Gass & Selinker's SLA Chapter 8,9

ChAPTER8. LOOKING AT INTERLANGUAGE PROCESSES

영어지도학과
200601008
김용선


It is important to note that there is an important difference in emphasis between linguistics and psychology in their relationship to SLA.

8.1. THE COMPETITION MODEL
This model was developed to account for the ways monolingual speakers interpret sentences. It is based in the assumption that form and function cannot be separated. It is concerned with how language is used (performance).A major concept inherent in the model is that speakers must have a way to determine relationship among elements in a sentence. Language processing involves competition among various cues: language-specific instantiation of cues and language-specific strength assigned to cues. Native speakers of English use various cues—word order, meaning, animacy, and agreement—to determine the subject of the sentence and the object. If there is a breakdown in the normal use of cues, then there is competition as what will fill the slot of subject. Different languages resolve the conflict in different ways. English uses word order and agreement as primary determinants. How does one adjust one’s internal speech-processing mechanisms from those appropriate for the NL to those appropriate for the TL? In L2 sentence interpretation, the learner’s initial hypothesis is consistent with sentence interpretation in the NL. However, there may be universal tendencies toward the heavy use of particular cues. The methodology to gather information of this sort is that learners are presented with sentences designed to present conflicting cues and asked to determine what the subjects of those sentences are. A meaning-based comprehension strategy takes precedence over a grammar-based one. There is also ample evidence that learners first look for correspondences in their NL as their initial hypothesis. Only when that appears to fail do they adopt what might be viewed as a universal prepotency: that of using meaning to interpret sentences. Learners first learn that English is a rigid word-order language before learning what the appropriate word order is. Individual variation in response is a significant factor, and the context of presentation of sentences affects the way sentences are interpreted. Rounds and Kanagy (1998) suggested an overreliance on semantic order strategy. The learners should have soon realized that word order is not a sufficient cue to sentence interpretation. In this study, however, the children continued to use word order as their primary strategy.
In sum, learners are indeed faced with conflicts between NL and TL cues and cue strengths. They first resort to their NL interpretation strategies and resort to a universal selection of meaning-based cues. What is involved in L2 processing is a readjustment of which cues will be relevant to interpretation and a determination of the relative strengths of those cues. There are certain difficulties inherent in looking at and interpreting data in the linguistic approaches. One such difficulty is processing uniqueness. A second difficulty in the interpretation of the results concerns fundamental differences between syntax-based languages and meaning/pragmatics-based languages.

8.2. THE MONITOR MODEL

8.2.1. The Acquisition-Learning Hypothesis
Krashen (1982) assumed that L2 learners have two independent means of developing knowledge of a L2: acquisition and learning. In non-technical terms, acquisition is “picking up” a language and learning is “knowing about” a language. Learners use the language developed through these two systems for different purposes. Knowledge learned through learning cannot be internalized as knowledge of acquisition. The acquired system is used to produce language and the learned system serves as an “inspector” of the acquired system.

8.2.2. The Natural Order Hypothesis
Elements of language are acquired in a predictable order. The order is the same regardless of whether or not instruction is involved

8.2.3. The Monitor Hypothesis
The learned system has a special function—to serve as a Monitor and, hence, to alter the output of the acquired system. There are three conditions that must be met in order to use the Monitor: time, focus on form, and know the rule. The monitor is intended to link the acquired and learned systems in a situation of language use.

8.2.4. The Input Hypothesis
Second languages are acquired by understanding messages, or by receiving comprehensible input. Comprehensible input is that bit of language that is heard/read and that is slightly ahead of a learner’s current state of grammatical knowledge (i + 1). We move from i, out current level to i + 1, the next level along the natural order, by understanding input containing i + 1. Krashen assumed a LAD, which is an innate mental structure capable of handling both first and second language acquisition. The input activates this innate structure. But only input of a very specific kind (i + 1) will be useful in altering a learner’s grammar.

8.2.5. The Affective Filter Hypothesis
Affect is intended to include factors such as motivation, attitude, self-confidence, and anxiety. Krashen thus proposed an Affective Filter. If the Filter is up, there can be no acquisition. If, on the other hand, the Filter is down, the input will reach the acquisition device and acquisition will take place. The Affective Filter is responsible for individual variation in SLA. In sum, acquisition can be announced by two of the five hypotheses, the Input hypothesis and the Affective-Filter Hypothesis, in addition to the LAD.

8.3. CRITIQUES OF THE MONITOR MODEL
There are a number of difficulties with Krashen’s view of how acquisition takes place.

8.3.1. The Acquisition-Learning Hypothesis
The question is whether or not learners develop two independent systems. Krashen stated explicitly that what has been learned cannot become part of the acquired system. However, the counterargument would consist of saying that information would be housed in two separate linguistic systems. This is clearly an inefficient way for the brain to cope with different kinds of information. A second objection to the distinction between acquisition and learning comes from consideration of those learners who learn language only in a formal setting. A third objection to the distinction drawn within this framework has to do with falsifiablity.

