Principles and Practice

in

Second Language Acquisition

Stephen D Krashen
University of Southern California

This is the original version of Principles and Practice, as published in 198 , !ith only "inor changes# $t is gratifying to point out that "any of the predictions "ade in this boo% !ere confir"ed by subse&uent research, for e'a"ple, the superiority of co"prehensible(input based "ethods and sheltered sub)ect "atter teaching *Krashen, ++,-, the inefficacy of error correction *Truscott, 199., 1999-, and the /po!er of reading/ *Krashen, ++0-# Subse&uent research has also, in "y opinion, confir"ed that in footnote 1, chapter ,, option , is the correct one, that !e ac&uire vocabulary best through co"prehensible input *Krashen, 19892 ++,-# $ have changed "y position on only one issue3 4t the end of Principles and Practice, $ suggest the use of a for" of deception ( students "ay thin% they are ac&uiring vocabulary or learning sub)ect "atter, but un%no!n to the", they are ac&uiring because they are getting co"prehensible input at the sa"e ti"e# $ no! thin% it is very i"portant to "a%e a strong effort to infor" students about the process of language ac&uisition, so they can continue to i"prove on their o!n# Krashen, S# *1989- 5e ac&uire vocabulary and spelling by reading3 4dditional evidence for the input hypothesis# 6odern 7anguage 8ournal 9,, 00+(0.0# Krashen, S# * ++,- :'plorations in 7anguage 4c&uisition and Use3 The Taipei 7ectures# Ports"outh, ;<3 <eine"ann# Krashen, S# * ++0- The Po!er of =eading# Ports"outh, ;<3 <eine"ann# Truscott, 8# *199.-# The case against gra""ar correction in 7 !riting classes# 7anguage 7earning, 0. * -, , 9(.9# Truscott, 8# *1999-# 5hat>s !rong !ith oral gra""ar correction? The Canadian 6odern 7anguage =evie!, 11*0-, 0,9(1.#

$ntroduction to the $nternet :dition

Copyright @ 198 Stephen Krashen 4ll =ights =eserved# This publication "ay be do!nloaded and copied !ithout charge for all reasonable, non(co""ercial educational purposes, provided no alterations in the te't are "ade# Airst printed edition 198 by Perga"on Press $nc# Print :dition $SB; +(+8(+ 8. 8(, Airst internet edition 8uly ++9

4c%no!ledg"ents
$ a" indebted to "any people !ho have helped "e both directly and indirectly# $ can only "ention a fe! of the" here# :arl Stevic% and =obin Scarcella %indly provided "e !ith detailed co""ents on nearly every aspect of the "anuscript# $ have also received a great deal of useful feedbac% fro" 8ohn Schu"ann, 8ohn Cller, 4drian Pal"er, Tracy Terrell, 4ndre! Cohen, Steven Sternfeld, and Batyia :lbau"# $ a" sure this boo% !ould be "uch stronger if $ had follo!ed all their advice# The tas% of !riting this volu"e !as "ade "uch easier by the support and understanding of "y fa"ily, "y !ife :ula, "y children Deborah and Daniel, and "y parents 7eo and 8ulia Krashen# $ !ould also li%e to than% "y colleagues in the 7inguistics Depart"ent at USC for their intellectual sti"ulation and encourage"ent# $ especially than% 7arry <y"an, :d!ard Ainegan, :ugene Briere, :laine 4ndersen, :linor Cchs, :d!ard Purcell, 8ohn <a!%ins, and Bernard Co"rie#

ii

Contents
I. Introduction: The Relationship of Theory to Practice A. Three Approaches to Method 1# Theory of second language ac&uisition # 4pplied linguistics research ,# $deas and intuitions fro" e'perience B. Interactions Among Approaches to Practice C. What the Three Approaches Have to Say About Method D. oa!s o" This Boo#$ to reintroduce teachers to theory and hope"u!!y to gain their con"idence again ;otes II. Second Language Acquisition Theory A. &ive Hypotheses About Second 'anguage Ac(uisition 1# The ac&uisition(learning distinction # The natural order hypothesis *a- Transitional for"s ,# The 6onitor hypothesis *a- $ndividual variation in 6onitor use 0# The input hypothesis *a- State"ent of the hypothesis *b- :vidence supporting the hypothesis 1# The 4ffective Ailter hypothesis B. The Causative )ariab!e in Second 'anguage Ac(uisition 1# The causative variables # 7anguage teaching3 does it help? *a- 5hen language teaching helps *b- 5hen language teaching does not help ,# :'posure variables 0# 4ge 1# 4cculturation III. Providing Input for Acquisition A. The Potentia! o" the Second 'anguage C!assroom B. 'imitations o" the C!assroom C. The *o!e o" +utput 1# /Conversation/ and language ac&uisition # Cutput and learning 1 , , 0 . % 8 9 1+ 1+ 1 10 11 18 + + ,+ , , ,, ,0 ,1 ,9 0, 01 19 18 19 .+ .1 .1

iii

Contents cont#
D. Characteristics o" +ptima! Input "or Ac(uisition 1# Cpti"al input is co"prehensible *a- <o! to aid co"prehension # Cpti"al input is interesting andDor relevant ,# Cpti"al input is not gra""atically se&uenced *a- The case against the gra""atical syllabus 0# Cpti"al input "ust be in sufficient &uantity *a- Euantity re&uire"ents for initial readiness to spea% *b- Euantity re&uire"ents for higher levels of proficiency ,. +ther &eatures that ,ncourage Ac(uisition 1# The student should not be put on the defensive # Provide tools to help students obtain "ore input &. -Teaching- Conversationa! Competence IV. The Role of Gra ar! or Putting Gra ar in its Place A. 'earning Does .ot Become Ac(uisition B. The P!ace o" rammar 1# Fra""ar for 6onitor use3 !hen the 6onitor is used # 5hat can be 6onitored *a- $nco"petent 6onitor use *b- =ule learnability *c- So"e evidence *d- Conse&uences of teaching /hard/ rules C. The ,""ects o" 'earning$ Accuracy o" Se!"/correction 1# Aactors affecting self(correction accuracy # The data D. +ther ,""ects o" Conscious *u!es :# Presentation of =ules 1# The deductive(inductive issue # Se&uencing and learning &. .otes on ,rror Correction . rammar as Sub0ect/matter V. Approaches to Language Teaching 4# Present(day Teaching 6ethods 1# Fra""ar(translation *a- =e&uire"ents for opti"al input *b- 7earning *c- Su""ary # 4udio(lingualis" *a- =e&uire"ents for opti"al input *b- 7earning *c- Su""ary ,# Cognitive(code *a- =e&uire"ents for opti"al input *b- 7earning . ., .0 .. .8 9+ 91 91 9 9, 9, 9. 98 8, 8, 89 89 9 90 9. 98 1+ 1+0 1+1 1+8 11 11, 11, 111 11. 119 1 1 1 . 1 9 1 8 1 9 1 9 1 9 1,+ 1, 1, 1, 1,, 1,0

iv

Contents cont#
*c- Su""ary 0# The direct "ethod *a- =e&uire"ents for opti"al input *b- 7earning *c- Su""ary 1# The natural approach *a- =e&uire"ents for opti"al input *b- 7earning *c- Su""ary .# Total physical response *a- =e&uire"ents for opti"al input *b- 7earning *c- Su""ary 9# Suggestopedia *a- =e&uire"ents for opti"al input *b- 7earning *c- Su""ary B. App!ied 'inguistics *esearch 1# =evie! of "ethod co"parison studies *a- 4"erican studies of 47, FT, and CC *b- The FU6: pro)ect # So"e preli"inary conclusions to "ethod co"parison studies ,# 6ore recent "ethod co"parison studies *a- The TP= series *b- Cther input "ethods co"pared *c- Suggestopedia research C. A!ternative to Methods 1# Aunction of the classroo" # The second language classroo" and re&uire"ent G ,# The alternatives *a- Conversation *b- Pleasure reading *c- Using sub)ect "atter for language teaching *d- :vidence for sub)ect "atter teaching3 the i""ersion progra"s *e- Cther possibilities in sub)ect "atter teaching D. Comments on Achievement Testing 1# ;or"al considerations in test evaluation and selection # $nstructional value ,# 7anguage re&uire"ents 0# University level :S7 ,. Some aps in Materia!s 1# The language laboratory # 4 co""ent on field testing of "aterials &. Some Prob!ems "i#liography Inde$ v 1,0 1,1 1,1 1,9 1,9 1,9 1,8 1,9 10+ 10+ 10+ 10 10 10 100 10. 10. 10. 109 109 11+ 111 111 111 119 118 1.+ 1.+ 1.1 1. 1., 1.0 1.9 19+ 191 19. 19. 199 181 18 18 180 181 18. 191 +1

Chapter $

Introduction: The Relationship of Theory to Practice

The purpose of this boo% is to ta%e a ne! loo% at an old &uestion3 the relationship bet!een second language teaching practice and !hat is %no!n about the process of second language ac&uisition# The usual !ay to do this is to discuss so"e research results first, outline a possible theory, and then list so"e i"plications# $ !ill, to so"e e'tent, follo! this plan# 4 significant portion of this boo% is, in fact, devoted to su""ariHing the current state of second language ac&uisition theory as $ see it# Aollo!ing this, $ !ill dra! so"e general conclusions about application to "ethods and "aterials, and eventually describe !hat characteristics effective "aterials should have# Before going through this e'ercise, ho!ever, it is i"portant to state in advance that /theory/ and /theoretical research/ should not be the only input into deciding on "ethodology and "aterials# 5hile "y e"phasis here is on theory and its i"plications, it is dangerous to rely only on theory# There are at least three different !ays of arriving at ans!ers in "ethodology and "aterials, and !e "ust consider all of the"# $ !ill devote the re"ainder of this introduction to a brief description of these three areas, and a discussion of ho! they interrelate !ith each other# 5e !ill then see !hat each has to say about "ethod in second and foreign language teaching# 6y vie!, for those !ho li%e the punch line early, is that all three !ays arrive at precisely the sa"e ans!er# The solution to our proble"s in language teaching lies not in e'pensive e&uip"ent, e'otic "ethods, sophisticated linguistic analyses, or ne! laboratories, but in full utiliHation of !hat !e already have, spea%ers of the languages using the" for real co""unication# $ !ill also conclude that the best "ethods "ight also be the "ost pleasant, and that, strange as it see"s, language ac&uisition occurs !hen language is used for !hat it !as designed for, co""unication#

A. Three Approaches to %ethod 1# T<:C=I CA S:CC;D 74;FU4F: 4CEU$S$T$C; The first area !e !ill discuss !ill be the central focus of this volu"e, second language ac&uisition theory# 4s developed today, second language ac&uisition theory can be vie!ed as a part of /theoretical linguistics/, i#e# it can be studied and developed !ithout regard to practical application# 4s is the case !ith any scientific theory, it consists of a set of hypotheses, or generaliHations, that are consistent !ith e'peri"ental data# These hypotheses can be arrived at using any of a variety of "eans *a brilliant insight, a drea", etc#-# They "ust, ho!ever, be able to predict ne! data# $n other !ords, hypotheses are not su""aries or categories for e'isting data and observations, but "ust pass the test of accounting for ne! data# $f our current hypotheses are able to predict ne! events, they survive# $f they fail, even once, they "ust be altered# $f these alterations cause funda"ental changes in the original generaliHations, the hypotheses "ay have to be totally abandoned# ;ote that according to this !ay of doing science, !e can never really prove anythingJ 5e can only loo% for /supporting evidence/# 5hen !e do not find supporting evidence, or !hen !e find counter(evidence, our hypothesis is in trouble# :ven !hen !e do find supporting evidence, !hen the hypothesis "a%es the correct prediction, a critic can al!ays say that !e have not found /enough/# Thus, a scientist, professionally spea%ing, is never able to state that anything has been /proven/# 4ll the scientist can do is have a current hypothesis that he or she is interested in testing# 7ater in this boo% $ !ill present a series of hypotheses that "a%e up a coherent theory of second language ac&uisition# 4ccording to the rules of scientific "ethod, it !ill al!ays be /)ust theory/ and never be /definitely proven/# The hypotheses $ !ill present have, ho!ever, been found to be consistent !ith a significant a"ount of data, e'peri"ental and other!ise, and have not yet been confronted !ith serious countere'a"ples, in "y vie!# They "a%e up, collectively, "y /position/# This does not "ean that $ necessarily /believe/ the"# 5hat it does "ean is that these hypotheses are consistent enough !ith e'isting data to be !orthy of consideration, and that they appear to capture the data better than other e'isting generaliHations#

Theory is abstract, and does not atte"pt to be practical# $ hope to convince the reader, ho!ever, that in the case of second language teaching, there is nothing as practical as a good theoryJ # 4PP7$:D 7$;FU$ST$CS =:S:4=C< 4 great deal of research goes on in linguistics that is not ai"ed at supporting or attac%ing any coherent theory# This research, rather, is ai"ed at solving practical, real proble"s that confront society# 4 fe! e'a"ples !ill hopefully "a%e this category clear# 4n e'a"ple that !ill be i"portant to us in our discussion of language teaching consists of e'peri"ents that co"pare teaching "ethods# Euite si"ply, a group of students is taught a foreign language using "ethod 4 *e#g# audio(lingual-, and another group is taught the sa"e language using "ethod B *e#g# gra""ar(translation-# The results of such an e'peri"ent !ould certainly be of interest to theoreticians, since a particular theory "ight predict that students studying using one "ethod !ould do better than students using another# The e'peri"ent itself, ho!ever, is designed for practical ends, i#e# to decide !hich "ethod !e should use in our schools# The research literature contains "any applied linguistics e'peri"ents e'a"ining other &uestions of very practical relevance, e#g#3 5ill instruction in a second language "a%e children "ore intelligent? *or less intelligent?Should non(:nglish spea%ing children in 4"erican Bilingual :ducation begin to read in their first language or in :nglish? ,# $D:4S 4;D $;TU$T$C;S A=C6 :KP:=$:;C: 4 third approach to "ethod does not rely on e'peri"entation at all# $t relies, rather, on the insights and observations of e'perienced language teachers and students of foreign languages# $t consists of /ideas that !or%/ *the na"e of a colu"n in the T,S+' .e1s!etter edited by Darlene 7arson, consisting of pedagogical techni&ues sent in by teachers-, introspections by language students *e#g# /diary studies/-, and other infor"al observations# 5hile results of research are regularly presented in professional )ournals, teachers> insights are not easily

accessed and shared# 7anguage teaching organiHations often arrange "eetings so that e'perienced teachers can share their techni&ues and insights !ith others *e#g# the highly successful /"ini(conferences/ organiHed by the California T:SC7 organiHation-# :"pirical support for ne! techni&ues is neither e'pected nor presented2 rather, the !ord of the teacher is sufficient evidence, often, for a ne! idea to be at least tried out in different classes# ". Interactions A ong Approaches to Practice Before discussing !hat each approach has to say about "ethods and "aterials, $ !ould li%e to "a%e a "odest proposal3 the three approaches should influence and help each other# $t see"s obvious, first of all, that researchers !ould be interested in the results of applied research, since such e'peri"ents can provide potential confir"ing and counter evidence for theories of second language ac&uisition# Si"ilarly, it stands to reason that applied linguistics researchers should pay so"e attention to strictly theoretical research, since a successful theory "ight give researchers deeper insight into the results of their studies# $t also see"s reasonable to suggest that researchers in both theoretical and applied linguistics !ould benefit by both teaching and studying languages, in order to get "ore insight into the language ac&uisition process# Si"ilarly, one "ight e'pect practitioners to be interested in the results of research, and one "ight also e'pect researchers to be very interested in the opinions of both teachers and language students# Aigure 1#1 illustrates this ideal !orld, !ith infor"ation flo!ing bet!een all three areas that influence language teaching "ethodology# Aigure 1# is, ho!ever, "uch closer to the actual state of affairs3 there is, today, very little interaction bet!een and a"ong the three areas#

Aig 1#1# $deal relationship bet!een theory, applied linguistics research, ideas and intuitions and language teaching practice#

Aig# 1# # 4ctual relationship bet!een theory, applied linguistics research, ideas and intuitions and language teaching practice#

$n reality, "any researchers are no longer involved in language teaching and language ac&uisition, and do not interact !ith teachers# There is also far too little interaction bet!een theoretical and applied research2 those !ho search for the best "ethod are often too little concerned !ith the underlying theory# 5hat is perhaps "ost evident is that teachers and "aterials developers pay little attention to research and theoriHing of any sort# There is good reason for this lac% of interaction, especially the failure of researchers and teachers to interact# The reasons for this lac% of co""unication do not ste" fro" any anti(intellectualis" on the part of teachers# They ste", rather, fro" the failure of research to supply relevant input in the past, co"bined !ith the insistence on the part of theoreticians that their insights !ere the only legiti"ate deter"inant of teacher behavior and "aterials construction# $n other !ords, !e have, in the past, gone straight fro" theory to practice, and it si"ply has not !or%ed# So"e !ell(%no!n e'a"ples of this approach include the direct application of the principles of behaviorist psychology in the classroo", %no!n as the audio(lingual "ethod# Theoreticians insisted that dialogue and pattern drill !ere /the !ay/ to teach language, and reco""ended techni&ues that felt !rong to "any teachers and students# 4 "ore recent /application of theory/ !as !hat "ay be called the /applied transfor"ational gra""ar/ "ove"ent, !hich featured "aterials directly based on current !or% in theoretical synta' and phonology# 4pplied TF did not significantly advance language teaching, for reasons that !ill beco"e clear as !e proceed# $ts only tangible effect, perhaps, !as that it needlessly "ade "any teachers feel unprepared because they had not been trained in the latest version of transfor"ational theory# *7est the reader get the !rong i"pression, "y personal vie! is that transfor"ational(generative gra""ar, and the

progress it sti"ulated in for"al linguistics, should be recogniHed as an e'tre"ely i"portant contribution, and easily outdid previous theories of linguistic structure# 6y point here is that it does not necessarily follo! that second language "ethods and "aterials should be based directly on TF#These t!o theories, then, failed# The first, behaviorist theory, failed to apply successfully to language teaching because it !as, si"ply, not a theory of language ac&uisition# The second, TF, failed because it !as a theory of the product, the adult>s co"petence, and not a theory of ho! the adult got that co"petence# $t is not a theory of the process of language ac&uisition# The /ne!/ theory, !hich $ !ill present in Chapter $$, is a theory of second language ac&uisition, and atte"pts to deal !ith the process of language ac&uisition, not its product# Despite these virtues, it should only be considered one of several possible sources of infor"ation in deter"ining "ethods and "aterials for second language teaching# Co"pounding the failure of theoreticians to supply relevant theory has been the feeling a"ong practitioners that failure to "a%e the theory /!or%/ has been their fault# They incorrectly concluded that it !as their ignorance of theory that caused these theory(based "ethods to fail# 4s a result of this, teachers in recent years have appealed "ostly to area $$$, their o!n ideas and intuitions, in deter"ining !hat they do in the classroo"# 5hat teachers actually do is no longer based on theoretical or applied research# 6aterials, and "any boo%s on "ethodology, are based pri"arily on !hat see"s to !or% in the classroo", and only rarely on a theory *recall earlier boo%s based on audiolingualis" or TF-, and are usually not field( tested# &. 'hat the Three Approaches (ave to Say A#out %ethod The purpose of this boo% is to su""ariHe one current theory and state the i"plications of the theory to "ethod# $ !ill briefly su""ariHe here !hat so"e of these i"plications are, anticipating Chapter $$$# 5hat current theory i"plies, &uite si"ply, is that language ac&uisition, first or second, occurs only !hen co"prehension of real "essages occurs, and !hen the ac&uirer is not /on the defensive/, to use Stevic%>s apt phrase# 7anguage ac&uisition does not re&uire e'tensive

use of conscious gra""atical rules, and does not re&uire tedious drill# $t does not occur overnight, ho!ever# =eal language ac&uisition develops slo!ly, and spea%ing s%ills e"erge significantly later than listening s%ills, even !hen conditions are perfect# The best "ethods are therefore those that supply /co"prehensible input/ in lo! an'iety situations, containing "essages that students really !ant to hear# These "ethods do not force early production in the second language, but allo! students to produce !hen they are /ready/, recogniHing that i"prove"ent co"es fro" supplying co""unicative and co"prehensible input, and not fro" forcing and correcting production# $n several places in this boo% $ !ill atte"pt to "a%e the point that research in applied linguistics is very consistent !ith the theoretical research in second language ac&uisition and its i"plications# The /best "ethods/ according to co"parative research studies *co"paring "ethods 4 and B, as described earlier- appear to be /input "ethods/, those "ethods that focus on supplying co"prehensible input in pressure(free situations# 5e can get an idea of !hat the /ideas and intuitions/ area feels is the /best "ethod/ by a survey of pedagogically(oriented papers in current )ournals and the titles of presentations at teacher !or%shops# The titles have changed "ar%edly over the yearsJ 4 decade ago teacher( oriented articles and presentations focused on gra""atical description, reflecting the concern !ith product, and procedures for drilling#1L Current titles "ore clearly reflect pro"oting real co""unication in the classroo", helping students understand spo%en and !ritten input and participate in conversations# $n !or%shops and "ini(conferences, !e no longer see presentations on fine points of gra""ar, or on types of substitution drill# /$deas that !or%/ are ideas about role(playing, using the ne!spaper as a teaching aid, socio(dra"a, etc# 6oreover, ne!er "ethodology has, as a pri"ary goal, the lo!ering of student an'iety *see Chapter $$$-# ). Goals of This "oo* The pri"ary goal of this boo% is to present current theory and its i"plications# There is another goal, ho!ever, and that is to reintroduce
L

Superscript nu"bers refer to ;otes at end of chapters#

teachers to theory and hopefully to gain their confidence again# The ti"e has co"e to loo% to theory again, realiHing that the "ost current theory "ay still not be the final !ord on second language ac&uisition# $ a" not as%ing practitioners or "aterials developers to follo! all of the i"plications of theory blindly# 6y hope is only that our results !ill be considered as another source of ideas and input to "ethods and "aterials, in partnership !ith conclusions reached by practitioners the"selves fro" their o!n e'perience as language teachers and language ac&uirers# +otes
1 Consider, for e'a"ple, the table of contents of 'anguage 'earning, vol# 9, 1919, !hich included3 /Fra""atical theory and practice in an :nglish gra""ar class/ /=eaching the Arench verb/2 /;oun(classes and the practical teacher/ /6orphe"e alternants in Spanish verb for"s/ />Thechne"es> and the rhyth" of class activity/ Molu"e 1 , 19. , contained3 /4nnotated bibliography of generative gra""ar/ The 1999 volu"e of the T,S+' 2uarter!y, for e'a"ple, contains articles such as3 /Using radio co""ercials as supple"entary "aterials in :S7 listening classes/ /Co""unicative !riting/ /8o%e(telling as a tool in :S7/ reflecting the current e"phasis on co""unication in the classroo"# *;otes 1 and certainly do not represent a !ide sa"ple of activity in the filed, but they are representative# $n recent years, the )ournal 'anguage 'earning has focussed on theoretical and applied research, rather than pedagogy# Aor this reason, $ used the T,S+' 2uarter!y, !hich began publication in 19.9, for current titles#-

&hapter II

Second 7anguage 4c&uisition Theory

This chapter su""ariHes current second language ac&uisition theory# To do this, it first describes so"e very i"portant hypotheses# The first three, the ac&uisition(learning distinction, the natural order hypotheses, and the 6onitor hypothesis, are revie!ed so"e!hat briefly, as they have been dealt !ith a great deal in several other boo%s and professional papers# :nough detail !ill be provided, ho!ever, to give the uninitiated reader a good idea of the hypotheses and the sort of evidence that e'ists to support the"# The fourth hypothesis, the input hypothesis, "ay be the single "ost i"portant concept in second language ac&uisition theory today# $t is i"portant because it atte"pts to ans!er the crucial theoretical &uestion of ho! !e ac&uire language# $t is also i"portant because it "ay hold the ans!er to "any of our everyday proble"s in second language instruction at all levels# Aollo!ing the discussion of the input hypothesis, !e turn to the concept of the affective filter, a hypothesis as to ho! affective variables relate to the process of second language ac&uisition# The second portion of this chapter revie!s a variety of factors that have been thought to be related to second language ac&uisition success, including instruction, different "easures of e'posure to the second language, and the age of the ac&uirer# These factors, it !ill be clai"ed, are not really causative factors# 5hile they see" to relate to success or failure to ac&uire second languages, the true causative variables in second language ac&uisition derive fro" the input hypothesis and the affective filter((the a"ount of comprehensib!e input the ac&uirer receives and understands, and the strength of the affective filter, or the degree to !hich the ac&uirer is /open/ to the input#

A. ,ive (ypotheses A#out Second Language Acquisition 1# T<: 4CEU$S$T$C;(7:4=;$;F D$ST$;CT$C; The ac&uisition(learning distinction is perhaps the "ost funda"ental of all the hypotheses to be presented here# $t states that adults have t!o distinct and independent !ays of developing co"petence in a second language# The first !ay is language ac(uisition, a process si"ilar, if not identical, to the !ay children develop ability in their first language# 7anguage ac&uisition is a subconscious process2 language ac&uirers are not usually a!are of the fact that they are ac&uiring language, but are only a!are of the fact that they are using the language for co""unication# The result of language ac&uisition, ac&uired co"petence, is also subconscious# 5e are generally not consciously a!are of the rules of the languages !e have ac&uired# $nstead, !e have a /feel/ for correctness# Fra""atical sentences /sound/ right, or /feel/ right, and errors feel !rong, even if !e do not consciously %no! !hat rule !as violated# Cther !ays of describing ac&uisition include i"plicit learning, infor"al learning, and natural learning# $n non(technical language, ac&uisition is /pic%ing(up/ a language# The second !ay to develop co"petence in a second language is by language !earning# 5e !ill use the ter" /learning/ henceforth to refer to conscious %no!ledge of a second language, %no!ing the rules, being a!are of the", and being able to tal% about the"# $n non(technical ter"s, learning is /%no!ing about/ a language, %no!n to "ost people as /gra""ar/, or /rules/# So"e synony"s include for"al %no!ledge of a language, or e'plicit learning#1L So"e second language theorists have assu"ed that children ac&uire, !hile adults can only learn# The ac&uisition(learning hypothesis clai"s, ho!ever, that adults also ac&uire, that the ability to /pic%(up/ languages does not disappear at puberty# This does not "ean that adults !ill al!ays be able to achieve native(li%e levels in a second language# $t does "ean that adults can access the sa"e natural /language ac&uisition device/ that children use# 4s !e shall see later, ac&uisition is a very po!erful process in the adult#

L Superscript nu"bers refer to ;otes at end of chapters#

1+

:rror correction has little or no effect on subconscious ac&uisition, but is thought to be useful for conscious learning# :rror correction supposedly helps the learner to induce or /figure out/ the right for" of a rule# $f, for e'a"ple, a student of :nglish as a second language says /$ goes to school every day/, and the teacher corrects hi" or her by repeating the utterance correctly, the learner is supposed to realiHe that the DsD ending goes !ith the third person and not the first person, and alter his or her conscious "ental representation of the rule# This appears reasonable, but it is not clear !hether error correction has this i"pact in actual practice *Aanselo!, 19992 7ong, 1999-# :vidence fro" child language ac&uisition confir"s that error correction does not influence ac&uisition to any great e'tent# Bro!n and his colleagues have sho!n that parents actually correct only a s"all portion of the child>s language *occasional pronunciation proble"s, certain verbs, and dirty !ordsJ-# They conclude fro" their research that parents attend far "ore to the truth value of !hat the child is saying rather than to the for"# Aor e'a"ple, Bro!n, CaHden, and Bellugi *199,- report that a sentence such as3 <er curl "y hair /!as approved, because the "other !as, in fact, curling :ve>s hair/ *p# ,,+-# Cn the other hand, 5alt Disney co"es on on Tuesday !as corrected, despite its syntactic correctness, since 5alt Disney actually ca"e on television on 5ednesday# Bro!n et a!. conclude that it see"s to be /truth value rather than syntactic !ell(for"edness that chiefly governs e'plicit verbal reinforce"ent by parents((!hich renders "ildly parado'ical the fact that the usual product of such a training schedule is an adult !hose speech is highly gra""atical but not notably truthful/ *p# ,,+-# The ac&uisition(learning distinction "ay not be uni&ue to second language ac&uisition# 5e certainly /learn/ s"all parts of our first language in school *e#g# for "ost people, the !hoD !ho" distinction-, and si"ilar distinctions have been "ade in other do"ains *see, for e'a"ple, =eber, 199.2 <all, 19192 and the revie! in d>4ngle)an, 1998-#

11

# T<: ;4TU=47 C=D:= <IPCT<:S$S Cne of the "ost e'citing discoveries in language ac&uisition research in recent years has been the finding that the ac&uisition of gra""atical structures proceeds in a predictable order# 4c&uirers of a given language tend to ac&uire certain gra""atical structures early, and others later# The agree"ent a"ong individual ac&uirers is not al!ays 1++N, but there are clear, statistically significant, si"ilarities# :nglish is perhaps the "ost studied language as far as the natural order hypothesis is concerned, and of all structures of :nglish, "orphology is the "ost studied# Bro!n *199,reported that children ac&uiring :nglish as a first language tended to ac&uire certain gra""atical "orphe"es, or functions !ords, earlier than others# Aor e'a"ple, the progressive "ar%er ing *as in /<e is playing baseball/#- and the plural "ar%er DsD */t!o dog s/!ere a"ong the first "orphe"es ac&uired, !hile the third person singular "ar%er DsD *as in /<e lives in ;e! Ior%/- and the possessive DsD */8ohn>s hat/- !ere typically ac&uired "uch later, co"ing any!here fro" si' "onths to one year later# de Milliers and de Milliers *199,confir"ed Bro!n>s longitudinal results cross(sectionally, sho!ing that ite"s that Bro!n found to be ac&uired earliest in ti"e !ere also the ones that children tended to get right "ore often# $n other !ords, for those "orphe"es studied, the difficulty order !as si"ilar to the ac&uisition order# Shortly after Bro!n>s results !ere published, Dulay and Burt *1990, 1991- reported that children ac&uiring :nglish as a second language also sho! a /natural order/ for gra""atical "orphe"es, regardless of their first language# The child second language order of ac&uisition !as different fro" the first language order, but different groups of second language ac&uirers sho!ed stri%ing si"ilarities# Dulay and Burt>s results have been confir"ed by a nu"ber of investigators *Kessler and $dar, 19992 Aabris, 19982 6a%ino, 198+-# Dulay and Burt used a subset of the 10 "orphe"es Bro!n originally investigated# Aath"an *1991- confir"ed the reality of the natural order in child second language ac&uisition !ith her test of oral production, the S7CP: test, !hich probed + different structures# Aollo!ing Dulay and Burt>s !or%, Bailey, 6adden, and Krashen *1990- reported a natural order for adult sub)ects, an order &uite si"ilar

to that seen in child second language ac&uisition# 4s !e shall see later, this natural order appears only under certain conditions *or rather, it disappears only under certain conditionsJ-# So"e of the studies confir"ing the natural order in adults for gra""atical "orphe"es include 4ndersen *199.-, !ho used co"position, Krashen, <ouc%, Fiunchi, Bode, Birnbau", and Strei *1999-, using free speech, and Christison *1999-, also using free speech# 4dult research using the S7CP: test also confir"s the natural order and !idens the data base# Krashen, SferlaHHa, Aeld"an, and Aath"an *199.- found an order si"ilar to Aath"an>s *1991- child second language order, and KayfetH(Auller *1998- also reported a natural order using the S7CP: test# 4s noted above, the order of ac&uisition for second language is not the sa"e as the order of ac&uisition for first language, but there are so"e si"ilarities# Table #1, fro" Krashen *1999-, presents an average
T4B7: #1# -Average- order o" ac(uisition o" grammatica! morphemes "or ,ng!ish as a second !anguage 3chi!dren and adu!ts4

.otes$
1# This order is derived fro" an analysis of e"pirical studies of second language ac&uisition *Krashen, 1999-# 6ost studies sho! significant correlatons !ith the average order# # ;o clai"s are "ade about ordering relations for "orphe"es in the sa"e bo'# ,# 6any of the relationships posited here also hold for child first language ac&uisition, but so"e do not3 $n general, the bound "orphe"es have the sa"e relative order for first and second language ac&uisition *$;F, P7U=47, $=# P4ST, =:F# P4ST, $$$ S$;FU74=, and PCSS:SS$M:- !hile 4UK$7$4=I and CCPU74 tend to be ac&uired relatively later in first language ac&uisition than in second language ac&uisition#

1,

order for second language, and sho!s ho! the first language order differs# This average order is the result of a co"parison of "any e"pirical studies of gra""atical "orphe"e ac&uisition# 5hile :nglish is the best studied language, it is not the only one studied# =esearch in order of ac&uisition for other language is beginning to e"erge# 4s yet unpublished papers by Bruce *1999-, dealing !ith =ussian as a foreign language, and van ;aerssen *1981-, for Spanish as a foreign language, confir" the validity of the natural order hypothesis for other languages# 5e !ill deal !ith the pedagogical i"plications of the natural order hypothesis later, $ should point out here, ho!ever, that the i"plication of the natural order hypothesis is not that our syllabi should be based on the order found in the studies discussed here, that is, $ do not reco""end teaching ing early and the third person singular DsD late# 5e !ill, in fact, find reason to re)ect gra""atical se&uencing in all cases !here our goal is language ac&uisition# 5e !ill deal !ith this later, ho!ever, after !e have finished laying the theoretical ground!or%# 3a4 Transitiona! "orms Studies supporting the natural order hypothesis sho! only the order in !hich "ature, or !ell(for"ed structures e"erge# Cther studies reveal the path ac&uirers ta%e en route to "astery# *Aor a revie!, see Dulay, Burt, and Krashen, in press# =ave", 19902 6ilon, 19902 Fillis and 5eber, 199.2 Cancino, =osans%y, and Schu"ann, 19902 5ode, 1998 and ;elson, 198+ are so"e second language studies in this area#- There is surprising unifor"ity here as !ell((ac&uirers "a%e very si"ilar errors, ter"ed develop"ental errors, !hile they are ac&uiring# Aor e'a"ple, in ac&uiring :nglish negation, "any first and second language ac&uirers pass through a stage in !hich they place the negative "ar%er outside the sentence, as in3
No Mom sharpen it. and Not li!e it no". (from study (from L' ac Klima and Bellugi's (1966) of child L1 ac uisition) #a$em's (19%&) study of child uisition)

10

4 typical later stage is to place the negative "ar%er bet!een the sub)ect and the verb, as in3
( no li!e this one. and +his no ha$e calendar. ()ancino et al. (19%*) study of child L' ac uisition) (from ,chumann's (19%-a) study of adult L' ac uisition)

before reaching the correct for"# Predictable stages in the ac&uisition of 1h/ &uestions in :nglish include an early stage in !hich the 1h/ !ord appears before the rest of the sentence, !hich is other!ise left in its nor"al uninverted for", as in3
.o" he can /e a doctor0 and 2hat she is doing0 (Klima and Bellugi1 19661 child L1 ac uisition) (#a$em1 19%&1 child L' ac uisition)

Cnly later do ac&uirers begin to invert the sub)ect and verb of the sentence# *4 detailed revie! can be found in Dulay et a!., in press#Transitional for"s have been described for other languages and for other structures# The stages for a given target language appear to be stri%ingly si"ilar despite the first language of the ac&uirer *although particular first languages "ay influence the duration of certain stages2 see Schu"ann, 1999-# This unifor"ity is thought to reflect the operation of the natural language ac&uisition process that is part of all of us# *Aor a discussion of so"e of the current issues and controversies concerning the natural order hypothesis, see Krashen, 1981#,# T<: 6C;$TC= <IPCT<:S$S 5hile the ac&uisition(learning distinction clai"s that t!o separate processes coe'ist in the adult, it does not state ho! they are used in second language perfor"ance# The 6onitor hypothesis posits that ac&uisition and learning are used in very specific !ays# ;or"ally, ac&uisition /initiates/ our utterances in a second language and is responsible for our fluency# 7earning has only one function, and that is as a 6onitor, or editor# 7earning co"es into play only to "a%e changes in the for" of our utterance, after is has been /produced/ by the ac&uired syste"# This can happen before !e spea% or !rite, or after *self(correction-# Aigure #1 "odels this process#

11

Aig# #1# 4c&uisition and learning in second langauge production# Conscious learning is available only as a /6onitor/, !hich can alter the output of the ac&uired syste" before or after the utterance is actually spo%en or !ritten# $t is the ac&uired syste" !hich initiates nor"al, fluent speech utterances#

The 6onitor hypothesis i"plies that for"al rules, or conscious learning, play only a li"ited role in second language perfor"ance# These li"itations have beco"e even clearer as research has proceeded in the last fe! years# This research, revie!ed in Chapter $M, strongly suggests that second language perfor"ers can use conscious rules only !hen three conditions are "et# These conditions are necessary and not sufficient, that is, a perfor"er "ay not fully utiliHe his conscious gra""ar even !hen all three conditions are "et# $ list these conditions here, !ith a brief description# 5e !ill discuss the" in greater detail in Chapter $M3 *i- Ti"e# $n order to thin% about and use conscious rules effectively, a second language perfor"er needs to have sufficient ti"e# Aor "ost people, nor"al conversation does not allo! enough ti"e to thin% about and use rules# The over(use of rules in conversation can lead to trouble, i#e# a hesitant style of tal%ing and inattention to !hat the conversational partner is saying# *ii- Aocus on for"# To use the 6onitor effectively, ti"e is not enough# The perfor"er "ust also be focussed on for", or thin%ing about correctness *Dulay and Burt, 1998-# :ven !hen !e have ti"e, !e "ay be so involved in !hat !e are saying that !e do not attend to ho! !e are saying it# *iii- Kno! the rule# This is a very for"idable re&uire"ent# 7inguistics has taught us that the structure of language is e'tre"ely co"ple', and they clai" to have described only a frag"ent of the best %no!n languages# 5e can be sure that our students are e'posed only to a s"all part of the total gra""ar of the language, and !e %no! that even the best students do not learn every rule they are e'posed to# The evidence for the production sche"a sho!n in Aig# #1 co"es originally fro" the natural order studies# *Confir"ing evidence has

1.

been also produced fro" other sources, see, for e'a"ple, Bialysto% and Arohlich, 1999, 1998a, 1998b#- These studies are consistent !ith this generaliHation3 !e see the natural order for gra""atical "orphe"es, that is, the child>s *second language- difficulty order *si"ilar to the order of ac&uisition2 Krashen, 1999-, !hen !e test sub)ects in situations that appear to be /6onitor(free/, !here they are focused on co""unication and not for"# 5hen !e give our adult sub)ects tests that "eet the three conditions, i#e# a pencil and paper /gra""ar/(type test, !e see /unnatural/ orders, orders unli%e the child 7 order of ac&uisition or difficulty order# The interpretation of this result is that the natural order reflects the operation of the ac&uired syste" alone, !ithout the intrusion of the conscious gra""ar, since adult second language ac&uisition is posited to be si"ilar to child *second- language ac&uisition# 5hen !e put people in situations !here the three conditions are "et, !hen they have ti"e, are focused on for", and %no! the rule, the error pattern changes, reflecting the contribution of the conscious gra""ar# $t appears to be the case that unnatural orders are the result of a rise in ran% of certain "orphe"es, the late(ac&uired, "ore /learnable/ ite"s# $n :nglish as a second language, !hen perfor"ers are put in situations !here they can and do 6onitor, !e see a rise in ran% of the third person singular "orphe"e and the regular past, both late(ac&uired, lo! on the list in Table #1, and both relatively straightfor!ard, both syntactically and se"antically# *See studies by 7arsen(Aree"an, 1991, described in Chapter $M, Table 0#12 and Bro!n, described in ;ote 0, Chapter $M#Use of the conscious 6onitor thus has the effect of allo!ing perfor"ers to supply ite"s that are not yet ac&uired# 4s !e shall see in Chapter $M, ho!ever, only certain ite"s can be supplied by "ost 6onitor users2 the 6onitor does a better )ob !ith so"e parts of gra""ar than !ith others# Specifically, it see"s to do better !ith rules that can be characteriHed as /si"ple/ in t!o different !ays# Airst, rules that do not re&uire elaborate "ove"ents or per"utations2 rules that are syntactically si"ple# :asy rules in this sense include bound "orphology, such as the third person singular in :nglish, or the de O !e P du contraction in Arench# Difficult rules in this sense include the :nglish 1h/ &uestion rule, !hich re&uires "oving the &uestioned !ord to the front of

19

the sentence, a sub)ect(au'iliary inversion, and in so"e cases the insertion of do in the right place# =ules can also be easy and difficult due to their se"antic properties# The :nglish article syste" is easy to describe for"ally((one si"ply inserts the or a or so"eti"es nothing before the noun# But its se"antics are very difficult to describe *see, for e'a"ple, <a!%ins, 1998-# To su""ariHe thus far, 6onitor use results in the rise in ran% of ite"s that are /late( ac&uired/ in the natural order, ite"s that the perfor"er has learned but has not ac&uired# , Cnly certain ite"s can rise in ran%, ho!ever, 5hen 6onitor use is heavy, this rise in ran% is enough to disturb the natural order# *4s discussed in Chapter $M, it is possible to see s"all changes in certain late(ac&uired "orphe"es that are not enough to disturb the natural order2 this "ay be ter"ed !ight 6onitor use# See especially ;ote 1, Chapter $M# 4s !e shall see in Chapter $M, it is not easy to encourage noticeable 6onitor use# :'peri"entation has sho!n that anything less than a real gra""ar test !ill not bring out the conscious gra""ar in any force# KeyfetH *1998- found natural orders for both oral and !ritten versions on the S7CP: test, sho!ing that si"ply using the !ritten "odality is not enough to cause an unnatural order# <ouc%, =obertson and Krashen *1998a- had adult sub)ects *university level international students- correct their o!n !ritten output, and still found a natural order for the corrected version# Krashen, Butler, Birnbau", and =obertson *1998found that even !hen :S7 students !rite co"positions !ith plenty of ti"e and under instructions to be very /careful/, the effect of 6onitor use !as surprisingly light# The best hypothesis no! is that for "ost people, even university students, it ta%es a real discrete(point gra""ar(type test to "eet all three conditions for 6onitor use and encourage significant use of the conscious gra""ar# 3a4 Individua! variation in Monitor use So"e of the individual variation !e see in adult second language ac&uisition and perfor"ance can be accounted for in ter"s of differential use of the conscious 6onitor# Studies of case histories suggest that there "ay be three basic types of perfor"er *Krashen, 19982 Stafford and Covitt, 19982 Kounin and Krashen, 1998-#

18

*i- Monitor +ver/users. These are people !ho atte"pt to 6onitor all the ti"e, perfor"ers !ho are constantly chec%ing their output !ith their conscious %no!ledge of the second language# 4s a result, such perfor"ers "ay spea% hesitantly, often self(correct in the "iddle of utterances, and are so concerned !ith correctness that they cannot spea% !ith any real fluency# There "ay be t!o different causes for over(use of the gra""ar# Cver(use "ay first of all derive fro" the perfor"er>s history of e'posure to the second language# 6any people, victi"s of gra""ar(only type of instruction, have si"ply not had the chance to ac&uire "uch of the second language, and "ay have no choice but to be dependent on learning# 4nother type "ay be related to personality# These overusers have had a chance to ac&uire, and "ay actually have ac&uired a great deal of the second language# They si"ply do not trust this ac&uired co"petence and only feel secure !hen they refer to their 6onitor /)ust to be sure/# *ii- Monitor under/users. These are perfor"ers !ho have not learned, or if they have learned, prefer not to use their conscious %no!ledge, even !hen conditions allo! it# Under( users are typically uninfluenced by error correction, can self(correct only by using a /feel/ for correctness *e#g# /it sounds right/-, and rely co"pletely on the ac&uired syste"# Stafford and Covitt *1998- note that so"e under(users pay /lip service/ to the value of conscious gra""ar# Their sub)ect /$/ felt that people need conscious rules to spea% /correctly/, and that /gra""ar is the %ey to every language/# /$/ hi"self, ho!ever, hardly used conscious rules at all, in speech or !riting# *iii- The optima! Monitor user. Cur pedagogical goal is to produce opti"al users, perfor"ers !ho use the 6onitor !hen it is appropriate and !hen it does not interfere !ith co""unication# 6any opti"al users !ill not use gra""ar in ordinary conversation, !here it "ight interfere# *So"e very s%illed perfor"ers, such as so"e professional linguists and language teachers, "ight be able to get a!ay !ith using considerable a"ounts of conscious %no!ledge in conversation, e#g# =ivers, 1999, but this is very unusual# 5e "ight consider these people /super 6onitor users/, after Iorio, 1998#- $n !riting, and in planned speech, ho!ever, !hen there is ti"e, opti"al users !ill typically "a%e

19

!hatever corrections they can to raise the accuracy of their output *see, for e'a"ple, Krashen and Pon, 1991-# Cpti"al 6onitor users can therefore use their learned co"petence as a supple"ent to their ac&uired co"petence# So"e opti"al users !ho have not co"pletely ac&uired their second language, !ho "a%e s"all and occasional errors in speech, can use their conscious gra""ar so successfully that they can often produce the illusion of being native in their !riting# *This does not i"ply that conscious learning can entirely "a%e up for inco"plete ac&uisition# So"e unac&uired rules !ill be learnable and others not# The opti"al user is able to fill part of the gap !ith conscious learning, but not all of it# 0# T<: $;PUT <IPCT<:S$S

5e !ill ta%e "uch "ore ti"e !ith this hypothesis than !e did !ith the others for t!o reasons# Airst, "uch of this "aterial is relatively ne!, !hile the other hypotheses have been described and discussed already in several published boo%s and articles# The second reason is its i"portance, both theoretical and practical# The input hypothesis atte"pts to ans!er !hat is perhaps the "ost i"portant &uestion in our field, and gives an ans!er that has a potential i"pact on all areas of language teaching# The i"portant &uestion is3 <o! do !e ac&uire language? $f the 6onitor hypothesis is correct, that ac&uisition is central and learning "ore peripheral, then the goal of our pedagogy should be to encourage ac&uisition# The &uestion of ho! !e ac&uire then beco"es crucial# This section is organiHed as follo!s3 $ !ill first present the input hypothesis before giving any supporting evidence# Aollo!ing this is a description of the evidence fro" research in first and second language ac&uisition# 5e !ill then briefly cover evidence fro" applied linguistics research, !hich is discussed in "ore detail in Chapter M# 3a4 Statement o" the hypothesis 7et us first restate the &uestion of ho! !e ac&uire3 given the correctness of the natural order hypothesis, ho! do !e "ove fro" one stage to another? $f an ac&uirer is at /stage 0/, ho! can he progress to /stage 1/? 6ore generally, ho! do !e "ove fro" stage i, !here i represents

current co"petence, to i O 5, the ne't level? The input hypothesis "a%es the follo!ing clai"3 a necessary *but not sufficient- condition to "ove fro" stage i to stage i O 5 is that the ac&uirer understand input that contains i O 5, !here /understand/ "eans that the ac&uirer is focussed on the "eaning and not the for" of the "essage# 5e ac&uire, in other !ords, only !hen !e understand language that contains structure that is /a little beyond/ !here !e are no!# <o! is this possible? <o! can !e understand language that contains structures that !e have not yet ac&uired? The ans!er to this apparent parado' is that !e use "ore than our linguistic co"petence to help us understand# 5e also use conte't, our %no!ledge of the !orld, our e'tra(linguistic infor"ation to help us understand language directed at us# The input hypothesis runs counter to our usual pedagogical approach in second and foreign language teaching# 4s <atch *1998a- has pointed out, our assu"ption has been that !e first learn structures, then practice using the" in co""unication, and this is ho! fluency develops# The input hypothesis says the opposite# $t says !e ac&uire by /going for "eaning/ first, and as a result, !e ac&uire structureJ *Aor discussion of first language ac&uisition, see 6ac;a"ara, 199 #5e "ay thus state parts *1- and * - of the input hypothesis as follo!s3 *1- The input hypothesis relates to ac&uisition, not learning# * - 5e ac&uire by understanding language that contains structure a it beyond our current level of co"petence *i O 5-# This is done !ith the help of conte't or e'tra(linguistic infor"ation# 4 third part of the input hypothesis says that input "ust contain i O 5 to be useful for language ac&uisition, but it need not contain only i O 5# $t says that if the ac&uirer understands the input, and there is enough of it, i O 5 !ill auto"atically be provided# $n other !ords, if co""unication is successful, i O 5 is provided# 4s !e !ill discuss later, this i"plies that the best input should not even atte"pt to deliberately ai" at i O 5# 5e are all fa"iliar !ith syllabi that try to deliberately cover i O 5# There is a /structure of the day/, and usually both teacher and student feel that the ai" of the lesson is to teach or practice a specific gra""atical ite" or structure# Cnce this structure is

/"astered/, the syllabus proceeds to the ne't one# This part of the input hypothesis i"plies that such a deliberate atte"pt to provide i O 5 is not necessary# 4s !e shall see later, there are reasons to suspect that it "ay even be har"ful# Thus, part *,- of the input hypothesis is3 *,- 5hen co""unication is successful, !hen the input is understood and there is enough of it, i O 5 !ill be provided auto"atically# The final part of the input hypothesis states that spea%ing fluency cannot be taught directly# =ather, it /e"erges/ over ti"e, on its o!n# 0 The best !ay, and perhaps the only !ay, to teach spea%ing, according to this vie!, is si"ply to provide co"prehensible input# :arly speech !ill co"e !hen the ac&uirer feels /ready/2 this state of readiness arrives at so"e!hat different ti"es for different people, ho!ever# :arly speech, "oreover, is typically not gra""atically accurate# 4ccuracy develops over ti"e as the ac&uirer hears and understands "ore input# Part *0- of the input hypothesis is thus3 *0- Production ability e"erges# $t is not taught directly# 3b4 ,vidence supporting the hypothesis *i- &irst !anguage ac(uisition in chi!dren. The input hypothesis is very consistent !ith !hat is %no!n about /careta%er speech/, the "odifications that parents and others "a%e !hen tal%ing to young children# The "ost interesting and perhaps the "ost i"portant characteristic of careta%er speech for us is that it is not a deliberate atte"pt to teach language# =ather, as Clar% and Clar% *1999- point out, careta%er speech is "odified in order to aid co"prehension# Careta%ers tal% /si"pler/ in an effort to "a%e the"selves understood by the child# 4 second characteristic of interest to us here is the finding that careta%er speech, !hile it is syntactically si"pler than adult(adult speech, is /roughly(tuned/ to the child>s current level of linguistic co"petence, not /finely(tuned/# $n other !ords, careta%er speech is not precisely ad)usted to the level of each child, but tends to get "ore co"ple' as the child progresses# Mery good evidence for rough(tuning co"es fro" the research of Cross *1999- and ;e!port, Fleit"an, and

Fleit"an *1999-, !ho report that correlations bet!een input co"ple'ity and "easures of the child>s linguistic "aturity, !hile positive and often significant, are not usually very large# 4n interpretation of this finding is that careta%ers are not ta%ing ai" e'actly at i O 5# The input they provide for children includes i O 5, but also includes "any structures that have already been ac&uired, plus so"e that have not *i O 6, i O 7, etc#- and that the child "ay not be ready for yet# $n other !ords, careta%ers do not provide a gra""atically based syllabusJ *Aor a "ore co"plete revie! of rough(tuning, see Krashen 198+, 1981#4 third characteristic of careta%er speech that concerns us is %no!n as the /here and no!/ principle# $t is !ell established that careta%ers tal% "ostly about !hat the child can perceive, !hat is in the i""ediate environ"ent# Discourse !ith children is far "ore li%ely to deal !ith !hat is in the roo" and happening no! */See the ball?/- than !hat is not in the roo" and not current */5hat !ill !e do upstairs to"orro!?/-# 4s ;e!port et a!. *1999- points out, this is a topical constraint((the /here and no!/ principle reflects the co""on interests of the careta%er and child# 5hile there is no direct evidence sho!ing that careta%er speech is indeed "ore effective than un"odified input, the input hypothesis predicts that careta%er speech !ill be very useful for the child# Airst, it is, or ai"s to be, co"prehensible# The /here and no!/ feature provides e'tra(linguistic support *conte't- that helps the child understand the utterances containing i O 5# 4s 6ac;a"ara *199 - pointed out, the child does not ac&uire gra""ar first and then use it in understanding# The child understands first, and this helps hi" ac&uire language# 4s discussed earlier, roughly(tuned careta%er speech covers the child>s i O 5, but does not focus on i O 5 e'clusively# Part *,- of the input hypothesis clai"s that this is opti"al# =ough(tuning has the follo!ing advantages in child first language ac&uisition3 *1- $t ensures that i O 5 is covered, !ith no guess!or% as to )ust !hat i O 5 is for each child# Cn the other hand, deliberate ai" at i O 5 "ight "issJ * - =oughly(tuned input !ill provide i O 5 for "ore than one child at a ti"e, as long as they understand !hat is said# Ainely(tuned input, even if accurate *i#e# even if it /hits/ i O 5-, !ill only

benefit the child !hose i O 5 is e'actly the sa"e as !hat is e"phasiHed in the input# *,- =oughly(tuned input provides built(in revie!# 5e need not be concerned !ith !hether a child has /"astered/ a structure, !hether the child !as paying attention to the input that day, or !hether !e provided enough# 5ith natural, roughly(tuned input, i O 5 !ill occur and reoccur# $n other !ords, if part *,- is correct, if it is the case that !ith enough natural co""unication and understanding that i O 5 is al!ays provided, the careta%er need not !orry about consciously progra""ing structure# This "ust be a good thingJ 4dding the responsibility of gra""atical se&uencing to parenthood !ould "a%e parent(child co""unication "uch less spontaneous and far "ore difficult# *ii- ,vidence "rom second !anguage ac(uisition$ simp!e codes. The input hypothesis also holds for second language ac&uisition# Airst, as presented earlier, the second language ac&uirer, child or adult, is also an /ac&uirer/, )ust li%e the child ac&uiring first language# 4lso, according to hypothesis * -, there is a natural order of ac&uisition for second language as !ell as first language, so !e can tal% about the second language ac&uirers> i O 5 as !ell# Third, second language ac&uirers can also receive the %ind of "odified input that children get# This "odified input is of three sorts# Aoreigner(tal% results fro" the "odifications native spea%ers "a%e !ith less than fully co"petent spea%ers of their language *see, for e'a"ple, <atch, Shapira, and Fough, 1998 for so"e good e'a"ples-# Teacher(tal% is foreigner(tal% in the classroo", the language of classroo" "anage"ent and e'planation, !hen it is in the second language# 4 third si"ple code is interlanguage tal%, the speech of other second language ac&uirers# 5hile there are so"e differences bet!een these si"ple codes and careta%er speech *7ong, 198+2 Areed, 198+-, there are i"portant si"ilarities# 4s is the case !ith careta%er speech, "odifications "ade in foreigner(tal% and teacher(tal%1 are not "ade for the purpose of language teaching, but are "ade for the purpose of co""unication, to help the second language ac&uirer understand !hat is being said# Second, the available research indicates that foreigner(tal% and teacher(tal%

are roughly(tuned to the level of the ac&uirer, and not finely(tuned *Areed, 198+2 Faies, 19992 for a revie!, see Krashen, 198+-2 "ore advanced second language perfor"ers tend to get "ore co"ple' input, but the correlation bet!een proficiency and input co"ple'ity is less than perfect# Aoreigner(tal% and teacher(tal% "ay not al!ays be in the /here and no!/, . but helpful native spea%ers and teachers find other !ays to "a%e input co"prehensible# $n addition to linguistic alterations, they ta%e advantage of the ac&uirer>s %no!ledge of the !orld, !hich is, of course, greater than that of the child ac&uiring a first language# Teachers, in addition, use pedagogical aids, such as pictures and realia *see discussion in Chapter $$$-# The input hypothesis predicts that these si"plified codes !ill be very useful for the second language ac&uirer, )ust as careta%er speech is posited to be useful for the child# *Aor so"e preli"inary case history data supporting this hypothesis, see Krashen, 198+, 1981#The input hypothesis also predicts that natural, co""unicative, roughly(tuned, co"prehensible input has so"e real advantages over finely(tuned input that ai"s directly at i O 5, in other !ords, classroo" e'ercises that ai" to teach the structure of the day# The case against the gra""atical syllabus is presented in fuller detail in Chapter $$$, but here is a brief su""ary# The argu"ents are very si"ilar to those presented against giving the child finely(tuned input3 *1- 4ll students "ay not be at the sa"e stage# The /structure of the day/ "ay not be i O 5 for "any of the students# 5ith natural co""unicative input, on the other hand, so"e i O 5 or other !ill be provided for everyone# * - 5ith a gra""atical syllabus, each structure is presented only once# $f a student "isses it, is absent, is not paying attention, or if there si"ply has not been enough practice *input-, the student "ay have to !ait until ne't year, !hen all structures are revie!edJ Cn the other hand, roughly(tuned co"prehensible input allo!s for natural revie!# *,- 4 gra""atical syllabus assu"es !e %no! the order of ac&uisition# ;o such assu"ption is necessary !hen !e rely on co"prehensible input, on roughly( tuned natural co""unication#

*0- Ainally, a gra""atical syllabus, and the resulting gra""atical focus, places serious constraints on !hat can be discussed# Too often, it is difficult, if not i"possible, to discuss or read anything of real interest if our underlying "otive is to practice a particular structure# $n other !ords, a gra""atical focus !ill usually prevent real co""unication using the second language# $f these argu"ents are correct, they "ean that !e should not atte"pt to teach along the natural order, or any other order, !hen our goal is ac&uisition# *This is not necessarily true !hen the goal is conscious learning2 see Chapter $M#*iii- ,vidence "rom second !anguage ac(uisition$ the si!ent period and '5 in"!uence. The input hypothesis is also consistent !ith other findings and hypotheses in second language ac&uisition# Cne of these can be ter"ed the /silent period/, a pheno"enon that is "ost noticeable in child second language ac&uisition# $t has often been noted that children ac&uiring a second language in a natural, infor"al linguistic environ"ent "ay say very little for several "onths follo!ing their first e'posure to the second language# 5hat output there is consists usually of "e"oriHed language, !hole sentences learned as if they !ere one !ord# <atch *199 -, for e'a"ple, reported that Paul, a five(year(old Chinese spea%er ac&uiring :nglish as a second language, did not really use /creative/ language for his first fe! "onths in the United States# <is only output !as "e"oriHed sentences, such as 3et out of here. (t's time to eat and drin!. <e had clearly learned these as !hole utterances !ithout a real understanding of their co"ponents *e#g# he probably !ould not understand the !ord /out/ or /ti"e/ if it !ere used in another sentence-# Such "e"oriHed sentences !ere probably very useful for Paul, both in the classroo" and playground#9 5hen /real/ language did start to e"erge, it loo%ed very "uch li%e first language develop"ent, !ith short, si"ple sentences such as +his !ite. Ball no.

