Nativization and Denativization

            Roger Andersen (1979) proposed the Nativization Model which sought an explanation on how learners create and reorganize their interlanguage systems verbally interacting with more proficient speakers.  It says that L2 acquisition consists of two general processes: nativization and denativization.  Nativization is done when learners make the input based on their knowledge that they already possess (L1 knowledge and knowledge of the world).  In denativization, on the other hand, learners adjust their interlanguage system to make them fit with the input through inferencing strategies.  Consequently, Andersen (1990) has recognized that these two terms are not two separate forces but aspects of the same overall process of acquisition.

            Such instances are evident in the paper “Don’t Put Your Leg in Your Mouth: Transfer in the Acquisition of Idioms in a Second Language” by Suzanne Irujo (1986) of Brown University and Boston University.  Findings of the study states that the subjects were able to generalize from the meaning of the Spanish idiom to its meaning in English, even when the form is slightly different.  When the differences between the two languages are slight, more transfer from one language to another occurs.  When the differences are great, lesser or little transfer occurs.  The findings also support the notion that advanced learners of L2 whose L1 is related to the L2 can use their knowledge in L1 to comprehend and produce L2 language.  Hence, nativization is done in this part, where the language learners use their knowledge of the L1 to be able to comprehend the L2.

            In teaching in ESL or foreign language classes, it is substantial when language learners use their knowledge in their L1 to comprehend and produce their L2, and language teachers should take advantage of it.  During comparison in L1 and L2, language learners were able to identify which aspects can be transferred from L1 and which are likely to cause interference.  Hence, they will take advantage of those similarities and take careful moves on those which will cause interference to be able to master the target language.  From the study of Irujo (1986), results indicated that positive transfer was being used by the subjects.  Hence, it is also vital to teach the language learners on how to utilize positive transfer and avoid interference (negative transfer).  They must also be given the time and enough opportunity to practice their L2 in contextualized situations.  This would be of great help for them to produce the language correctly.

References:

Irujo, S. (1986). Don’t Put Your Leg in Your Mouth: Transfer in the Acquisition of Idioms in a Second Language. TESOL Quarterly, Vol. 20, No. 2, 287-301.

Ellis, R. (1994). (De)nativisation. Retrieved from http://unt.unice.fr/uoh/learn_teach_FL/affiche_theorie.php?id_activite=75

Learning Styles and Strategies of Language Learners

          Theories of learning seek to explain how people learn and what common characteristics there are in all learning.  To understand deeper, let’s discuss the following: different types of learning essential in cognitive tasks, variation in strategies employed by individuals, and variation in personal cognitive styles of learning.

            Gagne (1965:58-59) identified eight types of learning as follows:

·         Signal learning – the learner learns to make a general diffuse response to a signal.  It is also called the classical conditioned response by Pavlov.

·         Stimulus-response learning – The learner acquires a precise response to a discriminated stimulus. 

·         Chaining – The learner acquires a chain of two or more stimulus-response connections.

·         Verbal association – The learner learn chains that are verbal.  However, the existence of language in human beings makes this special type because internal links may be retrieved from the learner’s previously learned selection of language.

·         Multiple discrimination – The learner learns to make a number of different identifying responses to many different stimuli.

·         Concept learning – The learner acquires the ability to make a common response to a class of stimuli even though the individual members of that class may differ widely from each other.

·         Principle learning – The learner learns a chain of two or more concepts.  It functions to organize behavior and experience.

·         Problem solving – The learner combines previously learned concepts and principles in a conscious focus on an unresolved or ambiguous set of events.

From the eight types of learning, we can better explain these through certain theories of learning.  The first five types seem to fit easily into a behavioristic framework, and the last three, on the other hand, are better explained by Ausubel’s or Rogers’ theories of learning.  In relation to second language learning, it is implied that definite “lower” level aspects of second language learning may be treated by behavioristic approaches and methods, while definite “higher” order types of learning are more effectively taught by methods derived from a cognitive approach to learning.  That is why, language teachers need to address the congruency between methods of teaching and whichever aspect of language is being taught. Recognizing the interrelatedness of all levels of language learning.

            In language learning, there are two identified basic categories of strategies namely: learning strategies and communication strategies.  A strategy is a particular method of approaching a problem or task, a way to achieve a particular end and a planned design for controlling and manipulating certain information.  Hence, a learning strategy is defined as a method of perceiving and storing particular items for later recall.  A communication strategy, on the other hand, is defined as a method of achieving communication, or encoding or expressing meaning in a language.

