examen

UNIVERSIDAD NACIONAL

DE CÓRDOBA

FACULTAD DE LENGUAS

MAESTRÍA EN INGLÉS

CURSO DE POSGRADO

“TEORÍAS DE LA ADQUISICIÓN

DE UNA SEGUNDA LENGUA”

MA. María Cristina Astorga, UNRC

MA. Cecilia Ferreras, UNC

Luque Colombres, María Candelaria

DNI: 27245635

Año: 2007

Investigating learner language: comment on the essential features of

Functional Analysis regarding:

a. Underlying conception about L2 learning and L2

development.

b. Steps for conducting a function-form analysis.

Functional analyses started to be carried out when the learner’s need to communicate

was taken into account. In order to see underlying theories of L2 learning and L2

development, it is necessary to mention the underlying theory of language that informs this

method of analysis.

Language is seen as a tool for communicating meaning. Language, as Ellis and

Barkhuizen (2005:111) state, is seen “as a system of form-function mappings” since

grammatical forms are used to realize specific meanings. These mappings are complex

because one form can be used to realize different meanings and one specific meaning can be

realized by means of different forms. According to Ellis and Barkhuizen (2005), as multiple

form-function mappings allow speakers to choose, they are the primary source of the

variability found in the language. Therefore, researchers interested in investigating variability

may employ functional analyses.

There are underlying conceptions of L2 learning and L2 development in this approach.

To begin with, learning a second language means learning linguistic structures in order to

perform different functions learners are already acquainted with due to their L1 background

knowledge. In Ellis and Barkhuizen’s (2005) words, “learners bring to the task of learning an

L2 an established set of functional concepts from their L1 and are driven to find appropriate

linguistic means for performing these in the L2”. Regarding development, we can identify

stages learners go through in the acquisition of an L2. These stages of acquisition are

characterized in terms of configurations of form-function mappings, which the learner

reassesses and accommodates as he/she learns more about the second language. That is why,

researchers supporting functional analysis, such as Huebner, Tarone and Preston, view the

learner’s interlanguage as dynamic and variable, since learners overtime reanalyse their

mappings and bring them more closely to the mappings of a native speaker. One very

interesting stage introduced by Ellis (1999) is characterized by free variation, i.e., a stage

when there is no clear form-function relation between the form and meaning in the target

“TEORÍAS DE LA ADQUISICIÓN DE UNA SEGUNDA LENGUA”Luque Colombres, María Candelaria

2

language. Having this concept in mind, researchers can explain why learners randomly use

and omit a certain linguistic form to express a specific meaning.

When analysing learner language, researchers may be interested in the extent to which

the mappings of the learner’s interlanguage match those of the target language. In order to

find an answer, they may carry out a functional analysis and compare the results with the

mappings found in a reference grammar. We can distinguish between two types of functional

analyses: Form-function analysis and function-form analysis. On the one hand, when

conducting a form function analysis, the researcher starts from a linguistic form and then

investigates the meanings this form can realize in a sample of learner language. On the other

hand, in a function-form analysis, the researcher selects a language function and, analysing

the samples, identifies the forms that can be used to perform such function. For the purposes

of this paper, the steps to carry out a function-form analysis will be presented.

Ellis and Barkhuizen (2005) present the steps for conducting a function-form analysis:

Identify the function of interest (semantic, semantico-grammatical, pragmatic

or discourse functions).

Collect samples of learner language (naturalistic or clinically elicited data).

Identify the linguistic forms used to perform that function.

Count the frequency of each form used to realize the function. Discover the

dominant form used to realize the function of interest at a specific stage.

We have seen the theories of language, L2 learning and L2 development that informs

this method of analysis. Besides, the different types of functional analyses were mentioned.

Finally, the steps to carry out a function-form analysis were presented.

Would you use this research approach to investigate in your L2

classrooms? Why? Why not?

Despite the fact that functional analyses can shed some light on many aspects of the

learner’s interlanguage, I would not carry out such analyses for a number of reasons.

Firstly, I am not so interested in Pragmatics as I am in Pedagogy. I am interested in the

role of instruction, which in general is overlooked in this type of analysis as most studies

focus on learners acquiring a language naturally without instruction. As a teacher, I need

techniques and methods which guarantee that my intervention is as useful as possible in the

learning process of my students. Functional analyses can give us a glimpse of how far from


3

the target language our student’s interlanguage is and what form – function relations they

acquire at different stages.

Secondly, functional analyses do not make any reference to the role of attention in

production and acquisition in order to explain variability in the language. This is closely

related to the role of instruction as teachers can guide students so that their attention is

focused to a certain aspect of the language.