The e'planation of the silent period in ter"s of the input hypothesis is straight(for!ard(( the child is building up co"petence in the second language via listening, by understanding the language around hi"# $n accordance !ith the input hypothesis, spea%ing ability e"erges on its o!n after enough co"petence has been developed by listening and understanding# 5e should note that case histories dealing !ith children ac&uiring second languages *see also <a%uta, 19902 :rvin(Tripp, 1990- agree that several "onths "ay elapse until they start tal%ing, and that the speech that e"erges is not error(free# This finding has i"portant pedagogical considerations, as !e shall see in Chapter $$$# 4dults, and children in for"al language classes, are usually not allo!ed a silent period# They are often as%ed to produce very early in a second language, before they have ac&uired enough syntactic co"petence to e'press their ideas# 4ccording to a hypothesis first proposed by ;e!"ar% *19..-, perfor"ers !ho are as%ed to produce before they are /ready/ !ill fall bac% on first language rules, that is, they !ill use syntactic rules of their first language !hile spea%ing the second language# Stated "ore for"ally, an ac&uirer !ill substitute so"e 71 rule for i O 5, a rule of the second language, if the ac&uirer needs i O 5 to e'press hi"self but has not yet ac&uired it# The 71 rule used "ay be &uite si"ilar to the 7 i O 5, but "ay also differ in certain !ays# 5hen the 71 and 7 rules are different, the resulting error is referred to often as /interference/# But according to ;e!"ar%, it is not interference at all2 it is not the result of the 71 interfering !ith second language perfor"ance, but the result of ignorance((the lac% of ac&uisition of an 7 rule that is needed in perfor"ance# *iv- Advantages and disadvantages o" '6 ru!e use. The substitution of so"e 71 rule for so"e i O 5 has both advantages and disadvantages# The advantages are short ter", ho!ever, !hile the disadvantages appear to be &uite serious# Cne obvious advantage is that the use of an 71 rule allo!s the perfor"er to /outperfor" his co"petence/, to "eet a practical need in 7 co""unication before he has ac&uired the relevant i O 5 rule# 5hen the 71 rule used is identical to a rule in the 7 */positive transfer/-, the perfor"er see"s to have got so"ething for free# :ven if the 71 rule is

not the sa"e as the 7 rule, one could argue that the perfor"er still co"es out ahead, as, &uite often, he can still co""unicate his point despite the incorrect for"# 4nother advantage is that the early production allo!ed by the use of 71 rules also helps to invite input((it allo!s the perfor"er to participate "ore in conversation, and this could "ean "ore co"prehensible input and thus "ore second language ac&uisition# There are real disadvantages to falling bac% on the 71, ho!ever# Airst, the 71 rule "ay not be the sa"e as an 7 rule, as noted above, and errors can result# The conscious 6onitor can note and repair these errors in so"e cases, but not all, since, as !e have seen the constraints on 6onitor use are severe# Thus, use of 71 rules re&uires constant vigilance on the part of the 6onitor, and is an a!%!ard !ay to produce for"ally correct sentences in a second language# *;ote that 6onitor correction of such errors !ill not, according to the theory, produce ac&uisition, or per"anent change# $t !ill not eradicate the 71 rule, even if done effectively over long periods of ti"e# =eal ac&uisition co"es only fro" co"prehensible input#-8 There "ay be another serious disadvantage to the use of 71 rules in second language perfor"ance# :ven if the 71 rule is si"ilar to an actual 7 rule or transitional for", it is not clear that these rules !ill help the ac&uirer progress((they "ay not ta%e the place of /true/ 7 rules in the develop"ental se&uence# $n Krashen *198 - $ discuss the hypothesis that ac&uisition re&uires a co"parison bet!een i and i O 5 *Clar% and 4ndersen, 198+2 7a"endella, 1999-# $t "ay be the case that the /distance/ bet!een i and i O 5 cannot be too great((i and i O 5 can only differ in s"all !ays# Transitional for"s, $ hypothesiHe, "ay be useful in that they can te"porarily serve as i, helping to decrease the a"ount of distance bet!een i and i O 5# $f, for e'a"ple, the target rule in :nglish is the negative *i O 5, presented to the syste" by input-, the inter"ediate for" no O v *provided by the creative construction syste" internally- "ay be closer to the "ature negative for"# The ac&uirer "ay thus use no O v at i, rather than a "ore pri"itive for" of the negative *e#g# no O S-# $f transitional for"s can te"porarily serve as i, the ne't &uestion is !hether 71 rules, even !hen they happen to be si"ilar to 7 rules or transitional for"s, can perfor" this function# The ans!er "ay be

/no/# Aor e'a"ple, Spanish spea%ers often have a long period in their ac&uisition of :nglish in !hich they produce no O v for the :nglish negative, a structure that is si"ilar to a transitional for" in :nglish as a first and second language *Schu"ann, 1999-# $t "ay be the case that earlier no O v perfor"ance is the use of the 71 rule, !hile later no O v perfor"ance is the true inter"ediate for"# $t "ay be the case that only the latter can help the syste" /"ove for!ard/#9 To su""ariHe, use of 71 rules is hypothesiHed to be the result of falling bac% on first language %no!ledge !hen a second language rule is needed in production but is not available# $t "ay te"porarily enhance production, but "ay not be real progress in the second language# The real cure for /interference/, according to ;e!"ar%, is not drill at the points of contrast bet!een the t!o languages *;e!"ar% and =eibel, 199,, p# ,9-# Drill !ill, at best, produce learning, and, as !e have seen, this is only a short ter" cure# The real cure /is si"ply the cure for ignorance/ *;e!"ar%, 19.., p# 81-3 real language ac&uisition# This can happen only !hen the ac&uirer obtains co"prehensible input#1+ 11 1 *v- App!ied !inguistics research. The input hypothesis is also consistent !ith the results of !hat can be called /"ethod co"parison/ e'peri"ents# Several scholars and groups of scholars have atte"pted to deter"ine directly !hich teaching "ethods are best by si"ple co"parison# Froups of students studying second and foreign languages using t!o different "ethods are co"pared, both in long(ter" and short(ter" studies# 5e !ill have a detailed loo% at this research in Chapter M, but $ !ill state "y o!n conclusions in advance# 6y reading of studies co"paring the "ore co""only used "ethods *audio(lingual as co"pared to gra""ar(translation or cognitive(code- is as follo!s3 *1- /Deductive/ "ethods *rule first, then practice, e#g# gra""ar(translation and cognitive(code- are slightly "ore efficient than audio(lingual teaching for adults# The differences are often statistically significant, but are not huge# Students clearly "a%e so"e progress using any of these approaches# * - Aor adolescents, there is no "easurable difference#

$ interpret this failure to find large differences in this !ay3 none of the "ethods co"pared in these studies provides "uch in the !ay of co"prehensible inputJ The input hypothesis predicts, "oreover, that an approach that provides substantial &uantities of co"prehensible input !ill do "uch better than any of the older approaches# There are several ne!er "ethods that do this, such as 4sher>s Total Physical =esponse 6ethod *4sher, 19.., 19.9- and Terrell>s ;atural 4pproach *Terrell, 1999-# $n these "ethods, class ti"e is devoted to providing co"prehensible input, !here the focus is on the "essage and not the for", and students are not e'pected to produce in the second language until they the"selves decide they are /ready/# =eports confir"ing the superiority of such /input "ethods/ have been appearing in the professional literature over the last ten years *e#g# 4sher, 199 2 Fary, 19912 Postovs%y, 19902 "ore detail is provided in Chapter M-# *The focus on co"prehensible input is not the only reason for the success of the ne!er "ethods, ho!ever2 see discussion belo! of affect, and Chapters $$$ and M#Since the bul% of this boo% is intended to deal !ith i"plications of second language ac&uisition theory *Chapters $$$, $M, and M-, this section should really be delayed until later# $ cannot resist, ho!ever, briefly stating one i"plication here, since, in "y opinion, the i"plications of the input hypothesis are truly e'citing for all of us interested in language ac&uisition# 6ost i"portant, the input hypothesis predicts that the classroo" "ay be an e'cellent place for second language ac&uisition, at least up to the /inter"ediate/ level# Aor beginners, the classroo" can be "uch better than the outside !orld, since the outside usually provides the beginner !ith very little co"prehensible input, especially for older ac&uirers *5agner(Fough and <atch, 1991-# $n the classroo", !e can provide an hour a day of co"prehensible input, !hich is probably "uch better than the outside can do for the beginner# 5e !ill elaborate on this a bit "ore after discussion of the 4ffective Ailter# 1# T<: 4AA:CT$M: A$7T:= <IPCT<:S$S The 4ffective Ailter hypothesis states ho! affective factors relate to the second language ac&uisition process# The concept of an 4ffective

,+

Ailter !as proposed by Dulay and Burt *1999-, and is consistent !ith the theoretical !or% done in the area of affective variables and second language ac&uisition, as !ell as the hypotheses previously covered in this chapter# =esearch over the last decade has confir"ed that a variety of affective variables relate to success in second language ac&uisition *revie!ed in Krashen, 1981-# 6ost of those studied can be placed into one of these three categories3 *1- Motivation. Perfor"ers !ith high "otivation generally do better in language ac&uisition *usually, but not al!ays, /integrative/1, second

* - Se!"/con"idence. Perfor"ers !ith self(confidence and a good self(i"age tend to do better in second language ac&uisition# *,- An8iety. 7o! an'iety appears to be conducive to second language ac&uisition, !hether "easured as personal or classroo" an'iety# $n several places $ have hypothesiHed that these attitudinal factors relate directly to ac&uisition and not learning, since they tend to sho! stronger relationships to second language achieve"ent !hen co""unicative(type tests are used, tests that tap the ac&uired rather than the learned syste", and !hen the students ta%ing the test have used the language in /ac&uisition(rich/ situations, situations !here co"prehensible input !as plentiful# The 4ffective Ailter hypothesis captures the relationship bet!een affective variables and the process of second language ac&uisition by positing that ac&uirers vary !ith respect to the strength or level of their 4ffective Ailters# Those !hose attitudes are not opti"al for second language ac&uisition !ill not only tend to see% less input, but they !ill also have a high or strong 4ffective Ailter((even if they understand the "essage, the input !ill not reach the part of the brain responsible for language ac&uisition, or the language ac&uisition device# Those !ith attitudes "ore conducive to second language ac&uisition !ill not only see% and obtain "ore input, they !ill also have a lo!er or !ea%er filter# They !ill be "ore open to the input, and it !ill stri%e /deeper/ *Stevic%, 199.-# The 4ffective Ailter hypothesis, represented in Aig# # , clai"s that

,1

the effect of affect is /outside/ the language ac&uisition device proper# $t still "aintains that input is the pri"ary causative variable in second language ac&uisition, affective variables acting to i"pede or facilitate the delivery of input to the language ac&uisition device# The filter hypothesis e'plains !hy it is possible for an ac&uirer to obtain a great deal of co"prehensible input, and yet stop short *and so"eti"es !ell short- of the native spea%er level *or /fossiliHe/2 Selin%er, 199 -# 5hen this occurs, it is due to the affective filter#

Aig # # Cperation of the /affective filter/# The /affective filter/, posited by Dulay and Burt *1999-, acts to prevent input fro" being used for language ac&uisition# 4c&uirers !ith opti"al attitudes *see te't- are hypothesiHed to have /lo!/ affective filters# Classroo"s that encourage lo! filters are those that pro"ote lo! an'iety a"ong students, that %eep students /off the defensive/ *Stevic%, 199.-#

This picture does not di"inish, in any !ay, the i"portance of affective variables in pedagogy# The 4ffective Ailter hypothesis i"plies that our pedagogical goals should not only include supplying co"prehensible input, but also creating a situation that encourages a lo! filter# 4s discussed in Chapter M, several "ethods focus on )ust this *e#g# Counseling( 7earning and Suggestopedia-# The input hypothesis and the concept of the 4ffective Ailter define the language teacher in a ne! !ay# The effective language teacher is so"eone !ho can provide input and help "a%e it co"prehensible in a lo! an'iety situation# Cf course, "any teachers have felt this !ay about their tas% for years, at least until they !ere told other!ise by the e'pertsJ10 ". The &ausative Varia#le in Second Language Acquisition 1# T<: C4US4T$M: M4=$4B7:S Cur revie! of second language ac&uisition theory thus far can be su""ariHed as follo!s3 1# 4c&uisition is "ore i"portant than learning#

# $n order to ac&uire, t!o conditions are necessary# The first is co"prehensible *or even better, co"prehended- input containing i O 5, structures a bit beyond the ac&uirer>s current level, and second, a lo! or !ea% affective filter to allo! the input /in/# This is e&uivalent to saying that co"prehensible input and the strength of the filter are the true causes of second language ac&uisition# Cther variables "ay relate to second language success, that is, !e "ay see positive correlations bet!een other variables and "easures of achieve"ent in second language, but in all cases in !hich language ac(uisition is attained, analysis !ill reveal that the relationship can better be e'plained in ter"s of co"prehensible input plus filter level# $n this section, !e !ill perfor" such an analysis, loo%ing at several factors that have been sho!n to relate to success in second language ac&uisition# 5e !ill see that not only can they be re(analyHed, but that the co"prehensible input O filter e'planation helps to solve so"e apparent proble"s and contradictions in the research literature# 5e !ill begin !ith the effect of language teaching on second language ac&uisition, then e'a"ine variables relating to e'posure *length of residence in the country !here the language is used and reported use of the second language-, and then turn to age# Ainally, !e !ill consider Schu"ann>s acculturation hypothesis, to see !hether it too can be reanalyHed in this !ay# # 74;FU4F: T:4C<$;F3 DC:S $T <:7P? $f ac&uisition is "ore central, and learning of less use to second language perfor"ance, and if co"prehensible input and the filter are the essential causative variables for second language ac&uisition, the classroo" should help only to the e'tent it supplies co"prehensible input in an environ"ent conducive to a lo! filter# This "ay indeed be, as "entioned earlier, its "ain function# $t see"s reasonable to hypothesiHe that the classroo" should be especially valuable for beginners, those !ho cannot easily utiliHe the infor"al environ"ent for input# $t !ill be of less value to those !ho can, !ho have other sources of co"prehensible input, and !ho are linguistically advanced enough to ta%e advantage of it# The &uestion then beco"es not /Does language teaching help?/ but

,,

/When does language teaching help?/# 4 possible ans!er is this3 language teaching helps !hen it is the "ain source of lo! filter co"prehensible input, that is, for beginners and for foreign language students !ho do not have a chance to get input outside the class# $t !ill be of less help !hen rich sources of input are available# $f the research literature supports these generaliHations, it confir"s the generaliHation that language teaching helps second language ac&uisition !hen it supplies co"prehensible input, !hich is the true cause of second language ac&uisition# 3a4 When !anguage teaching he!ps BriQre *1998- investigated the factors that predicted successful ac&uisition of Spanish as a second language a"ong 9 + native 6e'ican children, ages four through t!elve# 4"ong the best predictors of Spanish proficiency !as attendance in class in the village school *pro"otoria-# This "a%es sense in ter"s of our hypothesis, since the pro"otoria !as the "a)or source of co"prehensible input in Spanish, as opportunities to use Spanish outside the classroo" !ere not plentiful# *The t!o other significant predictors !ere the father>s ability to spea% Spanish and the parents> need for Spanish#So"e adult studies report fairly large positive correlations bet!een the a"ount of classroo" e'posure to the second language and proficiency# $n each case, ho!ever, it can be argued that the class !as the pri"ary source of co"prehensible input# Krashen, Relins%i, 8ones, and Usprich *1998- tested students in an e'tension *evening and !ee%end- progra" in :nglish as a second language at Eueens College in ;e! Ior%, and reported robust correlations bet!een reported years of for"al study and perfor"ance on a variety of :S7 tests, i#e#3 444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444 +est )orrelation "ith years of formal study 444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444 Michigan (Lado) r 5 6.*6 )omposition r 5 6.7& )lo8e r 5 6.&% ,L9:; r 5 6.&' (reported in Krashen1 19%6) 444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444 4ll correlations !ere very significant *p S +#+1 or better-# Despite the fact that these students !ere in the United States and

,0

technically in a second language and not a foreign language environ"ent, it is li%ely that, in "any cases, they did not have a rich input source available to the" outside the class# Airst, so"e had not been in the country for a long ti"e, their pri"ary e'posure to :nglish having been in a foreign language situation# Second, since these !ere e'tension and not regular day(ti"e university students, there !as the strong possibility that "any of the" !ere not utiliHing :nglish very "uch in their daily lives, even though they !ere living in ;e! Ior%# This is confir"ed belo!, !hen !e note the lac% of a strong relationship found for these sa"e students bet!een length of residence in the United States and proficiency, and !hen !e e'a"ine the effect of instruction on regular university students !ho do have a rich source of input outside the classroo"# *See Krashen, Seliger, and <artnett, 1990 and Krashen and Seliger, 199., for si"ilar results#Chihara and Cller *1998- also report substantial correlations bet!een length of for"al study and second language proficiency, finding a correlation of r P +#01 for perfor"ance on a cloHe test and si"ilar results for other "easures# Their sub)ects !ere 8apanese studying :nglish as a foreign language in 8apan, a clear foreign language situation in !hich the classroo" !as the "ain, if not only, source of co"prehensible input# 3b4 When !anguage teaching does not he!p ;ot all the research literature concludes that language teaching is good for second language ac&uisitionJ *$ "ust ad"it that $ a" astounded to see that so fe! studies have investigated such a crucial issueJ 5hat is presented in this section is practically the entire literature on this &uestion#- There are generaliHations that can be "ade about studies that see" to decide against second language teaching, ho!ever# $n all cases, students had a rich source of co"prehensible input outside the classroo", and !ere co"petent enough in the second language to be able to ta%e advantage of it, i#e# understand# T!o studies deal !ith child second language ac&uisition and both !ith :nglish as a second language# Aath"an *1991- found no significant differences in :nglish proficiency bet!een children !ho had :S7 instruction and children !ho did not# 4ll children in her study, ho!ever,

,1

!ere enrolled in :nglish("ediu" public schools in 5ashington, D#C# and all had been in the United States fro" one to three years# $t can be hypothesiHed that they !ere getting co"prehensible input fro" the school and playground, and the e'tra input fro" the :S7 class did not "a%e a difference *nor did gra""ar and drillJ-# <ale and Budar *199+- studied i""igrant adolescents in <a!aiian )unior high schools# $n their paper *titled /4re T:SC7 classes the only ans!er?/-, they noted that the sub)ects for"ed a natural division# Cne group !as co"posed of students !ho spo%e less co""on languages# These students did not have the /benefit/ of a for"al :S7 progra" and !ere isolated fro" spea%ers of their o!n language# The second group consisted of students !ho had the chance to associate !ith other students !ho spo%e their o!n first language# These students did attend :S7 classes# <ale and Budar report that the first group actually "ade better progress in :nglish, a finding that see"s to &uestion the value of :S7 classes# The first group, ho!ever, "ay have had "ore co"prehensible input, possibly through having to associate "ore !ith :nglish spea%ers and !ith other non(native spea%ers using :nglish as a !ingua "ranca. This study also fits our generaliHation and confir"s that the issue is not plus or "inus :S7 or language teaching but plus or "inus lo! filter co"prehensible input# T!o adult studies also appear to decide against the classroo"# Upshur *19.8- studied three groups of ten foreign students studying la! at a special su""er session at the University of 6ichigan# 4ll students too% se"inars and classes that used :nglish as the "ediu" of instruction# $n addition, they too% for"al :S7 classes, each group ta%ing a different a"ount, depending on place"ent scores# Upshur>s analysis of their progress in :nglish over the su""er revealed no significant effects attributable to the a"ount of instruction they received3 those !ith "ore :S7 did not necessarily ac&uire "ore than those !ith less over the course of the su""er# 6ason *1991-, in a study done at the University of <a!aii, si"ply allo!ed a s"all group of inter"ediate11 level international students to postpone a re&uired :S7 class for a se"ester# Their progress in :S7 !as co"pared to students !ho actually too% the course# 6ason reported no significant differences bet!een the t!o groups# The t!o adult studies are consistent !ith the hypothesis# $n both

,.

cases, students had a rich source of co"prehensible input outside the classroo", and in both cases they !ere advanced enough to be able to utiliHe it# $ conclude fro" this that language teaching certainly can help# $ts pri"ary function is to supply co"prehensible input for those !ho can not get it else!here, those constrained by their situation *i#e# foreign language students !ho do not have input sources outside the class- or by their co"petence *those unable to understand the language of the outside !orld-# 5hile it is less useful for those !ho have other sources of input, there still are things the co"petent classroo" can contribute to the inter"ediate student# $t can supply conscious learning for opti"al 6onitor use *see Chapter $M-, and give tools to help the ac&uirer utiliHe the outside environ"ent "ore fully for further ac&uisition *Chapter $$$-# Table # su""ariHes studies discussed in this section#1. ,# :KPCSU=: M4=$4B7:S Several e'posure variables have been investigated !ith respect to second language ac&uisition# So"e studies sho! a clear relationship bet!een the a"ount of e'posure and proficiency and so"e do not# 5e shall see again that the hypothesis that co"prehensible input plus lo! filter are the true causative variables predicts &uite !ell !hen e'posure variables relate to second language ac&uisition and !hen they do not# Thus, e'posure variable are also indirect and not in the"selves causative# Several studies have e'a"ined !ength o" residence *7C=- in the second language environ"ent# Aor those studies of child second language ac&uisition, it can be plausibly argued that 7C= "ay reflect si"ply the a"ount of co"prehensible input the child obtains# *This is of course not al!ays the case in child second language ac&uisition2 all too often children living in a country do not get co"prehensible input, either in or out of school#- 5e thus see, in these studies, a clear relationship bet!een 7C= and second language proficiency# Aath"an *1991- !as discussed above# $n addition to her finding on the non(effects of for"al instruction on :S7 achieve"ent, Aath"an also reported that 7C= did predict proficiency for her sa"ple of children *ages .(10, enrolled in public school in 5ashington, D#C#-#

,9

Table # # Aor"al instruction and second language ac&uisition

4ll sub)ects had been in the U#S# at least one year#

,8

Those !ho had been in the United States for three years did better on the S7CP: test than those !ho had been in the United States for t!o years, and this group, in turn, outperfor"ed those !ho had been in the United States for only one year# 5alberg, <ase, and =asher *1998- studied 8apanese(spea%ing children !ho had been in the United States a range of Hero to 1 years, !ith "ost reporting a 7C= of three to four years# Self(report and report of teachers !ere used as esti"ates of the children>s proficiency in :nglish# 5alberg et a!. did find a significant relationship bet!een 7C= and proficiency in :nglish as a second language, but noted that even higher correlations !ere found !ith a /di"inishing returns/ "odel3 /Aor children of all ages in the sa"ple, ac&uisition proceeds at a fast rate initially, but the a"ounts of gain di"inish !ith ti"e/ *p# 0,.-# Specifically, /it "ay be esti"ated that e&ual### units are gained in the first t!o "onths, the ne't five "onths, the follo!ing one year, the ne't t!o years, and the ne't eight years/ *p#0,.-# :%strand *199.-, ho!ever, found no relationship bet!een 7C= and child second language proficiency in his study of i""igrant children in S!eden# The "edian 7C= in his study !as only 1+#1 "onths, and it "ay be the case that 7C= effects are not seen unless the children have been in the country for so"e "ini"u" length of ti"e *one year?-# This condition is satisfied in the Aath"an and 5alberg et a!. studies, and "ay be due to the fact that appro'i"ately one year is necessary to offset the advantage the older children have in rate of ac&uisition in early stages *Krashen, 7ong, and Scarcella, 19992 see also discussion belo! on age-# 5alberg et a!.>s di"inishing returns hypothesis predicts that there is also a "a'i"u" 7C=, beyond !hich !e see no relationship bet!een 7C= and second language ac&uisition# Data fro" so"e other studies confir" this# Seliger, Krashen and 7adefoged *1990-, Cya"a *199., 1998-, and Pat%o!s%i *198+- all report no relationship bet!een 7C= and proficiency in :nglish as a second language using a variety of "easures for groups of sub)ects !ho had arrived in the United States at different ages, so"e arriving as children and so"e as adults# $n all cases, ho!ever, very long 7C=s !ere involved, the "ini"u" being five years !ith "ost being "uch longer# T!o other studies that bear on the issue of 7C= and child second

,9

language ac&uisition !ill be covered in a subse&uent section *=a"sey and 5right, 19902 6inoura, 1999-# 4dult studies of the relationship bet!een 7C= and second language proficiency sho!, in "y vie!, that 7C= /counts/ !hen there is evidence that it reflects high interaction and therefore co"prehensible input# Because of the variability in filter level in adults, ho!ever, !e "ight e'pect lo!er correlations for adults in general, as co"pared to children *see discussion of age belo!-# $nternational university students fully involved in the acade"ic environ"ent should give us significant correlations bet!een 7C= and proficiency in the second language, provided a large enough range of 7C= is e'a"ined, since students should have access to large a"ounts of co"prehensible input, both in and out of class# T!o studies utiliHed international students# 6ura%a"i *198+- studied ,+ 8apanese(spea%ing students at Southern $llinois University and found a significant correlation bet!een perfor"ance on a dictation test of :S7 and 7C= * r P +#.8-, and a positive but not significant correlation using a cloHe test *r P +# 9-# These results are nearly identical to those of Cller, Per%ins, and 6ura%a"i *198+-, !ho e'a"ined a group of 18 students, also at S$U *!hich did not include the ,+ students 6ura%a"i studied alone-# They also report a significant correlation bet!een 7C= and dictation *r P +#0.- but no significant correlation for cloHe *correlation not reported-# 7C= and proficiency !as also probed in our study of e'tension students at Eueens College *cited above2 Krashen et a!., 1998-# Correlations !ere occasionally significant *due to the large sa"ple siHe- but !ere &uite "odest#
44444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444 )orrelation Measure 44444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444 6.1Michigan test (Lado) 6.'' )omposition 6.'& )lo8e 6.61& ,L9:; test (Krashen1 19%6) 44444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444

These results are predictable# 5e !ould e'pect e'tension students to have variable, and often very lo!, contact !ith :nglish as co"pared to full(ti"e students# So"e "ay have lived in the United States "any years !ithout "uch co"prehensible input# *Si"ilar results are reported

0+

in Krashen, Seliger, and <artnett, 1990, and Krashen and Seliger, 199.#T!o studies e'a"ine /ti"e abroad/ to foreign language students, but differ so"e!hat in environ"ent and also in results# Carroll *19.9- reported that foreign language "a)ors in 4"erican universities !ho !ere able to spend their )unior years abroad in the country !here the language !as spo%en perfor"ed better on the AS$ rest of listening co"prehension than those !ho had only spent a su""er abroad# The su""er travelers, in turn, outperfor"ed those !ho had never been abroad# These clear results probably reflect the fact that such students, "ost li%ely, sought out interaction, and thus co"prehensible input in the second language !hile they !ere abroad# $n Chihara and Cller *1998-, students of :nglish as a foreign language in 8apan !ere studied# ;o relationship !as found, ho!ever, bet!een the a"ount of ti"e spent abroad and tests of :nglish *r P +#+0 for cloHe, !ith other "easures producing si"ilar results2 Chihara and Cller report higher correlations bet!een ti"e abroad and self(report of :nglish proficiency2 r P +# 0 for spea%ing and r P +# , for listening co"prehension-# $n contrast to Carroll>s 4"erican foreign language "a)ors study, in !hich ac&uirers !ere in daily contact !ith the target language, ti"e abroad in this case need not have a direct relationship !ith a"ount of co"prehensible input# Table #, su""ariHes 7C= studies# 4 second e'posure variable that has been studied is reported use o" the second !anguage. Several studies *but surprisingly fe!- have as%ed !hether those !ho say they use the second language "ore actually ac&uire "ore# 5e !ould e'pect a significant relationship bet!een /use/ and ac&uisition, since use nearly al!ays entails co"prehensible input# Cf the three studies $ %no! of that e'plore this variable, t!o do in fact sho! a clear relationship !ith second language proficiency# *Aailure to find a clear relationship in every case "ay be due to the unreliability of self(report2 see Cller and Per%ins, 1998#4ll studies e'a"ining reported use involve adult sub)ects# 8ohnson and Krug *198+studied 9 international students at Southern $llinois University and found a "odest but significant +#,0 correlation bet!een proficiency in :nglish *as "easured by accuracy of gra""atical "orphe"es in obligatory occasions in an intervie! situation- and sub)ects>

01

Table #,# 'ength o" residence 3'+*4 and second !anguage ac(uisition 3S'A4

a b c

C$ P co"prehensible input# 4verage 7C= P ,(0 years# ;o relationship bet!een 7C= and S74 presu"ably due here to relatively short 7C=#

report of the a"ount of leisure ti"e they spent spea%ing and listening to :nglish# Cller, Per%ins, and 6ura%a"i *198+-, ho!ever, e'a"ining a si"ilar sa"ple, found no relationship bet!een a report of /ti"e spent !ith :nglish spea%ers/ and second language proficiency, as "easured by dictation and a cloHe(type gra""ar test# The <eidelberg pro)ect, as cited in Schu"ann *1998b-, e'a"ined factors predicting proficiency in Fer"an as a second language for guest(!or%ers *$talian and Spanish spea%ers- in Fer"any# They reported a correlation of +#.0 bet!een Fer"an syntactic proficiency and /leisure contact/ !ith Fer"ans and one of +#1, bet!een Fer"an proficiency and /!or% contact/# Both leisure and !or% contact can plausibly be interpreted as indicating co"prehensible input# 0# 4F: $t has been popularly assu"ed that age itself is a predictor of second language proficiency, that younger ac&uirers are better at second language ac&uisition than older ac&uirers# $t can be argued, ho!ever, that age is not in itself a predictor of second language rate or attain"ent, and that here too everything reduces do!n to the &uantity of co"prehensible input and the level of the affective filter# Krashen, 7ong, and Scarcella *1999- revie!ed the available e"pirical research on the effect of age and second language ac&uisition and concluded that all published studies !ere consistent !ith these three generaliHation3 1# 4dults proceed through the early stages of second language develop"ent faster than children do *!here ti"e and e'posure are held constant-# # Clder children ac&uire faster than younger children, ti"e and e'posure held constant# ,# 4c&uirers !ho begin natural e'posure to second languages during childhood generally achieve higher second language proficiency than those beginning as adults# Thus, it is not si"ply the case that /younger is better/3 children are superior to adults only in the long run# The e'planations for these observed differences that see" "ost

0,

plausible to "e involve input and the level or strength of the affective filter# Airst, let us consider the older ac&uirer>s rate superiority *generaliHations *1- and * - above-# Scarcella and <iga *forthco"ing- found that younger ac&uirers actually received /si"pler/ input in a bloc% building tas%, a result that confir"s observations "ade by 5agner(Fough and <atch *1991-, and that see"s to predict greater speed for younger, and not older ac&uirers# Scarcella and <iga noted that the older ac&uirers *adolescents- !ere better able to regulate both the &uantity and &uality of their input# They !ere better at encouraging speech and at getting the native spea%er to "odify it for greater co"prehensibility# They could, for e'a"ple, as% for help, change the topic, and direct the conversation better# They had, in other !ords, "ore /conversational co"petence/# Thus, despite the si"pler input directed at the younger children, it is li%ely that older ac&uirers actually get "ore co"prehended input, and this "ay be a %ey factor in their faster initial progress# There "ay be other reasons for the older ac&uirers> superiority in rate of ac&uisition# 4dults have "eans of producing language earlier, of /beating the Silent Period/, "eans that have nothing to do !ith natural language ac&uisition but that "ay nevertheless help the" participate in conversation and hence obtain co"prehensible input# $ have hypothesiHed in earlier papers *see, for e'a"ple, Krashen, 1981- that significant 6onitor use is only possible after the ac&uirer has undergone for"al operations, a stage in cognitive develop"ent that generally occurs at about puberty *$nhelder and Piaget, 1918-# The availability of the conscious gra""ar, the 6onitor, allo!s adults to produce for"ally acceptable utterances using first language rules repaired by the 6onitor, as discussed earlier in this chapter# 5hile the use of this "ode does not re&uire co"prehensible input, it helps the ac&uirer to tal% early, to participate in conversations, and thereby obtain input, at least so"e of !hich !ill be co"prehensible# Both e'planations for the older ac&uirers> rate superiority reduce to the greater ability of the adult and older child to obtain co"prehensibly input# Thus, co"prehensible input again is hypothesiHed to be the causative variable, and not age per se. The child>s superiority in ulti"ate attain"ent has been hypothesiHed to be due to the strengthening of the affective filter at about puberty,

00

an event that "ay also be related to for"al operations *Krashen, 1981-# 4s argued else!here, this hypothesis has several advantages# Airst, it clai"s that child(adult differences in attain"ent are not due to any change in the /language ac&uisition device/ *74D- but are due to the filter, a factor that is, in a sense, e'ternal to the 74D# Second, it is consistent !ith the clai" that adults are still /ac&uirers/, that they retain the natural language ac&uisition capacity children have# $t also allo!s for the possibility that so"e adults can achieve e'tre"ely high levels of co"petence in a second language and "ay even be ta%en for native2 it predicts that such /Food 7anguage 7earners/ !ill be, above all, good ac&uirers, !ith the ability to obtain a great deal of co"prehensible input !ith a lo! affective filter# $n "any cases, the filter prevents the adult only fro" going the last fe! inches#19 1# 4CCU7TU=4T$C; 4 si"ilar argu"ent can be "ade concerning Schu"ann>s 4cculturation <ypothesis# Schu"ann *1998b- has hypothesiHed that acculturation is the /"a)or casual variable in second language ac&uisition/ *p# 9-# Schu"ann "aintains that /Second language ac&uisition is )ust one aspect of acculturation, and the degree to !hich the learner acculturates to the target language group !ill control the degree to !hich he ac&uires the target language/ *p# ,0-# 5hile the 4cculturation <ypothesis see"s to account for second language ac&uisition data in e'tended so)ourn situations, it is easily e'pressible in ter"s of co"prehensible input and lo! filter level# 4cculturation can be vie!ed as a "eans of gaining co"prehensible input and lo!ering the filter# 6oreover, the co"prehensible input hypothesis accounts for second language ac&uisition in situations that acculturation does not atte"pt to deal !ith# Schu"ann defines t!o types of acculturation3
/$n type one acculturation, the learner is socially integrated !ith the T7 group and, as a result, develops sufficient contact !ith T7 spea%ers to enable hi" to ac&uire the T7# $n addition, he is psychologically open to the T7 such that input to !hich he is e'posed beco"es inta%e# Type t!o acculturation has all the characteristics of type one, but in this case the learner regards the T7 spea%ers as a reference

01

group !hose life styles and values he consciously or unconsciously desires to adopt# Both types of acculturation are sufficient to cause ac&uisition of the T7, but the distinction is "ade to stress that social and psychological contact !ith the T7 group is the essential co"ponent in acculturation *as it relates to S74- that that adoption of the life style and values of the T7 group *characteristics traditionally associated !ith the notion of acculturation- is not necessary for successful ac&uisition of the T7/ *p# 9-#

Type one acculturation is thus /!ea%er/ than type t!o in that it does not involve adoption of the ne! life style# Since Schu"ann hypothesiHes that type one is all that is necessary for successful second language ac&uisition, !e restrict our discussion to type one acculturation# Type one acculturation is easily restatable in ter"s of the fra"e!or% presented in this chapter3 social integration !ith resulting contacts leads to co"prehensible input, !hile the open psychological state Schu"ann refers to is e&uivalent to a lo! filter# The evidence Schu"ann presents in support of the 4cculturation <ypothesis can be si"ilarly interpreted# The <eidelberg pro)ect, "entioned earlier, studied variables correlating !ith successful ac&uisition of Fer"an by foreign !or%ers# =eported a"ounts of leisure contact !ith spea%ers of Fer"an correlated !ith syntactic perfor"ance *r P +#.0- as did a"ount of !or% contact *r P +#11-# 4pparently, either for" of interaction !as effective in encouraging second language ac&uisition# *Schu"ann notes that /a"ong the best spea%ers, those !ho had little leisure contact !ith Fer"ans all had considerable !or% contact/ *p# ,9-2 thus, so"e guest(!or%ers !ho ac&uired Fer"an did so !ithout "uch leisure contact#- This confir"s that it is interaction, and the resulting co"prehensible input, that /causes/ second language ac&uisition, a vie! consistent !ith both the co"prehensible input plus lo! filter vie! as !ell as the 4cculturation <ypothesis# Schu"ann, in reporting the <eidelberg research, also notes that /learners !hose !or% re&uired co""unication !ith co(!or%ers did better in Fer"an than !or%ers !ho provided services *hairdressers, %itchen help, etc#-/ 4lso, /learners !ho !or%ed in an environ"ent that !as noisy or !hich constrained "ove"ent !ere at a disadvantage/#

0.

These results also suggest that those !ho !ere able to interact "ore in the target language ac&uired "ore Fer"an, all of !hich "eans "ore input "eeting the re&uire"ents of the input hypothesis# Schu"ann dra!s a parallel bet!een natural */free/ or infor"al- second language ac&uisition and the pidginiHation(decreoliHation continuu", suggesting that early second language ac&uisition is si"ilar to pidginiHation *secondary hybridiHation- and that late second language ac&uisition is si"ilar to the "esolect and acrolect stages of decreoliHation#18 4s evidence, he describes the case of 4lberto, a Spanish(spea%ing adult living in the United States !ho appeared to be at a considerable psychological and social distance 19 fro" :nglish spea%ers, and !hose speech sho!ed "ar%ed signs of pidginiHation, i#e# lac% of several gra""atical "orphe"es, little use of inversion in &uestions, and use of "ore pri"itive transitional for"s in negation *Schu"ann, 1998a provides details-# 4lberto thus fits the 4cculturation <ypothesis, since he sho!ed little second language ac&uisition and little acculturation, defined as the degree of social and psychological distance# 4lbert is also &uite consistent !ith the theoretical fra"e!or% presented here and the hypothesis that co"prehensible input and filter level are pri"ary deter"inants of second language ac&uisition# 4lberto, it can be clai"ed, received little co"prehensible input in :nglish *he !or%ed nights, did not o!n a TM set, did not attend :S7 classes, and "ade little effort to get to %no! :nglish spea%ers#, according to Schu"ann, 1998a-, and probably had a strong affective filter as !ell# + Stauble>s sub)ects, reported in Stauble *1998- are also considered to be evidence for the 4cculturation <ypothesis# 4ll three !ere Spanish spea%ers !ho had been in the United States for "any years, and !ho had apparently /fossiliHed/ at different levels in their develop"ent of negation# Stauble atte"pted to relate their progress in second language ac&uisition, as reflected by the transitional for"s they used for negation, and acculturation, "easured by an infor"al &uestionnaire probing social and psychological distance fro" spea%ers of :nglish# The sub)ect Kavier sho!ed the least progress in :nglish negation, but also sho!ed the least social distance# Stauble>s &uestionnaire revealed that his psychological distance, ho!ever, !as greater than that of the others, !hich is consistent !ith the 4cculturation <ypothesis# PaH, the "ost advanced spea%er, had the greatest social distance, but, along

09

!ith 6aria, the other sub)ect, had relatively lo! psychological distance# Stauble>s interpretation of these findings is that psychological distance "ay be a "ore i"portant deter"inant of acculturation, and hence language ac&uisition, than social distance# Stauble>s data can also be analyHed in ter"s of our theoretical fra"e!or%# Since all three sub)ects had been in the United States for "any years, all three had had considerable co"prehensible input *recall our earlier generaliHation that 7C=, !hen over a long period of ti"e, does not predict S74, a hypothesis consistent !ith 5alberg et a!.>s di"inishing returns hypothesis-, enough to allo! a /Hero filter/ ac&uirer to reach native(spea%er levels# 5e can then si"ply hypothesiHe that it !as PaH>s lo!er filter, reflected by the lo!er psychological score, that allo!ed this ac&uirer to "a%e "ore progress# 1 Ainally, it can be clai"ed that the co"prehensible input plus filter position is "ore general# The acculturation hypothesis predicts second language ac&uisition only in i""igration and e'tended so)ourn situations# *$ndeed, it is unfair to as% it to account for other situations, since Schu"ann has "ade it very clear in his !ritings that the acculturation hypothesis is designed to account for second language ac&uisition on!y in this situation#- The theory of S74 presented in this chapter can not only account for e'tended so)ourn and i""igrant S74 but also predicts success in the classroo", as detailed in Chapters $$$, $M, and M, and is clai"ed to be applicable to a!! language ac&uisition# The 4cculturation <ypothesis has considerable "erit# $t "ay be the case that acculturation is the "ost effective !ay of lo!ering the affective filter and getting input for i""igrants and long(ter" visitors# Aigure #, atte"pts to capture the parallel bet!een second language ac&uisition and the effect of acculturation# /Aree/ second language ac&uisition and the continuu" are si"ilar in that acculturation "ay be the /"otivating force/ behind both# Creole spea%ers gradually ac&uire closer versions of the standard as they are acculturated into the target culture# This acculturation brings the" into contact !ith spea%ers of the standard, and "a%es the" "ore /open/ to the input *lo!ers the filter-# 4lso, acculturation "ay /"otivate/ second language ac&uisition# 4s the individual ac&uirer acculturates into a culture, he obtains "ore input via "ore interaction, and is "ore /open/ to it# The difference

08

Aig# #,# 4cculturation, pidginiHation(decreoliHation, and second langauge ac&uisition#

Second langauge ac&uisition and the pidginiHation ( decreoliHation continuu" are si"ilar in that both progress via co"prehensible input supplied in a lo! filter situation *area inside the bo'-#

a :nculturation P /the process by !hich an individual assi"ilates to his o!n culture or to so"e seg"ent of it/, i#e# the case of :uropean elite professionals !ho ac&uire :nglish in their o!n countries, *Aor discussion, see Schu"ann *1998b-, pp# 09(08-#

09

is that acculturation is the necessary "otivating force for "ove"ent along the decreoliHation continuu", !hile it is only one !ay to bring the filter do!n and obtain co"prehensible input# $nput can be obtained !ith acculturation, and there are "any techni&ues for bringing do!n the filter that have nothing to do !ith acculturation# +otes
1 The ac&uisition(learning distinction is not ne! !ith "e# Several other scholars have found it useful to posit si"ilar %inds of differences# Bialystoc% and Arohlich *199 - distinguish /i"plicit/ and /e'plicit/ learning, and 7a!ler and Selin%er *1991- discuss "echanis"s that guide /auto"atic/ perfor"ance and "echanis"s that guide /puHHle and proble" solving perfor"ance/ *p# ,1-# 4lso, Corder *19.9- and 5iddo!son *1999suggest si"ilar ideas# Those of us !ho have studied languages !ith a great deal of inflectional "orphology in school, using "ethods that focus on gra""atical accuracy, often have first(hand e'perience !ith this pheno"enon# Consider !hat happens )ust before a gra""ar test in a language such as Fer"an2 students carefully revie! the inflectional syste" *der(das(die2 den(das(die2 plus the list of prepositions that ta%e different cases- on the !ay to the e'a"# 4s soon as they sit do!n in class to ta%e the test, they i""ediately scribble !hat they can re"e"ber of the inflectional syste" on the side of the page, so that !hen they need the correct "ar%er, they can find it and use it# 4t the end of the e'a", before handing in the paper, they erase their notes# The "orphology on the side of the page is, "ost li%ely, late(ac&uired, and unavailable in rapid conversation for "ost people# The notes on the side, then, act li%e a conscious 6onitor, raising the accuracy of the output in situations !here the student has ti"e, is focused on for", and can access the rule2 gra""ar tests fill these conditions nicely# Students thus do "uch better in ter"s of gra""atical accuracy on such tests than they !ould in free conversation, the late( ac&uired, or not(yet(ac&uired, ite"s that are learnable rising in ran%# , 4n interesting parallel hypothesis is that !e !ill see greater nu"bers of transitiona! "orms in 6onitor(free conditions# The literature is consistent !ith this hypothesis, since the transitional for"s noted for adult ac&uirers have all been found in sub)ects !ho appear to be non(users, or under(users of the conscious 6onitor, for e'a"ple, Schu"ann>s 4lberto *Schu"ann, 1998-2 ;elson>s 6cFill university )anitors *;elson, 198+-, and <anania and Frad"an>s Aat"ah *<anania and Frad"an, 1999-# This is predictable, since transitional for"s are hypothesiHed to reflect the operation of the ac&uired syste"# 0 To be "ore precise, spea%ing s%ills that depend on ac(uired co"petence e"erge over ti"e as a result of co"prehensible input# There appear to be, ho!ever, at least t!o !ays of beating the syste", at least over the short run# 5e can produce using "e"oriHed language, or routines and patterns *Krashen and Scarcella, 1998-, and !e can also produce by using the first language surface structure plus conscious gra""ar *71 plus 6onitor 6ode-# 4s !e shall see later, both of these "ethods of perfor"ing !ithout ac&uired co"petence have dra!bac%s and li"itations# 1 $nterlanguage tal%, the speech of second language ac&uirers to each other, "ay or "ay not be useful for ac&uisition# This is an i"portant &uestion that, to "y %no!ledge, has not been directly dealt !ith in the professional literature# 4rgu"ents in favor of its utility for language ac&uisition are these3 it satisfies the input hypothesis in that it is "eant

1+

for co""unication and "ight contain input at so"e ac&uirers> i O 5# Cn the other hand there is the &uestion of !hether the ungra""aticality of "uch interlanguage tal% out!eighs these factors# 4lso, "uch interlanguage tal% input "ight be too si"ple and "ay not contain i O 5 for the "ore advanced ac&uirer# See Krashen *198+, 1981- for a discussion of so"e of the e"pirical evidence that "ight shed light on this issue# . $n a recent study, 6# 7ong *198+- reported that foreigner tal% discourse did not contain significantly "ore verbs "ar%ed for present tense than native spea%er(native spea%er discourse# $t is thus not "ore in the /no!/ of the /here and no!/, to paraphrase 7ong# 9 4 loo% at so"e of the "e"oriHed sentences and phrases children pic% up during the silent period confir"s their utility in a variety of social situations# Euite often, ho!ever, the children do not al!ays ac&uire the %no!ledge of e'actly !hen and ho! to use the"# 4 particularly vivid e'a"ple is the child, !ho had been in the United States appro'i"ately t!o "onths, !ho greeted an ac&uaintance of "ine !ith /$ %ic% you ass#/ 8 Conscious 6onitoring need not al!ays result in the full repair of an 71 influenced error# $f the repair )ob appears to be too co"ple' for the 6onitor to deal !ith, the perfor"er "ay si"ply abort the entire sentence and try to e'press the idea in a si"pler !ay# This "ay be the cause of the avoidance pheno"ena, first reported by Schachter *1990-# $n Schachter>s study, it !as sho!n that Chinese and 8apanese spea%ers produced fe!er relative clauses in :nglish as a second language than did Aarsi and 4rabic spea%ers, but !ere "ore accurate# Schachter relates this result to 71(7 differences3 Chinese and 8apanese relative clauses are constructed to the left of the head noun, !hile Aarsi and 4rabic, li%e :nglish, have relative clauses to the right of the head noun# Cne possible interpretation is that the Chinese and 8apanese spea%ers in Schachter>s study consciously %ne! the correct :nglish relative clause rule but had not ac&uired it# 4lso, in their production of :nglish, they utiliHed their 71 rule# Their 6onitor !as thus presented !ith the tas% of "oving relative clauses around a head noun, a very co"ple' operation# $n "any cases, sub)ects si"ply decided that it !as not !orth the effortJ 5hen they did produce relative clauses, ho!ever, they !ere accurate# These !ere the cases !hen they !ent to the trouble of applying a difficult rule# 4voidance is thus predicted in cases !here a rule has been consciously learned but not ac&uired, and !hen the 71 and 7 rules are &uite different, !here repair by the 6onitor re&uires difficult "ental gy"nastics# 4voidance is also predicted in cases !here the perfor"er consciously %no!s the rule i"perfectly, not !ell enough to "a%e the necessary chance but !ell enough to see a "is"atch bet!een the 71 rule he has used and the correct target language rule# Since he cannot repair but %no!s there is an error, he can e'ercise his option to avoid the structure# Klein"an>s avoidance data *Klein"an, 1999- fits this description# <is 4rabic(spea%ing sub)ects sho!ed evidence of avoiding the passive in :nglish, and his Spanish(and Portuguese(spea%ing sub)ects avoided infinitive co"ple"ents and direct ob)ect pronouns in sentences !ith infinitive co"ple"ents *e#g# /$ told her to leave/-# $n both cases, according to Klein"an, contrastive analysis predicts difficulties# These sub)ects, unli%e Schachter>s, !ere not unusually accurate !ith these constructions !hen they produced the"# $n this case, it is possible that the sub)ect>s %no!ledge of the rule !as not co"plete enough to effect a perfect repair, so avoidance !as the result# $n both cases described above, conscious rules serve a filtering function, telling the perfor"er !here his 71 rule differs fro" the 7 rule# $n one case, repair is possible but difficult, and in the other the conscious rule does not per"it repair# 9 Based on <yltensta">s data on the ac&uisition of negation by adult ac&uirers of S!edish *<yltensta", 1999-, <a""arberg *1999- argues that ac&uirers "ay begin at

11

different develop"ental stages depending on their first language# The nor"al course of develop"ent in the ac&uisition of negation in S!edish consists of the follo!ing transitional stages3 *1a4c&uirers place the negative "ar%er before all other parts of the MP, before the au'iliary and the "ain verb# *1b4c&uirers place the negative "ar%er after the au'iliary but before the "ain verb# * Post(verbal negation#

$n subse&uent stages, ac&uirers "ove closer to the S!edish rule of post(verbal negation in "ain clauses and pre(verbal negation in subordinate clauses# 4ccording to <a""arberg, spea%ers of languages that have pre(verbal negation *Serbo(Croatian- typically start this develop"ental se&uences at the beginning, at stage 1a# :nglish spea%ers, ho!ever, appear to begin at 1b# 5e do not see :nglish spea%ers, in <yltensta">s data, !ho produce /neg O au'/ structures# Since 1b /is an :nglish(li%e solution/ *p# 1+-, one can hypothesis that :nglish spea%ers s%ipped the *1a- transitional stage# There are several possibilities here# Airst, <a""arberg>s suggestion "ay be true# $f so, if ac&uirers can s%ip a transitional stage t09 !hen their language has a rule identical to t0 O 59 this i"plies that t0 !as not essential((it did not have to serve as i# This does not rule out the possibility that t0 !ould have been useful# 4 second possibility is that t0 !as present, but escaped the observer>s notice# $ndeed, it "ay have been present as t0 but never uttered# 4dult perfor"ers !ho have consciously learned the target language rule, or !ho have even learned parts of it, "ay be able to use the conscious 6onitor to detect transitional errors and either avoid the" in perfor"ance or repair the" *see discussion in footnote 9 on avoidance-# They "ay, ho!ever, have "ore of a tendency to accept such transitional for"s !hen they coincide !ith an 71 rule, even if they are errors *Schachter et a!., 199.-# This could e'plain !hy transitional for"s that are unli%e 71 rules are less fre&uently seen in perfor"ance# $t should be noted, ho!ever, that the Serbo(Croatian spea%ers in <yltensta">s study did sho! clear signs of stage 1b, !hich does not correspond to any rule in Serbo(Croatian# There are thus at least t!o possibilities((the :nglish spea%ers did indeed s%ip a stage, !hich i"plies that the s%ipped stage "ay not have been crucial to further develop"ent, or the stage !as /there/ but undetected, due to its short duration andDor its having not been used in the perfor"er>s output# Consistent !ith Schu"ann>s findings *Schu"ann, 1999-, the transitional stage that coincides !ith the 71 rule !as &uite evident, both in the case of Serbo(Croatian spea%ers *stage 1a- and :nglish spea%ers *stage 1b-# 4s suggested in the te't, this stage "ay have, in each case, been t!o stages in one, first the 71 rule, and then the /real/ transitional stage, !ith only the latter helping real progress to continue# 1+ Several scholars have pointed out that this vie! of transfer is too strong in that it predicts the occurrence of /transfer/ errors that in fact do not occur# This proble" can be resolved by positing several constraints on transfer, or conditions that "ust be "et before a perfor"er can substitute a first language rule for so"e i O 5. Robl *198+a, b, c- notes that the 71 rule itself "ust be a productive one# This accounts for the fact that Arench spea%ers ac&uiring :nglish as a second language do not "a%e errors of the %ind3

<ohn comes he0 after the Arench3 <ean $ient=il0 The Arench rule, according to Robl, is no longer productive in Arench# Citing Terry *199+-, Robl notes that it is "ainly li"ited to present tense conte'ts, an indication that the rule is beco"ing unproductive# Keller"an *1998- provides another condition on transfer3 the perfor"er "ust perceive the transferred rule to be potentially non(language specific# Keller"an>s original e'peri"ents in le'ical transfer sho!ed that foreign language students !ere less !illing to transfer features of !ords they considered to be less /core/# Aor e'a"ple, a Dutch(spea%ing student of :nglish !ould be "ore li%ely to presu"e that he could transfer the Dutch verb >brechen> *brea%- in an :nglish sentence3 .e /ro!e his leg. than in3 +he "a$es /ro!e on the shore.