            In the literature of language learning strategies, four terms have been selected for explanation: transfer, interference, generalization, and simplification.  These manifest interaction of previously learned material with a present learning.  These four terms can be considered in two associational pairs.  First is transfer and interference.  Transfer is a general term used to describe the carryover of previous performance or knowledge to consequent learning.  Positive transfer occurs when the prior knowledge is correctly applied to present subject matter.  Negative transfer, on the other hand, occurs when the previous knowledge disrupts the present subject matter.  This can be referred to as interference, wherein the previously learned material interferes with succeeding material.  Second is the generalization and simplification.  Generalization is done when one infers or derives a law, rule, or conclusion from the observed instances.  This can be explained more by Ausubel’s concept of meaningful learning which says that meaningful learning is when items are subsumed or generalized under higher-order categories for meaningful retention.  Also, two aspects of the generalization process are inductive (parts to whole) and deductive (whole to parts) reasoning.  However, simplification is the process of reducing events to as few parts or features as possible.  It is the same with generalization.  But the former can be contrasted with complexification.  It is used to counteract a tendency to oversimplify or overgeneralize to the point of omitting essential parts of the whole.

            In second language teaching, these four play a vital role.  Interference is done when the native language causes interfering effects on the target or second language.  It is clear from learning theory that a person will use whatever previous experiences he has had with languages in order to facilitate the second language learning process.  Generalization and simplification is mostly done in learning another language, most especially when one tries to grasp and retain concepts ad principles of such language.  But there are instances that after a learner gained some experiences and familiarity with the second language, they similarly will overgeneralize or oversimplify within the target language.  And that’s the vital role of a language teacher, on how to help the child overcome overgeneralization and oversimplification as well as interference when transfer from one language to another is done.

            A communication strategy is the end goal of a language.  Therefore, communications strategies are systematic attempts to express meaning in the target language in which the speaker must attend to both the form and function of a language.  These strategies will enable the learner to fill in some gaps where a learner is uncertain of the correct or appropriate linguistic form.  So, a language teacher needs to aid the learner on building his communication strategies to be able to communicate well with others in the target language.

            According to Ausubel (1968:170), cognitive style is the self-consistent and enduring individual differences in cognitive organization and functioning.  It really mediates between emotion and cognition.  For example, a reflective cognitive style regularly grows out of a reflective personality or a reflective mood.

            To understand deeper, let’s have the five cognitive styles that are relevant to second language learning.  First if field independence and dependence.  A filed-independent style enables one to distinguish parts from a whole, to concentrate on something, to analyze separate variables without the contamination of neighboring variables.  Sometimes, the backfire of field-independence is that when someone was forced to see only the parts and fail to see the whole picture.  In here will come the role of field-dependent style which enables one to perceive the whole picture, the larger view, the general configuration of a problem or idea or event.  Affectively, field-independent persons tend to be generally more independent, competitive, and self-confident.  While field-dependent persons tend to be more socialized, derive their self-identity from persons around them, and usually more empathic and perceptive of the feelings and thoughts of others.

            Second, reflectivity and impulsivity.  These two types or learners vary on the aspect of decision making.  David Ewing (1977) refers the above style into two: systematic and intuitive styles.  An intuitive style tends to make a number of gambles, with possibly a small number of successive gambles before a solution is achieved.  While systematic style tends to weigh all the consideration in a problem, work out all the loopholes, then, after extensive reflection, carefully formulate a solution.  In second language acquisition, reflective learners tend to make fewer errors in reading than impulsive learners (Kagan 1965).  However, impulsive learners are usually faster readers, and eventually master the “psycholinguistic guessing game” (Goodman 1970).

            Third is the tolerance and intolerance of ambiguity.  Tolerant means free to entertain a number of innovative and creative possibilities and not cognitively or affectively disturbed by ambiguity and uncertainty.  Intolerance enables one to guard against the acceptance of every proposition, to close off avenues of hopeless possibilities, to reject entirely contradictory material and to deal with the reality of the system that one has built.