Thirdly, I myself will never reach pragmatic competence in the language I am teaching

unless I live in an English speaking country long enough. That is why I do not consider

myself an objective evaluator of the learners’ communicative/pragmatic competence, about

which these types of analyses provide detailed information.

To conclude, it cannot be denied that functional analyses can be very enlightening.

However, it is a kind of analysis that may be of more interest to linguists than to language

teachers.

What is the psycholinguistic basis of the research approach to learner

language that analyses accuracy, complexity and fluency? How does Skehan

´s information processing model (1998) of L2 learning view “storage” or

“representation”?

Researchers that are interested in analysing learners’ accuracy, complexity and fluency

believe that learners have limited attentional resources and may attempt to one of these

different aspects of an L2 when using that language. When focusing on accuracy, learners

may produce language that is grammatically correct. In other words, they use the language

that is fully internalised so as not to deviate from the rule system of the target language. In

contrast, when complexity is the focus of attention, learners take a more creative stance

towards the use of the L2 since they try to use more challenging, elaborated language. In this

case, they use language that is not fully internalised because it is at the “upper limit of their

interlanguage systems” (Ellis and Barkhuizen 2005:139). Finally, when trying to be fluent

speakers, learners seek to avoid problems when communicating in order to have a task done.

Meaning is prioritised. In short, certain tasks predispose the learner for fluency, complexity or

accuracy. Researchers following this approach may make use of different devices to measure

accuracy, complexity or fluency.


4

Underlying this type of analysis, there is a particular view of L2 proficiency, which

has a psycholinguistic basis. Skehan’s information processing model has thrown some light

on this research approach. He claims that the fact that attentional resources are limited “has

far-reaching effects on second language processing and use” (1998: 73). He identifies three

stages in the processing of information: input, central processing and output. Regarding input,

he gives importance to the notion of ‘noticing’ introduced by Schmidt, which can help

account for “the way in which not all input has equal value and only that input which is

noticed then becomes available for intake and effective processing” (Skehan, 1998: 48).

Skehan adopts Schmidt’s proposal that a number of factors can have some influence on the

way input is received. These factors include frequency and salience of certain features in the

input, the role of instruction, the nature of the task, and individual differences among learners,

such as readiness and processing ability.

Regarding the second stage, central processing, Skehan states (1998: 86) that in order

to represent or store information, learners have an information-processing dual mode system,

which has a limited capacity and represents information in the form of rules and exemplars.

On the one hand, the rule-based system contains rules which can be applied in creative and

novel ways. The advantage of this system is that it is generative, restructurable, flexible and

sensitive to feedback. The disadvantage of such a system is that operation of rule during

either comprehension or production demands from the learner complex processes of

construction. In Skehan’s (1998:31) words, it may be “inadequate for the demands of real-

time language processing”.

The exemplar-based system, on the other hand, contains examples of language which

are stored as chunks or wholes. The same word may be represented many times as part of

different larger units. The positive side of this system is that it is fast to be accessed during

language production or comprehension. However, this system has only a limited generative

potential and it is not sensitive to feedback, as this cannot produce a change that can be

applied in a general way. Both modes of representation are necessary and neither is better. In

other words, “the rule-based system is generative and flexible, but rather demanding in

processing terms, while the exemplar (memory) system may be more rigid in application, but

functions much more quickly and effectively in ongoing communication” (Skehan, 1998:62).

These two systems should work together as neither is ideal when working in isolation. Their

use depends on the different communicative contexts and purposes. For example, in ongoing

communication, when time is limited, the exemplar-based system is more appropriate as it is

fast, accessible and meaning-oriented. In contrast, when the learner can spend some time to


5

plan and prepare a particular language task in which form may be important, a rule-based

system can be employed.

As regards the third stage, i.e, output, Skehan believes that this system of

representation explained above can be the basis for producing language. The use of the

exemplar-based system, which focuses on meaning, fosters fluency while the use of the rule-

based system has an impact on accuracy and complexity in the output. Although this last

system focuses primarily on form, syntax is seen as a way to produce meanings.

This model presented above has some teaching implications (Skehan, 1998). To begin

with, without intervention, students tend to focus on meaning alone. Teachers can set up the

necessary conditions so that students notice form as well as meaning. Then, teachers can

manipulate processing conditions so that interlanguage change is possible. For example,

students can be given time to plan before a task in carried out in order to lave less processing

work during the task. During the planning phase, teachers can even channel students’

attention to prioritise either complexity or accuracy. This model introduced by Skehan helps

distinguish between the different stages in order for teachers to know when and how

intervention may be most effective for learners’ interlanguage to develop.

What are the essential differences between the Interaction Hypothesis

proposed by Long (1988)1 and the Output Hypothesis proposed by Swain

(1995)?

