Explain what is meant by Phrase Structure Rules and show with examples how they can be used to generate different kinds of Recursive Structures...

Transcription

1

2 INDEX Explain what is meant by Phrase Structure Rules and show with examples how they can be used to generate different kinds of Recursive Structures...2 Innatism and Interactionism. Which Approach Is Better for Second Language Learning?...13 Immersion Programs in Canada...22 Recent Psychological Theories...30 Comparing Instructional and Natural Settings for Language Learning...33 Affective Learning in a Cooperative Context...36 A Criticism of a Lesson...41 Should Our Students Start Earlier to Learn English?...44 INSTRUCTIONAL AND NATURAL SETTINGS FOR LANGUAGE LEARNING..47 1

3 Explain what is meant by Phrase Structure Rules and show with examples how they can be used to generate different kinds of Recursive Structures. First of all, I will look at a definition of Phrase Structure Rules and see what relevant features they can tell us about the syntactic nature of language, in this case, English. Then we will see how they can be combined to show recursive structures. And finally, I will look at other theories that have developed from this. As Fromkin and Rodman (1988: 174) say, Phrase Structures Rules state all and the only possible combinations of constituents 1 of the language. For example, a Noun Phrase (NP) may consist of an Article and a Noun. So the Phrase Structure Rule for a Noun Phrase in English will be: NP Art N 2. For example, the bus is a Noun Phrase as the is an Article and after it, we have a Noun. As we can see in this Phrase Structure Rule above, on the left side we have a constituent (NP) and on the right side the constituents which can form this given constituent (Art and N). Besides, these rules tell the linear order of words ( Fromkin and Rodman 1998 : 121). So from the above rule we know that in an English Noun Phrase we must have first the Article and then, the Noun. But by means of Phrase Structure Rules we can also know the hierarchy of words in a structure like the socalled Constituent Structure Tree 3. Hence Akmajian (1995 :187) states that each rule is essentially a formula, or specification, for how the constituent represented by a certain symbol- the symbol on the left of the arrow- can be constituted in a tree diagram. Now we can take as an example the rule for a Verb Phrase: VP V NP and if we insert some words, we will deliver the following tree: 1 Constituent: any part of a sentence which form a syntactic unit within the structure of the sentence ( Trask 1993: 57). 2 NP stands for Noun Phrase, Art for Article and N for Noun. 3 Constituent Structure Tree: a tree diagram that shows the hierarchy of words in a sentence or phrase ( Tallerman 1998 :122). 2

4 VP V NP Shut Art the N door Tree 1 ( example adapted from Akmajian 1995 : 187). So at the very top of the tree we have the constituent on the left side of the arrow (VP) and this is called node. All the branches of the tree part from this and each branch ends in another node (V, NP, for example). As Radford (1988: 110) says, nodes are related to each other by dominance and if we say that a node dominates another, we are just saying that a node is higher on the tree than another. So taking into account the above tree, the node VP dominates the nodes Art and N. Therefore notice that here we have not only needed the rule for VP, but also the one for NP. In fact, as Fromkin and Rodman (1988:177) point we have to continue with rules until no constituent on the bottom of the tree occurs on the left side of the arrow of any rule. As Fromkin and Rodman (1998) states, every native speaker knows these Phrase Structure Rules and therefore they know the syntactic order of words. But it is also important to insert the appropriate words into these structures. And we know how to do this because in our grammar we have a lexicon, in which words are listed with their parts of speech or categories 4. For instance, the appears as an article and therefore in a structure tree we can only place the under the label Art ( Akmajian 1995: 189). But not necessarily all Noun Phrases have an Art, all Verb Phrases a NP, etc. because they are optional constituents and we can show this by means of parentheses. So we can modify the above phrase structures as follows: NP (Art) N and VP V (NP). The items that are not between parentheses must appear in the tree structure or otherwise, the structure is not formed appropriately. In this way, we can collapse many rules in only one. So a NP rule that collapse more possible NP rules is NP (Art) N (PP). This means that a NP rule can be NP N, for example: Mary ; but also NP Art N, for example: the boy ; NP N PP, for example: water in the basement and finally, NP Art N PP, for example: the boy on the swing ( Akmajian 1995: 190). 4 Part of speech or lexical category or word class: any one of the dozen or so classes into which the lexical items of a language are divided by their morphological and syntactic behaviour, such as Noun, Verb, Adjective, Determiner and Preposition (Trask 1993: 155). 3

5 But we can still expand this rule to NP (Art) (Adj) N (PP) as the nouns can be premodified by adjectives in a NP, for example: the white cat on the tree. To make a structure tree for this example, we need the PP structure rule, that is, PP P NP. So we can draw the following tree: NP Art Adj N PP The white cat P NP in Art N Other important rules are: S NP (Aux) VP NP Pronoun NP that S VP V (NP) (PP) (Adv). the tree Tree 2. In the following structure tree we can see some of these rules applying: S NP Aux VP Pronoun will V Adv She come in Tree 3. As we can see in tree 2, we have a NP that contains a PP and this one in turn contains a NP. In fact, we can continue indefinitely as shown in tree 4. As Akmajian says, pairs of rules that feed one another are called recursive ( Akmajian 1995:192). 4

6 NP Art N PP P NP Art N PP P NP Art N PP The house in the woods by the mountain ( Example taken from Akmajian 1995: 192). This type of structure is called rigth branching because each phrase is on the right branch of the other phrase. Thus each PP is on the right branch of an NP, which is also on the right branch of a PP and so on ( Akmajian 1995: 195). Another type of recursive structure is called left branching and we can make such a structure with the rules: NP (Poss) N Poss NP Poss-Affix In this case, each Poss is on the left of each NP, which is turn on the left of a Poss. We can observe this more clearly in the following tree ( Akmajian 1995:195): 5

7 NP Poss N NP Affix Poss N NP Affix Poss N NP Affix Mary s mother s brother s father ( Example taken from Akmajian 1995: 196). Another type of recursion is the so-called embedding. In this case, we combine the following rules: S NP Aux VP VP V (S) 6

8 S NP Aux VP N V S NP Aux VP Pat may think V S N NP Aux VP N V Bill will say Kim didn t leave ( Example taken from Akmajian 1995:193). As we see, sentences contain VPs, which in turn contain sentences and thus we can continue infinitely. We call this embedding because from the sentence on the very bottom upwards each sentence is within the structure of another sentence. Therefore we say that sentence Kim didn t leave is embedded within the VP of the sentence Bill will say Kim didn t leave, which is also embedded within another VP of another sentence: Pat may think Bill will say Kim didn t leave. Embedded sentences are also called embedded clauses or subordinate clauses. A matrix sentence contains an embedded sentence, for example: Bill will say Kim didn t leave is a matrix sentence whose embedded sentence is the underlined one. The matrix sentence at the top of the tree is called main clause and in our example Pat may think Bill will say Kim didn t leave is the main clause. We also find sentences with a matrix sentence and an embedded one like here Bill will say Kim didn t leave and they are called complex sentences. By contrast, sentences like Kim didn t leave have no embedded clauses and they are called simple sentences (Akmajian 1995: ). Now we can use {} to continue collapsing the VP rule. Therefore we will have the NP rule VP V S. The braces notation shows the choice of using any of the PP Adv elements within them ( Akmajian 1995:195). 7