4 si"ilar constraint e'ists in synta'# Dutch students of :nglish, Keller"an reports, !ere not !illing to accept a literal translation into :nglish of the Dutch e&uivalent of3 +he /oo! read "ell. apparently because the intransitive use of read !as perceived to be language(specific and infre&uent *see also 8ordans and Keller"an, 1998-# 4nother constraint co"es fro" the !or% of 5ode *1998-, and accounts for the finding that 71 influenced errors do not see" to occur at all stages of the ac&uirer>s develop"ent# 5ode states that for an interlinguistic error to occur, the 71 rule and the 7 rule it substitutes for "ust "eet a /crucial si"ilarity "easure/ *p# 11.-# $n other !ords, if an 71 rule is to be utiliHed, it "ust be preceded by so"e i of the 7 that differs fro" it only in "ini"al !ays# 5ode>s e'a"ple, fro" child second language ac&uisition of :nglish by Fer"an spea%ers, illustrates this point nicely# 5ode notes that errors such as3 <ohn go not to school occur in !hich Fer"an(li%e post(verbal negation is used# These errors are not found in beginning ac&uirers, but occur, according to 5ode, only after the ac&uirer has reached the /au'(negation/ stage and already produces sentences such as3 <ohn can not go. The ac&uirer then overgeneraliHes the negative rule fro" post(au'iliary to post(verbal, and uses the first language rule# 11 There is another !ay in !hich use of the 71 "ay indirectly help second language ac&uisition# The e'istence of cognates !ill help to "a%e input co"prehensible, even if for" and "eaning are not identical across languages# This factor !ill increase the rate of ac&uisition but not alter the order# 1 The hypothesis that 71 rules cannot contribute to real progress i"plies that fossiliHed use of a 71 rule is the /end of the line/ for ac&uisition# Does this "ean that a single 71 error, a single prolonged substitution of so"e i O 5 halts all ac&uisition? $t only i"plies this if !e accept a strictly linear vie! of the natural order hypothesis, that there is only one strea" of progress that ac&uirers follo! in strict se&uence# Clearly, this is not the

1,

case# $f it !ere, ac&uirers !ould al!ays sho! us )ust one transitional error at a ti"eJ Cf course, individuals sho! us "any error types at once# This indicates that several strea"s of develop"ent are ta%ing place at the sa"e ti"e# These strea"s appear to be correlated2 a perfor"er at a given stage in one strea" !ill usually be at a predictable stage in another strea"# Schu"ann *198+- provides good evidence for this, noting that his sub)ects !ho !ere at the no O v stage in negation produced fe! relative clauses or relative clauses !ithout relative pronouns# Aor 71 ac&uisition, Shipley, S"ith and Fleit"an *19.9- report that verb phrase related ite"s are correlated fairly highly for order of ac&uisition, and noun phrase related ite"s are correlated, but agree"ent across the groups is not high *see also Krashen, 6adden and Bailey, 19912 and 4ndersen, 1998, for si"ilar suggestions-# Cf course, it is &uite possible that transitional for"s or rules fro" one strea" "ay help out those in any other by serving as i# $f say ten parallel strea"s of develop"ent occur at any given ti"e in an ac&uirer, it "ay be the case that a given strea" !ill interact !ith so"e, but not all, of the others in this !ay# 1, /$ntegrative/ "otivation refers to the desire to /be li%e/ spea%ers of the target language# $n foreign language situations *e#g# studying Arench in 4nglophone Canada-, students !ith "ore integrative "otivation are usually superior, especially over the long run *Fardner and 7a"bert, 199 -# $n situations !here there is so"e urgency in second language ac&uisition andD or !here there is less desire to /integrate/, the presence of integrative "otivation "ay not relate to second language achieve"ent# =ather, /instru"ental/ "otivation, the desire to use the language for practical "eans, "ay predict success better *7u%"ani, 199 2 Fardner and 7a"bert, 199 2 Cller, Baca, and Migil, 1999-# 10 Stevic% *198+- provides a poignant e'a"ple, a story related to hi" by one of his students3 /Aour years ago $ !as loo%ing for any %ind of )ob $ could find# $ happened to get one teaching :S7 to a class of si' !o"en fro" various parts of the !orld !ho spo%e no :nglish# $ had never heard of :S7 before# The salary !as poor and $ didn>t %no! if $ !anted to pursue a teaching career, therefore "y approach !as very casual and lo! pressure# 6y "ethod usually consisted of thin%ing up a topic to tal% about, introducing it, and encouraging each student to e'press her feelings# $n spite of "y casual approach, the teaching )ob !as e'tre"ely pleasant# $ had a deep e"pathy for anyone !ho !as facing a language barrier because $ had )ust returned fro" a trip around the !orld alone as a "onolingual# They all started spea%ing :nglish fairly !ell after the first t!o !ee%s of class# $ re"e"ber a !o"an fro" Colu"bia telling "e that she hadn>t spo%en :nglish before because she !as afraid of "a%ing "ista%es# 4fter being in class for a !hile, she spo%e :nglish and "ade "ista%es and didn>t care# $ didn>t attach "uch significance to the progress that the !o"en "ade# $ had no idea ho! long it too% people to learn a language# Fradually $ beca"e &uite career(oriented, and "ade a conscious decision to try to be a top(notch :S7 teacher# $ had guilt feelings about the casual !ay in !hich $ had taught those first si' !o"en, and "y teaching evolved into the traditional authoritarian style !ith the te'tboo% do"inant# Cver the years, it has gotten to !here $ feel frustrated if a student ta%es class ti"e to relate a personal anecdote# $ can loo% bac% on these four years and see a gradual decline in the perfor"ance of "y students# Until recently, $ have been assu"ing that $ needed to be "ore attentive to their "ista%es in order to speed their progress# 6y present style of teaching bypasses the students2 feelings and basic needs, and concentrates on "ethod# $ never see successes li%e those first si' ladies#/ *Aro" Stevic%, 198+, pp# 0(1-#

10

11 /$nter"ediate/ here "eans %no!ing enough :nglish to be able to ta%e at least a partial acade"ic load, but not being able to /pass out/ of the re&uired university :nglish as a second language re&uire"ent# The nor"al situation for the inter"ediate at the university is to be enrolled in at least one :S7 class in addition to one or "ore sub)ect "atter course# 1. The research cited here deals e'clusively !ith the effect of instruction on the ac&uisition of synta' and "orphology# Until recently, little !or% had been done that e'a"ined the effect of instruction on the ac&uisition of pronunciation# Purcell and Suter *198+- report that ac&uisition of pronunciation of :nglish as a second language !as predicted by the follo!ing factors3 *1- The ac&uirer>s first language *spea%ers of 4rabic and Aarsi !ere superior to spea%ers of 8apanese and Thai-2 * - The a"ount of interaction !ith :nglish spea%ers2 *,- Perfor"ance on a test of phonetic ability2 and *0- The degree of concern the spea%er had about his accent# Aactor * appears to be related to co"prehensible input, !hile *,- and *0- "ay be related to learning# *1reflects the conse&uences of falling bac% on the first language# The a"ount of for"al classroo" training in :S7, ho!ever, did not relate to pronunciation ability, even !hen courses !ere specifically ai"ed at teaching pronunciation# 19 So"e studies see" to sho! that age of arrival *4C4- predicts second language attain"ent for children((that is, that the child !ho arrives at age si', for e'a"ple, !ill attain higher levels of proficiency than the child !ho arrives at age ten# 5hile 4C4 does predict ulti"ate attain"ent for children as a group as co"pared to adults as a group, closer e'a"ination reveals that 4C4 per se is not a factor for children considered alone# $n cases !here 4C4 see"s to be a factor, it can be argued that 7C=, and ulti"ately C$, is really causative# Cu""ins *198+- has perfor"ed such a reanalysis of =a"sey and 5right>s data on 1, ++ i""igrant children in Canada *=a"sey and 5right, 1990-, and reaches this conclusion, noting that !hen 4C4 is controlled in =a"sey and 5right>s data, children !ith longer 7C=>s perfor" better in a variety of tas%s# Cu""ins also found that !hen 7C= is controlled, ho!ever, children !ith younger 4C4>s are not necessarily better((in "any cases, the opposite is true# 6inoura *1999- can also be reinterpreted# She studied 00 8apanese children !ho had been in the United States for a range of one to eight years# 5hile 7C= predicted attain"ent *r P +#99-, so did 4C4 *r P (+#91-*a sentence i"itation test !as used-# 4ll the children in the sa"ple had arrived in the United States at about the sa"e ti"e, ho!ever, so 7C= and 4C4 !ere highly correlated *r P (+#91-# $t thus "ay be argued that 7C= and thus co"prehensible input, !as the true causative factor# *4ccording to "y calculations, the correlation bet!een 4C4 and S74 reduces to r P +#++1 !hen the effect of 7C= is re"ovedJ- The <eidelberg pro)ect, discussed in the te't, also reports a relationship bet!een 4C4 and S74, this ti"e a"ong adults ta%en as a group# This also see"s to be a confound, since older sub)ects see"ed to spend less ti"e spea%ing Fer"an *r P (+#, bet!een 4C4 and reported leisure ti"e use of Fer"an-# Partial correlation partialling out the effects of interaction !ith Fer"an spea%ers reduces the reported correlation of (+#19 bet!een 4C4 and S74 to r P (+#09# This could *and should- go even lo!er !ith a "ore reliable "easure of the a"ount of co"prehensible input sub)ects actually got# 18 PidginiHation /occurs !hen spea%ers of different languages co"e into li"ited contact and an au'iliary vehicle of co""unication develops to facilitate interaction a"ong the"#/ *Schu"ann, 1998b, p# 0+-# Secondary hybridiHation is a for" of pidginiHation that occurs if a /standard for"/ of a target language is available# $t persists only if spea%ers re"ain at social and psychological distance fro" spea%ers of the nor"# *Aro" 5hinno", 1991, cited by Schu"ann, 1998b-#

11

DecreoliHation occurs !hen spea%ers of a creole *a pidgen that has beco"e a native language of a group- /gain varying degrees of contact !ith the group that spea%s the base language of the creole/ *Schu"ann, p# 01-# $t is the process of "oving to!ard the /standard for"/ of the language# Creolists refer to several stages of decreoliHation, ranging fro" the creole itself, to the basolect, !hich is close to the creole, the "esolect, the acrolect, and finally, the standard for"# 19 Psychological distance is deter"ined by factors such as "otivation, language and culture shoc%, and other affective variables# Social distance results fro" social factors, such as the relative do"inance of the social group of the ac&uirer and spea%ers of the target language, the cohesiveness of the groups, si"ilarity in culture, etc# $n Schu"ann>s vie! factors causing psychological and social distance /put the learner in a situation !here he is largely cut off fro" target language input andDor does not attend to it !hen it is available/ *Schu"ann, 1999, pp# ..( .9-# + 4lso of interest is the fact that 4lberto>s gra""atical "orphe"e difficulty order *one cross(section- correlates significantly !ith the /natural order/ proposed earlier *r P +#9,, p S +#+12 analysis in Krashen, 1999-# The data !as collected fro" his spontaneous speech# 1 This is not the only interpretation of this result, as :arl Stevic% has pointed out to "e# So"ething else "ay have caused PaH> superior second language ac&uisition, and the lo! psychological distance score "ay be a result of this and not a cause# Cr the /re"ote cause/# See discussion in Schu"ann *1998b-, p# 08#

1.

Chapter $$$

Providing Input for Acquisition

$n this chapter, !e ta%e the difficult step fro" theory to practice# Before !e do this, let "e re"ind the reader of the "ain point of Chapter $3 $ consider theory to be only one of several possible deter"inants of "ethod and "aterials# These i"plications need to be confir"ed by further research *even though several i"plications do have e"pirical confir"ation- and by the e'periences of teachers and students# The /ideal/ state is a relationship !hereby theoretical and applied researchers and practitioners learn *and ac&uire- fro" each other# 5e !ill cover one aspect of application in this chapter3 ho! !e can encourage subconscious ac&uisition# This is an i"portant &uestion, since the "a)or i"plication of second language ac&uisition theory is that ac&uisition is central# $t therefore follo!s that our "a)or pedagogical efforts need to be devoted to encouraging language ac&uisition# This portion begins !ith a brief discussion of so"e of the i"plications of the input hypothesis !ith respect to the role and potential of the second language classroo", as !ell as its li"itations, as co"pared !ith the infor"al environ"ent# Aollo!ing this, !e discuss the contribution that actual output can "a%e# 4s e'plained in Chapter $$, it is hypothesiHed that !e ac&uire via input, !hat !e read and hear, and not via output, actual tal%ing and !riting# Cutput does have an indirect role to play in encouraging ac&uisition, ho!ever# The "a)or portion of this chapter is concerned !ith characteriHing !hat /good input/ is, listing the features that input should have if it is to encourage ac&uisition# $n subse&uent chapters, !e !ill discuss ho! conscious language learning fits into the pedagogical sche"a, and in the final chapter !e !ill e'a"ine so"e co""on language teaching "ethods and so"e aspects of the infor"al environ"ent, to see to !hat e'tent they provide the input discussed in this section and the type of learning discussed in Chapter $M#

19

The goal of this e'ercise is to provide a fra"e!or% that helps us see !hat "aterials and "ethods actually do for the second language student# This !ill hopefully help uncover gaps and provide us !ith !ays to supple"ent and i"prove e'isting "aterials and techni&ues# A. The Potential of the Second Language &lassroo 5e often hear that you have to /live in the country/ in order to achieve any real proficiency in a second language, and that the infor"al real !orld environ"ent is al!ays superior to the classroo", or for"al environ"ent# 4s !e sa! in Chapter $$, there are several studies that appear to support this assertion# Cther studies, ho!ever, suggested that the classroo" does help after all# $ atte"pted to resolve this apparent conflict by hypothesiHing that !hat !as really at issue !as comprehensib!e input. The classroo" is of benefit !hen it is the "a)or source of co"prehensible input# 5hen ac&uirers have rich sources of input outside the class, and !hen they are proficient enough to ta%e advantage of it *i#e# understand at least so"e of it-, the classroo" does not "a%e an i"portant contribution# Thus, the real advantage of the infor"al environ"ent is that it supplies co"prehensible input# $f, ho!ever, !e fill our second language classroo"s !ith input that is opti"al for ac&uisition, it is &uite possible that !e can actually do better than the infor"al environ"ent, at least up to the inter"ediate level# 4s !e "entioned in Chapter $$, the infor"al environ"ent is not al!ays !illing to supply co"prehensible input to the older second language student# 4s <atch and her colleagues have pointed out, input to the adult is "ore co"plicated gra""atically, contains a !ider range of vocabulary, deals !ith "ore co"ple' topics, and is generally harder to understand# This is si"ply a reflection of the fact that the adult !orld is "ore co"ple' than the !orld of the child, and our e'pectations for adult co"prehension are "uch higher# $n the case of the adult beginner, the classroo" can do "uch better than the infor"al environ"ent# $n the second language classroo", !e have the potential of supplying a full 0+(1+ "inutes per day of co"prehensible input, input that !ill encourage language ac&uisition# The true beginner in the infor"al environ"ent, especially if he or she is not

18

adept at s%ills of conversational "anage"ent and negotiation of "eaning *see discussion later in this chapter2 also Scarcella and <iga, forthco"ing-, "ay re&uire days or even !ee%s before he or she can /pic% out/ that "uch co"prehensible input fro" the barrage of language heard# The beginning student !ill si"ply not understand "ost of the language around hi"# $t !ill be noise, unusable for ac&uisition# The value of second language classes, then, lies not only in the gra""ar instruction, but in the si"pler /teacher tal%/, the co"prehensible input# $t can be an efficient place to achieve at least the inter"ediate levels rapidly, as long as the focus of the class is on providing input for ac&uisition# ". Li itations of the &lassroo Despite "y enthusias" for the second language classroo", there are several !ays in !hich the outside !orld clearly e'cels *or so"e /"odification/ of the outside !orld, a fascinating alternative that !e shall discuss later-, especially for the inter"ediate level second language student# Airst, it is very clear that the outside !orld can supply more input# 7iving in the country !here the language is spo%en can result in an all(day second language lessonJ 4s !e "entioned earlier, ho!ever, for the infor"al environ"ent to be of any use, the input language has to be co"prehensible# The infor"al environ"ent !ill therefore be of "ore and "ore use as the ac&uirer progresses and can understand "ore and "ore# Second, as "any scholars have pointed out, the range of discourse that the student can be e'posed to in a second language classroo" is &uite li"ited, no "atter ho! /natural/ !e "a%e it# There is si"ply no !ay the classroo" can "atch the variety of the outside !orld, although !e can certainly e'pand beyond our current li"itations# The classroo" !ill probably never be able to co"pletely overco"e its li"itations, nor does it have to# $ts goal is not to substitute for the outside !orld, but to bring students to the point !here they can begin to use the outside !orld for further ac&uisition, to !here they can begin to understand the language used on the outside#, it does this in t!o !ays3 by supplying input so that students progress in language ac&uisition, so that they understand /real/ language to at least so"e

19

e'tent, and by "a%ing the student conversationally co"petent, that is, by giving the student tools to "anage conversations despite a less than perfect co"petence in the second language# 5e return to both of these i"portant points in the discussion that follo!s# &. The Role of -utput 4 second point that needs to be dealt !ith before describing the characteristics of opti"al input for ac&uisition is the role of output, "ost co""only, the role of speech, in language ac&uisition#1 L The $nput <ypothesis "a%es a clai" that "ay see" &uite re"ar%able to so"e people(( !e ac&uire spo%en fluency not by practicing tal%ing but by understanding input, by listening and reading# $t is, in fact, theoretically possible to ac&uire language !ithout ever tal%ing# This has been de"onstrated for first language ac&uisition by 7enneberg *19. -, !ho described the case of a boy !ith congenital dysarthria, a disorder of the peripheral speech organs, !ho !as never able to spea%# 5hen 7enneberg tested the boy, he found that the child !as able to understand spo%en :nglish perfectly# $n other !ords, he had ac&uired /co"petence/ !ithout ever producing# The child !as tested at age eight, and there is no !ay to tell directly !hether his lac% of output had slo!ed do!n his language ac&uisition# $t is &uite possible that if he had been able to spea%, he !ould have ac&uired language so"e!hat faster, due to the indirect contribution spea%ing can "a%e to ac&uisition# Cutput has a contribution to "a%e to language ac&uisition, but it is not a direct one3 Si"ply, the "ore you tal%, the "ore people !ill tal% to youJ 4ctual spea%ing on the part of the language ac&uirer !ill thus affect the (uantity of input people direct at you# $t !ill also affect the (ua!ity of the input directed at the ac&uirer Conversational partners often try to help you understand by "odifying their speech */foreigner tal%/-# They )udge ho! "uch to "odify by seeing !hether you understand !hat is said, and also by !istening to you ta!#. 4 second language spea%er !ho "a%es lots of "ista%es, has a poor accent, and is hesitant, !ill "ost li%ely receive, in general, "ore "odified input than a spea%er !ho appears co"petent and fluent# :ngaging in conversation is probably "uch "ore effective than
L Superscript nu"bers refer to ;otes at end of chapters#

.+

/eavesdropping/ for language ac&uisition# $n conversation, the second language ac&uirer has so"e degree of control of the topic, can signal to the partner that there is a co"prehension proble", etc# $n other !ords, he can "anage and regulate the input, and "a%e it "ore co"prehensible# There is no such control in eavesdroppingJ But in order to participate in conversation, there "ust be at least so"e tal%, so"e output, fro" each partner# <ence, the indirect contribution of speech# 1# /CC;M:=S4T$C;/ 4;D 74;FU4F: 4CEU$S$T$C; So"e scholars have suggested that /participation in conversation/ is responsible for language ac&uisition# $n the light of the above discussion, !e can see that this is true, in a sense# /Conversation/, ho!ever, is not in itself the causative variable in second language ac&uisition# $t is one !ay, and a very good !ay, to obtain input# $t is theoretically &uite possible to ac&uire !ithout participating in conversation, ho!ever# Aigure ,#1 illustrates the indirect, but often considerable, contribution output can "a%e to language ac&uisition#

Aig# ,#1# <o! output contributes to language ac&uisition indirectly# Co"prehensible input is responsible for progress in language ac&uisition# Cutput is possible as a result of ac&uired co"petence# 5hen perfor"ers spea#, they encourage input *people spea% to the"-# This is conversation#

# CUTPUT 4;D 7:4=;$;F 4s suggested in Chapter $$, output can play a fairly direct role in helping language !earning, although even here it is not necessary# Cutput aids learning because it provides a do"ain for error correction# 5hen a second language user spea%s or !rites, he or she "ay "a%e an error# 5hen this error is corrected, this supposedly helps the learner change his or her conscious "ental representation of the rule or alter the environ"ent of rule application# *See discussion of <ypothesis *1-, Chapter $$#5e "ay thus co"pare an /output approach/ to the input approach

.1

pro"oted here# Could !e teach language pri"arily by encouraging production, !ith little or no input, and correcting all errors? Such a techni&ue, in addition to being "addening, relies entirely on the students> ability to learn gra""ar# This is not to say that error correction is totally useless and that learning is of no value# 7earning has a role to play, and error correction "ay be of use in certain situations# 5e !ill return later to the &uestion of /putting learning in its place/# By no! the reader has seen enough pro"ises of /"ore on this topic later/, and it is ti"e to turn to the "a)or portion of this chapter, a description of the characteristics of opti"al input for second language ac&uisition, !here hopefully the pro"ises this introduction has "ade !ill be %ept# D# Characteristics of Cpti"al input for 4c&uisition $ !ill atte"pt in this section to present a set of re&uire"ents that should be "et by any activity or set of "aterials ai"ed at subconscious language ac&uisition# The *testableprediction that this set of characteristics "a%es is that an activity that fits the characteristics fully !ill encourage ac&uisition at the fastest possible rate# 4n activity that fits none of the" could result in Hero ac&uisition, or very little ac&uisition# *The latter, /very little/, is "ore li%ely# The /language ac&uisition device/ "ay be so po!erful, even in the adult, that so"e "ini"al ac&uisition "ay occur as a result of any e'posure to language#The characteristics described belo! are not /!eighted/# There is no atte"pt to clai" that one is "ore i"portant than another, although such clai"s should possibly be "ade# $ !ill leave this to future refine"ents# 4lso, there is no atte"pt here to /support/ these conclusions by e"pirical evidence# They derive fro" second language ac&uisition theory, the hypotheses presented in Chapter $$# $t is these hypotheses that are supported by e"pirical evidence# $n other !ords, !e are loo%ing here only at i"plications of theory# This does not "ean that the characteristics cannot be treated as predictions and further tested2 indeed, they should be confir"ed by both applied linguistics research as !ell as teacher and student intuition, as $ discussed in Chapter 1# 5e discuss each characteristic separately, sho!ing !hat predictions

each characteristic "a%es !ith respect to different aspects of "ethod, "aterials, and infor"al input# Aollo!ing these descriptions, $ !ill atte"pt to point out so"e ne! possibilities, and underscore the i"portance of so"e neglected traditional sources of input *Chapter M-# 1# CPT$647 $;PUT $S CC6P=:<:;S$B7: This is clearly the "ost i"portant input characteristic# $t a"ounts to the clai" that !hen the ac&uirer does not understand the "essage, there !ill be no ac&uisition# $n other !ords, inco"prehensible input, or /noise/, !ill not help# Positing comprehensibi!ity as a funda"ental and necessary *but not sufficientre&uire"ent "a%es several predictions that appear to be correct# $t e'plains !hy it is practically i"possible for so"eone to ac&uire a second or foreign language "erely by listening to the radio, unless the ac&uirer spea%s a very closely related language# 4 "onolingual :nglish spea%er, for e'a"ple, hearing Polish on the radio, !ould ac&uire nothing because the input !ould be only /noise/#, This re&uire"ent also e'plains the apparent failure of educational TM progra"s to teach foreign languages# The input is si"ply not co"prehensible# 6y o!n children !atched progra"s such as Mille 4llegre faithfully for years, and ac&uired about as "uch as $ did3 They could count fro" one to ten in Spanish and recogniHe a fe! !ords such as casa and mesa# The co"prehensibility re&uire"ent predicts that TM !ould, in general, be so"e!hat "ore successful than radio as a language teacher, but that even TM !ould be inade&uate in beginning stages# :rvin(Tripp *199,- has noted that hearing children of deaf parents do not ac&uire language fro" TM or radio, an observation consistent !ith the re&uire"ent#0 This characteristic also e'plains !hy children so"eti"es fail to pic% up fa"ily languages# 6y o!n case is, $ thin%, &uite typical# 6y parents spo%e Iiddish around the house for years, occasionally to each other *to tell secrets-, and constantly to "y grandparents# ;evertheless, "y sister and $ failed to ac&uire Iiddish, !ith the e'ception of a fe! phrases and routines# Cn the other hand, in "any fa"ilies children do gro! up spea%ing the fa"ily language as !ell as the language of the co""unity# 5hat appears to be crucial is !hether the fa"ily language

.,

is directed at the child, in other !ords, !hether an atte"pt is "ade to "a%e the language comprehensib!e# 5hat !e heard via eavesdropping !as not co"prehensible# $t dealt !ith topics that !ere not easily identified and that !ere also often beyond our range of e'perience# 7anguage directed at us in Iiddish !ould have been si"plified, and "ore relevant to us, and hence "ore co"prehensible# 4nother prediction that the co"prehensibility re&uire"ent "a%es is that /)ust tal%ing/, or /free conversation/, is not language teaching# $n other !ords, si"ply being a native spea%er of a language does not in of itself &ualify one as a teacher of that language# Conscious and e'tensive %no!ledge of gra""ar does not "a%e one a language teacher either# =ather, the defining characteristic of a good teacher is so"eone !ho can "a%e input co"prehensible to a non(native spea%er, regardless of his or her level of co"petence in the target language# This leads naturally to another topic, ho! teachers "a%e input co"prehensible# 3a4 Ho1 to aid comprehension $f !e are correct in positing co"prehensibility as a crucial re&uire"ent for opti"al input for ac&uisition, the &uestion of ho! to aid co"prehension is a very central one for second language pedagogy# $ndeed, the co"prehension re&uire"ent suggests that the main "unction o" the second !anguage teacher is to he!p ma#e input comprehensib!e9 to do for the adult !hat the /outside !orld/ cannot or !ill not do# There are basically t!o !ays in !hich the teacher can aid co"prehension, linguistic and non(linguistic# Studies have sho!n that there are "any things spea%ers do linguistically to "a%e their speech "ore co"prehensible to less co"petent spea%ers# <atch *1999- has su""ariHed the linguistic aspect of si"plified input !hich appear to pro"ote co"prehension# 4"ong these characteristics are3 *1slo!er rate and clearer articulation, !hich helps ac&uirers to identify !ord boundaries "ore easily, and allo!s "ore processing ti"e2 * *,"ore use of high fre&uency vocabulary, less slang, fe!er idio"s2 syntactic si"plification, shorter sentences#

.0

Such characteristics and others appear to be "ore or less co""on to different types of si"ple codes, such as careta%er speech, foreigner(tal%, and teacher(tal% *see also Krashen, 198+-, and clearly help "a%e input language "ore co"prehensible# There is considerable e"pirical evidence that these codes are significantly /si"pler/ than native spea%er(native spea%er language, and, as "entioned in Chapter $$, there is evidence of so"e correlation bet!een the linguistic level of the ac&uirer and the co"ple'ity of the input language3 "ore advanced ac&uirers tend to get "ore co"ple' input# Does this "ean that teachers should consciously try to si"plify their speech !hen they tal% to students? Should they thin% about slo!ing do!n, using "ore co""on vocabulary, using shorter sentences, less co"ple' synta' !ith less e"bedding, etc#? Consciously referring to these /rules/ "ight be helpful on occasion, but it appears to be the case that !e "a%e these ad)ust"ents auto"atically !hen !e focus on trying to "a%e ourselves understood# =oger Bro!n, co""enting on studies of careta%er speech in first language ac&uisition, co"es to a si"ilar conclusion# <e gives the follo!ing advice to parents !anting to %no! ho! to /teach/ their children language in the least a"ount of ti"e3
Believe that your child can understand "ore than he or she can say, and see%, above all, to co""unicate#### There is no set of rules of ho! to tal% to a child that can even approach !hat you unconsciously %no!# $f you concentrate on co""unicating, everything else !ill follo!# *Bro!n, 1999, p# .#-

4s $ have argued in several places *Krashen, 198+, 1981-, the sa"e situation "ay hold for the language teacher# $f !e focus on co"prehension and co""unication, !e !ill "eet the syntactic re&uire"ents for opti"al input# 5hile !e free teachers of the responsibility to consciously control the gra""ar of their speech, other responsibilities beco"e "ore i"portant# Cne is to "a%e sure that the input is indeed co"prehensible# $ have nothing startling to add to the literature on co"prehension chec%ing, other than to underscore and e"phasiHe its i"portance# Co"prehension chec%ing can range fro" si"ply as%ing /Do you understand?/ occasionally, to "onitoring co"prehension via students> verbal and non(verbal responses#

.1

4nother "ain tas% of the teacher is to provide non(linguistic "eans of encouraging co"prehension# $n "y vie!, providing e'tra(linguistic support in the for" of realia and pictures for beginning classes is not a frill, but a very i"portant part of the tools the teacher has to encourage language ac&uisition# The use of ob)ects and pictures in early second language instruction corresponds to the careta%er>s use of the /here and no!/ in encouraging first language ac&uisition, in that they all help the ac&uirer understand "essages containing structures that are /a little beyond/ the"# Food teachers also ta%e advantage of the student>s %no!ledge of the !orld in helping co"prehension by discussing topics that are fa"iliar to the student# Certainly, discussing or reading about a topic that is totally un%no!n !ill "a%e the "essage harder to understand# There is a danger, ho!ever, in "a%ing the input too /fa"iliar/# $f the "essage is co"pletely %no!n, it !ill be of no interest, and the student !ill probably not attend# 5e !ant the student to focus on the "essage, and there "ust be so"e "essage, so"ething that the student really !ants to hear or read about# This re&uire"ent is perhaps the hardest one to "eet, and !e shall have "ore to say about it belo!, in our discussion of characteristic $$#1 4s pointed out )ust a "o"ent ago, co"prehension is a necessary condition for language ac&uisition, but it is not su""icient. $t is &uite possible to understand input language, and yet not ac&uire# This can happen in several different !ays3 Airst, it is &uite possible that the input si"ply does not contain i O 5, that it does not include structures that are /a bit beyond/ the student# Second, in "any cases !e do not utiliHe synta' in understanding((!e can often get the "essage !ith a co"bination of vocabulary, or le'ical infor"ation, plus e'tra( linguistic infor"ation# Ainally, the /affective filter/ "ay be /up/, !hich can result in the ac&uirer understanding input, even input !ith i O 5, but not utiliHing it for further ac&uisition# # CPT$647 $;PUT $S $;T:=:ST$;F 4;DDC= =:7:M4;T Cpti"al input focusses the ac&uirer on the "essage and not on for"# To go a step further, the best input is so interesting and relevant that the ac&uirer "ay even /forget/ that the "essage is encoded in a foreign language#

..

Creating "aterials and providing input that "eet this characteristic "ay appear to be an easy and obvious tas%, but "y vie! is that, in reality, this re&uire"ent is not easy to "eet, nor has the profession considered it obvious# $t is very di""icu!t to present and discuss topics of interest to a class of people !hose goals, interests, and bac%grounds differ fro" the teacher>s and fro" each other>s# $ also clai" that relevance and interest have not been !idely perceived as re&uire"ents for input, since so "any "aterials fail to "eet this re&uire"ent# $t is fairly easy to thin% up e'a"ples of input that, !hile co"prehensible, are universally perceived to be uninteresting and irrelevant# 4"ong the "ost obvious e'a"ples are pattern drill, and "ost dialogue type e'ercises# :'peri"ental evidence suggests that students pay little or no attention to "eaning after the first fe! repetitions in pattern drill *7ee, 6cCune, and Patton, 199+-, and the sa"e result is "ost li%ely true for dialogues that are "e"oriHed by rote# Fra""atical e'ercises also fail as input for ac&uisition on si"ilar grounds# Franted, the goals of these e'ercises are not /ac&uisition/, and !e !ill have occasion to e'a"ine !hether these input(types fill other needs in the second language progra"# ;evertheless, they fail this re&uire"ent dis"ally# So"e!hat less obvious is the failure of /"eaningful drill/ to &ualify as opti"al input for ac&uisition# /6eaningful drill/ is distinguished fro" /"echanical drill/, in that the for"er re&uires that real "eaning be involved *Paulston, 199 -# Since "eaningful drill is designed to provide practice on particular gra""atical structures, ho!ever, it is very difficult to also build in the e'change of truly relevant or interesting infor"ation, as in3 2hat time does he get up in the morning0 2hat time do they get up in the morning0 4t best, such infor"ation is of only "ild interest to "e"bers of a language class# $ believe that it is an i"possible tas% for teachers to e"bed truly interesting or relevant infor"ation into the for" of a "eaningful drill on a daily basis# So"e other fairly !idespread input types that fall short of the "ar% of true relevance are the reading assign"ents that "ost foreign language students !or% through in introductory courses# Fenerally, these selections bear very little rese"blance to the %ind of reading the students !ould do in their first language on their o!n ti"e#

.9

Before the reader feels $ a" being overly critical and unfair, $ "ust say that it see"s to "e that the interest(relevance re&uire"ent is nearly i"possible to satisfy in the standard 4"erican foreign language course given in the high school or college, especially !hen such a course is ta%en as a re&uire"ent# $t is far easier to satisfy in :S7 situations, !here there is a perceived need for the language# Aor e'a"ple, in classes co"posed pri"arily of i""igrants, input !ill typically contain a great deal of infor"ation that is useful to the student for survival /on the outside/# University :S7 courses for foreign students often include study s%ills, :nglish for acade"ic purposes, introduction to university life, and even useful acade"ic s%ills#. :S7 teachers often serve officially or unofficially as friends and counselors, and therefore provide a great deal of truly relevant input#9 8 ,# CP$647 $;PUT $S ;CT F=4664T$C477I S:EU:;C:D $n ac&uisition(oriented "aterials, !e should not be consciously concerned about including i O 5 in the input# Part *,- of the $nput <ypothesis clai"s that !hen input is co"prehensible, !hen "eaning is successfully negotiated, i O 5 !ill be present auto"atically, in "ost cases#9 This re&uire"ent could be stated in a !ea%er for"# *,- could be rephrased as follo!s3 there is no need to deliberately include i O 5, since it !ill occur naturally# The strong for" "ay be called for instead3 it "ay be better not to even atte"pt to include i O 5 The argu"ents against a deliberate atte"pt to gra""atically se&uence !ere given briefly in Chapter $$, and !ill be e'panded on here# 1# $f !e se&uence, and each lesson, or group of lessons, focuses on one structure, this assu"es that everyone in the class has the sa"e i O 5, that everyone is at the sa"e develop"ental stage in the second language# Because there are individual differences in the rate of ac&uisition *due to the strength of the affective filter and the a"ount of co"prehensible input obtained-, it is e'tre"ely unli%ely that all the students in any class are at the sa"e stage# Unse&uenced but natural input, it is hypothesiHed, !ill contain a rich variety of structure((if it is co"prehensible, there !ill be i O 5 for everyone as

.8

long as there is enough input *!e return to the (uantity &uestion belo!-# # 5hen !e atte"pt to present a /finely(tuned/ se&uence, !e generally present each structure or rule once# *There is the /revie!/ lesson and there are atte"pts at recycling, but revie! does not usually !or% through the entire se&uence of activities((its goal is generally to /re"ind/ and provide so"e additional practice for a rule that is supposedly already /internaliHed/#1+- 5hat happens to the student !ho "isses the rule the first ti"e around? Traditional revie!, "eant as a re"inder, !ill often not help# $n traditional foreign language learning, as done in the United States, the student "ay even have to !ait until ne't year, !hen the rule is presented again# Unse&uenced co""unicative input contains built(in revie!# 5e don>t have to !orry if !e "iss the progressive tense today, it !ill be part of the input again### and again# Co"prehensible input thus guarantees us natural revie! and recycling, assu"ing, as "entioned above, that there is enough of it# So"e readers "ay feel that $ a" setting up and attac%ing a stra! "an# $t can be argued that so"e gra""atically(based courses, despite a loc%step structural orientation, do provide input at i O 5 as !ell# 5hile there "ay be a /structure of the day/, not every utterance contains the target structure# Aor e'a"ple, if the lesson>s focus is the progressive tense "ar%er, other tenses !ill be used as !ell in both classroo" input and in the readings# This "ay appear to be the case, but there is, nevertheless, a real proble" !ith this approach# 5ith a gra""atical focus, co""unication !ill a!1ays suffer, there !ill al!ays be less genuinely interesting input# The teacher>s "ind, and the "aterials !riter>s "ind, is focused on /conte'tualiHing/ a particular structure, and not on co""unicating ideas# 4s "y colleague Steven Sternfeld has pointed out to "e, !hat is proposed here is funda"entally different fro" /conte'tualiHation/# Conte'tualiHation involves inventing a rea!istic conte't for the presentation of a gra""atical rule or vocabulary ite"# The goal in the "ind of the teacher is the learning or ac&uisition of the rule or !ord# 5hat is proposed here is that the goal, in the "ind of both the teacher and the student, is the idea, the "essage#

.9

This ob)ection can be su""ariHed as follo!s3 ,# The very orientation of the gra""atically(based syllabus reduces the &uality of co"prehensible input and distorts the co""unicative focus# Teachers !ill be concerned !ith ho1 they are spea%ing, reading selections !ill be ai"ed at including 8 nu"ber of e'a"ples of structure y along !ith a certain vocabulary sa"ple, a sure guarantee of boring and !ooden language# 0# Still another proble" is that the gra""atical se&uence atte"pts to guess the order of ac&uisition# Several years ago, $ suggested *Krashen et a!., 1991- that an application of the ;atural Crder <ypothesis !as the construction of /natural syllabi/ follo!ing the natural order# 6y position has changed# 4s Aath"an *1999- has pointed out, the practical i"plication of the ;atural Crder <ypothesis "ay lie in !hat it has taught us about the underlying process of language ac&uisition# $t see"s to "e no! that !e should not atte"pt to teach according to an order si"ilar to that given in Table , Chapter $$ *or according to any other gra""atical se&uence-# Co"prehensible input, it is clai"ed, !ill auto"atically follo! a natural order insofar as i O 5 !ill be provided *along !ith "any other structures-# 5e no! su""ariHe the advantages of natural input *the !ell(balanced diet of !holeso"e food- over the loc%step gra""atical syllabus *single or even "ultiple vita"in therapy-#11 3a4 The case against the grammatica! sy!!abus TTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT
3rammatical sylla/us (deli/erate )ommunicati$e input ( i > 1 included attempt to supply i > 1) naturally1 gi$en enough input) 4444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444 1. ?ll students may not /e at the 1. i > 1 "ill /e pro$ided for all same stage. +he structure of the students e$entually day may not /e the i > 1 for many of the students. '. ;ach structure presented only once. (,ee te@t for discussion of Are$ie"A.) 7. 3rammatical focus may pre$ent real and natural communication. '. Natural and e@tensi$e re$ie".

7. )onscious focus of /oth student and teacher is communication of ideas.

&. ?ssumes "e !no" order of &. Boes not assume "e !no" order of ac uisition. ac uisition. 4444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444

9+

0# CPT$647 $;PUT 6UST B: $; SUAA$C$:;T EU4;T$TI $t is difficult to say )ust ho! "uch co"prehensibleDlo! filter input is necessary to achieve a given level of proficiency in second language ac&uisition, due to a lac% of data# 5e %no! enough no!, ho!ever, to be able to state !ith so"e confidence that the profession has seriously underesti"ated the a"ount of co"prehensible input necessary to achieve even "oderate, or /inter"ediate/ levels of proficiency in second language ac&uisition# Theoretical argu"ents for &uantity derive fro" the i""ediately preceding discussion# $ hypothesiHed that natural co""unicative input could supply i O 5 for all students if t!o conditions !ere "et2 *1The input !as not artificially constrained *li"ited range of discourse types* $t !as supplied in sufficient &uantity#

Clearly, five "inutes of tal%, or a single paragraph of reading, has little chance of including a given student>s i O 5# =ather than ta%e a "ore careful ai" at that student>s needs, rather than /overindividualiHing/ instruction, it is far easier, $ a" suggesting, to increase the a"ount of co"prehensible input# 4gain, if there is enough, i O 5 !ill be provided, and !ill be provided over and over# 4s "entioned above, !e do not have enough data to state, !ith confidence, ho! "uch input is necessary to reach a given stage# The literature does provide us !ith enough to state so"e initial hypothesis, ho!ever# Belo!, !e briefly e'a"ine !hat the literature i"plies about reaching the initial /readiness to spea%/ stage, and "ore advanced levels# 3a4 2uantity re(uirements "or initia! readiness to spea# <o! "uch input is needed to end the /silent period/? <o! "uch input is necessary so that second language ac&uirers can produce utterances using ac&uired co"petence? 4sher>s !or% on Total Physical =esponse teaching, a "ethod that re&uires students to obey co""ands given in the second language, often !ith a /total physical response/ *e#g# standing up-, gives us so"e idea as to ho! "uch input is necessary for initial spea%ing readiness#

91

4s !e !ill see in Chapter M, the chief virtue of Total Physical =esponse "ay be its ability to supply concentrated co"prehensible input# 4sher has noted in several papers *revie!ed in Chapter M- that TP= students are generally ready to start production in the target language after about ten hours of Total Physical =esponse input#1 $nfor"al language ac&uisition research presents !hat at first "ay see" to be a different picture# The /silent period/ seen in infor"al child second language ac&uisition "ay last as long as si' "onthsJ During this ti"e, the child "ay produce very little in the second language, other than routines and a fe! patterns# The greater length of the /natural/ silent period, as co"pared to 4sher>s observation that ten hours "ay suffice "ay be due to the fact that a great deal of the input that the child in the natural environ"ent receives "ay be inco"prehensible# 4s stated earlier in this chapter, the "ain advantage of /for"al instruction/ "ay be its potential for providing co"prehensible input in early stages, bringing the ac&uirer to the point !here he or she can begin to ta%e advantage of the natural environ"ent# The long silent period in infor"al child second language ac&uisition "ay be further evidence that the infor"al environ"ent is inefficient in early stages#1, 3b4 2uantity re(uirements "or higher !eve!s o" pro"iciency 5e %no! even less about the a"ount of lo! filterDco"prehensible input necessary for progress to higher levels of co"petence# 5e can get so"e idea fro" the United States Aoreign Service $nstitute chart, an esti"ate of the a"ount of class ti"e necessary to achieve a AS$ O rating in different foreign languages * O is defined as /half!ay bet!een "ini"al professional proficiency and !or%ing professional proficiency/, Diller, 1998, p# 1++- for adult :nglish spea%ers# 4ccording to the Aoreign Service $nstitute esti"ates *reproduced in Diller, 1998-, :uropean languages such as Fer"an, Arench, and $talian re&uire appro'i"ately 9 + hours of classti"e for the /average/ student to attain the O level, !hile "ore /e'otic/ languages *such as 4rabic, Korean, and Chinese- re&uire 191+ hours of classti"e#10 These figures "ay, ho!ever, represent an upper bound# They are based on /classroo" hours/, !hich, if traditional "ethods are e"ployed, "ay not entail opti"al input# $n other !ords, !e can do better#

/<o! "uch input?/ re"ains an e"pirical &uestion, one that can probably be ade&uately ans!ered by research# To be "ore precise, !e !ould li%e to %no!3 /<o! "uch lo! filterDco"prehensible input is necessary for students to ac&uire enough co"petence in the second language, so that they can use the infor"al environ"ent to continue i"proving?/ Despite our current paucity of data, !hat see"s clear to "e no! is that !e are not using enough of the available instruction ti"e for supplying co"prehensible input, and that !e !ill be able to sti"ulate "ore rapid *and "ore co"fortable- second language ac&uisition if !e put greater focus on input# Before concluding this section, $ should point out that !hat $ a" suggesting is not at all ne!3 along !ith ;e!"ar% *1991-, $ a" suggesting that the /e'tensive/ side of the e'tensive( intensive reading debate is correct, that students profit "ore fro" reading for "eaning, and reading great &uantities of "aterial, than fro" !hat ;e!"ar% calls /cryptoanalytic decoding/ of difficult paragraphs, and that students gain "ore fro" participating in conversations, "any conversations, than fro" focused listening co"prehension e'ercises# 5e turn no! to t!o other features progra"s should contain if they are to encourage language ac&uisition# .. -ther ,eatures that .ncourage Acquisition 1# T<: STUD:;T S<CU7D ;CT B: PUT C; T<: D:A:;S$M: The phrase /on the defensive/ co"es fro" Stevic%>s !ell %no!n boo%, Memory9 Meaning9 and Method. 5hat it "eans to "e is that "ethods and "aterials should not be a test of the student>s abilities or prior e'periences, should not "erely reveal !ea%nesses, but should help the student ac&uire "ore# 6ore generally, !e are tal%ing about %eeping the affective filter /lo!/, "a%ing sure the student is open to the input# $t "ay be the case that if !e use procedures that are /true/ to the input hypothesis, and that satisfy all the other characteristics of opti"al input, the %ind of input that results, and the classroo" procedures that evolve, !ill satisfy this re&uire"ent as !ell and help %eep the filter lo!# $ !ill atte"pt, in this section, to outline a fe! general procedures and practices that do this#

9,

Airst, and $ apologiHe for harping on this issue so "uch, if !e concentrate on supplying co"prehensible input !here the focus is on the "essage and not on the for", this !ill in of itself contribute to a lo! filter# $f the topic being discussed is at all interesting, and if it is co"prehensible, "uch of the /pressure/ nor"ally associated !ith a language class !ill be /off/, an'iety !ill be lo!ered, and ac&uisition !ill result# 4s "entioned earlier, $ thin% a desirable goal is that the student /forget/, in a sense, that the "essage is actually encoded in another language# Second, !e !ill be able to %eep the filter lo! by not insisting on too(early production, before the student is /ready/# 7anguage teachers *and students- associate progress in second language ac&uisition !ith spea%ing fluency */Do you spea# Arench?/-, and the logical conse&uence of this is that !e !ant our students to tal% fro" the beginning# 6y personal vie! is that forcing early production, before the student has built up enough co"petence through co"prehensible input, is perhaps the single "ost an'iety(provo%ing thing about language classesJ 5hile so"e students "ay !ant to tal% as soon as possible, others "ay feel less secure until they have built up "ore co"petence# $n other !ords, the length of the silent period is variable *see ;ote 1 -2 4sher>s ten(hour esti"ate "ay be /average/, but it is not carved in stone# 4 safe procedure is si"ply not to force production and let the student decide !hen to start tal%ing# Closely related to spea%ing readiness for production is the &uestion of error and error correction# Second language ac&uisition research tells us clearly that errors are inevitable, and that they !ill be plentiful in early stages# To give the reader an esti"ate, in an e'peri"ent !e conducted at Eueens College, !e found appro'i"ately one error for every five !ords in co"positions !ritten by :S7 students in a place"ent e'a"ination for our e'tension course *Krashen et a!., 1998-# The better students averaged about one error for every ten !ords, and the least proficient about one error for every t!o !ordsJ 4 sure "ethod of raising the filter is atte"pting to correct errors, especially in beginning stages and especially in spo%en languageJ :rror correction is, unfortunately, the profession>s typical reaction to error, and in "y vie! it has been a serious "ista%e# There are several reasons !hy it is a "ista%e# 5e focus here on !hat is probably the "ost serious fla! in error correction, its effect of the affective filter#

90

:rror correction has the i""ediate effect of putting the student on the defensive# $t encourages a strategy in !hich the student !ill try to avoid "ista%es, avoid difficult constructions, focus less on "eaning and "ore on for"# $t "ay disrupt the entire co""unicative focus on an e'change# This !as brought ho"e to "e in a de"onstration $ often e"ploy to illustrate ho! the $nput <ypothesis applies to classroo" teaching# $n the de"onstration, !hich $ have borro!ed fro" Steven Sternfeld, $ tell the audience that $ a" going to give the" t!o lessons in a foreign language *$ usually use Fer"an-# Aor the first lesson, $ si"ply start tal%ing, saying things li%e /$ a" no! going to give you a Fer"an lesson, but first of all let "e tell you so"ething about the Fer"an language, etc# etc#/ This is done entirely in Fer"an, and is nearly co"pletely inco"prehensible to those in the audience !ho have never been e'posed to Fer"an# The second lesson is so"ething li%e this3
+his is my shoe. (Point to shoe) +his is my hand. (Point to hand) +his is my head. (Point to head) +his is a head. (Draw picture on board) .ere are t"o eyes. (Draw eyes, hold up two fingers) .ere is a mouth. (Draw in a mouth) .ere is a cigarette. (Draw in a cigarette) Bo you ha$e a cigarette for me0 (Walk up to class member, make cigarette smoking motion, point to self.)

