Second Language Acquisition and Second ... - Stephen Krashen

More documents

Recommendations

Info

development (r = 0.56, p < 0.05). This difference may be due to sample differences; Cross' sample consisted of children known to be rapid acquirers. Henzl (1973) reports that teacher-talk is better formed than native speaker-native speaker speech. This was confirmed by Wiley (1978), who also found some signs of tuning: her beginning ESL students heard fewer disfluencies than did intermediate and advanced students. Freed (1980) reported that in her study of Americans talking to ESL performers, foreigner-talk appeared to be about as well formed as caretaker speech (compared to Newport, 1976). There are no data for interlanguage-talk, which is probably not as well formed as native speaker-native speaker speech. 4. Length. Caretaker speech is shorter than adult-adult speech but, as Newport et al. point out, this does not necessarily mean simpler. As seen in Table 1, Cross (1977) finds evidence for at least rough tuning, but Newport et al. do not. As mentioned above, this may be due to sample differences. Henzl confirms that teacher-talk is shorter than native speaker-native speaker speech, but did not search for tuning. Again, there are no data for interlanguage-talk and foreigner-talk. 5. Propositional complexity. As seen in Table 1, there is some evidence for rough tuning in caretaker speech for this feature: there are generally positive correlations (but not usually significant) between the number of S nodes per utterance in the input and the child's linguistic maturity, again with higher correlations found in Cross' study. Trager (1978) used this measure for input to second language acquirers, finding again that teacher-talk is less complex than native speaker-native speaker talk, and also that beginners received somewhat less complex input than intermediate and advanced students. Other scholars have used other measures. Both Gaies (1977) and Wiley (1978) used T-unit-based measures, such as words per T-unit and clauses per T-unit. Briefly, both studies agree that teacher-talk is simpler than native speaker-native speaker speech. Gaies, however, found evidence for tuning by level, his beginners receiving simpler input than his intermediates, and his intermediates receiving simpler input than his advanced ESL students. Wiley, with a slightly smaller sample, did not find evidence for tuning by level. Henzl also reports less subordination in teacher-talk. 130
Freed (1980) reports that foreigner-talk is "strikingly similar" to caretaker speech with respect to grammatical complexity, as measured by the average number of S nodes per utterance (compared to Newport, 1976). Moreover, Freed reports at least some signs of tuning: native English speakers talking to "low foreigners" produced utterances tending to have fewer S nodes per utterance as compared to English speakers talking to "high foreigners", while input to both groups was less complex than native speaker-native speaker speech. It is probably safe to assume that interlanguage-talk is less complex than native speaker-native speaker speech with respect to propositional complexity. 2 While the data are sparse, they are consistent with the hypothesis that these simple codes are roughly tuned to the level of the listener, possibly to the same degree as is caretaker speech. The size of the net might be about right, and it may be cast in the same way, by a communicator interested in getting his or her conversational partner to understand. For all three simple codes it may be the case that communication casts an optimal size net. Before concluding that simple codes are optimal for language acquisition, we need to consider several problems. First, there are some differences between caretaker speech and the simple codes we are discussing. Caretaker speech typically contains high proportions of imperatives and questions, while teacher-talk (Trager, 1978) and foreigner-talk (Freed, 1980) appear to contain a larger percentage of declaratives. Is this a crucial difference? Also, there is the obvious ungrammaticality of interlanguage talk. While caretaker speech also contains occasional examples of what might be considered ungrammatical forms (e.g. uninverted yes/no questions), interlanguage input is probably even more ungrammatical. Do the virtues of this simple code outweigh any problems caused by these errors? Also, even if simple codes are useful, if the acquirer hears only these codes we can expect fossilization: teacher-talk may be inherently limited due to the limitation of what can be discussed in the classroom, while interlanguage-talk is of course limited by the competence of the speakers. As for foreigner-talk, not all foreign-talkers may be good "language teachers", not all native speakers will lay down the right size "net". (Mark Twain complained that even though he had learned 131
