Language Acquisition and Grammar: Friends or Foes?

Transcription

1 Language Acquisition and Grammar: Friends or Foes? Dora López Espinosa UABC Facultad de Idiomas Mexicali Marissa López Paredes UABC Facultad de Idiomas Mexicali Marcela Fernández de Castro Arriola UABC Facultad de Idiomas Mexicali Línea temática: Proceso enseñanza aprendizaje de lenguas. Resumen Expertos en el área de la lingüística aplicada y del aprendizaje de lenguas concuerdan con el hecho de que la adquisición de un segundo idioma se ve favorecida cuando los alumnos participan de manera activa en su proceso de aprendizaje. Los resultados muestran que tienen que involucrarse en el desarrollo de su interlengua para poder llegar a ser gramaticalmente competentes. La cuestión recae en el tema de cómo es que los maestros pudieran facilitar la competencia gramatical a aquellos alumnos con necesidades diferentes y con otros tipos de estilos de aprendizaje sin terminar ignorando su competencia comunicativa. El propósito de este documento es presentar el enfoque de concienciación que ayuda a desarrollar en el alumno las competencias gramaticales y comunicativas. Se presentará como las teorías de la adquisición del segundo idioma y enfoques de la enseñanza de la gramática se entrelazan, así como la importancia de la concienciación del lenguaje y el papel del maestro como diseñador de tareas y facilitador de la misma.

2 Palabras clave: Adquisición del segundo idioma, aprendizaje de idiomas, gramática, competencia comunicativa. Introduction One of the pioneers of language theories is Skinner, he gives the earliest scientific explanations of language acquisition (1957). As one of the developers of behaviorism, he accounted that language development was influenced by the environment. He claimed that children acquire language based on behaviorist reinforcement principles (Skinner, 1957) by relating words with meanings. Correct utterances are positively reinforced when the child realizes his meaning is getting across. However, Skinner's account was greatly criticized by Chomsky. He argued that children cannot acquire the tools they might need to process an infinite number of sentences if the language acquisition mechanism was dependent on language input alone. (Lemetyinen, 2012). Therefore, he proposed the theory of Universal Grammar where a child is equipped from birth with the set of linguistic rules that form the Universal Grammar: grammatical rules which are common to all human languages (Johansson, 1991). Universal Grammar is said to contain all the grammatical information needed to combine grammar categories, such as nouns and verbs, into phrases. For example, according to the Universal Grammar account, children instinctively know how to combine a noun (e.g. a boy) and a verb (to eat) into a meaningful, correct phrase (A boy eats). (Lemetyinen, 2012:1). The different theories explained above are based on different principles and different views of how a human acquires a language. They are also an essential part of the

3 different theories of second language acquisition and the role of grammar in English Language Teaching. In the early stages of language teaching, grammar teaching was based on the behaviorist learning theory which consisted in the use of mechanical drills and repetition considered as practice. Later, its teaching was abandoned in order to favor a more communicative approach. According to research, both rationales proved to be successful for some learners, but limiting for some others. Those limitations included, among others, lack of communicative skills and listening comprehension for the former; fossilization and inability to achieve a high level of linguistic competence for the later. Language educators have tried to define grammar for over 100 years. Based on those definitions, different assumptions about its teaching and learning have emerged as well. For instance, the New Webster s Dictionary defines grammar as the science of language; a system of general principles for speaking and writing according to the forms and usage of a language. From this definition, it can be assumed that if a person knows the system, she or he will be competent to form and use a language, so teachers should focus on the teaching of the system. Then why is it that some language students who have been instructed in the system have failed to produce the language communicatively? According to Larsen-Freeman (2003), it is time to liberate ourselves from unhelpful assumptions and think about grammar attributes instead. In this different way of conceiving grammar, she focuses on its nature which is dynamic, complex, rational/systematic, flexible, and discursive. In other words, grammar is not a static area of knowledge but a skill or dynamic process that favors language acquisition.

4 The role of grammar in ELT One of the most controversial questions in English language teaching is: should we teach grammar? And if so, when and how? In order to be able to answer these questions, a language educator must take into consideration different second language acquisition (SLA) theories and how they relate to the different approaches to teaching grammar. First, Traditional Grammar Teaching derives from behaviorist learning theory in which students learn a language by habit formation. Ellis (1995) says that it has traditionally consisted of giving learners opportunities to produce specific grammatical structures. They have to work with grammar exercises or activities that give them opportunities to produce sentences containing the targeted structure. These activities can consist of mechanical pattern-practice drills or situational grammar exercises. They become proficient in writing perfect sentences, but they do not produce the language orally. This gap between learning and teaching gave birth to the next option. In 1981 Krashen claimed that second language acquisition should be more like first language acquisition. He developed his Monitor Model Hypothesis in which he established that a it is possible for a person to acquire a second language in the same way that he or she acquired the first language. He argues that teachers should focus on meaning and not form; and learners need to be provided with comprehensible input (i+1) language that is a little more difficult than that which the learners already know. He says that if we provide learners with sufficient input in a stress-free environment, they will subconsciously acquire correct structure in a predictable order and learners will be able to monitor themselves. In other words, teachers should focus on communication and should not teach grammar.