The point of lesson nu"ber t!o is that !hile it "ay not be very interesting, it is &uite co"prehensible, than%s to the si"ple language, the e'tra(linguistic support, etc# There is also an atte"pt to bring do!n the filter by dra!ing a funny head and as%ing for a cigarette# $n the discussion follo!ing this brief lesson, $ e'plain these things and "a%e the clai" that if such input is provide over a period of ti"e, speech !ill e"erge on its o!n# 5hat is of interest to us here is the reaction of the audience3 it is one of relief# Several people have co"e up to "e after the lecture, and said so"ething li%e3 /5hen you said you !ere going to give us a language lesson, $ got very nervous# $ !as afraid you !ould call on "e and $ !ould have to say so"ething, and $ !ould "a%e a "ista%e#/ 5hat this tells "e is that language lessons inspire fear even a"ong professional language teachers, and one of the reasons for this

91

is our insistence on early spea%ing and our attitudes to!ards errors# 5hy "a%e students suffer fro" procedures that are unpleasant even to us? There is "ore to say on the topic of error correction2 it has so"e advantages, and other disadvantages, and !e !ill loo% at these later on !hen !e discuss conscious learning in the classroo" 5hat needs to be said here is only that error correction is not the basic "echanis" for i"proving second language perfor"ance2 rather, !e ac&uire via co"prehensible input, according to the theory# Since overuse of correction has such negative effects for ac&uisition, and since error correction is not of direct benefit to language ac&uisition *see Chapter $$, discussion of hypothesis one-, a safe procedure is si"ply to eli"inate error correction entirely in co""unicative(type activities, a procedure used !ith great success in Terrell>s ;atural 4pproach# $"prove"ent !ill co"e !ithout error correction, and "ay even co"e "ore rapidly, since the input !ill /get in/, the filter !ill be lo!er, and students !ill be off the defensive# # P=CM$D: TCC7S TC <:7P STUD:;TS CBT4$; 6C=: $;PUT Cur responsibility goes beyond the language classroo"#11 $ndeed, as $ have stated earlier, our tas% is to provide the students !ith the tools they need to continue i"proving !ithout us# 5e need to provide enough input so that they can gain the linguistic co"petence necessary to begin to ta%e advantage of the infor"al environ"ent, the outside !orld# $n other !ords, they need to %no! enough of the second language so they can understand significant portions of non(classroo" language# Building their linguistic co"petence to this point, ho!ever, is not enough# :ven if !e do succeed in bringing our students to this stage, they !ill have proble"s in using the language on the outside# They !ill still not understand a great deal of the input they hear, even if it is "odified# They !ill find the"selves at a loss for !ords, and !ill "a%e "ista%es at all levels# $f !e focus only on providing the input for purely /linguistic/ co"petence, !e !ill have students !ho avoid contact !ith native spea%ers for fear they !ill not understand "uch of !hat is said to the", and !ho !ill have real proble"s !hen they are engaged in conversation, including painful silences !hile they search for !ords, confusion and e"barrass"ent due to "isunderstanding, etc#

9.

This is, $ thin%, the typical situation in the foreign language teaching scene in the United States# 4fter t!o years of instruction, the student !ho is even !illing to participate in a conversation !ith a spea%er of the language he or she has studied is rareJ The solution to this proble" is to give our students the tools they need to overco"e these difficulties, to "a%e the" conversationa!!y competent. By giving the" the "eans of "anaging conversations, !e can help the" to continue i"proving by allo!ing the" to participate in conversation despite their inade&uacies# 5e can prepare the" for the certainty that they !ill not be able to find the right !ord, that they !ill not understand everything, and !e can help insure that they !ill continue to obtain comprehensib!e input. 5hat are the tools students need to "anage conversation and thus continue to gain input outside the classroo"? $n other !ord, ho! can !e help our students to converse despite less than perfect co"petence? Scarcella *forthco"ing- has stated that there are at least t!o !ays conversational co"petence can help the ac&uirer gain "ore co"prehensible input3 devices that help control the (uantity of input, and devices that help control the (ua!ity. The for"er !ill help the ac&uirer get "ore input, the latter !ill help to "a%e the input co"prehensible Co"ponents of conversational co"petence included under the &uantity category include !ays of starting conversations *greetings- and !ays of %eeping conversations going *e#g# politeness for"ulae-# Scarcella>s sub)ect 6iguel, a 1 year old spea%er of :nglish as a second language, despite only "odest /linguistic/ co"petence, !as &uite adept at these tools of conversational co"petence, as the follo!ing brief e'cerpt sho!s3
MiguelC NSC MiguelC NSC MiguelC .iD .o" are ya0 9!ay. 2hat's ne"0 Not much. .ad a test today. 9h that's too /ad. 2hat test0

6iguel, by using a fe! !ell(chosen routines, is able to initiate and "aintain conversations# Second language perfor"ers such as 6iguel are not the rule, ho!ever, as research has sho!n that second language ac&uirers often have surprising and serious gaps !hen it co"es to conversational co"petence *see over-#

99

There are various techni&ues that are used to "a%e input "ore co"prehensible, to control the &uality of the input# Perhaps the "ost obvious is si"ply as%ing the native spea%er for help, /getting the native spea%er to e'plain parts of the conversation### by using discourse devices/ *Scarcella, p# 1-# These devices range fro" focussing on a single proble" !ord by repeating it, as in
NSC MiguelC NSC ,al$ador Bali also put out a coo!/oo! /ecause he is a great e@pert on cuisine. (looking confused)C )oo!/oo!0 (picking up a cookbook)C #ecipes from Ma@ime's1 places li!e that. (,carcella1 p. *)

to utterances such as /5hat?/, or /$ don>t understand#/ Scarcella also notes that the &uality of input can be i"proved by the use of /bac% channel cues/, cues that provide the native spea%er !ith evidence that the conversational partner is indeed follo!ing the conversation# These include verbal cues such as /Uhuh/, /Ieah/, and non(verbal cues such as head nodding at appropriate ti"e and eye gaHe behavior# Ainally, there are conversational strategies that avoid inco"prehensible input, including !ays of changing the sub)ect to so"ething easier to understand or "ore fa"iliar to the ac&uirer# Scarcella>s sub)ect 6iguel is &uite good at this, as the follo!ing de"onstrates3
NSC MiguelC oeC MiguelC ... ( li!e classical music too==Beetho$en1 ,chu/ert==you !no" that !inda stuff. Eou play the piano0 Eeah. Me too.

,. /Teaching/ &onversational &o petence Kno!ledge of the co"ponents of conversational co"petence is one thing# Developing conversational co"petence in students is another# The &uestion that needs to be as%ed here is !hether conversational co"petence is learned or ac&uired# There are good argu"ents, $ thin%, against the hypothesis that all of conversational co"petence is learnable *see also discussion in Scarcella,

98

forthco"ing-# Airst, it is si"ply too co"ple'# 4s Scarcella points out3

/6ost discourse rules and strategies are very co"ple', characteriHed by vocabulary, pronunciation, and prosodic features, features of non(verbal co""unication, and, perhaps to a lesser degree, syntactic features# 6oreover, all of these features "ay vary according to the social conte't# Aor instance, so"e greetings are appropriate in so"e situations, but not in others# They are so"eti"es shouted, and so"eti"es spo%en &uite stiffly# $n any given situation, an appropriate greeting depends on a variety of factors# These include3 the person being greeted, the ti"e of day, the location and the interaction, other people present, and the sort of interaction !hich is e'pected *pleasant, scornful, etc#-/ *p# 1+-#

Second, even if the student "anages to learn so"e rules of conversational co"petence, they !ill not al!ays be available !hen they are needed3 in 6onitor(free situations# 6ost li%ely, the non(universal aspects of conversational co"petence have to be ac&uired# 4n initial hypothesis is that they are ac&uired the sa"e !ay gra""ar is, via co"prehensible input, and that the re&uire"ents presented in this chapter need to be satisfied for the ac&uisition of conversational co"petence as !ell, a very difficult tas% given the ti"e and discourse constraints of the classroo"# $t is possible, ho!ever, that a s"all sub(set of conversational "anage"ent tools can be directly taught, either as rules or as "e"oriHed routines, as long as they are easy to learn *see section on learning, to follo!-# These include routines for starting a conversation, so"e pause filters, and e'pressions that as% for help *Scarcella, p# 11-# 4lso, a host of in(class and out(of(class activities have been introduced in recent years to encourage conversational co"petence# 6y "ain point in this section is that conversational co"petence gives students the tools they need to "anage conversation, and is thus an essential part of instruction, since it helps to insure that language ac&uisition !ill ta%e place outside of class, and after the instructional progra" ends# Cur responsibility does not end !ith the co"pletion of the se"ester3 indeed, in "y vie!, the purpose of language instruction is to provide students !ith !hat they need so that they can progress !ithout us#

99

+otes
1 4s detailed in Chapter $$, speech production can co"e fro" any of three different sources# Airst, !e can use our ac&uired co"petence as illustrated in the 6onitor "odel for production in Chapter $$# 4ccording to the input hypothesis, this sort of production ta%es so"e ti"e to develop# 4nother !ay is via "e"oriHed patterns and routines *see Krashen and Scarcella, 1998-# 4 third !ay is by e'tensive use of first language structures, as e'plained n Chapter $$# The latter t!o "ethods of speech production are !ays of /perfor"ing !ithout co"petence/ *borro!ing =# Clar%>s ter"inology-# 4 second language perfor"er can /learn to spea%/ very &uic%ly using these "ethods, and they are e'plicitly encouraged by so"e techni&ues# They are severely li"ited "odes, ho!ever# *See discussion in Chapter $$, Krashen and Scarcella, 1998, and Krashen 1981#This raises the interesting &uestion of !hether participation in conversation is even practica!!y necessary for truly successful second language ac&uisition# $t probably is# $n addition to being an effective "eans of obtaining co"prehensible input, conversation offers so"e other real advantages that !ill beco"e clearer as !e proceed in this chapter# Scarcella *forthco"ingpoints out that there are "any aspects of /co""unicative co"petence/ that are probably not ac&uirable by observation and input alone *see discussion later in this chapter-# 4lso, Scarcella points out that real conversation entails /a high degree of personal involve"ent/, !hat Stevic% *199.- ter"s /depth/ and a lo!ered affective filter# , $n a revie! of the science fiction literature, <atch *199.- points out several e'a"ples in !hich authors assu"e that it is possible to ac&uire hu"an language by listening to radio broadcasts# :ven these authors see" to understand, ho!ever, that ac&uiring language by listening to inco"prehensible input is an ability possessed only by certain aliens !ith different, and apparently superior /language ac&uisition devices/# 0 There are anecdotal cases of people !ho have pic%ed up second languages via television# 7arsen(Aree"an *1999-, for e'a"ple, cited a case of a Fer"an spea%er !ho ac&uired Dutch via TM# This is not at all strange, as "uch input in Dutch !ould be co"prehensible to a spea%er of such a closely related language# ;ote that $ a" not clai"ing that it is impossib!e to ac&uire language fro" TM# $ a" only saying that co"prehensible input is necessary for ac&uisition and that television provides little co"prehensible input for a beginner# $nter"ediate level students "ay profit &uite a bit fro" television and even radio# 1 4nother !ay teachers help students understand "essages containing structures that are /beyond/ the" is by e"phasiHing vocabulary# Both :velyn <atch and $ have stated the argu"ent for increased vocabulary !or% in recent years *<atch, 1998a2 Krashen, 1981-, and our argu"entation is, $ thin%, si"ilar# 5hile %no!ledge of vocabulary "ay not be sufficient for understanding all "essages, there is little doubt that an increased vocabulary helps the ac&uirer understand "ore of !hat is heard or read *see e#g# Uli)n and Ke"pen, 199.2 6acha, 1999, on the role of vocabulary in reading co"prehension-# Thus, "ore vocabulary should "ean "ore co"prehension of input, and "ore ac&uisition of gra""ar# This /ne! vie!/ is &uite different fro" earlier positions# 7anguage teachers had been told to restrict introduction of ne! vocabulary in order to focus on synta'# ;o! !e are saying that vocabulary learning !ill actually contribute to the ac&uisition of synta'# The practical i"plications of this position are not clear to "e, ho!ever# Should !e teach vocabulary in isolation in an effort to boost the a"ount of input that is co"prehensible? Unfortunately, there is little research that spea%s directly to the &uestion of ho!

8+

vocabulary is best ac&uired, and, "ost i"portant, retained# There is so"e agree"ent a"ong teachers that vocabulary should be taught in conte't, rather than by rote "e"oriHation of list *see Celce(6urcia and =osenH!eig, 1999, for several techni&ues-, but it "ay even be the case that vocabulary should not be directly taught at allJ $t "ay be the case that if !e supply enough co"prehensible input, vocabulary ac&uisition !ill in fact ta%e care of itself# 7et "e restate this suggestion in the for" of an infor"al e'peri"ent3 Fiven ten "inutes of study ti"e *!aiting for a bus, etc#-, !hich activity !ould be "ore useful for the language ac&uirer interested in long(ter" retention of vocabulary? *1* =ote learning of a list, using flash cards or so"e e&uivalent techni&ue# =evie!ing a story that has /ne! !ords/ carefully included *Conte'tualiHation-#

*,=eading for pleasure, trying only to understand the "essage and loo%ing up ne! !ords only !hen they see" to be essential to the "eaning or !hen the ac&uirer is curious as to their "eaning# 6ethod *,- relies on co"prehensible input to supply ne! vocabulary in enough fre&uency, and to help the ac&uirer deter"ine the "eaning# $n "ethod *,- there is no conscious focus on vocabulary, only on "eaning# The prediction *hope?- is that really i"portant !ords !ill reoccur naturally and their "eanings !ill be "ade increasingly obvious by the conte't# $t does not e'clude the possibility that the ac&uirer "ay be helped by occasional glances at the dictionary or occasional definitions by a teacher# . The 4"erican 7anguage $nstitute at USC, for e'a"ple, offers a course in typing along !ith its offerings in :nglish as a Second 7anguage for foreign students# 9 There "ay be further opportunities for providing opti"al input for second language ac&uirers at the university level, !hich !e !ill discuss in Chapter M# 8 Aor so"e 6onitor users and linguists, e'plicit gra""atical infor"ation is, oddly enough, interesting and relevant, since such ac&uirers be!ieve it !ill help their perfor"ance# $n this case, the "ediu" is the "essage# $f a course on the structure of the target language is taught in the target language, and if the students are /analytic/ types, the course !ill be a success# *See co""ents in Krashen, 198+, and in Chapter M#9 There are e'ceptions, e'a"ples of co"prehensible input in !hich i O 5 "ay not be present# These include situations in !hich the discourse is li"ited, and in "any instru"ental uses of language in !hich fa"iliarity !ith a fe! routines and patterns "ay suffice for successful co""unication *e#g# dealing !ith gas station attendants, cler%s, etc#-# 1+ /$nternaliHation/, in "y interpretation, see"s to "ean the ac&uisition of a rule that !as first learned, !here learning is assu"ed to have caused the subse&uent ac&uisition# 4ccording to the theory of second language ac&uisition presented in Chapter $$, this does not occur# $ have discussed this in several technical papers *Krashen, 1999- and !ill revie! this point in a later section# 11 4nother analogy that co"es to "ind is /shotgun/ versus single bullet# The for"er has a better chance of hitting the target# 1 Marvel *1999- describes a silent period in for"al instruction *Silent 5ay "ethodology- that lasted considerably longer, indicating that there "ay be a fair a"ount of individual variation in the duration of the silent period for adults in language classes3 /There !as a !o"an fro" Tai!an !ho after several !ee%s !as still conspicuously silent in class# She never tal%ed, and !hen called upon !ould only ans!er in a !hisper, saying only !hat !as re&uired# $t !as clear, ho!ever, that she !as one of

81

the "ost attentive students in the class, had a clear understanding of !hat !as being done, and see"ingly en)oyed the class# She also had a positive attitude to!ards !hat and ho! she !as learning# 4t no ti"e !as she coerced into active participation# /Then one day in the ninth !ee% of school she sat in the front ro! and actively participated throughout the !hole hour# Aro" that point on, she continued to participate actively in a "ore li"ited !ay and at ti"es helped others and !as helped by others###/ *p# 0915hile there "ay have been other reasons for this student>s silence, this e'a"ple suggests that the silent period should be respected, and that so"e students develop spea%ing readiness later than others# 1, Fiven the sa"e a"ount of co"prehensible input, the child>s silent period in second language ac&uisition "ay turn out to be longer than the average adult silent period for other reasons# 5hat $ a" suggesting here is that the silent period in child second language ac&uisition !ould not be as long if "ore of the input the child hears is co"prehensible# 10 ;ote that if !e assu"e that an ac&uirer in the natural environ"ent receives about t!o hours per day of co"prehensible input, 9 + hours translates into about one year /abroad/# This assu"es that classti"e P co"prehensible input, !hich "ay not be true !ith the traditional "ethods the AS$ chart is based on# $t is, ho!ever, in accord !ith the infor"ally accepted idea that a year abroad !ill result in a fair degree of fluency in the case of :uropean languages# 11 The "aterial contained in this section is si"ply "y su""ary of !hat $ have learned fro" discussions !ith Steven Sternfeld, =obin Scarcella, and Batyia :lbau"# $ than% the" not only for the infor"ation and intellectual sti"ulation, but also for their patience#

Chapter $M

The Role of Gra Place

ar! or Putting Gra

ar in its

4s should be apparent by no!, the position ta%en in this boo% is that second language teaching should focus on encouraging ac&uisition, on providing input that sti"ulates the subconscious language ac&uisition potential all nor"al hu"an beings have# This does not "ean to say, ho!ever, that there is no roo" at all for conscious learning# Conscious learning does have a role, but it is no longer the lead actor in the play# The purpose of this section is to discuss !hat that role is, ho! !e can put conscious learning, or /gra""ar/ in its proper place in the second language progra"# A. Learning )oes +ot "eco e Acquisition Chapter $$ atte"pted to "a%e clear !hat learning does and !hat it does not do in the theoretical "odel of second language perfor"ance# 4ccording to the 6onitor "odel for perfor"ance, conscious learning acts as an editor, as a 6onitor, /correcting/ the errors, or rather !hat the perfor"er perceives to be errors, in the output of the ac&uired syste"# This can happen before the sentence is spo%en or !ritten, or after# Conscious %no!ledge of rules is therefore not responsible for our fluency, it does not initiate utterances# 4 very i"portant point that also needs to be stated is that leaning does not /turn into/ ac&uisition# The idea that !e first learn a ne! rule, and eventually, through practice, ac&uire it, is !idespread and "ay see"s to so"e people to be intuitively obvious# This "odel of the ac&uisition process !as first presented to "e !hen $ !as a student of T:S7, and see"ed to be very sensible at the ti"e# $t !as, $ thought, e'actly the !ay $ learned languages "yself# $ accepted as penetrating insight Carroll>s characteriHation of ho! language learning proceeds

8,

fro" the point of vie! of the then ne! /cognitive(code/ school of thought3
/Cnce the student has a proper degree of cognitive control over the structure of a language, facility !ill develop auto"atically !ith the use of the language in "eaningful situations/ *Carroll, 19.., p# 1+ -#

4s "entioned in ;ote 1+ of the previous section, this process of converting learned rules into ac&uired rules !as called /internaliHation/# Despite our feelings that internaliHation does occur, the theory predicts that it does not, e'cept in a trivial !ay# 7anguage ac&uisition, according to the theory presented in Chapter $$, happens in one !ay, !hen the ac&uirer understands input containing a structure that the ac&uirer is /due/ to ac&uire, a structure at his or her /i O 5/# There is no necessity for previous conscious %no!ledge of a rule# *The trivial sense in !hich a conscious rule "ight /help/ language ac&uisition is if the perfor"er used a rule as a 6onitor, and consistently applied it to his o!n output# Since !e understand our o!n output, part of that perfor"er>s co"prehensible input !ould include utterances !ith that structure# 5hen the day ca"e !hen that perfor"er !as /ready/ to ac&uire this already learned rule, his o!n perfor"ance of it !ould &ualify as co"prehensible input at /i O 5/# $n other !ords, self( sti"ulationJ$n addition to the fact that the theory does not directly predict that learning needs to precede ac&uisition, there are very good reasons for "aintaining this position that e"erge fro" observing second language perfor"ers# Airst, !e often see ac&uisition in cases !here learning never occurred# There are "any perfor"ers !ho can use co"ple' structures in a second language !ho do not %no! the rule consciously and never did# There have been several case histories in the second language ac&uisition literature that illustrate this pheno"enon, one !hich $ thin% is &uite co""on# :velyn <atch>s students, Cindy Stafford and Finger Covitt, intervie!ed one such second language perfor"er, /M/, an :S7 student at UC74, !ho e'hibited considerable co"petence in :nglish, but !ho ad"itted that he had conscious control of very fe!, if any, rules# The

80

follo!ing e'changes co"e fro" an intervie! !ith /M/, !hich ta%es place !hile one of the authors is revie!ing his co"position errors *fro" Stafford and Covitt, 19982 also &uoted in Krashen, 1998-3 Intervie1er3 *5hen you !rite a co"position-### do you thin% of gra""ar rules? Do you thin% /Should $ have used the present tense here or !ould the present continuous be better###/ )3 /$ don>t refer to the boo%s and all that, you %no!# $ )ust refer it to this, uh, "y )udg"ent and### sensing if $>" !riting it right or !rong# Because $ really don>t %no!### !hat !here e'actly ho!### the gra""atical rules !or% out# 7ater in the intervie!, one investigator as%s3 Intervie1er3 Do you thin% gra""ar rules are useful? )3 Useful? Ieah# 5hen you !ant to !rite they are very very useful# Intervie1er3 But you don>t use the" !hen you !rite# )3 Ieah, $ %no!# $ don>t use the"### $ don>t %no! ho! to use the"# 4nother good e'a"ple of an /under(user/ of the conscious gra""ar is <ung, studied by Cohen and =obbins *199.-, !ho stated3
/$ never taught any gra""ar# $ guess $ )ust never learned the rules that !ell# $ %no! that every ti"e $ spea% it>s pretty correct, so $ never thin% about gra""ars# $ )ust !rite do!n !hatever $ feel li%e it# :veryti"e $ !rite so"ething $ )ust stop thin%ing# $ don>t %no! !hich *rule- to apply/ *p# 19-#

;ot only is !hat <ung says revealing, but so is ho1 he says it# There are, for sure, errors in this passage, but there is also control of fairly co"ple' synta' and a real ability for self(e'pression# *;ot all under(users succeed, of course2 see, for e'a"ple, Schu"ann>s description of 4lberto in Schu"ann *1998a-#- $f conscious rules have to co"e first, ho! can !e e'plain cases such as M, <ung, and others? *Aor other case histories, see Krashen, 19982 Stafford and Covitt, 19982 Kounin and Krashen 1998#- Unless all cases such as these can be sho!n to be instances of the use of the first language or routines and patterns the e'istence of such cases sho! that previous conscious learning is not necessary for language ac&uisition#

81

Second, !e also see learning that never see"s to beco"e ac&uisition# 6any fine :S7 perfor"ers, !hile they have ac&uired a great deal of :nglish, also %no! "any conscious rules# They nevertheless "a%e !hat they consider to be /careless/ errors on rules that are linguistically &uite straightfor!ard# This occurs !hen the perfor"er has learned a rule, but has not ac&uired it# This happens typically !ith late(ac&uired ite"s, such as the third person singular ending on regular verbs in :nglish */<e goes to !or% every day#/-# 5hat is particularly interesting is that these perfor"ers "ay have %no!n the rule and have practiced it for "any years# :ven after thousands of correct repetitions, and !ith a thorough understanding of the rule, such perfor"ers still "a%e /careless/ "ista%es on certain ite"s# 5hat has prevented learning fro" /beco"ing/ ac&uisition in these cases is the fact that the learned rule is still beyond the ac&uirer>s i O 5# 4 case history that illustrates this situation very !ell is that of /P/ *Krashen and Pon, 1991-# P !as an e'cellent 6onitor user *an opti"al user, as described in Chapter $$-, an adult !ith a B4 in 7inguistics !ith honors, !hose !ritten :nglish appeared nearly native(li%e# $n casual conversation, ho!ever, P "ade occasional /careless/ errors on /easy/ rules that she had %no!n consciously for t!enty years# Thus, even !ell(learned, !ell(practiced rules "ay not turn into ac&uisition# 4n e'planation of P>s proble" is that the ite"s she "issed in casual conversation !ere those that are late(ac&uired, and her ac&uisition, !hile very advanced, had si"ple not gone the final fe! steps in synta' and "orphology# She had learned the rules !ell, ho!ever, and !as able to supply the" under conditions !here she could 6onitor# 4 third reason for doubting that ac&uisition re&uires previous learning is the fact that even the best learners "aster only a s"all subset of the rules of a language# 4s discussed earlier *<ypothesis ,, Chapter $$-, even professional linguists ad"it that their conscious %no!ledge of even the best studied languages is i"perfect, and discoveries of ne! rules are reported !ith every issue of technical )ournals in linguistic theory# 7inguists often succeed in describing, after years of analysis, !hat "any second language perfor"ers have already ac&uired# 6y e'planation for these pheno"ena is that !hile learning "ay often precede ac&uisition, it need not, and in fact "ay not even help directly# =ather, !e ac&uire along a fairly predictable natural order, and

8.

this occurs !hen !e receive co"prehensible input# Cccasionally, !e learn certain rules before !e ac&uire the", and this gives us the illusion that the learning actually caused the ac&uisition# Professional language teachers, !ith their fascination for the structure of language, and !ith the pleasure they derive fro" the "astery and use of conscious rules, are often not even a!are that ac&uisition !ithout prior conscious learning is possible# This !as "y une'a"ined assu"ption as !ell# The procedure described earlier see"ed right and reasonable to "e at one ti"e3 language learning, in the general sense, occurred !hen one first consciously grasped a rule, then practiced it again and again until it !as /auto"atic/# *This is actually deductive learning2 there is another possibility, na"ely, /inductive/ learning2 see discussion belo!#- The great contribution of linguistics !as to discover and describe rules, !hich /applied linguists/ could trans"it to language teachers, !ho, in turn, could tell students about the"# Cne e'perience that helped to change "y thin%ing occurred !hen $ !as teaching :nglish as a second language to an /advanced/ adult education class at Eueens College# 4s a "e"ber of a tea", "y responsibility !as /structure/# Since $ !as, at the ti"e, the director of the :nglish 7anguage $nstitute at Eueens, $ felt obliged to present an i"pressive series of lessons that de"onstrated "y control of the sub)ect# $ therefore chose to concentrate on the verb syste", and presented a co"plete survey of all tenses# The first lesson of the session !as focussed on the present progressive tense# 6y ob)ective !as to infor" "y students that the present progressive had three "eanings3 *1- a current, on(going action that !ould soon be co"pleted, * -, an action that began so"e ti"e ago in the past and "ay or "ay not be ta%ing pace at the "o"ent, and !ould end so"eti"e in the future, and *,- future tense# $ illustrated this using the fa"iliar ti"e flo! diagra"

and by sho!ing that sentences such as

89

<ohn is playing the $iolin.

!ere three !ays a"biguous3 *1- 5hat is that noise fro" the other roo"? *8ohn is playing the violin#* - 5hat>s 8ohn doing this su""er? *<e is playing the violin for the local sy"phony#*,- 5hat>s 8ohn doing to"orro!? *<e>s playing the violin in the talent sho!#;one of "y advanced :S7 students %ne! this rule consciously# $n fact, very fe! people do# $ have presented this e'a"ple several ti"es at lectures to practicing :S7 teachers, and $ often as% those !ho consciously /%no!/ the rule that the progressive is three !ays a"biguous to raise their hands# Mery fe! do, and those that do clai" they %no! it have usually )ust finished teaching it in class# 5hat !as very interesting !as that a significant nu"ber of students had a /:ure%a/ e'perience# 4fter $ e'plained the rule, they !ould re"ar%3 /That>s right### it is three !ays a"biguous### ho! about thatJ/, or !ould "a%e si"ilar co""ents# 6y interpretation is that these students had already subconsciously ac&uired the progressive tense and its three "eanings, and !ere confir"ing that their ac&uisition !as correct# $ had, in other !ords, succeeded in providing learning !here ac&uisition !as already present# $ !ould li%e to point out several things about this pheno"enon# Airst, "y students had apparently ac&uired the rule !ithout having first learned it# *$t could be argued that they %ne! it once but had forgotten it, and that this te"porary learning had been essential, or at least useful, in ac&uiring the rule# This is possible, but unli%ely, as all three functions are not usually taught# 4nother unli%ely possibility is transfer fro" the first language# 6ost of the first languages of "y students that se"ester did not have the progressive tense#- Second, those !ho learned !hat they had already ac&uired thought they !ere gaining a great deal fro" the class# This sort of %no!ledge is very satisfying to "any people *including "e-# $t is not, ho!ever, language teaching, even though it is of so"e value# *5e return to this topic, !hich $ refer to as /language appreciation/, later in this chapter#7earning so"eti"es precedes ac&uisition in real ti"e3 4 rule that is

88

eventually ac&uired "ay have been, at one ti"e, learned only# 4s $ have "aintained else!here *Krashen, 1999-, this certainly does occur, but by no "eans establishes the necessity of prior learning for ac&uisition# 8ust because event 4 preceded event B does not de"onstrate that 4 caused B# 5e see "any cases of ac&uisition !ithout learning, learning *even very good learning that is !ell practiced- that does not beco"e ac&uisition, and ac&uired %no!ledge of rules preceding learning# ". The Place of Gra ar

/Fra""ar/, a ter" $ !ill use as a synony" for conscious learning, has t!o possible roles in the second language teaching progra"# Airst, it can be used !ith so"e profit as a 6onitor# 5e !ill discuss this use in "ore detail in the section that follo!s# 4 second use for gra""ar is as sub)ect("atter, or for /language appreciation/ *so"eti"es called /linguistics/-, and !e !ill discuss this role later on# ;either role is essential, neither is the central part of the pedagogical progra", but both have their functions# Several issues !ill be discussed in relation to teaching gra""ar for 6onitor use3 1hen rules can be used, 1hich rules should or can be learned, !hat the e""ects of 6onitor use are, and !hat !e can e'pect in ter"s of 6onitor efficiency# 1# F=4664= AC= 6C;$TC= US:3 WH,. T<: 6C;$TC= $S US:D 4s stated in Chapter $$ *<ypothesis ,-, one of our goals in pedagogy is to encourage opti"al 6onitor use# 5e !ould li%e our students to utiliHe conscious rules to raise their gra""atical accuracy !hen it does not interfere !ith co""unication# Stated differently, the opti"al 6onitor user %no!s 1hen to use conscious rules# 4s "entioned earlier, one necessary condition for successful 6onitor use is time. $t ta%es real processing ti"e to re"e"ber and apply conscious rules# 5e should not e'pect "ost students to successfully apply conscious rules to their output during oral conversation(( there is, obviously, little ti"e# People !ho do atte"pt to thin% about and utiliHe conscious rules during conversation run t!o ris%s# Airst, they tend to ta%e too "uch ti"e !hen it is their turn to spea%, and have a hesitant style that is often difficult to listen to# Cther overusers of the

89

6onitor, in trying to avoid this, plan their ne't utterance !hile their conversational partner is tal%ing# Their output "ay be accurate, but they all too often do not pay enough attention to !hat the other person is sayingJ So"e people are better than others at 6onitor use, and "ay actually be able to successfully use a fair nu"ber of conscious rules /on line/# 6ost people run the ris% of seriously endangering the success of the conversation !hen they try to 6onitor during casual tal%ing# *Success in 6onitor use in free conversation also depends on other factors((one is the difficulty or co"ple'ity of the rule, !hich !e discuss belo!# 4 second is the topic3 $ find it "uch easier to pay attention to the for" of !hat $ say in a second language !hen $ a" tal%ing about so"ething $ a" very fa"iliar !ith and have discussed before, e#g# second language ac&uisition#The place for 6onitor use is !hen the perfor"er has ti"e, as in !riting and in prepared speech# 4s stated earlier, si"ply giving perfor"ers ti"e does not insure that they !ill use the conscious 6onitor2 hence, condition in Chapter $$3 The perfor"er "ust be thin%ing about correctness or focussed on for"# 5hen given ti"e, and !hen focussed on for", so"e people can use conscious gra""ar to great advantage# $n the case of the second language perfor"er !ho has ac&uired nearly all of the gra""ar of the second language, but !ho still has so"e gaps, the use of the conscious gra""ar can fill in "any of the non(ac&uired ite"s# This can, in !riting at least, occasionally result in native(li%e accuracy# $ have often referred to /P/, discussed above, as a perfor"er !ho !as able to do this# Despite her accent, and occasional "orphological errors in free speech, P>s !riting *done in class- !as nearly fla!less# $ have %no!n "any professionals !ho also use conscious gra""ar this !ay, colleagues in linguistics !ho spea% !ith slight i"perfections but !hose !riting is nearly error(free# So"e very interesting cases involve specialists in gra""ar, in for"al linguistics, scholars !ho certainly consciously %no! "any of the rules they violate in free conversation# T!o cases $ personally %no! have, in fact, published papers on the theory of gra""ar that rely heavily on :nglish, testifying to their deep and thorough grasp of :nglish synta'# Iet, in un"onitored free speech, third person singulars drop off, the possessive "ar%er is occasionally

9+

"issing, etc# Both scholars publish all of their current !or% in :nglish and do not consult anyone to revie! their papers for errors, nor is this necessary# 6y o!n e'perience "ay be helpful to readers# $ a", at the ti"e of this !riting, an /inter"ediate/ level spea%er of Arench as a second language# *This "eans, according to "y definition, that $ can converse co"fortably !ith a "onolingual spea%er of Arench as long as *s-he "a%es so"e co"pensation# $ cannot eavesdrop very !ell and have so"e trouble !ith radio and fil"s# 4lso, "y output is fairly fluent, but not error(free#- 6any people at this level, including "yself, "a%e errors on rules that are easy to describe, but that are apparently fairly late(ac&uired# Cne rule li%e this $ have noted is the si"ple contraction rule3
de > le 5 du.

$, and "y class"ates in inter"ediate conversational Arench at USC, occasionally "iss this one in free conversation# Cn the occasions !hen $ !rite Arench, ho!ever, $ get it right every ti"e# *6y accuracy or difficulty order changes !hen $ use "y conscious %no!ledge of Arench gra""ar# Correctly applying the de O !e P du rule raises this ite" fro" a lo! position in the difficulty order to one near the top# This is e'actly !hat $ atte"pted to say in Chapter $, <ypothesis ,, in discussing distortions of the natural order in 6onitored conditions# $ differ fro" the average sub)ect in that $ do not re&uire a discrete(point gra""ar test to focus "e on for"# 6ost readers of this boo% are probably li%e this as !ell#This %ind of behavior is natural and nor"al# 5hat is tragic, in "y opinion, is that teachers e'pect perfect perfor"ance of such si"ple, yet late(ac&uired ite"s in un"onitored perfor"ance# :ven &uite co"petent second language users, such as P, !ill /"iss/ such ite"s in conversation# 5e often see, ho!ever, beginners, students !ho can barely converse in the target language, struggling to "a%e correct sub)ect(verb agree"ent in !hat are ter"ed /co""unicative/ e'ercises, fearful of the teacher>s shattering corrections# The cause of this torture is, first of all, a confusion bet!een linguistic si"plicity and order of ac&uisition((it is not at all the case that the "ore linguistically si"ple an ite" is, the earlier it is ac&uired# So"e very /si"ple/ rules "ay be a"ong the last to be ac&uired# Second, the cause is also a failure to distinguish

91

bet!een ac&uisition and learning, a failure to realiHe that conscious %no!ledge of an ite" bears no relationship to a perfor"er>s ability to use it in un"onitored speech# This ability co"es fro" ac&uisition, and ac&uisition co"e fro" co"prehensible input, not fro" error correction# The result of such treat"ent is, at best, overuse of the 6onitor# 4t !orst, it results in the establish"ent of such a strong 4ffective Ailter that ac&uisition is i"possible# # 5<4T C4; B: 6C;$TC=:D Condition three for 6onitor use *Chapter $$, <ypothesis ,- is relevant to discussing this point# $n order for perfor"ers to 6onitor successfully, they "ust %no! the rule they are applying# To e'pand on a point "ade in Chapter $$, let "e atte"pt to illustrate )ust ho! drastically this re&uire"ent li"its 6onitor use# 7et this circle represent all the rules of a !ell( described language, such as :nglish3

7et us no! consider all the rules of :nglish that the best linguists /%no!/, or have succeeded in describing# <o! "any rules did 8espersen *ever- %no!, ho! "uch of :nglish have scholars such as ;oa" Cho"s%y described? 5hile Cho"s%y often says that he and his colleagues have only described /frag"ents/ of :nglish, !e !ill give the for"al linguists the benefit of the doubt, and represent their acco"plish"ents as a proper subset of the first circle

;o! let us consider the rules that /applied linguists/ %no!, !here applied linguists here refers to the scholar !hose tas% is to study the

!or% of the for"al, theoretical linguist, and present it to the language teacher, and perhaps also to the language student# 7et the additional s"aller circle in the ne't figure represent !hat the applied linguist %no!s# This !ill have to be a proper subset of !hat the for"al linguist %no!s, since the full(ti"e )ob of the theoretician is to see% out ne! rules, !hile the applied linguist spends a great deal of ti"e e'plaining this !or%3

The ne't circle represents all the rules that the "ost %no!ledgeable language teachers %no!# This !ill be a proper subset of the circle introduced in the last figure# Teachers, after all, have a great deal to do besides study the !or% of applied linguistics3

Still another circle represents the nu"ber of gra""ar rules that the best teachers actually teach# This is, in turn, a proper subset of the set of circles they %no!, since teachers !ill undoubtedly present to their students only a part of their %no!ledge3

5e dra! ne't still another circle, !hich represents all the rules that the best students actually succeed in learning# 5e should even put in

9,

one last circle, all the rules that students can carry around in their heads as "ental baggage and actually use in perfor"ance3

By no!, !e are do!n to a very s"all circle, even giving every group discussed the benefit of the doubt# :ven our best students !ill be able to learn and utiliHe a s"all part of the gra""ar of a language as a conscious 6onitor# 5e can dra! an even s"aller circle for so"e people# 4s !e sa! in the discussion of individual variation in Chapter $$, so"e perfor"ers are either less !illing or less able to utiliHe conscious rules# 4t the opposite e'tre"e fro" the professional linguist or language teacher *see, for e'a"ple, Iorio, 1998-, !e have the 6onitor under(user, the perfor"er !ho does all self(correction by /feel/ and has no control of conscious gra""ar# Perhaps even "ore e'tre"e is the inco"petent 6onitor user, the perfor"er !ho thin%s *s-he %no!s the rules but has the" *or at least "any of the"- !rong# This "ay "erely be a proble" of no"enclature *e#g# Stafford and Covitt>s sub)ect !ho %ept referring to /dead ob)ects/ instead of direct ob)ects-, but "ay be "ore serious# 5e should be a!are that confusions "ay e'ist even for rules that appear to us to be very si"ple, and for rules that the perfor"er "ay have already ac&uired and can utiliHe in an un"onitored situation# Such cases illustrate vividly the contrast bet!een ac&uisition and learning# 3a4 Incompetent Monitor use Seliger *1999- reported a si"ple, yet interesting e'peri"ent !hich confir"s the e'istence of inco"petent 6onitor users# The tas% !as na"ing3 Sub)ects !ere sho!n pictures and as%ed to say !hat the ob)ect pictured !as in :nglish *e#g# $t>s a pen-# Seliger noted !hether the sub)ects applied the /aDan/ rule and !hether they correctly used an !hen the follo!ing noun began !ith a vo!el# The sub)ects !ere then as%ed, after co"pleting the tas%, if they had noticed that so"eti"es a !as

90

called for and so"eti"es an !as called for# $f they said that they did notice, they !ere as%ed to give their reasons for the distinction# *$n all cases, either a or an !as re&uired# There !ere no cases !here the Hero allo"orph !as appropriate#- Seliger>s sub)ects included 9 "onolingual :nglish spea%ing children, ages , to 1+#8, 11 /bilingual/ children, ages 0 to 1+, and 11 adult :S7 students at Eueens College in ;e! Ior%# $n "y interpretation, this study contrasts ac&uisition and learning# 1 L The sub)ect>s focus in the picture na"ing tas% !as on supplying vocabulary# They !ere not told in advance that gra""atical accuracy !as an issue and certainly the aDan rule !as not presented or discussed in advance# The tas%, then, encouraged use of the ac&uired syste"2 it !as relatively /un"onitored/# This interpretation is consistent !ith the evidence revie!ed in Chapter $$, !hich concludes that for "ost sub)ects, one needs to deliberately focus sub)ects on for" using a device such as a discrete(point gra""ar test in order to bring out e'tensive use of the conscious gra""ar# Cf course, since the tas% !as an /e'peri"ent/, it is &uite possible that so"e sub)ects "ay have been "ore careful than they nor"ally !ould be# The results of the direct &uestion about a and an, ho!ever, sho! that it is unli%ely that sub)ects !ere accessing "uch conscious %no!ledge !hile identifying pictures# Seliger reports /no relationship/ bet!een perfor"ance on picture identification and !hether the sub)ects could state a ruleJ 6any sub)ects did not /do !hat they say they do/# $f their responses to the post(tas% &uestion represent conscious learning, this result confir"s )ust ho! li"ited learning is for so"e people# 7et us e'a"ine the results# 4s !e !ould e'pect fro" the discussion of age in Chapter $$, none of the bilingual children produced correct conscious rules for aDan# This is consistent !ith the clai" that pre( for"al operations children have less e'tensive "eta(a!areness of gra""ar# The potential for e'tensive 6onitor use is hypothesiHed to e"erge !ith for"al operations, at around puberty# 4"ong the adults, three of the four !ho /%ne!/ the rule *could verbaliHe it after the test- /produced no instances on the picture test to sho! they understood ho! the rule !as to be used/ *p# ,.0-# These sub)ects, in other !ords, had !earned the aDan distinction but had not
L Superscript nu"bers refer to ;otes at end of chapters#

91

ac(uired it# They !ere unable, "oreover, to apply this conscious %no!ledge to the picture identification tas%, since the necessary conditions for successful 6onitor use !ere not "et *condition three P %no! the rule, !as "et, but one P ti"e, and t!o P focus on for", !ere not-# This case is e'actly analogous to the de O !e P du case described above# These three students, $ !ould predict, !ould perfor" !ell on this ite" under different conditions, i#e# if given a discrete(point gra""ar test that focussed the" on for", containing ite"s such as3

Ainally, and !hat is of "ost interest here, t!o children and one adult perfor"ed !ell on the picture identification test but produced incorrect rules *e#g# /Iou use an for so"ething that>s alive/-# The child sub)ects are re"iniscent of other cases in the literature and "ay si"ply reflect the inability of children to induce or learn correct conscious rules *e#g# a child in one study, ac&uiring Arench as a second language, decided that fe"inine gender !as for /everything that !as good and beautiful/ *Kenyeres and Kenyeres, cited in <atch, 1998b-# The adult !ho perfor"ed perfectly on the test "ay be classified as an /inco"petent/ 6onitor user# This sub)ect had ac&uired the aDan rule, but had not learned it correctly# The fact that he did not apply his conscious rule to perfor"ance !or%ed to his benefitJ $ !ould predict that such a sub)ect !ould perfor" !orse on a test that focussed hi" on for"# *$ do not !ish to i"ply that so"e learners get all rules !rong !hile others get the" all right# Clearly, "any learners have learned so"e rules correctly and so"e incorrectly#5hat is re"ar%able here is that this sub)ect had failed to learn !hat "ost teachers !ould consider to be an a"aHingly si"ple rule, yet he had apparently ac&uired it# This illustrates the independence of ac&uisition and learning, as !ell as )ust ho! li"ited learning can be for so"e perfor"ers# 3b4 *u!e !earnabi!ity 5e see fairly !ide individual variation in the ability to use the conscious 6onitor# The range goes fro" the professional linguist, !ho

9.

"ay be able to consciously learn "any rules of great co"ple'ity and even apply the" !hile perfor"ing in a second language, to 6onitor under(users and inco"petent !rong(rule users# Despite this variation, !e can begin to characteriHe the %inds of rules that are learnable for "ost adults, recogniHing that even for super 6onitor users *see e#g# Iorio, 1998-, this set !ill be a s"all subset of the total nu"ber of rules in a language# The professional literature supports !hat $ thin% is the "ost reasonable hypothesis3 /7earnability/ is related to linguistic si"plicity, both for"al and functional# The rules !e can learn and carry around in our heads for use as a 6onitor are not those that are earliest ac&uired, nor are they those that are i"portant for co""unication# =ather, they are the si"ple rules, rules that are easiest to describe and re"e"ber# $ have pointed out else!here in other publications *first discussed in Krashen et a!., 1998- that si"plicity can be defined in at least t!o !ays, and both definitions are relevant here# Airst, a rule can be for"ally si"ple# :'a"ples of relatively si"ple rules include our old friends the third person singular ending on regular verbs in :nglish, and de O !e P du# These rules re&uire only the addition of a bound "orphe"e *an inflection-, or contraction operations# Si"ple deletion is also probably not difficult for the conscious 6onitor# Cther syntactic operations appear to be "ore difficult for the 6onitor# Per"utations, and "ove"ents of constituents fro" one part of a sentence to another are &uite difficult to do /in your head/ !hile in the "iddle of a conversation or even !hen !riting for content# $t is probably the case that rules re&uiring a great deal of "ove"ent and order change are either ac&uired or are never done !ell by "ost people# This applies to rules such as for"ation of !h( &uestions in :nglish, !hich "ight involve the follo!ing separate operations3 *1- placing the 1h( !ord first2 * - perfor"ing sub)ect(au'iliary inversion, unless there is a helping verb2 *,perfor"ing /do(support/2 *0- inflecting /do/ correctly for tense and nu"ber# This is a lot to re"e"ber, especially !hen the learner has other things on his "ind, including re"e"bering other parts of gra""ar *he "ight also be 6onitoring pronunciation as !ell as synta'- and trying to %eep up a conversation !ith a native spea%er# *The reader "ay argue that *s-he has no proble" doing all these things at the sa"e ti"e, and !ith a little practice and good teaching

99

everyone else can as !ell# $f this is !hat is going through your "ind, you are probably a 6onitor super(user# This sort of interest and ability "ay be !hat brought you into language science in the first place, and got you interested in boo%s such as this one# Iou are not typical# Cther readers "ay argue that the !ay to "a%e rules such as &uestion for"ation auto"atic is to learn and drill the co"ponents one at a ti"e until they beco"e auto"atic# This is e'actly the /learning beco"es ac&uisition/ argu"ent revie!ed at the beginning of this section# $ "aintain that in cases !here this see"s to !or%, one of t!o things is happening3 *1ac&uisition is occurring separately and catches up to the student>s learning level2 the learning that preceded the ac&uisition did not play any direct role, "oreover, in helping ac&uisition develop# * - The successful learner !as a super 6onitor user and very atypical#Si"plicity also needs to be defined in ter"s of "eaning# =ules that are for"ally si"ple !ill not be easily learnable if their "eanings are subtle and hard to e'plain# Both the for" and "eaning of the third person singular ending and de O !e P du are straightfor!ard# Cn the other hand, !hile the for" of the definite and indefinite article in :nglish is very si"ple, "any of the uses of a and the are enor"ously co"ple'# 5e certainly cannot e'pect :S7 learners to understand, re"e"ber, and consciously apply descriptions such as that contained in <a!%ins *1998-, a full volu"e devoted to the article in :nglish# 5e can also find e'a"ples in punctuation# =ules such as /capitaliHe the first letter of every sentence/ are for"ally and functionally easy# So"e of the uses of the co""a and se"i(colon, ho!ever, are difficult to describe and probably need to be ac&uired for effective use# 3c4 Some evidence There are no studies $ %no! of that directly probe !hich structures are learnable by different student populations and !hich are not# Several papers, ho!ever, present evidence that is &uite consistent !ith the clai" that only /easy/ rules are learnable by "ost people# Cne sort of evidence is provided by studies and case histories that tell us !hat sorts of /careless/ errors second language students "a%e, errors that involve rules that the students had for"ally studied and that

98

they could self(correct, given ti"e and !hen focussed on for"# $n our ter"s, these are rules that have been learned but have not been ac&uired# They are, in all cases, !hat appear to be late(ac&uired and for"ally si"ple rules, involving "ostly bound "orphology# P, the opti"al 6onitor user !e discussed earlier, "ade "any errors on such easy ite"s as the third person singular ending on regular verbs, the use of /"uch/ and /"any/ !ith count and "ass nouns, and the irregular past, a"ong other errors# T!o opti"al 6onitor users described in Cohen and =obbins *199.- also "ade !hat they the"selves called /careless/ errors on such ite"s# Both Ue(7in and :va, Chinese spea%ing :S7 students at UC74, had proble"s !ith the late(ac&uired third person singular DsD# Ue(7in e'plained this o"ission /as a careless "ista%e since she reported %no!ing the rule/ *Cohen and =obbins, 199., p# 11-# Si"ilarly, /!hen :va !as sho!n sentences containing s deletion, she !as actually able to identify the error and supply the s i""ediately# 5hen as%ed to e'plain !hy she o"itted the s she replied3 >Probably )ust careless#>/ *p# 18-# :va had a si"ilar e'planation for o"itting the regular past DedD3 5hen presented !ith one of her errors on this for", also %no!n to be late(ac&uired *<ypothesis ,, Chapter $$-, she !as able to supply the correct for"# 4fter correcting one sentence# /:va re"ar%ed that she !rote do!n the sentence the !ay she !ould say it3 /Aor one thing, so"eti"es $ !ould !rite so"ething the !ay that $ spea%# 5e say a !ord "ore or less in a careless !ay# But if $ ta%e "y ti"e, so"eti"es go over it, that !ould be "uch easier###>#/ *p# 18-# 6y interpretation is that given ti"e, :va !as able to access her conscious %no!ledge of :nglish, or 6onitor, a procedure that can be effective for such late(ac&uired, si"ple rules# :va had had a fair a"ount of e'posure to :nglish and !as considered to be advanced by Cohen and =obbins# She had lived in 4ustralia for t!o and a half years and had studied :nglish since grade 1 *at the ti"e of Cohen and =obbins> study she !as a )unior in college-# She also considered herself a /good language learner/# :ven :va, ho!ever, had proble"s !ith !hat see" to language teachers to be si"ple rules# $n e'plaining her error */$ have ta!# to Sylvia already/- she attributed the error to being unclear about the rule# She re"ar%ed3 /Ieah, $ learned that# $t>s )ust so"ething $>" not good at# $ thin% the "ain

99

proble" is that $ )ust learn the rule((one or t!o years, the !hole ti"e $ !as going to school### $t !as never drill enough to "e/ *Cohen and =obbins, p# 18-# This confir"s a point "ade earlier, and sho!s that !hile 6onitor use "ay be li"ited to non(ac&uired, si"ple rules, even /good/ learners "ay be able to use and recall only a s"all part of the rules !e present, even those that see" transparent to us#, 4 study by Dus%ova *19.9- also confir"s that the syntactic do"ain of the conscious 6onitor, for "any people, consists of relatively si"ple but late(ac&uired ite"s# Dus%ova investigated !ritten errors in 1+ CHech university level students studying :nglish *:A7-# Dus%ova noted that /### "any of the recurrent errors### reflect no real deficit in %no!ledge, since "ost learners %no! the pertinent rule and can readily apply it, but the "echanical operation does not yet !or% auto"atically/ *p# 1.-# This generaliHation applies in particular, Dus%ova notes, to "orphological errors# :'a"ples include the o"ission of plurals on nouns *relatively early ac&uired a"ong gra""atical "orphe"es, $ "ust ad"it-# Dus%ova notes that for plurals /### the learner is a!are of it !hen it is pointed out to hi" and is able to correct it hi"self/ *p# +-# 4nother e'a"ple is errors in sub)ect(verb agree"ent# 4gain, for this error, /!hen the learner>s attention is dra!n to the fact that he has "ade a "ista%e, he is usually able to correct it/ *p# +-# Cther error types of this sort include confusion of past participle and infinitive, errors on irregular verbs, and ad)ective(noun agree"ent in nu"ber *e#g# this !or%ers-# $n our ter"s, the errors reflect a failure to apply conscious rules, a failure to 6onitor effectively# The students, Dus%ova tells us, /can certainly for"ulate the rule/ for these error types# The "orphe"e studies described in Chapter $$ also contribute to this point# 4s you "ay recall fro" Chapter $$, changes or disturbances in the /natural order/ !ere interpreted as intrusions of the conscious gra""ar# $t is interesting to note )ust ho! the order !as affected# $n 7arsen(Aree"an>s study *7arsen(Aree"an, 1991-, "orphe"e orders !ere presented for both "onitored and un"onitored conditions *a discrete(point pencil and paper gra""ar test, and the Bilingual Synta' 6easure, respectively-# $n the 6onitor(free condition, 7arsen( Aree"an obtained the follo!ing order *Table 0#1- !hich is &uite /natural/#

1++

Table 0#1 Morpheme order obtained in monitor/"ree condition 3'arsen/&reeman9 5:%;4

ing copula article au'iliary short plural regular past third person singular irregular past long plural possessive

Co"pare this to the unnatural order found in the 6onitored condition *Table 0# -# *5e use the !riting tas% as an e'a"ple2 7arsen(Aree"an>s /reading/ tas% gives si"ilar results#Table 0# Morpheme order obtained in monitored condition 3'arsen/&reeman9 5:%;< 1riting4 copula au'iliary third person singular ing regular past irregular past article long plural short plural possessive These orders differ largely due to the increase in relative ran% of t!o "orphe"es, regular past and the third person singular "ar%er, both late(ac&uired, or lo! in relative order of accuracy in the 6onitor(free natural order# This interpretation is consistent !ith the clai" that !hen perfor"ers focus on for" they can increase accuracy in unac&uired but learned parts of gra""ar#0 Still "ore evidence co"es fro" our co"position study *Krashen, Butler, Birnbau", and =obertson, 1998-# 5e as%ed :S7 students at USC to !rite co"positions under t!o conditions((/free/ *instructions !ere to !rite as "uch as possible in five "inutes- and /edited/ *instructions !ere to pay careful attention to gra""ar and spelling and to /ta%e your ti"e/-# Both conditions yielded natural orders for gra""atical "orphe"es, !hich !e interpreted as indicating little intervention

1+1

of the conscious 6onitor# This !as due to the fact, !e hypothesiHed, that our sub)ects focussed pri"arily on co""unication in both conditions, despite our instructions to the contrary in the second condition# Closer analysis of our data does sho! so"e rise in the third person singular in the edited condition, ho!ever *!e did not analyHe regular past due to too fe! obligatory occasions-# This rise !as not enough to disturb the natural order, but enough to suggest so"e 6onitor use# 4gain, !e see the differences in the late(ac&uired, easy ite"# *To in)ect a "ore theoretical point, perhaps the correct interpretation of "orphe"e natural and unnatural orders is that unnatural orders, as in 7arsen(Aree"an *1991- reflect heavy 6onitor use# $ncreases in certain ite"s !ithout changes in ran%, as in our co"position study, "ay reflect light 6onitor use#- Table 0#, sho!s this s"all i"prove"ent in the third person singular "orphe"e in the edited condition#1 .
+a/le &.7 !ccuracy differences in free and edited conditions for grammatical morphemes 44444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444 Morpheme Free ( ;dited ( Free (( ;dited (( 44444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444 ing 6.-% 6.-* 6.-6.-' copula 6.%9 6.9* 6.-6 6.-* plural 6.-' 6.-' 6.%% 6.%article 6.-6 6.-* 6.%6 6.-7 au@iliary 6.-' 6.%9 6.%% 6.%6 irregular past 6.69 6.-1 6.-' 6.%% third person singular 6.*& 6.61 6.7' 6.6* 44444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444 FreeC A"rite as much as you canA in fi$e minutes. ;ditedC Apay careful attention to grammar and spelling and ta!e your timeA. (C same su/Gects (n 5 *-) preformed /oth conditions. ((C different su/Gects for each condition. ;ach morpheme "as represented /y at least 166 o/ligatory occasions.

