Second Language Acquisition and Second ... - Stephen Krashen
Second Language Acquisition and Second ... - Stephen Krashen
Second Language Acquisition and Second ... - Stephen Krashen
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
Freed (1980) reports that foreigner-talk is "strikingly similar" to caretaker speech<br />
with respect to grammatical complexity, as measured by the average number of S<br />
nodes per utterance (compared to Newport, 1976). Moreover, Freed reports at least<br />
some signs of tuning: native English speakers talking to "low foreigners" produced<br />
utterances tending to have fewer S nodes per utterance as compared to English<br />
speakers talking to "high foreigners", while input to both groups was less complex<br />
than native speaker-native speaker speech.<br />
It is probably safe to assume that interlanguage-talk is less complex than native<br />
speaker-native speaker speech with respect to propositional complexity. 2<br />
While the data are sparse, they are consistent with the hypothesis that these simple<br />
codes are roughly tuned to the level of the listener, possibly to the same degree as is<br />
caretaker speech. The size of the net might be about right, <strong>and</strong> it may be cast in the<br />
same way, by a communicator interested in getting his or her conversational partner<br />
to underst<strong>and</strong>. For all three simple codes it may be the case that communication<br />
casts an optimal size net.<br />
Before concluding that simple codes are optimal for language acquisition, we need<br />
to consider several problems. First, there are some differences between caretaker<br />
speech <strong>and</strong> the simple codes we are discussing. Caretaker speech typically contains<br />
high proportions of imperatives <strong>and</strong> questions, while teacher-talk (Trager, 1978) <strong>and</strong><br />
foreigner-talk (Freed, 1980) appear to contain a larger percentage of declaratives. Is<br />
this a crucial difference? Also, there is the obvious ungrammaticality of<br />
interlanguage talk. While caretaker speech also contains occasional examples of<br />
what might be considered ungrammatical forms (e.g. uninverted yes/no questions),<br />
interlanguage input is probably even more ungrammatical. Do the virtues of this<br />
simple code outweigh any problems caused by these errors? Also, even if simple<br />
codes are useful, if the acquirer hears only these codes we can expect fossilization:<br />
teacher-talk may be inherently limited due to the limitation of what can be discussed<br />
in the classroom, while interlanguage-talk is of course limited by the competence of<br />
the speakers. As for foreigner-talk, not all foreign-talkers may be good "language<br />
teachers", not all native speakers will lay down the right size "net". (Mark Twain<br />
complained that even though he had learned<br />
131