Assignment - SLA
ASSIGNMENT: SECOND LANGUAGE ACQUISITION
Students:
Alexander Becerra and Roberto Uliamo
Group:
2017-06
Date:
October 8th, 2017
“A reconciliation between two views on how l earners acquire or learn their second language”
1
Assignment - SLA
INDEX 1. INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................... 3 2. TASK ........................................................................................................................ 4 2.1.
A GENERAL OVERVIEW ............................................................................... 4
2.2.
RECONCILING KRASHEN'S INPUT AND SWAIN'S OUTPUT VIEWS .......... 5
3. CONCLUSIONS ....................................................................................................... 7 4. BIBLIOGRAPHICAL REFERENCES......................................................................... 8
2
Assignment - SLA
1. INTRODUCTION
Many models or theories of Second Language Acquisition have been developed. However, as stated in the module, none of the existing theories has been able to provide a full and exhaustive account of all the variables intervening in the language process. This paper seeks to analyze two seemingly opposite views as to what constitutes second language acquisition: Swain’s Output thesis and Krashen’s Input Hypothesis. The former is a linguistic model that asserts that “producing the target language may be the trigger that forces the learner to pay attention to the means of expression needed in order to successfully convey his or her own intended meaning ” (Swain 1985: 249). On the other hand, the latter is a cognitive model that states that “we acquire language
by
understanding
what
we
hear
and
read.
The
ability
to
produce language is the result of language acquisition, not the cause” (Krashen 2009). Through this paper, we also aim to assess how compatible these two views are so as to attempt to achieve a reconciliation between them.
3
Assignment - SLA
2. TASK “Is it possible to reconcile these two seemingly opposite views as to what constitutes second language acquisition or ‘learning’, as Swain puts it?
Or do
the two views represent two extremes of both theory and practice?” To start with, it is important to outline the basics of each view in order to assess how compatible they are.
2.1.
A GENERAL OVERVIEW As part of his Monitor Model, once considered to be the most comprehensive of
Second Language Acquisition theories, Krashen (1981, 1982, 1985), formulated the Input Hypothesis. This theory states that “Acquisition” will take place only when the input the learner is exposed to is comprehensible. Such input has to be a little beyond the current level of the learner’s competence, which he represented with the simple formula i + 1, where i = input. Thus, if the learner receives understandable input, language structures will be naturally acquired. Therefore, the ability to communicate in a second language will emerge as a consequence of comprehensible input. Also, Krashen (Korea Times, 2009) stated that forcing students to speak English will not improve their ability to speak English. On the contrary, it will produce anxiety, which would cause them to develop a high affective filter that could prevent them from acquiring the target language smoothly. In 1985, in apparent rejection of Krashen’s main thesis, Merril Swain developed the Output thesis, a theory that brought about one of the greatest unresolved controversies in the field of Applied Linguistics. Swain's hypothesis proposes that it is through language production that Second Language Acquisition may be more likely to occur. According to Swain, this happens because it is during language production stages that learners realize what they know and what they don't. This may occur when a learner is trying to convey a message but his or her linguistic knowledge of the second language does not allow him or her to do so. It is then that the learner realizes that he or she lacks some useful language structures or words needed to express the desired message. This issue is what Swain refers to as the "gap" between what one can say and what one would like to be able to say. By noticing this gap, she states, the learner becomes aware of it and might be able to modify his or her output so that he or she learns something new about the language. 4
Assignment - SLA
Besides, this hypothesis asserts that language production aids learners in three different ways through what Swain defines as functions of output: - Noticing function: Learners encounter gaps between what they want to say and what they are able to say, and so they notice what they do not know or only know partially in this language. - Hypothesis-testing function: When a learner says something, there is always an at least tacit hypothesis underlying his or her utterance, e.g. about grammar. By uttering something, the learner tests this hypothesis and receives feedback from an interlocutor. This feedback enables reprocessing of the hypothesis if necessary. - Metalinguistic function: Learners reflect on the language they learn, and thereby the output enables them to control and internalize linguistic knowledge. It is important to mention, however, that despite all emphasis being laid on output, Swain admits that output is not solely responsible for Second Language Acquisition, she does claim that under some conditions, Comprehensible Output facilitates second language learning in ways that differ from and enhance input due to the mental processes connected with the production of the language. All in all, while Krashen considers input to be responsible for language acquisition, Swain considers output; while the latter claims language production to be of great importance, the former regards it as not necessary, as something that should not be forced, as it will appear naturally after a certain amount of comprehensible input.
