Shen Yan
Shanghai University of Political Science and Law 201701
[Abstract] Effective foreign language teaching should be based upon a clear understanding of how language is learned. This paper reviews briefly theories on language learning involving different stages in the process.
[key words] SLA, overall model, input, comprehension, output
1. Language input
1.1 Krashen’s input hypothesis
One of the best known and most influential theories of SLA in the 1970s and early 1980s was Kranshen’s Monitor Theory. It consists of five linked “hypotheses”: input, acquisition/learning, monitor, natural order, and affective filter. The input hypothesis attempts to explain how a learner acquires a SL. Krashen calls it the central claim of the Monitor Theory. And he makes the following claims in his input hypothesis (Krashen 1981;1985; 1989):
1) Learners progress along the natural order by understanding input that contains structures a little bit beyond their current level of competence.
2) Although comprehensible input is necessary for acquisition to take place, it is not sufficient, as learners also need to be affectively disposed to ‘let in’ the input they comprehend.
3) Input becomes comprehensible as a result of simplification and with the help of contextual and extra-linguistic clues; “fine-tuning” (i.e. ensuring that learners receive input rich in the specific linguistic property they are due to acquire next) is not necessary.
4) Speaking is the result of acquisition, not its cause; learner production does not contribute directly to acquisition.
According to the input hypothesis (Krashen, 1985), only when language learners deal with comprehensible input which is slightly high beyond the learners’ level of competence (i+1), and understand the input that contains “i+1’’, a necessary (but not sufficient) condition to move from stage “I” to stage “i+1”, may learning or acquisition occur. That is to say, language acquisition depends upon trying to understand what other people say. Provided that the learner hears meaningful speech and endeavors to understand it, acquisition will occur.
The understanding is possible by referring to the context of the language we hear or read, and our knowledge of the world. However, rather than aim to receive input that is exactly at the “i+1” level, or have a teacher aim to teach grammatical structure that is at the “i+1” level, we should instead just focus on communication that is understandable. Acquisition will automatically occur when communication is successful. Evidence for the input hypothesis can be found in the effectiveness of caretaker speech from an adult to a child, of teacher-talk from a teacher to language students, and of foreigner-talk from a native speaker to a language learner.
Long (1982) summarized the main assumption of the input hypothesis as follows: 1) access to comprehensible input is characteristic of all cases of successful language acquisition, in both L1 and L2 acquisition; 2) greater quantities of comprehensible input seem to result in better (or faster) L2 acquisition; and 3) lack of access to comprehensible input results in little or no acquisition. How, then, is input made comprehensible? Long suggests four ways that input can be made comprehensible: 1) by modifying speech; 2) by providing linguistic and extra-linguistic context; 3) by orienting the communication to the “here and now”; and 4) by modifying the interactional structure of the conversation.
It is evident that the crucial factor in language acquisition is comprehensible input. Input takes the form of reception and can be fulfilled by receptive skills, which are listening and reading in language acquisition. For Chinese learners, English is a foreign language, there is no natural linguistic environment for them in their daily life to acquire the target language. Their learning is mainly achieved through classroom instruction. Therefore, helping develop the students’ listening and reading skills in class is of crucial importance to language teachers.
1.2 Characteristics of L2 input processing
After illuminating the role of input in language learning, we will go on to see some characteristics of L2 input processing. As for language teachers, it is necessary to know about how their students process the input that they receive. VanPatten (1995, 1996) formulated a model of L2 input processing to answer the questions as to what elements in the input L2 learners focus on when they process input, or whether they hold any bias to what they are to process and what they are not. Crucial to VanPatten’s model of input processing is the assumption that humans possess limited processing capacities. That is, it is held that learners are not capable of attending to all the information in the input; only some of it becomes the object of focused or selective attention, while other information is processed peripherally. VanPatten assumes, as many other researchers, that attention is a prerequisite for learning to take place. He argues, however, that learners’ attention tends to be drawn to certain parts of the input, particularly those that are immediately relevant to the message content.