8.3.2. The Natural Order Hypothesis
The Natural Order Hypothesis was based primarily on studies of English morpheme acquisition. We have dealt with methodological issues and the difficulty of extending the results of the morpheme order studies to incorporate the claims of the Natural Order Hypothesis

8.3.3. The Monitor Hypothesis
How do learners in a classroom setting in which only the NL is used ever comprehend the L2, as for all intents and purposes, they have no acquired system? Learned knowledge can be used in decoding consciously and quickly. There are once again difficulties in terms of testability.

8.3.4. The Input Hypothesis
The hypothesis is not specific as to how to define levels of knowledge. Krashen went on to say that there has to be sufficient quantity of the appropriate input. But how do we know whether the quantity is sufficient or not? Furthermore, how does extralinguistic information aid in actual acquisition, or internalization of linguistic rule, if by understanding Krashen meant understanding at the level of meaning?

8.3.5. The Affective Filter Hypothesis
How is the input filtered out by an unmotivated learner? How can affect be selective in terms of grammatical structures? Although we have been critical of the five hypotheses and their validity, it is nonetheless necessary to acknowledge the significant contribution this research agenda has made in the field of SLA

8.4. ALTERNATIVE MODES OF KNOWLEDGE REPRESENTATION
8.4.1. The Nature of Knowledge
Bialystok and Sharwood Smith (1985) noted that there are two aspects of importance in describing knowledge of a language: knowledge representation and control over that knowledge. They made four points about the nature of learners’ grammatical knowledge.
a. Extent of analysis in the grammar is not the only factor in the development of knowledge. A learner’s knowledge differ not only in the qualitative terms, but also quantitatively from that of a native speaker.
b. Increasing sophistication in the analysis of the mental representations involved is not necessarily a signal of increasing approximation to target norms. c. The learner’s reanalysis of IL grammar during the course of development does not necessarily imply an increase in complexity.
d. Increasing competence or increasing analysis does not necessarily imply an increase in conscious awareness of structure on the part of the learner.

8.4.2. The Nature of Learning
Ellis pointed out that implicit learning is often based on memory, which in turn is based on hearing/reading particular instances of something. Explicit learning based on working memory is also possible

8.4.3. Automaticity and Restructuring
McLaughlin (1990a) pointed out that two concepts are fundamental in L2 use: automaticity and restructuring. Automaticity refers to control over one’s linguistic knowledge and restructuring refers to the changes made to internalized representations as a result of new learning. Human beings have a limited capacity for processing. Processing energy is limited and must be distributed economically if communication is to be efficient.
8.4.3.1. Automaticity
When there has been a consistent and regular association between a certain kind of input and some output pattern, one can say that the process is automatic. Crookes (1991) discussed the significance of planning and monitoring one’s speech. Planning is important in determining what will and what will not become automatized and, as a result, what parts of one’s IL will be extended to the domain of automaticity. Similarly, Bialystok (1978) argued that explicit knowledge can become implicit through the use of practice. Through careful monitoring of one’s own speech, one can pick out successful utterances and use them as a basis for future practice. The other way of processing information is known as controlled processing. Here, the associations have not been built up by repeated use. Rather, attentional control is necessary. Thus, one would expect a slower response. Learning involves the transfer of information to long-term memory and is regulated by controlled processes. The distinction between controlled and automatic processing is one of rountinization and long-term memory. SLA takes place by the initial use of control processes. With time and with experience in specific linguistic situations, learners begin to use language more automatically. There are different types of information processing depending on two variables: controlled—automatic and degree of attention.
8.4.3.2. Restructuring
Restructuring takes place when qualitative changes occur in a learner’s internal representation of the L2. If a new element were added, disturbing the existing system and thereby necessitating reorganization, restructuring would have taken place. Restructuring occurs because language is a complex hierarchical system whose components interact in nonlinear ways. The result of restructuring is often reflected in what is known as U-shaped behavior. At Stage 1, a learner produces some linguistic form that conforms to target-like norms. At Stage 2, a learner appears to lose what was known at Stage 1. Stage 3 looks just like stage 1 in that there is again correct TL usage. Learners may begin with a given rule that covers all cases of what they perceive to be a particular structural type. A second step occurs when an additional rule becomes available to them. When additional syntactic patterns become available to learners, destabilization occurs.