5 However, in 1990 Schmidt established the difference between input and intake. He refers to input as all language that learners are exposed to, and to intake as language that learners have attended to or noticed. He claims that it is possible to inadvertently notice, but subconscious noticing is oxymoronic. In other words, input by itself may not be sufficient for a student to acquire a language; the student should be in a state of awareness. Ellis (1997) refers to Krashen s position as the zero option to grammar teaching, in which there is a rejection of both planned and unplanned intervention from part of the teacher to either present language items or correct mistakes. However, he questions the effectiveness of this position as well. He claims that there is a difficulty for learners to acquire full grammatical competence through communication. Such communication may be restricted in both the input and the opportunities for learner output. He also claims that the quality of the input available for the student might not be appropriate in both quality and quantity. Finally, formal corrections may aid the acquisition of difficult grammar features and since intervention from part of the teacher is not allowed in the zero position, learners might be missing the opportunity to acquire those features and are at risk of fossilization. To overcome these problems, he offers a third alternative. His theory of instructed second language acquisition, is based on two primary distinctions implicit and explicit knowledge and learning; and controlled and automatic processing. Input is described as the raw data which second language learners work with. He says that implicit knowledge is something that you know, but you do not know that you know; in other words, the language we use without being able to explain the grammar rules that form it. On the other hand, explicit knowledge is something you know and you know

6 that you know. Something we know and we are able to explain. Controlled processing is a temporary activation of memory nodes through attentional control meanwhile automatic processing occurs when a particular response has been built up through successive mapping of the same input to the same pattern of activation over many trials. These two distinctions explicit/implicit and controlled/automatic intersect since explicit and implicit knowledge can be represented in the mind of the learner as either controlled or automatic processes. What is the relationship between explicit and implicit knowledge? According to this theory, in order to learn a language we have to change explicit knowledge into implicit knowledge, and change input to intake. Learners must notice the gap between their existing language system (interlanguage) and the correct form. They should constantly structure and re-structure their interlanguage. Thus, formal instruction can help to automatize both explicit and implicit grammatical knowledge, also explicit knowledge constitutes a kind of filter that sifts explicit knowledge derived from instruction and lets through only that which they are ready to incorporate into the interlanguage system. For implicit knowledge to be learned, it requires the operations of noticing, comparing and integrating. First, the operation of noticing requires the learner to pay attention to specific linguistic features in the input. Then, the learner needs to compare the noticed features with the ones he or she produces; and finally, integrating requires constructing new hypothesis in order to incorporate the noticed features into the interlanguage system. How can teaching contribute to the students interlanguage development? DeKeyser (1998) mentions that teaching might attempt to address different stages in the learning

7 process by instilling knowledge about rules, turning this knowledge into something that is qualitatively different through practice, or automatizing such knowledge further in the sense that it can be done faster with fewer errors and less mental effort. In addition Richards and Renandya (2002) point out that grammar teaching has regained its place in the language curriculum since it is too important to be ignored. They add that without good knowledge of grammar, learners language development will be severely constrained. Eckerth (2008) claims that if L2 learners have explicit knowledge of a certain feature of the L2, they are more likely to notice its occurrence in the communicatively imbedded input they receive. Approaches to grammar teaching If teachers should teach grammar, what options are available? In order to teach a grammatical structure the teacher can choose from two different approaches deductive and inductive. When the rule is given and then applied to examples, the teacher is using a deductive approach. In other words she or he is going from the general idea to the specific. On the other hand, when the teacher gives the class examples of the structure and the students work to self-discover the rules, he or she is presenting grammar inductively because she or he is going from the specific to the general. However, if we want our students to develop communicative skills, the deductive approach should not be an option. The activities commonly used with this approach...elicit a careful monitored speech style, reflect controlled performance, practice language out of context and do not require authentic communication (Richards, 2002:154). Then again, self-directed discovery might be useless as well since the examples

8 provided are often out of context. Moreover, the teacher needs to be sure that the learners have sufficient information and experience to be able to work out on their own explanations otherwise they will get confused and frustrated. Also the teacher might be tempted to abdicate his or her real responsibilities. In order to overcome the problems with the previous approaches and bridge the gap between teaching and learning, language teachers have a third option to teach grammar in which the aim is to make learners aware of specific features of English. That is guided discovery that Scrivener (2011) describes as creating activities that allow learners to generate their own discoveries and explanations in which the key technique is to ask good questions that encourage the learners to notice language and think about it. This approach is also known as consciousness-raising that draws on the psycholinguistic rationale provided by the theory of instructed second language acquisition described earlier in which learners take an active role in their learning process and in their interlanguage development. A consciousness-raising approach Consciousness-raising, as Ellis (1997) suggests, refers to a deliberate attempt on the part of the teacher to make the students aware of specific features of the second language. It can be for comprehension, where the aim is to focus the learners attention on the meaning performed by specific grammatical properties in order to help them intake as implicit knowledge. It can also be for explicit knowledge, where students are helped to learn about a particular grammatical feature that aids the process of intake by noticing and noticing the gap not by using grammar exercises, but by using problem-solving tasks focused on meaning that force students to notice grammatical structures. As already mentioned,