9 There is a specific kind of embedding called center-embedding. This differs from the one which we have seen in the sense that the embedded sentence is inserted in the middle of the matrix sentence, that is, immediately after the NP of the matrix sentence. In fact, the embedded sentences are modifying the NPs of their corresponding matrix sentences ( Akmajian 1995: 197). For example, the woman that has a white top married John, where the underlined sentence is the embedded sentence and it is modifying the NP the woman. And we can continue inserting embedded clauses: the woman that has the white top that is torn up married John. By means of recursion we can realise that with some rules we can construct many structures. Besides, as Fromkin and Rodman (1998: 132-3) claim, recursion accounts for the creativity of language and how the native speakers of a language can understand and produce an infinite number of sentences. In all the sentences we have seen we find many generalizations. Thus every Adjective Phrase necessarily have an adjective, every Verb Phrase a verb, every Noun Phrase a noun. Therefore every phrasal category ( NP,VP,AP, PP) has a corresponding lexical category ( N, V, Adj, P) ( Akmajian 1995: 191). Consequently, many linguists such as Chomsky (1970, as cited in Akmajian 1995: 201) have suggested ways of limiting the possible range of PS rules. He (1970, as cited in Jacobs, R.A. and P.S. Rosenbaum (eds.) ) claims that there is a PS rule schema common to all phrasal categories which is X X, where stands for any complement and X for a lexical category. Akmajian ( 1995: 191) adopted this as XP X Comp. Here Comp represents Complement and X a lexical category. Therefore a PP must have a P as the head. We can see this on structure trees: XP PP VP AP X Comp P Comp V Comp A Comp PP VP AP P NP V NP A PP In the house hit the ball proud of Mary However, Farmer (1980, 1984, as cited in Akmajian 1995: ) states that this is rather a rule than a schema as we can observe in the following diagram: 8

10 XP lexical XP XP PP insertation X Comp X Comp P Comp P Comp [p in] [p in] [p in] As the word in is a preposition, X becomes P and therefore XP becomes PP. Chomsky (1996: ) continues developing the X-bar theory by the following two rules: X" Specifier X' X' X Complement We can draw the following structure trees with these two examples: X" Specifier X' X Complement X" represents the phrasal categories, the specifier marks the boundary of the phrase and is attached at the highest level, for example: determiners, degree words 5 ; X' represents the lexical category plus the complement and finally, X the lexical category. The complement is grouped with the lexical category under X' as the complement is closely related to the head, for example: the object of a verb, the complement of a preposition (handout). This can be observed in a clearer way in the following example/s: 5 Degree word: a lexical category whose members typically function as modifiers of an adjective or adverb and express the degree to which the quality expressed by that item is present, for example: very, too (Trask 1993: 74). 9

11 Adj P Deg quite Adj Adj' certain Comp PP Spec. P' P Comp. about Mary Through the whole essay we have seen many rules, but it is important to emphasize that we have been focusing on English and other languages have other different rules 6. For example, in Spanish there is a different rule for NPs, that is, NP (Art) N (Adj) (PP). As we see, the difference lies in the fact that we place the Adjective after the Noun. NP NP Art Adj N Art N Adj A white towel una toalla blanca Obviously, this is a generalization because we can also have an adjective after a noun in English and an adjective before a noun in Spanish. For example, something better and un transparente velo. In the first example, the adjective is placed after something, the head of the NP because it is an indefinite pronoun. In the second one, transparente is placed before velo because it is an epithet. In conclusion, Phrase Structures Rules tell us how we can combine constituents to form other more complex constituents in a given language. Besides, with the syntactic phenomenon called recursion we have seen why native speakers of a language can speak and understand sentences never heard before. Finally, we have 6 Remember Fromkin and Rodman s quotation at the very beginning of the essay: Phrase Structures Rules state all and the only possible combinations of constituents of the language (1998:174). 10

12 moved from the theory of Phrase Structures Rules to other more developed theory (Xbar theory) that help us to constrain all possible Phrase Structures Rules into one formula. 11

13 BIBLIOGRAPHY Fromkin, V. and R. Rodman 1988 (4 th ed.) An Introduction to Language. Fort Worth: Harcourt Brace Colledge Publishers. Fromkin, V. and R. Rodman 1998 (6 th ed.) An Introduction to Language. Fort Worth: Harcourt Brace Colledge Publishers. Akmajian, A. et al Linguistics: An Introduction to Language and Communication. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT. Tallerman, M Understanding Syntax. London: Arnold. Radford, A Transformational Grammar: A First Course Cambridge: CUP. Chomsky, N Remarks on nominalization in Jacobs, R. and P. Rosenbaum (eds) Readings in English Transformational Grammar. Waltham, Mass.: Ginn. Cook, V.J. and M. Newson 1996 (2 nd ed.) Chomsky s Universal Grammar: An Introduction. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers. Trask, R.L A Dictionary of Grammatical Terms in Linguistics. London: Routledge. 12

14 Innatism and Interactionism. Which Approach is Better for Second Language 1 Learning? There have been many theories about second language learning such as Behaviourism, Connectism, Innatism and Interactionism. But here I will focus on Innatism and Interactionism because they are two of the theories that have had more influence on second language classrooms. Then I will look at some research on classrooms to discover which theory offers us the best approach for second language learning. Generally speaking, Innatism claims that people have innate abilities to learn languages, so second language learners only need to be exposed to some samples of language to acquire it. Although Interactionism does not deny innate abilities on people, they think these are not specific to language and they emphsise the necessity of interaction in order to speak a language (Lightbown and Spada, 1999). First, we will look at Innatism. This theory is based on Chomsky s theory about first language acquisition. He and his followers (1959, as cited in Lightbow and Spada 1999: 15) think that children learn to speak because they have a biological innate ability. They believe that all children have in their brains some principles universal to all languages. So they only need some samples to know how a language works. They call this Universal Grammar (U.G.). Although he does not make any reference to second language learning, some linguists have used his theory to explain this. By contrast, other linguists assure that this is only valid for first language learning. Besides, among the ones in favour of this, there is much disagreement. Some think that U.G. is available to second language learners because they learn more than just the samples of language they are exposed to. Others state that though U.G. is present for them, its nature has been altered by the acquisition of other languages (Lightbow and Spada 1999: 36-37). But the fact that second language learners learn more than just the received input 2 does not imply that we all have a U.G. in our minds and we are using it for second language learning. Apart from this, they also disagree when discussing the benefits of formal instructions and error correction. Some like Schwartz (1993, as cited in Lightbow and Spada) think that second language learners do not benefit from formal instruction like metalinguistic information or error correction because this only changes the superficial 1 Second Language: any language you learn after having acquired your first or native language (Lightbown and Spada 1999: 178). 2 Input: the samples of language to which the learner is exposed ( Lightbown and Spada 1999: 176). 13

15 appearance of language performance. But the innatists that think that U.G. has been affected by the acquisition of the first language argue that they need explicit information about what is grammatical in their language but not in the second language (Lightbow and Spada 1999). I think that formal instruction and error correction are important to speak a second language because many learners can speak English quite fluently due to this, even before going to any English speaking country. In English lessons in Spain learners receive linguistic information and they are corrected when they are wrong. This has been useful for many learners. As regards this last innatist view, it is not only important to know what is right in your language but also in your second one. What I consider similar and much more helpful, however, is to receive contrastive lessons. These consist in comparing two languages (your first and second languages) to know how they differ. One of the benefits for the learner is that they can, for example, learn to pronounce a sound that is very similar to one in his language but if he pronounces so, this will lead to confusion. For instance, in English verb phrases the verb shows the process and the adverb the direction, so we say run out in English. But in Spanish it is just the opposite. Consequently, Spanish learners of English will probably understand the cat runs out, but they will not happen to use this expression if they are not taught. Now we will look at some hypotheses of one of the most influential innatist: Krashen (1982, as cited in Lightbow and Spada 1999: 38-39). 1. The acquisition-learning hypothesis. Krashen distinguishes between acquisition and learning. For him, acquisition happens when one is exposed to samples of the second language that one understands. By contrast, learning implies studying and paying attention at form. He claims that only acquisition leads to natural, fluent communication. 2. The monitor hypothesis. This claims that the learner system acts just as a monitor, so it only polishes what the acquired system has produced. Therefore, Krashen believes that the focus of language learning should be on creating conditions for acquisition rather than learning. But as Lightbow and Spada argue, it is very difficult to show evidence of monitor use. Furthermore, how can we know what has been produced by the acquired system and what by monitor use in an utterance? (Lightbow and Spada, 1999). 3. The natural order hypothesis. This establishes that first and second language learners follow predictable sequences to acquire the features of language. The easiest rule is not necessarily the first to be acquired, for example: the morpheme s for the singular third person form of the present tense seems very easy, but in fact learners take much time to 14