2.2.
RECONCILING KRASHEN'S INPUT AND SWAIN'S OUTPUT VIEWS The way we see it, both hypotheses are correct but incomplete at the same time.
In the next paragraphs, we will elaborate on the reasons to support our point of view. The Input Hypothesis states that fluency in speaking or writing in the L2 will naturally
emerge
after
learners
have
achieved
enough
competence
through
comprehensible input. However, the studies of Tanaka (1991) and Yamakazi (1991) show that even though input facilitates the acquisition of vocabulary in the target language, it does not cater for the acquisition of many syntactic structures. Thus,
5
Assignment - SLA
comprehensible input is essential but not enough to achieve Second Language Acquisition. It is the Output Hypothesis that takes care of this flaw. As stated by Swain (1993), producing language would force learners to recognize what they do not know, which she calls the "gap" between what learners can say and what they want to be able to say. In her opinion, when encountering such gap, learners can react either by ignoring it, by searching in their own linguistic knowledge to find or build the answer or by identifying what the gap is about and then paying attention to relevant input that may cater for this lack of knowledge. The third response establishes a connection between input and output that benefits Second Language Acquisition. Consequently, learners are more likely to enhance their input processing capability because their output has focused their attention on the need to do so. Also, according to Young (1990) and Laughrin-Sacco (1992), foreign language students find speaking to be the highest anxiety-causing activity. In addition, Price (1991) claims that not being able to communicate effectively leads to frustration. These two arguments clearly support Krashen's Affective F ilter Hypothesis, which accounts for the role of affective factors in Second Language Acquisition. Krashen incorporates the Affective Filter formulated by Dulay and Burt. The filter controls how much input the learner comes in contact with and how much of that input is transformed into intake. This means that learners with high motivation and self-confidence have low filters and obtain a great amount of input., whereas learners with low motivation and little self-confidence have high filters and so receive little input. In spite of the fact that Krashen claims that Comprehensible Output has fewer advantages than it seems to, he also grants it a place in his Monitor Model, as part of his Monitor Hypothesis. According to Krashen (1985), learners edit their language performance by means of an internal Monitor which uses “learned” knowledge to do so. This can occur before or after the utterance is made, but not at the same moment. If it occurs before, we are using inner knowledge in order to edit something we are about to produce; if it happens after, we are correcting a mistake, which is basically testing a hypothesis that has proven to be wrong. After doing so, we can re-arrange it in our head to correct it or simply focus our attention on the knowledge we need to acquire in order to be able to produce a hypothesis which turns out to be right. It is this point where we can see two of the advantages of output mentioned by Swain: testing a hypothesis and recognizing what one does not know but needs to.
6
Assignment - SLA
3. CONCLUSIONS -
Some comprehensible input is necessary before any kind of output is produced whatsoever.
-
Using either input or output will depend on the type of language acquisition aimed to achieve.
-
Students need to use the feedback they can get from other speakers of the language since other speakers' responses will provide them with informative feedback on the comprehensibility and/or accuracy of their utterances. This can only be achieved through language production.
-
Based on the literature presented on both Swain’s and Krashen’s views with regard to how learners acquire or learn L2, it is clear that neither of these two theses is entirely correct or complete.
-
On the contrary, it seems correct to assert that both Swain’s and Krashen`s views complement each other and together, they would produce a more integral hypothesis.
7
Assignment - SLA
4. BIBLIOGRAPHICAL REFERENCES [1] Porras Wadley, L. (2016, February 12). Second Language Acquisition: Swain's Output Vs Krashen's Input . Retrieved from http://ezinearticles.com/?Second-Language Acquisition:-Swains-Output-Vs-Krashens-Input&id=9318929 [2]
Comprehensible
output.
(2017,
June
07).
Retrieved
from
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comprehensible_output [3] Swain, M. (1993). The Output Hypothesis: Just Speaking and Writing Aren't Enough. [4] Arzamendi, J., Palacios, I., & Ball, P. (n.d.). Second Language Acquisition. FUNIBER.
8
