The Least a Second Language Acquisition Theory Needs to Explain

1. TESOL Quarterly, 24, 4 (1990) The Least a Second Language Acquisition Theory Needs to Explain Michael H. Long

2. SLA Research • Is relatively new: most research in SLA coming since about 1980 • Those that have performed this research come from different fields or disciplines • So the focuses and viewpoints for what is important have been varied: psychologist VS anthropologist VS Chomsky & UG etc… • So, what do we really know about SLA?

3. Description & Explanation • In tackling a problem like SLA, it’s essential to describe the observed phenomena because they lay out the scope of the problem to be solved. • Explanation is then in order to explain the how or the why of the data. • Explanation can vary from field to field, however: predict future events (biochemists, psychologists, etc) or host-hoc understanding (anthropo…)

4. Overlap

5. Totally part A • The frequency of noV constructions declined as that of don’t V constructions increased. • Subjects’ suppliance of plural s was more target-like on the picture description task than in the narrative. • Whether or not learners exhibited adverb-fronting on the pretest predicted their control of participle separation after instruction.

6. Area B • Accuracy was greater on tasks performed after planning than on tasks performed with no planning. • After equivalent periods of exposure, child starters score higher on proficiency tests than learners who began as adults.

7. Area C – total explanation • SLA is just one aspect of acculturation and the degree to which a learner acculturates to the TL group will control the degree to which he acquires the second language. • Second language learning, like any other complex cognitive skill, involves the gradual integration of subskills as controlled processes initially predominate and then become automatic.

8. Mechanisms • Explain/account for change/learning • In the SLA literature to this point (1990) are poorly defined and supported • Should probably also account for order of acquisition of grammatical elements (Atkinson 1982) • Meisel et al. (1981) and Clahsen (1987) provide a model for German L2 word order acquisition that describes different stages and argues for how SSLs achieve passing from stage to stage. • This “model” at least attemps to explain data, and not only describe it.

9. Some accepted SLA findings • To really/fully understand explain SLA, it is essential to know & understand the facts. • To explain anything, the important facts must be considered and accounted for (birds fly b/c they eat flying insects) • Sometimes, especially in SLA, it may not be obvious what findings are relevant and which aren’t.

10. Learners • Differences in children rarely has any connection to L1 acquisition • In SLA, stages and patterns tend to be consistent, but learning rate and ultimate attainment vary a lot • This variation seems to correlate with many factors: age, motivation, aptitude • Developmental/maturational (age) > affective factors (motivation)

11. Environments • Again, little impact on children in L1 • Variation again for SLA: L1/L2 relation... • Comprehensible input = essential • Overt error correction can help in SLA [focus on form] (not so important for L1) • Attention to form is necessary when L1/L2 comparison involves 21 relationships or when one is more marked. • Much of a language isn’t learned unconsciously.

12. Interlanguages • Always exhibit systematicity and variability at any point in development • Systematicity: regular suppliance and nonsuppliance of certain forms; persistence of errors = rule governed • Variability also seems to be systematically related to task, interlocutor, linguistic context, etc… but some of it is free (I born / I was born) • Change on time follows predictable paths. • Gradual and incremental; changes suggest restructuring of interlanguage grammar.

13. Implications for SLA • A theory is inadequate or incomplete if: • It says nothing about universals • It says nothing about environmental factors • It doesn’t specify either different mechanisms driving development in learners of different starting ages, or different access to the same mechanism • It purports to explain deveopment solely in terms of affective factors • It holds all language learning to be unconscious • It holds that native-like mastery of a SL can result simply from exposure to comprehensible examples of that language

14. A theory is inadequate or incomplete if: • It ignores the strong cognitive contribution on the learner’s part and is therefore purely environmentalist • It assumes that change is a product of the steady accumulation of generalizations based upon the learner’s perception of the frequencies of forms

15. Conclusion • A theory doesn’t have to account for every fact, but it must account for “at least some of the major accepted findings within its scope” • An adequate SLA theory must also specify one or more mechanisms to explain interlanguage change. • SLA is a multidimensional phenomenon: many factors, both individual and environmental.

16. Conclusion (cont…) • An SLA theory must speak to these different variables and find how they differ and how they interact with each other. (interactionist instead of unidimensional) • “The intriguing combination of universals and variability in adult language learning […] is the least an SLA theory needs to explain.”