16 acquire it. And what is more relevant, the natural order is independent from the order in which rules have been learned in language classes. So teachers should take into account this order and then they should give the learners a considerable span of time for them to acquire the feature. Usually, teachers just teach a feature and the next week or maybe month they test their learners on it. Consequently, learners become stressed and unmotivated. 4. The input hypothesis. This states that the only way to acquire a language is through exposure to comprehensible input, input and structures just beyond the learners current level of competence. 5. The affective filter hypothesis. By means of this theory, he explains the lack of success when comprehensible input is available. According to Krashen, when the learner s affective filter is up, that is, when he is stressed and unmotivated, he cannot acquire language. But when his affective filter is down, that is, he is relaxed or motivated, he can acquire language. In fact, people that feel bored, stressed or unmotivated in classrooms do not have success in language learning. In contrast to this view, as Lightbow and Spada argue (1999:40), it seems to be the opposite that success in acquisition is what makes learners motivated. Indeed, learners like doing the exercises at which they are good and they tend to like either syntax, phonology or other level of language depending on which they are better. His theory has been very influential in supporting communicative language teaching. But Lightbow and Spada criticizes him for using evidences not based on empirical studies, but on intuition. Besides, classroom-centred research shows that attention to language may be more important than he acknowledges. Furthermore, language form can be incorporated within communicative language teaching (Lightbow and Spada 1999: 40). Now I will look at interactionism. The interactionists Evelyn Hatch (1992), Teresa Pica (1994), and Michael Long (1983) (as cited in Lightbow and Spada: 1999:42) claim that much second language acquisition occurs through controversial interaction. Michael Long agrees with Krashen, but he argues that modified interaction is better than simplification of linguistic forms. Modified interaction does not only involve linguistic simplification, but also elaboration, slower speech rate, gesture or the provision of additional contextual cues. For example: comprehension checks (efforts by the native speaker to find out whether the learner has understood or not, such as do you understand? ), clarification requests (efforts by the learner to make the native speakers clarify something, for instance: could you repeat, please? ) and self-repetition or paraphrase. 15

17 According to Lightbow and Spada (1999: 43-44), research has shown that conversational modifications can help learners comprehension. Besides, there is evidence that modification during interaction leads to a better understanding than linguistic simplification that is planned in advance. Furthermore, modified interaction can help learners with immediate production, but we still do not know if it makes a difference in long-term acquisition. Another important interactionist is Vygotski (as cited in Lightbow and Spada: 1999, 44), who thinks that all cognitive development (including language development) arises as a result of social interaction between individuals. Following Vygotski, Jim Lantoff and others (as cited in Lightbow and Spada:1999, 44) claim that second language learners achieve higher levels of linguistic knowledge when they interact with speakers of the second language who are more knowledgeable than they are, for example a teacher or a more advanced learner. According to them, the difference between their view and other interactionists is that they think that language acquisition happens during the interactions while the others believe that the interactions are very useful for learners to acquire the linguistic information that they need. We will look now at some research done in classrooms influenced by these theories to discover if their hypotheses are valid. First, I will look at an article written by Harley and Swain (as cited in Davies et al.: 1984) about their research on French immersion classrooms in Canadian schools, where English speaking students received their classes in French during school and high school. They focused on the use of verb forms by students at the beginning, intermediate and upper grade levels. They conclude that learners may know a particular form but they cannot use it in all its functions. So they argue that the simple provision of meaningful input which is comprehensible to the learner (Krashen, 1982), while clearly necessary, is not in itself sufficient to promote productive use of a marked formal aspect of the second language in a classroom setting. So we can realize, with this research, that the only exposure to samples of language will not enable the learner to acquire the second language as the innatists claim. The following research was done by Alison Mackey (as cited in Valdman et al. (eds.) 1999: ) to test whether conversational interaction could help learners to acquire a second language as Michael Long and other interactionists assured. For this, she focused on questions. She divided learners into five groups. The first group, called Interactors, were learners in pairs with native speakers and they had to ask whatever questions were necessary in order to carry out the tasks. The other group was called Interactor Unreadies and they only differed from the first group in that their level was lower. The third group called Observers just watched the other groups but they were not allowed to interact. The fourth group, called Scripted, did the same tasks but they 16

18 received premodified input and consequently, negotiation of meaning was practically impossible. And the fifth group was the control group 3 and they received no treatments. The results were that the interactor groups increased significantly more higher level structures. So she concluded that interactional modifications led to SL 4 development and more active involvement in negotiated interaction led to greater development. Until now, we have seen these two theories and they avoid form-focused instruction. But we should ask if this is really negative for learners or on the other hand, it can helpful. There is a proposal for teaching called get it right in the end (Lightbow and Spada 1999: 141). Proponents of this view agree with innatists and interactionists because they accept that learners need and really benefit from meaning-based instruction. But they argue that learners will improve more if they are provided with some form-focused instruction. So we will see a research by Roy Lyster (1994: ), who studied how French immersion students at grade 8 could benefit from form-focused instruction. There were three classes and form-focused materials about the use of second person singular forms vous and tu were given to the students during the French language arts classes. A pre-test, an immediate post-test and a delayed post-test were administered to the experimental group as well as to a control group. The students in the experimental classes received twelve hours of form-focused instructions during five weeks whereas the students in the two comparison classes received no instruction at all. Finally, the results demonstrated that the students who had received form-focused instruction improved both in written and oral production using vous for formal situations accurately and appropriately. Although this research supports this proposal for second language teaching, this does not mean that we have found the brilliant method. In fact, as Lightbow and Spada (1999: 149) argue form-focused instruction is more successful with some language features than with others. For example, Harley (1989, as cited in Lightbow and Spada 1999: 149) found that learners who had received instructions on the difference between passé compossé and imparfait continued to be confused because the form-meaning relationship is more complex. In conclusion, we have not found any perfect approach. But, at least, Innatism has shown the importance of meaningful based context in a classroom. And Interactionism has taken this into account, but it has also made teachers realize of the 3 Experimental and control group: they are typical of experimental studies and they differ from each other only in the presence or absence of one variable ( Lightbown and Spada 1999). 4 SL: Second Language. 17

19 important role of conversations and group or pair work in classrooms. However, due to the research, we have noticed that form-focused instruction on some features is necessary. So as Lightbow and Spada (1999) state, we should find the balance between meaning-based and form-focused instruction (Lightbow and Spada 1999). SUMMARY What is Innatism and Interactionism? - Innatism: Innate abilities. Just some samples of language. - Interactionism: Emphasis on the necessity of interaction. Innatism. - Chomsky s U.G. (Universal Grammar) 1 st language. - Much Disagreement U.G. only used for 1 st language. U.G. has been altered by acquisition of first language but it is still present. -Krashen s view: input just beyond the learner s current level of second language. Interactionism. 18

20 Two Trends: - Michael Long and others: modified interaction to provide linguistic information. - Vygotsky and others: acquisition of second language during the modified interaction. Research. Harley and Swain (1984): - French Immersion Classrooms: classrooms where English speaking students received all their classes in French. - Study on the use of verb forms. functions. claim. - Results: learners know the forms, but they could not use them in all its - Conclusion: being exposed to language cannot lead to acquisition as Innatists Alison Mackey (1999): - Her aim: to test if what interactionits claim was true. - Study on question. - Division of learners into groups: interactors and obsevers. - Results: the interactor groups improved. 19

