Transcript Introduction (Ch. 1)

The Linguistic
Environment (Ch. 4)
Understanding SLA
Lourdes Ortega (2009)
www.routledge.com/cw/ortega
Published by Routledge © 2009 Mark Sawyer
4.1 Wes: I’m never learning,
I’m only just listen then talk

Japanese semi-immigrant to Hawaii





Communicatively successful
Grammatically unsuccessful
+ attitudes, + input are not enough
Sensitivity to form is missing ingredient
Birth of Schmidt’s “Noticing Hypothesis”
4.2 Acculturation as a predictive
explanation for L2 success?


Costa Rican immigrant Alberto failed to
move beyond basic pidginized English
Schumann’s explanation:
Social distance
 Psychological distance
Pidginization hypothesis/Acculturation model
Schumann later moved in cognitive directions



4.3 Input for comprehension
& for learning (1)
Krashen: Comprehensible input is
necessary and sufficient for SLA
Problems for deterministic idea that
comprehension  acquisition




Conceptual
Empirical
4.3 Input for comprehension
& for learning (2)
Krashen’s Monitor Model/Input hypothesis
5 interlocking hypotheses
1.
Acquisition/Learning
2.
Monitor
3.
Natural Order
4.
Input
5.
Affective Filter
4.4
Interaction &
negotation for meaning (NOM)
Interaction hypothesis (Michael Long)
 Krashen was basically right, but…

How does input become comprehensible?
Answer: Interactional modifications after trouble,
which serve to negotiate for meaning, e.g.



clarification requests
confirmation checks
comprehension checks
4.5 Output & syntactic
processing during production

Merrill Swain (1985):
Output Hypothesis
Unlike comprehension, production
requires full syntactic processing
Cognitive & social & linguistic demands
can push output to higher levels
These efforts destabilize IL (InterLanguage)
(Pushed) (Comprehensible)



4.6 Noticing and attention as moderators
of affordances in the environment
Attention  Noticing (sometimes)
(Subjective experience of something new)
 Noticing  Learning (to some extent)
 Analysis  (More) Understanding

4.7 Two generations of
interaction studies
Gen 1(1980s+)
 How NOM actually happens
 What factors maximize NOM
 How NOM improves comprehension
Gen 2 (1994 ~)
 Benefits of NOM on particular language
 Interacting effects of NOM & task design
4.8 The empirical link between
interaction & acquisition
Gen 2 features
b)
Pre- and post-tests
Targeting of particular forms
c)
Inclusion of measure of noticing (sometimes)

Meta-analysis: strong effects of NOM
Morphosyntactic effects of take time
a)

4.9 Output modification
Output promotes…
1.
noticing of gaps & holes
2.
metalinguistic awareness
3.
hypothesis testing

Pushed output groups produced
more language & more complete info

Self-initiated output modification: frequent
4.10 Learner-initiated
negotiation of form
Language-Related Episodes (Swain)
 Learner-Initiated Focus on Form (Ellis+)
…engage meta-reflection & self-regulation
processes, leading to learning
 L1 meta-language showed good results

4.11 Negative feedback (NF)
during meaning & form negotiation


NF better term than error correction,
corrective feedback, negative evidence
Includes, in order of explicitness (?)…




explicit corrections
recasts
elicitations
clarification requests
NF 2

Frequency very variable, but…

Low in non-instructional settings
 Medium in laboratory (25-50%)
 High in classrooms (48-90%)
Types: no consensus, but need to include…
 explicitness
 informativeness
 demand

Effectiveness: better than ignoring errors

4.12 The limits of the
linguistic environment
NOM is not the panacea for SLA
1.
Engagement, risk-taking with less NOM
b)
NOM can be discouraging, annoying.
c)
Not all NOM is really NOM (e.g. continuer)
Significance of NOM may be deceiving.
Many reasons for low level of NOM.
Power & prejudice influence NOM.
L2ers may take “equitable responsibility” approach
a)
2.
3.
4.
5.
4.13 Summary (1)

5 environmental ingredients of success





acculturated attitudes
comprehensible input
negotiated interaction
pushed output
capacity to attend to language code
4.13 Summary (2)
Positive attitudes, comprehensible input
are not enough
 Grammar acquisition needs FonF.
 Learning can be facilitated by…




NoM
Output modifications
NoF
Negative feedback
4.13 Summary (3)



LREs/PFonF may help learning.
Negative feedback (NF) is useful.
Effect of NF is moderated by…


degree of explicitness
instructional orientation towards L2
4.13 Summary (4)


Value of comprehension vs. production is still
poorly understood.
Grammar is different, less incidental




Requires more interest, attention, effort.
May require more time to simmer.
Can act as gatekeeper to other areas of L2
Effect of linguistic environment depends on
learner’s perceptions and actions.