0 оценок0% нашли этот документ полезным (0 голосов)
33 просмотров1 страница
'Innate cognitivists' are concerned primarily with the individual learner. They do not view the learner first and foremost as a social being. The role of individual differences in the innate cognitive mechanisms discussed here requires significant research.
'Innate cognitivists' are concerned primarily with the individual learner. They do not view the learner first and foremost as a social being. The role of individual differences in the innate cognitive mechanisms discussed here requires significant research.
'Innate cognitivists' are concerned primarily with the individual learner. They do not view the learner first and foremost as a social being. The role of individual differences in the innate cognitive mechanisms discussed here requires significant research.
We further discuss the role of WM in SLA in Chapter 5, reflecting the emerging
consensus that WM capacity influences L2 learning when the learner has some awareness of learning and knowledge (Roehr, 2008; Williams, 2012). A further concern about emergentist approaches has been whether they can account for the absence of wild grammars in L2 development. Recent attempts to address this are producing some promising results, with testable suggestions such as the associative learning principles of statistical pre-emption and attention blocking, and learner-internal processing limitations. L1 acquisition research has demonstrated statistical pre-emption and the effects of childrens limited analyses of the input on learners subsequent productions. These advances will hopefully feed into similar work in SLA research, and facilitate fuller accounts of L2 developmental routes, or the acquisition of highly complex linguistic phenomena.
4.4.4 The view of the language learner
Innate cognitivists, like the linguists reviewed in Chapter 3, are concerned primarily with the individual. Although comprehension of the input, and, therefore, interaction with other speakers, is seen as critical for learning, these researchers do not view the learner first and foremost as a social being. Also, they are generally interested in the learners mind as an implicit processor of regularities, rather than focusing on the detail of the linguistic information it contains. However, recent work has paid more attention to the language representations in the mind, using methods to elicit intuitions and implicit knowledge, such as reaction times, act out tasks, acceptability judgements and semi-spontaneous oral production tasks. The role of individual differences in the innate cognitive mechanisms discussed here requires significant research. The focus in this chapter has been on mechanisms that are thought to be innate and to drive L1 learning (as well as L2). So, such mechanisms cannot rely primarily on resources that differ between individuals, as all individuals learn a critical core of a language system. OGrady makes it clear that his proposed computational processor in WM is constant across humans: The right [computational] choices will be made by any brain with a computational system sensitive to the burden on working memory, regardless of how smart it is (2005, p. 206). Nevertheless, there is some evidence that statistical learning ability is variable. So, it is tempting to ask whether an L2 learner with a more efficient processor would be less likely to transfer an L1 computational routine even when the L2 computational routine is more costly. Similarly, it is clear that adults WM capacity is much greater than that of child L1 learners. In principle, this could undermine the claim that L2 learners will always adopt the least costly routine (be it the L1 or the L2 routine), and challenge the relevance of the Efficiency-Driven Processor for adult L2 learning. A related issue is how far 128
(Behavior Science - Teory, Research and Practice) Mark R. Dixon, Steven C. Hayes, Jordan Belisle - Acceptance and Commitment Therapy For Behavior Analysts - A Pra