8.5. CONNECTIONISM
In the connectionist approach, learning is seen as simple instance learning, which proceeds based on input alone; the resultant knowledge is seen as a network of interconnected exemplars and patterns.The most well known Connectionism is parallel distributed processing (PDP). At the heart of PDP is a neural network that is generally biologically inspired in nature. The network consists of nodes that are connected by pathways. Learning takes place as the network is able to make associations and associations come through exposure to repeated patterns. Learners are able to extract regular patterns from the input to create and strengthen associations. In the case of SLA, the strength of association may already have been established. The L1 is already in place and, therefore, there is a set of associations with their strengths fixed. These associations can possibly interfere with the establishment of an L2 network. As a function of age, learners are less able to establish connectionist patterns.



Chapter9. INTERLANGUAGE IN CONTEXT
Many external variables affect learner production. The resultant effect is that learners produce different forms that are dependent on external variables.

9.1. VARIATION
With increased proficiency, the nonsystematic use of these forms became a source for hypotheses about their use. There was a gradual establishment of a one-to-one form/function relationship. Thus, variation was the initial step in the eventual emergence of TL usage.

9.2. SYSTEMATIC VARIATION
Systematic variation is evidenced when two or more sounds/grammatical forms vary contextually.

9.2.1. Linguistic Context
Systematic variation is found in phonology, morphology, and syntax. It is evidence of learners’ need to impose regularity on their own IL system.

9.2.2. Social Context Relating to the Native Language
Variation in L2 use may have a basis in the social norms of the NL.

9.2.3. Social Context Relating to Interlocutor, Task Type, and Conversational Topic
One way of accounting for speech effects attributed to interlocutor differences is through Speech Accommodation Theory, which begins from the observation that speech patterns tend to converge/diverge in social interaction. Speaking like others is intended to have the benefit of gaining the approval of others. It also identifies one as a member of the same social group, class, or ethnic background. Nonnative speakers accommodate the speech of their interlocutors by making speech adjustments depending on the ethnic background of the interlocutor.
Different forms are likely to occur depending on the speech situation. The learner’s grammatical system exhibits more systematicity or consistency in the vernacular style and less so in the superordinate style. The vernacular system is that system in which the least attention is paid to the form of one’s speech, and the superordinate style is that system in which the most attention is paid to speech form. These two reflect the outer boundaries of a continuum of styles, the use of which is determined by the social setting of a speech event. There are differences in accuracy as a function of the type of task the learner is engaged in. Accuracy is observed to the greatest extent in those tasks in which there is the greatest focus on form. However, there is difficulty with this conceptualization of the relationship between task type and accuracy. An important consideration is the relationship between accuracy and systematicity. Systematicity is intended to mean only that there is the least invasion from other systems. Gass (1980) used an acceptability judgment task and a sentence-combining task. In judgment task, a learner must attempt to match the sentence with an internalized linguistic system. On the other hand, a sentence-combining task is a production task in which a learner must focus on the form of the sentence while simultaneously maintaining the original meaning. Thus, each task that a learner performs will place different demands on the learner. Defining speech styles only in terms of attention to speech is an overly simplistic view of how learner production varies. One cannot simply say that the type of task will dictate what forms will be used. One also needs to look at the function of those forms within a discourse context.
Discourse topic is important to contribute to the internal consistency of learner systems as well. In general, accuracy was lower on those topics that had been designated as having great interest for the subject. Conversational dominance is not conditioned by linguistic knowledge alone, because NSs did not dominate the conversations. Rather, dominance was better understood in terms of content knowledge. Various aspects of SLA occur differentially within discourse domains. The variation can be of two sorts, free and systematic, although systematic variation is far more prevalent. Ellis (1987b, p. 183) proposed a role for both free and systematic variation in L2 development. Those who major interest is in Chomskyan linguistics take as the domain of SLA research the determination of linguistic competence, not variable. On the other hand, SLA researchers view L2 knowledge itself as variable. The resolution of this issue lies in empirical argumentation.Context in some respects is essential to understanding how acquisition takes place. A learner’s involvement in different kinds of interaction can differentially affect the rate and route of the acquisition process. Different contexts push the learner to produce new forms to a greater extent than other contexts.The difference in the domain of a theory of SLA can be reduced in simple terms to a difference in acquisition and use. Acquisition is fundamentally a psycholinguistic process. Faerch and Kasper (1987b) similarly avoided the term acquisition.

9.3. COMMUNIATION STRATEGIES
The use of circumlocutions is known as communication strategy. Communication strategies include: approximation, literal translation, language switch, and avoidance. In dealing with the notion of communication strategies, most researchers have included three components in a definition of communication strategies: problematicity, consciousness, and intentionality. Problematicity means that the learner must have first recognized that there is a problem of communication that must be overcome. Consciousness is the idea that learners must be aware that they have encountered a problem and be aware of the fact that they are doing something to overcome that problem. Intentionality implies that learners have control over various options and make choices about which option will result in a particular effect. There are difficulties with all of these components of a definition of communication strategies.