Before the Interaction and the Output Hypotheses were developed by Long (1983,

1996) and by Swain (1985, 1995) respectively, it was thought that acquisition of a second

language was possible through natural exposure to input made up of a wide range of language

samples (Krashen’s Comprehensible Input Hypothesis). Although the early version of Long’s

Interaction Hypothesis (IH) took up this idea, there was emphasis on the importance of

interaction as a source of input. As Ellis and Barkhuizen (2005: 167) pointed out, since “this

early version of the IH was challenged on a number of fonts”, it was modified so as to throw

light on the role of interaction in the development and change of the learner’s interlanguage.

In both versions of the Interaction Hypothesis emphasis is placed on the fact that

learners may learn a second language through interaction. Negotiation of meaning is central 1 I could not find the relevance of this year in relation to the Interaction Hypothesis. Consequently, I decided to refer to the two versions proposed by Long in 1983 and 1996.


6

as it facilitates acquisition. Gass and Selinker explain that “this refers to those instances in

conversation when the participants need to interrupt the flow of the conversation in order for

both parties to understand what the conversation is about.” (2001: 272). In both versions

negotiation is seen as a source of comprehensible input, i.e., while interacting, learners can

receive positive evidence on what is possible in the target language.

The later version incorporated the role of negative evidence and modified output. This

version pointed out that negative evidence can also help learners see what is grammatical and

possible in the language; i.e., while interacting, learners can receive feedback by means of

recasts and therefore can “compare their own deviant productions with grammatically correct

input” offered by the recast (Ellis and Barkhizen, 2005: 169). In Long’s words, “negative

feedback obtained during negotiation work or elsewhere may be facilitative of L2

development, at least for vocabulary, morphology, and language-specific syntax, and essential

for learning certain specifiable L1-L2 contrasts” (qtd. in Gass and Selinker, 2001:294). In

addition to negative evidence, the role of modified output as an important element of

interaction was introduced. Long borrowed this concept from Swain’s Output Hypothesis,

which will now be presented.

The Output Hypothesis proposed by Swain suggested a crucial role for output in the

development of a second language. Input alone cannot account for interlanguage development

since “when one hears language, one can interpret the meaning without the use of syntax”

(Gass and Selinker, 2001:277). In contrast, when one produces language, one has to put the

elements into some order to create a coherent message. Comprehensible output refers to the

need for the learner to be “pushed toward the delivery of a message that is not only conveyed,

but that is conveyed precisely, coherently, and appropriately” (Swain, qtd, in Gass and

Selinker, 2001:278). Skehan (1998) referred to three main roles for output: to test hypothesis,

to force syntactic processing and to develop automaticity. Firstly, when learners produce

language, they can test different hypotheses about the L2, particularly when they are given

negative feedback and they modify the output so as to get closer to the target language.

Students become aware of their strengths and weaknesses and they notice the gap between

their interlanguage and the L2. Secondly, producing language may help learners to focus on

syntax so as to convey intended meanings. Gass and Selinker (2001:290) argue that

understanding the syntax of the language is a level of knowledge that is essential to the

production of language. This level cannot be achieved by means of processing language only

at the level of meaning, which is done when receiving input. Thirdly, producing language

helps learners to develop fluency and automaticity as “the consistent and successful mapping


7

(practice) of grammar to output results in automatic processing” (Gass and Selinker,

2001:290). Therefore, learners gain control over new forms, which can be more easily

accessed when needed.

After presenting the main tenets of the Output and Interaction Hypotheses, we could

conclude that the Output Hypothesis and both versions of the Interaction Hypothesis agree on

the fact that input alone is not enough to acquire a second language. However, the first

version of the IH differs from the OH in that it overlooks the function of output. Furthermore,

we could say that the second version of the IH holds a similar view to the one suggested by

the OH since the IH incorporates the function of output introduced by Swain. Both Long and

Swain give importance to the role of output as interaction contributes to learners’ L2

development. The slight difference lies on the fact that Long puts emphasis on negotiation of

meaning in interaction as a context for learning; whereas Swain focuses on the importance of

output in that interaction.

How do Doughty and Williams (1998) deal with the implicit/explicit

dichotomy in relation to FonF techniques?

One of the main concerns of English Language teaching has always been whether

explicit grammar instruction should be present in the language classroom. In Long and

Robinson’s words:

“Although by no means the only important issue underlying debate over

approaches to language teaching down the years, implicit or explicit

choice of the learner or the language to be taught as the starting point in

course design remains one of the most critical.” (1998:15)

In the EFL teaching history we can identify theories and approaches in the implicit and

explicit extremes of the pedagogical grammar continuum. Some theorists have advocated

formal and systematic attention to isolated linguistic features. Meaning is not an issue as in

can be separated from grammar rules and instruction. This is the case of methods such as the

Audiolingual method and the Grammar Translation method, which state that learning the

language requires study of categories or parts of speech in written text and the rules for their

use in translation (Hinkel and Fotos: 2002). When focusing on forms, the target language is

broken down into words and collocations, rules, structures, which are presented to the learner


8

through pedagogical material which has been specially designed to teach the target forms

(Long and Robinson, 1998:15,16).