21 - Conclusion: this research favours Interactionism. But what about some instruction on form? Get it right in the end proposal: learners benefit from this. Roy Lyster (1994): - French Immersion Classrooms, but instruction on vous and tu for some classes. - Results: the learners who have received the instruction improved. Conclusion: No a perfect approach but at least we have learned that learners should interact and receive some instruction on form. 20

22 BIBLIOGRAPHY: Lightbown, P.M. and Spada, N. (1999). How Languages Are Learned. (2 nd ed.) Oxford: Oxford University Press. Lyster, R. (1994). The Effect of Functional-Analytic Teaching on Aspects of French Immersion Students Sociolinguistic Competence in Lantolf, J.P. and Mitchell, R. (eds.) Applied Linguistics. Vol. 15. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Mackey, A. (1999). Input, Interaction, and Second Language Development: An Empirical Study of Question Formation in ESL in Valdman, A. et al. (eds.) Studies in Second Language Acquisition. Vol. 21. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Harley, Birgit and Swain, Merril. (1984). The Interlanguage of Immersion Students and its Implications for Second Language Teaching in Davies, A.; Criper, C. and Hawatt, A.P.R. Interlanguage. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. 21

23 IMMERSION PROGRAMS IN CANADA Goal: to differentiate immersion from other types of bilingual educational programs. 1 st ) development of immersion programs in Canada and the use of the term for different functions in different situations. 2 nd ) core features (present in a prototypical immersion program) related to: program development, teaching strategies, learning conditions, learning outcomes. 3 rd ) variable features ( they will influence program outcomes). 4 th ) some questions that need to be addressed in immersion research. Origins of Immersion Programs in Canada. By the mid-1960s French was Quebec s official language, and English speakers realised that it was necessary for them to speak French to get a job and to socialise with the rest of the population that was French. Therefore, a group of English parents suggested to their school board to depart from the teaching of French as a Second Language (FSL). Instead students would have all the curriculum in French from the kindergaten and gradually from grade 2 including some English language literacy skills or first language literacy skills labelled immersion programs. By the 1960s the rest of Canada was becoming aware of the importance of French economically, socially and even politically. French immersion spread to other parts of Canada due to the importance of French. So the previously-described early total immersion was introduced, but also other kinds of immersion programs due to parental worries and administrative concerns: early partial immersion programs: half the school day in English and half in French from grade 1 on. mid-immersion programs: French is introduced at grade 4 or 5. late immersion programs: French at grade 6 or 7 on. In these two last types French is taught as a subject before it is introduced as a medium of instruction. Currently 7% of the school-going population enrolled in one form or another of French immersion education. Swain (1984) claimed that many researchers have been done on immersion programs because parents and educators wanted to know if in their program: 1) Students would learn the L2 (French) through its use as the medium of instruction. 2) The curriculum content could be adequately covered through a language that was in the process of being mastered. 22

24 3) The L1 (English) could be adequately maintained and developed under these circunstances. During the late 1970s and early 1980s immersion education spread widely and rapidly in Canada. The Spread of Immersion Programs There are different contexts in which immersion programs have developed, all of them having the core features that we will later discuss and some having as source the model in Canada. Immersion in a Foreign Language. Although French in Quebec was a Second Language, in other parts of Canada French was not spoken by community members. In this way immersion programs appeared in the context of learning a Foreign Language. It spread to other parts of the world, for example: due to economic reasons, in Australia immersion programs in Japanese, Mandarin and Indonesian appeared. Immersion for Majority-language students in a Minority Language. As we have seen, French immersion in Canada has served the economic, political, and social aims of the middle- and upper-middle-class English speaking majority. In other parts of the world immersion programs have served similar aims, for example: the Swedish immersion program in Finland. Immersion for Language Support and Language Revival. In Catalonia and in the Basque country Catalan and Basque were prohibited as language of instruction. But when they regained this right, bilingual programs appeared for Catalan and Basque speakers together with immersion programs for Spanish monolingual children. However, the boundary between bilingual programs and immersion programs because many Catalan and Basque speakers attended classes in the latter ones. According to Swain and Johnson, in places like Wales, where the number of native speakers of Welsh is decreasing but they are determined to keep its culture and language, immersion can be the only means to stop the process of extinction. Immersion has also been used to revive an almost extinct language. For example, Ukranian immersion and Cree immersion programs in Canada and the Maori immersion program in New Zealand. Immersion in a language of Power 23

25 In many places around the world the language of the former colonizers was kept as a the medium of instruction. According to Swain and Johnson, this is due to different factors such as deliberate policy, a desire to promote national rather than regional identities, no well-developed tradition of literacy and formal education previously existed. In this way English has been used as an intranational and international lingua franca, for example in Singapore, where English has become the L1 of the 20% of the population and the language of education. PAKISTAN: PROVINCES&FAMILY. Core Features of a Prototypical Immersion Program. Each of the defining features of immersion presented in this section has to be seen as a continuum. Any prototypical immersion program would have these features to its fullest. 1) The L2 is a medium of instruction. This is the feature that differentiates immersion from other types of bilingual education. And this is a means to increasethe quantity of comprehensible input and purposeful use of the target language in a classroom. 2) The immersion curriculum parallels the local L1 curriculum. It consists of the same subjects and what is more important is defined in terms of L1 speakers needs and goals. 3) Overt support exists for the L1. The L1 is taught as a subject and often it is also used as a medium of instruction. 4) The program aims for additive bilingualism. By the end of the program the students will speak the L1 as any others that have studied through the L1 and they will have a high level of proficency of the L2, but not native-like proficency. By contrast, in L2 medium programs the result is replacive bilingualism because the L2 is acquired at the expense of the L1. 5) Exposure to the L2 is largely confined to the classroom. In many occasions, exposure to the L2 is limited to the classroom. A study by Beardsmore and Swain (1985) compared students in French L2 medium programs in Canada and in Brussels. In Brussels French was also used outside the classroom, but not in Canada. The students in Brussels acquired half the time taken by the Canadian ones to acquire the same level of French proficiency. 24

26 6) Students enter with similar ( and limited) levels of L2 proficiency. Immersion programs take this into account to develop a curriculum and pedagogy that match their needs and maximize the opportunities for rapid L2 development. 7) The teachers are bilingual in the students L1 and L2, so students are allowed to use the L1 and encourage to use the L2 with the teacher. 8) The classroom culture is that of the local L1 community, that is, the culture of the students community and therefore any teacher in an immersion program need to acquire this culture. For example, Japanese teachers need to adjust to the classroom culture in a North American immersion program. Variable Features that differentiate immersion programs from each other. 1) Level within the educational system at which immersion is introduced. Immersion programs: early ( at the beginning of formal education), mid ( at grade 4 or 5) or late ( at grade 6 or 7). 2) Extent of immersion. Immersion programs: full ( no L1 for a year or more) or partial ( 50% of the content subject or less through the L2). 3) The radio of L1 to L2 at different stages within the immersion program. Some immersion programs begin by maximizing exposure to the L2 and then progresively increasing the proportion of the curriculum taught through the L1. Others begin with content-based teaching in the L2 in only one subject and then increase the number of subjects taught through the L2. 4) Continuity across levels within education systems. This can be a problem, but some education system offer the possibility to continue in an immersion program in secondary level. 5) Bridging support. Immersion programs vary in the support they provide for students moving from L1 to L2 medium instruction. In many programs it is assumed that teachers and students will solve the problem one way or another without external guidance or support. 25

