SECOND LANGUAGE ACQUISTION
NATIVE-LIKE COMPETENCE EFFECTIVE COMMUNICATION COMMUNICATION
INDEX
1. Introduction
p. 2
2. Native-like competence
p. 2
3. Psycholinguistic reasons for failure
p. 3
3.1 Interlanguage
p. 3
3.2 Universal Grammar
p. 3
3.3 The Monitor Model
p. 4
3.4 The Output Hypothesis
p. 4 p. 5
4. Discourse Analysis: Analysis: reasons reasons for failure 4.1 The variable competence
p. 5
4.2 Interactionist Theory
p. 5
4.3 Discourse Theory
p. 6
5. Sociolinguistic reasons for failure
p. 6
6. Conclusions
p. 7
Bibliography
p. 8
Mercedes Viola Deambrosis
1
1. INTRODUCTION
“English has become the world’s second language, the world’s lingua franca. In fact, it is safe to
say that it is difficult in today’s world to be active and successful in international business, politics, scholarship, or science without considerable competence in English.” (Krashen 2006,
pg. 1) Many countries have started implementing new language policies concerning the study of English and many people have embarked on studying English. But, do students achieve nativelike competence? Is it necessary to master the language as a native speaker or being able to communicate quite successfully is enough? What is native like competence, anyway? The aim of this assignment is, after examining the concept of native-like competence, give some explanations for the possible failure of EFL students to achieve native-like competence in a second language. In order to do so, I will consider three different fields of second language acquisition: Psycholinguistics, Discourse and Sociolinguistics. 2. NATIVE-LIKE COMPETENCE
The notion of the native speaker is self-explanatory and understood until it is examined in detail (Ellis, 1993). Many linguists and researchers state that a native speaker is someone who:
acquired the language in early childhood (Davies, 1991),
has intuitive knowledge of the language (Davies, 1991; Stern, 1983),
is communicatively competent (Davies, 1991; Medgyes, 1992),
is capable of producing fluent, spontaneous discourse that is characterized by creativity (Davies, 1991; Medgyes, 1992),
does not have a foreign accent (Medgyes, 1992)
identifies with a language community (Davies, 1991)
Stern (1983) details some characteristics that native speakers share: subconscious knowledge of rules, intuitive grasp of meanings, ability to communicate within social settings, range of language skills, and creativity of language use. However, the concept of “the native speaker” is quite qu estionable. This concept suggests the
idea of a single register of the target language despite the fact that there are many different English speech communities with different styles, pronunciation and cultural implications. It can also be added, that Engl ish has become the world‟ s lingua franca and according to Barbara
2
Seidlhofer (2005, p.339) “English is being shaped at least as much by its non-native speakers as by its native speakers”. 3. PSYCHOLINGUISTIC REASONS FOR FAILURE
“Psycholinguistics is the branch of cognitive psychology that studies the psychological basis of
linguistic competence and performance. ” Princeton University "About WordNet." WordNet. Princeton University. 2010. http://wordnet.princeton.edu. Psycholinguistics is the study of the psychological and neurobiological factors that enable humans to acquire, use, and understand language. In this field there are different theories of first language acquisition and various explanations on how the first language is present and manifested in second language learning. I will discuss those issues within this field that could explain some of the reason for the failure of EFL students to achieve native-like competence in a second language.
3.1 Interlanguage Interlanguage is the student‟s version of the language at a given stage in his second language development ; it is a transitional system that reflects the student‟s current knowledge of the second language. This concept was first coined by Selinker in 1972 . Research on students‟ production has shown that their interlanguage is characterized by two types of errors: interference and developmental errors. Interference errors are caused by the influence of the aspects of the L1 that are different from the L2. (Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis) Developmental errors are those that occur naturally as learners gain more insight into the language system. They are part of the natural acquisition process. Students are expected to progress along the learning continuum and their interlanguage approaches the target language model. However, some non-target forms may become fixed in their Interlanguage preventing students reaching native-like competence in the second language. This phenomenon is known as fossilization. “Fossilizable linguistic phenomena are linguistic items, rules and subsystems which speakers of a particular native language will tend to keep in their interlanguage relative to a particular target language, no matter what the age of the learner or amount of explanation and instruction he receives in the target language .” (Selinker, 1972)
3.2 Universal Grammar (UG) Chomsky proposes a universal grammar, which is a genetic capacity for language with certain principles and parameters that shape language acquisition. He states that there is a set of 3
principles that govern all languages as well as a series of parameters that may vary across languages. There are different hypothesis that explain to what extent UG constrains second language learning:
No-Access hypothesis: no aspect of UG is available to the L2 learner.
