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
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
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.
Tidak ada komentar:
Posting Komentar