27 6) Resources. Immersion programs require more expensive resources than other monolingual programs and sometimes this creates conflict between immersion schools and monolingual schools and also between immersion schools and administrators. 7) Commitment. The commitment of all those involved is more important than for other educational programs. Extra effort is required from teachers and students. It is difficult to find the teachers suitable for these programs. But not only teachers and students have to be committed, also policymakers, parents, etc. The commitment and the resources are two important issues because depending on them, the success of the immersion program can be higher or lower or even the immersion program can fail to promote additive bilingualism. 8) Attitudes toward the culture of the target language. From the language revival perspective, language and culture are linked together, so learning the L2 helps to keep on with the culture of the L2. However, most of immersion programs are aimed at just acquiring a high proficiency of the L2 and teachers, parents and students do not worry much about the culture of the L2. 9) Status of the L2. Due to this, one medium of instruction trough L1 or L2 will be preferred. But this medium will be neglected where the L2 is not so relevant for economic or other reasons. 10) What counts as success in an immersion program. It depends on the community where the immersion program takes place: A. In some contexts to establish an immersion program is a success because it means that the rights to preserve the culture of and language of a minority group has been recognised. B. In terms of educational and linguistic results, success is evaluated in different ways: 1) If students from immersion programs are compared to students that have studied the L2 as a subject, the former ones are much more successful. 2) But if they are compared to native speakers, their proficiency is evaluated as non-standard in terms of pronunciation and grammar and as limited in terms of the communicative functions they can perform. 3) Where the L1 is the language of academic, social and economic power within the community, evaluation focus on achievements in the L1 compared with students that have just studied through the L1 medium. 4) Where proficiency in the L2 is relevant for career and economic goals, that type of evaluation is irrelevant ( Hong Kong, Singapore). 26

28 Unwarranted Extension of the Term Immersion. There are different inappropriate overextension of the term immersion : - English-only programs for Spanish-speaking minorities in USA because they lead to replacive or subtractive bilingualism instead of additive bilingualism and because students are often in contact with the L2 outside classroom. - Programs aimed at the maintainance of the L1 because the target language and the medium of instruction is the L1, but the goal is also additive bilingualism. - Spolsky: immersion was first used to refer to short but intensive programs for soldiers in USA during WWI and it is still used to refer to intensive program. - Programs that allow students to live and study in the L2 country because the curriculum is entirely language-based rather than content-based and because immersion in the target culture and community is the antithesis of the classroombased learning of the immersion programs. Summary and Conclusions. This is an introduction to immersion, so it has defined the term and contextualize the term in history and within the educational bilingual programs. Immersion spread from L2 French medium programs in Quebec in the late 1960s to different places for different purposes. We have seen different core features, among them I would like to emphasise: - Aim: additive bilingualism. - L2 is the medium of instruction, although the curriculum is the same as in other L1 programs of the same community. - No contact with the L2 outside school. There are other important core and variable features that make some immersion programs different from others. Although many researches have been done, what is still needed is a much clearer understanding of these approaches to the curriculum development, and to the teaching and learning processes that optimise the potential of immersion programs, of how these approaches and processes might need to be varied in different contexts and the differences in outcomes likely to result from such variations. 27

29 DISCUSSION POINTS In Spain if you were to take your child to an immersion program, what type would you prefer: early total, partial mid or partial late immersion program? Discuss the factors that you consider important for a Spanish student in an immersion program in Spain to acquire the L2. In immersion programs one disadvantage to learn the L2 is that no contact with the L2 is available outside the classroom, how would you provide your child with this contact? If you were a teacher in an immersion program, what would you do to encourage a student to learn the L2 if he feels really unmotivated? After secondary school contact with the L2 is really difficult for students in monolingual communities, what would you suggest for them not to lose their proficiency? 28

30 BIBLIOGRAPHY: Swain, M. & R. K. Johnson Immersion Education. A category within bilingual education. In Johnson, R. K. & M. Swain (Eds.) Immersion Education: International Perspectives. C.U.P. (pp. 1-15). Lightbown, P.M. and Spada, N. (1999). How Languages Are Learned. (2 nd ed.) Oxford: Oxford University Press. 29

31 RECENT PSYCHOLOGICAL THEORIES Cognitivism The second language acquisition consists of building up knowledge systems that can eventually be called on automatically for speaking and understanding through experience and practice. Unlike Krashens, Richard Smith claims that everything we come to know about the language is first noticed consciously. Cognitive psychologists see no difference between acquisition and learning (Schmidt 1990). Some suggest that there are also changes in skill and knowledge which are due to restructuring. This is to explain things we know and use automatically and are not due to practice. Instead, they are the result of interaction of knowledge we already have or the acquisition of new knowledge which fits into an existing system and causes it to be transformed or restructured. For example, when someone learned the morpheme ed for past tense, his knowledge of irregular verbs (usually learned before) can be affected: I saw a film I seed a film or even I sawed a film. Connectionism Connectionists argue that learners gradually build up their knowledge of language through exposure to thousands of instances of the linguistic features they eventually learn. While innatists consider input as a trigger to activate innate knowledge, connectionists see input as the main source of linguistic knowledge. Connectionist research claim that a learning mechanism, simulated by a computer program, cannot only learn what it hears but also generalize, even makes overgeneralization errors. This can explain the acquisition of vocabulary and grammatical morphemes. But how this model of cumulative learning can lead to knowledge of complex syntactic structures is a question under investigation. 30

32 The Interactionist Position Evelyn Hatch (1992), Teresa Pica (1994) and Michael Long (1983) believe much second language acquisition takes place through conversational interaction. Michael Long has done some observation on interactions between learners and native speakers. He agrees with Krashens, but he thinks modified interaction is better than simplification of linguistic forms. Modified interaction does not always involve linguistic simplification, but also elaboration, slower speech rate, gesture or the provision of additional contextual cues. Research has demonstrated that conversational adjustments can aid comprehension. There is evidence that modification during interaction leads to better understanding than linguistic simplification which is planned in advance. However, we are not so sure about the benefits of modified interaction in a long term. Vygotsky assures that all cognitive development (including language development) arises as a result of social interaction between individuals. Jim Lantoff and others found out that L2 learners advance to higher levels of linguistic knowledge when they collaborate and interact with speakers of the second language who are more knowledgeable than they are, for example a teacher or a more advanced learner. Vygotsky created the notion of the zone of proximal development to refer to the level of performance that a learner is capable of when there is support from interaction with a more advanced interlocutor. This may be observed in a variety of speech strategies by more advanced speakers to create supportive conditions for the L2 learner to comprehend and produce language (repetition, modification, modelling). According to Vygotskyan theorists, there is a difference between this perspective and others which give importance to interaction: sociocultural theorists assume that language acquisition actually takes place in the interactions of learner and interlocutor, whereas other interactionist models assume that input modification provides learners with the linguistic raw material which they will process internally and invisibly. 31

33 BIBLIOGRAPHY: Lightbown, Patsy M. and Spada, Nina How Languages Are Learned. Second Edition. Oxford: OUP. Chomsky, N Review of Verbal Behaviour by B. F. Skinner. Language 35/1: Chomsky, N Lectures on Government and Binding. Dordrecht: Foris. Chapter 1. Cook, V Chomsky s Universal Grammar. London: Basil Blackwell. 32