Partial-Access hypothesis: only L1-instantiated principles and L1-instantiated parametervalues of UG are available to the learner.
Full-Access hypothesis, UG in its entirety constrains L2 acquisition.
(Cook,1996.p:291)
3.3 The Monitor Model "What theory implies, quite simply, is that language acquisition, first or second, occurs when comprehension of real messages occurs, and when the acquirer is not 'on the defensive'... Language acquisition does not require extensive use of conscious grammatical rules, and does not require tedious drill. It does not occur overnight, however. Real language acquisition develops slowly, and speaking skills emerge significantly later than listening skills, even when conditions are perfect. The best methods are therefore those that supply 'comprehensible input' in low anxiety situations, containing messages that students really want to hear. These methods do not force early production in the second language, but allow students to produce when they are 'ready', recognizing that improvement comes from supplying communicative and comprehensible input, and not from forcing and correcting production." (Krashen, 1981 p 6-7) This quote captures the essence of Krashen‟s ideas. He proposes five key hypotheses about
second language acquisition: The Acquisition-Learning Hypothesis, The Natural Order Hypothesis, The Monitor Hypothesis, The Input Hypothesis, and The Affective Filter Hypothesis. Based on these theories, some possible drawbacks leading to learner failure could be identified: learners with little motivation, lack of self-confidence and a high level of anxiety possess a high affective filter, which will impede the reception of input; learners may not succeed in achieving native-like competence when the input provided is not comprehensible enough; learners who overuse their Monitor may end up "so concerned with correctness that they cannot speak with any real fluency." (Krashen, 1983)
3.4 The Output Hypothesis “It seems to me that the importance of output to learning could be that output pushes learners
to process language more deeply – with more mental effort- than does input. With output, the learner is in control.... To produce, learners need to do something. They need to create linguistic form and meaning, and in so doing, discover what they can and cannot do. Output may stimulate learners to mover form the semantic, open-ended, strategic processing prevalent in comprehension to the complete grammatical processing needed for accurate production. 4
Students‟ meaningful production of language –output- would thus seem to have a potentially
significant role in language development.” (Swain, 2000) When learners are not being pushed to produce and interact meaningfully they are not their SL successfully preventing them from reaching native-like competence in the target language. “Negotiating meaning needs to incorporate the notion of being pushed toward the delivery of a
message that is not only conveyed, but that is conveyed precisely, coherently, and appropriately. Being „pushed‟ in output…is a concept parallel to that of the i +1 of
comprehensible input. Indeed, one might call this the „comprehensible output‟ hypothesis.” (Swain, 1985, 248-9).
4. DISCOURSE ANALISIS: REASONS FOR FAILURE
"Discourse: a continuous stretch of (especially spoken) language larger than a sentence, often constituting a coherent unit such as a sermon, argument, joke, or narrative" (Crystal 1992:25). Discourse analysis examines the use of language functions along with its forms, produced both orally and in writing. It identifies linguistic qualities of various genres together with cultural and social aspects which support its comprehension. It is the branch of applied linguistics dealing with the examination of discourse that attempts to find patterns in communicative products as well as and their correlation with the circumstances in which they occur, which are not explainable at the grammatical level (Carter 1993:23).
4.1 The variable competence model (Ellis 1984; Tarone 1983; Widdowson 1979; Bialystok 1978) “This theory claims that the way a language is learned is really a reflection of the way it is used.
The product of language is said to comprise a continuum of discourse types ranging from entirely unplanned (spontaneous, lacks preparation) to entirely p lanned (carefully thought out).” According to this, native-like competence develops through participation in various types of discourse. Many second language learners do not have enough participation in a discourse-rich environment leading to a failure in achieving that desired competence.