            Fourth is narrow and broad categorizing.  Narrow categorizers, like impulsive learners, are willing to take the risk of being wrong in problem-solving situations by attending to “smaller” subordinate concepts, while broad categorizers chooses a larger slice of the pie in an attempt to encompass more possibilities.  For example, when children first produce past-tense forms of verbs as separate, narrowly categorize items, but then shift to a broad classification of all verbs in a regularized/broader category.  And fifth, skeletonization and embroidery.  Skeletonizing involves “pruning” out some particulars by retaining a substantive core of general facts which subsume the details.  While embroidering involves “importing” or adding some material in order to retain original details that otherwise might be forgotten.

            In this article, we have looked at a number of significant cognitive variables in the learning of another language.  Am awareness of these factors will help a language teacher to perceive in the learners he encounter some wide-ranging individual differences.  Knowing the individual differences of the learners will be of importance to a language teacher on how he will adjust his lesson or how he will teach the lesson so that a language leaner would be able to learn the language.  And as I always say, we should treat our learners equally but differently in terms of language learning differences.  And one should know and understand that a learner is not only a cognitively thinking person but also an affective thinking person.

It’s All in Your Mind

       Through decades, three theories of first language acquisition emerged namely: behaviorism, innatism and interactionist/developmental perspective.  Behaviorism states that language behaviour is the production of correct responses to stimuli through reinforcement (Skinner).  Innatism, on the other hand, states that children acquire a complex grammar quickly and easily without any particular help beyond exposure to the language, they do not start from scratch (Language Acquisition Device).  And interactionist/developmental perspective states that language was one manifestation of the cognitive and affective ability to deal with the world (Piaget).

            Now, let’s center our discussion on the Theory of Innateness.  As discussed earlier, innatism states that children acquire a complex grammar quickly and easily without any particular help beyond exposure to the language, they do not start from scratch.  This is because of the presence of the Language Acquisition Device (LAD) which is innate to every human being.  This LAD contains all and only the principles which are universal to all human language, such as the Universal Grammar (UG).  This UG is an innate template or blueprint for language.  And according to the theory of innatism, children go through similar Universal language acquisition stages regardless of cultural and social circumstances.

            On the other hand, under innatism, we have the markedness differential hypothesis, which states that linguistic rules can be either part of the core grammar or periphery.  The core grammar consist the UG of the learner where general principles of language were followed, considered to be less complex, and unmarked.  The peripheral on the other hand, consist only those which are specific to each language, considered to be more complex, and is marked.  Markedness, most of the time, speaks of only first language acquisition because marked structures are defined as those departing from core grammar and requiring specific evidence during the course of L1 acquisition (Chomsky & Lasnik, 1977; Chomsky, 1981).  In short these are the structures are present in the L1 of a learner which later on, be transferred or not to the L2.

            To talk about markedness in L2 acquisition, let’s have the research Markednes and Second Language Acquisition by Lydia White of McGill University.  In here, adult and child learners of French as a second language were tested using grammaticality judgment tasks on two marked structures, preposition stranding and the double object construction, which are grammatical in English but ungrammatical in French, to see if they would accept French versions of these structures.  According to the researcher, in adopting the learnability definition of markedness for L2 acquisition, two possibilities are raised.  First, all language learning, L1 or L2, the learner starts out with the unmarked hypothesis or the developmental hypothesis of markedness (Mazurkewich, 1984, 1985).  In here, all learners will acquire unmarked forms as a necessary developmental stage before the acquisition or marked forms.  The second one, which the researcher refer to as the transfer hypothesis, is that the L1 will play a role.  A number of researchers have argued that the L2 learner is less likely to transfer marked forms from the L1.

            Two different groups of FSL learners were studied where on both studies, larners were tested on their judgment on sentences in the L2 to determine whether or not marked structures from the L1 would be accepted.  In addition, aspects of the tests were designed to address the question of whether markedness had any kind of psychological status for these learners.

            As to the results, the hypothesis that marked constructions in the L1 will be a source of transfer errors in the L2 does not appear to be supported by the judgments on preposition stranding.  In conclusion, the researcher suggested that the data gathered partially support the contention that marked forms may be transferred from the L1 or other languages known to the language learner.  However, the L2 sureness data and the L1 judgment data suggest that learners do not necessarily make a distinction between marked and unmarked structures and markedness is not a clear predictor of what will or will not be transferred from the L1.  Hence, from the study discussed, it is evident that markedness exist in L2 acquisition because the researcher found out the marked forms may be transferred from the L1 known to the language learner.