34 COMPARING INSTRUCTIONAL AND NATURAL SETTINGS FOR LANGUAGE LEARNING Natural acquisition is exposure to language at work, social interaction, if a child is at school with natives of that language. The traditional instructional environments are grammar translation or audiolingual classrooms. In this context the language is taught to a group of second or foreign language learners. The focus is on language not on the information carried by language. The teacher s goal is that students learn the vocabulary and grammatical rules of the target language. The goal of learners is to pass an exam, not to use the language for daily communicative interaction. In communicative, content-based and task-based instructional environments, the learners goal is learning the language itself and the emphasis is on interaction, conversation and language use. The topics in communicative and task-based settings are of interest to the learner. Content-based instruction focuses on subject-matters such as history, maths, etc. Occasionally, it focuses on the language, but on using it not on talking about it. The language which teachers use for teaching is not selected on the basis of teaching a specific feature of language, but on leading learners to use the language in a variety of contexts. Students success is measured in terms of their ability to get things done in the L2, rather than their accuracy in using certain grammatical features. In traditional instructional settings, there are two types of approaches: the grammar translation approaches and the audiolingual approaches. In classrooms using the first type of approaches, the learners do translation activities and learn grammatical rules to acquire the language. In classrooms using the second type of approaches, learners are expected to learn through repetition and habit formation. Communicative instructional settings are based on innatist and interactionist theories of language learning. By contrast, the two types of traditional approaches mentioned above are based on Behaviourism. In the case of audiolingual approaches, the emphasis is on oral language, but students rarely use the language spontaneously. Otherwise, they will commit errors and these will become habits. Much later than these approaches started to be used in classrooms, some research was done. The researches claim that audiolingual and grammar-based learners were unable to communicate and that grammar-based approaches did not lead to high levels of accuracy and linguistic knowledge. 33

35 According to Interactionism, learners need meaningful and comprehensible input through conversational interaction with teachers and other students. They negotiate for meaning when they are given the opportunity to engage in meaningful activities. By negotiation of meaning, they mean to express and clarify their intentions, thoughts, opinions, etc. in a way which permits them to arrive to a mutual understanding. For example, task-based instruction, learners work together to accomplish a particular goal. Negotiation leads to acquisition of language forms, that is, words and grammatical structures. Some examples of negotiation of meaning are clarification, confirmation and repetition. This approach emphasises the importance of group-work and student-centred classrooms. Genuine exchanges of information encourage learners to participate in language learning activities. The researches of Michael Long and his colleagues (1976), Long and Porter (1985) and George Yule and Doris Macdonald (1990) support the idea that it is useful for teachers to know to organise group and pair work more effectively in the classroom. Innatists claim that it is not necessary to drill and memorise language forms or to interact. According to them, the emphasis should be on providing comprehensible input through listening and reading activities. It is enough to hear, read and understand, that s why learners are given a steady diet of listening and reading comprehension activities. Materials are not graded according to linguistic simplicity, but to comprehensible input. The individual most associated with this proposal is Stephen Krashen (Krashen 1985). Some research done on French immersion programmes found out that the learners have good comprehension, fluency and confidence, but no high levels of accuracy. Comprehension-based ESL in Canada supported Krashen s hypothesis, but learners were beginners and the follow-up study suggested they needed more guidance from a teacher for their language skills to go on developing. A similar conclusion was come to in Total Physical Response classrooms, where there were great benefits for learners in early stages of development, but learners could not discriminate what was grammatical or ungrammatical. Processing instruction lessons provided students with a guided and more direct exposure to forms. This made greater benefits for comprehension practice over production practice. The benefits of a focus on language form within input-based instruction were that learners attention was explicitly paid to form-meaning relationship. In conclusion, innatist approaches are beneficial in the development of basic comprehension and communicative performance in the early stages of learning (particularly if the learner has no other contact with the language apart from the classroom). However, it is not enough to continue developing the L2 to advanced levels because the learner does not know what is ungrammatical. 34

36 BIBLIOGRAPHY: Lightbown, Patsy M. and Spada, Nina How Languages Are Learned. Second Edition. Oxford: OUP. Chomsky, N Review of Verbal Behaviour by B. F. Skinner. Language 35/1: Chomsky, N Lectures on Government and Binding. Dordrecht: Foris. Chapter 1. Cook, V Chomsky s Universal Grammar. London: Basil Blackwell. 35

37 AFFECTIVE LEARNING IN A COOPERATIVE CONTEXT During this year I have changed my point of view on three factors related to Second Language Learning (SLL) due to my experience teaching third and fourth groups in a private school. These three factors are self-esteem, teacher s behaviour and cooperation. Before this year, I knew they were very important for SLL but this year I have realised why they are so important and how important they are. I consider self-esteem to be the most important one because nobody can learn anything and fix this learning if he does not feel well. Your reptilian brain and limbic system have to be good in order that the thinking part of the brain can work properly. In education the only part of the brain taken into account, until not so long ago, has been the thinking part. Later, the limbic part was also taken into account, but only in primary school. As J. Arnold and H. Douglas Brown say in their chapter A Map of the Terrain (p.8, Affective Factors in SLA), the way we feel about ourselves and our capabilities can either facilitate or impede our learning. I sincerely know that this is true from my own experience. I am quite shy, but when I feel comfortable in class, I do not mind participating and speaking in front of the class. According to Stanley Coopersmith (p.88, Self-esteem in the Classroom or the Metamorphosis of Butterflies by Verónica de Andrés), by self-esteem we refer to the evaluation which the individual makes and customarily maintains with regard to himself; it expresses an attitude of approval or disapproval, and indicates the extent to which an individual believes himself to be capable, significant and worthy. Robert Reasoner claimed that it is essential to acknowledge the uniqueness of each student and to protect his rights and feelings in order to develop the five key components of self-esteem: a sense of security, a sense of identity, a sense of belonging, a sense of purpose and a sense of personal competence. For example, in my last course I felt comfortable in class because I felt everyone had something important for the rest to know, because everyone was at the same level (there was no favourite student, students were situated resembling a U-shape, teacher s role was that of a facilitator). I felt heard, my opinion was interesting and relevant for the group. But what I really like from this course was that the things we were reading about and criticising were actually experienced in class. I remember that we have read about how much the way students are placed in the classroom can influence on the learning and in fact, one day we were not situated resembling a U-shape and I could not paid so much attention to the mate 36

38 that was out of this U-shape. This is the kind of things that made me be motivated to continue going to class and reading. Besides, the fact that everyone was motivated kept me motivated along the year. One factor that helps a lot to create this kind of ambience is the teacher s attitude, his behaviour towards the group, towards every student in the class, also his way of organising the course, the lessons, etc. As Adrian Underhill says in his chapter Facilitation in Language Teaching (p. 125, Affective Factors in SLA), I come to realise that the way I am has as much effect on the class as the methods I use, and that patience, relationship, spontaneity, empathy, respect and so forth, are qualities that are of the utmost importance, yet cannot be put in place by more methodology or a different course book. Adrian Underhill distinguishes among three kinds of teacher in the chapter mentioned above (p.125-6). By lecturer I mean a teacher in any educational context who has a knowledge of the topic taught but no special skill or interest in the techniques and methodology of teaching it. By teacher I mean a teacher in any educational setting who has a knowledge of the topic and is also familiar with a range of methods and procedures for teaching it. By facilitator I mean a teacher in any educational setting who understands the topic, is skilled in the use of current teaching methods and techniques, and who actively studies and pays attention to the psychological learning atmosphere and the inner processes of learning on a moment basis, with the aim of enabling learners to take as much responsibility for their learning as they can. This last is what differentiates the facilitator from the teacher. But to be a facilitator, the most important aspect to take into account is the teacher s attitude. The point of all this is that new techniques with old attitudes may amount to no change, while new attitudes even with old techniques can lead to significant change (p.131). Besides, this change does not only refer to the students academic results but also to their personal development. Having this kind of teacher, the students have to work harder and have to rely on their partners, little by little the students will work together to get their academic aims and at the same time they will be learning to work in groups and to understand each other better. This kind of learning includes the relationship in and between people in the group, the degree of security felt by individuals, the sensitivity of the trainer to undercurrents, the quality of listening and acceptance, the possibility for nonjudgemental interaction, the way the needs for selfesteem are met, and so on. It also includes the issue of power, that is who makes the decisions, how, and about what and who carries them out (p.130). This will help our students to have their self-esteem higher and to integrate better in the group they are. As we can see, this process of teaching-learning is connected with improving our students self-esteem and with cooperative learning. According to Cohen (p.161, The role of group dynamics in foreign language learning and teaching by Z. Dornyei and Angi Malderez), much of the work that 37