4.2 Interactionist Theory Social interactionist theory stresses the importance of the environment and the context in which the language is being learned. Some interactionists believe that interaction is the means through which learners obtain data for learning (Ellis, 1999). They claim that “modified interaction” is necessary for making language comprehensible. 5
Speakers make use of different strategies in order to avoid communication breakdowns; comprehension checks, clarification requests or confirmation, self-repetition. The use of this negotiated interaction, either in the form of “foreign-talk” or “teacher -talk” has the
main purpose of leading to comprehensible input. Pica, Young and Doughty (1987) stated that different kinds of interactions led to improvements in comprehension.
Failure to achieve native-like competence may be due to classroom contexts where most of the time grammatical structures are practised instead of being contexts where interactions are carefully designed and learners are stimulated to create their own language in a socially constructed process.
4.3 Discourse Theory Hatch believes that the natural route to SLA is the result of learning how to hold conversations; the main ideas behind the discourse theory is that successful language learning can actually be achieved through negotiation of meaning to hold conversations. This is not always encouraged in many teaching-learning contexts.
5. SOCIOLINGUSTIC REASONS FOR FAILURE
Sociolinguistics is the study of the effect of any and all aspects of society on the way language is used, and the effects of language use on society.
Schumann (1978) in his Acculturation model and Andersen in his Nativisation Model (1979) refer to pidginisation. Pidgin language is a simplified one developed at the first stages of SLA. If this persists then learning fossilizes preventing students from progressing in their language development.
The Accommodation Theory developed by Giles and Byrne (1982) explains some of the cognitive reasons for code-switching and other changes in speech as individuals seek to emphasize or minimize the social differences between themselves and their interlocutors.
They state that when speakers (ingroup) seek approval in a social situation they are likely to converge their speech to that of their interlocutor (outgroup). However, if they want to emphasize the social distance their speech diverges, using linguistic features characteristic of their own group.
6
6. CONCLUSIONS For the success or failure to achieve native-like competence when learning a second language, “as Selinker and Lamendella (1978) conclude there is probably no single cause ; both internal
and external factors play a role. Ideally, we need to specify the differential contribution of the various factors and how they interact, but we are a long way from being able to do so.” Ellis
(1994, p 824)
However, nowadays, people need to be able to communicate effectively in order to succeed in their personal and professional lives. Many people may not reach native-like competence in 2L, but are able to communicate effectively, that is, “they can exchange and negotiate information through the use of verbal and non verbal symbols, oral or written modes and production and comprehension processes .” Fallabela (2010)
7
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Carter, R. 1993. Introducing applied linguistics . Harlow: Penguin. Crystal, D. 1992. Introducing linguistics . Harlow: Penguin. Davies, A. (1991). The native speaker in applied linguistics. Edinburgh: Edinburgh Ellis, J. M. (1993). Language, thought, and logic . Evanston: Northwestern University Ellis, R. (1985). Understanding second language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Ellis, R. (1994). The Study of Second Language Acquisition . Oxford: Oxford University Press Ellis, R. (1999). Learning a second language through interaction Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. Fallabela, M.E. (2010, October 22) Second Language Acquisition Mesg. 57944. Message posted to http://campus.funiber.org/ Krashen, S. (1981): Second Language Acquisition and Second Language Learning . Oxford: Pergamon Krashen, S. (1985): The Input Hypothesis: Issues and Implications. London: Longman Krashen, S. D. (2006). English Fever . Taiwan: Crane Publishing Co., Ltd.
Medgyes, P. (1992). Native or non- native: Who’s worth more? ELT Journal, 46(4) Pica, T., Young, R. & Doughty, C. (1987): "The Impact of Interaction on Comprehension ". TESOL Quarterly 21: 737-59. Seidlhofer, B. (2005). English as a lingua franca. ELT Journal Volume 59/4 October 2005, ( 339341) Selinker, L. (1972). Interlanguage . IRAL, 10, (3), 209-231 Stern, H.H. (1983). Fundamental concepts of language teaching . Oxford: OUP. University Press. 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. New York: Newbury House. Swain, M. (2000). The output hypothesis and beyond: Mediating acquisition through collaborative dialogue. In J. P. Lantolf (Ed.) Sociocultural theory and second language learning. Oxford: OUP.
8
