructed. Interlanguage theory was based on ‘behavioural events’. Early interlanguage theory, then, was closely associated with Error Analysis. As this served as one of the main devices for examining the processes of interlanguage, the principles and methodology of Error Analysis will be considered briefly.

Language-learner language is systematic

Interlanguage was based on ‘behavioural events’. As Selinker acknowledged, the behavioural events that have aroused the greatest interest in discussion of SLA have been ‘errors’. Early interlanguage theory, then, was closely associated with error analysis. As this served as one of the main devices for examining the processes of interlanguage, the principle and methodology of error analysis will be considered briefly.

Error Analysis

Error Analysis provides two kinds of information about interlanguage. The first which is relevant to the first of the two questions posed above concerns the linguistic type of errors produced by L2 learners. Error Analysis provides a synchronic description of learner errors, but this can be misleading. The second type of information which is relevant to the question about the strategies used in interlanguage concerns the psycholinguistic type of errors produced by L2 learners.
The most significant contribution of Error Analysis, apart from the role it played in the reassessment of the Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis, lies in its success in elevating the status of errors from undesirability to that of a guide to the inner workings of the language learning process. As a result of interlanguage theory and the evidence accumulated from Error Analysis, errors were no longer seen as ‘unwanted forms’ (George,1972), but as evidence of the learner’s active contribution to second language acquisition.

Origins of Interlanguage

The starting point of interlanguage becomes a major issue when second language acquisition is seen as a recreation continuum rather than a restructuring continuum. If the learner builds up his interlanguage by gradually increasing the complexity of the system, what is his starting point? Corder (1981) considers two possibilities. One is that the learner starts from scratch in the same way as the infant acquiring his mother tongue. But Corder considers this possibility unlikely, as it is highly implausible that entire processes of language acquisition will be replicated. The second possibility is that the learner starts from ‘some basic simple grammar’ (Corder,1981:150). Corder suggests that language learners regress to an earlier stage in their own linguistic development before starting the process of elaboration. In other words, the starting points is the learner’s knowledge of how to get a message across without the help of grammar.
This part of any language user’s capacity and can be called upon whenever there is a need to create ‘simple’ messages. The same process is evident in the speech that mothers address to children, and that native speakers address to L2 learners to facilitate communication. In general, however, the question of the origins of interlanguage is still an open one, subject to speculation. There have been very few empirical studies of the initial stage of the interlanguage continuum.

Variabilty in Interlanguage

The natural route does not manifest itself in a series of clearly delineated stages. Rather each stage overlaps with the one that precedes and follows it. Each new rule is slowly extended over a range of linguistic contexts. Therefore, at any given stage of development, the learner’s interlanguage system will contain a number of competing rules, with one rule guiding performance on one occasion and another rule on a different occasion. In addition, each interlanguage system contains linguistic forms that are in free variation; that is, forms that are not guided by rules and whose use is not systematic at all. These types of variability pose both practical and theoretical problems for second language acquisition research. The practical problems concerns concern how to collect data in order to study language learner language. If the learner’s performance varies from one task to another, how can the researcher evaluate the particular data he has collected? The theoretical problems concern how to reconcile the inherent variability of the learner’s performance with claims that interlanguage is systematic, and how to account for non systematic variability. Not all non-sytematic variability, however, involves free variation. Psycholinguistic factors to do with the learner’s emotional or physical condition can lead to slips, hesitations, and repetitions. This type of variability can be called performance variability.
Variability is, of course, not only a characteristic of language learner language. It occurs in language use. Before we turn to variability in interlanguage, therefore, the general nature of variability in interlanguage, therefore, the general nature of variability in language use will be considered.
It is possible to identify two basic types of variability: systematic and non-systematic variability. Each of these will be described separately.