39 teachers usually do is taken care of by the students themselves; the group makes sure that everyone understands what to do; the group helps to keep everyone on task; group members assist one another. Instead of the teacher having control everyone s behaviour, the students take charge of themselves and others. And JoAnn Crandall ( Cooperative language learning and affective factors, p.227), cooperative learning has been shown to encourage and support most of the affective factors which correlate positively with language learning: i.e. reducing ( negative or debilitating) anxiety, increasing motivation, facilitating the development of positive attitudes toward learning and language learning, promoting self-esteem, as well as supporting different learning styles and encouraging perseverance in the difficult and confusing process of learning another language. Any cooperative task has an information gap to which the students are faced. In contrast to other processes of teaching-learning, students are not alone to face the problems or to discover something new. Instead the students work together and help together to get their aims. In order that all the members of the group feel integrated, it is important to group the students in different ways so that all the members on the group know and work with each other. In this way all the members can know the others and can understand everyone on the group. My experience at my last couse helped me to realise how useful it is to work with different people. There we were divided in groups but all the groups shared their results with the other groups. Besides, I was grouped with different members all the time so I could meet everyone. This was an experience that helped me as a student, teacher and person. Researchers in favour of this type of learning usually emphasises that it helps to reduce students anxiety. This is why Dr. Jane Arnold always advises us to allow our students some time to work together before asking them the solution to a problem or the result of an activity. Another point emphasised is that it helps students to integrate on the group they belong to, although they have different likes, interests, etc. Besides, they learn to work cooperatively, which can help them in their future life when they have to work with other partners in their jobs. However, some teachers are against this kind of teaching-learning because they are afraid of creating interdependence among their students. They think in this way students will never become autonomous. But as Sharan and Sharan (1992) demonstrated, they also become increasingly responsible for their own learning, moving from dependence upon the teacher to more interdependence on each other, from interdependence to independence (autonomy) as a language learner (p.231, Cooperative language learning and affective factors by JoAnn Crandall). I think that the traditional ways of teaching-learning, where the educator acts as a teacher or lecturer, can result on more dependence on the educator than this one. Students receive 38

40 passively the theories or the educators opinions and they are not expected to think about or reflect on anything, just to study them for an exam. Here I have included my experience as a student because my experience as a teacher is much more limited, but also because I consider that you cannot separate the process of teaching from the process of learning. In conclusion, this is all that I have learned this year thanks to my partners, teachers and my experiences before and during this year. 39

41 BIBLIOGRAPHY: Arnold, J. and Douglas Brown, H. A Map of the Terrain. Affective Factors in SLA. Fortele: Formación Telmática del Profesorado en la Enseñanza del Español Como Lengua Extranjera. Murcia, España. Consejería de Educación y Cultura. Vol Arnold, J Affect in Language Learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 40

42 A CRITISCISM OF A LESSON This is a class of twenty-two students at the level of 4 th of ESO, this lesson begins at 9.25 a.m. and it lasts 60 minutes. Only six of them are boys. They are sat down in pairs. First of all, the teacher corrects some comprehension questions from their notebook, this takes the first 20 of the lesson. The teacher asks the questions and the students answer aloud, they volunteer freely, they are very willing to volunteer, so the teacher does not need to force anyone to answer. Most of the students have brought their homework, so there is no need for them to improvise. From the very beginning, I could see that there was a good atmosphere in class, all the students feel integrated in the group. The students answer in English and they are not stopped for errors. When errors happen, the teacher asks the whole class about the correct form, but no student feel ashamed for this and the teacher s correction is never disappointing at all 1. However, the focus is mainly on the content of the text and all goes on in English, sometimes the L1 is used for clarification, for example when they do not know the meaning of a word, but other times the teacher defines the word or uses some examples to explain the meaning of a word. Just a few answers are written on the blackboard, but the teacher makes explicit in the L1 that they are examples of possible answers. They are allowed about 5 to finish their homework, they are grouped in pairs during all the lessons, so they usually work in pairs rather than individually. However, sometimes students ask or compare their answers to other students. The teacher is always going around and checking if they have any doubt. After this, they are asked by the teacher to correct their homework with their peers, just about 2. And then, they correct everything in the same way. The rest of the class focuses on grammar, the lesson started at 9.25 and it is The grammar point is Present Perfect, which has been seen last year, so they are asked to remember. They do a brainstorming that is focused on form, students tell what they remember and they are again willing to participate ( all of them feel free to participate during the whole class and they never feel ashamed). The first thing they remember is that the auxiliary is the verb have and also that they need to add ed to the other verb. But the teacher clarifies that this is just for regular verbs and she reminds them of some irregular verbs. Then she also reminds them of the two forms of the verb have in the present form: has/have. To remind them of the form of affirmative, negative and interrogative sentences, she writes some examples on the blackboard and students usually comment aloud on the form of these types of sentences. Then, the teacher asks them about yet and already, in which sentences they can be used and the meaning of 1 She always tells them not to worry about errors because they need to make them in order to learn. 41

43 them. They remember them well. For this, students are allowed to speak Spanish but the teacher is speaking English all the time. Now the teacher tells them in Spanish that they are going to see two new prepositions to use with the Present Perfect: for and since. They have to underline sentences with these two prepositions on the text they have previously read and the one about which they have corrected the comprehension questions. The students read the sentences and the focus is on the content, they have to reflect on what information they add, they are asked to remember what the meaning of these two prepositions are, so they can work out this in pairs and they speak freely in Spanish. When seeing this grammar point, the focus is always on meaning as it can be seen from what the teacher writes on the blackboard: FOR + A PERIOD OF TIME SINCE + POINTS IN TIME After this, students do some exercises on their notebooks focusing on what has been seen in the lesson today and they work with their peers, most of the time in pairs, but when they have doubts they ask other pairs, the teacher is all the time around the class to help them. They use the L1, but they are not chatting, they are doing their exercises. I had the chance to talk to the teacher about the group and she told me that it was a nice group, although very talkative, and that, unfortunately, their parents do not consider their study so important. Besides, she thought that the group was not very hard-working, but they worked in class when they were told and they did not aim at bothering her or the rest of the class when working. She also seemed worried about their level of education. In conclusion, I found this teacher really motivating because she is affective with her students, she cares about them and the members of the class feel integrated. The second class I have watched is another group of 4 th year of ESO with a different teacher. The class consists of twenty-six students. The lesson starts at and it lasts 50 minutes. The teacher uses English and the students also speak English when correcting the exercises aloud but for anything else they speak Spanish. They start by correcting their homework, the teacher chooses the students. The exercise consists in ordering some paragraphs to tell a story. The students read their answers, which are ok, but the teacher corrects their errors on pronunciation, which stops them while reading and can discourage them. The following exercise is to ask some questions for the answers given, one student reads the questions and others the answers, but the teacher always name them, they are not free to volunteer. When anyone makes an error while correcting these exercises, the teacher asks either the whole class or someone if they agree or disagree, 42

44 this is nicer than to tell someone he has made an error and, at the same time, makes students to focus on their common errors. Then, they do some exercises to review the last unit they have seen. The teacher emphasises they should ask any doubt they still have. The teacher goes around helping them. One student complains to the teacher about her level of English and says in Spanish: yo no sé qué hacer porque de verdad me siento tonta. The teacher encourages her not to give up and advises her to study everyday, to revise things done in class and to study vocabulary. The rest of the class continues doing their exercises, except for a group of five students, who do not do anything. At the very beginning of the class, one was told to sit down next to the teacher, he is quiet and doing his exercises during the rest of the class but his partners, who are sat down at the back of the classroom, do not. In conclusion, this teacher cares about her students but she is not so able to make all the students integrate in the class and does not help them to volunteer. 43