3d4 Conse(uences o" teaching -hard- ru!es Aeli' *198+- sho!s us !hat happens !hen students are as%ed to learn rules that are too difficult for the", rules that are not only difficult to learn but that are also not yet ac&uired# ;ot only !ere such students as%ed to learn difficult rules, they !ere also as%ed to use the" in un"onitored situations# Aeli' observed an :A7 class for ten and eleven

1+

year old students in Fer"any# 4"ong his "any interesting observations !as this one3 Teachers taught and de"anded correct use of elliptic sentences *as in e'changes of the type3 $s it a dog? Ies, it is-# Despite the fact that this type of &uestion(ans!er dialogue /!as intensively drilled every day/ *p# 8-, Aeli' reports that correct elliptic sentences !ere only rando"ly supplied for a period of al"ost three "onths *i#e# $t is a dog? Ies it isn>t-J This result is &uite predictable3 the rule !as si"ply too hard to learn and !as not yet ac&uired# Aeli' notes that according to the research literature elliptic sentences /do not appear until relatively late/ *p# 9-# :ven !ith input containing sentences of this sort *assu"ing the input !as co"prehensible, interesting, etc#2 see Chapter $$$-, such structures !ere far beyond the i O 5 of these students# Aeli' also reports that teachers valiantly tried to teach do(support and the :nglish negation rules !ith little success# These are also &uite difficult# Students, Aeli' found, !ould produce sentences li%e these in class3
(1) (t's no my co". (') Boesn't she eat apples.

Both of these sentences are interpretable as reliance on !hat has been ac&uired !ithout the contribution of the conscious gra""ar# To fully appreciate the significance of these errors, !e first need to briefly revie! !hat is %no! about the ac&uisition of negation in infor"al language ac&uisition *see also Chapter $$-# The follo!ing stages are found in child 71, child 7 , and adult 7 ac&uisition *!hat follo!s is a si"plification2 see Dulay, Burt, and Krashen, in press, for details-3 $# The negative "ar%er goes outside the sentence, as in3
no "ipe finger "ear mitten no (e@amples from Klima and Bellugi1 1966)

$$# The negative "ar%er is placed bet!een the sub)ect and verb, as in3
.e no /ite you .e not little1 he /ig

1+,

$$$# Post au'iliary negation is ac&uired2 the "ar%er no! appears after the au'iliary verb, as in3
+hat "as not me ( didn't caught it

Aeli'>s e'a"ple *1- appears to be a stage $$ type transitional for"# This /error/ is a typical inter"ediate stage all ac&uirers *or nearly all- go through before fully ac&uiring the correct for"# The appearance of such an error type is thus consistent !ith the hypothesis that these children, even though they are in a classroo", are undergoing nor"al language ac&uisition to at least so"e e'tent, and are relying on ac&uired language in classroo" speech *note that Fer"an negation is al!ays post verbal and post au'iliary-# Sentence * -, according to Aeli', is not a yesDno &uestionJ Aeli' "aintains that it is, instead, a negative declaration */She doesn>t eat apples/-# Thus, as is the case !ith sentence *1-, Aeli' interprets this error as a transitional for", this one being an e'a"ple of stage $ !ith doesn=t acting as a "ono"orphe"ic negation "ar%er# *$t is &uite co""on for don=t to perfor" the sa"e function in stage $$ in natural first and second language ac&uisition, e#g# sentences such as /$ don>t can e'plain/ !here /don>t/ acts as the negative "ar%er2 see, for e'a"ple, Cancino, =osans%y and Schu"ann, 1990-# The child>s selection of doesn=t *instead of no- is due to the particular %ind of input presented in the classroo", the gra""atical e'ercises in !hich doesn=t appears in very high fre&uencies# Such interpretations not only point to the reality and strength of subconscious ac&uisition, but they also confir" that conscious learning is &uite li"ited, and that, e'cept for certain conditions, ac&uisition is responsible for "ost second language perfor"ance# &. The .ffects of Learning: Accuracy of Self0correction Previous sections of this chapter have discussed !hen perfor"ers 6onitor and !hich rules are usable for 6onitoring# 5e turn no! to the &uestion of ho! effective 6onitoring is3 <o! "uch can the second language perfor"er i"prove accuracy by consulting the conscious gra""ar?

1+0

5e can get so"e appro'i"ation of the efficiency of the conscious gra""ar by loo%ing at ho! good perfor"ers are at self(correction of their o!n linguistic output# ;oel <ouc% has pointed out to "e that se!"(correction *as opposed to /other(correction/, or correcting so"eone else>s output, an activity that includes detecting errors on test-, is the "ost valid ob)ect of study in investigating 6onitor strength, since this is !hat one>s 6onitor actually does in real perfor"ance# Several studies have e'a"ined ho! effective self(correction is, but before surveying the data and dra!ing conclusions, !e need to briefly loo% at so"e of the factors that cause accuracy of self(correction to vary# 1# A4CTC=S 4AA:CT$;F S:7A(CC==:CT$C; 4CCU=4CI Airst, as !e can infer fro" the discussion in Chapter $$, there is individual variation !ith respect to self(correction efficiency# To the e'tent that self(correction involves the conscious 6onitor, if there is individual variation in degree of and ability for 6onitor use, this !ill be reflected in self(correction efficiency# 5e "ight e'pect "uch better perfor"ance fro" a professional linguist !ho is an opti"al 6onitor user *e#g# /P/, fro" Krashen and Pon, 1991-, than fro" other perfor"ers, all other conditions *see belo!- held constant# Second, !e "ight e'pect variation depending on !hich aspects of output the perfor"er atte"pts to correct# 4s !e discussed above, the 6onitor appears to !or% best for si"ple "orphology, "ay be less efficient for co"ple' synta', and "ay have even "ore trouble !ith other parts of the gra""ar *there is, unfortunately, not even enough data to speculate about the learnability of "uch of the gra""ar2 see Chapter $$$ for a very brief discussion of the learnability of aspects of conversational co"petence-# Self(correction efficiency !ill also vary according to the conditions under !hich it is done# <ouc%, =obertson and Krashen *1998b- distinguished the follo!ing conditions# Airst, there is /free speech/, or natural conversation# *$n one sense, /free !riting/ belongs in this category, in another sense it does not, as so"e !ould argue that the !ritten "odality auto"atically entails a greater focus on for"#- $n /free speech/, self(correction is up to the perfor"er, and there is no special focus on

1+1

for"# =ather, the focus, in "ost cases, is on co""unication# 5e !ould e'pect natural difficulty orders !hen loo%ing at errors in gra""atical structures in this condition# 4 second condition, "oving in the direction of "ore focus on for", can be ter"ed /careful/ spea%ing or !riting# This is roughly e&uivalent to the edited condition in Krashen et a!. *1998-, described earlier, and occurs !hen spea%ers or !riters are atte"pting to spea% or !rite /correctly/# *5e "ust subdivide this condition into t!o sub(conditions, one for careful spea%ing and one for careful !riting, predicting "ore self(correction for !riting#Conditions *1- and * - cover "ost situations in real !orld infor"al co""unication# 5e can, ho!ever, specify other conditions typically used in language instruction that focus the perfor"er still "ore on for"# $n condition *,-, the student is infor"ed that an error e'ists, but does not %no! !here the error is or !hat rule has been bro%en# This is roughly e&uivalent to co"position correction in !hich students are si"ply told that there are so"e errors in their paper and that they should be corrected# 4 condition still "ore in the direction of focussing on for" indicates to students !here the error is, in addition to infor"ing the" that an error e'ists# This condition, condition *0-, corresponds to co"position correction in !hich the teacher underlines the errors# Still "ore focussed, according to <ouc% et a!., is condition *1- in !hich e'istence, location, and description of the violated rule are provided, as in feedbac% of this sort3

The "ore !e "ove to!ard condition *1-, the "ore effect of the conscious 6onitor is predicted, and the greater the li%elihood of /unnatural/ order for errors# 4ccording to research su""ariHed in Chapter $$ and discussed again in this chapter, !e see natural orders for conditions *1- *free speech, BS6, free co"position- and * - *edited !riting-, but "ight see so"e effect of the 6onitor in condition * -*i#e# rise in accuracy in third person singular in Krashen et a!., 1998-# 7arsen(Aree"an>s unnatural order !as produced under conditions si"ilar to condition *0- *but see ;ote 0, this chapter-# Table 0#0 su""ariHes the five conditions#

1+.

+a/le &.& Self"correction conditions in second language performance 44444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444 (nstructionsC (7) (&) (*) )orrect )orrect )orrect this error the error this error use this rule 44444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444 (ncludes errorC ;@istence No No Ees Ees Ees Location No No No Ees Ees #ule /ro!en No No No No Ees 44444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444 (1) Free speech or "riting. (') )areful speech or "riting FromC .ouc!1 #o/ertson and Krashen (19%-/). (1) None (') #e"rite

1+9

There are so"e studies available that give us an idea of the efficiency of self(correction for so"e of the conditions described here, that tell us !hat percentage of perfor"ers> errors are actually self(corrected# They thus tell us so"ething about 6onitor efficiency, since they report to !hat e'tent a perfor"er>s self(corrections i"prove output accuracy# $n one sense, ho!ever, they "ay not truly sho! the effectiveness of the 6onitor# They underestimate 6onitor use, since they do not indicate covert self(correction, the correction that !ent on before the utterance !as spo%e or !ritten *=ecall, in figure one, Chapter $$, that there are t!o possible arro!s leading fro" the 6onitor to the output of the ac&uired syste", one affecting output before and one affecting output after production#- Cn the other hand, studies that report the percentage of successful self(correction also overestimate the a"ount of actual conscious 6onitor use, since self(correction can also be done using the ac&uired syste" alone, !ith one>s /feel/ for correctness# This is !hat perfor"ers do in their first language !hen correcting slips of the tongue# Still another proble" of interpretation of such studies is that !e do not really %no! !hether sub)ects had indeed had the chance to learn all the rules necessary for successful self(correction# 4re !e studying the efficiency of learning andDor the ability of perfor"ers to apply !hat they consciously %no!? Self(correction studies do not provide us, therefore, !ith an e'act picture, but the results are &uite useful to the teacher interested in the overall efficiency of self(correction, and they probably give us an appro'i"ation of the efficiency of conscious learning and 6onitoring# T<: D4T4 Table 0#1 and Aig 0#1 su""ariHe the literature available to "e on self(correction# 5ith t!o e'ceptions, all deal !ith university level :S7 students !ho, !e e'pect, have been e'posed to a fair a"ount of for"al instruction in :nglish gra""ar# The sub)ect in one study is our old friend /P/, a linguist# Aath"an>s sub)ects *Aath"an, 198+- are described as + adults /learning :nglish as a second language in the United States, pri"arily in an infor"al setting/ and + adults /learning :nglish in a for"al setting, pri"arily in 6e'ico/ *p# ,, "anuscript-#

1+8

Table 0#1 Accuracy o" se!"/correction in adu!t per"ormance in ,ng!ish as a second !anguage
44444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444 ,tudy )ondition1 ;rror type analy8ed #esults (H of errors self=corrected) 44444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444 1. ,chlue (19%%) ,tream ?ll synta@1 %.'H (99I1161) of speech morphology (1) '. Fathman (19-6) ,L9:; test1 Morphology' a. A(nformalA adults oral (see te@t) 5 '6H inter$ie"1 (17I6*) :icture /. AFormal adultsA description 5 7'H (&6I1&&) (1) 7. ,chlue (19%%) Listen to ?ll synta@1 71H tape of o"n morphology speech (') &. .ouc! et al. (nspect Nine morphemes 1%.*H (76.*I'76) (19%-a) transcription of o"n speech7 (') *. 2hite (19%%) (nspect a. Morphology a. *'H (*7I16') transcript of /. ,ynta@ /. '%H (6I'') responses to c. A9missionsA c. *7H ('7I&7) B,M& (&) d. Le@ical d. 9H (1I11) 4444444444444 &%H (-7I1%-) 6. Krashen and :on (19%*) (nspect Morphology1 9*H (%6I-6) transcriptions* synta@ (&) 44444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444 1 Num/er in parenthesis refers to conditions in +a/le &.&.

' A?lmost all the uncorrected errors "ere related to $er/s1 such asC omission of the copula and omission of incorrect use of inflectionsA. 7 ,u/Gects transcri/ed tapes themsel$es.

& ; transcri/ed tapes (A...(,'s) "ere presented "ith some of their errorsA). * ; 5 ,u/Gect transcri/ed tape.

1+9

Aig# 0#1# Self(correction accuracy# 13 Schlue *1999-# a, b3 Aath"an *198+-# ,3 Schlue *1999-# 03 <ouc% et a!. *1998a-# 13 5hite *1999-# .3 Krashen and Pon *1991-# *see Table 0#1-

4s for the do"ain of language analyHed, one study *<ouc% et a!., 1998a- focusses only on nine gra""atical "orphe"es, !hile the others cover "orphology and synta' in general# $t is hard to say !hether any of the studies actually "eet the description of condition *1-, since in all cases the sub)ects %ne! they !ere being tested and that the focus of the investigation !as the &uality and accuracy of their speech# Thus, Aath"an *198+-, and Schlue *1999- "ay be overesti"ates of self(co""unication accuracy in /free speech/ and "ight really belong in condition * -# Aigure 0#1 atte"pts to illustrate ho! conditions, and differences in sub)ects, affect self( correction accuracy, and gives us a picture of !hat !e can e'pect, at least in the do"ain of synta' and "orphology# $t suggests, first of all, that training and type of student do "a%e a difference3 11+

Aath"an>s /for"al/ students correct a higher percentage of their o!n errors than her infor"al students do, and our sub)ect, /P/, outperfor"s everyone# $t is also consistent !ith the hypothesis that accuracy increases as !e focus "ore on for"# Aurther studies could easily be perfor"ed to fill in the holes in the figure2 they !ould also hopefully control for proficiency level, since there "ay be a relationship bet!een the sheer nu"ber of errors co""itted and self(correction accuracy# $t !ould also be desirable to control for first language and so"e aspects of personality, due to the observed relationship bet!een personality and avoidance behavior *Klein"an, 1999-# Possibly the "ost i"portant result to e"erge fro" these studies is the point that self( correction is never perfect, never reaches !hat so"e teachers !ould consider acceptable perfor"ance e'cept in the case of one very good learner !ho !as presented !ith her o!n errorsJ The fact is that "any teachers assu"e self(correction should be 1++N, that students should be able to apply all they have learned at all ti"es#9 $f second language perfor"ers do not focus heavily on for" in self(correction, !hat do they do? Several studies, all classified as falling under condition * -, sho! that revisions are typically ai"ed at greater co""unicative effectiveness and not "erely on for"# <assan *cited in <atch, 1999- noted !hat changes :S7 students "ade on second and third drafts of co"positions# <assan reported that the students /concentrated "ainly on vocabulary choice, added "inor details, and "ade fe!er changes !hich resulted in overall gra""ar i"prove"ent/ *<atch, 1999, p# 1,.-# Schlue *1999- ca"e to si"ilar conclusions, noting that /her sub)ects see"ed to "onitor their speech &uite carefully, but not for gra""atical correctness# Their speech a!areness !as for the "ost part focused on their success or failure in conveying their "essage# Thus, they !ere very concerned !ith such things as the appropriateness of their !e8ica! choices### even in the self(analysis activity, it !as often hard to "a%e the sub)ects focus on for" rather than on le'icon and pronunciation###/ *p# ,0,-# <ouc%, =obertson and Krashen *1998a- also noted that "any of the corrections "ade by sub)ects !ere /obviously atte"pts at i"proved intelligibility, rather than gra""atical for"/ *p# ,,9-# To su""ariHe thus far3 Cur description of !hen !e can 6onitor, !hat can he 6onitored, and the linguistic effect of 6onitoring all

111

reach si"ilar conclusions# The use of conscious gra""ar is li"ited# ;ot everyone 6onitors# Those !ho do only 6onitor so"e of the ti"e, and use the 6onitor for only a sub(part of the gra""ar# 4s !e have )ust seen, the effects of self(correction on accuracy is "odest# Second language perfor"ers can typically self(correct only a s"all percentage of their errors, even !hen deliberately focussed on for" *conditions to 0-, and even !hen !e only consider the easiest aspects of the gra""ar# ). -ther .ffects of &onscious Rules Use of the conscious gra""ar, !e have "aintained, is li"ited to easily learned, late( ac&uired rules, si"ple "orphological additions that do not "a%e an over!hel"ing contribution to co""unicating the spea%er or !riter>s "essage# Aor "ost people, only /local/ rules can be learned and used *Burt and Kipars%y, 199 -# Certainly, spea%ers of :nglish understand sentences !ith "issing third person singular "ar%ers and dropped regular past endings fairly !ell, than%s to the presence of other "ar%ers of tense and prag"atic %no!ledge# There is, nevertheless, so"e real value in applying these rules !hen ti"e per"its, !hen rule use does not interfere !ith co""unication# Providing these local ite"s, even though they "ay "a%e a s"all contribution to co""unication, "a%es !riting and speech "ore polished, it adds a cos"etic effect that "ay be very i"portant for "any second language students# $ndeed, in the advanced second language class, providing such polish "ay beco"e the "ain goal, one that is &uite )ustified for "any students# /4dvanced/ second language ac&uirers, especially those !ho have been in the country !here the target language is spo%en for a fe! years, "ay have ac&uired a great deal, but not all, of the second language, enough to "eet co""unicative need, but still short of the native spea%er standard# Their chief need "ay be conscious rules to use as a supple"ent to their ac&uired co"petence, to enable the" to appear as educated in their second language as they are in their first# $ do not ob)ect to this sort of gra""ar teaching# 5hat is unfair is to e"phasiHe accuracy on co""unicatively unessential, late ac&uired ite"s in beginning language classes, !ith students !ho are unable to understand the si"plest "essage in the second language#

11

.. Presentation of Rules 4 fair a"ount has been !ritten about ho! gra""ar rules should be presented# Cne issue is !hether rules should be given /directly/ *deductive-, or !hether students should be as%ed to figure out the rules for the"selves *inductive-# 4nother issue is se&uence((!hich rules should be presented first, andDor e"phasiHed "ore# $ !ill restrict "y co""ents on these issues to the i"plications second language ac&uisition theory "a%e for these &uestions# 1# T<: D:DUCT$M:($;DUCT$M: $SSU: This issue !as one of so"e concern in the second language ac&uisition pedagogical literature for "any years# Aor "any scholars and teachers, deductive teaching see"ed "uch "ore reasonable((!hy "a%e students guess the rule? Present a clear e'planation and have the" practice until the rule is /internaliHed/# Cognitive(code teaching, as !ell as gra""ar( translation, are e'a"ples of the /rule(first/ deductive approach# Proponents of inductive teaching argued that the best !ay to insure learning !as for the student to !or% out the rule hi"self# $nductive teaching is very "uch li%e rule(!riting in linguistics# The learner is given a corpus and has to discover the regularities# Before proceeding to so"e of the research bearing on this issue, it is i"portant to clarify one "a)or point3 both inductive and deductive learning are !earning. ;either have anything directly to do !ith subconscious language ac&uisition# $nductive learning bears a superficial rese"blance to ac&uisition, and has occasionally been confused !ith ac&uisition in the literature# 4s Table 0#. indicates, both inductive Table 0#. Ac(uisition and inductive !earning$ simi!arities and di""erences
44444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444 ?c uisition (nducti$e Learning 44444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444 Bata first1 rule follo"s Bata first1 rule follo"s #ule is su/conscious #ule is conscious Focus on meaning Focus on form ,lo" progress May occur uic!ly #e uires large amounts of data May occur after e@posure to small amount of data 44444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444

11,

learning and ac&uisition share the features of data, or input, first, !ith the /rule/ co"ing second# There are deep and funda"ental differences, ho!ever# 5hen the goal is inductive learning, the focus is on for", and the learner atte"pts to analyHe for"al aspects of the data presented# 5hen the goal is ac&uisition, the ac&uirer atte"pts to understand the "essage contained in the input# 4lso, the /rule/ developed by the t!o processes is different# 4n inductively(learned rule is a conscious "ental representation of a linguistic generaliHation((an ac&uired rule is not conscious *!e can, ho!ever, certainly learn later !hat !e have ac&uired2 see belo!-, but is "anifested by a /feel/ for correctness# 4lso, inductive learning, since it is conscious proble"(solving, "ay occur very &uic%ly((an adept student "ay /see/ the regularity after only a fe! e'a"ples# 4c&uisition, ho!ever, al!ays ta%es ti"e and re&uires a substantial &uantity of input data# 4s discussed in Chapter $$, it ta%es "ore than a single paragraph and a fe! e'ercises to ac&uire a rule# Thus, fro" the point of vie! of second language ac&uisition theory, the deductive( inductive controversy is not a central one for second language pedagogy, since it focusses only on !hich learning style is best# The issue has so"e significance, ho!ever, and there have been several suggestions and e'peri"ental results relating to this controversy that are of interest# $t has been suggested *<a""erly, 1991- that certain structures /are "ost a"enable to a deductive approach !hile others### can be learned very !ell by an inductive approach/ *p# 19-# Seliger *1991- presents data suggesting that retention over ti"e is better !ith a deductive approach# <artnett>s data support the hypothesis that students !ho are successful in deductive foreign language classes e"ploy different neurological "echanis"s than learners successful in "ore inductive classes, deductive learners being "ore left(brained, analytic thin%ers, and inductive learners being "ore right(brained, analogic thin%ers *<artnett, 19902 Krashen, Seliger and <artnett, 1990-# $f there are individual differences in preference of rule presentation, if so"e people prefer rules first and others prefer to figure things out for the"selves, insistence on the /!rong/ approach for the gra""ar portion of the language teaching progra" "ay raise an'ieties and strengthen the affective filter#8

110

The theory of second language ac&uisition presented in Chapter $$ "a%es only indirect contributions to this &uestion# The "ost i"portant contribution is its insistence that both deductive and inductive approaches are learning(oriented# The /practice/ used for rule practice *deductive- or rule(searching *inductive- !ill not be opti"al input for ac&uisition, since the students> focus !ill be pri"arily on for" rather than on the "essage# # S:EU:;C$;F 4;D 7:4=;$;F $ argued, in Chapter $$$, that gra""atical se&uencing !as undesirable !hen the goal is ac&uisition# $t see"s reasonable that !e should present rules one at a ti"e in so"e order !hen the goal is conscious learning, ho!ever */rule isolation/2 Krashen and Seliger2 1991-# Several rationale for se&uencing have been suggested# 5e *Krashen, 6adden and Bailey, 1991- once suggested the natural order itself, !hich $ no longer thin% is the correct basis for se&uencing for ac&uisition or learning# Cther proposals include fre&uency of occurrence, gra""atical si"plicity, and /utility/ *see, for e'a"ple, 7arsen 1991-# *6y i"pression is that despite the e'istence of these options, and the fairly !idespread discussion of the" in the professional literature, the vast "a)ority of te'ts utiliHe so"e version of linguistic si"plicity, going fro" for"ally less co"ple' to "ore co"ple' structure#Second language ac&uisition theory, as presented here, does not yet "a%e predictions as to the e'act learning se&uence# $t does predict, ho!ever, so"ething about the set of rules that can be learned# Airst, if the goal of gra""ar teaching is in fact to provide students !ith a 6onitor, as !e discussed earlier in this chapter, si"plicity !ill play a large role# 5e can only teach !hat is !earnab!e, and, restricting the set even "ore, !hat is portab!e, !hat can be carried around in the students> heads# *These t!o re&uire"ents need to be distinguished(( learning a rule does not al!ays "ean being able to use it in perfor"ance, even !hen conditions are favorable for 6onitor use#- 4s !e have seen above, in discussing cases of under(users and inco"petent 6onitor users, !e have, as a profession, overesti"ated !hat "ost people can learn, and !hat they can retain and use in perfor"ance# :ven opti"al users, /good language learners/ have li"its that are far belo! "any teachers> e'pectations#

111

Second, unless our goal is language appreciation *see belo!-, !e don>t have to teach rules that our students have already ac&uired# <o!, then, do !e %no! !hich ite"s to teach? 5e could, conceivably, perfor" a detailed error analysis on each student, co"pare the results of tests that tap learning and ac&uisition, and deter"ine those ite"s that have been ac&uired, but have not been learned, and focus on )ust this set# This is possible, but probably unnecessary# The /natural order/ studies can provide us !ith at least so"e of the infor"ation !e need# 5hile so"e individual variation e'ists a"ong second language ac&uirers, !e have a good idea of !hat is ac&uired /early/ and !hat is ac&uired /late/ for so"e structures# 5e can be fairly certain that beginners in :S7 !ill not have ac&uired the third person singular DsD or the possessive DsD, for e'a"ple# $ thin% that a very !orthy goal of applied linguistics is to atte"pt to describe this set of !hat are typically late(ac&uired, but learnable rules, beyond the fe! "orphe"es and structures !e %no! about no!# =ules to be learned should thus "eet these three re&uire"ents3
1. Learna/le '. :orta/le 7. Not yet ac uired

The se&uencing issue then beco"es, or reduces to, deter"ining !hich of the rules "eeting all three of these re&uire"ents should be presented first# This thus still re"ains an issue, but one !e have contributed to by li"iting the set of ite"s that "ust be se&uenced# ,. +otes on .rror &orrection 4nother controversy related to conscious learning is the issue of error correction# <enric%son *1998- lists the /five funda"ental &uestions/ and revie!s the literature that addresses the"3
1. '. 7. &. *. ,hould errors /e corrected0 (f so1 "hen should errors /e corrected0 2hich learner errors should /e corrected0 .o" should learner errors /e corrected0 2ho should correct learner errors0

11.

Second language ac&uisition theory has /ans!ers/ to four of these &uestions, ans!ers that are, as are all other i"plications in this boo%, the"selves hypotheses# $n this case, $ a" predicting that if error correction is done according to the principles described belo!, it !ill be effective# 5. Shou!d errors be corrected> 4ccording to the second language ac&uisition theory presented here, !hen error correction /!or%s/, it does so by helping the learner change his or her conscious "ental representation of a rule# $n other !ords, it affects learned co"petence by infor"ing the learner that his or her current version of a conscious rule is !rong# Thus, second language ac&uisition theory i"plies that !hen the goal is learning, errors should indeed be corrected *but not at all ti"es2 see belo!2 and not all rules, even if the goal is learning-# The theory "aintains ho!ever, that error correction is not of use for ac&uisition# 4c&uisition occurs, according to the input hypothesis, !hen ac&uirers understand input for its "eaning, not !hen they produce output and focus on for"# 6. When shou!d errors be corrected> <endric%son, follo!ing Birc%bichler *1999-, suggests that in general error correction be li"ited to /"anipulative gra""ar practice/(("ore errors "ay be tolerated during /co""unicative practice/# The i"plications of second language ac&uisition theory are si"ilar# $f error correction ai"s at learning, it is logical to suppose that the conditions for error correction should be identical to the conditions for utiliHing learning((!e should focus our students on for", and correct their errors, only !hen they have ti"e and !hen such diversion of attention does not interfere !ith co""unication# This i"plies no error correction in free conversation, but allo!s for error correction on !ritten !or% and gra""ar e'ercises# This is precisely Terrell>s procedure in the ;atural 4pproach *described in Chapter M-# 7. Which errors shou!d be corrected> <endric%son revie!s three hypotheses and accepts the" all as plausible#

119

*15e should correct /global/ errors, errors that interfere !ith co""unication or i"pede the intelligibility of a "essage *Burt and Kipars%y, 199 -# Such errors deserve top priority in correction# * :rrors that are the "ost stig"atiHed, that cause the "ost unfavorable reactions, are the "ost i"portant to correct# *,:rrors that occur "ost fre&uently should be given top priority#

$n the previous section, the linguistic do"ain of the 6onitor !as described# $ reco""ended that !e restrict the conscious learning of rules for 6onitor use according to these characteristics3 the rules to be learned should be *1- learnable, * - portable, and *,- not yet ac&uired# These characteristics "ight also describe !hich errors should be corrected, if it is indeed the case that error correction affects only the conscious gra""ar# Perhaps !e should only correct "ista%es that reflect rules that can be used as part of the conscious 6onitor# This "ay appear to be a "odest contribution to the issue of !hich errors are to be corrected# 6any teachers, ho!ever, try to point out or correct a!! errors# This suggestion reduces the siHe of the tas% considerably# 5ithin the s"all set defined by the three characteristics of learnable, portable, and not yet ac&uired, !e still have to "a%e decisions, and here considerations such as fre&uency, contributions to co""unication, and irritability "ay be relevant# The overall tas%, ho!ever, is reduced enor"ously# ?. Ho1 shou!d errors be corrected> <endric%son revie!s several "ethods of error correction, including the t!o "ost !idely used3 *1* providing the correct for" */direct/ correction-# the discovery *inductive- approach#

<e notes that little research is available that establishes the superiority of one "ethod# So"e research sho!s that direct correction is not particularly effective2 students !ho have had direct correction of their oral and !ritten output in instructional progra"s did not produce fe!er errors *<endric%son, 199., 1999b, cited in <endric%son, 19982 Cohen and =obbins, 199.-# This "ay, notes <endric%son, be due to

118

the lac% of consistent and syste"atic correction *4ll!right, 19912 Cohen and =obbins, 199.-# Second language ac&uisition theory predicts that error correction !ill sho! positive results only if the follo!ing conditions are "et3 *1:rrors corrected are li"ited to learnable and portable rules#

* :rrors are corrected under conditions that allo! 6onitor use# This !ill give the learner ti"e to reconsider the rule that !as violated# *,6easures evaluating the efficacy of error correction are ad"inistered under conditions that allo! 6onitor use, to allo! the learner ti"e to refer to his or her conscious %no!ledge# *0Sub)ects are /6onitor(users/ *i#e# they are not under(users of the 6onitor-# :rror correction that is not done under these conditions, $ predict, !ill not /!or%/2 $ a" also not opti"istic about the efficacy of error correction even !hen all the above conditions are "et# 4s is the case !ith conditions for 6onitor use, they are necessary but not sufficient(( even under the /best/ conditions, correcting the si"plest rules, !ith the "ost learning( oriented students, teacher corrections !ill not produce results that !ill live up to the e'pectations of "any instructors# ". Gra ar as Su#1ect %atter

4s "entioned earlier *p# 88-, /gra""ar/ has another place in the pedagogical progra", a place that is not al!ays clearly distinguished fro" its use as a conscious 6onitor# This is gra""ar as sub)ect "atter# 6any students *probably fe!er than "ost of us thin%- are interested in the study of the structure of language per se. They "ay also be interested in language change, dialects, etc# :specially satisfying, for so"e students, is learning !hat has already been ac&uired, the :ure%a pheno"enon described earlier in this section *p# 88-# 6y students !ho recogniHed that they had already ac&uired the three uses of the present progressive tense in :nglish !ere very satisfied and pleased to have conscious %no!ledge corresponding to their subconscious %no!ledge# They also thought that $ !as an outstanding language teacher for providing the" !ith this %ind of insightJ

119

Providing learning that corresponds !ith previous ac&uisition has its advantages, but $ do not thin% it is language teaching((it is not input for ac&uisition *although the language of classroo" discussion "ay be2 see belo!-, and it also does not provide useful learning that can be utiliHed as a supple"ent to ac&uisition, as a 6onitor# $t "ay serve one purpose, ho!ever3 it can de"onstrate to the language student that ac&uisition is real, and that it can be trusted# Pointing out !hat has been ac&uired "ay thus sti"ulate "ore faith in the ac&uisition process, and lo!er the affective filter# $t "ay thus be a partial cure for over(use of the 6onitor# The study of the structure of language, ho! it varies over ti"e *historical linguisticsand in society, has "any general educational advantages and values that high school and university level language progra"s "ay !ant to include in a progra"# $t should be clear, ho!ever, that teaching co"ple' facts about the second language is not language teaching, but rather is /language appreciation/ or linguistics# Teaching gra""ar as sub)ect("atter can result in language ac&uisition in one instance, ho!ever3 !hen the target language is used as a "ediu" of instruction# 4c&uisition occurs in these classes !hen students are interested in the sub)ect "atter, /gra""ar/# Mery often, !hen this occurs, both teachers and students are convinced that the study of for"al gra""ar is essential for second language ac&uisition, and the teacher is s%illed at presenting e'planations in the target language so that the students understand# $n other !ords, the teacher tal%, in such cases, "eets the re&uire"ents for input for ac&uisition, as presented in Chapter $$$3 the input is co"prehensible and considered to be relevant# The filter is lo! in regard to the language of e'planation, as the students> conscious efforts are usually on the sub)ect "atter, 1hat is being tal%ed about, and not the "ediu"# This is a subtle point# $n effect, both teachers and students are deceiving the"selves# They believe that it is the sub)ect "atter itself, the study of gra""ar, that is responsible for the students> progress in second language ac&uisition, but in reality their progress is co"ing fro" the "ediu" and not the "essage# 4ny sub)ect "atter that held their interest !ould do )ust as !ell, so far as second language ac&uisition is concerned, as long as it re&uired e'tensive use of the target language# This "ay underlie and e'plain the success of "any gra""ar(based

1 +

approaches# They are taught in the target language, and this provides co"prehensible input for ac&uisition, input that is relevant and interesting as long as the student believes that conscious gra""ar is good for hi"# *Aor further discussion of such a class, see Krashen, 198+#+otes
1 This is not, $ should point out, Seliger>s interpretation# See ;ote #

Seliger interprets his results as being counter to the theory of second language ac&uisition presented in Chapter $$# <is interpretation of the test, and the theory, are both different fro" "ine# <e considers the test situation to be /for"al/, and /not a sa"ple of language !ithin a natural conte't/ *p# ,. -# There is, $ thin%, so"e truth to this analysis, as "entioned in the te't# Sub)ects> perfor"ance, ho!ever, is consistent !ith the hypothesis that the test tapped pri"arily ac&uisition((this is supported by the data and is consistent !ith the hypothesis that 6onitor use occurs only !hen several necessary conditions are "et, as stated in Chapter $$ and repeated in this chapter# 6ore strange is his interpretation of the ac&uisition( learning distinction and the 6onitor hypothesis3 his results are counter to /6onitor Theory/, he clai"s, since 6onitor Theory "aintains that /learners do !hat they say they do/, and his data sho!s this is not so# <is data does indeed confir" that perfor"ers do not al!ays do !hat they say they do, but /6onitor Theory/ does not, and never has, "ade the clai" that people do !hat they say they do# Seliger outlines his o!n position in the sa"e paper# Pedagogical rules, he asserts, /"ost li%ely serve as "echanis"s to facilitate the learner>s focussing on those criterial attributes of the real language concept that "ust be induced/ *p# ,.8-# They serve as /ac&uisition facilitators/ and /"a%e the inductive hypothesis testing process "ore efficient/ *p# ,.8-# Seliger provides, unfortunately, very little "ore than this by !ay of description of his hypothesis, !hich he presents as an alternative to 6onitor Theory# <e also presents nothing in the !ay of e"pirical support for his position# There is, "oreover, a serious proble" !ith this hypothesis3 $f rule learning is so often !rong *a point !e agree on-, ho! can it be useful as an ac&uisition focussing device? 4lso, as !e have seen earlier in this section, ac&uisition need not be preceded by conscious learning# =ather, the available evidence supports the hypothesis that ac&uisition occurs only !hen the ac&uirer>s attention is on the "essage, not on the for" of the input# 4ccording to the $nput <ypothesis, conscious rules do not facilitate ac&uisition# 4c&uisition occurs via a co"pletely different route# 4n alternative hypothesis "ust deal !ith the evidence supporting the $nput <ypothesis, and the argu"ents that ac&uisition does not re&uire previous learning# , Before !e conclude that :va and Ue(lin si"ply need "ore drill and learning, consider the possibility that they are a"ong the better learners# Cohen and =obbins> sub)ect <ung, an /under(user/ of the 6onitor, also "ade errors on the third person singular DsD and D(edD, consistent !ith the hypothesis that such ite"s are typically late(ac&uired# $n contract to Ue(lin and :va, <ung could not self(correct by rule, ho!ever# 5hen confronted !ith a third person singular DsD deletion he had "ade, he re"ar%ed3 /$ guess $ )ust never learned the rule that !ell, so $ )ust !rite do!n !hatever $ feel li%e it#/ *p# 1 -# 4lso, /5hen confronted !ith a sentence he had !ritten !here an ed deletion error occurred *><e got discourage>-, <ung supplied ed, but he co""ented3 >$ don>t see

1 1

!hy>#/ *p# 1,-# <ung also noted that it !as very hard for hi" to detect errors in his o!n output# <ung is &uoted "any ti"es as saying he does not pay attention to for"3 /$ don>t care the gra""ar *p# 1+-### $ )ust never learned the rules that !ell#### $ )ust !rite do!n !hat $ feel li%e it *p# 19-### $ get %ind of bored !hen $ study :nglish/ *p# 11-# 4gain, "any people, despite e'posure in class, have practically no idea of rules that see" straightfor!ard to us# 0 $n a recent study, 8# Bro!n *198+- ad"inistered a gra""ar(type test !hose for"at !as &uite si"ilar to that of 7arsen(Aree"an# Sub)ects only had to supply one "orphe"e, as in3 ( 4444444444 (tal!) to <ohn yesterday. The test !as ad"inistered !ith no ti"e li"it to .. :S7 students !ith a variety of first languages at 6ary"ount Palos Merdes College# <ere is the difficulty order Bro!n reported3 ?u@iliary )opula #egular past :lural +he (def art) (rregular past a (indef art) U (art) :ossessi$e ing +hird person sing 96H correct 9&.'H 9'H 91.-H --.'H --H -6.6H -*.-H -6.'H -6.'H %%H

This order, Bro!n reports, correlates significantly !ith other second language "orphe"e orders *rho P +#9,-, co"pared to 4ndersen, 1998-# $t is analyHed so"e!hat differently fro" other studies in that the allo"orphs of article are presented separately2 they are very close in ran% order, ho!ever# Bro!n>s order is difficult to interpret due to the closely bunched scores# The order appears to be si"ilar to other 7 orders in the literature !ith t!o e'ceptions3 ing is unusually lo!, and regu!ar past is unusually high *see Chapter $$, <ypothesis -# The high ran% of regular past is consistent !ith "y hypothesis that such for"ats encourage 6onitor use, !hich results in a )u"p in accuracy of the ran% of late(ac&uired but easy to learn "orphe"es# $ have no handy e'planation for ing>s relatively poor sho!ing, nor can $ account for the third person singular>s lo! ran% in this 6onitored test# Bro!n>s high correlation !ith other studies is counter to so"e of "y clai"s, but the rise in regular past is not# 1 $t is very interesting to note that accuracy for the third person singular in other 6onitor( free studies is very si"ilar to the accuracy found in the co"position study for the /free/ condition# $n Bailey, 6adden, and Krashen *1990-, using the BS6, third person singular accuracy !as +#01, !hile in Krashen <ouc%, Fiunchi, Bode, Birnbau", and Strei *1999-, using free speech, accuracy for this "orphe"e !as +#,.# Co"pare to Table 0#,, !here accuracy in the t!o free conditions is +#10 and +#, , going up to +#.1 and +#.1 in the edited condition, respectively# This si"ilarity is consistent !ith the hypothesis that the edited condition involved light 6onitor use, and that late(ac&uired, easy ite"s are "ost apt to be affected# . $n focussing on the regular past and third person singular, $ by no "eans !ish to i"ply that these are the only points of gra""ar that can be consciously 6onitored# They are,

rather, typical of !hat can be 6onitored, and are convenient to follo! through several studies since they are "entioned and analyHed so often# 9 Several other studies also pertain to 6onitoring ability but do not focus on self( correction# 4s described earlier, Krashen, Butler, Birnbau" and =obertson *1998- as%ed :S7 students at USC to !rite /free/ and /edited/ co"positions in :nglish *conditions 1 and -# $n both cases, natural orders !ere found, !ith a slight increase in the third person singular "orphe"e in the edited condition# There also !as a .N overall increase for the edited condition for the si' "orphe"es analyHed, for the group as a !hole !ith so"e individual variation according to first language, Aarsi spea%ers being the "ost efficient, sho!ing a 1.N gain in accuracy in the edited condition# This is a different "easure than that described in the te't, since sub)ects !rote co"pletely ne! and different essays# Tuc%er and Sarofin *1999presented 18 /advanced inter"ediate/ 4rabic spea%ing students at the 4"erican University at Cairo !ith 10 deviant sentences# Students !ere as%ed to /dra! a line underneath the error and correct it if you can/ *p# , -# This corresponds to condition *,-# The range of the proportion of errors corrected !as fro" ,,N to 8,N, depending on the error, !ith errors of /nu"ber/ being easiest to correct *as in L So $ too% the advices of "y parents-# 7ightbo!n, Spada and 5allace *198+- also contributes to our %no!ledge of 6onitor efficiency# They gave their sub)ects, grade ., 8, and 1+ students of :A7 in Euebec, a test of gra""aticality )udg"ents in :nglish# Sub)ects !ere as%ed to circle the errors in a sentence and !rite the correct for"# The study focussed on these structures3 Plural DsD Possessive DsD Third person singular DsD Contractable copula DsD Contractable au'iliary DsD Be, used for e'pressing age *e#g# $ a" si' years old# This is considered a proble" structure for Arench spea%ers#Prepositions of location *They are going to school#-

The test !as given three ti"es, the first t!o ad"inistrations being only t!o !ee%s apart, the third co"ing five "onths later, after su""er vacation# $n bet!een ad"inistrations $ and $$, the rules used on the test !ere revie!ed in class# 7ightbo!n et a!# report so"e i"prove"ent fro" ti"e $ to ti"e $$((the revie! in class resulted in a "odest but noticeable 11N i"prove"ent for grades 8 and 1+, co"pared to ,N for control students !ho si"ple retoo% the test !ithout revie!, and a 9N increase for the .th graders *no controls !ere run for the .th grade-# $n the third ad"inistration, five "onths later, scores fell bac% to a level bet!een ad"inistration $ and $$# The results of 7ightbo!n et a!. are consistent !ith those reported in the te't, even though the tas% is not self(correction but is correction of errors presented to the student, as in Tuc%er and Sarafin# The students !ere only able to correct appro'i"ately 1D0 to 1D, of these errors, despite t!o to si' years of for"al study and despite the fact that the structures involved !ere fairly straightfor!ard# The tas% corresponds to condition *,- in Table 0#0# =evie! of the rules in class also had a "odest effect, "uch of !hich !as lost after su""er vacation# $ concur !ith 7ightbo!n et a!.>s interpretation that /i"prove"ents on the second ad"inistration !ere based on the application of %no!ledge te"porarily retained at a conscious level, but not fully ac&uired/# The results of ad"inistration $$$ sho! )ust ho! te"porary learned %no!ledge is# 7ightbo!n et a!. also provide an analysis of results for individual structures# They note

1 ,

that sub)ects "ade significant */dra"atic/- i"prove"ent fro" ti"e $ to ti"e $$ on the beDhave rule and on the third person singular# This supports, they note, "y hypothesis that si"pler rules are easier to consciously learn, since the description of both of these rules is relatively straightfor!ard# There !as also a significant i"prove"ent of a "uch less transparent rule, the use of locative prepositions, and the plural, !hich appears to be /easy/, did not, ho!ever, sho! large gains# Difficulty orders for the DsD "orphe"es confor"ed to the natural order presented in Chapter $$, confir"ing both the reliability of the natural order itself, and the clai" that it ta%es "ore than condition *,- to disturb the natural order significantly *i#e# condition *,- does not focus on for" strongly enough-# *See 7ightbo!n, in press, for a discussion of the effect of classroo" input on "orphe"e orders#8 $n an earlier paper *Krashen, Seliger and <artnett, 1990-, !e suggest a co"pro"ise3 teach rule(first, !hich !ill satisfy the deductive students# The inductive students can si"ple ignore the rule presentation# /Practice/ can then serve as practice in rule application *6onitoring- for the deductive students, and as rule(searching for the inductive students# The rule can be *re-stated after the practice, a revie! for deductive students and confir"ation for the inductive students> hypothesis#

1 0

&hapter V

4pproaches to 7anguage Teaching

Chapters $$$ and $M !ere devoted to a discussion of the general i"plications of second language ac&uisition theory# Chapter $$$ described the characteristics of opti"al input for ac&uisition, hypothesiHing that language ac&uisition ta%es place best !hen input is provided that is3 *1* *,*0Co"prehensible $nteresting andDor relevant to the ac&uirer# ;ot gra""atically se&uenced# Provided in sufficient &uantity#

The presentation of this input, "oreover, should be done in a !ay that does not put the ac&uirer /on the defensive/2 it should not raise or strengthen the affective filter# $n addition, ac&uirers need to be provided !ith tools to help the" obtain "ore input fro" the outside !orld# Chapter $M tried to /put learning in its place/# Conscious rules should be used only !hen they do not interfere !ith co""unication# $n addition, only a s"all part of the gra""ar is both learnable and /portable/ for "ost people# =ules that see" very transparent to professional linguists and language teachers "ay be &uite opa&ue even to /good language learners/# 5e also concluded that the effects of learning are &uite "odest in ter"s of syntactic accuracy, but that the application of conscious rules "ay provide a cos"etic effect that is i"portant for so"e language students# Chapter $M also discussed the fact that conscious gra""ar can be taught as sub)ect "atter2 ac&uisition results if such a course is taught in the target language# This /language appreciation/ function, ho!ever, needs to be distinguished fro" the 6onitor function for gra""ar# The goal of the first part of this chapter is to analyHe so"e current approaches

1 1

to language teaching in ter"s of the conclusions of Chapters $$$ and $M# The results of this analysis !ill then be co"pared !ith the results of !hat applied linguistics research has been done in the area of /"ethod co"parisons/# 6y interpretation !ill be that in this case, current second language ac&uisition theory and applied linguistics research co"e to very si"ilar conclusions# The ne't section e'a"ines so"e alternatives to the traditional classroo", alternatives that see" to have the advantage of satisfying input re&uire"ent G *the /interestingDrelevant/ re&uire"ent- far better than any traditional classroo" approach# ;e't, there is a brief discussion of the i"plications these ideas have for second language testing# $ !ill suggest that !e need to carefully consider !hat effects our achieve"ent tests have on student and teacher behavior# Cur goal in testing is this3 !hen students /study for the test/, they should be doing things that encourage or cause second language ac&uisition# The final sections of this chapter deal !ith !hat $ perceive to be so"e gaps in "aterials, and so"e of the practical proble"s in i"ple"enting the suggestions "ade here# A. Present0day Teaching %ethods The conclusions of Chapters $$$ and $M can be su""ariHed as the "atri' in Aig# 1#1# 5e can si"ply as%, for each approach to classroo" teaching, to !hat e'tent it satisfies the re&uire"ents for opti"al input and to !hat e'tent it puts learning in its proper place# 5e !ill revie! !hat are surely the "ost !idely used "ethods, gra""ar(translation, audio(lingualis", cognitive(code teaching, and one version of the direct "ethod# 5e !ill then cover so"e ne! approaches, 4sher>s Total Physical =esponse "ethod, Terrell>s ;atural 4pproach and 7oHanov>s Suggestopedia# *Several very interesting "ethods are not included, such as Fattegno>s Silent 5ay and Curren>s Counseling(7earning "ethod# This is due to several factors, including "y o!n lac% of fa"iliarity !ith these "ethods, the lac% of e"pirical data co"paring these "ethods to others, and the availability of Stevic%>s e'cellent analysis *Stevic%, 198+-#- The brief description supplied at the beginning of each analysis is not intended to be a full and ade&uate description of each "ethod, but is intended to serve only to infor" the reader

1 .