Operating with limited processing capacities, L2 learners first search the input for content words. If resources are not depleted at this point, they may try to make form-meaning mappings by attending to grammatical forms with “high communicative value”. If resources are still not depleted, then further processing of “less communicative value” can occur. Communicative value here refers to “the relative contribution a form makes to the referential meaning of an utterance…based in the presence or absence of two features: inherent semantic value and redundancy within the sentence-utterance” (VanPatten 1996). A form that has inherent semantic value and is not redundant tends to have high communicative value, whereas a form that lacks inherent semantic value and is redundant tends to have low communicative value. VanPatten claims that forms with low communicative value are made processable by the learners only when their L2 capacities develop to such an extent that their attentional resources are not consumed by the processing of forms with high communicative value. Apart from the processing of content and grammatical items in the input, learners also need to assign semantic or grammatical roles to the words they hear or read. Based on the research in both L1 and L2 acquisition, VanPatten suggests that the First Noun Strategy is a prevalent, possibly universal, strategy utilized by language learners. This strategy dictates that the first NP encountered is generally labeled as the agent, while the second NP is assigned the role of patient.
To summarize, in VanPatten’s model of input processing, certain principles are believed to guide the ways in which learners process the grammatical form in their attempt to comprehend input strings. These processing principles, in turn, shape the intake data available for accommodation by the learners’ developing system. Driven to get the meaning out of the input, learners first attend to meaningful elements in the input, follow the first noun strategy as a general strategy for parsing input sentences, and rely on their semantic and pragmatic knowledge to compensate for the lack of sophisticated syntactic parsing mechanisms in the L2. Despite the lack for more empirical substantiation and accommodation of other factors that are also likely to affect the acquisition of different language forms, VanPatten’s model does seem to capture some important insights for any theories of L2 input processing (Izumi, 2003).
2. Language comprehension
It is claimed that input used for comprehension is not directly linked to intake. To understand why this happens we need to address the kind of information used in human speech comprehension. Psycholinguistic research over the past few decades has accumulated enough evidence to suggest some general characteristics of human speech comprehension processes:
1) Comprehension is not passive recording of whatever is heard or seen.
2) Comprehension processes rely on linguistic input, contextual information, and the recipient’s linguistic and other general knowledge.
3) Comprehension is differentially affected by the linguistic devices used in the sentence. The use of linguistic cues in comprehension processed is often referred to as bottom-up processing.
4) Comprehension is differentially affected by the existence type, and the amount of contextual clues provided. People tend to seek contextual consistency in comprehending speech.
5) Comprehension is differentially affected by the general world knowledge possessed by the recipients and can differ among individuals depending on the amount of such knowledge available for each individual. The use of contextual clues and world knowledge in comprehension processes is referred to as top-down processing.
6) While there is a possibility that syntactic parsing operations are conducted initially before semantic-pragmatic factors come into play, people strongly tend to seek semantic plausibility in comprehending speech. Such a semantic bias holds firmly when comprehension of units larger than a sentence is considered.
7) Comprehension is selective because humans possess limited processing capacities. This selection process is guided by a number of factors, including salience of input elements for bottom-up processing and the recipients’ expectation for top-down processing.
These characteristics of the human speech comprehension system indicate that highly complex processes underlie how people make sense of the language data presented to them. People do not rely on only one general knowledge source or strategy to understand speech; instead, they make use of various resources available to them, adopting both top-down and bottom-up approaches, to arrive at a comprehension of the input message.
It is possible for the L2 learners that the two approaches of bottom-up and top-down processing are not equally or as effectively utilized for comprehension (Fender, 2001). In fact, some researchers think that even adult L1 listeners or readers do not use the two general approaches equally in comprehending speech. Clark and Clark (1977), for example, argue that syntactic information may be ignored in comprehension processes in listening and reading.
In accounting for the use of semantic knowledge in comprehension processes, Clark and Clark (1977) propose the reality principle, according to which listeners interpret sentences in the belief that what the speaker is saying makes sense to them. A primary strategy under this principle is: “Using content words alone, build propositions that make sense and parse the sentence into constituents accordingly”.