Page 1 and 2:
Second Language Acquisition and Sec
Page 3 and 4:
Acknowledgments I would like to tha
Page 5 and 6:
Introduction This book is concerned
Page 7 and 8:
performance..." (p.35). Corder (196
Page 9 and 10:
when it does not get in the way of
Page 11 and 12:
language (some similarities to firs
Page 13 and 14:
In the second part of this chapter,
Page 15 and 16:
far more valuable then the exercise
Page 17 and 18:
Monitoring generally improves accur
Page 19 and 20:
overconcern with correctness, howev
Page 21 and 22:
language is spoken or may be expose
Page 23 and 24:
2. Attitude and Aptitude in Second
Page 25 and 26:
1973, p. 8). Carroll also suggests
Page 27 and 28:
outines and patterns, and at a more
Page 29 and 30:
Sentences, Paired Associates, and S
Page 31 and 32:
stay-ins appeared to be integrative
Page 33 and 34:
motivation played no role because o
Page 35 and 36:
(1977), after interviewing teachers
Page 37 and 38:
did not produce the same results. T
Page 39 and 40:
a stage many people, but not all, r
Page 41 and 42:
The Good Language Learner Revisited
Page 43 and 44:
predict differences in student achi
Page 45 and 46:
settle the issue of whether adults
Page 47 and 48:
language had higher scores than stu
Page 49 and 50:
Table 1. English proficiency and ye
Page 51 and 52:
The "self-study" reinterpretation o
Page 53 and 54:
series the evidence for learning is
Page 55 and 56:
4. The Domain of the Conscious Gram
Page 57 and 58:
Ann Fathman, confirmed our earlier
Page 59 and 60:
significant differences for any of
Page 61 and 62:
Table 1. Studies analyzing grammati
Page 63 and 64:
Table 3. Counterexamples to orderin
Page 65 and 66:
Table 4 (cont.) ___________________
Page 67 and 68:
ut *der Katze Ohr (The cat's ear).
Page 69 and 70:
Research Findings 1. First language
Page 71 and 72:
First-language-influenced errors he
Page 73 and 74:
and (4) Ich weiss nicht, I know not
Page 75 and 76:
ain", the right hemisphere, appears
Page 77 and 78:
second language acquisition in adul
Page 79 and 80:
hemisphere is removed, and the pati
Page 81 and 82:
Monitor, to exist, and the degree t
Page 83 and 84: advantage in the first language. En
Page 85 and 86: while English "orients its users to
Page 87 and 88: 7. On Routines and Patterns in Lang
Page 89 and 90: adulthood. A. Smith (1966) describe
Page 91 and 92: "That's a _______") which were char
Page 93 and 94: variation. Nelson, for example, dis
Page 95 and 96: which he had learned by imitation.
Page 97 and 98: and often incorporated them into hi
Page 99 and 100: what utterances mean by observing h
Page 101 and 102: Furthermore, she associated strings
Page 103 and 104: and patterns other than as discours
Page 105 and 106: similar difficulty orders for gramm
Page 107 and 108: understanding language that is "a l
Page 109 and 110: up to the intermediate level. As Wa
Page 111 and 112: practical only in a foreign languag
Page 113 and 114: is making some effort at making him
Page 115 and 116: It may be useful to distinguish thr
Page 117 and 118: the luxury of building up acquired
Page 119 and 120: marker /-s/, and the regular and ir
Page 121 and 122: to speak the language they were lea
Page 123 and 124: 9. The Theoretical and Practical Re
Page 125 and 126: contact with. "Teacher-talk" is the
Page 127 and 128: language in Los Angeles. S. K. also
Page 129 and 130: Caretaker Speech and Language Acqui
Page 131 and 132: speech is so well rooted in the "he
Page 133: speech is: they are simpler than na
Page 137 and 138: e boredom. When they overshoot, the
Page 139 and 140: class was conducted entirely in Fre
Page 141 and 142: more expansions as well as repetiti
Page 143 and 144: Broen, P. (1972) The Verbal Environ
Page 145 and 146: Dulay, H. and M. Burt (1977) "Remar
Page 147 and 148: Hakuta, K. and H. Cancino (1977) "T
Page 149 and 150: Learning Aptitude. Rowley, Ma.: New
Page 151 and 152: Academy of Aphasia. Victoria, Briti
Page 153 and 154: Smith, A. (1966) "Speech and other
show all

Second Language Acquisition and Second ... - Stephen Krashen

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?