Fig. *.1. ;$aluation schema for methods and materials #e$uirements for optimal input 1. '. 7. &. *. 6. )omprehensi/le (nterestingIrele$ant Not grammatically se uenced Juantity Filter le$el (Aoff the defensi$eA) :ro$ides tools for con$ersational management

%earning #estricted toC 1. )ertain rulesK those that are a. learna/le /. porta/le c. not yet ac uired '. )ertain people (AMonitor usersA) 7. )ertain situations a. time /. focus on form

!hat "y understanding of each "ethod is# $t should also be pointed out that this analysis assu"es that the "ethods are used in their pure for"s, a situation !hich, $ a" sure, does not occur in every classroo"# 1# F=4664=(T=4;S74T$C; 5hile there is so"e variation, gra""ar(translation usually consists of the follo!ing activities3 *1* *,*0:'planation of a gra""ar rule, !ith e'a"ple sentences# Mocabulary, presented in the for" of a bilingual list# 4 reading selection, e"phasiHing the rule presented in *1- above and the vocabulary presented in * -# :'ercises designed to provide practice on the gra""ar and vocabulary of the lesson# These e'ercises e"phasiHe the conscious control of structure */focus on/, in the sense of Krashen and Seliger, 1991- and include translation in both directions, fro" 71 to 7 and 7 to 71#

6ost gra""ar(translation classes are designed for foreign language instruction and are taught in the student>s first language# 5e turn no! to an analysis of gra""ar(translation in ter"s of the "atri' in Aig# 1#1# 1 9

3a4 *e(uirements "or optima! input *i- Comprehensib!e. $t can only be clai"ed that gra""ar(translation provides scraps of co"prehensible input# The "odel sentences are usually understandable, but the focus is entirely on for", and not "eaning# The reading selection is the pri"ary source, but the selections provided are nearly al!ays "uch too difficult, often re&uiring !hat ;e!"ar% *19..calls /crytoanalytic decoding/# Students are forced to read !ord by !ord, and conse&uently rarely focus co"pletely on the "essage# The sentences used in the e'ercises "ay be co"prehensible, but here again, as in the "odel sentences, they are designed to focus the students on for"# *ii- Interesting@re!evant. There is usually an atte"pt, especially in recent years, to provide topics of interest in the reading selection, but the usual topics fall far short of the Aorgetting Principle *Chapter $$$-# They clearly do not seiHe the students> attention to such an e'tent that they forget that it is !ritten in another language((reports of a trip to Arance, even if it includes the 7ouvre, generally do not provide infor"ation that "ost high school and college students in the United States are eager to obtain# *iii- .ot grammatica!!y se(uenced. Fra""ar(translation is, of course, gra""atically se&uenced, the "a)ority of te'ts atte"pting to proceed fro" !hat the author considers easy rules to "ore co"ple' rules# :ach lesson introduces certain rules, and these rules do"inate the lesson# *iv- 2uantity. 4s discussed above, gra""ar(translation fails to provide a great deal of co"prehensible input# The s"all a"ount of co"prehensible input in the "odel sentences, the readings, and e'ercises is, "oreover, rarely supple"ented by teacher tal% in the target language# *v- A""ective "i!ter !eve!. $n Chapter $$$, it !as hypothesiHed that one !ay to encourage a lo! filter !as to be /true/ to the $nput <ypothesis#

1 8

Fra""ar(translation violates nearly every co"ponent of the $nput <ypothesis, and it is therefore predicted that this "ethod !ill have the effect of putting the student /on the defensive/# Students are e'pected to be able to produce i""ediately, and are e'pected to be fully accurate# 4n'iety level, it has been pointed out, is also raised for so"e students !ho are less inclined to!ard gra""ar study *under(users-, as pointed out by =ivers, 19.8# *vi- Too!s "or conversationa! management. Fra""ar(translation "a%es no atte"pt, e'plicitly or i"plicitly, to help students "anage conversations !ith native spea%ers# 3b4 'earning Fra""ar(translation i"plicitly assu"es that conscious control of gra""ar is necessary for "astery# $n other !ords, learning needs to precede ac&uisition# This assu"ption necessitates that all target structures be introduced and e'plained# There is, therefore, no li"itation of the set of rules to be learned to those that are learnable, portable, and not yet ac&uired, as suggested in Chapter $M# There is no atte"pt to account for individual variation in 6onitor use, nor is there any atte"pt to specify !hen rules are to be used, the i"plicit assu"ption being that all students !ill be able to use all the rules all the ti"eJ 3c4 Summary Fra""ar(translation, if the above analysis is correct, should result in very lo! a"ounts of ac&uired co"petence2 !hat co"prehensible input is available faces a high affective filter, and learning is vastly overe"phasiHed# # 4UD$C(7$;FU47$S6 <ere are the co""on features of audio(lingual language teaching# 4gain, there "ay be substantial variation in practice# The lesson typically begins !ith a dialogue, !hich contains the structures and vocabulary of the lesson# The student is e'pected to mimic the dialogue and

1 9

eventually memoriAe it *ter"ed /"i"("e"/-# Cften, the class practices the dialogue as a group, and then in s"aller groups# The dialogue is follo!ed by pattern drill on the structures introduced in the dialogue# The ai" of the drill is to /strengthen habits/, to "a%e the pattern /auto"atic/# 7ado *19.0- notes that audio(lingual pattern drills focus the students> attention a1ay fro" the ne! structure# Aor e'a"ple, the student "ay thin% he is learning vocabulary in an e'ercise such as3
+hat's a 4444444444. (!ey1 !nife1 pencil1 etc.) (cued /y pictures1 as in Lado and Fries1 19*-)

but in reality, according to audio(lingual theory, the student is "a%ing the pattern auto"atic# There are four basic drill types3 si"ple repetition, substitution *as in the e'a"ple above-, transfor"ation *e#g# changing and affir"ative sentence into a negative sentence-, and translation# Aollo!ing drill, so"e audio(lingual classes provide e'planation# 4ccording to proponents of audio(lingualis", the e'planation is a description of !hat !as practiced, not a prescription of !hat to say# The /rules/ presented are therefore not to be considered instructions on ho! to perfor"# The e'planation section is considered optional, since, in our ter"s, it is /language appreciation/# 3a4 *e(uirements "or optima! input *i- Comprehensib!e. $t can be "aintained that audio(lingual "ethodology does provide co"prehensible input# The dialogues and pattern practice are certainly understandable by "ost students, although so"e theorists have said that in early parts of a lesson actual co"prehension is not necessary, that purely "echanical drill is useful# *ii- $nterestingDrelevant# 5hile 7ado *19.0- advises that the dialogue contain /useful/ language, that it be age(appropriate and natural, "ost dialogues fall far short of the "ar% of true interest and relevance# 6ost pattern practice, of course, "a%es no atte"pt to "eet this re&uire"ent#

1,+

*iii- .ot grammatica!!y se(uenced. There is a clear se&uence in audio(lingual teaching, based usually on linguistic si"plicity, but also influenced by fre&uency and predictions of difficulty by contrastive analysis# 4s is the case !ith gra""ar(translation, the entire lesson is do"inated by the /structure of the day/# *iv- 2uantity. 5hile audio(lingual teaching is capable of filling an entire class hour !ith aural(oral language, it is &uite possible to argue that audio(lingualis" does not "eet this re&uire"ent as !ell as other "ethods *see belo!-# 5hile the presentation of a dialogue, for e'a"ple, "ay ta%e up a full period, students spend very little of this ti"e focussing on the "essage, !hich is presented over and over# The goal is the "e"oriHation of the dialogue, not the co"prehension of a "essage# Pattern practice "ay also be co"prehensible in theory, but students probably do not attend to "eaning after the first fe! repetitions *7ee, 6cCune and Patton, 199+-# $ndeed, according to so"e practitioners, the idea behind pattern practice is to avoid "eaning altogether# Aor both dialogues and pattern practice, the entire hour "ight be spent !ith )ust a fe! sentences or patterns, as co"pared to the !ide variety real co""unication gives# *v- A""ective "i!ter !eve!. 4udio(lingual teaching violates several aspects of the $nput <ypothesis3 production is e'pected i""ediately, and is e'pected to be error(free# Cver(use of drill and repetition, procedures such as not allo!ing students access to the !ritten !ord in early stages "ay also add to an'iety *see, for e'a"ple, Schu"ann and Schu"ann *1998- pp# 1(.-# *vi- Too!s "or conversationa! management. 4udio(lingualis" does a slightly better )ob in this category than does gra""ar(translation, as the dialogues do contain "aterial that can be used to invite input and to control its &uality# The applicability of dialogues to free conversation and to genuine conversational "anage"ent "ay be li"ited, ho!ever# 6ost dialogues are actually scripts, and are not designed to be used to negotiate "eaning#

1,1

3b4 'earning Theoretically, conscious learning is not an e'plicit goal of audio(lingualis"# The goal, rather, is to have the student over(learn a variety of patterns to be used directly in perfor"ance# $n practice, ho!ever, audio(lingual teaching often results in inductive learning, the student atte"pting to !or% out a conscious rule on the basis of the dialogue and pattern practice, !ith the e'planation section serving to confir" or disconfir" his guess# There is thus no e'plicit atte"pt to restrict learning to rules that are learnable, portable and not yet ac&uired, nor is there any atte"pt to encourage rule use only in certain situations# Despite the fact that pattern practice atte"pt to focus students off rules, the re&uire"ent of co"plete correctness probably encourages 6onitor use at all ti"es# 3c4 Summary So"e ac&uisition should result fro" the use of the audio(lingual "ethod, but no!here near !hat is obtainable !ith other "ethods that provide a larger a"ount of co"prehensible and interestingDrelevant input !ith a lo! filter# The diet of dialogues and patterns !ill occasionally be understood and be at i O 5, and "ay thus cause so"e ac&uisition# $f learned according to plan, students !ill end up !ith a stoc% of sentences and patterns that !ill be of occasional use in conversation, and also serve the conversational "anage"ent goal, to so"e e'tent# $nductive learning is i"plicitly encouraged *!hich "ay raise the filter for so"e deductive learners2 see Chapter M-, but no atte"pt is "ade to li"it !hich rules are to be learned or !hen they are to be applied# ,# CCF;$T$M:(CCD: Cognitive(code bears so"e si"ilarity to gra""ar(translation, but also differs in so"e !ays# 5hile the goal of gra""ar(translation is basically to help students read literature in the target language, cognitive code atte"pts to help the student in all four s%ills, spea%ing and listening in addition to reading and !riting# The assu"ptions are si"ilar, ho!ever, insofar as cognitive code posits that /co"petence precedes

1,

perfor"ance/# $n this case, /co"petence/ is not the tacit %no!ledge of the native spea%er, as originally defined by Cho"s%y *19.1-, but is conscious %no!ledge# Cognitive code assu"es, as "entioned in Chapter $$$, that /once the student has a proper degree of cognitive control over the structures of a language, facility !ill develop auto"atically !ith the use of language in "eaningful situations/ *Carroll, 19.., p# 1+ -# $n other !ords, learning beco"es ac&uisition# 4s in gra""ar(translation, the lesson begins !ith an e'planation of the rule, and this is often done, in foreign language situations, in the students> first language# :'ercises follo!, and these are "eant to help the student practice the rule consciously# $n other !ords, 6onitor use is actively pro"oted# :'ercises are follo!ed by activities labelled /co""unicative co"petence/# This ter" has been used in the literature in several !ays2 in cognitive(code literature it appears to be synony"ous !ith /fluency/# These activities provide the practice in "eaningful situations referred to in the &uote fro" Carroll above, and include dialogues, ga"es, role playing activities, etc# 3a4 *e(uirements "or optima! input *i- Comprehensib!e. The e'planation and e'ercise section, as is the case !ith gra""ar(translation, !ill provide very little co"prehensible input, as the focus, at all ti"es, is on for" and not "eaning# The /co""unicative co"petence/ section of cognitive(code pro"ises to provide greater a"ounts of co"prehensible input, but this potential is di"inished if activities are li"ited by the desire to conte'tualiHe the /rule of the day/# This practice, as clai"ed in Chapter $$$, li"its the structures used *!hich "ay deny the student the i O 5 he needs-, li"its !hat can be discussed, and disturbs the naturalness of the co""unication# *ii- Interesting@re!evant. This depends, of course, on the activities chosen for the co""unicative co"petence section# =egardless of !hat is chosen, ho!ever, the goal re"ains the learning of a specific structure, and because of this it is nearly i"possible to satisfy the Aorgetting Principle#

1,,

*iii- .ot grammatica!!y se(uenced. Cognitive(code, li%e gra""ar(translation, is se&uenced, and the structure of the day do"inates all parts of the lesson# *iv- 2uantity. Than%s to the co""unicative co"petence section, there is greater &uantity of co"prehensible input in cognitive(code, as co"pared to gra""ar(translation# $t does not, ho!ever, live up to the ideal of a class full of co"prehensible input !ith total focus on the "essage, since the co""unicative co"petence section is only a part of the progra" and even here, the focus is on for"# *v- A""ective "i!ter !eve!. :rror correction on all output is part of "ost cognitive(code classroo"s, students are e'pected to produce right a!ay, and it is e'pected that this production !ill be accurate# This predicts a high filter for "any students# *vi- Too!s "or conversationa! management. There is no announced atte"pt to provide this, but it is &uite possible that so"e activities in the co""unicative co"petence section !ill provide so"e of these tools# 3b4 'earning 4s is the case !ith gra""ar(translation, the assu"ption of cognitive(code is that conscious learning can be acco"plished by everyone, that all rules are learnable, and that conscious %no!ledge should be available at all ti"es# 5e can only conclude that cognitive( code encourages over(use of the 6onitor, unless all rules /fade a!ay/ as soon as the structures beco"e auto"atic# 3c4 Summary Cognitive(code should provide greater &uantities of co"prehensible input than gra""ar(translation does, and hence "ore ac&uisition, but does not co"e near to fulfilling the potential of the classroo"# 4s in gra""ar(translation, learning is overe"phasiHed#

1,0

0# T<: D$=:CT 6:T<CD The ter" /direct "ethod/ has been used to refer to "any different approaches to second language teaching# $ !ill use it here to refer specifically to de SauHV>s "ethod and its present day versions, na"ely Pucciani and <a"el>s "ethod for Arench *see 'angue et 'angage-, and si"ilar versions for Spanish developed by Barcia# <ere are the characteristics of the direct "ethod, as $ understand it# Airst, all discussion, all classroo" language, is the target language# This includes the language of the e'ercises and teacher tal% used for classroo" "anage"ent# The "ethod focusses on inductive teaching of gra""ar# The goal of the instruction is for the students to guess, or !or% out, the rules of the language# To aid in induction, the teacher as%s &uestions that are hopefully interesting and "eaningful, and the students> response is then used to provide an e'a"ple of the target structure# $f this is !ell done, it can give a direct "ethod session the "ood of a conversation class# 7et "e repeat "y favorite e'a"ple fro" an earlier paper *Krashen, 198+-, one that one of "y teachers used in a direct "ethod Arench class# The goal of this e'ercise !as to teach the con)unction /bien &ue/, and the fact that its presence re&uires the follo!ing verb to be sub)unctive3
&eacherC StudentC &eacherC StudentC &eacherC StudentC Fait=il /eau auGour'dhui0 Non1 (l ne fait pas /eau auGourd'hui. (re8=$ous cependent Lagra$eK la plage pendant le "ee!=end0 9ui1 G'irai cependent Lagra$eK la plage pendant le "ee!=end. (re8=$ous Lagra$eK la plage /ien u'il ne fasse pas /eau0 9ui1 G'irai Lagra$eK la plage /ien u'il ne ...

6y teacher used this particular e'a"ple on a deter"ined beach(goer, and generally tried to tailor &uestions to students> interests# The direct "ethod insists on accuracy and errors are corrected in class# 4fter several e'changes of the sort given above, !hen the teacher considers that enough e'a"ples have been given, the rule is discussed and e'plained in the target language# 3a4 *e(uirements "or optima! input *i- Comprehensib!e. The direct "ethod, !ith its insistence on the use

1,1

of the target language at all ti"es, provides a great deal of co"prehensible input# 4s is the case !ith the ;atural 4pproach, the entire period is filled !ith target language use !ith a variety of topics and structures utiliHed# *ii- Interesting@re!evant. 4s "entioned above, there is an atte"pt to "a%e the language use in the classroo" of so"e interest to the students# The goal of the lesson, ho!ever, is gra""ar teaching, and as discussed earlier, this puts heavy constraints on !hat can be discussed# Discussion is al!ays "eaningful, but is rarely genuinely co""unicative# 4ccording to Pucciani and <a"el>s "anual, sentences such as3
;st=ce ue $otre pantalon est $ieu@ ou neuf0 (19-) Mange8=$ous des carottes0 ('76) Jui prepare le diner dans $otre famille0 ('7%) ;st=ce ue $ous $ous rase8 tous les matins0 ('9%)

are reco""ended to help the student induce various points of gra""ar# 4s !ith other "ethods that rely on conte'tualiHation *see e#g# discussion of the Silent !ay-, the re&uire"ent that all discussion e"bed a gra""ar point "a%es this re&uire"ent hard to "eet# *iii- .ot grammatica!!y se(uenced. The direct "ethod is strictly se&uenced, !hich distorts efforts at real co""unication# *iv- 2uantity. 4s "entioned above, the direct "ethod "eets this re&uire"ent as !ell as any classroo" "ethod can, filling the entire hour !ith co"prehensible input# *v- A""ective "i!ter !eve!. The insistence on gra""atical accuracy at very early stages, the use of error correction, and the gra""atical focus of the course "ay cause an'iety and a high filter for all but the "ost dedicated 6onitor user# *vi- Too!s "or conversationa! management. Students are given the tools for interaction in the classroo" in the target language((they are soon able to initiate discussion !ith the teacher and as% &uestions

1,.

about gra""ar# So"e of this conversational, or better, /classroo" co"petence/ !ill be useful on the outside, but so"e !ill not# There is no e'plicit goal of providing tools for conversation !ith a "ore co"petent native spea%er# 3b4 'earning The direct "ethod presu"es that conscious control is necessary for ac&uisition, that conscious %no!ledge of gra""ar can be accessed at all ti"es, and by all students# $t de"ands full control of late(ac&uired structures in oral production fro" the very beginning *e#g# gender-, and "ay thus encourage over(use of the gra""ar# 3c4 Summary The direct "ethod provides greater a"ounts of co"prehensible input than "any of its co"petitors# $t re"ains, ho!ever, gra""ar(based, and this constrains its ability to provide truly interesting "essages, and leads to over(use of the 6onitor# The direct "ethod, according to infor"al reports, has been very successful !ith certain populations, a"ong students !ho have intrinsic "otivation for language study and !ho believe that the study of conscious gra""ar is essential# Aor these students, the inductive study of gra""ar is in itself interesting, and provides all the interest necessary# $n other !ords, gra""ar is sub)ect "atter# 4c&uisition, S74 theory predicts, co"es fro" the teacher tal% used to present the gra""ar# *See Chapter $M for discussion, and Krashen, 198+#1# T<: ;4TU=47 4PP=C4C< The ;atural 4pproach !as developed by Tracy Terrell at the University of California at $rvine for foreign language instruction at the university and high school levels# 5hile originally developed independently of /6onitor Theory/, its later develop"ent and articulation have been influenced by the second language ac&uisition theory presented in this volu"e# The "ethod can be described by the follo!ing principles3

1,9

1# #

Classti"e is devoted pri"arily to providing input for ac&uisition# The teacher spea%s only the target language in the classroo"# Students "ay use either the first or second language# $f they choose to respond in the second language, their errors are not corrected unless co""unication is seriously i"paired# <o"e!or% "ay include for"al gra""ar !or%# :rror correction is e"ployed in correcting ho"e!or%# The goals of the course are /se"antic/2 activities "ay involve the use of a certain structure, but the goals are to enable students to tal% about ideas, perfor" tas%s, and solve proble"s#

,# 0#

3a4 *e(uirements "or optima! input *i- Comprehensib!e. The entire goal of classroo" practice in the ;atural 4pproach is to provide co"prehensible input# ;atural 4pproach teachers utiliHe realia, pictures, and students> previous %no!ledge to "a%e their speech co"prehensible fro" the first day# *ii- Interesting@re!evant. This is a serious proble" for a foreign language class# ;atural 4pproach atte"pts to capture students> interest by using !hat Terrell ter"s /4ffective 4c&uisition 4ctivities/, adapted fro" Christensen, that encourage discussion of topics of personal interest to the students *e#g# /Suppose you are a fa"ous person, and there is a ne!spaper article about you# Tell at least one thing about yourself !hich is "entioned in the article###/-# $n the early stages of the ;atural 4pproach, classroo" discussion focusses on personal infor"ation, the goal being to establish a group feeling# 7ater, students discuss their past histories, and eventually they are able to tal% about their hopes and plans for the future# *iii- .ot grammatica!!y se(uenced. The focus of the class is not on the presentation of gra""ar# There is a tendency for certain structures to be used "ore often in certain stages, but there is no deliberate se&uencing# *iv- 2uantity. Since the entire class period is filled !ith co"prehensible

1,8

input, the ;atural 4pproach "eets this re&uire"ent as !ell as any foreign language teaching "ethod can# *v- A""ective "i!ter !eve!. Since the ;atural 4pproach atte"pt to re"ain /true/ to the $nput <ypothesis, "any sources of an'iety are reduced or eli"inated# Students do not have to produce in the second language until they feel they are ready# :rror correction for for" is not done in the classroo"# 4lso, an atte"pt is "ade to discuss topics that are interesting to students# This predicts lo!er filter strength than "ost other "ethods# *vi- Too!s "or conversationa! management. So"e tools for conversational "anage"ent are provided in the for" of very short dialogues, designed to help students converse !ith native spea%ers on predictable and fre&uent topics# 4lso, students are introduced, right fro" the beginning, to phrases and e'pressions that !ill help the" control the teacher>s input *e#g# /$ don>t understand/, /5hat does TTTTTTTTT "ean?/, etc#-# 3b4 'earning The ;atural 4pproach is designed to be consistent !ith !hat is %no!n of 6onitor functioning# The absence of error correction in the classroo" is a recognition that there are constraints on !hen the conscious gra""ar is used3 students are e'pected to utiliHe the 6onitor only at ho"e, !hen they have ti"e, !hen they are focussed on for", and !hen they %no!, or are learning, a rule# 4t the university level, gra""ar ho"e!or% is assigned to everyone, but it is conceivable that the ;atural 4pproach can be adapted for variations in 6onitor use, !ith varying a"ounts of ho"e!or%, or different type ho"e!or% assign"ents for under, or opti"al users# 5hile little e'peri"entation has been done !ith children, S74 theory predicts that younger children !ould not profit fro" gra""ar ho"e!or%, !hile older children and adolescents "ight be able to handle li"ited a"ounts# *Aor "ore detail, see Terrell, 1999#-

1,9

3c4 Summary The ;atural 4pproach "a%es a deliberate effort to fit all re&uire"ents for both 7earning and 4c&uisition# $ts only !ea%ness, according to S74 theory, is that it re"ains a classroo" "ethod, and for so"e students this prohibits the co""unication of interesting and relevant topics *see discussion belo!-# .# TCT47 P<IS$C47 =:SPC;S: This uni&ue "ethod !as developed by 8a"es 4sher, and is described in "any of his )ournal papers and his boo% *4sher, 1999a-# Total Physical =esponse, or TP=, consists basically of obeying co""ands given by the instructor that involve an overt physical response# The instructor, for e'a"ple, says /stand up/ and the class stands up# The co""ands beco"e "ore co"ple' as the class progresses, and 4sher clai"s that it is &uite possible to e"bed vast a"ounts of synta' into the for" of a co""and# Students spea% only !hen they are /ready/, !hich usually occurs at around 1+ hours of instruction, and consists of student co""ands# $n the typical TP= class *as described by 4sher, Kusudo, and de la Torre, 1990-, the first fe! "onths *01 hours in this case- !ould consist of 9+N listening co"prehension *obeying co""ands-, +N spea%ing, and 1+N reading and !riting# 4sher *1999b- lists the three principles of the TP= syste"3 *i- Delay speech fro" students until understanding of spo%en language /has been e'tensively internaliHed/ *p# 1+01-# *ii- /4chieve understanding of spo%en language through utterances by the instructor in the i"perative/ *p# 1+01-# *iii- /:'pect that, at so"e point in the understanding of spo%en language, students !ill indicate a >readiness> to tal%/ *p# 1+01-#1 L 3a4 *e(uirements "or optima! input *i- Comprehensib!e. TP= "eets this re&uire"ent# The total physical response re&uired of the student is, in effect, a "anifestation of his co"prehension of the teacher>s utterance# $t can, in fact, be argued that a TP= is not necessary for co"prehension or for progress in second
L Superscript nu"bers refer to ;otes at end of chapters#

10+

language ac&uisition, but "erely sho!s that the input has been understood# 4sher>s o!n research supports the vie! that the use of the TP= is not essential# 4 series of studies using children *4sher, 19..2 4sher and Price, 19.9- and adults *Kunihira and 4sher, 19.12 4sher, 19.1, 19.9- sho!s that students !ho "erely observe a TP= do as !ell as those !ho perfor" TP=>s on tests that de"and a TP=# Both groups, those !ho observed TP=>s and those !ho perfor"ed the", outperfor"ed students !ho !rote their ans!ers on tests# This suggests that 4sher>s second principle "ay not be necessary, but "ay be si"ply an effective device to focus students on the input and to %eep the" actively involved# *ii- Interesting@re!evant. The novelty and freshness of the TP= techni&ue probably does a great deal to "a%e the class e'perience interesting# $t "ay be difficult to re"ain interesting if one holds to the re&uire"ent of producing i"peratives 1++N of the ti"e, ho!ever *4sher no!here reco""ends this-# *iii- .ot grammatica!!y se(uenced. 4ccording to 4sher>s description, each lesson does have a gra""atical focus in TP=# $n other !ords, co""ands conte'tualiHe various points of gra""ar# 4s discussed earlier, this can hinder efforts to "eet re&uire"ent above# There is nothing inherent in the TP= approach that de"ands a gra""atical focus, ho!ever# *iv- 2uantity. TP= can fill an entire class period !ith co"prehensible input in the for" of co""ands# $t thus has the potential of "eeting this re&uire"ent fully# *v- A""ective "i!ter !eve!. TP= "a%es one very i"portant contribution to lo!ering student an'iety3 students are not as%ed to produce in the second language until they the"selves decide they are ready# They are, in other !ords, allo!ed a silent period# 4sher does not state e'plicitly !hether error correction on early student output is re&uired in TP=2 this "ay vary fro" teacher to teacher# $t has been pointed out,

101

ho!ever, that the necessity of producing overt physical responses right a!ay "ay provo%e an'iety in so"e students# *vi- Too!s "or conversationa! management. This is no e'plicit "ention of this in 4sher>s papers# 3b4 'earning The assu"ption of TP= is that gra""ar !ill be learned inductively, that is, students !ill !or% out the correct for" of the rule during the class activity# $n ter"s of the theory presented in this boo%, this can be interpreted as clai"ing that "uch of the gra""ar !ill be ac(uired andDor inductively !earned in the technical sense of inductive learning# *See Chapter $M for discussion of the difference bet!een inductive learning and ac&uisition#- The e"phasis on listening co"prehension and the delay of speech !ill, in itself, prevent "uch "isuse of conscious learning3 students !ill tend not to "onitor their output for for" in inappropriate circu"stances and they !ill not use rules unsuited for 6onitor use if there is less de"and for production# 3c4 Summary Second 7anguage 4c&uisition theory predicts that TP= should result in substantial language ac&uisition, and should not encourage overuse of the conscious 6onitor# The use of TP= insures the active participation of students, helps the teacher %no! !hen utterances are understood, and also provides conte'ts to help students understand the language they hear# $t "ay fail to co"pletely satisfy the interestingDrelevant re&uire"ent, first, since it is a classroo" "ethod, and second, because of constraints i"posed by the continuous use of i"peratives and the gra""atical focus of lessons# $t should, ho!ever, do far better than "ethods such as audio(lingual and gra""ar(translation# 9# SUFF:STCP:D$4 Aro" !hat $ have read in the sources available to "e, the /classic/ Suggestopedia class, as conducted in 7oHanov>s $nstitute of Suggestology in Sofia, Bulgaria, consists of the follo!ing# Courses are given to

10

s"all groups, around 1 students at a ti"e, and are intensive, "eeting for four hours per day for one "onth# :ach four(hour class, according to Bancroft *1998-, consists of three parts3 1# =evie!, done via traditional conversations, ga"es, plays, etc# $t "ay include so"e e'ercises and error correction, but does not include the use of a language lab or pattern drill# Presentation of ne! "aterial# ;e! "aterial is introduced in the for" of dialogues based on situations fa"iliar to the students# Bancroft notes that /ne! "aterial is presented in a so"e!hat traditional !ay, !ith the necessary gra""ar and translation/ *p# 19+-# The dialogues are very long# 4ccording to Bush"an and 6adsen *199.-, they run fro" 1+ to 10 pages# This portion is the /truly original feature/ of Suggestopedia *Bancroft, p# 19+-, and is itself divided into t!o parts# $n the first part, the active seance, the dialogue is read by the teacher, !hile students follo! the te't and engage in deep and rhyth"ic Ioga breathing# These activities are co(ordinated3 /$n accordance !ith the students> breathing, the teacher reads the language "aterials in the follo!ing order and !ith the follo!ing ti"ing3 Bulgarian *71- translation *t!o seconds-2 foreign language phrase *four seconds-2 pause *t!o seconds-# 5hile the foreign language phrase is being read, the students retain their breath for four seconds, loo% at the appropriate part of the te't, and "entally repeat to the"selves the given phrase or !ord(group in the A7# Concentration is greatly pro"oted by the retention or suspension of breath/ *Bancroft, p# 191-#

,#

The second part, labelled the passive or convert part of the seance, involves "usic# The central activity is the teacher>s reading of the dialogue /!ith an e"otional intonation/ *Bancroft, p# 191-# The students, /!ith eyes closed, "editate on the te't/ !hile baro&ue "usic is played# The "usical selections are specifically chosen to contribute to a /state of rela'ation and "editation### that is necessary for unconscious absorption of the language "aterials/ *Bancroft, p# 19 -# $n discussing adaptions of the Sofia "ethod, Bancroft notes that /three ele"ents of the 7oHanov 6ethod are considered essential for the syste" to !or% effectively3 *1- an attractive classroo" *!ith soft

10,

lighting- and a pleasant classroo" at"osphere2 * - a teacher !ith a dyna"ic personality !ho is able to act out the "aterials and "otivate the students to learn2 *,- a state of rela'ed alertness in the students###/ *p# 19 -# $n Suggestopedia, each "e"ber of the class is given a ne! na"e and role to play, /to overco"e inhibitions/ *p# 19+-# Cther Suggestopedia techni&ues and attitudes !ill be discussed belo!, as !e !or% through the analysis according to input re&uire"ents for ac&uisition# 3a4 *e(uirements "or optima! input *i- Comprehensib!e. Several Suggestopedia procedures are specifically designed to aid co"prehensibility of input# $nitial dialogues are based on situations fa"iliar to the student, and the use of the students> first language in Part Cne is partially )ustified on the ground that it helps the student confir" that he has indeed understood the te't presented in the target language *=acle, 1999, p# 1++-# *ii- Interesting@re!evant. The topics of the dialogues are designed not only to be of inherent interest, but also to be of so"e practical value and relevant to students> needs# $n a Suggestopedia course designed to teach Arench to 4nglophone public servants in Canada, at the Public Service Co""ission in Ctta!a, the ai" !as to ta%e into account both student interest and their co""unicative needs in the office situation *Public Service Co""ission, 1991-# 4lso, ;ova%ov, cited *and translated into Arench- by =acle, 1999, notes that /7es situations prVsentVes sont typi&ues, rVelles, contiennent un "essage et sont proches de l>e'pVrience des VlQves, ce &ui facilite leur activitV/ *p# 99-# *iii- &i!ter !eve!. 5hile Suggestopedia atte"pts to "eet the other goals discussed both above and belo!, its pri"ary focus and greatest apparent success is here# Practically every feature of Suggestopedia is ai"ed at rela'ing the student, reducing an'ieties, re"oving "ental bloc%s, and building confidence# <ere are )ust a fe! "ore e'a"ples3 The design of the classroo" is "eant to produce /a pleasant and !ar" environ"ent/ *Public Service Co""ission, 1991, p# 9-# Students are seated on co"fortable chairs in a circle to /encourage infor"al contact and free natural co""unication/ *Bush"an and 6adsen,

100

199., p# , -# The traditional classroo", it is felt, /calls to "ind the frustration, failure, and artificiality of "any previous learning efforts/ *Bush"an and 6adsen, p# , -# The special breathing e'ercises have as their goal both increased "ental alertness and reduction of tension# Bancroft reports that 4"erican adaptions of Suggestopedia also utiliHe physical e'ercises *stretching and bending-, and /"ind(cal"ing e'ercises/, in addition to Iogic breathing to help students achieve the desired state of rela'ed alertness# 6usic is also used as a "eans of lo!ering an'iety and di"inishing tension, and inducing the state of rela'ed alertness considered opti"al for second language ac&uisition *see =acle, 198+, pp# 9,(90-# 4nother %ey Suggestopedic idea ai"ed at lo!ering the filter is the behavior of the teacher# Suggestopedia considers the /authority/ of the teacher to be very i"portant */an integral part of the "ethod and not )ust a desirable characteristic of the teacher/2 Stevic%, 198+, p# ,8-# The teacher>s behavior is "eant to build the students> confidence both in their o!n potential for second language ac&uisition and in the "ethod itself2 the teacher should be confident, but not tyrannical, e'ercise fir" over(all control but also encourage student initiative *for e'cellent discussion, see Stevic%, 198+, Chapters and 18-# *iv- .ot grammatica!!y se(uenced. There is a deliberate atte"pt to include a certain a"ount of gra""ar during the first one "onth intensive course *=acle, 1998, p# 91 lists the structures covered for Arench-# $t does not appear to be the case, ho!ever, that a rigid se&uence is follo!ed# 4ll !riters on Suggestopedia $ have read e"phasiHe that the focus, fro" the very beginning, is on co""unication, and the dialogues do not see" to focus on specific points of gra""ar# 4ccording to Bush"an and 6adsen, /Dialogues are ra"bling conversations loosely aggregated around co""on the"es, !hich cover a great deal of territory !ith considerable built(in redundancy/ *p# ,,-# $n our ter"s, Suggestopedia see"s to depend on the net of gra""atical structures provided by successful co""unication# *v- 2uantity. Suggestopedia see"s to "eet this re&uire"ent as !ell# 5hile there is so"e e'planation in the first language, the long and varied dialogue do"inates the session, both as pure input and as a basis for co""unicative use of the 7 #

101

*vi- Too!s "or conversationa! management. This is not "entioned e'plicitly, but "ay be covered, since the dialogues atte"pt to be realistic# Te'ts used in the Public Service Co""ission course in Canada !ere apparently designed to allo! and pro"ote conversation in Public Service offices as !ell as else!here# There is no e'plicit "ention, ho!ever, of giving students the tools they need to converse !ith "ore co"petent spea%ers# 3b4 'earning 4ccording to Bush"an and 6adsen *199.-, /Content precedes for"# 4ccurate pronunciation and gra""ar are to co"e in due course/ *p# , -# 5hile there is error correction and gra""ar e'planation in part one of each lesson, gra""ar use in Suggestopedia apparently does not interfere !ith co""unication# 3c4 Summary 5hile $ have atte"pted to fit the Suggestopedia syste", as $ understand it, into "y sche"a, and have o"itted "ention of several aspects of Suggestopedia philosophy that its practitioners !ould undoubtedly consider to be very i"portant, it appears that Suggestopedia co"es very close to co"pletely "atching the re&uire"ents for opti"al input# :le"ents that 7oHanov "ight consider to invo%e hyper( or super("e"ory, or that /desuggest/ li"itations, are, in our ter"s, conditions that lo!er the affective filter and that allo! the subconscious language ac&uisition syste" to operate at full, or near full capacity and efficiency# Suggestopedia also see"s to put gra""ar in its proper place# ". Applied Linguistics Research 5e turn no! to atte"pts to e"pirically test teaching "ethods via /applied linguistics research/# $ defined applied linguistics research in Chapter $ as research ai"ed at solving a practical proble", !ith or

10.

!ithout reference to an underlying theory# 4 portion of applied linguistics research has consisted of e"pirical co"parisons of language teaching "ethods, and the purpose of this section is to revie! the "a)or findings of these studies in order to "a%e the follo!ing points3 1# 5hen older "ethods such as gra""ar(translation, cognitive(code, and audio(lingual are co"pared !ith each other, !e see s"all differences, or no differences in ter"s of efficacy# Cognitive(code, in so"e studies, sho!s a very slight superiority for adult students !hen co"pared to audio(lingual, and no differences are seen !hen adolescents are co"pared# Data are not as plentiful as !e !ould li%e the" to be for ne!er "ethods, but the results !e do have are &uite consistent !ith our theoretical analysis of the previous section# ;e!er approaches, such as Total Physical =esponse, produce significantly better results than older approaches#

5e !ill conclude that !e see little difference bet!een older "ethods since they all fail "any of the re&uire"ents for opti"al input and overe"phasiHe conscious learning# The ne!er "ethods put to the "ethod co"parison test satisfy the re&uire"ents better, and are also sho!n to outperfor" their rivals# 1# =:M$:5 CA 6:T<CD CC6P4=$SC; STUD$:S Before proceeding directly to the studies, it should be pointed out that classroo" research, !hile it often produces valuable and interesting data, does not produce /definitive/ data# This is because of the "any /confounding variables/ that prevent us, in nearly all cases, fro" concluding that it "ust have been a particular treat"ent or "ethod that !as responsible for the results obtained# $t "ay be useful to list so"e of these potential confounds here# $f students in approach 4 did better in achieve"ent tests than students in approach B, assu"ing they !ere e&ual to start !ith, it "ay be the teacher rather than the actual "ethod that !as responsible for the difference# :ven if the sa"e teacher taught both classes, the teacher "ay have preferred one approach to the other, or "ay have even li%ed the students in one class betterJ Class 4 "ight have been taught early in the "orning, and class B right after lunch# Thus, students in class 4

109

+a/le *.1. !merican studies comparing foreign language teaching methods 44444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444 ,tudy Methods +L n +estsC ,pea!ing L) #eading 2rite ?ttitude to"ard method 44444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444 ,cherer L 3+1 ?L 3erman 1761 1*6 Eear 1C ?L ?L 3+ 3+ ?L 2ertheimer Eear 'C nd ?L nd 3+ ?L )hastain L 2oerdehoff1 Mueller ))1 ?L ))1 ?L ,panish *11 &7*1 71 French Eear 1C Eear 'C ?L ?L not gi$en nd nd )) )) nd )) )) nd ))

)) (fe"er dropouts) 44444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444 ?L 3+ )) nd 5 5 5 5 audio=lingual grammar=translation )ogniti$e code no difference 1 $ncludes both Chastain W 5oerdehoff *19.8- and Chastain *199+-#

108

"ight have been "ore alert# Class B "ight have been located near the athletic field, causing "ore distractions# Te'ts "ay have "ade a difference# There "ight also have been a selection bias on the part of the students2 so"e "ay have deliberately enrolled in class 4 because they %ne! it !as /special/# The teacher can certainly add other potential confounds# *Aor "ore technical discussion, see Ca"pbell and Stanley, 19.,#6any of the "ethodological proble"s can be reduced# $f approach 4 consistent!y does better in "any studies, involving different classroo"s !ith "any students in different schools, that is, if 4 is reliably superior in a variety of conditions using a variety of "easures, the results of classroo" e'peri"ents are at least !orth considering, especially if they are consistent !ith conclusions derived fro" other sources, e#g# second language ac&uisition theory# 3a4 American studies o" A'9 T9 and CC

Table 1#1 su""ariHes several co"parisons of teaching "ethods all of !hich lasted one or t!o years# These studies !ere all concerned !ith foreign language teaching in the United States, co"paring the audio(lingual syste" !ith either gra""ar(translation *FT- or cognitive(code *CC-# Scherer and 5erthei"er *19.0- found so"e differences bet!een audio(lingual *47and gra""ar(translation *FT- after year one, differences that appeared to reflect the "odality each "ethod e"phasiHed# These differences !ere attenuated after the second year, and co"bined scores for sub(tests sho!ed no significant differences bet!een the t!o "ethods# $t !as concluded that students tend to do !ell in those areas e"phasiHed in the teaching "ethod# Chastain and 5oerdehoff *19.8- and Chastain *199+- found si"ilar results after co"paring audio(lingual and cognitive(code teaching, finding so"e differences after year one, differences that could plausibly be traced to those s%ills e"phasiHed in the "ethod used, but no differences after year t!o# Chastain *199+- also noted that "ales tended to do better !ith 47, !hile fe"ales did better in CC sections# 5e return to these interesting findings later# 6ueller *1991- li"ited his study to one year, co"paring 47 and CC

109

teaching# Aor those s%ills tested, CC !as superior, !hile 47 classes scored at national *674nor"s# The results of previous studies force us to as% !hether this advantage !ould have been "aintained in the second year# Table 1# gives us so"e idea as to the degree of superiority sho!n by one "ethod over another# 5hat is obvious is that both "ethods result in so"e progress2 students do better at the end of the course than at the beginning# 5hile differences are occasionally significant, they are certainly not huge#
+a/le *.' Degree of superiority shown in comparati'e method studies (!merican series) 4444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444 Listening ML? )ooperati$e +estsC #eading1 2riting1 comp. ,pea!ing' 4444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444 ?L '6 *9 '* *1 )) 76 6& '6 &9 4444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444

13 3

Significant difference in favor of CC# Significant difference in favor of 47#

FromC )hastain and 2oerdehoff (196-) +ests administered after one year of uni$ersity le$el study of ,panish.

3b4 The

BM, pro0ect

The first group of studies loo%ed at language teaching efficacy over one or t!o years, using proficiency tests# 4nother group of studies focussed rather on specific structures over a shorter ti"e span# These studies are the result of the FU6: pro)ect, !hich dealt !ith :nglish as a foreign language in S!eden# The FU6: pro)ect studies are su""ariHed in Table 1#,# The FU6: pro)ect ai"ed to co"pare 47 type teaching !ith /cognitive/ "ethods, the latter being &uite si"ilar to the cognitive(code syste"# $ !ill not present their results study(by( study, but !ill atte"pt instead to su""ariHe the overall results2 the interested reader can refer to Table 1#, for details, or to the studies the"selves *see especially von :le% and Cs%arsson, 1991, for a co"plete revie! of the adult studies-#

11+

Stated very si"ply, the FU6: pro)ect found no overall differences bet!een !hat they ter"ed /i"plicit/ "ethods *si"ilar to 47- and /e'plicit/ "ethods *si"ilar to CC for adolescent sub)ects# Aor adult sub)ects, e'plicit "ethods !ere found to be so"e!hat better# The difference for adults !as statistically significant, but not very large# To go into slightly "ore detail for the adolescents, despite the overall findings of no differences, so"e sub(groups did better using e'plicit "ethods3 *1- an /accelerated/ class in 7evin>s study, * - fe"ales, in von :le% and Cs%arsson, a finding si"ilar to that of Chastain *199+-# Cne class in von :le% and Cs%arsson>s study, described as being lo!er than the nor" in /verbal intelligence/ *von :le% and Cs%arsson, 1991, p# 9- !as reported to have had "ore trouble than other classes !ith the e'plicit "ethod# $n addition to si"ple co"parisons of e'plicit and i"plicit "ethods, von :le% and Cs%arsson also co"pared various co"binations of these "ethods# They found that $6:K *see Table 1#,- !as superior to $6 alone2 in other !ords, adding so"e gra""atical e'planation to a "ethod based totally on pattern drills !as helpful *see footnote t!o on Table 1#,-# <o!ever, :K$6 !as not superior to :K3 adding pattern drills to a cognitive approach did not help# Table 1#0 is included to give the reader an idea of the degree of superiority the e'plicit "ethods sho!ed !ith adult sub)ects in the FU6: studies# 4s is the case !ith 4"erican studies described in the previous section, the differences are not large# Clearly, both groups "a%e progress# # SC6: P=:7$6$;4=I CC;C7US$C;S TC 6:T<CD CC6P4=$SC; STUD$:S Ta%en as a !hole, 4"erican and S!edish studies sho! only s"all differences, if at all, bet!een the "ethods they investigated# Students "a%e at least so"e progress no "atter !hat "ethod is used, a result that had t!o different %inds of reactions in the field of language teaching# Stevic% *199.- noted the i"plicit contradiction, !hich he stated in the for" of a riddle3 /$n the field of language teaching, 6ethod 4 is the logical contradiction of 6ethod B3 if the assu"ptions fro" !hich 4 clai"s to be derived are correct, then B cannot !or%, and vice( versa# yet one

111

+a/le *.7. *+M, pro-ect research comparing teaching methods 44444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444 ,tudy Method ,tudents Materials #esults 44444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444 9lsson1 1969 (mplicit1 ?ge 1& 9ne structure No differences ;M ,"edish (passi$e) ;M ;nglish Le$in1 19%' (mplicit ;M ;nglish ;M ,"edish (mplicit ;M ,"edish ;M ;nglish (M' ;M (M e@ ?ges 1&=1* No o$erall differenceK Aad$ancedA group e@cels in ;M ,"edish No o$erall differenceK more Aa/leA students do "ell "ith ;M ,"edish1 /ut less a/le do "orse +en lessons ;M:L()(+ significantly /etter

Le$in1 19%'

?ge 17

Non ;le! L 9s!arsson1 19%* Non ;le! L 9s!arsson1 19%*

?dults n 5 1'* ?dults N 5 91

?s a/o$e

;M:L()(+ significantly /etter

Non ;le! L (M ?ge 1' ?s a/o$e No difference1 due to lo" 9s!arsson1 ;M performance of one 19%* ;M:L()(+ class 44444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444

11

+a/le *.7.==.ontinued 44444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444 ,tudy Method ,tudents Materials #esults 44444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444 Non ;le! L ;M1 (M1 ?dults & lessons on ;M superior to (MK 9s!arsson1 ;M(M1 (M;M7 n 5 '%% ' structures (M;M /etter than (M1 19%* /ut not significantK ;M superior to ;M(M (not predicted) Non ;le! L 9s!arsson1 19%* 3irls tend to conform to the adult pattern (see a/o$e) /ut /oys do not 44444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444 13 $6 P /i"plicit/ *pattern drills only-# :K P /e'plicit/ *pattern drills in co"bination !ith e'planation-# :K S!edish P e'planation in S!edish# :K :nglish P e'planation in :nglish# 3 $6 P /structured and graded pattern drills, perfor"ed on the basis of situational pictures pro)ected on a screen in front of the class### no e'plicit e'planations, co"parisons !ith the source language, or translation e'ercises / *von :le% and Cs%arsson, 1991, p# 1.-# :K P /students !ere given e'plicit infor"ation about the syntactic characteristics of the structures being practiced### co"parisons !ere "ade !ith the corresponding structures in S!edish### gra""ar !as taught deductively### e'planations and directions !ere given before "ain practice !ith the structure under study### e'ercises !ere "ostly of the fill(in type or translation### no pattern drills !ere perfor"ed/ *von :le% and Cs%arsson, 1991, p# 1.(19-# ,3 $6:K P identical to $6 !ith the addition of e'planation# :K$6 P identical to :K !ith addition of oral pattern drills# ;M1 (M1 ;M(M1 (M;M ?ge 1' n 5 77* & lessons on ' structures

11,

+?BL; *.& &he degree of superiority shown in comparati'e method studies (*+M, pro-ect) 44444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444 3roup +est :re=test ,B :ost=test ,B :rogress 44444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444 ? '6.9& -.61 77.66 9.71 6.66 B '7.%* %.6& '%.*7 %.%9 7.%) *.-6 7.&6 9.&6 &.16 7.*& ;M ? '*.%1 6.61 76.*9 9.1% 16.-B '1.-' *.19 '9.1-.1& %.76 ) *.6* 7.'11.-& &.79 6.19 44444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444 Description of tests/ ?C 66 itemsC ,tudents listen to oral con$ersation. +hey choose one of three alternati$es to fill in missing part of last e@change (no more than t"o "ords). BC *6 itemsC descri/ed as an Aordinary multiple choice testA (p. 66) )C '6 itemsC "ritten production testK students Afill in the crucial element in incomplete ;nglish sentences. +he meaning of each sentence "as clarified either /y the complete ,"edish e ui$alent1 or /y a cure "ordA (p. 66). FromC Non ;le! and 9s!arsson (19%'). (M

colleague is getting e'cellent results !ith 4 and another is getting e'cellent results !ith B# <o! is this possible?/ *p# 1+0-# To apply this riddle to the results of co"parative "ethod research, !e can as% ho! the cognitive approach, !hich assu"es that learning beco"es ac&uisition, can give results co"parable to audio(lingual teaching, !hich is based on the hypothesis that !e learn language by conditioning and habit(strengthening# Before turning to a possible ans!er, it should be noted that there !as a different reaction3 not everyone sa! the contradiction Stevic% sa!# 6any "ethodologists and teachers si"ply assu"ed that the solution !as si"ply to be eclectic, to choose parts of each syste" in the belief that the ans!er "ust be so"e!here in the "iddle# 4s fair "inded as this sounds, it often resulted, in "y opinion, in teachers choosing the !orst fro" each, the parts least li%ely to encourage language ac&uisition3 pattern drill fro" the audio(lingual syste", and rule e'planation fro" the cognitive and gra""ar(translation approachJ $n "y interpretation, the results of "ethod co"parison studies using audio(lingual, gra""ar(translation, and cognitive code are &uite consistent !ith the theoretical analysis of these "ethods presented in the previous section3 according to this analysis, none of these "ethods does a particularly effective )ob in encouraging subconscious language ac&uisition, although each !ill provide at least so"e, and the cognitive

110

"ethods !ill allo! so"e!hat "ore learning# This predicts the close si"ilarly in effectiveness, and the slight superiority cognitive syste"s sho! for older sub)ects and the "ore /verbal/ adolescents# $t also predicts that other "ethods should do "uch, "uch better# Unfortunately, !e do not have detailed "ethod co"parison data on all the ne!er "ethods, but so"e is available, and the results are &uite consistent !ith this prediction# ,# 6C=: =:C:;T 6:T<CD CC6P4=$SC; STUD$:S 5e turn no! to studies that involve the ne!er "ethods, "ethods !ith better report cards, according to second language ac&uisition theory, than gra""ar(translation, audio( lingual, or cognitive(code# 5e do not have detailed reports on every "ethod co"pared to every other, and so"e of the ne! approaches have never been tested# The studies that have been perfor"ed, ho!ever, indicate that those "ethods that provide "ore of the input necessary for ac&uisition, and that /put gra""ar in its place/, are superior to older approaches# 3a4 The TP* series 4sher has done a thorough )ob in putting his "ethod to the e"pirical test# <e has co"pared TP= to other "ethods using foreign language classes and second language classes, using children and using adults# <ere is a brief survey# The TP= series !ith adults begins !ith 4sher *199 -, !hich co"pared students in a TP= Fer"an course !ith controls in a /standard/ college course# 4sher reported that after only , hours of TP= instruction, TP= students outperfor"ed controls, !ho had had 11+ hours of classti"e, in a test of listening co"prehension, and e&ualed controls in tests of reading and !riting# 4sher>s students progressed nearly five ti"es fasterJ This is in contrast to the very s"all differences seen in older co"parative "ethod e'peri"ents co"paring audio( lingual, cognitive(code, and gra""ar(translation# 4sher, Kusudo and de la Torre *1990- co"pared TP= students studying Spanish at the first year university level !ith 47 controls# 4fter 01 hours of TP= instruction, students outperfor"ed controls !ho had had 11+ hours in listening co"prehension, and e&ualed controls> perfor"ance on a reading test *Pi"sleur Spanish Proficiency Test-#

111

4fter 01 additional hours of instruction, TP= students perfor"ed beyond the 1+th percentile on a Spanish proficiency test designed for students !ith 11+ hours on all s%ills 4sher *1999a- co"pared ,+ :S7 students using TP= to controls using audio(lingual instruction, and reported that TP= students outperfor"ed controls !ho had had the sa"e a"ount of training *1 + hours- but !ho had started at a higher level class# TP= studies have also been done using children as sub)ects# 4sher *1999b- is really three e'peri"ents in one, all involving Spanish as a foreign language in grades five through nine# $n :'peri"ent $, TP= classes in grade si', and a class consisting of seventh and eighth graders !ere co"pared to grade nine controls# The controls covered si"ilar "aterial, but their instruction focussed on repetition, and for"al instruction in reading and !riting, /e"phasiHing Spanish gra""ar/# 4ll groups had a total of 0+ hours of classti"e# 4ll TP= classes *seven different classes in all-e'ceeded the controls on a test of !ritten production *sub)ects !ere as%ed to !rite a short story based on a cartoon, and !ere graded on the nu"ber of "eaningful e'pressions produced-# $n :'peri"ent $$, nine ele"entary school TP= classes, fro" grades five through eight, and an adult education TP= class, !ere co"pared !ith t!o control classes fro" grades seven through nine# This ti"e, TP= classes had only + hours of instruction !hile controls had ++ hours of instruction si"ilar to that described in :'peri"ent $# The test used !as the /Spanish Picture Test for 7istening/, !hich as%ed students to )udge !hether a given sentence !as true or false in relation to a picture# 4ll TP= classes, !ith the e'ception of grade five, outperfor"ed controls after 1++ hours, and the adult class, after only + hours, outperfor"ed controls after ++ hours# Si"ilar results !ere obtained using a reading test# $n :'peri"ent $$$, fifth and si'th grade TP= and control classes !ere co"pared on tests that "easured fluency *e#g# /5rite as "any Spanish orders or sentences as you can recall###/-# Both groups had e&ual classti"e# TP= students did significantly better than controls on both fluency tas%s# The TP= results are clear and consistent, and the "agnitude of superiority of TP= is &uite stri%ing# :ven the one sub(group that did not turn out to be superior *grade five in :'peri"ent $$ above- can be e'plained3 the TP= advantage !as out!eighed by the fact that the controls

11.