Systematic Variabilty

The status of the variability in the language use of native speakers has been viewed very differently by linguist, depending on whether they approach it in terms of a homogeneous competence model or a heterogeneous competence model. In a homogeneous competence model all variability is classified as non-systematic variability. That is, the language user is credited with a system of rules (his ‘competence’) which is homogeneous. In this competence model, linguistic knowledge is separated from non linguistic knowledge, even though this may be called upon when linguistic knowledge is put to use. According to the heterogeneous competence model, therefore, the user’s knowledge of language rules interlocked with his knowledge of when, where, and with whom to use them. According to this view of language, the user’s ability to perform needs to be understood in terms of communicative rather than linguistic competence. In a heterogeneous competence model, therefore, stylistic variability is viewed as an integral part of competence, not performance.
Labov (1970) operates within a heterogeneous competence model. He lists five axioms about how to study language use. Because these are of central importance for understanding the nature of user variability, they are summarized below.
All speakers possess several ‘styles’. That is, they adapt their speech to make it fit the social context.
‘Styles can be ranged along a single dimension, measured by the amount of attention paid to speech.’ A language user varies in the degree to which he is able to monitor his speech in different situations.
The vernacular is the style in which minimum attention is given to monitoring speech. It is the style associated with informal, everyday speech. It provides ‘the most systematic data’ for linguistic study.
It is possible to tap the vernacular style of the user by systematic observation of how he performs in a formal context (such as an experiment).
The only way to obtain good data on the speech of a language user is through systematic observation.
Labov also deals with variability determined by linguistic factors. he examined the use of the copula (‘be’) in utterances produced by speakers of Black English Vernacular in New York and found that the presence or absence of the copula was largely systematic. Its use depended on the specific linguistic context provided by an utterance. For instance, the copula was more likely to be used when the preceding syntactic environment constituted a noun phrase rather than when it was a pronoun. Similarity, it was more likely to occur when the following grammatical structure was ‘gonna’ than it was a noun phrase. It is important to note, however, that the systactic environment did not determine the absolute occurrence of the copula, only its relative frequency. Thus ‘be’ was variable in all contexts, but certain contexts predisposed the speaker to use it more frequently than other contexts.
This approach involves viewing language as an intersecting set of idiolects. Any one speaker will have access to a number of such idiolects, but is unlikely to be capable of the full range. Furthermore, these features can be seen to be hierarchically ordered, such that the presence of one feature in an idiolect entails the co-occurrence of one or more other features. The important points are that variation is systematic, governed by both situational and linguistic factors, and that the user’s linguistic form presupposes the presence of one or more other forms.

Non-Systematic Variability

Native speaker language use is also characterized by non-systematic variability. As discussed earlier, this is of two types. Performance variability, however, is not part of the user’s competence. It occurs when the language user is unable to perform his competence. It is the second type of non-systematic variability – free variability – which is of greater interest for understanding second language acquisition and which will, therefore, be discussed here.
In general, non systematic variability has not received much attention from linguists, who have preferred to explore systematic variability. Bickerton (1975), however, has disputed the prevailing ‘contextual theory’ of linguistic variation. He observes as follows:
While with the help of a little hindsight, a plausible contextual explanation can be given for many stylistic shifts, there are many more that operate in quite unpredictable ways. (Bickerton,1975:183).


Bickerton points to Labov’s famous example of phonological change in the speech of Martha’s Vineyarders. They attempted to maintain their own group identity in the face of an influx of outsiders by their choice of a specific sound. However, the sound they used was not specially introduced, but rather a sound that already existed in their speech and which they intensified. In other words, a sound which began its existence in free variation with other sounds came to be used systematically to convey social meaning. This process of exploiting a form in free variation is a key feature of interlanguage development.

The same types of variability are evident in interlanguage as in natural languages. However, although there is no difference in kind, there is difference in degree; variability is extensive in interlanguage. The following account will first consider contextual variability and then free variability.

Contextual Variability

It has been pointed out that contextual variability is of two kinds: that which is determined by situational context and that which is determined by linguistic context.
Variability that is the result of situational context is analogous to the stylistic variability observed in native-speaker usage and described in previous section with reference to Labov’s work. Dickerson (1975) examined the occurrence of /z/ in the speech of ten Japanese speakers studying English at University level. She collected data on three separate occasions in a nine month period, using a three part test involving (1) free speaking, (2) reading dialogues aloud, and (3) reading word lists aloud. Dickerson found that the correct target language variant was used most frequently in (3) and least frequently in (1), with the frequency in (2) in between. This order was maintained over the three occasions. The same order was observed for other variants that were closest in form to the target language sound. In other words, Dickerson found that L2 learners employed multiple variants (one of which might be the correct target language form, but need not be). They used the target language variants or those variants linguistically closest to it in situations where they were able to audio-monitor their speech, and those variants linguistically distant from the correct target language form in situations where audio-monitoring was not possible. Development over time involved an increase in the proportion of the target-like sounds.
Other studies of phonological development have come up with observations similar to those of Dickerson. Schmidt (1977), for instance, noted that Arabic-speaking students of English became more accurate in their use of English ‘th’ sounds in a formal task than in an informal task. Also Schmidt noted that these learners did exactly the same in L2. English as they did in L1 Arabic, where they also style-shifted from relative low to high frequency in the use of ‘th’ sounds, depending on whether they were speaking colloquial Arabic (associated with formal situations). In other words, the patterns of style-shifting were the same in L1 and L2. Bebee (1980) also found evidence of the direct transfer of a formal feature of the L1 into the L2 when the situation demanded a formal style. The studies by Schmidt and Bebee, while reinforcing the overall picture provided by Dickerson’s study, make it clear that when a learner is able to attend closely to his speech (i.e. in a careful style), he may produce not only a higher incidence of target language forms, but also a higher incidence of L1 forms, if these are associated with formal use in the L1. Language transfer, therefore, is also a variable phenomenon.
Learners from a variety of language backgrounds always included the second verb in such sentences in free oral production, but increasingly omitted it in proportion to the degree of monitoring permitted by different tasks (i.e. elicited imitation, written sentence-combining, and grammatical judgment). Lococo (1976) found that twenty-eight university students enrolled in an elementary Spanish course produced systematically fewer errors in adjectives, determiners, and verbs when the task was translation than when it was free composition, with the scores for the picture description task intermediary. Thus it is seen once again that when the learner is able to monitor his performance, he produces target language forms with greater regularity.
At one end of the continuum is the vernacular style, which is called upon when the learner is not attending to his speech. This is the style that is both most natural and most systematic. At the other end of the continuum is the careful style, which is most clearly evident in tasks that require the learner to make a grammatical judgment (e.g. to say whether a sentence is correct or incorrect). The careful style is called upon when the learner is attending closely to his speech. Thus the stylistic continuum is the product of differing degrees of attention reflected in a variety of performance tasks. Variability as a result of the linguistic contexts occurs when two different linguistic contexts induce different forms even though in the target language they require the same form. For example, the learner might produce correct exemplars of the third person singular ‘-s’ when the linguistic context consist of a single clause utterance as in:

Mr Smith lives in Gloucester.

but fail to do so when the linguistic context consists of a subordinate clause as in:
Mr Smith who live in Gloucester married my sister.
This variability may not involve a correct target language form at all. it may consist of the use of two (or more0 deviant forms.

Dickerson’s (1975) study also provides evidence of contextual variability according to linguistic context. She noticed that her subjects used a number of variants for English /z/ according to the linguistic environment. The phonetic quality of the sound they produced depended on what consonants and vowels were adjacent to /z/. Thus when /z/ was followed by a vowel, the learners used the correct target language form every time, even on the first occasion; but when /z/ was followed by silence, they used three variants, only one of which was /z/. Progress from one occasion to the next consisted of the increased use of /z/ in environments where initially it was little used, and also of increased use of variants that were phonetically closer to /z/.
The effects of the linguistic and situational context interact to influence jointly the learner’s use of interlanguage forms. If linguistic contexts are seen as continuum, then the use of any particular interlanguage form can be plotted on the intersection of these two continua. For example, it can be predicted that, to begin with, use of the third person singular will be most frequent when the linguistic context is simple and the style careful.
Conclusion
Second language acquisition was seen as a series of evolving system which comprised the interlanguage continuum. Each system was considered to be internally consistent, in the sense that it was rule-governed. It was, however, also permeable to new rules, and, therefore, dynamic. The continuum was initially viewed primarily as a restructuring continuum stretching from the learner’s L1 to the target language. Later it was viewed as a recreation continuum in which the learner gradually added to the complexity of interim systems. Most learners never reached the final stage of the continuum; their interlanguage fossilized some way short of target language competence.
Both interlanguage theory and the empirical studies that supported it have had a major impact on our thinking about the nature of SLA. The switch from a behaviourist to a mentalist framework proved a source a great insight into both L1 acquisition and SLA. It has become generally accepted that the human language faculty is a potent force in language in language acquisition. But internal processing and innate mechanisms are not the full story. It is also necessary to consider how the linguistic input contributes to the process of acquisition.
The process of acquisition is related to this variability. (1) The learner slowly extends the contextual range of the forms he has acquired, by mastering their use in additional stylistic and linguistic contexts. (2) The learner slowly resolves the free variability that exists in his interlanguage by developing clear form-function relationships. Both of the processes will be examined in detail. First, however, the different ways in which variability in language learner language is handled in SLA research will be considered.


References
Beebe, L. 1980. ‘Sociolinguistic variation and style shifting in second language acquisition’ Language Learning 30/1: 433-47
Bickerton, D.1975. Dynamics of a Creole System. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Chomsky, N.1959. Review of Verbal Behaviour by B.F Skinner. Language 35 : 26-58
Corder, S. 1981a. Error Analysis and Interlanguge. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Dickerson, L. 1975. ‘Interlanguage as a system of variable rules. ‘TESOL Quarterly 9: 401-7.
George, H. 1972. Common Errors in Language Learning: Insights from English. Rowley, Mass,: Newbury House.
Labov, W. 1970. ‘The Study of Language in its Social Context.’ Studium Generale 23 : 30-87.
Lenneberg, E. 1967. Biological Foundations of Language. New York: Wiley and Sons.
Lococo, V. 1976. ‘A comparison of three methods for the collection of L2 data: free composition, translation and picture description.’ Working Papers on Bilingualism 8:59-86.
McNeill, D. 1970. The Acquisition of Language. New York: Harper Row.
Schmidt, R. 1977. Sociolinguistic Variation and Language Transfer in Phonology.’ Working Papers on Bilingualism 12: 79-95
Selinker, L. 1972. ‘Interlanguage.’ International Review of Applied Linguistics X: 209-30.
Selinker, L. and J. Lamendella. 1978a. ‘Fossilization in Interlanguage’ in C. Blatchford and J. Schachter (eds.). On TESOL ’78: EFL Policies, Programs, Practices. Washington D.C.:TESOL.