On the implicit extreme language is seen as a means of communicating ideas. There is

neither explicit grammar teaching nor error correction. Language is acquired naturally in the

process of real communication through exposure to samples of the language. As Hinkel and

Fotos explain (2002:4), “these communicative/humanistic approaches gave no formal

grammar instruction but rather presented quantities of meaning-focused input containing

target forms and vocabulary”. This extreme seems better than a mere focus on forms.

However, focusing on meaning alone may not be effective as the sole exposure to positive

evidence alone is not be sufficient for the acquisition of the target language.

A growing dissatisfaction with either extreme brought about a balanced approach, in

which focus on grammatical features arise in a context of communicative interaction. As

Long and Robinson (1998) state ‘focus on form often consists of an occasional shift of

attention to linguistic code features [...] triggered by perceived problems with comprehension

or production’. Focus on form (FonF) techniques can take various forms depending on the

degree of the focus, the moment where the focus is placed and the nature of the target forms.

One implicit technique involves teachers manipulating and enhancing the input in

order to increase the perceptual salience of the target forms, which students can detect in the

input without distracting them while they read (White, 1998). It has been suggested that

enhancing the input together with giving extra material containing the target forms may have

a positive effect on students’ interlanguage development. Doughty and Varela (1998) argue

that ‘implicit focus-on-form (FonF) techniques are potentially effective, since the aim is to

add attention to form to a primarily communicative task rather than to depart from an already

communicative goal in order to discuss linguistic feature.’ However, flooded input with

positive evidence alone -without explicit rule explanation- may not be enough for students to

progress. This is the case of contrasts between L1 and L2 forms.

Another technique associated with FonF is recasting, i.e., reformulating an incorrect

utterance without changing the original’s meaning. Long explains that recasts are utterances

that rephrase the learner’s utterance “by changing one or more sentence components (subject,

verb or object) while still referring to its central meaning” (in Ellis and Barkhuizen, 2005:

169). This consists of incidental feedback on the part of the teacher showing the correct use of

a certain structure. Corrective recasts involve the teacher drawing the students’ attention to a

non-target form produced in order to offer them the correct form while they are engaged in a

communicative task. This type of feedback helps learners to draw attention to ‘formal features


9

without distracting them from their original communicative intent (Doughty and Varela,

1998). This technique has been claimed to be particular useful and effective in the context of

content-based ESL classes. According to Doughty and Varela (1998), this relatively implicit

FonF technique is task natural and reasonably incidental to teaching, as well as comfortable

for the teacher.

As it can be seen, different FonF techniques can be effective and advantageous

depending on the complexity and nature of the target forms, the readiness of each individual

learner, and the level of explicitness of focus on form (Williams and Evans, 1990).


10

References

Doughty, C. and E. Varela (1990) ‘Communicative Focus on Form’. In C. Doughty and J.

Williams (Eds.), Focus of Form in Classroom Second Language Acquisition.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 114-138.

Ellis, R. (2002) ‘The Place of Grammar Instruction in the Second/Foreign Language

Curriculum’. In E. Hinkel and S. Fotos (Eds.) New Perspectives on Grammar

Teaching in Second Language Classrooms. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Ellis, R. and G. Barkhuizen (2005) Analysing Learner Language. Oxford: Oxford University

Press.

Gass, S.M. and L. Selinker (2001) Second Language Acquisition: an Introductory Course (2nd

edition). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Hinkel, E. and S. Fotos (2002) ‘From Theory to Practice: A Teacher’s View’. In E. Hinkel

and S. Fotos (Eds) New Perspectives on Grammar Teaching in Second Language

Classrooms. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbraum.

Long, M. H. and P. Robinson (1990).‘Focus on Form Theory, research and practice’. In C.

Doughty and J. Williams (Eds.), Focus of Form in Classroom Second Language

Acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 15-41.

Skehan, P. (1998) A Cognitive Approach to Language Learning. Oxford: Oxford University

Press.

White, J. (1990) ‘Getting the learners’ attention. A typographical input enhancement study’.

In C. Doughty and J. Williams (Eds.), Focus of Form in Classroom Second Language

Acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 85-113.

Williams, J. and J. Evans (1990) ‘What kind of focus and on which forms?’. In C. Doughty

and J. Williams (Eds.), Focus of Form in Classroom Second Language Acquisition.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 139-155.


11

examen

Documents

Transcript of examen