!ere older, and, as "entioned in Chapter $$, older children are %no!n to be faster ac&uirers *Krashen, 7ong and Scarcella, 1999-# 3b4 +ther input methods compared 4 variety of studies have been done e'a"ining the efficacy of "ethods that, li%e TP=, focus on providing co"prehensible input and do not force early production# ;one of these "ethods has been analyHed in the previous section, since they are not /standard/ or !idely used, but they strengthen both the case for TP= and the hypothesis that "ethods allo!ing a silent period !ill do better than "ethods that do not, even !hen /spea%ing s%ills/ are tested directly# Fary *1991- e'a"ined children studying Spanish as a foreign language over a period of five "onths# <er e'peri"ental group did not spea% at all for the first 10 !ee%s but, instead, had to produce /active responses/ that de"onstrated co"prehension# 4lso, they !ere not forced to spea% for "uch of the ne't seven !ee%s# The e'peri"ental group !as sho!n to be superior to the control group in listening co"prehension and e&ual in spea%ing, despite the fact that the controls had "ore /practice/ in spea%ing# Postovs%y *1990- used students at the Defence 7anguage $nstitute, studying =ussian in an intensive 1 !ee% course, si' hours per day, in a fairly standard audio(lingual course# The /e'peri"ental/ group did not spea% for the first four !ee%s, but !rote their responses# The t!o groups !ere co"bined after four !ee%s# 4t "id(ter"s, the e'peri"ental group e'celled in reading, !riting, and spea%ing tests *especially !ith respect to /control of gra""ar/ and /reading aloud/-, and after 1 !ee%s, they !ere significantly better in listening co"prehension# S!affer and 5oodruff *1998- e'a"ined the effects of a first year college Fer"an course taught at the University of Te'as# 4s is the case !ith the studies )ust cited, their approach !as not e'actly any of the standard ones described in the first part of this chapter, but it fits the re&uire"ent for providing opti"al input for ac&uisition and for putting learning in its place very !ell# The first four !ee%s of the course !ere TP= based, !ith the e"phasis s!itching to reading /for global "eaning/ *p# 8-# Students !ere not re&uired to spea% at all in Fer"an for the first t!o !ee%s of the class, and /thereafter students !ere encouraged to spea% on a voluntary basis/ *p# 8-# 4lso, /overt corrections of

119

beginning students> production errors *!as- %ept at a "ini"u"/ *p# 8-# 7o! filter strength !as further encouraged by the use of rela'ation e'ercises and yoga breathing# 4lso, /e'cept for a brief *five("inute- &uestion and ans!er period at the close of each hour, Fer"an !as the e'clusive language of instruction/ *p# 8-# ;o drill !as used, and the only gra""ar taught !as those features /considered essential for listening and reading co"prehension/ *p# ,+-# S!affer and 5oodruff>s "ethod thus appears to supply co"prehensible input in &uantity, using techni&ues that encourage a lo!er affective filter, and does not encourage the over(use of the 6onitor# The S!affer and 5oodruff progra" !as evaluated in several !ays, and all indicated clearly that the "ethod !as a huge i"prove"ent over other approaches# Airst, as co"pared to previous years, "ore students continued on to second se"ester Fer"an# Second, Fer"an courses taught the ne! !ay received "uch better evaluations fro" the students# Third, students co"pleting the course perfor"ed !ell above the national nor"s on the 6odern 7anguage 4ssociation reading and listening tests *9+th and .9th percentiles-, and last, student self(report of their o!n abilities !as, in "y opinion, a"aHing3 98N of the students finishing the first year /e'pressed confidence that they could read Fer"an and grasp "ain ideas at least "ost of the ti"e/ *p# , -2 08N said they could understand spo%en Fer"an at least "ost of the ti"e# $ do not %no! of control data for this last &uestion, but fro" e'perience, these responses are &uite unusual# 3c4 Suggestopedia research 5hile there have been reports of students learning 1+++ !ords per day using Suggestopedia, in the nor"al one "onth intensive course, students cover about +++ !ords# 7oHanov is &uoted as saying that /after co"pleting the course, the students can e'press the"selves freely !ithin the fra"e!or% of their le'ical capacity, and can read ne!spapers and boo%s#/ *$ntervie! published in Pravda, reprinted in Cstrander and Schroeder, 199., p# 90- These are e'cellent results, but are not superhu"an((the "onth>s course, as noted earlier, is &uite intensive, "eeting four hours per day, si' days a !ee%, for a total of nearly 1++ hours# $n ter"s of classhours alone, this is e&uivalent to "ore than one year of study at the university level# $f students can indeed

118

/get by/ in conversation in the target language and read "any things in it as !ell, 7oHanov>s approach "ay be )ust about as successful as other /input "ethods/, such as the "ethod used by S!affer and 5oodruff, !ho report si"ilar results# Bush"an and 6adsen *199.- put Suggestopedia to the e'peri"ental test in a s"all scale study done at Brigha" Ioung University# *7oHanov has carried out e'tensive e'peri"entation !hich reportedly de"onstrate the superiority of Suggestopedia over 47(type "ethods# Details of these studies are not available to "e# Aor a very critical revie!, see Scovel, 1999#- Si' different classes at BIU, teaching Ainnish as a foreign language, !ith an average of seven students in each class !ere used# T!o control classes !ere taught using the /full/ Suggestopedia treat"ent and t!o !ith a "odified treat"ent# The "odified Suggestopedia classes follo!ed all aspects of Suggestopedia but lac%ed "usic, the easy chairs, and the /living roo" environ"ent/# They !ere held instead in ordinary classroo"s# :ach class received 1+ hours of instruction and covered si"ilar linguistic "aterial# To control for teacher effect, t!o instructors taught all three treat"ents# Suggestopedia students in both full and "odified classes clearly outperfor"ed controls in a vocabulary test and !ere /vastly superior/ in a test of /co""unication/# *$n this test, students !ere rated on their success in conveying a "essage to a native spea%er#- There !ere no significant differences bet!een Suggestopedia classes and controls on a gra""ar test or in a pronunciation test2 this result supports the hypothesis that Suggestopedia !as superior to the control group, since control classes had far "ore !or% on pronunciation and gra""ar in the for" of pattern drills and repetition e'ercises# Bush"an and 6adsen also probed student>s personal reactions to the different treat"ents, and reported no differences bet!een groups3 there !as no difference in "easured affect bet!een Suggestopedic and control groups# This conflicts, to so"e e'tent, !ith reports fro" the Canadian Public Service Co""ission, in their report of a full one("onth Arench course# They reported changed attitudes to!ard language learning */learning/ used here in the general sense-, and even /a real and total change in the person hi"self/ *p# ,,-# 8ust as 7oHanov "aintains happens in Suggestopedia, Canadian researchers report

119

/the student discovered ne! capabilities in hi"self, beca"e a!are of !hat he !as able to do, realiHed the e'tent of his creativity and his potential2 he >found hi"self>, !hich gave hi" "ore self(confidence and self(assurance/ *p# ,,-# $n our ter"s, they beca"e a!are of the reality of their o!n second language ac&uisition capacity and the fact that it re"ains very po!erful in the adult# &. Alternatives to %ethods The previous section atte"pted to sho! several things# Airst, that !e can analyHe all co""only used approaches to classroo" second language teaching in ter"s of the re&uire"ents for opti"al input presented in Chapter $$$ and the criteria for teaching conscious gra""ar rules, as presented in Chapter $M# Second, it !as seen that certain "ethods satisfied these re&uire"ents and criteria better than others# Third, it !as clai"ed that the available applied linguistics research reveals that those "ethods that are sho!n to be superior in "ethod co"parison research co"e closer to satisfying the criteria that derive fro" second language ac&uisition theory# 5hat !e can conclude fro" this survey and revie! is that there is no one !ay to teach, no one "ethod that is clearly the best# So"e "ethods are clearly "ore effective than others, ho!ever, and the clai" "ade here is that the sa"e underlying principles !ill hold for any successful second language teaching progra", the principles outlined in Chapters $$$ and $M# The purpose of this section is to e'plore !ays of helping people ac&uire second languages that go beyond classroo" "ethods# $n the sections that follo!, $ !ill revie! !hat $ consider the essential function of the classroo" to be, and so"e li"itations inherent in all classroo" "ethods# Aollo!ing this, $ !ill discuss so"e possibilities in language teaching that are consistent !ith "y vie!s on the role of the classroo", and !hich, at the sa"e ti"e, bypass or avoid so"e proble"s that arise !ith classroo" "ethods# 1# AU;CT$C; CA T<: C74SS=CC6 Euite si"ply, the role of the second or foreign language classroo" is to bring a student to a point !here he can begin to use the outside

1.+

!orld for further second language ac&uisition# 4s e'pressed in Chapter $$ this "eans !e have to provide students !ith enough co"prehensible input to bring their second language co"petence to the point !here they can begin to understand language heard /on the outside/, read, and participate in conversations# Since they !ill be less than fully co"petent, !e also need to provide the" !ith tools for encouraging and regulating input# $n other !ords, all second language classes are transitional, and no second language class can be e'pected to do the entire )ob# 4s discussed in Chapter $$$, second language classes are best thought of as places to gain co"prehensible input in early stages, !hen the ac&uirer does not yet have the co"petence to understand the input provided on the outside# # T<: S:CC;D 74;FU4F: C74SS=CC6 4;D =:EU$=:6:;T G 4s !e have seen, "any of the ne!er "ethods "a%e valiant atte"pts to "eet re&uire"ent G of Chapter $$$, to provide input that is genuinely interesting and relevant# The ;atural 4pproach atte"pts to do this by focussing on personal topics, Co""unity 7anguage 7earning by having the students generate their o!n input# The literature contains "any other useful and interesting suggestions as to ho! to solve the proble" of !hat to tal% about3 Stevic% *198+- has an e'cellent discussion of the possibility of using poetry for second language students, and 5inn(Bell Clsen *1999- has nu"erous other suggestions# There are t!o funda"ental proble"s !ith any atte"pt to "eet re&uire"ent G in the second language classroo", ho!ever# The first is that !hat is of interest to so"e people "ay not be of interest to others# Stevic% notes this in relation to his poetry e'peri"ent3 one teacher !ho tried poetry noted that for her students, /poetry )ust isn>t their thing2 they prefer politics/ *p# 1-# Stevic% also notes that so"e students "ay ob)ect to hu"anistic approaches, such as Co""unity 7anguage 7earning, that pro"ote personal gro!th along !ith second language ac&uisition3 /So"e *students-### !ill eagerly accept a >hu"anistic> language course as an arena, or as a "ediu", in !hich to find ne! adventures in discovering the"selves and other people, and in !hich they can go on to beco"e "ore than they had been before# Cthers of

1.1

the", ho!ever, "ay decide that the language class is not a place !here they choose to confront the issues of alienation, or of personal values### they "ay )ust !ant to be taught !ell#### 5e "ust respect this decision/ *p# 9,-# 5hat is perhaps a "ore funda"ental proble" is that the second language classroo" is seen, by "any students and teachers, as an artificial linguistic environ"ent regardless of atte"pts to pro"ote /real/ co""unication# The fact that it is a classroo", and the fact that the class is called /Spanish/ or /:nglish/, of itself "ay subvert any effort to "eet re&uire"ent t!o, and "ay prevent students fro" fully focussing on the "eaning of !hat is said# $n other !ords, the filter "ay al!ays be /up/, to so"e e'tent, and "any students !ill never get so interested in !hat is being said that they forget it is in a second language# There are other li"itations of the classroo" that are not related to its failure to fully satisfy re&uire"ent t!o# 4s "entioned in Chapter $$$, there is really no !ay the classroo" can provide the variety of second language use necessary for real co"petence in a second language, no "atter ho! varied the presentation, no "atter ho! "any different situations are used in role playing activities# There is also no !ay the classroo" can provide the &uantity of input re&uired for truly advanced co"petence in a second language# These are not real proble"s, !hen !e consider !hat the classroo" is for# $f the student can "a%e the transition to the real !orld, if the student can begin to use the outside for co"prehensible input, both &uantity and variety !ill be provided# ,# T<: 47T:=;4T$M:S 5e !ill e'a"ine a nu"ber of possible alternatives and supple"ents in the sections that follo!, and, as !e did !ith language teaching "ethods earlier, analyHe the" according to the predictions "ade by second language ac&uisition theory and survey !hat e"pirical evidence there is that confir"s that these approaches are effective# 5e !ill first loo% at so"e very obvious supple"entary activities to the second language classroo", conversation *the real thing, !ith native spea%ers of the target language- and pleasure reading, then "ove to so"e ideas and progra"s that have "et !ith real success in so"e conte'ts and that could be e'tended to other conte'ts#

1.

3a4 Conversation Before "a%ing the prediction that /conversation !ith native spea%ers/ is good for second language ac&uisition, $ need to define conversation in a li"ited !ay3 conversation here refers only to interaction !ith a native spea%er !ho is "otivated to try to help the second language ac&uirer understand, and !ho is genuinely interested in the ac&uirer as a person# $n other !ords, conversation !ith /foreigner tal%/, if it is necessary, and !ith a real or potential friend, business associate, etc# There !ill be no atte"pt to de"onstrate that this sort of conversation has any effect on conscious learning# $t only could if the conversational partner !ere a language teacher andDor the ac&uirer !ere an e'tre"ely gifted inductive learner# $t does appear to be the case, ho!ever, that conversation defined in this !ay has the "a'i"u" i"pact on subconscious ac&uisition# The follo!ing analysis de"onstrates !hat to "ost lay people is co"pletely obvious, that conversation !ith so"eone !ho is interested in interacting !ith you, and !ho is trying to help you understand !hat he is saying, is good for second language ac&uisition# *e(uirements "or optima! input *i- Comprehensib!e. $f "eaning is successfully negotiated, if the conversational partner is able to ad)ust his speech, use e'tra(linguistic infor"ation and conte't, and if the ac&uirer has enough linguistic co"petence and can regulate the &uality of input, the input provide in conversation !ill be co"prehensible# *ii- Interesting@re!evant. Conversation has the best chance of "eeting this re&uire"ent of all the "ethods !e have considered# $t has the best chance of achieving total focus on the "essage and of bringing the ac&uirer to the point of forgetting that the input is in another language# *iii- .ot grammatica!!y se(uenced. This re&uire"ent is clearly satisfied# *iv- 2uantity. Conversation certainly has the potential for satisfying this re&uire"ent, depending on the personal circu"stances of the ac&uirer#

1.,

*v- &i!ter strength. $n free conversation !ith a sy"pathetic native spea%er, filter strength should be lo!# $n general, there is little or no error correction for for" and "ost people do not de"and perfect accuracy or co"plete utterances, as do language teachers# The topic of conversation is of course unpredictable but is generally of far greater interest than anything that goes on in a classroo", and this also !ill contribute to a lo!er level of an'iety and a lo! filter# 4 possible tension(raiser in free conversation is the chance of the ac&uirer /getting in over his head/, and not understanding !hat is said to hi"# $f he is prepared, if he has tools for conversational "anage"ent and is !illing to use the", this is less of a proble"# *vi- Too!s "or conversationa! management. Conversation !ill give the ac&uirer a chance to practice the tools he has learned and give hi" perhaps the best opportunity to ac&uire ne! ones# 3b4 P!easure reading 4s !as the case !ith conversation, covered in the previous section, $ !ill define /reading/ in a special !ay# $ do not "ean intensive reading, analysis of !ritten prose, reading and then ans!ering &uestions of content, or reading as preparation for discussion or !riting assign"ents# The sort of reading to be analyHed here is e'tensive, and concerns sub)ect "atter that the student !ould read in his first language for pleasure# $t is co"pletely voluntary# $n doing pleasure reading, readers have the option of s%ipping !hole sections they find either too difficult or less interesting *e#g# detailed descriptions in fiction-# They even have the option of putting the boo% or story do!n and selecting another after reading a fe! pages# They can s%ip !ords they do not understand, if they thin% they are follo!ing the "ain point, and they have the option, of course, of loo%ing up every !ord, if that is their style# $n other !ords, !e are considering pure pleasure reading# 5hat is read depends on the student and !hat is available to hi"# Aor so"e people, it "ay be "ystery novels, for others, science fiction, and for others, co"ic boo%s# The only re&uire"ent is that the story or "ain idea be co"prehensible and that the topic be so"ething the student is genuinely interested in, that he !ould read in his first language#

1.0

$ !ill not try to sho! that pleasure reading has any effect on learning# The analysis, as done !ith conversation in the previous section, !ill be restricted to the effects of pleasure reading on ac&uisition# *e(uirements "or optima! input *i- Comprehensib!e. 5e have defined pleasure reading as reading that is co"prehensible, so there is no proble" here# $ !ould li%e to note, ho!ever, that pleasure reading is "ade co"prehensible by the reader>s o!n selection of passages and te'ts, and by the re)ection of reading "aterial that is too difficult# The success of pleasure reading thus depends on the reader>s !illingness to find "aterial at his level and re)ect "aterial that is beyond hi"# *ii- Interesting@re!evant. =eading as defined here is by definition interesting and relevant, since the student has the option *!hich "ust be e'ercised- of only reading things that are of personal interest# *iii- .ot grammatica!!y se(uenced. This re&uire"ent is "et, unless the student insists on reading specially(prepared pedagogical "aterials# *iv- 2uantity. =eading certainly has the potential for satisfying this re&uire"ent# The only proble"s are practical3 the availability of "aterials, their cost, and the students> ti"e# *v- &i!ter !eve!. $f the student is able to find "aterials that are co"prehensible and that are interesting, this re&uire"ent is easily "et# There is no frustration caused by inco"prehensible "essages, no early de"ands for output, no de"ands for pre"ature gra""atical accuracy# The pleasure reader should be co"pletely off the defensive# *vi- Too!s "or conversationa! management. Pleasure reading "ight even "ade a contribution to!ard "eeting this re&uire"ent, if the te'ts read include so"e dialogue#

1.1

4t this point $ !ould li%e to include a personal observation about pleasure reading# $ have been atte"pting, over the last fe! years, to i"prove "y Arench, largely via pleasure reading, an atte"pt that has been successful# 6ostly through input, $ have increased "y co"petence fro" /advanced beginner/ to /high inter"ediate/# $ define the inter"ediate level in the follo!ing !ay3 =e&uiring only so"e /do!nshifting/ on the part of a native spea%er to be able to converse easily, and being able to read "ost te'ts !ithout a dictionary, !ithout necessarily %no!ing every !ord# $ can no! read a great deal of Arench !ithout a dictionary, and even derive real pleasure fro" it# Being a 6onitor user and so"eone !ith an intrinsic interest in the structure of language, $ occasionally loo% at gra""ar boo%s *the ones that gave "e so "uch trouble in high school-# $ have noticed, to "y surprise, that the reading passages at the end of the ele"entary gra""ar boo% still give "e troubleJ $ find the" "ore difficult than /ra!/, unedited Arench, Arench !ritten for native spea%ers# The reason /pedagogical/ passages are "ore difficult for the inter"ediate is that they are pac%ed full of sub)unctives, conditionnel passV, futur anterieur, and all "anner of infre&uent vocabularyJ in reading through these passages, $ found the" difficult to understand, and e'tre"ely frustrating3 the topics !ere not even of "ild interest, and $ felt "y affective filter going up, as $ encountered !ord after !ord $ did not %no!# 6y frustration !as further aggravated by the fact that $ realiHed that $ !as having trouble !ith a te't designed for second year studentsJ 5hat this e'perience suggests is that our inter"ediate students "ay find real te'ts, read for interest and pleasure, easier than our pedagogical "aterials# 6oreover, if the above analysis is correct, it "ay be that free pleasure reading !ill result in "ore ac&uisition of the language# Aor those !ho ob)ect on the grounds that reading in language courses should be restricted to the classics, to serious literature, $ can only say that the ability to read /literature/ !ill be facilitated by the develop"ent of a high level of co"petence in the second language# $ personally agree !ith those !ho feel that a "a)or goal of language instruction in the university is the study of literature !ritten in the second language# $ do not thin%, ho!ever, that !e need to start out !ith serious literature i""ediately# Devoting several "onths to free reading of easier "aterial "ight be the fastest !ay to bring students to the point

1..

!here they can read great literature in a second language !ithout a serious language barrier# Summary Both conversation and pleasure reading have the potential of "eeting the re&uire"ents for opti"al input for ac&uisition very !ell# 5e have reached the conclusion that an interesting conversation in a second language, and reading so"ething for pleasure, are e'cellent language lessons# This co"es as no surprise to the "illions of people !ho have ac&uired language using only these /"ethods/, and have ac&uired the" very !ell# 3c4 Bsing sub0ect matter "or !anguage teaching 4nother class of alternatives to classroo" teaching involves the use of sub)ect "atter in the second language classroo", using the second language as a vehicle, as a language of presentation and e'planation# $ do not "ean by sub)ect "atter teaching !hat is %no!n as sub"ersion, "i'ing second language students in !ith native spea%ers# $ do "ean special classes for second language students, classes in !hich no native spea%ers participate as students, in !hich teachers "a%e so"e linguistic and cultural ad)ust"ents in order to help their students understand# $n this section, !e !ill first put sub)ect "atter teaching through the fa"iliar analysis according to the predictions "ade by second language ac&uisition theory# 4s !as the case !ith conversation and pleasure reading, there !ill be no atte"pt to clai" that sub)ect "atter teaching helps conscious learning in any !ay# 5e !ill then turn to several concrete "anifestations of sub)ect "atter teaching3 the successful i""ersion progra"s under!ay in Canada and the United States, and so"e untried possibilities for the use of sub)ect "atter in second language situations# *e(uirements o" optima! input *i- Comprehensib!e. Sub)ect "atter teaching !ill be of use for ac&uisition only to the e'tent it is co"prehensible# 5hat this "eans is that different sub)ects "ay be of "ore use to students at different

1.9

levels# CaHden *1999- points out that one could "a%e a case that "athe"atics is ideal for teaching in an i"perfectly ac&uired 7 # There is a li"ited vocabulary, less interactional de"and than in so"e other sub)ects, and considerable e'tra(linguistic support to aid co"prehension# *She points out, ho!ever, that co"ple' /story proble"s/ "ight be an obstacle for beginning level students#- Students !ith "ore second language proficiency could handle sub)ect "atter that is "ore displaced in ti"e and space, that supply fe!er concrete referents, such as history and literature# The point is not si"ply that second language students can survive in sub)ect "atter classes, but also that they !ill receive co"prehensible input that !ill help the" i"prove "ore in the second language# The co"prehensibility re&uire"ent argues against sub"ersion, against "i'ing second language ac&uirers in !ith native spea%ers before the second language ac&uirers reach higher levels of proficiency3 the presence of native spea%ers insures that a good proportion of the language heard by the inter"ediate ac&uirer !ill not be co"prehensible# *ii- Interesting@re!evant. Sub)ect "atter "ay not al!ays be interesting, but it is relevant# 5hen students are focussed on the sub)ect "atter, there is a very good chance they !ill be focussed off the for" of the language it is presented in# Sub)ect "atter affords a good chance of "eeting the /forgetting principle/, of the student being so focussed on !hat is said that he is not a!are of ho! it is said# *iii- .ot grammatica!!y se(uenced. This re&uire"ent is also clearly "et# $n fact, it is hard to i"age sub)ect "atter teaching not "eeting it# This !ould re&uire conte'tualiHing beyond our !ildest drea"s# *iv- 2uantity. Clearly, there is the potential of supplying great &uantities of input this !ay# Sub)ect "atter teaching in the second language auto"atically reaches the pedagogical ideal of filling the entire class hour !ith co"prehensible input# *v- &i!ter strength. Sub)ect "atter teaching "ay involve, and in fact

1.8

re&uire, so"e "ini"u" a"ount of an'iety# This an'iety, ho!ever, is not directed at the language it is presented in, if the "essage is co"prehensible# Sub)ect "atter teachers can %eep the language portion relatively an'iety(free and the filter do!n by3 *1* *,insuring co"prehensibility of the "essage2 not de"anding pre"ature production2 not de"anding full gra""atical accuracy fro" students#

Sub)ect "atter second language teachers "ight consider testing procedures that re&uire less linguistic production *short ans!ers instead of long essays-, and class discussion procedures that ta%e students> linguistic capacities into consideration *not correcting errors on for" or even allo!ing use of the 71 !here practical, as in the ;atural 4pproach-# The point to re"e"ber is that further language ac&uisition co"es !ith "ore co"prehensible input, fro" teacher tal% and reading, and not fro" de"ands for production# *vi- Too!s "or conversationa! management. Sub)ect "atter teaching "ay not provide the tools necessary to "aintain conversations on the outside, but it can lead to the learning and ac&uisition of acade"ic co""unicative co"petence in another culture# $n a class co"posed entirely of i""igrants and foreign students, teachers can be a!are of cultural differences in acade"ic behavior and teach classroo" behavior, either via learning, for obvious aspects of classroo" behavior *standing or not standing !hen the teacher enters the roo"2 !hat sort of paper to hand in ho"e!or% on, etc#- or ac&uisition, for "ore subtle aspects# Summary Sub)ect "atter teaching has, thus, the full potential for encouraging language ac&uisition# This "ay be a good place to point out that by sub)ect "atter teaching, $ do not "ean /:nglish for Special Purposes/ or for /4cade"ic Purposes/# :SP and :4P are, to "y understanding, standard language teaching classes !hose syllabi are based on an analysis of the tas% students !ill face and the language they !ill need *see, for e'a"ple, =obinson, 198+-# Sub)ect "atter teaching appears

1.9

to "e to be funda"entally different, although it "ay "eet "any of the goals :SP is designed for# 5hile :SP re&uires a detailed analysis of the synta', vocabulary, and discourse of a subfield, to be developed into a syllabus and presented bit by bit, sub)ect "atter teaching focusses only on the topic, the infor"ation or s%ill to be learned, the assu"ption being that "uch of the synta', vocabulary, and discourse style !ill be ac(uired along !ith the sub)ect "atter# *This idea is not entirely foreign to :SP2 several :SP courses e"phasiHe /authentic activities/# See, for e'a"ple, =obinson, p# ,92 5iddo!son, cited in =obinson, p# ,#3d4 ,vidence "or sub0ect matter teaching$ the immersion programs $""ersion bilingual progra"s have de"onstrated !hat is possible in second language ac&uisition using sub)ect "atter# $n i""ersion progra"s, initially "onolingual "a)ority children are schooled in a "inority language *Arench in 4nglophone Canada2 Spanish in the United States-# They are taught their acade"ic sub)ects totally in the second language# $n !hat is %no!n as /total early i""ersion/, input in the second language begins in %indergarten# 7ate i""ersion progra"s "ay begin later, after the children have had at least a year of instruction in the second language# The i""ersion progra"s appear to be successful in "any !ays# The "any reports that have been published confir" over and over that i""ersion students ac&uire high levels of co"petency in the second language *!hile they "ay not reach native(li%e levels, they outperfor" peers !ho have had standard foreign language classes-, they "a%e nor"al progress in school, doing as !ell in sub)ect("atter as "onolinguals, and they do not fall behind peers in first language develop"ent *for revie!s, see 7a"bert and Tuc%er, 199 2 S!ain, 1990-# Cohen and S!ain *199.- discuss these successes in light of the lac% of success of "any other types of bilingual progra"s# 4"ong the differences bet!een i""ersion and other progra"s, these characteristics of i""ersion "ay help to e'plain its success# Cohen and S!ain point out that in early i""ersion /all %indergarten pupils are unilingual in 71# $n essence, the successful progra" starts out as a segregated one linguistically/ *p# 09-# 4s "entioned above, this raises the students> chances of

19+

getting co"prehensible input, since teachers cannot gauge their speech only to native spea%ers, leaving second language ac&uirers behind# Cohen and S!ain point out several other factors that, in our ter"s, lead to a lo!er affective filter in i""ersion progra"s# The linguistic segregation /eli"inates the %ind of ridicule that students e'ert on less proficient perfor"ers/ *p# 09-, teachers have positive e'pectations, and the progra" is voluntary# 4lso, /in %indergarten, the children are per"itted to spea% in the 71 until they are ready to spea% in the 7 / *p# 08-# Thus, a Silent Period is allo!ed# The i""ersion e'perience, it needs to be e"phasiHed, does not bring these students to native spea%er levels, and i""ersion students> second language co"petence "ay have gaps, especially !hen it co"es to interaction abilities in casual conversation# *See Conners, 6enard and Singh, 1998, !ho report proble"s i""ersion students have in this area2 on the other hand, see Bruc%, 7a"bert and Tuc%er, 1990, for a report on !hat i""ersion children can do in this area#- $t is thought that these gaps e'ist only because the second language input does not include input fro" peers# $""ersion children hear the second language only fro" the teacher and only in class# Considering this li"itation, their achieve"ents are re"ar%able# The i""ersion progra"s sho! us !hat is possible linguistically fro" sub)ect "atter teaching, !hen social and psychological proble"s are eli"inated or reduced# They provide strong e"pirical evidence that sub)ect "atter teaching can not only teach sub)ect "atter but the language it is taught in as !ell, as long as the input is "ade co"prehensible# 3e4 +ther possibi!ities in sub0ect matter teaching There is no reason that sub)ect "atter teaching cannot be e'tended to other second language ac&uisition do"ains, and utiliHed to at least supple"ent the second language classroo" and provide so"e help in the difficult transition fro" language class to real !orld# Cne such do"ain is the university# $ !ill discuss here the situation in the 4"erican university, but the principles can be generaliHed to any higher education situation in !hich large nu"bers of second language spea%ers are enrolled#

191

Practically every large 4"erican university has an :S7 progra"# They range in &uality, of course, fro" e'cellent to sub(standard, but regardless of &uality, it is "y feeling that foreign students regard the" as an obstacle# :S7 is, "oreover, perceived as irrelevant at )ust those levels that both theory and applied research conclude it is irrelevant3 at the /inter"ediate/ level# 6any foreign students no longer feel they need :S7 !hen they are able to survive in regular classes, yet !ell("eaning ad"inistrators feel that for the foreign students> o!n protection, their level of :nglish co"petence should be higher# 4pplied research confir"s that inter"ediate :S7 is not productive# The studies of Upshur *19.8- and 6ason *1991-, revie!ed in Chapter $$, !hich sho!ed that e'tra :S7 does not help !hen students are enrolled in regular classes, included only students at this level# Aor so"e /good language learners/ *ac&uirers-, the ans!er to this proble" "ay very !ell be the eli"ination of the /:S7/ re&uire"ent or placing the level or re&uired proficiency in :nglish lo!er# Aor others, ho!ever, this !ould not be the best solution# The feelings of :S7 ad"inistrators that so"e students need /"ore/ is &uite real and )ustified# 4ll too often, students are able only to survive in classes !here the language de"and is very lo!, andDor they end up relying heavily on native language help, in the for" of te'ts or class"ates# Sub)ect "atter teaching "ay be part of the ans!er to this /transition/ proble"# 5hat $ propose is that the university consider classes for international students in sub)ect "atter, classes in !hich international students are in fact /segregated/, to be offered in all areas foreign students are li%ely to enroll, and to be "ade available on a voluntary basis# Such courses !ould give full acade"ic credit and cover regular sub)ect "atter# The "ain differences !ould be the fact that the students "ay be unfa"iliar !ith 4"erican acade"ic practices#, The absence of native spea%ers in the class !ould help to insure that the input is co"prehensible for the sa"e reason i""ersion provides "ore co"prehensible input than sub"ersion# Both the level of co"ple'ity of the classroo" presentation and the a"ount and co"ple'ity of outside reading !ould be regulated to the linguistic level of the class# Cther "odifications that !ould help co"prehensibility are also possible3

19

5e !ould e'pect lo!er de"ands on student output, including a tolerance for errors *"any of !hich !ill be eli"inated by "ore co"prehensible input over ti"e- and tests re&uiring short ans!ers in lieu of long essays# $nternational classes can not only ta%e into account and help eli"inate linguistic deficiencies, they can also help fill several other gaps in international students> %no!ledge# They can provide an an'iety(free, or at least an'iety(lo!, initial e'posure to the 4"erican style of education# Students !ill be able to ac&uire the subtleties of 4"erican classroo" style behavior, and learn "any of the obvious differences that e'ist bet!een !hat is acceptable behavior in a classroo" in their country and !hat is e'pected in the 4"erican university# $n other !ords, international classes can give students so"e of the tools for co""unicative co"petence in the conte't of the classroo"#0 1 *i- The .e1 ,ng!and prob!em. $nternational students can also fill foreign students in on cultural infor"ation that is presupposed in courses for native spea%ers and 4"erican students# Tho"as 8ablons%i of the <istory Depart"ent at USC has been teaching an 4"erican history course e'clusively for international students for the last three years, and he has pointed out to "e that "any international students lac% infor"ation that 4"erican professors ta%e for granted# 4 clear e'a"ple is his finding that "any of his students did not have a clear idea of !here ;e! :ngland !as, a point of infor"ation that !as essential to a particular presentation# $nfor"ation gaps such as this one are not obvious, and probably abound# They have a better chance of being filled in international classes, !here students are encouraged to as% &uestions, and !here instructors presuppose less# *ii- The ro!e o" ,S' in sub0ect matter teaching. The establish"ent of international classes does not signal the end of :S7, although it "ay result in so"e "odification, and hopefully i"prove"ent, of our :S7 offerings# Airst, !hile !e can i"agine pushing sub)ect "atter classes /do!n/ to the lo!est linguistic proficiency level possible, !e "ay al!ays have a need for the second language class at the beginning level# $t is an e"pirical &uestion )ust ho! "uch co"petence and instruction *i#e# co"prehensible

19,

input- is necessary before students can begin special sub)ect "atter classes, but there !ill, in "ost cases, be a need for a general class at the beginning#. Second, as discussed in Chapter $M there are "any aspects of language that are consciously learnable, both in /gra""ar/ *"ostly "orphology for the "a)ority of students- and discourse *conscious rules for the fine points of !riting, including punctuation and organiHation-# 4lso, a large percentage of foreign students "ay desire "ore :nglish than they can get in the classroo" situation in order to facilitate participation in 4"erican social life# $nter"ediate level classes that focus on providing the tools for co""unicative co"petence and conversational "anage"ent !ould be very helpful for students !ith "ore integrative orientation andDor !ho plan to re"ain in the United States for e'tended periods of ti"e# $n addition, :S7 teachers "ight serve the useful function of assisting and consulting !ith the sub)ect "atter teachers !ho teach international sections# Aigure 1# presents a sche"a of the possible interaction bet!een an :S7 co"ponent and an acade"ic co"ponent#
Fig. *.'. ;,L and academic components of international students' program at the uni$ersity le$el 4444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444 Le$el ;,L component ?cademic component 4444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444 Beginning )lassroom language teaching1 None focussing on topics of general interestK introduction to Oni$ersity life (ntermediate 9ptional course "or! on (nternational sections of 1. ;nglish grammar (Monitor) su/Gect matter courses '. ,tylistics (learna/le) (optional) 7. )on$ersation (see te@t) ?d$anced None #egular sections of su/Gect matter courses 4444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444 ,ee Note 6 for suggestions for a transition /et"een the /eginning and intermediate le$els.

*iii- The need "or app!ied !inguistics research. $f $ !ere si"ply to assert that the $nternational Students progra" as outlined above !as

190

/the ans!er/ to our foreign student proble"s in the 4"erican university, $ !ould be repeating the sins of the past, clai"ing that !e need only consult theory in order to co"e to the correct for" of practice# To return to the "essage of Chapter $, this is not sufficient# 4t least the follo!ing &uestions need to be ans!ered !ith e"pirical data3 1# # ,# 0# Do students in international classes ac&uire "ore :nglish? Do they learn as "uch sub)ect "atter as those !ho elect to ta%e standard courses? Do they have "ore success in their studies over the long run? Do they feel "ore co"fortable in the acade"ic environ"ent?

Clearly, the ans!ers to these &uestions !ill be of both theoretical and practical interest# *iv- Adu!t ,S' and sub0ect matter. The :S7 profession in the United States has already been e'peri"enting !ith a for" of sub)ect "atter teaching at the /adult education/ level, in courses designed for adult i""igrants to the United States# *This is another e'a"ple of teachers and ad"inistrators not !aiting for theory and research, but discovering /!hat !or%s/ on their o!n2 see Chapter $ for discussion#- S# Bro!n *1999- describes one e'peri"ent of this sort in 7os 4ngeles# 5hile part of :S7 instruction in Bro!n>s school is /the "ore traditional gra""ar( oriented/ style class, students also participate in units covering /life situations/ topics that last fro" t!o to four !ee%s# :'a"ples include the use of co""unity services *post(office, library, etc#-, consu"er education, e"ploy"ent *covering classified ads, e"ploy"ent agencies, unions, etc#-, fa"ily life *e#g# !edding invitations, birthday parties, etc#-, citiHenship *e#g# traffic and par%ing tic%ets, voting, ta'es, etc#-, and other /life situations/# Teachers can use guest spea%ers, fil"s, field trips, and co""ercial "aterials in helping students understand the /"echanics of life/ in a ne! country# 4gain, as is usually the case, no evidence is yet available confir"ing the utility of such a progra"# T!o of the three sources of inspiration for progra"s presented in Chapter $, second language ac&uisition theory and teacher insightDintuition, predict, ho!ever, that such progra"s !ill be of great use for language ac&uisition, in addition to their obvious practical value, as long as the input is co"prehensible#9

191

). &o

ents on Achieve ent Testing

$n this section, !e !ill consider the i"plications of second language ac&uisition theory on testing# $ !ill begin !ith a very short revie! of !hat !e nor"ally consider to be relevant in selecting tests for second language achieve"ent, and the %inds of test options !e chose fro"# 4s !as the case in describing language teaching syste"s earlier, this is not done in an effort to supply ne! infor"ation, but to establish a co""on set of assu"ptions2 $ !ill assu"e, therefore, so"e fa"iliarity !ith the standard literature in second language testing *e#g# <arris, 19.92 Malette, 19992 Cller, 1999-# $ !ill then focus on one "a)or consideration, !hat Cller *1999- ter"s the /instructional value/ of a test, and suggest that if !e ta%e this property of tests seriously, second language ac&uisition theory severely li"its our options in achieve"ent test selection# 1# ;C=647 CC;S$D:=4T$C;S $; T:ST :M47U4T$C; 4;D S:7:CT$C; The standard literature on tests and "easure"ents tells us that a good test needs to "eet certain standards# $t "ust be reliable, that is, it "ust consistently give the sa"e results under different conditions# $t "ust also be valid, that is, it should really "easure !hat it is supposed to "easure# Testing e'perts also advise us to "a%e sure a test is practical, that it is econo"ical, easy to score, and easy to interpret *<arris, 19.9, pp# 1( -# <arris also suggest that !e consider the face validity of a test, /the !ay the test !oo#s((to the e'a"inees, test ad"inistrators, educators, and the li%e/ *p# 1-, noting that if a test does not appear to be a valid "easure, !hether it is or not in reality, students and teachers !ill not ta%e it seriously# Teachers and ad"inistrators in second language progra"s no! have a !ide variety of tests to choose fro"# Tests are usually classified according to the "odality they use *reading, !riting, spea%ing, listening- and their place a"ong the discrete pointDintegrative continuu"# Discrete(point tests are tests that atte"pt /to focus attention on one point of gra""ar at a ti"e/ *Cller, 1999, p# ,9-# 4n e'tre"e discrete point test re&uires a "ini"u" of %no!ledge of conte't outside the sentence containing the ite" tested# <ere is an e'a"ple of a discrete( point ite"3

19.

Mary 4444444444 a. /. c.

in Ne" Eor! since 1966. is li$ing has li$ed li$es

$ntegrative tests, on the other hand, "a%e no atte"pt to focus on one aspect of language at a ti"e2 according to Cller *1999-, /5hereas discrete ite"s atte"pt to test %no!ledge of language one bit at a ti"e, integrative tests atte"pt to assess a learner>s capacity to use "any bits all at the sa"e ti"e, and possibly !hile e'ercising several presu"ed co"ponents of a gra""atical syste", and perhaps "ore than one of the traditionally(recogniHed s%ills or aspects of s%ills/ *p# ,9-# :'a"ples of test that are usually considered integrative include reading co"prehension, cloHe tests, dictation, co"positions, and tests of oral co""unication# # $;ST=UCT$C;47 M47U: $ !ould li%e to focus here on only one aspect of one %ind of testing, the instructional value of achieve"ent tests, and "a%e only one point# Tests have a huge i"pact on classroo" behavior, and need to be selected to encourage students to engage in activities that !ill help the" ac&uire "ore language# $t "ay be that the instructional value criterion is possibly of "ore i"portance than the criteria listed above# Stated si"ply, the sort of test selected has a huge i"pact on the class# $f students %no! in advance !hat sort of test !ill be used to "easure their achieve"ent in a course, they !ill, naturally, tend to study for the test, and teachers !ill feel pressure to teach to the test# $ suggest !e harness this natural tendency and select tests that !ill encourage student preparation that in itself causes "ore second language ac&uisition#8 8ones *1999- gives a good e'a"ple of the results of harnessing this tendency, !hich he calls the >bac%!ash/ effect# $n teaching an ele"entary Fer"an course at the university level, he decided to give an oral "idter", a short *five "inute- conversation done on a one( on(one basis# 8ones noted on this test that fe! of his students !ere proficient in the area of social co""unication3 /5hen $ greeted the", as%ed ho! they !ere, or said good(bye, the "a)ority of the" had no response but

199

a!%!ard laughter, even though they had practiced these protocols in the classroo"/ *p# 1.-# The effect of this "idter" e'perience on the class !as stri%ing3 /The teaching assistants told "e shortly after the first oral test that students !ere begging for "ore oral practice in the classroo"# The situation !as "uch different on the second test# They !ere !aiting for "e# $t !as obvious that they had "ade a great effort to develop spea%ing proficiency in a very short ti"e# The test not only gave "e vital infor"ation about their ability to spea% the language, but it also served as a "otivating influence for the" to spend "ore ti"e developing this i"portant s%ill/ *pp# 1.(19-# 5hat if 8ones> oral test had failed the usual standards for reliability? 5hat if, for e'a"ple, the rating had been "ade by several )udges and their interrater reliability had not "et the re&uired level? The po!erful bac%!ash effect, $ a" suggesting, "ay, in certain situations, "ore than "a%e up for this proble"# The basic proble" $ a" spea%ing of here is the fact that practice in certain types of tests does not necessarily lead to "ore ac&uisition of the second language# This factor eli"inates so"e tests !ith very fine trac% records !hen )udged on the basis of reliability and validity# There is no evidence, for e'a"ple, that practicing cloHe tests in class helps the student ac&uire "ore of the language, or i"proves perfor"ance on cloHe tests# There is very good evidence, on the other hand, that participating in conversation, and reading for content or pleasure, do help the student ac&uire language# Conversational practice provides co"prehensible input and helps the student ac&uire the tools needed for conversation !ith native spea%ers, !hich in turn results in "ore input and "ore language ac&uisition# =eading for content is also an effective !ay of getting input that "eets the re&uire"ents for opti"al input for ac&uisition, as !e sa! earlier in this chapter# 4chieve"ent tests, $ a" suggesting, should "eet this re&uire"ent3 preparation for the test, or studying for the test, should obvious!y encourage the student to do things that !ill provide "ore co"prehensible input and the tools to gain even "ore input !hen the class is over# This drastically reduces our options, but also, in a real sense, si"plifies the tas% of achieve"ent testing# 7et us first e'a"ine !hat the conse&uences of this philosophy "ight be in the area of foreign language testing#

198

4chieve"ent testing in foreign language classes atte"pts to assess !hether a student has "et the re&uire"ents of a given course, and so"eti"es !hether he has satisfied a language re&uire"ent at an institution# $ !ill deal !ith each of these situations in turn# Aor the foreign language class, $ see only t!o options# Cne of the" is fairly traditional3 reading co"prehension# $f students %no! in advance that they !ill be given a reading co"prehension test, a test in !hich they are as%ed to read several short passages and ans!er general &uestions about the content of !hat they have read, they !ill be encouraged to read# They !ill be encouraged to study for the test in the si"plest and "ost obvious !ay, and !ill see% out reading opportunities in the second language# 4s long as they %no! they !ill be presented !ith a variety of passages *on different topics- and as long as the &uestions focus on the /gist/ of the passage and do not rely on one specific !ord or structure, it certainly !ill be the case that general reading for pleasure and interest !ill prepare the" for such a test# Teachers !ill be encouraged to provide co"prehensible reading "aterials, and students !ill be encouraged to go outside the bounds of the classroo" in search of supple"entary "aterials# 6ost i"portant, if they read, they !ill ac&uire "ore of the target language# The reading co"prehension test is especially useful, since there is generally no proble" in purchasing or constructing tests that "eet the statistical re&uire"ents "entioned above# The standard literature has "any suggestions on constructing reading tests *see, for e'a"ple, <arris, 19.9, chapter .-, and reliability "easures and various types of validity "easures can easily be obtained# =eading tests can be constructed that are practical and that have obvious face validity# 4 second %ind of test is "ore co"plicated, but, at the "o"ent, $ see no other valid options# 5hat is needed is a test that !ill encourage students to engage in conversations, that re&uires use of the tools of co""unicative co"petence# 6any standard oral tests fail to do this# 4 test in !hich the student ans!ers &uestions does not re&uire interactional ability, nor does a test in !hich a student si"ply tal%s or even as%s &uestions# 5hat is needed is a true test of conversational "anage"ent# $ !ill atte"pt to give a rough description of !hat a test of conversational "anage"ent !ould loo% li%e3 $deally, it !ould involve both tester and student in a conversation about so"ething real, a proble" that

199

has to be solved, a topic that needs to be discussed# Second, the student !ould be rated on his ability to "anage the conversation and co""unicate, not on gra""atical accuracy# $f, for e'a"ple, the student had !ord(finding difficulties that resulted only in an e"barrassed silence on his part, he !ould be graded do!n# $f the student !ere able to /cover/ the proble" !ith appropriate fillers *)ust a "o"ent### !hat $ !ant to say is### ho! do you say###?-, he !ould not only not be penaliHed but !ould be graded up for having the ability to %eep the conversation going and not lose the floorJ Students !ould also be given credit for politeness and appropriateness, since a "ini"u" a"ount of this %no!ledge is absolutely necessary for successful conversation# 6ost i"portant, they !ould be given credit for successful co""unication, for successfully co"pleting the co""unicative e'change# Students !ho !ere able to get the e'a"iner to help the" !ould also be graded "ore highly, the assu"ption being that those !ho can elicit needed vocabulary and help the native spea%er give the" co"prehensible input !ill have "ore success in second language ac&uisition in the long run#9 There are predictable ob)ections one can "a%e to such a testing plan# 6ost obviously, it can be argued that such tests, especially the second one, !ill do nothing for the develop"ent of gra""atical accuracy, and !ill only encourage sloppy speech, a laisseH(faire, /anything goes/ attitude to!ard language, and the establish"ent of per"anent bad habits# Second language ac&uisition theory, ho!ever, "a%es &uite different predictions3 if tests of this sort encourage students to participate in conversation and develop the s%ills to "anage conversations, they !ill contribute a great deal to the develop"ent of gra""atical accuracy# $ndeed, they !ill develop, perhaps, "ore gra""atical accuracy in the long run than any other %ind of "easureJ They !ill give the student the tools he needs to obtain co"prehensible input, and this in turn !ill result in subse&uent language ac&uisition, i"prove"ent after the ter" ends# The conversational "anage"ent test pro"ises to be very difficult to grade reliably, and than%s to this unreliability, it "ay fail to "eet acceptable standards of validity# $t !ill be hard to train raters and hard to invent topics to discuss# ;evertheless, it has the pro"ise of sti"ulating students to develop conversational s%ills that !ill enable the" to

18+

use the language despite their less than perfect proficiency, thus helping to insure continued progress in second language ac&uisition after the ter" has ended# Cne could also argue that at least so"e gra""ar testing should be included# 4s e"phasiHed in Chapter $$, !e have not re)ected the teaching of for"al gra""ar# $t has its use as a 6onitor, !hen using the 6onitor does not interfere !ith co""unication# $t is therefore a portion of the instructional progra"# Shouldn>t !e therefore test gra""ar as !ell, in the for" of testing our students> abilities to 6onitor their output under conditions conducive to the use of the 6onitor? The argu"ent appeared plausible to "e at one ti"e# Tracy Terrell presented "e !ith a counter(argu"ent to testing gra""ar, and $ thin% he is right3 if !e allo! gra""ar testing, it !ill gro! and soon do"inate the testing progra", and hence the curriculu"# 5hile li"ited gra""ar testing is consistent !ith the li"ited role of the gra""ar, there is a real danger that teachers and ad"inistrators !ill revert to their old !ays and gradually return to testing gra""ar e'clusivelyJ ,# 74;FU4F: =:EU$=:6:;TS 6any universities and so"e high schools still have language re&uire"ents# This is usually e'pressed as the necessity of studying a foreign language for a given period of ti"e, t!o to four se"esters# $f, ho!ever, the goal of the classroo" is to bring students to the point !here they can continue to ac&uire the language by using the outside !orld, or resources outside the classroo", this suggests that !e should consider testing students to see !hether they have reached this level3 can they continue to obtain co"prehensible input? The tests that probe this could be the identical ones proposed to be of "a'i"u" educational value in the preceding section3 =eading co"prehension and conversational "anage"ent are not only the "ost appropriate for achieve"ent tests given at the end of the se"ester, but "ay also be the "ost appropriate leaving e'a"s# The tests as% only these &uestions3 can the student read !ell enough in the second language so that he can read te'ts !ithout having to consult a dictionary e'cessively and !ithout undue pain, i#e# !ithout !hat ;e!"ar% calls /crytoanalytic decoding/# $s he able to co""unicate effectively !ith a native spea%er !ho is !illing to help?

181

Cf course, $ have left "any serious &uestions unsettled, such as the range of topics to be read and discussed, the proble" of re&uiring e&ual levels of proficiency in cognate *and hence "ore co"prehensible- languages and "ore e'otic languages, and ho! the passing level is deter"ined# So"e applied research "ay eventually help to solve the"2 at the "o"ent, ho!ever, the for"at see"s clear# 0# U;$M:=S$TI 7:M:7 :S7 Second language ac&uisition theory, as presented in this volu"e, gives no "agical and obvious ans!er to the difficult &uestion of :S7 testing at the university level# The goal of such testing is to deter"ine !hether students %no! enough :nglish to study in :nglish# 4s is !ell %no!n, the /bac%!ash/ effect has been a proble" in this area for years3 "any foreign students study for the TC:A7 e'a"ination e'clusively, and are helped to do so by special courses designed to do )ust this *see discussion in 5iggon, 1999-# 4pplying the sa"e argu"ents here that !e used earlier, e"phasiHing the instructional value of tests, !e co"e to the conclusion that sub)ect "atter testing !ould be of benefit at this level as !ell# This is "ore easily said than done2 it !ould be prohibitively e'pensive to design standardiHed sub)ect "atter tests in all disciplines for international students# $nternational courses, as outlined in the previous sections, "ay be a step in this direction, as long as they use sub)ect "atter tests as finals2 a students> release fro" the :S7 re&uire"ent could be at least partially dependent on his ability to pass international courses# .. So e Gaps in %aterials $f the conclusions !e have reached in this volu"e are correct, it i"plies that !e have so"e fairly serious gaps in our "aterials# Before listing !here $ thin% these gaps are, let "e first of all note that "aterials need to "eet the sa"e re&uire"ents that "ethods do, as listed in Chapters $$$ and $M# $f "aterials are supposed to help students in language ac&uisition, they should either supply input that is co"prehensible, interestingDrelevant, and not gra""atically se&uenced the"selves, or they should provide students !ith the "eans of obtaining such input# $f "aterials are "eant to help language learning, they

18

should focus on rules that are learnable, portable, etc# 5hile learning "aterials can be criticiHed, it is "y i"pression that there is no lac% of "aterials for this purpose, and that current te'ts can be useful for the language learning co"ponent of second language and foreign language courses# 5e !ill therefore focus on !hat sorts of "aterials need to be developed to encourage ac&uisition# The ne! "aterials !ill be designed, $ hope, to fill a basic need, helping beginning and inter"ediate students obtain co"prehensible input outside the classroo"# This is an obvious proble" for foreign language students, and is especially crucial for students of /e'otic/ languages# $t is also a "a)or proble" for students of co""only spo%en languages and second language students2 students at beginning levels do not have the co"petence to engage native spea%ers in conversation, and cannot understand radio and TM or read easily# 5e need "aterials, in addition to the input provided by the classroo", to bring students to the point !here they can utiliHe the outside !orld# Cne obvious and convenient source of co"prehensible input is reading# 4s discussed earlier in this chapter, pleasure reading "eets the re&uire"ents to &ualify as input for ac&uisition very !ell# The proble" !e have today is that readers designed for second language students do not "eet these re&uire"ents# 5hat is currently available is often not co"prehensible2 as "entioned earlier, the only reading "any foreign language students encounter are paragraphs that are loaded up !ith co"ple' vocabulary and synta'# $t is nearly al!ays gra""atically se&uenced2 !riters are careful only to include synta' that the student is supposed to have studied or is currently learning# 4lso, there is si"ply not enough reading available# The second language student needs "assive a"ounts of co"prehensible, interesting reading "aterial, enough so that he can read for pleasure andDor interest for an hour an evening, if he !ants to, for several "onths# So"e current te'ts are in the right direction, but they are fla!ed in several !ays# *1- The use of e'ercises, &uestions that test students on content and drill the" on the gra""ar and vocabulary used# Teachers are, of course, free to ignore these e'ercises, but they often ta%e up "ost of the pages of the reader# 5hile it can be argued that e'ercises provide

18,

learning, !hile the te't provides ac&uisition, $ thin% it is dangerous practice to try to co"bine the t!o in this !ay# Airst, the necessity of ans!ering content &uestions can ruin the pleasure of reading# Second, they encourage reading "ore for for" and less for content# The assu"ption underlying "any of the e'ercises found in readers see"s to be that students need /revie!/ and /practice/ on ne! vocabulary and gra""ar, other!ise they !ill not retain it# This is, it see"s to "e, a self(fulfilling prophecy# 5ith fe!er e'ercises, students "ight read "ore, and have a better chance of encountering these ite"s in te'ts# 5ith e'cessive e'ercises, !e "ay be destroying our students> desire to read for pleasure and interest in the second language, thus insuring that "any !ill indeed never see the ne! structures and !ords again# * - Current readers si"ply do not provide enough# Part of the proble" is the inclusion of e'ercises, !hich ta%e up valuable space# The reader of the future !ill be thic%, full of reading, and on varied topics# Students !ill be able to pic% and choose their topics# To do this, they need a lot to choose fro"# Si"ply including one story about the 5ine Country of Arance, another about sports, and one "ystery story is not enough# *,- Ainally, !riters of such readers need to rid the"selves of the illusion that each line, each paragraph, "ust count, and introduce so"e ne! structure or vocabulary ite"# 4s e"phasiHed "any ti"es in this boo%, such gra""atical e"phasis !ill seriously distort any atte"pt to !rite anything of interest# 5e need not !orry about each line# $f !e provide enough co"prehensible input, everything the student needs !ill be there# 1# T<: 74;FU4F: 74BC=4TC=I 4s "any readers %no!, there has been a great deal of discussion and debate in the applied linguistics literature over the virtues of the language lab# $n "y vie!, it is not a &uestion of !hether the lab is /good/ or /bad/, but si"ply !hether it can be used to supply input that is useful for ac&uisition, and thereby supple"ent !hat !e can provide in class and in reading# ;ot only can the lab be used in this !ay, but it appears to be the case

180

that it is far easier, technologically spea%ing, to use the lab as a "eans of supplying co"prehensible input than for other purposes# The traditional use of the language lab puts a tre"endous technological and pedagogical burden on the teacher3 the teacher is e'pected to "onitor student output, and correct their errors# Using the lab as a source of co"prehensible input is easier# <ere are so"e possibilities3 taped stories, !ith pictures to aid co"prehension and add to en)oy"ent, class(type lectures, supple"ented !ith lecture notes *on real topics, designed to supple"ent international classes, not sa"ple lectures on rando" aspects of che"istry or the history of a pretend %ingdo"-, radio progra"s, co""ercials, etc# $n other !ords, co"prehensible input, !ith si"ple aids to co"prehension# $n "y vie!, the lab should be a resource, a place students can go to get input on a variety of sub)ect "atters !henever it is convenient for the"# The old vie! of the lab, !ith the vigilant drill "aster, does not allo! this#1+ # 4 CC66:;T C; A$:7D T:ST$;F CA 64T:=$47S This slightly ne! approach to "aterials "ight also necessitate a slightly ne! approach to field testing# $ thin% $ can best illustrate this by relating a conversation $ had several years ago !ith a representative of a publishing house that is active in both :S7 and foreign language "aterials# <e had co"e to see "e because of our !or% on the order of ac&uisition of gra""atical structures *e#g# Bailey, 6adden and Krashen, 19902 Krashen et a!., 19982 Krashen et a!., 199.2 <ouc%, =oberson and Krashen, 1998a- feeling that our !or%, and si"ilar !ord done by other researchers, "ight give his !riters a better se&uence to base their readers on# <e accepted it as a given fact that readers designed for students needed to be controlled for structures, and that our natural order studies !ould provide a superior basis for this# Boo% one, for e'a"ple, !ould contain only those structures found to be early ac&uired, boo% t!o !ould add those structures slightly farther do!n on the natural order, etc# $ have argued against this philosophy several ti"es in this volu"e# 4s Stevic% *198+notes, it leads to a style /!hich is linguistically antiseptic and e"otionally sterile/ *p# +,2 see also his e'cellent discussion,

181

pp# +,( +0-# $ presented "y argu"ents against this approach to this publisher>s representative, and as%ed hi" !hat for" of field testing his readers under!ent# <is response !as that the linguistic analysis !as dee"ed sufficient3 his publishing house provides !riters !ith a guide, indicating !hat structures are to be included for different levels# $f the proposed te'ts do indeed only contain these structures, they are considered !orthy and have passed the test# <is purpose in seeing "e !as to revise this guide according to the natural order# <ere is an alternative approach to developing and field testing readers, one that is consistent !ith the philosophy set forth in this boo%# The first step is to use !riters !ho are genuinely interested in telling, or re(telling a story, and !ho are interested in and sy"pathetic !ith the audience# They si"ply !rite, focussing on the story, using !hat they intuitively feel they need to tell it and "a%e it co"prehensible *recall Bro!n>s advice to parents, repeated on page .1-#The field test is not a syntactic analysis# $t is done in order to ans!er the &uestions3 do "e"bers of the intended audience understand it? Do they en)oy it? Do they find it interesting? 5ould they read it on their o!n *not as an assign"ent-? $f the ans!ers to these &uestions are in the affir"ative, second language ac&uisition theory tells us that i O 5 !ill be there, that the reading is linguistically appropriate and it !ill help the reader ac&uire "ore of the target language# 5e "ay apply si"ilar criteria to other %inds of "aterials, i#e# the lab "aterials reco""ended earlier, and "aterials designed to help teach sub)ect "atter *see ;ote 1+-# 4re they co"prehensible? 4re they interestingDrelevant? etc# Cnly the students and language ac&uirers can ans!er these &uestions# 7et us also not forget the obvious &uestion that needs to be as%ed about all "aterials3 do they actually result in "ore proficiency in the target language? The theory predicts that if "aterials satisfy our re&uire"ents, this !ill happen, but, as e"phasiHed in Chapter $, this is not enough# 4pplied linguistics research needs to confir" it# ,. So e Pro#le s :ven if the theory presented here is totally correct, and "y suggestions for application are in fact the appropriate ones, there are so"e