45 Should Our Students Start Earlier to Learn English? The educational laws stating the teaching of English in the first years of Primary School rely on the Critical Period Hypothesis, which was first applied to the mother tongues, and sometime later it was considered convenient for second language learning. According to Chomsky, children are born with some skills and knowledge common to all the languages (Universal Grammar). In this way children use some rules and eliminate others with the help of the samples of language they were exposed to everyday. Because of this, innatists thought that there was an age limit to learn a mother language (Critical Period Hypothesis). This was supported by children who have tried but not succeed in learning their mother tongue after the age of ten. For example: the case of Victor, a French boy who was found in the forest when he was twelve; and the case of Genie, a Californian girl found at the age of thirteen after being all her life alone in a dark room. However, we still do not know if the age was the only factor avoiding them to speak their languages. There were other factors which could have been influential such as psychological disorders. Genie has been abused, and when she started to pronounce her first sounds, her father shouted at her. Later, some researches were done to immigrants and immigrant children were the ones to acquire a better level of the second language, especially as regards the accent. For example, on Patkwoski s research some natives evaluated some teenage immigrants better than others who arrived in the USA after their puberty. However, Patkwoski himself recognised that there were other factors related to the age such as the time of residence. Those who have arrived earlier have usually lived longer in the USA. Therefore, it cannot be stated that their better level of English is due to their age and not to their time of residence or their exposure to the language. By contrast, Catherine Show and Marian Hoefnagel-Höhle, on their research on Holland, came to the conclusion that there was no Critical Period. English adolescents were the most efficient and fast learners acquiring Dutch, they overcame children and adults in different tasks. It is not only important to take into account the researches, but also to differentiate the learners of a second language from the students of a foreign language. In the case of the USA immigrants, they are speakers of a second language, that is, they were exposed to the target language a long time everyday. Spanish students of English are only in contact with the target language for two or three hours a week. Therefore, 44

46 they are students of a foreign language. What is more important, the acquisition of the language is more limited due to the fact that at these ages the intellectual abilities are still in progress. Furthermore, in this context, the aim is no longer to acquire the foreign language to lead a life using this language like in the case of immigrants. Finally, we should wonder if it is efficient to teach English from the first years of Primary or even, if it could turn to be negative. According to Patsy M. Lightbown and Nina Spada, it is very demotivating for students of a foreign language to see that they have been studying English for several years without having a high level. 45

47 BIBLIOGRAPHY: Lightbown, Patsy M. and Spada, Nina How Languages Are Learned. Second Edition. Oxford: OUP. Chomsky, N Review of Verbal Behaviour by B. F. Skinner. Language 35/1: Chomsky, N Lectures on Government and Binding. Dordrecht: Foris. Chapter 1. Cook, V Chomsky s Universal Grammar. London: Basil Blackwell. Lenneberg, E The Biological Foundations of Language. New York, John Wiley. Curtiss, S Genie: A Psycholinguistic Study of a Modern-day Wild Child. New York: Academic Press. Itard, J.-M.-G The Wild Boy of Aveyron ( L Enfant sauvage). New York: Meredith. Patkowski, M The sensitive period for the acquisition of syntax in a second language. Language Learning 30/2: Snow, C. and M.Hoefnagel-Höhle The critical period for language acquisition: evidence from second language learning Child Development 49/4:

48 INSTRUCTIONAL AND NATURAL SETTINGS FOR LANGUAGE LEARNING Comparing instructional and natural settings for language learning, natural acquisition takes place through exposure to language at work, in social interaction, if a child is at a school with natives of that language. In traditional instructional environments, the language is taught to a group of second or foreign language learners. The focus is on the language code itself, not on the information carried by the language. The teacher s goal is usually that students learn the vocabulary and grammatical rules of the target language. The goal of learners is to pass an exam, not to use the language for daily communicative interaction. This is the case in grammar translation and audiolingual lessons. In communicative, content-based and task-based instructional environments, the learners goal is to learn the language itself and the emphasis is on interaction, conversation and language use. Topics are normally of interest to the learner. Content-based instruction focuses on subject-matter such as history or maths. Occasionally, the focus is on language, but on using it not on talking about it. Besides, the language which teachers use for teaching is not selected on the basis of teaching a specific feature of language, but on leading learners to use the language in a variety of contexts. Students success is measured in terms of their ability to get things done in the L2, rather than their accuracy in using certain grammatical features. Traditional instructional settings are influenced by grammar translation approaches and audiolingual approaches. In the first case, we have lessons with translation activities and explanations of grammatical rules. In the second case, learners are expected to learn through repetitions and habit formation. By contrast, communicative instructional settings are based on innatist and interactionist theories of language learning. 47

49 Behaviourism s influence in L2 classrooms They are the typical traditional approaches: grammar translation and audiolingual approaches. The former one was first used in the teaching of Latin and Greek in the 19 th century. The second one makes much more emphasis on oral language, but students rarely use the language spontaneously. Errors are not allowed in either of them because it was believed that any type of learning was the result of repetitions and habit formation. However, many learners did not become able to communicate with the methods resulting from these two approaches. Furthermore, grammar-based approaches did not help students to achieve high levels of accuracy and linguistic knowledge. Therefore, linguists and teahers saw a need for other approaches and methods. Interactionism s influence in L2 classrooms According to interactionists, learners need meaningful and comprehensible input through conversation interaction with teachers and other students. They feel obliged to negotiate for meaning when they are given the opportunity to engage in meaningful activities. Negotiation of meaning is made to express and clarify one s intentions, opinions, etc. in a way that permits one to arrive to a mutual understanding with others. For example, in task-based instructions learners work together to accomplish a particular goal. Negotiations are thought to lead to the acquisition of language forms, that is, words and grammatical structures. Some examples of negotiation of meaning are clarification, confirmation, repetition, That s why group-work becomes essential in L2 classrooms. The centre of the classroom turns from the teacher to the students. Teachers become more passive. The learners are the ones to have genuine exchanges of information, which results in much more motivation to participate in language learning activities. This means a great contrast against the meaningless interaction in the behaviourist instructions. 48

50 Innatists influence in L2 classrooms According to innatists, there is no need to drill and memorize language or to interact with other students or the teacher. Instead, they make emphasis on providing comprehensible input through listening and/or reading activities. As it is enough to hear and understand, learners are given a steady diet of listening and reading comprehension activities. Materials are not graded according to linguistic simplicity, but comprehensible input. Each learner needs to be given a level beyond they are able to manage in order to continue his/her learning. French immersion programmes in Canada resulted in good comprehension, fluency and confidence but no high levels of accuracy on the part of the learners. The same happened to learners from English comprehension-based instructions in Canada. Total physical response instructions provided great benefits for learners in early stages of development due to input flood. However, learners cannot know what is ungrammatical. Processing instruction provided a more guided and direct exposure to forms. In conclusion, these methods achieved greater benefits for comprehension over production practice. Learners need a focus on language form within input-based instruction. Learners attention should be explicitly to form-meaning relationship. It is beneficial in the development of basic comprehension and communicative performance in the early stages of learning, particularly if the learner has no other contact with the language apart from the classroom. 49

51 BIBLIOGRAPHY: Lightbown, Patsy M. and Spada, Nina How Languages Are Learned. Second Edition. Oxford: OUP. Chomsky, N Review of Verbal Behaviour by B. F. Skinner. Language 35/1: Chomsky, N Lectures on Government and Binding. Dordrecht: Foris. Chapter 1. 50