In reading research, Stanovich (1980) assumes that interactive models of reading can provide a more accurate account of reading performance than the bottom-up or top-down models. In his interactive reading model, Stanovich also proposes compensatory mechanisms from which it seems as if there is a deficiency in any particular process; other processes can compensate for the weak knowledge source, thus, with information provided simultaneously, forming several knowledge sources, “a deficit in any knowledge results in a heavier reliance on other knowledge sources, regardless of their level in the processing hierarchy”.
In the case of SLA, too, the restricted L2 knowledge of the learners makes them rely on certain strategies more than others. Skehan (1996, 1998) points out that L2 learners are those who have “schematic knowledge” (i.e. factual and socio-cultural background knowledge and discourse procedural knowledge), but have limited “systemic knowledge” (i.e. syntactic, semantic, and morphological knowledge). Such learners tend to use their schematic knowledge to overcome limitations in their systemic knowledge, which can lead to a reduced chance for the engagement of the interlanguage system. Skehan’s claim seems to be supported by the results of previous researches which indicate that comprehensible input does not always guarantee learners’ grammatical development. In a recent study, Tyler (2001) has found that non-native listeners rely more on topic knowledge to aid their speech comprehension than do native listeners. It appears that effective use of topic knowledge helps the learners to function effectively in everyday situations in L2, while it may, at the same time, hinder further development of their linguistic knowledge. In a word, L2 learners can attain an adequate level of comprehension without necessarily focusing on many formal features in the input, which can lead to a reduction in the amount of intake that can be used for final integration in the developing system.
3. Language output
3.1 Swain’s output hypothesis
Swain’s output hypothesis is now widely recognized as an important extension of approaches that consider input as the only crucial aspect of SLA. It suggests active roles played by output in the overall SLA process and was formulated essentially in reaction to Krashen’s claim about the major role of “comprehensible input” in SLA.
It is assumed in the construct of comprehensible output when learners experience communication difficulties, they will be pushed into making their output more precise, coherent, and appropriate, and this process will contribute to language learning. It is claimed that producing the target language may serve as “the trigger that forces the learner to pay attention to the means of expression needed in order to successfully convey his or her intended meaning” (Swain, 1985). That is, the output requirement presents learners with opportunities for processing language that may not be decisively necessary for comprehension.
Swain (1993, 1995, 1998) also specifies four functions of output. First, the fluency function. Output provides opportunities for developing automaticity in language use. In order to develop speedy access to extant L2 knowledge for fluent productive performance, learners need opportunities to use their knowledge in meaningful context, and this naturally require output. Second, the hypothesis-testing function. Producing output is one way of testing one’s hypotheses about the target language. Learners can judge the comprehensibility and linguistic well-formedness of their IL utterances against feedback obtained from their interlocutors. Third, the meta-linguistic function. It is claimed that “as learners reflect upon their target language use, their output serves a meta-linguistic function, enabling them to control and internalize linguistic knowledge” (Swain, 1995). In other words, output processes enable learners not only to reveal their hypotheses, but also to reflect on them using language. Reflection on language may deepen the learners’ awareness of forms, rules and form-function relationships if the context of production is communicative in nature. Finally, the noticing/triggering (or consciousness-raising) function. In producing the target language, “learners may notice a gap between what they want to say and what they can say, leading them to recognizing what they do not know, or know only partially” (Swain, 1995). The recognition of problems may then push the learners to address the relevant information in the input, which will actuate their interlanguage development.