References:

White, L. (1987). Markedness and second language acquisition. United States of America: Cambridge University Press.

http://www.slideshare.net/ValeriaRoldn/first-language-acquisition-12982821

http://www.slideshare.net/nahir/first-language-acquisition-presentation?qid=d0b11ed3-b002-4335-9566-0f660ae646a9&v=&b=&from_search=6

Human Psychology for Second Language Acquisition

Of all human abilities, language is perhaps the most impressive.  In spoken, written, and gestured forms, language is the primary means of communication among people.  With language, we can refer to events or ideas in the past or future, talk about abstract concepts such as morality, and record the stories of human civilization.

Language is a central topic of study in cognitive psychology because it is closely connected with perception, memory, thinking, problem solving, and other mental processes.  Of particular interest to psychologists is how children acquire language and why they have an easier time mastering a language than adults who try to learn a second language.  Many scientists believe the human brain is uniquely “wired” to learn a language during a critical period in infancy and early childhood.  Supporters of this idea note that children all over the world achieve specific language milestones at roughly the same age.

Studies regarding theories of second language acquisition discovered that cognitive domain of human behavior is of key importance in the acquisition of both a first and a second language.  And the general nature of human learning as to second language acquisition is defined by four different learning theories; the first two views representing behavioristic theories, and the other two views the cognitive side.

Before turning to these four theories of how human beings learn, let us first consider the definition of learning: “the activity or process of gaining knowledge or skill by studying, practicing, being taught, or experiencing something” or “knowledge or skill gained from learning” (Merriam-Webster).  In such definition, it is clear that one can learn in different ways which results to many different theories of learning.  On the other hand, to be able to learn, there are four important things to consider:

Specify the entry behavior: what the learner already “knows”, his/her abilities, drives, needs, motivations, limitations;

Formulate the goals of the task explicitly: you should have a general directive and specific objectives;

Devise some methods of training: having a training program and how would you go about it; and

Have an evaluation procedure: to determine the extent to which the learner learned.

Now, to focus on how psychologists define learning, let us look at these theories through the eyes of four psychologists, representing classical behaviourism, neobehaviorism, cognitive learning theory, and humanistic psychology.

Classical Behaviorism

Ivan Pavlov as the pioneering Russian classical behaviorist contributed the term classical conditioning.  For Pavlov, the learning process consisted of the formation of associations between stimuli and reflexive responses.  In his experiment, he trained a dog to salivate at the sound of a tuning fork.  Before conditioning, an unconditioned stimulus (food in the mouth) automatically produces an unconditioned response (salivation) in the dog.  During conditioning, the experimenter rings a tuning fork and then gives food to the dog. The tuning fork is called the neutral stimulus because it does not initially produce any salivation response in the dog. As the experimenter repeats the tuning fork -food association over and over again, however, the sound of the tuning fork alone eventually causes the dog to salivate. The dog has learned to associate the sound of the tuning fork with the food. The tuning fork has become a conditioned stimulus, and the dog’s salivation to the sound of the tuning fork is called a conditioned response.

From Pavlov’s findings, Watson (1913) coined the term behaviorism which states that human behavior should be studied objectively, rejecting mentalistic notions of innateness and instinct.  He adopted classical conditioning theory as the explanation for all learning.

As to second language acquisition, a language learner continues to build an array of stimulus-response connections.  In here, more complex behaviors are learned by building up such series or chains of responses.

Neobehaviorism

B.F. Skinner as one of the pioneering behaviorists called Pavlovian conditioning respondent conditioning due to its concern to respondent’s behavior that is elicited by a preceding stimulus.  Hence, Skinner devised operant conditioning which involves increasing a behavior by following it with a reward, or decreasing a behavior by following it with punishment.  For example, if a mother starts giving a boy his favorite snack every day that he cleans up his room, before long the boy may spend some time each day cleaning his room in anticipation of the snack.  In this example, the boy’s room-cleaning behavior increases because it is followed by a reward or reinforce.

Unlike classical conditioning, in which the conditioned and unconditioned stimuli are presented regardless of what the learner does, operant conditioning requires action on the part of the learner.  The boy in the above example will not get his snack unless he first cleans up his room.  The term operant conditioning refers to the fact that the learner must operate, or perform a certain behavior, before receiving a reward or punishment.