9 explicit grammar instruction is a way to help learners notice, but the practice that it is usually involved with it, may not be as effective as expected. Ellis (2002) offers a useful distinction between practice and consciousness-raising. To begin with, practice is referred to as a series of exercises where the aim is to cause the learners to absorb the structure thoroughly. It could be mechanic, contextualized or communicative, and aims to isolate, produce and repeat a language item. Practice activities are usually success-oriented and learners receive feedback. However, practice does not foster learner autonomy and it does not correspond to the learners syllabus. Consciousness-raising aims to develop declarative knowledge. Learners are provided with data that illustrates that feature and may also be provided with the rule. With this approach, learners use intellectual effort, develop clarification and articulation of the rule, and develop autonomy. It serves as a facilitator for the acquisition of linguistic competence and concept-forming. Learners perform the operations of noticing, comparing and integrating. However, it has some limitations as well. It may not be appropriate for young learners or for those who like doing instead of studying. Also, if used with beginners, L1 should be used to solve the tasks. Other definition related to consciousnessraising is language awareness. Carter in Bourke (2008) describes language awareness as the development in learners of an enhanced consciousness of and sensitivity to the forms and functions of language. Consciousness-raising tasks that involve no or minimal production of the target language might be used in order to promote language awareness. Bourke (2008) advises to

10 sequence these tasks as follows: 1. oral or written input focusing on comprehension, 2. input manipulation: observing, judging, discriminating and articulation of rule, 3. hypothesis formation; and finally 4. short production task. Stages 1, 2, and 3 correspond to the interlanguage processes of noticing, comparing and integrating respectively. Conclusions Finally, we consider that the second language environment should be as close as possible to the first language setting to help promote acquisition more than learning or memorization. This can also encourage students to raise language consciousness. Language acquisition is developed when the activities provided are designed to help students notice, compare, and integrate grammar into their interlanguage system are a very good tool for language teachers since they motivate the students who get involved in the learning process. These tasks may also become an empowering tool for autonomous learning since students are trained to notice grammar allowing them to learn on their own once they are out of the formal instruction environment. Consciousness-raising tasks are cognitively demanding and assist the noticing and comparing necessary for acquisition to take place. They help to trigger a language awareness that will serve as a tool for reaching higher levels of language competence. By using consciousness-raising in the language classroom, the teacher uses a guided discovery approach that as Scrivener (2011:166) says,...is demanding on both you and the learner [...] it requires imagination and flexibility [...] your job is to create the tasks and conditions so that grammar can be learned. In addition, the teacher needs to consider whether the grammatical feature can be learned by consciousness-raising or not; and also

11 the students age, level, interests, needs and learning styles when designing and implementing this approach. Consciousness-raising might not be for everybody; however, all the students one way or another must notice the gap and change explicit knowledge into implicit knowledge in order to learn and master a language. References Bourke, J. M. (2008). A rough guide to language awareness. English Teaching Forum Vol. 46, 1: DeKeyser, M. (1998). Beyond focus on form: Cognitive perspectives on learning practicing second language grammar. In Doughty. C. & Williams, J. (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition. New York: Cambridge University Press. Eckerth, J. (2008). Investigating consciousness-raising tasks: pedagogically targeted and non-targeted learning gains. International Journal of Applied Linguistics Vol. 18, 2: Ellis, R. (1995). Interpretation Tasks for Grammar Teaching. Tesol Quarterly Vol. 29, 1: Ellis, R. (1997). SLA Research and Language Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Ellis, R. (2002). Grammar Teaching Practice or Consciousness-Raising? In Richards, J. C. & Renandya, W. A. (Eds.), Methodology in Language Teaching. An Anthology of Current Practice. New York: Cambridge University Press. Johansson, S. (1991) Universal grammar and the innateness hypothesis. Retrieved from Krashen, S. (1981) Second Language Acquisition and Second Language Learning. Oxford: Pergamon. Larsen-Freeman, D. (2003) Teaching Language from Grammar to Grammaring. Boston: Thomson Heinle. Lemetyinen, H. (2012). Language Acquisition Theory - Simply Psychology. Retrieved from New Webster s Dictionary (1997). Ashland, OH: Landoll Inc.

12 Richards, J. C. & Renandya, W. A. (Eds.) (2002). Methodology in Language Teaching. An Anthology of Current Practice. New York: Cambridge University Press. Richards, J. C. (2002). Addressing the Grammar Gap in Task Work. In Richards, J. C. & Renandya, W. A. (Eds.), Methodology in Language Teaching. An Anthology of Current Practice. New York: Cambridge University Press. Schmidt, R. (1990) The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied Linguistics 11: Scrivener, J. (2011). Learning Teaching. The Essential Guide to English Language Teaching. Oxford: Macmillan. Skinner, B.F. (1957). Verbal Behavior. Acton, MA: Copley Publishing Group.