3.2 Relationships between output and SLA
Output can contribute to learning by solidifying the knowledge connections or increasing the automaticity of language use. More importantly, output triggers chains of psycholinguistic processes that are conducive to language learning. In other words, output processing links important internal procedures such as grammatical encoding and monitoring, which prompt the learners to interact actively with the external environment to find a solution, for example, to attend selectively to certain aspects of the input, or to explore their internal resources for possible solutions. Thus, output serves as a useful means to help the interaction between learner internal factors (including selective attention and their developing L2 competence) and environmental factors (input, interaction, and pedagogical intervention), or the interaction within the learners themselves for internal meta-linguistic reflection. The outcome of all cases is language acquisition in a broad sense of the term, that is, the development of the knowledge base, its restructuring, and the strengthening and increase in the access to the stored knowledge (Izumi, 2003)
For language teachers who wish to take an active interventionist approach to help their students develop their L2 knowledge, a good intervention point is obviously necessary when the learners’ interlanguage system is most open to change, and this is most likely to be found when the learners are struggling with the specific means of expression to convey their meaning. Output produced in meaningful contexts may create this potential “learning space”, which can be filled in a timely manner by the teacher (Samuda, 2001). In all cases, learning may be enhanced through the act of producing language. Therefore, language teachers, in their teaching, need to provide students with as many of the opportunities to speak and write as possible.
References:
Clark, H. H. (1997). Dogmas of understanding. Discourse Processes, 23(3), 567–598.
Fender, M. (2001). A review of L1 and L2/ESL word integration skills and the nature
of L2/ESL word integration development involved in lower-level text processing. Language Learning, 51, 319–396.
Gass, S (1988). Integrating Research Areas: A Framework for Second language Studies [J]. Applied Linguistics 9, 198-217.
Gass, S (1997). Input, Interaction and the Second Language Learner. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Izumi, S.(2003) Comprehension and Production Processes in Second language Learning: In Search of the Psychological Rationale of the Output Hypothesis [J]. Applied Linguistics 24/2, 168-196.
Krashen, S.D. (1981). Second Language Acquisition and Second Language Learning. Oxford: Pergamon.
Krashen, S.D. (1985), The Input Hypothesis: Issues and Implications, New York: Longman
Krashen, S.D. (1989), We Acquire Vocabulary and Spelling by Reading: Additional Evidence for the Input Hypothesis, The Modern Language Journal,73, 440–464
Samuda, V. (2001) Guiding Relationships between Form and Meaning During Task Performance: The Role of the Teacher in M Bygate, P Skehan and M Swain (eds.). Researching Pedagogic Tasks. London: Longman
Skehan, P. (1996), A Framework for Implementation of Task-based Instruction. Applied Linguisitics 17/1: 38-62
Skehan, P. (1998). A Cognitive Approach to Language Learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press
Stanovich, E. (1980). Towards an Interactive-compensatory Model of Individual Differences in the Development of Reading Fluency. Reading Research Quarterly, 16,32-71.
Swain, M. (1985) Communicative competence: Some roles of comprehensible input and comprehensible output in its development. In Gass, S. and Madden, C. (Eds.), Input in Second Language Acquisition, pp. 235-256. New York: Newbury House.
Swain, M. (1993) The Output Hypothesis: Just Speaking and Writing aren’t Enough. The Canadian Modern Language Review. 50, 158-164
Swain, M. (1995) Three functions of output in second language learning. In Cook, G. and Seidelhofer, B. (Eds.) Principle and Practice in Applied Linguistics: Studies in Honor of H.G. Widdowson, pp. 125-144. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Swain, M. (1998) Focus on Form through Conscious Reflection. Focus on Form in Classroom Second Language Acquisition, ed. by Doughty, C. & Williams, J. 64-81. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Tyler, Andrea and Evans, Vyvyan. (2001) Reconsidering Prepositional Polysemy
Networks: The Case of Over. Language 77(4), 724-765.
Van Patten, B, (1995). Cognitive Aspects of Input Processing in Second Language Acquisition. Studies in Second Language Learning and Spanish Linguistics in Honor of Tracy D. Terrell. Eds. Peggy Hashemipour, RicardoM aldonado, and Margaret van Naerssen. N ew York: M cGraw-Hill.17 0-83.
VanPatten, B. (1996) Input Processing and Grammar Instruction in Second Language Acquisition [M]. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.