18.

serious proble"s that need to be "entioned before concluding# These have to do !ith the acceptance, by teachers and students, of language ac(uisition as pri"ary, and co"prehensible input as the "eans of encouraging language ac&uisition# These proble"s are caused by he fact that ac&uisition differs fro" learning in t!o "a)or !ays3 ac&uisition is s!o1 and subt!e, !hile learning is "ast and, for so"e people, obvious. 4c&uisition ta%es ti"e2 it ta%es far "ore than five hours per !ee% over nine "onths to ac&uire the sub)unctive# $t "ay, if fact, ta%e years# Food linguists, on the other hand, can consciously learn a great deal in a very short ti"e# 4lso, !hen !e have ac&uired so"ething, !e are hardly a!are of it# $n a sense, it feels as if it !as al!ays there, and so"ething anyone can do# 7earning is different# So"e people derive great pleasure fro" the learning and use of conscious rules, and $ a" one of the"J /6astering/ the sub)unctive in Arench !as very satisfying for "e, and $ re%indle this sense of victory every ti"e $ plan and say sentences such as /$l faut &ue )>aille/# $t is so"eti"es hard for people li%e us to understand that this sort of pleasurable activity is not real language ac&uisition# This leads to one "a)or proble"# 7anguage curriculu" and te'ts are designed by people li%e us, people !ho learn &uic%ly and !ho derive satisfaction fro" it *Stevic%>s /group F/, p# 1,2 Stevic%, 198+-# The vast "a)ority of our students, ho!ever, are not as interested in the structure of language as !e are, and get their pleasures else!hereJ But !hat about those students !ho believed us, and !ill only accept conscious gra""ar and drill as the core of a language class, and !ho e'pect all of their errors to be corrected *see e#g# Cathcart and Clsen, 199.-? $ can only reco""end t!o sorts of solution, one long ter" and one short ter"# $f the essentials of this boo% are correct, in the long ter", these students and their teachers !ill be educated# $deas change slo!ly, ho!ever, and so"e short(ter" solutions are needed# Cne of these, suggested by Tony Pfann%uche, is to present a short course on language ac&uisition as part of the language teaching progra", or )ust prior to it# $ thin% this is )ustified, especially if !e conceive of the language re&uire"ent in high schools and colleges as including s%ills and infor"ation about ho! to ac&uire any language, not )ust the one presented in class# 4nother approach, and one that $ a" personally not above using in "y classes, is deception# 5e can teach vocabulary or

189

gra""ar, and, as long as it is done in the target language, a great deal of ac&uisition !ill ta%e place, the "ediu" being the "essage# 5e can teach situationally, giving students useful, short dialogues that satisfy the craving for learning and "e"oriHed language, but, at the sa"e ti"e, present co"prehensible input# Ainally, the sub)ect "atter international classes !ill also provide co"prehensible input for a student, !hether he believes in subconscious ac&uisition or not# $ thin% that $ have presented a conservative vie! of language ac&uisition theory and its applications, conservative in the sense that it atte"pts to be consistent !ith all e"pirical data that are %no!n to "e# $t is consistent !ith the !ay thousands of people have ac&uired second language throughout history, and in "any cases ac&uired the" very !ell# They ac&uired second language !hile they !ere focussed on so"ething else, !hile they !ere gaining interesting or needed infor"ation, or interacting !ith people they li%ed to be !ith# +otes
1 These principles derive fro" !hat 4sher considers to be the three critical ele"ents of child language ac&uisition3 *1listening in advance of spea%ing3 /$t "ay be that listening co"prehension "aps the blueprint for the future ac&uisition of spea%ing/ *p# 1+01-# * /###the understanding of spo%en language "ay be ac&uired !hen adults "anipulate the physical behavior of the infant through co""ands###/ *,/###listening s%ill "ay produce a >readiness> for the child to spea%### 4s understanding develops, there is a point of readiness to spea% in !hich the child spontaneously begins to produce utterances/ *p# 1+01-# 5hile not strictly a "ethod co"parison e'peri"ent, ;e!"ar%>s 6ini"al 7anguage Teaching Progra" for foreign language teaching at the University level, reported in ;e!"ar% *1991-, is of great interest# ;e!"ar%>s students spent their instructional !ee% as follo!s3 three hours in conversation sections !ith native spea%ers2 t!o hours of e'tensive reading */in order to encourage scanning and rapid reading, assign"ents are purposely longer *1+( + pagesthan students can study crytoanalytically, and e'a"inations on readings purposely encourage rapid s%etchy reading/, p# 1.-2 three hours in the lab for !or% on dialogues2 and four hours !ith /learning/ type activities *study of a conventional gra""ar, reading and discussion in general linguistics-# Clearly, the first three portions focus on ac&uisition, !ith the conversational sections and e'tensive reading assign"ents providing co"prehensible input# ;e!"ar% reports that his students consistently reach the 674 nor"s for t!o years in reading after only one year in his progra"# , $n so"e cases, international classes are i"practical or i"possible# Cne e'a"ple is the large lecture class in ele"entary sciences# 4 possibility is the international discussion section andDor /pre(lecture/ section, in !hich difficult vocabulary is e'plained, and the topic of the lecture discussed in advance#

188

0 $n so"e cases, international classes are i"practical or i"possible# Cne e'a"ple is the large lecture class in ele"entary sciences# 4 possibility is the international discussion section andDor /pre(lecture/ section, in !hich difficult vocabulary is e'plained, and the topic of the lecture discussed in advance# 1# # 4bility to ta%e notes in lectures# 4bility to ta%e notes on !ritten, te'tual "aterials#

,# 4bility to organiHe essay type e'a"ination &uestions and !rite accurately under the pressure of ti"e# 0# 4bility to recogniHe and understand the thin%ing strategies i"plicit in ob)ective type test &uestions *p# 99-# The international class, it can be argued, provides a natural syllabus for the ac&uisition of study s%ills2 needs such as those listed above !ill be "et, as !ell as others not predicted by the needs survey *see footnote five for an e'a"ple-# Second, international students "ay not regard /study s%ills/ classes as essential to their needs and as contributing directly to their educational progra" *although Sch!abe points out that her students at the University of California at Davis appear to be "ore "otivated for and interested in her :S7 clinic than regular :S7 classes-# They "ay si"ply be another obstacle to get through before students can pursue their "a)or interest# This argu"entation and speculation needs to be supple"ented !ith research on the applied level, to deter"ine, !hether the best approach is the clinic alone, the international class alone, or so"e co"bination# 1 To give a concrete e'a"ple of an easily(learnable aspect of classroo"Dacade"ic behavior, Floria <eller has pointed out to "e that several of her :S7 students !ould hand in ho"e!or% assign"ents on three ring noteboo% paper !ith the rings on the !rong *right- side *on !hat !e consider to be the bac% of the paper-# This trivial error "ight be interpreted as a sign of sloppiness in a regular class and "ight not be corrected# $t !ould be anticipated or at least corrected in an international students> class, and is a good e'a"ple of a si"ple, learnable rule that "a%es a real difference# Using the correct side of the paper "ay not "a%e a student a better student or i"prove his grasp of sub)ect "atter, but it !ill affect his i"age in the eyes of the teacher# /7earning/ s"all aspects of classroo" and acade"ic behavior "ay thus have si"ilar functions as learning late(ac&uired aspects of language *Chapter $M-3 they "ay not be essential for co""unication, but add /polish/, giving an often i"portant cos"etic effect# . <ere is a possible su""er intensive progra", "eant for the international student !ith a fe! years of for"al :nglish instruction in his o!n country !ho is not yet ready for acade"ic !or% in :nglish# The goal of the progra" is to provide sub)ect "atter instruction in areas that are, at the sa"e ti"e, very relevant to the students> needs and interests, and that are linguistically co"prehensible *1- Course !or%, taught by sub)ect "atter teachers# The student selects courses fro" a list consisting of courses such as these3 *i- 6athe"atics revie!, fro" algebra through calculus# *ii- Co"puter operation *not progra""ing-# *iii- 4"erican consu"er econo"ics */Sylvia Porter/-, including credit, ban%ing, shopping strategies, etc#

189

*iv- :nglish gra""ar */language appreciation/, or linguistics-# *v- :nglish gra""ar for 6onitor use# * - Cnce a degree of fluency is achieved, discussion groups !ith both "ore e'perienced foreign students *in :nglish- and !ith native spea%ers !ho are interested in the sa"e area of study can supple"ent the for"al course offerings# 6y prediction is that such a progra" !ould result in far "ore ac&uisition of :nglish than the standard intensive progra", !ould be perceived of as "ore relevant by international students, and !ould be of considerable value in furthering the students> educational progress in his specialty# 9 $n areas !here there are enough students to support such classes, other for"s of sub)ect "atter teaching should also !or% in adult :S7, including )ob related classes for i""igrants or non(native spea%ers of :nglish, and topics of interest, e#g# introduction to 4"erican literature, 4"erican sports, coo%ing, etc# The point is that any topic !ill !or% as long as the input is co"prehensible and the students are genuinely interested in the sub)ect "atter# 8 4s Carroll *198+- notes3 /$t is only natural for students to shape their learning efforts so as to be "a'i"ally successful on tests, and if the tests "easure ob)ectives that are in so"e !ays different fro" those of the instruction, students !ill !or% to!ards those ob)ectives and pay less attention to achieving other ob)ectives# The nature of e'ternal e'a"inations !ill often shape the behavior of the teachers the"selves# 5e so"eti"es co"plain that teachers do nothing but >teach for the tests>/ *p# 1 8-# 9 $ have no totally satisfactory topics to suggest that are /real/ and that present real proble"s to be solved# $n a consulting session !ith Karl Scheville>s /P:A7/ pro)ect at the University of California at Ber%eley *Depart"ent of :ducation-, $ feel !e ca"e close to developing so"e# <ere is one e'a"ple# :'a"iner and student are given the follo!ing situation3 they are siblings, and live in a s"all apart"ent !ith a large fa"ily# 4ll the children share bedroo"s# The oldest brother has decided that he !ants a roo" of his o!n# 4 fa"ily "eeting needs to ta%e place to decide !hat to do, because if the brother gets his !ay, there !ill be intolerable space constraints on the rest of the fa"ily# The e'a"iner and student discuss the situation, !ith the goal of reco""ending to the fa"ily !hat the possible solutions are# The topic is not /real/, since it is a contrived situation, but in our rehearsals, !e found that it !as possible to sti"ulate so"e interesting bac% and forth discussion# 1+ The international classes $ proposed earlier, special sections of sub)ect "atter classes for international students, "ight also profit fro" special "aterials# These "ight include te'ts in areas !here slightly easier reading is not available, supple"ents to e'isting te'ts, and, as )ust "entioned, taped lectures supple"ented !ith notes#

19+

"i#liography
4775=$F<T, =# *1991- Proble"s in the study of the language teacher>s treat"ent of error# $n 6# Burt and <# Dulay *:ds#.e1 Directions in Second 'anguage 'earning9 Teaching9 and Bi!ingua! ,ducation. 5ashington, D#C#3 T:SC7# pp# 9.(1+9# 4;D:=S:;, =# *199.- 4 functional ac&uisition hierarchy study in Puerto =ico# Paper presented at the 1+th annual T:SC7 conference, ;e! Ior%, ;e! Ior%, 6arch, 199. 4;D:=S:;, =# *1998- 4n i"plicational "odel for second language research# 'anguage 'earning 233 1( 8 #

4S<:=, 8# *19.1- The strategy of the total physical response3 an application to learning =ussian# Internationa! *evie1 o" App!ied 'inguistics 43 91(,++# 4S<:=, 8# *19..- The learning strategy of the total physical response3 a revie!# Modern 'anguage Courna! 563 99(80# 4S<:=, 8# *19.9- The total physical response approach to second language learning# Modern 'anguage Courna! 543 ,(19# 4S<:=, 8# *199 - Children>s first language as a "odel for second language learning# Modern 'anguage Courna! 573 1,,(1,9# 4S<:=, 8# *1999a- 'earning Another 'anguage Through Actions$ The Comp!ete Teacher=s Ca%s Productions# uideboo#. 7os Fatos, Calif3 S%y

4S<:=, 8# *1999b- Children learning another language3 a develop"ental hypothesis# Chi!d Deve!opment 833 1+0+(1+08# 4S<:=, 8# and Price, B# *19.9- The learning strategy of the total physical response3 so"e age differences# Chi!d Deve!opment 433 1 19(1 9# 4S<:=, 8#, KUSUDC, 8# and D: 74 TC==:, =# *1990- 7earning a second language through co""ands3 the second field test# Modern 'anguage Courna! 533 0(, # B4$7:I, ;#, 64DD:;, C# and K=4S<:;, S# *1990- $s there a /natural se&uence/ in adult second language learning? 'anguage 'earning 293 ,1( 0,# B4;C=CAT, 8# *1998- The 7oHanov "ethod and its 4"erican adaptations# Modern 'anguage Courna! 723 1.9(190# B$47ISTCCK, :# and A=C<7$C<, 6# *1999- 4spects of second language learning in classroo" settings# Wor#ing Papers on Bi!ingua!ism 943 1( .# B$47ISTCCK, :# and A=C<7$C<, 6# *1998a- The aural gra""ar test3 description and i"plications# Wor#ing Papers on Bi!ingua!ism 953 11(,1# B$47ISTCCK, :# and A=C<7$C<, 6# *1998b- Mariables of classroo" achieve"ent in second language learning# Modern 'anguage Courna! 723 , 9(,,1# B$=KB$C<7:=, D# *1999- Co""unication and beyond# $n 8# Phillips *:d#- The 'anguage Connection$ &rom the C!assroom to the Wor!d. S%o%ie, $ll#3 ;ational Te'tboo%# pp# 1,(90# B=$:=:, :# *1998- Mariables affecting native 6e'ican children>s learning Spanish as a second language# 'anguage 'earning 233 119(190# B=C5;, 8# *198+- 4n e'planation of "orphe"e(group interactions# Paper presented at the 7os 4ngeles Second 7anguage 4c&uisition =esearch Aoru", UC74, Aebruary, 198+# B=C5;, =# *199,- A &irst 'anguage. Ca"bridge3 <arvard Press#

191

B=C5;, =# *1999- $ntroduction# $n C# Sno! and C# Aerguson *:ds#- Ta!#ing to Chi!dren. ;e! Ior%3 Ca"bridge University Press# pp# 1( 9# B=C5;, =#, C4RD:;, C# and B:77UF$, U# *199,- The child>s gra""ar fro" $ to $$$# $n C# Aerguson and D# Slobin *:ds#Studies o" Chi!d 'anguage Deve!opment. ;e! Ior%3 <olt =inehart and 5inston# pp# 91(,,,# B=C5;, S# *1999- 7ife situations3 incorporating co""unity resources into the adult :S7 curriculu"# CAT,S+' +ccasiona! Papers 53 08(.1# B=UC:, 7# *1999- The ac&uisition of gra""atical "orphe"es by adult students of =ussian as a foreign language# 64 Paper, Depart"ent of 7inguistics, USC# B=UCK, 6#, 746B:=T, 5# and TUCK:=, F# =# *1990- Bilingual schooling through the ele"entary grades3 the St# 7a"bert Pro)ect and grade seven# 'anguage 'earning 283 18,( +0# BU=T, 6# and K$P4=SKI, C# *199 - The oo"icon$ A *epair Manua! "or ,ng!ish. =o!ley, 6a3 ;e!bury <ouse#

BUS<64;, =# and 64DS:;, <# *199.- 4 description and evaluation of Suggestopedia((a ne! teaching "ethodology# $n 8# Aanselo! and =# Cry"es *:ds#- +n T,S+' =%D. 5ashington3 T:SC7# pp# 9(,8# C46PB:77, D# and ST4;7:I, 8# *19.,- ,8perimenta! and 2uasi/,8perimenta! Designs "or *esearch. ;e! Ior%3 =and 6c;ally# C4;C$;C, <#, =CS4;SKI, :, and SC<U64;;, 8# *1991- The ac&uisition of the :nglish au'iliary by native Spanish spea%ers# T,S+' 2uarter!y :3 0 1(0,+# C4==C77, 8# *19..- The contributions of psychological theory and educational research to teaching of foreign languages# $n 4# Mald"an *:d#- Trends in 'anguage Teaching. ;e! Ior%3 6cFra!(<ill# pp# 9,(1+.# C4==C77, 8# *19.9- Aoreign language proficiency levels attained by language "a)ors near graduation fro" college# &oreign 'anguage Anna!s 93 1,1(111# C4==C77, 8# *198+- Aoreign language testing3 persistent proble"s# $n K# Croft *:d#- *eadings on ,ng!ish as a Second 'anguage. Ca"bridge, 6a3 5inthrop# pp# 118(1,+# C4T<C4=T, =# and C7S:;, 8# *199.- Teachers> and students> preference for correction of classroo" conversation errors# $n 8# Aanselo! and =# Cry"es *:ds#- +n T,S+' =%D. 5ashington2 T:SC7# pp# 01(1,# C4RD:;, C# *1999- Curriculu"Dlanguage conte'ts for bilingual education# $n :# Briere *:d#- 'anguage Deve!opment in a Bi!ingua! Setting. Po"ona, California3 ;ational 6ultilingual 6ulticultural 6aterials Develop"ent Center# pp# 1 9(1,8# C:7C:(6U=C$4, 6# and =CS:;R5:$F, A# *1999- Teaching vocabulary in the :S7 classroo"# $n 6# Celce(6urcia and 7# 6c$ntosh *:ds#- Teaching ,ng!ish as a Second or &oreign 'anguage. =o!ley, 6a#3 ;e!bury <ouse# pp# 01( 19# C<4ST4$;, K# *199+- 4 "ethodological study co"paring the audio(lingual habit theory and the cognitive code learning theory3 a continuation# Modern 'anguage Courna! 583 19( ..# C<4ST4$;, K# and 5C:=D:<CAA, A# *19.8- 4 "ethodological study co"paring the audio(lingual habit theory and the cognitive code(learning theory# Modern 'anguage Courna! 523 .8( 99# C<$<4=4, T# and C77:=, 8# *1998- 4ttitudes and attained proficiency in :A73 a sociolinguistic study of adult 8apanese spea%ers# 'anguage 'earning 233 11(.8# C<C6SKI, ;# *19.1- Aspects o" the Theory o" Synta8. Ca"bridge3 6$T Press# C<=$ST$SC;, 6# *1999- ;atural se&uencing in adult second language ac&uisition# T,S+' 2uarter!y 943 1 #

19

C74=K, :# and 4;D:=S:;, :# *198+- Spontaneous repairs3 a!areness in the process of ac&uiring language# Papers and *eports in Chi!d 'anguage Dev. 973 1(1 # C74=K, <# and C74=K, :# *1999- Psycho!ogy and 'anguage. ;e! Ior%3 <arcourt Brace 8ovanovich# CC<:;, 4# and =CBB$;S, 6# *199.- To!ards assessing interlanguage perfor"ance3 the relationship bet!een selecting errors, learner>s characteristics, and learner>s e'planations# 'anguage 'earning 273 01(..# CC<:;, 4# and S54$;, 6# *199.- Bilingual :ducation3 the /$""ersion/ "odel in the ;orth 4"erican conte't# T,S+' 2uarter!y 963 01(1,# CC=D:=, S# P# *19.9- The significance of learner>s errors# Internationa! *evie1 o" App!ied 'inguistics 53 1.1(19+# C=CSS, T# *1999- 6other>s speech ad)ust"ents3 the contributions of selected child listener variables# $n C# Sno! and C# Aerguson, Ta!#ing to Chi!dren. ;e! Ior%3 Ca"bridge University Press# pp# 111(188# d>4;F7:84;, 4# *1998- 7anguage learning in and out of classroo"s# $n 8# =ichards *:d#- Bnderstanding Second and &oreign 'anguage 'earning. =o!ley, 6a3 ;e!bury <ouse# pp# 18( ,.# D: M$77:=S, P# and D: M$77:=S, 8# *199,- 4 Cross(sectional study of the ac&uisition of gra""atical "orphe"es in child speech# Courna! o" Psycho!inguistic *esearch 23 .9( 98# D$77:=, K# *1998- The 'anguage Teaching Controversy. =o!ley, 6a#3 ;e!bury <ouse# DU74I, <# and BU=T, 6# *1990- ;atural se&uences in child second language ac&uisition# 'anguage 'earning 283 ,9(1,# DU74I, <# and BU=T, 6# *1991- 4 ne! approach to discovering universal strategies of child second language ac&uisition# $n D# Dato *:ds#- Deve!opmenta! Psycho!inguistics$ Theory and App!ications. Feorgeto!n University =ound Table on 7anguages and 7inguistics# 5ashington3 Feorgeto!n University Press# pp# +9( ,,# DU74I, <# and BU=T, 6# *1999- =e"ar%s on creativity in language ac&uisition# $n 6# Burt, <# Dulay and 6# Ainnochiaro *:ds#- )ie1points on ,ng!ish as a Second 'anguage. ;e! Ior%3 =egents# pp# 91(1 .# DU74I, <# and BU=T, 6# *1998- So"e guidelines for the assess"ent of oral language proficiency and do"inance# T,S+' 2uarter!y 923 199(19 # DU74I, <#, BU=T, 6# and K=4S<:;, S# 'anguage T1o. ;e! Ior%3 C'ford# $n press# DUSKCM4, 7# *19.9- Cn sources of error in foreign language learning# Internationa! *evie1 o" App!ied 'inguistics 83 11(,.# :KST=4;D, 7# *199.- 4ge and length of residence as variables related to the ad)ust"ent of "igrant children, !ith special reference to second language learning# $n F# ;ic%el *:d#- Proceedings o" the &ourth Internationa! Congress o" App!ied 'inguistics. Mol# ,# Stuttgart3 <ochschul Merlag, pp# 199(199# :=M$;(T=$PP, S# *199,- So"e strategies for the first and second years# $n 4# Dil *:d#- 'anguage Ac(uisition and Communicative Choice. Stanford3 Stanford University Press# pp# +0( ,8# :=M$;(T=$PP, S# *1990- $s second language learning li%e the first? T,S+' 2uarter!y 33 111(1 9# A4B=$S, 6# *1998- The ac&uisition of :nglish gra""atical functors by child second language learners# T,S+' 2uarter!y 923 08 # A4;S:7C5, 8# *1999- The treat"ent of error in oral !or%# &oreign 'anguage Anna!s 963 18,(19,#

19,

A4T<64;, 4# *1991- The relationship bet!een age and second language productive ability# 'anguage 'earning 253 01( ..# A4T<64;, 4# *1999- The value of "orphe"e order studies for second language learning# Wor#ing Papers on Bi!ingua!ism 933 199(199# A4T<64;, 4# *198+- $nfluences of age and setting on second language oral proficiency# Paper presented at 7os 4ngeles Second 7anguage =esearch Aoru", UC74, Aebruary, 198+# A:7$K, S# *198+- The effect of for"al instruction on second language learning# Paper presented at 7os 4ngeles Second 7anguage =esearch Aoru", UC74, Aebruary, 198+# A=::D, B# *198+- Tal%ing to foreigners versus tal%ing to children3 si"ilarities and differences# $n =# Scarcella and S# Krashen *:ds#- *esearch in Second 'anguage Ac(uisition. =o!ley, 6a#3 ;e!bury <ouse# pp# 19( 9# F4$:S, S# *1999- The nature of linguistic input in for"al language learning3 linguistic and co""unicative strategies in :S7 teachers> classroo" language# $n <# D# Bro!n, C# Iorio and =# Cry"es *:ds#- Teaching and 'earning ,ng!ish as a Second 'anguage$ Trends in *esearch and Practice. 5ashington3 T:SC7# pp# +0( 1 # F4=D;:=, =# and 746B:=T, 5# *199 - Attitudes and Motivation in Second/'anguage 'earning. =o!ley, 6a#3 ;e!bury <ouse# F4=I, 8# C# *1991- Delayed oral practice in initial stages of second language learning# $n 6# Burt and 6# Dulay *:ds#- +n T,S+' =%;$ .e1 Directions in Second 'anguage 'earning9 Teaching and Bi!ingua! ,ducation. 5ashington3 T:SC7# pp# 89(91# F$77$S, 6# and 5:B:=, =# *199.- The e"ergence of sentence "odalities in the :nglish of 8apanese(spea%ing children# 7anguage 7earning 273 99(90# <4KUT4, K# *1990- 4 preli"inary report of the develop"ent of gra""atical "orphe"es in a 8apanese girl learning :nglish as a second language# Wor#ing Papers on Bi!ingua!ism 43 18(0,# <47:, T# and BUD4=, :# *199+- 4re T:SC7 classes the only ans!er? Modern 'anguage Courna! 583 089(09 # <477, :# *1919- The Si!ent 'anguage. Freen!ich, Conn#3 Aa!cett# <4664=B:=F, B# *1999- Cn intralingual, interlingual and develop"ental solutions in interlanguage# Paper presented at the Aifth Scandinavian Conference of 7inguistics, Arostvallen, 4pril, 1999# <466:=7I, <# *1991- The deductionDinduction controversy# Modern 'anguage Courna! LI;3 11(18# <4;4;$4, :# and F=4D64;, <# *1999- 4c&uisition of :nglish structures3 a case study of an adult native spea%er in an :nglish(spea%ing environ"ent# 'anguage 'earning 2<3 91(9 # <4==$S, D# *19.9- Testing ,ng!ish as a Second 'anguage. ;e! Ior%# 6cFra! <ill# <4=T;:TT, D# *1990- The *e!ation o" Cognitive Sty!e and Hemispheric Pre"erence to Deductive and Inductive Second 'anguage 'earning. 64 Thesis, Depart"ent of :nglish, *T:S7-, UC74# <4TC<, :# *199 - So"e studies in second language learning# BC'A Wor#papers in Teaching ,ng!ish as a Second 'anguage 73 9(,.# <4TC<, :# *199.- 7anguage in outer space# Paper presented at the UC74(USC Second 7anguage 4c&uisition Aoru", Aall, 199.# <4TC<, :# *1998a- Discourse analysis and second language ac&uisition# $n :# <atch *:d#- Second 'anguage Ac(uisition. =o!ley, 6a#3 ;e!bury <ouse# pp# 0+1(0,1# <4TC<, :# *1998b- $ntroduction# $n :# <atch *:d#- Second 'anguage Ac(uisition. =o!ley, 6a#3 ;e!bury <ouse# pp# 1(18#

190

<4TC<, :# *1999- 4pply !ith caution# Studies in Second 'anguage Ac(uisition 23 1 ,(10,# <4TC<, :#, S<4P$=4, =# and FCUF<, 8# *1998- /Aoreigner(tal%/ discourse# IT'$ *evie1 o" App!ied 'inguistics 4:0863 ,9(.+# <45K$;S, 8# *1998- De"initeness and Inde"initeness$ A Study in *e"erence and <el"# rammatica!ity Prediction. 7ondon3 Croo"

<:;D=$CKSC;, 8# *1998- :rror correction in foreign language teaching3 recent theory, research, and practice# $n K# Croft *:d#- *eadings on ,ng!ish as a Second 'anguage. Ca"bridge, 6a#3 5inthrop# pp# 11,(191# <CUCK, ;#, =CB:=TSC;, 8# and K=4S<:;, S# *1998- Cn the do"ain of the conscious gra""ar3 "orphe"e orders for corrected and uncorrected :S7 student transcriptions# T,S+' 2uarter!y 923 ,,1(,,9# <CUCK, ;#, =CB:=TSC;, 8# and K=4S<:;, S# *1998b- 5hat happens in error correction# 4bstract sub"itted to 1998 T:SC7 Conference# <I7T:;ST46, K# *1999- $"plicational patterns in interlanguage synta' variation# 'anguage 'earning 2<3 ,8,(011# $;<:7D:=, B#, and P$4F:T, 8# *1918- The Boo%s# ro1th o" 'ogica! Thin#ing "rom Chi!dhood to Ado!escence. ;e! Ior%3 Basic

8C<;SC;, T# and K=UF, K# *198+- $ntegrative and instru"ental "otivations3 in search of a "easure# $n 8# Cller and K# Per%ins *:ds#- *esearch in 'anguage Testing. =o!ley, 6a#3 ;e!bury <ouse# pp# 01( 09 8C;:S, =# *1999- Perfor"ance testing of second language proficiency# $n :# Briere and A# <inofotis *:ds#- Concepts in 'anguage Testing. 5ashington3 T:SC7# pp# 1+(19# 8C=D:;S, P# and K:77:=64;, :# *1998- $nvestigation into the strategy of transfer in second language learning# Paper presented at 4$74 conference, 6ontreal, 4ugust, 1998# K4IA:TR, 8# *Auller- *1998- .atura! and Monitored Se(uences by Adu!t 'earners o" ,ng!ish as a Second 'anguage. Ph#D# dissertation# Alorida State University# K:77:=64;, :# 1998- Fiving learners a brea%3 native language intuitions as a source of predictions about transferability# Wor#ing Papers on Bi!ingua!ism 953 19(9 # K:SS7:=, C# and $D4=, $# *1999- The ac&uisition of :nglish syntactic structures by a Mietna"ese child# Paper presented at the 7os 4ngeles Second 7anguage 4c&uisition Aoru", UC74, 1999# K7:$;64;, <# *1999- 4voidance behavior in adult second language ac&uisition# 'anguage 'earning 2<3 9,(1+9# K7$64, :# and B:77UF$, U# *19..- Syntactic regularities in the speech of children# $n 8# 7yons and =# 5ales *:ds#Psycho!inguistic Papers. :dinburgh3 :dinburgh University Press# pp# 18,( +8# KCU;$;, T# and K=4S<:;, S# *1998- 4pproaching native spea%er co"petence fro" t!o different directions# $n C# Blatchford and 8# Schachter *:ds#- +n T,S+' =%E$ ,&' Po!icies9 Programs9 Practices. 5ashington3 T:SC7# pp# +1( 1 # K=4S<:;, S# *199.- Aor"al and infor"al linguistic environ"ents in language learning and language ac&uisition# T,S+' 2uarter!y 119(1.8# K=4S<:;, S# *1999- So"e issues relating to the 6onitor 6odel# $n <# D# Bro!n, C# Iorio and =# Cry"es *:ds#- +n T,S+' =%%$ Teaching and 'earning ,ng!ish as a Second 'anguage$ Trends in *esearch and Practice. 5ashington3 T:SC7# pp# 100(118# K=4S<:;, S# *1998- $ndividual variation in the use of the 6onitor# $n 5# =itchie *:d#- Princip!es o" Second 'anguage 'earning. ;e! Ior%3 4cade"ic Press# pp# 191(18,#

191

K=4S<:;, S# *198+- The theoretical and practical relevance of si"ple codes in second language ac&uisition# $n =# Scarcella and S# Krashen *:ds#- *esearch in Second 'anguage Ac(uisition. =o!ley, 6a#3 ;e!bury <ouse# pp# 9(18# K=4S<:;, S# *1981- Second 'anguage Ac(uisition and Second 'anguage 'earning. C'ford3 Perga"on Press# K=4S<:;, S# *198 - ;e!"ar%>s /$gnorance <ypothesis/ and current second language ac&uisition theory# Unpublished "anuscript# K=4S<:;, S#, S:7$F:=, <# and <4=T;:TT, D# *1990- T!o studies in second language learning# Friti#on 'itterarum 43 +( 8# K=4S<:;, S# and PC;, P# *1991- 4n error analysis of an advance :S7 learner# Wor#ing Papers on Bi!ingua!ism <3 1 1(1 9# K=4S<:;, S#, 64DD:;, C# and B4$7:I, ;# *1991- Theoretical aspects of gra""atical se&uencing# $n 6# Burt and <# Dulay *:ds#- Second !anguage 'earning9 Teaching9 and Bi!ingua! ,ducation. 5ashington3 T:SC7# pp# 00(10# K=4S<:;, S# and S:7$F:=, <# *1991- The essential characteristics of for"al instruction# T,S+' 2uarter!y :3 19,(18,# K=4S<:;, S# and S:7$F:=, <# *199.- The role of for"al and infor"al linguistic environ"ents is adult second language learning# Internationa! Courna! o" Psycho!inguistics 43 11( 1# K=4S<:;, S#, SA:==74RR4, M# A:7D64;, 7# and A4T<64;, 4# *199.- 4dult perfor"ance on the S7CP: test3 "ore evidence for a natural se&uence in adult second language ac&uisition# 'anguage 'earning 273 101(111# K=4S<:;, S#, <CUCK, ;#, F$U;C<$, P, BCD:, S#, B$=;B4U6, =# and ST=:$, 8# *1999- Difficulty order for gra""atical "orphe"es for adult second language perfor"ers using free speech# T,S+' 2uarter!y 993 ,,8(,01# K=4S<:;, S#, BUT7:=, 8#, B$=;B4U6, =#, and =CB:=TSC;, 8# *1998- T!o studies in language ac&uisition and language learning# IT'$ *evie1 o" App!ied 'inguistics 4:0863 9,(9 # K=4S<:;, S#, and SC4=C:774, =# *1998- Cn routines and patterns in language ac&uisition and perfor"ance# 'anguage 'earning 233 8,(,++# K=4S<:;, S#, R:7$;SK$, S#, 8C;:S, C# and USP=$C<, C# *1998- <o! i"portant is instruction? ,ng!ish 'anguage Teaching Courna! 423 19( .1# K=4S<:;, S#, 7C;F, 6# and SC4=C:774, =# *1999- 4ge, rate and eventual attain"ent in second language ac&uisition# T,S+' 2uarter!y 943 19,(18 # KU;$<4=4, S# and 4S<:=, 8# *19.1- The strategy of the total physical response3 an application to learning 8apanese# Internationa! *evie1 o" App!ied 'inguistics 83 99( 89# 74DC, =# *19.0- 'anguage Teaching$ A Scienti"ic Approach. ;e! Ior%3 6cFra! <ill# 74DC, =# and A=$:S, C# *1918- An Intensive Course in ,ng!ish. 4nn 4rbor3 University of 6ichigan Press# 746B:=T, 5# and TUCK:=, F# =# *199 - The Bi!ingua! ,ducation o" Chi!dren. =o!ley, 6a#3 ;e!bury <ouse# 746:;D:774, 8# *1999- 7ectures presented at the 1999 T:SC7 Su""er $nstitute, UC74, :nglish 9 K# 74=S:;, D# *1991- 4 =e(evaluation of gra""atical structure se&uencing# +n T,S+' =%?. 5ashington3 T:SC7# 74=S:;(A=::64;, D# *1991- The 4c&uisition of Fra""atical 6orphe"es by 4dult 7earners of :nglish as a Second 7anguage# Ph#D# dissertation, University of 6ichigan#

19.

74=S:;(A=::64;, D# *1999- The i"portance of input in second language ac&uisition# Paper presented at the 7inguistic Society of 4"erica, 7os 4ngeles, Dece"ber, 1999# 7457:=, 8 and S:7$;K:= 7# *1991- Cn parado'es, rules, and research in second language ac&uisition# 'anguage 'earning. 13 9(0,# 7::, =#, 6cCU;:, 7, and P4TTC;, 7# *199+- Physiological responses to different "odes of feedbac% in pronunciation testing# T,S+' 2uarter!y 83 119(1 # 7:;;:B:=F, :# *19. - Understanding language !ithout ability to spea%3 a case report# Courna! o" Abnorma! and Socia! Psycho!ogy 753 019(0 1# 7:M$;, 7# *199 - Comparative Studies in &oreign/'anguage Teaching. Stoc%hol"3 4l"&vist W 5i%sell# 7$F<TBC5;, P#, SP4D4, ;# and 54774C:, =# *198+- So"e effects of instruction on child and adolescent :S7 learners# $n =# Scarcella and S# Krashen *:ds#- *esearch in Second 'anguage Ac(uisition. =o!ley, 6a3 ;e!bury <ouse# pp# 1. (19 # 7$F<TBC5;, P# :'ploring the relationships bet!een develop"ental and instructional se&uences in second language ac&uisition# $n <# Seliger and 6# 7ong *:ds#- C!assroom 'anguage Ac(uisition and Bse$ .e1 Perspectives. =o!ley, 6a#3 ;e!bury <ouse# $n press# 7oCCCC, M# *1991- 4n analysis of Spanish and Fer"an learner>s errors# Wor#ing papers on Bi!ingua!ism <3 9.(1 0# 7C;F, 6# *198+- Input9 Interaction9 and Second 'anguage Ac(uisition.Ph#D# dissertation, UC74# 7UK64;$, I# *199 - 6otivation to learn and language proficiency# 'anguage 'earning 223 .1( 9,# 64C<4, D# *1999- =eading co"prehension of non(native students in :nglish co"position at the fresh"an level# T,S+' 2uarter!y 943 0 1(0 9# 6aC;464=4, 8# *199 - Cognitive basis of language learning in infants# Psycho!ogica! *evie1 <:3 1(10# 64K$;C, T# *198+- Ac(uisition +rder o" ,ng!ish Morphemes by Capanese Ado!escents. To%yo3 ShinoHa%i Shorin Press# 64SC;, C# *1991- The relevance of intensive training in :nglish as a foreign language for university students# 'anguage 'earning 293 199( +0# 6$7C;, 8# *1990- The develop"ent of negation in :nglish by a second language learner# T,S+' 2uarter!y 33 1,9(10,# 6$;CU=4, I# *1999- 4n e'a"ination of the role of acculturation in second language ac&uisition through "ultivariate analysis# Paper presented at T:SC7 su""er "eeting, UC74, 8uly, 1999# 6U:77:=, T# *1991- The effectiveness of t!o learning "odels3 the audio(lingual habit theory and the cognitive code(learning theory# $n P# Pi"sleur and T# Euinn *:ds#- The Psycho!ogy o" Second 'anguage 'earning. Ca"bridge3 Ca"bridge University Press, pp# 11,(1 # 6U=4K46$, 6# *198+- Behavioral and attitudinal correlates of progress in :S7 by native spea%ers of 8apanese# $n 8# Cller and K# Per%ins *:ds#- *esearch in 'anguage Testing. =o!ley, 6a#3 ;e!bury <ouse# pp# 9( , # ;:7SC;, 8# *198+- 'anguage Systems in Adu!t In"orma! Second 'anguage 'earners. Ph#D# dissertation, 6cFill University# ;:564=K, 7# *19..- <o! not to interfere !ith language learning# 'anguage 'earning$ The Individua! and the Process. Internationa! Courna! o" American 'inguistics 863 99(8,#

199

;:564=K, 7# *1991- 4 "ini"al language teaching progra"# $n P# Pi"sleur and T# Euinn *:ds#- The Psycho!ogy o" Second 'anguage 'earning. Ca"bridge3 Ca"bridge University Press# pp# 11(18# ;:564=K, 7#, and =:$B:7, D# *199,- ;ecessity and sufficiency in language learning# $n 6# 7ester *:d#- *eadings in App!ied Trans"ormationa! rammar. ;e! Ior%3 <olt =inehart 5inston# pp# +( 00# ;:564=K, :#, F7:$T64;, <# and F7:$T64;, 7# *1999- 6other, $>d rather do it "yself3 so"e effects and non(effects of "aternal speech style# $n C# Sno! and C# Aerguson *:ds#- Ta!#ing to Chi!dren. Ca"bridge3 Ca"bridge University Press# pp# 1+9(109# C77:=, 8# *1999- 'anguage Tests at Schoo!. 7ondon3 7ong"ans# C77:=, 8#, B4C4, 7# and M$F$7, 4# *1999- 4ttitudes and attained proficiency in :S73 a sociolinguistic study of 6e'ican( 4"ericans in the south!est# T,S+' 2uarter!y 993 19,(18,# C77:=, 8# and P:=K$;S, K# *1998- $ntelligence and language proficiency as sources of variance in self reported affective variables# $n 8# Cller and K# Per%ins *:ds#- 'anguage in ,ducation$ Testing the Tests. =o!ley 6a#3 ;e!bury <ouse# pp# 1+,(1 # C77:=, 8#, P:=K$;S, K# and 6U=4K46$, 6# *198+- Seven types of learner variables in relation to :S7 learning# $n 8# Cller and K# Per%ins *:ds#- *esearch in 'anguage Testing. =o!ley 6a#3 ;e!bury <ouse# pp# ,,( 0+# C7SSC;, 6# *19.9- $"plicit and e'plicit3 an e'peri"ent in applied psycholinguistics, assessing different "ethods of teaching gra""atical structures in :nglish as a foreign language# FU6: =eport G,, Fothenburg School of :ducation# S!eden# CST=4;D:=, S# and SC<=C:D:=, 7# *:ds#-*199.- The ,SP Papers. ;e! Ior%3 Banta" Boo%s# CI464, S# *199.- 4 sensitive period for the ac&uisition of a non(native phonological syste"# Courna! o" Psycho!inguistic *esearch 53 .1( 81# CI464, S# *1998- The sensitive period and co"prehension of speech# Wor#ing Papers on Bi!ingua!ism 973 1(19# P4TKC5SK$, 6# *198+- The sensitive period for the ac&uisition of synta' in a second language# 'anguage 'earning 463 009(09 # P4U7STC;, C# *199 - Structural pattern drills3 a classification# &oreign 'anguage Anna!s 83 189(19,# PCSTCMSKI, M# *1990- :ffects of delay in oral practice at the beginning of second language learning# Modern 'anguage Courna! 533 9( ,9# Public Service Co""ission of Canada, Staff Develop"ent Branch, Studies Division, Suggestopedia Progra" *1991- 4 teaching e'perience !ith the Suggestopedic 6ethod# Ctta!a, Canada# PU=C:77, :## and SUT:=, =# *198+- Predictors of pronunciation accuracy3 a re(e'a"ination# 'anguage 'earning 463 91( 89# =4C7:, F# *1999- PsychopVdagogie profonde en enseigne"ent del langes# Medium 83 91(11+# =4C7:, =# *198+- PsychopVdagogie profonde en enseigne"ent del langes# *suite-# Medium 53 9,(8,# =46S:I, C# and 5=$F<T, :# *1990- 4ge and second language learning# Courna! o" Socia! Psycho!ogy :83 111(1 1# =4M:6, =# *1990- The develop"ent of !h(&uestions in first and second language learners# $n 8# =ichards *:d#- ,rror Ana!ysis$ Perspectives on Second 'anguage 'earning. 7ondon3 7ong"an# pp# 1,0(111#

198

=:B:=, 4# *199.- $"plicit learning of synthetic languages3 the role of instructional set# Courna! o" ,8perimenta! Psycho!ogy$ Human Memory and 'earning. 23 88(91# =$M:=S, 5# *19.8- Teaching &oreign 'anguage S#i!!s. Chicago3 University of Chicago Press# =$M:=S, 5# *1999- Aoreign language ac&uisition3 !here the real proble"s lie# App!ied 'inguistics 93 08(19# =CB$;SC;, P# *198+- ,SP$ ,ng!ish "or Speci"ic Purposes. C'ford3 Perga"on Press# SC4=C:774, =# Developing conversational co"petence in a second language# Aorthco"ing# SC4=C:774, =# and <$F4, C# $nput and age differences in second language ac&uisition# $n S# Krashen, =# Scarcella and 6# 7ong *:ds#- Chi!d/Adu!t Di""erences in Second 'anguage Ac(uisition. =o!ley, 6a#3 ;e!bury <ouse# Aorthco"ing# SC<4C<T:=, 8# *1990- 4n error in error analysis# 'anguage !earning 283 +0( 10# SC<4C<T:=, 8#, TISC;, 4# and D$AA7:I, A# *199.- 7earner intuitions of gra""aticality# 'anguage 'earning 273 .9(9.# SC<:=:, F# and 5:=T<:$6:=, 6# *19.0- A Psycho!inguistic ,8periment in &oreign 'anguage Teaching. ;e! Ior%3 6cFra! <ill# SC<7U:, K# *1999- 4n inside vie! of interlanguage# $n C# <enning *:d#- Proceedings o" the 'os Ange!es Second 'anguage *esearch &orum. UC74 T:S7 Depart"ent# pp# ,0 (,08# SC<U64;;, 8# *1998a- The PidginiAation Process. =o!ley, 6a3 ;e!bury <ouse# SC<U64;;, 8# *1998b- The acculturation "odel for second(language ac&uisition, $n =# Fingras *:d#- Second/'anguage Ac(uisition and &oreign 'anguage Teaching. 4rlington, Mirginia3 Center for 4pplied 7inguistics# pp# 9(1+# SC<U64;;, 8# *1999- The ac&uisition of :nglish negation by spea%ers of Spanish3 a revie! of the literature# $n =# 4ndersen *:d#- The Ac(uisition and Bse o" Spanish and ,ng!ish as &irst and Second 'anguages. 5ashington3 T:SC7# SC<U64;;, 8# *198+- The ac&uisition of :nglish relative clauses by second language learners# $n =# Scarcella and S# Krashen *:ds#- *esearch in Second 'anguage Ac(uisition. =o!ley, 6a#3 ;e!bury <ouse# pp# 118(1,1# SC<U64;;, 8# and SC<U64;;, A# *1999- Diary of a language learner3 an introspective study of second language learning# $n <# D# Bro!n, C# Iorio and =# Cry"es *:ds#- +n T,S+' =%%$ Teaching and 'earning ,ng!ish as a Second 'anguage9 Trends in *esearch and Practice. 5ashington3 T:SC7# pp# +9( 09# SC<54B:, T# *1998- Survival :nglish for :S7 students in 4"erican educational institutions# CAT,S+' +ccasiona! Papers 83 99(89# SCCM:7, T# *1999- Feorgi 7oHanov3 Suggestology and outlines of Suggestology# T,S+' 2uarter!y 943 11( ..# S:7$F:=, <# *1991- $nductive "ethod and deductive "ethod in language teaching3 a ree'a"ination# Internationa! *evie1 o" App!ied 'inguistics 943 1(18# S:7$F:=, <# *1999- Cn the nature and function of language rules in language teaching# T,S+' 2uarter!y 943 ,19(,.9# S:7$F:=, <#, K=4S<:;, S# and 74D:ACF:D, P# *1991- 6aturational constraints in the ac&uisition of a native(li%e accent in second language learning# 'anguage Sciences 473 +9( ,1# S:7$;K:=, 7# *199 - $nterlanguage Internationa! *evie1 o" App!ied 'inguistics 963 +9( ,1# S<$P7:I, :#, S6$T<, C# and F7:$T64;, 7# *19.9- 4 study in the ac&uisition of language3 free responses to co""ands# 'anguage 853 , (,0 #

199

ST4AAC=D, C# and CCM$TT, F# *1998- 6onitor use in adult second language production# IT'$ *evie1 o" App!ied 'inguistics 4:0863 1+,(1 1# ST4UB7:, 4# *1998- The process of decreoliHation3 a "odel for second language develop"ent# 'anguage 'earning 233 9(10# ST:M$CK, :# *199.- Memory9 Meaning9 and Method. =o!ley, 6a#3 ;e!bury <ouse# ST:M$CK, :# *198+- Teaching 'anguages$ A Way and Ways. =o!ley, 6a#3 ;e!bury <ouse# S54AA:=, 8# and 5CCD=UAA, 6# *1998- 7anguage for co"prehension3 focus on reading# Modern 'anguage Courna! 723 9(, # S54$;, 6# *1990- Arench i""ersion progra"s across Canada3 research findings# Canadian Modern 'anguage *evie1 493 119(1 9# T:==:77, T# *1999- 4 natural approach to second language ac&uisition and learning# Modern 'anguage Courna! 73 , 1(,,9# TUCK:=, F# =# and S4=CA$6, 6# *1999- $nvestigating linguistic acceptability !ith :gyptian :A7 students# T,S+' 2uarter!y 943 9(,9# U7U;, 8# and K:6P:;, F# *199.- The role of the first language in second language reading co"prehension((so"e e'peri"ental evidence# Proceedings o" the &ourth Internationa! Congress o" App!ied 'inguistics. Stuttgart3 <ochschulMerlag# pp# 091(1+9# UPS<U=, 8# *19.8- Aour e'peri"ents on the relation bet!een foreign language teaching and learning# 'anguage 'earning 933 111(1 0# M47:TT:, =# *1999- Modern 'anguage Testing. ;e! Ior%3 <arcourt Brace 8ovanovich# van ;4:=SS:;, 6# *1981- Ph#D# dissertation, Depart"ent of 7inguistics, University of Southern California# M4=M:7, T# *1999- The Silent 5ay3 panacea or pipedrea"? T,S+' 2uarter!y 943 09,(090# von :7:K, T# and CSK4=SSC;, 6# *1991- Comparative Method ,8periments in &oreign 'anguage Teaching. Depart"ent of :ducational =esearch# 6Xlndal *Fothenburg- School of :ducation# S!eden# 54F;:=(FCUF<, 8# and <4TC<, :# *1991- The i"portance of input data in second language ac&uisition studies# 'anguage 'earning 253 99(,+8# 547BU=F, <#, <4S:, K# and P$;RU= =4S<:=, S# *1998- :nglish ac&uisition as a di"inishing function of e'perience rather than age# T,S+' 2uarter!y 923 0 9(0,9# 5<$T:, 7# *1999- :rror analysis and error correction in adult learners of :nglish as a second language# Wor#ing Papers on Bi!ingua!ism 943 0 (18# 5$DDC5SC;, <# *1999- The significance of si"plification# Studies in Second 'anguage Ac(uisition 1# 5$FF$;, B# *1999- Co""ents on the TC:A7 test# T,S+' 2uarter!y 943 9 ( 90# 5$;;(B:77 C7S:;, 8# *1999- Communication Starters and +ther Activities "or the ,S' C!assroom. San Arancisco3 4le"eny Press# 5CD:, <# *199.- Develop"ental se&uences in naturalistic 7 ac&uisition# $n :# <atch *:d#- Second 'anguage Ac(uisition. =o!ley, 6a#3 ;e!bury <ouse# pp# 1+1(119# IC=$C, C# *1998- Confessions of a second language spea%erDlearner# Paper presented at 1 th annual T:SC7 convention, 6e'ico City, 4pril, 1998# RCB7, <# *198+a- Develop"ental and transfer errors2 their co""on bases and *possibly- differential effects on subse&uent learning# T,S+' 2uarter!y 983 0.9(099# RCB7, <# *198+b- Contact(induced language change, learner(language, and the potentials of a "odified C4# Paper presented at the 7os 4ngeles Second 7anguage 4c&uisition =esearch Aoru", UC74# RCB7, <# *198+c- The for"al and develop"ental selectivity of 71 influence on 7 ac&uisition# 'anguage 'earning 463 0,(19#

++

Inde$
4cculturation 01(1+ Aorgetting Principle .., 1,,, 1.8 Airst language influence 9( 8 Fra""atical se&uencing *for ac&uisition- 10, 1( ., .8(9+, 1 8, 1,1, 1,0, 1,., 1,8, 101, 101, 1.,, 1.1, 1.8 *for learning- 111(11. Fra""ar teaching 81, 88, 89, 11 , 11,(111, 119(1 1, 1,9 Fra""ar(translation 1 9(1 9, 109(110 FU6: pro)ect 11+(110 $""ersion 19+(191 $nductive 7earning 11, 89, 11,(111, 1, , 1,1, 10 $nput hypothesis +(,+, .+ $nterlanguage tal% 0 $nternaliHation 81, 80 7earning *defined- 1+, 1., 8,(1 0, 1 9, 1, , 1,0, 1,9, 1,9, 10 , 189 7anguage laboratory 180(181 Conversational "anage"ent 00, 19, .1, 9.(99, 1 9, 1,1, 1,0, 1,1(1,., 1,9, 10 , 1.0, 1.1, 1.9 Counseling(7earning , , 1 . Deductive learning 89, 11,(111 Direct "ethod 1,1(1,9 :rror correction 11, .1, 90(9., 91(9 , 11.(119, 1,8, 1,9, 101 /:ure%a/ e'perience 88 Cutput .+(. , 90 :'posure ,9(0, Pleasure reading 1.0(1.9, 18,(180 Aoreigner tal% 0, .+, .0(.1, 1., 6aterials 18 (18. 6ethod co"parisons 109(1.+ 6onitor hypothesis 11( + 6onitor use 89(1+0 ;atural 4pproach 9., 119, 1,9(10+ ;atural order 1 , 1,, 10, 19, 1+1, 11., 1 0, 181 4chieve"ent testing 19.(18 4c&uisition *defined- 1+ does not result fro" learning 8,(89 not the sa"e as inductive learning 11, characteristics 18 4ffective Ailter ,+(, , 9,(9., 1 8, 1,1, 1,0, 1,., 1,9, 101(10 , 100(101, 1.0, 1.1, 1.8(1.9 4ge 0,(01, 91 4udio(lingualis" 1 9(1, , 109(110 4voidance 11 Bac%!ash effect 199(198, 18 /Careless/ errors 8., 99 Careta%er speech ( 0, .0(.1

Classroo", role of ,+, ,,(,9, 18(.+ Cognitive(code 80, 11,, 1, (1,0, 109(110 Conversation .1, 1.,(1.0

+1

Euantity of input 91, 1 8, 1,1, 1,0, 1,., 1,8(1,9, 101, 1.,, 1.1, 1.8, 180 Teacher, function of .0(.. Self(correction 1+0(11 Silent period .( 9, 91(9 , 81, 119, 191 Silent 5ay 1 . Sub)ect "atter teaching 1.9(191 Suggestopedia , , 10 (10., 118(1.+ Teacher tal% 0, .0(.1, 1,9 Total Physical =esponse 10+(10 , 111(119 Transitional for"s 10, 11(1 Mocabulary 8+(81