Following Skinner’s model, one is led to believe that any subject matter can be taught effectively and successfully by a carefully designed program of step-by-step reinforcement.  Programmed instruction has had its impact on foreign language teaching, but language is a complex behavior, penetrating the cognitive and affective domains of a learner, causes this programmed instruction in languages limited to very specialized subsets of language.  However, a Skinnerian view of both language and language learning dominated foreign language teaching methodology for several decades, leading to a heavy reliance in the classroom on the controlled practice of verbal operant under carefully designed schedules of reinforcement.

Cognitive Learning Theory

David Ausebel states that learning takes place in the human organism through a meaningful process of relating new events or items to already existing cognitive concepts or propositions.  And the cognitive theory of learning as put forth by Ausebel is best understood by contrasting rote and meaningful learning.  Rote learning involves the mental storage of items having little or no association with existing cognitive structure.  Meaningful learning, however, is the process of relating and anchoring new material to relevant established entities in cognitive structure.  The very fact that the material is subsumable – that is, relatable to stable elements in cognitive structure – accounts for its meaningfulness.

Any learning situation can be meaningful if (a) the learner has a meaningful learning set; and (b) the learning task itself is potentially meaningful to the learner.  On the other hand, Frank Smith (1975) coined “manufacturing meaningfulness” which make things meaningful if necessary and if we are strongly motivated to do so.  By associating items either in groups or with some external stimuli, retention is enhanced.  Also, Ausebel also provided a plausible explanation to the universal nature of forgetting.  Since rotely learned material do not interact with cognitive structure, they are learned in conformity with the laws of association and their retention is influenced by interfering effects of similar rote materials learned immediately before or after the earning task.

Ausebel’s theory of learning has important implications for second language acquisition and teaching.  Subsumption theory provides a strong theoretical basis for the rejection of conditioning models of practice and repetition in language teaching.  The notion of forgetting as systematic, on the other hand, has important implications for language acquisition and teaching.  The certain devices used in the early stages of language learning are often used to facilitate subsumption.  But in the process of making language automatic, the devices served as temporary entities and are systematically pruned out at later stages of language acquisition.  Language teachers might consider urging earners to “forget” these temporary, mechanical items as they make progress in a language, and instead focus only on the communicative use (comprehension or production) of language.

Humanistic Psychology

Carl Rogers and his colleagues had a substantial impact on our present understanding of learning, most particularly on learning in an educational pedagogical context.  Rogers’ humanistic psychology focuses more on affective than cognitive dimension.  Roger coined the term Client-Centered Theraphy (1951) where he cautiously analysed human behavior in general, including the learning process, by means of the presentation of nineteen formal principles of human behavior.  He studied the “whole person as a physical and cognitive, but primarily emotional, being.  He found out that a “fully functioning person” is living at peace with all his feelings and reactions; and is fully open this experiences without defensiveness, and creates himself anew at each moment in every action taken and in every decision made.

As implied to education, Rogers introduced the learner-centered classroom where the focus is away from “teaching” and toward “learning”.  Learning how to learn is of importance than learning from a “superior”.  He also reiterated the need or real facilitators of learning, someone who can establish interpersonal relationship with the learner.  As I always say during my interviews as a teacher applicant, when asked on how I can teach my students, I always say that aside from imparting them knowledge, I will also touch their affective part through establishing interpersonal relationship with them so that I would know my students well and on how to teach them effectively.  On the other hand, classroom activities and materials in language learning should utilize meaningful contexts of genuine communication with persons engaged in the process of becoming persons.

Two views were presented with quite different points from one another but both focus on different facets of human learning.  There are aspects of language learning which may call upon a conditioning process and other aspects may require a meaningful cognitive process and nevertheless others depend upon the security of supportive fellow learners interacting freely and willingly with one another.  This only shows that in teaching a language learner, one needs to have a strong foundation and knowledge on cognitive and behaviorist theories of learning.  Because a learner learns cognitively but needs to be treated as an affective person to learn more effectively.  Considering a learner as an affective person, establishing a relationship wherein gaining his trust and letting him learn on his own pace will help a lot in teaching him a language.  This only shows that both cognitive and behavioristic domain of a learner, though sometimes contrasting, plays an important role on second language acquisition.