9.4. INTERLANGUAGE PRAGMATICS
Interlanguage pragmatics deals with both the acquisition and use of L2 pragmatic knowledge. For L2 learning and use, one must learn the appropriate way to use those words and sentences in the L2. Much on the work in IL pragmatics has been conducted within the framework of speech acts. All languages have a means of performing speech acts and presumably speech acts themselves are universal, yet the form used in specific speech acts varies from culture to culture. It is easy to imagine how miscommunication and misunderstandings occur in the form of a speech act differs from culture to culture. In terms of language learning, the area of pragmatics is perhaps one of the most difficult areas for learners because they are generally unaware of this aspect of language and may be equally unaware of the negative perceptions that native speakers may have of them as a result of their pragmatic errors.
Refusals occur in all languages. However, not all languages/cultures refuse in the same way nor do they feel comfortable refusing the same invitation or suggestion. Refusals are a highly complex speech act primarily because they often involve lengthy negotiations as well as face-saving maneuvers to accommodate the noncompliant nature of the speech act. The range of formulas used is similar from language to language, but the order in which the formulas are used differs from language to language. That is, the order of semantic formulas used by L2 learners in both the native language and second language is similar. A complex and negotiated interaction takes place in L2 refusal situations. In coming to an understanding of L2 pragmatics, one must ultimately deal with the wide range of social variables that might determine how language is used. The basic idea of the Bulge Theory is that when speech events are considered in relation to the social relationships of speakers, one finds many similarities between the two extremes of social distance. Thus, IL pragmatics, in dealing with how people use language within a social context, must take into consideration not only how language is used, but also what it is being used for and who it is being used with. One cannot consider the development of pragmatic knowledge without a concomitant consideration of grammatical knowledge.





Comments on chapter 89
Krashen의 다양한 이론들이 나와있다. 5가지 이론들 중 생소한 것들도 있었고 한번쯤 들어본 듯 한 것들도 있었다. 교육학 적인 이론에 대해 전혀 무지했던 나는 대학원에서 입학 전 방학 동안 선배님들이 해주셨던 특강에 참여를 했었다. 그 수업에서 들어본 것이 그래도 책을 읽는데 많은 도움이 된 것 같다. 물론 아직 완전 이해한 것은 아니지만…
우선 언어가 학습일까 습득일까 하는 문제에 대해서 학습이라고 말하기에도 습득이라고 말하기에도 어려운 점이 있다. 언어를 완전히 습득했다고 말한다면 문법적인 부분이나 단어 사용에 있어서 실수를 범해서는 안 될 텐데 여전히 실수를 범하기 때문이다. 그래서 Krashen은 모니터 가설에서 습득된 지식으로 문장을 형성하고 학습된 지식은 모니터로서의 역할을 하고 있다고 이야기 하는데 이에 어느 정도는 공감하지만 사람이 정말 모니터를 하면서 대화를 할 수 있을까 하는 의심은 든다. 말이란 것은 글과는 틀리게 일회적인 면이 있기 때문이다. 입력가설은 그 수업 당시 들었던 기억이 난다. 그 때 설명해주시던 선배님께서 이 이론을 말씀하시면서 듣기의 경우에는 i + 1이 아니라 i – 1을 적용시키는 것이 효과적이라는 말씀을 하셨던 것 같은데 제대로 기억하고 있는 건지 확신이 없다. 어쨌든 이 이론은 나에게 가장 많은 생각을 하게 해준다. 나는 다양한 수준의 학생들을 오랫동안 과외로 가르쳐왔다. 그러나 그전에는 학생들 개개인의 실력을 고려한다기 보다는 그저 학년에 맞는 교재를 선택하였었다. 그러나 같은 학년이라도 실력 차가 많이 날수 있다는 것을 깨닫고 수준에 맞는 책을 선택하려고 하니 여간 어려운 것이 아니었다. 특히 요즘 i + 1이론을 여기저기서 몇 번 들어본 이후로는 i 를 어떻게 판단하며 거기에 한 수준이 어려운 단계인 i + 1은 또 어떻게 알 수 있을까 하는 의문점이 계속 해서 든다. 얼마 전 강남에 있는 중학생의 새로운 과외를 하나 하게 되었다. 어머니는 요즘엔 강남에 있는 학원들에서 영어독해를 한 줄씩 읽고 해석하는 방법을 쓰지 않고 영어독해를 죽 읽고 그것을 영어로 설명하는 식의 독해 방법을 다들 사용하고 있다고 하시면서 그 방법에 대해 물으셨다. 학생의 개별적인 수준이 고려되지 않고 학생의 이해를 돕는데 힘들 것 같아서 별로 찬성하지 않는다고 말씀 드리자 의심하시는 듯한 기색이 역력하셨다. 어쨌든 학생 수준을 고려해야 한다는 것을 잘 알면서도 구체적으로 어떻게 고려해서 어떻게 적용시켜 나갈지에 대해서는 여전히 난제로 남아있는 것 같다.